introductio introduction to battlefield archaeology - scott 2002.pdf

8/10/2019 Introductio Introduction To Battlefield Archaeology - Scott 2002.pdf

1/3

Introduction To Battlefield ArchaeologyBy Douglas D.Scott

The term battlefield archaeology refers specifically to the investigation of sites associated with

military operations. The study of military and battlefield sites can provide an important means

of analysing the behavioural patterns and cultural expressions of status of a society. Because militarysites are easily defined archaeologically, and are usually relatively compact social, cultural and

physical units, they are ideal for intensive survey and excavation. The archaeological analysis of

military sites can also offer unique perspectives on the behavioural aspects of cultures in conflict.

Military sites, particularly forts and fortifications, have long been of interest to historicalarchaeologists. There is a plethora of published site reports detailing the results of investigations

at military sites. The investigations have often been conducted as ancillary studies to preservation,

restoration, reconstruction or interpretation efforts of local, state or national agencies. Recently,another type of military site, the battlefield, has become the subject of archaeological investigations.

While the archaeological investigation of battlefield sites was once considered useful only for

locating the opposing armies cannon positions or recovering war relics for museum displays,

recent battlefield archaeology at sites dating from the mid-1600s to the late nineteenth century hasdemonstrated a far wider usefulness of battlefield archaeology.

Battlefield research

Until recently, battlefield archaeology concentrated on uncovering or tracing fortifications,

particularly earthworks. Archaeological investigations by Lee Hanson in 1968 of the US Civil WarWater Battery at Fort Donnelson, Tennessee, USA, was oriented towards the identification of gun

emplacements, including determining what type of guns were placed at each embrasure. Another

US Civil War earthwork, at Caustons Bluff, Georgia, revealed, through archaeological work byLawrence Babits in 1986, otherwise unknown details of the construction of bomb-proof shelters.

The first intensive archaeological study of an open battlefield site took place from 1985 to1996 at the Little Bighorn Battlefield National Monument in south-eastern Montana, USA. The siteyielded thousands of cartridge cases, bullets, army equipment, clothing fragments, Sioux and

Cheyenne artefacts, and some skeletal remains of the soldiers who died on 25 June 1876. The

computer-assisted analysis of the distribution of artefacts on the battlefield yielded information about

how the combatant groups utilised the terrain. Firearms identification analysis (see below) ofthousands of recovered bullets added substantial knowledge about the role of firearms in the

battle. The archaeological investigations demonstrated in considerable detail how George Custers

Seventh Cavalry was outnumbered, outgunned and outfought by Native American adversaries.Since the completion of the Little Bighorn investigations, several other battlefield sites have

been studied using metal-detecting techniques (see metal detectors) and artefact-patterning

analysis. Sites studied include the English Civil War site of Naseby investigated by GlennFoard. Charles Hackers 1993 investigations of the 1846 Mexican-American War site of Palo

Alto, Texas, succeeded in finding the battlefield, which was believed lost, and he definitively

located both US and Mexican troop battle lines. His findings have modified the traditionally held

historical view of a Mexican rout, with the archaeological data clearly showing it was a pitchedbattle with extensive movement by the Mexican troops. The defeated Mexican army left behind a

wealth of uniform and equipment artefacts that archaeologically demonstrate a valiant fight by a poorly

armed and badly equipped army facing a much better equipped and armed US Army.Several US Civil War battlefields have also been investigated with the metal-detecting


2/3

technique. William Lees has completed the most intensive studies to date. One of his projects was

located at the Honey Springs, Oklahoma, battle (1863) that pitted Federal African American, Native

American and white troops against Confederate Native American and white troops. A second projectoccurred at Mine Creek, Kansas, the site of an 1864 battle during Confederate general Sterling

Prices raid into Missouri. The Mine Creek investigations show that historians have incorrectly

identified the battle site. Leess work defined much of the actual battle site and determined

positions and movement of both combatant groups, which was unrecorded or poorlydocumented in the historical record. Another US Civil War battle site, recently investigated by

Douglas D.Scott, is Monroes Crossroads, North Carolina. Because this 1865 cavalry battle is littlerecorded in the historical record, archaeological investigation was the primary means to recover the

sites history. The battle site, located within the boundaries of modern-day Fort Bragg, is used by the

US Army for small-unit leadership training exercises. Other US Civil War battlefields are under

investigation by Stephen Potter and Clarence Geier at Manassas, Virginia, and Anteitam, Maryland.Aside from the Little Bighorn, other US Indian War battlefields have also been

investigated. Douglas D.Scott studied the 1877 Nez Perce War battle site of Big Hole,

Montana. Archaeology there revealed information that supported Nez Perce oral history andinterpretation of the battle events, and demonstrated that the US Army battle accounts were

somewhat exaggerated. Several other US Army posts in Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico are

currently undergoing multiphased investigations by various researchers.

