IGNACIO SORIANO, JUAN F.

GIBAJA AND LLUÍS VILA

OPEN WARFARE OR THE ODD SKIRMISH? BELL BEAKER

VIOLENCE IN THE NORTH-EASTERN IBERIAN PENINSULA

Summary. Archaeological examples of violence in prehistory have increased

in recent years. The evidence, methodology employed and interpretation of the
data have been diverse, but in each case the myth of the ‘peaceful past’ is
questioned. This work provides new data on the issue from the north-eastern
Iberian Peninsula, associated with the Bell Beaker culture (c.2800–2350 cal
BC). Material from two megalithic tombs, Can Gol I and Can Gol II (Barcelona
Province), in particular a set of flint arrowheads, has been revisited. Use-wear
analysis on the arrowheads confirmed the presence of impact fractures. This
indicates that the arrowheads were not funerary offerings, but that they entered
the graves lodged in the bodies of the deceased. The data from the only site with
evidence of massive death by violence in the neighbouring region (Costa de
Can Martorell) reinforce the hypothesis of episodes of conflict and violence
during prehistory. However, the interpretation of the nature of such violence
remains open to debate: was it an act of warfare or an occasional skirmish?
And is the image of the Bell Beaker warrior identified in other European
contexts also applicable to this area?

VIOLENCE, THE LATE NEOLITHIC AND THE BELL BEAKER CULTURE

In recent years, numerous archaeological examples of violence and aggression in

prehistoric Europe have been published. They cover a wide range of geographical areas and
chronological periods: from the Mesolithic (Roksandic 2004; Schulting 2006), Neolithic
(Christensen 2004; Golitko and Keeley 2007; Schulting and Wysocki 2005; Wild et al. 2004)
and Late Neolithic/Chalcolithic (Beyneix 2007; Meyer et al. 2009) to the Bronze Age
(Aranda-Jiménez et al. 2009; Harding 2007; Jantzen et al. 2011). Together with the evidence,
new theoretical and methodological approaches and interpretations of conflict and war have
appeared (Ferguson 1999; Haas 2001; Lull et al. 2006). Aspects such as the reasons for its
appearance, its scale, the weapons used, combat tactics, and methods of identification have been
studied through archaeological and ethnographic data (Judd 2008; Parkinson and Duffy 2007;
Thorpe 2003). At the same time, some collections of studies have examined one or several of
these points (Carman and Harding 1999; Pearson and Thorpe 2005; Schulting and Fibiger 2012,
among others). The debate remains open and major points of disagreement still exist. However,
OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 34(2) 157–183 2015
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 157
 OPEN WARFARE OR THE ODD SKIRMISH?

one of the main conclusions shared by the vast majority of researchers is that the myth of the
‘peaceful past’ should be questioned. Keeley (1996), in his classic and controversial book War
Before Civilization, was one of the first scholars to draw attention to the high level of violence
documented in past societies. Rather than peaceful communities, these societies would fight
frequently and violently when the situation required (Keeley 1996, 174).
This paper will contribute new data to this debate, through a description of two tombs
located in north-east Iberia: Can Gol I and Can Gol II (La Roca del Vallès, Barcelona) (Fig. 1).
Both sites reflect different phases of use, although the phase linked with violence is associated
with the Bell Beaker culture in both cases. In the area of study, the Bell Beaker culture is partially
contemporary with the Véraza culture, and both are situated in the same chronological period:
the Late Neolithic (Castro et al. 1996, 99–109). The characterization of these two groups is based
mainly on artefactual criteria. The Véraza group or Verazian was identified some years ago by a
certain pottery type (cylindrical ware with superimposed lugs) and by comparison with an
equivalent group in southern France of which it must have been an integral part (Martín 1980;
2003). A set of C14 dates for both cultures has recently been reviewed, with a total of 11 dates
for the Bell Beaker, 23 for the Verazian and seven that might belong to either group. The
chronological range obtained was 2800–2350 cal BC for the former and 3350–2250 cal BC for
the latter (Soriano 2013, 20–2) (Table 1).
The interpretation of the Bell Beaker culture has generated a long discussion in
European prehistory which has still not been resolved. The various hypotheses put forward
include those that see it as a single population group (Childe 1930; Sangmeister 1963); a set of
prestige objects exchanged among elites over long-distance networks (Clarke 1976; Harrison
1977); an ideological ‘koiné’ that homogenized or unified local groups and created a space for
exchange and circulation (Vander Linden 2006); or a synthesis of several of these proposals
(Benz et al. 1998). In our opinion, based on the data available in the present area of study, the
Bell Beaker culture cannot be regarded as independent of the Verazian communities. The
synchronicity seen in the C14 dates is also visible in other archaeological contexts, both
settlements and funerary sites. Bell Beaker settlements are rare although they have been
documented both in the open air and in caves and rock-shelters. The former type of site includes
Vapor Gorina (Roig et al. 2009), Molins de la Vila (Adserias et al. 2003), Camí dels Banys de la
Mercè (Palomo 2006) and Collet de Brics d’Ardèvol (Castany et al. 1992, 35). The best
documented deposits of the latter type are Level 3 in Cova del Frare (Martín et al. 1985) and
Roques del Sarró (Equip Sarró 2000). At all of these, pottery with Bell Beaker decoration is
associated with Véraza ware. To date, no settlement is known with exclusively Bell Beaker
decorated pottery. In contrast, burials have been documented solely with decorated pottery of this
type: Can Fatjó dels Aurons (Roig et al. 2009), Carrer París (Francès et al. 2007), Cova del
Calvari (Esteve 1966), Cova de la Ventosa (Llongueras et al. 1981), Reguers de Seró (López
et al. 2010), Torrent de Sant Oleguer (Cuesta 1985), etc. These burials are nearly all located in
the same kind of structures as those where only Véraza ware is found (caves, rock-shelters,
megaliths, hypogea, chambers with access shafts). However, the main difference lies in their
being individual or individualized multiple burials; that is to say, the graves contain a single
individual, or several where each one maintains its individuality regarding space and grave
goods. In contrast, the characteristic Verazian funerary practice is collective and multiple: the
individuals share a single space and grave goods, and are moved when it is necessary to bury a
new body or for ideological reasons (manipulation of the bones). The contrast between the
conception of death of an individual (Bell Beaker) or the collective type (Verazian) is highly

OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY

158 © 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
 IGNACIO SORIANO, JUAN F. GIBAJA AND LLUÍS VILA

Figure 1
Distribution of Bell Beaker sites mentioned in the text: 1. Can Gol I and Can Gol II (La Roca del Vallès, B.); 2.
Costa de Can Martorell (Dosrius, B.). Open air settlements: 3. Vapor Gorina (Sabadell, B.); 4. Molins de la Vila
(Montblanc, T.); 5. Camí dels Banys de la Mercé (Capmany, G.); 6. Collet de Brics d’Ardèvol (Pinós, L.). Cave
dwellings: 7. Cova del Frare (Matadepera, B.); 8. Roques del Sarró (Lleida, L.). Individual and individualized
multiple burials: 9. Can Fatjó dels Aurons (Sant Cugat del Vallès, B.); 10. Carrer París (Cerdanyola del Vallès, B.);
11. Cova del Calvari (Amposta, T.); 12. Cova de la Ventosa (Piera, B.); 13. Reguers de Seró (Artesa de Segre, L.);
14. Torrent de Sant Oleguer (Sabadell, B.); 15. Rocallaura (Vallbona de les Monges, L.); 16. Travès (Clariana del
Cardener, B.). Unknown type tombs: 17. Cova de Can Sadurní (Begues, B.); 18. Can Bosc de Basea (Terrassa, B.).
Evidence of violence: 19. Balma Sargantana (Oliola, L.); 20. Cova de Sant Bartomeu (Pinós, L.); 21. Collet de Su
(Pinós, L.); 22. Cova H del Cingle Blanc (Arbolí, T.); 23. Forat de la Conqueta (Avellanes i Sta. Linya, L.); 24.
Dolmen de Clarà (Castellar de la Ribera, L.); 25. Cova d’Aigües Vives (Olius, L.). Provinces: B. = Barcelona, T. =
Tarragona, L. = Lleida, G. = Girona.

OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY

© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 159
 TABLE 1

160
Radiocarbon dates (calibrated with Calib rev. 6.0). BB = Bell Beaker; VZ = Véraza (after Soriano 2013, appendix 1)

Site Cultural ascription Lab code Sample Radiocarbon Calibrated date

age (BP) (68.3% confidence)
El Coll VZ MC-1242 Charcoal, hearth 4775 ± 80 3644–3383
El Coll VZ MC-2143 Charcoal, hearth 4640 ± 90 3628–3141
Can Piteu VZ UBAR-685 Charcoal, hearth CPR-763 4540 ± 60 3363–3106
C/Riereta VZ Rome-1768 Charcoal, hearth E-33 4515 ± 80 3355–3099
Ca l’Estrada VZ Poz-11265 Charcoal, hearth EC-409 4505 ± 40 3339–3105
Ca l’Estrada VZ Poz-10384 Charcoal, hearth EC-2 4500 ± 40 3336–3104
Cova de la Guineu VZ OxA-10800 Human bone, layer Ic interior 4500 ± 40 3336–3104
Cova Colomera VZ OxA-17731 Seed, layer CE-10 4500 ± 32 3336–3152
Forat de la Conqueta VZ Ua-34290 Human bone 4475 ± 60 3335–3031
Ca l’Estrada VZ UBAR-854 Charcoal, hearth EC-410 4460 ± 50 3329–3027
Cova del Frare VZ MC-2297 Charcoal, layer 4 4450 ± 100 3336–2944
Cova de Can Sadurní VZ UBAR-1074 Charcoal, layer 9b, hearth 7 4425 ± 50 3309–2928
La Prunera VZ Beta-144301 Charcoal, layer 2 4360 ± 80 3095–2894
Mas d’en Boixos VZ UBOX-20 Charcoal, dug-pit E-1 4355 ± 45 3016–2912
Cova de la Pesseta VZ LTL-3893A Human bone, layer S1-IIIA2 4249 ± 45 2912–2762
Cova de Can Sadurní BB (AOC, LZM, Pyrenean), VZ I-11533 Human bone, layer 9 4225 ± 90 2915–2639
Cova de Can Sadurní BB (AOC, LZM, Pyrenean), VZ I-13313 Charcoal, layer 9, hearth 2 4160 ± 160 2911–2491
Reguers de Seró BB (GZM, Pyrenean) Beta-230406 Human bone 4150 ± 40 2871–2640
Forat de la Conqueta BB, VZ Ua-34289 Human bone 4140 ± 45 2866–2632
Cova de Can Sadurní BB (AOC, LZM, Pyrenean), VZ I-13315 Charcoal, layer 9 4130 ± 110 2872–2581
Espina C VZ Beta-247384 Animal bone, dug-pit 2 4120 ± 40 2859–2589
Carrer París ?VZ UBAR-817 Charcoal, layer UE-15 4110 ± 60 2859–2578
Cova de la Pesseta VZ LTL-3892A Human bone, layer S1-IIA2 4090 ± 40 2849–2573
Cova de Can Sadurní BB (AOC, LZM, Pyrenean), VZ I-12717 Charcoal, layer 9, hearth 2 4080 ± 100 2860–2491
Can Vinyalets II VZ UBAR-744 Charcoal, hearth CV-2 4075 ± 50 2847–2496
Forat de la Conqueta BB, VZ Beta-243284 Human bone 4060 ± 35 2832–2495
Cova de les Portes VZ UBAR-361 Charcoal, layer VI, hearth 4050 ± 70 2836–2475
OPEN WARFARE OR THE ODD SKIRMISH?

Roques del Sarró BB (Pyrenean) Beta-92206 Charcoal, hearth EC-27 4040 ± 60 2832–2474
Bòbila Madurell VZ UBAR-399 Charcoal, hearth C.11.H3 4020 ± 130 2858–2349
Cova del Frare BB (Pyrenean) MC-2296 Charcoal, layer 3 3990 ± 100 2833–2310
Collet de Brics d’Ardèvol BB UBAR-89 Charcoal, hearths F1 and F2 3960 ± 60 2570–2348
Roques del Sarró BB (Pyrenean) Beta-92205 Charcoal, hearth EC-25 3950 ± 90 2573–2299
Costa de Can Martorell BB (GZM) UBAR-696 Animal bone, upper level 3920 ± 80 2561–2290
Forat de la Conqueta BB, VZ Ua-34294 Human bone 3900 ± 40 2465–2343
Costa de Can Martorell BB (GZM) UBAR-695 Human bone, lower level 3875 ± 50 2457–2295
Carrer París BB (Pyrenean) UBAR-860 Human bone, layer UE-1 3870 ± 45 2457–2292
Bòbila Madurell VZ UBAR-398 Charcoal, hearth C.11.7 3850 ± 100 2466–2153
La Prunera VZ UBAR-684 Charcoal, layer 1 3830 ± 130 2470–2060
Costa de Can Martorell BB (GZM) LY-7837 Human bone, lower level 3810 ± 55 2343–2143
Costa de Can Martorell BB (GZM) LY-7838 Human bone, lower level 3795 ± 55 2335–2138

© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY
Cova del Frare BB (Pyrenean) I-13052 Charcoal, layer 3 3720 ± 100 2283–1975
 IGNACIO SORIANO, JUAN F. GIBAJA AND LLUÍS VILA

significant. In our opinion, this points towards the change from a non-asymmetric society to one
with social inequalities, in the middle of the Late Neolithic. In this way, the Bell Beaker culture
should be interpreted as reflecting the existence of a specific and privileged social group within
the Verazian communities. This group would accumulate, both in life and in death, the decorated
pottery and the set of objects associated with it. These objects (copper daggers and Palmela
points, gold ornaments, archer’s wrist guards, and pyramidal buttons with ‘V’-shaped
perforations) are similar to those found among other privileged groups in the rest of Europe. The
economic base for subsistence and social reproduction was possibly the appropriation of the
main source of food in the community: the livestock and/or pastures (Soriano 2013, 46).

THE SITES: FINDS AND CHRONOLOGY

The sites of Can Gol I and Can Gol II are two megalithic tombs located less than 500 m
from each other. They both consist of a rectangular chamber with a passage of the same width
as the chamber, the type known as ‘Catalan Passages’ (Fig. 2). The first of the tombs is one of the
largest in the whole north-east of the Iberian Peninsula. Its state of conservation is good, as most
of the side stones have been conserved and the covering tumulus is partially visible. The second,
in contrast, only conserves some of the side stones and currently has the appearance of a cist.
Both tombs have lost their capstones. They are located on the Roca del Vallès Prehistoric Trail,
an area with a high concentration of megalithic prehistoric sites. A further two megalithic tombs
of the same type are known (Dolmen of Céllecs and Dolmen of Can Planas), two hypogea
excavated in the rock (Roca Foradada and Pedra Foradada de Can Planes), two blocks with
inscribed sculptures (Pedra de les Creus and Plat del Molí), and a rock-shelter with Levantine
and Schematic rock art (Pedra de les Orenetes). The study of morphological characteristics,
artistic motifs and materials enables these sites to be dated to the Late Neolithic and Early
Bronze Age. In turn, the ‘Catalan Passage’ type of tombs was built specifically in the Late
Neolithic (Soriano and Vila 2013).
Can Gol I and Can Gol II were discovered in the mid-twentieth century, in the course of
archaeological surveying carried out by the Museum of Granollers (Estrada 1947). The first tomb
was excavated in 1946, when it was found that the archaeological artefacts had been mixed
together by old disturbances (Panyella 1947). The study of these artefacts has shown that the site
was used at three different times: Late Neolithic (Bell Beaker culture), Early Bronze Age and the

Figure 2
3D model of the Can Gol I and Can Gol II megalithic tombs.

OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY

© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 161
 OPEN WARFARE OR THE ODD SKIRMISH?

Figure 3
The most relevant archaeological artefacts from the Can Gol I megalithic tomb: 1–3. Pyrenean type pottery; 4 and
5. AOO or GZM type pottery; 6. Triangular polished stone pendant; 7. Glycimerys sp. shell pendant (after Museu
d’Arqueologia de Catalunya Photographic Archives).

Iberian Period. Associated with the first phase were fragments of two beakers belonging to the
AOO or GZM Epimaritime type1 and three of the regional Pyrenean type; abundant sherds of
undecorated bowls; four tanged and barbed arrowheads (one of which is currently missing) and a
flint trapeze; and a Glycimeris sp. shell pendant (Fig. 3). In the area of study, identical objects have
been found at other sites unmistakably linked with the Bell Beaker culture. This is the case with
the arrowheads at Can Fatjó delsAurons (Roig et al. 2009), Carrer París (Gibaja et al. 2006), Costa
de Can Martorell (Palomo and Gibaja 2003) and Reguers de Seró (López et al. 2010). Similarly,
the flint trapezes at Collet de Brics d’Ardèvol (Castany et al. 1992, 35) and the pierced shell
pendants from Tomb II at Torrent de Sant Oleguer and Can Bosc de Basea (Harrison 1977, 224;
Palet Barba 1915–20) can be associated with the Bell Beaker culture. All these materials have also
been found at Late Neolithic Véraza sites. However, in the Early Bronze Age and later, they are
totally absent from the archaeological record in north-east Iberia (Martín 2003). The Bronze Age
materials were restricted to two fragments of carinated ware. This pottery type is widespread in this

1 We are grateful to Araceli Martín (Archaeology and Palaeontology Bureau of the Government of Catalonia) for
the assistance given in identifying this type of beaker.

OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY

162 © 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
 IGNACIO SORIANO, JUAN F. GIBAJA AND LLUÍS VILA

period and is one of the most common types. Some objects could be associated with either the Bell
Beaker culture or the Early Bronze Age. These are four flint blades and 18 pieces of knapping
waste; a triangular pendant made of polished stone; and several fragments of human remains. At
the time when this grave was excavated, human bones were not usually gathered up, except
occasionally the skulls. It is therefore not surprising that so few bones were documented. Finally,
corresponding to the Iberian Period are some sherds of hand-made pottery with finger-marked
bands, a fragment of amphora or dolia, and six iron remains.
Can Gol II was also excavated in 1946. The objects found, again outside any
archaeological context, were only a blade, a trapeze, a borer and six pieces of knapping waste in
flint, and a possible arrowhead in jasper (Estrada 1946). At some unknown time, the tomb was
excavated again by members of the Vilassar de Dalt Archaeological Group, without any kind of
archaeological methodology. During this dig, which lasted a single morning, three tanged and
barbed arrowheads were found, as well as flint knapping waste and pottery sherds (Ubach 1994,
164). A review of these objects has found that the pottery is missing and one of the arrowheads
had been classified as found at a different site (Can Nadal I). This can be determined from the
description of the find, the form of the arrowhead and the raw material. These objects are not
chronologically diagnostic. However, because of the typology of the megalithic structure, and
the similarity of the objects with those from Can Gol I, we can equally classify them as belonging
to the Bell Beaker culture.

