Artefacts From The battlefield

Anzac Battlefield A Gallipoli landscape of war and memory Anzac Battlefield explores the transformation of Gallipoli’s landscape in antiquity, during the famed battles of the First World War, and in the present day. Drawing on archival, archaeological and cartographic material, this book unearths the deep history of the Gallipoli peninsula and sets the Gallipoli campaign in a broader cultural and historical context. The opening chapters explore the physical landscape of the Gallipoli peninsula and the history of the Dardanelles waterway. This is followed by an examination of trench warfare, military engineering and what remains of the Anzac battlefield. The book presents the results of an original archaeological survey, the research for which was supported by the Australian, New Zealand and Turkish governments. The survey examines materials from both sides of the battlefield, and sheds new light on the environment in which Anzac and Turkish soldiers endured the conflict. The closing chapters trace the transition of Anzac from battlefield to cemetery and connect past and present through accounts of the evolution of Turkish and Anzac commemoration. Richly illustrated with both Ottoman and Anzac archival images and maps, as well as original maps and photographs of the landscape and archaeological findings, Anzac Battlefield is an important contribution to our understanding of Gallipoli and its landscape of war and memory. Antonio Sagona is Professor of Archaeology at the University of Melbourne. Mithat Atabay is Professor of Modern History at Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University. C. J. Mackie is Professor of Greek Studies at La Trobe University. Ian McGibbon was General Editor (War History) at the Ministry for Culture and Heritage in Wellington, New Zealand. Richard Reid was a historian with the Department of Veterans’ Affairs. Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Columbia University Libraries, on 02 Jun 2017 at 21:27:43, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316278291 Anzac Battlefield A GALLIPOLI LANDSCAPE OF WAR AND MEMORY Edited by Antonio Sagona, Mithat Atabay, C.J. Mackie, Ian McGibbon and Richard Reid iii Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Columbia University Libraries, on 02 Jun 2017 at 21:27:43, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316278291 477 Williamstown Road, Port Melbourne, VIC 3207, Australia Cambridge University Press is part of the University of Cambridge. It furthers the University’s mission by disseminating knowledge in the pursuit of education, learning and research at the highest international levels of excellence. www.cambridge.org Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9781107111745 © Department of Veterans’ Affairs 2016 This publication is copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published 2016 Cover designed by Adrian Saunders Typeset by Integra Software Services Pvt Ltd Printed in China by C & C Offset Printing Co. Ltd A catalogue record for this publication is available from the British Library A Cataloguing-in-Publication entry is available from the catalogue of the National Library of Australia at www.nla.gov.au ISBN 978-1-107-11174-5 Hardback Reproduction and communication for educational purposes The Australian Copyright Act 1968 (the Act) allows a maximum of one chapter or 10% of the pages of this work, whichever is the greater, to be reproduced and/or communicated by any educational institution for its educational purposes provided that the educational institution (or the body that administers it) has given a remuneration notice to Copyright Agency Limited (CAL) under the Act. For details of the CAL licence for educational institutions contact: Copyright Agency Limited Level 15, 233 Castlereagh Street Sydney NSW 2000 Telephone: (02) 9394 7600 Facsimile: (02) 9394 7601 E-mail: [email protected] Reproduction and communication for other purposes Except as permitted under the Act (for example a fair dealing for the purposes of study, research, criticism or review) no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, communicated or transmitted in any form or by any means without prior written permission. All inquiries should be made to the publisher at the address above. Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this publication and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate. Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Columbia University Libraries, on 02 Jun 2017 at 21:27:43, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316278291 Foreword After perhaps all great wars – certainly after all modern ones – soldiers and relatives and, later, interested visitors have flowed to the battlefields; and one’s mind could see Anzac, the most striking battlefield of that war, being the goal of pilgrimages from Britain and the Anzac countries … Here was a battlefield in which, though the trenches could not be preserved – as was being done in some parts of France – the graves themselves would mark the front line and even the farthest lines reached in the struggle, so heroic on both sides. Bean, Gallipoli Mission, pp. 327–8. With much foresight, in his book Gallipoli Mission, Australian official historian Charles Bean predicted the intense level of interest the Anzac area would attract after the war. Gallipoli has indeed become a site of pilgrimage, particularly in recent years. A century removed from the campaign, all who served have now passed, but relatives, descendants and other interested visitors retain a strong sense of connection with this battlefield. As Bean suggested, the cemeteries are markers to all visitors, showing the extent of the front line. They are also a visual reminder of the loss of so many. The epitaphs, too, tell us something of the deep grief for families at home, a grief that is no longer raw but is still remembered. Those who visit are inevitably drawn to the cemeteries, but the Anzac battlefield, arguably the best preserved First World War battleground, holds many more stories in the traces that remain in the dense landscape of the ridgelines and scarps. Anzac Battlefield is the outcome of the first tri-national, interdisciplinary survey (not excavation) of the Anzac area using modern archaeological techniques. It is an effort to document what remains on the surface at Anzac a century on. Drawing on five years (2010–14) of meticulous research, the past and present combine in this book to give us a picture of Gallipoli in its ancient context, as a battlefield in 1915, through its development into a commemorative site, and as a site of significance today. The book provides new insights into Gallipoli through an examination of the battlefield itself as both a constructed and a symbolic space. The Joint Historical and Archaeological Survey (JHAS), which informed the research for this book, originated in 2005 when the then prime ministers of Turkey, Australia and subsequently New Zealand agreed to an in-depth study of the Anzac area. The decision was an outcome of a 2005 Senate enquiry in Australia, chaired by Senator Michael Forshaw, which recommended that there be ‘a full military–historical audit of the entire battlefield area at Gallipoli, with Australian priority for the ANZAC area’.1 The aim of the survey was to provide a clear basis for balancing development plans for 1 Senate Finance and Public Administration References Committee, Matters Relating to the Gallipoli Peninsula, p. xxix. v Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Columbia University Libraries, on 02 Jun 2017 at 21:27:20, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316278291.001 Foreword the Gallipoli Historical National Park (now the Gallipoli Campaign Historical Site) with the preservation of key sites. In the years since, the survey has evolved to shed light on much more than originally scoped. Not only has it provided insight into what remains at Anzac but it also shed new light on how the battlefield was constructed and how those who served on it lived. In December 2005, following the decision to commission the survey, the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, Canberra, wrote to 15 universities and two archaeological associations seeking expressions of interest from suitably qualified archaeologists who could lead such a survey. The Department received a number of strong submissions. On 6 March 2006 a proposal by Professors Antonio Sagona and Christopher Mackie from the University of Melbourne was selected. Combined, their skills and experience demonstrated a deep understanding of the Gallipoli Peninsula in its modern and ancient context and the ability to complete sensitively and thoroughly an archaeological survey in a place that has come to mean so much to Australia, New Zealand and Turkey. Ultimately the JHAS team would come to include members from Australia, New Zealand and Turkey, comprising up to 15 members in any one year. The complete complement of JHAS team members possessed an impressive array of skills (see Contributors, p. xvii). Australian and New Zealand historians and Gallipoli specialists Dr Richard Reid and Dr Ian McGibbon were appointed to provide the necessary historical knowledge of the Gallipoli Campaign to inform the survey. Dr Jessie Birkett-Rees, a graduate of the University of Melbourne, now based at Monash University, joined the team with expertise in Geographic Information System database management and conflict archaeology. Australian postgraduate students have also played an invaluable role in the fieldwork. Sarah Midford, Michelle Negus-Cleary and Abby Robinson have each contributed great skill, knowledge and enthusiasm to the project. As the survey progressed, Mr Cliff Olgebly and Dr Guillermo Narsillio, both of the University of Melbourne, joined the team to offer expertise in ground-penetrating radar. At the request of the Turkish Government, a military representative was also appointed to the team. Rear Admiral Simon Harrington served in the Royal Australian Navy (RAN) for 39 years. During his naval career he represented Australia as Head of Australian Defence Staff Washington and Defence Attaché and served two years as Support Commander – Navy. Following his retirement from the RAN, Rear Admiral Harrington was appointed as the Repatriation Commissioner for the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, and it was while working in this role that he was appointed to the JHAS team. The most important step in the creation of the team was the appointment of Turkish historians and archaeologists from 18 March University/Onsekiz Mart Üniversitesi in Çanakkale. Professor Mithat Atabay and Associate Professors Muhammet Erat and Reyhan Körpe provided expertise on conflict archaeology, the classical context and the Gallipoli Campaign from a Turkish perspective. The inclusion of experts from Turkey has ensured that the research and fieldwork has had a truly trilateral focus. After some initial delays, the team was ready to be deployed in 2009. The Australian and New Zealand team members first met Turkish members of the team in Çanakkale, Turkey, in October 2009. At this meeting, the team members agreed to a study scope and timeframes for the project. A key aspect of the agreed scope was that the survey would be restricted to the Anzac Area as defined in Map 3 attached to the Treaty of vi Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Columbia University Libraries, on 02 Jun 2017 at 21:27:20, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316278291.001 Foreword Lausanne. The first season of fieldwork was undertaken in October 2010. This successful season was followed by four more, each conducted in September. What the survey, and this book, documents and describes is how, where and, to some extent, why the intense activity of creating earthworks – trenches, tunnels, saps, dugouts and other features – an underground architecture of war – took place. The story told in this book places Gallipoli in its historic context, but it also leads the way for the future of Anzac. With the information gathered by the JHAS team, the visitors who explore Gallipoli during the next century will have a better understanding of what remains at the Anzac battlefield and how it connects with the campaign of 1915. Readers will see the tunnels, trench lines, dugouts and artefacts anew. The history of the battlefield, how it was constructed, its ancient past and the stories of those who served will come together for the reader as one evocative whole. This book is a tribute to those who served and a promise that our commitment to understanding and preserving the battlefield will continue beyond 2015. Tim Evans Department of Veterans’ Affairs Canberra vii Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Columbia University Libraries, on 02 Jun 2017 at 21:27:20, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316278291.001 Contents Foreword by Tim Evans Figures Plates Contributors Acknowledgements Abbreviations Gallipoli battlefield place names Introduction page v xi xiii xvii xix xxi xxiii 1 Antonio Sagona and C.J. Mackie 1 Boundary and divide: The antiquity of the Dardanelles 4 C.J. Mackie, Mithat Atabay, Reyhan Körpe and Antonio Sagona 2 The Gallipoli campaign: History and legend 3 Recording the battlefield: First steps 24 Sarah Midford, Ian McGibbon, C.J. Mackie and Reyhan Körpe 36 Richard Reid, Mithat Atabay, Reyhan Körpe and Muhammet Erat 4 Capturing the battlefield: Mapping and air photography at Gallipoli 59 Jessie Birkett-Rees 5 Battlefield archaeology: Gallipoli 83 Antonio Sagona and Jessie Birkett-Rees 6 Forming the ANZAC battlefield 98 Ian McGibbon and Richard Reid 7 Forming the Ottoman battlefield 138 Mithat Atabay, Reyhan Körpe and Muhammet Erat 8 Artefacts from the battlefield 159 Antonio Sagona, Jessie Birkett-Rees, Michelle Negus Cleary, Simon Harrington, Mithat Atabay, Reyhan Körpe and Muhammet Erat 9 Remembering Gallipoli 192 Richard Reid, Ian McGibbon and Sarah Midford 10 Remembering Gallipoli from a Turkish perspective 222 Mithat Atabay, Reyhan Körpe and Muhammet Erat Conclusion 244 Richard Reid, C.J. Mackie and Antonio Sagona Appendix: Anzac Gallipoli Archaeological Database 246 Michelle Negus Cleary, Sarah Midford, Antonio Sagona, Jessie Birkett-Rees, Abby Robinson and Simon Harrington References Index 251 261 ix Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Columbia University Libraries, on 02 Jun 2017 at 21:27:35, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316278291 8 Artefacts from the battlefield ANTONIO SAGONA, JESSIE BIRKETT-REES, MICHELLE NEGUS CLEARY, SIMON HARRINGTON, MITHAT ATABAY, REYHAN KÖRPE AND MUHAMMET ERAT Material culture does not just exist. It is made by someone. It is produced to do something. Therefore it does not passively reflect society – rather, it creates society through the action of individuals. Hodder & Hutson, READING THE PAST, p. 6. The things humankind makes and uses at any particular time and place are probably the truest representation we have of values and meaning within a society. Kingery, LEARNING FROM THINGS, p. ix. We live in a world of material things. Objects that we have manufactured (artefacts) and structures that we have built envelope our daily existence. They constitute the tangible and tactile expressions of our contemporary society, as they did for all past human communities. As such, artefacts reveal much about our thoughts and our actions. They inform on our preferences and purchasing power, our cultural affiliations and travels, and our stage of life and gender. In other words, artefacts have the potential to group people with something in common.1 Artefacts fill museums around the world, and together with standing monuments, they form a major component of the public face of archaeology. The rationale behind the study of artefacts in archaeology, then, can be easily understood. As objects made and used by people, they play a central role in a discipline that is concerned with material culture and how it can be utilised to make sense of human behaviour and achievements. How far we can approach the ‘true’ meaning of material culture has been much debated, and need not detain us here.2 Suffice to say that, as evidence from the past, 1 2 MacGregor, A History of the World in 100 Objects; Pedersen, ANZAC Treasures. Hodder, Reading the Past; Barrett, Fragments from Antiquity; Miller, The Comfort of Things, and Stuff. 