Violence and aggression among humans occur in various forms. Distinctions can be made involving acts of violence between individuals and those between groups. Put simply, homicide or murder involves the killing of one human being by another. Although some theorists postulate that interpersonal violence has been a part of humanity during the evolutionary development of our species, documenting forms of either homicide or warfare before anatomically modern humans is especially challenging. Before the emergence of anatomically modern humans, archaeological documentation of social violence rested largely upon osteological remains (see Osteological Methods), as various assemblages of stone tools crafted by hominids cannot be easily categorized as weapons for fighting. For instance, researchers have reported the possibility of cannibalism among Neanderthals, citing the manner in which bones were broken and damaged as indications. This interpretation, however, can be countered by arguments that signs of damage may have resulted from funerary rituals or animal scavenging. In general, while evidence of trauma has been found on the skeletal remains of hominids, protohumans, and early humans, they do not unequivocally point to social violence. Accidental death or postmortem skeletal damage can potentially be the cause for what appear to be signs of homicide. For example, one study of Neanderthal remains found that 40% of their crania showed evidence of ‘blunt-force’ traumas. The cause of the trauma is unclear, especially since Neanderthal postcranial skeletons show evidence of frequent traumas that are unlikely to be the result of intra-hominid violence. Therefore, in addition to osteological signs of violent trauma, other evidence is required. Without a high degree of context an embedded projectile point, for instance, can simply be the result of a hunting accident.
The task becomes comparatively easier when considering the archaeological record of modern humans within the past 40 000 years. Here skeletal remains have been found within certain contexts and in association with other artifactual clues, thus yielding less equivocal representations of social violence. Evidence of murder, and not necessarily warfare, appears as soon as modern humans appear. There are several instances of suspected homicidal deaths during Palaeolithic and Mesolithic times from various sites in parts of Europe, northern Africa, and the Near East. Several of the cases provide strong contextual evidence that humans were intentionally killing other humans, and evidence includes projectile points embedded in bones, scalp marks on skulls, and cranial fractures. At Grimaldi, Italy (c. 32 000 BP), the skeleton of a child was found with a bone projectile point embedded in its spine. At around 20 000 BP, a male skeleton found in the Nile Valley, Egypt, had several projectile points in his abdomen and a partially healed one embedded in his arm.
Especially revealing is evidence from certain burial contexts throughout the ancient world. Given the scope of evidence, these cases suggest the occurrence of social violence on a scale greater than simple murder. While murder appears to be at least as old as modern humanity, archaeological evidence suggesting the presence of warfare appears as soon as there are sufficiently large burial populations. Cemeteries in Czechoslovakia (dating between 35 000 and 24 000 BP) and at Gebel Sahaba in Egyptian Nubia (14 000 to 12 000 BP), for example, have several men, women, and children exhibiting either direct evidence of weapons trauma or projectile points associated with their remains. Research at Gebel Sahaba shows that several of the adults and had received multiple wounds, and that many of the children had execution style wounds on the head or neck. Over 40% of the 59 people buried there had clearly died from arrow wounds, often multiple. In addition, many of the adults exhibited signs of healed parry fractures on their forearm bones, an indication of nonaccidental trauma for victims of violence. Victims were sometimes buried in small groups, indicating that several were killed simultaneously.
In distinguishing acts of murder from patterns of warfare, additional contextual clues are necessary to make stronger or conclusive inferences about what we are seeing in the ground. While warfare can be a possible cause for the numerous violent deaths seen with the victims at Gebel Sahaba, for instance, it may be that extreme levels of intra-societal violence marked their society. Without a package of material signatures, it is difficult to conclusively identify patterns of organized violence beyond simple homicide. When occurring between two independent and autonomous social units, the killing of a person could be part of a larger pattern of organized violence. Simple documentation for the existence of social violence in prehistory is not enough. For reconstruction of the past, it is vital for archaeologists to employ techniques and methods to distinguish between isolated incidents of murder versus events of warfare.
To do so requires recognition for what constitutes warfare, and social scientists and historians have proposed various definitions. Definitions tend to be either too broad or too narrow, depending on the criteria being used, with certain forms of organized violence being included or excluded. Narrow definitions maintain that warfare can only occur between complex societies such as chiefdoms or states (see Political Complexity, Rise of). Within this view conflicts between smaller-scale societies tend to be ignored or trivialized. Such a perspective runs the risk of limiting the kinds of data that researchers examine in formulating universal theories about warfare. Broader definitions allow the analysis of the broadest range of cases for deadly conflict between human groups. While some of the tactics, strategies, and weapons and defensive technologies might vary between smaller - and larger-scale societies, the ultimate objectives and devastating social costs are often similar. Accordingly, many cultural anthropologists and archaeologists consider a wide range of forms as validly subsumed within a broader definition of warfare.
Accepting that warfare can also occur between decentralized, less complex, and non-state societies, a definition should subsume various types of tactics used by societies of varying scales of complexity. Such tactics include revenge murders, raids, ambushes, sieges, and standing lines of warriors or soldiers. Much consensus currently seems to revolve around generally conceptualizing warfare as organized violence between politically autonomous groups, communities, or societies, usually in pursuit of social, economic, or political gain.
Warfare involves the overall participation of more than two people, although the killing of one person by another can certainly constitute an act of war. What distinguishes war from homicide is that the killing occurs within the context of a wider political or social struggle. Sporadic outbreaks of violence between smaller-scale societies such as bands can be represented as microlevel battles within a wider war. A review of the ethnographic literature shows that forms of organized violence range from raiding, ambushing, formal fights, battles, and sieges that can take place almost continually or at least annually. Consequently, what may appear to be homicide might actually be a casualty within a wider context of interpolity warfare. Accordingly, researchers must move beyond any set of archaeological clues that demonstrate violent death. Also to be considered are other strands of evidence that indicate any possible wider context of organized violence between two autonomously distinct societies.
In sum, there are several defining characteristics that distinguish warfare from murder and isolated homicide. Warfare involves many perpetrators and victims, and duration of violence tends to be lengthy. A war may consist of various episodes or battles that take place over weeks, months, years, or even decades. Murder, however, tends to involve only one or few perpetrators with one or few victims. The duration of violence tends to be very brief and isolated from other events. Also, whereas murder tends to be indiscriminate in terms of the participants’ demographics, in warfare the perpetrators and victims are mostly young men. Murder and warfare also differ in level of material preparation involved, with the former requiring little to none. In warfare, there is considerable material preparation, much of it involving highly specialized weaponry, armor, shields, fortifications, and the like. The preparation also extends into the training of groups. Whereas people are not specially trained for the commission of murder, warriors and soldiers tend to be highly trained for military actions. Thus warfare will be much more ‘archaeologically visible’ than murder.
World History
