Digs on battlefields

[Somme1916]

[telaw]

Most areas in France and Belguim are a mixed morass of jumbled finds that would not nelp in identyfying any particular knowledge.

That is your opinion, but one that many of those who work in this field would not recognise or agree with. On what do you base it, out of interest?

I base it out of long experience as an archaeologist. As a historian you should know that the whole of the subject is very well covered. Better covered indeed than most events in history. I reiterate that little stands to be gained by digging.

Certainly there are certain sites that could add to the percieved "Glamour" of it all, but is that really worth the effort and disturbance.

A few months ago I excavated several bodies from Sinai, men who fell in the 1973 Egypt-Israel war. Their families were pleased and they got a more permanent resting place, but I did not consider I'd done anything archaeological, nor did I add much to the history of the war.

Perhaps, according to the theme of this thread, I should rush over to Iraq and dig up a few missing locals who fell last year. Is that battlefield archaeology too?

History is history, curio is curio.

Tom

[Tim Birch]

As a student in the early 1960s I once had a holiday job assisting at a dig on a Roman fort. I thought, wrongly, that it would be very exciting and that we would be unearthing coins, swords and helmets by the shovelful. Imagine my disappointment to find that I was given a small trowel and required to gently scrape away the earth a millimeter at a time within a pegged out area about 2 sq.m, with strict orders to stop and call in a supervisor if I detected anything including changes in the earth colour or texture. During my week of archeology I found nothing and the only highlight was that at the of each day together with my fellow ameuteur sleuthes we would retire to a convenient pub opposite the dig to rest aching backs and sore knees. I am afraid that experience put me off any further thoughts of taking up archeology as a profession!

Tim

[Paul Reed]

I base it out of long experience as an archaeologist. As a historian you should know that the whole of the subject is very well covered. Better covered indeed than most events in history. I reiterate that little stands to be gained by digging.

Thanks for your response, Tom.

I don't entirely disagree with what you say and it is nice to see your original comments further explained. I quite accept that the Great War is well covered compared to some periods you may have examined, but there are still aspects of it with which we are unfamiliar, which this sort of 'archaeology' might well explain. Personally I have no idea whether it can really be called archaeology, but whatever it is, work on whole trench systems - such as that carried out by the Diggers in Flanders - can only be beneficial. Small digs for the sake of TV or 'glory' have less of a justification, perhaps.

It is certainly history - not curio - whether it really is archaeology can only be ascertained by professionals such as yourself.

[telaw]

I don't entirely disagree with what you say and it is nice to see your original comments further explained. I quite accept that the Great War is well covered compared to some periods you may have examined, but there are still aspects of it with which we are unfamiliar, which this sort of 'archaeology' might well explain. Personally I have no idea whether it can really be called archaeology, but whatever it is, work on whole trench systems - such as that carried out by the Diggers in Flanders - can only be beneficial. Small digs for the sake of TV or 'glory' have less of a justification, perhaps.

It is certainly history - not curio - whether it really is archaeology can only be ascertained by professionals such as yourself.

Paul

In fairness to people that do good work, like the diggers, and people like yourself that are eager to add to their knowledge, I should point out that my biggest worry is that many people would grasp the mantle of "battlefield archaeology" and justify poking around on sites. As has been well pointed out here these areas are dangerous but also, there will be a time in the future when techniques develop that will make eventual diggings more accurate. I just personally feel that the battlefields themselves be left as they are.

Also, please don't think that I feel that archaeology should be elitist or the reserved domain of the professional. Anyone interested in any period of history should have equal chance to actively participate in it.

Regards

Tom

[Paul Reed]

In fairness to people that do good work, like the diggers, and people like yourself that are eager to add to their knowledge, I should point out that my biggest worry is that many people would grasp the mantle of "battlefield archaeology" and justify poking around on sites. As has been well pointed out here these areas are dangerous but also, there will be a time in the future when techniques develop that will make eventual diggings more accurate. I just personally feel that the battlefields themselves be left as they are.

