CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk

Provided by OAR@UM

AGGRESSION AND DEFENCE IN PREHISTORIC

Joseph Magro Conti

this theme with regard to the Maltese Aims and difficulties ofthe study islands. Much has been written about the regarding fortifications and The local prehistoric material evidence, warfare which has evolved from the particularly that related to combat, is very Renaissance to recent times. No specific fragmentary, at times unprovenanced or study has ever been attempted about the unstratified, and often ambiguous. The local aspects of aggression and defence in few instances of available evidence need ancient times. This article attempts to to be interpreted without forcing, forging investigate the causes of and the attitudes or fantasising. Records may be biased, towards aggression in prehistoric times depending on the recorder's awareness, and the scenario of hostilities within the methodology of recording and his Mediterranean sphere in relation to expertise in armed conflict. Frequently evidence from the Maltese islands. records are descriptive only, with hardly any drawing or photograph of the The world-wide lack of subject study in presumed weapons. The remains prehistory has been expressed by those themselves are often in a fragmentary authors who have remarked that we will state at the time of discovery, and have never know very much "for scarcity of further deteriorated since. The physical evidence . . . one of the most important evidence itself may not be sufficient to aspects about pre-classical world is largely give a clear indication of how a presumed ignored" (Drews 1993: 97; Dark 1995:108, weapon or fortification has been utilized, Renfrew & Balm 1991: 193). Dark (1995: against who or what, and what the 105) further adds that "there has been resources and strategies of the enemy little discussion of the theoretical basis for were. recogmsmg warfare in archaeological sources, although the archaeology of Weapons and fortifications are an integral warfare has been an important topic in the part of any cultural expression. Their study of the Roman period and later distribution and nature instigate us to tinws". Military history has been of little inquire why they were required, how they interest in most academic circles, and this were made, how successful they were. is probably attributable to vivid memories What do these objects tell us about the of World War II (Mercer 1989: 19; Drews people who utilized them? Were there 1993: 98). In the past decade substantial foreign influences and local variations? archaeological investigations were Queries like these are best answered by undertaken in Europe and the Near East.J comparison with other local and foreign Despite this, little has been attempted on examples, where the archaeological record has been investigated more scientifically. This overview is not a typological or 1 Recent studies in Britain include P. Dixon's technical analysis of prehistoric weapons, (Current Archaeology, 1981: 76, 145-7) study of distribution of arrowheads around the gate of a but more of an anthropological approach Neolithic enclosure at Crickley Hill, and J.S. Dent's to human behaviour towards aggression (Archaeological Journal 1983: 140, 120-8) study of and defence within a particular natural Iron Age weapons from burials, and the evidence of and cultural environment. wounds found on skeletons (Dark 1995: 106). Also, Drews (1993) regarding changes in warfare at around 1200BC, Philip's (1989) study of Syro­ A host of uncertainties present Palestinian metal weapons, Sandars's themselves in the detection of weaponry. (1978) study about the Sea Peoples and Watkins's Most of the implements found locally research work on the beginnings of warfare, in Hackett's Warfare in the Ancient World (1989). cannot be definitely identified as weapons. Hawkes (1963: 321) and O'Connell (1989: 13) emphasise the difficulty in distinguishing between hunting gear and Facets of Maltese Prehistory weapons of war, since several objects tend is a complex phenomenon with a variety to diffuse the concept of their actual use of purposes, such as territoriality, and add ambiguity as to what actually dominance, sexuality, and survival constitutes a weapon. An arrowhead (O'Connell 1989: 15). Acquisition of these could have been used in hunting, in self­ often results in conflict between groups by defence or in ritual, as an offering to force or other means (Preston et al. 1962: deities or as part of a funerary kit. The 9). The serene megalithic temples of same object would have probably served Malta overshadow our perception about all the above. Before defining an object as life in prehistory, that it might have been a weapon, its primary use needs to be rough and dangerous, especially before established, together with the possible the Bronze Age. Essentially, we need to subjects of aggression or defence. probe into the psychological and material remains of these communities and the No study of wear on weapons has ever circumstances which may have affected been carried out on such artefacts from their peace of mind. Malta. Such a study might sort out the actual use of the implement. Armed conflict may be launched for Furthermore, most of the lithic prestige in terms of display of skill, implements had probably been retouched bravery, and acquisitions. This is due to and sometimes transformed into other the "human psyche linking manliness with implements to suit other purposes (Bordaz man-destruction" (Margaret Mead, quoted 1971: 45). by Mercer 1989: 19). Possession of a weapon and group identity adds self­ Tell-tale signs of aggression could be confidence and urge one further to show revealed in the study of bones belonging off his manliness. Fighting was largely to the Late Neolithic burials retrieved the province of the male, probably arising from the Xaghra in the early from the practice of hunting. Mycenaean 1990's, for instance.2 In most cases in the grave weapons often depict scenes of war Maltese islands, weapons were found not and the chase, patterns of behaviour within a domestic context,3 but in graves which are synonymous in the deployment and cultic sites.4 of weapons, tactics and adrenaline. In observing prey, man also observed the The aim of this work is to stimulate an male animals compete, chase, and taking awareness of the subject. It should serve advantage of their natural weapons, such as a platform for further studies about the as horns (O'Connell1989: 17). Nature can earliest evidence of a much evolved, long­ be violent, and man evolved by learning standing tradition of fortification how to defend himself initially from development and warfare in the Maltese animals, and subsequently also from other islands. men (O'Connell 1989: 14). Nonetheless, warfare is a prerogative of mankind, Combat within prehistoric societies which distinguish him from other species. with particular reference to the Others are of the opinion that most stone­ Mediterranean and Malta age tribes, like the Eskimos, were The impulse driving man to be aggressive peaceful. Thus, man is not by nature essentially bellicose and war is unnatural, as it is the product of civilization. This 2 Skeletons datable to the late 3rd millenium were may be applicable to the Late Neolithic found in tombs at Roaix in the Rhone Valley with people of Malta, who seem to have been flint arrowheads wedged in the bones (Trump 1980: 150). A projectile point of the Late Upper more devoted to their cults rather than Palaeolithic was found embedded in the pelvis of an waging armed conflict. adult female buried at the Grotta di San Teodoro, Messina. A similar example, datable to c. 10, 000 BC Invasions and migrations are attributed was found in the sternum of a child in the Grotta dei Fanculli in Balzi Rossi, (Bachechi 1996: 224- as the main catalysts of warfare, but war 235). need not be undertaken with the objective :J Tools and weapons amounted to 10% of the finds in of occupying the lands of the conquered in domestic contexts of middle Bronze Age Palestine a process of territorial expansion (Davidau 1993: Ch.3 and 6). (Renfrew & Bahn 1991: 193). At a time 4 Compare the percentages of weapons, tools and pottery in the catalogue of finds (Evans 1971). when agriculture and animal husbandry

