Introduction
Encyclopedia Britannica defines archaeology as the scientific study of the material remains from past human life and activities. Upon hearing the word ‘archaeology’, one should be forgiven for having visions of people armed with trowels digging in trenches in search of American Indian arrowheads, Roman coins, or treasure from Egyptian tombs. Such imagery is not necessarily incorrect. However, it has the potential to mislead people into thinking that archaeology applies only to the distant past.
Archaeology applies to material from recent times. Many law enforcement agencies and police departments employ archaeologists as consultants when investigating crime scenes. Instead of investigating cultures that vanished long ago, archaeologists may be called upon to investigate the material remains of extant cultures. Oftentimes, these extant cultures may have undergone a radical or traumatic change.
The modern archaeologist is no longer tied to a trowel and a paper map. Nor are they limited to what can be seen only while standing on two feet. Thanks to aerial imagery and what appears to be an endless supply of digital maps, spatial analysis has become an important way of understanding the past. In the appropriate setting, today’s archaeologists do not even have to fumble for their trowels and brushes to disturb the ground and extract objects from long ago. Tools such as Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) and Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) enable in situ observation of underground objects. Such abilities are important when dealing with sensitive, physical, and cultural material, including, but not limited to, human remains.
Twentieth-century Europe saw an obscene amount of violence. Such was evident throughout the century. For affirmation, one may look to battles from the First World War at the beginning of the century to the 1990s turmoil in the former Yugoslavia. The twentieth century also brought about new modes of bringing death and destruction. The machine gun was invented at the twilight of the nineteenth century and was mass-produced in time for the beginning of the First World War. In 1911, an Italian airplane dropped the first aerial bomb over Libya. Bombs, machine guns, and poison gas deployed via airplanes made it easier to kill soldiers and civilians alike.
The darkest period of Europe’s history occurred between 1939 and 1945. The Second World War was waged across and beyond the continent, with the most violent combat taking place on the Eastern Front. This fighting was largely between German and Russian forces. While war raged, Germany’s Nazi government and puppet allies sought the annihilation of all Europe’s Jews, Romani, Cinti, and other groups deemed to be undesirable. While millions of people were murdered in concentration camps, even more were gunned down without being deported to the camps or were left to die in ghettos. Jewish deaths exceeded six million. While up to 150,000 Romani and Cinti were murdered, alongside more than three million Soviet prisoners of war.
As more survivors, witnesses, and veterans of these events die out, experts are turning to archaeology to understand the Holocaust and World War II better. Scholars have published several articles about the archaeology of the Holocaust and the Second World War on the Eastern Front.
When reviewing the literature, the writer found that articles on Holocaust archaeology could be divided into two categories. The first category explains the technicalities employed by archaeologists. The second category is concerned more with the ethics and critical analysis of the investigating archaeologists. Articles on the Second World War focus on forensic analysis, military reconstruction, and geoheritage.
Examples from Scientific Literature
In a publication for the journal Geoscience, Różycki et al. summarize the interdisciplinary work done at the site of the Nazi Death Camp Treblinka between 2016 and 2019. They go on to explain the origins of Treblinka and its use as a forced labor site and death camp. The researchers focus on archaeological work done at the notorious ‘death pits.’ They are quick to note how invasive the work was at these sites in the 1940s. The researchers highlight the use of GIS and remote-sensing technology, such as GPR. Różycki’s team is quick to point out the technology’s role in rediscovering previously unknown grave sites and in expanding the area now known as the Treblinka Concentration Camp.
The specter of Treblinka features in an article written by Seth Augenstein. In the online trade publication Forensic Magazine, Augenstein is quick to contrast the arboreal beauty around Treblinka with the terrible crimes committed at the death camp. His focus is on Caroline Sturdy Colls’s work. She is an archaeologist from the United Kingdom who views Treblinka, along with the other Holocaust sites, as part of the same crime scene. Sturdy Colls was the first archaeologist to excavate at Treblinka since the Nuremberg trials following the Second World War. Augenstein is quick to point out that her work is culturally sensitive and noninvasive. He highlights her use of GIS, LiDAR, and 3D analysis.
