martial minoans

7/29/2019 Martial Minoans

1/57

The Annual of the British School at Athenshttp://journals.cambridge.org/ATH

Additional services forThe Annual of the British School at

Athens:

Email alerts: Click hereSubscriptions: Click hereCommercial reprints: Click hereTerms 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 - 142DOI: 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 ANDEVENT IN BRONZE AGE CRETE. The Annual of the British School at Athens, 107, pp 87-142doi:10.1017/S0068245412000044

Request Permissions : Click here

Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/ATH, IP address: 87.115.78.23 on 18 Dec 2012


2/57

MARTIAL MINOANS? WAR AS SOCIAL PROCESS,PRACTICE AND EVENT IN BRONZE AGE CRETE

byBarry P.C. Molloy

Department of Archaeology, University of Sheffield

Together with politics, economics and religion, war is one of the fundamental factors that canshape a society and group identities. In the prehistoric world, the sources for the study of warare 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 inthis paper, and this opportunity is used to critically evaluate the most effective ways ofemploying the widely agreed sets of physical correlates for ancient war in the archaeologicalrecord. A further objective in exploring the diachronic roles of war in these societies is to movethe discussion from a niche field to a more integrated, and systematic, social analysis. Theexistence and character of a warrior identity is examined, and it is proposed that it oftenconstituted a conspicuous element of male identity. The varying scales and time spans throughwhich war can influence a society are discussed, and a broad framework for understandingwar in social process, practices and events is proposed.

INTRODUCTION

The archaeology of Minoan Crete is unique in Europe. Beyond palaces, priestesses andpower, it is unique because it only emerged in the twentieth century; that was manydecades after archaeological research began in most other areas of Europe. Thediscoveries in Crete were almost entirely unrelated to existing prehistoric narratives andso, in playing intellectual catch-up, the tale of Minoan Crete was rapidly formulated bya few pioneers who were keen to promote their discovery of the first urban civilisationin Europe (MacGillivray ). To a greater or lesser extent, the next century ofscholarship was framed by the geographies, chronologies, terminologies and, mostimportantly, the socio-political models formulated in these early years. In the pastdecade, however, there has been an increased emphasis placed on reconceptualisingmodels 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 andTomkins ).

At the same time as these developments in Minoan archaeology, there has been anacademic renaissance in the study of prehistoric warfare (various in Carman andHarding ; Parker Pearson and Thorpe ; Otto, Thrane and Vandkilde ;

Molloy a; Moedlinger and Uckelmann ). This new research has yet topermeate models of Cretan prehistory and it may be fair to say that, while colleagues

The Annual of the British School at Athens, , , pp. The Council, British School at Athensdoi:./S


3/57

would not deny that war or violence occurred, they are not yet considered to befundamentally important in creating social narratives.

The objective of this paper is to use recent developments in the study of prehistoricwarfare to offer a detailed consideration of the role of war, violence and warriors in thesocieties of Bronze Age Crete. It is considered insufficient to tack an archaeology ofwarfare onto current themes in Cretan research, but rather the study of war needs tobe better integrated at a socially systemic level by considering it in social ) processes,) practices, and ) events. The overarching emphasis on religion as the primary factorin elite control and temporal authority structures will also be tempered byconsideration of how power derived from a triadic balance between religion, war andpolitical/economic administration. The materialisation of martial activities will thereforebe 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 ofthis 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 studyof war and its relationship to social organisation and the second part will deal withthe specific case of Bronze Age Crete. I will begin by assessing how archaeologistsconceptualise war and warriors and this will be followed by how we define andidentify archaeological data that relate to war. The relationship of social structuresto sources and motivations for conflict is next discussed. A brief critique of themesrelating to war that have been the focus of debate in Cretan studies, such as theMinoan thalassocracy and fortification walls, will precede a more detailed treatmentof other evidence including iconography, mortuary practice, ritual activity andweaponry. The final outcome will be to demonstrate that warriorhood was a

dominant aspect of male identity from at least Middle Minoan II and perhaps asearly as Early Minoan I. It will further be demonstrated that the activities of warriorspermeated and influenced religious, technological, political and economicinfrastructures 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 wehave unmistakable specialisation in military practices and, by extension, practitioners. Inprehistory, the practitioners of violence are typically called warriors. The word itselfcomes from the Old Northern French werreior (a variant of guerrier) meaning one whomakes war, and so we might consider a warrior to be someone enfranchised to makewar. This then was a social right, not an occupation or profession.

Unlike later soldiers, a warrior is not construed as an exclusively military specialistbut rather an expression of identity contingent upon social strategies peculiar to asociety. The material expressions of warrior identity may have been recognisablethrough physical aesthetics (musculature, posture, possession of weapons, jewellery,hair styles) but also through a lifeway (Treherne , ) that enacted thisidentity in a social world through bull-leaping, boxing, hunting, sports, combattraining and fighting, and so on. The concepts of identity and lifeways are thus not

BARRY P.C. MOLLOY


4/57

interchangeable, because a warrior identity is materialised through participation in aconstructed aesthetic (Treherne ), whereas a warrior lifestyle or lifeway is thedaily routines and activities that empower symbols of identity with meaning. Lifewaysare 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 consensualamong the elite groups as a whole, with the intention of participating in a commonexperience (Harrison , ).

When assessing what being a warrior meant, we need to consider that as much aspeople make weapons, weapons make people. In material culture studies, it has longbeen 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 sociallyfeasible when people developed the skills to use it. In turn, we can see that thebiological bodies of warriors were materially produced by an individuals activities,

particularly through repeated use of weapons and other forms of activity/exercise toprepare one for combat (Fowler , ; see also Knusel and Stirland for osteologically visible examples). The cultivated musculature of warriors can beconsidered a form of body modification achieved through training, because itphysically shaped them, and thus made their identity evident to others. A warriorlifeway was thus expressed materially through the body, which was produced throughundertaking specialised patterns of action, and these were in turn made possible bythe 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 societyengaged 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 themwarriors? The short answer is yes. Such agonistic activities are widely accepted astraining grounds for handling of weapons, maintenance of physical fitness, personalbravery, 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 bytraining and experience, who are commonly called up to take part in conflict, andwho derive unusual benefits from it. He differentiates these from standing armies,

which he defines aspermanently mobilized military units that are specially trainedand 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 acentral figure or regime, the state itself did not have to underwrite the productionof expensive and sophisticated weapons (Webster , ), so that warriorhoodwas status-based and the onus was on the individual to equip themselves andinformally gain training (i.e. no state-sponsored military training system). Thesepoints have strong resonance for Bronze Age Crete. It is also worth noting thatMaya states were until recently believed to have been devoid of war and warriorsuntil the translation of their script revealed the existence of complex martialstrategies, and that individual states were often enmeshed in wars virtually every year(Webster ).

