War and Violence among Prehistoric Hunter-gatherers

Link/Peter-Röcher (Hrsg.) · Gewalt und Gesellschaft Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie Band 259 Aus dem Lehrstuhl für Vor- und Frühgeschichtliche Archäologie der Universität Würzburg 2014 Verlag Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, Bonn Gewalt und Gesellschaft Dimensionen der Gewalt in ur- und frühgeschichtlicher Zeit Violence and Society Dimensions of violence in pre- and protohistoric times Internationale Tagung an der Julius-Maximilians-Universität Würzburg 14. – 16. März 2013 herausgegeben von Thomas Link und Heidi Peter-Röcher 2014 Verlag Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, Bonn Gefördert durch die Redaktion: Marcel Honeck, Thomas Link, Heidi Peter-Röcher Satz und Layout: Marcel Honeck, Thomas Link ISBN 978-3-7749-3929-5 Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie. Detailliertere bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über <http://dnb.d-nb.de> abrufbar. Copyright 2014 by Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, Bonn VORWORT DER HERAUSGEBER Die Reihe „Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie“ soll einem in der jüngeren Vergangenheit entstandenen Bedürfnis Rechnung tragen, nämlich Examensarbeiten und andere Forschungsleistungen vornehmlich jüngerer Wissenschaftler in die Öffentlichkeit zu tragen. Die etablierten Reihen und Zeitschriften des Faches reichen längst nicht mehr aus, die vorhandenen Manuskripte aufzunehmen. Die Universitäten sind deshalb aufgerufen, Abhilfe zu schaffen. Einige von ihnen haben mit den ihnen zur Verfügung stehenden Mitteln unter zumeist tatkräftigem Handanlegen der Autoren die vorliegende Reihe begründet. Thematisch soll darin die ganze Breite des Faches vom Paläolithikum bis zur Archäologie der Neuzeit ihren Platz inden. Ursprünglich hatten sich fünf Universitätsinstitute in Deutschland zur Herausgabe der Reihe zusammengefunden, der Kreis ist inzwischen größer geworden. Er lädt alle interessierten Professoren und Dozenten ein, als Mitherausgeber tätig zu werden und Arbeiten aus ihrem Bereich der Reihe zukommen zu lassen. Für die einzelnen Bände zeichnen jeweils die Autoren und Institute ihrer Herkunft, die im Titel deutlich gekennzeichnet sind, verantwortlich. Sie erstellen Satz, Umbruch und einen Ausdruck. Bei gleicher Anordnung des Umschlages haben die verschiedenen beteiligten Universitäten jeweils eine speziische Farbe. Finanzierung und Druck erfolgen entweder durch sie selbst oder durch den Verlag Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, der in jedem Fall den Vertrieb der Bände sichert. Herausgeber sind derzeit: Kurt Alt (Mainz) Nikolaus Boroffka (Berlin) Peter Breunig (Frankfurt am Main) Philippe Della Casa (Zürich) Manfred K.H. Eggert (Tübingen) Clemens Eibner (Heidelberg) Frank Falkenstein (Würzburg) Ralf Gleser (Münster) Bernhard Hänsel (Berlin) Alfred Haffner (Kiel) Albert Hafner (Bern) Svend Hansen (Berlin) Ole Harck (Kiel) Joachim Henning (Frankfurt am Main) Christian Jeunesse (Strasbourg) Albrecht Jockenhövel (Münster) Tobias L. Kienlin (Köln) Rüdiger Krause (Frankfurt am Main) Klára Kuzmová (Trnava) Amei Lang (München) Andreas Lippert (Wien) Jens Lüning (Frankfurt am Main) Joseph Maran (Heidelberg) Carola Metzner-Nebelsick (München) Johannes Müller (Kiel) Ulrich Müller (Kiel) Michael Müller-Wille (Kiel) Mária Novotná (Trnava) Bernd Päffgen (München) Diamantis Panagiotopoulos (Heidelberg) Christopher Pare (Mainz) Hermann Parzinger (Berlin) Heidi Peter-Röcher (Würzburg) Britta Ramminger (Hamburg) Jürgen Richter (Köln) Sabine Rieckhoff (Leipzig) Wolfram Schier (Berlin) Thomas Stöllner (Bochum) Biba Teržan (Berlin) Gerhard Tomedi (Innsbruck) Ulrich Veit (Leipzig) Karl-Heinz Willroth (Göttingen) Andreas Zimmermann (Köln) Inhalt – Contents Gewalt und Gesellschaft – Tagungsprogramm Violence and Society – Conference Programme homas Link und Heidi Peter-Röcher Gewalt und Gesellschaft – Einführung und Ausblick Violence and Society – Introduction and Prospects 15 Allgemeine Beiträge Ulrich Veit Gewalt-Erzählungen: Überlegungen zum aktuellen Gewalt-Diskurs in der Ur- und Frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie Narratives of Violence: Relections on the Current Discourse on Violence in Prehistoric Archaeology 19 Joachim Wahl Vom Trauma zur Traumatisierung zur Täter-Opfer-Geometrie – Spuren von Gewalteinwirkung an menschlichen Skelettresten und ihre Deutung From Trauma to Traumatisation to the Ofender-victim Geometry – Traces of Violence on Human Skeletal Remains and their Interpretation 33 Heidi Peter-Röcher Gewalt und Gesellschaft: Sesshaftwerdung, „Staatsentstehung“ und die unterschiedlichen Erscheinungsformen der Gewalt Violence and Society: Sedentarization, “State Formation” and the Various Dimensions of Violence 45 Wolf-Rüdiger Teegen Tierquälerei – oder ...? Gewalt gegen Haustiere im archäologischen Befund – Ein methodischer Beitrag Cruelty to Animals – or...? Violence against Domestic Animals in the Archaeological Record – A Methodological Contribution 55 Frühmittelalter und Spätantike Christian Meyer, Klaus Wirth und Kurt W. Alt Gold, Gewalt und Gebrechen. Die Beziehung zwischen sozialem Status und traumatischem Skelettbefund im frühen Mittelalter am Beispiel des Hermsheimer Bösfelds, Mannheim-Seckenheim Gold, Violence and Aliction. he Relationship between Social Status and Traumatic Skeletal Injuries in the Early Middle Ages Using the Example of the Hermsheimer Bösfeld, Mannheim-Seckenheim 65 Roland Prien Die Spätantike als Gewaltnarrativ. Zum archäologischen Niederschlag des sogenannten MagnentiusHorizontes aus der Mitte des 4. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. Late Antiquity as Narrative of Violence. Archaeological Traces of the So-called Magnentius-Horizon of the mid-4th Century AD 81 Bronze- und Kupferzeit homas Terberger, Anne Dombrowsky, Jana Dräger, Detlef Jantzen, Joachim Krüger und Gundula Lidke Professionelle Krieger in der Bronzezeit vor 3300 Jahren? Zu den Überresten eines Gewaltkonliktes im Tollensetal, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern Professional Warriors in the Bronze Age 3300 Years Ago? he Remains of a Violent Conlict from the Tollense Valley, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania 93 Ute Brinker, Stefan Flohr, Jürgen Piek, Annemarie Schramm und Jörg Orschiedt Getötet am Fluss. Die bronzezeitlichen Menschenreste aus dem Tollensetal, MecklenburgVorpommern Killed at the River. Bronze Age Human Remains from the Tollense Valley, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania 111 Tobias Mörtz 121 Gedenke deines Feindes! Zur sozialgeschichtlichen Aussagekraft spätbronzezeitlicher Wafendeponierungen Großbritanniens Commemorate your Enemy! On the Socio-historical Signiicance of Late Bronze Age Weapon Depositions in Britain Jan-Heinrich Bunnefeld 133 Der Häuptling und sein Schwert? – Anmerkungen zur sozialen Stellung des Schwertträgers in der älteren nordischen Bronzezeit he Chief and his Sword? – Comments Regarding the Social Position of the Sword-bearing Man in the Early Nordic Bronze Age Florian Klimscha Technikarchäologische Perspektiven zum Aufkommen spezialisierter Angrifswafen aus Stein und Kupfer in der südlichen Levante (4.–3. Jahrtausend v. Chr.) Technical-archaeological Perspectives for the Emergence of Specialized Assault Weapons Made of Stone and Copper in the Southern Levant (4th–3rd Millennium BC) 145 Svend Hansen Der Held in historischer Perspektive he Hero in Historical Perspective 159 Helga Vogel Der Königsfriedhof von Ur und das Problem der so genannten Gefolgschaftsbestattungen he Royal Cemetery at Ur and the Problem of the So-called Attendants Burials 169 Steinzeiten Jörg Petrasch Gewalttätige und friedliebende Gemeinschaften im neolithischen Mitteleuropa oder gab es eine Evolution der Gewalt während der Jungsteinzeit? Violent and Peace-loving Communities in Neolithic Central Europe or Was there an Evolution of Violence during the Neolithic? 