The Battle of Ahualulco, a Historical-Archaeological Study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.55695/rdahayl18.02.01Keywords:
battlefield archaeology, Reform War, spatial analysis, Battle of Ahualulco, military strategiesAbstract
This multidisciplinary study examines the Battle of Ahualulco, a key event during the Reform War, through the analysis of archaeological, documentary, and computational sources. Developed by the Laboratory of Structures and Social Dynamics (LEDS) at the Autonomous University of San Luis Potosí, this research seeks a deeper understanding of the conflict by contrasting historical sources with material evidence and spatial analysis. The study highlights the importance of this battle as a decisive moment for the conservatives, as it halted the liberal advance toward Mexico City. Through the integration of computational tools and spatial analysis, the research reveals discrepancies between traditional narratives and archaeological evidence, particularly concerning the strategy that secured the conservative victory. The significance of controlling Divisadero Hill, a strategic point that decisively influenced the course of the battle, is emphasized, while conventional narratives of the confrontation are critically reexamined. This approach allows for the formulation of alternative hypotheses and offers a critical reinterpretation of the events, underscoring the importance of the landscape in military planning and the commanders' ability to adapt to a challenging environment.
Downloads
References
Barabási AL, Albert R. (1999). Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science 286(5439), 509–512.
Binford, Lewis R., 1981, Bones: Ancient Men. and Modern Myths. Academic Press, New York.
González Ruibal, A. (2020). Prefacio. En C. Landa & O. Hernández de Lara (Eds.), Arqueología en Campos de Batalla: América Latina en perspectiva (pp. 13-17). Buenos Aires: Aspha.
Knight, A. (2013). War, Violence and Homicide in Modern Mexico. Bulletin of Latin American Research, 32(s1), 12–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/blar.12106
Landa, C. (2013). Arqueología de campos de batalla en Latinoamérica: Apenas un comienzo. Instituto de Arqueología, Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, Universidad de Buenos Aires.
Landa, C. G., y Hernández de Lara, O. (2020). Arqueología en Campos de Batalla: América Latina en perspectiva. Buenos Aires: Aspha.
Motilla-Chavez J, Ugalde E, Galán Vásquez E. (2021) Análisis de un diario de la Guerra de Reforma (1858-1860) en San Luis Potosí, México, por medio de la teoría de redes: una propuesta metodológica para el análisis de textos históricos. En Violencia, representaciones y estrategias. La guerra y sus efectos en México, Colombia y Guatemala, siglos XVI-XX. COLSAN-AHESLP-El Colegio de Michoacán-Universidad Veracruzana.
Paz, E. (1907). Reseña histórica del Estado Mayor Mexicano: 1821-1860. Talleres del departamento del Estado Mayor, México.
Raab, L. Mark, y Albert C. Goodyear 1998 Middle-Range Theory in archaeology. En Maritime archaeology (pp. 205-221). Springer, Boston, MA.
Scott, D. D., Fox, R. A., Connor, M. A., y Harmon, D. W. (1989). Archaeological perspectives on the Battle of the Little Bighorn. University of Oklahoma Press.
Valdés, M. (1913). Memorias de la guerra de Reforma. Imprenta de la Secretaría de Fomento, México.
Velázquez, P.F. (2004). Historia de San Luis Potosí. Volúmen 2. Universidad Autónoma de San Luis Potosí - El Colegio de San Luis, México.
Vildósola, J. de. (1857–1859). Diario de Juan de Vildósola [Manuscrito inédito]. Centro de Documentación Histórica “Rafael Montejano y Aguiñaga”, Universidad Autónoma de San Luis Potosí.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Copyright Notice
In order to avoid plagiarism and self-plagiarism, a document signed by the authors must be sent, together with the manuscript and supplementary material, guaranteeing the originality and unpublished character of the manuscript. All the received manuscripts and evaluations information are confidential, and the Editorial Committee undertakes not to reveal it to anyone other than those involved in the evaluation process, according to the double-blind modality.
