In this article, we investigate modes of collaboration in this emerging community of practice using 'open-archaeo ', a curated list of archaeological software, and data on the activity of associated GitHub repositories and users. We conduct an exploratory quantitative analysis to characterise the nature and intensity of these collaborations and map the collaborative networks that emerge from them. We document uneven adoption of open source collaborative practices beyond the basic use of git as a version control system and GitHub to host source code. Most projects do make use of collaborative features and, through shared contributions, we can trace a collaborative network that includes the majority of archaeologists active on GitHub. However, a majority of repositories have 1-3 contributors, with only a few projects distinguished by an active and diverse developer base. Direct collaboration on code or other repository content - as opposed to the more passive, social media-style interaction that GitHub supports – remains very limited. In other words, there is little evidence that archaeologists ' adoption of open-source tools (git and GitHub) has been accompanied by the decentralised, participatory forms of collaboration that characterise other open-source communities. On the contrary, our results indicate that research software engineering in archaeology remains largely embedded in conventional professional norms and organisational structures of academia.
{"title":"Open Archaeology, Open Source? Collaborative practices in an emerging community of archaeological software engineers","authors":"Zachary Batist, Joe Roe","doi":"10.11141/ia.67.13","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.11141/ia.67.13","url":null,"abstract":"In this article, we investigate modes of collaboration in this emerging community of practice using 'open-archaeo ', a curated list of archaeological software, and data on the activity of associated GitHub repositories and users. We conduct an exploratory quantitative analysis to characterise the nature and intensity of these collaborations and map the collaborative networks that emerge from them. We document uneven adoption of open source collaborative practices beyond the basic use of git as a version control system and GitHub to host source code. Most projects do make use of collaborative features and, through shared contributions, we can trace a collaborative network that includes the majority of archaeologists active on GitHub. However, a majority of repositories have 1-3 contributors, with only a few projects distinguished by an active and diverse developer base. Direct collaboration on code or other repository content - as opposed to the more passive, social media-style interaction that GitHub supports – remains very limited. In other words, there is little evidence that archaeologists ' adoption of open-source tools (git and GitHub) has been accompanied by the decentralised, participatory forms of collaboration that characterise other open-source communities. On the contrary, our results indicate that research software engineering in archaeology remains largely embedded in conventional professional norms and organisational structures of academia.","PeriodicalId":38724,"journal":{"name":"Internet Archaeology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141700758","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
As the world increasingly embraces digital platforms, archaeologists are adapting their methods of public engagement accordingly. This was particularly evident during the COVID-19 pandemic, when many outreach and engagement efforts moved online. One such project was The Ashwell Project (TAP), which combined aspects of participatory Geographical Information Systems (GIS) and crowdsourcing of datasets, with Progressive Web App functionality of geolocation and navigation to disseminate community-collected photographs and narratives. The project's primary focus was two-fold: to disseminate anecdotal datasets within local heritage initiatives, and how to facilitate the involvement of users with limited technical proficiency innavigating complex digital systems. This paper highlights the opportunities and valuable lessons regarding digital engagement in communities. It considers strategies to promote the adoption of participatory GIS and crowdsourcing datasets, as well as how users' own devices can be utilised to increase engagement with tangible and intangible heritage. I argue that such approaches merit broader consideration, encouraging communities to actively engage with such platforms. The project underscores the importance of design thinking, emphasising empathy and iterative testing, in crafting effective heritage assets. Furthermore, it demonstrates the feasibility of engaging the public with archaeology even amidst a global pandemic.
