Page 1 of 76 Editors Nikita Moreira, Michael Derderian, Ashley Bissonnette Page 2 of 76 Table of Contents Methods in Conflict Archaeology: The Netherlands During the Napoleonic Era (1794-1815). Using Detector Finds to Shed Light on An Under-researched Period. Vincent van der Veen……………………………………………………………4 Revisiting the US military ‘Levels of War’ Model as a Conceptual Tool in Conflict Archaeology: A Case Study of WW2 Landscapes in Normandy, France. David G Passmore, David Capps-Tunwell, Stephan Harrison…………………18 A Decade of Community-Based Projects in the Pacific on WWII Conflict Sites Jennifer F. McKinnon and Toni L. Carrell……………………………………..36 Avocational Detectorists and Battlefield Research: Potential Data Biases Christopher T. Espenshade……………………………………………………..43 Maritime Conflict Archaeology: Battle of the Java Sea: Past and Present Conflicts Robert de Hoop and Martijn Manders………………………………………….50 A Battleship in the Wilderness: The Story of the Chippewa and Lake Ontario’s Forgotten War of 1812 Naval Shipyard* Timothy J. Abel………………………………………………………………...63 Page 3 of 76 Methods in Conflict Archaeology The Netherlands during the Napoleonic Era (1794-1815). Using detector finds to shed light on an under-researched period. Vincent van der Veen1 1. Portable Antiquities of the Netherlands, VU University Amsterdam, Faculty of Humanities, Department of Archaeology, Classics and Near Eastern Studies. Email: v2.vander.veen@vu.nl INTRODUCTION This contribution argues that studying detector finds from private collections can help to shed light on a period that has received little attention from Dutch archaeologists, the Napoleonic Era. It further argues that by studying these private finds we can start to formulate research questions that are national, rather than local or regional, in scope. First a brief summary is given of the main historical events during the French occupation of the Netherlands. This is followed by an overview of the key aspects of the Dutch heritage system, the role played therein by amateur archaeologists and metal detectorists, and the databases that exist to record their finds for academic research and heritage purposes. After this three case studies are presented that demonstrate how private finds have proved vital in the interpretation of two camps and the garrison of a fortified town. Finally, some preliminary results are presented of an ongoing project to map the nationwide distribution of Napoleonic military buttons in an attempt to trace troop movements. THE NETHERLANDS DURING THE NAPOLEONIC ERA In 1793 revolutionary France declared war on the Dutch Republic and its ally Great Britain. General Charles-François Dumouriez was tasked to conquer the Republic, aided by Dutch volunteers lead by Herman Willem Daendels. After some initial victories the Dutch and British forces managed to halt the invading French army and the campaign was abandoned (Sanders 2002, 16). In 1794 General Jean-Charles Pichegru with his Armée du Nord made a second attempt. Defeating the combined Dutch-British forces again proved difficult, especially as Pichegru’s advance was severely hindered by the rivers Meuse, Waal and Rhine. In the end he was aided by a particularly cold winter which caused the rivers to freeze over, allowing his army to cross and conquer the northern part of the Republic (Amsenga & Dekkers 2004, 23). The Dutch Republic was quickly turned into a client state of France, first as the Batavian Republic (1795-1801) and later as the Batavian Commonwealth (1801-1806). The Republic kept its own army, but was also forced to finance a French occupational force (Van der Spek 2016, 38; Gabriëls 2003, 159). During this time the Republic was twice invaded by Britain in an attempt to remove the pro-French government and drive out the French forces. The first occasion was the Anglo-Russian invasion of Holland of 1799, the second the British invasion of Walcheren of 1809 (figure 1). On both occasions the Dutch now fought alongside the French against their former ally. Both times the invading army was repelled. From 1806 the country was be ruled by Napoleon’s brother, Louis Napoleon Bonaparte, as the Kingdom of Holland, before it was annexed into the French Empire in 1810. In 1810 and 1811 again there Page 4 of 76 were small-scale British landings along the Dutch coast. These, however, were performed mainly to cause unrest and to bind Dutch and French troops to a particular