Pollard, T. (2008) The Archaeology of the Siege of Fort William, 1746. Journal of Conflict Archaeology, 4(1-2). pp. 189-229. Copyright © 2008 Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge Content must not be changed in any way or reproduced in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holder(s) When referring to this work, full bibliographic details must be given http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/44838 Deposited on: 12 March 2015 Enlighten – Research publications by members of the University of Glasgow http://eprints.gla.ac.uk JCA 4,1-2_f1_i-ii 12/9/08 3:36 PM Page i JOURNAL OF CONFLICT ARCHAEOLOGY JCA 4,1-2_f1_i-ii 12/9/08 3:36 PM Page ii JCA 4,1-2_f1_i-ii 12/9/08 3:36 PM Page i CONTENTS Editorial ...................................................................................................... iii Tony Pollard and Iain Banks Articles N A Roberts, J W Brown, B Hammett & P D F Kingston, A Detailed Study of the Effectiveness and Capabilities of 18th Century Musketry on the Battlefield .......................................... 1 Xavier Rubio Campillo, An Archaeological Study of Talamanca Battlefield ................................................................................................ 23 Gavin Hughes & Jonathan Trigg, Remembering the Charge of the Light Brigade: Its Commemoration, War Memorials and Memory 39 Nicolas K Grguric, Fortified Homesteads: The Architecture of Fear in Frontier South Australia and the Northern Territory, CA. 1847–1885 ...................................................................................... 59 David G Passmore & Stephan Harrison, Landscapes of the Battle of the Bulge: WW2 Field Fortifications in the Ardennes Forests of Belgium .............................................................................................. 87 Tony Pollard & Iain Banks, Archaeological Investigation of Military Sites on Inchkeith Island ...................................................................... 109 James E Snead, War and Place: Landscapes of Conflict and Destruction in Prehistory ...................................................................... 137 Tony Pollard, The Archaeology of the Siege of Leith, 1560 .............. 159 Tony Pollard with a contribution by Olivia Lelong, The Archaeology of the Siege of Fort William, 1746 .................................................... 189 Adrian T Myers, Between Memory and Materiality: An Archaeological Approach to Studying the Nazi Concentration Camps .................... 231 © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2008 DOI: 10.1163/157407808X382719 JCA 4,1-2_f1_i-ii 12/9/08 3:36 PM Page ii ii CONTENTS Book Reviews The Deadly Politics of Giving: Exchange and Violence at Ajacan, Roanoke, and Jamestown, by Seth Mallios ........................................ 247 JCA 4,1-2_f2_iii-x 12/9/08 3:54 PM Page iii EDITORIAL NAZIS, WE HATE THOSE GUYS! Subjects under consideration in this volume range from Crimean war memo- rials, siege sites, through colonial architecture and experimental musket firings to Nazi concentration camps. It may at first be difficult to detect a unifying theme here, and indeed why should there be? One of the motivations behind this journal is to give expression to the broad scope of conflict archaeology, and at this we feel it continues to succeed. However, almost entirely by acci- dent a core theme can be seen to run through the majority of papers within these covers. That theme is confinement. It is most obviously present in Myers’ paper, An Archaeological Approach to Studying the Nazi Concentration Camps, but more on this later. Other papers which touch on the same theme are presented by Passmore and Harrison, who set out the results of a field survey of earth- works created during the Battle of the Bulge in 1944. Both deliberately exca- vated entrenchments and shell craters were utilised by troops during combat, thus creating microenvironments within the wider geography of the battlefield which both confined and protected. In some respects, the occupant of a shell- hole may share some experiences with members of a besieged garrison, inabil- ity to move freely outside of the defences, difficulties of communication with comrades, shortages of supplies and ammunition, the uncertainty of relief etc. Some of these issues are apparent in the two papers by Pollard which deal with the archaeology of siege sites. The earliest of these took place in 1560 when a Protestant force of Scottish and English troops invested the Catholic French citadel of Leith, close to Edinburgh in Scotland. The second, smaller scale affair centred on Fort William on the north-west coast of Scotland, where Jacobite forces kept the government garrison bottled up for several weeks in