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

Conflicting evidence? Weapons and skeletons in the Bronze Age of south-east Iberia. Introduction According to according toprep.1. As stated or indicated by; on the authority of: according to historians.2. In keeping with: according to instructions.3. an important body of social theory, the emergence andinstitutionalisation This article or section needs sourcesorreferences that appear in reliable, third-party publications. Alone, primary sources and sources affiliated with the subject of this article are not sufficient for an accurate encyclopedia article. of violence and warfare are inherent to processesof increasing social complexity. Prehistoric Europe--and mostspecifically its Bronze Age--has provided a suitable scenario to fuelthis belief. The warrior as a new social character appears during thisperiod, progressively expanding across the different landscapes of theEuropean continent. The Argaric societies in south-east Iberia (corresponding to theBronze Age Bronze Age,period in the development of technology when metals were first used regularly in the manufacture of tools and weapons. Pure copper and bronze, an alloy of copper and tin, were used indiscriminately at first; this early period is sometimes called the in southeastern Spain and spanning from c. 2250 to 1450 calBC) have traditionally been interpreted as conforming to this generalprinciple. Specialised weaponry such as halberds and swords have beencorrelated with evidence of the existence of warriors and--more or lessimplicitly--warfare. But, in common with similar examples throughoutEurope, the emergence of warriors and warfare has been pronounced ratherthan explained. Despite the leading role accorded to the warrior as a new figure,it seems to us that the necessary connections between the rise ofwarriors and their social practice and context have remained largelyunexplored. In recent years, several archaeological works haveconcentrated on this remarkable phenomenon (Carman Car´mann. 1. A man whose employment is to drive, or to convey goods in, a car or car. 1997; Martin &Frayer 1997; Carman & Harding 1999; Parker & Thorpe 2005; Arkush& Allen 2006) putting forward different causes for it, such as theneed to pacify pac��i��fy?tr.v. pac��i��fied, pac��i��fy��ing, pac��i��fies1. To ease the anger or agitation of.2. To end war, fighting, or violence in; establish peace in. the past (Keeley 1996; Vankilde 2003; Guilaine &Zammit 2005). We are also convinced that assertions about the rise of warriorsare related to the dominant discourse employed to explain past socialdynamics Social dynamics is the study of the ability of a society to react to inner and outer changes and deal with its regulation mechanisms. Social dynamics is a mathematically inspired approach to analyse societies, building upon systems theory and sociology. , centered on the construction of grand narratives and abstractsocial categories and tendencies. In the particular case of warriors andwarfare, the emphasis on macro-scale explanations has ironed outfundamental aspects of specific social interactions. That is also why,in the literature on Argaric societies, concepts such as warriors,conflict, instability, warfare and militarism MilitarismSee also Soldiering.Adrastusleader of the Seven against Thebes. [Gk. Myth.: Iliad]Siegfriedkilled many enemies; led many troops to victory. [Ger. Lit. Nibelungenlied] are widely used but poorlytheorised. In this essay, the main lines of archaeological evidence thatallegedly illustrate warfare in the Argaric culture will be re-assessed.Up to now, the emergence of specialised weaponry has been deemedconclusive proof of the rise of a new, warlike war��like?adj.1. Belligerent; hostile.2. a. Of or relating to war; martial.b. Indicative of or threatening war.warlikeAdjective1. elite comprised of malewarriors. The other main source of empirical support for the prevailingviews is supplied by the characteristics of Argaric settlementsthemselves, in relation to their location and some of their structures,interpreted as defensive (Siret & Siret 1890; Cuadrado 1950;Schubart 1973; Gilman 1976; Molina 1983; Castro et al. 1993-94;Contreras e, al. 1995). While retaining the validity of such lines ofevidence, we will show how signs of intentional trauma in human remainscan shed new light on the debate. Building from these various sources,we will offer an interpretation that reconciles seemingly conflictingevidence. As applied to the Argaric culture, we will suggest that thecampaign linking specialised weaponry with the occurrence of generalisedwar and institutionalised bodies of warriors deserves an armistice Armistice(Nov. 11, 1918) Agreement between Germany and the Allies ending World War I. Allied representatives met with a German delegation in a railway carriage at Rethondes, France, to discuss terms. The agreement was signed on Nov. . Argaric material culture: settlements and defence Argaric culture is defined by a combination of elements including aspecific settlement pattern, the presence of certain kinds of metaltools and ceramic vessels, and a distinctive burial rite. As a generalrule, Argaric sites tended to be strategically located in mountains andhills with natural defensive features and a commanding view of thesurrounding area. In addition, some of these sites were also fortified fortified (fôrt´fīd),adj containing additives more potent than the principal ingredient. by the construction of diverse and complex defence structures such asstone walls, towers, bastions, forts and stone enclosures protecting thehigher areas of the settlements, as well as those with easier access. Incases such as Cerro de la Encina A Unix-based TP monitor from Transarc Corporation, Pittsburgh, PA that is layered over OSF's Distributed Computing Environment (DCE). IBM acquired Transarc in 1994 and based its CICS/6000 TP monitor on Encina. (Granada), these enclosures achieved asignificant level of