192 Aggression and Defence in Prehistoric Malta could produce surplus food reserves, man numerous Late Neolithic temples of Malta was able to settle in villages. Prosperous were built in peaceful competitive settlements were the envy of others who emulation. At some point open conflict did not succeed in this venture, or who was bound to break out between groups found it easier to prey on the wealth of involved in the constant struggle for the their prosperous neighbours. Settlements acquisition and retention of prestige and were required to defend their interests resources. Hence the communities also from preying animals and marauders involved resorted to defending themselves by providing a variety of barriers and by fortifications (Philip 1986: 212); this weapons. Both measures were employed may apply to the late Bronze-Age in unison through tactics, which were the fortifications, possibly erected as a grass roots of later fully-fledged military precaution against threats of aggression. strategies. Malinowski (quoted by Mercer 1989: 19) recognised three types of armed conflict in Disputes about water are amongst the primitive societies: oldest causes of litigation in prehistoric societies (Hawkes 1963: 267). Cattle 1. Man-hunting, in search of rustling was also a recurring problem. anatomical trophies, O'Connell (1989: 30) deduced a 2. As an arm of policy between consequential behaviour brought about by tribes or states, the practice of agriculture towards armed 3. As a means of economic gain - conflict, which increased during the occurs where portable wealth Middle and Late N eolithic in most part of exists, is easy to get and Europe and the Levant (Milisauskas 1978: transport, and is not perishable. 177).5 The economy of the early agriculturalists depended upon the No evidence exists that any of these possession of flocks and crops, which were occurred during N eo lithic times in Malta, considered as objects of value and implied but 2. and 3. may have been causes for ownership which had to be protected. We alarm to the Bronze-Age people to prepare cannot state with any certainty that any themselves against attack. of the above mentioned situations actually transpired in Malta during prehistoric Further considerations may be applicable times. However, the occasional clue here through the Wright classification of war and there may lead to further studies. (quoted by Mercer 1989: 20):

Competition can be peaceful or violent 1. Defensive war - communities (Dark 1995: 104). In the former there is who have neither weapons nor greater resource expenditure and military organisation and do not competitive emulation. Probably the fight unless attacked; 2. Social war- fighting for revenge, 'anatomical trophies', display, 5 Conflict is demonstrated at a Neolithic cause­ wayed enclosure at Hembury in Devon, which was game or religion; attacked by archers, its rampart disrupted and 3. Economic war - to correct or re­ burnt. Some 120 arrowheads were found within the direct the means of exchange, ditch near the entrance (Mercer 1989 I: 21). At Carn Brea in Cornwall, a Neolithic site defended by booty or profit. stone walls and ditches datable to c. 3000-2700 BC 4. Political war- waged as policy by was also attacked by archers. Thousands of flint one community against the arrowheads were found, evidence of burning is other. everywhere, and the site was never re-occupied (Mercer 1989 II: 4). At Hambledon Hill in Dorset a Neolithic site having timber encased earth ramparts The first is applicable to the Neolithic with gates and cause-wayed ditches was attacked in people in Malta, though no sufficient c. 2600 BC. Burning caused part of the walls to evidence of self-defence is available. So collapse, burying three males and an aged woman. One man was shot by an arrow in the back while far, we have no evidence for the social carrying a child. Another was buried with some type of conflict. Economic and political goods, and his grave was backfilled with the forms of war are hinted at through the scorched earth of the rampart; he was probably a threat situations imposed by foreign sea casualty of the victors (Mercer 1989 II: 5-8). rovers or local rival groups during the Bronze Age.

193 Facets of Maltese Prehistory

The explanation of the difference in combatants and their families (Hackett attitude towards aggression between the 1989: 7); but the Late Neolithic assumed peaceful Neolithic people and the communities seem to have been absorbed attested warlike Bronze Age people in in temple building rather than in Malta may be explained in terms of conflicts. On the other hand the Late differentiation of political institutions. Bronze-Age people were actually Political evolution often brings about committed in seeking to defend changes in methods of combat (Preston et themselves from an enemy no one has yet al. 1962: 10, 11). Evidence of aggression defined. during Bronze-Age Malta is one primary indicator of cultural change. This is The Late N eolithic period in Malta was thought to be the result of communities relatively peaceful as demonstrated by the who experienced war elsewhere, and had building of temples, trade with Sicily and a group organisation which included self­ its islands, the artistic crescendo, and by defence, and possibly aggression as well. the lack of evidence of fortifications and By 1200 BC there was a long tradition, in definite weapons. However, the the eastern Mediterranean, of armies, unexplained and sudden extinction of campaigns, pitched battles and siege these people has been at times been warfare (Watkins in Hackett 1989: 15). attributed to war launched by foreigners, The neat cultural break between these who after all, may have not settled here periods do not point to a change as a afterwards. However, it seems that there result of internal innovations within the was a period when the Maltese islands Neolithic community, but as a result of were uninhabited before the Early Bronze influences from other cultures of the Age people settled here; invasion, incoming Bronze Age peoples, particularly implying violence, has been proposed. through the mustering of metallurgy for However, migration, a non-violent weapons. encroachment, seems to be more plausible. We cannot speak of warfare proper during prehistoric times in Malta, but we may The origins of the Early Bronze Age suggest the eventuality of small-scale peoples who occupied Malta, the combat, such as deduced by Preston et al. Cemetery culture, is yet unknown. (1962:10). In primitive societies the Contemporary pottery styles were also simplest form of attack was to ambush the found in Sicily, Lipari, southern Italy and enemy, preferably by discharging western Greece (Trump 1990: 22). These projectiles from a distance. Many people, who brought with them the use of primitive groups were not prepared to metal, seen to have had the notion of the stand up to close-hand fighting or to warrior class, attested by the presence of attack fortified places. Usually it was copper daggers and axes found within every man for himself. Primitive their cremated burials. This is in contrast communities were rather small, and the to Neolithic burials in which no weapons loss of a few of their members was greatly have been detected. Preston et al. (1962: felt. Therefore armed conflicts tended to 10) argue that in a warrior society the frighten the enemy away rather than chiefs were probably those who annihilate him. distinguished themselves by their individual exploits. That the Tarxien Warfare is institutionalised conflict with Cemetery people were warriors favours an on-going effort to improve weapons, Philip's differentiation between small fortifications and tactics. For the small groups of warriors who fought one to one prehistoric communities of Malta war was combat using dagger, sword and axe, and not feasible. Defeat would have meant the disciplined soldier who fought within extinction, as total destruction was ranks, using pole arms and archery (1986: inherent in the process (Hackett 1989: 8); 151). The Tarxien Cemetery people could this occurrence has been proposed by not meet with Hackett's criteria for the some to account for the disappearance of subsistence of an ancient army. This the temple folk. Warfare was a concern would have been handicapped by the for all and demanded total commitment shortage of metals and manpower which by every member of the community, both could not be safely withdrawn from

