Waterloo Uncovered– Project Design

Transcription

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
OUTLINE PROJECT PROPOSAL 2015!
!
!
!
!
!
!
DRAFT!
Waterloo Uncovered – Project Outline DRAFT
Waterloo Uncovered – Outline Project Proposal !
!
!
Introduction!
!
While Hougoumont Farm is an obvious starting point for the Waterloo Uncovered Project,
not least because of the involvement of the Coldstream Guards, who along with Project
Nightingale are partners in this ground-breaking initiative, it represents only one element of
the project (other partnerships are currently being negotiated). It is an aspiration of the
project proposed here to subject the wider landscape (Fig. 1 and 2) of the battle to
archaeological investigation over a series of annual field seasons. Indeed, it is suggested
here that it is not possible to fully understand the events at Hougoumont without casting
the archaeological net over the wider battlefield. !
!
!
!
!
Fig. 1 Deployments on the battlefield c.10 am 18 June 1815.!
In 2015 however the farm will be the main focus for activity, and while some geophysical
survey has already been carried out here the buildings are undergoing a programme of
renovation by Project Hougoumont in preparation for the 200th anniversary in 2015. The
geophysical survey, carried out by Tim Sutherland from the University of York, has utilized
a variety of techniques, and has identified a series of anomalies, which may relate to mass
graves dug outside and perhaps within the precincts of the farm in the aftermath of the
battle. While it is hoped that Tim Sutherland’s team and Waterloo Uncovered will
collaborate on further investigations, there is the possibility of two projects operating in
tandem, each investigating different elements of the site. Waterloo Uncovered intends to
commence its own initial programme of investigations in April 2015. !
!
!1
!
!
!
!
Fig. 2 Google Earth image of battlefield area (2007).!
The following represents a summary outline of the initial aims and objectives of the project,
though these will obviously be subject to refinement and expansion as the desk based
element of the research progresses. !
!
Given that the geophysical survey carried out by Tim Sutherland and his team was of
limited extent it is intended to augment this with a further survey, which will add to the sum
of knowledge and help to provide a fuller understanding of the wider land-holding at
Hougoumont. Building on the earlier work this will shed more light on features, such as the
formal garden, which have already been partially identified as anomalies (though groundtruthing through limited test pitting has yet to be attempted). Other areas of interest not
thought to have been covered in the recent survey are the Great Orchard to the east of the
garden and the wood to the south of the complex. For the purposes of this proposal the
farm will be broken down into the following areas:!
!
!
•
•
•
•
•
•
Building complex and immediate environs!
Wood to the south!
garden to east of buildings!
Lost garden to south!
Great Orchard to east of garden!
Wider landscape!
The buildings, wood, walled garden and orchard represent distinct elements of the
defence, each of which was manned by different units, and some of these by different
units at various times during the battle. For instance, the buildings were largely manned by
the 2nd Foot Guards (Coldstream), the Great Orchard was initially defended by the 1st
(Grenadiers) and then the 3rd Foot Guards (Scots) under Saltoun then Hepburn
respectively, while the wood was occupied in the opening stages of the battle by Nassau
and Hanoverian units – the ‘Germans’ were pushed back by the French and then took part
in the defence of the garden and the orchard (the latter being temporarily over-run by the
!2
French). This is a very simplistic overview of a prolonged and fluid situation but is provided
in order to give some impression of how the defence broke down into isolated fights for
distinct elements. This is certainly the picture painted by Captain Busgen, commander of
the 1/2 Nassau, who was unaware of any overall commander of the Hougoumont defence,
partly because of ‘the continuous fighting and the view restricted by the trees, hedges and
walls (Adkin, 2001: 341).’!
!
The fight over Hougoumont was perhaps less partitioned for the French, though no less
fluid, with the 1st and 2nd brigades of the 6th Division attacking the wood, buildings and
formal garden (with elements of the 1st Ligere intitially taking the orchard), while as the
battle developed, the 1st and 2nd brigades of the 9th Division attacked the orchard.
Examples of the ebb and flow of the battle as it impacted on the French were the advance
into the orchard, which pushed back the Hanoverians and Nassaus, and then their
expulsion from it by a counter attack put in from the north by the 1st Foot Guards under
Saltoun. Meanwhile to the west, on the far side of the building complex the French
advance through the western part of the wood was checked by a counter-attack under
MacDonell, followed by a fresh French assault under Cubieres, which pushed the guards
all the way back to and through the north gate and into the complex. It is then that the
French actually managed to break open the gates and get a number of men inside, after
which time all but a drummer boy among them were killed or seriously wounded in the
courtyard by the defenders. !
!
The French paid dear for their continued assaults, though the ferocity of these began to
slacken off as the day progressed. From the number of bodies observed in the same
location after the fighting was over, the greatest number of losses were suffered in the
narrow strip of open ground between the north end of the wood and the southern wall of
the complex, an area of approximately 30 m x 200 m (Fremont-Barnes, 2014). This area
approximates to the southern wall of the formal garden, which was loop-holed to allow
defenders to fire through it, and also had a firing platform added to it on the inside, to allow
defenders to fire over the top of it. The defensibility of the garden, with its fortified walls is
perhaps less surprising than the successful defence of the orchard, further to the east. !
!
The orchard was surrounded not by a wall but by a thick-set hedge, which was
accompanied by an impressive ditch (Fremont-Barnes, ibid: 102). Today, unlike the formal
garden, which still has stretches of wall surviving, there is no trace of the orchard – the
area is an open arable field. The ability of the French to over-run the orchard during the
morning suggests a barrier that was not impermeable, as does the ability of Saltoun’s
Grenadier Guard detachments to push them back out very soon after (after attacking from
the north at around 12.15pm). Around mid afternoon the French made inroads into the
orchard once more, but it was again cleared of the enemy by Hepburn and the 3rd Foot
guards, after which time the ebb and flow was less pronounced. !
!
!
!
!
!
The Ebb and Flow of Battle!
!
To the casual observer the fight for Hougoumont, which has been described as a battle
within a battle, might appear to be a fairly static affair, with defenders behind walls pushing
!3
back attackers throwing themselves against them. However, as the forgoing has hopefully
given some impression, this is far too simplistic a view. In reality Hougoumont was a
mobile battle with attacks and counter attacks, which ebbed and flowed around a series of
static features – the buildings, walls, trees etc. Due to the limited views suggested in the
quote by Captain Busgen, above, and the general fog of war, which led Wellington to
compare a battle to a ball, our present understanding of these movements is at best a little
impressionistic. One of the best attempts to condense the complicated moves and counter
moves of the battle is to be found in Adkin’s Waterloo Companion (2001), which is widely
regarded as an indispensable guide to the battle, but even here troop movements are
shown by the same arrows and coloured blocks which cover most military maps. Indeed,
some of the earliest maps of the battle use similar devices to portray the fighting. Of note
here is the map by Craan, which was published in 1816, and therefore pretty much
contemporary to the immediate aftermath of the battle. There is a good deal of detail about
the layout of the buildings, garden, woods etc. and some insight into the disposition of the
troops. What is interesting about troop dispositions however is the positioning of regularly
ordered British positions (red blocks) within the wood to the south of the complex (top of
map as perspective of map is from the British positions).!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Fig. 3 Detail of Craan’s 1816 map showing Hougoumont.!
Also notable is the fact that two units of Dutch-Belgian/Nassau troops (orange) are shown
in more open ground to the immediate west, anchored on the left flank of the British line as
it curves through the wood. This in itself is interesting as most modern depictions of the
battle, including the maps by Adkin, show all of the allied troops forward of the complex as
being in the wood, with the area occupied by the Nassau troops in Craan’s map (Fig. 3)
!4
being entirely open to the enemy all the way up to the southern edge of the Great Orchard
in some other maps. As discussed below the presence or absence of these troops in this
area is just one question that could be resolved through the implementation of metal
detector survey. !
!