187 Immo Heske und Silke Grefen-Peters 203 Gewalt im Detail. Bestattungen der Glockenbecherkultur in Niedersachsen mit Hinweisen auf Dimensionen der gesellschaftlichen Auseinandersetzung Violence in Detail. Burials of the Bell Beaker Culture in Lower Saxony with References to Dimensions of Social Conlict Andreas Neubert, Jörg Wicke und Horst Bruchhaus 217 Mit der Axt – durch die Axt. Der Zusammenhang von Schädeldefekt und Wafenbeigabe in Bestattungen des schnurkeramischen Kulturkreises With the Axe – by the Axe. he Relationship of Skull Defect and Weapons in Burials of the Corded Ware Culture homas Saile Ein Kampf um Altheim? Zur Unschärfe vorgeschichtlicher Lebensbilder A Fight for Altheim? he Fuzziness of Prehistoric Life Images 225 Eric Biermann Gewalt und Aggression in Alt- und Mittelneolithikum. Keulenköpfe und Äxte als Indikator für Krieg, Prestige und Gruppenidentität Violence and Aggression in the Early and Middle Neolithic. Mace Heads and Axes as an Indicator of War, Prestige, and Group Identity 237 Hans-Christoph Strien, Joachim Wahl und Christina Jacob Talheim – Ein Gewaltverbrechen am Ende der Bandkeramik Talheim – A Violent Crime at the End of the Linear Pottery Culture 247 Andrea Zeeb-Lanz 257 Gewalt im Ritual – Gewalt an Toten. Die Krise am Ende der Bandkeramik im Spiegel außergewöhnlicher Befunde Violence in Ritual – Violence against the Dead. he Crisis at the End of the Linear Pottery Culture Relected by Exceptional Features homas Link 271 Gewaltphantasien? Kritische Bemerkungen zur Diskussion über Krieg und Krise am Ende der Bandkeramik Fantasies of Violence? Critical Remarks on the Discussion of War and Crisis at the End of the Linear Pottery Culture Gligor Daković War and Violence among Prehistoric Hunter-gatherers Krieg und Gewalt bei prähistorischen Wildbeutern 287 T. Link / H. Peter-Röcher (Hrsg.), Gewalt und Gesellschaft. Dimensionen der Gewalt in ur- und frühgeschichtlicher Zeit. Internationale Tagung vom 14.–16. März 2013 an der Julius-Maximilians-Universität Würzburg. Universitätsforschungen zur Prähistorischen Archäologie 259 (Bonn 2014) 287–297. War and Violence among Prehistoric Hunter-gatherers Gligor Daković Abstract he article addresses the causes of war and violence (with the focus on war) among prehistoric hunter-gatherers. his is done by analyzing the two leading theories on early war, the materialistic and the bio-evolutionary theory, and confronting them with relevant archaeological material. I will briely present the works of L. Keeley, A. Gat and B. Ferguson which mainly build up on ethnographic studies of hunter-gatherers and then explain the relevance of the studies of violence among primates. An overview of archaeological evidence from the Paleolithic to the Mesolithic will follow. he conclusions are that theories on “prehistoric war” are based too much on generalizations derived from ethnographic studies and are too poorly supported by archaeological material. Also the term “prehistoric war” is inadequately used for periods of time with signiicantly diferent social structures. While the review of archaeological evidence assumes the existence of low-level violence among the earliest human communities, it certainly was not part of hunter-gatherer societies of the recent past. Introduction Warfare in prehistoric societies is mostly researched by archaeologists and anthropologists using hypotheses and data from the ield of ethnography, evolutionary psychology and primatology. he main contribution of archaeology is its ability to penetrate deep into the past and explore the oldest modes of human behavior. his can be used to form hypotheses on the origin and development of violence and war. his article will address the dimensions of violence and the possibility of war between earliest prehistoric communities. Did the prehistoric hunter-gatherers wage war and in what measure was violence present in these societies? It is possible to answer these questions by examining causes of war and violence (with the focus on war) among recent hunter-gatherers. his is done by analyzing the two leading theories on early war, the bio-evolutionary and the materialistic theory, and confronting them with relevant archaeological material. he bio-evolutionary theory was chosen because it deals with violence and war on a great chronological scale and the only medium being able to test these models is archaeology. he materialistic theory on the other hand is successfully used by researchers of complex hunter-gatherers (ancient and recent) and early sedentary societies. Deining war as an organized armed aggression between diferent autonomous political groups (Ferguson 1990; Maschner/Reedy-Maschner 1998; Thorpe 2003; Otterbein 2004; Arkush 2008) seems most appropriate because it is not too narrowly focused and it still contains a suicient number of speciic characteristics separating war from low level violence among small groups of individuals. he study includes three parts, of which the irst part consists of the analysis of evolutionary psychology theories, the examination of data obtained during observations of aggressive behavior among primates and ethnographic data on warriors. he second part of the study includes materialistic explanations of causes of violence and war. Finally the third part will assess the forensic perspective on identifying violence and war in the past. he archaeological traces of violence associated with Neanderthals, and the physical 288 Daković, War and Violence among Prehistoric Hunter-gatherers evidence of traces of violence in the Upper Paleolithic (individual skeletons, multiple burials and cave paintings with depictions of violence) and Mesolithic will also be presented. Earliest researchers on origins of warfare he irst who have dealt with the emergence of war in the past were T. Hobbes and J. J. Rousseau. In his Leviathan, Hobbes concludes, on the basis of logical argumentation, that humans in their early beginnings or natural state were at war all against all. In this initial stage of a general warfare, people were living in total fear and great danger. Hobbes argued that their lives were solitary, poor, wicked, violent and short. Only when freedom is relinquished to the organized forms of central government, such a lifestyle is given up. For Hobbes, humanity is the product of civilization. However, he never claimed that people were initially wicked or vile, or that they were biologically determined to dominate others. In contrast to Hobbes’s “natural” human condition, J. J. Rousseau reveals his own idea of a natural mode of existence concerning early human communities. Like Hobbes, Rousseau assumes that all people were initially equal. Conlicts arise with the creation of “unnatural” institutions of monogamy and private property. Any aggressive tendencies are overcome by compassion and empathy which are innate human qualities. hese qualities have not endured jealousy, a phenomenon that occurs with the appearance of marriage, private property, education, social inequalities and the emergence of “urban” society. War and violence occur frequently when people separate as diferent social groups. Compassion and the esteem of individuals lose relevance as societies become more sophisticated (Keeley 1996, 5–7). Some of these ideas and concepts are still used today. Bio-evolutionary theories on causes of war and violence he environment of evolutionary adaptation (EEA) is the part of the evolutionary psychology having the most inluence on human conlict in the past. A basic assumption of this approach is that human nature