The Early Bronze Age Halberd in Ireland
Function and Context
Ronan O’Flaherty 2002
A CONSIDERATION OF THE EARLY BRONZE AGE HALBERD IN IRELAND
Function and Context
by Ronan O’Flaherty, M.A.
a thesis submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
PhD
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE DUBLIN
2002
Supervisors: Professor Barry Raftery and Dr. Joanna Brück
DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY FACULTY OF ARTS
Volume 1 of 2
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements
Introduction 1
CHAPTER 1 The Early Bronze Age halberd: a history of research 5
CHAPTER 2 Regions and Typologies- an overview of halberds in Europe 24
CHAPTER 3 A close up look at Irish halberds -Part 1: the blade 82
CHAPTER 4 A close up look at Irish halberds -Part 2: rivets and rivet holes 124
CHAPTER 5 Meetings with remarkable halberds 159
CHAPTER 6 Context, Distribution and Associations 176
CHAPTER 7 Contemporary Images of Halberds: Rock Art, Stelae-Statuary and Miniatures 232
CHAPTER 8 Mining, making and metallography 293
CHAPTER 9 Functionality: making and using a replica halberd; historical and ethnographic parallels; combat in the Early Bronze Age 329
CHAPTER 10 Questions of Time and Space 372
CHAPTER 11 Conclusions 403
Bibliography
Volume 2
Appendix 1 Finds catalogue 1 Appendix 2 Preliminary listing of Iberian halberds 137 Appendix 3 list of all Irish halberds where details of find-context known 141 Appendix 4 Comparison of profiles of proposed sibling-halberds 149
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I owe a large debt of gratitude to a great many people. Firstly, I must express my deep appreciation to my supervisors Professor Barry Raftery and Dr Jo Bruck, and with very special thanks to Jo for her meticulous examination of my various drafts and for her numerous, insightful comments. Both Professors Raftery and Cooney, while Heads of the Department, have consistently encouraged me in my research and have been extremely flexible and understanding. I would also like to acknowledge the kindness and interest of the former Head, Professor George Eogan and of Dr Rhoda Kavanagh who has never accepted that Irish halberds could not have been used. The many debates and seminars organised by the Department for its PhD students helped hugely and I would like to pay tribute to Dr
Muiris O'Sullivan and to say how much the effort he put into these on our behalf was appreciated.
I owe much to many others: my friends and former colleagues in the Discovery Programme, particularly Dr Eoin Grogan, Fin O'Carroll and Aidan O'Sullivan, for stimulating and interesting discussions in the early stages; Ines Hagen for pointing me to the Tiibingen-Weilheim stone; Niall Barry for guidance on pivot tables; Conor McDermott for advice on mapping and Dr Rob Sandes for direction on the possibilities and limitations of computerised image profiling; Dirk Brandherm for his advice on Iberian halberds; Sue Bridgford who shared willingly of her experience in examining impact damage on swords; Christy Philpott for his photography and strong stomach; Damian Allen for driving up a mountain in Wexford at the dead of night to retrieve a copy of my thesis when I needed it; Barbara Ottaway for discussion of the possibilities of sand-casting; Tom O'Hanlon and veterinary colleagues in Department of Agriculture and Food, Wexford for advice on the best heads to hit; Irish Country Meats, Camolin, for allowing me do unspeakable things to (dead) sheep heads; Peter Northover for the loan of Proyecto volumes, advice and incredible turnaround time when I had lost a reference with two days to go!; Billy O'Brien for his advice and similar turnaround time in the last few days, when I had invented a completely imaginary distribution map, attributed it to him and then wondered why I couldn't find it; Elizabeth Shee Twohig for slide-images of the rock-art of northern Italy, which helped clarify many of the carvings for me; John Coles for his help with Scandinavian and British rock-art; Trevor Cowie who organises conferences, halberds and taxis with ease and aplomb, and with thanks for drawing the new Eweford halberd to my attention; Stuart Needham for the benefit of his enormous knowledge of the metalwork and for a very pleasant lunch in London!; Brendan O'Connor for advice on the dating of Argaric swords; Professor Clive Lee of the Royal College of Surgeons for his practical response to my enquiry as to the thickness of the frontal bone in the human skull, when desperate approaches elsewhere were yielding a bewildering barrage of data; Dr Michael Doherty of the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine , UCD, who similarly came up with the goods for the thickness of sheep skulls.
None of my work would have been possible, however, without the co-operation of the various museums who made their collections available to me and who willingly shared their opinions and knowledge. In particular I acknowledge a debt of gratitude to Mary Cahill, Raghnall 0 Floinn, Andy Halpin, Linda Shine and Niamh Deegan of the National Museum of Ireland; Sinead McCartan and Richard Warner of the Ulster Museum , who facilitated access not just to the main collection but to halberds in Armagh and Fermanagh County Museums; lnga Ullen of the National Museum of Sweden who provided information on Swedish halberds in the absence of any published catalogue; Trevor Cowie of the National Museum of Scotland and Stuart Needham of the British Museum, I have already mentioned. I must also acknowledge the remarkable work of Dr Peter Harbison, to whose basic catalogue I returned again and again: I am pleased that so many of my results independently confirm the typology he established.
Trying to write this thesis in Wexford when all the books you want are 100 miles away was a challenge, but one eased by Colette Ellison of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland and Siobhan O'Rafferty of the Royal Irish Academy, both of whom searched out publications for me in my hour of need. I owe a special debt of gratitude to Boyd Rankin and Lynne Williams who made such a wonderful replica for me and who drove to Dublin Airport to bring it out before a conference in Edinburgh, thereby creating a minor incident in Dublin Airport but a much bigger one in Edinburgh Airport, which almost resulted in my halberd becoming an unintentional bequest to the National Museum of Scotland. There are others, close to me, whom I must mention: my mother Una, who reads avidly and even reads the stuff I write; my late father, Mick, whose enforced trips to the National Museum eventually bore fruit in this thesis (I hope he's happy!); my father-in-law, Eadhmonn, who offers the example of life-long learning. Most of all, however, I give thanks to Niamh and Sadhbh who have had to put up with a lot when time was precious and who increasingly assumed voluntary exile in the remoter parts of Wexford as deadlines approached and passed! Niamh has translated tracts from German and Italian for me, photocopied, cut, paste till the early hours and badgered me until it was all done and between covers: I'd dedicate the volume to you, but you'd probably hit me with it and it's heavy. All I can do is thank you.
11
Introduction
Presently he rose and approached the case before which she stood. Its glass shelves were crowded with small broken objects- hardly recognisable domestic utensils, ornaments and personal trifles• made of glass, of clay, of discoloured bronze and other time-blurred substances. 'It seems cruel', she said, 'that after a while nothing matters ....any more than these little things, that used to be necessary and important to forgotten people, and now have to be guessed at under a magnifying glass and labelled: "Use unknown.'"
Edith Wharton, The Age of Innocence.
Halberds have been the victims of some of the most colourful epitaphs in archaeological literature. Macalister writing in 1928 comments with quiet satisfaction that they have "all the interest of mystery, for they present more problems than might be expected on a superficial glance at a museum case containing them". They are, in the words of Peter Harbison (1969a), "possibly the most puzzling and problematic Leitfossil of Early Bronze Age Europe". O'Kelly (1989) describes them as "one of the most remarkable and perhaps enigmatic artefacts of the first half of the EBA." John Waddell (1998) also sees them as "puzzling objects", "large, extravagant and unwieldy''.
It is rather surprising that such unassuming artifacts should have attracted so much intrigue and doubtless the reader, seized by these dramatic statements, will read on in breathless anticipation of even more murder, mystery and suspense. However, the purpose of this thesis is not to add to the aura of arcane inscrutability surrounding these humble artifacts, but rather to strip away some of this mystery and address the fundamental questions of 'how', 'when', 'where' and, most of all, 'why'; for more than anything else, this thesis is concerned with function and functionality.
When Harbison completed his catalogue of halberds in 1969, he was able to account for a total of 177 halberds recovered in Ireland at some stage or other in the past, not including a further 3 possible halberds which he had been unable to confirm as such at time of writing. For some reason or other, however, Harbison in his foreword mentions a figure of just 150 halberds as having been recovered from Ireland and this is the figure which is now commonly quoted. When the individual records for each class are counted, however, the total number of halberds represented in his catalogue is in fact 177. Of this figure, Harbison was able to locate 173 in various museums and collections, leaving only 4 the whereabouts of which were unknown. To Harbison's total should now be added a further 9 halberds recovered since his catalogue went to press, bringing the overall total of known Irish examples up to at least 186 (Table 1). The current study examines 135 of these, representing the entire collections of the National Museum, the U1ster Museum, the Armagh County Museum, the Limerick County Museum, the Fermanagh County Museum, the British Museum and the National
Museum of Scotland. The whereabouts of a number of others, formerly in the Limerick Library, is now unknown, having been sold on some years ago. The balance of the locatable halberds, for the most part, is preserved in various smaller collections in Britain and on the Continent.
Table 1
BREAKDOWN OF ALL KNOWN IRISH HALBERDS
Type Total Pop Harbison Additional Study Group Cam 51 48 3 37 Cotton 93 90 3 69 Clonard* 16 14 2 14 Breaghwy• 14 14 0 13 Mise 5 5 0 2 Unknown 7 6 1 0 TOTALS 186 177 9 135 •total for these mcludes those classified as "alhed" types m Harbtson, 1969a.
The study group includes all contexted Irish halberds which are or were available for examination. The position with regard to those unavailable for examination is as follows: • three are in private possession, current whereabouts unknown: these are a type Clonard from the River Suck, and two unknown types from the River Bann and from bogland near Kilbeg, Co. Offaly. • Two are temporarily unavailable in the National Museum oflreland: these are both type Cottons, one from a crannog at Drummond Otra, Co.Monaghan and one from bogland at Ards Beg Co. Donegal. • The last is also a type Cotton, from a gravel pit in Rathfamham, Co. Dublin: this is listed in Ó Riordain (1937) and Harbison (1969a) with the reference 1897:1316 and is "missing" 1 from the National Museum collection, with just the label remaining in the relevant habitat •
Harbison's classifications are used throughout for consistency. There are a small number of instances where I would disagree with his classification - these are noted in the text as appropriate, and in the catalogue entries, but are not significant overall. A glance at Table l above shows the sample included in the study-group to be broadly representative of the breakdown of the population as a whole according to Harbison's typology. Accordingly, it is considered that the results obtained reflect the position for Irish halberds generally.
1 While typing-up the catalogue which accompanies this work, some of the characteristics noted for another halberd seemed very similar to this example from Rathfarnham. I travelled to Dublin to confirm my suspicions and I now believe that an unprovenanced halberd listed in the NMI registers as "R1316", and included in my analyses, is in fact the missing Rathfamham halberd. The similarity between the reference numbers would also suggest this. This has yet to be formally confirmed by the National Museum.
2
The aim of this study is to look in detail at the Irish halberds with a view to determining function. The concept of functionality is itself a complex one and traditional views which sought to separate out notions of functionality and symbolism are no longer generally accepted. For example, Bruck (1999) has pointed to the tendency on the part of archaeologists to define "ritual" in terms of whatever appears irrational or non-functional. She argues that the distinction drawn by modem researchers is a product of post-Enlightenment rationalism and has little to do with how prehistoric societies viewed their behaviour. It is not so much that the symbolic and the practical are two sides of the one coin, she argues, but rather that they are the same thing (ibid, 325). By seeking to project modem concepts of rationality upon prehistoric societies, we may impose an erroneous sense of familiarity upon the past. Interpretation is then built upon shaky foundations, on assumptions which are true only for ourselves and for our time and place. In terms of the subject matter in hand here, it is important to remember that an object may be simultaneously a symbol of power and a functioning weapon or tool. Individual objects may assume or acquire different roles over the course of their lives, or the artifact-type itself may change the role it plays. The same artifact can mean different things in different places or at different times. This poses problems even for terminology, as to describe something as "non-functional" may imply that it serves no purpose. In the course of this work, I use the terms "functional" and "non-functional" in the traditional sense; in other words, the term "functional" should be taken to mean that the artifact in question could have been put to practical use, while not excluding by any means the possibility of a ceremonial role as well; the term "non-functional" means that the nature of its design is such as to render practical use unlikely, generally because of weak hafting technique. The metal shafted halberds of central Europe, for example, with their hollow haft-heads and skuomorphic rivets, might well be considered non• functional in the practical sense, but charged with very real power in another.
In relation to the functionality of the Irish halberds, the design, condition and dimensions of the blade, hafting plate, rivets and rivet-holes will be examined in particular. To this end, each of the 135 halberds considered here has been examined by me in the hand, measured and weighed. The same set of plastic callipers was used to take all measurements. The nature and context of the deposition of the Irish halberds and their distribution across Ireland will be studied in detail. Methods of fabrication, metal sources and the results of published metallographic analyses will also be considered. The chronological position of the Irish halberds will be established. Broader questions will also be tackled and one chapter is devoted to a regional overview of the halberd in Europe, where the current total population of finds will be presented for the first time since O Riordain (1937). A regional profile for each country in Europe where halberds have been found is included in this chapter, and in general this profile considers the number and type of halberds to be found in each region, the context of deposition, chronology, associations and distributions. This information has been gleaned from a
3
variety of published sources and the level of detail included in the regional overview reflects what is available in those publications. While detailed dimensional data and data relating to wear and condition is considered in relation to the Irish halberds, this is not the case for the British and continental material. Very little of such information is available in publication, and that inconsistently presented, and it would have been impractical and prohibitively expensive to attempt to collect the information myself by visiting each of the many museums in Europe where halberds are preserved. In any case, it was not the aim or objective of this study to collect this data. I have attempted at all times to keep the focus of this study squarely on the Irish halberds.
Some considerable space is given over to an examination of contemporary depictions of halberds in the Continental rock-art of the period, and in stelae-statuary and miniatures. Again, the focus of this examination is on questions of functionality and the temptation to follow up different lines of enquiry has been resisted. The rock-art in particular has much to offer in terms of our understanding of the way in which halberds might have been used, and in the way they were hafted. This is of particular importance given that, with very few exceptions, halberds - whether in Ireland, Britain or continental Europe- do not survive with the original organic shafts intact.
On the basis of the information collected by museum research and using the evidence of the rock-art as well, a replica halberd was constructed and tested in practical trials. This halberd is also available for examination as part of this thesis.
This thesis is in two volumes. The first contains all the detailed analyses, discussion and conclusions; the second comprises the catalogue and other appendices. Each of the 135 halberds studied is described and illustrated on a separate data sheet in the catalogue. I have deliberately refrained from allocating my own catalogue numbers to the halberds examined here. Instead, all references to specific halberds within the text are accompanied by the appropriate museum reference number. The catalogue itself is organised by museum collection and then consecutively by reference number within that, so the reader, armed with the appropriate museum reference, should find it comparatively easy to locate the data sheet required. The following abbreviations are used throughout: NMI - National Museum of Ireland; NMS - National Museum of Scotland; BM -British Museum; PR• Pitt Rivers Museum, Oxford; AM - Ashmolean Museum; UM- Ulster Museum. The use of the term "Early Bronze Age" wherever it appears should be taken as including the earliest phase of metallurgy, notwithstanding the fact that these earliest metal industries were based on copper rather than bronze.
All images, charts, tables etc are mine unless otherwise attributed.
4 Chapter 1
The Early Bronze Age halberd: a history of research
History is a tangled skein that one may take up at any point, and break when one has unravelled enough.
Henry Adams, The Education of Henry Adams.
Halberds have been recognised in the archaeological record for something over 150 years now. Several general texts on the subject contain short summaries of the history of research, though none could be described as comprehensive and most are well out-of-date by this stage. The best are to be found in Ó Ríordáin, S.P. (1937), Harbison, P. (1969a) and in Lenerz-de Wilde, M.
(1991). All of these provide useful, if short, summaries, with Harbison probably giving the best overall account. However, in what follows it is proposed to look in a little more detail at what has been written before on the subject of halberds, in order to better understand the material and the questions that have arisen over the years. The approach taken is chronological and regional, rather than thematic, with the purpose of showing how what research there has been into this 1 subject has developed over the last century or so •
However, before proceeding any further it might be useful to provide a little background to the object of our attention itself, namely the Early Bronze Age halberd. The Early Bronze Age halberd consists of a long, stout blade with a strong midrib, attached at right-angles to a shaft of wood, or in parts of central Europe, to a shaft of metal. They seem to date fairly consistently across Europe to the Early Bronze Age, flourishing from around 2200BC to 1700BC. The distribution of these blades is interesting, displaying a tendency to concentrate heavily in particular areas, often at some remove from each other. The key-zones for the production and use of these blades were Ireland, Central (Aunjetitz) Europe and southeast Spain. Despite increasing finds elsewhere, Ireland remains the most important of these regions, alone accounting for just over 30% of all known halberds. However, the idea at least of the halberd must have been more widespread, as it is depicted in the contemporary rock-art, statuary and miniatures of regions and societies where no actual halberds are known. Just what halberds were actually used for has been hotly disputed for years. However, as I hope to show over the course of this work, the evidence suggests that they are weapons whose function changes over space and time to embrace both
1 This chapter has recently been published as a paper in the Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of lreland, 128 (O'Flaherty, 1998).
5 combat-use and prestige display. Certainly, the Irish examples show considerable evidence for wear, while the central European metal-shafted types are clearly designed primarily for display.
Although it was stated above that halberds have been recognised in the archaeological record for over 150 years now, it would probably be better to say that some halberds have been so recognised. These were by-and-large the German examples that came equipped with metal handle attached, so there was little chance of mistaking the artifact for anything else. The same could not be said, of course, for the many others which were found without the haft and which were frequently described as spear-heads, daggers or even "scythe-shaped swords" (e.g. Wilde, 1861). However, the fact that the type was identified anywhere at all inevitably led to a growing awareness amongst antiquaries of the existence of these artifacts and by the middle of the 19th century, unassociated, unhafted halberd blades were being correctly identified in museum collections in different parts of Europe. Foremost amongst those to distinguish these artefacts was the Irish antiquary William Wilde who correctly deduced that some of the blades then in the collection of the Royal Irish Academy must have been hafted at right-angles. These were what are now generally described as "type Clonard" halberds (after Harbison, 1969a) which have a broad, four-square, arrangement of rivets. Other and indeed more common halberd types were not so easy to identify and Wilde, in his monumental 1861 Catalogue, opts to class the majority of these as "broad, scythe-shaped swords".
This notwithstanding, Wilde's Catalogue represents a critical step on the road to a fuller understanding of the halberd as an important product of the Bronze Age in these islands. For the first time, it presented a significant corpus of material for analysis, with the added benefit of presenting this in what was pretty much the right prehistoric context. While many of the halberds listed therein were indeed misclassified, enough information was provided to allow other scholars to correct the misclassification. This, of course, is only by-the-way, for it would be entirely wrong to suggest that Wilde's Catalogue was in any way more concerned with halberds than any other artifacts in the Academy collection. We are simply fortunate that such a remarkable piece of work was undertaken at this particular time, producing what Peter Harbison has described as 'one of the great, if isolated, highpoints of solid Victorian archaeological cataloguing.' (Harbison, 1988, 12).
The material presented by Wilde in this way was to be further examined by Sir John Evans in his
1881 treatise The Ancient Bronze Implements, Weapons and Ornaments of Great Britain and Ireland. In his introduction, Evans pays handsome tribute to the achievement of his friend Wilde, then recently deceased, and announces his intention to incorporate Wilde's work into his own volume to produce a comprehensive account for the British Isles as a whole. In the case of those implements described by Wilde as "scythe shaped swords", Evans now feels confident enough to
6 classify these, correctly, as halberd'!. Wilde had always suspected as much but did not feel competent to decide the issue. By this stage, however, scholars like Evans were sufficiently comfortable with the idea of halberds to be able to identify blades which in all probability were hafted at right-angles, distinguishing these from the daggers they so often resembled. Indeed, so confident did Evans feel on the subject that he was prepared now to attempt reinterpretations of earlier fmds in the light of his recently acquired understanding of halberds. In one instance, for example, Evans suggested that one of the dagger-like blades found in the Arreton Down Hoard should in fact be regarded as a halberd, not a dagger. His interpretation was rejected formally by O Riordain in his 1937 opus but it nonetheless reflects a new confidence on the part of archaeologists dealing with halberds. Indeed, opinion continues to be divided on the Arreton
Down blade (eg Needham, 1986) and having had the opportunity to examine the blade myself, I would not be as quick as O Riordain to dismiss it as a halberd.
In his consideration of halberds from Ireland, Scotland, England and Wales, Evans began to look beyond Europe for parallels, pointing to the very similar halberds in use during the Shang Dynasty in China, which we now know to be broadly contemporary with their use in Europe. Evans also considered that the use of copper to make these halberds was driven by functionality rather than being a product of simple chronological priority. Where Wilde had considered the Irish halberds to date from the very earliest periods of metallurgy for the simple reason that they were made from copper and not from bronze, Evans saw this as a deliberate choice by people who were well acquainted with the technology of bronze. He considered that such a choice might have been driven by a desire for a less brittle blade, one which would bend rather than snap, and which might quickly be straightened if damaged in combat.
One of the earliest attempts at a regional synthesis anywhere in Europe appeared in 1908 in the Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy. This was George Coffey's seminal "Irish Copper Halberds" which remains relevant and valuable to researchers even today. In this paper, Coffey presented and analysed a collection of 49 halberds, at that time the entire collection of the National Museum of lreland, and developed an initial model of typological development, beginning with the short, four-square rivetted halberds known today generally as Type Clonard (after Harbison, 1969a), and evolving into the longer, scythe-shaped halberds of the type we now know as Cotton (Harbison, 1969a). Coffey presumed Irish manufacture for those found in this country but had trouble in deducing an origin for them.
In the very same year that Coffey's paper appeared (1908), another influential article was published, this one by Montelius entitled "The Chronology of the British Bronze Age". Montelius included halberds as a product of his second period, ie from around 2000-l7OOBC, a chronology that would not be much at variance with our view of the situation today, linking the
7 halberd with flat and flanged axes, grooved triangular daggers, lunulae and v-perforated buttons, again all associations familiar to the modern student. Coffey was not slow to react: in 1913 he published his volume, "The Bronze Age in Ireland" in which he was to "amend" Montelius' chronology, changing the date of Period 2 to 1800-1500 BC. Having made this "correction", he then put many of his halberds back into the same period in which Montelius had originally placed them, ie 2000-l7OOBC, only now Coffey called this "Period l "! Leaving aside such hair• splitting, Coffey now went much further than he had before in relation to these ''broad coppery blades" as he was to describe them, and now argued largely for a Spanish origin for the type while, however, still recognising the possibility of flint and antler antecedents here in Ireland. He saw the scythe-shaped blade as the normal Irish type, developing out of smaller, straight-bladed examples (a theory broadly endorsed by Harbison, 1969a and largely held to be true today). Coffey published chemical analyses for 5 Irish halberds, conclusively showing that these were made of copper and not bronze as all too often they were unthinkingly described. In relation to hafting, he was to point out that the "hindmost" rivet or rivets were shorter than the others, reinforcing the view that these implements were hafted transversely, with the handle rounded off behind the blade. He also concluded from the apparent contemporaneity of lrish copper halberds with bronze examples from Germany that the latter area was enjoying the benefits of a bronze age, while Ireland languished yet in a more primitive Chalcolithic and that the use of halberds did not extend beyond that period in Ireland. The statistics which Coffey quotes indicate a 40% provenance for the halberds which he had at his disposal, a figure which is consistent with provenancing for the known population of Irish halberds today, of which c. 46% can be provenanced to townland.
In Germany around this time, important developments were taking place that would do much to shape international opinion about halberds. One of the most significant of these was the detailed publication by Hofer of the excavation of the Leubingen tumulus in Jahresschrift für die Vorgeschichte der sächsisch-thuringischen Länder V (1906). The Leubingen find was highly significant in the opportunities which it now opened-up for a consideration of these artifacts in their broader social context. Beneath an 8.5m high tumulus was discovered a complex mortuary structure containing the skeletons of what have usually been interpreted as an old man and a young girl, although in relation to the latter there can be no confidence as to the sex. Both were accompanied by a rich array of grave-goods. Amongst the goods recovered and associated with the man was a halberd, hafted when deposited and found here in association with a stone adze, three daggers, two bronze axes and three bronze chisels. Associated with the child's skeleton were found two gold pins, a gold spiral roll, a heavy gold arm-ring and two gold finger-rings.
Another highly significant find was made in Germany around this time, in November 1904 to be precise. This was the discovery of the Dieskau hoard which was comprised of layers of amber
8 and bronze objects, packed into an earthemware pot, with 14 halberd blades lying on the very top. The growing body of material was tackled by Schmidt in an important paper published in 1909 in Praehistorische Zeitschrift 1 in which he suggests dividing halberds into two main groups, those which had been fitted with wooden shafts and those which were fitted, in part at least, with metal shafts. This latter group he subdivided further into those which have separately cast blade and shafts, and those which are cast as all one piece.
Meanwhile at the other end of Europe, in the south east of Spain, the brothers Siret were excavating and publishing the remarkable sites which would give their name to an entire Early Bronze Age culture: the El Argar culture. Here in the graves of the inhabitants of defended citadels, controlling carefully irrigated countryside, halberds were being turned up in surprising quantities. The first major volume Les Premiers Âges du Metal dans le Sud Est de l'Espagne appeared in 1887. The brothers noted that those graves containing halberds were distinguished from the others by being richer and presumably indicated the burial-places of exceptional persons. Rare pottery was included in these graves, along with gold and silver ornaments and even the use of silver rivets. The brothers also noted that on some sites, such as El Oficio and Fuente Alamo, there seemed to be a tendency for halberds to actually replace the flat axes found elsewhere. In his Questions de Chronologie et d'Ethnographie Iberique, published in 1913, Louis Siret has some interesting comments to make on the subject of halberds generally. The halberd is, he asserts, 'une arme de guerre' (1913, 168) and since he holds that in antiquity different races can be distinguished by their way of making war, Siret sees as highly significant the fact that halberds only occur in some regions of Europe and not in others. It is not, he concludes, an article of general commerce or one which was of relevance to all peoples. Instead, he says 'Nous devons donc conclure que la race des guerriers maniant la hallebarde s'est transportee elle-meme dans tous les pays ou on retrouve cette arme.' (ibid 169). [we should conclude that the race of warriors wielding the halberd brought it with them to each country in which this weapon is found]
In terms of origin, the halberd is a purely European phenomenon, he believes, and is a product of a fully developed Early Bronze Age. Siret's observations, although coloured by the presumptions of his time, are nonetheless highly interesting. In particular, drawing attention as he does to the fact that halberds only occur in certain parts of Bronze Age Europe, he poses a question which succeeding generations have either forgotten or avoided: the question is, what common traits do the Early Bronze Age cultures of lreland, Spain and Germany share that the other, sometimes intervening, regions do not? This is a difficult question but it must strike at the heart of our understanding of the function of halberds. All three zones enjoy particularly rich and influential Early Bronze Ages, fuelled to no small extent by access to substantial resources of copper. However, there were rich and influential societies elsewhere in Europe- such as Wessex in
9 southern Britain - which neither produced nor participated in the exchange of halberds from what we can see. The question will be considered again elsewhere in this work.
In 1913, Schmidt published a paper entitled "Der Dolchstab in Spanien" in which, amongst other things, he looks for stone prototypes for the Spanish halberds, something which Coffey had also sought in Ireland in 1908. Four years later, and concentrating on the central European halberds, Kossinna (1917) sought to develop a chronology for metal-hafted halberds. He devised three classes of halberds based on the shape of the halberd head: the Saaletypus where the back of the head is semicircular in shape, the Westbrandenburgisch-mecklenburgischer type which has a triangular projection to the back, and the Nordposencher type where the back of the haft head is "cut-off' parallel to the line of the shaft. Despite more complex typological classifications imposed by later authors, Kossina's remain applicable and have stood the test of time well.
In 1924, Max Ebert published his enormous Reallexikon der Vorgeschichte, still one of the best and most comprehensive works on the legacy of prehistory in general throughout Europe. Within this enormous encyclopedia, Ebert provided a detailed synopsis of the state of knowledge of halberds at the time of publication. At just about 1,000 words, his entry for halberds, while relatively insignificant when compared to other entries in this monumental work, is nevertheless many times longer and more comprehensive than entries on the same subject in more recent encyclopedias or even in recent syntheses of prehistoric material.
In 1927, Bremer in "Die Stellung Irlands in der europaïschen Vor- und Frühgeschichte" (later to be published as a small monograph entitled "Ireland's place in Prehistoric and Early Historic Europe") briefly considered the question of halberds and suggested Iberian influence in the Irish examples. One year later (1928), Macalister published his Archaeology of Ireland and although - as the name implies - a general text, he used this publication to suggest a new typology for the Irish halberds, breaking these into six separate classes. These were as follows:
Type 1 A short round-tipped blade with a projecting tail containing four rivet-holes Type2 A more triangular and proportionately large blade, with a similar tail. Type 3 A similar blade with three rivet-holes. Type4 A similar blade, with no tail; instead, a triangular butt having three rivet-holes. Type5 A blade curved laterally like a scythe-blade; similar to the last in the butt and rivet-holes Type 6 A short triangular blade, with rounded butt containing four or more rivet-holes.
Macalister introduces his section on halberds with obvious relish, his opening words being
10 'Halberds have all the interest of mystery, for they present more problems than might be suspected on a superficial glance at a museum case containing them.'
He moves on to consider the European distribution of halberds, seeing them as largely confined to three regions, Ireland, Germany and Southern Spain. The Irish and Spanish examples he regards as generally similar, but believes the German to be quite distinct, pointing to the prevailing use of bronze (rather than copper) blades and the metal handles. Macalister's treatment of the halberd is a strange but compelling mix of the insightful and the contradictory. He sees the halberd as a weapon used in hand-to-hand combat, the pole providing the advantage of reach over an opponent armed with a dagger (what exactly the advantage would be if his opponent was also armed with a halberd, Macalister does not say!). He then goes on to say that many halberds could not possibly have been used in combat, because of their weight and the clumsiness of their hafting, while others are far too light. He then concludes by stating that although the length of the rivets implies a slender haft, with the benefit of 'a good backing behind it and well bound with thongs, it would probably have been strong enough to resist all ordinary strains'. In similar fashion, he draws attention, rightly, to the importance of the Continental rock art in understanding the subject, but in a footnote finds the idea that the "halberds" depicted might in fact be "hoes" quite attractive. Despite all these contradictions, Macalister's Archaeology of Ireland makes a small but important contribution to the development of an understanding of the Irish material. In particular, and in a characteristically throw-away remark, he points out the "exceptional" nature of what we now describe as Type Breaghwy halberds (after Harbison, 1969a), which it will be shown in the course of the research presented here is indeed an "exceptional" halberd type. These halberds deviate from the norm in terms of Irish halberds in almost every way possible, being made of bronze rather than copper, having small, thin rivets rather than thick ones, showing less evidence for wear and damage than any other type and confounding patterns for such wear which are accepted by all other types. Macalister's remark, therefore, made on an instinctive rather than an empirical basis, was no less accurate for that.
Research into halberds continued through the thirties and in fact this decade was to see the publication of some of the most important papers yet. In 1931, Marton published an account of the halberd finds from Hungary in Prähistorische Zeitschrift XXII (pp.IS-40). In 1933, E. Benninger published a corpus of material from Austria, entitled 'Frühbronzezeitlicher Stabdolch aus Niederosterreich' (Prähistorische Zeitschrift, 1933-34) which is still one of the basic sources for that region. Arguably the most important paper ever to be written on the subject also appeared during the thirties: this of course was Sean P. Ó Ríordáin's seminal "The Halberd in Bronze Age
Europe", published in 1937 in Archaeologia (Vol 86). This was the first true synthesis of all the material on a European basis and is still a sine qua non for researchers. As well as looking at the evidence of hoards and other associated finds, Ó Ríordáin developed a detailed typology,
11 examined distribution and chronologies and attempted an assessment of function, helped by a consideration of other halberd-like artifacts from different eras and regions on a worldwide basis. Ó Ríordáin summarised his conclusions for Adolf Mahr most usefully for the latter's presidential address to the Prehistoric Society in 1937. It is worth quoting in full here as it is an excellent sununary o f Ó Ríordáin’s 100 page plus paper:
'The Irish halberds can be divided into six classes, the first three of which develop in Ireland and remain here. Type 4 is exported (or carried by emigrants) from Ireland. It is the type which influences British and Continental halberds. The Scottish and Scandinavian halberds stand closest to the Irish ones - those in Southern Britain are also derived from the Irish but show stronger local individuality. Type 5 (curved) is peculiar to Ireland and Scotland. Type 6 (few examples) is an outside type, probably South British, which reacts back into Ireland. The evolution of the Irish halberd shows the early beginnings and the vigour of the Irish Bronze Age and its considerable influence on Northern Europe. The Irish halberd must have originated in Ireland, probably from a flint prototype in the North-east. The Spanish halberd is distinctly different and must be of independent origin, though there may have existed in both regions a halberd-idea expressed in non-metallic substances before Spain and Ireland independently translated this idea into metal. I suggest (very hesitantly, because I do not feel competent to speak in terms of absolute dating) 1800BC as the beginning of the halberd series in Ireland.' (in Mahr, 1937, 374)
The above summary gives a flavour of the breadth of Ó Ríordáin's study, although it makes no mention of the question of function. Within the body of his text, however, Ó Ríordáin has this to say on the subject:
'While there can be no doubt that in its origin the halberd was a practical weapon, it is also evident that in the main it is a non-utilitarian object which served as an emblem of authority. The nature of the weapon is such that even with the heavy rivets of the Irish examples, it could not be used vigorously on a wooden handle without becoming detached.' (Ó Ríordáin, 1937, 241)
This, perhaps more than anything else, was to be Ó Ríordáin 's legacy to generations of archaeologists, and particularly Irish archaeologists,. Notwithstanding the magnificent sweep of analysis which 6 Riordain displays, it is this remark which was to sink home and to be repeated again and again in successive texts.
At the same time as Ó Ríordáin was promulgating his analysis of the material, another archaeologist, George Lechler, was drawing different conclusions from the same material. In a paper published in the Bulletin of the American School of Prehistoric Research in 1938, Lechler suggested that the halberd had its origins in the Iberian peninsula, evolving out of flint prototypes and then spreading first to Ireland and thence to Germany. Interestingly, in terms of the recent redating of the beginning of the Early Bronze Age in Ireland, Lechler saw the first copper halberds appearing here around 2300BC. As we shall see later (Chapter 10) this is almost precisely where the best evidence suggests we should place them now.
12
By this stage the idea of an Iberian origin for halberds had assumed a certain respectability and in suggesting as he had an Irish birthplace for the type, Ó Ríordáin had ruffled not a few feathers. Following the publication of Ó Ríordáin's paper in 1937, J.G.D. Clark was quick to respond, arguing in a paper published the following year (1938) in the Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society (Vol4) for a Spanish origin for halberds once more, as well as casting doubt as to whether all those artifacts considered by Ó Ríordáin were really halberds at all. Joseph Raftery, in a short paper for the Galway Archaeological and Historical Society, (No.20, 1942) which dealt primarily with the Cam Halberd, criticised Ó Ríordáin's thesis as 'an elaborate, though hardly convincing, typological scheme' and argued instead for a much later date for the halberd, pushing it forward to c.1000BC. In 1951, Raftery was to return to the subject in his "Prehistoric Ireland" this time arguing for a German origin for the Irish halberds, largely on the basis of similarities between the arsenical alloys of Irish examples with those from Central Germany. In the same year (1951), MacWhite published his examination of the Atlantic connections of the Iberian Peninsula during the Bronze Age in which, inter alia, he considered the question of halberds. MacWhite took the view that the Irish halberds could not be seen as derived from Iberian examples, and in this he agreed largely with Ó Ríordáin. However, in terms of typological development, MacWhite could not concur with his countryman's conclusions; neither could he see evidence for development of the type from flint antecedents.
The following year, 1952, saw the publication of Otto and Witter's "Handbuch der ältesten Vorgeschichtlichen Metallurgie in Mitteleuropa" which although treating of a much broader subject, nonetheless took the time to comment on the relationship between the Irish and German halberds, seeing the Irish examples as ultimately derived from the German. In 1954, in a paper published in the Annual Report of the Institute of Archaeology of the University of London, ApSimon argued for Italy as the point of origin for the European halberd. Three years later, in 1957, the arrow was pointing back at Germany, this time directed by Coghlan and Case (Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, Vol.23) who supported Raftery's claim that the arsenical copper alloy was a direct import into Ireland from Germany. The authors also pointed to the presence of an Irish or British flat axe in the Dieskau hoard, as well as to certain similarities between Irish and German halberds as further evidence of contact between the two regions at this time.
In a short paper published in 1960 in the journal MAN (Vol.60), Penniman and Allen considered four Irish halberds from a metallurgical perspective. They found that the overall structure resulted predominantly from casting but that the blades had then been forged to their final shape, doubling the hardness of the cutting edge in the process. They considered that the casting had been made in a bivalve mould, with the molten metal poured into an opening at the pointed end.
13 The mould, they felt, must have been of stone or clay, preheated and primarily designed to produce "blanks" from which the halberds would be finally shaped. There would be a light forging to trim off flash, followed by a more serious forging and annealing, followed in tum by cold-hammering and grinding of the cutting edge. Although short, Penniman and Allen's paper remains of considerable importance, devoted as it is virtually in its entirety to halberds (one dagger is also considered) and because of its conclusive evidence for the use of bivalve moulds. No such mould has ever been found for a halberd, with the exception of one possible example from Laderas de Castillo, Spain (Delibes, G. and Montero Ruiz, I. 1999, 195).
In 1963, Butler addressed himself to the subject with an energy and imagination which had not been seen, perhaps since Ó Ríordáin 25 years earlier. However, once more, this was within a more general survey entitled "Bronze Age connections across the North Sea" published in the journal Palaeohistoria (Vol.9) rather than in a paper specifically devoted to the halberd question.
Nonetheless, Butler makes a number of telling arguments, seeing the appearance of the halberd in Atlantic Europe as derivative of a central European idea, with strong Aunjetitz links. Through an elaborate series of associations, he also deduced that in general the halberds in this part of the world could not be any earlier than the period of the Wessex Culture. This last statement is directly contradicted by later writers, such as Burgess (1980), who is convinced that the halberd had in fact gone out of fashion even in Ireland by this stage. Again, as we shall see in the course of succeeding chapters and in particular in Chapter 10, the available evidence places the production of halberds in this country in the earliest phases of metallurgy, and certainly predating the Dieskau Hoard on which Butler built much of his argument.
In the same year as Butler's paper was published, Britton (1963) included some commentary on British halberds in a paper entitled "Traditions of metalworking in the later Neolithic and Early Bronze Age of Britain: Part 1" which appeared in the Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society (Vol.29). In this paper he points out that, in Britain, halberd hoards are very much a feature of the Highland Zone and rarely contain other metalwork types.
One of the great volumes on the Bronze Age in Europe appeared in 1965: this was Marija Gimbutas' Bronze Age Cultures in Central and Eastern Europe. Gimbutas sweeps confidently through the available material for the early, middle and late Bronze Ages examining the material also in terms of possible cultural groupings. Many of her arguments have been criticised over the years but there is no denying that this volume was a turning point in Bronze Age studies. While this volume is naturally concerned with ''big" issues, considering these against a canvas that encompasses three thousand years and thousands of miles of territory, it is still a valuable source even today for those interested in halberd studies. It contains many useful summaries of finds in central and eastern Europe and is a particularly valuable introduction to the Bronze Age
14 archaeology of former Ostblok countries. As well as providing an excellent overview of the Aunjetitz culture of central Europe which was so important in the development of the halberd, and a specific commentary on the use of the halberd in that culture, Gimbutas was also responsible for bringing the two unique solid gold halberds from Macin, Dobruja in Rumania to wider notice. These remarkable finds, both full-size blades, remain telling testimony to the enormous symbolic value which the halberd commanded in Bronze Age Europe, notwithstanding any original functionality.
In 1966, Jan Filip's Enzyklopädisches Handbuch zur Ur- und Frühgeschichte Europas appeared, a major general reference and one which reflects the prevailing opinions current in central Europe around this time. In this text, the classification of the halberd as a weapon ("bronzezeitliche Waffenform") is unquestioned. Elsewhere in Europe (with the exception of Spain), there was no such confidence that the halberd could ever have functioned as a weapon. In Western and particularly Northern Europe at this time the questions to be tackled revolved around typology and origins; the question of function never receives detailed consideration, with commentators preferring to repeat the mantra that these artifacts were non-functional and purely symbolic.
On the question of origins, Savory, writing in 1968 of the situation in Iberia, sees an argument for independent local development, commenting:
'The metal halberd in particular cannot be regarded as an alien fonn...... flint halberds had been familiar there well over a thousand years before, and these must have had copper prototypes. At a later stage, indeed, in the Millaran culture these prototypes appear in the archaeological record and the early Argaric halberds may indeed represent a "Reflux" of this tradition....' (p.197).
Despite what Savory has written, I would be uncomfortable about categorising these Millaran prototypes as halberds: there seems little to distinguish them from contemporary daggers.
However, despite all the activity, the argument and counter-argument, the subject had been rather wanting of focused attention until Peter Harbison tackled it in "The Daggers and Halberds of the Early Bronze Age in Ireland" in 1969. At last, and over 30 years since 6 Riordain completed his synthesis, halberds were once more to be examined in their own right, not as an aside within a bigger question or as a footnote to an assessment of the Bronze Age in general. Harbison's paper was without doubt the most significant to be written on the subject since Ó Ríordáin, notwithstanding the fact that it treated only of the Irish material. It has had enonnous influence, largely through the proposal of a much simpler and more practical typology than Ó Ríordáin had used and one which has found general favour insofar as the Irish material is concerned. Harbison presented a full listing of all the Irish halberds of which he was aware, which now numbered 177 examples, complete (in most cases) with good standardised drawings. Harbison's great legacy
15 was his typology and for resisting the temptation to complicate the issue with further subdivisions (which he acknowledges freely would have been easy to do) we owe him a great debt of gratitude. Since his typology has been generally adopted now for the Irish material, it is worth taking a little time at this stage to describing how each class is defined.
