world archaeology - university of washingtoncourses.washington.edu › war101 › readings ›...

This article was downloaded by:[Ingenta Content Distribution]On: 14 March 2008Access Details: [subscription number 768420433]Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

World ArchaeologyPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713699333

Commemorative tales: archaeological responses tomodern myth, politics, and warHelle Vandkilde aa Department of Archaeology and Ancient History, University of Lund, S-22350,Sweden.

Online Publication Date: 01 June 2003To cite this Article: Vandkilde, Helle (2003) 'Commemorative tales: archaeologicalresponses to modern myth, politics, and war', World Archaeology, 35:1, 126 - 144To link to this article: DOI: 10.1080/0043824032000079189URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0043824032000079189

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article maybe used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction,re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expresslyforbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will becomplete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should beindependently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with orarising out of the use of this material.

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713699333

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0043824032000079189

http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Ing

enta

Con

tent

Dis

tribu

tion]

At:

00:3

7 14

Mar

ch 2

008

World Archaeology

Vol. 35(1): 126–144

The Social Commemoration of Warfare

© 2003 Taylor & Francis Ltd ISSN 0043-8243 print/1470-1375 onlineDOI: 10.1080/0043824032000079189

Commemorative tales: archaeological responses to modern myth, politics, and war

Helle Vandkilde

Abstract

Academic archaeology of the twentieth century has strangely ignored warfare and violence asrelevant aspects of past human activity despite sufficient evidence of war-related

traumata

,weaponry, warrior burials, and war-celebrative iconographies. Instead – and relatively indepen-dently of paradigmatic shifts – two commemorative tales about warriors and peasants in theEuropean societies of the Stone and Bronze Ages have been created. The two archaeological talesare stereotypes positioned at opposite ends of the scale, and they confirm or react against contem-porary politics, ideologies, gender hierarchies, and wars. The generally weak presence of war and thefinal breakthrough of war studies in the mid-1990s can indeed be linked to contemporary politicsand war. They are simultaneously entrenched in two myths about the primitive other, which havepersuasively influenced European thought at least since the seventeenth century. The emergence ofwarfare studies in archaeology can be understood as a social response to the many ethnic-basedwars of the 1990s. Yet the theme of war is treated in a rational manner, which belies the disaster,suffering, and horror involved in all wars, past or present. This rationalization of prehistoric warbegs further consideration: through a comparison with the newest anthropology of war it isdiscussed how the archaeology of war can avoid becoming celebration of war and thus reproductionof the war mythology of the nation state.

Keywords

War; warfare; prehistory; weaponry; warriors; myth.

Power, dominance, and coercion almost inevitably connect to warfare and its principalactors, soldiers and warriors. War is, in other words, a central ingredient in social repro-duction and change, and brutally interferes with human existence almost everywhere inour late modern world. These reasons, embedded in a twenty-first-century setting, make itobvious that warfare should be an object of archaeological study. However, looking backat the Stone and Bronze Age archaeology of the twentieth century reveals that archaeol-ogists have studied weaponry, and in some measure warriors, but rarely war. Possible

72Q 09vandkilde (ds) Page 126 Monday, May 19, 2003 3:01 PM

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Ing

enta

Con

tent

Dis

tribu

tion]

At:

00:3

7 14

Mar

ch 2

008

Commemorative tales

127

reasons for the general absence of violence in interpretations obviously need to beoutlined and debated. Warfare and violence began to enter the archaeological discourseonly after c. 1995. Compared to the general implementation of social theory, war studiesthus arrive on the scene much delayed. Even after this date the theme is quite oftenembarked upon as something set aside from the rest of social practice.

War and archaeology: an introduction

This article examines the history of research on warfare in archaeology critically, with thepresupposition that prehistoric warfare is a highly relevant issue to discuss. It will beargued that

the under-representation of war in archaeological studies of the twentiethcentury and the appearance of war studies in the mid-1990s are rooted in the myths,politics, and wars of contemporary society. The article relates to the war-commemorativetheme of the present volume in two ways: first, by highlighting the dominant position andcelebration of certain stereotyped head figures of ‘war’

and peace in archaeologicalhistories of the European Stone Age and Bronze Age; second, by viewing these historiesas social responses to the surrounding world, specifically different ways of coping withcontemporary war and genocide. Such a relationship is undoubtedly unintentional, butthe question must be posed: can our archaeological writings become, in effect, celebra-tions of war, and thus reproductions of the war mythology of the nation state?

It is not sufficient merely to add war to the themes that archaeology can study. Theseriousness of the topic demands that we discuss how war should be studied andportrayed. Is it really indispensable to incorporate the vicious face of war in archaeo-logical studies of this phenomenon? This is a relevant question because the archaeologyof the later 1990s has analysed war in a strictly rational fashion. In this respect the newestwar anthropology can potentially inform the archaeological study of war. Furthermore,the present contribution wishes to promote an understanding of warfare as a socialphenomenon, which cannot be studied isolated from its social context and which needs anadequate theoretical framework. The position taken is, in short: warfare is a flow ofcommunally based social action aimed at violent confrontation with the other. Being awarrior is consequently a social identity founded in warfare.

Vencl (1984) has argued that the absence of warfare studies in prehistoric archaeologyis linked to the inadequacy of archaeological sources. It is undoubtedly true that archaeo-logical data underrate the importance of war in prehistory. Trauma is notably under-repre-sented and so are weapons of organic materials (Capelle 1982). However, direct andindirect evidence of war-related violence is by no means non-existent (Figs 1–4 and Plates1–4). The number of prehistoric weapons, including fortifications, is huge, and icono-graphic presentations of war and warriors in art and rituals supplement the picture.Skeletal

traumata

are, in fact, relatively frequent in European prehistory when it is takeninto account that skeletons are often not well preserved, that skeletons are not routinelyexamined for marks of violence, and that much physical violence does not leave visibletraces on the skeleton. The evidence is most certainly adequate as a basis for studies ofviolence and war.


Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Ing

enta

Con

tent

Dis

tribu

tion]

At:

00:3

7 14

Mar

ch 2

008

128

Helle Vandkilde

I shall argue that the reason why war has played a small part in the archaeology of thetwentieth century must be searched for elsewhere. Insufficient evidence is hardly the coreof the matter. Rather, the existent evidence has been ignored, underestimated, rational-ized, or idealized, for example, through the use of soft metaphors for war. The initiallyweak presence of war and the belated appearance of war studies are arguably linked tothe politics and wars of contemporary society, but they are simultaneously entrenched intwo myths about the primitive other, which have persuasively influenced Europeanthought at least since the seventeenth century. These myths have circulated within thediscipline of archaeology and have also been communicated to the public. The two mythscommemorate certain stereotypes of identities and societies with contemporary politicalmeanings.

