See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275770075

The Archaeology of Aegean Warfare, Polemos,

1999

Conference Paper · January 1999

CITATION READS

1 53

1 author:

Jan Driessen
Université Catholique de Louvain
92 PUBLICATIONS 294 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

excavation View project

Minoan social structure View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jan Driessen on 03 May 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

AEGAEUM 19
Annales d'archéologie égéenne de l'Université de Liège et UT-PASP

POLEMOS
LE CONTEXTE GUERRIER EN ÉGÉE
À L'AGE DU BRONZE

Actes de la 7e Rencontre égéenne internationale

Université de Liège, 14 -17 avril 1998

édités par Robert LAFFINEUR

Université de Liège
Histoire de l'art et archéologie de la Grèce antique
University of Texas at Austin
Pro gram in Aegean Scripts and Prehistory

1999
 THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF AEGEAN WARFARE*

Since 1 myself have had only limited experience with the military establishment,
spending most of my service doing guided tours in the War Museum at Brussels, sorne of the
other participants to this meeting would perhaps, because of their experience in actual
warfare, have been better suited to give this general introduction. The theme of this
conference, polemos, war and warfare in the Aegean Bronze Age, immediately evokes a
human condition called 'violence.' We have come a long way from the discussion in the
seventies on whether or not humans have a genetically programmed capability of violence or
drive to kill (the so-called killer instinct), l to the eighties when sorne authors argued that
there can be a cultural change towards or away from war with, in the nineties, far more
attention to sociobiological aspects: sorne recent scholars see selected violent behaviour as
maximising inclusive fitness or male violence as a consequence of sexual inadequacy.2
Although intellectuals in different periods and cultures such as Sun Tzu, Machiavelli, Von
Clausewitz, Hobbes and Rousseau have made warfare one of their main themes, the
importance of war in history writing during the previous century (the so-called "histoire
bataille"), the scars inflicted during WW II and its nuclear aftermath with especially MAD
(mutually assured destruction), have largely mortgaged the discussion of military matters and
made it an anathema in post-WW II archaeology.3 Warfare regained a certain popularity in
anthropology from the sixties onwards where it has usually been cited at the end of a long list
of factors that contributed to the development of chiefdoms and states. 4 War, indeed, for
sorne scholars, is considered as having had the greatest impact on the evolution of pre-state

* This introduction was written while 1 was a visiting scholar at PASP at the University of Texas in March
1998.1 want to thank T .G. Palaima and his colleagues and students, especially P. Van Alfen, for putting up
with me and providing excellent facilities . This paper borrows extensively (without al ways referring to)
from the different contributions in]. CARMAN (ed.), Material Harm. Archaeological Studies of War and
Violence (1997) especially from the papers by]. CARMAN, "Approaches to Violence," 1-23; ]. WAKELY,
"Identification and Analysis of Violent and Non-violent Head Injuries in Osteo-archaeological Material," 24-
46; ].M. FILER, "Ancient Egypt and Nubia as a Source of Information for Cranial Injuries, " 47-74; L.].
ZIMMERMAN, "The Crow Creek Massacre," 75-94; S.D. BRIDGFORD, "Mightier than the Pen? (an
Edgewise Look at Irish Bronze Age Swords)," 95-115; L. OOSTERBEEK, "War in the Chalcolithic? The
Meaning of Western Mediterranean Chalcolithic Hillforts," 116-132; C. LANGE, "Violence and the Face,"
167-173 and M. NIKOLAIDOU and D. KOKKINIDOU, "The Symbolism of Violence in Late Bronze Age
Palatial Societies of the Aegean: a Gender Approach," 174-197. 1 have also used information from
]. DRIESSEN and C.F. MACDONALD, The Troubled Island. Minoan Crete before and after the Santorini
Eruption, Aegaeum 17 (1997). The main discussion is further based on A. FERRILL, The Origins of War. From
the Stone Age to Alexander the Great (1985); Sir]. HACKETT (ed.), Warjare in the Ancient World (1989) and S.
VENCL, "War and Warfare in Archaeology," Journ. of Anthropological Archaeology 3 (1984) 116-132.
Especially L.H. KEELEY, War Before Civilization (1996) is essential reading for the student of prehistoric
warfare. See also the contributions by K. KOPAKA and O. KRZYSZKOWSKA to this volume.
1 References in FERRILL (supra n. *) 13-15.
2 See also the illuminating book by ]. GILLIGAN, Violence. Our Deadly Epidemie and Ils Causes (1996) who
argues that shame is the main breeding ground of rage.
3 KEELEY (supra n. *) 165.
4 R. CARNEIRO, "Chiefdom-level Warfare as Exemplified in Fiji and the Cauca Valley," in]. HAAS (ed.),
The Anthropology ofWar (1995 5 ) 191: "... war has been the principal agent by which hum an societies, starting
as small and simple autonomous communities, have surmounted petty sovereignties and transformed
themselves, step by step, into vast and complex states;" similarly FERRILL (supra n. *) 13,26-31.
12 Jan DRIESSEN

