=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-2024/IberCrono_12
|storemode=property
|title=The absolute chronology of Argaric halberds. (La chronología absoluta de las alabardas argaricas).
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2024/IberCrono_12.pdf
|volume=Vol-2024
|authors=Vicente Lull,Rafael Micó,Cristina Rihuete-Herrada,Roberto Risch,Nicolau Escanilla
}}
==The absolute chronology of Argaric halberds. (La chronología absoluta de las alabardas argaricas).==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2024/IberCrono_12.pdf
The absolute chronology of Argaric halberds
Vicente Lull (1), Rafael Micó (2), Cristina Rihuete-Herrada (3), Roberto Risch (4),
Nicolau Escanilla (5)
(1,2,3,4,5) Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona
(1) vicenc.lull@uab.cat, (2) rafael.mico@uab.cat, (3) cristina.rihuete@uab.cat,
(4) roberto.risch@uab.cat, (5) nescanilla@gmail.com
Abstract. We present the results of an extensive dating programme of Argaric
burials containing halberds. In Southeast Iberia elite males were buried with
this weapon during the first two centuries of the second millennium BCE.
After discussing what does this chronology involve for the typological
development of the Argaric halberds and their funerary contexts, a general
overview is provided on the origin and expansion of western and central
European halberds, taking into account all the absolute dates currently
available. Finally, we return to the Iberian Peninsula, placing the appearance
of the metal halberds within the general social and political changes that took
place during the second half of the third millennium BCE and at the beginning
of the Argaric state.
La chronología absoluta de las alabardas argaricas
Resumen. Presentamos los resultados de un extenso programa de datación de
enterramientos argáricos con alabarda. En el sureste ibérico, los varones de
élite fueron enterrados con esta arma durante los dos primeros siglos del
segundo milenio antes de Cristo. Después de discutir qué implica esta
cronología para el desarrollo tipológico de las halberas argáricas y sus
contextos funerarios, se ofrece una visión general sobre el origen y la
expansión de las alabardias de Europa occidental y central, teniendo en cuenta
todas las fechas absolutas disponibles actualmente. Finalmente, volvemos a la
Península Ibérica, situando la aparición de las alabardias metálicas dentro de
los cambios sociales y políticos generales que se produjeron durante la
segunda mitad del tercer milenio a. C. y al inicio del estado argárico.
Introduction
Most researchers working on Later Prehistory share the suspicion that metal halberds remain one of the keys to
understanding the development of the early Bronze Age societies of central-western Europe. However, access to that key
requires answering a combined set of questions about these weapons. In the first place, a very wide but heterogeneous
geographic distribution is observed, in which high concentrations of halberds in certain regions stand out next to extensive
empty spaces or sporadic finds. Did societies as far apart as those of central and northern Italy, Germany, Ireland and
Southeastern Iberia, where the highest densities of these artefacts are recorded, have something in common?
A second surprising issue is the type of contexts in which halberds usually appear: mainly metal hoards or outstanding
male burials. Moreover, halberds are a class of objects often represented on rock engravings or stelae, although these rarely
appear in regions with abundant findings of metallic items. What was common and what was unique among the contexts of
use, representation and deposition of European halberds?
Lastly, the halberd is one of the first true or specialised weapons manufactured in Western Europe, a function which
links it closely with the emergence of new forms of combat, physical violence and with the imposition and safeguarding of
unprecedented social hierarchies. Can we then understand halberds as an indicator of the rupture or extinction of Neolithic
forms of life and, in some cases, of the emergence of the first states in Western Europe?
Any satisfactory answer to these questions demands reliable chronological evidence. The fact that the original context
of many halberds is unknown (casual finds, private collections and unsystematic excavations) has hampered this objective,
forcing a reliance on typo-chronological inferences through the associated items found in hoards and, to a lesser extent,
graves. The uncertainties of this method, coupled with the relative scarcity of closed contexts, have opened up so many
possibilities that a range of proposals could seem reasonable. Not surprisingly, a review of the literature offers a wide
variety of hypotheses that locate the origin of halberds in Italy, Iberia, Ireland or central Europe. Many alternative
proposals have also been put forward concerning the succession and the soundness of the proposed types or subtypes of
halberds at a regional level.
Radiocarbon dating has not contributed sufficiently to a resolution of the chronological debate due to the scarcity of
organic samples associated with halberds. In regions where halberds come from hoards or lack a known context, only the
occasional preservation of wood fibres from the shafts has allowed sampling for a limited number of 14C dates. In
principle, expectations improve where halberds appear in graves associated with dateable human bones. However, the
scarcity of tombs in many regions has limited this option. In this respect, southeast Iberia offers a privileged situation. This
article presents the results of a dating programme on human bone samples from burials containing halberds. This absolute
chronology offers the most reliable proposal in the European context. Once the lifetime period of these weapons has been
established in the Argaric society, we will discuss how this may modify the general chronology of European halberds as
well as the historical and social dynamics of the Iberian Peninsula at the transition from the Copper to the Bronze Age.
1 Typology and relative chronology of Argaric halberds
Since the early recognition of halberds by the Siret brothers (1887), various classification schemes have been proposed
[Sch63, Sch73, Lull83, Ulr94, Bra03 and Hor14]. In general, they agree in identifying a class of halberds, typical of the
Argaric Bronze Age, characterized by a wide flanged hafting plate. Of minor importance or only present in the outskirts of
the Argaric territory are the Montejícar type halberds, defined by a proximal extension of the hafting plate, as well as some
specimen of Atlantic affiliation [Sch73]. More problematic has been the classification of those pieces morphologically
similar to daggers. The criteria used to consider these objects as halberds are usually the size of the blade, presence of
midrib, arrangement, length, diameter and number of rivets, asymmetry of the blade, shafting traces on the hafting plate
and orientation of eventually preserved wood fibres. However, each of the proposed classifications differs with regards to
the number of variables considered and their relative importance. Consequently, the corpus of halberds in the Southeast is
far from being a closed set, and this has had a negative impact on the chronological debate of the Argaric and Iberian
halberds in general, as we shall see below.
Some authors have proposed that the simplest metallic shapes are the oldest halberds, arguing that they would have
derived from flint prototypes [Sch13], [Ori37: 296-298]. Later, more complex forms would develop, like the typical
Argaric halberd with a wide flanged hafting plate. The same reasoning was used by Blance [Bla71: 14] in her study on the
beginnings of Iberia’s metallurgy.
Among the classification proposals of Argaric halberds, the first one to combine morphometric and non-morphological
criteria was offered by Lull [Lul83: 192-200]. Three types of Argaric halberds (I, II, III) were defined by distinctive values
in Blade Concavity Index (IC) and Proportion Index (IP) supplemented by the morphology of the hafting plate and the
number of rivets. We can advance here that, as a result of a research currently under way, this tripartite typological division
maintains its consistency with a sample more than twice as large than the one originally analysed in 1983 (Fig. 1). Lull also
proposed that this typological division might have had a chronological dimension. More specifically, type III, which
includes the largest variation and also those objects most similar to daggers, would be the most archaic as well. Types II
and I, on the other hand, would manifest the progressive consolidation of the Argaric model by improving the efficiency of
the hafting and saving raw material.
Figure 1 - Definition of the three types of halberds proposed by Lull, according to the correlation between IC and PI
indices in a sample of 55 well preserved Argaric halberds. The alphanumeric codes refer to the site and to the tomb where a
halberd was found. The underscore between the name and the number refers to an under-documented funerary context. In
brackets and in italics appears the median value of the 1 sigma calibration interval for the 14C dates associated with certain
tombs.
144
Key: AR: El Argar; AY: La Almoloya; BA: La Bastida; CA: Castellón Alto; CM: Cabecico de los Moros; CP: Los Cipreses; DEI: Deifontes; FA:
Fuente Álamo; GT: Gatas; HE: Las Herrerías; LC: Laderas del Castillo; MO: Monteagudo; OF: El Oficio; PF: Puebla de Don Fadrique; PT: Puntarrón
Chico; RA: El Rincón de Almendricos; SA: San Antón; TA: Tabaià; ZLB: El Zalabí.
AR244 is plotted in a lighter tone because the dating corresponds to the female found with the male skeleton associated with the halberd.
TA1 high values (IP = 0.71; CI = 1.71) exceed the limits of the graph. It would be an extreme example of Lull’s Type I. It should also be mentioned
that we have not included the halberd from El Barranquete, which gives its name to one of the types proposed by Brandherm [Bra03, Bra04], as it was
found in a superficial archaeological context and, in any case, stands outside the Argaric norm [Alm73: 84-85]. Its outstanding low indices (IP = 0.32, CI
= 0.19) lie even below Lull’s Type III values.
Ulreich followed Lull’s approach with regards to the metrical proportions of the artefacts [Ulr94], but ended up with
only two typological variants, the ‘classical’ Argaric shape with a wide hafting plate (“Variant 1”), and the dagger-like
forms (“Variant 2”). Based on a contingency analysis of 21 halberds from three neighbouring sites (El Argar, El Oficio and
Fuente Álamo) and of four different types of burial structures stratigraphically placed in the then recently documented
sequence of Fuente Álamo, the author concludes that variant 1 would be earlier than variant 2, thus reversing Lull’s
sequence1.