monumentality, requiring a considerable effort intheir construction and maintenance (Aranda & Molina 2006) (Figure1). However, the presence of defensive systems is not a new feature ofArgaric societies since they are well known in the previous Chalcolithicperiod (Aranda & Sanchez 2005). In fact, the main differenceconsists of the clear re-orientation in the location of many sites,which has traditionally been accounted for in terms of territorialcontrol, defence and a generalised presence of violence in Argariccommunities. But this traditional view has been enriched by recentsurveys and excavations repeatedly confirming the idea that not allsites shared the same characteristics. Their differences in size,location and material culture have all been mobilised as evidencesuggesting that there was a hierarchical and territorially structuredsettlement pattern, whereby different sites had specialised strategic,social and/or economic functions and interdependent relationships. Infact, it is now possible to distinguish four main types of settlements:a) large, centrally located sites. Strategically placed, normally onmountains and hills, they comprise natural and/or artificial defencestructures, and exhibit a significant accumulation of wealth in the formof extraordinary funerary fu��ner��ar��y?adj.Of or suitable for a funeral or burial.[Latin fner furnishings. Socially, politically and/oreconomically connected with these central sites, we can also find: b)minor sites, also on hilltops, with specialised economic activities suchas 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 Noun 1. land resources - natural resources in the form of arable landnatural resource, natural resources - resources (actual and potential) supplied by nature ,especially for wet farming, they would support a specialisation infarming activities (Ayala 1991; Castro et al. 2001); d) forts explainedin connection with specific settlements and the need to controlboundaries or the access to particular territories (Molina 1983; Ayala1991). Although the picture is more nuanced now, the Argaric settlementpattern still seems to reveal a concern for territorial control anddefence. Labour invested not only in the construction but also in themaintenance of complex defensive systems seems to indicate that at leastsome form of defence was perceived to be necessary. However, it is alsotrue that while the selection of sites with natural defence is awidespread feature, defensive constructions are limited to a fewsettlements (Molina & Camara 2004). [FIGURE 1 OMITTED] Burials, weapons and warriors Within settlements, burials were usually located below the floorsof houses, in four main types of containers: ceramic urns, cists,pit-graves and covachas (small artificial caves cut into the rock). Someof these tombs contain funerary offerings belonging to four main groups:pottery vessels; metal weapons such as swords and halberds; tools (axes,daggers/knives, awls); and ornaments such as rings, bracelets, earrings,diadems (made from copper, silver or gold) and necklaces (usually madeof stone beads). Tombs range from burials containing no grave goods In archaeology and anthropology grave goods are the items buried along with the body.They are usually personal possessions, supplies to smooth the deceased's journey into the afterlife or offerings to the gods. Grave goods are a type of votive deposit. atall, to burials with a rich panoply pan��o��ply?n. pl. pan��o��plies1. A splendid or striking array: a panoply of colorful flags.See Synonyms at display.2. of mortuary objects. Such obviousvariations in funerary furnishings have been interpreted as clear proofof the existence of social differences at the heart of Argariccommunities. In fact, most scholars accept the image of a deeplystratified stratified/strat��i��fied/ (strat��i-fid) formed or arranged in layers. strat��i��fiedadj.Arranged in the form of layers or strata. society, with evidence of ascribed status Ascribed status is the social status a person is given from birth or assumes involuntarily later in life. For example, a person born into a wealthy family has a high ascribed status. in the form ofwealthy child burials (Lull 1983; Molina 1983; Contreras et al. 1995;Sanchez-Romero 2004). Paramount to our discussion is the emergence, for the first time inthe Iberian Peninsula Iberian Peninsula,c.230,400 sq mi (596,740 sq km), SW Europe, separated from the rest of Europe by the Pyrenees. Comprising Spain and Portugal, it is washed on the N and W by the Atlantic Ocean and on the S and E by the Mediterranean Sea; the Strait of Gibraltar , of specialised weaponry in the form of halberdsand swords (Figure 2). Together with other metallic items, halberds andswords have been the focus of Argaric research and have played afundamental role in defining and characterising Argaric culture(Cuadrado 1950; Schubart 1973; Brandherm 2003). Without exception, allwell-provenanced halberds and swords have been recovered from tombs,where they were deposited as grave-goods. Interestingly, since thebeginnings of Argaric research (Siret & Siret 1890), these weaponshave been noted only in adult male burials. In the case of halberds weknow, in addition, that they belonged to men who were older than 35 and,in many cases, older than 50 (Castro et al. 1993-94). Consequently,gender and age discriminations would determine access to halberds andmost probably swords (unfortunately, at present, the age of men buriedwith swords is unknown). Recent research based on radiocarbon datingseems to indicate that the weapons were not contemporary and thathalberds were superseded by swords around 1800 cal BC (Castro et al.1993-4). Halberds and swords appear frequently in those burials showing themost important accumulation of wealth and symbolic items (Figure 3).Both types of object have been regarded as possessing the highest socialvalue among funerary objects (Lull & Estevez 1986). Only a handfulof Argaric adult males were buried with them. For