The presence of regular arrays of troops in the wood at Hougoumont on the Craan map is
potentially of interest. We have few eyewitness accounts as to the nature of the fighting
within the wood – fighting within it would not be visible to those outside. It is known that the
first fighting related to the battle for Hougoumont took place at around 11.30 am with the
advance of French skirmishers from the south (2nd Legere). According to the dispositions
posited by Adkin there would have been around 450 allied troops in the wood at this point
– 2 companies of 1/2 Nassau and around 200 Hanoverians and Jaegers. The disposition
of these men would surely depend on the spacing of the trees – room would be required
for units to form up in some sort of line rather to be scattered about in small clusters,
perhaps firing from behind the closely spaced trees.!
!
!
!
!
Fig. 4 Map of Hougoumont by MacKinnon 1833.!
Further detail about the British advance into the wood is provided by a map by MacKinnon,
who was in the 2nd Foot Guards (Coldstream) and who in 1833 published an account of
the fight for Hougoumont, based on a detailed letter he wrote in the immediate aftermath of
the battle. His sketch map of the complex (Fig. 4) shows some variations to others,
perhaps most notably in that it does not include the walled garden, though there is a
narrow kitchen garden (I) between the courtyard and the orchard. The Hollow Way discussed below – is shown as T and paths and entrances into the orchard and woods are
shown as P. What appear to be errors on this map are perhaps down to the vagaries of
memory or the fact that MacKinnon’s knowledge of the complex was limited by his location
during the fight – outside and in the courtyard. Nonetheless his account is an interesting
one, he did after all lead the first charge (Grenadier and Number 1 company of Coldstream
Guards) against the French, which forces them back into the wood (Col. Woodford leads
!5
the next). It is also possible of course that MacKinnon has included some details in his
map, such as the small gardens, which are missing on other maps, and hopefully further
investigation will shed light on this. !
!
Whatever the nature of the fighting in the wood, these allied troops were pushed back
toward the complex, with the French taking control of most of the wood and the Great
Orchard. At around 12.15 pm however Macdonall put a counter-attack by the guards into
the north-west corner of the wood – from a position outside the complex walls on its
western side. This checked the French advance but not for long, as these men were then
pursued back along the western side of the complex and into the north gate. At the same
time the 2nd Brigade of the French 6th Division advanced into the wood from the southeast, sweeping through it and continuing to the Great Orchard which by now was back in
British hands. At one point in the afternoon a French howitzer was brought up to the edge
of the Great Orchard to support French attempts to take it, and at around 1.15 pm men of
the 1st Brigade of the 9th division attacked from the south and the east, breaking in before
being repelled again. Soltoun led an attack to try and dislodge the howitzer at about 2pm
but failed to do so. At 2.15 pm it was the turn of the 2nd Brigade of the 9th Division to take a
crack at the Great Orchard, advancing from the south. Ultimately though the British went
firm inside the orchard and both sides began to tire as the afternoon dragged on, and it
was at this time that the fight took on a more stationary aspect, a sure sign that the French
were failing in their objective to take Hougoumont. !
!
Research Questions!
!
It is not the aim of this document to give a detailed account of the battle for Hougoumont the foregoing has hopefully some idea of the nature of the various movements and
engagements that took place during the day. Moving on to the archaeology, of which some
brief mention has been made in the foregoing, it is now important to try and isolate the
research objectives of the project. These will develop as more preparatory research
progresses, but even now a number of questions are beginning to offer themselves, not
least when a late 18th century map (Fig. 5) is considered in comparison with that from 1816
(Fig. 3).!
!
Hougoumont in the late 18
!
th
century!
This map shows a distinctly different layout to the 1816 version (which we can assume
was how the estate appeared at the time of the battle). There are some small differences
between the layout of the buildings in the two maps but the most striking difference relates
to the land around the chateau and its supporting farm buildings. To the south-east there is
a formal garden in 1777 but only rye and grass fields in 1816 (the latter recorded both on
the 1816 map and in eyewitness accounts of the fighting that took place in this area). More
subtle differences include the avenue running through the wood to the south (appearing in
1777 but gone by 1816) and the presence of extensive kitchen garden allotments inside
the building complex and to the west (though those outside are known from eyewitness
accounts to have been there in 1815).!
!
!6
!
!
!
Fig. 5 1777 map showing major differences to the Hougoumont of 1815/16!
Another major difference between the two maps is the presence of an area of woodland to
the north of the complex, sitting astride the road between Nivelles and Mont St Jean. Again
this appears on the 1777 map but not on that from 1816. The presence of these trees in
1815 would certainly have had a detrimental effect on the British ability to send accurate
artillery fire down from the ridge to the north of the complex. There seems little doubt then
that these woods were cut down sometime in the late 18th or early 19th centuries, probably
to provide timber on a commercial basis, perhaps during times of war. An aerial
photograph from around 1971 shows a patchwork of woodland in this area, which might
suggest that trees have been removed and replanted here on various occasions over the
past two centuries and more. A changing landscape is further evidenced in this photograph
through the presence of a substantial house in the woodland, not far to the south of the
road, of which there is no trace today. There seems little doubt that this dwelling was
removed by the expansion of the road into a multi-lane freeway sometime in the 1970s.!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!7
!
!
!
!
Fig. 6 Aerial photograph from 1971 with partially cleared wood to the north (left) of Hougoumont
complex, note lost house - top left of frame. A small stand of trees to right of ‘Entrance Lane’
annotation might equate to site of pond on 1816 map.!
!
It is likely that a Lidar survey - aerial laser survey – of the battlefield area will provide an
insight into the impact of woodland here on lines of sight and therefore fields of fire from
the British positions on the ridge (see later sections). Such a survey, which provides an
accurate three dimensional computer model of the landscape, will also allow an
understanding of how hollows and folds in the ground served to conceal or expose bodies
from every conceivable position. !
!
Breaking down Hougoumont!
!
From the preceding sections it is clear that the complex of buildings and associated
features at Hougoumont can be broken down into a series of distinct elements, which as
suggested by a reading of primary and secondary accounts can be equated to separate
elements of the attack and defence. Within the analytical framework of this project each of
these elements generates specific questions about the physical nature of the battlescape
and the character of the fighting that took place within it, and it is hoped that these can be
answered through the application of a variety of archaeological techniques.!
!
The building complex!
!
The majority of buildings at Hougoumont, with the exception of the chapel and the range
against the southern perimeter, were burned to the ground during the battle. There was
some attempt by Derek Saunders (President of the Friends of Waterloo) in the 1980s to
trace the lines of some of these buildings by exposing footings and to excavate the well,
but this work appears to have left few records (artefacts recovered from this time has since
been put up for sale http://www.waterloorelics.co.uk/battlefield-relics-shop/hougoumontwell-finds-1979-85/). Over recent years Project Hougoumont have been undertaking the
!8
renovation of the current suite of buildings, with the aim of turning the complex into a
visitor attraction. During this time some small amount of excavation has taken place but as
yet it remains unclear where and what has been investigated – it will be vital to draw this
information together prior to executing any further work on the site as part of the present
project.!
!
Prior to the above information being obtained no further suggestion is made here as to the
nature of investigation that might relate to buildings, past and present. There are however
areas of open ground within the main building complex – for instance to the north western
quarter of the courtyard, presently covered in part by builder’s huts. These may have the
potential to contain evidence not only for buildings, such as the cow house and the
chateau itself, but also for the fighting within the complex – most obviously that related to
infiltration of around 30 French soldiers when they broke through the north gate. The
close-quarter fire-fight which killed most of these men would have resulted in the
deposition of fired musket balls, presumably from both sides, and metal detector survey
may result in the recovery of some these. If this is the case then archaeology has the
potential to provide a visceral insight into one of the most famous events of the battle.
Although a number of these men may have been killed by gunshot it is possible that the
majority died in hand-to-hand combat, which will of course not leave musket balls behind.
However, violent action such as this may well have dislodged and deposited items such as
buckles and buttons and other small accouterments. !
!
Wood to the south!
!
The wood featured as an example of the several defensive elements in the foregoing
discussion of the fighting. It served a number of vital functions during the battle:!
!
!
•
•
•
•
It concealed the buildings from French observation from the south.!
It provided cover for defenders positioned in front of the complex.!
It served to break up massed French infantry attacks – especially when it
accommodated allied defenders.!
It protected the buildings from direct artillery fire from the south.!
