Vimy Declaration for the Conservation of Battlefield Terrain

Preamble

Battlefields are poignant places where geography has been transformed into symbolic space through war, politics, pilgrimage, memorialization and tourism, and by its ambiguity as a living tomb for the missing. The vivid, visceral imagery of battlefields with their associated cemeteries and memorial monuments has impressed itself on historical consciousness and on our cultural memory of war.

Battlefields are significant on a number of levels: as places where major geo-political, social and ethnic issues were decided through conflict; as places of triumph and tragedy; as the source of inspiration for tactical or technological advances; and as the raw material for nationalist narratives. Places such as Isandlwana in KwaZulu Natal (South Africa), Gettysburg in the United States,Ypres in Belgium, Verdun, the Somme, and the D-Day beaches of Normandy in France, the Isonzo in Slovenia/Italy, El Alamein in Egypt, as well as many others around the world, are historic sites, sacred places, and the focus of complex issues surrounding cultural heritage and the commemoration and presentation of the past. At sites where tangible battlefield terrain has been preserved, such as Vimy Ridge or Vicksburg, the visitor stands in a trench, or at the edge of a shell hole or crater, or deep inside subterranean tunnels, and there is a sense of attachment, of intersecting the lives of combatants, who in some instances may also be relatives but who can always be empathized with as fellow human beings and as predecessors in some sense. One can begin to imagine their predicament, from the landscape one sees and the structures one can visit and encounter. Such locations offer a reaffirmation of personal ties, a way of remembering, and of exploring individual and collective identities.

Battlefields are key sites in a continuous educational process. These are places where successive generations revise or expand their cultural memory through interaction with the artifacts and landscape of the past. Yet battlefields are not a single, sealed terrain isolated in a given moment of time. Rather, they are multi-vocal landscapes of accretion, stratified by overlapping layers of social, economic and political history, and almost infinitely connected in myriad ways with other places: where soldiers came from, for example. They are also invariably politicized, dynamic and open to constant negotiation. Battlefields are often contested landscapes, and can become the focus for new conflict. Battlefields are places of tension and disagreement, and particular difficulties will arise if we consider battlefield conservation through the eyes of history’s ‘losers’, for whom the place may be one of defeat, humiliation and disempowerment. ¹

Part of that disagreement and contestation concerns how battlefields are used and managed, how meaning is imposed, and how at times, the competing interests of commemoration, heritage and tourism has been introduced to the sacred space of the battlefield. Commemorative layers and the infrastructure required to accommodate visitors may be laid over the terrain; natural processes erode the features of the land, softening the traces of battle. The modern world brings cultural change: different attitudes and new pressures come to bear on these fragile landscapes, rendering them endangered resources. How should they be treated? How can change be managed in such a way that it leaves the battlefield still visible, still present, if that is what is desired? How will the textures of memory be presented to an ever-changing audience with a weakening personal connection to the battle?

Building on the Charter of Venice (1964), the Vimy Declaration for the Management of Historic Battlefield Terrain ² reflects a multi-disciplinary exploration of the challenges associated with protecting, presenting and managing battlefield terrain. It is worth introducing a distinction here between a ‘traditional battlefield’ and a ‘conflict zone’. The former is more traditionally seen as a place of battle (e.g., in the English Civil War), while conflict zones like the Somme, Sarajevo, Hiroshima, Rwanda, and Helmand Province are more representative of twentieth-century and later conflict, and are typically more extensive regions, sometimes described as ‘theatres’ of war. These ‘theatres’ or conflict zones are often simply different in scale, or it may just be the range of activities conducted there. A battlefield will often fall within a wider conflict zone, for example. In both cases the intention of this Declaration is to protect the presence and the meaning of these complex cultural resources, sometimes by preserving fabric, and doing so in some situations to partly discharge the debt which the present owes the past. In some situations this sentiment may be reversed: some may feel that the past owes a debt to the present, for example.

