Conflict Archaeology and WWII

Well now that our case study is finished and ready to go, I can finally take the time to look into topics that other people had covered that I had also found interesting. If I hadn’t joined the Pacific Northwest Coast group, I think my next area of interest would have been the archaeology of World War II and conflict archaeology in general.

With this in mind I was interested to see the editor of archaeology magazine, Samir Patel (HereandNow, 2011), had been on National Public Radio (my favorite network in the world) talking about the archaeology of World War II. (The link to the podcast can be found here: (http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2011/12/07/archaeology-wwii/player) After listening to the podcast I followed the link to an article in archaeology magazine also on the topic (http://www.archaeology.org/1105/features/world_war_II_wwII_archaeology.html), which also provided some interesting information, and raised many more questions than I had anticipated in regard to archaeology of death and burial, which you, the reader, now have to delve into with me.

In keeping with the theme of the class, it interests me how attitudes and expectations in regards to death and burial change in wartime for both soldiers and civilians, and particularly how they changed in World War II. World War II, as we all know, resulted in a huge loss of life from a variety of intersecting conflicts, including but not limited to the Holocaust, the conflict between the allied and axis powers, and the controversial dropping of the nuclear bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

Since I can’t (with the amount of work I am drowning in) explore every facet of these examples of death and burial (or lack thereof), I will just briefly go over some questions that have arisen out of a few of these areas which, with any luck, I will one day have time to look into more.

The first instance in World War II that entails an altered perception of death and burial was during the horrific period of the Holocaust. During this period, Nazi forces slaughtered and disposed of countless numbers of men, women, and children. Most people know the stories of the gas chambers, the mass burials, and the complete disregard for the humanity of these people. The attitude towards death and burial here was one of mass murder and ‘efficient’ disposal. I think we can all agree on the horror of this, however, one interesting shift in attitude that I did not know of before is that today, the mass graves, disrespectful and horrible as they were, can usually not be excavated and reburied in a more respectful manner since, according to the Daily Mail, “Jewish religious law forbids disturbing burial sites” (Cain, 2012). It is interesting to me that the manner of burial during Holocaust time does not affect this belief held by the Jewish community, which of course should be respected.

The second instance of conflict I would like to address is that between the allied and axis soldiers on the battlefront. I volunteered at the Military Museums in Calgary, Alberta for quite a while when I lived there. Being surrounded by the history of World War II and veterans stories I learned that many of the soldiers who fought in World War II were buried where they fell rather than being returned home for burial. I later learned that the offer was made to families whose deceased had been recovered, to return the bodies home for burial. However, many refused, believing they should remain where they were. It is interesting to note the change in expectation for burial in this wartime context of where it is appropriate to lay ones dead to rest.

Another note on this subject, which I will not get into here but I would be interested to hear about if anyone reading has time to tell me more is the differential treatment of the dead between allied and axis powers based on which side they were fighting for and into whose possession the remains fell.

I would also like to take the time to go more into the alternative practices surrounding death and burial regarding the controversial dropping of the nuclear bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, however do not have the resources at the moment to show the topic the respect it deserves through extensive research. Please let me know if you have any comments on this!

Lastly I would like to bring up the concept of memorial in wartime. With such massive loss of life, mass memorials come into play. Think of Remembrance Day, monuments to fallen soldiers and civilians and more. It is interesting how the methods of commemoration change when loss of life is on such a grand scale. 

 World War Two Memorial - (Vcelloho 2005)

Credit: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:World_War_Two_Memorial.JPG

In conclusion, this is a topic I have barely scraped the surface of in researching. Here I have only introduced a few questions that were raised for me. If you are in the WWII archaeology group or know anything about the topic please feel free to leave comments or other questions that have been raised for you.

References

1. Hereandnow.wbur.org (2011) Archaeologists Unearth Artifacts, Creating Fuller Picture Of WWII | Here & Now. [online] Available at: http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2011/12/07/archaeology-wwii [Accessed: 29 Mar 2012].

2. Cain, L. (2012) British archaeologist discovers fresh evidence of mass graves at World War Two death camp Treblinka | Mail Online. [online] Available at: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2087735/British-archaeologist-discovers-fresh-evidence-mass-graves-World-War-Two-death-camp-Treblinka.html [Accessed: 29 Mar 2012].

Rubric Analysis

While working on the Tse-Whit-Zen case study for our project, I (and probably all of us) have spent a lot of time going through the Northwest Coast Archaeology blog of Prof. Quentin Mackie. I really like the layout and information so I think it's probably a good go to to test our group rubric on. Here goes...

Scope

Excellent

Scope of the project is clearly defined.

Reasons for inclusions and exclusions of information are clearly defined.

Depth of Analysis

Excellent

Analysis is meticulous but does not include unnecessary information.

Background of case study material is explained clearly and connections to research are clearly established.

Presentation

Excellent

Website is presented in a clear, easily accessible format.

There are no spelling or grammatical errors.

A variety of media are included in the presentation. (eg. maps, pictures, writing, videos, etc.)

Material is broken up into appropriate categories and lengths.

Evidence

Excellent

Statements of fact are always backed up by referenced material.

All evidence provided is clearly relevant to the research.

Selection of resources and viewpoints are balanced.

Summary

(N/A)

 References

Excellent

All information and images used in the website are appropriately referenced.

At least five of the bibliographic references are from peer reviewed, academic sources. (N/A)

There are no errors in the bibliographic entries.

All entries are in the Harvard referencing format. (N/A)


Well, that all seems in order!



References:

1. Mackie, Q. (2000) Archaeology Theses | Northwest Coast Archaeology. [online] Available at: http://qmackie.wordpress.com/northwest-archaeology-theses/ [Accessed: 20 Mar 2012].