Today the only physical evidence for the wood’s existence is a row of three venerable
chestnut trees, which are said to carry the scars of the battle (Fig. 7). The rest of the area
once occupied by the wood, that once covered an area some 195m x 250m, is now given
over to arable agriculture, with only field boundaries to the west and south giving some
idea of the former perimeter (Fig. 8). !
!
!
!9
!
!
Fig. 7 Painting of Hougoumont from north by Loux c.1816. Note trees in wood to south !
rising above buildings – perhaps the surviving chestnuts. !
!
!
!
!
Fig. 8 Approximate location of former wood to south (outlined in red).!
!
!
Relocating the trees!
!
An objective of the project proposed here will be to try and enhance our understanding of
the nature of the wood by relocating the position of at least some of the trees. This would
give an idea as to how densely spaced or otherwise the trees were and from this give
!10
some idea as to what would have been practical as far as military dispositions of defence
and attack are concerned. Some idea is provided by one of the few descriptions of the
wood, by Chef-de-batallion Theôbold Puvis of the 93e Régiment de Ligne:!
!
‘It was two o’clock in the afternoon when we marched forward; it felt as if the
enemy had been before us for longer. We deployed in extended order and
moved into a tall wood which was to our left, and approached a large building
that was fortified on all points and which was protected by very high hedges and
deep ditches (quote provided by john Franklin).’!
!
By the time Puvis moved up through the wood the fighting there was over - with the
defenders confined to the complex – and this is the impression his brief description gives,
with contact with the enemy only made as the walls and hedges are approached.
Extended line, or skirmish order, would be the deployment one would certainly expect in
wooded environment, allowing the widely spaced men to pass between the trees. But as
noted by 2 pm this movement was uncontested by defenders in the wood and so does not
provide a great deal of information on the fighting that had taken place within its confines. !
!
Geophysical survey would be used in the attempt to plot the former location of the trees
(see later section on techniques for more detail). !
!
Mapping the fighting in the wood!
!
Even if it does not prove possible to relocate the former position of the trees then it should
still be feasible, disturbances caused by tree removal notwithstanding, to recover musket
balls and other munitions fired during the fighting in the wood through the implementation
of a metal detector survey. It is hoped that many of the small artefacts, such as lead
musket balls, dropped during the battle and not recovered in its immediate aftermath
(these tend not to be due to their small size) will still be present within the topsoil horizon. !
!
Due to the nature of these objects it will be possible to distinguish those fired by British/
Allied troops from those fired by the French. The basic French musket is of a smaller
caliber than the British (0.69 as opposed to 0.75 calibre) and so the lead balls fired by
them are correspondingly smaller than the British musket balls (this excludes other
weapons such as pistols and carbines). Bullets fired from rifled weapons will also be
distinguishable as the grooves in the barrel leave tell-tale marks in the soft lead. This latter
point will be important as elements of the defending force were using rifles.!
!
Evidence for artillery fired into the wood might also come to light during the metal detector
survey. For instance, it is reported that Bull’s battery of six howitzers poured shrapnel
down into the wood from its position on the high ground to the north. This was very early
on in the battle and is said to have had a ‘demoralizing effect’ on the French attackers
(Adkin, 2001: 333). Franklin (2011) adds more detail in his as yet unpublished work on the
3rd Foot Guards at Waterloo where he quotes a letter from Colonel Sir Augustus Simon
Frazer: !
‘The Howitzer troop came up, handsomely, their very appearance encouraged
the remainder of the division of Guards, then lying down to be sheltered from the
fire. The Duke said, “Colonel Frazer, you are going to do a delicate thing; can
you depend upon the force of your howitzers? Part of the wood is held by our
troops, part by the enemy,” and his Grace calmly explained what I already knew.
!11
I answered that I could perfectly depend upon the troop, and seeing that they
too, perfectly understood their orders, the troop commenced its fire, and in ten
minutes the enemy was driven from the wood (Franklin 2011: 97).’!
What is being described here is really quite incredible for the time; Frazer’s howitzer’s
under Bull are delivering indirect fire onto a given target to provide close support for
infantry, which according to the record was achieved with great success, with the French
pushed from the wood and the Allies not being subject to friendly fire. It will certainly be
very interesting to see where these exploding shrapnel shells landed, and how the
presence of the trees might have reduced the spread of their blasts. !
In addition to ballistic objects, the fighting is likely to have resulted in small elements of
uniform, such as buckles, buttons and insignia to have fallen to the ground, probably never
to be picked up again. This along with the evidence of shot and shell would all add to
create a detailed picture of the fighting within the wood, and when the location of these
individual finds is plotted against the location of the trees then we may accomplish a far
more detailed insight into the fighting within the confusing environment of the wood than
might well have been apparent at the time. !
!
Counter-attack on the wood!
!
The French were initially successful in ousting the defenders from the wood, however a
counter-attack launched into the north-western corner of the wood by MacDonnell did
temporarily halt their advance. This success did not last for long though and the French
pushed the Guards back. Private Matthew Clay of the 3rd Foot Guards gives a very good
impression of this in the following description:!
‘We continued firing and retiring down the road up which we had advanced. We
now halted. I unwisely ascended the higher part of the sloping ground on which
the exterior wall of the farm was built, thinking to single out the Enemy’s
scrimagers more correctly, but soon discovered I had become the target for the
Enemy, my Red Coat being more clearly seen than their dull looking Coats;
remaining in this position from whence I continued to exchange shots with the
Enemy across the Kitchen Garden, they having the advantage of the fence for a
covering, their shots freely struck the wall in my rear (Franklin 2011, 98).’!
The kitchen gardens which he describes, and which appear to have provided some
degree of shelter, can be seen on the 1777 map (Fig. 9).!
!
!
!12
!
!
!
!
!
Fig. 9 Detail from 1777 map showing kitchen garden !
(coloured squares) to west (left) of buildings.!
!
Fig. 10 From north, Clay’s kitchen garden was in field to west (right) of buildings, !
near poles.!
The French fought the British back along the western side of the building complex, along
the road described by Clay and still visible today (Fig. 10) and into the north gate. !
!
Some zones within this area will be impossible to metal detect and in any case unviable
due to modern disturbances, such as the hard-standing outside the south gate and ground
disturbed by renovation works. There is potential however for relatively well-preserved
ground to exist further to the west, in the area now occupied by a field (the right edge of
Fig. 10), and indeed it might be this area that corresponds to the kitchen gardens shown in
Fig. 9. It might therefore be advisable to carry out geophysical survey of this area, where
some idea of garden boundaries might be visible as anomalies. Overall this area might
prove very interesting as it tends to get overlooked in modern accounts in favour of better
recorded combats in the area of the orchard and walled garden (below). !
!
!13
!
!
Fig. 11 Survey area for MacDonnell’s counter-attack into wood and retreat back to north !
gate (yellow outline). !
!
The Gardens!
!
The ‘killing zone’ !
!
The long, narrow strip of open ground that existed between the north edge of the wood
and the south wall of the garden appears to have accrued a high number of French
casualties. Given that the fire delivered into this area was given by the defenders on the
garden side of the wall this area will be included within the garden section. At the time of
the battle this area accommodated a track, which his mentioned in accounts and shown on
maps. !
!
This area today is well preserved as a grass covered strip and looks to have high potential
for metal detector survey (Fig. 12). Whether this has already been subject to geophysical
survey is not yet known (but see comments on Lidar below). But for the purposes of this
proposal the main interest in this area rests with the potential of metal detector survey to
provide an picture of the intensity of the fighting at the point where the French first came
into contact with the physical defences of the complex proper (i.e. the garden wall). !
!
!14
!
!
!
!
Fig. 12 The killing zone to the south of the walled gardens (white outline).!
Eyewitness accounts describe large numbers of French bodies piled up in this area, shot
down as they left the cover of the wood and attempted to storm the wall – an almost
impossible feat without artillery to beat down the walls or ladders with which to scale them.
Perhaps more so than anywhere else this area has the potential to give an impression of
the amount of fire delivered by the defenders – which in any case was so great that
reserves of ammunition had to be delivered to the complex as the day progressed. In
places where the base of the wall has not been disturbed by more recent works it might
also be possible to recover French incoming fire which impacted into the wall and fell to
the ground in a heavily distorted condition (examples of flattened musket balls fired at
walls sometimes no longer standing have been recovered from Culloden battlefield
(Pollard, 2009)). !