The two tales of prehistoric society are interpretive traditions, or trends, rather than

Figure 1

Mass grave from Talheim inGermany from the earliest Neolithic, 5 millen-nium

BC

(after Wahl and König 1987). Ninemales, seven women, and sixteen children hadbeen ruthlessly cut down and thrown into a pit:a likely interpretation is war-related violence.


Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Ing

enta

Con

tent

Dis

tribu

tion]

At:

00:3

7 14

Mar

ch 2

008

Commemorative tales

129

schools of thought inasmuch as they contain different theoretical stances, which may notagree in the classification of them undertaken here. Nevertheless, each trend is gluedtogether by a related understanding of society and of how and to what degree socialchange is generated. The first trend conjures up warriors – though not always explicitly –and advocates prehistoric society as an organism that changes through human agency,often suddenly and radically. The second and generally later trend, evokes peacefulhunters, peasants and traders – indeed the antitheses of the warrior – by proposing a view

Figure 2

Warrior burial from the final MiddleBronze Age, c. 1300

BC

, at Hagenau inGermany (after Boos 1998). The man is lyingin his coffin surrounded by full weaponry ofsword, dagger, axe, shield, arrows, and anover-sized dress pin, which is potentially astab weapon. It is an idealized presentationarranged by surviving relatives, and it shouldbe remembered that the warrior role has a lessglorious side to it.


Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Ing

enta

Con

tent

Dis

tribu

tion]

At:

00:3

7 14

Mar

ch 2

008

130

Helle Vandkilde

of prehistoric society as a mainly reproductive organism, involving a step-wise or slowlong-term social evolution.

The following account is intended to lay out the history of research in broad brushstrokes and in doing so it draws on European, and particularly Scandinavian, Stone andBronze Age archaeology. Comprehensiveness is not attempted. The key word ofcommemoration is here understood as ‘presentation’, ‘celebration’, and ‘remembrance’,with overlapping meanings. In the latter case, ‘forgetting’

,

is surely a related aspect.

Disruption or harmony: tales of warriors and peasants

A vigorous tradition in twentieth-century archaeology has envisioned Stone and BronzeAge society as a socially unstable and contradiction-filled entity, which was transformedthrough radical events. Sudden material changes were explained as a result of migrationor revolution, often with fierce warriors as front figures. This warrior tradition took shapein the beginning of the century and initially included first and foremost V. G. Childe andcontemporaries of the empiricist school. Despite his fondness for the warrior model,Childe was reluctant to incorporate war as a force in history, even if some of his later

Plates 1 & 2

Flint arrowhead shot into the breastbone of a male aged between 20 and 30 years(photo Preben Dehlholm). Around 2500

BC

the man was interred among kin in a communal stonecist at Gjerrild in Denmark.


Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Ing

enta

Con

tent

Dis

tribu

tion]

At:

00:3

7 14

Mar

ch 2

008

Commemorative tales

131

writings made use of warfare in describing the economic greed of aristocrats (1941: 133,1951 [1936]: 134, 1958). In Scandinavia very similar thinking recurred in P. V. Glob’sseminal study (1945) of the single grave culture, the Danish version of the battle-axeculture. Presumably influenced by Childe, Glob evoked a lively scenario of invadingwarrior nomads, axe-wielding and on horseback. In his great survey of Danish prehistory,published first in 1938–40, Johannes Brøndsted conjured up several intrusions of warriorgroups during the Neolithic. He even employed a Marxist-Childean vocabulary, not leastwhen categorizing the Bronze Age as a class society with an aristocratic upper class ofwarriors and an oppressed peasant class (Brøndsted I, 1957, II, 1958: 10).

The same trend was evident in structural-Marxist approaches of the later 1970s and1980s, even if internal social dynamics and structural contradictions had substitutedmigration as the cause of rapid social change (e.g. Frankenstein and Rowlands 1978;Rowlands 1980). Kristian Kristiansen has similarly made use of warriors in seeking toexplain the archaeological record of the Bronze Age (1982, 1984a, 1984b, 1991b, 1998,1999; also Vandkilde 1996, 1998, 1999). The post-modern archaeology of the late 1980sand early 1990s showed the same inclination, albeit rarely referring directly to warriors.Power, dominance, and conflict were nevertheless inserted into prehistory, for instance instudies by Christopher Tilley (Tilley 1984; Miller and Tilley 1984: 5ff.; Shanks and Tilley1987: 72f.) and Charlotte Damm (1993: 202).

In spite of the fact that the model of migration and revolution does not envisionpeaceful interaction, warfare and violence are seldom mentioned – regardless of precisetheoretical persuasion. ‘Unrest’, ‘troubled times’, and similar metaphors for warfare aresometimes used, but the core of the matter, namely war, is remarkably absent. In the few,and therefore noteworthy, studies which mention or examine warfare – for example, byChilde (1941), Hedeager and Kristiansen (1985), and Jarl Nordbladh (1989) – the socialfunctions of warfare are highlighted. Fighting is described as a route to social success.What is envisioned is a bloodless, theatre kind of war. The entire explanatory trend

Figure 3

Two warriors in close combat on a ship. Rock carving from the Older Bronze Age, c. 1400

BC

, at Fossum in Sweden (by the courtesy of Joakim Goldhahn). This and similar pictures haveglorifying features, but the sport-like duels were doubtless only one component of a warfare patternthat included pirate expeditions, raids, and other kinds of warfare.


Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Ing

enta

Con

tent

Dis

tribu

tion]

At:

00:3

7 14

Mar

ch 2

008

132

Helle Vandkilde

underplays the violence it so clearly implies. Even when the armed individuals – implicitlymales – are termed ‘warriors’, brutality and killing do not form part of their actions. Theviolent face of massive ethnic migration and social revolution is ignored, understated, orsimply not realized. We are, in other words, presented with an idealized image of revolu-tion, migration, and warriors in prehistory.

