O D K R Y C I A Materiały฀Zachodniopomorskie Nowa฀Seria,฀t.฀XIV:฀2018,฀s.฀275–286 ISSN฀0076-5236 Dawid฀ Sych,฀ Beata฀ Miazga,฀ Kacper฀ Siejkowski Bronze฀Age฀dagger฀from฀Dargocice Sztylet฀z฀epoki฀brązu฀z฀Dargocic Abstract:฀ In฀ the฀ spring฀ of฀ 2016,฀ an฀ archaeology฀ student฀ at฀ the฀ University฀ of฀ Wrocław฀ together฀with฀a฀resident฀of฀Gościno฀commune฀found฀a฀blue-green฀blade฀that฀fitted฀into฀ the฀palm฀of฀his฀hand.฀It฀was฀found฀in฀a฀ploughed฀soil฀while฀walking฀along฀a฀forest฀path฀ in฀ Dargocice฀ (Gościno฀ commune,฀ Kołobrzeg฀ district,฀ West฀ Pomeranian฀ Voivodeship).฀฀ The฀artefact฀was฀submitted฀to฀the฀Institute฀of฀Archaeology฀at฀the฀University฀of฀Wrocław฀ for฀further฀analysis. Keywords:฀Bronze฀Age,฀weapons฀and฀tools,฀traceology,฀archaeometallurgy,฀ED-XRF Abstrakt:฀ Wiosną฀ 2016฀ roku฀ student฀ archeologii฀ Uniwersytetu฀ Wrocławskiego฀ wraz฀฀ z฀ mieszkańcem฀ gminy฀ Gościno฀ znalazł฀ niebiesko-zielone฀ ostrze,฀ które฀ dobrze฀ pasowało฀ do฀dłoni.฀Znaleziono฀je฀w฀wyoranej฀ziemi฀podczas฀spaceru฀leśną฀ścieżką฀w฀Dargocicach฀ (gm.฀ Gościno,฀ pow.฀ kołobrzeski,฀ woj.฀ zachodniopomorskie).฀ Zabytek฀ został฀ przekazany฀ do฀analizy฀w฀laboratorium฀Instytutu฀Archeologii฀Uniwersytetu฀Wrocławskiego. Słowa฀kluczowe:฀epoka฀brązu,฀broń฀i฀narzędzia,฀traseologia,฀archeometalurgia,฀ED–XRF Place฀of฀discovery The฀area฀of฀today’s฀Dargocice฀was฀inhabited฀already฀in฀the฀Neolithic.฀There฀ is฀one฀commonly฀known฀artefact฀from฀site฀7฀–฀a฀stone฀axe฀linked฀to฀the฀communities฀of฀the฀Linear฀Pottery฀culture.฀More฀permanent฀settlements฀in฀this฀area฀can฀ be฀observed฀since฀the฀Bronze฀Age.฀On฀the฀opposite฀shore฀of฀Kamienica฀Lake,฀in฀ a฀distance฀of฀1.7฀km,฀there฀is฀a฀fortified฀settlement฀of฀the฀Lusatian฀culture฀and฀ near฀the฀lake฀–฀in฀Kamica฀and฀Trzynik฀–฀there฀are฀another฀two.฀In฀the฀village฀of฀ Dargocice฀two฀fragments฀of฀a฀bronze฀sword฀were฀discovered.฀Three฀hundred฀ meters฀to฀the฀north-west฀there฀is฀also฀an฀Early฀Medieval฀fortified฀settlement฀ with฀an฀adjacent฀open฀settlement. 275 The฀place฀of฀the฀dagger’s฀discovery฀is฀located฀in฀the฀area฀of฀AZP฀18-16฀map,฀ where฀ in฀ total฀ 19฀ archaeological฀ sites฀ are฀ located฀ which฀ are฀ mostly฀ dated฀ to฀ the฀Early฀Middle฀Ages.฀There฀are฀also฀hoards฀and฀cemeteries฀connected฀with฀฀ the฀Pomeranian฀culture,฀which฀were฀discovered฀accidentally฀in฀the฀19th฀century.฀ First฀systematic฀archaeological฀research฀in฀the฀area฀of฀Kamienica฀Lake฀was฀performed฀in฀the฀1960s฀as฀a฀part฀of฀excavating฀expedition฀of฀Institute฀of฀Material฀ Culture฀of฀the฀Polish฀Academy฀of฀Sciences฀in฀Poznań.