Battlefield Discoveries

[Guest Ian Bowbrick]

Dave (Croonaert),

In my mail about Mr Howe, I had read his home page where he described his service as being the Paras cut short by a mortar round. Hence my description as 'Ex Para poss Falklands vet'. I made an assumption, although I did say 'poss' so apologies for misleading anyone.

Ian (Vet - similar scars!)

[Nicolas G.]

I saw the webpages of Mr Howe... No comments. Except about the high prices, its unbelievable. A good business. A big UK institution like WFA could send him a big protest letter.

May be he is not alone involved into it like Ian wrote. Even in the more little locals "réderie / brocante / vide-grenier" (english?) in summer, there is various war items to sell. I also well imagine a local or a farmer happy to give for free such relics to a supposed "battlefields tourist" and far to think that the gift will be soon on e-bay !

What to do if seeing sb digging or with metal detector while touring a battlefield ?

- call the gendarmes (17 or 112 from a cell phone in France)

- or telling the local mayor who has police power

- or giving them car numbers

- or talking with the offender in order he move on

Of course it's more easy to say than to practice (never had the opportunity to act that way).

Nicolas.

[Fabiansson]

Jon Holland's (above) "archaeological educated opinion" is "that the removal of WW1 surface finds will not negatively impact the scientific study of the war".

Well, the scholarly study of the past and the view of historical remains have apparently changed a lot since Mr. Holland graduated.

For those who cannot accept that material remains from the recent history are of great value in many respects (not only for scientific purposes but for offering a better understanding of the past for the public in general etc.), I would recommend historical archaeological works on American battlefields from the 1900th century, or for example the Battle of Britain Project, which was given the IFA (Institute of Field Archaeologists) Award, for the best archaeological project undertaken by a professional team or professional/voluntary partnership in the UK. Or take a look at the archaeological excavations at the Nazi death camp at Chelmno! So please, do not let us hear again that recent historical material remains are of no value for archaeologists/historians/the public!

/nils

Bibliography of WW1 archaeology here!

[ianw]

I must say that I have never seen metal detecting going on during any of my visits to the Western Front though no doubt these activities will be done in the more remote areas both for reasons of secrecy and for better finds.

I intend to visit a local militaria fair in either France or Belgiun sometime just to see what sort of items are sold. Obviously anything sold at a fair will probably end up on eBay selling to a wider and more prosperous set of buyers perhaps unable to get to the Western Front themselves. A fact of life , I'm afraid.

[Fabiansson]

Ian,

When you see small holes recently dug in the ground (as Paul Reed mentioned above) you can be pretty sure these have been dug by people using metal detectors. Often rejected artefacts lie beside or in the small heaps of dirt.

But I recomennd that you should not look for them. They all too soon become the only things you will see. I find it extremely annoying walking the battlefields only to becoming more aware of the ongoing looting than of the original atmosphere!

/nils

[Drummy]

Just to add my thoughts on this very interesting thread, I believe it is completely wrong to dig the battlefields in search of relics to sell on and I am against it. However, I do not have a problem with people picking up the odd item they see when out walking the battlefields, but these items are best placed in local museums, as someone else on this site stated, having a rusty item at home a few months/years later may lose it's appeal and be discarded, there is tragedy of visitors taking stuff home.

I personally wish there were more groups such as 'the Diggers' operating (with official sanction) throughout the battlefields. Then more remains would be found, unexploded ordnance that is a danger to all would be found and removed by EOD, and if guidelines were implemented by local goverments etc relics recovered would be documented, preserved and handed over to local war museums for display. Furthermore interesting sites which are now covered or overgrown would be investigated and documented. I remember a programme I watched on tunnellers and tunnels being investigated on the western front, fascinating, by opening them up, it was possible to document exact positions and explore what does still exist.

How interesting would it be still covered/grown over for someone to say there are probably tunnels underneath here and let them eventually collapse without being documented? Again, It is my hope that similar groups as the diggers one day explore the battlefields but only if they were trained archaelogists, and had stringent guidelines. I feel this way because I have read of the good work by the 'Diggers' in finding the remains of British, French and German soldiers and feel this is commendable. I would much rather remains be found and reburied in war cemteries than left underneath fields and copses etc that one day may be bulldozed and cleared for buildings etc.

Best wishes Neil.

[Somme1916]

Now as I see it the Great War is very well documented in many venues that are not available to those who study the more distant past.  (written record, audio & film recordings, and physical artifacts and features.    Because of this it is my Archeological educated opinion that the removal of WW1 surface finds will not negatively impact the scientific study of the war. 