region, not with the intent to drive out the French completely (Van der Spek 2016, 258-259). In 1813 the Netherlands regained their independence and the last troops left the eastern part of the country the following year. Alliances changed and in 1815 the Dutch and Belgian troops at Waterloo fought against Napoleon as part of Wellington’s army. Figure 1: Map of the Netherlands with locations and events mentioned in the text. Source: author. THE NAPOLEONIC ERA IN DUTCH ARCHAEOLOGY The Napoleonic Era from an archaeological perspective is a little studied period, at least in the Netherlands. A welcome recent exception is the excavation of Camp d’Utrecht (figure 1).1 This camp near the village of Austerlitz, named after the location of Napoleon’s famous 1805 victory in modern-day Czechia, from 1804 to 1808 housed around 18.000 French and Dutch troops. Usually, however, when features or finds from the Napoleonic Era are mentioned in site reports, they are a side note rather than the main topic. An example is the discovery of a small French temporary camp near Haelen during an excavation aimed at finds from prehistory and the Roman period (Schutte 2016). When finds from the Napoleonic Era are the main topic of a site report, they are generally chance finds. One such chance find is a mass grave at ’s-Hertogenbosch (figure 1) dated to 1794-1795 (Genabeek et. al. 2016). In the grave, discovered during the relocation of a tree, the bodies of 67 French soldiers were found. The discovery garnered a fair bit of media attention and a bilingual Dutch and French plaque was placed on the spot to commemorate the event. Other examples are a number of individual graves in the northern part of the province of Noord-Holland (figure 1) associated with the Anglo-Russian invasion of Holland in 1799 (E.g. Schooneman 2014; Dautzenberg 2015). 1 At the time of writing three trial trench campaigns have been published (Veenstra 2014; Mooren 2015; Van Heeringen & Vissinga 2016). Analysis of a large scale excavation of the site is currently undergoing. Page 5 of 76 Whereas finds from the Napoleonic Era are seldom mentioned in site reports, they are uncovered on a regular basis by amateur metal detectorists. Their collections provide a large dataset that has yet to be mined. DUTCH HERITAGE ACT Prior to the Dutch Heritage Act of 1 July 2016 metal detection was the sole remit of professional archaeologists. Metal detection by private individuals officially was illegal, although this law was hardly ever enforced. In fact, private finds were incorporated into many academic studies and were even used in governmental heritage surveys. The 2016 Heritage Act has addressed this odd dichotomy between law and practice by making metal detection legal on a number of conditions. The first of these conditions is that digging is restricted to the top 30 cm of the soil. Due to bioturbation, agricultural use and building activities no intact archaeological features tend to remain in the topsoil. Detectorists thus do no harm to the archaeological record if they keep to this depth of 30 cm. Metal detection is prohibited on protected archaeological monuments and ongoing excavations. Individual municipalities can also forbid the use of metal detectors through a local by-law (Algemene Plaatselijke Verordening). The detectorist also needs to have permission from the landowner and should report his or her finds to the Cultural Heritage Agency (Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed) so they can be documented for research and heritage purposes. If the detectorist abides by these rules, the finds remain in his or her possession and they cannot be claimed by the state. If the finds represent a considerable monetary value, such as for instance a coin hoard, the law states that the finds, or the value thereof, must be split equally between the landowner and the finder. NATIONAL DATABASE: PORTABLE ANTIQUITIES OF THE NETHERLANDS In September 2016 a new project was launched specifically for the recording of detector finds from private collections: Portable Antiquities of the Netherlands (PAN). The project is coordinated by the VU University Amsterdam and is a network of Dutch universities, governmental organisations including the Cultural Heritage Agency, the Nederlandsche Bank (numismatists) and associations of volunteer archaeologists and metal detectorists. PAN has a staff of finds specialists and finds liaison