The Annual of the British School at Athens
http://journals.cambridge.org/ATH
Additional services for The Annual of the British School at
Athens:
Email alerts: Click here
Subscriptions: Click here
Commercial reprints: Click here
Terms of use : Click here
MARTIAL MINOANS? WAR AS SOCIAL PROCESS,
PRACTICE AND EVENT IN BRONZE AGE CRETE
Barry P.C. Molloy
The Annual of the British School at Athens / Volume 107 / November 2012, pp 87 142
DOI: 10.1017/S0068245412000044, Published online:
Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0068245412000044
How to cite this article:
Barry P.C. Molloy (2012). MARTIAL MINOANS? WAR AS SOCIAL PROCESS, PRACTICE AND
EVENT IN BRONZE AGE CRETE. The Annual of the British School at Athens, 107, pp 87142
doi:10.1017/S0068245412000044
Request Permissions : Click here
Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/ATH, IP address: 87.115.78.23 on 18 Dec 2012
The Annual of the British School at Athens, , , pp. – © The Council, British School at Athens
doi:./S
MARTIAL MINOANS? WAR AS SOCIAL PROCESS,
PRACTICE AND EVENT IN BRONZE AGE CRETE
by Barry P.C. Molloy
Department of Archaeology, University of Sheffield
Together with politics, economics and religion, war is one of the fundamental factors that can
shape a society and group identities. In the prehistoric world, the sources for the study of war
are disparate and their interpretation can be inconsistent and problematic. In the case of Crete
in the Bronze Age, a systematic analysis of the evidence will be undertaken for the first time in
this paper, and this opportunity is used to critically evaluate the most effective ways of
employing the widely agreed sets of physical correlates for ancient war in the archaeological
record. A further objective in exploring the diachronic roles of war in these societies is to move
the discussion from a niche field to a more integrated, and systematic, social analysis. The
existence and character of a warrior identity is examined, and it is proposed that it often
constituted a conspicuous element of male identity. The varying scales and time spans through
which war can influence a society are discussed, and a broad framework for understanding
war in social process, practices and events is proposed.
INTRODUCTION
The archaeology of Minoan Crete is unique in Europe. Beyond palaces, priestesses and
power, it is unique because it only emerged in the twentieth century; that was many
decades after archaeological research began in most other areas of Europe. The
discoveries in Crete were almost entirely unrelated to existing prehistoric narratives and
so, in playing intellectual catch-up, the tale of Minoan Crete was rapidly formulated by
a few pioneers who were keen to promote their discovery of the first urban civilisation
in Europe (MacGillivray ). To a greater or lesser extent, the next century of
scholarship was framed by the geographies, chronologies, terminologies and, most
importantly, the socio-political models formulated in these early years. In the past
decade, however, there has been an increased emphasis placed on reconceptualising
models of social organisation and power dynamics in prehistoric Crete (e.g. Driessen
; Schoep ; ; Hamilakis a; b; Knappett and Schoep ;
Schoep and Knappett ; Adams a; Whitelaw a; Haggis ; Schoep and
Tomkins ).
At the same time as these developments in Minoan archaeology, there has been an
academic renaissance in the study of prehistoric warfare (various in Carman and
Harding ; Parker Pearson and Thorpe ; Otto, Thrane and Vandkilde ;
Molloy a; Moedlinger and Uckelmann ). This new research has yet to
permeate models of Cretan prehistory and it may be fair to say that, while colleagues
BARRY P.C. MOLLOY
would not deny that war or violence occurred, they are not yet considered to be
fundamentally important in creating social narratives.
The objective of this paper is to use recent developments in the study of prehistoric
warfare to offer a detailed consideration of the role of war, violence and warriors in the
societies of Bronze Age Crete. It is considered insufficient to tack an ‘archaeology of
warfare’ onto current themes in Cretan research, but rather the study of war needs to
be better integrated at a socially systemic level by considering it in social ) processes,
) practices, and ) events. The overarching emphasis on religion as the primary factor
in elite control and temporal authority structures will also be tempered by
consideration of how power derived from a triadic balance between religion, war and
political/economic administration. The materialisation of martial activities will therefore
be contextualised and cross-referenced with other social practices, including religion,
mortuary practice, settlement design, trade, sport, art and technology.
The so-called ‘palatial periods’ between c. and c. BC are the main focus of
this work, though earlier and later periods of the Bronze Age are considered for
contextual purposes. The first part of the paper will discuss the archaeological study
of war and its relationship to social organisation and the second part will deal with
the specific case of Bronze Age Crete. I will begin by assessing how archaeologists
conceptualise war and warriors and this will be followed by how we define and
identify archaeological data that relate to war. The relationship of social structures
to sources and motivations for conflict is next discussed. A brief critique of themes
relating to war that have been the focus of debate in Cretan studies, such as the
‘Minoan thalassocracy’ and fortification walls, will precede a more detailed treatment
of other evidence including iconography, mortuary practice, ritual activity and
weaponry. The final outcome will be to demonstrate that warriorhood was a
dominant aspect of male identity from at least Middle Minoan II and perhaps as
early as Early Minoan I. It will further be demonstrated that the activities of warriors
permeated and influenced religious, technological, political and economic
infrastructures in Cretan societies, and thus played a powerful role in (perpetually)
shaping the Bronze Age world.
FINDING WARRIORS
When we can define specialised military weaponry in the archaeological record, then we
have unmistakable specialisation in military practices and, by extension, practitioners. In
prehistory, the practitioners of violence are typically called warriors. The word itself
comes from the Old Northern French werreior (a variant of guerrier) meaning ‘one who
makes war’, and so we might consider a warrior to be someone enfranchised to make
war. This then was a social right, not an occupation or profession.
Unlike later soldiers, a warrior is not construed as an exclusively military specialist
but rather an expression of identity contingent upon social strategies peculiar to a
society. The material expressions of warrior identity may have been recognisable
through physical aesthetics (musculature, posture, possession of weapons, jewellery,
hair styles) but also through a lifeway (Treherne , –) that enacted this
identity in a social world through bull-leaping, boxing, hunting, sports, combat
training and fighting, and so on. The concepts of identity and lifeways are thus not
WAR AS SOCIAL PROCESS, PRACTICE AND EVENT IN BRONZE AGE CRETE
interchangeable, because a warrior identity is materialised through participation in a
constructed aesthetic (Treherne ), whereas a warrior lifestyle or lifeway is the
daily routines and activities that empower symbols of identity with meaning. Lifeways
are also the way in which the person learns to become and perform a warrior role,
rather than simply represent it. As such, it was ‘a shared process that was consensual
among the elite groups as a whole, with the intention of participating in a common
experience’ (Harrison , ).
When assessing what being a warrior meant, we need to consider that as much as
people make weapons, weapons make people. In material culture studies, it has long
been acknowledged that ‘the lives of persons and objects. . . [can become] . . .
mutually constituted, not in an organic but in a phenomenological sense’ (Parkin
, ; see also Fowler , ). This mutual constitution is worth emphasising,
because the widespread introduction of combat weaponry could only become socially
feasible when people developed the skills to use it. In turn, we can see that the
biological bodies of warriors were materially produced by an individual’s activities,
particularly through repeated use of weapons and other forms of activity/exercise to
prepare one for combat (Fowler , ; see also Knusel and Stirland
for osteologically visible examples). The cultivated musculature of warriors can be
considered a form of body modification achieved through training, because it
physically shaped them, and thus made their identity evident to others. A warrior
lifeway was thus expressed materially through the body, which was produced through
undertaking specialised patterns of action, and these were in turn made possible by
the use of specialised material culture (Fowler , ; Hallam and Hockey ,
; Malafouris , ; Lau , ; Sofaer ; Knappett and Malafouris
; Bourdieu ).
The question arises, however, that if most young elite males in any given society
engaged in competitive displays of fitness such as boxing, hunting or bull-leaping,
and these same men had to fight in wars on occasion, do we really need to call them
warriors? The short answer is yes. Such agonistic activities are widely accepted as
training grounds for ‘handling of weapons, maintenance of physical fitness, personal
bravery, stealth, tactical decisions and the negotiation of rough terrain’ (Morris
, ). Speaking of the Maya civilisation of Mesoamerica, Webster (, )
considers warriors to have been ‘a core of men who are unusually skilled in war by
training and experience, who are commonly called up to take part in conflict, and
who derive unusual benefits from it’. He differentiates these from standing armies,
which he defines as ‘permanently mobilized military units that are specially trained
and equipped, strategically located, possessed of their own command structure,
subsidized by the king or polity, and who identify themselves as military specialists’.
He goes on to argue that when armies were not maintained and equipped by a
central figure or regime, the state itself ‘did not have to underwrite the production
of expensive and sophisticated weapons’ (Webster , ), so that warriorhood
was status-based and the onus was on the individual to equip themselves and
informally gain training (i.e. no state-sponsored military training system). These
points have strong resonance for Bronze Age Crete. It is also worth noting that
Maya states were until recently believed to have been devoid of war and warriors
until the translation of their script revealed the existence of complex martial
strategies, and that individual states were often enmeshed in wars virtually every year
(Webster ).
BARRY P.C. MOLLOY
A further analogy can be taken from Classical Greece. The words ‘warrior’ and
‘soldier’ are used freely in literature speaking of hoplites, yet, other than Sparta, no
Greek state prior to the fourth century had a specialised training system. Instead,
van Wees (, ) notes that ‘the obligation to possess hoplite equipment was
regularly linked with an obligation to take regular exercise in the gymnasium’ and
this took the form of athletics, boxing, pankration and other physical exercises, and
members of this group would also hunt together on occasion. Similarly in twelfth
century BC Egypt at Medinet Habu a relief of a wrestler depicts him saying ‘Stand
up to me! I’ll make you see the hand of a [real] warrior!’ (cf. Poliakoff , ),
again showing the intimate relationship often shared between agonistic contests and
warriorhood. In Sparta, King Agesilaus, in a desire to keep his men in top
condition for fighting, is reputed by Xenophon to have held a competition where
prizes were awarded for events such as javelin throwing or archery, but the top prize
was reserved for the man judged to have the best body (Xenophon, Hellenica
..). These same forms of activity and ideology of competitive fitness are
depicted in the art of prehistoric Crete being undertaken by young elite males and
the same emphasis on the body, or the ‘warrior’s beauty’ (Treherne ), occurs
in art, and is further represented by material culture such as tweezers and razors
(see below).
The specialisation in skills using specialist equipment (and locations) may reinforce
social stratification by restricting access to the legitimate right to engage in violence on
behalf of a community. Access to the elite weapons, but also training, required for
hunting large game and interpersonal combat may similarly reflect a degree of
circumscription of access to the bounty of the hunt and material wealth through
plunder or reward, affording material benefits to warrior status. As in the Classical
world, the warriors of the elite group may have been supported by conscripted peasant
skirmishers when war escalated.
On the basis of the analysis of the formation of pristine states in the Americas,
Europe and west Asia, Otterbein (, ) concluded that ‘it is absolutely clear that
a centralized political system cannot retain its statehood unless it has a military
organization that is militarily sophisticated . . . the presence of an efficient military
organization . . . [was a] . . . necessary condition for state formation’ (see also Earle
; Claessen ; Bossen a). The ability to field a military force may thus be
seen to be contingent upon the existence of men who were considered to be warriors
and who had the skill, experience and fitness to wage war effectively. Such a warrior
identity may have been age dependent, and even then it need not have been exclusive,
so that the same men might also perform religious, commercial, administrative or
political duties, as was the case with Classical Greek hoplites. In saying this, however,
the requirement of physical fitness and the construction of a specific aesthetic indicates
that warriorhood was a significant, even dominant, element in the way such people
appeared physically and acted daily.
Greek hoplites were typically owners of farms, but, in generally having potential access to
political power, they may be considered members of an elite.
Including boar’s tusk helmets and tower-shields, which were derived from the bounty of the
hunt. These items were therefore symbolic not only of bravery or prowess, but also of access to
circumscribed elite activities.
WAR AS SOCIAL PROCESS, PRACTICE AND EVENT IN BRONZE AGE CRETE
IDENTIFYING WARFARE IN THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORD
The causes of war can be many, and range from socio-biological instincts such as
acquisition of a mate or status, to more base materialist motivations of wealth and
resource acquisition (Turney-High ; Robarchek ; Ferguson ; Carman
b; Osgood ; Haas ; Guilaine and Zammit ; Otterbein ; Thorpe
; ; Harding ). War can unfortunately be difficult to pin down to a
specific definition, though here it is defined as the premeditated violent actions that
take place between two or more groups of people, sanctioned by leading members of
their communities and usually with economic, political or social change as an
objective. Variations on this definition exist (e.g. Ferguson ; Ferrill ; Webster
; Otterbein ; Guilaine and Zammit ; O’Brien ), but in each case we
can see that there is a clear incongruity between the definitions we may like to give for
war, and the material evidence for warfare we might hope to find in the archaeological
record (Wileman ).
This said, for prehistorians (e.g. Carman and Harding ; Driessen ; Parker
Pearson ; Harding ; Wileman ), a generally agreed set of archaeologically
visible correlates of ancient warfare would be:
. Settlement distribution and demographics
. Defensible sites
. Burning of sites
. Osteology
. Weaponry in corpore
. Weaponry symbolism (mortuary and religious find contexts)
. Iconography
. Texts
These categories are not without their problems of course. Renfrew (, ),
speaking about the archaeology of religion, has commented that ‘in all attempts to
investigate the early past there is the risk that we first conceptualize, setting up a whole
series of categories of our own construction, and then order our data (our observations
bearing upon the past) in terms of such categories . . . All that we are seeing is a
reflection and an exemplification of our own a priori categories’. Casting together
burial rites, architectural features and the metal industry, for example, in common
heuristic cause may be considered by some a hermeneutic crime of the highest order!
These and the other categories listed above would have had very little intentional
cross-referencing in the societies that produced them. We can also note that these are
primarily in fact consequences of war, not its building blocks (Harding , ).
Of course, assembling such datasets is the nuts and bolts of archaeological practice,
particularly when studying a thematic subject like war, but this emphasises the need for
contextually sensitive use of each category of evidence. Thus this paper will not
explore the undertaking of war in its own right, but will focus on the way social
regulation utilised war, violence and warriorhood alongside, and within, other modes
of power. In so doing we abandon the problematic niche of ‘prehistoric warfare’
(Parker Pearson ) research and its attendant concerns of motivation, cause and
BARRY P.C. MOLLOY
structure, and move to more archaeologically visible manifestations of war as social
practice, process and event.
A PROBLEMATIC NICHE? TRYING TO EXPLAIN WAR IN PREHISTORY
In the case of Crete, for example, various contributors to the major edited volumes,
Minoan Society (Krzyszkowska and Nixon ), Aegean Prehistory: A Review (Cullen
) and The Cambridge Companion to the Aegean Bronze Age (Shelmerdine ),
along with, for example, Fitton’s Minoans () and Castleden’s The Minoans (),
chart the rise and fall of Cretan civilisation with hardly a passing mention of violence
or warfare as social processes. Until recently we even occasionally could read such
radical beliefs as ‘they loved peace and the rule of law, detesting tyranny and warfare’
(Castleden , ). While such mutations of Evans’ Pax Minoica (Evans , )
have not been accepted in mainstream Cretan archaeology for perhaps years (Hood
; Starr ; Bintliff ), we yet lack social narratives and, perhaps more
importantly, analytical frameworks that incorporate violence and conflict.
Keeley () can perhaps be credited with (re-)problematising the study of
prehistoric warfare in War before Civilisation, though at the same time Carman and
colleagues (in Carman a) were debating this same topic using more diverse
datasets and methodologies. At that time, Carman made a critique of potential pitfalls
in the study of prehistoric warfare that is no less apt years later:
Where attempts are made to do more than simply catalogue the material remains
of warfare, anthropological theory is usually drawn upon to construct a model of
what war . . . would be like, and the archaeological material is then interpreted in
light of that model. . . . The archaeological evidence is not so much seen against an
anthropological backdrop (which is perhaps what is thought to happen) but
instead is perceived through the filter of anthropological assumptions. If so, the
anthropological perspectives used may mask rather than highlight the [unique]
contribution archaeological study may make to human knowledge. (Carman
c, –)
Archaeological studies of war have usually focused on its origins and causes (Keeley
; Ferrill ; Kristiansen ; Otterbein ; Thorpe ; Haas ;
Chapman ), the general manner in which it was conducted (Osgood ;
Harding ), depositional patterns of weapons (Bradley ; Fontijn ;
Harding ) and direct evidence for destruction of people and things (Bridgford
; Driessen and Macdonald ; Knusel ; Fyllingen ). More recently
emphasis has been placed on how it was socially constituted or situated (LeBlanc
; Parker Pearson ; Bevan ; Vandkilde ; Bossen b; Harding
; Molloy ) and how combat was enacted (Kristiansen ; Peatfield ;
Molloy b; ). These reflect diverse approaches commensurate with the diverse
range of sources being brought to bear, and an increasing focus on engaging with
social analyses rather than compilation of compendia. Accepting that war ‘happened’
in the past as a starting point forces us to ask more penetrating questions about why
the archaeological record resulting from war was constituted in the manner it was,
WAR AS SOCIAL PROCESS, PRACTICE AND EVENT IN BRONZE AGE CRETE
rather than focusing on anthropologically oriented questions of why war occurred or how
was it fought. These latter are questions for which archaeology is usually devoid of
answers without recourse full-circle back to anthropology or military history. It is
preferred in this paper to accept that the lack of evidence for forms of warfare means
that it is counter-productive to create models to describe it (Harding , –). In
saying this, it is also considered essential to move beyond myths of prehistoric warfare
being highly ritualised, low-intensity, relatively bloodless, not particularly dangerous
and peripheral to the real factors that shaped society (Vandkilde , –).
This raises a final issue: the question of the numbers of combatants in prehistoric
battles. Harding (, ) suggests that they numbered in the tens or hundreds, and,
while this is difficult to apply diachronically and across all of Europe, a top end of
figures in the hundreds, or occasionally very low thousands, appears more probable for
Crete on the basis of local population estimates for most of prehistory (Whitelaw ,
–; b). It remains possible that, at certain times, conflicts could escalate to
larger scales and incorporate thousands of combatants, as seen throughout the eastern
Mediterranean in the decades around BC (Sandars ; Drews ). Due to
the fact that virtually all instances of extra-urban warfare leave no archaeological trace
whatsoever, there must remain very wide latitude for permutations of scale, duration,
form and frequency of warfare in any given period of Cretan prehistory.
