Megan S. Kane
AnthSci 199
Bibliography
Dec. 15,2006
Definitions of Battlefield Archaeology
In the guide to battlefield archaeology produced by the British Archaeological Jobs
Resource (2005), battlefield archaeology is simply defined as the archaeological study of ancient
or historical conflict. The term "battlefield archaeology" implies only a limited aspect of what is
encompassed in the archaeological study of human conflict, seeming to focus only on the event
of the battle, or more specifically, on the field where it took place. However, battlefield
archaeology can include projects oriented towards the preparations for a battle, the quarters of
the soldiers, the aftermath of the battle, mass graves of the dead, and other such topics related,
but not directly so to a battle. Sutherland and Hoist emphasize the need to study all periods that
are in evidence at the site of the battle and not just the evidence of the battle itself. Another
application of battlefield archaeology and its methodologies are periods of civil unrest in human
history. Given the breadth of this sub-discipline of archaeology, Sutherland and Hoist suggest a
more fitting term for this study, "conflict archaeology." This term encompasses far more that
what is implied by archaeological excavations of battlefields.
Definitions of War and Warfare
According to Vandkilde (2003), war is intimately associated with "power, dominance,
and coercion" (126). These attributes of warfare mean that it can be and often is mode of social
reproduction and change. The great prevalence of violence in the modern era means that
remarkably few people in present times are untouched by war.
2
Thorpe (2003) provides a definition for war in his discussion of the origins of warfare. In
his discussion, war is "organized aggression between autonomous political units" (Thorpe 2003:
146). This definition implies that warfare only occurs on a large scale, discounting small scale
acts of violence and personal or family feuds. Thorpe also emphasizes the fact that "the majority
of conflicts occur between closely related groups, with the warring parties frequently acting as
exchange or marriage partners before and after" (2003: 146). The clear definition of warfare is
required when determining the beginnings of war in human history.
Why Battlefield Archaeology was Ignored
Vend (1984) was one of the first scholars to draw attention to the fact that archaeology
largely ignored the study of war and warfare. This neglect resulted it a heavily biased view of the
past, and especially of the early cultures and civilizations of the world. War was drastically
underrepresented in the archaeological scholarship, while written sources probably
overrepresented events of battles and violence. Thus, warfare was conceived of as merely as
historic phenomenon, beginning only with the emergence of complex civilization and
competition for power and resources. Vend argues for a reintegration of war studies into
archaeological studies of the distant past, utilizing the disciplines of physical anthropology,
social anthropology, history and the natural sciences.
Three of the primary reasons that archaeological studies of warfare were few and far
between before the 1990's are outlined by Vend. One, "some important features do not enter
archaeological contexts because of their nonmaterial character... or because of their perishable
nature..., or, alternatively, for insufficient concentration and burial." Two, archaeology is
distinguished by a "limited capacity to distinguish phenomena following one after another in a
3
short interval of time... and by the inability to synchronize spatially isolated phenomena." Three,
interpretation is hindered by "the undoubtedly primitive and undifferentiated character of the
earliest wars" (Vend 1984: 121-122). Unfortunately, the notion of the battle, the primary unit of
war, was thought to be entirely absent from the archaeological record, as most battles do not last
long enough to leave behind material traces in the form of deposits.
From these preconceptions, Vend argues that an image of the early human past emerged
that was almost free of war and violence of all types. This notion of the peaceful early society
severely biased the notions of the past held by many scholars and large segments of the general
public. Vend accepts the fact that many aspects of war and the past will remain invisible in
archaeological studies, but he is firm in his conviction that some effort must be made to study the
phenomenon, especially for the prehistoric past. (Note: "The identifications of causes and
pretexts for fighting and wars is inaccessible through archaeology" Vend 1984:119.)
Growth of Interest in the Archaeology of Warfare
The new found interest in the archaeology of warfare and battlefields since the 1990's has
had several motivations, according to Gilchrist (2003). The rise of the battlefield archaeology
was intimately tied to the growing fascination with twentieth century battles. Historical and
archaeological studies of the First and Second World Wars, the Cold War, the Korean War and
the Vietnam War are tied to an urgency felt to understand these conflicts before those who
survived them are all dead. In fact Gilchrist argues that the primary proponents of this
archaeology of 20 century military conflicts are those individuals whose fathers and
grandfathers fought in the wars. The interests and methodologies used to study these historical
4
battles are then projected into the past to learn more of the prehistoric, unrecorded or poorly
recorded battles of the past.
Vandkilde (2003) cites similar reasons for the emergence of battlefield and warfare
archaeology, but expresses them in a very different manner. He believes that the new focus on
warfare is "rooted in the myths, politics, and wars of contemporary society" (Vandkilde 2003:
127). The modern stereotypes of war leaders and peace leaders in studies of the past are social
responses to the modern day experiences of war and genocide. He criticizes modern scholarship
associated with war studies and the archaeology of warfare because they do not adequately deal
with the realities of war, instead creating "soft metaphors for war" and ignoring the grimness of
battle and death behind the veil of science. Another approach to the archaeology of battles in the
distant past has been severely colored by pacifist attitudes. Left-wing politics have sought to
paint a picture of the distant past as peaceful and free of massive violence. The scholarship of
both revolution and migration in the past has been affected by these biases.
Overall as the study of war in archaeology became more popular in the mid and late
1990's, the language used to discuss such events remained quite celebratory and idealizing of the
warrior and the war hero. According to Vandkilde, this echoed the idealizing tendency in
discussions of survivors of modern conflicts, from the soldiers in the First and Second World
Wars to the ethnic cleansing campaigns of Eastern Europe and the Near East. He specifically
mentions the importance of Lawrence Keeley and his influential work, War Before Civilization:
The Myth of the Peaceful Savage, in originating this bias in modern scholarship.
Methodologies of Battlefield Archaeology
5
In his argument for the archaeological community to place more of a focus on warfare,
Vend (1984) outlines several sources for information of past warfare that are very visible in the
archaeological record. Previously, weaponry was believed to be one of the only indicators of
war. The graves of warriors were taken as a sign of a society that encountered warfare and whose
men were forced to fight. Iconography is another important evidence of warfare, not only
indicating its existence, but often the form that warfare took and possibly even the enemy that
was fought. Vend returns to the concept of warriors graves, drawing more levels of
interpretation from them than had been common prior to him (see his discussion for some of the
biases that can emerge in studies of warrior graves, pages 126-127). The importance of studying
the physical remains of warriors and their bodily wounds for evidence of war and its features is
especially highlighted. Fortifications are another tell-tale sign of warfare, and constitute the
primary form of military architecture visible in the archaeological record.
Sutherland and Hoist (2005) describe the basic methodology of battlefield archaeology as
very similar to that of modern forensic analysis. One of the only differences between the two
contexts of a modern crime scene and the site of a known battle is the level of preservation, for
the amount of time that passes before a battlefield might be excavated often ensures the decay of
organic materials in most contexts. Their detailed analysis of the processes of studying a
battlefield are some of the most useful and descriptive in current literature.
The various methods for analyzing and evaluating battlefields are outlined in the work of
Sutherland and Hoist. Their primary message in this section is that a multidisciplinary approach
must be used in the study of a battlefield, including archaeologists, geologists, human remains
specialists, weapons experts and many other individuals with specialized skills and knowledge.
Surveys of visible earthworks and of the geophysical area are necessary. Geophysical tests
6
include metal detector surveys, magnetometer, resistance tests and ground penetrating radar.
Intensive survey of the area is also an important pre-excavation practice. Of course, excavation is
one of the primary tools used by battlefield archaeologists.
Each battle will display its own individual signature of artifacts, weapons, tactics and
strategies, many of which can be visible in the archaeological record. These signatures are
critical for the discovery and identification of battlefields. Sutherland and Hoist have complied a
table of the various weapon technologies used in Britain according to their historical time period
(2005: 25). This information allows for the period of a battle site to be easily and quickly
identified based on a small assemblage of artifacts.
As in all archaeology, the three dimensional location of artifacts is critical for the
reconstruction of past events and life ways, and the provenience of artifacts on a battlefield is
only more so. The location and direction of weapons can reveal a great deal about the battle and
the movements of soldiers on the field. Sutherland and Hoist mention the use of ballistics
analysis at the Battle of Little Bighorn to reconstruct the organization, or lack thereof, of
"Custer's last stand." This level of detail is not always available, however, especially given the
round bullets used by the British in many of their earlier battles. However, much more
information can be garnered from such analyses than previously thought.
