Conflict archaeology is a sub-discipline within archaeology focused on intergroup and intragroup conflict. Closely linked to battlefield archaeology and Military Sites Archaeology, conflict archaeology is developing[1] as an umbrella sub-discipline that encompasses these others, allowing for greater epistemological elasticity than other terms. Modern conflict archaeology deals with technological, social, cultural, psychological aspects of present conflicts. Unlike battlefield archaeology, modern conflict archaeology delves deeper into the anthropological study of the conflicts rather than the physical manifestations of the battles. As stated by Nicholas Saunders in his book entitled Beyond the Dead Horizon, "These complexities are generated partly by nature of modern wars/conflicts of industrialized intensity and they incorporate political and nationalistic motivations and notions of ethnicity and identity."[2]
In order to understand the modern-day conflict, it is important to recognize two fundamental issues:
1. Realize that each conflict is a multifaceted issue which incorporates many anthropological contexts of involved populations.
2. In order to understand the actual conflict, one must understand all facets of the motivating issues and their layers of conflict.
As stated by Saunders; "This multitude of issues makes modern conflict sites...multi-layered landscapes...that require robust interdisciplinary approaches."(Saunders, pg. x). Conflict archaeology addresses any type of issue regardless of size or effect, more importantly the residual effects felt from the conflict itself upon the surrounding populations. "In this view the constantly shifting multidimensional aftermaths of conflict are as important as the conflict themselves." [3]
Conflict archaeology is most strongly followed by some historical archaeologists in the United States and archaeologists of all time periods in Europe. Significant studies of conflict in North America predating the arrival of Europeans have been done, but these works are largely situated within regional, not thematic literature.
A Case Study: The Bare Bones; body parts and conflict behavior
Within Saunders work, Susannah Callow's paper is presented as she analyzes the role in which body parts of the deceased act as key indicators of complex narratives of individual experiences during a conflict (i.e. politics, social status, personal memento etc.) as stated by allowing, "...the body is central to human experiences of modern warfare...material and human destruction...becomes a way of living material form to discourse and the body in pain is a vital component in battle to assert meaning and authority."[4]
Essentially our bodies act as physical manifestations of past conflicts. The physical effects that violence inflicts upon our bodies are allowed for the characterization of the surrounding conflict which was participated in. Our bodies tell us the human interaction enacted and the course of the conflict, whether one side was dominated in regards to another, based on physical evidence. As Callow states, "Permanent wounds such as scars or missing body parts convey messages about the success or failure of casing wounds to one another...and the military success of the individual who carries out such acts."[5] A primary component is that of dehumanization. "Dehumanization is the psychological term describing a process of denying the humanity or human characteristic of an individual/subgroup" Dehumanization is evident via acts of mutilation and is often revealed by the manner in which the dead are killed. This psychological process leads to the lack of restraint and often incites the celebration of death. Therefore, this is often illustrated by mass killings, genocides, use and disuse of parts and body part artifact construction. There are two major components of the dehumanization perspective:
1. Body parts are equivalent to material culture This is expressed in the lynchings of the south in the late 18th century. These lynchings often featured a crowd oftentimes which would take and sell body parts of the deceased. These actions, as Callow states, "...conferred the stakes of belonging to the 'correct' group"[6]
2. Deceased Individuals are viewed as waste. For example, Nazi concentration camps often referred to the Jews as "loads or "merchandise" and resulted in the victims loss of identity. This is further emphasized as they were marked with numbers and herded like cattle. In the end disposal of their bodies were often mechanical oftentimes lacking proper post-mortem practices. Also, the deceased body parts were often used to create various commodities. For example, skulls were collected and sold for profit, skin was used to make leather and human fat was used to make soap. Therefore, it is through these examples that we realize that modern day conflicts are not limited to the battles and wars, but the psychological and anthropological interactions between various populations and the underlying motivations it exposes.
Methods and theory
Origins
Over the last two decades conflict archaeology has developed from Historic archaeology to include multiple elements in the fields of anthropology and archaeology. Early efforts include 1842 surveys of the English Civil War site of Naseby, and in the twentieth century the 1950s examination of the Portuguese battle of Aljbarotta of AD1325.[7] In the United States attention was drawn to the possibilities of conflict archaeology in the National Parks sites of Little Big Horn and selected Civil Battle fields.[8] Much of the work done on these later sites was with metal detectors.[9] Although this technology has received a less than warm welcome to field work due to its use in relic hunting, it has become a staple in many investigations. Relic hunting was around long before the metal detector was invented.