instance in the Argarnecropolis necropolis:see cemetery. necropolis(Greek: “city of the dead”) Extensive and elaborate burial place serving an ancient city. The locations of these cemeteries varied. only 15 halberds and 4 swords were documented from a total of1035 graves. In fact, the number of halberds recovered for the entireArgaric period must be estimated around 50. Even more striking is thecase of swords: around 13 according to the latest studies (Brandhern2003). Consequently, social position would also be a discriminatingfactor determining the possession of specialised weaponry. Furthermore,the few available studies on archaeometallurgy tend to question theactual suitability of such objects for combat (Hernandez 1990; Carrionet al. 2002). This highly restricted access to specialised weapons stands incontrast to the more widespread occurrence of other metallic items.According to Montero mon��te��ro?n. pl. mon��te��rosA hunter's cap with side flaps.[Spanish, hunter, from monte, mountain, from Latin m (1993, 1994), weapons represent only 1.7 per centof metal products (Table 1) and less than 10 per cent weight of thetotal estimated metalwork for the whole Argaric period, which would havebeen mainly targeted at the manufacture of tools and ornaments. It cantherefore be argued that specialised weaponry had a rather low impact onArgaric metal production. This low significance is even more startlingwhen Argaric temporal and geographical factors are taken into account.The Argaric culture spans a period of nearly eight centuries from 2250to 1450 cal BC and covers an area of approximately 45 000[km.sup.2],similar in size to such present-day European countries as Denmark,Holland or Estonia. One reason that the importance of specialised weaponry hastraditionally been overestimated is because axes and daggers/knives werealso classed as weapons and ascribed to the male warrior elite by themajority of scholars (Cuadrado 1950; Castro et al. 1993-94; Contreras etal. 2000; Risch 2002; Chapman 2003). Axes and daggers/knives comprise amuch higher percentage of metal production: 30 per cent of metal objectsand 83 per cent of the total metalwork weight (Montero 1993, 1994). Butunlike halberds and swords, axes and daggers/knives may servemultifunctional purposes and be employed in everyday productionactivities. Like most metal objects, they have been found mainly intombs; but while axes are exclusive to male burials, daggers/knifes canbe associated with either gender. [FIGURE 2 OMITTED] [FIGURE 3 OMITTED] In this context, there emerges a fundamental contradictionregarding the male-exclusive ascription as��crip��tion?n.1. The act of ascribing.2. A statement that ascribes.[Latin ascr of weapons. As has been recentlypointed out, if daggers/knives were weapons, then the allegedlyexclusive relationship between men and weapons has to be ruled out,given that daggers/knives are also found in female tombs (Sanahuja2007). To avoid this contradiction, the military character of theseitems has only been emphasised when associated with male tombs. Whenfound in female tombs, the very same objects have been interpreted asworking tools (Castro et al. 2001), or as indices of the women'sfamily group's social status (Contreras et al. 1995). Needless tosay, such interpretive ruses only highlight the archaeologists'gender bias. Although the multifunctional properties of axes and daggers/knivesrequire further analysis, we are more inclined to regard such items asworking tools. In his recent and comprehensive research, Brandherm(2003) has observed that daggers/knives or 'blades' (as heprefers to name them, since there is no morphological distinctionbetween them) show traces of repair aimed at maintaining theirfunctional properties. Many blades were continuously re-sharpened, whichreduced, in some cases dramatically, their original shape and size. Thehafting-plates also show traces of different repairing marks, includingthe renewal of hilts. All the evidence emphasises the tool-like natureof daggers/knives and their use mainly in production activities. Considering all the above, it is hard to imagine a context ofgeneralised interpersonal violence where the few swords and halberdswould have played a decisive role. Another important fact in theframework of the present discussion is the absence of any otherdistinctive elements--besides weapons themselves--identifying the men inthe tombs as warriors. It must be clear that we are not dealing herewith anything resembling the well-known warrior tombs with standardisedwarrior assemblages that characterise later European developments(Kristiansen 1999; Harrison 2004; Harding 2007). Skeletal bodies Evidence for wounding found in archaeological skeletons may reflectpurposeful aggression inflicted upon human bodies. It is true thatepisodes of violence in the past may have outnumbered those we know offrom the picture conveyed by human bones. For example lethal wounds donot always impact bones, we often lack complete and well-preservedarchaeological bodies, and people who died in violent encounters may nothave found a place of burial in their home villages (Milner 1999; Venci1999; Osgood et al. 2000; Walker 2001; Vankilde 2003). Even so,osteological lesions provide precious data on violent social behaviourin prehistoric societies. Although the earliest archaeological research on the Argaricculture is coeval co��e��val?adj.Originating or existing during the same period; lasting through the same era.n.One of the same era or period; a contemporary. with the beginnings of palaeoanthropological studiesat the end of the nineteenth century, its skeletons have never beensystematically examined for marks of violence. More recently, analysesat the University of Granada's Laboratory of Physical Anthropologyhave addressed this question (Botella et al. 1995; Jimenez-Brobeil etal. 1995). The results allow us to evaluate signs of physical violenceand, most importantly Adv. 1. most importantly - above and beyond