Pub Date : 2019-01-02DOI: 10.1080/15740773.2019.1651537
Hassan Sharghi
ABSTRACT The soldier's body is the most important subject of violence and destruction in war. Humans live primarily through their body in the material world, and when the body is destroyed, their whole existence is affected, both physically and non-physically. Therefore, the first locus on which we can observe the effects of war and violence is the human body, mainly soldiers. In modern wars, the soldier’s body is combined with weapons and machines of war, but is also the first target of killing whether in attack or defence. On the one hand it is targeted and killed, but on the other hand the body itself targets and kills. In warfare, bodies are trained to be the mechanism of killing and they are employed on battlefields according to the political objectives of their sovereign power. Thus, the soldier’s body becomes a weapon separated from the individual human body by the political authority.
{"title":"Body as weapon: the archaeology of a war victim’s narrative","authors":"Hassan Sharghi","doi":"10.1080/15740773.2019.1651537","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15740773.2019.1651537","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The soldier's body is the most important subject of violence and destruction in war. Humans live primarily through their body in the material world, and when the body is destroyed, their whole existence is affected, both physically and non-physically. Therefore, the first locus on which we can observe the effects of war and violence is the human body, mainly soldiers. In modern wars, the soldier’s body is combined with weapons and machines of war, but is also the first target of killing whether in attack or defence. On the one hand it is targeted and killed, but on the other hand the body itself targets and kills. In warfare, bodies are trained to be the mechanism of killing and they are employed on battlefields according to the political objectives of their sovereign power. Thus, the soldier’s body becomes a weapon separated from the individual human body by the political authority.","PeriodicalId":53987,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Conflict Archaeology","volume":"14 1","pages":"37 - 57"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2019-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/15740773.2019.1651537","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47053805","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}
Pub Date : 2019-01-02DOI: 10.1080/15740773.2019.1653060
J. Padányi, József Ondrék
ABSTRACT The fortress of Novi Zrin is a unique location, not only in Hungary, but also more generally in Europe. It was constructed by Miklós (VII) Zrínyi, the seventeenth-century poet, general and military scientist, and was a thorn in the side of the Ottoman Turkish armies occupying parts of Hungary at that time. This led to the subsequent destruction of the stronghold, and the abandonment of its location essentially left a time capsule that was only rediscovered in the 2000s. The remains of the fortress provided archaeologists with hundreds of artefacts, and in particular, more than 300 untouched lead projectiles from the late seventeenth century. This discovery led to the creation of this work where the aim is to analyse in detail the projectiles found, scientifically categorize them and, with the help of battlefield archaeology, answer previously unanswered questions about the 1664 siege of Novi Zrin.
{"title":"Examining lead bullets from the siege of Novi Zrin in 1664","authors":"J. Padányi, József Ondrék","doi":"10.1080/15740773.2019.1653060","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15740773.2019.1653060","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The fortress of Novi Zrin is a unique location, not only in Hungary, but also more generally in Europe. It was constructed by Miklós (VII) Zrínyi, the seventeenth-century poet, general and military scientist, and was a thorn in the side of the Ottoman Turkish armies occupying parts of Hungary at that time. This led to the subsequent destruction of the stronghold, and the abandonment of its location essentially left a time capsule that was only rediscovered in the 2000s. The remains of the fortress provided archaeologists with hundreds of artefacts, and in particular, more than 300 untouched lead projectiles from the late seventeenth century. This discovery led to the creation of this work where the aim is to analyse in detail the projectiles found, scientifically categorize them and, with the help of battlefield archaeology, answer previously unanswered questions about the 1664 siege of Novi Zrin.","PeriodicalId":53987,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Conflict Archaeology","volume":"14 1","pages":"58 - 77"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2019-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/15740773.2019.1653060","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44983175","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}
Pub Date : 2019-01-02DOI: 10.1080/15740773.2019.1632034
Dawid Kobiałka
ABSTRACT This paper summarises some of the results of archaeological research on twentieth century military heritage in the Polish woodlands, namely the discovery of artefacts made, remade, and personalised by soldiers, prisoners of war, and civilians during military conflicts. Such objects are examples of so-called ‘trench art’. I draw attention to the universality of trench art, a phenomenon that is usually associated with the past conflicts such as the Napoleonic Wars and the First and Second World Wars. Nonetheless, trench art is, in its complexity, diversity and affectivity, an integral part of modern warfare, including the recent tragic conflict in Syria. After presenting the project and some examples of trench art documented during the research, I discuss a unique artistic intervention entitled Painting on Death to illustrate the affective, aesthetic, and political value of modern trench art.