WAR AS SOCIAL PROCESS, PRACTICE AND EVENT IN BRONZE AGE CRETE


5/57

A further analogy can be taken from Classical Greece. The words warrior andsoldier are used freely in literature speaking of hoplites, yet, other than Sparta, noGreek state prior to the fourth century had a specialised training system. Instead,van Wees (, ) notes that the obligation to possess hoplite equipment wasregularly linked with an obligation to take regular exercise in the gymnasium andthis took the form of athletics, boxing, pankration and other physical exercises, andmembers of this group would also hunt together on occasion. Similarly in twelfthcentury BC Egypt at Medinet Habu a relief of a wrestler depicts him saying Standup to me! Ill make you see the hand of a [real] warrior! (cf. Poliakoff , ),again showing the intimate relationship often shared between agonistic contests andwarriorhood. In Sparta, King Agesilaus, in a desire to keep his men in topcondition for fighting, is reputed by Xenophon to have held a competition whereprizes were awarded for events such as javelin throwing or archery, but the top prizewas 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 andthe same emphasis on the body, or the warriors beauty (Treherne ), occursin 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 reinforcesocial stratification by restricting access to the legitimate right to engage in violence onbehalf of a community. Access to the elite weapons, but also training, required forhunting large game and interpersonal combat may similarly reflect a degree ofcircumscription of access to the bounty of the hunt and material wealth throughplunder 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 peasantskirmishers 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 thata centralized political system cannot retain its statehood unless it has a militaryorganization that is militarily sophisticated . . . the presence of an efficient militaryorganization . . . [was a] . . . necessary condition for state formation (see also Earle; Claessen ; Bossen a). The ability to field a military force may thus beseen to be contingent upon the existence of men who were considered to be warriorsand 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 orpolitical 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 indicatesthat warriorhood was a significant, even dominant, element in the way such peopleappeared physically and acted daily.

Greek hoplites were typically owners of farms, but, in generally having potential access topolitical power, they may be considered members of an elite.

Including boars tusk helmets and tower-shields, which were derived from the bounty of thehunt. These items were therefore symbolic not only of bravery or prowess, but also of access to

circumscribed elite activities.

BARRY P.C. MOLLOY


6/57

IDENTIFYING WARFARE IN THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORD

The causes of war can be many, and range from socio-biological instincts such asacquisition of a mate or status, to more base materialist motivations of wealth and

resource acquisition (Turney-High ; Robarchek ; Ferguson ; Carmanb; Osgood ; Haas ; Guilaine and Zammit ; Otterbein ; Thorpe; ; Harding ). War can unfortunately be difficult to pin down to aspecific definition, though here it is defined as the premeditated violent actions thattake place between two or more groups of people, sanctioned by leading members oftheir communities and usually with economic, political or social change as anobjective. Variations on this definition exist (e.g. Ferguson ; Ferrill ; Webster; Otterbein ; Guilaine and Zammit ; OBrien ), but in each case wecan see that there is a clear incongruity between the definitions we may like to give forwar, 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 ; ParkerPearson ; Harding ; Wileman ), a generally agreed set of archaeologicallyvisible 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 toinvestigate the early past there is the risk that we first conceptualize, setting up a wholeseries of categories of our own construction, and then order our data (our observationsbearing 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 togetherburial 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 intentionalcross-referencing in the societies that produced them. We can also note that these areprimarily 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 forcontextually sensitive use of each category of evidence. Thus this paper will notexplore the undertaking of war in its own right, but will focus on the way socialregulation utilised war, violence and warriorhood alongside, and within, other modesof power. In so doing we abandon the problematic niche of prehistoric warfare(Parker Pearson ) research and its attendant concerns of motivation, cause and



7/57

structure, and move to more archaeologically visible manifestations of war as socialpractice, 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, Fittons Minoans () and Castledens The Minoans (),chart the rise and fall of Cretan civilisation with hardly a passing mention of violenceor warfare as social processes. Until recently we even occasionally could read suchradical 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 moreimportantly, analytical frameworks that incorporate violence and conflict.

Keeley () can perhaps be credited with (re-)problematising the study ofprehistoric warfare in War before Civilisation, though at the same time Carman andcolleagues (in Carman a) were debating this same topic using more diversedatasets and methodologies. At that time, Carman made a critique of potential pitfallsin 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 ofwhat war . . . would be like, and the archaeological material is then interpreted inlight of that model. . . . The archaeological evidence is not so much seen against ananthropological backdrop (which is perhaps what is thought to happen) butinstead is perceived through the filter of anthropological assumptions. If so, theanthropological perspectives used may mask rather than highlight the [unique]contribution archaeological study may make to human knowledge. (Carmanc, )

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 recentlyemphasis 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 diverserange of sources being brought to bear, and an increasing focus on engaging withsocial analyses rather than compilation of compendia. Accepting that war happenedin the past as a starting point forces us to ask more penetrating questions about whythe archaeological record resulting from war was constituted in the manner it was,

BARRY P.C. MOLLOY


8/57

rather than focusing on anthropologically oriented questions of why war occurred or howwas it fought. These latter are questions for which archaeology is usually devoid ofanswers without recourse full-circle back to anthropology or military history. It ispreferred in this paper to accept that the lack of evidence for forms of warfare meansthat it is counter-productive to create models to describe it (Harding , ). Insaying this, it is also considered essential to move beyond myths of prehistoric warfarebeing highly ritualised, low-intensity, relatively bloodless, not particularly dangerousand peripheral to the real factors that shaped society (Vandkilde , ).

This raises a final issue: the question of the numbers of combatants in prehistoricbattles. 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 offigures in the hundreds, or occasionally very low thousands, appears more probable forCrete on the basis of local population estimates for most of prehistory (Whitelaw ,; b). It remains possible that, at certain times, conflicts could escalate tolarger scales and incorporate thousands of combatants, as seen throughout the eastern

Mediterranean in the decades around BC (Sandars ; Drews ). Due tothe fact that virtually all instances of extra-urban warfare leave no archaeological tracewhatsoever, 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 Cretanarchaeology in their synoptic study The Rise of Bronze Age Society, stating that thepower of Cretan elites lay in institutionalised practices (economic, political andreligious) that constituted palatial power. Strikingly absent from this consensus view ismilitary power and how it was enmeshed with other manifestations of authority.Hamilakis (a, ) has argued that in the rare occasions where conflict isemphasised in the discussion of social dynamics in Minoan Crete, it is often to explaina specific event, rather than as an integral process of social dynamics throughoutthe Bronze Age. While conflict and competition have recently become morecommonplace in the literature, violence and subjugation are absent, and we are stillleft with peculiarly bloodless social revolutions and circumscription of authority

structures so that the entire explanatory trend underplays the violence it so clearlyimplies (Vandkilde , ). If we take as our starting point that war was integral toworldviews in prehistoric Crete, then this promotes a relational understanding ofwarriors as a social identity constantly being negotiated with other social identitieswithin society and we can begin to see that war and violence are . . . embedded in acultural logic (Vandkilde , ). When we thus consider warriors and their rolesas 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 todifferentiate 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 exploitativeframework for self-aggrandisement, and legitimated this cosmology as the natural order throughthe use of religion and ritual (Earle , ).



