Bronze Age Warfare:
Manufacture and
Use of Weaponry
Edited by
Marion Uckelmann
Marianne Mödlinger
BAR International Series 2255
2011
Published by
Archaeopress
Publishers of British Archaeological Reports
Gordon House
276 Banbury Road
Oxford OX2 7ED
England
bar@archaeopress.com
www.archaeopress.com
BAR S2255
Bronze Age Warfare: Manufacture and Use of Weaponry
© Archaeopress and the individual authors 2011
ISBN 978 1 4073 0822 7
Printed in England by Blenheim Colour Ltd
All BAR titles are available from:
Hadrian Books Ltd
122 Banbury Road
Oxford
OX2 7BP
England
www.hadrianbooks.co.uk
The current BAR catalogue with details of all titles in print, prices and means of payment is available
free from Hadrian Books or may be downloaded from www.archaeopress.com
USE-WEAR ANALYSIS AND USE-PATTERNS OF BRONZE AGE SWORDS
Barry Molloy
ABSTRACT
moved on from such romantic visions and strive to understand the reality of day-to-day life in
prehistory, be it subsistence, ritual or violence related (Bradley 2005). A renewed interest in the
study of war that began in anthropology in the
early 1980’s and took hold in archaeology by the
middle of that decade (see Thorpe 2005; Harding
2007, 15 f.). This rejuvenation of research saved
the weapons of our museum display cases from
being intellectually resigned to out-moded visions
of prehistory and has on the contrary seen many
new research projects develop, as exemplified in
this present volume. R. Bradley’s call (2005, 145)
for archaeologists to move beyond compiling detailed records of bronze artefacts and return them
to the sphere of social interpretation is increasingly
being met through this new work. It is within this
context of reconceptualising the study of Bronze
Age weapons that this paper redresses some misleading factoids and methodological conservatism
that has developed over the course of a century of
research and offers new directions in deriving social meaning from the material culture of war.
To begin, we may take an expanded chaîne
opératoire model that considers the entire lifecycle of weapons in biographical terms (Kopytoff
2000). This should take account of the conception,
birth, life, death, burial and archaeological recovery of weapons. Through this model, we can explain
reasons why weapons were created in the manner
and form that they were, how this was done, what
happened to them when they were being used by
prehistoric persons, why they were removed from
circulation, how were they interred, and eventually, how were they recovered. First, however,
a brief characterisation of the ‘intellectual biography’ of bronze weapon research is required to contextualise the current state of our knowledge and
research practice.
The study of bronze weaponry is older than the
field of archaeology and modern research has
inherited both benefits and problems associated
with this chronological breadth of research.
Bronze weapons occur in relatively similar forms
throughout Europe, making them one of the few
categories of artefact to receive similar academic treatment on such a wide scale, and in various academic traditions. This paper addresses
terminological and methodological complications that have arisen in no small part due to the
natural application of unifying language and
functional interpretations that such a broad scale of research history has attracted. It is argued
that such innocuous things as generic names for
sword types or broad statements on spear use
have a more profound impact than may be expected in determining research methodologies and
results. Some paths towards creating a methodological consensus, or complementary strands
thereof, are suggested and potential impacts of
related changes are considered. A final purpose
is to suggest methods to create greater synthesis
between use-wear, taxonomic, experimental and
archaeometric analyses.
KEYWORDS
Rapier – cut-and-thrust – slashing – stabbing
swords – experimental – archaeology
INTRODUCTION
Walking into the National Museums of most
countries in Europe, one may be forgiven for
thinking the Bronze Age to have been one of the
bloodiest epochs of our past. Display cases are laden with swords, spears, axes, lances, war-horns,
shields, armour, helmets and all the fossils of past
battles. To the modern archaeologist, this lure of
bronze is perhaps better seen as a fossil of our
antiquarian forbearers, drawn by mythology to
a vision of the nasty, brutish and short nature of
prehistoric life (Parker-Pearson 2005; Vandkilde
2006a, 419). As a discipline, we have long-since
HISTORY OF RESEARCH
The recovery and publication of Bronze Age weapons is far older than the discipline of archaeology, with the first records dating back to early
antiquarianism (Colquhoun and Burgess 1988,
5 f.) during the Enlightenment, a time when secular man was seeking to make sense of our origins
and character. C. J. Thomsen’s division of objects
67
Barry Molloy
new field of archaeology, and studies of bronze
weapons grew in numbers and complexity (e.g.
Coffey 1894; Naue 1903). In this milieu, W. P.
Brewis (1923) stands out as having offered a relatively unique study that addressed differences
in modes of use alongside categorisations used
to create an archaeological lingua franca for
weapons. By the time weapon studies became
the subject of more systematic analysis in culture historical and ‘new archaeology’ frameworks
in the 1950’s and 1960’s,1 the basic tools for
this research had long been established and accepted. In cold scientific terms, a weapon was
treated the same as any artefact would be, and so
meticulous records of its metric attributes were
created that allowed cross-referencing with similar objects. Through this, the evolution of object forms could be charted and dissemination of
physical characteristics could be charted across
wide distances. The Prähistorische Bronzefunde
series has been instrumental in codifying this approach and bringing vast quantities of objects to
publication.
Building on this long-established heritage,
further questions have begun to be asked in the
past fifteen years that pertain to how and why
weapons were made, why they changed over
time, how were they traded/exchanged, how
were they used to fight and what were their nonmartial functions in the societies that used them.2
New techniques of analysis have been developed, foremost being metallurgical, use-wear and
experimental approaches, as well as synthesis
between these.3 The above descriptive system of
recording weapons may be regarded as a ‘typological approach’ while the latter may be seen as an
‘interpretative approach’. Synthesis between the
two strands is increasingly popular, and draws
benefit from the former providing raw material
for discussion, while the latter investigates the
social and technological strategies behind the
metric variability charted.
1
2
3
4
5
6
Figure 1: Zones of regional difference in sword proportions in Ireland
into the three-age system (1820) built on a century of intellectual development, and was one of
the first systematic steps for meaningfully segregating prehistoric material culture. The growth
from reports of curiosities into the production
of detailed catalogues occurred around the same
time as C. Darwin’s (1859) The Origin of Species
emerged, reflecting a new scientific inflection to
the study of cultural objects (e.g. Wilde 1863;
Evans 1881). In the following decades, this system of pigeon-holing objects into types and subtypes to make order from chaos solidified into a
sub-field of social inquiry in itself. Bronze weapons are non-ferrous objects that were frequently deposited in anaerobic environments, and this
made them primary targets of such research as
they survived in good condition, in great quantities and carried an implicit air of excitement and
wonder.
From the late nineteenth century, archaeology
was becoming more self-aware and formalised
as a discipline, utilising its own distinct research
tools alongside those borrowed from other disciplines. Artefact studies were a core aspect to this
THE LIFE-CYCLE OF A WEAPON
Conception
The first stage in the life of artefacts is one that
all hold in common: the design or conception
stage. Before creating an artefact, a craftsman
3
E.g. Kristiansen 1984; 2002; Bridgford 1997; 2000;
York 2002; Tselios 2004; O’ Flaherty 2002; Molloy 2006;
Mödlinger 2011; Uckelmann 2006; various contributions,
this volume.
1
E.g. Cowen 1951; 1955; Catling: 1956; 1961;
Sandars 1961; 1963; Coles 1962; Eogan 1965.
2
Peatfield 1999; Bridgford 1997; 2000; Bradley 2005;
Molloy 2006.
68
Use-wear analysis and use-patterns of Bronze Age swords
establishes the criteria and parameters of its
design in relation to its intended function and
existing technological and aesthetic trends.
