from landscape of war to archaeological report: ten years of professional world … · the remains...

From Landscape of War to Archaeological Report:Ten Years of Professional World War I Archaeologyin Flanders (Belgium)

YANNICK VAN HOLLEBEEKE, BIRGER STICHELBAUT AND JEAN BOURGEOIS

Department of Archaeology, Ghent University, Belgium

With the commemoration of World War I (WWI) under way, a preliminary stocktaking can be made ofarchaeological research into the physical remains of this war. The question is to what extent the perspec-tive on the study of WWI heritage, and consequently the way in which archaeological research intoWWI remains has been conducted, has evolved over the last ten years. Are relics from WWI seen as alegitimate subject of inquiry or does its archaeology as a discipline still strive for recognition? This paperdeals with the practices surrounding WWI archaeology in Flanders, Belgium, as well as the (methodo-logical) problems concerning the study of WWI archaeological remains, based on the reports resultingfrom fieldwork carried out by professional archaeologists.

Keywords: World War I, modern conflict archaeology, aerial photography, battlefield archaeology,archaeological practice, material culture

INTRODUCTION

2014 sees the commemoration of the cen-tennial of the beginning of World War I(WWI). The impact of this conflict onthe landscape where the war was wagedwas immense. A line of sheer destructionran from the North Sea coast all the wayto the Swiss border, turning parts ofBelgium and France, the so-calledWestern Front, into a landscape of war,where armies from all over the world werecaught in a stalemate. On the former frontline, it is still possible to find numerousrelics, monuments, and cemeteries thatremind us of the bitterness of the battles.Material evidence of war can also be foundbeneath the soil, providing an archive thatseems to be getting more and more

attention from archaeologists. Initially,this came mainly from amateur archaeolo-gists and WWI enthusiasts. However,since the late twentieth century, buriedWWI heritage has also become a researchobjective of professional archaeologists.A little more than a decade has passed

since the professional archaeology ofWWI emerged in Flanders (Belgium). Asa result of implementing the guidelines ofthe Valletta Convention in Flemish legis-lation and the development of commercialarchaeology in Flanders, the number ofarchaeological operations has grown.Within an evolving legal framework forheritage management, archaeological prac-tice has changed rapidly. The question isto what extent the perspective on thestudy of WWI heritage, and consequently

European Journal of Archaeology 17 (4) 2014, 702–719

© European Association of Archaeologists 2014 DOI 10.1179/1461957114Y.0000000065Manuscript received 29 November 2013,accepted 8 May 2014, revised 17 April 2014

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1179/1461957114Y.0000000065Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 54.39.106.173, on 17 Jul 2020 at 21:22:10, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms

https://doi.org/10.1179/1461957114Y.0000000065

https://www.cambridge.org/core

the way in which archaeological researchinto WWI remains has been conducted,has also evolved. Are relics from the warseen as a legitimate subject of inquiry ordoes WWI archaeology still strive for rec-ognition as a discipline? This articleinvestigates how this buried wartime heri-tage has been approached in anarchaeological way based on the reportsfrom fieldwork carried out by professionalarchaeologists. In this review, part of theWestern Front in the province of WestFlanders (Belgium) is taken as a casestudy, although the issues discussed alsorelate to other former theatres of waracross Europe.

THE AFTERMATH OF THE WAR: TURNING

A WAR LANDSCAPE INTO PART OF A

MULTI-LAYERED LANDSCAPE

After the First World War, the formerinhabitants of devastated regions inBelgium who returned home after fouryears wanted to ensure their land was hab-itable again. The land clearance wasinitially performed by Chinese LabourCorps, German prisoners of war, and theBelgian army. Later, companies weredeployed and labourers (both locals andforeigners) were recruited to carry out theclearance. Their work consisted mainly ofclearing the land of war debris and level-ling the ground. In reality, most of thetime it came down to throwing the debrisinto shell holes and former trenches andcovering them with a layer of earth(Debaeke, 2010: 37). However, some ofthose involved tried to benefit from gath-ering the valuable metals littering theformer battlefields. Others profited fromselling abandoned objects as war memor-abilia and trench art to tourists (Saunders,2010: 49).In the aftermath of the war, providing

shelter for everyone was a huge task. The

Belgian government took the initiative toerect some emergency accommodation inresponse to the needs of the local popu-lation. However, it was unable to providesufficient emergency housing (Meire, 2003:111). Many returnees erected their ownshelter using any materials they could findin the surroundings or from the barracksthat were built during the war. Not all ofthese barracks were systematically demol-ished. Some, for example, the BritishNissen huts, were even reused by returningrefugees until better accommodation couldbe provided (Demeurie & Vandewalle,2006: 23; Vernimme, 2010: 78).Thus, the local residents and nature

claimed back their places in the post-warlandscape and remnants of war disappearedat a significant rate (Meire, 2003: 170). Atthe same time, a number of memorials,monuments, statues, and cemeteriesemerged along the Western Front. Accord-ing to Saunders (2010: 64), all this formedthe ‘layer of Remembrance’ as part of thepalimpsest of layers that make up a warlandscape. In particular, after the war, theCommonwealth War Graves Commissionengaged in the construction and mainten-ance of war graves and memorials, therebycontributing to building a landscape ofmemory (Dendooven, 2003: 11). However,there were differences of opinion concern-ing the way in which this layer was givenshape. Of major concern was the fate ofthe town of Ieper (Ypres). During the war,the idea had already been proposed to pre-serve the ruined town as it was. The Britishsaw it as ‘holy ground’: a land soaked in theblood of many British and Commonwealthcasualties. None other than WinstonChurchill himself wanted to buy Ieper inorder to develop a zone of remembrance(Dendooven, 2003: 20). However, this planencountered a lot of opposition from thelocal people. Until the decision was takento rebuild the town of Ieper as it wasbefore the war, another proposition was the

Van Hollebeeke et al. – From Landscape of War to Archaeological Report 703



https://doi.org/10.1179/1461957114Y.0000000065


creation of a ‘zone of silence’, whereby onlypart of the town would be preserved as aruin: namely, the Cloth Hall, St Martin’sCathedral, and the area around the marketplace. Finally, on 15 April 1921, theBritish agreed to reconstruction of thetown to its pre-war state and constructionof an impressive monument: the MeninGate (Dendooven, 2003: 51). This monu-ment was designed by Reginald Blomfieldand bears the names of almost 55,000 sol-diers who went missing between 1914 andAugust 1917. Eventually, Ieper was rebuiltin historicism style. The towns of Nieuw-poort and Diksmuide are also examples ofthis architecture (Demeurie & Vandewalle,2006: 17). In fact, examples of this archi-tecture can be found everywhere in thewar-affected areas.

THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF WORLD WAR

ONE

Since the end of the war, the former bat-tlefields have been visited by tourists andbattlefield pilgrims. These places are alsofrequented by people who are interested inmilitary history and looking for the siteswhere battles took place. Some of themcontinue to search for remains in theground, sometimes with the help of ametal detector. The objects found are thensold to other WWI enthusiasts or exhib-ited at home.In Flanders in the 1980s, a new practice

came to light. A number of WWI enthu-siasts organized themselves in semi-officialgroups or associations and carried out thefirst excavations whereby WWI featureswere studied to a certain extent (Saunders,2010: 12). These amateur archaeologists,with a passion for the First World War,organized excavations on former battle-fields in their spare time. They were notmerely looking for collectors’ items butalso wanted to study the context in which

these artefacts were found. In some cases,they were assisted by professional archae-ologists and the finds often found theirway into museums (e.g. in Flanders FieldsMuseum in Ieper). Although theseamateur archaeologists were usually nottrained as archaeologists, they stillattempted to use methodologies that areprevalent in everyday archaeologicalresearch to recover information about thesite. Prior to the appearance ofdevelopment-led archaeology, they oftenworked on sites that were under threat ofdestruction from the construction of infra-structure such as buildings and industrialestates. In the region where almost ahundred years ago part of the Westernfront was situated, there was broad publicsupport for this research led by amateurarchaeologists. Similarly, local govern-ments and property developers, all ofwhom saw an opportunity to cleanse theirlands of troublesome and hazardousmaterial (i.e. unexploded ammunition) ina cheap way, supported these initiatives.These amateur archaeologists also filled

a void in the study of WWI remains.After all, at that time, professionalarchaeologists often considered the pre-served remains of WWI as unimportantor even as interference with older fea-tures. Although some of these amateurarchaeologists did their utmost to act asresponsibly as possible while investigatingcertain sites, the information they pro-vided was still superficial, fragmentaryand not always reliable (Dewilde, 2009:52). However, it is here that the foun-dations were laid for the need toexamine further the archaeological heri-tage of war. A number of people, mainlyfrom outside the academic and pro-fessional world, saw the need to protectand, in particular, to investigate this heri-tage. Some of these amateurarchaeologists are still active, althoughgreatly reduced in numbers.

704 European Journal of Archaeology 17 (4) 2014



https://doi.org/10.1179/1461957114Y.0000000065


The remains of the First World Warwere never taken into consideration duringprofessional archaeological research con-ducted by universities or governmentagencies in the 1980s or 1990s. Sporadi-cally, these features and remnants wereregistered during archaeological researchon sites dating from the prehistoric tomedieval period (Dewilde et al., 2007:38). However, this procedure was ad hocand often done merely to show that olderarchaeological features had been signifi-cantly disturbed by the act of war (Dewilde,2010).For the first time, professional archeolo-

gists became involved in sites dating backto the First World War in Flanders whenformer Minister Van Grembergen—Flemish Minister of Internal Affairs,Public Administration and Foreign Policybetween 2001 and 2002 and also respon-sible for heritage—commissioned theInstitute for the Archaeological Heritage(Instituut voor het Archeologisch Patrimo-nium – IAP) on 6 February 2002 to carryout an evaluation along the route of theplanned A19 motorway. The motorwayruns from the town of Kortrijk and endsabruptly near Ieper. The governmentwanted to extend this motorway in orderto redirect heavy traffic between Kortrijkand the Channel ports. However, theproblem was that the motorway wouldhave to cross the former WWI battlefields.The aim of the study was to investigatethe possible impact on WWI heritage inthis area and to evaluate possible archaeo-logical remains (Dewilde et al., 2007: 38).Finally, the government wanted to assessthe possibility of encountering humanremains since thousands of fallen soldiersare still missing and could be buried inFlanders fields. A number of sites werechosen for test excavations. Based ondesktop analysis, nine sites were selectedfor trial trenching. Between 2002 and2005, these archaeological sites were

investigated extensively. However, theresearch, which was led by the FlemishHeritage Institute (Vlaams Instituut voorOnroerend Erfgoed—VIOE), the successorof the IAP, was not limited to the A19project. Due to expansion of the industrialestate at Boezinge-Ieper, archaeologicalresearch was also conducted by the IAP/VIOE in some other small-scale initiatives.So far, a professional study of WWI

heritage has only been carried out by theformer IAP or VIOE, with or withoutlocal/regional authorities, museums, docu-mentary makers, or amateur archaeologists.A new player entered the field in themid-2000s: development-led commercialarchaeology (De Clercq et al., 2012: 29). In2005, work was carried out on an adminis-trative framework that ensured thoroughand systematic implementation of theterms of the Decree on the Protection ofthe Archaeological Heritage, a statutedating from 1993 that formed the legal fra-mework within which Flemish archaeologyoperated. After that, in locations wherearchaeological heritage was threatened bysignificant construction work, the landcould only be released for exploitation fol-lowing at least preliminary archaeologicalresearch. This, in turn, led to an increase inarchaeological research carried out. Thiscould not be borne only by the authorities,such as the VIOE (Wouters, 2012: 28).The void that threatened to emerge wouldbe filled by commercial archaeology, as theFlemish government chose to liberalizearchaeology in Flanders. Since 2005,there has been a rise in the number ofarchaeological contractors (De Clercq et al.,2012: 30). The amount of archaeologicalfieldwork carried out by the former VIOE(now Agentschap Onroerend Erfgoed) wasreduced. Many of the aforementionedarchaeological contractors, especially thoseactive in the former Western Front regions,came across relics from the First WorldWar.




https://doi.org/10.1179/1461957114Y.0000000065


Academic research into WWI archaeol-ogy is limited to the work of theArchaeology Department at Ghent Uni-versity and more specifically to the use ofhistorical aerial photographs for studyingand overseeing WWI heritage (Stichel-baut, 2009a, 2009b, 2011; Stichelbautet al., 2010). In 2013, this departmentlaunched a project in which WWI heri-tage in the municipality ofComines-Warneton—the only place inthe Walloon region where the WesternFront was situated—was examined usingnon-invasive methods (Bourgeois et al.,2013). These methods comprised adesktop analysis of historical remote-sensing data, geophysical prospection anda field survey. In Wallonia, the French-speaking part of Belgium, professionalarchaeological research into WWI heritageis limited. Apart from this project, anotherlarge archaeological research was under-taken in 2007 and 2008 (Brown &Osgood, 2009). The aim of the so-called‘Plugstreet Project’, carried out by the NoMan’s Land Archaeology Group, was toexamine two pieces of terrain in the sur-roundings of two large mine craters,Ultimo Crater and Factory Farm Crater.An archaeological excavation was com-bined with a thorough analysis ofdocumentary sources, aerial photographsand trench maps, and the use of non-invasive techniques, such as geophysicalprospection.In France, where a larger part of the

Western Front is located, materialremains of WWI have been studied sincethe late 1980s, starting more than adecade earlier than in Belgium. Archaeo-logical research took place in 1988–1989on the planned route of the Train àGrande Vitesse (TGV) railway line innorthern France, as it crossed WWI bat-tlefields (Desfossés et al., 2008: 25).Many archaeological remains from WWIcame to light during trial trenching and it

was possible to evaluate conservation ofthe relics. From then on, any evidence ofbattles was studied mainly during archae-ological rescue operations. However, fromthe end of the 1990s, there was a changein attitude towards WWI heritage. Thestudy of war archaeology was integratedinto preventive archaeological research.This happened first during excavation ofthe land around the Actiparc site atArras, initiated from well-defined researchquestions (Desfossés et al., 2008: 35).Since then, the study of archaeologicalremains from more recent conflicts, suchas WWI, took a foothold in northernFrance, first in the Nord-Pas de Calaisregion and later in Lorraine,Champagne-Ardenne and Alsace(Landolt et al., 2012: 307). In France,associations from the UK occasionallyconducted archaeological excavations informer WWI battlefields. Even today, LaCommission Interrégionale de la RechercheArchéologique receives requests fromBritish associations to launch archaeologi-cal projects. Examples include theDurand Group and the aforementionedNo Man’s Land Archaeology Group. InFlanders, there have been fewer interven-tions by British archaeologists. The studyinto the ‘Vampire dugout’ is by far thebest-known example of archaeologicalresearch conducted by an internationalteam, namely the Association for Battle-field Archaeology and Conservation(Jacobs & Pollard, 2008).There is a lot of interest from British

people in the WWI battlefields. The thea-tres of war in northern France andFlanders witnessed the highest number ofcasualties of all time, in a way making thisground ‘holy’. The landscape from Flandersto the Somme is also characterized by manyCommonwealth monuments and ceme-teries. The fact that many soldiers died onthese battlefields coupled with the decisionnot to repatriate the dead means that the




https://doi.org/10.1179/1461957114Y.0000000065


soldiers’ descendants have strong ties withthese locations (Meire, 2003: 149).For more than ten years already, a tra-

dition has been set on the archaeologicalstudy of recent conflicts in the UnitedKingdom. It started out more as abattlefield-centred endeavour. The archae-ology of conflict as a scientific disciplinebegan from so-called ‘battlefield archaeol-ogy’. This sub-discipline withinarchaeology deals with battlefields fromdifferent time periods, and by extensionthose of the First World War, providingscientific information that cannot beobtained merely from documentary sources(Freeman & Pollard, 2001; Sutherland,2005). However, according to Saunders(2013), this perspective on the archaeologyof recent conflicts, such as the First WorldWar, is actually too narrow and doomedto disappear. Thus, modern conflictarchaeology has emerged, which strives tobuild up knowledge on all aspects ofrecent conflicts, and addressing other aca-demic disciplines, too. It no longer reliessolely on the things that are found on theformer battlefields, but on a lot more. Theconflict is approached as a multifacetedphenomenon that leaves a large diversityof relics. These remnants may have differ-ent meanings, according to the differentindividuals or communities who havecome in contact with them and which canchange over time (Saunders, 2010). Inshort, in recent years, battlefield archaeol-ogy has evolved from a narrow field ofresearch to an interdisciplinary and multi-faceted archaeological study of the materialculture and landscape of war.

PROFESSIONAL WORLD WAR IARCHAEOLOGY IN FLANDERS: DATA

ACQUISITION AND METHODOLOGY

It cannot be disputed—certainly whenbased on the steadily growing number of

published monographs, scientific articlesin periodicals, and edited books—thatinterest in WWI material and featureshave grown in recent years. For over tenyears, professional archeologists inBelgium have studied the material remainsof the First World War. The questionmay be asked in what way research intoarchaeological remains from WWI hasbeen conducted by professional organiz-ations? The A19 project was an importantmoment for the professional archaeologyof the First World War in Flanders. Forthe first time, an archaeological project inBelgium posed purely scientific researchquestions concerning the archaeologicalheritage of WWI. Thus, the questionarises as to whether or not this was alsothe turning point for WWI conflictarchaeology, where it became accepted as anew scientific research field, and what thisimplies for heritage policy and manage-ment in Flanders. It is one thing to seeWWI heritage as archaeological heritagebut another when it comes to the dailyhandling of these material remains in thefield. Therefore, we have sought to findout how the features are regarded and/orinvestigated when they are found. Arethey recognized as archaeology, are theyseen as modern disturbances of older fea-tures, or are they recorded as an integralpart of the archaeological archive?To provide answers to the questions

above, we have examined reports ofarchaeological research that has takenplace over the past decade in the provinceof West Flanders, the so-called ‘grey lit-erature’. Only research into excavationsand trial trenching was included. Ourresearch area comprised the former frontline, including the hinterland on bothsides of the front. In this way, we wereable to get an overview of the front line,the area just behind it where, for example,the artillery was set up, and part of thehinterland.




https://doi.org/10.1179/1461957114Y.0000000065


Currently, there are four players active inthe field: universities; government agencies(IAP-VIOE); Inter-municipal Archaeologi-cal Services (Intergemeentelijke ArcheologischeDienst—IAD); and archaeological compa-nies. The time frame of the research coversa ten-year period between the start of pro-fessional WWI archaeology with the A19project (2002) and 2011. All the reports areavailable up to 2011. This has resulted in adataset of 213 archaeological excavations at198 locations between 2002 and 2011 (seeFigure 1). All relevant information wasplaced in a database for analysis.