{"title":"The Ashwell Project: creating an online geospatial community","authors":"Alphaeus Lien-Talks","doi":"10.11141/ia.67.12","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.11141/ia.67.12","url":null,"abstract":"As the world increasingly embraces digital platforms, archaeologists are adapting their methods of public engagement accordingly. This was particularly evident during the COVID-19 pandemic, when many outreach and engagement efforts moved online. One such project was The Ashwell Project (TAP), which combined aspects of participatory Geographical Information Systems (GIS) and crowdsourcing of datasets, with Progressive Web App functionality of geolocation and navigation to disseminate community-collected photographs and narratives. The project's primary focus was two-fold: to disseminate anecdotal datasets within local heritage initiatives, and how to facilitate the involvement of users with limited technical proficiency innavigating complex digital systems. This paper highlights the opportunities and valuable lessons regarding digital engagement in communities. It considers strategies to promote the adoption of participatory GIS and crowdsourcing datasets, as well as how users' own devices can be utilised to increase engagement with tangible and intangible heritage. I argue that such approaches merit broader consideration, encouraging communities to actively engage with such platforms. The project underscores the importance of design thinking, emphasising empathy and iterative testing, in crafting effective heritage assets. Furthermore, it demonstrates the feasibility of engaging the public with archaeology even amidst a global pandemic.","PeriodicalId":38724,"journal":{"name":"Internet Archaeology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141042352","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Between July 2021 and November 2022, the federal archaeological office of Bremen (Landesarchäologie) excavated the site of a former cemetery for Soviet Prisoners of War and forced labourers. The remains had officially been reinterred at an honorary cemetery in Bremen in 1948. Only a small part of this article is about what the excavation revealed and rather its purpose is to reflect on the situation that has arisen between the federal archaeological office, the politics of Bremen versus two citizen's initiatives at the time of the official closure of the excavation. We set out how local conflicts can emerge from such a highly political topic in an archaeological excavation. We also explore how to manage the public interest while, at the same time, attempting to protect the personal dignity of the buried individuals. We engaged with the historical responsibility the city takes for its industrial sites and its past of profiting from forced labour and with the (often unfamiliar) societal function of the work of archaeologists. The research project aims to identify the people buried and to find out about the status of health provision, food supply and overall daily living in the Soviet POW-camps in Bremen by linking the results of archaeology, bioanthropology and historical sources in a database.
{"title":"Archaeology and the public perception of a Soviet prisoner of war cemetery","authors":"Uta Halle, Cathrin Hähn","doi":"10.11141/ia.66.18","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.11141/ia.66.18","url":null,"abstract":"Between July 2021 and November 2022, the federal archaeological office of Bremen (Landesarchäologie) excavated the site of a former cemetery for Soviet Prisoners of War and forced labourers. The remains had officially been reinterred at an honorary cemetery in Bremen in 1948. Only a small part of this article is about what the excavation revealed and rather its purpose is to reflect on the situation that has arisen between the federal archaeological office, the politics of Bremen versus two citizen's initiatives at the time of the official closure of the excavation. We set out how local conflicts can emerge from such a highly political topic in an archaeological excavation. We also explore how to manage the public interest while, at the same time, attempting to protect the personal dignity of the buried individuals. We engaged with the historical responsibility the city takes for its industrial sites and its past of profiting from forced labour and with the (often unfamiliar) societal function of the work of archaeologists. The research project aims to identify the people buried and to find out about the status of health provision, food supply and overall daily living in the Soviet POW-camps in Bremen by linking the results of archaeology, bioanthropology and historical sources in a database.","PeriodicalId":38724,"journal":{"name":"Internet Archaeology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140269486","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
At the beginning of the 19th century, nobody in the landscape of the heaths and ponds of Lusatia, a small region in the German-Polish border area, would have suspected the lasting effects of the lignite mining boom on the economy, landscape, and the local communities there. The initially small underground mines soon developed into large open-pit mines. 'Industrial cathedrals' were established, new cities were raised out of the heathland, long-distance transport networks were expanded, and industrial centres emerged that gained importance throughout Europe. The local population and culture changed through migration, adaptation and assimilation, the landscape through the huge earth movements caused by lignite mining. This enormous transformation of an entire region has an impact on identity even today, and still influences political processes. It is now the task of archaeology and heritage management organisations to document this recent past as well and to preserve its cultural value.
{"title":"The Archaeological Legacy of the Lignite Boom in Upper Lusatia","authors":"Anja Prust","doi":"10.11141/ia.66.22","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.11141/ia.66.22","url":null,"abstract":"At the beginning of the 19th century, nobody in the landscape of the heaths and ponds of Lusatia, a small region in the German-Polish border area, would have suspected the lasting effects of the lignite mining boom on the economy, landscape, and the local communities there. The initially small underground mines soon developed into large open-pit mines. 'Industrial cathedrals' were established, new cities were raised out of the heathland, long-distance transport networks were expanded, and industrial centres emerged that gained importance throughout Europe. The local population and culture changed through migration, adaptation and assimilation, the landscape through the huge earth movements caused by lignite mining. This enormous transformation of an entire region has an impact on identity even today, and still influences political processes. It is now the task of archaeology and heritage management organisations to document this recent past as well and to preserve its cultural value.","PeriodicalId":38724,"journal":{"name":"Internet Archaeology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140280246","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
When the Swedish Historic Environment Act was amended in 2014, it became possible to safeguard specific sites of archaeological interest from the 19th and 20th centuries. However, since 2014, few younger sites have received protection. The most likely reason for this is related to a scarcity of resources at the county administrative boards.