{"title":"Trench art between memory and oblivion: a report from Poland (and Syria)","authors":"Dawid Kobiałka","doi":"10.1080/15740773.2019.1632034","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15740773.2019.1632034","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This paper summarises some of the results of archaeological research on twentieth century military heritage in the Polish woodlands, namely the discovery of artefacts made, remade, and personalised by soldiers, prisoners of war, and civilians during military conflicts. Such objects are examples of so-called ‘trench art’. I draw attention to the universality of trench art, a phenomenon that is usually associated with the past conflicts such as the Napoleonic Wars and the First and Second World Wars. Nonetheless, trench art is, in its complexity, diversity and affectivity, an integral part of modern warfare, including the recent tragic conflict in Syria. After presenting the project and some examples of trench art documented during the research, I discuss a unique artistic intervention entitled Painting on Death to illustrate the affective, aesthetic, and political value of modern trench art.","PeriodicalId":53987,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Conflict Archaeology","volume":"14 1","pages":"24 - 4"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2019-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/15740773.2019.1632034","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46366362","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}
Pub Date : 2018-09-02DOI: 10.1080/15740773.2018.1583480
A. Ruffell, G. Wach
ABSTRACT The assault on D-day by Easy Company of the 101st Airborne Corps on a German howitzer battery at Brecourt Manor (Normandy) that was firing upon Utah Beach is a famous action of World War 2. Understanding the firefight and disablement of the guns depends on where the four howitzers and crew were located. Three of the locations are unequivocal, with post-WW2 accounts and the search described here in agreement. One Howitzer position (the northernmost of the four) remains in contention, with two different positions described. A geoforensic search strategy (desktop study, geophysics, excavation) was deployed that shows strong evidence for the location of the debated fourth gun, together with aerial photographic and military tactical evidence for why this fourth Howitzer was moved to a second location close to D-day.
{"title":"Location of the Brecourt (Normandy, France) WW2 Howitzer battery using a geoforensic search strategy","authors":"A. Ruffell, G. Wach","doi":"10.1080/15740773.2018.1583480","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15740773.2018.1583480","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The assault on D-day by Easy Company of the 101st Airborne Corps on a German howitzer battery at Brecourt Manor (Normandy) that was firing upon Utah Beach is a famous action of World War 2. Understanding the firefight and disablement of the guns depends on where the four howitzers and crew were located. Three of the locations are unequivocal, with post-WW2 accounts and the search described here in agreement. One Howitzer position (the northernmost of the four) remains in contention, with two different positions described. A geoforensic search strategy (desktop study, geophysics, excavation) was deployed that shows strong evidence for the location of the debated fourth gun, together with aerial photographic and military tactical evidence for why this fourth Howitzer was moved to a second location close to D-day.","PeriodicalId":53987,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Conflict Archaeology","volume":"13 1","pages":"154 - 166"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2018-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/15740773.2018.1583480","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49606626","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}
Pub Date : 2018-09-02DOI: 10.1080/15740773.2018.1583472
J. Ainsworth, J. Pringle, P. Doyle, M. Stringfellow, D. Roberts, I. Stimpson, K. Wisniewski, J. Goodwin
ABSTRACT Just before WWII, the British government prepared for an aerial onslaught that was predicted to raze cities and cause mass casualties. By 1938, the Air Raid Precautions Act officially stated that population protection would be through dispersal, meaning evacuation and small-scale protection, local authority responsibility often devolving to householders. Archaeological records of remaining air-raid shelters are relatively rare and under threat. This paper reports on geophysical surveys on three sites in Stoke-on-Trent and London. Results found three intact Stanton shelters in Stoke-on-Trent, located by GPR, electrical resistivity, magnetometry, gravity and electromagnetic methods. In London, partially demolished shelters and an intact, mass public shelter were both detected by EM and GPR methods, with subsequent intrusive investigations confirming results. Study outcomes show hitherto-neglected wartime shelters are in varied condition, with geophysical surveys able to detect, characterise and assess them, helping bring WWII British history into the wider scientific community and public domain.