is shaped by the natural environment of ages past. If we take into account the fact that thousands of generations are necessary for natural selection and adaptation to take place, it is reasonable to consider that the human mind is still adapted to conditions we spent most of our existence in. he human brain is adapted to the way of life that has passed a long time ago and not to the one which started with the beginning of agriculture (Pinker 1998, 42). The EEA consequently corresponds with Paleolithic and Mesolithic conditions implying that the theories of evolutionary psychology on the origins of conlict (territorial model, reproductive theory and aggressive status competition) can be tested on archaeological materials from early prehistory (Thorpe 2003, 147). Representatives of the territorial model believe that human aggression cannot be attributed to brutal instincts or a pathological symptom of growing up in a tough environment. Human beings have a strong tendency to react with irrational hatred to foreign threats and become hostile until external enemies are removed. he territorial model, from the perspective of social biology, presents ethnocentrism as a product of natural selection. Our brain is programmed to sort people into friends and unknown. Foreigner’s actions provoke fear leading to resolution of conlicts with aggression. In human evolution these patterns of behavior have evolved during hundreds of thousands of years, and have brought the highest biological privilege to those who were most consistent followers (Wilson 2007, 116–117). It is obvious how easily these ideas can be abused by politicians and alike. R. W. Wrangham (1999, 5–7) proposes that the territorial instinct, which takes its origin from the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees, still exists today. Chimpanzees patrol their territory and the most frequent clashes arise when two rival patrols meet. he consequences of these kinds of conlicts are a total disintegration of one of the groups. his beneits the winners and improves their access to resources. R. W. Wrangham compares the previously stated behavior of chimpanzees with the modern American gang culture, and with the Yanomami of the Amazon as an example of primitive culture. With this as a basis, he concludes that the causes of conlicts can be found in the formation of groups of young men such as gangs and patrols. he issue with the territorial model of evolutionary psychology is that it is also adaptive to create peaceful relations with surrounding communities, perhaps especially so when hominines were the hunted rather than the hunters (Bowles 2012, 878). Gewalt und Gesellschaft. Tagung Würzburg 14.–16. März 2013 Moreover E. Cashdan’s wide-ranging survey did not ind a correlation between ethnocentrism and xenophobia, undermining Wilson’s claims for universality (Cashdan 2001; Thorpe 2003, 147). he reproductive theory is based on observations made among primates, where male primates compete in aggressive ights with each other aiming to increase the reproductive success by ensuring as many females as possible. In consequence of their reproductive success natural selection favors dominant individuals and groups. When reaching a certain number of individuals groups of chimps separate leading to sub group animosity and brutal clashes. Deadly conlicts occur when needs to expand the territory and conlicts with males of neighboring groups arise (Brothwell 2004, 28). he imbalance-of-power hypothesis (TIOP) focuses on the collective violence among chimpanzees. his theory suggests that the causes of unprovoked aggression among diferent groups of chimpanzees lie within the establishment of an intergroup dominance. By killing or wounding members of nearby groups, males of local groups enhance their chance to dominate an area. Such a behavior increases the reproductive chances of dominant individuals or groups by achieving better access to food, females and security. Observations of various groups revealed that, in the majority of cases, fatal injuries occurred when single males were attacked by at least three males from rival groups. Such an unequal distribution of power derives mostly while foraging in bad seasons, when chimps search for fruits individually or in small groups. In these incidents, in which individuals or small groups show an increased vulnerability, larger groups of chimps are easily able to lead efective attacks in superior numbers. Demographic diferences between groups may also lead to an imbalance of power (Wrangham 1999, 11–14). he TIOP argues that war is an adaptive behavior and rooted in genetic predisposition. Attacks are launched to gain dominance between groups and the ability to assess the imbalance of power in a speciic area and between two rival groups (Wrangham 1999, 19). he combination of these three ideas: the inevitable existence of war between chimpanzees and humans, executing the same deadly attacks and TIOP explaining the distribution of deadly attacks among some mammals, to the fact that men carrying out unprovoked aggressions are beneited by natural selection. Humans and chimpanzees should be regarded as species in which group dominance 289 is driven by natural selection (Wrangham 1999, 26). Detailed studies of warring societies, such as the Cheyenne, !Kung, Mbuti, Central Eskimo, Semai, Hadza and Gebusi, suggest that no reproductive success occurs through violent conlicts (Thorpe 2003, 147). Contrary to other primates, humans as individuals must be seen as parts of a cooperative group of food producers. he attempt of individuals to acquire more partners in order to increase the reproductive success presumably leads to a damage of the group’s solidarity. his causes competition among related men, being in direct contradiction to kinship and altruism (Ferguson 2000, 160–161). However, studies on chimpanzees show that aggressive dominance does not lead to improved reproductive success in approximately half of the cases studied. R. W. Wrangham (1999, 15) further concludes that although such behavior does not always achieve reproductive success, it still “pays on average”. Larger territories can also lead to more conlict, reducing the reproductive itness of the group. Adaptive strategies of peaceful coexistence give better reproductive results, as evident among the indigenous people of the Andaman Islands. Principles applicable to chimpanzees are not transmittable to human populations due to diferences in the complexity of societies (Kelly 2005). Groups of foragers living during late Pleistocene were more likely to survive great climatic shocks and other challenges by cooperating with one another (Bowles 2012, 878). War as a result of aggressive competition by young men eager for prestige and social status, regardless of territorial income, falls within the model of status competition. Prestige is a very important factor in the creation of warriors (Thorpe 2003, 148) and their reproductive success. Especially for young males, status and prestige are equally important as foodstuf. his is demonstrated by an example from the North Paciic Rim (Aleut/ Unangan and Koniag Paciic Eskimo). he majority of these societies participating in conlicts have no material need for it. Powerful groups, the ones in position to be aggressive, are usually the ones provoking conlicts. Recent studies of conlict in industrial and non-industrial societies have demonstrated that most participants are young males who expect to improve their own social and economic status (Maschner/ Reedy-Maschner 1998, 22). 