Nash - Rock-art from the Spanish Levant

75

Assessing rank and warfare-strategy in prehistoric hunter-gatherer society: a study of representational warrior figures in rock-art from the

Spanish Levant, southeastern Spain

George Nash

Centre for the Historic Environment, University of Bristol The permanence of rock-art can be considered as reflecting economic, political, social and symbolic stability. Rock-art can also be seen as a dynamic component that manipulates and enhances social cohesion between individuals and neighbouring groups. This manipulation is probably a result of the ongoing development of social identity, be it passive or aggressive. The art of warfare has been largely ignored, especially within prehistoric hunter-gatherer research. This is mainly due to the limited number of panels worldwide with scenes of violence. However, a social and economic framework has been determined by lithic studies which is usually supported by environmental considerations (e.g. Mithen 1991; Price and Brown 1985; Smith 1992; Zvelebil 1986). Whilst these empiricist studies are essential for understanding frameworks within prehistoric hunter-gatherer societies, the evidence for social and civil unrest is near impossible to quantify. Within the hunter-gatherer rock-art assemblage of Levantine Spain, however, there is a group of representational figures that portrays a society, the social and political framework of which rests, in part, upon violence revealed in scenes of execution, skirmishing and warfare (Beltrán 1968; 1982; Bosch Gimpera 1964; Cabré Aguiló 1915; Dams 1984; Mateu 2002; Nash 2000a; Pericot Garcia 1950).1 These painted panels, once witnessed by an audience, can be questioned in several ways. Firstly, are scenes where violence is displayed reflecting a reality within hunter-gatherer Levantine society? In other words, does warfare form part of a way of life? Secondly, do these scenes, in particular the executions, reveal a society in social and political turmoil, and do they counter the more traditional portrayal of hunter-gatherers as societies in harmony with nature and eachother? Furthermore, could a regime advocating capital punishment in this way be considered unstable and insular? The complex images of the panels display a violence that, within our own society, would be immediately repugnant.

1 As part of ongoing research, 39 Levantine panels (2,026 figures) have been included within a structural analysis (Nash 1997 and forthcoming). The Levantine panels have been regionally divided into eight groups. Within Group III (Teruel) and VI (Castellón), warring figures occur at seven sites. Of the 2,026 figures covered within this analysis, 413 are archers. Archers are divided into two groups: hunting archers and warring archers. Both groups are present on 24 panels.

In contrast, it could be suggested that these scenes represent simulated fighting dances whereby disputes are fought out symbolically (Beltrán 1982: 48). However, the presence of dead and wounded warriors on a limited number of panels suggests this is not the case (Table 1).

Dams Class SITE

TYPE OF SCENE

No. of participants

- Polvorin, Castellón

wounded warrior 1

21 Los Trepadores, Teruel

execution scene 1 + 7

36 I Cueva Remigia, Castellón

wounded warrior 1

36 III Cueva Remigia, Castellón


36 V Cueva Remigia, Castellón






37 VI

Cingle de la Mola Remigia Castellón

Dead warrior 1 + 1

37 VII

Cingle de la Mola Remigia IV, Castellón

wounded warrior 1

37 VII Cingle de la Mola Remigia

execution scene 1

40 Los Dogues, Castellón

wounded warrior 1

52 Saltadora, Castellón, XII

wounded warrior 1

82 Cuevas de la Araña, Valencia

wounded warrior 1

99 Minateda, Albacete

wounded warriors 2

Total 69

Table 1. List of execution and gladiatorial scenes In this paper, I discuss figures from a limited number of Spanish Levantine panels, in particular those from El Cingle de la Mola Remegia (Figs 1a-1c, 1e-1g), Cueva Remigia (Fig. 2), Les Dogues (Fig. 3), Cuevas del El Civil (Fig. 4) and Minateda (Fig. 5). I am particularly interested in the spatial arrangement of certain warrior types in order to assess rank and status. On each of the

WARFARE, VIOLENCE AND SLAVERY IN PREHISTORY

76

FIGURE 1. a. Execution scene from the El Cingle de la Mola Remegia, Gasulla, Castellón (after Beltrán 1982).

b. A file of ceremonial archers from El Cingle de la Mola Remegia, Gasulla, Castellón (after Beltrán 1982). c. Execution scene from El Cingle de la Mola Remegia, Gasulla, Castellón (after Beltrán 1982). d. Gladiatorial combat with wounded warrior from Cuvea

Remegia (caveat IV), Gasulla, Castellón (after Mateu 2002). e. Execution victim from El Cingle de la Mola Remegia, Gasulla, Castellón (after Beltrán 1982). f. Injured warrior with two arrows through the legs from El Cingle de la Mola Remegia, Gasulla,

Castellón (after Ripoll Perello 1963). g. Archer and dead or dying comrade from the El Cingle de la Mola Remegia, Gasulla, Castellón (after Ripoll Perello 1963).

