In-group versus Out-group

One of the more difficult aspects of dealing with the evidence for traumatic injury in the prehistoric archaeological record is differentiating between violence occurring within the group and that occurring between two groups.

It is the latter, of course, that defines warfare. That large-scale conflict did occur is seen in the evidence from the above-mentioned enclosures as well as the mass killings at Talheim, Asparn-Schletz, Kilianstädten and other sites. Given the number of victims, these events are very unlikely to have taken place within the local community. Rather, they approach the size of entire local communities. In the case of Talheim, the age and sex distribution of the thirty-eight individuals recovered is consistent with that of a living community, while at both Asparn- Schletz and Kilianstädten young women are under-represented, suggesting that they may have been taken as captives (see Chapter 14 in this volume). This is taken to its extreme at Halberstadt, where the nine individuals present in a mass grave are all adolescent or adult males (ibid.). A similar demographic is seen at Wayland's Smithy I chambered tomb in southern England, where eleven of the fourteen individuals found were adult males. One individual has the tip of an arrowhead embedded in the pelvis and two others had broken arrowheads in close association, but in this case there were no signs of cranial trauma. Whether this is a mass grave is thus uncertain, though Bayesian modelling of the radiocarbon dates suggests that the burial deposit accumulated over a short period of time.^{^[158]} In both cases, the killing of so many males from what were presumably single communities (chambered tombs are usually interpreted as the burial places for local groups) implies that the survivors - disproportionately females and children - would be severely compromised in terms of their ability to defend themselves. The ethnographic literature attests that the capture of young women is both a common practice and a motivation in warfare in small-scale societies.^{^[159]}

As well as these mass graves, however, evidence for violent death is also found within the cemeteries, caves and mortuary monuments that constitute the normative burial practice for that time and/or region.

The context in these cases is more difficult to interpret. Many could represent killings taking place within the group. Most of the lethal injuries that have been recorded are the result of blows to the head, with either a blunt instrument such as a wooden, stone or antler club, an axe or a sling shot. Since the actual weapons are not found in association, there is no means of using stylistic criteria to distinguish ingroup versus out-group conflict. In cases where embedded projectile points are present, this does become possible at least in theory. Arrowhead styles were generally shared across large regions that would have contained multiple communities and polities, however these are defined, but there are some hints; for example, the flint arrowhead shot into a body at the Linearbandkeramik (LBK) cemetery of Mulhouse-Est was not of a type known locally, suggesting that this may have been the victim of a raid by a party coming from some distance.^{^[160]} Further experimental work is addressing the issue of better identification of implements used from trauma patterns alone,^{^[161]} but the bigger question remains as to what a given violent act signified.

<< | >>

↑

Source: Fagan Garrett G., Fibiger Linda, Hudson Mark, Trundle Matthew (eds.). The Cambridge World History of Violence. Volume 1: The Prehistoric and Ancient Worlds. Cambridge University Press,2020. — 756 p.. 2020

In-group versus Out-group

More on the topic In-group versus Out-group: