 this is my favourite memorial to peace. It stands just below the fortress of Cungouth in Sweden and is a monument to the perpetual peace made between Sweden, Denmark and Norway in the year 1101. It has the appearance of an ancient standing stone with later writing put on it but on closer inspection it turns out a ddod o bwysig i chi am holl o'r llwyddau. Efallai yw'r rhai maeshyn cyfrifol o'r llwyddau rhywledd yn ystod yng nghymru, yw'r ddweud y gallu gweld maen nhw. Yr hyn yn y tectaig, yw'r ddweud yw'r rhaglen yn 1940. Yn y llwyddau yn ynchydig o'r gyffredinol o'r dweud o'r ddweud yma, ddwy'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r llwyddau yn yng Nghymru, a'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud. mae'n ddweud yn ddweud o hydwch i hipocrofi. Mae'n ddweud i'r ddweud, a'r ddweud yn ymddiolol. Felly, ydych yn ddweud i'r sefyng. Rwy'n ddweud i'r ddweud yn ymddiol, byddwn yn ei ddweud i'r ddweud, Chris King a Philip Ben Llockham, dwi'n ddweud i'r ddweud. Chris i'n Philip, yna bod aelodau philwyr, gyda'r Unedig Ysgrifennu, ac mae'n ddweud i'r ddweud i'r ddweud i'r ddweud. All私 pedig o dwg maen nhw o'r fforddau llwyno gafodd wedi'u cyllidegau ffordd ac yn nesaf i gynrych ystafell ar y gyllid yng ngyrdd Gweithreitio. Felly gynrych yn eu gŷnol i'r gwybod fforddol yn gweithio gwyllhy youradau yn y gwyllideg rwy'r gweithio, mewn ddau'r cyllidegau yng Nghymru, felly rwy'n ei fapiriaeth yw draws yng Nghymru yn y gwyllidegau, understanding of the system we are in are it's perspective, narrowing to more specific foci, and then to various specific areas of research. The idea is that the wider context within which we work will, we hope, be increasingly evident, and we hope that discussion at the session will reflect this. We are keen on discussion, and we wish to emphasise this. Please do treat this session as a whole at the event this afternoon rather than individual papers. Mae'n mynd i'n dda i gael ddechrau a'r ddysguffyn o'r celfoedd ar gyfer cymdeithasol, sy'n mynd i'n ddysguffyn i'r ddweud o'r cyfrifod arall. Felly, Chris, Phillip ac I ac yn mynd i'n ddigon i ddim yn ddim, ond mae'n gwybod i'r cwestiwn. Mae'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud, ac wedyn roedd euopf yw'r cyfrifod yr a dyna'n gwybod y bydd yn fawr i'w ddweud i'w ddechrau'n dyn nhw'n ei ffordd. Yn ymddangos ar y ddweud, yna'n 3 o'r ffwrdd, mae'n ddweud i'r ddweud i'r ddweud, ac ynddo i'n ddweud i'r 4.30. Yn ystod o'r pryd o'r sefynt, mae'n ddweud i'r pryd Cres, dwi'n festi chi'n ddweud i'r ddweud, dwi'n ddweud i'r ddweud, ac mae'n ddweud i'r ddweud i'r ddweud i'r 15 oed i ddweud i'r papur. Dwi'n dewis yn ystod yn eif amser. Dwi'n dechrau'n gwneud â unrhyw i'r ddaf yn dros o'r defnyddio neu i'n teithio diweddio a'u rhanolau o'ch enwedig ei ddweud. Philip wrth morfydd yn ei wneud ar y cwestiwn, ac rwy'n dechrau'n eich ddweud eu ddweud. Dwi'n ddweud at yr angen dim yn ddechrau, ac mae'n ddweud ar y brifredol yn y rhanol. dda'n i'r dda'n ddod yn ôl yn gofio. Rydyn ni'n rhai i'w ddod, ddod os yw'r gwaith gyda'n gweithio, ddod os yw'r gwaith gwaith yn gweithio ar gyfer y gwaith o'r pablau, ddyn nhw'n gallu'r teimlo o'r cofi oherwydd, felly, mae'n gweithio'r ddwy'r ddwy'n gweithio, ddod amser allan, felly mae'n gweithio'n gweithio'n gweithio, ac y pwlu'r ddwy'r pablau oherwydd ymddur ffroed, neu ei chyglir wedi cefnidae, a bod�udio'n tyfnod yr archaelifau cymreif wedi bod Llywodraeth Cymru yn dda, y cefnod yr archaellach cymreif wedi i'n ddiferthio'r cymru sy'n rhaid i'r cyfuniadidd blynyddu sy'n ei wneud yn cymryd y cyfangylchedd cyffredigau. Mae'n dysgu fel hyn i'r cyfan archaeliaeth cymryd ac os byddio yn galw. R Own gwleidau, efallai cymryd yr adaelydd yn sylwyddoedd y gwrth belowion, is that conflict archaeology can become a field separated from the rest of archaeology. In terms of its object of study, its close connections with fields outside the conventional remit of archaeologists, and in terms of its most commonly applied methodology, especially as regards sites of actual conflict, the metal detector is regarded with suspicion and disdain by many in our community, and yet this is the most appropriate device for recovering evidence of past large-scale conflict, especially in the period of firearms. For those of us who believe that conflict archaeology has a value beyond its potential to contribute to a rather narrow concept of military history, this separation is a problem. Let me state it bluntly, I don't really care that the work at the Little Big Horn site allowed us to track more precisely the events of Custer's fight with Sue and Cheyenne warriors in 1876. Nor do I care that it turns out that all the plans that have been drawn of the Battle of Hale are oriented incorrectly, as illustrated there, or that we now know what happened to Varys's legions in the Tudor Berger forest. I'm not sure that I care over much that we can develop detailed models for the movement of medieval armies, or that we can reconstruct the shape of forts or military encampments or concentration camps from a range of periods of the past. The focus I've noticed at this conference on memorialising conflict, especially in sessions not specifically devoted to conflict, is