GEORGE NASH: ASSESSING RANK AND WARFARE-STRATEGY IN PREHISTORIC HUNTER-GATHERER SOCIETY

77

FIGURE 2. Cuvea Remegia, Gasulla, Castellón, panel IX (after Ripoll Perello 1963).

FIGURE 3. Les Dogues, Castellón (after Ripoll Perello 1963).


78

FIGURE 4. Cuevas del El Civil, Castellón, panel III (A) (after Mateu 2002).

FIGURE 5. Minateda, Albacete (after Mateu 2002).


79

MAP 1. Area of the Levent (in black) where scenes of violence are present (after Nash 2000a).

panels displaying warfare or skirmishing, figures appear to be deliberately placed, suggesting strategic battlefield planning and formation. Some figures possess highly elaborate head-dresses which may represent superior rank, whist some are merely stick figures and represent infantry soldiers. Within the same assemblage, there are a small number of execution and gladiatorial scenes, the victims of which also possess head-dresses (Figs 1f-1g). Could it be that these figures represent warriors from neighbouring territorial groups, suggesting social and political instability? Four sites displaying violence lie within the upland gorges of Gasulla and Valltorta, in the province of Castellón (Map 1). This blatant portrayal of violence is in contrast to the herding and hunting scenes that otherwise dominates this assemblage (Nash 2000b). The figures, all representational, are arranged in a deliberate and systematic way; usually in the form of two opposing sets of warriors which have been strategically placed on the panel (Beltrán 1982; Dams 1984; Mateu 2002; Porcar 1947; 1953). These warrior representations, according to Dams (1984: 303), appear to date to around 6,500 BC (categorized as Style III). Recent reassessment of these figures has placed them within the Neolithic (ibid.: 304). Irrespective of period though, these figures probably represent a hunter-gatherer economy. I base this on other non-violent figures present either on the same panel or on neighbouring panels, including hunted red deer, chamois/ibex and bulls (e.g. Cingle de la Mola Remigia,

caveats IV and VII). Although warfare scenes are found elsewhere in Levantine Spain, the greatest concentration is found within the gorges of Gasulla and Valltorta in Castellón (Table 2).2

SITE No. of figures*

No. of Warriors

Cingle de la Mola Remigia IV, Gasulla, Castellón 50 11 Cingle de la Mola Remigia IV, Gasulla IX, Castellón 49 44 Cueva de la Vieja, Castellón 156 22? El Civil, Castellón 93 44 Galeria del Roure, Teruel 35 12 Los Dogues, Castellón 41 27 Minateda, Albacete 317 11 Molino de las Fuentes I ou Sautuola, Albacete 46 35 Total 787 206 * figures are based on the author’s analysis of each panel

Table 2. List of battle scenes

2 Other panels within the Levantine region include Abrigo del Molino de las Fuentes, Nerpio (Albacete); Cueva de la Vieja, Alpera (Albacete), Abrigo del Voro, Quesa (Valencia) and Abrigo Grande de Minateda (Albacete) (see Dams 1984; Mateu 2002).


80

European distribution The distribution of hunter-gatherer rock-art, both painted and carved, within Europe is concentrated in three main areas: northern Scandinavia (including Finland and western Russia), the Val Camonica (northern Alpine Italy) and the Spanish Levant (southeastern Spain).3 All these areas are categorized topographically as coastal or upland environments. The siting of rock-art within these areas may be considered part of the socio-symbolic/political process of a rock-art performance. The most poignant statement of orchestrated violence involving human versus human is witnessed within the Spanish Levantine assemblage. Arguably, much later, during the Iron Age, there is evidence of warfare and possible execution from the Bohuslän carvings of southwestern Sweden (Coles 1990: 56-8). Nordbladh has linked Iron Age and later hoards and carved armoured figures to a warrior/prestige society, referring to them as ‘self-promoting warriors’ (1989: 323-30). In the same paper, Nordbladh analyzed this assemblage further and noted that similar warrior regalia have been found in a large number of graves that date from roughly the same period. The art of this region depicts warriors engaged in battle, but there appears to be no portrayal of injury or death. It could be argued that these scenes depict a type of ritualized warfare (or war games) rather than conflict in the true sense of the word. It is the rock paintings around the Gasulla and Valltota gorges, however, that contain graphic evidence of organized violence, including execution by a squad of archers (Fig. 1c), gladiatorial combat (Fig. 1d) and hanging (Ortego 1948: 3-37; Porcar 1945: 145-52). Here, the artist appears to show complete reverence towards his/her subject.4 These scenes, along with dancing, food-gathering, herding and hunting, suggest the artist is attempting to paint a rational reflection of hunter-gatherer/warrior life. If so, are we witnessing in the warfare scenes (organized) state/tribal violence, in which the rules of conflict, trial and punishment are considered the norm? Anthropology of social relations In anthropological terms, warfare can be considered a form of armed conflict, usually between neighbours or what may be termed territorial groups. Armed conflict, also referred to as aggression, can range from raiding, skirmishing and feuding to full-scale battle, the latter