9/57

relations to institutions of civil administration and religion (Ferguson , ). Incurrent 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 andmilitary systems, what he calls a triadic balance (Ferguson , ; see also Earle; Harrison , ). Societies in Crete thus possessed varying configurations ofoverlapping networks of power, and war has the potential to change theseconfigurations when military organisation at times expands onto or subsumes elementsof other networks of power (Bossen b, ). Thus when we consider power, bothinternal and external to a polity, the various social institutions that influence or coercea 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 isnecessary to move away from military historical or anthropological models forunderstanding how and why war was undertaken, because they stretch our prehistoricevidence 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 ispartially consistent with Fergusons characterisation (, ) of the relationshipbetween war and society running from infrastructure through structure tosuperstructure and broadly follows an Annales (vnements, conjonctures, longue dure,and mentalits) logic (Barker , ; Knapp ; Fletcher ). These areintended to be heuristic devices, as opposed to hard and fast categories.

War in social process refers to the long-term preparations that facilitated itsundertaking, from the acquisition of raw materials and production of weapons to thebuilding of fortifications. This broadly equates with Fergusons infrastructure. War associal practice relates to the lifeways of warriors, including military organisation and

commemoration, and is consistent with Fergusons structure and elements of hissuperstructure. In Crete war in social practices is manifested through the constructionof and participation in warrior lifeways and identities, expressed passively throughbodily aesthetics visible in public/social contexts, but also actively by engaging inspecialist activities. The final category, war as event, is peculiarly archaeological and isprimarily visible in terms of destructions of places, injuries inflicted on individuals anddamage on ancient weaponry. It is also visible to a lesser degree (overlapping withprocess) 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 Minoansociety have emphasised diffuse authority structures and heterogeneous social systemsthat had chronological and geographical differences. Re-evaluations of the structure ofelite power dynamics have suggested that heterarchies and factional politics may haveexisted 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/horizontaldifferentiation of elites through status (e.g. warrior/priest/administrator etc. [Gellner, ]), whereas factions are considered to be defined more by geopolitical

BARRY P.C. MOLLOY


10/57

factors. This latter form of power relationship in elites usually defines one group over andagainst 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, thoughmortuary practice and grave goods testify to social differentiation (Branigan ; LegarraHerrero ; ). Between Middle Minoan I and Late Minoan IIIA any leader(s), bethey 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 coercionand suppression. Whether considering factions or heterarchies, therefore, hierarchiesno doubt existed within them and I follow Adams view (a, ) that complexes,institutions, individuals and social groups do not have power intrinsically; rather it iscreated, aspired to and negotiated through relationships with others. Equally, whileKnossos may at times have dominated much of Crete or Zakros dominated East Cretein multi-scalar relations, for example, there is a firm difference between dominance

and rule that cannot be ignored because power relations that may be negotiatedthrough 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 thanpermanent seats, of power. As their collective wealth was generated at its base levellargely from primary production in lands not adjacent to the centre of power, this mayhave been a cause of social tensions, particularly when society once subjugated to theinterests of the many had been transformed into one driven by the interests of specificgroups (Schoep and Tomkins , ; see also Ferguson ). Subjugation andoppression are equally, and often more, useful policies, alongside encouragement

(Schoep and Tomkins , ), cooperation and common cause when defining groupidentities, responsibilities and boundaries of each component element within polities(Webster ). When we consider such tensions, then territorial boundaries createthe natural flashpoints whereby security, wealth and loyalties were under constantthreat, creating triggers for violent actions that could rapidly reconfigure politicalgeographies (Guilaine and Zammit , ; Raaflaub , ; Hassig , ;Webster , ; LeBlanc ; Ferguson , ).

By Late Minoan IIIA the political landscape was much transformed. Knossosemerged as the most powerful polity in Crete, with few other sites having clearevidence of complex centralised administrative systems (Dickinson ). There is

evidence by this period that a wanax or king ruled Knossos, and perhaps dominatedmuch of Crete, and that the palace exercised economic control over the primaryproducers in its territory (Driessen and Macdonald ). It seems probable that themilitary still played a significant role in Cretan socio-political organisation, thoughthe long-term interaction with mainland warriors in Late Helladic III/Late Minoan I

Polities can be defined as divided congeries of people, dialectically interacting with the largersocial system rather than unitary, independent actors (Ferguson , ), so that authoritystructures 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 ofKnossos as a palace.



11/57

may have altered the character of this role in either or both areas. This role for warriorsprobably changed dramatically in Late Minoan IIIB, when large urban centres virtuallydisappeared, apart perhaps from Chania. By Late Minoan IIIC, most settlements werelittle more than villages and they existed almost exclusively in the remote defensiblelocations previously used only on occasion (Nowicki ; ), and so much of themale population may have been enfranchised as warriors.

THE MINOAN THALASSOCRACY

To begin with the longest-running debate relating to warfare in Crete, we may brieflyaddress the legend of the Minoan thalassocracy. There would be little discussion ofthis if it were not for Herodotus and Thucydides, because archaeology wouldindependently neither suggest nor deny its existence. Arguments for and against a

thalassocracy to date have revolved around distributional analysis of finds of Cretancharacter in the Cyclades. Whether these were the product of control of the Aegeanthrough colonisation (Hiller ; Hood ; Wiener ; ; Niemeier ;; Mountjoy and Ponting ), direct trading practices (Knapp ) orunbalanced exchange mechanisms/tribute (Ferguson , ), the reality is thisevidence all relates to economic, not military, aspects of maritime control. Cretanpolities had the manpower and technology to impose a strong influence over theirseascapes, and while a militarily imposed thalassocracy is thus plausible and even to beexpected, its size, chronology and very existence must remain as speculative as KingMinos 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 onlysporadically 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 bein part due to the lack of excavation at the limits to major urban centres and that thehistorically attested defensive walls of Crete of the hundred cities are hardly visible(Callaghan ). Driessen and Macdonald () have highlighted defensive changesin urban access routes in Late Minoan IB. Nowicki (; ) has demonstratedrepeated phases of small-scale occupation of defensible settlements throughout theBronze Age in times of unrest. In all of this, however, it remains clear thatfortifications were not fundamental to military strategies or materialisation of powerbecause they were not used to even fortify the central areas of towns, as we find in thecase 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 werenot part of the wider martial grammar defining elite practices, power and spaces.