all other consideration; "above all, you must be independent"above all, most especially , their anatomical pattern, as well as theiroccurrence according to age and gender. In what follows, we will summarise the information obtained from asample of 155 skeletons from six different Argaric sites, all of them inthe Granada area. Table 2 shows their distribution according to age andsex. Considering only lesions with a clear traumatic origin, 16.7 percent of the whole sample presents some kind of trauma, and there is aslight difference between cranial cranial/cra��ni��al/ (-al)1. pertaining to the cranium.2. toward the head end of the body; a synonym of superior in humans and other bipeds.cra��ni��aladj. (7.7 per cent) and post-cranial (11.6per cent) lesions. Twelve people, ten males and two females, had suffered cranialinjuries (more than one, in some cases). Significantly, all of them wereadults, mature or senile senile/se��nile/ (se��nil) pertaining to old age; manifesting senility. se��nileadj.1. Relating to, characteristic of, or resulting from old age.2. . Except for three cases, the lesions consistedof impressions or depressed fractures in the outer deck of the cranialvault cranial vaultObstetrics The bones that form the movable part of the fetal skull–bones–2 frontal, 2 parietal, occipital, and mold themselves to the ♀birth canal, allowing passage of a cephalic-presenting infant (Figure 4). all of them were ante mortem cranial injuriesresulting from direct impacts, and show clear signs of healing. In termsof sexual differences, male skeletons exhibit a much higher occurrenceof injuries as compared with female ones (20.8 per cent versus 4 percent). Chi-squared analysis of this sexual distinction provides a highstatistical significance (p = 0.02). Furthermore, the shape of the cranial lesions also shows a highdegree of standardisation (Table 3). 79 per cent of the injuries arecircular or oval-shaped, measuring around 20mm. Depending on the impact,the depressed fractures can be more or less severe (ranging from 0.5 to4mm). They are most commonly located in the frontal (57.9 per cent) andthe parietal parietal/pa��ri��e��tal/ (pah-ri��e-t'l)1. of or pertaining to the walls of a cavity.2. pertaining to or located near the parietal bone.pa��ri��e��taladj.1. areas (21 per cent) (Table 4); and there is a higherincidence on the right (57.9 per cent) versus the left side (31.6 percent). Again, all these differences are highly significant from astatistical point of view. P values in males were P = 0.05 for thelocation of trauma (in the frontal area versus the parietal area), and P= 0.001 for the lateral distribution (on the right side versus the leftside), which means that there is probably a non-random explanation forthe higher rate of injuries on the right side of the cranialvault's frontal area. Their significant prevalence in males, alongwith their shape and their anatomical location, reveals a pattern thatrenders the suspicion of deliberate aggressions highly plausible. [FIGURE 4 OMITTED] As for post-cranial lesions, they usually correspond to fractures.Although distinctions between accidental falls and deliberate aggressionare difficult to establish, lesions of this type, unlike the abovedescribed cranial injuries, do not follow a clear anatomical andmorphological pattern, nor do they show a significant variation betweenmale (20.8 per cent) and female individuals (14 per cent). Taking into account all the above evidence, it seems clear that, atpresent, the only signs of possible intentional lesions are derived fromcranial trauma. However, we must emphasise the fact that no evidence ofblade injuries has been found in the analysed sample, or even mentionedin other palaeoanthropological reports (Buikstra et al. 1999; Contreraset al. 2000; Kunter 2000; Lopez-Padilla et al. 2006). Whatever roleswords and halberds (even axes and daggers/knives) may have played inactual combat engagements, their imprints on bones are non-existent.Furthermore, evidence of violence-related mortality is also absent inthe archaeological record The archaeological record is a term used in archaeology to denote all archaeological evidence, including the physical remains of past human activities which archaeologists seek out and record in an attempt to analyze and reconstruct the past. , since no bodies with lethal injuries haveever been found. In view of all the above, information on the burial context ofbodies with cranial trauma would have been very useful. Unfortunately,however, most data on these grave goods remain at present unpublished.Much could also be learned if anthropological evidence were reanalysed,and we could establish whether males buried with specialised weaponrywere also affected by cranial lesions, and whether that particular formof trauma can be seen in other Argaric areas. Discussion Bringing together all of the facts mentioned above, we must nowdiscuss if the supposedly structural character of warfare in Argaricsocieties, and its link to specialised weaponry, may remainunquestioned. According to the data hitherto reviewed, it seemsundeniable that violence, in one form or another, was indeed presentduring the Argaric period. Its specific shape, however, seems not soclear and, in principle, even contradictory. Although we havefortification fortification,system of defense structures for protection from enemy attacks. Fortification developed along two general lines: permanent sites built in peacetime, and emplacements and obstacles hastily constructed in the field in time of war. systems and specialised weaponry, halberds and swordsappear in very low quantities; and while evidence of trauma in skeletonsmay indicate that lesions were caused intentionally, that same evidencecannot be related to the sharp weapons under discussion. In fact, as the term 'conflicting' in the title of thispaper suggests, archaeological data seem to be contradictory. Evidencequa evidence, however, cannot possess such a quality; it