This may or may not include consultation with
the intended end-user, but it involves instilling
personalised variations on an established theme
that will dictate both the functional and aesthetic qualities of the finished product. If we look
at the example of Irish Bronze Age spearheads,
the breadth of their size and typological range (Ramsey 1989) demonstrate that craftsmen
producing them made wildly varying responses to design considerations. The technological
choices in weapon design reflexively link the
work of the craftsman and the requirements of
the combatant, and the two would meet at this
design stage in particular.4
In order to understand weapons as weapons,
and not simply generic ‘artefacts’, it is necessary to characterise design elements that result
from decisions made prior to production. In typological analyses, morphological consideration focuses primarily on hilt forms at the expense of the business end of the weapon – the blade
(Peatfield 1999). Irrespective of hilt configuration, lengths and weights of weapons are related
to both regional and local patterns, and relate to
variations in the functionality of weapons and,
by extension, combat systems. In Ireland for example, where so many bronze weapons survive
(Waddell 2000; Molloy 2006), there are distinct
regional preferences in the way that weapons
were made and used (fig. 1–3). There is a broad
band from the east to the west coast in the centre of the island where light and short swords
were preferred. These could be deployed rapidly and required close proximity to a potential
target to make a strike. In the northeast, the preference was for longer and heavier swords that
had longer reach and greater impact force, but
were slower to deploy. On a more micro-scale,
the Type B swords from the two Grave Circles
at Mycenae in Greece have typological homogeneity in hilt form, but in combat terms there is
a graduation in length steadily from ca. 300 mm
to nearly 700 mm (fig. 4; Fortenberry 1990).
It can further be noted that these swords were
very much a local tradition, and are rare outside
of the territory of Mycenae itself.
While enshrined during the production phase
of a weapon, these differences in weapon de-
Several factors affect the quality of a weapon,
most of which are encoded into it at the time of
manufacture. The alloy chosen is of particular
importance, though as P. Northover (abstract this
volume) notes, there was no specific alloy unique to weapons. By the time tin-bronzes developed, in many areas of Europe the typical content was around 8–12 % tin.5 In Atlantic Europe,
some weapons had a deliberate inclusion of lead
(Northover 1988) which lowered the viscosity
of molten bronze to ensure better filling of the
mould and better surface quality as a result, but it
lowered the toughness/durability of the alloy.
Closely allied to alloy choice was the quality of mould preparation. For ceramic bi-valve
moulds in particular, the smoothness of the interior surfaces was of fundamental importance.
While this may have been perfected prior to
preheating and pouring, a good mould-maker
needed to ensure that degradation of the fine interior surface did not occur in the moments surrounding the pour, as experiments have shown that
this severely damages the quality of the finished
object by increasing porosity and causing larger
pitting. Likewise excess lime in the clay used for
the ceramic mould can cause gasses to generate during the pour resulting in internal and surface bubbles/flaws (J. Zuiderwijk, pers. comm.).
Following the pour, the post-casting treatment
of a weapon involves removing the flashing and
polishing the surface of the object, repairing
imperfections when possible. The most important post-casting step, however, is hardening
and annealing (or in some cases tempering) of
weapons.
4
This need not be weapons being ‘made to order’, but
rather represents a feedback process between those who create
weapons in a workshop and those who used them in battle.
5
E.g. Eogan 1965; Northover 1988; Ó Faoláin and
Northover 1998; Mangou and Ioannou 1999; Mödlinger
2011.
sign represent real-world variation in the combat requirements of the warriors that used them
in battle; requirements that were (reflexively)
voiced to smiths at the outset of the chaîne opératoire of production. This highlights the need
to address why specific weapons or groups of
weapons were made in the manner they were, in
order to effectively employ data relating to how
they were made. Changes in these functional requirements can furthermore be seen as a major
driving force behind the technological evolution
and refinement of bronze-craft traditions.
Birth
69
Barry Molloy
100
90
80
70
60
400 ! 475mm
50
476 ! 550mm
551 ! 625mm
40
626mm>
30
20
10
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Figure 2: Regional variations in length of swords in the 6 zones in Ireland marked in figure 1
100
90
80
70
60
<450 grams
451 ! 525 grams
50
526 ! 600 grams
600 ! 675 grams
40
675 > grams
30
20
10
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Figure 3: Regional variations in weight of swords in the 6 zones in Ireland marked in figure 1
70
Use-wear analysis and use-patterns of Bronze Age swords
Figure 4: Lengths of Type B swords from Greece
Simply put, a hard blade-edge is required to
maximise the cutting potential of a weapon. In
theory, the harder an edge is, the better it will
cut. With bronze, however, increasing hardness
commensurately decreases toughness, which (for
the purposes of this discussion) is the ability of a
material to resist fracture through impact stress.
Hardening of copper-alloys was achieved through
hammering along the blade edge only, thus compressing the bronze and deforming the microstructure.6 By reheating the blade, re-crystallisation reduces stress and tempers it so that adequate
functional toughness is retained. In this process,
the body of the blade would not be hardened, as
retaining higher toughness here allowed a degree
of stress-absorption and plastic flexibility. The
balance which the smith had therefore to reach
was a blade edge that would be hard enough to
cut effectively while retaining a degree of toughness to offset risk of fracture or chipping along
the edge and at the same time maintaining a tough
but not soft core to the blade. This was functionally similar7 to case-hardening of iron swords
as practiced from Roman times (Bishop and
Coulston 1993; Sim 2002). In terms of archaeometallurgical research, this reveals a shortcoming
in the preponderance of samples taken from the
edges of the weapon.8 The hardness values and
microstructures revealed create a bias towards one
component in the weapon’s design at the expense
of others, a point recognised and beginning to be
redressed through the use of newer non-destructive technologies (Mödlinger, this volume; Godfrey
et. al. abstract this volume). While measurement
of toughness on archaeological samples is prohibitively destructive, interpretation of the hardness
values needs to be offset against consideration of
toughness if this strand of scientific research is to
be translated coherently into social analysis, in
this case weapon design and functionality.
In the case of sheet metal objects, shaping the
material required hammering, which increased
6
Allen et al. 1970; Coghlan 1975; Higgins 1983;
Bridgford 2000.
7
It was the result of a very different metallurgical
technique, though in both cases a tough core is produced
while the edges are hardened.
8
This bias is generally created by museum policies
in relation to permissible sampling procedures, rather than
research agendas by archaeometallurgists.
71
Barry Molloy
hardness, though this could be tempered or annealed. As with bladed-weapons, hardness increased rigidity, and also increased resistance to
cutting, but excess hardness would cause the metal to break or split through impact force (rather
than cutting in strict terms), and so a balance had
also to be met in terms of alloy chosen and hardness level instilled.
The final step for bladed-weapons was to
haft the blade, and this had considerable importance for functionality. In the case of spears or
halberds, the surviving bronze component reflects just one element of a weapon. The length,
thickness and weight of the wooden shaft would
have heavily influenced how the weapon could
be used. For example, a short shaft would transform a spear into a sword-spear akin to a Zulu
(iklwa) Assegai. A long and heavy shaft would
make a ‘spear’ functionally comparable to a medieval polearm whereby the wooden component
constituted the majority of the weapon in terms
of combat practice as well as proportions (Anglo
2000). For swords or daggers, some ornate types
with gold sheeted hilts (Kilian-Dirlmeier 1993)
were non-utilitarian whereas others with bronze
handles required organic components to allow
them to be gripped (Kristiansen 2002; Molloy
2010). In the case of Aegean swords in particular,
it can be demonstrated that the varying forms of
hilt design, as well as blade form, imposed widely varying modes of use (Molloy 2008). We need
further note that superficially similar objects need
not have been manufactured in the same manner,
so differences in alloys or finishing techniques
(such as hardening) had ramifications for how an
object would perform in battle.
from being held in the hand. This has important implications for how the weapon served to
embody identity, but reflexively, how weaponry
could receive symbolic potency through a symbiotic relationship with a person who also used
other means to characterise martial components
to their identity (Treherne 1995; Fowler 2004;
Molloy 2006). In terms of how traces of use reflect their raison d’être in the form of combat
damage, much has been written on this subject
in recent years.9
This evidence of wear occurs in the form of
combat scars and subsequent repairs. Damage
concerns the patterns of action that placed a particular object into direct physical opposition to
other objects, typically in the form of impacts.
The relationship between design, functionality and evidence of use informs us on the active
life of the object and how it played a very real
role in shaping society. Emphasis to date in usewear studies has more often been placed on the
death and burial stage of a weapon’s life-cycle.
Accounting for use-wear, however, is as important as counting it. Recording that it exists therefore still calls for appreciation of its cause and
character if it is to reveal the story of the ‘life’ of
a weapon as well as its character in ‘death’, as
will be elaborated on below.