and complex societies. 5 For other anthropologists, warfare mainly has a ceremonial
significance or helps in shaping political institutions and is often seen as a by-product of early
population pressure. Partly because of this popularity in anthropology and because
excavators realised that competition at different levels - factional, social, inter-state, peer
polity -, offers a handy explanatory tool, warfare and violence are again receiving more
attention in archaeological discourse. 6
Violence or human aggression can be studied at different levels. Although for
prehistory we cannot even try to identify moral violence nor treat ethical aspects or PTSD
(Post-traumatic Stress Disorder),7 we may attempt to identify the circumstances that lead to
violence, its causes 8 and results; we can also concentrate on its purely military aspects or we
may try to detect the different levels of violence: interpersonal (domestie, wife-beating,
criminal), intra-societal (civil war) and inter-societal (war). The last level, war, has received
most attention, both in anthropology and archaeology. Although Carneiro sees war as a
subset of human aggression involving the use of organised force between politieally
independent groups, most military historians agree on the definition of war as organised
warfare without immediate reference to societal organisation. Organised warfare implies
formation, working together under a leader and using formations su ch as the column and
the line, essential for attack, and the square and the circle, essential for defence.
Iconographie sources, such as, e.g., the Fresco of the Captain of the Blacks from Knossos or
the Miniature Fresco of Akrotiri, illustrate that Late Bronze Aegeans at least appreciated the
military advantages of the column.
Emily Vermeule once remarked: "Potsherds, tumbled walls, marks of fire can never
make up for our ignorance of human behavior, jealousies, treacheries, wars, and natural
catastrophes."9 Sorne authors insist that war and violence are not directly reflected by
material culture because they de al with political, social and general ideoloSical links between
men, features whieh at best leave few traces in the archaeological record. 1 Others, however,
have argued that, if violent acts are directed by human beings against other human beings
with the intention of doing those others harm, then violel1ce is a material event with material
consequences and should therefore be traceable in the archaeological record. Keeley argues

5 See e.g. M. FRIED, "Warfare, Military Organization, and the Evolution of Society," Anthropologica 3 (1961);
D. WEBSTER, "Warfare and the Evolution of the State: A Reconsideration, " American Antiquity 40 (1975)
464-470; R. COHEN, "Warfare and State Formation: Wars make States and States make Wars," in R.B.
FERGUSON (ed.), Waifare, Culture and Environment. Studies in Anthropology (1984) 329-358;]. HAAS (ed.),
The Anthropology of War (1995 5 ) especially the paper by R.B. FERGUSON, "Explaining War," Ibid., 26-55.
6 See e.g. the recent R. OSGOOD, Waifare in the Late Bronze Age of Europe (BAR I.S. 694, 1998).
7 See e.g. KEELEY (supra n. *) 146 and the surprising similarities between combat trauma in the I1iad and
Vietnam O. SHAY, Achilles in Vietnam. Combat Trauma and The UndoingofCharacter [1995]).
8 Authors agree to disagree about the causes of warfare: eonflict over material resources (land, food, trade
goods) mating opportunities, kin welfare, revenge, competition strategy, material interest and self
definition are especially common as creating conflict between bands, villages and tribes. Several authors
agree that warfare is associated with an increased hierarchy that dominated the social process and that
population increase generates endogenous eonflict with emerging elites trying to consolidate their status
through armed repression and ideologieal means. CARNEIRO (1990) 190 argues that "No one ever
willingly gives up sovereignty" and local autonomy had been stubbornly clung ta for a long period of time.
Only through the application of force was this autonomy overthrown. There seems also general agreement
that war is typically associated with the development of the early state but not as common in mature,
urbane states. From the chiefdom stage onwards, the interests of the leaders differ greatly from the
interests of the followers. The leaders want to increase status and power and in states leaders usually have
the power to compel participation by draft and taxation. Status competition and ethnocentrism (or
ingroup preference) have often been cited as important ingredients of group conflict; both, however, occur
in warlike and peaceful groups. If, however, they are regarded together with group stereotyping and
perceived inequality in resources, they are very likely eausing trouble. The topie is so complex that there
can be no conclusive answer; see e.g. the appendix in KEELEY (supra n . *) 185-202 where societal systems
(states, chiefdoms, tribes and bands) and subsistence systems aré compared for their frequency of wars and
their motives and causes. KEELEY (supra n . *) 127-141 sees aggressive neighbours, frontier tensions and
especially ha rd times as most often leading to conflict.
9 E. VERMEULE in A Land Called Crete. A Symposium in Memory of H. Boyd Hawes (1968) 83.
10 See CARMAN (supra n. *) 2-10 for a discussion.
 THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF AEGEAN WARFARE 13

(and he is surely correct) that "before civilization and the written records it produces,
archaeologists' circumstantial evidence is aIl that we can ever know of the deeper human
past."ll Since features such as the objectives of or preparations for warfare, the organisation
of war parties, pre-war rituals, war tac tics and aftermath remain mu ch more difficult if not
impossible to deduce from our material sources (except perhaps iconographicaIly), we are
left to recognise archaeological evidence for the identification of violence against people and
objects, which 1 see as perhaps one of the main intentions of this conference. Admittedly,
archaeology lacks the rich descriptive detail of individual behaviour and specific events
provided by written sources and ethnography, but we are usuaIly fortunate enough to study
patterns of cultural change over long periods of time. To identify the archaeological
correlates of warfare in the Aegean, 1 see several approaches and, browsing through the
program of this meeting, most papers of this conference seem indeed to have opted for one
or more lines of approach. A caveat at the beginning is necessary, however. AlI sources may
be tarnished by the symbolic use of violence, meaning that, even if warfare or violence is
illustrated, the message intended may have been entirely different from the one we prefer to
recognise.