BARRY P.C. MOLLOY


12/57

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 formednatural defensible units becomes increasingly attractive (Fig. ). Crete is a very ruggedisland, and even today a single strip of asphalt on the north coast is the only way toexpeditiously get from the east to the west by land. Due to the limited avenuesavailable to move an armed force from one polity to another, particularly if chariotswere used for transport (Crouwel ; ) or weapons (Drews ), controllingaccess routes to a territory was important. In this regard, the known guard housesalong Bronze Age roads (Chryssoulaki a; Alusik ) are strong evidence that inMiddle Minoan II Late Minoan I, roads and nodes were controlled by eliteauthorities. This suggests control of movement, but in so doing implies that somemembers of society perhaps warriors were provided with resources to man thesestations. This may be direct evidence for military specialists, if not quite a standingarmy, being used in regional defence strategies from at least Middle Minoan II. Bycontrolling use of, and access through, the landscape (and perhaps by sea), it may bethat the idea of pitched extra-urban battles evolved through exploitation of topographyto 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/orfragmentation 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 knownfrom many periods and at many sites in Cretan prehistory, though war is only rarelyexplicitly suggested as a cause (Hood ; Driessen and Macdonald ).Destructions at sites in Crete were frequently followed by abandonment (we might alsoboldly suggest massacres or wholesale enslavement as we hear of in Homeric sackingsof cities), and many are characterised by extensive fires. Seagers excavations atMochlos 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

Fig. . Topographic location map of urban and villa settlements occupied variouslybetween Middle Minoan I and Late Minoan I.

History is all too full of examples, yet it is rare to find the victims (see Fyllingen ) becausethey would not have received formal burials.



13/57

of attacking forces, or in some cases it may have been a defensive strategy to deny food orshelter if a population had to flee its home. Considering that destructions are pepperedspatially and chronologically across the span of Bronze Age Crete, unless we considerBronze Age Cretans to have been dramatically more clumsy or unlucky than anyhistorical civilisation in that region, we must believe that war was the cause of manyurban destructions. This could be closely tied to seismic destructions that causedshort-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 moreindicative of war than the destruction itself; if the site or its hinterland were notreoccupied immediately, then where did the people go? By considering wars as normal,even normative, social processes rather than as isolated instances of instability orturmoil, then these archaeologically visible events can be better integrated into broadersocial trajectories.

The destruction of sites through the violence of war may nonetheless have been a rareoccurrence 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 havesought domination and tribute instead of destruction and plunder. Schoep () hasdemonstrated through the case study of the Mesara in Middle Minoan I LateMinoan I that shifts in power bases occurred over time on a micro-regional scale. Thevarying fortunes of factions or groups within elites, as well as threat of destructionthrough war, may also drive nucleation or transformation in settlement patterns duringprotracted 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 replacedby a very different settlement pattern and elite social networks in Late Minoan IIIC(Nowicki ). When we consider the contraction of population, as evidenced bysettlement 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 potentialcumulative attrition of protracted periods of war that can decimate a populations abilityto effectively reproduce. As noted earlier in this paper, archaeologically visible resultative

correlates

(Wileman ) of wars are difficult to pinpoint, but innumerable historicalexamples demonstrate that population and settlement contraction are often closely relatedto war and conflict (Haas ; Ferguson ). Such wars may occur alongside, or betriggered or exacerbated by, phenomena such as drought (Haas , ) or pandemicdisease.

ICONOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE FOR WAR AND VIOLENCE

In this section it will be demonstrated that the isolation ofscenes of war in art is neitherpossible nor desirable, because most images are multi-referential and even themesapparently relating to one field of activity can be allegories for other fields. For

BARRY P.C. MOLLOY


14/57

example, hunting scenes can be considered metaphors for sacrifice (Marinatos ; cf.Morris , ), but the choice to use violence so graphically can also be taken tocross-reference other blood-letting activities, such as combat. The segregation of artinto thematic fields is therefore unhelpful, as exemplified by the general tendency ofintuiting mysteries of religion in nearly everything Cretans chose to portray (Kopcke, ; see also Shapland , ). In each iconographic scene cited, alternativeinterpretations may be given, but a coarser aggregate reading, based as much onaesthetics as on specific content, reveals hints of a warrior lifeway far more frequentlythan evidence for war.

If we conceive of power as emerging from a triadic balance of religious, military andeconomic concerns, then we may well expect the symbolic grammar to pertain to morethan one of these fields at once. Looking for specific images of war may alsopresuppose the existence of a soldier rather than warrior identity, and consequentlymay predict a corporate expression of war as an explication of state power andprowess. 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 shouldwell expect to find the kind of art we have in Crete. Such art celebrates individualbravery, skill and virtue across multiple fields of activity rather than the corporategroup achievements, discipline and drilling of armies. Man the hunter, the master ofwild animals, the athlete, the fighter and the divinely sanctioned leader, not man theanonymous 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, butthey are thematically more diverse. Weingarten (, ) suggests that women areprimarily depicted in religious scenes, whereas males appear in agonistic art andreligious scenes so that they occupy a greater number of social positions. Logue

(, ) also observes that the iconography. . .

represent[s] the roles that the malemembers of the Minoan elite felt were particularly important to their status. Agonisticcontexts offer the most diverse range of male activities (hunting, boxing, bull-leaping,battle, marching, processions, archery, posing with weapons). The males engaged inthese activities commonly have the same hairstyles, musculature and jewellery, and sowe may adduce that they were of similar or the same social group. The depiction ofhelmets, though perhaps also shields, in hunting scenes is unlikely to represent adefensive necessity against game animals. These are more likely to be devices to reflectidentity, and so, whether a hunting scene is intended to be real or metaphorical, thedepiction of combat equipment suggests that a warrior identity is being expressed.

Accepting the definition ofwarrior

provided above, we may consider that participationin 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 fourbroad 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 mouldingsfixed in architectural settings. The artificiality of drawing these sources together todiscuss war is immediately apparent, because they were not created to engage witheach other in the creation of a distinct narrative or forum of interaction in theiroriginal roles. They are also chronologically and spatially heterogeneous. A quantitativeapproach comparing scenes of martial activities to scenes of non-martial activities isnot undertaken because I am concerned with how martial themes were mutuallyconstituted with other themes, and not their relative frequency or prominence.



15/57

Similarly, readings of images provided here are necessarily superficial, as the purpose is toexamine cross-references in the physical components of images without delving into theirsymbolic meanings or possible narrative contexts (e.g. Chryssoulaki b).