{"title":"Geophysical investigations of WWII air-raid shelters in the UK","authors":"J. Ainsworth, J. Pringle, P. Doyle, M. Stringfellow, D. Roberts, I. Stimpson, K. Wisniewski, J. Goodwin","doi":"10.1080/15740773.2018.1583472","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15740773.2018.1583472","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Just before WWII, the British government prepared for an aerial onslaught that was predicted to raze cities and cause mass casualties. By 1938, the Air Raid Precautions Act officially stated that population protection would be through dispersal, meaning evacuation and small-scale protection, local authority responsibility often devolving to householders. Archaeological records of remaining air-raid shelters are relatively rare and under threat. This paper reports on geophysical surveys on three sites in Stoke-on-Trent and London. Results found three intact Stanton shelters in Stoke-on-Trent, located by GPR, electrical resistivity, magnetometry, gravity and electromagnetic methods. In London, partially demolished shelters and an intact, mass public shelter were both detected by EM and GPR methods, with subsequent intrusive investigations confirming results. Study outcomes show hitherto-neglected wartime shelters are in varied condition, with geophysical surveys able to detect, characterise and assess them, helping bring WWII British history into the wider scientific community and public domain.","PeriodicalId":53987,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Conflict Archaeology","volume":"13 1","pages":"167 - 197"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2018-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/15740773.2018.1583472","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48618123","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}
Pub Date : 2018-09-02DOI: 10.1080/15740773.2018.1586128
I. Banks
At the time of writing, there are many conflicts across the world; no one could be mistaken that this is a period of peace. Conflict is disrupting society and causing thousands of deaths both directly and indirectly. Yet, there is plenty of potential for conflict to increase in the wake of current developments. The globalized world of trade has been disturbed by the imposition of trade barriers in what could be the opening shots of a series of trade wars. There is also the spectre of Brexit looming over us, a chaotic mess where none of the British politicians appear to have a clear plan. One immediate result of this is that there is a great deal of uncertainty about how much British and European academics will be able to work together in future; there is a lot of uncertainty about funding in the future, and it may well become more difficult for archaeologists to work between Britain and the European Union. That is regrettable but survivable. In terms of the likely deleterious outcomes of Brexit, it is certainly one of the less pressing. What is far more of concern is the turn away from removing the barriers between people and between nations. Instead of removing barriers, Brexit will raise a barrier between Britain and the continent of Europe, imposing restrictions on travel and trade, and creating distance between us. The danger of erecting barriers between people and nations is that it increases the likelihood of conflict. Barriers encourage us to see those on the other side as The Other, making conflict all the easier. They emphasize difference and division, and they emphasize what is Ours and Theirs. Talking about Brexit as a likely cause of future wars is always ridiculed under the heading of ‘Project Fear’, but the lesson of history is that conflict is far more likely when there are barriers between nations. Europe has enjoyed a long period of peace since 1945; European powers have fought across the globe, but the only fighting in Europe has been outside the boundaries of the EU: Yugoslavia, Crimea, Abkhazia, etc. We have enjoyed nearly three-quarters of a century of peace, largely because there has been an agreed way of resolving issues between nations within the Union. There have been disputes, but there is an overarching authority that resolves those disputes and allows the nations to work together. Britain will be leaving that arrangement and will have to find an alternative way of resolving disputes. Undoubtedly, some arrangement will be made, but will this be effective at offsetting conflict? The precedents are not good; in Summer 2018, French and English trawlermen came to blows over access to scallop beds. A small issue at the time, but one where membership by both nations of the EU meant that the situation didn’t escalate into trade wars or worse. Will this be so easily resolved in the future? So, what has any of this to do with the Journal? Other than upsetting some strands of opinion within the readership, not a great deal beyond
{"title":"Editorial","authors":"I. Banks","doi":"10.1080/15740773.2018.1586128","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15740773.2018.1586128","url":null,"abstract":"At the time of writing, there are many conflicts across the world; no one could be mistaken that this is a period of peace. Conflict is disrupting society and causing thousands of deaths both directly and indirectly. Yet, there is plenty of potential for conflict to increase in the wake of current developments. The globalized world of trade has been disturbed by the imposition of trade barriers in what could be the opening shots of a series of trade wars. There is also the spectre of Brexit looming over us, a chaotic mess where none of the British politicians appear to have a clear plan. One immediate result of this is that there is a great deal of uncertainty about how much British and European academics will be able to work together in future; there is a lot of uncertainty about funding in the future, and it may well become more difficult for archaeologists to work between Britain and the European Union. That is regrettable but survivable. In terms of the likely deleterious outcomes of Brexit, it is certainly one of the less pressing. What is far more of