Finally, Sutherland and Hoist discuss the importance of human remains and the enormous
amounts of information that can be gathered from the study of the physical remains of victims of
war. Human remains must be examined by specialists who can read their bones for the wounds,
diseases and traumas experienced by the individual in life. The remains of humans can be found
in many different contexts associated with battlefields, including mass graves, exposure on the
battlefield, bodies buried in pits, remains in ships, bodies interred in buildings, individual graves
7
on or near the battlefield and charnel houses. The context of mass graves can be especially
difficult for interpretation because of the large numbers of individuals that might be buried
together. The importance of having an osteologist or human remains specialist on hand during
excavations is emphasized, as much valuable information can be lost if such finds are excavated
haphazardly. The mass graves from the Battle of Towton are an important example mentioned
In their volume, Two Men in a Trench, Pollard and Oliver (2002) describe the many
methodologies that they employed in their studies of English battlefield sites. One of the greatest
difficulties in studying battlefields is the large expanse of the land that must be analyzed on a
battlefield. Sometimes hundreds of acres saw action during a single battle and every inch ofthat
area has the potential to reveal information. Many of the methodologies used by the authors were
designed to focus energy on trying to decide where full-scale excavation should take place.
Techniques such as metal detector surveys to pinpoint scattered artifacts and ground-penetrating
radar to find underground features like mass graves and bunkers were an important part of their
work. These features were then mapped onto the topography of the site to determine if any
patterns were visible. Finally, actual excavation was carried out in only the areas with the highest
potential.
Again the great similarities between battlefield archaeology and forensics archaeology
are emphasized by Pollard and Oliver. This is most likely due to the fact that these two
archaeologists have practiced both forms of archaeology and have experienced the similarities in
methodology and interpretation shared by in both contexts. The comparison of mass graves from
a Medieval battlefield with mass graves of modern genocide is a powerful one.
Theory Behind Battlefield Archaeology
8
Gilchrist (2003) mentions several aspects of theory and social belief that relate to the
study of battlefields through archaeology. Very often battlefields are regarded as "sacrificial
landscapes" (see Saunders 2003 in World Archaeology). The practice of burying the war dead in
mass graves on or near the battlefield often leads to the reverence of the battlefield among
contemporary peoples, and even in later times. She also draws attention to the dialogue of gender
and warfare. Both Gilchrist and Schofield (1999) emphasize the ethical duties that fall to the
archaeologists that study warfare and the war dead, especially the sites and dead of recent battles.
These issues include "to remember the fallen, to avoid trivializing contributions to the war effort,
and to ensure some emotional engagement with the subject" (Gilchrist 2003: 5).
The social climate in which modern archaeological studies of war are carried out and the
inherent biases are the focus of Vandkilde (2003) in his article. The modern European identity in
the post-colonial period, according to the author, is the origin of the stereotypes of the warrior
and the peaceful savage. Modern society is thoroughly permeated with the veneration of
warriors, and the image of the past is biased by this modern perspective.
In a similar manner to Gilchrist, Vandkilde also draws attention to the violence, hardship
and death that are associated with war. He argues that the violent acts that are always associated
with war should become the focus of archaeological and anthropological studies of warfare. The
cultural meanings and the cultural landscape of such acts reveals a great deal about the cultural
context of warfare and battles.
The Origins of Warfare
The origin of warfare is a hazy topic according to Vend (1984), especially due to the
seeming lack of interest in early warfare in archaeology, yet he draws a picture of the many
9
theories on the topic in his article. Interpersonal violence is often tied to the emergence of
personal property and ownership rights to land in social theory. However, this is difficult to
pinpoint. Some evidence of violence can be traced back to the Paleolithic, though this does not
appear to be on a large scale. The Mesolithic period sees an increase in individuals who suffered
violent deaths, especially from arrow wounds. Finally, during the Bronze Age the scale of the
violence escalates, to the point where large scale violence is beyond doubt. The actual
beginnings of true warfare have been dated anywhere from the Mesolithic to the Bronze Age,
and the assignment largely depends on the definitions of warfare adopted by the scholars.
Vencľ s own opinion tends to favor the Mesolithic. "The fact is that the Mesolithic period, with
its environmental and social transformation, can indeed represent the nascent period of
intercommunity armed violence" (Vend 1984: 121). He ties the emergence of this
intercommunity violence with the "emergence of territorial cultural units" which gave rise to the
"conditions for border disputes or disputes over food resources and over space." During the
Mesolithic, there is even evidence for the "annihilation of competitive groups" in the form of
"lethal wounds not only in men but in women and children" (Vend 1984: 121).
