Artifact identification and battlefield signature

Introduction

The identification of artefacts within the topsoil is one of the key aspects of battlefield archaeology. However, the types of soil across a given landscape can vary greatly and therefore accessibility to these artefacts can involve differing amounts of labour. For example, ploughed soil is generally looser and therefore easier to excavate than long-standing, uncultivated meadow soil.

Artefacts within the plough soil are therefore more likely to be degraded due to the continued action of the plough, although they could also be closer to the surface if the soil is constantly turned over. Artefacts within different types of soil may also be located in distinct horizons or at differing depths. Worm sorting of meadow soil allows the artefacts to effectively “sink” lower down the soil profile.

Excavating metal detector “hits” can be very difficult on meadows and permanent pasture due to the soil’s less ploughed and therefore more compacted nature. This rule does not always apply, however, as sometimes burrowing animals, such as rabbits and moles bring small artefacts to the surface as part of their up-cast or molehills. These small mounds can therefore be examined and may provide a sample of what might lie beneath the surface.

The Impact of Local Geology on Artefact Preservation

Differing geological strata below the topsoil can affect the condition of an artefact and human remains. Acid soil, as the examples from the burial ground at Sutton Hoo, Suffolk, indicate, can erode bone until it is only evident by a stain in the ground (Carver 1992). Although more difficult to record, such evidence is still important and should only be excavated and recorded by an expert experienced in this type of archaeological work.

Archaeological prospectors must therefore be aware of the type of geology and acidity of the soils in the area in which a search will take place.

Excavation of Artefacts

It is not always essential to excavate artefacts found during prospection surveys, as concentrations of fragments of metal may alert the prospector to an area of interest.

In this respect it is important to differentiate between ferrous and non-ferrous metal artefacts, as there are generally more ferrous metal artefacts on most archaeological sites from the historical era than there are non-ferrous metal artefacts.

This information can be exploited on sites such as post medieval battlefields, where lead shot can easily be distinguished from ferrous debris without even excavating the artefact, simply by using the analysis of the by modern metal detector signal. However, in order to accurately record and date artefacts it would be necessary for each one to be examined.

It is during this phase of an evaluation that extreme caution must be applied. Any artefact might be associated with other important archaeological information, which will be left behind, and therefore become disassociated, if artefacts are removed without due care and archaeological experience.

At the Little Big Horn Battlefield, for example, fragments of human or animal remains were often found in close proximity to ballistic evidence, suggesting that a bullet struck a bone and shattered it (Scott et al 1989, 30). The two pieces of information, the fired bullet and its target, were therefore inextricably linked and this association could easily have been lost.

Earthworks on battlefields will vary greatly depending upon which period is under investigation. Medieval open battlefields, for example, generally exhibit few, if any earthworks that were constructed for use during the battle, whereas those from the First World War often exhibit extensive evidence of trenches, underground tunnel systems, and mines excavated under enemy trenches.

Standing earthworks should therefore be analysed in order to hopefully typologically identify, date them or even eliminate them from the investigation.

First World War trenches, for example, were constructed for troop movement along the lines and generally exhibit a zigzag type plan. They were constructed in this manner to prevent shell blasts from travelling down the trench.

Second World War “fox holes” however, were usually constructed by, and for an individual soldier in which to shelter during an advance or in defence of an area. These usually consisted of simple, small and shallow, irregularshaped pits.

Types of these earthworks can also be found on contemporary or now redundant Ministry of Defence training sites across Britain. Their counterparts, used during combat, can still be found across battlefields in various parts of the world.

The signature of a site of conflict

Each battlefield will have its own individual, and possibly unique artefactual “signature”, which will be represented by those items that were lost or abandoned before, during or after the conflict.

Combatants usually fight with the most efficient and most up-to-date weapons available to them or, alternatively, that they can afford. Formal armies, however, often fought with weapons that were issued to them. This might not be of the most up-to-date type, as the army might only have been re-issued with weapons at specific intervals.

For example, at the battle of the Little Big Horn (1876), some of the Native Americans had access to the most up-todate Henry repeater rifles, whereas the US Cavalry was issued with the slower reloading Springfield Carbines (Scott et al 1989). Other Native Americans apparently also used bows and arrows and clubs to attack the soldiers. The signature of this battle is therefore vastly different to other contemporary battles form different parts of the world.

The type of artefacts found should, however, fall into very generalised categories relating to the technology of the period in which the conflict was fought. Several examples are cited which illustrate this concept (Table 1).

Table 1: Summary of weapons technology by period cont.

