What is Battlefield Archaeology ?

Plate 2 : A modern British military button recovered from the medieval battlefield at Azincourt, France as part of the archaeological survey (© T.L.Sutherland 2004)

Battlefield Archaeology is an all-encompassing term that is popularly given to the discipline of the archaeology of ancient or historical conflict. The term “battlefield archaeology” is slightly misleading, as the subject generally focuses on the archaeology of the event, such as the battle, rather than the field on which it took place. The term “the archaeology of battle” is therefore often used as a more precise description of the discipline. However, the archaeology of battle should, in reality, be incorporated into one of the aims of a “battlefield project” as it is virtually impossible not to encounter the archaeological remains of other periods or events whilst the project is being carried out.

Furthermore, it is often not known if a piece of recovered evidence is related to the conflict in question until additional evidence has been gathered and patterns begin to form within the data. What might initially be considered to be an irrelevant piece of information might later turn out to be unique data related to the conflict under investigation. For instance, it is believed that the first projectile shot from a handgun in a conflict was fired during the medieval period. However, it is not clear what form this projectile took – it might have been a stone ball, an arrow, or fragments of metal – and as a result, this undoubtedly important object might not be recognised upon discovery.

The principles applied to battlefield archaeology might also be used to investigate historical periods of civil unrest. For example, during the “Peterloo Massacre” in early nineteenth century Manchester, many civilians were killed. Although this was partly a civil conflict, which took place in an urban environment, rather than a military battle, archaeological evidence in the form of the skeletal trauma would be expected if the skeletal remains of the combatants were discovered. Such evidence could be used to confirm or dispute the historical records of the event. The term, the “archaeology of conflict”, rather than “battlefield archaeology”, is therefore a more appropriate general expression.

In a modern context the archaeology of conflict manifests itself all too graphically in the mass graves of those victims of oppression discovered in Iraq following the second gulf war in 2002. In this respect, there is, sadly, all too much continuity between these remains and those found in mass graves from prehistory. For example, a number of individuals who had been attacked and killed using stone axes in c.5000BC were recovered from a Neolithic mass grave in Talheim, Germany (Wahl and Konig, 1987). Although the weapons might have changed, the final results of each conflict are uncomfortably similar.

The archaeological recording of remains of historical or ancient conflict is therefore not unlike that of archaeological practice in a modern forensic context; the only difference being the preservation of the evidence and the time frame in which the events took place. An important difference, however, is that if more than 75 years have elapsed since the conflict took place, it is unlikely that anyone will be brought to justice to account for the events that are under investigation (Pollard 1996).