A TRIADIC BALANCE AND WAR AS PRACTICE, PROCESS AND EVENT IN CRETE
Kristiansen and Larsson (, ) exemplify the current state of thinking in Cretan
archaeology in their synoptic study The Rise of Bronze Age Society, stating that the
power of Cretan elites lay in ‘institutionalised practices (economic, political and
religious) that constituted palatial power’. Strikingly absent from this consensus view is
military power and how it was enmeshed with other manifestations of authority.
Hamilakis (a, ) has argued that ‘in the rare occasions where conflict is
emphasised in the discussion of social dynamics in Minoan Crete, it is often to explain
a specific event, rather than as an integral process of social dynamics throughout
the Bronze Age’. While conflict and competition have recently become more
commonplace in the literature, violence and subjugation are absent, and we are still
left with peculiarly bloodless social revolutions and circumscription of authority
structures so that ‘the entire explanatory trend underplays the violence it so clearly
implies’ (Vandkilde , ). If we take as our starting point that war was integral to
worldviews in prehistoric Crete, then this promotes a ‘relational understanding of
warriors as a social identity constantly being negotiated with other social identities
within society’ and we can begin to see that ‘war and violence are . . . embedded in a
cultural logic’ (Vandkilde , ). When we thus consider warriors and their roles
as part of recognised social institutions, we can begin to see war as standing in defined
I define ‘elite’ loosely as those who used material culture and the exercising of authority to
differentiate themselves from the majority of the population; who circumscribed the right to use
violence for defence or acquisition of wealth; and who through this imposed an exploitative
framework for self-aggrandisement, and legitimated this cosmology as the ‘natural order’ through
the use of religion and ritual (Earle , ).
BARRY P.C. MOLLOY
relations to institutions of civil administration and religion (Ferguson , ). In
current models of societies in Bronze Age Crete, we lack what Ferguson (,
citing Scarre and Fagan ) considers to be ‘three institutional systems [that were]
crucial determinants of social formations’; these are civil administration, religion and
military systems, what he calls a ‘triadic balance’ (Ferguson , ; see also Earle
; Harrison , ). Societies in Crete thus possessed varying configurations of
‘overlapping networks of power’, and war has the potential to change these
configurations when military organisation at times expands onto or subsumes elements
of other networks of power (Bossen b, ). Thus when we consider power, both
internal and external to a polity, the various social institutions that influence or coerce
a populace were themselves likely to have been in tension and flux through time.
In seeking to define the role of warriors and warfare in this ‘triadic balance’, it is
necessary to move away from military historical or anthropological models for
understanding how and why war was undertaken, because they stretch our prehistoric
evidence too thin. It is argued here that this evidence is better suited to exploration of
how war operated as a social process, a social practice, and a social event. This is
partially consistent with Ferguson’s characterisation (, ) of the relationship
between war and society running from ‘infrastructure through structure to
superstructure’ and broadly follows an Annales (événements, conjonctures, longue durée,
and mentalités) logic (Barker , –; Knapp ; Fletcher ). These are
intended to be heuristic devices, as opposed to hard and fast categories.
War in social process refers to the long-term preparations that facilitated its
undertaking, from the acquisition of raw materials and production of weapons to the
building of fortifications. This broadly equates with Ferguson’s ‘infrastructure’. War as
social practice relates to the lifeways of warriors, including military organisation and
commemoration, and is consistent with Ferguson’s structure and elements of his
superstructure. In Crete war in social practices is manifested through the construction
of and participation in warrior lifeways and identities, expressed passively through
bodily aesthetics visible in public/social contexts, but also actively by engaging in
specialist activities. The final category, war as event, is peculiarly archaeological and is
primarily visible in terms of destructions of places, injuries inflicted on individuals and
damage on ancient weaponry. It is also visible to a lesser degree (overlapping with
process) in terms of rapid changes in settlement patterns.
ELITES AND POWER IN BRONZE AGE CRETE
In the past decade, fresh challenges to the established palace-centric view of ‘Minoan
society’ have emphasised diffuse authority structures and heterogeneous social systems
that had chronological and geographical differences. Re-evaluations of the structure of
elite power dynamics have suggested that heterarchies and factional politics may have
existed alongside, within or in the place of hierarchies as traditionally viewed
(Hamilakis a; Schoep ; Knappett and Schoep ; Schoep and Knappett
; Adams a; Whitelaw a; Wright ; Kristiansen and Larsson ;
Haggis ). Heterarchies have recently been taken to refer to internal/horizontal
differentiation of elites through status (e.g. warrior/priest/administrator etc. [Gellner
, –]), whereas factions are considered to be defined more by geopolitical
WAR AS SOCIAL PROCESS, PRACTICE AND EVENT IN BRONZE AGE CRETE
factors. This latter form of power relationship in elites usually defines one group over and
against another (Adams a, –), and polities are thus characterised by tensions/
competition within, as well as between, ruling groups.
In Early Minoan Crete the character and influence of elites remain uncertain, though
mortuary practice and grave goods testify to social differentiation (Branigan ; Legarra
Herrero ; ). Between Middle Minoan I and Late Minoan IIIA any leader(s), be
they a queen, high priest or oligarchy, emerged from the elite and were thus of the elite,
and their position could only be maintained through the mechanisms of elite power,
particularly symmetric exchanges of favour (Barzel , ), though also coercion
and suppression. Whether considering factions or heterarchies, therefore, hierarchies
no doubt existed within them and I follow Adams’ view (a, ) that ‘complexes,
institutions, individuals and social groups do not “have” power intrinsically; rather it is
created, aspired to and negotiated through relationships with others’. Equally, while
Knossos may at times have dominated much of Crete or Zakros dominated East Crete
in multi-scalar relations, for example, there is a firm difference between dominance
and rule that cannot be ignored because power relations that may be negotiated
through military practices lie exactly within this difference.
Allowing for decentralised power structures within polities, as defined by Hamilakis
(a), we may consider that urban centres increasingly became focuses, rather than
permanent seats, of power. As their collective wealth was generated at its base level
largely from primary production in lands not adjacent to the centre of power, this may
have been a cause of social tensions, particularly when ‘society once subjugated to the
interests of the many had been transformed into one driven by the interests of specific
groups’ (Schoep and Tomkins , ; see also Ferguson ). Subjugation and
oppression are equally, and often more, useful policies, alongside encouragement
(Schoep and Tomkins , ), cooperation and common cause when defining group
identities, responsibilities and boundaries of each component element within polities
(Webster ). When we consider such tensions, then territorial boundaries create
the natural flashpoints whereby security, wealth and loyalties were under constant
threat, creating triggers for violent actions that could rapidly reconfigure political
geographies (Guilaine and Zammit , ; Raaflaub , ; Hassig , ;
Webster , ; LeBlanc ; Ferguson , –).
By Late Minoan IIIA the political landscape was much transformed. Knossos
emerged as the most powerful polity in Crete, with few other sites having clear
evidence of complex centralised administrative systems (Dickinson ). There is
evidence by this period that a wanax or king ruled Knossos, and perhaps dominated
much of Crete, and that the palace exercised economic control over the primary
producers in its territory (Driessen and Macdonald ). It seems probable that the
military still played a significant role in Cretan socio-political organisation, though
the long-term interaction with mainland warriors in Late Helladic I–II/Late Minoan I
Polities can be defined as ‘divided congeries of people, dialectically interacting with the larger
social system’ rather than ‘unitary, independent actors’ (Ferguson , ), so that authority
structures and power are more personality and historically contingent than in mature ‘rule of
law’ state societies.
By Late Minoan IIIA the existence of a wanax or king may permit the identification of
Knossos as a palace.
BARRY P.C. MOLLOY
may have altered the character of this role in either or both areas. This role for warriors
probably changed dramatically in Late Minoan IIIB, when large urban centres virtually
disappeared, apart perhaps from Chania. By Late Minoan IIIC, most settlements were
little more than villages and they existed almost exclusively in the remote defensible
locations previously used only on occasion (Nowicki ; ), and so much of the
male population may have been enfranchised as warriors.
THE MINOAN THALASSOCRACY
To begin with the longest-running debate relating to warfare in Crete, we may briefly
address the legend of the Minoan thalassocracy. There would be little discussion of
this if it were not for Herodotus and Thucydides, because archaeology would
independently neither suggest nor deny its existence. Arguments for and against a
thalassocracy to date have revolved around distributional analysis of finds of Cretan
character in the Cyclades. Whether these were the product of control of the Aegean
through colonisation (Hiller ; Hood ; Wiener ; ; Niemeier ;
; Mountjoy and Ponting ), direct trading practices (Knapp ) or
‘unbalanced exchange’ mechanisms/tribute (Ferguson , ), the reality is this
evidence all relates to economic, not military, aspects of maritime control. Cretan
polities had the manpower and technology to impose a strong influence over their
seascapes, and while a militarily imposed thalassocracy is thus plausible and even to be
expected, its size, chronology and very existence must remain as speculative as King
Minos himself.
FORTIFICATIONS, SETTLEMENT PATTERNS, AND DESTRUCTIONS
Fortification walls have long been central to discussion about warfare in prehistoric Crete
(Alexiou ; Starr ; Hiller ; Chryssoulaki a; Nowicki ; Alusik ).
The arguments for their symbolic expression of power have been well rehearsed (Driessen
; Alusik ), and their role in warfare remains problematic because they are only
sporadically present (e.g. Middle Minoan Petras and the coast at Gournia) and do not
form a consistent pattern in urban planning. Evely () has noted that this may be
in part due to the lack of excavation at the limits to major urban centres and that the
historically attested defensive walls of ‘Crete of the hundred cities’ are hardly visible
(Callaghan ). Driessen and Macdonald () have highlighted defensive changes
in urban access routes in Late Minoan IB. Nowicki (; ) has demonstrated
repeated phases of small-scale occupation of defensible settlements throughout the
Bronze Age in times of unrest. In all of this, however, it remains clear that
fortifications were not fundamental to military strategies or materialisation of power
because they were not used to even fortify the central areas of towns, as we find in the
case of some citadels of Late Helladic IIIA – Late Helladic IIIB date on the mainland
(Iakovides ). While exceptions exist, the rule in Crete was that men, not walls,
constituted the defence of a polity and indeed we can observe that fortifications were
not part of the wider martial grammar defining elite practices, power and spaces.
WAR AS SOCIAL PROCESS, PRACTICE AND EVENT IN BRONZE AGE CRETE
Fig. . Topographic location map of urban and ‘villa’ settlements occupied variously
between Middle Minoan I and Late Minoan I.
Accepting that urban defensive walls were at best a minor consideration for towns,
court buildings or villas, then the argument that the topography of Crete formed
natural defensible units becomes increasingly attractive (Fig. ). Crete is a very rugged
island, and even today a single strip of asphalt on the north coast is the only way to
expeditiously get from the east to the west by land. Due to the limited avenues
available to move an armed force from one polity to another, particularly if chariots
were used for transport (Crouwel ; ) or weapons (Drews ), controlling
access routes to a territory was important. In this regard, the known guard houses
along Bronze Age roads (Chryssoulaki a; Alusik ) are strong evidence that in
Middle Minoan II – Late Minoan I, roads and nodes were controlled by elite
authorities. This suggests control of movement, but in so doing implies that some
members of society – perhaps warriors – were provided with resources to man these
stations. This may be direct evidence for military specialists, if not quite a standing
army, being used in regional defence strategies from at least Middle Minoan II. By
controlling use of, and access through, the landscape (and perhaps by sea), it may be
that the idea of pitched extra-urban battles evolved through exploitation of topography
to the advantage of defenders, as facilitated by guard houses as watch stations.
The varying fortunes of urban centres (Schoep and Tomkins ), including origin,
destruction, renewal, abandonment etc., may variably indicate consolidation and/or
fragmentation of groups, as they expanded, subsumed and contracted. Schoep (,
) envisages a ‘landscape of ever-increasing competition between elites’ by Middle
Minoan II, ‘brought to an end by a horizon of destructions’. This pattern is known
from many periods and at many sites in Cretan prehistory, though war is only rarely
explicitly suggested as a cause (Hood ; Driessen and Macdonald ).
Destructions at sites in Crete were frequently followed by abandonment (we might also
boldly suggest massacres or wholesale enslavement as we hear of in Homeric sackings
of cities), and many are characterised by extensive fires. Seager’s excavations at
Mochlos uncovered masses of charred human remains in a Late Minoan IB house,
interpreted as the remains of those killed during a sack of the settlement (Seager ,
; Driessen , ). Potential causes of such widespread fires include the actions
History is all too full of examples, yet it is rare to find the victims (see Fyllingen ) because
they would not have received formal burials.
BARRY P.C. MOLLOY
of attacking forces, or in some cases it may have been a defensive strategy to deny food or
shelter if a population had to flee its home. Considering that destructions are peppered
spatially and chronologically across the span of Bronze Age Crete, unless we consider
Bronze Age Cretans to have been dramatically more clumsy or unlucky than any
historical civilisation in that region, we must believe that war was the cause of many
urban destructions. This could be closely tied to seismic destructions that caused
short-term social stress or exploitation of weakness that was manifested through war.
In the wake of such destruction, the pace of recovery of a site is perhaps more
indicative of war than the destruction itself; if the site or its hinterland were not
reoccupied immediately, then where did the people go? By considering wars as normal,
even normative, social processes rather than as isolated instances of instability or
turmoil, then these archaeologically visible events can be better integrated into broader
social trajectories.
The destruction of sites through the violence of war may nonetheless have been a rare
occurrence because most battles would have taken place in extra-urban contexts where
there were no buildings to destroy. Destruction may therefore be symptomatic of war,
but it is not an indicator of its typical outcome, particularly as victors may often have
sought domination and tribute instead of destruction and plunder. Schoep () has
demonstrated through the case study of the Mesara in Middle Minoan I – Late
Minoan I that shifts in power bases occurred over time on a micro-regional scale. The
varying fortunes of factions or groups within elites, as well as threat of destruction
through war, may also drive nucleation or transformation in settlement patterns during
protracted conflict potential or wars of attrition (Ferguson , ).
In Late Minoan I, elites are visible across the island, whereas in Late Minoan II/IIIA:
they are a very occasional phenomenon outside of north-central and west Crete (Driessen
and Macdonald , ). Following a brief re-emergence of elite sites across Crete,
usually at older urban centres (e.g. Kommos, Aghia Triada) after Late Minoan IIIA:,
elites virtually vanish in most areas in Late Minoan IIIB (Preston ) to be replaced
by a very different settlement pattern and elite social networks in Late Minoan IIIC
(Nowicki ). When we consider the contraction of population, as evidenced by
settlement size and distribution (Driessen and Macdonald ; Kanta ; Nowicki
; Hayden et al. ; ; Haggis ; Watrous ; Watrous et al. )
between Late Minoan IA and Late Minoan IIIC, we must take into account the potential
cumulative attrition of protracted periods of war that can decimate a population’s ability
to effectively reproduce. As noted earlier in this paper, archaeologically visible ‘resultative
correlates’ (Wileman ) of wars are difficult to pinpoint, but innumerable historical
examples demonstrate that population and settlement contraction are often closely related
to war and conflict (Haas ; Ferguson ). Such wars may occur alongside, or be
triggered or exacerbated by, phenomena such as drought (Haas , ) or pandemic
disease.
ICONOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE FOR WAR AND VIOLENCE
In this section it will be demonstrated that the isolation of ‘scenes of war’ in art is neither
possible nor desirable, because most images are multi-referential and even themes
apparently relating to one field of activity can be allegories for other fields. For
WAR AS SOCIAL PROCESS, PRACTICE AND EVENT IN BRONZE AGE CRETE
example, hunting scenes can be considered metaphors for sacrifice (Marinatos ; cf.
Morris , ), but the choice to use violence so graphically can also be taken to
cross-reference other blood-letting activities, such as combat. The segregation of art
into ‘thematic fields’ is therefore unhelpful, as exemplified by the ‘general tendency of
intuiting mysteries of religion in nearly everything Cretans chose to portray’ (Kopcke
, ; see also Shapland , ). In each iconographic scene cited, alternative
interpretations may be given, but a coarser aggregate reading, based as much on
aesthetics as on specific content, reveals hints of a warrior lifeway far more frequently
than evidence for ‘war’.
If we conceive of power as emerging from a ‘triadic balance’ of religious, military and
economic concerns, then we may well expect the symbolic grammar to pertain to more
than one of these fields at once. Looking for specific images of war may also
presuppose the existence of a soldier rather than warrior identity, and consequently
may predict a corporate expression of war as an explication of state power and
prowess. When we consider that ‘states’ in Crete were less explicitly defined than in
later times and elites were defined by status-dependent relationships, then we should
well expect to find the kind of art we have in Crete. Such art celebrates individual
bravery, skill and virtue across multiple fields of activity rather than the corporate
group achievements, discipline and drilling of armies. Man the hunter, the master of
wild animals, the athlete, the fighter and the divinely sanctioned leader, not man the
anonymous citizen soldier, is what we find widely in the art of Bronze Age Crete.
Male-only images are rare in comparison to women-only images in Minoan art, but
they are thematically more diverse. Weingarten (, ) suggests that women are
primarily depicted in religious scenes, whereas males appear in ‘agonistic art’ and
religious scenes so that they ‘occupy a greater number of social positions’. Logue
(, ) also observes that ‘the iconography . . . represent[s] the roles that the male
members of the Minoan elite felt were particularly important to their status’. Agonistic
contexts offer the most diverse range of male activities (hunting, boxing, bull-leaping,
battle, marching, processions, archery, posing with weapons). The males engaged in
these activities commonly have the same hairstyles, musculature and jewellery, and so
we may adduce that they were of similar or the same social group. The depiction of
helmets, though perhaps also shields, in hunting scenes is unlikely to represent a
defensive necessity against game animals. These are more likely to be devices to reflect
identity, and so, whether a hunting scene is intended to be real or metaphorical, the
depiction of combat equipment suggests that a warrior identity is being expressed.
Accepting the definition of ‘warrior’ provided above, we may consider that participation
in a warrior lifeway was a dominant influence on how elite males were represented in art.
Art relating to warriors and war in Bronze Age Crete can be broken up into four
broad categories: glyptic art circulating in both social and administrative contexts;
stone and ceramic portable art for repeated intimate consumption (dining/processions);
coroplastic/bronze figural art for religious activity; and frescoes and relief mouldings
fixed in architectural settings. The artificiality of drawing these sources together to
discuss war is immediately apparent, because they were not created to engage with
each other in the creation of a distinct narrative or forum of interaction in their
original roles. They are also chronologically and spatially heterogeneous. A quantitative
approach comparing scenes of martial activities to scenes of non-martial activities is
not undertaken because I am concerned with how martial themes were mutually
constituted with other themes, and not their relative frequency or prominence.
BARRY P.C. MOLLOY
Fig. . Image from sealing from Knossos depicting marching warriors with figure-
of-eight shields and spear held vertically with arm extended horizontally (drawn by
Ella Hassett after Gill, Müller and Pini , no. ).