Seals

Sealstones or rings were often worn on the person, serving as ornaments as well asfunctional objects, so that the image was transmitted by persons engaging directly andindirectly with the bearer/wearer. Seals as tools, however, were perhaps the mostdynamic form of art in Crete because, when impressions were made, they were thenexported widely across the island, making the image itself highly mobile. Sealings fromsingle specific seals have been found at a variety of sites: for example, Mller and Pini, nos. from Aghia Triada, from Gournia and from Sklavokampos areall 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 consideredsuitable weapons for interpersonal combat. In Middle Minoan II, figural images arestill 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. Thisscene becomes increasingly popular in Late Minoan I art, and though the spear insome images may be replaced with a staff, there are many examples where this posturewith a spear is adopted by warriors bearing shields and helmets (e.g. Gill, Mller andPini , no. [Fig. ]; Platon and Pini , no. ). Images with a distinct

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, Mller and Pini , no. ).

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 isunmistakable and sometimes accompanied by a shield. The posture in virtually all cases appearsintended to radiate authority and power (e.g. the Master Impression from Chania), and so in

BARRY P.C. MOLLOY


16/57

martial component abound in Late Minoan I and include warriors marching with spearsand shields (Gill, Mller and Pini , nos. [Fig. ], , ); combat between aswordsman and a spear/shield-bearing warrior (Kenna , nos. , [Fig. ]);swordsmen fighting (Mller and Pini , no. ); a swordsman pursuing anopponent (Mller and Pini , no. [Fig. ]); a spearman facing an opponent(Mller and Pini , no. ); archers (Betts et al. , no. ; Mller and Pini, no. ); a boxer (Gill, Mller and Pini , no. ); a swordsman fighting arearing lion (Pini , no. ); a warrior marching with a (hunting?) dog (Gill,Mller and Pini , no. ); a warrior with spear standing with a lion (Gill, Mllerand Pini , no. [Fig. ] and Mller 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. ; Mller and Pini , no. ; Gill, Mllerand Pini , no. or Pini , no. ) that scenes with a martial flavourcross-reference with hunting, religious and mythological themes. As Shapland ()has noted, the choice of animals to represent in art was frequently the hunted with thehunter, and while bulls hold a special position, only rarely are other domesticatesportrayed.

The diversity of these images alone indicates that isolating scenes as being militaryimages is methodologically unsound. Cross-referencing of quite different themes

Fig. . Image from seal of probable Cretan provenance depicting swordsmanstriking at the neck of an opponent bearing a shield and spear (drawn by Ella

Hassett after Kenna , no. ).

cases where a staff appears more likely than a spear there is nonetheless distinct cross-referencing inthe symbolism that relates to militaristic expression of power, if not necessarily exclusively.



17/57

Fig. . Image from sealings from Aghia Triada and Knossos (respectively) depictinga warrior bearing a sword, and a hound, pursuing an opponent (drawn by EllaHassett after Mller and Pini , no. and Gill, Mller and Pini , no. ).

Fig. . Image from sealing of warrior holding spear and accompanied by lion, fromKnossos (drawn by Ella Hassett after Gill, Mller and Pini , no. ).

BARRY P.C. MOLLOY


18/57

becomes apparent when focusing on the basic components used to construct individualscenes. To take the example of lion imagery, we have creatures with obvious traits thatallude to killing, violence, bravery and hunting; all of which are traits that we alsoexpect to find celebrating humans who specialise in such activities (Shapland ). Inrather obvious juxtapositions we find scenes of a man walking alongside a lion orframed heraldically by lions, but we also have slightly less obvious cross-references inscenes 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 fightinglion, lion fighting lion, man fighting man (Fig. ; see also Bloedow ). Similarlywith hound and bull imagery implicating warriors and bravery, we have warriorwalking with hunting hound, hound hunting bull, man hunting bull, man wrestlingwith bull, man leaping (dominating) bull, man and hound hunting man (Fig. ). Arelated pattern is apparent with the relationship between man and ibex as a symbolicgame animal (Fig. ). In several seal images one animal attacks another (e.g. Platonand 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 mysteriouslyfloating in the image (Mller and Pini , no. [Fig. ]). These may be seen todraw allusions between animal and human behaviour or concerns, inferentially ordirectly. Where warfare, hunting, sacrifice, religion or bravery conflate as power withinthese cross-referential networks is open to question, but it is clear that this complexiconographic grammar, or representational code (Chryssoulaki b, ), cannot be

Fig. . Ratios of activities involving men and lions.



19/57

pigeonholed into specific areas of activity or meaning such as war. This may best beillustrated by the example of Fig. from Psychro cave, which depicts a scene wherethe lower torso is depicted as a leaping human, the upper torso is that of a bull, whilea spearhead/arrow and a figure-of-eight shield are both depicted in the arch of the backseparating the bull from the human component. This seal draws together in a singleimage references to bull-leaping, hunting, and warfare.

We need to also consider that most of the above sorts of scene are concerned withportraying dominance through contest, conquest and control and the symbolicappropriation of power through the natural world (Morgan , ). In turn thesecan 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, justas we have apparently peaceful scenes of prey animals that may symbolically refer tothe violence of the hunt, not blissful nature, through their posture (Shapland pers.comm.; ; Loughlin ).

Images of figure-of-eight shields, boars tusk helmets and double-axes represented inisolation or in religious scenes are common in the glyptic art of Crete, and they also occur

Fig. . Ratios of activities involving man, dog and bull.

There is no unequivocal evidence to prove that double-axes were used in combat, but theycertainly 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

BARRY P.C. MOLLOY


20/57

on other artistic media (Morris ; Haysom ). While the grammar, syntax andcontext of these weapons and armour evolved beyond a purely martial character, theorigins of these symbols in the military sphere illustrates the adoption of attributesrelated to martial praxis by religious agents (be they deities or worshippers). Haysom(, ) argues that the a priori privileging of these [religious] spheres in ourexamination of networks of contextual association is likely to be unrealistic justbecause a symbol is religious in one context does not necessarily mean it is religious inall contexts. Morris (, ) considers the shields and helmets to have operated asmultivocal symbols whose interlinked spectrum of referents included both warfare andhunting, the protection of man and his territory, and mans interaction with the naturalworld. The double-axe, figure-of-eight shield and boars tusk helmet may be seen asconflations of martial and religious spheres that were equally relevant to both. A broadcomparison may be seen in the use of tools and weapons to characterise some laterEuropean deities such as Athena, Artemis, Thor or Lugh, none of whom wereconsidered to be war deities.

Fig. . Ratios of activities involving men and ibexes.

to suggest they were used as weapons comes from their association with swords and other weaponsin 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 andno tools in various domestic contexts. Further evidence may be the incised decoration of a figure-of-eight shield on two axes and a boars tusk helmet on another (Haysom , ).



21/57

Fig. . Image from seal of probable Cretan provenance depicting a hunting lion withfigure-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 AghiaTriada (drawn by Ella Hassett after Mller and Pini , no. ).

