Social Impacts of the Neolithic
It seems increasingly clear that the Neolithic brought with it a significant shift in almost all aspects of society across much of Europe. What are the implications of this in terms of conflict? First, there is no clear evidence of conflict between Mesolithic hunter-gatherers and Neolithic farmers.
Mesolithic population density across much of Europe is likely to have been low, with the exception of some particularly rich coastal and riverine habitats. This, in combination with highly variable bone preservation - such that many areas do not have sufficient skeletal assemblages from either period - prevents us from concluding that such conflicts never occurred: they almost certainly did. This is true even if we conceive of the process of Neolithisation as involving a significant element of local adoption of the farming way of life, as it no doubt did in some instances, though, as discussed below, the genetic evidence is increasingly indicating a surprisingly high degree of population replacement coincident both with the start of the Neolithic and with the onset of the Late Neolithic/Chalcolithic.[144] [145] Arguably, conflict may have been even more likely in such situations, given the greater potential for misunderstandings between communities with different backgrounds, initially not speaking the same languages, and the very different ideas concerning ownership and expectations regarding the moral obligation to share, especially foodstuffs, between closely related individuals and families, contrasted with the farmer's imperative to preserve stock and seed grain.11Given the length of the Neolithic period, and the rapidity with which the farming way of life came to dominate the European landscape with a concomitant rapid population rise[146] - which is likely to have been the case despite appropriate misgivings over the use of radiocarbon dates as direct proxies for population[147] - and the propensity to inter the dead in large cemeteries or in monuments, there is considerably more evidence available for the Neolithic.
The increase in population, together with evidence for larger social aggregations, brings the potential for much larger-scale violence than seen previously. The large earthwork enclosures of the Early and Middle Neolithic provide evidence for large numbers of people coming together for communal projects. New dating evidence suggests that many enclosures in Britain and Ireland were built over much shorter timescales than previously envisaged,[148] making the number of people that must have been engaged intheir construction correspondingly higher. The usual accounts of these projects emphasise their ceremonial character and their role, through the very process of working together, in the creation of a sense of community. They have been seen as places of exchange, gossip and match-making, much like medieval trade fairs.
This narrative, while it may be partly apt, is incomplete. If large numbers of people can be mobilised for the creation of these monuments, they can be co-opted for less peaceful pursuits. The creation of a strong sense of community inherently implies boundaries beyond which lie other communities. While relations between these communities will often be amicable, whenever things do go wrong, whatever small differences exist - real or imagined - can lead to an ‘us vs. them' scenario. At least some enclosures in Britain show clear evidence of having been attacked by substantial numbers of antagonists, probably in the hundreds, as seen for example at Hambledon Hill, Crickley Hill and Carn Brea in southern Britain.[149] [150] Similar evidence exists from the Continent. That being said, the majority of enclosures do not appear to have been built with defence uppermost in mind. It may be that the general idea of an enclosure was modified into a fortification at certain times and places when outbreaks of violence were anticipated. Ironically, then, projects that initially functioned to bring people together for a common purpose contributed to a situation in which any latent conflicts of the kind that invariably occur in any society (e.g.
jealousies, rivalries, accusations of wrongdoing) could be escalated to embroil the entire group in retaliatory actions. Once a community creates a strong identity, its members are subject to social substitutability, in which any member can be held accountable for the actions of anyone in the group.16 Thus they become legitimate targets for revenge killings, which are by far the most commonly cited motive for inter-group homicides in ethnographic, historical and modern accounts.[151] This is not to say that social substitution did not feature among Mesolithic hunter-gatherer societies, but the scale at which it applied likely increased considerably with the Neolithic. However, the extent to which this suffices as an ultimate (as opposedto proximate) explanation for conflict is debatable. Revenge is called upon strategically and situationally and there are many contexts in which payment (‘blood money') can be substituted for blood vengeance.[152]