Death
As with the warriors that bore them, there was no
typical ‘death’ of a weapon. Some never made it
to completion, others were removed from circulation with no evidence of having ever been used,
some were used and repaired on several occasions before they met their end, others were used
lightly and retired while others still were used to
their utter destruction in combat or the smithy.10
Weapons shed their practical functionality when
they are removed from circulation, though they
retain their intrinsic symbolic and metallic worth. The decision in most European Bronze Age
societies to remove a weapon from circulation
would have usually been due to mechanical factors such as damage beyond repair. Occasional
finds of ‘founders hoards’ are thought to be
the raw materials of smiths buried under specific circumstances, be they temporary measures
in times of trouble or ritual offerings (Bradley
1990). Objects that we have recovered that had
Life
The period of time that a weapon was the possession of a warrior was the greatest duration
it materially interacted with society. Its creation lasted days or weeks, the event of its interment perhaps merely hours, but its life would in
many cases have lasted for years, even decades.
K. Kristiansen (2002) and S. Bridgford (1997)
have highlighted that traces of wear and tear on
a blade can come from a variety of contexts of
use. In particular some differentially worn-hilts
on solid-hilt swords indicate that they received
more wear from being worn at the waist than
9
Bridgford 2000; O’Flaherty 2002; Kristiansen 2002;
York 2002; Molloy 2006; Mödlinger 2011; Matthews this
volume.
10
2005.
72
Bradley 1990; Bridgford 1997; York 2002; Fontijn
Use-wear analysis and use-patterns of Bronze Age swords
Along with interpretative biases derived from
our methodological tradition, there are some
terminological issues13 that confound systematic treatment of the evidence. The academic
framework for analysis is currently undergoing
substantial remodelling; yet, superficially
harmless elements in the language used to describe weapons inhibit systematic development
of this field.
W. Wilde in 1862 introduced the term ‘rapier’ and W. P. Brewis (1923) the term ‘cutand-thrust’ sword, both of which are peppered
throughout the literature along with references
to apparently self-explanatory phrases such
as ‘thrusting swords’ or ‘slashing swords‘.
Shafted weapons of any proportion are grouped together as spears (Molloy 2006), and
shields incorporate everything from small-diameter bronze bucklers to broad wooden shields
(Molloy 2009). We also feel a need to create
a division between daggers and swords when
the only identifiable difference in an artefact
group may be length, so that the material itself
often resists partition; e.g. Aegean Type B or
C daggers and swords (Kilian-Dirlmeier 1993;
Papadopoulos 1998). In Atlantic Europe, establishing a difference in the so-called daggers,
dirks and rapiers (Burgess and Gerloff 1981)
has been the product of trying to force material
to fit an inappropriately borrowed terminological framework. Replicating such terminology
without qualification is problematic because
segregation of objects can occur even where
this bears no real cultural significance; the lack
of recognisable boundaries today may often be
the result of a lack of perceived boundaries in
antiquity.
As argued in Molloy (2007), the use of objects such as the Lissane Rapier (Burgess
and Gerloff 1981), Type Sauerbrunn swords
(Schauer 1971) or Mycenaean Type A swords
(Kilian-Dirlmeier 1993; Molloy 2010) as archetypal early forms of sword has led to a
common perception that early swords were for
thrusting attacks. These indeed are typically
called thrusting-swords or rapiers in the literature. A perceived next generation of swords
(disregarding protracted periods of transition;
Molloy 2007; 2010) are the broad families of
grip-tongue and solid-hilted swords that occur
across much of Europe. These receive equally unqualified generic names such as ‘slashing
swords’, ‘cut-and-thrust’ swords or worse still
11
See for example Bradley 1990; Bridgford 1997;
York 2002; Fontijn 2005; Harding 2006; 2007.
12
Many are recovered by archaeologists involved
either in monitoring extracted materials or through rescue
excavation.
13
In English language literature in particular.
14
E.g. Burton 1884; Oakeshott 1960; Amberger 1998;
Clements 1998; 1999; 2007; Wagner and Hand 2003.
been prepared for recycling are exceptional because they survive and do not reflect the typical death of a weapon, the countless examples
that were either not buried or were recovered
in antiquity of course leave no trace. We can
postulate that the majority of bronze was recycled and remained in circulation, perhaps
beyond the Bronze Age itself. The majority of
weapons that made it to the burial stage of a lifecycle ended their functional life due to social,
not mechanical, factors. The material available
for us to study today is thus poorly representative of how the majority of weapons in a society
reached the end of their lifecycle.
Burial
In-depth analysis of the death and burial of
objects goes beyond the scope of this paper.11
It should be clear from the above discussion,
however, that the patterns we find in depositional practice reflect social practices surrounding
the symbolic or economic roles of martial objects. They are less applicable in understanding
the longer period when weapons were active
participants in negotiating social relationships
through combat and personal display.
Archaeological recovery
Archaeological recovery of objects is the final
factor that influences the character of our dataset, and it is simply noted here that a majority
of finds in Europe have been discovered as the
result of non-archaeological work programs
such as chance finds, river dredging, peat-extraction or infrastructural development.12 This
in turn presents a randomised character to our
datasets that we must deal with systematically.
SKELETONS IN OUR CLOSET
(OR, TERMINOLOGICAL
CONSERVATISM THAT
WON’T GO AWAY)
73
Barry Molloy
‘true swords’ (Heath 2009, 99). Reference must
be made to the broad corpus of literature that
deals with sword design and use in other periods or places, from a martial art perspective,
as it demonstrates that our adherence to archaic
archaeological terms is a genuine methodological problem.14
The common perception of the evolution
of bronze sword forms is that they went from
stabbing to slashing designs, a framework so
facile that it actually defies application of martial arts theory (Clements 2007). Too many of
our ‘stabbing swords’ have well-defined cutting
edges, and too many of our ‘slashing swords’
are well-balanced for effective point attacks
for these categorisations to be considered valid
in any real sense. This goes beyond semantic
issues because the unfounded view that ‘thrusting’ swords were used for duelling is still widely held (Heath 2009, 98 f.). This is based in
part on unhelpful comparisons to renaissance
society15 and also frequent reference to ‘duelling scenes’ from the Aegean, despite the fact
that scenes with long-swords exclusively depict
swordsmen fighting spearmen (Papadopoulos
2006; Molloy 2010).
De-loading our terminology is the most systematic way of proceeding, along with an acceptance of blurred boundaries between categories, particularly daggers and short swords.
There are already terms in existence that can be
applied more comprehensively so that we may
look at grip-plate swords or Naue ii swords in
place of dirks, rapiers or cut-and-thrust swords.
For spears, the distinction is not so easy and
needs further research to create acceptable
ways of distinguishing a heavy, single-handed
stabbing or throwing spear from a heavy polearm suited to cutting and stabbing attacks. For
shields, the typological categories are restricted
enough (Coles 1962; Uckelmann, in prep.) to
allow differentiation of modes of use based on
size and fabric (Molloy 2009). Terminological
change therefore does not so much require a
paradigm shift as it does a more sensible application of non-functionally loaded terms from
the existing typological lexicon. Change must
be made in our specialist archaeological literature which may then filter into more general
studies.
DESIGN AND DAMAGE
The example of swords is taken in this section
because the majority of the original weapon
survives, due to their minimal organic components. With the typological diversity of these
weapons, any generalising statement is problematic, but we can broadly say that the majority
were between 350 and 800 mm in length.16 A
modal weight range between 300 and 800 grams
has broad applicability, and the vast majority of
swords can be described as having two clearly defined sharp edges and an acutely angled
point. Many swords fall outside of this metric
range and the breadth of these parameters is in
itself very coarse, but it serves to give a general
impression of the majority of weapons from this
period in relation to swords from later periods.
In terms of the wider history of swords, most
Bronze Age types can be considered to be short,
light and manoeuvrable weapons that were multipurpose in terms of potential attacks – suited to
various forms of cutting and thrusting. When we
take specific categories, such as a French Carp’s
Tongue or an Aegean Type Fii sword, these
parameters can be significantly tightened and
discussion made more specific. The purpose in
this section, however, is to create the general
context into which these specific studies can be
best located. To this end, we may note that even
the longest and heaviest bronze swords were
generally within the parameters of a Roman
Gladius (Bishop and Coulston 1993), the archetypal short sword, rather than a medieval
long-sword (Clements 1998; 2007).
