KOCOA

V posledných rokoch patrí archeológia bojísk na Slovensku k pomaly sa etablujúcim odvetviam archeológie. Vďaka zopár zanieteným jedincom získava aj v odborných kruhoch postupne čoraz viac pozornosti. Hlavná pozornosť je venovaná opisu a dokumentovaniu bojových akcií, resp. zachovaniu a ochrane reliktov po bojových činnostiach. Napriek tomu sa výskum v zahraničí koncentruje vďaka dlhodobému záujmu o archeológiu bojísk na rekonštrukciu a pochopenie stratégií bojujúcich strán pomocou priestorových analýz. V nasledujúcom texte je predstavená jedna z najčastejšie využívaných analytických metód, ktorá je známa pod akronymom KOCOA. Ako modelové územie bola vybraná oblasť medzi Trnavou a Trstínom (juhozápadné Slovensko), kde sa nemecké jednotky pokúsili začiatkom apríla 1945 zastaviť postup Sovietov. Prostredníctvom metódy KOCOA sa pokúsime predikovať miesta vhodné na obranu. Konfrontácia vybraných lokalít s lidarovými snímkami má potenciál odhaliť prítomnosť doposiaľ zachovaných poľných opevnení, ktoré sa tak môžu stať predmetom ďalšieho výskumu a ochrany.

Conflict sites are nationally significant aspects of heritage, providing physical touchstones to key historic moments of the past, at the regional and national level on a global scale. Moreover, in addition to their value for heritage tourism, conflict sites are bridgeheads that can be mobilised to support a wide range of education, outreach, and engagement activities. These activities can be focused on the conflict itself, but can branch out, using the interest in conflict to explore other aspects of the associated period. However, a stumbling block mobilising these heritage aspects of battlefields is the difficulty locating them accurately in the modern landscape. This research proposes a theoretical framework, supported by case studies from different time periods--the AD 1296 and AD 1650 battles of Dunbar, Scotland--which can be used to place these forgotten fields back onto the map. Previous approaches to locating battlefields within conflict archaeology have largely been theory free, and problematic in terms of replicability and application. The theoretical framework outlined here, tested by application to two battlefields, separated by hundreds of years in time, but only a few meters in space, demonstrates the applicability of the model by highlighting the key factor that determines battlefields is the symmetrical engagement and interaction of an agent with the terrain, shaped and constrained by their cultural and experientially formed praxis. Moreover, as it is free of both geographical and temporal constraints it can be applied to conflict sites from various historical and--potentially--prehistorical periods, meaning it has international significance in terms of conflict archaeology and battlefield heritage

Locating and delineating the location of a medieval battlefield in the modern landscape is difficult, from the perspective of both archaeologists and historians. Landscape modifications, lack of records, and the decay/destruction of battle associated material culture are contributing factors. However, presented here is a predictive model for finding these forgotten fields; this theoretical and methodological framework asserts that conflict landscapes were selected by conscious human agency in terrain, informed by a praxis of temporally distinct tactics. For the Medieval period, this becomes pertinent, as past research on medieval battlefields—until the recent works of Strickland, Brown, Bennett et al—misinterpreted key aspects of medieval warfare. Consequently, this theoretical and methodological approach allows for the digitization, reconstruction, analysis and modelling of possible battlescape locations. Bannockburn, the penultimate battle of the First War of Scottish Independence, serves as an ideal case study. As the earliest battlefield located archaeologically in Britain—by a multipartner project run by the Centre for Battlefield Archaeology—it will be shown this desk based approach can be utilized to select the most probable terrain and topography for the conduct of medieval warfare, within a modern landscape. It will be demonstrated that battle material culture from the Centre project correlates with key areas highlighted by this desk based approach. This proves the core concept of the modelling, that it allows the prioritization of high probability areas of conflict sites by future archaeological investigations, and places forgotten fields of conflict back on the m

The central proposition of this work is that a battlefield’s location sits at the intersection of three interlinked variables of terrain, tactics, and force composition, which exist in a symbiotic relationship. Furthermore, this intersection can be located through qualitative modelling within GIS against an informed digital landscape reconstruction. The hypothesis assumes that tactics and force composition are culturally relative. Moreover, they are temporally constrained aspects of a tri-poled dialectic, and state changes in the nature of these aspects will result in correlative shifts in the types of terrain that are chosen for conflict. To analyse these aspects, a theoretical framework of human agency in the selection of terrain for conflict, was developed. This theoretical position utilises a modified version of the military terrain analysis KOCOA for the purposes of visualising abstract theory, and highlighting Key Terrain aspects as a means of predicting conflict locations. To apply this theoretical framework, a phased methodology for historic landscape reconstruction within GIS was created, allowing the modelling of possible locations as a desk-based assessment approach. To model likely battlefield locations within the wider landscape, the theoretical framework posits a culturally and temporally relative habitus, experientially formed through regular experience with conflict. By analysing the digitally reconstructed battlescapes with the theoretical approach, we can model and highlight the Key Terrain an agent’s habitus would have inculcated them to choose. This Key Terrain will be distinct for each time period, reflecting culturally and temporally distinct ways of warfare, and reflexive choices of ideal terrain. The theory and method were tested through application to Scottish battlefields, with general locations known, from each major period of warfare. A study of the praxis of warfare for each period was undertaken, to fully understand the underlying structure of the habitus of conflict for each period. The historic battlescapes were reconstructed, and analysed within GIS using Culturally Relative KOCOA, projecting the agent’s habitus onto the landscape, modelling areas that were probable as focuses for conflict. This modelling process was applied to the medieval battles of Dunbar (1296), Roslin (1302), Bannockburn (1314), the Post-Medieval battles of Flodden (1513), Ancrum (1545), Pinkie (1547), and the Early Modern battles of Kilsyth (1645), Philiphaugh (1645), and Dunbar II (1650). After the modelling process was completed in GIS, selecting the most likely location of conflict within the battlescape, distributions of battle-related artefactual evidence—where available—were used to check the locations suggested by the model against artefact data. Based on these results, I argue that the theoretical and methodological approach herein can be utilized as a desk-based approach to find forgotten fields. It is a modelling process that can be performed utilizing the theoretical and methodological framework as a desk-based assessment, prior to any fieldwork, and would function to focus any investigations-on-high-priority-areas.