฀Numerous฀fragments฀of฀ bronze฀objects฀were฀found฀there฀that฀came฀from฀the฀graves฀of฀the฀Lusatian฀or฀ Pomeranian฀culture.฀In฀2007,฀a฀research฀team฀from฀Nicolaus฀Copernicus฀University฀in฀Toruń฀discovered฀a฀hoard฀of฀bronze฀objects฀dated฀to฀the฀Late฀Bronze฀ Age฀at฀the฀foot฀of฀Trzynik฀fortified฀settlement,฀which฀is฀described฀as฀site฀12.฀฀ It฀included฀weapons,฀ornaments฀and฀tools฀(Rembisz-Lubiejewska฀2011). Morphology฀and฀chronology Even฀though฀a฀well-mineralised฀layer฀of฀dark-green฀patina฀is฀visible฀on฀the฀ surface฀of฀the฀dagger฀(Fig.฀1),฀which฀constitutes฀a฀mechanical฀protection฀for฀ the฀core,฀the฀state฀of฀preservation฀of฀the฀artefact฀is฀not฀good.฀Its฀bad฀condition฀ is฀mostly฀visible฀on฀the฀fractures฀of฀the฀blades฀that฀are฀disintegrating฀significantly,฀exposing฀the฀highly฀oxidised฀cross-section,฀where฀the฀metallic฀phase฀is฀not฀ present฀or฀only฀its฀residues฀are฀visible฀(Fig.฀2). The฀ dagger฀ from฀ Dargocice฀ is฀ a฀ continuation฀ of฀ weapon฀ forms฀ from฀ the฀ Unetice฀culture.฀It฀has฀semi-circular฀plate฀for฀the฀handle฀with฀two฀holes฀for฀ rivets.฀The฀blade฀is฀118฀mm฀long฀and฀its฀maximum฀width฀is฀28฀mm.฀A฀rib฀runs฀ through฀the฀centre฀of฀the฀blade.฀Both฀rivets฀have฀been฀preserved.฀On฀the฀basis฀ of฀morphological฀characteristics฀the฀artefact฀may฀be฀dated฀to฀the฀turn฀of฀the฀ Early฀and฀Middle฀Bronze฀Age,฀and฀more฀precisely฀to฀the฀end฀of฀BA2฀phase฀and฀ the฀beginning฀of฀BB1฀phase฀(Dąbrowski฀2004,฀14).฀An฀analogical฀item฀is฀known฀ from฀Szczecin฀(Zdroje),฀West฀Pomeranian฀Voivodeship฀(Gedl฀1980,฀47฀Fig.฀108). Traceological฀analysis There฀are฀three฀categories฀of฀traces฀visible฀on฀the฀dagger:฀(1)฀production฀ traces,฀(2)฀use-wear฀and฀(3)฀post-depositional฀traces.฀All฀traces฀were฀registered฀ with฀the฀use฀of฀portable฀digital฀microscope฀Conrad฀with฀photographic฀camera฀ with฀a฀matrix฀of฀10฀megapixels฀and฀zoom฀of฀10x฀to฀200x. In฀the฀first฀category฀we฀may฀include฀long฀parallel฀lines฀along฀the฀axis฀on฀the฀ basis฀of฀the฀dagger฀hilt-plate฀which฀arose฀during฀grinding฀(Fig.฀3).฀This฀action฀ was฀most฀probably฀performed฀with฀the฀purpose฀of฀removing฀the฀casting฀defects.฀ Diagonal฀and฀parallel฀lines฀found฀very฀near฀the฀blade’s฀edges฀may฀be฀traces฀of฀ sharpening฀and฀grinding฀(Fig.฀4).฀Second฀category฀includes฀numerous฀dents฀ 276 and฀bluntness฀on฀the฀working฀edge฀(Fig.฀5,฀6)฀as฀well฀as฀a฀clear฀bend฀of฀the฀ blade.฀The฀third฀category฀contains฀corrosion฀and฀singular฀scratches฀extending฀ in฀various฀directions. Base฀for฀comparison฀consists฀of฀15฀daggers฀that฀were฀subjected฀to฀traceological฀analysis฀from฀Silesia฀and฀adjoining฀areas฀(Sych฀2016).