Date :
15 -16 April
Location:
University of Glasgow
Organisers :
- Dr. Tony Pollard, University of Glasgow
- Dr. Philip Freeman, University of Liverpool
In association with :
Glasgow University Archaeological Research Division, Department of Archaeology, University of Glasgow
Sponsers :
UNKNOWN
Website :
Proceedings :
Publisher :
Archaeopress
Date :
12/12/2001
Edition :
British Archaeological Reports International Series – 958
ISBN :
978-1841712499
Speakers & Abstracts :
| Philip FREEMAN | Introduction: issues concerning the archaeology of battlefields |
| John W. I. LEE | Urban combat at Olynthos, 348 BC |
| This paper combines literary and archaeological evidence in an attempt to reconstruct the mechanics of urban combat during the Macedonian capture of Olynthos (348 BC). Diodoros Siculus (16.53.2-3), our major source for the event, relates only that Olynthos was captured by treachery. Yet analysis of the hundreds of lead sling bullets and iron arrowheads scattered throughout the site suggests that substantial intramural fighting was required before the Macedonians could secure the city. These small missile objects turn up throughout the site, especially within house courtyards and internal rooms, in a manner which implies not accidental dropping, but deliberate use. Just as small domestic finds (e.g. loom-weights) have been used to reconstruct the uses of various rooms in a Greek house, these missiles help show where fighting took place in the city. Furthermore, because some of these missiles are inscribed with the names of Macedonian or Olynthian commanders, and because a marked discrepancy in weight exists between Macedonian and Olynthian sling bullets, it may be possible roughly to determine the positions of attacking and defending forces during this fighting. This archaeological evidence, when combined with the often-examined literary evidence, helps provide a clearer picture of what happened at Olynthos one hot summer twenty-four hundred years ago. | |
| Jon COULSTON | The archaeology of Roman conflict |
| No abstract. | |
| Patrick J.F. PARSONS | Flodden Field: the sources and archaeology of “a marvelouse greate conflicte” |
|
The Battle of Flodden in September 1513 is without question the greatest and bloodiest encounter in the centuries of Anglo-Scottish border warfare. Representatives from every important noble and gentry family in Scotland and northern England were present alongside their retainers. Within a few hours of desperate hand-to-hand combat thousands of Scots were dead or dying. Included among them was the charismatic warrior king, James IV, and virtually an entire generation of the Scottish political and religious élite. The number of surviving letters and despatches, printed news pamphlets, ballads and narrative accounts concerning the fight is further testimony to its considerable importance. Historians have struggled to explain why the Scots were defeated ‘despite their many great advantages’. Archaeologists, however, have shown very little interest in the site of Scotland’s ‘national catastrophe’, despite the records of early discoveries. This paper highlights the rich body of historical documents available for the study of the battle and their value in reconstructing the action. Using documentary evidence the position of the major ‘units’ can be identified, while a number of finds made last century suggest the most likely locations and concentrations of material remains. Together with the relatively untouched nature of the landscape, Flodden Field offers some very exciting potential for a multi-disciplinary investigation of one of Britain’s major late medieval military sites. |
|
| Effie PHOTOS-JONES | Made in Scotland ? “Sword making in Scotland in the C15th and C 16th in the context of recent archaeological evidence” |
| Relatively little work has been done on the technical examination of early Scottish weapons. Even less work has been undertaken in setting them into the context of the bloomeries and smithies that produced them. Despite a long tradition in iron making in Scotland, it has been assumed that already from the 1400s most sword blades were produced in ‘Europe’ and imported en masse into Scotland, only their hilts made and fitted locally. A rare opportunity arose to test this long standing assumption when permission was granted to examine chemically and metallographically two hand-and-a-half (bastard) swords dating to the C15th and C16th respectively and a C16th dagger from the collection of the Glasgow and Ayr Museums with the aim of establishing whether some of them might have been produced locally from local ores. The large analytical data that is now available from the excavation and technical characterisation of bloomery mounds in the Scottish Highlands and metalworking installations in the Lowlands makes this provenance study possible, albeit with suggestive, but not necessarily, always conclusive results. This report suggests that the two hand-and-a-half blades could well have been produced locally thus raising the need to qualify the question of mass imports. The dagger despite its Scottish typology might be an import. Irrespective of origin all three objects are hardly ceremonial and would have served their owners well in the battlefield, being well made functional steel blades, perhaps reflecting local workshop/clan smithing traditions. | |