3 There are several other rock-art areas in Europe, such as southern Italy, Sicily and southern Greece. These areas, however, lack spatial and stylistic continuity with other areas of Europe. Furthermore, the dating of many panels through style, form and cultural content is, as yet, difficult to quantify. 4 It should be noted that the art involves male subjects participating in either violence or simulated violence. One can, therefore, assume the artist might have been male and what is being portrayed is maleness (see Hodder 1990; Nash 1998).

being particularly evident within the recent past. It has been suggested that warfare is an important mechanism for the growth of centralized political systems (Sahlins 1963; 1972). Above all, within a modern context, warfare creates (ethnic) unity that is driven by anger against a common enemy, usually resulting in military mobilization. The causes of warfare can be characterized by two schools of thought, one of which stresses underlying psychological tension - something that appears to be inherent within the human psyche, arguably as a result of biological evolution – while the other emphasizes ecological rationality (Kock 1974: 52-4). For the purposes of this paper, and in view of the implications for understanding art, I shall tend to take the view that warfare is basically an expression of human aggression and territoriality. Within the anthropological record there are, however, many types of cultural and ritual forms of conflict within human society (Ingold 1998). Warfare offers just one set of possibilities for resolving stress, overpopulation and (political) territorial disputes (Rubinstein 1998: 983). In many cases, neither warfare nor any other form of aggression is present. Where physical aggression is present, either between individuals or groups, warfare is a tradition and forms the basis for future aggression (Chagnon 1967; 1983). This ecological approach to problem solving revolves around population dynamics, demography, available resources and territoriality. Physical aggression involving these requisites establishes equilibrium between society, societies and nature (Nash 2000a). There are within many contemporary non-western hunter-gatherer and farming societies substitutes for violence, but perhaps not for aggression (Leach and Leach 1983; Weiner 1983). Simulated battles between neighbouring groups are known from the central highlands of Papua New Guinea and the Trobriand islands (Brown 1978: 39; Malinowski 1922). The Trobriand example substitutes games such as ‘Trobriand cricket’ for war. Introduced by European missionaries during the late nineteenth century as a substitute for actual conflict, the rules of the game are made so as to create a passive winner; the object being not to physically injure (Rappaport 1999). Within the New Guinea highlands region, the main objective of the warring parties is to injure and maim, but not to kill. Group survival is secured by the consolidation and control of ritual resources, including land tenure and commodities. However, owing to the ebb and flow of village populations, victorious neighbours rarely take land (ibid.: 119). Within the same highland area, the Dani look on warfare as an essential mechanism that is demanded by the ancestors. Skirmishes usually occur in the form of ambushes and, according to Brown (1978: 207), these acts appear to be a part of everyday life. In order to secure continuous conflict, no treaties are accepted. As a result, the ancestral spirits are constantly demanding revenge. Inter-tribal conflict relies entirely on men who


81

are conscripted from a number of villages (and not from a single village). Usually, death occurs as a result of injury sustained through intentional wounding (ibid.: 208). Once the skirmish is over, retaliation from the defeated tribal group is inevitable, thus continuing the cycle of violence. Similarly, the Masai people of central Kenya regard cattle raids and counter-raids against the neighbouring Okiek as ongoing ‘natural sport’ (Blackburn 1982: 295). In this instance, skirmishing reaffirms group identity, group solidarity, power relations, established boundaries and territorial rights. Rappaport (1967; 1999), who adopted a systems approach to conflict, argues that warfare among the Tsembaga Maring of New Guinea is one component of an already-established complex society. Here, warfare forms part of a cybernetic inter-relationship between culture and ecosystem. Warfare, along with the raising and ritual sacrifice of pigs, feasting, gift exchange and marriage, forms part of a ritual cycle and preserves equilibrium within society. This cycle of ritual behaviour provides stability to the social order, inter-group relations and redistribution of natural resources and population dynamics.5 However, the ecological approach excludes analysis of the symbolic, political and ideological components of warfare. The concept that warfare creates social equilibrium may be misconceived, in that warfare usually flares up as a result of imbalance, a contradiction in terms of internal and external constraints - be it socially, politically or economically induced (or elements of all three). Nevertheless, warfare does reaffirm group identity and, in most cases, strengthens group cohesion, as well as establishing internal class structure. Similarly, according to Marxist principles, warfare is a product of class antagonism. Assuming that a class structure is present (and it usually is) then conflict is an inevitable product. This is certainly evident within present-day Western (and Westernized) society. When discussing the concept of neighbours (both good and bad), one imagines a relationship between people that draws on communal group identity, an identity that relies on social and political contact: contact in the form of exchange, obligation and common ideology, as well as (in most cases) a mutual understanding of territorial space. Usually, these components ensure peaceful co-existence or, at least, tolerance between neighbours. One extreme case where inter-communal tolerance is lacking is that of the Yanomamö of Brazil, who apply aggression

