AIMS OF THIS VOLUME
In the past two decades, conflict archaeology has become firmly established as a relatively new and promising field of research, as reflected in publications, symposia, conference sessions and numerous fieldwork projects (see e.g. Freeman and Pollard, 2001; Pollard and Banks, 2005; Scott et al., 2009). It has its origins in the study of battlefields and other conflict-related phenomena in the modern and pre-modern periods (Meller, 2009; Saunders, 2012; Schofield, 2009; Scott and McFeaters, 2011), but numerous studies have already shown that this theme, and at least some of its methods, techniques and theories, are also relevant for older historical and even prehistoric periods (Buchsenschutz et al., 2014; Carman, 2014; Carman and Harding, 1999; Guilaine and Sémelin, 2016; Link and Peter-Röcher, 2014; Meller and Schefzik, 2015; Otto et al., 2006; Ralph, 2013). The research domain has a wide geographic and temporal scope, from early prehistory up until modern times. Its rapidly growing research output has generated a constant demand for synthesising studies, and it is here that this volume finds its justification. To enhance the depth and cohesion of the volume we have chosen to focus on the later prehistoric and early historic periods, roughly extending from the Neolithic up until the Late Roman period. In terms of geographical scope, the focus is on Europe, with sites or research regions spread over the continent (Figure 1.1).
This book presents a series of case studies on conflict archaeology in ancient Europe, based on the results of both recent fieldwork and older excavations. Our aim is to explore the basic material evidence for the study of warfare and collective violence as well as the current methodologies and theoretical concepts employed to gather and interpret this evidence. We feel that the methodological and theoretical framework of conflict archaeology is still underdeveloped for these older periods. Using an historical-anthropological perspective, we wish to present an interpretative framework that will enable us to compare the many contributions in this volume and to draw some conclusions. We hope this volume is sufficiently cohesive and that it will stimulate the further development of this particular field of study. It is our conviction that conflict archaeology has the potential to add interesting new narratives to the long-term history of humankind.
Archaeologists are increasingly aware that they have underestimated the societal impact of collective violence in ancient Europe (Armit et al., 2006; Armit, 2011; Buchsenschutz et al., 2014). Sites like Tollense Valley, Ribemont, Kessel, Monte Bernorio and Kalkriese confront us in a poignant way with the cruelties of war and mass violence in late prehistoric and early historic times. There is a growing critique that archaeology has marginalised violence and presented too pacified a view of the past, a reproach expressed most prominently in Keeley’s book (1996) War Before Civilization. We agree with suggestions that we should make more room for violence and warfare in our narratives of both the prehistoric and early historic periods (Armit, 2011; James, 2007; Morris, 2014; Parker-Pearson and Thorpe, 2005). Violence was more common in the everyday life of ancient societies than recently assumed and was an integral aspect of social life (McCartney, 2012: iii; Pérez Rubio, this volume). In Roman archaeology the debate has been too heavily dominated in past decades by the Romanisation issue and the myth of the Pax Romana. With this volume we aim to give warfare and violence a more prominent place in the narratives that we produce.
DEFINITION AND HISTORY OF CONFLICT ARCHAEOLOGY
Warfare and collective violence are prominent topics studied by a broad range of disciplines: history, sociology, anthropology, psychology and philosophy. To this list can be added archaeology, which can make an original contribution to the study of war, in particular by focusing on the materiality of conflict and on long-term developments from prehistory into modern times.
Battlefield archaeology and conflict archaeology are often used as overlapping labels. However, conflict archaeology is a more inclusive term that covers a broader field than just the study of battles. It is a more comprehensive term for the study of all conflict-related archaeological phenomena, including defensive works, military camps, military infrastructure, landscapes of war, battle-related ritual deposits and symbolic representations of violence in iconography, grave goods, etc. We also need to distinguish different types of warfare: raiding parties, open-field battles, sieges, ambushes and massacres.