| Colin MARTIN | Before the battle: undeployed battlefield weaponry from the Spanish Armada, 1588 |
|
Excavations on post-medieval shipwrecks have yielded extensive evidence of contemporary weaponry. Much is specific to naval warfare, but a substantial number of items have been recovered which are applicable to combat ashore or afloat, or come from consignments of military equipment lost in transit. Material from dated shipwrecks is usually of guaranteed chronological precision, and normally carries unequivocal attributes of association and context. The 1588 Spanish Armada was essentially an invasion fleet afloat, and a major collection of late C16th weaponry has been recovered from the wreck of La Trinidad Valencera off Donegal. This includes part of the Armada’s siege-train, close-combat incendiary devices, and weapons, equipment, and clothing belonging to the troops on board. Prepared materials for siegeworks and field defences were also found. These items are given added significance by the rich resource of associated documents which survive in Spain. |
|
| Glenn FOARD | The archaeology of attack: battles and sieges of the English Civil War |
| Archaeology can make a major contribution to the understanding of battles and sieges, especially through the systematic study of unstratified artefact scatters, but this has not been generally recognised in England. Through two English Civil War case studies, the Battle of Naseby (1645) and the minor siege of Grafton Regis, the potential is explored for the integrated study of artefact distributions and historical topography with the historical documentation for the actual events. Minor engagements are likely to be of as great a significance for the development of the methodology of battlefield archaeology as the major battles where complex patterns of overlapping action may need to be untangled. This is however a very vulnerable archaeological resource which is being destroyed at an exceptional rate, particularly by unrecorded or poorly recorded metal detecting surveys. Given the effective management of much of the rest of the England’s archaeology it is remarkable that there are no measures in place to conserve this resource, even on our major battlefields. A research agenda and effective methodology must be defined for the archaeological investigation of all battlefields in England and, if effective conservation cannot be achieved very rapidly, then there must be an urgent programme of rescue recording before it is too late. | |
| Paul COURTNEY | The archaeology of the early-modern siege |
| This paper will present an overview of the archaeology of the siege in the early-modern period (c.1500-1775) using examples from NW Europe and Colonial America. The potential of studying closely-dated archaeological features and deposits associated with sieges offers archaeologists unique opportunities to examine human behaviour. In particular there are excellent opportunities to compare and contrast historical and archaeological sources. Aspects examined will include siege tactics, fortifications, weaponry, burials and the every-day life of garrisons. The physical impact of sieges on towns and the problems facing urban archaeologists in tackling extensive and poorly preserved siege lines will also be discussed. | |
| Lawrence E. BABITS | “Book Archaeology” of the Cowpens battlefield |
| After the successful Little Big Horn battlefield archaeology, analysis of the Battle of Cowpens (17 January 1781) was attempted. While precise duplication of the early work was not possible, archaeological analysis of the documents alone led to a better understanding of the spatial and chronological episodes composing the engagement. The patterning predicted for the battle’s material culture was detected in a variety of documentary sources including reports, memoirs, pension applications and secondary sources. When compiled by unit, commander, battlefield location and wounds, it was possible to predict locations on the landscape. The terrain features identified by participants are still extant but contrast dramatically with traditional accounts of the battle. After the existing landscape was factored into the documentary materials, it was possible to reinterpret the battle and then propose archaeological work. | |
| James E. IVEY | The defenses of The Alamo as found by archaeology |
| Since 1966 archaeological work at The Alamo has found traces of the defenses of the fort. This paper examines the results of the archaeology carried out over the last 34 years, and compiles the information into a plan and evaluation of the defenses of The Alamo. One result of this analysis is the determination that, of all the varied plans drawn depicting the Battle of the Alamo, only one portrays the fortifications located by archaeology | |