5 It is suggested by Rappaport that the ritual cycle of the Tsembaga Maring, starts with warfare, and always between ‘engaging adjacent groups’ (1999: 75). Within houses of the antagonists, ritual fighting stones - mbamp ku - are placed around the central pole. The stones represent the (red) spirits (rawa mugi) of killed men who have fallen in battle. A number of rituals including the preparation of special charcoal and the sacrificing of pigs are undertaken when the fighting stones are hung within the house. The stones, according to Rappaport, change opponents into formal enemies, cenang yu (ibid.: 75).

at different levels. Here, aggression is both internally and externally driven (see Layton, this volume). According to Chagnon, inter-relational violence appears to be the norm. An added element of this aggression is the need to secure group procreation (Chagnon 1983). This is resolved by the abduction of females from neighbouring clan groups. The act of abduction is, in itself, a provocation that can set off a tit-for-tat process of retaliation, as well as open warfare. The need to secure social and political alliances with neighbouring communities is of paramount importance to the formation of successful territories. It is these constraints that may force members of over-populated groups to break away and migrate from established (ancestral) homelands, thereby initially giving rise to the concept of neighbours. Recently, Taçon and Chippindale (1994) suggested that dense human populations can, in a small area, exceed the minimum size necessary for genetic survival. This ‘genetic independence can lead to xenophobia’. A similar view is taken by Tainter with reference to population pressure in pre-Classic Mayan society, which could be solved either by agricultural intensification or conflict (1988). However, inter-group politics can also result in territorial neighbour formation. It may be that population dynamics during the Mesolithic was controlled internally by mechanisms such as infanticide, ritual human sacrifice and execution. Bourdieu (1977: 183-93) suggests that social practices - and I would include the above mechanisms - rely on social and political group relations based upon domination and repression, which are the result of repeated and modified social practices. I would add that the severity of such mechanisms requires complex tribal organization. Prehistoric images of war Art, although static, draws upon many of the codes of display. The prime reason for display is harmonization: the need to belong and to be identified. Rock-art creates an identity for the artist, the user and the group as a whole. Art also distinguishes the group from other groups and establishes regionality. Cultural regionality is evident in the Spanish Levant, with variations to standardized designs present throughout the area. The high concentration of rock-painting panels from both Gasulla and Valltorta gorges may display clan/group identity. Similar images - particularly identical designs of male archers - are replicated throughout. Beltrán lists nine and eight rock painting sites from each gorge respectively. All appear to share a stylistic and sequential structural affinity with neighbouring panels. Four of these panels - El Cingle de la Mola Remigia, Mas Blanc, Les Dogues and Cuevas del El Civil - all show identical fighting warriors. The figures, displaying a standardized design of elongated thin torsos with exaggerated calf muscles, are usually depicted running and shooting arrows. Some have elaborate head-dresses indicating


82

possible rank. The artists’ brush strokes, both simple and well-orchestrated, suggest an impressionistic approach to each panel sequence. But why replication? It could be suggested that panels were commissioned from the same artist. Alternatively, the designs may represent clan identity and their production was shared by a number of artists within the clan/tribe. Archers are portrayed not only in warring/combat scenes but in hunting and gathering scenes as well. Levantine art shows the most effective weapon for hunting (and warfare) was the longbow. This weapon is shown in the hunting of chamois/ibex/wild goat, red deer, wild cattle (in particular, bulls), as well as in warfare (Fig. 3). The depictions of hunters and archers on the panels at Riparo di Boro, Quesa (Valencia), Cueva Saltadora, Valltorta gorge (Castellón) and Cueva de la Vieja, Alpera (Albacete) all clearly show the use of such weapons. Herbert Kühn (1952) recognizes two types of longbow, which may represent different manufacturing methods over time or regional manufacture. Warriors are identical and structured in a standardized display. Warring scenes usually involve two sets of opposed (energetic) warriors, with bows drawn. Sets of warriors are running towards each other. Interestingly, none of the combat panels portrays dead or injured warriors. Given the absence of injured and killed warriors on painted panels, these scenes may represent simulated war-dancing between rival groups. However, executions scenes do occur elsewhere. In one scene from the Cingle de la Mola Remigia panel, a row of archers (archer squad) is walking away with bows above their heads, displaying almost triumphant jubilation at the execution of a victim within the foreground of the panel. Up to six arrows are embedded in the victim, who lies slumped lifeless on the ground. Arguably, executions could represent internal strife or enforcement of social law and order. Within the Levantine material, warring archers appear to be ranked and are usually recognized by the varying complexity of the head-dresses. The silhouette head-dresses appear very similar to those worn by North American Plains Indians. Head-dresses are graded according to size, which may relate to rank. Many also appear to flank archers without head-dresses - a strategy still used in modern warfare. Nearly all archers are also depicted according to a distinct gender coding: many appear to have a phallus, suggesting that the artist is attempting to emphasize maleness, an important component of the Spanish assemblage. On at least three of the panels - Cingle de la Mola Remigia, Les Dogues and Cuevas del El Civil - there is evidence of warriors injured in combat (Figs 1a, 1d-1e). At this point, I should stress that these panels do not depict warfare scenes but are merely a palimpsest; portraying a series of different but possibly interwoven narratives. The warrior figures have distorted bodies

