Conflict Archaeology is a very broad church, as will be apparent from a review of the thirteen volumes of this Journal. This issue is an excellent example as the topics varywidely. They also demonstrate that not everyone involved in Conflict Archaeology is necessarily a conflict archaeologist. This issue is the result of work involving archaeologists, landscape architects, forensic scientists, dendrochronologists andmedical doctors. The results are rich and underline the intradisciplinary nature of the work. Clearly, Conflict Archaeology is not the only archaeological area that benefits from the input of other disciplines, but the study of war and conflict requires a very broad range of expertise. However, while Conflict Archaeology is a broad church, it is sometimes difficult to escape the influence of battlefields, not least because they bring a drama and sense of storytelling that is difficult to rival. When this is tied to an element of mythbusting, where archaeological evidence is used to clarify, correct, or reveal the events of a battle, it is a very powerful way to investigate the past. Certainly, there is rarely much difficulty in convincing the public that research on battlefields is important; that is sadly not always the case when it comes to preservation. Strangely, there are still archaeologists who remain unconvinced that battlefields are either important or capable of being investigated by archaeological methodologies. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but that becomes problematic when that opinion is offered as an expert opinion in planning cases. Where that expert opinion is uninformed by any involvement in fieldwork on battlefields, it becomes a real issue; the problem is that the legal system tends to view all archaeology as the same thing when it is quite clear that different areas of archaeology need different forms of expertise. The fact is that battlefield archaeology has been proven repeatedly in the field, where artefact distributions clearly represent human activity; the distributions do appear meaningful and are consistent from ploughed areas to unploughed areas. It remains to be seen whether modern ploughing techniques will change that situation, but currently the fact is that there is an extensive literature that demonstrates the events of a battle are recoverable through the distribution of material across the battlefield during the fighting. Battlefields across the world remain under threat and continue to be impacted by modern development. When the battlefield is thoroughly investigated archaeologically, as at the battle of Lützen from 1632, the quality of information collected offsets the loss of the resource (Schürger 2015). Unfortunately, the situation at Halle in terms of the cultural resource management is rarely repeated; here, a developer was required to pay the full costs of a complete investigation. It is far less benign in the main. The battlefield of Pinkie Cleugh from 1547, the last major Anglo-Scottish battle and a key site in the development of combined arms operations, is on the Historic Environment Scotland Inventory of Scottish Battlefields. Its inclusion recognises the national importance of the battle and makes it a material concern in the planning process. However, being on the JOURNAL OF CONFLICT ARCHAEOLOGY 2018, VOL. 13, NO. 2, 77–79 https://doi.org/10.1080/15740773.2018.1582995

中文翻译：

---

社论

冲突考古学是一个非常广泛的教会，从本期刊的十三卷评论中可以明显看出。这个问题是一个很好的例子，因为主题千差万别。他们还表明，并非所有参与冲突考古的人都一定是冲突考古学家。这个问题是考古学家、景观设计师、法医科学家、树木年代学家和医生共同努力的结果。结果丰富，并强调了工作的跨学科性质。显然，冲突考古学并不是唯一受益于其他学科投入的考古领域，但战争和冲突的研究需要非常广泛的专业知识。然而，虽然冲突考古学是一个广阔的教堂，但有时很难摆脱战场的影响，尤其是因为它们带来了难以匹敌的戏剧性和讲故事的感觉。当这与神话破灭元素联系在一起时，考古证据被用来澄清、纠正或揭示战斗事件，这是一种非常有效的调查过去的方式。当然，要让公众相信战场研究很重要，几乎没有什么困难。遗憾的是，在保存方面情况并非总是如此。奇怪的是，仍然有考古学家不相信战场是重要的，或者能够通过考古方法进行调查。每个人都有权发表自己的意见，但是当在规划案例中将该意见作为专家意见提供时，这就会出现问题。如果专家意见未因参与战场实地工作而知情，它成为一个真正的问题；问题在于，当很明显不同的考古领域需要不同形式的专业知识时，法律系统倾向于将所有考古学视为同一事物。事实是，战场考古学已经在该领域反复证明，人工制品的分布清楚地代表了人类活动；分布确实看起来有意义，并且从犁过的区域到未犁过的区域都是一致的。现代耕作技术是否会改变这种情况还有待观察，但目前的事实是，有大量文献表明，可以通过在战斗期间在整个战场上分配材料来恢复战斗事件。世界各地的战场仍然受到威胁，并继续受到现代发展的影响。当对战场进行彻底的考古调查时，例如在 1632 年的吕岑战役中，收集到的信息质量抵消了资源的损失（Schürger 2015）。不幸的是，哈雷在文化资源管理方面的情况很少重演。在这里，开发商需要支付完整调查的全部费用。它主要是远没有良性的。1547 年的 Pinkie Cleugh 战场是英国与苏格兰的最后一场主要战斗，也是联合兵种作战发展的关键地点，位于苏格兰战场历史环境清单中。它的包含承认了这场战斗的全国重要性，并使其成为规划过程中的一个重要问题。但是，在 2018 年冲突考古学杂志上，VOL。13，没有。2, 77–79 https://doi.org/10。