1. We can try to identify evidence of violence visible on human remains

Forensic archaeology has made great progress in distinguishing human-made trauma

from taphonomic changes or disease processes. Besides actual arrow-heads or blade
fragments remaining in skeletons, left fronto-parietal pond-like depressions surrounded by
radiating fissures on skuIls mostly denote injuries inflicted in a hand-to-hand combat when
facing a right-handed adversary. Likewise, injuries to the left forearm are often incurred
during combat since the left arm is mostly raised to ward off an as sault to the face or the
skuIl. Sorne mutilations such as eye-gouging or tongue removal are often part of para-mortem
combat treatment. Women are usuaIly underrepresented in such skeletal material although
this often applies to the age categories 15 to 30, i.e. of child-bearing age, who are prone to
become part of the booty. It can also be shown that bodily harm in females is often on the
back of the skuIl or the spine, suggesting that they were cut down while fleeing. Aegean
examples are not numerous but Angel and Mylonas assumed that the injuries on the bones of
sorne of the men in the Shaftgraves of Mycenae were results of combat and the Middle
Bronze Age Lerna material is also instructive. To my knowledge, Crete does not yet present
much evidence except for the cases published by Tina McGeorge;12 Tomb 67 at Armenoi,
one of the most imposing and richest chamber tombs dating to LM IIIA:2-B:1, comprised 10
people, possibly representing two generations of a rather wealthy family. Amongst these was
found a young man, deceased at 25 (67E). He showed traces of cut marks caused by forceful
blows on the arm, thigh and shin bones. His right hand had been completely severed at the
middle of the forearm. Another man in this cemetery (139A) was killed by an arrow and the
arrow-head was stilliodged in his sixth thoracic vertebra where it must have severed his spinal
chord. We should perhaps also watch out for gnawing marks since these can also suggest
warfare since it implies that human remains were scavenged before burial, something rather
common in warlike conditions.

Il KEELEY (supra n. *) 183.

12 1 am grateful to Dr. P.J.P. McGeorge for this and other information. For references, see M.J. ALDEN,
Bronze Age Population Fluctuations in the Argolidfrom the Evidence of Mycenaean Tombs (1981) and especially
P .J.P. McGEORGE, "A Comparative Study of the Mean Life Expectation of the Minoans," JTenpaypéva fOV
ET' LizeOvovç" KP1)fO).,OYucov Evve8p{ov (1990) 419-428; EAD., "A Crime in the Late Minoan III Period,"
APXalO).,oy{a 11 (1984) 12-16 (in Greek, with colour photographs of the blood on the skull); see also J.L.
ANGEL, The PeoPle of Lerna (1971) 91-92 where injuries were noted on 10% of ail skeletal material and
another 10% of the adults had evidence of thrusting wounds ; P. HALSTEAD , "The Bronze Age
Demography of Crete and Greece: A Note," BSA 72 (1977) 108, n. 13; see also J.L. ANGEL's contribution
to G.E. MYLONAS, Oraqmcoç Kvdoç B' fllJV Mv1(1)vWV (1973) 387 where two head-wounds and three spinal
fractures are noted among the 22 male skeletons and R. ARNOTI's contribution to this volume as weil as
R. ARNOTI, "Surgical Practice in the Prehistoric Aegean," Medizinhistorischesjournal32 (1997) 249-278.
14 Jan DRIESSEN

Actual war scenes (with skeletons left on the spot of action), as at Tell Chuera (N.
Syria), Hasanlu or Mohenjo-Daro, in which a high number of human skeletons were
associated with weapons, or immediate results of such encounters such as mass graves,
illustrated by the 500+ skeletons of the Crow Creek Massacre, are to my knowledge absent in
the Aegean. Seager may have found sorne evidence on the island of Mochlos where he came
across masses of charred human bones in the LM IB hou ses and in an Early Helladic weIl at
Mylos Cheliotou close to Korinth many skeletons were found, perhaps dumped after a sack. 13
The only case where we really seem to have victims immediately associated with warfare is
LM I1IC Koukounaries on Paros with several adults and animaIs found in the destruction
layer and children who perished in the sack of the small citadel while hi ding in the
basements. 14 The taphonomy of most of the other cases is disputed and most skeletons
found in occupation contexts seem to represent victims of earthquake destructions, whether
on Crete, the islands or the Mainland. 15

2. We can try to identify evidence of violence as shown by material remains, by a study of

military hardware

a. by studying the weapons. 16

Up to the invention of gun powder, the beginning of the Neolithic saw the invention of
powerful weapons which would remain in use for the next 10.000 years to come: the bow, the
sling, the dagger, the spear, the mace and the axe. Rather than the invention of metal, it was
the invention of the wheel which Ied to the development of the most important new weapon
in the Near East: the chariot, the "Stealth Bomber" of the Bronze Age as Palaima calls it,1 7
although we may argue whether its military role exceeded its symboIicai significance. There is
sorne discussion as to the date and the modalities of the first use of chariots and horses in the
Aegean, although none of the evidence seems to be earlier than LM IjLH 1. 18 Although their
interpretation does not carry general agreement, Crouwel and Littauer argue for a taxi
function for the Aegean chariot. Any discussion of the military rather th an the symbolical
role of the chariot should aiso involve studies on logis tics, the conditio sine qua non for
conquest of larger territories and the movement of -armies. This often involved the

