Conflicting evidence? Weapons and skeletons in the of south-east Iberia Gonzalo Aranda-Jimenez´ 1∗, Sandra Monton-Sub´ ´ıas2∗ & Silvia Jimenez-Brobeil´ 3

With its forts, , halberds and daggers the Argaric people of south-east Spain has long been seen as a warrior society. The authors dismantle this model, showing that defences around settlements and weapons and in tombs have quite different social roles. An analysis of skeletons showed that while these Bronze Age people might have been periodically clubbing each other on the head, they were not doing a lot of lethal stabbing. Keywords: Iberia, Bronze Age, warfare, violence, halberds, swords

Introduction According to an important body of social theory, the emergence and institutionalisation of violence and warfare are inherent to processes of increasing social complexity. – and most specifically its Bronze Age – has provided a suitable scenario to fuel this belief. The warrior as a new social character appears during this period, progressively expanding across the different landscapes of the European continent. The Argaric societies in south-east Iberia (corresponding to the Bronze Age in south- eastern Spain and spanning from c. 2250 to 1450 cal BC) have traditionally been interpreted as conforming to this general principle. Specialised weaponry such as halberds and swords have been correlated with evidence of the existence of warriors and – more or less implicitly – warfare. But, in common with similar examples throughout Europe, the emergence of warriors and warfare has been pronounced rather than explained. Despite the leading role accorded to the warrior as a new figure, it seems to us that the necessary connections between the rise of warriors and their social practice and context have remained largely unexplored. In recent years, several archaeological works have concentrated on this remarkable phenomenon (Carman 1997; Martin & Frayer 1997; Carman & Harding 1999; Parker & Thorpe 2005; Arkush & Allen 2006) putting forward different causes for

1∗ Departamento de Prehistoria y Arqueolog´ıa, Facultad de Filosofia y Letras, Universidad de Granada, Campus Cartuja s/n, 18071 Granada, Spain (Email: [email protected]) 2∗ ICREA Departament d’Humanitats, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Ramon Trias-Fargas 25-27, 080010 Barcelona, Spain (Email: [email protected]) 3 Laboratorio de Antropolog´ıa F´ısica, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad de Granada, Av. de Madrid, 11, 18071 Granada, Spain (Email: [email protected]) ∗ These authors have contributed equally to the present manuscript and both should be considered as first authors. Received: 21 November 2008; Accepted: 30 January 2009; Revised: 10 February 2009

ANTIQUITY 83 (2009): 1038–1051 1038 curneo eeaie a n ntttoaie oiso arosdsre narmistice. an deserves warriors of the bodies with weaponry institutionalised specialised and linking war to campaign generalised sources, applied the of various As that occurrence evidence. these suggest will conflicting from we seemingly Building culture, reconciles debate. Argaric that the the interpretation on an trauma light offer intentional of will new signs we shed how can show will remains we human evidence, of in lines such of validity the retaining hyaewl nw ntepeiu hloihcpro Aad S & (Aranda period previous the in known well are they Molina & monumentality, (Aranda of maintenance level and construction significant Cerro 1). their a (Figure as in 2006) such achieved effort cases enclosures In considerable access. these a easier with requiring (Granada), those Encina as well la as complex protecting de settlements, enclosures and the stone diverse of and of areas forts higher construction bastions, towers, the the walls, by mountains stone fortified as in In such also area. located structures were surrounding defence strategically the sites of these be distinctive view of to commanding a some a tended and and addition, settlement sites features vessels, defensive specific Argaric ceramic natural with rule, and a hills general tools and including a metal elements of As of kinds rite. certain burial combination of a presence by the pattern, defined is culture Argaric defence and settlements culture: material Argaric Schubart 1950; Castro Cuadrado 1983; 1890; Siret Molina some male & 1976; and (Siret of Gilman location defensive their comprised 1973; as to interpreted by elite relation supplied structures, warlike in is their themselves, new, views of prevailing settlements a the Argaric for of of support characteristics weaponry rise empirical the of specialised the source of main of emergence other proof The the warriors. now, conclusive to deemed Up been re-assessed. be has will culture Argaric the concepts societies, Argaric on theorised. literature of the aspects in why, as fundamental also out such is ironed That has interactions. explanations social and macro-scale specific warriors of on grand case emphasis particular of the the construction In warfare, tendencies. the and on categories centered social abstract dynamics, and social narratives past Zammit explain & to Guilaine employed 2003; discourse Vankilde 1996; (Keeley past the pacify to need 2005). the as such it, ucin n nedpnetrltosis nfc,i snwpsil odsigihfour distinguish to possible now is it fact, structured In economic and/or territorially relationships. social and interdependent strategic, been hierarchical and specialised had all functions a sites have was different culture there whereby the pattern, material that shared settlement and suggesting sites location all evidence size, not as in that mobilised differences idea Their the by enriched characteristics. confirming been repeatedly same has excavations view and traditional this generalised surveys But a which recent communities. and sites, Argaric defence many control, in of territorial violence of location of terms presence the in in for re-orientation accounted been clear traditionally the has of consists difference main the oee,tepeec fdfniessesi o e etr fAgrcsceissince societies Argaric of feature new a not is systems defensive of presence the However, in warfare illustrate allegedly that evidence archaeological of lines main the essay, this In dominant the to related are warriors of rise the about assertions that convinced also are We warriors , conflict , instability ozl Aranda-Jim Gonzalo , warfare 1039 tal et and 939;Contreras 1993-94; . ´ enez militarism tal. et r ieyue u poorly but used widely are nhz20) nfact, In 2005). anchez ´ tal et 95.While 1995). .

