STUDIA I MATERIAŁY – STUDIES AND MATERIALS

Acta Militaria Mediaevalia VIII Kraków – Rzeszów – Sanok 2012, s. 177-212 Christof Krauskopf

WEAPON FINDS FROM THE “GRÜTTPOTT” AT STOLPE ON THE ODER

Abstract: Ch. Krauskopf, Weapon finds from the “Grüttpott” at Stolpe on the Oder, AMM: VIII, AMM VIII: 177-212

The “Grüttpott”, a round brick made at Stolpe on the Oder in northern , was probably built under Danish influence at around 1200. Taken by the Ascanians after 1250, the changed several times possession, before it was besieged by Frederick II, Elector of Brandenburg, in 1445 to get it back from Pomeranian dominion. During the , a great number of weapons and other objects was buried when the upper stories of the keep collapsed. 1991 hundreds of artefacts, as there are crossbow parts, bolt heads, brigandine plates, a fragment of a helm, fragments of several exploded handguns, firearm projectiles, bones and many objects of daily life were found. In this article the weapon finds are discussed.

Key words: brigandine, helmet, firearms, crossbow, siege, castle 1

The „Grüttpott“ – a Danish-Pomeranian kingdom had gained great influence over the castle in Brandenburg1 Slavic territories along the southern Baltic coast. During the 2nd half of the 12th c., the Danish The Ascanians reacted by attempting to secure kingdom succeeded in its efforts to expand into the northern border of their territory: according to the Slavic and German territories on the southern the Chronicle of the Margraves of Brandenburg, shore of the Baltic Sea. The important Slavic temple written at the end of the 13th c., they occupied and at Arkona on the island of Rügen was taken in refortified the old Slavic stronghold at . 1168. In 1184, the Danes defeated the Pomeranian Ascanian expansion had taken place at the fleet, and a year later Boguslaw I, the Duke of same time as the Danes control of the region to the Pomerania, was forced to become a vassal of the south of the Baltic Sea. Albrecht the Bear formally Danish king Canute VI (Petersohn 1979, 438-440; inherited the territory of the Slavic or Holst 2009, 95, u Anm. 6), who went on to Stodorane, based around Brandenburg on the conquer the county of in 1200-1201. The Havel, when the last native prince, Pribislaw- Ascanian margraves of Brandenburg were also Heinrich, died childless in 1150. The succession eager to expand their territory. In 1211, they moved was disputed but Albrecht finally took possession northwards toward the Baltic Sea and, with the of Brandenburg itself in 1157. The dynasty already consent of the Holy Roman Emperor Otto IV, held the lands of Zauche, which lay to the seized the Pomeranian towns of Pasewalk and south-east of Brandenburg, as allodium. These Stettin. This move brought them into direct had been granted as a gift to Albrecht’s son in conflict with the Danes. In 1214, Otto’s successor 1130. The Ascanians used the two territories as Frederick II confirmed Danish dominion over a base for expansion to the east. Their way led Pomerania and Holstein, and, in the same year, them via , Bernau, Biesenthal, Bötzow the Danish king Waldemar II recaptured both (Oranienburg), and Oderberg to the towns. In little more than 50 years, the Danish Oder valley (fig. 1). At Oderberg they took

1 This article concentrates on the weapon finds. Other objects, as ceramics, stove tiles, buckles and more, will not be discussed. I would like to thank Arkadiusz Michalak, Zielona Góra, and Jan H. Sachers, Bielefeld, for providing me with literature which was not available in libraries nearby. And last but not least I would like to thank my colleague Jamie Jones, Wünsdorf, for his great help in translating this article. 178 Christof Krauskopf

f

b e c d g h

k k i e c d

l 0 10 m n b

a

m

0 10 m

Fig. 2. Cross section of the Grüttpott, published in 1934 (after Kunstdenkmäler 1934). In the upper storey, the rubble containing the finds is depicted (grey display by the author).

Ryc. 2. Przekrój Grüttpott, opublikowany w 1934 r. (wg Kunst- denkmäler 1934). W górnej kondygnacji rumowisko zawierające omawiane znaleziska (na szaro – oznaczenia autora).

Fig. 1. around 1200 between Spandau and the Oder: – castles under Danish dominion; – Ascanian castles; – Danish influence sphere south of the Baltic Sea (drawing by C. Krauskopf; after Holst 2009, fig. 1).

Ryc. 1. Zamki pomiędzy Spandau i Odrą ok. 1200 r.: – zamki pod kontrolą Danii; – zamki pod kontrolą Dynastii Askańskiej; – strefa wpływów duńskich na południowym wybrzeżu Morza Bałtyckiego (rys. C. Krauskopf; wg Holst 2009, fig. 1). possession of the Slavic earthwork on the hill above the site of the later town and, as already mentioned above, built a new castle contra sclavos2 (Chronica... 1888, 120; for the castle at Oderberg see Schulz 1998; 1999, 48ff.; Schütz 2006, 272). The chronicler Arnold of Lübeck recorded a battle in 1198 between the Danes, supported by Rugians, and , and a combined force of Ascanian and Pomeranian troops3. Unfortunately, the exact location of the Fig. 3. The Grüttpott upon Stolpe on the Oder. Photo by N. Schlaack. battle is not described, but it is likely that the battle Ryc. 3. Grüttpott k. Stolpe n. Odrą. Fot. N. Schlaack.

2 To the castles in Brandenburg mentioned see also the digital map on castles of Brandenburg (www.dhm.de/ausstellungen/burg- und-herrschaft/brandenburg). 3 Siquidem Otto marcravius de Brandenburch infestabat Kanutum regem, subiciens sibi quosdam Sclavos quos rex sue ditionis esse dicebat. Unde commotus rex expeditionem contra eum ordinavit et classe terram suam intravit per aquam que Odera dicitur, que in mari descensum habet. Cui occurrerunt Rugiani sive cum Polabis et Obotritis. Rex tamen in insula Mone consistebat, Petro cancellario [archbishop Peter Suneson of Roskilde] exercitum ducente (Arnoldus Lubecensis, 1868, 229). Weapon finds from the “Grüttpott” at Stolpe on the Oder 179

1 5 4

2 3 0 3 cm

6

7 8 9 10

11

13 14 15 12

16 17 18 1

19 20 21

Fig. 4. The Grüttpott upon Stolpe on the Oder: 1-21 – brigandine plates. Drawing by I. Borak.

Ryc. 4. Grüttpott k. Stolpe n. Odrą: 1-21 – zbrojniki brygantyny. Rys. I. Borak.

took place near Oderberg, where the river Finow the Ascanians had probably taken possession of flows into the Oder valley. The first contact the site earlier. between the two expansionist powers must have One of the most remarkable medieval castles taken place somewhere along the lower Oder: in northern is located about 12 km north Arnold von Lübeck reports that Peter Suneson, of Oderberg (fig. 2). The so-called “Grüttpott”5 at the bishop of Roskilde ...entered with the fleet Stolpe on the Oder is a massive brick-built round [of the Danish king] from his territory into the keep, with a diameter of 18 m and a surviving river called Oder...4. height of nearly 30 m. The lower parts of the walls Both sides built castles in the border regions are up to 6m thick. At first glance, the keep appears to secure and strengthen their control. The to have been built on a motte. However, the mound construction of the new castle within the old was thrown up around the base of the keep, which Slavic earthworks above Oderberg dates according is covered up to a height of about 12 m. Only the to the chronicle of the margraves to 1214, although upper 18 m of the structure are visible above

4 See footnote 3. In other sources, the river Warnow is mentioned. The unlikeliness of this possibility has already been intensely discussed (Fritze 1982, 336; Holst 2009, footnote 3). 5 “Grüttpott” means literally “pot of groats”. The name comes from a legend which tells the story of a robber baron who defended the keep by throwing a pot full of groats onto the attackers below (Woeller 1979, 81). 180 Christof Krauskopf

ground. Apart from some minor work in and around the keep, there have been no archaeological excavations at the site6. The theory that the Danes were responsible, either directly or indirectly, for the construction of the keep was first proposed by R. Schulz (Schulz 1998; 1999, 24f.), and new research by J.-Ch. Holst 1 has uncovered evidence that supports this hypothesis. The results of his thorough analysis of the building and the written sources suggest that the keep was built, with Danish involvement, in around the year 1200 and was intended as a practical and symbolic obstacle to Ascanian expansion (Holst 2009, 112f). However, the building was never completed. Defeat at the Battle of Bornhöved in 1227 weakened Danish influence and the Ascanians seized control of the 2 southern in 1230 (Petersohn 1979, 440, footnote 14). They received the northern parts of 0 3 cm the Uckermark as a result of the Treaty of Landin in 1250 (Enders 1992, 42; Krabbo, Winter 1955, No. 730). According to Holst, the upper storey of the Grüttpott was finished with bricks that are Fig. 5. The Grüttpott upon Stolpe on the Oder: 1-12 – plate armour. typical of the Ascanian masonry of this period Drawing by I. Borak and R. Schulze. (Holst 2009, 112). Ryc. 5. Grüttpott k. Stolpe n. Odrą: 1-12 – zbrojniki płatów. Rys. I. Borak The first mention of an Ascanian steward at i R. Schulze. Stolpe is in 12517. A marescaldus named Albert

0 10 cm

Fig. 6. The Grüttpott upon Stolpe on the Oder. Back part of the sallet. Photo by D. Sommer.

Ryc. 6. Grüttpott k. Stolpe n. Odrą. Tylna część salady. Fot. D. Sommer.

6 The earliest known activity on the site dates to the Bronze Age. Pottery finds indicate Bronze Age and Slavic occupation. Earthworks to the north of the tower separate the southern part of the hill from the northern slope. Various surface finds, mostly pottery, are kept in the collections of the Brandenburg Archaeological State Museum in Wünsdorf and the Ehm-Welk-Museum in Angermünde. 7 The steward (advocatus) Heinrich is mentioned 1251 as witness in a document concerning the town of Prenzlau (Codex... 1861, 89). Weapon finds from the “Grüttpott” at Stolpe on the Oder 181

1

0 3 cm

Fig. 7. The Grüttpott upon Stolpe on the Oder. Back part of the sallet. Drawing by I. Borak.

Ryc. 7. Grüttpott k. Stolpe n. Odrą. Tylna część salady. Rys. I. Borak. appears as witness in the sources at about the during the Council of Constance in 1415. He same time (Krabbo, Winter 1955, No. 828). The proceeded to put an end to almost a century of margraves of Brandenburg stayed at Stolpe several unstable rule. The Ascanian line had died out times8, and the stewardship remained in their hands in 1320 and, in 1323, King Louis the Bavarian until 1354, in the 1st quarter of the 14th c. given as appointed his eight-year-old son, also called Louis, pawn to the dukes of (Ortslexikon as margrave. Emperor Charles IV seized control 1986, 954; Enders 1992, 105f). In 1354, the Holy during the chaos that followed the brief reign of Roman Emperor Charles IV, who at the time the “false Waldemar” (1348-1350). He established was also Margrave of Brandenburg, gave the new standards of administration and attempted to stewardship to the dukes of Pomerania (Codex... reorganise the territory. Following his death, the 1845, 351f., 368f.). In 1423, the von Buch family, margraviate remained property of the Bohemian who were vassals of the Pomeranian dukes, are Crown but the region was neglected, and central mentioned as stewards for the first time. authority declined. The Brandenburg nobility, particularly the families of Rochow and Quitzow, The siege of the Grüttpott in 1445 tried to use the weakness of the margrave to The Hohenzollern Burgrave of Nuremberg their own advantage. Frederick VI, Burgrave of was enfeoffed with the Margraviate of Brandenburg Nuremberg, was appointed as administrator in

8 Margrave Johann – 1257 (Codex... 1859, 369f.); Margraves Otto, Johann and Conrad – 1267 (Codex... 1857b, 211-213; Fey 1981, 57, 128, 262f.). 182 Christof Krauskopf

1411, and became Margrave and Elector of Brandenburg in 1415. As soon as he had taken power, Frederick began a process of administrative reform and sought to re-establish central authority. In 1413 and 1414, he laid siege to rebel towns and castles, and managed to defeat the insurgent nobility. He also tried to regain some of the former territories in the border regions. This policy was continued by his son, Frederick II, nicknamed “Iron tooth”, who ruled from 1440 to 1470. He besieged and captured numerous castles, and later ordered that some of them be rebuilt or strengthened (see Krauskopf 2011, 53ff). He showed special interest in the region on the Pomeranian border and in 1445 he laid siege to the castle in Stolpe. A document, drawn up by Hans von Buch in January 1446, confirms that the Elector of Brandenburg had taken the castle by force (Codex... 1857a, 367). The castle was later returned to von Buch as a , a practice which is well known from the medieval period. 0 3 cm By defending the castle against attack, von Buch had fulfilled his duty as a vassal and proved to be reliable. Frederick II could be sure that Hans von Buch, having sworn an oath of fealty to his new Fig. 8. The Grüttpott upon Stolpe on the Oder. Chainmail fragments. lord, would do the same for him. In 1447, the Photo by C. Krauskopf. Elector Frederick and the margrave Frederick, his Ryc. 8. Grüttpott k. Stolpe n. Odrą. Fragmenty kolczugi. Fot. C. son, reconcile themselves to the duke of Pomerania, Krauskopf. Joachim. In this document, it is confirmed, that the

1 2 3 4 5 6

0 3 cm

Fig. 9. The Grüttpott upon Stolpe on the Oder. Bol theads, types 1-6: 1 – type 1; 2 – type 2; 3 – type 3; 4 – type 4; 5 – type 5; 6 – type 6. Drawing by I. Borak and R. Schulze.

Ryc. 9. Grüttpott k. Stolpe n. Odrą. Groty bełtów: 1 – typ 1; 2 – typ 2; 3 – typ 3; 4 – typ 4; 5 – typ 5; 6 – typ 6. Rys. I. Borak i R. Schulze. Weapon finds from the “Grüttpott” at Stolpe on the Oder 183

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

0 3 cm

Fig. 10. The Grüttpott upon Stolpe on the Oder: 1-8 – bolt heads, type 1. Drawing by I. Borak.

