DOCSLIB.ORG

Fields of Glory Or Fields of Gory?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Fields of Glory Or Fields of Gory? Fields of Glory or Fields of Gory? The emergence of conflict archaeology as an academic discipline and its influence on current archaeological research K.L.G.M. Brouwers (S0502065) Master Thesis, Leiden University, Faculty of Archaeology Fields of Glory or Fields of Gory? The emergence of conflict archaeology as an academic discipline and its influence on current archaeological research By K.L.G.M. Brouwers (s0502065) Master Thesis Archaeology (1040X3053Y) Supervisor: Dr. M.J. Versluys Specialisation: Field-Archaeology (Conflict Archaeology) Leiden University, Faculty of Archaeology Leiden, 12 December 2011 Table of contents Table of contents 3 Acknowledgements 5 Introduction 7 Chapter 1: The Origins of War – The Rise of Conflict Archaeology 9 1.1. The Conflict between War and Conflict 10 1.2. The Origins of Warfare 13 1.3. Toward a Development of Conflict Archaeology 15 1.4. Taking Fire – Critique on Conflict Archaeology 18 1.5. Conflict Archaeology as a new and useful discipline 21 Chapter 2: Dealing with Documents 23 2.1. The Textual Record 24 2.2. Types of Textual Sources 28 2.3. Depictions – The Iconographic and Pictorial Record 30 2.4. Graffiti: War on the Walls 40 2.5. Concluding Remarks 53 Chapter 3: The Visibility of Conflict 54 3.1. A Landscape of Conflict: The Site and the Setting 55 3.2. Defence works – From Fence to Fortress 57 3.2.1. Lines of Defence 60 3.2.2 Castles and Fortresses 63 3.2.3. Protecting the Civilian 66 3.2.4. Siegefields 68 3.3. Military Vehicles and Aircraft 70 3.3.1. Rolling Thunder – The Fighting Vehicle 71 3.3.2. Naval Forces 75 3.3.3. The Air Weapon and Aviation Archaeology 78 3.3.4. Concluding Remarks 83 3.4. The Archaeology of Ammunition 84 3.4.1. Basic Principles of Archaeological Ammunition 85 3.4.2. Reconstructing the Battlefield 87 3.4.3. Rough Characteristics, Initial Field Recognition 89 3 Chapter 4: The Speaking Dead 94 4.1. The Grave 95 4.2. Trauma 101 4.3. The Identification of Casualties 103 4.4. Recovery of Military Casualties 104 Chapter 5: Keeping up with the Time 110 5.1. Making the most of Methodology 111 5.2. The Digital Age 116 5.3. (Re-)living the past – Re-enactment and Experimental Archaeology 117 5.4. The Public 126 Conclusion 129 Abstract (In English and Dutch) 134 Bibliography 138 List of Illustrations 162 Appendices 166 Appendix A: Organised Violence in Prehistory 166 Appendix B: Trauma Types 184 Appendix C: Looting the Battlefield 193 Appendix D: Ammunition checklist for the archaeologist 197 4 Acknowledgements Shortly after starting my academic studies at the University in Leiden in 2005 I heard about the founding of the Centre of conflict archaeology in Glasgow. I had chosen to study the archaeology of Egypt, but I have also had a life-long fascination for military culture and military history. Therefore I chose to specialise myself as a conflict- archaeologist. I started to study the relevant literature and tried to read the newest articles on the subject. Because no professional conflict archaeology currently exists in the Netherlands I decided to write my thesis on Conflict Archaeology. This would enable me to combine my interest in the subject and my intensive literature study on the subject with a further specialisation in the general sub-discipline of conflict archaeology. I have visited a lot of institutes, museums and historical battlefields and I have really enjoyed writing this thesis. It is the basis for my future research in the field of conflict archaeology, the culmination of two and a half years of intensive work and I am personally very satisfied with the result. I am indebted to many persons who have supported me during the writing of this thesis. First of all I would like to thank my thesis supervisor, Dr. Miguel John Versluys, for his enthusiastic support, his quick response, his excellent suggestions and his confidence in my abilities to write this thesis. I would also like to thank Joost Golverdingen for helping me with finding literature, for providing me with a wealth of articles and photographs, for providing mental support, for getting me enthusiastic about graffiti, for reviewing my texts and for helping me out in any way he could. I would further like to thank Dr. Tony Pollard for providing me with information and for answering my questions, Mr. Gerben Klein-Baltink for providing me with information and literature about ballistics and ammunition, Drs. Tim Vanderbeken for involving me in his research about the battle of Lafelt and for providing me with literature about the subject, Drs. Glenn de Nutte for providing me with the initial ideas and articles used for my thesis, Wim Knaepen for providing some interesting internet links, Dan Sivlich for his inspiring suggestions for research about musket ammunition, Drs. Danny Keijers for providing me with his research information about sconces, Jos Notermans for guiding me through the underground defence-works of Maastricht and Luc Walshot for providing me with the chance to investigate military graffiti. 