Field methodology
Since much of conflict archaeology has been from the historic period, documentary research remains a primary starting point for the process. Published documents, maps, chart, aerial photography all aid in getting preliminary starting point. Field work will then include pedestrian survey and possibly remote sensing, including not only metal detecting, but also magnetometry, Ground Penetrating Radar(GPR), Resistivity, and more recently, Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR). This ability to sense what is beneath the surface often allows for the true location of structure. In conflict archaeology these are often fortifications such as trenches, breastworks as well as housing, transportation and storage areas.
Facilities away from the battlefield itself are also a concern of conflict archaeology. Other complexes such as supply, food preparation, sanitation, transportation, command structures, facilities for prisoners, hospitals and possibly the burial of the dead.[10][11][12]
Structural elements and fortifications may be mobile or static, short term or long term, and may even have multiple occupations during protracted periods. Identification of these structures should reflect the cultural tendencies of a group in that period. Following that theme, the location through remote sensing and traditional test excavation may reveal elements of conflict at a more personal level. All of this may be used to observe first hand behavior of groups and individuals under the stress of battle.
Applications toward anthropology
Cultural patterns-One of the approaches to working in this area is to understand the nature of conflict of given cultures. Not all people fight the same way. By studying the cultural signature of opposing groups, insight may be gained to help interpret not only the battlefield, but also the areas involved in pre and post conflict activities.
Training is one of these areas. Again, not all people fight the same way given their individual histories, demographic makeup, as well as technical and natural resources. Also, people tend to fight the way they were trained, so that in examining an area of conflict similar patterns are likely to appear. The way the forces reconnoiter, approach, deploy and exit a conflict will often reflect a given group's training, hence these may be predicted, thereby locating archaeological evidence by studying the groups training or cultural proclivities.
Landscape
Terrain in the purely geographical sense has long been an element of archaeological investigations and reports, but terrain has a critical role that is part of not only battle field conflict but staging areas, routes for access and withdrawal, and movement before, during and after the conflict itself. An area for conflict and pre and post activities will yield significantly different kinds of materials for observation. Theaters of conflict between a colonial power and an indigenous group will most probably yield significantly different archaeological records. How the area was chosen, and to what purpose can reveal strategies and tactics such as siege or holding operations. Clandestine and guerrilla tactics will often manifest themselves in different kinds of bases and transport operations such as tunnels and caves.
Time and space
Time and space are also pivotal considerations for the study of conflict. Time may be measured in seconds or years even decades or longer. Opportunities for the deposition of archaeological evidence may consist of very minuscule traces to layers of multiple accumulations, all telling unique stories. The same applies to space. It too may range from a single event of ‘one on one’ contact to fields of conflict that are truly global in nature. The events that are small in physical scale, again may or may not leave much evidence, but the larger episodes my in fact completely alter the landscape. Large construction projects of camps, docks, airfields as well as fortifications may remain for centuries.[13]
Alterity
Alterity is the concept of identifying those groups who have been omitted in traditional historical narratives, sometimes identified as 'others;. Conflict archaeology seeks to be more inclusive regarding non-traditional narratives that focus less on purely military aspects of battle. The roles of indigenous peoples, insurgents, and noncombatants have been greatly under reported in both the historic and archaeological reports on conflict. Adding to these should be women and children who are often integral elements in conflict scenarios as the adult male participants.[14] These are often the under-reported participants of support, espionage, and partisan activities.