WORLD WAR I IN THE ‘GREY

LITERATURE’

In the province of West Flanders, in thearea where an important part of theWestern Front was located, there were213 archaeological campaigns between2002 and 2011. Based on the archaeologi-cal reports, seventy-eight campaignsincluded features dating from the FirstWorld War. Recorded features includeshell holes, waste pits, trenches, shelters,barracks, narrow gauge lines, and debrislayers.

Figure 1. Overview map of the research area.




https://doi.org/10.1179/1461957114Y.0000000065


In general, there has been an increase inthe total number of archaeological cam-paigns in the study area (see Figure 2).This is in line with the increase in thenumber of investigations throughout thewhole of Flanders. Based on the datacomprising the number of excavationpermits issued by the government agencyAgentschap Onroerend Efgoed, there hasbeen a steady increase from 2004 onwards(seventy excavation campaigns) and sig-nificant growth from 188 campaigns in2007 to 471 campaigns in 2011 (source:Agentschap Onroerend Erfgoed). This largeincrease in archaeological research is the

result of more intense activities by theformer agency Ruimte en Erfgoed andbetter integration of archaeology withinspatial planning, resulting in an increase indevelopment-led archaeology (De Clercqet al., 2012: 33).There is also a noticeable increase in the

number of archaeological campaignsin which WWI relics have been found. Infact, in 2011, the number of campaigns inwhich WWI features were discoveredmade up 36 per cent of all archaeologicalexcavations.The database analysis also shows that,

between 2002 and 2005, the government

Figure 2. Increase in the number of archaeological operations in the study area.




https://doi.org/10.1179/1461957114Y.0000000065


agency IAP/VIOE was mainly responsiblefor investigations into WWI relics duringthe archaeological operations (seeFigure 3). Since 2005, the IAD and com-mercial archaeology has gradually takenover. During 2010 and 2011, the IAP/VIOE was still responsible for a signifi-cant part of the research. However, theresearch it conducted in 2010 and 2011took place within the scope of the WWIheritage research project, when archaeolo-gical research was carried out intwenty-two locations. This one-off studycomprised two parts: namely, an archaeo-logical part, where preservation of thearchaeological remains and features wasinvestigated, and a part in which the land-scape was studied to examine to whatextent the landscape of war had been pre-served. This research led to the selectionof twenty-eight important historic sites

located in the front line and highlighting aparticular feature of the fighting that tookplace in that area. The researchers wantedto preserve these zones as much as possiblefrom further exploitation of the land byhaving them included in the regionalspatial implementation plans (GewestelijkeRuimtelijke Uitvoeringsplan) as anchorpoints or in the spatial implementationplans (Ruimtelijke Uitvoeringsplannen) ofthe respective municipalities.

Archaeological research versus datafrom historical aerial photographs

Our database, which contains informationfrom the archaeological reports, comprisesall the data registered during the archaeo-logical operations. However, anarchaeological report is not always a

Figure 3. Graph showing the number of archaeological campaigns, led by different archaeologicalorganizations, in which WWI remains have been found.




https://doi.org/10.1179/1461957114Y.0000000065


complete reflection of the archaeologicalrecord of a particular project area, sincepart of the archaeological record can beoverlooked by the archaeologist, especiallywhen it concerns a material culture withwhich they are not familiar. To tackle thisissue, an inventory of WWI features wasused which comprises features mappedfrom historical aerial photographs (Stichel-baut, 2009a: 124). Throughout WWI,millions of aerial photographs were taken,providing a unique dataset showing theprogress of trench warfare along theWestern Front. During one aerial pho-tography project, more than 17,200photographs were geo-rectified, inter-preted and mapped in a GeographicInformation System (GIS). Basically, thisdataset shows where WWI features werebuilt during the war and where materialremains can still be anticipated.The dataset covered a large part of our

research area (see Figure 1) and could beused for ninety-three locations within it.Often, the archaeological research reports

came with AutoCAD files (.dwg). If theyhad geospatial data attached, these filescould easily be integrated into a GISenvironment (see Figure 4). This waspossible for seventeen sites within theareas where mapped features are available.By so doing, features digitized from his-torical aerial photographs could bematched with the structures registeredduring several excavations. In this way, itcould be established whether or not WWIfeatures were recognized as such, ignoredor thoroughly investigated.There has been an increase in research

into WWI relics in the province of WestFlanders. However, if we compare therelics that archaeologists have foundduring archaeological research with thedigitized features from aerial photographs,we reach a different and more nuancedpicture of how the study of WWI relics isbeing conducted.Of the seventeen sites where digitized

features could be correlated with the exca-vation plans, there are fourteen in which

Figure 4. Map showing the methodology for comparing digitized features derived from aerial photo-graphs with the features recorded from an excavation.




https://doi.org/10.1179/1461957114Y.0000000065


military infrastructure was built during theFirst World War, according to historicalaerial photographs. On these fourteensites, forty-nine digitized features weremapped from the aerial photos (seeTable 1).