5 There is also a number of persons who answered my questions about a number of questions whom I wish to thank, including: Alain Tripnaux, Dr. A. Simons from Hazenberg Archeologie, Drs. Krispijn of the department of Assyriology at Leiden University, Sgt. Maj. Instr. P.A. van Aalderen from the Bergings-en Identificatiedienst Koninklijke Landmacht, Laurens Flokstra, Dhr. P. van Heugten, Ilona Beerts, Peter Stassen, Bram Peters, René Cappers and Sgt. T. Verhesen. Then there are the institutes and museums which provided me with the tools to undertake my research including the University of Leiden, the University of Glasgow, the University of Amsterdam, the library of the city of Maastricht, the Provinciaal Archief Limburg, TNO Den Haag, ZOLAD+ in Riemst, streekmuseum Slag bij Lafelt and the NIOD (Nederlands Instituut voor Oorlogsdocumentatie in Amsterdam). I would also like to thank the NINO (Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten) for functioning as my office during the writing of the thesis and the people in the NINO for the many coffee breaks and good company during the last 2.5 years including Cathelijne Devens, Steffie van Gompel, Renate Bonte, Graciella Roosien and many others. Maud Geraets and Gabriel Greenstein, Henrico Lumeij and Kitty Coenen thank you for helping me through some difficult periods in my life while writing this thesis. Finally I would like to thank my friends Sgt. Chris van Pol for providing me with information about firearms, Koen Bothmer for listening to the long hours of thesis-related stories and for his clever suggestions, Pascal Frissen for the lengthy and very interesting discussions, Flavio Beraldo for joining me on my trip to the library in Glasgow, Bas Smeets for the last minute editing of my thesis and Irene Meulenberg and Martin Uildriks for dragging me through the final weeks of writing this thesis. Finally I would like to thank my parents for their enduring support and the chances they gave me to study, culminating in this thesis. I would also like to thank the persons which I may have forgotten to mention in this thesis. Thank you all for supporting me and my work! 6 Introduction ―Don‘t ignore the yesterdays of war in your study of today and tomorrow‖ - Douglas Southall-Freemen These words were spoken by historian Douglas S. Freemen at a lecture for the recruits of the United States Marine Corps school in Virginia, 1950. In his speech to the recruits Southall-Freeman tried to stress the importance of the lessons that can be learnt by the study of war in the past. The study of war in the past holds answers to modern military affairs as well as issues which go beyond the battlefield. War is not only the domain of the soldiers or the civilians which are tied up in an armed conflict themselves, but it is also the domain of historians, sociologists, anthropologists, archaeologists and other academic scholars. War and violence are among the most universal types of human behaviour, occurring everywhere around the world at macro and micro-level and throughout the entire human history, from the Palaeolithic up to the present day. According to Winston Churchill battles are the punctuation marks of history (quoted by Lynch & Cooksey 2007, 19). When studying the past, one will quickly come to the conclusion that a world without violence, war and conflict simply did never exist. David Saul states that the history of the world is primarily shaped by war (Saul 2009, 8). It is therefore remarkable that the specific study of warfare and conflict as an independent subject in the field of archaeology has only developed in the last three decades. War, conflict and violence have been studied however within several fields of archaeology like Classical archaeology and Prehistoric Archaeology, but they have been placed in a limited temporal or spatial context related to their specific fields of study. Warfare has mainly been regarded as a social process in archaeology, a by-product of human actions at a particular archaeological site or in a certain area. It has mainly been studied by historians studying maps and texts, while archaeologists only recognized the presence of war and conflict by the presence of weapons or destruction layers in the archaeological record. Specialists from other fields have significantly contributed to the study of conflict and archaeology, like Dr. Jonathan Shay, who wrote interesting books about combat trauma in Classical Greece (Shay 1994; Shay 2002). The social impact of conflict, its exact material depositions and its importance to military history have however not been regarded as independent subjects within the field of archaeology.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • How Strong Was Strong Mountain? Preliminary Remarks on the Possible Location of the Mamluk Siege Position at Montfort Castle