Ten years later, Brandherm emphasised the number of rivets as the main discriminating factor [Bra03]2, a criterion
already used by Schickler [Sch63: 20] in his unpublished but frequently quoted thesis on the European Early Bronze Age
daggers and halberds3. This procedure results in splitting up blades of similar shape into different types and viceversa, as
has already been pointed out by other authors [Hor14: 19-21]. It is also surprising that a crucial criterion is ignored, namely
the orientation of the artefact in relation to the asymmetry of the blade, given that this is a specific trait of a halberd’s
design and manufacture and has a direct effect on the kinetic properties of the weapon. In chronological terms, all the
Argaric types (AA20-San Antón, AF6-Arrayanes, AF7-Monteagudo, AF8-Barranquete and AF9-Laderas) appear during an
early phase of El Argar (“Frühbronzezeit A2” according to Brandherm’s chronological scheme) and most of them last until
the early Middle Bronze Age (“Mittelbronzezeit B1”) [Bra03: 247-248 and 405-409]. In a later publication, Argaric
halberds were sequenced according to a new chronological scheme [Bra04: 309-312 and figs 16, 24]. The series starts with
the Monteagudo type, showing a slightly widened hafting plate and three or more rivets, at the beginning of El Argar,
around 2200 cal BCE. The San Antón type closely resembles the Monteagudo type but with only two rivets; the Las
Laderas type, with a much wider hafting plate, and the Arrayanes type, with a triangular blade, would start a little bit later,
2100 BCE. Between 2100 and 1850 cal BCE, all five types would be in use, although the Monteagudo type went out of use
~1950 cal BCE. After 1850 cal BCE, only the dagger-like Barranquete type lasted until 1750 cal BCE [Bra04: plate 24].
Finally, the typology which has recently been proposed by Horn rejects both Ulreich’s and Brandherm’s schemes and
ignores or is unaware of the analytical procedure introduced by Lull. In this case, a variety of criteria are used in a non-
systematic way to identify and classify the Iberian halberds [Hor14: 91-93]. In general, the characteristic Argaric halberds
with a wide hafting plate are included in type 3, while the simpler, dagger-like ones appear mostly under type 14a. Taking
into consideration the funerary contexts and the first absolute dates presented by Castro and co-workers [Cas94] instead of
those from more recent publications [Lul11], type 3 is dated between 2350/2300-1850/1800 cal BCE [Hor14: 21].
Surprisingly, a sandstone plaque with a blade-like shape found in the Copper Age tholos burial 3 of La Pijotilla (Badajoz)
is drawn on to date the beginning of simpler blades of type 14a around 2850-2600 cal BCE, although the chronology of the
Argaric objects of 14a would be much later [Hor14: 51-52].
The classification of certain blades considered by Horn as evidence of the first halberds in South or Southwest Iberia at
the transition from the 4th to the 3rd millennium, inspired by the earlier Italian examples [Hor14: 106], is equally
questionable on technological and morphometric grounds. The specific type of blades with a midrib found in the Copper
Age tholos tombs of Alcalar 3 or Los Millares 57, on which this dating is mainly based, cannot be classified unequivocally
as halberds (see also [Bra03: 80-81 and 413]). Moreover, all five metal blades were found in the lateral chamber of this
tholos burial, where only an adult male could be identified [Est89: 169]4.
In order to clarify this chronological and typological debate, a focus on direct and absolute, rather than indirect and
relative, dating is needed. Only those artefacts classified unambiguously as halberds based on a combination of traits
(shape and asymmetry of the blade, length of the rivets, presence of a midrib and, where present, orientation of the wooden
fibres in the hafting plate) [Lul17] should be considered.
1
This typological division and chronological succession was later assumed by Schuhmacher [Sch02a] without any reference to
Lull’s study.
2
Amongst the halberds with three or more rivets, Brandherm introduces further morphological criteria.
3
We wish to express our gratitude to Christoph Huth, U. Freiburg, for having made accessible to us a copy of this thesis.
4
Horn and Schenck have recently proposed a Neolithic origin and long development for the European halberds, drawing mainly on
similar shaped artefacts made of bone and stone [Hor16]. However, such functional or morphological references do not explain why a
specific type of metal weapon was used only in certain regions and times, mainly in the second half of the 3 rd and the early 2nd millennia
BCE.
145
2 The radiocarbon chronology of the Argaric halberds
Argaric halberds have been the subject of a chronological debate both in Prehistoric research and in the internal dynamics
of Argaric Bronze Age [Bla71, Sch73, Lul83]. Unfortunately, despite the relative abundance of contextualized finds in
tombs [Sir87], until the mid-1990s only one radiocarbon date was available for this type of weapon, namely that of the
Herrerías-Mina Iberia cist burial 1 [Alo78, Cas94, Bra00]. Only the deployment of a programme designed to determine the
absolute chronology of Argaric funerary practices [Cas94], which in recent years has also included bone samples kept in
several museums and from the new excavations of La Bastida and La Almoloya, has allowed us to build up a sufficiently
broad and contextualized series of radiocarbon dates.
Table 1 - Absolute dates directly associated with Argaric halberds (calibration according to OxCal 4.2–terrestrial curve
IntCal2013). (*) Not included because of inconsistencies with Beta-240410 and reverse stratigraphy with KIA-38217. (**) Terminus ante quem for the
halberd found in TA1 because tomb TA3 is stratigraphically younger. Uncertain validity because the analysis was performed when Kiel’s University lab.
provided inconsistent results.
14
Site Lab. Nr. C (BP) calibration 1s calibration 2s calibration Sample Context Observations
Burial (cal BC) (cal BC) (median cal Bibliography
BC)
El Argar MAMS- 3609±21 2018 (21.1%) 2028 (95.4%) 1908 1967 Hand Small rock-cut tomb. Single Unpublished
AR534 15344 1994 middle burial of unknown age and
1981 (47.1%) phalanx sex. Grave goods: 3-rivet
1936 halberd and 2-rivet dagger
El Argar KIA- 3607±21 2016 (17.7%) 2026 (95.4%) 1906 1965 Fibula Slab cist. Two adults, male Pooled mean
AR999 42496 1996 fragment and female. Grave goods: 2 of two analysis
1980 (50.5%) and carinated pots (F5) and 2-rivet (KIA-42496:
1930 metacarpa halberd 3615±30 and
l bone 3600±30 BP)
after a first
anomalous
result (KIA-
42496:
3825±30 BP)
[Lul15b: table
6]
El Oficio OxA- 3530±50 1932 (31.5%) 2016 (2.1%) 1996 1855 Metacarpa Slab cist. Two adults, male [Hed95, 425]
OF9 4968 1863 1980 (91.9%) 1740 l and and female. Grave goods: one
1850 (36.7%) 1712 (1.3%) 1699 metatarsal pot (F4), 4-rivet halberd, 3-
1772 silver rivet dagger and a two
rivet dagger.
El Oficio MAMS- 3383±23 1730 (7.5%) 1741 (21.4%) 1711 1676 Wooden Slab cist. Two adults, male Unpublished
OF42 14429 1722 1700 (74.0%) 1625 handle and female. Grave goods:
1692 (60.7%) fragment bowl (F1), pot (F3), 3-rivet
1641 halberd, 5-rivet dagger and
animal bones.
El Oficio OxA- 3635±60 2128 (13.8%) 2198 ( 3.1%) 2162 2006 Skull Slab cist. Two adults, male [Hed95, 425]
OF62 4970 2088 2152 (91.1%) 1878 fragments and female. Grave goods: 4-
2046 (54.4%) 1840 (0.8%) 1827 rivet halberd, three daggers
1921 1792 (0.4%) 1784 (two 4-rivet and one 3-rivet),
open silver bracelet and open
silver earring.
El Oficio KIA- 3518±18 1890 (16.6%) 1906 (95.4%) 1770 1830 Metatarsal Slab cist. Two adults, male Pooled mean
OF210 43166 1872 and female. Grave goods: of KIA-43166:
1844 (29.3%) bowl (F1), carinated vessel 3530±25 and
1812 (F5), two goblets (F7) placed 3505±25 BP
1802 (22.3%) outside the cist), 2-rivet after a first
1777 halberd, dagger, bone awl and anomalous
five flint blades placed outside result:
the cist, fragment of a slate 4000±25 BP
bracelet, fragment of rock [Lul15b: table
146
crystal and animal bones. 6]
Fuente KIA- 3631±14 2023 (68.2%) 2032 (95.4%) 1946 1992 Hand and Small rck-cut tomb. Two Pooled mean
Álamo 42492 1966 foot adults, male and female. of four analysis
FA58 phalanges Grave goods: carinated vessel from the same
(F5), 6-rivet, 3-rivet dagger sample KIA-
and goat/sheep bones. 42492:
3600±25,
3625±30,
3645±30 and
3665±25 BP)
[Lul15b: table
6]
Fuente OxA- 3545±65 1960 (68.2%) 2116 (1.1%) 2098 1883 Calcaneus Small rck-cut tomb. Two [Hed95: 425]
Álamo 4972 1771 2038 (91.7%) 1732 adults, male and female.
FA75 1720 (2.5%) 1692 Grave goods: lenticular pot
(F6), bowl (F1), 7-rivet
halberd, 7-rivet dagger,
golden bracelet and beef
bones.
Gatas MAMS- 3606±22 2016 (16.9%) 2026 (95.4%) 1902 1963 Metatarsal Slab cist. Two adults, male Unpublished
GT41 15345 1996 and female. Grave goods: pot
1980 (51.3%) (F5), 3-rivet halberd and 3-
1926 rivet dagger.
Herrerías CSIC- 3670±70 2140 (68.2%) 2284 (2.5%) 2248 2056 Wooden Slab cist. Adult male. Grave [Alo78, 168]
Mina 248 1950 2234 (92.9%) 1882 handle goods: lenticular pot (F6), [Bra00, 165]
Iberia 1 fragment bowl (F1), 5-rivet halberd, 5-
(HE1) rivet dagger, another dagger,
silver earring, green-stone
bead and beef bones.
La MAMS- 3532±24 1913 (34.5%) 1938 (95.4%) 1771 1853 Left femur Slab cist. Two adults, male Unpublished
Almoloya 25589 1875 fragment and female. Grave goods:
AY60 1842 (19.8%) carinated pot (F5), 3-rivet
1818 halberd, 2-rivet dagger and
1798 (13.9%) sheep/goat bones.