Various subjective influences may hide a key to the lack of realism. Several of thescholars behind the warrior tale have sympathized with left-wing politics and ideology upthrough the twentieth century – maybe the most violent and warlike century ever, hencereaching into most people’s lives. With the exception of extremist versions the left wingwas from the onset tied up with anti-war movements. One possible reason for the under-statement of violence could be that pacifist attitudes coloured the archaeology of revolu-tion and migration. Another reason could be rooted in idealist attitudes to riots andradical social transformation. Quite possibly, these factors have interacted. A proportionof revolutionary romanticism does seem to inhabit the work of Childe and contempo-raries like Glob and Brøndsted as well as later structural-Marxists and post-Processualists.

Marija Gimbutas, by contrast, included war as well as gender in her later works fromthe mid-1970s. In her vision, Old Europe was a peaceful place ruled by women andstructured by female values. Paradise was destroyed by migrating bands ofhorse-mounted warriors from the Eurasian steppes, and Old Europe never recovered.Social order and cultural values were reversed, and New Europe became a thoroughlymale-dominated and explicitly violent place (Gimbutas 1982 [1974]: 9).

Gimbutas’ explanation of the archaeological record has naturally not escaped criticismsince it does not accord with the evidence (Häusler 1994; Chapman 1999). It is neverthe-less interesting because of its unique position. She treads in the footsteps of Childe withher emphasis upon warriors and migration, but her explanation contrasts with contempo-raries in two ways: first, it has an inherent binary opposition of warlike maleness andpeaceful femaleness, female gender representing the dominated part. This certainlyrecalls ‘radical’ feminist ideology of the 1970s. Second, it contains an unusually directreference to a state of violence and warfare, which is considered fatal for human life andvalues of equality. These attitudes correlate with her feminist stance. It is also related toher life outside the protected sphere of Western European academics. John Chapman hasconvincingly traced the origin of Gimbutas’ dichotomous perception of an Old and a NewEurope in her idealized Lithuanian childhood as opposed to the horrors of the Russianinvasion (Chapman 1998). There is certainly no romanticized attitude to revolutions here.

Figure 4

Fighting scene on a gold seal-ring fromMycenae, c. 1600 BC (after Kilian-Dirlmeier1993). In the Bronze Age warriors were cele-brated on pictures in the same way as they werein epic songs. The

Iliad

describes warfare asrule-bound and consisting of honourable fightsbetween aristocrats, but a close reading revealsthat the heroes also undertook mean attacks onforeign cities in order to obtain gold and slaves.


Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Ing

enta

Con

tent

Dis

tribu

tion]

At:

00:3

7 14

Mar

ch 2

008

Commemorative tales

133

The above portraits of Stone and Bronze Age society, and the warrior trend in general,undoubtedly respond to important war-related events in the contemporary worldalthough mostly in an indirect, ideology-influenced manner. Warlike figures are presentedand sometimes even celebrated in the mediated histories, hence exhibiting some elementsof remembrance even if the real world of war has been suppressed.

The reverse trend – the peasant tradition – had its breakthrough between 1940 and1950. Here we meet harmonious and egalitarian societies, mostly static and without latentconflict or underlying contradiction. Peaceful hunters, peasants, and traders now substi-tuted for the armed warriors of the previous tradition. The agrarian, and otherwiseeconomic, foundation of prehistoric society was continuously emphasized. This happenednot least through the influential work of Grahame Clark (e.g. 1939, 1952, 1975), whosefocus upon ecology and the function of culture, rather than upon explaining culturalchange, was a distinct reaction against Childe’s Marxist approach (Trigger 1989: 264ff.).Clark and Piggott (1978 [1965]), for instance, characterized the earlier Neolithic as

Plate 3

Mass grave from Ni

ž

ná My

š

l’a in Slovakia (after Jakab et al. 1999). Multiple burials of men,women, and children are frequent in south-east Europe during the Early Bronze Age, and osteolog-ical and forensic studies show that the skeletons often carry marks of violence. In fact, abnormalmass graves with several injured individuals as well as normal single interments with one injuredindividual occur throughout Neolithic and Bronze Age Europe: the injuries vary from projectilewounds to severe marks and cuts from weapons. Some wounds have healed, while other woundshave been the cause of death (Andreas Hårde pers. com.).


Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Ing

enta

Con

tent

Dis

tribu

tion]

At:

00:3

7 14

Mar

ch 2

008

134

Helle Vandkilde

peasant communities whereas the later Neolithic and the Bronze Age were classified astrading communities based upon an expanding metal industry.

A similar understanding of prehistoric society, with impact from the natural sciences,underlay much empiricist archaeology outside the circles of Cambridge University. Scan-dinavian archaeologists such as, notably, C. J. Becker (1954: 132ff.), H. C. Broholm(1943–4), Mats P. Malmer (1962, 1989: 8ff.), and Søren H. Andersen (e.g. 1971, 1975, 1981)mediated a peaceful picture of prehistoric society based on nature, subsistence, andcultural continuity. The Nordic Bronze Age was, for example, perceived as a primitive andpeaceable peasant culture without marked social differentiation.

Although concerned with processes of social change, and with explaining it, NewArchaeology performed the reorientation of the discipline without warriors and war.Even now focus was upon the economic basis. Social evolution became a core pointthrough substantial influence from the Neo-Evolutionism that developed in social anthro-pology from the 1940s onwards. Prehistoric society progressed towards still greatercomplexity in evolutionary sequences from band to tribe to chiefdom and eventually thestate. Change was imperceptibly slow or occurred at the transition between these societalcategories brought about by population pressure and ecological crises. Thus, in along-term perspective social reproduction was much more normal than social transforma-tion. Jørgen Jensen’s analyses of Danish prehistory (1979, 1982) represented such a

Plate 4

The number of weapons preserved from Neolithic and Bronze Age Europe is huge. Thesebattleaxes of the Danish single grave culture (corded ware or battle-axe culture) were no doubt usedin warfare, while simultaneously signalling high-ranking male identity (photo Preben Dehlholm).


Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Ing

enta

Con

tent

Dis

tribu

tion]

At:

00:3

7 14

Mar

ch 2

008

Commemorative tales

135

Processual/Neo-Evolutionist view. Even when war was recognized as a characteristicfeature of ethnographic tribes, this insight was not really used to explain the frequency ofweaponry in the Danish past. The weapons – undeniably there – were interpreted assymbols of superior social rank with key functions in gift exchange between high-rankingmembers of society (Jensen 1979: 147ff.; cf. Vandkilde 2000: 6ff.).