| Charles M. HAECKER | The official explanation versus the archaeological record of a US-Mexican War battle |
| Palo Alto, the first battle of the US-Mexican War ( 1846-1848), was a testing ground for a new generation of US officers. It was here that West Pointers Ulysses S. Grant, George G. Meade, James Longstreet, and other future Civil War generals first witnessed the equalizing value of well-employed field artillery against a numerically superior force. Palo Alto was essentially an artillery duel that pitted the newly developed US ‘flying’ artillery against Mexican batteries of antiquated cannon. The Americans rapidly deployed at will two horse-drawn field batteries, while advancing slow-moving but powerful siege guns. In contrast, Mexican batteries lacked the manoeuvrability and range needed to check their aggressive adversary. Although the Mexican army attempted flanking attacks on the US line, they were always repulsed with heavy losses. Unable to manoeuvre, confused and bloodied after standing all day under accurate artillery fire, the Mexicans withdrew. Analysis of Mexican and US documents and maps, conjoined with the archaeological survey of the battlefield, identified a significant discrepancy between US and Mexican versions of battle events. The archaeological data conclusively indicated the US version – ironically, not the one normally encountered in historical accounts regarding this war – more closely approximates what actually occurred at Palo Alto. | |
| William B. LEE | Reconnecting with the hallowed ground of the American Civil War |
| Missing | |
| Martha TEMKIN | Guns or ploughshares: significance and a Civil War agricultural landscape |
| The concept of ‘significance’ in archaeology has far-reaching effects on the management of archaeological resources. Archaeologists have struggled with the definition of this concept within the profession and as defined by others, ie. the National Register in the US. The significance concept is especially important when dealing with an historic battlefield site. These sites tend to be complex in terms of the kinds of archaeological resources they contain. In order to examine this issue, I first look at how archaeologists have dealt with significance, via a review of the literature of the topic. Then using a case study approach, I explore how different interpretations of ‘significance’ will impact on the management of the archaeological resources of the Best Farm, a property contained within Monocacy National Battlefield (1864, Maryland). | |
| Christopher D. ADAMS and Diane E. WHITE | Archaeological views of the Mescalero Apache Indian War period of the American south-west |
| During the last four years, archaeological investigations have been conducted at two Mescalero Apache Indian War battle sites in south-eastern New Mexico (USA). The Lincoln National Forest Heritage program has been conducting research on the Apache Indian War Period. Both projects have contributed new insight on Mescalero Apache battlefield tactics, strategic Apache site placement and US Military campaign tactics. By combining both the historic record and the archaeological record, new discoveries have shed information on the Mescalero Apache Indian War Period. The paper will focus on the archaeological investigations of the Dark Canyon (1860-1865) and the Last Chance Canyon (1869) battle sites. | |
| Douglas G. SCOTT | Battlefield archaeology: patterns of combat in the American Indian War |
| The last 15 years have seen archaeological investigations occur at over ten battlefields of the American Indian Wars of the C19th. Each project has had interesting results that have elucidated and enhanced the history of each battle under study. Each investigation has been a particularistic endeavour, as necessitated by the single site approach. However, in cross-comparing several research efforts it is apparent that patterns of combat employed by the opposing forces are emerging. Culture continuity is evident in the US Army’s combat tactics, while Native American tactics are, predictably, less formal and more opportunistic, but are never-the-less visible in the archaeological record. The paper will use examples from several American Indian War sites: Apache Pass (Arizona, 1862), Sand Creek (Colorado, 1864), Little Big Horn (Montana, 1876) and Big Hole (Montana) to elucidate the points. | |
| Gerald R. GATES | Relocating the ‘Battle of Scorpion Point’. A Passport in Time Project – 1998 |
