Saunders Nick Excavating memories, Teoria archeologii
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
Excavating memories:
archaeology and the Great War,
1914-2001
J.
SAUNDERS*
The First World War is beginning to receive archaeological attention. This paper
highlights the technical, ethical and politicul challenges, including recovery and re-burial
of the multi-faith dead, excavation of battlefield features and volatile ordnance, and
incorporating the sensitive management
of
multi-vocal landscapes as cultural heritage
and tourist destinations.
Key-words: First World War,
memory,
contested landscapes, battlefinld archaeology
nary potential for such an endeavour is as rich
as it is complex (Schnapp
1999),
not least be-
cause investigations to date have mirrored re-
cent trends in public war remcmbrance by
concentrating on the Western Front.
The speed of post-war reconstruction in the
west left whole war landscapes intact
-
sys-
tems of trenches, dugouts, tunnels, craters,
malkriel,
souvenirs, personal belongings, and
human remains lie (often perfectly) preserved
just centimetres beneath the modern surface.
Thcse layers are superimposed over, and can
intrude into, an area’s pre-war archaeological
record. It is a deadly feature of this archaeo-
logical palimpsest that the materialities of all
periods can be mixed with volatile unexploded
ordnance, making excavation a potentially le-
thal undertaking (Webster 1998).
Scientific archaeology in Great War locations
is
in its infancy, and other issues of concern to
modern archaeology have hardly been recog-
nized. For example, what might be the impli-
cations
for
assessing the ‘social life’ of
personalized memory-objects displayed in the
home for 80years, identical items exhibited or
stored in museums, and similarly identical
materials excavated
from
Great War archaeo-
logical sites
-
some of which feed the inter-
national trade inmilitary memorabilia (Saunders
2001a), and consequently stimulate further il-
legal digging?
More poignant is the complex set of issues
concerning the cultural,religious, forensic
and
*
Department of Anthropology,
lhivprsity
College London, Guwer Sticct, Loiidon
WC1E
GBT,
hngland
nicho~as.sau~idcrs~u~~.d~
uk
Receivcd
29
March
2001,
accepted
16
August
2001,
revised
1
November
2001
ANTIQLITY
76
(2002).
101-8
NICHOLAS
Archaeology, materiality and war
Archaeology and war have an enduring and
ambiguous relationship
-
both create in the
very act of destroying. While all wars produce
dramatic shifts in human behaviour which can
lcavc vivid archaeological traces, it is the ma-
terial and psychological immensity of indus-
trialized conflict which embodies the extremes
of our behaviours
-
from a nation’s produc-
tion and mobilization of material force, to an
individual’sstruggle with injury.
loss.
and de-
spair.
Conflicts may live on as histories and propa-
ganda
-
shaping attitudes, behaviour and
material culture towards war even in times of
peace. Some conflicts are reconfigured as na-
tional myths, linking past and present wars, as
illustrated by thc Serbs conjuring images of their
defeat by the Ottoman Turks at the ‘Battle of
Kosovo’
in
AD
1389
while enduring a repeat
performance at the hands
of NATO
in 1999.
The intensity and interplay of emotions and
actions that modern war engages makes its ar-
chaeology a vital yet hitherto largely unacknowl-
edged
and un-theorized area of investigation.
Arguably, no event has been more signifi-
cant in crystallizing these issues for the 20th
century than thc Great War of 1914-18, the first
global industrialized conflict. Subjected to
numerous historical and literary audits for some
80 years,
a
fociised archaeological and anthro-
pological assessment is only now emerging
(Saundersin preparation).The multi-discipli-
102
NI(:HOLAS
1.
SAUNDERS
FIGURE
1.
Francis Buckley's section drawing across the 'Red Line' trenches at Coigneux,
1918
ethical dimensions surrounding the recovery,
re-burial and commemoration of the niulti-eth-
nic and multi-faith dead, from Africa, India,
Australia, New Zealand, China and the Ameri-
cas,who fought in the Allied armies. These in-
tersect broader themes such as memorialization
of battlefield cemeteries, war memorials and
war museums
-
places theniseloes now the
fociis of cultural heritage activities and a bur-
geoning tourism industry.