Duquesne University faculty member Philip Reeder is quick to indicate that the two geophysical techniques regarded in his 2025 article in the journal Encyclopedia are GPR and electrical resistivity tomography (ERT). He also warns that many researchers who will use these technologies are not well-versed in the mechanics and interpretation of data from these tools. Reeder then explains how these tools complement archaeology, as they elucidate stratigraphy, mineral composition, and anthropogenic changes to the environment. The researcher gives a detailed methodology for collecting GPR data via a real-world example. For this article, the example is a site in Lithuania about the search for a Holocaust mass grave. Reeder then proceeds with a detailed methodology for collecting ERT data. For this example, he provides another Holocaust site in Lithuania. This is the notorious Rasu Street Prison. This article provides helpful technical insights. It provided less discussion of the tools’ impact on Holocaust archaeology. Reeder calls for a similar article focusing on different geophysical tools and their relevance to archaeology.
Certain publications had no trouble straddling the boundary between technology and ethics. The late Richard A. Freund was an archaeologist, rabbi, and writer. His 2019 book, The Archaeology of the Holocaust: Vilna, Rhodes, and Escape Tunnels, extensively chronicles his own work using noninvasive geoscience technology when studying holocaust sites in three different countries. Freund also summarizes the work of other scholars of Holocaust archaeology. He begins with the invasive work conducted by Soviet archaeologists in the 1940s and ends with the studies he and his colleagues conducted using geoscience. The geoscience technologies discussed in the book include, but are not limited to, GPR, ERT, and GIS. Freund combines these modern technologies with testimonies from survivors and bystanders. The reader is reminded that archaeology is ultimately about people.
In a 2012 article published in the Journal of Conflict Archaeology, Caroline Sturdy Colls is quick to inform her readers that Europe has only recently begun to explore the Holocaust through archaeological means. Religious, cultural, and ethical concerns have often inhibited systematic research of these sites. Sturdy Colls makes a case for Holocaust Archaeology as a subdiscipline of forensic and conflict studies. The suite of tools she presents for fieldwork is noninvasive. According to Sturdy Colls, many of the remnants of this period in Europe remain unlocated. She describes Holocaust history as ‘ongoing’ and continuing to have religious, political, and social implications. Extant Jewish communities in Europe have emphasized remembrance and commemoration. At the same time, the Romani and Cinti communities have preferred not to dwell on their traumatic history of persecution. Since most of the victims of the Holocaust were Jewish, Sturdy Colls advocates for the retention of Jewish law or Halacha when remembering and examining these sites. The researcher then discusses the use of GPR in archeological work at the Treblinka Concentration Camp.
Remote Sensing of the Environment features an informative and enlightening article by a Polish team of scientists. Różycki et al. Inform readers that central and Eastern Europe are full of Jewish war graves from the Holocaust. Many of these are undocumented mass graves. The Rabbinical Commission for Jewish Graves in Poland has taken on the task of searching for these forgotten graves. The investigation is in accordance with Halacha, which is why the soil surrounding these graves must be undisturbed. These researchers relied on witness accounts and documents from the Institute of National Remembrance. Różycki et al. also collected data via laser scanning, GPR, and aerial photograph assessment. The researchers reiterate that none of the modern technology used would have been helpful were it not for the testimonies of local witnesses. Much of the terrain and topography has been modified since the end of the Second World War. Unfortunately, GPR does not allow scientists to determine the number of bodies in a mass grave.
