This paper examines the role of geospatial technologies in the development of non-invasive archaeological research methods and relates this development to the expansion of an innovative sub-discipline: 'conflict archaeology'. Archaeology is predicated on the principle that human behaviour leaves behind physical evidence that is patterned, recoverable and interpretable; while warfare and conflict can appear to be chaotic affairs, they incorporate behaviours that leave behind patterned evidence (Scott 2005). In the last decade, 'conflict archaeology' has become an established sub-field of archaeology, specifically investigating the formation, preservation and conservation of the material record at sites of conflict. These include battlefields and auxiliary sites, such as camps and cemeteries, which are associated with the broader anthropology of conflict (Saunders 2007; Schofield 2005). Many such sites remain sensitive places, in terms of their physical preservation and also with regard to the emotional and political associations bound with past conflict. This is particularly the case with sites of historic conflict, where the past events may still be active in extended social memory. It is often difficult and sometimes forbidden to investigate such sites using traditional archaeological methods of excavation; this poses a considerable challenge to archaeologists. The development of conflict archaeology has coincided with a rapid increase in the accessibility and affordability of geospatial technologies, including geophysical prospection, precise DGPS (differential Global Positioning System) survey and aerial imaging. This paper will outline the integration of these technologies with archaeological method, highlighting the ways in which targeted application of geospatial technologies is enabling the investigation of sensitive sites of conflict and enhancing research agendas in conflict archaeology. As examples, I draw on the investigation of sites from the First World War, including the mass grave at Pheasant Wood on the Western Front and the extensive battlefields of the Gallipoli Peninsula.
Archaeology is a discipline which sits comfortably within both humanities and sciences and was quick to recognise the potential of geospatial techniques and technologies. Archaeology has a longstanding interest in spatial analyses, be it in the development of accurate site plans, or the analysis of artefact distributions, or the investigation of the the human use of space and movement within the landscape; geospatial concepts and techniques are not new to archaeology. There has however been a noticeable increase in the innovative application of spatial analyses in recent years, an increase which is associated with improved accessibility and affordability of key geospatial technologies, including GIS, geophysical prospection, precise DGPS and aerial imaging. Geospatial technologies have been particularly productive in the development of non-invasive archaeological research methods, which have proven useful for initial site assessments and in conjunction with excavation. Such techniques are especially valuable to the investigation of ‘sensitive sites’, for which the combination of delicate physical, cultural or political qualities of the site precludes more traditional, and destructive, excavation techniques. One such category of sensitive sites are those associated with historical conflicts, the consequences of which are often still very much alive in extended public memory.
The following paper will firstly outline the development of ‘conflict archaeology’, a sub-discipline specifically addressing the formation, preservation and conservation of the material record at sites of conflict, and will then examine the contribution of spatial technologies to the evolution of this field. In the past decade conflict archaeology has developed considerably, becoming more reflexive, more systematic and more cross-disciplinary in its scope; we are now in a position to investigate sites of industrialised conflict, such as the Western Front and Gallipoli Peninsula, from an archaeological perspective. By demonstrating the practical application of geospatial research to archaeological questions, I highlight the role of geospatial technologies in interdisciplinary studies, in the expansion of ‘conflict archaeology’ and in the emerging field of digital humanities. My intention is to demonstrate that the integration of modern spatial sciences with historical sources and archaeological methods provides a productive new means of engagement with the material culture of conflict and commemoration.