concern is the turn away from removing the barriers between people and between nations. Instead of removing barriers, Brexit will raise a barrier between Britain and the continent of Europe, imposing restrictions on travel and trade, and creating distance between us. The danger of erecting barriers between people and nations is that it increases the likelihood of conflict. Barriers encourage us to see those on the other side as The Other, making conflict all the easier. They emphasize difference and division, and they emphasize what is Ours and Theirs. Talking about Brexit as a likely cause of future wars is always ridiculed under the heading of ‘Project Fear’, but the lesson of history is that conflict is far more likely when there are barriers between nations. Europe has enjoyed a long period of peace since 1945; European powers have fought across the globe, but the only fighting in Europe has been outside the boundaries of the EU: Yugoslavia, Crimea, Abkhazia, etc. We have enjoyed nearly three-quarters of a century of peace, largely because there has been an agreed way of resolving issues between nations within the Union. There have been disputes, but there is an overarching authority that resolves those disputes and allows the nations to work together. Britain will be leaving that arrangement and will have to find an alternative way of resolving disputes. Undoubtedly, some arrangement will be made, but will this be effective at offsetting conflict? The precedents are not good; in Summer 2018, French and English trawlermen came to blows over access to scallop beds. A small issue at the time, but one where membership by both nations of the EU meant that the situation didn’t escalate into trade wars or worse. Will this be so easily resolved in the future? So, what has any of this to do with the Journal? Other than upsetting some strands of opinion within the readership, not a great deal beyond","PeriodicalId":53987,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Conflict Archaeology","volume":"13 1","pages":"151 - 153"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2018-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/15740773.2018.1586128","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41876653","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}
Pub Date : 2018-09-02DOI: 10.1080/15740773.2018.1583470
Julie Mushynsky, Jennifer F. McKinnon, F. Camacho
ABSTRACT During World War II, the Japanese military, using either their own or civilian labour, excavated tunnels into the limestone of many Pacific islands and modified natural caves for use as command posts, hospitals, combat positions, storage, and shelter. Civilians also used caves to shelter themselves during the war. This article introduces the archaeology of WWII caves and tunnels referred to collectively as ‘karst defences.’ While karst defences exist across the Pacific, little is known about these sites both historically and archaeologically. Based on a study in Saipan, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and analysis of karst defence construction and function, this article demonstrates that karst defence use extends beyond what has been described in historical accounts. The authors find that the sites in Saipan were used by three different groups of people and identifies distinct Japanese military and civilian sites and evidence of post-war use by the United States.
{"title":"The archaeology of World War II karst defences in the Pacific","authors":"Julie Mushynsky, Jennifer F. McKinnon, F. Camacho","doi":"10.1080/15740773.2018.1583470","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15740773.2018.1583470","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT During World War II, the Japanese military, using either their own or civilian labour, excavated tunnels into the limestone of many Pacific islands and modified natural caves for use as command posts, hospitals, combat positions, storage, and shelter. Civilians also used caves to shelter themselves during the war. This article introduces the archaeology of WWII caves and tunnels referred to collectively as ‘karst defences.’ While karst defences exist across the Pacific, little is known about these sites both historically and archaeologically. Based on a study in Saipan, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and analysis of karst defence construction and function, this article demonstrates that karst defence use extends beyond what has been described in historical accounts. The authors find that the sites in Saipan were used by three different groups of people and identifies distinct Japanese military and civilian sites and evidence of post-war use by the United States.","PeriodicalId":53987,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Conflict Archaeology","volume":"13 1","pages":"198 - 222"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2018-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/15740773.2018.1583470","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47733636","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}
Pub Date : 2018-05-04DOI: 10.1080/15740773.2018.1582928
Jean-Loup Gassend, D. Gaillard, L. Alberti
ABSTRACT On 18 July 1944, a convoy of German trucks was ambushed by the French Resistance near the village of Thorame-Haute in SE France. According to reports by French witnesses, the first German truck exploded. After a brief firefight, the Resistance pulled out without casualties, claiming that 58 Germans had been killed in the attack, including a high-ranking officer. The current project used witness interviews, archives materials, and metal detecting to validate the descriptions of the ambush. The project confirmed that at least nine German soldiers had been killed in the attack. The metal detecting survey recovered numerous small artefacts whose condition and dispersal indicated that a violent explosion had indeed occurred and had probably been preceded or followed by a fire. A grouping of fired cartridge casings was found in the former Resistance positions. The project was able to confirm the French accounts apart from the casualty figures.