The point of balance on a sword is an issue
of considerable importance in relation to handling, and by extension modes of use. However,
for a great many bronze swords, their light
weight and short length reduces the importance
of balance points as they do not gain significant
momentum or kinetic energy during a cutting
attack. Most of these swords require elliptical
cutting arcs that draw the blade along a target,
as opposed to striking down onto it with force,
so that there is minimal commitment of balance
of both weapon and user in making a strike. For
heavier, longer examples the issue of balance
becomes more important, but with the relative
inflexibility of bronze, cutting attacks retain this
16
15
For grip-plate swords, ca. 60 mm must be added to
the length to account for the missing organic handle. This
length is derived from the surviving wooden handle on the
sword from Shower, Co. Tipperary, Ireland. Burgess and
Gerloff 1991, 116; Molloy 2006, no. 8; National Museum
no. 1904: 5604.
This is discussed at length in Molloy 2007. Here
it is noted that renaissance rapiers had nothing whatsoever
functionally in common with those bronze swords termed
rapiers, apart from their length. There is furthermore no
basis for comparing the social context of combats in these
two societies.
74
Use-wear analysis and use-patterns of Bronze Age swords
bias towards incising rather than percussive cuts
(see Amberger 1999). The difference in sword
designs therefore most often relates to the balance between incision and percussion in cuts,
rather than a bias towards either cutting or thrusting. All Bronze Age swords (except the rare
bronze ‘scimitars’ from Scandinavia) were suited to thrusting attacks.
Along with balance, the toughness and flexibility of a sword will dictate the forces that can
be applied in making attacks. For example a
very soft sword will bend when impacting a target whereas a very hard sword may snap at the
point of impact or the leverage point close to the
hand.17 Bronze swords have plastic rather than
elastic deformation properties, which means that
they will bend but not naturally spring back to
their original form. Their relative lack of toughness18 also means that when bent, they can only
be straightened once or twice without the aid of
heat treatment before fatigue and internal flaws
cause a fracture. The hardness value of the edge
of bronze swords was typically 100–200 HV
(Bridgford 2000; Mödlinger 2011) and consequently they would not retain a very sharp angled cutting-edge,19 and this is why they typically have a wide edge-angle to best retain a level
of moderate sharpness.
A concise general statement may therefore be
that bronze swords were short, light, unforgiving in terms of flexibility and could not hold a
very sharp edge. They had neither the weight nor
length required to make broad, sweeping cutting
attacks and they were likewise restricted from
making heavy-impact cutting/cleaving strokes. In
general terms they were suited to tighter cuttingarcs and/or making cuts using a drawing motion
and thrusting attacks could easily be performed
(Amerger 1998; Molloy 2010). Exceptions such
as Atlantic Group III Class Lissane grip-plate
swords or some early Aegean swords were used
differently (Molloy 2007; 2010), though they
represent a small percentage of the corpus of
European bronze swords.
The effectiveness of cutting attacks with a
sword is increased when the blade strikes at an
area called the centre-of-percussion, a part of
the blade where the harmonics are such that maximum force is transferred to the target. This is
typically ca. two-thirds the way from shoulders to
tip on bronze blades. As cutting attacks were rarely robust strikes, we would not expect frequent
heavy damage on blade edges20 and might expect
proportionately more damage to be concentrated around the centre-of-percussion. Damage is
inflicted either when a strike is intercepted by
another object or from making contact with an
intended target. In the quarter of the blade closest to the hilt, damage may be inflicted when a
potential incoming attack is blocked or stifled by
intercepting the attacking blade with this area prior to it gaining full momentum (fig. 6). Parries or
re-direction of an attack would make use of the
trajectory and relative motion of both blades on
interception and thus result in minor damage to
any location along the blade.
All of the above activities would result in a
range of types of damage to the blade. V-shaped
nicks occur as the result of a brief point of contact
when blades impacted on each other and were
retrieved/rebounded almost instantaneously.21
Burred nicks, notches and u-shaped notches were
usually the result of twisting movement of either
or both blades immediately following impact.
Shallow nocks can occur from a variety of impacts and defy hard and fast explanation. Bowing
of the blade edge occurs when an attack strikes a
spear shaft, the flat of another blade or bone at an
17
When a blade strikes a target the force of the impact
is transferred both to the target and to the hand of the user.
When the centre of percussion is effectively used, the force
to the target is maximised and that to the hand minimised due
to the natural harmonics of the metal. On less ideal strikes,
more force is returned to the user and the natural point of
leverage occurs typically in the area of the hilt.
18
Due to the mechanical impact testing required to
measure toughness, archaeometallurgical research has had to
focus solely on hardness with little reference to toughness,
a significant methodological problem in terms of assessing
combat worthiness of a weapon.
19
Determined by examining ancient pieces and through
experimental work.
20
Except when deliberately inflicted such as ‘killing’
a weapon.
21
Forms of damage have been discussed by S. Bridgford
(2000) and B. Molloy (2006) the latter system is used here
which include: Nocks – shallow and narrow ‘dents’ in
a blade edge, often burred parallel to the blade edge; Vshaped nicks – sharply defined impact creating a wedge
shaped impact mark commensurate with the profile of
an attacking blade-edge; Notches – impact marks whereby
a portion of metal has been chipped or broken away
from the blade on impact; Burred nicks or notches
– a sliver of metal is broken from its original position
creating a gap in the blade, but this is attached still on the
edge of the impact mark at ca. 90 degrees to the blade
edge; Rippling – this is where the edge forms a wavy
pattern so that it is no longer a straight line; Bowing –
an impact literally folds a small section of the blade out
of position, similar to a nock but proportionately
wider; Rolling – when the blade edge folds back on
itself at the very edge; Cut – when a thin section of the
blade is cut away, typically leaving a bur at the end of the
cut-line.
75
Barry Molloy
5
6
Figure 5: Edge damage on long and narrow Irish grip-plate sword (National Museum of Ireland, no. W104).
Some taphonomic damage is evident, though the general coarse character to the edges appears to have been in
this condition when the weapon was used: A – Shallow nicks and nocks; B – U-shaped notch; C – Shallow burred notch; D – Over-sharpened and rolled-edge
Figure 6: Edge damage immediately on the lower blade on Irish grip-plate sword (National Museum of Ireland,
no. P251A)
oblique angle (off-line from the trajectory of a
clean cutting-line) so that the edge buckles instead
of cuts. When parries result in a sliding motion,
the relative lack of hardness can cause rippling
or slight rolling of the blade edge. Occasional
examples of a sharply defined u-shaped notch
ca. 1 mm wide occur, which it is suggested may
be the result of a light impact against the edge of
an unrolled bronze shield.
In order to investigate these different areas
of damage on ancient swords, the author divided complete blades into three equal zones and
recorded differential damage (Molloy 2006).
The case-study of complete and near-complete
Irish Bronze Age swords was used during the
author’s PhD research.22 During choreogra-
phed test-sparring and test-cutting with fully
sharpened replica swords, the above forms of
damage were encountered and recorded. This
allowed causation to be charted and compared
against damage on ancient weapons.
It was noted that the damage on Irish Bronze
Age swords was in many cases frequent, though
in very few cases it was severe. Damage along
the blades was usually in the form of shallow
nicks, and in only in exceptional cases was
combat damage recorded along the flat of
the blade, indicating that blocks and parries
used the blade edges (fig. 5). This indicates
that the users were conscious of the mechanical qualities of their weapons and used them
accordingly.
22
During subsequent consideration of this data it was
noted that the centre of percussion spanned the two zones on
the point side of the blade, and so it is suggested that in future
research, a blade is better divided into four equal parts, the
centre-of-percussion falling into the second quarter of the
blade from the point.
76
Use-wear analysis and use-patterns of Bronze Age swords
In combat, most forms of weapon would not
exclusively meet similar types of weapon in exchanges of blows. When we focus on one particular category of weapon, such as swords, it is
insufficient to consider their use solely in relation to their fellows; the sword must be placed in
the multi-weapon martial milieu to which it belonged. Terms like ‘swordsmanship’, while far
from redundant, must not dominate how we consider swords to have been used and certainly not
exclusively reflect the weapons they faced and
received damage from/inflicted damage upon.