159 Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Columbia University Libraries, on 02 Jun 2017 at 21:11:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316278291.011 Anzac Battlefield objects are worthy of study in themselves. For many, though, artefacts are seen as ‘fossils’: static and mute expressions of past actions, which are often displayed in serried ranks in a museum. This method is of limited value, for it obscures the cultural biography of an archaeological object, which has its own history of creation, use, deposition, post-deposition and recovery. We explained our project’s recovery system in chapter 5. Here we touch on the first three stages of the lifecycle of the JHAS artefacts, although not with the same level of attention. Detailing the history of an object is not an easy task, as much of its biography is lost by the time it is found. At the basic level, the most perceptible features of an object are its visual characteristics such as shape, material, colour and decoration. The context of an object (its provenance) also adds much to our understanding, especially with regard to its final usage. In recent decades, the study of artefacts has advanced greatly through the application of a suite of sophisticated scientific techniques, which have been used to examine the physical and chemical constituents of material culture. These ‘fingerprints’ have provided new insights into an artefact’s lifecycle and in many instances have caused a re-evaluation of archaeology’s interpretative frameworks. In our project we have not seen it as a necessary prerequisite to have the artefacts we collected analysed using these new laboratory methods, as much is already known about their manufacture. The JHAS objects, then, like the vast majority of archaeological objects found in any project, have been studied using the conventional technique of visual analysis. Even so, we have attempted to interpret them within the tenets of anthropological archaeology and provide their stories under five key themes. As table 8.1 shows, in the course of five field seasons we found 1241 artefacts, which can be grouped into 13 types. Not surprisingly, the largest quantity belongs to ordnance (33.3 per cent), followed by metal containers (13.5 per cent) and ceramic sherds (11.6 per cent). Looking at these artefact data another way (table 8.2), by the material from which they are made, metal is by far and away the most abundant (71.90 per cent of the total), followed by ceramics (21.25 per cent), then glass (8.55 per cent). Table 8.1 Artefact types: numbers and percentages of artefacts by type Artefact types ANZAC areas Artefact scatter Turkish areas Total Percentage 4 4 8 0.6 45 27 72 5.8 7 38 45 3.6 Ceramic sherd 109 35 144 11.6 Glass fragment 74 29 103 8.3 Barbed wire Bricks Lithic 3 1 4 0.3 Metal container 146 21 167 13.5 Metal fragment 88 37 125 10.1 Ordnance 198 215 413 33.3 Personal item 15 7 22 1.8 Tile 40 32 72 5.8 Utility item 55 10 65 5.2 1 0 1 0.1 785 456 1241 99.4 Other Total artefacts Source: JHAS surveys, 2010–14 160 Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Columbia University Libraries, on 02 Jun 2017 at 21:11:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316278291.011 Artefacts from the battlefield Table 8.2 Artefact materials: number and percentages of artefacts by material Artefact material Ceramic Total ANZAC areas Turkish areas 266 21.25 158 3 0.24 1 2 107 8.55 76 31 Concrete Glass Percentage Leather 108 1 0.08 1 0 Metal 863 71.90 545 318 Stone 6 0.48 4 2 Textile 6 0.48 6 0 1252* 103* 791 461 Total artefacts * A few artefacts comprised more than one material and were therefore counted more than once. Source: JHAS surveys, 2010–14 In the pages that follow, however, the artefacts are discussed according to themes, mostly functional, as this provides the best approach to understanding activities and behaviour on the battleground. BARBED WIRE AND BRICKS Barbed wire is an iconic barrier. While it can serve a multitude of functions – as a palpable boundary between nations, as the physical expression of property rights, and as a device to control movement, for instance – its ultimate purpose is to divide and shape a landscape. In warfare, entanglements of barbed wire stand as a metaphor for the brutality of conflict. Yet barbed wire was invented in response to economic necessity a generation before the First World War. As American settlers, mostly farmer pioneers, moved from the wooded Atlantic seaboard to the plains and the south-west, the need for suitable fencing to contain cattle in this vast open land became critical. Timber and stone were in plentiful supply in the east, but the often-treeless tablelands of the frontier posed a problem. In response, by the mid-nineteenth century, stock-breeders were experimenting with wire, culminating in 1874 with the patent of barbed wire by Joseph Farwell Glidden. His seemingly simple idea of twisting together two strands of wire with barbs crimped a few inches apart not only irrevocably changed the face of the American frontier by controlling vast amounts of space but also would soon fundamentally alter military tactics.3 By the First World War, barbed wire had become a core item along the front line of defence, developing in tandem with trench warfare. The wire had also evolved, with more barbs now placed closer together, thereby increasing its harm. On the battlefield, entanglements of barbed wire were used with sandbags to protect the front lines.4 Our survey recorded two types of barbed wire (plate 8.1). One, issued by the British Army, has two strands of wire, twisted to form a double-helix, compartmentalised by clusters 3 4 McCallum & McCallum, The Wire that Fenced the West; Razac, Barbed Wire; Liu, Barbed Wire. For catalogues, see Campbell & Allison, Barriers, and Hagemeier, Barbed Wire Identification Encyclopedia. See AWM 4 Australian Imperial Force unit war diaries, 1914–18 War, Engineers, Item No 14/22/14 Part 2, 3rd Field Company, Australian Engineers, September 1915, p. 11. 161 Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Columbia University Libraries, on 02 Jun 2017 at 21:11:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316278291.011 Anzac Battlefield of four barbs. The Ottoman army, on the other hand, rolled out German barbed wire, which has a single, thick and twisted strand, around which four to six long barbs are secured at irregular intervals. Seventy segments of barbed wire varying in length from a few centimetres to well over a metre were documented in 10 zones of the battlefield. By far the greatest number, mostly the British double-helix type, were found along front-line positions at Holly Ridge. German wire, on the other hand, predominated at German Officers’ Ridge, Turkish Quinn’s and the Nek. The importance of barbed wire is noted in several Ottoman and German diaries. As early as the Balkan Wars, Mustafa Kemal, in charge of preparing the battle plans for the Mediterranean Strait (Dardanelles Strait) Forces Command, carefully examined the topography and military characteristics of the Gallipoli Peninsula as part of his duties.5 He reflected at length on defensive arrangements, of which barbed wire was an integral part. Three days before the initial landing, Şefik Bey ordered the 27th Regiment to work night and day in order to finish the barbed wire installations at Kabatepe: ‘The Battalion and Military Engineering commanders shall attach much importance to the fact that wire fence stakes shall be covered with green bushes not completely visible to enemy eyes and that the said stakes should be driven in deep and the wires should not be left loose and tied crosswise from top and down irregularly, which would allow passing beneath.’6 The need for barbed wire at the Dardanelles Front could not be met; tools were also in short supply. ‘We had to make shelters with the lumbers recovered from collapsed houses or houses from evacuated villages, and entanglements from fences,’ noted German Major Mühlman.7 Sufficient quantities could not be obtained this way, so Turkish soldiers used hooks to pull the wires from in front of the Anzac trenches, then reposition them in front of the their trenches. Such was Mustafa Kemal’s determination to use barbed wire effectively that on 12 May he exhorted his troops: ‘Commanders and officers who allow the enemy to install barbed wires on the front line will be accused of negligence and punished.’8 Bricks are a neglected artefact type in Gallipoli studies, but paradoxically they are well represented among the survey material. The complex networks of trenches and tunnels are substantial feats of engineering. Their construction involved the use of wood and metal supports, and the Turkish army also used recycled bricks to reinforce their earthworks. This mode of construction is absent from the Anzac trench systems. In areas of unstable ground, particularly along Holly Ridge and Knife’s Edge, we found evidence of substantial walls and buttresses. Our best historical record of brickwork as reinforcement for the Turkish front-line trenches is a series of photographs taken by Charles Bean in 1919, showing a brick retaining wall extending along the Turkish line on Knife’s Edge (figure 8.1). The wall is staggered over two levels, with the upper level comprising up to 12 courses. The technology for mechanical brick-making developed in the nineteenth century, as part of the Industrial Revolution, but in many rural parts of the world hand-fashioning methods were retained. Although mud bricks were a favoured medium of construction 5 6 7 8 Ataksor, Çanakkale Raporu, p. 96. Ibid., p. 17. Mühlman, Çanakkale Savaşı Bir Alman Subayın Anıları, p. 16. Mustafa Kemal (Atatürk), Arı Burnu Muharebeleri Raporu, p. 16. 162 Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Columbia University Libraries, on 02 Jun 2017 at 21:11:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316278291.011 Artefacts from the battlefield Figure 8.1 Sniper’s Ridge, showing a brick retaining wall, supporting unstable ground. Gaba Tepe is seen in the left background. (AWM G02094) in ancient Anatolia, including the north-western regions, none was found in our survey. Most of the bricks located by the JHAS were ‘pressed’ and fired. Although one brick (A25; plate 8.2) has its maker’s finger marks on the back – the result of handling soft ‘green’ bricks – the backs of bricks from Gallipoli rarely display the scrape marks that are characteristic of handmade bricks.9 Moreover, most of the bricks found on the survey have a frog – an indentation on one of the brick’s widest sides – which handmade bricks lack. Typically rectangular, the bricks are impressed with a series of markings in the frog, which identify their maker or the brickworks. Many of the bricks and their fragments found on the Anzac battlefield are imprinted with a rectangular frog with raised Greek letters reading MAΔYTOΣ, indicating their origin in the brickworks of Madytos (modern Eceabat), a town known for its brick production. Although their attributes point to local production, the bricks are not entirely uniform. The slight variability in their colour suggests that they were sourced from a range of batches. Many more brick forms, bearing a variety of makers’ marks, were produced in the Eceabat and Çanakkale regions than were found on the battlefield. The different Greek brickworks, for instance, are sometimes identified by the addition of letters, such as ΝΘ MAΔYTOΣ, AΓ, IΓ or DA MAΔYTOΣ. Distinctly different from the bricks with Greek letters are those produced by several Ottoman manufacturers known from Çanakkale, including Osmanlica Anadolu, Mühürdar and Hasan Karazadeler, who marked their bricks with the Ottoman Arabic script. There are also numerous workshops that used more generic symbols, such as ‘AA’, ‘V’ or stars and crescents. Brick production, then, was clearly both an Ottoman and a Greek craft, with some manufacturers using the Greek alphabet to spell Turkish names, including ANM ΤΑΣΛΑΡΙ (Taşları) and ANM 9 McGrath, ‘Notes on the manufacture of handmade bricks’. We would like to thank Miles Lewis for sharing his knowledge of early brick manufacture. 