Warfare and Society: Archaeological and Social Anthropological Perspectives

By Ton Otto; Henrik Thrane et al. | Go to book overview
Save to active project

5 Archaeology and War: Presentations of Warriors
and Peasants in Archaeological Interpretations

The horse-mounted and axe-wielding pastoral tribes migrated into Jutland from the south,
rapidly making themselves rulers of the central and western half of the peninsula. Up
through southern Jutland the burial mounds mark the routes of colonization, which can only
be loosely followed. The oldest occurrences of axes show how comprehensive this first influx
was. The wide and leafy river-valleys of central and western Jutland became the first resort of
these foreigners, since here was abundant food for their beasts. The old fishing and hunting
folk who lived close to lakes and streams was rapidly subdued in most places, and the same
destiny undoubtedly stroke the dispersed farming communities, unless they succeeded in
reaching eastern Jutland, where their kinsfolk, the megalithic people, was densely situated.
(Glob 1945: 242, author’s translation from Danish)

HELLE VANDKILDE

This article critically examines archaeologies of the Stone and Bronze Ages by looking at them through a broad contemporary framework. Although clearly including warriors in explanations of material transitions from one culture to another, the academic discourse of archaeology has strangely ignored warfare and violence as relevant aspects of past human activity, an apparent contradiction that this article will examine and debate.1

Power, dominance and coercion are almost inevitably connected to warfare and its principal actors, soldiers and warriors, brutally interfering with human existence almost everywhere in our late modern world. These factors, embedded in a 21st century setting, make it obvious that warfare should be an object of archaeological study. More generally, war seems to be a central ingredient in social reproduction and change, which constitutes another reason for engaging in the study of war, warfare and warriors. However, looking back at the Stone and Bronze Age archaeology of the 20th century, it becomes clear that archaeologists have studied weaponry, and in some measure warriors, but not war. There are notable exceptions, but possible reasons for the general absence of an interest in violence need to be outlined and debated. Warfare and violence began to enter the archaeological discourse only after c. 1995. Compared to the general implementation of anthropological and sociological theories in archaeology (late 1960s and early 1970s), war studies thus arrive on the scene much delayed. Even after this date the theme is quite often embarked upon as something set aside from the rest of social practice.

Vencl (1984) has argued that the absence of warfare studies in prehistoric archaeology is linked to the inadequacy of archaeological sources. It is undoubtedly true that archaeological data do not reflect the ratio of war in prehistory. Trauma is probably underrepresented, and so are weapons of organic materials (Capelle 1982). However, direct and indirect evidence of war-related violence is by no means non-existent (Figs. 1–4). The number of prehistoric weapons, including fortifications, is huge, and iconographic presentations of war and warriors in art and rituals supplement the picture, as do examinations of patterns of wear and damage on swords (cf. Bridgford 1997; Kristiansen 2002). Skeletal traumata are, in fact, relatively frequent in European prehistory when it is taken into account that skeletons are often not well preserved, they are not routinely examined for marks of violence and that much physical violence does not leave visible traces on the skeleton. The evidence is most certainly adequate as a basis for studies of violence and war.

-57-

Notes for this page

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Notes
Cite this page

Cited page

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited page

Bookmark this page
Warfare and Society: Archaeological and Social Anthropological Perspectives
Table of contents

Table of contents

Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this book

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen
/ 557

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?