13 l thank J. Rutter for this reference (see R. HOPE SIMPSON and O.T.P.K. DICKINSON, A Gazetteer of
Aegean Civilisation in the Bronze Age l [SIMA 52, 1979] 62).
14 D. SCHlLARDI, "Paros and the Cyclades after the Fall of the Mycenaean Palaces," inJ.P. OLIVIER (ed.),
Mykenaïka. Actes du !Xe Colloque international sur les textes mycéniens et égéens (1992) 631, Pl. 3, Fig. 4.
15 For a full discussion, see J. DRIESSEN, E. T. 's - Human Remains in Non-Funerary Contexts in the Bronze Age
Aegean (forthcoming). For example, separate skulls were found in the destruction levels of EM II Myrtos-
Fournou Korifi, in the LM IB destruction levels at Mochlos and Zakros and in the abandonment level at
LM IB Kythera; earthquake victims are probably represented by skeletons found in EBA contexts such as
Megaron 317 at Poliochni and in Thermi III, or at LM lA Trianda on Rhodes, Therasia and Kea. Other
examples include, e.g., at Mycenae, a skeleton in Tsountas House, one in the Panagia House, four in the
Plakes House and one in a well (all LH IlIB:2 contexts); there is one skeleton from a LH IIlB:1 context at
Thebes (Pelopides street) and three from a rubbish tip at the Menelaion; there is a fine example of an
earthquake victim at LM IIIB Malia (Quartier Nu).
16 R.E. OAKESHOTT, The Archaeology of Weapons: Arms and Armour from Prehistory to the Age of Chivalry (1960);
A. SNODGRASS, Early Greek Armour and Weapons from the Bronze Age to 600 BC (1964); see also I. KILIAN-
DIRLMEIER, Die Schwerter in Griechenland (aujJerhalb der Peloponnes), Bulgarien und Albanien (PBf IV: 12)
(1993); C. REINHOLDT, "Entwicklung und Typologie mittelbronzezeitlicher Lanzenspitzen mit
Schaftungsschuh in Griechenland," Mitt. der Berliner Gesellschaft für Anthropologie, Ethnologie und Urgeschichte
14 (1993) 43-52; O. HOCKMANN , "Lanze und Speer," in ArchHom l E Kriegswesen 2 (1980); ID., "Lanze
und Speer in spatminoischen und mykenischen Griechenland," jahrb. RGZM 27 (1980) 17 ff; S. HILLER,
"Pax Minoica versus Minoan Thalassocracy. Military Aspects of Minoan Culture," in R. HAGG and N.
MARINATOS (eds), The Minoan Thalassocracy. My th and Reality (1984) 27-30.
17 T.G. PALAIMA (pers. comm.) and FERRILL (supra n. *) 40.
18 For the horse, see especially R.H . MEADOW and H.P. UERPMANN (eds), Equids in the Ancient Worl~, I-Il,
Wiesbaden (1986); for the chariot, see J. CROUWEL, Chariots and Other means of Land Transport m the
Bronze Age Aegean (1981), with iconographical and osteological evidence. The earliest evidence for horses
seems to be MBA for the Mainland and LBA VII for Crete.
 THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF AEGEAN WARFARE 15

construction of roads, bridges, stations etc.; hence, the road system in East Crete and most
Mycenaean road systems are often interpreted against such a background. 19 We have to ask
whether the roads or terrain were suitable for the deployment of the chariot; how many
horses were needed, where are the stables, etc.
Among the military hardware, we need to distinguish between offensive and defensive
weapons and l may insist that neither category must necessarily have been used as such. Both
can have had different functions and meanings: except for, or besides, being tools of killing
or defence, they could have been objects of value through their intrinsic artistic quality, they
could have been symbols of power, prestige and authority, of implied or actual threat, of
sacrifice, of gift or reward, as a pledge of loyalty, or as an embodiment of the idea of conflict
or as an actual conveyor of metal. Clues are often given through the context in which the
weapons are found and the mode and context of deposition of weapons can provide insight
into the economic, social and ideological structures of society.2o Several of the weapons from
the Aegean such as the daggers with 'black bronze' from the Shaftgraves and Santorini, the
acrobat sword from Malia and the leopard mace from the same site, the Skopelos sword and
several from Knossos, Dendra and Mycenae have finely decorated blades and/ or have
pommels in ivory or gold. These and other weapons (such as chariots and maces)21 are
dearly prestige or status weapons, powerful regalia22 and at the same time imply the use of
force in the establishment of relations and a warlike mentality but do not actually represent
warfare as such.
The weapons through their technological as~ects can inform us about the nature of
warfare and changes in the methods of conflict. 3 They make it possible to distinguish
between long-, intermediate- and short-range firepower or between shock (direct, hand-to-
hand, body-to-body contact) and missile weapons. For instance, swords used for cutting and
slashing suggest foot soldiers; the combination of a spear, for initial encounter, a sword for
doser contact and a dagger as a weapon of last resort together with a shield seem to have
been the standard equipment. When spears become more important, we may assume that
group combat became the practice. 24 Arrows are not preserved but sorne tombs and deposits
have yielded arrow heads and a very large deposit of thousands of arrow heads cornes from
the Arsenal at Knossos. Perhaps somewhat surprisin~ is the scarcity in the archaeological
record of defensive weapons such as shields, helmets 5 and armour. 26 This seems to imply
that burial rites did usually not involve such types of equipment;27 in other cases, as for