Period	Technology	Examples
Roman	Ferrous metal technology	Fragments or complete pieces of metal alloy or ferrous artefacts – Roman militaria e.g. fragments of Roman armour and possible weapons Varus Battlefield (Wilbers-Rost 2004) and (Sutherland forthcoming) Fragments of native British equipment and weapons (Sutherland forthcoming) Collection of ballista (large crossbow) bolts apparently aimed at a large round house in the Iron Age Hillfort at Hod Hill, Dorset, by the besieging Roman army (Frere 1974, 89) Roman ballista bolt in the spine of a skeleton buried in Maiden Castle, Dorset (Bahn 1996, 75).
Medieval	Ferrous metal technology	Fragments of clothing fasteners, badges, buckles, etc. and arrowheads(Sutherland 2000a)
Post medieval	Early firearms technology	Lead round shot from muskets and pistols and cannon balls (Foard 1995)
Modern	Modern firearms technology	Cylindrical or riffled shot eg. Minnie balls; bombs and shells or fragments of each (Scott 2004)

These categories might overlap in places where differing technologies were used by each faction, as at the Little Big Horn Battlefield, USA (archery, clubs, rifles and pistols), Paraguay (lead round shot and cylindrical shot (Pollard 2004).

Sites that have been fought upon on a several occasions might also exhibit evidence of differing types of weaponry. For example, on the medieval battlefield of Agincourt, France there is extensive evidence conflicts from different historical periods (Sutherland forthcoming) (Plates 13 and 14).

 

If no artefacts from a conflict are found in a given area it does not mean that the conflict did not take place on that site. A multitude of factors dictate whether or not a site incorporates such evidence, many of which are not predictable. For example, most or all of the artefacts might already have been removed from the area by metal detectorists or farmers, in which case it will be increasingly difficult to find any remaining evidence. However, the person or persons who removed such artefacts might be willing to discuss such evidence, if they could be contacted, and could point to where it was found. During the initial stages of the Towton Battlefield Archaeology Survey, Simon Richardson, a metal detectorist who had been working on the site for many years, provided information, which helped to map the evidence recovered from his previous searches (Plate 15).

This evidence has been used to construct hypotheses as to where other artefacts might be located, eventually leading to other and increasingly successful prospection surveys. Richardson now records all his finds using a satellite, GPS (Global Positioning System), therefore helping to construct an ever-increasing accurate location map of the battlefield at Towton (Plate 16).

On some American battlefields, anecdotal information has been used to estimate the former artefact density of sites that are now virtually artefact free and therefore no longer easily located (Babits 2004).

Although this strategy appears to rely upon inaccurate second hand information it is highly probable, as with the Towton Survey, that this method would aid the discovery of further battle-related evidence. However, not all metal detectorists are as forthcoming, as some guard the whereabouts of a “productive site” quite jealously.

Artefact density

It is likely that it will be the density of a particular artefact that will alert the prospector to the possibility that a scene of conflict has been discovered.

However, it must always be remembered that one arrowhead or piece of lead shot does not make a battlefield; one bone does not make a skeleton or one skeleton a former army. Expanding the search in an area of an individual find, however, might lead to the discovery of other similar artefacts and thus direct one to the identification of a scene of conflict.

On later battlefields, such as First or Second World War sites, live ammunition might also be encountered. There are several groups, which have been set up specifically to excavate and record the archaeological evidence of the First World War, who have experience in such matters (e.g. the ‘Durand Group’ or ‘No Man’s Land’).

Mapping artefact locations

Ideally, every artefact found on or within the ground can lead to the recognition of important archaeological information. The three-dimensional location of every artefact is therefore of the utmost importance.

Forensic ballistic evidence from the Little Big Horn battlefield, for example, has allowed the movements of individual weapons to be tracked across the battlefield (Scott et al 1989).

Although similar evidence is not yet available for lead round shot from a musket or pistol, the advancement of forensic sciences in the past few years suggests that one day in the future this might be possible. It is already possible to provenance the location from which the lead was mined and therefore potentially to divide the bulk of the shot as used by each faction, if the lead came from very different sources. The exact location of each musket ball could therefore extend the knowledge of a specific part of a large engagement.

Most metal detectorists do not generally undertake this practice. At a metal detector rally of the battlefield at Marston Moor (1644), North Yorkshire, in 2003 over 300 metal detectorists recovered hundreds of musket and pistol balls form a newly recognised area of the conflict. None of these were accurately recorded and the loss of archaeological information from this site was incalculable (Keys 2003).