Definitions

A Battlefield is an urban or rural landscape associated with civil or military conflict superimposed on pre-existing natural and cultural forms. It will comprise a variety of features and cultural resources which at the time represented a response to topography, vegetation, circulation and settlement patterns, and viewsheds. The material remains of a battlefield can include: buried deposits, earthworks, features and surface artifacts; built structures; equipment and clothing; graves and human remains. A battlefield can occur on land, at sea and (uniquely for the twentieth- and twenty-first centuries) in the air. With air battles, the physical sites will be confined to the land surface but their symbolic footprint will be aerial; naval battles can have footprints both on the sea surface and on the sea bed, submerged beneath the water. In each situation, battlefields will evoke memories, folk tales and (hi)stories, some in the political mainstream, some alternative, and not all of which will be ‘authentic’ (see below). All battlefields have multiple layers of meaning and evoke different responses in different people. Cultural, social and political perceptions and interpretations and personal responses to battlefields have evolved over time, and will continue to do so.

Beyond the battlefield is the wider conflict-zone, the physical setting within which the sacred landscape of history, memory and commemoration is placed, a zone often but not always coincident with the battlefield’s visual envelope. Here too management should be sympathetic to the sacred space of the battlefield.

Historic Battlefield Terrain is a way of seeing a battlefield and of viewing the original shape and grain of the space. For the purposes of this charter terrain includes the physical evidence of the battle or of preparations for it: tactical features; fortifications, trenches, dugouts and other subterranean works; shell-holes, craters and other scarring of the landscape; burials; and associated artifacts including obstacles, ordnance and equipment. Historic Battlefield Terrain will also include pre-existing built and topographic features, since the location of a road, river hedgerow or slope will often have had a bearing on the course of the battle. Physical evidence of the battle can often be far more transient than these earlier pre-existing elements. This is particularly true for pre-artillery conflict where the marks left on a landscape are less severe.

‘Historic’ refers to the period beyond living memory for the majority of the population. Although this definition will be constantly shifting forward in time, at the time of writing it incorporates battlefields of the First and Second World Wars, and from before 1950, in addition to those of much earlier date.

Commemorative Layers are features added to a battlefield to commemorate the event and the participants, such as monuments and designed landscapes, and may have value for their design as well as an expression of changing social and political perceptions of the event. Commemorative layers may meet or overlay battlefield terrain. In some cases a commemorative layer can be disproportionate to the evidential interest of the battle. The battlefield at Hastings (Sussex, UK) for example retains virtually no features which can be attributed to the day of the battle but whose subsequent management over nearly a millennium has been influenced heavily by its identity as the birthplace of Norman England.

Reference has been made to the ‘authenticity’ of battlefields. Yet authenticity is a fugitive term. ³ By focusing on one particular narrative or perspective, other parallel narratives can be lost. Battlefield markers and signage lend authority to a particular reading of the space. Battlefield conservation demands compromise and the judicious use of the power of suggestion. One can only allude to the original conditions, not recreate them.

Objectives

Article 1.
This charter applies to the conservation of battlefields and associated resources as defined above.

Article 2.
Battlefield terrain is subject to natural and human processes that cause change over time. Certain features, particularly earthworks and landscape scarring, will gradually disappear. The objective of battlefield conservation is to reconcile the goals of commemoration, conservation, presentation, visitor safety, and site management in such a way that battlefield terrain and related features are protected and contribute to visitor understanding and appreciation of the site. As perceptions of the battle will also change with the passing of time, a related objective is to preserve the site in such condition that future generations of visitors and scholars may measure new hypotheses and insights against authentic vestiges of the battle.

Article 3.
This Charter acknowledges and encourages the particular role of conservation management plans in managing sites and landscape where specific pressures and conservation challenges are presented, and a values approach to resolving such conflicts. Specifically, for areas of battlefield terrain where public access is either encouraged or inevitable, a Conservation Management Plan should be prepared by an appropriate and suitably qualified heritage consultant, and with the particular aim of balancing access and interpretation with conservation considerations. The values approach, itself part of the Management Plan, can simply establish what the priorities are, and how they can be best addressed. ⁴

Research and Documentation

Article 4.
In addition to ongoing research and documentation of the battle and of the experience of individual combatants within the broader historical, cultural, social and geo-political context, research of the terrain features themselves and of the wider physical context is critical to understanding the spatial and temporal relationships between the various layers, features and artifact distributions that can make up battlefield landscapes. Research (historical, archaeological, biological, cartographic and other) provides vital information for the understanding, evaluation, management and presentation of these sites, and of their wider landscape context and setting.