This essentially static view of society in New Archaeology accorded with the empiricistview of prehistoric society as largely unchanging. They agreed in describing prehistoricman as hunter, peasant, and trader rather than warrior – the female half of society stillbeing without a place in history. Prehistoric society was a peaceful place characterized byevolution rather than revolution and migration, socially balanced and economically pros-perous due to the efforts of skilled hunters, successful traders, and, most particularly,hard-working peasants.

This major chronicle of Stone and Bronze Age society also responded socially toimportant war-related events in the contemporary world, again in an indirectideology-influenced way. The described perception of the past can be linked to a verysimilar ideal of modern, i.e. post-Second World War, Western society being concernedwith technological development, human progress, harmony, welfare, and peace, henceconfirming it (cf. Trigger 1989: 289). This optimistic attitude to life was ultimately areaction to years of hardship, wars, and genocide, and it had a profound impact on howEuropean prehistory was perceived. Peaceful figures are presented and sometimes evencelebrated in the mediated histories, but possibilities of war and violence are denied, thusdemonstrating a striking ability completely to repress, or forget, concluded, ongoing, andimpending wars in the contemporary world.

The more recent relationship between the warrior and the peasant tradition in archae-ology can be described as follows. After the Second World War the assessment of theprehistoric actor as innately non-violent and preoccupied with subsistence, production,and trade became quite dominant. But the opposite stance survived and had a revivalespecially in the years after c. 1980 with the Marxist recovery – now in Structuralistbedding – and with the power branch of post-Processual archaeology. The two archaeo-logical tales, with their partial coexistence, peaks, and declines, can be summarized asdifferential responses to contemporary politics and wars. The initially weak presence ofwarfare in the archaeology of the twentieth century is thus intimately linked to these twotales and thus also to the politics and ideologies that contributed to their formation.

Adding war

During the last ten years the warrior tale has prevailed and social categories likewarrior élite, warrior aristocracy, warrior or martial society increasingly inhabitarchaeological interpretations. Warfare is usually allowed, but the language oftenretains celebrative undertones highlighting the heroes of war, the élite warriors. Sucha view is, in fact, being widely communicated, not least among scholars studying theBronze Age, and also transmitted to the public (Kristiansen 1999: 180–8; Demako-poulou et al. 1998). It mediates an élitist and heroic stereotype of the Bronze Age,stressing cultural similarities on a pan-European scale, and thus, by the way, hinting at


Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Ing

enta

Con

tent

Dis

tribu

tion]

At:

00:3

7 14

Mar

ch 2

008

136

Helle Vandkilde

a tie to a modern European project, which also conceals cultural differences (Gröhnn.d.; Gramsch 2000).

The increasing popularity of warriors in archaeological interpretations at the transitionto the twenty-first century is a follow-up to the celebrative tale of the warrior so distinctduring the previous century. The typecasting is largely maintained by which warriors areviewed as the brave-hearted heads of society. There is, likewise, an inclination to focusone-sidedly upon the privileged upper classes as if these were the only agents of signifi-cance. Sameness is contended in warriorhood in Europe regardless of time and place. Thepaired institution of the war chieftain and his retinue – as described in sources to so-calledIndo-European origins, in Tacitus’

Germania

and also present in the

Gefolgschaft

of thefeudal order – is in the process of finding its way back in time into the Neolithic and theBronze Age (e.g. Treherne 1995). In recent writings the warrior thus tends to be anunchangeable identity, embedded in social constancy, despite the often underlying evolu-tionary idea of prehistoric society as tending towards increasing complexity. It remains arigid construct, which is not really negotiated with archaeological data.

The current prevalence of the warrior tale is associated with the belated appearance,around 1995, of specific studies of violence and war in archaeology.

1

This is an importantevent, which is marked by Lawrence Keeley’s influential publication

War before Civilisa-tion: The Myth of the Peaceful Savage

(1996), followed by a veritable explosion in studiesof war.

2

Quite likely, the dramatic increase in ethnic wars and genocides during the 1990samong dissolving national states has contributed immensely to this sudden escalation.Especially, the massive media coverage may well have made it difficult to carry onignoring archaeological data of war and violence and may explain why this late responseto contemporary war is less ideological than previously. These archaeological war studiesimprove on the realist component, but a critical voice may insert that war is described ina matter-of-fact fashion, which belies the horror, disaster, and slaughter involved. It islikewise significant that this initial inclusion of realism in archaeological writings ismingled with a continued idealization of the principal actor of war, namely the warrior.This certainly suggests that, apart from a politicized impact from contemporary events,much deeper-lying myths and ideals have been influential in creating and sustaining thetwo tales of warriors and peasants.

Myths commemorating heroes

The archaeological traditions of warriors and peasants mostly pacify the past andpopulate it with idealized figures of male identity. The scholars involved in the debate,predominantly men, consciously produce their views of prehistory in disagreement oragreement with existent views and this may have contributed to the academic reproduc-tion of two stereotyped perceptions of prehistoric society positioned at each end of thescale: a disruptive and discordant society or a peaceful and harmonious society. There ismore to it than academic rivalry among male scholars, however.

Even if war and violence are not really central to the former of the stereotypes, I believeboth of them have their origin in the history of European identity created and recreated inthe face of growing colonialism. The warrior tale and the peasant tale can be claimed to


Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Ing

enta

Con

tent

Dis

tribu

tion]

At:

00:3

7 14

Mar

ch 2

008

Commemorative tales

137

incorporate two dominant myths about the primitive other, which have been reproducedprobably on a continuous scale at least since the seventeenth century. The bellicose andbrutal savage emerges in Thomas Hobbes’

Leviathan

(1958 [1651]) and reappears in trans-formed form in Karl Marx’s contradiction-filled and latently violent society. This being is incontrast to the noble and peaceful savage, who originates in Jean-Jacques Rousseau’sromantic writings and who, in a sense, recurs in Max Weber’s consensus society.