For example, the typical defensive weapon used
in sword fighting appears to have been shields,
whereby the majority of interceptions would
have used this in favour of the sword (Molloy
2009). We therefore need not expect extensive
edge damage on swords when used according
to their combat expectations. The Hollywood
myth of swords clanging against swords in
combats is very much a piece of showmanship
and does not reflect real combat practice, and
so we should not be looking for damage on a
sword to have been inflicted by another sword
in all cases.
Whether a swordsman had a shield or not,
whether he23 faced another sword or a spear, we
can be certain that he was conscious of the tradeoff between inflicting injury or damage on an opponent and causing damage to his own weapon
(as well as exposure to personal injury). In cases where we get heavy damage to a sword, this
was the result of it being used ‘inappropriately’.
Given that battle was dynamic and that luck was
as important as skill in many contexts, the risk
of damage to a weapon needs to be considered as
subordinated to risk of injury to the person and
so heavy-handed use occurred when absolutely
necessary. Through this the weapon may fail,
and the user may escape impending attacks or be
killed, but that in itself was the nature of combat.
Furthermore, while warriors were aware of the
mechanical limits of their weapons, protracted
use could lead to degradation and breakage even
in a single engagement.
There was no ideal sword, spear or shield and
the effectiveness of each was subject to the skills
of the user and the context of use. When we look
for damage on weaponry we can therefore characterise forms of damage broadly as those inflicted from ‘proper’ use of a weapon and those
which were the result of less proper, perhaps
desperate, use. Differences in damage may be
indicative of varying skill levels of their original
owners but could also be the result of the duration of use in single battle. The character of combat damage, as well as its form or frequency, has
largely untapped potential to reveal more about
ancient martial arts.
WEAPONS IN SOCIETY
In order to consider how weapons were used in
the larger scale of battles, the numbers that were
in circulation must be considered. As discussed
above, the way weapons enter the archaeological record was heavily linked to biographies,
and the easy recyclability of bronze means that
survival rate speaks of certain social practices,
making it of little benefit in estimating original
numbers in circulation. The most direct sources
we have are from prehistoric Crete, where surviving archival records list swords. These Linear
B records were inscribed on clay tablets, some
small few of which survive due to their being
partially ceramicised in fires that destroyed their
storage rooms. While the resultant record is
therefore very partial and selective, we can note
the Ra Linear B tablets from Knossos include
Ra 1540 that lists 50 swords and Ra 7498 that
lists 18 and 99 swords; 20 fragmentary tablets
list an uncertain number of swords (Driessen
and Macdonald 1984, 64). Considering the 24
swords known archaeologically for the entire
Bronze Age from this area, the implications are
considerable. While this tells us little of who actually owned these swords, it does tell us that
the facility for mass production and distribution
of armaments was within the technological and
social parameters of this society. Speculating
along the lines that ‘it is unlikely that...swords
were the normal weapon of foot soldiers, or “infantry”’ (Heath 2009, 100) is harmful in that it
has no factual foundation. We cannot estimate
the number of weapons that were in circulation,
but through direct and circumstantial evidence
(through technological argument), we know that
weapon production was a well-developed industry that produced vastly more pieces than survive today.
Using this technological approach, we can extend the argument derived from Crete to other
areas of Europe. The creation of bronze weapons required the carving of a wooden template for bladed weapons and a wooden former for
23
The assumption that warriors were male and the
relevance of the term warrior in itself are made here,
following the rationale of Harding (2006).
77
Barry Molloy
leather and bronze shields (Ó Faoláin 2004).
Once created, the template can be re-used repeatedly to create multiple copies of similar
swords or spears at the same time or in alternate cycles by creating clay moulds based on the
former. For shields, sheets of bronze or leather
can be repeatedly pressed into the same former.
This would produce virtually identical objects
that can be recognised archaeologically. From
Ireland, three identical swords found in the
same context at Ballycroghan and were made
from the same template and bear evidence of
various different steps in the production process
(Jope 1953). From Djursland, Denmark (Jensen
2002, 73, after Kristiansen and Larsson 2005,
207), we have eight swords that were produced
from the same mould, again not completely finished. From the site of Arkalochori in Crete
(Marinatos 1935), nine swords occur, at least
five of which were made from the same wooden original and yet again none of these were
completed.
These are not exceptional cases, but they are
also absolutely not the rule. In truth, there are
few if any known examples of swords or spears
found in different contexts that irrefutably
came from the same template. This may indicate that one template was more usually used for
just one weapon, but the caches of unfinished
weapons made from a single pattern denote
this was unlikely and that separation of similar
pieces occurred after weapons were completed
in a workshop. The technological ease of mass
production and Cretan texts further hint that
very few of the weapons originally produced
have made it into the archaeological record.
One can also note that the hundreds of thousands of Greek Hoplite warriors historically
attested along with the millions of Roman soldiers known from our sources have left fewer
weapons than the Bronze Age inhabitants of
Europe.24
In the case of shields, the dataset throughout
Europe is too small to determine significant patterns, but finds such as the sixteen shields from
Fröslunda in Sweden (Hagberg 1988) indicate
that shields were not as rare in society as indicated by their survival rates. The choice of weapons for deposit in most areas was clearly biased
towards the offensive rather than defensive ones.
The imitation of elements of bronze body armour on gold ornaments in Ireland (Cahill 2005)
is noteworthy as various smiths clearly had ready access to this armour, yet not one piece of it
survives archaeologically.
The likelihood that we have recovered a mere
fraction of the weapons originally in use has
important implications for understanding how
groups of combatants worked together to engage
in warfare. It is not the purpose of this paper to
speculate on forms of warfare or actual numbers
involved, this has been the subject of many insightful analyses.25 Further consideration of population estimates based on settlement patterns
may reveal more than the weaponry can in relation to each specific region. Of more immediate
concern in this paper is understanding how variability in forms of weaponry might be used to
illuminate modes of combat practice.
Weapon availability may have fluctuated in
any given region from times when they were
freely available to those entitled to bear them,
to times when they were of more restricted
circulation (Kristiansen 2002). At all times in
most regions there was a wide variety of weapons available, and even variety in the forms
of any given category. For example, for the later Bronze Age in Central Europe, rod-tanged
swords were in use alongside solid-hilted swords
and grip-tongue swords; in Atlantic Europe,
Carp’s Tongue swords were used alongside leafshaped grip-tongue forms; and in the Aegean
Naue ii swords were in use alongside Type Fii,
Gii and Dii. Looking at shields, in the latter region tower and figure-of-eight shields were used
alongside each other and in northern Europe,
shields varied in size from around 300–700 mm
diameter and could be made from wood, leather,
bronze or combinations of any. Spears, as mentioned above, ranged from throwing forms, to
short-hafted sword-like types, to single-handed
stabbing forms to two-handed pole-arms. Axes
ranged from miniature tools to lethal weapons.
One can also add archers and slingers to this mix.
The battlefield was thus an environment where
a host of different weapon forms would come
into direct opposition in combat. Should this be
conceived as a chaotic ensemble of mismatched
warriors fighting in haphazard fury, or can it be
seen to reflect a much more sophisticated martial
system underpinning battles?
Some brief observations from early literature
can prove revealing, as while they do not provide a generic guide to prehistoric warfare, they
24
Bishop and Coulston 1993; Snodgrass 1999;
Connolly 1998; Prähistorische Bronzefunde (multiple
volumes).
25
Ferguson 1993; Osgood 1998; Bridgford 2000;
Harding 2007; O’Brien 2009; Wylie 1995; Vandkilde 2006b,
515; Kristiansen and Larsson 2005, 229.
78
Use-wear analysis and use-patterns of Bronze Age swords
relate to peoples in the same geoclimatic regions utilising similarly complex weapon panoplies, and thus provide useful analogies.26 These
indeed provide much more relevant datasets in
terms of material culture and settlement patterns
than the often found comparisons to tribal societies in far-flung reaches of the earth (Osgood
1998). In the Irish epic ‘The Táin’, we read of a
host of weapon types and there is a recognition
that different forms of spear had different names.