officers (FLO’s) that travel to visit the detectorists to photograph and record their finds. The finds are then published in an online database (www.portable-antiquities.nl), so they are available for academic research, heritage purposes and for the general public to enjoy. All photographs can be used under the Creative Commons license and the website is fully bilingual (Dutch and English) to facilitate its use by both Dutch and international researchers. An important element of the website is the multi-level login. A regular visitor of the website can view all validated finds recorded in PAN and the municipality in which they were found. Exact find spots, however, are never published on the site, an important factor for many detectorists. Academic researchers can request access to the Science Portal to view the exact find spots, although they are not allowed to publish these in detail in their works. The aim of PAN is to record all metal finds in private collections up to circa AD 1600, although some exceptions are made for well-delimited and informative finds that are non-metal or younger than AD 1600. These exceptions include glass La Tène bracelets, ceramic sling bullets, post-medieval seal matrices and Napoleonic uniform buttons. The PAN database, however, is set up to be flexible so it can be expanded in future to also include other finds such as flint objects, pottery and younger (metal) finds. Page 6 of 76 CAMP D’EYNDOVEN, AALST-WAALRE (1800) Having addressed the way in which finds from private collections are incorporated into the Dutch heritage system, three case studies will be presented here that indicate how their study can further our understanding of the Napoleonic Era. The first of these is Camp d’Eyndoven at Aalst-Waalre near Eindhoven (figure 1 and 2). Figure 2: Lidar image of the camp at Aalst-Waalre. (1) rows of (cooking) pits; (2) deep pits, possibly watering places. Source: https://ahn.arcgisonline.nl/ahnviewer. In the year 1800 the Armée Gallo-Batave, consisting of 12.000 French and 5.000 Dutch (known then as Batavian) troops, was moved to Bavaria to join a larger French force. In November and December it would fight against the Austrian army near Aschaffenburg, Würzenburg and the citadel of Marienberg (Gabriëls 2003, 166). In preparation of this campaign, the Armée Gallo-Batave was temporarily stationed near Eindhoven for regrouping and training (Andreossy 1802, 22). According to Andreossy this was in the month of Messidor, which for the year 1800 corresponds to the period of 20 June to 19 July. Based on diary fragments and council bills the French and Dutch forces were probably stationed in two separate camps. Based on this information amateur detectorist A.M. van der Weide searched the area south of Eindhoven for several years until he found the location of what appears to be the French camp. The area was estimated to be roughly 500 x 500 m. Within this area Van der Weide found several large shallow pits of approximately 2 x 4 m and 25 cm deep (Verwers 1988, 166). From these pits he recovered a great many finds among which fragments of weaponry, musket balls, coins and uniform buttons (figure 3). After Van der Weide’s death the finds were donated by his widow to the municipality of Eindhoven in 2012. Here they were sorted and catalogued by volunteers and in 2013 I wrote my MA thesis on the subject (summarised in Van der Veen 2013 and 2014). Page 7 of 76 Figure 3: A small sample of the great many finds found at the camp at Aalst-Waalre. Top row: A flint-lock pistol and two French general service buttons (1792-1793 pattern). Bottom row, from left to right: buttons of the French 49th and 60th Line infantry demibrigades (1793-1803 pattern), a badge of the French 1st Battalion (1RBON), and a Dutch uniform button of the Batavian Republic (1795-1801/6 pattern). Source: author. The uniform buttons in particular would prove invaluable for the interpretation of the camp. A total of 168 uniform buttons were found, excluding plain ones. 77 of these belonged to the 49th demi-brigade d'infanterie de ligne (line infantry). All of these buttons were of a type produced from 1793 to 1803 (Fallou 1915, 83-85) and we know that after the 1803 army reforms the number 49 was no longer used (Smith 2000, 105). Andreossy gives a description of the composition of the Armée Gallo-Batave after the Battle of Hohenlinden of 3 December 1800. The Second Division of this