riod (ca. 80 0 0 –ca. 40 0 0 b.c.e.), and mass buria ls such as t hose
found at the Neolithic (ca. 7000–ca. 2000 b.c.e.) sites of As-
parn in Austria and Talheim in Germany contain skeletons
t h at b e a r s i g n s of blow s f rom s t one a xe s. Tr au m at ic i nju r ie s on
bones are common features of Neolithic skeletons throughout
Europe. Th e nature of this violence is diffi cult to determine,
but from about 5500 b.c.e. onward banks and ditches around
Neolithic settlements are common. Sites like Darion in Bel-
gium were very clearly fortifi ed with palisades and ditches,
and movement into the sites was channeled through gates that
could be defended. Since Darion was located on the frontier
of Neolithic settlement at the time, it could be speculated that
the site was defended against the hunter-gatherers on whose
territory the farmers were encroaching.
Warfare in prehistoric Europe did not involve the con-
quest and control of territory because this would entail or-
ganized political units that did not yet exist. Instead, warfare
primarily took the form of raids to obtain livestock or other
resources, or they were factional struggles between the adher-
ents of one chief or leader and those of another that turned
violent. Th ey probably involved techniques such as ambushes
in the forest and the terrorization of the inhabitants of iso-
lated settlements and farmsteads rather than large, organized
groups of warriors. Violence may also have been directed at
individuals rather than groups, as the wounds on the frozen,
5,300-year-old “Iceman” found in the Alps in 1991 suggest.
During the Bronze Age (ca. 2800–ca. 700 b.c.e.) and Iron
Age (ca. 1000 b.c.e.–ca. 500 c.e.) the increased eff ort expended
in the fortifi cation of settlements as well as the many types of
weapons that could be manufactured from bronze and iron
indicate that confl ict and warfare may have increased. Sites
without much evidence of permanent settlement but with
elaborate fortifi cations may have served as refuges in times of
threat. Th e emergence of chiefs who could command their re-
tainers to take up arms against communities loyal to their en-
emies shift ed warfare to a new level of organization, and the
chiefs themselves may have owed much of their status to their
accomplishments in battle. Such values may have resulted in
further escalation of warfare throughout the Bronze Age and
Iron Age as individuals sought prestige and wealth.
Soon aft er 2000 b.c.e. the bow and arrow almost disap-
peared from European warfare. Th is was an odd development
because the bow and arrow remained very important instru-
ments of war in and near Asia. Th roughout much of Europe,
however, small projectile points that could have served as
arrowheads almost disappeared from the archaeological re-
cord. Th ere may be two reasons for this, one cultural and the
other technological. By 2000 b.c.e. Europeans were adopt-
ing what archaeologists and historians call a heroic culture.
Th ey usually point to the epic poem the Iliad by the Greek
poet Homer (eighth or ninth century b.c.e.) as an example
of what a heroic culture was like. In a heroic culture warriors
dominate. Th e apex of society is the individual leader who
has distinguished himself or herself in combat. For Europe
this may have encouraged the use of hand-to-hand weaponsthat were suited to contests between two easily identifi able
warriors rather than long-range weapons in which death and
victory came anonymously.
Th e key technological development was the sword. In
southern Europe and the Near East small swords and daggers
were favored for combat, but in the rest of Europe swords grew
increasingly longer. By 900 b.c.e. the Celtic peoples were con-
quering Europe, and their weapon of choice was a slashing
sword. Celtic masters of metalworking found ways to make
long swords tough and durable. In the Near East swords re-
mained short partly because metalworkers could not keep a
sword strong and durable aft er it reached the length of about
2 feet; their swords would snap when they became too long.
Short swords were intended more for stabbing than slashing,
and they were used only for fi ghting in very close quarters, as
in the combat favored by the Romans.THE CELTS
By the time the Romans and Celts came into direct confl ict in
the late 400s b.c.e. the Celts had developed a style of warfare
that favored the long sword. When they met and slaughtered
a Roman army near the city of Rome in 390 b.c.e., they were
using long swords with blunted points that were intended
entirely for slashing. Th ey also used spears, which they made
in three lengths. Th e longest spear was designed for thrust-
ing, the medium-length spear was made for throwing, and
the short one was used for close combat. Th ere seems to have
been no loss of prestige for using spears, but the sword was
the weapon of preference for most Celtic warriors.
Th e Celts of that era had fully developed their warrior
culture. Th e best way for someone to advance in Celtic society
was through heroic victories in combat. Also prestigious was
the taking of the heads of fallen heroes and bringing home
loot. An interesting aspect of Celtic looting was that they
oft en gave their best loot to gods or goddesses, frequently
dumping what they brought home into lakes and rivers as
gift s to the gods who had aided them in battle.
Headhunting by the Celts appalled many of the Greeks
and Romans who explored Celtic Europe before Rome’s inva-
sions of central Europe in the middle of the fi rst century b.c.e.
Th e heads of cowards were not taken. Th ere was no glory in
killing someone who ran away or froze in fear. Instead, Celtic
warriors cut off the heads of people they had killed face to face.
Although these heads were usually those of men in the male-
dominated Celtic society, some were probably of women who
had earned reputations as fearsome sorceresses or masters of
combat. Celtic oral tradition has many tales of warriors be-
ing taught the skills of combat by women who were masters
of battle, and killing them in armed combat was considered
just as glorious as killing a great male warrior. Th e greater the
warrior, the more prestige would come from having his head.
Th e heads were hung on the walls of Celtic homes, and the
family in the home would recite the many glorious achieve-
ments of the former owners of the heads, just as they would of
the ancestors or living family members who had slain them.war and conquest: Europe 11410895-1194_Soc&Culturev4(s-z).i1141 1141 10/10/07 2:31:13 PM