Conclusion

The Bronze Age saw a fundamental paradigm shift in the course of human history. Firstly metal technology enabled the creation of entirely new forms of object and the development and widespread adoption of the first specia­lised weapons was at the forefront of this event horizon.

The social impact of this was enabled by a further crucial change that characterises Bronze Age social practice: the development of what can properly be considered martial art practices. By this we mean formalised and recognised sets of combat skills, which were transmitted and shared through training. The nature of damage on weapons throughout Europe clearly indicates that there was a skills base underlying their use, with many examples showing frequent yet not terminal damage. In an environment of escalating specialisation in many societies in Europe, from potters to smiths, this specialisation in warrior crafts may well be predicted. Warrior skills were no longer based on motor habit patterns or mechanical knowledge derived from subsistence practices or crafts, but were skill sets exclusively for war. The shortswords and shields imply fighting in confined spaces, which in turn indicates a close proximity between all combatants, such that the bodily relationships in battle changed with co-dependency and peer visibility, both transforming action and the expectation of action.

The question of how the changing identity of warriors might relate to emerging hierarchies or particular political systems such as chiefdoms is difficult, and impossible in some regions, to address on the basis of the archaeology alone.

Weapons, Warriors and Warfare in Bronze Age Europe osteological and experimental methods, which provide an empirical platform to develop regionally nuanced pictures. In this way the future direction of the study of Bronze Age warfare can effectively address the social conditions of violence and conflict management - factors shaping the daily life of these past societies.

That many warriors and non-warriors died violently is clear from the osteological record, though mortuary evidence also suggests that some people were characterised as warriors in death (by the mourners?) even though they may not have been in life. The symbolism of and participation in warrior identity may thus have been very much historically and socially contingent, with expectation, ambition, responsibility, obligation, pretence, sport, display and ritual all playing roles in the manifestation of warriorhood in society. The very real investment in fortification complexes as central places in many Bronze Age societies underscores the importance of symbolic displays of power to a society. This symbolism was, however, impotent if it could not be materially supported, and so the very act of building a fortifica­tion was a statement of real power backed up by investment in force of arms. The combat innovations of the Bronze Age, including the invention of specialised weapons and associated martial art traditions, were to shape the future of warfare in Europe for millennia to come and enable the develop­ment of armies in the Iron Age.Overall, a key development in violence in human societies that characterises the Bronze Age is the institutionalisation of violence through the ongoing innovation and large-scale production purpose-made weapons for interpersonal violence. If it ever could have been, violence can no longer be considered to have been a malfunction of normal social processes by the Bronze Age - it was planned for, drew upon a suite of labour and material resources and played a fundamental role in structuring central places in the form of fortifications.