| During the Modoc War of 1872-1873, fought in the lava beds of north-eastern California, one of the engagements was waged on 7 May 1873, in the vicinity of Scorpion Point, south of Tule Lake. Here a band of Modoc warriors attacked a group of three supply wagons and 40 escorting troops. A brief battle ensued before the Modocs once again disappeared into the lava beds, leaving at least three troopers wounded. In the 1920s the Forest Service marked the location with an enamelled sign, assisted by a participant of the battle. The sign and post have long-since vanished and the location was lost. Using Passport in Time (PIT) volunteers with metal detectors the Forest was able to re-locate and confirm the battle site. This presentation highlights that project, the methods used, and the materials recovered. It will also present a possible alternate ‘history’ of the event.Battlefield Archaeology: patterns of combat in the American Indian Wars. | |
| Viveka LONDAHL, Neil PRICE & Graham ROBINS | Bomarsund: archaeology and heritage management at the site of a Crimean War siege |
|
The Crimean War of 1853-1856, fought between the Russian Empire and the allied forces of Britain, France and Turkey, is best known through its Black Sea theatre and engagements such as Balaklava (which included the famous ‘Charge of the Light Brigade’). Less familiar is the northern front of the war, and the struggle for control of the Baltic shipping lanes. Russian presence in this area centred on the Åland Islands, situated between Sweden and Finland, and especially on the massive fortress of Bomarsund with its artillery and garrison of 2500 men. On 13 August 1854 this was subjected to a naval bombardment by 40 British warships, following which some 12,000 French assault troops were landed. After three days of fighting the garrison surrendered, marking the end of Russian strategic superiority in the Baltic. Following the battle, the victors used explosives largely to demolish the remains of the fort, leaving only ruins. As part of on-going heritage management, public access and conservation programmes implemented at Bomarsund by the Åland Board of Antiquities, archaeological excavations are being conducted to investigate aspects of the 1854 siege. This paper presents preliminary results of the work and discusses the presentation of the site to visitors. |
|
| Tony POLLARD | “Place Ekowe in a state of defence” : the archaeological investigation of the British fort at KwaMondi, Eshowe, Zululand |
| Missing | |
| Peter DOYLE | Geology as an interpreter of Great War battle sites |
| Geology is arguably one of the most important terrain factors with a direct influence in the outcome of the battles of the Great War. As a largely static, fortress-siege warfare, fought by opposing sides in direct contact with the earth, geology was of overriding importance: in the construction of defensive positions, both above and below ground; in offensive mining operations and; in the control of ground conditions during protracted offensives. While historians and archaeologists have long accepted the importance of terrain in the key battles of the Great War, few have sought to define the relative importance of the one factor which ultimately controls the formation of that terrain, namely, geology. In battlefields as diverse as Gallipoli, Salonika and the Western Front it is possible, using a combination of accurate contemporary mapping and reassessment of the battle sites, to determine the relative rôle that geology had in the development of specific battles. In all these examples, the rôle of geology has been so far underplayed. This paper examines these battlefield sites and demonstrates that in the siege warfare of the Great War, geology was an important factor and that in any re-interpretation of these sites, its role should be taken into account. | |
| Vincent HOLYOAK | Airfields as battlefields, aircraft as an archaeological resource: British military aviation in the first half of the C20th |
|
With the fall of France in the summer of 1940 Britain’s Fighter Command airfields became the front line. As the war progressed emphasis began to turn towards offensive operations, so that by 1944/45 the UK’s 700 military airfields provided a base for the world’s largest combined tactical and strategic air forces. Wartime airfield construction had a major impact upon the landscape and represented Britain’s second largest scheme of civil engineering, eclipsed only by the building of the motorway network in the post-war era. Despite their significance, as a class of military remains airfields have remained comparatively neglected in conservational terms, in part due to their physical size. Yet they have real value: their design, installations and architecture provide a unique and readily visible record of advances in aeronautical engineering, changing military strategies and in times of war, the progress of air campaigns. Using as a basis case studies, the paper discusses the nature of the resources, demonstrates now the history of an airfield can be understood using the physical remains and outlines English Heritage’s response to the problem of conservation. Thousands of military aircraft were lost in and around the UK in WWII as a result of combat or accidents. All of them, British, American or German are automatically covered by the Protection of Military Remains Act (1986) making it illegal to disturb their crash sites without first obtaining a licence from the Ministry of Defence. However, licensing makes no restrictions on the grounds of rarity or historical importance and is primarily intended to prevent the disturbance of human remains or live ordnance. As a result amateur excavation has severely depleted what is archaeologically and historically a valuable resource. Despite this, military aircraft crash sites remain poorly understood by Britain’s professional archaeologists and largely absent from archaeological databases. The second half of the paper therefore discusses the background to aircraft crash sites, their character, potential and the significance of the remains. It concludes by discussing how English Heritage hopes to foster a more informed approach to their future management. |