Though she is an acclaimed scholar, Caroline Sturdy Colls’s work is critiqued by Tim Cole in a review published in Holocaust Studies. Tim Cole lauds her book Archaeologies: Approaches and Future Directions for its extensive discussion of innovative noninvasive techniques in the field. Sturdy-Colls is said to have collected much of her own data via LiDAR and GPR technologies at Treblinka Concentration Camp. Cole criticizes the book for explaining more about technology and methods, but less about how such technology furthers the public’s understanding of the Holocaust. Cole even goes so far as to criticize Sturdy-Colls for “not having a firm grasp on the literature.” One could summarize Cole’s criticism of the book as being descriptive, but not persuasive. Despite the criticism, Cole applauds the incorporation of GIS data from Sturdy-Colls into historiographic studies by other scholars.
Cole provides further analysis of the intersection of science and the humanities in an article he wrote with Torsten Hahmann in the International Journal of Humanities and Arts Computing. In this 2019 paper, Cole and Hahmann introduce qualitative spatial representation or QSR. The researchers use QSR to map the narratives of Holocaust survivors. They argue for digital humanists to reconsider how they design databases. Cole and Hahmann also insist that the use of personal narratives would enhance quality rather than work against what was already done in the digital humanities.
Davis and Sanger take a similar approach to Cole in their writing about the intersection of the humanities and the sciences. Their 2021 article in Archaeological Prospection is quick to point out that extensive debate has gone into the ethics of archaeology. However, they also indicate that little has been discussed regarding remote sensing archaeology of culturally sensitive sites. The researchers are quick to point out that remote sensing has increased the amount of available archaeological data. They then seek to have a formal discussion on the ethics of remote sensing archaeology. Davis and Sanger provide a thorough literature review.
Geographical Review published a paper entitled ‘Geographies of the Holocaust’ by Beorn et al. These writers are quick to remind readers that one cannot contemplate the Holocaust without spatial thinking. The researchers argue that the movement, dispersal, and near-annihilation of a people must be considered and analyzed geographically. Despite extensive regional studies, no scholarly work has been done on the spatial aspects of the Holocaust as a whole (as of the publication of this 2009 paper). There has yet to be a spatial study done on entire communities lost, along with the various urban ghettos and concentration camps. Though this article is older than many of the others reviewed for this synthesis paper, one cannot help but acknowledge that Beorn et al. remain correct. The other articles in this review, which pertain to the Holocaust, will often deal with two or three places. Such analysis is important, but it also distracts from a far bigger picture. That is the continent-wide murder of over six million people.
In Post-Medieval Archaeology, Renshaw and Powers focus on archaeology as a tool for studying demographics, health, and individual histories across marginalized groups over a vast period of time. They also explore the ethical status of the dead in the context of archaeology. The researchers iterate that the material culture of death is readily available for study. This availability is in part attributed to pioneering work done on cemeteries at the beginning of the twentieth century. Renshaw and Powers walk their readers through the three phases of mortuary archaeology. The first phase was characterized by the use of death rites and grave goods to document past societies. The second phase focused more on studying death and funerary rites as an assessment of how advanced a culture was. The third phase was focused on what modern scientists could learn from burial and funerary practices about power and meaning. They advocate a fourth phase that is more sensitive and complex. After all, Renshaw and Powers argue that death, burial, and how they are studied illuminate our own views of mortality, morality, and how those who are different from us should be treated. Such is evident in the respect by archaeologists for the remains of holocaust victims, in accordance with Jewish laws and traditions.
Many articles on World War II archaeology focus on either forensics or military reconstruction. Niebylski, Stefański, and Wierzbicki focus on the military reconstruction aspect. Their 2023 article in Archaeologia Polona discusses the use of LiDAR when providing an overview of Polish military camps in Eastern Poland erected circa 1944 to 1945. The researchers focus on mapping structures and assigning them to specific units within the Second Polish Army. The research was neither destructive nor invasive. Niebylski, Stefański, and Wierzbicki tout the usefulness of LiDAR and open-source satellite data when examining modern military sites. They also explain that the acquisition of this data was part of a cultural resource heritage management initiative accompanying the construction of a new highway. The LiDAR data was acquired as .laz files. The data was processed using QGIS, SAGA GIS, and the Relief Visualization Toolbox (RVT). The scientists end their paper by advocating for further research.