163 Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Columbia University Libraries, on 02 Jun 2017 at 21:11:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316278291.011 Anzac Battlefield Ahmet Ali Pasha (at Çanakkale and Mürefte, respectively), or combining Ottoman and Greek scripts on their bricks, such as ☾★١٢★☽ MAΔYTOΣ (‘12 Madytos’). These bricks alone offer a tantalising glimpse of the vibrant, cosmopolitan community on the peninsula before the First World War. They reflect not only one facet of an active commercial centre but also a lifestyle that melded both Greek and Turkish crafts. A notable concentration of bricks is located in a deep erosional channel on Holly Ridge, where they retained a wall at this significant Turkish front-line position in 1915. Clusters of bricks were also found on Silt Spur and on Knife’s Edge, potentially parts of the reinforcing wall photographed by Bean in 1919.10 On the southern side of Johnson’s Jolly, overlooking Owen’s Gully and Lone Pine, bricks reinforced an exposed position. Bricks were also put to use behind the Turkish front lines. The remains of a brick oven, for instance, were found in an area once used by the Turkish soldiers as a kitchen a hundred metres behind German Officers’ Ridge (plate 8.3a). Located relatively close to the front lines, on the westward slope of Kesikdere where reserves and those returned from the front lines gathered, the traditional oven is a reminder of life on the battlefield. As the Australians prepared their meals in communal kitchens to the west of Quinn’s Post, the Turks did likewise in the valley to the east (plate 8.3b). Equally representative of the Turkish-held areas are terracotta tiles of the sort still commonly used throughout the Mediterranean (plate 8.4a–c). Providing shelter, especially around tunnel openings and front-line trenches, they stand in sharp contrast to the corrugated iron sheeting and tarpaulins used by the Anzacs, such as shown at Quinn’s (plate 8.4d–e). WEAPONS, ORDNANCE AND TOOLS Unsurprisingly for a battlefield site, ordnance pieces were, collectively, the most common artefacts recorded. They were scattered throughout the survey area, but were more commonly found in front-line areas on eroded surfaces with less vegetation. Apart from fragments of two bayonets, no weapons were recovered, although small arms and artillery collected from the battlefield, some relatively recently, constitute part of the holdings of public and private collections in Çanakkale. Before we look at the artefacts, it is worth reminding ourselves of the weapons used at Gallipoli, as determined from documentary sources. After some fierce jockeying from various European nations, in 1883 Germany won the contract to supply the Ottoman Empire with arms. Two manufacturers monopolised the trade: the Krupp Company (for cannons and other artillery) and Mauser (for rifles and pistols).11 Initially, small arms from Germany were imported, but after the procurement of patent rights, small-calibre weapons such as rifles and pistols were manufactured in the Ottoman state. Likewise, ammunition for artillery was gradually produced in Turkey.12 The main machine gun (mitrailleuse) used by the Ottoman Fifth Army was MG 08 (Maschinengewehr 08), which was also the standard machine gun in the German army.13 Although not as widely used, the Bergmann MG15 was also employed by the 10 11 12 13 Bean, Official History, vol. 2, p. 301. Beşirli, ‘Abdülhamid Döneminde Osmanlı Ordusunda Alman Silahları’, pp. 120–39, 185. ATASE 2012b, p. 492. Thompson, Machine Guns, pp. 72–4, 77. 164 Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Columbia University Libraries, on 02 Jun 2017 at 21:11:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316278291.011 Artefacts from the battlefield Ottoman forces at Gallipoli. The main infantry rifles issued to the Ottoman army were Gewehr 98 (or G98) and various Mauser models.14 The Allied equivalents were the Vickers Machine gun and the .303-inch calibre Short Magazine Lee–Enfield Mark III (SMLE) rifle.15 Like the Ottoman small arms, these weapons used the same calibre ammunition, so it is not possible to determine whether a bullet or cartridge was expended by a rifle or a machine gun. When the Ottoman Empire entered the First World War, the Fifth Army responsible for the defence of the Dardanelles and the main supply post in the region (see below) received priority for the supply of ammunitions, owing to its proximity to Istanbul.16 The need for rapid deployment of arms is apparent in a missive from Enver Pasha, War Minister and Vice Supreme Commander, dated just before the Dardanelles land battles in April 1915. He requested 480 000 rifles to augment approximately 473 000 already in use.17 Our survey documented a total of 413 ordnance items (table 8.1). Without a doubt the heaviest casualties during the campaign were caused by small arms: machine guns and rifles. The heavy machine guns were the most lethal, but sniper fire was a more constant hazard. Sergeant Cyril Lawrence wrote about the danger from Turkish sniper fire in his diary: ‘It is sure death to put your head up to look around. Even the periscope mirrors measuring only three inches square at most are picked off one after the other.’18 The sheer volume of small arms fired during the campaign was extraordinary. During the Turkish offensive on 19 May alone, the Allies expended 948 000 rounds of machine - gun and rifle ammunition.19 Although this was an atypical day on the battlefield, the amount of small arms ammunition expended is staggering.The First World War was the first industrial-scale conflict, and we find an assemblage of ordnance to match. Bullets Two types of expended bullet were recorded by the JHAS project, and details can be determined from a handful in near-pristine condition. The first type is the pointed-nose bullet with ferrous corrosion (plate 8.5 a–b).20 Unexpended examples have Mauser cases with Ottoman impressed head stamps (A31, A67 and A671) – letters and numerals stamped on the bases of cartridges to denote their type, place and date of manufacture (plate 8.5 c–e).21 A soft, round-nosed, copper-alloy jacketed bullet (A198, A663 and A884) is the second type (plate 8.5d). Head stamps with Latin letters and Roman numerals (plate 8.5f) confirm that they were used by the Anzac forces. Their size, material Ball, Mauser Military Rifles of the World. Skennerton, 200 Years of Australian Military Rifles and Bayonets, pp. 68, 107. ATASE 2004, p. 246. ATASE, Türk Silahlı Kuvvetleri Tarihi Birinci Dünya Harbi İdari Faaliyetler ve Lojistik (BDHİFL), p. 231. Lawrence, Gallipoli Diary, pp. 21–2. Bean, Official History, vol. 2, p. 162. Dimensions vary (cf. A175, A448, A656 with A538, A364, A280). See Huon, Military Rifle and Machine Gun Cartridges, pp. 108–10 (Mauser) and pp. 299–306 (Lee–Enfield). 21 Walker, Cartridges and Firearm Identification, section 3, ‘Cartridge Head Stamps’. See also Ball, Mauser Military Rifles of the World. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 165 Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Columbia University Libraries, on 02 Jun 2017 at 21:11:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316278291.011 Anzac Battlefield and head stamps are synonymous with the Mark VI .303 calibre available for SMLE rifles.22 Several of the cartridges, found cemented together in a pebbly accretion (A54), had the cordite rods inside the cartridge cases exposed. These unexpended bullets, also bearing copper-alloy jackets, have noses that are more pointed than the A663 and A884.1, indicating that a variety of. 303 cartridges were used by Allied soldiers. Bullet cartridges Cartridge cases likewise belong to two distinct types. Both appear to be made of a similar copper-based metal alloy. Bearing a groove around the end shaft (A671), the distinguishing feature of most Ottoman cartridge cases is the letters and numbers stamped on the base in Arabic script (and A104, A332, A598 A536).23 They include the word ‘Mauzer’, a year (the production date) and the crescent moon and star, symbols of the Ottoman Empire (plate 8.5e). The years are in the Hijri calendar and range from 1325 AH (1907 AD) to 1329 AH (1911 AD). Three cartridges with Arabic script (A536, A598 and A705) were found at Lone Pine where there was intense fighting in August, when the Allies overran trenches previously occupied by the Ottomans. Two cartridges (A636 and A804) were found on Silt Spur, which was not occupied by the Allies until July (plate 8.5e).24 Beforehand, it had been a no man’s land, and night patrols had been conducted there by both sides.25 The remainder of the cartridges were found in areas held by the Ottomans throughout the campaign, many of them in locations where snipers would have been deployed; namely, Snipers’ Ridge, Knife’s Edge and Dead Man’s Ridge. The second type of cartridge belongs to .303 calibre bullets (plate 8.5d, f), which unlike the Mauser cartridges have no recessed groove around the base of the shaft.26 Examples include A198, A54 and A884. The writing on the head stamp, discernible in some examples, includes a combination of letters, numbers and a Commonwealth broad arrow. For example, A185 has ‘VI / 7 14’ and another set of letters that are indecipherable, and the British government broad arrow symbol around the circular base. Artefact 121 has a head stamp, visible after cleaning, which reads: ‘C A C / VI / 4 13’. ‘CAC’ refers to the Colonial Ammunition Company, in either Auckland or Melbourne.27 The Roman numeral refers to the model of ammunition, in this case Mark VI.28 ‘4 13’ and ‘7 14’ denote production dates; namely, April 1913 and July 1914.29 22 For technical details, see Skennerton, The Lee-Enfield Story, pp. 75–6, 136; Stratton, SMLE (No. 1) Rifles Mk I and Mk III, location 1164. Walker, Cartridges and Firearm Identification, section 2, ‘Ball Projectiles and Variations’. See A121, A185, A884, A943, and 0.303 blank bullet in the AWM collection REL 32003. 23 Walker, Cartridges and Firearm Identification, section 2, ‘Cartridge Casing’; section 3, ‘Cartridge Head Stamps’. 24 Bean, Official History, vol. 2, p. 289. 25 Ibid., p. 173. 26 Temple, Identification Manual on the .303 British Service Cartridge. 27 <http://enfieldking.tripod.com/enfieldking/id12.html> retrieved 24 October 2014; <www.303british .com/id44.html> retrieved 24 October 2014. 28 Walker, Cartridges and Firearm Identification, section 3; <http://enfieldking.tripod.com/enfieldking/ id12.html> retrieved 24 October 2014. 29 <www.awm.gov.au/collection/RELAWM10478/> retrieved 2 October 2014; Skennerton, The LeeEnfield Story, p. 136; Stratton, SMLE (No. 1) Rifles Mk I and Mk III, location 1164. 166 Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Columbia University Libraries, on 02 Jun 2017 at 21:11:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316278291.011 Artefacts from the battlefield Artefact 943 is an expended cartridge case from a .303 rifle with a head stamp that reads ‘C A C / 7 12 / VI’ (plate 8.5f). The inner circular area of the base (the primer annulus) is red-coloured metal, which indicates that this was a tracer bullet.30 Cartridge case A1030 has the head stamp ‘DF / VI / 4 / 123-14’, meaning that it was manufactured in 1914 by the Indian Government Ammunition Factory, Dum Dum Arsenal, Calcutta.31 ‘N / VI / 09’ (on A1072) most likely denotes Nobel’s Explosives Company, Glasgow, given the stamped broad arrow.32 Stripper clips (magazine chargers) The Lee–Enfield and Mauser rifles used during the 1915 Gallipoli campaign loaded cartridges via magazines for more rapid firing than single-shot rifles. The stripper clip or charger was a piece of metal (steel) that held five cartridges.33 The cartridges were pressed by hand, or ‘stripped’, out of the clip or charger into the magazine.34 Rifle cartridges were issued to soldiers on bandoliers (cloth ammunition holders), which contained preloaded stripper clips.35 Like cartridges and cases, stripper clips were found in large numbers. At least 60 were identified, and there are probably others among the metal fragments too small to identify. Stripper clips have not survived as well as cartridge cases, owing to their ferrous nature and their relatively delicate structure. Two distinct types of stripper clips were found (plate 8.6a–d). One is a flat metal strip with slightly raised sides and two small, oval lightening holes in the centre and two parallel, linear grooves along the long sides on the back of the charger (e.g. A303, A322 and A616). Unexpended cartridges found still attached to their clips/chargers, for example A31 and A303, point to Mauser rifle ammunition. The other clip has a U-shaped cross-section, as well as four long, narrow lightening holes in the base and three on each side of its wall (e.g. A601). Known as the Mark 1 clip, it was used for the SMLE rifle .303 cartridges (e.g. A174, A177, A180, A223 and A601).36 Also heavily corroded, these clips, were found predominantly in Anzac-held areas of the front line. The distribution of Mauser-type clips across areas such as Johnston’s Jolly (A31), German Officers’ Ridge (A77, A97), Turkish Quinn’s (A130) and the Nek (A303, A319, A322), and the SMLE Mark 1 type clips found at Quinn’s Post (A122, A174, 30 The colour of the bullet in combination with the colour of the primer annulus indicated the type of ammunition (Lee-Enfield, <http://enfieldking.tripod.com/enfieldking/id12.html> retrieved 24 September 2014). 31 Walker, Cartridges and Firearm Identification, p. 136; <www.303british.com/id44.html> retrieved 24 October 2014; <http://enfieldking.tripod.com/enfieldking/id12.html> retrieved 24 October 2014. 32 <www.303british.com/id44.html> retrieved 24 October 2014. The ‘N’ was also used by the Birmingham Metal and Munitions Co Ltd, Birmingham, UK. <http://enfieldking.tripod.com/enfieldking/ id12.html> retrieved 24 October 2014. 33 The term ‘charger’ is used by Skennerton (The Lee-Enfield Story, pp. 117, 124–5, 135), whereas ‘stripper clip’ is used by Walker (Cartridges and Firearm Identification, section 4, ‘The Clip’); Stratton (SMLE (No. 1) Rifles Mk I and Mk III, location 1023) prefers the terms ‘magazine charger’ and ‘stripper clip’. 34 Skennerton, The Lee-Enfield Story, p. 124. 35 Stratton, SMLE (No. 1) Rifles Mk I and Mk III, location 1023; Walker, Cartridges and Firearm Identification, section 4, ‘The Clip’. 36 Stratton, SMLE (No. 1) Rifles Mk I and Mk III, location 1023. 167 Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Columbia University Libraries, on 02 Jun 2017 at 21:11:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316278291.011 Anzac Battlefield A177, A180, A196) and Lone Pine (A601) further clarify the position of the Turkishheld and Anzac-held front lines respectively. Artillery, grenades and shrapnel Artillery caused many casualties. Ottoman artillery placements earned such nicknames as ‘Beachy Bill’, which was located at Gaba Tepe to the south of the Allied lines. Bean vividly describes the physical and psychological effects of artillery duels that took place in July. The men were ‘highly strung and “jumpy” … and completely worn out. For the first time individual cases of “shock” began daily to be specified in the casualty lists.’37 Shrapnel was as vicious as it was terrifying. There were very few areas on the battlefield that were sheltered from its devastating effects. The problem became even worse after the arrival of Austrian heavy artillery in November. ‘All over Suvla and Anzac,’ historian Peter Hart notes, ‘shells were dropping in areas that had been previously considered relatively safe.’38 Of common artillery items, shrapnel pieces were found most often. Many are curved pieces of heavy metal, identified as fragments of medium and large-calibre shell casings (e.g. A17, A543 and A905; plate 8.7a, c). Other metal fragments, obviously parts of shells or grenades, comprise another category. A total of 172, or 42 per cent, of the artefacts identified as ordnance were shrapnel of some kind. This figure, however, might underrepresent the amount of shrapnel recovered, as some of the items in the database identified simply as metal fragments could be shrapnel. Some shrapnel fragments are so large and heavy that they could only have originated from large-calibre naval guns. One example is A17 (plate 8.7c), which was found in a Turkish trench at Johnston’s Jolly. It is more irregular in shape than is common; A543, which has a curved and smooth surface, is more typical of the larger pieces. Thirteen lead shrapnel balls were also found; two (A273.1 and A273.2) were actually located inside the substantial remains of a shell casing (A271) on Pope’s Hill, which appears not to have fragmented as much as was normally the case up detonation. Hand grenades (‘bombs’) also produced deadly shrapnel. The Ottomans used various types. Most easily identifiable is the German-made stick hand grenade: a cylindrical metal body, resembling a tin can, attached to a wooden stick. The Allied soldiers called it the ‘potato masher’. The Ottomans also had cast metal hand grenades, round or egg-shaped, called ‘cricket ball bombs’, some displaying a ‘pineapple-patterned’ casing (A118; plate 8.7b). These employed a timed fuse but not a mechanical detonator, and were used much more often than the stick grenades.39 The Allies, on the other hand, relied almost exclusively on improvised grenades made from empty food cans (figure 8.2). They were filled with explosives and any scrap metal pieces available, including nails, shell fragments and scraps of barbed wire. In some ‘jam tin bombs’ a second, smaller, tin holding the explosives was placed inside with the shrapnel packed around it. These devices proved so useful that the ‘Welsh 37 Bean, Official History, vol. 2, pp. 341–5. 