suggesting the twisting and turning of the torso soon after arrow impact. In one such case, Cingle de la Mola Remigia, a warrior carries his dead comrade in his arms (Fig. 1g). The body lies slumped over the arms of the grieving warrior. The motif of war, a single longbow, is balanced over the left side of the warrior’s head. Above these two figures, a further warrior lies outstretched with at least three arrows embedded in the torso. These two sets of warriors appear to be the only figures engaged in combat. Either side are scenes of hunting bulls and chamois. It could be that both sets of warriors were engaged in a duel. The extent of war during this period remains to be considered. Was war waged exclusively between neighbouring groups, or are there wider implications? It has been hinted that warring groups depicted at the rock shelters of El Molino de las Fuentes, Nerpio and El Polvorin at La Cenia are racially opposed (Beltrán 1982). A further suggestion is that one of the groups at Cinto de las Letras are Negroid in form, while at Minateda warring figures with distinct triple-curved longbows are considered to be of Asiatic origin (Fig. 5). If these figures do depict Negroid and Asiatic forms, warring during the Mesolithic would have been a world event! The emergence of state complexity and warfare Warfare, or at least aggressive conflict, forms only part of a complex cybernetic structure within society. Yesner (1980: 727-50) has identified a series of points that characterize the emergence of social complexity, coupled with a shift towards marine/coastal adaptation, especially where there is a need to support large populations. It has been estimated that hunter-gatherer groups number between 45 and 240 people per group (Rowley-Conwy 1981: 55). The basis of Yesner’s arguments for the emergence of social complexity is rooted in the semi-sedentary populations of the Northwest Coast American Indians. The environment and, arguably, the social organization and structure may be similar to the climax/hiatus palaeoenvironment of Levantine hunter-gatherers. It is apparent that large populations require a greater level of social organization. Clive Gamble (1986: 41) suggests that hunter-gatherers adopt a ‘communal interplay’ between ‘organization and scheduling of work parties to exploit the scattered resources of the environment’. Further, he links organization with the wider implications of alliance through marriage and goods exchange. The basic assumption that hunters and gatherers only hunted and gathered is further denounced by Yesner. The 10 points that he outlines concerning the development of social complexity are particularly dependent upon environmental considerations. They are:


83

• higher resource biomass; • high resource diversity; • lower resource seasonality; • unearned (migratory) resources; • linear settlement patterns; • sedentism; • complexity and co-operative socio-economic

factors and resource exploitation; • high per capita productivity; • high population density; and • territoriality, resource competition and warfare.

On this latter point, I would suggest that warfare is a result of, and not a pre-requisite for, social development in later Mesolithic and Neolithic society. Warfare, therefore, probably forms part of the upward spiralling effect towards social complexity, where there is a need to consolidate prime hunting and fishing territories. Settlement, therefore, becomes not only a physical statement within the landscape but a (positive) state of mind. This model is certainly relevant when commissioning rock-art, itself another statement of permanency within the landscape. Taçon and Chippindale have recognized a significant change in rock-painting complexity concerning scenes of conflict (1994: 225). They argue that, between 20,000 and 10,000 years ago, in Arnhem Land (Australia) hunter-gatherer-foragers would have been highly mobile, working within a collective hunting regime. This strategy was determined by harsh environmental conditions. The art of this era reflects a number of socio-economic and political activities, including small-scale skirmishing. However, in times of stress, the competition for resources may have forced a greater need for installing well-defined territorial boundaries necessitating the legitimization of water and hunting rights. Taçon and Chippindale, therefore, suggest that, during times of extreme ecological stress, conflict would have increased (ibid.: 225). This hypothesis is further reinforced by the chronological change from small-scale skirmishing to large-scale battle scenes on a number of rock-painting panels. However, the style and form of both sets of figures appear to remain unchanged. Unfortunately, the figures from the Gasulla and Valltorta Gorges do not show any noticeable chronological variation. It would appear that, at one particular time, the expressive nature of the artist towards aggression and conflict was considered important. Whether or not state or inter-tribal violence was an important component of Levantine life prior to and after warfare paintings was executed remains a question of debate. However, Taçon and Chippindale’s idea that conflict is linked to the varying states of social and economic prosperity gives rise to an interesting (Darwinian) paradigm, in that social (or unsociable) dynamics are, in part, controlled by the management of resources. It could be the case, though, that artists from the Gasulla and Valltorta gorges were