!
The walled garden!
!
Even battle maps drawn close to the date of the battle (Fig. 13) make some attempt to
show the decorative layout of the gardens, despite this being something of an irrelevance
when it came to the battle. From the mapping it would appear that the rectangular garden
has been divided into a series of geometrical sets or parterres the one closest to the house
divided by parallel paths and that furthest away (lower garden) with converging paths.
Water features were common in such gardens but there is no evidence of these in the
mapping. The overall design is very much in keeping with the idea of the jardin à la
Française, which was all about formality and the dominance of man over nature. !
!
!15
!
!
!
Fig. 13 Craan’s 1816 map (south to top) showing formal garden (h) to east !
(left) of buildings. Note also division between grass (i) and rye fields to south !
of orchard.!
!
!
!
Fig. 14 The formal gardens (purple outline).!
This would make the garden design at Hougoumont somewhat old fashioned by 1815, as
with the enlightenment in the late 18th century came a new type of garden. This was the
less formal but no less designed le jardin paysager or landscaped garden, which aimed to
mirror nature rather than dominate it. Whether the tastes of the owners were old fashioned
or it was simply a matter of not being able to afford the latest fashion the overall
!16
impression is of provincialism, which given the modest scale of the complex should not
come as a great surprise. In considering the history of the estate however it is undoubtedly
of significance that the chateau was unoccupied at the time of the battle. Today the area of
the garden is given over to a paddock, with no trace of the former design (Fig. 15).!
!
It is known that the geophysical survey carried out by Tim Sutherland’s team has revealed
at least part of the garden, probably the gravel paths which divided the flowerbeds.
Although the garden, aside from its walls, would have had little impact on the battle, it
would still be a worthwhile exercise to try and plan as much of the garden layout as
possible and to excavate elements of it in an attempt to provide a better impression as to
how the place looked in 1815. In the long term project Hougoumont might even choose to
recreate part or even all of the gardens as a visitor attraction (pollen analysis might provide
evidence for the types of plants grown). !
!
Returning to evidence for the battle, it is probable that metal detector survey of the
flowerbeds will yield battle related artefacts and the possible use of any negative features,
such as ponds or sunken elements, for burial in the aftermath of the battle should not be
discounted. !
!
!
!
!
Fig. 15 View of buildings to west, across paddock that was formal !
garden in 1815. Loop holed wall to left.!
The most obvious elements of the garden to relate to the battle are undoubtedly the walls
(Fig. 15), which surrounded it on three sides, with the northern side (away from the
French) apparently covered by a hedge, as the case with the orchard to the east. These
have been much renovated in recent years and while some of the original loopholes are
still visible, albeit framed by later insertions of stone, it is difficult to get an impression of
the scale of the fortifications – musket ball scatters on the other side of the wall may give
some impression of where gun loops once existed (French fire from the wood is sure to
have been aimed at these as well as the men standing at a higher level and shooting over
the wall). !
!
!17
The ability to fire over a wall that was around seven feet high would require some sort of
platform, and there are accounts of timber firing steps being built the night before the
battle, with one reference to pioneers from the 2nd King’s German Legion Light Battalion
stationed at La Haye Sainte, to the east, being sent across to Hougoumont to assist with
the construction overnight (Fremont-Barnes, 2014: 105). The fire steps are likely to have
been simple constructions from timber and the only evidence likely to be recovered of their
presence will be the nails used to hold them together and perhaps small postholes, where
uprights were sunk into the ground. There is also record of an earthen embankment
running along the inside of the eastern wall, and this would also have provided a firing step
(ibid, 2014: 104).!
!
The Lost Garden!
!
Returning to the 1777 map, mention has already been made of a large formal garden,
which at that time constituted a considerable portion of the Hougoumont complex (Fig. 16).
Like the smaller garden confined within the walls that played such a crucial role in the
defence, this is a parterre, with converging paths dividing up geometrical plantings. There
is enough detail on the map to make out small decorative trees and large shrubs which
formed so-called boscuets and gave the garden a three dimensional aspect. By the time of
the battle this garden had disappeared and replaced by a field of grass to the north and a
field of rye to the south. Once again this transformation might indicate a change of
circumstances at the chateau, with the need for agricultural land, with a financial return,
outweighing the need for decorative gardens. This area was the scene of action during the
battle, one incident saw the 3rd Foot Guards advance through the orchard and into the
fields beyond, to the south, a move which Ensign the Hon. Henry Montagu describes thus:!
!
‘…the 6th & 7th Companies filed inside the hedge, while the 8th marced in
file, up to the Gate leading into the Grass field beyond the Orchard, where
there was a road which led through the Field, & along the outside of the
Garden wall. There we began to form, when the French Troops, standing in
line in a Rye field immediately in our front, commenced firing by sections on
us. As we got the Company in line, we replied as well as we could by file fire
but being much outnumbered lost many Men, and were obliged to retire
slowly, passing to the lower corner, where there was a deep lane. (Franklin,
2011: 110).’!
!
!
!
Fig. 16 Detail from 1777 map with large formal garden to bottom right.!
!18
!
!
!
Fig. 17 Approximate area of Lost Garden on Google Earth (blue outline).!
!
The 1816 map (Fig. 3) shows the grass and rye fields to be separated by a hedge, of
which again there is no trace today (Fig. 17). Although there is no mention of this feature in
the preceding account it might well have provided the French with cover as they advanced
on the orchard to the north. Geophysical survey is likely to provide some evidence of this
linear feature, while the patterning of Allied musket balls might give a suggestion of the
position of the French troops as they engaged from this field. !
!
Great Orchard!
!
Adjacent to the eastern side of the walled garden was an orchard of apple trees, known as
the Great Orchard, as opposed to the smaller orchard, which ran alongside the northern
edge of the walled garden (Fig. 18).!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Fig. 18 The Great Orchard (green outline). !
!19
!
Unlike the garden, the orchard was surrounded by a hedge rather than a wall, though the
north side of the garden was also delineated by a hedge. This seems to have been very
thick-set, so much so that troops were set the task of thinning it in places to create what
were effectively loopholes through which they could fire, as private Mathew Clay of the 3rd
Foot Guards writes: !
‘with the enemy on our present ground, employed ourselves, the hedge being
thick, in clearing away branches on our Side, and making clear openings
through by which means, without exposing ourselves, we could take a more
correct aim at our enemy (Franklin, 2011: 90).’!
The hedge was matched by a ditch, in which Clay spent the night before the battle in some
discomfort: ‘We kindled fires and warmed ourselves, our limbs being very much cramped
sitting on the side of the wet ditch all night (Franklin, 2011: 60).’ This ditch can only have
added to the defensibility of the orchard, and in an account by Ensign the Hon. Henry
Montagu of the 3rd Foot Guards is described thus:!
‘I found it (the battalion) very well formed, occupying the strong fence above
the hollow lane, keeping up a desultory fire, till suddenly, a shout arose on all
sides, when we jumped out of the ditch and charged across the Orchard
clearing the French before us, and pursued into the wood by the Gate at the
corner of the Garden wall. The ditch had been very deep, & had been full of
water, but when I reached it, was completely filled with killed and wounded so
as to form a complete bridge (Franklin, 2011:122).’!
The fact that Montagu describes the ditch after he has passed through the gate in the
hedge would certainly suggest that it ran along the outside of the hedge, as would the fact
that it was full of French dead – having tumbled into it on approaching the hedge. This is
also the picture painted by the previously cited Chef-de-batallion Theôbold Puvis of the
93e Régiment de Ligne: !
!
‘We crossed the ditches at points where they were less wide, and arrived at a
hedge which was vigorously defended by the enemy. We tried in vain to pass
through the hedge. We suffered enormous losses; the lieutenant of my
company was killed close to me.’!
!
However, another British account suggests that the hedge was on the inside of the hedge.
In a letter, Francis Home describes the feature thus: !