19 See S. CHRYSOULAKI's contribution to this volume (with references) and e.g. J. LAVERY, "Sorne 'New'
Mycenaean Roads at Mycenae," BICS 40 (1995) 264-267.
20 Hence, Kilian-Dirlmeier's suggestion that the Arkalochori-cave represents a ri tuai deposit (KILIAN-
DIRLMEIER [supra n. 16] 12-14). See also e.g. I. KILI~N-DIRLMEIER, "Remarks on the Non-Military
Functions of Swords in the Mycenaean Argolid," in R. HAGG and G.C. NORDQUIST (eds), Celebrations of
Death and Divinity in the Bronze Age Argolid (1990) 157-166.
21 As, e.g. the maces and ceremonial hammers, for which see C. REINHOLDT, "Ein minoischer Steinhammer
in Aegina," Archaeologisches Korrespondenzblatt 22 (1992) 57-62 with examples from the Knossos palace (2),
the Zakro palace (3), Haghia Triada (1), Palaikastro (1), Tylissos (2) and Koumasa.
22 An impression which may be corroborated by the fact that in the Shaftgraves such weapons are limited to
the burials of mature men (+ 28) and that weapons are usually attested in graves which are also rich in
other finds (cf. KILIAN·DIRLMEIER [supra n. 16]147).
23 See e.g. R. DREWS, The End of the Bronze Age. Changes in Warfare and the Catastrophe ca 1200 BC (1993).
24 D. EVELY, "The Neo·Palatial Minoan Warrior: Fact or Fiction?," in D. EVELY, I.S. LEMOS and S.
SHERATT (eds), Minotaur and Centaur. Studies in the A rchaeology of Crete and Euboea (1996) 59-69; see also S.
MANNING, "The Military Function in Late Minoan l Crete," World Archaeology 18: 2 (1986) 284-288.
25 For helmets, see A.P. VARVARIGOU, To o8ov-rorppalcrov MVla/vaÏl(ov Kpavoç (1981); E. BANOU, "To
oDov't6cppalC'to Kpavoç an6 'tO YM III NelCpOtacpdo O''touç Ap~evouç Pe8Ûllvl1Ç, " nercpaYJ1iva -rov LT' .1ze8vovç"
Kp1)-roÀ.oYlIwv Lvve8p{oy (1990) 39-47; M. WIENER, "Crete and the Cyclades in LM 1: The Tale of the
Conical Cups," in R. HAGG and N. MARINATOS (eds), The Minoan Thalassocracy. My th and Reality (1984)
23.
26 The best example remains the Dendra panoply (cf. P. ÀSTROM et al., The Cuirass Tomb and Other Finds at
Dendra [SIMA 4] 1977) but similar pieces were found at Thebes (S. SYMEONOGLOU, The TopograPhy of
Thebesfrom the Bronze Age to Modern Times, 195,231 [referencesJ).
27 Already KILIAN-DIRLMEIER (supra n. 16) 139.
16 Jan DRIESSEN

instance the chariot, we may assume that this kind of equipment was mostly issued by the
central authority and did not form part of the personal equipment of the warrior. We must,
however, ask to what degree our military hardware reflects the everyday military equipment
rather than objects mainly exchanged in terms of communication and message transmission,
in the marking of male status and in interjintra-group exchange. 28

b. A second aspect of military hardware is the information provided by a study of the impact on
the monuments, either through construction or destruction

b.l. Fortifications have been called the most "dramatic impact of war on man's
culture"29 and indeed the construction of large monuments implies central co-ordination. 30
The construction of fortified sites is often assumed to reflect a threat of warfare but such
fortified centres were multifunctional: they were also often the embodiment or material
expression of the central places of the terri tories at the same time as being monuments
glorifying an emerging leading power. 31 Monumental buildings as such are almost always
constructed in critical periods of political consolidation. Besides their ideological purpose to
consolidate the ruling caste, the unity of the territory and the emerging state, they could,
however, also have a practical purpose and offer protection in times of conflict. Although the
evidence for Crete is not straightforward,32 defence formed a prime concern for Mycenaean
citadels, as is clearly suggested by the technical knowledge involved in meeting the threat of
siege warfare through sophisticated gate systems, galleries, postern gates, secret passages to
wells and defence details (attack with shield-free arm towards walls, etc.).33 As far 1 know, we
have no Bronze Age Aegean evidence for actual sieges (siege ramps ?) as suggested by the
Mycenae Silver rhyton, except for fire destructions. The absence of fortifications does not
mean that sites did not have defensive qualities. Hence, the deliberate selection of defensible
site locations may also imply conditions of unrest 34 or sites can be fortified without having
obvious fortifications as has been suggested for Çatal Hüyük for instance. 35

b.2. One of the most common situations in archaeology is destruction, or, as

Thompson summarised it in 1981: "The archaeologist.. . likes nothing better than a first-rate
disaster: a sack, a fire, a volcanic eruption, an earthquake. Any such happening may provide
him with a sealed capsule of valuable evidence."36 Unfortunately, most attention in
archaeology has traditionally been given to the way that the destruction freeze-frame reflects
the period preceding the destruction itself rather than the circumstances, causes and
modalities of the actual destruction. Abandonment processes have been given serious
attention in archaeological discourse3 7 but destruction itself is rarely examined. As mu ch as