Conflict archaeology had its beginnings as an academic pursuit some 25 years ago in studies concentrating on military
strategy and frontline tactics at sites of ancient and historical battles (Scott et al. 1989). This field has its roots in historical
archaeology and military history and was initially proposed as a means of ‘filling in the blanks left by history’
The events taking place during battles are brief in duration, by archaeological standards, but are typically intense in
nature; whilst these events are inherently destructive, they also produce material evidence of distinctive, patterned behaviours
which develop in the cultural and social context of the combatants. At its most fundamental, an archaeology and anthropology of
conflict is based on the fact that people fight in ways which reflect their training and such fighting leaves behind physical remains
that can be interpreted
As we approach the centenary of the First World War, academic and public interest in the legacy of this conflict and the
remains of its battlefields is reaching new heights. The increase in public interest in the history and commemoration of recent
conflicts is clearly evident in the rising numbers of visitors to First and Second World War battlefields and memorials, and in the
public appetite for news, exhibitions and publications on the World Wars
The choice of analytical methodologies available to archaeologists has diversified in recent decades, at the same time as research agendas in conflict archaeology have embraced broader definitions of sites of conflict and increasingly multidisciplinary perspectives. As a discipline, archaeology is most closely associated with excavation. Excavation is by its very nature a destructive process and it is not always possible to undertake excavation of sites of conflict, particularly those which still represent a public memorial to a traumatic period in the recent past. In order to investigate these sites, of which First and Second World War battlefields and memorials are prime examples, archaeologists have needed to develop non-invasive and minimally destructive methods of recording and analysing material remains. The recovery and documentation of the physical evidence of conflict at sensitive sites has been supported by the development and availability of specialised spatial technologies.
Context is the cornerstone of archaeological research and professional archaeologists have long been concerned with
defining precise spatial information on the location of artefacts and features. Methodological innovations, such as Flinders Petrie’s
concern for stratigraphic excavation or the grid-based excavations pioneered by Sir Mortimer Wheeler and Kathleen Kenyon,
have improved our ability to record the locations of archaeological remains with a degree of precision that permits meaningful
interpretation
Nearly 100 years ago, the First World War was declared in Europe. Conflict on such a scale had never been conceived of
before; the massive mobilisation and destruction brought about by this global, industrialised conflict earned it the title The Great
War. As we approach the centenaries of the major battles of 1914–18, a selection of key archaeological studies are emerging.
International research in Great War archaeology is dominated by studies of the Western Front, in which innovative research is
bringing to light the details of the battlefield landscape. The other theatres of the First World War also have valuable
contributions to offer. The Gallipoli Peninsula has received little archaeological attention, despite its significance in prehistoric
and historic periods
Conflict archaeology along the Western Front takes in diverse topics, addressing issues of military history, memory and commemoration, formation and preservation. Prime examples of work in conflict archaeology which are directly supported by geospatial sciences include Stichelbaut’s current research on the Belgian Western Front and Pollard’s recent study of a mass grave near the village of Fromelles. Research by Stichelbaut, Bourgeois, Saunders and Chielens (2009) highlights the value of First World War military aerial reconnaissance photography in the development of early remote sensing technologies and as a valuable resource for modern archaeology. Stichelbaut’s research project involves the digitisation and orthorectification of over 1100 aerial photographs taken in 1914–18 and their incorporation into a GIS (Stichelbaut 2006). From the aerial photographs the features of the pre-war and wartime landscape of the Belgian Western front have been mapped and analysed. Using modern geospatial technologies of GIS and GPS, together with landscape archaeological analyses, this project has developed a detailed overview of the material remains of the First World War within their landscape context.
The physical landscape of the Western Front was decimated during the prolonged battles of the First World War but has since been reclaimed for settlement and agriculture. The battlefields of the Western Front are under continual threat from modern land use and increasing tourism; the use of geospatial science in the form of GPS and GIS has enabled the development of an invaluable resource on the location and preservation of First World War and pre-war archaeological features. Not only has the use of geospatial science supported the non-invasive identification of archaeological sites which were destroyed during the war or in its aftermath, it has enabled study of this region at an extent which would be prohibitive for traditional excavation. By applying spatial technologies to historic documents and the modern landscape, non-invasive investigation at a large scale is made possible on the Western Front.