194 Aggression and Defence in Prehistoric Malta agriculture (Hackett 1989: 8). Despite the customs gradually became the standard presence of Tarxien Cemetery weapons we culture of the Maltese islands. have no evidence of actual armed conflict or fortifications during this phase. THE NEOLITHIC PERIOD IN MALTA Defences Clear evidence of fear from assault was The Neolithic period is universally suddenly manifest during the Borg in­ considered as rather a peaceful one, phase, datable to around 1600-800 though it was not exclusively so. There BC (Trump 1990: 22). Naturally defended was lack of development of lethal weapons settlements perched on top of precipitous and only a few settlements were defended, spurs of land were sought inland, such as mainly by simple ditches and fences in-Nuffara, the Cittadella, Il-Qlejgha, meant to keep preying animals at bay. ta' San Gorg, Qala Hill, However, Jericho was substantially Fawwara, Misrah Ghonok, and defended against possible attack by man, Bajda Ridge. Only Borg in-Nadur is close and Mercer (1989: 17) noted that at to the coast, but this settlement was around 3500-3000 BC there was a sudden heavily fortified. Some traces of defences and apparent emergence of the were still visible at Wardija ta' San Gorg, cal).sewayed enclosure on a very Qala Hill, Fawwara, and Misrah Ghonok substantial scale in western Europe.6 up to a few decades ago. Still, there is lack of evidence of What appear to be defended sites may not fortifications and a general absence of necessarily mean that they were intended weapons pertaining to N eolithic Malta, as fortifications. Perimeter walls and whereas these become increasingly ditches may have been erected as status common during the Bronze Age as in most symbols, religious boundaries or stock parts of the world. The rarity of foreign enclosure, to avoid floods, or to enable the pottery in the Neolithic and Temple occupants to view a symbolic location periods indicates a continuation of the (Dark 1995: 107). Most likely, the steep same culture (Trump 1966: 51), which declivity of the several Late Bronze Age may imply a period of peacefulness and settlements in the Maltese islands was hence reconciles the scarcity of defences chosen for defence, since sloped hills were and weapons. also available nearby. Additionally, criteria singled out by Dark may also have Fortification technology is very much been accommodated by the selected related to the availability of resources and perched locations. The Borg in-Nadur the landscape. Stonewalls, pit-traps, fortifications are enormous engineering ditches and perhaps stake-post defences works in their own right. In this feat we were the measures most likely employed may identify a deliberately planned locally by N eolithic man. Temple clusters settlement, a concept which may be taken and nearby mass burial sites have been as evidence of a planner's insight (Dark discovered, but evidence of contemporary 1995: 164-5). Compared with foreign habitation sites is next to nothing, due to examples described by Watkins (in their rudimentary and perishable nature Hackett 1989: 25), the Borg in-Nadur (Trump 1961; Malone et al. 1988). Urban defences were not simply built to keep out sprawl and land reclamation have been nocturnal marauders, but designed to the culprits for the eradication of the counter major attack and also to cater for fragile and inconspicuous Neolithic defence by archers. settlements of the Maltese islands. The only record which may be ascribed to a The escalating fear of aggression during Neolithic settlement enclosure, though not the latter part of Maltese prehistory fades necessarily a fortification, was excavated out on the eve of local history. We have at Skorba.7 no evidence of aggression between the local Bronze Age population and the 6 This is also evident nearer to Malta at Passo di incoming Phoenician merchants from the Corvo in Apulia in southern Italy, where circular Levant sometime during the 7th century huts are encircled by a series of concentric ditches. BC. Peace and prosperity seemed to 7 One wall was an llm stretch of quasi straight wall prevail as Levantine artefacts and set directly on the bedrock, consisting of two skins of

195 Facets of Maltese Prehistory

Weapons (Evans 1971: 147, plate 68.3; Bonello & Most of the objects discussed here may Caruana Galizia 1996: 67, plate 4). The have served different functions, including tang was inserted into a slot in the tip of that of a weapon .. Weapons of bone, antler the arrow-shaft, possibly glued with resin or wood used as clubs or hafts are difficult and fastened with a leather or grass cord. to survive in the local environment, unless Arrowheads from Kordin I, Ggantija and they are within stable environments, as in Hagar Qim, which Evans refers to as caves. Antlers and long bones could have 'hollow based' may be misleading, since served as ready-made weapons, the latter they imply the socketed type. Drilling a as clubs or as axe hafts, while bone socket at the end of a flint or obsidian splinters could have been used as javelin microlith would have been impossible. points. Rough stones could also have been Actually, these are barbed heads without easily utilized as percussion weapons or a tang. They were probably inserted in a as missiles, much in the same way as they slot of an arrow-shaft and glued, without are still used in modern urban riots all being fastened. They measure over the world. approximately 2cm in length and 1.5cm in width. The two projections at the butt of The use of the bows is poorly represented arrowheads, called barbs, were essential in local context and inferred by the to hold the arrowhead in the wound. occasional find of a few arrowheads, which may have been availed of as javelins or We also lack evidence on the local use of fishing spears, while the larger examples spears and javelins. These thin and may have been spearheads. The discovery symmetrical tools make ideal perforation of arrowheads within temple contexts may weapons to penetrate animal hides or infer a votive use, perhaps offered in human skin. Of the few assumed lithic gratitude of a prosperous hunt, or after a arrowheads or knives found in local triumphant engagement. The bow was a contexts, the larger ones may have been "silent" weapon ideal for surprise attacks actually spear points and used as on animal and man. Arrowheads were thrusting weapons. Fire-hardened or attached to wooden shafts sometimes sharpened wood tips and lithic points exceeding a metre in length, and were were used as lightweight javelins which notched at one end to engage the were thrown on the run. The flint bowstring, as well as being fletched with lanceolate from Hagar Qim, measuring feathers to steady the flight (Clarke 1967: 5cm by 2cm (Evans 1971: 93), and another 93). Arrowheads consisted of microliths from (Bonello & Caruana Galizia retouched into triangular forms. Some 1996: 70, plate 9) may be such examples. local examples of flint and chert, measuring approximately 2-3cm in length Evidence from the continent shows that and up to 2cm in breath, from Tarxien, Neolithic man fought with axe, spear and and others which are unprovenanced, knife. Both the axe and knife were have a small projection or tang at the butt domestic implements, whilst the sword was a Bronze-Age innovation (Oakeshott 1960: 24). The knife became a spear stones filled with rubble in between, about 60-SOcm simply by mounting it on a long shaft, and thickness, and datable to the GhD. phase. No floors or other related structures were detected. One a slashing weapon by fixing it axe-like on suggestion by Trump was that it was an enclosure a short shaft (Oakeshott 1960: 25). This wall to a group of buildings (Trump: 1966: 10). A presents us with the difficulty of similar wall was about 1.5m thick and Sm in length. distinguishing between weapons and Trump suggests that this wall, and another at the northern part of the Red Skorba shrine, may have tools. The Red Skorba shrine yielded a acted as retaining walls (Trump 1966: 13). The number of chert blades up to 15cm in proper domestic huts were smaller and were length, which Trump (1963: 380) referred composed of a mud brick superstructure on stone to as 'daggers', probably because knives footings and had clay and torba floors. (Trump: 1966: 10-16). and spear points usually measure about s The bow and arrow were invented in the Upper Scm in length. Palaeolithic or the Mesolithic, as indicated by the cave painting, showing archers in combat, at Morela Unclear is the actual nature of the so­ la Vella in Spain, and actual remains from a bog of Holmegaard, in Denmark. (Bordaz 1971: 92; Clarke called Neolithic lemon-shaped sling-stones 1967:93; Hawkes 1963: 145). carved out of globigerina stone, and other