1780
La MAMS- 3514±27 1888 (14.6%) 1916 (95.4%) 1752 1831 Left Slab cist. Adult male. Grave Unpublished
Almoloya 26615 1869 humerus goods: carinated pot (F5), 4-
AY71 1846 (53.6%) fragment rivet halberd and sheep/goat
1775 bones.
La KIA- 3542±26 1934 (48.9%) 1951 (60.7%) 1862 1887 Right Slab cist. Two adults, male Second
Bastida 40753 1876 1852 (34.7%) 1772 femur and female. Grave goods: two analysis of KIA-
BA40 1841 (11.6%) medial carinated pots (F5), 2-rivet 40753
1822 shaft halberd, 3-rivet dagger, (3345±60 BP)
1796 (7.7%) fragment copper awl and beef and because of low
1782 sheep/goat bones. quality of the
sample.
Unpublished
Los KIK-242 3510±90 1950 (63.8%) 2126 (2.1%) 2090 1839 Wooden Slab cist. Adult male. Grave [Van95, 28]
Cipreses / 1736 2045 (93.3%) 1621 handle goods: two pots (F5 and F6) [Mar96, 12
CP3 UtC- 1715 (4.4%) fragment placed outside the cist, 3-rivet and 36]
2738 1696 halberd, 3-rivet knife,
bracelet, two anvils/hammers,
ivory fragment (knob?), beef
bones.
Setefilla I-11070 3520±95 1971 (64.9%) 2134 (3.7%) 2080 1852 Charcoal Burned layer of floor sealing [Aub81, 229]
1738 2061 (91.7%) 1623 the burial context (Corte 3,
1713 (3.3%) Estrato XIV). Partial recovery
147
1697 of adult human remains
associated to the halberd. Sex
unknown.
Tabaià Beta- 3480±40 1878 (23.7%) 1900 (95.4%) 1691 1807 Sheep/goa Stone cist. Adult male. Grave (*)
TA1 240409 1838 t bone goods: carinated pot (F5), 6- [Lop09, 257]
1828 (44.5%) rivet halberd and sheep/goat [Her10, 227]
1749 bones.
Tabaià Beta- 3340±40 1686 (56.1%) 1738 (5.5%) 1714 1628 Human Id. (*)
TA1 240410 1607 1696 (89.9%) 1521 bone [Lop09, 257]
1582 (12.1%) [Her10, 227]
1560
Tabaià KIA- 3557±26 1946 (68.2%) 2010 (1.2%) 2000 1907 Human (**)
TA3 38217 1881 1976 (79.5%) 1871 bone [Lop09, 255-
1846 (8.8%) 1812 257]
1802 (5.9%) 1776 [Lul15b]
Table 2 - Absolute dates of female individuals found in the same tombs as males with Argaric halberds (calibration
according to OxCal 4.2–terrestrial curve IntCal2013). (*) GT42 was found next to the single male tomb GT41 and belongs to the same
stratigraphic context.
14
Site Lab. Nr. C (BP) calibration 1s calibration 2s calibration Sample Context Observations
Burial (cal BC) (cal BC) (median cal Bibliography
BC)
El Argar KIA- 3425±45 1866 (6.3%) 1879 (12.2%) 1837 1731 Skull Slab cist. Two adults, male Unpublished
AR244 42494 1849 1831 (83.2%) 1626 fragment and female. Grave goods:
1773 (61.9%) carinated and lenticular pots
1661 (F5 and F6), 3-rivet halberd, 6
rivet-halberd/dagger, 2-rivet
knife, closed silver bracelet
and silver ring/earring.
Fuente KIA- 3761±14 2201 (13.0%) 2274 (4.2%) 2258 2170 Lower jaw Small rck-cut tomb. Two Pooled mean
Álamo 42493 2192 2208 (91.2%) 2136 adults, male and female. of four analysis
FA58 2180 (55.2%) Grave goods: carinated vessel from the same
2142 (F5), 6-rivet, 3-rivet dagger sample (KIA-
and goat/sheep bones. 42493):
3795±25,
3765±30,
3750± 25 and
3710±35
[Lul15b, table
6]
Fuente OxA- 3635±50 2120 (10.4%) 2141 (95.4%) 1884 2004 Left Small rck-cut tomb. Two [Hed95, 425]
Álamo 4973 2094 calcaneus adults, male and female.
FA75 2042 (57.8%) Grave goods: lenticular pot
1930 (F6), bowl (F1), 7-rivet
halberd, 7-rivet dagger,
golden bracelet and beef
bones.
Gatas OxA- 3765±38 2278 (13.5%) 2294 (81.3%) 2115 2181 Foot Slab cist. Adult female. Grave [Lul10a, 83]
GT42 (*) 10994 2250 2100 (14.1%) 2038 phalanges goods: carinated pot (F5), 2-
2230 (3.6%) and long rivet dagger and meat
2220 bone shaft offerings.
2212 (51.0%) fragment
2135
La MAMS- 3544±27 1937 (52.7%) 1954 (95.4%) 1771 1889 Right Slab cist. Two adults, male Unpublished
Almoloya 26640 1877 Metacarpa and female. Grave goods:
AY60 1840 (9.4%) l2 carinated pot (F5), 3-rivet
148
1824 halberd, 2-rivet dagger and
1794 (6.1%) sheep/goat bones.
1783
La KIA- 3558±31 1952 (65.6%) 2015 (2.9%) 1997 1907 Right Slab cist. Two adults, male Unpublished
Bastida 40752 1879 1980 (73.5%) 1866 femur and female. Grave goods: two
BA40 1837 (2.6%) 1848 (18.9%) 1774 medial carinated pots (F5), 2-rivet
1831 shaft halberd, 3-rivet dagger,
fragment copper awl and beef and
sheep/goat bones.
3 Male tombs with a halberd: the radiocarbon series
At present, the radiocarbon series of Argaric halberds is formed by 24 absolute dates (Tables 1 and 2). However, its
composition needs to be detailed before starting the analysis. The most numerous set, which we will deal with in this
section, consists of 15 dates from nine sites (Table 1), although three more dates from Tabaià are important too. Of this
series, 11 dates were obtained from bone samples of the males associated with a halberd, three from wood fragments, and
one from a charcoal sample from a context stratigraphically related to the halberd (Setefilla). In addition, five dates
correspond to bone samples of women buried in double tombs, including a halberd associated with the second interment,
which is always a male. Finally, in one case the female tomb shows a close spatial, stratigraphic and typological proximity
to that of the male halberdier5 (Table 2).
So far, we have catalogued 76 Argaric halberds in our research programme6 corresponding to 31 sites, of which 23 are
located within the limits of the El Argar territory (Fig. 2). More than half of the pieces (39) come from graves documented
in more or less detail, while the rest have no known context. In summary, around 20% of all halberds and 40% of the
contextualized ones can be associated with an absolute date, a circumstance which in principle backs the reliability of the
chronological proposal.
•
Figure 2- Distribution of the Argaric halberds with known provenance in southeast Iberia;
•
• = 1, • = 2-3, = 4-7, > 7 blades.
5
The GT42 cist is contiguous to the GT41 cist burial, which contained a halberd. Both belong to the same stratigraphic unit and
include two very similar carinated vessels.
6
In this figure are included the halberds found in unequivocally Argaric sites in southeast Iberia and eight very similar objects
documented outside this territory.
149
The 14 dates obtained from samples of male skeletons or wood from handles correspond to eight sites, most of them
located in the coastal and pre-coastal regions of Almería and Murcia.
After calibrating single dates and calculating the sum of probabilities of the series (Fig. 3)7, the main conclusion is that
the dates referring to men with halberds or to the weapons themselves fall in the interval whose central tendency lays
between c. 2000 and 1800 cal BCE8. This is an unexpectedly brief period in which the full implementation of the Argaric
halberds or, at least, their archaeological visibility, should be placed. It is also striking that this interval is similar to that
obtained in the 1990s based on only five dates [Cas94: 91-92].
Few central probabilities fall outside this range. The date of the wooden handle of the halberd from Mina Iberia 1 is
slightly older, but might result from an old-wood effect.
On the other side, only the date of tomb OF42, placed in the first half of the 17th century cal BCE, falls below the
2000-1800 cal BCE interval. However, in this case we are dealing with a reused blade, as it is suggested by the reshaping
of the hafting plate and the diversity of the rivets. The accompanying grave goods also point towards a late burial date,
after 1800 cal BCE.
Figure 3 - Individual calibrations and probability sum of the fourteen 14C dates
directly associated with tombs containing halberds.
7
Calculations made using OxCal 4.2 (calibration curve IntCal2013).
8
One Sigma Ranges: [start:end] relative area
[cal BC 2023: cal BC 1874] 0,775813
[cal BC 1843: cal BC 1816] 0,127467
[cal BC 1799: cal BC 1779] 0,09672
Two Sigma Ranges: [start:end] relative area
[cal BC 2131: cal BC 2085] 0,031153
[cal BC 2051: cal BC 1707] 0,908602
[cal BC 1700: cal BC 1633] 0,060245
150
The chronological inferences of the two dates concerning indirect stratigraphic contexts do not contradict the proposed
interval9. Thus, the date of Setefilla was obtained from fragments of charcoal recovered on the floor of the room under
which the tomb with halberd was found. Despite its high standard deviation, the result is compatible with the later part of
the 2000-1800 cal BCE interval. On the other hand, the halberd of Tabaià tomb 1 raises a more problematic case, given the
wide difference between the two dates provided by the same grave (human and fauna), and the discrepancy with respect to
the date of tomb 3, which is stratigraphically later. López Padilla argues that samples from tomb 1 may have been
contaminated by humic acids, a circumstance that would have made them seem younger [Lop09: 255-256]. The dating of
tomb 3 would indicate a later time with respect to the deposition of tomb 1, which would thus fit in the high band of the
2000-1800 BCE interval. The use of tomb 3 date is however not without controversy, since it was obtained by the
laboratory of the University of Kiel at a time when it produced erroneous results [Lul15b].