Research Conflicting evidence? Weapons and skeletons in the Bronze Age of south-east Iberia

Figure 1. Stone enclosure from the Argaric site of Cerro de la Encina. main types of settlements: a) large, centrally located sites. Strategically placed, normally on mountains and hills, they comprise natural and/or artificial defence structures, and exhibit a significant accumulation of wealth in the form of extraordinary funerary furnishings. Socially, politically and/or economically connected with these central sites, we can also find: b) minor sites, also on hilltops, with specialised economic activities such as metal production or cereal processing and storage (Contreras 2000; Risch 2002); c) small sites located in low lying areas of no strategic, defensive concern. Particularly linked with optimal land resources, especially for wet farming, they would support a specialisation in farming activities (Ayala 1991; Castro et al. 2001); d) forts explained in connection with specific settlements and the need to control boundaries or the access to particular territories (Molina 1983; Ayala 1991). Although the picture is more nuanced now, the Argaric settlement pattern still seems to reveal a concern for territorial control and defence. Labour invested not only in the construction but also in the maintenance of complex defensive systems seems to indicate that at least some form of defence was perceived to be necessary. However, it is also true that while the selection of sites with natural defence is a widespread feature, defensive constructions are limited to a few settlements (Molina & Camara´ 2004).

Burials, weapons and warriors Within settlements, burials were usually located below the floors of houses, in four main types of containers: ceramic urns, cists, pit-graves and covachas (small artificial caves cut into the rock). Some of these tombs contain funerary offerings belonging to four main groups: pottery vessels; metal weapons such as swords and halberds; tools (, daggers/knives,

1040 a Cadcvr nae fapoiaey4 000km 45 approximately 1450 of to area 2250 from an centuries covers eight and nearly of argued BC low taken period cal are a This be factors spans production. culture geographical therefore Argaric metal and The can temporal Argaric account. been Argaric into It on when have impact startling ornaments. more would low even and weight rather which is significance a cent tools period, had per of Argaric weaponry 10 manufacture specialised whole than that the the less at and for 1) targeted metalwork (Table mainly estimated products total metal of the cent of per 1.7 weapons only 1994), (1993, for Montero represent to According objects items. metallic other such of occurrence of widespread suitability actual the question available to few (Hern tend combat the Furthermore, archaeometallurgy weaponry. be on specialised the must of to studies according period possession 13 the Argaric discriminating around determining a swords: entire 1035 be factor also of would of the case position social total Consequently, for the 2003). is (Brandhern a recovered studies striking latest from halberds more the Even documented of in 50. were number instance around Estevez swords For estimated the them. 4 & fact, with and (Lull In buried been halberds objects were graves. have 15 males funerary only object adult among necropolis Argaric of value of Argar types handful social Both a highest Only 3). the 1986). (Figure possessing items as symbolic regarded and wealth of accumulation otmoayadta abrswr uesddb wrsaon 80clB (Castro BC cal 1800 around not were swords weapons by the superseded al that were et indicate halberds to that seems and dating unknown). is contemporary radiocarbon swords on with buried based men research of Recent age most the and present, halberds at (unfortunately, to swords access probably determine would discriminations age and gender Consequently, e h eeodrta 5ad nmn ae,odrta 0(Castro 50 than to older belonged cases, they many that in addition, in and, know, 35 we than halberds older of were case only who the noted been In men have burials. weapons these male since 1890), Interestingly, adult Siret grave-goods. & in (Siret as research deposited Argaric were of beginnings they the where tombs, from have swords recovered and been halberds well-provenanced Schubart all played exception, 1950; have Without (Cuadrado 2003). culture and Brandherm Argaric research 1973; characterising Argaric and other of defining with focus in Together role the 2). fundamental been (Figure a have swords swords and and halberds halberds of items, form metallic the in weaponry specialised of mg fadel taie oit,wt vdneo srbdsau ntefr fwealthy of the form accept the scholars in Contreras status most 1983; ascribed fact, Molina of 1983; obvious of In evidence (Lull Such existence with communities. burials society, the objects. child stratified Argaric of mortuary deeply of proof a of heart of clear panoply image the as rich interpreted at a been differences with have social burials furnishings funerary containing to burials in all, from variations range at silver Tombs copper, beads). goods from stone grave of (made made no diadems (usually earrings, necklaces bracelets, and rings, gold) or as such ornaments and awls); vrsiae sbcueae n agr/nvswr locasda epn n ascribed and weapons as classed also were daggers/knives and axes because is overestimated Estonia. or Holland Denmark, as countries European hshgl etitdacs oseilsdwaossad ncnrs otemore the to contrast in stands weapons specialised to access restricted highly This important most the showing burials those in frequently appear swords and Halberds aaon oordsuso steeegne o h rttm nteIeinPeninsula, Iberian the in time first the for emergence, the is discussion our to Paramount n esnta h motneo pcaie epnyhstaiinlybeen traditionally has weaponry specialised of importance the that reason One 1993-4). . ne 90 Carri 1990; andez ´ ozl Aranda-Jim Gonzalo on ´ tal et 2002). . 1041 tal et ´ enez 95 S 1995; . tal. et 2 iia nsz osc present-day such to size in similar , nhzRmr 2004). anchez-Romero ´ tal et 1993-94). .