Battlefield theory

Because of the structured and ranked nature of military forces, battlefields have proved

to be excellent locales for finding archaeologically definable behavioural patterns. Those who

engage in combat usually fight in the established manners and patterns in which they have been

trained. It is precisely this training in battlefield or combat behaviour that results in the depositionof artefacts that can be recovered by archaeological means and interpreted with an anthropological

perspective.

Although interest in behavioural dynamics is not new in historical archaeology, battlefieldarchaeology is a relatively new area of study. The battlefield model developed by Richard Fox and

Douglas Scott (1991) asserts that individual, unit and battlefield movements can be reconstructed

using pattern-recognition techniques. The model also predicts certain types of depositional patternsdepending on the culture, training and organisation of the combatant groups.

Battlefield studies can yield information on combatant positions used during the course of the

battle as well as details of dress, equipage and, in some cases, individual movements. Archaeological

investigations can also retrieve information on troop deployments, firing positions, fields of fire and thetypes of weapons present. Studies of artefact patterning can also reveal unit or individual movement

during the battle, weapon trajectory and range of firing by determining forces of projectile

impact. Viewed in an anthropological context, battlefields are the physical and violent expression ofthe culture or cultures in conflict.

Battlefield recovery and analytical techniques

Archaeological remains of military equipment and firearms are among the most

important classes of battlefield evidence. The ability to translate patterning of these artefacts

into behavioural dynamics, however, particularly through the use of modern firearms identificationprocedures, constitutes an important advance over the traditional, non-systematic recovery of

battlefield relics.

The comparative study of ammunition components, known as firearms identification analysis,


3/3

was first developed by law-enforcement agencies as an aid in solving crimes. Firearms, in their

discharge, leave behind distinctive metallic fingerprints, or signatures, on the ammunition

components. These signatures, also called class characteristics, allow the determination of the typesof guns used in a given situation. Further, this analytical technique allows the identification of

individual weapons by comparing the unique qualities of individual firearm signatures. This

capability is important because, coupled with the precise artefact locations, identical individual

characteristics can be used to identify specific areas of firearms use and individual movement.Analysis of a series of individual movements can, in turn, define unit deployment, and a series

of unit deployments can be used to determine overall combatant tactics and the application of battledoctrine.

It is not enough to know where artefacts are found on a battlefield; archaeologists must also

determine where they are not found. A primary goal of most battlefield research is therefore to define

the limits of the battlefield. Faced with examining a large area, and assuming that most artefacts of warare either metallic or associated with metal, metal detectors have been successfully employed to

define the full extent of the battlefield. As was the case at the Little Bighorn Battlefield

National Monument, the use of metal detecting by experienced operators proved its value. Itenables archaeologists to uncover artefacts with minimal disturbance and to point-plot each artefact

location for precise mapping. Precise artefact location information is essential to revealing the

behavioural patterns that are crucial to understanding the combat events.Battlefield archaeology is a relatively new field of study, yet it has demonstrated its utility in

correcting errors in the historical record and in adding new information. Recovered battlefield artefacts,

as the physical evidence of the event, are also useful for interpretive purposes. More importantly, theartefactual data and the archaeological context provide new and independent sources of evidence

for analysis of conflict situations and the broader study of the anthropology of war.

Further reading

Fox, R.A., Jr and Scott, D.D. (1991)The post-Civil War battlefield pattern: An example from theCuster battlefield,Historical Archaeology25(2): 92103.

Scott, D.D. and Connor, M.A. (1986)Post-mortem at the Little Bighorn,Natural History95:4655.

Scott, D.D., Fox, R.A., Jr, Connor, M.A. and Harmon, D. (1989)Archaeological Perspectives on theBattle of the Little Bighorn, Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Snow, D.R. (1981)Battlefield archaeology,Early Man3:1821.

___________________________________________________________________________________

Fuente:Encyclopedia of Historical Archaeology, editada por Ch. Orser Jr. 2002.

introductio introduction to battlefield archaeology - scott 2002.pdf

Documents