28 G. PHILIP, Metal Weapons of the Early and Middle Bronze Ages in Syria-Palestine (BAR Int. Series 526, 1989)
155. 1 return to this issue in the contribution by 1. Schoep and myself to this volume.
29 FERRIL (supra n. *) 28_See ArchHom E 1: Schutzwaffen und Wehrbauten (esp. the part by S_ IAKOVIDIS)_
30 See also R. BRADLEY, The Significance of Monuments (1998) for a fresh approach.
31 Compare, for instance, with the papers by S. BUNIMOVITZ and 1. FINKELSTEIN on the social
implications of Middle Bronze Age fortifications in Palestine (Tel Aviv 19 [1992] 221-234, 201-220).
32 J. DRIESSEN, "Observations on the Modification of the Access Systems of Minoan Palaces," Aegean
Archaeology 2 (1995) 67-85, and now N.C. LOADER, Building in Cyclopean Masonry. With Special Reference to
the Mycenaean Fortifications on Mainland Greece (SIMA, P.B. 148),]ONSERED (1998) 126-128.
33 See especially S. IAKOVIDIS, Late Helladic Citadels on Mainland Greece (1983); N. SC~UF(~)POULOS,
Mycenaean Citadels (1971) and now LOADER (supra n. 32) as weil as the contnbutIons of K.
DEMAKOPOULOU and S. IAKOVIDIS in this volume. For Cyprus, see e.g. M. FORTIN, "Recherches sur
l'architecture militaire de l'âge du bronze à Chypre," Classical Views 27: 2 (1983) 206-219. .
34 K. NOWICKI, "Topography of Refuge Settlement in Crete," Jahrb. RGZM 34 (1987) 213-234, and hls
contribution to this volume; B. HAYDEN, "Fortifications of Postpalatial and Early Iron Age Crete," AA
(1988) 1-21.
35 P. WASON, The Archaeology of Rank (1994) 173.
36 H.A. THOMPSON, "Athens faces Adversity," Hesperia 50 (1981) 343-355.
37 C.M. CAMERON, "Structure Abandonment in Villages," in M.B. SCHIFFER (ed.), Archaeological Method
and Theory 3 (1991) 155-194.
 THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF AEGEAN WARFARE 17

the demolition of buildings can be purposeful or accidental,38 the burning of structures of

course can be accidentaI, deliberate or forced. In the first case, causes can include
earthquake, lightning and domestic accidents; in the second, it can be the death, disease or
departure of the occupant. 39 ln the third case, warfare or strife are common causes: buildings
may be burned down especially because of their symbolic value e.g. if they identify a certain
elite, an ethnic group or a religious opponent. When structures are entirely emptied before
their destruction, it cannot be excluded that the occupants themselves set fire to their
dwellings, either because of disease or because of scorched earth tac tics (or as a symbolic act
of closure).40 General fire destructions are most likely caused by warfare but not exclusively.
IdeaIly, we need several pre-and para-destruction indications to reach such a conclusion. Did
people have time to pack and leave, i.e. were they aware of immanent danger; did they pay
more than usual attention to food and water supplies, access restriction and enclosure
construction,41 did they hide valuables, etc., aIl features suggesting that the potential danger
was human. As para-destruction features indicative for human aggression, 1 favour
preferential treatment or selected burning accompanied by abandonment, the presence of
victims and weapons and evidence for plunder and deliberate destruction: valuables found
smashed and scattered throughout the buildings. This too implies that humans were involved
and one may assume that the aggression was especially directed towards symbols of authority,
of a class or an elite. As examples, we can cite the sack of Ugarit,42 where the enemies came
from the sea and fighting may have taken place in the streets, as suggested by the occurrence
of ca. 25 arrow-heads throughout the destruction levels. Troy VIla may be another example
as a fair number of arrow-heads as well as skeletons are said to have been found in the
destruction leve1. 43 "A layer of ashes represents an event, but, by itself, it elucidates neither
the language, nor the home, of the fire-setter."44 Deciding what level of warfare is involved is
another matter: internaI strife - either socially, religiously or politically motivated -, foreign
invasion, pirate attack, etc. are sorne of the possibilities, but it remains singularly difficult to
identify the scale of warfare as such without written sources.
Finally, there is also a more psychological type of warfare that is sometimes
archaeologically detectable. Damnatio memoriae or iconoclasm, as, for instance the gouging
of eyes on stone reliefs or destruction of monuments that are symbolically laden, the
violation of graves (e.g. the Archanes Grave Circle ?) and the desecration of places, or
sacrilege, all these have strong meanings both for the perpetrator and for the victim. Objects
are easier to destroy th an authority figures. To destroy the evidence of a person's existence is
to symbolically wipe out that person. 45

