Battlefield Discoveries

[Michael]

Steve

You'd better pick up that Pickelhauben, because I'll be honest too and say that I'd pick it up if you left it there.

Michael

[Alan Lines]

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

Thanks Lee.

Steve, you're unlikely to find a picklehauben but I know of one member on this Forum who found a steel German helmet strolling through the woods in Verdun!

[Hedley Malloch]

Steve,

I confess to a small collection of bits and pieces. I have resolved to try not to collect anymore.

Cheers

Hedley

[Paul Reed]

It's been fascinating reading all the posts on this thread; one of the most fascinating so far on this site, and that is saying something with the excellent community that we have here!

My own personal anxiety is over the wholesale looting of battlefield sites, often for commerical purposes - not the occasional find while out walking.

While I agree on the whole with Nils, for modern visitors whose knowledge of the Great War is often in its early stage, the discovery of a shrapnel ball or a bullet is a tangible link with the past that usually furthers and fuels their interest - and that must be a good thing? These same people are not battlefield looters, and will rarely (if ever) go beyond the bounds of what we here would think acceptable. Sadly, as with many things, it is the minority who cause the most damage.

I also have a collection of artifacts and relics - although I don't see a need to "confess" this! Many have been given to me by locals or farmers, and many of them I personally use for teaching purposes - to explain various aspects of the war.

As several have already pointed out, "looting" began while the war was still on - where do we think all these Pickelhaube in the UK came from!!?? - but I think what has come out of this thread is a desire to treat the battlefields in a manner worthy of the consideration of future generations... and we all would see that as a good thing.

Just today I was out walking the Somme - I probably saw several hundred shrapnel balls and other items; I stopped picking these things up years ago, I must say. I photographed the more interesting material, and moved on to - more importantly - consider the ground around me... a great day on the Old Front Line.

[Fabiansson]

I completely agree with Paul Reed that the discovery of a shrapnel ball or a cartridge case is a tangible link with the past that usually furthers and fuels interest, and also that those who bring back some keepsakes should not be accused of being "battlefield looters".

But what Paul says about the minority causing the most damage, is perhaps not correct, or rather, I would say it is more complicated than that. I completely agree that they who bring back a souvenir or two are rather innocent. But the problem is the effect of thousands of rather innocent tourists bringing back their keepsakes. I hear you all say: “But there are tons and tons of relics!” Quite right. But these all tons of scrap metal are not surface findings (I now talk about the significance of surface findings as indicators of historical sites or as artefacts which in their context offer some sort of battlefield atmosphere).

It is about numbers, and also about the sorting effect (sorry about my bad English), i.e. that some types of relics are collected and some rejected (they are not picked up randomly), and it is about the fact that battlefield tourists do not visit the Western Front randomly: some sites are rejected, some are visited by thousands.

The battlefields were a largely forgotten landscape WW2–1964. But then, according to D. W. Lloyd (see Nicholas 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, p. 45.), they became popular again: “The early 1970s saw some 50.000 visitors a year. By 1974, this had increased to 250.000.” And since then, I guess, the number of visitors have increased even more (perhaps someone have a figure?).

Let us say that 250.000 battlefield visitors per year since 1974 have brought back only one souvenir (surface finding) each (or that half that number took two items each). That is 7.250.000 objects. Remember, these objects were not randomly chosen amongst all tons of scrap metal: they were most often not rusty splinters and empty shrapnel shell cases, but small “quality” objects such as badges, cartridges, personal items, shrapnel bullets etc.

These perhaps more than seven million objects were removed from the Western Front, not randomly, but from a limited number of sites, perhaps about 20-100 sites, depending on how to define a Western Front “site” like Hooge, Hamel, Sactuary Wood, Mort Homme etc. If we count high on the number of sites, 100, but very low when it comes to visitors, i.e. the old 1974 number, then each of these 100 sites have lost 72.500 “quality” surface findings since 1974.

Perhaps it is not the minority (looters) causing the most damage. Perhaps it is the innocent majority causing the most damage...

/nils

[Jacky Platteeuw]

In this very interesting discussion I haven't seen yet a definition or should I say circumscription of a 'battlefield'. Is it limited to the 1st line? 2nd line? line of communications? or even behind the lines i.e. in camps, billets, field hospitals etc.

Jacky

[iain mchenry]

Jacky,

I think it would be fair to say that the definition of "battlefield" should take in the whole "Area of Operations." of the theatre involved. I agree, this is a very interesting topic.

