Warfare in Neolithic Europe

An Archaeological and Anthropological Analysis

Julian Maxwell Heath

• Publisher: Pen & Sword Archaeology
• Year: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781473879874
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: Military & Maritime History
• Index: History

The Neolithic ('New Stone Age') marks the time when the prehistoric communities of Europe turned their backs on the hunter-gatherer lifestyle that they had followed for many thousands of years, and instead, became farmers. The significance of this switch from a lifestyle that had been based on the hunting and gathering of wild food resources, to one that involved the growing of crops and raising livestock, cannot be underestimated. Although it was a complex process that varied from place to place, there can be little doubt that it was during the Neolithic that the foundations for the incredibly complex modern societies in which we live today were laid. However, we would be wrong to think that the first farming communities of Europe were in tune with nature and each other, as there is a considerable (and growing) body of archaeological data that is indicative of episodes of warfare between these communities. This evidence should not be taken as proof that warfare was endemic across Neolithic Europe, but it does strongly suggest that it was more common than some scholars have proposed.Furthermore, the words of the seventeenth-century English philosopher, Thomas Hobbes, who famously described prehistoric life as 'nasty, brutish, and short', seem rather apt in light of some of the archaeological discoveries from the European Neolithic.

Chapter 1

The Earliest Evidence for European Neolithic Warfare: Greece and the Balkans

Greece is a country that has long been famed for its ancient warfare. For example, many readers will be familiar with the semi-mythical Bronze Age warfare of Homer’s Iliad, the warfare of the Classical Greek city-states (Poleis) with its formidable Hoplite infantrymen, or the heroic resistance of the Spartan king, Leonidas, and his vastly outnumbered army at the pass of Thermopylae. But is there any evidence to suggest that the Neolithic farming communities of Greece also engaged in warfare? The answer to this question is yes. However, some would beg to differ, as although attitudes are beginning to change as a result of the evidence coming out of other parts of Europe, to some extent, there is still something of an archaeological reluctance to acknowledge Greek Neolithic warfare. This is probably understandable given that in comparison to other parts of Europe, the evidence for Neolithic warfare in Greece is perhaps somewhat ambiguous. Nevertheless, it has been argued – on the basis of the archaeological evidence found here – that there is strong circumstantial evidence for warfare in Neolithic Thessaly at least, and that it would be somewhat odd if warfare did not exist in Neolithic Greece at all.1 Indeed, as we will see, it is not just in Thessaly that we arguably have ‘circumstantial’ evidence for Greek Neolithic warfare.

It could also be possible that Thessalian Neolithic warfare was similar to that which occurred in the American south-west prior to European contact, as this huge region had environmental and cultural conditions similar to those seen in Thessaly. This rich archaeological ‘laboratory’, which has been a training ground for many American archaeologists, was home to the famous Anasazi people, whose later sites (c. 1240–1300 AD) have produced some of the best evidence for prehistoric warfare in general. This warfare seems to have been sparked by a series of droughts that began in the latter half of the twelfth century, and which increasingly got worse in the thirteenth century, leading to a lack of resources for a growing population. By the mid-13th century, serious warfare had come to the Anasazi region, as revealed by the burned and destroyed houses, people killed by arrows, and decapitated individuals found at several Anasazi sites from this time. Evidence of scalping and cannibalism has also been noted on Anasazi skeletons, with people perhaps being driven to eat each other because of starvation. Undoubtedly, the most impressive reminder of Anasazi warfare are the remarkable cliff-top dwellings that were built high up on steep mesas in remote canyons. Many survive to this day in superb and somewhat ghostly states of preservation, appearing as though their inhabitants have only just abandoned them (Fig. 3).

Analysis of the distribution of Neolithic settlements in Thessaly also suggests that as in the American South-West, these settlements were separated by empty territory.2 In the latter region, no-man’s-lands were necessary buffer zones that separated groups of that were at war with one another, or who at the least, wished to distance themselves from potential enemies

Greek Cave Burials: Evidence of Warfare?

As was the case with many other Neolithic communities in Europe, those who lived in Greece used caves as burial places. Although caves would have provided convenient areas for the disposal of the dead, it is more likely that people were often buried in them for spiritual rather than practical reasons. Numerous ethnographic accounts from around the world have shown how many societies have viewed (and still view) caves as sacred places that provide portals or doorways to the supernatural world. Whatever the reasoning behind Greek Neolithic cave burials, human remains recovered from some examples display injuries that may point towards outbreaks of warfare.

