Discussão - O Debate da guerra primitiva pré-histórica pela Arqueologia (recente) portuguesa

por Luis Lobato de Faria

Discussão do Post: Debate da guerra primitiva pré-histórica pela Arqueologia (recente) portuguesa

Discussão também no Forum

A minha Definição de guerra primitiva pré-histórica:

Violência interpessoal colectiva entre duas ou mais comunidades políticas distintas, com o uso de armas tendo como objectivo causar fatalidades, por um assunto colectivo e sem hipótese de compensação.

As Formas de guerra primitiva pré-histórica:

-O Raid

-O Massacre - (vários)

-A Batalha campal - (figuras)
Guerra primitiva pré-histórica que a meu ver teve uma elevada Frequência e um importante papel nas sociedades pré-históricas e na sua evolução.

Em Portugal temos autores que defendem uma guerra primitiva pré-histórica a partir do 4º milénio baseando-se no aparecimento de fortificações em pedra:

- "...a transição do 4º para o 3º milénio no centro e Sul de Portugal ......mas com a tradução de efectivos confrontos....." Gonçalves (2000, p. 95).

- "...in South-West Iberia......that began in the Late Neolithic, in the second half of the IV millennium cal BC... forms of negative interaction (warfare)." Soares e Silva (1998, p. 233).

- "...Calcolítico na Península Ibérica...o motivo deve ter sido a guerra..."Kunst (2000, p. 136).

Esta origem da guerra no Calcolítico da Península Ibérica, entre diferentes comunidades, por uma acumulação de excedentes resultante da revolução de produtos secundários, parece-me pouco plausível:

- Acho importante uma melhor definição, por parte dos autores, de que guerra estamos a falar, sob que formas e com que frequência, Só assim podemos partir para as funções desta guerra na sociedade e o seu papel na evolução das mesmas (e temos aqui o busilis de toda esta problemática).

- Coloco desde já uma questão: os excedentes existiam desde o início da domesticação e agricultura no Neolítico, no entanto as sociedades mantiveram-se (supostamente) igualitárias até ao Calcolítico?
- Pela Bioantropologia chegam-nos evidências de guerra primitiva pré-histórica europeia de um passado tão distante como o Mesolítico (com, por exemplo, Thorpe, 1999 e 2003) ou o Neolítico (com, por exemplo, Guillaine e Zammit, 2002).

- Para a Península Ibérica algumas evidências (por exemplo: Sima de los Huesos ou Bóbila Madurell).

- Evidências encontradas apesar de rituais destrutivos para as ossadas como a cremação neolítica.

- Existe também a hipótese de muitas das armas consideradas como grave goods e encontradas nas sepultura neolíticas terem lá chegado dentro das ossadas (Palomo i Pérez e Gibaja Bao, 2003, p.179).

- A Arte Rupestre Levantina, certamente anterior ao Calcolítico, tem muitas representações de guerra pré-histórica primitiva.
- A construção de sistemas defensivos tão evoluídos teve que ser antecedido por outros mais simples (logo mais difíceis de encontrar no registo arqueológico, madeira por exemplo), esta situação aconteceu entre os Maori (Keegan, 1994, p. 103-106).

Outros autores portugueses não encontram, nos recintos murados da Península Ibérica, evidências de grande frequência de guerra primitiva pré-histórica:

- "...longe de serem sedes de confrontos militares...funcionariam então como garantes de um equilíbrio regional, qual situação de paz armada..." Senna-Martinez (1998, p. 222).

- "O poder não estava, com efeito, na ponta das lanças ou no gume das espadas, mas no jogo de constrangimentos imposto pela ostentação de determinados bens e pelo simbolismo guerreiro que, por si só, intimida (Bourdieu, 1989)” Vilaça (1998, p. 213).

- "...emerging elites tend to consolidate their status not only trought armed repression, but by ideological means, as religious activities, prestige goods, or unproductive public works." Oosterbeek (1997, p.126).

- "..negociação essa que de modo algum se pode reduzir a uma função caricaturalmente identificada com defesa-ataque.”Jorge (2005, p. 52).

- “…torres de menagem dos castelos, dispositivo mais muçulmano que cristão – torres essas que eram essencialmente um dispositivo simbólico, e talvez de observação à distância (imagino eu), o que seria já uma interessante forma de “poder” sobre o território – constituiriam uma autêntica “armadilha para ratos”, quer dizer, se o castelo fosse tomado e o senhor fosse cercado na torre com a sua soldadesca, teria pouca possibilidade de sai de lá vivo.” Jorge (Blog Trans-Ferir,14 de Junho de 2007, 12.00 horas).

Concordo com o ritual que envolve o mundo bélico e com as sua inúmeras funções. No mesmo sentido penso que os recintos murados têm um grande significado simbólico. Agora temos evidências de que seriam efectivamente funcionais. Passo a apresentar os meus argumentos:
- De novo a necessidade de definições, formas e frequência da guerra primitiva pré-histórica, ou será que pura e simplesmente não existia?

- De novo as evidências da Biontropologia e da Arte Rupestre Levantina.

- Quanto à Fortificação (recintos murados) e evidências de guerra primitiva pré-histórica:
Nunes (2005, p. 119) define fortificação como: "Expressão genérica que designa todos os trabalhos e obras de defesa militar…ciência ou arte de fortificar…O termo engloba não só as fortalezas mas ainda todos os meios e obras de valorização do terreno para fins defensivos como as abatizes, cavalos de frisa, covas de lobo, armadilhas, paliçadas, remoções de terra, fossos e outras…".
Para Harding (2003, p. 287): "Los poblados com fortificaciones son la primera muestra de conflictos y agresiones intergrupales, pero también hay que tener en cuenta los poblados con restos de incendio e de esqueletos sin un enterramiento formal.".
Segundo Aranda Jiménez e Sánchez Romero (2005, p. 184), entre 3000-2500 a.C., na Península Ibérica, temos novas estratégias defensivas com diferentes níveis de complexidade: sítios em localizações naturalmente defensáveis; construções de muralhas de pedra que protegem as zonas mais acessíveis destes sítios; bastiões e torres construídos nestas muralhas; fortes localizados em locais estratégicos com controle visual do território; entradas dos sítios fortemente defendidas; sistemas complexos de fossos defensivos.
Kunst (2000, p. 136) acerca das fortificações calcolíticas: "As construções defensivas destes povoados implicam um grande investimento em mão-de-obra, e os locais em que se implantam, muitas vezes em terrenos altos traziam problemas…de abastecimento…tudo devia ser transportado para cima…o motivo deve ter sido a guerra. Só por esta razão se percebem todas as obras verificadas em várias fortificações calcolíticas, realizadas ampliações, reparações ou modificações das estruturas defensivas.".

"Uma força militar pequena, dentro de uma fortificação e com mantimentos, é extremamente perigosa, encontra-se protegida contra ataques podendo lançar os seus contra-ataques, nunca perdendo controle do território. O seu valor militar aumenta em relação a um exército em campo aberto. Uma força atacante tem que ser mais numerosa para poder cercar uma fortificação e tem sempre o tempo contra si (campanhas realizadas nas estações do ano mais amenas), encontra-se em território hostil e em constante busca de mantimentos. Se uma força atacante não possuir armas de ataque às muralhas as hipóteses de conquistar a fortificação são diminutas (como exemplo temos os Maori e os Mongóis). A afirmação "...uma autêntica "armadilha para ratos", quer dizer, se o castelo fosse tomado e se um senhor fosse cercado na torre com a sua soldadesca, teria pouca possibilidade de sair de lá vivo."(Jorge, 14 de Junho de 2007, Blog Trans-Ferir) parece-me estranha.Uma torre faz parte de um sistema defensivo, se o castelo for tomado pode ser a última chance de sobrevivência dos sitiados, uma segunda linha de defesa. Resumindo, o objectivo é não sair de lá." Recibos (Blog Trans-Ferir, 7 de Março de 2008, 20.37 horas).
Temos então:
- Habitats estrategicamente localizados em locais com defesas naturais ou com boa visibilidade.
- Existência de terras de ninguém entre diferentes territórios.
- Existência de inter visibilidade entre habitats.
- Habitats que controlam rotas ou recursos.
- Reparação e evolução de sistemas defensivos:

"....a destruição e a reconstrução de torres e panos de muralha não parece ter a ver com simbolismos revistos ou acrescidos, mas com a tradução de efectivos confrontos, originando reparações pontuais ou mesmo revisões estratégicas dos dispositivos defensivos.” Gonçalves (2000, p. 95).
Delibes de Castro e Santiago Pardo (1997, p. 92) descrevem a evolução do sistema defensivo do Zambujal, no Calcolítico da Estremadura portuguesa: no início temos a protecção de um recinto central com torres maciças de 6 metros de diâmetro e 4 de altura, unidas por muralhas e 1-2 metros de espessura, envolvidas por mais duas linhas de muralhas; depois a fortaleza é ampliada e reforçada no seu sector mais exposto e as três linhas de muralhas ganham mais estruturas defensivas como torres maciças e bastiões ocos, o acesso ao segundo recinto é limitado; num momento seguinte temos uma mudança táctica em que as linhas defensivas ganham autonomia, as estruturas são reforçadas e os acessos limitados, os bastiões tornam-se mais maciços e os muros mais espessos, o reduto nuclear atinge os 15 metros de espessura, nesta cidadela a defesa como a ser exercida a partir da parte superior em amplas plataformas; numa última fase temos a incorporação de mais bastiões mas começa o movimento de contracção desta fortaleza.
Segundo Kunst (2000, p. 137) no Zambujal podemos identificar algumas evoluções técnicas nas estruturas defensivas com o enchimento de pátios e bastiões com terra e pedras de modo a criar plataformas elevadas que permitem o ataque de cima, temos também a construção de torres ocas no pano da muralha que permitem a melhor visibilidade e defesa desta.
- Sistemas defensivos funcionais (pouco estéticos ou monumentais):
- Bastiões ou torres nas muralhas.
Nunes (2005, p. 233) traz-nos torre: "…construção prismática ou cilíndrica colocada principalmente nas quebras de direcção dos muros, a defender as entradas ou nos muros muito extensos da cerca da fortaleza…Era normalmente mais alta do que a muralha em que está inserida e permitia o flanqueamento desta pela diminuição dos ângulos mortos de visão ou o reforço de pontos de pontos de zonas de difícil defesa…".
- Muralhas, por vezes com várias cinturas.
Nunes (2005, p. 180) define muralha: "Muro construído normalmente de pedra, ladrilho ou taipa que constituía a defesa de uma fortaleza ou de uma povoação e que, pela sua altura, espessura e disposição, se destinava a evitar o seu escalonamento, destruição…". Nunes traz-nos ainda paliçada: "Defesa exterior formada por estacas cravadas verticalmente no terreno, muito próximas umas das outras e ligadas entre si para constituírem uma estrutura firme…".
- Seteiras (inicio da discussão, continuação, Los Millares e Zambujal)

- Cavalos de frisa.

- Fortes dependentes de povoados maiores.

- Sinais de destruição dos habitats.
- Concentração de armas em locais suspeitos.

Mercer (2004, p. 152) traz-nos a seguinte leitura sobre a fortificação de Crickley Hill no Neolítico da Grã-Bretanha: "This phase Id enclosure also seems to have met a violent end. A massive concentration of leaf arrowheads lies along the line of the palisade, with dense clustering of over 400 arrowheads in the two entrances. This enclosure seems to have been the target of intensive and probably tactically marshaled archery".
Segundo Aranda Jiménez e Sánchez Romero (2005, p.188) temos um pormenor interessante: "Workshops specializing exclusively in arrowhead production have been found in Fort 1 at Los Millares (Molina et. al. 1986; Ramos et. al. 1991)…".
- Ossadas humanas em locais pouco próprios nos habitats.
Cardoso (1991, p. 80-81), acerca do habitat calcolítico de Leceia, relata o achado das ossadas e dois indivíduos numa zona de lixeira, estes indivíduos são do sexo masculino que o autor pensa tratarem-se dos de um grupo de atacantes.

Nota:

No futuro espero fazer uma abordagem dos seguintes temas: Impacto da domesticação do Equus; Mecanismos de assalto às fortificações; Armas; Outras formas de Arte; Papel das Associações tribais guerreiras no aparecimento das élites.

