1. 1
Anth 324 S 11
Benjamin A. Morley
Writing assignment
Theme: Evidence
Evidence is one of the most important foundations of Archaeology, yet it often takes
many forms from swords and bullets to shards of pottery and film. The conventional forms of
evidence are well established and help to describe events in the ancient past to the modern time,
arrows and other cheaply produced implements of warfare often help archaeologists learn about
wars in the past. However in the advent of firearms, bullets have taken on the role of arrows and
different forms of evidence are left for archaeologists for which there was no equivalent in the
past. Some forms of media have taken on new potential as evidence for conflicts, while new
techniques have lead archaeologists to discover evidence for battles in places such as in the sea.
Yet with these new advances, there is also the danger of being barraged with too much
information and possibly wrong conclusions due to the excess of information. Combat footage
and photography are both new forms of evidence (new as in these tools only existed for the past
century or so) for actual conflicts. It can be argued that films can be a form of memorial to
battles by recreating them for the audience and recalling a version of the battle for later
generations so as to instill a memory of it in individuals who either were not part of the actual
battle at the time or lived after the battle took place, a cinematic memorial (Kaes, 1990). Combat
footage will be assessed for its’ merits and flaws in regards to archaeology, as will photography
and other forms of evidence.
The two case studies for evidence are the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre and the D-Day
invasion, both of which occurred in the modern time (1928 and 1944 respectively). Each of

2. 2
these cases has strong cinematic traditions and cultural connections to the United States and has
become a part of the national past. Yet the actual sites of these conflicts had different forms of
evidence than the battle of Towton or Kadesh. As it pertains to warfare, D-Day and the
Massacre both incorporate new techniques of evidence that help expand what archaeologists can
use to recreate and document the conflicts of the past and present. As the metal detector was for
Towton, so cinema, underwater detection, and ballistics are for D-Day and the St. Valentine’s
Day Massacre. The incorporation of cinema is especially important for modern conflicts because
it’s one source of documentation that can bridge the gap of time between the past and the
archaeologists, and would be relevant to documenting modern conflicts like Rwanda and
Afghanistan.
The St. Valentine’s Day Massacre was a prime example of gangland warfare during the
Prohibition Era in Chicago, when Al Capone and Bugs Moran were fighting over control of
liquor in Chicago. While American culture is rife with popular knowledge of the Massacre,
passed down from cinema and popular culture, the strongest evidence for the massacre doesn’t
come from movies but from the ballistics tests done in 1930 and the testimony of eyewitnesses
about the case and the eventual consequences it had for Al Capone.
The event leading to the massacre was the high jacking of whiskey shipments from
Detroit by George “Bugs” Moran’s North Chicago gang, which threatened Capone’s control over
alcohol in Chicago. In response, Capone ordered his men to wipe the gang out in one attack,
having a spy in the Moran gang set a trap with a shipment of whiskey. The trap was simple and
brutal- the shipment would be the bait and the Moran gang would gather in one location to
handle the whiskey, only to be caught in a “routine bust” by the police. Yet these “police” were
Capone’s gang, and they used their disguises as police officers to line up seven of Moran’s gang