Research Conflicting evidence? Weapons and skeletons in the Bronze Age of south-east Iberia

Figure 2. Argaric halberds (after Schubart 1973).

1042 iue3 rv od rmTm nFuente in 9 Tomb from goods Grave 3. Figure ozl Aranda-Jim Gonzalo lm atrSrt&Srt1890). Siret & Siret (after Alamo ´ 1043 ´ enez tal. et

Research Conflicting evidence? Weapons and skeletons in the Bronze Age of south-east Iberia

Table 1. Frequencies of metallic objects for the Copper Age and the Argaric culture (after Montero 1994). Types of objects Copper Age % Argaric culture %

Tools 355 60.48 449 15.74 Tools-weapons 155 26.40 793 27.45 Weapons 0 0 50 1.73 Ornaments 48 8.18 1540 53.32 Accessories 4 0.68 32 1.11 Non-classified 5 4.26 24 0.83 565 100 2888 100 to the male warrior elite by the majority of scholars (Cuadrado 1950; Castro et al. 1993-94; Contreras et al. 2000; Risch 2002; Chapman 2003). Axes and daggers/knives comprise a much higher percentage of metal production: 30 per cent of metal objects and 83 per cent of the total metalwork weight (Montero 1993, 1994). But unlike halberds and swords, axes and daggers/knives may serve multifunctional purposes and be employed in everyday production activities. Like most metal objects, they have been found mainly in tombs; but while axes are exclusive to male burials, daggers/knifes can be associated with either gender. In this context, there emerges a fundamental contradiction regarding the male-exclusive ascription of weapons. As has been recently pointed out, if daggers/knives were weapons, then the allegedly exclusive relationship between men and weapons has to be ruled out, given that daggers/knives are also found in female tombs (Sanahuja 2007). To avoid this contradiction, the military character of these items has only been emphasised when associated with male tombs. When found in female tombs, the very same objects have been interpreted as working tools (Castro et al. 2001), or as indices of the women’s family group’s social status (Contreras et al. 1995). Needless to say, such interpretive ruses only highlight the archaeologists’ gender bias. Although the multifunctional properties of axes and daggers/knives require further analysis, we are more inclined to regard such items as working tools. In his recent and comprehensive research, Brandherm (2003) has observed that daggers/knives or ‘blades’ (as he prefers to name them, since there is no morphological distinction between them) show traces of repair aimed at maintaining their functional properties. Many blades were continuously re-sharpened, which reduced, in some cases dramatically, their original shape and size. The hafting-plates also show traces of different repairing marks, including the renewal of hilts. All the evidence emphasises the tool-like nature of daggers/knives and their use mainly in production activities. Considering all the above, it is hard to imagine a context of generalised interpersonal violence where the few swords and halberds would have played a decisive role. Another important fact in the framework of the present discussion is the absence of any other distinctive elements – besides weapons themselves – identifying the men in the tombs as warriors. It must be clear that we are not dealing here with anything resembling the well- known warrior tombs with standardised warrior assemblages that characterise later European developments (Kristiansen 1999; Harrison 2004; Harding 2007).

1044 nvriyo rnd’ aoaoyo hsclAtrplg aeadesdti question this addressed have Anthropology Physical (Botella the at of analyses recently, Laboratory Granada’s More violence. of of University marks for examined skeletons systematically its been century, nineteenth never the have of end the at studies palaeoanthropological of beginnings social violent on data precious societies. provide prehistoric lesions in osteological behaviour so, Even 2003). Vankilde 2001; rhelgclbde,adpol h idi iln nonesmynthv on a found have well-preserved Osgood not and 1999; Vencl may 1999; complete encounters (Milner villages lack have violent home their in often may in died we burial past of who bones, the example place people For impact in and bones. always violence human bodies, by not archaeological of conveyed do episodes picture the wounds that from lethal true of know is we It those bodies. outnumbered aggression purposeful human reflect may upon skeletons inflicted archaeological in found wounding for Evidence bodies Skeletal eedn nteipc,tedpesdfatrscnb oeo essvr rnigfrom (ranging severe less or more 20mm. be around can measuring fractures oval-shaped, depressed or the circular impact, are the injuries on the Depending of cent per 79 3). (Table significance statistical high a provides distinction sexual (P this of analysis Chi-squared cent). n hwcersgso eln.I em fsxa ifrne,ml kltn xii a exhibit skeletons male differences, cent per sexual (20.8 ones of female with terms compared In as injuries healing. of cranial occurrence of the higher much of signs deck clear outer show the were and in them fractures of All depressed cases, 4). three or (Figure for impressions vault Except senile. of or consisted mature adults, lesions were the them of all Significantly, cases). lesions. some slight cent) in a per is (11.6 there post-cranial and and trauma, cent) shows of per kind 2 traumatic some (7.7 Table clear presents cranial a area. sample between with whole Granada difference the lesions the of only cent in Considering per sex. them 16.7 and origin, of age all to according sites, distribution Argaric their different six from skeletons occurrence gender. their and as age well as to pattern, according anatomical their importantly, most and, violence physical lhuhteeris rhelgclrsac nteAgrccluei ovlwt the with coeval is culture Argaric the on research archaeological earliest the Although utemr,tesaeo h rna ein lososahg ereo standardisation of degree high a shows also lesions cranial the of shape the Furthermore, wlepol,tnmlsadtofmls a ufrdcailijre mr hnone, than (more injuries cranial suffered had females, two and males ten people, Twelve 155 of sample a from obtained information the summarise will we follows, what In = 0.02). aue(16)1//311// 30/3/10 15/0/0 29/0/0 12/1/8.3 65/6/9 15/0/0 29/0/0 – 11/0/0 2/0/0 Total – – 17/0/0 – 32/2/6.2 Unidentified 13/3/23.1 31/4/12.9 Females 1/1/100 – (60 – Senile (41-60) Mature (21-40) Males Adults (13-20) Juvenile (7-13) II Infantile (0-6) I Infantile individuals/injured category of Age Number age. and sex by %. injuries in cranial people/frequency of Frequency 2. Table tal et 95 Jim 1995; . + //66100–4/2/50 – 1/0/0 3/2/66.6 ) enez-Brobeil ´ 81/085// 700155/12/7.7 57/0/0 50/2/4 48/10/20.8 ozl Aranda-Jim Gonzalo nemortem ante tal et 95.Terslsalwu oeaut in of signs evaluate to us allow results The 1995). . 1045 rna nuisrsligfo ietimpacts, direct from resulting injuries cranial ´ enez tal. et tal et 00 Walker 2000; . versus 4per