The two archaeological tales relate to this contradictory pattern of myth. They includemodern commemorations of heroes in the same way as heroes were celebrated in pastsocieties through epics and material culture: a presentation of ideal manliness with limitedbearing on the real world of the past, or the present for that matter. The past – insofar as thiscan be treated as a unit – was no doubt characterized by rival myths about heroes andheroines, much in contrast to the realities of most people’s lives. Presentations of war heroesare indeed frequent in European societies of the Stone and Bronze Ages (cf. Figs 2–4).Similarly, a veneration of warriors and warlike behaviour has permeated contemporarysociety as well as its interpretation of history. Sanimir Resic (1999) has recently identifiedcelebrations of warriorhood and combative actions before, during, and after the VietnamWar, 1965–73. This romanticization included not only the official propaganda, but also thestories the soldiers told family and friends in letters. Resic (1999) finds a similar ideal ofviolent masculinity also in different historical and contemporary settings such as theSumerian poem of Gilgamesh, Homer’s epics, Rambo movies, and modern football culture.The myth of the courageous warrior thus appears to be completely static and foreverdominant, but this is doubtful. First, the attitude to warriors and their deeds could well havevaried internally in past societies, depending on the identity and perspective of the agents.Several competing myths may well have existed, the idolizing of a certain violent masculineidentity being the one most successfully transmitted to the present. After all, men haveauthored most written sources in the past as well as histories about the past in the present.Second, even dominant myths have a beginning and thus presumably also an end. Ideals offemale fierceness are, for example, currently entering the contemporary scene andEuropean women join the army more frequently than before. Moreover, other male idealsexist today than the one based on violence and fierceness, even if the latter unfortunatelyappears to be dominant in several parts of the world.

The horrors of war are thus suppressed in many different contexts, whether historical,epic, or contemporary. It might be added here that nothing points in the direction that warin so-called primitive societies should be less bloody than in so-called civilized societies(Keeley 1996; Helbling 1996; Wiessner and Tumu 1998: 119ff., 152f.; Brandt 2002). Rather,the frequency of war and violence varies with the specific cultural and social setting. It islikewise a myth that women are inherently peaceful. Historically, women have played amuch more active role in warfare than usually acknowledged, either as supporters or ascombatants (e.g. Simons 1999: 90f.).

Keeley’s book from 1996 was pioneering in that it helped to encourage war studies inarchaeology. His key message is that the past has been utterly pacified by archaeologistsand anthropologists, who have nourished the Rousseauian notion of the noble savage.

3

This portrayal of the historiography is not entirely wrong, but is inadequate. Therecurrence of the warrior theme throughout the twentieth century supplements thepicture, and so do early studies by Childe, Gimbutas, Rowlands, Hedeager and

72Q 09vandkilde (ds) 7 Monday, May 19, 2003 3:01 PM

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Ing

enta

Con

tent

Dis

tribu

tion]

At:

00:3

7 14

Mar

ch 2

008

138

Helle Vandkilde

Kristiansen, Nordbladh, and Vencl, who to variable extents incorporate or study war. Ifanything, there have been two coexistent myths – the peaceful savage and a fierce andpotentially warlike savage. A similar critique adheres to the anthropological part ofKeeley’s book (Otterbein 2000: 794, 800ff.).

The history of research can now be summarized. Two opposite tales of prehistoricsociety have coexisted, and probably still do. The warrior tale with its emphasis onrevolution and migration grew strong during the first half of the century, while the peasanttale with its emphasis on harmonious, industrious, and imperceptibly changing societiesgradually moved into focus after around 1945 and then receded again in the 1980s. It ischaracteristic that the brutal and deadly side of the warrior tale is usually left out ortransformed into soft war, while the possibility of violence and war is completely ignoredby those advocating the peasant tale. During the last decade or so the warrior tale hasresumed a predominant position, coinciding in part with a veritable boom in war andviolence studies from c. 1995. This whole trajectory reflects differential social responses tocontemporary politics and wars, simultaneously, however, incorporating deep-rootedEuropean myths, which celebrate opposite ideals of society and masculinity.

Archaeology, anthropology, and war

Social anthropology has likewise had ‘hawks’ and ‘doves’ advocating opposite societal stereo-types based on the myths of the peaceful or warlike savage (Otterbein 2000). Anthropologyhas, however, been much more willing to make war an object of study. An explosion inanthropological warfare studies occurred during the so-called Golden Age, c.1960–c.1980,including classic ethnographies as well as theoretical analyses of the causes and effects of war(ibid.).

While the partial entanglement of archaeology and anthropology is generally apparent(Gosden 1999), the two disciplines have informed each other surprisingly little as regards theissue of warfare and warriors despite the possibility that new insight might have been achievedthrough a cross-dialogue. The tribal zone theory proposed by Ferguson and Whitehead (1992),for instance, would not have survived unmodified for long if archaeological sources to prehis-tory had been consulted. The anthropological database of peace and war might similarly havebeen used to assess critically the two tales of warriors and peasants in archaeology. Thedramatic increase in warfare studies during anthropology’s Golden Age, moreover, failed toobtain any profound impact on archaeology. It is therefore unlikely that the breakthrough ofarchaeological war studies in the mid-1990s is directly linked to anthropology. Rather, it isconnected to the growth in ethnic-based wars after c.1990, as suggested above.

An archaeology of warfare

The prevalence of two societal stereotypes epitomizes a need for a theoretical under-standing of war and warriors. This is accentuated by the fact that recent archaeology hastended to treat warfare as if divorced from the rest of social practice (cf. Thorpe 2001).The most recent anthropology and sociology can here be used as a source of inspiration in


Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Ing

enta

Con

tent

Dis

tribu

tion]

At:

00:3

7 14

Mar

ch 2

008

Commemorative tales

139

that warfare is generally regarded as intentional action situated within the continuities ofsocial practice (Jabri 1996). This perspective on warfare as a violent kind of social actionis useful not least because archaeological remains are essentially fragments of past socialaction. War and violence are, moreover, never accidental since they always derive from acultural logic. It follows that attention should be paid to the violent acts themselves, thecultural meanings they carry, and the cultural landscape that forms them. Furthermore,warriorhood must be understood as a specific social identity, which feeds on warfare andwhich overlaps variably with other social identities depending on the specific context.

Archaeology must question rather than repeat contemporary myths. At the thresholdto the twenty-first century, war finally entered the archaeological agenda, hence makinginterpretations accord better with the archaeological sources. However, the terrible sideof war has not yet become part of archaeological histories, which are usually kept in astrictly analytical language. The recent approach to war in archaeology recalls the ratio-nalization of war that was accomplished in the sciences of the nineteenth and twentiethcenturies. From Carl von Clausewitz onwards, war has been systematically reduced torules, procedures, functions, causes, and effects as part of a modern political project, whichhas thereby commemorated warfare and legitimized the slaughter on and outside thebattlefield (Pick 1993: 165ff.). Recent developments in the anthropology of war suggestthat the degree of realism can be improved.