We also repeatedly hear in these epics of specialised training regimes for youths who were to become warriors and the specialised skills that they
learned are repeated throughout the text. On the
training of Cuchulainn, we hear that ‘if he really wanted to learn heroic deeds, he must go to
where Scáthach was teaching her two sons’ and
that ‘Scáthach taught him brave deeds and craft
of arms’ (Kinsella 1969, 31). We later read of the
single-combat between Cuchulainn and Ferdia,
where they repeatedly ask at each stage of the
long battle ‘what weapons will we use today?’
(Kinsella 1969, 187–192), indicating wide variation in available weapons and related modes of
use.
In terms of comparing this to the Bronze Age,
we can recognise that the material culture of war
was equally rich. The physiological requirements
to use weapons with due attention to their mechanical limitations requires skill-development
through repetitive-task execution (Malafouris
2004; Molloy 2008). It also requires stress-inoculation to permit execution of these tasks while
experiencing stress-induced physiological distortion of the senses that occurs in a combat environment (Molloy and Grossman 2007). These are
all the product of a martial art training regime,
not occasional fracas or beat-‘em-ups. Use-wear
analysis (Molloy 2006) provides evidence for
prehistoric weapons being used by skilled martial art practitioners, as the damage is in many
cases commensurate with controlled application
of force and trajectories of attack.
Contemporary to the Bronze Age throughout
much of Europe, the epic Odyssey was written
in the Greek world and tells of the journeys of
the hero Odysseus. In this work, we read about
the protagonist deliberately masking his martial
art skills, as they would reveal his knowledge
of specialised training and thus his elite status.
‘Now both contenders put their hands up. Royal
Odysseus pondered if he should hit him with all
he had and drop the man dead on the spot, or
only spar, with force enough to knock him down.
Better that way he thought – a gentle blow, ‘else
he might give himself away’ (The Odyssey xviii
80–120 [my emphasis]).
It is interesting to note that from the Aegean
Bronze Age we have comparatively abundant
iconographic evidence of martial arts training and
practice in the form of boxing as well as evidence
of application of martial arts in deadly combats
(Hiller 1999; Peatfield 2007). From Roman
through to Medieval times, we repeatedly read of,
and see in art, wooden training swords being used
to hone the skills of warriors (Clements 1998).
From Ireland and Britain in particular, a number
of such wooden swords survive from prehistory
(e.g. from Cappagh in Ireland and Groatsetter in
the Orkneys), once again indicating that the development of combat skills was part of the expectation of those who would engage in combat.
The Cappagh sword is broken, possibly through
use and the handle of the Groatsetter sword is
polished through repeated handling.27 Examples
citing the use of wooden swords can be found widely when literary and artistic source material in
Europe increase in quantity and quality.28 In general, it remains consistent throughout European
history that at times of rich martial assemblages,
there was a commensurately rich martial art tradition.
Without recourse to details of frequency, duration, scale, intensity, strategy, tactics, logistics,
differential armaments, causation or conflict resolution mechanisms, there is little we can say
about the conduct of war or who combatants
were. J. Whitley (2002) and S. K. Smith (2009)
and others have argued that we equally cannot
use the mortuary record to ascertain the status
or identity of warriors in most areas of Europe.
The often cited concept of a ‘warrior elite’ is thus
at odds with the resolution we possess on social
structures. There was differential wealth distribution in all known societies from Bronze Age
Europe, and in societies that lack the rule-of-law,
protection of acquired wealth required deterrents
for would-be raiders/thieves from taking this
wealth by force. The materialisation of this power, wealth and influence was typically through
26
Wylie 1995; Vandkilde 2006b, 515; Kristiansen and
Larsson 2005, 229.
27
The lack of damage to the edges indicates that it
was not used in heavy contact sparring, but it would have
served well to practice forms (choreographed sequences of
attack). Its greater proportions than a typical sword can be
accounted for by the requirement of it weighing the same as
a bronze type.
28
E.g. several references in the Tain (Kinsella 2002,
104. 118. 119); Vegetius (Reeve 2003); Talhoffer 2000.
79
Barry Molloy
portable assets, be it a cow or a cauldron. Warriors
may have been free men that commanded material benefits from authority structures, but we have
no evidence that they had a ‘controlling stake’ in
socio-political decision making. The term ‘warrior
elite’ therefore remains unhelpful, and while we
may replace it with ‘elite warriors’ in many cases,
tying the two terms together seems unnecessary.
Nonetheless, it would be an untenable paradox if
those who controlled wealth were not those who
controlled the power to physically protect it, and
so we may consider a direct relationship between
those who sanctioned violence and those who were
sanctioned to enact it. This places warriors as key
players within elite power systems even when
they were not at the helm. The authority structure of Anglo-Saxon Britain is not entirely inappropriate as an analogy for many areas of Bronze
Age Europe.29 In this case, we have warrior bands
who pledged loyalty to a lord or king (Pollington
1996), who then negotiated social relationships
within the group and with other social groups.
All free men may have had the right to bear arms
when they came of age, and slaves or bondsmen
were maintained for undertaking mundane labour.
Where is the evidence? There is none, yet we have
clear evidence in the differential access to wealth
that these were not societies of equals and that violence, as well as wealth, was a potential means to
assert influence. Neither history nor anthropology
can provide a single model (Keeley 1996) where a
similar milieu was sustained for centuries without
enforced social differentiation, and so we may
present the above as fitting our material evidence
for existence of different practitioners of wealth
management, extreme violence and mundane farming.
The study of Bronze Age weapons is one of the
few areas in prehistoric archaeology where a panEuropean analysis has obvious resonance, mainly due to the functional and typological parity of
weapon designs. The long history of research has
led to the development of common functional interpretations that have worked through this panEuropean vision so that concepts developed, right
or wrong, in one region can have a direct impact
on research in another area. One can make direct
reference to the widely cited notion of thrusting
and slashing swords, for example. A ‘bottom-up
approach’ that builds from primary artefact research through to addressing how combinations of
weapons work together in combat has potential to
add new interpretative dynamics to a traditional
field of archaeological research.
The relationship between typological and interpretative approaches need not be divisive, as
synthesis complements the objectives of both. Of
particular importance is addressing cultural issues
that shape the emergence of new artefact forms,
particularly through the sphere of long-distance
movement and interaction of warriors as well as
craftsmen. Combat practitioners would favour
functional attributes of various weapons and these ideas were brought together by craftsman in
different regions, resulting in the sequential development of weapon forms through time. The
biological overtones of conceptualising artefact
change as ‘evolution’, whereby a new form derives
from pre-existing ‘parent’ forms, risks prioritising
aesthetic over functional elements in processes of
change. While dominant aesthetics derived from
craft traditions, functional changes relate to the
requirements of warriors, and so we must bear in
mind both of these characters when considering
changes in forms. Use-wear analysis, archaeometallurgical research and experimental archaeology
should thus inform typological research in the same
fashion that typological research provides metric
data on forms that can inform functional analyses. Similarly, metallurgical research must remain
cognisant of why manufacturing processes were
enacted in relation to the intended functions of a
weapon, bringing ever greater unity to this specific
field and affording it resonance in addressing social and technological issues on a wider scale.
A biographical / chaîne opératoire model30
can further serve to coherently bring together
the varying traditions of archaeological scholarship that look at these datasets – those concerned with metallurgy, typology, craft-traditions
and trade/communication, non-martial roles
such as display and deposition, use-wear analysis and finally combat applications. Moving
beyond discussion of differences between thrusting and slashing swords, from functional versus
ceremonial shields or from throwing to stabbing
spears, we can begin to better appreciate the dynamic multidisciplinary quality of our data and
29
Other examples of similar social structures are
common thoughout Europe, and this is thus one of many
analogies. In particular, the settlement systems and
hierarchies fit well for many prehistoric regions, as do the
cases of individuals characterised as warriors through their
funerary assemblages.
30
Particularly through a Combat Archaeology
framework (Molloy 2008).
CONCLUSION – WEAPONS AS WEAPONS
80
Use-wear analysis and use-patterns of Bronze Age swords
better explore the life and times of Bronze Age
weapons.
Cahill, M. 2005. Ornaments: Cuirass to Gorget?