3. 3
and execute them with Thompson submachine guns and a rifle. The whole massacre took only
eight minutes; the killers had taken three of their own out of the garage to play the charade of
being cops who had arrested some bootleggers to throw off suspicion (Fisher, 2008: 1).
The story of the massacre was put together by eye witness accounts originally (Goddard,
1930: 61). The city coroner, Dr. Herman N. Bundesen, had photographs of the crime scene
taken and collection of the spent ammunition and fragments of ammunition. Dr. Bundesen, with
the help of several colleagues and police officers and the survivor, reenacted the massacre.
Autopsies were performed and the bullets were removed and recorded as to which body they
belonged to (Goddard, 1930:62). The first forms of evidence for the massacre are eye witness
accounts, the bodies, the crime scene itself, and the bullets. When the killers left, they took their
guns with them. When Goddard became involved in the case, a few days after the massacre, he
analyzed the evidence to determine the weapons used by the killers and what ammunition was
used. In total, fourteen .45 caliber bullets, two shotgun shells, twenty five metal jacket
fragments, and twenty two cores were found on the ground. In the victims, about 39 .45 caliber
bullets were found in the bodies along with seven buck shots (Goddard, 1930: 70-73, 75).
After testing the types of weapons which would have used .45 caliber bullets, including
actually test firing specimens of the Thompson, Smith and Weston, and pistols of several makes,
Goddard concluded the weapons used for the .45 bullets were the Thompson submachine gun
and that two submachine guns with different clips and barrels had been used. Goddard came to
these conclusions based on the imprints of the bullets and the shotgun shells had also come from
just one weapon, based on the ejector marks on the top of the shells (Goddard, 1930:64-5, 73-5).
After his tests, Goddard had photographed all of his findings and written a report detailing it for
future reference. When Goddard released his report for general consumption in 1930, one of the

4. 4
killers had been identified by eye witnesses after he was arrested for an unrelated crime, the
murder of a police officer during a traffic dispute, and the two Thompson submachine guns used
in the massacre were found and identified by using the records Goddard made of the bullets
(Goddard, 1930: 77-8).
The use of ballistics helped to identify not just the weapons, but the brutality and flow
of the massacre. The form of evidence here that really proved the massacre was firearms
identification and ballistics tests. In massacre sites like Sand Creek, the evidence would be
ample to tell archaeologists what weapons and calibers were probably used, but with the St.
Valentine’s Day Massacre the actual weapons that fired the bullets can be identified.
The landing of Allied armies at Normandy on June 6th
, 1944 was one of the turning
points of World War II as the Allies invaded Europe. While there are many forms of evidence
for the battle of D-Day, the focus here will be the landing and some of the early battle itself.
Like World War I, photography and film were used in documenting the war and all militaries in
World War II were using film to document the battles for newsreels back home and for
propaganda. Yet in the case of D-Day, actual soldiers were trained to photograph and film the
battle as it was occurring while occasionally fighting alongside the soldiers they were embedded
with. The unit responsible for photographing and filming the battles of World War two, for the
British, was called the Army Film and Photographic Unit (AFPU), yet little is known about the
actual soldiers who took the photos and film. The unit itself was formed in October 1941, while
the Germans and French had film and photographic units since 1936 and 1939 respectively. The
British military, as well as other militaries, recognized photography and cinematography as both
dangerous for morale and a potential weapon to use against the enemy (Gladstone, 2002: 316).

5. 5
While D-Day has countless documents written before, during, and after the event, oral
accounts by veterans, fortifications used by the Germans, material artifacts such as weapons and
bullets, the presence of film makes this battle different from other major battles such as Towton
in the respect that archaeologists can actually look at the battle from the perspective of the
soldier/cameramen who taped the battle live. Yet there is one element missing from this piece of
evidence that later filming of conflicts has- sound. In 1944, the British experimented with trying
to record the sounds of actual battles while also shooting the battles, but the equipment was too
cumbersome and the AFPU returned to dubbing their films in sound library effects for newsreels
(Gladstone, 2002: 328).
Another piece of evidence for D-Day was the discovery of artifacts underwater by means
of multibeam sonar, which allows for greater detail of objects underwater. The objects
discovered were A landing craft tank was found under 18 meters of water, well preserved with a
lot of debris in the hold, was discovered off Utah beach, several Sherman Duplex Dive tanks
were found 4 kms off the shore of Omaha Beach, caissons and blockade ships which formed an
artificial harbor called the Mulberry harbor. This harbor was destroyed by the storm that started
on June 19th
, 1944. Other artifacts include a destroyer, trucks, tanks, a troop carrier, landing
craft, barges, etc. (Mayer, Calder, Schmidt, & Malzone, 2003: 12-15). Other objects that would
have been underwater from the time of the invasion were moved in the following decades by
local agencies and individuals to make the shores easier to navigate (Mayer, Calder, Schmidt, &
Malzone, 2003: 2).
The invasion of Normandy (D-Day) and the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre share another
form of evidence, the evidence found in the collective memory via the cinema. Movies and
photographs also play a role in documenting historical events because they freeze the event in