290 Daković, War and Violence among Prehistoric Hunter-gatherers Data collected from the Yanomami of the Amazon region shows that nearly all men younger than 25 years have never been linked to deathly conlicts. hese young men are not at all eager to engage in risky physical violence. he ones involved in deadly conlicts are mostly middle-aged men having children (Ferguson 2000, 161). he intuitive idea that aggression is an instinct particularly driving young men, encounters huge problems when compared with studies of the domain of child psychology showing that aggressive behavior is learned and not inherited (Brothwell 2004, 26). According to A. Gat there are many reasons why people practice war and violence. hese reasons are all part of an integrated motivational complex which has evolved to deal with problems of survival and reproduction in our species past. his represents a major advance towards realism in the neo-Darwinian theory of war (Ferguson 2000, 159). In order to reinforce his assumption concerning war and violence among our early ancestors, A. Gat focuses, among other things, on hunter-gatherers. He considers some of the well known archaeological inds and locations which will be elaborated further on and concludes that while violence was deinitely present, evidence from this distant past is ambiguous in most cases. Further he shifts his focus towards ethnographic data with plenty of examples of war and violence among historical hunter-gatherers, whose way of life, as he believes, does not difer much from the Pleistocene ancestors (Gat 2006, 14). With all due respect, applying this a priori fact, A. Gat reveals his use of a direct analogy rather than a relational one. M. Mead in her famous work “Warfare is Only an Invention – Not a Biological Necessity” noted back in 1940 that some societies wage wars while others do not, thus dismissing biological determinism. But the facts remain the same, for most hunter-gatherers war and violence are not unknown (Gat 2006, 15). A. Gat uses ethnographic data to show that, statistically, tribes of hunter-gatherers frequently participate in group warfare at regular intervals. Materialistic theories on causes of war and violence Cultural materialism suggests that most cultural practices can be explained by the material conditions of life (ecology, demography, technology and economics) (Keeley 1996, 15; Friedman/Rowlands 2005, 163). When concerned with conlict, materialistic theory focuses on conlict over material resources (land, food and trade goods) and argues that war is a totally unpredictable and irrational way to provide the means of survival (Maschner/Reedy-Maschner 1998, 21). War occurs and escalates only in cases of high population pressure and due to a lack of resources necessary for the survival of communities (Keeley 1996, 15). he outcome of these wars is often the annexation of various productive resources, land, livestock and additional labor. Peace is the normal mode of existence among human communities, and war occurs only when basic material resources cannot be easily or cheaply provided (Ferguson 1990, 29). As a direct result of scarcity of resources and overpopulation, warfare is considered important as a redistribution mechanism. It became apparent that conlict sometimes occurred in sequence with health stress which was brought on by drastic environmental changes. A good example is illustrated in the case of the Santa Barbara Channel (Maschner/ReedyMaschner 1998, 21). On the reproductive level groups being more successful in competition over resources have an advantage. Resources, such as food, are crucial for the survival of hominids. his kind of competition is a phenomenon that normally does not happen only once, so the existence of conlict becomes selfsustaining. Competition between groups can sometimes be viewed as an endless ecological process. he mobility of groups and their proximity to others can have a great inluence on the frequency of hostilities. he inluence of ecological factors has been shown among the Tauade of Papua. Seasonal changes which impact the volume of available resources may also have great inluence on conlict. his is well noted in studies of Somalia groups (Brothwell 2004, 28). Among agrarian groups the possibility of low harvest together with a growing population, could have lead to the conquest of new territories in order to acquire needed resources. Land clearing, irrigation and raid could all have been valid strategies for feeding growing populations (Brothwell 2004, 28–29). he irst study to attack the materialistic theory on causes of war was N. Chagnon’s work on the Yanomami. Although their territory and natural resources are available in abundance, these tribes are in constant state of war. Battles are motivated Gewalt und Gesellschaft. Tagung Würzburg 14.–16. März 2013 either by the need for vengeance or capturing of women. Food shortages are the consequences of war, not the causes (Keeley 1996, 16). Although B. Ferguson thinks that the Yanomami are ighting over material resources, especially steel axes to clear land, and territories near trade routes, most other ethnographers disagree. Also, studies on New Guinean warfare suggest that there is no simple relationship between land shortage and warfare. Some of the most warlike societies have fairly low population densities. Killings by the Dani are not motivated by land shortage, but by religious beliefs (Thorpe 2003, 148–150). Modern research shows that primitive economy is deined by abundance and not by poverty. Natural catastrophes may lead to a localized dwindling of resources, but most of them are of short duration and only extremely persistent disasters lead to endemic conlicts. Only in the case of a limited space and an absolutely exponentially growing population, society turns to pathological violence (Klastr 2004, 37– 38). he rise of the population density could rather be the mother of organization and innovation than the father of war (Keeley 1996, 121). Identiication here are several known factors in identifying warfare in the archaeological record: Defensive structures, distinctive settlement patterning, bio-archaeological and mortuary data and social stratiication (Harding 2007; Arkush 2008).hese factors are rarely found together in later prehistory, and even less as one goes back in time. A concept that sheds some light on group conlict is R. C. Kelly’s concept of social substitution. He explains that warlike societies sufer group injuries and require group liability with respect to retribution. In other words injuries to an individual are injuries to the entire group. his can help to diferentiate homicide and execution from inter-group activity when studying traumatic lesions of individuals in archaeological context and patterns of violent traumata (Roksandić 2006, 339). Some instances of traumata can be interpreted as cannibalism, and since cannibalism cannot be properly associated with any form of violence, inds which have been characterized as cannibalistic will not be included in this paper. Cannibalism does not represent war or group violence (Ferguson 2013, 197). 