38 J. MOODY and F.E. LUKERMAN, "Proto-History: The Reconstruction of Probable Worids," in N.C.
WILKIE and W.D.E. COULSON (eds), Contributions to Aegean ATchaeology. Studies in honor ofW.A. McDonald
(1985) 63.
39 CAMERON (supra n. 37) 167.
40 As, apparently, sometimes happened in Neolithic buildings (P. Tomkins, pers. comm.).
41 J. DRIESSEN, "Crisis Architecture? Some Observations on Architectural Adaptations as Immediate
Responses to Changing Sodo-Cultural Conditions," Topoi 5 (1995) 63-88 (with references) and DRIESSEN
and MACDONALD (supra n. *).
42 M. YON, "The End of the Kingdom of Ugarit," in W.A. WARD and M. SHARP JOUKOWSKY (eds), The
Cruis Years: The 12th Century BC (1992) 115-117, 120.
43 C.W. BLEGEN, Troy and the Trojans (1966) 161.
44 T.G.E. POWELL in the discussion in R.A. CROSSLAND and A. BIRCHALL (eds), Bronze Age Migrations in
the Aegean. Archaeological and Linguistic Problems in Greeh Prehistory (1974) 319.
45 For some Aegean examples see DRIESSEN and MACDONALD (supra n . *) 109; J. DRIESSEN, "The
Dismantling of a Minoan Hall at Palaikastro (Knossians Go Home?), " in R. LAFFINEUR, P.P.
BETANCOURT and V. KARAGEORGHIS (eds), Studies in ·honour of M. Wiener (in press) and O .
KRZYSZKOWSKA's contribution in this volume.
18 Jan DRIESSEN

3. A third approach to study the impact of warfare is to see how violence has influenced
iconography 46
In contrast to Egyptian and Near Eastern sources, Aegean art rarely seems to record
events of political and military importance pictorially and scenes of battles and fighting are
not at aU common, althou h there is unmistakably a difference between Minoan, Cycladic
9
and Mycenaean traditions. 4 Iconography of violence is relatively rare before the mature Late
Bronze Age and recently Nikolaidou and Kokkinidou have argued that the intensification in
the representation of warfare in the Late Bronze Age implies an increasingly hierarchical
political system, leading to increased tension between social groups.48 Art is, however,
informative when it cornes to identifying warrior types and technology. It is possible to
distinguish archers (far-distance battle), spear fighters (medium-distance battle), sword
fighters (close combat) and sword fighters with spears (combined medium-distance and close
combat) in Aegean iconography.49 Among the fighters one should perhaps also distinguish
between lances and spears, the first being a medium-distance, the second a close-combat
weapon. It may be remarked that defensive weapons are more common in art than in
archaeology and, as already mentioned, we have iconogrÇl.phical evidence for siege warfare,
amphibious assault and sea-battle. Mercenaries too may perhaps be identifiable, as suggested
by the Captain of the Blacks Fresco or the helmeted warriors on the Amarna papyrus.50
4. We can also try to identify evidence of violence through its symbolic representation
Ritualisation is said to be constantly at work as a major means of redirecting aggressive
drives.51 War is nowadays mostly avoided by providing harmless outlets for aggression such
as sports or other types of ritualised violence. The mock fights of the boxing boys of Thera or
the boxer rhyton from H. Triada may represent such symbolic channeUing of violence. One
may even wonder to what degree blood sacrifice, bull-Ieaping, hunting and different
initiation rites were forms of ritualised violence. 52 Weapons also feature quite often in
Aegean religious symbolism and sorne scholars have claimed Hoplolatry or a weaponry cult
in connection with figure-of-eight shields and swords which often form the centre of
attention. There may also be evidence for a Warrior Goddess. 53 Hence, the deposition of
sheet swords in the Arkalochori-cave, together with the dozen or so golden double axes as
weU as many silver and bronze examples found with them, can be explained as a ritual
practice and Psychro may be a similar case. 54

46 See especially H. DOHL, "Mykenische Kampfdarstellungen - Bild und Deutung im prahistorischen

Griechenland," Materialhefte zur Ur-und Frühgeschichte Niedersachsens 16 (1980) 21-33, but also N.
MARINATOS, "Formalism and Gender Roles : A Comparison of Minoan and Egyptian Art," in R.
LAFFINEUR and W.-D. NIEMEIER (eds), Politeia. Society and State in the Aegean Bronze Age (1995) 581
("Warrior Status").
47 See N. LUTZ, Der EinjlujJ Agyptens, Vorderasiens und Kretas auf die Mykenischen Fresken. Studien zum Ursprung
der frühgriechischen Wandmalerei (1994) 173-175 who compares the war scenes at Pylos, Mycenae and
perhaps Tiryns with Egyptian examples, arguing that it is only the hazard of discovery which has prevented
the preservation of larger wanax figures on the Mainland.
48 NIKOLAIDOU and KOKKINIDOU (supra n. *).
49 KILIAN-DIRLMEIER (supra n. 15) 138-139.
50 See J. DRIESSEN and C.F. MACDONALD, "Sorne Military Aspects of the Aegean in the Late Fifteenth and
Early Fourteenth Centuries BC," BSA 79 (1984) 49-74 as well as E. CLINE, "Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Sailor:
Minoans and Mycenaeans Abroad," in LAFFINEUR and NIEMEIE~. (supra n. 46) 265-288.
51 P.M. WARREN, "The Genesis of the Minoan Palace," in R. HAGG and N. MARINATOS (eds), The
Function of the Minoan Palaces (1987) 54 (references).
52 See C. MORRIS, "In Pursuit of the White Tusked Boar: Aspects of Hunting in Mycenaean Society," in R.
HÀGG and G.C. NORDQUIST (eds), Celebrations of Death and Divinity in the Bronze Age Argolid (1990) 149-
156 and especially L. MORGAN, "Of Animais and Men: The Symbolic ParaUel," in Klados. Essays in Honour
ofIN. Coldstream (1995) 171-189 on the ritual aspects of Aegean sports and hunt. .
53 See P. REHAK, "New Observations on the Mycenaean 'Warrior Goddess,'" AA (1984) 535-545 and hls
contribution to this volume.
54 See again KILIAN-DIRLMEIER (supra n. 16) 148-151.
 THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF AEGEAN WARFARE 19