38 Hart, Gallipoli, p. 411. 39 On the impact of these bombs and the preparedness of the Ottomans, see Bean, Official History, vol. 2, pp. 94–6. 168 Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Columbia University Libraries, on 02 Jun 2017 at 21:11:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316278291.011 Artefacts from the battlefield Figure 8.2 Two soldiers making ‘jam tin bombs’ near Anzac Cove. Empty tins were filled with Turkish shrapnel and other lethal fragments and recycled as bombs. (AWM G00267) Berry’ grenade, based on the jam tin version, was manufactured professionally. The instructions for its use concluded with the exhortation ‘Advance Australia’.40 There is no evidence that the Turks made similar grenades, perhaps because they had sufficient supplies of factory-manufactured ones.41 In addition, they did not have the same abundant supply of tins (see ‘Food’ below). Some of the few metal fragments found in Ottoman front-line areas could be the remnants of these jam tin bombs, but it is difficult to say. Both sides also employed mechanisms to project the grenades further than they could be thrown by hand. The Anzacs used mortar-like weapons; the Turks preferred devices similar to catapults. When a hand grenade with a slow-burning wick was thrown into a trench, sometimes it was thrown back and exchanged between the sides before it ultimately exploded.42 The record of larger ordnance includes the complete base and a significant proportion of the wall of a shell (A325; plate 8.8), recovered from the side of one of the Turkish trenches opposite the Nek. These trenches form a complex web, but are some of the better preserved examples recorded. While the shell’s original dimensions are difficult to measure because of corrosion, they appear to be consistent with a 3-inch naval shell. 40 Landers, Grenade, p. 28. 41 Austin, Gallipoli, p. 43. 42 Special Correspondent, New York Times, 28 September 1915, p. 3. 169 Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Columbia University Libraries, on 02 Jun 2017 at 21:11:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316278291.011 Anzac Battlefield On Pope’s Hill another large shell fragment (A273) was found, probably an Ottoman artillery shell. The Ottoman forces operated 75mm and 77mm field guns designed and manufactured in Germany, which fired a shell that alone weighed 6.85kg. This is the piece in which the two small shot balls described earlier were found, indicating that it was a shrapnel shell. Given that so much of it remains intact, it is more likely to be a shell containing the lesser amount of explosive. An unusual collection of artefacts was found adjacent to the track connecting the Coast Road to Outposts No 2 and No 3. The items were probably collected when this track was being constructed, then returned to where they were found. As well as a number of tools (see below), there were the remains of three medium-calibre shells (A881.1, A881.3 and A881.4). Each of these shells is heavily corroded. Two are very similar to the casing found on Pope’s Hill described above (A273); the third shell (A881.1) is of a much larger calibre – 12.5cm, or just under 5in. The only artillery piece or naval gun of this calibre that seems to have been deployed to the Anzac area is a 4.7in quick-firing naval gun, operated by the 1st Australian Division on the Australian right (southern) flank above Clarke Valley, which runs into Brighton Beach. The fact that the shell’s diameter is slightly larger than 4.7in might be explained by corrosion. The remains of the gun are now in the Australian War Memorial.43 Two medium-calibre shell fuses provide further details. One found at Silt Spur (A648; plate 8.9c–d) is an Ottoman 75mm time mechanical fuse, with clear graduations annotated in Arabic. The identification of the second fuse (A870; plate 8.9e–f), from Outpost No 3, is not so easy, since only its centre core survives. Finally, there are six heavy metal discs with screw threads similar in shape to screw tops for liquid containers (e.g. A98; plate 8.9a–b). Their diameters range from 2 to 3.8cm. They are, however, far too heavy and dense to be screw-top lids and are almost certainly shell nose caps, removed and replaced by a fuse shortly before the shell was fired.44 Bayonet The remains of an Ottoman bayonet (A300) found at Dead Man’s Ridge, near the edge of the Turkish position known as the Chessboard, constitute one of our most interesting pieces (plate 8.10). It is a 50cm Turkish Pattern 1903 bayonet, issued with the Mauser Model 1903 rifle. Bayonets of this type were standard military issue for the Ottoman army at the beginning of the First World War. Invented in the late seventeenth century, bayonets became a standard item of weaponry for combatants in the Gallipoli campaign.45 As plate 8.10 illustrates, the blade of the bayonet had become embedded in the base of a tree and had snapped in two as the tree grew. The hilt segment is 26cm in length, whereas 13cm of the blade survives. Manufactured from steel, the bayonet had a long, single-edge blade and a false edge that ran along the upper part of the blade. Although now heavily rusted and corroded, the bayonet’s features are still discernible: a fuller or groove runs down the length of the blade; the hilt, originally cased in wood, has two bolts and ends with a rounded pommel and a locking bolt; between the grip and the blade is the cross guard, the lower part curving to form a quillion, the purpose of which was to lock the enemy’s bayonet in a close confrontation. The scabbard, made of leather, 43 See <www.awm.gov.au/collection/RELAWM05085/> and Bean, Gallipoli Mission, pp. 242–3, on how it ended up there. 44 Dianne Rutherford, personal communication, 20 October 2014. 45 Brayley, Bayonets; Carter, World Bayonets; Kiesling, Bayonets of the World. 170 Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Columbia University Libraries, on 02 Jun 2017 at 21:11:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316278291.011 Artefacts from the battlefield was not found, nor was its metal throat and scabbard cap (chape). Presumably, like most Ottoman examples, the scabbard would have been ornamented with emblems and other symbols.46 The British and Empire armies greatly valued this steel point largely because a spirited bayonet charge towards an enemy’s position was deemed a crucial tactic in trench warfare. The charge had the dual purpose of inciting collective aggression and courage among the advancing troops and panic amid the enemy. It has been argued, in fact, that the longevity of the bayonet had less to do with its technological attributes – it is, after all, a very simple weapon – than the training associated with the weapon, which instils aggressive behaviour.47 The Ottoman bayonet found in our survey has features that are similar to its British counterpart.48 A few long, thin, metal fragments (A547) might belong to another bayonet, but heavy corrosion precludes definitive identification. Periscopes and periscope rifles The constant fire that criss-crossed the front lines of Anzac made it exceedingly dangerous for men to put their heads above the parapets of the trenches to see what the enemy was doing. Periscopes were supplied by the British Army to Anzac forces so that the enemy could be seen without risk of injury or death to the observer.49 There were not enough periscopes to go around, however, and the Anzacs began to make their own.50 The usefulness of the periscope was taken further by one Australian soldier, Lance Corporal William Beech, who invented the periscope rifle, which was used to great effect by soldiers in the trenches.51 This was the addition of a periscope and remote trigger action to the rifle.52 The Turkish soldiers eventually followed suit but did not have their own periscope rifles until late August 1915.53 Both the periscopes (factory-made and improvised) and periscope rifles used two glass mirrors to see above the trench parapets.54 The glass is flat, clear and moderately thick (c. 0.8cm). Found in numerous locations on both sides of the front-line areas surveyed, the sherds bear no traces of a silvered backing and have an opalised surface. When the snipers of either side shot out the glass of periscopes, replacement mirrors of any description were used from wherever they could be found, for example broken-up shaving mirrors.55 Periscope glass was spread in even quantities across both Anzac and 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 Cf. AWM collection: <www.awm.gov.au/collection/REL31616/> Stone, ‘The point of the bayonet’. Skennerton & Richardson, British and Commonwealth Bayonets. Cf. AWM collection: RELAWM07880 from Shell Green; and RELAWM07803 from the Nek with several bullet holes. AWM RELAWM00342; Lawrence, Gallipoli Diary, p. 21. Bean, Official History, vol. 2, pp. 250–1. Cf. AWM collection (REL/07429). Hart, Gallipoli, p. 193. For archival photos, see AWM A04045; A05765; A05767; C01148; C01541; C02463; G00408; H10324; H02310; P03668.007. Bean, Official History, vol. 2, p. 250; Birdwood, ‘Personal diary of Field Marshal Lord William Birdwood’, 1 January 1915 – 2 January 1916, AWM Collection, 3DRL/3376 1/1 Part 1; RCDIG0000002, entry on 13–14 May 1915; <www.awm.gov.au/collection/RELAWM00342/> retrieved 12 November 2014; Lawrence, Gallipoli Diary, pp. 21, 22. 171 Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Columbia University Libraries, on 02 Jun 2017 at 21:11:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316278291.011 Anzac Battlefield Turkish front lines, for example A194 (plate 8.11) and A412 (Lone Pine) and A201 (Turkish Quinn’s Post). Tools An important cache of tools was found beside the track leading to Outpost No 2, together with the artillery shells mentioned above. Although the items were clearly not in situ, they nonetheless provide a glimpse of the varied tasks that preoccupied the soldiers. Most comprise pikes, square in section, and long rods (plate 8.12a). A pair of heavily corroded wire cutters (plate 8.12b) find a close parallel in a well-preserved example held at the Australian War Memorial.56 One item (plate 8.12c) is difficult to place. It has two short, tapered ends at right angles to the main shaft, and perpendicular to each other. The ends show signs of hammering , so ut wight be a blacksmith’s tool. Entrenching tool blades survive as heavily corroded fragments (plate 8.12d & e–f). FOOD, WATER AND DRINK One of the most striking and significant differences between the two armies is the type of food they ate, which has implications for levels of nutrition and soldier morale. Aside from being a fundamental physiological requirement for troops, food has great emotional significance, and its importance for effective fighting forces has been well established.57 Monotonous rations, lack of control over what they ate and failures in supply of provisions contributed adversely to soldiers’ physical, social and emotional well-being and therefore their performance.58 Before we look at the material culture associated with food, it is worthwhile to summarise what we know from historical sources. Stories about the pre-packaged food eaten by the Anzacs, such as corned beef, jam and hard dry biscuits, are well known. Sergeant Apcar De Vine, for instance, notes that the rations provided ‘Two tins of bully beef, tea, sugar, biscuits, two cubes of Bovril, also rations for the first day of landing, bully beef and biscuits’.59 As the campaign continued, the enthusiasm for these foods wore thin. By December, Lieutenant Ronald McInnis wrote, ‘It will be a treat to get my Christmas parcel from home – it would be hard for anyone away from here to imagine the intensity of our feelings regarding anything to eat.’60 Soldiers’ diaries mention making a porridge out of the hard biscuits, or a stew of the biscuits and canned beef, in order to make them palatable.61 A vivid account of the off-putting Anzac food is given by Bean: For a month it was possible to eat ‘bully beef’, onions, army biscuits, bacon, and jam, and drink tea with relish. But as month followed month; as heat and flies increased the troops … had little appetite for the over-salted ‘bully’, which, in the heat of midday or afternoon, slipped in its own fat across the platter or mess-tin, swamping stray flies as it went; or for the thin apricot jam on tasteless biscuit; or for the cheese, greasy from 56 57 58 59 60 61 AWM RELAWM00396. Duffett, The Stomach for Fighting, pp. 3, 5. Ibid., pp. 229–35. Apcar Leslie De Vine, diary, 1915, AWM collection 1DRL/0240. McInnis, diary, AWM collections PR00917, Item 1, entry on 4 December 1915. Burton in Bean, The Anzac Book, p. 61; Harvey, The Red and White Diamond, p. 40; Kinloch, Echoes of Gallipoli, pp. 159, 161. See also AWM A00849. 172 Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Columbia University Libraries, on 02 Jun 2017 at 21:11:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316278291.011 Artefacts from the battlefield Figure 8.3 Ottoman field kitchen, showing soldiers lined up with large metal bowls. (ATASE) exposure to the sun and filling the dugout with an odour sickeningly reminiscent of that exhaling from the corpses in no man’s land.62 In contrast to this dismal and unappetising Anzac menu, Turkish soldiers were served cooked foods, although the distance between the kitchens and the mess determined whether meals were hot or cold on arrival.63 The meals were prepared in large cauldrons and carried in large pans, tinned buckets or even sealed ammunition chests to the front line, using the communication trenches from the support trenches.64 Mobile kitchens were established in sheltered places away from the line of fire to avoid smoke attracting enemy artillery or mortar fire (figure 8.3). In one unfortunate incident, a mortar round fired by the Anzacs exploded in a cauldron while food was cooking near a creek behind the Kanlısırt at the Arı Burnu area, killing a number of soldiers. Today this creek is called the Kitchen Creek (Mutfak Deresi). The mobile kitchen was subsequently moved 200m to the north-east.65 Each Turkish soldier at the Dardanelles Front was provided with a food ration amounting to 3000 calories daily.66 During the summer, fresh vegetables were served with a main dish comprising mostly legumes (chickpeas, lentils and beans). Fresh meat was also served, and each soldier’s allowance was 62g.67 The meat came from livestock 62 Bean, Official History, vol. 2, p. 378. 