Artifact identification and battlefield signature

Introduction

The identification of artefacts within the topsoil is one of the key aspects of battlefield archaeology. However, the types of soil across a given landscape can vary greatly and therefore accessibility to these artefacts can involve differing amounts of labour. For example, ploughed soil is generally looser and therefore easier to excavate than long-standing, uncultivated meadow soil. Artefacts within the plough soil are therefore more likely to be degraded due to the continued action of the plough, although they could also be closer to the surface if the soil is constantly turned over. Artefacts within different types of soil may also be located in distinct horizons or at differing depths. Worm sorting of meadow soil allows the artefacts to effectively ‘sink’ lower down the soil profile. Excavating metal detector ‘hits’ can be very difficult on meadows and permanent pasture due to the soil’s less ploughed and therefore more compacted nature. This rule does not always apply, however, as sometimes burrowing animals, such as rabbits and moles bring small artefacts to the surface as part of their up-cast or molehills. These small mounds can therefore be examined and may provide a sample of what might lie beneath the surface.

The Impact of Local Geology on Artefact Preservation

Differing geological strata below the topsoil can affect the condition of an artefact and human remains. Acid soil, as the examples from the burial ground at Sutton Hoo, Suffolk, indicate, can erode bone until it is only evident by a stain in the ground (Carver 1992). Although more difficult to record, such evidence is still important and should only be excavated and recorded by an expert experienced in this type of archaeological work.

Archaeological prospectors must therefore be aware of the type of geology and acidity of the soils in the area in which a search will take place.

Excavation of Artefacts

It is not always essential to excavate artefacts found during prospection surveys, as concentrations of fragments of metal may alert the prospector to an area of interest. In this respect it is important to differentiate between ferrous and non-ferrous metal artefacts, as there are generally more ferrous metal artefacts on most archaeological sites from the historical era than there are non-ferrous metal artefacts. This information can be exploited on sites such as post medieval battlefields, where lead shot can easily be distinguished from ferrous debris without even excavating the artefact, simply by using the analysis of the by modern metal detector signal.However, in order to accurately record and date artefacts it would be necessary for each one to be examined. It is during this phase of an evaluation that extreme caution must be applied. Any artefact might be associated with other important archaeological information, which will be left behind, and therefore become disassociated, if artefacts are removed without due care and archaeological experience. At the Little Big Horn Battlefield, for example, fragments of human or animal remains were often found in close proximity to ballistic evidence, suggesting that a bullet struck a bone and shattered it (Scott et al 1989, 30). The two pieces of information, the fired bullet and its target, were therefore inextricably linked and this association could easily have been lost.

Earthworks on battlefields will vary greatly depending upon which period is under investigation. Medieval open battlefields, for example, generally exhibit few, if any earthworks that were constructed for use during the battle, whereas those from the First World War often exhibit extensive evidence of trenches, underground tunnel systems, and mines excavated under enemy trenches. Standing earthworks should therefore be analysed in order to hopefully typologically identify, date them or even eliminate them from the investigation. First World War trenches, for example, were constructed for troop movement along the lines and generally exhibit a zigzag type plan. They were constructed in this manner to prevent shell blasts from travelling down the trench. Second World War ‘fox holes’ however, were usually constructed by, and for an individual soldier in which to shelter during an advance or in defence of an area. These usually consisted of simple, small and shallow, irregularshaped pits. Types of these earthworks can also be found on contemporary or now redundant Ministry of Defence training sites across Britain. Their counterparts, used during combat, can still be found across battlefields in various parts of the world.

The signature of a site of conflict

Each battlefield will have its own individual, and possibly unique artefactual ‘signature’, which will be represented by those items that were lost or abandoned before, during or after the conflict. Combatants usually fight with the most efficient and most up-to-date weapons available to them or, alternatively, that they can afford. Formal armies, however, often fought with weapons that were issued to them. This might not be of the most up-to-date type, as the army might only have been re-issued with weapons at specific intervals. For example, at the battle of the Little Big Horn (1876), some of the Native Americans had access to the most up-todate Henry repeater rifles, whereas the US Cavalry was issued with the slower reloading Springfield Carbines (Scott et al 1989). Other Native Americans apparently also used bows and arrows and clubs to attack the soldiers. The signature of this battle is therefore vastly different to other contemporary battles form different parts of the world.

The type of artefacts found should, however, fall into very generalised categories relating to the technology of the period in which the conflict was fought. Several examples are cited which illustrate this concept (Table 1).

Summary of weapons technology by period

PERIOD	TECHNOLOGY>	EXAMPLES
Early-Prehistoric	Stone and non-ferrous metal technology	Stone arrowheads e.g. Crickley Hill, Gloucester (Carman and Harding 1999) Stone axes - Neolithic mass graves axe marks e.g. Talheim, Germany (Wahl and König 1987) or (Bahn, 1996, 48, illustration)
	Early metal technology	Bronze Age weapons (Tormarton, Southern Gloucester; Osgood 2000)
Roman	Ferrous metal technology	Fragments or complete pieces of metal alloy or ferrous artefacts - Roman militaria e.g. fragments of Roman armour and possible weapons Varus Battlefield (Wilbers-Rost 2004) and (Sutherland forthcoming) Fragments of native British equipment and weapons (Sutherland forthcoming) Collection of ballista (large crossbow) bolts apparently aimed at a large round house in the Iron Age Hillfort at Hod Hill, Dorset, by the besieging Roman army (Frere 1974, 89) Roman ballista bolt in the spine of a skeleton buried in Maiden Castle, Dorset (Bahn 1996, 75).
Medieval	Ferrous metal technology	Fragments of clothing fasteners, badges, buckles, etc. and arrowheads(Sutherland 2000a)
Post medieval	Early firearms technology	Lead round shot from muskets and pistols and cannon balls (Foard 1995)
Modern	Modern firearms technology	Cylindrical or riffled shot eg. Minnie balls; bombs and shells or fragments of each (Scott 2004)

These categories might overlap in places where differing technologies were used by each faction, as at the Little Big Horn Battlefield, USA (archery, clubs, rifles and pistols), Paraguay (lead round shot and cylindrical shot (Pollard 2004).

Sites that have been fought upon on a several occasions might also exhibit evidence of differing types of weaponry. For example, on the medieval battlefield of Agincourt, France there is extensive evidence conflicts from different historical periods (Sutherland forthcoming) (Plates 13 and 14).