|
| Michael J. ANDERTON | The Battle for Britain: WWII and the larger than life battlefield |
|
The term battlefield implies a limited, fixed spatial and temporal area within which a military engagement occurred in earnest. However, in the case of WWII this definition is transcended in terms of time and space to describe the effects of a ‘globalised’ war upon the whole of the United Kingdom. From the war in the air to the military installations on the ground a system of static and mobile defences were established that fortified the UK land mass for the battle to come. I am currently employed on a project (funded by English Heritage’s Monuments Protection Programme) that has, in its prime role, used contemporary and modern aerial photographs to ascertain the survival and destruction rates of certain categories of military sites used during this ‘battle’. However, it has also resulted in questions being asked of why documentary, oral, photographic and contemporary physical evidence do not always match each other in their details; and how we may be able to provide a ‘social life’ for these presently empty, hollow, battlefield sites. In this paper I will explore the need to ensure that all of the sources described above are used in order to establish how we can look into the human-face of a ‘battlefield’ that existed on this vast scale. Many of the military operations and social elements of military remains are no longer visible through either the earthworks, shells of buildings or official histories of the period. Documentary sources such as Unit War Diaries and the like do not always give accurate accounts of the apparatus and events at, or near, a site during that period. Oral histories from people manning these sites often differ from (i) the perceptions and evidence given in official documents of the way these sites functioned; and (ii) from the currently available physical evidence. Finally, other oral accounts of the ‘Battle for Britain’ indicate strong elements of subversion upon this battlefield, in both official and unofficial forms, that are rarely, if ever, visible in the physical record. |
|
| Natalie BULL and David PANTON | Conservation of historic battlefield terrain: drafting the Vimy Charter |
|
At the Canadian National Vimy Memorial and the Beaumont-Hamel Newfoundland Memorial, two Canadian WWI memorials in France, the battlefield terrain (craters, shell holes and trenches) was an important component of the original commemoration of the sites in the 1920s by the governments of Canada and Newfoundland. Preserving the physical evidence of the battle on the land was a relatively new idea and it reflected a sense of the inadequacy of traditional war monuments in the face of the huge loss of human life in the Great War. The original decision to retain battlefield terrain was motivated by a desire to have an impact on those who would visit the site. This implies that the sites were not intended to be pretty or necessarily attractive but should have an ‘edge’, a slightly disturbing undertone. With the passage of time the battlefields have softened both physically and visually to the point that at times they appear ‘bucolic’, and less legible due to natural forces such as erosion and deposition, as well as visitor impact, sheep traffic, and inappropriate maintenance practices. Although the rate of deterioration is unknown, significant profile has been lost since 1918 and it appears that within 25 to 40 years the site will have been impacted even more by this process of natural levelling. This loss of legibility is coupled with the fact that now, some 80 years after the war, the visitor has a more tenuous connection with the meaning of the site than earlier visitors had. As our society moves away from the event commemorated and the ability to respond emotionally to the sites, we need to be even more aware of the importance of that ‘edge’ and the effect of its weakening or loss. |
|
| John and Patricia CARMAN | Beyond military archaeology’: battlefields as a research resource |
|