63 Erdemir in Nacı, Silay & Erdemir, Farewell, p. 26. 64 ATASE, Birinci Dünya Harbi’nde Türk Harbi V. Cilt 3. Kitap, Çanakkale Cephesi Harekâtı (Haziran 1915–Ocak 1916), p. 530. 65 Çöl, Çanakkale Sina Savaşları, p. 59. 66 ATASE, Birinci Dünya Harbi’nde Türk Harbi V. Cilt Çanakkale Cephesi Harekâtı 1’nci, 2’nci ve 3’ncü Kitapların Özetlenmiş Tarihi, p. 239. 67 Ibid., p. 237; Erdemir in Nacı, Silay & Erdemir, Farewell, pp. 26–7. 173 Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Columbia University Libraries, on 02 Jun 2017 at 21:11:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316278291.011 Anzac Battlefield slaughtered at purpose-built abattoirs behind the battlefield. If no livestock was available, dried and cured meat would be distributed. At breakfast, the main dish was soup. Officers and civil servants at Gallipoli headquarters had the extra luxury of hot tea in the morning. Dried grapes, figs or nuts were distributed to soldiers as energy foods and to prevent scabies.68 These items were kept in personal bags or sacks.69 Green vegetables were served in large quantities to soldiers, mainly to prevent scurvy.70 Meal times were set and comprised two-hour blocks: 6.00–8.00am (breakfast), 11.00am–1.00pm (lunch) and 6.00–8.00pm (dinner). Soldiers took it in turns to eat. Meals served on 16 October 1915 can be considered typical: breakfast included soup, with grilled meatballs; soup was served at lunch; and there was pilaf (rice) and compote for dinner.71 Before the Gallipoli campaign began, the Ottoman army on the Gallipoli Peninsula comprised 137 599 individuals. By 23 July 1915, numbers had swollen to 218 431 men, which was substantial compared to other regions.72 Feeding so many soldiers required efficient logistics and timely scheduling. The Ottoman Fifth Army Logistics Inspectorate, the key organisation responsible for provisions to the Dardanelles, always had sufficient quantities of bread and cooking materials, and were also continuously resupplied. To meet the demand for food and animal feed, particularly critical during the summer months, Grand Vizier Said Halim Pasha put into effect a one-year plan, involving a tithe (aşar tax). Cereals such as wheat, corn and rye for bread, dried vegetables and legumes such as lentils, beans and chickpeas, and barley, oats and dry grass for the animals were procured from farmers under the ‘Extraordinary War Provisions’.73 In addition, more than 232 tonnes of hay for animals in the army service was bought with donations from the wealthy. Meat supplies were met by the seizure of 15 per cent of butchered animals in return for debentures, and by buying from contractors in case needs could not be met.74 Provinces varied in terms of what they could supply. The ever-decreasing population in the Gallipoli region, after non-Muslims were transferred, meant that this region was not able to supply the required amount of meat.75 But farmers in the Edirne region made up the shortfall.76 By contradistinction, bread was unaffected. Bakeries at Eceabat, which escaped severe damage, worked with the flour producers at Tekirdağ, Karabiga and Gallipoli to ensure that by mid-1915 there were no major setbacks in bread supplies.77 68 Çöl, Çanakkale Sina Savaşları, p. 46. 69 See AWM RELAWM03972.004. 70 ATASE, Birinci Dünya Harbi’nde Türk Harbi V.Cilt Çanakkale Cephesi Harekâtı 1’nci, 2’nci ve 3’ncü Kitapların Özetlenmiş Tarihi, p. 239. 71 Fasih, Kanlısırt Günlüğü Mehmet Fasih Bey’in Çanakkale Anıları, p. 72. 72 Anafartalar Group 109 237, Northern Group 58 351, Logistics 15 812; ATASE, Türk Silahlı Kuvvetleri Tarihi Birinci Dünya Harbi İdari Faaliyetler ve Lojistik (BDHİFL), pp. 250–60. 73 ATASE, Birinci Dünya Harbi’nde Türk Harbi V.Cilt Çanakkale Cephesi Harekâtı 1’nci, 2’nci ve 3’ncü Kitapların Özetlenmiş Tarihi, p. 237. 74 This involved the implementation of the policy of Extraordinary War Responsibility (Tekâlif-i Harbiye). 75 For further information, see BOA, KMS, 19/58; 19/63; 23/41; BOA, MV.MZB, 197/105; BOA, DH. SN. THR, 63/69; BOA, DH.İUM, 89-1/1-28-A; 89-1/1-43; BOA, DH-ŞFR, 54-118; 54-172; 54-336. 76 BOA, DH.İUM, 93-1/1-57, Lef-2. 77 ATASE, Türk Silahlı Kuvvetleri Tarihi Birinci Dünya Harbi İdari Faaliyetler ve Lojistik (BDHİFL), p. 259. 174 Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Columbia University Libraries, on 02 Jun 2017 at 21:11:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316278291.011 Artefacts from the battlefield Coffee, tea and sugar, normally imported from foreign countries, were also targeted: 15 per cent of coffee and sugar, and 25 per cent of tea that passed through customs was seized for the war effort. More than 18 tonnes of salt was required throughout the campaign; this, and some nine tonnes of fleece, were procured by means of a general increase in tax.78 The transportation of the bulk of these supplies required approximately 175 freight cars from Istanbul, with delivery of food and beverages made every month. In case food requirements could not met by the above methods, the Ottoman Government had cash ready at hand.79 Food containers Fragments of metal food cans, ceramic sherds and bottle glass, scattered across the battlefield – found mainly within and around the trenches and dugouts, particularly in the front-line areas and no man’s land – provide insights into the food eaten by Anzac and Turkish troops, where they cooked, ate and drank, and where they disposed of their rubbish. Key to our understanding are the attributes of containers – their shape, size, colour and markings – which convey information about the kinds of foods and products consumed, and where they might have originated. Metal food tins form a sizeable portion of the artefacts recorded during the survey, and they are also the main source of archaeological information about food eaten by the Anzac soldiers: almost all of the tins (95 per cent) were found in Anzac-held areas (plate 8.13). The majority of metal containers were commercial food containers (76 per cent), otherwise known as ‘tin cans’ – tin-plated steel cans used for food-processing and transportation.80 What we found included rusty thin, sheet metal fragments, circular, oval or rectangular metal bases or tops, or partial containers. The highly corrosive nature of steel cans means they are generally poorly preserved, and the decay of the original paper labelling makes specific identification of most of the cans impossible. Even so, the shape and size of the cans are useful for some general comments on food products. The British military adopted the use of canned food from its first commercial availability in England in 1812.81 The purpose was to provide rations – meat products and jam, and very occasionally condensed milk, rice and cocoa – in as non-perishable a form as possible. Food cans from the survey come in four distinct types: ‘bully beef’type rectangular tins, large cylindrical cans, small cylindrical cans, and oval tins. Circular cans are the most prevalent of the metal food cans documented (50 per cent) with ‘Bully beef’ tins a close second (47 per cent). Some of the larger cylindrical cans once contained meat products, whereas the smaller version are probably jam tins and possibly also stored condensed milk and cocoa (see below). A circular can base found in the Anzac area of Johnston’s Jolly has the numbers ‘4-15’ imprinted in the centre (plate 8.13b–c), which appears to be a production date. 78 Ibid., pp. 239–40. 79 BOA, DH.İUM, 82-1/1-37, Lef-7/1, 15/1-2. 80 Busch, ‘An introduction to the tin can’, pp. 95–101; Sagona et al., ‘The ANZAC [Arı Burnu] battlefield’, p. 331; Welch & Mitchell, ‘Food processing’, p. 7. 81 Busch, ‘An introduction to the tin can’, p. 96; Duffett, The Stomach for Fighting, p. 37. 175 Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Columbia University Libraries, on 02 Jun 2017 at 21:11:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316278291.011 Anzac Battlefield Canned meat The ‘Bully beef’ tins are the most characteristic, with their rectangular shape and circular indentation in the top and base of the can (plate 8.13d–f). This type of food can was known as the ‘tapered tin’, and it was opened with a winding key that removed a thin section around the end of the can and allowed its contents to be taken out in a single piece.82 Both ‘keys’ and can fragments were found at Anzac front-line positions, including Pope’s Hill (A246, A250; plate 8.13a) and Courtney’s Post (A61.1). Artefact 840 from Holly Ridge is the base of a ‘bully beef’ can that still has the key attached to the side. These tapered tins were generally the Fray Bentos brand of corned beef, produced by the Oxo company from Argentinian beef.83 A fragment was found in an Anzac support trench (F566) at the Nek. Several other international companies supplied canned meat products to the British military during the Gallipoli campaign, including Morris and Company (‘Supreme’ corned beef), the Cudahy Canning Company of Omaha, USA (‘Rex’ corned beef) and the William Davies Company of Toronto, Canada, which supplied tinned bacon.84 Rex corned beef was packaged in a tapered tin like the Fray Bentos brand.85 Larger volumes of canned meat arrived in round food cans like one labelled ‘G. McC. Brand Corned Beef’.86 Maconochie’s tinned beef and vegetable stew was a rare treat for the Gallipoli soldiers, and it too came in large, squat, circular cans (e.g. A824, A882), similar to fragments found on the survey.87 The canned meat products alone point to the global nature of trade during wartime and to the industrial scale of production, with food being sourced from the Americas and the United Kingdom. Condiments Small, circular (e.g. A148, A619) tin cans were ubiquitous, and most likely used for condiments, including jam, preserved fruits, sauces, mustards, chutneys, pickled vegetables and spiced vinegars, which constituted an important part of the Australian diet after the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.88 Jam was a staple of the Anzac military-issued rations during 1915. It was thin and mass-produced, either plum and apple or apricot.89 Condiments also came in bottles, although not all of these containers and products can be identified from the artefacts. There are several examples, however, that indicate the wide-ranging supply network.90 The remains of two oval-shaped tins (A13, A172) might point to the occasional consumption of some different food. 82 83 84 85 86 87 Busch, ‘An introduction to the tin can’, p. 100; Rock, ‘Cans in the countryside’, p. 103, figure 6. See cartoon image of the Fray Bentos brand tin in Bean, The Anzac Book, p. 165. AWM P01815.004 shows these brands. <www.tommyspackfillers.com/showitem.asp?itemRef=RL295> retrieved 10 November 2014. AWM J05578. Kinloch, Echoes of Gallipoli, p. 160. IWM, EPH 4379, <www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/ object/30084304> retrieved 7 November 2014. 88 Lawrence & Davies, An Archaeology of Australia Since 1788, p. 290. 89 Kinloch, Echoes of Gallipoli, p. 159. Cf. AWM collection, RELAWM00326. 90 Lawrence & Davies, An Archaeology of Australia Since 1788, pp. 288, 290–1. 176 Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Columbia University Libraries, on 02 Jun 2017 at 21:11:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316278291.011 Artefacts from the battlefield ‘Mustard squares’ Artefacts A624 and A662, possibly the same item, appear to be fragments of a condiment bottle. Both are square-bodied with distinctive chamfered corners, and were found on Silt Spur amid the remains of the Anzac front-line trenches and tunnel system. Although the shape of this bottle is suggestive of late nineteenth and early twentieth-century tonic, bitter and medicinal compound containers,91 it is most similar to condiment (sauces and mustards) bottles used in Australia and the United Kingdom.92 The closest parallel is the ‘London’ mustard bottle, or a ‘mustard square’, which held dry mustard powder.93 Sherds of bottle A624 were found among a scatter of artefacts (F704) that included metal fragments (A618, A623, A625, A627), metal food cans (A619, A621, A630, A631, A633), curved, clear aqua-tinted bottle glass (A620), shrapnel (A622, A626, A635, A638), barbed wire of British type (A632) and a metal disc (A629). The context here is important. Tunnels, firing positions, shrapnel and barbed wire clearly indicate that F704 was an area of intense conflict, yet the artefactual scatter also suggests that pre-packaged tinned food was consumed there, possibly with condiments or medicines and tonics. A comparison of the surveyed features with the plan drawn up by the 10th Battalion AIF at Silt Spur suggest that this area (F700–F708) was the eastern end of the B2 tunnel, Periscope Hole tunnel and Hancock’s Trench.94 A similar situation was encountered at the Anzac front-line position at the southern end of the Silt Spur line, near a section known as the Black Hand.95 The square, chamfered bottle sherds of A662 were found in a spread of artefacts documented on the steep, eastern cliff edge near the end of a trench (F715), strategic firing positions (F715) and tunnel opening (F716). This scatter included metal fragments (A654), bully beef food can fragments (A655), circular metal food can fragments (A657, A659), Mauser bullet fragments (A656, A658), a piece of shrapnel (A661) and an unexpended .303 calibre SMLE cartridge (A661). This mix demonstrates the extreme conditions of the battlefield where, even in front-line locations under heavy fire, men ate basic, pre-packaged rations and had some access to condiments or medicines. Chutney jar An unusual find is the top of a bottle (A800) with the metal screw cap still firmly in place (plate 8.14), found near a tunnel opening in the Anzac support area to the west of Lone Pine. The cap, originally steel, is heavily corroded. The glass is clear with a faint purple tint, probably caused by manganese dioxide, an additive often used in manufacturing c. 1890–1920.96 This special effort to produce clear, colourless glass was 91 Arnold, Collecting Australian Found Bottles, p. 69; Fike, The Bottle Book, pp. 15–16, figures 3.2, 7.1; Proh, The Australian Bottle Collector, pp. 67–8. 92 Arnold, Collecting Australian Found Bottles, p. 37; Proh, The Australian Bottle Collector, p. 60. 