If you were to excavate a site, what would you look for to see if warfare was present?

Question

How do you differentiate artifacts that were used in hunting from weapons of war? How could you see violence from a site? Could stratigraphy tell you anything? Thanks in advance, I need all the help I can get.

Answer 1

Your question could be answered in many different ways depending on the geographic region you are speaking of. No matter where you look, however, you are not going to find catapults and walls do not equal warfare and lack of walls do not indicate peace. You need to be careful asking questions like these, especially for some sort of school report, as I think the people answering above are not archaeologists.

Weapons of war vs hunting: this can be a bit tricky. In Bolivia, where I work, hunting is done with teeny tiny projectile points which kill birds and guinea pigs and small things. They aren't big enough to really kill a human without some effort. It is easy to say they are for hunting. Also, many cultures create ceremonial version so weapons made out of soft things such as gold, again those would not kill a human and thus would not be used for warfare. Unless you are excavating a battle ground (which rarely happens) weapons used in war are usually found in burials (this is where stratigraphy and context comes in). If you find a projectile point lodged in a fella's ribs, chances are he died from it. 'Use wear analysis' can tell you what sorts of things a particular tool was used to cut. What looks like some sort of nasty hook actually may be a tool for reaping grain when the marks of the silica coating of the grain are found on the object's surface under a microscope. etc etc.

As for violence at a site, destruction layers are the key. A major burning incident (which COULD indicate a lost battle/take over but also may not) looks like a big black layer in the stratigraphy. If this black layer is preceded by non burnt layers and well as proceeded by non burnt layers (stratigraphy for you) you know that this burning was a one time even and relates to some major tragedy such as an attack. Fortifications are a possible indicator that people feared attack but may not indicate warefare. Conversley the ancient Maya engaged in various forms of ritualized warfare, some wars lasting over 100 years, and they did not build fortified cities.

Claiming evidence of warfare is often very controversial. Everyone wants to find a dramaic and traumatic battle but, well, you can never be sure. Be SERIOUSLY careful with the information you've received from others. Much of it is rather silly.

Answer 2

It seems to me that quantity would be an overwhelming tool for determining if warfare was present versus normal hunting/survival. In addition I suspect that when excavating such a site would reveal bones and artifacts that were human as opposed to animal.
Layering would give clues as to the era that the activity took place.

Answer 3

Depending on the age of the site I would look for:

1. Fortifications such as ramparts and walls.
2. Depictions of warfare and gods of war in art.
3. Melee weapons such as clubs, double-bladed axes, swords.
4. Defensive weapons such as armor, shields, and helmets.
5. Signs of destruction such as widespread fire and rebuilding.
6. Cities built on hill tops were more likely built for defensive purposes than cities built on a plain.
7. Skeletons with healed combat wounds and broken bones.

Answer 4

Look to see if the community is surrounded by a thick wall or not. Or if the individual houses had thick walls or not. Look for human bones and see how many show signs of war-typical injury. Look for signs of weapons such as catapults, which are not useful for hunting.

Answer 5

Walls around villages, roads that go in straight lines instead of following rivers, mass burials instead of individual ones. Broken bones on a significant percentage of victims. Evidence of fires where they shouldn't be (carbon deposits). I'm sure there are more.