New York New York

This is a map of where the 1755 African Burial Ground boundaries exist.   

Archaeology.org (1993) Bones & Bureaucrats. [online] Available at: http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/afrburial/index.html [Accessed: 18 Mar 2012].

     For our case study, our group is looking at the handling of and ethical concerns surrounding the discovery of the Tse-Whit-Zen burial ground, outside of Port Angeles, Washington. Briefly, the case at Tse-Whit-Zen was the Department of Transportation was pushing through a project to build graving dock on an ancestral burial ground of the Klallam Nation. It has raised some important questions and ideas surrounding the decolonization of archaeology that I think can be applied to all cases in archaeology.
     With these thoughts in mind, when I started looking around for what I would write about this week, I came across an article about the excavation of 420 (Harrington, 1993) skeletons from a section of the African Burial Ground in New York City, where enslaved African American peoples were buried during the colonial era of New York City. The section was sold to General Services Administration (GSA) in 1990, who planned to build office towers on top of it (Harrington, 1993).
     I found some interesting parallels to the research we have been doing on Tse-Whit-Zen, though both communities involved are so different. In both cases, descendent communities were not involved in the excavation and recovery processes, the affected communities petitioned the government, successfully, to end construction on the sites, and in both cases the pressure of big business and the profit motivation led to cultural resource management firms performing a less than adequate survey of the sites.
     In New York, it eventually came out that GSA had known about the existence of the burial ground all along and knew there was a possibility of finding human remains, but continued anyways with the project (Harrington, 1993), showing a lack of considerstion for the African American community and a complete lack of sensitivity for the violently oppressive history of slavery and colonialism faced by those buried there.
     Both of these cases, along with so many others, highlight the need for inclusion of affected communities in archaeological research right off the bat. By simply involving communities in planning processes, valuable knowledge can be gained which would not only aid in decolonizing the processes of archaeology, but through preventative measures, would help to mediate costs to businesses and government (in the case of Tse-Whit-Zen).
     Of course, processes of decolonizing archaeology involve many other actions and policies.What are some aspects you can identify as necessary to the decolonization of archaeology? What are some issues still present today other than those identified here?
     This case could provide me with a whole other project on decolonizing archaeology, but for now I will stick to researching Tse-Whit-Zen, and hopefully some day I will be able to come back to this and look more in depth.


References:

1. Harrington, S. (1993) Bones & Bureaucrats. [online] Available at: http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/afrburial/index.html [Accessed: 18 Mar 2012].

Women in Combat

                           Ref: En.wikipedia.org (1995) Xena - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. [online] Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xena [Accessed: 9 Mar 2012].

            I was recently reading about the Pentagon’s decision to allow women to fight closer to the front lines in combat, creating approximately 14 000 more jobs for women in the military, though not completely opening the field for women (Greene, 2012). To be honest, while I knew there were likely social obstacles for women in the military, I didn’t realize we were still structurally inhibited from certain parts of military action.

            After reading and thinking about this I heard Rick Santorum, GOP candidate, announce he did not support the Pentagon’s decision as women's emotions could get in the way or men may feel the need to act chivalrous on the battle front (Greene, 2012). This really blew my mind because, apart from being just plain sexist, it completely structured gender in a binary definition.

            In Anthropology, we study and acknowledge the fact that gender is culturally negotiated and is the result of an intersection of different cultural identities, beliefs and values. To prove Santorum wrong (for my own satisfaction) I started to look for examples of recognized female warriors in the archaeological record, which did not fit the strict gender norms Santorum outlined. Hey, if they could do it, why can’t we?

            In my search I came across Alexis Jordan’s paper I Am No Man: A Study of Warrior Women in the Archaeological Record (2009, pg. 94-111). Jordan does an excellent job of breaking down the “various female warrior manifestations” (2009, pg.95) cross-culturally and giving examples. The cases she acknowledges include women born into elite statuses, “appendage syndrome” (where a woman replaces or is an extension of an elite male), “honorary male syndrome” (woman takes on male role in community), and “symbolic warriors” (monarchs such as Elizabeth I, etc.) (Jordan, 2009). Women were filling all of these roles throughout history as combatants, acknowledged by their communities.

            Jordan then breaks down how these women were identified in the archaeological record through grave goods, historical records, trauma to the remains, etc.. A complete breakdown of this analysis and examples she provides may be found through the reference provided. This provides the physical evidence for women in the role of warriors/combatants.

            Overall, Jordan shows that in many instances throughout history and in the archaeological record, women are found in the role of warrior, and often seem to be celebrated in that role. This does not necessarily mean that they identified as male or female in terms of gender, but were socially recognized as capable in the warrior role regardless of sex. Somehow they seemed to manage without their feelings getting in the way, so why, Mr. Santorum, can't women today?

            Some talking points that arise out of this for me are: What are your thoughts on female warriors in the archaeological record? What are some examples you can think of? What obstacles and issues are raised when looking for evidence of females in combat? To what extent do western value systems permeate research into gender differences in regards to combative roles?

References:

1. Chicago Tribune News (2012) Santorum Says Emotions Too Strong to Allow Women in Front-line Combat: GOP hopeful responds to Pentagon announcement of expanded role of women in combat. [online] Available at: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-201202131152usnewsusnwr201202100210santorumfemalesfeb13,0,589786.story [Accessed: March 9th, 2012].

2. Jordan, A. (2009) I Am No Man: A Study of Warrior Women in the Archaeological Record. Field Notes: A Journal of Collegiate Anthropology, 1 (1), p.94-111.