Ryc. 10. Grüttpott k. Stolpe n. Odrą: 1-8 – groty bełtów, typ 1. Rys. I. Borak.

margraves had taken several castles, among them activities some time after they had occurred. Stolpe, by force and that they would keep them, The rubble, which now lay at the foot of the kee1p, not hindered by Joachim and his heirs (Codex... was then sieved and several hundred artefacts 1847, 398-404 – Stolpe mentioned on 398). were recovered. The document of 1446 does not contain The removal of the rubble was an illegal and a detailed description of the “Grüttpott” siege. As destructive action, which resulted in the loss of an there were no excavations, it stays uncertain, how enormous amount of information. The presence of the siege was carried out. Very good archaeological human bones and the large number of objects found evidence for a siege in the mid 15th c. is given in the amongst the rubble suggest that the artefacts had castle of Kolno in Silesia (Marek, forthcoming)9. lain undisturbed since the partial collapse of the However, the archaeological finds recovered in building during the siege of 1445. A very small the Grüttpott in 1991 and the research carried number of finds, including four of the 50 coins out by Holst on the upper storey of the building which were found, dates to after 1445 and was give at least some indication of what occurred. obviously deposited at a later time. A thorough investigation of the collapse debris and the artefacts The weapon finds in situ would have provided information about In 1991, as the inhabitants of Stolpe began to the damage to the keep, and about many of the renovate the village, their thoughts soon turned artefacts themselves. The assemblage of human to the castle on the hill above. It was difficult to bone is very unusual and difficult to interpret. enter the keep. The lower storey could be reached Many of the open questions could probably have through a tunnel, dug in 1840, but the upper storey been answered if the bones had been examined was only accessible using a very long ladder. To in context with the other finds, especially the provide visitors with easier access, it was decided pieces of armour. The loss of information was to first remove the rubble from the upper storey. not, however, the only damage caused by the A local association began to clear out the debris uncontrolled removal of the rubble. The rubble but did not realise that it contained medieval layer had protected the masonry, especially the artefacts. About 130 cubic metres of rubble were brick-built floor of the upper storey. After it was removed (Schulz 1999, 27). Members of staff removed, the building was exposed to the elements. from the Brandenburg State Museum for Pre- The keep was not restored, and the upper storey and Protohistory only became aware of these covered with a roof, until 2009 (fig. 3).

9 I thank Lech Marek for giving me access to his unpublished article. 184 Christof Krauskopf

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

0 3 cm

Fig. 11. The Grüttpott upon Stolpe on the Oder: 1-9 – bolt heads, type 2. Drawing by I. Borak.

Ryc. 11. Grüttpott k. Stolpe n. Odrą: 1-9 – groty bełtów, typ 2. Rys. I. Borak.

Armour The plates measure between 25 and 27 mm and Brigandine plates (cat. Nos. 1-24) overlapped the plates positioned below. They are 57 complete or fragmentary brigandine plates not bent and were therefore probably set in the were recovered (fig. 4). No fabric remains were middle rows of plates, either on the back or the present and the metal plates were scattered amongst front part of the armour. the rubble, so no evidence survived to suggest how The third type is parallelogram-shaped (fig. the individual pieces might have fitted together. It is 4:16-18). The rivets are positioned on the upper therefore very difficult to reconstruct the form and edge of the plates, leaving the bottom and either size of the armour, and, in comparison with the right or left side free of rivets. The plates would coats of plates known from museum collections, have overlapped, making the armour more difficult the Grüttpott examples are also difficult to date. to penetrate. The position of the rivets makes However, the date of the destruction of the tower it possible to differentiate between plates from (late 1445) provides at least a terminus ante quem. the right- and -hand side of the armour. Most of the plates are so heavily corroded that The parallelogram-shaped plates were placed in it is impossible to distinguish the original shape. the outer rows protecting the abdomen, where At least four types of plates can be differentiated. the brigandine widened down towards the hips. There are 40 long rectangular pieces. These have The fourth type is trapezoidal in shape with a width of only about 1 cm, rounded corners and shorter parallel sides (fig. 4:19-21). The rivets are rows of densely packed rivets (fig. 4:1-13). Some situated along three edges of the plates, on one of them are corroded together. They were closely plate there are additional rivets in the centre. This set together in a part of the armour which had to type of plates may have sit at the collar, narrowing be flexible. The plates are bent along the long axis the brigandine around the neck12. and this suggests that they were parts of a faulds10. This type of armour is dated primarily by They could equally have sat around the shoulder comparison with medieval manuscript illustrations. and arm, as on the brigandine from 1470-1500 in The earliest known depictions of coats of plate the Tower of London11, or formed part of a collar are the paintings of Andrea Orcagna (before or gorget to protect throat and neck. 1343-1344 – ca. 1368) and Bernardo Daddi The second type is rectangular with rounded (ca. 1295-1348) (Stadler 2004, 27)13. However, corners, and rivets on the upper edge (fig. 4:14-15). it is not to determine whether the armour shown

10 See the finds from Herbede (Peine 2004, fig. 10). 11 The brigandine is depicted by Stadler (2004, fig. 5). The shape of the plates cannot to be distinguished, but the vertically positioned plates around the arms and shoulders appear to be smaller than the plates covering the body (see Martin 1967). 12 The Musée de l’Armée (Paris) owns a brigandine, dated to the time around 1500, that shows identical collar plates (seen in the exhibition, July 5th, 2012). A similar example is shown by Calvert (1907, pl. 17:B). 13 Andrea di Cione (Orcagna): St. George on the depiction of Madonna with child (1337), San Giorgio a Ruballa, Osteria-Nuovo; Bernardo Daddi: Crucifixion, Hunt Museum, mid 14th c., attributed to Daddi or his school (see www.huntmuseum.com/framesets_ collection/collection_paintings.html). Weapon finds from the “Grüttpott” at Stolpe on the Oder 185

to depict the rivets realistically in drawings of the size (Spindler, Stadler 2004, 204). Even the 15th c. depictions, such as those in Froissart’s Chronicles, show a regular spread of rivets, and also decorative elements14. When compared to the fully developed brigandine of the 15th c., there are far too few rivets visible on the armour shown in the illustrations. The jack of plate and the brigandine show a general development from large, similarly shaped plates with fewer rivets in the mid-14th c., to various forms of smaller plates in the 15th and 16th c.15 The mass grave at Visby contained armour composed of large plates, most of which 1 2 3 were positioned vertically. At the time of the battle, the brigandine had obviously not yet reached 0 3 cm the island. Thordemann and others suggest that this was because the development of armour Fig. 12. The Grüttpott upon Stolpe on the Oder: 1-3 – bolt heads, was slower in northern countries, whereas the type 3. Drawing by I. Borak. brigandine was already in use in southern Europe Ryc. 12. Grüttpott k. Stolpe n. Odrą: 1-3 – groty bełtów, typ 3. (Stadler 2004, 28)16. The light, flexible armour Rys. I. Borak. is said to have been developed in the south because of the warmer climate. The Visby material has small plates, used in the fully developed is assumed to be characteristic of “backward” brigandine, or large plates, as used in the older northern Europe, while the southern European jacks of plate and the “coat armour” known as “state of the art” is supposed to be represented “Lentner” in German because it was impossible by the arsenal at Chalcis on the island of Eubea1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

0 3 cm

Fig. 13. The Grüttpott upon Stolpe on the Oder: 1-11 – bolt heads, type 4. Drawing by I. Borak.

Ryc. 13. Grüttpott k. Stolpe n. Odrą: 1-11 – groty bełtów, typ 4. Rys. I. Borak.

14 E.g. Bibliothèque Nationale de Paris, ms. fr. 2644, fol. 135. 15 For more on the development of the coat of plates see Thordemann (1939). For history and development of the brigandine see Lacy (1992) and Diotallevi (2008), for certain aspects, especially depictions of brigandines, see Spindler and Stadler (2004, 203ff). Richardson (1997, 40) names a source dating to 1171, which mentions laminis ferries arte consutis. He suggests that this refers to an early form of the coat of plates used in the 14th c., and found in the mass grave of Visby. 16 It is very difficult to differentiate between brigandine and Lentner, as described by Gamber (1953, 84). His analysis of the development of armour is based mainly on the evidence from illustrations. See also Gamber (1998, 38f.) for a discussion of Lentner as an early form of the brigandine. 186 Christof Krauskopf

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

0 3 cm

9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Fig. 14. The Grüttpott upon Stolpe on the Oder: 1-15 – bolt heads, type 5. Drawing by I. Borak.

Ryc. 14. Grüttpott k. Stolpe n. Odrą: 1-15 – groty bełtów, typ 5. Rys. I. Borak.

(Post 1943, 231f., Abb. 11-12, 14-15; Stadler closer to the fully developed brigandine than the 2004, 28). However, the uncertain date of the Chalcis jack. However, neither this observation Chalcis finds puts this assumption into question. nor the increasing number of finds from northern According to Ffoulkes, the armour was hidden and eastern Europe (Spindler, Stadler 2004, 205f) before the Turkish conquest of Chalcis in 1470 contradicts the hypothesis of a southern European (Ffoulkes 1911, 382)17. The Chalcis jack of plate origin for brigandine, and Stadler mentions a large is made of equally shaped rectangular plates and number of archaeological examples from in or therefore does not represent the modern form of around the Alpes (Stadler 2004, 30)18. the 2nd half of the 15th c. The plates from the The spacing of the rivets and the material Grüttpott, which date to before 1445, seem to be from which they are made are also important dating

17 The article by Blair (1982) on the weapon finds from Chalcis was not available. 18 There are additional archaeological finds of brigandine plates from several castles and other sites throughout Europe: England: Dominican Friary, Boston (Moorhouse 1972, 41f., fig. 8:3), Beeston Castle, Cheshire (Eaves 1989, 84f.); Scotland: Coldingham Priory (Caldwell 1974-1975, 219ff.), Craigievar Castle, Aberdeenshire (Gabra-Sanders 1993); Sweden: Lund (Bergmann, Billberg 1976, fig. 352); Finland: Kuusisto (Taavitsainen 2002); Germany: Tannenberg (Schmitt 2008, 164ff., Taf. 37-38), Turmburg Nürings (Müller 1996, 153, Abb. 2-4), Kempten (Atzbach, Elser 2004), Runding (Ernst 2005, 343-347, fig. 4:1-3); Herbede (Peine 2004), Wolfstein (Steeger 1998, 418, fig. 18, 20-24), Helfenstein (Fleischhauer 1934; 1936); Poland: Kolno (Marek, forthcoming); Szczerba (Francke 1999; Marek 2008); Siedlątków (Głosek, Kajzer, Nadolski 1978, 48, pl. 47); Estland: Otepää (Mäesalu 2004); Ukraine: Cembalo (Dyachkov 2011); Bulgaria: Tarnovgrad (Rabovyanov, Dimitrov 2011 – coat of plates); Switzerland: Schönenwerd (Gessler 1933); Italy: Ripafratta (Amici 1989, 462ff., pl. 16). Weapon finds from the “Grüttpott” at Stolpe on the Oder 187

1 2 3 4

0 3 cm

Fig. 15. The Grüttpott upon Stolpe on the Oder: 1-4 – bolt heads, type 6. Drawing by I. Borak. Fig. 16. Bolt heads – relation between type and weight. Ryc. 15. Grüttpott k. Stolpe n. Odrą: 1-4 – groty bełtów, typ 6. Rys. I. Borak. Ryc. 16. Groty bełtów – korelacje między typami a wagą.

1 criteria. According to Stadler, the distance between ornately decorated, as would be expected of the rivets diminishes in the 15th and 16th c. They a brigandine dating to the 15th and 16th c. The are often arranged as ornamentation, as can be seen armour was probably produced in the late 14th or on the example from the Tower of London (Dufty, the early 15th c., without costly ornamentation, Reid 1968, pl. CXXIII; Stadler 2004, 27, fig. 5) and probably belonged to a common or in the Deutsche Historische Museum (Burg und rather than a lord. Herrschaft... 162f.). Stadler also argues that the plates on the “fully developed” brigandines of the Plate armour (cat. Nos. 25-28) 15th and 16th c. were fitted to the garment with Two larger pieces of metal appear to have copper-alloy rivets because iron rivets would been parts of plate armour (fig. 5). They could be have corroded and damaged the garment (Stadler fragments of breast or back plates, and so possibly 2004, 27). There are, however, a number of form part of the brigandine. The first is straight, examples with iron rivets, such as the brigandine while the second is bent in one direction. Rivets in the Churburg Armoury, which dates to the early on the edges of the plates suggest that they were 16th c.19 The rivets of particularly rich examples attached to a garment or other pieces of the armour. were gilded. The finds from the castle at Chalcis include The Grüttpott brigandine does not completely examples of breast plates and it is probable that the confirm to this chronology. The small plates come Grüttpott fragments were also riveted to a brigandine in various shapes and some of them are not (Ffoulkes 1911, plate LIV). Unfortunately they rectangular. The Grüttpott brigandine obviously are incomplete and it is impossible to determine fitted to the shape of the body in the style of the their exact position. elegant late 14th century brigandines (ibidem, 30) Further examples from different sites are did. The distance between the rivets is quite discussed by Marek and Konczewski. The finds small but they are made of iron. When compared from Karpień Castle (Karpenstein) near Kłodzko to the brigandine from the “Turris Parva” in Tyrol in Silesia, are of particular interest. The castle was Castle, the shape of the plates and the densely destroyed in 1443 and they therefore have a similar packed rivets appear more “modern”. However, terminus ante quem as the finds from the Grüttpott the Grüttpott plates do not seem to have been (Marek, Konczewski 2010).

19 The plates are tinned, but the rivets are described as iron (Trapp, Mann 1929, 14, pl. IX). 188 Christof Krauskopf

The helmet fragment (cat. No. 29) Only a fragment of the rear part of a helmet was recovered from the Grüttpott (fig. 6-7). The helmet may well have been destroyed when the ceiling of the upper storey collapsed. The “tail” of the surviving piece, which protected the nape of the neck, is rounded and short, with a row of rivets along the lower edge. Two additional rivets, positioned about 2 cm above the edge, probably held the lining in place (Laking 1920, 225f.). The latter can be seen on well preserved examples, as sallets preserved in different collections20. It is difficult to determine the exact type of helmet on the basis of a single fragment. It could be a later form of bascinet, similar to the so called rd Fig. 17. Bolt heads – relation between type and length. Noël Paton Bascinet, which dates to the 3 quarter of the 14th c. (ibidem, 241, Fig. 281:a-c), or an Ryc. 17. Groty bełtów – korelacje między typami a długością. early example of a sallet. The shape is reminiscent of helmets from Chalcis (Ffoulkes 1911, pl. LII:8, 11-12; Vassiliatos 1999, fig. 4), an example in the Collection in the Coburg Castle (Kohlhaussen 1951, 29) or an Italian sallet in the Kienbusch Collection (Boccia 1992, fig. 25). Bashford Dean, the arms and armour curator of the Metropolitian Museum, took photographs of a big collection of European weapons in the Turkish armouries in the Istanbul National Museum during a longer journey he undertook in 1919 and 1920. His notebooks from the journey and the photographs are preserved and were presented by Stuart Pyhrr. Especially one of Deans photographs – shown by Phyrr as nr. 14 – presents Italian sallets which have similar neck parts as the Grüttpott example. Phyrr dates these sallets between 1450 and 1510 (Pyhrr Fig. 18. Bolt heads from the Grüttpott with dates according to 1989, 92). All these examples and the fragment Zimmermann (2000). from the Grüttpott have slightly curved “tails”. The Ryc. 18. Groty bełtów z Grüttpott z datowaniem proponowanym przez helmets from Chalcis are conical shaped and date Zimmermanna (2000). to the 14th century (Vassiliatos 1999, 135). The Coburg bascinet in particular, which dates to the time around 1400, shows signs of the development of the sallet21. The illustrations in Froissart’s chronicles show different types of armour depending on the date of the manuscript. The famous manuscript from

20 Churburg Armoury (Trapp, Mann 1929, pl. XXIX, XXXI, XXXIX, XLIV), Kienbusch Collection (Boccia 1992, fig. 29- 32); Paris, Musée de l’Armée, Inv.nr. H 29 and H 30, dated to 1460-1470 and named as Barbutas, despite lack of the characteristic T-shaped face opening (presented in the exhibition, seen July 5th 2012). 21 It is questionable whether helmets with curved and extended 0 3 cm “tails” can be classified as bascinets. Post states that the curved “tail” is one of three elements characteristic of a sallet (Post Fig. 19. The Grüttpott upon Stolpe on the Oder. Crossbow nut. 1935, 101), although it is uncertain whether the example which Drawing by R. Schulze. he discusses is already to be named sallet. It may be, as Post himself says, a “missing link” between bascinet and sallet, but Ryc. 19. Grüttpott k. Stolpe n. Odrą. Orzech od kuszy. Rys. R. Schulze. still be referred to as a bascinet. Weapon finds from the “Grüttpott” at Stolpe on the Oder 189

1

0 9 cm

Fig. 20. The Grüttpott upon Stolpe on the Oder. English windlass. Drawing by R. Schulze.

