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 In contrast, it could be suggested that these scenes
reflecting economic, political, social and symbolic represent simulated fighting dances whereby disputes are
stability. Rock-art can also be seen as a dynamic fought out symbolically (Beltrán 1982: 48). However,
component that manipulates and enhances social the presence of dead and wounded warriors on a limited
cohesion between individuals and neighbouring groups. number of panels suggests this is not the case (Table 1).
This manipulation is probably a result of the ongoing
development of social identity, be it passive or Dams
TYPE OF No. of
aggressive. Class SITE SCENE participants
Polvorin, wounded
The art of warfare has been largely ignored, especially - Castellón warrior 1
within prehistoric hunter-gatherer research. This is Los Trepadores, execution
21 Teruel scene 1+7
mainly due to the limited number of panels worldwide
Cueva Remigia, wounded
with scenes of violence. However, a social and economic 36 I Castellón warrior 1
framework has been determined by lithic studies which is Cueva Remigia, execution
usually supported by environmental considerations (e.g. 36 III Castellón scene 1 + 17
Mithen 1991; Price and Brown 1985; Smith 1992; Cueva Remigia, execution
36 V Castellón scene 1+5
Zvelebil 1986). Whilst these empiricist studies are
Cueva Remigia, execution
essential for understanding frameworks within prehistoric 36 V Castellón scene 1 + 10
hunter-gatherer societies, the evidence for social and civil Cueva Remigia, execution
unrest is near impossible to quantify. 36 V Castellón scene 1 + 14
Cingle de la
Within the hunter-gatherer rock-art assemblage of Mola Remigia Dead
37 VI Castellón warrior 1+1
Levantine Spain, however, there is a group of Cingle de la
representational figures that portrays a society, the social Mola Remigia wounded
and political framework of which rests, in part, upon 37 VII IV, Castellón warrior 1
violence revealed in scenes of execution, skirmishing and Cingle de la execution
37 VII Mola Remigia scene 1
warfare (Beltrán 1968; 1982; Bosch Gimpera 1964;
Los Dogues, wounded
Cabré Aguiló 1915; Dams 1984; Mateu 2002; Nash 40 Castellón warrior 1
2000a; Pericot Garcia 1950).1 These painted panels, once Saltadora, wounded
witnessed by an audience, can be questioned in several 52 Castellón, XII warrior 1
ways. Firstly, are scenes where violence is displayed Cuevas de la wounded
82 Araña, Valencia warrior 1
reflecting a reality within hunter-gatherer Levantine
Minateda, wounded
society? In other words, does warfare form part of a way 99 Albacete warriors 2
of life? Secondly, do these scenes, in particular the
Total 69
executions, reveal a society in social and political
turmoil, and do they counter the more traditional
Table 1. List of execution and gladiatorial scenes
portrayal of hunter-gatherers as societies in harmony with
nature and eachother? Furthermore, could a regime
In this paper, I discuss figures from a limited number of
advocating capital punishment in this way be considered
Spanish Levantine panels, in particular those from El
unstable and insular? The complex images of the panels
Cingle de la Mola Remegia (Figs 1a-1c, 1e-1g), Cueva
display a violence that, within our own society, would be
Remigia (Fig. 2), Les Dogues (Fig. 3), Cuevas del El
immediately repugnant.
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
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.

75
WARFARE, VIOLENCE AND SLAVERY IN PREHISTORY

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).

76
GEORGE NASH: ASSESSING RANK AND WARFARE-STRATEGY IN PREHISTORIC HUNTER-GATHERER SOCIETY

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

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

77
WARFARE, VIOLENCE AND SLAVERY IN PREHISTORY

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

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

78
 GEORGE NASH: ASSESSING RANK AND WARFARE-STRATEGY IN PREHISTORIC HUNTER-GATHERER SOCIETY

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

panels displaying warfare or skirmishing, figures appear caveats IV and VII). Although warfare scenes are found
to be deliberately placed, suggesting strategic battlefield elsewhere in Levantine Spain, the greatest concentration
planning and formation. Some figures possess highly is found within the gorges of Gasulla and Valltorta in
elaborate head-dresses which may represent superior Castellón (Table 2).2
rank, whist some are merely stick figures and represent
infantry soldiers. Within the same assemblage, there are No. of
No. of
a small number of execution and gladiatorial scenes, the
SITE figures* Warriors
victims of which also possess head-dresses (Figs 1f-1g).
Could it be that these figures represent warriors from Cingle de la Mola Remigia IV,
neighbouring territorial groups, suggesting social and Gasulla, Castellón 50 11
political instability? Cingle de la Mola Remigia IV,
Gasulla IX, Castellón 49 44
Four sites displaying violence lie within the upland Cueva de la Vieja, Castellón 156 22?
gorges of Gasulla and Valltorta, in the province of 93 44
El Civil, Castellón
Castellón (Map 1). This blatant portrayal of violence is
in contrast to the herding and hunting scenes that Galeria del Roure, Teruel 35 12
otherwise dominates this assemblage (Nash 2000b). The Los Dogues, Castellón 41 27
figures, all representational, are arranged in a deliberate
and systematic way; usually in the form of two opposing Minateda, Albacete 317 11
sets of warriors which have been strategically placed on Molino de las Fuentes I ou
the panel (Beltrán 1982; Dams 1984; Mateu 2002; Porcar Sautuola, Albacete 46 35
1947; 1953). These warrior representations, according to Total 787 206
Dams (1984: 303), appear to date to around 6,500 BC * figures are based on the author’s analysis of each panel
(categorized as Style III). Recent reassessment of these
figures has placed them within the Neolithic (ibid.: 304). Table 2. List of battle scenes
Irrespective of period though, these figures probably
represent a hunter-gatherer economy. I base this on other
2
non-violent figures present either on the same panel or on Other panels within the Levantine region include Abrigo del Molino
neighbouring panels, including hunted red deer, de las Fuentes, Nerpio (Albacete); Cueva de la Vieja, Alpera (Albacete),
Abrigo del Voro, Quesa (Valencia) and Abrigo Grande de Minateda
chamois/ibex and bulls (e.g. Cingle de la Mola Remigia, (Albacete) (see Dams 1984; Mateu 2002).

79
WARFARE, VIOLENCE AND SLAVERY IN PREHISTORY
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).
80
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
 GEORGE NASH: ASSESSING RANK AND WARFARE-STRATEGY IN PREHISTORIC HUNTER-GATHERER SOCIETY
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).
81
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
WARFARE, VIOLENCE AND SLAVERY IN PREHISTORY
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
82
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:
 GEORGE NASH: ASSESSING RANK AND WARFARE-STRATEGY IN PREHISTORIC HUNTER-GATHERER SOCIETY
• 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
83
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.
WARFARE, VIOLENCE AND SLAVERY IN PREHISTORY
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).
84
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.
 GEORGE NASH: ASSESSING RANK AND WARFARE-STRATEGY IN PREHISTORIC HUNTER-GATHERER SOCIETY
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.
85
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.
WARFARE, VIOLENCE AND SLAVERY IN PREHISTORY

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.

86