This issue of the Journal is slightly thematic: two LiDAR-based papers and one using KOKOA (which uses some insights derived from LiDAR data). Effectively, we have three papers that are looking at different ways to investigate and understand conflict landscapes. All three papers provide an exciting introduction to what can be done, applying new ways of looking and thinking about conflict and the landscapes in which conflicts take place. The paper by Nico Roymans, Bart Beex and Jan Roymans looks at a conflict that rarely produces much archaeological research, the conflict that resulted in the separation of the Netherlands and Belgium into independent kingdoms between 1830 and 1839. The study is also of conflict-related archaeology rather than a battlefield, as it looks at the camps of the Dutch army and compares them to Napoleonic French army camps. This is a clear example of the power of LiDAR, where large areas can be covered rapidly, and at a very high resolution that records the very subtle traces left by the features of the camp. Terrestrial survey would miss much of this, and an effective survey would be prohibitively expensive and time-consuming. The LiDAR data provide beautiful images with stunning clarity, which can then be matched against the contemporary plans of the camps. The second paper is also on the subject of LiDAR imaging, and is by Max van der Schriek and Willem Beex. The focus of this paper is the traces of fuel dumps, ammunition stores, foxholes and so forth from the German occupation in the Second World War; these are features similar to those that have been discussed in papers in previous issues, most recently in issue 12.1 by Passmore et al. (2017). Van der Schriek and Beek look at the LiDAR images of the German features, with earlier features also visible. The paper also goes into detail about the way in which LiDAR data is gathered, and the potential issues that there might be with the images that result. The images are again very striking and show what can be done with LiDAR in the best conditions. The final paper is from Craig Brown, Jesús Torres-Martínez, Manuel Fernández-Götz and Antxoka Martínez-Velasco. Rather than focusing on LiDAR, this paper uses data from excavations, surveys and LiDAR to inform a KOKOA analysis of the fighting around Bergida in the Roman period. This is a very welcome paper for the journal: we rarely get papers from Classical sites, but it is also a paper that puts KOKOA into practice. The conflict landscape is analysed through this US Army approach, allowing the archaeologists to develop a deeper understanding of the nature and course of the fighting than the artefact distributions and texts could provide on their own. It could be argued that KOKOA just provides a justification for the instincts of the archaeologists, but it does provide a framework for asking questions and developing answers about that landscape. These papers give a strong indication of the potential for conflict archaeology of these techniques. At the time of writing this editorial, there is a great deal of interest in LiDAR, with the publicising of results from the rain forest of Guatemala showing Mayan cities to be far larger than previously believed. The story has been all over the media, and there have been TV documentaries on the subject. However, as the Van der Schriek and Beek paper reveals, the LiDAR story is not entirely straightforward. While the technique can remove tree cover from the ground because some of the light signal will reach the ground, it can be problematic. The denser the tree coverage, the fewer points of measurement result. To fill the gaps in the data, the processing will interpolate values into the gaps. Where there are few gaps and a lot of real data that is reasonably uncontroversial. Where there are a lot of gaps and little real data, then it is easy to overprocess the

中文翻译：

---

社论

本期期刊略有主题：两篇基于 LiDAR 的论文和一篇使用 KOKOA（使用来自 LiDAR 数据的一些见解）。实际上，我们有三篇论文正在寻找不同的方法来调查和理解冲突格局。所有三篇论文都对可以做什么进行了令人兴奋的介绍，应用了看待和思考冲突以及发生冲突的环境的新方法。Nico Roymans、Bart Beex 和 Jan Roymans 的论文着眼于很少产生大量考古研究的冲突，该冲突导致 1830 年至 1839 年荷兰和比利时分离为独立王国。该研究也与冲突有关考古学而不是战场，因为它着眼于荷兰军队的营地，并将它们与拿破仑的法国军营进行比较。这是 LiDAR 强大功能的一个明显例子，可以快速覆盖大面积区域，并以非常高的分辨率记录营地特征留下的非常细微的痕迹。地面勘测会遗漏其中的大部分内容，而有效的勘测将非常昂贵且耗时。LiDAR 数据提供清晰的美丽图像，然后可以与营地的当代计划相匹配。第二篇论文也是关于 LiDAR 成像的主题，由 Max van der Schriek 和 Willem Beex 撰写。这篇论文的重点是二战中德国占领的燃料场、弹药库、散兵坑等的痕迹；这些特征与之前几期论文中讨论的特征相似，最近在 Passmore 等人的第 12.1 期。(2017)。Van der Schriek 和 Beek 查看德国特征的 LiDAR 图像，早期特征也可见。该论文还详细介绍了 LiDAR 数据的收集方式，以及由此产生的图像可能存在的潜在问题。这些图像再次非常引人注目，并展示了在最佳条件下使用 LiDAR 可以做什么。最后一篇论文来自 Craig Brown、Jesús Torres-Martínez、Manuel Fernández-Götz 和 Antxoka Martínez-Velasco。本文不是专注于 LiDAR，而是使用来自挖掘、调查和 LiDAR 的数据来为 KOKOA 分析罗马时期贝尔吉达周围的战斗提供信息。这是该期刊非常受欢迎的一篇论文：我们很少从 Classical 网站获取论文，但它也是一篇将 KOKOA 付诸实践的论文。通过这种美国陆军方法分析了冲突形势，允许考古学家对战斗的性质和过程有更深入的了解，而不是人工制品的分布和文本本身所能提供的。可以说，KOKOA 只是为考古学家的本能提供了一个理由，但它确实提供了一个框架来提出问题和发展关于该景观的答案。这些论文有力地表明了这些技术在冲突考古方面的潜力。在撰写本社论时，人们对 LiDAR 非常感兴趣，危地马拉雨林的结果公布表明玛雅城市比以前认为的要大得多。这个故事已经遍布媒体，并且有关于这个主题的电视纪录片。然而，正如 Van der Schriek 和 Beek 的论文所揭示的那样，LiDAR 的故事并不完全简单。虽然该技术可以去除地面上的树木覆盖物，因为一些光信号会到达地面，但它可能会出现问题。树木覆盖越密，测量结果点越少。为了填补数据中的空白，处理过程会将值插入到空白中。几乎没有差距和大量真实数据的地方，这些数据是合理无争议的。如果有很多差距和很少的真实数据，那么很容易过度处理 几乎没有差距和大量真实数据的地方，这些数据是合理无争议的。如果有很多差距和很少的真实数据，那么很容易过度处理 几乎没有差距和大量真实数据的地方，这些数据是合理无争议的。如果有很多差距和很少的真实数据，那么很容易过度处理