Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-9pm4c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T19:14:11.325Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

LiDAR and conflict archaeology: the Battle of the Bulge (1944–1945)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 August 2023

Birger Stichelbaut ,
Dries Coucke ,
David G. Passmore ,
Jonas Van de Winkel  and
Guy De Mulder
Birger Stichelbaut*
Affiliation:
Ghent University, Department of Archaeology, Ghent, Belgium
Dries Coucke
Affiliation:
Ghent University, Department of Archaeology, Ghent, Belgium
David G. Passmore
Affiliation:
Department of Geography, Geomatics and Environment, University of Toronto Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
Jonas Van de Winkel
Affiliation:
Argus Vision - Drone Data & Analytics, Mechelen, Belgium
Guy De Mulder
Affiliation:
Ghent University, Department of Archaeology, Ghent, Belgium
*
*Author for correspondence: ✉ Birger.Stichelbaut@ugent.be
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Although conflict archaeology is now well established, the archaeological remains of many specific military confrontations are still to be explored. This article reports the results of fieldwork to document the site of the Battle of the Bulge (16 December 1944–25 January 1945). The authors use drone-mounted 1m-resolution LiDAR and very high-resolution simultaneous localisation and mapping (SLAM) methods to reveal more than 940 features within the forested Ardennes landscape, many of which were subsequently visited and confirmed. As well as highlighting the potential of the LiDAR-SLAM method, deployed here (both in this geographic region and in conflict archaeology) for the first time, the survey results emphasise the need for a debate on managing the heritage of a key modern conflict landscape in Europe.

Keywords

Belgiumconflict archaeologySecond World WarBattle of the BulgeSLAMLiDARUAV
Type
Research Article
Information
Antiquity , Volume 97 , Issue 394 , August 2023 , pp. 945 - 963
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Antiquity Publications Ltd.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