Similarly, readings of images provided here are necessarily superficial, as the purpose is to
examine cross-references in the physical components of images without delving into their
symbolic meanings or possible narrative contexts (e.g. Chryssoulaki b).
Seals
Sealstones or rings were often worn on the person, serving as ornaments as well as
functional objects, so that the image was transmitted by persons engaging directly and
indirectly with the bearer/wearer. Seals as tools, however, were perhaps the most
dynamic form of ‘art’ in Crete because, when impressions were made, they were then
exported widely across the island, making the image itself highly mobile. Sealings from
single specific seals have been found at a variety of sites: for example, Müller and Pini
, nos. from Aghia Triada, from Gournia and from Sklavokampos are
all the same.
The earliest scene of violence in Crete is a seal showing fighting with daggers (Hatzi-
Vallianou ; Wedde ; Papadopoulos ) dated to Early Minoan III / Middle
Minoan I, and a superficial reading of the image tells us that daggers were considered
suitable weapons for interpersonal combat. In Middle Minoan II, figural images are
still rare but it can be noted that seals such as Platon, Pini and Salies , no. ,
for example, illustrate a man standing with a spear held vertically in front of him. This
scene becomes increasingly popular in Late Minoan I art, and though the spear in
some images may be replaced with a staff, there are many examples where this posture
with a spear is adopted by warriors bearing shields and helmets (e.g. Gill, Müller and
Pini , no. [Fig. ]; Platon and Pini , no. ). Images with a distinct
It can be difficult to differentiate between staff and spear in many Late Minoan scenes due to
the basic character of their depiction (a single vertical slash), but in many scenes the spear is
unmistakable and sometimes accompanied by a shield. The posture in virtually all cases appears
intended to radiate authority and power (e.g. the Master Impression from Chania), and so in
WAR AS SOCIAL PROCESS, PRACTICE AND EVENT IN BRONZE AGE CRETE
Fig. . Image from seal of probable Cretan provenance depicting swordsman
striking at the neck of an opponent bearing a shield and spear (drawn by Ella
Hassett after Kenna , no. ).
martial component abound in Late Minoan I and include warriors marching with spears
and shields (Gill, Müller and Pini , nos. [Fig. ], , ); combat between a
swordsman and a spear/shield-bearing warrior (Kenna , nos. , [Fig. ]);
swordsmen fighting (Müller and Pini , no. ); a swordsman pursuing an
opponent (Müller and Pini , no. [Fig. ]); a spearman facing an opponent
(Müller and Pini , no. ); archers (Betts et al. , no. ; Müller and Pini
, no. ); a boxer (Gill, Müller and Pini , no. ); a swordsman fighting a
rearing lion (Pini , no. ); a warrior marching with a (hunting?) dog (Gill,
Müller and Pini , no. ); a warrior with spear standing with a lion (Gill, Müller
and Pini , no. [Fig. ] and Müller and Pini , no. ); and a woman
(goddess?) with a sword (Platon and Pini , no. ). We can see in these themes
(particularly Platon and Pini , no. ; Müller and Pini , no. ; Gill, Müller
and Pini , no. or Pini , no. ) that scenes with a martial flavour
cross-reference with hunting, religious and mythological themes. As Shapland ()
has noted, the choice of animals to represent in art was frequently the hunted with the
hunter, and while bulls hold a special position, only rarely are other domesticates
portrayed.
The diversity of these images alone indicates that isolating scenes as being ‘military
images’ is methodologically unsound. Cross-referencing of quite different themes
cases where a staff appears more likely than a spear there is nonetheless distinct cross-referencing in
the symbolism that relates to militaristic expression of power, if not necessarily exclusively.
BARRY P.C. MOLLOY
Fig. . Image from sealings from Aghia Triada and Knossos (respectively) depicting
a warrior bearing a sword, and a hound, pursuing an opponent (drawn by Ella
Hassett after Müller and Pini , no. and Gill, Müller and Pini , no. ).
Fig. . Image from sealing of warrior holding spear and accompanied by lion, from
Knossos (drawn by Ella Hassett after Gill, Müller and Pini , no. ).
WAR AS SOCIAL PROCESS, PRACTICE AND EVENT IN BRONZE AGE CRETE
becomes apparent when focusing on the basic components used to construct individual
scenes. To take the example of lion imagery, we have creatures with obvious traits that
allude to killing, violence, bravery and hunting; all of which are traits that we also
expect to find celebrating humans who specialise in such activities (Shapland ). In
rather obvious juxtapositions we find scenes of a man walking alongside a lion or
framed heraldically by lions, but we also have slightly less obvious cross-references in
scenes of lions hunting animals, man hunting animals, lions enjoying spoils of hunt,
man enjoying spoils of hunt, man as master of lions, man hunting lion, man fighting
lion, lion fighting lion, man fighting man (Fig. ; see also Bloedow ). Similarly
with hound and bull imagery implicating warriors and bravery, we have warrior
walking with hunting hound, hound hunting bull, man hunting bull, man wrestling
with bull, man leaping (dominating) bull, man and hound hunting man (Fig. ). A
related pattern is apparent with the relationship between man and ibex as a symbolic
game animal (Fig. ). In several seal images one animal attacks another (e.g. Platon
and Pini , no. [Fig. ]) or a lone prey animal is depicted (e.g. Platon and Pini
, no. ), sometimes with a figure-of-eight shield and/or a spear mysteriously
floating in the image (Müller and Pini , no. [Fig. ]). These may be seen to
draw allusions between animal and human behaviour or concerns, inferentially or
directly. Where warfare, hunting, sacrifice, religion or bravery conflate as power within
these cross-referential networks is open to question, but it is clear that this complex
iconographic grammar, or ‘representational code’ (Chryssoulaki b, ), cannot be
Fig. . Ratios of activities involving men and lions.
BARRY P.C. MOLLOY
Fig. . Ratios of activities involving man, dog and bull.
pigeonholed into specific areas of activity or meaning such as ‘war’. This may best be
illustrated by the example of Fig. from Psychro cave, which depicts a scene where
the lower torso is depicted as a leaping human, the upper torso is that of a bull, while
a spearhead/arrow and a figure-of-eight shield are both depicted in the arch of the back
separating the bull from the human component. This seal draws together in a single
image references to bull-leaping, hunting, and warfare.
We need to also consider that most of the above sorts of scene are concerned with
portraying dominance through contest, conquest and control and the symbolic
appropriation of power through the natural world (Morgan , ). In turn these
can relate to any and all forms of power, be they religious, military or governmental.
Therefore the isolation of ‘military scenes’ can overlook their religious symbolism,
particularly the act of killing making a very direct reference to sacrifice (Morgan ,
; Peatfield , ). Some scenes can convey religious themes using violence, just
as we have apparently peaceful scenes of prey animals that may symbolically refer to
the violence of the hunt, not blissful nature, through their posture (Shapland pers.
comm.; ; Loughlin ).
Images of figure-of-eight shields, boar’s tusk helmets and double-axes represented in
isolation or in religious scenes are common in the glyptic art of Crete, and they also occur
There is no unequivocal evidence to prove that double-axes were used in combat, but they
certainly could have served as effective tools of violence and may be considered as weapon-tools
(Chapman ) at least (see detailed discussion in Haysom , ). Circumstantial evidence
WAR AS SOCIAL PROCESS, PRACTICE AND EVENT IN BRONZE AGE CRETE
Fig. . Ratios of activities involving men and ibexes.
on other artistic media (Morris ; Haysom ). While the grammar, syntax and
context of these weapons and armour evolved beyond a purely martial character, the
origins of these symbols in the military sphere illustrates the adoption of attributes
related to martial praxis by religious agents (be they deities or worshippers). Haysom
(, ) argues that ‘the a priori privileging of these [religious] spheres in our
examination of networks of contextual association is likely to be unrealistic – just
because a symbol is religious in one context does not necessarily mean it is religious in
all contexts’. Morris (, ) considers the shields and helmets to have operated as
multivocal symbols ‘whose interlinked spectrum of referents included both warfare and
hunting, the protection of man and his territory, and man’s interaction with the natural
world’. The double-axe, figure-of-eight shield and boar’s tusk helmet may be seen as
conflations of martial and religious spheres that were equally relevant to both. A broad
comparison may be seen in the use of tools and weapons to characterise some later
European deities such as Athena, Artemis, Thor or Lugh, none of whom were
considered to be ‘war deities’.
to suggest they were used as weapons comes from their association with swords and other weapons
in the Acropolis Hoard from Mycenae (Catling , ) and in Crete the contextual association
of model axes with model blades at Psychro and Arkalochori cave, and real ones with weapons and
no tools in various domestic contexts. Further evidence may be the incised decoration of a figure-
of-eight shield on two axes and a boar’s tusk helmet on another (Haysom , ).
BARRY P.C. MOLLOY
Fig. . Image from seal of probable Cretan provenance depicting a hunting lion with
figure-of-eight shield in image (drawn by Ella Hassett after Platon and Pini ,
no. ).
Fig. . Image of ibex with floating spear and figure-of-eight shield, from Aghia
Triada (drawn by Ella Hassett after Müller and Pini , no. ).
WAR AS SOCIAL PROCESS, PRACTICE AND EVENT IN BRONZE AGE CRETE
Fig. . Image on seal from Psychro cave depicting leaper-bull hybrid with spear/
arrowhead and figure-of-eight shield (drawn by Ella Hassett after Hughes-Brock
, no. ).
Frescoes
Gates (, ) suggests that warfare may not have been considered a suitable theme
for fresco art before Late Minoan IIIA and furthermore that ‘there is no correlation
between the practice of warfare and the choice of warfare as a pictorial theme’ (Gates
, ). It can also be noted that very few frescoes that depict people interacting
directly with each other in identifiable themes have been recovered from Crete before
Late Minoan IIIA. The lack of images of war is therefore symptomatic of a general
trend that relates as much to the accident of preservation as to past choices in the
themes we find in fresco art.
The vast majority of figural frescoes surviving from Crete come from the single site of
Knossos and almost exclusively from Late Minoan I and Late Minoan IIIA. Even at the
other major urban centres such as Mallia or Phaistos, as well as other ‘elite sites’
throughout the island, we have minimal information on the themes they chose to
portray in fresco art of any period, largely due to very poor preservation. Random
fragments from Late Minoan IIIA Knossos of men throwing spears or running with
them have no narrative context and are therefore of limited value in discussing war,
but they do tell us that scenes of war may once have existed at Knossos. From the
same site, we have images of bull-leaping (Fig. ) and we can note that the torso of
the iconic ‘Priest-King’ from Knossos (Fig. ) has been convincingly restored as a
boxer based on detailed anatomical analysis (Coulomb ), as per Evans’ original
interpretation (Evans –, –) or as holding a staff or spear (Niemeier ; see
Shaw for a discussion of alternative views). The figure-of-eight shields in frescoes
BARRY P.C. MOLLOY
Fig. . Bull-leaping fresco from Knossos (courtesy of Heraklion Museum –
Ministry of Culture and Tourism – Archaeological Receipts Fund).
Fig. . The ‘Priest-King’ fresco from Knossos, detail of forearm and fist (courtesy of
Heraklion Museum – Ministry of Culture and Tourism – Archaeological Receipts
Fund).
from Knossos are evidence that the accoutrements of warriors were at home in that
building in Late Minoan III.
Stone vessels
Of the relief stone vases discussed by Logue (), some fragmentary figural
scenes include people, and of these scenes (%) are considered to display martial
imagery. While Logue omits her fig. from the ‘martial’ category, it fits there
From the northwest of the Palace at Knossos (Kaiser , pl. a).
WAR AS SOCIAL PROCESS, PRACTICE AND EVENT IN BRONZE AGE CRETE
Fig. . The Chieftain Cup from Aghia Triada (courtesy of Heraklion Museum –
Ministry of Culture and Tourism – Archaeological Receipts Fund).
because it depicts a boar’s tusk helmet (probably indicating a warrior on now-missing
elements of the scene) and another male above this apparently conducting an acrobatic
display with a charging ibex, perhaps related to bull-leaping (as in Gill, Müller and
Pini , no. ).
The Chieftain Cup (Fig. ) from Aghia Triada depicts a tall male holding what is
probably a spear facing a shorter male holding a sword aloft, and the latter is followed
by three other men carrying what may be bull hides. This object has been the subject
of many studies, and here it is noted that the two armed figures are considered to be
of elite status. Higgins’ (; see also Koehl ; Logue ) superficial
interpretation that it shows the presentation of animal hides to be turned into shields is
quite possible, given that the central two characters wield a sword and a spear
respectively. Deeply encoded meanings aside, the scene has as much militaristic
character as it does religious, though it is usually considered in terms of the latter
(Logue , ). The posture of the larger figure with a probable spear held in
outstretched arm finds many parallels, notably the ‘Mother of the Mountains’ sealing
(Gill, Müller and Pini , no. ) and the ‘Master Impression’ from Chania
The tip of this object is broken off the vase, and the probability that it is a spear is based on its
size and parallels on seal images where the object held in this fashion and with this posture is
unequivocally a spear.
BARRY P.C. MOLLOY
(Pini , no. ). We may see in such scenes a cross-fertilisation of military and
religious leadership (or divine symbolism of power), though Younger has suggested
that the necklace on the ‘Master’ from Chania indicates he, and by extension the
‘Chieftain’, is mortal and not a deity (Younger , ). We also find a parallel for
the man with the sword crossing the military/sacral threshold, again including (but not
restricted to) women/goddesses (Platon and Pini , no. ; Müller and Pini ,
no. ). The implications of these crossovers for gender relations have been discussed
by Nikolaidou and Kokkinidou (; see also Kopaka ).
For the central characters on the Chieftain Cup to have meaning beyond their
possessions, we need to consider them in terms of Treherne’s () ‘warrior’s
beauty’, whereby warriors cultivated a recognisable aesthetic to assert identity. On the
Chieftain Cup, both central figures have clean-shaven faces and elaborate hairstyles,
they wear necklaces and bracelets, and they carry weaponry. In glyptic art, we see
similar figures engaged in bull-leaping, combat (e.g. Figs. and ), or posturing with
spears and lions (e.g. Fig. ). Perhaps most important of all, however, is the evidence
for body modification through training being specifically highlighted through the use of
incision to carefully define the pectoral, abdominal and leg muscles. This idealisation
of the male body finds a clear expression in this and related scenes, though we can
note that in general males in Middle Minoan III – Late Minoan I art are most often
shown topless and exhibiting musculature that is well defined (Preziosi and Hitchcock
, ), but not heavy-set, being a physical ideal for combatants reflected in the
physique of modern boxers. This emphasis on the male ‘body beautiful’ is at odds
with elite iconography in other areas of the Mediterranean in the eighteenth to
fifteenth centuries BC. We can also observe that weapons in this scene could only have
symbolic value if the images referred to real-world functionality because a sword or
spear could only embody power through direct reference to their ability to assert power
through violence.
A more explicit vision of the male body as the product of training regimes is on the
Boxer Rhyton, also from Aghia Triada. There are four panels with images, three
depicting boxing and/or wrestling, one depicting bull-leaping. As with the Chieftain
Cup, there is a high degree of detail employed in defining the muscles of the
characters, again in the area of the chest and legs, though now also in the arms
(Fig. ). Evely () has drawn attention to the use of helmets in one of the scenes
as indicating the potential ferocity of these bouts, and Logue () has suggested that
there is an obvious reference in this also to a warrior’s equipment. Speaking of the
Classical Spartans using boxing as training for war, Philostratos (Gymnastics ..)
stated that ‘boxing gave them practice in parrying blows to the head and training in
withstanding the ones that did strike home’. The juxtaposition of bull-leaping and
boxing on the Boxer Rhyton indicates a relationship in the symbolic exploitation of
both types of event, and may more mundanely indicate a contextual association
between the two activities in real life.
The objects have also been interpreted as staffs or sceptres, though the symbolism and posture
appears very similar to the examples where it is definitely a spear (Fig. ). In many cases, the fist is
held clenched and near to the chest, reminiscent of the depictions of boxers with clenched fists from
peak sanctuaries. In some seal images of ibexes (e.g. Fig. ) the spear is represented by a simple
slash, illustrating that the conventions for depicting spears are quite variable and often very
simplified.
WAR AS SOCIAL PROCESS, PRACTICE AND EVENT IN BRONZE AGE CRETE
Fig. . Detail from the Boxer Rhyton from Aghia Triada (courtesy of Heraklion
Museum – Ministry of Culture and Tourism – Archaeological Receipts Fund).
More fragmentary scenes on carved stone vases are discussed in detail by Logue,
though here it is noted that they include scenes of boxers from Knossos and a scene of
an archer from the same site, typically contextualised as engaged in combat (Logue
, ). These fragmentary scenes also hint that the accident of survival of the two
quite complete scenes from Aghia Triada should not be taken to suggest that such
scenes were unique to that site. Haysom (, –) considers the scaly cloak worn
by the leader on the Harvester Vase from this same site to be associated with weapon/
warrior imagery on the basis of its contextual association in other images with figure-
BARRY P.C. MOLLOY
Fig. . Detail of the Harvester Vase from Aghia Triada (courtesy of Heraklion
Museum – Ministry of Culture and Tourism – Archaeological Receipts Fund).
of-eight shields and double-axes. The possibility of a person characterised by military
garb leading a procession of men with well-defined musculature (Fig. ) carrying
agricultural produce is noteworthy when considering the relationship between
economic and martial power.
Other images
This paper does not provide an exhaustive catalogue of images of violence or war
precisely because its purpose is to move away from the limitations of such parameters.
However, some additional material warrants mention. Double-axes appear as
decorative motifs on Late Minoan I pottery, and we find figure-of-eight shields on
Late Minoan IB ‘Alternating Style’ pottery (Rehak and Younger , ), reflecting
the ubiquity of these images on various media. These shields also occur in miniature
form as items of jewellery. Two unprovenanced cast double-axes of probable Late
Minoan I – Late Minoan III date depict a further figure-of-eight shield and a helmet
respectively (Haysom ; Evely ; Mavriyannaki ). The gold hilt furniture
of a Type A sword from Mallia is normally interpreted as a leaping acrobat curled
around the central perforation (Chapouthier ). In such a reading, the association
between athletic and warrior aspects of elite identity is cross-referenced on an actual
weapon. A different reading of the image would see the character as a captive with
rope binding his wrists rather than jewellery adorning them (Haysom, pers. comm.).
The decoration on his kilt appears to differ from more common ‘Minoan’ forms and
short curly hair could well identify him as a subjugated foreigner or captive slave. In
either case, given the comparative dearth of figural art in this period it is interesting to
note the aggressive undertones of this image, further emphasised by its location on a
sword.