early 1746. One of the aims of both of these projects was to address the wider social aspects of conflict, focusing not so much on the combat itself but exploring the civilian and non-combatant experiences of conflict. Thus far, perhaps, Fort William has achieved the greatest success here, with evi- dence recovered for the civilian settlement of Maryburgh which grew up out- side the walls of the fort and was razed to the ground by the garrison prior to the commencement of the siege. In looking at the relationship between military and civilian settlements, coloniser and indigene, in the post medieval period, the Fort William project probably has more in common with the fron- tier studies taking place in North America and Canada than most of the research projects taking place in the UK at the moment. © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2008 DOI: 10.1163/157407808X382728 JCA 4,1-2_f2_iii-x 12/9/08 3:54 PM Page iv iv EDITORIAL In a paper co-authored by Pollard and Banks, the theme of confinement is clearly expressed through the investigation of defensive works on the island of Inchkeith in the Firth of Forth, not far away from the citadel of Leith on the shore to the south. The defences range in date from the 16th century up to the 20th, with hundreds of soldiers based on the island during the early part of WWII. It will not have escaped the reader’s notice that no less than three papers in the current volume have Pollard’s name attached to them. What this reflects is the amount of work being carried out in the field of conflict archaeology by the Centre for Battlefield Archaeology at Glasgow University, which over the past few months alone has completed the investi- gation of the deep dugout known as Vampir constructed by the British in 1918 just outside Ypres in Belgian Flanders and the evaluation of suspected mass grave pits related to the 1916 battle of Fromelles, in French Flanders. The pits were indeed found to contain the remains of Australian and British soldiers buried by the Germans after the battle and both governments have recently announced their intention to have these remains recovered and reburied in individual graves in a newly established cemetery. Continuing the theme of confinement is Grguric’s detailed study of colo- nial farmsteads in 19th century Australia, which the author convincingly argues are a reflection of the architecture of fear. Snead’s study of conflict and destruction again looks at the relationship between settlement and conflict, this time among the Pueblo societies of the south western United States. Straying away from our theme but no less valued for that are a very useful study of musket ballistics by Roberts, Brown, Hammett and Kingston (which was carried out by military personnel as part of an ammunition technician’s course) and a consideration of Crimean war memorials by Hughes and Trigg. Before bringing this editorial to a close the editors feel it important to com- ment further on Myers’ work on Nazi concentration camps, in which he explores the ways in which historical archaeologists can isolate the tensions between the past and the present and provide a nuanced means of explor- ing the processes which underpin memory and forgetting. There can be lit- tle doubt that the anthropological and archaeological study of incarceration and confinement, as expressed through prisons, asylums and prisoner of war camps is in the ascendant, with a session recently taking place at the World Archaeological Congress in Dublin and Anthropology News calling for papers on the subject. The editors are, however, particularly pleased to include a contribution dealing with concentration camps as we believe that archaeol- ogy has a vital role to play in our understanding of some of the key events of the 20th century, which included the atrocities perpetrated by the Nazi regime. JCA 4,1-2_f2_iii-x 12/9/08 3:54 PM Page v EDITORIAL v If ever there was time for archaeologists to engage with this material, then it is now. Any suggestion that Nazism was entirely snuffed out with the defeat of the Wehrmacht in 1945 is surely cast into doubt in the context of the thankfully limited resurgence of the neo-fascist British National Party (BNP) in the UK and disturbing news reports of racially motivated violence across Europe, some of which appears to be related to increased levels of economic migration. Nor is it just archaeologists who are becoming increasingly drawn to this difficult subject matter and the contested past embodied within it. The field of ‘Dark Tourism’ is a growing subject of study among geographers, and indeed may find some parallel with advances in the sub-discipline of conflict archaeology over recent years. The transformation of ‘dark’ sites such as con- centration camps and