First the expression of different opinions and personal views are some of the things that make any forum great, not to mention it keeps thing very interesting.

To respond to Fabiansson's comments about my earlier comments. Yes things may have changed sense I graduated from collage 10 years ago, I can't say for sure as I no longer follow the developments in the Archeological community like I once did, but it is possible. Also I'm sure my Arch instructors and many others would probably disagree with my views about surface finds and they are entitled to do just that. It doesn’t change what I think in the least. I still believe that WW1 is so well documented that the casual collector is not very likely to take an object that will in some way change what we know or think we know about the First World War. Show me a nuclear device dated 1916 and I'll change my ways. Of coarse I jest about the nuke but I think in an outlandish way it makes my point.

It is also my opinion, based on personal experience, that the vast majority of WW1 surface finds are made in plowed fields or at constructions sites. Places where non scientific digging or soil removal has taken the artifacts from its original archeological context by removing it from the strata in which they had been located. From my experiences surface finds normally just give archeologist clues as to where they might want to consider conducting an archeological dig and other than that rarely have an significant impact on what is learned about the site.

As for the web site Fabiansson has recommended about Battlefield Archeology on the Western Front (click the link he provided at the bottom of his comment) it is a great site and is one of my favorites.

By the way I haven't ready anywhere on it that any surface find have changed any historical view of the Great War. Which was my point to begin with, artifacts from WW1 that are found on the surface and removed by collectors, tourist or little boys will in the vast majority of cases never ever negatively impact our knowledge of WW1. Of course the Archeologist will say, "we will never know because some one like Jon Holland has picked it up and taken it home." Well in one sense that is true but I think it is about as likely as finding life on the sun.

Now there are other sites and eras where I agree that the loss of surface finds to the general collector may harm the scientific study of that period or the site in question. The American Indian Wars Battlefield of Little Bighorn comes to mind. As a matter of fact I wrote a paper my senior year back in 93 on how archeology played a vital role in reconstructing the battle by plotting the location of the bullet casings and other artifacts found on the battlefield. By the way metal detectors in the hands of Archeologist and volunteers made this possible. The Battlefield Archeology site also has a story on this as well. Please note this is a 19th Century battle where very few eyewitnesses were interview, as most of the winners didn't speak English, and many of those on the losing side didn't live to tell the tale. Also there were no cameras present or trenches dug. Major Reno's troops did dig fighting positions and some did survive to tell their tale but they were far away from COL Custer when he made his last stand.

This also goes for sites where one side doesn’t won't the truth known, i.e. the Concentration Camps or similar sites like are found in the Balkans. Here artifacts are key pieces of evidence in the true criminal sense of the word and they do play a key part in our understanding of events. These people were trying to hide the truth from the rest of the world, which again is not like WW1. An artifact removed from these sites does or could have a negative impact on our understanding of what went on there.

Also I must admit I haven't ventured onto the Battle of Britain site that Fabiansson spoke of. I'll try to do that soon as I am interested to learn what the artifacts can tell us that we don't already know about this monumental air battle. Using Archeology to study an Air War, novel idea. Yes I'm poking fun now . I know the bases and the lost aircraft etc did leave an archeological record and we might be able to learn something from digging on these sites.

Honestly Fabiansson, thanks for your views! It inspired me to reflect on my by gone collage days and what I learned as a young Indiana Jones.

All the Best,

Jon

[Fabiansson]

Indiana Jones, I agree with you in much. But not in all. Excuse me for lecturing and writing in length, but this is important stuff to me.

When it comes to surface findings I naturally agree, that such which are disturbed by ploughing etc. will never be used as findings in traditional diggings. But that does not diminish their value as evidence of various kinds. The Little Big Horn site is an example of this, and we will never know what kinds of studies could be carried out at the Western Front: Perhaps it will be possible one day to follow an individual soldier on the WW1 battlefield from the empty cartridges he left after he shot his rifle (i.e. surface findings) etc., which was made at the Little Big Horne study. Today archaeologists speak of context, and they speak of “landscape archaeology”, the whole three-dimensional view of a historical site. This was what I thought of when I spoke of modern archaeology in my posting.

See for example: C. Stephan, "The Roses of Picardy, the Poppies of the Somme: An Anthology of the Great War, or How the War made Landscapes", Journal of Garden History, 1997:3, and N. J. Saunders, "Matter and Memory in the Landscapes of Conflict: The Western Front 1914-1999", in B. Bender and M. Winer (eds.), Contested Landscapes; Movement and Exile, (2001).