Research Conflicting evidence? Weapons and skeletons in the Bronze Age of south-east Iberia

Table 3. Cranial injuries by sex, shape and side. Shape Circular Oval Others Total

Male 6 4 4 14 Female 2 3 0 5 Total (%) 42.1% 36.8% 21%

Side Right Left Medium Total

Male 8 4 2 14 Female 3 2 0 5 Total (%) 57.9% 31.6% 10.5%

Figure 4. Cranial traumatism from the Argaric site of Castellon´ Alto.

0.5 to 4mm). They are most commonly located in the frontal (57.9 per cent) and the parietal areas (21 per cent) (Table 4); and there is a higher incidence on the right (57.9 per cent) versus the left side (31.6 per cent). Again, all these differences are highly significant from a statistical point of view. P values in males were P = 0.05 for the location of trauma (in the frontal area versus the parietal area), and P = 0.001 for the lateral distribution (on the right side versus the left side), which means that there is probably a non-random explanation for the higher rate of injuries on the right side of the cranial vault’s frontal area. Their significant prevalence in males, along with their shape and their anatomical location, reveals a pattern that renders the suspicion of deliberate aggressions highly plausible.

1046 00 utr20;L 2000; Kunter 2000; h atta oeiec fbaeijre a enfudi h nlsdsml,o even or sample, analysed the in (Buikstra found reports been has palaeoanthropological injuries other blade in of mentioned evidence emphasise no must we that However, trauma. fact cranial the from derived are per lesions and intentional (20.8 possible anatomical of male clear between a variation cent). follow significant per (14 a not individuals show female do this and they of injuries, cent) do lesions cranial nor establish, described pattern, to above morphological difficult are the aggression unlike deliberate type, and falls accidental between fetdb rna ein,adwehrta atclrfr ftam a ese nother in seen be can trauma of form also particular re- were that areas. were weaponry whether Argaric specialised and evidence with lesions, anthropological buried cranial males if by whether affected learned establish be could we also and could analysed, Much remain goods unpublished. grave these present on data at most however, Unfortunately, found. useful. been very been ever have have would injuries lethal absent with also bodies is no mortality since record, violence-related on archaeological of imprints the evidence their in engagements, Furthermore, combat non-existent. actual are in played bones have may daggers/knives) and axes netoal,ta aeeiec antb eae otesapwaosudrdiscussion. under be weapons to sharp low caused the were to very lesions related that in be indicate cannot appear may evidence skeletons same swords in that trauma intentionally, and of halberds have evidence we while weaponry, Although and contradictory. specialised quantities; specific even Its and principle, period. in Argaric systems and, that the clear fortification during undeniable so present seems not indeed seems it was however, another, reviewed, shape, or hitherto form may one data weaponry, in supposedly the specialised violence, the to to link if According its discuss and unquestioned. now societies, must remain Argaric we in above, warfare of mentioned character facts structural the of all together Bringing Discussion otaitosi h vial vdnemyoiiaefo h atta interpersonal that fact the from apparent originate scales. the different may and at instance, evidence waged this was available in violence case the the probably in arisen We have is inconsistent. contradictions may That that mutually activities. evidence be of social basis to different the appear on from explanations facts unitary that elaborating on procedures insist interpretive often our of virtue by aigit con l h bv vdne tsescerta,a rsn,teol signs only the present, at that, clear seems it evidence, above the all account into Taking distinctions Although fractures. to correspond usually they lesions, post-cranial for As nve falteaoe nomto ntebra otx fbde ihcailtrauma cranial with bodies of context burial the on information above, the all of view In nfc,a h em‘oflcig ntetteo hspprsget,acaooia aaseem data archaeological suggests, paper this of title the in ‘conflicting’ term the as fact, In contradictory eae221000 1 0 1 5.3% 0 1 5.3% 5.3% 1 0 5.3% Nasal 2 Malar 2 21% Tempor. Front/Pariet. 57.9% 2 9 Pariet. (%) Total Female Front Male position. Position and sex by injuries Cranial 4. Table Evidence . opez-Padilla ´ qua ozl Aranda-Jim Gonzalo vdne oee,cno oss uhaqaiy ti only is it quality; a such possess cannot however, evidence, tal et 06.Waee oesod n abrs(even halberds and swords role Whatever 2006). . 1047 ´ enez tal. et tal et 99 Contreras 1999; . tal et .