army at that time included three battalions of the 49th demi-brigade (Andreossy 1802, 29-30). This makes it very likely that Van der Weide at Aalst-Waalre had found the location of the French camp. It should be noted, however, that after the Armée Gallo-Batave had been stationed at Aalst-Waalre the French branch of this army had been supplemented by seven new infantry battallions and 300 cavalry. The regimental numbers of these new battalions are not mentioned by Andreossy, so it is impossible to ascertain the exact composition of the army when at Aalst-Waalre. Among the 168 uniform buttons only a single button could be attributed to the Dutch army (figure 3). This is in line with the written sources that indicate that the French and Dutch forces were stationed in separate camps. Since writing my thesis new lidar (Light Detection and Ranging) images have become available that clearly show that some of the features of the camp are still preserved in the landscape (figure 2). A single row of what are possibly cooking pits shows that the camp was of the linear type common for the period (e.g. Austerlitz, see references above; Bussum (figure 4); see Roymans, Beex & Roymans 2017 for similar Dutch camps of the period directly following the Napoleonic Era). The row of pits can be followed for approximately 300 metres, but may have extended on either side as the areas to the northeast and southwest have been destroyed through modern development. CAMP DE NAARDEN, BUSSUM (1809) A second example is Camp de Naarden near Bussum (figure 1 and 4). The area locally had long been known as Fransche kamp (French camp), although the name was generally thought to refer to a camp dating to the years 1672-1673. Page 8 of 76 Analysing lidar images Bazelmans found several features including an approximately 1 kilometre long row of groups of four to five shallow pits with diameters of between five and six metres. Through test coring it was found that these pits were backfilled with the original podzol soil mixed with small charcoal flecks. The pits were thus interpreted as cooking pits (Bazelmans 2016, 14). Other features included the ramparts and ditch of a defensive structure measuring about 20 x 20 metres, likely the garde du camp, and possible watering places (Bazelmans 2016, 14). Figure 4: Lidar image of the camp at Bussum. (1) ramparts, garde du camp; (2) possible ramparts; (3) rows of (cooking) pits; 4 deep pits, possibly watering places. Source: https://ahn.arcgisonline.nl/ahnviewer with interpretations after Bazelmans 2016, 13. Local amateur archaeologists had previously conducted a field survey, during which metal detectors were also used. Among the finds were several elements of the Dutch military uniform as worn between 1806 and 1810: shako cap badges and buttons with the number ‘3’, a button with the number ‘4’ and a Dutch general service button (figure 5). Other finds included a screwdriver-like musket maintenance tool (figure 5), two lead casings for gun flints, a tin spoon and a French centime coin of the year 1795 (Bazelmans 15). These finds clearly contradicted the long-held assumption that the camp at Bussum dated to the period of 1672-1673. An examination of available written sources confirmed that the camp should in fact be dated in the Napoleonic Era, and more precisely the year 1809 (Bazelmans 2016, 17-18). At that time the Netherlands were ruled by Napoleon’s brother Louis Bonaparte as the Kingdom of Holland. Construction of the camp started around the end of May 1809 and in late July around 4350 Dutch troops were stationed there. These troops belonged to the Royal Guard (Garde van de Koning), the 2nd Regiment Hussars (Huzaren) and the 3rd Regiment Jagers. The previously mentioned shako cap badges and buttons can very likely be attributed to this last regiment. Most troops were hastily withdrawn on 30 July in response to the British invasion of Walcheren (figure 1). After this the camp was used by smaller units until it was finally disbanded on 12 September 1809. Page 9 of 76 Figure 5: A selection of the finds from the camp at Bussum. Musket maintenance tool, two shako cap badges and a uniform button likely of the Dutch 3rd Regiment Jagers, a button of the Dutch 4th Regiment and a Dutch general service button (1806-1810 pattern). Source: PAN. THE GARRISON OF THE FORTIFIED TOWN OF GRAVE The third case study deals with the Napoleonic uniform buttons found in the area