Article 5.
Guided by the principles of ‘Informed Conservation’, resource inventories, aerial photography and mapping and other forms of documentation are an essential first stage for identifying and understanding resources, for devising effective management strategies and for informing future research. Under some circumstances it may be appropriate to set aside significant areas of battlefield terrain specifically for research and study, and to either limit visitation to these zones accordingly, or to specifically encourage visits and participation through community research programmes (e.g. archaeological survey).

Authenticity and Integrity

(see Comment on ‘authenticity’ under Definitions, above)

Article 6.
While time and nature will change battlefield terrain, the authentic place has the ability to evoke powerful responses in visitors that a facsimile cannot. Authenticity of place and its evocative power can be enhanced by retaining the integrity of the landscape, or the character of the landscape and/or the battlefield terrain. Character will often be central in achieving the retention of elements of authenticity. Most examples of historic battlefield terrain are not set aside from other uses and preserved, but are instead occupied by agriculture, redevelopment or leisure activities. Where present land use does not focus on conservation of the battlefield, retaining some degree of landscape character that pertains to this earlier phase (such as visual envelope or sight-lines, or historic components such as hedgerows referred to in historic maps or descriptions) can enable some legibility to remain.

Article 7.
Battlefields have integrity when evidence of the battle, or of preparation for it, is legible and coherent, when significant views and spatial relationships of significant features are retained, and when significant concealed features are correlated to the visible terrain. Integrity also resides in evidence of the passage of time and the patina of age resulting from natural processes.

Article 8.
Integrity and authenticity can be managed through preventative conservation, which includes careful planning to minimize the impact of operations, visitor facilities and maintenance regimes, and retaining original material and form to the extent that nature will allow. The traces of conflict activity left on the battlefield following military or civil wars, and the patterning of these artifacts and structures, comprise important documentation of military engagement. There should be a presumption for maintaining these traces in situ and for protecting the integrity of the material record from unnecessary damage. If damage is inevitable, then archaeological recording should be undertaken by suitably qualified professional staff.

Article 9.
Interventions that alter battlefield features will generally compromise their integrity. Integrity of compromised features may be enhanced through treatments that are compatible with the character of adjacent terrain.

Article 10.
While the reconstruction of missing features may be an effective interpretive method in some contexts, reconstructed terrain will generally lack authenticity and there should be a presumption not to impose reconstructions on ‘authentic’ battlefield remains. Reconstruction of missing battlefield terrain features must be preceded by a thorough process of planning and informed conservation that includes appropriate research and documentation and a consideration of all affordable appropriate options.

Planning, Treatment, and Conservation

Article 11.
Treatment is defined as an intervention to conserve, stabilize, protect or otherwise delay the loss of battlefield terrain. The primary objective of treatment will be the conservation of battlefield resources or the retention of the landscape character of a battlefield for future generations.

Article 12.
Decisions about treatment will typically be based on multi-disciplinary research, investigation and long-term planning. Specialist knowledge of battlefield landscapes is rare and its development is encouraged. Disciplines and interest groups that contribute to understanding battlefield terrain include, but are not limited to: anthropologists, arborists, archaeologists, conservation professionals, cultural resource managers, ecologists, horticulturalists, landscape architects, mapping and survey specialists, military historians and engineers, natural resource managers, ordnance specialists, presentation specialists, re-enactors, site managers, soil and forestry scientists, and veterans.

Article 13.
Informed conservation in the form of appropriate research, planning, testing or monitoring must precede any treatment of battlefield terrain, in order to ensure compatibility with site conditions. Where possible, treatments can first be tested on non-historic fabric.

Article 14.
Battlefield terrain is part of a living landscape which is subject to natural and cultural processes. Its condition at the time of designation, planning or emparkment does not represent a final stage and conservation should not necessarily aim to hold it in that condition. Some communities might well regard slow decline as an appropriate form of commemoration. Treatment will be based on a sound understanding of these processes, acknowledging that some are unstoppable.

Article 15.
All conservation treatments should be sustainable. The decision to implement a treatment that will require ongoing maintenance must include a stated commitment to ensure resources will be available in the future.