Research Conflicting evidence? Weapons and skeletons in the Bronze Age of south-east Iberia

The effort invested in the construction and long-term maintenance of massive fortification systems has been interpreted by some authors as obvious proof of warfare and actual attacks (Solometo 2006, following Otterbein 1970). As indicated also by Milner (1999: 198), building and repairing walls takes time away from other pressing survival-related tasks and, in the absence of a regular threat, the need for fortifications is difficult to understand (Solometo 2006: 30-1). In fact, it has also been observed that perceived threats and readiness to fight and defend are more widespread than actual combats and that, sometimes, ‘defences outpace offensive capabilities’ (Arkush & Allen 2006: 7). That could be the reason why, in general, archaeological indicators for mobilisation outnumber evidence of actual destruction (Ferguson 1984; Haas 1990; Solometo 2006). In the case of Argaric communities, the evidence for defence is also more abundant than that for offence. Earlier, in the section on weapons and warriors, we saw that the only possible signs of intentional violence in skeletal bodies consist in intra-vitam cranial trauma. If this was the case, the type and shape of the lesions, and the lack of peri-mortem cranial fractures, are consistent with hand-to-hand fighting episodes, and suggest that the injuries may have been caused by a variety of different blunt implements. Ethnographic and archaeological parallels also indicate that practices of this sort, hitherto unsuspected for the Argaric world, usually take place in a context of ritualised or highly regulated resolution of violent conflicts, with few or no fatalities (Walker 1989, 2001; Turney-High 1991; Robb 1997; Wilkinson 1997; Schulting & Wysocki 2002; Guilaine & Zammit 2005; Arkush & Allen 2006; Solometo 2006). Although we are still far from fully understanding its specific social meaning in the Argaric world, it is highly likely that combat was not aimed at eliminating opponents, and almost surely age and gender were significant dimensions, since no children show signs of violence and there is a greater incidence on men than on women. If this type of violence was regulated, with preordained rules on when, where, how and by whom it should be enacted, then obviously it was not directly connected with the construction of Argaric defences. Cranial traumatism could not be directly linked to the presence of halberds and swords, either. Not only were they not the weapons implied but, people engaged in the above men- tioned combat practices did not usually have such weapons among their grave-goods. Besides, although these practices were male-dominated, the presence of the same traumatism in two female crania reveals that, unlike specialised weaponry, they were not exclusively associated with males. In view of the above, it is difficult to establish a link between this category of interpersonal violence and the – allegedly widespread – Argaric practice of warfare. Although both practices are not incompatible, they entail different forms of conflict resolution. Finally, we need to remember the rather low number of specialised weapons that has been recovered, and the blatant absence of sharp injuries in Argaric skeletons. These data support the need to reassess the meaning given to swords and halberds, and question the assumption that specialised weaponry emerged along with an organised body of warriors and widespread warfare. We are aware that soft-tissue injuries may not be detectable in skeletal remains and may thus become under-represented. According to recent calculations, a person’s skeleton amounts to about 60 per cent of a body’s target area in a frontal view. This means that the chance of hitting bones with a random weapon shot is 50 per cent (Walker 2001). But even allowing for this under-representation, the fact is that the examination of bodies recovered in the Argaric territory found no signs of blade injuries at all. Such lack of evidence stands