THE CAN GOL ARROWHEADS

In general, little attention has been paid to the lithic industry of this period by
researchers. Its study has not usually gone beyond a mere description of the objects, when they
were found inside a tomb (in other domestic contexts, their presence is often not even cited).
Fortunately, this situation has changed in recent years. The present paper is a clear example of
the current interest in studying lithic industry and the interpretative inferences that can be drawn
about the human communities of the time. Thus, the tanged and barbed arrowheads are being
studied in depth, because of the conclusions that can be reached, particularly when they are
found at funerary sites.
A total of six arrowheads have been studied, three from Can Gol I and the other three
from Can Gol II. They all fall within the class of ‘tanged and barbed arrowheads’, although
certain differences can be observed in their size and shape. They vary from elongated narrow
points with well-developed tangs and barbs (Fig. 4.1 and probably 2) to wide points with long
barbs (Fig. 4.3) and shorter, wider points with incipient tangs and barbs (Fig. 4.4, 5 and 6).
Although made of different kinds of flint, they are all similar in one aspect: they are
broken in one or several places. The study of the use-wear marks was aimed at determining
which of the fractures can be related to the use of these arrowheads in projectiles. The study was
carried out with an Olympus stereo microscope with 10–90X magnification and an Olympus
BH2 metallographic microscope with 50–400X magnification. The first step in this kind of study
is usually to detect and record all the possible organic and inorganic residues adhering to the
surface of the objects. In order to be able to observe and examine such residues it is essential that
the artefacts should not be cleaned in any way, since this would remove them. However, in this
case, the arrowheads were found at sites excavated in the mid-twentieth century, which is a major
handicap as nothing at all is known about the cleaning and storage processes these arrowheads
have undergone in the intervening decades.

OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY

© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 163
 OPEN WARFARE OR THE ODD SKIRMISH?

Figure 4
Flint arrowheads from the Can Gol I and Can Gol II megalithic tombs: 1–3. Can Gol I Nos. 46957, 46956 and
46955 (after Museu d’Arqueologia de Catalunya Photographic Archives); 4–6. Can Gol II Nos. 265, 266 and 243.

Most of the pieces were initially studied principally with the stereo microscope, with the
microscope revealing that the surfaces were badly affected by gloss, rounding and striations in
all directions (Sosna 2012). The use of projectiles may also generate impact striations, which are
diagnostic in the case of artefacts recovered correctly and not cleaned. In the present case, the
striations cannot be used as a criterion to determine the function of the arrowheads as their cause
is unknown and they may have been produced in multiple ways. For example, we cannot
differentiate between the striations caused by impact and those generated by the handling and
cleaning of the pieces or by their storage together with other lithic items.
The results of the use-wear analysis show that four of the six arrowheads exhibit highly
probable impact fractures, as well as other modifications connected with hafting and storing
inside a quiver.
• Arrowhead 46955 (Can Gol I: Fig. 5). It is 16 × 24 × 3 mm in size and the tip exhibits a small
step and hinge-terminating bending fracture, possibly caused by its use in a projectile. The tang
also displays a hinge-terminating bending fracture, caused by the counter-impact suffered at
the time of the impact or when the arrowhead was removed from the shaft. This arrowhead has
suffered significant thermal alterations. The cause of this thermal effect is unknown, as the
materials found in the grave are nearly all missing. Intentionally burnt points are not usually
found in graves similar to this, and it is therefore thought that perhaps some kind of ritual
involving fire was performed.

OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY

164 © 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
 IGNACIO SORIANO, JUAN F. GIBAJA AND LLUÍS VILA

Figure 5
Can Gol I, flint arrowhead No. 46955. Fracture at the tip.

• Arrowhead 265 (Can Gol II: Fig. 6). An arrowhead 18 × 23 × 4 mm in size which must have
been considerably larger, as much of the tip and the tang have disappeared. Indeed, a large part
of the tip suffered a step and slight hinge-terminating bending fracture, possibly as a result of
the use of the arrowhead in a projectile. This has caused the loss of over a third of the
arrowhead. Both barbs display 90° snap fractures and the tang a counter-impact that has
produced a step fracture and fissuration.
• Arrowhead 266 (Can Gol II: Fig. 7). With a size of 22 × 20 × 5 mm, it displays a small
step-terminating bending fracture at the tip, probably caused by an impact with a hard
substance. One of the barbs exhibits a fracture in a vertical direction, which suggests it was
caused on being pulled out of a body or object. In turn, the tang exhibits a step and hinge-
terminating bending fracture on one of its faces as a result of a counter-impact or bending the
shaft while removing it from the body or substance which it had penetrated. In addition, this
arrowhead has possible remains of mastic on the tang and pronounced rounding on the barbs,
perhaps caused by rubbing against dry hide. This rounding can only be explained by the outer
parts of the arrowhead, in this case the barbs, rubbing against the inner face of a container, such
as a quiver. It may be concluded that this arrowhead exhibits fractures caused by its use in a
projectile.
• Arrowhead 243 (Can Gol II: Fig. 8). This arrowhead’s dimensions are 25 × 23 × 4 mm. It
displays a series of fractures, some of which are the result of impacts. At the tip, a fissuration
fracture (or lateral spin-off) possesses a possible abrupt termination since it is located in a part
of the object where the surface is calcareous. Consequently, the fracture exhibits an irregular
surface. Both barbs display 90° snap fractures although one of them possesses a feather-
terminating fracture, possibly caused by bending. The tang is clearly broken by a counter-impact

OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY

© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 165
 OPEN WARFARE OR THE ODD SKIRMISH?

Figure 6
Can Gol II, flint arrowhead No. 265. Fractures at the tip and tang.

which is reflected in hinge and step-terminating fractures. In conclusion, this arrowhead with
possible impact fractures has suffered a hard counter-impact that fractured the tang.
• Arrowhead 46957 (Can Gol I). It is 21 × 12 × 3 mm in size, with a 90° snap fracture of one of
the barbs. This type of fracture may be caused by several factors, which are usually non-
functional. Thus, no criteria are available to confirm or refute that this point was used in a
projectile.
• Arrowhead 46956 (Can Gol I). This is a fragment of a barb made from flint. The different
fractures it exhibits are 90° snap fractures, which do not allow any conclusion as to whether or
not it was used.
In summary, most of these arrowheads display highly probable impact fractures.
Although it is not always easy to determine which fractures observed on arrowheads are caused
by their use as projectiles, in the case of Can Gol I and Can Gol II, the hypothesis that four points
display impact fractures is based on the morphology of the fractures (hinge-terminating bending
fracture, lateral spin-off, step fracture and fissuration in the tang) and on the fact that they do not
normally appear alone, but together in several places, especially in the tip and the tang. In those
cases where the points display 90° snap fractures, these have not been considered diagnostic, as
experimentation has shown that such fractures can be caused in other ways: during the

OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY

166 © 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
 IGNACIO SORIANO, JUAN F. GIBAJA AND LLUÍS VILA

Figure 7
Can Gol II, flint arrowhead No. 266. Fracture and possible remains of mastic on the tang.

fabrication of the arrowhead, by trampling, etc. A comparison of these weapons with those from
other funerary contexts to be described below indicates that they may have entered the deposits
lodged in the bodies of the deceased, a consequence of acts of violence, as occurred at the nearby
site of Costa de Can Martorell (Palomo and Gibaja 2003).

DISCUSSION

The first question to be asked is: Can we be sure that these weapons reflect an episode
of violence?
The results of the use-wear analysis of the six arrowheads can be summarized as
follows:

OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY

© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 167
 OPEN WARFARE OR THE ODD SKIRMISH?

Figure 8
Can Gol II, flint arrowhead No. 243. Fractures at the tip, tang and barb.

• Four of the six arrowheads (one from Can Gol I and three from Can Gol II) exhibit highly
probable impact fractures linked with their use as projectiles. These macroscopic fractures are
diagnostic, and are located in the tip and the tang.
• The other two arrowheads from Can Gol I exhibit non-diagnostic macroscopic fractures. Their
causes cannot be determined, which does not mean that they were not used in projectiles, only
that this use cannot be demonstrated. The fractures are located in the barbs and/or in the body
of the arrowhead.
• All of the arrowheads display fractures.
We consider that these results are sufficient to confirm the existence of an episode of
violence linked to the Bell Beaker culture. This assertion is based on three grounds . First, we
think it is unlikely that the arrowheads were used against animals (hunting wild animals or

OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY

168 © 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
 IGNACIO SORIANO, JUAN F. GIBAJA AND LLUÍS VILA

protecting livestock against predators) rather than against humans. Several researchers have
shown that the technical characteristics of arrowheads do not constitute good criteria by which
to distinguish between both types of use. This is because both cases require a projectile with the
appropriate symmetry and weight for flight and optimal penetration capacity, and which is
difficult to extract (Fischer 1989; Pétrequin and Pétrequin 1990). One significant argument
comes from the role played by hunting within these communities. Recent reappraisals of
archaeobotanical and archaeozoological data suggest that hunting was not a major activity
(Soriano 2013, 39–43).2 Archaeobotanical studies indicate that cereal-growing, especially barley
(Hordeum vulgare), was quite important. The habitual finds of storage silos at settlements, as
well as tools used in agricultural tasks, can corroborate this evidence. In turn, archaeozoological
research shows that domestic animals, mainly ovicaprines (Ovis/Capra) but also cattle (Bos
taurus) and pigs (Sus domesticus), were as important in the diet as agriculture. However,
predators capable of attacking livestock (wolf, fox, bear) are practically absent from the
archaeological record. The most common wild species in faunal assemblages are rabbits and
hares (Oryctolagus cunniculus/Lepus capensis), while red deer (Cervus elaphus), boar (Sus
scropha), horse (Equus caballus) and fox (Canis vulpes) are also found but in much smaller
numbers. Other evidence that might indicate the glorification of hunting and/or hunters is
completely missing. Such evidence would include deposits of specific parts or ‘trophies’ of
hunted animals or the representation of hunting scenes found in the rock art of other prehistoric
groups (Menéndez and Quesada 2008).
It is therefore impossible to explain the large number of lithic arrowheads dated to the
Late Neolithic without reference to some situation of violence. Arrowheads are, after pottery,
among the most common objects at the sites. Flint is the main raw material although quartz is
used sporadically. The typological variety is enormous: leaf-shaped points, diamond-shaped,
tanged with incipient barbs, tanged with full barbs and, less frequently, asymmetrical points
(Martín 2003). Although few technological studies have been carried out to date, a wide range
of treatments and fabrication processes suggests a heterogeneous, non-standardized production
(Gibaja et al. 2006; Palomo and Gibaja 2003). This imbalance between the abundant arrowheads
and the scarce evidence for hunting has been interpreted in other archaeological cases as a clear
sign of their use in violence (Honegger et al. 2011; Underhill 1989).
Secondly, similar arrowheads found at other Bell Beaker funerary sites in the area of
study are always intact. The absence of fractures indicates that the pieces were deposited in
perfect condition, ready to be used, and formed part of the grave goods. In contrast, the discovery
of points fractured during use does not accord with the type of ritual that is normally documented
and thus requires an alternative explanation. One of these is that they were accidentally
introduced into the tomb, lodged in the individuals’ bodies and a cause of wounds and/or their
death. Intact arrowheads have been found at the megalithic cist at Reguers de Seró, where one
arrowhead was documented (López et al. 2010), and the hypogeum at Carrer París, with eight
specimens (Gibaja et al. 2006). It is very likely that the arrows were deposited whole, with the
shaft and fletchings, and in some cases even inside a quiver, when the arrowheads are found
grouped together. This situation has been recorded at several European Bell Beaker sites in Great
Britain (Fitzpatrick 2002, 630) and Denmark (Sarauw 2007, 73). Other types of grave goods in