A acrescentar info da Bioantropologia (Eugénia Cunha, Miguel Telles Antunes,...), de autores estrangeiros da Peninsula ou sobre a Peninsula.

Referências:
ARANDA JIMÉNEZ, Gonzalo; SÁNCHEZ ROMERO, Margarita (2005) – The origins of warfare: later prehistory in southeastern Iberia. In PEARSON, Mike Parker; TORPE, I. J. N., eds – Warfare, violence and slavery in Prehistory. BAR Internacional Series, 1374, p.181-194.
DELIBES DE CASTRO, Germán; SANTIAGO PARDO, Jorge (1997) – Las fortificaciones de la Edad del cobre en la Peninsula Ibérica. In Garcia, J. A.; antona del vale; eds – La guerra en la anteguedad: una aproximación al origen de los ejércitos. Madrid: Ministerio de Defensa. p. 85-107.
CARDOSO, João Luís (1991) – Estudos Arqueológicos de Oeiras. Oeiras: Câmara Municipal de Oeiras. 2º Volume.

GONÇALVES, Vítor (2000) – Cobre, RPS e Fortificações na Centro e Sul de Portugal. Arqueologia 2000.

GUILAINE, Jean; ZAMMIT, Jean (2002) - Le sentier de la guerre : visages de la violence préhistorique. Paris: Éditions du Seuil.

JORGE, Susana Oliveira (2005) – O passado é redondo: dialogando com os sentidos dos primeiros recintos monumentais. Porto: Edições Afrontamento.
KUNST, Michael (2000) – A Guerra no Calcolítico na Península Ibérica. Era- Arqueologia. 2, p. 128-142.
MERCER, R. J. (2004) – The origins of warfare in the British Isles. In CARMAN, John; HARDING, Anthony, eds – Ancient warfare. Gloucestershire: Sutton Publishing, p.143-156.
NUNES, antónio Lopes Pires (2005) – Dicionário de arquitectura militar. Vale de Cambra: Caleidoscópio.

OOSTERBEEK, Luiz (1997) – War in the Chalcolithic? The meaning of Western Mediterranean Chalcolithic Hillforts. In CARMAN, John, ed (1997) – Material harm. Glasgow: Cruithne Press.

PALOMO I PÉREZ, Antoni; GIBAJA BAO, Juan Francisco (2003) – Análisis tecnomorfológica/funcional i experimental de las puntes de flexta. In La costa de can Martorell (Dosrius, El Marcéeme). Laietania. 14, p. 179-214.
SENNA-MARTINEZ, João Carlos de (1998) – Produção, ostentação e redistribuição: Estrutura Social e Economia Política no grupo Baiões/Santa Luzia. p. 218-230. In JORGE, S. O., ed.(1998) – Existe uma Idade do Bronze Atlântico. Sociedade, Hierarquização e Conflito. Lisboa: Instituto Português de Arqueologia, p. 218-230.
SOARES, Joaquina; SILVA, Carlos Tavares da (1998) – From the collapse of the chalcolithic mode of production to the development of the Bronze age societies in the south-west of Iberian península. p. 231-245. In JORGE, S. O., ed.(1998) – Existe uma Idade do Bronze Atlântico. Sociedade, Hierarquização e Conflito. Lisboa: Instituto Português de Arqueologia, p. 218-230.

THORPE, I. J. N. (2003) – Anthropology, archaeology and the origin of warfare. World Archaeology (The Social Commemoration of Warfare). 35: 1, p.145-165.
VENTURA, José; SENNA-MARTINEZ, João (2001) – Do conflito à guerra: Aspectos do desenvolvimento e institucionalização da violência na Pré-História Recente Peninsular. Turres Vetras (História Militar e Guerra). V.

VILAÇA, Raquel (1998) – Hierarquização e conflito no Bronze Final da Beira Interior. p. 302-317. In JORGE, S. O., ed.(1998) – Existe uma Idade do Bronze Atlântico. Sociedade, Hierarquização e Conflito. Lisboa: Instituto Português de Arqueologia, p. 218-230.

A Arte Rupestre Levantina da Península Ibérica

por Luis Lobato de FariaA Arte Rupestre acompanha o Homem desde o Paleolítico Superior até às sociedades etnográficas de hoje. Taçon e Chippindale (1994, p. 225) apud Nash (2005, p. 83) encontram mesmo uma mudança na guerra primitiva dos caçadores-recolectores da Austrália, há 20 000-10 000 anos e através da Arte Rupestre, temos então uma mudança de combates de pequena escala para batalhas de grande escala. Keeley (1997, p. 134) traz-nos confrontos etnográficos entre San, armados com arcos, e bantu com escudos, lanças e knobkerries. Harris descreve assim a Arte Rupestre da Idade do Bronze na Escandinávia: "Muchas escenas rupestres parecen representar gente luchando, es decir, hombres armados enfrentándose entre sí com armas – hachas por general – levantadas como para atacar (…) Generalmente essas escenas representan solo a uno o dos indivíduos…". Osgood et al. (2000, p. 59) descreve a Arte Rupestre da Galiza como a mais estudada para a Idade do Bronze, as armas representadas são adagas e alabardas, por vezes temos várias armas representadas que podem simbolizar uma deposição votiva. Nash (2005, p. 80) encontra a Arte Rupestre dos caçadores-recolectores da Europa concentrada em três zonas: Norte da Escandinávia, Val Camonica e Levante Espanhol.
A Arte Rupestre Levantina encontra-se na Península Ibérica na costa Este de Espanha, os arqueossítios com representações que podem ser interpretadas como batalhas e outros indícios de guerra primitiva encontram-se principalmente em dois grupos, um na zona de Castellón e outro na zona de Moratalla-Nerpio temos também representações com interesse dentro da temática, mas em menor número, em Teruel, Valência, Alicante e Albacete (Mateo Saura, 2000, p. 111-114). A datação da Arte da Arte Rupestre Levantina está envolta em polémica. Para Mateo Saura (2000) é obra de comunidades Epipaleolíticas. Beltrán (1999, p. 7-42) divide a esta forma de Arte em seis fases, tendo início no Epipaleolítico (antes de 12 000 BP) e continuando até ao Bronze (1200 a.C.), aparecendo as figuras humanas estilizadas na IV fase ou fase plena que andaria por 4 000 a.C.. Já Alonso Tejada e Grimal (1999, p. 43-76) apontam a criação da Arte Levantina para o período entre o VIII e o V milénio. Estudando a cultura material dos arqueossítios onde temos estas representações, Aparicio Pérez e Morote Barbeará (1999, p. 77-184) constatam que 63% das ocupações mais antigas se enquadram no Mesolítico entre 10 000 a.C. e 5 000 a.C., mas de um modo geral temos ocupações desde o Mesolítico até ao Bronze. Uma nova perspectiva surge com a possibilidade das figuras da Arte Levantava terem sido feitas por cima de Arte macro esquemática associada ao Neolítico Antigo, logo serem mais recentes (Guilaine e Zammit 2002, p. 139-140). Hernández (1992, p. 442) apud Kunst (2000, p. 135) chama a atenção para alguns dos objectos representados na Arte Levantina sugerirem uma datação do Calcolítico, como as representações de pontas de setas do tipo foliáceo e triangular. Nash (2005, p. 84) vê a Arte Levantina com origens no Mesolítico ou Neolítico. O início da Arte Levantina, segundo a maior parte dos autores referidos, deu-se no Epipaleolítico – Mesolítico.
A Arte Levantina é um documento directo para conhecer o quotidiano de quem a produziu, nas palavras de Mateo Saura (2000, p. 111): "…la pintura levantina es reflejo de la realidad social y económica de sus autores…". Segundo Nash (2005, p. 75): "Within the hunter-gatherer rock-art assemblage of Levantine Spain, however, there is a group of representational figures that portrait a society, the social and political framework of witch rests, in part, upon violence revealed in scenes execution, skirmishing and warfare (Beltrán 1968; 1982; Bosh Gimpera 1964; Cabré Aguiló 1915; Dams 1984; Mateu 2002; Nash 2000; Pericot Garcia 1950)". Não podemos esquecer o carácter ritual da Arte Rupestre, mas se existem representações de guerra primitiva é porque esta tem algum papel na sociedade que a realiza, como já foi frisado nesta tese.
Na Arte Levantina é possível reconhecer figuras humanas armadas com arcos e setas. Temos arqueiros em grupos que se confrontam, estes grupos variam em número, chegando a ter dezenas de elementos, e adoptam várias formações. Alguns dos intervenientes lançam flechas contra o outro grupo, enquanto que outros estão crivados de flechas. Nas palavras de Nash: "Warring scenes usually involve two sets of opposed (energetic) warriors, with bows drawn". Segundo Guilaine e Zammit (2002, p. 121): "Dos grupos de combatientes están tomando posiciones. A la derecha se situa una vintena de indivíduos (…) A la izquierda, quinze combatientes hacen la guerra: unos lanzan proyectiles…". Algumas pinturas são compostas por arqueiros de um mesmo grupo em várias formações, temos grupos estáticos a disparar os seus arcos, outros estão em movimento e parecem atacar o grupo adversário a partir de várias direcções. Temos então a presença de tácticas, nas palavras de Mateo Saura (2000, p. 116): "El estudio de la situación topográfica de cada motivo en estas composiciones de lucha ha servido para reseñar la utilización de diversas técnicas de lucha por parte de los combatientes (Jordá, 1975; Molinos, 1987), hablándose de estrategias y desdoblamientos tácticos…".
Mateo Saura (2000, p. 114) frisa que apesar do convencionalismo da Arte Levantina por vezes temos um tratamento distinto, uma tentativa de diferenciar os diferentes grupos, pela forma dos indivíduos ou mesmo pelos traços etnográficos. Para Guilaine e Zammit (2002, p. 123) as diferenças representam uma batalha entre povoações distintas com estilo e modo de actuar diferentes. Segundo Nash (2005, p.82) temos mesmo líderes e algum destaque da masculinidade: "…Within the Levantine material, warring archers appear to be ranked and are usually recognized by the varying complexity of the head-dresses. (…) many appear to have a phallus, suggesting that the artist is attempting to emphasize maleness…" Ainda segundo este autor os líderes ocupam lugares estrategicamente localizados na rectaguarda ou no flanco da batalha, representam possivelmente chefes que comandam as manobras da batalha (p. 84). Outra das diferenças encontradas é referida por Kuhn (1952) apud Nash (2005, p. 82) temos dois tipos de arco nas representações o que pode significar diferentes métodos de fabrico no tempo ou regionais. Os arcos representados variam entre pequenos arcos convexos e arcos compridos por vezes de dupla curvatura, os diferentes tipos de arcos apontam para alguma especialização e podem ser mesmo uma pista para encontrarmos grupos culturais diferentes (Guilaine e Zammit 2002, p. 84-86).
Outras representações merecem destaque, como o Abrigo de Sautoala de Nerpio, segundo Mateo Saura (2000, p. 114) temos uma pintura em que os arqueiros estão numa posição estática e disparam os seus arcos, contra o inimigo, protegidos por uma barreira, esta pode ser uma característica do meio, por exemplo um rio, pode também ser uma muralha ou uma paliçada, simboliza definitivamente uma fronteira. Segundo Guilaine e Zammit (2002, p. 130-134) outras representações mostram execuções, com vários indivíduos armados com arcos e flechas em fila e um indivíduo isolado crivado de flechas, podemos ter um castigo, um sacrifício ou a execução de prisioneiros. Mateo Saura (2000, p. 120) inclina-se mais para uma execução de prisioneiros que considera característica das sociedades de caçadores-recolectores. Existem representações que podem ser marchas de guerra, com os arqueiros em fila e adornados, armados com arcos e flechas e por vezes marchando para a batalha, estas representações podem também ser danças (Mateo Saura, 2000, p. 118-120).
Nas representações da Arte Rupestre Levantina não temos duelos de campeões que são característicos de períodos mais recentes. Estamos perante grupos distintos que se confrontam com armas e com a intenção de matar, segundo a maior parte das definições temos guerra. Esta guerra é semelhante á guerra primitiva na forma de uma batalha campal. Várias sociedades etnográficas possuem esta forma de guerra, por exemplo os Dani da Nova Guiné (Keeley, 1997, Foto n.º 1) ou os Murngin do Norte da Austrália (Warner apud Harris, 2004, p. 426), este último povo tem mesmo um homicídio ritual bastante semelhante às representações da Arte Levantina que parecem ser execuções.
Mateo Saura (2000, p. 124), acerca das causas desta guerra primitiva, explica: "…coincidimos com la idea ya expuesta hace años por J. Cabré (1915) de que la causa última para estos enfrentamientos reflejados en las pinturas pudiera ser la penetración de cazadores en las demarcaciones territoriales controladas por otros grupos humanos, obligados por una diminución temporal de caza, o escasez de la misma, en su propio espacio de control.". Para Mateo Saura (2000, p. 111) os grupos humanos que produziram a Arte Levantina são uma sociedade de bandos dedicada à caça e à recolecção, sem agricultura e pastorícia. Enquanto que para Guilaine e Zammit (2002, 134-136) o elevado número de arqueiros em batalha, em algumas composições, aponta grupos com perto de uma centena de indivíduos, somando mulheres e crianças, estes números apontam para sociedades já com agricultura e pastorícia.