291 Forensic perspective Skeletal remains provide an important line of inquiry in establishing the cause of death as well as the circumstances surrounding it (Schulting/Wysocki 2005, 132). Data collected during investigations of modern group conlicts serve as a comparative basis in the identiication of violence through bio-archaeological data. In modern wars contextually speciic types of injuries have been discovered (use of torture and disposal of the remains) which can be used to determine the demographic proile of the victims of war. When the intention of killing is present, usually the results are injuries to the most vulnerable parts of the body like head, neck and torso (Rogers 2004). Multiple wounds to the upper body are also common in conlict scenarios. he face is the most frequent target for attacks, speciically the mandible. Torture is an unusual form of murder and is commonly associated either with the punishing of ofenders or the torture of prisoners of war. In some cases victims have the opportunity to defend themselves. In these cases speciic “defensive” injuries occur, predominantly “parry” fractures of arms and elbows. he use of excessive force or overkill is sometimes associated with warlike events. Accidental injuries and unfortunate events do generally consist of only one injury that may be in any part of the body and the weapon is most often located near the victim. In general, the demographic proile of war victims is similar to the regular one during peace time with the exception of increased mortality of women and children. In modern wars, civilians were speciically selected as targets causing a higher percentage of deaths among civilians as opposed to soldiers. War can also afect civilian population in many indirect ways, which is why the mortality rate is higher. Regarding the manner of disposal of the dead, mass graves often can serve as indicator for group violence (Rogers 2004). Archaeological data If researches among primates can be applied to explain human behavior, then it is only logical that the examination of our close relatives, the Neanderthals, has much to contribute to the understanding of human behavior in the past. Neanderthals are extinct, and what happened to them is a question continually being answered in new ways. Were they obliterated 292 Daković, War and Violence among Prehistoric Hunter-gatherers by Homo sapiens? As it turns out, they are not quite extinct; some studies of mitochondrial DNA produce results that suggest Neanderthals are still in our genes. his does not imply that modern man had no physical confrontation with his cousin. he idea of violence among Neanderthals derived from indings from France, Israel and Iraq. At the site of Charente a skull (“Fontechevade man”) with a fracture at the top of the upper left part of the body was found. It is believed that the individual had received a mortal blow with a sharp object while still alive. At the Mousterian cave site in Skhul at Mount Carmel (Israel) the head of a femur and a coxal bone were found. hese inds are often cited as examples of aggression among Neanderthals. On both bones traces of piercing were detected and the assumption is that the injuries were inlicted by a wooden spear. In 1979 at Charente-Maritime (France) a Neanderthal skeleton was discovered in the Saint-Cézaire cave. It is likely that this specimen can be linked to the Châtelperronian culture of the Upper Paleolithic and is considered to be about 36000 years old. Recent analysis identiied a skull fracture of only 36 mm with an injury that was inlicted by a sharp object and is considered to be the result of an act of violence. Further examination of the bone revealed evidence of healing meaning the individual survived the attack (Guilaine/Zammit 2005, 42). he Shanidar series (Iraq) have produced a few specimens of skulls with severe head injuries (Brothwell 2004, 31). During excavations conducted in 1953 and the 1960s, nine Neanderthal skeletons were found. A very well-preserved torso of an adult male (Shanidar 3) had a partially healed injury on the ninth rib. he irst assumption suggested was, that the injury was caused by a sharp object like a projectile or a blade. Based on the formation of the callus around the wound, it is plausible that the individual survived the injury for at least two weeks. Proper restructuring did not happen which was visible by the composition of the callus. he individual, however, died as a result of the wound no later than two months after the accident. he inal cause of death remains unclear. Experiments showed that the rib injury resembles a low kinetic energy or low momentum impact. Such injuries are usually associated with long-range weapons (Churchill et al. 2009). Neanderthal bones are very often rife with wounds that show signs of healing. Most of these injuries are associated with the use of simple tools in big game hunting (Walker 2001, 585) showing a lot of similarities with injuries sustained by rodeo riders (Thorpe 2003, 151). Upper Paleolithic he Upper Paleolithic has four potential categories of evidence that are useful for investigations of violence and war: the development of weapons, violent depictions, multiple burials and individual skeletal remains. Two sites in Italy feature skeletal traces of violence from this period. he irst is the San Teodoro cave where a female with a flint tip in the pelvic bone was found (Thorpe 2003, 152). he second example is from Grimaldi where the skeleton of a child with a quartz blade in the spinal cord was excavated. he site has been dated to the Gravettian or 25000/22000 BC (Guilaine/Zammit 2005, 50). In 1894 in southern France at the site Montfort, located near the town of Saint-Lizier, a blade of quartz was found imbedded in a human vertebra. he layer in which the bone was found was dated to the Magdalenian or the Azilian (Guilaine/Zammit 2005, 50). Although these lint artifacts in question are classiied as arrow heads by the excavators, there is still a possibility that this interpretation is outdated. he Egyptian site of Wadi Kubbaniya provides another example of a skeleton with potential traces of a violent death. Two bladelets were found between the spinal column and ribs possibly being the cause of death (Thorpe 2003, 152). Sites with multiple burials are found throughout Europe. he most impressive one certainly being Předmostí where twenty individuals were found, of which twelve were children. It is assumed that all were buried at the same time. While this may be a sign of conlict with deadly consequences it may also resemble an epidemic event that could have caused the deaths of a large number of individuals at the same time (Thorpe 2003, 152; Ferguson 2013, 197). he Maszycka cave in Polish Silesia contained 16 individuals from the Magdalenian period. All remains were grouped together, and in most cases skeletons were incomplete. It is obvious that the remains were particularly singled out. Out of the 50 skeletal remains most were skull fragments, jaws or clavicles. hree individuals were males of which one was adolescent. Five were female, two of whom were of younger age. In the remaining eight cases, age and sex could not be determined. Most bones contained Gewalt und Gesellschaft. Tagung Würzburg 14.–16. März 2013 traces of damage. Chipping marks, incisions and chewing seemed to be contemporary with the time the site was in use. hey point to the possibility of cannibalism. he victims were butchered outside the cave, and only certain parts were brought inside for a ritual burial (Guilaine/Zammit 2005, 50–51). A Late Paleolithic Necropolis called “Site 117” was discovered near Jebel Sahaba in Sudan. The stone industry found here is related to the Qadan culture and dates between 12000 and 10000 BC. 59 burials were located. he dead were laid in lattened oval pits covered with thin stone blocks. In addition to individual graves, multiple tombs were found containing up to ive bodies. he individuals were usually placed on the left side facing south with hands and knees in a bent-fetal position. In 24 tombs stone tools were found, presumably being the weapons with which the individuals had been killed. Moreover these artifacts rested in positions in which piercing wounds were to be expected. No other grave goods or possessions were found. In addition to fully processed stone artifacts, the graves contained simple stone tools that were only partially processed, and even a few scrapers. It seems that not all of the artifacts were prepared to be used as projectiles, but they were still found among other weapons. Several remains of adult males had multiple