fixated on an ideal state society with controlled boundaries that were both gender-encoded and politically rigid. A similar state may well have been present around the Tassili n’Ajjer region of north Africa.6 Warrior display and battlefield strategies Research undertaken by the author in 1997 (and forthcoming), involving four sites in Castellón, appears to show a number of correlations within the strategic placing of certain warrior figures onto rock-shelter walls. Warrior figure depictions extend to sites outside the gorge area, including Abrigo del Voro (Quesa, Valencia) and Abrigo del Molino de las Fuentes (Nerpio), Cueva de la Vieja (Alpera) and Abrigo Grande de Minateda, all in Albacete (Breuil 1920; 1935; Breuil et al. 1912; Garcia Guina 1963; Mateu 2002; Porcar 1934; Ripoll Perello 1963). The research, involving 117 warrior figures, was concerned with the detail and form of each figure (Nash 2000b: 348). Figures from the four sites were divided into figures of stick form (Type I), figures with exaggerated calf and thigh muscles (Type II), figures with pantaloons (Type III), figures with phallus (Type IV) and figures possessing elaborate head-dresses (Type V). Some figures possessed more than one of these traits. The largest group represented at the four Castellón sites is that of the stick figures (Type I). These number 59 and are present on four of the Cingle de la Mola Remigia panels, as well as panels at Cueva Remigia, Les Dogues and Cuevas del El Civil. Of these, four figures possess a phallus. These figures, usually constructed from a series of simple brush stokes, can be regarded as the least complex of all the warrior types and are located within the central section of the panel narrative. They are usually painted in a running stance (either full stride or part stride), holding a longbow with arrows drawn. In assessing rank, it is probable that these figures represent infantry as they are usually positioned in the thick of battle. There is little or no difference between stick figures on opposing sides. The second largest group of warriors numbers 43 (Type II). These warriors possess exaggerated thigh and calf muscles, designs that are also used in the construction of hunter- gatherer figures on other panels within the Levant. The greatest number appears on the Cuevas del El Civil panel, especially on caveat A (Fig. 4). The artist would have applied more care in the construction of these figures, using several more brush strokes to construct the body sections of each of the figures (i.e. to include the lower torso and the calf muscles). In nearly all examples from each of the four panels, the central area of the torso is narrow, thus exaggerating the upper thigh and shoulder

6 See discussions on warring scenes by Lhote 1962; Beltrán 1978; Muzzolini 1995.


84

areas of the body, thereby portraying healthy, virile male warriors. Within several battle scenes, in particular those present on the caveat B panel section at Cuevas del El Civil, Type II figures are integrated with Type I figures, suggesting that they may possess rank and status superior to that of the stick figures, albeit limited (based on form and number). The exaggerated calf muscles and elongated thighs represent strong healthy legs, probably the result of running. The artist appears to be concerned in portraying warriors in this way. There are four Type III figures, representing warriors wearing pantaloons, present on the Cingle de la Mola Remigia and Les Dougues panels. The ‘pantaloons’ are single blocks of paint along the length of each of the legs. The pantaloons appear to extend to the ankle area of each of the warriors where they become tufted. Why this style of trouser garment is used for battle is not known. However, it could be the case that the artist was concerned with separating stick and thigh-and-calf figures from pantaloon figures, thus portraying military rank. Type IV figures, those possessing a phallus, number four. These figures may have been present in greater numbers, especially those attached to Type I stick figures. However, paint deterioration over time, recent defacement and the size of each of the figures (sometimes up to 5cm in height) may have obliterated the extremely narrow brush stroke representing the phallus. As a result, phallus figures are only present on the Les Dougues and Cuevas del El Civil panels. There is a probability that these figures show warriors going naked into battle, a tactic used, according to Julius Caesar, by British tribal warriors in their attacks on Roman legions in the mid-first century BC.7 The final group of warriors, the most elaborate of all figures, possesses head-dresses (Type V). These figures number eight and are found on three panels: Cingle de la Mola Remigia (panels IV and IX) and Les Dougues. One figure from panel IX of the Cingle de la Mola Remigia also possesses a phallus. From each of the panels displaying conflict, the head-dress designs range from a simple painted blob above the head of the warrior to extremely complex head-dresses probably made of feathers, as seen in the Les Dougues panel. These figures are usually strategically located to the rear of or flanking the battle groups which include Types I to IV and probably represent battle commanders who controlled the various battlefield manoeuvres. Warfare within an ideal state of mind

7 Caesar describes them thus: ‘Of the islanders most do not sow corn, but live on milk and flesh and clothe themselves in skins. All the Britons, indeed, dye themselves with woad, which produces a blue colour, and makes their appearance in battle more terrible. They wear long hair, and shave every part of the body save the head and the upper lip.’ Gallic Wars V: 253 (trans. H.J. Edwards).

