Session Abstract
Judged on the basis of its profile in the media – notably television output as well as conferences which have been organised or are planned – “Battlefield Archaeology” has arrived as a subject of legitimate attention.
While in the past it has been asserted that there was no archaeology of battlefields, only of warfare, the subjects current “popularity” lies with the fortuitous combination of a number of factors: it appeals to that part of the society with an interest in military history as well as the development of a more general archaeological audience with a more astute appreciation of the range of archaeological research techniques now available.
Combining these two themes, there is the way that the subject, almost paradoxically, “humanises” an experience the majority of the audience will never have to experience.The subject has also benefited from some attractive packaging in terms of its television format.
This is not to ignore the fact that a number of individuals have for years longer than they may care to admit been arguing that threat to the condition of many of Britain’s battlefields has grown considerably over the years.
In turn many of the issues which confront the study of battlefields irrespective of their date or location are exactly those that confront general landscape archaeology studies.
These include how to manage and present what are often large tracts of land. How might they be preserved and protected?
Then there is the question who might legitimately explore such sites and what they might remove?
In addition to these questions there is the issue of how to present the subject in a fashion which not only makes for a good story but pays due respect to the material discussed.
And this is before we begin to think about the relationship of the archaeological data to the historical version of the sites being explored as well the sort of story that might be reconstructed for the evidence.
Finally, because of the nature of the sites to be explored there is the question, how precisely can fieldwork be undertaken at such sites.
In this admittedly wide-ranging session, a number of speakers have offered papers which explore at least a few of the issues facing the subject of battlefield studies.
We start with how the subject is presented to the public in the form of television output, with the experiences of one who speaks from in front of the camera and contrasting with somebody who has to put that material into a format acceptable to those who have commissioned the output.
One of the consequences of increased media output about battlefields is a concomitant rise in interest about them. Much of this interest is to be welcomed but it has had its negative effects.
The next set of papers outline some of these problems, explain the magnitude of them and will seek to offer resolution to at least some of the issues that arise about preservation and management of the resource.
The third and final part of the session will explore some case examples of how the study of violent human engagement might be approached with an emphasis on some of the ways colleagues have addressed the pitfalls that come with such work through study of such actions overseas.
Example of Paper Abstract
Tim Sutherland – Treasured or treasure: Who is protecting British battlefields?
In 1995, Foard highlighted the contemporary attitude towards battlefield archaeology in Britain when he stated that:
“The absence of any proposals for action from English Heritage in connection with the Battlefields Register reflects the almost complete failure of the archaeological profession to take the study of battlefields seriously – It is essential that a proper methodology of battlefield archaeology is developed and that effective conservation of the evidence is instituted before it is too late” (Naseby: The decisive battle (1995).
In 1997, following the completion of the excavation of a mass grave from the Battle of Towton (AD1461), together with colleagues from the University of Bradford, the author instigated the Towton Battlefield Archaeological Research Project with the aim of systematically locating and recording physical evidence of a medieval battle. The results of this research have exceeded all expectations.
For the first time in Britain, an extensive survey was carried out over a medieval battlefield which succeeded in targeting over 1300 C15th artefacts. These included over 200 arrowheads which have been analysed by the Royal Armouries and have shed new light on medieval weapon technology. Furthermore, evidence of further mass graves have been identified on the battlefields using geophysical survey and trial trenching.
The initial phase of this multi-disciplinary archaeological survey is now near its completion and the results add extensive information not only about the battle but also about the application of archaeological techniques for the identification of battlefields in general.
But should the results of this survey be published without the lack on implemented legal protection of this archaeological resource?
The dangers of publishing such information were highlighted in 2003 with the publication of Newman and Robert’s monograph on the C17th battlefield at Marston Moor. Within a few months of the book’s launch, a metal detecting rally had been organised on a newly recognised area of the battlefield. In spite of months of warnings of this impending destruction of the evidence of the battle to the relevant authorities, including English Heritage and the Portable Antiquities Scheme, and despite attempts to protect this vulnerable site by the Battlefield Trust, over 300 metal detectorists were given free access to this nationally important archaeological site.
Despite the presence of two members of the Portable Antiquities Scheme to record any artefactual remains located during the event finds were only recorded by field, therefore loosing valuable information on distribution patterns. Furthermore, it became apparent after the rally that the officially recorded number of battle-related objects was potentially 300 times lower than that reported by visitors to the rally.
Subsequently, an attempt was made to raise the profile of the issue in the House of Lords by questioning whether it is possible to schedule battlefields in a similar manner to archaeological sites.
Following the recent glorification of televised treasure hunting as an alternative to good archaeological practice, is it responsible to publish the results of battlefield-related surveys so that others can then use them to finance “harmless” and very popular “charity events”?