Harbison divides the Irish halberds into four main types, largely based on hafting technique and shape of midrib. His first type, "Cam", is a fairly simple triangular halberd with a straight midrib and secured to the haft originally by three thick rivets in a rounded hafting plate. His second type, "Cotton", which is also equipped with three rivets, is distinguished from the first by virtue of its curved midrib. The third type, "Clonard", is secured by four rivets, arranged to form a square, while the last type, "Breaghwy'', is made of bronze (all the others are copper) and has much smaller rivets than the other types, arranged in an arc, and numbering at least three but often more. About 80% of lrish halberds fall into Harbison's types Cam and Cotton.
The bulk of Harbison's work is devoted to typology in one way or another with relatively little space given over to any broader analysis. All in all, the "text" of Harbison's volume- that is the sections outside the catalogue itself- comprises about 8,000 words, in which he considers the material under two broad headings, an "Introduction" (which is, of course, much more than that) and a section entitled"Chronology". Compare this with Ó Ríordáin's 30,000 words of analysis which sweeps in the most delightfully catholic fashion across questions of date and associations, Irish, British and Continental finds, definition, function and material, typology, non-metallic halberds and analogous material, and distribution, before bringing the reader to a series of thoughtful, controlled conclusions. It should not be forgotten, of course, that the objective of Harbison's work was to present a catalogue of Irish finds and not to synthesise the available evidence for European halberds generally. To be fair to Harbison, he does treat of broader questions and his work probably contains the best summary account of research into halberds to be found in any of the many publications up to that date. His section on "Chronology" is also a most scholarly dissertation in the course of which he examines questions of origins and regional connections and proposes a rough relative chronology for the Irish series which begins with Type Cam, runs through to Type Cotton, Type Clonard to culminate in Type Breaghwy. This should not, he cautions, be regarded as an exclusive series and he points out that two or more types may well have run in parallel with each other. Believing that the floruit of production here in Ireland corresponded roughly to the Bush Barrow phase of the Wessex Culture, Harbison tentatively suggests that in terms of absolute chronology the period c.1700- 1550BC might be regarded as the main period of halberd production in Ireland. While believing that the "idea" of the straight• ribbed halberd may lie behind many of the types which developed all over Europe, Harbison wonders whether ultimately the origins of the halberd may be found in the eastern Mediterranean. Hilmar Schickler's 1971 review in Fundbar Schwaben 19 of Harbison's Catalogue makes a number of interesting points itself in relation to halberds, suggesting that while on the Continent
16 halberds are weapons and show-objects, and axes are for working, the reverse may have been true in Ireland.
Around the same time as Harbison was tackling the Irish material, John Coles presented a catalogue of Scottish Early Bronze Age metalwork, published in the Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland for 1968-69. This catalogue included details of 40 halberds found in Scotland, which Coles discusses in the context of the early metalwork generally. Coles relies completely on Ó Ríordáin for typology and the fact that this system of classification can be applied so readily to the Scottish material underlines the fundamental similarities between the halberds produced in these two regions. However, Coles brings a more controlled, scientific approach to the discussion of halberds, making use in particular of the results of recent metallurgical analyses. Five metal "clusters" are identified, running from A to E, with two (A and C) seen as of particular importance overall and probably derived from Irish ores. Some halberds were made of metal from these two clusters, but others were made of Cluster D, which Coles thought could be of central European origin. Links to the Continent, he felt, developed only later in the Early Bronze Age after the establishment of wider trading patterns. None of the Scottish halberds, he reported, contained tin. With regard to halberds generally, Coles felt that the arguments for a central European origin carried much weight, this being an area where stone battle-axes were traditional weapons and a halberd, after all, 'would represent the same type of weapon, but in metal rather than in stone' (p.36). He also points out that some Scottish halberds have no rivet-holes at all, which he sees as evidence for local production, as well of course as showing that they had never been hafted.
Although extremely important in its own right, Coles' paper was of course concerned with Scottish Early Bronze Age metalwork in general and not specifically or even particularly with halberds. In fact, since the publication of Harbison's "The Daggers and the Halberds of the Early Bronze Age in Ireland ", no further attempt has been made by a writer in English to address the issue of halberds in any meaningful or comprehensive manner. As had happened after Ó Ríordáin further commentary on halberds took place only in the context of broader Bronze Age questions, and nothing "new'' was added in a significant way to our store of knowledge. Shorter papers on the subject continued to appear sporadically, of course, and some of these did offer new interpretations. Amongst the best of these are Barfield's "Two Italian halberds and the question of the earliest European halberds" (Origini, 1969), in which he proposes Italy as the origin for halberds in Europe and Harbison's 1970 and 1973 papers on "Irish Early Bronze Age exports found on the continent and their derivatives" (Palaeohistoria, Vol.14) and "The Earlier Bronze Age in Ireland" (Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland, Vol. 103). In the frrst, Harbison argues that the trade route from Ireland to Germany by-passed the territory of Wessex, which explains the absence of halberds, decorated axes and lunulae from that area. In the second, he points out that many Irish halberds show considerable evidence of wear, notwithstanding their conventional interpretation as non-utilitarian objects. Other papers published around this time include Harrison's 1974 paper on
17 "Ireland and Spain in the Early Bronze Age" in which the important Spanish hoard ofFinca de Paloma is presented for the first time to English-speaking readers, and Michael Ryan's tentative interpretation of halberds as agricultural implements (1976). Halberds receive a brief mention in Herity and Eogan's Ireland in Prehistory (1977) in which it is suggested that Irish halberds might have been used on 'ceremonial occasions' (p.l37). The authors also regard the Irish halberds as derived ultimately from Central Europe, with Ó Riordain's Type IV being the primary type and the rest 'insular modification' (p.137). Megaw and Simpson's Introduction to British Prehistory, published in 1979, briefly considers the question of British and Irish halberds, noting that these have 'an almost exclusively highland zone distribution' (200) and commenting that in European terms the most likely point of origin for the halberd is probably to be found in north-central Europe, where the stone battle-axe was a traditional weapon and possible precursor. However, very little of substance has been published in English since Harbison (1969a). Bigger texts, such as Coles and Harding's The Bronze Age in Europe (1979), Cunliffe's Prehistoric Europe (1998) and Harding's European Societies in the Bronze Age (2000) naturally refer to the development, use and exchange of halberds in Europe in the context of a consideration of the metalwork generally, much in the manner of Gimbutas so many years earlier, and in much the same way their main contribution lies in elucidating the background rather than analysing the halberd or any other artifact type individually.
We have, of course, benefited hugely from the expansion in our understanding of the Bronze Age generally in this period, and the ongoing work of researchers such as Peter Northover, the Stuttgart programme and the Spanish Proyecto de Arqueometalurgia continues to add value to the real and potential contribution of metallurgical analyses. However, even in this latter field a note of caution has been sounded and some writers (eg Slater, 1999) have pointed to the dangers in interpreting chemical analyses in particular and the need for an appreciation of the limitations of this approach.
If we want to see how focused research into halberds has progressed in the last 30 years, we have to turn our attention back to the Continental writers and to German authors in particular. The Prähistorische Bronzefunde series (PBF) continued its publication of regional catalogues with M. Gedl's monograph Die Dolche und Stabdolche in Polen (PBF VI, 4, 1976). As with all publications in the PBF series, this is a comprehensive, well referenced, well-illustrated catalogue. For Spain and Portugal, Schubart (1973) provided a brief overview of the situation, identifying three types of halberd, and including a list of the halberds known to him as having been recovered from various locations. His paper is unsatisfactory, however: the list is far from comprehensive and he avoids the question of just how many Iberian halberds there actually are, even from the
18 locations he lists himself. In fairness, it should be said that Schubart's objective was jus. to discuss one type of halberd, the Montejicar type, but the impression in retrospect is of an opportunity lost. Schubart returns to the subject again in 1975 in Die Kultur der Bronzezeit im Sudwesten der Iberischen Halbinsel, which - as the title implies - looks at the bronze age in its entirety in one part of Iberia. The section on halberds is really just a reworking ofhis earlier paper but includes several fme drawings.
Moving outside the stricter confines of Western Europe, Keith Branigan's 1974 monograph "Aegean Metalwork of the Early and Middle Bronze Age" identifies two types and one subtype of halberd amongst that material. Only five examples are known in total, all described as "Minoan" and in Branigan's opinion, quite shortlived. These halberds are quite unlike the other European types being narrower and strongly curved and one would wonder how they might actually have functioned in reality. They nonetheless remain highly interesting as early examples of (possible) halberds, lying well outside the main European distribution areas and perhaps predating the continental examples.
Publications dealing in whole or in part with halberds appeared sporadically over the course of the next ten years or so. De la Peña Santos' "Los representaciones de alabardas en los grabados rupestres Gallegos", published in 1980 in Zephyrus I (vol.30-31), made a small but important contribution to the sum of knowledge about halberds, if on a purely local level. The same cannot be said, unfortunately, about a similar (and oft-quoted) 1977 piece by Aimé Bocquet, entitled "Des armes contre les temps", which also deals with the representation of halberds (and daggers) in rock-art but whose conclusions suggest an imperfect understanding of the metalwork. Both papers, however, do indicate the potential of rock-art as a means of shedding light on the halberd. On the same subject, but at a much greater scale and detail, is Chenorkian's Les Armes Metalliques dans l'art protohistorique de l'Occident Mediterranean which appeared in 1988. Although dealing exclusively with rock-art and stelae-statuary, Chenorkian's work also comments indirectly on the relevant metalwork of the period. In relation to halberds, therefore, we learn much about form, shape and regional associations from Chenorkian's published drawings and analyses, as well as the wider context in which halberds must have operated in terms of symbolic culture. Indeed, Chenorkian himself- commenting directly on the actual artifact rather than the depiction – states:
'Nous considererons que la hallebarde etait bien une arme, essentiellement perçante, qui dut tres vraisemblablemente, au cours de son evolution, perdre dans une large mesure son caractere fonctionnel pour ne presenter surtout qu'une valeur symbolique.' (p.33) [we must consider that the halberd was certainly a weapon, essentially a piercing one, which in all likelihood over the course of its evolution
19 lost in great measure its functional character, presenting above all a symbolic value.]
Although made as something of a throwaway remark, Chenorkian's statement is both perceptive and concise. He has, in a nutshell, summarised the dual nature of the halberd and suggested a process whereby its character changes from a functional weapon to symbol of power. This thesis has much to commend it and certainly the highly symbolic metal shafted halberds of Aunjetitz Europe, for example, must have had more utilitarian ancestors.
A number of publications dealing with the French halberds also appeared in the course of the 80s. Two appeared in 1981, one a short piece by Gallay and Yvard cataloging 45 French halberds and dividing these into four main types ("Bemerkungen zur in Frankreich gefunden Stabdolchen", Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 11) while the main event that year was the publication of G. Gallay's Die kupfer-und bronzezeitlichen Dolche und Stabdolche in Frankreich (PBF VI, 5,
1981). This provides full details and typological analysis of the 45 known French halberds. The next publication was Typologie des objets de I 'Age du Bronze en France, by Briard and Mohen, which appeared in 1983 and which examined a range of artefact types, including spearheads, daggers and halberds. The third, "Le culte des eaux a l'Age du Bronze en Armorique" by Jacques Briard, appeared in 1989 and discusses the metalwork from Chalcolithic and Bronze Age wetland sites, including a number of halberds.
Without doubt, however, and in terms of an overall analysis of the subject, the most important work in these last 30 years has been Majolie Lenerz-de Wilde's "Uberlegungen zur funktion der frühbronzezeitlichen Stabdolche" which appeared in 1991 (Germania 69). Lenerz-de Wilde takes the reader on a short but intensive tour-de-table of the various European countries where halberds have been found and, most importantly, gives us the first European-wide distribution map for halberds since Ó Ríordáin in 1937. Only a fraction of the size of Ó Ríordáin's paper (c.4,000 words versus c.30,000) Lenerz-de Wilde's paper is nonetheless a very useful summary of the current state of knowledge with regard to halberds, particularly in relation to contextual information and regional contacts. Amongst its strong points is the fact that it is extremely well illustrated with representative examples of halberds from all over Europe. The summary accounts of halberd finds from the different regions are also concise and relatively easy to follow and the section dealing with contacts across these regions is a useful primer for further work. However, it does not actually focus on the question of function in the way in which the title of the piece would lead one to expect. She tends to skirt round the issue of populations of halberds, glossing over areas here no comprehensive catalogues exist and showing little evidence of any effort made to establish better figures by independent reference to what source documents do exist. For example, she completely avoids giving any figure at all for Spain although even a reading of Schubart's 1973 paper or Siret (1890; 1913) would have allowed some estimate of the population to be made (none of these publications are even cited); in relation to Ireland, she comments that some 150 halberds have been found, citing Harbison (1969), when a simple count of the entries in that catalogue would
20 have revealed that some 177 halberds were found. She also makes the alarming statement, again in relation to Ireland, that the reason so few halberds have been found in Early Bronze Age graves in this country is because there are so few Early Bronze Age graves, when in fact that period is one of the best represented in terms of graves in all of Irish prehistory. However, the real value of Lenerz- de Wilde's paper is as a resumé of research since Ó Ríordáin and as one of only two efforts in existence made to grapple with all the material, on a European• wide basis, it remains one of the most important papers to have been written on the question of the Bronze Age halberd.
The publication of national catalogues continued through the 1990s, first with Vera Bianco Peroni's 1994 I pugnali nell' ltalia Continentale (PBF VI, 10), swiftly followed by Harry Wustemann's Die dolche und Stabdolche in Ostdeutschland (PBF VI, 8) in 1995, both suggesting detailed typologies along with varying levels of contextual and chronological analyses. The following year, Helle Vandkilde's volume on the Danish early metalwork From Stone to Bronze: the metalwork of the late Neolithic and earliest Bronze Age in Denmark (1996) appeared. This contains a short but important section on halberds from Denmark. This highly useful account categorises some 20 halberds into four groups, looks at distribution and context and attempts to place the Danish halberds in their broader European context. As well as providing an excellent overview of the Danish situation, Vandkilde's work is highly instructive in its integration and interpretation of metallurgical classification, using the SAM data to illustrate possible paths of connection for Danish metal work generally, including the 20 halberds.
In the late 1990s, the initial results of the Spanish Proyecto de Arqueometallurgia began to appear, and while this was never the intention of the project, it actually included the most comprehensive listing of Iberian halberds yet in the form of its catalogue of sampled metalwork. A full catalogue remains to be published yet, though work is well advanced on the preparation of such as part of the PBF series (Dirk Brandherm - pers.comm).
Moving back to Britain and Ireland, however, we see little development of thought on the subject of halberds. Again, if in the absence of specific studies we take the general texts published in the last ten years as a vox populi of opinion, we can very quickly see the enormous, continuing reliance in Ireland on Ó Ríordáin and Harbison, while in Britain halberds are not really of tremendous interest to the general writer/reader. O'Kelly (1989, 164-165), describes the halberd as 'one of the most remarkable and perhaps enigmatic artefacts of the first half of the EBA'. Following the long established tradition in this part of the world, he observes that halberd blades show little evidence of wear and comments upon the 'lightness of the rivetted mounting' as
21 evidence that these artifacts could never have seen strenuous use. John Waddell, writing in The Illustrated Archaeology of Ireland (ed. Michael Ryan, 1991) also sees halberds as 'puzzling implements' and repeats the received wisdom that few show any clear signs of wear and that 'it is generally thought that they would have been clumsy and inefficient weapons' (1991,70).
Mallory and McNeill, writing at the same time take a slightly different view, seeing the halberd as another weapon of 'the EBA warrior' (1991, 102), although they qualify this statement immediately by referring to the 'weak' attachment of halberd to pole as evidence for a more ritual function. On the other hand, a major thematic synthesis such as Cooney and Grogan's Irish Prehistory- A social perspective (1994) does not mention halberds at all, despite devoting space to analyses of their counterpart axes and daggers (which latter artifact type halberds outnumber) when dealing with the Early Bronze Age. Hoards containing halberds are included in an analysis of Irish Early Bronze Age hoards by the present writer (O'Flaherty, 1995) but since only about a dozen halberds are known from Irish hoards, that paper only covers a tiny percentage of the whole. Halberds do merit a mention in the most recently published general text, John Waddell's The Prehistoric Archaeology of Ireland , but here again we find a reiteration of traditional views, although the important point is made that some may have been put to some practical use. In all of these statements, the legacy of Ó Ríordáin 's 1937 treatise emerges paramount. The references to "lack of wear" in particular are drawn from Ó Ríordáin and ignore more accurate statements made subsequently by Harbison (1973) and Ryan (1975), both of whom point out that the Irish halberds in many cases show evidence of considerable wear and even resharpening.
In Britain, if anything, the situation is worse though at least in that country there is the excuse of the relative unimportance of the halberd as an artifact vis a vis its counterpart axe and dagger. There is no overall catalogue of halberds for Britain, making it one of the very few European countries without such a basic text. The Welsh halberds are discussed by Savory (1980) in his Guide Catalogue of the Bronze Age Collections in the National Museum of Wales. As regards Britain as a whole, Burgess (1980) does provide a brief overview of the situation, reporting the existence of 40 halberds from Scotland, 10 from England and 8 from Wales. He also draws a number of interesting conclusions, particularly in relation to chronology and overseas connections, seeing the Irish halberds as earlier than the central European examples and therefore likely to be more closely related to the Iberian types. Scotland, he sees effectively as a province of lreland in this regard, while England and Wales develop individual but more limited traditions. Other general texts, however, such as Timothy Darvill's Prehistoric Britain (1987) often do not mention the existence of halberds at all, and this can be true also even of basic encyclopedias. There is no entry, for example in the Cambridge Encyclopedia of Archaeology (1980, ed. Andrew Sherratt) for the halberd, although there is one for the dagger. Other general reference books do mention halberds (e.g. the Penguin Dictionary of Archaeology), but the fact that they are not
22 mentioned in all of them, or even most of them, is an indicator of the low priority which these artifacts continue to receive as objects of research. Shorter papers do address the issue to some extent, such as, for example, Stuart Needham's 'Selective Deposition in the British Bronze Age' (in Nordstrom and Knape, 1989, Bronze Age Studies). Similarly in Symbols of Power at the Time of Stonehenge (Clarke, Cowie and Foxon, 1985), cursory references are made to halberds including the generalised comment that 'Halberds were ceremonial blades.....important items of display' (180). However, a major study such as Richard Bradley's "The Passage of Arms"(1990) a volume devoted entirely to a consideration of the deposition of early metalwork in Britain, mentions the word "halberd" about three times. His earlier volume, "The social foundations of Prehistoric Britain" (1984), does not mention halberds at all.
23
Chapter 2
Regions and Typologies - an overview of halberds in Europe
‘why so hard?’ said once the charcoal unto the diamond, ‘Are we not near relations?’ Nietzsche, Thus Spake Zarathustra. ______
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this Chapter is to attempt a concise overview of the halberd in Europe, looking in particular at regions and typologies, but also, where sufficient information is available, at questions of context, associations, chronology and distribution. The chapter is divided into two parts: in Part One we will try to summarise the available information on a country by country basis, while in Part Two, we will move to look at some of the broad trends in terms of typology, functionality, depositional information etc, evaluating differences and similarities across Europe as a whole.
24 PART 1: REGIONAL OVERVIEW
I have identified nearly 600 halberds through the literature as having been found in Europe, including one from North Africa. The representation by country/region is as follows:
Table 2.1 Country Number of halberds %
Ireland 186 31.6% Germany (East) 96 16.3% Britain 65 11.0% Spain 64 10.9% France 45 7.6% Italy 32 5.4% Denmark. 20 3.4% Portugal 12 2% Poland 12 2% Sweden 10 1.7% Germany (West) 8 1.4% Greece 8 1.4% Austria 7 1.2% Switzerland 6 1.0% Hungary 6 1.0% (former) Yugoslavia 4 0.7% Netherlands 2 0.3% Lithuania 2 0.3% Rumania 2 (gold) 0.3% Belgium 1 0.2% Morocco 1 0.2%
TOTAL 589 100%
Finds of halberds from European countries
The last attempt at presenting a total for all European halberds was in Ó Ríordáin (1937). The total presented above is almost twice that previously recorded by Ó Ríordáin, who lists 363 halberds in all (including a number which came to his attention after his paper went to press). On the basis of this total, Ireland with 148 examples, was seen to be by far the most important centre for production and use of halberds in Europe, accounting alone for just over 40% of all halberds known. This is also the percentage quoted by Harbison (1969a) over 30 years later and it remains fixed in the consciousness of Irish and non-Irish writers alike. The reality is quite different. On the basis of the figures shown above, Ireland now accounts for just over 30% of the European total. Furthermore, while the Irish entry includes ALL finds recovered to a current date, the European figures do not and are out of date to varying degrees. The figure of 30%, therefore, must now represent the absolute maximum which Ireland can claim at present: the likelihood is that this figure should in fact be lower still.
25
Nonetheless, it must still be allowed that more halberds have been found in Ireland than in any other European country or indeed any other comparable geographical area. The next most important zone is north-central Europe, encompassing East Germany and Poland for the most part, but even this region can only offer a little over half of Ireland’s total. In terms of density and concentration of finds, the El Argar regions of south East Spain compare well to Ireland, with c.40 halberds represented in an area maybe one quarter the size of Ireland. Ireland remains, clearly, the most important region in Europe for the production and use of halberds but its relative importance has declined somewhat, I feel, as a result of increased finds elsewhere.
In what follows, we take a tour de table of the various European countries where halberds are found. It should be noted that the amount of information available varies considerably from region to region, hence in some cases we have good evidence for dating, associations, find contexts etc, while in others we have virtually nothing. I have attempted to standardise the presentation as much as possible, within the constraints the information available, but it remains the case that the same quality of information is not available for all the regions considered below. Recent national catalogues (mostly from the Prähistorische Bronzefunde series - PBF hereafter) only exist for about a third of the countries listed above. These have provided the basis for the summaries included here for Ireland, France, Denmark, East Germany, Poland and Italy. For the rest, I have relied on individual publications, older catalogues and miscellaneous references. It is lamentable that no catalogue exists at present for Iberia, which is so important to our understanding of halberds generally. The Iberian halberds will, however, be included in a new catalogue of finds in the PBF series by Dirk Brandherm. In the meantime, because of the importance of this region, I have spent some time assembling an outline catalogue of finds myself for Iberia.
IRELAND A total of 186 halberds are known to have been recovered in Ireland at some stage in the past. This figure includes 9 halberds recovered since Harbison published his Catalogue in 1969, or which came to light too late to be included in that corpus. The whereabouts of 4 of those included by Harbison were unknown to him at that time and have remained unknown since. However, most of the remainder are well preserved and accessible in various museums in Ireland and Britain, the most important collection being that held in the National Museum, Dublin, which accounts for just over half of all the Irish halberds known today.
26 Typology Various typologies have been proposed for Irish halberds over the years and these have been discussed already in Chapter 1. Suffice it to say that the classifications suggested by Harbison (1969a) have found general support and these are described hereunder.
Carn The blade is triangular, asymmetrical with a straight midrib. The hafting plate is rounded with rivet-holes arranged to form a triangle. Type Carn halberds are made of copper.
Cotton Overall, this type is very similar to type Carn but distinguished notably by a curved midrib. The hafting plate is generally rounded, sometimes shouldered. Type Cotton halberds include some of the finest cast pieces. Like Carn, these halberds are made of copper.
Clonard Tends to be shorter and squatter then the other types, but is distinguished chiefly by its hafting technique, which consists of four rivets arranged to form a square.
Breaghwy Virtually always made of bronze, these halberds are also distinguished from their colleagues by their weak hafting technique, which consists of three or more small rivets arranged in an arc in a shallow hafting plate
The breakdown by type is given in Table 2.2 under. Examples are at Fig 2.1. Table 2.2 Type No. Carn 51 Cotton 93 Clonard 16 Breaghwy 14 Misc 5 Unknown 7 TOTALS 186
Fig 2.1 (top to bottom)
Carn - Hillswood [NMI W246]) Cotton - Hill of Allen [NMI 1930:36] Clonard - Tullyvallen [NMI SA 1927:44 Breaghwy - Rough Island [NMI1938:266]
27 Context In terms of context, the Irish halberds break down as follows:
Table 2.3
Detail
Breaghwy Carn Clonard Cotton Misc Unknown Grand Total Bog 1 5 1 15 1 1 24 River 1 1 1 6 1 10 Lake 1 1 2
Cist 1 1 Clay 1 2 4 7 Crannog 1 1 Gravel 1 1 Hillside 1 1 Stone 1 1 Grand Total 5 8 3 29 1 2 48 No Context 9 43 13 64 4 5 138
Context is analysed in detail elsewhere (Chapter 6) but it is interesting to note that, where details of context are actually known, about 75% of all Irish halberds have been recovered from wet places. It is also worth noting that grave finds are virtually unknown. However, for the majority of Irish halberds, we have no details of context at all.
Distribution We only have details of provenance for 77 Irish halberds. Their distribution is discussed in detail elsewhere (Chapter 6) but for the present is sufficient to note a strong concentration in the midland counties of Leinster, east Connacht, South Ulster and North Munster (Map 2.1). The distribution of Irish halberds is therefore largely co-spatial with limestone geology and the best- drained soils. It is predominantly low-lying and ideally suited to Map 2.1: Distribution of Irish halberds pastoral farming. Type Carn, often
28 regarded as the earliest type, tends to cluster around the Shannon and its tributaries, defining the broad bones of a distribution which will later be filled in and extended by the most popular and widespread halberd, Type Cotton. Type Clonard – few in number – appears very much a local experiment in the eastern province, while Type Breaghwy, probably the last of the halberd types to develop, is distributed along the peripheries.
Associations and Chronology Again both the associations and probably chronology of the Irish halberds will be dealt with in detail in later chapters (6 and 10 to be precise). However, it is important to note that the vast majority of Irish halberds are single finds, with only 12 examples from hoards and 1 from a grave. Of the 12 examples from hoards, 10 are associated only with other halberds. In the other cases, the associations are with flat axes and simple daggers. The grave find (Moylough, Co. Sligo) was from a cist burial (see Chapter 6 for full discussion of this find).
The associations all suggest dates in the Irish Early Bronze Age and for reasons that are fully outlined in Chapter 10, I would propose a very short period of use in this country, from about 2400-2200BC in most cases.
While, then, it seems safe to regard the Irish halberds as being primarily a product of the Early Bronze Age industries, it should also be pointed out that the quality of the casting in some cases would sit easily with that of later periods. We should also remember that the radiocarbon date obtained for the Carn halberd (from samples taken from the shaft) centred around 1050 bc, which as Harbison (1988) comments, seems many centuries too late even when calibrated. However, when we come to look at the British halberds, we will see that there too there is good evidence of surprisingly late dates for some halberds.
BRITAIN Britain, or more precisely Scotland, is a very important zone for halberds. However, it tends to be overshadowed by Ireland in this regard and it is often forgotten that over 40 halberds have been recovered from Scotland alone. This is the equivalent of the entire production of the El Argar culture, which is invariably and Map 2.2: Distribution of British Halberds
29 rightly seen as one of the key-halberd producers in Europe, and more than Denmark and Sweden put together. Another 20 halberds at least are known from the rest of Britain, 10 from England and 10 from Wales, bringing the overall total for Britain to at least 60 halberds, probably more as we shall see when we look at the Scottish examples. Unfortunately, there is no national catalogue of halberd finds for Britain, so the current total is a little hard to determine. Indeed, Needham (1988) gives a total of just 53 halberds for all of Britain, of which 26 are single/unknown finds, 3 are possibly from graves, 19 from hoards, and another 5 possibly from hoards also.
Scotland
Looking at Scotland first, Coles (1968/9) records a total of 40 halberds, commenting that “for such a small quantity, the variety in shape is considerable” (p37). The typological sequence used is that established by Ó Riordáin and virtually all fall into his Classes 4-6, which can be summarised as follows:
Class 4: A long blade with a straight midrib and a rounded hafting plate in which holes for three rivets appear. Harbison’s Type Carn. Class 5: Similar to Class 4, again with three rivet holes, but with a gracefully curving blade. Mid rib may be curved or straight. A combination of Harbison’s Types Carn and Cotton. Class 6: Straight outline to the blade and generally equipped with more than three rivetholes in a shallow hafting plate. Harbison’s Type Breaghwy.
According to the above classification, the Scottish halberds listed by John Coles breakdown as follows: Table 2.3 Type No. Class 4 10 Class 5 5 Class 6 7 unclassified 18 ALL TYPES 40
I am grateful to the National Museum of Scotland for access to the original card catalogue prepared by Coles which contains some additional information not included in the published catalogue.
The figure of 40 halberds quoted above is if anything a minimum figure. In respect of the Auchingoul Hoard, it only includes a figure of 4 halberds, which are all that survive today. However, records show that a further 3 or 4 halberds were found in this hoard but are now missing (Edwards, 1941). In addition, Walker (1974) suggests that “three lanceheads” referred to in the National Museum of Scotland catalogue for 1892 as from Culbin Sands, Moray, but now
30 missing, may well have been halberds. Furthermore, one new halberd has recently come to light in an excavation of a cairn at Eweford (pers.comm. Trevor Cowie). All-in-all, it is probably safer to think in terms of some 45 halberds from Scotland than 40.
The fact that Ó Riordáin’s typology could be applied so readily to the Scottish halberds underlines the very close associations of the Scottish blades with their Irish counterparts. In this regard, Burgess (1980) has commented that “Scotland, as so often in the centuries that followed, was much more strongly influenced by Irish practice than the rest of Britain, both in terms of numbers of halberds and the proportion of examples of Irish type”. (p.75).
The majority are fairly straightforward triangular halberds, c.250mm long with rounded hafting plates (fig 2.2) and three or four rivetholes. Others have no rivet holes at all, indicating that they were never hafted or used, which is quite unlike the Irish examples. Of the unclassified examples, mention must be made of the Whiteleys (Stranraer) halberd which represents a mix of Irish and Continental influences, being hafted like an Irish Clonard halberd, but with the splaying midrib of Aunjetitz Europe (fig 2.2).
Fig 2.2: Examples of Scottish halberds (L-R): Whiteleys; No provenance; No provenance; New Machar; New Machar; New Machar (after Coles 1968/9, fig 30)
Context In terms of context, the Scottish halberds were found as follows:
31 Table 2.4 Context Single Hoard Grave Unknown Wet 3 Dry 7 2 2 Unknown 5 21 ALL TYPES 15 2 23
As the table shows, the majority - over half in fact - have no contextual details at all, although it may be fairly safely assumed that many if not most were single finds. Where contextual details do exist, it can be seen that a surprising number (at least 15) come from hoards (six), and mostly from dryland sites. This contrasts directly with the Irish experience where 80% of the halberds come from wet contexts, where find details are recorded.
Distribution The distribution of the Scottish halberds (Map 2.2) is coastal and largely eastern. Concentrations occur at the head of the Great Glen and around the Forth and Tay. Ó Riordain (1936) has commented that both concentrations lie on important natural routes across the country and he believes they must mark the progress of communication from Ireland across Scotland to Scandinavia. There is undoubtedly more than a grain of truth in what Ó Riordáin says but there is no doubt that, as he says himself later on, the image he has is of “Irish colonists” moving across the country. This need not be so and the idea is very much a product of its time: however, the fact remains that the halberds are distributed along the two major natural routeways across Scotland and certainly it would be arguable that on this basis the influences represented are external rather than native.
Associations and Chronology The associations of Scottish halberds are catholic to say the least. Six hoards are known to have contained halberds, four of which consisted of halberds alone. The hoard fom Sluie, Morayshire, however, contained two flat bronze axes as well as a halberd, which is a typical enough Irish association. A more unusual association is that of the halberd from Islay in Argyll which was found along with two socketed axes, a looped spearhead and a palstave. This suggest a much later date for halberds than is usually accepted but it is also possible, of course, that this halberd could have been retained as an heirloom for centuries before deposition. A further two halberds seem to have been found with a burial: this is the find from Backside of Aldie, Kinross, where the halberds were apparently found along with a cinerary urn (type uncertain). In terms of chronology, Coles saw the Scottish halberds as products of the 17th and 18th centuries BC, which must be regarded as too late now (Needham, 1996). A slightly later floruit than in Ireland would, however, seem to be indicated by the proportionately greater representation of Breaghwy-type halberds in the Scottish population, while the Islay hoard mentioned above may suggest that the halberds remained in use for many centuries later.
32
England
Moving to look at England, Ó Riordáin (1936) lists 10 halberds as having been found here and I am not aware of any new finds since then. Since there is no National catalogue to which the reader might be referred, the ten sites are listed here as follows: Table 2.5 Site No. Maryport, Cumberland 1 Faversham, Kent 1 Stoke Ferry, Norfolk 1 Bridlington, Yorkshire 1 Thames 1 Thames (Lambeth) 1 Manea in the Fen, Cambridgeshire 1 Harbynrig, Westmoreland 1 Wroxeter, Shropshire 1 Alderney, Channel Islands 1
Typology Ó Riordáin’s classification of the English halberds is summarised in Table 2.6. The impression given is that they fit well enough into an “Irish” Table 2.6 sequence. In reality, however, the English halberds are for the most Class No Class 4 4 part quite distinctive and unlikely to be mistaken for Irish examples. Class 6 4 Indeed, Ó Riordáin himself comments that in general the halberds of Unclassified 2 Southern Britain do not show as strong affinities with Ireland as do those from Scotland. He sees them as “imitations of Irish imports rather than as the imports themselves” (p276.) but whether they imitate Irish halberds at all is highly debatable. The English halberds can have more angular hafting plates than the Irish examples and sometimes have slightly ogival blades, which are very unusual in Ireland (Maryport and River Thames, Lambeth are good examples of this). The blades tend to be quite symmetrical in a way in which even Type Carn halberds in Ireland are not and are more pointed than would be usual in Ireland. Overall, the English examples fit reasonably well into the broader ‘Atlantic’ series of halberds and I see no reason to look to Ireland for prototypes. Burgess (1980, 75) similarly concludes that “Practically all the English and Welsh halberds are of specifically non-Irish types” .
33 Fig 2.3: English halberds (l-r) Maryport; Faversham; Stoke Ferry; Thames; Thames (County Hall, Lambeth); Bridlington. (Ó Ríordáin, 1937, figs 56-7)
Context Most of the English halberds are single finds, with just 3 out of the 10 possibly coming from hoards. In fact, as we will see below, we can only really rely on one of those associations with any degree of confidence. Two of these come from the Thames, while another (that from Stoke Ferry) came from the banks of a river (the Wissey). The find from Manea in the Fen, is probably an original wetland deposit as well. What details exist, therefore, suggest a preference for single deposition in wet places.
Distribution The distribution of the English halberds is shown at Map 2.2. The distribution is primarily coastal and riverine.
Associations and Chronology In terms of associations, we have three hoards to consider, not all of which would be unequivocally accepted as genuine associations. The most important - and the most secure - is probably Stoke Ferry, Norfolk. Here, on the banks of the river Wissey, a halberd was found with 3 broken spearheads of Late Bronze Age date, 2 broken leaf shaped swords and a bronze sword chape (Flower, 1870-3,425). As with the hoard from Islay, Argyll, we are presented with a quite puzzlingly late association for the halberd, several centuries later in fact than what we might expect. The other two hoards are less secure. One is from Wroxeter, Shropshire where finds of a
34 halberd and small dagger may be associated but are more likely not (Chitty, 1928). The second is the hoard from Arreton Down, Isle of Wight. Evans (1881) suggests that one of the “daggers” found with this hoard may in fact be a halberd. Ó Riordáin was not convinced but having examined the blade myself in the hand, I would have to allow that it certainly could be a halberd. The dimensions of blade and rivets are certainly consistent with a halberd and there is also a slight asymmetry about the blade that suggests the halberd. Needham (1986 and pers. comm) has also expressed similar suspicions.
As with so many other areas, it is difficult to tie down the chronology of English halberds due to the paucity of secure associations. Needham (1996) treating of the British halberds generally, suggests that it is “hard to see any evidence of the continued use of any of the common types beyond Period 2”, which in his chronology runs from around 2300-2000 BC. Some of the associations listed above, if genuine however, would run directly counter to this assertion.
Wales
Savory (1980) is the principal source for finds of halberds from Wales. He mentions 7 in total as having been found in Wales. To this total must be added the two halberds from Castell Coch, found in 1984 (Needham, Lawson and Green, 1985) as well as one from Shotten, Clwyd (Rohl and Needham, 1998,200). The overall total for Wales, therefore, as far as I am aware, now stands at 10 examples. To avoid confusion, these are as follows:
Table 2.7 Site No Glaney Wood, Radnorshire 1 Carn-y-Bont Quarry, Pembrokeshire 1 Dolfwrynnog, Merioneth 1 Pontrhydygroes, Cardiganshire 1 Tonfannu Quarry, Merioneth 2 Pistill Dewy Hill, Carmarthenshire 1 Castell Coch, Glamorgan 2 Shotten, Clwyd 1
Typology Ó Riordáin (1937)in treating of the Welsh halberds known to him, identified 5 examples of his Class 4 halberd and two examples of his Class 6. He considers the Welsh halberds to be closer to the Irish series than the English but admits that there can be notable differences. Burgess (1980), on the other hand, regards the Welsh halberds as a “very individual group” and like the English halberds “of specifically non-Irish types”. (p.75). Savory (1980) shares this view seeing them “in most cases not typically Irish” (p.43). There are certainly notable differences between Welsh and Irish halberds. In particular one’s attention is drawn to the midribs on the examples
35 from Carn-y-Bont (not illustrated) and Pontrhydygroes (fig 2.4) which splay strongly towards the hafting plate in a style never found in Ireland, but not uncommon in Continental Europe. This said, one of the halberds from the Castell Coch hoard is so like an Irish halberd of Cotton type that one is forced to consider it as an actual import (fig 2.4). The Welsh halberds tend to be a bit longer than the Scottish, between 250-290mm.
Context, Associations and Chronology The majority of the Welsh halberds (six) are single finds. There are two hoards that we know of, one from Tonfannu Quarry, Merioneth, where 2 halberds were recovered and the other from Castell Coch, South Glamorgan, where two halberds and a fragment of a rivetted dagger were found carefully placed one on top of the other (Needham et al, 1985). Metal analyses suggest a date within Savory’s Early Bronze Age II, c.2200-1800BC.
Fig 2.4: Welsh halberds (l-r) Pontrhydygroes; Dolfrwynog (Savory, 1980); Castell Coch (Needham et al, 1985).
Distribution The distribution of the Welsh halberds is shown at Map 2.2. The distribution is primarily coastal.
36 Summary In total then, for Britain, it seems we should think in terms of perhaps some 65 halberds in all. Most of these come from Scotland, where their typology betrays a strong Irish influence; elsewhere, the Irish influence is much weaker. About a third in all come from hoards, which is a very high proportion compared with Ireland (6%), but similar to parts of Continental Europe. Similarly, the strong Irish association with wetland deposition is not as evident with the British halberds. In terms of chronology, most would appear to date from before 2000 BC, but the occasional association with later metalwork, such as Islay and Wissey hint at a longer currency.
POLAND A total of 12 halberds are known from Poland. These have been catalogued and published by Gedl as part of the PBF series (Die dolche und Stabdolche in Polen. (1976) PBF VI (4) ).
Typology Gedl divides the Polish halberds into three basic categories (catalogue references are to Gedl, 176): Table 2.8 Type No. Catalogue Ref Grosspolnischen Type 4 Nos.51-54 Mecklenburgischen Type 4 Nos.55-58 -variant Ptusza 2 Nos.59-60 Unknown type 2 Nos.61-62
ALL TYPES 12
The differences between the various types and sub-type are slight and depend largely on the design of the metal haft-head: the Grosspolnischen type has a flat back, while the Mecklenburgischen type runs out to a point (fig 2.6). On average, the Grosspolnischen types tend to be shorter in terms of blade length, c.150mm versus 200mm for the Mecklenburgischen types. All examples are reported as bronze. All are metal-shafted, with the single exception Fig 2.5: Daggers or halberds? from of the example from Wielkopolska, which is Objerzierze, Poland. (Gedl, 1976) missing and of undetermined type. It is interesting to note that, without exception, the metal shafts of the remaining halberds are all of oval-section, which may suggest that wooden hafted halberds were similarly equipped with shafts of oval section.
37
In terms of function, Gedl sees both combat and ritual as possibilities, but on balance he inclines towards their use as a status symbol. He points also to the difficulty in recognising as halberds those blades which have been found without any haft attached. In this regard, it is worth noting that two “daggers” included in Gedl’s catalogue (nos. 111-112) look more like halberds, albeit of a type unusual in Poland (fig 2.5). Gedl himself comments that some authorities regard these two blades as halberds and I would tend to share that opinion. Gedl, however, compares the overall form to Volgriffedolche daggers of Aunjetitz type and is happier to classify them as daggers. Both blades were recovered as part of a hoard from Objezierze, along with a dagger, a shafthole axe and a flat axe.
Fig 2.6: Polish halberds of Grosspolnischen (top left) and Mecklenburgischen type (Gedl, 1976)
38
Distribution The distribution of the Polish halberds is shown at Map 2.3. Without exception, all come from Western Poland and clearly belong to the Aunjetitz heartland.