‘The position itself consisted of the Orchard on the left, containing
somewhere about three acres, surrounded on all sides by a close, thick, and
lofty quickset hedge. The stems of the quick were thicker than the arm of a
strong man, at least ten or twelve feet high, and so close that nothing larger
than a cat could pass between them. Immediately behind the hedge was a
ditch deep enough to shelter the troops employed, thus offering a natural and
secure stockade, stronger than any artificial fortification. The Orchard had
only one point by which it could be assailed in front, namely a gate leading
into the wood; this gate was tolerably well secured and built up (Franklin,
2011: 140).’!
!20
Here we have te ditch not only on the inside of the ditch but also offering shelter to the
defenders. There is however another contradiction here as Home describes the orchard as
being entirely surrounded by a hedge. In addition to the gate previously described by
Montagu he also alludes to a gap in the hedge at the south-eastern corner of the orchard
when describing a maneuver at about 2pm when his unit moved in advance, to the south,
of the orchard:!
‘On reaching the left corner of the lower Fence, the 6th & 7th Companies filed
inside the hedge, while the 8th marched in file, up to the Gate leading into the
Grass field beyond the Orchard, where there was a road which led through
the Field, & along the outside of the Garden wall. There we began to form,
when the French Troops, standing in line in a Rye field immediately in our
front, commenced firing by sections on us. As we got the Company in line, we
replied as well as we could by file fire but being much outnumbered lost many
Men, and were obliged to retire slowly, passing to the lower corner, where
there was a deep lane (Franklin, 2011: 110).’!
Given the ability of the French to again entry to the orchard on several occasions
throughout the day it would certainly make sense that there were gaps other than the
gate – they certainly did not pass through the hedge, where there was no space ‘for
anything bigger than a cat to pass between’. !
As there is no surface trace of the orchard or its boundaries existing today (Fig. 18)
archaeological survey and excavation will be the only way of clarifying the true nature
of features which were to play a vital role in the fight for Hougoumont. Geophysical
survey should show up the line of the ditch and hopefully also the course of the hedgeline. Follow-up excavation could shed light on both of these features, and the potential
for the back-filled ditch, which according to one account seems to have been used as a
defensive trench, to contain evidence for the fighting in the form of artefacts is very
high (recent excavation of a narrow section across a ditch running alongside a hedgeline defended during the 1645 Battle of Philiphaugh revealed a musket ball, coin and
pot sherd all contemporary with the battle). Neither should the potential for this ditch to
also contain the dead of the battle be ignored – perhaps being utilized as a readymade grave pit. !
Geophysical survey of the interior of the orchard might also give some idea of the
positioning of the apple trees, though as there were presumably smaller than the
chestnuts and others in the wood they may provide less distinct anomalies. What the
interior will provide is an impression of the heavy fighting which took place there, with
musket balls and fragments of artillery shell (see below) representing incoming fire
from the French and the former also representing fire delivered by the French when on
several occasions they gained access to the orchard. Likewise, musket balls from the
defenders will also be present, and it is possible the patterning of this material will give
a more detailed impression of the fighting here than the accounts provide. !
The Covered Way!
A feature that appears in several accounts of the fighting at Hougoumont is the sunken
track or covered way that ran along the outside north edge of the formal garden and
orchard. At its western end it terminated at the north gate of the complex, while to the
east it ran up to the ridge-line on which the allied line was located, where it joined with
a north-west – south-east oriented track leading off towards Plancenoit. It played two
!21
roles in the fight for Hougoumont, the most obvious of these being a routeway from the
high ground to the chateau, along which troops initially marched to garrison the
complex. !
!
!
Fig. 19 The Covered Way from the east (trees to right in same location as 1777 map.!
However, the most spectacular movement along the lane took place late in the battle, at
around 6 pm. It was then that a wagon carrying a much needed resupply of ammunition
was driven from the ridge and into the complex, all the while under fire. This incident was
described by Captain Horace Seymour, Aide-de-camp to Lord Uxbridge:
‘I was called to by some Officers of the 3rd Guards defending Hougoumont, to
use my best endeavours to send them musket ammunition. Soon afterwards I
fell in with a private of the Waggon Train in charge of a tumbrel on the crest of
the position. I merely pointed out to him where he was wanted, when he
gallantly started his horses, and drove straight down the hill to the Farm, to
the gate of which I saw him arrive. He must have lost his horses, as there was
a severe fire kept on him. I feel convinced to that man’s service the Guards
owe their ammunition (Franklin, 2011: 122).’!
Throughout the day the lane also served the allies well by providing a trench-like shelter
for troops who had been pushed out of the northern edge of the Orchard by French
assaults or were waiting to advance into it. Just one example is provided by LieutenantColonel Douglas Mercer of the 3rd Foot Guards (a fuller version of this quote is provided
later to illustrate another point).!
‘The whole retired across the orchard and went past in rear of the 2nd hedge,
where a tolerable fire was kept up until by degrees the men fell back into a
hollow deep road, where they were out of fire (Franklin, 2011: 114).’!
!22
The feature can still be seen as linear hollow to the north of where the Orchard once stood
but it disappears as it moves further to the east and passes into through a hedge into the
next field (Fig. 20). It is possible that geophysical survey would allow the lane to be
retraced all the way back to the Plancenoit track (see also Lidar, below), an exercise which
might in turn assist in the accurate placement of units in this part of the ridge (Fig. 20).
Metal detecting in the vicinity of the track, would shed light on its role as a defensive
feature, with the recovery of spent French munitions giving an impression of the extent and
intensity of incoming fire.!
!
Fig. 20 Covered Way – still visible element (red) and presumed route of element no longer visible
(yellow).!
Clarifying the historical record!
As the foregoing section has indicated first hand accounts do not always provide a
clear picture of the true nature of things, and again Wellington’s comparison of a battle
to a ball comes to mind. It should come as no surprise then that recent historians can
disagree on points of detail in their studies of the battle. This is where archaeology can
really come to its own as it can provide an objective impression of how things really
were. It cannot change history and it is rare that a discovery will alter our overall
impression of an event such as a battl!
e but the devil is as they say in the detail and it is detail that battlefield archaeology is
very good at resolving.!
References have been made to various maps in this document, both those drawn up close
to the time and those prepared by historians to illustrate their analyses of the battle as it
progressed. These latter are also subject to variation, and for the purposes of making this
point those provided by Adkin and Franklin will suffice (not shown due to copyright).!
At around 2am the French brought forward a howitzer, siting it close to the hedge
!23
surrounding the orchard. However accounts are not precise as to where this location was,
hence Adkin and Franklin have the piece marked in different places on their respective
maps (not shown – Franklin’s outside south-east corner, Adkin’s to south). This piece of
ordnance then proceeded to bombard the buildings of the main complex and was
apparently the first to start fires there – more guns were later brought into action for the
same purpose, though firing from further away to the south-west. In response to this
closely sited howitzer Lord Saulton ordered a fresh advance into the orchard, which
succeeded in clearing it of French but did nothing to silence the howitzer, presumably as it
was on the far side of the hedge (Adkin, 2001: 340; Franklin, 2011: 106). This type of gun,
which fires at a high trajectory, would be ideally suited for lobbing shells over the high
hedge, though as the trajectory was not as high as a mortar it would have to be some
distance away in order for the shell to gain enough height for clearance (assuming they
didn’t shoot through the hedge).!
It would be asking too much of the archaeology to locate the position of this gun, unless it
was dug in which is highly unlikely. However metal detector survey may provide some clue
– for instance at Culloden (1746) the recovery of the lid of a canister round, which fell to
the ground not far away from the muzzle of the gun from which it was fired, when plotted
along with shot from the gun allowed the approximate location of the gun to be pin-pointed
(Pollard 2009). The howitzer was however more likely to be firing shrapnel shells and
perhaps carcass (incendiary rounds) and these will be less likely to leave evidence close
to the gun – sabots are likely to have been of wood and therefore not survived. What will
be interesting however will be to see if this gun was also firing into the orchard – perhaps
in the hope of clearing it of defenders. If it was used in this way then fragments of shell
casing and the balls from inside should be recovered by the metal detector survey of the
orchard – in much the same way as the same evidence for the fire from the British
howitzers would be expected in the area of the wood. !
The disagreement over the location of the howitzer is just one example of how historians
deal with the battle almost on a micro-scale – when compared to the epic scale of the
battle the location of one gun might seem a total irrelevance, but when studying
Hougoumont its significance is undoubtedly greater. There are however also differences of
opinion over bigger matters, and one of these is the movement of Campi’s Division of the
2nd Brigade of Bechelu’s Division, which at around 2.45 pm was sent from close to the
French centre to reinforce Foy’s men who were engaged against the orchard. Some
secondary works have these men coming under heavy British artillery fire from the ridge
and thereafter turning back without getting anywhere near their objective (Adkin, 2001:
341; Fremont-Barnes 2014: 211). Franklin however, on the basis of an eyewitness
account, suggests that although this body of men did come under artillery fire they did not
retire but went to ground close to the eastern perimeter of the orchard. Nor does he regard
these men as reinforcements for Foy – according to his interpretation they are part of the
general advance following the softening up of the Allied main line by the grand battery –
which saw 80 guns pound the ridge for half an hour. What Franklin does suggest is that
the proximity of these men - sheltering close to the orchard – gives impetus to a renewed
attack on the orchard by Foy’s 9th Division. The situation is vividly described by LieutenantColonel Douglas Mercer who was with his hard pressed men of the 3rd Foot Guards in the
Covered Way to the north of the Orchard:!
‘The hedge in front of the enemy was still occupied, but weakly, but my
detachment replacing the previous losses, the ground was held for some
time, I believe until a general advance of the enemy took place when no
!24
execution could persuade the soldiers to retain their situation. The whole
retired across the orchard and went past in rear of the 2nd hedge, where a
tolerable fire was kept up until by degrees the men fell back into a hollow
deep road, where they were out of fire. Here it was that I observed a very
strong column of the enemy lying down among the corn close upon our left
flank, which, from being in the hollow, was not seen by them. Had it been so I
do not think but few of our men could have escaped alive – so crowded were
they & so unwilling to move, indeed no persuasion could induce above 20 to
move up & form. However, a fire was kept up from the hedge which though
slack no doubt deceived the enemy doubtless, as to the situation we were in
(Franklin, 2011: 114 – who notes that Mercer also supplied sketch showing
the movement of the French at this time).!
It was during this time that the French launched their repeated cavalry attacks against the
Allied squares – probably the most popular image of the battle, partly thanks to the 1960s
movie Waterloo. French infantry were sent up the ridge to support these failed charges
and at 6 pm Bechelu’s men, who according to Franklin had for some time now had been
taking cover close to Hougoumont, were ordered once again to advance – this time
against squares of the King’s German Legion, which had formed up on the higher ground
above Hougoumont, while others from this regiment occupied the orchard. !
It was at this point that the fight for Hougoumont joined the general melée of the greater
battle now raging around it. General Bachelu’s men, and those of Foy’s who joined them
in their advance up onto the ridge to the east of Hougoumont, were met by withering
cannon and musket fire, with Bachelu himself badly wounded. The result was that the
advance broke and the repulse sent French soldiers careening to the left and into the
orchard as they sought shelter. The British response was a deadly volley delivered from
the eastern wall of the garden by the Coldstream Guards. However the orchard and its
environs provided cover for the French and from here they delivered effective fire into the
German squares before at last being evicted by advanced elements of the King’s German
Legion and the 3rd foot Guards (Franklin, 2011: 120). !
Although the focus of the first phase of this project is on Hougoumont it is clear that a
wider metal detector survey, in this case focusing on the ground to the east of the orchard
has the potential to cast valuable light on a phase of the battle which the forgoing has
demonstrated has been subject to variable interpretation by historians. It might be
possible to identify the place where Bachelu’s men went to ground in the face of heavy
artillery fire, to map the later encounter with the squares of the King’s German Legion and
the resulting influx of French troops into the eastern part of the Orchard. This is not to say
that interpretation will be easy; the incredible amount of gunfire throughout the day (Adkin
estimates that the French alone at Hougoumont fired 190,000 rounds) will have left a
palimpsest of material. However, certain patterns will be visible and it is in drawing out
these patterns that archaeology will make one of its contributions to our understanding of
this epic event.!
!
!
!
!25
The Graves!
Once the fighting was over the unpleasant task of clearing the battlefield and burying the
dead began, though not before looters, including soldiers themselves, had picked many of
the corpses clean of anything of value. There are reasonably plentiful eyewitness
accounts of the burial process, which in several instances had to be repeated due to the
original graves being too shallow, Burial was not the only form of disposal either, as
burning bodies on pyres is also recorded – there are for instance paintings of bodies
being buried in a pit dug close to the south gate at Hougoumont and of bodies being piled
onto a pyre in preparation for burning at the same location. !
!
Fig. 22 Burying bodies at Hougoumont in forecourt of south gate. Note bodies are naked and
removed clothing and equipment next to grave pit. !
!
Fig. 23 Piling bodies on a pyre prior to cremating them. Same location as previous rendition
!26
showing pit and may relate to later phase of body clearance. !
There are likely to be several burial pits at Hougoumont, perhaps containing the remains
of intact corpses and partially cremated remains. As yet the exact location of these pits is
unknown, though the paintings (Fig. 22 and 23) obviously provide a good clue to one of
them. The primary purpose of locating these pits archaeologically, through geophysics
and limited excavation would serve a valuable purpose in providing for the marking/
memorialization of these graves and also securing their future preservation. It should
perhaps be noted that these graves are likely to contain the remains of considerable
numbers of Coldstream Guards, a regiment which, for obvious reasons, has a close
attachment to this site, hence its role as the originator of this project.!
It has been previously noted that Tim Sutherland and his team have already carried out
geophysical survey at Hougoumont. Although the extent of this survey is as yet unknown,
and likewise its results, it would appear that more than one potential grave pit has been
suggested by anomalies identified during this survey. Until further information becomes
available it is difficult to assess how the present project could assist in advancing our
knowledge here. As previously suggested however it is felt at this stage that minimal
intervention is all that would be required to confirm their presence and location. !
!
Lidar Survey!
!
No proposal for an archaeological investigation of Waterloo battlefield would be complete
without making reference to the most wide-ranging survey of the battlefield yet to be
executed. This takes the form of a Lidar survey, the results of which have only recently
become available, which covered all of Wallonia with readings at every metre. This is a
fairly course grained survey but nonetheless has indicated a number of potentially
important features, which might include the location and limits of the area from where soil
was removed for the construction of the Lion’s Mound (monument to Prince of Orange) in
the 1820s, and which has long been considered to have had a highly damaging impact on
the archaeology of the battle (Wellington himself complained that the monument had
spoiled his battlefield). !
!
Included here though, is the extract covering the main part of the complex at Hougoumont
(Fig. 25). This plot shows a number of features not visible to the naked eye on the ground.
Most striking is the area of the walled garden, where a series of rectangular areas can be
seen. This pattern is a reasonable match to the 1777 and 1816 maps previously
discussed. There are a series of rectangular allotments in the larger western portion, with
the eastern portion, about a third of the area, given over to a large square area. The
allotments may represent elements of the kitchen gardens, shown as coloured blocks on
the 1777 map (Fig. 5) while the square area represents the decorative jardin à la
Française, where the diagonal paths might be revealed through higher resolution Lidar
survey or geophysics. !
!
There might be some suggestion of the kitchen gardens outside the complex on the
western side, where Clay described his encounter with the French coming through the
wood, where there is an area of raised features close to the complex, which contrasts with
the remainder of that field. Again, higher resolution survey or geophysics would clarify the
nature of the features in this area. The meaning of the circular areas to the north of the
complex, in the area now covered with woodland is as yet unknown but would suggest that
this area should be encompassed within any investigation. Also notable is the apparent
!27
continuance of the Covered Way to the east, as proposed in Fig. 20. More detailed
analysis of these images will obviously constitute part of the project in the field, with
attention also focusing on a number of negative features, or pockmark-like depressions,
which can be seen within the walled garden and the strip of ground (killing zone)
immediately to the south of it. Whether these micro-features constitute grave pits remains
to be seen. !
!
!
!
Fig. 25 Lidar survey of Hougoumont complex. Note features in walled garden, continuation of
covered way to the east and features to north of complex (now covered by woodland)!
!
Desk-based assessment!
!