196 Aggression and Defence in Prehistoric Malta related objects of the same size and Axes weight, which may have been used for Of the very few stone axes found in Malta totally different purposes. Several were two were retrieved from Red Skorba found within Grey Skorba deposits contexts due north of the West Temple at outside Skorba Temples and Ghar Dalam. Skorba.Io Another was found at the Their length varies from 5 to 7 .5cm, with Hypogeum and was also of igneous stone an average weight of 65 gm (Trump 1966: though it had a pointed butt (Evans 1971: 30, fig. 40a, plate xxiii). Slingstones were 66, plate 69. 9). The use of these axes also found in great numbers at the could have been for chopping wood but Hypogeum9 and others were reported they may also have served as percussion from several temple sites. Five were weapons. This type of axe head was hafted pierced by a biconical perforation at one into split or grooved handles of wood, end, perhaps to admit a chord. antler, or bone and held there with tree resin (Bordaz 1971: 65), and was probably The actual use of these objects may be also secured with leather thongs. The derived from observation of wear on their mortised haft had the disadvantage of surfaces. Their type is similar to the splitting owing to the shocks of use. One typical slingstones used even at later means of preventing the handle from periods. Slings and bolas are typically splitting consisted of using an antler used by herders and hunters of small socket as a shock absorbing intermediate game. Slings were made of sinew, skin, or piece (Bordaz 1971: 101), but no evidence vegetable fibres- all these materials are can ascertain the use of this measure difficult to survive in local conditions. The locally. Boring of the axe head for depiction of a goat on one of the insertion of a handle was rarely used slingstones may infer their use by a during the Neolithic, probably because of herder. The use of the sling originated in the effort required to drill through, and south-west Asia and diffused westward eventually the shaft weakened the and was one of the significant innovations implement excessively (Bordaz, 1971: 99, made during the Neolithic (Hawkes 1963: 101). However, there was an increase of 322). The sling used to launch missiles polished bored axes of flint and stone in through a centrifugal force - a method mainland Europe during the Middle which O'Connell (1989: 22) remarks was Neolithic, corresponding to a not derived by imitating nature and were contemporary increase m warfare, truly the first artificial weapons. probably caused by the increased Commenting about the Balearics, who competition among communities over were expert slingers, Garcia Pericot (1972: resources (Milisauskas 1978: 179). This 104) concluded that it would be natural scenario was the prelude to the bellicose for a people who were constantly handling Bronze-Age period which lay ahead. stone and skilful in adapting it to their purposes to become also accustomed to Clubs and maces hurling slingstones. The same may be The most rudimentary percussion said about the Temple folk. The weapons were clubs and maces. They perforated stones from the Hypogeum were used to break bones and skulls of might have been tied together like a bolas game, or else to beat their opponents to and hurled at the adversary to entangle death in warfare. Wooden clubs, as well its/his feet. Stone balls could also have as long bones, were readily available as been attached to a cord and used as easily replaceable weapons. Ambiguous is conkers, which were meant to crush the interpretation of a few objects which skulls, such as the ones used in mediaeval have been labelled as mace heads. These tournaments. were usually made of ground stone of various shapes with a central perforation for the wooden haft. One, found at Kordin

10 The stone is igneous or metamorphic and is 9 The Hypogeum hoard numbered fifty-six, and were foreign in origin. One measured 7.9cm long and of various sizes weighing 35gm to 652gm. One had a 4.9cm broad, the other was damaged, but measured rough relief of what seemed to be a goat. Strangely 14cm by Scm. These axes were brought to their final enough, they were arranged in rows and covered by form by grinding and polishing (Trump 1966: 36-7, a thin layer oftorba. (Evans 1971: 46, 66, plate 66.9). Fig. 35, plate xxixb). '