Referências:
APARICIO PÉREZ, j.; MOROTE BARBERÁ, J. Guillermo (1999) – Yacimientos arqueológicos y datación del A. R. L. in Cronologia del Arte rupestre levantino. Valência: Real Academia de Cultura Valenciana.
BELTRÁN, António (1999) – Cronologia del Arte levantino: cuestiones críticas. In Cronologia del Arte rupestre levantino. Valência: Real Academia de Cultura Valenciana.
GUILAINE, Jean; Zammit, Jean (2002) - Le sentier de la guerre : visages de la violence préhistorique. Paris: Éditions du Seuil.
HARRIS, Marvin (2004) – Introducción a la Antropologia general. Madrid: Alianza Editorial. 7.ª Edición.
KEELEY, Lawrence (1997) - War before civilization: The myth of thepeaceful savage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
KUNST, Michael (2000) – A Guerra no Calcolítico na Península Ibérica. Era- Arqueologia. 2, p. 128-142.
MATEO SAURA (2000) – La Guerra en la Vida de las Comunidades Epipaleolíticas del Mediterráneo Peninsular. Era- Arqueologia. Lisboa: Colibri 2, p. 110- 127.
NASH, George (2005) – Assessing rank and warfare-strategy in prehistoric hunter-gatherer society : a study of representational warrior figures in rock-art from the Spanish Levant, southeastern Spain. In PEARSON, Mike Parker; TORPE, I. J. N., eds – Warfare, violence and slavery in Prehistory. BAR Internacional Series, 1374, p. 75-86.
OSGOOD, Richard; monks, Sarah; Toms, Judith (2000) – Bronze age warfare. London: Sutton Publishing.

Fortes

por Luis Lobato de Faria
Nunes (2005, p. 118) define forte como: "Pequena fortificação isolada que, podendo ser autónoma, depende muitas vezes, de uma praça principal…".
Segundo Kunst (2000, p. 138) a fortaleza de Los Millares está rodeada por mais de dez fortins, estes controlam toda a área povoada e também o acesso ao mesmo pelas montanhas.
Aranda Jiménez e Sánchez Romero (2005, p.184) descrevem a primeira linha de defesa de Los Millares: "…The overall defensive system at Los Millares has two further lines of forts placed in strategic positions on the tops of higher hills. These forts protect the southern flank of the settlement for two kilometers and close the access along the rambla of Huechar another adjacent areas". Ainda segundo os mesmos autores (p.188) temos um pormenor interessante: "Workshops specializing exclusively in arrowhead production have been found in Fort 1 at Los Millares (Molina et. al. 1986; Ramos et. al. 1991)…".
Delibes de Castro e Santiago Pardo (1997, p.97-98) acerca dos Fortins de Los millares: "…es le n.º 1, exhumado casi por completo, el que nos permite conocer con detalle el contraste existente entre sus dimensiones muy reducidas – es aproximadamente circular, con un radio de poco más de veinte metros – y la descomunal inversión energética para desplegada para fortificarlo (…) La estratégica situación de estos trece pequeños alcázares, la importancia de sus obras de fortificación y la estricta correspondencia de sus ocupaciones con la etapa de plenitud del plobado principal de Los Millares, avalan la idea de que todos ellos se integran en un mismo y ambicioso proyecto defensivo, en un sistema areotectónica general perfectamente planificado".
Os fortes são para mim uma das melhores evidências de guerra primitiva na Pré-História da Península Ibérica.

Referências:
ARANDA JIMÉNEZ, Gonzalo; SÁNCHEZ ROMERO, Margarita (2005) – The origins of warfare: later prehistory in southeastern Iberia. In PEARSON, Mike Parker; TORPE, I. J. N., eds – Warfare, violence and slavery in Prehistory. BAR Internacional Series, 1374, p.181-194.
DELIBES DE CASTRO, Germán; SANTIAGO PARDO, Jorge (1997) – Las fortificaciones de la Edad del cobre en la Peninsula Ibérica. In Garcia, J. A.; antona del vale; eds – La guerra en la anteguedad: una aproximación al origen de los ejércitos. Madrid: Ministerio de Defensa. p. 85-107.
KUNST, Michael (2000) – A Guerra no Calcolítico na Península Ibérica. Era- Arqueologia. 2, p. 128-142.
NUNES, antónio Lopes Pires (2005) – Dicionário de arquitectura militar. Vale de Cambra: Caleidoscópio.

Território e terras de ninguém

por Luis Lobato de Faria

A existência de territórios leve a que tenhamos fronteiras. Estas fronteiras entre diferentes comunidades podem estar desabitadas, temos então uma terra de ninguém. Esta situação pode ser um reflexo de guerra primitiva.
Segundo Ferrill (1989, p. 5): "Anthropologists have identified some common strategies in prehistoric times. One of them is to interdict use of unoccupied territory to prevent exploitation of its resources by others. Associated with that is the maintenance of the no man’s land between prehistoric communities. Tactics in such a strategy often did not involve full scale battles and consist mainly of raids and terrorism".
Segundo Keeley (1997, p.56): "But fortifications also have some significant strategic functions. They can offer extra protection to settlements on frontiers, which are often thinly settled or otherwise geographically exposed. Judging from ethnographic records, fortifications are most commonly located on hostile borders or frontiers".
Andersen e Rasmussen (1991, p.91) trazem-nos na transição do Mesolítico para o Neolítico do Norte da Jutlândia (Dinamarca), a seguinte situação: "…flint tools from Bjornsholm are generally much more regular and carefully made than at Ertebolle… may reflect the presence of different groups…complete lack of Ertebolle sites in the fiord at Tren A…The trend fiord is located half-way between the Bjornsholm and Ertebolle sites…this area was lying too close to the other settlements…".
Keeley (1997, p. 137) descreve: "…The colonization of Germany and the Low Countries by farmers of the Linear Pottery culture was accompanied by fortified border villages (Figure 9.2) and, in Belgium at least, a 20 to 30 kilometer (12 to 18 miles) no-man’s-land between these defended sites and the settlements of Final Mesolithic foragers (Figure 9.3).".
Acerca do Bronze Final da Beira Interior, Vilaça (1998, p. 211) comenta: "…parecem estar ausentes os centros com capitalidade económica e político administrativa. Este vazio sociopolítico e consequente neutralidade talvez se deva correlacionar com o carácter de passagem que atribuímos a esta região. Sendo neutral, podemos concebê-la também como fronteira…".
Oliveira (1997) encontra no Neolítico do Nordeste Alentejano possíveis fronteiras de menires que delimitam territórios de diferentes comunidades.

Referências:
ANDERSEN, Soreus H.; RASMUSSEN, Kaare Lund (1991) – Bjornsholm. A Sratified Kokkenmodding on the Central Limford, North Juntland. Journal of Danish Archaeology. Volume 10, p. 59-96.
FERRILL, arther (1989) – Neolithic warfare. In The Quarterly Journal of Military History.
OLIVEIRA, Jorge de (1997) – Monumentos megalíticos da bacia hidrográfica do rio Sever. Ibn Maruan, Revista Cultural do Concelho de Marvão. Lisboa: Colibri.
VILAÇA, Raquel (1998) – Hierarquização e conflito no Bronze Final da Beira Interior. In JORGE, S. O., ed. – Existe uma Idade do Bronze Atlântico. Sociedade, Hierarquização e Conflito. Lisboa: Instituto Português de Arqueologia, p. 302-317.

O Debate da guerra primitiva pré-histórica pela Arqueologia (recente) portuguesa

por Luis Lobato de Faria

No estudo da guerra a Arqueologia tem responsabilidades acrescidas pois é o registo mais directo, por vezes o único, da caminhada do Homem. Noutros ramos do saber, a guerra e as suas origens, são tema de debate há já algum tempo com Escolas, hipóteses e teorias baseadas numa discussão que ultrapassa fronteiras e disciplinas.

Na Arqueologia só a partir da década de noventa é que realmente temos alguma discussão sobre a guerra na Pré-História.

Na Arqueologia portuguesa temos alguns investigadores que têm publicado, dentro e fora de Portugal, em português e inglês, no entanto o debate tem sido escasso e isolado.

Temos então as obras em que os autores abordam a guerra (ou não) pré-histórica no território que hoje é Portugal.

Uma continuação do trabalho iniciado em 1994:

JORGE, Susana Oliveira (2005) – O passado é redondo: dialogando com os sentidos dos primeiros recintos monumentais. Porto: Edições Afrontamento.

Para os recintos monumentais do Calcolítico :“Assim, a simples existência, num espaço, de delimitações constrangedoras do movimento dos indivíduos teria, forçosamente de criar condições físicas potencialmente significativas da negociação de poder, intra e intercomunitário, negociação essa que de modo algum se pode reduzir a uma função caricaturalmente identificada com defesa-ataque.”. Jorge (2005, p. 52).

Um pioneiro lá fora:

OOSTERBEEK, Luiz (1997) – War in the Chalcolithic? The meaning of Western Mediterranean Chalcolithic Hillforts.

In CARMAN, John, ed (1997) – Material harm. Glasgow: Cruithne Press.

Sobre as fortificações no Calcolítico:

"Anthropologists suggested, a long time ago, that population increases generates increasing endogenous conflit and tension (Lévi-Strauss 1980), and from it emerging elites tend to consolidate their status not only trought armed repression, but by ideological means, as religious activities, prestige goods, or unproductive public works. I believe that this is what the hillforts are all about.". Oosterbeek (1997, p.126)

Uma obra de referência:

JORGE, S. O., ed.(1998) – Existe uma Idade do Bronze Atlântico. Sociedade, Hierarquização e Conflito. Lisboa: Instituto Português de Arqueologia, p. 218-230.

Com os contributos de:

FERNÁNDEZ-POSSE, M. Dolores; IGNACIO MONTERO (1998) – Una visión de la metalurgia atlântica en el interior de la Península Ibérica. p. 218-230.

SENNA-MARTINEZ, João Carlos de (1998) – Produção, ostentação e redistribuição: Estrutura Social e Economia Política no grupo Baiões/Santa Luzia. p. 218-230.

Para a Idade do Bronze do norte de Portugal: “…os sítios de habitat principais, longe de serem sedes de confrontos militares, opondo-se entre si, funcionariam então como garantes de um equilíbrio regional, qual situação de paz armada, possibilitando uma mútua cooperação que permitisse o funcionamento regular de mecanismos de circulação de pessoas e bens indispensáveis ao sistema de wealth finance que pensamos fundamentaria a economia e o poder das elites locais.” Senna-Martinez (1998, p. 222)

SOARES, Joaquina; SILVA, Carlos Tavares da (1998) – From the collapse of the chalcolithic mode of production to the development of the Bronze age societies in the south-west of Iberian península. p. 231-245.

Acerca do povoamento Cacolítico no Sudoeste da Península Ibérica: “The Chalcolithic in South-West Iberia…mode of production developed in the context of the Secondary Products revolution (Sherrat, 1983, p. 234)…that began in the Late Neolithic, in the second half of the IV millennium cal BC…were crucial for accumulating a significant surplus which created favorable conditions for demographic growth, an increase of sedentism, the first forms of proto-urbanism and forms of negative interaction (warfare).” Soares e Silva (1998, p. 233)

VILAÇA, Raquel (1998) – Hierarquização e conflito no Bronze Final da Beira Interior. p. 302-317.