Ryc. 20. Grüttpott k. Stolpe n. Odrą. Winda angielska. Rys. R. Schulze.

Bruges, which dates to around 1470-147522, shows of the picture obviously wears a bascinet, soldiers many examples of sallets, while bascinets are on the right part bascinets and sallets. depicted in the older manuscripts. An illustration in With its slightly curved “tail”, the Grüttpott a manuscript from the middle of the 15th c., also helmet may be a late bascinet, an early sallet or from Bruges, shows both, bascinets and sallets at a transitional type somewhere between the two. the battle of Nicopolis23. The soldier in the middle It could date to the period around 140024.

22 Bibliothèque Nationale de Paris, fr. 2644, e.g. fol. 135 (see http://mandragore.bnf.fr). 23 Bibliothèque Nationale de Paris, fr. 2648, fol. 456. 24 To the development of helms see also work of Gamber (1953, 90f). He calls the sallet a variant of the bascinet that gets high importance in western Europe since the 1420s. 190 Christof Krauskopf

Crossbow elements and projectiles Bolt and Arrowheads (cat. Nos. 31-81) 117 bolt or arrowheads have been found. Unfortunately more than half of them are so fragmentary that a more exact classification is impossible. 51 are wholly, or at least partially, intact and different types can be identified (fig. 9). If the shaft is missing, it is not possible to distinguish between projectile heads intended for bows or those meant for crossbows25. As already stated by Zimmermann, this can only be determined by experiment to decide which form and weight of projectile can be used effectively with the different weapons (Zimmermann 2000, 21). A weapon cannot be identified by the weight of the projectile head alone, an exception being very heavy bolt heads, because the weight of the shaft has also to be taken into account. Zimmermann found preserved bolts in the Habsburg depot and among the finds from the glacier in the Lötschen Valley (Valais canton, Switzerland) with heads that weighed less than 20 g (ibidem, 20). According to Harmuth, the weight of the shaft is equal to that of the head (Harmuth 1986, 172). He states that crossbow bolts weighted between 30 and 60g but there are many examples from the archaeological record which weigh less, and it seems doubtful that all of these were designed for bows (Zimmerman 2000, 20)26. Various parts of crossbows were found at the Grüttpott and it can be assumed that 0 3 cm they were the main weapon that was used. For these reasons the term bolt head will be used in Fig. 21. The Grüttpott upon Stolpe on the Oder. Spanning hook. this publication. Drawing by I. Borak. 45% (23) of the bolt heads are leaf-shaped Ryc. 21. Grüttpott k. Stolpe n. Odrą. Hak naciągowy do kuszy. with a diamond cross section, and 45% are diamond- Rys. I. Borak. shaped and also have a diamond cross section. Only five examples (10%) are square in cross section, only one of these is diamond-shaped. Chain mail fragments (cat. No. 30) And only four (8%) have a slender leaf shape with Most of the 38 fragments of chain mail are a diamond-shaped cross section. No bodkin heads corroded together into solid lumps (fig. 8). It is have been found. very difficult to distinguish any details. The iron rings are – as far as it can be detected – riveted, Type 1 they have a diameter of 1cm or slightly more. Some Eight slender, leaf shaped bolt heads were of the rings are cut, obviously with a sharp weapon found (fig. 10). They have long points with long, or tool. If this is a result of weapon use against conical sockets. The length varies between 74 and the bearer remains unclear. 95 mm, the weight between 13 and 29 g. Most of

25 It is regrettable that research is not yet at a stage where it is possible to satisfactorily separate these two types of weapon. It may be the case that some forms of arrowhead were interchangeable, being equally effective when used with a crossbow (Jessop 1997, 44). Preserved shafts are rare. A recent find of a partly preserved shaft was found in Kolno (Marek, forthcoming). 26 Zimmermann (2000, 21) also quotes the complaint from an officer in 1454 about bolts which were too light. However, we do not know, whether this refers to the shafts, to the heads or to the whole bolts. Payne-Gallwey states, that in his experiments lighter bolts were not as effective as heavier ones, but gives no detailed information about the crossbow which was used, mentioning only a strong steel bow (Payne-Gallwey 1974, 16f.). Maybe lighter bolt heads were quite effective when used with weaker steel crossbows or composite bows. Weapon finds from the “Grüttpott” at Stolpe on the Oder 191 them are longer than the examples of other types, the type T 2-5 and with 2275 examples, it makes up except those of Type 2 (fig. 17), and are lighter 58% of the material which he examined. However, than most of the other examples from the Grüttpott this type does not represent the largest group (fig. 16). It is uncertain whether these slender points among the Grüttpott finds. It makes up only 18% were designed to penetrate chain mail. They do (9) of the total and is clearly outnumbered by the not have the nail-like character of the characteristic bolt heads of Type 5, which have broader, diamond- slender armour piercing arrowheads described by shaped blades. Zimmermann gives a dating range O. Jessop (1997, 48). He suggests that nail-shaped from the 13th to the 15th c. and so it is not surprising arrowheads often go unrecognised because they that this common type was also found at the resemble normal nails when corroded. According Grüttpott. By the 15th c., however, this type of to Kempke, bodkin points were developed in bolt head had been superseded and this will be northern Europe as a response to the development discussed in more detail below. of armour (Kempke 1988, 302) and were brought to Britain by the Normans in the 11th c. They first Type 3 appear after the battle of Hastings and seem to Some of the smaller bolt heads are square spread along the routes of Norman expansion. rather than diamond-shaped in cross section (fig. 12). They may have been designed especially for use According to Payne-Gallwey it is necessary to with the longbow (Jessop 1997, 49) and it is use bolt heads with greater width to thickness questionable whether they could have been used ratio in order to reduce friction with the stock with the crossbow. (Payne-Gallwey 1974, 127). However, the bolt head Bolt heads designed for the penetration of would only have made contact with the edges of chain mail would seem out of date in the 15th c., the stock groove and therefore the difference in but still existed in some regions. Special bodkin- friction produced by diamond and square-shaped shaped bolt heads called Dalpilar, produced in bolt heads was probably minimal. According to Dalarna in Sweden, had been abandoned according Zimmermann, bolt heads with square-shaped cross to an order of the Swedish king Gustav Våsa in section were uncommon (Zimmermann 2000, 451). 1521 (Ekdahl 1998, 31)27. Chain mail had become In fact they existed everywhere29. It is not clear increasingly rare and been replaced by plate armour whether or not they had a special function, and they and brigandines. The thin, slender bolt heads from may have had more penetrating power, or caused the Grüttpott would certainly not have been able more damage to the target. to penetrate armour plates28. However, not every warrior wore plate. The sharp-pointed bolt heads Type 4 would have easily penetrated leather armour and The blade of this type has a similar shape to so their efficacy should not be underestimated. that of Type 2, but the socket is cylindrical (fig. 13). Zimmermann does not mention bolt heads with Type 2 cylindrical sockets, and it is possible that he made This type has a leaf-shaped blade with no distinction between cylindrical and conical a diamond cross section (fig. 11), the most common sockets. This type represents 23% (12) of the total form during the medieval period (Zimmermann number and makes up the second largest group 2000, 51; see also Jessop 1997, 44). In his typology, of bolt heads found at the Grüttpott. They vary in Jessop describes examples of between 30 and length between 58 and 80 mm, and in weight 80 mm in length and 8 and 16 mm in width between 30 and 48 g. (Jessop 1996, 199). The Grüttpott finds are between 52 and 92 mm long, and weigh between 23 and Type 5 38 g. Zimmermann, who analysed 3872 bolt and Bolt heads with diamond-shaped blades and arrowheads from 199 sites (Zimmermann 2000, 11), cylindrical sockets make up 29% (15) of those refers to them as western European medieval type recovered and are thus the most frequent type of arrowheads as such (ibidem, 51). He designated found at the Grüttpott (fig. 14). The length varies

27 This exception might be another indication that the development of body armour was retarded in Scandinavia, as Bengt Thordemann assumed interpreting the finds from Wisby. See above. 28 For data on experiments concerning the effectiveness of longbow arrows against plate armour see Jones (1992). 29 Some examples throughout Europe: Switzerland – various sites (Zimmermann 2000, 45f. – types T 1-4, T 1-5l, T 1-5s), Tremona-Castello, Tessin (Martinelli, Lehmann 2007, fig. 22); Germany: Neuss, Nordrhein-Westfalen (Pause 2010, fig. 12:1-2) Schnellerts, Hessen (Krauskopf 1995, Taf. 37:1-2), Wolfstein, Bavaria (Leja 2005, fig. 7:3); Czech Republic: Moravia – various sites (Žákovský 2011, fig. 22), Mštenice (Nekuda 1985, fig. 193, 198); Italy: Ripafratta (Amici 1989, pl. XV), Poland: Opole (Wachowski 1982), – various sites (Serdon 2005), Lithuania – various sites (Rackevicius 2002). 192 Christof Krauskopf

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 10 11 12

19

13 14 15 16 17 18

Fig. 22. The Grüttpott upon Stolpe on the Oder: 1-19 – projectiles for firearms. Photo by C. Krauskopf.

Ryc. 22. Grüttpott k. Stolpe n. Odrą: 1-19 – pociski do broni palnej. Fot. C. Krauskopf.

between 55 and 80 mm. Zimmermann’s type T 2-6 weigh up to 63 g. The type has the broadest blades shows the same form as Type 5 from the Grüttpott of all of the Grüttpott finds. It seems that the and is dated to between the 14th and the 16th c. slightly shorter and broader bolt heads of this type Those examined by Zimermann have a maximum became more common than the longer and more weight of 50 g, whereas the Grüttpott examples slender form of type 2 during the 15th c. Weapon finds from the “Grüttpott” at Stolpe on the Oder 193

Fig. 23. Diameter of projectiles.

Ryc. 23. Średnica pocisków.

Type 6 also much shorter than those of Types 1 and 2 These four bolt heads are relatively short, (fig. 17). According to the range of dates provided with a short cylindrical socket, a broad diamond by Zimmermann, the artefacts from the Grüttpott, or square-shaped blade and a very wide angled which were obviously in use at the same time, point (fig. 15). They measure from 60 to 77 mm represent the chronological development of bolt in length and weigh 32 to 56 g. Zimmermann dates head forms during the Middle Ages (fig. 18).1 his similar type T 1-2 to the 15th c. His examples Up until the 15th c., bolt heads become shorter, are 60 to 70 mm long and weigh 30 to 40 g. The broader and heavier, mainly as a result of advances relation between blade length and broadest point in crossbow technology and as a response to of the blade is 3:1, a value, which is not reached development in plate armour. Heavy crossbows, in the Grüttpott material. which could only be loaded with using a windlass or a spanning stand, needed heavier bolts to fire Differences between the types effectively (Payne-Gallwey 1974, 16f.)30. It is questionable to look for typological development among a group of artefacts which Crossbow elements were deposited during a single event. All these The Nut (cat. No. 82) weapons can be dated exactly to the year 1445 and The 15th c. crossbows were equipped with were all in use at the same time, so examples of a simple single-axle lock and trigger mechanism31. chronological development are not to be expected. When spanned, the string was locked in place by However, regardless of their synchrony, the bolt the nut, which was usually a cylindrical piece of heads do show certain differences which can at horn. The string was held in a rounded groove, least demonstrate tendencies in development. cut lengthways into the nut, while the end of the The long and slender leaf-shaped bolt heads bolt was fitted into a square notch cut in front of the of Type 1 are usually dated to the 12th and 13th c. groove, and held by two lugs. Western European (Krauskopf 1995, pl. 36; Zimmermann 2000, 49f.). crossbows did not have an axle running through They are both lighter and longer as all the other the nut (Harmuth 1986, 86), while in central Europe types found at the Grüttpott (fig. 16-17). Those of the nut was held in place by a catgut, which was Type 2 were common between the 13th and 15th c., passed through a hole bored through the centre and show similar tendencies. They weigh 36 g at and wrapped around the stock of the crossbow. most and are far lighter than the Types 5 and 6, An iron wedge, or sear pin, was driven into the nut which have a maximum weight of 63 g and 56 g to prevent the iron trigger from damaging the horn respectively. However, the heavier bolt heads are (Payne-Gallwey 1974, 95ff.; Harmuth 1986, 99ff.).

30 See also the remarks of Richardson (1997, 42f.) on the development of plate armour as response to the development of the crossbow. 31 Harmuth (1986, 99) states, that the double-axle lock was introduced at the end of the century. 194 Christof Krauskopf

1 2 0 5 cm 3 4

Fig. 24. Fragments of hook guns. Photo by D. Sommer.

Ryc. 24. Fragmenty ręcznej broni palnej. Fot. D. Sommer.