But surface findings are of significant value also in traditional archaeological surveys. Including WW1 surface findings! For example, when the I.A.P. (Belgian Institute of Archaeology) surveyed the proposed A19 motorway extension at Pilckem Ridge last year, in order to evaluate the historical value of the battlefields, sites with concentrations of artefacts on the surface were mapped as indicators of significant WW1-historical sites! Had the artefacts in the ploughed fields been removed by collectors or farmers before this survey, these sites had neither been found nor documented (and they had certainly not been chosen for excavation this year).

When it comes to written and oral sources I believe you have a rather uncritical attitude. What is written has always been written because someone had a reason for it, a particular audience etc. Documents are never objective. And even if someone tried to document for the future, he was shaped by his contemporary world, his own attitudes and by what he thought was important and unimportant. This may or may not be what we are interested in today.

And more: Memories are reshaped by present-day situations and emotions. Alistair Thomson, in investigating the "The Anzac legend", writes that "what it is possible to remember and articulate changes over time". It became obvious for him, in his interviews with old veterans during the 1980s, that not all memories of the WW1 were welcome. If the memory did not fit the great legend the veteran's memories were not appreciated: "Our memories are risky and painful if they do not conform with the public norms or versions of the past. We construct and contain our memories so that they will fit with what is publicly acceptable".

Martin Middlebrook writes that many historians "fall into the trap of taking too much note of British regimental histories published after the war. [...] these often presented a distorted and over-heroic version of events". [...] "The skeptical reader will, with some justification, query the value of old men's memories. [...] A serious drawback in these personal accounts is the forgivable tendency for a man to present his own actions in the best possible light, while the man who has every reason to conceal his actions [...] rarely volunteers to help at all."

Naturally, surface findings can perhaps not compansate for these problems with historical sources. But I want to underline that the fact that there are millions of documents etc. from the WW1 is not a reason for destroying the battlefields.

/nils

[CROONAERT]

Continuing this thread,I'd be curious as to what the forum user's opinions are to the late John Laffin's book "Battlefield Archaeology". As a seasoned "field walker",I have my own opinions on this book (unfortunately,most are negative), but I would like to know other people's thoughts,especially from those who are against "souviniring" in any form..

Dave.

[Mark A]

A really interesting thread this one and one that's changed the way I think about souveniers. Weighing up all the various opinions I've read, I don't think I'll be taking any relics home with me again. In my opinion they are better off there- for archaeological reasons. Iinteresting to hear that field walking finds can be of importance Fabiansson.

To be honest, I returned to the western front only recently after a prolonged absence (my relics that I have are from 10 or more years ago) and although shrapnel balls, cartridges and other bits and pieces seemed to be as thick on the ground as I remembered (I seem to have an eye for it) I didn't take anything with me. Don't know why really. I guess after all, how many shrapnel balls or bullets does one really need?

Anyway, I've enjoyed this lively debate on all sides and as people have said, shows what a vital website this is.

Mark

[Max Poilu]

Dave,

Regarding John Laffin's book, I have a copy and have always found it very interesting. I also, like you, dissagree with much he says.

It is indeed full of strange assumptions and ideas. Much of his practise is un-desirable (quote; "I have never kept bones, other than two teeth and a finger bone..."!), dangerous (his digging out of munitions) and curious - the way he automatically deduces the practise of a soldier by the position or state of an object such as the watch or the key on page 50.

[Fabiansson]

Mark (and others), I am very happy that my efforts to problematize the issue give results! Perhaps the example I gave about the Belgian archaeologists at Pilckem Ridge is the most important argument for leaving the reamins were they are, even if they are disturbed by ploughing, rust etc.

Regarding Laffin's book: In my opinion everyone who is interested in the material remains of the Great War must read it. But it is not at all "archaeology" though, even if he describes himself as a "professional" (p. 35). It is about recovering and collecting militaria, or battlefield relics. He have no ambitions to learn from the archaeological record. The artefacts are illustrations to his text, to his military history studies. Had he been interested to what the material remains could learn him he would have established hypotheses first and excavated afterwards, he would have had questions first which his excavations could have answered. The worst example of the opposite of this approach is his finding of remains of British equipment at Verdun (p. 21). After he had found it he begun asking why these where there, and he could never find an answer. Naturally, he would first ought to have studied the site and its historical sources, then he would have known that the Americans were at the particular site (north of Mort Homme) 1918. Ask (relevant and interesting) questions first, then dig to get answers to the questions (if they are not possible to aswer through historical sources)!