Geospatial sciences can also be seen to tangibly benefit the research agendas of conflict archaeology at a localised scale, in
the investigation of discrete sites of conflict. In May 2007, the investigation of a mass grave at the Pheasant Wood (Bois Faisan)
in northern France was undertaken. This grave was created sometime shortly after July 16, 1916, following a diversionary attack
launched by British and Australian troops against the heavily fortified German front lines near the village of Fromelles. The
attack, an attempt to divert resources from the Battle of the Somme, was unsuccessful and the German soldiers captured the
battlefield. Many of the Allied dead were transported behind German lines and buried in mass graves; some bodies were
recovered after the war ended, but many were simply listed as missing on the memorial at VC Corner Cemetery. When historian
Lambis Englezos identified a location he believed to be the site of a mass grave
These and other substantial studies of First and Second World War battlefields in continental Europe are stimulating new
debates and forging inter-disciplinary explorations into sites of conflict and commemoration. The use of geospatial science in the
service of archaeological research is also contributing to a current investigation of the Gallipoli battlefields. The Gallipoli
Peninsula Historical National Park contains some of the world’s least disturbed First World War sites, yet we know very little
about the archaeological record of the former battlefields
Now in its third season, these efforts to study the heritage landscape of Gallipoli draw on existing historical cartography and spatial data from the Peninsula integrated with modern geospatial science. The JHAS employs high precision DGPS to record the artefacts and earthworks significant to the Turkish, Australian and New Zealand soldiers of the 1915 conflict which are still visible in the landscape. To place this landscape of conflict in its broader cultural context, the survey also records the locations of pre-1915 archaeological material and the positions of the roads, cemeteries and other structures comprising the modern commemorative landscape. Within a GIS framework, the results of the current survey are integrated with historical maps and aerial photographs, modern satellite imagery and topographic data. Importantly, this project employs modern geospatial technologies but builds on archival data and archaeological fieldwork at Gallipoli.
Despite an abundance of historical literature providing accounts of the Gallipoli campaign, the remnant battlefields themselves present us with a complex archaeological landscape. The military landscape which developed during the entrenched warfare of 1915 exists within a region inhabited since ancient times, a landscape which has subsequently been modified into the commemorative and agrarian landscape which continues to develop today. Given the degree of destruction and construction which has taken place across the landscape of the Gallipoli battlefield in the last century, historical photographs and cartographic records are invaluable for the information they provide on the formation of the pre-war, wartime and post-war landscape.
The case study presented here shows part of the results of the ongoing JHAS project, highlighting the plateau of Johnston’s Jolly/Kırmızı Sırt, which was an intensely contested section of the ‘Second Ridge’ throughout the Gallipoli campaign. Complex systems of combat and communication trenches developed on the Ottoman (east) and ANZAC (west) sides of this plateau, at some points with only 55–60 meters of no-man’s land separating the opposing front lines. The historical archaeological features from the 1915 campaign are distributed throughout a landscape which is now heavily vegetated (the establishment of the Gallipoli Peninsula Historical National Park prohibited the clearance of woodland). Comparisons made with historical photographs and aerial photographs show that the landscape is much more heavily vegetated today than during the conflict or during the initial establishment of the cemeteries and memorials by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission (CWGC) during the 1920s. In this rugged terrain, DGPS has proven to be a very effective method of recording features with high accuracy (>30cm average horizontal accuracy). The manoeuvrability of a roving GPS receiver means that the rough ground poses very few impediments to accessing and recording features, whilst the use of an external antenna ensures that obstruction of the satellite signal by surrounding scrub vegetation is minimised.
The integration of georeferenced historical maps and trench plans, orthorectified aerial photography, modern
satellitesourced spatial data
From a methodological standpoint, it is important to note that the JHAS field survey only records features which are still visible within the modern landscape; the purpose of the survey is to record what remains. Comparisons with what was once there, as depicted in historical maps, plans and photographs, occur within a GIS framework following field survey. In the GIS developed for the JHAS the results of new fieldwork are layered with modern and historical documents. In the Johnston’s Jolly region, comparisons with a post-war Ottoman map (part of a significant series resulting from the Turkish Mapping Directorate 1916 survey of the battlefield, produced under Brigadier General Mehmet Şevki Paşa) indicate relatively good preservation of the trench lines, especially on the plateau (Figures 3 and 4). During the conflict the main trenches would have been around two meters deep and one meter wide; since their abandonment in December 1915, deep deposits of silt have accumulated in the trenches meaning that they are now visible as 50–80cm depressions and are overgrown with shrubs and small Arbutus trees, often referred to as rhododendrons by the ANZACs. Nevertheless, after nearly 100 years, these substantial earthworks can still be traced within the landscape. The features located behind the front line, such as the dugouts along the south-western edge of the plateau, also show good correlation with the 1916 survey which depicts a schematic row of dugouts branching from the trench to the south of the plateau.