I entirely agree, and it has already happened on the Western Front - which is why I would like to see this avenue of historical research developed properly with the sort of scientific approach that I perceive professional archaeologists such as yourself would use?

The term 'Battlefield Archaeology', as you rightly suggest, can easly be used by "collectors" to justify something that is akin to grave robbing.

Thanks again for your interesting comments.

[Ralph J. Whitehead]

Amateur or professional, the main point I became aware of during several local digs of native American sites was the ultimate importance of documenting every find, location, description, sketch, etc. This should be followed with a final restoration of the site after all is said and done. I was advised that the finds should be reported in detail in a document, report of the dig which would make the findings available to others and show what was found and in what context.

Unfortunately the 'Professional' archaeologists including several local college professors, took all of the finds and kept them as personal collections and never published a single item on any of the digs over the years. I had one visit me several months later after he discovered that I knew of a location of an Onondaga/Oneida long house in the nearby county and he wanted to 'dig' at the site, I never revealed it to him or anyone else.

I later found out that he had discovered human remains at two sites, both native American and Colonial remains (the latter found at Fort Stanwyx, Rome, New York), and that he kept them in his collection as well until several law suits and great public pressure forced him to return the remains for proper burial.

Please do not take this as any type of criticism of archaeologists or groups like the Diggers. This is not what I was attempting to relate. I have seen how these groups work and I have nothing but praise for their attitude and honesty and professionalism. My point is that if handled properly and with dignity (and safety) these types of digs could provide additional details that would go unnoticed forever as long as the digs are prepared properly, have controls, etc. and the results are given to the public either in written reports or through the miracle of digital video.

Hopefully they will be handled in such a manner with the proper guidelines, permission, etc. I suspect that more of this will occur in the next 10 years as we approach the centennial of the war.

Ralph

[Guest jon price]

I'd like to echo everything that Julian B said and add that the battlefields of WW1 are a dangerous place.

I'd further like to add that archaelogically little is to be gained from digging in these areas. Battlefield archaeology has been used to great affect in more historical events. For example in the 1980's a prairie fire burnt away the dense undergrowth around the Platte River giving archaeologists an opportunity to extend the knowledge of the actual events of the battle of the Little Big Horn. Bullets, arrowheads and assorted finds gave a clearer picture of movements of both sides in the final minutes of battle.

Most areas in France and Belguim are a mixed morass of jumbled finds that would not nelp in identyfying any particular knowledge. Also there is little, artitifact-wise, that doesn't already exist in mint condition in museums, homes and collections.

One advantage of the digging is that human remains are found, identified and given a decent burial- but this is not archaeology.

Tom

As one of the founders of NoMansLand I would like to respond to the suggestion that nothing is to be gained by digging on WW1 battlefields, or that digging up bodies is not archaeology.

Technique wise recovering buried boduies of any age is forensic archaeology, whether we do it for the police, or accidentally as a result of excavation. And yes the US authorities should have used forensic archaeology instead of allowing random digging in Iraq.

The value of proper forensic archaeology with respect to a war with so many "missing" is clear. Last week Jacob Hohnes, a german soldier found by NoMansLand on the Heidenkopf was buried with fifteen of his family present. A validation of our approach I think. We reckon there are probably bodies on average every 10 metres of front line. We found three, id'd one, got regimental affiliation for the other two, and one of these may yet be id'd. This I think is the result of skill, experience, and development of technique, all of which requires practice.

As to the value of archaeology on recent battlefields, and the question of "leave it till we are better able to understand" approaches. there are many reasons to do archaeology. One of them is "pure" research, for which you need to define research questions. This is happening now, but you can't ask questions without data and that requires initial exploration. Despite fervent historians claiming that we have documents for everything we "know" surprisingly little about the Great War. Try digging something up and and then asking a group of historians what it means. That doesnt however mean that battlefield history is invalid. Neither is battlefield archaeology. The suggestion that the battlefields are just a mass of jumbled re,mains is not true. Even on front line that we have documented accounts of being totally destroyed, next to defensive mine craters, the stratigraphy was no more difficult, in fact often easier, to unpick than parts of Roman London

What is clear, and everybody agrees on this, is that managing the battlefields (legally, safety wise, tourist wise, education wise, remembrance wise, conservation wise, access wise, local economy wise) is a complicated issue. There are lots of people with an interest, often very deeply held. Archaeology is one way of collecting data to enable that management process to occur.