Map 2.3: Distribution of Polish halberds Context In terms of context of discovery, the Polish halberds breakdown as follows: Table 2.9 Type Grave bog single hoard other associated Grosspolnischen Type 1 2 2 Mecklenburgischen Type 1 2 1 -variant Ptusza 1 1 Unknown type 1
ALL TYPES 1 1 5 4 1
As can be seen, the Polish halberds breakdown fairly evenly into single and associated finds, with only one definitely recovered from a wetland context.
Associations and Chronology The six associated examples, mostly hoard finds, all throw light on the material associations of Polish halberds. The important Granowo hoard contained two halberds of different types (Grosspolnischen and Mecklenburgischen types) along with six decorated daggers, five with metal hafts, and two small flanged axes. Three of the daggers are huge vollgriffedolche of Oder- Elbe type with blades over 40cm long, dwarfing the accompanying halberds. At Sroda Wielkopolska, a halberd of Grosspolnischen type (No.54) was found in association with a massive armlet. The remains of the halberd shaft from Desczno (No. 62) was similarly associated with a massive arm ring. The halberd from Łęki Małe (No. 57) formed part of a grave deposit which included two massive armlets, a number of ceramic pots, the remains of a dagger, a pin, two small wire coils and a small axe or possibly a chisel. The associations for the Kotla halberd, described as either a hoard or grave find, are with a decorated metal hafted dagger, a flanged axe and a chisel. All finds are contemporary with the classic Aunjetitz period.
39
EASTERN GERMANY
This is a critically important region for halberd production with some 96 finds recorded by Wüstemann (1995).
Typology Wüstemann classifies the eastern German finds into a bewildering 15 types and subtypes, not including “unknown types” and possible forgeries. His classification can be summarised as follows:
Table 2.9 Type Class No. Catalogue Ref Metal hafted Sächsischen 5 Nos.97-101 Metal hafted Norddeutschen - variant 1 6 Nos 102-107 - variant 2 17 Nos 108-124 - variant 3 4 Nos 125-128 Metal hafted Polnischen 1 No 129 Metal hafted “Einzelne” 3 Nos. 130-132 Metal hafted Halberd-like artifacts 4 Nos. 133-136 Wooden hafted Variant 1 4 Nos. 137-140 Variant 2 8 Nos. 141-145 Variant 3 11 Nos. 149-159 Variant 4 6 Nos. 160-165 Variant 5 7 Nos. 166-172 Variant 6 5 Nos. 173-177 Variant 7 3 Nos. 178-180 Wooden hafted Miscellaneous 5 Nos. 181-185 Unknown Portion of halberd blade 1 No. 186 Unknown Unknown 1 No. 187 Probable Forgeries Probable Forgeries 5 Nos. 194-198 ALL TYPES 96
As can be seen from the above, there are two basic groups of eastern German halberd which are then divided into multiple subgroups. The two basic groups are “metal-hafted” halberds and “wooden-hafted” halberds. Within the first group, the many different subtypes identified by Wüstemann are really distinguished by the shape of the metal haft-head. The Sächsischen type is round-backed, the Nord-deutschen type has a pointed back, the Polnischen type has a flat back (like the Grosspolnischen type discussed under Poland), while the Einzelne types are really variations on more established themes. Within the second group of halberds, ie the wooden hafted types, the various subtypes are distinguished by subtle differences of midrib, rivetting and hafting plate.
40 Fig 2.7: Examples of metal-shafted halberds (Wüstemann, 1995)
The eastern German halberds range in length from as little as 100mm to 405mm. It is interesting to note that the metal-hafted types are on average shorter than their wooden-hafted cousins, 230mm versus 257mm. The averages are not skewed substantially by individual extremes one way or another. The difference is real, therefore, and may reflect the differences between what are most likely non-functional symbols and potentially functional weapons.
Fig 2.8: Examples of wooden-shafted halberds (Wüstemann, 1995)
41
Distribution The distribution of the eastern German halberds is shown in Map 2.4. In general, the metal-hafted types have a more northerly and central distribution than the wooden hafted halberds, which concentrate heavily in the southwestern parts of what used to be East Germany, in and around Leipzig.
Map 2.4: Distribution of E.German halberds
● = metalshafted; ○ = wooden-shafted
Context, Associations and Chronology In terms of context of discovery, Wüstemann provides a useful summary for halberds as follows: Table 2.10 Type Single Grave Hoard Total Metalshafted 8 0 27 35 Miscellaneous 1 0 3 4 Halberd blades 13 4 33 50
ALL TYPES 22 4 63 89
As is clear from the above, the vast majority, both metal and wooden-hafted, come from hoards where they are associated with other halberds, axes, daggers and rings of various sorts, all characteristic of the Early Bronze Age, c.2000BC. Very few wetland finds are recorded. A relatively small number of halberds come from graves, all of these wooden-hafted types. The most famous grave find is probably Leubingen, already discussed in Chapter 1 and dated dendrochronologically to 1942+ 10BC (Becker, Jäger et al, 1989).
WEST GERMANY
There is no single catalogue for the finds from the old West Germany, the PBF volume discussed above confining itself to the territory of the former East Germany only. On the basis of the published finds, however, very few halberds seem to have been recovered from this region. Two single finds are mentioned by Lenerz de Wilde (1991) from southern Germany, one from the
42 Neckar near Rottenburg- Kiebingen, published by Krause (1988). From the Middle Rhine region come three single finds plus a further fragmentary blade from the Meckenheim hoard (Stein, 1976). Another example is recorded from the Jungfernhohle near Tiefenellern (Von Brunn, 1959) while Berger (1990) comments on a possible example from the foot of a stone near Heiligenstadt-Stucht (Kr. Bamberg). Lenerz de Wilde (1991) comments that further scattered finds are distributed across N.W. Germany, Netherlands and Belgium, which include two river finds. However, she neither lists these finds nor indicates the source of her information and so the matter cannot be further pursued here. However, it seems reasonable to think in terms of at least eight halberds as coming from different parts of the old West Germany. Further work is planned to tighten up on the German and North European finds (Dirk Brandherm - pers.com.) but for the present we can only await the results with interest.
FRANCE
A total of 45 halberds have been recovered to date from France. These are published by Gallay (1981) as part of the PBF series.
Typology Gallay identifies 7 types and subtypes of French halberd, as follows:
Table 2.11 Type No. Catalogue Ref Luynes 4 Nos.494-497 Amboise 3 Nos.498-500 Glomel 5 Nos.501-505 Rouans 18 Nos.506-523 Rouans variants 4 Nos.524-527 Miscellaneous 8 Nos.528-534A Unknown 3 Nos.535-537 ALL TYPES 45
As can be readily seen from the table above, the Rouans type halberd is by far the most common representing almost half of all halberds found. This Rouans type halberd is a fairly simple form of halberd, not unlike the Irish type Carn. It consists of a long triangular blade, between 126 and 400mm long, with a straight mid-rib and secured, in most cases, by three thick rivets.
As regards the other types, they are distinguished mostly by the shape of the hafting plate and of the midrib (see accompanying figure to Map 2.5). The Amboise type has a deep, rounded plate, often with four rivet holes and not unlike the Irish Clonard type. It ranges in length from about 218mm to 286mm. The Glomel type has a distinctive trapezoidal hafting plate where the midrib
43 is brought to a point. In terms of overall length, it ranges from 165 to 289mm. The Luynes type halberd has a very narrow, well defined midrib, with a rounded hafting plate. It ranges from 172mm to 270mm long. None of the French halberds are metal hafted and are in general simple and without ornament.
By way of comment, it should be said that it would be possible to question whether some of the halberds included in Gallay’s monograph are actually halberds at all, e.g. Nos. 531 and 517, as well as many of the Sonderformen category. On the other hand, some of those blades which are classified as daggers might, to other eyes, appear possible halberds.
Context The find contexts of the French halberds are as follows: Table 2.12 Type River Marsh Grave Dryland Unknown Luynes 3 1 Amboise 2 1(pos river) Glomel 2 1 2 Rouans 2 4(a) 12 Rouans variants 3 1 Miscellaneous 3 1 1 3 Unknown 1 1 1 ALL TYPES(45) 13 1 7 4 20
The finds break down pretty much 50:50 into wet and dry contexts, with the majority of the latter grave-finds.
44 Map 2.5: Distribution of French halberds. Accompanying figure illustrates the main types of halberd in France. (Gallay, 1981)
Associations and Chronology The vast majority of the French halberds are stray finds and tend not be associated with other artifacts, except occasionally with other halberds. In this regard the French experience strongly mirrors the position in Ireland, making it very difficult to date these halberds properly. Only one find, that from Glomel itself, sheds any light on an associated material culture. The Glomel halberd was found as part of a hoard which included 11 fairly simple triangular daggers, along with a low flanged axe comparable to an Irish Ballyvalley type. This type of association is found throughout the Atlantic region, even in the rock-art of Galicia, as we shall see in Chapter 7. While dating obviously poses a problem, an Early Bronze Age date is assumed.
Distribution The distribution of the French halberds is shown at Map 2.5. Where provenanced, the halberds show a marked Atlantic and riverine distribution, particularly along rivers draining into the western sea.
45 In terms of possible function, Gallay points on the one hand to the example of the metal-hafted halberds of Central Germany as symbols of power, and on the other to the rock art of the Italian mountains interpreted, rather surprisingly, as suggesting a use in the hunt.
IBERIA
While Iberia is one of the most important centres for halberd production and use in Bronze Age Europe, consideration of the subject is severely hampered by the absence of any single catalogue of finds for the peninsula. Ó Riordáin (1936) identified some 20 halberds from Spain and 3 from Portugal. Schubart in 1973, while not actually totalling the halberds under consideration, nonetheless seems to think in terms of a population of around 40 or so halberds. He tackles the problem again in 1975, but once more avoids quoting any figure for the total population, commenting in fact that
Eine absolute Völlstandigkeit für die El Argar-Stabdolche wurde nicht erreicht....” (p77)
Majolie Lenerz-de Wilde (1991), who attempts to sum up the situation for Europe generally, does not give a figure for Iberia at all, confining herself to commenting on the regions of that peninsula in which halberds occur. In fact, that to no small extent has been the problem with discussion of Iberian halberds for many years: commentators tend to skirt round the issue of just how many halberds there actually are, choosing instead to illustrate their points with relevant examples from here and there. The nearest thing we have to a “catalogue” of any type is through the work of the Proyecto de Arqueometalurgia de la Peninsula Ibérica (1997), who include about 25 halberds from 17 locations in their analyses.
However, as will be shown below, this figure and other published figures fall far short of the reality. From my own reading of the Spanish literature I would estimate the current total at around 76 halberds in all, a figure which corresponds well with what can be extrapolated from the work of the Proyecto, when incidental references as well as the analysed examples are taken into account. These are listed at Appendix 2 and while this hardly constitutes a “catalogue” for the Iberian peninsula, there is no other listing available as yet. For the same reason, I am devoting a little more space in this section to the Iberian halberds than I have elsewhere because they are so important and because, relatively speaking, there is so little published on them.
46 Typology The most widely accepted typology is that of Schubart, who identifies three main types (Schubart, 1973). These are the Argaric, the Carrapatas and the Montejícar. However, for the reasons outlined above, it is less than clear just how many examples there actually are of each.
The first type, the Argaric, is certainly the most numerous, with something like 40 examples known. It predictably has a southeastern distribution heavily concentrated in the El Argar coastal region itself. In fact Schubart (1973) comments that Estas alabardas son desconocidas fuera de la pequeña zona por la que se extendió la cultura de El Argar (p249). [these halberds are unknown outside the small zone through which the El Argar culture is spread].
This type of halberd is often characterised as having a highly distinctive T-shape (fig 2.9), formed by the sudden expansion of the blade to create a long shallow hafting plate. However, this expanded hafting plate is not common to all Argaric halberds although the plate itself will always be shallow. The rivets are arranged in a linear fashion along the hafting plate and anything from two to five seem to have originally secured the blade to its wooden shaft. A strong midrib is characteristic.
Fig 2.9: Types of Iberian halberd (l-r): Argaric (Callosa de Segura, Alicante); Carrapatas (Alto de Pereiras, Tras os Montes); and Montejícar (Campina, Algarve). All after Schubart, 1973 (figs 1,7 and 10).
As has already been noted, there seems to be some difficulty in tying down just how many Argaric type halberds have actually been found in Spain (Schubart, 1975). However, on the basis of the finds listed in Siret(1890, 1913) and elsewhere (see Appendix 2 ) I can certainly account
47 for 31 examples, with the likelihood of several more amongst the unidentified class. The total population is probably in the region of 40 halberds, which is also the figure mentioned by Montero (1999) although he does not make it clear whether he is including Montejícar type halberds in this total.
The Carrapatas (or Atlantic) type is frequently thought as represented by only a small number, maybe 8 or so, of halberds tightly concentrated in North Portugal, in an area delimited by a curve of the River Douro. However, from my readings I can certainly list 20 examples of this type of halberd, with a much wider distribution (Appendix ). Schubart (1973) predicted as much when he wrote that
Mientras que la diffusión de las alabardas típicas de El Argar está evidentemente unida a un momento antiguo de la expansión de esta cultura, se puede pensar que la primitiva zona de extensión de las alabardas del tipo Carrapatas fuera mayor, pues la reducida zona del distrito de Bragança no representa una región bien definida.(p253). [while the spread of those halberds typical of El Argar is evidently linked to a moment in prehistory when this culture expanded, it might be argued that the ancient distribution zone of the Carrapatas halberds was wider, since the reduced zone around Braganca does not represent a well-defined region].
These halberds have broad blades, with strong midribs, accompanied by so-called blood-grooves. They were originally secured by three rivets arranged in the shape of a triangle in a shallow, somewhat pointed hafting plate.
The last type, the Montejícar, is found in coastal regions of the south of the peninsula and takes its name from a village in the Granada region. This is a most unusual type of halberd, quite unlike anything known elsewhere in Europe, consisting of a stout, dagger like blade, often sharply pointed, with an opposing rectangular protrusion, the whole hafted in the centre and secured originally by two stout rivets (fig 2.9). This type of halberd is characteristic of Phase B of El Argar. There is a suggestion in Savory (1968) that the Montejícar type is also depicted on decorated stones in the region but this runs directly contrary to Chenorkian (1988) who comments unequivocally that On peut tout de suite affirmer qu’il ne se rencontre aucune figuration de hallebarde de type Montejicar... (p288). [One can confirm straight away that there is no depiction to be found of a halberd of Montejícar type]
Six examples are known in all of this type of halberd, 2 of which are from Portugal. The development of this type of halberd raises interesting questions as to the use/functionality of earlier halberds. The protruding blade to the back of the haft strongly suggests that, like its medieval counterpart, this halberd was intended to be wielded in both directions. The appearance of this design may indicate that similar use was made of its precursor Argaric halberd. The rock-
48 art (chapter 7) suggests that the back of the haft head on these earlier halberds was probably stoutly reinforced and indeed could even protrude slightly. While this would certainly strengthen the haft against blows delivered in the direction of the blade itself, there is no doubt that the haft head itself could have delivered heavy crushing blows. It is tempting to the see the Montejícar design as developing in response to this type of use.
Schubart (1973) sees a typological relationship between the Montejícar halberds and the daggers or short swords of the Western Mediterranean and in particular of the Aegean. He sees similarities between the “wings” which protrude from the end of the hafting plate on Montejícar halberds and similar protrusions from the tangs of Aegean daggers and sword of the same period. Just as the earlier halberds may have been a transposition of contemporary rivetted daggers, Schubart suggests that the Montejícar type may well be a transposition of the daggers and swords in use later in the bronze age. The problem of course is - and Schubart is the first to point this out - that there are no such “Aegean” daggers or swords in use in Iberia at this time.
On the basis of the foregoing, we can therefore suggest the following breakdown for Iberian halberds: Table 2.13 Type No. Argaric 35 Carrapatas 20 Montejícar 6 Unknown 15 Total 76
While the above populations are estimated totals, I would consider them quite close estimates and certainly sufficient for the work in hand.
Distribution A tentative distribution map for the Iberian halberds can be seen at Map 2.6. Overall, the densest concentration of halberds is to be found in the southeast of the peninsula, in the areas defined by the El Argar culture. The eponymous Argaric halberd is the type found in this area, with apparently later deposits of Montejicar types. Elsewhere, notably in the northwestern part of the peninsula, the Carrapatas type halberd is to be found. The regional preferences displayed in Iberia for particular types of halberd is the most marked of anywhere in Europe.
49
Map 2.6: Preliminary distribution map of Iberian halberds
Context The Iberian halberds turn up in a variety of different contexts but clear preferences are expressed by the different types. The Argaric halberds are grave-finds and are confined to male burials of the period. The high representation of this type of halberd within the Iberian population as a whole may well be a function of its mode of deposition, since the graves of the El Argar culture are one of the most extensively investigated components of Iberian prehistory. The Montejícar halberds similarly seem to turn up in graves, at least where find details exist. The Carrapatas types, on the other hand, seem to be found either as single deposits or in small hoards. Since there are rarely if ever any surface indications to attract the investigator to these types of deposit, this may account for the smaller numbers of Carrapatas halberds which have been recovered to date.
Association and Chronology In terms of associations, both the Argaric and Montejícar types are associated with male inhumations and Siret (1890) notes that these graves are distinguished by being richer than others and evidently of exceptional persons. The other accompanying grave goods can include ceramics, daggers or swords, bracelets and rings, sometimes of silver. The halberds themselves are occasionally fitted with silver rivets themselves, as is the case with the famous example from Grave 18, Fuente Alamo. Montero (1999) comments that the practice is quite widespread for both halberds and daggers.
50 The associations of Carrapatas halberds, on the other hand, are more familiar to the Irish eye. In the first case, as has already been noted, they are not to be found in graves but may be associated with other objects in hoards. Sometimes - as with the eponymous hoard from Carrapatas itself - the associations are with other halberds. In other cases, such as Leiro, the halberd is associated with daggers or, in Partida de los Naves, with a flat axe - all classic “Atlantic” associations, if we might term them such.
In terms of relative chronology, Schubart (1973) believes we can in general regard the Montejícar halberds as later than the classic Argaric type. He concludes this since one of the former (that from Grave 575, El Argar) was recovered from a pithos burial, characteristic of Phase B of the El Argar culture. Since the classic Argaric type never appear in pithos burials, Schubart believes it must be earlier. In addition, he points out that the eponymous halberd from Montejícar itself is traditionally associated with a sword from the same region, and as swords are seen to be a development of Argar B, this suggests again to him that the Montejícar halberds are later developments and are in fact “el tipo de alabarda de fase B de El Argar” [the halberd type of Phase B, El Argar](1973: p260). This said, the distinction between the two Phases is not as clear cut as first appears: in the Southwest, for example, one very important associated find was made at Mesa de Setefilla, Lora del Rio, Sevilla (Aubet y Serna, 1981). This was a burial, of either two or three individuals, accompanied by a long, rivetted sword of arsenical copper, a double ribbed halberd of Argaric type along with a rivetted dagger of Argar B type.
In terms of actual chronologies, Schubart suggests that the period of use of the classic Argaric type was from 1700-1500 BC, contemporary with Phase A of El Argar. The Montejícar types, which he sees as characteristic of Phase B, should date from around 1500-1100 BC. Castro et al (1993-94:91) would date the Argaric halberds somewhat earlier, with a period of use from 2000- 1800 BC, a date which would now be more generally accepted (Montero, 1999).
As regards the Carrapatas type, Schubart is less precise about how he would date this type of halberd, although he would see certain similarities with Irish types (and they are in fact quite similar). It would seem reasonable to place these halberds also in the broad 2000-1500 BC range: the associations with daggers (5) at Leiro and with a flat axe at Partida de las Naves would be consistent with such dating. However, the inclusion of what appears to be a Carrapatas type halberd on the carved stone from Longroiva in Portugal (Chapter7, fig 7.25) suggests to Schubart (1973: 268) that this type of halberd may have survived for quite some time. Precisely why he believes this is not clear, since the other arms depicted on this stone are inconclusive in terms of dating. These types of carvings are generally believed, however, to belong to a later Bronze Age date.
51 ITALY
Vera Bianco Peroni’s volume, I pugnali nell’Italia continentale (1994) is the most recent and a most welcome addition to the PBF series. The Italian material, both halberds and daggers, presents a bewildering range of styles and influences and clearly evidences a thriving and confident Bronze Age society. Despite its many excellent qualities, Peroni’s work is handicapped by a very traditional approach to typology, resulting in a somewhat confusing classification of the material, which at times seems needlessly elaborate.
Typology Peroni identifies six halberd types, one of which has three variants. The types can be summarised as follows: Table 2.14 Type No. Catalogue Ref Gambara 3 Nos. 33-34A Villafranca-Tivoli 4 Nos. 35-38 Calvatone 6 Nos. 84-89 Cotronei - Variant A 10 Nos. 221-230 - Variant B 2 Nos. 231-232 - Variant C 3 Nos. 233-235 Montemerano 3 Nos. 270-272 “Unknown” (Rinaldone) 1 No.39
ALL TYPES 32
Gambara type This is one of the most distinctive types of halberd found anywhere in Europe. It consists of a long, elegant blade (325-354mm long: average 337mm) with an extremely narrow, well-defined midrib. Three rivet holes are arranged along the edge of a very shallow hafting plate. The defining feature, however, of this halberd is the manner in which the (presumed) underside of the blade suddenly curves inward about halfway from the point and sweeps into the midrib before swinging out again at the hafting plate. As the table above Fig 2.10 : Gambara type from shows, only three examples of this halberd type Roggiano Gravina (Bianco Peroni, are known from Italy. I am only aware of one 1994) other from elsewhere in Europe and that is an unprovenanced example from Ireland in the British Museum.
52
Villafranca-Tivoli type Peroni sees this halberd as sharing many of the characteristics of the Gambara type, but lacks the latter’s signature flame-shaped blade. The blade itself is long and narrow (265-362mm: average 314mm), and the midrib well-defined, but like the Gambara type, extremely narrow. Three rivet-holes are arranged along the edge of a shallow hafting plate.
Fig 2.11 : Villafranca-Tivoli type from Calvatone Type Tivoli (Bianco Peroni, 1994) Six examples of this type are known. The type is characterised by a largely symmetrical, triangular blade, between 165 and 288mm long (average 223mm) with a rounded hafting plate equipped originally with three rivets. The midrib can be either broad or narrow, splayed or parallel-sided. As a “type”, it does not immediately strike the impartial student as particularly homogenous. However, one would also have to admit a difficulty in assigning its members to any of the other established types.
Fig 2.12 : Unprovenanced Calvatone type (Bianco Peroni, 1994)
53
Montemerano type This in some ways is an Italian version of the “classic” international halberd. It consists of a fairly simple triangular blade, between 200-240mm long (average 220mm), with a straight, narrow midrib and really only differing significantly from the “classic” type insofar as it is secured by 2 rather than 3 strong rivets. A peculiarity of the type, demonstrated in two examples, is that the rivets are of square section. The mark of the haft itself is very clear in the halberd from Montemerano itself, clearly indicating that the haft was attached obliquely to the blade.
Cotronei type Fig 2.13 : Montemerano type from This comes in three varieties, classified as A, B and C. Type A Montemerano (Bianco Peroni, 1994) is characterised by a widely splaying, flat midrib, a relatively deep hafting plate and three narrow rivets. Type B also has a deep hafting plate but is secured by many small rivets, arranged in a linear fashion along the edge of the plate. Type C is very small by halberd standards and have only a medial swelling in place of a midrib. One example, No. 235, is only 116mm long and it is highly debatable whether these should be classified as halberds at all. The value of fixing a transverse haft to a blade this size must be questionable and I am unclear why the type C blades should not simply be regarded as daggers. Overall, Cotronei type halberds range in length from 116mm to 275mm, averaging 198mm long.
The Cotronei type halberds are the only types to be found in Fig 2.14 : Cotronei A-type from hoards, or which two examples are known. One is from Etruria. (Bianco Peroni, 1994) Alanno, Pescara, Abruzzi consisting of a Variant C halberd with 7 flanged axes. The second is the eponymous Cotronei hoard itself, which consisted of seven halberds and two axes.
54 Rinaldone type Only one example of this “type” is known and even that is fragmentary with no firm possibility of reconstruction. Nonetheless, Peroni considers that on the basis of the evidence offered, it seems unlikely that this halberd fits into any of the other types known.
Context The find contexts of the Italian halberds are as follows: Table 2.15 Type Total Grave Hoard Other Dryland Unknown sites
Gambara 3 1 1(gravel pit) 1 V.Franca-Tiv 4 2 1(settlement) 1 Rinaldone 1 1 Calvatone 6 3 1(settlement?) 2 Cotronei 15 4 8 3 Montemerano 3 2-3
Total 32 13-14 8 3 7
It is highly significant to note that no finds are recorded from wet places. Where the context is known, the majority (56%) come from tombs. 32% come from hoards, but since there are in fact only two hoards and all the halberds found in these have been of one type only, type Cotronei which is late in the series, it seems likely that the practice of hoard deposition was quite restricted and that the normal form of deposition was in graves.
Distribution The distribution of the Italian halberds is shown at Map 2.7. While there are a number of outliers, the vast majority come from central and northern Italy.
55
Map 2.7: Distribution of Italian Halberds
Associations and chronology As has been noted already under “Context”, where details are available the majority of Italian halberds seem to be grave finds. This runs counter to northern and western traditions, but suggests broader Mediterranean links shared with the El Argar culture, where halberds also occur primarily as grave deposits. A great many finds are “associated” with other artifacts, mainly daggers and less frequently other halberds. The probable grave find from Roggiano Gravina, a Gambara type halberd, was associated with a dagger of the vaso campaniforme period, suggesting a date in the latter part of the Eneolithic. One of the most remarkable finds was that from Villafranca Veronese, where a halberd was deposited along with an inhumation, positioned on the chest accompanied by a silver lunula. On the other hand, formal hoards are quite rare and only two unequivocal examples are known, both involving Cotonei type halberds: one is the find from Alanno where a single Cotronei type halberd was recovered along with 7 flanged axes; the second is the eponymous Cotronei hoard itself, which consisted of seven halberds and two axes.
56 DENMARK
Helle Vandkilde’s recent volume, From Stone to Bronze: the metalwork of the late Neolithic and Earliest Bronze Age in Denmark (1996) identifies 20 halberds from Denmark, which she examines in some detail.
Typology Vandkilde divides the Danish halberds into four principal types as follows: Table 2.16 Type No. Catalogue Ref Type 1 4 Nos.578, 580, 581, 590 Type 2 5 Nos.584, 589, 591, 593, 595. Type 1/2 variant 1 No..586 Type 3 8 Nos..579, 582, 585, 587, 588, 594, 596, 597. Type 4 1 No. 583 Unclassified 1 No. 592 ALL TYPES 20
In terms of the types themselves, they can be described as follows:
Type 1 These have what Vandkilde describes as a “curved mid-rib” but what is probably better described as “splayed”, especially given Harbison’s use of an entirely different kind of “curve” to diagnose his Type Cotton halberds. Type 1 midribs splay symmetrically along the blade from point to butt and may be bipartite (eg no.580). Some are decorated with small hatched triangles. The hafting plate is extremely shallow, with very small rivet holes. In terms of length they average c. 310mm. Vandkilde sees in these halberds a marrying of styles: the splaying, sometimes bipartite midrib and hatched triangles points to an Aunjetitz origin, whereas the rounded hafting plate with small rivet holes is indicative of the “Anglo-Irish region”. In fact, this type of hafting arrangement is very rare in either Ireland or Britain and given that chemical analysis of these halberds indicates a central European origin for the metal, there is no real need to see a marrying of cultural influences at all. Insofar as Type 1 halberds point anywhere, they point to Central Europe and an Aunjetitz parentage.
57 Fig 2.15: Examples of Danish halberds (top down) Types 1, 2, 3 and 4. After Vandkilde 1996 (figs 191-194)
Type 2 Type 2 halberds also have a splayed midrib but have a much larger, functional hafting plate, with holes for three thick rivets arranged to form a triangle. Vandkilde sees this type as “the typical Unetician halberd”(p.197). However, one would also have to say that in overall form, they belong to a more widely dispersed “Atlantic”-type halberd and with the exception of the mid-rib, would not be out of place in Ireland, Britain, France or NW Iberia. They show marked similarities to the Italian type Cotronei “A”. The chemical composition of the metal used varies within the type, and shows links with both central and Atlantic Europe. Tin is absent in all three cases analysed, but high arsenic levels have been detected, again pointing to an Irish or Central European source. Type 2 halberds average 305mm long.
Type 3 Even more than Type 2, halberds of this type conform to the Atlantic type, or Harbison’s “international” type. These halberds are basically simple triangular blades, averaging 332mm length, with a straight mid-rib and three thick rivets arranged to form a triangle in a deep rounded
58 hafting plate. They could easily be mistaken for Type Carn in Ireland, for Type Rouans in France or Carrapatas in Iberia. Vandkilde notes the possible connections with the “Anglo-Irish region” and elsewhere in central Europe but opines that straight-ribbed blades of this type are really quite few in number and occur more frequently in southern Scandinavia than anywhere else. Her argument is quite difficult to follow, since there are no more than 14 or 15 halberds of this type in Scandinavia, whereas in Ireland alone there are about 50 halberds of this type known. The conclusion she draws, which is that Type 3 halberds are an indigenous product of the Southern Scandinavian region, is therefore quite weakly founded.
Type 4 Only one halberd of this type is known from Denmark. This to all intents and purposes is a type 3 halberd except that its hafting plate is very shallow and it has but two small rivet holes. It measures 230mm in length. Vandkilde compares it to the Irish type Breaghwy but the comparison is not particularly appropriate. One of the defining characteristics of Type Breaghwy is that it is made of bronze, while the Danish example is copper. In addition, a hafting arrangement of just two rivet holes is unknown in any Irish halberd.
Context Of the 20 halberds known, 12 are recorded as coming from wetland sites, while a further 5 bear what Vandkilde regards as “bog patina”. The contexts of discovery of two halberds are unknown, while just one possible dryland find is recorded. All in all, the vast majority of Danish halberds, something like 85% in fact, are most likely wetland finds.
Distribution The distribution of the Danish halberds is shown at Map 2.8. There is not a huge amount to be said about the distribution pattern: the halberds are distributed fairly evenly across central and eastern Denmark. Regional preferences for specific halberd types are not apparent, although Vandkilde does comment that three of the four Type 1 halberds are located relatively close to each other in northeast Zealand. Map 2.8: Distribution of Danish halberds Associations and Chronology (after Vandkilde, 1996.
59 All the Danish halberds are single finds, so there are are no established associations. Vandkilde dates them all to the Late Neolithic (II), a relatively short period running from c.1950-1700BC. * * * * Less information is available for halberds in the following regions and varies substantially from case to case. What information I have been able to glean from published sources is summarised in each case.
SWEDEN
There is no specific catalogue for Swedish halberds. The first attempt to list these is in a general work by Oscar Montelius (1917) entitled Minnen från vår forntid, still a basic text for the Swedish Bronze Age. The halberd finds included in this work are later discussed by Ó Ríordáin (1936). A much later publication, Die ältere Metallzeit in Schweden by Andreas Oldeberg (1974) reviews and extends the finds considered by Montelius, but has nothing to add to the list of halberds already presented by Montelius and Ó Ríordáin. No new finds have been made in recent years (pers.comm. Inga Ullén, National Museum Sweden).
The population of halberds from Sweden appears then to stand at 10 examples, unchanged since Ó Ríordáin (1937). Since there is no national catalogue to refer to, the finds included in the present work are listed hereunder (Table 2.17):
Table 2.17 Location No. Sweden 1 Single Gessie (Malmo) 1 Single Karaby, W. Skane 1 Single Gotland 1 Single Dosjobro, V. Karaby 1 Single Klagstorp, Malmo 1 Single Arup, NW Skane 1 Single Dagstorps by, Skane 1 Single Stakagarden, 1 Single Vestergotland Nr Malmo 1 Single
Fig 2.16 Dagstorps by, Skane (O Riordain. 1937)
Ó Riordáin (1937, 278), treating of the Scandinavian halberds in general comments that these “.....show remarkable Irish affinities. Indeed most of them are so Irish in type that one must regard them as...... actually of Irish manufacture”. There is no doubt that many of the Swedish examples do strongly resemble Irish halberds, but they also closely resemble their near
60 neighbours in Denmark. In fact, they fit quite well into what I have been referring to as an “Atlantic” series and are possibly best considered in that broader context. Two metal hafted halberds from Sweden also testify to links with central Europe.
SWITZERLAND
Ó Riordáin lists 7 halberds from Switzerland, one from a hoard and six single finds. Lenerz-de Wilde (1991), however, mentions only one hoard and three single finds. The hoard is presumably the one mentioned already by Ó Riordáin, i.e. Vétroz, but what the other single finds Lenerz-de Wilde is including is unclear. Nor do we know why she does not mention the other three listed previously by Ó Riordáin, but since she does refer to his paper elsewhere it is to be presumed that she is familiar with his catalogue. In three cases - Aadorf, La Bordonette and La Raisse - Ó Riordáin considers the finds to be “probably” halberds, without stating categorically that this in fact is what they are and it is possible that Lenerz-de Wilde is excluding these examples. However, on the basis of the illustrations provided, I would have no difficulty in accepting the first two of these as halberds. The third (La Raisse) may well also be a halberd, but without a section drawing it is difficult to tell.
Fig 2.17: examples of Swiss halberds (after O Riordáin, 1937)
In all, therefore, I would be happy to list six finds from Switzerland, with a possible seventh to be considered too. These are as follows:
61 Table 2.18 Find No Status Context Jihl, near Brugg 1 Single Roches, Aigles 1 Single Zihlure, Kt. Bern 1 Single Vétroz, Kt. Wallis 1 Associatedw Unknown ith chisel Aadorf, Bezirk Frauenfeld, Kt. Thurgau 1 Single bog La Bordonette, Lausanne 1 Single Possible example from La Raisse 1 Single
The Swiss halberds are a mixture of types, including what appears to one of Italian Montemerano type (Roches Aigles).
NETHERLANDS and BELGIUM
Ó Riordain lists 3 halberds as coming from the Netherlands, two from Wageningen and one from Nijmwegen. Butler (1963) dismisses two of these, showing conclusively that one of the two from Wageningen is in fact a dagger, while the example from Nijmwegen is actually unknown to Dutch archaeologists and Ó Ríordáin’s reference was probably to a copy of the Wageningen halberd formerly in the Römisch-Germanischen Museum (ibid 15). However, Butler records two additional halberds from the area, one from Roermond, Limburg in the Netherlands and one from Wicheln, Prov. Antwerp in Belgium. Table 2.19 Find No Status Context Wageningen. 1 Hoard Moorland field Roermond 1 Single River Maas Wichelen 1 Single River Scheldte
The Wageningen Hoard is of course well- known. The hoard was found in 1840 in a moorland field by a man digging trenches for tree planting. The objects were c.0.6m below surface (Pleyte, 1889). The other associated finds included a stone axe, one bronze flat axe, two rings of bronze wire plus fragments of two others, two bronze rivets, and five fragments of sheet bronze. A pot mentioned by both Pleyte and Ó Ríordáin is missing and may not in fact have been Fig 2.18: The halberds from Wageningen and Roermond, Netherlands (after Butler, 1963:figs 1-2) part of the original find (Butler, 1963, 17). The halberd is 210mm long.
62 The Roermond halberd is a fine piece, 294mm long, and quite “Irish” looking. It was dredged from the River Maas in 1957. The Wichelen halberd is also quite long, 310mm, and is presumably a river find, coming from an area of the Scheldte from whicha number of bronzes have been dredged over the years.
AUSTRIA
O Riordain lists five halberds from Austria, to which must be added the hoard from Kleinmunchen (Beninger, 1933-4). I am not clear why Ó Riordáin omits reference to this hoard. No further additions to Ó Riordáin’s list are mentioned by Lenerz-de Wilde (1991), although she does refer to a single find from Austria without providing any details. This may well be one of those already mentioned by Ó Riordáin, perhaps Paltendorf or Prennartsberg.
The current total for Austria, then, appears to stand at 7 halberds in all, as follows: Table 2.20 Find No Context Feuersbrunn 2 Grave (2 pots, awl, bronze axe) Bruck 1 Single Kleinmunchen 2 Hoard (plus gold ribbed bar and possible bronze example) Ried, Oberinntal Tirol 1 Hoard (flanged axe, bronze necklet, 7 spiral rolls, 12 amber beads. Paltendorf 1 Single Pranhartsberg 1 Single
Typology No specific typology for the Austrian halberds has been established as far as I am aware. Two of the halberds are notable for their size. That from Ried is 41cm long, while the example from Bruck is 52.5 cm long, the longest halberd known in fact from anywhere in Europe (figs 2.19 and 2.20 respectively). While the Bruck halberd, despite its size, carries a certain sense of functionality in its simple lines and practical rivetting, the example from Ried is highly ostentatious, being long and slender, highly decorated and equipped with enlarged conically capped rivets (of which just one survives). These rivet caps are in fact so large that it seems impossible to fit three together in the hafting-space provided, if all were the same size as the one which survives.
63 Fig 2.19: The halberd from Ried Fig 2.20: The halberd from Bruck
Context In terms of context, at least two of the finds (Bruck and Kleinmunchen: 3 halberds in all) are possible wetland finds. The majority, however, seem to be dryland sites and with the exception of Feuersbrunn, grave deposits are unknown.
The Feuersbrunn find deserves some discussion. Beringer (1933-4) is the source. The deposit was found in 1923 and was originally thought to be a hoard. However, further excavation revealed that it was in fact a grave deposit which originally accompanied a male, crouched inhumation. One broad, shallow pottery vessel was laid at the feet of the skeleton, with another smaller handled pot underneath. An awl was recovered somewhere near the knees, while the first of the halberds was found by the skull, with the second (smaller and in two pieces) found later near the same spot. Both blades are quite small, measuring 189 and 143 mm respectively. A full- length rivet surviving in the first blade suggests that the thickness of the shaft at the point of hafting was around 1cm on either side of the blade. A long flanged axe was also recovered from the grave, which along with the shallow bowl, suggest an Aunjetitz date.
HUNGARY
Ó Riordáin lists 6 halberds from Hungary, all single finds. I have not been able to identify any additional finds since then. The finds are as follows and are all published in Marton, 1931:
64 Table 2.20 Find No. Status Szony, Kom. Komorn 1 Single Dunapentele, Komitat Feher 1 Single Pilin 1 Single Hungary 1 Single Hungary 1 Single Ipoly-Fluss, Kom. Hont 1 Single
Ó Riordáin regards these finds as forming a “remarkably uniform group” (p286), with strong resemblances to others from Pomerania, Switzerland, Austria and Greece. For my part, I would see equally strong if not stronger resemblances to Italian halberds, particularly of Villafranca- Tivoli and Calvatone types.
Fig 2.21: Hungarian Halberds (l-r) Szöny; Dunapentele; Pilin; Hungary; Hungary; Ipoly Fluss. (O Riordáin, 1937, fig 67)
The Hungarian halberds are for the most part fairly simple blades. However, two deserve particular mention: an unprovenanced example (no. 4 above) which displays incised decoration not dissimilar to the halberd from the Ried Hoard in Austria; and the halberd from Ipoly-Fluss which is of a most unusual socketed type but clearly related to the metal-hafted German examples.
65 GREECE
Ó Riordáin lists three examples of possible halberds from Greece. To these we might add five possible examples listed by Branigan (1974), generating a total of eight “halberds” to be considered here.
To look first at the examples included by Ó Riordáin, these are from Mycenae (6th Shaft Grave), Sesklo (Tomb 25) and Amorgos. With regard to the last, while this was regarded as a halberd by Montelius (1909,166) and Childe (1925,40), at just about 110mms long I would certainly understand Ó Riordáin’s reluctance to accept it as anything but a dagger. However, in form (both profile and section) it is very “halberd-like” and while undoubtedly extremely small, there are examples not much longer which are accepted by Ó Riordáin himself as halberds.
The example from Mycenae is quite well-known and of course highly controversial. Both Schmidt (1912) and Evans (1921-36) identify it as a halberd and Ó Riordáin seeks to confirm this by pointing to the shallow arc of the gold-topped rivets as “unmistakable evidence” that the blade was hafted as a halberd. Personally, I am not convinced by this argument as there is no reason why a hafting arrangement of this nature should be regarded as indicative exclusively of a halberd. Quite similar finds have come from Shaft Grave Circle B and these would routinely be regarded as daggers. The purported halberd-blade is certainly asymmetrical and equipped with a midrib but the overall profile is quite unlike any other halberd known today. It is, however, remarkably like the “leaf-shaped” halberds shown in the rock art of Val Camonica discussed in Chapter 7, for which no immediate archaeological parallels are known (except possibly the Gambara blades). For this reason, I would not dismiss the Mycenae blade altogether, although entering several reservations at the same time.
The blade from Tomb 25 Sesklo, Thessaly is a much more likely candidate. The rivet-line is actually L-shaped along the hafting plate and the mark of the shaft is still discernible. The blade has a straight upper edge and a strongly curved or diagonal lower side, the whole strongly reminiscent of Italian halberds of Gambara-type, themselves very unusual. Both this halberd and the Mycenae blade would be dated to c.1600BC on the basis of their associated finds.
66 Fig 2. 22 The halberd from Mycenae (top) and Sesklo (bottom) (after O Riordáin, 1937)
Branigan (1974) in his assessment of the metalwork of the Early and Middle Bronze Age in the Aegean, includes 5 “halberds” which he classifies into Types 1, 1A and 2. Type 1, of which three examples are listed, is described as having a flat profile with concave edges and a rounded head. It was originally secured by three rivets arranged in a linear fashion across the hafting plate. In length, these blades measure between 140-190mm. Type 1A is represented by one example only and differs from Type 1 “halberds” only inasmuch as it was fixed by two rather than three rivets. Branigan dates Types 1 and 1A to c.2500-2000BC. The single example of Type 2 has a more thickened profile and is secured by three rivets. This example Branigan dates to c.2000BC or later. In general, he sees all these “halberds” as shortlived and Minoan in origin. I am not entirely convinced that any of these are halberds at all, but I have not actually seen the blades myself and rely on published drawings only. However, the very pronounced curve of the blade would seem to argue against their being halberds, as it is difficult to imagine how they could wielded effectively if fixed transversely to a haft. They have never to my knowledge been mentioned in any of the literature dealing with halberds in Europe. I include them here for interest’s sake but also in deference to the conviction of their publisher that they should in fact be regarded as halberds.