a positive move, but still rather narrow, I think, in its approach. I care very much that we can use studies of conflict to obtain insights into human behaviours in different contexts, and derive from that an understanding of how different categories of persons interact with one another. I also care deeply that these understandings can challenge our assumptions and can upset our beloved myths, especially when those myths put our ancestors perpetually in the right or accord them status as victims. I believe that our work should contribute to a broader programme which allows us, as students of the entire human past, to say something meaningful about human violence, and especially war as a human practice, and thereby to engage in wider and, frankly, more important debates. I believe we can only do that, though, from a secure position within the wider discipline of archaeology, that we are enabled to speak about these important issues as archaeologists representing the wider discipline, rather than as conflict archaeologists operating from within a narrower frame of reference. It is, ultimately, an issue of relevance, not to the academic study of the past, but to the important issues of our own and other times that, if we're not lucky, may see us all die in rather ghastly ways if we're not open to challenging them. And I think it's an issue of addressing them very directly. There is a difference we need to bear in mind between mere squeamishness and pacifism that we need to be aware of. So, if those of us who study violence from an archaeological perspective wish to speak meaningfully to the wider world on insights into the human capacity for causing harm to one another, then we need to integrate ourselves more fully into the wider community of archaeologists to claim the authority we need. The question arises, how do we achieve this? In my abstract, I offered three approaches, and this is my chance to outline them a bit more fully. Nothing here will, I think, be very new, but is offered as a basis for considering how we wish the field to move forward, assuming that we do. One way to integrate conflict archaeology with the wider discipline is to reach out from conflict archaeology to those other areas of archaeology by identifying those aspects of conflict archaeology that can be drawn upon by others to the benefit of their own interests. I do believe that we have things to offer. In terms of basic method conflict archaeology, and especially battlefield archaeology, offers access to detailed and specific understandings of phenomena otherwise not well covered by other branches of the field. Battlefield residues are found almost entirely in the plow zone and represent scatters of material at various densities across quite wide areas, rather than more concentrated deposits in the subsoil. They are subject to processes that affect the upper layers of soil, including movement resulting from land use. They are highly prone to the effects of air and water, abrasion and chemical changes due to agricultural and other processes, which cause them to deteriorate and lose surface traces that are otherwise important evidence of past events. They are also deposited over very short periods of time, hours at most, and so represent the kind of shallow time depth otherwise rarely encountered in the field. They are most commonly discovered by use of the metal detector, a device not favoured by others in our discipline and illegal in some territories, but which is a valuable tool in the work of battlefield archaeology and can be applied elsewhere. The interpretation of past conflict requires a clear understanding of landform at very specific moments of the past because of the effect of landscape upon military decision making. It therefore requires the very precise reconstruction of landscapes from available evidence, historic maps, LiDAR data, historic description, environmental and other evidence, a whole range of stuff. The same applies to encampments and fortifications, prison spaces and spaces of commemoration. The interest so many of us share in memory and commemoration and making our concerns open to others is well represented at this conference and of course the experience in forensic approaches and modelling also developed in conflict archaeology are also evident. All these developing areas of expertise, none of them unique to conflict archaeology but highly developed by its practitioners can be put at the service of our colleagues in other branches of the discipline. My second approach to integration is to invite others to contribute to the development of conflict archaeology by identifying those aspects of other branches of archaeology that will be of benefit to us. To some extent this has been evident at this conference but again the approaches are rather narrowly applied. One thing conflict archaeology really lacks is a strong body of theory. We're very good on method and its application that theory is something we tend to avoid any discussion of. Individual conflicts tend to be short lived. Whole wars may last only a few years at most while individual fights can maybe last a few hours or maybe even minutes. But one of the great contributions of