Summary of fieldwork objectives, July 2015
Allied-eye-view of the French assault?
The forthcoming fieldwork will build upon the results of the evaluation in April. An important objective of this two-week exercise will be the continued use of excavation to ground-truth anomalies identified in the geophysical survey carried out by our team from the University of Ghent. During the evaluation, three of these anomalies, two to the north of the chateau and one to the south, proved to be kilns used to manufacture the bricks used in the construction of the farm.
A further anomaly, located within the walled garden, was partially exposed during a brief return to the site in June. This appears to differ in character to the kilns, with sharp edges and a corner suggesting a square or rectangular pit post-dating the 18th century garden features. A possible surgeon’s saw was recovered from the same trench, close to the edge of the possible pit, though there is no suggestion at this stage that there is a relationship between the two. It is possible of course that this is a grave pit associated with the battle, but it will require further excavation to establish whether or not this is the case. At present though we are not deliberately seeking graves, although it is of course possible that we will uncover them during further ground-truthing. Accordingly, any intervention will be limited to establishing the character and extent of any of features found to contain human remains. It is not, for instance, our intention to remove any human remains from their resting place. Should human remains be encountered then our partners from the Human Remains Identification Centre at Dundee University will play a key role in shaping our methodology to the particularities of the discovery.
Another focus within the walled garden will be the defence of the walls, particularly to the south, where loopholes and a firing platform were used to great effect. From rather vague descriptions the platform appears to have been constructed from a variety of readily procured materials, including timber, which might have been used to create scaffolding type structures, and also earth, which when mounded against the wall would have provided a step from which men could fire over the top, but would also have had the additional benefit of providing further protection against artillery fire. The former might have left archaeological traces in the form of postholes, while the latter will have created pits and hollows, where earth was removed from the garden, and some of these might be represented by the anomalies visible in the geophysics plots.
Other anomalies to be investigated through excavation include a north to south running linear feature located to the east of the walled garden, in the area once occupied by the great orchard. This might be a field boundary not marked on the maps, perhaps even the eastern limit of the orchard, which would make it smaller than it appears on the maps (this seems unlikely however as there is a suggestion of tree throws on the plot to the east). Another area of interest is the field to the west of the building complex, which, according to eyewitness accounts and some of the mapping, was occupied by kitchen gardens. These also appear to be present as geophysical anomalies, most particularly in the electrical conductivity survey (see evaluation report). These are of particular interest as they feature in accounts of the fighting in an area of the battlefield (west side of chateau), which is less well understood, particularly with regard to the French assault.
French-eye-view of the Farm?
Other targets for trenching will include the hedge-lines that defined the southern edge of the great orchard and probably the northern perimeter of the wood to the south of the farm. It is probable that both of these were accompanied by a ditch and played a role in reducing the impact of the French assault – the hedge bounding the orchard was described as being so ‘well set’ that loopholes had to be cut in it to enable the defenders to fire through it.
During the evaluation in April all trenches were opened by hand. This time around, we will benefit from the use of a mini excavator, which will open trenches far more efficiently and will also speed backfilling. The temptation to open more trenches than we can deal with will be avoided, but if time does permit, which is likely, then more anomalies than have been summarised here will be investigated (strategy will be the joint responsibility of the fieldwork directors: Dr Tony Pollard and Dominique Bosquet).
In tandem with excavation, we will be carrying out a further metal detector survey, with a small team of British and Belgian detectorists. A sample survey carried out in April demonstrated that, although there had been severe depletion of battle related artefacts due to illegal detecting over past decades, there was still enough material present in the vicinity of Hougoumont to provide meaningful distribution patterns of musket balls and other artefacts. The location of the survey will be limited by the availability of land not currently under crop, which will include the walled garden, areas of pasture in the immediate vicinity of the farm and a more extensive area to the east, leading up to the ridge on which the British line was located. The location of all finds will be carefully plotted as part of the survey work being carried out by our team from L-P Archaeology.
The killing ground – where the French attack met its match?
The smallest archaeological feature encountered during the evaluation was a re-enactor campfire within the walled garden. Further evidence of this recent activity took the form of several re-enactor buttons from the same area. Given that Hougoumont served as a camping ground for around 5,000 re-enactors for a week in June, as part of the 200th anniversary commemorations, it is highly likely that a fresh scatter of replica material will have been deposited. An important task for the metal detector team will be to recover and plot this material, which in many cases will hopefully be lying on or very close to the surface, though this depends on areas not having been tilled since June. We are currently working towards involving the various re-enactor groups in an exercise which will examine what has been deposited, how the pattern of material relates to recent activity and any parallels it might have with the 1815 activity.
On-site finds processing will be a priority task and it likely that everyone will get a chance to assist the small team that will be dedicated to the cleaning, recording and provisional analysis of what we know from April will be an extensive finds assemblage.
The evaluation demonstrated that Hougoumont accommodates high quality archaeology, which can shed light on the history of the farm, both pre- and post-battle, and most importantly enhance our understanding of the battle itself. Our two weeks in July will hopefully be the first of many such expeditions in years to come, with a rolling programme of geophysical survey and metal detector survey, with excavation where appropriate, expanding across the battlefield from Hougoumont. We will for instance, following the harvest later in the year, be extending our geophysical survey in the area to the south of the farm, which corresponds to the eastern edge of the wood and the formal garden shown on the 1770s map but gone by 1815 (see online project outline). These areas will also hopefully be subject to metal detector survey over the winter season.