Similarly, Vendkilde (2003) views the theories for the origins of war and argues that they
are tied up in the myths of the peaceful savage and the primitive other. The early prehistory of
mankind evokes two images from the public and scholars alike, first, the image of the early
warrior and hunter armed with a club or other such weapon, and second, the image of the
peaceful gatherers and early agriculturalists, tied to the earth and respectful of life. Both of these
images are false, or at least once sided. The distant past is idealized with one-dimensional
characters, and thus, typical archaeological studies of war only serve to perpetuate these beliefs.
10
For Vandkilde, only the understanding of war in its full social context is a viable route of
archaeological studies of war.
In his article Thorpe (2003) turns his attention to the origins of warfare and the various
theories that have been developed to explain the emergence of intercommunity violence. The
primary theories regarding the beginnings of war in human history can be summarized in three
categories: evolutionary psychology, materialism and historical contingency. Theories
categorized under evolutionary psychology view the past landscapes of humans as shaping their
existence and their behavior. Under this premise warfare could have risen in response to several
different stimuli: territorial, reproductive and status competition. The first two stimuli are based
on analogs with chimpanzees and apes. The territorial instinct in chimpanzees may be shared by
early humans, as might be the competition over mating partners. On the other hand, warfare
based on status competition is far more complex and limited to humans. In a materialist
framework, the only motivations for warfare, for risking life and limb, would be an
overwhelming need for food or land. Finally, the historical contingency school of thought argues
that only the specific individual historical circumstances of each war can reveal the reasons for
warfare. However, warfare is often thought to be a "consequence of settled agrarian
communities" and the increased social and personal contact that occurs in such cultural
circumstances (Thorpe 2003: 149).
Much of Thorpe's discussion traces the beginnings of true warfare to the Upper
Paleolithic, based on evidence of the evolution of weapons, appearance of paintings in rock art,
mass burials and skeletal pathologies. For various specific examples see Thorpe 2003: 151-158.
Virtually all lines of evidence point to the origin of warfare sometime in the Stone Age, but
whether during the Paleolithic, Mesolithic or Neolithic is still a matter of debate. When Thorpe
11
analyzed the available evidence for large scale violence, he determined that neither the
evolutionary psychology nor the materialist theories fully explained emergence of warfare as
evidenced in the archaeological record. Thus, the historical factors and circumstances must also
be examined. In essence, he determines that it is near impossible to determine the reasons for the
earliest warfare among humans.
Archaeology of Prehistoric Warfare
Gilchrist (2003) says that the study of prehistoric warfare is entirely dependent on
indirect evidence of war and violence. These types of evidence include "violent injuries detected
on human skeletons and weapons accompanying burials as grave goods" (Gilchrist 2003: 2). The
study of warrior burials is one of the oldest focuses in archaeology and continues to play an
important role, though now they play a more specific role in reconstructing warfare and battles.
Related to this topic, she mentions Thorpe's article in the journal of World Archaeology, a study
of evolutionary psychology and how it relates to various forms and motivations for warfare.
Studies of prehistoric warfare rely on three main sources of evidence according to Thorpe
(2003), the presence of weapons, iconographic depictions of battle and physical remains showing
signs of violent injuries or death. Such studies focus on human conflicts during the Paleolithic
and Mesolithic, and the origins of warfare. Thorpe mentions several examples of such evidence
including Levantine Spanish rock art, skeletal evidence from Neanderthal remains found in
France, South Africa and Spain, and possible cannibalism found at Atapuerca, Spain. During the
Upper Paleolithic several lines of evidence have been specifically traced: the evolution of
weapons, appearance of paintings in rock art, mass burials and skeletal pathologies.
12
Archaeology of Historic Warfare
The archaeology of historic warfare, on the other hand, often has the advantage of direct
evidence, allowing for the location of individual battles or the remains of soldiers, according to
Gilchrist (2003). The majority of such studies are aimed toward "reconstructing] the military
technologies and strategies employed in particular battles" (Gilchrist 2003: 3).