WAR AS SOCIAL PROCESS, PRACTICE AND EVENT IN BRONZE AGE CRETE
Fig. . Location map of major shrines in use at various times between Middle
Minoan I and Late Minoan I.
RELIGIOUS CONTEXTS
The mixing of religious and martial symbolism was common in the Classical Greek
world, with images of mythological battles between beasts, gods and men appearing
alongside depictions of historical battles on temples. In mythology, the gods of Greece
revelled in wars and fought incessantly amongst themselves, and so the material
culture and symbolism of war permeated many aspects of religion, including the
determination of objects suited to deposition in some sanctuaries. Most of the
Archaic–Classical weapons that survive today were excavated at religious sites such as
Olympia and Delphi. These are typically votives of actual weapons made by victorious
armies or individuals, but can also be miniaturised weapons (Snodgrass ).
Throughout European pre- and proto-history on the whole, weapons were most often
interred in funerary, religious or industrial (hoards) deposits, and they very rarely
survive in domestic or primary military settings (armouries). Looking back to Bronze
Age Crete, while shrines and sanctuaries were of a very different character to those of
Classical Greece, they represent one of the three main types of site where we might
expect to find real or votive weapons. Extra-urban cave and peak sanctuary sites were
an important focus of religious activity throughout the island (Fig. ) between Middle
Minoan I and Late Minoan I, and most have evidence for cult activity associated with
weaponry.
Caves
Weapons found in Bronze Age shrines in Crete can be separated into three different
categories: functional weapons, cast model weapons (Fig. ) and sheet-metal model
The three Late Minoan IIIA swords from Kato Syme were deposited in an Iron Age context
and so are not included here (Papasavvas et al. ). The two Type A swords from Mallia may
have been associated with an urban shrine, but their find context does not indicate this was
definitely the case (Chapouthier ).
These were occasionally miniaturised.
BARRY P.C. MOLLOY
Fig. . Cast model swords from the Psychro cave (Ashmolean Museum;
reproduced courtesy of the Keeper and Department of Antiquities).
Fig. . Sheet-metal model weapon from near Modhi peak sanctuary (on site).
weapons (Fig. ). In the case of extra-urban shrines, weapons have been found in most
cave shrines: the Idaean cave, the Psychro cave, Arkalochori rock shelter, Phaneromeni
cave and at the extra-urban shrine of Kato Syme. Ritual use of the first two cave sites
appears to originate in Middle Minoan II and, while it is impossible to separate the
chronology of the votive bronze weapons, the evidence from peak sanctuaries would
concur with them being Middle Minoan II – Late Minoan I. At Psychro, the deposits
include dozens of cast model and sheet-metal model swords, spears and double-
axes along with functional daggers and spearheads (Boardman ; Rutkowski ,
; Jones , ). In the Idaean cave at least sword models were recovered
(Watrous , ; Sakellarakis ) and ‘several’ such models are known from
Phaneromeni cave (Watrous ; Jones ). From a Middle Minoan III – Late
Minoan I context at Arkalochori, at least unfinished Type A swords were
accompanied by many more cast model swords and sheet-metal models, amounting to
more than swords and models (Hazzidakis –; Rutkowski , ), and
alongside these there were ‘hundreds’ of bronze, gold and silver double-axes
(Watrous , ; Marinatos ). While the exact numbers and chronology
(beyond Middle Minoan II – Late Minoan I) are often uncertain, it is clear that the
vast majority of metal votives were in the form of weapons or model weapons in cave
These were commonly miniaturised.
Boardman () suggests that well in excess of model sword/dagger blades were
recovered; are currently in the Ashmolean, and in excess of in the Heraklion Museum.
Boardman () considers the sheet-metal arrowheads to be Late Helladic IIIC or later. The
elongated and narrow shape of some examples, however, is similar to socketed spearheads in use
from at least Late Minoan II, though possibly earlier (on the basis of Middle Helladic and Late
Helladic I spearhead forms from the Shaft Graves at Mycenae, where a similar weapons panoply
is represented in general). In light of the Middle Minoan II – Late Minoan I sheet model swords
from this site, it is conceivable that some, though not all, of these sheet model socketed weapons
represent contemporary spearheads.
These are likely to be Middle Minoan III or earlier in date on the basis of the short tangs.
Most of these models were larger than those typically found at peak sanctuaries, and many
were cast. Their general morphology was identical, however, with a slightly rounded flat butt and
tapering blade.
WAR AS SOCIAL PROCESS, PRACTICE AND EVENT IN BRONZE AGE CRETE
sanctuaries. With the value attributed to metals in Bronze Age society, it is important to
note the relative importance of weapons when metal was used for votive offerings.
Peak sanctuaries
Many of the peak sanctuaries of Crete were excavated as rescue projects or are part
of ongoing research initiatives, so that none as yet have been published with
comprehensive catalogues of artefacts (Jones ). We do know, however, that model
weapons have been found widely at peak sanctuary sites, although regional
discrepancies do occur; they are definitely absent from Atsipadhes (Peatfield pers.
comm.) and Traostalos (Jones ; Kyriakides ; Briault ). However, from
Jouktas, sheet-metal model swords are known along with a bronze dagger and
double-axes (Watrous , –). Models and a real dagger are also known from
Petsophas (Davaras , ; Watrous , ; Jones , ). Models come
from Modhi, Kophinas and Vrysinas (Jones , –), model double-axes come
from Plagia Ziros (Faure ; ) and a cast blade fragment from Karphi may be
related to a Middle Minoan shrine there (Watrous , ).
Weaponry and religion
With this wealth of martial symbolism in different forms of religious sanctuaries across the
island, Kilian-Dirlmeier (, ) has suggested that it may be appropriate to consider
the existence of a Minoan deity concerned with ‘the production and use of weaponry’.
The argument has much merit to it, though another dimension to this symbolism may
relate to the belief that votives at shrines were related more directly to the devotee than
to a recipient deity (Morris ; Peatfield ). The martial imagery may therefore
reflect dedications to a deity/deities with martial attributes, but it may also reflect
solicitation of divine intervention in relation to the martial activities of the worshippers
themselves (Haysom ). The deposition of real weapons, unfinished real weapons,
cast model weapons and sheet-metal weapons at sanctuaries could in turn reflect
different forms of activity with different intentions. In the depiction of what is thought
to be a shrine on a seal from Aghia Triada (Müller and Pini , no. ), we find four
daggers/model weapons standing on an altar with their points facing upwards. It is
clear from the sanctuary evidence that martial and religious symbolism were
permeable, and while both had a great many independent manifestations, they also
came together through the deposition of weapons in religious or ritual events.
The relationship between the symbolic and functional worlds was clearly complex,
and the choice of model weapons more frequently than actual weapons requires
consideration. Functional weapons have been found at non-religious sites in Crete (e.g.
Knossos, Mallia, Zakros, Mochlos), so it is clear that the models derive their symbolic
power from reference to real objects. The process of miniaturisation that characterised
ritual assemblages in Cretan religion (Jones , ) appears to be mirrored in the
treatment of weapons in the context of cult activities. At peak sanctuaries the models
are exclusively miniaturised, but in cave sites both miniature and large-scale models
occur. It is noteworthy, however, that it is only the blade of the weapon represented;
Another interpretation is that this is two sets of horns of consecration that are poorly
illustrated.
BARRY P.C. MOLLOY
not only is there no attempt to render model handles, they do not attempt to depict a tang,
suggesting that the partial nature of the weapon is being emphasised. Rivet holes
occasionally exist, but there is no evidence for hilting on cast models or attempts to make
them more representative of functional objects. We can also observe that sheet-metal
objects were both easier and cheaper to manufacture (in terms of materials and time).
The swords from Arkalochori are an exception as they are true Type A swords, though
they were not finished for practical use as they had no hilts. This predominance of model
weapons over functional versions indicates that images of weapons were utilised in a
structured fashion as part of normal cult practices and that weapons were thus not ad hoc
votives of functional possessions made in exceptional circumstances. The rarity of real
weapons may relate to their intrinsic value or their unsuitability for the activities
surrounding the act of deposition, perhaps supported by the partial nature of models.
Figurines
Possibly the best known category of artefact from peak sanctuaries are the bronze and
coroplastic figurines. In terms of those with warrior characteristics, we may cite figurines
with daggers at their waists and figurines of boxers in Middle Minoan contexts. The
choice of daggers instead of swords is noteworthy because this was a time when new
martial art forms were replacing traditional systems associated with dagger combat
(Molloy , ). It remains possible that a dagger was chosen instead of spears or
swords because swords were as long as a person’s leg and spears the height of a man,
and hence either would snap if standing proud of the figurine or distort its definition if
plastered to their leg or entire body length.
At Kophinas, a recent re-analysis of figurines by Rethemiotakis () has
demonstrated that the ‘club-like’ representation of hands on some figurines is not poor
artistic execution, but rather is intended to depict boxing gloves. This determination is
beyond doubt on the Kophinas figurines as they have straps depicted also, and it is not
a stretch therefore to suggest that figurines standing in the same posture from other
sites with both fists placed to their chest may also be depicting boxers. While we need
not assume that they represent persons about to engage in a bout of boxing, their
posture may be intended to preferentially reflect selected aspects of a particular male
identity – the warrior. Some also possess daggers at their waists, supporting this
contention. We may make a comparison also with the finely detailed Palaikastro
Kouros, which is considered to have been a cult statue (MacGillivray, Driessen and
Sackett ). Here again we have a very carefully detailed fist, and while no gloves
are depicted, the sculptor went to considerable lengths to depict the fist as being
clenched – index finger covered by thumb on ‘front’ side, not illustrated on the palm
side because of the thumb location, the ulnar styloid is emphasised, and the hand
extensor tendons and forearm musculature are pronounced (Musgrave ). While a
glove is not illustrated, the fist is detailed exactly as it would be formed (loosely
clenched, thumb folded safely across the second phalange of the index finger) for
preparing to make a punch in modern martial arts practice. This treatment of the
thumb and musculature is also evident in the moulding of the fist of the so-called
The fist should only be tightened immediately prior to impact, not when held in a guard or
preparatory position. This is to minimise exertion and risk of injury, and maximise impact force
when striking.
WAR AS SOCIAL PROCESS, PRACTICE AND EVENT IN BRONZE AGE CRETE
Fig. . Figurine from Petsophas with fists held to chest and dagger at waist
(courtesy of Heraklion Museum – Ministry of Culture and Tourism –
Archaeological Receipts Fund).
‘Priest-King’ relief (Fig. ; Evans –; , fig. ; Musgrave , ) from
Knossos.
Returning to the figurines of boxers at peak sanctuaries, if we consider their
morphology in terms of what Morris (, ) calls a ‘living gesture’, we can see
that fists raised to the chest are effectively held close to a striking position. The fists
are not submissively or respectfully held in a passive position at or behind waist level
or held joined together. The occasional inclusion of a dagger increases this symbolism
of potential violence (Fig. ). The image created in itself, or if materialised through a
living individual, thus resonates potential aggression on a fundamental level, though
the gesture need not be related to aggressive or threatening actions. Taking the real
and model weapons along with the dedication of figurines of boxers (some wearing
daggers), it is clear that religious locations, and by extension certain religious activities,
played a role in the materialisation of warrior identities and practices.
Human sacrifice or healing cult?
At the shrine of Anemospilia around the transition from Middle Minoan II to Middle
Minoan III, an individual was found lying on a low platform and the + g ‘knife’
found with the skeleton was in fact a form of slotted spearhead. Sakellarakis has
interpreted this as a possible human sacrifice on the basis of the location of this person
and another male and female found in the shrine (Sakellarakis and Sapouna-
Morris () and Peatfield (), in particular, argue that many figurines represent postures
associated with entering trances as part of religious practice/experience in Bronze Age Crete, though
this need not exclusively relate to all of the diverse forms of figurines and range of postures
communicated through their forms.
Several parallels exist; see Hood and de Jong , –.
BARRY P.C. MOLLOY
Sakellaraki ; Sakellarakis and Sakellaraki ). The reason this partial
freeze-frame image survives is that the building collapsed through an earthquake. The
individual on the ‘altar’ had made no attempt to leave, and so we can presume was
unconscious or dead as the excavator suggests. There is no evidence, however, to
suggest that such injury or death occurred at the shrine, and it may thus have occurred
prior to their being brought there. In such circumstances, if we take the association of
the weapon and the male lying down, we could suggest that this was an injured warrior
seeking healing or a deceased warrior being prepared for a funerary event following a
battle. While as speculative in character as this being a human sacrifice, it may be
supported by the foetal position of the young male, as this is a natural reflexive
position to enter when a person is alive and experiencing intense pain. An alternative
suggested by the excavator was that his posture is because he was trussed for sacrifice.
The possibility of this being a warrior on the basis of the spear and mortal injury
would have particular resonance at the end of Middle Minoan II, when increased
conflict is attested (Schoep , ).
Religion, war and society
The view that religion was the dominant manifestation of power in Minoan society is
widely held (Adams b), and, in the case of warriors, Logue (, ; after Earle
, ) argues that ‘in order to keep the military loyal, a ruling elite must also be
able to bind them with “economic and ideological fetters”. The most secure
“ideological fetter” that appears to have been used is control of religion and religious
ritual.’ The complication with this otherwise likely scenario is that, when the military
are members of the elite, they are amongst those who design control mechanisms.
Thus having military behaviour permeating some aspects of religion and vice versa, a
co-dependence emerges that can be variably manipulated by different elements of the
elite group. This could be as simple as warriors requiring religious sanctioning of their
actions or warriors partaking in contests and displays at religious festivals. We should
also note that identities need not be exclusive and so warriors may perform religious
activities that make no reference to their warriorhood.
We could also ask if religion was an imposed element of superficial control over the
military, or whether the military imposed aspects of its needs upon religious practices.
It can be noted that aspects of PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder) can be mitigated
by psychological treatment in the modern military system, and the use of religion to
rationalise and legitimise violence could have had a similarly powerful effect on
alleviating the trauma of killing in the past (Grossman ; Molloy and Grossman
). It is facile to view prehistoric warriors as mindless killing machines, or to think
that trauma is inflicted only on victims of violence and not on the perpetrators in the
specific context of warfare. The weight of modern research (Bourke ; Shephard
; Grossman ) on the use of training to naturalise the unnatural (killing)
demonstrates that, by making people who lack aggressive tendencies effective killers in
combat, institutionally recognised cathartic measures are required to alleviate the
psychological damage caused to many combatants. The ability to transfer personal
responsibility for undertaking often brutal acts to the figures and institutions of
authority that sanctioned and solicited those acts in the first place is an important
measure in recovering from the experiences of war. We may consider religion as
WAR AS SOCIAL PROCESS, PRACTICE AND EVENT IN BRONZE AGE CRETE
providing such a conduit in prehistory, as it related to both divine and secular moral
authority.
WARRIOR BURIALS AND PALAEOPATHOLOGY
Burial practices
Warrior burials are a problem. When they do not exist we may wonder if there were any
warriors; when they do exist, we have to ask were they really warriors (Whitley ;
Smith ). The casual introduction by Hood and de Jong () of ‘warrior burials’
to mean burials with weapons at Knossos was not intended to be dogmatic, but has
nonetheless met with considerable debate (Whitley ; Driessen and Schoep ;
Preston a; b; Alberti ; Smith ). The earliest burials with weapons
come from Aghia Photia in East Crete (Davaras and Betancourt ) and from tholoi
in the Mesara (Branigan ), and, despite differences in burial practices in the two
areas, daggers, axes and/or spears were associated with individuals and deposited in
the event of a funeral. The rarity of burials with weapons in Middle Minoan II – Late
Minoan IA is a problem because there is a risk of this being correlated with an absence
of warriors and hence of warfare, but a dearth of primary burials of any kind for this
period needs to be noted (Poursat ). Late Minoan II–IIIA ‘warrior burials’ are
known from the areas of Knossos (Evans ; Hood and de Jong ; Hood ;
Popham, Catling and Catling ) and Chania (Vlasaki in Whitley –) and have
been considered as evidence for the arrival of ‘warlike Mycenaeans’ on Crete. In Late
Minoan IIIC, burials with weapons occur throughout the island, with a particular
concentration of excavated examples in the east (Kilian-Dirlmeier ).
Whitley () has comprehensively sought to dispossess the deceased in Cretan
graves of a warrior identity in life (see also Smith ; Driessen and Schoep ),
and Preston (; a; b) has convincingly questioned the unilateral
‘Mycenaean-ness’ of burial practices in general. We can thus make assumptions
neither about the identification of persons buried with weapons as being warriors, nor
about their being Mycenaean in ethnicity or identity. Taking these as starting points,
we must account for weapons being intentionally interred in tombs and consider their
function in the construction of identity in death (Whitley ). At the most basic
level the deposition of weapons may relate to the anticipation of needs in the afterlife
(Renfrew , ), or to worship of a specific deity associated with weapon
production and use (Kilian-Dirlmeier , ).
The symbolic grammar of weapons noted in the iconography of Late Minoan I to Late
Minoan IIIA (Krzyszkowska ; Hiller ) may in part have been translated to the
burial environment to afford meanings through the selection and position of specific
weapon types. Weapons were used in the construction of identities that were
conflations of military and religious symbolism, variably and perhaps contextually
referring to either or both (Haysom ). The entire package of mirrors, tweezers,
weapons, jewellery, razors, cleavers and seals found in Knossian graves (Evans ;
Hood and de Jong ; Hood ; Popham, Catling and Catling ) accords with
a package of grave goods identified by Treherne () as occurring widely throughout
Europe and reflecting warrior identity. These were related to the concept of the
BARRY P.C. MOLLOY
‘warrior’s beauty’ that we also see reflected in Cretan art, such as the Chieftain Cup.
Some burials, however, only possessed a single spear and lacked other components of
this package, perhaps indicating expressions of different meanings, as we see in the
varied treatment of weapons in art. The differential selection of objects may thus relate
more to symbolic constructs in the event of burial than to personal wealth or a warrior
identity, though manipulation of one to promote the other may blur such boundaries.
Furthermore, we cannot consider all burials with weapons from Early Minoan I to
Late Minoan IIIC across the island as affording the same meanings.
The lack of ‘warrior burials’ in Middle Minoan II to Late Minoan IA Crete relates to
the lack of desire in mortuary practice for constructing warrior identities and perhaps
control of the distribution of bronze, thus relating to religion, economy and
technology, not military practice. The separation of weapon and warrior may also have
been related in some cases to a deliberate deconstruction of warrior identities in death
as part of the passage to the afterlife or even for reasons of superstition (Williams
, ). Weapons ‘had a powerful agency to affect and direct the way that
memories of the dead were constructed and reproduced’ (Williams , ), and so
we cannot assume that violent aspects to a warrior’s identity were considered
paramount in the processes of commemoration by the living.