is only byvirtue of our interpretive procedures that facts appear to be mutuallyinconsistent. We often insist on elaborating unitary explanations on thebasis of evidence that may have arisen from different social activities.That is probably the case in this instance, and the apparentcontradictions in the available evidence may originate from the factthat interpersonal violence was waged at different scales. The effort invested in the construction and long-term maintenanceof massive fortification systems has been interpreted by some authors asobvious proof of warfare and actual attacks (Solometo 2006, followingOtterbein 1970). As indicated also by Milner (1999: 198), building andrepairing walls takes time away from other pressing survival-relatedtasks and, in the absence of a regular threat, the need forfortifications is difficult to understand (Solometo 2006: 30-1). Infact, it has also been observed that perceived threats and readiness tofight and defend are more widespread than actual combats and that,sometimes, "defences outpace out��pace?tr.v. out��paced, out��pac��ing, out��pac��esTo surpass or outdo (another), as in speed, growth, or performance.outpaceVerb[-pacing, offensive capabilities' (Arkush& Allen 2006: 7). That could be the reason why, in general,archaeological indicators for mobilisation outnumber evidence of actualdestruction (Ferguson 1984; Haas 1990; Solometo 2006). In the case ofArgaric communities, the evidence for defence is also more abundant thanthat for offence. Earlier, in the section on weapons and warriors, we saw that theonly possible signs of intentional violence in skeletal bodies consistin intra-vitam cranial trauma. If this was the case, the type and shapeof the lesions, and the lack of peri-mortem cranial fractures, areconsistent with hand-to-hand fighting episodes, and suggest that theinjuries may have been caused by a variety of different bluntimplements. Ethnographic and archaeological parallels also indicate thatpractices of this sort, hitherto unsuspected for the Argaric world,usually take place in a context of ritualised or highly regulatedresolution 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 itsspecific social meaning in the Argaric world, it is highly likely thatcombat was not aimed at eliminating opponents, and almost surely age andgender were significant dimensions, since no children show signs ofviolence and there is a greater incidence on men than on women. If thistype of violence was regulated, with preordained pre��or��dain?tr.v. pre��or��dained, pre��or��dain��ing, pre��or��dainsTo appoint, decree, or ordain in advance; foreordain.pre rules on when, where,how and by whom it should be enacted, then obviously it was not directlyconnected with the construction of Argaric defences. Cranial traumatism traumatism/trau��ma��tism/ (traw��mah-tizm)1. the physical or psychic state resulting from an injury or wound.2. a wound or injury.trau��ma��tismn.1. could not be directly linked to the presence ofhalberds and swords, either. Not only were they not the weapons impliedbut, people engaged in the above mentioned combat practices did notusually have such weapons among their grave-goods. Besides, althoughthese practices were male-dominated, the presence of the same traumatismin two female crania cra��ni��a?n.A plural of cranium. reveals that, unlike specialised weaponry, theywere not exclusively associated with males. In view of the above, it isdifficult to establish a link between this category of interpersonalviolence and the--allegedly widespread--Argaric practice of warfare.Although both practices are not incompatible, they entail differentforms of conflict resolution. Finally, we need to remember the rather low number of specialisedweapons that has been recovered, and the blatant absence of sharpinjuries in Argaric skeletons. These data support the need to reassessthe meaning given to swords and halberds, and question the assumptionthat specialised weaponry emerged along with an organised body ofwarriors and widespread warfare. We are aware that soft-tissue injuriesmay not be detectable in skeletal remains and may thus becomeunder-represented. According to recent calculations, a person'sskeleton amounts to about 60 per cent of a body's target area in afrontal view. This means that the chance of hitting bones with a randomweapon shot is 50 per cent (Walker 2001). But even allowing for thisunder-representation, the fact is that the examination of bodiesrecovered in the Argaric territory found no signs of blade injuries atall. Such lack of evidence stands in contrast with the allegedlyextensive use of swords, halberds, axes and daggers/knives as actualweapons by Argaric people. Whether there were warriors and wars, we mustconclude these weapons did not play any critical role. Conclusion How then is the presence of halberds and swords in Argaric funeraryassemblages to be explained? It seems to us that their very context ofdeposition may point to the possible answers. We know the weapons wereselected to be deposited only in the tombs of a rather limited number ofmales (ranging from adult to mature), who occupied a central place inthe community's social structure. Most probably, the artefacts wererelated to the Argaric gender and power ideology, and served as emblemsof high-ranked maleness (for similar discussions see for instance Sarauw2007). At least during the burial rite, these weapons could have beenused as individualising attributes, to differentiate and set specificmen apart from the rest of the group. At the same time, the display ofweapons in special social events (feasting, commensal commensal/com��men��sal/ (kom-men��sil)1. living on or within another organism, and deriving benefit without harming or benefiting the host.2. a parasite that causes no harm to the host. practices,funerary rituals, etc.) could have served as a warning, functioning asan intimidating mechanism that contributed to the reinforcement orconstruction of political