฀Two฀are฀dated฀to฀ BA,฀three฀to฀BB,฀two฀to฀BB-BC,฀one฀to฀BC,฀four฀to฀BC-BD,฀one฀to฀BD-HA฀ and฀ two฀ to฀ HB2-HB3.฀ Six฀ daggers฀ come฀ from฀ graves,฀ one฀ from฀ a฀ hoard฀ of฀ tools,฀weapons฀and฀ornaments,฀one฀from฀a฀settlement,฀one฀was฀discovered฀in฀ an฀ oxbow฀ of฀ Oder฀ and฀ remaining฀ six฀ are฀ stray฀ finds฀ with฀ unknown฀ context฀฀ of฀discovery.฀ Traces฀visible฀on฀the฀artefacts฀allowed฀to฀differentiate฀between฀three฀levels฀ of฀usage:฀low,฀medium฀and฀high.฀Daggers฀with฀a฀low฀level฀of฀usage฀contain฀an฀ insignificant฀number฀of฀use-wear฀such฀as฀scratches,฀small฀dents฀and฀bluntness.฀ Medium฀level฀of฀usage฀is฀characterized฀by฀the฀presence฀of฀scratches,฀larger฀dents,฀ bluntness฀and฀bends.฀Objects฀with฀high฀level฀of฀usage฀have฀numerous฀dents,฀ bluntness฀and฀bends,฀they฀are฀also฀characterized฀by฀a฀clear฀asymmetry฀of฀the฀ working฀edge฀as฀well฀as฀cracks฀and฀fractures.฀Aside฀from฀the฀above-mentioned฀ categories฀we฀may฀differentiate฀a฀fourth฀one,฀consisting฀of฀destroyed฀objects.฀ These฀are฀the฀objects฀which฀repair฀was฀not฀possible฀and฀remelting฀them฀was฀ the฀only฀reasonable฀solution. On฀all฀daggers฀subjected฀to฀traceological฀analysis฀we฀may฀observe฀use-wear฀ traces.฀Those฀with฀medium฀(5)฀and฀low฀(5)฀level฀of฀usage฀are฀dominant,฀there฀ are฀a฀few฀less฀destroyed฀artefacts฀(4)฀and฀the฀least฀numerous฀is฀the฀amount฀of฀ objects฀with฀a฀low฀level฀of฀usage฀(1).฀Particularly฀noteworthy฀is฀the฀lack฀of฀items฀ with฀a฀low฀level฀of฀usage฀in฀graves฀and฀dominance฀of฀artefacts฀with฀medium฀and฀ high฀level฀of฀usage฀as฀well฀as฀those฀destroyed.฀The฀observed฀proportions฀may,฀ however,฀be฀an฀effect฀of฀a฀small฀sample.฀Dagger฀from฀Dargocice฀is฀characterized฀ by฀a฀medium฀level฀of฀usage. A฀common฀feature฀of฀all฀enumerated฀daggers฀is฀the฀complete฀lack฀or฀small฀ number฀of฀production฀traces฀such฀as฀surplus฀of฀metal,฀porosity฀of฀the฀surface฀or฀ hammering.฀Considering฀the฀fact฀that฀items฀analysed฀for฀traces฀of฀production฀ correspond฀chronologically฀to฀the฀whole฀Bronze฀Age,฀the฀interpretation฀seems฀ to฀be฀correct฀that฀a฀dagger฀was฀a฀personal฀object,฀which฀creation฀involved฀more฀ effort฀than,฀for฀example,฀in฀case฀of฀a฀tool.฀Thus,฀its฀surface฀was฀prepared฀with฀ much฀more฀care฀by฀means฀of฀removal฀of฀production฀process฀defects. Metal฀analysis The฀purpose฀of฀the฀research฀was฀to฀determine฀the฀raw฀material฀from฀which฀ the฀dagger฀was฀made,฀choosing฀non-destructive฀methods.฀Thus,฀the฀analysis฀of฀ the฀elemental฀composition฀was฀done฀with฀the฀use฀of฀Energy-Dispersive฀X-ray฀ 277 Fluorescence,฀with฀Spectro-Midex฀spectrometer.฀The฀device฀is฀equipped฀with฀ an฀X-ray฀tube฀with฀molybdenum฀anode฀(voltage:฀46฀kV).