Colonialism
A close inspection of the documents of a period of colonialism will often reveal that the recordings of conflict will reflect the justifications of the subjecting power. These ‘histories’ may be nothing more than period propaganda and will often be perpetuated into long studied and repeated narratives. These will also ignore, or downplay, or intentionally omit the role of the subaltern players in those dramas.[15] Examples of some of the new examinations range from the Fascist control over Ethiopia during the 1930s to massacres of Aboriginals in Australia.[16]
Ethics
Recent innovations in the study and identification of human remains have been utilized in the last three decades is drawing the study of conflict and archaeology into prominence.[17] Modern examples of extra-national conflicts, civil wars, episodes of genocide, concentration camps, ‘ethnic cleansing’ are producing execution sites, mass graves and other archaeological evidences. These episodes are heavily involving conflict archaeology into the legal theatre to augment evidence of war crimes and atrocities. The same recovery techniques are also being used to repatriate remains to families and provide closure to events that may span decades.[18][19]
↑ Saunders, Nicholas (2012). Beyond the Dead Horizon: Studies in Modern Conflict Archaeology. Oxford, UK: Oxbow Books. p.x. ISBN978-1-84217-471-5.
↑ Saunders, Nicholas (2012). Beyond the Dead Horizon: Studies in Modern Conflict Archaeology. Oxford, UK: Oxbow Books. p.xi. ISBN978-1-84217-471-5.
↑ Saunders, Nicholas (2012). Beyond the Dead Horizon: Studies in Modern Conflict Archaeology. Oxford, UK: Oxbow Books. pp.29–30. ISBN978-1-84217-471-5.
↑ Saunders, Nicholas (2012). Beyond the Dead Horizon: Studies in Modern Conflict Archaeology. Oxford, UK: Oxbow Books. p.31. ISBN978-1-84217-471-5.
↑ Saunders, Nicholas (2012). Beyond the Dead Horizon: Studies in Modern Conflict Archaeology. Oxford, UK: Oxbow Books. pp.33–34. ISBN978-1-84217-471-5.
↑ Scott, Douglas D (March 2011). "The Archaeology of Historic Battlefields: A History and Theoretical Development in Conflict Archaeology". Journal of Archaeological Research. 19: 103–132. doi:10.1007/s10814-010-9044-8. S2CID144235941.
↑ Connor, M. A.; etal. (1988). "Nameless faces of Custer Battlefield". Greasy Grass. 4: 2–4.
↑ Cruse, J. Brett (2008). Battles of the Red River War: Archaeological Perspectives on the Indian Campaign of 1874. Texas A&M Press.
↑ Rogers, Joe D. (1989). "Camp Hereford: Italian Prisoners of War on the Texas Plains". Panhandle-Plains Historical Review. V.LXII.: 57–110.
↑ Krammer, Arnold P. (1991). Nazi Prisoners of War in America. Scarborough House.
↑ Waters, Michael R.; etal. (2004). Lone Star Stalag: German Prisoners of War at Camp Hearne. Texas A&M Press.
↑ Scott, Douglas D. (March 2011). "The Archaeology of Historic Battlefields: A History and Theoretical Development in Conflict Archaeology". Journal of Archaeological Research. 19 (1): 103–132. doi:10.1007/s10814-010-9044-8. S2CID144235941.
↑ Moshenska, G. (2008). "Ethics and Ethical Critique in the Archaeology of Modern Conflict". Norwegian Archaeology Review. 41 (2): 159–75. doi:10.1080/00293650802522662. S2CID143294704.
Forensic anthropology is the application of the anatomical science of anthropology and its various subfields, including forensic archaeology and forensic taphonomy, in a legal setting. A forensic anthropologist can assist in the identification of deceased individuals whose remains are decomposed, burned, mutilated or otherwise unrecognizable, as might happen in a plane crash. Forensic anthropologists are also instrumental in the investigation and documentation of genocide and mass graves. Along with forensic pathologists, forensic dentists, and homicide investigators, forensic anthropologists commonly testify in court as expert witnesses. Using physical markers present on a skeleton, a forensic anthropologist can potentially determine a person's age, sex, stature, and race. In addition to identifying physical characteristics of the individual, forensic anthropologists can use skeletal abnormalities to potentially determine cause of death, past trauma such as broken bones or medical procedures, as well as diseases such as bone cancer.
A Venus figurine is any Upper Palaeolithic statue portraying a woman, usually carved in the round. Most have been unearthed in Europe, but others have been found as far away as Siberia, and distributed across much of Eurasia.