BARRY P.C. MOLLOY


22/57

Frescoes

Gates (, ) suggests that warfare may not have been considered a suitable themefor fresco art before Late Minoan IIIA and furthermore that there is no correlationbetween 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 interactingdirectly with each other in identifiable themes have been recovered from Crete beforeLate Minoan IIIA. The lack of images of war is therefore symptomatic of a generaltrend that relates as much to the accident of preservation as to past choices in thethemes we find in fresco art.

The vast majority of figural frescoes surviving from Crete come from the single site ofKnossos and almost exclusively from Late Minoan I and Late Minoan IIIA. Even at theother major urban centres such as Mallia or Phaistos, as well as other elite sitesthroughout the island, we have minimal information on the themes they chose toportray in fresco art of any period, largely due to very poor preservation. Randomfragments from Late Minoan IIIA Knossos of men throwing spears or running withthem 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 thesame site, we have images of bull-leaping (Fig. ) and we can note that the torso ofthe iconic Priest-King from Knossos (Fig. ) has been convincingly restored as aboxer based on detailed anatomical analysis (Coulomb ), as per Evans originalinterpretation (Evans , ) or as holding a staff or spear (Niemeier ; seeShaw for a discussion of alternative views). The figure-of-eight shields in frescoes

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. ).



23/57

from Knossos are evidence that the accoutrements of warriors were at home in thatbuilding in Late Minoan III.

Stone vessels

Of the relief stone vases discussed by Logue (), some fragmentary figuralscenes include people, and of these scenes (%) are considered to display martialimagery. While Logue omits her fig. from the martial category, it fits there

Fig. . The Priest-King fresco from Knossos, detail of forearm and fist (courtesy ofHeraklion Museum Ministry of Culture and Tourism Archaeological Receipts

Fund).

Fig. . Bull-leaping fresco from Knossos (courtesy of Heraklion Museum

Ministry of Culture and Tourism Archaeological Receipts Fund).

From the northwest of the Palace at Knossos (Kaiser , pl. a).

BARRY P.C. MOLLOY


24/57

because it depicts a boars tusk helmet (probably indicating a warrior on now-missingelements of the scene) and another male above this apparently conducting an acrobaticdisplay with a charging ibex, perhaps related to bull-leaping (as in Gill, Mller andPini , no. ).

The Chieftain Cup (Fig. ) from Aghia Triada depicts a tall male holding what isprobably a spear facing a shorter male holding a sword aloft, and the latter is followedby three other men carrying what may be bull hides. This object has been the subjectof many studies, and here it is noted that the two armed figures are considered to beof elite status. Higgins (; see also Koehl ; Logue ) superficial

interpretation that it shows the presentation of animal hides to be turned into shields isquite possible, given that the central two characters wield a sword and a spear

respectively. Deeply encoded meanings aside, the scene has as much militaristiccharacter 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 inoutstretched arm finds many parallels, notably the Mother of the Mountains sealing(Gill, Mller and Pini , no. ) and the Master Impression from Chania

Fig. . The Chieftain Cup from Aghia Triada (courtesy of Heraklion Museum Ministry of Culture and Tourism Archaeological Receipts Fund).

The tip of this object is broken off the vase, and the probability that it is a spear is based on itssize and parallels on seal images where the object held in this fashion and with this posture isunequivocally a spear.



25/57

(Pini , no. ). We may see in such scenes a cross-fertilisation of military andreligious leadership (or divine symbolism of power), though Younger has suggestedthat the necklace on the Master from Chania indicates he, and by extension theChieftain, is mortal and not a deity (Younger , ). We also find a parallel forthe man with the sword crossing the military/sacral threshold, again including (but notrestricted to) women/goddesses (Platon and Pini , no. ; Mller and Pini ,no. ). The implications of these crossovers for gender relations have been discussedby Nikolaidou and Kokkinidou (; see also Kopaka ).

For the central characters on the Chieftain Cup to have meaning beyond theirpossessions, we need to consider them in terms of Trehernes () warriorsbeauty, whereby warriors cultivated a recognisable aesthetic to assert identity. On theChieftain Cup, both central figures have clean-shaven faces and elaborate hairstyles,they wear necklaces and bracelets, and they carry weaponry. In glyptic art, we seesimilar figures engaged in bull-leaping, combat (e.g. Figs. and ), or posturing withspears 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 ofincision to carefully define the pectoral, abdominal and leg muscles. This idealisationof the male body finds a clear expression in this and related scenes, though we cannote that in general males in Middle Minoan III Late Minoan I art are most oftenshown topless and exhibiting musculature that is well defined (Preziosi and Hitchcock, ), but not heavy-set, being a physical ideal for combatants reflected in thephysique of modern boxers. This emphasis on the male body beautiful is at oddswith elite iconography in other areas of the Mediterranean in the eighteenth tofifteenth centuries BC. We can also observe that weapons in this scene could only havesymbolic 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 powerthrough violence.

A more explicit vision of the male body as the product of training regimes is on theBoxer Rhyton, also from Aghia Triada. There are four panels with images, threedepicting boxing and/or wrestling, one depicting bull-leaping. As with the ChieftainCup, there is a high degree of detail employed in defining the muscles of thecharacters, 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 scenesas indicating the potential ferocity of these bouts, and Logue () has suggested thatthere is an obvious reference in this also to a warriors 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 inwithstanding the ones that did strike home. The juxtaposition of bull-leaping andboxing on the Boxer Rhyton indicates a relationship in the symbolic exploitation ofboth types of event, and may more mundanely indicate a contextual associationbetween the two activities in real life.

The objects have also been interpreted as staffs or sceptres, though the symbolism and postureappears very similar to the examples where it is definitely a spear (Fig. ). In many cases, the fist isheld 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 simpleslash, illustrating that the conventions for depicting spears are quite variable and often verysimplified.

BARRY P.C. MOLLOY


26/57

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 ofan archer from the same site, typically contextualised as engaged in combat (Logue, ). These fragmentary scenes also hint that the accident of survival of the twoquite complete scenes from Aghia Triada should not be taken to suggest that suchscenes were unique to that site. Haysom (, ) considers the scaly cloak wornby 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-

Fig. . Detail from the Boxer Rhyton from Aghia Triada (courtesy of HeraklionMuseum Ministry of Culture and Tourism Archaeological Receipts Fund).



27/57

of-eight shields and double-axes. The possibility of a person characterised by militarygarb leading a procession of men with well-defined musculature (Fig. ) carryingagricultural 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 warprecisely because its purpose is to move away from the limitations of such parameters.However, some additional material warrants mention. Double-axes appear asdecorative motifs on Late Minoan I pottery, and we find figure-of-eight shields onLate Minoan IB Alternating Style pottery (Rehak and Younger , ), reflectingthe 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 LateMinoan I Late Minoan III date depict a further figure-of-eight shield and a helmetrespectively (Haysom ; Evely ; Mavriyannaki ). The gold hilt furnitureof a Type A sword from Mallia is normally interpreted as a leaping acrobat curledaround the central perforation (Chapouthier ). In such a reading, the associationbetween athletic and warrior aspects of elite identity is cross-referenced on an actualweapon. A different reading of the image would see the character as a captive withrope binding his wrists rather than jewellery adorning them (Haysom, pers. comm.).The decoration on his kilt appears to differ from more common Minoan forms andshort curly hair could well identify him as a subjugated foreigner or captive slave. Ineither case, given the comparative dearth of figural art in this period it is interesting tonote the aggressive undertones of this image, further emphasised by its location on asword.