    CHAPTER 26 How Strong was Strong Mountain? Preliminary Remarks on the Possible Location of the Mamluk Siege Position at Montfort Castle Rafael Lewis During a topographic and landscape archaeology sur- logical site to the broader landscape, including every vey, thoughts on Montfort Castle’s topographical infe- archaeological feature in it. The field methods used riority led to some preliminary1 ideas on the manner in Landscape Archaeology and the Archaeology of in which the Teutonic Order dealt with this crucial Conflicts includes the equal examination of all man- weakness, and what would have been the best loca- made features, not excluding modern elements which tion for the Mamluks to position their siege machinery are documented and studied. The underlying concept and camps during the two assaults of the castle in May of this approach is that in order to understand the 1266 and June 1271.2 meaning of a single find or feature, we need to under- Montfort Castle is isolated from main roads, com- stand the environment in which they were found and mercial centres and major settlements. The problem how they relate to it. The manner in which objects of its isolated location has been raised in the past.3 In are scattered in the landscape is examined strati- order to better understand the castle in its setting, I graphically, but also according to their focal, discrete or decided to go beyond the well-secured boundaries of expanded nature. A path, for example, can usually be the castle’s walls, to raise my head (methodologically) described as a discrete or expanded feature, but a road from the trenches, bulks and archaeological artefacts, junction where a few such features meet, is usually of and look at this specific topic of inquiry from a wide a focal nature.
    [Show full text]
  • North Carolina Archaeology
    North Carolina Archaeology Volume 65 2016 North Carolina Archaeology Volume 65 October 2016 CONTENTS Don’t Let Ethics Get in the Way of Doing What’s Right: Three Decades of Working with Collectors in North Carolina I. Randolph Daniel, Jr. ......................................................................................... 1 Mariners’ Maladies: Examining Medical Equipage from the Queen Anne’s Revenge Shipwreck Linda F. Carnes-McNaughton ........................................................................... 28 Archival Excavations from Dusty File Cabinets, Part I: Unpublished Artifact Pattern Data of Colonial Period Households, Dependency Buildings, and Public Structures from Colonial Brunswick Town Thomas E. Beaman, Jr. ...................................................................................... 53 Preface: Identifying and Defining North Carolina’s Archaeological Heritage through Remote Sensing and Geophysics John J. Mintz and Shawn M. Patch .................................................................... 90 The Role of GPR in Archaeology: A Beginning Not an End Charles R. Ewen ................................................................................................. 92 Three-dimensional Remote Sensing at House in the Horseshoe State Historic Site (31MR20), Moore County, North Carolina Stacy Curry and Doug Gallaway ..................................................................... 100 An Overview of Geophysical Surveys and Ground-truthing Excavations at House in the Horseshoe (31MR20), Moore County, North
    [Show full text]
  • Inside... DIRECTOR’S NOTE VOL
    Inside... DIRECTOR’S NOTE VOL. 24, NO. 2, DECEMBER 2020 Battlefield Archaeology Book––Francis Marion and the Snow’s Island Community RESEARCH Small Arms Evidence from Star Fort Numismatic History of Charlesfort/Santa Elena: Plantation Era New Mound at Mulberry Archaeology in South Carolina Book MARITIME RESEARCH MRD Features in National Geographic TV Channel Drain the Oceans Season 3 A Mystery Object from Mississippi SAVANNAH RIVER By Chester B. DePratter, Director of Research ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH In 1976, I first became interested in colleagues, Charles Hudson and Marvin PROGRAM Hernando de Soto and the expedition he Smith, and I have published papers on Public Outreach in Time of Covid led through the Southeast when I was the 1539-1543 route that Soto and his men SCIAA ANNUAL REPORT just beginning work on my Ph.D. at the took from their landing in Tampa Bay, A New Feature in Legacy University of Georgia. In the 44 years that Florida, to the departure of the expedition have passed since then, my friends and survivors down the Mississippi River HISTORIC ARCHAEOLOGY A New Feature in Legacy MYSTERY ARTIFACT, See Page 4 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH TRUST (ART) AND SCIAA DONORS ENDOWMENT OPPORTUNITIES Stanley South Student Archaeological Research Endowment Fund Thank you for your generous support of the Archaeological Research Trust (ART) Endowment Fund and the printing of Legacy. Please send donations in the enclosed envelope to Nena Powell Rice USC/SCIAA, 1321 Pendleton Street, Columbia, SC 29208, indicating whether you want to continue receiving Legacy and include your email address. All contributions are appreciated. Please visit our website at: http://www.