{"title":"Ambush at Thorame-Haute: archaeological traces of a fifteen minute Ambush by the French resistance","authors":"Jean-Loup Gassend, D. Gaillard, L. Alberti","doi":"10.1080/15740773.2018.1582928","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15740773.2018.1582928","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT On 18 July 1944, a convoy of German trucks was ambushed by the French Resistance near the village of Thorame-Haute in SE France. According to reports by French witnesses, the first German truck exploded. After a brief firefight, the Resistance pulled out without casualties, claiming that 58 Germans had been killed in the attack, including a high-ranking officer. The current project used witness interviews, archives materials, and metal detecting to validate the descriptions of the ambush. The project confirmed that at least nine German soldiers had been killed in the attack. The metal detecting survey recovered numerous small artefacts whose condition and dispersal indicated that a violent explosion had indeed occurred and had probably been preceded or followed by a fire. A grouping of fired cartridge casings was found in the former Resistance positions. The project was able to confirm the French accounts apart from the casualty figures.","PeriodicalId":53987,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Conflict Archaeology","volume":"13 1","pages":"117 - 149"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2018-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/15740773.2018.1582928","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41915645","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}
Pub Date : 2018-05-04DOI: 10.1080/15740773.2018.1582995
I. Banks
Conflict Archaeology is a very broad church, as will be apparent from a review of the thirteen volumes of this Journal. This issue is an excellent example as the topics varywidely. They also demonstrate that not everyone involved in Conflict Archaeology is necessarily a conflict archaeologist. This issue is the result of work involving archaeologists, landscape architects, forensic scientists, dendrochronologists andmedical doctors. The results are rich and underline the intradisciplinary nature of the work. Clearly, Conflict Archaeology is not the only archaeological area that benefits from the input of other disciplines, but the study of war and conflict requires a very broad range of expertise. However, while Conflict Archaeology is a broad church, it is sometimes difficult to escape the influence of battlefields, not least because they bring a drama and sense of storytelling that is difficult to rival. When this is tied to an element of mythbusting, where archaeological evidence is used to clarify, correct, or reveal the events of a battle, it is a very powerful way to investigate the past. Certainly, there is rarely much difficulty in convincing the public that research on battlefields is important; that is sadly not always the case when it comes to preservation. Strangely, there are still archaeologists who remain unconvinced that battlefields are either important or capable of being investigated by archaeological methodologies. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but that becomes problematic when that opinion is offered as an expert opinion in planning cases. Where that expert opinion is uninformed by any involvement in fieldwork on battlefields, it becomes a real issue; the problem is that the legal system tends to view all archaeology as the same thing when it is quite clear that different areas of archaeology need different forms of expertise. The fact is that battlefield archaeology has been proven repeatedly in the field, where artefact distributions clearly represent human activity; the distributions do appear meaningful and are consistent from ploughed areas to unploughed areas. It remains to be seen whether modern ploughing techniques will change that situation, but currently the fact is that there is an extensive literature that demonstrates the events of a battle are recoverable through the distribution of material across the battlefield during the fighting. Battlefields across the world remain under threat and continue to be impacted by modern development. When the battlefield is thoroughly investigated archaeologically, as at the battle of Lützen from 1632, the quality of information collected offsets the loss of the resource (Schürger 2015). Unfortunately, the situation at Halle in terms of the cultural resource management is rarely repeated; here, a developer was required to pay the full costs of a complete investigation. It is far less benign in the main. The battlefield of Pinkie Cleugh from 1547, the last major Angl
