Warfare Violence And Slavery In Prehistory

Proceedings of a Prehistoric Society conference at Sheffield University

Essay from the year 2008 in the subject History - World History - Early and Ancient History, grade: 75 Punkte = 1,7, The University of Liverpool (School of Archaeology, Classics and Egyptology), course: Ancient Warfare, 47 entries in the bibliography, language: English, abstract: (...) all infantry actions, even those fought in the closest of close order, are not, in the last resort, combats of mass against mass, but the sum of many combats of individuals - one against one, one against two, three against five. This must be so, for the very simple reason that the weapons (...) are of very limited range and effect." As Keegan suggest in his Face of Battle - one of the most reviewed, criticized, but also honoured publication stressing warfare and its impact on the single warrior facing both the receipt of rewards and death - that any kind of combat appears to be an individual conflict, either. This circumstance has not been changed over all periods of violent actions between human beings. For the last decades, even the myth of a peaceful prehistoric community has been declared to be wrong-turned. However only few historical, anthropological or sociological/psychological works seem to be of large interest questioning the causes of death, fatal wounds and injuries throughout a war, even though this (my Italics) might be a timeless interrogation. This paper, hence, will not demand to revolutionize the hiatus of research on the central question, but it attempts to allow an insight into the circumstances of prehistoric, Egyptian and Mediterranean warfare. By underlining especially the most common lesions of these periods as well as pointing out the reasons behind apparently unnecessary casualties, it will give a short introduction to a warrior‟s/soldier‟s particular behaviour while battling. Additionally the paper tries to offer both various arguments, which may support Keegan‟s intention referring above and - which appears to be even more important - a critical view to the

This is the first book to explore prehistoric warfare and violence by integrating qualitative research methods with quantitative, scientific techniques of analysis such as paleopathology, morphometry, wear analysis, and experimental archaeology. It investigates early warfare and violence from the standpoint of four broad interdisciplinary themes: skeletal markers of violence and weapon training; conflict in prehistoric rock-art; the material culture of conflict; and intergroup violence in archaeological discourse. The book has a wide-ranging chronological and geographic scope, from early Neolithic to late Iron Age and from Western Europe to East Asia. It includes world-renowned sites and artefact collections such as the Tollense Valley Bronze Age battlefield (Germany), the UNESCO World Heritage Site at Tanum (Sweden), and the British Museum collection of bronze weaponry from the late Shang period (China). Original case studies are presented in each section by a diverse international authorship. The study of warfare and violence in prehistoric and pre-literate societies has been at the forefront of archaeological debate since the publication of Keeley’s provocative monograph ‘War Before Civilization’ (Oxford 1996). The problem has been approached from a number of standpoints including anthropological and behavioural studies of interpersonal violence, osteological examinations of sharp lesions and blunt-force traumas, wear analysis of ancient weaponry, and field experiments with replica weapons and armour. This research, however, is often confined within the boundaries of the various disciplines and specialist fields. In particular, a gap can often be detected between the research approaches grounded in the humanities and social sciences and those based on the archaeological sciences. The consequence is that, to this day, the subject is dominated by a number of undemonstrated assumptions regarding the nature of warfare, combat, and violence in non-literate societies. Moreover, important methodological questions remain unanswered: can we securely distinguish between violence-related and accidental trauma on skeletal remains? To what extent can wear analysis shed light on long-forgotten fighting styles? Can we design meaningful combat tests based on historic martial arts? And can the study of rock-art unlock the social realities of prehistoric warfare? By breaking the mould of entrenched subject boundaries, this edited volume promotes interdisciplinary debate in the study of prehistoric warfare and violence by presenting a number of innovative approaches that integrate qualitative and quantitative methods of research and analysis.

A concise study using archeological and ethnographic evidence to refute current theories about the origin of war

Warfare in Prehistoric Britain explores the dark shadow of war which has hung over humanity for centuries

"The chapters in this book [posit] that humans clearly have the capacity to make war, but since war is absent in some cultures, it cannot be viewed as a human universal. And counter to frequent presumption, the actual archaeological record reveals the recent emergence of war. It does not typify the ancestral type of human society, the nomadic forager band, and contrary to widespread assumptions, there is little support for the idea that war is ancient or an evolved adaptation. Views of human nature as inherently warlike stem not from the facts but from cultural views embedded in Western thinking"--Amazon.com.

Proceedings of two sessions from the XVII UISPP World Congress, 2014: A3c The Emergence of warrior societies and its economic, social and environmental consequences and A16a Aegean – Mediterranean imports and influences in the graves from continental Europe – Bronze and Iron Ages.

How did warfare originate? Was it human genetics? Social competition? The rise of complexity? Intensive study of the long-term hunter-gatherer past brings us closer to an answer. The original chapters in this volume examine cultural areas on five continents where there is archaeological, ethnographic, and historical evidence for hunter-gatherer conflict despite high degrees of mobility, small populations, and relatively egalitarian social structures. Their controversial conclusions will elicit interest among anthropologists, archaeologists, and those in conflict studies.