Regards Iain

[Paul Reed]

I'd also agree that it would include the areas beyond the main activity of the fighting; in many respects these areas might be richer in archaeological items; sites of camps and billets for example.

I know one "collector" on the Somme who has worked extensively west of Albert, and has a huge collection of bottles, tins, badges and titles removed from British Army rubbish tips in the camps behind the lines on the Somme.

[Mark A]

Many years ago I was fortunate to be shown around Monsieur Fouchat's vast "museum" of relics (sure lots of you will know his name and his garden full of shells). My one regret is that I didn't take more photographs. I know that he sadly passed away, does anybody know what happened to his collection? Was it bequeathed to a museum? I hope so. He was very kind and polite to me and patient with my awful French.

[cooper]

I visited the collection only last year. It is at the Tommy cafe at Pozieres.

In the rear garden there is now a mock trench system filled with all sorts of items, including maxims trench mortars, enfields with woodwork. Tank parts. field guns, anything and everthing to do with the war. It is very impressive.

I did in fact take a couple of pics, although I have lent them to my father. When I get them back I will post a pic on this topic. It is a pic of the caged area with literally hundreds of rifles, pistols and such like.

Although it is a shame the items are outside, allowed to deteriate further.

James

[Fabiansson]

For an archaeological project behind the lines: Take a look at The Ocean Villas Project, excavations of WW1 trenches at Auchonvillers (Somme).

This project began in 1997 and is still going on. The excavations were undertaken at the request of Avril Williams, the owner of the property (Avril Williams' guesthouse and tea rooms).

The project team is led by Andrew Robertshaw of the National Army Museum, London. See his article, much interesting for the discussion in this thread, "Whose History is it Anyway? Battlefields, Archaeology and Interpretation", Battlefields Review, no. 21, 2002.

The historical research is by Alastair Fraser and the archaeological direction is by Jon Price (mediaval archaeologist), Senior Lecturer at the Centre for Cultural Policy and Management at Northumbria University. Jon Price presented the project at The First U.C.L./I.W.M. Conference on Materialities and Cultural Memory of 20th Century Conflict: "Materialities of Conflict: Anthropology and the Great War, 1914-2001" in September 2001. Price's paper, "Archaeology in the Service of European Remembrance", will be published this year in an anthology edited by Nicholas J. Saunders (U.C.L.).

/nils

[Paul Reed]

Many years ago I was fortunate to be shown around Monsieur Fouchat's vast "museum" of relics (sure lots of you will know his name and his garden full of shells). My one regret is that I didn't take more photographs. I know that he sadly passed away, does anybody know what happened to his collection? Was it bequeathed to a museum? I hope so. He was very kind and polite to me and patient with my awful French.

It isn't at the Tommy Cafe as Cooper says.

I knew Yves very well; his wish was that something was done with his collection/archive one day, but that wasn't to be. After he died his well meaning widdow gave a lot of material away to people who claimed they were "Yves' best friends" and then about 18 months ago someone within France came and took the rest of the collection away for a proposed museum at Lille... still no sign of the museum, I must say.

So effectively a collection formed almost entirely from the Pozieres - Ovillers - Thiepval area was lost for ever.

[Paul Reed]

For an archaeological project behind the lines: Take a look at The Ocean Villas Project, excavations of WW1 trenches at Auchonvillers (Somme).

I wouldn't exactly say Auchonvillers was 'behind the lines' as it was virtually on the front line until 1916, and was actually entered by German troops in March 1918 until evicted by the NZ Division.

Personally I would classify 'behind the lines' on the Somme as Mailly-Maillet westwards, in this particular area.

[Mark A]

Paul, I don't want to sound melodramatic but that news makes me very sad. As you obviously know better than I, he was kind and generous to me and refused my offer of a token payment. Unexpectedly and unasked he gave me the gift of an empty and inert British 18 pounder shell he'd found that morning. I often think of him showing me around while his wife pottered around the kitchen and shook her head bemused at "les garcons".

Very sad.

[Paul Reed]

Yes Mark, very sad indeed. Many people share your happy memories of visiting Yves - what is especially sad to me is that the artifacts he had, the knowledge he had of the ground, is all lost. Much of it told us things about what happened there that documents never can, and now - even if this museum ever opens - the context of it all is lost... it just becomes another collection of firearms, grenades, shells and other kit.

A sobering warning of just what can happen.

[Guest muddy]

I have read this current topic with fascination. The dilema of what action to take upon finding items is a tricky one as it is probable that the next person to come along will pick it up. As quoted with the remote possibility of injuring or worse i would state to leave alone.