Throughout the historical periods there has been a need for conflict. These acts of aggression are well documented and their causes are usually political and economic greed, especially for territory. This is certainly true of conflicts during the European colonial period of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, as well as during state formation and the rise of extremist political ideologies in the twentieth century. For prehistory, the evidence is less forthcoming. As suggested earlier, there are written texts that portray a fragmentary image of warfare and, as concerns this paper, there is the evidence of rock-art, especially within later prehistory. These images, in particular those from the Spanish Levant and the Bronze Age and Iron Age images from the Val Camonica (Italy) and Bohuslän (southwestern Sweden), suggest a prehistory of conflict. These figures, however, do not portray any strategy pertaining to battlefield formation. However, Levantine images that date to the southern European Neolithic or Mesolithic do show strategic battle organization. Here, scenes depict warriors who are strategically placed. This paper has suggested that within hunter-gatherer society conflict forms an integral part of inter-tribal organization, what one might term an ideal state of mind. By this I mean conflict forms part of a socio-political calendar, with aggression relieving tension between neighbouring groups. It is more than probable that conflict - albeit strategically timed - stems, in part, from the pressure on resources. Conflict would have resulted in territorial disputes, cattle raiding or simply a history of bad relations between neighbouring groups. Portrayed in each of these Levantine scenes, especially those from the Valltorta and Gasulla gorges, is conflict between two defined groups. The numbers in each conflict scene vary but five different types of warrior are present, each type defined according to design complexity (Types I-V). In each of the scenes, design complexity, along with strategic positioning of each of the groups, suggests rank and, more importantly, the concept of organized inter-group conflict. Acknowledgements I wish to thank the following people for comments. First of all thanks to my good friend and colleague George Children. Thanks also to Maria Cruz-Barrocal (Madrid) who took valuable time to discuss various comments. All mistakes are, of course, my own responsibility. Bibliography Beltrán, A. 1968. Arte Rupestre Levantino. Saragossa:

Arqueología 4. Beltrán, A. 1978. Los problemas de la investigación de

las pinturas y grabados prehistóricos al aire libre: referencía al conjunto del Tassili n'Ajjer y al del arte rupestre levantino. Caesaraugusta 85-86: 5. Saragossa.


85

Beltrán, A. 1982. Rock-art of the Spanish Levant. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Blackburn, R.H. 1982. In the land of milk and honey: Okiek adaptions to their forests and neighbours. In E. Leacock and R. Lee (eds) Politics and History in Band Societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 283-306.

Bosch Gimpera, P. 1964. The chronology of the rock-paintings of the Spanish Levant. In L. Pericot García and E. Ripoll Perello (eds) Prehistoric Art of the Western Mediterranean and the Sahara. Chicago: Aldine, Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology 39. 125-32.

Bourdieu, P. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. (trans. R. Nice). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Breuil, H. 1920. Les peintures rupestres d’Espagne X: les roches peintes de Minateda (Albacete). L’Anthropologie 30: 1-50.

Breuil, H. 1935. Les Peintures Schématiques de la Péninsule Ibérique. Lagny.

Breuil, H., Cabré, J. and Serrano, P. 1912. Les peintures rupestres d’Espagne V: les abris du Bosque á Alpera. L’Anthropologie 23: 529.

Brown, P. 1978. Highland Peoples of New Guinea. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cabré Aguiló, J. 1915. El Arte Rupestre en España. Madrid: Comisión Investigaciones Paleontología y Prehistoría, Mem. 1.

Caesar, J. 1951. Gallic Wars (trans. H.J. Edwards). Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Chagnon, N. 1967. The Fierce People. Bantam: New York.

Chagnon, N. 1983. Yanomamö: the fierce people. New York: Holt, Reinhart and Winston.

Coles, J.M. 1990. Images of the Past: a guide to the rock carvings and other ancient monuments of northern Bohuslän. Uddevalla: Hällristningsmuseet, Vitlycke. Skrifter av Bohusläns Museum och Bohusläns Hembygdforbund 32.

Dams, L. 1984. Les Peintures Rupestres du Levant Espagnol. Paris: Picard.

Gamble, C. 1986. Hunter-gatherers and the origin of states. In J.A. Hall (ed.) States in History. London: Blackwell. 22-47.

Garcia Guina, M.A. 1963. Le nouveau foyer de peintures levantines á Nerpio. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique d’Ariége 18: 17-35.

Hodder, I. 1990. The Domestication of Europe. London: Blackwell Press.

Ingold, T. (ed.) 1998. Companion Encyclopaedia of Anthropology: humanity, culture and social life. London: Routledge.

Kock, K-F. 1974. The Anthropology of Warfare. Reading MA: Addison-Wesley, Addison-Wesley Modules in Anthropology 52.

Kühn, H. 1952. Die Felsbilder Europas. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.

Leach, E.R. and Leach, J.W. (eds) 1983. The Kula: new perspectives on Massim exchange. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lhote, H. 1962. Le problème de la datation des peintures rupestres en Espagne et en Afrique. Jahrbuch fur Prähistorische und Ethnographische Kunst (1960-62) 20: 62-8.