{"title":"The Protection of Archaeological Monuments from the 19th and 20th Centuries in Sweden","authors":"Alesander Gill","doi":"10.11141/ia.66.5","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.11141/ia.66.5","url":null,"abstract":"When the Swedish Historic Environment Act was amended in 2014, it became possible to safeguard specific sites of archaeological interest from the 19th and 20th centuries. However, since 2014, few younger sites have received protection. The most likely reason for this is related to a scarcity of resources at the county administrative boards.","PeriodicalId":38724,"journal":{"name":"Internet Archaeology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140280345","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Tina Roushannafas, Polydora Baker, Gill Campbell, Emma Jenkins, Jen Parker Wooding, R. Pelling, M. Vander Linden, Fay Worley, Anwen Cooper
In a 2019 Internet Archaeology article, Elizabeth Pearson posed the question 'are we back in the Dark Ages?'. This question was made in reference to a developer-funded archaeology sector that was generating vast quantities of evidence and, particularly, in recent years, specialist environmental data, but was failing to mobilise this in a theoretical framework that generated meaningful advancement in terms of research. The introduction to the 2021 Internet Archaeology special issue on Digital Archiving in Archaeology (Richards et al. 2021) went on to address 'a digital resource that is now in jeopardy' – not only because of the risk of technical obsolescence, but also because of crucial limitations to its interoperability and discoverability. This article builds on these arguments and complements vital work underway on high-level, internationally focused data infrastructure initiatives (e.g. Wright and Richards 2018). We emphasise here the importance of parallel discussions at a community level, particularly with the people who routinely produce archaeological data, as key to enhancing data synthesis and research potential. Specifically, we report on two surveys conducted by the 'Rewilding' Later Prehistory project at Oxford Archaeology, in collaboration with Historic England and Bournemouth University, which originated in the 'Rewilding' project's concern with improving access to palaeoenvironmental data produced within Britain. Substantial amounts of zooarchaeological and archaeobotanical data remain buried in grey literature, limited-access publications and archive reports (not to mention floppy disks, CDs and microfiche), with no integrative means of searching for particular periods or categories of evidence. This lack of accessibility inhibits specialists from contextualising their findings, and was exemplified recently by the Archaeology on Furlough project tripling the known number of aurochs finds in Britain by trawling online records, journals and museum records (Wiseman 2020). The results of the surveys presented here, which targeted both environmental archaeologists specifically and the wider sector, demonstrate a significant appetite amongst archaeologists to improve data networks and for their work to contribute meaningfully to research agendas. Contextualised within a disciplinary landscape that is increasingly dynamic in its approach to tackling the openness and connectivity of 'big data', we argue that better data synthesis in environmental archaeology, and the developer-funded sector more broadly, can be more than just a mirage on the horizon, particularly once the people who produce the data are given an active voice in the matter.