The Bloody Meadows Project seeks to understand historic battlefields as particular kinds of places, both in the past and in the present. It treats them as particular kinds of landscapes where people came together in the past to do certain kinds of things, and which carry meaningful associations from that past into the present. In doing so, the project draws upon ideas from archaeology concerning the understanding of locales as culturally-constituted places. The Project takes advantage of recent advances in battlefield archaeology and the worldwide recognition of battlefields as sites of cultural importance. It does so by treating battle itself as a particular cultural form varying in style, intensity and significance from time to time and culture to culture, and treating the places of battle as the chosen arenas where those cultural forms were given material expression. By investigating these particular kinds of places, it seeks to gain an insight into how the peoples of past cultures understood their relationships to landscapes, life, death, violence and identity, among other things. Ultimately the aim is to explore the cultural value of battlefield sites by emphasising their rôle as the source of new research agendas for the future. |
|
| Lyn DORE | Once the war is over |
| The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of Australia’s involvement in wartime activities and the potential for linking these historical events with tourism. The paper is concerned with the transformation of battlefield landscapes over time and their nexus with tourism. This paper represents preliminary research into the realm of pilgrimage; battlefield tours and the transformation of war related landscapes over time to meet the ever-changing needs of society. | |
| Ann MacSWEEN | Preserving Scotland’s battlefields: powers, practices and possibilities. |
|
Historic Scotland is currently reviewing the most appropriate way to protect Scotland’s battlefield sites. The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act (1979) allows only for the protection of the physical remains of such sites. Recent planning guidance (NPPG18), however, encourages consideration of the importance of the historic environment to be taken into account in the preparation of local development plans and in the development control process. In order for this to be effective, the compilation of a non-statutory register of Scotland’s battlefield sites is being considered, similar in certain respects to that which exists for England. The register would provide a baseline of information which could be used in the planning process and in interpreting and presenting these historic sites. This paper will outline some of the issues involved in compiling a battlefields register. Many clan battles, especially in Highland areas, for example, had far-reaching implications, but could not be classed as much more than skirmishes, while the location or precise boundaries of many battlefield sites are imprecisely known or disputed. Given such limitations, case studies will be used in a consideration of the content of the proposed register, and the ways in which this information could be presented. |
|
| Tim SUTHERLAND | The Rings of the Lords : Non-military artefacts as battlefield indicators |
|
Post-medieval battles can generally be distinguished from those of the medieval period by the widespread adoption of firearms. This is also reflected in the archaeological evidence recovered fromthe sites of such conflict: later battlefields often produce abundant ballistic assemblages whereas the identification of earlier battlefields is difficult due to a lack of such evidence. However, a need for the positive identification of all battlefields has become increasingly important due to the threat of development on these sites. Current research into the location of medieval battlefields therefore began with the search for the equivalent of medieval ammunition, in the form of scatters of ferrous arrows-heads, using geophysical survey techniques. It soon became apparent that although these artefacts are occasionally found on medieval battlefields, they are more often outnumbered by large quantities of modern ferrous objects,which mask the presence of earlier artefacts. However, it has been found that the close quartered nature of medieval combat means that greater quantities of non-ferrous artefacts, which are not normally associated with a battle, mark these sites. For example, the identification of dense clusters of medieval objects such as finger rings, buttons, and badges from the battlefield at Towton 1461 (North Yorkshire), suggests that these were dislodged from the clothing or bodies of the combatants during the fighting. It was therefore confirmed that a survey aimed at the location of non-military, non-ferrous artefacts, – rather than military ferrous objects- would be more appropriate for the location of a medieval battlefield. However, in order to maximise the information to be gained from the analysis of a battlefield, an integrated historical and archaeological approach has been applied. |
|
Visits :
UNKNOWN
Delegates :
Count = Unknown
Names
Abstracts :
Schedule :
Parallel Sessions :
NONE
Posters :
NONE
Photos :
NONE
48 thoughts on “2000 Glasgow, Scotland”