Fig. . Detail of the Harvester Vase from Aghia Triada (courtesy of HeraklionMuseum Ministry of Culture and Tourism Archaeological Receipts Fund).

BARRY P.C. MOLLOY


28/57

RELIGIOUS CONTEXTS

The mixing of religious and martial symbolism was common in the Classical Greekworld, with images of mythological battles between beasts, gods and men appearingalongside depictions of historical battles on temples. In mythology, the gods of Greecerevelled in wars and fought incessantly amongst themselves, and so the materialculture and symbolism of war permeated many aspects of religion, including thedetermination of objects suited to deposition in some sanctuaries. Most of the

Archaic

Classical weapons that survive today were excavated at religious sites such asOlympia and Delphi. These are typically votives of actual weapons made by victoriousarmies or individuals, but can also be miniaturised weapons (Snodgrass ).Throughout European pre- and proto-history on the whole, weapons were most ofteninterred in funerary, religious or industrial (hoards) deposits, and they very rarelysurvive in domestic or primary military settings (armouries). Looking back to BronzeAge Crete, while shrines and sanctuaries were of a very different character to those ofClassical Greece, they represent one of the three main types of site where we mightexpect to find real or votive weapons. Extra-urban cave and peak sanctuary sites werean 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 withweaponry.

Caves

Weapons found in Bronze Age shrines in Crete can be separated into three differentcategories: functional weapons, cast model weapons (Fig. ) and sheet-metal model

Fig. . Location map of major shrines in use at various times between MiddleMinoan I and Late Minoan I.

The three Late Minoan IIIA swords from Kato Syme were deposited in an Iron Age contextand 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 wasdefinitely the case (Chapouthier ). These were occasionally miniaturised.



29/57

weapons (Fig. ). In the case of extra-urban shrines, weapons have been found in mostcave shrines: the Idaean cave, the Psychro cave, Arkalochori rock shelter, Phaneromenicave and at the extra-urban shrine of Kato Syme. Ritual use of the first two cave sitesappears to originate in Middle Minoan II and, while it is impossible to separate thechronology of the votive bronze weapons, the evidence from peak sanctuaries wouldconcur with them being Middle Minoan II Late Minoan I. At Psychro, the depositsinclude 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 fromPhaneromeni cave (Watrous ; Jones ). From a Middle Minoan III LateMinoan I context at Arkalochori, at least unfinished Type A swords wereaccompanied by many more cast model swords and sheet-metal models, amounting tomore than swords and models (Hazzidakis ; Rutkowski , ), andalongside 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 thevast majority of metal votives were in the form of weapons or model weapons in cave

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).

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 usefrom at least Late Minoan II, though possibly earlier (on the basis of Middle Helladic and LateHelladic I spearhead forms from the Shaft Graves at Mycenae, where a similar weapons panoplyis represented in general). In light of the Middle Minoan II Late Minoan I sheet model swordsfrom this site, it is conceivable that some, though not all, of these sheet model socketed weaponsrepresent 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 manywere cast. Their general morphology was identical, however, with a slightly rounded flat butt andtapering blade.

BARRY P.C. MOLLOY


30/57

sanctuaries. With the value attributed to metals in Bronze Age society, it is important tonote 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 partof ongoing research initiatives, so that none as yet have been published withcomprehensive catalogues of artefacts (Jones ). We do know, however, that modelweapons have been found widely at peak sanctuary sites, although regionaldiscrepancies do occur; they are definitely absent from Atsipadhes (Peatfield pers.comm.) and Traostalos (Jones ; Kyriakides ; Briault ). However, fromJouktas, sheet-metal model swords are known along with a bronze dagger anddouble-axes (Watrous , ). Models and a real dagger are also known fromPetsophas (Davaras , ; Watrous , ; Jones , ). Models comefrom Modhi, Kophinas and Vrysinas (Jones , ), model double-axes come

from Plagia Ziros (Faure ; ) and a cast blade fragment from Karphi may berelated to a Middle Minoan shrine there (Watrous , ).

Weaponry and religion

With this wealth of martial symbolism in different forms of religious sanctuaries across theisland, Kilian-Dirlmeier (, ) has suggested that it may be appropriate to considerthe 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 mayrelate 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 thereforereflect dedications to a deity/deities with martial attributes, but it may also reflectsolicitation of divine intervention in relation to the martial activities of the worshippersthemselves (Haysom ). The deposition of real weapons, unfinished real weapons,cast model weapons and sheet-metal weapons at sanctuaries could in turn reflectdifferent forms of activity with different intentions. In the depiction of what is thoughtto be a shrine on a seal from Aghia Triada (Mller and Pini , no. ), we find fourdaggers/model weapons standing on an altar with their points facing upwards. It isclear from the sanctuary evidence that martial and religious symbolism werepermeable, 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 requiresconsideration. 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 symbolicpower from reference to real objects. The process of miniaturisation that characterisedritual assemblages in Cretan religion (Jones , ) appears to be mirrored in thetreatment of weapons in the context of cult activities. At peak sanctuaries the modelsare exclusively miniaturised, but in cave sites both miniature and large-scale modelsoccur. 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 poorlyillustrated.



31/57

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 holesoccasionally exist, but there is no evidence for hilting on cast models or attempts to makethem more representative of functional objects. We can also observe that sheet-metalobjects 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, thoughthey were not finished for practical use as they had no hilts. This predominance of modelweapons over functional versions indicates that images of weapons were utilised in astructured fashion as part of normal cult practices and that weapons were thus not ad hocvotives of functional possessions made in exceptional circumstances. The rarity of realweapons may relate to their intrinsic value or their unsuitability for the activitiessurrounding 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 andcoroplastic figurines. In terms of those with warrior characteristics, we may cite figurineswith daggers at their waists and figurines of boxers in Middle Minoan contexts. Thechoice of daggers instead of swords is noteworthy because this was a time when newmartial art forms were replacing traditional systems associated with dagger combat(Molloy , ). It remains possible that a dagger was chosen instead of spears orswords because swords were as long as a persons leg and spears the height of a man,and hence either would snap if standing proud of the figurine or distort its definition ifplastered 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 poorartistic execution, but rather is intended to depict boxing gloves. This determination isbeyond doubt on the Kophinas figurines as they have straps depicted also, and it is nota stretch therefore to suggest that figurines standing in the same posture from othersites with both fists placed to their chest may also be depicting boxers. While we neednot assume that they represent persons about to engage in a bout of boxing, theirposture may be intended to preferentially reflect selected aspects of a particular maleidentity the warrior. Some also possess daggers at their waists, supporting thiscontention. We may make a comparison also with the finely detailed PalaikastroKouros, 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 glovesare depicted, the sculptor went to considerable lengths to depict the fist as beingclenched index finger covered by thumb on front side, not illustrated on the palmside because of the thumb location, the ulnar styloid is emphasised, and the handextensor tendons and forearm musculature are pronounced (Musgrave ). While aglove is not illustrated, the fist is detailed exactly as it would be formed (looselyclenched, thumb folded safely across the second phalange of the index finger) forpreparing to make a punch in modern martial arts practice. This treatment of thethumb 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 orpreparatory position. This is to minimise exertion and risk of injury, and maximise impact forcewhen striking.