Before the end of Late Minoan I the inclusion of combat weaponry in burials occurs
in the area of north-central Crete. Two Type A swords (Fig. ) came from the ‘isolated
deposit’ possibly originating from a destroyed tomb at Isopata (Evans , ; Driessen
and Macdonald , ). Burials with fragments of weapons and boar’s tusk helmets are
known also from Poros (Dimopoulou ) from Late Minoan I. Burial as a warrior
becomes more widespread in Late Minoan II–IIIA, but any suggestion that these
persons (or any others) were exclusively warriors from mainland Greece is founded
upon the idea of peaceful Minoans relying on bellicose Mycenaeans to fight their
battles (e.g. Wright , ). This ignores the dominant flow of military ideologies
from Crete to the mainland in Middle Minoan III – Late Minoan IB (Molloy
[forthcoming a]), marking a Cretan origin to mainland military traditions.
Osteological evidence for ancient violence
Looking to find real warriors beyond warrior burials, Smith () has demonstrated that
weapon-inflicted injuries occur on burials possessing no weapon in the Athenian Agora;
this was in a cemetery that did include burials of individuals with weapons who had no
identifiable injuries. Weapon trauma on people buried without weapons occurs also in
Crete. Two such cases occur at Armenoi, where one individual had been struck
repeatedly in the arm with a sword or axe and another still had an arrowhead lodged
in their spine (McGeorge ). In this case, the injuries cannot be attributed securely
to warfare, as they could equally reflect homicide, execution or torture. The human
remains from Aghios Charalambos cave in Lasithi provide the best examples of
deliberately inflicted trauma, with a considerable crania exhibiting distinct injuries
(Betancourt et al. ). These burials are secondary and the disturbed stratigraphic
sequences allow broad dating between Final Neolithic and Middle Minoan IIB,
A burial at Mochlos with three spearheads (Höckmann ) and another with a dagger may
reflect aspects of the construction of a warrior identity, though these are exceptional finds.
WAR AS SOCIAL PROCESS, PRACTICE AND EVENT IN BRONZE AGE CRETE
Fig. . Range of swords in use in Bronze Age Crete. From left to right: Types A,
Ci, Dii, Fii, Gi, Gii, Naue ii.
though a bias towards the later end of this spectrum is suggested by the excavators.
McGeorge (in Betancourt et al. ) has identified numerous injuries on the skulls
(Fig. and Fig. ), and suggests that many of these were inflicted during deliberate
attacks. Both male and female crania exhibit wounds, supporting the evidence from
urban destructions that settlements and their inhabitants were potential targets in war.
We can also note that the bias of injuries in this study was towards blunt force trauma
to the head. A possible explanation for some of these injuries would be an axe strike to
a helmeted head, and double-axes were the primary potential percussive weapon in the
Middle Minoan arsenal. It is also possible that these are the result of sling-stone
impacts. Sharp/bladed weapon trauma to the head was recorded also at Aghios
Charalambos, potentially from spear, dagger or sword attacks. We should note,
however, that bladed weapon attacks in the Bronze Age would be preferably targeted
to soft tissue areas, thus making them under-represented osteologically (Molloy ).
BARRY P.C. MOLLOY
Fig. . Blunt force injury to skull from Aghios Charalambos (courtesy
T. McGeorge).
Fig. . Injury from pointed object to skull from Aghios Charalambos (courtesy
T. McGeorge).
WRITING
In Cretan hieroglyphic script, weaponry is allocated a number of specific signs. Poursat
(, ) points to symbols of bows, arrows, spears and daggers, and he suggests that
this relates to the involvement of civil administrations in manufacture and/or
distribution of weaponry. We can also consider that these symbols did not relate
directly to weapons (as the script is undeciphered), but even in such a case it shows
that weapons were part of a structured frame of references in elite concerns and
symbolic grammars. The more developed Linear A script is also as yet undeciphered,
and so we cannot utilise it effectively in this discussion beyond similar observations to
the above.
WAR AS SOCIAL PROCESS, PRACTICE AND EVENT IN BRONZE AGE CRETE
The contrast noted between the numbers of archaeologically recovered weapons and
those required to equip an army of even moderate size is somewhat mitigated by the later
Linear B evidence. The tablets refer to the very recent past of when they were made and
so they reflect a partial picture of military considerations relating to a year or two at best of
the Bronze Age. Those tablets that survive do so because they were accidentally burnt,
and this in itself may illustrate violent destruction of Knossos at a time when they were
making military (as well as routine economic) inventories. Even in such an incredibly
tight chronological window and with limited survival of tablets, the records show
alarmingly high numbers of weapons. On tablet Ra swords are listed and on
Ra some receive mention, and a further fragmentary tablets list an
uncertain number of swords (Driessen and Macdonald , ; Chadwick, Killen
and Olivier , –). Ra records swords fitted with bindings and R
lists spears with bronze points, apparently including the shaft (Ventris and
Chadwick , –). If this was the production or allocation quantity of swords in a
single year or perhaps two, then it is clear that a minuscule percentage of the weapons
once in circulation escaped the melting pot for recycling.
Driessen and Macdonald (, ) consider men listed in the Linear B tablets from
Knossos called E-pi-ko-wo to have been guards or lookouts, and such a role may well
reflect the responsibilities/functions of warriors from times past who had manned the
network of guard houses. A potential change in the character of the military is also
reflected in the identification of other men listed in the tablets called Ke-se-no as being
foreign warriors, possibly mercenaries but almost certainly not Cretans (Driessen and
Macdonald , ). This was the beginning of changes that may link to a
‘democratisation’ of warrior status by Late Minoan IIIC, whereby the population
appears sufficiently small that a higher proportion of males in society may be expected
to fight on behalf of their social group than had occurred in Middle Minoan I – Late
Minoan IIIA.
WEAPONRY IN CORPORE
Weapons are often considered to be the most direct evidence for prehistoric warfare
(Harding ), and Crete, as a region, has the highest diachronic concentration of
bronze weapons of anywhere in the Greek world (Branigan ; Avila ;
Höckmann ; Kilian-Dirlmeier ). The metal bronze was itself central to
socio-military change (Renfrew , ) because it facilitated new ways for people to
interact, including domination through violence. Weapons and weapon-tools are the
most frequently occurring bronze artefacts in the nascent bronze industry of Crete in
Early Minoan and earlier Middle Minoan periods (Branigan ). As the bronze
industry evolved beyond skeuomorphs or functional correlates of lithic technology
through the development of new object categories such as swords and lances, potential
patterns of action moved beyond themes borrowed from generations past. Weaponry
therefore does much more than simply reflect the presence of warfare. It needs to be
The Shaft Graves at Mycenae have the highest single concentration, but their tight
chronological range and the archaeological rarity of the sealed context of such ‘royal burials’
limit their use in building long-term regional patterns.
BARRY P.C. MOLLOY
understood as having played a direct role in constructing and challenging social structures
and mores through intentional manipulation by interest groups (Malafouris ;
Knappett and Malafouris , xiii; Ferguson ; ). Specialised military
material culture was thus a socially constructed (and materialised) concept to further
political ends by facilitating inclusive and exclusive practices, as well as serving as tools
to facilitate the occasional events of war.
In this section analysis of martial properties is prioritised over a quantification and
distributional analysis of surviving weapons. It is considered more important in this
case to privilege the social processes that gave rise to and shaped weaponry, along with
the social practices that gave them meaning, over and above the brief events of
deposition and the randomness of archaeological recovery. Common sense tells us that
if we have Type A swords in a Middle Minoan II context at Mallia, a Middle Minoan
III – Late Minoan IA context at Arkalochori and a Late Minoan I context at Zakros,
unless technology and design characteristics were passed across this chronological and
geographical expanse by word of mouth, weapons were much more widely available
than the limited archaeological record provides us with (Molloy ).
Early daggers
In socio-military terms, the Cretan dataset of weapons illustrates the transition from the
use of the tools of hunting in interpersonal combat (Chapman ) to formalised
military systems using purpose-designed weapons of war – such as the sword, shield
and lance. This was a landmark change in the way communities could define
themselves both internally and externally through potential aggression (Parker Pearson
). By Early Minoan II, the first daggers evolved that reveal a distinct bias towards
interpersonal combat, and so a social change initiated by weapons technology is
apparent. However, Branigan’s () Triangular Daggers were functionally replicating
stone technology and, at – cm in length, they were thus too short and thin for
combat (Branigan , ). Of Branigan’s Long Daggers, Types III to XI were well
suited to combat in terms of their length and the strength afforded by midribs, and
many with blades of > cm would have been > cm in length with their organic hilt
attached. While Branigan () suggests that the hilting mechanism was too fragile
for combat use, experiments carried out by the author with similar grip-plate daggers
from Atlantic Europe show that it survived very robust cutting and stabbing tests with
no damage (Molloy b). Daggers were dynamic objects so, while many were not
suited to combat, others were suited to multiple purposes that included combat (Floyd
, ), and the very longest variants (e.g. Branigan , nos. , , ) may
be considered specialist combat weapons.
Axes
It can be difficult to differentiate axes that may have been weapons and those that may
have been tools, though it might content us to consider many as tool-weapons, serving
both purposes. The earliest copper-alloy axes and chisels of the Aegean were virtually
unusable for cutting wood, due to the softness of the material and the process of work-
hardening of copper alloys when they are thus used. Mathieu and Meyer () have
demonstrated through experimental archaeology that stone axes were significantly
superior for woodworking. It seems plausible, therefore, that, used alongside the early
WAR AS SOCIAL PROCESS, PRACTICE AND EVENT IN BRONZE AGE CRETE
daggers in the Aegean, axes and so-called ‘chisels’ were in fact more oriented towards
violence than industry. By analogy, we can refer to ‘Ötzi’, the Early Bronze Age man
found frozen in Alpine ice, who had a (broadly) similar short axe to those used in the
Aegean. DNA from human blood found on his cloak came from several different
individuals, and he himself is likely to have died as the result of injuries sustained
during a violent skirmish (Harding , ).
Early swords
I have argued elsewhere (Molloy ) that the introduction of the sword represented a
quantum leap in combat practice, and it cannot be regarded as a simple ‘extending of the
dagger’ because it required entirely different skill-sets to use effectively. The earliest Type
A swords (Fig. ) were – cm in length (or – cm when hilted) and they would
have originally weighed c.– g. These metric variables indicate that, while Type A
swords were typologically homogeneous, different swords would have performed quite
differently in combat, reflecting the preferences of past warriors. As with earlier
daggers, the midrib inhibited the depth of cutting attacks and the weapon was thus
designed for slicing, not chopping (Molloy , ). The limited cutting capacities
of these swords may suggest a display element to fighting in certain contexts, whereby
bloody but not debilitating injuries might be inflicted (Molloy ; ). This could
leave room for showmanship in fighting commensurate with the agonistic contests we
see in art. However, by placing attacks to the neck or groin, for example, Type A
swords could also make lethal attacks using the edges and the point. There is a
common perception (Peatfield ; Taracha ) that these swords were mainly
suited to single combat, though their inclusion alongside shields and spears on the
Miniature Fresco from Akrotiri (Morgan ) reminds us that battlefield functions
were equally probable.
Defensive equipment
Boar’s tusk helmets and large body-shields were in use for a very long time – from the
origins of complex weapon panoplies in Middle Minoan II (or before) to the collapse
of state-level society in Crete by Late Minoan IIIB. The use of identifiable animal-
derived elements for weapons has led Morris (, ) to suggest that through the
use of these helmets and shields ‘the relationship between man and animal is
consistently expressed’ through symbolism and real life. The helmet represented the
boar hunt and the shield represented the ubiquitous bull imagery in Crete,
ideologically linking war, hunting and competitive fitness. These weapons were part of
the underlying network of cross-references between military, social and religious
symbolism and activities. It is noteworthy that swords never took on this symbolic
power in Crete, and that spears were typically used to demonstrate power when
associated with a person in art.
The dense and tough character of the boar’s tusks made them very durable items of
armour, and the large shields made of wicker and rawhide were a key element in
determining battlefield tactics for centuries (Molloy ). We may note that armour
and bronze helmets, like the one from Late Minoan II Knossos (Hood and de Jong
), could represent an end to these established relationships between war, hunting
and the natural world/religion, as may also be supported by the inclusion of the
BARRY P.C. MOLLOY
abovementioned Ke-se-no foreign warriors (Driessen and Macdonald , ) by Late
Minoan IIIA.
Double-axes
The double-axe is a ubiquitous symbol synonymous with ‘Neopalatial Minoan Crete’.
Considering the obvious separation between cast and sheet metal that we also see
mirrored in swords and daggers, we might consider the cast ones to be functional as
weapon-tools. As Haysom (, ) argues, ‘we cannot assume that just because
something is not functional (like the impractically large or thin double-axes) it was not
meant to represent a functional object’. Indeed Haysom (, ) notes that the
majority of double-axes are the functional cast forms (cf. Evely , ). Double-axes
incised with a figure-of-eight shield and boar’s tusk helmet reflect the use of all three
devices in a conflation between military and religious symbolism (Morris ;
Haysom ), perhaps in constructing divine as well as terrestrial identities. As with
earlier axes, double-axes had soft alloys, the low tin content of many (Craddock ;
Northover and Evely , ) making them poor tools for cutting wood. In combat,
we could consider double-axes as weapon-tools for close-quarters fighting that would
have been suited to percussive attacks reaching over shields to the head of an opponent
or hooking the tops of shields in seeking to break up a defensive wall.
Archery
Archers were probably present in Crete from the Neolithic, and in the Bronze Age they
are seen in Late Helladic I scenes from Mycenae using the same bows in interpersonal
combat as are known to have been used in Crete (Hiller ). From the Shaft
Graves, the Lion Hunt Dagger and Silver Battle Krater appear to use stock imagery of
battle groups and along with the Silver Siege Rhyton they suggest that archers fought
as skirmishers amongst the infantry, as perhaps did slingers. This indicates that there
was a distinct lethal intent to combat and that idealistic visions of ritual combats or
limited engagement wars have little foundation in the Cretan Bronze Age.
Spears
Bronze spears in Early Minoan and Middle Minoan Crete were simple designs, typically
shoe-socket or slotted forms. They were primarily intended for penetrative attacks, and
were suited to both hunting and warfare. Few Late Minoan I spears have been
recovered from Crete (Avila ; Branigan ; Höckmann ), though we could
expect lances similar to those from the Shaft Graves at Mycenae to have been in use
on the basis of parity with other weaponry, and the lances on the Miniature Fresco
from nearby Akrotiri (Morgan ). By Late Minoan II/Late Minoan IIIA more
complex forms of spear are known archaeologically and they are best represented in
the graves around Knossos (Evans ; Hood and de Jong ; Hood ;
Popham, Catling and Catling ). Continuing the long-standing cross-fertilisation of
military technology between mainland Greece and Crete, spears of Types E, F and H
(Fig. ) are well known in both areas (Avila ; Höckmann ). Many of these
See Northover and Evely (, ) for an alternative argument that they were tools.
WAR AS SOCIAL PROCESS, PRACTICE AND EVENT IN BRONZE AGE CRETE
Fig. . Type F and H spears from Crete.
could have served in the hunt or battle, though it is noteworthy that a deliberate
decorative cross-reference was made between many Type D swords and Type F spears
in the form of a raised wavy ridge on the handle and socket respectively. Most spears
had distinct cutting edges to provide a further means of inflicting injury as well as the
point, and the compact and robust cross-section of Types F in particular, but also
some Type H examples, suggests they were intended for punching through armour.
Type G spears in particular have strong morphological similarities to mediaeval boar-
hunting spears, with their wide flaring blades and abrupt shoulders.
Armour
A stone vase (Hood ) and Linear B texts from Knossos (Ventris and Chadwick ,
–) and plates from Phaistos (Hood and de Jong , ) indicate that armour
broadly similar to the well-known Dendra corslet (Verdelis ) was in use in Crete,
though we are unclear as to its composition (bronze or leather or both). It has
variously been regarded as infantry armour (Harding , , ; Crouwel ,
), chariot armour (Drews , ) and duelling armour (Peatfield , ).
Considering the functional strengths of mm+ thick bronze plate (Molloy ), its
relatively light weight of around kg, and my experience wearing a replica (Molloy
; forthcoming b), I suggest that such armour was highly versatile and perfectly
suited to use in any of these contexts.
Courtesy of Andrew Walpole.
BARRY P.C. MOLLOY
Later swords and daggers
The Types C and D swords (Fig. ; Sandars ; Kilian-Dirlmeier ; Molloy )
of Late Minoan II did not change as rapidly in functional terms as spearhead designs had,
and these swords were poorly suited to attacks against the new plate armour (Molloy
). Type C (all variants) and Type Di swords had midribs and the blades were
typically long and thin. While lighter than their predecessors the Type A swords, they
nonetheless appear to have been used in a broadly similar manner (Molloy ; ;
Peatfield ; ; Taracha ). Peatfield () conflates Late Helladic I and
Late Minoan I iconography with Late Minoan IIIA sword forms to suggest that there
was a ‘hierarchical perception of combat skills’ in which swords were the ‘dominant
weapon’ in Crete across these periods. In both Late Helladic I–II and Late Minoan I
art, however, spears occur far more commonly than swords and they occupy a much
wider range of symbolic as well as practical roles. We also need to note that there is a
complete lack of swords in Late Minoan IIIA art, so there is a marked gap between the
images of swords in use and the actual swords Peatfield discusses, making it difficult
to substantiate the relative importance of swordsmanship over and against other forms
of fighting for either period. In view of this, his suggestion that duelling was common
practice (see also Taracha ), and more importantly that this was the main context
for sword use, remains speculative. Furthermore, because images of combat were
ideological expressions and/or narrative excerpts using violent imagery (Hiller ),
not martial art exposés or manuals, we must remain cautious when using them to
suggest modes of conflict resolution or systems of combat in either Late Minoan I or
Late Minoan IIIA. The range of potential functions of Type C and D swords (Molloy
; ; Peatfield ) indicates that they were suited to ‘audience-oriented’
combat with a significant display element, supporting elements of Peatfield’s theory,
but we need to also observe that they were suitable for use on the battlefield.
Between Late Minoan I and Late Minoan IIIA short swords became increasingly
common, and these suggest different modes and contexts of use to the longer thin
varieties (Molloy ). Later Type Di and Type Dii swords lost their midrib in Late
Minoan IIIA: and other forms of short sword began to appear around this time. These
include Type E daggers, and Type Fi and Fii daggers and swords (Kilian-Dirlmeier
). The characteristically broad Type E and Fi long daggers find an interesting
parallel in (doubtlessly functional) first century AD Roman dagger forms (Fig. ;
Connolly , ). Alongside these, Type Gi swords evolved that could make deeper
and more deadly cuts than their Type C predecessors (Molloy ; ). The non-
midribbed daggers and short swords of Late Minoan II–III were more stocky and
robust than their long and thin predecessors and thus capable of making stronger,
percussive, cutting attacks. There was, however, significant variation in thickness (from
. to mm), indicating that only some were capable of contending with heavy armour.