'1 ... ,

197 Facets of Maltese Prehistory

III,n was inadequately hafted, as was from Skorba. All are pierced by drilling at another from ;12 other the narrow end, in order to facilitate presumed maceheads at Tarxien temples suspension from the neck. They may have were also found.13 Their descriptions been used as some sort of talisman to match somewhat the examples found in ward off evil in life and death. Europe, but particularly those in the Levant, where they occur commonly in Chalcolithic and early Bronze Age periods The Bronze Age Period in Malta (Philip 1986: 173). Their rarity, ambiguity and presence within temples render them The Mediterranean Scenario enigmatic. Interesting is the fact that "The hall-mark ofthe times is movement". these 'maceheads' are made of foreign (Sandars 1978: 198). hard stone. If they arrived here already worked, this may indicate the common The Bronze Age was a prosperous period use of maces in the areas whence they characterised by widespread trade, were brought. technical innovations and socio-economic refinement. It was also a period of turmoil Archaeological and documentary evidence aggravated with migrations and warfare. found in other parts of the world indicate Settlement organisation and architecture, that fire was widely used to deter together with the development of weapons unwanted visitors, be it animal or man, and defences in central Europe and the and in aggressive activities between rival Mediterranean reflect an increase in groups. If the Temple culture ended in socio-political organisation and the wake of aggression, evidence of this intensification of warfare. This was may have been detected at Tarxien and probably caused by the increased Skorba. Both these sites seem to have competition among communities over suffered destruction by fire to some territory and resources. extent, and were abandoned thereafter until squatted into by the earliest Bronze­ The end of the 13th century BC was the Age people some two hundred years later most agitated period. There was (Trump 1990: 23). extensive disturbance in the eastern Mediterranean and a movement towards Art the West. Troy and the Aegean power If Neolithic man in Malta had little centres collapsed. The aggressors were affinity towards weapons, nonetheless he armed and originated from various was highly moved by representation of mother lands, either as refugees displaced weapons in artistic forms, such as the by other aggressors, or else as colonisers greenstone axe pendants commonly found intent on founding new independent in burials and temple sites. There was at colonies. Egypt too was threatened with this time a widespread axe-cult in the collapse as it was repeatedly assailed by Mediterranean, represented by the hostile immigrants. Turmoil also had an 'polished axe' pendants (Hawkes 1963: impact on the central Mediterranean, 325). Miniature axes of exotic materials particularly on Sicily, which caught a were traded extensively, and were usually "whiplash of destruction from Italy" found m male burials. The local (Finley 1979: 12). There is evidence of greenstone pendants from Calabria destruction and abandonment of the imitate actual axes similar to the ones Aeolian islands. Life went on only at Lipari, although culturally this island was influenced by Italy, particularly in the 11 It was pear-shaped, probably of white marble, pottery, which matches that of Apulia; 4.4cm long, flattened on one side and with a narrow this was the region whence originated the perforation at the smaller end (Evans 1971: 74, 80). 12 This was flat, roughly oval stone about 13.6cm first migrants who came to Malta a long, 10cm broad and 4.7cm thick, with one end millennium earlier. Widespread was the more pointed, showing signs of breakage at this end. phenomenon, during this time, of Its centre was conically perforated with a large hole naturally defended settlements, (Evans 1971: 146). 13 Each had a biconical perforation and were of a augmented by man-made fortifications, greyish stone, which is foreign to Malta. (Evans and the increase in bronze weapons. 1971: 147).

198 Aggression and Defence in Prehistoric Malta

Some protagonists of this scenario were Bronze Age, when ferocious invaders often explorers in search of new land, appeared from the sea and exterminated resources, or adventure. They were the peaceful temple-folk. Owing to the presumably merchants, gradually lack of sufficient evidence of such a fierce merging into pirates, seeking sea-lanes to interaction between these two peoples, spy the land, especially for metals. Such these sensational assumptions stand no were the later archaic Greeks and the ground. However, the local scenario Phoenicians (Finley 1979: 18). Casson demonstrates that the prosperity of the (1959: 44) attests from the Homeric temple folk was constantly threatened by accounts that the followers of Odysseus marauders from across the sea. This (13-llth century BC) behaved as raiders, theme was a constant source of interest to and used to plunder the countryside, Trump (1961: 260) and Evans (1979: 24). killing the men and carrying their women They also suggested that territorial and children to be sold into slavery. rivalry between local groups might also Casson describes it as "piracy in the have existed. This was more likely to have earliest days of its history". Homer's Iliad been the case if the marauders were depicts the arrogance of the Aegean arnvmg periodically from different pirate, who is called the 'sacker of cities'. sources, for this situation would soon have The whole purpose of the pirate's activity led to competition for the available is to spoil expeditions, especially for cultivable land and water supplies, this metals, livestock, and, above all treasure, eventually leading to frequent outbreaks women (Sandars 1978: 186). How do the of clashes between the villages. Trump Maltese Islands feature in this hostile (1961: 260) remarked that the material scenario? culture of most of the Maltese prehistoric settlements differed slightly from village Migrations to Malta to village, and that this might indicate During the Bronze Age the Maltese cultural divergences, and possibly political Islands experienced a series of ones as well. colonisations. So far, the archaeological evidence indicates that the islands were The presence of Early Bronze Age still uninhabited when the first Bronze weapons and Late Bronze Age Age people reached the islands; this fortifications surely indicate a period of merits further investigation. The origins unease and group rivalry. The actual use of the newcomers is yet unidentified, but of these weapons and defences cannot be comparative analysis of pottery show ascertained, for they might have only similarities with others at Sicily, Lipari, served as deterrents. The Early Bronze southern Italy and western Greece. Age has yielded the earliest weapons These people also introduced new cultural proper, but fortifications are completely traits such as burial and the absent during this period, or possibly are use of metal, especially for weapons as yet unidentified. On the other hand, (Trump 1990: 22); no study has as yet fortified sites are common in the late been undertaken on this topic. Their Bronze Age, whilst weapons are almost typology and metallurgical composition completely lacking, a disparity which so are not discussed here, but these would far has been unaccounted for. Although surely give us more information about Evans (1979: 24) has suggested that any their origins and about the people who bronze weapons would have been melted possessed them. down and recast for other purposes, some metal pieces must have survived this Evans (1959: 168) identifies the first process and appeared m the immigrants, the Tarxien Cemetery people, archaeological record. as the destroyers and speculates that the peaceful temple-folk might have been Early Bronze Age and Weapons "ruthlessly exterminated by the copper On the basis of the ceramic repertoire the daggers and axes and obsidian-tipped ancestry of the Tarxien Cemetery people arrows of the fierce invaders". Lilliu can be traced back to the Aegeo-Anatolian (1988: 274) describes how a catastrophe region. They reached the Maltese Islands hit the Maltese Islands during the Early from south-eastern Italy, whence other