Atilla Juhasz has written extensively on the reconstruction of Second World War sites in Hungary. Such is evident in his 2014 article from Academic and Applied Research in Military and Public Management Science. Here, Juhasz discusses GIS as a means of military reconstruction grounded in archaeology. This study deals with the Atilla Line, a defense line erected around Budapest during the Second World War. Juhász divides his investigation into three segments. The first segment pertains to the reconstruction of the environment in contemporary times. His second segment deals with the reconstruction of defense apparatuses. His third segment concerns the reconstruction of combat. Such combat took place when the Soviet Red Army attacked Budapest in a face-off with Hungarian and German defenders. Juhasz believes his research can serve as a database for further historical and environmental analysis. He claims his results can be searched and analyzed via attribute queries.
Another informative article co-written by Juhasz appears in a 2016 issue of The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences. In this 2016 paper, Juhasz and Neuberger examine LiDAR technology and its application for military reconstruction. This article focuses on two sites in Hungary from the Second World War. They argue for the use of LiDAR in areas covered by vegetation. These areas may not be accessible to other remote sensing technologies. Juhasz and Neuberger also summarize how data from laser scanning may be used for military reconstruction projects. The researchers provide readers with a simple explanation of how LiDAR and laser (GNSS and INS) technologies work, and how they have evolved in recent years. They claim the data collected for this study were accurate to within 10 to 20 centimeters vertically and 20 to 30 centimeters horizontally. They also argue for the benefits of point clouds generated from LiDAR data and for the technology’s use in identifying anti-tank pits. Juhasz and Neuberger make a final argument that their process is useful regardless of the particular historical period.
Perhaps the most informative article reviewed by the writer was a 2022 entry in the Journal of Conflict Archaeology on the Battle of Seelow Heights. Weber et al. are quick to highlight the circumstances leading up to the Battle of Seelow Heights and its impact on the overall course of the Second World War. This was the final push by the Soviet Red Army before they took Berlin in less than a month after the battle. Weber and his associates go on to indicate that a thick forest has hidden most of the battlefield from archaeological scrutiny. That is, until the recent use of GIS, airborne scanning, and archival research has uncovered an extensive network of conflict infrastructure. An extensive network of such infrastructure is not surprising. Weber et al. Indicate that the Red Army force included almost 900,000 soldiers, nearly 22,000 artillery pieces, and over 4,600 tanks. They also show that the German defense included 126,602 soldiers, 10,400 artillery pieces, and 754 tanks. This was the largest land battle of the Second World War fought within Germany’s borders. The researchers then explain the topography and geology of the area at the time their data were collected between 2009 and 2011. They also discuss the cultural sensitivity that was taken into account throughout this study. They then explain the use of Airborne Laser Scanning (ALS) and contextualize it within current trends in landscape archaeology. A digital Terrain Model (DTM) was constructed. Weber and colleagues also indicate their findings show the Brandenburg forest hosted various internment and concentration camps.
Indra et al. examine the Battle of Seelow Heights with a greater focus on forensic analysis. Their 2020 article in Forensic Sciences International introduces the German Association for the recovery of the fallen in Eastern Europe (VBGO E.V.). Thanks to the work of the VBGO, over 7,000 soldiers’ remains have been identified and given a proper burial. In this article, Indra and her team introduce the work of the VBGO about the Battle of Seelow Heights. They provide readers with a detailed list of organizations dedicated to recovering missing casualties worldwide. Many of these organizations are linked to a specific conflict. Two missions take place each year in Brandenburg, the site of the Battle of the Seelow Heights (also known as the Battle of Klessin). Like their counterparts, Weber et al., these researchers provide a background on the Battle of Seelow Heights. They explain that thousands of Soviet and German soldiers were buried in makeshift graves. Many of these graves were forgotten. They also provide an overview of excavation and anthropology techniques.