An essential stage in any archaeological project is the desk-based assessment, which
draws together various forms of documentary evidence prior to the commencement of
fieldwork (the Lidar survey above is a good example of the sort of vital information this sort
of exercise brings to light). Indeed, it will not be possible to draw up a fully detailed project
design for the fieldwork at Waterloo until at least a targeted programme of desk based
research has been carried out. It is hoped that locally based historian Alasdair White, who
has many years of experience walking and studying the battlefield, will play a key role in
facilitating this phase of the project. !
!
Every effort will be made to draw together as many historic maps of Hougoumont and the
wider battlefield as possible. These will be used alongside more recent maps and
!28
resources such as Google Earth in a map regression exercise which will provide a
cartographic impression of the changes that have impacted on the site from a time prior to
the battle up to the present day. For example, early 19th century maps show the chateau at
Hougoumont in the condition in which it existed at the time of the battle in 1815. Features
that no longer exist include buildings, enclosure walls, orchards and the aforementioned
formal garden.!
!
The changing nature of the farm and the wider battlefield will be discernable from the
cartography. Other documentary sources to be consulted at this stage will include the
many eye-witness accounts, after battle reports and various other written outputs
(including those relating to the actions of the Coldstream Guards today housed in the
regimental archive at Wellington Barracks, London). There are also numerous paintings
and drawings of the landscape, incidents from the battle and its aftermath (the latter
including the well known illustrations of the burial of the dead in the vicinity of
Hougoumont). !
!
It is not intended that the desk-based survey will be exhaustive in its consultation of every
document existing, as this would take years of research. It is however, vital that the work is
adequate to allow for the development of a meaningful research design and method
statement, which will set out the parameters of the project and very importantly frame the
research questions that the project will set out to answer (it is hoped that this present
document has gone some way to achieving this).!
!
Provisional statement on techniques to be utilized!
!
It will be useful to provide an indication of the field techniques likely to be used during the
life of the project. Some of these are now well established within battlefield archaeology,
which is itself a sub-discipline within the wider field of conflict archaeology, while others are
relatively new applications. However, prior to this a brief comment will be made on the
nature of previous archaeological work on the battlefield, in addition to the work by
Sutherland. !
!
As already noted, the first archaeological work to take place at Hougoumont was carried
out in the 1980s when Derek Saunders oversaw excavations of the well and the
uncovering of various wall foundations. Accidental finds of archaeological features
associated with the battle appear to be rare, or at least are rarely recorded. A good
example of how such discoveries can add important information to our knowledge
concerns a single inhumation burial, which came to light in 2012 during ground preparation
works in advance of the construction of the new visitor centre to the north of the Lion’s
Mound. Fortunately, the importance of the discovery by a mechanical excavator was
immediately recognized and the skeleton was subject to full archaeological excavation by
Dominique Bosquet of the regional archaeological authority (Service Public De Wallonie),
and a member of the current team. !
!
Excavation revealed the skeletal remains of a Hanoverian soldier, perhaps buried by
simply having soil thrown over him while the battle still raged – a practice for which there is
written evidence (Fremont-Barnes, 2014: 290). From the evidence of coins still in his
purse, this man was buried while still clothed, which again might suggest burial while the
battle raged as most bodies buried after seem to have been stripped before burial (Figs.
23 and 24). The jacket however does appear to have been removed, as there was no
!29
trace of buttons, probably in the search for the wound created by the musket ball found
lodged in his rib cage. The body was found a hundred yards or so behind the British line
and this would again point to him receiving medical attention (Bosquet et al., 2014).!
!
The most recent scientific work other than that at Hougoumont and the Lidar survey has
been focused on the land across the road from La Haye Sainte, which is where the sandpit
defended by Allied troops and probably later utilized as a mass grave was located.
Geophysical survey by a team from the University of Ghent, which it is hoped will be
collaborating on the Waterloo Uncovered project, revealed a number of anomalies,
including one, which from its size and location, might represent the sand pit (De Smedt
and Van Meirvenne, 2014: 9). !
!
Mention has been made throughout this document of the potential for metal detector
survey to shed new light on the Battle of Waterloo and the fight for Hougoumont. These
statements have been predicated on the relatively good survival of metal artefacts such as
musket balls in the topsoil. This assumption has been largely based on the fact that metal
detecting without a permit is illegal in Belgium. However, it is clear from local contacts that
illegal metal detecting has potentially been a serious problem across the battlefield and
therefore might have had a negative impact of the amount of material still at large. In order
to gauge levels of survival it is imperative that an early stage of the project involves an
evaluation of distributions and quantities through the use of metal detectors. !
!
Another factor likely to influence both the recovery of metal artefacts and their distribution
is the movement of soils on the sloping ground that characterizes much of the battlefield.
This might have led to some artefact-bearing horizons being buried below washed
deposits, while other objects might well have moved along with the soil. In an effort to
understand these processes and their impact on assemblage taphonomy, a programme of
trial pitting will be carried out across the battlefield as the project progresses. It is also
hoped that remote sensing techniques including airborne hyper-spectral imaging will add
to our knowledge here. The data from these surveys would be recorded using the GIS
technologies noted below, with the aim of modeling soil movements across the site –
including those related to the construction of the Lion’s Mound in the 19th century (see
Lidar section above). Other forms of survey are included below: !
!
!
•
•
•
Geophysical survey: this is likely to take a variety of forms, including
Electromagnetic induction and Magnetometer survey, along with Ground
Penetrating Radar where appropriate. It is proposed that wide-scale survey, across
the battlefield, will be carried out by the Ghent University team responsible for the
La Haye Sainte survey (above). !
Topographic survey: until recently the standard technique for recording the
subtleties of terrain, field boundaries, building outlines etc. has been the Total
Station, which can be very accurate but also time consuming. In recent years
however the TS has been displaced somewhat by high-resolution GPS devices,
which like the TS have also been adopted to record the pin-point location of metal
detector finds (see below). !
Lidar survey: As demonstrated above, the use of Lidar has revolutionized the
survey of large tracts of landscape. In short this technique involves the use of lasers
directed at the ground from aircraft in order to create a very high definition threedimensional computer model of the terrain. This technique is especially useful in
that it can be used to virtually remove features, such as buildings and trees, which
!30
•
•
•
•
were not on the site at the time of the battle. The recently undertaken survey was at
fairly course, with one reading every metre. During the first year of the project it is
intended to carry out a more accurate sub-metre survey in the hope that this will
expose more subtle features, not visible in the present survey. These features may
include the lost garden, which on the present survey is not visible, probably due to
the action of the plough. This technique will also be useful in assessing lines of
sight (view shed/fire shed analysis). hollows provided important concealment and
cover for both sides at Hougoumont. !
Metal detector survey: more than any other technique the use of the metal detector
to recover objects such as arrowheads and musket balls from within the topsoil has
come to characterize battlefield archaeology. There is great potential at Waterloo to
recover large scale and meaningful assemblages of material from across the
battlefield. A number of projects focusing on 18th and 19th century battlefields in
Europe, including Lutzen (1632) Edgehill (1642) and Culloden (1746) have
demonstrated the potential of metal detector survey to shed profound new light on
historic battles. Given that metal detecting is illegal in Belgium the potential for good
survival of battle archaeology in the form of metal objects in the topsoil is high,
though illegal metal detecting and collection have undoubtedly impacted on the site. !
Excavation: the most traditional of archaeological techniques and is likely to play an
important role in the overall project. At Hougoumont it will provide a means of
verifying the nature of geophysical anomalies. Excavation will also shed light on the
nature buildings no longer upstanding – recent work at Hougoumont has exposed
stretches of walling from buildings that played a part in the battle but are no longer
standing. !
Investigation of Mass Graves: Limited excavation will verify the location of mass
graves, as well as the nature of the burials within them, their condition and extent.
Any such investigation would be in the nature of evaluation rather than exhumation.
Given the number of bodies likely to be present in these graves, and the disturbed
nature of many of these (due to reburial processes at the time), body recovery and
reburial will not be a project objective. Much information can be recovered from
encountered graves if the correct strategies are utilized (Pollard et.al. 2007 and
2008), and key members of the project team are experts in this specialized field.
The key here however will be minimal intervention with the primary aim being the
confirmation of the location of the graves in order to ensure their future
management and also facilitate suitable memorialization. !