฀Because฀of฀the฀use฀of฀฀ a฀large฀sample฀chamber฀(54฀cm฀×฀42฀cm฀×฀16฀cm)฀and฀an฀integrated฀video฀ camera฀system฀as฀well฀as฀0.7฀mm฀measuring฀spot฀size฀the฀exact฀sample฀positioning฀was฀possible฀(Fig.฀1).฀A฀series฀of฀repetitions฀was฀made฀on฀the฀dagger฀which฀ provided฀raw฀material฀data฀on฀the฀blade฀and฀two฀preserved฀rivets. Due฀ to฀ the฀ low฀ state฀ of฀ artefact’s฀ preservation฀ and฀ lack฀ of฀ conservation,฀ it฀ was฀ necessary฀ to฀ carefully฀ clean฀ its฀ surface฀ from฀ layers฀ of฀ earth฀ without฀ damaging฀the฀layers฀of฀patina.฀Thus฀prepared,฀the฀artefact฀was฀subjected฀to฀ archaeometric฀analysis. The฀ dagger฀ analysis฀ has฀ revealed฀ that฀ it฀ was฀ made฀ of฀ bronze,฀ where฀ the฀ average฀tin฀content฀reaches฀14%฀and฀copper฀almost฀84%.฀Percentage฀of฀other฀ components฀is฀less฀than฀1%฀and฀these฀consists฀of:฀0.5%฀of฀arsenic฀and฀nickel,฀ 0.4%฀of฀antimony฀(table฀1).฀Consistency฀of฀the฀results฀may฀be฀observed฀during฀ the฀analysis฀of฀XRF฀spectra฀(Fig.฀7).฀The฀strongest฀analytical฀signals฀are฀those฀ of฀copper฀and฀tin,฀weaker฀signals฀of฀iron,฀nickel,฀arsenic,฀antimony฀and฀lead฀ were฀also฀identified.฀Analysing฀these฀results,฀one฀may฀not฀forget฀that฀even฀in฀ the฀case฀of฀such฀highly฀oxidised฀artefact,฀it฀was฀possible฀to฀identify฀the฀raw฀ material฀and฀moreover,฀the฀results฀of฀sample฀positioning฀are฀characterized฀by฀ a฀very฀small฀dispersion.฀However,฀it฀is฀necessary฀to฀include฀the฀data฀regarding฀a฀high฀level฀of฀oxidisation฀of฀the฀artefact฀and฀the฀difficulty฀in฀obtaining฀ the฀ adequate฀ amounts฀ of฀ metallic฀ phase,฀ which฀ in฀ case฀ of฀ the฀ dagger฀ was฀฀ extremely฀challenging. That฀is฀why฀the฀analysis฀of฀two฀preserved฀rivets฀proved฀to฀be฀highly฀complexed฀but฀at฀the฀same฀time฀it฀revealed฀information฀confirming฀the฀substantial฀ oxidation฀of฀the฀dagger’s฀elements.฀However,฀during฀the฀preparation฀for฀analysis฀it฀was฀impossible฀to฀get฀access฀to฀the฀metal฀phase.฀Both฀rivets฀are฀covered฀ with฀considerable฀thickness฀of฀oxidised฀layers฀that฀would฀have฀to฀be฀destroyed฀ in฀order฀to฀expose฀the฀non-oxidised฀metallic฀core฀of฀these฀elements.฀That฀is฀ why,฀ considering฀ the฀ need฀ for฀ preservation฀ of฀ the฀ oxidised฀ layers฀ covering฀ the฀rivets,฀they฀were฀analysed฀after฀only฀gentle฀cleaning฀showing฀qualitative฀ and฀semi-quantitative฀results฀for฀the฀raw฀material฀(however,฀due฀to฀the฀processes฀of฀corrosion฀the฀semi-quantitative฀analysis฀may฀not฀reflect฀the฀original฀ composition฀of฀the฀alloy).฀The฀results฀of฀the฀elemental฀composition฀research฀ show฀that฀the฀rivets฀were฀made฀of฀a฀material฀consisting฀of฀copper,฀tin,฀nickel,฀ iron,฀ arsenic,฀ antimony฀ and฀ lead฀ (Fig.