Archaeological Synthesis Research 2019 - Conflict Archeology of the Second World War in Flanders

There has been tremendous progress in the field since the early 21st century
of the conflict archeology of the First World War (Van Hollebeeke,
Stichelbaut et al. 2014) various initiatives of the Flemish Government (de Meyer
and Demeyere 2006, Dewilde 2006, Dewilde, de Meyer et al. 2007, Dewilde,
Verboven et al. 2016), a growing academic interest in universities
(Note, Saey et al. 2019, Stichelbaut, Note et al. 2019, Van den Berghe, Gheyle et
al. 2019) and the transfer of this interest and expertise to the
commercial sector (Stichelbaut, Verdegem et al. 2018, Verdegem, Dewilde et
al. 2018, Verdegem, Dewilde et al. 2018). This was reinforced by the
century commemoration, popular media (Onder Vlaamse Velden, 'he Big Dig'
other documentaries), crowdfunding campaigns (Dig 'ill 80' and the exhibition
"Traces of war" in the In Flanders Fields Museum (Stichelbaut 2018).
Flanders thus plays a prominent role in the international strong
increasing research field of interdisciplinary conflict archeology
(Saunders 2002, Dewilde, de Meyer et al. 2007, Saunders 2007, Desfossés,
Jacques et al. 2008). There are both in the field of non-invasive
archaeological prospecting (Stichelbaut, Gheyle et al. 2017, Stichelbaut, Note et
al. 2017, Gheyle, Stichelbaut et al. 2018), excavations of material remains of
the war on positions (Verdegem, Dewilde et al. 2018), the recovery of
war victims (Verdegem, Dewilde et al. 2018) and the analysis of
material culture has made huge strides forward (Bracke, Gheyle et al. 2018,
Bracke, Gheyle et al. 2018).
We can say that the archeology of WW1 is now an integral part of
mainstream archaeological research and that the concept of 'landscape as
Last Witness "(Chielens 2006, Chielens, Dendooven et al. 2006) - for the
first introduced 88 years after the end of the conflict - becomes general
accepted and adopted by both the archaeological field and the
policy (Verboven 2012, Himpe 2014). In summary, there is a huge foundation
laid for high-quality research into conflict archeology in Flanders. There
not only have numerous excavations been carried out, various scientific ones
studies have been carried out, but support has also been created for the wider sector
public, one can imagine the archeology of the recent periods.
In addition, the annual study day "conflict in Contact" provides a
distribution of the results within the archaeological field.

In 2020 it will be 80 years ago that World War II started in Belgium.
On May 10, 1940, German troops invaded Belgium, followed by a four-year-long one
period of occupation followed. The current state of play regarding the
WW2 archeology in Flanders is in very sharp contract with the expertise
which was built up in relation to WW1 and the picture that became above
outlined.
In the meantime, the landscape also applies to this second global conflict
and the archaeological soil archive as the very last witnesses to this conflict
remain. In neighboring neighboring countries there has been since the beginning of this
century attention to the material remains of WW2. It took the lead
taken in Britain, where universities even engage in conflict archeology
have included their curriculum1 (Saunders 2012) and received early attention
was for modern conflicts (Dobinson, Lake et al. 1997). In the Netherlands, the
logically from the beginning more emphasis on WW2 than on WW1 (Brouwers
2011, Van Der Schriek 2015). The first investigations are also in France
meanwhile started 2, where there are not only studies on the
battlefields in Normandy but also extensive attention to it
archaeological research on prisoners of war and internment camps (Myers
2008). In Normandy, geophysical prospects were previously conducted on the
battlefields on the landing beaches and immediate hinterland (Gaffney,
Gater et al. 2004) and an exhaustive inventory of WW2 is being worked on
heritage.
In Flanders it has only been sporadic since the last decade
research is carried out into archaeological remains of WW2. In the
early period it mainly concerned accidental finds at excavations of
more traditional archaeological sites (De Clercq, Deschieter et al. 2001,
Stichelbaut and Hoorne 2008, De Logi and Schynkel 2010). Meanwhile, are
dozens of archaeological site investigations conducted on conflict sites
1940‐45, and the sites from WW2 on the coast (Atlantic Wall) also form regularly
the subject of desktop studies and archeology note ".
If there is already targeted research, it is usually by foreign researchers
research teams, for example about the Battle of the Bulge or The Battle of
the Bulge (Passmore and Harrison 2008), it is very site-oriented and limited to
a small area. That can also be said of the investigation into crash
sites, a specific discipline that is becoming increasingly professional (Reyns, Ceulaers
et al. 2013, De Decker 2017). Also off the Belgian coast are sporadic
archaeological finds have been made. For example, recently five plane wrecks
found by VLIZ3 and is the work of maritime archaeologists Sven
Haelst and Thomas Termote. Given the specific needs and methodologies of
this maritime archaeological research in the North Sea we will engage in this project
limit to the beaches, where regular beach barriers from WW2
found during sandworks (verbal information curator
Mathieu Demeyer). The Agency's Research Balance of Archeology
Heritage Heritage gave ample attention to WW1 and earlier battlefields, but
WW2 was almost not mentioned at all (a passage on architecture and
commemoration not taken into account). This project will provide interesting information
provide a completely different picture of the status of the research
to WW2.

At first glance, there are many similarities between the archeology of both
World Wars. In both cases it concerns archaeological sites that
have to do with military defenses and infrastructure in the
hinterland, fleeting traces related to the war,
military occupation, daily life (waste contexts) etc. Both disciplines are
highly interdisciplinary and can often be more than is the case for others
disciplines count on a multitude of historical, cartographic and
photographic sources. They are, however, very different conflicts, with
various material remains. Where WW1 is a 4-year battle, that
WW2 was especially the culmination of the war on positions in the Westhoek
simplified to split into three major phases in which we may have heritage
expect: the run-up to the conflict and the raid, the occupation with expansion
of military infrastructure and logistics, and the liberation offensives. Also the
scale and nature of the conflict was different: a more mobile war
of which it is less clear which remains can be preserved. And
on the other hand there are the great material relics such as enormous coastal batteries,
bunker complexes, numerous plane wrecks and dozens of sprawling
airports.
What exactly are the archaeological remains of World War II,
what can we expect? What do the excavations say in recent years
Found WW2 archeology about that material culture? And what are
the specific challenges of this modern conflict archeology? These are some
of the main questions we want to answer by examining
to link the "rising literature" to non-invasive research methods
(historical aerial photography & lidar analyzes). The project will play a pioneering role
play, and the results will help chart a course we are on
want to and be able to go with this discipline in the near future.