Lecture 5
Why we (don’t) ght — a perspective from deep history
Prof. Dr. David Fontijn
• Violence and resilience from social/collective perspective (archeology)
• C. 1900 BCE (4000 years ago)
◦Bronze Age
◦Long-range killing (arrows)
◦Close-range, face to face slaughter
◦12 individuals, men, women and children slaughtered
How is it possible that people commit atrocities to each other?
• Part of long history
• Is violence an essential part of ‘the human condition’?
• Violence as situational/linked to religion and beliefs
Contents
1. Philosophy: Hobbes vs. Rousseau
2. Why the deep past matters
3. What Archeology can tell us
4. Peace in a violent society: the Bronze Age
5. Theory of ‘persona’ and ‘social front’
Philosophy: Hobbes vs. Rousseau
• Hobbes: before humans organised themselves into states, life was extremely violent
• With the organisation of states, peace was institutionalised
• Theory maintained and shared by Pinker 2012: scienti c study showing that in relative terms,
violence declined with time
◦In pre-historic communities, higher percentage of violent deaths
◦It has to do with the organisation of communities into states
• Rousseau: life in the deep past was peaceful
• Noble savage
• When people start to organise themselves in states, they become violent towards each other
• Sustained by popular study by Bergman: our history shows that sharing, morality, and solidarity is
the essential fabric of the human conditions (violence is an abnormality, a deviance of normal
behaviour)
◦Supported by examples from our (deep) past
Why the deep past matters
• Apparently, knowing about the deep past matters and that is what archeology does
• Shows the true nature of human kind
What archeology can tell us
• Archeology: social science, using sophisticated methods from natural sciences, DNA, isotopes,
forensic studies
• Archeology has extended reach of systematic knowledge on actions human societies with 100,000
of years
• Prehistory: 95% of entire human history
• We study (extreme) long-term history of humanity
• It has gaps but also provides numerous clues about human behaviour (violence and resilience to
violence)
• Hands-on-evidence (forensic study of bodies, skeleton, mass graves)
• Context: assessing violence within a long-term perspective (was it a coincidence or a systematic
fi
, pattern?)
• Insight into cultural appraisal of violence (religion, rituals, cosmology)
This lecture:
Examples from the past that show
• Assessing context (endemic vs occasional eruption of violence) - (long term development)
• Violence requires social role or persona
• Di erence between actual violence and celebration of violence
Case study: the Bronze Age paradox
• Endemic violence
• At the same time: resilience —> social mechanisms to curb and limit violence
• Europe, 4000 years ago (Bronze Age): simple farming communities
◦No defensive sites
◦No standing armies
◦No lasting central leadership
◦No states
◦No writing
◦(All very peaceful for almost 2000 years)
• Yet, massive numbers of weapons were in these societies!
◦Invention of the sword in Bronze Age
◦First object in human history that is uniquely designed to kill people
◦(Violent side to these seemingly peaceful communities)
• …but other evidence does not point to a continuous state of violence
◦Settlements rarely defended, lay open in the landscape
◦So: how can societies be both peaceful and violent at the same time?
Personhood/social front
• Violence as social phenomenon (comes from individuals behaving in group)
• Marcel Mauss 1934; Ervin Go man 1957
• Individuals occupy several social roles
• The ego is made up of di erent roles
• With this role comes matching behaviour and
matching dress/material culture
• With particular context come as particular social
role and behaviour
• Each role has di erent ‘social front’/persona
(clothing, objects, behaviour)
• Each role has preferred context
• With particular appearances comes particular
social expectations about tting behaviour
• Social front: often standardised front (to adopt an identity that ts a particular context)
• Speci c front: speci c social behaviour
Bronze Age: introduction sword: not a strategic ‘game changer’
• Presupposed particular way of ghting (close contact with your enemy; safe way of ghting: bow
and arrow)
• High risk, training, courage, ‘honour’, ‘prestige’
• Rule-bound way of ghting (not more e cient)
• Sword tied to honour related violence (unwritten rules are required)
• Sword often associated with toilet articles: razors, tweezers, hair rings (ideal of appearances: a
warrior should look like this, therefore the association with toilet utensils)
Why we (don’t) ght — a perspective from deep history
Prof. Dr. David Fontijn
• Violence and resilience from social/collective perspective (archeology)
• C. 1900 BCE (4000 years ago)
◦Bronze Age
◦Long-range killing (arrows)
◦Close-range, face to face slaughter
◦12 individuals, men, women and children slaughtered
How is it possible that people commit atrocities to each other?