199 Facets of Maltese Prehistory cultures stemmed, such as those of Capo heavier axes made ofbronze. Graziano in Lipari and Ognina in southern Sicily, with whom the Tarxien The use of the bow and arrow during this Cemetery pottery bears close affinities. phase is weakly represented by a solitary (Brea 1957: 10; Evans 1959: 178-9, 1979: heavily barbed obsidian arrow-head which 22). Furthermore, the local early Bronze may have been displaced from an earlier Age show a similarity to the context. Arrow heads are consumables dolmenic structures at Otranto, in south­ and metal ones were expensive to eastern Italy, whilst the Tarxien produce. They were probably cast in Cemetery custom of cremation is Indo­ batches by a central source such as the European in nature (Lilliu 1988: 274). palace arsenal. The lack of arrowheads in burials world-wide is due to the fact that The most interesting aspect of the Tarxien these were not personally owned (Philip Cemetery culture concerning our subject 1986: 145-6). is the presence of copper weapons in burials; these represent the first instance The use of copper for .weapons in this of the use of metal and proper combat early period may be due to the fact that weapons in Malta. The nearest available bronze was not yet actually in use by copper sources were in Cyprus, Sardinia these people; tin sources lay too far away. and the Iberian peninsula, but the metal Another possibility is that the artefacts of the weapons found locally has never were symbolic representations of original been analysed. bronze weapons, especially because they were too thin and fragile. Bonanno (1993: At Tarxien Cemetery, cremated burials 43) highlighted the problem about the were found accompanied by a funerary lack of evidence of social structure in the kit, some of which contained triangular Tarxien Cemetery people. However, copper daggers varying in length from weapons in burials may indicate the 9cm to 13.2cm, and from 4.5cm to 5.5cm presence of the warrior class discussed in width. The hilts had two to four rivet earlier. On the other hand, Dark explains holes for the attachment of a handle of that a comparison of skeletal evidence wood or bone. A bone hilt pommel was with the weapons usually found in graves actually found there (Evans 1971: 163-4). suggests that the latter were not always These daggers resemble others which buried with the warriors, and therefore were then prominent in the East, and must have had a symbolic or a ceremonial they were the only available thrusting role: "men of wealth and power were often weapons at the time. They were later buried with weapons" (Dark 1995: 107). replaced by the slash and thrust sword which was a Late Bronze Age innovation The Late Bronze Age and weapons primarily used by skirmishers (Oakeshott During the Middle Bronze Age the threat 1960: 24); none of the latter examples from the Italian mainland was being felt have ever been recorded in Malta. in Sicily, as defence systems were augmented due to the incursions of new Some of the axes found in Tarxien peoples arriving from the sea (Brea 1957: Cemetery burials may actually have been 120, 136). This was the time of the Borg chisels, especially the smaller versions. in-Nadur refugee's influx into Malta from The axes are flat and others are slightly Sicily (Evans 1959: 185-6). Later, at about flanged, have long, slim blades with a the middle of the 13th century BC, the narrow cutting edge ranging from 8.8cm state of peaceful relationships and to 12.4cm in length, 3.7cm to 5.8cm in commercial exchange which had existed width and 0.7cm to 1.6cm in thickness between the various Mediterranean (Evans 1971: 163). The long axis of the peoples was now interrupted, and a time blade lies perpendicular to the handle, of war and tension made its appearance. which fitted into an ovoid, socketed Coastal settlements in Sicily, southern wooden haft. In combat, they would have Italy, Sardinia, Cyprus and the Aegean been availed of as percussion weapons to were abandoned and the inhabitants took slash skulls and chop limbs. Their light refuge in strongholds in the hill country. weight indicate that the enemy used no This was due to increase of piracy and armour, since this would have required

200 Aggression and Defence in Prehistoric Malta

raiding soon after Merneptah's Libyan others with six D-shaped bastions at war, at around 1220BC, and the raids on Chalandriani, on Syros island in Greece Ramesses Ill in 1186BC (Brea 1957: 149; (Trump 1980: 126; Tusa 1983: 301). Sandars 1978: 200). Some may even have sought refuge in Malta, and therefore Borg in-Nadur is the only site in Malta arrived there already accustomed to seek which is very close to the coast and in this and construct defended settlements. The respect is similar to contemporary Near interaction between the earlier occupants Eastern settlements. This preferred of the islands and the Borg in-Nadur location provided a vantage point for people has not yet been accounted for, but spotting hostile ships long before they there seems to be a cultural break reached the shore. The major hazard (Bonanno 1993: 41). during the late Bronze Age was probably piracy, and the slave trade was its chief The ceramic evidence shows that the Borg motive. The shock of a raid is best in-Nadur phase was peaceful and explained by Casson (1959: 45): ''A undisturbed, and it implies no stealthy entry into a harbour at night with interruption of life on the islands. muffled oars, a few careful professional However, pottery analysis alone cannot scouting, a sudden attack at dawn, a rush detect threats of aggression and any back aboard, a few hours ofgruelling work eventual combat. The defenders may at the rowers' benches - and every have repulsed any attacks made upon surviving member of the crew found them, and henceforth carried on with himself richer than he was twenty-four their normal life style. Evans rightly hours earlier". maintained that the defended settlements demonstrate that "life in the Maltese Fortifications need to be defined, for not islands during the last two phases of the all structures that look like defence Bronze Age was none too secure and that systems are actually so. Apart from their there was evidently the need to guard defensive role, fortifications also act as against a fairly constant danger, which symbols of power, expressing the status may well have been that of pirate raids, and authority of the bearers. They are well known in Malta during many later used to impress and intimidate, thus periods" (Evans 1971: 200). inducing compliance (Renfrew & Bahn 1991: 258). Mercer (1989: 16) defines Commenting on the increased evidence of fortified places as designed to prevent aggression during this phase, Trump direct access, allowing the attacker little pointed out that nearly all sites are on opportunity for concealment; a complex "incommodious but secure cliff-grit hill barrier designed to distance off the tops and where the natural defences were attacker and to concentrate the attackers inadequate, massive built walls were into 'killing zones', such as at the gate added" (Trump 1990: 22). The best areas. surviving representative is the type site of Borg in-Nadur.l4 Its siting and Borg in-Nadur satisfies these criteria, as architecture is identical to a few early it is perched on a steep spur, and its walls Bronze Age sitesl5 and several other late dominate over the surrounding landscape. Bronze Age Mediterranean citadelslB The site also has a number of significant namely the defences at Timpa Dieri in architectural defensive features. The so­ Sicily, dated to c. 1800-1425 BC, and called bastion projects in order to provide flanking fire against the enemy at the foot

14 'Borg' toponyms may infer prehistoric defended of the walls, whilst a postern gate is sites. located in such· a way as to expose the 15 At Los Millares in Spain a village of circular and right flank, i.e. the unshielded side of a rectangular huts on a spur between two rivers is besieging hoard. Robust high walls defended by a stone wall with projecting semi­ circular bastions. (Trump 1980: 99-100). Capo prevent scaling and ramming, whilst a Graziano, an Early Bronze Age settlement in the battlement allowed the defenders to Aeolian Islands, is typically set on a steep shower all sorts of missiles at the precipitous location (Brea 1957: 104). besiegers. However, no evidence of any 16 Bogazkoy, Myceanae, Tiryns, Troy, Sardinian Nuraghi, Motilla, El Agar and El Oficio; the latter ditch, palisade, pits, or bridge exists, three in southern Spain. either because there were none, or else