Despite this, in the construction and shap-
ing of our cultural memory of 20th-century war,
the well-published integrated perspectives of
modern archaeology hardly feature in recent
assessments of war and memory (e.g.Ashplant
et
al.
2000).
Yet, while scholarly discourse
on
Great War archaeology is hardly in print, con-
stantly updated discussion and analysis is avail-
able on the internet (BAR
2001;
URW
2001;
and
see Fabiansson in preparation). It
is
the rich
potential
of
archaeology which I wish to ex-
plore here, albeit in introductory fashion (see
Chippindale
1997;
Schofield
st al.
in press),
and with
a
focus on the Western Front.
Archaeologies at war
Archaeology
a1
the
front
The Great War on the Western Front saw the
excavation of the two longest trenches
in
his-
tory
-
one Allied, the other German. Each was
c.
500
km
long, stretching from the Belgian coast
to the Swiss border, and supplemented by in-
numerable dugouts and underground tunnels.
Hitherto, the archaeological consequences of
these activities have attracted little attention.
While war destroyed historical heritage with
trenches and dugouts in urban areas, it also
uricovered Gallo-Roman and medieval remains
beneath ruined buildings, such as the long-for-
gotten church crypt
at
Zonnebeke in Belgium
(Franky Boslyn pers. comin.). However, it was
the long trench lines in open country that yielded
most new artefacts. In London's Impcrial War
Museum is a Neolithic axe discovered by Capt.
J.B. Frost of the Royal Engineers while digging
trenrhes at Hnrponville
od
the Somme in April
1918,
possibly in response to the German of-
fensive of March.
In
the Tolson Memorial Mu-
seum, Huddersfield, is a 'War Souvenir' flint
ARCHAEOLOGY AND
THE
GREA’I’ WAR,
1914-2001
103
found in a mine crater at Richcourt-les-Bapaume,
also
on
the Somme, during the subsequent Ger-
man retreat that September. Today, in militaria
fairs in this area, prehisloric artefacts arc sold
alongside miscellaneous war
matkriel
in
a
cii-
rious association of the oldest and newest ar-
chaeological objects.
British trench-digging was often supervised
by an officer, who occasionally collected and
recorded artefacts. One such, Capt. Francis
Buckley of the Northumberland Fusilicrs, spent
over three years in France and Belgium during
which he collected many ‘flints’(Carpenter n.d.).
Between April and August 1918, he was sta-
tioned at Coigneux, six miles behind British
lines southwest of Arras. As the Germans ad-
vanced in March
1918,
Coigneux was reinforced
by the ‘RedLine’trenches which,Buckley noted
(1920-21: I),
were never occupied or disturl~ed.
He found Paleolithic (Mousterian) artefacts,
observing (1920-21:
4)
(FIGURE
settlement at Monchy-le-Preux near Arras
(Brazier 1998).
As time passed, bodies sank deeper, and
interest in wartime memorahilia quickened.A
spurious ‘Battlefield Archaeology’ came into
being whose activities were often nothing more
than subterranean rather than surface looting.
Given recent debates concerning inappropri-
ate treatment of the remains of indigenous peo-
ples worldwide (e.g. Greenfield
1989:
156-7;
Price
1991),
desecration of Great War dead
strangely attracted little sustained criticism. In
1999,the author’scontention that soldiers’ re-
mains (and artefacts) should be considered in
the same way as those of Australian Aborigi-
nes or Native Americans elicited surprise
amongst many battlefield ‘investigators’.