3.1 Dating female skeletons
Over one third of the males buried with halberds are associated with a female, six of which have been dated10 (Table 2, Fig.
4). In most cases, both adults belong to different generations and were probably linked by descent ties [Lul13]. The
subtleties introduced by these female skeleton dates affect mainly the upper limit of the probability range of the halberds.
Since the Argaric funerary practices start in the 22nd century BCE, the delay seems surprising for an artefact that is
considered a characteristic trait of the early Argaric. However, the scarcity of tombs dated between 2200-2000 cal BCE
[Lul15a: Appendix 2] and, in particular, of male burials, needs to be taken into account. It can therefore not be excluded
that the funerary trends in the formative phase of Argaric society did not include halberds11. Future excavations and the
continuation of the radiocarbon dating programme will be crucial in order to clarify this issue.
Figure 4 - Calibration of the six 14C dates from female skeleton samples associated with male halberdiers.
9
Another indirect argument favouring the proposed age range is the fact that the elemental composition does not reveal any tin and
copper alloys, which were introduced after 1750 cal BCE [Cas99].
10
See the remarks on tombs 41 and 42 from Gatas.
11
The burial 58 from Fuente Álamo shows a chronological inversion which is difficult to explain: the radiocarbon dating of the
woman has provided a result older than that of the male, although she was buried in the second place, as it is evident from the layer of
earth accumulated between both skeletons [Sch12, 125-126 and Plate 4]. This problem was raised by Lull and co-wrkers [Lul15a, 387,
note 34], but new dates from the Kiel 14C laboratory have not solved this paradox. Therefore, it would be advisable not to include this
tomb among the earliest evidence defining the Argaric formative stage between 2200-2000 cal ANE [Lul15a, Fig. 16b].
151
4 Implications for Argaric archaeology: chronology and typology
As we have already pointed out, the three original morphometrical types proposed by Lull in 1983 remain consistent after
analysing 55 well preserved halberds from indisputably Argaric deposits. If we consider the dated artefacts, most
correspond to Lull’s type II (Figs. 1 and 5). Halberd HE1, close to type III, is the oldest, while OF62, the second in
decreasing chronological order, already corresponds to type II, although it suggests a gradual trend with respect to type III.
Regarding the most recent examples, OF9 belongs to type I and dates to the 19th century cal BCE, being contemporary
with AY60 and CP3, which are probably the last examples of type II.
Figure 5 - Argaric halberds associated with absolute dates (OF62 has been excluded from this figure due to bad
preservation). AR244 (upper left) is the only example of Lull’s type III; AY71 and OF9 (lower row) belong to Type I.
This chronology hints at a temporal succession of types II and I throughout the 20th and 19th centuries. However,
absolute dates are not accurate enough to establish this trend. In addition, the fact that some of the simpler halberds (type
III AR244 and type II OF42) are by now the most recent ones, does not fit the supposed early chronology of dagger-like
shapes. However, as already pointed out, the peculiarities of both halberds and their contexts may explain their relatively
late chronology.
The chrono-typological schemes of Ulreich [Ulr94] and Brandherm [Bra04], which, in general terms, propose an earlier
date for the Argaric halberds with broad hafting plates with respect to dagger-like pieces, are supported by the recent dates
of AR244 and OF42, despite the fact that the first one has an indirect dating. However, the opposite proposal, as defended
by Lull, is supported by the date of HE1 and the objection that OF42, the only halberd with a direct date, is a typologically
controversial example. Even so, HE1 and OF62, belonging to type II and with dates close to the upper limit of the interval,
do not leave room for a hypothetical greater antiquity of type III, provided that these do not go back to the beginning of the
Argaric around 2200 BCE. The same observations also question the alleged older antiquity of Brandherm’s Monteagudo
Type. On the other hand, the younger date of Lull’s type I depends on direct chronometric references, although this cannot
be proven at the moment in statistical terms.
It can be concluded that, in order to confirm the proposed chrono-typological sequences, it would be necessary to date
more contexts with Lull’s type III halberds. This would (or would not) set their appearance in the last two centuries of the
3rd millennium BCE, regardless of their survival. In addition, new series of radiocarbon dates from short-lived samples are
152
needed in order to discriminate typological variations in probabilistic terms within the narrow margins of the two centuries
when the full development of the halberds takes place (ca. 2000-1800 cal BCE).
5 Implications for Argaric archaeology: halberds and grave goods
Halberds distinguish a group of adult men buried in cists and rock-cut tombs12, including different grave goods apart from
halberds. The contents of 39 tombs have been recorded in a reasonably complete manner and allow us to analyse the
composition of grave goods (Table 1). Among the metal objects, the most represented artefact is the dagger, since it is only
absent in five graves. Both weapons must have been associated with a specific combat modality [Lul17]. Bracelets and
rings, sometimes made of gold or silver, are only documented in ten graves. The two chisels from Fuente Álamo 1 and
Laderas del Castillo are rare grave goods. On the other hand, except in three tombs, ceramic vessels are included in all
cases. As is well known, Argaric pottery production can be classified into eight standardized "Forms" (F1-8) [Sir87],
[Lul83]. The most common vessel is the carinated Form 5 (n = 26 tombs), followed by the exceptional carinated Form 6,
and by bowls (Form 1 and Form 2), globular pots (Form 4) and small cups [Form 8]. 17 tombs included two pottery
vessels, emphasizing the combination of the carinated forms F5 and F6 (six times) or two F5 (five times). Only in the case
of a double grave (AR994) has there been a triple association (one F5 and two bowls of F1 and F2 shape). The association
between a halberd and the characteristic Argaric goblet (F7) has not been documented. Finally, in almost two-thirds of the
tombs, one or two meat offerings are documented, among which Bos taurus are four times as frequent as ovicaprids13.
Figure 6 - Grave goods associated with halberds in 20 single and 15 double tombs. The values show the ratio between the
number of a particular class of items found in single or double tombs, and the number of each class of tombs.
The fact that 43% of the halberdiers are associated with a female (15 out of 35 graves with a halberd from which the
number of burials is known), whereas usually less than 10% of Argaric tombs include two adults [Lul16a, table 1] deserves
closer attention, particularly because these women were usually buried first in the grave. Given the usually large
chronological distance between both deaths [Lul13], the inhumation of these warriors would seem to acknowledge certain
female ancestors. Yet, it appears as a paradox that these women are not distinguished by particularly rich grave goods
(Table 2). For example, the copper awl, an item associated with middle and high-class female burials, has only been found
in one out of 15 double burials (BA40). The other characteristic item of the middle class female is the dagger, which is
equally underrepresented in comparison to single burials (Fig. 6). Also the number of pottery vessels does not increase
significantly in double tombs with respect to single ones. Recent findings in La Almoloya provide evidence of removing
funerary goods when the second body was buried 14. Only small items such as, for example, copper and silver ornaments,
could have gone unnoticed and remained in the tomb together with the mixed bones of the already skeletonised first body.
Thus, the scarcity of grave goods associated with these females would be the effect of a delayed ritual practice, rather than
involving a low social ranking (Figs. 7 and 8).
12
The only halberd found in a pithos burial (AR 575) belongs to the so-called Montejícar type [Sch73], which is very scarce in the
Argaric and in contrast relates to similar artefacts in southwestern Iberia.
13
Exceptionally, only one tomb had remains of both species. We owe all this information to the archaeofaunal investigation by
Lourdes Andúgar (Bastida Project).
14
In La Almoloya double tomb 68 the distal femur of the first burial showed the typical green stain of copper corrosion.
Nevertheless, this cist, which was completely sealed and all of its contents showed and excellent state of preservation, had no copper
items at all.
153
Figure 7 - La Almoloya tomb 60. The remains of the elderly female, who was buried first, were carefully positioned above
the man (left). The male skeleton was found in anatomical position (right). The halberd can be seen above his right
shoulder, while the dagger lies on his chest.
Figure 8 - Grave goods from burial La Almoloya 60. The carinated vessel and the limbs of a goat or sheep were placed at
the feet of the halberdier.
154
In 25 cases where we have enough anthropological information, the frequency of objects according to age reveals
relatively favourable values for elderly men compared with younger adults. However, here again the figures do not indicate
significant differences, suggesting that wealth invested in the funerary ritual depended primarily on belonging to a social
class rather than on an age group [Lul05].
Finally, there is not a clear relationship between any of Lull’s morphometric types and a specific age category. Type II
weapons seem to be associated with larger grave assemblages, especially with regard to the quantity of ceramic vessels and
animal portions. However, as in the previous comparisons, here again the differences do not reach conventional levels of
statistical significance.
6 Argaric halberds in the context of other European halberds
With regards to the halberd as a general phenomenon, some aspects of the Argaric funerary ritual, mainly the close
relationship between certain male individuals, halberds and daggers, can be traced back to the burials and stelae of the
Italian Copper Age and is also found in some distinguished Early Bronze Age burials of central Europe (Leubingen, Leki
Male, Feuersbrunn). On the other hand the frequent burial of these armed men in an older female tomb is a specific trait of
the Argaric and suggests that this society was possibly matrilineal and dominated by warrior elite.
In chronological terms, the radiocarbon series of Argaric halberds is far bigger than that of the rest of Europe (Table 3).
This hinders any interregional comparison. However, we can use the available radiocarbon dates and contextual criteria to
evaluate the current proposals and suggest some working hypotheses.
Table 3 - Absolute dates associated with non-Argaric halberds in Europe (calibration according to OxCal 4.2–terrestrial
curve IntCal2013).
14
Site Lab. Nr. C (BP) calibration 1s calibration 2s calibration Sample Context Observations
Burial (cal BC) (cal BC) (median cal Bibliography
BC)
Carn D-50 3000±140 1406 (68.2%) 1054 1594 (0.2%) 1589 1222 Wooden Bog find. Result
(Ireland) 1531 (94.3%) 892 handle considered to be
876 (0.9%) 849 (oak) erroneous.
[Mca61, 34],
[Lav71, 4E2], [
Bri01,148],
[Cha10]
Casanuova LTL- 4396±60 3097 (68.2%) 2916 3331 (17.6%) 3214 3039 Human Rinaldone Culture. Male burial in rock [Man09, 163, fig.
de San 1783A 3186 (3.3%) 3156 bone cut tomb. Grave goods: halberd, 15]
Biagio 3128 (74.5%) 2900 dagger, axe and two pottery vessels.
(Italy)
Feuersbru GrN- 3690±40 2139 (68.2%) 2025 2198 (8.4%) 2162 2081 Human Pit burial (V 111). Male, 40 y. Grave [Sch02, tab. 1],
nn 11895 2152 (87.0%) 1960 bone goods: 1-2 halberds, axe, dagger with [Kli06, 143-147
(Austria) midrib, awl, chisel, two vessels, fauna. and plate1]
Humanejo Ua-43524 3917±33 2468 (28.1%) 2434 2474 (93.3%) 2338 2409 Human Late Chalcolithic in the middle Tagus [Lie15, 109 and
s (Spain) 2421 (15.1%) 2404 2320 (2.1%) 2309 bone valley. Double burial UE 1853 111], [Bla16, 30-
2379 (25.0%) 2349 (underground chamber covered by a 31]
stone mound). Grave goods: halberd
(Baútas type), tanged dagger, 2 Palmela
points, stone bracelet, Bell Beaker
pottery, ivory buttons, cinnabar).
Leki Male M-1325 3900±150 2578 (63.4%) 2189 2871 (3.9%) 2801 2381 Wood from Central burial A of tumulus I. Grave [Ged76, 35, fig.
(Poland) 2182 (4.8%) 2142 2780 (90.7%) 2013 chamber goods: dagger, axe (Randleistenbeil), 2 30B], [Sch02,
1998 (0.8%) 1978 bracelets, needle (Schleifennadel), gold table 1]
spiral, 6 pottery vessels.
Leki Male Bln-3218 3760±88 2298 (68.2%) 2032 2460 (95.4%) 1958 2185 Wood from Id. Id.
(Poland) chamber
Leki Male Bln-1296 3645±106 2196 (4.5%) 2170 2338 (95.0%) 1740 2026 Wood from Id. Id.
(Poland) 2146 (63.7%) 1886 1711 (0.4%) 1700 chamber
Leki Male Bln-1293 3620±106 2188 (0.6%) 2184 2290 (93.9%) 1730 1992 Wood from Id. Id.
(Poland) 2141 (62.5%) 1876 1721 (1.5%) 1692 chamber
1841 (3.0%) 1822
1796 (2.1%) 1782
155
Leki Male GrN-5037 3605±35 2021 (19.9%) 1992 2118 (2.5%) 2096 1964 Wood from Id. Id.
(Poland) 1984 (48.3%) 1918 2040 (92.9%) 1882 chamber
Leki Male Bln-1294 3585±106 2125 (6.4%) 2090 2275 (0.8%) 2255 1943 Wood from Id. Id.
(Poland) 2044 (45.8%) 1862 2209 (94.6%) 1661 chamber
1852 (16.1%) 1772
Leki Male Bln-1295 3570±106 2111 (1.2%) 2104 2203 (95.4%) 1642 1923 Wood from Id. Id.
(Poland) 2036 (67.0%) 1755 chamber
Leubingen Dendochr - - - 1942±10 Wood Unetice group. Wooden chamber [Beck89],
(Germany) onology under tumulus. Male. Grave goods: [Sch02,78],
three daggers, two axes [Mel14, 628-633]
(Randleistenbeile), three chisels,
perforated battle axe of stone
(Schuhleistenkeil), stone anvil, golden
bracelet, two golden needles
(Ösennadeln), two golden spiral, one
pottery vessel.
Lough Ree UBA- 3780±29 2278 (20.4%) 2250 2294 (93.5%) 2133 2204 Wooden Unknown context. Cotton type halberd. [Bel14, 15-16]
(Ireland) 23195 2229 (5.3%) 2220 2079 (1.9%) 2062 handle
2211 (14.5%) 2192 (probably
2178 (28.0%) 2143 oak)
Melz Bln-985 3770±106 2390 (0.7%) 2386 2476 (95.4%) 1910 2202 Wooden Hoard with six halberds with bronze [Wüs95, 73],
(Germany) 2346 (67.5%) 2031 handle (ash) handles, one axe with the same type of [Sch02, table 1]
handle and two bronze handles with no
blade.
Melz Bln-982 3720±106 2285 (7.2%) 2246 2466 (95.4%) 1880 2130 Wooden Id. Id.
(Germany) 2235 (61.0%) 1965 handle (ash)
Melz Bln-983 3680±106 2266 (0.7%) 2261 2448 (0.2%) 2444 2076 Wooden Id. Id.
(Germany) 2206 (67.5%) 1912 2437 (0.7%) 2420 handle (ash)
2404 (1.2%) 2378
2350 (93.3%) 1770
Melz Bln-1527 3665±106 2199 (7.8%) 2159 2401 (0.7%) 2382 2055 Wooden Id. Id.
(Germany) 2154 (60.4%) 1902 2348 (94.7%) 1748 handle (ash)
Melz Bln-984 3655±106 2198 (5.9%) 2166 2390 (0.1%) 2386 2040 Wooden Id. Id.
(Germany) 2150 (62.3%) 1891 2346 (95.2%) 1743 handle (ash)
1707 (0.1%) 1704
Moylough GrA- 3610±40 2025 (68.2%) 1921 2131 (6.7%) 2086 1971 Carbonate Cremation in cist. Type Breaghwy [Ofl02, 373],
(Ireland) 14775 2050 (88.7%) 1881 from cup halberd. [Bri07, 272],
[Cha10]
Saint- Gif-863 3900±135 2572 (8.9%) 2512 2864 (3.0%) 2806 2380 Wooden Burial under tumulus. Probably not a [Del71, 216],
Fiacre 2505 (57.2%) 2198 2760 (1.8%) 2716 case (grave halberd. [Bal01,148]
(France) 2166 (2.1%) 2150 2711 (90.4%) 2021 good)
1992 (0.3%) 1984
Saint- SUERC- 3555±35 1947 (52.1%) 1876 2010 (1.6%) 2000 1895 Sheath of Burial under tumulus. Probably not a [Nic15, table 1]
Fiacre 30676 1841 (9.6%) 1821 1977 (93.8%) 1770 the dagger halberd.
(Grance) 1796 (6.6%) 1782 (alder)
Trecastell Beta- 3860±40 2455 (14.8%) 2418 2464 (79.8%) 2268 2339 Wooden Top of the fill of a pit inside a ring ditch. [Nee15, 11]
(Wales, 240338 2408 (14.1%) 2374 2260 (15.6%) 2206 handle Roscrea type halberd.
UK) 2368 (2.3%) 2361 Pomoideae
2354 (33.2%) 2286
2246 (3.8%) 2235
The earliest absolute date, falling at the end of the fourth millennium BCE, is from the Casanuova hoard of San Biagio
(Umbria, Italy). The sample comes from an individual male tomb linked to the Rinaldone tradition [Man09, Dol10]. It is
necessary to wait until the beginning of the second half of the 3rd millennium BCE to find the next dated halberd, from
Humanejos (Madrid, Spain). The sample comes from a male skeleton buried in a double grave and allows to date a halberd
classified within type Baútas, of Atlantic affiliation [Lie15]. It is striking, on the one hand, that this date falls in the third
quarter of the third millennium and it is thus contemporary to the heyday of the Bell Beaker phenomenon. Moreover, it is
surprising that the dates of Trecastell (Wales, Great Britain) and Lough Ree (Ireland) are younger, since the Atlantic
façade, and in particular Ireland, are often proposed as the cradle of metal halberds. To the same temporal horizon belongs
the halberd of Szigetszentmiklós tomb (Hungary), an individual cremation in a grave with two bell-shaped vessels, a
156
dagger knife, a stone wrist guard and other objects. The radiocarbon series of this necropolis occupies the interval between
ca. 2500-2200 BCE, in the recent horizon of which the tomb may be placed [Pat13: 300, 308 and figs. 19, 21].
The remaining radiocarbon dates15 and dendro-chronological determinations are concentrated somewhat later, between
approximately 2080 and 1800 BCE. Most of them come from Germany (Melz, Leubingen), Austria (Feuersbrunn) and
Poland (Leki Male), while only one dating refers to an Irish halberd (Moylough) and another one to a French artefact
(Saint-Fiacre), which raises serious doubts with regards to its classification as a halberd16.
Considering this chronological evidence, and with the necessary caution due to the scarcity of absolute dating, it is
possible to draw the following conclusions:
1. Central and northern Italy would be the cradle of Western halberds until proven otherwise by further Carpathian
contexts [Nee15: fig. 26]17.
2. The internal sequence of the radiocarbon series does not illustrate a hypothetical, progressive diffusion from northern
Italy towards the rest of Europe, since the earliest non Italian items are located in the centre of the Iberian peninsula, the
extreme western Atlantic (Wales and Ireland) and the Carpathian basin (Hungary), while the dates from central Europe,
which are closer to northern Italy, are more recent.
3. Except in central Europe (Germany, Austria, Poland), halberds of all the other regions are older than the Argaric
ones, whose first representatives date from ~2000 cal BCE. Therefore, the typical halberds of southeast Iberia should be
understood in the context of a late regional development that was quite specific given the combination of several traits: a.)
high concentration of halberds at a spatial and a temporal scale; b.) absence of metal hoards; c.) association with a male of
the ruling elite buried inside the settlement; and d.) relatively high frequency of double tombs inaugurated by a woman,
into which only much later a male is buried with a halberd.
4. The chronological scheme that best fits currently available data is the one proposed by Needham and co-workers
[Nee15: fig. 26].