The Grüttpott nut, made of red deer antler32, attached, and back up to the windlass, where shows all these details (fig. 19). The opening for they were fastened to the hooks on each side of the trigger is relatively small in comparison to the sleeve. It is uncertain whether the Grüttpott the massive iron wedge33. windlass had pairs of wheels, as shown in Payne- Gallwey’s reconstruction (Payne-Gallwey 1974, The windlass (cat. No. 83) fig. 76). There might have been wheels on the An English windlass, a very specific artefact, spanning hooks. If the spanning cords were fastened was also found (fig. 20). There are examples of directly onto the hooks on the sleeve, there would windlasses in collections and museums but finds have been no pulleys to increase the force which from archaeological sites are very rare. With the could be applied. The windlass was probably used excellent dating to the time before 1445, the to load a light crossbow which did not require Grüttpott windlass seems to be one of the oldest an additional two-pulley system to span the bow. preserved examples in European collections. However, it is also possible that a system of An illustration of a windlass is shown in pulleys was attached to the hooks on the windlass Konrad Kyeser’s Bellifortis (Kyeser 2000, 76r). sheath. A simple windlass alone gave a mechanical Wheels for spanning cords are attached to both advantage of 10:1, a single pulley block 30:1 sides of the windlass, which was mounted on the and double-pulley system 45:1. A crossbow butt of the stock. Most of the examples presented that required a windlass to load would have fired in the literature use a pulley system. The Grüttpott a bolt with considerable force and it is therefore windlass consists of only the sleeve, which was more probable that the crossbow, rather than the fitted over the stock, the winding mechanism and longbow, was the cause of the change from mail the handles. A ridge in the middle of the axle to plate armour (Richardson 1997, 42f.). separated the two spanning cords. The ends of the cords ran through holes on each end of the The spanning hook (cat. No. 84) axle and were secured with knots. The cords ran Spanning hooks are-well known as down to the spanning hook, to which they were archaeological finds (e.g. Nekuda 1975, pl. LXVI;

32 I thank Susanne Hanik, Brandenburg State Office for Heritage Care and Archaeological Museum, Wünsdorf, for the classification of the material. 33 Archaeological finds of crossbow nuts are common (see e.g. Wojciechowski 1989; Rackevicius 2002; Marek, forthcoming). Weapon finds from the “Grüttpott” at Stolpe on the Oder 195

0 10 cm

Fig. 25. Hook gun. Photo by D. Sommer.

Ryc. 25. Hakownica. Fot. D. Sommer.

1985, fig. 197-198; Harmuth 1979; Wojciechowski A very rare object among the finds from 1989, fig. 5-6; Sensfelder 2000; Zimmermann 2000, the Grüttpott is the hook of a spanning benc1h Abb. 6; Groß 2005; Świętosławski 2008, 191-195; or stand or of a great crossbow (fig. 21). The Žákovský 2011, 129f., fig. 21). A single or double- double hook is attached by a hinge to a mounting clawed hook hung on a leather strap which was plate with three holes for rivets or nails. The attached to a ring on the crossbowman’s girdle. This plate was either riveted to a leather strap, as in method of drawing the bow was not without risk the spanning stands shown in Konrad Kyeser’s and Harmuth refers to an accident, mentioned in the Bellifortis and the manuscript of Johannes written sources, in which a crossbowman was killed Bengedantz, or directly nailed to the wooden disc, (Harmuth 1986, 188). Stationary spanning benches which was turned with a lever while spanning the or stands made it safer, easier and faster to span the crossbow. The latter alternative seems unlikely, bow, but these were probably only used behind as the example found at the Grüttpott is not stationary fortifications, for example during siege bent. It still may be possible, that the hook warfare, and not in open battle. The crossbowman was fastened to a leather strap and used with did not have to load the weapon himself, and a single a spanning stand. assistant would have been able to reload the weapons Large spanning hooks were used to load heavy of several marksmen. According to Harmuth, four crossbows, such as that depicted in a manuscript spanning benches for large crossbows are still in the Munich State Library36 and the Grüttpott existent34, but not a single example of a spanning hook was – if not part of a spanning stand – stand is known to have survived. Illustrations of the probably used with such a weapon37. The fitting latter device exist in some manuscripts and these would have been nailed to a spanning mechanism, served as the basis for a physical reconstruction35. working with lever or a screw.

34 Spanning benches were intended to be used when replacing the string of a crossbow (Harmuth 1986, 170; Burg und Herrschaft... 2010, 159, Kat. 7.24). A stringing rack (probably for longbows) survives in Haddon Hall (Credland 1990, 20, fig. 12:a-b). 35 See Kyeser, fol. 76v, 77r, 78r; a reconstruction is shown by Richter (2006, fig. 96); Bengedans, fol. 49r (Bengedans 2006); Anonymus of the Hussite wars, fol. 18r, 29v (Hall 1979); physical reconstruction by R. Bernges (after www.binsy.org; see also Bernges 2012). I thank Rüdiger Bernges for giving me acces to his unpublished article. 36 See Cgm 600, fol. 18v; 1st quarter of the 15th c. (Credland 1990, fig. 3; Leng 2000, 138f.;). Another impressive example is shown by the Anonymus of the Hussite Wars, fol. 40r (Hall 1979). 37 Some medieval illustrations show the double hook of the spanning mechanism, but no details how it was fastened. (e.g.: Österreichische Nationalbibliothek Wien, Cod. 3069, fol. 22v; for other examples see Leng 2000, 139; Nicolle 2002, 9 – Walter de Milimete, Christ Church College Library, Oxford, Ms. 92; 23 – Mariano Taccola, De ingeneis, Staatsbibliothek München, Ms. Lat. 197, fol. 40r). The use of the Grüttpott example will be studied further. I thank Jens Sensfelder for his valuable remarks. 196 Christof Krauskopf

Firearms Comparison of the size of the shot and the calibre of Projectiles (cat. Nos. 85-104) the firearms recovered from the Grüttpott revealed 23 firearm projectiles were recovered from that only one of the guns, with a calibre of between the Grüttpott (fig. 22). Only one of them is an iron 15 and 18 mm, could have fired the ammunition ball (fig. 22:1). All the others are cylindrical lead that was found. The other had a calibre of 22 objects. According to V. Schmidtchen, the form to 25 mm, which was too big for the smaller of lead projectiles was irrelevant, because the projectiles. It would have been impossible to fire material is rather soft and would not damage the the larger projectiles with either of these weapons. barrel, either while loading or while firing a gun The variety of projectile sizes suggests that (Schmidtchen 1977, 22, 69). Cylindrical lead there must have been at least four guns, each of missiles are only rarely mentioned or illustrated a different calibre, in use at the castle. Pieces of in the literature. Strzyż mentions a number of at least three different guns have been found. cylindrical projectiles, mainly from sites in the However, this information may be misleading as Czech Republic. The missiles are mostly cast of there might have been guns with conical bores pure lead but can have an iron core, as do some at the Grüttpott (Müller 1997, 16) and the linear of those found at the Grüttpott. They come from increase in Projectile calibre seems to suggest sites associated with the Hussite wars, such as the that this was indeed the case. It is not possible finds from the castle of Nový Hrad near Kunratic, to calculate the calibre of the weapons used simply which was besieged in 1420 and 1421 (Strzyż by measuring the size of the projectiles that were 2011, 50)38. Cylindrical lead shots were excavated in found (see also Marek, forthcoming). Sión in Bohemia and Tepenec in Moravia (Jánská 1963, 242; Vránová, Vrána 2008, 459, fig. 2-3). Handguns (cat. Nos. 105-108) The published examples from Poland are mostly 18 fragments of copper alloy-handguns, spherical, although some are ellipsoid in form including a hook gun, were found (fig. 24). (ibidem, 51f). L. Marek shows cylindrical examples A second, smaller hook is made of iron. Some from Kolno in Silesia (Marek, forthcoming). Seven of the pieces fitted together, making it possible cylindrical projectiles are known from the to partially reconstruct at least one of the weapons Tannenberg Castle in Germany. One, measuring (fig. 25). A socket on one end of this gun indicates 16 mm in diameter, is deformed, as are some of that it was fastened on a stock. Socketed handguns the smaller Grüttpott finds. The other objects appear around 1400 at the latest and one discovered from Tannenberg, which are unfortunately not at the site of Tannenberg Castle in Germany dates illustrated, measure between 15 and 35 mm in before 1399 (von Hefner, Wolf 1850, pl. VII:A; diameter and fit in with the range of the Grüttpott Schmitt 2008, 160f., fig. on p. 488). A second, finds39 (Schmitt 2008, 158; Kat. 2617; pl. 36:18; fragmentary gun from Tannenberg also has a socket Kat. 2627-2632). (Schmitt 2008, 160; pl. 36:19). Socketed guns Lead projectiles are referred to in the written can still be found in illustrations dating to the sources but details of shape are not given. Sagittae 1470s (MacLaghlan 2010, 31) and an early (bolts) and pellotae are mentioned (Blair 1983, example with a preserved stock was found in the 28)40. Rimer translates the latter as bullets (Rimer Courland-Lagoon in 1871 (Thierbach 1886, 4, 1996, 76). fig. 3; Kunz 2008, 27). The diameter of the projectiles from the The chamber of the Grüttpott gun has a Grüttpott ranges between 14 and 31 mm, and it is diameter of 27.5 mm. A large triangular hook was very striking that no groups, based on diameter, attached to the bottom of the chamber. It remains are represented (fig. 23). The size tolerance for uncertain whether all of the surviving barrel pieces shot can be up to 2 or 3 mm41, and so there could belong to this gun. By comparing the calibres of the have been two groups of a smaller calibre (14 to barrel fragments, it is possible to distinguish 17-18 mm and from 18-19 to 21 mm) and two of between at least three guns at the Grüttpott. Two a larger calibre (26 to 29 mm and 30 to 32 mm). different calibres (15 to 18 mm and 22 to 25 mm)

38 Other sites are mentioned, mostly castles, but also the settlement of Mštenice (Nekuda 1985, fig. 193, 198-199). 39 The weight of the missiles is not given. 40 Privy Wardrobe Account of Robert de Mildenhale, 17 October 1344 to 29 September 1351: armaturis, gunnis cum sagittis et pellotis reparare (Tout 1911, 688). See also the depiction of Walter de Milimete and the Loshult-gun (Rimer 1996, fig. 1-3) and a bolt from a manuscript in the British Library, Add. MS. 24945, 15th c. (Brackenbury 1865, fig 1). Cylindrical-shaped projectiles are not mentioned by Kunz (2008, 146). 41 If too large, the shot could get stuck and the barrel might explode – as it obviously happened during the siege of the Grüttpott in 1445. I would like to thank Bernd Eccarius, Bernau, for his suggestions regarding this question. Weapon finds from the “Grüttpott” at Stolpe on the Oder 197 and a gun with an astonishing thin barrel wall of late medieval castles (Marek, Konczewski 2010, only 7 mm could be identified. It is impossible fig. 11; Miazga 2010; Chudzińska 2011). to estimate the length of the barrel. However, The use of firearms in Brandenburg during as mentioned above, the different calibres do not the 15th c. is recorded in several written sources. necessarily represent different weapons and could The earliest reference that came to my knowledge belong to a single handgun with a conical bore. dates to 1420 and comes from an inventory of the Unfortunately, the fragments are too small to indicate castle at Oderberg. It mentions a cast gun, weighing whether or not this was the case. Many pieces of 18 hundredweight, and a forged gun, as well as the barrel are also missing. The missing pieces, powder and lead shot. There is no description of and presumably other objects, were taken from the form of the shot (von Raumer 1831, 1, 85). The the collapsed part of the keep at some time in the other references in the written sources date to the past. It is obviously impossible to say whether this 2nd half of the 15th c.44 occurred in the aftermath of the battle or later. The form and the position of the flash pan The date of the finds – are they related to provide important dating evidence. The edges the siege of 1445? of the pan from the Grüttpott are upturned, The coins from the upper storey of the a development which occurred in the 15th c. Grüttpott date to between 1330 and 1519. The (for the following see Hoff 1969, 6f). The pan majority of them were minted in the 1st half of the of the Tannenberg gun consists of a concave 15th c. Of the others, three date to the 2nd half of the depression in the top of the chamber, without raised 15th c and only a single coin dates to 1519. There edges, and a vertical touch hole. Until the 1st half of are also two modern coins, which date to 1952 and the 15th c., the pan and the touch hole were usually 1975. Leukhardt suggests that the coins from the positioned on top of the chamber but were later 1st half of the 15th c. could have been the contents moved on to the side, possibly to remove them of a purse which was lost during the events of from the user’s field of vision, making it easier to late 1445 (Leukhardt 2009, 66)45. aim the weapon accurately. The pan itself consisted The weapon finds are difficult to date exactly of either a shallow round cavity with upraised but none of them would appear to date to later than edges on the outer surface of the chamber or of the middle of the 15th c. The bolt heads can be dated a small separate plate, also with upturned edges, to between the 13th and the 15th c., and most of them which was soldered into place. The position of would have formed part of a 15th c. arsenal. Some the broken-off-hook indicates that the pan of the are of an older type, which may have been kept in Grüttpott gun, which has raised edges, sat on the the armoury for whatever reason, and used in times side of the chamber42. of crises, regardless of whether or not were suitable The condition of the gun fragments suggest for the weapons that were being used. The windlass that an explosion took place during the siege. The and the hook of a spanning bench or stand indicate walls of the barrels are up to 15 mm thick and the use of heavy crossbows, probably with steel those of the chamber up to 20 mm. It would have bows. The handguns can be dated to the late 14th taken immense force to tear these guns apart. One or, more probably, to the first half of the 15th c. barrel fragment is deformed and the thick material The iron brigandine plates with closely-spaced iron has apparently been blown outwards (fig. 24:3). rivets suggest body armour of the late 14th or early The inner surface of the bore is very rough with 15th c. The early sallet, with a slightly curved neck, jagged ridges and points of metal, which rise up to fits in with the armour very well. 2 mm above the underlying surface43. Late medieval The cause of the partial collapse of the manuscripts which describe the handling of firearms keep may have been an accidental explosion. As always include safety advice (Leng 2000, 44f). described above, one of the gun fragments is Accidents were common, the usual causes being deformed and the rough surface has jagged ridges material faults, metal fatigue, overloaded weapons and points of metal on the surface of the bore. or blocked barrels. Further examples of blown However, it would have taken more than just barrels and exploded guns are known from other a single exploding handgun to cause the degree

42 Formerly the flash pan has been described as sitting on top of the chamber (Krauskopf 2007, 252), due to the incomplete restoration. 43 The cause of the destruction of the gun await further analysis. 44 Vierraden (Codex... 1857b, 384f): in 1471 stone gun, chariot gun, 15 hackbucks, powder mentioned; Oderberg (Codex... 1857a, 374) in 1472 guns mentioned; Zossen (Codex... 1856, 275) in 1491 different types of guns, fire bolts, iron and lead shot, gunpowder, crossbows, bolts and shafts and a “leire”, obviously a spanning mechanism, mentioned. 45 This is yet another reason to regret that there was not a professional excavation of the finds in situ. 198 Christof Krauskopf of destruction seen in the upper storey. It is that this all happened in the 15th c. There are no possible that this small explosion was only the further references to calamitous events in the initial incident that led to the detonation of written sources and the castle stayed in the hands a larger quantity of gunpowder. of the Electors of Brandenburg. It is therefore It is very difficult to prove conclusively that most probable that all of the material, with the the archaeological finds and the event that led to exception of the few objects that were lost by their burial under a pile of rubble are connected later visitors to the ruined keep, was buried in with the siege of the Grüttpott mentioned in the late 1445. written sources. There might have been other incidents which could have caused the damage dr Christof Krauskopf to the keep, the death of a person, the loss of Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege a purse and the burial of a number of objects und Archäologisches Landesmuseum under the rubble. However, the finds suggest Zossen