Of more interest for is his illustrations of different battlefield findings and their condition. As such the book could almost function as a typology for other researchers. Such published artefact typologies (or similar, preferably much more elaborate and complete) are necessary, as no individual researcher can know all the artefacts there are to be found.

His work at Bremen Redoubt is interesting (pp. 82-83). Unfortunately the work was never documented properly and, of course, the construction in wood was never conserved, so now the site is closed because it is too dangerous. Fortunately, I was there before it was closed, but the posterior will never have access to it (neither in documentation nor in real world, only as photographs - which of course is better than nothing), as it will fade away very fast now as it is up in the air.

No big deal, but embarrassing is his interpretation of the holes in helmets and body armour (pp. 47, 59). He, and almost every amateur into archaelogy, always believe that the holes made by arrows, bullets, shrapnel and splinters in found helmets etc. were lethal to to owner. Naturally, there are almost always holes in such WW1 artefacts as they have been lying on the battlefields, exposed to shell fire for days, months or years.

/nils

[Guest Stoner]

Just to add a slight twist to the topic

The taking of "momento's" isn't a modern idealology I know of a private memorial to two brothers that "claims to be" a digit from the Cloth Hall clock of Ypres. I've got a piccy of it but can't seem to post it (if any one is interested?). My own personal experience has been, that I am one of those people that can't spot a barn door at two paces! I have looked!... Would just like to say that this thread has made up my mind............ leave it be, take the footprint approach (take nothing but photos, leave nothing but footprints, gain nothing but memories). There is a "But if" attached to this:

If you stumbled across an item, a personal item, something with a positive ID to an individual, should you leave it! pick it up and hand it in to a local museum or such, or as I would like to think, find out as much as you can and then hand it over?

Just a thought?

Mark

[Hedley Malloch]

I think that there is a moral dimension here. You can only remove finds from a battlefield if you think you have a 'right' to it and that you can 'own' it. I take the view that we don't have property rights with respect to artifacts. Our role is a one of stewardship not ownership; our main responsibility is to look after this stuff in situ for the generations who come after.

[Drummy]

Hedley,

In an ideal world items would be left in situ for future generations to view but the reality of it is, if you say for eg, find part of a rifle or a German helmet when out walking the battlefields, and you decide to leave it. I bet some other person who has no such beliefs or views will take it either for their collection or to sell on. Best bet as far as I can see to ensure the item is preserved and kept in the area, would be to record where the item(s) were found and then hand it in to a nearby museum (or bring it to the attention of the landowner if on private fields).

Neil.

[Fabiansson]

Mark (Stoner) asks an interesting question: If you stumble across a personal item, something with a positive ID to an individual, should you leave it, pick it up and hand it in to a local museum or such, or find out as much as you can and then hand it over?

I would suggest that, if it really is something which could lead to that a soldier without no known grave could be identified, you should take care of the finding properly (document the site and the finding, its location must be documented at a 1:50 map etc.), then hand over the artefact together with your documentation of it to the proper war grave authority, and notify them that if they are not interested they should return it back to you. Nothing stops you from making research on your own after you have handed it over (if you have made a proper documentation and saved copies of it that is). If they are not interested, local serious museums are second best.

Doing it in that way, you will have all data you need for your own further research (and the documentation you handed over together with the artefact make it possible for others to make the same research). The war grave organization will inform you if they are not interested - you do not have to take that decision in beforehand.

But if it is not an object which will lead to identification: Take nothing but photos, leave nothing but footprints, keep nothing but memories! This must be our motto!! I completely agree with Hedley: Our role is a one of stewardship - not ownership.

/Nils

[Steve_McGarry]

Reality check in order here me thinks....

Are we REALLY saying that whilst walking on a foot path in the forests of Verdun that I should have left my (one) shrapnel ball where it was! This shrapnel ball that was sitting on the path or i should have taken it to the nearest museum? or left it on the ground for the next person to pick up... or that I should have left the half .303 case that i found on a building site in ypres to be buried in the footings or carried away with the spoil...

I have read in this thread the comparing of the western front with "Little big horn" !?* The two cannot be compared and are not the same... one was an incident that occured over a few hours on a few hundred square yards it was fought on once and any material that remains on that site would of course be of great value... But the Western front is vast and as we all know fought over again and again... The sites were cleared of scrap metal etc in the 1920's The real material is deep down in tunnels and bunkers/trench systems yet to be uncovered.. plenty of work for Nils and future generations of archaeologists My one shrapnel ball would tell people on the future absolutley nothing they didn't already know... and what about the farmer... is he to navigate around every piece of shrapnel with his plough... Come on even if every person who visits the WF over the next 20 years takes one piece of shrapnel found lying on the surface there would still be plenty buried below the blades of the plough... quietly rotting away....