67 Fig 2.23. : Aegean “halberds” (l-r) Lerna; unknown; Palaikastro; Palakaistro; Psychro (after Branigan, 1974)
MOROCCO
The prehistory of Morocco remains a foreign land, even compared to that of other regions. Finds are few and out-of- context and Chenorkian comments that as a consequence the rock-art of the region has an enormous contribution to make towards our understanding of its past. Halberds do appear in this art (see Chapter 7) but only one has ever been found. This was a bronze example from the cist-cemetery of Mers, just south of Tangiers Airport which was excavated by Ponsich (1977). The Fig 2.24: Halberd from Mers (Ponsich,1977) halberd is of broad triangular shape, with a midrib and three rivet holes positioned in the shape of a triangle in a very shallow hafting- plate. The blade is 105mm long and 50mm max width, a bit short for a halberd but the overall form is quite like the Iberian Carrapatas type. Ponsich himself was less than confident that he had found a halberd, describing it as “lame de poignard ou de hallebarde en bronze”, although he ultimately favoured the latter description. I have only seen a drawing myself of the find but would be happy to identify it as a halberd, and probably of Carrapatas type. Schubart (1973), however, would not share this confidence, regarding it as impossible to correctly identify the
68 blade as a halberd in the absence of a section drawing. No-one has apparently examined the actual blade in the recent past to finally decide on its classification.
“YUGOSLAVIA”
Four halberds are mentioned by Lenerz-de Wilde (1991) as having been found in the territory of the former Yugoslavia, one in the Saveniederung swampland. No further details of any kind are provided. The source is Vinski (1963).
RUMANIA
I know of two halberd blades from Rumania, from Macin, Dobruja (fig 2.25). These blades are quite unique as they are made of gold and formed part of a rich grave deposit which also included two gold bracelets. They are discussed by Severaneau (1935) who compares them to Iberian halberds and also to daggers from the Mycenaean shaft graves. A short summary of this remarkable find is contained in Gimbutas (1965) who points to the Aunjetitz connections of the bracelets. The blades, although clearly symbols of power, are produced fullsize: one is 222mm Fig 2.25 : One of the gold halberd blades from Macin, Dobruja. long and the other 190mm.
LITHUANIA
Ó Ríordáin (1937) mentions two halberds from Lithuania, one from Kr. Ponewesch, current whereabouts unknown and one from Kr.Kowno. The latter is presumably the one Gimbutas (1965) had in mind when she remarked that one metalshafted halberd was recovered near Veliuona, in the district of Kaunas. Both are metal-shafted.
69
PART 2: DISCUSSION
From the foregoing, it can be seen that the type and quality of information which is available for European halberds varies considerably. The best information is from those countries for which national catalogues have been completed (Ireland, France, Denmark, East Germany, Poland and Italy), even if that information is at times a little out of date. We are fortunate indeed that 70% of all European halberds are included in one or other of these catalogues. For the other regions, it can be extremely difficult to get a handle on just how many halberds have been found and in some cases only the most rudimentary descriptions of these exist. It is lamentable that no overall catalogue for Iberia exists at present; thankfully that is to change in the very near future as the Iberian halberds are to be included in a forthcoming PBF volume by Dirk Brandherm.
On the basis of a paper survey of as many European publications as I could identify as relevant in any way, it now seems reasonable to think in terms of a total population of c.600 halberds from Europe. Individual references have been located for around 589 halberds but since the source data is outdated in many cases and since I can not be sure that in other cases I have managed to locate every halberd found (eg Iberia), it may be confidently assumed that the figure of 589 halberds is an absolute minimum. It is effectively a “snapshot” based on the current state of knowledge in Europe but one which is likely to increase as national catalogues are completed for the remaining regions and existing catalogues are updated.
To my knowledge, this is the first attempt at summarising a total population for Europe since Ó Riordáin (1937). Lenerz-de Wilde (1991) provides a broad overview of the situation in Europe but skirts round the issue of actual numbers. The current total of 589 halberds represents a 60% increase over Ó Riordáin’s figure of just 363, a figure which continues to be quoted even today. The implications for Ireland’s relative importance in the production, distribution and use of halberds has already been referred to: even with the addition of new finds since Harbison completed his catalogue in 1969, Ireland now only accounts for c.30% of European halberds, rather than the 40% commonly quoted, and since the figure for Ireland is up-to-date and that for every other region is not , the most likely way that percentage can go from here is down.
The most significant additions to Ó Riordáin’s catalogue, in numerical terms, are in Ireland (148 increased to 186), Scotland (increased from 26 to c.45 halberds), France (increased from 6 to 45 halberds), Italy (increased from 7 to 32 halberds) and Iberia (increased from 23 to 76 halberds). The balance is for the most part distributed over those countries now occupying the Aunjetitz heartland. The current distribution of European halberds (Map 2.9) compared with Ó Riordáin’s (Map 2.10) shows both the way in which the “traditional” zones have crystallised in importance and the manner in which some of the “gaps” on his map have now been filled in by subsequent
70 finds. It will be quickly seen that these increases have only served to copper-fasten the position of the three broad areas already identified by Ó Riordáin and other writers as the most important halberd-using regions in Europe during the Bronze Age, ie Ireland, Iberia and “Aunjetitz” Europe. In fact the extent to which these main centres of halberd production and use can be related to cultural “polities” is quite remarkable. The zones of distribution for European halberds are those defined by established Bronze Age societies, such as El Argar, Ireland and Aunjetitz Europe. Together these regions account for 65-70% of all halberds known and the importance of this to our understanding of the phenomenon of halberds in Europe should not be understated, and will be returned to again in Chapter 10. However, some of the other changes in the new distribution map should not go unremarked: in particular, Italy is established as a zone of some importance while the newly expanded population of halberds in France creates an important Atlantic link down to the Iberian peninsula for both Irish and Aunjetitz influences. The increased number of Scottish finds similarly suggests a northern route of influence reaching out to Ireland and Scandinavia on either side.
71 evidence as it stands. In the case of the prehistoric halberd, 150 years of artefact collection and classification has presented us with a picture of its production and use as being concentrated in a small number of areas in Europe. While we cannot ignore the evidence presented to us, we need to remember that it is not an infallible record of how things were.
Map 2.9 Distribution of all known European halberds (2002)
In terms of the artifacts themselves, different approaches have been taken in each region towards typology. In some cases, such as Ireland and indeed Iberia, simple broad categories have been established that continue to work well for classification. In other cases, such as Italy, what may be unnecessarily complicated series have been proposed. To the student looking at the broad sweep of halberd types in Europe for the first time, he or she will be struck, I suspect, not so much by the differences between different regions as by the similarities. Of course, this is one of the challenges of working with typologies at all as they more often than not rely on what is different about artifacts rather than what is similar. Thus, for example, in Ireland we have two classes of halberd, Carn and Cotton, that are fundamentally the same artifact, ie a long, stout blade of copper fixed transversely to a shaft by three rivets. The only difference is that the midrib in one is curved to a greater or lesser degree. While this is a legitimate distinction to draw, it conceals the fact that, basically, 80% of Irish halberds are very, very similar.
72 Map 2.10: Distribution of all known European halberds (Ó Riordáin, 1937)
The same is true, perhaps to an even greater extent, for halberds elsewhere in Europe. Despite the multiplicity of typologies, the bottom line is that the vast majority of halberds everywhere look more or less the same, ie long, stout blades, with strong midribs, generally secured by three rivets. Despite the plethora of typologies, the fundamental design for halberds alters relatively little across Europe. We are indeed, to borrow from Harbison (1969a), looking at a tema con variazione.
The variazoni are of course more pronounced in some areas than in others. The halberds of the El Argar culture in southeast Iberia, both “classic” and Montejícar types, are probably the most distinctive and “local” of the European halberds. However, with regard to the first, it should be remembered that the diagnostic expanded hafting plate would have been concealed when the halberd was actually fixed to a shaft and it would then have presented a profile very similar to a hafted halberd from anywhere else. Some of the Italian halberds are quite different too, particularly the Gambara types, with their strangely curved underbellies. The other Italian types, however, are distinctive only with regard to their extremely shallow hafting plates, which again would have been concealed by a shaft. With these few exceptions, accounting for maybe 10% of all halberds known, the rest look pretty much the same, or would have when hafted. The main differences that would be exhibited today relate to the hafting plate, to the size and shape of the midrib, to the number of rivets and, of course, to the fact that some had metal shafts and others
73 had wooden ones. These all provide a solid basis for distinguishing classes and sub-classes but cannot be allowed to conceal or detract from the fundamental similarities which exist.
What does all this tell us about Early Bronze Age halberds? The remarkable similarity in size, shape and form from region to region strongly suggests a sudden appearance and relatively shortlived floruit for the halberd in Europe. There is time for regional variation to develop and time for influences to be exchanged, but not so much time for substantial local evolution to occur (except perhaps in Iberia where we witness the later development of the Montejícar type of halberd, unknown elsewhere in Europe). Also from Spain, and apparently of late date, is a unique socketed bronze halberd now in the Hunt Museum in Limerick, which provides telling evidence of the late survival of the species in Iberia (see Chapter 5). Elsewhere, however, the halberd remains of fairly static design. This may well be because an effective design was achieved easily and quickly in each of the key zones, requiring little further modification and so becoming the sepulchre of its own success. In other words, the fact that there is relatively little evidence for evolution might not necessarily mean that the phenomenon was shortlived. However, what little actual dating evidence is available does seem to indicate that the halberd was in fact fairly shortlived, confined more or less everywhere to the Early Bronze Age (Chapter 10), and so the uniformity of its design is probably a function of this.
What is also significant, however, is that this uniformity of design is, in the true meaning of the word, superficial in many cases. In other words, while European halberds may generally look the same, this may actually conceal a more fundamental difference. These halberds present a common appearance which virtually always communicates a semblance of functionality - the real differences between the various halberds lie in the extent to which that functionality is real or merely suggested. There is absolutely no doubt that some halberds were actually used, at least in Ireland, as we shall see in later chapters, but equally there is also no doubt that some were purely ceremonial.
To develop this point a little further, it might be argued that to no small extent it is the hafting plate which dictates whether a halberd can actually be used or not in the conventional sense. The hafting plate is, as I have already pointed out, concealed by the shaft and its design is ultimately known only to its maker, perhaps to its owner and to us, who see it after the passage of time has stripped the shaft away. To everybody else, functional and non-functional halberds look pretty much the same, except that the non-functional type may look richer and more impressive. Halberds with hafting-plates which are relatively large and fitted to take thick rivets are certainly capable of being used, all else being equal. Virtually all the Irish halberds fall into this category, with a standard size hafting-plate of c.40mm depth and three or four wide rivet holes. Only one type, Breaghwy, seems created for display (see Chapters 3 and 4) with a much shallower hafting plate and small rivet-holes. This halberd-type is also thinner than the others and made of bronze
74 rather than copper. Hafted, however, it would not look much different from its more functional brethren, especially if the size of the rivets was concealed by broad conical caps.
Elsewhere in Europe, we can detect similar distinctions. Many of the Scandinavian halberds, for example those of Danish Types 2 and 3, could certainly have been used and indeed display many similarities to Irish and Scottish blades. Again, however, there are types in this region which could not have been used, such as Vandkilde’s Type 1 with its tiny rivet holes and non-existent hafting plate. Looking down towards Germany and Poland, we encounter a large number of metal-shafted halberds, which mimic the form of functional halberds precisely, down to skuomorphic rivets and haft bindings. It is generally accepted that these halberds could not have been “used” in any conventional sense of the word. Their haft-heads are hollow, with the blade simply slotting-in in most cases, and not to any depth, and weakly secured. It would seem that any attempt to actually use these halberds as weapons would quickly shatter, tear or twist the hafting. While no trials have actually been carried out, that I am aware of, to test this assumption, it seems most unlikely that these metal-shafted halberds could ever have been intended to be put to practical use. They are, however, clearly imitating carefully designed functional models. There are also large numbers of wooden hafted halberds from this area of Europe as well, and while there has been no comprehensive study of use wear on any of these halberds that I am aware of, it must be said that many of these wooden-hafted halberds certainly could have been used - the size of both hafting plate and rivets in many cases are consistent with functional operation. The Italian halberds I have mentioned already: the Gambara and Villafranca-Tivoli types hardly seem functional, but the same could not be said of the Calvatone or Montemerano types. The French halberds, on the other hand, almost all have a distinctly “functional” feel about them, and indeed could easily be mistaken for Irish halberds. The Iberian halberds present a mix of functionality and display impulses: some, as we have seen, are actually fitted with silver rivets while others actually show signs of wear and rehafting - sometimes even as daggers (Dirk Brandherm, pers. com.).
In summary, then, while the halberds of Early Bronze Age Europe can and are easily classified into multiple typologies, they for the most part present a distinctly familiar appearance no matter from what part of Europe they originate. The real distinctions lie in whether they could or could not have been “used” in the conventional sense, and whether their design is predicated on a functional requirement. It is interesting to note that, while both functional and non-functional types appear to exist in each of the main halberd zones, the proportions in which they are represented differs considerably. Thus in Ireland, as many as 95% of the halberds are potentially “usable”, while in Aunjetitz Europe, the functional/non-functional divide is less stark, more like 50:50. By and large, it might be said that the halberds of the “Atlantic” province, encompassing Ireland, Scotland, and France in particular, would place greater store by “functionality”, while in
75 Aunjetitz Europe and the regions which it most strongly influences, “display” is relatively more important (Map 2.11).
Map 2.11:Traditions and influences in halberd-using Europe
The broad regional patterns mentioned above in relation to function are also reflected in halberd typology, where certain broad “familial” similarities can be identified between halberds in different regions. It has already been pointed out that there are a number of key centres for halberds in Europe, ie Ireland, Aunjetitz Europe and Southeast Spain. The following table compares the “halberd density” of different regions of Europe and it can be seen that these three areas do all produce the greatest densities of halberds, even according to this crude measurement. Table 2.21 Region Land Area (km2) No. Halberds Density per 100km2 Ireland 82,000 186 0.23 Britain 230,000 65 0.03 Denmark 43,000 20 0.05 East Germany 108,000 96 0.09 Italy 301,000 32 0.01 France 552,000 45 0.01 Iberia 598,000 76 0.01 El Argar c.25,000 40 0.16
These three centres can also, I believe, be regarded as “anchor zones” for particular designs from which “lines of loyalty” in terms of halberd style and function stretch to other areas (Map 2.11). Design and possibly function are at their most distinctive within the anchor zones themselves, which are confident enough to develop and maintain their own traditions. The further one travels along the lines of loyalty stretching outward from these zones the more rival influences encounter one another, meld and encourage more local innovation.
76
The Irish anchor-zone In the northwest, the anchor zone is of course Ireland, which despite increased finds elsewhere, has still produced more halberds than anywhere else in Europe. From this anchor-point, stretching northwards along the coastal fringe to Scotland and Scandinavia and southwards, again along a coastal fringe, to France and northwest Iberia, perhaps three hundred halberds in all are distributed. These have a marked familial feel to them, consisting in the main of strong, functional looking blades of broad triangular form, fixed by three rivets in a rounded hafting plate. They tend to be between 200-300mm long. They are rarely decorated in the conventional sense, and never to the extent of halberds from Central Europe, except for a few examples from Scandinavia which show clear Aunjetitz influences. Some from Scotland, Scandinavia and France are so similar to Irish examples as to suggest actual imports or at least faithful adherence to an Irish school of design. Others are clearly local innovations, but still within the “house style” of the anchor zone. Looked at from this perspective, both the Irish Clonard series and the French Amboise series might be seen as related experiments in new hafting techniques, perhaps influenced by each other but never really challenging the more established styles.
The links between the areas sharing in this Atlantic school extend to the forms of deposition practised also: the vast majority of halberds found in this zone have been recovered as single finds or as elements within small hoards. They are virtually never found in graves in Ireland and notwithstanding Lenerz-de Wilde’s (1991, p41) somewhat disturbing comment that this is because graves of this period are “almost unknown” in Ireland, we may safely regard the decision to exclude halberds from grave assemblages here as a deliberate one on the part of contemporary society. While this decision to avoid deposition in graves is widely respected along the lines of loyalty stretching from Ireland, this resolve may weaken at points further afield. Thus we have two examples of halberds from graves in Scotland, but as many as seven come from graves in France. On the other hand, none of the 20 finds from Denmark are from graves. Instead, all are single, wetland finds (where details of context are available), which is a pattern of deposition very close to that of Ireland.
Links further afield can also be detected. For example the three Argaric type halberds known from Ireland, one from near Cavan [Ref: (AM)1927.2832- not included in study group], one from Rockforest [Ref: (NMI)W295 – not included in study group] and one unprovenanced example [Ref: (NMI)1877:57] as well as the alleged pithos burial at Castle Saffron1, Co. Cork (Smith,
1 This very interesting account records that three large urns were found near Castle Saffron, Doneraile, Co. Cork “placed in a kind of triangle in the earth, about 100 yards from a Danish entrenchment”. The urns seem to have disintegrated shortly after discovery but Smith states that each had a capacity of about 16 gallons, being about 4ft high and swelling to 2ft wide in the middle. He goes on to state that “In one of them was the skeleton of a man, the ribs and smaller bones were bundled up and tied with a copper wire, rusted green, as were those of the thighs,
77 1750), all suggest contacts with southeast Spain. The unprovenanced Gambara type halberd also from Ireland (British Museum – no number) indicates at the very least a detailed knowledge of styles in vogue in Italy, if this Irish halberd is not in fact an actual import. Some of the Scandinavian halberds are clearly influenced by Aunjetitz design, which is not surprising given the proximity to the Aunjetitz heartland. The main lines of loyalty for halberds in this zone, however, run along the coastal fringes of Western Europe, with influences transferring up down these pathways, but rarely venturing further into Continental Europe. There is virtually no evidence, for example, of Aunjetitz influences on Irish halberds, alone accounting for 60% of all halberds in this zone.
The Aunjetitz anchor-zone The next anchor zone is Aunjetitz Europe, in this case effectively eastern East Germany/Poland, from which powerful design influences radiate towards Scandinavia, Britain, Austria and Poland. This is perhaps most clearly evident in the distribution of halberds with splayed midribs, a classic Aunjetitz type found in each of the countries just mentioned, but interestingly never in Ireland. To a certain extent the shape of this splayed midrib echoes the overall form of the Argaric blade and one wonders whether this is pure coincidence or whether within the midrib of the Aunjetitz blades there is a cognisance of the shape of the Argaric halberd, or vice versa. In this zone of Aunjetitz influenced halberds, we again can see common traditions of deposition: the majority of halberds turn up in hoards, often very large hoards, rather than as single deposits as is the case with halberds in the Irish anchor-zone. They also feature prominently in rich graves of the period, such as Leubingen and Łęki Małe.
The degree of functionality of these halberds is unclear: I have been unable to find any proper or comprehensive analysis of wear on these halberds. However, the importance of metal-shafted halberds in the anchor-zone itself, accounting for half of all the halberds known from East Germany and Poland, suggests strongly that symbolic values were of at least equal importance to functional in the heartland of halberds in Central Europe, and quite possibly more important. It may also suggest that similar symbolic values may have been paramount for the users of halberds along the various lines of loyalty stretching from the Aunjetitz zone. The application of decoration to the Aunjetitz blades would similarly suggest a symbolic rather than a functional role and one remembers that within the Irish anchor zone conventionally decorated halberds are hardly known at all.
arms etc, and the skull was placed near the mouth of the urn; none of these bones had passed the fire. In a second urn was found a substance like honey, supposed to be the flesh, and in the third was a small quantity of copper pieces, as large as halfpence, but of an irregular shape like clip’d money, void of any inscription or stamp” Vol II, p.403.
78 In terms of length, the East German halberds, which represent the core of halberds in the Aunjetitz zone, range from as little as 100mm to 405mm. The vast majority, however, would tend to fall within the 200-300mm range, very similar in fact to the halberds in the Irish anchor zone. It is worth noting, however, that on average the metal shafted halberds tend to be shorter than their wooden-hafted colleagues: the blades on the former average 230mm long, while the wooden-hafted types average 260mm. Although there are extremes in length in both categories, examination of the individual lengths recorded in Wüstemann (1995) confirm that the averages quoted above do reflect a genuine difference in blade lengths overall. In fact, these differences are even more marked than might appear, since the blade lengths in the case of the metal shafted halberds includes the full hafting plate which often has a spur extending from the rear, and this works to increase the recorded blade lengths disproportionately in comparison to the wooden hafted types. The Polish halberds, which are all of the metal-shafted variety, are also relatively short in terms of blade length, averaging 150mm and 200mm depending on the type in question. The pattern in this area, therefore, is certainly one of shorter metal-shafted halberds and longer wooden-shafted types. Again, one is tempted to interpret the distinction in terms of functionality, as discussed already. While the metal-shafted types are clearly non-functional, this is not necessarily the case with wooden shafted halberds and although detailed use-wear analysis is sadly lacking for these blades, there is no doubt that many could have been used in the conventional sense.
The El Argar anchor-zone The last anchor zone to be considered is southeast Spain, within the El Argar culture. This, however, is a highly individual development, using halberds of types not found elsewhere in Europe. These are of course the Argaric and Montejícar types already discussed in some detail in Section One. As well as their distinctive style, these halberds and especially the Argaric type, tend to be smaller than the halberds produced elsewhere in Europe, with many if not most less than 200mm long. These halberds are products of a highly individual culture, self-contained and confident, which neither receives nor transmits significant influences insofar as the form and shape of halberds is concerned. There is of course the possibility that this region played a role in the dissemination of the idea of the halberd: it has already been pointed out that once fixed to the shaft the distinctive hafting-plate of an Argaric halberd is concealed. Someone seeking to emulate the weapon elsewhere would have no reason to assume the existence of such a hafting plate and would undoubtedly solve the problem of hafting in their own fashion. That the El Argar culture itself was a powerful transmitter of the idea of the halberd is suggested by the extensive rockart of North Africa, where classic Argaric halberds are meticulously depicted and yet not one of this type has ever been found (Chapter 7 refers). It has also been suggested above that there may be some connection between the splayed midrib of many Aunjetitz halberds and the strongly splaying hafting-plate on Argaric blades, though this is quite likely mere coincidence.
79
However, on the basis of the likely size of shaft suggested by the contemporary depictions, there seems no doubt that the Argaric halberd was conceived of as a short weapon, with a shaft length of probably 40-50cms, to be held in one hand (see Chapter 7). To this extent, it does compare with the central European halberds, which would also appear to have been quite short-handled weapons, if the metal-shafted examples are true skuomorphs. Further links with the central European zone can be seen in the mode of deposition: virtually all Argaric and Montejícar halberds have come from graves, a mode of deposition not uncommon in the central European zone but, as we have seen, unusual along the Atlantic fringe. In these terms, the Argaric halberds show even closer affinities with their Italian neighbours, all of which come from dryland sites and most from graves. On the other hand, many Argaric halberds show clear evidence of use and indeed rehafting and this strong functional element is something we see in the halberds of the Irish anchor zone, but which is perhaps not as evident elsewhere. Similarly, the halberds of the Argaric culture are all copper blades, most in fact being of arsenical copper, and again we think of the Irish blades rather than the predominantly bronze central European examples.
The Argaric anchor zone, therefore, displays fascinating suggestions of connections to both the Atlantic and Aunjetitz zones. This said, such connections remain in the realm of circumstantial evidence and it is significant that despite the vigour of the Argaric Bronze Age societies, no other region or culture reproduces their halberds, either the classic or Montejícar types. Even within Iberia itself, the main halberd types outside the Argaric zone belong to the broader European family of blades, and more specifically to the Atlantic types discussed above.
Italy Italy is something of a conundrum. It appears not to have been strong enough to create its own anchor zone and lines of loyalty, but neither did it slavishly follow any of the others. The most numerous type, the Cotronei halberds, certainly have an Aunjetitz “feel” about them, while the Calvatone halberds can resemble “miscellaneous” type halberds from different parts of Europe. The Italian halberds are all quite long too, particularly those which we might regard as being of uniquely Italian design, namely the Gambara and Villafranca Tivoli blades which are almost all well over 300mm long. These halberds are quite unlike anything else in Europe although there are certainly some Aegean influences to be discerned. All in all, one gets the impression that Italy is something of a cross-roads, looking both west and east, north and south, borrowing where it likes but confident enough of its own traditions. Like southeast Spain, it has a strong tradition of depositing metalwork in graves and this is where most of the Italian halberds seem to come from. Like Spain too, not one Italian halberd is known to come from a wet context. However, it is perhaps worth noting that the “Aunjetitz” type Cotronei blades can also be deposited in hoards. This is the only Italian halberd to be so treated and since deposition of this nature is very much á la mode Aunjetitz the impression is of the transfer of a cultural package, not just a style of blade.
80 Italy is important also because it provides a link between the world of European halberds and an independent Aegean tradition of halberd use.
SUMMARY
This chapter has been concerned largely with regions and typologies. Its primary purpose is to set the scene for the examination of Irish halberds which follows. However, a number of important conclusions can be drawn also from this regional overview. These are summarised as follows:
There now seem to be about 600 halberds from Europe, a substantial increase on the last census carried out by Ó Ríordáin in 1937 which counted just 363. More halberds are still known from Ireland than any other region, but the dominant position of this country is waning, having fallen from 40% to 30% over the last thirty years and likely to fall further as more national catalogues are completed. Typologies are pretty well established all over Europe but in some cases may be overly complicated. The plethora of different types and subtypes of European halberd conceals that fact that, basically, most conform to a common design. Chronologically, there is broad agreement amongst European scholars that halberds belong to the Early Bronze Age, although there is evidence in some regions – notably Iberia and parts of Britain – that they may have continued in circulation, if not use, for a good deal longer. In general, however, a relatively short-lived floruit is suggested. Despite increasing finds of halberds in some areas, the main centres for the production and use of halberds remain very much as identified 100 years ago, ie Ireland, central or “Aunjetitz” Europe and southeast Spain. These three regions seem to have acted as “anchor-zones” for the production and use of halberds, establishing styles, functional/symbolic emphases and perhaps even influencing depositional practice, although the latter probably results from broader shared traditions.
In the next chapters we turn to look in detail at the Irish halberds.
81 Chapter 3
A close up look at Irish halberds Part 1: the blade
These writings drove the poor knight out of his wits; and he passed sleepless nights trying to understand them and disentangle their meaning, though Aristotle himself would never have unraveled or understood them, even if he had been resurrected for that sole purpose.
Miguel de Cervantes, The Adventures of Don Quixote.
INTRODUCTION
Each of the 135 halberds examined in detail for this study was examined according to a consistent specification and the results recorded in a standardised form (fig 3.1). The information captured includes halberd type, provenance, context of discovery and weight, along with dimensional details of the blade and any surviving rivets, as well as comments on the condition of the edges, evidence for impact damage, patina and any decorative details. In all some 30 separate pieces of data were collected for each halberd, sometimes more depending on the number of rivets which survive. All data was then entered on a series of Excel spreadsheets and manipulated as required, generally by use of pivot tables and charts. The results for the blade are considered in this chapter, while rivets and rivet holes are considered in the next chapter. The data headings are, by-and-large, self explanatory but some clarification may be required in a few cases:
Material in most cases this is taken from published sources or from museum records; in the absence of such information, assumptions were made purely on a visual assessment, combined with what is known to be normal for the type. Length the maximum length of the halberd from tip to back of hafting plate. (overall) Length length of the blade only, i.e. excluding hafting-plate. (blade) Thickness represents maximum thickness, measured at the midrib. Impacts notching or denting along the blade edges, apparently resulting from an impact.
82 HALBERDS WORKSHEET
Date ______
Museum ______
Ref No. ______
Habitat ______
Type ______Image
Find (single/hoard) ______
Find Date ______
Provenance ______
Context ______
Material
Weight ______
BLADE
Shape ______
Length (overall) ______Length (blade) ______Width ____ Thickness_____ Point ______
Mid Rib ______Mid Rib ends ______
Edges: Condition ______Original? _____ Rehoned? ______Impacts? ______
HAFTING PLATE
Shape ______
Rivet Holes ______Arranged ______Condition ______
Rivets _____ Rivet Length _____ Inside Leg ______Rivet Diameter ______Rivet Head ______
DECORATION ______
Comment Box:
Fig 3.1: form of worksheet used for museum examinations
83 TYPOLOGY
Harbison’s typology, which is used throughout this work to categorise the halberds under consideration, has already been described briefly in Chapter 1. The following descriptions are taken directly from his 1969 work:
“Carn: Copper halberd; asymmetrical blade with rounded hafting plate. 3 thick round headed rivets which are usually arranged so as to form an almost equiangular triangle. Straight, rounded midrib. One or two ‘blood grooves’ run parallel to the cutting edge, which is usually bevelled.
Cotton: Copper halberd. Asymmetrical blade, with a rounded or somewhat squared and shouldered hafting plate. The rivets are arranged so as to form an almost equiangular triangle; they are usually thick and roundheaded. Parallel to the bevelled sides there are usually 1 or 2 ‘blood grooves’. In contrast to Type Carn, the midrib is curved.
Clonard: Copper halberd. May have certain features in common with one or other of the foregoing types, but has a short blade, squared and shouldered hafting plate, and 4 round-headed rivets arranged in the form of a square. The blade is usually asymmetrical but can also be practically symmetrical.
Breaghwy: Halberd, probably of bronze. The blade is practically symmetrical. 3 or more small rivetholes are arranged in an arc in the rounded hafting plate. The halberd from Breaghwy itself is the only example where a rivet has been preserved1. This is a 3-piece conical capped rivet with a thin narrow stem. As all the halberds of this type have small rivet holes, it is likely that all had similar conical-capped rivets – thus rivets of this type may have been more common in Ireland than has previously been supposed. The ‘cutting edge’ of
1 Not strictly true: the Moylough halberd (NMI 1928/392) survives with one rivet intact and the halberd from Brockley, Rathlin Island (Ulster: A366.1961) has the remains of a rivet embedded in one rivethole. As regards the Breaghwy halberd itself (NMI 1937/2802), the finder reports that he in fact located a second rivet after returning to the findspot but this is no longer with the halberd and patently was also missing when Harbison examined it in the 1960s. The “original” rivet is now missing also, with only the two conical caps surviving.
84 the halberd has bevelled sides, but there are never any ‘blood grooves’2. The midrib is straight, and is often slightly flattened or pointed.” Harbison, 1969a, various pages.
In addition to the above, Harbison identifies a number of “allies” of certain types, i.e. halberds which do not meet all his criteria for that particular type but which are nonetheless closely related. He also identifies a Miscellaneous group, which include halberds quite unlike any of the main Irish types and which in my opinion either imitate Continental forms or are actual imports from overseas (see Chapter 8).
Harbison commented in his 1969 opus that “Further division into sub-groups might have been possible …..but would have proved little more than an academic exercise” (p.39). For this we must be grateful as to subdivide further would only serve to obscure the fact that the vast majority of Irish halberds conform pretty much to a standard design, ie they consist of reasonably long, slightly curved, triangular copper blades with a stout midrib and are secured by three stout rivets. Nearly 80% of all Irish halberds fulfil these criteria, i.e. those of Types Carn and Cotton, which differ from each other in typological terms only in the curve of the midrib. Types Clonard and Breaghwy also share many of these basic features, relying on one or two significant individual characteristics to distinguish themselves from other types. In each class, there are examples which could be confused with halberds of another class.
In basic design, then, the vast majority of Irish halberds look the same; it is the “add-ons”, rather like the variable options on a Mr Potato Head toy, which convert the archetypal halberd into multiple classes (fig 3.2). Taking the basic design for a halberd, if we equip it with 3 rivet holes we get a Carn or a Cotton; bend the midrib and it becomes definitively Cotton; add more rivet holes and make them smaller and we have a Type Breaghwy; square-off the hafting plate and give it four rivetholes arranged in a square and the halberd becomes a Type Clonard.
2 I would disagree: two Type Breaghwy halberds carry grooving of this kind, ie NMS: DK26 and Ulster: A1.1935 (classified as a Breaghwy-ally).
85
Fig 3.2 : The Mr Potato-Head model of halberd classification!
While a little light-hearted, the above model does serve to emphasise the fact that the different halberd types are all basically variations upon a theme. It also leaves us in no doubt as to what the primary distinguishing features are and makes the process of raw classification very simple. It is to the credit of the system devised by Harbison that it lends itself to such extreme simplification. There are, of course, a number of more subtle differences which were in general not noted by Harbison but which can be employed in cases of doubt and which reinforce his categorisation: for example, Type Clonard is stouter3 and heavier than the other halberds; Type Breaghwy is wider and flatter (as well as being of bronze); Carn and Cotton can be difficult to distinguish apart at times but in general Carn is stouter than Cotton; while if the halberd in question is longer than 300mm, it is likely to be a Type Cotton.
These aspects of Irish halberds are all considered in much greater detail below and in the next chapter. At this point in time, however, suffice it to say that none of my results suggest the need for a different classification to the one proposed by Harbison. On the contrary, the typology he employs is confirmed again and again in the patterning of data analysed. One might possibly suggest the
3 “Stoutness” is considered later in this Chapter and is simply derived by dividing length by thickness. The various Irish types fall into fairly discreet groups when considered in this way.
86 existence of a variant, however, characterised by a much narrower blade, equipped with a sharp rather than a rounded point, and which maintains a very stout midrib, now proportionately occupying a greater area of the blade. The overall impression is of a very strong, piercing blade in contrast to the more usual “crushing” characteristics of other halberds. There are a number of examples of this type of halberd, some of which because of their condition might initially be mistaken for heavily worn Carn or Cotton halberds, or even heavily rehoned examples of these types. However, sufficient examples survive in good condition for us to identify this as a deliberate design (Fig 3.3). Examples of this possible sub-type include halberds from Co. Cavan [ref: (NMI)1890:36], Downhill, Co. Derry [ref (NMI) RSAI:2], Maryville, Co. Cork [ref: (BM)1849, 3-1, 47] and an unprovenanced example now in the Pitt Rivers Museum [ref: (PR) 1488:2]. All the foregoing are type Carn halberds, but a type Cotton from Co. Dublin [ref: (NMI) 1882:22] and a Type Clonard from Derrinsallagh, Co. Laois [ref: (BM) 54, 7-14, 215] also share these characteristics.
Fig 3.3: Examples of possible sub-type of Irish halberd characterised by a narrow piercing blade and strong midrib. Illustrated (left) is a halberd from Downhill, Co. Derry [NMI RSAI:2] and (right) Derrinsallagh, Co. Laois [BM 54, 7-14, 215]. After Harbison, 1969a: Pl. 8 and 22.
87 DIMENSIONS OF IRISH HALBERDS
The average dimensions of Irish halberds are shown in Table 3.1 below.
Table 3.1
Data Heading
Breaghwy Breaghy ally Breaghwy? Carn Clonard Clonard? Cotton Misc Averagee all types Count of Type 11 1 1 37 13 1 69 2 Average overall length 269.8 199 282 230.6 216.4 218 294.2 221 264.9 6 3 2 3 1 Average width 100.6 76 77 76.11 87.42 55 77.19 106 80.04 4 1 Average thickness 6.36 6.5 7 8.08 8.31 5 7.5 6.2 7.6 5 Average blade length 246.3 173 251 196.3 170.6 186 254.8 186 227.9 2 9 4 4 Average depth of hafting 31.5 26 31 36.8 45.7 32 39.1 35 38.6 plate
Average Dimensions of Irish Halberds (mm) On average, the Irish halberds are about 265mm long, about 80mm wide and just under 8mm thick. They tend to have a hafting-plate of around 40mm deep, irrespective of the length of the halberd itself. This is important to note for a number of reasons: in the first place it seems to indicate that, irrespective of length, all halberds were fitted into roughly the same size of haft-head, if not actually of shaft; secondly, it seems to suggest that this was the optimum size of haft-head, offering an acceptable level of fix; thirdly, it means that relatively speaking the longer and heavier halberds were less securely fastened than the smaller lighter types, and as we shall see later these halberds also appear to have seen less wear.
Type Cotton is on average the longest of the halberds at almost 300mm. Type Breaghwy is the next longest, averaging 270mm, with Types Carn and Clonard trailing behind at 230mm and 216 mm respectively. However, as we shall see later, these averages can be a bit misleading, particularly for type Clonard which spans an extremely broad range of lengths for such a small group, with the result
88 that the shorter examples exercise a much greater influence on the average than might be expected. In terms of width, Type Breaghwy leads the field. This is also the thinnest of the halberd types and is equipped with the shallowest hafting plate. Type Clonard on the other hand, has on average the biggest hafting plate. Types Clonard and Carn appear to be the “stoutest” blades, being proportionately thicker in comparison to their length than the other types. If we use average length divided by average thickness to generate a rough indicator of this, the results are as follows (the lower the indicator, the stouter the blade): Table 3.2 Halberd Type Stoutness Index Clonard 26.04 Carn 28.5 Cotton 39.2 Breaghwy 42.4
The scatter diagram below (chart 3.1) throws this into further relief and the Irish halberds can be seen to collapse into two main groupings, with Carn and Clonard the lowest scoring and “stoutest” of the halberds, and Cotton and Breaghwy sacrificing stoutness for length, although perhaps for different reasons.
70.0
60.0
50.0 Breaghw y Carn 40.0 Clonard Cotton 30.0
20.0
Stoutness Indicator Stoutness
10.0
0.0 0 20 40 60 80 Individual halberds
Chart 3.1: Relative “stoutness” of Irish halberds
89 The results as illustrated above are quite interesting for, as we shall see later, there are good grounds for seeing Type Carn as a more “functional” blade than the other types, and Type Breaghwy as considerably less so.
The averaged data in Table 3.1 above also allows throws into perspective one of the main dimensional relationships and that is the relationship between length and width. This can be seen as one of the ways in which these halberd types are distinguished from one another. Type Cotton halberds are on average four times as long as they are wide, which means that even though they may be as wide as Type Carn, they give the impression of a longer narrower blade. Type Carn halberds are three times as long as they are wide, while Types Breaghwy and Clonard are 2.8 and 2.5 times as long respectively. In other words, given that Types Carn and Cotton are on average more or less the same width and given that the characteristic curved midrib of the latter is often not as pronounced as might be expected, it is possible to see the Type Cotton halberd as basically an elongated Type Carn. This may be important when considering the possible sequence of evolution of these two halberds and adds weight to Harbison’s theory that type Carn might be seen as earlier, on the grounds that its straight midrib has parallels in Central Europe, from which region he suggests the ultimate inspiration for Irish halberds may have come (1969, p.50).
In order to qualify some of the averaged information provided in Table 3.1 above, the maximum and minimum dimensions of Irish halberds are given below (Table 3.3). It should be remembered that these results are taken from halberds examined in the hand for this study only and while the averages above can be taken to broadly reflect the situation for all Irish halberds, the study group will not always include the longest, shortest or widest known Irish halberd. However, where these are not included in the study group, reference is made to the actual halberd in question within the text itself.
90 Table 3.3 Length Width Hafting Plate Breaghwy Max 319.5 127 45.5 (11 halberds) Min 191 79 20.5 Breaghwy ally Max 199 76 26 (1 halberd) Min 199 76 26 Breaghwy? Max 282 77 31 (1 halberd) Min 282 77 31 Carn Max 310 107 53.5 (37 halberds) Min 138 49 13 Clonard Max 370 100 57 (13 halberds) Min 148.5 73 31.5 Clonard? Max 218 55 32 (1 halberd) Min 218 55 32 Cotton Max 411.5 99 55 (69 halberds) Min 184 48 9 Misc Max 224 120 44 (2 halberds) Min 218 92 26 All Max 411.5 127 57 (135 halberds) Min 138 48 9
Maximum and minimum dimensions for Irish halberds (mm)
The longest halberd examined was a Type Cotton measuring 411.5mm overall (fig 3.4), one of the magnificent halberds from the bogland hoard of Hillswood, Co. Galway [Ref: (NMI) W240]. This is also in fact the longest known Irish halberd and compares well in size with some Late Bronze Age swords. The shortest halberd examined was an uncontexted Type Carn [Ref: (NMI) P1948-162] from Co. Westmeath measuring just 138mm. However, this halberd is snapped about three-quarters way down the blade and probably originally measured something like 200mm, still small but not exceptionally so. The smallest complete Irish halberd examined was in fact a very primitive looking Type Clonard of unknown provenance, measuring just 148.5mm (fig 3.5) [Ref: (NMI) W256]. The smallest known Irish halberd (not examined as part of this exercise) is probably an unprovenanced Type Carn in the Pitt Rivers Museum, Oxford
91
[Ref: P.R.1487]. The hafting-plate is damaged but this halberd was probably originally around 135mm long (fig 3.4). The widest halberd examined was a Type Breaghwy, measuring a full 127mm across. The narrowest was a Type Cotton measuring just 48mm across at its widest point. The deepest hafting-plate belongs to a Type Clonard halberd while the smallest is on a type Cotton.
Fig 3.4: Type Cotton halberd from the Hillswood Hoard, Co. Galway[NMI W240]. At 411.5mm long, this is the longest known Irish
halberd (after Harbison, 1969a: Pl. 14)
Fig 3.5: Type Clonard halberd (unknown prov.) [NMI W256]. At just 148.5mm Fig 3.6: Type Carn halberd (unknown prov.) long, this is the shortest halberds [PR 1487]. Originally c.135mm long, this is physically examined as part of this study. probably the shortest known Irish halberd (after Harbison, 1969a: Pl.22 ) (after Harbison, 1969a: Pl.11 )
92
The absolute max/min information provided above, therefore, fully endorses the broad conclusions that can be drawn from the averaged information, ie Type Cotton halberds are long and narrow, Type Breaghwy are wide, Type Clonard have the deepest hafting plates.