฀ 8).฀ The฀ main฀ elements฀ are฀ tin฀ and฀ copper฀ with฀ tens฀ of฀ percent.฀ Semi-quantitative฀ analysis,฀ revealing฀ substantial฀concentration฀of฀tin฀(scope฀20-90%฀Sn)฀should฀be฀treated฀as฀an฀effect฀of฀ corrosion฀process.฀Tin,฀as฀a฀metal฀less฀noble฀than฀copper,฀is฀first฀to฀oxidise.฀฀ As฀a฀result,฀corrosive฀layers฀have฀more฀tin฀than฀the฀original฀alloy.฀It฀is฀similar฀ 278 with฀iron฀and฀nickel,฀whereas฀arsenic฀and฀antimony฀have฀similar฀nobility฀as฀ copper.฀Thus,฀the฀analysis฀of฀the฀rivets’฀surface฀should฀not฀be฀treated฀as฀representative฀for฀the฀original฀alloy. Daggers฀in฀the฀basins฀of฀Vistula฀and฀Oder Daggers฀are฀one฀of฀the฀first฀weapons฀that฀the฀prehistoric฀societies฀made฀from฀ metal.฀The฀oldest฀copper฀items฀from฀the฀area฀of฀today’s฀Poland฀are฀dated฀to฀the฀ old฀Chalcolithic฀Period฀and฀linked฀with฀younger฀Lengyel-Polgar฀cultural฀groups฀ as฀well฀as฀the฀Funnelbeaker฀culture฀and฀the฀Globular฀Amphora฀culture.฀They฀ appeared฀less฀often฀in฀the฀Corded฀Ware฀culture.฀Daggers฀had฀the฀apogee฀of฀their฀ splendour฀in฀the฀Early฀and฀Middle฀Bronze฀Age;฀later฀on,฀with฀the฀advent฀of฀ knives฀and฀swords,฀their฀significance฀decreased,฀which฀is฀clearly฀visible฀in฀the฀ number฀of฀the฀items฀found฀(Blajer฀2001,฀116;฀Gedl฀1980,฀5–11). A฀change฀in฀the฀social฀perception฀of฀daggers฀most฀likely฀took฀place฀in฀the฀ Early฀Bronze฀Age,฀which฀manifested฀in฀deposing฀them฀in฀hoards.฀They฀were฀ rarely฀put฀in฀graves,฀where฀sometimes฀they฀were฀found฀together฀with฀halberds฀ and฀ axes.฀ A฀ dagger฀ was฀ also฀ found฀ in฀ a฀ burial฀ mound฀ no.฀ III฀ in฀ Łęki฀ Małe,฀ Grodzisko฀ district,฀ Greater฀ Poland฀ Voivodeship,฀ which฀ was฀ interpreted฀ as฀฀ a฀grave฀of฀the฀representative฀of฀local฀elites.฀Use-wear฀and฀traces฀of฀repair฀in฀ the฀form฀of฀a฀wire฀connecting฀the฀blade฀to฀the฀handle฀on฀the฀dagger฀from฀Łęki฀ Małe฀suggest฀that฀it฀was฀used฀before฀it฀was฀deposited฀in฀the฀grave฀and฀most฀ likely฀it฀performed฀a฀military฀function.฀It฀follows฀that,฀a฀dagger,฀next฀to฀axes฀ and฀halberds฀was฀one฀of฀the฀main฀attributes฀of฀a฀man฀(Blajer฀1999,฀31–36;฀2001,฀ 118–119;฀Sarnowska฀1969,฀70–82,฀107–112,฀tab.฀I฀).฀It฀is฀not,฀however,฀a฀rule฀on฀ an฀European฀scale.฀Daggers฀appeared฀also฀in฀women’s฀graves,฀for฀example฀in฀ the฀Middle฀Bronze฀Age,฀in฀Scandinavia,฀in฀south-eastern฀Holstein.฀It฀is฀clearly฀ visible฀there฀that฀the฀weapons฀are฀more฀common฀in฀the฀areas฀more฀prone฀to฀ conflicts,฀ while฀ their฀ number฀ in฀ women’s฀ graves฀ decreases฀ with฀ increasing฀ number฀of฀items฀of฀foreign฀origin,฀suggesting฀the฀establishment฀of฀more฀peaceful฀cultural฀contacts.