87th Division. 1946. An historical and pictorial record of the 87th Infantry Division in World War II 1942–1945. Baton Rouge (LA): Army and Navy Publishing.Google Scholar
Adam, M., Storch, M. & Rass, C.A.. 2022. Conflicted landscapes: the Kall Trail. Monitoring transformations of a Second World War heritage site using UAV-lidar remote sensing and ground truthing. Antiquity 96: 494–9. https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2022.21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caddick-Adams, P. 2015. Snow and steel: Battle of the Bulge 1944–45. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Capps-Tunwell, D., Passmore, D.G. & Harrison, S.. 2015. Landscape Archaeology of World War Two German Logistics Depots in the Forêt Domaniale Des Andaines, Normandy, France. International Journal of Historical Archaeology 19: 233–61. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24572789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Capps-Tunwell, D., Passmore, D.G. & Harrison, S.. 2016. Second World War bomb craters and the archaeology of Allied air attacks in the forests of the Normandie-Maine National Park, NW France. Journal of Field Archaeology 41: 312–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/00934690.2016.1184930CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Capps-Tunwell, D., Passmore, D.G. & Harrison, S.. 2018. A witness in the landscape: the bombing of the Forêt domaniale des Andaines and the Normandy Campaign, NW France, 1944. War in History 25: 69–102. https://doi.org/10.1177/0968344516650228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpentier, V., Ghesquière, E., Labbey, B. & Marcigny, C.. 2021. Archaeology, D-Day, and the Battle of Normandy. ‘The Longest Day’, a landscape of myth and materiality, in Saunders, N. & Cornish, P. (ed.) Conflict landscapes: materiality and meaning in contested places: 260–73. Milton Park: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003149552-17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpentier, V. & Marcigny, C.. 2014. Les camps de prisonniers allemands. Un nouveau champ de recherche pour l'archéologie française. Archeopages: 64–69. https://doi.org/10.4000/archeopages.549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cavanagh, W. 2004. Battle east of Elsenborn and the twin villages. Barnsley: Pen & Sword.Google Scholar
Chielens, P., Dendooven, D. & Decoodt, H. (ed.). 2006. De laatste getuige. Het landschap van Wereldoorlog I in Vlaanderen. Tielt: Lannoo.Google Scholar
Cole, H.M. 1964. The Ardennes: the Battle of the Bulge. Washington, D.C.: Office of the Chief of Military History Dept. of the Army.Google Scholar
Council for British Archaeology. 2006. Defence of Britain Archive (dataset). York: Archaeology Data Service. https://doi.org/10.5284/1000327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cowley, D. & Stichelbaut, B.. 2012. Historic aerial photographic archives for European archaeology: applications, potential and issues. European Journal of Archaeology 15: 217–36. https://doi.org/10.1179/1461957112Y.0000000010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Matos-Machado, R. 2018. Paysage de guerre et LiDAR: de la caractérisation des polémoformes à la conservation des patrimoines naturel et culturel de la forêt domaniale de Verdun (Meuse, France). Unpublished dissertation, Université Paris-Diderot, submitted to the Université Sorbonne-Paris-Cité.Google Scholar
Desfossés, Y., Jacques, A. & Prilaux, G.. 2008. L'archéologie de la Grande Guerre. Rennes: Éditions Ouest-France & INRAP.Google Scholar
Dolejš, M., Vojtěch, S., Martin, V. & Jitka, E.. 2020. Detecting World War II bombing relics in markedly transformed landscapes (city of Most, Czechia). Applied Geography 119: 102225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2020.102225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doneus, M. & Briese, C.. 2011. Airborne laser scanning in forested areas – potential and limitations of an archaeological prospection technique, in Cowley, D. (ed.) Remote sensing for archaeological heritage management. Proceedings of the 11th EAC Heritage Management Symposium, Reykjavík, Iceland, 25–27 March 2010. Budapest: Archaeolingua.Google Scholar
Doneus, M., Briese, C., Fera, M.A. & Janner, M.. 2008. Archaeological prospection of forested areas using full-waveform airborne laser scanning. Journal of Archaeological Science 35: 882–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2007.06.013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Everett, M.E., Pierce, C., Save, N., Warden, R., Dickson, D., Burt, R. & Bradford, J.. 2006. Geophysical investigation of the June 6, 1944 D-Day invasion site at Pointe du Hoc, Normandy, France. Near Surface Geophysics 4: 289–304. https://doi.org/10.3997/1873-0604.2005052CrossRefGoogle Scholar
GeoSLAM Ltd. 2020. ZEB-HORIZON™ User's Manual v1.3. Available at: https://geoslam.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/ZEB-Horizon-User-Manual-v1.3.pdfGoogle Scholar
Gheyle, W., Stichelbaut, B., Saey, T., Note, N., Van den Berghe, H., Van Eetvelde, V., Van Meirvenne, M. & Bourgeois, J.. 2018. Scratching the surface of war: airborne laser scans of the Great War conflict landscape in Flanders (Belgium). Applied Geography 90: 55–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2017.11.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gollob, C., Ritter, T. & Nothdurft, A.. 2020. Comparison of 3D point clouds obtained by terrestrial laser scanning and personal laser scanning on forest inventory sample plots. Data 5: 103. https://doi.org/10.3390/data5040103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hesse, R. 2014. Geomorphological traces of conflict in high-resolution elevation models. Applied Geography 46: 11–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2013.10.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kobiałka, D. 2017. Airborne laser scanning and 20th century military heritage in the woodlands. Analecta Archaeologica Ressoviensia 12: 247–69. https://doi.org/10.15584/anarres.2017.12.14Google Scholar
Kokalj, Ž. & Hesse, R.. 2017. Airborne laser scanning raster data visualization: a guide to good practice. Ljubljana: Založba ZRC. https://doi.org/10.3986/9789612549848CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kokalj, Z., Zakšek, K. & Oštir, K.. 2013. Visualizations of lidar derived relief models, in Opitz, R. & Cowley, D. (ed.) Interpreting archaeological topography – airborne laser scanning, aerial photographs and ground observation: 100–14. Oxford: Oxbow. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvh1dqdz.13Google Scholar
Lengel, E. 2020. Sacrifice: the 333rd Field Artillery at the Battle of the Bulge. Available at: https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/african-american-333rd-field-artillery-battle-of-bulge (accessed 7 September 2021).Google Scholar
MacDonald, C. 1963. United States Army in World War II. The European theater of operations. The Siegfried Line campaign. Fort Belvoir (VA): Department of the Army.Google Scholar