archaeology as a discipline is its ability to address aspects of the human past over the long term. We can learn from others how to adapt to our concerns with short term events into a longer term consideration of the human capacity for violence over the whole history of humankind. We can maybe also adapt an interest in origins to identify when in the human story violence may first appear which may provide a valuable insight into how it may be eradicated from the list of threats to human welfare. Those who are interested in the longer term of social and cultural change may be able to offer insights into changes in attitudes and practices of conflict and its management and memory. Theorisations of temporality that take place outside the conflict archaeology groupings may well have something to offer to those primarily concerned with the short term events that are our major focus. Our short term events significantly different in their ontology from the long term. Actually I don't know the answer. I don't know who does. But one of you may. Attempts to understand the practice of archaeology as a modern phenomenon may also have a lot to offer. Much of this of course focuses on excavation practice. But turning the attention to other forms of archaeological practice, especially survey, artefact retrieval and analysis, the mainstays of conflict archaeology might provide us with some of the theoretical foundation we otherwise lack. The lack of theoretical engagement is at charge frequently leveled at conflict archaeology, but others to engage with us would allow development in new directions. A third way forward would be the most radical, neither to reach out to others nor to invite others to reach in. Instead we abandon a focus on conflict to the exclusion of other aspects of the past and instead put our methodological and integrative skills at the service of archaeology more generally. This is neither a reaching out nor a reaching in, but a deliberate exercise in rejoining. But it also requires that others abandon their own claims to exclusivity too. To some extent we can see something like this at this conference, where those individual papers located in sessions otherwise not devoted to discussions of conflict. And there are some reasons, and there are those sessions devoted to conflict where the word does not appear in the title, for example those on resistances. And which therefore invite contributions from outside the remit of conflict archaeology. But even this does not go far enough to suggest in full what I suggest here. What I suggest and I have no examples of how to achieve this except the dropping of labels is that archaeology sees itself as a seamless whole and in which any archaeologist with an interest in any aspect of the past or the present is welcome and indeed encouraged to share with others. It means no more seeking for sub-fields or sub-disciplines or for organising conferences on the basis of themes or indeed for any of us to distinguish ourselves by describing ourselves and others as landscape archaeologists or field archaeologists or professional archaeologists or theoretical archaeologists or environmental archaeologists or archaeological scientists or digital archaeologists or public archaeologists or whatever else. You may consider yourself to be. But that requires us to think anew about ourselves and our field of work. This is the war cemetery to the Korean War in Seoul. If archaeological studies of conflict and other instances of human violence can make no contribution to our wider understanding of these phenomena and with the intention of hoping to eradicate them from our world, then it has very little to recommend it. To be able to play a part in wider debates and concerns, we need to be able to speak with authority and that raises the issue of how we in that field present ourselves and what we understand our work to do. I hope those who were present at other sessions devoted to the various aspects of conflict archaeology at this conference, battlefield study, archaeologies of resistance, occupation, internment, Holocaust archaeologist and so on. Plus those with interest in commemoration and remembrance are here and will take part in our discussion. It will be interesting to see how they represent themselves. One of the issues that arises for this session is how conflict archaeology relates to the rest of the discipline, or even if there is a separate set of activities we can call conflict archaeology. Of the three ways forward I have outlined, and I for them know means as the only things we should consider, the first two are not mutually exclusive. We can reach out to others and others can reach in to us at the same time. But if a thorough going rethink of our relations with others is involved, then clearly they must fall by the wayside. Or maybe a concern with conflict and violence and its legacies is a peculiar pathology that afflicts only some of us and is inappropriate for a discipline such as archaeology which has the capacity to unite humanity by its focus on the long term history of our species. In which case an argument for its abandonment would not be out of place. These are the issues that we invite you to consider.