    [Show full text]
  • Nadia CV 09:17:19
    Nadia C. Neff, PhD Student Department of Anthropology [email protected] University of New Mexico (970) 488 – 9932 Anthropology Annex B06E Albuquerque, New Mexico EDUCATION AND TRAINING University of New Mexico Albuquerque, NM PhD Student 2019 – present Department of Anthropology Archaeology Subfield Fort Lewis College Durango, CO Visiting Instructor of Anthropology 2017 – 2019 Department of Anthropology University of York York, United Kingdom Master of Science, Bioarchaeology 2014 – 2016 Department of Archaeology Graduated with Merit Fort Lewis College Durango, CO Bachelor of Art, Anthropology 2009 – 2013 Department of Anthropology Graduated with Honors RESEARCH EXPERIENCE PhD Student 2019 - present University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM Advisors: Dr. Osbjorn Pearson, Dr Keith Prufer Rodents! Using stable isotopes to model dietary and environmental change from the Paleoindian period to the Mayan Collapse in modern Belize. – Currently studying the utility of using stable isotopes in rodent remains as a proxy for studying human dietary and environmental activity. Masters Student 2014 – 2016 University of York, York, United Kingdom Advisor: Dr. Matthew Collins Identifying potential sites of conflict through the analysis of possible human bone fragments via ZooMS (Zooarchaeology by Mass Spectrometry). – Studied the applications of using ZooMS for the identification of human bone fragments in archaeological and forensic contexts. Nadia C. Neff | [email protected] | (970) 488 – 9932 1 – Combined traditional field survey and documentation methods with biomolecular protein analysis to create human bone scatter maps to identify possible sites of conflict. – Research based on a case study involving the Battle of Towton (1461) site. Collagen extraction method testing in highly degraded bone fragments – Tested collagen extraction methods (HCl demineralization versus AmBiC surface washing) on highly degraded bone fragments found in surface and top soil finds.
    [Show full text]
  • Indiana Archaeology
    INDIANA ARCHAEOLOGY Volume 6 Number 1 2011 Indiana Department of Natural Resources Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology (DHPA) ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Indiana Department of Natural Resources Robert E. Carter, Jr., Director and State Historic Preservation Officer Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology (DHPA) James A. Glass, Ph.D., Director and Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer DHPA Archaeology Staff James R. Jones III, Ph.D., State Archaeologist Amy L. Johnson, Senior Archaeologist and Archaeology Outreach Coordinator Cathy L. Draeger-Williams, Archaeologist Wade T. Tharp, Archaeologist Rachel A. Sharkey, Records Check Coordinator Editors James R. Jones III, Ph.D. Amy L. Johnson Cathy A. Carson Editorial Assistance: Cathy Draeger-Williams Publication Layout: Amy L. Johnson Additional acknowledgments: The editors wish to thank the authors of the submitted articles, as well as all of those who participated in, and contributed to, the archaeological projects which are highlighted. The U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service is gratefully acknow- ledged for their support of Indiana archaeological research as well as this volume. Cover design: The images which are featured on the cover are from several of the individual articles included in this journal. This publication has been funded in part by a grant from the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service‘s Historic Preservation Fund administered by the Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology. In addition, the projects discussed in several of the articles received federal financial assistance from the Historic Preservation Fund Program for the identification, protection, and/or rehabilitation of historic properties and cultural resources in the State of Indiana.
    [Show full text]
  • COLIN RENFREW PAUL BAHN Theories, Methods, and Practice
    COLIN RENFREW PAUL BAHN Theories, Methods, and Practice COLLEGE EDITION SEVENTH EDITION REVISED & UPDATED ~ Thames & Hudson CONTENTS Preface to the College Edition 9 BOX FEATURES Experimental Archaeology 53 Introduction Wet Preservation: The Ozette Site 60 The Nature and Aims of Archaeology 12 Dry Preservation: The Tomb of Tutankhamun 64 Cold Preservation 1: Mountain "Mummies" 67 Cold Preservation 2: Snow Patch Archaeology 68 PART I Cold Preservation 3: The Iceman 70 The Framework of Archaeology 19 3 Where? 1 The Searchers Survey and Excavation of Sites and Features 73 The History of Archaeology 21 Discovering Archaeological s.ites The Speculative Phase 22 and Features 74 The Beginnings of Modern Archaeology 26 Assessing the Layout of Sites and Features 98 Classification and Consolidation 32 Excavation 110 A Turning Point in Archaeology 40 Summary 130 World Archaeology 41 Further Reading 130 Summary 48 BOX FEATURES Further Reading 48 The Sydney Cyprus Survey Project 76 Sampling Strategies 79 BOX FEATURES Identifying Archaeological Features from Above 82 Digging Pompeii: Past and Present 24 Interpretation and Mapping From Aerial Images 86 Evolution: Darwin's Great Idea 27 Lasers in the Jungle 89 North American Archaeological Pioneers 30 GIS and the Giza Plateau 96 The Development of Field Techniques 33 Tell Ha lula: Multi-period Surface Investigations JOO Pioneering Women in Archaeology 38 Geophysical Survey at Roman Wroxeter 106 Processual Archaeology 41 Measuring Magnetism 108 Interpretive or Postprocessual Archaeologies 44 Underwater
    [Show full text]
  • Battlefield Archaeology: a Guide to the Archaeology of Conflict
    BATTLEFIELD ARCHAEOLOGY: A GUIDE TO THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF CONFLICT Guide 8 BAJR Practical Guide Series Prepared By Tim Sutherland Department of Archaeological Sciences University of Bradford With Contributions On Human Remains By Malin Holst York Osteoarchaeology Ltd © held by authors TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTENTS Page Acknowledgements v 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 WHAT IS BATTLEFIELD ARCHAEOLOGY? 1 3.0 WHY IS THE ANALYSIS OF SITES OF CONFLICT IMPORTANT? 3 3.1 THE USE OF CONFLICTS FOR PROPAGANDA AND MISINFORMATION 4 3.2 BATTLEFIELDS AS MEMORIALS 5 3.3 BATTLEFIELD TOURISM 7 3.4 RE-ENACTMENT 8 3.5 FOCI FOR SOCIAL ACTIVITIES 8 3.6 VIEWS OF THE NATIONAL BODIES 9 3.6.1 The Battlefield Trust 9 3.6.2 English Heritage 9 3.7 BATTLEFIELDS AND THE MEDIA 10 4.0 A BRIEF BATTLEFIELD HISTORY 11 4.1 INTRODUCTION 11 4.2 CASE STUDIES 13 4.2.1 Pre-Twentieth Century Archaeological Investigations 13 5.0 WHY MIGHT A SITE OF CONFLICT BE DISTURBED 14 5.1 WHAT LEGISLATION IS THERE IN PLACE TO PROTECT HISTORIC 15 BATTLEFIELDS? 5.1.1 English Legislation 15 5.1.2 Scotland 18 5.1.3 Wales 18 5.1.4 Northern Ireland 18 6.0 IDENTIFICATION OF SITES OF CONFLICT 18 6.1 EVIDENCE FOR CONFLICT 18 6.2 HOW LARGE MIGHT A BATTLEFIELD BE 19 6.3 DIFFERENT TYPES OF BATTLEFIELD SITES 19 7.0 METHODS OF EVALUATION 20 7.1 EARTHWORK SURVEYS 21 7.2 GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY 21 7.2.1 Metal Detector Survey 21 7.2.2 Fluxgate Gradiometer or Magnetometer 22 7.2.3 Electrical Earth Resistance Meter 23 7.2.4 Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) 23 7.3 FIELD WALKING 23 7.4 DESK TOP ASSESSMENTS 23 8.0 ARTEFACT IDENTIFICATION
    [Show full text]
  • An Historical Archaeological Examination of a Battlefield Landscape: an Example from the American Civil War Battle of Wilson's Wharf, Charles City County, Virginia
    W&M ScholarWorks Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects 2003 An historical archaeological examination of a battlefield landscape: An Example from the American Civil War Battle of Wilson's Wharf, Charles City County, Virginia Jameson Michael Harwood College of William & Mary - Arts & Sciences Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/etd Part of the History of Art, Architecture, and Archaeology Commons, Military History Commons, and the United States History Commons Recommended Citation Harwood, Jameson Michael, "An historical archaeological examination of a battlefield landscape: An Example from the American Civil War Battle of Wilson's Wharf, Charles City County, Virginia" (2003). Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects. Paper 1539626393. https://dx.doi.org/doi:10.21220/s2-bkaa-yg82 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects at W&M ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects by an authorized administrator of W&M ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. AN HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXAMINATION OF A BATTLEFIELD LANDSCAPE: An Example From The American Civil War Battle Of Wilson’s Wharf, Charles City County, Virginia A Thesis Presented to The Faculty of the Department of Anthropology The College of William and Mary in Virginia In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts by Jameson Michael Harwood 2003 APPROVAL SHEET This thesis is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Jameson MichaefHarwood Approved, May 2003 t Norman Barka Dennis Blanton MarleyBrown, III DEDICATION To the soldiers who fought and died the Wilson’s Wharf battlefield landscape TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Acknowledgements v List of Tables vi List of Figures vii Abstract ix Introduction 2 Chapter I.
    [Show full text]
  • George Rogers Clark ~ Archaeology of a Frontier Hero
    George Rogers Clark ~ Archaeology of a Frontier Hero As often happens, when we learn about many important figures in American history it becomes apparent that they were multi-talented individuals, and multi-faceted. General George Rogers Clark, that great figure in the history of our state and nation, was just such a man. Well known are his heroic military skills and accomplishments, and how those dramatic accomplishments helped form our nation at a critical point in its early development. We might also be aware of his surveying, diplomatic, and inventing skills. But, perhaps not everyone knows that this man also had interests in archaeology, paleontology, geology, and natural history (Thomas and Conner 1967). Archaeology by, and related to, George Rogers Clark in Indiana can be separated into several locations to highlight. The first of these is Fort Sackville, the British outpost described as one “of several forts built by the French, British or Americans from 1732 to 1813 in this important frontier settlement [Vincennes, Indiana]” (National Park Service 2004). Lt. Col. Clark and his brave men in 1779 captured the fort from the British. In recognition of the importance of this military feat, and its significance in our country’s history, the country erected the impressive Beaux Arts monument which stands today in Vincennes. The monument and grounds are now part of the George Rogers Clark National Historical Park, administered by the National Park Service. Sadly, no professional archaeological investigations appear to have been conducted prior to when the site for the monument was cleared of other existing structures, and the excavation preparations for the monument were conducted in the 1930s.
    [Show full text]
  • CONFERENCE PROGRAMME Tuesday, July 7 Panel Session 2: 09.30-11:00 / Panel Session 3: 11:30-13:00
    15th International Conference of the European Association of Southeast Asian Archaeologists 6 -10 July 2015, Université Paris Ouest Nanterre la Défense Organisers and acknowledgements Map of Campus EurASEAA15 Conference main organiser: Bérénice Bellina-Pryce (Centre National de la Recherche Scientifi que, UMR 7055 “Préhistoire et Technologie”) EurASEAA15 Scientifi c Committee: Bérénice Bellina-Pryce (Chair – CNRS, UMR 7055 “PréTech”), Véronique Degroot (EFEO), Jean- MAE Christophe Galipaud (Paloc, MNHN/IRD), Agustijanto Indrajaya (Pusat Arkeologi Nasional, Indonesian EurASEAA15 National Archaeology Center), Nam Kim (University Wisconsin-Madison), Helen Anne Lewis (University College Dublin), Thomas Oliver Pryce (CNRS, UMR7055 “PréTech”), François Sémah P (MNHN), Rasmi Shoocongdej (Silpakorn University) EurASEAA15 Organising Committee: EurASEAA15 Bérénice Bellina-Pryce (CNRS, UMR 7055 “Préhistoire et Technologie”), Thomas Oliver Pryce (CNRS, Bâtiment B t t UMR7055 “PréTech”), Pierre Baty (Inrap), Claudine Bautze-Picron (CNRS, UMR7528 “Mondes iranien e e n n n n i i et indien”),Vincenzo Celiberti (Centre Européen de Recherche Préhistorique de Tautavel),Véronique s s Degroot (EFEO), Aude Favereau (MNHM), Jean-Christophe Galipaud (Paloc, MNHN/IRD), Laurence Library de Quinty (USR 3225, MAE), Isabelle Rivoal (CNRS, LESC, USR 3225), François Sémah (MNHN), Isabelle Sidéra (CNRS, UMR 7055 “Prétech”) Restaurant Conference administrators: CROUS NomadIT: Eli Bugler, Darren Edale, James Howard, Rohan Jackson, Triinu Mets, Elaine Morley Exhibitors and