Malinowski, B. 1922. Argonauts of the Western Pacific. London: Routledge (reprinted edition).

Escoriza Mateu, T. 2002. La Representación del Cuerpo Femenino: mujeres y arte rupestre levantino del arco mediterráneo de le península ibérica. Oxford: Archaeopress, BAR International Series 1082.

Mithen, S.J. 1991. A cybernetic wasteland?: rationality, emotion and Mesolithic foraging. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 57: 9-14.

Muzzolini, A. 1995. Les Images Rupestres du Sahara. Collection: Préhistoire du Sahara 1.

Nash, G.H. 1998. Exchange, Status and Mobility: Mesolithic portable art of southern Scandinavia. Oxford: Archaeopress, BAR International Series 710.

Nash, G.H. 2000a. Northern European hunter/fisher/ gatherer and Spanish Levantine rock-art: A study in performance, cosmology and belief. Unpublished thesis.

Nash, G.H. 2000b. The power of the violence of the archers: all is not well down in Ambridge. (A study of representational warriors from the Mesolithic Spanish Levant). In special issue ‘New Approaches to the Palaeolithic and Mesolithic’ (ed. C. Conneller). Archaeological Review from Cambridge 17: 81-98.

Nash, G.H. forthcoming. The Mesolithic Art of North Western Europe. London: Routledge.

Nordbladh, J. 1989. Armour and fighting in the south Scandinavian Bronze Age, especially in the view of rock-art representations. In T.B. Larsson and H. Lundmark (eds) Approaches to Swedish Prehistory: a spectrum of problems and perspectives in contemporary research. Oxford: BAR International Series 500. 323-33.

Ortego, T. 1948. Nuevas estaciones de arte rupestre aragonés ‘El Mortero’ y ‘Cerro Felio’ en termino de Alacon (Teruel). Archivo Español de Arqueología 1: 3-37.

Pericot Garcia, L. 1950. Arte Rupestre. Madrid. Porcar, J. 1934. Pinturas rupestres del barranc de la

Gasulla. Boletin de la Sociedad Castellónense de Cultura, Castellón de la Plana 15: 343-7.

Porcar, J. 1945. Iconografía rupestre de Gasulla y Valltorta: danza de arqueros ante figuras humanas sacificadas. Boletin de la Sociedad Castellónense de Cultura, Castellón de la Plana 21: 145-52.

Porcar, J. 1947. Iconografía rupestre de Gasulla y Valltorta. (Representaciones pictográficas del toro). Boletin de la Sociedad Castellónense de Cultura, Castellón de la Plana 23: 315-29.

Porcar, J. 1953. Las pintures rupestres del barranco de ‘Los Dogues’. Archivo de Prehistoría Levantina 4: 75-80.


86

Price, T.D. and Brown, J.A. (eds) 1985. Prehistoric Hunters-Gatherers: the emergence of cultural complexity. New York: Academic Press.

Rappaport, R. 1967. Pigs for the Ancestors. New Haven CT: Yale University Press.

Rappaport, R. 1999. Ritual and Religion in the Making of Humanity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ripoll Perello, E. 1963. Pintures Rupestres de la Gasulla. Barcelona: Monografía de Arte Rupestre Levantino 2.

Rowley-Conwy, P. 1981. Mesolithic Danish bacon: permanent and temporary sites in the Danish Mesolithic. In A. Sheridan and G. Bailey (eds) Economic Archaeology: towards an integration of ecological and social approaches. Oxford: BAR International Series 96. 51-65.

Rubinstein, R.A. 1998. Collective violence and common security. In T. Ingold (ed.) Companion Encyclopaedia of Anthropology: humanity, culture and social life. London: Routledge. 983-1009.

Sahlins, M. 1963. Poor man, rich man, big man, chief: political types in Melanesia and Polynesia. Comparative Studies in Society and History 5: 285-303.

Sahlins, M. 1972. Stone Age Economics. London: Tavistock Press.

Smith, C. 1992. Late Stone Age Hunters of the British Isles. London: Routledge.

Taçon, P. and Chippindale, C. 1994. Australia’s ancient warriors: changing depictions of fighting in the rock-art of Arnhem Land, N.T. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 4: 211-48.

Tainter, J.A. 1988. The Collapse of Complex Societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Weiner, A.B. 1983. A world of made is not of born: doing kula in Kiriwina. In J.W. Leach and E.R. Leach (eds) The Kula: new perspectives on Massim exchange. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 147-70.

Yesner, D.R. 1980. Marine hunter-gatherers: ecology and prehistory. Current Anthropology 21: 727-50.

Zvelebil, M. 1986. Mesolithic societies and the transition to farming: problems of time, scale and organisation. In M. Zvelebil (ed.) Hunters in Transition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 167-88.

Documents

Nash - Rock-art from the Spanish Levant