An Interpretation of the Structure and
Decorative Elements of Some Gold Ornaments
from the Irish Late Bronze Age. Archaeology
Ireland 19. 4, 26–30.
Catling, H. 1956. Bronze Cut-and-Thrust Swords
in the Eastern Mediterranean. Proceedings of
the Prehistoric Society 22, 102–125.
Catling, H. 1961. A new sword from Cyprus.
Antiquity 35, 115–123.
Clements, J. 1998. Medieval swordsmanship.
Bolder, Paladin Press.
Clements, J. 1999. Renaissance swordsmanship.
Bolder, Paladin Press.
Clements, J. 2007. The Myth of Thrusting versus
Cutting Swords. In B. P. C. Molloy (ed.), The
Cutting Edge: Studies in Ancient and Medieval
Combat, 168–76. Stroud, Tempus.
Coffey, G. 1894. Notes on the classification
of spearheads of the Bronze Age found in
Ireland. Proceedings of the Royal Society of
Antiquaries of Ireland 111, 486–510.
Coles, J. M. 1962. European Bronze Age shields.
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 28,
156–190.
Connolly, P. 1998. Greece and Rome at War.
London, Greenhill.
Coghlan, H. H. 1975. Notes on the prehistoric metallurgy of copper and bronze in the Old World
(2nd edition). Oxford, Pitt Rivers Museum.
Cowen, J. D. 1951. The earliest swords in Britain
and their origins on the continent of Europe.
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 17,
195–213.
Cowen, J. D. 1955. Eine Einführung
in
die
Geschichte
der
bronzenen
Griffzungenschwerter in Süddeutschland
und den angrenzenden Gebieten. Bericht der
Römisch-Germanischen Kommission 36, 53–
155.
Darwin, C. 1998. The origin of species. Ware,
Wordsworth Editions Limited [reprint of
1859].
Driessen, J. and Macdonald, C. 1984. Some military aspects of the Aegean in the late fifteenth
and early fourteenth centuries BC. Annual of
the British School of Athens 79, 49–75.
Eogan, G. 1965. Catalogue of Irish Bronze
Swords. Dublin, National Museum.
Evans, J. 1881. The ancient bronze implements,
weapons and ornaments of Great Britain and
Ireland. London, Longmans, Green and Co.
Ltd.
Ferguson R. B. 1993. Explaining War. In J. Haas
(ed.), The Anthropology of War. Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First and foremost I would like to thank the organisers for bringing us all together for the conference
and for inviting me to participate. I am grateful to
M. Cahill and M. Lannin at the National Museum
of Ireland, S. MacCartin in the Ulster Museum, J.
Swaddling in the British Museum and M. Vickers
at the Ashmolean Museum for advice, help and access to materials. My thanks to M. Milić for sensible and helpful comments on this paper. Thanks
also to A. Pearfield for discussions on combat
applications of weapons. This research was carried out under funding from the Irish Research
Council for Humanities and Social Sciences and
the Department of Social Welfare, Ireland.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Allen, I. M., Britton, D. and Coghlan, H. H. 1970.
Metallurgical reports on British and Irish
implements and weapons in the Pitt Rivers
Museum. Oxford, Pitt Rivers Museum.
Amberger, J. C. 1998. The Secret History of the
Sword. California, Multi-Media Books.
Anglo, S. 2000. The Martial Arts of Renaissance
Europe. London, Yale University Press.
Bishop, M. C. and Coulston, J. C. N. 1993. Roman
Military Equipment from the Punic Wars to the
Fall of Rome. London, Oxbow.
Bradley, R. 1990. The Passage of Arms. Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press.
Bradley, R. 2005. Ritual and domestic life in prehistoric Europe. London, Routledge.
Brewis, W. P. 1923. The sword in Great Britain.
Archaeologia 23, 253–265.
Bridgford, S. 1997. Mightier than the pen? (An
edgewise look at Irish Bronze Age swords). In J.
Carman (ed.), Material Harm: Archaeological
Studies of War and Violence, 95–115. Glasgow,
Cruithne Press.
Bridgford, S. 2000. Weapons, Warfare and Society
in Britain: 1250–750 BC. Unpublished PhD
thesis, University of Sheffield.
Burgess, C. and Gerloff, S. 1981. The dirks
and rapiers of Great Britain and Ireland.
Prähistorische Bronzefunde IV, 7. München,
C. H. Beck.
Burton, R. F. 1997. The book of the sword.
Ontario, Dover Publications [reprint from
1884].
81
Barry Molloy
Fontijn, D. 2005. Giving up weapons. In M.
Parker-Pearson and I. J. N. Thorpe (eds),
Warfare, Violence and Slavery in Prehistory.
British Archaeological Reports, International
series 1375, 145–154. Oxford, Archaeopress.
Fortenberry, C. D. 1990. Elements of Mycenaean
Warfare. Unpublished PhD thesis, University
of Cincinnati.
Fowler, C. 2004. The Archaeology of Personhood.
London, Routledge.
Hagberg, U. E. 1988. The bronze shields from
Fröslunda near Lake Vanern, West Sweden.
In B. Hardh, L. Larsson, D. Olausson and R.
Petre (eds), Trade and exchange in prehistory.
Studies in honour of Berta Stjernquist. Acta
Archaeologica Lundensia, 8. 16. 119–126.
Lund, Historiska Museum.
Harding, A. F. 1999. Warfare: a defining characteristic of Bronze Age Europe? In J. Carman
and A. F. Harding (eds), Ancient Warfare,
157–175. Stroud, Sutton.
Harding, A. F. 2006. What does the context of
deposition and frequency of Bronze Age weaponry tell us about the function of weapons.
In T. Otto, H. Thrane and H. Vandkilde (eds),
Warfare and Society: Archaeological and
Social Anthropological Perspectives, 505–
514. Aarhus, Aarhus University Press.
Harding, A. F. 2007. Warriors and weapons in Bronze Age Europe. Budapest,
Archaeolingua.
Heath, J. 2009. Warfare in Prehistoric Britain.
Stroud, Amberley.
Higgins, R. A. 1983. Engineering Metallurgy (5th
edition). London, English University Press.
Hiller, S. 1999. Scenes of warfare and combat
in the arts of the Aegean Late Bronze Age.
Reflections on typology and development.
In R. Laffineur (ed.), Polemos: Le Contexte
Guerrier en Égée á l’Âge du Bronze, 319–331.
Liege, Aegeum.
Jope, E. M. 1953. Three Late Bronze Age swords
from Ballycroghan, near Bangor, Co. Down.
Ulster Journal of Archaeology 16, 37–40.
Keeley, L. 1996. War before Civilisation. Oxford,
Oxford University Press
Kilian-Dirlmeier, I. 1993. Die Schwerter in
Griechenland (ausserhalb der Peloponnes),
Bulgarien und Albanien. Prähistorische
Bronzefunde IV, 12. München, C. H. Beck.
Kinsella, T. 1969. The Tain. Oxford, Oxford
Paperbacks.
Kopytoff, I. 2000. The cultural biography of
things. In J. Thomas (ed.), Interpretive archaeology, 377–393. Leicester, Leicester
University Press.
Kristiansen, K. 1984. Krieger und Häuptlinge in
der Bronzezeit Dänemarks. Ein Beitrag zur
Geschichte des bronzezeitlichen Schwertes.
Jahrbuch
des
Römisch-Germanischen
Zentralmuseums 31, 187–208.
Kristiansen, K. 2002. The tale of the sword
– swords and swordfighters in Bronze Age
Europe. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 21, 4,
319–332.
Kristiansen, K. and Larsson, T. B. 2005. The rise
of Bronze Age society. Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press.
Malafouris, L. 2004. The cognitive basis of material engagement: where brain, body and culture conflate. In E. DeMarrais, C. Gosden and
C. Renfrew (eds), Rethinking Materiality: The
Engagement of Mind with the Material World,
53–62. Cambridge, McDonald Institute
Monographs.
Mangou, H. and Ioannou, P. V. 1999. On the chemical composition of prehistoric Greek copper-based artefacts from Mainland Greece.
Annual of the British School at Athens 94,
81–101.
Marinatos, S. 1935. Ausgrabungen und Funde auf
Kreta, 1934–1935. Archäologischer Anzeiger
50, 159–244.