The next stage of analysis involves taking each category of dimensional data and comparing the full series of information for each halberd type, one with the other. Charts 3.2-4 below present this information in a manner that is a little easier to consider.
Comparison of the lengths of Irish Halberds
450 400 350 300 Breaghwy 250 Carn 200 Cotton 150 Length mmLength Clonard 100 50 0
Individual Halberds
93 Comparison of Widths of Irish Halberds
140 120
100 Breaghwy 80 Carn 60 Cotton
width width mm 40 Clonard 20 0 1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 Individual Halberds
Comparison of size of hafting plates on Irish halberds
60 50 Breaghwy 40 Carn 30 Cotton
Size mm 20 Clonard 10 0 1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 61 65 Individual Halberds
Charts 3.2-4: Comparison of dimensional data across the halberd types
In terms of length, it can be seen that Type Cotton includes the longest halberds and spans the broadest range, from 184mm to 411mm. Type Clonard also spans a surprisingly broad range given the small number of halberds involved, ranging from 148mm to 370mm in length. Type Carn on the other hand, although being the second most populous type, spans a relatively short range roughly between 150mm and 300mm. Nearly half of all type Cotton halberds are longer than the longest Type Carn.
94 Type Breaghwy comes into its own when we look at width, including the widest halberds and with nearly half of these wider than any Cotton halberd. In fact type Cotton spans one of the shortest ranges, with 90% falling between 60-100mm wide. Type Carn, on the other hand, tends to be wider than Type Cotton when the population size is taken into account. Type Clonard halberds are by far the most cohesive group, with virtually all of these falling within the 80-100mm range.
In terms of size of hafting plate, it can be seen that the hafting plates on the vast majority of all Irish halberds fall within the 30-55mm range, quite a tight and consistent design. Type Clonard tends to have the biggest plates, while perhaps the greatest variation is shown by the Type Breaghwy halberds which span a range between 20-45mm, suggesting – given the small population size – very little consistency within the group as a whole. The hafting-plates on these halberds never reach the greater sizes attained by the other halberd types, despite the fact that the blades can be as long as any type Carn halberd. A surprising proportion of the hafting-plates on type Breaghwy halberds fall between 20-30mm in size – about 30% in fact, compared to maybe 15% of Type Cotton and none of type Clonard. All-in-all, it is hard to escape the conclusion that security of hafting seems to have been less important for this halberd type.
Overall then and to generalize somewhat: type Cotton halberds can be regarded as being the longest and narrowest of the Irish blades, with the combination of these two extremes visually exaggerating these characteristics even more; type Carn tends overall to be shorter and wider than Cotton, again the combination of these two features adding to the impression of a stockier blade; type Clonard varies hugely in length from halberd to halberd but is remarkably consistent in width and tends overall to have a large hafting plate, probably a function of the four-rivet-square hafting technique but perhaps also to accommodate the greater weight of these halberds; type Breaghwy has a wide blade, and certainly this is one of the strongest visual impressions one retains after examining these halberds, along with its brighter bronze colour. It also tends to have a shallower hafting plate than many other halberds.
If we take the dimensional information for all the halberds collectively and chart this, a number of other significant features come to light. Chart 3.5 below takes this information and presents it in terms of increasing length of halberd. What is immediately striking is the consistency of the relationship between the different dimensions. As the overall length increases, for example, so does the length of blade and at broadly the same rate. While the line wiggles up and down, it tracks the increasing overall length closely and regularly, maintaining an interval of c.40mm, which represents the area given over to the hafting plate. The lines representing width and thickness are similarly
95 consistent with each other, and indeed with the plate-size and in fact these three dimensions are effectively “constants” in terms of the overall halberd design. In other words, notwithstanding the variations noted for the different halberd types already, speaking for the artifact as a whole it seems that Irish halberds are pretty much the same width and thickness and have the same size hafting plate; the only way they differ to any significant extent is in length. It is indeed as if certain elements of the design are accepted as constant and rather than innovating by making wider or thicker halberds, the only acceptable direction is in terms of length; despite modern maxims, length in this instance does indeed matter. The Bronze Age smiths were clearly working to an accepted standard: a halberd should be around 8-9mm thick, around 60-80mm wide, with a hafting plate of around 40mm deep and as long as you care to make it.
Comparison of Proportions Data
450
400
350
300 Length 250 Blade Plate
mm 200 Width Thick 150
100
50
0 1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71 76 81 86 91 96 101 106 111 116 121 126 131 Halberd Ref
Chart 3.5
The relationship between the hafting-plate and width is also of great interest. The chart above clearly shows that one tracks the other very closely. In fact, while the length of halberd appears to have no influence whatsoever on the size of the hafting-plate, the width of the blade does. The chart above clearly demonstrates how variations in the width of Irish halberds are regularly followed by variations in the hafting plate: basically, the wider the halberd, the deeper the hafting plate. One might wonder
96 why that should be: it seems to me that, as a rough rule of thumb, the smiths may have worked on the basis that the hafting plate should be about half as deep as the halberd is wide. If the halberd is 80mm wide, then it should have a 40mm deep hafting plate. A glance at the chart above shows this to be a consistent pattern. There is not, that I can see, any functional requirement for a wider halberd to have a deeper hafting plate but in each case the proportions are those of a semi-circle and for reasons of balance and proportion, the smith may have adjusted the size of the hafting plate to reflect this (Fig 3.7).
Fig 3.7: Schematic representation of the relative proportions of the hafting plate and blade-width on Irish halberds. With the hafting-plate roughly half the blade-width, the design seems based on a simple circle, with the smith adjusting his standard 40mm hafting-plate to “what looks right” for a circle in terms of blade width.
WEIGHT OF IRISH HALBERDS
The Irish halberds vary considerably in weight (Table 3.4 below refers). The average weight of the Irish halberd is just over 400g. The heaviest halberd amongst those studied was a type Clonard which weighed in at a most impressive 743.1g. The lightest, a type Cotton, weighed just 93g. However, as the graph at Chart 3.6 shows, this is very much an exceptional case - the majority of Irish halberds weigh at least 200g while most are over 300g. The rate of increase is remarkably steady and the halberds are fairly evenly distributed within the range 200-650g, with no clustering. Over 80% of all halberds in the study-group lie within 5g of their nearest neighbour in terms of weight.
97 Weight of Halberds
800
700
600
500
400
grams 300
200
100
0 1 10 19 28 37 46 55 64 73 82 91 100 109 118 127 Halberds
Chart 3.6
The heaviest of the halberd types is Type Clonard, with an average weight of around 450g. This halberd, which is secured by four rivets formed to shape a square, is the original “heavy, blunt instrument”. If Reverend Green was to be found murdered in the library with a heavy blunt instrument, one might be forgiven for suspecting a type Clonard halberd. The lightest of the main types is Carn, with an average weight of just over 370g, still a substantial piece of metal. For comparison, the average copper axe of the period weighs in at around 480g (from data contained in Flanagan, 1979).
All-in-all, the 186 known Irish halberds probably represent around 47kg of metal. The combined weight of Lough Ravel and Ballybeg type axes, which are broadly contemporary with the majority of Irish halberds, is around 214kg (Flanagan, 1979). The halberds therefore represent a healthy 18% of all the copper artifacts produced in this prolific period of Irish metallurgy
98 Table 3.4
Summary details for weights of Irish halberds, according to type.
WEIGHT STATS BY TYPE Type
Data
Breaghwy Carn Clonard Cotton Misc Clonard? Breaghy ally Breaghwy? Grand Total Count of Type 11 37 13 69 2 1 1 1 135 Sum of Weight 4282.4 13344.1 5829. 28987.6 592.4 209.7 256.3 403 53905.5 8 2 8 7 5 2 Average of 389.32 370.67 448.4 420.11 296.2 209.7 256.3 403.0 402.28 Weight 5 3 0 0 0 Max of Weight 537.48 698 743.1 686.1 359.5 209.7 256.3 403 743.1 5 StdDev of 108.84 136.78 143.0 142.65 89.56 n.a n.a n.a 139.25 Weight 6 Min of Weight 126.9 124.7 218.9 93.3 232.9 209.7 256.3 403 93.3
99
DECORATION The Irish halberds are generally undecorated, at least in the conventional sense, by which I mean the use of recognisable decorative motifs. Very few indeed carry any form of such decoration, unlike for example many of the Central European halberds or indeed many Irish Early Bronze Age axes. However, in relation to the latter, it should be noted that such decoration is really only a feature of the more developed axes, i.e. those of Ballyvalley and Derryniggin types, which seem to belong to a later period than do the Irish halberds. The axes with which Irish halberds can be confidently associated are types Lough Ravel and Ballybeg, which are not decorated either. The only other axe type which seems to be contemporary with any Irish halberd is Killaha, of which only a tiny proportion (5%) carry decoration and it is probably significant that the Type Breaghwy halberds with which this axe type is associated also appear to be late in the series. All-in-all, the absence of conventional decoration on the Irish halberds seems to be a function of an early date of manufacture rather than of some aesthetic austerity.
Fig 3.9: Triple midrib on halberd from Fig 3.8: Triple midrib on halberd NMI Rockforest [NMI W295]. After Harbison P246. After Harbison, 1969a: Pl 15 1969a:Pl.24.
Where conventional decoration does occur it is generally of the simplest type, simple incisions or pointillée for example. The midrib on the perfect type Breaghwy halberd from Rough Island, Co. Derry [Ref: (NMI)1938:266] is accentuated by careful incising along the edge. The midrib on the halberd from Ardlagheenmore, Co. Roscommon [Ref: (NMI) 1934:6049] – also perfect – is accentuated by a line of close punching. A type Cotton halberd of unknown provenance [Ref: (NMI)
100 P246] has a most unusual triple rib (fig 3.8), a feature it shares with only two other Irish halberds, the unusual “Argaric” example from Rockforest, Co. Tipperary (fig 3.9) [Ref: (NMI) W295], which was unfortunately unavailable for examination as part of this study, and that from Inchigeelagh, Co. Cork whose current whereabouts is unknown. The triple midrib is not found on Irish daggers of the period but is known on some British and Continental blades. These five examples represent the entire complement of Irish halberds bearing what might be considered “conventional” decoration. It is noteworthy that three out of the five belong to minority groups of Irish halberds, i.e. one Type Breaghwy and two Miscellaneous which are by definition “unusual” in the context of the Irish population as a whole. It is also noteworthy that the decoration is focused on the midrib.
Conventional decoration, therefore, can be seen to be of little importance in the context of Irish halberds, occurring on very few examples and these of unusual type. This said, the fact that Irish halberds do not in general display conventional decoration is not to say that aesthetic appeal was unimportant – far from it in fact. Many of the Irish halberds are to the modern eye very beautiful and their appeal lies in the quality of their casting and in their clean, graceful lines. Burnished and set in a smooth wooden shaft (see the replica at fig 3.10), these are both distinctive and eye- catching weapons. However, their creators were in most cases not satisfied with just that: many Irish halberds carry grooving and bevelling at the edges, sometimes multiple grooving, and there seems little doubt that the primary intention of this is decorative. While the bevelling obviously serves a purpose in that it sets off the edge for sharpening, no such functional attribute can be ascribed to the grooving which runs parallel to this. Where grooving does occur along the Fig 3.10: replica of Irish halberd blade, it gives the impression of having been cast in place, although it is possible that it could have been created by post-casting tooling. The
101 grooves are very shallow but quite distinct visually. They have sometimes been described as “blood- grooves” but this is clearly not their purpose – they are far too shallow to serve any such utilitarian purpose. Nor, for the same reason, could they serve to lighten the blade by reducing the amount of metal required in its manufacture. Similar grooving occurs on a variety of modern weapons, such as bayonets, where one of its functions is to create a better piercing weapon and one which is less likely to stick in the wound, while it was also believed that the deep grooves would let air into the wound possibly encouraging infection. None of these functions can be ascribed to the grooves on Irish halberds, again because the grooving is far too shallow. What we can say, however, is that the effect is highly attractive and it seems reasonable to Fig 3.11: grooving expanded to create suggest that the original motivation of the terraced effect (Clonard, Co. Meath [NMI 1932:7019]) After Harbison, Bronze Age smiths was also to decorate. 1969a: Pl 21. Support for this thesis comes from such halberds as an unprovenanced example in the Ulster Museum [Ref: (UM) A.12602] where the grooving has been expanded to cover the entire blade. In the case of a halberd like that from Clonard [Ref: (NMI) 1932:7019](fig 3.11) a most dramatic terraced effect is created which is immediately recognisable as deliberately decorative, but which on closer examination reveals its origins in the simpler grooving to be found around the edges of almost all Irish halberds.
Table 3.5 below summarises how the halberds included in the present study-group are decorated and shows how the different types are represented in this respect. Table 3.5 Decoration Total Breaghwy Carn Cotton Clonard Misc Conventional 3 1 1 1 Bevel only 23 3 6 10 3 1 Groove and bevel 22 1 8 12 1 Double groove and bevel 29 1 3 21 4 Multiple grooving/ terracing 2 1 1
The study group has already been shown to be broadly representative of the population of Irish halberds as a whole (see Introduction) and so we can extrapolate from the above table to talk about
102 Irish halberds in general with a reasonable degree of certainty. The small number of halberds with “conventional decoration” has already been commented on, and indeed halberds not included in the present study group were also discussed. Within the population of halberds as a whole it had been noted that there were just five with this type of decoration, which represents about 2.7% of the population as a whole, more or less the same as its representation within the study group. A substantial proportion of Irish halberds (17%) make no concession to the aesthetic other than bevelling along the edge. It is highly debatable whether this should be regarded as decorative at all, since its primary purpose is probably utilitarian. The two are not mutually exclusive, of course, and in some cases the bevel is clearly decorative as well. Both types Clonard and Breaghwy are slightly over-represented in this category, relative to the proportion they represent of the population as a whole, while Type Carn is exactly as predicted and Type Cotton considerably under-represented. When we turn to look at those halberds which carry grooving, either single, double or multiple, the situation is a little different. In the first place, these represent a much higher proportion of Irish halberds, around 40% in fact, and this proportion may in fact have been much higher since in many cases it is impossible to say of the remainder whether they were grooved or not due to their poor condition. The predominant type here is Type Cotton, which accounts for just over 64% of all halberds with grooving, substantially higher than the 50% it represents of Irish halberds in all. In fact if we look just at the most obviously decorative examples, i.e. those with either double or multiple grooving, we can see that Type Cotton actually represents over 70% of such halberds. The aesthetic imperative is clearly highly important for Type Cotton halberds. The other halberd types, on the other hand, are proportionately under-represented, particularly Type Breaghwy which may appear a little strange given, as we shall see, the apparently less functional nature of this halberd; however, it may be that this halberd type relied on different techniques for its aesthetic value, such as its use of bronze, its wider flatter profile, and its multiple and probably conical-capped rivets. Type Carn is also under-represented, as is Type Clonard, although not to the same extent.
In terms of the study-group itself and of the halberds examined of each type, the following proportions display an obvious aesthetic concern in the sense I that have described it here, i.e. they either carry conventional decoration or have single, double or multiple grooving and bevelling: Table 3.6 Type Breaghwy 23% Type Carn 30% Type Cotton 51% Type Clonard 43% Miscellaneous 50% Proportion of halberds in each type displaying an “aesthetic” concern
103
Again, it should be remembered that these must represent minimum figures as the condition of many other halberds renders it impossible to say whether or not they carried any decoration. In fact of the 135 examined, in only 7 cases could I say with confidence that the blade was completely plain.
Other features of Irish halberds, although functional in origin, would also have been highly decorative. The high-domed heads of the copper rivets, burnished and rising proud of the wooden haft would have been very attractive and this undoubtedly lies behind the evolution of the hollow conical caps to the rivets on some halberds [Refs: (NMI) W271; (NMI) 1937:2802]. These caps imitate the solid domes of thicker rivets but serve no functional purpose at all, concealing much narrower rivets and being incapable of securing blade to haft properly. Other halberds, such as A12602 in the Ulster Museum (fig 3.12), must have originally been fitted with such large rivets (17mm thick) that there was very little left of the hafting plate at all once the holes were drilled. Again, the intention seems to have been to impress the observer with the size of the rivets and their presumably massive domed heads which in this instance must have occupied virtually the entire hafting area. Fig 3.12: halberd A12602 – note the enormous rivetholes (courtesy Ulster Museum)
In similar vein, one might view the multiplicity of rivet-holes on type Breaghwy halberds as driven by this same impulse, since three rivets would have been more than sufficient to secure the haft. Security of haft, of course, is the last thing to concern type Breaghwy which is characterised by its tiny rivets. However, the number of rivets used, presumably equipped with separate conical caps (see Chapter 4), would have served the purpose of decorating the hafting area in dramatic fashion. A halberd in the British Museum [Ref: (BM)1853, 5-28, 2] used a combination of both round- and square-section rivets to secure the haft and one might wonder whether this was ultimately for the
104 visual effect of contrasting rivet-heads. Another halberd in the British Museum, which is not in fact Irish and therefore not included in the present study [Ref: (BM)WG 2061], has rivet holes which are alternately large and small and so closely spaced that it seems impossible to believe that the halberd could ever have been hafted, since there would not have been the space to close the larger rivets without blocking off the smaller holes. In this case it seems that the rivet holes themselves have become a thing of beauty, intended to be seen on a blade that would never be hafted4.
Mention must also be made of a peculiar feature which occurs on some Irish halberds. This takes the form of either a series of apparently random incisions or hammered tool-marks, generally located along the midrib. These features were initially noted when examining halberds in the National Museum of Ireland but also occur on halberds elsewhere and seem to be of considerable antiquity. The marks are present on 9 or perhaps 10 halberds5 and are regular enough to be recognised as a specific feature (fig 3.13).
Fig 3.13: example of tooled “decoration” which appears on the midribs of some Irish halberds. The halberd shown is unprovenanced [Ref: (NMI) 1959:203] (National Museum of Ireland)
4 While unhafted halberd blades appear unknown in Ireland, they do occur in Britain where a number of examples from Scotland lack any rivet holes at all and were presumably never intended to be hafted (see Chapter 2). 5 1939/396; 1959/203; A12601; A101.A.1906; A101.B.1906; 1935/448; 1936/3468; W234; W235; A12602;
105 Just when these types of marks were applied is difficult to say, but they appear old. In some cases, there is a resemblance to the tooled decoration on later axes, but no attempt is ever made to organise the markings into any recognisable design or motif. The marks appear almost randomly applied, and only on a small area of the blade in each case, generally along the midrib, which it will be recalled is also the focus for the only conventional decoration on Irish halberds. The style of application is rough and unaccomplished, quite at variance with the sophistication which these artefacts generally display in form and casting. Whether it actually amounts to “decoration” is difficult to say, notwithstanding the resemblance to elements of later decorative techniques. It might reflect some ritual “destruction” of the weapon prior to deposition, but since the marks are quite shallow the action could only be symbolic. Alternatively, the marks may arise from some practical use of the artefact of which we are currently unaware.
Summary Although Irish halberds only rarely carry decoration of the conventional sort, this is not to say that aesthetics were not important. Conventional decoration is just one way of expressing the aesthetic impulse, and in the case of the halberds this was given expression through an emphasis on form, on clean unfussy lines and discreet grooving along the edges. The arrangement and shape of rivet-heads was also important and carefully considered. The absence of conventional decoration is consistent with the treatment of axes in the same period and largely of the daggers too. It was only later in the Bronze Age that the impulse to apply the more conventional decorative motifs appeared, but by this stage the halberds had in all likelihood disappeared. The absence of conventional decoration on halberd blades reveals them very much as products of their time and reinforces our view of them as belonging to the earliest period of metallurgy.
CONDITION
For the most part, the Irish halberds survive in good condition with the exception that one or more of the rivetholes tends to be burst. Rivets and rivetholes are considered separately in the next chapter so here we will concentrate on the condition of the blade.
Table 3.7 below summarises the position with regard to condition for the 135 halberds included in the study-group.
106
Table 3.7 Condition Total Perfect or near perfect 22 Good 45 Evident wear (varying levels) 35 Blade broken 11 Blade buckled 15 Blade buckled and broken 5 Deliberately bent but perfect 1 Corroded 18 Burnt (funeral pyre) 1 Rehoned and re-used in modern times 1
The various categories listed above are, for the most part, self explanatory. I may need to explain what I mean by “evident wear”, however. This refers to the condition of the blade edges, which in many cases survive quite intact and sharp. However, in other cases “wear” is evidenced by loss of profile across the length of the blade, often to the extent that bevelling or grooving, obvious along some of the edges, is missing elsewhere; sometimes the blade edges are worn away to the extent that all that remains is the midrib. Individual comments on each blade are included in Appendix 1 and while interpretation of what should/should not constitute “wear” can be quite subjective, and it can at times be difficult to know when and how it was suffered, the category of “evident wear” here at least acts as a counter-balance to the more easily defined “perfect/near perfect” and “good” categories. It allows us to identify a category of halberd which is not perfect, near-perfect or good, not necessarily broken or buckled either, but which seems to show some degree of wear. This category of wear is quite distinct from the notching and denting described in the next section, and which is more easily defined.
Some of the halberds fall into more than one category: for example, a blade might be broken, but otherwise in good condition., with little sign of wear. However, looking at the first two categories, we can see that about 50% of all Irish halberds survive in either good or perfect condition. About 26% show evidence for some sort of wear, while 23% are buckled, broken or both. The one example which is burnt is of course the Moylough halberd, the only unequivocal grave deposit, which appears to have actually accompanied the body on the pyre.
107
The profile of each of the main types is quite interesting (Table 3.8 – note again that some halberds appear in more than one category). Nearly 40% of Type Breaghwy halberds (or its allies) are perfect or near perfect, by far the highest proportion of any of the four main halberd types. None of this type shows evidence of any real wear (despite some limited notching on one example). A surprisingly high proportion are also broken or buckled, just over 38% in fact, again by far the highest proportion of any of the halberd types. This halberd type is characterised by extremes – the halberds are either in excellent condition or are broken/buckled, but none show the “normal” evidence for wear which appears on so many other halberds. In the circumstances, one wonders whether the broken examples of this halberd type result from deliberate destruction rather than use.
Table 3.8 Condition Breaghwy* Carn Clonard* Cotton Misc Grand Total Perfect or near perfect 5 4 3 8 2 22 Good 8 6 31 45 Evident wear (varying) 17 3 15 35 Blade broken 3 2 1 5 11 Blade buckled 1 7 2 5 15 Blade buckled and broken 1 2 2 5 Deliberately bent but perfect 1 1 Corroded 3 3 2 10 18 Burnt (funeral pyre) 1 1 Rehoned and reused in modern times 1
Total Pop of each type 13 37 14 69 2 135 *includes allied types.
108 The other halberd types present an entirely different picture, all recording significant enough levels of wear, but low evidence for breakages or buckling. Carn presents the highest proportion of halberds with evident wear, 46%, while 30% are broken or buckled. Just over 21% of Type Clonard and Type Cotton halberds display evident wear along the blade. Around 17% of Type Cotton halberd blades are broken or buckled, and 21% of Type Clonards. All contrast strongly with the 38% broken or buckled figure recorded for Type Breaghwy, which otherwise shows little evidence for real use, and this seems to reinforce the view expressed above that many instances of such damage may in fact be deliberate.
Type Carn halberds are unusual in that a much higher proportion of these are buckled rather than broken, compared to the other types. Fig 3.14: the halberd from Bride Street, Dublin. Bent almost double, this halberd is otherwise This, combined with the high proportion of perfect. The rivetholes are tiny – unusually so for Carn blades which show clear evidence of type Cotton – and effectively useless. After Harbison, 1969a: Pl.14 wear, may point to a more utilitarian function for these blades.
There also appears to be some broad connection between the size of a halberd and its condition (Table 3.9). The most marked distinction is, interestingly, between those halberds in perfect or near- perfect condition and those which show evidence for wear. The halberds which are in perfect condition are substantially longer and heavier than those which present evidence for wear along the blade. Even those in “good” condition are markedly longer and heavier as well. All-in-all, the strong impression is that the longer, heavier halberds are not, in general, seeing the same level of use as their smaller counterparts. Interestingly, those which are broken are also quite long, and originally the average must have been longer still, since in most cases we no longer have the complete blade. Again, we might recall that there are reasonably good grounds for seeing the longer and heavier halberds as later developments, so once more there is the suggestion of a function which changes over time to become less utilitarian and, perhaps, more symbolic. Again, we see hints that the breaking of these halberds may not result from actual use.
109 Table 3.9 Category Average Weight(g) Average Length(mm) Blade broken 369 271 Blade buckled 442 268 Blade buckled and broken 382 233 Good 437 274 Perfect/near perfect 461 275 Worn 341 240
Impacts It has long been held that the Irish halberds, and indeed halberds in general, were non-utilitarian. They are viewed as too clumsy to have acted as weapons, and too poorly hafted to survive active use. To no small extent, this is a legacy of Ó Ríordáin who in the course of his seminal paper in 1937 declared that “….in the main it is a non-utilitarian object which served as an emblem of authority. The nature of the weapon is such that even with the heavy rivets of the Irish examples, it could not be used vigorously on a wooden handle without becoming detached.” (1937, 241)
This statement of Ó Ríordáin’s has become a mantra, repeated by successive generations of Irish archaeologists and accepted in general without question, although Michael Ryan did wonder at one stage (1976) whether halberds might have functioned as agricultural implements. The question of their functionality is addressed in Chapter 9, where Ó Ríordáin’s statement that they could not be used vigorously without becoming detached is tested, and this is also the subject of a short paper by the author and colleagues (O’Flaherty, Rankin and Williams, 2002). However, at this point, I wish to draw attention to the evidence for impact damage which occurs along the blade-edges of several Irish halberds.
In terms of impact damage along the blade, two main types have been determined, ie “notching” and “denting”. Both terms are self explanatory and the examples at figure 3.15 illustrate how these appear in practice.
110
Fig 3.15: Examples of notching and denting on Irish halberd blades. Both halberds shown are unprovenanced [left: (NMI) W269; right: (NMI) P252] (National Museum of Ireland)
The marks are clearly the result of impact, although when precisely this occurred is another question. There are strong grounds for believing that it occurred in antiquity for reasons which will be outlined later. Practical trials by Sue Bridgford using bronze swords have led her to conclude that the types of edge damage found on archaeological specimens most likely resulted from actual combat use (1997a, b and pers.com). Some of the damage found on the halberds corresponds well to her “notched” and “nicked” categories but, interestingly, the dents don’t seem to have any real parallel on the swords. With some notable exceptions, the notching and denting tends not to be extensive, in the sense that very few blades are hacked along the full length of the blade. The notches can be quite deep – a few millimetres or so – and tend to be narrow. Their overall size and shape is consistent with damage inflicted by another edged metal blade. The denting tends to be broader and may include some slight folding of the metal. It clearly results from impact with a different type of object – possibly organic, maybe wood or bone. It could certainly result from impact against a tough wooden haft.
111 Table 3.10 below summarises the position for the 135 halberds in the study group. Table 3.10
Impacts
Corrosion Breaghwy Breaghy ally Breaghwy? Carn Clonard Clonard? Cotton Misc Grand Total Denting 0 0 0 4 1 0 6 0 11 Notching 1 0 0 3 3 0 15 1 23 Both 0 0 0 4 2 0 12 0 18 Total Impacts 1 0 0 11 6 0 33 1 52 None high 2 0 1 5 1 1 6 0 16 medium 2 0 0 4 2 0 4 0 12 low 5 1 0 15 4 0 25 1 51 (burnt) 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Total None 10 1 1 24 7 1 35 1 80 Possible Notching 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 3 Grand Total 11 1 1 37 13 1 69 2 135
In all, 52 halberds, or nearly 40% of the study group, show evidence for either notching or denting or both. Types Cotton and Carn are, not surprisingly, the most often damaged in this manner, representing 63% and 21% respectively of the total. Type Cotton is therefore over-represented relative to the percentage it represents of the study-group as a whole (50%), while type Carn is under- represented. Type Clonard is slightly over-represented, but not significantly so. Type Breaghwy, on the other hand, is notable in presenting just one halberd with this type of damage, even when “allied” types are included. This type with its allies accounts for nearly 10% of all the halberds in the study- group but only 2% of those with impact damage, five times less than might be expected.
Chart 3.6 opposite shows the Chart 3.6 Percentage of each Halberd Type relative proportion of each with Impact Damage halberd type with impact 60 damage. 50
40
%30
20
10
0 Breaghwy Carn Cotton Clonard
112 It is immediately apparent that Type Breaghwy halberds are not seeing the same sort of use as other halberds: in fact halberds of this type are three times less likely to present such damage than the next lowest of the halberd types, Type Carn. All the other main halberd types show reasonably consistent proportions of damaged halberds, with types Cotton and Clonard showing particularly high percentages. As with the proportion of “decorated” halberds it must be remembered that these are minimum figures since many halberds do not survive in good enough condition to be assessed for this type of damage. As table 3.10 above shows, 28 of the 80 halberds for which no evidence of impact damage was noted also display medium to high levels of corrosion. If we are to allow in some measure for this and express the proportion of impact-damaged halberds as a percentage of those which can be accurately assessed, the proportion they represent of the population as a whole rises from 40% to nearly 50% of all halberds. In other words, on the basis of the study-group results, it is likely that at least 40% and perhaps as much as 50% of all Irish halberds show evidence for impact damage along the blade
In order to compare the evidence for impact damage with other variables, such as length and weight, it is first necessary to award some form of ‘scores’ to each halberd. A system was adopted whereby halberds which display either notching or denting receive a score of 50 points, while those which display evidence for both types of damage receive a score of 100. The system is crude, but allows indicative conclusions to be drawn. The reason for awarding such high points is to facilitate intelligible presentation on a single chart of reasonable size, given the scale of the other variables being presented.
The two charts below (3.7 and 3.8) compare the evidence for impact damage with (i) weight and (ii) length of halberds. There seems to be a slight tendency (indicated by the trend-line) for the incidence of impact damage to increase as weight increases. However, as Chart 3.8 illustrates, this has nothing to do with the length of the halberd. In other words, while there may be grounds for saying that heavier halberds have a higher incidence of impact-damage, the same is not true of longer halberds. This is interesting, as one of the principal ways in which halberds acquire greater weight is through greater length. These charts are now making a distinction between these two variables and suggesting that the halberds which have gained weight by becoming longer are not necessarily seeing the same type of use as those halberds which have used the extra weight to provide additional thickness, greater strength of midrib, etc. The point is valuable, because although only a suggestion in these charts, it reinforces evidence which will be presented later that the longer halberds are intended more for display than use.
113 Relationship of Weight with Impact
Weight 120 Impacts Linear (Impacts) 100
80
60
40
20
0 1 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 91 101 111 121 131 Individual Halberds
Chart 3.7
Relationship of length with impact
Impacts 120 Length Linear (Impacts) 100
80
60
40
20
0 1 8 15 22 29 36 43 50 57 64 71 78 85 92 99 106 113 120 127 134
-20 Impact level
Chart 3.8
114 It was noted in the previous section that a number of Irish halberds are buckled or broken to some extent, or are both buckled and broken. The following two tables examine the situation for these halberds in terms of impact damage and in terms of a new indicator, rivet-hole damage. This indicator will be an important area of discussion in the next chapter and it is not necessary to discuss the basis in detail here other than to say that each rivet-hole is scored from 0-4 depending on its condition and the higher the rivet-hole score, the greater the damage:
Table 3.11 Rivet-hole Score Blade condition Total 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Broken 11 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 Buckled 15 4 4 1 2 3 1 Buckled and broken 5 1 2 1 1
Table 3.12 Blade Condition Total Dents Notched Notched Possible None And dented notching Broken 11 1 1 9 Buckled 15 2 5 2 6 Buckled and broken 5 2 1 2
There are some very clear patterns to be identified. In the first place, the vast majority of the broken halberds – 82% in fact- show no evidence of impact damage. However, in the case of the buckled halberds, the majority here – 60% - show clear evidence for impact damage, and the same is true for those halberds which are both buckled and broken. As regards rivet-hole score, a similar picture emerges: for the broken halberds a substantial proportion - 55% - retains all rivetholes completely intact, or in one case, with one hole just cracked; the buckled halberds show no such preservation, with just 27% falling into this category and the buckled and broken halberds follow this pattern as well. The message appears to be that the fact that a halberd is broken is no indicator that it saw heavy use; if anything, the contrary appears to be the case. It seems quite likely that these broken halberds represent deliberate destruction prior to deposition. Given the minimal damage to the rivetholes, it is quite possible that the haft was removed before breaking the blade. If the blade had been broken by smashing the fully hafted halberd against a hard object, one might reasonably expect some damage to the rivetholes as well.
115 The buckled halberds, on the other hand, as well as those that are both buckled and broken, exhibit a pattern of associated damage which is quite consistent with actual use. If the buckling results – as presumably it must – from the halberd striking a harder object than intended by its design, one might also expect the rivet-holes to burst as well on impact. This being the case, there are probably sound grounds for seeing these two forms of damage as connected and quite possibly as arising from actual use. It must also be allowed, however, that both forms of damage could also result from deliberate destruction of the hafted halberd by striking it against a hard object. This said, the notching and denting exhibited on the blades support the case for actual use.
To broaden out our discussion to include all halberds, and not just those broken or buckled, it is worthwhile comparing the number of rivet-holes which are burst on halberds (a) with, and (b) without, impact damage. Charts 3.9 and 10 below present this data for us.
Number of Rivet Holes burst on Halberds with No Impacts five 1% four none 3% 23%
three 30%
one 18%
two 25%
Chart 3.9(above); Chart 3.10 (below)
116 Number of Rivetholes burst on Halberds with impact damage
three none 19% 23%
two 25%
one 33%
Some of the statistics are remarkably similar: effectively 80% of halberds in both cases show damage to their rivet-holes, irrespective of whether or not there is evidence for impact damage on the blade. Where things do differ, however, is in the way in which that rivet-hole damage is distributed. Nearly twice as many impact-damaged halberds have only one damaged rivet-hole than do those without impact damage; both categories of halberd score precisely the same for having two burst rivet-holes, while nearly twice as many halberds without impact damage have three burst rivet-holes. How are we to interpret this? Contrary to what might have been expected, it seems that halberds with impact damage are much more likely to have just one damaged rivethole than halberds without impact damage; the latter are in turn much more likely to display damage to all their rivetholes (most of these being of the 3 rivet types). Why should this be? There are a number of possible hypotheses:
(a) In the case of halberds with impact damage, the one rivet-hole which is damaged is more seriously damaged than in other halberds, ending the weapon’s useful life. (b) The other halberds without impact damage are not being “used” to the same extent and could therefore stay in circulation for longer, until the remaining rivetholes had also burst. (c) Damage to the rivetholes on these other halberds results from removal of the shaft prior to deposition, not from usage.
117 (d) These other halberds have higher levels of corrosion, accounting both for the greater number of burst rivetholes and/or the lack of evidence for impact damage. (e) Impact damage is in fact no indicator of “functional” use at all.
As regards (a) above, over 80% of the single damaged rivetholes in question survive to at least half their original size; in other words they are not simply cracked but neither are they burst away completely. The same is true of the rivetholes on the halberds without impact damage. This level of damage is unlikely in my opinion to have led to the weapon being discarded. The hypothesis at (a) above must therefore be discarded.
As regards (b) and (c), these are purely speculative and not susceptible of proof on the basis of the evidence available. All we can say is that if impact damage is evidence of actual use, then there are grounds for making the arguments in question.
As regards (d), this is true: 35% of those without impact damage are classified as having either medium or high levels of corrosion, as compared to just 20% of those which exhibit impact damage. It is possible, therefore, that the higher levels of corrosion have either concealed the evidence of impact damage on the blade and/or rotted out the rivetholes concerned. However, whatever about the former, I can think of only very few cases where corrosion appeared to be a major factor in damage to the rivetholes on any halberd.
The point at (e) above may in fact be true: it is always possible that the marks along the blades of these halberds do not represent use-wear at all, but could conceivably be a form of ritual destruction. Sue Bridgford (formerly of the University of Sheffield) who very kindly examined some photographs of this damage for me, did indeed suggest this as a possible explanation. However, while some of the blades do show the type of hacking which might well result from deliberate destruction, in other cases the damage is sporadic and not extensive. Apart from the appearance of the notching and denting in question, there are other reasons for believing that the impact damage described here results from actual usage. There is the fact that the least functional of the halberds, Type Breaghwy, which has the weakest hafting arrangement, the shallowest hafting plate and the thinnest blade, virtually never displays this type of damage. There is also the apparent tendency for the incidence of impact damage to increase as halberds become heavier but not as they become longer and arguably more “symbolic”. Furthermore, if we actually compare the incidence of impact damage with the
118 degree of rivethole damage on each halberd (as distinct from the number of rivetholes damaged)6, it can quickly be seen (Chart 3.11) that as the damage to the rivetholes increases, so does the incidence of impact damage along the blade.
Comparison of Impact Damage with level of damage to rivetholes
14 Impact Score
12 Total Rivethole Score Linear (Impact Score)
10
8
Scores 6
4
2
0 1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71 76 81 86 91 96 101 106 111 116 121 126 131 Individual halberds
Chart 3.11 The strong suggestion is that the two are related and that whatever is causing the damage to the blade is also responsible ultimately for bursting the rivetholes. This supports the thesis that the damage occurred in antiquity and that it was effected to halberds which were actually hafted. Given the nature of the damage and the relationship with weight and apparent functionality, it is certainly reasonable to assume that it results from some functional use to which the artefacts were put. It must be allowed, however, that if the shafts were being torn off before deposition and accompanied by some token destruction of the blade, this might also explain the damage to both rivetholes and blade. However, if that were the case, we might expect the damage to the rivetholes to be more extensive: in this regard we recall (Chart 3.10) that over half the cases where impact damage occurs are on halberds with only one or no rivethole damaged. It is impossible to draw any unequivocal conclusions, but on balance the evidence seems to favour an interpretation of these notches and dents along the blade as use-wear.
6 As outlined briefly already the degree of damage to each rivethole is quantified numerically on a scale of 0-4; the higher the score, the greater the damage. The basis for this approach is discussed in detail in the next chapter, Rivets and Rivetholes.
119
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
This chapter has taken a close-up view at the blades on Irish halberds and has relied heavily on the presentation of an array of statistical data. In the circumstances it might be no harm to summarise some of the main findings.
In terms of typology, Harbison’s classifications stand up well and there are no grounds for either replacing these or adding to them, with the possible exception of a sub-type of halberd characterised by a narrow and pointed blade which contrasts with the broad, blunt features of most Irish halberds. Overall, however, the basic homogeneity of the Irish halberds was stressed, with 80% conforming to one basic form, ie a long, asymmetrical blade, with a stout midrib, secured by three thick rivets.
On the question of dimensions, it was pointed out that on average, the Irish halberds are about 265mm long, about 80mm wide and just under 8mm thick. However, irrespective of size they tend to have a hafting-plate of around 40mm deep. This allows us to assume that all Irish halberds were fitted into a haft with more or less the same head-size, if not the same size shaft overall. It also means that, relatively speaking, the bigger halberds were less securely hafted than their smaller cousins. The different halberd types display distinctive characteristics: type Cotton tends to be the longest, type Breaghwy the widest and thinnest, while types Clonard and Carn have the stoutest blades. Type Clonard has the biggest hafting plates, probably a function of the arrangement of its rivets but perhaps also to compensate for the greater weight of these halberds. There are good grounds for regarding type Cotton as basically an elongated Type Carn, which has a more restricted range of lengths.
However, despite the distinctive characteristics which help us define the various halberd types, one of the most remarkable things about the design of Irish halberds is its consistency. This is illustrated very clearly in Chart 3.5 where the lines representing the different dimensions track each other remarkably closely to the extent that one could easily generate a formula for the design of an Irish halberd. Indeed, in the most general sense it is clear that the Bronze Age smiths were working to an accepted standard which stipulated that a halberd should be around 8-9mm thick, around 60-80mm wide, with a hafting plate of around 40mm deep. Further evidence for adherence to a particular standard comes from a comparison of width with plate size, where the depth of the plate is consistently half the width of the blade. It was suggested that in designing the halberd, the smiths may have used a rough rule of thumb, based on the proportions of the circle and what “looked” right. Length was another matter, however, and this was limited only by skill, the metal available and
120 perhaps the ultimate function to which the halberd would be put. These longer halberds were, as we have already seen, less securely hafted relative to the smaller examples and are often very beautiful, with grooving a particular feature of Type Cotton halberds. In addition, these bigger halberds in general survive in better condition than the smaller ones, suggesting that they saw less “use”. All-in- all, the desire to produce longer halberds may have been driven more by ideas of display than anything else.
The Irish halberds can vary quite considerably in weight, ranging between 100-700g. Most weigh over 300g, while the average weighs about 400g – a little less than a copper axe of the same period. Type Clonard tends to be the heaviest and indeed one example of this type weighs over 740g.
The absence of conventional decoration on the Irish halberds is consistent with the treatment of axes in the same period and largely of the daggers too. It is only later in the Bronze Age that the impulse to apply the more conventional decorative motifs appears, but by this stage the halberds have in all likelihood disappeared. The absence of conventional decoration on halberd blades reveals them very much as products of their time and reinforces our view of them as belonging to the earliest period of metallurgy.
However, while the Irish halberds are rarely decorated in the conventional sense – and in this they contrast with many of the continental examples – aesthetics appear to have played an important role in their design. There is no doubt that many Irish halberds are very attractive, achieving this through an emphasis on form, on clean unfussy lines and discreet grooving along the edges. This grooving is purely decorative, sometimes doubled and occasionally expanded to cover the entire surface of a halberd. The arrangement and shape of rivet-heads was also important and carefully considered. The solid, high-domed heads on the copper rivets of many Irish halberds had a very functional purpose in securing the haft but they were also very attractive. The massive but functionless hollow conical heads on the rivets of some Irish halberds are clearly picking up on the aesthetic rather than functional aspect of the solid copper rivets. Such rivets may have been fitted to most Type Breaghwy halberds and it was suggested that the small size of the rivetholes on these halberds may have been intended to allow more rivets to be inserted for greater decorative effect.
Most Irish halberds survive in fairly good condition, but Type Breaghwy stands apart in this regard with some 40% of these halberds classified as being either perfect or near-perfect as compared with just 12.6% of the others. A surprisingly high proportion of Type Breaghwy halberds are also broken or buckled, again in marked contrast to the other types and virtually none show signs of real wear. It is likely that the breaking of these halberds, if not of all halberds, results more from deliberate
121 destruction than use. Type Carn seems to show most evidence for general “wear and tear”, with 46% of these halberds exhibiting obvious wear along the blade, as compared to only 21% of Cottons or Clonards (Table 3.8). It also appears to be the case that those halberds which are in perfect condition are substantially longer than those which present evidence for worn blades. This adds to the growing body of evidence which suggests that these bigger halberds were not intended to see real use.
Another highly significant discovery was the clear evidence for impact damage along the blades of up to 50% of Irish halberds. This damage takes the form of notching and denting, the former clearly the result of impact with another edged artefact. Halberds of types Cotton and Clonard show the greatest tendency to be damaged in this way, while only one type Breaghwy halberd does, and even that is slight and on a halberd which otherwise shows no wear. A tendency was noted for the level of impact damage to increase with weight of halberd. However, what was still more interesting was the fact that no such tendency was noted as halberds got longer. In other words, if the object of adding weight to a halberd was to make it thicker and stronger, rather than longer, the halberd in question is more likely to exhibit impact damage. It is hard to escape the conclusion that the intention was to create a more functional, tougher weapon. However, the picture is far from simple since an analysis of the numbers of rivetholes burst on impact-damaged halberds shows that, if anything, these tend to have less burst rivetholes than do halberds without impact damage. The possibility exists that this type of damage is in fact inflicted upon the blade as a form of deliberate destruction prior to deposition. However, on balance, the evidence seems to support an interpretation of these notches and dents as actual use-wear.
Broken and buckled halberds present contrasting pictures. With regard to the first, a high proportion exhibit no evidence for impact damage or rivet-hole damage, strongly suggesting that these halberds were deliberately broken before deposition. It also suggests that the hafts were removed in advance, since it would be hard to break a hafted blade without tearing some of the rivetholes as well. The buckled halberds, however, and those which are both buckled and broken, often show good evidence for impact damage and rivet-hole damage, the latter at least indicating that the buckling occurred while they were still hafted and while the former may suggest actual use.
Other than the conclusions which have been reached in the course of discussing the above, there are one or two ‘tangential’ points to made. In the first place, the fact that so many halberds conform so tightly to a basic design and that basic “rules of thumb” appear to have been widely respected, is strongly suggestive that the halberd as an artefact-type was relatively shortlived. The preciseness of the design in so many cases – and this was noted in particular when we looked at the dimensional information – is not consistent with an artefact that has had time to evolve and adapt itself to
122 particular needs or changing circumstances. This is echoed also in the lack of conventional decoration, which is shared with the only axes with which halberds have ever been found associated, ie types Lough Ravel/Ballybeg and Killaha. This reinforces our view that the span of the halberd’s life did not extend beyond the period of use of these axes, since later axe types are frequently decorated. So in terms of chronology, the data presented here suggests that we should think of a relatively short-lived artefact and one which was a product of the very earliest phase of metallurgy. This point has and will be made again, according as the evidence in each chapter points in this direction.
The data presented here also allows us draw some conclusions in relation to relative chronology. The earliest halberd type seems to be Carn, which has a more restricted range of lengths and which tends to be stouter, with more evidence for wear along the edges, although not as much impact damage as either Cotton or Clonard. In addition, its straight midrib has continental equivalents which are lacking for Cotton and which may be important, as Harbison (1969a) has pointed out, in terms of locating an ultimate origin for the Irish halberds. Types Carn and Cotton were clearly contemporary for quite some time, but in viewing Cotton as essentially an elongated Carn there is certainly a case for seeing it as later. The longest Cottons must certainly be later and many of these are clearly products of smiths operating now at the height of their craft. Many of these long halberds are particularly beautiful, and a far greater proportion of these survives in superb condition, very likely indicating a change in function for these blades, a shift towards display rather than use. This theme is picked up by Type Breaghwy which is surely amongst the very latest halberds. This type seems to have been created exclusively for display. This is attested by the insecurity of its hafting, the (probable) use of highly decorative but functionless rivets, the thinness of the metal and its greater width, which seems intended to display the metal to best advantage. These halberds also show virtually no evidence for wear or impact damage and if not deliberately broken, often survive in pristine condition. In all senses, these are anomalous halberds, their distinctive nature asserted again and again as the data is assessed.
123
Chapter 4
A close up look at Irish halberds Part 2: rivets and rivet holes
______
INTRODUCTION Analysis of the dimensional and other information of rivets proves surprisingly instructive, providing clues to the shape of the haft head and offering suggestions about functionality. The picture is fleshed out further by an examination of rivet-hole damage, which allows us to pinpoint the main areas of stress in the hafting of these halberds.
For the group of halberds studied, about half still retain at least one rivet. In all, at least 167 rivets are known to have survived, of which 165 can be located at present. These have been examined in the hand and measurements taken of overall length, torso length (i.e. length of rivet between the heads); diameter of rivet torso; diameter of rivet head. In order to represent the information clearly, some sort of nomenclature had to be devised to indicate which rivet is being discussed at any given time. It was decided to simply number the rivets in an anti-clockwise fashion as follows:
fig 4.1
124 The same system has been employed to help with the identification of surviving rivetholes. Number 1 is always the uppermost rivet or rivet-hole. (Some halberds, of course, have more than 4 rivetholes, but these are often additional holes, inserted for rehafting and cannot be mapped by any readily comprehensible or consistent numbering scheme. The system outlined above covers the majority of Irish halberds quite adequately).
In order to decide how to number the rivets or rivet holes we first have to decide ‘which way up’ the halberd is. This of course would be no problem if the shaft had also survived the millennia and remained attached to the blade but unfortunately only one such instance exists amongst the Irish examples recovered to date (the eponymous Carn halberd) and for the others we have to find some other way of orientating the blade consistently. If the blade is symmetrical, there is simply no way of consistently identifying the rivets/holes according to the above scheme. However, in this regard we are fortunate that the vast majority of Irish halberds are asymmetrical in form, with one side often more deeply curved than the other, creating a scythe-shaped blade. For the purpose of establishing a consistent frame of reference, it was decided to identify the straighter edge as the “top” and the curved edge as the “bottom”, creating a downward curving blade in the manner of a sickle or a scythe. We have no real way of knowing, of course, if this is really how all such blades were orientated in antiquity. While a downward curving blade seems more logical from a functional perspective, it must be acknowledged that some of the metal hafted examples from continental Europe exhibit an upwardly tilted blade, an orientation which also appears in some of the depictions of halberds in the continental rock-art (Chapter 7). It is quite possible that halberds were in fact hafted in both ways, raising interesting questions about the differing functions that the two techniques may represent. By reversing the more practical scythe-shaped arrangement, the upwardly curving halberd blade may even be a deliberate statement of non-functionality, making it clear that such halberds are different and not for “normal” use.
Finally, some terms that are used in this chapter: “overall length” of a rivet means the entire length of the rivet, from the tip of one domed head to the tip of the other; “torso-length” means the length of the rivet between the heads, which is a good indicator of the thickness of the original wooden shaft.
125 RIVETS
The worksheets on each halberd in Appendix 1 (Vol 2) contain the raw data from which the information in this section has been extracted. Rather than present this data as a single table (which would run to many pages), the information will be examined in more manageable “chunks” as we move through this section. The term “colleague rivets” is used to describe all the rivets on a particular halberd.
Basic dimensions
Table 4.1 provides an outline summary of the basic dimensional information of all surviving rivets. This table Fig 4.2: The “average” rivet provides maximum, minimum and average data, broken down by rivet identifier. Chart 4.1 plots this information in a manner which may be easier to read. The “average” rivet on an Irish halberd is around 23-24mm long overall, with a torso measurement of 15-16mm. The head is often highly domed protruding maybe 5mm from the surface of the haft and, on average, is about 15mm across. The rivets are therefore about the same width across the head as they are in length through the wood, which makes for quite a strong bond. On average, these rivets are also quite thick, about 10mm or so. An idealised reconstruction is at figure 4.2. This of course, is a highly generalised picture but it is broadly reflective of most Irish rivets, as Chart 4.1 shows. More detailed information will be given below.
Dimensions of Rivets
40
35
30
25 Overall Torso 20 Diam.
length(mm) 15 Head 10
5
0 1 9 17 25 33 41 49 57 65 73 81 89 97 105 113 121 129 137 Individual rivets
Chart 4.1
126
127 It is worth drawing attention to the regularity of the relationship between the different dimensions of the rivets on Irish halberds, again shown in Chart 4.1. In fact, it can be observed that a quite regular ratio of proportions applies as follows:
Table 4.2 Total Length Torso length Head Diameter. Torso Diameter. 1.5 1 1 0.66
It is, of course, highly unlikely the above ratio existed as a recognised formula for making rivets in the Bronze Age. Instead, it probably represents the results of traditions of “best practice” amongst Bronze Age smiths. As will be suggested below, it seems likely that rather than being cast individually, these rivets were simply cut off longer bars of copper, resulting in a standardised diameter for colleague rivets. If these were then cut to size in situ, leaving an equal amount of rivet protruding on either side of the haft which was then beaten down into a domed head, this would quickly evolve into a regular ratio of dimensions without anybody being actually “aware” of these ratios.
Fig 4.3 shows the different stages proposed in the making of these rivets. The key thing to determine is the amount of rivet which was left to protrude on either side before beating-down. One way of estimating what this might have been is to look at the volume of metal represented by each domed rivet head and try to work out what length of rivet this must originally have represented. We can do this using the formulae for calculating the volume of spheres and cylinders. Working on the basis of the “average” rivet, i.e. 23mm long overall, torso length of 15mm, torso diameter of 10mm and diameter of rivet head, 15mm, the calculation is as follows:
Let each domed head be regarded as a hemi-sphere with two possible diameters, 15mm (being the actual diameter of the head) or 8mm (being twice 4 3 the height of the dome). On this basis and using the formula volume = /3 r we get figures of 883 cubic mm and 134 cubic mm as the possible volume of copper represented by each domed head. Using the formula for calculating the volume of a cylinder, volume = r2h, where h is the height of the cylinder, and r is known at 5mm (based on a standard 10mm diameter rivet), we can see that the volumes of metal derived earlier must represent an original “excess” rivet length of between 2 and 11mm. The mid point along this range is 6.5mm.
Where the haft is c.15mm thick, therefore, we can think in broad terms of the rivets initially being left protrude about 6-7mm on either side before being beaten down into a domed head. As a rough rule of thumb, it would seem likely that the smith would probably cut the rivet about twice as long as needed to span the haft, and beat the remaining metal down to form the rivet head.
128
Fig 4.3: Suggested stages in the making and fitting of rivets
Overall length The overall length of rivets on Irish halberds (given as “TL”in charts) can vary considerably from as little as 12mm to 33mm. The majority, however, fall somewhere between 20-25mm in length (Chart 1 refers). Between the main rivets themselves there is considerable consistency, particularly in maximum values and particularly for Rivets 1, 2 and 3 (Table 4.1). Looking at the situation for the different halberd types (Table 4.3), it can be seen that the overall length of rivets on Types Carn and Cotton halberds are more or less the same, falling between 22- 24mm on average. The rivets on type Clonard, however, show a slight tendency to be longer, between 23-25mm, but also with greater variation. The distinction between Clonard type halberds and Carn and Cotton types, which is merely suggested here, becomes much more apparent as we move to look at the other aspects of rivet-dimensions.
Torso measurements The torso measurement of halberd rivets, ie the length between heads, (given as “IL” in charts) is a good indicator of the thickness of the original wooden shaft at the point where it is fixed by the rivets. It is of course possible that the rivets may have been countersunk (see also section entitled “Rivet Head”) and this would facilitate a slightly thicker shaft. In addition, the measurements we have can
129 really only be relied upon for reconstructing thickness of the haft-head itself - the shaft could well have expanded below this point. Nonetheless, as a broad indicator of thickness, the torso lengths of rivets are a sound basis for building assumptions about the thickness and form of the haft; indeed, in the absence of any surviving organic shafts or of contemporary depictions in this country, these measurements are the only real material we have to work on.
On the basis of these measurements (Table 4.1) it seems that the haft thickness at the point of contact with the blade could vary widely from as little as 8mm to as much as 28mm, which in the latter case would suggest a haft at least as thick as a modern day timber-axe or pick-axe. The possibility that some halberds at least may have been equipped with shafts of these proportions calls to mind the testimony of the finder of the Carn halberd [Ref: (NMI)1939:146] who declared that the original haft was “as thick as the handle of a pick-axe” (source: NMI file). In the case of this particular halberd, however, while it was not possible to gather torso measurements for the rivets since the blade has been remounted in a (poor) replica handle, the overall rivet lengths (25mm) would suggest that the original shaft could not have exceeded 19mm across at the head. This said, the fact that its finder declared the shaft to be as thick as a pickaxe handle (c.25mm thick) may indicate that the shaft did in fact broaden out more than might be expected below the head.
At the other end of the scale, a thickness of just 8mm would hardly seem to represent a functional haft. This measurement was taken from the central rivet of a halberd recovered from the Suck River [Ref: (NMI)1881:23] so it actually indicates the thickness of the haft at the back-end of the hafting plate, where, as we shall see, all the evidence suggests deliberate trimming of the wood anyway. This said, a thickness of 8mm is still extremely thin and it is interesting to note that this particular halberd shows virtually no evidence of wear along the blade and so may never have been intended for use.
In the vast majority of cases, however - something like 85% in fact - the torso measurements range from between 14mm to 19mm (Chart 4.1). The balance fall into extremes at either end, but it should be noted that only 8% lie below the 13-14mm mark. The huge majority, therefore, suggest hafts that are slim but serviceable. Much has been made in the past of the presumed weakness of halberd shafts (Ó Ríordáin, 1937; O’Kelly, 1989; Mallory and McNeill, 1991; Waddell, 1998), due to this very thinness, on the assumption that a slender shaft of necessity means a weak one. This is not the case: one need only look at a modern hurley (which in its general proportions, including shape of head, corresponds surprisingly well to the postulated halberd shaft of antiquity) to note that a shaft does not have to be thick to be strong. What is important is the way it is constructed and the way in which the grain is used to endow strength.
There is some evidence to suggest that haft-thickness may not have been the same across all halberd types. In fact when we examine the torso measurements for all surviving rivets and organise these in
130 terms of halberd types, it becomes clear that type Clonard halberds, on average, must have had thicker shafts than the other types (Table 4.3 refers). The average torso measurement for rivet 1 on this halberd type is just over 20mm, which is a full 5mm longer than the equivalent rivet on a Carn halberd and 4mm longer than that on a Cotton. The average length in this case is a fair reflection of the normal pattern for this halberd type: in six of the eight halberds where this rivet survives, the torso length is 19mm or greater. This follows through for the other rivets on Clonard halberds, which are all longer on average than their counterparts on Carn or Cotton halberds. Clonard type halberds are in general the heaviest of all the halberd types, with an average weight of 448g, compared with 389g, 371g and 420g for Types Breaghwy, Carn and Cotton respectively. It is interesting, therefore, to see that this heaviest type of halberd, as well as being hafted in a unique four-square fashion, was also apparently equipped with the thickest shafts. “Adjustments” of this nature would strongly suggest a concern with functionality, that this halberd type should be strongly hafted to compensated for its heavier weight.
Only one rivet survives for comparison on Type Breaghwy halberds. This is from the Moylough Halberd [Ref: (NMI)1928/392] which is badly damaged from the funeral pyre and which is not itself typical of Type Breaghwy halberds. The surviving rivet is relatively long at 17mm torso length, but we have no way of knowing how representative it might be of rivets on Type Breaghwy halberds generally. In addition, the evidence suggests that rivets on this type of halberd may have been equipped with separate conical caps into which the rivet stem fitted (see below): if this was the case then the torso measurements could not be taken as an accurate reflection of the thickness of haft at all. In the case of the one surviving Breaghwy rivet the head is only 8mm across, just half the average head-diameter for rivets on other halberd types and unlikely of itself to secure the rivet against the wood of the shaft to any extent at all. However, it would fit easily into one of the conical caps surviving with the eponymous halberd from Breaghwy itself [Ref: (NMI)1937/2802] in which case its effective length could have been reduced to as little as 7-8mm (fig 4.4). The Breaghwy Halberd actually had one rivet intact when found and this was still in place at the time Harbison compiled his catalogue. In fact the finder’s report suggests that a second rivet was found later at the same site. However, only one remained by the time Harbison was cataloguing these finds and unfortunately the stem of that rivet has since gone missing and all that remains are the two conical caps. Nevertheless, it is clear from Harbison (1969a) and other sources that this rivet was originally about 14mm long between the heads, suggesting that in this case at least a type Breaghwy halberd was mounted in a shaft which was only marginally thinner than those being used for types Carn and Cotton. What little evidence exists, therefore, seems to suggest that the hafts on type Breaghwy halberds were probably only a little thinner than those fixed to other halberd types (although their functionality must be seriously in question if they were generally secured with conical-capped rivets).
131 Length Patterns among Colleague Rivets In the course of collecting information on rivets, it was noticed that where more than one rivet survived in situ, there were often subtle differences in the lengths of these rivets, but not in the width. In particular, it seemed that in the case of halberds which were secured with three rivets, the central rivet (rivet 2) tended to be shorter than the others, not necessarily in overall length but Fig 4.4: The effect of definitely in torso length. A subsequent rereading of Coffey fitting conical caps to the Moylough Rivet – useful (1913) showed that, without formally analysing the material, he length of rivet bar is much had noticed something similar with those halberds which were reduced. available to him. A short examination was carried out to test the truth and extent of this tendency on the part of the central rivet and the results can be seen in Table 4.4. Only 3-rivet halberds where ALL original rivets still survived, in situ, were included in this exercise. The total number of halberds which could be examined in this way amounted to 30. However, in some cases, where two or more rivets were of the same length, it might be impossible to identify one as longer or shorter. For this reason, figures for “Total Population” and “Scorable Population” are included. Table 4.4 SHORTEST (torso length) Rivet Instances Total Pop Scorable Pop % of Pop % of Scorable Pop Rivet 2 20 30 25 67% 80% Rivet 3 4 30 25 13.3% 16% Rivet 1 1 30 25 3.3% 4% LONGEST (torso length) Rivet 1 18 30 21 60% 86% Rivet 2 2 30 21 6.7% 9.5% Rivet 3 1 30 21 3.3% 4.8%
Longest and shortest rivets on Irish halberds
In 25 out of the 30 cases examined, it was possible to identify one rivet as shorter than the others and in 80% of those cases it was the middle one, Rivet 2. A rather similar statistic emerges with regard to the longest rivet, which turns out to be Rivet 1 in 86% of cases.
To broaden this investigation out to include ALL the rivets which have survived on Irish halberds, it was necessary to map all the information for each rivet, showing this time both overall and torso measurements. Chart 4.2 summarises the results and the basic trends identified already can be detected here also. In terms of overall length, Rivet 1 can clearly be seen to be longer than the other rivets, occupying a length range mainly between c.20 and 30mm. Rivet 2, on the other hand, occupies a range mainly between c.16mm and 25mm, with one or two outliers at either end. Rivet 3 pretty much spans the middle ground between the other two. The differences between overall and torso
132 lengths for each rivet are also shown in this chart and can be seen to vary widely. However, despite the many individual variations, the overall trend is for the torso length to follow any increases in the total length, which suggests that rivets became longer to accommodate thicker shafts rather than to create more visible and more prominent heads. Again we note the priority of the functional imperative.
It would appear, therefore, that we can point to a genuine recurring pattern in both the overall and torso lengths of rivets on Irish halberds. This pattern, out of which Rivet 1 emerges as generally longest and Rivet 2 as generally shortest is of particular interest where all the original rivets on a particular halberd have survived and can be compared with each other as the components of a single group. In terms of torso measurements, it appears that in around 86% of cases the longest rivet is Rivet 1, the “top” rivet, and the shortest rivet is the middle one, Rivet 2, in around 80% of cases. The differences in length are miniscule, no more than 1 or 2mm in many cases, but they are nonetheless real for that. However, it is almost inconceivable that the Bronze Age smith should have set out deliberately to make three rivets of such subtle differences in length and it would seem that these differences are more likely to be a product of the design of the head of the shaft rather than design of the rivets themselves per se. In other words, the head of the shaft must have been consistently shaped to such a design as to produce these subtle differences in rivet length once the rivets had been hammered through and secured.
Even though the shafts have long since disintegrated, this analysis of the surviving rivets allows us to reconstruct a carefully shaped shaft-head which is thickest at the top, tapering perhaps towards the bottom and definitely at its narrowest at the butt or back-end (fig 4.5). This reconstructed design compares well with the heads of metal hafted halberds from central northern Europe, suggesting not only that these are accurate copies of wooden types but also that there was a remarkable consistency in hafting Fig 4.5: Suggested form of original timber technique between halberds produced in two quite distinct haft-head on Irish halberds areas of Europe.
One would have to ask why so much care is taken with the design of the shaft-head. The effect would certainly be to throw more weight to the “business-end”, so to speak, and this would be desirable if the ultimate objective is to create a weapon which can strike effectively from a distance. There may also be aesthetic reasons and there is no doubt that a carefully shaped head, tapering smoothly to the butt and to the shaft would be more pleasing than a more crudely formed haft. Practical experiment with a reconstructed halberd, which is discussed in Chapter 9, also suggests that this design is very comfortable in the hand and easy to use.
133
Rivet Diameter The average diameter for rivets 1, 2 and 3 is about 10mm, with remarkably similar minimum and maximum values of 6-15mm. Fourth and fifth rivets tend to be thinner, 8mm and 6.5mm respectively (table 4.1 refers). When we examine the statistics for each halberd group (Table 4.3), however, the connections between the two three-rivet halberd types (Carn and Cotton) are once more stressed, while Type Clonard, with its four-square rivet hafting technique is again isolated by different average results. The rivets on Types Carn and Cotton are all basically of the same diameter, just under 10.5mm for Carn and just over 10.5mm for Cotton. Overall, however, and particularly when examining halberds in the hand, one is struck by just how precisely the colleague rivets match each other in terms of diameter. It strongly suggests that these rivets were simply cut off much longer bars which were produced to a standard 10mm approx., as suggested in the opening paragraphs of this Chapter, rather than being produced as separate pieces of furnishing.
On Clonard type halberds, however, the picture is a bit different. In the first place, as Table 4.3 clearly shows, the rivets are much thinner, in or around 8mm for the inner rivets compared with 10- 10.5 for types Carn/Cotton. Also, there is a different pattern to the relative thickness of colleague rivets on these halberds: the inner rivets (1 and 4) tend to be thickest, c.8mm while the outer are thinner, just 6.5-7mm diameter. However, these are average figures based on a small group of only 13 or 14 halberds with 24 rivets between them and so some caution must be exercised in drawing any conclusions. If these averages do reflect a more general pattern, then it does seem that the hafting of a Clonard-type halberd was a relatively more complex affair than hafting a Carn or Cotton type; not only were four rivets to be used but two separate designs of rivet may have been required. In fact, in one unprovenanced example [Ref: (NMI)SA1880:1550], not only is the surviving outer rivet thinner, it is actually of square section, while the thicker inner rivet is round. Again one is tempted to look for a functional explanation, since the differences are so marked, and it might be suggested that as the back of the hafting plate is clearly the most vulnerable area (see also the section on rivetholes below), the intention was to limit the exposure in this area as much as possible by keeping the rivets thin and consequently the holes in the hafting plate small. Whatever the reason, one is struck again by the precision of design, which sees such careful adjustment to both rivet length and diameter when shifting from one hafting technique to another.
Rivetheads The heads of rivets on Irish halberds tend to be quite highly domed, and these can easily account for 30% of the overall length. Chart 4.2 (a-d) shows the relationship between overall length and torso length for rivets 1, 2, 3 and 4 on Irish halberds and it can be seen that in general, an increase in overall length is accompanied by an increase in torso length. In other words, as we noted earlier, the reason for making rivets longer is not to allow for a more highly domed and visible rivet, but rather to
134 accommodate a thicker shaft. The concern is clearly with functionality rather than aesthetics. The trend-lines on each chart show this most clearly, with those for rivets 1, 3 and 4 virtually parallel indicating that no matter how long the rivet actually is, the size of the domed heads remains the same.
However, in the case of rivet 2 the trend-lines are quite splayed, indicating that as this rivet becomes longer, proportionately more of its length is given over to enlarged rivet heads, rather than torso length. Since we have already established that this rivet is the shortest in terms of torso length, probably because the haft-head on the halberd is thinnest at this point, it is possible that the reason why the rivet heads have a higher dome is to compensate for this in some way, bringing Rivet 2 visually back into line with its colleague rivets.
What is the purpose of these domed heads? Do they have a functional role or do they simply represent an attractive way of finishing the rivet? The answer, as with so many things, is probably “a bit of both”. There is no doubt that the extra weight of metal contained in the domed heads helps prevent the head of the rivet from bending or tearing, which could easily happen with a flatter, thinner head and particularly with a soft metal like copper. Bending or tearing of the head would seriously weaken the hafting and possibly cause the entire rivet to fall out. However, even to modern eyes, the effect of these domes protruding strongly from the surface, is also quite attractive and it is clear from the graphed information at Chart 4.2 that in a number cases the intention of lengthening the rivet must have been to produce more visible and highly domed heads. This can happen on any of the halberd types. The importance of the head as an item of display is of course underlined by the appearance of hollow conical heads to the rivets on the Breaghwy and other halberds - highly visible but effectively useless ornaments which nonetheless mimic the more practical solid-headed rivets.
135 Rivet 1: Overall and Torso lengths Rivet1:TL Rivet1: IL Linear (Rivet1: IL) Linear (Rivet1:TL) 35
30
25
20
15
length(mm) 10
5
0 1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 Individual Halberds Chart 4.2(a)
Rivet 2: Overall and Torso Lengths Rivet2:TL Rivet2:IL Linear (Rivet2:IL) Linear (Rivet2:TL) 35 30 25 20 15
Length(mm) 10 5 0 1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 Individual Halberds
Chart 4.2(b)
136 Rivet 3: Overall and Torso lengths Rivet3:TL Rivet3:IL Linear (Rivet3:IL) 40 Linear (Rivet3:TL)
35
30
25
20
15
Length(mm) 10
5
0 1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 Individual halberds Chart 4.2(c)
Rivet 4:TL Rivet 4: Overall and Torso lengths Rivet4:IL Linear (Rivet4:IL) Linear (Rivet 4:TL) 35
30
25
20
15
Length(mm) 10
5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Individual Halberds Chart 4.2(d)
Just how this high domed effect was achieved is unclear but experimental work carried out (see Chapter 9) suggests that the rivet holes may have been countersunk, thereby defining the outer perimeter of the expanded rivet-head and allowing the excess metal to be beaten up into a dome- shaped head. The countersinking of the rivetholes in this manner would also permit a somewhat thicker haft-head as well if the inside-leg measurements are no longer to be regarded as absolute indicators of the thickness of the haft at their relative points of contact. Alternatively, the rivets - once inserted in the haft - may have been hammered into shallow cupshaped moulds from the other side, thereby forcing the metal to expand into the only space available, although this proved unsuccessful in practice in the experimental work described in Chapter 9.
137 Moving to look at the diameter of the rivet-head, we have already noted that, on average, this tends to be around the 15mm mark for rivets 1, 2 and 3. The diameter of the heads on rivets 4 and 5 is noticeably smaller, c.12mm and 7.5mm respectively. In general, the diameter of the rivet head tends to be 50% wider than that of the rivet itself, giving a considerable degree of security to the hafting. When we look at the statistics for the different halberd types (table 4.3), once more Type Clonard stands apart from the three rivet Carn and Cotton types. The rivet heads on Carn and Cotton halberds tend to be around the 15-16mm diameter, but those on Type Clonard are much smaller, between 10- 12mm across. However, the model which dictates that the heads should be about 50% wider than the rivets themselves is respected across all three types: the reason that rivet-heads on Clonard halberds are smaller than on Carn and Cotton types is because the rivets themselves are narrower, as will be recalled from the last section. It is nonetheless interesting to note that the practice of producing a rivet head 50% larger than the rivet itself is respected by the manufacturers of all three halberd types, despite differences in rivet diameter, and this surely suggests the application of established norms.
Influence of length and weight of halberds on size of rivets Charts 4.3 to 4.6 examine the relationship between rivet dimensions and the length and weight of individual halberds. For visual ease, the rivet data charted has been limited to torso and diameter measurements only which are the prime areas in which we might expect to see any influences reflected. For example, if heavier or longer halberds are being hafted on thicker shafts, then it is the torso measurements which will reveal this. Also, it would be interesting to see whether thicker rivets are used on these longer, heavier halberds than on the lighter ones. Again for visual ease, the weights and lengths of the individual halberds have been reduced by a factor of ten, in order to allow them to be charted on the same graphs as the rivets, within a reasonable size of graph. The data has all been sorted in terms of increasing weight of halberd, with all other measurements compared against this. Sorting the data by length produces no discernible difference in the charts.
At a glance we can see, contrary to what might be expected, that neither weight nor length of halberd appear to have any significant influence on the size of rivet chosen. While weight increases, with the halberds tending to lengthen proportionately, the torso and diameter measurements for the rivets remain evenly distributed between a 10-20mm band for torso length and around the 10mm line for diameter. The trendline plotted for torso length does show a very slight increase as the halberds get heavier but lengths remain solidly with the 10-20mm band and the actual measurements fluctuate so much that there seems little evidence to suggest that the heavier halberds were equipped with thicker shafts or with stronger rivets. The exception, of course, is the small group of heavy Type Clonard halberds which, as discussed earlier, do appear to have been equipped with thicker shafts. These halberds, however, account for only about 10% of the total number of halberds considered here. For the majority of Irish halberds, there appears to have been no effort made to equip the heavier blades
138 with longer or thicker rivets. This is interesting because it means that, relatively speaking, the bigger halberds will now be less securely hafted than the smaller examples. In addition, as we saw in the previous chapter, these bigger halberds tend to show less evidence of basic “wear and tear” along the blade. All this leads us to the conclusion that, in general, the production of longer, heavier halberds was driven not by a desire to create a better weapon but by a desire to create a more impressive display. These longer halberds are also amongst the most accomplished examples of the genre, suggesting that they may be later in the sequence and that their appearance may mark an increased emphasis on the ceremonial rather than the functional for halberds generally.
Relationship of rivet size to weight and length of halberd: Rivet 1
80 Wt/10 Length/10 70 Rivet1: IL Rivet1:DM Linear (Rivet1: IL) 60
50
40
30
20
10
0 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 Individual Halberds
Chart 4.3
139 Relationship of rivet size to length and weight of halberds: Rivet 2
80 Wt/10 Length/10 70 Rivet2:IL Rivet2:DM 60 Linear (Rivet2:IL)
50
40
30
20
10
0 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 Individual Halberds
Chart 4.4
Relationship of Rivet Size to Length and Weight of Halberd: Rivet 3
80 Wt/10 Length/10 70 Rivet3:IL Rivet3:DM Linear (Rivet3:IL) 60
50
40
30
20
10
0 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 Individual Halberds
Chart 4.5
140 Relationship of Rivet Size to Length and Weight of Halberd: Rivet 4
70 Wt/10 Length/10 60 Rivet4:IL Rivet4:DM Linear (Rivet4:IL) 50
40
30
20
10
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Individual Halberds
Chart 4.6
Survival and variation of rivets on the different types of halberd While in the vast majority of cases there is no evidence to suggest that rivets survive better on one halberd type than another, Type Breaghwy is notable by its virtual absence from a list of types upon which rivets have survived at all. In fact, only one full rivet from this halberd type has survived to the present, and this is on the example from Moylough [Ref: (NMI)1928/392] which strangely is not mentioned as retaining a rivet at all by Harbison (1969a). In one other case, the halberd from Breaghwy itself [Ref: (NMI)1937/2802], it is known that two rivets were found along with the halberd, but as mentioned already, these are now missing and only its two enormous conical caps survive. The Type Breaghwy halberd from Brockley, Rathlin Island [Ref: (UM)A366.1961], also retains the remains of a rivet in one of the rivetholes, shorn off neatly and barely discernible. All this is very peculiar since Type Breaghwy halberds are amongst those which show least evidence of wear and, as we shall see below, also show least evidence for damage to the rivetholes. The absence of the rivets cannot, therefore, be attributed to loss through usage. Nor can the absence of the rivets be ascribed to carelessness at the time of recovery, since this would presume that finders of this type of halberd were more careless than finders of other types, or that for some reason this type of halberd was not recognised by its finders as being of any value and was consequently treated without respect. In fact, if anything, the contrary is the case, since Type Breaghwy halberds are by far the best provenanced of all the halberds, indicating that for whatever reason the recovery of this type of halberd was more carefully recorded and presumably more carefully effected. In fact, in the case of the example from Breaghwy itself, which is one of the rare examples to have been found with rivets, the records in NMI
141 clearly show that the finder went back to the site in an effort to see could he locate the other rivets. He was not successful, despite a very careful search.
Why should this be the case? Why should one type of halberd “lose” its rivets more easily than another? There are a number of possibilities. One is that type Breaghwy was never hafted at all, but existed purely as a blade, in the way in which we know some axes were left unhafted. However, this seems unlikely: all halberds which I have examined show some signs of having been hafted at some stage, even if this is just through some distortion of parts of the rivet hole, indicating pressure by a rivet at this point. It is true that some Scottish halberds have no rivetholes at all which strongly suggests that they were never hafted (see Chapter 2) but these are indeed exceptional within the corpus of European halberds as a whole. Also, as we will see later (Chapter 7), the rock-art strongly suggests that halberds could not be “imagined” without their shafts, since no examples of depictions of unhafted halberds are known (pace de la Peña Santos, 1980). Another possibility is that both haft and rivets were carefully removed before deposition, but we might ask how this could be done without damaging the rivet holes, which are invariably in excellent condition on type Breaghwy halberds, unless of course we think in terms of actually sawing or cutting the rivets off.
However, another possibility is that the construction of the rivets on these halberds was simply different to that used on other types and that this difference facilitated the loss of the rivets following deposition. As we shall see in the next section, the rivets used on type Breaghwy halberds must have been extremely thin, probably little more than 4mm thick on average as we shall see in the next section, compared with the much thicker and functional rivets used on other types of halberd. If, as is the case with the halberd from Breaghwy itself, the majority of these rivets were also originally equipped with separate conical caps, then we can begin to see what might happen. The halberd could be deposited with haft still attached and rivets still in place but once the wood decayed and the caps fell off, the tiny rivets themselves easily fall out and would be extremely difficult to find.
Returning to look at those halberds where the rivets have survived, the regularity of the representation of the different rivets is striking. Basically, rivets 1 and 3 turn up in roughly the same proportions, but rivet 2, the central one for Cotton and Carn, is shown to be the most vulnerable, and equally so across the types. Rivet 2 for Carn and Cotton is also generally the shortest and where it survives tends to be buckled, so does its position mark the location of greatest strain in the haft? Simple punching blows along the horizontal axis, however, should equally affect all three rivets and makes it difficult to understand what action the halberd could be put to that could so affect the central rivet above all others. The answer may lie in the construction of the haft itself. If the haft is considered not simply as a split-haft, but rather as having a solid back with an opening cut from the front to take the halberd, then we can see the main impact of a punching action as being absorbed by the back of the haft, rather than by the rivets. The rivets simply hold the halberd in place - they are not designed to stop it from
142 being pushed through the split sides of the haft. In this scenario it is the back of the hafting plate that will most suffer from impact and if the copper breaks here, the central rivet-hole may crack open. If we consider the halberd as subsequently deposited with haft intact (for which there is more evidence then one might suppose - see chapter 6), or even with just the haft head in place if the shaft has been cut off, then once the wood decays, the central rivet will fall out, but the others will remain in place, provided of course that their rivet holes have not been as badly damaged. This hypothesis is borne out by an examination of rivet-hole damage, which clearly shows that even where no rivets survive it is the central hole which is most often most seriously damaged.
The hypothesis outlined above may also suggest a functional basis for the triangular versus square hafting technique. As the back of the hafting plate is most likely to suffer from transmitted impact damage in the manner already described, it makes sense to reduce the number of rivets in this area and instead of putting two rivets at risk, to place one only in this area. In addition, by placing this rivet centrally, as well as maximising its ability to secure the metal, this position also protects it from potential damage arising from movement of the blade in the vertical plane. Practical experiment suggests that the blade can turn on this rivet, with any resulting damage more likely to be suffered by either the upper or lower rivet. If this hypothesis is true, it offers a functional explanation for the clear preference displayed by the EBA smith for the three-rivet haft over the apparently sturdier four-square technique.
RIVETHOLES
Introduction In terms of dimensions, there is really only one measurement to be considered in the case of rivet holes, ie diameter, and so there is clearly less material for us to discuss here than in the previous section on rivets. However, the holes also exhibit varying degrees of damage in many instances and analysis of this can contribute significantly to our understanding of the way in which halberds were used.
Diameters of rivet-holes Table 4.5 under summarises the information for diameter of rivetholes. The reason for looking at rivet-hole diameter is really to help us say in cases where no rivets survive what size they originally might have been: rivet-hole diameter is effectively being used here as a surrogate for rivet diameter and is obtained only in those cases where the rivet does not survive and the hole permits measurement. The rivet-hole itself will, of course, be generally a millimetre or so wider than the rivet it is designed to take and this must be remembered when looking at the data below.
143 Table 4.5 Type Data Total Breaghwy Average of RHDM 4.86 (7/11 halberds) Max of RHDM 5.5 Min of RHDM 4 Breaghwy? Average of RHDM 5 (1/1 halberd) Max of RHDM 5 Min of RHDM 5 Breaghy ally Average of RHDM 6 (1/1 halberd) Max of RHDM 6 Min of RHDM 6 Carn Average of RHDM 10.73 (11/37 halberds) Max of RHDM 16 Min of RHDM 8 Clonard Average of RHDM 10.625 (4/14 halberds) Max of RHDM 11.5 Min of RHDM 10 Cotton Average of RHDM 10.56 (27/69 halberds) Max of RHDM 17 Min of RHDM 3 Total Average of RHDM 9.62 Total Max of RHDM 17 Total Min of RHDM 3
Rivet hole diameters (RHDM) the fraction in the first column indicates the number of halberds out of the total population of that type from which the data was obtained.
For the most numerous halberd types, Carn and Cotton, the above table presents no particular surprises. The average rivet-hole on these halberds measures 10.7mm and 10.6mm respectively, which is fairly consistent with the average size of the rivets which have actually survived on these halberds. The maximum dimensions are also broadly consistent, at 16mm and 17mm respectively. In other words, although only a limited number of actual rivets have survived for examination, it appears from the evidence of the rivetholes that those rivets which have survived reflect fairly accurately the norm for rivets generally on Type Cotton and Carn halberds. The minimum rivet-hole diameter for Type Cotton halberds is surprisingly low, however, at just 3mm across - the lowest reading for rivetholes on any type of halberd in fact. These values come from a single halberd, the example from Bride Street, in Dublin [Ref: (NMI)R433], which was found with the blade deliberately bent backwards (see also Chapter 5). The rivets themselves must have been tiny and utterly useless if the halberd was intended for any sort of serious use. In this regard, it is interesting to note that this halberd appears to have been in perfect condition at the time of deposition, as well as the fact that its deposition is one of the more obviously ritual of any Irish halberd (see also Chapter 6). The tiny rivetholes on the Bride Street halberd are quite exceptional for this type of halberd, however: the vast majority of Cotton halberds (70% in fact) have rivet holes that measure 10mm across or more, while
144 the remainder are generally around the 9mm mark. The lack of wear on the Bride Street halberd, combined with its tiny rivetholes, contrasts sharply with the frequent evidence for wear found on other halberds with more “normal” sized rivets or rivetholes.
The rivetholes on type Clonard halberds are very consistent in terms of size, with maximum and minimum values of 11.5mm and 10mm. However, it should be realised that these statistics are derived from a small group of just four halberds. In most cases where there are no rivets surviving on this type of halberd, the outer rivetholes (nos.2 and 3) are also gone or are badly damaged, which means no measurements can be taken and no conclusions drawn. The values presented may not, therefore, reflect the true extent of variation on this halberd type, which as we have seen in the preceding sections, may have involved the use of different size rivets for the inner and outer holes.
The most valuable piece of information to be gleaned from an examination of rivet-hole diameter, however, is probably what it tells us about Type Breaghwy halberds. Information from 9 out of the total population of 13 halberds of this type is included in the above table, rendering the results particularly applicable to the group as a whole. It will be recalled from the previous section that only one rivet has actually survived on any of these halberds and so we must rely upon measurements of rivet-hole diameter for an indication of what size the rivets on such halberds might once have been. As we can see, the average rivet hole on Type Breaghwy halberds is just short of 5mm in diameter which suggests that the rivets which originally secured the blades were little more than 4mm thick. In addition, the range of rivet-hole sizes on this type of halberd is very narrow with a maximum value of 6mm and a minimum value of 4mm. It will be recalled that the one rivet which has survived measures just 6mm across as well. It is highly likely, therefore, that every Type Breaghwy halberd was fitted with more or less the same thickness of rivet. The diagram at Chart 4.7 shows how the dimensions of rivetholes on this type of halberd group themselves so distinctly from those of other halberds and shows how important rivet-size was and is in terms of defining the Type Breaghwy halberd.
