Battlefield archaeology controversy

[michaeldr]

Inappropriate excavation methods sparks concern: see https://www.turkiyetoday.com/culture/battlefield-archaeology-turkiye-54188/ 

Well done Koray Erdogan & Türkiye Today for bringing this to light and to a wider audience who have legitimate interests in this battlefield's archaeology

 

[Hedley Malloch]

"Battlefield archaeology is a discipline that requires expertise in preserving military conflict sites and demands strict adherence to scientific methods. The excavation examples in Canakkale have been conducted contrary to globally recognized archaeological standards. Improper methods of unearthing historical war remnants can inflict irreparable damage on the cultural heritage of the region."

This is a tricky one, isn't it? Professional battlefield archaeology demands time, money and professionally qualified staff, none of which are freely available. One test is whether or not the diggers you mention are finding anything historically significant, such as human remains, in which case they deserve proper attention. But all of the material mentioned in the article seems unexceptional, of the type regularly dug up by farmers in France & Belgium and left at the roadside for the disposal squads to collect. Should it be any different in Gallipoli?

[AOK4]

5 minutes ago, Hedley Malloch said:

"Battlefield archaeology is a discipline that requires expertise in preserving military conflict sites and demands strict adherence to scientific methods. The excavation examples in Canakkale have been conducted contrary to globally recognized archaeological standards. Improper methods of unearthing historical war remnants can inflict irreparable damage on the cultural heritage of the region."

This is a tricky one, isn't it? Professional battlefield archaeology demands time, money and professionally qualified staff, none of which are freely available. One test is whether or not the diggers you mention are finding anything historically significant, such as human remains, in which case they deserve proper attention. But all of the material mentioned in the article seems unexceptional, of the type regularly dug up by farmers in France & Belgium and left at the roadside for the disposal squads to collect. Should it be any different in Gallipoli?

I agree. Regularly, I hear archaeologists complain about people with metal detectors. However, most of what can be found in the top layer has no or very little significance. And indeed, should every shell that is found by farmers be dug up by an archaeologist?

It is a very difficult balance and the solution should be in archaeologists and metal detectorists working closer together.

[michaeldr]

At a bare minimum

"As with any archaeological excavation, artifacts in these areas should be photographed in situ, with necessary information and coordinates documented, and delivered to the relevant authority or museum along with proper records."

 

[AOK4]

4 hours ago, michaeldr said:

At a bare minimum

"As with any archaeological excavation, artifacts in these areas should be photographed in situ, with necessary information and coordinates documented, and delivered to the relevant authority or museum along with proper records."

 

To be honest: do you think anyone is interested in 100-200 uniform buttons? Just to give one example.

As I said, it's a thin line.

[michaeldr]

28 minutes ago, AOK4 said:

do you think anyone is interested in 100-200 uniform buttons? Just to give one example.

To take you seriously for a moment, then yes. 
If you want to confirm the presence of a particular unit, in a particular place, then a uniform button may well be very important.

But it's not just for the sake of any questions which we might have right now. 
It's about carefully recording all the data so that we can help those in any future research program answer their questions too

Without the necessary geolocation data to back up a find, then [at best] it's just a button from a battlefield in a display case in a museum room, indicating nothing more than the fact that buttons were once worn.

[aconnolly]

I agree Michael - irrespective what constitutes or does not an  "artefact" the sheer danger of mishandling artillery shells from the conflict should not be ignored.  We also know many thousands of men have no known grave and this type of activity without something of a standardised approach risks the dead and the potential, no matter how rare, to identify any of the Fallen.  Finally as you say, and very relevant, is what the artefacts may can tell us about the campaign itself.  For example, ANZAC relics on the 3rd ridge will relate to the day of the Landing -  where there remain many questions.  

Andrew

[Skipman]

Video here Click

 

Mike

[Hedley Malloch]

To return to the questions:

1. Why should the amateur battlefield enthusiast be held to account for a higher standard of behaviour than the average French or Belgian farmer?

2. How much will it cost to meet the requirement for all such sites to be investigated by competent professional archaeologists?

3. Who will organise them?

4. Who will pay for it?

5. How long will it take?

Edited 10 hours ago by Hedley Malloch

[michaeldr]

1 hour ago, Hedley Malloch said:

Why should the amateur battlefield enthusiast be held to account for a higher standard of behaviour than the average French or Belgian farmer?

Because this is not France or Belgium.

Gallipoli is a battlefield which has a department of the Turkish national government legally charged with protecting it 

https://canakkaletarihialan.gov.tr/en/corporate/establishment 
The Gallipoli Peninsula, which has an area of 33,500 hectares, was included in the "forest regime" on 25.05.1973, with the 7/6477 issued decision of the Council of Ministers, upon the recommendation of the Ministry of Forestry. Then, it was declared a National Park on November 2, 1973, especially due to its historical and natural qualities. By passing a special law in 2000, the status of the Gallipoli Peninsula Historical National Park was differentiated. In June 2014, with the Law No. 6546, the national park qualification was abolished and the Directorate of Gallipoli Historical Site was established. 

see https://canakkaletarihialan.gov.tr/en/corporate/who-we-are 
 We are a related organisation of the Ministry of Culture and Tourism, which was established in 2014 under the 6546 Issued Law ""the Establishment of the Directorate of Gallipoli Historic Site"" in order to preserve, sustain, develop, introduce the natural texture and transfer the historical, cultural, spiritual value of the Gallipoli Historic Site to the future generations, where the Çanakkale Naval and Land Battles took place.

https://canakkaletarihialan.gov.tr/en/corporate/mission-vision 
To transform the Site into an open-air museum by preserving and developing the spiritual, historical, cultural and natural values of the Gallipoli Historical Site, where the Gallipoli Battles, which are the pillar of our national unity and solidarity, took place, together with the veteran villages, with a sense of responsibility for the future and universal thought. 
… … … …

You cannot preserve a historic site by allowing YouTube cowboys to dig wherever, whenever and however they want.
You cannot transfer the historical, cultural, spiritual value of the Gallipoli Historic Site to the future generations if it has been ransacked by clueless individuals seeking clickbait.

[Hedley Malloch]

This is the espoused strategy - what government civil servants talk about. What happens on the ground is rather different as witnessed by the rag-tag of developments which have been allowed in Suvla in recent years.

I cannot see how 'YouTube cowboys' to quote your rather disparaging term, present any threat to 'the spiritual, historical, cultural and natural values of the Gallipoli Historical Site.' On the other hand, commercial builders do. Perhaps we should be focusing our attention on them?

[michaeldr]

By all means focus on development, but please try not to neglect history

 

[AOK4]

As someone whose family members have lived (and still live) on the battlefield of Flanders, I notice the typical British and Commonwealth view towards these battlefields. For the people who live there and have to make a living on these fields, the area may have historical value, but it is also their everyday life. Especially historically interested people from the UK and its Commonwealth consider some of these battlefield as almost sacred or holy, where nothing should be changed and to which they have an eternal claim because some of their ancestors fought and died there.

Jan