Para a Idade do bronze do Norte de Portugal temos:

“O equilíbrio latente ao nível dessas relações só pode ser correlacionado com hostilidades ou rivalidades controladas, inerentes aos poderosos e próprias de qualquer tipo de vizinhança. O poder não estava, com efeito, na ponta das lanças ou no gume das espadas, mas no jogo de constrangimentos imposto pela ostentação de determinados bens e pelo simbolismo guerreiro que, por si só, intimida (Bourdieu, 1989)”. Vilaça (1998, p. 213)

Não posso deixar de mencionar:

GONÇALVES, Vítor (2000) – Cobre, RPS e Fortificações na Centro e Sul de Portugal. Arqueologia 2000.

In Balanço de um século de investigação arqueológica em Portugal.

De novo para o Calcolítico: “…a transição do 4º para o 3º milénio no centro e Sul de Portugal teve um significado paradigmático e se tratou efectivamente de um momento concreto em que comunidades neolíticas tardias, de pastores e pequenos agricultores, defrontaram grupos detentores das tecnologias da RPS, obrigando-os a construírem fortificações onde sentiriam seguros os seus excedentes e, naturalmente, eles próprios. Continuo convencido que o significado simbólico é, na maioria destes casos, nulo ou muito restrito, sendo o económico e estratégico definitivamente importante, a destruição e a reconstrução de torres e panos de muralha não parece ter a ver com simbolismos revistos ou acrescidos, mas com a tradução de efectivos confrontos, originando reparações pontuais ou mesmo revisões estratégicas dos dispositivos defensivos.”. Gonçalves (2000, p. 95)

A empresa ERA Arqueologia destacou a guerra na Pré-História no tema da sua revista, abordando vários aspectos desta problemática com o contributo de investigadores internacionais com trabalho reconhecido nesta área. Não posso deixar de frisar que esta publicação pioneira na abordagem e tema resultou do esforço de uma empresa de Arqueologia.

Revista da ERA, Arqueologia (2000) – A Guerra na Pré-História Peninsular. 2.

Com os contributos de:

CARMAN, John (2000) – War in Prehistoric Societies: a review of some current ideas. p.143- 152.

KUNST, Michael (2000) – A Guerra no Calcolítico na Península Ibérica. p. 128-142.

Acerca das fortificações calcolíticas:

“As construções defensivas destes povoados implicam um grande investimento em mão-de-obra, e os locais em que se implantam, muitas vezes em terrenos altos traziam problemas…de abastecimento…tudo devia ser transportado para cima…o motivo deve ter sido a guerra. Só por esta razão se percebem todas as obras verificadas em várias fortificações calcolíticas, realizadas ampliações, reparações ou modificações das estruturas defensivas.”. Ainda segundo este autor no Zambujal podemos identificar algumas evoluções técnicas nas estruturas defensivas com o enchimento de pátios e bastiões com terra e pedras de modo a criar plataformas elevadas que permitem o ataque de cima, temos também a construção de torres ocas no pano da muralha que permitem a melhor visibilidade e defesa desta. Kunst (2000, p. 136 e 137)

MARTÍNEZ PEÑARROYA, José (2000) – Del Conflicto Primitivo a la Guerra Organizada: aspectos Bélicos de la Edad del Bronce Peninsular. p. 153-164.

MATEO SAURA (2000) – La Guerra en la Vida de las Comunidades Epipaleolíticas del Mediterráneo Peninsular. p. 110- 127.

Um artigo com uma leitura multidisciplinar das pontas de seta:

VENTURA, José; SENNA-MARTINEZ, João (2001) – Do conflito à guerra: Aspectos do desenvolvimento e institucionalização da violência na Pré-História Recente Peninsular. Turres Vetras (História Militar e Guerra). V.

Resumido em Pontas de seta

Criticado no Forum em Pontas de seta - discussão

Mais um trabalho internacional:

FREIRE, José (2005) – Weaponry, statues and petroglyphs: the ideology of war in Atlantic Iron Age Iberia. In PEARSON, Mike Parker; TORPE, I. J. N., eds – Warfare, violence and slavery in Prehistory. BAR Internacional Series, 1374, p.195-200.

O debate (de novo sobre as fortificações) está na Internet e nomeadamente no Blog Trans-ferir e na Lista Archport, destaco a entrada de Jorge (14 de Junho de 2007, 12.00 horas) com o título Seteiras… para dar tiros no pé, e o seguinte trecho:

“…torres de menagem dos castelos, dispositivo mais muçulmano que cristão – torres essas que eram essencialmente um dispositivo simbólico, e talvez de observação à distância (imagino eu), o que seria já uma interessante forma de “poder” sobre o território – constituiriam uma autêntica “armadilha para ratos”, quer dizer, se o castelo fosse tomado e o senhor fosse cercado na torre com a sua soldadesca, teria pouca possibilidade de sai de lá vivo.”

An Archaeological Interpretation of Irish Iron Age Bog Bodies - Eamonn P. Kelly

in “The Archaeology of Violence: An Integrated Approach to the Study of Violence and Conflict” Conference held at UB by the Institute for European and Mediterranean Archaeology (IEMA)

Eamonn P. Kelly is Keeper of Irish Antiquities, National Museum of Ireland, Dublin

Up to one hundred men, women and children, dating to all periods, have been found in Irish peat bogs. Eight bog bodies have been dated to the Early Iron Age and other undated remains may also date to the same period. What characterises Iron Age finds and sets them apart from other bog bodies is the fact that they represent ritual killings.
Two finds made in 2003 have produced important new information. Clonycavan Man had lain in a bog on the Meath county border with Westmeath and although machinery has damaged the body from the waist down and removed the hands, the internal organs are preserved partially and the head is intact with a clearly distinguishable face and a very distinctive hairstyle. On the back of the head the hair was cut to about an inch long with the rest of the hair, which was about a foot long, gathered into a bundle on the top of his head. The hair was held in place by the application of a sort of hair jell made from resin imported from France or Spain. Clonycavan man was of slight build and his stature is estimated to lie in the range from 5 foot 2 inches to five feet nine inches tall. He was killed by a series of blows to his head and chest, probably from an axe and suffered a 40cm long cut to his abdomen, suggesting disembowelment.
By contrast, a powerfully built body found at Oldcroghan, Co. Offaly was estimated at about 6 foot 3 inches tall. The remains consist of a severed torso that had been decapitated, however the surviving part of the body was in remarkable condition with superbly preserved hands and intact internal organs. On the right arm was a plaited leather armband with metal mounts. By contract with his normal meat-rich diet, Oldcroghan Man ate a final meal of cereals and buttermilk. His upper arms had been pierced and withies had been inserted into the holes. Examination of his hands showed that Oldcroghan Man did not undertake manual work and his fingernails were carefully manicured. A stab wound to his chest killed Oldcroghan man and a defence wound on one arm indicates that he tried to fend off the fatal blow. He was then decapitated and his thorax severed from his abdomen. The nipples of both Oldcroghan Man and Clonycavan Man had been cut partially and both have been radiocarbon dated to between 400-200 BC.
The body of an adult male found in Derryvarroge bog, Co, Kildare in 2007 has been dated to between 228-343 AD. The remains were damaged by peat harvesting machinery and investigation of the body is ongoing. Research suggests that all of the Iron Age bog bodies were placed on ancient tribal boundaries and that the victims were sacrificed as part of a Kingship and Sovereignty ritual. Other categories of votive may also to be connected with the ritual.

The Origins of Violence – Mesolithic conflict in Europe by I. J. Nick Thorpe

Paper presented at European Association of Archaeologists meeting 16th September 1999 in Bournemouth (UK)
by I. J. Nick Thorpe King Alfred's College, Winchester, UK
N.Thorpe@wkac.ac.uk


Recent DNA analysis suggests that some 500, 000 years ago our homo erectus ancestors were reduced in number to perhaps only a thousand individuals. David Woodruff, senior biologist on the team believes that genocide is the most likely cause: "In our success came a need to remove the competition... It's my favourite explanation." [Brookes 1999]

As always, when considering early prehistoric evidence for warfare, it is impossible to avoid one basic question – are warfare and violence fundamental to human nature?

First I should perhaps give a definition of warfare, as this has been a major debating point in the past – it is defined here as organised aggression between autonomous political units. I see no great value in too tight a definition, however, as for example, in many ethnographically recorded societies, the distinction between warfare and feuding (actions taken by individuals against members of another group) is rather artificial, since feuds frequently escalate into war.

The notion that warfare is an uneradicable part of human nature is based on analogies with primate behaviour [e.g. Wrangham & Peterson 1996] with male-centred competition, over access to females, taking violent form. Such models are described by critics as the "myth of the warlike savage", and indeed most studies of warring societies suggest no such reproductive success occurs. Moreover, most of these studies are really models derived from simplistic observations of chimpanzee behaviour in which it is assumed that this is best interpreted in human terms [Sussman 1997]; then, of course, completing the circular argument chimpanzee behaviour is assumed to be a guide to simple or even complex [e.g. Knauft 1991] gatherer-hunter societies.

A more sophisticated approach sees warfare as the outcome of violent competition by males striving for status and prestige [Chagnon 1988; Machner & Reedy-Maschner 1998]. Again, however, sociobiology, or evolutionary biology as it has been named in an attempt to make a fresh start, produces a fairly simplistic model which its less wary proponents attempt to apply to all societies [Robarchek 1989]. What of those societies within which violence was relatively rare yet embarked on bloody wars, such as the Japanese? What of the historical and ethnographic evidence of the need to produce an altered mental state before taking part in warfare [Ehrenreich 1997]; even the famously aggressive Yanomamö of the Amazon use drugs to work themselves up to fighting [Chagnon 1990].

At the other end of the spectrum, a number of anthropologists have argued strongly that much of the warfare seen by earlier travellers and later ethnographers was generated by colonialism [e.g. Ferguson 1992]. This view was partly encouraged by the tendency of early anthropologists to underestimate the significance of warfare (other than ritualised conflicts) among newly encountered societies, e.g. in New Guinea [Knauft 1990].
Although described by critics as the "myth of the peaceful savage", the observation that patterns of warfare were affected by western contact does not imply that earlier times were peaceful, as the most forceful proponents of this view now accept [e.g. Ferguson 1997].

A more nuanced approach thus accepts the existence of warfare in past societies, but seeks to situate it historically [e.g. Otterbein 1997].

One attempt to do this sees warfare either as an agriculturalist phenomenon or a product of states. An unspoken assumption has long existed that warfare is a consequence of settled agrarian communities and that it can not therefore be a significant factor in pre-agricultural life [e.g. Leakey & Lewin 1992]. However, the evidence for both serious injuries and violent death from Mesolithic skeletons in Europe is steadily growing, and now outnumbers that from the Neolithic.

Certain anthropologists have attempted to confine war to conflicts between large numbers of individuals [e.g. van Bakel 1992], thus implying that only states make wars, but we should remember here that the laws of King Ine of Wessex, written just before AD 700, describe a group of only 35 men as an 'army'. So even for states a small number of fighters was significant.

What of the causes of warfare? Two main camps exist in the literature - the sociobiological (discussed already) and the materialist. Materialists, as used in this instance, focus very narrowly indeed, starting from the standpoint that warfare is utterly irrational and therefore one would only risk one's life in combat when there was a desperate need for land or more immediately food [e.g. Ferguson 1990].

However, even in the classic ethnographic area of New Guinean warfare, recent analyses suggest that there is no simple relationship between land shortage and warfare, with some of the most warlike societies having fairly low population densities [Knauft 1990].

Again, a more nuanced approach seeks to situate warfare (just as one would with human violence more generally) historically, rather than proposing simplistic overarching models.

Turning to the Mesolithic, there are three main areas of possible evidence – the existence of weapons, depictions of warfare and skeletal remains demonstrating conflict.

Weapons may seem the most straightforward category, but here we encounter immediately the issue of symbolism. What past generations have termed weapons – battle axes, daggers etc., need not have been used in that way. On the other side of the coin, axes. normally seen as workaday tools of forest clearance, may well be weapons, while many weapons such as wooden clubs will survive only by chance in the archaeological record. With regard to weapons we need to demonstrate the actual use of objects to cause harm, of which more later.

Levantine Spanish rock art [Beltrán 1982] is often presented as the most substantial body of evidence for conflict in the Mesolithic [e.g. O'Connell 1995]; and sometimes argued to be a record of conflicts between racial groups [Beltrán 1982]. However, there are many who question the straightforward approach to interpreting rock art [e.g Campbell 1986; commentators on Taçon & Chippindale 1994]. A more fundamental difficulty, however, in the context of this paper, is the argument that the commonly suggested date of the Mesolithic is mistaken and that Levantine art is actually Neolithic [Beltrán 1982; Bahn 1989].

Skeletal evidence is more reliable, as at least avoiding the issue of symbolic violence; even here, however, we need to stress the importance of care in interpretation. The most obvious value of the skeletal record from the Mesolithic, scanty and regionally uneven though it is, is the evidence it provides of projectile wounds [Cordier 1990; Vencl 1991]. More than anything else, this justifies descriptions of the Mesolithic as the period when true warfare began, with examples from Atlantic France and Denmark to the Ukraine of individuals suffering fatal wounds from weapons.

There are indeed, a couple of final Upper Palaeolithic bodies with flint points lodged in the bones, both from Italy [Bachechi et al. 1997]. The shape of the point from the female burial at San Teodoro on Sicily has been interpreted as more likely coming from an arrowhead than a spearpoint [Bahn 1997], but the Italian investigators stress that we can not be certain. Moreover, the first definite evidence for arrows and thus bows comes from the Mesolithic, at Stellmoor in Germany, c. 8500 BC.

Starting with Scandinavia, at the Skateholm I cemetery in southern Sweden an arrowhead was lodged in the pelvic bone of an adult male [Larsson 1989], and a bone point was found in another male.

At the Vedbæk cemetery on Zealand one of the individuals (an adult male) in a grave containing three bodies had a bone point through the throat [Albrethsen & Brinch Petersen 1976]. The apparently simultaneous burial of the man, woman and child has led to the suggestion that all three died suddenly and violently [Price & Gebauer 1992].

Bone points were also probably found in the chests of two burials at Bäckaskog and Stora Bjers in Sweden [Albrethsen & Brinch Petersen 1976], although the circumstances of discovery are not so clear.

At Téviec in Brittany a male burial had two flint points embedded in his spine [Péquart 1931].

Further East, projectile injuries apparently causing death [Cordier 1990; Vencl 1984, 1991] are reported from Schela Cladovei in Romania (three cases [Radovanovic 1996]), and Volos´ke and Vasylivka I in the Ukraine; also in the Ukraine the Vasylivka III cemetery produced four burials with arrow injuries and several with apparently crushed skulls.

More indirect evidence of injuries also exists where large scale studies of skeletal material have been undertaken. Pia Bennicke's [1985] examination of cranial trauma in Denmark shows the Mesolithic to have a high number of injuries in the form of fractures and impressions. The best known example is the male boat burial from Korsør Nor off the coast of Zealand. Further examples have appeared since Bennicke's study, such as the male from the famous underwater site of Tybrind Vig on Fyn and the male boat burial from Møllegabet on Ærø [Grøn & Skaarup 1991].

A similar pattern can be seen amongst prehistoric gatherer-hunter communities in California [Lambert 1997] (where it mostly occurs among adult males, as do projectile injuries) , and among the Yanomamö, where these generally non-lethal wounds result from fighting with heavy wooden clubs [Chagnon 1992].

Other apparent examples of weapon-producing wounds [Vencl 1991] come from Téviec (two cases), other French sites and from Germany and Switzerland.

Parry fractures have also been reported from Mesolithic Europe – these are usually interpreted as resulting from an attempt to fend off a blow directed at the head or upper body. However, recent examinations of prehistoric American material show no link between the frequency of head injuries thought to result from attacks and parry fractures [Larsen 1997]. There are actually a large number of accidents which can result in parry fractures [Lovell 1997].

Skeletal material also points to the existence of conflicts occurring on a much larger scale. At Ofnet cave in Bavaria [Frayer 1997] two pits contained the skulls and vertebrae of thirty-eight individuals, all stained with red ochre, dating to around 6500 BC. Most were children (less than fifteen years old), including several under fives; two thirds of the adults were females. Finds of pierced red deer teeth & shells were associated only with adult females and children. Half the individuals were wounded before death by blunt mace-like weapons, with males & females & children (even infants) all injured, but males having the most wounds (up to seven). Several skulls had cutmarks, but these were not related to cannibalism or removal of the brain; there were also cutmarks on the vertebrae of one in three of all individuals, relating to the removal of the head.

Nearby, other skull deposits are known from Kaufertsberg and Höhlenstein. At Höhlenstein three isolated skulls (an adult male, an adult female and a two year old) were found, as at Ofnet stained with ochre and showing signs of violence and cutmarks on the vertebrae. Both sites have an apparent sequence of massacre followed by ceremonial burial, while at Ofnet the scale of the massacre suggests an attempt to wipe out a whole community. Depletion of resources leading to conflict is a highly unlikely scenario here, but the absence of contemporary settlements makes further speculation on motives pointless.

A similar story may lie behind the discoveries at Dyrholmen in Jutland, Denmark, where the bones of nine individuals were discovered. There are traces of cut marks and fractures of bones to reach the marrow, with cut marks on the skull suggesting scalping [Degerbøhl 1942]. At another Møllegabet site [Skaarup 1995] bones were also broken open and a male jaw broken to remove the front teeth.

If these are cases of cannibalism, then it could be linked to warfare through a common explanation given by historically recorded groups who practice cannibalism – that the vital energies or personal attributes of the enemy would be absorbed by the cannibals. Cannibalism is also sometimes used in South American societies as a way of disrespecting the enemy, eating their flesh "like animal meat" [Conklin 1995]. If head-hunting is involved, then this is often seen as simultaneously depriving the enemy of the benefit of the strength provided by reincorporating the dead into the group and unleashing the anger of the dead on their community unless the death can be avenged [e.g. Boès & Sears 1996]. In the case of the Møllegabet jaw, the excavator [Skaarup 1995] argued that the teeth were being removed to "become part of an ornament with which the victor could adorn himself!"

Not all Mesolithic communities do appear to have been violent, for example neither Sicily nor Portugal have produced skeletal evidence of violent death, while Schela Cladovei appears to be exceptional within the Iron Gates Mesolithic.

Given the evidence for Mesolithic violence and probable warfare, what are the implications for Mesolithic-Neolithic interaction? Within Neolithic communities there is evidence for some violent conflict in the form of weapon injuries [Keeley 1996]. Much the most dramatic case is that of Talheim in Germany, c. 5000 BC, where a mass grave contained 34 men, women and children, killed by multiple axe and adze blows to the head; two skulls also had arrowhead injuries.

However, although I believe that both Mesolithic and Neolithic groups engaged in warfare, I do not support Keeley's claims [Keeley 1996; 1997] that the Neolithic frontier was a war zone. These follow from the interpretation that the Darion Linearbandkeramik enclosure in Belgium is strongly defended and even possesses a gate tower. From this and similar sites the argument develops into the theory that a frontier existed between the LBK and the local Mesolithic population, with a fortified enclosures along it and a no-man's land without settlement beyond. Current evidence, however, suggests that violence in both Mesolithic and Neolithic communities was internally directed rather than across any frontier. Recent study of the Baltic coast [Jankowska 1998], shows that LBK lithic material, especially adzes, is found on many of the Mesolithic sites in the coastal strip, suggesting peaceful co-existence rather than the conflict envisaged by some, as Keeley accepts [1997]. That does not, of course, rule out the adzes being imported as weapons. LBK enclosures remain conspicuously non-defensive in nature by comparison with later examples from Britain such as Hambledon Hill. Even at Darion itself the supposedly defensive ditch is both shallow and discontinuous, hardly forming the substantial barrier appropriate to its supposed location on a dangerous warring frontier.

Mesolithic conflict need not have been over economic resources, but a strong degree of internal territoriality would certainly be consistent with other indications and indeed with copious ethnographic records. However, many other causes of wars among gatherer-hunters have been noted. Raiding, slaving, fishing rights and individual insults are all seen in the ethnographic literature as leading to fatal conflicts.

A wounded sense of honour can be a powerful catalyst for conflict. In December 1860 a Russian naval vessel visiting Sitka, the capital of Russian Alaska, heard an uproar in one of the native houses where a potlatch (cermonial feast) was being held. Locals ran out, returning in armour and bearing weapons. The Russian fort above fired its cannon over their heads and the natives stopped their fighting. Intrigued, Lieutenant Commander Golovnin went to investigate, finding two dead and eighteen wounded from the brief skirmish. The cause he found difficult to contemplate – a singing competition. In a potlatch the previous year the Sitka had outsung their hosts, the Yakutat. Determined not to be outdone again, the Yakutat had sent out an expedition to learn songs from neighbouring groups, but the Sitka trumped them with songs they had learnt from sea-otter hunters employed by the Russians. Fearing another humiliation, the Yakutat had come armed and attacked the Sitka to divert attention from their vocal deficiences. Lieutenant Commander Golovnin noted the wisdom of nipping the conflict in the bud, for "blood vendettas begin after such incidents, and wars will go on, perhaps for several years..." [Ames & Maschner 1999] Once again, this anecdote reminds us that the past genuinely was different.


References
Albrethsen, S. E. and Brinch Petersen, E. (1976) Acta Archaeologica 47, 1– 28.
Ames, K. M. & Maschner, H. D. G. (1999) Peoples of the Northwest Coast (London: Thames & Hudson).
Andersen, S.H. (1985) Journal of Danish Archaeology 4, 52–69.
Bachechi, L. et al. (1997) Current Anthropology 38, 134–140.
Bahn, P. (1997) Archaeology 50, no. 3, 24.
Bahn, P. (1989) Nature 340, 268.
Beltrán, A. (1982) Rock Art of the Spanish Levant (Cambridge University Press).
Bennicke, P. (1985) Palaeopathology of Danish Skeletons, København: Akademisk Forlag.
Boès, E. & Sears, S. (1996) Bulletins et Mémoires de la Société d'Anthropologie de Paris n.s. 8, 275–288.
Brookes, M (1999) New Scientist 14/8/99, 32–35.
Campbell, C. (1986) World Archaeology 18, 255–268.
Chagnon, N. (1988) Science 239, 985–992.
Chagnon, N. (1990) in J. Haas (ed.) The Anthropology of War (Cambridge University Press), 77–104.
Chagnon, N. (1992) Yanomamö (5th edition) (Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace).
Conklin, B. A. (1995) American Ethnologist 22, 75–101.
Cordier, G. (1990) Bulletin de la Société Française 87, 462–481.
Degerbøhl, M. (1942) in T. Mathiassen, M. Degerbøhl and J. Troels-Smith (eds.) Dyrholmen. En Stenalderboplads paa Djursland, København: Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab, Arkæologisk-Kunsthistoriske Skrifter, Bind 1, Nr. 1, 77–135.
Ehrenreich, B (1997) Blood Rites (New York: Metropolitan Books).
Ferguson, R B (1990) in J. Haas (ed.) The Anthropology of War (Cambridge University Press), 26–55.
Ferguson, R B (1992) Scientific American 266, 90–95.
Ferguson, R B (1997) in D. L. Martin & D. W. Frayer (eds.) Troubled Times (New York: Gordon & Breach), 321–355.
Frayer, D. W. (1997) in D. L. Martin & D. W. Frayer (eds.) Troubled Times (New York: Gordon & Breach), 181–216.
Grøn, O. & Skaarup, J. (1991) Journal of Danish Archaeology 10, 38–50.
Jankowska, D. (1998) in M. Zvelebil, L. Domanska and R. Dennell (eds.) Harvesting the Sea, Farming the Forest, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 121–128.
Keeley, L. H. (1996) War Before Civilization (Oxford University Press).
Keeley, L. H. (1997) in D. L. Martin and D. W. Frayer (eds.) Troubled Times: Violence and Warfare in the Past, New York: Gordon and Breach, 303–319
Knauft, B. M. (1990) Oceania 60, 250–311.
Knauft, B. M. (1990) Current Anthropology 32, 391–428.
Lambert, P. M. (1997) in D. L. Martin & D. W. Frayer (eds.) Troubled Times (New York: Gordon & Breach), 77–109.
Larsen, C. S. (1997) Bioarchaeology (Cambridge University Press).
Larsson, L. (1989) in C. Bonsall (ed.) The Mesolithic in Europe, (Edinburgh:John Donald), 367–378.
Leakey, R. B. & Lewin, R. (1992) Origins Reconsidered (New York:Doubleday).
Lovell, N. C. (1997) Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 40, 139–170.
Maschner, H. D. G. & Reedy-Maschner, K. L. (1998) Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 17, 19–51.
O'Connell, R. L. (1995) Ride of the Second Horseman (Oxford University Press)
Otterbein, K. F. (1997) Critical Review 11, 251–277.
Péquart, M. (1931) Association Française pour l'Avancement des Sciences 55, 321–324.
Price, T. D. & Gebauer, A. B. (1992) in A. B. Gebauer & T. D. Price (eds.) Transitions to Agriculture in Prehistory (Madison: Prehistory Press), 97–116.
Radovanovic, I. (1996) The Iron Gates Mesolithic, (Ann Arbor: International Monographs in Prehistory 11).
Robarchek, C. A. (1989) American Anthropologist 91, 903–920.
Skaarup, J. (1995) in A. Fischer (ed.) Man and Sea in the Mesolithic (Oxbow Books), 397–401.
Sussman, R. W. (1997) AnthroNotes 19, 1–11.
Taçon, P. & Chippindale, C. (1994) Cambridge Archaeological Journal 4, 211–248.
van Bakel, M. (1992) Studies in Third World Societies 47, 165–189.
Vencl, S. (1984) Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 3, 116–132.
Vencl, S. (1991) L'Anthropologie 95, 219–228.
Wrangham, R. & Peterson, D. (1996) Demonic Males: Apes and the Origins of Human Violence (London: Bloomsbury).