• Part of long history
• Is violence an essential part of ‘the human condition’?
• Violence as situational/linked to religion and beliefs
Contents
1. Philosophy: Hobbes vs. Rousseau
2. Why the deep past matters
3. What Archeology can tell us
4. Peace in a violent society: the Bronze Age
5. Theory of ‘persona’ and ‘social front’
Philosophy: Hobbes vs. Rousseau
• Hobbes: before humans organised themselves into states, life was extremely violent
• With the organisation of states, peace was institutionalised
• Theory maintained and shared by Pinker 2012: scienti c study showing that in relative terms,
violence declined with time
◦In pre-historic communities, higher percentage of violent deaths
◦It has to do with the organisation of communities into states
• Rousseau: life in the deep past was peaceful
• Noble savage
• When people start to organise themselves in states, they become violent towards each other
• Sustained by popular study by Bergman: our history shows that sharing, morality, and solidarity is
the essential fabric of the human conditions (violence is an abnormality, a deviance of normal
behaviour)
◦Supported by examples from our (deep) past
Why the deep past matters
• Apparently, knowing about the deep past matters and that is what archeology does
• Shows the true nature of human kind
What archeology can tell us
• Archeology: social science, using sophisticated methods from natural sciences, DNA, isotopes,
forensic studies
• Archeology has extended reach of systematic knowledge on actions human societies with 100,000
of years
• Prehistory: 95% of entire human history
• We study (extreme) long-term history of humanity
• It has gaps but also provides numerous clues about human behaviour (violence and resilience to
violence)
• Hands-on-evidence (forensic study of bodies, skeleton, mass graves)
• Context: assessing violence within a long-term perspective (was it a coincidence or a systematic
fi
, pattern?)
• Insight into cultural appraisal of violence (religion, rituals, cosmology)
This lecture:
Examples from the past that show
• Assessing context (endemic vs occasional eruption of violence) - (long term development)
• Violence requires social role or persona
• Di erence between actual violence and celebration of violence
Case study: the Bronze Age paradox
• Endemic violence
• At the same time: resilience —> social mechanisms to curb and limit violence
• Europe, 4000 years ago (Bronze Age): simple farming communities
◦No defensive sites
◦No standing armies
◦No lasting central leadership
◦No states
◦No writing
◦(All very peaceful for almost 2000 years)
• Yet, massive numbers of weapons were in these societies!
◦Invention of the sword in Bronze Age
◦First object in human history that is uniquely designed to kill people
◦(Violent side to these seemingly peaceful communities)
• …but other evidence does not point to a continuous state of violence
◦Settlements rarely defended, lay open in the landscape
◦So: how can societies be both peaceful and violent at the same time?
Personhood/social front
• Violence as social phenomenon (comes from individuals behaving in group)
• Marcel Mauss 1934; Ervin Go man 1957
• Individuals occupy several social roles
• The ego is made up of di erent roles
• With this role comes matching behaviour and
matching dress/material culture
• With particular context come as particular social
role and behaviour
• Each role has di erent ‘social front’/persona
(clothing, objects, behaviour)
• Each role has preferred context
• With particular appearances comes particular
social expectations about tting behaviour
• Social front: often standardised front (to adopt an identity that ts a particular context)
• Speci c front: speci c social behaviour
Bronze Age: introduction sword: not a strategic ‘game changer’
• Presupposed particular way of ghting (close contact with your enemy; safe way of ghting: bow
and arrow)
• High risk, training, courage, ‘honour’, ‘prestige’
• Rule-bound way of ghting (not more e cient)
• Sword tied to honour related violence (unwritten rules are required)
• Sword often associated with toilet articles: razors, tweezers, hair rings (ideal of appearances: a
warrior should look like this, therefore the association with toilet utensils)