Epitomizing this attitude, and justifying such
activities
as
common
-
if not quasi-legitimate
-
practice, was the
1987
publicalion of John
Laffin’s
Battlefield archaeology,
which stated
there was ‘nothing sacrilegious about digging
relics from battlefields’ (Laffin 1987:
10);
ahattle-
field visitor needed only a guidebook to become
an ‘archaeologist’ (Laffin
1987:
70). Illustrating
this approach
was
a photograph of two human
teeth and a finger-bone he had recovered along-
side
a
poem inspired by their discovery (Laffin
1987: 120).This
hook,
lacking a single archaeo-
logical reference, amounted to a looter’s char-
ter, yet passed virtually unnoticed arid
uncriticized by academic archaeology.
The 1990s saw new developments. In Bel-
gium. the absence of professional archaeologi-
cal engagement with the Great War and the
increasing importance of battlefield tourism to
the local economy ofIeper (Ypres)quickly com-
bined to complicate matters. One amateur group,
‘The Diggers’,began investigating local battle-
fields in 1992 (Westhoek 2001). They soon fo-
cused on the Boezinge site outside Ieper, the
location
of
the first German gas attack in 1915,
and which was later threatened by industrial
development. Working under license from Bel-
gium’s
lnsfituut
voor het Archeologisch
Patri-
moniuni
(IAP], The Diggers admit their use of
metal detectors is controversial, but maintain
that human remains and artefacts are given
to
the Commonwealth War Graves Commission
(CWGC)
for
re-burial in military cemeteries, and
that they have a positive working relationship
with Ieper’s
In Flanders Fields
museum (Sercii
2001;
arid see Smith 1999).
For about
15
01
20
yards along the parapets there
was
a good sprinkling
of
implements, some
recpntly bro-
ken and some wholc.
. .
.
[including]a hand axe.
,
,
a
typical Levallois flake and a number of scrapers.
On the Eastern Front also, trench digging and
fortification activities uncovered numerous
prehistoric remains -burials, tools and coins
-
just [:entimetres heneath the surface
(Liulevicius 2000:
37-8).
East to west, and south
to Mesopotamia and Egypt, the war was con-
ducted above and below ground in
a
landscape
of imposing (andsometimes hitherto unknown)
archaeological monuments.
Archaeology of
the
ffonl
‘Incidental‘battle-zone archaeology during the
Great War remains largely undocumented, and
modern
investigations are just beginning. In
the war’s immediate aftermath,Western Front
lands were reclaimed through bomb clearance,
reconstruction (Clout 1996)and the consoli-
dation of small battlefield cemeteries into
larger ones (Longworth
1985).
Many bodies
lound during thcso activities were repectfully
re-buried, but others were unceremoniously
stripped of their military equipment and (iden-
tifying) personal belongings, an activity which
continues (covertly) today. Occasionally, time
and activity are conflated, as when the re-
mains of
24
Royal Fusiliers were found by
French archaeolugists searching for
a
Celtic
1)
that
104
NICHOLAS J. SAUNDERS
2.
Excavations at Beecham
Dugout,
near
Passendale, Belgiurn,
August
1999.
(Phofo
John
Vflndewo1le.J
ZOOO),
whose broadcast was preceded by mostly
hostile British press coverage on
11
November
2000
(Harvey
2000;
Tweeldie
2000)
and which
generated much heat in Internet chat-rooms.
What had begun as a promising year for Great
War archaeology had degenerated by year’s end
into mutual recriminations, statements by the
Belgian government,and talk of an inquiry by
the British government.
These events were disappointing and ironic.
For over
80
years, unauthorized battlefield ‘ac-
tivities’ had attracted little comment or offi-
cial sanction. Long-ignored issues concerning
who should excavate what and how, and the
treatment of the dead and their artefacts, had
suddenly exploded, dramatically politicizing
the nascent archaeology of the Great War in
Belgium. Further contention followed with the
discovery of extensive Great War tunnels and
dugouts hencath the Belgian coastal town of
Nieuwpoort (Doyle
et
al.
2001),
which have
potentially disastrous implications for subsid-
ence and compensation. Disagreements between
investigators, military experts and local and
national politicians once again quickly com-
plicated matters.