201 Facets of Maltese Prehistory they still await identification. Ugarit to the King of Alashia mention Essentially, the fortifications defended seven ships that appeared with little huts, silos, animal pens and industries warning (Drews 1993: 14, 91). Evidence (weaving, pottery or smiths), apart from of a similar disaster was recently possible cultic buildings and spaces. discovered at the citadel of Koukounaries on Paros. Huddled skeletons indicate that The Borg in-Nadur bastion is built of the inhabitants had little warning and no large rough blocks, some squared and chance to escape the ravages of the symmetrically arranged in very rough marauders, despite the natural steep courses (Murray 1923, I: 21), the spaces landscape and the fortifications (Drews between them "being packed with small 1993:222). stones dressed to fit. In some parts a few large blocks only were used, set as As the end of the Bronze Age drew to a uprights or transversally to tie the inner close, further bands of immigrants arrived and outer faces together" (Evans 1959: in Malta, such as the people of the Bahrija 185). Defensive systems using towers and culture, whose pottery resemble that of bastions originated in early Bronze Age the Ausonian culture of Lipari (Evans Palestine and were designed to be 1959: 187). These people also chose to defended by archers17 (Millar et al 1986: settle on an inaccessible spur, but neither 182 quoted by Philip 1986: 145-6). As yet defences nor weapons pertaining to this there is no evidence as to whether the phase have been identified as yet. Borg in-Nadur walls were defended in such a manner. Insufficient is the available evidence of Borg in-Nadur weapons, the only recorded A further wall at Borg in-Nadur was ones were found within a cave dwelling at recorded by Murray (1929: 8, 9, plate V.I) Ghar Mirdum at (M.A.R. 1965:4, on the south-west of "chapels" A and B, to plate II fig. 1 & 4). These consisted of a the south-east of the megalithic temple. 7cm long finely-carved dagger handle In May 1998 a fortification wall facing the made from the metacarpal of a cow, and a bay was discovered during illegal bronze dagger blade, 18cm long by 4cm at engineering works (57075E, 65505N), and its widest. These remnants also happen this was immediately excavated and to be the only Bronze Age weapons from a recorded by the Museums Department. domestic context. The existence of this wall has invalidated the previous concept that this side of the Threat or antagonist? settlement was naturally protected, What were the threats that called for the whereas it was actually also strengthened need of weapons and, particularly, by man-made defences. A 1m thick burnt fortifications during the late Bronze Age? Tarxien Cemetery deposit overlain by After all, could the Maltese Islands have Borg in-Nadur deposit was noted behind served as the haven of antagonists? this wall, the nature of which is yet to be interpreted. In addition the author noted Amongst the protagonists of the three previously unrecorded silo pits cataclysmic scenario observed in the within the confines of the fortified Mediterranean during the late Bronze settlement (57460E, 65575N), the only Age were the Sea Peoples. These brought ones known so far indicating that this serious unrest and waves of emigration settlement was truly prepared to sustain during the time of Ramesses II, at around a siege. 1279 BC, and also during the reigns of Merneptah in 1208 BC and Ramesses Ill And speaking of sieges one may recall the at around 1179 BC. The Maltese islands fears of U garit before its destruction were within the range of these belligerent around 1179 BC. Letters by the king of peoples and might have attracted some of their attention for a multitude of reasons. 17 Dense scatters of leaf-shaped arrowheads of flint The local terrain would not have impeded have been found around the ramparts, with a them from attacking any of the fortified particular concentration at the gateways (Watkins in Hackett 1989: 18). This is the ideal location to settlements, since they were adapted to excavate. fight on foot and to besiege.

202 Aggression and Defence in Prehistoric Malta

The Sea Peoples were experienced 2. Some of the Sea Peoples originally skirmishers; this type of soldier emerged hailed from the central Mediterranean during the Late Bronze Age.1s They were region, from which lands they acquired mercenaries, but at times waged war on their name, or vice versa, and after their own account. Sandars (1978: 101) their defeat by Egypt settled in the does not exclude that they might also Levant.21 have indulged in piracy and looting expeditions. The most outstanding were 3. Other scholars believe that the central the Shardana/ulaw, the Shekelesh I Sikels Mediterranean lands were named after I Siculi, and the Tursha, respectively some of the Sea Peoples because of the associated with Sardinia, Sicily and latter's contact and influence through Tyrrhenia (southern Italy). The Medinet trade.22 Habu reliefs describe how the Shardana 4. Others simply comment that it is from had come "in their warships from the the name of some of the Sea Peoples midst of the sea, and none were able to that the names of the central stand before them."l9 Drews (1993:216) Mediterranean lands were derived, but argues that the appeal for mercenaries do not specify whether the land in had fertile ground in barbarous lands question was their home land or final such as Sardinia, Sicily, and southern refuge.23 Italy. All these lands were in contact with civilised kingdoms of the eastern Whichever of these four propositions is Mediterranean, but they were not correct, it is apparent that some of the Sea themselves civilised. Opportunities for Peoples, or others not identified, but all better things in life were severely limited raiders by nature, were sailing in a region and it is hardly surprising that these in which the Maltese Islands were within people tried their hands at piracy. their main route, or at least on its fringe. In some way the islands were probably Scholars are still disputing whether the involved; they were either assailed by Sea peoples originated from, or settled in, these raiders, or else served as actual the areas which are today associated with colonies or mere havens for replenishment their names. There are four main types of of supplies. hypotheses: Conclusion 1. Some of the Sea Peoples originated in The exploration of this subject has the Levant or other lands, and after demonstrated that culture is manifested their unsuccessful raids on Egypt in :p.ot merely through its architecture and the early twelfth century BC, they artistic representations, but also by its settled in the lands of the central Mediterranean such as Sicily, 21 Drews (1993: 49-50, 54, 91, 153, 216, 224) is the Sardinia, and Tyrrhenia, and on the strongest advocate of this and he insists that the southern and western coasts of Italy, names Shardana, Shekelesh and Tursha mean which regions adopted their name and "people from Sardinia, Sicily and Italy". Trump are still known thus today.2o (1980: 202, 219) also draws similarities between the statue- of in Corsica and the Shardana warriors depicted in the Medinet Habu reliefs. 1s The skirmisher confronted his opponent in hand­ 22 Guido (1963: 111) speculates that by c .. 1200 BC to-hand combat, using a long sword and a round the inhabitants of the archaic nuraghi were shield; he was the only infantrymen who receiving copper ingots from traders coming from the participated in battle and ran among the chariots of eastern Mediterranean, and that there is a the eastern Mediterranean kingdoms. During this possibility that they were the Shardana who may period, warfare was a contest between opposing have given their name to Sardinia. chariot forces (Drews 1993:164, 244). 23 Mazar (1992: 303) attests that the name "Sicily" is 19 They were eventually impressed into Ramesses' II derived from the Shekelesh mentioned in the service and were a conspicuous part of the army he Medinet Habu inscriptions. Peroni (1994: 33) says took to Kadesh in 1275 BC (Drews 1993:153). the same about the Siculi who are believed to have zo Brea (1957: 148), Guido (1963: 111, 187-8), lived in Sicily and in southern Italy. Sandars (1978: Sandars (1978: 198), Finley (1979: 13). Gaston 157, 199) refers to ancient Greek literature which Maspero, who was writing in the 19th century, was attributes a connection between the Sikels of Sicily quoted and contested by Drews (1993: 66) on the lack and southern Italy. of available archaeological evidence.