Layering the archaeological survey results onto rectified aerial photographs of Gallipoli provides additional detail on the
1915 landscape. Using digitally restored copies of early military aerial reconnaissance photographs in the Australian War
Memorial collections, it is possible to discern several smaller trenches on the Johnston’s Jolly plateau which are not recorded on
the Şevki Paşa map and are also no longer visible in the modern landscape. The photograph shown in Figure 5 and used in Figure
6 shows the battlefield in October of 1915, meaning that the smaller trenches must have been modified or filled in the later stages
of the war. It is also possible that the Şevki Paşa map series, which covers the entire Peninsula from north of Suvla Bay to Cape
Helles, recorded only the major features of the battlefield landscape. This map series is rightly praised for its detail and
consistency
The ANZAC/Arıburnu area of the Gallipoli battlefields is officially recognised as an open cemetery and is a place of considerable sensitivity to modern Turkey, Australia and New Zealand. Excavation is not permitted in this area, but with the support of geospatial science we are able to undertake entirely non-invasive research. We can record the wartime and pre-war archaeological record within the battlefield area, examining the form of earthworks and the patterns of artefact distribution, investigating the various rates of preservation and studying the relationships between the pre-war, wartime and modern commemorative features in a GIS framework. The trench systems recorded in the survey provide a new form of material evidence for use alongside historical accounts. Likewise, the artefacts which were located away from modern access points provide valuable insight into the daily activities taking place during the entrenched battle and contribute to developing a broader appreciation of the anthropology of war. By understanding the configuration of the archaeological landscape through survey, and integrating archaeological method with historical documents and geospatial science, we can begin to understand the formation, preservation and conservation of First World War features in the modern Gallipoli Peace Park.
At present, contributions to conflict archaeology are clearly supported by geospatial techniques and technologies such as
DGPS, GIS, geophysical prospection and aerial imaging. But the data provided by these methods do not speak for themselves; to
interpret and account for the data, archaeologists use diverse concepts and theories drawn from history, anthropology and the
social sciences
The integration of geospatial sciences with archaeological research has effectively supported the development of ‘conflict archaeology’, by enhancing both the quality and the range of information which can be gathered about artefacts, sites and regions without excavation. This is especially relevant to the study of sites of conflict from the recent past, notably the First World War. After the passing of almost 100 years, the remnant landscapes of the First World War remain sensitive locations in political and public spheres. As the centenary of the Great War approaches, the value of interdisciplinary studies integrating geospatial science, archaeology and historical analyses is particularly apparent. The detailed study of a large sector of the Western Front using aerial photography and GIS, the identification and eventual excavation of the war grave at Pheasant Wood, and the ongoing archaeological investigation of the Gallipoli battlefields are each supported by geospatial technologies.
While the First World War was extraordinarily destructive, to people and landscape, it also fostered incredibly productive exploratory research in spatial sciences, most notably aerial photography, photogrammetry, cartography and surveying. The array of maps and plans within the war records are testament to the creative energy of pioneering surveyors, photographers and cartographers. Nearly a century since their manufacture, accessing these historic resources and combining them with modern spatial technologies and archaeological method is supporting a new wave of research and engagement with the material culture of conflict and commemoration. As the archaeology of conflict continues to develop, geospatial technologies provide valuable support for scientific contributions to the analysis and conservation of sites of historical conflict.
Many people have contributed to the ongoing survey which is discussed in the final section of this paper. I would particularly like to thank the Joint Historical and Archaeological Survey of the ‘ANZAC Area’ team, including Mithat Atabay (Director), Simon Harrington, Reyhan Körpe, Chris Mackie, Ian McGibbon, Sarah Midford, Michelle Negus Cleary, Richard Reid, Abby Robinson and Antonio Sagona. I would also like to acknowledge the Turkish authorities in Ankara for granting us permission to carry out the survey. I am grateful to the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, Australia, and the Ministry for Culture and Heritage, New Zealand, for supporting the development of the JHAS project. A variation of this paper was presented at the Third International Gallipoli Symposium, held in Istanbul, April 20–21, 2012.
Figure 1: The Gallipoli Peninsula and the JHAS research area.