93 Jones, ‘London mustard bottles’, pp. 71, 78 and 80–1 on medicinal usage. 94 AWM G7432, G1S65, Gallipoli XII. 159. 95 Ibid. 96 Lockhart, ‘The color purple’, pp. 45–8; Proh, The Australian Bottle Collector, p. 24. 177 Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Columbia University Libraries, on 02 Jun 2017 at 21:11:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316278291.011 Anzac Battlefield preferred for medicine bottles, soft drink bottles and preserving jars so that the colour of the contents was visible to customers.97 Its find spot amid a scatter of bully beef tins (A796, A797), clear and aqua bottle glass sherds (A798.1. A798.2), sherds of SRD jars (see below) (A799) and shrapnel (A796) near dugouts and tunnel openings suggests that this jar might have held food rather than medicines. Jam or preserves pot The sherds of a distinctive ceramic jar A997 (plate 8.15) were found in the trenches and dugouts right behind the Anzac front line on Holly Ridge. It is a white-glazed, small earthenware jar with a straight rim and a narrow groove around the top. The glaze is crazed and stained, and one sherd has a partial crest or insignia with the date ‘1837’ above it, transfer-printed in dark blue. It is the only one of its kind found on the battlefield during our surveys and compares well to late nineteenth-century jam or preserve jars from the United Kingdom.98 The early date on the jar suggests it had been kept for some time and reused. Perhaps the jam or preserves were homemade and, together with the jar, might have been part of a care package sent from home to an Anzac soldier. It was found in a large scatter of artefacts that included barbed wire, bullet fragments, shrapnel, cylindrical metal food tin fragments, a pressed brick fragment, periscope glass and aqua bottle glass. The location appears to be a rubbish dump in no man’s land, where barbed wire entanglements were positioned between the Turkish and Anzac front lines. The assemblage accumulated as Anzac soldiers in the front line threw refuse from their meals into this area. Medicine and tonics There are several glass bottle fragments that could have been used to hold medicines or tonics. Glass bottle base A199 was from a small, aqua-coloured, square-bodied bottle or jar (plate 8.16), mostly likely hand blown. The base has a shallow circular indent with the numbers ‘157’ and the letter ‘S’ visible. It was found behind the Allied front lines of Quinn’s Post, along with metal food can remnants (A197) and an unexpended Anzac bullet (A198). It could have been the remnants of a food container, but more possibly of a medicine or ointment jar.99 In any case, it was clearly an import used by Allied soldiers. Medicine bottles or castor oil bottles are probably represented by two cobalt-blue glass sherds (A725 and A858) found in Anzac areas. During the nineteenth- and early twentieth-century blue or cobalt-coloured glass bottles were associated with medicines, soda water and cosmetics.100 One example is A931.1 with ‘1342’ on its base.101 Another very similar glass bottle base (A1128), found in a scatter of arte97 Lockhart, ‘The color purple’, p. 51; Proh, The Australian Bottle Collector, p. 59. 98 Cf. No 77.50/195 from the Museum of London. <http://archive.museumoflondon.org.uk/ceramics/pages/largerimage.asp?obj_id=70834&img_id=48501> (retrieved 18 November 2014), and the Dundee marmalade jars or pots <www.gracesguide.co.uk/James_Keiller_and_Son> (retrieved 18 November 2014); <www.wessexarch.co.uk/blogs/news/2013/02/27/marmalade-students> (retrieved 18 November 2014). 99 Arnold, Collecting Australian Found Bottles, p. 47; Proh, The Australian Bottle Collector, pp. 67–8; Fike, The Bottle Book, p. 15, figures 3.1, 6.1. 100 Fike, The Bottle Book, pp. 13, 16. 101 Ibid., figure 3. 178 Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Columbia University Libraries, on 02 Jun 2017 at 21:11:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316278291.011 Artefacts from the battlefield facts beside a dugout at North Beach (F990), had the number ‘849’ moulded in the base. A hexagonal base and a relatively wide neck make A1119, documented at the Maori Pah near Outpost No 1, rather unusual. A1128 and A1119 were found in Anzac support areas with scatters of food tins, spirit bottles, SRD sherds, utensils and uniform buttons. These were clearly areas where men rested, ate, drank and took medicines for ailments. Olive oil was mixed with camphor and ether by the Anzac Army Medical Corps to treat shock.102 We might have a hint of this medical treatment with a clear glass sherd (A1141) of a decorated olive oil bottle found near the base of Plugge’s Plateau. Eating and drinking vessels and cookware The Allied troops at Gallipoli used several types of standard, military-issue metal vessels for eating and drinking, including water bottles, pannikins for cooking and eating, metal bowls and ‘billy cans’. Some of these items were issued to each soldier as part of his personal kit, and good examples were found during the survey. Metal mess tins or pannikins were located in Anzac trenches and dugouts on Silt Spur (A802), Bolton’s Ridge (A826), Courtney’s Post (A141) (plate 8.17) and Lone Pine (A673). These D-shaped, shallow, steel containers were used for cooking, for boiling water for tea, and as food bowls. Known as ‘dixies’, they had a lid and a handle and formed part of the standard kit issued to AIF soldiers.103 Soldiers based high up on the Second Ridge positions of Courtney’s Post and Lone Pine, who could not regularly get down to the beaches to bathe, were known to have used these small mess tins and other metal dishes to have a ‘bath’.104 ‘I managed to get half a mess tin of water after tea last Sunday,’ wrote Lieutenant J.H.F. Barnes, ‘so I made a fire, warmed it, cleaned my teeth, had a shave, had a bath, then tried to wash my towel with the water that was left. A mess tin is a very handy thing to have.’105 A slightly larger, circular metal bowl (A948) was found on Holly Ridge. The bowl is corroded, but its overall form is intact, including the remains of two side handles and the flat, domed shape of the bowl.106 Cooking was not very centralised for the Anzac forces, but was done either by each dugout group or, later in the campaign, by each company.107 A further glimpse of food preparation is offered by a ‘billy can’ (A37.1; plate 8.18a, b) found near Anzac dugouts at M’Cay’s Hill, a ridge line located west of Lone Pine and south-west of Johnston’s Jolly.108 This cylindrical steel container with a lid is the only example found during the survey of a vessel used specifically for boiling water and making tea – one of the main beverages consumed by Anzacs, owing to the often severe 102 Wren, From Randwick to Hargicourt, p. 69. 103 Ibid., pp. 26–7, 95. See also AWM P02647.039; AWM RELAWMO7799.004; War Office, The Pattern 1908 Web Infantry Equipment, p. 3. 104 AWM C01829; McInnis, diary, AWM PRO0917, 5 December 1915. 105 Lieutenant J.H.F. Barnes 1915, personal letter <www.anzacsofgallipoli.com/daily-life-at-gallipoli1 .html> retrieved 17 November 2014. 106 Surveyed on 25 September 2013. 107 Kinloch, Echoes of Gallipoli, pp. 160–1. See also McInnis, diary 1915, entries on 19 September and 21 October 1915, AWM PRO0917, and photo AWM A00715. 108 Artefact A037.1 (F139). 179 Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Columbia University Libraries, on 02 Jun 2017 at 21:11:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316278291.011 Anzac Battlefield lack of fresh water.109 Tea and other hot drinks such as cocoa were also used to suppress appetite.110 They were not always liked, either: ‘The tea was a terrible brew,’ wrote one soldier.111 Metal mugs were used for drinking, although no clear remains of Anzac militaryissue mugs were found.112 Artefact 107, possibly a metal mug or a food bowl, found near an Ottoman dugout at German Officers’ Ridge, suggests that Ottoman troops also used metal tableware. The clearest evidence of an eating utensil was found in the last year of our survey. The metal handle of a spoon or fork (plate 8.18c) and a short section of the implement was found in an Anzac support area with many dugouts, located near Outpost No 1 (A1107) known as the Maori Pah.113 Associated with this item were fragments of food cans (A1111, A1112) and SRD sherds (A1108, A1109, A1110). Again the mix of materials within a relatively well-circumscribed area suggests that it was a place for resting, eating, drinking, repairing uniforms and re-equipping. Water Water was a precious commodity for Anzacs at Gallipoli. Most suffered great thirst during the warmer months.114 With few springs or wells in the Anzac-held areas, almost no natural water sources were available during the summer of 1915.115 Although a water condenser had been built on Anzac Cove, most of the water was transported from Malta or Alexandria on barges, then pumped ashore into large storage tanks.116 Large metal containers, old kerosene cans and SRD jars (discussed below) were commonly used to carry water to forward areas and to hold water rations for soldiers (plates 8.19, 8.21).117 Access to potable water was a serious issue, particularly for those near the front lines who had no direct access to water sources. Stationed at Quinn’s Post in November 1915, Lieutenant Ronald McInnis wrote of trying to catch some water in lids of cans during a thunderstorm, explaining that ‘water is very precious at present – I can never get any to drink … we get enough to make about half a pint of tea at each meal.’118 The scarcity of water was due in part to the effort involved in transporting it to the front. It had to be carried by individuals, making their way from the beaches up to the ridgelines, often numerous times a day (figure 8.4). This was the case from the outset, 109 Harvey, The Red and White Diamond, p. 40; McInnis, diary, AWM PRO0917, entry on 26 November 1915. See also Duffett, The Stomach for Fighting, p. 53. 110 Duffett, The Stomach for Fighting, p. 53. 111 Wren, From Randwick to Hargicourt, p. 95. 112 AWM C01920. 113 Kinloch, Echoes of Gallipoli, p. 179. A ‘pah’ for the Maori people was a defensive position or defended settlement (Barber, ‘The Archaeology of New Zealand’, p. 487). 114 King, Gallipoli Diaries, p. 124; Kinloch, Echoes of Gallipoli, p. 161; McInnis, diary, AWM PRO0917, entry on 6 November 1915, entry on 5 December 1915. See Bean’s criticisms of the military’s poor use of local water sources in Fewster, Gallipoli Correspondent, pp. 85–6. 115 Kinloch, Echoes of Gallipoli, p. 161. A few wells were dug and used in the Anzac area (AWM J06116; AWM P01337.003; AWM P01815.016). A good water source was found in a dry riverbed near Outpost No 2 (Kinloch, Echoes of Gallipoli, p. 161). 116 NAA: A1861, 4210. 117 AWM A01818; C01829; C01451; G01241. 118 McInnis, diary, 26 November 1915, AWM PRO0917. An imperial pint is 586ml. 180 Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Columbia University Libraries, on 02 Jun 2017 at 21:11:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316278291.011 Artefacts from the battlefield Figure 8.4 Anzac soldiers line up with an array of metal and ceramic containers for transporting water at No 1 Field Ambulance, located on Dawkins Point. (AWM A01818) with Sergeant Apcar De Vine recording the ‘many trips backwards and forwards carrying water to the 2nd Battalion in the trenches’ that he made on 25 April.119 Sergeant Cyril Lawrence comments on the difficulty of the task: ‘All water rations and goods, ammunition, shells, etc has to be manhandled right up to the trenches – in some cases 500 to 600 feet up. The poor infantry …’120 Many different containers were used for the transport and storage of water, from the large water tanks still visible at the Nek to empty kerosene tins and ceramic SRD jars (figure 8.4).121 Lieutenant McInnis wrote of shaving, brushing his teeth and washing in ‘half a four ounce tobacco tin of water’.122 Although many containers were used to store water, the principal one designed for this purpose was the army-issued water canteen. The Anzacs and the British Army were issued with these British-made, blue-enamelled iron water bottles. Those in use in 1915 were standard-issue Pattern 1903 Mark VI royal-blue canteens. They have a kidney-shaped cross-section. The body of the bottle is made like a tin can, with a seam running up one side. The spout is attached separately to the curved shoulders, and a tapered cork sealed the bottle. A string from an eyebolt through the centre of the cork attached it to the felt or cloth covering of the bottle, which was carried in a leather or canvas cradle. The cloth covering was in three pieces, consisting of a machine-stitched sleeve and hand-stitched base and top, cut with a hole for the spout. Typically, the carrier for the water bottle consisted of four or five straps. Variations in the form of the bottles point to different manufacturers. Additional contractors had to be brought on to cope with wartime demand. Sometimes manufacturing concessions were issued 119 120 121 122 Apcar Leslie De Vine, diary, 1915, AWM private record 1DRL/0204. Lawrence, Gallipoli Diary, pp. 26–7. AWM A01818. McInnis, diary, 5 December 1915, AWM PRO0917. 181 Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Columbia University Libraries, on 02 Jun 2017 at 21:11:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316278291.011 Anzac Battlefield to smaller companies that might not have the machinery to create the bottle’s usual pressed base and shoulders, resulting in some providers supplying water bottles with flat tops or bases. Durability was important, and while iron is already a strong material, the process of enamelling makes it even more resistant to corrosion. The choice of deep cobalt blue enamel for the Mark VI water bottle was based on performance rather than aesthetic appeal. Numerous types of metal oxides can be used in the enamelling process, but cobalt oxide is a particularly good adherent and produced the most durable coating for use in the one-layer enamel process for firing the water bottles. This was known well before the war, and many Victorian-era enamelled items are edged in chip-resistant cobalt blue. Five water bottles were found near the front lines on the Second Ridge. One was on Pope’s Hill, one at Lone Pine, two at Courtney’s Post (plate 8.20) and one at Quinn’s. The blue-enamelled bottles at Quinn’s and Courtney’s had each been pierced by bullet holes, causing corrosion where the enamel had chipped. Large steel water tanks went some way to offsetting the water shortage for the Anzacs. These very heavy constructions had to be hauled up to positions higher above the beaches.123 They were installed on terraces cut out of the hill slopes to accommodate them. Such is the large platform levelled for the purpose above Anzac Cove, near the summit of Plugge’s Plateau.124 Sergeant Cyril Lawrence described in his diary the impressive feat of a Maori working party hauling one of these water tanks. They were ‘all yelling and puffing. Great big men. Golly! That tank fairly flew up. All Australia stood to watch and afterwards gave them a cheer.’125 Several of these large tanks remain at the Nek, where they were moved sometime after 1915. Feature 562 is a large, rectangular water tank made from four sheets of 0.5cm thick steel plates riveted together, with curved corners. The tank is rusted but still very solid, and is 246.5cm long x 154.5cm wide. Several bullet holes are visible in the southern side of the tank, two of which were repaired (plugged with metal). In the top is a square opening, 45 x 45cm, which once had a lockable hatch that is now missing. There is a second water tank of very similar size located about 50m to the east, also just beside the road overlooking Monash Gully. Like food, water was not such an issue for the Ottoman soldiers. To meet the great water needs of the troops, well-sinker squads of the Sapper Battalions actively dug new wells and ensured the control of existing fountains and springs (figure 8.5).126 Reuse Under constant fire from Turkish artillery and restricted to a relatively small area, open only to the sea, Anzac soldiers became very inventive, reusing and recycling materials at hand. We have already mentioned the reuse of mirrors for periscopes, and plate 8.21 shows the variety of different containers used to carry and store water, including SRD 123 124 125 126 AWM PG01117, P01116.032. Bean, Official History, vol. 2, pp. 465–6. AWM G01119 and AWM C01812. Lawrence, Gallipoli Diary, p. 55. ATASE, Birinci Dünya Harbi’nde Türk Harbi V.Cilt 3.Kitap, Çanakkale Cephesi Harekâtı (Haziran 1915–Ocak 1916), p. 530. 