Importance of Battlefield Archaeology
According to Sutherland and Hoist (2005), the archaeological study of battlefields and
the sites of other conflict is extremely important for many reasons. The first of these reasons is
that by studying such sites, it is possible to gain the fullest and most accurate understanding of
the events that took place during the conflict. This is related to the hope of sometime knowing
everything there is to know about the past and the events that occurred in the past. The authors
suggest that by studying such remains the over-glorification of war might be prevented. The
horrors of war are evident in the physical remains left after a battle in a way that is entirely
missing from historical accounts of a battle.
The tendency for battles and conflicts to be used as propaganda and a rallying point for
public support is not neglected by Sutherland and Hoist. They argue that this tendency is another
reason in support of archaeological excavations of battlefields. By gaining a better understanding
of the happenings on a battlefield, propagandistic claims might be better evaluated based on the
facts of the battle and not biased reports.
In modern society, battlefields are often viewed as memorials to the men and women who
fought and to those who lost their lives. "A battlefield is... a tomb, holding the bodies of most of
those who died there...; a perpetual shrine and memorial which should engage our thought and
13
our reverence" (Sutherland and Hoist 2005: 5). The ethics of excavations of such a memorial are
widely debated. Many argue that the war dead should not be disturbed, while others argue that
knowing exactly what happened on the battlefield is the best memorial that can be provided for
the dead.
Battlefields, of all periods, are increasingly becoming sites of interest for the public, and
as such they must be maintained and presented in an appropriate manner. Today tourists flock to
battlefields across the world to see the sites where history was made and changed. The
battlefields must be both attractive and informative for such visitors. Sutherland and Hoist argue
that the presentation of the battle, especially in museums, must be accurate, revealing both sides
of the outcome to the visitors. Once again, an effort not to over-glorify war and violence is the
key for the authors, and they recommend emphasizing both points of view in the museum display
and any reenactments. The excavation of battlefields contributes a great deal to the
understanding of the events and can help provide the bigger picture of the battle and the world
events that surrounded it.
In Britain, many historical organizations and departments are devoted to the study and
preservation of battlefields, a nation-wide focus that is not matched in many other countries. One
of the most influential groups is English Heritage, an organization that has produced lists of the
historic battlefields on Britain and sponsored many excavations on such sites. According to
English Heritage, battlefields themselves are important for many reasons in British history and in
the reconstruction ofthat history.
* Battlefields have been the setting for crucial turning points in English history, for
example the Norman Conquest which followed the Battle of Hastings 1066, or the
14
turmoil of the Civil Wars in the seventeenth century which changed the roles of the
monarchy and parliament
* The reputations of great political and military leaders were frequently built on battlefield
success.
* Tactics and skills of war still relevant to the defense of the country evolved on the
medieval battlefield.
* Battlefields are the final resting place for thousands of unknown soldiers, nobles and
commoners alike, whose lives where sacrificed in the making of the history of England.
English Heritage in Sutherland and Hoist 2005: 9
While this view is expressed purely in regard to English history and to battlefields in Britain, it
holds many values and lessons that are shared around the world.
Despite their casual attitude to battlefield archaeology, Pollard and Oliver (2002) offer
some important thinking points on the subject in their book. The fact that the volume
accompanied a widely popular TV show in Britain demonstrates the growing public fascination
not only with wars and battles, but also with archaeology. The major attraction to battlefield
archaeology for the two authors lies in the intimate nature of the discipline. The artifacts that
they uncover were lost by men and women battling for their lives, and discovering the location
of an arrowhead or a bullet on the field of a past battle is, for them, like discovering the last
moments ofthat individual's life. They also argue that war is one of the "defining
characteristics" of humans and its study is, thus, an important window onto the existence of
humans in the past, their lives and their thoughts (Pollard and Oliver 2002: 8).
The primary argument in favor of battlefield archaeology, according to Pollard and
Oliver, is that history cannot describe the choreography of a battle accurately enough, and
15
through its study of the artifacts left behind, archaeology can fill in many of the details and
images that are neglected in traditional historical accounts. "Wellington himself went so far as to
say that a historian may as well try to write the history of a dance as that of a battle" (Pollard and
Oliver 2002: 8). In their eyes, only through the combination of archaeology and traditional
history can the fullest picture of a battle be achieved. Perhaps battlefield archaeology is the
solution to the synthesis of the many different versions of history that have been passed down
through the ages. They are painfully aware of the damage that is done to battlefields in the
modern world and the large amounts of archaeological and historical information that is lost
nearly everyday. Through archaeological projects much ofthat information can be preserved. At
the very least, many archaeological survey techniques can be used to outline the most important
areas of a battlefield for national protection and preservation.