5. Halberds of the Unetice area and its periphery seem contemporary with the Argaric ones. In fact they are also the
only regions where some halberds were placed in funerary contexts, often of outstanding wealth, something almost
unheard of in the British Isles, Scandinavia and northern Germany, where hoards are the rule. In addition, according to the
revision of the central German hoards and their interpretation as a reflection of Unetice's military organization, halberds
distinguish a military and political control [Mel15]. Given this temporal and contextual coincidence, some form of
communication and emulation seems to have been likely between the dominant social classes of these territories after 2000
cal BCE.
In sum, in certain European regions, among which the Argaric stands out, halberds were found in the hands of a
military group involved in the formation of stable territorial States18.
7 Argaric halberds and the transition between the Copper and Bronze Ages in Iberia
One of the most interesting questions in prehistoric research is how to understand the formation of Argaric society, at least
in the context of the Iberian peninsula. The unexpected early date of the UE1853 tomb of Humanejos [Lie15, Bla16] opens
a new panorama for Iberian halberds, but it also highlights other novelties in the field of funerary practices and settlement
patterns. In this section we will try to synthesize them and to place them in a sequence, as well as outlining some historical
and social hypotheses.
1. In the middle basins of the Douro and Tagus the characteristic Copper Age settlements surrounded by ditches were
abandoned by 2600-2500 BCE (Las Pozas, Casetón de la Era, Gózquez de Arriba) [Del15]. These ditched enclosures are
more frequent in the southern half of Iberia, where their emergence dates back to the end of the fourth millennium BCE.
They are considered emblematic of the solid communal ties of Chalcolithic societies, expressed also by the collective
burial rite in a variety of funerary structures.
2. In those same areas of central-northern Iberia the end of this type of settlement is roughly contemporary with the
introduction of the funeral ritual in individual tombs (El Hornazo, Fuente Celada, Soto de Tovilla, Cerro de la Cabeza, El
Hundido) [Car13, Car14, Alo13] and, in general, with a tendency to impose severe restrictions on the access to
15
It must be expected that the radiocarbon series of Leki Male and Melz, measured on long-lived samples (wood of the shafts) are
slightly older than their actual use and deposition [Sch02b: 79-82]. Typologically these halberds correspond to the classical Unetice
phase, which can be dated 2000-1800 BCE.
16
The broken blade was classified as type Breaghwy, although its interpretation as a halberd has been questioned by Needham and
co-workers, who rather view it as a Trévérec type dagger [Nee15, AS4, 2]. The artefact with a triangular profile found in a settlement
context of La Solana del Castillo de Alange (Badajoz, Spain) would also correspond to this temporal range. It belongs to phase IIA,
which is stratigraphically earlier than the date Beta-68669: 3600±80 BP [Pav93: 152-153 and fig. 5], [Pav14, fig. 4).
17
The argument that halberds corresponding to Horn’s type 17 and coming from the tholos burials Alcalar 3 (Algarve, Protugal) and
Los Millares 57 (Almería, Spain) date to a pre-Bell Beaker phase of the Copper Age [Hor14] is challenged by the fact that the
classification of these artefacts as halberds is ambiguous and, secondly, that their exact find context in these long-lassting funerary
structures remains unknown. Moreover, given that copper metallurgy starts in Ireland around 2500 BCE it is impossible to place the
production of metal halberds before this date in its main Atlantic distribution area.
18
See Lull and Risch [Lul95] for El Argar, and Meller [Mel14] and Zich [Zic16] for the central area of Unetice.
157
archaeologically documented funerary structures. Towards 2500 cal BCE, individualizing practices are documented in the
northern periphery of Southeast Iberia (La Vital) [Gar13].
3. Within the framework of this trend towards the restriction and individualization of the funerary ritual, the first
metallic halberds of Atlantic typology are detected in Iberia. In Humanejos' tomb UE1853 one of these weapons was found
next to two Palmela points, a tanged dagger and other typical objects of the later Bell Beaker (decorated pottery, ivory
buttons, stone wrist guards). This suggests that other halberds of the Middle Tagus basin typologically related to that of
Humanejos, such as those of Villamiel, Manzanares and Finca de la Paloma (Toledo), and even that of Torre Benzalá in
Jaén, are earlier than 2200 BCE.
4. From what has been pointed out so far, it may be noted that we are dealing with changes that took place especially in
the middle basins of the Douro and Tagus. It would not be strange, therefore, that the connections between different
regions of the European Atlantic façade, which have been identified archaeologically, would at least date to the middle of
the third millennium BCE, associated somehow with the development of metallurgy and to the Bell Beaker phenomenon.
5. In the southeastern part of the Iberian penninsula there is hardly any evidence of individual tombs by the middle of
the third millennium BCE19. Therefore, it seems that this region, as well as the Southwest, remained resistant to or apart
from the new developments in funerary practices and weaponry (copper halberds)20 that were taking place further north.
6. However, societies in the Southeast also experienced significant changes from approximately 2500 BCE onwards,
which were perhaps not unrelated to the dynamics in the northern neighbouring regions and possibly to pressure exercised
from there. We refer to the proliferation of small scale hill-top settlements with good defensive conditions, probably
indicating an increase in violent conflicts and social fragmentation (Peñón de la Zorra, ‘Fortines’ of Los Millares, Cerro del
Búho, Juan Clímaco, Mola D'Agres, Hoyas del Castillo, Cerro del Bu, Serra Grossa, Morra del Quintanar or Cerro de la
Encantada I, to cite just a few examples) [Lul15a].
7. Given the age of the old metallic halberds it is possible that some of the objects called "flint halberds", which have
been found in southern chalcolithic sites (Los Millares, Loma del Campo, Almizaraque, estrecho de la Encarnación, etc.),
emulate contemporary Atlantic copper artefacts. In any case, it is first of all necessary to certify that the aforementioned
flint objects were actually hafted as halberds.
8. Southern Chalcolithic communities disappeared completely by 2200 BCE, while the Argaric society emerged
between c. 2200 and 2000 BCE in the coastal and pre-littoral areas of Almería and Murcia. The first individual and double
burials in the vicinity of inhabited areas can be dated shortly before 2200 (Molinos de Papel 1, Cerro de la Virgen 30,
Gatas 11 and 13), setting the regional precedent of the characteristic Argaric ritual.
9. In general terms, what has hitherto been presented could describe the progressive movement towards the south of
groups with a new social organisation and of smaller size than those that inhabited the large scale southern settlements.
These groups were able to develop subsistence strategies that were more mobile, favoured individualized funerary
recognition and practiced forms of violence that included the use of metallic halberds. It is not possible to speak of a rapid
advance, since almost three centuries had elapsed between its first manifestations and the collapse of southern Chalcolithic
societies.
10. In the Argaric heartland there is no archaeological evidence of halberds between 2200 and 2000 cal BCE (with the
uncertain case of the Atlantic type weapon of the Vélez Blanco hoard, not far from the pre-littoral plains - see above). It is
also likely that some Lull Type III objects will mark the formative stage of halberds, since La Bastida fortification system
is significant with respect to the novel practice of hand-to-hand fighting [Lul14].
11. It cannot be ruled out that the groups of northern tradition established in the coastal and pre-littoral areas of the
Southeast came into contact with other groups connected in some way to the Eastern Mediterranean, where similar military
architecture developed during the Early Bronze Age as was later seen at La Bastida. Whatever the case, these communities
developed aggressive economic and political relations which led to a relatively rapid expansion into the interior of the
Iberian peninsula, especially in the direction of the eastern foothills of Sierra Morena, rich in copper and silver ores. The
result was the formation of a society split into similar territorial states, which we know as Argaric. It was the unique
culmination of a dynamic leading to different situations in other regions of the Iberian peninsula: essentially egalitarian and
sedentary communities conditioned by some form of intergroup violence (the Iberian-Levantine and Manchego Bronze
Age regions), and more or less mobile groups with or without warlords (Early and Middle Bronze Age horizons in the
great river basins of the Atlantic facade).
19
The individual tomb found in Glorieta de San Vicente (Lorca, Murcia) and dated around 2600 BCE [Mar06] needs to be
considered at present as an isolated case. The dating of a single burial at Campos (Almería) to around the middle of the 3 rd millennium
BCE (GrN-15509: 4005±40 BP), comes from a charcoal sample and can consequently not be considered in direct association with the
interment.
20
The interpretation of the hoard of Vélez Blanco (a halberd of Baútas type, similar to that of Humanejos, a tanged dagger, two
Palmela points and a copper axe) [Con07] depends on its uncertain dating: if it would date before 2200 BCE it would represent a
singular case in the context of the Copper Age of the Southeast; if its date would fall after 2200 BCE, we could consider it one of the
earliest metal halberds in a region close to the core Argaric area, maybe a prototype of the characteristic Argaric productions.
158
Conclusions
The analysis of a large radiocarbon series for the Argaric halberds has helped to date their use or, at least, their
archaeological visibility, in the period between c. 2000-1800 BCE. The placement of these weapons in individual or double
tombs, their high number and spatial concentration, and the implementation of an absolute dating programme have
undoubtedly contributed to one of the most solid chronological references in Europe. It is precisely the shortage of absolute
dates in other regions that limits the possibilities of comparing the temporality of metal halberds in different areas in order
to obtain a reliable picture of the beginnings of the adoption of these weapons and also of the duration of their use.
The survey of the available radiometric data suggests that ever since its first examples in central and northern Italy
halberds were linked to a specific form of combat mastered by distinguished males buried in individual tombs or
represented on stelae. After ca. 2500 BCE these weapons are attested in central Iberia, in the British Isles and,
occasionally, the Carpathians. In these regions, this was a time of social changes. As the Neolithic and Chalcolithic
traditions vanished, new forms of power and violence seem to have been concealed behind a new or a different metal
production, the shift towards individual funerary practices and a reorganisation of the settlement pattern. According to the
available 14C dates associated with these archaeological traits in Iberia, this shift occurred gradually following a North-
South direction, reaching the southeast around or slightly before 2200 BCE. At this moment, probably Eastern Europe and
Mediterranean influences reached the area, as suggested by the poliorcetic notions ruling the construction of the
monumental fortification of La Bastida [Lul14] and the introduction of casting technologies using stone moulds [Lul10b].