The reality is that if you see something on the surface ... If you don't pick it up the next person will... or the farmer will add it to his scrap metal collection. I don't condone anyone who actively digs on the front without the proper permission. But as I said before you are asking too much to expect someone to pass by on a .303 casing or the like...

[Fabiansson]

Reality check. In Steve McGarry's reality it is better to take something before someone else take it. Here is this logic again. Does Steve McGarry justify other kind of behaviour as well using this logic? I believe not.

“You better take it before it is taken.” Well, in my reality (I am checking it! I am checking it!), it is possible to act in a way that other attitudes evolve. In my reality, the Western Front battlefields are something worth preserving (what is left of them), in its own context, not to bring home in pieces.

Steve McGarry says we can take as much as we like, it will always be more left over. Well, perhaps if they (the posterior) dig deep enough. But the fact remains, Steve McGarry's single shrapnel bullet may perhaps not be the main cause of it, but the atmosphere on the battlefields has changed significantly since the 1980s. Why? Because more and more people visit the battlefields and because more and more people bring home souvenirs and, not to forget, because more and more battlefield scavengers loot.

More and more people visit the battlefields. If people like you and me, who care for the Western Front (well, I do), try to change the attitude, set new standards of what is OK and what is not, probably the attitude in general will change. It will certainly not, if people who care (?) for the Western Front will continue saying it is OK.

/nils

[Alan Lines]

More and more people visit the battlefields. If people like you and me, who care for the Western Front (well, I do), try to change the attitude, set new standards of what is OK and what is not, probably the attitude in general will change. It will certainly not, if people who care (?) for the Western Front will continue saying it is OK.

That would be quite a task! Apart from battlefield tourers you would also have to persaude the local musuems and shops who are making a tidy profit from battlefield relics. Then of course there are the dealers in the U.K and on the internet.

P.S How do I get the original quote in a box!

[Steve_McGarry]

Nils

I am simply stating facts.... you will never stop people picking up bits of shrapnel ... But I do see your point about changing attitudes, You subscribe to the zero tolerance school of thought, I am merely suggesting that is unrealistic... What of the shops in the region that sell artifacts... should they not set an example? or would this not just encourage people to poke about in the undergrowth. So can I take it that in your home you have nothing not even a shard of pottery from any of the sites that you have worked on...?

[Hedley Malloch]

Steve,

You say it's 'unrealistic'. But what is 'real'?

The issue is this: Who are you going to let define your standards for you? A bunch of battlefield free-booters whose only obligation is to their wallets? Or people yet unborn who may say in the years to come: "It's a good job this stuff was left. We have techniques and knowledge that were unknown in 2003 and we can make better sense of it than they could. It's our job to make sure that as much of it as possible is left for those who come after us."?

[Fabiansson]

Perhaps it is unrealistic to change attitudes. Perhaps not. I believe we can make the difference. We are quite many and have some weight. If we want. I want. It is we who are able to persuade guides, and it is we who can stop buy stuff and we who can put pressure on museums, the local police and the local archaeology authorities etc. Nobody else will.

I have brought home artefacts from the Western Front in the past. Sure. But I cannot see why this must make me go on and on persuading myself and others that it is OK.

/nils

[Steve_McGarry]

Hedley

Point taken...and I don't for one minute condone "battlefield free-booters" as you put it, where you draw the line is for me difficult. I am too much of a realist to believe that you can adopt an attitude that says if I walk past that shrapnel ball everyone else will and it will stay where it is for 3 hundred years until an archaeologist comes along and finds it sitting there, even more.... that he will find if of any value, and I don't agree that by picking up a single shrapnel ball that I have in some way damaged a site of historic importance or that I careless about the WF than others... I am simply trying to suggest that some of what is being said about surface finds (nothing else) is unrealistic. I have the 3 items I mentioned at the beginning of this thread and have no real desire for anything else... but I have to be honest and say if I was walking in the forests of Verdun and saw a Pickelhauben lying in front of me........well I don't know what I would do.

[Guest Hill 60]

P.S How do I get the original quote in a box!

Alan - Top right of a posting there is a 'Quote' box. Click on it and carry on with your posting.

[paul guthrie]

P.S How do I get the original quote in a box!

Alan - Top right of a posting there is a 'Quote' box. Click on it and carry on with your posting.

I still don't know how to quote a specific part of the prior post.