Case Studies: Prehistory
Case Studies: Historic Battles
Sutherland and Hoist (2005) use one particular example of battlefield archaeology to help
illustrate the possibilities of battlefield archaeology, the Battle of Towton of the War of the
Roses in 1461. This was one of the most decisive battles of the war. In the 1990's a mass grave
was discovered a short distance from the battlefield and excavated. Similar to the Battle of
Visby, many of the skeletons retained elements of their armour and battle wounds were visible
on many. This excavation included 3D modeling of the mass graves, allowing for much more
precise measurements and information to be gathered. (For more information see Sutherland and
Hoist 2005 pages 33-36.)
16
The book by Pollard and Oliver (2002) provides many different examples of
archaeological surveys and excavations conducted on historical battlefields. Often their
excavations were only one instance of archaeology conducted on the individual battlefields, and
they provide sources for other studies of the battle that are useful. Ideally, it would be very
interesting to see the television series that sparked the publication of this book as the
visualization of the site and their finds are invaluable. In general, their discussions of the
archaeology are merely cursory, lacking the kind of detail necessary for intense scholarship. This
is due primarily to the wide audience that was intended for the book. However, their efforts to
provide the background and the significance of the battles that they study are succinct and
informative.
The first battle they detail is the Battle of Shrewsbury, 1403, the battle that is the
backdrop of the opening of Shakespeare's Henry IV, Part II. The survey conducted by Pollard,
Oliver and their team was conducted using primarily metal detectors, for the only materials to
survive the 600 years since the battle would be metal. Hundreds of metal artifacts were tagged on
the battlefield, arrowheads, buttons, belt buckles and other such objects. Several of the graves
near the battlefield were also excavated.
The Battle of Barnet in 1471 of the War of the Roses is another case study for battlefield
archaeology. This battle between Lancaster and York clans was fought primarily by untrained
nobles with only minimal weapons available. The site of the battle was turned into a golf course
in modern times, but many of the original hedges built as defensive works did survive. Arial
photography was used to find the remnants of these medieval hedges and they were further
explored using metal detector surveying and excavation.
17
One of the battlefields of the war between James IV of Scotland and Henry VIII of
England was also excavated, the Field of Flodden, 1513. Part of the Scottish camp was excavated
by Pollard and Oliver (2002). The camp was identified as an anomaly using ground-penetrating
radar, as were sites of mass graves. Several different forms of weapons were found, including
cannonballs, musket balls and pikes.
The Newark was site of a siege of the English Civil War which lasted from 1642 to 1646.
The two sides were named the Cavaliers and Roundheads and primarily fought with muskets and
pikes. Unlike many other forms of battle, sieges often leave large amounts of material behind in
the archaeological record, especially sieges that last for a year or more, like the siege of Newark.
Areas of the Shelford Manor were excavated as were signs of the defensive ramparts at the site.
The Battle of Culloden in 1746 was one of the major turning points in Scottish history,
and resulted in the destruction of many of the clans. The Scottish forces in support of James
Stuart and Prince Charles met and were defeated by the English army of King George II. The
exact location of the battle was unknown until the team led by Pollard and Oliver began their
survey and excavations at the site. Period documents were used to concentrate their efforts and
focus the surveys. Hundreds of Scottish clansmen were killed at the site, and the moor is dotted
with monuments to the men and their clans. Understanding the events ofthat battle would be a
great honor to their memories (note: both Pollard and Oliver are Scots and live in Glasgow:-).
The last battlefield studied during the first season of Two Men in a Trench was a battle
from the Second World War, the Firth of Forth in 1939. The island was the site of Germany's
first strike against the British mainland only weeks after war was declared between the two
countries. The area was built up as a defensive site with large artillery and huge six-inch guns.
18
Pollard and Oliver focused their excavations in the sites of the observation posts and gun
mountings.
