Transdisciplinary Approach to Language Study: The Complexity Theory Perspective
This book is about complexity-driven, trandsisciplinary approach to language study. It illustrates how complexity science can be applied in the research of language and society in order to create and sustain a transdisciplinary dialogue across interested
- PDF / 436,085 Bytes
- 22 Pages / 532.638 x 694.598 pts Page_size
- 7 Downloads / 157 Views
Anthropology, archaeology, and the origin of warfare I. J. N. Thorpe
Abstract The main theories of the origin of warfare – from evolutionary psychology, materialism, and historical contingency – are examined. Their implications and their use of anthropological evidence, especially for the Yanomamö of the Amazon, are explored, then their relationship to the Palaeolithic and Mesolithic archaeological record. The early prehistoric evidence for conflict and warfare, mainly from Europe, is considered, from individual injuries, mostly from club wounds to the skull and death by arrowshot, to mass killings which could have destroyed a group. The enormous regional variation in this evidence is set against universal theories which imply uniformity and are thus found wanting.
Keywords Warfare; Palaeolithic; Mesolithic; conflict; evolutionary psychology; materialism.
Introduction Conflict is clearly a significant area of current study in both archaeology and anthropology, as the number of recent overviews and volumes of case studies attests (e.g. Keegan 1993; Redmond 1994; Reyna and Downs 1994; Keeley 1996; Martin and Frayer 1997; Carman and Harding 1999). Not only is it a subject of great importance in its own right, but it touches on several other major issues, such as the use by evolutionary psychology of archaeological evidence, the history and biases of archaeology as a discipline, and the nature of archaeological evidence. Origins are always attractive subjects, and the origin of war is no exception, having been considered recently from the viewpoint of biological anthropology (e.g. Wrangham 1999), social anthropology (e.g. Kelly 2000), military history (e.g. Keegan 1993), history (e.g. Dawson 2001), and archaeology (e.g. Keeley 1996). The greatest interest in early war has been shown by anthropologists, as it is central to that elusive quality, ‘human nature’. Archaeology has largely been an onlooker in this argument (with Ferguson (1997a) an exception). World Archaeology Vol. 35(1): 145–165 The Social Commemoration of Warfare © 2003 Taylor & Francis Ltd ISSN 0043-8243 print/1470-1375 online DOI: 10.1080/0043824032000079198
72Q 10thorpe (ds) Page 146 Monday, May 19, 2003 3:02 PM
146
I. J. N. Thorpe
Interest in ancient warfare has been stimulated by Keeley’s polemical War before Civilization: The Myth of the Peaceful Savage (1996). He seeks to demolish a ‘myth’ promoted by archaeologists and anthropologists who have attempted to pacify the past. Keeley’s broadside has been variously received, Kristiansen (1999: 188) describing it as ‘inspirational’, but others are highly critical (e.g. Ferguson 1997b; Otterbein 1997). From an American perspective, with the dramatic shift in interpretation of the Maya from peace-loving to war-like (Culbert 1988), Keeley’s critique works, but European archaeologists have always seen the Bronze Age as a time of warriors, rendering his case far less persuasive. The prime difficulty with Keeley’s argument is that, although he rightly points to the high incidence of ethnographically re
Data Loading...
