Introduction To Battlefield Archaeology

By 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 military
sites 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 historical
archaeologists. 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 has
demonstrated 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 War
Water 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 by
Lawrence 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 to
1996 at the Little Bighorn Battlefield National Monument in south-eastern Montana, USA. The site
yielded 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) of
thousands 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 Glenn
Foard. 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 pitched
battle 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
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 project
occurred 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 poorly
documented 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 little
recorded 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 and
interpretation 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 deposition
of 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, battlefield
archaeology 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 patterns
depending 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 the
types 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 of
the 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 identification
procedures, constitutes an important advance over the traditional, non-systematic recovery of
battlefield relics.
The comparative study of ammunition components, known as firearms identification analysis,
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 types
of 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 battle
doctrine.
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 war
are 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. It
enables 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, the
artefactual 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 the
Custer battlefield, Historical Archaeology 25(2): 92103.
Scott, D.D. and Connor, M.A. (1986) Post-mortem at the Little Bighorn, Natural History 95:4655.
Scott, D.D., Fox, R.A., Jr, Connor, M.A. and Harmon, D. (1989) Archaeological Perspectives on the
Battle of the Little Bighorn, Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
Snow, D.R. (1981) Battlefield archaeology, Early Man 3:1821.
___________________________________________________________________________________
Fuente: Encyclopedia of Historical Archaeology, editada por Ch. Orser Jr. 2002.