|
|
No.49 - October 2001 | Contex HOME LECTURE REPORT The Landscape of Defence, 1940 June’s lecture stimulated us to think anew about the contribution of archaeology to the understanding of even the recent past; and how, despite the 20th century’s obsession with information and communication, nevertheless in the recent historical record there are still many gaps which can be filled only through archaeological research. William Foot, Database and Archive Manager of the Council of British Archaeology’s Defence of Britain Project (and one-time COLAS member), explained the Project’s role in establishing a vast database and archive of 25,000 sites from the defences of the last century. While the Public Record Office and local archives hold some data, much has been lost over time or was never properly recorded. Upwards of seven hundred volunteers have been encouraged to contribute information in the form of text, plans, photographs and so on, to be analysed, interpreted, mapped and fed into local Site and monuments Records and the National Monuments Record. Significant type sites and those with unique features will then be scheduled and preserved. Although the Project covers the whole century, the Second World War period has predominated and the lecture focused on the anti-invasion constructions of 1940-1. This was especially interesting in showing how the evidence from the archaeology of the period can correct what could otherwise be a mis-remembering of the times as being solely dominated by aerial war. We learned of the very real and immediate threat of invasion in spring and early summer of 1940 and the pervasive effect this had on everyday life as well as military thinking. From June, 1940, there was a rapid transformation of the British landscape: the military came to control 20% of UK land surface. "The was not one square foot of land that was not subject to some detailed defence scheme." Huge numbers of sites were created. The newly militarised landscape together with the Home Guard transformed Britain into an armed fortress to repel the expected invasion. Our speaker was keen to dispel the Dad’s Army view of the home guard. He said that it was a formidable fighting force of 1.5 million combining young men exempted from conscription and experienced veterans from the First World War. 12,500 anti-invasion sites are on the database, falling into the following three main categories. The Coastal Crust - the aim being to defeat the enemy before landing. These included anti-boat landing obstacles, anti-tank blocks and ditches, revetting, pillboxes, gun emplacements, minefields and so on all round the coast, but particularly in the south and east of England. Inland Stop Lines - to prevent movement, particularly of tanks, if it did get ashore. Stop Lines formed grid patterns throughout the UK to hinder movement, often following waterways which would be revetted. Huge concrete blocks formed roadblocks, with heavy gun emplacements close by, from which to attack an enemy slowed down or stopped. Where there was no natural artery, enormous anti-tank ditches and ramparts were constructed - very rapidly, in eight to ten weeks. Earthworks have been a feature of the landscape on these islands since at least the Neolithic, and these latecomers were some of the largest ever built - and also some of the shortest lived: they were being filled in by 1943. Area Defences - every part of the UK had a defence plan. Area Defences were the intensive national preparations to defeat an invasion: whole localities were stripped for defence purposes, houses requisitioned and fortified, populations moved out. Farmers saw their fields ruined by the cutting of "anti-glider" trenches, in fact intended to prevent enemy aircraft landing if they were within five miles of "vulnerable points" such as factories, bridges or airfields.* A characteristic weapon of the "nodal points" and anti-tank islands of this strategy was the spigot mortar, often in clusters, which left a cylindrical hole and plinth as archaeological evidence. Some defence works left more lasting imprints on the ground than others. The ubiquitous (and much loved) pillbox is the example known to most people. A pillbox, made from concrete in brick shuttering, with slits from which to fire, sat amidst defended trench and barbed wire areas. Some were built on strictly functional lines, some were disguised as farm buildings, cottages or garages. Many had grass roofs for camouflage. Thicker, stronger, versions were built as anti-tank emplacements. Civilian contractors were employed to cast in situ the massive blocks intended to hinder movement. A slide of the anti-tank obstacles known as Dragon’s Teeth looked to this member of the audience very like the prehistoric chevaux-des-frise still extant at Dun Angus, Aran, proving that a good idea need never be abandoned. The uniquely militarised landscape began to fade from view soon after construction. Our lecturer explained that by the end of 1940, as the invasion fear receded, military thinking was changing to an emphasis on mobile rather than static defences. Structures built so rapidly in the first initiative began to be dismantled, their materials recycled to meet the new demands. There was much pressure from farmers to level those earthworks interfering with the production of food. At the end of the War, clearance of temporary defence works was prioritised according to the danger of leaving them in situ. Lack of resources immediately post-War meant that many were left standing - hence the abundance of pillboxes surviving into the 1960s, which saw the next push to demolish the remaining structures, with a campaign to clear them from Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Casual depletion has continued since then - the Channel tunnel accounted for two sites. Many in the countryside have been broken up by sixty years of vegetation. Where so many were constructed alongside watercourses and the shoreline, water erosion has frequently played a part in destruction - a slide showed waves breaking on one crumbling pillbox. Nevertheless, much still survives. We were shown some surprising examples: a defended house with a loophole (embrasure) in the gable end wall and estate walls with loophole filled in but still identifiable. There were military structures recycled for peacetime as summerhouses, dovecotes, sheds - apparently they are particularly attractive as roosts for bats. Also crop marks and shadows, and a reminder that the past also leaves its mark in place names - an Anti Tank Bridge amongst others. Our lecturer pointed out the ground-breaking work that is taking place mapping all Britain’s 20th century defensive sites in the context of the huge numbers and vast but very incomplete contemporary records - records which, he showed, included German maps of coastal defences made in preparation for invasion. It would be unrealistic for the Project to record every structure or earthwork - but there is a good deal of local interest and William argued that the best way for the archaeology of this period to be taken forward is by local studies including local enthusiasts’ fieldwork, documentary research and oral testimony. Already in some places there are "pillbox trails", plaques and tourist literature. This was a most interesting and thought provoking lecture, not only for its intrinsic subject matter and for the placing of this recent past within the context of defence since Neolithic time, but also for this pointer of the important role which local groups of archaeologists must play in preserving knowledge and understanding of their localities. *The photograph of Sutton Hoo in the last issue of CONTEXT had a prominent ditch running from left to right. This was an anti-glider ditch dug during the Second World War, not part of the archaeology. Report by Delia Lindsey |