Article 16.
Treatment and presentation choices must try to ensure long-term protection. Choices will not only affect the character of the site, but may also affect the visitor’s response, and the degree of protection from natural processes and human impacts. In all cases, treatment choices should be guided by established planning objectives.

Repairs and Maintenance

Article 17.
Minor repairs (e.g., patching windthrow damage, desire paths or animal activity) should be carried out in a manner that does not compromise adjacent resources, and are subtly distinguishable through archaeological evidence.

Article 18.
Major repairs (e.g., reprofiling eroded forms) should be fully documented, and be distinguishable through archaeological evidence, through contrasting maintenance regimes, or through presentation programming. As a minimum, it should be possible for a specialist to distinguish repairs from original materials and forms

Article 19.
Personnel responsible for maintenance of battlefield terrain and earthworks should be oriented to their value, included in the process of decision-making about treatment, trained in appropriate methods, and use least-damaging tools and techniques.

Article 20
For new buildings (e.g., visitor centres) in particular, there should be a presumption that changes imposed by their construction should be reversible.

Commemorative layers

Article 21.
The battlefield terrain and any commemorative layer should normally be distinguishable from each other, yet they should be mutually supportive and complementary. Commemorative features should be taken into consideration when defining the values of battlefield landscapes.

Use (Education, Tourism, Commemoration, Ideology)

Article 22.
By reason of its nature and history, battlefield terrain is conducive to reflection, contemplation and learning and all too attractive to ideological expropriation. Appropriate activities are those which respect and promote these priorities and respect the evidence of the battle on the terrain. On occasion these activities will conflict (e.g. contemplation of veterans, and learning through play amongst young visitors and school groups). Where these activities are in conflict, a key responsibility of the site manager will be to balance priorities in a manner that is appropriate to the site and the fragility of what remains there, and achieve consensus amongst interest groups. It is precisely situations such as this that a Conservation Management Plan should cover and keep under review.

Article 23.
The pressures of visitation should be managed in such a way that the meaning of the sites and the fragility of the resources are acknowledged and, where appropriate, protected. Access to battlefield terrain should be managed in relation to the size and vulnerability of the site. It may at times be appropriate to limit the nature, frequency or schedule of access to a battlefield, or portions thereof, in order to protect fragile features. Particular note should be taken of the looting of battlefields, especially its surface material with metal detectors.

Article 24.
The names given to battlefield sites should convey a sense of history, and promote visitor understanding and appropriate use. The term ‘park’, for example, suggests a recreational focus that may conflict with the appropriate conservation and presentation of battlefield terrain.

Article 25.
The interpretation of battlefields and battlefield terrain should be conducted with close regard to the terms of the Ename Charter for the Interpretation of Cultural Heritage Sites (www.enamecharter.org).

Visitor Understanding and Response

Article 26.
Presentation and interpretative methods and devices should seek to protect battlefield features by using solutions that simultaneously meet the goals of understanding, and minimize impact on the terrain, reducing clutter to a minimum. The use of new technologies that have no visual/physical impact on the landscape are to be particularly encouraged for public interpretation.

Article 27.
The presentation and interpretation of battlefields should include and make reference to the larger historic, cultural, political, social and physical contexts of the battle(s) which occurred there, including the wider landscape and ‘setting’.

Article 28.
Presentation and interpretation should also assist visitors to appreciate the value of the battlefield terrain and minimize their impact on it.

Articles 29 and 30: To be drafted, referring to procedures for adoption and use, and for making amendments.

For more information

This document is a draft originally prepared in 2000 by Natalie Bull (Heritage Conservation Program) and David Panton (Veterans Affairs Canada). The draft was then revised and updated by John Schofield for ICOFORT (2009) with comments provided by: Nick Bridgland (English Heritage), John Carman (University of Birmingham), Graham Fairclough (English Heritage), Paul Gough (University of the West of England) and Nick Saunders (University of Bristol). For comments on this latest draft please contact:

Dr John Schofield
Vice President (ICOFORT)

University of York
Department of Archaeology
King’s Manor, Exhibition Square,
York, Yorkshire
YO1 7EP U.K.

Office: 011 44 1904 323968
Fax: (44) 1904 323902
Email: john.schofield@york.ac.uk