Archaeologists Reassess Europe’s Earliest Large‑Scale Conflict in Neolithic Spain
Researchers from the University of Valladolid in Spain have presented a provocative conclusion: the first large‑scale war in Europe may have occurred about a thousand years earlier than previously assumed. Their findings appear in Scientific Reports, a peer‑reviewed scientific journal, and mark a significant shift in how scholars view early warfare on the continent.
Historically, most scholars believed Europe’s earliest major conflict happened during the Bronze Age, roughly between 4,000 and 2,800 years ago. The new investigation reanalyzed more than 300 human skeletons dated to nearly 5,000 years ago, suggesting that many of the individuals buried in a mass grave may have fallen victim to early warfare long before the Bronze Age comparisons were made.
The skeletons were uncovered in a mass burial site in Rioja Alavesa, a northern region of Spain renowned for its archaeological richness. Radiocarbon dating techniques were used to determine the age of the remains, providing a window into a time when farming communities were intensifying their interactions and occasionally clashing over resources, territory, or social dynamics.
In the same locale, researchers recovered about 52 flint arrowheads. Earlier investigations had already noted damage on 36 of these arrowheads, indicating that projectiles had been employed in violent encounters. The concentration of arrowheads supports the interpretation that the site was associated with acute, organized violence rather than isolated accidents or ritual killings.
Analysis of the human remains revealed that roughly 23.1 percent bore skeletal injuries, while 10.1 percent showed injuries that did not heal. These figures exceed the injury rates projected by prior studies for similar periods, which estimated about 7–17 percent for non‑healing injuries and 2–5 percent for injuries that later healed. The elevated damage rates imply intense, repeated trauma and a high likelihood that the deceased experienced violent encounters during life.
Disaggregating the injuries by sex and age yielded a striking pattern: about 74.1 percent of non‑healing injuries and 70.0 percent of healing injuries occurred in adolescent or adult males. This male‑biased distribution is notably higher than what has been observed at other Neolithic mass death sites across Europe. The data suggest that the conflict involved manned combat or organized raids rather than random acts of violence against mixed communities.
Overall, the combination of high injury prevalence, the predominance of male victims, and damage sustained by arrowheads points to a scenario in which many individuals at the cemetery site were subjected to violence and may have been casualties of conflict. The researchers interpret the injury patterns and weapon damage as evidence of a sustained period of hostilities rather than a single, isolated clash.
According to the archaeologists, the relatively high proportion of healed wounds indicates that some combatants survived initial encounters and that the conflicts may have continued for several months. The persistence of wounds that eventually healed, alongside ongoing aggression, paints a portrait of a protracted conflict rather than a brief skirmish.
The specific causes of these Stone Age wars remain unresolved. The team proposes that tensions between distinct cultural groups within the Late Neolithic landscape could have sparked successive clashes over access to valuable resources, shelter, or favorable settlement locations. As with many prehistoric studies, the researchers emphasize that multiple factors—economic pressure, population movements, and shifting social structures—likely played a role in destabilizing communities during this era.
In closing, the report acknowledges that this interpretation rests on the available archaeological evidence and the application of modern dating and damage analyses. While the findings illuminate a possibly earlier onset of organized conflict in Europe, they also invite further study across Neolithic and Early Bronze Age sites to determine whether similar patterns exist elsewhere in the continent. The implications extend beyond a single cemetery, prompting a broader reconsideration of how early European societies navigated competition, alliance, and survival in a rapidly changing world.
Note: previously documented Neolithic material remains, such as ceremonial or ritual artifacts, should be weighed against these conclusions to avoid overgeneralizing from a single site. The research team encourages additional excavations and comparative analyses to refine our understanding of early warfare dynamics in Europe.
findings published in Scientific Reports (SciRep) outlining the reanalysis of skeletal remains and associated artifacts from Rioja Alavesa, Spain, with interpretations about early warfare in Europe.