power. They were a reminder of the capacity ofthe dominant class to use violence if necessary. Although in our viewthe social leaders would not be in command of a class ofinstitutionalised warriors in a context of widespread warfare, theywould nevertheless have the capacity to mobilise people and use physicalforce under certain circumstances. As in many other cases in European prehistory prehistory,period of human evolution before writing was invented and records kept. The term was coined by Daniel Wilson in 1851. It is followed by protohistory, the period for which we have some records but must still rely largely on archaeological evidence to , the Argaricarchaeological record does not at present provide us with enoughinformation to thoroughly visualise the different forms adopted byviolence. The prevailing assumptions on the existence of warriors andwarfare have not favoured a penetrating scholarly debate, nor thein-depth search for supporting archaeological evidence. In the light ofthe available evidence, it seems clear that a single interpretationcannot account for the conditions and circumstances under which warlikepractices occurred. Different archaeological evidence--defences, cranialtraumata and specialised weaponry--point to different categories ofviolence and, therefore, to different scales, social costs, forms ofcombat, levels of inter- or intra-group conflict, social causes, andsocial consequences. In fact, the aim of this paper was not to force all the disparateevidence on violence into a single, harmonised Adj. 1. harmonised - involving or characterized by harmonyconsonant, harmonical, harmonized, harmonicharmonious - musically pleasing interpretation, but tocritically re-evaluate the supposedly structural character of warfareand warriors in the Argaric world. Although there is still much room fordebate, our research has shown how dubious traditional assumptions onthis matter are. Violence did happen, although in a very different formthan that imagined by traditional research. Acknowledgements We would like to thank Almudena Hernando, Margarita Margarita(märgärē`tä), island, 444 sq mi (1,150 sq km), in the Caribbean Sea off the coast of Venezuela. With many smaller islands it constitutes the Venezuelan state of Nueva Esparta (1990 pop. 263,748). Sanchez-Romeroand Apen Ruiz for their helpful comments and suggestions on a firstdraft of the paper. Additionally, we would also like to thank MartinCarver Martin Oswald Hugh Carver FSA BSc (London), Dip.Archaeol. (Durham), MIFA, is Professor of Archaeology at the University of York, England, and director of the Sutton Hoo Research Project and a leading exponent of new methods in excavation and survey. , Antonio Gilman and Ignacio Montero for their valuable commentsand suggestions on the first draft submitted to Antiquity. Received: 21 November 2008; Accepted: 30 January 2009; Revised: 10February 2009 References ARANDA, G. & M. SANCHEZ. 2005. The origin of warfare: lateprehistory in southeastern Iberia, in M. Parker & I.J.N. Thorpe(ed.) Warfare, violence and slavery in prehistory (BritishArchaeological Reports International Series 1374): 181-94. Oxford:Archaeopress. ARANDA, G. 8? F. MOLINA. 2006. Wealth and power in the Bronze Ageof the south-east of the Iberian Peninsula: the funerary record of Cerrode la Encina. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 25 (1): 47-59. ARKUSH, E.N. & M.W. ALLEN (ed.). 2006. The archaeology ofwarfare. Prehistories of raiding and conquest. Gainesville (FL):University Press of Florida. AYALA, M.M. 1991. El poblamiento argarico en Lorca. Estado de lacuestion. Murcia: Real Academia Alfonso X Alfonso X, Spanish king of Castile and LeónAlfonso X(Alfonso the Wise), 1221–84, Spanish king of Castile and León (1252–84); son and successor of Ferdinand III, whose conquests of the Moors he continued, notably by taking el Sabio. BOTELLA, M., S.A. JIMENEZ-BROBEIL & J.A. ORTEGA. 1995.Traumatisms in Bronze Age settlements in the Iberian Peninsula: Arcarculture, in R. Batista, D. Campillo & T. Carreras (ed.) IXthEuropean meeting of the Paleopathology Association: 65-72. Barcelona:Museu d'arqueologia de Catalunya. BRANDHERM, D. 2003. Die Dolche und Stabdolche der Steinkupfer- undlteren Bronzezeit auf der Iberischen Halbinsel. Stuttgart: FrankSteiner. BUIKSTRA, J.E., L. HOSHOWER & C. RIHUETE. 1999. Losenterramientos humanos en los sondeos de Gatas, in P.V. Castro, R.Chapman, S. Gili, V.. Lull, R. Mico, C. Rihuete, R. Risch & M.E.Sanahuja (ed.) Proyecto Gatas 2. La dinamica arqueologica de laocupacion prehistorica: 388-93. Sevilla: Junta jun��ta?n.1. A group of military officers ruling a country after seizing power.2. A council or small legislative body in a government, especially in Central or South America.3. A junto. de Andalucia. Consejeriade Cultura. CARMAN, J. (ed.) 1997. Material harm: archaeological studies of warand violence. Glasgow: Cruithne Press. CARMAN, J. & A. HARDING (ed.). 1999. Ancient warfare Ancient warfare is war as conducted from the beginnings of recorded history to the end of the ancient period. In Europe, the end of antiquity is often equated with the fall of Rome in 476. . Stroud:Sutton. CARRION, E., J. BAENA & C. BLASCO. 2002. Efectismo yefectividad de las espadas argaricas a partir de una replicaexperimental del ejemplar de La Perla (Madrid) depositado en el museoarqueologico de Cataluna, in I. Clemente, R. Risch & J.E Gibaja(ed.) Analisis funcional: su aplicacion al estudio de las sociedadesprehistoricas (British Archaeological Reports International Series1073): 285-94. Oxford: Archaeopress. CASTRO, P.V., R. CHAPMAN, S. GILI, V. LULL, R. MICO C. RIHUETE, R.RISCH & M.E. SANAHUJA. 2001. La sociedad argarica, in M. Ruiz-Galvez(ed.) La Edad del Bronce, ?Primera Edad de Oro de Espana?: 118-216.Barcelona: Critica. CASTRO, P.V., R. CHAPMAN, S. GILI, V. LULL, R. MICO, C. RIHUETE& M.E. SANAHUJA. 1993-94. Tiempos sociales de los contextosfunerarios argaricos. Anales de Prehistoria y Arqueologia 9-10: 77-106. CHAPMAN, R. 2003. Archaeologies of complexity. London: Routledge. CONTRERAS, F. (ed.) 2000. Proyecto Penalosa. Analisis historico delas comunidades de la Edad del Bronce del piedemonte meridional me��rid��i��o��naladj.Of or relating to meridians or a meridian. desierra Morena Sierra Morena(syā`rä mōrā`nä), mountain range, SW Spain, extending c.375 mi (600 km) eastward along the southern edge of the Meseta (central plateau) from the Portuguese border to the Sierra de Alcaraz. y depresion Linares-Bailen. Sevilla: Consejeria deCultura. Junta de Andalucia. CONTRERAS, F., J.A. CAMARA, R. LIZCANO, C. PEREZ, B. ROBLEDO &G. TRANCHO. 1995. Enterramiento y diferenciacion social I. El registrofunerario del yacimiento de la Edad del Bronce de Penalosa. Trabajos dePrehistoria 52(1): 67-108. CONTRERAS, F., J.A. CAMARA, B. ROBLEDO & G. TRANCHO. 2000. LaNecropolis, in F. Contreras (ed.) Proyecto Penalosa. Analisis historicode las comunidades de la Edad del Bronce del piedemonte meridional desierra Morena y depresion Linares-Bailen: 287-322. Sevilla: Consejeriade Cultura. Junta de Andalucia. CUADRADO, E. 1950. Utiles y armas de El Arcar. Ensayo de tipologia.I Congreso Nacional de Arqueologia: 7-28. FERGUSON, R.B. 1984. Introduction: studying war, in R.B. Ferguson(ed.) Warfare, culture and environment (Studies in Anthropology): 1-81.Orlando (FL): Academic Press. GILMAN, A. 1976. Bronze Age dynamics in southeast Spain.Dialectical Anthropology 1 : 307-19. GUILAINE, J. & J. ZAMMIT. 2005. The origins of war. Violence inprehistory. Oxford: Blackwell. HAAS, J. 1990. Warfare and the evolution of tribal polities in theprehistoric southwest, in J. Haas (ed.) The anthropology of war: 171-89.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Cambridge University Press (known colloquially as CUP) is a publisher given a Royal Charter by Henry VIII in 1534, and one of the two privileged presses (the other being Oxford University Press). . HARDING, A. 2007. Warriors and weapons in Bronze Age Europe The Bronze Age in Europe succeeds the Neolithic in the late 3rd millennium BC (late Beaker culture), and spans the entire 2nd millennium BC (Unetice culture, Urnfield culture, Tumulus culture, Terramare culture, Lusatian culture) in Northern Europe lasting until ca. 600 BC. .Budapest: Archaeolingua Alapitvany. HARRISON, R.J. 2004. Symbols and warriors. Images of the EuropeanBronze Age. Bristol: Western Academic & Specialist Press. HERNANDEZ, M.S. 1990. Un enterramiento argarico en Alicante, inHomenaje a Jeronimo Molina: 87-94. Murcia: Academia Alfonso X El Sabio. JIMENEZ-BROBEIL, S., M. BOTELLA & J.A. ORTEGA. 1995.Arthropaties in the Iberian Peninsula during the Bronze Age: Arcarculture, in R. Batista, D. Campillo & T. Carretas (ed.) IXthEuropean meeting of the Paleopathology Association: 173-80. Barcelona:Museu d'arqueologia de Catalunya. KEELEY, L.H. 1996. War before civilization. The myth of thepeaceful savage. New York New York, state, United StatesNew York,Middle Atlantic state of the United States. It is bordered by Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and the Atlantic Ocean (E), New Jersey and Pennsylvania (S), Lakes Erie and Ontario and the Canadian province of & Oxford: Oxford University Press. KRISTIANSEN, K. 1999. The emergence of warrior aristocracies inlater European prehistory and their long-term history, in J. Carman& A. Harding (ed.) Ancient warfare: 175-89. Stroud: Sutton. KUNTER, M. 2000. Los restos de esqueletos humanos hallados enFuente Adamo durante las campanas de 1985, 1988 y 1991, in H. Schubart,V. Pingel & O. Arteaga (ed.) Fuente Alamo AlamoEighteenth-century mission in San Antonio, Texas, site of a historic siege of a small group of Texans by a Mexican army (1836) during the Texas war for independence from Mexico. . Las excavacionesarqueologicas 1977-1991 en el poblado de la Edad del Bronce: 265-82.Sevilla: Consejeria de Cultura de la Junta de Andalucia. LOPEZ PADILLA, J.A., D. BELMONTE & M.P. DE MIGUEL. 2006. Losenterramientos argaricos de la Illeta deis Banyets de El Campello El Campello is a town on the Costa Blanca (White Coast) of Spain, within the Valencian Community. It is a 20-minute tram ride from Alicante. There is a busy Marina and Fish market, where people can go and purchase freshly caught seafood. .Practicas funerarias en la frontera oriental de El Argat, in J. Soler(ed.) La ocupacion prehistorica de la Illeta dels Banyests (El Campello,Alicantes): 119-72. Alicante: Museo Arqueologico de Alicante/Diputacionde Alicante. LULL, V. 1983. La cultura del argar. Un modelo para el estudio delas formaciones sociales prehistoricas. Barcelona: Critica. LULL, V. & J. ESTEVEZ. 1986. Propuesta metodologica para elestudio de las necropolis argaricas. Homenaje a Luis Siret Luis Siret y Cels (Sint-Niklaas, August 26 1869 – Herrer��as, 1934) was a Belgian-Spanish archaeologist and illustrator.He was born in Belgium, but when he was 21 he went to Cuevas del Almanzora (Almer��a) when he was contracted by the mining company Almagrera as a (1934-1984):441-52. Sevilla: Consejeria de Cultura. Junta de Andalucia. MARTIN, D. & D.W. FRAYER. 1997. Troubled times. Violence andwarfare in the past. Amsterdam: Gordon & Breach. MILNER, G.R. 1999. Warfare in prehistoric and early historiceastern North America North America,third largest continent (1990 est. pop. 365,000,000), c.9,400,000 sq mi (24,346,000 sq km), the northern of the two continents of the Western Hemisphere. . Journal of Archaeological Research 7(2): 105- 51. MOLINA, F. 1983. La Prehistoria, in F. Molina & J.M. Roldan(ed.) Historia de Granada 1. De las primeras culturas al Islam: 11-131.Granada: Don Quijote. MOLINA, F. & J.A. CAMARA. 