Prehistoric warfare amongst LBK farmers

[Erpingham]

And the problem with some of the theories is that they can as axiomatic that there was or was not war within that period 

Otzi is late Neolithic as he has a copper axe.  I think most people would accept warfare then.  See for example this little summary

http://www.archaeology.co.uk/articles/features/bloody-stone-age-war-in-the-neolithic.htm

[Patrick Waterson]

The Crow Creek Massacre is a 'Neolithic' (in terms of culture rather than timing) Amerindian massacre.  Noteworthy is the clear record of atrocities left on the skeletons of the victims.

Interesting but tells us very little about the nature of combat.  For Amerindian I was thinking on the descriptions of warfare of people like the Tupi or Florida peoples, which feature a good deal of archery yet also close combat weapons like clubs.

I am more familiar with the Sioux during the horse-riding Plains Indians period, which has obvious anomalies in that Neolithic types are not known to have ridden quadrupeds but is at least quite well documented.  Typical warfare by the Sioux and their neighbours involved raiding villages to steal ponies with combat as an exciting incidental activity, usually involving a running fight in which many arrows were shot but few people hurt.  Sometimes two tribes would face off against each other in formal battles but these also had a remarkably low loss rate on account of the tendency to put 'counting coup' above killing opponents and the difficulty of hitting fast-moving horsemen without volley shooting.  Things became more interesting when an older warrior decided he had had enough of life and staked himself out, i.e. tied himself to a wooden stake and took up a hand weapon, as there was much prestige for killing such a man but only if this was achieved hand to hand.

All in all, Sioux warfare involved much excitement but comparatively few people getting hurt, with prestige rather than body count as the main aim of the game (body count never hurt but was not so easy to achieve).

Apaches were different.  Apaches fought to kill, attacking from ambush and generally taking no prisoners.  They also were one of the few tribes who usually fought on foot despite having horses available.

Tupi warfare seems to have been largely oriented towards taking home live captives for dinner, with preference given to the bravest and strongest, evidently in the belief (shared by certain West African tribes) that when such a man was consumed the essence of his strength and qualities was passed to the consumer (a consumer society meant something a bit different back then).

[Andreas Johansson]

Andreas, were there not chariot mobile pastoralists before the Cimmerian riders?

There were chariots out on the steppe quite early, but I'm not aware of evidence of their mass use in battle by non-settled societies. The Aryan conquest of India has been suggested as an example (ISTR Keegan does in A History of Warfare), but the Aryans of the Vedas are hardly nomad herders, and we know nothing whatsoever of the specifics of the conquest.

Aren.'t the peoples who drift int Sumeria abd Akkad and the Libyans and Numidians walking herdsmen?

They were, or at least some of them were, but I would argue they're not comparable with Scythians, Turks, or Mongols. In terms of their impact on civilization, they're more analogous to agriculturalist barbarians.

[aligern]

The Kassites then Andreas. The difficulty we have here is that the chariot mounted nomad leaves no record until he arrives at a city based society. Were not the Kassites  a chariot aristocracy who worshipped the horse?

[Andreas Johansson]

I confess complete ignorance of the Kassites' economic base before taking over Babylonia. Nor do I know whether they became charioteers before or after setting up shop in Babylon (tho whoever is behind the relevant DBMM lists evidently thought they had few chariots before settling there).

(I note tangentially that Drews in The Coming of the Greeks quotes with apparent disapproval a description of the Mitanni Aryans as pastoral migrants, but it's not clear what he thinks they did for a living when not taking over the Habur valley - given the context maybe he's only objecting to the migrant part.)

[Andreas Johansson]

Looking up the entry on the Kassites in Benkowski and Millard's Dictionary of the Ancient Near East, I see they said Kassites had been present in Babylonia long before the Hittite sack and the subsequent establishment of the Kassite dynasty: the seeming implication being that it was more coup than invasion.

Sasson's (ed.) Civilizations of the Ancient Near East says much the same, adding that we simply don't know how Kassite kings ended up ruling. It does say they were pastoralists, at least early on (after the takeover at least some became "feudal" landlords).

[aligern]

The Kassites it is then

[Andreas Johansson]

If "it" means a chariot-based nomad force of comparable mobility and capability to later horse nomads, I don't think we can presently know if the Kassites were it.

[Dave Beatty]

The Crow Creek Massacre is a 'Neolithic' (in terms of culture rather than timing) Amerindian massacre.  Noteworthy is the clear record of atrocities left on the skeletons of the victims.

Interesting but tells us very little about the nature of combat.  For Amerindian I was thinking on the descriptions of warfare of people like the Tupi or Florida peoples, which feature a good deal of archery yet also close combat weapons like clubs.

I am more familiar with the Sioux during the horse-riding Plains Indians period, which has obvious anomalies in that Neolithic types are not known to have ridden quadrupeds but is at least quite well documented. 

For an excellent description of prehistoric warfare in the American Southwest see Constant Battles: The Myth of the Peaceful, Noble Savage, by Steven LeBlanc. $7 used hard cover from Amazon.

Dave Beatty