In any case, between 2200-2000 BCE a series of communities in coastal southeast Iberia combined all these influences
and formed what has become known as the Argaric society. During the next 200 years, between 2000-1800 BCE, this
organisation engaged in a rapid inland expansion, particularly in the direction of the eastern foothills of Sierra Morena,
with its rich copper and silver ore deposits [Lul10b]. Placing halberds in distinguished male burials would be the ritual
correlate of this probably violent territorial deployment of a network of fortified or well-protected hill-top settlements and
the enforcing actions of a dominant class of male warriors and powerful women related through kin.
The lack of comparable series of 14C dates in the rest of Europe hinders our ability to trace the temporality of the use of
halberds in other regions in similar terms. At least in the case of the Argaric, the halberds were a relatively late weapon,
placed as a grave good during a surprisingly short period of time. Between ca. 2000-1800 BCE in Europe, only in the
“classic” Unetice and its margins did the halberds seem to have enjoyed a similar social and funerary importance as in
Argaric society. Here too, this weapon seems to have played a key role in the emergence of new forms of State or State-
like organisations that were markedly different from the Near Eastern societies, but also from the local European Neolithic
and Chalcolithic communities.
Acknowledgements
This research has been conducted in the framework of the projects ‘Political power and violence in the El Argar society
(2200-1550 cal BCE)’ (Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness, Spain, HAR2014-53860-P), and ‘Proyecto Bastida’.
We are particularly grateful for the collaboration and attention given by Carmen Cacho (Museo Arqueológico Nacional,
Madrid), Nicolas Cauwe (Musées Royaux d'Art et d'Histoire, Brussels), Ben Roberts (Bristish Museum, London) and
Hermanfrid Schubart (German Archaeological Institute, Madrid) in the sampling of human bone remains from Argaric
tombs excavated by the Sirets. We thank especially Lourdes Andúgar, Eva Celdrán, María Inés Fregeiro, Camila Oliart and
Carlos Velasco (ASOME-UAB) for their unvaluable collaboration in Proyecto Bastida and Robert Chapman for the
English review of the text.
Bibliography
[Alo78] Alonso J., Cabrera V., Chapa T. and Fernandez-Miranda M. (1978) Apéndice: Indice de fechas arqueológicas de
C-14 para España y Portugal. In: C14 y Prehistoria de la Península Ibérica. Madrid: Fundación Juan March. Pp.
154-182.
[Alo13] Alonso C. (2013) Las tumbas campaniformes del monumento funerario “El Hundido” (Monasterio de Rodilla,
Burgos). Munibe, 64, pp. 89-103.
[Alm73] Almagro Mª J. (1973) El poblado y la necrópolis de El Barranquete (Almería). Acta Arqueológica Hispánica, VI,
Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia, Madrid.
[Aub81 Aubet Mª E. and Serna Mª R. (1981) Una sepultura de la Edad del Bronce en Setefilla (Sevilla), Trabajos de
Prehistoria, Vol. 38, Nr. 1, pp. 225-256.
[Bal01] Balquet A. (2001) Les tumulus armoricains du Bronze Ancien. Vannes: Institut Culturel de Bretagne, Col.
Patrimoine archéologique de Bretagne.
[Bel14] Bell D. (2014) A radiocarbon date for an Irish Bronze Age halberd, Past, Vol. 76, pp.15-16.
159
[Bla71] Blance B. (1971) Die Anfänge der Metallurgie auf der Iberischen Halbinsel. Berlin: Studien zu den Anfängen der
Metallurgie 4, Reimer Verlag.
[Bla16] Blasco C., Montero I. and Flores R. (2016) Bell Beaker funerary copper objects from the center of the Iberian
Peninsula in the context of the Atlantic connections. In: Guerra, E. y Liesau, C. (eds.) Analysis of the Economic
Foundations Supporting the Social Supremacy of the Beaker Groups. Oxford: Archaeopress Archaeology. Pp. 19-
35.
[Bra00] Brandherm D. (2000) El poblamiento argárico de Las herrerías (Cuevas de Almanzora, Almería) según la
documentación inédita de L. Siret, Trabajos de Prehistoria, Vol. 57, Nr. 2, pp. 157-172.
[Bra03] Brandherm D. (2003) Die Dolche und Stabdolche der Steinkupfer- und der älteren Bronzezeit auf der Iberischen
Halbinsel. Stuttgart: Prähistorische Bronzefunde VI (12), Franz Steiner Verlag.
[Bra04] Brandherm D. (2004) Porteurs de hallebardes? Überlegungen zur Herkunft, Entwicklung und Funktion der
bronzezeitlichen Stabklingen. In: Beier, H. J. and Einicke, R. (eds.), Varia Neolithica III. Gedenkschrift für
Annemarie Häußer und Helmut Spatz. Langenweissbach: Beier and Beran. Pp. 279-334.
[Bri07] Brindley A. L. (2007) The Dating of Food Vessels and Urns in Ireland. Galway: NUI Galway Department of
Archaeology.
[Car13] Carmona E., Valdivielso E., Pascual S., Vega J. (2013) Restos humanos, contextos funerarios y diversidad formal:
los yacimientos calcolíticos de El Hornazo y el túmulo II.C1 de Cótar (Burgos), Revista Atlántica-Mediterránea
de Arqueología Social, 15, pp. 53-80.
[Car14] Carmona E. (2014) Dataciones radiocarbónicas de contextos calcolíticos al aire libre en la cuenca media del
Arlanzón (Burgos, España), Spal, 23, pp. 27-48.
[Cas94] Castro P., Chapman R. W., Gili S., Lull V., Micó R., Rihuete C., Risch R. and Sanahuja M. E. (1993-1994)
Tiempos sociales de los contextos funerarios argáricos, Anales de Prehistoria de la Universidad de Murcia, Vol.
9-10, pp. 77-107.
[Cas99] Castro P., Chapman R. W., Gili S., Lull V., Micó R., Rihuete C., Risch R. and Sanahuja M. E. (1999) Proyecto
Gatas, 2: La dinámica arqueoecológica de la ocupación prehistórica. Sevilla: Monografías Arqueológicas.
Consejería de Cultura de la Junta de Andalucía.
[Cha10] Chapple R. M. (2010) Catalogue of radiocarbon determinations and dendrochronology dates. Belfast: Oculus
Obscura Press.
[Con07] Consuegra S. (2007) La alabarda del depósito de Vélez Blanco (Almería) en el Museo Arqueológico Nacional,
Revista Velezana, 26, pp. 8-12.
[Del71] Delibrias G. Guilier M. T. and Labeyrie J. (1971) Gif Natural Radiocarbon Measurements VI, Radiocarbon, Vol.
13, Nr 2, pp. 218-254.
[Del15] Delibes G., Abarquero F. J., Crespo M., García García M., Guerr, E., López Sáez J. A., Pérez Díaz S., Rodríguez
Marcos J. A. (2015) The archaeological and palynological record of the Northern Plateau of Spain during the
second half of the 3rd millennium BC. In Meller H., Arz H. W., Jung R., Risch R. (eds), 2200 BC – A climatic
breakdown as a cause for the collapse of the old world? Tagungen des Landesmuseums für Vorgeschichte Halle,
12, Halle pp. 429-448.
[Dol10] Dolfini A. (2010) The Origins of Metallurgy in Central Italy: New Radiometric Evidence, Antiquity, Vol. 84, pp.
707–23.
[Est89] Estacio da Veiga S.Ph.M (1889) Paeoethnologia. Antiguidades Monumentaes do Algarve. Tempos Prehistoricos.
Volumen III. Lisboa: Imprensa Nacional.
[Gar13] García Puchol O., Bernabeu J., Carrión Y., Molina Ll., Pérez Jordà G., Gómez Puche M. (2013) A funerary
perspective on Bell Beaker period in the Western Mediterranean. Reading the social context of individual burials
at La Vital (Gandía, Valencia), Trabajos de Prehistoria, 70 (2), pp. 264-277.
[Ged76] Gedl M. (1976) Die Dolche und Stabdolche in Polen. PBF VI,4. Munich: Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung.
[Hed95] Hedges R.E.M., Housley R. A., Ramsey C. B. and Klinken G. J. (1995) Radiocarbon dates from the Oxford AMS
System: Archaeometry Datelist 20, Archaeometry, Vol. 37, Nr. 2, pp. 417-430.
[Her10] Hernández Pérez M. S. and López Padilla J. A. (2010) La muerte en El Argar alicantino. El Tabaià como
paradigma. In: Pérez Fernández, Á., Soler, B. (coord.), Restos de Vida, Restos de Muerte. La muerte en la
Prehistoria. València: Museu de Prehistòria de València. Pp. 221-228.
[Hor14] Horn Ch. (2014) Studien zu den europäischen Stabdolchen. Universitätsforschungen zur Prähistorischen
Archäologie. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt.
[Hor16] Horn Ch. and Schenck T. (2016) Zum Ursprung der Stabdolche und stabdolchartiger Waffen in Europa.
Praehistorische Zeitschrift, Vol. 91, Nr 1, pp. 16-41.
[Kli06] Klieber J. (2006) Die Stabdolche aus Österreich, Archaeologia Austriaca, Vol. 90, pp. 139-178.
[Lav71] Lavell C. (ed.) (1971) Archaeological site index to radiocarbon dates for Great Britain and Ireland. York:
Council for British Archaeology.
[Lie15] Liesau C., Blasco C., Ríos P. and Flores R. (2015) La mujer en el registro funerario campaniforme y su
reconocimiento social, Trabajos de Prehistoria, Vol. 72, Nr 1, pp. 105-125.