Vanished structuresThe majority of features—73 per cent—have not been preserved, for severalreasons. First, some categories of featuresoften leave almost no traces in the soil—for example, mainly barbed wire, narrowgauge lines, and barracks. On one archae-ological site, the barbed wire did come tolight in an indirect way, namely in wastepits. Railway lines were built on a bed ofsand or gravel. Narrow gauge railways hadshallow foundations that probably disap-peared shortly after the war. Barracks wereusually made of perishable materials thathad little impact on the soil archive. Theywere not built to withstand time becauseas soon as the frontline was breachedduring an offensive, these barracks becameobsolete. After the war, nearly all of themwere knocked down and the materialswere reused by the local population.Similarly, the more robust structures,

such as bunkers and trenches, did notalways survive the ravages of time. Bunkerswere cleared to make way for agriculture or

for constructing infrastructure and build-ings. Trenches do not always survive either.—Particularly in low-lying areas, in theformer front zone, there are no signs of thetrenches having been there. During twoarchaeological campaigns, two trenches,which were clearly visible on the wartimeaerial photographs, were not recordedduring fieldwork. One trench location is nomore than four metres above sea level.Trenches that were dug deeply in theseplaces could flood easily so they were oftendug into a raised berm or consist of aparapet and/or parados made of sandbags.The other trench was located further inlandand comprised a fire trench that could belinked with a nearby artillery battery. It ispossible that this trench was not dug asdeep since the structure was temporary.The location of the trench had also beencultivated—deep ploughing had disturbedthe soil to a depth of more than one metrebelow the ground surface and has destroyedall the existing features within this layer.

Preserved featuresOf the forty-nine structures recorded fromthe aerial photographs, only ten were pre-served in the soil. However, only two ofthese were investigated during fieldwork.They consisted of two segments of a one-metre wide narrow-gauge railway

Table 1. Interpretation and preservation of digitized features

Not preserved Not recognized Next to trial trench Studied

Barracks 0 3 0 0

Barbed wire 4 0 0 0

Cable 0 1 0 0

Concrete supply shelter 22 0 0 0

Gun emplacement 0 0 4 0

Narrow gauge line 3 0 0 2

Parapet 1 0 0 0

Pillbox 3 0 0 0

Trenches 2 2 2 0

Total 35 6 6 2




https://doi.org/10.1179/1461957114Y.0000000065


comprising a bed of crushed stone andslag grit, flanked by drainage ditches. TheKleinbahn was part of a junction of railwaylines which came from Jabbeke—one wentto the town of Oudenburg and the otherto Gistel.Not all preserved features are recognized

as such. Fire trenches, communicationtrenches, buried cables, and barracks werenot acknowledged during four archaeolo-gical campaigns. Close to a narrow-gaugerailway at Westkerke, the Germans built amilitary rest camp of barracks. One of thesites where the barracks stood was exca-vated. The ditches around one of thebarracks were identified as recent features.In addition, trenches on two sites werenot recognized as such and were alsorecorded as recent disturbance.

The use of documentary sourcesIn three of the four campaigns in whichWWI features were not recognized,archaeologists did not use any historicalsources dating back to the First WorldWar. During one campaign, they used atrench map, but this served more as anillustration. Indeed, had historical sourcesbeen consulted, the features would prob-ably have been interpreted as dating toWWI.During two campaigns, six structures

fell next to the trial trenches and thuscould not be detected. Therefore, thequestion remains whether these structureshave been preserved. During one cam-paign, no historical sources were used. Onthe other archaeological site, they had toorientate the trial trenches so that they fol-lowed the route of the road they wereplanning to build. Trial trenches are oftenused in archaeological research, particularlyin preliminary studies. Typically, trialtrenches run parallel to an adjacent streetor the boundaries of land parcels. Yet thismethod is not so effective when dealing

with features from the First World War.Such features are often linear and clearlydistinguishable. When trial trenches runparallel to linear structures, such astrenches or narrow-gauge railways, there isa real chance that these structures will bemissed. Therefore, the use of historicalsources can be extremely important indetermining the orientation of trialtrenches or when taking an adjustment ofthe orientation of the trial trenches intoconsideration. In this way, it is possible tochange the angles of trial trenches so thatthe linear features cannot be missed.Historical sources can be of great

importance when studying relics from theFirst World War. Although they are avail-able in abundance, their use is still toolimited. Despite the fact that the archaeo-logical sites in our study area are close tothe former front, only 27 per cent of the213 archaeological campaigns in that areaused at least one historical source, eitherwhen preparing the archaeological researchor afterwards for interpreting the data.The main sources employed are trenchmaps and aerial photographs, followed byregimental diaries and archival sources.From 2011 onwards, the trend has been

towards outsourcing the preliminary his-torical research. The companies used arespecialized in the study of cartographicand historical sources from the FirstWorld War. Sometimes, they also haveexpertise in demining, bomb disposal, andthe disposal of other hazardous ammuni-tion, which allows archaeologists to carryout their work safely. In 2011, archaeolo-gists made use of such services during fivecampaigns.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRACTICE

In archaeological practice, the study ofstructures such as trenches and dugouts isbecoming increasingly acceptable to




https://doi.org/10.1179/1461957114Y.0000000065


archaeologists. However, this may pose aproblem with respect to certain other cat-egories of features such as shell holes. Onthe one hand, shell holes are simply theresult of an exploded shell, causingnothing more than disturbance to all theexisting structures in that particular place.Their only purpose was to destroy humansand material. However, shell holes some-times served a secondary function in a warlandscape. Shell holes could be used asfoxholes for protection or to bury the dead(Desfossés et al., 2008: 70; de Meyer,2009: 212). After the war, shell holes werealso filled with debris and thus mightcontain many artefacts or even live ammu-nition. If every shell hole is left out ofarchaeological research, important infor-mation (e.g. use of makeshift shelters bysoldiers on the battlefield) could easily beoverlooked. The fact is that a large area inthe war-affected areas were literally trans-formed into a lunar landscape, with oneshell hole next to another. The questionthen is how can archaeologists deal withthese features? In what way can ‘ordinary’shell holes be distinguished from interest-ing ones able to provide new scientificdata? These questions can apply equally toother features. Along the Western Front,a huge number of relics remain buried.But, which relics hold relevantinformation?In short, some areas in the front line

still hold a huge number of relics from thebattles, not to mention the multitude ofobjects across the old battlefields. If thephysical remains dating from the FirstWorld War are considered to be archaeo-logical heritage, must all the features beexcavated and recorded during (preventive)archaeological research? These issues arenot merely associated with Belgium—theyare also the subject of discussion inFrance. According to Desfossés et al.(2008), not all excavated WWI featureshave to be recorded. They argue that the