Future of Battlefield Archaeology
Many of the activities of today that are carried out on the battlefields of the past destroy
the integrity of the archaeological record and severely limit the archaeological interpretation that
can be carried out from study of these sites. Activities such as farming and ploughing, metal
detecting by non-professionals, building and even reenactments can destroy the evidence left
behind by major battles. Sutherland and Hoist (2005) recommend that future legislation should
attempt to limit the types of activities that can be practiced on known and registered battlefields.
19
Bibliography
Allen, Mark W. 2006. Transformations in Maori Warfare: Tao, Pa, and Pu. The Archaeology of
Warfare: Prehistories of Raiding and Conquest, edited by Elizabeth N. Arkush and Mark
W. Allen, pp. 184-213. Gainsville: University Press of Florida.
Allen, Mark W. and Elizabeth Arkush. 2006. Introduction: Archaeology and the Study of
Warfare. The Archaeology of Warfare: Prehistories of Raiding and Conquest, edited by
Elizabeth N. Arkush and Mark W. Allen, pp. 1-19. Gainsville: University Press of
Florida.
Arkush, Elizabeth N. 2006. Collapse, Conflict, Conquest: The Transformation of Warfare in the
Late Prehispanic Andean Highlands. The Archaeology of Warfare: Prehistories of
Raiding and Conquest, edited by Elizabeth N. Arkush and Mark W. Allen, pp. 286- 335.
Gainsville: University Press of Florida.
Bamforth, Douglas B. 2006. Climate, Chronology, and the Course of War in the Miffle Missouri
Region of the North American Great Plains. The Archaeology of Warfare: Prehistories of
Raiding and Conquest, edited by Elizabeth N. Arkush and Mark W. Allen, pp. 66-100.
Gainsville: University Press of Florida.
Carman John. 2002. Paradox in places: twentieth-century battlefield sites in long-term
perspective. Materiel Culture: The archaeology of twentieth-century conflict, ed. John
Schofield, William Gray Johnson and Colleen M. Beck. Pp 19-21. New York: Routledge.
Carman, John and Patricia Carman. 2000. 'Beyond military archaeology': battlefields as a
research resource. Fields of Conflict: progress and prospect in battlefield archaeology:
proceedings of a conference held in the Department of Archaeology University of
Glasgow, April 2000, edited by P. W. M. Freeman and A. Pollard, pp. 275-282. Oxford:
Archaeopress.
Clastres, Pierre. 199'4. Archaeology of Violence. New York: Semiotext(e).
Connell, Samuel V. and Jay E. Silverstein. 2006 From Laos to Mesoamerica: Battlegrounds
between Superpowers. The Archaeology of Warfare: Prehistories of Raiding and
Conquest, edited by Elizabeth N. Arkush and Mark W. Allen, pp. 394-433. Gainsville:
University Press of Florida.
Crossland, Zoě. 2002. Violent Spaces: conflict over the reappearance of Argentina's
disappeared. Materiel Culture: The archaeology of twentieth-century conflict, ed. John
Schofield, William Gray Johnson and Colleen M. Beck. Pp 115-131. New York:
Routledge.
Dore, Lynn. 2000. Once the war is over. Fields of Conflict: progress and prospect in battlefield
archaeology: proceedings of a conference held in the Department of Archaeology
20
University of Glasgow, April 2000, edited by P. W. M. Freeman and A. Pollard, pp. 283-
290. Oxford: Archaeopress.
Dye, David H. 2006. The Transformation of Mississippian Warfare: Four Case Studies from the
Mid-South. The Archaeology of Warfare: Prehistories of Raiding and Conquest, edited
by Elizabeth N. Arkush and Mark W. Allen, pp. 100-147. Gainsville: University Press of
Florida.
Ferguson, R. Brian. 2006. Archaeology, Cultural Anthropology, and the Origins of
Intensifications of War. The Archaeology of Warfare: Prehistories of Raiding and
Conquest, edited by Elizabeth N. Arkush and Mark W. Allen, pp. 469-523. Gainsville:
University Press of Florida.
Fletcher, Roland. 2002. The hammering of society: non-correspondence and modernity. Materiel
Culture: The archaeology of twentieth-century conflict, ed. John Schofield, William Gray
Johnson and Colleen M. Beck. Pp 303-311. New York: Routledge.
Freeman, Philip. 2000. Introduction: issues concerning the archaeology of battlefields. Fields of
Conflict: progress and prospect in battlefield archaeology: proceedings of a conference
held in the Department of Archaeology University of Glasgow, April 2000, edited by P.
