The title of this book requires some preliminary clarification, because words can be much more attractive than precise. I must start with some definitions. Landscape is a concept that is increasingly present in our societies and its meanings have multiplied. However –and simplifying many nuances – the term refers to two meanings: one objective, related to physical features, as an environment modified by humans, and another that emphasises the perception of those who live in or contemplate the physical world.1 Both meanings imply a human action, an anthropisation, but they also entail an experience. Therefore, landscape would be a social construction, in which both economic and cultural aspects merge, as it is largely the result of a view of space, both individual and collective, that was always linked to the values and needs of each historical context. In short, landscape is a social and cultural construction that changes over time.2 Political action is thus an essential element in the construction of the landscape. It is not a homogeneous object, but different actors (individuals or groups) create and change their landscapes through political choices. The perception of space as an essential stage on which political relations are embodied involves an intervention on that space, both in physical terms and in terms of the meanings that some landmarks can acquire. It is at this intersection that we can speak of political landscapes, understood as those ones constructed around political relations. Put more simply, political action alters the physical forms of the environment and shapes views of that environment. The best way to understand how these political landscapes work is through two key concepts. The first is place, which is a concrete landmark, natural or human-made, that defines and gives meaning to space by acting as a vector of experience. Place is a localised experience, related to rootedness and linked to everyday life, a mechanism that creates individual and group identity. However, place is also an axis of interaction, exchanges, relationships and routines that take place there, that are localised.3 The concept of “central place” becomes a key to study political landscapes. The term was coined by the German geographer Walter Christaller, although, leaving aside the rigidity of the original model, it can be applied to all places that serve as axes of power on very different scales (regional, local...). It is not, however, exclusively a matter of institutional hierarchisation, but a place could be “central” thanks to its meaning that takes shape in a specific way, in certain events. The second concept is that of territory. As Robert D. Sack has pointed out, it is a strategy of domination through the control of space that allows for the reification of power. Territoriality, understood as the action of an individual or group to influence or dominate people, phenomena and relations through the delimitation and assertion of control over a geographical area, is a political technology.4 The creation of territories involves delimitation as a strategy that enables control by an authority. However such delimitation is not necessary linear or strictly drawn across a space, nor should it be confused with the territorial concept of contemporary states.5 Territory in the Middle Ages was defined through a series of places, whereas linearity is a situation specific to contemporary states. Moreover, this dominance established “from above” is not the only one. It is also necessary to take into account the territorial definition “from below”, based on local communities that have been able to create collective strategies of domination. Place and territory are fundamental to the understanding of how political landscapes are constructed. Nevertheless, politics operates on very different scales. One easily visible, almost confusing, is that of the state or central authority. It can take the form of the creation of “central places” with strong hierarchical capacity, polyfunctional and well-articulated ideological meanings. A trend to homogeneity is a feature of this kind of territoriality. Another level, which can be clearly observed in medieval Europe, concerns the action of aristocratic groups. The construction of “central places” linked to these families and their memory would form a complex web in which territories were created without being topographical units; the key was the link between these families and other groups and individuals. Finally, the local communities, whose political action is often invisible in written texts – but not in archaeology. They were internally stratified, with some rural elites whose political frames did not go beyond the locality. They were related to landscapes in which micropolitics, understood as normative uses of local political management, although fluid and not formalised as laws, took on a particular relevance. However, we should not lose sight of the fact that there was a more complex interplay, with different overlapped scales of action, like matrioshkas.