wounds, some of which showed signs of healing. Arrow heads in the head or neck of juvenile skeletons occur frequently and can be interpreted as indicators for executions (Keeley 1996, 37; Thorpe 2003, 152; Guilaine/Zammit 2005, 67–69). Multiple injuries may be interpreted as indicators for melee combat or group ights. Single male burials are interpreted as graves of warriors who fell far away from home. Nonetheless there are still several multiple burials without visible traces of violence that are considered to be contemporaneous (Thorpe 2003, 152). According to sex and age of the victims, violence seemed to be a widespread phenomenon among the population. In all likelihood, this was not a confrontation of adult men (hunters) originating from diferent communities. he victims were attacked by opponents with the intention to kill (Guilaine/Zammit 2005, 72). his site is considered to be one of the oldest showing evidence of warfare. The claim for surrounding territories, which were extremely rich in natural resources, could have been the cause for alleged conlicts. hese territories were potentially of great importance to the hunter- 293 gatherers experimenting with a sedentary lifestyle. During this period, small groups claimed vast territories with strictly deined boundaries. While small numbers of groups represented little opportunity for group conlicts, altercations between individuals seem to be much more plausible (Guilaine/Zammit 2005, 73). Population pressure could have been the cause of violence in the case of “Site 117” according to the number of buried individuals, but in the absence of more precise dating it is not certain how many generations have been buried in the necropolis (Thorpe 2003, 153). Reviews of traumata from the Middle and Upper Paleolithic of Eastern and Western Europe have revealed no evidence of inter-group conlict (Ferguson 2013, 198). Cave art In Paleolithic art scenes of people being killed or injured by projectiles occur, albeit rarely. An example comes from the Paglicci cave in south-eastern Italy: a human igure pierced with several spears is engraved in stone and dates back to around 21000 BC. Representations of two individuals whose bodies were pierced with projectiles and spears were found in the Cougnac cave (France). he Pech Merle cave, also in France, holds paintings of individuals struck by several arrows. A bone carving from Gourdan (France) shows only the pelvis and legs of a human igure. Something similar was found in the Cougnac cave (Guilaine/Zammit 2005, 54–56). Whether these display magic/ritual, imaginary or actual killings cannot be accurately determined (Thorpe 2003, 152). Weapons It is reasonable to assume that the development of weapons started in order to obtain better results in hunting, but it was only a matter of time before the new tools were used in interpersonal conlicts. his behavior becomes more applicable during the Upper Paleolithic with the development of long-range weapons being able to inlict deadly blows from great distances. Before the invention of composite weapons every solid object could have been used as a weapon, i.e. rocks thrown by hands, primitive spears and tools for close combat like clubs or bats (Guilaine/Zammit 2005, 61–63). Weapons are sometimes considered to be the best category for determining the magnitude of violence in the Paleolithic. However, one immediately 294 Daković, War and Violence among Prehistoric Hunter-gatherers encounters the problem of symbolism. Although artifacts such as axes and long knives are sometimes categorized as weapons, this does not mean that these items were used for violent or military action. Many tools that are not considered a priori as weapons could also have been used to kill people. Items of perishable materials, such as poles/ wooden sticks occur very rarely in the archaeological record further complicating the determination of the conlict. In order to determine the dimension of violence, the context in which weapons were found should be considered, just like in the case of indicators of violence on skeletal remains (Thorpe 2003, 150). Mesolithic In the archaeological literature the Mesolithic is declared as a period with visible signs of increased violence (Thorpe 2003; Vencl 2004). Finds with skeletal traumata that can be linked to violence are common. Mesolithic arrow heads become a regular inventory compared to previous periods; this can be interpreted as a good evidence for the development and spreading of war and violence. Vlasac and Lepenski Vir, two Mesolithic sites on the right bank of the Danube at the Iron Gate Gorge are characterized by a relatively large number of burials. Considering these two sites as a single complex, out of a total number of 263 individuals only ive male and a female can be considered as potential victims of violence. In two cases, there is a high probability that the observed injuries were fatal. Out of the 109 recovered skulls only four showed signs of violence. No diferentiations of funerary rites are present between the victims of violence and the rest of the population. Cranial injuries, occurring at these sites correspond with close combat clashes. In most cases injuries are located on the right side of the frontal bone, matching traumata caused by common right-handed swings, from left to right. Two skulls show wounds with signs of healing, sometimes being associated with violent events. Despite the small number of traumata, when reviewing only the injuries of male skeletons, it can be concluded that violence was widespread, at least among men. Criteria for social substitution, as R. C. Kelly’s principle for determination of war, cannot be maintained since there are not enough women’s and children’s skeletons with traces of violence. Based on this data it can be disputed that war was widespread during the Mesolithic. Violence was present but it was on a small/localized scale and a ritualized hand to hand combat between men is likely (Roksandić 2006, 344–347). In Schela Cladovei, located on the left bank of the Danube on a fertile alluvial terrace downstream from the Iron Gate, 57 burials were found during the irst two archaeological campaigns. Out of these burials 19 showed signs of violence (33 %) especially at Area III where seven out of 28 individuals were found (25 %). Two skulls of diferent sexes had visible injuries typical for traumata caused by blunt objects. A male and a female individual had “defensive” fractures while injuries caused by projectiles were observed among three skeletons (bone projectiles imbedded in remains of two male individuals and a lint projectile in a skeleton of unknown sex). Diet data supports the notion that all belong to the same funeral period. C-14 dating established only an approximate time period (7450–6439 BC). he material from Schela Cladovei III dates to a relatively short period of time as indicated by the relatively similar forms of burial. his fact, together with skeletal injuries, implies an event of group violence on a local level. Given the number of female skeletons, the criterion of social substitution can be considered satisied. War in one form or another may be an explanation for the situation noted in this location (Roksandić 2006, 345–347). he Mesolithic in Portugal is well known for its great number of skeletons dating to the period between 7500 and 5500 BC. Paleo-biological analysis of about 400 skeletons from the Muge shell middens and the Sado shell middens are a good framework for the study of semi-sedentary hunter-gatherers living in Europe. his series is speciic because of rare traces of pathological injury. One reason for this phenomenon may be the complex taphonomical processes that devastated a good portion of the skeletal remains (calcinations, crumbling arches and human activities) (Cunha et al. 2004, 41). Out of fourteen individuals only six had head injuries that can be considered to have arisen from violence. hese are usually shallow depressions which can also be interpreted as an attempt by the opponent not to inlict fatal injuries. In the context of the Mesolithic, physical injuries are considered frequent. his can be ascribed to the prevalence of violence but Gewalt und Gesellschaft. Tagung Würzburg 14.