182 Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Columbia University Libraries, on 02 Jun 2017 at 21:11:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316278291.011 Artefacts from the battlefield Figure 8.5 Ottoman soldiers gathered at the Arif Bey water spring. (ATASE) jars, large rectangular and cylindrical metal containers including kerosene cans.127 The reuse of all manner of containers is a feature of the Gallipoli campaign. Drink bottles, such as Bomonti beer bottles, for instance, could be reused for holding other kinds of liquids, including homemade vinegars, sauces or even fuel, oil or petrol if necessary.128 Jam and bully beef tins were reused as homemade grenades (figure 8.2). A bomb-making factory was set up above Anzac Cove to turn the thousands of empty food cans into jam tin bombs, mentioned above.129 An improvised sentry’s warning wire at Pope’s Hill also employed empty jam tins and their lids.130 Bully beef tins were also reused to create the self-firing rifles that were set up in December 1915 to give the impression that the Anzacs were still at their posts while they evacuated. The water slowly dripped from one tin into another tin below it, which was tied to the rifle trigger. Once the lower tin was heavy enough with water, it would pull the trigger and fire the rifle.131 Even the lids of explosive cans were reused, as dinner plates for the officer’s cookhouse.132 Kerosene cans were particularly multipurpose: to carry water up to the front lines on the ridges,133 to hold loaves of bread, or to bathe and to wash clothes.134 They were even modified to make a sieve or possibly a homemade ‘shower’, such as A817. 127 For SRD, see A01818; C01829; G01829; for metal containers, AWM A01818; C00776; H03939. 128 On reuse, Busch, ‘Second time around’, and Lawrence & Davies, An Archaeology of Australia Since 1788, p. 289. 129 AWM G00267. 130 AWM RELAWM00326. 131 AWM G01291; Bean, Official History, vol. 2, pp. 883–4; King & Bowers, Gallipoli, p. 270. 132 McInnis, diary, AWM PR00917, entry from 26 November 1915. 133 Bean, Official History, vol. 2, p. 465; Lawrence, Gallipoli Diary, p. 465. See also AWM photo C00776. 134 AWM C00776; C01451; C03611; P01116.062; P01815.004. 183 Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Columbia University Libraries, on 02 Jun 2017 at 21:11:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316278291.011 Anzac Battlefield Drink SRD jars These large, flat-bottomed, cylindrical stoneware jars with rounded shoulders and small necks contained military-issued beverages, usually rum, lime juice and other liquids. The acronym ‘SRD’ printed or impressed on the sides or shoulders of these vessels (plate 8.19a) stands for ‘Supply Reserve Depot’.135 Soldiers in the Anzac front lines received a ration of rum and lime juice twice per week.136 They often received a rum ration before ‘going over the top’ to rush the Turkish trenches, and to keep them warm during the cold of November and December.137 The jars had metal handles attached to their necks, were sealed with stoppers, and were transported in wooden crates. Like most containers, they were also used to transport other liquids once the original content was drained.138 SRD jars have a distinctive, two-tone glazed finish, with pale cream or translucent glaze on the lower body and brown on the shoulder and neck (plate 8.19a–c). This type of ceramic ware is known as Bristol-glazed stoneware, characterised by its industrial slip glaze.139 It was a very smooth glaze that produced a more hygienic vessel, highly appropriate for beverage containers. Originally developed by William Powell Company of Bristol c. 1835, the glaze was soon used by many other stoneware producers.140 Bristol-glazed ceramics were common in the form of jugs, bottles and jars in Australia and the United Kingdom during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.141 Large demijohns were produced for a wide range of purposes, including the storage and transportation of alcohol, wines and chemicals.142 The colour of the glazes on SRD sherds from Gallipoli varies, most noticeably for brown, which grades from very pale to dark shades. SRD jars also came in a range of sizes, reflecting the different manufacturers from Britain. Most containers stood between 30cm and 40cm tall and had a base between 17cm and 30cm in diameter. They appear to have been around one gallon in capacity; the smaller items might well have been quarter-gallon demijohns.143 Some of the manufacturers can be identified by the maker’s marks stamped or printed on the base of the jars. Artefact A825, for instance (plate 8.19c), was manufactured by Hunts Patent of Liverpool,144 whereas base 135 <www.awm.gov.au/collection/REL/06474/> retrieved 1 October 2014. Other names used colloquially were ‘Service Rum Distribution’, ‘Seldom Reaches Destination’, ‘Service Rum Diluted’ and ‘Soon Runs Dry’. 136 Kinloch, Echoes of Gallipoli, p. 160. 137 Hart, Gallipoli, pp. 117, 241, 405; Kinloch, Echoes of Gallipoli, pp. 137, 262. 138 <www.awm.gov.au/collection/REL/06474/> retrieved 1 October 2014; Kinloch, Echoes of Gallipoli, p. 160. 139 Brooks, An Archaeological Guide to British Ceramics in Australia 1788–1901, p. 28; Godden, Encyclopaedia of British Pottery and Porcelain Marks, p. 509. 140 Brooks, An Archaeological Guide to British Ceramics in Australia 1788–1901, p. 28; Godden, Encyclopaedia of British Pottery and Porcelain Marks, p. 509; Wood, The World of British Stoneware, p. 100. 141 Brooks, An Archaeological Guide to British Ceramics in Australia 1788–1901, p. 28. 142 Arnold, Old Bottles, p. 58. 143 This is based on comparisons with similar stoneware demijohns in the Powerhouse Museum collection, for example <www.powerhousemuseum.com/collection/database/?irn=101335> (retrieved 26 November 2014). Complete examples of these can be seen in the local museum at Alçıtepe. 144 Wood, The World of British Stoneware, p. 128. 184 Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Columbia University Libraries, on 02 Jun 2017 at 21:11:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316278291.011 Artefacts from the battlefield sherd A833 was made by Grosvenor of Glasgow.145 Other manufacturers include James Pearson Limited of Chesterfield, Derbyshire (A4),146 Doulton and Company Limited, Lambeth (A150)147 and Bristol Pottery, Bristol (A724). SRD jar sherds comprise almost 54 per cent of the ceramics documented on the Gallipoli battlefield. They were found almost exclusively in the Anzac trenches, dugouts and tunnel openings (front line and support areas), and often in large quantities. Their high durability and light colour makes them an artefact that endures well in the landscape and is highly visible during surveys. Moreover, their heavy weight means they have usually not moved far from their original deposition location, making them a good indicator of Anzac occupation areas. Liquor or spirits bottles Artefact 1044 from Outpost No 2 was a bottle glass fragment, curved, clear with faint blue-green tint. Some moulded letters are partially preserved and read ‘… GLAND’, most probably ‘[EN]GLAND’. The style of lettering is consistent with that used on bottles of high-alcohol spirits, such as whisky, from the United Kingdom and Ireland in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.148 Ninety-five sherds from a recently broken, dark-green, glass bottle (A861; plate 8.22a) were recovered at Outpost No 3, along with the ceramic sherds of several SRD rum jars. The bottle’s bulged neck, cylindrical body and dark olive-green colour suggest a spirits or wine bottle.149 Clearly, then, Anzac soldiers in this area imbibed not only military-issue rum but perhaps other varieties of alcohol as well, possibly brought in by individual officers. Attention should also be drawn to a green-glazed ceramic sherd found nearby (plate 8.22b), one of the few Ottoman ceramics we discovered. Beer bottles Brown bottle glass was found in front-line locations at Gallipoli, most often in Turkish areas. Although brown or amber-coloured glass was used for general bottling applications, it was very widely used for alcoholic beverages, including beer and whisky, after 1860.150 The brown bottle glass can be identified as the remains of beer bottles, specifically Bomonti or Nectar beer, which is still brewed in Turkey today (plate 8.23). The Swiss-German Bomonti brothers and the London-based Nectar Brewery Company, as well as several other smaller operations, brewed beer in Istanbul from the 1890s until the 1930s.151 There was a large market for their products in Turkey from the 1890s to 145 Cruickshank, Scottish Pottery, p. 25; Godden, Encyclopaedia of British Pottery and Porcelain Marks, p. 295, Wood, The World of British Stoneware, p. 126. 146 Wood, The World of British Stoneware, p. 135. 147 Godden, Encyclopaedia of British Pottery and Porcelain Marks, p. 214. 148 Arnold, Old Bottles, p. 46; Proh, The Australian Bottle Collector, pp. 42–3. 149 Arnold, Collecting Australian Found Bottles, p. 64; Old Bottles, p. 43; Proh, The Australian Bottle Collector, pp. 41–3; <www.sha.org/bottle/liquor.htm#Squat spirits cylinder bottles> (retrieved 10 September 2014). 150 Fike, The Bottle Book, p. 13. 151 Eren, ‘Bira İmalathanelerinden Bira Fabrikalarına’, pp. 85–9. 185 Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Columbia University Libraries, on 02 Jun 2017 at 21:11:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316278291.011 Anzac Battlefield the First World War, and beer halls and beer gardens became very popular in multicultural Constantinople in the 1890s and early 1900s.152 Artefact 736 is a fragment of a Bomonti bottle. The word ‘BRASSERIE’ moulded on the bottle is French for ‘brewery’, and the Constantinople imprint suggests it is a Bomonti beer bottle, or possibly a Bomonti-Nectar Brewery bottle. Bomonti beer bottles bore the company name in both Turkish (Arabic script?) and French (Latin script), hence ‘BOMONTI BRASSERIE/CONSTANTINOPLE’ on artefacts A21, A23 and A736.153 Fragment A736 was found in the Turkish front-line trenches at the top of the Knife’s Edge, south of Lone Pine, with many local handmade Madytos bricks (A735.1 and A735.2)154 Artefact 577 is also a brown glass bottle. The two sherds have the manufacturer’s details in Arabic and English: ‘THE NE … … ERY CO LTD/CO …’; namely, the Nectar Brewery Company Limited, Constantinople. Other Bomonti Brewery bottles were found in the Turkish trenches of Johnston’s Jolly (A15, A21, A23), German Officer’s Ridge (A068) and to the north-east of Lone Pine (A488). These brown glass sherds suggest that a variety of bottles produced by the BomontiNectar company in 1915 were being used. Although at first this might indicate that at least some of the soldiers, whether Ottoman or perhaps German, had access to bottled, lower-alcoholic beverages, it is more likely that, as mentioned above, soldiers were reusing beer bottles, possibly for water, just as the Anzacs did with SRD jars and other containers. There are several reasons to think so. First is the bottles’ location in the Turkish front-line trenches. Had alcohol been consumed, one would have expected evidence in the support trenches or rest areas. Then there is the shortage of materials, well documented in Ottoman missives, which promoted recycling. By contrast, no beer bottles were identified from the Anzac areas. Two examples of brown bottle glass were found in Anzac front-line areas, but these do not have any Bomonti or Nectar branding. A675, found to the east of Anzac front-line trench F734 north of Lone Pine,155 is a very thick (0.8cm), brown glass bottle base, with a deeply indented and concave base (punt). At only 5.8cm diameter it appears to have been too small for wine or whisky, despite the punt, but could have been a liquor bottle or a very small beer bottle.156 Brown glass bottle fragments (A182), also likely to be from a liquor bottle, were also found at Quinn’s Post. A large number of clear or aqua-hued bottle glass fragments were found predominantly in Anzac areas. The majority of them could not be associated with a particular food or drink, or with specific producers. Containers and storage Fuel cans The remains of large, rusty metal containers, often fragmentary and distorted, were documented in both Anzac and Turkish front-line areas of Second Ridge. Some were probably 152 153 154 155 Ibid., pp. 89, 91, 93. See examples at http://levantineheritage.com/bomonti.htm (retrieved 2 October 2013). Bean, Official History, vol. 1, pp. 300–1. This area was originally held by Turkish forces, and the bottle base might have been from their occupation. 156 Arnold, Collecting Australian Found Bottles, p. 95. See Proh, The Australian Bottle Collector, p. 50, and Arnold, Collecting Australian Found Bottles, pp. 91–5, for liquor bottles. 