excavation must be programmed accordingto a scientific question. Thus, a choicemust be made between what needs to beexcavated and to what extent that exca-vation provides adds value; choices thatmust be clearly defined (Desfossés et al.,2008: 100). However, they remain vagueabout how to make those choices andwhat methods to use, pointing instead tothe trained eye of the specialist archaeolo-gist. However, this is not enough sincenot all archaeologists have the same back-ground or knowledge of the materialremains of the First World War. There-fore, a methodology must be establishedto investigate various features and materialculture in an appropriate and empiricalway. The use of the large repertory of his-torical sources therein is an absolutenecessity. These sources can thus help toformulate the research questions in thecontext of archaeological research and arekey to making such choices.Archaeological excavation is not the only

way to study WWI heritage and must becombined with other methods from otherscientific disciplines. There should befurther investment in an interdisciplinarybuild-up of knowledge concerning WWIheritage, combining methodologies andtechniques from disciplines such as engin-eering sciences, geography, and history(Saunders, 2010: 21).There is also potential for geophysical

research. This non-destructive form of pro-spection can ensure that researchers workmeticulously or can provide answers to anumber of scientific questions withoutbreaking the surface of the soil. However,this technique is developing constantly,resulting each time in more powerfuldevices and software to be introduced onthe market. Numerous experiments havebeen conducted using these techniques togather information about how to applythese instruments in specific contexts, suchas former battlefields (Saey et al., 2013).




https://doi.org/10.1179/1461957114Y.0000000065


THE LEGITIMACY OF WORLD WAR IARCHAEOLOGY

Archaeology of the recent past, such as thestudy of the material remains of WWI, is arelatively new phenomenon. Several ques-tions have arisen with the integration of thestudy of WWI relics in professional archae-ology and, by extension, to archaeologicalpractice. These questions relate to thevision for the archaeology of the FirstWorld War. Where are we going with thisdiscipline? How can we deal with thedetails of the material culture and what canthey still teach us? What additional infor-mation can we gather by studying thearchaeology of recent conflicts that we donot already know from written records?These are the most important issues thathave been discussed over the last ten years.They were also the first questions to beasked in a number of important articles andbooks concerning the archaeology ofmodern conflict. It would appear that theraison d’être of this discipline had to be jus-tified before any progression could be madein this field of study (Schofield, 2005: 28;Klausmeier et al., 2006: 5; Saunders, 2010:3; Scott & McFeaters, 2011: 105).In fact, two decades of archaeological

research into the remains of recent con-flicts has proved that the aforementionedquestions have been met with compellinganswers. To understand the particularitiesof life in an army at war during WWI,documentary sources are important.However, not everything was writtendown. When it comes to life in thetrenches, in particular, the number ofwritten testimonies is limited. Informationabout the everyday life of an ordinarysoldier in the trenches and behind thefront line can be gathered by studying thecontexts and objects concealed within it.For example, French archaeologistsstudied glass objects sourced from numer-ous contexts with the aim of getting an

insight into the living environment ofGerman soldiers and, in particular, theirdietary habits (Landolt et al., 2012: 308).Similarly, the way in which pillboxes, shel-ters, trenches, etc. were built is not alwayswell documented. As regards shell-proofshelters, the field manuals state: ‘In thefront line […] these structures must besimple but shell-proof. […] their construc-tion can be simplified by the free use ofcorrugated iron and by laying concreteagainst layers of sandbags or earth’ (WarOffice, 1917: 16), leaving plenty offreedom for the units who built them, andsometimes resulting in large typologicaldifferences between the shelters, whichcan only be documented through thorougharchaeological research.A conflict of this magnitude is of inter-

est to many people. The sheer destructionand enormous loss of life ensures thatmany scars still remain even after onehundred years. Moreover, many touristswould like to see these relics as a way ofgrasping the realities of war. Robertshawand Kenyon (2008: 16) suggest that GreatWar archaeology has ‘as its goal an effortto reach past the simple memorializationof the war and try to present the experi-ence of it’. The aim is to let people sharein the inherent perception of the life thesoldiers endured during the war. In thisrespect, the archaeology of WWI providesa scientific basis for the protection, man-agement, and unlocking of WWI heritage.Special attention should also be paid to

the human remains that are still found reg-ularly. According to Desfossés et al. (2008:41), finding a fallen soldier from the FirstWorld War is difficult to compare withfinding human remains dating from earlierperiods. The difference lies in the fact thatthese bodies can be identified; they maystill be known to people who are alivetoday. Therefore, this makes finding theremains of a fallen soldier a delicate matter.Desfossés et al. (2008: 41) see it as an




https://doi.org/10.1179/1461957114Y.0000000065


expression of the devoir de mémoire ormoral obligation to find these bodies, treatthem with the necessary care and attention,and rebury them in a proper manner. Thisexceeds, so to speak, the purely archaeolo-gical concerns.

CONCLUSIONS

After ten years of professional archaeologyof conflict in Flanders, a preliminarystock-taking can be made. Research hasshown that, in addition to a generalincrease in the number of archaeologicalexcavation campaigns in Flanders, there isalso growth in the number of campaignsin which WWI features are being investi-gated by professional archaeologists.However, this image must be nuanced.The relics of the Great War that are cur-rently registered are just the tip of theiceberg. On some sites, the features datingback to the First World War are notrecognized. It is striking that historicalsources from WWI are not commonlyused either to make an assessment of thestudy area or to identify the remains thatare found during the excavation. Thesehistorical sources can be important forunderstanding the history of the archaeo-logical site, but can also be useful for otherpurposes. For example, based on trenchmaps or historical aerial photographs, theorientation of the trial trenches—a meth-odology widely used in preliminaryarchaeological research—can be positionedto ensure that WWI features are notmissed. The archaeology of conflictappeals to other sources and techniquesfrom other fields in understanding a site.However, it seems that there is still a lackof effort to do so. There are still manyquestions to be resolved, very fundamentalquestions which must be answered inorder to turn the archaeology of the FirstWorld War and, by extension, the

archaeology of contemporary conflict, intoa fully accepted field of study.