    [Show full text]
  • Volume 3 – FOC 2018
    Page 1 of 112 Editors and Authors Page 2 of 112 Table of Contents Battlefield Studies Archaeology of Modern Conflict: The War after the War in Lithuania and Battle of Užpelkiai Forest, 1949 Gediminas Petrauskas, Aistė Petrauskienė, Vykintas Vaitkevičius………………......................................................................4 The Methodology Used to Identify the Battle Site of Fulford Chas Jones………………………………………………………………………..19 The Battle of Alcalá La Vieja. Location and Understanding of a Medieval Battle. Mario Ramírez Galán, Rafael Montalvo Laguna and María Benítez Galán………………………………………………………...26 Initial Discussions on Military Archaeology Zhao Congcang…………………………………………………………………..44 The Battle of Cheriton: The Archaeology of an English Civil War Battlefield Kevin M. Claxton………………………………………………………………...50 American Revolutionary War “Running the Gauntlet: Locating the Battle of Parker’s Ferry, South Carolina” Steven D. Smith, James B. Legg, Brian C. Mabelitini…………………………..64 “In the Morning We Began to Strip and Bury the Dead:” A Context for Burial Practices During the American War for Independence Robert A. Selig &Wade P. Catts………………………………………………...78 Historical Narrative and Cultural Landscape Analysis: Revealing the American War of Independence Battle of Chelsea Creek Victor T. Mastone, Craig J. Brown, Christopher V. Maio.............................................................................................93 Page 3 of 112 Battlefield Studies Archaeology of Modern Conflict: The War after the War in Lithuania and Battle of Užpelkiai Forest, 1949 Gediminas Petrauskas1, Aistė Petrauskienė2, Vykintas Vaitkevičius3 1. National Museum of Lithuania, Department of Archaeology, Arsenalo St. 1, LT-01143 Vilnius, Lithuania. E-mail: [email protected] 2. National Museum of Lithuania, Department of Modern History, Arsenalo St. 1, LT-01143 Vilnius, Lithuania. E-mail: [email protected] 3. Vilnius University, Faculty of Communication, Saulėtekio Av.
    [Show full text]
  • Archaeology of the Contemporary Past
    Originally published as González‐Ruibal, A. 2014. Contemporary Past, Archaeology of the. In Claire Smith (Ed.): Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology, New York: Springer, pp 1683-1694. Archaeology of the contemporary past Alfredo González-Ruibal Introduction The archaeology of the contemporary past is a new and interdisciplinary field of research that intersects with heritage studies, art, ethnography and modern history. This kind of archaeology, as it is practised today, was born in the late 1990s. However, its intellectual roots go further back (Harrison 2011: 144-149). While “archaeology” literally means the study of ancient things, archaeologists have always been concerned with the present, although in very different ways. During the nineteenth century, there was no clear-cut division between present and past, archaeology and anthropology, and prehistory books regularly included living societies (but always non-industrial). This perspective soon fell into disrepute, due to its inherent racism and simplistic evolutionism. From the late 1950s onwards, archaeologists renewed their interest in the contemporary world through a new method—ethnoarchaeology—and a new theory— processualism. As in the previous century, it was traditional groups that were targeted: other societies were not studied. This is because ethnoarchaeology was conducted for the sake of developing analogies to understand the past, not as an end in itself to understand the present. Historical Background Despite their lack of concern for contemporary communities, processual archaeologists, like Lewis Binford, paved the way for an archaeological study of the present. On the one hand, unlike culture-historical archaeologists, processualists were not concerned with particular periods and cultures, but with understanding human behavior and social processes in general—and this could include the present.
    [Show full text]