[AndyHollinger]

On a recent Time Team episode (I have no idea when it was filmed as we get them irregularly over here) there was a new hurdle mentioned as the Gov't required much of the dig area to be "saved for later" when the technology and techniques are better so to insure the future can do it "better" ... I thought this very weird ... and from an American point of view it is ... heck, why save anything for later???

But it makes great sense. When we look at Troy or any site and realize the damage done by "scientists" working with State of the Art practices just a few decades ago... it makes sense to save stuff for the future to explore.

Maybe it's my Protestant delayed gratification thing going on ... but it makes a lot of sense to leave something relatively untouched rather than challenge the future to deal with our "mucking about" even if we are working at our present state of the art.

The above mention of the Little Big Horn site has yielded a lot in our present understanding about how the battle went down ...

[Guest jon price]

The only problem with saving for later is that it assumes there will be

A) anything left

and

anything later

The soldier we identified had already suffered plough damage. Later means less likelihood of iding missing.

Archaeology has only been around for a century or two, but there is no reason to believe it will necessarily be of relevence a century into the future. We might not have the resources, or the interest any more by then. We already generate much more data than we can usefully use from an archaeological excavation using current techniques. Why wait to be able to generate even more data than we could ever usefully use. The problem is not one of insufficient data, but one of too much data.

[Simon R]

'Data slurry', a really big problem. Contradictory catalouge numbers, grid refs. 'new' GPS refs., the same find found twice... and that's just the SMR! There's a whole world of archived material out there which literally never sees the light of day. Surely the answer has to be problem oriented archaeology?

The 'saving it for later' argument, preservation in situ, is I think somethimes a sop to archaeology in the planning process. It's an excuse to not do anything since the money ran out and there's no chance of any more and the developer wants to get on etc, etc.....

I think that archaeology as pertains to the First World War, from training camps, practice trenches, firing ranges, drill halls to human remains, front line remains et al, is some of the best archaeology undertaken. It's a 'heritage that hurts' to quote David Uzzell, surely the most engaging, emotive, absorbing and personal kind. Using the evidence of past events, past lives to enhance present ones.

[domsim]

I agree with everything said about World War One archaeology. The idea that it is a jumbled mess and not worth recording and that everything is known from historical records is a fallacy.

I worked on a geophysical survey of a farm in Belgium near Ostend, well behind the German frontline but on one of their secondary lines. We were mainly interested in the mediaeval period as it was one of the earliest Knights Templar commanderies in Flanders. It was also fortified and entrenched during the First World War. We recorded every detail and period of the farm and research in the PRO found aerial photographs and maps of the farm in 1917.

However part of the farm was ruined and next to it was a large pit with a pond in it, we just assumed it was disused. Only after talking to the farmer did the fact emerge that the farm was used by the Germans as an ammunition dump. At the end of 1917 there was a catastrophic explosion which partially demolished the farm and the pond was the crater of the explosion. The farmer's aunt had been delivering food to the german troops based there and was killed in the explosion.

Recourse to the aerial photos maps and records revealed none of this. Thus we were able to record the physical remains and the farmer's oral history of a previously unknown event. Archaeology of the war at its best I think!

Dominic

[telaw]

Archaeology of the war at its best I think!

Puh-leeze! I hope you feel less embarrased writing that than I did reading it.

[Guest]

Archaeology of the war at its best I think!

Puh-leeze! I hope you feel less embarrased writing that than I did reading it.

Just what is the issue you have with it?

This was downright offensive.

[telaw]

Archaeology of the war at its best I think!

Puh-leeze! I hope you feel less embarrased writing that than I did reading it.

Just what is the issue you have with it?

This was downright offensive.

