Page 6

  A Report from the Research Project Getaryggen 1567. Fig. 1: Daniel Rantzau (1529-1569). In late autumn 1567, a Danish army led by the excellent commander Daniel Rantzau (fig. 1) advanced north from the border towards the Swedish castle of Jönköping. His aim was to strike a decisive blow against the heartland of the Swedish realm, thus forcing the enemy to surrender or at least negotiate. The war, which today is known as the Nordic Seven Years’ War, had been going on since 1563. Continue reading →

  A Report from the Research Project Getaryggen 1567. Fig. 1: Daniel Rantzau (1529-1569). In late autumn 1567, a Danish army led by the excellent commander Daniel Rantzau (fig. 1) advanced north from the border towards the Swedish castle of Jönköping. His aim was to strike a decisive blow against the heartland of the Swedish realm, thus forcing the enemy to surrender or at least negotiate. The war, which today is known as the Nordic Seven Years’ War, had been going on since 1563. Continue reading →

  A Report from the Research Project Getaryggen 1567. Fig. 1: Daniel Rantzau (1529-1569). In late autumn 1567, a Danish army led by the excellent commander Daniel Rantzau (fig. 1) advanced north from the border towards the Swedish castle of Jönköping. His aim was to strike a decisive blow against the heartland of the Swedish realm, thus forcing the enemy to surrender or at least negotiate. The war, which today is known as the Nordic Seven Years’ War, had been going on since 1563. Continue reading →

We would like to officially welcome a new member to Combat Archaeology, Claes B. Pettersson! His bio can be found below and in the members section. Combat Archaeology has been in frequent contact with Claes and has had the pleasure of engaging in many informative discussions with him. Continue reading →

We would like to officially welcome a new member to Combat Archaeology, Claes B. Pettersson! His bio can be found below and in the members section. Combat Archaeology has been in frequent contact with Claes and has had the pleasure of engaging in many informative discussions with him. Continue reading →

We would like to officially welcome a new member to Combat Archaeology, Claes B. Pettersson! His bio can be found below and in the members section. Combat Archaeology has been in frequent contact with Claes and has had the pleasure of engaging in many informative discussions with him. Continue reading →

One of the more constraining factors of geophysical survey in an archaeological context is the potential difficulty in dating or phasing anomalies in the data. Although hard science forms the main component of survey work, there is a large subjective element involved in the interpretation of geophysical survey data, which ultimately can decide the nature, function and phase of features. Continue reading →

One of the more constraining factors of geophysical survey in an archaeological context is the potential difficulty in dating or phasing anomalies in the data. Although hard science forms the main component of survey work, there is a large subjective element involved in the interpretation of geophysical survey data, which ultimately can decide the nature, function and phase of features. Continue reading →

One of the more constraining factors of geophysical survey in an archaeological context is the potential difficulty in dating or phasing anomalies in the data. Although hard science forms the main component of survey work, there is a large subjective element involved in the interpretation of geophysical survey data, which ultimately can decide the nature, function and phase of features. Continue reading →

Introduction Through ambushes and main force assaults, mankind has persisted in their violent conceits throughout history. Violent escapades rooted in rivalry and hatred have certainly added their share to the “slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.” For many, the taking up of arms entailed not only opposing a sea of troubles but also coming face to face with the sea itself. Continue reading →