203 Facets of Maltese Prehistory attitude towards aggression. Through Press. this theme, it is also possible to investigate the cognitive aspects of the Evans, J.D. 1979. "Malta in Antiquity." In McGregor Eadie, P. (Ed.) Blue Guide, Malta (2nd people under examination. The N eo lithic edn.), pp. 9-24. London: Ernest Benn Ltd. and temple folk may have been peaceful in nature, but the Bronze Age peoples Finley, M.I. 1979. Ancient Sicily. London: Book were definitely accustomed to conflict. Club Associates. The Maltese prehistoric cultures were also Garcia Pericot, L. 1972. The Balearic Islands. brought into the perspective of the London: Thames & Hudson. scenario of hostilities within the Guido, M. 1963. Sardinia. London: Thames and Mediterranean at the time, which to a Hudson. certain extent corroborated the present belief that whilst the Temple culture was Racket, J. (Ed.) 1989. Warfare in the Ancient isolated, the Bronze Age peoples were World. London: Sidgwick and Jackson Ltd. influenced by and had contact with other Hawkes, J. 1963. Prehistory. History of mankind: regions in the Mediterranean. However, Cultural and Scientific Development Series, Volume no indications of the interface between the I: Part One. UNESCO. cultures has been traced so far, and this Lilliu, G. 1988. La Civilta' dei Sardi. Torino: allows room for further inquiry. The Nuova ERI. evidence available for warfare in prehistoric Malta has been presented in Malone, C., Stoddart, S., and Trump, D. 1988. A order to afford an opportunity for house for the temple builders: recent investigations on , Malta. Antiquity 62: 297-301. subsequent studies on the subject. Mazar, A.. 1992. Archaeology of the Land of- the References Bible: 10,000-586 B.C.E. New York: Doubleday Bachechi, L. 1996. "I! proiettile litico rinvenuto Mercer, R. 1989. The Earliest Defences in Western sull'inumato n.4 di S.Teodoro." Kohalos 42: 224-235. Europe: Warfare in the Neolithic. Part I: 16-22. In Fortress. Issue 2. Hants: Beaufort. Bernabo Brea, L. 1957. Sicily before the Greehs. London: Thames and Hudson. Mercer, R. 1989a. The Earliest Defences in Western Europe: The Archaeological Evidence. Part II: 2-11. Bonanno, A.. 1993. Tarxien and Tarxien Cemetery. In Fortress. Issue 3. Hants: Beaufort. Break or continuity between Temple Period and Bronze Age Malta? Mediterraneo (2): 35-47. Milisauskas, S. 1978. European Prehistory. New York: Academic Press. Bonello, G., and Caruana Galizia, D. 1996. Prehistoric discoveries in Maltese private collections. Murray, M. 1923. Excavations in Malta. Vol.I. Treasures of Malta 2 (3): 65-70. London: B. Quaritch. Bordaz, Jacques. 1971. Tools of the Old and New Murray, M. 1929. Excavations in Malta. Vol.III. Stone Age. Devon: David & Charles (Publishers) London: B. Quaritch. Ltd. Oakeshott, R. E. 1960. Archaeology of Weapons: Casson, L. 1959. The Ancient Mariners. London: Arms and Armour from Prehistory to the Age of Victor Gollancz Ltd. Chivalry. London: Litterworth P. Clarke, G. 1967. The Stone Age Hunters. London: O'Connell, R. L. 1989. Of Arms and Men: A History Thames and Hudson. of War, Weapons and Aggression. Oxford University Press. Dark, K.R. 1995. Theoretical Archaeology. London: Duckworth. Philip, G. 1989. Metal Weapons of the Early and Middle Bronze Ages in Syria-Palestine. BAR Series. Davidau, M.P.M. 1993. Houses and Their 2Vols. Furnishings in Bronze Age Palestine. Sheffield: JSOT/ASOR Monographs. Preston, A. R., Wise, S. F. and Werner, H. 0. 1962. Men in Arms: A History of Warfare and its Drews, R. 1993. The End of the Braze Age: Changes Interrelationships with Western Society. London: in Warfare and the Catastrophe ea. 1200 B.C. New Th~mes and Hudson. Jersey: Princeton University Press. Renfrew, C. and Bahn, P. 1991. Archaeology: Evans, J.D. 1959. Malta. London: Thames and Theories, Methods and Practice. London: Thames Hudson. and Hudson. Evans, J.D. 1971. The Prehistoric Antiquities of the Sandars, N. K. 1978. The Sea Peoples: Warriors of Maltese Islands: A Survey. London: The Athlone the Ancient Mediterranean, 1250-1150BC. London:

204 Aggression and Defence in Prehistoric Malta

Thames and Hudson. Mediterranean. London: Alien Lane.

Trump, D. H. 1961. The Later Prehistory of Malta. Trump, D. H. 1990. Malta: An Archaeological Cambridge: Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society Guide. Malta: Progress Press. 27: 253-262. Peroni, R. 1994. Bows headed west, in search of ore. Trump, D. H. 1963. Malta's earliest temple: the In European Heritage: The Bronze Age - the first completion of the work on the Neolithic village at golden age of Europe. Issue No. 2. Council of Skorba described. Illustrated London News (14 Nov. Europe. 1963), p.p. 380-1. Watkins, T. 1989. The Beginnings of Warfare. In Trump, D. H. 1966. Slwrba. London: The Society of Wwfare in the Ancient World. Racket, J. (Ed.) Antiquaries. London: Sidgwick and Jackson Ltd.

Trump, D. H. 1980. The Prehistory of the

205 Facets of Maltese Prehistory

Borg in-Nadur: aerial photograph

Plan of Borg in-Nadur

BORG IN-NADUR

206 Aggression and Defence in Prehistoric Malta

Slingstones from Skorba Stone axe from Skorba

Chert and obsidian arrowheads, respectively from Tarxien and Tarxien cemetery

Bone dagger hilt from Ghar Mirdum, length 7 cm, breadth 2.5 cm

BONE, STONE, CHERT AND OBSIDIAN WEAPONS

207 Facets of Maltese Prehistory

Metal implements I weapons from Tarxien Cemetery (Murray 1984: plate v)

ll.

"··

Copper implements I weapons from Tarxien Cemetery

Copper dagger from GharMirdum

COPPER AXES AND DAGGERS

208