186 Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Columbia University Libraries, on 02 Jun 2017 at 21:11:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316278291.011 Artefacts from the battlefield steel buckets, such as A3 (plate 8.21a) and A545 (plate 8.21b); others were originally used to package fuel such as kerosene and petrol, or lubricants like motor oil. A good example of a kerosene can is A20.1 found at Johnston’s Jolly.157 Remains of another were found below Anzac No 3 Outpost in a support area. Although the can is badly corroded, the product name of ‘CROWN’ is nonetheless embossed in the side with a brand symbol. Two bullet holes are visible in the can.158 A Shell Motor Oil can, A40 (plate 8.21c), recovered at an Anzac dugout on the ridge of M’Cay’s Hill, has part of the company logo visible and embossed lettering: ‘SHELL MO … //PE … EUM’ and ‘Spirit … ighly flammable’ on the side. A similar find (A748) from a Turkish area on the front line at Snipers’ Ridge shows that the Ottoman forces also had access to this product. Other large metal containers were also found in Turkish trenches at Lone Pine, German Officers’ Ridge and the Nek. These were not clearly identifiable as particular types of container, but are consistent with fuel cans. Artefact A475.1 appears to have been modified and reused for a different purpose as it has been cut down and given a roughly serrated edge down one side. COMMUNICATION AND LOGISTICS In these days of sophisticated communication systems that enable instant connections across vast distances, it is hard to imagine the difficulties soldiers of the First World War experienced in transmitting messages to one another. In addition to their daily hardships, soldiers had to struggle with communication equipment that was unwieldy and difficult to transport. Yet sending messages around the battlefield was of critical importance. The lives of many men often hinged on an effective form of communication between the front line and commanders. During the First World War, there were five basic forms of communication: telephones and telegraphy, visual signalling (flags, lamps and heliograph), human messengers (or ‘runners’), messenger dogs, and pigeons. Of these, the field telephone was the preferred means, owing to its immediacy. The telegraph, too, proved to be very effective, although slower: messages had to be written, transmitted, then transcribed by the receiving operator. Despite their portability compared to the radio, which in its fledgling years was still cumbersome and unreliable, the field telephone and the telegraph systems required landlines, which often festooned a battlefield. They were attached to the sides of trenches, laid across open ground, swathed over the tops of sandbags, and even buried beneath the surface. In normal circumstances landlines could be easily maintained, but in a war zone they were susceptible to breakage from artillery attacks, poor visibility and many other factors. These communication systems, then, required constant maintenance. In the Anzac battlefield we found spools of telephone wire (A569) at Lone Pine (plate 8.24a–b). A glimpse of the communication system was also discovered at Ari Burnu point; namely, small fragments of conjoint cables (A1153; plate 8.25). Although we did not find any communications-related Ottoman items, we do have fairly detailed information on Ottoman logistic systems. Supplies from the various storehouses were transported under extreme difficulties. The closest railway station was at Uzunköprü, some 80km north of Saros Bay. Beasts of burden were also used 157 Cf. AWM A01818; H03939; P1116.69.621; PS1510; PS1576. 158 Cf. Sergeant Lawrence, Gallipoli Diary, pp. 20–1. 187 Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Columbia University Libraries, on 02 Jun 2017 at 21:11:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316278291.011 Anzac Battlefield for overland transport, but the amount they could carry was limited. Ox carts ponderously crossed the rugged landscape, while camels and donkeys were also saddled with weighty loads. Sea transport via the Marmara Sea was also necessary. Owing to British and French submarines in the Dardanelles, provisions for the Ottoman Fifth Army were transported via barges towed by tugboats and sailboats operating under the cover of darkness.159 This arrangement was not adequate for the timely delivery of food to the troops. Accordingly, the Logistics General Inspectorate was formed on 5 August 1915,160 and a new system for despatching supplies was implemented, centralised in the vicinity of Madytos (Eceabat). In addition, storehouses at each of Kilya and Akbaş, and an Army Corps store at Biga, were established for the 2nd Battle Group. Other changes in terms of storage saw, from 7 July 1915, the Uzunköprü and Keşan areas assigned as stores for bread (for 15 days), other food (for 5 days) and feed (for 7.5 days) to meet the needs of some of the troops (45 000 men) and animals (15 000). Meanwhile, supplies could be kept for longer periods at the Saros, Şarköy and Gallipoli stores.161 The Bandırma Storehouse remained the main hub for the Fifth Army.162 PERSONAL ITEMS Perhaps the most poignant items discovered during our survey are the personal ones. The most intriguing and surprising of the uniform items recovered were the remains of a soldier’s leather boot (A216) found at Pope’s Hill on what was the Allied side of the front line for most of the 1915 campaign (plate 8.26a). The boot remains were found in the soil and leaf debris of an Anzac trench (F441). Five brass screws that once attached the four layers of leather in each of three boot fragments have survived. These fragments are probably the remains of a standard-issue boot: a lace-up, ankle-length style with tanned cowhide leather upper and full leather sole. Steel toe- and heel-plates were fixed to the sole and sometimes hobnails as well.163 Although we are unsure of the post-depositional history of this boot, its partial survival nonetheless indicates the durability of thick leather even in quite variable and often humid climatic conditions. The remains of two heel plates were also recovered, one (A27) at Johnson’s Jolly and the other (A134) at Turkish Quinn’s. Neither is complete, one end having broken off, but both are clearly horseshoe-shaped and ferrous, and nail holes are obvious; A134 (plate 8.26b) still has a centimetre-long nail in one of the holes. A total of 11 buttons were recovered. Six (A50, A132, A403, A540, A575 and A1122) were general-purpose, non-ferrous metal buttons used on clothing items such as shirts and trousers (plate 8.26c). They are all much the same size and shape, although there are some minor differences. Some have four machined, circular holes, others only three. One button (A50) had a manufacturer’s name ‘… arth and Sons Limited’ embossed around the perimeter. Four are in very good condition, but the fifth (A403) is 159 Liman von Sanders, Türkiye’de Beş Yıl, pp. 94–5. 160 ATASE, Birinci Dünya Harbinde Türk Harbi Çanakkale Cephesi Harekâtı (BDHTH), c. V/I (Haziran 1914–25 Nisan 1915), p. 255. 161 Ibid., pp. 241–3. 162 For telegrams, see (cotton) BOA, DH-İUM, E-8/69; (corn) BOA, DH-İUM, E-8/97; (olive oil) BOA, DH-İUM, E-8/102; (tallow) BOA, DH-İUM, E-9/2; (soap) BOA, DH-İUM, E-9/6; (horse bean) BOA, DH-İUM, E-9/9. 163 Cf. AWM RELAWM01089.001, and RELAWM14250.002. 188 Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Columbia University Libraries, on 02 Jun 2017 at 21:11:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316278291.011 Artefacts from the battlefield much more corroded, perhaps because it is made of a different alloy. The buttons would have secured pocket flaps or the front of shirts, or attached braces to trousers or been fly buttons. A19 (plate 8.27a–b) is much more ornate and larger. It shows the embossed crest for Edward Rex VII surrounded by the words ‘Australian Commonwealth’. This type of button was manufactured before the Gallipoli campaign, between 1903 and 1910, and could therefore have come from the uniform of someone who was serving in the militia before the Great War broke out. These buttons were manufactured in various sizes, and this particular example is likely to have come from the pocket flaps, cuffs or shoulder straps of a uniform tunic.164 In 2014, five buttons belonging to Allied uniforms were documented. One (A1122), located close to North Beach just to the north of the Anzac Commemorative Site, was similar to the general-purpose buttons described above. Another (A1126) has the map of Australia with a crown at the top and the words ‘Australian Military Forces’ embossed on its face (plate 8.27f).165 Buttons of this size were used on caps and gorgets. A British button (A1131), also located on North Beach, has the UK coat of arms (the lion and unicorn) embossed on its face (plate 8.27c–d).166 In front of Outpost No 1 was A1093, with the embossed words ‘… ZEALAND FORCES’ and two stars readily distinguishable (plate 8.27e). These last two buttons are the same diameter as the Edward VII button described above and would also have come from the pocket flaps, cuffs or shoulder straps of a uniform tunic. It has not yet been possible to identify the final button (A1032). Its only features are a long solid shank, and the word ‘SUPERIOUR’ [sic] stamped on its underside. For most of the campaign, the areas where these buttons were located were support areas, also used as rest areas. Swimming was a regular activity off North Beach where three of the buttons were located, and they might well have fallen off while soldiers were changing their clothes. Additionally, soldiers would have taken as little kit as possible to the front line, so it is not surprising that buttons were found here instead. A variety of buckles and other types of fasteners were located. A noteworthy example (A753) is obviously non-ferrous and features the manufacturer’s name, PRIMA, embossed between the two claws (plate 8.28a). This buckle from Snipers’ Ridge also features a repeating guilloche pattern on the centre bar. It is particularly well preserved and was part of the system for securing the waistband on German uniform trousers. The rear trouser seam had a V-shaped notch at the waist. Tabs was sewn on either side; one held the buckle, and the other was threaded through it to tighten the trousers.167 This buckle was found together with spent Mauser bullet cartridges (A754 and A755) on the Turkish front line overlooking the Anzac front to the west. It suggests the presence of German military personnel in the Turkish trenches during the Gallipoli conflict. 164 Cossum, Buttons of the Defence Forces in Australia, p. 30. 165 Cf. AWM collection, AWM, REL37605. 166 Ripley, Buttons of the British Army 1855–1970, p. 52, but cf. Cox, Military Badges of the British Empire 1914–18, pp. 160–3, who links it to the Norfolk Yeomanry. 167 Kraus, The German Army in the First World War, pp. 170–9. 189 Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Columbia University Libraries, on 02 Jun 2017 at 21:11:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316278291.011 Anzac Battlefield Two brass double hooks (A330, A807) came from the ends of Allied webbing belts and were the means by which the belt length was adjusted. The belt was folded back on itself at the clasp, and the prongs were inserted into sockets within the webbing. In each case a fragment of cotton webbing remains wedged in one of the loops (plate 8.28b). Another buckle, A63, is the Allied uniform end buckle for webbing straps, pouch straps, water bottle straps and the like.168 Each set of webbing would have included at least 10 of these buckles. The Pattern 1908 cotton webbing infantry haversack, by itself, had four of these buckles, so tens of thousands of them would have been present during the campaign.169 Buckle type A811 was also common (plate 8.28c), used especially for leather items such as belts and bandoliers.170 It could also have been part of a donkey or horse’s harness, although it is unlikely those animals were taken so close to the front line. A non-ferrous metal item (A170), which is curved in a semi-oval fashion, was recovered in the vicinity of Courtney’s and Quinn’s Posts. It appears to have been part of the clasp of a belt buckle with both ends sheared off.171 These clasps were part of many British Empire military uniforms of the Great War, including those of the Royal Navy Brigade, and as part of the khaki drill uniform worn by British troops serving in warmer climates, such as during the summer months on the peninsula. They would therefore have been quite common at Gallipoli.172 The only personal item found on the Ottoman side of the lines was the German trouser buckle mentioned above. Turkish uniforms, which were a drab olive colour and resembled the German ones, were introduced in 1909.173 The soldiers’ headgear was called an ‘Enveriye’, named after Enver Pasha, who had designed them. The soldiers from Anatolia used to wear sandal-like traditional shoes called çarık, which were fixed to the feet by straps. Cloth strips attached to the çarık were bound around the lower leg to form gaiters. Officers’ uniforms, which were made of darker-coloured fabrics, were far sturdier than those worn by the ordinary soldiers; for example, officers wore leather boots. To conclude, this overview of objects recovered with precision from the battlefield enables us to better appreciate the activities and experiences of the soldiers of both forces. The material remains that litter the now peaceful landscape were once witness to the intense psychological and physical stresses endured by the soldiers during this first industrial-scale conflict. The seemingly innocuous fragments of shrapnel, for instance, belie the deafening noise from exploding artillery, the pungent gas emitted and the resultant foul smell of death. No less telling are discard patterns of the food containers, which reinforce how distinctly different were the foods consumed by the Anzacs and the Ottoman soldiers. The range of imported items highlight the vast resources channelled to the peninsula in 1915 and underline the truly worldwide 168 O’Sullivan & O’Sullivan, New Zealand Army Personal Equipment 1910–1945, pp. 59, 214, 219. 169 AWM RELAWM09176 Pattern 1908 pack: Sergeant W.E. Turnley, 1st Field Company Engineers, AIF. 170 O’Sullivan & O’Sullivan, New Zealand Army Personal Equipment 1910–1945, pp. 35–6 ff; Landers, Saddle Up, pp. 44–5. 171 Dianne Rutherford, personal communication, 6 June 2014. 172 For photographs, see Bull, World War One British Army, p. 96; O’Sullivan & O’Sullivan, New Zealand Army Personal Equipment 1910–1945, pp. 45–7. 173 Nicolle, The Ottoman Army 1914–1918, p. 18. 190 Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Columbia University Libraries, on 02 Jun 2017 at 21:11:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316278291.011 Artefacts from the battlefield investment and involvement in this conflict. The distribution of food items also shows that soldiers, through necessity, ate not only in rest areas but also amid the fray on the front lines – food items are poignant symbols of the fine line between life and death that was the soldiers’ war experience. Although we did not search for the remains of the soldiers lost in the battle, their personal items – boot sole or button, or buckle – are testament to their presence, so long ago but never forgotten. 191 Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Columbia University Libraries, on 02 Jun 2017 at 21:11:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316278291.011