W. M. Freeman and A. Pollard, pp. 1-10. Oxford: Archaeopress.
Gilchrist, Roberta. 2003. Introduction: towards a social archaeology of warfare. World
Archaeology: The Social Commemoration of Warfare 35(1): 1-6.
Hill, Paul and Julie Wileman. 2002. Landscapes of War: The Archaeology of Aggression and
Defense. Charleston: Tempus Publishing Inc.
Hoshower-Leppo, Lisa. 2002. Missing in Action: searching for America's war dead. Materiel
Culture: The archaeology of twentieth-century conflict, ed. John Schofield, William Gray
Johnson and Colleen M. Beck. Pp 80-90. New York: Routledge.
Kushimba, Chapurukha. 2006. Slavery and Warfare in African Chiefdoms. The Archaeology of
Warfare: Prehistories of Raiding and Conquest, edited by Elizabeth N. Arkush and Mark
W. Allen, pp. 214-249. Gainsville: University Press of Florida.
LeBlanc, Steven A. 2006. Warfare and the Development of Social Capacity: Some Demographic
and Environmental Factors. The Archaeology of Warfare: Prehistories of Raiding and
Conquest, edited by Elizabeth N. Arkush and Mark W. Allen, pp. 437-468. Gainsville:
University Press of Florida.
Liston, Jolie and H. David Tuggle. 2006. Prehistoric Warfare in Palau. The Archaeology of
Warfare: Prehistories of Raiding and Conquest, edited by Elizabeth N. Arkush and Mark
W. Allen, pp. 148-183. Gainsville: University Press of Florida.
Pollard, Tony and Neil Oliver. 2002. Two Men in a Trench. Michael Joseph Ltd.
21
Redmond, Elsa M. and Charles S. Spenser. 2006. From Raiding to Conquest: Warfare Strategies
and Early State Development in Oaxaca, Mexico. The Archaeology of Warfare:
Prehistories of Raiding and Conquest, edited by Elizabeth N. Arkush and Mark W.
Allen, pp. 336-393. Gainsville: University Press of Florida.
Saunders, Rebecca. 2002. Tell the Truth: the archaeology of human rights abuses in Guatemala
and the former Yugoslavia. Materiel Culture: The archaeology of twentieth-century
conflict, ed. John Schofield, William Gray Johnson and Colleen M. Beck. Pp 103-114.
New York: Routledge.
Schofield, John. 2002. Monuments and the memories of war: motivations for preserving military
sites in England. Materiel Culture: The archaeology of twentieth-century conflict, ed.
John Schofield, William Gray Johnson and Colleen M. Beck. Pp 143-158. New York:
Routledge.
Schofield, John, William Gray Johnson and Colleen M. Beck. 2002. Introduction: materiel
culture in the modern world. Materiel Culture: The archaeology of tw entieth-century
conflict, ed. John Schofield, William Gray Johnson and Colleen M. Beck. Pp 1-8. New
York: Routledge.
Solometo, Julie. 2006. The Dimensions of War: Conflict and Culture Change in Central Arizona.
The Archaeology of Warfare: Prehistories of Raiding and Conquest, edited by Elizabeth
N. Arkush and Mark W. Allen, pp. 23-65. Gainsville: University Press of Florida.
Sutherland, Tim and Malin Holst. 2005. Battlefield Archaeology - A Guide to the Archaeology of
Conflict. London: British Archaeological Jobs Resource.
Thorpe, I. J. N. 2003. Anthropology, archaeology, and the origin of warfare. World Archaeology:
The Social Commemoration of Warfare 35(1): 145-165.
Underhill, Anne P. 2006. Warfare and the Development of States in China. The Archaeology of
Warfare: Prehistories of Raiding and Conquest, edited by Elizabeth N. Arkush and Mark
W. Allen, pp. 253-285. Gainsville: University Press of Florida.
Vandkilde Helle. 2003. Commemorative tales: archaeological responses to modern myth,
politics, and war. World Archaeology: The Social Commemoration of Warfare 35(1):
126-144.
Vend, SI. 1984. War and Warfare in Archaeology. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 3:
116-132.
Young, Peter A., Mark Rose and Alexander Benenson, eds. 2005. The Archaeology of War:
Human Conflict Since the Dawn of Civilization. New York: Hatherleigh.