2 The literature consulted, including references for specific sites and more general works summarizing the data, is:
Alonso 2000; Andúgar and Saña 2004; Boquer et al. 1995; Buxó 1997; Castany et al. 1992; Edo et al. 2002; Equip
Sarró 2000; Martín et al. 1985; Nadal et al. 1999; Piera et al. 2008; Roig et al. 2009; Vicente and Gutiérrez 2004.

OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY

© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 169
 OPEN WARFARE OR THE ODD SKIRMISH?

Bell Beaker tombs are usually also found whole and/or in a good state of preservation, and not
fragmented as at Can Gol I and Can Gol II (Vander Linden 2006).
As a third point, is it possible that not all the arrowheads at the Can Gol sites were used
for violence? It seems unlikely. Certainly, the use-wear study found that only 66 per cent of them
display highly probable impact fractures linked with their use. However, both experimental and
archaeological data indicate that arrowheads do not always fracture during their use. Experimental
work has shown that the projectiles often hit the soft parts of the body and tend to pass through the
target without touching a bone (Schulting and Wysocki 2005, 108). In these cases, it is very
unlikely that the arrowheads will suffer any breakage and, in addition, they will be recovered
outside the target’s body. It has equally been shown that on the occasions when the point hits a
bone, it does not always fracture and very rarely becomes lodged in the bone. The arrowhead will
go through some bones, like scapulae and ribs, while in other cases it simply bounces off without
causing any damage to the point (Palomo and Gibaja 2003, 204). An example of this is given in the
study by Smith et al. (2007), which aimed to identify the marks made in bones by lithic
arrowheads. Out of a total of 32 impacted projectiles, only half of them suffered any kind of
fracture, and some of those were microscopic. Within the Iberian Peninsula, several examples of
violent episodes of this kind have been documented osteologically (Esparza et al. 2008; Etxeberría
and Herrasti 2007, 231–4; Etxeberría and Vegas 1992; Mercadal and Agustí 2006). The most
significant sites are the rock-shelter of San Juan ante Portam Latinam (Álava, Basque Country) and
the hypogea of Costa de Can Martorell (Dosrius, Barcelona) and Longar (Viana, Navarre).
However, at these sites, impact fractures are not visible in all the arrowheads. At the first site, 67
per cent of the 61 arrowheads found are incomplete (Armendáriz 2007, 130), whereas at the second
the proportion increases to over 80 per cent of the 68 points recovered (Márquez et al. 2008). Finds
of arrowheads or fragments of them lodged in bones are rare. At San Juan ante Portam Latinam,
nine cases were identified out of a total of 338 bodies (Etxeberría and Herrasti 2007, 208–20), at
Costa de Can Martorell no examples were found in 195 individuals (Márquez et al. 2008, 234), and
at Longar four cases were documented in 112 individuals (Armendáriz et al. 1994) (Fig. 9.2). For
comparison, large numbers of examples of violence with projectiles are known in France in the
Late Neolithic, especially in the south of the country. Guilaine and Zammit (2002, 151–2) have
studied some 55 individuals with arrow wounds from 33 multiple burials (Fig. 9.1). We are
unaware of any use-wear studies of these arrowheads. The researchers highlight the possible
under-representation of this type of evidence, which may have originally been much greater.
Among other reasons, they note the evidence of other osteological signs of violence (contusions,
dagger wounds) and the presence of arrowheads at the same sites, which have been interpreted as
grave goods but which might have been lodged in the soft tissues of the bodies.
In short, given the minimal importance of hunting, the high number of lithic arrowheads,
contemporary funerary sites and archaeological and experimental data on projectile impacts
support the proposal that the arrowheads studied here are evidence of one or several acts of
violence associated with the Bell Beaker culture.
It is extremely interesting to highlight the similarities between the Can Gol I and Can
Gol II megalithic tombs and the hypogeum of Costa de Can Martorell (Mercadal 2003), the only
example of massive death by violence currently known in the north-eastern Iberian Peninsula.
First, at Costa de Can Martorell, the stratigraphic data and the osteological study corroborate the
fact that a large number of the individuals were buried simultaneously. Other isolated cases of
violence have been cited in the area of study, most of which are not dated very precisely (see
below) and none of which possesses the magnitude of this site. In the case of Can Gol I and II,

OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY

170 © 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
 IGNACIO SORIANO, JUAN F. GIBAJA AND LLUÍS VILA

Figure 9
Flint arrowheads embedded in human bones: 1. Right tibia wound, Font-Rial megalithic tomb (Saint-Rome-de-Tarn,
Aveyron) (courtesy of A. Roussot, after Beyneix 2007, 84, fig. 4); 2. Eighth dorsal vertebra wound, case 7 from San
Juan ante Portam Latinam (Álava, Basque Country) (courtesy of L. Herrasti, after Etxeberría and Herrasti 2007,
213, fig. 66).

the data obtained concerning the arrowheads and in particular the characteristics of the sites
suggest a violent event of certain importance. These are two megalithic graves, a type of tomb
whose reuse (proved in the case of Can Gol I) and/or later violation by treasure-hunters and
amateurs has been widely documented throughout history. There can be no doubt, therefore, that
the original number of arrowheads may have been larger. Second, the three sites are associated
with the Bell Beaker culture. An Epimaritime GZM bowl was found in the hypogeum, similar to
the one at Can Gol I. The C14 dates place the burial between 2300 and 2200 cal BC (Table 1).
Third, the 68 arrowheads that have been documented are all tanged and barbed, whilst displaying
great variability. The considerable typological similarities with the arrowheads studied here are
significant (Figs. 10 and 11). Lastly, the sites are quite close to one another, as Costa de Can
Martorell is less than 10 km from the two megalithic tombs and is one of the nearest sites with
Bell Beaker decorated pottery.

OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY

© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 171
 OPEN WARFARE OR THE ODD SKIRMISH?

Figure 10
Typological similarity between flint arrowheads from the Can Gol I megalithic tomb and the Costa de Can
Martorell hypogeum: 1, 5 and 8. Can Gol I Nos. 46957, 46955 and 46956; 2–4, 6, 7, 9 and 10. Costa de Can
Martorell Nos. 29, 66, 48, 61, 57, 11 and 33 (after Palomo and Gibaja 2003).

OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY

172 © 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
 IGNACIO SORIANO, JUAN F. GIBAJA AND LLUÍS VILA

Figure 11
Typological similarity between flint arrowheads from the Can Gol II megalithic tomb and the Costa de Can
Martorell hypogeum: 1, 3 and 5. Can Gol II Nos. 243, 265 and 266; 2, 4 and 6. Costa de Can Martorell Nos. 22, 7
and 67 (after Palomo and Gibaja 2003).

The second question is: What kind of violence was this?

Evidence of violence can be interpreted in different ways, although it is normally
understood as being of two main kinds. The first kind includes all examples of individual and
spontaneous, impulsive or reactive acts: disputes, homicides, acts of vengeance, etc. The second,

OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY

© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 173
 OPEN WARFARE OR THE ODD SKIRMISH?