During the last ten years the anthropological handling of war has changed. The imper-sonal political-science analysis is supplemented by a concern with understanding theactions, experiences, motives and feelings of combatants, civilians and victims under thechaotic conditions of war and after-war (e.g. Nordstrom and Robben 1995; Nordstrom1998; Macek 2000; Kolind n.d.). This particular interest is thus one of expression. Physicalpain is notably considered an irreducible bodily experience, which can never be whollycommunicated and which therefore forms an instrument of power (Scarry 1988). Feelingsof meaninglessness and pain under circumstances of war are, on the other hand, universalin character (cf. Tarlow 1999: 20ff., 138ff.). The human suffering involved can therefore becommunicated regardless of whether the war took place in Jutland during the MiddleNeolithic or in Bosnia merely a few years ago.

Violence, hardship, and death are situated at the core of warfare and warriors; if theyare left out, the story becomes incomplete and too easily turns into a commemoration ofheroes. Skeletal trauma and weaponry in various archaeological contexts can be taken asdirect or indirect evidence of the presence of war and violence with everything thatimplies in terms of cultural meaning, agency, and human suffering. The question posed inthe introduction has been tackled in the above critique: it is crucial in our archaeologiesto include the vicious face of war and warriors. This is because idealizations of violentidentities and one-sided rationalizations of prehistoric war inevitably run the risk oflegitimizing the use of violence and waging of war in our own time.

Acknowledgements

My appreciation in particular goes to my colleagues in the Danish Research Councilproject ‘Warfare & Society in an Archaeological and Social Anthropological Perspective’


Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Ing

enta

Con

tent

Dis

tribu

tion]

At:

00:3

7 14

Mar

ch 2

008

140

Helle Vandkilde

– Claus Bossen, Andreas Hårde, Torsten Kolind, Ton Otto, and Henrik Thrane – forinspiration and constructive critique. I also wish to thank Anders Andrén, Michael Dahl-gren, Kristina Jennbert, and Polly Wiessner for helpful comments on the draft.

Department of Archaeology and Ancient History, University of Lund, S-22350, Sweden

Notes

1 Research in the Late Bronze Age and the Iron Age has been more willing to incorpo-rate war in interpretations (cf. Brun 1988; Nørgård Jørgensen and Clausen 1997;Ringtved 1999). Evolutionary thinking, which has also influenced social anthropology,is here an important factor: if indigenous people without war, or with so-called ritualwar, are placed at the bottom of the evolutionary ladder, then warfare has to growmore common as the complexity of society increases.

2 Anthologies, monographs, and articles, e.g. Randsborg 1995; Carman 1997; Martin andFrayer 1997; Maschner and Reedy-Maschner 1998; Monks 1999; Osgood 1998;Laffineur 1999; Fokkens 1999; Earle 1997; Carman and Harding 1999; Osgood et al.2000; Runciman 1999; Thorpe 2000, 2001.

3 The Rousseauian notion of the noble savage is renamed ‘myth of the peaceful savage’by Keeley.

References

Andersen, S. H. 1971. Ertebøllekulturens harpuner.

Kuml

, 1971: 73–125.

Andersen, S. H. 1975. Ringkloster, en jysk indlandsboplads med Ertebøllekultur.

Kuml

, 1973–4:11–108.

Andersen, S. H. 1981.

Stenalderen: Jægerstenalderen

(Danmarkshistorien Oldtiden). Copenhagen:Sesam.

Becker, C. J. 1954. Die mittel-neolithischen Kulturen in Südskandinavien.

Acta Archaeologica

, 25:49–150.

Boos, A. 1998. Das Häuptlingsgrab von Hagenau und verwandte Kriegergräber. In

Gods andHeroes of the Bronze Age: Europe at the Time of Ulysses

(eds K. Demakopoulou, C. Eluère, J.Jensen, A. Jockenhövel and J. P. Mohen). Copenhagen: The National Museum of Denmark; Bonn:Kunst und Ausstellungshalle der Bundesrepublik Deutschland; Paris: Galeries nationales du GrandPalais; Athens: National Archaeological Museum, pp. 106–7.

Brandt, E. 2002.

On War and Anthropology: A History of Debates concerning the New GuineaHighlands and the Balkans

. Rozenberg Publishers.

Broholm, H. C. 1943–4.

Danmarks Bronzealder

, 2 vols. Copenhagen: NYT Nordisk Verlag.

Brøndsted, J. 1957–8.

Danmarks Oldtid

, 2 vols (

Stone Age, Bronze Age

). Copenhagen: Gyldendal.

Brun, P. 1988. L’entité Rhin-Suisse-France orientale: nature et évolution. In

Le GroupeRhin-Suisse-France orientale et la notion de civilisation des champs d’urnes

(eds P. Brun and C.Mordant). Nemours: Mémoires du Musée Préhistoire d’lle-de-France, pp. 599–620.


Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Ing

enta

Con

tent

Dis

tribu

tion]

At:

00:3

7 14

Mar

ch 2

008

Commemorative tales

141

Capelle, T. 1982. Erkenntnismöglichkeiten ur- und frühgeschichtlicher Bewaffnungsformen: ZumProblem von Waffen aus organischem Material.

Bonner Jahrbücher

, 182: 265–88.

Carman, J. (ed.) 1997.

Material Harm: Archaeological Studies of War and Violence

. Glasgow:Cruithne Press.

Carman, J. and Harding A. (eds) 1999.

Ancient Warfare: Archaeological Perspectives

. Stroud: Sutton.

Chapman, J. 1998. The impact of modern invasions and migrations on archaeological explanation: abiological sketch of Marija Gimbutas.

Excavating Women: A History of Women in EuropeanArchaeology

(eds M. Diáz-Andreu and M. L. S. Sørensen). London: Routledge, pp. 295–314.

Chapman, J. 1999. The origins of warfare in the prehistory of Central and Eastern Europe. In


(eds J. Carman and A. Harding). Stroud: Sutton,pp. 39–55.

Childe, V. G. 1941. War in prehistoric societies.

The Sociological Review

, 33: 126–39.

Childe, V. G. 1951 [1936].

Man Makes Himself

. London: Watts.

Childe, V. G. 1958.

The Prehistory of European Society

. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Clark, J. G. D. 1939.

Archaeology and Society

. London: Methuen.

Clark, J. G. D. 1952.

Prehistoric Europe: The Economic Basis

. London: Methuen.