Weapons of Late Minoan IIIB–C
Spears in Late Minoan IIIC were basic leaf shapes with cast sockets, and swords were
primarily of Types Fii or Naue ii. The latter entered the Aegean from the north in Late
Helladic IIIB, and was transformed in Crete to shorter and lighter proportions (Molloy
). Local Type F swords were generally of similar proportions, if slightly shorter.
On the basis of shield forms known from other parts of the Aegean, we can assume that
shields in Crete were small (covering from chin to groin at best). The votive v-notched
WAR AS SOCIAL PROCESS, PRACTICE AND EVENT IN BRONZE AGE CRETE
Fig. . Type Eii dagger from Knossos (courtesy of Heraklion Museum – Ministry
of Culture and Tourism – Archaeological Receipts Fund) (left), and st century AD
Roman dagger from southern Bavaria (courtesy of Archäologische Staatsammlung,
Munich) (right).
shields from the Idaean cave (Coles ) are metal models of shields known widely from
Bronze Age Europe. Such shields entered the Aegean at the same time as Naue ii swords
(Molloy ), and while the bronze ones in Crete are Late Geometric in date, they may
be models of more ancient (and now decayed) organic shields from Late Minoan IIIC,
similar to those from Europe (Coles ; Molloy ; Uckelmann [forthcoming]).
The v-notch on prehistoric shields occurs where a sword would hit the shield if the user
banged it to produce noise for a cheer or taunt, and the myth that shields in the Idaean
cave were thus banged by the Kouretes to cover up the cries of the baby Zeus (hiding
him from Kronos) may reflect this tradition (Hard , ).
ASPECTS OF A ‘TRIADIC BALANCE’ OF POWER
In consideration of the interplay between economic, religious and military manifestations
of power, we may expect permeability so that elements of each are visible in the processes
and practices of the others. The rapid economic growth in Middle Minoan I–II, and
significant expansion by Late Minoan I, can in part be characterised as elite wealth
being founded upon control of the resources created by primary producers as the base
level of complex socio-economic systems. Speaking of the Maya, but no less relevant
BARRY P.C. MOLLOY
for Crete, Webster states that the ‘most important economic considerations of any elite
person or faction were acquiring and maintaining claims to rights of disposal over the
labour and products of producers and being able to enforce these claims if challenged’
(Webster , ; see also LeBlanc , ). The trade of bronze that is seen as
another underlying factor of Bronze Age economics (Pare ) only became possible
on the back of this control over agriculture and certain crafts, because no exploitable
copper or tin sources are known on the island (Muhly ). Elites sustained their
wealth and power at the expense of the majority of the population (Scarre , ;
Ferguson , ), and it can be no coincidence that military technology and systems
grew in complexity commensurately with economic prosperity in Crete. Renfrew
(, ) highlighted that bronze is more than a means for storing and displaying
wealth; it provides the means to control its generation by the manufacture and use of
weaponry. In terms of technological development and allocation of raw materials, the
manufacture of weapons can be regarded as one of the more important applications of
metal technology in Crete since Early Minoan I. Warriors became reliant on the
acquisition of copper and tin for weapons, and so reflexively the wealth of a group
could only become sustainable power when they had the resources to defend it and its
sources. Without trade, war was restricted, and without war metal was less needed and
so trade was restricted. This is characteristic of how the infrastructure of war was
intrinsically linked with Bronze Age economic strategies, so that force and coercion
need to be considered as factors in the formation of new economic, as well as social,
models. Ferguson (, –) argues that people as a resource for production were
often in shortage, and so war was used to acquire more people, through territorial
conquest or slavery, in order to increase the production and economic base of a society.
The character of the relationship between religion and war/warriors is apparent in
many contexts, so that we can easily identify elements of each within the other. At
shrines, the dedication of both real and model weaponry need not relate to votives by
warriors, but the symbolism of violent objects must have been related to beliefs and
narratives that drew upon an understanding of martial practices. Depiction of the
clenched fist(s) held to the chest occurs from Middle Minoan II to Late Minoan IB (if
not Late Minoan IIIA) widely in two- and three-dimensional figural depictions, and is
associated with lithely muscled males. It is not necessary to interpret these in all cases
as boxers mid-bout, but the latent or potential aggression of the posture suggests that
‘manly virtues’ commensurate with the concept of the ‘warrior’s beauty’ are being
espoused in objects associated with religious practices. Similarly, the iconographic
scenes of violence between men, and between men and animals, draw together
different forms of violent action in a framework of complex cross-references. Just as the
use of weapons to inflict injury on another person may reflect sacrifice, there is
evidence to suggest that some forms of combat had a deliberate aspect of blood-letting
that may have had ritual connotations. While swords from Middle Minoan II to Late
Minoan IIIA were capable of inflicting fatal injuries, their inability to inflict deep cuts
afforded the potential to prolong combats and emphasise the shedding of blood.
Whether this was in lieu of a kill or a precursor to it we cannot say.
In order to create an integrated vision of Cretan societies in the Bronze Age, it is
necessary to rehabilitate the study of war and move it beyond a ghettoised sub-field if
we are to better understand the interplay between different forms of power assertion
and control. Each of these fields of activity existed within the other, and understanding
of one should be thus be informed by aspects of the others. This may be seen to better
WAR AS SOCIAL PROCESS, PRACTICE AND EVENT IN BRONZE AGE CRETE
reflect the dynamic interplays one would expect in a complex prehistoric society, just as it
reflects the subtleties of causation, policies and actions in our modern world.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
This paper set out an agenda for considering war as a social process, a practice and an
event using the case of Bronze Age Crete, and to re-socialise evidence related to war
beyond compendia testifying to its existence. It has also sought to create an integrated
framework for relating military to religious and economic manifestations of power.
When we take the evidence together in general terms, there is a staggering amount of
violence in the symbolic grammar and material remains from prehistoric Crete.
Weapons and warrior culture were materialised variously in sanctuaries, graves,
domestic units and hoards, and symbolically on portable media intended for use
during social interactions (administration, feasting, personal adornment). There were
few spheres of interaction in Crete that did not have a martial component, right down
to the symbols used in their written scripts.
While images of interpersonal combat exist, to isolate them as evidence for warfare
misses the point. The images comprise elements of a symbolic grammar that allowed
the past viewer to understand their contextual meanings when assembled together in a
scene and, by extension, to appreciate their relationship to other images. In relation to
war and violence, we need to explore this grammar or architecture (Wedde )
rather than seek to write a connected series of narratives for each ‘warlike’ image or
bunch them all together as representing warfare. It is abundantly clear that war was not
isolated and commemorated in the iconography of Bronze Age Crete. The shared
elements between agonistic contests, hunting, violence and even sacrifice relate to a
celebration of the individual’s capacity for dominance and power over others, frequently
using violence, rather than displaying overtly militaristic imagery as corporate celebrations
of state power.
In considering war as a social process we look to the infrastructural and psychological
support mechanisms that facilitated the undertaking of war and the means through which
it was embedded in social logic. Working backwards from the warrior on the battlefield,
we can observe that he was a product of training and technology. Training presupposes
the recognition of a need for warriors and the development of an infrastructure geared
towards providing resources to facilitate that training. Such a system need not be
centrally controlled or managed, but could be more generally linked to the personal/
family wealth of members of the elite being used to provide the means to participate in
elite activities characterised by violence. While not a ‘qualification’ for elite inclusivity,
it provided a forum for negotiation of status, and both direct and indirect acquisition of
wealth. The social infrastructural construct underlying this is the ‘right to fight’, a
circumscribed entitlement that was a defining characteristic of elite status. Those
Images of warriors with weapons occur in more diverse contexts, and are more numerous, in
Crete than on the Greek mainland. The same themes are also common to both areas and therefore
it is difficult to determine different military traditions in existence in the two, particularly if we
accept the exceptional character of the Shaft Graves at Mycenae, which lack a correlate in Crete
in terms of archaeological preservation.
BARRY P.C. MOLLOY
conscripted to fight in times of escalated conflicts may not ordinarily have had this right, or
the right to accrue similar benefits from war. We need also to consider that the
infrastructure of war was intrinsically linked to economic and technological networks
because they were mutually dependent, if not exclusively so. The construction of
fortifications, guard houses and defensive conceptualisation of landscape features were
likewise the product of premeditated long-term social strategies.
In considering war as a social practice, that is the production and enacting of
warriorhood, we can recognise that novel forms of weapon initiated new patterns of
action and associated behaviour since Early Minoan I. This became socially divisive by
Middle Minoan II, when newly emerging martial arts based around swords, spears,
axes, archery, and shields represented specialised skill-sets that had few correlates in
Early Minoan Crete. These new objects and warriors mutually created and attained
meaning through their symbiotic relationship, and together they ensured that
warriorhood was ‘a dynamic integral component of the emerging . . . embodied
cognitive system’ (Malafouris , ). Thus the introduction of lifeways
underwritten by skilful violence and competitive fitness transformed the social
exploitation of violence in Cretan societies gradually between Early Minoan I and
Middle Minoan II. Violent behaviour came to be less socially or temporally marginal
and more embedded in the technological, religious, political and perhaps moral logic
of society. Warriors became a self-perpetuating social need whereby each polity had to
be capable of defending itself from neighbours, what may be termed ‘secondary
militarisation’. This had the requirement to resource warriors, who in turn could only
justify their status by finding or fomenting contexts in which to employ their skills.
When we consider that warriors dedicated many years to training and fighting, it is
reasonable to say that they enjoyed their lifestyle and revelled in the status that
victories could bring. Warriors and their activities were thus not the unfortunate
product of unrest, but were a celebration of social vitality. Specialisation of warrior
skills and equipment demonstrated the circumscribed legitimacy of violence as part of
an elite mechanism that included other circumscribed activities of cultic and economic
natures.
In considering wars as events, we are considering war’s most archaeologically visible
materialisations, specifically the things damaged through its conduct – buildings,
weapons and people. These can relate to large-scale changes such as the sacking of a
town and the devastation of its entire populace (even if we use euphemisms of
abandonment or depopulation). Battlefields have not been mentioned because their
identification is virtually impossible without historical records and because of the
typical practice of removing or looting the deceased and their equipment. The
evidence on skeletons carries certain biases, particularly as attacks to bony areas that
are archaeologically visible were likely to have been less-preferred targets than soft
tissue areas that leave no archaeological trace. Damage from use is admittedly rare in
the Cretan dataset, though the poor preservation of blade edges hampers analysis and
the bias towards weapons found in graves reflects mortuary practices and beliefs more
than battlefield conditions.
When we consider war as a normative process that had cross-references and correlates
in other social practices, we can begin to see warriors and warriorhood as permeating the
social fabric of Cretan societies at a systemic level. The social and institutional
components of war impacted on settlement patterns, landscape exploitation,
technological and trade networks, religious practices, art, administration and more, so
WAR AS SOCIAL PROCESS, PRACTICE AND EVENT IN BRONZE AGE CRETE
that war was indirectly a constant factor shaping the daily lives of people in prehistoric
Crete. Considering the triadic interplay of power in complex societies, understanding
the social aspects of war ‘beyond the battle’ is essential if we are to better understand
how elites manipulated economics, religion and violence in controlling their worlds. By
identifying the material results of warrior lifeways in all of their disparity and disorder,
we gain insights into what war meant in ancient Crete, if not its exact character.
Rather than carve up selected categories of evidence into headings of war in process,
practice and event, this paper has sought to use these themes integrally to move
beyond characterisation, and towards socialisation, of the study of war in prehistoric
Crete.
b.molloy@sheffield.ac.uk
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank Alan Peatfield for many discussions and sharing of ideas over the
past decade on this and related topics. I am also grateful to Kristian Kristiansen,
Angelos Papadopoulos, Ioannis Georganas, Catherine Parnell and Stephen O’Brien for
discussions on this work over the years. Marina Milic´, Jo Day, Loeta Tyree and
William Megarry offered thoughts on early drafts of this paper, for which I am grateful.
Special thanks are due to the two anonymous referees, one of whom provided
extensive insights and critiques that substantially helped to strengthen the paper
(though disagreement respectfully remains on some points). I would like also to thank
the Editor of the Annual for patience and support in completing this contribution. All
errors and ‘misdemeanours’ remain my own doing.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adams, E. a. ‘Power relations in Avila, R.A.J. . Bronzene Lanzen- und
Neopalatial towns’, Journal of Pfeilspitzen der griechischen Spätbronzezeit
Mediterranean Archaeology ., –. (Prähistorische Bronzefunde V.; Munich).
Adams, E. b. ‘Power and ritual in Barker, G. . ‘Approaches to
Neopalatial Crete: A regional Mediterranean landscape history’, in
comparison’, World Archaeology ., Barker, G. (ed.), A Mediterranean Valley:
–. Landscape Archaeology and Annales History
Alberti, L. . ‘The Late Minoan II-IIIA in the Biferno Valley (Leicester), –.
warrior graves at Knossos: The burial Barzel, Y. . A Theory of the State
assemblages’, in Cadogan, G, Hatzaki, E. (Cambridge).
and Vasilakis, A. (eds.), Knossos: Palace, Betancourt, P.P. (ed.) . The Chrysokamino
City, State (British School at Athens Metallurgy Workshop and its Territory
Studies ; London), –. (Hesperia Supplement ; Princeton).
Alexiou, S. . “Τείχη καὶ ἀκροπόλεις στὴν Betancourt, P.P., Davaras, C., Dierckx, H.M.
μινωικὴν Κρήτην (Ὁ μύθος τῆς μινωικῆς C., Ferrence, S.C., Hickman, J.,
εἰρήνης)”, Kretologia , –. Karkanas, P., McGeorge, P.J.P., Muhly, J.
Alusik, T. . Defensive Architecture of D., Reese, D.S., Stavropodi, E.,
Prehistoric Crete (Oxford). Langford-Verstegen, L. and Chlouveraki,
BARRY P.C. MOLLOY
S. . ‘Excavations in the Hagios Briault, C. . ‘Making mountains out of
Charalambos cave’, Hesperia , –. molehills in the Bronze Age Aegean:
Betts, J.H., Gill, M.A.V., Sürenhagen, D. and Visibility, ritual kits and the idea of a peak
Waetzoldt, H. . Corpus der Minoischen sanctuary’, World Archaeology ., –.
und Mykenischen Siegel, Band XI. Kleinere Bridgford, S. . ‘Mightier than the pen? (An
Europäische Sammlungen (Berlin). edgewise look at Irish Bronze Age swords)’,
Bevan, L. . ‘Warfare, violence and the in Carman (ed.) a, –.
construction of masculinity in the Iron Callaghan, P.J. . ‘Archaic, Classical and
Age rock art of Valcamonica, northern Hellenistic Knossos – a historical
Italy’, in Parker Pearson, M. and Thorpe, summary’, in Evely, D., Hughes-Brock,
I.J.N. (eds.), Warfare, Violence and Slavery H. and Momigliano, N. (eds.), Knossos: A
in Prehistory (Oxford), –. Labyrinth of History – Papers Presented in
Bintliff, J.L. . ‘Structuralism and myth in Honour of Sinclair Hood (Athens), –.
Minoan studies’, Antiquity , –. Carman, J. (ed.) a. Material Harm
Bloedow, E. . ‘On lions in Mycenaean and (Glasgow).
Minoan culture’, in Laffineur, R. and Carman, J. b. ‘Introduction: Approaches
Crowley, J.L. (eds.), EIKON. Aegean to violence’, in Carman (ed.) a, –.
Bronze Age Iconography: Shaping a Carman, J. c. ‘Giving archaeology a moral
Methodology. Proceedings of the th voice’, in Carman (ed.) a, –.
International Aegean Conference/e Rencontre Carman, J. and Harding, A. .
égéenne internationale, University of ‘Introduction’, in Carman, J. and
Tasmania, Hobart, Australia, – April Harding, A. (eds.), Ancient Warfare
(Aegaeum ; Liège), –. (Stroud), –.
Boardman, J. . The Cretan Collection in Castleden, R. . The Minoans (London).
Oxford: The Dictaean Cave and Iron Age Catling, H.W. . Cypriot Bronzework in the
Crete (Oxford). Mycenaean World (Oxford).
Bossen, C. a. ‘Chiefs made war and war Chadwick, J. . The Mycenaean World
made states? War and early state (Cambridge).
formation in ancient Fiji and Hawaii’, in Chadwick, J., Killen, J.T. and Olivier, J.P.
Otto, Thrane and Vandkilde (eds.) , . The Knossos Tablets (Cambridge).
–. Chapman, J. . ‘The origins of war in
Bossen, C. b. ‘War as practice, power and central and eastern Europe’, in Carman, J.
processor: A framework for the analysis of and Harding, A. (eds.), Ancient Warfare
war and social structural change’, in Otto, (Stroud), –.
Thrane and Vandkilde (eds.) , – Chapouthier, F. . Deux épées d’apparat
. découvertes en au palais de Mallia au
Bourdieu, P. . Outline of a Theory of cours des fouilles exécutées au nom de l’École
Practice (Cambridge). française d’Athènes (Études Crétoises ;
Bourke, J. . An Intimate History of Killing Paris).
(London). Chryssoulaki, S. a. ‘Minoan roads and
Bradley, R. . The Passage of Arms guard houses – war regained’, in Laffineur
(London). (ed.) , –.
Branigan, K. . ‘The Early Bronze Age Chryssoulaki, S. b. ‘A new approach to
daggers of Crete’, Annual of the British Minoan iconography – an introduction:
School at Athens , –. The case of the Minoan genii’, in
Branigan, K. . Aegean Metalwork of the Betancourt, P.P, Karageorghis, V.,
Early and Middle Bronze Age (Oxford). Laffineur, R. and Niemeier, W.D. (eds.),
Branigan, K. . ‘Social transformations and Meletemata: Studies in Aegean Archaeology
the rise of the state in Crete’, in Laffineur, Presented to Malcolm Wiener as He Enters
R. and Niemeier, W.D. (eds.), POLITEIA: His th Year (Aegaeum ; Liège), –.
Society and State in the Aegean Bronze Claessen, H. . ‘War and State formation:
Age (Aegaeum ; Liège and Austin), What is the connection?’, in Otto, Thrane
–. and Vandkilde (eds.) , –.
Branigan, K. . ‘The nature of warfare in Clements, J. . Medieval Swordsmanship
the southern Aegean during the third (Boulder, Col.).
millennium BC‘, in Laffineur (ed.) , Clements, J. . Renaissance Swordsmanship
–. (Boulder, Col.).