surrounding the fortified town of Grave, located on the river Meuse (figure 1). Grave was besieged twice during the Napoleonic Era, first by the French and later by the Dutch. What makes this case study particularly interesting, however, is that the finds reflect the everyday activities of the town’s garrison in between these two sieges, not the composition of the armies during these two well-documented events. In 1793 French troops gathered in the area for the first time. On 7 March the French force was defeated near the villages of Beers and Linden, a few kilometres east of Grave, and withdrew (Sanders 2002, 16). On 22 September 1794 the vanguard of a larger French army arrived in the area, but withdrew again after a brief skirmish with about 50 cavalrymen from Grave. Then, on 14 October of the same year the French returned with a force of about 6,000. Grave was besieged for several months before the circa 1,580 strong defending force surrendered on 26 December (Van Hoof & Roozenbeek 1998, 53-55). From this moment on the town was almost continually manned by French and Dutch (Batavian) troops. After Napoleon’s defeat at Leipzig in October 1813 Dutch independence was restored and most of the Netherlands was evacuated by the French. The French occupying force at Grave, however, refused to leave. In mid-January 1814 this led to a second siege, this time by Dutch forces, which ended on 14 May when the circa 1,600 strong French defending force marched out of the town (Van Hoof & Roozenbeek 1998, 59-62). In total 226 Napoleonic uniform buttons were recorded from the area surrounding Grave, all but one from private collections. These 226 buttons could be divided into 14 types and 48 subtypes (for a full overview see Van der Veen 2017). Here some general remarks on the composition of the dataset will suffice. The main point is that, as said before, the finds reflect the everyday activities of the town’s garrison in between the welldocumented sieges and skirmishes, rather than these themselves. Page 10 of 76 Figure 6: Some examples of the button types mentioned in the text. (1) revolutionary buttons with fasces, Phrygian cap and caption République Française, 1792-1793; (2) buttons with regimental number and caption République Française, 1793-1803; (3) buttons with regimental number without caption, 1803-1814; (4) Navy, Equipage de Flotille, circa 1805; (5) Navy, 1809-1810; (6) Navy, Equipage de Hautbord, 1810-1814; (7-9) Gendarmerie buttons of the Département de la Roer, Département des Bouches de la Meuse and Département de L'Ems Occidental. Source: PAN. For example, only one button type, represented by 89 individuals, can perhaps be associated with the hostilities of 1793 and 1794. This is the revolutionary button type with fasces, Phrygian cap and caption République Française, produced from 1792 to 1793 (figure 6.1). As is explained in more detail in paragraph ten, however, due to large shortages in supply these buttons remained in use for years after they had officially been replaced. It is therefore likely that many of these buttons were lost well after the 1794 siege had ended. As explained at the end of paragraph nine, the find of a single button of a particular unit does not mean that that unit was ever there. Sufficient numbers are needed to make such claims when written sources are absent. At Grave buttons of two regiments are particularly well-represented, those of the French 56th (34 individuals) and the 54th (14 individuals) Line Infantry Regiments. From written sources we know that the 56th regiment formed part of the garrison of Grave from 1810 to 1814 (Geerts 2002, 195). As all buttons of the 56th regiment at Grave are of a type produced from 1803 and 1814 (number without caption, see figure 6.3), the find evidence corresponds nicely to the written sources. Based on the uniform buttons found near Grave it seems likely that troops of the 54th regiment were also present there. All but one of the buttons of the 54th regiment are of a type produced between 1793 and 1803 (number with caption République Française, see figure 6.2). Perhaps the unit was thus already present at Grave before 1810, when it was replaced or supplemented by the 56th regiment. When plotting the main battles of the 54th and 56th Line Infantry Regiments (figure 7), it becomes clear that Grave formed part of a complex web of troop movements that stretched across most of Europe. Page 11 of 