1048 ilneddhpe,atog navr ifrn omta htiaie ytraditional Acknowledgements by imagined that than form different are. very room matter a much this in research. still on although assumptions is traditional happen, there dubious Although did how Violence world. shown has Argaric structural research the supposedly our in debate, the for warriors re-evaluate and critically warfare to of but character interpretation, harmonised to single, therefore, a social conflict, and, intra-group violence or inter- of of consequences. levels categories social combat, and different of causes, forms to costs, point social traumata scales, cranial – different which defences, weaponry under – for circumstances specialised evidence search and archaeological and conditions Different in-depth the occurred. that the for clear practices seems account nor warlike it cannot evidence, debate, interpretation available and the single scholarly warriors of a light of penetrating the different existence In a evidence. the the archaeological favoured visualise on supporting not thoroughly assumptions prevailing to have The information warfare violence. enough by with adopted us forms provide present at not they warfare, certain in under widespread force be physical of not use context and would people a leaders mobilise circumstances. in to social capacity warriors the the dominant institutionalised have view the nevertheless of our would of class in capacity special a Although the necessary. of in of if command reminder weapons violence a of use were a to reinforcement They display as power. class the the served to political have contributed of time, that could construction same mechanism or etc.) men intimidating the rituals, an specific as At funerary set functioning practices, group. warning, and commensal weapons the differentiate (feasting, these of to events rite, rest social attributes, burial the individualising the similar from during as (for least apart used maleness At been high-ranked 2007). have of Sarauw Argaric could emblems instance the as for to in served see related place and discussions were central ideology, artefacts a power occupied the rather and possible probably, who a gender Most the mature), of structure. to tombs to the adult social point in community’s be from may only the (ranging to deposited deposition males assemblages be of of to funerary context number selected Argaric limited were very weapons in their the swords that know We us and answers. to halberds seems of It presence explained? the is then How Conclusion role. critical conclude must as any we play daggers/knives wars, not and and did warriors axes were weapons halberds, there these swords, Whether people. of Argaric use by extensive weapons actual allegedly the with contrast in noi imnadIncoMneofrtervlal omnsadsgetoso h rtdatsubmitted draft first the Carver, on Martin suggestions thank and to comments like valuable also their would to for we Additionally, Montero paper. Ignacio the and S of Gilman draft Margarita Antonio first Hernando, a on Almudena suggestions and thank comments to like would We Antiquity nfc,teamo hspprwsntt oc l h iprt vdneo ilneinto violence on evidence disparate the all force to not was paper this of aim the fact, In does record archaeological Argaric the prehistory, European in cases other many in As . ozl Aranda-Jim Gonzalo 1049 nhzRmr n pnRi o hi helpful their for Ruiz Apen and anchez-Romero ´ ´ enez tal. et

Research Conflicting evidence? Weapons and skeletons in the Bronze Age of south-east Iberia

References CHAPMAN, R. 2003. Archaeologies of complexity. London: Routledge. ARANDA,G.&M.SANCHEZ´ . 2005. The origin of warfare: late prehistory in southeastern Iberia, in M. CONTRERAS, F. (ed.) 2000. Proyecto Penalosa.˜ Analisis´ Parker & I.J.N. Thorpe (ed.) Warfare, violence and historico´ de las comunidades de la Edad del Bronce del slavery in prehistory (British Archaeological Reports piedemonte meridional de sierra Morena y depresion´ International Series 1374): 181-94. Oxford: Linares-Bail´en. Sevilla: Consejer´ıa de Cultura. Junta Archaeopress. de Andaluc´ıa. CONTRERAS, F., J.A. CAMARA´ ,R.LIZCANO,C.PEREZ, ARANDA,G.&F.MOLINA. 2006. Wealth and power in the Bronze Age of the south-east of the Iberian B. ROBLEDO &G.TRANCHO. 