–16. März 2013 is more likely to be the result of a hunting lifestyle. Despite the bad preservation conditions of bones on these sites, there are no indications of extensive violence and war (Cunha et al. 2004, 42–46). 295 evidence of such violent actions is missing (Thorpe 2003, 157). Conclusion The Late Mesolithic Ertebølle culture is concentrated in the area of Southern Scandinavia. Sites of this culture feature skeletal material with traces of violence relatively frequently (Thorpe 2003, 155). he Skateholm I necropolis (southern Sweden) ascertained two victims with traces of injuries. In both cases arrowheads were found in bones of adult male individuals. At Vedbæk (Zealand) a male individual was discovered with an arrowhead in the neck, buried alongside three other individuals. Given that all three burials were simultaneous and of diferent gender and age, it is considered that this represents some form of group violence. During the excavation of the Téviec site, a male individual was found with two lint arrows in the spinal column. Studies of cranial injury in Denmark established a relatively high number of skull fractures and traumata. he most representative example of a male skeleton comes from the Korsør Nor coastal areas where a deep blunt trauma with signs of healing was probably caused by a club. Another six inhumations were found at this site but only two skulls feature traumata. Skulls of two men with injuries showing signs of healing were found on the sites of Tybrind Vig and Møllegabet II. A female skeleton with an arrow piercing her throat was recovered at Gøngehusvej. he forty-year old woman was buried in a double grave together with a ive year old child (Thorpe 2003, 155–156). Very similar cranial injuries were found among prehistoric hunter-gatherers of California, as well as among the Yanomami who participate in duels with wooden clubs leading to injuries that are rarely deadly (Thorpe 2003, 157). Based on this, it can be concluded that ritual ights with blunt weapons and lethal long-range combats existed during the Mesolithic. Violence in the Ertebølle culture was caused by sedentary lifestyles and territoriality, as horpe believes. Given that there was contact with farmers of the linear pottery culture, it can be assumed that conlict occurred because of the competition over trade routes. Yet suicient evidence for such a materialistic interpretation is rare. Imports were found, but in very small numbers and were not essential to the huntergatherers of the Ertebølle culture (none were grave goods). Also the conditions were similar to the ones of the Natuien or the Portuguese shell middens where War and violence are the most extreme forms of human behavior, leaving big footprints in history. hese marks become less noticeable the further we go back in time, but despite the relentless passage of time, thanks to archaeology, they are still available to some extent. How frequent violence was among prehistoric hunter-gatherers and whether it became war, is a very complicated issue. Forensics shows that although violence is diicult to prove by means of osteological material it can still be identiied in prehistoric and historic contexts (Schulting/Wysocki 2005; Armit et al. 2007). By analyzing the scale, type and patterns of violence on a speciic site or sites it is possible to ascertain its dimension. It has been shown that this type of evidence is lacking in the Paleolithic contexts and very little is evident in the Mesolithic. War can be found by examining the social proile of buried individuals by looking into statistics of deaths and injuries. Identifying speciic kinds of wounds like defensive ones and combining them with cranial wounds can indicate violence in osteological material. On the other hand, lack of this kind of evidence in burial sites or other contexts does not necessarily imply peaceful societies, as the ethnographic evidence shows. Authors such as A. Gat and K. Otterbein consider, on the basis of ethnological data and the studies of primates, that violence and war in their primitive forms were present among early hunter-gatherers of prehistoric times. It can easily be observed that these theories are too heavily based on generalizations derived from ethnological material. here is no doubt that hunter-gatherers of the recent past engaged in war, yet small mobile communities of low population density, resembling the earliest human societies, did not. As ethnographic data is not suicient, the aforementioned researchers use hypotheses taken from primatology, relying on Wrangham’s theory of war and violence as a genetically predisposed adaptive behavior. he urge to dominate is the cause of natural selection. his attitude its neatly with A. Gat’s desire to categorize war and violence as a natural human behavior. However, with all due respect to chimpanzees, they are not human beings. Although primate studies show 296 Daković, War and Violence among Prehistoric Hunter-gatherers some sort of “war like” behavior, the dimension of time must be considered. If we compare the behavior of primates and humans in an efort to learn about our common ancestors, the passage of time must be taken into account. here is a real possibility that the observed aggressive/belligerent behavior of these primates is a relatively recent creation. he expansion of humans has drastically reduced ecosystems that were inhabited by chimpanzees, leading to increased conlict over resources necessary for survival. Forms of primate behavior recorded by researches show recent situations, possibly difering from the past, and do not provide clear information about the behavioral characteristics of the common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans. Also if war and violence have an evolutionary advantage, chimpanzees and other primates should be reproductively successful. Instead, their populations are gradually decreasing and their behavior might not be positive in an evolutionary sense. Considering this “war like” behavior of primates as an evolution of warfare is also wrong. he term evolution is only applicable to some aspect of the universe, although it might look like war emerged out of belligerence and animosity, this is only a vague speculation based on a one dimensional analogy. Also biological evolution strives to survive and prosper. We were born to live, not to kill, and war will not help our evolution. But war will not die out like some evolutionary law or dysfunctional mutation simply because it is part of our nurture not our nature. Factors present in chimpanzee groups cannot simply be attributed to human populations because of an enormous diference in social complexity. Structures created by our society, like forms of magic or ritualistic consumption of intoxicating substances, support violence and make it possible for people to go to war. M. Mead’s idea, that war is not biologically determined still hold its ground, simply because no one singled out gens for war. Still, it is a fact that most of the primitive societies engage in violence and war. An alternative theory of the spread of “tribal zones” (Ferguson/Whitehead 1992) ofers a much better explanation of this phenomenon than the ideas of a “Hobbesian” character. Among the irst to include archaeological evidence together with