There is a definite whiff of gun smoke about this volume, with all four contributions focussing on projectiles and ballistics, though that said, there would be very little in the way of it emitted by the medieval siege engines considered in one of them. As noted by Refshauge, ballistic tests have become a regular feature within the sphere of experimental archaeology practiced by some conflict archaeologists. Indeed, this journal has published papers on a number of these tests, but as Refshauge points out, there are a number of issues which need to be taken into account and which have perhaps been overlooked in some of these exercises. One of these is the need to fully comprehend the various factors which influence muzzle velocity, and in highlighting the pitfalls of over simplification the author provides a useful cautionary note for those engaging in the ballistic analysis and assessment of the battlefield effectiveness of historic firearms.
In carrying out his own experiments, Adrian Mandzy is more concerned with the influence that shape has on projectile effectiveness as he test fires a series of rather unusual types of seventeenth and eighteenth century ordnance — which simply put can be described as musket balls that are not round. The results shed useful new light on the nature of warfare on the frontiers of Europe and North America during this period.
It was the desire to more fully understand the nature of projectile artefact distribution on American battlefields that prompted Silliman and Batt to develop a GIS model geared to predicting the character and extent of battlefields where the musket represented the key weapon type. Using a case study from the American War of Independence the authors propose that this desk based technique can predict distributions of musket shot on a battlefield and in doing so provide a potentially useful tool which can be used in conjunction with other theoretical applications such as KOKOA and terrain analysis.
Finally, we move back in time for Hosler’s paper, in which he combines history and archaeology to finesse our understanding of siege engine characteristics in the eleventh and twelfth century, with particular reference to King Stephen’s sieges of Lincoln from 1141 and Farringdon Castle in 1145.
Looking outside the pages of the journal, and as we advance into 2016, it would be remiss of the editors not to make mention of the recent broadcast of the television show Battlefield Recovery, which is nothing less than a repackaged version of Nazi War Diggers, which the National Geographic Channel chose not to broadcast in 2014 after an outcry from the archaeological community and other quarters. The controversial programmes, which were discussed in a previous edition of this editorial, featured metal detectorists and a militaria dealer digging up sites on the Eastern Front of WWII with little regard to any methodological or ethical considerations. The cavalier treatment of unexploded ordnance and human remains attracting particular opprobrium. It was then a great disappointment, over a year later, to see British terrestrial broadcaster Channel 5 purchase the programmes, rebrand them as Battlefield Recovery and show them in early 2016, with nothing more than a little re-editing to alter the content from that originally present. Once again there was outrage on the part of the archaeological community prior to broadcast, with others also expressing disdain once the programmes appeared on television. Much was written about the issue over the four weeks of transmission, notably by archaeologist Andy Brockman, who has been tenacious in his efforts to expose the programmes for the travesty they were. Credit for speaking out should also be given to Rob Schaefer, a German military historian who lost relatives on the Eastern Front and therefore had a very personal stake in the matter. Despite this renewed outcry, the programmes were shown, with the broadcaster claiming throughout that they were respectful and followed proper procedure. What damage they have done to the reputation of conflict archaeology - though archaeology this certainly was not – remains to be seen. It will be a while however before those who have committed much to the field being taken seriously can entirely wash the foul taste from their mouths.
On a more positive note, September 2016 sees the next Fields of Conflict conference take place in Dublin, Ireland. The event is always close to our hearts as the first of what is a highlight in the calendar every two years was hosted by us at the University of Glasgow way back in 2000. We look forward to being there and seeing the journal represented by its new publisher, Taylor and Francis, which acquired Maney in 2015. They are pleased to have the Journal of Conflict Archaeology in their portfolio and we look forward to continuing to provide the leading publication in the field under their banner.