Figure 2: Remnant trench networks visible in the Johnston's Jolly area. Figure 4: the survey findings in relation to the record of the Paşa map. Figure 6: survey findings in relation to the aerial photograph shown in Figure 5. Özbek, O. 2012, ‘Sea level changes and prehistoric sites on the coasts of Souther Turkish Thrace, 12,000–6000 BP’, Quaternary
International, vol 261, pp. 162–175.
Paşa, M. Ş. 2009, Çanakkale Tahkimat Haritası (Defense Atlas of Çanakkale), Genelkurmay Askerî Tarih ve Stratejik Etüt
Başkanlığı Yayınları, Genelkurmay Başmevi, Ankara.
Pollard, T. 2008, 'Digging hallowed ground', Wartime, vol. 44, pp. 30–33.
Pollard, T. & Banks, I. (eds.) 2008, Scorched Earth: studies in the archaeology of conflict, Brill, Leiden.
Purbrick, L., Aulich, J. & Dawson, G. (eds.) 2007, Contested spaces: sites, representations and histories of conflict, Palgrave
Macmillan, New York.
Sagona, A., Atabay, M., Reid, R., Mcgibbon, I., Mackie, C., Erat, M. & Birkett-Rees, J. 2011, 'The ANZAC (Arıburnu) Battlefield: new perspectives and methodologies in history and archaeology', Australian Historical Studies, vol. 42, pp. 313–37.
Saunders, N. 2002, 'Excavating memories: archaeology and the Great War, 1914–2001', Antiquity, vol. 76, pp. 101–8. Saunders, N. J. 2007, Killing Time: Archaeology and the First World War, Sutton, Stroud, England.
Schofield, J. 2005, Combat Archaeology: Material Culture and Modern Conflict, Duckworth, London.
Schofield, J., Klausmeler, A. & Purbrick, L. (eds.) 2006, Re-mapping the Field: new approaches in conflict archaeology, Werlag,
Berlin.
Scott, D. D. 2005, The Archaeology of Battlefields: a pioneer in the field discusses a new way to investigate warfare, Archaeology [Online], vol. 58(5) Available: www.archaeology.org/online/interviews/scott.html [Accessed 25 September, 2012]. Scott, D. D., Fox, J., R. A., Connor, M. A. & Harmon, D. 1989, Archaeological Perspectives on the Battle of the Little Bighorn,
University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.
Scott, D. D. & Mcfeaters, A. P. 2011, 'The archaeology of historic battlefields: a history and theoretical development in conflict archaeology', Journal of Archaeological Research, vol. 19, pp. 103–32.
Slade, P. 2003, 'Gallipoli thanatourism: the meaning of ANZAC', Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 30, pp. 779–794. Soja, E. 1989, Postmodern Geographies: The Reassertion of Space in Critical Social Theory, Verso Press, London. Steel, N. 2008, 'Another brick in the wall', Wartime, vol. 44, pp.
Stichelbaut, B. 2006, 'The application of First World War photography to archaeology: the Belgian images', Antiquity, vol. 80, pp.
161–72.
Stichelbaut, B., Bourgeois, J., Saunders, N. & Chielens, P. (eds.) 2009, Images of Conflict: Aerial Photography and Archaeology,
Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle Upon Tyne.
Tanyer, T. 2010, Çanakkale Savaşı'nın Bilinmeyen Cephesi: Hava Savaşları (The unknown battle of the Gallipoli campaign: the air war), Türkiye Barolar Birliği Yayınları, Thompson, V. D., Arnold Iii, P. J., Pluckham, T. J. & Vanderwarker, A. M. 2011, 'Situating remote sensing in anthropological archaeology', Archaeological Prospection, vol. 18, pp. 195–213.
Van Creveld, M. 1989, Technology and War: from 2000 B.C. to the present, The Free Press, New York.
Warf, B. & Arias, S. (eds.) 2008, The Spatial Turn: interdisciplinary perspectives, Routledge, London and New York. Wheeler, R. E. M. 1943, Maiden Castle, Dorset, Oxford, Reports of the Research Committee of the Society of Antiquaries of
London, London.
Wilkinson, T. J. 2003, Archaeological Landscapes of the Near East, University of Arizona Press, Tucson.