Sorry if it read as offensive but:

A geophysics survey coupled with a remembered account = "Archaeology of the war at its best"

I don't think so.

"Domsim" has not gone on to tell us exactly what the whole event added to our knowledge. If he has discovered some information please let him tell us.

I'm still at a loss to understand:

a - How archaelolgy was involved.

b - How it's war archaeology at its best.

regards

Tom

[domsim]

Tom

Archaeology is not just about digging holes in the ground. It is about recording past events which leave a signature in the present day landscape. Archaeologists use a number of different techniques to find and record these events. Surveying, photography, historical research, geophysical survey and excavation are just parts of the range of techniques archaeologists use.

Our geophysical survey located buried trench lines as well as underground structures associated with the ammunition dump. It also located a large 'bloom' of shrapnel form the blast. The position and orientation of this bloom when combined with our topographic survey of the farm and its damage, allowed an interpretation of the direction and force of the explosion. We also carried out a survey and photographic record of the damage to the farm and of the out buildings, some of which still had loop holes for defence in their walls.

This constitutes a record of the farm as it existed at the time of our survey and records activity over a period of 900 years. As no previous work of this kind had been carried out at the site before it constituted an important record of the site, a fact recognised by the local district archaeologist who has asked for and will recieve a copy of our report.

In this sense I think the work was a good example of the way archaeology can contribute to the study of the 1st World War and reveal new information about localised events.

Dominic

[Simon R]

That's fascinating, is it being published anywhere?

What geophysics did you use?

[domsim]

Dear Simon

Thank you for your interest; we used magnetometers and resistance meters for our geophysical survey.

Hopefully it should be published next year-I will let you know where and when.

Regards

Dominic

[firestep]

Apologies for coming into this discussion rather late. I've fairly recently purchased a property in France and interestingly, the legal documents appertaining to the property clearly state that any archaeological / historical artifacts discovered on the land are to be handed over to the relevant authority.

I might own the house and land, but I don't own what is below the topsoil, but at least I can use a metal detector legally, which is another bone of contention.

A couple of weeks ago I took time out from my house restoration in order to revisit an area near Verdun, and aso share a glass or two with a French colleague who lives in the region. During the visit I was informed of a "Historical" group from the UK who were in the area carrying out research.

It didn't take long to ascertain where they had been carrying out their "research", as we found in an area of freshly "excavated" holes the contents of which had been obviosly pinpointed by metal detector.

Regardless of whether these diggers were from the UK or not, I get a little p****d off when I blatantly see artifacts which have obviously been obtained illegally and what in my book amounts to grave robbing, appearing on web auction sites.

These practices serve no purpose from an archaeological or historical point of view, they are usually just the actions of a few who try and recoup some of their costs to fund their next robbing trip.

There is one site in France where I know of an ongoing excavation however, it is unlikely they will entertain the assistance of anyone unknown to them.

Not only because of insurance, H & S, etc, but because people have previosly offered to assist only to vanish after a few days - usually once they've found something of interest which they can spirit away!

Daryl

[harribobs]

That's fascinating, is it being published anywhere?

i have got to agree with simon!

amazing stuf

[Bert Heyvaert]

I completely agree with Daryl. While I was doing placement with the Flemish institute for archaeological patrimony in Boezinge, we would have new fresh holes to be discovered in our trenches every morning. Many of them were perfect little square pits, with a circle shaped hole in the middle of it that exactly fitted the shape of a shell, so it was quite clear what our nightly visitors had been looting for. These people knew exactly where and how deep to dig, so they must be quite good with their metal detectors. Police was patrolling, but the site is so big ( 10 trenches of each one more than 50m) long that there is always a big possibility for looters to go unseen. We had to put all the explosives we found in a deep pit untill the army came along, otherwise there wouldn't have been anything left for them to collect.

It's a very sad business. I still don't quite understand why someone wants to unearth a life shell... the only reason I can see is to sell them to battlefield visitors, but would they really be so naïve to buy them? Maybe IFF museum and others should put up warnings that it is illegal to purchase any freshly dug battlefield artefacts...