Prehistoric weapons Research Papers - Academia.edu (original) (raw)

Chronology, distribution and interpretation of Urnfield metal-hilted swords Subject, regions and period of time covered (chapter 1) This study was basically concerned with the supra-regional investigation of a sufficiently... more

Chronology, distribution and interpretation of Urnfield metal-hilted swords

Subject, regions and period of time covered (chapter 1)

This study was basically concerned with the supra-regional investigation of a sufficiently differentiated group of bronze objects, which will allow for a taxonomic, chronological, chorological and interpretative analysis. In consideration of their advanced state of research, treatment and publication, the metal-hilted swords (‘Vollgriffschwerter’) of the Urnfield period appeared to be an excellent field for further research. First of all, it was an important prerequisite for my study to synchronize the regional chronological systems which have been established for the Urnfield period; the result of this effort is shown in Fig. 1. In order to avoid confusion between the innumerable regional nomenclatures of the relevant archaeological phases, terms such as Reinecke’s ‘Bz D’ or ‘Ha B1’ are used supra-regionally.

Classification systems of swords and their theoretical-methodical background (chapter 2)

The analysis of the various classification systems used for metal-hilted swords must be preceded by a reconsideration of basic methodical principles of classification.
Every classification – an intrinsically arbitrary construct in itself – can prove its justification by nothing but its heuristic value. In addition to the type-bound study of given combinations of attributes, it appears equally useful and helpful to proceed to a systematic consideration of individual attributes in their localized and chronological perspectives as well.
Within the taxonomic hierarchy which I used for the classification of metal-hilted swords, the highest tier is represented by the so-called ‘basic form’ (‘Grundform’) which is determined by the configuration of the pommel. The next subordinate tier is the ‘species’ (‘Art’) level, which is characterized by the outline of the hilt. This level can again be subdivided into different types, which is done by considering the combination of at least two formal and/or ornamental attributes of the hilt. By additionally taking at least one other formal, ornamental or production-related attribute into consideration, it is possible to break the type level down into different variants of a type, although it is to be noted that the different classes of variants need not contain all representative embodiments of a particular type.

History and state of research of the classification of Urnfield metal-hilted swords (chapter 3)

A critical comparison of the more important classification systems used for metal-hilted swords and an evaluation of their respective methodical validity resulted in the adoption and use of those types and variants of swords that proved to be coherent. On the other hand it was found necessary to also define new taxonomic units. The understanding of representative embodiments of variants to be closely affiliated but not to belong to the class of the corresponding type turned out to be particularly problematic. It was, therefore, a methodological necessity to revise the classification of this kind of ‘variants’.
The result of my analyses is shown in Figs. 5-11, where the diagnostic attributes of all individual taxonomic units are specified in detail. As a consequence, it is to be found that only a sword which possesses all of these attributes can validly be assigned to the respective class of the corresponding taxonomic unit.

Dating and distribution of Urnfield metal-hilted swords (chapter 4)