Catalogue46

1. a – 2 fragments of brigandine plates, corroded to each 6. a – Brigandine plate, rectangular, bent in longitudinal other; rectangular, not bent; upper plate 4 rivets, lower 3, direction; 6 rivets at upper edge; at the upper edge; on the left side 1,4 cm without rivets b – l. 5,0 cm, w. 1,2 cm; (fig. 4:1); c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und b – l. – 3,4 cm; w. (each) – 1,2 cm; Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/54/78. c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. No. 1995:93/54/19. 7. a – 3 brigandine plates, corroded to each other, rectangular, bent in longitudinal direction; 6 rivets at 2. a – 7 brigandine plates, corroded to each other; upper edge, some rivet heads missing; left side 1,1cm rectangular, bent in longitudinal direction; 7, respectively without rivets (fig. 4:5); 8 rivets at upper edge, on the left side 1,2 cm without b – l. 4,9 cm, w. (each) 1,2 cm; rivets (fig. 4:2); c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und b – l. – 6,2 cm; w. (each) – 1,2 cm; Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. No. 1995:93/54/77. c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. No. 1995:93/54/84. 8. a – 2 brigandine plates, corroded to each other, rectangular, bent in longitudinal direction; 6 rivets at 3. a – 7 brigandine plates, corroded to each other; upper edge, most of the rivet heads missing; left side rectangular, bent in longitudinal direction; 6, respectively 1,3 cm without rivets ( fig. 4:6); 7 rivets at upper edge, some rivet heads missing; on the b – l. 5,0 cm, w. (each) 1,2 cm; left side 1,3cm without rivets (fig. 4:3); c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und b – l. – 5,4 cm; w. (each) – 1,0 cm; Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. No. 1995:93/54/74. c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. No. 1995:93/54/81. 9. a – brigandine plate, rectangular, bent in longitudinal direction; 8 rivets at the upper edge; on the left side 4. a – 5 brigandine plates, corroded to each other; 1,3 cm without rivets (fig. 4:7); rectangular, bent in longitudinal direction; 5, respectively b – l. 6,3 cm, w. 1,2 cm; 6, some rivet heads missing; on the left side 1,1 cm c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege un1d without rivets; on the left side 1,3 cm without rivets Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv.no. 1995:93/54/71. (fig. 4:4); b – l. – 4,8 cm; w. (each) – 1,0 cm; 10. a – 2 brigandine plates, rectangular, corroded to each c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und other, slightly bent in longitudinal direction; 8 rivets at the Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. No. 1995:93/54/82. upper edges; on the right side 1,2 cm without rivets (fig. 4:8); b – l. 6,2 cm, w. 1,2 cm; 5. a – 2 brigandine plates, corroded to each other, c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und rectangular, bent in longitudinal direction; 6 rivets at Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. No. 1995:93/54/66. upper edge; on the right side 1,2cm without rivets; b – l. 5,1 cm, w. (each) 1,2 cm; 11. a – Brigandine plate, rectangular, bent in longitudinal c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und direction; 9 rivets at the upper edge, 2 rivet heads Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. No. 1995:93/54/79. missing; on the left side 2,1cm without rivets (fig. 4:9);

46 a – description (type of artefact, figure), typology; b – measurement and weight of the artefact (w. – width; l. – length; sdm. – socket diameter; dm. – diameter; bl. – blade length; pw. – maximum point width; wt – weight); c – Inv. No. Data are given in brackets when the object is not complete. Weapon finds from the “Grüttpott” at Stolpe on the Oder 199 b – l. 7,7 cm, w. 1,2 cm; b – l. 7,9 cm, w. 2,7 cm; c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. No. 1995:93/54/68. Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. No. 1995:93/54/2.

12. a – 3 fragments of brigandine plates, rectangular, 21. a – Brigandine plate, trapezoid, not bent; 35 rivets corroded to each other; 5 respectively 6 rivets at the upper at upper, lower and right edge, at the right side in the edges, some of the rivet heads are missing (fig. 4:10); middle group of rivets; left (short) edge without rivets b – l. (3,8) cm, w. 1,1 cm; (fig. 4:19); c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und b – l. 8,1 cm, w. 2,3-3,1 cm; Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. No. 1995:93/54/55. c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. No. 1995:93/54/72. 13. a – Brigandine plate, rectangular, bent in longitudinal direction; 3 rivets with rounded heads (fig. 4:11); 22. a – Brigandine plate, trapezoid, bent in longitudinal b – l. 4,4 cm, w. 1,2 cm; direction; 19 rivets at upper and lower edge; on the left c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und side 1,3cm without rivets (fig. 4:20); Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. No. 1995:93/54/52. b – l. 7,1 cm, w. 1,3-2,4 cm; c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und 14. a – Brigandine plate, rectangular, bent in longitudinal Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. No. 1995:93/54/3. direction; 7 rivets at upper edge; right side 1,3 cm without rivets (fig. 4:12); 23. a – Brigandine plate, pentagonal, bent in longitudinal b – l. 5,6 cm, w. 1,3 cm; direction; 8, respectively 10 rivets on longer edges; on c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und side 2cm without rivets (fig. 4:21); Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. No. 1995:93/54/28. b – l. 8,0 cm, w. 1,5-2,5 cm; c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und 15. a – 2 brigandine plates, corroded, bent in longitudinal Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/54/73. direction; 5 rivets at upper edge; left side 1,3 cm without rivets (fig. 4:13); 24. a – 58 fragmented brigandine plates; b – l. 4,5 cm, w. (each) 1,2 cm; c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/54/5- Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. No. 1995:93/54/27. 18, 20-26, 29-36, 37-51, 53, 54, 56-61, 63, 67, 69, 75, 76. 16. a – Brigandine plate, rectangular, not bent; 9 rivets at the upper edge, 2 of them missing (fig. 4:14); 25. a – Iron sheet, fragment of plate armour, slightly b – l. 6,0 cm, w. 2,9 cm; bent, curved edges; 2 rivets at left edge (fig. 5:1); c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und b – ca. 7,8x7,4 cm; Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. No. 1995:93/54/65. c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/54/1; 17. a – Brigandine plate, rectangular, not bent; 12 rivets at the upper edge, probably damage by bolt head (?) 26. a – Iron sheet, fragment of plate armour, bent in (fig. 4:15); longitudinal direction; 3 or 4 rivets at the edges (fig. 5:2); b – l. 8,0 cm, w. 2,6 cm; b – ca. 9,0x7,4 cm; c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. No. 1995:93/54/64. Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/54/4.

18. a – Brigandine plate, parallelogram shaped, slightly 27. a – Iron sheet, fragment of plate armour (?), hole bent in longitudinal direction; 12 rivets at the upper (rivet, damage?); edge; on the left side 1,5cm without rivets; most of the b – ca. 11x8,0 cm; rivet heads missing (fig. 4:16); c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und b – l. 9,9 cm, w. 2,4 cm; Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/54/80. c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. No. 1995:93/54/70. 28. a – Iron sheet, fragmented, bent in longitudinal direction; 2 holes (rivets, damages?); 19. a – Brigandine plate, parallelogram shaped, one b – ca. 9,2x5,0 cm; small side damaged, deformed; 10 rivets at the upper c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und edge; on the right side 1,3cm without rivets (fig. 4:17); Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/54/83. b – l. 7,8 cm, w. 2,5 cm; c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und 29. a – Fragment of a sallet or bascinet; curved neck part Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. No. 1995:93/54/62. with rivets along the neck edge and 2 holes (for rivets?) ca. 2cm above neck edge (fig. 6-7); 20. a – Brigandine plate, parallelogram shaped, slightly b – ca. 22,2x15,7 cm; bent in longitudinal direction; 10 rivets; on the left side c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und 1,3 cm without rivets (fig. 4:18); Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/69. 200 Christof Krauskopf

30. a – 38 fragments of chain mail, corroded to solid 40. a – Diamond shaped short point with diamond cross lumps (fig. 8); section, short cylindrical socket (fig. 11:2); type 2; b – diameter of rings 1,0-1,1 cm; b – l. 70 mm, sdm. 7 mm, bl. 42 mm, pw. 16 mm, wt. 23 g; c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/61/1-14. Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/55/2.

31. a – Leaf shaped, long point with diamond cross 41. a – Diamond shaped point with diamond cross section, long conical socket (fig. 10:1); type 1; section, cylindrical socket (fig. 11:3); type 2; b – l. 95 mm, sdm. 11 mm, bl. 60 mm, pw. 14 mm, wt. 23 g; b – l. 72 mm, sdm. 13 mm, bl. 40 mm, pw. 18 mm, c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und wt. 32 g; Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/55/4. c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/55/70. 32. a – Leaf shaped, long point with diamond cross section, long conical socket (fig. 10:2); type 1; 42. a – Leaf shaped point with diamond cross section, b – l. 80 mm, sdm. 7 mm, bl. 46 mm, pw. 14mm, wt. 22 g; conical socket (fig. 11:4); type 2; c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und b – l. 79 mm, sdm. 11 mm, bl. 42 mm, pw. 19 mm, wt. 38 g; Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/55/5. c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/55/79. 33. a – Slender leaf shaped point with diamond cross section, conical socket (fig. 10:3); type 1; 43. a – Leaf shaped short point with diamond cross b – l. 75 mm, sdm. (10) mm, bl. 45 mm, pw. 8 mm, wt. 13 g; section, conical socket (fig. 11:5); type 2; c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und b – l. 78 mm, sdm. 14 mm, bl. 41 mm, pw. 17 mm, wt. 32 g; Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/55/42. c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/55/80. 34. a – Slender leaf shaped point with diamond cross section, conical socket (fig. 10:4); type 1; 44. a – Leaf shaped point with diamond cross section, b – l. 91 mm, sdm. (13) mm, bl. 55 mm, pw. 10 mm, wt. 19 g; conical socket (fig. 11:6); type 2; c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und b – l. 77 mm, sdm. (12) mm, bl. 44 mm, pw. 16 mm, wt. 29 g; Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/55/55. c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/55/89. 35. a – Leaf shaped point with diamond cross section, long conical socket (fig. 10:5); type 1; 45. a – Leaf shaped point with diamond cross section, b – l. 92 mm, sdm. 12 mm, bl. 55 mm, pw. 16 mm, wt. 37 g; conical socket (fig. 11:7); type 2; c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und b – l. (67) mm, sdm. (11) mm, bl. 40 mm, pw. 16 mm, Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/55/107. wt. (24) g; c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und 36. a – Leaf shaped point with diamond cross section, Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/55/92. long conical socket (fig. 10:6); type 1; b – l. 74 mm, sdm. 9 mm, bl. 51 mm, pw. 11 mm, wt. 19 g; 46. a – Leaf shaped point with diamond cross section, c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und conical socket (fig. 11:8); type 2; Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/55/116. b – l. 75 mm, sdm. 12 mm, bl. 40 mm, pw. (17) mm, wt. 36 g; c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und 37. a – Slender leaf shaped point with diamond cross Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/55/102. section, long conical socket (fig. 10:7); type 1; b –l. 87 mm, sdm. (10) mm, bl. 47 mm, pw. 14 mm, 47. a – Leaf shaped, slender point with diamond cross wt. 21 g; section, long conical socket (fig. 11:9); type 2; c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und b – l. 88 mm, sdm. 11 mm, bl. 40 mm, pw. 14 mm, wt. 23 g; Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/55/119. c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/55/110. 38. a – Leaf shaped, point with diamond cross section, short conical socket (fig. 10:8); type 1; 48. a – Slender, short point with square cross section, b – l. 84 mm, sdm. 11 mm, bl. 54 mm, pw. 13 mm, long broad conical socket (fig. 12:1); type 3; wt. 29 g; b – l. 79 mm, sdm. 12 mm, bl. 40 mm, pw. 12 mm, wt. 31 g; c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/55/121. Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/55/3.

39. a – Diamond shaped short point with diamond cross 49. a – Diamond shaped, short and broad point with section, short conical socket (fig. 11:1); type 2; square cross section, short conical socket (fig. 12:2); b – l. 80 mm, sdm. (15) mm, bl. 45 mm, pw. 13 mm, type 3; wt. 30 g; b – l. 60 mm, sdm. 13 mm, bl. 36 mm, pw. 18 mm, wt. 40 g; c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/55/1. Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/55/108. Weapon finds from the “Grüttpott” at Stolpe on the Oder 201

50. a – Leaf shaped short point with square cross section, 60. a – Leaf shaped point with diamond cross section, short conical socket (fig. 12:3); type 3; short cylindrical socket (fig. 13:9); type 4; b – l. 63 mm, sdm. 11 mm, bl. 45 mm, pw. 16 mm, wt. 33 g; b – l. 58 mm, sdm. 12 mm, bl. 31 mm, pw. 17 mm, wt. 30 g; c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/55/109. Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/55/106.

51. a – Leaf shaped point with diamond cross section, 61. a – Leaf shaped point with diamond cross section, short cylindrical socket (fig. 13:1); type 4; conical socket (fig. 13:10); type 4; b – l. 60 mm, sdm. 11 mm, bl. 35 mm, pw. 17 mm, wt. 33 g; b – l. 80 mm, sdm. 14 mm, bl. 43 mm, pw. 21 mm, wt. 48 g; c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/55/76. Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/55/117.

52. a – Leaf shaped point with diamond cross section, 62. a – Diamond shaped short point with diamond cross conical socket (fig. 13:2); type 4; section, short cylindrical socket (fig. 13: 11); type 4; b – l. 78 mm, sdm. 12 mm, bl. 45 mm, pw. 18 mm, wt. 36 g; b – l. 61 mm, sdm. 12 mm, bl. 36 mm, pw. 20 mm, wt. 44 g; c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/55/82. Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/55/120.

53. a – Diamond shaped point with diamond cross section, 63. a – Diamond shaped short point with diamond cross cylindrical socket (fig. 13:3); type 4; section, short slender cylindrical socket (fig. 14:1); type 5; b – l. 70 mm, sdm. 12 mm, bl. 40 mm, pw. 18 mm, wt. 38 g; b – l. 57 mm, sdm. 11 mm, bl. 37 mm, pw. 18 mm, wt. 29 g; c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/55/83. Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/55/6.

54. a – Leaf shaped short point with square cross section, 64. a – Diamond shaped short point with diamond cross conical socket (fig. 13:5); type 4; section, short slender cylindrical socket (fig. 14:2); type 5; b – l. 70 mm, sdm. 12 mm, bl. 37 mm, pw. 20 mm, b – l. 56 mm, sdm. 12 mm, bl. 34 mm, pw. 17 mm, wt. 31 g; wt. 45 g; c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/55/17. Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/55/86. 65. a – Diamond shaped broad point with diamond, nearly 55. a – Diamond shaped short point with diamond cross square cross section, cylindrical socket (fig. 14:3); type 5; section, short conical socket (fig. 13:4); type 4; b – l. 65 mm, sdm. 13 mm, bl. 40 mm, pw. 25 mm, b – l. (55) mm, sdm. (11) mm, bl. 23 mm, pw. 18 mm, wt. 54 g; wt. 27 g; c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/55/25. Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/55/85. 66. a – Leaf shaped point with diamond cross section, 56. a – Leaf shaped short point with square cross section, conical socket (fig. 14:4); type 5; conical socket (fig. 13:6); type 4; b – l. 77 mm, sdm. 11 mm, bl. 49 mm, pw. (28) mm, b – l. 75 mm, sdm. 12 mm, bl. 43 mm, pw. 17 mm, wt. 44 g; wt. 58 g; c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/55/87. Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/55/62.

