Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

Content

Later this year I will interview a historian who works with "battlefield archeology" (definition below) in Germany and Russia. Please add your questions below, the best/most suited ones will be asked.


Definition from Wikipedia

"Battlefield archaeology also refers to the specific study of a  particular archaeological horizon in which a military action occurred.  This may include both 'bounded' battlefields where troop dispositions,  numbers and the order of battle are known from textual records, and also  from undocumented evidence of conflict. The discipline is distinct from  military history in that it seeks to answer different questions,  including the experiences of ordinary soldiers in wider political  frameworks. Therefore, battlefield archaeology is not concerned,  primarily, with the causes of conflict but of the sites where conflict  actually took place, and of the archaeology of the event."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlefield_archaeology

Comments

Michael Moran

Does battlefield archeology include actual digs? While a dig at the Battlefield of Hastings might not have any particular dangers, it would seem that digs on more modern battlefields could be more dangerous. A few years ago a man in Tennessee unearthed a Parrott shell from the American Civil War and was foolish enough to fool around with it. It exploded and blew off a few fingers. I have read WW1 shells are still being unearthed in France.

Robert Henry Illston

How difficult is it to determine the actual battle site for your archeological dig. Even relative modern WW2 or WW1 battles can be located 100s of yards from the popular assumed location. I remember when the archeological investigation into the Battle of Little Big Horn in the US discovered several battle locations 100s of yards from the last stand hill. How do you select your location and what kinds of sources do you use?