฀It฀can฀be฀therefore฀assumed฀that฀the฀daggers฀were฀used฀by฀ women฀for฀protection฀during฀periods฀of฀increased฀threat฀from฀foreign฀groups฀ (Bergerbrant฀2007,฀98–102). At฀the฀turn฀of฀the฀Early฀and฀Middle฀Bronze฀Age฀the฀role฀of฀a฀dagger฀as฀a฀man’s฀฀ attribute฀probably฀began฀to฀increase.฀In฀the฀area฀resided฀by฀the฀Tumulus฀culture฀ artefacts฀began฀more฀often฀to฀appear฀in฀burial฀mounds฀and฀were฀rarely฀found฀ in฀hoards.฀They฀were฀deposited฀together฀with฀axes฀and฀arrowheads.฀This฀allows฀to฀formulate฀a฀conclusion฀that฀they฀were฀also฀an฀attribute฀of฀a฀warrior฀ (Blajer฀1999,฀31–36;฀2001,฀119–120;฀Dąbrowski฀2004,฀15–16;฀Gedl฀1980,฀5–11).฀ Use-wear฀ visible฀ on฀ blades฀ of฀ daggers฀ from฀ the฀ Middle฀ Bronze฀ Age฀ clearly฀ shows฀that฀the฀items฀deposited฀in฀graves฀were฀not฀ceremonial฀or฀made฀purely฀฀ 279 with฀the฀intention฀of฀burial฀(Pearson฀2000,฀85–86).฀Dominance฀of฀daggers฀characterized฀by฀a฀high฀level฀of฀usage฀in฀the฀set฀of฀artefacts฀subjected฀to฀traceological฀ analysis฀points฀to฀selectiveness฀of฀the฀deposition. Stray฀finds฀also฀contain฀use-wear,฀however,฀at฀this฀point฀it฀is฀impossible฀to฀ settle฀which฀items฀were฀lost฀and฀which฀were฀deposited฀in฀the฀ground฀or฀water฀ intentionally.฀ The฀ exception฀ is฀ the฀ dagger฀ from฀ Wrocław,฀ Lower฀ Silesian฀ Voivodeship,฀found฀in฀the฀oxbow฀of฀Oder,฀which฀was฀most฀likely฀intentionally฀ thrown฀into฀the฀river.฀The฀asymmetry฀of฀the฀blade฀and฀damaged฀rivet฀holes฀ points฀not฀only฀to฀numerous฀repairs฀but฀mainly฀to฀intensive฀use.฀Use-wear฀is฀ visible฀also฀on฀the฀ornamented฀spearhead฀from฀Wrocław-Różanki,฀Lower฀Silesian฀Voivodeship฀dated฀to฀the฀same฀period฀found฀in฀the฀Oder’s฀oxbow฀and฀on฀ the฀bronze฀sword฀from฀Leśniki,฀Opole฀district,฀Opole฀Voivodeship,฀found฀in฀฀ a฀swamp.฀All฀of฀the฀above฀clearly฀indicate฀the฀existence฀of฀strict฀rules฀governing฀ the฀deposition฀of฀weapons฀in฀this฀period. In฀the฀Middle฀and฀at฀the฀turn฀of฀the฀Middle฀and฀Late฀Bronze฀Age฀daggers฀ were฀often฀a฀part฀of฀graves฀inventories,฀including฀burial฀mounds฀of฀the฀Kietrz฀ type฀of฀the฀Lusatian฀culture฀that฀are฀connected฀to฀the฀representatives฀of฀the฀local฀ elites.฀Therefore,฀the฀tradition฀that฀began฀in฀the฀Early฀Bronze฀Age฀is฀still฀clearly฀ visible.฀One฀should฀note฀that฀a฀large฀percentage฀of฀stray฀finds฀was฀discovered฀in฀ the฀aquatic฀environment,฀which฀could฀indicate฀that฀there฀was฀a฀need฀to฀remove฀ at฀least฀a฀part฀of฀the฀daggers฀from฀the฀circulation.฀It฀is฀not฀clear฀if฀this฀should฀ be฀linked฀to฀the฀burial฀ritual฀or฀to฀votive฀gifts฀(Fogel฀1979,฀13–26;฀Gedl฀1984,฀ 52–53,฀73–75;฀Blajer฀1999,฀31–36;฀2001,฀119–120).