1995. Enterramiento Peninsula: the funerary record of Cerro de la y diferenciacion´ social I. El registro funerario del Encina. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 25(1): 47-59. yacimiento de la Edad del Bronce de Penalosa.˜ Trabajos de Prehistoria 52(1): 67-108. ARKUSH,E.N.&M.W.ALLEN (ed.). 2006. The archaeology of warfare. Prehistories of raiding and CONTRERAS, F., J.A. CAMARA´ ,B.ROBLEDO &G. conquest. Gainesville (FL): University Press of TRANCHO. 2000. La Necropolis,´ in F. Contreras Florida. (ed.) Proyecto Penalosa.˜ Analisis´ historico´ de las comunidades de la Edad del Bronce del piedemonte AYALA, M.M. 1991. El poblamiento argarico´ en Lorca. meridional de sierra Morena y depresion´ Estado de la cuestion.´ Murcia: Real Academia Linares-Bail´en: 287-322. Sevilla: Consejer´ıa de Alfonso X el Sabio. Cultura. Junta de Andaluc´ıa. OTELLA IMENEZ´ ROBEIL RTEGA B , M., S.A. J -B & J.A. O . CUADRADO, E. 1950. Utiles´ y armas de El Argar. 1995. Traumatisms in Bronze Age settlements in Ensayo de tipolog´ıa. I Congreso Nacional de the : Argar culture, in R. Batista, Arqueolog´ıa: 7-28. D. Campillo & T. Carreras (ed.) IXth European meeting of the Paleopathology Association: 65-72. FERGUSON, R.B. 1984. Introduction: studying war, in Barcelona: Museu d’arqueologia de Catalunya. R.B. Ferguson (ed.) Warfare, culture and environment (Studies in Anthropology): 1-81. BRANDHERM, D. 2003. Die Dolche und Stabdolche der Orlando (FL): Academic Press. Steinkupfer- und lteren Bronzezeit auf der Iberischen Halbinsel. Stuttgart: Frank Steiner. GILMAN, A. 1976. Bronze Age dynamics in southeast Spain. Dialectical Anthropology 1: 307-19. BUIKSTRA, J.E., L. HOSHOWER &C.RIHUETE. 1999. Los enterramientos humanos en los sondeos de GUILAINE,J.&J.ZAMMIT. 2005. The origins of war. Gatas, in P.V. Castro, R. Chapman, S. Gili, V. Lull, Violence in prehistory. Oxford: Blackwell. R. Mico, C. Rihuete, R. Risch & M.E. Sanahuja HAAS, J. 1990. Warfare and the evolution of tribal (ed.) Proyecto Gatas 2. La dinamica´ arqueologica´ de polities in the prehistoric southwest, in J. Haas (ed.) la ocupacion´ prehistorica´ : 388-93. Sevilla: Junta de The anthropology of war: 171-89. Cambridge: Andaluc´ıa. Consejer´ıa de Cultura. Cambridge University Press. CARMAN, J. (ed.) 1997. Material harm: archaeological HARDING, A. 2007. Warriors and weapons in Bronze Age studies of war and violence. Glasgow: Cruithne Press. Europe. Budapest: Archaeolingua Alap´ıtvany.´ CARMAN,J.&A.HARDING (ed.). 1999. Ancient HARRISON, R.J. 2004. Symbols and warriors. Images of warfare. Stroud: Sutton. the European Bronze Age. Bristol: Western Academic & Specialist Press. CARRION´ ,E.,J.BAENA &C.BLASCO. 2002. Efectismo y efectividad de las espadas argaricas´ a partir de una HERNANDEZ´ , M.S. 1990. Un enterramiento argarico´ en replica´ experimental del ejemplar de La Perla Alicante, in Homenaje a Jeronimo´ Molina: 87-94. (Madrid) depositado en el museo arqueologico´ de Murcia: Academia Alfonso X El Sabio. Cataluna,˜ in I. Clemente, R. Risch & J.F. Gibaja JIMENEZ´ -BROBEIL,S.,M.BOTELLA & J.A. ORTEGA. (ed.) Analisis´ funcional: su aplicacion´ al estudio de las 1995. Arthropaties in the Iberian Peninsula during sociedades prehistoricas´ (British Archaeological the Bronze Age: Argar culture, in R. Batista, D. Reports International Series 1073): 285-94. Campillo & T. Carreras (ed.) IXth European meeting Oxford: Archaeopress. of the Paleopathology Association: 173-80. Barcelona: CASTRO, P.V., R. CHAPMAN,S.GILI,V.LULL,R.MICO, Museu d’arqueologia de Catalunya. C. RIHUETE,R.RISCH &M.E.SANAHUJA. 2001. La KEELEY, L.H. 1996. War before civilization. The myth of sociedad argarica,´ in M. Ruiz-Galvez´ (ed.) La Edad the peaceful savage.NewYork&Oxford:Oxford del Bronce, ¿Primera Edad de Oro de Espana?˜ : University Press. 118-216. Barcelona: Cr´ıtica. KRISTIANSEN, K. 1999. The emergence of warrior CASTRO, P.V., R. CHAPMAN,S.GILI,V.LULL,R.MICO, aristocracies in later European prehistory and their C. RIHUETE &M.E.SANAHUJA. 1993-94. Tiempos long-term history, in J. Carman & A. Harding (ed.) sociales de los contextos funerarios argaricos.´ Anales Ancient warfare: 175-89. Stroud: Sutton. de Prehistoria y Arqueolog´ıa 9-10: 77-106.

