Editorial

The final issue of Volume 12 of this journal has a great deal more diversity than the two previous issues. One aspect of this diversity is geographical. In addition to a paper set in the United States (McNutt), there is a paper on South African (Mosothwane), and one on Kazakhstan (Arzhantseva & Tazhekeev). This is in contrast to the previous two issues whose papers have all been located in Europe. The geographical range is very welcome as a contrast to the previous issues, but there are other reasons for welcoming the three papers in this issue. There have been surprisingly few papers in the Journal on topics relating to the USA, so it is nice to have a paper to cover that area. South Africa has been little served, either, with a paper in the first volume of the Journal in 2005, and nothing since then. Kazakhstan is an entirely new frontier, a place that has not been covered by the Journal at all. It is very welcome to have such diversity of locations in the Journal and emphasises the fact that conflict archaeology is being undertaken across the world. The geographical locations are matched by the fact that, with the exception of McNutt, the authors are from outwith the mainstream Anglo-American conflict community that is so apparent at Fields of Conflict every 2 years. Having a Botswanan and two Kazakhs as authors does something to redress the balance of nationalities reported at the last Fields of Conflict conference, where British and American authors vastly outweighed the other nationalities. Conflict archaeology is a vibrant field of study, and the previous issues in the volume emphasised this with their European focus. It is useful to be reminded of the wider interest in conflict beyond Europe and America, however. There is a tendency amongst many outside the field to assume that conflict archaeology is mainly about battlefields, and if not battlefields, then perhaps military installations. However, as we made very clear at the start of the Journal in 2015, the concept of conflict archaeology guiding the Journal of Conflict Archaeology is a broad definition of conflict that does not require armies but looks at other forms of conflict as well. We have hosted papers on industrial conflict (Saitta, Walker, and Reckner 2005), art historical analysis (Ferris 2005; Parnell 2013; Breeze & Ferris 2016), protest activism (Fisher 2008), forestry camps in WWII (Sneddon 2008), colonial conflict (Grguric 2009), military-related industry (Myles 2011), and cultural resource management (Banks and Pollard 2011; Van der Auwera 2012). While battlefields are a major area of research in conflict archaeology, conflict archaeology and battlefield archaeology are not synonymous. The success of initiatives such as the War Through Other Stuff conference in February 2017 in Edinburgh, which has given birth to further workshops and a range of forthcoming publications, reveals the richness of work being carried out around conflict in general. Quoting from the WTOS website: