Warfare
Overview
In this module, students consider the possible causes and consequences
of warfare, how warfare is studied in the archaeological record, and
the possible implications for descendent groups when warfare or violence
is studied.
Note that this year (the first year I am covering warfare), the module
coincided with the start of the war in Iraq. The class format was modified
to allow time for students to discuss their reactions to the war and
their thoughts on the causes and consequences of this conflict.
Lesson Objectives/Reading Journal Topics
By the end of the lesson, students should be able to:
- Identify some of the possible causes and effects of warfare in different
societies (Eastern North American, the Maya) and address how warfare
is understood and justified by its leaders and participants.
- Explain how warfare is studied archaeologically. What kinds of evidence
are examined, and what are sources of ambiguity?
- In terms of the public and descendant groups, describe what an archaeologist
studying violence and warfare needs to consider.
Matrix Principles
Social Relevance (a comparative and historical perspective sheds light
on modern conflicts); Ethics and Values and Diverse Interests (what
are the responsibilities of the archaeologist when excavating evidence
for violence and warfare if this evidence promotes negative stereotypes
or contradicts descendent group ideas of their past?).
Instructional Procedures
Class 1
Readings
Haas, Jonathan
1996 War. In Encyclopedia of Cultural Anthropology, edited
by David Levinson and Melvin Ember, pp. 1357-1361. Henry Holt and Co.,
New York.
Milner, George R.
1999 Warfare in Prehistoric and Early Historic Eastern North America.
Journal of Archaeological Research 7(2):105-151.
Zimmerman, Larry J.
1997 The Crow Creek Massacre: Archaeology and Prehistoric Plains Warfare
in Contemporary Perspective. In Material Harm: Archaeological Studies
of War and Violence, edited by John Carman, pp. 75-94. Cruithne
Press, Glasgow.
Format: Discussion
The brief article by Haas provides a jumping-off point for the discussion
of warfare. Given the high physical, material, and psychological costs,
why do people go to war? In describing causes, Haas compares historical,
sociobiological, and materialist explanations. We expand the discussion
to include the ideological and political causes of war, including the
benefits to war leaders and the creation and use of ideology to justify
or inspire violence and warfare. (Regarding the materialist explanation
of warfare as competition over scarce resources, it is worth pointing
out that scarcity may itself have political causes.) It is also important
in hierarchical societies to distinguish between those who cause or
lead wars and those who fight them—their goals, perspectives,
and benefits or losses are usually very different.
How have archaeologists studied warfare? Milner provides one perspective, a detailed summary and analysis of the archaeological evidence for warfare in Eastern North America. Students discuss the different lines of evidence (osteological, architectural) and how they are brought together to identify warfare; they also discuss how Milner ties this evidence to information on resources and settlement patterns to track changes in patterns of conflict.
Zimmerman raises the important point that the archaeological study
of warfare and violence is a potentially sensitive subject, given: (1)
the handling or excavation of the dead; and (2) the harmful stereotypical
depiction of “Indian savagery” that is potentially encouraged.
The article provides the opportunity for students to begin to debate
the responsibilities of archaeologists when excavating human remains,
especially if there is evidence for violence. (The following module
further explores the problems and potential of working with human remains.)
Class 2: Option 1
NOTE: I had originally planned to discuss Maya warfare, but this year
students were badly in need of a “catch-up” day. They responded
very well (with engaged and thoughtful discussion) to the film on the
Kawelka. With this in mind, I selected another ethnographic film to
add to our discussion of warfare.
Video: Dead Birds
Format: View video and discussion
Students view the video and discuss the causes and consequences of war
among the Dani (West Irian) as depicted in this 1961 ethnographic film.
When filmed, the Dani were agriculturalists living in extensive settlements
of houses and fields grouped by alliances, each separated from the next
by a no-man's-land. The film was made during a period of nearly constant
warfare between two alliances, with frequent back-and-forth raids and
battles as each side sought to avenge deaths. These battles result in
the joining and splitting of factions and in the redrawing of group
boundaries. In addition to discussing the content of the film, students
are asked to consider how this type of warfare might be visible in the
archaeological record.
NOTE: The film is 83 minutes long and will need to be edited (fast-forwarded
through segments) in order to fit within the class period and leave
time for discussion.
Class 2: Option 2
Reading
Webster, David
2000 The Not So Peaceful Civilization: A Review of Maya War. Journal
of World Prehistory 14(1):65-119.
(The link http://ipsapp009.lwwonline.com/content/getfile/4953/1/2/fulltext.pdf
will get you to the home page of the journal. Enter "Webster, David"
in the search box and click on "pdf" for the article. Must be accessed
from a computer linked to the PSU network.)
Format: Discussion
Drawing on archaeological, epigraphic, and historical sources, Webster’s
article introduces the debates over and evidence for Maya warfare, particularly
of the Classic Period. Students discuss and debate war’s role
in the political economy and the motivations and potential gains (status,
territory) for elites.