Last year I followed in the footsteps of a relative along a track from Montauban to longueval trying to trace his last nights accomodation before the attack on the 15/09/1916. at a dip in the landscape I found a carrying handle for a 18pd shell and a english penny dated 1914 lying on the top of the track.

Rightly or wrongly I brought these items home, my daughter who is 10 was fascinated by them and took them to school.These two items started an interest in one so young, not only the items but the idea that someone lost them years ago in a time of conflict. A tangible link with the past which has made her and her class mates ask questions about the great war and to remember the people who were there.

[Fabiansson]

I wouldn't exactly say Auchonvillers was 'behind the lines' as it was virtually on the front line until 1916, and was actually entered by German troops in March 1918 until evicted by the NZ Division.

Paul, you have right. Of course. But their approach is focusing on not-front-line-activities (in comparision with other teams that is). On their their web site it is stated:

Our study is principally concerned with the manner in which Auchonvillers was integrated into the complex system that was the Western Front, the facilities and fortifications that were constructed in the village and what now remains of them. Thus we have concentrated research on the more routine aspects of trench warfare and on troops other than the infantry, such as the gunners, pioneer battalions, Royal Engineer Field Companies, Special Companies and Tunnelling Companies, Royal Army Medical Corps Field Ambulances, the trench mortar batteries and the Army Service Corps.

/nils

[john w.]

Nils

Have just looked at the website concerning Auchonvilliers, fascinating to see such a localised piece of work going on. It seems strange to me that aspects of the Great War are subject to archaeological digs, when I grew up with the concept of such digs being linked to finding out about the Romans and the Iron Age!

It is good to see that in controlled conditions much can be pieced together and the accuracy of the written word of the period, and the pictures taken can be tested.

I feel that what is being done now will provide those who come after us with a set of skills that may be used to explore the sites of World War 2 and other theatres, such as Korea and Vietnam, who knows what the Diggers do in Ypres may form the standard for others fifty years from now

As for the removal of artifacts from the sites... you either do or dont.. the can be no middle ground here. Each person has their own concept of what is acceptable, those here have something from a site for their own personal reason. Most accept that excess ( a relative term ) is obscene and should not happen. Commercialism is a fact of life and where there is demand there will be someone there to make money. Placing artefacts in a museum creates accessibility for the public to see. Even then some here object to certain private museums charging to see the artefacts.

It is a debate with no end.. perhaps there is.. when all the artefacts are gone from the sites. Even then there will be the debris from WW2, up to the Gulf War and beyond.... If it has worth then it has a value with people there to satisfy the demand.

just a few thoughts out loud having followed the thread..

John

[Fabiansson]

John, and others,

I believe there is a widespread misconception of what archaeology is, and in particular, what is good for. In most eyes (even “old” archaeologists) archaeology and archaeological methods are about recovering nice (art) objects and reconstructing building constructions as in classical archaeology (Rome, Greece etc.) and about excavating iron age burial mounds and stone age arrows.

Seeing archaeology in this perspective, it is hard to apply archaeology to the study of WW1. But archaeologists who study Greece and Rome are actually often labelled “historical archaeologists”, because they also have texts, often more texts than historians who study the mediaeval age. So, archaeologists do not study pre-text societies in particular: rather, they have another approach to study societies, so have anthropologists and ethnologists (although they are less known).

I cannot get into detail here in which way archaeology can contribute to the study of the recent history, for example the WW1, but it is apparent that they surely can. If you have read my postings earlier in this thread you see examples of American archaeology of 19th century war, and of excavations were the historical actors are silent (or biased) in the sources (for example WW1 and the Holocaust). It is another perspective. It is different questions. It is re-writing history, getting another narrative.

From this point of view the remains of the Great War is an archaeological record. But this archaeological record has a value not only for archaeologists of the next century, but for us: the archaeologists, the historians, the public. This archaeological record is studied by the I.A.P. archaeologist in Belgium in search for indicators for historical sites of interest. It is studied by the military historians who read the man-made terrain and writes guide books about it. It is studied by us who walks the battlefield trying to come closer to the reality 1916 than is possible in front of the TV. I believe this is a reason for trying to influence the general “concept of what is acceptable”, as you mention, in a positive direction.

/nils

[john w.]

Nils

Assuming the archaeologist delves into the past and makes sense of what has gone before, at what point historically does an artefact become of interest to the archaeologist?

John

[Fabiansson]

At what point historically does an artefact become of interest to the archaeologist?

John,

This is a splendid question, and often debated in the past. It depends on the approach the archaeologist have. Today, many archaeologists, historians and historical archaeologists speak about "material culture". It is an approach originally borrowed from anthropology, which study both past and contemporary societies; Western or Third World.

So, they who study human behaviour through the material culture approach (or are inspired or guided by it) have no such point in time. They use old objects or modern. Makes no difference. For a relevant study, see Nicholas J. Saunders (Saunders again ): "Bodies of Metal, Shells of Memory. 'Trench Art', and the Great War Re-cycled", Journal of Material Culture, vol 5 (2000) or his book Trench Art: A Brief History and Guide, 1914-1939 (2001).

/nils

[john w.]

For anything to be of use .. it has to have been seen as having a value.. not monetary but if you have an object that has been discarded then the previous user has no use for it and therefore the object is useless.

The next person/archaeologist/finder spots that object and immediately its is useful again so it has a value.

Yesterday in my garden the guys digging up my lawn, unearthed a glass bottle, by looking on the internet found that it was a 1912 lemonade bottle. What was rubbish to the previous owner now has value for me some 90 years later!

John

[Ralph J. Whitehead]

The last posting reminded me of something that happened a few years back. My son and I were on an indian site near our home and in the course of the day came upon some trade beads, pottery shards and other small items from the Onondaga's. While these were probably lost or broken in the 17th and 18th Centuries they now have historic value to us. My son still has these items and will probably keep them for the rest of his life as a reminder of the day. We have kept precise records as to the finds, location, etc.

THe same can be said for items taken from the western front today. People will still take items but I hope that they at least provide a record of when they were found, where, and any other details they can remember. It will allow people in the future to at least know the circumstances of the finds. Just to have something sit on a shelf gathering dust and only rely upon memory about its origin is a shame.

Ralph

[Somme1916]

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...

HERE, HERE. Well said old chap well said. So well said I think it's worth repeating.

I drink a toast to you, sir!

Jon

[Somme1916]

...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.

...

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).

... 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

Wow, away from the computer for a week and things take off on turbo again. Let me back up to when I was last on; please forgive me for backtracking.

Nils,

Sir, you are not lecturing you are debating and expressing your deep felt views about our beloved era in history. I too agree with you on many points but not in all.

In your piece, which I've quoted parts of above, you explain how surface finds can be of importance but in context with other research and site surveys. For those not familiar with some of the terms Nils and I are using; a site survey is when archeologist look for surface finds and dig small test pits on a site to help determine if further excavation is warranted. Which is what I've said "surface finds alone are of little value".

You also stated that if collectors, farmers, or whoever had removed the artifacts along the proposed A19 route than the I.A.P wouldn't have found some of the WW-1 sites.

Lets be honest it would take a Herculean effort to remove even 25% of all the artifacts in any given area of the old front lines. As an example a friend and I have pick up over 600 rum jar shards from one area of front line trench that was about the size of a football pitch/field. We have hopes of piecing at least one jar back together someday. Yes, sad fellows we but sometimes life here can be dull, right Iain M.

Just from reading your brief description of the I.A.P's actions I get the feeling they did their homework pretty well before heading to the field, like any good archeologists does, and they would have found these sites just the same. A trained person armed with a few period maps (trench maps etc) and a modern typographical map could make a pretty good guess where these sites were/are and pick some good sites to survey. Metal detectors come in handy for this, right Aurel?

Foot note; Not all of the artifacts found at Little Big Horn were surface many/most were located by the use of metal detectors and subsequently a little digging.

Well I know I will not change your mind and I've never intended to nor do I want to do so. Like you I too love studying the Great War in many different ways, one of which is walking the battlefields looking for artifacts that have made their way to the surface. Some people like to hunt or fishing I like to look for relics.

I also love talking to people about the Great War and the men and women whose lives were affected by it. One of the ways I do this is with the artifacts I've found and bought. It helps make it real to them when they not only get to see an object but to hold and examine it. Grade school kids, family, friends and fellow soldiers alike are fascinated by these bits and bobs that I have. Some of the soldiers can even attest to the fact that holding a piece of shell fragment makes it a little too real for them (one of the ones I love to show is about 2 1/2 feet long and weighs over 35 pounds). It really gets their attention when you start talking about the hell an artillery bombardment can bring and then you are start passing around shell fragments and shrapnel balls.

Well Nils I've gone on quite a bit. I'm glad we've gotten to exchange views about this subject. You have a great expanse of knowledge about this and I'm sure I'll be reading your views on this again pretty soon. You’ve defiantly made this topic very interesting, thanks!