Prehistoric archaeology is a subfield of archaeology, which deals specifically with artefacts, civilisations and other materials from societies that existed before any form of writing system or historical record. Often the field focuses on ages such as the Stone Age, Bronze Age and Iron Age, although it also encompasses periods such as the Neolithic. The study of prehistoric archaeology reflects the cultural concerns of modern society by showing interpretations of time between economic growth and political stability. It is related to other disciplines such as geology, biology, anthropology, historiography and palaeontology, although there are noticeable differences between the subjects they all broadly study to understand; the past, either organic or inorganic or the lives of humans. Prehistoric archaeology is also sometimes termed as anthropological archaeology because of its indirect traces with complex patterns.
Dehumanization is the denial of full humanity in others along with the cruelty and suffering that accompany it. A practical definition refers to it as the viewing and the treatment of other people as though they lack the mental capacities that are commonly attributed to human beings. In this definition, every act or thought that regards a person as "less than" human is dehumanization.
Prehistoric warfare refers to war that occurred between societies without recorded history.
Gender archaeology is a method of studying past societies through their material culture by closely examining the social construction of gender identities and relations.
As with most academic disciplines, there are a number of archaeological sub-disciplines typically characterised by a focus on a specific method or type of material, geographical or chronological focus, or other thematic concern.
The term bioarchaeology has been attributed to British archaeologist Grahame Clark who, in 1972, defined it as the study of animal and human bones from archaeological sites. Redefined in 1977 by Jane Buikstra, bioarchaeology in the United States now refers to the scientific study of human remains from archaeological sites, a discipline known in other countries as osteoarchaeology, osteology or palaeo-osteology. Compared to bioarchaeology, osteoarchaeology is the scientific study that solely focus on the human skeleton. The human skeleton is used to tell us about health, lifestyle, diet, mortality and physique of the past. Furthermore, palaeo-osteology is simple the study of ancient bones.
Donald Reginald Brothwell, was a British archaeologist, anthropologist and academic, who specialised in human palaeoecology and environmental archaeology. He had worked at the University of Cambridge, the British Museum, and the Institute of Archaeology of University of London, before ending his career as Professor of Human Palaeoecology at the University of York. He has been described as "one of the pioneers in the field of archaeological science".
Battlefield archaeology is a sub-discipline of archaeology which studies the material remains and topography of a battlefield to understand a conflict. Archaeological battlefields consist of skirmishes, sieges, camps, and training sites. The study of the relationships and contexts of the material by-products of war give an alternate account to the version recorded in a history book, poem, or witness account, which may be constructed though bias, or may present only a limited perspective of the events. Examination of these locations gives insight to what tactics were being used, weapon modifications, and battle formations. It is not considered distinct from Military archaeology or Recceology.
Zhongyuan (Chinese: 中原; pinyin: Zhōngyuán), the Central Plain(s), also known as Zhongtu (Chinese: 中土; pinyin: Zhōngtǔ, lit. 'central land') and Zhongzhou (Chinese: 中州; pinyin: Zhōngzhōu, lit. 'central region'), commonly refers to the part of the North China Plain surrounding the lower and middle reaches of the Yellow River, centered on the region between Luoyang and Kaifeng. It has been perceived as the birthplace of the Chinese civilization. Historically, the Huaxia people viewed Zhongyuan as 'the center of the world'. Human activities in the Zhongyuan region can be traced back to the Palaeolithic period.
Douglas D. Scott is an American archaeologist most notable for his work at the Little Bighorn in the mid-1980s. Working with Richard Fox, Melissa Connor, Doug Harmon, and staff and volunteers from the National Park Service, Scott worked to sketch out a field methodology that has enabled archaeologists to systematically investigate battlefields. This work is internationally recognized as constituting a great step forward in our ability to interpret battlefields archaeologically, regardless of the extent of the historical record. At the Little Bighorn, the fieldwork produced an interpretation of the battle that for the first time gave a clear understanding of the way the battle developed and pointed out some of the glaring inaccuracies of the historiography of the event. The fieldwork also helped determine which of the 242 headstones to the 210 U.S. soldiers lost at the Little Bighorn were erroneous, and recovered skeletal elements allowed one of the soldiers to be positively identified. It was not as successful in recovering the remains of 24 men lost in Deep Ravine and whose whereabouts are unknown to this day.