Perhaps the most intriguing of these remains are those recovered from Alepotrypa Cave, which is located at Diros Bay on the Tainaron Peninsula of southern Greece. This important and impressive site was discovered in 1958, and the subsequent excavations that have taken place here since 1970 have uncovered much fascinating evidence relating to life at the cave during the latter stages of the Neolithic c. 5000–3200 BC (e.g. flint and obsidian tools, marble and clay figurines, copper daggers, clay ovens, and numerous domesticated animal bones). Hundreds of people may well have lived in the cave at any one time, as it covers an area roughly the size of four football pitches.

There were two main burial areas in the cave, and the remains of at least 161 people were recovered, with people interred in multiple and single burials (a small, discrete corner of the cave also contained two child cremation burials). From our perspective, the most interesting aspect of this skeletal material is that small, circular (sometimes multiple) depressed fractures feature on 13 per cent of the skulls. All of these fractures had healed before death and were found on the skulls of males, females, and older children. These fractures may indicate non-lethal ritual combat carried out in order to reslove various disputes. Such combat is not uncommon among tribal peoples, with the stick or machete fights (the non-cutting edges of machetes were used) fights of the Yanamamö Indians providing a well-known example. Similarly, among the Surma people of southern Sudan and south-western Ethiopia, stick fighting is known as donga or saginay and often takes place between two men seeking the same bride. Occasionally, however, as is the case elsewhere with non-lethal ritual combat, deaths have occasionally occurred during these Yanamamö and Surma ritual fights.

Healed depressed fractures reminiscent of those from Alepotrypa Cave have been documented not only on other Neolithic European skulls (e.g. those found in British Neolithic tombs), but also on those recovered from ancient sites in the New World. For example, numerous healed fractures have been recorded on Chumash Indian skulls from southern California, and also on those recovered from sites of the Chinchorro people of northern Chile. It has been suggested that injuries seen on the Chinchorro skulls may point towards violent mock fights involving the throwing of stones, which were carried out during funerary rituals.3 Alternatively, it could be that the trauma seen on skulls is related to disputes over harvesting and hunting grounds, the procurement of mates, or other personal arguments that had become over-heated and needed resolving. Whatever caused this Chinchorro cranial trauma, the fact that a quartz projectile point was also found embedded in the spine of one individual, indicates that not all Chinchorro fights were non-lethal, ritualised affairs.

Although it is perhaps more likely that the fractures seen on the Neolithic skulls from Alepotrypa Cave were received in ritual fights involving stones, clubs or sticks, we must also consider the possibility that sling bullets caused these fractures. It has been noted that the stone and clay sling bullets commonly found on Neolithic Greek sites (e.g. caches of sling bullets have been found at Sesklo, Rakhmani and Tsangli) are of a similar size, shape, and weight, as those used in the warfare of the later Classical period.4 Not all would agree that Neolithic sling bullets were weapons of war, however. Catherine Perlès, for example, has argued that the clay sling bullets at least would not have been suitable in this respect, as they would have been too light and fragile for use in war, and that it is more likely that as in parts of the modern Near East, they were used by shepherds to control wandering sheep.5 However, it has been pointed out that in the Neolithic Near East, similar sling bullets are fairly common in archaeological contexts associated with the attack and destruction of settlements, and are also known from the destruction levels noted at some Greek Early Bronze Age settlements.6 It could be reasonably argued, then, that Greek Neolithic sling bullets were indeed a weapon of war used in the attack and defence of the earliest farming settlements in Greece.

The multiple burial of eight people that was found in Alepotrypa Cave, which comprises both young adults and children, should also be mentioned here. These people seem to have been buried rather haphazardly, and, a number of bones were also missing from their skeletons. One individual had been buried lying face down in an extended position, and although there were no signs of violence evident on the skeletons, the possibility remains that the individuals in this burial were violently killed, as a lack of traumatic injuries does not necessarily equal a peaceful death. Also, the skull of an individual found at Alepotrypa Cave is said to have displayed a large, unhealed wound. However, this skull has unfortunately since gone missing, and thus the nature and severity of this wound remain unknown.