In a 2007 article from the Croatian Medical Journal, Gojanovic and Sutlovic discuss the methods used to identify the remains of civilian casualties from the Second World War found in the Dinaric Alps. The bones were analyzed to determine sex, age at death, and trauma suffered by the victims. The researchers discuss how they extracted DNA from these bones, making this study far from noninvasive. This article provided a valuable understanding of how archaeological studies are undertaken to identify victims without regard for cultural considerations.
In keeping the focus on the use of DNA to identify World War II victims from the Balkans, it would be unfair to ignore the work of Irina Pajnic. Specifically, the chapter she wrote in Forensic DNA Typing: Principles, Applications, and Advancements. This source is a larger tome on DNA and its application to forensic science. Pajnic explains the difficulties that come with using ‘aged’ bone for DNA analysis. Perhaps the most significant of such difficulties is the lack of extractable DNA from these bones. She goes on to explain which skeletal aspects are suitable for investigating remains from the Second World War. She emphasizes the importance of long-term, adequate storage of samples, as these remaining samples could be used for retesting. The case study referenced by Pajnic examines the identification of Second World War casualties in Slovenia. Though these techniques were invasive, the writer felt it appropriate to include at least two articles about bone and DNA analysis. After all, it is often skeletal remains that archaeologists of the Holocaust and the Second World War are striving to learn about without disturbing them. At the same time, DNA is what can distinguish one victim from another.
Since the writer of this synthesis paper encountered the term ‘geoheritage’ throughout this review, he thought it would be appropriate to include a peer-reviewed journal article that further investigates the topic. The concept was discussed in a 2022 geoscience article. As it happened, the writers Pijet-Migon and Migon are part of the geoscience faculty at the University of Wroclaw in Poland. Poland is where much of the evidence summarized in this synthesis paper was gathered. The researchers explain that the relationships between geoheritage and cultural heritage can be described as spatial, thematic, conceptual, and causal. Throughout the paper, the researchers ponder three concepts. The first of these concepts is the effect of geologic processes and geoheritage on culture. The second concept is the effect of culture and geoheritage on resource management. The final concept explored is how culture and geological heritage come together. Pijet-Migon and Migon conclude that geoheritage is a relevant topic of study that can lead researchers to various other topics and themes. In addition, they find that when exploring these themes, there is an imbalance in what is further explored. Much attention is paid to urban and mining environments, possibly in the interest of conservation. Less attention has been paid to the history of scientific discoveries and the intersection of geoheritage and the arts. They argue that the subject is becoming more geographically diverse, as researchers seek to understand geoheritage from different parts of the world.
Conclusion
Geoscience tools such as LiDAR and GPR have been at the forefront of the archaeology of the Holocaust and World War II. They were among the tools Caroline Sturdy-Colls used in her innovative studies of the Treblinka Concentration Camp. Rabbi Dr. Richard Freund included them among his suite of tools for his field work on Holocaust sites in Lithuania and on the Island of Rhodes.
Niebylski, Stefański, and Wierzbicki used LiDAR to uncover lost Polish military camps before the construction of a major highway. Juhasz and Neuberger touted the use of LiDAR when undertaking military reconstructions of Second World War combat near Budapest. LiDAR is a valuable tool for data collection when data collection is inhibited by forest cover or other natural variables. Unfortunately, LiDAR and GPR are not precise enough to indicate the number of people buried in a mass grave.
Sources: Augenstein, S. (2015). Holocaust Archaeology: A Harrowing Investigation into Treblinka. Forensic Magazine.
Beorn, W., Cole, T., Gigliotti, S., Giordano, A., Holian, A., Jaskot, P. B., Knowles, A. K., Masurovsky, M., & Steiner, E. B. (2009). Geographies of the Holocaust. Geographical Review, 99(4), 563–574.
Cole, T. (2016). Holocaust archaeologies: Approaches and future directions. Holocaust Studies, 22(4), 454–456.
Cole, T., & Hahmann, T. (2019). Geographies of the Holocaust: Experiments in GIS, QSR, and graph representations. International Journal of Humanities and Arts Computing, 13(1–2), 39–52.