145 Comparison of Rivethole Diameters for Halberd Types Breaghwy Clonard Carn 18 Cotton 16 14 12 10
mm 8 6 4 2 0
Breaghwy Halberds
Chart 4.7 Damage to Rivetholes For the purposes of identifying the rivetholes in this exercise, the numbering system described at the start of this chapter is used. In other words, the holes are numbered for the most part from 1-4, in an anti-clockwise fashion starting with the uppermost hole nearest the blade (fig 4.1 refers).
In order to create some frame of reference within which to compare damage to the holes themselves, a crude scoring-system has been devised as follows:
Table 4.6 Category Score holes which show no damage at all 0 points holes which are merely cracked 1 point holes which survive to at least half their original size 2 points holes which are now less than half their original size 3 points holes which have completely disappeared 4 points.
Scoring system for rivet-hole damage
The diagrams at fig 4.6 below may make this easier to understand:
146
Fig 4.6: Examples of rivet-hole damage. From left to right, these score 0,1,2,3 and 4 points respectively.
The scoring system does not take account of factors such as corrosion, which in certain cases could be responsible for increasing a score substantially, the holes being particularly vulnerable in such circumstances. Such instances are isolated, however, and having personally examined all halberds under consideration in the hand, I can state that in the majority of cases corrosion is not a significant factor.
Table 4.7 contains the data available relating to damage to halberd rivetholes. Where modern interference is apparent (such as with halberd Ref: (UM)A12601) or where for some reason the original hole is obscured and so cannot be “read” for damage (eg the eponymous Carn halberd [Ref: (NMI)1939/146]), no score at all is awarded. Instead, all such entries are categorised as “n.a”. No scores are awarded either where it is impossible to identify the holes properly, which is a common enough problem with Type Breaghwy halberds, because of the difficulty in determining which way is “up”. In this type of situation, however, if a rivet-hole is burst but unidentifiable, then this will be indicated in the “qualifiers” column. This helps us expand certain analyses, allowing for example a more accurate representation of the percentage of halberds whose rivetholes show no damage whatsoever. The points system, while crude, is intended to suggest general trends across the population of halberds as a whole and in such circumstances is believed to represent a valid enough exercise.
Overall, it can be shown that the vast majority of Irish halberds show rivet-hole damage of some sort. While it is not possible to say with confidence in every instance that the damage to the rivet holes happened in antiquity and while some has certainly been exaggerated or even caused by corrosion following deposition, in most cases it seems to be attributable to some purpose to which the halberd has been put in antiquity. An interpretation that it represents actual use-wear is supported by the fact that there is a pattern to the type of wear presented by the different rivetholes (of which more anon), and by the fact that such damage is often accompanied by other evidence such as denting, notching or buckling of the blade.
147 In fact, only 29 Irish halberds have survived to the present with all rivetholes intact, representing about 22% of the total population (Table 4.8 - Rev% figures refer). Of the principal halberd types, Type Breaghwy is most likely to be found with all rivetholes intact, 33% being found in this condition, closely followed by Type Clonard with nearly 29% presenting all rivetholes intact. The comparable figures for Type Carn and Type Cotton are just 17% and 20% respectively. Once more the close relationship between these two halberd types, together representing something like 80% of all Irish halberds, is stressed, while Type Breaghwy is again revealed as operating well outside the more widely established norms.
Table 4.8 Halberds Total All holes %Pop all Scorable Qualifiers Revised Rev.% Pop. Intact intact TotalPop All 135 29 21.5% 123 9 132 21.9%
Breaghwy 13 4 30.8% 7 5 12 33.3% Carn 37 6 16.2% 33 2 35 17.1% Cotton 69 14 20.3% 68 1 69 20.3% Clonard 14 4 28.6% 13 1 14 28.6% Misc 2 1 50.0% 2 0 2 50.0%
Halberds which display no damage to any rivetholes Note to Table 4.8 Scorable indicates halberds where it was possible to attribute individual scores to each rivet-hole; Qualifier inserts data for halberds which were not “scorable” but which have some burst rivet-holes; Rev% indicates the number of halberds which have completely intact rivetholes as a % of the qualified, scorable total.
The percentage of Type Clonard halberds which show absolutely no damage to their rivet holes is surprisingly high. It must be remembered of course that, as with Type Breaghwy, we are dealing with quite a small total population in the first place, and 29% only represents 4 halberds. However, unlike Type Breaghwy, which as we have seen tends to be a less “practical halberd”, Type Clonard halberds can show the most extensive evidence of notching and denting along the blade and are of course as a group the heaviest of all the halberd types. In such circumstances, one might reasonably expect that the hafting of these halberds should show wear - which of course it does in the majority of cases. When we look at the characteristics of the four Clonard halberds which do not have rivet hole damage (Table 4.9) we quickly note that all are in excellent condition and with the exception of the last show little or no evidence for wear along the edges and point. The fact that the rivetholes have survived intact to such an extent in these four halberds would seem, therefore, to result from the fact that they were not actually used very much before deposition. This itself strengthens the case in reverse for interpreting rivet-hole damage, where it occurs, as arising from actual use of the halberd.
148 Table 4.9 Ref: (NMI)Temp/132: Relatively light and thin for a Type Clonard halberd, weighing just 320g and measuring only 6mm thick. Survives in excellent condition, with edges still quite sharp. However, the slight buckling of the blade combined with two deep notches on the underside suggests it saw some use but obviously not enough to damage the rivet holes
Ref: (NMI)1927/44: This is a more “normal” looking Clonard, quite heavy and quite thick (407g and 10mm). However, the edges and point show no sign of wear (although they have possibly been rehoned). There is some evidence for impact damage along the sides of the rivetholes themselves.
Ref: (NMI)P255: This is a big heavy halberd, weighing nearly 649g and measuring 9.5mm thick. However, it is in excellent condition, with minor denting only and little other evidence of wear.
Ref: (NMI)R1576: This is quite thin and very light for a Type Clonard halberd, only 6.5mm thick and weighing just 219g. The edges and point are all intact and in good condition, although there is some notching on the lower side and a small dent on the upper side nearest the haft.
Descriptions of Type Clonard halberds with no rivet-hole damage
Turning to look at individual rivetholes on Irish halberds, a common pattern of damage can be observed for all halberd types, with the exception again of Type Breaghwy (Table 4.10 – note that it is the pattern of the scores which is important here: the fact that Type Breaghwy only scores a total of 8 for rivet-hole 1 while Cotton scores 73 is not important, as this is simply a function of smaller population. The second column figures which express each score as function of rivet-hole 2 in each case may help clarify the pattern). In the cases of types Carn, Cotton and Clonard the rivet-hole most often and/or most seriously damaged is rivet-hole 2. This is the central rivet-hole in the case of Carn and Cotton types and the uppermost outer rivet-hole in the case of type Clonard. In the latter case, it is noteworthy that Rivet-hole 3, the lower outer hole in Clonard halberds, can also display high levels of damage. It is clear for all three types that the rivet-holes nearest the back of the hafting plate are the ones most likely to be damaged. There is nothing too surprising in this and it would certainly be consistent with use of an implement which involves heavy punching blows. It is significant, therefore, that when we look at Type Breaghwy - which has already been shown to exhibit the least damage to rivetholes - that the pattern so evident in the other types of halberd is not reflected in this type at all. In fact, where scores are achieved at all, none of the rivetholes on Breaghwy halberds scores higher than any other: rivetholes 1, 2 and three score 8 points each. Allied with the other information gleaned to date, the fact that this halberd type shows least damage to its rivet holes and
149 ignores the pattern established by the other three types all suggest that Type Breaghwy halberds were being used in a different way.
Table 4.10 Carn Cotton Clonard Breaghwy Rivethole 1 35 0.6 73 0.7 0 0 8 1.0 Rivethole 2 59 1.0 98 1.0 17 1.0 8 1.0 Rivethole 3 41 0.7 72 0.7 14 0.8 8 1.0 Rivethole 4 0
Total of individual rivet-hole scores for the different halberd types. Second column figures in each case express the scores as a function of the score for rivet-hole 2.
The difference between the various rivet holes is most marked in the case of Type Carn, where the score for the central hole is approximately 50% higher than the other two holes. In the case of Type Cotton, the equivalent figure is 36%, perhaps indicating some improvement in the hafting technique, with the stress being more evenly distributed across all three rivetholes. If we think back to what is the major difference between Type Carn and Cotton halberds - the shape of the midrib - we might wonder whether the curved midrib on Type Cotton halberds is in any way responsible for the reduction in the scale of damage to the central rivet. With a straight midrib, such as that on type Carn, the shock of impact will be transmitted in a single straight line right back to the central rivet/rivet-hole, itself centred on the midrib. If the midrib is curved, however, the lines of shock may be dispersed somewhat and transmitted more evenly to other areas of the hafting plate It may well be, therefore, that the distinctive design of the Cotton midrib is in fact solidly grounded in improved functionality and that this explains the overwhelming popularity of this type of halberd.
In Type Clonard, the two inner holes (1 and 4) are never damaged, unlike their equivalents on Types Carn and Cotton, and it is likely that even if the outer two holes were broken the blade would still remain relatively secure in its haft. This would suggest that the four-square hafting technique may overall have been a better design, but if this was the case one might then wonder why it was not more popular. It is possible that this type of halberd may not have seen the same level of use as Types Carn and Cotton and that this is why the inner two holes are never damaged. However when we look in a little more detail at the damage suffered by the “outer” rivetholes (ie No.2 for Carn and Cotton and Nos. 2 and 3 for Clonard) there is very little differentiation between the three halberd types (Table 4.11 below refers). For types Carn and Cotton, in the region of 64% of all halberds in each case show damage to the outermost rivet-hole. The comparable figure for type Clonard is 62%. Since basically the same percentage of all three types shows damage to the outer rivets, it would certainly suggest that, as halberds, they are all being “used” in much the same way.
150 Table 4.11 Type Scorable Pop Outer Rivet-hole damaged % Carn 33 21 64% Clonard 13 8 62% Cotton 63 40 64%
Percentage of each type where the outer rivet-hole is damaged
Staying with these three types for the present, it is worth taking a closer look at the type of damage suffered by each rivet-hole and how frequently that occurs. Table 4.12 below summarises this information: Table 4.12 Rivethole 1 0 1 2 3 4 Carn 52% 12% 21% 9% 6% Cotton 43% 10% 37% 4% 6% Clonard 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% Rivethole 2 0 1 2 3 4 Carn 36% 3% 27% 12% 21% Cotton 37% 6% 35% 10% 12% Clonard 33% 0% 58% 8% 0% Rivethole 3 0 1 2 3 4 Carn 49% 6% 30% 9% 6% Cotton 50% 7% 29% 6% 7% Clonard 46% 0% 31% 15% 0%
Comparison of level of damage suffered by each rivet-hole
In the case of Rivet-hole 1, it can be seen that in around 40-50% of the scorable population of Carn and Cotton halberds this hole is intact (we have already noted that it is always intact in Type Clonard). The frequencies of different wear-levels are fairly constant for these two types of halberd. Where there is damage to this rivet-hole, it tends to fall into category 2, meaning that the hole has medium- levels of damage (remaining up to half its original size). A higher proportion of type Cotton falls into this category.
In the case of Rivet-hole 2, it can be shown that there is a proportionately greater tendency for this hole to be damaged and to a greater degree than either Rivet-hole 1 or 3. The majority, in fact, 57-66% across all three types show damage in the medium to high categories. What is interesting here is the fact that it is Type Clonard which is most frequently damaged to this extent.
For Rivet-hole 3, the picture is similar enough to Rivet-hole 1, in that a reasonably high percentage is undamaged, with relatively low returns for the highest category of damage too.
151
The statistics in Table 4.12 above, help us qualify our earlier comments about Type Clonard halberds. It had been suggested that because the two inner holes are never damaged this halberd-type may not have seen the same use as either Carns or Cottons. However, we were able to show (Table 4.11) that a similar percentage of Clonards display outer-hole damage as the other two types, which would certainly weigh against any suggestion that these halberds, as a type, were not used to the same extent as Carns and Cottons. In addition, we note (Table 4.12) that for Type Clonard, there are no half measures when it comes to rivet-hole damage - the hole is either intact or it is significantly damaged. It is never simply “cracked” as is often the case on a Cotton or Carn halberd. This either means that the hafting arrangement on a Clonard halberd is such that the outer rivetholes burst more seriously and more quickly than on other halberd types, or that the inner-holes provide sufficient stability to allow the blade to be used after the outer holes have been damaged initially, until such time as they become seriously weakened.
As regards Type Breaghwy, the evidence of rivet-hole damage adduced here supports the argument being developed elsewhere in this work for regarding this halberd type as quite different to all the others. A high proportion of this halberd type retains all rivetholes intact, and where damage does occur, it is as likely to occur on one rivet-hole as on any other. The pattern of damage, well established for the other three types, which sees Rivet-hole 2 as clearly the most vulnerable, is completely ignored by Type Breaghwy.
On the subject of the hafting plate, it has already been noted (Chapter 3) that the hafting plate on Irish halberds remains more or less the same size irrespective of such variables as length or weight. In other words, a big heavy 600g halberd is given the same hafting space as a lighter 200g example, ie around 40mm. In these circumstances one might wonder whether the heavier examples are more likely to burst their rivetholes than the lighter ones. However, when the available information is charted (see Chart 4.8 below), it comes as something of a surprise to find that the heavier halberds are no more likely to burst their rivetholes than the lighter ones. In this respect at least it might appear that a 40mm hafting-plate represents an optimal size for the type of use intended and that there is no advantage in increasing its size for heavier or longer blades. However, if we look again at Chart 4.8 there is a suggestion that, if anything, the heavier blades are slightly less likely to have seriously damaged rivetholes. The trend-line makes this easier to see.
152 Relationship of Weight to Rivethole Damage
80 Wt/10
70 Total Rivethole Score Linear (Wt/10) 60
50
40
30
20
10
0 1 8 15 22 29 36 43 50 57 64 71 78 85 92 99 106 113 120 127 134 -10 Individual halberds
Chart 4.8
Of itself, this relationship is not reliable enough for us to make any general assumption. However, when we chart the relationship between length and rivethole damage (Chart 4.9) a similar pattern emerges. It begins to look as if the “bigger” halberds are not seeing the same level of use as the lighter ones. In most cases, the increase in weight is directly related to an increase in overall length - in other words, heavier halberds = longer halberds, not thicker ones. If strict functionality is not the goal by increasing the length in this way, then perhaps “display” is closer to being the real goal of these longer, heavier halberds. Certainly, some of these halberds, for example those from the Hillswood Hoard, are very beautiful, ostentatious pieces. There may well be an argument, therefore, for seeing the smaller and relatively lighter halberds as being more functional weapons, while the bigger types were intended largely for display. It will be recalled that we noted something very similar in the first section when it seemed that - relatively speaking - the heavier halberds were less securely hafted than the lighter ones.
153 Relationship of Length with Rivethole Damage
Total Rivethole Score 45 Length/10 Linear (Length/10) 40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0 1 8 15 22 29 36 43 50 57 64 71 78 85 92 99 106 113 120 127 -5 Individual halberds
Chart 4.9
Finally, if we chart the information for rivet-hole damage and compare this to the evidence for impact damage already considered above (Chapter 3), it can be seen that there is a general correspondence between the two datasets (chart 4.10). Again, the addition of a trendline makes this much easier to see and it can be shown that as the scores for rivet-hole damage increase, so does the independently calculated score for impact damage. The clear conclusion is that the two are related and that the same force which is damaging the blades of Irish halberds is also responsible for bursting the rivetholes. This supports the thesis that both types of damage occurred in antiquity and that they result from use. The most obvious cause would be combat-use, with one blade striking another, notching the blade and straining the rivetholes.
154 Comparison of Impact Damage with level of damage to rivetholes
14 Impact Score Total Rivethole Score 12 Linear (Impact Score)
10
8
Scores 6
4
2
0 1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71 76 81 86 91 96 101 106 111 116 121 126 131 Individual halberds
Chart 4.10
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS In summary then, what does the rivet/rivet-hole evidence tell us about Irish halberds?
First and perhaps foremost, we can begin to reconstruct what the organic elements of the halberd must have looked like. We can say with a high degree of certainty that the head of the halberd was produced to a regular and careful design which sees it thickest at the top and tapering to the back. This is because in the vast majority of cases the uppermost rivet, Rivet 1, is the longest, while again in the vast majority of cases, the hindmost rivet, Rivet 2, is the shortest. Irish wooden-hafted halberds would therefore have looked very like the metal-shafted examples from Central and Northern Europe.
We know that, on average, the head would have been between 14 and 19mm thick and we can presume that the shaft was something similar. Type Clonard halberds probably had slightly thicker hafting all over, ie head and shaft. The rivet-heads would have protruded prominently from the wood and while the design was probably grounded in functionality, there seems little doubt that aesthetics played an increasingly important role, culminating perhaps in the functionless conical headed rivets of Type Breaghwy and other halberds.
The regularity of rivet diameters suggests that rivets were not cast as individual items of furniture but rather were cut-off to the length required from much longer bars of copper. These rivets display a regular relationship between their different parts: the rivet-head is always as wide as the torso is long,
155 suggesting that the idea of a regular design operated in the minds of the smiths, consciously or unconsciously. It was suggested above, in fact, that a rough “rule of thumb” was applied by the Bronze Age smith, whereby rivets were cut about twice as long as required to span the wood of the haft head at the point of contact, in order to ensure that sufficient surplus metal remained on either side to produce the characteristic domed heads. A reconstruction of the process of hafting, therefore, would see the smith assembling blade, carved shaft and rivet-bars together in advance, then cutting the required lengths of rivets from the bars and inserting these through shaft and blade leaving an equal amount on either side. The rivetholes in the shaft may have been countersunk, helping the beating down of the protruding rivets to regularly sized, highly domed rivet heads (and indeed allowing for the possibility of slightly thicker shafts than the torso lengths of the rivets might suggest).
The hafting of type Clonard halberds may have been a slightly more complex affair, since there is good evidence to suggest that rivets of different diameters were used for the inner and outer holes, with the outer ones tending to be a good bit narrower. Since type Clonard halberds have two outer rivets rather than the more usual one, centred, the intention may have been to limit the size of holes to be drilled in this vulnerable area of the haft and so reduce the danger of breakages.
The vulnerability of this area of the hafting plate, ie the back, is borne out by an examination of the survival of the different rivets which shows that rivet 2, ie the middle and hindmost one on most halberds, is the one most often missing. The rivet-hole evidence also shows that it is the hindmost rivet-hole(s) that are most often, most seriously damaged. This suggests strongly that here is the point of greatest strain within the haft and may explain the huge popularity of the triangular three-rivet hafting technique over the four-square approach, since this involves drilling only one hole in this area. It may also indicate that the back of the wooden haft-head itself was originally solid, since the repeated damage to the rivet hole in this area and the bending and denting of the back of hafting plate suggests impact against “something”, which would not be the case if we were talking about a straightforward “split” haft.
On the subject of rivet-hole damage generally, the vast majority of Irish halberds exhibit this type of damage, with only 22% surviving to the present with all holes intact. As already indicated, it is the middle, hindmost hole that is most usually damaged, with the upper and lower holes less so. Type Cotton may have been a better overall design than Type Carn insofar as protection of the rivetholes is concerned: the damage appears to be more evenly distributed across all the holes on this halberd type, rather than being focused so strongly on the central rivet-hole. In addition and relatively speaking, there are less instances of type Cotton halberds with seriously (category 4) damaged middle holes than there are of type Carn, and again this might be indicative of better overall design. Since the only significant difference between these two halberd types is the fact that type Cotton has a curved midrib,
156 this may have played a role, perhaps by transmitting the shock of impact more evenly across the three holes, or at least more towards the lower hole, which would be more deeply imbedded in the haft.
The pattern of rivet-hole damage across type Clonard halberds is quite distinctive: the inner holes are never damaged, while the outer holes - when they are damaged - tend to be quite seriously burst. This suggests either fundamental strengths or weaknesses in the Clonard design: either the design is so good that it allows the halberd to remain in use even after the outer holes have been damaged; OR the design is such that the outer holes burst more quickly than they do on other halberd types, and before the inner holes have been damaged significantly or at all. Only practical experiment will show which is the case, but the fact that the Clonard type never became popular would suggest that the design was not markedly better than the three rivet type.
Type Breaghwy halberds are quite different from the rest. In the first place, very, very few rivets survive at all on these halberds and this does not seem to have been a result of carelessness on the part of the finders. Nor does this seem to have been a result of heavy use in antiquity - on the contrary, these halberds present the least evidence of any for wear, either on the rivetholes or on the blades themselves (Chapter 3 refers). There was clearly something about the way in which these rivets were made and fitted that contributed to their eventual loss after(?) deposition. The rivet-hole diameters certainly suggest that the rivets once used on these halberds must have been very much thinner than those on other halberds, less than 5mm thick in fact versus the more usual 10mm. The fact that the one rivet left in situ, on the Moylough halberd, has such a narrow head strongly suggests that - like the rivets once attaching to the eponymous Breaghwy halberd - it was originally fitted with separate conical caps. If this was the practice with Breaghwy halberds generally, than this would have made the riveting very insecure and very liable to fall apart and out.
Type Breaghwy halberds also differ from the rest in the way in which damage to the rivet-holes (when it occurs) can be found on any of the holes, and totally ignores the pattern respected by all the other halberd types, which sees the hindmost holes suffering most damage. This, allied to the weakness of the hafting itself, strongly suggests that type Breaghwy halberds were never intended to see the same use as the other types and may well have been specifically designed for display.
On the same subject, it is interesting to note that the longer, heavier halberds tend to be fitted with more or less the same size rivets as are used on their smaller cousins. This means that, in relative terms, these halberds must have been less securely fastened, allowing for their greater weight and/or length. When the rivet-hole damage was examined, it was noted that there was no evidence to suggest that such damage was more usual on these bigger, heavier halberds than on the smaller ones, notwithstanding the fact that they were relatively less securely hafted. If all halberds were receiving the same type of use, one would expect that - all else being equal - these big halberds should burst their
157 hafting more quickly and easily than the others. This is not the case and, if anything, the tendency towards such injury is in fact less. This strongly suggests that the bigger, heavier Irish halberds were more intended for display than use, which by contrast may emphasise the primarily functional quality of their smaller relatives.
In this regard, when the data for rivet-hole damage and for impact damage along the blade was compared, it could be seen that there was a general correspondence between the two types of wear. In other words, higher incidences of rivet-hole damage are linked to higher levels of impact damage on the blades. The clear conclusion is that the two are indeed related and that whatever is damaging the blades on Irish halberds is also responsible for bursting the rivetholes. The correspondence between the two reinforces the view that both sets of damage occurred in antiquity and it begins to seem increasingly likely that what we are looking at here is in fact combat use. This is not in any way to deny a ritual character to these weapons - studies of combat in many societies clearly attest to its ritualised nature. However, what is important to say is that these weapons were not simply for display - they were meant to be used and the evidence supports that.
158
Chapter 5
Meetings with remarkable halberds
In every direction upon these moors there were traces of some vanished race which had passed utterly away, and left as its sole record strange monuments of stone, irregular mounds which contained the burned ashes of the dead, and curious earthworks which hinted at prehistoric strife.
- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, The Cornish Horror.
INTRODUCTION In the preceding two chapters, we took an overall view of all the Irish halberds, establishing the general principles which seem to apply to their form, design and practicality. In this chapter it is proposed to look in detail at a number of individual halberds which are “remarkable” for one reason or another and which offer particular insight into aspects such as use and re-use, hafting, chronology, functionality and purpose. Each of these halberds has something to contribute, even if it is just to add some colour – it would be a shame to leave them out, so instead they have been awarded a chapter of their own. The colourful quote heading off this chapter sets the tone for what follows: this is flotsam and jetsam, scraps of information, bits that are connected and more that is not.
THE HALBERDS
The Brockley Halberd [Ref: (UM) A366.1961] Statistics This halberd was found in Ballygill Middle, Rathlin Island. We have Length 263mm neither date nor context for the find, but it was secured as an Breadth 97mm acquisition by the Ulster Museum in 1961 (Flanagan, 1963). The Thickness 7mm halberd is of Type Breaghwy and is covered in a light grey-green Rivetholes 5+ patina. It is 263 mm long but broken in two pieces, both of which Condition Good survive. There are at least 5 tiny rivetholes distributed in a line around the edge of the hafting-plate, all measuring about 4mm in diameter and all with the exception of one in the centre are burst. The remarkable thing about this halberd is that when one examines the surviving rivet-hole it becomes apparent that trapped within it are the remains of the original rivet. This is visible only on close inspection, since on first glance it might be taken that the rivethole is simply blocked by some corroded metal.
159
What is of particular interest here is that the rivet in question appears to have been quite neatly shorn off and there is every indication that this happened in antiquity. The presence of the rivet suggests that the halberd was once shafted; its cutting in antiquity suggests that this shaft was removed in its entirety before deposition. How long before, it is impossible to say, but the fact that the blade is broken without any evidence for actual wear suggests, as with other Type Breaghwy halberds (Chapter 3), the possibility of deliberate destruction.
Fig 5.1: The Brockley halberd (Harbison, 1969a: Pl.23)
An unprovenanced Irish halberd in the National Museum of Scotland [Ref: (NMS) DK2] Statistics This is a type Cotton halberd, about 275mm long – originally a bit Length 275mm longer as the point is buckled – and generally in very good condition, Breadth 73.5mm apart from the aforementioned buckling and some damage to the Thickness 7mm hafting plate. It is this damage to the hafting plate which has won a Rivetholes 3 place for this halberd in this chapter. Condition Good The halberd is listed and drawn in Harbison’s 1969 Catalogue (No. 266). The drawing is reproduced here (fig 5.2) and as can be seen, it illustrates a halberd with a portion of the hafting plate apparently cut off. In fact, examination of the halberd reveals that the hafting plate is not cut-off at all – it is simply buckled and folded over. A rough drawing by the author illustrates the actual damage suffered (fig 5.3).
What is significant about this is that the Fig 5.2: DK2 (Harbison, 1969a: Pl 20) buckling at the back of the hafting plate could not have occurred if the central rivet
160 was still in place at the time – the metal is folded, not torn, nor is it otherwise stretched in a way which might have accommodated the rivet. The rivet must have been removed before the hafting plate was damaged. Furthermore, while we have no details of discovery, the damage appears ancient and is similar to that found on other halberds. The safest conclusion appears to be that the current state of damage reflects a process that occurred in antiquity, prior to deposition: either all three rivets were removed first, along with the haft, and the plate was then deliberately or accidentally damaged; or having Fig 5.3: actual damage – plate is first removed the rivets, the blade was then folded rather than broken dislodged from the shaft by the delivery of a blow to the back of the haft-head, resulting in the damage apparent today. Whatever is the case, this is an intriguing find and one which adds some complexity to our understanding of processes prior to deposition.
Two halberds from the Hunt Collection: Cuenca, Spain and Beyrǔt, Syria [Ref: Hunt collection – Nos.696-7]
These are two quite unique halberds. Neither is Irish and for that reason neither is included in this study, per se. However, they deserve some brief discussion since they are of unusual form and since they appear to have escaped attention for some 60 years. The first (Hunt Coll. No. 696) is from Cuenca in Spain. It is of unusual form, as the rough drawing by the author clearly illustrates (fig 5.4), in that instead of being secured to the haft by rivets, this halberd is equipped with a cast socket into which the shaft Statistics was slotted. This – allied with the fact that it appears to be made of Length 178 mm bronze – probably means that it is relatively late, even in Spain. The Breadth 60.5mm surface was originally extensively covered with a dark green patina Thickness 11mm and is heavily pitted and porous, suggesting a poor casting. The sides Shafthole 30x20mm are too corroded to determine wear, but the blade was at some stage Condition corroded broken and then glued back together. It weighs around 300g.
161
Fig 5.4: The Cuenca Halberd Fig 5.5: The Syrian halberd
The second halberd is also quite distinctive, as can be seen from the rough illustration from my own working notes reproduced here at fig 5.5.
It is quite unlike the Irish and European halberds both in terms of its size and method of hafting. The blade is quite short and stubby, with a rounded point and two lentoid openings near the shaft, which were possibly used for helping fix the blade in place (see Yamamura, 2002, illustration of Statistics Japanese halberd). At just 107mm long, this is a very small blade but Length 107mm it is also quite thick, about 17mm at its thickest point in fact, which is Breadth 61mm far more than any Irish halberd. It also weighs around 270g which Thickness 17mm makes it quite heavy for its size. The blade is in excellent condition, Shafthole 30x20mm with only minor corrosion damage at the tip. It appears to have been Condition excellent originally covered with a bright green patina and is described un the museum register as being of bronze. Like the example from Cuenca, this halberd is equipped with a deep socket which provides for a strong hafting arrangement and while there can be no certainty of length of shaft, the size of the socket indicates that it was oval in section and about 20mm thick by 30mm wide.
Having described these two halberds in some detail, the reader may well wonder why they are singled out in particular for attention here. The reason is that Ó Ríordáin (1937) mentions two halberds which seem to fit the description of these two now in the Hunt Collection. The passage reads as follows:
162 “Another from Cuenca is an unusual type with a loop form of socket. Though I have included this example, I have no evidence of its date. There is another, more elaborate because it has a perforated blade, in the St. Albans Museum, from the Ball Collection. Beyond the information that it comes from Spain there is no closer localization. I have not seen this class of halberd figured or discussed anywhere.” (ibid 288).
A drawing is included of the first halberd from Cuenca (fig 5.6), and this is clearly the one now in the Hunt Museum. Ó Ríordáin does not say in the text where he examined this halberd, but in the catalogue it is listed as being in St Albans. The second halberd, which Ó Ríordáin apparently also believed from Spain, is not included in his catalogue at all nor is there any drawing. However, its description closely matches the “Syrian” halberd in the Hunt Museum, which according to their records was acquired together with the Cuenca halberd from St Albans.
In the circumstances I believe it is highly likely that both halberds now in the Hunt Collection are those referred to by Ó Ríordáin in the passage quoted above. Some doubt over provenance must be allowed with regard to the second halberd – Ó Ríordáin may simply have been misinformed, or on the other hand the halberd may be from Spain and not Syria. In support of the latter hypothesis, it should be said that the proportions of the shaft-sockets in both cases are exactly the same. One way or another, one small mystery may have been solved and the present Fig 5.6: The “Cuenca” halberd as drawn in whereabouts of these two most interesting Ó Ríordáin, 1937 (fig 68). halberds is now established.
An unprovenanced halberd in the Ulster Museum [ref: (UM) A.12601] Statistics Length 270mm Ó Ríordáin (1937) comments that this halberd has an “unusually Breadth 56mm shaped hafting plate” (p.308) and a glance at the drawing in Fig 5.7 Thickness 7.5mm will show what he means. In all other respects a ‘normal’ type Rivetholes 3 (remains) Carn halberd, the hafting plate on this halberd is quite unlike any Condition rehoned other and indeed there were some question marks over its classification as a halberd at all. However, examination in the hand leaves one in no doubt that this is indeed a halberd, and indeed probably of type Carn, as Harbison declared. Nonetheless, there is still the matter of that peculiar hafting plate that puzzled
163 Ó Ríordáin. On close inspection, however, all becomes clear: the unusual hafting plate is revealed in fact to be a quite normal one which has been cut down and squared-off to create a tang for rehafting. The remains of the original two rivet holes are just about visible on either side, while the third is also discernible as a slight concavity at the top of what is now the tang. The excellent condition of the edges and the point, which have been extensively rehoned and sharpened, strongly suggests that the remodelling as a tanged implement took place in relatively modern times. While we know nothing Fig 5.7: Halberd A12601, remodelled about where this halberd was found, who found it more recently with a tanged haft and why it was remodelled (presumably as an (Harbison, 1969a: pl 10). agricultural implement) it is somehow satisfying to reflect on the long useful life of this Bronze Age implement. First cast 4000 years ago, deposited in all probability as a deliberate offering, its modern finder could connect sufficiently with its form and shape to re-imagine it in a new guise and with new purpose.
A halberd from Cork in the Ulster Museum [Ref: (UM) A192-1965] Statistics Length 161mm This is a most interesting halberd, mentioned but not figured or Breadth 105mm classified in Thickness 11mm Harbison Rivetholes 3 (remains) (1969). The Condition good halberd consists of a short stubby blade, with a broad, axe-like edge to the point. The hafting plate is broken so it is unclear precisely how many rivetholes were originally present, certainly three but possibly four. The halberd “feels” like a type Clonard, and so a four-rivet hafting arrangement might be expected. Fig 5.8: the broken and re-edged halberd from Co. Cork. (Museums and Galleries of However, the line of the hafting plate as Northern Ireland: Ulster Museum). well as the size and position of the surviving rivetholes makes it more likely that this halberd was secured with the three-rivet arrangement of types Carn or Cotton. The midrib is narrow, flat and straight, ruling the halberd
164 out as type Cotton. The midrib is also notable in that its thickest part is closest to the “point” which is quite unexpected – normally it is thickest nearer the hafting plate.
The explanation may lie in some well observed antiquarian comments. An old handwritten label with the find describes it as “part of a halberd blade. Co. Cork. Leycester Colln”.
A further clue comes with the information that the find is ex-Day Collection, lot 289a, purchased on 21 July, 1965. The description in the Day Catalogue, Sale 40, no.289 (there is no 289a) sounds like this halberd and it is suggested there that the blade was broken and re-edged in antiquity. When one re-examines the halberd armed with this hypothesis, things seem much clearer. This is probably a type Carn halberd, originally up to 300mm long, on the basis that type Carn halberds tend to be about three times as long as they are wide (Chapter 3). This would make it both one of the longest Carn halberds known, and one of the heaviest, as even in its current state it weighs 587.2g. It is also one of the widest and thickest halberds known. It was probably broken about half-way along its length, but was salvaged and re-edged, and presumably rehafted for use. The unusual thickness of the midrib close to what now is the “point” is thus explained by the fact that originally this was in the middle of the blade.
If this interpretation is in fact correct, then this is one of the best examples of a halberd being reused and rehafted after suffering serious damage to the blade. It testifies to an original functionality and to the practical use to which some halberds at least were put.
The Blackwater Halberds [Ref: (UM) A5024 and A5011]
Statistics: A5011 These two halberds (not illustrated) were found with a metal Length 303mm detector in spoil thrown up from two dredgings of the River Breadth 64mm Blackwater, Co. Tyrone, which were carried out in 1968-72 and Thickness 6mm 1984-91. One is a type Carn and the other is a type Cotton, both Rivetholes 3 fitting reasonably well into the expected dimensions of each type, Condition Good (bent) although both might be considered a little thin perhaps. Statistics: A5024 Length 292mm What is surprising and indeed completely unexpected is that Breadth 59.5mm analysis has shown that both of these halberds are made of bronze, not copper. It leaves open the possibility that other un-analysed Thickness 5mm Irish halberds which it has been assumed are made of copper, may Rivetholes 3 in fact be of bronze. It is of some interest that typologically Condition broken earlier halberds were for a while at least, made in bronze and that the emergence of the new alloy does not always herald a shift to type Breaghwy halberds.
165
The Carn Halberd, Co. Mayo [Ref: (NMI) 1939:146]
Statistics This is one of the most famous of all Irish halberds and has Length 190mm had enormous influence on the way in which halberds have (visible blade only) been interpreted. It will be discussed again in the next Breadth 79mm Chapter as it has much to tell us about context, but it Thickness 85mm deserves an entry here too amongst the remarkable Rivetholes 3 halberds. It was found in August, 1939 by Thomas Farrell Condition good in a bog at Carn, Tirawley, Lacken, Co. Mayo. The find is quite unique in that the halberd was found with the handle intact and in relatively good condition. The blade is also in good condition, although the edges show evidence of rehoning in parts – it is difficult to say when this occurred, though.
As regards the handle itself, when found this was reportedly about “as thick as the handle of a pickaxe” and about 4ft long in all (3ft 6inches according to Raftery, 1942). Unfortunately, the finder tore the handle off. It survived, however, long enough to be examined, for analysis to show that it was made of oak and for a “replica” to be made in which the halberd is now fixed (fig 5.9).
Just how accurate this replica is unclear: it is certainly not “as thick as the handle of a pickaxe” as the finder Thomas Farrell declared, being only around 1.5cm thick – it Fig 5. 9: The reconstructed Carn Halberd may well be that the original had shrunk (National Museum of Ireland). considerably by the time the replica was modelled, which would explain the varying reports of length and thickness. However, other elements of the replica’s design may reflect the original more closely: the shaft is of flat rectangular section, unlike the oval sectioned shafts of the metal hafted halberds of Central Europe but quite like the little halberd pendants of Wessex; the head is split to take the blade but is neatly patched with a separate piece along the seam at the back and top. It is frustrating not to be able to say with certainty that these faithfully follow features of the original shaft. However, as has been shown elsewhere (O’Flaherty, Rankin and Williams, 2002), there is good evidence that the backs on Early Bronze Age shafts were solid
166 too, since the hafting plates are often buckled at the back, presumably from impacting on something. A rectangular-sectioned shaft would also be consistent with a fundamentally functional purpose to the weapon, as indeed would an oval shaft, since both give greater purchase in wielding the blow and more resilience: a round sectioned shaft could twist in the hand and would be more inclined to break.
Rough Island, Co. Derry. [Ref: (NMI) 1938:266] Statistics Length 276mm This halberd was found “near” Rough Island, Portglenane, Co. Derry Breadth 115mm and is a classic example of the Breaghwy type of halberd. It is a wide, Thickness 5mm flat, thin halberd made of bronze of a distinct rich golden colour. The Rivetholes 3 midrib is also wide and flat and accentuated by light incising. Like so Condition Perfect many type Breaghwy halberds, the intention of the Rough Island example seems to have been to display the maximum metal to maximum advantage, irrespective of the implications this might have for functionality. The rivet- holes are tiny – just 5mm across – and presumably intended to receive the type of narrow, conical headed rivets which once secured the eponymous Breaghwy Halberd itself. The hafting-plate is shallow, again a distinctive feature of this type of halberd.
The design of this halberd, as described above, makes no concessions to functionality. In the circumstances, it is not surprising that this halberd shows no evidence for wear. What is remarkable, however, is its perfect state of preservation which allows us to declare with confidence that this halberd has never been used. It is absolutely perfect in every respect – the rivetholes show no wear, the blade is completely intact, the edges fine and sharp with what appears to be a wide cast-on bevel and no Fig 5.10: the perfect halberd from Rough evidence whatsoever of rehoning. The Island, Co. Derry (National Museum of point too is perfect, with no sign of wear, Ireland) rehoning or the slightest buckling. Some slight denting on the lower side, near the point, is visible, with some very minor notching on the upper side: both are clearly accidental and not unexpected given the extreme thinness of the edges at these points (fig 5.10).
167
The Rough Island halberd is included here as indisputable proof that some Irish halberds were never used, or indeed intended by their design to receive use. In this particular case, one could even argue whether the halberd was ever hafted at all. However, the fact that is drilled to receive rivets probably means that it was hafted: in the case of the very similar Breaghwy Halberd, which is also in near perfect condition, there is no doubt that it was once hafted. There are some Scottish halberds without rivetholes and these appear to have been deposited without ever being hafted, the blade itself being what was important. There is no evidence for such separation of the integral components of the halberd here in Ireland and even those halberds which apparently neither saw, nor were intended to see, use were still hafted presumably for display.
Bride Street, Dublin [Ref: (NMI) R433] Statistics Length c.312mm This halberd earns its place in this chapter by virtue of its Breadth 64.5mm present shape which presents the most telling evidence for Thickness 8mm deliberate destruction prior to deposition. As can be seen (fig Rivetholes 3 5.11) the halberd when found was bent back in a manner Condition Bent over but which could not result from normal use but which must otherwise perfect instead have been deliberately inflicted before deposition. The halberd is a type Cotton, long and narrow, with thick deposits and heavy green patination. Underneath the deposits the edges of the blade are quite intact and apart from being bent over, the halberd is otherwise perfect. The rivetholes are tiny, just 3mm in diameter. Such small rivetholes are virtually unknown on a type Cotton halberd and are much more characteristic of type Breaghwy. No rivets survive, but they most have been so thin as to be completely useless if the halberd was ever intended to be put to any practical purpose. One presumes that, for appearance’s sake, they were originally equipped with large hollow Fig 5.11: The deliberately bent halberd from conical caps like that found on the Bride St, Dublin (Harbison, 1969a: Pl. 14). halberd from Breaghwy, or indeed on an unprovenanced type Cotton halberd in the National Museum of Ireland [Ref: (NMI)W271]. The rivetholes and hafting-plate are completely intact.
168
The Bride Street halberd was clearly in perfect condition at the time of deposition. Indeed, as already indicated, the size of its rivetholes suggests that it was never intended to be used at all. Furthermore, it seems likely that the haft would have been removed prior to deposition, as it would have been difficult to bend the halberd as far over as it is now with the haft still in place. Indeed, we might legitimately wonder whether it was ever hafted at all. In terms of typology, it represents an interesting mix of type Cotton and type Breaghwy features; functionally, it seems to belong to the more ceremonial phase of halberd use, epitomised by the larger Cotton halberds and by the type Breaghwy halberds as a whole. We might assume a relatively late date for this halberd.1
A badly damaged halberd from Co. Cavan [Ref: (NMI) W234] Statistics Length 300mm This is a type Cotton halberd, provenanced only to county Cavan. The Breadth 81mm blade is long and narrow, and slightly scythed with a strong narrow Thickness 8mm midrib. What is Rivetholes 3 remarkable about this Condition worn halberd is the amount of use it appears to have received. There are three rivetholes, the middle one burst, the other two retaining their rivets. The rivets are thick and strong (10mm in diameter), with high domed heads. The point is broken but there is evidence of rehoning at the midrib. The blade is slightly buckled and there is evidence for rehoning of the edges in this area as well. The most remarkable feature of this halberd, however, is the condition of the edges: these are heavily notched along the upper side, including several very clean cuts, almost all at right-angles to the blade; heavy denting occurs also, this time mostly on the underside of the blade. The combination of such serious damage to the blade, along with the burst rivethole, broken point, slight buckling and rehoned areas Fig 5.12: The halberd from Co. Cavan. Notched, strongly suggest that this halberd has seen dented, buckled and broken, this halberd has clearly action. been used. (National Museum of Ireland).