The focus of the project is the WWII battle for the island of Peleliu and the scattered material remains present in the submerged battlefield. The goal was to locate and photogrammetrically record sites, characterize coral growth and impacts, and to examine the reef substrate and its coral communities to determine if the scars from U.S. military blasting for access to the lagoon is visible after more than 74 years.

This presentation will discuss the theoretical and methodological approach currently being developed to aid in the location of unknown battlefields. Researchers studying warfare readily acknowledge the intimate correlations between terrain and battlefields. However, most approaches ignore the human element inherent in the selection of terrain for the purposes of conflict, constructing instead an environment of quantitative determinism. Given that conflict, regardless of the scale, is a human activity, the impact of culture and human agency must be addressed for any effective study. Consequently, this paper presents a theoretical framework developed to allow for a conscious agency of choice in the selection of terrain typesets through an informed mental ‘grammar’ of conflict and tactical knowledge; a military lifeway that is distinct from, and yet intertwines with, the overarching culture. Structural coupling forms a habitus which enculturates the individual with learned preferences for terrain typesets. Rather than assuming topography and environment control where conflict occurs, this theory asserts that battles were situated through conscious human selection and consideration, informed by a culturally formed and constructed tacit knowledge of how to best utilize terrain, tactics, and the forces under their control to their advantage in the context of conflict. Incorporating within this theoretical framework the US military’s KOCOA terrain analysis system, modified to account for cultural and temporal changes, as well as a methodological approach to historic landscape reconstruction within a virtual GIS environment, it should be possible to subject multiple battlefield sites with generally known location from the Medieval to the Early Modern period to a rigorous analysis. From the analysis, some conclusions can be drawn concerning specific terrain ‘typesets’ that are preferential for conflict in each time period, and thus the locating of landscapes that contain those typesets as being the most likely real world location of the historic battlescape.

Esta investigación pretende identificar y comprender los elementos que componen el sistema defensivo del ejército revolucionario dirigido por Tomás Cipriano de Mosquera, el cual se compone por el paisaje y las estructuras defensivas encontradas en el área del campo de batalla. Con esto se desea hacer un aporte desde la arqueología en relación con el entendimiento de los elementos que componen el sistema defensivo del campamento del general Tomás Cipriano de Mosquera, al igual que su funcionalidad durante la batalla, recogiendo los análisis de cultura material realizados anteriormente en el sitio y apoyándose desde una perspectiva de análisis militar actual para comprender el uso que tiene el espacio en la guerra.

Sixteenth century battlefields in Scotland represent a thorny problem for conflict archaeologists. Despite the increase in records as by-products of increasing bureaucracy, landscape modifications, lack of terrain descriptions, etc complicate locating battlesites within a modern landscape. For Scotland this is an imminent concern, as locating battlefields on modern maps is a key requirement for inclusion on the Scottish Inventory of Battlefields, and thus for planning consideration. 
Presented here is an applied theoretical framework, which allows a conscious agency of choice in the selection of terrain through a mental ‘grammar’ of conflict and tactical knowledge: a military lifeway distinct from, yet intertwining with, the overarching culture. Rather than assuming topography and environment dictate where conflict occurs, this theory asserts battles occurred through conscious agency, informed by a culturally forged, tacit knowledge of the advantageous use of terrain. Mediated by a praxis of temporally distinct tactics, armies were directed and deployed advantageously in conflict contexts. Thus, this theoretical framework, coupled with a methodological approach, allows for the digital reconstruction, analysis and modelling of possible battlescapes within GIS.
By applying this to battlefields from the Marian War of the Rough Wooing—the AD 1545 Battle of Ancrum Moor, and the AD 1547 Battle of Pinkie—which have generally known locations, it will show this GIS approach selects the most probable combinations of terrain for the conduct of warfare within a battlescape. The model’s veracity will be tested by cross-checking the location of terrain features highlighted by the GIS reconstruction and analyses against spatial distribution of presumed battle related artefacts from a multitude of sources. The accuracy of these correlations will show this model can be utilized for battlescapes with unknown or uncertain locations, as modelling allows for the prioritisation of high probability areas within potential battlescapes, which can be targeted with archaeological fieldwork.