In France, similar discoveries have usually
taken a different course. RegionalArchaeological
Services, operating as part of the local
Direc-
tion rkgionnl
des affnirm crrlfurelle
(DRAG),
sometiines investigate Great War sites
-
as in
‘rescue’excavations along the routes ofmotor-
ways and the TGV (Desfossbs
1999)
-though
amateur groups and foreigners also are active.
While there is no official programme of inves-
tigations, and excavation is usually reactive not
pro-active, there are signs
of
professional cn-
gagement backed by academic publication
(Historial de la Grande Guerre
1999;
Desfossbs
&Jacques
2000).
The most publicized investi-
gation to date was the
1991
excavation of
21
bodies of French soldiers at Saint-R@my-la-
Calonne, where excavation was contentious due
to the presence among the dead of the French
novelist Alain-Fournicr (Adam
1991).
In
1998,
near the French village of
Flesqui$res,
a
British Mark
IV
tank was exca-
vated. Captured by the Germans in November
1917
during the battle of Cambrai, it had heen
buried and used as a dugout. At Gavrelle, out-
side Arras, was found a mass grave of
12
Ger-
man soldiers hastily buried
by
their comrades
A breakaway group. the ‘Association for
Battlefield Archaeology in Flanders’ (ABAF),
began an intensive
ad hoc
series of archaeo-
logical investigations in
3
999,
focusing on un-
derground constructions, such as ‘Beecham
Dugout’ near Passendale (Passchendaele)(FIG-
IJRE
2).
ABAF drew archaeological sections,
made site plans, collected and numbered finds
and made an extensive and sometimes eerily
beautiful photographic record of their work.
Most important was the initiation of a series of
monographs which sought to correlate archi-
val, photographic and archaeological research
(Bostyn
1999;
Bostyn
&
Vancoillie
2000).
Personal, professional and political differ-
ences within and between the two groups,and
with other influcntial bodies, intervened in late
2000,
and ABAF’s fieldwork around Iepcr
ceased. Soon afterwards, The Diggers were the
subject of a British television programme which
scandalized their motives and activities (Tyson
FIGURE
AKCHAEOLOGY AND
THE
GREAT WAR.
1914-2001
105
3).In Octobcr
2000,
beneath the streets
of Arras, a subterranean British field hospital
was found (Young
&
Birkett
ZOOO),
and inApril
2001,
a
mass grave of
24
British soldiers was
excavated at Le Point du
Jour
outside Arras (Sage
&
Evans 2001) (FIGURE
4).
Professional and amateur archaeologies co-
exist in France. The ‘Association Souvenir
Bataille de Fromelles’ (ASBF)includcs French
and Belgian enthusiasts who investigate remains
near the village of Fromelles and maintain a
small but important museum
in
the local town
hall
(Joe
Lagae pers. comm.).The Durand Group
of expert military and civilian volunteers has
been investigating underground tunnels at Vimy
Ridge since 1997. Archaeological and photo-
graphic survey and mapping, the defusing of
unexploded mines (Watkins 1998)and the pio-
neering of nondestructive diagnostic surveys
of battlefields (Dolamore
2000)
arc all part of
the group’s innovative research activities.
At Auchonvillers on the Somme,
a
British
group nicknamed the ‘Khaki Chums’ began
excavating behind a local guesthouse in 1996
(Spagno137
lgg8).
In
19971
this was taken over
by a team from the National Army Museum in
London which included a museum staff mem-
FIGURE
3.
Mass German grave at Gavrelle,Arras,
~r:ronce.
(photo
SA~/~/AFA~V,
Service
Archr‘ologiyue d’Arrus.J
4.
Mass
British
grave at Le
Point
dii Jour, Arras, France,]iine
2001.
(Photo
SAM/AFAN, Service
Arclie‘ologiq
uc
d
’A
mas.)
in a shell-hole with their personal effects and
sections of their aluminium identification tags
removed, leaving only a startling image of skel-
etons wearing helmets (Desfosses
etal.
1999:35)
[FIGURE
FIGURE
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]