> I find it really concerning if this is actually true. How can you be an archaeologist and not think war has been a major part of human history?
My understanding is that clear evidence of conquest and genocide, like artifacts associated with a culture ceasing to be made while all new artifacts of a different culture begin to be made, is habitually explained away as mere cultural exchange. The hypothesis is that the resident population wasn't wiped out, it just wholesale adopted a different culture.
Another issue is that archeologically speaking it's pretty hard to tell war from migration. That's one of those clear scientific results that researchers prefer not to talk too much about on account of the political elite's position on migration.
My understanding is that clear evidence of conquest and genocide, like artifacts associated with a culture ceasing to be made while all new artifacts of a different culture begin to be made, is habitually explained away as mere cultural exchange. The hypothesis is that the resident population wasn't wiped out, it just wholesale adopted a different culture.
Another issue is that archeologically speaking it's pretty hard to tell war from migration. That's one of those clear scientific results that researchers prefer not to talk too much about on account of the political elite's position on migration.