Editorial

At the time of writing, there are many conflicts across the world; no one could be mistaken that this is a period of peace. Conflict is disrupting society and causing thousands of deaths both directly and indirectly. Yet, there is plenty of potential for conflict to increase in the wake of current developments. The globalized world of trade has been disturbed by the imposition of trade barriers in what could be the opening shots of a series of trade wars. There is also the spectre of Brexit looming over us, a chaotic mess where none of the British politicians appear to have a clear plan. One immediate result of this is that there is a great deal of uncertainty about how much British and European academics will be able to work together in future; there is a lot of uncertainty about funding in the future, and it may well become more difficult for archaeologists to work between Britain and the European Union. That is regrettable but survivable. In terms of the likely deleterious outcomes of Brexit, it is certainly one of the less pressing. What is far more of concern is the turn away from removing the barriers between people and between nations. Instead of removing barriers, Brexit will raise a barrier between Britain and the continent of Europe, imposing restrictions on travel and trade, and creating distance between us. The danger of erecting barriers between people and nations is that it increases the likelihood of conflict. Barriers encourage us to see those on the other side as The Other, making conflict all the easier. They emphasize difference and division, and they emphasize what is Ours and Theirs. Talking about Brexit as a likely cause of future wars is always ridiculed under the heading of ‘Project Fear’, but the lesson of history is that conflict is far more likely when there are barriers between nations. Europe has enjoyed a long period of peace since 1945; European powers have fought across the globe, but the only fighting in Europe has been outside the boundaries of the EU: Yugoslavia, Crimea, Abkhazia, etc. We have enjoyed nearly three-quarters of a century of peace, largely because there has been an agreed way of resolving issues between nations within the Union. There have been disputes, but there is an overarching authority that resolves those disputes and allows the nations to work together. Britain will be leaving that arrangement and will have to find an alternative way of resolving disputes. Undoubtedly, some arrangement will be made, but will this be effective at offsetting conflict? The precedents are not good; in Summer 2018, French and English trawlermen came to blows over access to scallop beds. A small issue at the time, but one where membership by both nations of the EU meant that the situation didn’t escalate into trade wars or worse. Will this be so easily resolved in the future? So, what has any of this to do with the Journal? Other than upsetting some strands of opinion within the readership, not a great deal beyond being one of the most important issues of the day. However, conflict is at the heart of what we do as conflict archaeologists; we study conflicts as material culture, as built heritage, and as historical events. JOURNAL OF CONFLICT ARCHAEOLOGY 2018, VOL. 13, NO. 3, 151–153 https://doi.org/10.1080/15740773.2018.1586128