The Genetic Evidence for Population Migrations
There is increasing genetic evidence for significant incoming populations across large parts of Europe at least twice during the Neolithic, first with its initial appearance, and secondly with the arrival of people with steppe ancestry.[162] Much detail concerning these movements still remains to be resolved, but they provide the impetus for a (re)consideration of the degree to which these apparently large-scale incursions brought conflict.
While evidence has been found for traumatic injuries to skeletons of the early Linearbandkeramik, the cultural horizon representing the earliest Neolithic in central Europe, there appears to be little indication of large-scale conflicts at this time. However, Lawrence Keeley and colleagues have long argued that a number of enclosures along the ‘western frontier' in Belgium were constructed with defence in mind, given the presence of V-shaped ditches backed by palisades.[163] As this was the limit of early LBK expansion, defence would have been against hunter-gatherers further to the west. Interpretation of these sites is not unambiguous and has been contested,[164] and there is little direct evidence for conflict, and certainly none that could be attributed to a confrontation between farmers and hunter-gatherers. The situation is quite different for the late LBK, as reflected in the previously mentioned mass fatality sites of Talheim, Asparn-Schletz and Schoneck-Kilianstädten.The second major population immigration event identified is placed at the end of the fourth millennium bce and is marked by the appearance of the Late Neolithic Corded Ware culture (CWC) in central Europe, by people with steppe ancestry.[165] In contrast to the beginning of the Neolithic, the CWC may well exhibit heightened levels of violence.
Comparisons of the prevalence of skeletal trauma across such a large area and time span are far from straightforward, however, and at present we can only say that the evidence tentatively suggests an overall increase.[166] It is important to emphasise that this trend was identified before the results of the ancient DNA studies became available. While population movements have been implicated previously for the CWC, this has been heavily contested, as no doubt the genetic data will be.[167] The CWC is also associated with the first appearance of formal weaponry in the form of stone ‘battle-axes'. Although their uses can be debated, they are clearly not functional as woodworking tools (unlike earlier Neolithic polished stone axe-heads, though even theseSettled Lives, Unsettled Times: Neolithic Violence in Europe too were clearly sometimes also used as weapons). While they were no doubt symbols, they were not arbitrary; their form makes it clear that one of the things being symbolised was the potential for lethal violence.
However, as with the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition, it may be difficult to find direct evidence of conflict between the now indigenous earlier Neolithic farmers, and those who entered central Europe in the Late Neolithic. Nor is it yet clear on what scale we should be envisaging this population movement, or over what timescale. Needless to say, the distinctive material culture of the CWC need not be a marker for an ethnic group, as it may have been widely adopted even if originally introduced from outside. There may also have been knock-on effects, with conflict extending beyond the sphere of the CWC itself. Sites in northern Spain and southern France appear to show increased levels of violence in the Late Neolithic/Early Chalcolithic (c. 3000 bce), specifically in the number of individuals with arrowhead injuries.[168] As elsewhere in Europe, these appear to affect mainly males, suggesting a different context for violence from that seen in the Neolithic of central and north-western Europe. There, males often tend to show more healed injuries but unhealed injuries affected males and females to virtually the same extent.