REFERENCES

Bourgeois, J., Stichelbaut, B. & VanHollebeeke, Y. 2013. WOI erfgoedonder-zoek Komen-Waasten. Inventarisatie enanalyse van bovengronds bewaardeWOI-relicten in de gemeenteKomen-Waasten (unpublished report)[online]. [accessed 27 March 2014].Available at: http://www.mendeley.com/research/woi-erfgoedonderzoek-komenwaasten-inventarisatie-en-analyse-van-bovengronds-bewaarde-woirelicten-gem/.

Brown, M. & Osgood, R. 2009. Digging UpPlugstreet. The Archaeology of a Great WarBattlefield. Yeovil: Haynes Publishing.

Debaeke, S. 2010. Oud ijzer. De frontstreekbedolven onder levensgevaarlijke oorlogsmu-nitie. Brugge: De Klaproos.

De Clercq, W., Bats, M., Bourgeois, J.,Crombé, P., De Mulder, G., De Reu, J.,Herremans, D., Laloo, P., Lombaert, L.,Plets, G., Sergant, J. & Stichelbaut, B.2012. Development-Led Archaeology inFlanders: An Overview of Practices andResults in the Period 1990–2010. In:L. Webley, M. Vander Linden,C. Haselgrove & B. Richard, eds.Development-Led Archaeology in NorthwestEurope, Proceedings of a Round Table at theUniversity of Leicester. Oxford: OxbowBooks, pp. 22–28.

Demeurie, D. & Vandewalle, J. 2006. OnderDak. Over barakken en noodwoningen naW.O. 1. Diksmuide: IJzerbedevaartcomité.

de Meyer, M. 2009. World War 1 Battlefieldsof the Ypres Salient Mapped and Analysedwith Aerial Photographs. A Confrontationwith the Current Landscape andArchaeology. In: B. Stichelbaut,J. Bourgeois, N. Saunders & P. Chielens,eds. Images of Conflict: Military AerialPhotography and Archaeology. Newcastleupon Tyne: Cambridge ScholarsPublishing, pp. 203–20.

Dendooven, D. 2003. Menin Gate and Last Post:Ypres as Holy Ground. Koksijde: Klaproos.

Desfossés, Y., Jacques, A. & Prilaux, G. 2008.L’Archéologie de la Grande Guerre. Rennes:Editions Ouest-France.



http://www.mendeley.com/research/woi-erfgoedonderzoek-komenwaasten-inventarisatie-en-analyse-van-bovengronds-bewaarde-woirelicten-gem/


















https://doi.org/10.1179/1461957114Y.0000000065


Dewilde, M. 2009. Het onroerend erfgoed vande ‘Groote Oorlog’ in de Westhoek:Verleden en toekomst. In: B. Biesbrouck,ed. Fortengordels Nu! Actuele omgang metforten, gordels en verdedigingslinies: verslag-boek van het colloquium Antwerpen 25–26September 2009. Antwerpen: ProvincieAntwerpen.

Dewilde, M. 2010. Onderzoeksbalans—Archeologisch oorlogserfgoed [online].[accessed 18 April 2013]. Available at:<http://www.onderzoeksbalans.be/onderzoeksbalans/thematisch/eerste-wereldoorlogerfgoed/archeologie>.

Dewilde, M., de Meyer, M. & Saunders, N.2007. Archeologie van de ‘Groote Oorlog’.De Vlaamse situatie. Monumenten,Landschappen en Archeologie, 26(1):37–54.

Freeman, P.W.M. & Pollard, A. eds. 2001.Fields of Conflict: Progress and Prospect inBattlefield Archaeology. BritishArchaeological Reports InternationalSeries 958. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Jacobs, K. & Pollard, T. 2008. Vampir Dugout.Association for Battlefield Archaeologyand Conservation & Centre for BattlefieldArchaeology, University of Glasgow(unpublished report).

Klausmeier, A., Purbrick, L. & Schofield, J.2006. Reflexivity and Record:Re-Mapping Conflict Archaeology. In:J. Schofield, A. Klausmeier & L. Purbrick,eds. Re-Mapping the Field: NewApproaches in Conflict Archaeology. Berlin/Bonn: Westkreuz-Verlag.

Landolt, M., Bolley, A., Lesjean, F. &Mellinger, D. 2012. Le contant alimentaireen verre pendant la Première GuerreMondiale: une spécificité de l’approvision-nement des troupes allemandes. In:M. Mergoil, ed. Le verre en Lorraine etdans les régions voisines: Actes du colloque del’AFAV, Metz, 18 et 19 novembre 2011.Montagnac: Monique mergoil, pp. 307–23.

Meire, J. 2003. De stilte van de Salient. De her-innering aan de Eerste Wereldoorlog rondIeper. Tielt: Lannoo.

Robertshaw, A. & Kenyon, D. 2008. Diggingthe Trenches: Archaeology of the WesternFront. Barnsley: Pen & Sword Military.

Saey, T., Stichelbaut, B., Bourgeois, J. & VanEetvelde, V. 2013. An InterdisciplinaryNon-Invasive Approach to LandscapeArchaeology of the Great War.Archaeological Prospection, 20(1):39–44.

Saunders, N.J. 2010. Killing Time: Archaeologyand the First World War, 2nd ed. Stroud:Sutton Publishing.

Saunders, N.J. ed. 2013. Beyond the DeadHorizon. Studies in Modern ConflictArchaeology. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Schofield, J. 2005. Combat Archaeology.Material Culture and Modern Conflict.London: Gerald Duckworth & Co.

Scott, D.D. & McFeaters, A.P. 2011. TheArchaeology of Historic Battlefields: AHistory and Theoretical Development inConflict Archaeology. Journal ofArchaeological Research, 19(1):103–32.

Stichelbaut, B. 2009a. World War One AerialPhotography: An ArchaeologicalPerspective (unpublished PhD thesis,Ghent University).

Stichelbaut, B. ed. 2009b. Images of Conflict:Military Aerial Photography andArchaeology. Newcastle: CambridgeScholars Publishing.

Stichelbaut, B. 2011. The First ThirtyKilometres of the Western Front 1914–1918: An Aerial Archaeological Approachwith Historical Remote Sensing Data.Archaeological Prospection, 18(1):57–66.

Stichelbaut, B., Gheyle, W. & Bourgeois, J.2010. Great War Aerial Photographs: TheImperial War Museum’s Box Collection. In:D.C. Cowley, R.A. Standring & M.J. Abicht, eds. Landscapes Through the Lens:Aerial Photographs and Historic Environment.Oxford: Oxbow Books, pp. 225–36.

Sutherland, T. 2005. Battlefield Archaeology—AGuide to the Archaeology of Conflict.Bradford: British Archaeological Jobs andResources [online]. [accessed 9 May2014]. Available at: <http://www.bajr.org/documents/bajrbattleguide.pdf>.

Vernimme, N. 2010. Omgaan met oorlogserf-goed. VIOE-handleidingen 02. Brussel:Vlaams Instituut voor Onroerend Erfgoed.

War Office. 1917. Manual of Position Warfarefor All Arms. Part I; The Construction ofField Positions. London: War Office.General Staff.

Wouters, W. 2012. Development-LedArchaeology in Flanders: The LegalFramework. In: L. Webley, M. VanderLinden, C. Haselgrove & B. Richard, eds.Development-Led Archaeology in NorthwestEurope, Proceedings of a Round Table at theUniversity of Leicester. Oxford: OxbowBooks, pp. 22–28.



http://www.onderzoeksbalans.be/onderzoeksbalans/thematisch/eerste-wereldoorlogerfgoed/archeologie







http://www.bajr.org/documents/bajrbattleguide.pdf







https://doi.org/10.1179/1461957114Y.0000000065


BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE

Yannick Van Hollebeeke works as aresearch assistant at the ArchaeologyDepartment of Ghent University. He hascarried out several prospection assignmentsin Antwerp and Comines-Warneton(Belgium) with the objective of inventory-ing and studying the preserved WWIheritage. Currently he works on historicalaerial photography coverage of the RégionNord—Pas de Calais (France). His maininterest is in the archaeology of modernconflict with a focus on heritage percep-tion and management.

Address: Department of Archaeology,Ghent University, Sint-Pietersnieuwstraat35, 9000 Gent, Belgium [email: [email protected]]

Birger Stichelbaut’s general research inter-ests are archaeological prospection, aerialphotography for archaeology and conflictarchaeology. He currently works as a post-doctoral researcher at the Centre forArchaeological and Historical Aerial Pho-tography, carrying out a large-scalelandscape analysis of WWI sites in West-Flanders using historical aerial

photographs (1915–1918). This is a col-laboration between the In Flanders FieldsMuseum, the Province of West-Flandersand the University of Ghent Departmentof Archaeology.


Jean Bourgeois is full professor at GhentUniversity and Head of the Departmentof Archaeology. He is a member of theRoyal Flemish Academy of Belgium forScience and the Arts, correspondingmember of the German ArchaeologicalInstitute and president of the InternationalUnion of Prehistoric and ProtohistoricSciences (2011–2017). His research con-centrates on the Bronze Age and Iron Agein Western Europe as well as in the AltayMountains and on aerial archaeology inFlanders.


Paysage de guerre et compte rendu archéologique: dix années d’archéologieprofessionnelle de la Grande Guerre en Flandre (Belgique)

À l’occasion des commémorations de la Première Guerre mondiale, le temps est venu d’effectuer uninventaire préalable de la recherche archéologique sur les vestiges physiques de cette guerre. La questionest de savoir dans quelle mesure la perspective sur les études de l’héritage de la Grande Guerre—et parconséquent la façon par laquelle les recherches archéologiques de ses vestiges ont été menées—a évoluédurant les dix dernières années. Les reliques de la Première Guerre mondiale sont-elles considéréescomme un légitime sujet d’enquête, ou faut-il que cette archéologie lutte toujours pour sa reconnaissance?Nous analysons ici les pratiques de l’archéologie de la Première Guerre mondiale en Flandre (Belgique)ainsi que les problèmes (méthodologiques) soulevés lors de l’étude des restes archéologiques de cette guerre,en nous basant sur les comptes rendus provenant du travail sur le terrain mené par des archéologuesprofessionnels.

Mots-clés: Première Guerre mondiale, archéologie des conflits modernes, photographie aérienne,archéologie des champs de bataille, pratique archéologique, culture matérielle



mailto:

mailto:

mailto:

mailto:

mailto:

mailto:

mailto:

mailto:

mailto:

mailto:

mailto:

mailto:


https://doi.org/10.1179/1461957114Y.0000000065


Von der Kriegslandschaft zum archäologischen Bericht: Zehn Jahre professionellerarchäologischer Forschung zum Ersten Weltkrieg in Flandern (Belgien)

Im Zuge der aktuellen Erinnerung an den Ersten Weltkrieg kann eine vorläufige Bestandsaufnahmeder archäologischen Erforschung der physischen Hinterlassenschaften dieses Krieges vorgenommenwerden. Es stellt sich die Frage, in welchem Maße sich die Perspektive der Untersuchung des histor-ischen Erbes des Ersten Weltkrieges—und dementsprechend auch die archäologische Erforschung seinerHinterlassenschaften—im Laufe der letzten zehn Jahre entwickelt hat. Werden Überreste des ErstenWeltkriegs mittlerweile als seriöses Untersuchungsfeld angesehen oder kämpft ihre Archäologie nochimmer als Anerkennung als Disziplin? Auf der Basis von Forschungsberichten professioneller Archäolo-gen diskutiert dieser Beitrag die Praktiken der Archäologie des Ersten Weltkrieges in Flandern(Belgien) sowie auch ihre methodologischen Probleme. Translation by Heiner Schwarzberg.

Stichworte: Erster Weltkrieg, Archäologie moderner Konflikte, Luftbildfotografie, Schlachtfel-darchäologie, archäologische Praxis, materielle Kultur




https://doi.org/10.1179/1461957114Y.0000000065


from landscape of war to archaeological report: ten years of professional world … · the remains...

Documents