57. a – Leaf shaped point with diamond cross section, 67. a – Diamond shaped broad point with diamond cross conical socket; type 4; section, cylindrical socket (fig. 14:5); type 5; b – wt. 36g, l. 73mm, sdm. 12mm, bl. 38mm, pw. 18mm; b – l. 68 mm, sdm. 15 mm, bl. 43 mm, pw. 26 mm, c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und wt. 51 g; Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/55/96. c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/55/84. 58. a – Diamond shaped short and broad point with diamond cross section, short cylindrical socket (fig. 13:7); 68. a – Diamond shaped point with diamond cross type 4; section, cylindrical socket (fig. 14:6); type 5; b – l. 66 mm, sdm. 12 mm, bl. 43 mm, pw. 20 mm, wt. 39 g; b – l. 70 mm, sdm. 11 mm, bl. 40 mm, pw. 18 mm, wt. 37 g; c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/55/104. Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/55/88.

59. a – Leaf shaped broad point with diamond cross 69. a – Diamond shaped short point with diamond cross section, long cylindrical socket (fig. 13:8); type 4; section, short conical socket (fig. 14:7); type 5; b – l. 64 mm, sdm. 11 mm, bl. 32 mm, pw. 17 mm, wt. 33 g; b – l. 76 mm, sdm. 13 mm, bl. 49 mm, pw. 21 mm, wt. 52 g; c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/55/105. Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/55/93. 202 Christof Krauskopf

70. a – Diamond shaped point with diamond cross section, 80. a – Diamond shaped point with diamond cross cylindrical socket (fig. 14:8); type 5; section, cylindrical socket (fig. 15:3); type 6; b – l. 62mm, sdm. 8 mm, bl. 40 mm, pw. 18 mm, wt. 32 g; b – l. 67 mm, sdm. 12 mm, bl. 42 mm, pw. 20 mm, c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und wt. 56 g; Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/55/95. c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/55/77. 71. a – Diamond shaped broad point with diamond cross section, cylindrical socket (fig. 14:9); type 5; 81. a – Diamond shaped point with diamond cross section, b – l. 58 mm, sdm. 11mm, bl. 33 mm, pw. 19 mm, wt. 32 g; cylindrical socket (fig. 15:4); type 6; c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und b – l. 77 mm, sdm. 10 mm, bl. 43 mm, pw. 18 mm, wt. 36 g; Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/55/99. c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/55/81. 72. a – Leaf shaped point with diamond cross section, conical socket (fig. 14:10); type 5; 82. a – Crossbow nut, red deer antler; hole through the b – l. 71 mm, sdm. 12 mm, bl. 46 mm, pw. 18 mm, wt. 30 g; centre, iron wedge driven into the nut; broad string c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und groove, square notch for the bolt (fig. 19); Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/55/103. b – dm. 3,8 cm, w. 2,8 cm; c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und 73. a – Diamond shaped broad point with diamond cross Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/55/8. section, cylindrical socket (fig. 14:11); type 5; b – l. 80 mm, sdm. 11 mm, bl. 46 mm, pw. 23 mm, 83. a – Windlass, iron; rectangular sleeve with 2 hooks wt. 63 g; with arrow-shaped ends on either side; 2 handles, axle in c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und a frame, ridge in the middle of the axle (fig. 20); Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/55/111. b – ca. 50,5x27,9 cm; c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und 74. a – Diamond shaped short and broad point with Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/55/11. diamond cross section, short cylindrical socket (fig. 14:12); type 5; 84. a – Spanning hook, iron; double hook, attached by b – l. 67 mm, sdm. 15 mm, bl. 42 mm, pw. 23 mm, a hinge to a mounting plate with 3 holes for rivets or wt. 51 g; nails (fig. 21); c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und b – 34,5x6,0 cm; Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/55/112. c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/103. 75. a – Diamond shaped point with diamond cross section, cylindrical socket (fig. 14:13); type 5; 85. a – Cylindrical lead shot, rear chipped, front with b – l. 71 mm, sdm. 9 mm, bl. 46 mm, pw. 20 mm, wt. 24 g; deepening, rounded edges (fig. 22:1); c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und b – l. 26 mm, dm. 29 mm, wt. 165 g; Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/55/113. c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/151/2. 76. a – Leaf shaped point with diamond cross section, conical socket (fig. 14:14); type 5; 86. a – Cylindrical lead shot, uneven (fig. 22:2); b – l. 52 mm, sdm. 8 mm, bl. 37 mm, pw. 18 mm, wt. 25 g; b – l. 21 mm, dm. 30 mm, wt. 123 g; c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/55/114. Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/151/3.

77. a – Diamond shaped short point with diamond cross 87. a – Cylindrical lead shot, rear flat, front very uneven; section, short cylindrical socket (fig. 14:15); type 5; fragment (?) (fig. 22:3); b – l. 63 mm, sdm. 15-12 mm, bl. 42 mm, pw. 20 mm, wt. 45 g; b – l. 19 mm, dm. 28 mm, wt. 65 g; c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/55/118. Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/151/4.

78. a – Diamond shaped broad point with diamond cross 88. a – Cylindrical lead shot, both ends flat, sharp edges, section, cylindrical socket (fig. 15:1); type 6; slightly oval (fig. 22:4); b – l. 69 mm, sdm. 16 mm, bl. 43 mm, pw. 23 mm, wt. 54 g; b – l. 25 mm, dm. 23-27 mm, wt. 116 g; c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/55/47. Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/65/11.

79. a – Diamond shaped short point with diamond cross 89. a – Cylindrical lead shot, front broken; iron core section, short conical socket (fig. 15:2); type 6; (fig. 22:5); b – l. 60 mm, sdm. 12 mm, bl. 34 mm, pw. 17 mm, wt. 32 g; b – l. 26 mm, dm. 26 mm, wt. 88 g; c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/55/73. Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/65/9. Weapon finds from the “Grüttpott” at Stolpe on the Oder 203

90. a – Cylindrical lead shot, rear flat, front hexagonal 100. a – Cylindrical lead shot, slightly oval, rear flat, chamfered (fig. 22:6); front slightly chamfered (fig. 22:16); b – l. 23 mm, dm. 21 mm, wt. 69 g; b – l. 13 mm, dm. 16 mm, wt. 20 g; c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/65/1. Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/65/4.

91. a – Cylindrical lead shot, iron core (fig. 22:7); 101. a – Cylindrical lead shot, both ends flat (fig. 22:17); b – l. 22 mm, dm. 21 mm, wt. 62 g; b – l. 15 mm, dm. 14mm, wt. 22 g; c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/65/10. Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/65/.

92. a – Cylindrical lead shot, rear angular, front polygonal 102. a – Cylindrical lead shot, slightly oval (fig. 22:18); chamfered (fig. 22:8); b – l. 31 mm, dm. 18 mm, wt. 17 g; b – l. 25 mm, dm. 21 mm, wt. 70 g; c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/67/3. Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/65/12. 103. a – Ball, iron (fig. 22:19); 93. a – Cylindrical lead shot, both ends flat (?), sharp b – l. mm, dm. 21 mm, wt. 39 g; edges (fig. 22:9); c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und b – l. 25 mm, dm. 20 mm, wt. 77 g; Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/115. c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/65/8. 104. a – Cylindrical lead shot, both ends flat, sharp edges, uneven; 94. a – Cylindrical lead shot, deformed, rear flat, front b –, l. 17 mm, dm. 22 mm, wt. 62 g; slightly chamfered (fig. 22:10); c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und b – l. 19 mm, dm. 18 mm, wt. 47 g; Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/65/4. c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/65/3. 105. a – 8 fragments of the octagonal chamber and the barrel of a socketed hookgun; copper-alloy; the chamber is burs1t; 95. a – Cylindrical lead shot, very uneven, black (fig. the stock was fastened with a nail, running through two 22:11); holes in the socket; edged ignition pan on top of the chamber; b – l. 26 mm, dm. 19 mm, wt. 42 g; triangular hook at the bottom of the barrel (fig. 25); c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und b – dm. of the stock 33 mm; dm. of the chamber 27,5 mm; Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/67/5. thickness of the wall of the chamber 15 mm; l. 75 mm; c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege 96. a – Conical lead shot, iron core (fig. 22:12); und Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. No. 1995:93/ b – l. 24 mm, dm. 17 mm, wt. 43 g; 64/1-2, 4. c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/65/2. 106. a – 4 fragments of octagonal gun barrels; copper- alloy (fig. 24:1, 4); 97. a – Cylindrical lead shot, both ends flat, sharp edges, b – dm. 14-18 mm; thickness of the wall 13-17 mm; slightly deformed (fig. 22:13); c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und b – l. 14 mm, dm. 19 mm, wt. 23 g; Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. No. 1995:93/64/6,8-9. c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/66. 107. a – Fragment of an octagonal gun barrel; copper- alloy (fig. 24:2); 98. a – Cylindrical lead shot, slightly oval, rear and front b – dm. 24,5 mm; thickness of the wall 7-9 mm; angular (fig. 22:14); c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und b – l. 12 mm, dm. 16-18 mm, wt. 17 g; Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. No. 1995:93/64/7. c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/151/1. 108. a – Fragment of octagonal barrel; copper alloy; deformed, surface of the bore rough with jagged ridges 99. a – Cylindrical lead shot, deformed, rear flat, front and points of metal (fig. 24:3); slightly chamfered (fig 22:15); b – dm. 16 mm; thickness of the wall 11-13 mm; b – l. 15 mm, dm. 16 mm, wt. 20 g; c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und und Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. No. 1995:93/ Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/65/7. 64/10. 204 Christof Krauskopf

Bibliography

Sources:

Arnoldus Lubecensis 1868 Arnoldi Chonica Slavorum, ed. J. M. Lappenberg, Hannover. Codex... 1845 Codex Diplomaticus Brandenburgensis, Sammlung der Urkunden, Chroniken und sonstigen Geschichtsquellen für die Geschichte der Mark Brandenburg und ihrer Regenten, A 5, ed. A. F. J. Riedel, . 1847 Codex Diplomaticus Brandenburgensis, Sammlung der Urkunden, Chroniken und sonstigen Geschichtsquellen für die Geschichte der Mark Brandenburg und ihrer Regenten, A 7, ed. A. F. J. Riedel, Berlin. 1856 Codex Diplomaticus Brandenburgensis, Sammlung der Urkunden, Chroniken und sonstigen Geschichtsquellen für die Geschichte der Mark Brandenburg und ihrer Regenten, A 11, ed. A. F. J. Riedel, Berlin. 1857a Codex Diplomaticus Brandenburgensis, Sammlung der Urkunden, Chroniken und sonstigen Geschichtsquellen für die Geschichte der Mark Brandenburg und ihrer Regenten, A 12, ed. A. F. J. Riedel, Berlin. 1857b Codex Diplomaticus Brandenburgensis, Sammlung der Urkunden, Chroniken und sonstigen Geschichtsquellen für die Geschichte der Mark Brandenburg und ihrer Regenten, A 13, ed. A. F. J. Riedel, Berlin. 1859 Codex Diplomaticus Brandenburgensis, Sammlung der Urkunden, Chroniken und sonstigen Geschichtsquellen für die Geschichte der Mark Brandenburg und ihrer Regenten, A 18, ed. A. F. J. Riedel, Berlin. 1861 Codex Diplomaticus Brandenburgensis, Sammlung der Urkunden, Chroniken und sonstigen Geschichtsquellen für die Geschichte der Mark Brandenburg und ihrer Regenten, A 21, ed. A. F. J. Riedel, Berlin. Chronica... 1888 Chronica Marchionum Brandenburgensis, ed. G. Sello, Forschungen zur Brandenburgischen und Preußischen Geschichte 1, pp. 111-180.

Scholarship:

Amici S. 1989 I reperti metallici e non metallici delle campagne di scavo 1983-1984, Archeologia Medievale 16, pp. 460-475. Atzbach R., Elser A. 2004 Spätmittelalterliche Fragmente einer Plattenpanzerung aus Kempten im Allgäu, [in:] Das Brigantinen- Symposium auf Schloss Tirol, Tirol, pp. 32-39. Bengedans J. 2006 Johannes Bengedans’ bøssemester- og krigsbog om krigskunst og kanoner, vol. 1-2, ed. H. Blosen, R. Agnete Olsen, Aarhus. Bergmann K., Bilberg I. 1976 Vapen, Archaeologica Ludensia 7, pp. 387-396. Bernges R. 2012 Schnell gespannt! Verwendung eines Spannbocks im Mittelalter, Jahrblatt der Interessengemeinschaft Historische Armbrust 2012, ed. J. Sensfelder, pp. 46-52. Blair C. 1982 Notes on Armour from Chalcis, [in:] Arms and Armour at Dorchester, London, pp. 7-14. 1983 Early Firearms, [in:] Pollard's History of Firearms, ed. C. Blair, Feltham, pp. 25-32. Boccia L. G. 1992 Ancient Italian Pieces in the Kienbusch Collection, [in:] Studies in European Arms and Armor. The C. Otto von Kienbusch Collection in the Philadelphia Museum of Art, Philadelphia, pp. 33-65. Brackenbury H. 1865 Ancient Cannon in Europe. Part 1. From their first Employment to A.D. 1350, Woolwich. Burg und Herrschaft... 2010 Burg und Herrschaft. Eine Ausstellung des Deutschen Historischen Museums Berlin, ed. R. Atzbach, S. Lüken, H. Ottomeyer, Dresden. Caldwell D. H. 1974-1975 Fragments of a Brigandine from Coldingham Priory, Berwickshire, Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 106, pp. 219-221. Calvert A. F. 1907 Spanish Arms and Armour, Being a Historical and Descriptive Account of the Royal Armoury of Madrid, London. Chudzińska B. 2011 Pozostałości średniowiecznej ręcznej broni palnej z zamku w Muszynie, AMM VII, pp. 203-214. Cunha E., Silva A. M. 1997 War lesions from the famous Portuguese medieval battle of Aljubarrota, International Journal of Osteoarcheology 7, pp. 595-599. Weapon finds from the “Grüttpott” at Stolpe on the Oder 205