Clark, J. G. D. 1975.

The Earlier Stone Age Settlement of Scandinavia

. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Clark, J. G. D. and Piggott, S. 1978 [1965].

Prehistoric Societies

. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Damm, C. 1993. The Danish single grave culture: ethnic migration or social construction?

Journal ofDanish Archaeology

, 10: 199–204.

Demakopoulou, K., Eluère, C., Jensen, J., Jockenhövel, A. and Mohen, J. P. (eds) 1998.

Gods andHeroes of the Bronze Age: Europe at the Time of Ulysses

. Copenhagen: The National Museum ofDenmark; Bonn: Kunst und Ausstellungshalle der Bundesrepublik Deutschland; Paris: Galeriesnationales du Grand Palais; Athens: National Archaeological Museum.

Earle, T. K. 1997.

How Chiefs Come to Power: The Political Economy in Prehistory

. Stanford, CA:Stanford University Press.

Ferguson, R. B. and Whitehead N. L. (eds) 1992.

War in the Tribal Zone: Expanding States andIndigenous Warfare

. Santa Fe: School of American Research.

Fokkens, H. 1999. Cattle and martiality: changing relations between man and landscape in the LateNeolithic and the Bronze Age. In

Settlement and Landscape: Proceedings of a Conference in Århus,Denmark, May 4–7 1998

. (eds C. Fabech and J. Ringtved). Aarhus: Jutland Archaeological Society,pp. 35–43.

Frankenstein, S. and Rowlands, M. 1978. The internal structure and regional context of Early IronAge Society in south-west Germany.

Bulletin of the Institute of Archaeology

, 15: 73–112.

Gimbutas, M. 1982 [1974].

The Goddesses and Gods of Old Europe 6500–3500

BC

: Myths and CultImages

. London: Thames & Hudson.

Glob, P. V. 1945. Studier over den jyske Enkeltgravskultur.

Aarbøger for Nordisk Oldkyndighed ogHistorie

, 1944: 5–282.

Gosden, C. 1999.

Anthropology and Archaeology: A Changing Relationship

. London and New York:Routledge.

Gramsch, A. 2000. ‘Reflexiveness’ in archaeology, nationalism, and Europeanism.

ArchaeologicalDialogues

, 7(1): 4–19.

Gröhn, A. n.d. Branding the Bronze Age? The construction of a common European culture heritage(manuscript). Lund University: Department of Archaeology and Ancient History.


Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Ing

enta

Con

tent

Dis

tribu

tion]

At:

00:3

7 14

Mar

ch 2

008

142

Helle Vandkilde

Häusler, A. 1994. Grab- und Bestattungssitten des Neolithikums und der frühen Bronzezeit inMitteleuropa.

Zeitschrift für Archäologie

, 28: 23–61.

Hedeager, L. and Kristiansen, K. 1985. Krig og samfund i Danmarks Oldtid.

Den jyske historiker

,9–25.

Helbling, J. 1996. Weshalb bekriegen sich die Yanomami? Versuch einer spieltheoreretischenErklärung. In

Krieg und Frieden

(eds P. Braünlein and A. Lauser). Bremen: Keo.

Hobbes, T. 1958 [1651].

Leviathan

. Indianapolis.

Jabri, V. 1996.

Discourses on Violence: Conflict Analysis Reconsidered

. Manchester and New York:Manchester University Press.

Jakab, J., Olexa, L. and Vladár J. 1999. Ein Kultobjekt der Otomani-Kultur in Ni

ž

ná My

š

l’a.

Slovenská Archeológia

, 47(1): 91–127.

Jensen, J. 1979.

Oldtidens samfund: Tiden indtil år 800

. Dansk social historie 1. Copenhagen:Gyldendal.

Jensen, J. 1982.

The Prehistory of Denmark

. London and New York.

Keeley, L. H. 1996.

War Before Civilization: The Myth of the Peaceful Savage

. New York and Oxford:Oxford University Press.

Kilian-Dirlmeier, I. 1993.

Die Schwerter in Griechenland (ausserhalb der Peloponnes), Bulgarienund Albanien

. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.

Kolind, T. N. n.d. Theories and research foci in contemporary anthropology of war- related violence(manuscript). University of Aarhus: Department of Ethnography and Social Anthropology.

Kristiansen, K. 1982. The formation of tribal systems in later European Prehistory: northern Europe4000–800

BC

. In

Theory and Explanation in Archaeology

, The Southampton Conference (eds C.Renfrew, M. Rowlands and B. Seagraves). New York: Academic Press, pp. 241–80.

Kristiansen, K. 1984a. Krieger und Häuptling in der Bronzezeit Dänemarks: Ein Beitrag zurGeschichte des bronzezeitliches Schwertes.

Jahrbuch des römisch-germanisches ZentralmuseumsMainz

, 31: 187–208.

Kristiansen, K. 1984b. Ideology and material culture: an archaeological perspective. In

MarxistPerspectives in Archaeology

(ed. M. Spriggs). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 72–100.

Kristiansen, K. 1991a. Prehistoric migrations: the case of the single grave and corded ware cultures.

Journal of Danish Archaeology

, 8: 211–25.

Kristiansen, K. 1991b. Chiefdoms, states and systems of social evolution. In

Chiefdoms: Economy,Power and Ideology

(ed. T. K. Earle). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 16–43.

Kristiansen, K. 1998.

Europe before History

. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kristiansen, K. 1999. The emergence of warrior aristocracies in later European prehistory and theirlong-term history. In


(eds J. Carman and A. Harding).Stroud: Sutton, pp. 175–89.

Laffineur, R. (ed.) 1999.

Polemos: Le contexte guerrier en Égée à l’age du bronze

. Actes de la 7eRencontres egéenne internationale Université de Liège, 14–17 April 1998. Aegaeum 19: Universitéde Liège and University of Texas at Austin.

Macek, I. 2000.

War Within: Everyday Life in Sarajevo under Siege

. Uppsala: Acta UniversitatisUpsaliensis.

Malmer, M. P. 1962. Jungneolithischen Studien. Lund: Acta Archaeologica Lundensia.

Malmer, M. P. 1989. Etnoarkeologiska synspunkter på stridsyxakulturen: Stridsyxakultur i Sydskan-dinavien. In Rapport från det andra nordiska symposiet om Stridsyxatid i sydskandinavien (ed. L.Larsson). Lund: University of Lund, Institute of Archaeology, Report series no. 36, pp. 7–12.


Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Ing

enta

Con

tent

Dis

tribu

tion]

At:

00:3

7 14

Mar

ch 2

008

Commemorative tales 143

Martin, D. L. and Frayer, D. W. (eds) 1997. Troubled Times: Violence and Warfare in the Past.Langhorne: Gordon & Breach.

Maschner, H. D. G. and Reedy-Maschner, K. L. 1998. Raid, retreat, defend (repeat): the archae-ology and ethnohistory of warfare on the North Pacific Rim. Journal of Anthropological Archae-ology, 17: 19–51.

Miller, D. and Tilley, C. 1984. Ideology, power and prehistory: an introduction. In Ideology, Powerand Prehistory (eds D. Miller and C. Tilley). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–15.

Monks, S. 1999. Patterns of warfare and settlement in Southeast Spain. Journal of Iberian Archae-ology, 1: 127–71.

Nordbladh, J. 1989. Armour and fighting in the south Scandinavian Bronze Age, especially in viewof rock art representations. In Approaches to Swedish Prehistory: A Spectrum of Problems andPerspectives in Contemporary Research (eds T. B. Larson and H. Lundmark). British ArchaeologicalReports International Series no. 694, pp. 323–33.

Nordstrom, C. 1998. A Different Kind of War Story. Philadelphia, PA: University of PennsylvaniaPress.

Nordström, C. and Robben, A. (eds) 1995. Fieldwork under Fire: Contemporary Studies of Violenceand Survival. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Nørgård Jørgensen, A. and Clausen, B. (eds) 1997. Military Aspects of Scandinavian Society in aEuropean Perspective, A.D. 1–1300. Copenhagen: Nationalmuseet.

Osgood, R. H. 1998. Warfare in the Late Bronze Age of North Europe. British ArchaeologicalReports International Series.

Osgood, R., Monks, S. and Toms, J. (eds) 2000. Bronze Age Warfare. Stroud: Sutton.

Otterbein, K. F. 2000. A history of research on warfare in anthropology. American Anthropologist,101(4): 794–805.

Pick, D. 1993. War Machine: The Rationalisation of Slaughter in the Modern Age. New Haven, CT,and London: Yale University Press.

Randsborg, K. 1995. Hjortspring: Warfare & Sacrifice in Early Europe. Aarhus: Aarhus UniversityPress.

Resic, S. 1999. American Warriors in Vietnam: Warrior Values and the Myth of the War Experienceduring the Vietnam War 1965–1973. Malmö: Team Offset & Media.

Ringtved, J. 1999. Settlement organisation in times of war. In Settlement and Landscape: Proceed-ings of a Conference in Århus, Denmark, May 4–7 1998 (eds C. Fabech and J. Ringtved). Aarhus:Jutland Archaeological Society, pp. 361–82.

Rowlands, M. 1980. Kinship, alliance and exchange in the European Bronze Age. In Settlement andSociety in the British Later Bronze Age (eds J. Barrett and R. J. Bradley). British ArchaeologicalReports no. 83, pp. 15–55.

Runciman, W. G. 1999. Greek hoplites, warrior culture, and indirect bias. Journal of the RoyalAnthropological Institution (N.S.), 4: 731–51.

Scarry, E. 1988. The Body in Pain: The Making and Unmaking of the World. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Shanks, M. and Tilley, C. 1987. Social Theory and Archaeology. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Simons, A. 1999. WAR: back to the future. Annual Review of Anthropology, 28: 73–108.

Tarlow, S. 1999. Bereavement and Commemoration: An Archaeology of Mortality. Oxford: Black-well.

Thorpe, I. J. N. 2000. Origins of war: Mesolithic conflict in Europe. British Archaeology, April: 9–13.


Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Ing

enta

Con

tent

Dis

tribu

tion]

At:

00:3

7 14

Mar

ch 2

008

144 Helle Vandkilde

Thorpe, N. 2001. A war of words: Ancient Warfare: Archaeological Perspectives edited by JohnCarman and Anthony Harding, 1999. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 11(1): 1–3.

Tilley, C. 1984. Ideology and the legitimation of power in the Middle Neolithic of Southern Sweden.In Ideology, Power and Prehistory (eds D. Miller and C. Tilley). Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress, pp. 111–46.

Treherne, P. 1995. The warrior’s beauty: the masculine body and self-identity in Bronze-AgeEurope. Journal of European Archaeology, 3(1): 105–44.

Trigger, B. G. 1989. A History of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Vandkilde, H. 1996. From Stone to Bronze: The Metalwork of the Late Neolithic and Earliest BronzeAge in Denmark. Aarhus: Jutland Archaeological Society & Aarhus University Press.

Vandkilde, H. 1998. Metalwork, depositional structure and social practice in the Danish LateNeolithic and Earliest Bronze Age. In L’atelier du bronze en Europe du XX au VIII siècle avantnotre ère. Actes du colloque international Bronze ’96, Tome III (session de Dijon), L’atelier dubronzier: élaboration, transformation et consommation du bronze en Europe du XXe au VIIIe siècleavant notre ére (eds C. Mordant, M. Pernot and V. Rychner). Paris: pp. 243–57.

Vandkilde, H. 1999. Social distinction and ethnic reconstruction in the earliest Danish Bronze Age.In Eliten in der Bronzezeit: Ergebnisse zweier Kolloquien in Mainz und Athen (eds C. Clausing andM. Egg). Mainz: Monographien des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums 43, pp. 245–76.

Vandkilde, H. 2000. Material culture and Scandinavian archaeology: a review of the concepts ofform, function, and context. In Form, Function and Context: Material Culture Studies in Scandina-vian Archaeology (eds D. Olausson and H.Vandkilde). Lund: Acta Archaeologica Lundensia. Seriesin 8.o. No. 31, pp. 3–49.

Vencl, Sl. 1984. War and warfare in archaeology. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 3: 116–32.

Wahl, J. and König, H. 1987. Antropologisch-traumalogische Untersuchung der menschlichenSkeletreste aus dem bandkeramischen Massengrab bei Talheim, Kreis Heilbronn. Fundberichte ausBaden-Württemberg, 12: 65–193.

Wiessner, P. and Tumu, A. 1998. Historical Vines: Enga Networks of Exchange, Ritual and Warfare inPapua New Guinea. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.


world archaeology - university of washingtoncourses.washington.edu › war101 › readings ›...

Documents