6. 6
time for the audience. From photographs the actual bullets, bodies, and crime scene of the St.
Valentine’s Day Massacre can be viewed by those who lived long after the massacre took place.
Photographs are, in this way, similar to the ancient world’s paintings and bas reliefs and frescos.
Photographs were also taken during D-Day, and these photographs record the battle itself, often
from the perspective of the soldier as the actual individuals taking the pictures and filming the
battle were trained soldiers as well. With film and later movies, not only is the battle captured
for the audience, but the events in the film also make the battle play out for the audience. The
difference between the film and an actual excavation is that the battle itself is captured and
replayed in a film complete with actions that would otherwise leave no archaeological trace. The
positions of soldiers, how they moved, what they did during the times they were not fighting,
etc., are all parts of warfare that are caught on film. Combat footage is a visual record of actual
events, giving a feel of connection to the subject greater usually than a written document because
the subject is viewed and the audience knows the subject is a real person (Haggith, 2002: 343-4).
A similar connection sometimes occurs with the dead when archaeologists survey the site of a
massacre and find a mass grave, yet film can make these connections much stronger because the
actual individuals are (at the time of filming) living and physical. Also, filming of the dead in
wartime elicits a strong response for the same reasons- the personal connection. This is part of
the reason the British and other armies were concerned with cinematography and photography in
the first place as a tool for propaganda and a potential weapon to hurt morale both at home and at
the front (Gladstone, 2002: 316). This is one reason why combat film doesn’t always show
casualties, another reason is that camera men actually chose which shots to take and which to
edit or leave out, in part due to limits on film and dangers of battlefield filming (Haggith, 2002:
337).

7. 7
Yet the problems that come with using photographs and film are just like any other form
or archaeological evidence, issues of context and accuracy are just as much a problem with these
forms of evidence as artifacts and monuments at any battle site. Movies about the St.
Valentine’s Day Massacre would have to draw upon the actual court documents and evidence
presented by Dr. Goddard and others who had been to the massacre site after the actual massacre
took place, meaning that all the dialogue and dramatic character development that would be in a
scene of the massacre in a movie would be artistic license and not a factual representation of the
event itself. With D-Day, there are dozens of movies about D-Day, but the actual footage itself
is less dramatic than Saving Private Ryan for several reasons. The first reason is that the footage
itself is rarely in color, as color footage was expensive (Haggith, 2002: 339). The second reason
is that the actual footage is mute, the sounds of battle itself are added in later in a studio because
the equipment to record sound would have been too heavy and expensive for the combat
cameramen to carry along with their gear (Gladstone, 2002: 328). Some films also depict the
soldiers as being ignorant of the camera or acting like the camera didn’t exist, yet in combat
footage many soldiers were “camera hogs”. Occasionally the soldiers would have liked being
photographed or filmed, such as when they’re injured, but the soldiers typically liked being
filmed (Haggith, 2002: 342-3). One major difference with combat film and feature films is that
the soldiers are shown in actual combat, face to face with the enemy and actually fighting them.
In combat film, the waiting, marching, and other non engagement activities are caught in film,
not just combat. Combat film also shows the average soldier, not just commanders, reflecting
the present rather than hindsight or later historians and generals. Combat footage also moves at
the pace of the soldiers, giving a somewhat chaotic view of the battle and the action itself during
the times the cameramen are actually in battle (Haggith, 2002: 344-5).