1050 M O L M K M L P 1994. – M L M O ARKER ULL ULL OPEZ ´ UNTER TTERBEIN SGOOD ONTERO OLINA OLINA ILNER ARTIN Consejer aLu ut eAndaluc de Junta Bronce: O. arqueol & Pingel V. Schubart, (ed.) H. Arteaga in 1991, y 1988 1985, Fuente en hallados utrsa Islam al culturas odn(ed.) Roldan odn&Breach. & past Gordon the in warfare and Violence ayss(lCmel,Alicantes) Campello, (El Banyests ue Arqueol Museo J. in Argar, El (ed.) de Soler oriental frontera la en funerarias Alicante. Pr Campello. El de Banyets dels Illeta aae sui elsnecr las de estudio el para rs-utrlsuy e ae C) HRAF Press. (CT): Haven New study. cross-cultural M Pen Spain. atlaL Mancha. Castilla-La Colecci 9-56. Ib M.R. Garc in regionales, patrones Argar. y El Homogeneidad de cultura la en fortificaciones ilneadsaeyi prehistory in slavery and violence xod Archaeopress. Oxford: 1374). Series International Reports Archaeological acln:Cr Barcelona: sociales formaciones las de estudio g warfare Age rhelgclResearch Archaeological America. North eastern historic Almerienses. ,V.&J.E 1983. V. , ´ rc ne ImlnoaC oldsyfortificaciones y poblados a.C: milenio II el en erica IGUEL P ,M.&I.J.N.T ´ nuaIb ınsula ..19.Wraei rhsoi n early and prehistoric in Warfare 1999. G.R. , ,D.&D.W.F .&JA C J.A. & F. , J.M. & Molina F. in Prehistoria, La 1983. F. , .20.Lsrso eeqeeo humanos esqueletos de restos Los 2000. M. , ADILLA loie el eaugae lSdsed la de Sudeste el en metalurgia la de origen El ´ sSrt(1934-1984) Siret ıs ´ aHets&J oae (ed.) Morales J. & Huertas ıa .. .M S. R.H., , .19.Boz g ealryi southeast in metallurgy Age Bronze 1993. I. , Antiquity gcs17-91e lpbaod aEa del Edad la de poblado el en 1977-1991 ogicas ´ .17.Teeouino a:a war: of evolution The 1970. K. , 6-2 eil:Consejer Sevilla: 265-82. 06 o nermetsarg enterramientos Los 2006. . ´ ad utr.Jnad Andaluc de Junta Cultura. de ıa aocupaci La .. .B D. J.A., , tod Sutton. Stroud: . ST acluadlagr nmdl aael para modelo Un argar. del cultura La ´ erica itrad rnd .D a primeras las De 1. Granada de Historia nHmndds Universidad Humanidades: on Fuente ´ EVEZ ´ ´ ıtica. gc eAlicante/Diputaci de ogico ´ 111 rnd:DnQuijote. Don Granada: 11-131. : .Almer 7 46-57. 67: AMARA ´ ıa. ONKS 96 rpet metodol Propuesta 1986. . RAYER HORPE lm uat a campa las durante Alamo ´ lm.Lsexcavaciones Las Alamo. ´ nprehist on ´ ELMONTE () 105-51. 7(2): &J.T 04 raim y Urbanismo 2004. . ´ a nttt eEstudios de Instituto ıa: 4-2 Sevilla: 441-52. : 1997. . plsarg opolis ´ e..2005. (ed.). OMS rc el leadels Illeta la de orica ´ .Amsterdam: 1-2 Alicante: 119-72. : (British ora of Journal prehist &M.P.D ruldtimes. Troubled ´ ad utr ela de Cultura de ıa 2000. . aPen La aricas. ´ ozl Aranda-Jim Gonzalo acticas ´ rcsd la de aricos ´ Warfare, oricas. ´ ´ ıa. ´ ınsula Homenaje Bronze nde on ´ E a de nas ˜ ogica ´ : 1051 R W history the on perspective bioarchaeological A 2001. – V S S S S W S S T V R S ANCHEZ ANAHUJA OLOMETO IRET CHULTING CHUBART ARAUW ´ OBB ANKILDE ISCH URNEY ENCL ALKER ILKINSON ´ enez 573-96. violence. of 313-23. Anthropology Physical of Journal American Indians. California southern among violence aoiaPress Carolina concepts and ne uet el Espa la de sudeste el en nvriyo Madrid. of University g de S prehist acln:Uiesddd acln,Isiuode Arqueolog Instituto Barcelona, de Pericot. Universidad Luis Barcelona: Dr. profesor al dedicados Estudios ruh&MW le (ed.) Allen M.W. & Arkush n war. poetics and myth, modern to responses archaeological nuti l industria explotaci y h aceybras fteDns elBeaker Bell Danish culture. the of burials’ ‘archery The nteBiihErirNeolithic. Earlier British the in mtra:Gro Breach. & Gordon past Amsterdam: the in warfare and Violence (ed.) Frayer D.W. & Martin D.L. odn&Breach. & past Gordon the in warfare and Violence (ed.) Frayer D.W. & in Martin Michigan, D.L. prehistoric in abduction and raiding Sutton. adn (ed.) Harding 377-87. fteIeinPnnuadrn h rneAge. Bronze the Ethnographisch-Arch during Peninsula Iberian the of 36.Gievle(L:Uiest rs fFlorida. of Press University (FL): Gainesville 23-65. ) an mRen hlp o Zabern. von Philipp Rhein: am Mainz 3). era nuestra de antes 2250-1400 65-87. ,E.&L.S nhz(ed.) anchez ´ .19.Voec n edri al tl,in Italy, early in gender and Violence 1997. J. , .2002. R. , .19.SoeAewrae nJ amn&A. & Carman J. in warfare, Age Stone 1999. S. , ´ enero. .20.Ml ybl rwriridentities. warrior or symbols Male 2007. T. , -H ..18.Cailijre sa ne for index an as injuries Cranial 1989. P.L. , tal. et -R .20.Cmeoaietales: Commemorative 2003. H. , ..20.¿ra herramientas o ¿Armas 2007. M.E. , .17.Lsaaadstp Montejicar. tipo alabardas Las 1973. H. , rcs leepodlmnoarg mundo del ejemplo El oricas? IGH .20.Tedmnin fwr nE.N. in war, of dimensions The 2006. J. , ´ ,R.J.&M.W ..19.Voec gis women: against Violence 1997. R.G. , OMERO ora fAtrplgclArchaeology Anthropological of Journal ol Archaeology World ´ nsca.U an Un social. on ´ tc eFuente de ıtica Cmltm1) 9-0.Madrid: 195-200. 18): (Complutum ´ ayPrehistoria. y ıa ..1991. H.H. , ouba(C:Uiest fSouth of University (SC): Columbia . IRET nulRve fAnthropology of Review Annual eussntrls eisd producci de medios naturales, Recursos Arqueolog nin warfare Ancient .20.Cide ntesoutheast the in Children 2004. M. , 1890. . ooiceZeitschrift aologische ¨ na ˜ YSOCKI ´ ad a uee relaciones y mujeres las de ıa a rmrseae e metal del edades primeras Las Barcelona. . rmtv a:ispractices its war: Primitive lm (Almer Alamo ´ lssecon alisis ´ 51:126-44. 35(1): h rhelg fwar of archaeology The 02 rna trauma Cranial 2002. . 77.Stroud: 57-72. : Iei Archaeologica (Iberia 114-44. : 14.Amsterdam: 21-44. : Past ruldtimes. Troubled ruldtimes. Troubled mc ela de omico ´ 1 4-6. 41: ´ ıa) rc,i M. in arico, ´ 47: 80: 30: 26: on ´ :

Research