Also of interest are discoveries made at the cemetery associated with the Late Neolithic settlement of Kephala in the Aegean Islands (over sixty skeletons were found, representing one of the largest and best-preserved Neolithic mortuary samples from Greece). A partially healed injury was noted on a male skull found in the cemetery, which took the form of a small hole, 8 x 11 mm in size that was surrounded by a healed depression with cuts around it. It may be that this depression is related to the removal of some sort of projectile point. If so, it seemed that the man had survived this probable projectile wound for some time, although eventually, it probably became fatally infected. Also found at the cemetery was a grave containing two adult males who do not appear to have been accorded much respect when they died. One man was laid on his front with his leg bent towards his head, the other lay on his back, his legs bent under his body. The positions of both bodies suggest that the dead men were simply dropped in the grave, and the fact that they are also likely to have been buried very shortly after they died (probably within twelve hours) strengthens the case for violent rather than peaceful death. Another adult male skull from Kephala appears to have suffered from a head wound, probably caused by a blade of some sort. It is also interesting to note that two holes had been drilled into both parietal bones (the bones forming the sides and roof of the skull) after the man’s death, suggesting that it may have been hung up and displayed somewhere in the settlement. Another possible casualty of war was found at the famous Early Neolithic settlement of Neo Nikomedeia in central Macedonia, a site which has yielded a wealth of evidence pertaining to the lives of Greece’s first farmers. The body of a young man was recovered from one of the graves found at the site. Curiously, he had a large polished stone between his teeth, but of more interest was the serious wound on his skull, which could indicate that he died in violent circumstances.

Dimini and Sesklo: Fortified Sites?

As is the case elsewhere in Europe, there are Neolithic settlements in Greece that have architectural features which are arguably defensive in nature. Those found at the famous ‘tell’ sites of Dimini and Sesklo in Thessaly providing us with an obvious starting point. Tells are the characteristic settlement of the Greek and Balkan Neolithic and originate in the Neolithic Near East, although ‘flat’ settlements lacking the tells or mounds that built up as the result of successive episodes of habitation, are also known.

Initially excavated between 1899 and 1906 by Christos Tsountas, Dimini and Sesklo were the first Neolithic settlements uncovered in Greece, and Tsountas was the first archaeologist to propose they were fortified sites in his classic volume The Prehistoric Citadels of Dimini and Sesklo (1908). This idea has since become less popular, but several archaeologists still follow Tsountas, arguing that the evidence favours the idea that both Dimini and Sesklo were defended Neolithic settlements. The two sites are located only a few miles apart near the north-eastern coast of Thessaly, with the former being the more impressive of the two, at least in terms of its possible defensive architecture. Located on a schist outcrop at 18 m above sea level, Dimini was inhabited during the Late Neolithic between c.4800–4500 BC and the settlement (which covers about 1 hectare) basically comprises six or seven stone-walled enclosures that encircle habitation terraces and a central courtyard at the top of a hill on which the remains of a large three-roomed building or ‘megaron’ were discovered (Fig. 4). This structure may possibly date to the Early Bronze Age, but a comparison with similar buildings found at other Late Neolithic Greek settlements (e.g. Ayia Sophia Magoula, Magoula Visviki, and Sesklo) suggests that this is unlikely. Some archaeologists have – not implausibly – viewed these buildings as the dwelling places of elite families or groups who sat at the head of a stratified Neolithic society, and who controlled agricultural surplus and other products. Of course, it could be possible that these structures were actually communal buildings of some sort used by the whole village. However, the former idea is perhaps more likely, given that the archaeological record of Neolithic Europe supports the idea that there were privileged individuals and groups who were socially elevated above other members of society.

The enclosure walls at Dimini measure c. 1.5 m in width, and although they do not seem to have been particularly high (less than 3 m) we cannot rule out the possibility that they were further heightened by the addition of adobe (mud brick) walls or even wooden palisades. The idea that these possible fortification walls had a defensive function have been challenged by some Greek archaeologists such as George Hourmouziadis, who undertook further excavations at the site in the 1970s. As Dimitra Kokkinidou and Marianna Nikolaidou have noted, Hourmouziadis ‘postulated that the encircling walls were designed for organising habitational space and for facilitating craft/industrial pursuits and storage’.7

Measuring some 12 hectares in size Sesklo was a substantial settlement inhabited (not continuously) from the Early Neolithic down to the Bronze Age c. 6500–1500 BC. It has been estimated that at its height, its population may perhaps have measured in the low thousands (this estimate has since been revised significantly downwards by some archaeologists into the low hundreds). The site is divided into two separate areas of habitation: the tell or acropolis (Sesklo A) excavated by Christos Tsountas in the early twentieth century, and the outlying lower settlement or polis, excavated by D.R. Theocharis between 1956–1981. In contrast to the smaller site of Dimini, the possible fortifications at Sesklo are less substantial, with stone walls (c. 1 m in width) enclosing parts of the tell and a central court with megaron, as at Dimini.