76 Figure 7: Locations of the main battles of the French 54th and 56th Line Infantry Regiments with year. Source: author. NATION-WIDE DISTRIBUTION OF NAPOLEONIC UNIFORM BUTTONS The above three case studies all were regional in scale. The ongoing project presented below takes a nationwide approach. By mapping the distribution of Napoleonic uniform buttons it will be possible to reconstruct the location and movements of the various French and Dutch regiments that were present in the Netherlands. Historical sources can certainly help to trace such troop movements, especially for known battles or for army camps such as those discussed above. However, the Napoleonic Era spans a period of about 20 years and during most of this time the Netherlands were at peace. Less has been documented on the, possibly smaller-scale, troop movements during these prolonged stretches of peace. Mapping the distribution of uniform buttons can help to fill in these blank spots. It should be stressed, however, that the project is still on-going and that the results are only preliminary. The database currently contains 1,027 uniform buttons. Some of these buttons were published in excavation reports, but over 90% come from private finds (reported to PAN or directly to me). That in itself is clear evidence of the added value of private collections. Only buttons with regimental or other markings have been included, as undecorated buttons cannot be accurately dated or attributed to a particular army or regiment. Just over 1,000 uniform buttons may sounds like a fair amount. To put this into context, however, there were between 52 and 55 buttons on a standard French line infantry uniform (Cardon & Lemaire 2014, 83 and note 22). The French forces in the Netherlands in 1795 numbered 25,000 (Van der Spek 2016, 38; Gabriëls 2003, 159) and in 1810 14,000 (Van der Spek 2016, 259). Between 1795 and 1810 the size of the Dutch army varied from 22,000 to 37,000 men (Gabriëls 2003, 160). Assuming that the combined DutchFrench army in the Netherlands numbered somewhere around 50,000, this would mean that 50,000 x 55 = 2.75 million buttons ‘circulated’ in any given year. Of course this is only a broad estimate, but it should be clear that the 1,027 buttons currently in the database only represent a fraction of the total number of buttons lost over a period of 20 years. Page 12 of 76 Figure 8: Distribution of all Napoleonic uniform buttons in the database up to June 2018. Source: author. It should be clear that more data is needed, both to get a more representative sample and to get a better nationwide coverage (figure 8). The distribution now clusters to a large extent in the southeast part of the Netherlands which corresponds to my work area as a PAN finds liaison officer. Other large concentrations are the previously mentioned camps at Austerlitz and Aalst-Waalre. There is also a large concentration in the northern tip of the province of Noord-Holland, the location of the 1799 Anglo-Russian invasion of Holland (figure 1). Manoeuvring and heavy fighting explain the relatively high number of early button types found here. After the invasion was suppressed, the area was fortified to prevent any new invasions, explaining the presence of button types postdating 1799. Another important factor is that local metal detectorists have taken a keen interest in the period. Several articles have been written on what is locally known as the ‘forgotten war of 1799’ and local museums frequently have exhibitions on the subject. In areas where Roman and medieval finds are more readily available, Napoleonic finds tend to be less coveted and less often reported. Before turning to some preliminary results one more thing needs to be addressed: the matter of secondary deposition. After the Napoleonic Era many old uniforms were probably recycled. The textiles could be used in the paper industry and the copper alloy buttons could have been melted down or simply discarded. A single button therefore does not equal the presence of a regiment, nor a handful buttons the location of a battle or camp. Nonetheless, if the numbers are sufficient, it is possible to discern broad patterns. PRELIMINARY RESULTS The 1,027 buttons currently in the database can be divided into 32 types and 166 subtypes. Of the 32, three types form almost 80% of the dataset (Table 1). The most common, both in absolute numbers and per year of production, is the type