BARRY P.C. MOLLOY


32/57

Priest-King relief (Fig. ; Evans ; , fig. ; Musgrave , ) fromKnossos.

Returning to the figurines of boxers at peak sanctuaries, if we consider theirmorphology 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 fistsare not submissively or respectfully held in a passive position at or behind waist levelor held joined together. The occasional inclusion of a dagger increases this symbolismof potential violence (Fig. ). The image created in itself, or if materialised through aliving individual, thus resonates potential aggression on a fundamental level, thoughthe gesture need not be related to aggressive or threatening actions. Taking the realand model weapons along with the dedication of figurines of boxers (some wearingdaggers), 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 MiddleMinoan III, an individual was found lying on a low platform and the + g knifefound with the skeleton was in fact a form of slotted spearhead. Sakellarakis hasinterpreted this as a possible human sacrifice on the basis of the location of this personand another male and female found in the shrine (Sakellarakis and Sapouna-

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).

Morris () and Peatfield (), in particular, argue that many figurines represent posturesassociated 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 posturescommunicated through their forms. Several parallels exist; see Hood and de Jong , .



33/57

Sakellaraki ; Sakellarakis and Sakellaraki ). The reason this partialfreeze-frame image survives is that the building collapsed through an earthquake. Theindividual on the altar had made no attempt to leave, and so we can presume wasunconscious or dead as the excavator suggests. There is no evidence, however, tosuggest that such injury or death occurred at the shrine, and it may thus have occurredprior to their being brought there. In such circumstances, if we take the association ofthe weapon and the male lying down, we could suggest that this was an injured warriorseeking healing or a deceased warrior being prepared for a funerary event following abattle. While as speculative in character as this being a human sacrifice, it may besupported by the foetal position of the young male, as this is a natural reflexiveposition to enter when a person is alive and experiencing intense pain. An alternativesuggested 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 injurywould have particular resonance at the end of Middle Minoan II, when increasedconflict is attested (Schoep , ).

Religion, war and society

The view that religion was the dominant manifestation of power in Minoan society iswidely 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 beable to bind them with economic and ideological fetters. The most secureideological fetter that appears to have been used is control of religion and religiousritual. 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, aco-dependence emerges that can be variably manipulated by different elements of theelite group. This could be as simple as warriors requiring religious sanctioning of theiractions or warriors partaking in contests and displays at religious festivals. We shouldalso note that identities need not be exclusive and so warriors may perform religiousactivities that make no reference to their warriorhood.

We could also ask if religion was an imposed element of superficial control over themilitary, 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 torationalise and legitimise violence could have had a similarly powerful effect onalleviating the trauma of killing in the past (Grossman ; Molloy and Grossman). It is facile to view prehistoric warriors as mindless killing machines, or to thinkthat trauma is inflicted only on victims of violence and not on the perpetrators in thespecific 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 incombat, institutionally recognised cathartic measures are required to alleviate thepsychological damage caused to many combatants. The ability to transfer personalresponsibility for undertaking often brutal acts to the figures and institutions ofauthority that sanctioned and solicited those acts in the first place is an importantmeasure in recovering from the experiences of war. We may consider religion as

BARRY P.C. MOLLOY


34/57

providing such a conduit in prehistory, as it related to both divine and secular moralauthority.

WARRIOR BURIALS AND PALAEOPATHOLOGY

Burial practices

Warrior burials are a problem. When they do not exist we may wonder if there were anywarriors; when they do exist, we have to ask were they really warriors (Whitley ;Smith ). The casual introduction by Hood and de Jong () of warrior burialsto mean burials with weapons at Knossos was not intended to be dogmatic, but hasnonetheless 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 tholoiin the Mesara (Branigan ), and, despite differences in burial practices in the twoareas, daggers, axes and/or spears were associated with individuals and deposited inthe event of a funeral. The rarity of burials with weapons in Middle Minoan II LateMinoan IA is a problem because there is a risk of this being correlated with an absenceof warriors and hence of warfare, but a dearth of primary burials of any kind for thisperiod needs to be noted (Poursat ). Late Minoan IIIIIA warrior burials areknown from the areas of Knossos (Evans ; Hood and de Jong ; Hood ;Popham, Catling and Catling ) and Chania (Vlasaki in Whitley ) and havebeen considered as evidence for the arrival of warlike Mycenaeans on Crete. In Late

Minoan IIIC, burials with weapons occur throughout the island, with a particularconcentration of excavated examples in the east (Kilian-Dirlmeier ).

Whitley () has comprehensively sought to dispossess the deceased in Cretangraves of a warrior identity in life (see also Smith ; Driessen and Schoep ),and Preston (; a; b) has convincingly questioned the unilateralMycenaean-ness of burial practices in general. We can thus make assumptionsneither about the identification of persons buried with weapons as being warriors, norabout their being Mycenaean in ethnicity or identity. Taking these as starting points,we must account for weapons being intentionally interred in tombs and consider theirfunction 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 weaponproduction and use (Kilian-Dirlmeier , ).

The symbolic grammar of weapons noted in the iconography of Late Minoan I to LateMinoan IIIA (Krzyszkowska ; Hiller ) may in part have been translated to theburial environment to afford meanings through the selection and position of specificweapon types. Weapons were used in the construction of identities that wereconflations of military and religious symbolism, variably and perhaps contextuallyreferring 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 witha package of grave goods identified by Treherne () as occurring widely throughoutEurope and reflecting warrior identity. These were related to the concept of the



35/57

warriors 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 ofthis package, perhaps indicating expressions of different meanings, as we see in thevaried treatment of weapons in art. The differential selection of objects may thus relatemore to symbolic constructs in the event of burial than to personal wealth or a warrioridentity, though manipulation of one to promote the other may blur such boundaries.Furthermore, we cannot con

martial minoans

Documents