{"title":"Editorial","authors":"I. Banks","doi":"10.1080/15740773.2018.1582995","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15740773.2018.1582995","url":null,"abstract":"Conflict Archaeology is a very broad church, as will be apparent from a review of the thirteen volumes of this Journal. This issue is an excellent example as the topics varywidely. They also demonstrate that not everyone involved in Conflict Archaeology is necessarily a conflict archaeologist. This issue is the result of work involving archaeologists, landscape architects, forensic scientists, dendrochronologists andmedical doctors. The results are rich and underline the intradisciplinary nature of the work. Clearly, Conflict Archaeology is not the only archaeological area that benefits from the input of other disciplines, but the study of war and conflict requires a very broad range of expertise. However, while Conflict Archaeology is a broad church, it is sometimes difficult to escape the influence of battlefields, not least because they bring a drama and sense of storytelling that is difficult to rival. When this is tied to an element of mythbusting, where archaeological evidence is used to clarify, correct, or reveal the events of a battle, it is a very powerful way to investigate the past. Certainly, there is rarely much difficulty in convincing the public that research on battlefields is important; that is sadly not always the case when it comes to preservation. Strangely, there are still archaeologists who remain unconvinced that battlefields are either important or capable of being investigated by archaeological methodologies. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but that becomes problematic when that opinion is offered as an expert opinion in planning cases. Where that expert opinion is uninformed by any involvement in fieldwork on battlefields, it becomes a real issue; the problem is that the legal system tends to view all archaeology as the same thing when it is quite clear that different areas of archaeology need different forms of expertise. The fact is that battlefield archaeology has been proven repeatedly in the field, where artefact distributions clearly represent human activity; the distributions do appear meaningful and are consistent from ploughed areas to unploughed areas. It remains to be seen whether modern ploughing techniques will change that situation, but currently the fact is that there is an extensive literature that demonstrates the events of a battle are recoverable through the distribution of material across the battlefield during the fighting. Battlefields across the world remain under threat and continue to be impacted by modern development. When the battlefield is thoroughly investigated archaeologically, as at the battle of Lützen from 1632, the quality of information collected offsets the loss of the resource (Schürger 2015). Unfortunately, the situation at Halle in terms of the cultural resource management is rarely repeated; here, a developer was required to pay the full costs of a complete investigation. It is far less benign in the main. The battlefield of Pinkie Cleugh from 1547, the last major Angl","PeriodicalId":53987,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Conflict Archaeology","volume":"13 1","pages":"77 - 79"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2018-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/15740773.2018.1582995","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49161712","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}
Pub Date : 2018-05-04DOI: 10.1080/15740773.2018.1582912
Kevin M. Claxton
ABSTRACT The Battle of Cheriton in 1644, one of many English Civil War battles, was a major turning point in the war. The battle has not been studied in detail, but the battlefield has been subject to extensive amateur metal detecting. Until now, only a very small percentage of the Cheriton battlefield assemblage has been examined. This paper aims to gain a new understanding of the events of the battle by analysing the assemblage of small finds that has been collected from the battlefield site. The result of this analysis is that the true location can now be provided with some certainty, along with a better understanding of the events and range of weapons used at the battle.
{"title":"The Battle of Cheriton: the analysis of artefacts from an English Civil War Battlefield","authors":"Kevin M. Claxton","doi":"10.1080/15740773.2018.1582912","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15740773.2018.1582912","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The Battle of Cheriton in 1644, one of many English Civil War battles, was a major turning point in the war. The battle has not been studied in detail, but the battlefield has been subject to extensive amateur metal detecting. Until now, only a very small percentage of the Cheriton battlefield assemblage has been examined. This paper aims to gain a new understanding of the events of the battle by analysing the assemblage of small finds that has been collected from the battlefield site. The result of this analysis is that the true location can now be provided with some certainty, along with a better understanding of the events and range of weapons used at the battle.","PeriodicalId":53987,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Conflict Archaeology","volume":"13 1","pages":"80 - 96"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2018-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/15740773.2018.1582912","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47194330","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：