Introduction
In order to assess the importance of battlefield archaeology, one must first understand the way in which archaeology, as a discipline is carried out. This might best be summarised by Hodder (1995, 83), who states that
“The usual way in which archaeologists discuss developments over long spans of time is to divide up their data into phases and to discuss the reasons for change between phases.”
Hodder then follows on by using the example of an invasion, a cross-cultural form of conflict (ibid) and states that conflicts tend to be a primary reason for change.
It can therefore be argued that there are few historical events which so thoroughly encapsulate the importance of change between such periods, as do invasions, wars, and particularly individual battles.
Battlefields can therefore be studied as sites of social and political transition, and the events that took place upon them are the essence of the contemporary determination for change or stability. It was on these sites that lives were laid down for a cause.
Throughout history, as today, major changes to the lives of millions of people have been instigated, or indeed prevented, by the onset of armed conflict. These changes, as Hodder implies, are often archaeologically apparent when recording the invasions of foreign forces. One can still see the dramatic physical effects of the Second World War struggle for the German city of Berlin, for example. Many buildings and statues, which were not completely destroyed, were scarred by shrapnel damage and bullet holes.
Plate 6: Blast damage and bullet holes (some repaired) on the 19th /early 20th century victory monument in Berlin
(© T.L.Sutherland 2004)
Plate 7: Blast damage and bullet holes (some repaired) on the 19th /early 20th century victory monument in Berlin (© T.L.Sutherland 2004)
Although evidence of this nature has often been repaired in western Berlin, this was not generally the case in the eastern part of the city until the fall of the Berlin Wall. The results of this battle with the invasion of the Soviet troops formed part of the political history of the division of Germany for the next fifty years and these scars can be seen as a stark reminder of that conflict and its consequences.
Whether the decision to leave the scars in place was deliberate, or an act of neglect is debatable. However, leaving this evidence in place acts as a stark reminder of the reasons why the Soviet Army initially captured the city.
The “cleansing” of physical evidence of the battle, as in western Berlin, can also be seen as a strong political statement. For example, some of the Russian graffiti on the Reichstag resulting from the 1945 conflict was left in place under Soviet rule. Although some of it is now being preserved, other graffiti, usually containing grossly distasteful phraseology, is being erased.
This evidence of destruction and desecration on a national monument resulting from a nation’s transgressions are pertinent reminders of an invasion and subsequent conflict, the results of which were presumably never imagined by those who instigated it. In this respect, the destruction layer within the city of Berlin and those of the Boudican revolt in Colchester (AD61) are pertinent in that they represent the backlash of a people who were themselves invaded.
Conflicts can therefore often be regarded as vehicles for the displacement or replacement of national governments, as with the example of East Germany, or of rulers and their dynasties – as evident in the securing of the English throne by William “The Conqueror” after the battle of Hastings.
These historical landmarks are taught at every educational level as important points in history. Winston Churchill suggested that battles are “the punctuation marks of history” (English Heritage 1995, 1). Andrew Brown, the initial English Heritage Battlefield Inspector, reiterated this quote and added that,
“If ‘battles are the punctuation marks of history’ then battlefields are the fragmentary pages on which those punctuation marks were written in blood” (ibid).
Although Hodder (1995) explains the way in which archaeology is carried out, it is now almost taken for granted that some form of archaeological analysis is practised on important sites and yet this is often still not the case on historic battlefields.
This is curious, considering the fact that conflicts have such dramatic and fundamental consequences on society; they are one of the key aspects of history. If archaeology is studied, then surely the archaeology of conflict must rank highly in the list of reasons why it should be undertaken at all. The question should therefore not be why the discipline is studied, but rather why has it not been analysed sooner?
Case Studies
Pre-Twentieth Century Archaeological Investigations
Pioneering work, where the distribution of artefacts and burials from a battle were used as evidence to interpret the distribution and nature of the fighting, was conducted by Edward Fitzgerald in the mid 19th century at Naseby (1645).
Foard (1995, 19), in his work on the same battle suggests that Naseby may have been the first battlefield where this took place. Unfortunately, the evidence collected by Fitzgerald was not used by the famous historian of the Civil War, Thomas Carlyle, to substantiate his narrative and so the potential of battlefield archaeology was not understood until relatively recently.
It was not until the 1970’s that Peter Newman carried out extensive field walking surveys as part of the investigation of the 1644 battlefield of Marston Moor, North Yorkshire (Foard 1995, 19).
Using archaeological field walking techniques, he recorded evidence of pistol and musket balls and other artefacts dropped or fired during the battle. However, he did not use metal detectors as part of his early research and it was not until he later worked in association with Paul Roberts that the greater extent of the battlefield was recognised and published in 2003 (Newman and Roberts 2003).
In the 1983 a bushfire on the Little Bighorn National Monument, USA, allowed an archaeological survey led by Richard Fox and Douglas Scott (Scott et al 1989) to record evidence of the large battle between the Native Americans and General Custer of the 7th cavalry at the Little Big Horn River, Montana, USA (1875).
This survey, one of the first to be published internationally, led to the recognition that evidence from historic battles can be recorded with the aim of gaining an independent interpretation, which can then be compared with the historical documents.
Plate 8: A Roman military ‘mask’ or helmet faceguard from the Varus Battlefield, Germany (© T.L.Sutherland 2004)
In 1987, metal detectorist Major Tony Clunn carried out a metal detector search leading to the discovery of 160 denarii (Roman coins) at Kalkriese, an area north of Osnabrück, Germany, which marked the location of numerous Roman militaria. Archaeological excavations following this discovery suggest that it was the site of the long lost defeat of three Roman legions under Publius Quinctilius Varus by German tribesmen led by Arminius in AD9 (Wilbers-Rost 2004). It therefore marks one of the earliest large-scale battlefield sites that have been archaeologically recorded from around the world.
In 1995, Foard published evidence that had been collected by metal detectorists who were searching the battlefield at Naseby, Northamptonshire, England (Foard 1995). This was probably the first example of the publication of archaeological evidence gained directly from an assemblage of artefacts, which was used to confirm the site of a major British battle.
Plate 9: The skull of Skeleton 9 from the 1996 Towton mass grave (© T.L.Sutherland 2004)
In 1996, following the excavation of a mass grave of combatants from the Battle of Towton (Plate 9) by a team of archaeologists and osteologists from the University of Bradford and West Yorkshire Archaeological Services, Tim Sutherland initiated the Towton Battlefield Archaeological Survey Project.
This was the first successful multidisciplinary archaeological survey in Britain aimed at recovering evidence for, and the remains of, a specific battle, and possibly the first such project in the world aimed at analysing a medieval conflict.