As with the Dimini enclosures, the idea that the walls at Sesklo were defensive in nature has since been questioned, with some archaeologists arguing that it is more probable that they functioned as retaining walls, supporting terraces on which the houses were built. However, as the original height of the walls is uncertain, as at the Dimini enclosures, we cannot be sure that those at Sesklo were also not capped with superstructures of some kind, providing a more formidable barrier to any potential enemies.

The counter-arguments against the enclosures at both Dimini and Sesklo are admittedly plausible, and more archaeologists than not now probably favour a non-defensive function for these famous sites. Nonetheless, a closer look at their architecture may suggest otherwise, for the most notable aspect of these enclosures is that they both incorporate baffle gates. Baffle gates are a characteristic feature of historic and ethnographically documented fortified sites around the world and for example, they were used extensively in Roman fortifications and were known as clavicula. The first European settlers in the New World also encountered baffle gates incorporated into native fortifications, in places such as north-eastern America, Africa, and Mexico. Lawrence Keeley et al. have noted that ‘Baffled gates force attackers who enter them to expose their flanks and rear to defenders’ fire. Ideally, they require attackers to turn left exposing their unshielded right side’.8

Interestingly, the baffle gate at Middle Neolithic Sesklo is located on the western side of the site, which is not ‘defended’ by the steep ravine that delimits the eastern part of the settlement. The inhabitants of Dimini also built baffle gates in both the northern and southern ends of the walls, and a further two were located in the western quadrant, with a fifth perhaps located to the south-east. The narrow gateways and corridors that led into the habitation and working areas at Dimini may also have been intended as defensive features, being put in place to slow down and hinder any potential attackers.

It is perhaps also of some significance that the site of Sesklo shows signs of extensive burning and destruction, and archaeological evidence from the Late Neolithic settlement of Pyrgos, which was discovered just 250 m to the north of Sesklo may also be of some interest to us. The excavation of this site in 1979 revealed the remains of a small settlement or hamlet comprising a small cluster of houses, and a thick layer of burnt debris found sandwiched between two separate archaeological deposits indicated that a fierce fire had swept through the settlement at some point. Evidence for the deliberate burning of houses was also discovered during R.J. Rodden’s excavations at Nea Nikomedeia in the 1960s.

In fact, the burning of houses is actually a widespread phenomenon in the Neolithic of south-eastern Europe in general (and is not uncommon in other parts of Europe). Archaeologists have argued that this house burning represents a ritualised act marking the end/beginning of the use-life of a house (perhaps occurring after the head of the household died). Similar arguments have been put forth in regard to other examples of burnt Neolithic houses and halls found elsewhere in Europe, such as the impressive examples uncovered on Dorstone Hill, Herefordshire. However it remains quite possible (if not probable) that some of these houses were actually burnt to the ground by enemy raiding parties. As we will see below, this certainly seems to have been the case further to the North in parts of Bulgaria. Of course, there is also a distinct possibility that many Neolithic houses simply burnt down by accident, as the materials they were built with (e.g. wood, thatch), would have been very susceptible to accidental fires.

If the people of Dimini and Sesklo did indeed defend themselves by building fortifications, the reason behind their construction can only be speculated upon. However, at Dimini at least, it may have been because some of its inhabitants were in control of the production and exchange of an exotic and ‘valuable’ (in terms of social power) commodity, which was gazed on with envious eyes by other Neolithic groups in the wider region. This commodity came in the form of personal ornaments (e.g. rings, cylinder beads, and buttons) made from the shells of spondylus gaederopus – the European thorny/spiny oyster, which is found in the Mediterranean and Adriatic. It may be, as some experts have argued, that Late Neolithic Dimini was a spondylus production centre and was an important hub in a far-reaching trade and exchange network, along which spondylus shell ornaments passed. These were exported to other Neolithic communities who lived many miles from Greece and for example, spondylus ornaments are often found in graves belonging to people of the famous LBK culture of central and Western Europe, who we will meet again in the next chapter. Spondylus ornaments may well have been used by a...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Acknowledgements
• Introduction
• Chapter 1: The Earliest Evidence for European Neolithic Warfare: Greece and the Balkans
• Chapter 2: Warfare in the Linearbandkeramik/Linear Pottery Culture
• Chapter 3: Corded Ware and Bell Beaker Burials: Evidence of Warfare and Warrior Groups?
• Chapter 4: France and Italy
• Chapter 5: The Iberian Peninsula
• Chapter 6: The British Isles
• Notes
• Bibliography
• Plate section