฀Use-wear฀in฀the฀form฀of฀ scratches,฀dents,฀bluntness฀and฀bends฀see฀to฀confirm฀the฀military฀function฀of฀ the฀analysed฀items. In฀the฀Late฀Bronze฀Age฀a฀clear฀decrease฀in฀the฀amount฀of฀daggers฀is฀visible.฀ In฀the฀areas฀where฀before฀they฀were฀numerous,฀there฀are฀almost฀no฀finds.฀It฀is฀ assumed฀that฀the฀role฀of฀daggers฀declined฀in฀the฀face฀of฀increasing฀popularity฀of฀ swords฀and฀knives฀that฀became฀considered฀as฀their฀alternative฀(Fogel฀1979,฀13–26;฀฀ Gedl฀1980,฀5–11;฀Blajer฀2001,฀121–122).฀The฀only฀item฀that฀was฀subjected฀to฀ traceological฀analysis฀dated฀to฀the฀Late฀Bronze฀Age฀is฀the฀Cimmerian฀dagger,฀ which฀was฀a฀part฀of฀hoard฀from฀Gamów,฀Gliwice฀district,฀Silesian฀Voivodeship,฀ contains฀traces฀of฀use฀(in฀the฀form฀of฀nicks฀and฀a฀clear฀bend฀of฀the฀blade),฀just฀ as฀two฀swords฀and฀a฀knife฀that฀were฀discovered฀together฀with฀it. A฀common฀feature฀of฀all฀daggers฀subjected฀to฀traceological฀analysis฀is฀the฀lack฀ of฀production฀traces.฀Due฀to฀the฀fact฀that฀the฀discussed฀artefacts฀date฀back฀to฀the฀ whole฀Bronze฀Age,฀it฀seems฀appropriate฀to฀assume฀that฀these฀were฀so฀personal฀ objects฀that฀much฀more฀effort฀was฀put฀in฀their฀creation฀when฀compared฀to฀the฀ tools,฀and฀therefore฀their฀surface฀was฀developed฀with฀more฀care฀by฀the฀removal฀ of฀any฀imperfections฀that฀arose฀during฀production. 280 Table฀1.฀The฀elemental฀composition฀of฀the฀dagger฀(%฀weight) Tabela฀1.฀Skład฀pierwiastkowy฀sztyletu฀(%฀masy) Prepared฀by฀B.฀Miazga 281 Literature Bergerbrant฀S.฀2007.฀Bronze฀Age฀Identities:฀Costume,฀Conflict฀and฀Contact฀in฀Northern฀Europe฀ 1600–1300฀BC.฀Lindome.฀Stockholm฀Studies฀in฀Archaeology฀43. Blajer฀W.฀1999.฀Skarby฀ze฀starszej฀i฀środkowej฀epoki฀brązu฀na฀ziemiach฀polskich.฀Kraków. Blajer฀ W.฀ 2001.฀ Skarby฀ przedmiotów฀ metalowych฀ z฀ epoki฀ brązu฀ i฀ wczesnej฀ epoki฀ żelaza฀ na฀ ziemiach฀polskich.฀Kraków. Dąbrowski฀J.฀2004.฀Ältere฀Bronzezeit฀in฀Polen.฀Starsza฀epoka฀brązu฀w฀Polsce.฀Warszawa. Fogel฀J.฀1979.฀Studia฀nad฀uzbrojeniem฀ludności฀kultury฀łużyckiej฀w฀dorzeczu฀Odry฀i฀Wisły.฀ Broń฀zaczepna.฀Poznań. Gedl฀M.฀1980.฀Die฀Dolche฀und฀Stabdolche฀in฀Polen.฀Münster.฀Prähistorische฀Bronze฀funde฀V/4. Gedl฀M.฀1984.฀Wczesnołużyckie฀groby฀z฀konstrukcjami฀drewnianymi.฀Wrocław. Pearson฀M.P.฀2000.฀The฀Archaeology฀of฀Death฀and฀Burial.฀Teksas.฀ Rembisz-Lubiejewska฀A.฀2011.฀Dar฀wotywny฀złożony฀z฀ozdób,฀narzędzi฀i฀broni฀odkryty฀ w฀ Jeziorze฀ Kamienica,฀ w฀ miejscowości฀ Trzynik,฀ pow.฀ Kołobrzeg฀ (stanowisko฀ 12)฀ /฀Jewellery,฀tools฀and฀weapon฀from฀the฀Kamienica฀Lake,฀Trzynik฀in฀Kołobrzeg฀district฀(site฀12).