Arqueólogos alemães encontram esqueletos da Idade do Bronze

por EFE (9 Out 2008) /estadao.com.br: http://www.estadao.com.br/vidae/not_vid257059,0.htm
apud SERGIVS - Leg XXV

Achados indicam uma batalha campal nesta região alemã, que era tida como pacífica na época
Arqueólogos alemães encontraram restos de 50 esqueletos humanos datados da Idade do Bronze em escavações arqueológicas realizadas em Mecklenburgo-Antepomerania (leste da Alemanha), que indicam uma primeira batalha campal nesta região, onde lutas não eram freqüentes.
"Nos tempos de Jesus Cristo já era normal conquistar territórios ou defendê-los com a vida. Porém, não tínhamos testemunho de algo assim 1.300 anos antes", declarou nesta quinta-feira, 9, o diretor do departamento de Arqueologia deste estado alemão, Delet Jantzen, ao apresentar a descoberta.
Entre os restos humanos há sete crânios, diversos ossos e peças de bronze e, segundo Jentzen, tudo indica que houve uma batalha nesta região e nesta época, apesar de até agora não terem sido encontrados vestígios deste tipo ao norte dos Alpes.
Os restos correspondem a homens adultos, embora também haja algumas de mulheres e crianças, afirmaram os especialistas, o que permite supor que se tratou de um ataque a alguma aldeia ou assentamento.
Até agora, na região haviam sido encontrados restos humanos datados de 1.200 ou 1.300 anos antes de Cristo, mas sem rastros de batalha, e se acreditava que os habitantes da região conviviam em harmonia.

Guerra química foi usada no tempo dos romanos

por Luís Naves (22 Jan 2009). Diário de Notícias: http://dn.sapo.pt/2009/01/22/ciencia/guerra_quimica_usada_tempo_romanos.html
apud Blog SERGIVS - Leg XXV

Uma pilha de corpos encontrada nas ruínas de Dura-Europos, uma fortaleza romana nas fronteiras orientais do império, sugere que os atacantes persas usaram cristais de enxofre, cuja queima produziu gases tóxicos. A manobra pode ter decidido o destino trágico da cidade.

O local foi descoberto por acaso nos anos 30 do século passado.

Soldados romanos que morreram num violento combate no terceiro século da era de Cristo podem ter sido vítimas de gases de enxofre, naquele que será o mais antigo exemplo conhecido do uso de armas químicas. O incidente ocorreu na remota cidade de Dura-Europos, por volta do ano 256, na fronteira oriental do Império Romano. Os soldados foram mortos por persas sassânidas, cujo exército tomou e destruiu a fortaleza na margem do Eufrates.

As ruínas de Dura-Europos, na actual Síria, têm sido objecto de cuidadosas escavações. Os arqueólogos descobriram túneis que foram usados durante o cerco da fortaleza e que embora não tenham destruído a muralha, serviram para decidir a fase final do combate. Num dos túneis havia uma barricada, incluindo esqueletos parcialmente queimados de soldados romanos, o que levou uma primeira equipa a sugerir um colapso do túnel, o que não explicava a presença de enxofre no local.

O arqueólogo Simon James, da Universidade de Leicester, avançou entretanto com uma sensacional teoria, apresentada na reunião anual do Instituto Arqueológico Americano. A posição dos corpos e os cristais de enxofre sugeriam que no combate foram produzidos fumos tóxicos.

Segundo Simon James, que estuda Dura há 30 anos, os romanos mortos (ou gravemente feridos) foram deliberadamente amontoados num local onde se encontravam dois túneis escavados por cada um dos exércitos. A certa altura, talvez perante um contra-ataque romano, os persas incendiaram os corpos e deitaram ao fogo cristais de enxofre, o que produziu gases letais. Um dos guerreiros persas não fugiu a tempo.

Embora não haja registos históricos da batalha, que se presume foi travada no ano 256 d.C. (mais ou menos quatro anos) sabe-se que os persas tiveram de combater a guarnição romana rua a rua. Dura-Europos era uma criação grega, na altura com mais de 500 anos. O local não interessou aos persas e foi abandonado. Os habitantes foram chacinados ou deportados.

As ruínas ocupam um espaço vasto e foram encontradas por acaso nos anos 20 do século passado, quando soldados indianos do exército britânico tomaram a posição estratégica e ali escavaram trincheiras.

A Estratégia

por Luis Lobato de Faria

“… Ciência que, tendo em vista a guerra, visa a criação, o desenvolvimento e a utilização adequada dos meios de coação política, económica, psicológica e militar à disposição do poder político para se atingirem os objectivos por este fixados …” (Dicionário da Língua Portuguesa, 1998).

Os primeiros registos da existência de alguma estratégia chegam-nos do Egipto e da Mesopotâmia (III milénio), temos como exemplo a Epopeia de Gilgamesh. No mundo ocidental temos os poemas Homéricos (VII a. C.), a Ilíada e a Odisseia. Estes registos reportam a guerra de sociedades estatais no entanto na guerra primitiva existem evidências de pensamento estratégico.

Uma estratégia usada na guerra primitiva consiste em ataques frequentes ao grupo inimigo, uma guerra de atrito (Keeley, 1997, p. 48). Estes ataques de surpresa, tentam eliminar inimigos isolados ou em inferioridade numérica, minimizando assim os riscos para o grupo atacante (Keeley, 1997, p. 65-67). Este método vai eliminando inimigos e a longo prazo pode levar à aniquilação total ou absorção do grupo inimigo.

Dawson (2001, p. 61) refere o caso dos Dinka do Sudão, estes estão a ser assimilados pelos Nuer num processo de competição e raids.

Pelo registo arqueológico chegam-nos evidências de estratégia na Pré-História. A construção de fortificações exige tempo, recursos e planeamento, exige estratégia. A localização das fortificações em locais considerados estratégicos, controlando rotas ou recursos, com visibilidade entre diferentes fortificações, a existência de terras de ninguém, tudo isto demonstra pensamento estratégico.

Nas palavras de Myers (2005, p. 44): “Fortifications…require more centralized planning and longer-term commitment than a one day ambush or battle.”.

Referências

DAWSON, Doyne (2001) – The first armies. London: Cassel & Co.

Dicionário da Língua Portuguesa (1998). Porto: Porto Editora.
KEELEY, Lawrence (1997) - War before civilization: The myth of thepeaceful savage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
MYERS, Darryl (2005) – War before history: a critical survey. Florida State University, College of Arts and Sciences.

A Táctica

por Luis Lobato de Faria

“… Parte da ciência da guerra que trata da disposição de meios … em campanha; técnica de combate…” (Dicionário da Língua Portuguesa, 1998).

As primeiras tácticas devem ter sido desenvolvidas na caça, o Homem enquanto predador tenta enganar a presa, segundo Otterbein (2004, p. 13) acerca da caça no Mesolítico: “More people were competing for the game with better weapons and hunting tactics.”.

As tácticas não são um exclusivo do homem, estão presentes em todas as espécies que necessitam de competir para sobreviver.

Na violência entre grupos de chimpanzés existem várias tácticas, como patrulhas na fronteira do território ou raids no território inimigo na tentativa de atacar um inimigo isolado (Wrangham, 1999, p. 5-11).

As formas de guerra primitiva têm as suas próprias tácticas, como podemos observar nesta descrição de um massacre entre os Inuit: “…approaching a settlement on hands and knees under cover of darkness…to try and eliminate everyone in the village one by one…”(Burch apud Leblanc e Register, 2004, p. 67).

Para Wright (1964) e acerca das tácticas da guerra primitiva: “…tactics involve little group formation or cooperation but consists on night raids, individual duels in formal pitched battles, or small headhunting or blood-revenge parties”.

Turney-Hight apud Keeley (1997, p. 13), distingue guerra civilizada (dos estados) de guerra primitiva (restantes tipos de sociedades), este autor reconhece que a segunda tem algumas vantagens tácticas: na mobilidade, na surpresa, na utilização do terreno, no uso de guias e da informação.

A existência de tácticas na guerra primitiva, a tentativa de enganar o inimigo, de fugir às regras e leis, de evitar o ritual, demonstra o quanto efectiva e letal pode ser a guerra primitiva.

O nível táctico da guerra primitiva parece evoluir com a evolução do tipo de sociedade, na Polinésia e Costa Noroeste do Pacifico, alguns chefados, têm formações de combate e mesmo algum treino (Keeley, 1997, p. 43).

Ao longo da história as tácticas ajudaram na formação de Estados e Impérios, por exemplo o Império Zulu nasceu com a ajuda de novas tácticas de combate (Otterbein, 1997, p. 25-32). Alguns povos são conhecidos pelas suas tácticas de guerra, como os Mongóis (Keegan, 1994, p. 200-207).

O nome do próprio povo por vezes deriva das tácticas usadas na guerra.

O registo arqueológico mais antigo de tácticas usadas em combate encontra-se na Península Ibérica na Arte Rupestre Levantina, as gravuras mostram diversas movimentações no campo de batalha, como por exemplo ataques de flanco (Mateo Saura, 2000, p. 113 e 116).

No caso das fortificações temos várias adaptações técnico \ tácticas: como o uso de múltiplas cinturas de muralhas, bastiões que protegem as muralhas, defesas contra armas de cerco, contra ataques de cavalaria, aparecimento de seteiras, entre outras.

Randsborg (2004, p. 191-202) baseia-se nos achados de Hjortspring na actual Dinamarca, onde foi encontrado um barco e armas, sacrificados no final da Idade do Bronze. Este autor teoriza que houve uma mudança táctica na guerra, passamos a ter uma confrontação de falanges em campo aberto, que leva a confrontos de exércitos maiores e aumenta o número de baixas.

Referências

Dicionário da Língua Portuguesa (1998). Porto: Porto Editora.

KEEGAN, John (1994) – A history of warfare. London: Pimlico.

KEELEY, Lawrence (1997) - War before civilization: The myth of thepeaceful savage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

LEBLANC, Steven A.; REGISTER, Katherine E. (2004) – Constant battles: the myth of the peaceful, noble savage. New York: St. Martin’s Griffin.

MATEO SAURA (2000) – La Guerra en la Vida de las Comunidades Epipaleolíticas del Mediterráneo Peninsular. Era- Arqueologia. Lisboa: Colibri 2, p. 110- 127.

OTTERBEIN, Keith F. (1999) – A History of Research on Warfare in Anthropology. American Anthropologist. 101: 4, p. 794-805.

OTTERBEIN, Keith F. (2004) – How war began. College Station: Texas A&M University Press.

RANDSBORG, Klavs (2004) – Into he Iron Age: a discourse on war and society. In CARMAN, John; HARDING, Anthony; eds – Ancient warfare. Gloucestershire: Sutton Publishing

WRANGHAM, richard (1999) – Evolution of coalitionary killing. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology. 42, p. 1-30.

WRIGHT, Q. (1964 [1942]) – A Study of War. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

A frequência

por Luis Lobato de Faria

A frequência com que a guerra surge numa sociedade permite determinar se esta tem um papel na sua cultura ou se é um acontecimento esporádico.

Keeley (1997, p. 28) refere três estudos, entre várias culturas etnográficas e históricas, com sistemas não-estatais e estatais, por todo o mundo, que observam a frequência da guerra.

No primeiro Otterbein (1989, p. 21, 143, 144 e 148) estudou 50 sociedades de diversos tipos e chegou à conclusão que em apenas cinco sociedades a guerra não era frequente ou não existia mesmo. Destes cinco grupos, quatro podem ser considerados como refugiados de conflitos anteriores que vivem agora em isolamento. Temos um total de 90% de sociedades em que a guerra é frequente.

Num segundo estudo Ross (1983, p. 179, 182 e 183) observou 90 sociedades de diversos tipos, aqui doze delas raramente ou nunca entravam em guerra. Destas doze, seis encontram-se sobre administração estatal, e três estão em total isolamento. Um total de 87% de sociedades está em guerra frequentemente.

No terceiro estudo Jorgensen (1980) recolheu dados de 157 sociedades tribais e bandos de índios norte americanos, só sete destas sociedades não realizaram ou sofreram raids. Temos um total de 95% de sociedades onde os raids são frequentes.

Keeley (1997, p. 29-33) aponta algumas razões que justificam a existência de sociedades pacíficas nestes estudos e que escondem frequências de guerra mais elevadas no passado: podem estar em isolamento geográfico que resulta por vezes de uma fuga ou derrota militar, podem ser minorias étnicas administradas por estados ou que foram pacificadas pelos estados. Estas razões podem esconder uma frequência de guerra mais elevada no passado. Existem sociedades não estatais consideradas pacíficas por não terem grande frequência de guerra, mas que possuem taxas de homicídio muito elevadas, o que esconde formas de guerra primitiva (Keeley, 1997, p. 29).

A frequência torna-se assim uma das variáveis de maior importância no estudo da guerra. Otterbein (2004, p. 81-90) usa a frequência de guerra em vários dos seus estudos, cruzando esta variável com tipos de sociedade, tipo de economia, tipos e formas de guerra, dependência da caça ou da recolecção, etc. Os dados deste autor apontam para uma grande frequência de guerra com a caça de grande porte do final do Paleolítico, esta frequência decresce com os primeiros agricultores e volta a crescer já com os primeiros estados formados (Otterbein, 2004, p. 218-225).

Quesada Sanz (1997, p. 34-35) descreve a frequência da guerra nos estados clássicos: Atenas (no seu período clássico) nunca teve mais de dez anos sem guerra e esteve em guerra dois de cada três anos, Roma (de VII a.C. até Augusto) só em duas ocasiões esteve sem guerra. Este autor demonstra que uma elevada frequência da guerra não permite que a paz ganhe uma autonomia conceptual, define-se apenas como ausência de guerra.

Frigolé Reixach (1988, p. 76) aponta os estudos de Velzen e Wetering (1960), em que os grupos fraternos locais e a patrilineariedade constituem as variáveis mais significativas em relação à frequência da guerra (ideia que Otterbein desenvolveu a partir de 1968). De novo a importância da variável frequência.

Keeley (1997, p. 85-188, 202, 173-183) conclui que a guerra é frequente em todos os tipos de sociedade, sendo mais frequente em sociedades não estatais e menos frequente em sociedades de bandos e caçadores-recolectores. As formas de guerra e tipos de sociedade encontram-se descriminadas nos gráficos apresentados pelos autores.

Referências

FRIGOLÉ REIXACH, Juan; ed. (1988) – As raças humanas. Resomnia Editores.

KEELEY, Lawrence (1997) - War before civilization: The myth of thepeaceful savage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

OTTERBEIN, Keith F. (2004) – How war began. College Station: Texas A&M University Press.

QUESADA SANZ, Fernando (1997) – Aspectos de la guerra en el mediterráneo antiguo. In Garcia, J. A.; antona del vale; eds – La guerra en la anteguedad: una aproximación al origen de los ejércitos. Madrid: Ministerio de Defensa. p. 33-52.

Kennewick Man

Kennewick Man is the name for the skeletal remains of a prehistoric man found on a bank of the Columbia River in Kennewick, Washington, USA on July 28, 1996. The discovery of Kennewick Man was accidental: a pair of spectators (Will Thomas and David Deacy) found his skull while attending the annual hydroplane races.[1]....................

The remains had been scattered in the reservoir due to erosion. Following delivery of the cranium by the coroner, they were examined by archaeologist James Chatters. After ten visits to the site, Chatters had managed to collect 350 bones and pieces of bone, which with the skull completed almost an entire skeleton.[5] The cranium was fully intact with all the teeth that had been present at the time of death.[6] All major bones were found, except the sternum and a few bones of the hands and feet. The remains were determined to be those of "a male of late middle age (40-55 years), and tall (170 to 176 cm), slender build".[7] Many of the bones however, were broken into several pieces.[8] At the University of California at Riverside, a small bone fragment was subjected to radiocarbon dating. This fixed the age of the skeleton at approximately 8,400 radiocarbon years or 9,300 calendar years, not the nineteenth century, as had originally been assumed.[5] After studying the bones, Chatters concluded they belonged to a Caucasoid male about 68 inches (173 cm) tall who had died in his mid fifties.[5]
Chatters found that bone had partially grown around a 79 mm (3.1 in) stone projectile lodged in the illium, part of the pelvic bone.[8] On x-ray, nothing appeared. Chatters put the bone through a CPT scan, and it was discovered the projectile was made from a siliceous gray stone that was found to have igneous origins.[8] Geologically, this refers to a stone that formed in a silica-rich environment during a volcanic period. The projectile was leaf-shaped, long, broad and had serrated edges, all fitting the definition of a Cascade point. This type of point is a feature of the Cascade phase, occurring in the archaeological record from roughly 5000 to over 8000 years ago.[8].............

In Wikipedia

The internal surface of Kennewick Man's right hip bone shows the embedded stone point, upper right.

in The Seattle Times - Kennewick Man yields more secrets

Developments of cognitive capacities for violence in Bronze Age Ireland - Barry Molloy

in The Sixth World Archaeological Congress
29 June - 4 July 2008
University College Dublin

Session: The experiential role of violence and combat in the creation of social identities
Session organisers: Barry Molloy and Angelos Papadopoulos
Developments of cognitive capacities for violence in Bronze Age Ireland

Barry Molloy

UCD School of Archaeology

Introduction
Should warfare be seen as a defining characteristic of European Bronze Age societies as has been asserted by Anthony Harding (1999)? Was it really that important in the daily grind of prehistoric life to warrant such a dramatic claim? It will be argued in this paper that the evolution of formalised group combat fundamentally changed the ordering of prehistoric societies in Europe, as will be illustrated through the case study of Bronze Age Ireland. The use of the material culture from this specific dataset will provide a succinct example as to the impact that changes in combat modalities had on broader social trajectories, particularly through an increased level of specialisation of warrior skills.
The notion of so-called "warrior elites" in the Bronze Age of Europe has been around for as long as the discipline of archaeology, though this term has by now fallen out of favour with many. It is not my aim to engage in a quest for a more palatable way of expressing "warrior elites" or indeed to rehabilitate the term in and of itself. Instead, I would like to explore how the evolution of the material culture of combat demanded a commensurate increase in skill specialisation by those who used these weapons to kill one another, and what were the social and practical implications of such a development.
Violence and killing in formal warfare can be seen as acutely meaningful actions in that they are not the result of random aggression or belligerence, they are functional actions which were socially tailored and legitimated. Society expected these events to occur and it was structured to facilitate them to occur when needed – tools were designed and created and those who used these tools were selected (by family, skill or otherwise) and equipped. The complexity of the martial panoplies therefore reflects to some considerable extent both the expectations and requirements of warriors. This exploration of how the evolution of weaponry in Ireland impacted on society will begin in the Early Bronze Age where we first find artefacts which may be regarded as a tool of interpersonal violence – in particular, the dagger.

The Early Bronze Age
The first daggers which were in widespread use in Ireland could scarcely be called such given the short blades which they possessed. Their very basic design may owe equally to their heritage in weapons and tools of flint and to the novelty of the medium being used to manufacture them – copper (alloyed with arsenic and later tin). To call these early artefacts weapons may be slightly ostentatious, though their use to this end is one of several workaday purposes to which they may have been put. By the beginning of the second millennium BC in Ireland, the daggers in use were becoming increasingly complex and ornate in their form, with a parallel increase in the length of the objects, implying if not proving their increasing tendency to be used as weapons.
There is no doubt that the advances in the technology of manufacturing metal objects played an important role in this elaboration of daggers, and it may well have been that the more sophisticated pieces were a demonstration of the skills of the bronze smiths as much as for martial expediency. This relationship between technological advance, complexity of design, manufacturing skill, intended function and status symbol for the end user appears to have something of a linear pattern in their earliest manifestations, but as will be discussed below, the driving forces behind design become more complex as time goes on.
In their most basic essence, as an offensive weapon a dagger can cause serious injury through thrusting attacks and can inflict minor injuries using the cutting-edges. An important consideration relating to the use of daggers is the trajectories of attack which are utilised – due to the comparatively short blade, thrusting attacks follow closely, if not precisely, the natural trajectories of limb movements used in unarmed combat – essentially modified versions of punches. This is somewhat simplified, but it bears heavily on the range of body movements which are used when fighting with daggers which will of necessity incorporate elements of unarmed combat such as kicking and punching as well as grappling moves. In this sense, combat with bronze daggers is well within the parameters of combat / fighting styles that were millennia old in their essence. Even the use of tools which were multi-functional would have affected the perception of dagger-combat in society. While we cannot know what the social location or frequency of such combat was – the equivalent of bar brawls or gentlemanly duels – the actions undertaken were essentially basic and lacking the sophistication required for more complex weapon forms. Other weapons from hunting such as the bow and arrow in particular were most probably used in combat at this time also, but
do not appear to have had as large an impact on the subsequent development of combat weaponry as the dagger.
Another order of weapons which was in use alongside these daggers was the halberd, and this was a highly important development in the martial trajectory of prehistoric combat. The halberd blade was technologically very similar to the dagger and morphologically closely related – it had a triangular blade (sometimes gently curved) and was attached to its haft by means of rivets, as with the daggers. Where it differed dramatically was the nature of the organic component and the orientation of attacks. Rather than a short wooden or horn handle, the halberd was attached to the end of a long wooden pole, and most importantly, it was set at a right-angle to the shaft. O’ Flaherty (2007) has suggested the possibility of a shorter version with a shaft in the region of one meter and more common varieties with shafts in the region of around two meters.
Experiments carried out by O’Flaherty put paid to any likelihood that these were purely ceremonial or ritual weapons, and they were capable of penetrating the crania of (already slaughtered) sheep. One can extrapolate from this the likelihood that they were able to penetrate human skulls or to cause severe injury to muscle tissue or to the torso in particular. One cannot forget the organic component in itself which constituted the majority of the weapon and would have been effective as a percussive weapon complementing the penetrative element of copper alloy ‘weapon head’.
Unlike contemporary daggers, these weapons were not borrowed from existing tool categories and they served no presently known function beyond combat. While we cannot state the context of their use beyond the high probability of interpersonal combat, the manoeuvrability and space required to successfully execute strikes strongly implies that loose order formations were a necessity. While single-combats are again attractive as with daggers, their use in more complex situations involving several combatants is also possible, especially in the context of skirmishing. One must be hesitant to use the ambiguous catch-all term of "ritual combat", but if we define this as combat controlled by broad sets of regulations which were respected as part of formal conflict resolution mechanisms, one can envisage the halberd potentially used in single-combats and / or alongside daggers, (flint tipped) spears and potentially bows and arrows on the battlefield. A human rib-bone found in Poulnabrone portal tomb in Co. Clare had the tip of a flint arrowhead still embedded in it, thus adding the likelihood of this latter weapon being used on the field of combat.
It is difficult to move beyond such cursory outlines to suggest models of warfare, but one can see that the weapons involved were fairly rudimentary and were not yet capable of taking full advantage of the mechanical properties of bronze over and above stone weapons. Only the halberd marks a point of departure in the conduct of combat in that it introduces not only a tool peculiar to interpersonal combat, but also the need for warriors to develop specific skill-sets which are only applicable in this environment. For the first time in the prehistory of Ireland a particular form of object was characterised as a weapon of war and its users were not translating skills and tools of hunting to other ends but bearing weapons tailored to kill humans. Warrior skills, and the responsibilities entailed, were becoming increasingly complex.

The introduction of swords and spears in the Middle Bronze Age
Around 1600 BC, quite early in the period conventionally called the Middle Bronze Age, there were significant changes in the form and function of bladed weaponry, and the earliest form of sword was born in Ireland. It is sometimes suggested that these new weapons, conventionally called "Dirks" and "Rapiers" (see Molloy 2007) evolved from earlier dagger forms, though the biological undertones of such ‘evolutionary’ language perhaps detracts from the importance of combat traditions in this development.
The stylistic fashions which characterise these new weapons are borrowed from the existing design repertoire of bronze smiths, and indeed so is the hilting system. As a point of departure from the preceding daggers, these new weapons had a considerable range of sizes, many were 40cm long and more when hilted, and they were 6 to 8 mm thick. These relatively stocky proportions made many of them robust weapons suited to a limited range of cutting attacks as well as the thrusting attacks associated with daggers. It also dramatically altered the range at which combats would be fought, by virtue of the longer blades. Despite being comparatively short, these were beginning to operate more like swords, and it is perhaps no accident that the earliest evidence for shields in Ireland comes from around this time in the form of the Kilmahamogue shield former. Experiments carried out by the author (Molloy 2007) have proven that they were relatively effective at cutting attacks, and this opened up the manner in which combatants moved in combat in an unprecedented way, particularly as it offered them a whole new range of targets.
These new weapons therefore represent changes in combat styles that need not have simply ‘grown’ out of the existing ones or have developed as the skills of bronze casters increased
and longer castings became available. We must assert also the importance of martial intentionality, the desire of warriors using these tools in combat to have weapons with specific functional properties, particularly the extension of the blade to allow more effective cutting attacks to be made. In this sense it is possible that martial needs were driving the technological advance rather than vice versa. Tools or prestige items in the form of daggers were being replaced by weapons which were well suited to performing complex combat actions. While the halberd of the Early Bronze Age represented the introduction of a new form of specialised combat weapon, the leap forward from dagger to sword in the Middle Bronze Age introduces a weapon form which was to dominate the battlefields of Europe for millennia. We must not therefore underestimate the impact that the more complex forms of fighting that they facilitated had in Bronze Age societies. In themselves, they represent a significant change, but when taken in association with other martial developments in spearhead form, axe form and the introduction of the shield, it is clear that there were very important changes occurring in the way that society managed unrest, ambition or discontent.
With regard to the spearheads, the earliest examples were simple forms operating as stabbing implements when attached to the tip of long wooden shafts. In the centuries following the initial introduction of spearheads of bronze, the forms and related functions virtually exploded in their diversity so that by the end of the period there were a host of different spearheads in use alongside each other. Many of the spearheads had long thin cutting edges along with the (more obvious) threat of the sharp point. Some of these were stout robust weapons with long narrow blades, others were more fragile pieces of similar length with deeper cutting edges. Still other forms had very widely flaring convex blades with a broadly angled point, and the conventional short varieties suitable for thrusting and throwing continued to be manufactured. This richness in the forms that spearheads took would have reflected a similarly broad range in the modes in which they could be used. The spear and related pole-arms were slightly more numerous than the long daggers and swords, though when one takes account of the variety of types of each, it is clear that the entire offensive martial panoply was rich and provided for several different modes of attack.

The emergence of a "warrior identity" in the Middle Bronze Age
In the Middle Bronze Age (or early part of the Later Bronze Age) there was an unprecedented increase in the range of weapons being specifically designed for use in interpersonal combat, and a coeval development in the complexity of combat systems. Warfare was being
transformed into an entirely artificial operation, the new tailor-made tools and traditions of the Bronze Age warrior set him apart from male combatants of preceding millennia. This leads into the semantic minefield that we archaeologists so love - was there such thing as the fabled "warrior elite" and if so, what can we say about it? We must first of all pose questions in relation to the primary archaeological data if we are to explore issues relating to those who used these as weapons. Some pertinent lines of enquiry being – were they structurally sound weapons, did they have effective functional designs, were they complicated to use, how do they work in combination together or were they suited to single and / or multiple opponents?
These questions have been pursued at greater length in relation to experimental and use-wear analyses carried out by the author (Molloy 2006, 2007), though here specific mention is made in relation to the experience gained when addressing these questions during this research to date. Strength and dexterity are important factors in the effective use of these weapons, but it was determined that the most important element, perhaps unsurprisingly, was skill developed through repeatedly using swords in test cutting exercises. In the limited context of this academic research, it was clear that more training would have been required over a longer duration if there was a need to effectively undertake these actions in the heightened physiological state of a combat context (Grossman 1995). It is noted here that for many of the weapons which survive today, we are not looking at forms of ‘fool-proof’ spears provided to those press-ganged or drafted into service in other times and places, the swords and majority of the more elaborate spears (considerable in their number (Ramsey 1989)) of this epoch were weapons which could ONLY function effectively if used in trained hands. With the number and variety of weapons surviving to this day, this may well indeed be expected to be the case. Improper use would rapidly render these weapons useless due to the mechanical properties of bronze, and as practically determined by the damage inflicted in a number of poorly executed strikes by the author during test cutting with replica swords. The level of expertise may or may not have equated to martial arts skill levels in the modern sense of the phrase, but we can say with certainty that Bronze Age warriors had a level of complexity to their combat system sufficient to warrant being called a martial art, while allowing for significant variation in skill level therein on an individual basis.
Modern military psychology has shown how undertaking acts of violence and the training required to successfully undertake these acts when required has significant psychological effects on the majority of combatants. A direct analogy with warriors of the Bronze Age would be problematic at best, though it is important to consider the impact which the
requirements of performing acts of violence may have had in broad terms. While a concept of "warrior identity" was probably nothing new, the increased specialisation required by the new weapons would have necessitated increased interaction with weapons through training, making them explicitly more prominent in daily activities. Furthermore, the greater intensity and brutality of combat in this era was a marked departure from preceding periods in human development, and would have resulted in very different experiences for combatants resulting in longer term effects on their perception of the potential roles and functions of combat and warfare. This in turn would have necessarily altered cognitive capacities for violence on an individual and group level, as the specialised tools of violence became increasingly effective and multivariate in their applications and forms of combat became ever more "up close and personal". To identify oneself as a warrior and to undertake the acts of a warrior was a transformative process, and one which became more acutely so as weapons panoplies and combat systems became more complex.
What is of central importance is that the actual weapons which were used in combat give us a keen insight into the complexity of the combat systems, and in turn indicate a significant increase in the level of skill specialisation in the undertaking of combat over and above the Early Bronze Age. The time and resources required are strong circumstantial evidence that such specialisation was not pursued equally by all adult males on the island, and so combat skills and obligations were likely to have set some members of society apart as "warriors".

The Late Bronze Age
Developments in the Late Bronze Age were to compound and further concretise the important role of the warrior in prehistoric Ireland. The grip-tongue swords of the Late Bronze Age in Ireland were markedly different than their predecessors as they were a direct intrusion of weapon style from the continent following a pattern of upheavals and change that spread across Europe around the century 1250 – 1150 BC (Eogan 1965; Cowen 1951, 1966). These new swords were more robust and versatile than the existing weapons, though how much they could have changed warfare remains something of an open question.
In Ireland, the new swords were adopted wholesale throughout the island in a relatively short time, probably within a single generation, though this was not a simple process of replacement of the old with the new. The intrusive sword tradition was itself adapted by local weapon smiths in many areas of Ireland to better complement the existing combat traditions, particularly in a band across the island incorporating the provinces of Leinster and
Connaught. The new weapons had a shorter reach and were more quickly deployed than their continental ancestors by virtue of their decreased length and weight. We can see in this a pattern whereby new intrusive weapon forms are adapted to fit into the existing martial arts traditions, particularly the light and fast Middle Bronze Age swords of Ireland (Molloy, forthcoming). This illustrates the level that the combat systems already in place were embedded in society, specifically through the medium of combat practitioners or warriors.
The spearheads of Late Bronze Age Ireland have functional affinities with weapons across the continent, but in typological terms they are distinctly local forms. They follow on from the Middle Bronze Age tradition of having several distinct forms in contemporary use (Molloy 2006). The basal-looped spearheads of the Middle Bronze Age continued in use for the earlier part of the Late Bronze Age also into the first millennium BC. While forms therefore changed with time, the continuity of functional attributes, and importantly the diversity inherent in these attributes, is attested in swords, spears and shields. Axes again follow from continental leads in insular formats, but are in functional terms rather similar to their earlier incarnations, though their inclusion in Irish weapon hoards may suggest that they were being more commonly used in battle.
The Late Bronze Age marks many significant changes in the martial panoplies, and these were largely instigated by broader changes in martial arts and weaponry across the continent at this time, but the way in which warfare was conducted in Ireland was not dramatically changed as indicated by the settlement evidence in particular. Importantly, the role of the warrior in society appears to have continuity through the middle second millennium into the first millennium, an expanse of over a thousand years. This is not to suggest a monolithic unchanging society as many other categories of evidence from pollen to pots show considerable patterns of change. The tradition of warriorhood was embedded in the fabric of society as it was an intrinsic aspect of male identity for many, as evidenced by the continued interest in weapon possession.

Conclusion
From the halberd of the Early Bronze Age to the swords of the Late Bronze Age we can see a trajectory for the role of warrior skills in social systems slowly begin and then to take hold, increasing in intensity and importance through time. To the age old adage of ‘fight or flight’ Grossman (1995) added the alternatives also of ‘posture’ and ‘submit’ allowing for assertion of will through gesture. When we look to the loose order combat of the Early Bronze Age
when skirmishing and single combats appear to have prevailed, one may consider the possibility that sizing up or cowing down before a foe interspersed with actions of fight and / or flight may fit well with what some may define as "ritual warfare" (e.g. Keegan 1994).
The "weapons revolution" of the Middle Bronze Age changed the way in which communities interacted, and based on the modified and increasingly artificial context of combat it became possible to use violence in a more broadly encompassing fashion when pursuing social or political agendas. Combat modalities became more intense and the efficacy of the weapons indicates that it became commensurately more bloody and violent. It introduces new threats and new securities at the same time – larger communities as control of landscape becomes more sustainable.
The production of weapons en masse in Middle and Late Bronze Age indicates an institutionalisation of violence as a legitimate and socially sanctioned activity, and this was a dramatic step in altering the trajectories of human societies in much the same way as the often debated ‘Agricultural Revolution’ had millennia earlier. If we are to populate the social world of prehistory, this martial aspect was certainly one of the most striking and exciting manifestations of cultural activity whether through hunting, agonistic combat and displays, territorial ‘management’ or actual mortal combat. Whether we choose to say warrior elites or not, the evolution of more complex martial arts parallel to the more complex weapon varieties was not a neutral social process based simply on passive possession of a new artefact form. The use of these artefacts and the artificial context in which they were used allowed for forms of combat which could include greater numbers of participants and were potentially more brutal and bloody. We simply cannot underestimate the impact that this had on society, as it was contemporary with other important developments in the Bronze Age world such as significantly increasing land clearance and changes in burial practices. Society was changing and warfare would have played an active role in this, whether it was the primary process driving these changes or not.