-
Introduction
- State University of New York Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
Several papers in this section focus on the importance of warfare in the past. These are Rick Schulting’s paper on Neolithic conflict and Vandkilde’s discussion of Bronze Age warfare. Two other papers—Simon James’s “Facing the Sword: Confronting the Realities of Martial Violence and Other Mayhem, Present and Past” and Rebecca Redfern’s “Violence as an Aspect of the Durotriges Female Life Course”—deal with various forms of violence and the difficulties of archaeologically identifying such events in the past. Historians have written about warfare since ancient times, and the rise and fall of many states and empires in Europe is associated with various wars. We have numerous examples, but it suffices to mention the destruction of the Athenian Empire: as pointed out by Donald Kagan (2003:XXIII) in his book The Peloponnesian War, “For almost three decades at the end of the fifth century B.C. the Athenian Empire fought the Spartan Alliance in a terrible war that changed the Greek world and its civilization forever.” More recently, most of the contemporary boundaries of European states were determined by World Wars I and II. Many archaeologists have ignored the importance of warfare in the human past. The horrible conflicts of twentieth-century Europe have brought so much pain and suffering that many archaeologists have preferred to the avoid this topic and, furthermore, as Helle Vandkilde (2003) has noted, some distinguished European archaeologists were political leftists and pacifists who preferred not to emphasize conflict in the remote past. Finally, there is the difficulty of demonstrating warfare with archaeological data in pre-state societies. Warfare in the past must be studied by archaeologists for several reasons. Whether we like it or not, warfare plays and has played a significant role in human history. Many changes in political, economic, and social systems have resulted from warfare. As John Carman (this volume) notes, “To deny the importance of past warfare in Europe is inevitably to deny us access to an important part of that past.” Naturally, warfare went through various stages of Introduction Sarunas Milisauskas 16 development, and it would be unrealistic to compare a Neolithic conflict of two villages to the modern massive conflicts of states or empires. What evidence is there for warfare during the Mesolithic and the Neolithic? What type of archaeological data would indicate intercommunity conflict? How can a weapon be distinguished from a plain tool? What were some of the causes for warfare during those periods ? These are some of the questions that Rick Schulting raises in his paper. His evidence for conflict in the European Mesolithic consists of bone and stone arrowheads and cranial trauma. Neolithic evidence for warfare consists of skeletal trauma and the presence of enclosures . Although there are numerous interpretations about the functions of these structures, there is evidence that some enclosures were subjected to attacks, for example, Hambledon Hill, Crickley Hill, and Carn Brea in England. As Schulting points out, “Some 400 projectiles were found at the entrance into the Crickley Hill promontory enclosure.” Skeletal evidence is best exemplified by the Linear Pottery mass grave at Talheim in Germany, but it is doubtful that events at Talheim are applicable to what was happening everywhere else. For example, the Linear Pottery data from southeastern Poland suggests a more peaceful society. More than 42,000 flint artifacts were found in the excavated units at Olszanica in Poland; however, only two or three were projectile points (Milisauskas 1986). Schulting notes that “we do not see a specialized warrior identity in the Mesolithic or Neolithic and that every able-bodied male would be expected to perform this role alongside his other roles hunter, farmer, herder, fisher, weaver, potter, etc.” Helle Vandkilde also stresses that “[t]hroughout the history of archaeology, war and violence have largely been ignored as relevant for our understanding of prehistoric societies.” Only since the mid-nineties was there a great increase of publications dealing with warfare. She points out that we have excellent data from the European Bronze Age for the presence of warfare, the weaponry itself, weapon technology, weaponry in burials and votive deposits, fortification, skeletal trauma, and iconographic presentations. Swords are especially critical for various interpretations of Bronze Age warfare, and Vandkilde uses these data to illustrate the presence of warfare in pre-state societies. However, we should not imagine that warfare was continuous among Bronze Age societies. Most archaeologists consider warfare to be a male activity during the Bronze Age, but both sexes take casualties. It would...