WAR AS SOCIAL PROCESS, PRACTICE AND EVENT IN BRONZE AGE CRETE
Coles, J.M. . ‘European Bronze Age scribes in the conquest of Crete’, in
shields’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society Laffineur (ed.) , –.
, –. Earle, T.K. . How Chiefs Came to Power:
Connolly, P. . Greece and Rome at War The Political Economy in Prehistory
(London). (Stanford).
Coulomb, J. . ‘Le “prince aux lis” de Evans, A.J. –. ‘The palace of Knossos’,
Knossos reconsidéré’, Bulletin de Annual of the British School at Athens , –
Correspondance Hellénique , –. .
Craddock, P. . ‘The composition of the Evans, A.J. . ‘The prehistoric tombs of
copper alloys used by the Greek, Etruscan Knossos’, Archaeologia , –.
and Roman civilisations: . The Greeks Evans, A.J. . The Palace of Minos at
before the Archaic period’, Journal of Knossos, II (London).
Archaeological Science , –. Evans, A. . The Palace of Minos at Knossos,
Crouwel, J.H. . Chariots and Other Forms of IV (London).
Land Transport in Bronze Age Greece Evely, R.D. . Minoan Crafts: Tools and
(Amsterdam). Techniques, an Introduction, I (Gothenburg).
Crouwel, J.H. . ‘Fighting on land and sea Evely, R.D. . ‘The neo-palatial warrior:
in late Mycenaean times’, in Laffineur (ed.) Fact or fiction’, in Evely, R.D., Lemos, I.
, –. S. and Sherratt, S. (eds.), Minotaur and
Cullen, T. (ed.) . Aegean Prehistory: A Centaur: Studies in the Archaeology of Crete
Review (Boston). and Euboea Presented to Mervyn Popham
Davaras, C. . “Ἀρχαιότητες καὶ μνημεῖα (Oxford), –.
ἀνατολικῆς Κρήτης”, Αρχαιολογικόν Faure, P. . ‘Recherches sur le peuplement
Δελτίον, Χρονικά , –. des montagnes de Crète: Sites, cavernes, et
Davaras, C. and Betancourt, P. . The cultes’, Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique
Hagia Photia Cemetery, I: The Tomb , –.
Groups and Architecture (Philadelphia). Faure, P. . ‘Nouvelles recherches sur trois
Dickinson, O. . The Aegean Bronze Age sortes de sanctuaires crétois’, Bulletin de
(Cambridge). Correspondance Hellénique , –.
Dimopoulou, N. . ‘The Neo-Palatial Ferguson, R.B. . ‘Explaining war’, in
cemetery of the Knossian harbour-town at Haas, J. (ed.), The Anthropology of War
Poros: Mortuary behaviour and social (Cambridge), –.
ranking’, in Kilian-Dirlmeier, I. and Egg, Ferguson, R.B. . ‘A paradigm for war and
M. (eds.), Eliten in der Bronzezeit society’, in Raaflaub, K. and Rosenstein,
(Monographien des Romisch- N. (eds.), War and Society in the Ancient
Germanischen Zentralmuseums ; and Medieval Worlds (Cambridge, Mass.),
Mainz), –. –.
Drews, R. . The End of the Bronze Age Ferrill, A. . The Origins of War (London).
(Princeton). Fitton, L. . Minoans (London).
Driessen, J. . ‘The archaeology of Fletcher, R. . ‘Time perspectivism,
Aegean warfare’, in Laffineur (ed.) , Annales, and the potential of archaeology’,
–. in Knapp, A.B. (ed.), Archaeology, Annales
Driessen, J. . ‘The King must die. Some and Ethnohistory (Cambridge), –.
observations on the use of Minoan court Floyd, C. . ‘Observations on a Minoan
compounds’, in Driessen, J., Schoep, I. dagger from Chrysokamino’, in Laffineur
and Laffineur, R. (eds.), Monuments of (ed.) , –.
Minos: Rethinking Minoan Palaces Fontijn, D. . ‘Giving up weapons’, in
(Aegaeum ; Liège), –. Parker Pearson, M. and Thorpe, I.J.N.
Driessen, J. and Macdonald, C.F. . ‘Some (eds.), Warfare, Violence and Slavery in
military aspects of the Aegean in the late Prehistory (Oxford), –.
fifteenth and early fourteenth centuries Fowler, C. . The Archaeology of Personhood
BC’, Annual of the British School at Athens (London).
, –. Fyllingen, H. . ‘Society and the structure
Driessen, J. and Macdonald, C.F. . The of violence: A story told by Middle
Troubled Island (Aegaeum ; Liège). Bronze Age human remains from central
Driessen, J. and Schoep, I. . ‘The stylus Norway’, in Otto, Thrane and Vandkilde
and the sword – the role of warriors and (eds.) , –.
BARRY P.C. MOLLOY
Gates, C. . ‘Why are there no scenes of War and Society in the Ancient and Medieval
warfare in Minoan art?’, in Laffineur (ed.) Worlds (Cambridge, Mass.), –.
, –. Hatzi-Vallianou, D. . “Κεντρική Κρήτη,
Gellner, E. . Nations and Nationalism Νομός Ηρακλείου”, Αρχαιολογικόν
(London). Δελτίον , Χρονικά , –.
Gill, M.A.V., Müller, W. and Pini, I. . Hayden, B.J.. Dierckx, H., Harrison, G.,
Corpus der Minoischen und Mykenischen Moody, J., Postma, G., Rackham, O. and
Siegel, Band II. Iraklion, Archäologisches Stallsmith, A. . Reports on the
Museum. Teil . Die Siegelabdrücke von Vrokastro Area, Eastern Crete. Volume :
Knossos, unter Einbeziehung von Funden aus The Settlement History of the Vrokastro Area
anderen Museen, vols. (Berlin). and Related Studies (University Museum
Grossman, D. . On Killing (New York). Monograph ; Philadelphia).
Grossman, D. . On Combat (New York). Hayden, B., Hahn, M., Harrison, G., Moody,
Guilaine, J. and Zammit, J. . The Origins of J., Rackham, O., Risser, M. and
War: Violence in Prehistory (translated from Stallsmith, A. . Reports on the
the original French by M. Hersey; Vrokastro Area, Eastern Crete. Volume :
Malden, Mass.). The Regional Survey Project, Sites and
Haas, J. . ‘The origins of war and ethnic Pottery (University Museum Monograph
violence’, in Carman, J. and Harding, A. ; Philadelphia).
(eds.), Ancient Warfare (Stroud), –. Haysom, M. . ‘The double-axe: A
Haggis, D.C. . Kavousi I: The Archaeological contextual approach to the understanding
Survey of the Kavousi Region (Philadelphia). of a Cretan symbol of the Neopalatial
Haggis, D. . ‘Stylistic diversity and period’, Oxford Journal of Archaeology
diacritical feasting at Protopalatial Petras: ., –.
A preliminary analysis of the Lakkos Hazzidakis, J. –. ‘An Early Minoan
deposit’, American Journal of Archaeology sacred cave at Arkalochori in Crete’,
, –. Annual of the British School at Athens ,
Hallam, E. and Hockey, H. . Death, –.
Memory and Material Culture (Oxford). Hencken, H. . ‘Herzsprung shields and
Hamilakis, Y. a. ‘Too many chiefs? Greek trade’, American Journal of
Factional competition in Neopalatial Archaeology ., –.
Crete’, in Driessen, J., Schoep, I. and Higgins, R.H. . Minoan and Mycenaean Art
Laffineur, R. (eds.), Monuments of Minos: (London).
Rethinking the Minoan Palaces (Aegaeum Hiller, S. . ‘Pax Minoica versus Minoan
; Liège and Austin), –. thalassocracy. Military aspects of Minoan
Hamilakis, Y. b. ‘What future for the culture’, in Hägg, R. and Marinatos, N.
‘Minoan’ past? Rethinking Minoan (eds.), The Minoan Thalassocracy: Myth
archaeology’, in Hamilakis, Y. (ed.), and Reality (Stockholm), –.
Labyrinth Revisited: Rethinking ‘Minoan’ Hiller, S. . ‘Scenes of warfare and
Archaeology (Oxford), –. combat in the arts of the Aegean Late
Hard, T. . The Routledge Handbook of Bronze Age. Reflections on typology and
Greek Mythology (London). development’, in Laffineur (ed.) ,
Harding, A. . The Mycenaeans and Europe –.
(London). Höckmann, O. . ‘Lanze und Speer im
Harding, A. . European Societies in the spätminoischen und mykenischen
Bronze Age (Cambridge). Griechenland’, Jahrbuch des Römisch-
Harding, A. . ‘What does the context of Germanischen Zentralmuseums , –.
deposition and frequency of Bronze Age Hood, S. . ‘Another warrior-grave at Ayios
weaponry tell us about the function of Ioannis near Knossos’, Annual of the British
weapons?’, in Otto, Thrane and Vandkilde School at Athens , –.
(eds.) , –. Hood, S. . The Minoans: Crete in the Bronze
Harding, A. . Warriors and Weapons in Age (London).
Bronze Age Europe (Budapest). Hood, S. . ‘A Minoan empire in the
Harrison, R.J. . Symbols and Warriors: Aegean in the th and th centuries
Images of the European Bronze Age (Exeter). BC?’, in Hägg, R. and Marinatos, N.
Hassig, R. . ‘The Aztec World’, in (eds.), The Minoan Thalassocracy: Myth
Raaflaub, K. and Rosenstein, N. (eds.), and Reality (Stockholm), –.
WAR AS SOCIAL PROCESS, PRACTICE AND EVENT IN BRONZE AGE CRETE
Hood, S. and de Jong, P. . ‘Late Towards a Non-Anthropocentric Approach
Minoan warrior-graves from Ayios Ioannis (Berlin), ix–xix.
and the New Hospital site at Knossos’, Knappett, C. and Schoep, I. . ‘Continuity
Annual of the British School at Athens , and change in Minoan political power’,
–. Antiquity , –.
Hughes-Brock, H. . Corpus der Minoischen Knusel, C.J. . ‘Activity-related skeletal
und Mykenischen Siegel, Band VI. The change’, in Fiorato, V. (ed.), Blood Red
Ashmolean Museum (Mainz). Roses: The Archaeology of a Mass Grave
Iakovides, S.E. . Late Helladic Citadels on from the Battle of Towton AD (Oxford),
Mainland Greece (Monumenta Graeca et –.
Romana vol. ; Leiden). Knusel, C.J. . ‘The physical evidence of
Jones, W.J. . Peak Sanctuaries and Sacred warfare – subtle stigmata’, in Parker
Caves in Minoan Crete: A Comparison of the Pearson, M. and Thorpe, I.J.N. (eds.),
Artifacts (Jonsered). Warfare, Violence and Slavery in Prehistory
Kaiser, B. . Untersuchungen zum minoischen (Oxford), –.
Relief (Bonn). Koehl, R. . ‘The Chieftain Cup and a
Kanta, A. . The Late Minoan III Period in Minoan rite of passage’, Journal of Hellenic
Crete: A Survey of Sites, Pottery and their Studies , –.
Distribution (Gothenburg). Kopaka, K. . ‘La guerre des femmes en
Keegan, J. . The Face of Battle (London). Egée de l’Age du Bronze. Lire entre “les
Keegan, J. . A History of Warfare lignes de combat”’, in Laffineur (ed.)
(London). , –.
Keeley, L. . War before Civilisation (Oxford). Kopcke, G. . ‘Male iconography on some
Kenna, V.E.G. . Corpus der Minoischen und Late Minoan signets’, in Laffineur (ed.)
Mykenischen Siegel, Band VII. Die , –.
Englischen Museen II. London, British Kristiansen, K. . ‘The emergence of
Museum; Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum; warrior aristocracies in later European
Manchester, University Museum; Liverpool, prehistory and their long-term history’, in
City Museum; Birmingham, City Museum Carman, J. and Harding, A. (eds.),
(Berlin). Ancient Warfare (Stroud), –.
Kilian-Dirlmeier, I. . Die Schwerter in Kristiansen, K. . ‘The tale of the sword –
Griechenland (ausserhalb der Peloponnes), swords and swordfighters in Bronze Age
Bulgarien und Albanien (Prähistorische Europe’, Oxford Journal of Archaeology
Bronzefunde IV.; Munich). ., –.
Kilian-Dirlmeier, I. . ‘Thera and warfare’, Kristiansen, K. and Larsson, T.B. . The
in Sherratt, S. (ed.), The Wall Paintings of Rise of Bronze Age Society (Cambridge).
Thera: Proceedings of the First International Krzyszkowska, O. . Aegean Seals: An
Symposium (Piraeus), –. Introduction (London).
Killen, J.T. . ‘The Knossos Ld() tablets’, Krzyszkowska, O. and Nixon, L. (eds.) .
in Risch, E. and Mühlestein, H. (eds.), Minoan Society (Bristol).
Colloquium Mycenaeum. Actes du sixième Kyriakides, E. . Ritual in the Bronze Age
Colloque international sur les textes mycéniens Aegean: The Minoan Peak Sanctuaries
et égéens tenu à Chaumont sur Neuchâtel (London).
du au septembre (Neuchâtel), Laffineur, R. (ed.) . POLEMOS: Le Contexte
–. guerrier en Egée à l’Age du Bronze. Actes de la
Knapp, A.B. . ‘Archaeology and Annales: ème Rencontre Egéenne Internationale
Time, space, and change’, in Knapp, A.B. (Aegaeum ; Liège and Austin).
(ed.), Archaeology, Annales and Ethnohistory Lau, R.W.K. . ‘Habitus and the practical
(Cambridge), –. logic of practice: An interpretation’,
Knapp, A.B. . ‘Thalassocracies in Bronze Sociology ., –.
Age eastern Mediterranean trade: Making LeBlanc, S.A. . Constant Battles: Why we
and breaking a myth’, World Archaeology Fight (New York).
., –. Legarra Herrero, B. . ‘The Minoan
Knappett, C. and Malafouris, L. . Fallacy: Cultural diversity and mortuary
‘Material and non-human agency: An behaviour on Crete at the beginning of
introduction’, in Knappett, C. and the Bronze Age’, Oxford Journal of
Malafouris, L. (eds.), Material Agency: Archaeology ., –.
BARRY P.C. MOLLOY
Legarra Herrero, B. . ‘The construction, the Middle and Late Bronze Age’
deconstruction and non-construction of (PhD thesis, University College
hierarchies in the funerary record of Dublin).
prepalatial Crete’, in Schoep, I., Tomkins, Molloy, B.P.C. (ed.) a. The Cutting Edge:
P. and Driessen, J. (eds.), Back to the Studies in Ancient and Medieval Combat
Beginning: Reassessing Social and Political (Stroud).
Complexity on Crete during the Early and Molloy, B.P.C. b. ‘What’s the bloody
Middle Bronze Age (Oxford), –. point: Swordsmanship in Bronze Age
Logue, W. . ‘Set in stone: The role of Ireland and Britain’, in Molloy (ed.)
relief-carved stone vessels in Neopalatial a, –.
Minoan elite propaganda’, Annual of the Molloy, B.P.C. . ‘Martial arts and
British School at Athens , –. materiality: A combat archaeology
Loughlin, E. . ‘The calf in Bronze Age perspective on swords of the fifteenth and
Cretan art and society’, in Santillo Frizell, fourteenth centuries BC’, World
B. (ed.), PECUS. Man and Animal in Archaeology ., –.
Antiquity. Proceedings of the Conference at Molloy, B.P.C. . ‘For gods or men? The
the Swedish Institute in Rome, September – use of European Bronze Age shields’,
, (Rome), –. Antiquity , –.
MacGillivray, J.A. . Minotaur: Sir Arthur Molloy, B.P.C. . ‘Swords and
Evans and the Archaeology of the Minoan swordsmanship in the Aegean Bronze
Myth (New York). Age’, American Journal of Archaeology
MacGillivray, A., Driessen, J. and Sackett, H. ., –.
(eds.) . The Palaikastro Kouros: A Molloy, B.P.C. . ‘Use-wear analysis and
Minoan Chryselephantine Statuette and its use-patterns of Bronze Age swords’, in
Aegean Bronze Age Context (British School Moedlinger and Uckelmann (eds.) ,
at Athens Studies ; London). –.
Malafouris, L. . ‘Is it “me” or is it “mine”? Molloy, B.P.C. (forthcoming a) ‘Innovation,
The Mycenaean sword as a body-part’, in imitation and investigation of combat
Robb, J. and Boric, D. (eds.), Past Bodies systems in the Aegean Bronze Age: The
(Oxford), –. role of the Shaft Graves at Mycenae’, in
Marinatos, N. . Minoan Sacrificial Ritual: Papadopoulos, A. and Grigoropoulos, K.
Cult Practice and Symbolism (Stockholm). (eds.), Aspects of Aegean Bronze Age
Marinatos, S. . ‘Ausgrabungen und Funde Warfare. Proceedings of an International
auf Kreta, –’, Archäologischer Round Table, Held at the National and
Anzeiger , –. Kapodistrian University of Athens, th–th
Mathieu, J.R. and Meyer, D.A. . of December (Philadelphia).
‘Reconceptualising experimental Molloy, B.P.C. (forthcoming b) ‘Men of
archaeology: Assessing the process of bronze: Functionality and aesthetics of
experimentation’, in Mathieu, J.R. (ed.), bronze plate armour’, in Papadopoulos,
Experimental Archaeology (Oxford), –. A. (ed.), Current Research in Late Bronze–
Mavriyannaki, C. . ‘La double hache dans Early Iron Age Eastern Mediterranean
le monde hellénique a l’âge du bronze’, (Talanta XLIV–XLV).
Revue Archéologique , –. Molloy, B.P.C. and Grossman, D. . ‘Why
McGeorge, T. . “Έγκλημα στην can’t Johnny kill? The psychology and
ϒστερομινωική III περίοδο”, Αρχαιολογία physiology of interpersonal combat’, in
, –. Molloy (ed.) a, –.
Moedlinger, M. and Uckelmann, M. (eds.) Morgan, L. . The Miniature Wall Paintings
. New Approaches to Studying Weapons from Thera: A Study in Aegean Culture and
of the Bronze Age (Oxford). Iconography (Cambridge).
Molloy, B.P.C. . ‘The adoption of the Morgan, L. . ‘Of animals and men: The
Naue ii sword in the Aegean’, in Briault, symbolic parallel’, in Morris, C. (ed.),
C., Green, J., Kaldelis, A. and Stellatou, Klados: Essays in Honour of J.N. Coldstream
A. (eds.), SOMA : Symposium on (London), –.
Mediterranean Archaeology (Oxford), –. Morris, C. . ‘In pursuit of the white tusked
Molloy, B.P.C. . ‘The role of combat boar: Aspects of hunting in Mycenaean
weaponry in Bronze Age societies: Society’, in Hägg, R. and Nordquist, G.