with revolutionary symbolism including a fasces, Phrygian cap and the caption République Française (figure 6.1). This is somewhat odd, as this button was only produced from 1792 to 1793 and thus was officially already Page 13 of 76 obsolete before the Netherlands were conquered in 1794 (Fallou 1915, 82). Due to large shortages in supply, however, these buttons could remain in use for years after they had officially been replaced. Such revolutionary buttons have in fact been found in great quantities in the camp at Aalst-Waalre (1800) and, in fewer quantities, at the camps at Austerlitz (1804-1808; Mooren 2015, 53). Finds from Eastern Europe and Russia show that they were occasionally still worn during the Russian campaign of 1812 (Korolev 2014, 98). As these buttons are the oldest in the dataset, they simply have had more time to end up in the soil. Furthermore, as they were worn by all branches of the army (Fallou 1915, 82), they were produced in greater quantities than buttons worn only by individual branches such as the cavalry or light infantry. The second and third most common button types were produced for almost the same length of time, yet there is a distinct difference in their numbers (table 1). Buttons with a regimental number and no caption (figure 6.3) occur twice as often as those with the caption République Française (figure 6.2). This may in part be explained by the fact that the former were worn by both the line infantry and the cavalry (Fallou 1915, 8688), while the latter were only worn by the line infantry (Fallou 1915, 83-85). Table 1: The three most common button types in the database ordered chronologically with their production dates, number and number expressed per year of production. Type Production date N N per year Fasces, Phrygian cap and République Française 1792-1793 384 384.0 Regimental number with République Française 1793-1803 138 13.8 Regimental number without caption 1803-1814 290 26.4 When looking into the distribution of the buttons, one pattern is starting to emerge. Navy buttons are on occasion found far from the sea (figure 9). In some instances they are found near the main rivers and can perhaps be linked to inland shipping. However, navy buttons are sometimes also found much further inland, far from any river. The number of navy buttons in the database is still fairly small, only 40 in total, and the current pattern is thus somewhat susceptible to distortion from secondary use or post depositional processes. However, there is historical evidence that in January 1814 French navy personnel was transferred to supplement the army (Smith 2000, 304). By then, most of the Netherlands had already been vacated by the French, but perhaps such transfers of navy personnel to the army had also taken place in earlier years. Page 14 of 76 Figure 9: Distribution of all types of French and Dutch (Batavian) navy buttons. Source: author CONCLUSION Hopefully this contribution has shown how the analysis of detector finds from private collections can further our understanding of the day-to-day activities of the Napoleonic armies. Uniform buttons in particular are very useful in this, as these often feature regimental or other markings that can be attributed to a particular army or regiment. In this paper two levels of research are presented: a local/regional and a national level. As the three case studies showed, analysis on a local/regional level greatly benefits from a combination with other sources of information such as written records and lidar images. This combination of sources proved vital for the interpretation of these sites. Although the results of the nationwide study are only preliminary, these seem to indicate that more is possible than simply showing that a particular regiment visited a particular location. The distribution of navy buttons as presented in paragraph 10, for example, might be evidence for the habit of supplementing army units with navy personnel. Although a bit premature, it might also be interesting in future to expand the scope even further to an international level. Korolev 2014 could be regarded as a first attempt at this, as it deals with the Russian campaign of 1812 and thus covers multiple countries. However, the book does not give the find spots of the great many finds illustrated therein and so does not achieve its full potential. For the moment, the preliminary results of the nationwide study seem promising. In this manner it will be possible to shed a new light on a period that, from an archaeological perspective, has so far received little attention. Page 15 of 76 REFERENCES Amsenga, J. & Dekkers, G. 2004. 