Prehistoric warfare
From Free net encyclopedia
| Image:Ramses II at Kadesh.jpgImage:Gustavus Adolphus at the Battle at Breitenfeld.jpgImage:M1A1 abrams front.jpg |
|---|
| History of Warfare |
| Eras |
| Prehistoric · Ancient · Medieval · Gunpowder · Industrial · Modern |
| Theaters |
| Aerial · Amphibious · Arctic · Desert · Jungle · Mountain · Naval · Ski · Space · Urban · |
| Weapons |
| Armoured · Artillery · Biological · Cavalry · Chemical · Electronic · Infantry · Information · Mechanized · Nuclear · Psychological · Radiological · Submarine |
| Tactics |
|
Asymmetric · Attrition · Conventional · |
| Lists |
| Battles · Civil wars · Commanders · Invasions · Operations · Sieges · Tactics · Wars |
Prehistoric warfare is war conducted in the era before writing, states and other such large social organizations.
When humans first began fighting wars is a matter of great debate among anthropologists and historians. There are examples of Neanderthals with spear points embedded in their skeleton, and some archaeological evidence of other early groups of humans having killed each other. These are isolated incidents and are far more likely evidence of murder between individuals, rather than war between groups. It is also quite likely that a number of these deaths were the result of hunting or other accidents.
Of the hunter-gatherer societies still in existence today, some lead lives of great violence, frequently raiding neighbouring groups and seizing territory, women, and goods from others by force. Other groups, such as the famous Bushmen of the Kalahari, live in societies with no warfare and very little murder. Which of these states was more common among early humans is still unknown, and is a matter of deep debate. What is common among those groups that still remain and fight frequently is that warfare is highly ritualized, with a number of taboos and practices in place that limit the number of casualties and the duration of a conflict.
The most common weapons used by early humans were simple in form and easy to produce. Originally, such weaponry consisted of clubs and spears. These were heavily used for hunting as early as 35,000 BC, but there is little evidence that there was much of what we would consider war in that era. Of the many cave paintings from this period, none depict humans attacking other humans. There is no known archaeological evidence of large scale fighting during this period of social evolution.
Beginning around 12,000 BC, combat was transformed by the development of bows, maces, and slings. The bow seems to have been the most important weapon in the development of early warfare, in that it enabled attacks to be launched with far less risk to the attacker when compared to the risk involved in the use of mêlée combat weaponry. While there are no cave paintings of battles between men armed with clubs, the development of the bow is concurrent with the first known depictions of organized warfare consisting of clear illustrations of two or more groups of men attacking each other. These figures are arrayed in lines and columns with a distinctly garbed leader at the front. Some paintings even portray still recognizable tactical techniques like flankings and envelopments.
The mace seems to have enjoyed a period of primacy as the weapon of choice for personal combat. However, the development of leather armour greatly limited its effectiveness, which left projectiles and edged weapons paramount.
The first archaeological record of what could be a prehistoric battle is located on the Nile in Egypt near its border with Sudan. Known as Cemetery 117 it is at least seven thousand years old. It contains a large number of bodies, many with arrowheads embedded in their skeletons, which indicates that they may have been the casualties of a battle. Some question this conclusion by arguing that the bodies may have accumulated over many decades, and may even be evidence of the murder of trespassers rather than actual battles. Nearly half of the bodies are female, and this fact also causes some to question the argument for large-scale warfare.
With the development of agriculture and the domestication of animals, human societies seem to have become more prone to engage in warfare. Agriculture created enough of a surplus of food to enable farmers to spend some of the year as warriors, or to support a dedicated class of fighters. Nomadic cattle and horse herders were even more likely to engage in combat, as their mounted warriors could gain much plunder by attacking the agriculturists of the river valleys.
Perhaps to dissuade the nomadic raiders, or to counter other pastoralists, fortifications and city walls began to be built, with the earliest known example being Jericho in Asia Minor, which was built around 8000 BC. However, this wall was more likely to have been useful for defense against flooding or to protect against wild animals rather than for defense against other warriors.
The Māori of New Zealand are notable for the thousands of fortifications constructed to enhance a group's standing in the near continuous fighting on their islands in the South Pacific. In an era before siege weapons had been developed to a high level of technological complexity, and when attackers had limited supplies and time to spend engaged in battles, fortifications seem to have been a successful method of securing a population and livestock against invaders, though the fields and homes would likely be pillaged by the attackers. These substantial fortifications show that there was considerable social organization in the societies of prehistoric peoples. This is indirect corollary evidence for them also having been capable of conducting organized warfare.
The onset of the Chalcolithic saw the introduction of copper daggers, axes, and other items. For the most part these were far too expensive and malleable to be efficient weapons. They are considered by many scholars to have been largely ceremonial implements. It was with the development of bronze that edged metal weapons became commonplace.
The size of prehistoric armies is a matter of debate. Those who deny the very notion of prehistoric war argue that population densities were too low to have anything larger than raiding parties of a few dozen men in nearly all possible cases. This is supported by the Amarna letters, where up to 20 armed people were able to terrorise towns in the southern Levant. Others argue that settlements of the size of Çatal Höyük in modern day Turkey would have likely fielded several hundred men, and an alliance of a few cities would thus produce a sizable force. These groups were certainly large enough that we can assume that all of the elements of warfare, such as tactics, logistics, and organizational structure, would have been essential to the success of an expedition.