called war or warfare, can be defined as the organized violence of one group or society against
another group, involving the use of physical force (Harding 2007, 17; Thorpe 2003, 146). This
second kind has aroused the most interest in archaeology, while it encompasses a wide range of
different situations: open warfare between organized armies; duels between champions; rapid
attacks in the form of razzias; sporadic and occasional skirmishes, and so on. Making distinctions
between them is extremely complex and it is often very difficult, if not impossible, to determine
clearly what kind of conflict it is. The verification in the archaeological record of certain forms
of evidence normally accepted as indicators of violence (see below) is not enough. There is no
single ‘recipe’ that can be applied to all societies. In each archaeological case, the relationship
between the evidence, its intensity and its frequency of recurrence in time and space should be
assessed (Haas 2001, 331). It may be supposed that in an extreme case of ‘total war’, the
evidence of conflict will be more diverse, intense and repeated, and vice versa.
The exercise of violence can be detected archaeologically through three types of
evidence: the effect violence has on the human body, the means used to exercise it, and the
representation of the violence (Lull et al. 2006, 101–3; Thorpe 2003, 150).
The first type is the most direct and certain proof. Human remains with lethal or healed
wounds or even with the weapon still lodged in the bone (arrowheads and daggers) are clear
indicators. However, the interpretation must be shown to be correct. Traumatic injuries may have
many causes, such as falls and fortuitous impacts, or hunting accidents totally unrelated to
violence (Judd 2008; Schulting and Wysocki 2005).
The second type includes all forms of structures connected with the defence of a
settlement and the objects used for fighting and aggression. Among the former are the strategic
position of settlements, walls, bastions, moats, chevaux de frise, ‘no-man’s-land’, etc. While
some of these structures are clearly for military purposes, in other cases this has to be
demonstrated with evidence that eliminates other hypothetical functions (defence against
predators, protection against floods, ritual acts or display, etc.) (Parkinson and Duffy 2007). The
nomenclature and classification of the latter have been debated more. The fact that the objects
can be used for more than one function means that some researchers have proposed two
categories (weapon, specialized weapon) (Lull et al. 2006, 102) or even three (tool-weapon,
weapon-tool, weapon) (Chapman 1999, 107–8). In our opinion, the dual division is clearer, as it
separates weapons from tools used offensively. The former are objects produced specifically for
aggression or for defence (swords, halberds, shields, greaves, armour, etc.). Their existence
corresponds to times when violence is a structural part of society and not merely associated with
isolated or uncontrolled incidents. The latter kind of implements, used occasionally or repeatedly
in violence (arrows, daggers, axes), are originally intended for use in other ways within the
community and should not be considered weapons. However, it should be stressed that the
distinction between these two categories is dynamic and depends on the exact conditions at any
given time. Thus, for example, if it is seen that arrowheads were being produced specifically for
warfare, or if the impact marks of metal axes are found repeatedly on human remains, these
should be regarded as weapons.
The last type of evidence of violence is the representation of fighting on different kinds
of surfaces. Some widely known examples are the battle scenes, archers and ‘public executions’
in Spanish Levantine rock art (López-Montalvo 2011); the common representation of weapons
on the menhir-statues and anthropomorphic stelae in the Alpine Chalcolithic (Casini and Fossati
2004); and the scenes of warriors and weapons in northern Europe in the Bronze Age (Harding
2007, 115–18). The limitations to the assessment and interpretation of this type of evidence are

OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY

174 © 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
 IGNACIO SORIANO, JUAN F. GIBAJA AND LLUÍS VILA

clear. We do not possess the keys to understanding the exact meaning, symbolic content and/or
motivation of the depictions. Hence it is not always easy to discriminate between real actions and
imaginary, symbolic or ritual battles (Guilaine and Zammit 2002, 138). However, there is no
doubt about the social significance of representing weapons and/or implements used offensively
on different kinds of artistic objects.
According to these three different types of evidence of violence, the case being studied
here is considered to be a clear example of warfare. Its main characteristics can be summarized
as typical of occasional or short-lived skirmishes; it is restricted to a very small area; but occurs
within a society in which violence acquired certain significance. Several arguments can be put
forward to support this hypothesis.
First, evidence of violent death in north-east Iberia in the Late Neolithic is almost
non-existent. Apart from the Costa de Can Martorell hypogeum mentioned above, no other case
can be unmistakably associated with the Bell Beaker culture and only two are dated to the same
period (Late Neolithic), in association with the Verazian. These two sites contained collective
and multiple burials. The first is Balma Sargantana, a rock-shelter whose osteological study has
detected a significant frequency of cranial traumas and erosion that might have been caused by
violence. One of the skulls exhibits a trepanation (Mercadal and Agustí 2006, 46). The second
is Cova de Sant Bartomeu, a cave where a human rib with a perimortem incision produced by
a sharp edge was found (Soriano 2013, 42). These sites are over 100 and 80 km respectively
from the Can Gol sites, and are apparently isolated cases (Fig. 1). Other examples,
corresponding to perforations caused by arrows and traumas, lack a stratigraphic context, could
equally belong to the Early Bronze Age or Late Bronze Age, and are similarly distant from the
area of Can Gol I and Can Gol II. Two metal arrowheads, both associated with skulls, were
found at the megalithic tomb of Collet de Su and in Cova H at Cingle Blanc. One was lodged
in the left parietal and the other had penetrated the maxillary sinus and the pterygomaxillary
fossa (Etxeberría and Vegas 1992, 130). A flint arrowhead fragment was found in the bicipital
tuberosity of a radius at Forat de la Conqueta. The 11 C14 dates for this cave show that it was
used repeatedly from the Late Neolithic to the Late Bronze Age (González et al. 2011). Four
cranial traumas, probably caused by violence, were found out of a total of 14 individuals at
Clarà Dolmen. In addition, three trepanations and a skull with incisions in the frontal bone
related to scalping were found (Mercadal and Agustí 2008, 85). Finally, at Cova d’Aigües Vives,
skull number 2 also displayed signs of scalping and a further three exhibited trepanations
(Campillo 2007, 167–75).
There is therefore some evidence of violence in north-east Iberia during recent
prehistory. However, this is very little in comparison with the hundreds of human remains studied
in the region. It is even less if it is restricted to the Late Neolithic, the period to which Can Gol
I and Can Gol II are assigned. Numerous osteological studies of remains attributed to the
Verazian (Agustí 1998; Balaguer et al. 2013; Edo et al. 2002), the Bell Beaker culture (Bubner
1976; Cuesta 1985; Esteve 1966; Llongueras et al. 1981) and the Bronze Age (Alesan and Safont
2003–4; Alfonso et al. 2004; Armentano and Malgosa 2002; Armentano et al. 2007; Majó 2001)
have failed to find evidence of violence. It is therefore not possible to propose that a situation of
repeated and generalized violence existed at that time. The data indicate that it would have been
very occasional. In addition, the three cases in the Province of Barcelona that are being cited
(Can Gol I, Can Gol II and Costa de Can Martorell) are the only ones proved to be grouped
chronologically and spatially. This concentration in such a small area is not thought to be due
solely to chance.

OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY

© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 175
 OPEN WARFARE OR THE ODD SKIRMISH?

Apart from the violent deaths, there is no other osteological evidence to support the idea
that combat and conflict were constant amongst these groups. The osteological study for the site
of Costa de Can Martorell did not find any clear signs of violence followed by survival. In the
case of the three traumas documented, two to the skull and a ‘parry fracture’, it is not possible
to distinguish between accidental or induced causes. Contrasting examples are known in the Late
Neolithic in other parts of Europe, with a large number of signs of violence followed by healing,
both in southern France (Guilaine and Zammit 2002, 151–5) and western Portugal (Silva et al.
2012). At the same time, although it is less conclusive evidence, at Costa de Can Martorell no
clear signs of enthesopathies of the elbows were identified. This kind of pathology is related to
archery, among many other forms of activity (Campillo et al. 2003). The osteological studies
made of other contemporary sites are too limited to be able to support or refute the tendency seen
at Costa de Can Martorell (Castellana and Malgosa 1991). Thus, we can only point to the scarcity
of information for indicating that the bow was a weapon in repeated use, as would be expected
if it was associated with warfare. The lack of wounds with signs of healing is basically the reason
for suggesting that the population buried at Costa de Can Martorell suffered an unusual act of
violence.
Second, no artistic representations can be related directly with warfare. In the whole
of north-east Iberia, we are only aware of one Levantine painting with battle scenes, archers
or executions: the rock-shelter of La Vall II in Sierra de Llaberia (Capçanés) (Sarrià et al.
2011, 73). Its location in the south of the area of study is distant from the burial sites and
seems to relate it to other Iberian rock art of this kind, which is concentrated further south in
Castellón, Teruel and Albacete. This is therefore not a typical theme in the north-east
(López-Montalvo 2011, 34). Equally, the steles and statue-menhirs documented in recent years
differ from similar monuments in southern France in that they lack any representation of
weapons or implements used for aggression (Moya et al. 2010). Representations of daggers,
axes, halberds, bows or similar objects do not exist. This may suggest that either the conflicts
were not deeply rooted or they did not possess enough social importance to be represented
artistically.
Finally, following the criteria described above to differentiate objects used in
violence, only one kind of item can be included within the category of weapon: lithic
arrowheads. The imbalance between their frequency in the archaeological record and the
scarcity of evidence for hunting has already been described. This is hard to explain without
resorting to the presence of some situation of violence. However, it is difficult to define this
situation of conflict. The current data do not appear to indicate the existence of open warfare
or constant fighting. The variety of types and fabrication processes documented in the
arrowheads suggest that production was not standardized and is in accordance with small
autonomous family groups rather than full-time specialist weapon-makers. The characteristic
copper implements in the Bell Beaker group (axes, daggers, Palmela points) would have been
used for many functions, all of them unconnected with violence. These would include wood-
working and house-building, processing meat and protecting livestock. Archaeological
evidence has proved the importance of all such tasks in these communities (Soriano 2013,
39–43). Some daggers lack a point (Travès megalithic tomb) while others exhibit markedly
asymmetric edges (Cova de Can Sadurní), indicating that they were used as knives and not for
stabbing. Similarly, the shape, size and weight of Palmela points suggest they were used as
spear or assegai heads. These points would have been of great use in defending the flocks
against predators (op. cit., 145–51). In the whole of the Iberian Peninsula, only the site of

OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY

176 © 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
 IGNACIO SORIANO, JUAN F. GIBAJA AND LLUÍS VILA

Grajal de Campos (León) has revealed a possible, but doubtful, association between Palmela
points and violence. This is a skull with two points apparently lodged in it (Delibes 1977,
31–2). The fact that the skull is now missing and the points display no impact marks means
that the possibility it was really a burial with grave goods cannot be ruled out. Finally, no
settlement in the whole area of study is defended by walls, moats, palisades, etc., or is situated
in a strategic defensive position.
In summary, in the north-east of the Iberian Peninsula in the Late Neolithic, the
osteological evidence of violent deaths and signs of fighting and conflict are almost non-existent.
One of the three cases known is located very near the studied sites (Costa de Can Martorell) and
the other two are more distant (Balma Sargantana, Cova de Sant Bartomeu). No artistic
representations of violent acts, or settlements with defensive structures or in strategic locations
have been documented. All this suggests the violence was occasional and limited to specific
areas. However, flint arrowheads, which should be regarded as weapons and not as tools, are
found all over the region, indicating that violence must have been quite widespread in these
communities. How can this apparent contradiction be explained? Two possible hypotheses
should be tested in the future:
• Hypothesis 1. Violence is latent in the community but only breaks out in certain specific
situations when disagreements cannot be resolved in any other way. The explanation for the
abundance of arrowheads is found in the communities in the south of France, with which
north-east Iberia was closely linked in the Late Neolithic (Martín 2003). In this area violence
was common and recurrent, as attested by the numerous arrowheads, death by arrow wounds,
settlements with defensive structures, and menhir-statues depicting weapons (Guilaine and
Zammit 2002, 149–68). In this way, the production of arrowheads in north-east Iberia reflected
a response of dissuasion and/or a reminder of the situation of war in the neighbouring territory
on the other side of the Pyrenees.
• Hypothesis 2. Violence, while it was still occasional, was somewhat more widespread than the
current evidence suggests. There would have been more areas of fighting or its order of
magnitude would have been more serious. Its apparent invisibility is due partly to the constant
reuse of graves in this period, which hinders osteological studies and the identification of
violent deaths. It should be borne in mind that most of the sites in the Iberian Peninsula where
osteological proof of violence has been detected were not reused (Armendáriz 2007; Esparza
et al. 2008; Etxeberría and Herrasti 2007; Etxeberría and Vegas 1992; Márquez et al. 2008;
Mercadal 2003). In addition, few systematic use-wear studies have been performed on the flint
arrowheads, most of which were found several decades ago in excavations without
archaeological methodology. While the first limitation is almost impossible to overcome, the
second can be solved.