Credland A. G. 1990 Notes on the Crossbow Spanning Bench, Journal of the Society of Archer-Antiquaries 33, pp. 13-22. Diotallevi D. 2008 Per una storia della Brigantina, [in:] Un Vestito da Battaglia, una brigantina del ´500, ed. M. G. Barberini, Roma, pp. 13-20. Dufty A. R., Reid W. 1968 European Armour in the Tower of London, London. Dyachkov S. 2011 The 15th Century Brigandine of a Crossbowman from the Genoese Fortress of Cembalo, AMM VII, pp. 175-190. Dziedzic P., Michalak A., Szczepanek A. 2011 Co kości mówią nam o wojnie? Uwagi na marginesie odkryć urazów na czaszkach z masowej mogiły z grodziska w Niesulicach koło Świebodzina, AMM VII, pp. 49-78 Eaves I. 1989 On the Remains of a Jack of Plate excavated from Beeston Castle in Cheshire, Journal of the Arms and Armour Society 13/2, pp. 84-85. Ekdahl S. 1998 Die Bewaffnung der schwedischen Bauern im Mittelalter, FAH 11, pp. 17-38. Enders L. 1992 Die Uckermark. Geschichte einer kurmärkischen Landschaft vom 12. bis zum 18. Jahrhundert, Weimar. Ernst B. 2005 Spätmittelalterlich-frühneuzeitliche Schutz- und Trutzwaffenfunde von der Burgruine Runding, Lkr. Cham, Beiträge zur Archäologie in der Oberpfalz und in 7, pp. 339-350. Fey H.-J. 1981 Reise und Herrschaft der Markgrafen von Brandenburg (1134–1319), Köln-Wien. Ffoulkes Ch. J. 1911 On Italian Armour from Chalcis in the Ethnological Museum at Athens, Archaeologia 62, pp. 382-390. Fiorato V., Boylsten A., Knüsel C. (eds.) 2000 Blood Red Roses. The archaeology of a Mass Grave from the Battle of Towton AD 1461, Oxford. Fleischhauer W. 1 1934 Spangenharnischfund auf Burg Helfenstein, ZfHWK N.F. 4, pp. 250-252. 1936 Zum Spangenharnischfund von Burg Helfenstein, ZfHWK N.F. 5, pp. 110-111. Francke C. 1999 Fragmenty zbroi z zamku Szczerba w Gniewoszowie, pow. Kłodzko, Silesia Antiqua 40, pp. 100-114. Fritze W. H. 1982 Das Vordringen deutscher Herrschaft in Teltow und , [in:] Frühzeit zwischen Ostsee und Donau. Ausgewählte Beiträge zum geschichtlichen Werden im östlichen Mitteleuropa vom 6. bis zum 13. Jahrhundert. Germania Slavica III, ed. W. H. Fritze, Berlin, pp. 297-374. Gabra-Sanders T. 1993 Part of a 16th Century Quilted Jack of Plate found at Craigievar Castle, Aberdeenshire, Journal of the Arms and Armour Society 14/3, pp. 147-152. Gamber O. 1953 Harnischstudien: V. Stilgeschichte des Plattenharnisches von den Anfängen bis um 1440, Jahrbuch der Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen in Wien 50, pp. 53-92. 1998 Geschichte der mittelalterlichen Bewaffnung. Teil 6, Waffen- und Kostümkunde 40, pp. 33-62. Gessler E. A. 1933 Ein neuer Spangenharnisch in der Schweiz, ZfHWK N.F. 4, pp. 107-109. Głosek M., Kajzer L., Nadolski A. 1978 Broń średniowieczna z ziem polskich, Łódź. Groß U. 2005 Spannhaken. Seltene Funde mittelalterlichen Armbrust-Zugehörs, Denkmalpflege in Baden-Württemberg 34, pp. 225-230. Hall B. S. 1979 The technological Illustrations of the so-called “Anonymus of the Hussite Wars”, Codex latinus Monacensis 197, Part 1, Wiesbaden. Harmuth E. 1979 Belt-spanners for crossbows, [in:] Art, arms and armour. An international anthology. Vol. 1, ed. R. Held, Chiasso, pp. 100-107. 1986 Die Armbrust. Ein Handbuch, Graz. Hawkins D. 1990 The Black Death and new London cemeteries of 1348, Antiquity 64, pp. 637-642. Hoff A. 1969 Feuerwaffen I, Braunschweig. 206 Christof Krauskopf

Holst J. 2009 The Tower named „Grüttpott“ at Stolpe upon Oder, [in:] Expansion – Integration? Danish-Baltic Contacts 1147–1410 AD, ed. B. F. Jensen, D. Wille-Jørgensen, Vordingborg, pp. 95-118. Jánská E. 1963 Archeologický výzkum hradu Sión, Archeologicke Rozhledy XV, pp. 220-247 Jessop O. 1996 A new artefact typology for the study of medieval arrowheads, Medieval Archaeology 40, pp. 192-205. 1997 European iron arrowheads. Evidence for their technological development and geographical distribution, [in:] Military Studies in Medieval Europe. Papers of the ‚Medieval Europe Brugge 1997' Conference 11, ed. G. De Boe, F. Verhaeghe, Zellik, pp. 43-49. Jones P. N. 1992 The Metallography and relative Effectiveness of Arrowheads and Armor during the Middle Ages, Materials Characterization 29, pp. 111-117. Kempke T. 1988 Zur überregionalen Verbreitung der Pfeilspitzentypen des 8.-12. Jahrhunderts aus Starigard/Oldenburg, Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission 69, pp. 292-306. Knüsel C., Boylston A. 2000 How has the Towton project contributed to our knowledge of medieval and later warfare?, [in:] Blood Red Roses: The Archaeology of a Mass Grave from the Battle of Towton, 1461, eds. V Fiorato, A. Boylson, C. Knüsel , Oxford, pp. 169-188. Kohlhaussen H. 1951 Kunstsammlungen der Veste Coburg, Coburg. Krabbo H., Winter G. 1955 Regesten der Markgrafen von Brandenburg aus askanischem Hause, Berlin. Krauskopf C. 1995 „... davon nur noch wenige Rutera zu sehen seyn sollen ...“ Ausgrabungen in der Burgruine Schnellerts, Bamberg. 2007 Gegen den Kurfürsten. Waffenfunde aus dem Obergeschoss des Grützpotts bei Stolpe an der Oder, [in:] aedificatio terrae. Beiträge zur Umwelt- und Siedlungsarchäologie. Festschrift für Eike Gringmuth- Dallmer zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. G. H. Jeute, J. Schneeweiß, C. Theune, Rahden-Westfalen, pp. 247-254. 2011 “...mit guten Büchsen, Armbrust und anderen notdürftigen Wehren...”. Veränderungen im Wehrbau brandenburgischer Burgen während des 15. Jahrhunderts, [in:] Die Burg im 15. Jahrhundert, ed. J. Zeune, Braubach, pp. 49-62. Kunstdenkmäler 1934 Die Kunstdenkmäler der Provinz Brandenburg. Band III, Teil 3: Kreis Angermünde, Berlin. Kunz P. H. 2008 Technische Entwicklung der Feuerwaffen 1200 bis 1900. Eine Zusammenfassung der wichtigsten historischen und technischen Daten in Texten, Zeichnungen und Bildern, Zürich. Kyeser K. 2000 Konrad Kyeser Bellifortis. Clm 30150, ed. U. Montag, München. Lacy M. S. 1992 The development of the coat of plates (Compleat Anachronist 69), Milpitas. Laking G. F. 1920 A Record of European Armour and Arms II, London. Leja F. 2005 Vorbericht über die Ausgrabungen in der Burgruine Wolfstein, Stadt Neumarkt i.d. Opf., Beiträge zur Archäologie in der Oberpfalz und in Regensburg 7, pp. 351-374. Leng R. (ed.) 2000 Anleitung Schießpulver zu bereiten, Büchsen zu laden und zu beschießen. Eine kriegstechnische Handschrift im cgm 600 der Bayerischen Staatsbibliothek München, Wiesbaden. Leukhardt M. 2009 Die Fundmünzen aus dem Stolper Burgturm, Beiträge zur Brandenburgisch/Preußischen Numismatik 17, pp. 60-67. MacLaghlan S. 2010 Medieval Handgonnes. The first Black Powder Infantry Weapons, Oxford. Mäesalu A. 2004 Die archäologischen Brigantinenfunde in der Burg Otepää, Estland, [in:] Das Brigantinen-Symposium auf Schloss Tirol, Tirol, pp. 104-118. Marek L. 2008 Medieval Armour from Szczerba castle, AMM IV, pp. 87-124. forthcoming Castle at War. Archaeological Record of Fighting at the Siege at the Castle of Kolno in Silesia, [in:] Schlachtfeld und Massengrab – Spektren interdisziplinärer Auswertung von Orten der Gewalt. Conference papers, Arbeitsberichte zur Bodendenkmalpflege in Brandenburg. Weapon finds from the “Grüttpott” at Stolpe on the Oder 207

Marek L., Konczewski P. 2010 Oblężenie i upadek zamku Karpień. Interpretacja źródeł archeologicznych, AMM VI, pp. 93-120. Martin P. 1967 Waffen und Rüstungen von Karl dem Großen bis zu Ludwig XIV., Frankfurt am Main. Martinelli A., Lehmann S. 2007 Tremona-Castello. Vorläufiger Bericht zu den Untersuchungen in einem mittelalterlichen Dorf des Südtessins von 1998 bis 2007, Mittelalter – Moyen Age – Medioevo – Temp medieval 12/4, pp. 121-142. Miazga B. 2010 Wyniki badan rentgenofluorescencyjnych fragmentu lufy z zamku Karpień, AMM VI, pp. 117-120. Moorhouse S. 1972 Finds from Excavations in the Refectory at the Dominovan Friary Boston, Lincolnshire Historical Archaeology 7, pp. 21-54. Müller H. 1997 Gewehre, Pistolen, Revolver. Europäische Jagd- und Kriegswaffen des 14. bis 19. Jahrhunderts, 2nd ed., Berlin. Müller M. 1996 Die Turmburg Nürings bei Falkenstein im Taunus, [in:] Burgenforschung aus Hessen. Begleitband zur Ausstellung, ed. W. Böhme, Marburg, pp. 151-156. Nekuda V. 1975 Pfaffenschlag. Zaniklá stredoveká ves u Slavonic, Brno. 1985 Mstenice. Zaniklá stredoveká ves u Hrotovic, Brno. Nicolle D. 2002 Medieval Siege Weapons 1. Western Europe AD 585-1385, Oxford. Ortslexikon 1986 Historisches Ortslexikon für Brandenburg. Teil VIII: Uckermark, ed. L. Enders, Weimar. Pause C. 2010 Weapons and Military Equipment from the Burgundian Siege of Neuss in 1474-1475, AMM VI, pp. 121-144. Payne-Gallwey R. 1 1974 The Crossbow. Its construction, History and Management, 5th ed., London. Peine H. W. 2004 Ein Blick in die Waffenkammer des Hauses Herbede an der Ruhr, [in:] Das Brigantinen-Symposium auf Schloss Tirol, Tirol, pp. 40-77. Petersohn J. 1979 Der südliche Ostseeraum im kirchlich-politischen Kräftespiel des Reichs, Polens und Dänemarks vom 10. bis 13. Jh. Köln et. al. Post P. 1935 Von den Anfängen der Schaller, ZfHWK NF 5, pp. 100-103. 1943 Ein Panzerfragment aus der Frühzeit der Brigantine, ZfHWK NF 7, pp. 224-239. Pyhrr S. W. 1989 European Armor from the Imperial Ottoman Arsenal, Metropolitan Museum Journal 24, pp. 85-116. Rabovyanov D., Dimitrov S. 2011 Medieval Armour from the Royal Palace in the Bulgarian Capital Tarnovgrad, AMM VII, pp. 161-174. Rackevičius G. 2002 Arbaletas ir lankas lietuvoje XIII-XVI a., Vilnius. Richardson T. 1997 The Introduction of Plate Amour in Medieval Europe, Royal Armouries Yearbook 2, pp. 40-45. Richter H. 2006 Die Hornbogenarmbrust. Geschichte und Technik, Ludwigshafen. Rimer G. 1996 Early Handguns, Royal Armouries Yearbook 1, pp. 73-78. Schmidtchen V. 1977 Die Feuerwaffen des Deutschen Ritterordens bis zur Schlacht bei Tannenberg 1410. Bestände, Funktion und Kosten, dargestellt anhand der Wirtschaftsbücher des Ordens von 1375 bis 1410, Lüneburg. Schmitt A. 2008 Burg Tannenberg Seeheim-Jugenheim, Lkr. Darmstadt-Dieburg. Eine spätmittelalterliche Ganerbenburg im Licht der archäologischen Funde, Bonn. Schulz R. 1998 Stolpe, eine Turmburg des späten 12. Jahrhunderts an der Oder. Eine Befestigung der Dänen in Pommern gegen die Markgrafen von Brandenburg? Château Gaillard 18, pp. 211-221. 1999 Barnim und Uckermark – eine Burgenlandschaft. Entdeckungen entlang der Märkischen Eiszeitstraße 2, Eberswalde. 208 Christof Krauskopf

Schütz A. 2006 Die hoch- und spätmittelalterlichen Burgen und Adelssitze in der Uckermark, Land Brandenburg. Bestandsaufnahme und vergleichende Untersuchungen vom späten 12. bis zum Ende des 15. Jahrhunderts. Berlin (http://edoc.hu-berlin.de/dissertationen/schuetz-antonia-2007-05-10/PDF/schuetz.pdf). Sensfelder J. 2000 A gothic spanning hook, Journal of the Society of Archer-Antiquaries 43, pp. 20-24. Spindler K., Stadler H. 2004 Eine neuerworbene Brigantine im Südtiroler Landesmuseum Schloss Tirol, [in:] Das Brigantinen-Symposium auf Schloss Tirol, Tirol, pp. 192-206. Serdon V. 2005 Armes du diable. Arcs et arballètes au moyen âge, Rennes. Stadler H. 2004 Die Brigantine von Schloss Tirol in ihrem waffenhistorischen Kontext, [in:] Das Brigantinen-Symposium auf Schloss Tirol, Tirol, pp. 20-31. Steeger W. 1998 Ausgrabungen auf der Burgruine Wolfstein, Beiträge zur Archäologie in der Oberpfalz 2, pp. 395-422. Strzyż P. 2011 Średniowieczna broń palna w Polsce. Studium archeologiczne. Łódź. Sutherland T., 2000 Recording the grave, [in:] Blood Red Roses: The Archaeology of a Mass Grave from the Battle of Towton, 1461, eds. V Fiorato, A. Boylson, C. Knüsel , Oxford, pp. 36-44. Świętosławski W. 2008 Późnośredniowieczne militaria z reliktów wieży w Jemiołowie koło Olsztynka, AMM IV, pp. 189-198. Taavitsainen J.-P. 2002 Brikantiinin levyjä Kuusiston linnasta, Suomen Keskiajan Arkeologian Seura 4, pp. 68-73. Thierbach M. 1886 Geschichtliche Entwicklung der Handfeuerwaffen, Dresden. Thordemann B. 1939 Armour from the Battle of Wisby, vol. 1-2, Stockholm. Trapp O., Mann J. 1929 The Armoury of the Castle of Churburg, London. von Hefner J., Wolf J. W. 1850 Die Burg Tannenberg und ihre Ausgrabungen, Frankfurt am Main. von Raumer G. W. 1831 Codex diplomaticus continuatus. Sammlung ungedruckter Urkunden zur brandenburgischen Geschichte, Berlin. Vassilatos N. 1999 Middelalderhjelmene fra Chalkis, Våbenhistoriske Årbøger 47, pp. 132-144. Wachowski K. 1982 Średniowieczna broń miotająca na Śląsku w świetle znalezisk z Ostrówka w Opolu, APolski 27/1, pp. 167-202. Vránová V., Vrána J. 2008 Olověné projektily z hradu Tepence, CB 11, pp. 457-460 Woeller W. 1979 Volkssagen zwischen Hiddensee und Wartburg, Berlin. Wojciechowski T. 1989 Znaleziska fragmentów kusz na ziemiach polskich, Kwart. HKM 39/3-4, pp. 481-496. Žákovský P. 2011 Stredoveká a rane novoveká militaria ze sbírek Lovecko-Lesnického Muzea v Úsove na Morave, AMM VII, pp. 105-159. Zimmermann B. 2000 Mittelalterliche Geschossspitzen. Kulturhistorische, archäologische und archäometallurgische Untersuchungen, Basel. Weapon finds from the “Grüttpott” at Stolpe on the Oder 209

