Scottish Battlefields article

[macwilkin]

Culloden is perhaps a special case in that so many who fell or were subsequently butchered are buried on the site on the orders of the victorious army. This makes it not only a battlefield but also a war grave and, as such, has a special significance and reason to remain untouched. The normal practice of those days was for the dead and wounded to be taken away by their kinfolk and they would have been buried elsewhere which leaves such battlefields as interesting historical sites but little more. Whether they should be allowed to become building sites or anything else is debateable but just consider the battlefields of World War I where so many died and are still buried there, undiscovered, but where agriculture, road building and other development goes on.

As a former park ranger who worked at a American Civil War Battlefield, I'm not so sure I agree with Phil that a battlefield with no graves is somehow less worthy of preservation than those that do, such as the battlefields of Western France.

At our battlefield, the majority of the dead were reinterred in a National Cemetery in Springfield in 1867, or in some cases, claimed by family members. But the majority were simply not able to be identified, as military graves registration had simply not been developed at that time as it is today. Soldiers might pin pieces of paper with their next-of-kin's name and residence to their uniforms, or purchased "dog tags" from sutlers, but even that was no guarantee of proper identification if killed. Many of them lie under "unknown" tombstones in the National Cemetery. If we allow the battlefield where they were killed to be destroyed, then their legacy will be destroyed along with it.

Regardless of where the dead lie, a battlefield still is a national shrine, and an important educational tool for future generations.

T.