CONCLUSIONS: BELL BEAKER VIOLENCE ON THE NORTH-EAST COAST OF THE IBERIAN PENINSULA

This paper has presented the chronological, typological and contextual data of two
megalithic tombs, Can Gol I and Can Gol II. The use-wear analysis of the arrowheads found
inside them and the comparison with archaeological, ethnological and experimental data suggest
that an episode of violence took place. This event is linked with the Bell Beaker culture but
cannot be interpreted as reflecting a scenario of open warfare. The available information in the
area of study indicates that it would have been a rare, short-lived skirmish; unplanned and

OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY

© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 177
 OPEN WARFARE OR THE ODD SKIRMISH?

restricted to a very specific area, yet within a context that still remains to be defined, in which
violence was quite significant.
This situation contrasts with the image of the Bell Beaker warrior proposed by some
researchers for other areas in the Iberian Peninsula and Europe (Garrido-Pena 2006; Lemercier
2011). It is true that in north-east Iberia individual tombs, or individualized graves within
multiple tombs, have been found in which the grave goods consist of flint arrowheads, copper
daggers and Palmela points. However, as has been reasoned here, only the arrowheads can be
considered as weapons. The archaeological record suggests copper implements could be related
to pastoralism and the importance this activity held for Late Neolithic communities (Soriano
2013, 39–43). The cited tombs seem to reflect the control exercised over livestock and/or
pastures by a specific privileged social group, identified with the Bell Beaker set. In addition, the
evidence of violence associated with the Bell Beaker culture at a European level is negligible
(Guilaine and Zammit 2002, 151). The recent study of Bell Beaker anthropological remains in
the Czech Republic has shown that the presence of violent traumas is minimal (Sosna 2012,
327). Similarly, for the rest of Europe we are only aware of six individuals with clear evidence
of violence: in England, a young man in the middle ditch fill at Stonehenge with an arrowhead
lodged in his rib, Ring Ditch 201 at Barrow Hills (Radley, Oxfordshire) in which a male
individual was located with an arrowhead in the area of the ribcage (Harding 2007, 52), and a
cranium from the Thames (Syon Reach) with a healed trauma to the parietals (Edwards et al.
2009, 43); in southern France, the individual in the grave at La Fare (Forcalquier, Alpes-de-
Haute-Provence) with a wound in an ulna caused by a flint implement, and the Tumulus of the
Gendarme (Plan d’Aups, Var) with a leaf-shaped flint arrowhead lodged in an individual’s femur
(Lemercier 2011, 140); and in Germany, a skeleton from Weimar (Thuringia) with fractures from
a fatal blow to the left parietal bone (Christensen 2004, 137). With this evidence, even supposing
that the number of cases that we are unaware of may be two or three times as large, should not
the concept of the Bell Beaker culture as a phenomenon linked with war and violence be
seriously reconsidered?

Acknowledgements
This paper was written within the research project ‘The Roca del Vallès Prehistoric Trail’,
directed by ESTRATS Cultural Heritage Management Co. and funded by Roca del Vallès Town Council
and the Ministry of Culture of the Government of Spain. The authors would like to express their gratitude
to Xavier Llobera and Ramón Buxó (Archaeological Museum of Catalonia – Barcelona) and Enric Ortega
(Vilassar de Dalt Archive-Museum) for allowing them to study the archaeological materials, and also thank
the referees who assessed this paper.

(IS) Northeast Iberian Peninsula Archaeological Research Group – GRANEP

and Prehistory Department
Autonomous University of Barcelona
SPAIN
E-mail: [email protected]
(JFG) Archaeology and Anthropology Department
Milà and Fontanals Institution
Spanish Council for Scientific Research (CSIC)
SPAIN
E-mail: [email protected]

OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY

178 © 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
 IGNACIO SORIANO, JUAN F. GIBAJA AND LLUÍS VILA

(LV) ESTRATS Cultural Heritage Management Co.

SPAIN
E-mail: [email protected]

REFERENCES

ADSERIAS, M., TEIXELL, I. and GRIÑÓ, D. 2003: Intervencions arqueològiques als Molins de la Vila
(Montblanc, Conca de Barberà). Tribuna d’Arqueologia 1999–2000, 179–82.
AGUSTÍ, B. 1998: Els rituals funeraris en el període Calcolític – Bronze Final al nord-est de Catalunya
(Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, University of Girona).
ALESAN, A. and SAFONT, S. 2003–4: Las inhumaciones de la Edad del Bronce de ‘La Serreta’ (Rubí): una
interpretación taxonómica. Revista Española de Antropología Física 24, 63–70.
ALFONSO, J., SUBIRÀ, E. and MALGOSA, A. 2004: Estudi de les restes humanes del Mas d’en Boixos (Pacs,
Alt Penedès). In GENERA, M. (ed.), Actes de les Jornades d’Arqueologia i Paleontologia 2001.
Comarques de Barcelona, Vol. 1 (Barcelona, Generalitat de Catalunya), 82–90.
ALONSO, N. 2000: Registro arqueobotánico de Cataluña Occidental durante el II y I milenio a.n.e.
Complutum 11, 221–38.
ANDÚGAR, L. and SAÑA, M. 2004: La gestió ramadera durant el segon mil·lenni. Cypsela 15, 209–28.
ARANDA-JIMÉNEZ, G., MONTÓN-SUBÍAS, S. and JIMÉNEZ-BROBEIL, S. 2009: Conflicting evidence? Weapons
and skeletons in the Bronze Age of south-east Iberia. Antiquity 83, 1038–51.
ARMENDÁRIZ, A. 2007: Inventario de objetos. In VEGAS, I. (coord.), San Juan Ante Portam Latinam. Una
inhumación colectiva prehistórica en el Valle Medio del Ebro. Memoria de las excavaciones
arqueológicas 1985, 1990 y 1991 (Ataun, Fundación José Miguel de Barandiarán), 107–41.
ARMENDÁRIZ, J.M., IRIGARAI, S. and ETXEBERRÍA, F. 1994: New evidence of prehistoric arrow wounds in the
Iberian Peninsula. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 4, 215–22.
ARMENTANO, N. and MALGOSA, A. 2002: El jaciment de Can Filuà. Dades per el món funerari de l’edat del
bronze. In IX Col·loqui Internacional d’Arqueologia de Puigcerdà (Puigcerdà, Centre d’Estudis
Ceretans), 643–58.
ARMENTANO, N., GALLART, J., JORDANA, X., LÓPEZ, J.B., MALGOSA, A. and RAFEL, N. 2007: La cova sepulcral
de Montanissell (Sallent, Coll de Nargó, Alt Urgell): pràctiques funeràries singulars durant l’edat del
bronze al Prepirineu. Tribuna d’Arqueologia 2006, 141–67.
BALAGUER, P., GARCÍA, P., TENZA, A. and ANTEQUERA, F. 2013: L’hipogeu funerari de la Sagrera
(Barcelona). Resultats preliminars. Revista d’Arqueologia de Ponent 23, 75–86.
BENZ, M., STRAHM, CH. and VAN WILLIGEN, S. 1998: Le campaniforme: phénomène et culture archéologique.
Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 95(3), 305–14.
BEYNEIX, A. 2007: Réflexions sur les débuts de la guerre au Néolithique en Europe occidentale.
L’Anthropologie 111, 79–95.
BOQUER, S., BOSCH, J., CRUELLS, W., MOLIST, M. and RODÓN, T. 1995: El jaciment de l’Institut de Batxillerat
Antoni Pous. Un assentament a l’aire lliure de finals del Calcolític (Manlleu, Osona) (Barcelona,
Generalitat de Catalunya).
BUBNER, T. 1976: Acerca de la población campaniforme de la Península Ibérica. Cuadernos de Prehistoria
y Arqueología Castellonenses 3, 51–80.
BUXÓ, R. 1997: Arqueología de las plantas (Barcelona).
CAMPILLO, D. 2007: Quaranta anys de paleopatologia en el Museu d’Arqueologia de Catalunya
(Barcelona, Museu d’Arqueologia de Catalunya, Monografies de Barcelona, 12).
CAMPILLO, D., MERCADAL, O. and AGUSTÍ, B. 2003: Estudi paleopatològic. In MERCADAL, O. (coord.), La
Costa de Can Martorell (Dosrius, El Maresme). Mort i violència en una comunitat del litoral català
durant el tercer mil·lenni aC (Mataró, Museu de Mataró, Laietània, 14), 117–42.
CARMAN, J. and HARDING, A. (eds.) 1999: Ancient Warfare. Archaeological Perspectives (Sparkford).
CASINI, S. and FOSSATI, A. 2004: Le Pietre degli Dei: Statue-Stele dell’Età del Rame in Europa – lo Stato
della Ricerca (Bergamo, Notizie Archeologiche Bergomensi, Civico Museo Archeologico).
CASTANY, J., ALSINA, F. and GUERRERO, LL. 1992: El Collet de Brics d’Ardèvol. Un hàbitat del calcolític a
l’aire lliure. Pinós, Solsonès (Barcelona, Generalitat de Catalunya).

OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY

© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 179
 OPEN WARFARE OR THE ODD SKIRMISH?

CASTELLANA, C. and MALGOSA, A. 1991: La població de Can Sadurní a través de l’estudi dels ossos de mans
i peus. In IX Col·loqui Internacional d’Arqueologia de Puigcerdà (Puigcerdà, Centre d’Estudis
Ceretans), 288–90.
CASTRO, P.V., LULL, V. and MICÓ, R. 1996: Cronología de la Prehistoria Reciente de la Península Ibérica y
Baleares (c. 2800–900 cal ANE) (Oxford, BAR Int. Ser. 652).
CHAPMAN, J. 1999: The origins of warfare in central and eastern Europe. In CARMAN, J. and HARDING, A.
(eds.), Ancient Warfare. Archaeological Perspectives (Sparkford), 101–42.
CHILDE, V.G. 1930: The origin of the Bell-Beaker. Man 30, 200–1.
CHRISTENSEN, J. 2004: Warfare in the European Neolithic. Acta Archaeologica 75, 129–56.
CLARKE, D. 1976: The Beaker network – social and economic models. In LANTING, J.N. and VAN DER WAALS,
J.N. (eds.), Glockenbecher Symposion Oberried 1974 (Haarlem), 459–77.
CUESTA, F. 1985: Estudio de los restos humanos procedentes del Torrente de Sant Oleguer en Sabadell
(Vallés Occidental) y algunos problemas relacionados con el vaso campaniforme en Cataluña.
Estudios de la Antigüedad 2, 69–92.
DELIBES, G. 1977: El Vaso campaniforme en la meseta norte española (Valladolid, Universidad de
Valladolid, Studia Archaeologica, 46).
EDO, M., VILLALBA, Mª.J., BLASCO, A., ALESAN, A. and MALGOSA, A. 2002: El nivell d’enterrament col·lectius
de la coveta del Marge del Moro, Begues. In IX Col·loqui Internacional d’Arqueologia de Puigcerdà
(Puigcerdà, Centre d’Estudis Ceretans), 643–58.
EDWARDS, Y.H., WEISSKOPF, A. and HAMILTON, D. 2009: Age, taphonomic history and mode of deposition of
human skulls in the river Thames. Transactions of the London and Middlesex Archaeological Society
60, 35–51.
EQUIP SARRÓ 2000: Les Roques del Sarró (Lleida, Segrià): Evolució de l’assentament entre el 3600 cal. ane
i el 175 ane. Revista d’Arqueologia de Ponent 10, 103–73.
ESPARZA, A., DELIBES, G., VELASCO, J. and CRUZ, P.J. 2008: Historia de un golpe en la cabeza. Sobre el
enterramiento calcolítico del hoyo 197 de ‘El Soto de Tovilla’ (Tudela del Duero, Valladolid). Boletín
del Seminario de Estudios de Arte y Arqueología 74, 9–48.
ESTEVE, F. 1966: La cueva sepulcral del Calvari d’Amposta. Pyrenae 2, 25–50.
ESTRADA, J. 1946: Ficha arqueológica n° 2. Dolmen de ‘Can Gol’ (La Roca del Vallès). Agrupación
Excursionista del Vallés 31, 127.
ESTRADA, J. 1947: Ficha arqueológica n° 4. Sepulcro de galería cubierta de ‘Can Gol’ (La Roca del Vallès).
Agrupación Excursionista del Vallés 33, 135.
ETXEBERRÍA, F. and HERRASTI, L. 2007: Los restos humanos del enterramiento de SJAPL. Caracterización
de la muestra, tafonomía, paleodemografía y paleopatología. In VEGAS, I. (coord.), San Juan Ante
Portam Latinam. Una inhumación colectiva prehistórica en el Valle Medio del Ebro. Memoria de las
excavaciones arqueológicas 1985, 1990 y 1991 (Ataun, Fundación José Miguel de Barandiarán),
159–280.
ETXEBERRÍA, F. and VEGAS, J.I. 1992: Heridas por flecha durante la Prehistoria de la Península Ibérica.
Munibe Suppl. 8, 129–36.
FERGUSON, R.B. 1999: A paradigm for the study of war and society. In RAAFLAUB, K. and ROSENSTEIN, N.
(eds.), War and Society in the Ancient and Medieval Worlds (Washington), 389–437.
FISCHER, A. 1989: Hunting with flint-tipped arrows: results and experiences from practical experiments. In
BONSALL, C. (ed.), The Mesolithic in Europe (Edinburgh), 29–39.
FITZPATRICK, A.P. 2002: ‘The Amesbury Archer’: a well-furnished Early Bronze Age burial in southern
England. Antiquity 76, 629–30.
FRANCÈS, J., GUÀRDIA, M., MAJÓ, T. and SALA, O. 2007: L’hipogeu calcolític del carrer París de Cerdanyola
del Vallès. Tribuna d’Arqueologia 2006, 315–33.
GARRIDO-PENA, R. 2006: El fenómeno campaniforme: un siglo de debates sobre un enigma sin resolver. In
Seminario ‘Acercándonos al pasado. Prehistoria en 4 actos’ (Madrid, Museo Arqueológico Nacional
and CSIC).
GIBAJA, J.F., PALOMO, A., FRANCÈS, J. and MAJÓ, T. 2006: Les puntes de sageta de l’hipogeu calcolític
del Carrer París (Cerdanyola): caracterització tecnomorfològica i funcional. Cypsela 16, 127–
33.
GOLITKO, M. and KEELEY, L.H. 2007: Beating ploughshares back into swords: warfare in the
Linearbandkeramik. Antiquity 81, 332–42.

OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY

180 © 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
 IGNACIO SORIANO, JUAN F. GIBAJA AND LLUÍS VILA

GONZÁLEZ, P., GARCÍA, E. and PIZARRO, J. 2011: El Forat de la Conqueta, poblament neolític y usos funeraris
del 3er i 2on mil·lenni en el Prepirineu de Lleida. Tribuna d’Arqueologia 2009, 95–115.
GUILAINE, J. and ZAMMIT, J. 2002: El camino de la guerra. La violencia en la prehistoria (Barcelona).
HAAS, J. 2001: Warfare and the evolution of culture.In FEINMAN, G.M. and DOUGLAS, T. (eds.), Archaeology
at the Millennium. A Sourcebook (New York), 329–50.
HARDING, A. 2007: Warriors and Weapons in Bronze Age Europe (Budapest, Archaeolingua, Series Minor,
25).
HARRISON, R.J. 1977: The Bell Beaker Cultures of Spain and Portugal (Cambridge, Peabody Museum–
Harvard University, American School of Prehistoric Research, 35).
HONEGGER, M., MONTMOLLIN, P. de and JOYE, C. 2011: Un essai sur les premières armes de guerre du
Néolithique. Flèches, poignards et haches de combat au nord-ouest des Alpes. In BARAY, L.,
HONEGGER, M. and DIAS-MERINHO, M.-H. (eds.), L’armement et l’image du guerrier dans les sociétés
anciennes: de l’objet à la tombe (Dijon), 71–102.
JANTZEN, D., BRINKER, U., ORSCHIEDT, J., HEINEMEIER, J., PIEK, J., HAUENSTEIN, K., KRÜEGER, J., LINDKE, G.,
LÜBKE, H., LAMPE, R., LORENZ, S., SCHULTZ, M. and TERBERGER, T. 2011: A Bronze Age battlefield?
Weapons and trauma in the Tollense Valley, north-eastern Germany. Antiquity 85, 417–33.
JUDD, M.A. 2008. The parry problem. Journal of Archaeological Science 35, 1658–66.
KEELEY, L.H. 1996: War Before Civilization (New York).
LEMERCIER, O. 2011: Le guerrier dans l’Europe du 3° millénaire avant notre ère. L’arc et le poignard dans
les sépultures individuelles campaniformes. In BARAY, L., HONEGGER, M. and DIAS-MERINHO, M.-H.
(eds.), L’armement et l’image du guerrier dans les sociétés anciennes: de l’objet à la tombe (Dijon),
121–224.
LLONGUERAS, M., FERRER, P., CAMPILLO, D. and MARTIN, A. 1981: Enterrament campaniforme a la Cova de
la Ventosa (Piera, Anoia). Ampurias 43, 97–111.
LÓPEZ, J.B., MOYA, A., ESCALA, O. and NIETO, A. 2010: La cista tumulària amb esteles esculpides dels
Reguers de Seró (Artesa de Segre, Lleida): una aportació insòlita dins de l’art megalític peninsular i
europeu. Tribuna d’Arqueologia 2008–9, 87–125.
LÓPEZ-MONTALVO, E. 2011: Violence et mort dans l’art rupestre du Levant: groupes humains et territoires.
In BARAY, L., HONEGGER, M. and DIAS-MERINHO, M.-H. (eds.), L’armement et l’image du guerrier dans
les sociétés anciennes: de l’objet à la tombe (Dijon), 19–42.
LULL, V., MICÓ, R., RIHUETE, C. and RISCH, R. 2006: La investigación de la violencia: una aproximación
desde la arqueología. Cypsela 16, 87–108.
MAJÓ, T. 2001: Estudi de les restes humanes i anàlisis de l’espai sepulcral. In CLOP, X. and FAURA, J.Mª.
(coords.), El Sepulcre megalític de les Maioles (Rubió, Anoia). Pràctiques funeràries i societat a
l’altiplà de Catalunya 2000–1600 cal ANE (Barcelona, Estrat, 7), 55–103.
MÁRQUEZ, B., GIBAJA, J.F., GONZÁLEZ, J.E., IBÁÑEZ, J.J. and PALOMO, A. 2008: Projectile points as signs of
violence in collective burials during the 4th and the 3rd millennia cal. BC in the north-east of the
Iberian Peninsula. In LONGO, L. and SKAKUN, N. (eds.), ‘Prehistoric Technology’ 40 Years Later:
Functional Studies and the Russian Legacy (Oxford, BAR Int. Ser. 1783), 321–6.
MARTÍN, A. 1980: Le Verazien en Catalogne. In GUILAINE, J. (ed.), Le Groupe de Véraza et la fin des temps
néolithiques dans le Sud de la France et la Catalogne (París, CNRS), 76–82.
MARTÍN, A. 2003: Els grups del neolític final, calcolític i bronze antic. Els inicis de la metal·lúrgia. Cota
Zero 18, 76–105.
MARTÍN, A., BIOSCA, A. and ALBAREDA, Mª.J. 1985: Excavacions a la Cova del Frare (Matadapera, Vallès
Occidental). Dinàmica ecològica, seqüència cultural i cronologia absoluta. Tribuna d’Arqueologia
1983–4, 91–103.
MENÉNDEZ, M. and QUESADA, J.M. 2008: Artistas y cazadores de ciervos. El papel del ciervo en el arte y la
caza del Paleolítico Superior Cantábrico. Espacio, Tiempo y Forma. Serie I, Nueva Época. Prehistoria
y Arqueología 1, 155–66.
MERCADAL, O. (coord.) 2003: La Costa de Can Martorell (Dosrius, El Maresme). Mort i violència en una
comunitat del litoral català durant el tercer mil·lenni aC (Mataró, Museu de Mataró, Laietània, 14).
MERCADAL, O. and AGUSTÍ, B. 2006: Comportaments agressius a la prehistòria recent. La desmitificació del
bon salvatge? Cypsela 16, 37–49.
er
MERCADAL, O. and AGUSTÍ, B. 2008: Dolmen de Clarà, l’estudi antropològic. In 1 Col·loqui d’Arqueologia
d’Odèn, Solsonès (Solsona, Museu Diocesà i Comarcal de Solsona), 81–8.

OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY

© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 181
 OPEN WARFARE OR THE ODD SKIRMISH?

MEYER, CH., BRANDT, G., HAAK, W., GANSLMEIER, R.A., MELLER, H. and ALT, K.W. 2009: The Eulau eulogy:
bioarchaeological interpretation of lethal violence in Corded Ware multiple burials from Saxony-
Anhalt, Germany. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 28, 412–23.
MOYA, A., MARTÍNEZ, P. and LÓPEZ, J.B. 2010: Éssers de pedra. Les estàtues-menhirs i esteles antropomorfes
de l’art megalític de Catalunya. Cypsela 18, 11–41.
NADAL, J., SENABRE, Mª.R., MESTRES, J. and CEBRIÀ, A. 1999: Evolución del aprovechamiento de los recursos
faunísticos durante el Neolítico en la comarca de l’Alt Penedès (Barcelona). In II Congrès del Neolític
a la Península Ibèrica (Zaragoza, Saguntum-Plav Extra 2), 85–93.
PALET BARBA, D. 1915–20: Un enterrament de la primera Edat del bronze a Terrassa. Anuari de l’Institut
d’Estudis Catalans 6, 538–9.
PALOMO, A. 2006: El Camí dels Banys de la Mercè (Capmany-Alt Empordà). In Vuitenes Jornades
d’Arqueologia de les Comarques Gironines. 6–7 d’octubre de 2006, Vol. I (Roses), 63–72.
PALOMO, A. and GIBAJA, J.F. 2003: Anàlisi tecnomorfològica/funcional i experimental de les puntes de
fletxa. In MERCADAL, O. (coord.), La Costa de Can Martorell (Dosrius, El Maresme). Mort i violència
en una comunitat del litoral català durant el tercer mil·lenni aC (Mataró, Museu de Mataró, Laietània,
14), 179–214.
PANYELLA, A. 1947: Excavación de la Galería cubierta de Can Gol. Vallès 27 August, 60.
PARKINSON, W.A. and DUFFY, P.R. 2007: Fortifications and enclosures in European prehistory: a cross-
cultural perspective. Journal of Archaeological Research 15, 97–141.
PEARSON, M.P. and THORPE, I.J.N. (eds.) 2005: Warfare, Violence and Slavery in Prehistory (Oxford, BAR
Int. Ser. 1374).
PÉTREQUIN, A.-M. and PÉTREQUIN, P. 1990: Flèches de chasse, flèches de guerre: le cas des Danis d’Irian
Jaya (Indonésie). Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 87, 484–511.
PIERA, M., ALONSO, N., ANTOLÍN, F., CLOP, X., GIBAJA, J.F., SAÑA, Mª. and GALLART, J. 2008: La intervenció
arqueològica al jaciment del neolític final de l’Espina C (Tàrrega, l’Urgell). Urtx. Revista cultural de
l’Urgell 23, 11–50.
ROIG, J., MOLINA, D., COLL, J.Mª. and MOLINA, J.A. 2009: El jaciment calcolític del Vapor Gorina (Sabadell,
Vallès Occidental). Tribuna d’Arqueologia 2007, 93–122.
ROKSANDIC, M. (ed.) 2004: Violent Interactions in the Mesolithic. Evidence and Meaning (Oxford, BAR
Int. Ser. 1237).
SANGMEISTER, E. 1963: La civilisation du vas campaniforme. In Les civilisations atlantiques du néolithique
a l’Âge du Fer. Actes du Premier Colloque Atlantique (Rennes), 25–56.
SARAUW, T. 2007: Male symbols or warrior identities? The ‘archery burials’ of the Danish Bell Beaker
Culture. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 26, 65–87.
SARRIÀ, E., VIÑAS, R., MARTÍNEZ, L. and SERRANO, J.A. 2011: Documentació dels nous conjunts d’art
rupestre del Priorat (Tarragona). Tribuna d’Arqueologia 2009–10, 53–84.
SCHULTING, R.J. 2006: Skeletal evidence and contexts of violence in the European Mesolithic and Neolithic.
In GOWLAND, R. and KNÜSEL, CH. (eds.), Social Archaeology of Funerary Remains (Oxford), 224–37.
SCHULTING, R.J. and FIBIGER, L. (eds.) 2012: Sticks, Stones, and Broken Bones. Neolithic Violence in a
European Perspective (Oxford).
SCHULTING, R.J. and WYSOCKI, M. 2005: ‘In this chambered tumulus were found cleft skulls . . .’: an
assessment of the evidence for cranial trauma in the British Neolithic. Proceedings of the Prehistoric
Society 71, 107–38.
SILVA, A.M., BOAVENTURA, R., FERREIRA, M.T. and MARQUES, R. 2012: Skeletal evidence of interpersonal
violence from Portuguese Late Neolithic collective burials: an overview. In SCHULTING, R.J. and
FIBIGER, L. (eds.), Sticks, Stones, and Broken Bones. Neolithic Violence in a European Perspective
(Oxford), 317–40.
SMITH, M.J., BRICKLEY, M.B. and LEACH, S.L. 2007: Experimental evidence of lithic projectile injuries:
improving identification of an underrecognised phenomenon. Journal of Archaeological Science
35(7), 2001–8.
SORIANO, I. 2013: Metalurgia y Sociedad en el Nordeste de la Península Ibérica (finales del IV–II milenio
cal ANE) (Oxford, BAR Int. Ser. 2502).
SORIANO, I. and VILA, LL. 2013: Estudi historiogràfic i documental dels jaciments de Can Gol I, Can Gol
II i de la Roca Foradada (Sant Esteve de Palautordera, Unpublished report submitted to Roca del
Vallès Town Council).

OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY

182 © 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
 IGNACIO SORIANO, JUAN F. GIBAJA AND LLUÍS VILA

SOSNA, D. 2012: Stone arrowheads from Hoštice-I: use-wear analysis. In MATĚJÍČKOVÁ, A. and DVOŘÁK, P.
(eds.), Pohřebiště z období zvoncovitých pohárů na trase dálnice D1 Vyškov – Mořice (Brno, Ústav
archeologické památkové péče, Pravěk Supplementum 24, sv I), 323–38.
THORPE, I.J.N. 2003: Anthropology, archaeology, and the origin of warfare. World Archaeology 35(1),
145–65.
UBACH, P. 1994: Memòries etno-arqueològiques. 6000 anys d’història en el Maresme. Vilassar de Dalt
1934–1993 (Argentona).
UNDERHILL, A.P. 1989: Warfare during the Chinese Neolithic period: a review of the evidence. In TKACZUK,
D.C. and VIVIAN, B.C. (eds.), Cultures in Conflict: Current Archaeological Perspectives. Proceedings
of the 20th Annual Chacmool Conference, Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary
(Calgary), 229–40.
VANDER LINDEN, M. 2006: Le phénomène campaniforme dans l’Europe du 3°ème millénaire avant notre
ère. Synthèse et nouvelles perspectives (Oxford, BAR Int. Ser. 1470).
VICENTE, J.Mª. and GUTIÉRREZ, D. 2004: Memòria de la intervenció a l’Escola Bressol de la Florida Nord
(Sta Perpètua de la Mogoda, Vallès Occidental) (Manresa, Generalitat de Catalunya).
WILD, E.M., STADLER, P., HÄUBER, A., KUTSCHERA, W., STEIER, P., TESCHLER-NICOLA, M., WAHL, J. and WINDL,
H.J. 2004: Neolithic massacres: local skirmishes or general warfare in Europe? Radiocarbon 46(1),
377–85.

OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY

© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 183