฀Acta฀Universitatis฀Nicolai฀Copernici฀Archeologia฀31.฀Archeologia฀podwod฀na฀ 6,฀11–24. Sarnowska฀W.฀1969.฀Kultura฀unietycka฀w฀Polsce.฀Wrocław–Warszawa–Kraków.฀ Sych฀D.฀2016.฀Biografie฀kulturowe฀militariów฀oraz฀narzędzi฀miedzianych฀i฀brązowych฀datowanych฀na฀neolit฀i฀epokę฀brązu฀z฀południowo-zachodniej฀Polski.฀PhD฀Dissertation.฀Insitute฀ of฀Archeology,฀University฀of฀Wrocław. Beata฀Miazga Instytut฀Archeologii฀Uniwersytetu฀Wrocławskiego e-mail:฀beata.miazga@uwr.edu.pl Kacper฀Siejkowski Instytut฀Archeologii฀Uniwersytetu฀Wrocławskiego kolbergjestin@gmail.com ฀ Dawid฀Sych Stowarzyszenie฀Naukowe฀Archeologów฀Polskich Oddział฀Górnośląski฀ dawid.sych@gmail.com 282 Fig.฀1.฀Dagger฀from฀Dargocice฀(Kołobrzeg฀district).฀White฀square฀shows฀the฀area฀with฀the฀metal฀ phase฀subjected฀to฀XRF฀analysis.฀Photo฀by฀B.฀Miazga Ryc.฀1.฀Sztylet฀z฀Dargocic฀(pow.฀kołobrzeski).฀Białym฀kwadratem฀zaznaczono฀miejsce฀z฀zachowaną฀ fazą฀metaliczną,฀poddaną฀analizom฀XRF.฀Fot.฀B.฀Miazga Fig.฀2.฀Dagger฀from฀Dargocice.฀Microscopic฀image฀of฀a฀cross-section:฀a฀–฀metal฀phase฀is฀invisible;฀ b฀–฀part฀of฀unoxidised฀metal฀is฀partially฀preserved฀in฀the฀central฀area฀of฀the฀cross-section.฀Photo฀ by฀B.฀Miazga Ryc.฀2.฀Sztylet฀z฀Dargocic.฀Obraz฀mikroskopowy฀przełomu฀ostrza฀sztyletu:฀a฀–฀faza฀metaliczna฀ jest฀ niewidoczna,฀ b฀ –฀ warstwa฀ nieutlenionego฀ metalu฀ jest฀ częściowo฀ zachowana฀ w฀ centralnej฀ części฀przełomu.฀Fot.฀B.฀Miazga 283 Fig.฀3.฀Traces฀of฀grinding฀visible฀on฀the฀base฀of฀the฀hilt-plate฀of฀the฀dagger.฀Photo฀by฀D.฀Sych Ryc.฀3.฀Ślady฀szlifowania฀widoczne฀na฀podstawie฀rękojeści฀sztyletu.฀Fot.฀D.฀Sych Fig.฀4.฀Parallel฀lines฀visible฀on฀the฀blade฀of฀the฀dagger.฀Photo฀by฀D.฀Sych Ryc.฀4.฀Równoległe฀linie฀widoczne฀na฀ostrzu฀sztyletu.฀Fot.฀D.฀Sych 284 Fig.฀5.฀Scratches฀and฀dents฀visible฀on฀the฀blade฀of฀the฀dagger.฀Photo฀by฀D.฀Sych Ryc.฀5.฀Zarysowania฀i฀wgniecenia฀widoczne฀na฀ostrzu฀sztyletu.฀Fot.฀D.฀Sych Fig.฀6.฀Scratches฀and฀dents฀visible฀on฀the฀blade฀of฀the฀dagger.฀Photo฀by฀D.฀Sych Ryc.฀6.฀Zarysowania฀i฀wgniecenia฀widoczne฀na฀ostrzu฀sztyletu.฀Fot.฀D.฀Sych 285 Fig.฀7.฀The฀ED-XRF฀spectra฀of฀the฀dagger,฀line฀in฀each฀colour฀represents฀the฀spot฀analysis Ryc.฀7.฀Porównanie฀widm฀energetycznych฀ED-XRF฀dla฀sztyletu;฀analiza฀punktowa฀wybranych฀ miejsc฀przedstawiona฀różnymi฀kolorami Fig.฀8.฀The฀ED-XRF฀spectra฀of฀the฀moveable฀rivet฀(blue฀line)฀and฀motionless฀rivet฀(red฀line)฀ which฀preserved฀in฀a฀dagger Ryc.฀8.฀Porównanie฀widm฀energetycznych฀ED-XRF฀ruchomego฀(niebieska฀linia)฀i฀nieruchomego฀ nitu฀(czerwona฀linia)฀zachowanych฀w฀sztylecie 286