The Archaeology of Forts and Battlefields by David R. Starbuck, and: The Archaeology of French and Indian War Frontier Forts ed. by Lawrence E. Babits and Stephanie Gandulla (review)

What is the state of archaeological research on American military sites, and how have these investigations contributed to our understanding of past conflicts? As Pennsylvania and the broader Middle Atlantic saw much action in the French and Indian War and the American Revolution, it is natural that readers of Pennsylvania History would be curious about this subject. Although the two volumes are similar in title, publisher, and subject matter, they represent two different approaches to presentation; Starbuck draws heavily from his own career, while Babits and Gandulla, as editors of the other volume, have included a broad range of authors and research projects. Both volumes highlight the increasingly sophisticated subfield of conflict archaeology, the archaeological study of the full range of battle-related sites and the impacts of war on the civilian landscape.

The Archaeology of Forts and Battlefields is lauded on its back cover as a handbook "for people interested in locating, documenting, and scientifically excavating forts and battlefields." It is, arguably, not a complete handbook; it lacks the necessary detail and was somewhat dated when published in 2011. However, it is an excellent sampler of the types of research being conducted at conflict sites. David R. Starbuck is well known for presenting archaeological research issues, methods, and results in language suited to laypersons. Starbuck has a deservedly positive reputation for public archaeology and public outreach, teaching the general public about the intrigue and importance of historical archaeology. This is a strength of the volume under review.

Starbuck's introductory chapter, "An Archaeologist's Perspective," might more properly be labeled "This Author's Perspective," as it is out of line with the beliefs of many military archaeologists. Starbuck unfortunately presents all avocational detectorists as driven by a desire for items to sell on eBay, thus a "problem." Starbuck fails to address the many history-driven hobbyists who have successfully cooperated with professional archaeologists on the study of military sites. There has been much progress over the past twenty years in building bridges between avocational detectorists and professional archaeologists. It is difficult to reconcile the sales-driven relic hunters presented as a straw man in chapter 1 with the Little Bighorn project (where amateur detectorists worked closely with professional archaeologist Dr. Doug Scott) presented in chapter 7.

In chapter 2 Starbuck defines research priorities for archaeological research. He is to be credited for recognizing that traditional archaeological methods are often poorly suited for finding or sampling military sites. Chapters 3–7 present a chronological survey of American conflict archaeology: sixteenth- and seventeenth-century beginnings; the French and Indian War; the American Revolution; the American Civil War; and Indian Wars of the American West. Many archaeologists and historians will wonder why the War of 1812 receives no mention. Starbuck notes that he was unable to be encyclopedic in his coverage: perhaps the volume should have been more than 128 pages.

Chapter 3 purports to address the forts and battlefields of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. No battlefields are discussed. This omission is in part due to the fact that Starbuck chose to not address the lengthy research project addressing battle sites of the Pequot War. This chapter leaves the reader with the erroneous impression that no one has archaeologically studied sixteenth- or seventeenth-century battlefields. It instead presents discussions of Spanish, British, French and Dutch forts.

The following chapter again is focused on forts. No battlefields without a fort are discussed in the chapter. Again, the examples are interesting representatives of the contributions of archaeology, but the selection of those examples is badly biased. Although the most famous conflicts often were focused at forts, there were many...