ethnographic studies was L. Keeley. His main goal is to paint a picture of violence in huntergatherer societies being equally present in prehistoric and ethnographic data. Using his famous table he compares percentages of death among violent actions and war (Keeley 1996, 90). “Site 117” (Sudan) is the most representative concerning high mortality during war. Although this site is considered by many authors as evidence of the earliest warfare, it should be mentioned that it was dated to the end of the Pleistocene when we already see the abandonment of hunter-gatherer lifestyle. All the rest of archaeological data used by L. Keeley are single inds in which traumata could not be established with certainty. It is clear that archaeological evidence from the Paleolithic and Mesolithic does not correspond with either materialistic or biological explanations on early war. Although injuries on Neanderthal bones are common they are not a clear proof of personal or group violence. Only in the case of Shanidar 3, group violence can be considered. Single inds with skeletal injuries from the Upper Paleolithic do not speak much for themselves. Painted representations can be interpreted in many ways, and weapons development can be assigned to hunting, not conlict. Because generally speaking any evidence from the Paleolithic is relatively limited, it would not be prudent to claim that there was no war during this time. As far as Europe is concerned signs of war are lacking within the contexts in which they are most likely to be expected (Ferguson 2013, 198). Except for Jebel Sahaba, “Site 117”, no other Paleolithic site ofers clear evidence for wide range violence, yet. Mesolithic sites difer very little from the previous ones. Some parts of Asia and Europe have no signs of violence, like the Portuguese shell middens. Others like Vlasac and Lepenski Vir as well as the sites of the Ertebølle culture (Scandinavia) show signs of low frequency violence which can be interpreted as localized conlicts between men. he same can be argued for the Dnieper rapids, where skeletal remains with clear signs of lethal wounds were found on three burial sites. Some argue that war could be waged over the access to favorable locations during great ecological changes (Ferguson 2013, 199). Also in the case of the Ofnet cave in Bavaria it is very hard to distinguish whether this was an instance of group violence or an ancestral/ritual event (Thorpe 2003, 157; Guilaine/Zammit 2005, 81; Ferguson 2013, 200). Maybe the spread of a sedentary lifestyle and territoriality had inlamed warfare, but group conlict as deined by principals of social substitution does not correspond with Mesolithic societies. he lack of proper physical evidence in the archaeological record cannot be interpreted outright as the absence of war. It is almost certain that violence was always present among humans, but at Gewalt und Gesellschaft. Tagung Würzburg 14.–16. März 2013 the scale observable among the so called primitive societies today, we can say with fair amount of certainty that it did not exist in early prehistory. he same goes for war in any form. It was undoubtedly wrong to “pacify the past”, but it is just as wrong to “warify” it, too. 297 Acknowledgements I wish to thank those who have helped me with this paper, especially Vasa Lukich (Royal Holloway, University of London), Claudia Rohde (Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München), and Christine Strife. Bibliography Arkush 2008: E. Arkush, War, Chronology, and Causality in the Titicaca Basin. Latin Am. Ant. 19, 2008, 339–373. Armit et al. 2007: I. Armit/C. Knüsel/J. Robb/R. Schulting, Warfare and Violence in Prehistoric Europe: an Introduction. In: T. Pollard/I. Banks (eds.), War and Sacriice. Studies in the Archaeology of Conflict (Leiden 2007) 1–11. Bowles 2012: S. Bowles, Warriors, Levelers, and the Role of Conlict in Human Social Evolution. Science 336, 2012, 876–879. Brothwell 2004: D. Brothwell, Biosocial and bioarchaeological aspects of conlict and warfare. In: J. Carman/A. Harding (eds.), Ancient Warfare. Archaeological Perspectives (Phoenix Mill 2004) 25–38. Cashdan 2001: E. Cashdan, Ethnocentrism and xenophobia: A cross-cultural study. Current Anthr. 42, 2001, 760–765. Churchill et al. 2009: S. E. Churchill/R. G. Franciscus/H. A. McKean-Peraza/J. A. Daniel/B. R. Warren, Shanidar 3 Neandertal rib puncture wound and paleolithic weaponry. Journal Human Evolution 57, 2009, 163–178. Cunha et al. 2004: E. Cunha/C. Umbelino/F. Cardoso, About violent interactions in the Mesolithic: the absence of evidence from the Portuguese shell middens. In: M. Roksandić (ed.), Violent Interactions in the Mesolithic. Evidence and meaning. BAR Internat. Ser. 1237 (Oxford 2004) 41–46. Ferguson 1990: R. B. Ferguson, Explaining war. In: J. Haas (ed.), he Anthropology of War (New York 1990) 26–56. – 2000: R. B. Ferguson, he Causes and Origins of “Primitive Warfare”: On Evolved Motivations for War. Anthr. Quarterly 73, 2000, 159–164. – 2013: R. B. Ferguson, he Prehistory of War and Peace in Europe and the Near East. In: D. P. Fry (ed.), War, Peace, and Human Nature. he Convergence of Evolutionary and Cultural Views (Oxford 2013) 191–239. Ferguson/Whitehead 1992: R. B. Ferguson/N. L. Whitehead (eds.), War in the Tribal Zone. Expanding States and Indigenous Warfare (Santa Fe 1992). Friedman/Rowlands 2005: J. Friedman/M. Rowlands, Materialism, Marxism and Archaeology. In: C. Renfrew/P. Bahn (eds.), Archaeology: he Key Concepts (London, New York 2005) 163–171. Gat 2006: A. Gat, War in Human Civilization (New York 2006). Gligor Daković Bul. V. Vlahovića 45/24 23000, Zrenjanin, Serbia sergligor@gmail.com Guilaine/Zammit 2005: J. Guilaine/J. Zammit, Origins of War: Violence in Prehistory (Blackwell Publishing 2005). Harding 2007: A. Harding, Warriors and Weapons in Bronze Age Europe (Budapest 2007). Keeley 1996: L. H. Keeley, War Before Civilization. he Myth of the Peaceful Savage (Oxford 1996). Kelly 2005: R. C. Kelly, he Evolution of Lethal Intergroup Violence. Proc. Nat. Acad. Scien. USA 102, 2005, 15294– 15298. Klastr 2004: P. Klastr, Arheologija nasilja (Novi Sad 2004). Maschner/Reedy-Maschner 1998: H. D. G. Maschner/K. L. Reedy-Maschner, Raid, Retreat, Defend (Repeat): he Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Warfare on the North Paciic Rim. Journal Anthr. Arch. 17, 1998, 19–51. Mead 1940: M. Mead, Warfare Is Only an Invention – Not a Biological Necessity. Asia XL, 1940, 402–405. Otterbein 2004: K. F. Otterbein, How War Began (College Station 2004). Pinker 1998: S. Pinker, How The Mind Works (London 1998). Rogers 2004: T. Rogers, Recognizing Inter-personal Violence: A Forensic Perspective. In: M. Roksandić (ed.), Violent Interactions in the Mesolithic. Evidence and meaning. BAR Internat. Ser. 1237 (Oxford 2004) 9–21. Roksandić 2006: M. Roksandić, Interpersonal Violence at Lepenski Vir Mesolithic/Neolithic Complex of the Iron Gates Gorge (Serbia-Romania). Am. Journal Physical Anthr. 129, 2006, 339–348. Schulting/Wysocki 2005: R. J. Schulting/M. Wysocki, “In this Chambered Tumulus were Found Cleft Skulls...”: an Assessment of the Evidence of Cranial Trauma in the British Neolithic. Proc. Prehist. Soc. 71, 2005, 107–138. Thorpe 2003: I. J. N. horpe, Anthropology, archaeology and the origin of warfare. World Arch. 35, 2003, 145–165. Vencl 2004: S. Vencl, Stone Age warfare. In: J. Carman/A. Harding (eds.), Ancient Warfare. Archaeological Perspectives (Phoenix Mill 2004) 57–72. Walker 2001: P. L. Walker, A Bioarcheological Perspective on the History of Violence. Annu. Review Anthr. 30, 2001, 573–596. Wilson 2007: E. O. Wilson, O ljudskoj prirodi (Zagreb 2007). Wrangham 1999: R. W. Wrangham, Evolution of Coalitionary Killing. Yearbook Physical Anthr. 42, 1999, 1–30.