{"title":"Digitally Enlightened or Still in the Dark? Establishing a Sector-Wide Approach to Enhancing Data Synthesis and Research Potential in British Environmental Archaeology and Beyond","authors":"Tina Roushannafas, Polydora Baker, Gill Campbell, Emma Jenkins, Jen Parker Wooding, R. Pelling, M. Vander Linden, Fay Worley, Anwen Cooper","doi":"10.11141/ia.67.7","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.11141/ia.67.7","url":null,"abstract":"In a 2019 Internet Archaeology article, Elizabeth Pearson posed the question 'are we back in the Dark Ages?'. This question was made in reference to a developer-funded archaeology sector that was generating vast quantities of evidence and, particularly, in recent years, specialist environmental data, but was failing to mobilise this in a theoretical framework that generated meaningful advancement in terms of research. The introduction to the 2021 Internet Archaeology special issue on Digital Archiving in Archaeology (Richards et al. 2021) went on to address 'a digital resource that is now in jeopardy' – not only because of the risk of technical obsolescence, but also because of crucial limitations to its interoperability and discoverability. This article builds on these arguments and complements vital work underway on high-level, internationally focused data infrastructure initiatives (e.g. Wright and Richards 2018). We emphasise here the importance of parallel discussions at a community level, particularly with the people who routinely produce archaeological data, as key to enhancing data synthesis and research potential. Specifically, we report on two surveys conducted by the 'Rewilding' Later Prehistory project at Oxford Archaeology, in collaboration with Historic England and Bournemouth University, which originated in the 'Rewilding' project's concern with improving access to palaeoenvironmental data produced within Britain. Substantial amounts of zooarchaeological and archaeobotanical data remain buried in grey literature, limited-access publications and archive reports (not to mention floppy disks, CDs and microfiche), with no integrative means of searching for particular periods or categories of evidence. This lack of accessibility inhibits specialists from contextualising their findings, and was exemplified recently by the Archaeology on Furlough project tripling the known number of aurochs finds in Britain by trawling online records, journals and museum records (Wiseman 2020). The results of the surveys presented here, which targeted both environmental archaeologists specifically and the wider sector, demonstrate a significant appetite amongst archaeologists to improve data networks and for their work to contribute meaningfully to research agendas. Contextualised within a disciplinary landscape that is increasingly dynamic in its approach to tackling the openness and connectivity of 'big data', we argue that better data synthesis in environmental archaeology, and the developer-funded sector more broadly, can be more than just a mirage on the horizon, particularly once the people who produce the data are given an active voice in the matter.","PeriodicalId":38724,"journal":{"name":"Internet Archaeology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140084768","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The Brandenburg State Archaeology Museum has been conserving and analysing relics of war and terror for 25 years, and as a result of this work archaeology is now an integral part of Nazi camp research (Kersting et al. 2016a; Theune 2018). Many camp sites have been investigated, including concentration camps and their subcamps, forced labour camps, and prisoner-of-war camps (Kersting 2020; 2022). While most objects of an industrial culture of the 20th century can be quickly assigned a function, functions do change. Such a shift is a characteristic of Nazi camp finds and reflects their context of bondage and deprivation. The identification of the functions of material remains enables their association with different spheres of life in the camp, so that both perpetrator and victim groups are documented archaeologically. Moreover, these finds serve as tangible evidence to refute any relativisation of the crimes.
{"title":"Archaeological Heritage Management and Science on War and Terror Sites in Brandenburg, Germany","authors":"Thomas Kersting","doi":"10.11141/ia.66.14","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.11141/ia.66.14","url":null,"abstract":"The Brandenburg State Archaeology Museum has been conserving and analysing relics of war and terror for 25 years, and as a result of this work archaeology is now an integral part of Nazi camp research (Kersting et al. 2016a; Theune 2018). Many camp sites have been investigated, including concentration camps and their subcamps, forced labour camps, and prisoner-of-war camps (Kersting 2020; 2022). While most objects of an industrial culture of the 20th century can be quickly assigned a function, functions do change. Such a shift is a characteristic of Nazi camp finds and reflects their context of bondage and deprivation. The identification of the functions of material remains enables their association with different spheres of life in the camp, so that both perpetrator and victim groups are documented archaeologically. Moreover, these finds serve as tangible evidence to refute any relativisation of the crimes.","PeriodicalId":38724,"journal":{"name":"Internet Archaeology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140282836","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In 2017, the government of Flanders decided to award yearly grants for synthesising research on archaeological data produced via development-led archaeology in Flanders (Belgium). At present, no less than 34 archaeological projects have been financially supported this way. Three of those projects deal with the archaeology of modern conflicts. The project 'Conflict archaeology of the Second World War in Flanders' will be discussed in more detail. World War II archaeology is a very young discipline in Flanders, although the enormous expertise in conflict archaeology of World War I caused a turnaround in recent years. Putting all the archaeological information together, it turned out that traces of WWII were already being investigated at 172 sites, far more than expected. Some are targeted excavations on large sites, but mostly they are small traces that came to light by chance. This picture is contrasted with knowledge gained in recent years from historical research and from remote sensing sources. The Centre for Historical and Archaeological Aerial Photography or CHAL (Province of West Flanders, In Flanders Fields Museum, Ghent University) plays an important role here. Over 43,000 historical aerial photographs taken during both World Wars provide a unique overview of the war landscape in Belgium and offer enormous archaeological potential today. A combination of analysis of the digital elevation model Flanders for the above-ground preservation of war traces and the archaeological information from excavations give us an unseen landscape insight.