Indigenous archaeology is a sub-discipline of Western archaeological theory that seeks to engage and empower indigenous people in the preservation of their heritage and to correct perceived inequalities in modern archaeology. It also attempts to incorporate non-material elements of cultures, like oral traditions, into the wider historical narrative. This methodology came out of the global anti-colonial movements of the 1970s and 1980s led by aboriginal and indigenous people in settler-colonial nations, like the United States, Canada, and Australia. Major issues the sub-discipline attempts to address include the repatriation of indigenous remains to their respective peoples, the perceived biases that western archaeology's imperialistic roots have imparted into its modern practices, and the stewardship and preservation of indigenous people's cultures and heritage sites. This has encouraged the development of more collaborative relationships between archaeologists and indigenous people and has increased the involvement of indigenous people in archaeology and its related policies.
Nicholas J. Saunders is a British academic archaeologist and anthropologist. He was educated at the universities of Sheffield, Cambridge, and Southampton. He has held teaching and research positions at the National Autonomous University of Mexico, the University of the West Indies, Dumbarton Oaks, Washington D.C., and at University College London, where he was Reader in Material Culture, and undertook a major British Academy sponsored investigation into the material culture anthropology of the First World War (1998–2004). As of 2014 Saunders was Professor in the Department of Anthropology and Archaeology at the University of Bristol, where he was responsible for the MA programmes in historical archaeology and conflict archaeology. As of 2018, he is Emeritus Professor of Material Culture in that department. He is a prominent contributor to the nascent field of conflict archaeology, and has authored and edited numerous academic publications in the field. In addition to his research specialising in the anthropology of 20th-century conflicts and the archaeology of World War I theatres in Belgium, France and the Middle East, Saunders has also conducted extensive fieldwork and research in pre-Columbian and historical archaeology of the Americas. He has been involved with major museum exhibitions in London, Ypres (Belgium), Tübingen (Germany), and at the Centre Pompidou-Metz (France). Saunders has investigated and published on material cultures and landscapes of Mesoamerica, South America, and the Caribbean. His most recent research has been on the aesthetics of brilliance and colour in indigenous Amerindian symbolism, an extensive survey investigation of the Nazca Lines in Peru, the anthropological archaeology of twentieth-century conflict and its legacies along the Soca (Isonzo) Front on the Slovenian-Italian border, and the conflict artworks of the Chinese Labour Corps on the Western Front during and after the First World War.
Lawrence E. Babits is an American archaeologist with specific interests in military history, material culture, and battlefield and maritime archaeology. Babits is credited with highly accurate accounts of soldiers' combat experience during the 18th century, specifically during the Battle of Cowpens, a turning point in the American Revolutionary War. This is illustrated in his books Long, Obstinate and Bloody: The Battle of Guilford Courthouse and A Devil of a Whipping: The Battle of Cowpens. Babits was a George Washington Distinguished Professor of Maritime Archaeology and History at East Carolina University.
The Joukowsky Institute for Archaeology and the Ancient World is an interdisciplinary center at Brown University focused on research and teaching of archaeology, with an emphasis on the archaeology and art of the ancient Mediterranean, Egypt, and the Near East. Brown's undergraduate and graduate programs in archeology are organized through the institute.
Innes McCartney is a British nautical archaeologist and historian. He is a Visiting Fellow at Bournemouth University in the UK.
The La Garma cave complex is a parietal art-bearing paleoanthropological cave system in Cantabria, Spain. It is located just north of the village of Omoño, part of the municipality of Ribamontán al Monte. The cave complex is noted for one of the best preserved floors from the Paleolithic containing more than 4,000 fossils and more than 500 graphical units. It is part of the Cave of Altamira and Paleolithic Cave Art of Northern Spain World Heritage Site.
Stephanie Moser is an archaeology professor and head of the department at the University of Southampton, England. Her work explores the exhibition and reception of the human past. Moser's research examines visual images from antiquity through the lens of modern anthropology.
The anthropology of technology (AoT) is a unique, diverse, and growing field of study that bears much in common with kindred developments in the sociology and history of technology: first, a growing refusal to view the role of technology in human societies as the irreversible and predetermined consequence of a given technology's putative “inner logic”; and second, a focus on the social and cultural factors that shape a given technology's development and impact in a society. However, AoT defines technology far more broadly than the sociologists and historians of technology.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