8. 8
The quality of films depicting the past also vary, the combat footage depends on various
factors. The films depicting the D-Day invasion from the actual battle were used as the basis for
the movie Saving Private Ryan and much effort went into the goal of making the war a personal
experience for the audience, transforming the event in the past into one of a lived experience for
the audience. Some of the extras and actors in many war films, including Saving Private Ryan
and For Theirs is the Glory and The Longest Day, actual veterans were cast and they even
choreographed actual battle scenes and advised on how the battles should play out. The movie
Saving Private Ryan had a strong impact on audiences, even veterans of both World War Two
and other conflicts. Spielberg wanted to give the audience the feel of having been in the landing
at Omaha beach on D-Day (Haggith, 2002: 334-5). Yet with all of this, war movies are still
fictional, while the combat footage depicts real events as they occurred.
While films and photography have their flaws as evidence, they still provide insights that
can help archaeologists learn more about warfare. Photographs help with single pieces of
evidence, such as individual bullets and shells, by presenting the object even if the object no
longer exists or is lost. This was how the findings of Goddard can later be reproduced, assuming
the murder weapons from the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre can be found and ammunition for the
weapons is used. Clothes of the people in photographs can also help archaeologists learn what
people were wearing at a time as well as health and other details that might normally need bones
or written records (such as class, wealth, origin, weather of the time period the photo was taken,
etc.). Film can give many details about the average soldier, the battle itself, and serves as a
visual record of the battle in a view of the present rather than future, and from the perspective of
a soldier or cameraman on the field of battle itself. For battles of the past, movies also can act as
monuments commemorating the battle in the collective memory of the audience and the general

9. 9
public, as these films remind people (however accurately or inaccurately) of events in the past.
Historical films help homogenize public memory while interpreting national history for a varied
audience (Kaes, 1990: 112). The main problem with using film and photography lies in context
and bias, as the producers of both have their own ideas of what to photograph or film. These two
forms of evidence can capture the past, which is the reason archaeologists know more about the
St. Valentine’s Day Massacre and D-Day than they otherwise would have. The site of the
massacre no longer exists in its’ original form and D-Day took place more than sixty years ago.
Evidence for both events has been partly lost over time due to cultural transformations (objects
being removed, bought, simply stored and forgotten, etc.), yet film and photography help
augment the evidence for both events.
References
1. Powers, S. T. (1992). The battle for normandy: the lingering controversy . The Journal of
Military History, 56(3), 455-472. (accessed 03/20/2011).
2. Gladstone, K. (2002). The afpu: the origins of british army combat filming during the
second world war. War and Militarism, 14(3), 316-331 (accessed 03/24/2011).
3. Kaes, A. (1980). History and film: public memory in the age of electronic dissemination.
Film and Memory, 2(1), 111-129. (accessed 03/27/2011).
4. Goddard, C. (1930). The st. valentine day massacre: a study in ammunition-tracing. The
American Journal of Police Science, 1(1), 60-78. (accessed 03/17/2011).
5. Mayer, L. A., Calder, B., Schmidt, J. S., & Malzone, C. (2003). Providing the third
dimension: high-resolution multibeam sonar as a tool for archaeological investigations --

10. 10
an example from the d-day beaches of normandy. Manuscript submitted for publication,
Center for Coastal and Ocean Mapping Joint Hydrographic Center, University of New
Hampshire, Durham, New Hampshire. Retrieved from
http://132.177.103.226/dday/article.pdf (accessed 04/09/2011).
6. Fisher, J. (2008, January 7). Murder on st. valentine's day [Web log message]. Retrieved
from http://jimfisher.edinboro.edu/forensics/valtine3.html (accessed 04/15/2011).
7. Haggith, T. (2002). D-day filming: for real. a comparison of 'truth' and 'reality' in "saving
private ryan" and combat film by the british army's film and photographic unit. Film
History, 14(3), 332-353. (accessed 04/23/2011).
8. Fiorato, Veronica 2007. The Context of the Discovery. In Blood Red Roses: The
Archaeology of a Mass Grave from the Battle of Towton AD 1461, edited by Veronica
Fiorato, Anthea Boylston, and Christopher Knüsel, pp. 1-14. Oxbow Books, Oxford.
This is the exclusive property of Benjamin Andrew Morley. This piece shall not be
reproduced without expressed permission of the author.