The cases of the Aegean and Ireland in (eds.), Celebrations of Death and Divinity in
WAR AS SOCIAL PROCESS, PRACTICE AND EVENT IN BRONZE AGE CRETE
the Bronze Age Argolid (Stockholm), – Nowicki, K. . Defensible Sites in Crete
. c.– B.C. (Aegaeum ; Liège and
Morris, C. . ‘The language of gesture in Austin).
Minoan religion’, in Laffineur, R. and Nowicki, K. . Monastiraki Katalimata:
Hägg, R. (eds.), Potnia: Deities and Excavation of a Cretan Refuge Site –
Religion in the Aegean Bronze Age (Philadelphia).
(Aegaeum ; Liège and Austin), –. O’Brien, S. . ‘Beyond the sharp bronze:
Mountjoy, P.A. and Ponting, M.J. . ‘The Warfare and society in Mycenaean
Minoan thalassocracy reconsidered: Greece’ (PhD thesis, University of
Provenance studies of LH IIA/LM IB Liverpool).
pottery from Phylakopi, Ay. Irini and Osgood, R. . Warfare in the Late Bronze
Athens’, Annual of the British School at Age of North Europe (Oxford).
Athens , –. Otterbein, K.F. . How War Began (College
Muhly, J. . ‘Chrysokamino in the history Station).
of early metallurgy’, in Betancourt (ed.) Otto, T., Thrane, H. and Vandkilde, H. (eds.)
, –. . Warfare and Society: Archaeological
Müller, W. and Pini, I. . Corpus der and Social Anthropological Perspectives
Minoischen und Mykenischen Siegel, Band (Aarhus).
II. Iraklion, Archäologisches Museum. Teil Papadopoulos, A. . ‘The iconography of
. Die Siegelabdrücke von Kato Zakros, warfare in the Bronze Age Aegean’ (PhD
unter Einbeziehung von Funden aus anderen dissertation, University of Liverpool).
Museen (Berlin). Papasavvas, G., Muhly, P. and Lebessi, A.
Müller, W. and Pini, I. . Corpus der . ‘Weapons for men and gods: Three
Minoischen und Mykenischen Siegel, Band Knossian swords from the Syme
II. Iraklion, Archäologisches Museum. Teil sanctuary’, in Betancourt, P.P.,
. Die Siegelabdrücke von Aj. Triada und Karageorghis, V., Laffineur, R. and
anderen zentral- und ostkretischen Fundorten, Niemeier, W.D. (eds.), Meletemata:
unter Einbeziehung von Funden aus anderen Studies in Aegean Archaeology Presented
Museen (Berlin). to Malcolm Wiener as He Enters His th
Musgrave, J. . ‘The anatomy of a Minoan Year (Aegaeum ; Liège and Austin),
masterpiece’, in MacGillivray, Driessen –.
and Sackett (eds.) , –. Pare, C.F.E. . ‘Bronze and the Bronze
Niemeier, W.D. . ‘The end of the Minoan Age’, in Pare, C.F.E. (ed.), Metals Make
thalassocracy’, in Hägg, R. and Marinatos, the World Go Round (Oxford), –.
N. (eds.), The Minoan Thalassocracy: Myth Parker Pearson, M. . ‘Warfare, violence
and Reality (Stockholm), –. and slavery in later prehistory: An
Niemeier, W.D. . ‘The Priest-King Fresco introduction’, in Parker Pearson and
from Knossos: A new reconstruction and Thorpe (eds.) , –.
interpretation’, in French, E.B. and Parker Pearson, M. and Thorpe, I.J.N. (eds.)
Wardle, K.A. (eds.), Problems in Greek . Warfare, Violence and Slavery in
Prehistory (Bristol), –. Prehistory (Oxford).
Niemeier, W.D. . ‘When Minos ruled the Parkin, D. . ‘Mementoes as transitional
waves: Knossian power overseas’, in objects in human displacement’, Journal of
Cadogan, G., Hatzaki, E. and Vasilakis, Material Culture ., –.
A. (eds.), Knossos: Palace, City, State Peatfield, A. . ‘The paradox of violence’,
(Athens), –. in Laffineur (ed.) , –.
Nikolaidou, M. and Kokkinidou, D. . Peatfield, A. . ‘Divinity and performance
‘The symbolism of violence in the palatial on Minoan peak sanctuaries’, in
societies of the late Bronze Age Aegean, a Laffineur, R. and Hägg, R. (eds.), Potnia:
gender approach’, in Carman (ed.) a, Deities and Religion in the Aegean Bronze
–. Age (Aegaeum ; Liège and Austin), –.
Northover, P. and Evely, R.D. . ‘Towards Peatfield, A. . ‘Reliving Greek personal
an appreciation of Minoan metallurgical combat: Boxing and pankration’, in
techniques: Information provided by Molloy (ed.) a, –.
copper alloy tools from the Ashmolean Peatfield, A. . ‘Minoan and Mycenaean
Museum, Oxford’, Annual of the British warfare’, in de Souza, P. (ed.), The
School at Athens , –. Ancient World at War (London), –.
BARRY P.C. MOLLOY
Pini, I. . Corpus der Minoischen und (ed.), Archaeological Theory Today
Mykenischen Siegel, Band V. Kleinere (Cambridge), –.
Griechische Sammlungen. Supplementum A. Rethemiotakis, G. . Minoan Clay Figures
Ägina-Korinth (Berlin). and Figurines (Athens).
Pinker, S. . The Blank Slate (London). Robarchek, C. . ‘Motivations and material
Platon, N. and Pini, I. . Corpus der causes: On the explanation of conflict and
Minoischen und Mykenischen Siegel, Band war’, in Haas, J. (ed.), The Anthropology of
II. Iraklion, Archäologisches Museum. Teil War (Cambridge), –.
. Die Siegel der Neupalastzeit (Berlin). Rutkowski, B., . The Cult Places of the
Platon, N., Pini, I. and Salies, G. . Corpus Aegean (London).
der Minoischen und Mykenischen Siegel, Band Sakellarakis, Y. . “Ἀνασκαwὴ Ἰδαίου
II. Iraklion, Archäologisches Museum. Teil Ἄντρου. ”, Πρακτικά της eν Αθήναις
. Die Siegel der Altpalastzeit (Berlin). Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας , –.
Poliakoff, M.B. . Combat Sports in the Sakellarakis, Y. and Sakellaraki, E. .
Ancient World: Competition, Violence, and Archanes: Minoan Crete in a New Light
Culture (New Haven). (Athens).
Popham, M.R., Catling, H.W. and Catling, E. Sakellarakis, Y. and Sapouna-Sakellaraki, E.
. ‘Sellopoulo Tombs and , two Late . ‘Drama of death in a Minoan
Minoan graves near Knossos’, Annual of the temple’, National Geographic ., –.
British School at Athens , –. Sandars, N.K. . ‘Later Aegean bronze
Poursat, J.C. . ‘Les armes en Egée au swords’, American Journal of Archaeology
Bronze moyen: Quelques remarques’, in , –.
Laffineur (ed.) , –. Sandars, N.K. . The Sea Peoples (London).
Preston, L. . ‘Mortuary practices and the Scarre, C. . The Human Past: World
negotiation of social identities at LM II Prehistory and the Development of Human
Knossos’, Annual of the British School at Societies (London).
Athens , –. Scarre, C. and Fagan, B. . Ancient
Preston, L. a. ‘A mortuary perspective on Civilizations (New York).
Late Minoan Crete’, American Journal of Schoep, I. . ‘The state of the Minoan
Archaeology , –. palaces or the Minoan palace-state’, in
Preston, L. b. ‘Final Palatial Knossos: A Driessen, J., Schoep, I. and Laffineur, R.
mortuary perspective on political (eds.), Monuments of Minos: Rethinking
dynamics’, in Cadogan, G., Hatzaki, E. Minoan Palaces (Aegaeum ; Liège and
and Vasilakis, A. (eds.), Knossos: Palace, Austin), –.
City, State (Athens), –. Schoep, I. . ‘Looking beyond the First
Preston, L. . ‘Late Minoan II to IIIB Palaces: Elites and the agency of power in
Crete’, in Shelmerdine (ed.) , –. EM III – MM II Crete’, American Journal
Preziosi, D. and Hitchcock, L.A. . Aegean of Archaeology , –.
Art and Architecture (Oxford). Schoep, I. and Knappett, C. . ‘Dual
Raaflaub, K. . ‘War and society in Archaic emergence: Evolving heterarchy,
and Classical Greece’, in Raaflaub, K. and exploding hierarchy’, in Barrett, J.C. and
Rosenstein, N. (eds.), War and Society in Halstead, P. (eds.), The Emergence of
the Ancient and Medieval Worlds Civilisation Revisited (Oxford), –.
(Cambridge, Mass.), –. Schoep, I. and Tomkins, P. . ‘Back to the
Rehak, P. and Younger, J.G. . beginning for the Early and Middle Bronze
‘Neopalatial, Final Palatial and Age on Crete’, in Schoep, I., Tomkins, P.
Postpalatial Crete’, in Cullen, T. (ed.), and Driessen, J. (eds.), Back to the
Aegean Prehistory: A Review (Boston), – Beginning. Reassessing Social and Political
. Complexity on Crete during the Early and
Renfrew, A.C. . The Emergence of Middle Bronze Age (Oxford), –.
Civilisation (London). Seager, R. . ‘Excavations on the island of
Renfrew, A.C. . ‘The archaeology of Mochlos, Crete, in ’, American
religion’, in Zubrow, E. and Renfrew, C., Journal of Archaeology ., –.
The Ancient Mind (Cambridge), –. Shapland, A. . ‘Wild nature? Human–
Renfrew, C. . ‘Symbol before concept: animal relations on Neopalatial Crete’,
Material engagement and the early Cambridge Archaeological Journal .,
development of society’, in Hodder, I. –.
WAR AS SOCIAL PROCESS, PRACTICE AND EVENT IN BRONZE AGE CRETE
Shapland, A. . ‘The naturalistic spirit? Ventris, M. and Chadwick, J. . Documents
Human–animal relations in Bronze Age in Mycenaean Greek (Cambridge).
Crete’ (summary of Mycenaean Seminar, Verdelis, N.M. . ‘The metal finds’, in
October ), Bulletin of the Institute Aström, P., The Cuirass Tomb and Other
of Classical Studies ., –. Finds at Dendra (Gothenburg), –.
Shaw, M. . ‘The “Priest-King” fresco from Watrous, L. . Lasithi: A History of
Knossos: Man, woman, priest, king or Settlement on a Highland Plain in Crete
someone else?’, in Chapin, A.P. (ed.), (Hesperia Supplement ; Princeton).
Charis: Essays in Honor of Sara Watrous, L. . The Cave Sanctuary of Zeus at
A. Immerwahr (Hesperia Supplement ; Psychro. A Study of Extra-urban Sanctuaries
Princeton), –. in Minoan and Early Iron-Age Crete
Shelmerdine, C. (ed.) . The Cambridge (Aegaeum ; Liège and Austin).
Companion to the Aegean Bronze Age Watrous, L., Hatzi-Vallianou, D., Blitzer, H.
(Cambridge). and Bennet, J. . The Plain of Phaistos:
Shephard, B. . A War of Nerves: Soldiers Cycles of Social Complexity in the Mesara
and Psychiatrists – (London). Region of Crete (Monumenta
Smith, S.K. . ‘Skeletal evidence for Archaeologica ; Los Angeles).
militarism in Mycenaean Athens’, in Webster, D. . ‘Ancient Maya warfare’, in
Schepartz, L.A., Fox, S.C. and Bourbou, Raaflaub, K. and Rosenstein, N. (eds.),
C. (eds.), New Directions in the Skeletal War and Society in the Ancient and
Biology of Greece (Hesperia Supplement Medieval Worlds (Cambridge, Mass.), –
; Princeton), –. .
Snodgrass, A. . Arms and Armor of the Webster, D. . ‘The not-so peaceful
Greeks (paperback edition; Baltimore). civilisation: A review of Maya war’,
Sofaer, J. . The Body as Material Culture Journal of World Prehistory ., –.
(Cambridge). Wedde, M. . ‘Pictorial architecture: For a
Starr, C.G. . ‘Minoan flower lovers’, in theory-based analysis of imagery’, in
Hägg, R. and Marinatos, N. (eds.), The Laffineur, R. and Crowley, J.L. (eds.),
Minoan Thalassocracy: Myth and Reality EIKON. Aegean Bronze Age Iconography:
(Stockholm), –. Shaping a Methodology. Proceedings of the
Stirland, A.J. . ‘Asymmetry and activity- th International Aegean Conference/e
related change in the male humerus’, Rencontre égéenne internationale, University
International Journal of Osteoarchaeology , of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia, – April
–. (Aegaeum ; Liège), –.
Taracha, P. . ‘Warriors of the Mycenaean Wedde, M. . Towards a Hermeneutics of
“age of plate”’, in Molloy (ed.) a, Aegean Bronze Age Ship Imagery
–. (Mannheim).
Thorpe, I.J.N., . ‘Anthropology, Wees, H. van . Greek Warfare: Myths and
archaeology and the origin of warfare’, Realities (London).
World Archaeology ., –. Weingarten, J. . Review of
Thorpe, I.J.N. . ‘The origins of warfare O. Krzyszkowska, Aegean Seals: An
and violence’, in Parker Pearson and Introduction, London , Studi Micenei
Thorpe (eds.) , –. ed Egeo-Anatolici , –.
Treherne, P. . ‘The warrior’s beauty: The Whitelaw, T. a. ‘Alternative pathways to
masculine body and self-identity in complexity in the southern Aegean’, in
Bronze-Age Europe’, Journal of European Barrett, J. and Halstead, P. (eds.), The
Archaeology , –. Emergence of Civilisation Revisited
Turney-High, H.H. . Primitive War (Oxford), –.
(Columbia). Whitelaw, T. b. ‘Estimating the
Uckelmann, M. (forthcoming) Die Schilde der population of Neopalatial Knossos’, in
Bronzezeit in Nord- West- und Zentraleuropa Cadogan, G., Hatzaki, E. and Vasilakis,
(Prähistorische Bronzefunde III., A. (eds.), Knossos: Palace, City, State
Stuttgart). (Athens), –.
Vandkilde, H. . ‘Archaeology and war: Whitelaw, T. . ‘The urbanisation of
Presentations of warriors and peasants in prehistoric Crete: Settlement perspectives
archaeological interpretations’, in Otto, on Minoan state formation’, in Schoep, I.,
Thrane and Vandkilde (eds.) , –. Tomkins, P. and Driessen, J. (eds.), Back
BARRY P.C. MOLLOY
to the Beginning. Reassessing Social and Williams, H. . ‘Keeping the dead at arm’s
Political Complexity on Crete during the length: Memory, weaponry and early
Early and Middle Bronze Age (Oxford), medieval mortuary technologies’, Journal
–. of Social Archaeology ., –.
Whitley, J. . ‘Objects with attitude: Wright, J. . ‘The emergence of leadership
Biographical facts and fallacies in the and the origins of civilisation in the
study of Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Aegean’, in Barrett, J.C. and Halstead, P.
Age warrior graves’, Cambridge (eds.), The Emergence of Civilisation
Archaeological Journal ., –. Revisited (Oxford), –.
Whitley, J. –. ‘Archaeology in Greece Wright, J. . ‘Early Mycenaean Greece’, in
–’, Archaeological Reports , –. Shelmerdine, C. (ed.), The Cambridge
Wiener, M. . ‘The isles of Crete? The Companion to the Aegean Bronze Age
Minoan thalassocracy revisited’, in Hardy, (Cambridge), –.
D.A., Doumas, C.G., Sakellarakis, J.A. Younger, J. . ‘Representations of
and Warren, P.M. (eds.), Thera and the Minoan-Mycenaean Jewelry’, in
Aegean World . (London), –. Laffineur, R. and Crowley, J.L. (eds.),
Wiener, M. . ‘Present arms/oars/ingots: EIKON. Aegean Bronze Age Iconography:
Searching for evidence of military or Shaping a Methodology. Proceedings of the
maritime administration in LM IB’, in th International Aegean Conference / e
Laffineur (ed.) , –. Rencontre égéenne internationale,
Wileman, J. . War and Rumours of War: University of Tasmania, Hobart,
The Evidential Base for the Recognition of Australia, – April (Aegaeum ;
Warfare in Prehistory (Oxford). Liège), –.
Πολεμοχαρείς Μινωίτες; Ο πόλεμος ως κοινωνική διαδικασία, πρακτική και γεγονός
στην Κρήτη της Εποχής του Χαλκού
Μαζί με την πολιτική, την οικονομία και τη θρησκεία, ο πόλεμος είναι ένας από τους
θεμελιώδεις παράγοντες που μπορούν να μορwοποιήσουν την κοινωνία και τις ομαδικές
ταυτότητες. Στον προϊστορικό κόσμο, οι πηγές για τη μελέτη του πολέμου είναι
ανομοιογενείς και η ερμηνεία τους μπορεί να είναι αντιwατική και προβληματική. Tο
παρόν άρθρο επιχειρεί για πρώτη wορά μία συστηματική ανάλυση των δεδομένων για την
περίπτωση της Κρήτης στην Εποχή του Χαλκού. Αυτή η περίπτωση δίνει την ευκαιρία να
αναπτύξουμε κριτικά πιο αποτελεσματικούς τρόπους στην εwαρμογή των ευρέως
αποδεκτών παραμέτρων για την εξέταση του πολέμου στην αρχαιότητα βάσει των
αρχαιολογικών δεδομένων. Ένας άλλος στόχος στην προσπάθεια να διερευνήσουμε τους
διαχρονικούς ρόλους του πολέμου σε αυτές τις κοινωνίες είναι να προχωρήσουμε σε μία
πιο ολοκληρωμένη και συστηματική κοινωνική ανάλυση. Το παρόν άρθρο εξετάζει την
ύπαρξη και τον χαρακτήρα μίας πολεμικής ταυτότητας στην Κρήτη της Εποχής του
Χαλκού και υποστηρίζει πως αυτή αποτελούσε ένα εμwανές στοιχείο της ανδρικής
ταυτότητας. Το άρθρο επίσης συζητά τους διαwορετικούς βαθμούς και χρονικούς
ορίζοντες διά μέσου των οποίων ο πόλεμος μπορεί να επηρεάσει μία κοινωνία και
προτείνει ένα ευρύ πλαίσιο για την κατανόηση του πολέμου ως κοινωνική διαδικασία,
πρακτική και γεγονός.