Daniel, G. E. (2026, April 4). Archaeology. In Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved April 18, 2026.
Davis, D. S., & Sanger, M. C. (2021). Ethical challenges in the practice of Remote Sensing and geophysical archaeology. Archaeological Prospection, 28(3), 271–278.
Freund, R. A. (2019). The Archaeology of the Holocaust: Vilna, Rhodes, and Escape Tunnels. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Gojanovic, M. D., & Sutlovic, D. (2007). Skeletal Remains from World War II Mass Grave: from Discovery to Identification. Croatian Medical Journal, 520–527.
Indra, L., Straub, K., Schulz, W., Balsam, R., Ockert, W., Nowack, S., & Laue, A. (2020). Missing, not forgotten. The German Association for the recovery of the fallen in Eastern Europe (VBGO E.V.). Forensic Science International, 316, 110473.
Juhász, A. (2014). New achievements in WWII military historical reconstruction with GIS. Academic and Applied Research in Military and Public Management Science, 13(3), 413–424.
Juhász, Atilla, & Neuberger, H. (2016). Remotely sensed data fusion in modern age archaeology and military historical reconstruction. The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, XLI-B5, 281–286.
Library of Congress. (2026, January 1). Research guides: The machine gun: Its history, development and use: A resource guide: Introduction. Introduction - The Machine Gun: Its History, Development and Use: A Resource Guide - Research Guides at Library of Congress.
Niebylski, J. M., Stefański, D., & Wierzbicki, P. (2023). The formation of the units of the Polish People’s Army (1944-1945) in eastern Poland. the lidar evidence. Archaeologia Polona, 61, 269–287.
Pajnic, I. Z. (2020). Analyses of Second World War Skeletal Remains Using a Forensic Approach. In Forensic DNA Typing: Principles, Applications, and Advancements (pp. 153–179). essay, Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
Peralta, E. (2011, March 21). 100 years ago, World’s first aerial bomb dropped over Libya. NPR.
Pijet-Migoń, E., & Migoń, P. (2022). Geoheritage and cultural heritage—a review of recurrent and interlinked themes. Geosciences, 12(2), 98–126.
Reeder, P. (2025). Two Geophysical Technologies used in archaeological research simplified and explained. Encyclopedia, 5(3), 151.
Renshaw, L., & Powers, N. (2016). The archaeology of post-medieval death and burial. Post-Medieval Archaeology, 50(1), 159–177.
Różycki, S., Nieradko, A., Karczewski, J., & Schwarz, A. (2017). The use of noninvasive techniques in locating graves of Holocaust victims; the Rejowiec case study. Remote Sensing of the Environment, 54, 51–60.
Różycki, S., Zapłata, R., Karczewski, J., Ossowski, A., & Tomczyk, J. (2020). Integrated Archaeological Research: Archival Resources, Surveys, Geophysical Prospection and excavation approach at an execution and burial site: The German Nazi labour camp in Treblinka. Geosciences, 10(9), 336.
Sturdy Colls, C. (2012). Holocaust archaeology: Archaeological approaches to landscapes of Nazi genocide and persecution. Journal of Conflict Archaeology, 7(2), 70–104.
The Simon Wiesenthal Center. (2026, January 1). 36 questions about the Holocaust (#1-18). Jewish Virtual Library.
Valjavec, M. B., Zorn, M., & Ribeiro, D. (2018). Mapping war geoheritage: Recognizing geomorphological traces of war. Open Geosciences, 10(1), 385–394.
Weber, M., Passmore, D. G., Capps-Tunwell, D., & Davie, H. G. (2022). The battle of the Seelow Heights, April 1945: Conflict archaeology in the forests of Eastern Brandenburg, Germany. Journal of Conflict Archaeology, 17(3), 204–240.
The World Holocaust Remembrance Center. (n.d.). Non-jewish victims of persecution in Germany. Yad Vashem.