Other possible techniques may include environmental sampling to assess the
presence of wet ground and vegetation, along with the scientific analysis of soils
across the battlefield. Laser scanning of upstanding remains, such as the buildings
at Hougoumont and La Haye Sainte (which has up until now been rather overlooked
in favour of Hougoumont). !
!
!
GIS and Database Analysis!
!
As already hinted at in this document, there is a rich cartographic resource for the area of
the battlefield of Waterloo. Within this project we seek to bring together these varied
cartographic sources into one unified Geographic Information System (GIS). The project
will then use this GIS to collate, compare and ground-truth all of the spatial information
from the maps, geophysical and metal-detector surveys as well as the excavation records.
Where copyright and licensing allows these maps will also be made available as part of
the digital outreach strategy (see below), for the wider public to see how the landscape
!31
has changed throughout history. All of the data created throughout the project (such as
excavation records, photographs, samples, drawings, etc.) will be held in one place within
the Archaeological Recording Kit (ARK – http://ark.lparchaeology.com). ARK has been
used on numerous archaeological projects throughout the world and acts as a fully opensource web-accessible repository that can accessed from any device (computer, tablet,
smartphone) giving the Waterloo Uncovered team great flexibility in terms of datarecording and management. ARK is directly connected to the GIS data, allowing the
project team and the wider public to seamlessly step between spatial and non-spatial data.!
!
As well as acting as a repository for the digital spatial information created as part of the
project, various GIS analyses will be undertaken to help us better understand the layout of
the battlefield and the role that the topography and other landscape features (such as
buildings and trees) may have played. GIS has been a vital part of battlefield archaeology
for many years (see Scott & McFeaters 2010), and the Waterloo Uncovered project seeks
to continue pushing the boundaries of its use in the field. In addition to the more traditional
GIS analyses (such as vegetation modelling, viewshed analysis and map regression), we
will use a number of 3D landscape modelling techniques (such as LiDAR, Structure from
Motion photography and 3D scanning). The GIS will also be inherently temporal, meaning
that the same features will be modelled over time – to reflect the changing face of the
battlefield (enabling us to ask questions, for example, how did the viewshed of the
defenders changed as the Hougoumont buildings were burnt down?). The temporal aspect
will also be applied to model troop movements throughout the day, to try and better
understand the difficulties facing the commanders and to attempt to gain a clearer picture
on the sometimes conflicting accounts of the manoeuvres of the day (see above for an
example of the discrepancies between Adkins and Franklin's accounts).!
!
Digital Outreach Strategy!
!
Our overriding aim for the project is to ensure any of the data recovered is released in a
timely fashion to the wider public. One of the major tools in the realising this aim will be our
various website outputs. Alongside regular blogging, press releases and online diaries, the
data held within ARK will be made publicly accessible, allowing much greater participation
in the project – and wider analysis of the primary record. This approach not only fulfils our
self-imposed requirement for open-source/open-data, but also allows the archive to be
enriched via crowd-sourcing. By presenting photographs and 3D models of the finds on
the internet via ARK, people outside the immediate project team will be able to attach
comments and opinions of each of the objects. This will hopefully lead to the production of
new stories and analysis of the objects, and further public engagement with the project. It
is hoped that the public will also contribute to the project in other ways and perhaps supply
any photographs, drawings or personal stories that they may have, which will all be used
to build a fuller and more ultimately more human view of the battle. It should be noted here
that some of the objects and finds may not be suitable for immediate public dissemination
(such as personal effects or human remains) and the public outreach side of the project
will always be handled with the utmost discretion and respect. !
!
Proposed project timetable!
!
At present the aspiration is for the Waterloo Uncovered Project to run for five years, with
perhaps a three week season, or more taking place each year. The aim is for the project to
be as inclusive as possible, allowing local people, students, volunteers from Project
Nightingale, members of the armed forces and others to play an active part in this unique
!32
project. Although the project will have a team of experienced and professional
archaeologists of various nationalities at its core, it will provide multiple opportunities for
training and skills development while following an open access philosophy in the
dissemination and publication of information. The project will be inclusive but it will also
adhere to the highest professional and academic standards throughout and involve
leading experts from across Europe in order to ensure this. !
!
•
•
•
•
•
!
Year 1: A three week programme of preliminary evaluation focussing on
Hougoumont. This will hopefully take place in the last week of April and the last
week of July and first week of August. It will follow an as yet to be determined
programme of geophysical survey, hopefully building on the work already carried
out by Tim Sutherland and his team.!
Year 2: A longer programme of work taking the investigation at Hougoumont further.
This might include limited excavation of mass graves should these be identified and
evaluated in 2014. Other elements of the project, including metal detecting will also
be integrated into this season of fieldwork.!
Year 3: Continuance at Hougoumont and commencement of investigation in other
areas of the battlefield – including large scale metal detecting. !
Year 4: Integrating La Haye Sainte into the project – comparing the results with
Hougoumont. !
Year 5: Continuation of previous elements and assessment of whether life time of
project should be expanded. !
Throughout the life of the project information will be delivered to the wider public via a
state of the art website, public and academic talks, journal and magazine articles
(including the Journal of Conflict Archaeology) and possibly other media, including
television. !
!
The Wider Project!
!
Looking forward to the expansion of the project away from Hougoumont there is great
scope to answer research questions via techniques such as metal detector survey. For
instance, the opportunity to locate individual units, perhaps through the identification of
squares through artifact patterning is a very exciting prospect (including those of the
French Guards in their advance up the slope in the centre of the field). !
!
Acknowledgements !
The foregoing project proposal has benefitted greatly from discussions with a number of
renowned Waterloo experts, notably the historians Gregory Fremont-Barnes and Alasdair
White, the latter of whom provided invaluable advice on local conditions and historical
mapping. We are additionally grateful to John Franklin who in addition to sharing his indepth knowledge of the battle provided a copy of his unpublished work on the 3rd
Regiment ‘of Foot Guards at Waterloo and a number of key sources. !
!
!
!
!
References!
!33
!
Adkin, A. 2001. The Waterloo Companion. Aurum Press, London.!
!
Bosquet, D., Ternaux, G. & Fossion, A. 2014. ‘Waterloo : découverte d’un squelette de
soldat sur le site de la bataille’, Chronique de l’Archéologie wallonne, 21, pp. 35-41.!
!
Franklin, J. Unpublished manuscript (2011). Waterloo: 3rd Regiment of Foot Guards. 1815
Ltd, Cumbria.!
!
De Smedt, P. & Van Meirvenne, M. 2014. Geophysical Soil Survey Waterloo: EMI Survey.
Research Group Soil Spatial Inventory Techniques (ORBit) Department of Soil
Management. Ghent University. !
!
Fremont-Barnes G. 2014. Waterloo 1815: The British Army’s Day of Destiny. The History
Press, Stroud.!
!
MacKinnon, D.1833. Origin and Services of the Coldstream Guards. Richard Bentley,
London.!
!
Pollard, T., Barton, P and Banks, I. 2007 Pheasant Wood, Fromelles: Evaluation of
possible mass graves. GUARD report 12005, University of Glasgow.!
Pollard, T., Pollard, T., Barton, P and Banks, I. 2008 Pheasant Wood, Fromelles: Data
Structure Report. GUARD report 12008, University of Glasgow.!
Pollard, T. 2009. Culloden 1746: The History and Archaeology of the Last Clan Battle. Pen
and Sword, Barnsley.!
!
Scott, D.D. & McFeaters, A.P. 2010. ‘The Archaeology of Historic Battlefields: A History
and Theoretical Development in Conflict Archaeology’. Journal of Archaeological
Research, 19(1), pp.103–132.!
!
!34
!
!
!
!35
!
!
!

Waterloo Uncovered– Project Design

Transcription

Similar documents

a must-see property before deciding to build!!!

TA-SETI Goodies

MAP ARTWORK + LEGENDS - Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh

Firetail Fleeceflower

Garden bird guide - Landcare Research

Coventry Local School District to Waterloo High School

Waterloo Public Library Waterloo Public Library

Cairnwood Estate

Trip to Chudleigh`s Farm