5. Finally, we may hope to find reflections of violence in our written sources

"As soon as man learned to write, he had wars to write about"55 and assuming that the Iliad
indeed has an Aegean Bronze Age core,56 it remains the most famous war poem of aIl. Its
relevance for Bronze Age warfare is debatable, however. Since our Aegean written sources
are almost exclusively bookkeeping records, we are in an extremely bad position vis à vis the
Near East and Egypt to decide to what degree warfare played a role in internaI and
international politics. It would be naive, however, to assume it was of little relevance in the
Aegean. 57 In contrast to Cretan Hieroglyphic and Linear A tablets, which remain almost
mute as to this aspect, the Linear B tablets provide us with rich information as to the
production and issue of weapons, the rationing and deployment of military troops and even
the use of mercenaries58 and captives.59 Moreover, since fire destructions have caused the
preservation of the tablets, we may attempt to read reflections of emergency procedures in
our documents. 6o
Combining actual evidence of weapons and fortifications with iconography gives us
sorne information about warfare practices,61 such as raids, man-to-man combat, siege warfare
or sea engagements. Proper warfare requires a military technology of mass slaughter (a
combination of chariot, composite bow, horse) and a technology of power and control
aIlowing the emergence of an army as an institution. Moreover, involving other types of
archaeological sources, we may eventuaIly be able to express ideas about the existence of a
Grand Strategy in the Aegean, the ove raIl plan for defending the security and integrity of the
different states, including, when necessary, the expansion of territory. Defensive militarism
(deterrence) and offensive imperialism are the main choices. 62
Large-scale inter-societal violence, or war, is especiaIly interesting for international
relations with effects on trade, migration and for being a (last) resort when diplomacy fails. It
should not be forgotten that exchange and war are two very related issues: trade,
intermarriage and war aIl imply the moving of goods and people between social units. "In
warfare, goods move as plunder, and people (especiaily women) move as captives. In
exchange and intermarriage, goods move as reciprocal gifts, trade items, and bride wealth,
whereas people move as spouses. In effect, the same desirable acquisitions are thus attained
by alternative (but not mutuaIly exclusive) means."63 Non-local goods at a site may then either

55 FERRILL (supra n. *) 31. For military aspects of the Linear B tablets, see already L.R. PALMER, "War and
Society in a Mycenaean Kingdom," in Armées et fiscalité dans le monde antique (1977) 35-62 and PALAIMA's
contribution to this volume.
56 1 accept Ruijgh's identification of Bronze Age (and even pre-Mycenaean) lines in the Iliad (cf. CJ. RUIjGH,
"D'Homère aux origines protomycéniennes de la tradition épique," in J.P. CRIELAARD (ed.), Homeric
Questions. Essays in Philology, Ancient History and A rchaeology (1995) 1-96.
57 See e.g. D. DOXEY, "Causes and Effects of the Fall of Knossos," DjA 6 (1987) 305-306 listing destructions
in the Aegean around 1375 BC.
58 See DRIESSEN and MACDONALD (supra n. 50).
59 Especially women from Asia Minor either acquired during raids or bought on slave markets, cf. J.
CHADWICK, "The Women of Pylos," inJ.P. OLIVIER and T.G. PALAIMA (eds), Texts, Tablets and Scribes.
Studies in Mycenaean EpigraPhy and Economy offered to E.L. Bennett, jr. , Minos Suppl. 10 (1988) 77-87.
60 For Pylos, see most recently T.G . PALAIMA, "The Last Days of the Pylos Polity," in LAFFINEUR and
NIEMEIER (supra n. 46) 623-634; for the Room of the Chariot Tablets at Knossos, see J. DRIESSEN, "The
Arsenal of Knossos (Crete) and Mycenaean Chariot Forces," in M. LODEWIjCKX (ed.), Archaeological and
Historical Aspects of West-European Societies, A.A.L., MonograPhiae 8 (1996) 481-498, esp. p. 492. See also
Palaima's contribution to this volume on the onomastical information.
61 Se~ e.g. S. HILLER, "Pax Minoica versus Minoan Thalassocracy. Military Aspects of Minoan Culture," in
HAGG and MARINATOS (eds) (supra n. 25) 27-30; R. DREWS, The End of the Bronze Age: Changes in
Warfare and the Catastrophe ca. 1200 BC (1993) (for which see O,T.P.K. DICKINSON's contribution to this
volume); 1 have not seen C.D. FORTENBERRY, Elements of Mycenaean Warfare (PhD Cincinnati, 1990).
62 FERRILL (supra n. *) 44-45 ; see .. e.g. S. HILLER, "Pax Minoica versus Minoan Thalassocracy. Military
Aspects of Minoan Culture," in HAGG and MARINATOS (supra n. 25) 27-30; On general warlike attitudes,
see C.G. STARR, "Minoan Flower Lovers," in HÀGG and MARINATOS (supra n. 25) 9-12.
63 KEELEY (supra n. *) 126.

View publication stats