Molloy, B. P. C. 2006. The role of combat weaponry in Bronze Age societies: The cases of
the Aegean and Ireland in the Middle and
Late Bronze Age. Unpublished PhD thesis,
University College Dublin.
Molloy, B. P. C. 2007. What’s the bloody point?:
Fighting with Irish Bronze Age weapons. In B.
P. C. Molloy (ed.), The Cutting Edge: Studies
in Ancient and Medieval Combat, 90–112.
Stroud, Tempus.
Molloy, B. P. C, 2008. Martial Arts and
Materiality: A Combat Archaeology perspective on Aegean swords of the fifteenth and
fourteenth centuries BC. World Archaeology
40 (1), 116–134.
Molloy, B. P. C. 2009. For Gods or Men? A reappraisal of the function of European Bronze Age
shields. Antiquity 83, 1052–1064.
Molloy, B. P. C. 2010. Swords and swordsmanship
in the Aegean Bronze Age. American Journal
of Archaeology 114. 3, TBC, 403–428.
Molloy, B. P. C. and Grossman, D. 2007. Why
can’t Johnny kill? The psychology and physiology of interpersonal combat. In B. P. C.
Molloy (ed.), The Cutting Edge: Studies in
Ancient and Medieval Combat, 188–202.
Stroud, Tempus.
Mödlinger, M. 2011. Herstellung und Verwendung
bronzezeitlicher Schwerter Mitteleuropas.
82
Use-wear analysis and use-patterns of Bronze Age swords
Ramsey, W. G. 1989. Middle Bronze Age weapons
in Ireland. Unpublished PhD thesis, Queens
University Belfast.
Reeve, M. D. 2003. Vegetius’ Epitoma rei militaris. Oxford, Clarendon Press.
Sandars, N. K. 1961. The First Aegean swords
and their ancestry. American Journal of
Archaeology 65, 17–29.
Sandars, N. K. 1963. Later Aegean Bronze Swords.
American Journal of Archaeology 67, 117–53.
Schauer, P. 1971. Die Schwerter in Süddeutschland, Österreich und der Schweiz I (Griffplatten-, Griffangel-, und Griffzungenschwerter).
Prähistorische
Bronzefunde
IV, 2. München, C. H. Beck.
Sim, D. 2002. Iron for the Eagles. Stroud,
Tempus.
Smith, S. K. 2009. Skeletal evidence for militarism in Mycenaean Athens. Hesperia,
Supplement 43, 99–111.
Snodgrass, A. 1999. Arms and Armour of the
Greeks. Baltimore, John Hopkins University
Press.
Talhoffer, H. 2000. Fechtbuch. Edited by M.
Rector. London, Greenhill Books.
Thorpe. I. J. N. 2005. The origins of warfare and
violence. In M. Parker-Pearson and I. J. N.
Thorpe (eds), Warfare, Violence and Slavery
in Prehistory. British Archaeological Reports,
International series 1375, 1–19. Oxford,
Archaeopress.
Treherne, P. 1995. The warrior’s beauty: the masculine body and self-identity in Bronze Age
Europe. Journal of European Archaeology 3,
105–144.
Tselios, T. 2006. New Look at Minoan
Metalworking Techniques. In J. Day, C.
Greenlaw, H. Hall, A. Kelly, L. Matassa, K.
McAleese, E. Saunders and D. Stritch (eds),
SOMA 2004 Symposium on Mediterranean
Archaeology. Proceedings of the eighth annualmeeting of postgraduate researchers. School
of Classics, Trinity College Dublin. 20-22 february 2004, 193–197. British Archaeological
Reports, International series 1514. Oxford,
Archaeopress.
Uckelmann, M. 2006. Schutz, Prunk und Kult –
Zur Funktion bronzezeitlicher Schilde. Anodos.
Studies of the Ancient World 4/5, 2004/2005,
243–249.
Uckelmann, M. in prep. Die Schilde der
Bronzezeit in Nord-,West- und Zentraleuropa.
Prähistorische Bronzefunde III, 4. Stuttgart,
Steiner.
Vandkilde, H. 2006a. Warriors and warrior institutions in Copper Age Europe. In T. Otto, H.
Eine vertiefende Studie zur mittelbronzeund urnenfelderzeitlichen Bewaffnung und
Sozialstruktur, Universitätsforschungen zur
prähistorischen Archäologie 193. Bonn,
Habelt.
Naue, J. 1903. Die vorrömischen Schwerter aus
Kupfer, Bronze und Eisen. München, Piloty
and Loehle.
Northover, P. 1988. The analysis and metallurgy
of British Bronze Age swords. In I. Colquhoun
and C. Burgess, The swords of Britain.
Prähistorische Bronzefunde IV, 5, 130–148.
München, C. H. Beck.
Oakeshott, E. 1999. The Archaeology of Weapons.
Woodbridge, Boydell Press [reprint of 1960].
O’Brien, S. 2009. Beyond the sharp bronze:
warfare and society in Mycenaean Greece.
Unpublished PhD thesis, University of
Liverpool.
Ó Faoláin, S. and Northover, J. P. 1998. The technology of Late Bronze Age sword production
in Ireland. The Journal of Irish Archaeology
IX, 69–88.
Ó Faoláin, S. 2004. Bronze artefact production in Late Bronze Age Ireland. British
Archaeological Reports, British series 382.
Oxford, Archaeopress.
O’Flaherty, R. 2002. A consideration of the Early
Bronze Age Halberd in Ireland – Function and
Context. Unpublished PhD thesis, University
College Dublin.
Osgood, R. 1998. Warfare in the Late Bronze
Age of North Europe. British Archaeological
Reports, International series 695. Oxford,
Archaeopress.
Papadopoulos, A. 2006. The Iconography of
Warfare in the Bronze Age Aegean. Unpublished
PhD thesis, University of Liverpool.
Papadopoulos, T. J. 1998. The Late Bronze Age
Daggers of the Aegean I: The Greek Mainland.
Prähistorische Bronzefunde VI, 11. Stuttgart,
Steiner.
Parker-Pearson, M. 2005. Warfare, violence and
slavery in later Prehistory: and introduction. In
M. Parker-Pearson and I. J. N. Thorpe (eds),
Warfare, Violence and Slavery in Prehistory.
British Archaeological Reports, International
series 1375, 19–35. Oxford, Archaeopress.
Peatfield, A. D. 1999. The Paradox of Violence:
Weaponry and Martial Art in Minoan Crete.
In R. Laffineur (ed.), Polemos: Le Contexte
Guerrier en Égée á l’Âge du Bronze, 67–74.
Liege, Aegeum.
Pollington, S. 1996. The English Warrior from
earliest times to 1066. Norfolk, Anglo-Saxon
Books.
83
Thrane and H. Vandkilde (eds), Warfare and
Society: Archaeological and Social Anthro-pological Perspectives, 393–422. Aarhus, Aarhus
University Press.
Vandkilde, H. 2006b. Warfare and gender according to Homer: An archaeology of an
Aristocratic Warrior Culture. In T. Otto, H.
Thrane and H. Vandkilde (eds), Warfare and
Society: Archaeological and Social Anthro-pological Perspectives 515–528. Aarhus: Aarhus
University Press.
Waddell, J. 2000. The Prehistoric Archaeology of
Ireland. Wicklow, Wordwell.
Wagner, P. and Hand, S. 2003. Medieval sword and
shield: The combat system of Royal Armouries
MS I.33. Highland Village, Chivalry Bookshelf.
Whitley, J. 2002. Objects with Attitude:
Biographical Facts and Fallacies in the Study
of Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age Warrior
Graves. Cambridge Journal of Archaeology,
12 (02), 217–232.
Wilde, W. R. 1861. Catalogue of the antiquities
of animal materials and bronze in the museum of the Royal Irish Academy. Dublin,
Royal Irish Academy.
Wylie, A. 1995. The Reaction against analogy,
Advances in Archaeological theory and method, Vol. 8, 63–111. New York, Academic
Press.
York, J. 2002. The life cycle of Bronze Age metalwork from the Thames. Oxford Journal of
Archaeology, 21, 1, 77–92.
Barry Molloy
UCD School of Archaeology
University College Dublin
Belfield
Dublin 4
Ireland
84