{"title":"Digging deeper is always rewarding. Policy instruments, challenges and recent research on conflict archaeology, WWI and WWII in Flanders","authors":"W. Gheyle, Sam De Decker, B. Stichelbaut","doi":"10.11141/ia.66.12","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.11141/ia.66.12","url":null,"abstract":"In 2017, the government of Flanders decided to award yearly grants for synthesising research on archaeological data produced via development-led archaeology in Flanders (Belgium). At present, no less than 34 archaeological projects have been financially supported this way. Three of those projects deal with the archaeology of modern conflicts. The project 'Conflict archaeology of the Second World War in Flanders' will be discussed in more detail. World War II archaeology is a very young discipline in Flanders, although the enormous expertise in conflict archaeology of World War I caused a turnaround in recent years. Putting all the archaeological information together, it turned out that traces of WWII were already being investigated at 172 sites, far more than expected. Some are targeted excavations on large sites, but mostly they are small traces that came to light by chance. This picture is contrasted with knowledge gained in recent years from historical research and from remote sensing sources. The Centre for Historical and Archaeological Aerial Photography or CHAL (Province of West Flanders, In Flanders Fields Museum, Ghent University) plays an important role here. Over 43,000 historical aerial photographs taken during both World Wars provide a unique overview of the war landscape in Belgium and offer enormous archaeological potential today. A combination of analysis of the digital elevation model Flanders for the above-ground preservation of war traces and the archaeological information from excavations give us an unseen landscape insight.","PeriodicalId":38724,"journal":{"name":"Internet Archaeology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140283078","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The immediate past has been of interest within Polish archaeology only very recently. Research was first undertaken in 1967 and was incidental, tending not to change the general view of archaeologists focused on periods spanning prehistory to the Middle Ages, and then gradually adding the 17th and 18th centuries. A permanent change came in the 1990s with the emergence of development-led archaeology in Poland. Excavations preceding construction of motorways and other infrastructure projects revealed relics dating back to 1800-1945 on an unprecedented scale. Initially, insufficient historical knowledge made archaeological research particularly difficult. Now, after a few decades, this pioneer era is coming to an end, and there are archaeologists focusing mainly on the contemporary period e.g. archaeology of armed conflicts in the broadest sense of the term or narrowly specialised forensic archaeology.
{"title":"Finding the Wrong People. Challenges of contemporary archaeology in Poland","authors":"Agnieszka and Oniszczuk, Jakub Wrzosek","doi":"10.11141/ia.66.4","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.11141/ia.66.4","url":null,"abstract":"The immediate past has been of interest within Polish archaeology only very recently. Research was first undertaken in 1967 and was incidental, tending not to change the general view of archaeologists focused on periods spanning prehistory to the Middle Ages, and then gradually adding the 17th and 18th centuries. A permanent change came in the 1990s with the emergence of development-led archaeology in Poland. Excavations preceding construction of motorways and other infrastructure projects revealed relics dating back to 1800-1945 on an unprecedented scale. Initially, insufficient historical knowledge made archaeological research particularly difficult. Now, after a few decades, this pioneer era is coming to an end, and there are archaeologists focusing mainly on the contemporary period e.g. archaeology of armed conflicts in the broadest sense of the term or narrowly specialised forensic archaeology.","PeriodicalId":38724,"journal":{"name":"Internet Archaeology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140272952","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In recent years, an historical reappraisal by one of us (MW) has been carried out on one of the worst crimes outside of prisons and concentration camps committed in Germany by the SS and Wehrmacht in the final months of the Second World War. In the Arnsberg Forest near Warstein and Meschede (southern Westphalia, western Germany), 208 forced labourers were massacred by the 'Division for Vengeance' (Division zur Vergeltung) of SS General Hans Kammler in March 1945. In the course of this joint project, archaeological research conducted by the Olpe Department of the LWL-Archäologie für Westfalen (Westphalian Archaeological Heritage Service) has pinpointed the exact location of the crime scenes and provided clues for the reconstruction of the course of events in the field (Warstein Langenbachtal, Suttrop, Meschede-Eversberg). It has also enabled the recovery of finds belonging to both the victims and perpetrators. We have also been able to locate and examine the two temporary cemeteries (Warstein Melkeplätzchen, Suttrop). This has provided information about the history of exhumation of the victims in 1964, as well as clarifying the whereabouts of the Soviet obelisk from the Melkeplätzchen, the provisional cemetery of the Langenbach victims located close to the crime scene. This work has also allowed a follow-up search in the temporary cemetery in Suttrop for seven victims who, according to the exhumation documents of 1964, are presumably still lying there. Between 2018 and 2021, almost all of aspects addressed above could be clarified with new insights gained. Our results were summarised at the EAC conference in Bonn 2023 (although not published in this theme). Several publications already report on them and they are listed below. In addition to several German language publications, there is also an extensive English language publication (Baales et al. 2022) where the essential aspects of the interdisciplinary project are presented. In addition, the historical context, research project and numerous images are presented on several websites listed below.