Christof Krauskopf

ZNALEZISKA BRONI I UZBROJENIA Z „GRÜTTPOTT” W STOLPE NAD ODRĄ

Streszczenie

W ciągu 2. połowy XII w. Królestwu Danii udało krótki i nieco zaokrąglony, z rzędem nitów wzdłuż się opanować słowiańskie i niemieckie terytoria na dolnej krawędzi. Zabytek ten stanowi prawdopodobnie południowym wybrzeżu Morza Bałtyckiego. W 1214 r. fragment późnego basineta lub wczesnej salady. następca Otta – Frederick II – potwierdził duńską do- Ponad połowa ze 117 grotów bełtów (lub strzał) minację nad Pomorzem i Holsztynem, a w tym samym jest niestety tak fragmentarycznie zachowana, że nie- roku duński król Waldemar II odzyskał miasta po- możliwa jest ich dokładna klasyfikacja. Wśród 51 za- morskie Szczecin i Pasewalk, zajęte wcześniej przez chowanych w całości, lub co najmniej w większej części Askańczyków w 1211 r. W mniej niż 50 lat Królestwo nienaruszonych, wyróżnić można kilka różnych typów Danii uzyskało znaczący wpływ na słowiańskie te- (ryc. 8-14). Długie i smukłe liściowate groty typu 1 są rytoria wzdłuż południowych wybrzeży Morza Bał- zwykle datowane na XII i XIII w. Są on lżejsze i dłuższe tyckiego (ryc. 1). W tym samym czasie miała miejsce od wszystkich innych typów odkrytych w „Grüttpott” ekspansja askańska. W odpowiedzi na pomorsko- (ryc. 15). Okazy zgrupowane w typie 2 były powszech- duńską agresję, Askańczycy ufortyfikowali stary sło- ne między XIII a XV w. i wykazują analogiczną wiański gród w Oderbergu. tendencję. Są one znacznie lżejsze od okazów typów Jeden z najbardziej niezwykłych średniowiecz- 5 i 6. Cięższe groty są jednakże również dużo krótsze nych zamków w północnych Niemczech, zlokalizo- niż te typów 1 i 2 (ryc. 16). Zabytki z „Grüttpott”, które wany ok. 12 km na północ od Oderbergu, został z pewnością używane były w tym samym czasie, uk1a- wybudowany ok. 1200 r. pod wpływem Duńczyków zują nam chronologiczny rozwój form grotów bełtów (ryc. 2-3). Tzw. “Grüttpott” w Stolpe n. Odrą to ma- w okresie średniowiecza (ryc. 17). Od XV w. groty sywna wieża zbudowana z cegieł, o średnicy 18 m stają się krótsze, szersze i cięższe, co związane było i zachowanej wysokości 12 m pod i 18 m ponad zie- z rozwojem technologii budowy kusz oraz z odpo- mią. Mury w przyziemiu osiągają grubość do 6 m. wiedzią na znaczne udoskonalenie zbroi płytowej. Aż do XV w. zwierzchnictwo nad zamkiem Wykonany z poroża jelenia orzech do kuszy zmieniało się kilkakrotnie. W 1445 r. Fryderyk II, odkryty w „Grüttpott” ma wszystkie typowe elementy Elektor brandenburski, oblegał i zdobył go, wyłączając dla tej kategorii przedmiotów ze znanych środkowo- z pomorskiego dominium. W trakcie oblężenia górne europejskich mechanizmów spustowych kusz (ryc. 18). kondygnacje wieży uległy zawaleniu, grzebiąc liczne Otwór na spust jest jednak relatywnie mały w po- przedmioty codziennego użytku i broń. W 1991 r. do równaniu do wielkości masywnego żelaznego klina Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und przymocowanego do orzecha, by zapobiec jego znisz- Archäologisches Landesmuseum przekazano ogromne czeniu przez żelazny spust kuszy. ilości zabytków znalezione na terenie zamku. Wyjątkowym przedmiotem wydaje się angielska Znalazło się wśród nich 57 kompletnych bądź winda (ryc. 19), jako że archeologiczne znaleziska fragmentarycznie zachowanych zbrojników brygantyny. tego typu przedmiotów są niezwykle rzadkie. Winda Większość płytek jest tak mocno zniszczona, że właś- z „Grüttpott” złożona jest z tulei, którą przymocowa- ciwie niemożliwe jest dziś ustalenie ich pierwotnego no powyżej ramy mechanizmu naciągowego i rączek. kształtu. Można jednak wśród nich wyróżnić co naj- Bardzo rzadkim znaleziskiem spośród przedmio- mniej 4 typy zbrojników (ryc. 4). Ogólnie pancerze tów z „Grüttpott” jest hak z ławki naciągowej bądź zbrojnikowe rozwijały się według zbliżonego schematu: podstawy do kuszy wałowej (ryc. 20). Przedmiot ten od dużych w zbliżony sposób uformowanych płytek składa się z podwójnego haka przymocowanego za- z niewielką ilością nitów w połowie XIV w., do ma- wiasem do płytki rękojeści z trzema otworami na nity łych, różnorodnego kształtu zbrojników w XV i XVI w. bądź gwoździe. Była ona bądź przynitowywana do Cztery, większych rozmiarów fragmenty blachy, skórzanego pasa, bądź przymocowana bezpośrednio do wydają się pochodzić ze zbroi płytowej (ryc. 5). Mogą drewnianego dysku, który obracano wraz z dźwignią one stanowić elementy napierśnika bądź naplecznika. podczas naciągania kuszy. Nity na krawędziach płyt sugerują że były przytwier- Odkryto również 20 pocisków do broni palnej dzone do tekstylnego podkładu lub innej części pan- (ryc. 21). Tylko jeden z nich jest żelazną kulą (ryc. 21:1) – cerza. wszystkie pozostałe wykonano z ołowiu i mają cylin- W „Grüttpott” znaleziono również fragment tyl- dryczny kształt. Ich średnica waha się między 14 a 31 mm, nej partii hełmu (ryc. 6-7). Zachowany ułamek, który i uderzające jest, że na jej podstawie niemożliwe jest chronił prawdopodobnie kark noszącego, był dość wyróżnienie grup o ściśle określonym kalibrze (ryc. 22). 210 Christof Krauskopf

Różnorodność rozmiarów pocisków wskazuje, że musiały pochodzą niemal ze wszystkich części jednego szkie- być one używane jako amunicja do co najmniej czterech letu (ryc. 25). Osobnik ten wydaje się być płci męskiej, egzemplarzy broni palnej, każdego o innym kalibrze, i zmarł pomiędzy 30. a 50. rokiem życia. Niestety, same bądź broni o konicznym wnętrzu lufy, na co może kości dostarczają zbyt małej ilości informacji tłuma- wskazywać linearny wzrost rozmiarów pocisków. czących ich obecność w wieży. Z niewyjaśnionych Odkryto również 18 fragmentów odlanej z brązu powodów co najmniej część ciała poległego komba- ręcznej broni palnej, w tym hak do jej mocowania tanta musiano pozostawić pod rumowiskiem po częś- (ryc. 23). Drugi, mniejszy hak wykonano z żelaza. ciowym zawaleniu wieży. Niektóre z fragmentów pasowały do siebie, czyniąc Monety odkryte na terenie zamku datowane są na możliwym częściową rekonstrukcję choć jednej z bro- okres między 1330 a 1519 r., jednak większość z nich ni (ryc. 24). Stan zachowania fragmentów broni palnej pochodzi z 1. połowy XV w. Również broń sugeruje sugeruje, że eksplozja gazów wewnątrz komory, która ją datowanie całego materiału odkrytego na terenie wa- rozerwała, nastąpiła w trakcie oblężenia. Ścianki lufy rowni na XV stulecie. Jako że oblężenie zamku w 1445 r. mają grubość do 15 mm, a te komory do 20 mm. Po- potwierdzone jest przez źródła pisane, prawdopodobne trzeba było ogromnej siły, by rozerwać tę broń na częś- wydaje się jego zniszczenie właśnie w tym czasie. ci. Jeden fragment lufy jest wyraźnie zdeformowany Żadne ze znalezisk nie podważa tej interpretacji. Ma- i widać, że mimo dużej grubości materiału została my więc rzadką możliwość przestudiowania materiału ona rozsadzona na zewnątrz (ryc. 23:3). z terminus ante quem określonym dokładnie do kon- W trakcie badań odkryto również 25 kości ludz- kretnego roku. kich, wybranych spośród występujących w ogromnych ilościach kości zwierzęcych. Pozyskane kości ludzkie Tłumaczenie: Arkadiusz Michalak

APPENDIX Bettina Jungklaus Christof Krauskopf

HUMAN SKELETAL REMAINS FROM THE “GRÜTTPOTT” AT STOLPE

25 human bones were identified among the time of death. This is indicated by the ante- a much larger quantity of animal bone1. They were mortem loss of the two rear molars in the surviving probably part of a single skeleton and it is unlikely piece of jawbone and a number of open sutures that the remains of two or more individuals were on the fragment of parietal bone. The degenerative present in the keep. The bones represent almost alteration of the 9th dorsal vertebra is also evidence all parts of the body and include one fragment of of advanced age (fig. 27). None of the long bones the left parietal bone, the right mandible, the 7th were completely preserved and so it was impossible cervical vertebra, five dorsal vertebrae, one upper to estimate the height of the individual. lumbar vertebra, an almost complete manubrium, It is hard to believe that a human body was the right humerus, one complete and six fragmentary left unburied. Every baptised Christian, unless he right ribs, four fragmentary left ribs, the left fibula had committed a mortal sin, was supposed to and the 3rd, 4th and 5th metatarsals from the left be buried in hallowed ground. The siege of the foot (fig. 26). Grüttpott was, for both sides, a righteous battle – The material is mostly fragmentary and as Hans von Buch states in the document dated to provides very little information about the individual. January 1446 (Codex... 1857a, 367) – and fallen Sex determination was difficult because the cranium warriors could expect a proper burial. On the othe1r and pelvis were missing. The only surviving hand there are examples, that fallen warriors were indicator, the angle of the jaw, seems to suggest not buried immediately. After the battle of Wisby, a male. The individual appears to have been adult fought in summer 1361, the dead bodies seem to and was probably between 30 and 50 years old at have been left several days unburied. The state of

1 The animal bones consist mainly of late medieval material (presumably of the garrison’s food) and the remains of animals which had inhabited the keep after it’s partial collapse, or had been brought in by predators. Weapon finds from the “Grüttpott” at Stolpe on the Oder 211

Fig. 27. Degenerative alteration at the 9th dorsal vertebra. Photo 1by B. Jungklaus.

Ryc. 27. Zmiany degeneratywne dziewiątego kręgu dorsalnego. Fot. B. Jungklaus.

Fig. 26. Skeleton with mark of the preserved bones – display of bones by B. Jungklaus.

Ryc. 26. Szkielet z oznaczonymi zachowanymi kośćmi – oznaczenia kości B. Jungklaus.

decay might have been the reason why some of the warriors were not stripped off their armour. The reason may have been, that the inhabitants of Wisby did not dare to leave the town earlier, because of the presence of the Danish forces and then buried the dead in great hurry (Thordemann 1938, 94f.). If this is correct, the delay did not occur because of disregard for the fallen. After the burial a memorial cross was erected (Thordemann 1938, fig. 4). Might the mass burial near Wisby Fig. 28. 6th dorsal vertebra with injury. Photo by B. Jungklaus. be sufficient to fulfil the duty to bury the fallen Ryc. 28. Szósty krąg dorsalny z urazem. Fot. B. Jungklaus. properly, other examples show, that the Christian duty was not fulfilled in every case. In 1385 a battle was fought near Aljubarrota in Portugal. Obviously the fallen were kept unburied for several years burying the victims, as the excavations of a mass before they were laid in a mass grave (Cunha, Silva grave at East Smithfield prove (Hawkins 1990). 1997, 596). Even in extreme situations, as during Uncommon burial methods do not necessarily prove the plague, order and dignity were respected, when an “un-Christian” attempt (Sutherland 2000, 43). 212 Christof Krauskopf

The example of the mass grave at Towton shows vault and into the lower storey of the keep. They nevertheless disregard for the fallen who belonged were removed from there when Leopold von to the opponents of a crowned king. In this case Buch dug the tunnel into the basement in 1840. both parties were regarded as traitors – the leaders The latter seems unlikely because it does not of both parties were crowned kings – and the explain why the body was left in the keep after different orientation of the buried as well as traces the siege. There also seem to be too few body of disfigurement of the bodies may show a different parts to support this theory, although it is possible interment, executed by the winning party (Knüsel, that some individual bones were already removed Boylston 2000, 186). As the battle of the Grüttpott from the tower at a later date2. seems to have been a righteous fight, a post mortal During the osteological examination of the punishment or disregard seems unlikely. However, material, care was taken to look for traces of it might still be possible that the fallen warrior damage which could be related to explosion but was left intentionally unburied in the upper storey no such evidence was found. All of the fractures of the Grüttpott. But this possibility still does not occurred are post mortem, and only one single explain the selection of the bones and it does not ante- or peri-mortem wound could be observed. explain where the rest of the corpse was left. This consisted of a sharp force (puncture) injury At least two possible interpretations can be to the 6th dorsal vertebra, possibly caused by offered to explain the incomplete skeleton. The a lance or a crossbow bolt3. The vertebra was body may have been torn to pieces by an explosion ruptured by the force of the blow (fig. 28). during the battle. After the end of the siege, as many Unfortunately the bones provide too little body parts as possible were collected and buried. information to explain their presence in the keep. Those which were under the rubble could not be For whatever reason, at least part of the body of reached and were left behind. A second possibility a fallen combatant, who might have been killed is that the whole body remained under the rubble or seriously wounded by a crossbow bolt, had to and, after the flesh had decayed, fell literally bit be left under the rubble after the partial collapse by bit through the opening in the vertex of the of the keep.

dr Bettina Jungklaus Anthropologie-Büro Jungklaus Berlin

dr Christof Krauskopf Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologisches Landesmuseum Zossen

2 It is said, that in the 1960s or 1970s a skull was found in the keep. This information was kindly provided by a local inhabitant. The whereabouts of the skull remain uncertain. 3 For the identification of war lesions see also Dziedzic, Michalak, Szczepanek 2011.