Masters, P. 2016. Contested landscape: La Boisselle and the Glory Hole, in Stichelbaut, B. & Cowley, D. (ed.) Conflict landscapes and archaeology from above : 45–58. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Oniga, V.E., Breaban, A.I., Alexe, E.I. & Văsii, C.. 2021. Indoor mapping of a complex cultural heritage scene using TLS and HMLS laser scanning. The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences XLIII-B2-2021: 605–12. https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-archives-XLIII-B2-2021-605-2021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Opitz, R. & Cowley, D. (ed.). 2013. Interpreting archaeological topography: lasers, 3D data, observation, visualisation and applications. Oxford: Oxbow. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvh1dqdzGoogle Scholar
Passmore, D. & Harrison, S.. 2008. Landscapes of the Battle of the Bulge: WW2 field fortifications in the Ardennes Forests of Belgium. Journal of Conflict Archaeology 4: 87–107. https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004173606.i-250.36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Passmore, D., Harrison, S. & Capps-Tunwell, D.. 2014. Second World War conflict archaeology in the forests of north-west Europe. Antiquity 88: 1275–90. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00115455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Passmore, D.G. & Capps-Tunwell, D.. 2020. Conflict archaeology of tactical air power: the Forêt domaniale de la Londe-Rouvray and the Normandy Campaign of 1944. International Journal of Historical Archaeology 24: 674–706. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10761-019-00536-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollard, T. & Banks, I.. 2005. Why a journal of conflict archaeology and why now? Journal of Conflict Archaeology 1: iii–vii. https://doi.org/10.1163/157407705774929024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, N. & Knecht, R.. 2012. Peleliu 1944. The archaeology of a South Pacific D-Day. Journal of Conflict Archaeology 7: 5–48. https://doi.org/10.1179/157407812X13245464933786CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Risbøl, O. & Gustavsen, L.. 2018. LiDAR from drones employed for mapping archaeology – potential, benefits and challenges. Archaeological Prospection 25: 329–38. https://doi.org/10.1002/arp.1712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rottman, G.L. 2004. German field fortifications 1939–45. Wellingborough: Osprey.Google Scholar
Saunders, N. 2012. Introduction: engaging the materialities of twentieth and twenty-first century conflict, ‘beyond the dead horizon’. Studies in modern conflict archaeology: 10–14. Oxford & Oakville: Oxbow. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvh1dwsh.5Google Scholar
Schroder, W., Murtha, T., Golden, C., Scherer, A.K., Broadbent, E.N., Almeyda Zambrano, A.M., Herndon, K. & Griffin, R.. 2021. UAV LiDAR survey for archaeological documentation in Chiapas, Mexico. Remote Sensing 13: 4731. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13234731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seitsonen, O. 2018. Digging Hitler's arctic war: archaeologies and heritage of the Second World War German military presence in Finnish Lapland. Helsinki: Unigrafia.Google Scholar
Seitsonen, O. & Ikäheimo, J.. 2021. Detecting archaeological features with airborne laser scanning in the alpine tundra of Sápmi, Northern Finland. Remote Sensing 13: 1599. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13081599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Service public de Wallonie (SPW). 2022. Relief de la Wallonie – Modèle Numérique de Terrain (MNT) 2013–2014. Available at: http://geoportail.wallonie.be/catalogue/6029e738-f828-438b-b10a-85e67f77af92.htmlGoogle Scholar
Stele, A., Schwickert, M. & Rass, C.. 2021. The battle of Vossenack Ridge: exploring interdisciplinary approaches for the detection of U.S. Army field positions on a Second World War battlefield. Antiquity 95: 180–97. https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2020.104Google Scholar
Stichelbaut, B., Gheyle, W., Eetvelde, V. Van, Meirvenne, M. Van, Saey, T., Note, N., Van den Berghe, H. & Bourgeois, J.. 2017. The Ypres Salient 1914–1918: historical aerial photography and the landscape of war. Antiquity 91: 235–49. https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2016.260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stichelbaut, B., Plets, G. & Reeves, K.. 2021a. Towards an inclusive curation of WWI heritage: integrating historical aerial photographs, digital museum applications and landscape markers in ‘Flanders Fields’ (Belgium). Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development 11: 344–60. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCHMSD-04-2020-0056CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stichelbaut, B., Thomas, S., Oula, S., Gheyle, W., Mulder, G. De & Plets, G.. 2021b. Operation Northern Light: a remote sensing approach to Second World War conflict archaeology in Northern Finland (Kilpisjärvi, Enontekiö), in Saunders, N. & Cornish, P. (ed.) Conflict landscapes: materiality and meaning in contested places: 202–21. Oxford: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003149552-14Google Scholar
Storch, M., Jarmer, T., Adam, M. & de Lange, N.. 2022. Systematic approach for remote sensing of historical conflict landscapes with UAV-based laserscanning. Sensors 22: 217. https://doi.org/10.3390/s22010217Google Scholar
Tolhurst, M. 1999. St.Vith: US 106th Infantry Division. Barnsley: Pen & Sword Books.Google Scholar
Valjavec, M.B., Zorn, M. & Ribeiro, D.. 2018. Mapping war geoheritage: recognising geomorphological traces of war. Open Geosciences 10: 385–94. https://doi.org/10.1515/geo-2018-0030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van der Schriek, M. & Beex, W.. 2017. The application of LiDAR-based DEMs on WWII conflict sites in the Netherlands. Journal of Conflict Archaeology 12: 94–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/15740773.2017.1440960CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vermard, L., Adam, F. & Panisset, B.. 2016. Le camp de prisonniers allemands de Stenay (Meuse) durant la Seconde Guerre mondiale: identifier et conserver des vestiges. Les nouvelles de l'archéologie 143: 54–8. https://doi.org/10.4000/nda.3421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
War Department. 1944. FM 5-15, War Department Field Manual. Corps of Engineers. Field Fortifications. Washington, D.C.: War Department.Google Scholar
Weber, M., Passmore, D.G., Capps-Tunwell, D. & Davie, H.G.W.. 2022. The Battle of the Seelow Heights, April 1945: conflict archaeology in the forests of Eastern Brandenburg, Germany. Journal of Conflict Archaeology 17: 204–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/15740773.2023.2183784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whiting, C. 1969. Decision at St.-Vith. New York: Ballantine.Google Scholar
Zakšek, K., Oštir, K. & Kokalj, Ž.. 2011. Sky-View Factor as a relief visualization technique. Remote Sensing 3: 398–415. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs3020398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaloga, S.J. 2003. St. Vith and the Northern Shoulder 1944: Battle of the Bulge. Wellingborough: Osprey.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Stichelbaut et al. supplementary material

Stichelbaut et al. supplementary material 1

Download Stichelbaut et al. supplementary material(File)
File 11.1 KB
Supplementary material: File

Stichelbaut et al. supplementary material

Stichelbaut et al. supplementary material 2

Download Stichelbaut et al. supplementary material(File)
File 22.9 KB