近年来，我们中的一位（MW）对第二次世界大战最后几个月党卫军和德国国防军在德国监狱和集中营之外犯下的最严重罪行之一进行了历史性的重新评估。1945 年 3 月，党卫军将军汉斯-卡姆勒（Hans Kammler）的 "复仇师"（Division zur Vergeltung）在沃尔斯坦和梅斯赫德（德国西部威斯特伐利亚州南部）附近的阿恩斯贝格森林屠杀了 208 名强迫劳工。在这一联合项目中，威斯特法伦考古遗产局（LWL-Archäologie für Westfalen）奥尔佩部门开展的考古研究确定了犯罪现场的确切位置，并为重建现场（沃尔斯坦-朗根巴赫塔尔、苏特罗普、梅斯赫德-埃弗斯贝格）事件过程提供了线索。我们还找到了受害者和犯罪者的遗物。我们还找到并检查了两个临时墓地（Warstein Melkeplätzchen、Suttrop）。这为我们提供了有关 1964 年挖掘受害者尸体的历史信息，并澄清了位于犯罪现场附近的兰根巴赫受害者临时墓地 Melkeplätzchen 的苏维埃方尖碑的下落。通过这项工作，还可以在苏特罗普的临时墓地对七名受害者进行后续搜寻，根据 1964 年的挖掘文件，他们可能仍躺在那里。在 2018 年至 2021 年期间，几乎所有上述问题都可以通过新的发现得到澄清。我们的成果已在 2023 年波恩 EAC 会议上进行了总结（尽管没有在本专题中发表）。一些出版物已经对这些成果进行了报道，现列举如下。除了几份德语出版物外，还有一份内容广泛的英语出版物（Baales et al.此外，下文列出的几个网站也介绍了历史背景、研究项目和大量图片。
{"title":"Massacres in the Arnsberg Forest (abstract)","authors":"Michael Baales, Marcus Weidner, M. Zeiler","doi":"10.11141/ia.66.15","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.11141/ia.66.15","url":null,"abstract":"In recent years, an historical reappraisal by one of us (MW) has been carried out on one of the worst crimes outside of prisons and concentration camps committed in Germany by the SS and Wehrmacht in the final months of the Second World War. In the Arnsberg Forest near Warstein and Meschede (southern Westphalia, western Germany), 208 forced labourers were massacred by the 'Division for Vengeance' (Division zur Vergeltung) of SS General Hans Kammler in March 1945. In the course of this joint project, archaeological research conducted by the Olpe Department of the LWL-Archäologie für Westfalen (Westphalian Archaeological Heritage Service) has pinpointed the exact location of the crime scenes and provided clues for the reconstruction of the course of events in the field (Warstein Langenbachtal, Suttrop, Meschede-Eversberg). It has also enabled the recovery of finds belonging to both the victims and perpetrators. We have also been able to locate and examine the two temporary cemeteries (Warstein Melkeplätzchen, Suttrop). This has provided information about the history of exhumation of the victims in 1964, as well as clarifying the whereabouts of the Soviet obelisk from the Melkeplätzchen, the provisional cemetery of the Langenbach victims located close to the crime scene. This work has also allowed a follow-up search in the temporary cemetery in Suttrop for seven victims who, according to the exhumation documents of 1964, are presumably still lying there. Between 2018 and 2021, almost all of aspects addressed above could be clarified with new insights gained. Our results were summarised at the EAC conference in Bonn 2023 (although not published in this theme). Several publications already report on them and they are listed below. In addition to several German language publications, there is also an extensive English language publication (Baales et al. 2022) where the essential aspects of the interdisciplinary project are presented. In addition, the historical context, research project and numerous images are presented on several websites listed below.","PeriodicalId":38724,"journal":{"name":"Internet Archaeology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140280653","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：