'Wat nu?', zei Pichegru. De Franse Tijd in Nederland, 1795-1813. Hilversum: Verloren (Verloren Verleden 23). Andreossy, A.F. 1802. Campagne sur le Mein et la Rednitz de l'Armée Gallo-Batave aux Ordres de Général Augereau; Primaires, Nivoses et Pluviose an IX (1800 ct 1801). Paris: Barrois. Bazelmans, J. 2016. Het AHN2 en het raadsel van het toponiem Bussum-Fransche Kamp. Archeologica Naerdincklant Archeologisch Tijdschrift voor het Gooi en Omstreken 2016(1), 11-23. Cardon, T., & Lemaire, F. 2014. Les sous des soldats de Napoléon au camp de Boulogne (1803-1805). Étude des monnaies issues des fouilles des camps napoléoniens d’Étaples-sur-Mer et Camiers (Pas-deCalais, France). The Journal of Archaeological Numismatics 4, 67-176. Dautzenberg, S. 2015. Schagen-Callantsoog. Duingebied. De Archeologische Kroniek van Noord-Holland 2014, 85-6. Fallou, L. 1915. Le bouton uniforme Français. De L’Ancien-Regime á Fin Julliet 1914. Colombes: La Giberne. Gabriëls, J. 2003. Een klein land in het nauw (1763-1815). Tussen Groot-Brittannië en Frankrijk. De landstrijdkrachten van een onmachtige mogendheid. In J.R. Bruijn & C.B. Wels (eds.), Met Man en Macht. De Militaire Geschiedenis van Nederland 1550-2000 (143-178). Amsterdam: Balans. Geerts, G.A. 2002. Samenwerking en confrontatie. De Frans-Nederlandse militaire betrekkingen, voornamelijk in de Franse Tijd. Amsterdam: De Bataafsche Leeuw. Korolev, A. 2014. The Great Retreat. Napoleon’s Grande Armée in Russia. The Contingents and the Artefacts. London: Unicorn Press. Mooren, J.R. 2015. Austerlitz, Franse kamp. Een Legerkamp uit de Napoleontische Tijd. Inventariserend Veldonderzoek door middel van Proefsleuven. ’s-Hertogenbosch: Bouwhistorie, Archeologie, Architectuurhistorie en Cultuurhistorie (BAAC rapport A-15.0038). Roymans, N., Beex, B. & Roymans, J. 2017: Some Napoleonic-style army camps from the period of the Dutch-Belgian separation (1830–1839) in the Southern Netherlands. Journal of Conflict Archaeology, 12(2), 75-93 Sanders, J.G.M. (ed.). 2002. Noord-Brabant in de Bataafs-Franse tijd, 1794-1814. Een Institutionele Handleiding. Hilversum: Verloren. Schooneman, M. 2014. Een vergeten oorlog. Engelse en Russische soldaat uit 1799, Archeobrief 18(3), 8-13. Schutte, A.H. 2006. Haelen Windmolenbos, Vindplaats 2. Een Archeologische Opgraving. Amersfoort: Archeologisch Diensten Centrum (ADC rapport 531). Smith, D. 2000. Napoleon’s Regiments. Battle Histories of the Regiments of the French Army, 1792-1815. London: Greenhill Books. Van der Spek, C. 2016. Sous les Armes. Het Hollandse Leger in de Franse tijd 1806-1814. Amsterdam: Boom. Van der Veen, V. 2013. De archeologie van een Frans legerkamp, Archeobrief 17(4), 8-12. Van der Veen, V. 2014. “Au camp d’Eyndoven”. Archeologie en geschiedenis van een Frans legerkamp, Armamentaria. Jaarboek Nationaal Militair Museum 49, 84-101. Page 16 of 76 Van der Veen, V. 2017. Franse uniformknopen uit de vestingstad Grave. Detectorvondsten vertellen over dagelijkse militaire activiteiten, Archeologie in Nederland 1(5), 34-39. Van Genabeek, R.J.M., van der Linde, C., Kootker, L.M. & Buiks, J. 2016. ’s-Hertogenbosch Bastion Baselaar. Opgraving van een Massagraf van Franse soldaten uit 1794 en 1795. ’s-Hertogenbosch: Afdeling Erfgoed ’s-Hertogenbosch. Van Heeringen, R.M., & Vissinga, A. 2016. Archeologisch Vooronderzoek in het Oostelijk Deel van het Camp d’Utrecht, een Frans Legerkamp uit de Periode van het Bataafs Gemenebest in Austerlitz. Een Inventariserend Veldonderzoek in de Vorm van Proefsleuven en Verkennende Boringen tussen Hubertweg 31 en Kamperlinie (Dorpsplan Austerlitz), Gemeente Zeist. Amersfoort: Vestigia (Vestigia rapport V1359). Van Hoof, J.P.C.M. & Roozenbeek, H. 1998. Grave als militaire stad. The Hague: Sectie Militaire Geschiedenis Koninklijke Landmacht (Brochure Reeks Nummer 19). Veenstra, M.E. 2014. Austerlitz Franse Kamp. Inventariserend Veldonderzoek door middel van Proefsleuven (IVO-P). ’s-Hertogenbosch: Bouwhistorie, Archeologie, Architectuurhistorie en Cultuurhistorie (BAAC rapport A-13.0248). Verwers, W.J.H. 1988. Noord-Brabant. Waalre. Jaarverslag van de Rijksdienst voor het Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek 1987, 166. Page 17 of 76 Page 76 of 76