The clear distinction of those types of metal-hilted swords which are dated per definitionem and those which yet need to be dated is of great importance. The present study accepts and adopts the type form character of the Riegsee and Ragály types for Bz D, of the Dreiwulstschwert (‘sword with three bulges’) species for Ha A, of the basic form Schalenknaufschwert (‘sword with disc pommel’) for Ha B1 and of the Mörigen, Auvernier and Tachlovice types for Ha B3. On the other hand, H. Müller-Karpe’s (1959, 156f. 172; 197; 1961, 24; 29; 31; 47) distinction between older and later types of Dreiwulstschwerter, which he considered as being type forms of his Ha A1 and A2 phase definitions and which was based on an assumed formal development, had to be questioned. So had the early dating of some antennae swords into Ha B2 and Ha B1, respectively.
According to the formal attributes seen as chronologically relevant for the Dreiwulstschwerter (shape of the pommel knob, outline of the blade), a conical pommel knob can be regarded as an older, and a willow-leaf-shaped blade as a later attribute for southern Germany and neighbouring regions – although this will go with certain reservations only. Representative embodiments of the Schwaig and Erding types, maybe also of the Gundelsheim type, can be accepted as belonging to the older, those of the Aldrans type as belonging to the later Dreiwulstschwerter in this area. In eastern central Europe such a distinction is, however, not possible, since a great number of swords found in this particular area show a combination of both of those attributes which are considered as being chronologically indicative in western central Europe. Moreover, the definition of the eastern central European hoard phases (‘Depotfundstufen’) corresponding to Ha A1 and Ha A2 respectively, as well as their parallelization with southern Germany, was mainly done in line with Müller-Karpe’s classification of the Dreiwulstschwerter. Mutual confirmations of western and eastern central European sword datings are, therefore, of a circular character.
The heterogeneous dating of the antennae swords was already noticed by E. Sprockhoff (1934, 34; 71) and further extended by Müller-Karpe (1961, 53-55; 57f. 65; 88) with the object of confirming his tripartition of Ha B. The seven antennae swords which are either definitely or with all probability to be dated into Ha B1 do not show any attributes which they have in common, which means to say that no such type can be regarded as characteristic for Ha B1. Those final Urnfield metal-hilted swords not deposited until Ha C cannot be typographically differentiated from those swords which are dated into the Ha B3 phase, either. Dating of the antennae swords into Ha B1 or Ha C, respectively, can therefore only be done as a result of a thorough study of the context of any one find. These dating problems show quite clear that it is out of question to segregate type forms for the one or the other phase of the basic form antennae sword.
The clarification of taxonomic and chronological questions is succeeded by the regionally oriented criticism of sources and the epistemological evaluation of the distribution maps to determine their historical validity. Following H.J. Eggers (1950, 55; 1986, esp. 258), I differentiate between the levels of the ‘living’, the ‘dead’ and the ‘re-discovered’ culture. In order to draw conclusions from the ‘re-discovered culture’ about the ‘dead culture’, it was necessary to analyse the state of research, treatment and publication as well as that of the conditions in which the finds were made. These factors proved to be comparable in the setting of this study. By carrying out a large number of cross-checks, it is possible to get an idea of both the dimension and the distribution of sources, in which metal-hilted swords could have passed on at least theoretically. An aspect which was of particular importance was the question to what extent metal-hilted swords and swords with an organic hilt were considered to be functionally equivalent at least in the context of their deposition and in how far they were thus considered as being of a ‘substitutive character’. This study also shows to what extent the currently known area of distribution of certain classes of swords allows for insights concerning their prehistoric spread.

Interpretation of the distribution of Urnfield metal-hilted swords (chapter 5)

To allow for an interpretation of the Urnfield metal-hilted swords’ distribution, it was necessary to define a number of what are called ‘custom circles’ (‘Sittenkreise’), which enable us to validly grasp the behaviour of prehistoric man.
The so-called ‘workshop circle’ covers the sum of stationary workshops inclusive of possible migrant craftsmen in a certain region at a certain period of time. This is complemented by the ‘demand circle’, i.e. the area in which there was a demand for the products of a certain workshop circle, and also by the ‘costume circle’, i.e. the territory within which the respective swords were part of the costume of the particular ‘community of traditions’ (‘Traditionsgemeinschaft’). The question of the localisation of workshop circles was prevailing in my study.
Factors which are indicative of the production of a certain class of swords within a certain region are (1) a comparatively high relative frequency of finds in the specific area and at the same time a comparatively low relative frequency in the neighbouring regions – although it must be understood that neither high nor low frequency may be derived from the state of available sources –, (2) the deposition of these swords in compliance with the usual customs of this area, (3) the existence of forerunners and successors in the region concerned, (4) a possible connecting link between the swords in terms of their production, (5) a stylistic, especially an ornamental relationship to other material groups of the area, in particular bronzes, and possibly also pottery.
In order to get an impression of the geographic distribution of numerous formal and ornamental attributes, which can be another indicator for workshop circles, if a great number of individual attributes was found to be concentrated in a given region, the distribution area of the Bz D and Ha B1 metal-hilted swords was subdivided into a western and an eastern sector, whereas the spread of the ‘...