160
[Lop09] López Padilla J. A. (2009) El grupo argárico en los confines orientales del Argar. In: Hernández Pérez M. S.,
Soler J. A. and López Padilla J. A. (eds), Los confines del Argar. Una cultura de la Edad del Bronce en Alicante.
Alacant: Museo Arqueológico de Alicante. Pp. 247-267.
[Lul83] Lull V. (1983) La cultura de El Argar. Un modelo para el estudio de las formaciones económico-sociales
prehistóricas. Madrid: Akal.
[Lul95] Lull V. and Risch R. (1995) El Estado Argárico, Verdolay, Vol. 7, pp. 97-109.
[Lul05] Lull V., Micó R., Rihuete C., Risch R. (2005) Property Relations in the Bronze Age of South-western Europe: an
Archaeological Analysis of Infant Burials from El Argar (Almería, Spain), Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society,
71, pp. 247-268.
[Lul10a]Lull V., Micó R., Rihuete C. and Risch R. (2010) Límites históricos y limitaciones del conocimiento
arqueológico: la transición entre los grupos arqueológicos de Los Millares y El Argar, in: Bueno, P., Gilman, A.,
Martín, C., and Sánchez-Palencia, F. J. (eds.) Arqueología, sociedad, territorio y paisaje. Estudios sobre
Prehistoria reciente, Protohistoria y transición al mundo romano. Homenaje a Mª Dolores Fernández-Posse.
Madrid: Bibliotheca Praehistorica Hispana XXVIII, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas. Pp. 75-94.
[Lul10b] Lull V., Micó R., Rihuete Herrada C. and Risch R. (2010) Metal and social relations of production in the 3rd and
2nd millenia BC in the southeast of the Iberian Peninsula, Trabajos de Prehistoria, Vol. 67, Nr 2, pp. 323-347.
[Lul11] Lull V., Micó R., Rihuete Herrada C. and Risch R. (2011) El Argar and the Beginning of Class Society in the
Western Mediterranean. In: Hansen, S. and Müller, J. (eds.) Sozialarchäologische Perspektiven:
Gesellschaftlicher Wandel 5000–1500 v. Chr. Zwischen Atlantik und Kaukasus. Berlin: Archäologie in Eurasien,
24, Deutsches Archäologisches Institut. Pp. 381–414.
[Lul13] Lull V., Micó R., Rihuete Herrada C. and Risch R. (2013) Funerary practices and kinship in an Early Bronze Age
society: a Bayesian approach applied to the radiocarbon dating of Argaric double tombs, Journal of
Archaeological Science, Vol. 40, pp. 4626-4634.
[Lul14] Lull V., Micó R., Rihuete Herrada C. and Risch R. (2014) The La Bastida fortification: new light and new
questions on Early Bronze Age societies in the western Mediterranean, Antiquity, Vol. 88, Nr 340, pp. 395-410.
[Lul15a] Lull V., Micó R., Rihuete Herrada C. and Risch R. (2015) Transition and conflict at the end of the 3rd millenium
BC in south Iberia. In: Meller H., Arz H. W., Jung R. and Risch R. (eds.) 2200 BC – A climatic breakdown as a
cause for the collapse of the old world? Halle: Tagungen des Landesmuseums für Vorgeschichte Halle, 12. Pp.
365-407.
[Lul15b] Lull V., Micó R., Rihuete Herrada C. and Risch R. (2015) When 14C Dates Fall Beyond the Limits of
Uncertainty: An Assessment of Anomalies in Western Mediterranean Bronze Age 14C Series, Radiocarbon, Vol.
57, Nr 5, pp 1029-1040.
[Lul17] Lull V., Micó R., Rihuete C., Risch R. and Escanilla N. (2017) Halberdiers and systems of combat in the Argaric.
Oxford Journal of Archaeology , 36 (4), pp. 375-394.
[Man09] Manfredini A., Fugazzola Delpino M. A., Sarti L., Silvestrini M., Martini F., Conati Barbaro C., Muntoni I.,
Pizziolo G. and Volante N. (2009) Adriatico e Tirreno a confronto: analisi dell'occupazione territoriale tra il
Neolitico finale e l'età del Rame in alcune aree campione dell'Italia centrale, Rivista di Scienze Preistoriche, Vol.
LIX, pp. 115-180.
[Mar96] Martínez Rodríguez A., Ponce J. and Ayala Mª M. (1996) Las prácticas funerarias de la cultura argárica en
Lorca. Lorca: Ayuntamiento de Lorca.
[Mar06] Martínez Sánchez C., San Nicolás M., García Blázquez L. A., Ponce J., (2006) Figuraciones esquemáticas
pintadas en una sepultura de finales del III milenio en Lorca (Murcia). In Martínez García J., Hernández Pérez M.
(eds.) Actas del Congreso de Arte Rupestre Esquemático en la Península Ibérica, Comarca de los Vélez, 5-7 de
mayo de 2004, Almería, pp. 513-520.
[Mca61] McAulay I. R. and Watts W. A. (1961) Dublin Radiocarbon Dates I, Radiocarbon, Vol. 3, pp. 26-38.
[Mel14] Meller H. (2014) Die neolithischen und bronzezeitlichen Goldfunde Mitteldeutschlands – Eine Übersicht. In:
Meller H., Risch R. and Pernicka E. (eds.) Metalle der Macht – Frühes Gold und Silber. Metals of Power – Early
Gold and Silver. Halle: Landesmuseums für Vorgeschichte Halle 11. Pp. 611-716.
[Mel15] Meller H. (2015) Armeen in der Frühbronzezeit? In: Meller H. and Schefzik M. (eds.) Krieg – eine
archäologische Spurensuche. Halle: Theiss. Pp. 243-252.
[Nee15] Needham S., Davis M., Gwilt A., Lodwick M., Parkes P. and Reavill P. (2015) A Hafted Halberd Excavated at
Trecastell, Powys: from Undercurrent to Uptake – the Emergence and Contextualisation of Halberds in Wales and
North-west Europe, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, Vol. 81, pp. 1-41.
[Nic15] Nicolas C., Stevenin C. and Stéphan P. (2015) L’artisanat à l’age du Bronze ancien en basse Bretagne. Iin:
Boulud-Gazo, S. and Nicolas, T. (eds.) Artisanats et productions à l’âge du Bronze. Actes de la journée de la
Société préhistorique francaise de Nantes, 8 octobre 2011. Paris: Société préhistorique française, 4. Pp. 123-153.
[Ofl02] O’Flaherty R. (2002) The Early Bronze Age Halberd in Ireland: Function and Context. Dublin: PhD University
College.
[Ori37] Ó’Riordáin S.P. (1937) The Halberd in Bronze Age Europe. A Study in Prehistoric Origins, Evolution,
Distribution, and Chronology, Archaeologia or Miscellaneous Tracts relating to Antiquity, Vol. LXXXVI, pp.
195-321.
161
[Pat13] Patay R. (2013) Bell Beaker Cemetery and Settlement at Szigetszentmiklós: First Results. In: Heyd, V., Kulcsár
and G., Szeverényi, V. (eds.) Transitions to the Bronze Age. Interregional Interaction and Socio-Cultural Change
in the Third Millennium BC Carpathian Basin and Neighbouring Regions. Budapest: Archaeolingua. Pp. 287-317.
[Pav93] Pavón I. (1993) La Solana del castillo de Alange: un yacimiento de la Edad del Bronce en la cuenca media del
Guadiana, SPAL, Vol. 2, pp. 147-168.
[Pav14] Pavón I. and Duque D. M. (2014) El Cerro del Castillo de Alange (Extremadura, España): un paisaje de la Edad
del Bronce. In: Vilaça, R. and Serra, M. (eds.) Idade do Bronze do Sudoeste. Novas perspetivas sobre uma velha
problemática. Coimbra: Instituto de Arqueologia de la Universidad de Coimbra. Pp. 51-73.
[Sch02a] Schuhmacher Th. (2002) Some remarks on the origin and chronology of halberds in Europe, Oxford Journal of
Archaeology, Vol. 21, Nr 3, pp. 263-288.
[Sch02b] Schwenzer S. (2002) Zur Frage der Datierung der Melzer Stabdolche, Praehistorische Zeitschrift, Vol. 77, pp.
76-83.
[Sch13] Schmidt H. (1913) Der Dolchstab in Spanien, in: Opuscula Archaeologica. Oscari Montelio Septuagenario.
Stockholm: Haeggstroem. Pp. 69-78.
[Sch63] Schickler H. (1963) Stabdolche und Vollgriffdolche. Beiträge zur Ornamentik und Technologie der frühen
Bronzezeit. Freiburg: Universität Freiburg, unpublished PhD.
[Sch73] Schubart H. (1973) Las alabardas tipo Montejicar. In: Maluquer de Motes J. (ed.), Estudios dedicados al Profesor
Dr. Luis Pericot. Barcelona: Universidad de Barcelona. Pp. 247-269.
[Sir87] Siret H. and Siret L. (1887) Les Premiers Âges du Métal dans le Sud-Est de l’Espagne. Anvers.
[Ulr94] Ulreich H. (1993-1994) Die zeitiche Ordnung der Stabdolchklingen aus El Argar, El Oficio und Fuente Alamo
(Almeria, Spanien), Mitteilungen der Anthropologischen Gesellschaft in Wien, Vol.123/124, pp. 301-314.
[Zic16] Zich B. (2016) Aunjetitzer Herrschaften in Mitteldeutschland –“Fürsten” der Frühbronzezeit und ihre Territorien
(“Domänen”). In: Meller H., Hahn H.P., Jung R. and Risch R. (eds.) Arm und Reich – Zur Ressourcenverteilung
in prähistorischen Gesellschaften/ Rich and Poor –Competing for resources in prehistoric societies. Halle:
Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologie Sachsen-Anhalt. Pp. 126-129.
162