Figure 1.1 Location of key sites discussed in this volume (authors): 1 Ribemont-sur-Ancre, 2 La Tène, 3 Tollense Valley, 4 Kalkriese, 5 Harzhorn, 6 Numantia/Renieblas, 7 Hjortspring, 8 Kessel/Lith, 9 Hermeskeil, 10 Alesia, 11 Orange, 12 Monte Bernorio, 13 Baecula, 14 Iliturgi, 15 Thorsberger Moor, 16 Talheim, 17 Asparn/Schletz, 18 Gournay-sur-Aronde, 19 El Civil rockshelter, Valltorta
Following Ember and Ember (1992: 248), warfare can be defined as “socially organised armed combat between members of different territorial units (communities or aggregates of communities)”. Because of its organised and collective character, warfare can be easily distinguished from other, more individual forms of violence, such as feuds, domestic violence and assaults. It is the express aim of this volume to concentrate on the study of warfare and collective violence, since this is the field in which important advances have been made in the past two decades (see e.g. Arkush and Allen, 2008).
Because of its great time depth in particular, conflict archaeology appears to be a rather fragmented field of study, with a heterogeneous academic background and different interdisciplinary orientations. For the prehistoric periods, conflict archaeologists draw strong inspiration from the social sciences, in particular cultural anthropology with its focus on the social theory of violence. Evidence of battle sites is extremely rare for these early periods, and research is concentrated on the technical and social use of weapons, on defended settlements, and on the construction of warrior identities (Kristiansen, 1999, 2002; Uckelmann and Mödlinger, 2011; Vandkilde, 2013; Szeverényi and Kiss, this volume). For the historic periods on the other hand, there has traditionally been a strong historical orientation and a clear link with the field of military history (Carman, 2014: 1–3).
Conflict archaeology is generally considered a young field of study that developed from battlefield research for the pre-modern and modern periods; only since the end of the 20th century have we seen systematic archaeological interest in comparative battlefield research, as illustrated by the launch of the Journal of Conflict Archaeology (2005), and the growing interest in the archaeology of WWI/II. We should also mention the impact of Anglophone historical archaeology, and the introduction of new methodologies such as the systematic use of metal detectors. The study by Douglas Scott et al. (1989) of the battlefield of Little Big Horn (USA) marked the start of the systematic archaeological research into battle sites.
However, some qualifications should be made here. Insufficient justice is done to the long tradition of Roman military archaeology, or ‘limes archaeology’ from the late 19th century onwards. Often also forgotten are examples of early battlefield investigation such as the French fieldwork (including excavations) at the Caesarian battlefield of Alesia under the authority of Napoleon III in the 1860s (Reddé, this volume) or the study of the siege of Numantia in central Spain by A. Schulten at the beginning of the 20th century (Jiménez et al., this volume). The field of conflict archaeology has made great advances in Europe and the USA in the past two decades. However, the investigation of late prehistoric and Roman period battlefields in Germany, France and Spain has developed almost independently of the Anglophone tradition of conflict archaeology and has its roots instead in the continental tradition of Roman military archaeology. This could also explain why this field of research has not been developed yet in areas where Roman military archaeology has no strength, like in Italy and Greece.1
Most striking is the rather marginal attention until recently to conflict archaeology in Europe. Several factors have played a role here. One is the practical problem that battle sites and traces of mass violence are difficult to detect archaeologically. More important, however, seems to have been the current idea (no doubt influenced by the dominant anti-militaristic ideology in post-WWII Western Europe, cf. Armit et al., 2006: 3; Deyber, 2009: 22; Vandkilde, 2013) that war and collective violence were relatively marginal phenomena in the ancient past. This triggered Keeley’s (1996) criticism that archaeologists had ‘pacified’ the prehistoric past and adopted a ‘neo-Rousseauian’ social theory of warfare and violence. ‘Primitive’ warfare in prehistoric societies was thought to be less effective, more ritualised, and focused on honour and status. There is now a growing conviction that warfare had a more prominent place in both prehistoric and early historic societies (Carman and Harding, 1999; Guilaine and Sémelin, 2016; Guilaine and Zammit, 2005). Warfare is a dominant and constant theme in Greco-Roman classical literature (Pitcher, 2009), and we observe the same preoccupation with war in the earliest literature of the Celto-Germanic world (see e.g. Bazelmans, 1999), while the archaeological evidence for conflict is rapidly growing. At present we observe a trend in European archaeology to ‘un-pacify’ the past (Armit et al., 2006; James, 2007).