2004. Urbanismo y fortificaciones enla cultura de El Argar El Argar is the name given to an ancient civilization that flourished from the town of Antas, Almer��a, in the south-east of Spain between c. 1800 BCE and 1300 BCE.The El Argar civilization was characterized by its early adoption of bronze, which briefly allowed this tribe . Homogeneidad y patrones regionales, in M.R.Garcia Huertas & J. Morales (ed.) La Peninsula Iberica en el IImilenio a. C: poblados y fortificaciones: 9-56. Coleccion Humanidades:Universidad Castilla-La Mancha. MONTERO, I. 1993. Bronze Age metallurgy in southeast Spain.Antiquity 67: 46-57. --1994. Elorigen de la metalurgia en el Sudeste de la PeninsulaIberica. Almeria: Instituto de Estudios Almerienses. OSGOOD, R.H., S. MONKS & J. TOMS. 2000. Bronze Age warfare.Stroud: Sutton. OTTERBEIN, K. 1970. The evolution of war: a cross-cultural study.New Haven New Haven,city (1990 pop. 130,474), New Haven co., S Conn., a port of entry where the Quinnipiac and other small rivers enter Long Island Sound; inc. 1784. Firearms and ammunition, clocks and watches, tools, rubber and paper products, and textiles are among the many (CT): HRAF HRAF Human Relations Area File Press. PARKER, M. & I.J.N. THORPE (ed.). 2005. Warfare, violence andslavery in prehistory (British Archaeological Reports InternationalSeries 1374). Oxford: Archaeopress. RISCH, R. 2002. Recursos naturales, medios de produccion yexplotacion social Un analisis economico de la industria litica deFuente Alamo (Almeria) 2250-1400 antes de nuestra era (IberiaArchaeologica 3). Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern. ROBB, J. 1997. Violence and gender in early Italy, in D.L. Martin& D.W. Frayer (ed.) Troubled times. Violence and warfare in thepast: 114-44. Amsterdam: Gordon & Breach. SANAHUJA, M.E. 2007. ?Armas o herramientas prehistoricas? Elejemplo del mundo argirico, in M. Sanchez (ed.) Arqueologia de lasmujeres y relaciones degenero. (Complutum 18): 195-200. Madrid:University of Madrid. SANCHEZ-ROMERO, M. 2004. Children in the southeast of the IberianPeninsula during the Bronze Age. Ethnographisch-ArchaologischeZeitschrift 47: 377-87. SARAUW, T. 2007. Male symbols or warrior identities. The'archery burials' of the Danish Bell Beaker culture Beaker cultureLate Neolithic and early Bronze Age culture of northern and western Europe. The people are known for a group of distinctive bell-shaped earthenware beakers decorated with toothed stamps, probably used in rituals of consumption. . Journalof Anthropological Archaeology 26: 65-87. SCHUBART, H. 1973. Las alabardas tipo Montejicar. Estudiosdedicados al profesor Dr. Luis Pericot. Barcelona: Universidad deBarcelona, Instituto de Arqueologia y Prehistoria. SCHULTING, R.J. & M. WYSOCKI. 2002. Cranial trauma in theBritish Earlier Neolithic. Past 41: 4-6. SIRET, E. & L. SIRET. 1890. Lasprimeras edades del metal en elsudeste de la Espana. Barcelona. SOLOMETO, J. 2006. The dimensions of war, in E.N. Arkush & M.W.Allen (ed.) The archaeology of war: 23-65. Gainesville (FL): UniversityPress of Florida. TURNEY-HIGH, H.H. 1991. Primitive war: its practices and concepts.Columbia (SC): University of South Carolina Press The University of South Carolina Press (or USC Press), founded in 1944, is a university press that is part of the University of South Carolina. External linkUniversity of South Carolina Press • VANKILDE, H. 2003. Commemorative tales: archaeological responses tomodern myth, poetics and war. World Archaeology 35(1): 126-44. VENCE, S. 1999. Stone Age warfare, in J. Carman & A. Harding(ed.) Ancient warfare: 57-72. Stroud: Sutton. WALKER, EL. 1989. Cranial injuries as ah index for violence amongsouthern California Indians. American Journal of Physical Anthropology80: 313-23. --2001. A bioarchaeological perspective on the history of violence.Annual Review of Anthropology 30: 573-96. WILKINSON, R.G. 1997. Violence against women: raiding and abductionin prehistoric Michigan, in D.L. Martin & D.W. Frayer (ed.) Troubledtimes. Violence and warfare in the past: 21-44. Amsterdam: Gordon &Breach. Gonzalo Aranda-Jimenez (1) *, Sandra Monton-Subias (2) * &Silvia Jimenez-Brobeil (3) (1.) Departamento de Prehistoria y Arqueologia, Facultad deFilosofia y Letras, Universidad de Granada, Campus Cartuja s/n, 18071Granada, Spain (Email: garanda@ugr.es) (2) * ICREA ICREA International Consortium of Real Estate AssociationsICREA Instituci�� Catalana de Reserca I Estudis Avan?ats (Barcelona, Spain)Departament d'Humanitats, Universitat PompeuFabra Pompeu Fabra i Poch, (Barcelona 1868 - Prada de Conflent 1948) was a Catalan grammarian, the main author of the normative reform of contemporary Catalan language.Trained as a mechanical engineer, from a quite young age he dedicated himself to the study of the Catalan , Ramon Trias-Fargas 25-27, 080010 Barcelona, Spain (Email:sandra.monton@upf.edu) (3) Laboratorio de Antropologia Fisica, Facultad de Medicina,Universidad de Granada, Av. de Madrid, 11, 18071 Granada, Spain (Email:jbrobeil@ugr.es) * These authors have contributed equally to the present manuscriptand both should be considered as first authors.Table 1. Frequencies of metallic objects for the Copper Ageand the Argaric culture (after Montero 1994).Types Copper Argaricof objects Age % culture %Tools 355 60.48 449 15.74Tools-weapons 155 26.40 793 27.45Weapons 0 0 50 1.73Ornaments 48 8.18 1540 53.32Accessories 4 0.68 32 1.11Non-classified 5 4.26 24 0.83 565 100 2888 100Table 2. Frequency of cranial injuries by sex and age.Number of individuals/injured people/frequency in %.Age category Males Females Unidentified TotalInfantile I (0-6) -- -- 29/0/0 29/0/0Infantile II (7-13) -- -- 15/0/0 15/0/0Juvenile (13-20) 1/1/100 -- 11/0/0 12/1/8.3Adults (21-40) 31/4/12.9 32/2/6.2 2/0/0 65/6/9Mature (41-60) 13/3/23.1 17/0/0 -- 30/3/10Senile (60+) 3/2/66.6 1/0/0 -- 4/2/50 48/10/20.8 50/2/4 57/0/0 155/12/7.7Table 3. Cranial injuries by sex, shape and side.Shape Circular Oval Others TotalMale 6 4 4 14Female 2 3 0 5Total (%) 42.1% 36.8% 21%Side Right Left Medium TotalMale 8 4 2 14Female 3 2 0 5Total (%) 57.9% 31.6% 10.5%Table 4. Cranial injuries by sex and position. Front/Position Front Pariet. Pariet. Tempor. Malar NasalMale 9 2 0 1 1 1Female 2 2 1 0 0 0Total (%) 57.9% 21% 5.3% 5.3% 5.3% 5.3%