1 Stephen Harrison (pers comm) has very recently suggested that this halberd was actually part of a Viking Age burial from Bride Street and that the bending of the blade may date from that period of use.
169
An unprovenanced, primitive halberd [Ref: (NMI) W256] Statistics Length 148.5mm This is a very primitive halberd of Clonard-type. It is just 148.5mm Breadth 82.5mm long, and as the illustration shows, one third of this length is given Thickness 6mm over to the hafting plate meaning that the blade itself is only 99mm Rivetholes 4 long. The point is very broad and blunt and there is no midrib to Condition good speak of, just a low medial swelling. The edges are blunt but intact. The hafting plate is clearly defined from the blade by a transverse line. There are four rivetholes, the inner two intact and the outer – which are smaller in diameter – are both burst.
This halberd is very simply cast and there is no evidence that I can see to suggest use of a bivalve mould of any kind. This is the only Irish halberd which could conceivably have been cast in an open mould and so it would be tempting to interpret it as very early, perhaps the earliest of the halberds. Indeed, this is precisely how Ó Ríordáin (1937) interprets it and, as a consequence, is probably the main reason why he sees the four-rivetted Clonard type of halberd as earlier than any other type.
However, we need to remember that the use of open moulds for producing axes continued for Fig 5.13: a very simple halberd, apparently cast centuries after the technique of bivalve casting in an open mould (Harbison, 1969a: Pl 22) was introduced for halberd production and it would be surprising if the occasional attempt was not made to produce a halberd this way. The Clonard type of halberd can be extremely sophisticated and indeed some of the finest Irish halberds belong to this type. There is no reason to regard the type as a whole as earlier than any other. The halberd under consideration here is interesting precisely because it is so unusual and by its very rarity underlines once more the remarkable technological consistency displayed by virtually every other halberd.
Three rehafted halberds [Refs: (NMI) R1979, W233 and W267] These three halberds, all unprovenanced, are extremely interesting because each seems to have been rehafted at some stage in antiquity.
170 Statistics The first, R1979, is a type Carn halberd with the remains of no less Length 264mm than six rivetholes, three of which are burst to a lesser or greater Breadth 92mm extent. One rivet survives in a central rivethole and this is both long Thickness 10mm (29mm overall, 25.5mm inside leg) and narrow (6mm). Rivetholes 6 Reconstructing the sequence of hafting is a little difficult, but it looks Condition corroded as if the halberd was first hafted as a three rivet Carn, of which only the remains of these outermost holes survive, and then rehafted in Clonard fashion with four smallish rivetholes and an unusually thick haft. The fact that it is in one of these “inner” holes that the sole surviving rivet is found supports the thesis that these four holes represent the final hafting arrangement. It is impossible to know what happened but the adoption of the rugged four-square rivet arrangement and a new, very thick haft suggests that however the halberd broke first, its owner was determined it would not happen again!
Fig 5.14: three rehafted halberds (Harbison, 1969a: Pls. 10, 18 and 22)
The second halberd, W233, is classified as a type Cotton by Harbison, but it could just as easily be a type Clonard depending on the sequence of hafting. Six rivetholes Statistics survive – a possible seventh is suggested in Harbison’s drawing, Length 316.5mm reproduced above, at the very end of the hafting plate but I could find Breadth 86mm no trace of this and indeed Harbison himself states that there are just Thickness 5.5mm six rivetholes (1969a, p.51). He interprets the six rivetholes as Rivetholes 6 representing two groups of three: one group, made up of the biggest Condition perfect holes, forms a triangle pointing away from the blade, while the second, consisting of smaller holes, forms a triangle pointing towards the blade. Harbison (1969a) considers that this halberd was originally hafted using the three biggest holes and that when these became redundant it was rehafted using the three small holes. This was my original interpretation of the sequence too, but I continued to have problems with
171 the positioning of these hypothetical first three holes in such a square hafting plate – they simply are not in the right place for a type Cotton halberd and the shape of the hafting plate is also alien to the type. A greater understanding of the way in which type Clonard halberds are hafted has changed my opinion about the sequence of hafting here. Type Clonard halberds often have two different sizes of rivethole, the innermost being somewhat bigger than the outermost. I believe this halberd was originally hafted as a Clonard and that when the outermost hole burst and its diagonal partner cracked, it was rehafted with the addition of two new holes drilled in the centre. If the halberd was hafted originally according to Harbison’s hypothesis, there seems little reason why it would require rehafting as those three holes survive quite well.
Of course, another fundamental question to be asked of this particular halberd is why did it need to be rehafted at all? The blade is in excellent condition, with point and edges quite perfect. A very attractive double groove-and-bevel, which is particularly accomplished where it meets the point, testifies to the display impulse, while its perfect condition leaves us in no doubt that this halberd has neither seen wear or had this disguised by rehoning. It is possible that the halberd was simply “in use” long enough to require a new haft or that a new haft was required for aesthetic reasons. It is of course also possible that all six rivetholes are contemporary and that this was simply a design feature to facilitate display of multiple rivet heads.
Some support for this notion might be found with our last halberd, W267, which although in poor condition, presents a very similar hafting arrangement. Five rivet holes survive and a sixth may well have been found near the blade in an area now broken away.
Despite its similarity to the example just discussed, Harbison classifies this halberd as a type Clonard, presumably believing that in this instance the four- Statistics square hafting arrangement was used first. The halberd has Length 218mm seen a lot of damage – some certainly is wear and the point is Breadth 55mm broken, but much is also corrosion. It was clearly much broader Thickness 5mm originally and the hafting plate seems to have been squared and Rivetholes 5 shouldered. For the reasons discussed above, a three rivet Condition Worn/corroded hafting arrangement does not “fit” with this type of plate design, but a Clonard type arrangement most certainly would. The sequence of hafting was probably, therefore, as outlined for W233 above, in other words this is a rehafted type Clonard halberd. As with W233, however, it is also possible that the rivetholes are all contemporary but the fact that a single, quite narrow rivet survives in the innermost hole might suggest that it belongs to a later rehafting.
172 Impressions on the blades [Refs: (NMI) W236, W268 and R459]
Statistics: W236 A small number of halberds bear some unusual impressions along Length 307mm the blade. W236 is an almost perfect type Cotton halberd, displaying no wear and with just one rivethole broken, the others retaining their Breadth 75mm rivets. The surface of the halberd has an unusual granular Thickness 8mm appearance, as if just removed from the mould and never ground or Rivetholes 3 polished. Condition good
Across the surface in one area are curious impressions, which resemble long leaves, or perhaps Statistics: W268 grass stems. These are just discernible in the photograph below. Length 215mm Similar veining can be seen on W268. How exactly these Breadth 79.5mm impressions were produced I cannot tell. They may be casting flaws, Thickness 8.5mm resulting from some imperfection in the mould – perhaps even grass Rivetholes 2 survive or stem impressions if the mould was of clay or sand. They might Condition Worn/ also arise from contact with decaying vegetation over the millennia corroded of deposition. They might even suggest wrapping of the blade in some organic material prior to deposition.
173
In this regard, a halberd from Mallow, R459, is of particular interest. This halberd, which is a short, broad blade of type Carn, retains what may be the impression of fabric on the midrib. This is just about visible in the photograph but is more obvious in the hand. The interpretation in this instance seems to be that the blade was actually wrapped in some Statistics: R459 form of closely woven cloth prior to deposition, which has now Length 206mm decayed away but has left its impression upon the blade. The fact that Breadth 107mm this impression is on the midrib and not elsewhere adds weight to this Thickness 8mm interpretation as this is the area most likely to have full contact with Rivetholes 3 any wrapping material, which would presumably be stretched tautly Condition Worn across the midrib. The halberd from Ballybogey, Co.Antrim, which I have not examined personally, is also reported to bear such markings (Ó Ríordáin, 1937, p.307). Discoveries of this nature add colour and depth to the developing picture of depositional practice.
174 FINAL WORDS
The halberds considered here all throw light on different aspects of the problem or add complexity to our understanding of how these artefacts were made and used. These halberds were not always made by master craftsmen and we have seen one example which looks to have been produced in an open mould. Impressions left on others may suggest the use of either clay or sand moulds but may also have derived from the manner of deposition. The imprint of what appears to be fabric in one instance hints at the possibility that some blades were wrapped before deposition and one immediately thinks of the sheath in which the Brockagh axe was found. Certainly, some blades appear to have been removed from the haft prior to deposition while others, notably the Carn Halberd, were clearly deposited shaft intact. Others amongst these “remarkable” halberds testify to ritual destruction of the blade prior to deposition, the best example undoubtedly being the halberd from Bride Street, Dublin. Some halberds were never “used” in the conventional sense, such as that from Rough Island, whereas a halberd like that from Co. Cavan above has been hacked, rehoned, and hacked again before finally bursting its rivetholes and thus ending its functional existence. However, a halberd like this which seems to have seen considerable action may have become a much-valued weapon and its final deposition may have represented a major offering to the gods. Other halberds show signs of rehafting and prolonged use – it will be recalled that one even appears to have seen use in modern times.
The halberds considered here are in many ways a microcosm of Irish halberds generally. Individually, they illustrate many of the contradictions inherent in this type of artefact and hopefully in doing so have added some colour and personality to the subject in hand.
175 Chapter 6
Context, Distribution and Associations
I heard a report that, at the time when this great cue was built, all the inhabitants of that mighty city, placed offerings of gold and silver and precious stones in the foundations, and bathed them in blood of prisoners of war, whom they had sacrificed. They also put there every kind of seed that grew in their country, so that their idols should give them victories and riches and great crops. - Bernal Díaz The Betrayal of Montezuma.
______
SECTION 1: CONTEXT
Overview For the vast majority of Irish halberds, we have no details whatsoever of context. In fact, of the 186 known Irish halberds, 75% are without such information. The position varies across each of the halberd types (Table 6.1) and it is noteworthy that the halberd type with fewest members, type Breaghwy, is actually the one with the highest proportion of contexted finds1.
Table 6.1 Type Total Pop Contexted % of those Contexted Carn 51 27.4% 8 13.7% 16.7 Cotton 93 50% 29 32.3% 60.4 Clonard 16 8.6% 3 18.8% 6.3 Breaghwy 14 7.5% 5 35.7% 10.4 Misc 5 2.7% 1 20% 2 Unknown 7 3.8% 2 28.6% 4.2 Total 186 100% 48 25.8% 100%
Proportion of each halberd type for which find contexts exist
However, where we do have such information, by far the most halberds have been found in wet places, generally bogs. A substantial proportion have also come from rivers, many of these from well-known locations such as Keelogue Ford on the Shannon, Portora on the Erne and Lough Gur
1 It has also the highest proportion of provenanced finds: 85% can be located to townland at least, compared to about 40% each of Types Carn and Cotton. Type Clonard achieves just 25%.
176 in Co. Limerick, all favourite areas for depositing metal work throughout the bronze age as a whole (Cooney and Grogan, 1994). Table 6.2 under gives the find details for all known Irish halberds, compared with those included in the present study: Table 6.2 Context Total Pop. Study Group Bog 24 22 Lake 2 2 River 10 8 WET 36 32 Cist burial 1 1 Clay 4 4 Clay(river?) 1 1 Clay/peat 1 1 Gravel 1 0 Dry 2 2 Hill(dry) 1 1 Crannog 1 0 DRY 12 10 none 138 93 Grand Total 186 135
Find Contexts for Irish Halberds
As is clear from Table 6.2 above, not all halberds for which details of context exist could be included in the present study. Three are in private possession, whereabouts unknown (Kilbeg, Suck River and Bann River), while three others (the halberds from Drummond Otra, Rathfarnham2 and Ards Beg) were unavailable for examination. All others, however, have been located and examined. As a result, the various analyses hereunder relating to context will for the most part only refer to those halberds which I have actually seen and handled myself. Where material which I have not seen is included, and where I rely on descriptions or drawings, this will be clearly indicated.
The details of context available vary from find to find. In some cases we have substantial information, in others merely a note that the halberd in question was found in “bog”, for example. This creates problems for comparing the finds with each other and for drawing conclusions –
2 As indicated in the Introduction to this thesis, I have very recently concluded that the Rathfarnham halberd – apparently missing from the NMI collection – is in fact one and the same as an “unprovenanced” halberd listed in the NMI registers as “R1316”. I have seen and examined this halberd and it is included in my study group. However, since it was described as unprovenanced and without context, it was not included in the contextual analyses described in this chapter. I have informed the Museum of my belief that R1316 is the missing Rathfarnham halberd.
177 although categories like “gravel”, “hillside” and “clay” are all grouped together under the heading “Dry”, they tell us quite different things about the form of deposition. However, the absence of detailed information restricts the extent to which we can take the discussion, as does the fact that in most cases we are talking about just one or two finds, which in turn restricts the type of conclusions which can be drawn. What details we have are set out in full in Appendix 3, which is in volume two of this thesis.
It will be quickly seen that, where the context is known, the majority of Irish halberds come from “wet” places, 76% in fact. In addition, there are a number of finds provisionally classified as “dry” which may in fact have originally been made in wetland at the time of deposition. These are:
the halberd from Crott, Co. Longford [Ref: (NMI) 1935:448] which was recovered from clay underlying peat and so, while its deposition predates the peat, the area was conceivably a wetland zone at the time of deposition. the halberd from Lisananny More, Sligo [Ref: (NMI)1985:101] which was recovered in the “bottom field” near the Owenmore river, a findplace which may well have been under water or subject to flooding in the Bronze Age. the halberd from the crannog at Drummond Otra, Co. Monaghan for which we have no details other than the fact that it came from a “crannog”, itself a wetland settlement type. The halberd from Altnamackin, Co. Armagh which came from wet clay near the County Water stream.
In all then, up to four of those classified above as “dry” may have been wetland depositions originally. Broadly speaking, therefore, and where the context is known, it is probably safe to think in terms of 75-80% of Irish halberds as coming from wet places, with 20-25% coming from dry places.
Apart from the clear bias towards wetland deposition, one of the other most striking things about the contexts in which halberds occur is their virtual absence from the burial record. There is only one reported find of a halberd in a burial context. This is the well-known find from Moylough, Co. Sligo [Ref: (NMI)1928: 392] published by Morris (1929). Because of the uniqueness of this find, it will be discussed later in a little more detail.
The details, such as they are, for the other halberds are shown in Appendix 3 (Vol II). It will be noted that in most cases all we have are the most sparse details of context, eg bog, river, lake etc, although in a small number of cases more care was taken to record the recovery and these cases can often prove very interesting. A number of the bog finds were recovered at quite a depth – finds from as deep as 15, 20 and even 30 ft are known. The deepest finds, not surprisingly, are
178 from the great raised bogs of the midlands which began to develop in most cases around 7,000 years ago (Hammond, 1981; Aalen, Whelan and Stout, 1997 p.108). The deposits were clearly made therefore in what were well-established wetlands during the Bronze Age.
Cooney and Grogan (1994) have analysed the contexts of other types of Early Bronze Age metalwork and also note the importance of wetland deposition for axes and daggers. In the case of axes, about half of those that can be provenanced come from wet places, generally bogland first but with a shift towards rivers and lakes later. Needham (1988) has shown that there is in fact a steady increase in the proportion of Irish river-finds versus bog finds through the consecutively evolving axe-types, from a tiny proportion of Lough Ravel axes to the majority of Derryniggins. For daggers, the position is quite similar, with again about half coming from wet places and half from dry-land, most of the latter coming from graves, an association virtually unknown to axes and halberds. When compared to the other broadly contemporary metalwork, then, the halberds show a substantially greater tendency to turn up in wetland contexts (Chart 6.1).
60 daggers 50 axes halberds 40
30
20
10
0 River lake bog dry graves
Chart 6.1 Contexts of discovery of Early Bronze Age metalwork, expressed as % of contexted finds (NB: Grave finds are also included in “Dry” category – data from Cooney and Grogan, 1994)
In this respect, they are in fact better compared with the middle bronze age dirks and rapiers (Chart 6.2) over 90% of which appear to have come from wetlands (Burgess and Gerloff, 1981). Cooney and Grogan (1994) point out that there is “a strong suggestion that the pattern of wetland deposition became more important during the course of the Middle Bronze Age” (p.139). This is a development also noted for the hoards of the earlier period, where there is a strong suggestion that those containing typologically later material tend to be found more often in wetlands (O’Flaherty, 1995, p39). The fact that halberds, although almost certainly and exclusively of
179 early bronze age date in this country, show closer correspondence in terms of context with later dirks and rapiers, may suggest that these slightly later blades assumed some of the function and associations of the early bronze age halberds. In this regard, it is interesting to note that no Irish rapier has ever been found with a burial (Cooney and Grogan, 1994).
100 Dirks/Rapiers Halberds 80 Axes Daggers 60
40
20
0 Wet Dry Grave
Chart 6.2 Comparison of the contexts of discovery of EBA axes, daggers and halberds with MBA dirks and rapiers, expressed as % of contexted finds (NB: Grave finds are also included in “Dry” category)
To broaden out the discussion a little, it is useful to examine the context of discovery in terms of different sets of variables.
Typology In terms of typology, the various halberd types break down over the various context categories as follows:
180 Table 6.3
Detail Breaghwy Breaghwy (ally) Carn Clonard Cotton Misc Unknown Grand Total Bog 1 5 1 15 1 1 24 River 1 1 1 6 1 10 Lake 1 1 2
Cist 1 1 Clay 1 2 4 7 Crannog 1 1 Gravel 1 1 Hillside 1 1 Stone 1 1 Grand Total 4 1 8 3 29 1 2 48 % Contexted 8.3 2.1 16.7 6.3 60.4 2.1 4.2 100 [NB: Table reflects position for all known Irish halberds, not just study-group]
Type Cotton is by far the most numerous halberd to be recovered from wetland contexts, with 22 finds in all known. Carn is the next most numerous, with 6 examples, Clonard has 3, while Breaghwy has 2. In percentage terms the breakdown is as follows:
Table 6.4 Type Finds % Wet finds Type as % of Total Halberd Population Cotton 22 61.1 50% Carn 6 16.7 27.4% Clonard 3 8.3 8.6% Breaghy 2 5.6 7.5% Misc 1 2.8 2.7% Unknown 2 5.6 3.8% TOTAL 36 100% 100%
[NB: Table reflects position for all known Irish halberds, not just study-group]
It is clear from the above that, compared with their actual representation within the population of Irish halberds as a whole, halberds of type Cotton are over-represented amongst wetland finds, while Type Carn is significantly under-represented. The other halberds types turn up in pretty much the proportions one might expect.
We need to remember, of course, that 5 of the type Cotton halberds recovered from wet places come from a single hoard, while 3 more are contained in another hoard. Two Type Carn halberds also come from a hoard. If we “convert” the above figures into “instances of deposition” (Table
181 6.5), the figures change but Type Cotton still remains over-represented, slightly, while Type Carn continues to contribute well below what we would expect. Table 6.5 Type Instances % Wet Finds Type as % of Total Halberd Population of Deposition Cotton 16 55.2% 50% Carn 5 17.2% 27.4% Clonard 3 10.3% 8.6% Breaghy 2 6.9% 7.5% Misc 1 3.4% 2.7% Unknown 2 6.9% 3.8% TOTAL 29 100% 100%
[NB: Table reflects position for all known Irish halberds, not just study-group]
Clonard now appears slightly over-represented as well, and indeed it is worth pointing out that in every instance where we know the context of deposition of this halberd type it turns out to be wetland. However, with just 3 contexted examples, it would be unwise to draw too many conclusions.
For the dry land finds, the situation is similar, as Table 6 below shows: Table 6.6 Type Finds % Dry finds Type as % of Total Halberd Population Cotton 7 58.3% 50% Carn 2 16.7% 27.4% Clonard 0 0% 8.6% Breaghwy 3 25% 7.5% Misc - - 2.7% Unknown - - 3.8% TOTAL 12 100% 100%
[NB: Table reflects position for all known Irish halberds, not just study-group]
Type Cotton is once more over-represented, while Type Carn remains significantly under- represented, as does Type Clonard, with not a single find recorded from a dryland context. Type Breaghwy, on the other hand, is completely over-represented in dry-land finds. No adjustment for hoards is required for dryland finds, as we have no instance of more than one halberd in any hoard from a dryland context, itself significant perhaps and a point to which we will return later.
The overall numbers for both contexts are quite small, however, particularly for dryland zones and one needs to be cautious about drawing too many, too detailed conclusions. In addition, for the halberd types with low overall populations, such as Clonard and Breaghwy, one or two halberd finds can make a big difference to the percentages: type Clonard for example appears
182 completely under-represented in the dryland finds, but it would need just one of its 13 uncontexted finds to be from a dryland context to restore the balance. The above analyses are likely to hold truer for the big population groups such as Cotton and Carn, and to a lesser extent for Type Breaghwy, which has the highest percentage of contexted finds (Table 6.1). It is perhaps best, therefore, to look at this in broad terms and say that there appear to be strong connections between Type Cotton halberds and deposition in both wet and dry contexts and similarly strong connections between type Breaghwy halberds and dryland deposition.
Type Carn poses some problems, however, as it is under-represented in both wet and dry contexts. Accounting overall for 27% of all halberds, Type Carn represents just 17% of both wet and dry finds. However, the fact that it also displays the lowest percentage of contexted finds of any halberd type, at just under 14% (compared to 32% for Type Cotton and 36% for Type Breaghwy) probably explains its apparent under-representation. This in itself is worthy of note – why exactly should we know so little about the contexts of one halberd type, while others are twice as well recorded? We will return to this question again.
In terms of the contextual preferences of each halberd type, viewed independently, these are quite clear: with the exception of Type Breaghwy, the other three types are all dominated by wetland finds, and clearly so.
Remaining with context for the present, it is interesting to see what sort of connections exist between choice of depositional context and size/weight of halberds, wear and usage, decoration, associations, condition and patination.
Wear/Usage In terms of impact damage along the blade, the evidence is summarised below (table 6.7). For the Irish halberds in general, the position is that roughly 60% show no evidence for impact damage along the blade. The figures for both wet and dry contexts below can be seen as broadly reflecting the normal pattern for Irish halberds, although the figure for wet finds, at just under 68%, is a little higher than expected. One might suggest, therefore, that the wetland deposits tend to comprise of more undamaged blades than normal, but we should treat the suggestion with caution.
Table 6.7 Context Impact Damage No Impact Damage Wet 10 21 Dry 4 6 [Study group only]
183 However, when we turn to look at the other indicator of use, rivet-hole damage, the situation is somewhat different. We have already examined in some detail the evidence for rivet-hole damage on Irish halberds in Chapter 4 where a crude scoring system for measuring this type of damage was outlined, running from 1 to 4 points. Hence, a rivet-hole with no damage scores zero points, while one which is completely burst scores four points. A halberd with little or no damage to ANY of its rivetholes will therefore score something between 0-3 points in total; one with reasonable amount of damage will score something like 4-5 points in all; while a score of 6 or more indicates substantial damage to some or all rivetholes.
Level of Rivethole damage on Halberds from Wet/Dry Contexts
14
12
10
8
6
Noof Halberds 4
2
0 WET 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 DRY Score
Chart 6.3 [Study group only]
Chart 6.3 above maps this information for halberds recovered from wet and dry contexts. It will be immediately noted that a very high proportion of halberds from wet places, nearly 40% in fact, display absolutely no damage to their rivetholes, indicating that they may never have been used to any real extent. Looked at from another angle, only 16% of halberds from wet places have a score of 6 or more, consistent with substantial use. As regards halberds from dry places, while there is no such dramatic weighting towards zero scores (which here account for 30% of all finds), the vast majority show relatively little wear. The following piecharts make the comparison between wet and dry contexts a little easier to see:
184 Scores for Wet Finds Scores for Dry Finds
Little/None Little/None Some Some High High
Chart 6.4 Levels of rivethole damage on finds from wet and dry places [Study group only]
In both cases, there is a remarkably close correspondence for the proportion of halberds with little or no rivethole damage, the majority of those deposited falling into this category. The main difference is that from wetland contexts, we have relatively few halberds with serious rivethole damage, while for dryland finds, the proportion is about double that.
There is a problem, however. The statistics for both wet and dry contexts do not accord with those for halberds in general, nor do they immediately appear to compensate for one another in a manner which would generate the type of figures that we have for the total population of Irish halberds.
Table 6.8 The comparable figures for all Irish halberds, whether Count of TotalRivs contexted or not, are shown opposite (Table 6.8). These TotalRivs Total 0 41 indicate that only 22% of all halberds show no evidence of 1 7 damage to their rivetholes whereas we have already noted that 2 20 the figures from both wet and dry places are both higher than 3 10 4 13 this, at 40% and 30% respectively. In other words, 22% of all 5 9 halberds score zero, but where the context is known the figure 6 11 rises to 38%! 7 4 8 4
9 5 The proportions remain at odds for the category of “little or no 10 5 damage” (ie score of 3 or less), especially if we compare 11 1 contexted with uncontexted finds: it emerges that for 12 4 Grand Total 134 uncontexted finds only 46% fall into this category vs 60-70% of those where we do have contextual information. What on earth is going on? The dichotomy between the two either suggests that those halberds for which we do not have depositional
185 information come from contexts which are neither “wet” nor “dry” as defined already (whatever that context might be) or that the halberds for which we have NO depositional context are in some way “different” from those for which we DO. The first hypothesis is not really a runner (but see the discussion at the end of this section); the second may be worth exploring a little more. If we go back and look at Table 1 at the start of this chapter, we can see that the halberds for which we have no contextual information are indeed “different” from the other halberds.
Uncontexted Finds Contexted Finds
Carn Carn
Cotton Cotton
Clonard Clonard
Breaghwy Breaghy
Misc Misc
Unknown Unknown
Chart 6.5 Comparison of Contexted and Uncontexted Finds by Halberd Type (Data is for total population and is based on actual numbers not % representations)
Chart 6.5 above makes these differences a little easier to see. The major differences lie in the representation of Types Carn and Cotton, and to a lesser extent Type Breaghwy. Any statistics for contexted finds will be much more strongly influenced by Type Cotton results than is the case for uncontexted finds. In fact, in the case of the contexted finds, Type Cotton will always be the dominant statistical driver. For uncontexted finds, not only is the dominance for Type Cotton much reduced, the power of Type Carn is hugely increased, exercising twice the influence that it does in the case of contexted finds.
The question is: does any of this explain why such a high proportion of the contexted finds have low scores compared to the uncontexted ones? If it is to do this, then we have to be able to show that less of the Carn halberds score 0-3 than do the Cotton type. This, unfortunately is not the case: the reverse is true in fact – 65% of all Carn Halberds fall into this category, but only 50% of type Cotton. However, the manner in which these low-scoring halberds are distributed across the contexted and non-contexted populations is not consistent across the types: only 25% of the low-scoring Type Carns are contexted, while 45% of the Type Cotton ones are. In other words, the global result for the Contexted finds is benefiting from the fact that more of the low-scoring Cottons are being included in what is a smaller population group. In fact, when we look at the absolute figures we can see that Type Cotton contributes 15 low-scoring finds to the Contexted population which numbers 40 in all, and only 3 more, or 18 finds, to the Uncontexted population, which numbers 94 halberds. Relatively speaking, although roughly equal contributions are being
186 made to both groups by Type Cotton, its contribution is worth almost twice as much to the Contexted Group.
This then appears to be the reason why the figures for the Contexted and Uncontexted halberds are so much at variance – it is a function of the differing representations of the two main halberd types within each group, complicated by the manner in which each type’s low-scoring finds are distributed. It does, however, open up other question: why, for example, are so many Type Carn halberds uncontexted? Is it that they appeared less “attractive” or “valuable” than the other types and that therefore less interest was expressed in where they were found? This may be the case, since the opposite may also be true of Type Breaghwy halberds which are very well contexted and provenanced. Indeed, when we come to look at questions of condition and aesthetics below, we will see that it is those halberds which are in best condition and most aesthetically pleasing which have the best details of context. Alternatively, is it a function of the context itself in some way? Is someone more likely to record a wet find than a dry one? A bog find than a river? Is it a function of the time of year when such finds are likely to have been made? Most turf is cut around May/June – is this more conducive to record than other times? Were antiquarians/collectors more active during the summer than at other times of the year? Ploughing takes place in the darker months of the year – is this a contributory factor to the low records of finds from this context: a halberd turned up by the plough might easily be missed initially and may end up being picked off the surface many months later. The drama of discovery in such circumstances will be much less than that experienced in turning up a halberd on the blade of a sleán and might be less likely to be recorded. This is all pure speculation and obviously concerns issues much broader than are being considered here with just one artefact type. However, it remains very curious that such a small percentage of the second most numerous halberd type should be contexted, compared with all the others.
Condition
“Condition” is a more subjective categorisation than either rivet-hole damage or impact damage, both of which can be “measured” to a greater or lesser extent. The categories used in “condition”, i.e. perfect, near-perfect, good etc simply describe my own overall impression of the halberd as examined in the hand. While it is more subjective, it is also more holistic insofar as it takes in the whole of the artefact, not just the rivetholes, or the blade, and qualifies some of these scores: for example one of the finds from Hillswood scores 6 in terms of rivet-hole damage, but is otherwise perfect and the damage may result from the removal of the haft prior to deposition rather than from actual use. The results are as follows:
187 Table 6.9 C o n d i t i o n Dry Wet No Total Context bog river lake Perfect 1 10 8 1 1 8 19 Near perfect 0 3 2 1 1 4 Good 3 12 8 3 1 30 45 Obvious wear 1 3 2 1 31 35 Broken 1 3 2 1 7 11 Buckled 1 2 1 1 12 15 Broken and buckled 1 1 1 3 5 Corroded 3 2 2 13 18 Burnt 1 1 [Study group only] Note that some halberds may be in more than one category; note also that bog, river and lake are subdivisions of the wet category and do not appear again in totals
As the above table shows, where details of context are known, nearly 93% of halberds in perfect or near perfect condition (or 13 out of 14) have come from wet places. This is well above what one would expect if the “normal” distribution pattern was being observed, which would predict c.75% from wet places. The statistics are also high for halberds in the “good” category, with 80% coming from wet places. When we start to look at the ones with obvious wear, or which are actually broken or buckled, the situation starts to change. In the case of the worn and broken halberds, 75% come from wet places, which is as might be expected based on the norm for Irish halberds; this falls to 66% for buckled halberds and to 50% for buckled and broken examples. However, the number of contexted examples also falls and we have to bear this in mind when drawing conclusions. Nevertheless, it certainly seems that the halberds in best condition are turning up in wet places rather than dry, and in proportions well in excess of what might otherwise be predicted.
It is also worth looking at the “no context” column: just over 78% of all halberds which are worn, corroded or broken/buckled, have no details of context, compared with just 39% of those in perfect or near perfect condition. Clearly, unless a halberd was found in good or perfect condition, very little attention was likely to be paid to the context in which it was found. This is something which we will note again under Weight and Aesthetics, when both the heaviest and the most attractive halberds seem to be those which are best contexted.
Weight Chart 6.6 below shows how the various weight groups are distributed across the different contexts. As might be expected, since the vast majority of halberds come from wet contexts, virtually all weight-groups turn out to be best represented in wet contexts rather than dry. The only exception is the very smallest, ie those under 200g, where twice as many come from dry as wet contexts. However, since this actually only equates to 2 halberds from dry and one from wet, the sample size is clearly far too small to draw any conclusions.
188
18 wet 16 dry 14 none 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 <200g 250- 350- 450- 550- >650g 300g 400g 500g 600g
Chart 6.6 Distribution of weight categories across the different context types[Study group only]
There is a suggestion from the graph above that as the halberds get heavier, a greater proportion turn up in wet places. If we strip out the uncontexted finds and express the wet and dry totals as %, we can see that there is indeed such a trend upwards, with a similarly declining trend for dry contexts (Chart 6.7).
120 wet
100 dry
Linear (wet) 80 Linear (dry)
60 %
40
20
0
Chart 6.7 Distribution of weight categories across wet/dry contexts only [Study group only]
189
What is interesting also is the way in which the uncontexted finds are distributed, clearly seen in Chart 6.6 above. The vast majority of these are in the 200-500g category, which in fairness represents about 75% of all Irish halberds. However, the contexted finds show no such peak but in fact the tendency is for incidence of context to increase as weight increases, and for the incidence of uncontexted finds to fall, as the trendlines on Chart 6.8 below shows. Clearly, such halberds were noteworthy by their greater weight and therefore greater heed was paid to where they were found.
90 Contexted 80 Uncontexted
70 Linear (Contexted)
60 Linear (Uncontexted) 50
% 40
30
20
10
0
Chart 6.8 Distribution of weight categories across contexted and uncontexted finds [Study group only]
Aesthetics The question of aesthetics is a difficult one to address for halberds, which tend not be “decorated” in the conventional sense. Instead, they rely upon a simplicity of line and quality of casting for their aesthetic appeal. However, a good many Irish halberds are also elegantly bevelled and grooved along the edges, and while this might not usually be regarded as “decoration”, it is certainly aesthetically pleasing to the modern eye, and it is not particularly “functional” that I can see. This is particularly the case with the grooving, but even the bevelling – which undoubtedly helps the maintenance of an edge - is often cast on, and quite attractive in its own right.
190
Those halberds which attest such attention to aesthetics were examined to see whether they display any contextual preferences. The results can be summarised as follows:
Table 6.10 D e c o r a t i o n Dry Wet No Total Context bog river lake Bevelling 0 9 7 1 1 10 19 Groove and Bevel 5 3 2 0 14 19 Double Groove and Bevel 9 8 0 1 18 27 Tooling 2 6 8 Terracing 2 2 Conventional 1 1 1 3 5 Non-identifiable 6 3 4 36 42 T o t a l 9 31 22 7 2 89 129
Occurrence of halberds with different forms of decoration across various find contexts [Study group only – note bog, river and lake are subdivisions of the wet category and do not appear again in the totals]
The results are very interesting indeed, for they reveal that where details of context are known, nearly 90% of all halberds with some form of decorative feature come from wet places. On the basis by which halberd finds are normally distributed into wet/dry contexts, we would have expected a figure closer to 75%. It seems very clear, therefore that there is indeed a relationship between what we discern now as being more “aesthetically pleasing” halberds and the choice of location for deposition. In addition, since there is such a correspondence between what is being interpreted as “aesthetic” and one context of deposition, it would appear that the assumptions that were made about what does/does not amount to “decoration” were justified.
It will not have escaped attention either that the proportion of these halberds which are uncontexted is lower than expected, at around 60% compared to 75% for halberds generally. On the other hand, for the halberds with no identifiable “decoration” at all, the proportion of uncontexted finds is much higher, at nearly 86%. Again, we seem to be looking at the influence of “perceived value” in the eyes of the finder/collector and that the context of the less aesthetically pleasing halberds was not deemed of any great importance.
Associations with other artefacts As we shall see later on, the associations of Irish halberds are limited in the extreme. The vast majority are single finds and even when associated within hoards most are simply found with other halberds. This question is examined in detail in a specific section at the end of this chapter, but in terms of context, suffice it to say that hoards containing halberds tend to be deposited in
191 much the same contexts as single finds of halberds, i.e. most (75%) come from wetlands. However, it may be noteworthy that in the two instances where halberds are associated with other artefacts in hoards and for which we have details of context, one comes from bogland and one from dryland. It is possible, therefore, that the inclusion of other artefacts in such hoards may exert an influence over the choice of location for deposition, shifting the emphasis away from the favoured wetland zones to the dryland locations preferred in general for EBA hoard deposition (O’Flaherty, 1995).
Patination Before leaving the subject of context, some comment on the subject of patination is required. Many halberds have been cleaned quite extensively, retaining little evidence of original patina. However, there are a number of examples where it does survive to a reasonable extent, and where this was the case, the colour was noted and recorded along with the other details of the artefact.
Details of patina were recorded in 53 instances in all. The vast majority, 37 in fact, were basically green of varying hues, loosely categorised as “bright green” (16), “green” (16), and “dark green” (5). Another 12 were more grey than green, three of these completely grey with no green hue. Finally, there were 4 halberds with a rusty or rusty-green patina.
There were few correspondences to be made between patina and known contexts, with the exception of the dark-green group, three of which came from bogs and the other two having no known context. The other colour-categories could not be said to show any closer associations with one context than another. Despite what is often the practice on the Continent (eg Vandkilde, 1996; see also Harding, 2000, p.353), it seems most unlikely that colour of patina in this instance can be taken as an indicator of a particular context, in the absence of any record of same. It is also worth remarking that the gold-brown “bog” patina so beloved of continental writers was not in evidence at all, despite the fact that so many halberds are recorded from bogs. However, patinas can change over time and this in itself is another reason to exercise caution when using the colour as a basis to propose a particular context of deposition.
192 CASE STUDIES
A full listing of all halberds where details of context exist is at Appendix 3 (Vol II). In most cases, the details are sparse enough but there are a small number of finds where we actually have quite good contextual information and these are worth looking at in a little more detail. These are discussed in this section as individual case-studies.
The Moylough Halberd, Co. Sligo Morris (1929) reports that a cist grave was uncovered in June, 1928 by a man raising sand at Moylough, Co. Sligo. Morris himself came upon the find before it had been “despoiled in any way” (p.114), he says, and so he is in a position to vouch for what was found. The ground surface in the area of the find was very level and the covering slab of the cist was discovered 15 inches below the surface. The cist consisted of four thin wall slabs, a flag floor, and covering slab which Fig 6.1: Plan of the Cist Burial at was decorated on the underside by a wavy Moylough, Co. Sligo (after Morris, 1929) band, three foot long and one inch wide (fig 6.1). Inside the cist, there was about 1 cubic foot of cremated human bone, “all in a very small chippy condition” (p114). Amongst these bones was found “a much corroded bronze artefact with one of the rivets still in position. It was broken across near the middle, and was also shrivelled up like a dried leaf, as if it had been subjected to the action of intense heat” (p.114). The fracture was clearly ancient and Morris further vouches that no object other than this blade was found with the bones (fig 6.2).
Cist graves in Ireland are generally taken to date from the Early Bronze Age and, notwithstanding Majolie Lenerz de Wilde’s (1991) somewhat puzzling comment that the reason so few halberds turn up in a burial context in Ireland is because there are so few Early Bronze Age graves, it is abundantly clear that their absence from the burial record is the result of a deliberate choice. The burial record is of course well established for the Early Bronze Age in this country and indeed is one of the best represented in the whole of Irish prehistory with graves well distributed across the island generally. If any metal object is to accompany an Early Bronze Age burial it is a dagger and virtually never an axe or a halberd (Waddell, 1990; Kilfeather, 1991). This is despite the fact that axes are by far the most numerous of all the Early Bronze Age metal types or that all three
193 artefact types can turn up together in hoards as at Frankford, Co. Offaly and Killaha East, Co. Kerry (Table 6.11 refers). The deliberate deposition of Early Bronze Age metalwork was clearly highly structured, with definite rules governing what could or could not accompany burials, for example. Halberds were patently deemed inappropriate for deposition in this manner, which as we have seen (Chapter 2) contrasts to a certain extent with the situation on mainland Europe. Why this should be the case is difficult to say with
any certainty but it has been suggested previously (O’Flaherty, 1995, 14) that in Fig 6.2: The halberd from Moylough circumstances where the provision of [Ref: (NMI)1928:392] (Morris, 1929) gravegoods is controlled by the mourners (Barrett, 1989) and in a society where metal was extremely valuable it may simply have been regarded as too wasteful to deposit heavy metal artefacts like axes and halberds in graves, each of which might contain enough metal to make many daggers. On the other hand, artefacts like halberds may not have been regarded as deeply “personal” possessions in the same way as a dagger might and for this reason might not generally accompany the deceased to the afterlife.
Whatever the reason, it is a fact that halberds do not appear as grave goods and so the Moylough find is really quite exceptional in Ireland. It is fitting, therefore, that it should be a Type Breaghwy halberd which was deposited, which as we have seen ignores so many of the rules generally respected by other halberd types. We are also fortunate that the context of its deposition affords us one of the very rare radiocarbon dates for a halberd anywhere, and the only one for any Irish halberd. The date has been but recently obtained by the Groningen Institute and communicated by Anna Brindley at the Bronze Age Forum in Edinburgh in November 2000. The date obtained was 1700-1600BC, which fits neatly with the hypothesis that sees Type Breaghwy halberds such as this as “late” in the series of Irish halberds generally. The greater emphasis which this halberd type seems to place on display rather than functionality may link it with a growing emphasis on personal prestige, which may in turn explain why it was chosen to accompany the deceased. As we have seen, the majority of what are presumably earlier halberds are more obviously functional in character and this contrast between functionality and display may go some way towards explaining why more Irish halberds have not turned up from burial contexts: it may only have been when the function of halberds began to change in this direction that the artefact type became more appropriate as a grave-offering.
194
This said, I should enter some caveats about the “credentials” of the Moylough find as a halberd at all. Although it has been badly burned, presumably having accompanied the body on the funeral pyre, it nonetheless exhibits certain characteristics which lead one to doubt its traditional classification as a halberd. It is very light, weighing only 126.9g, when the average Irish halberd weighs about 400g – it will undoubtedly have lost some weight in the fire but the blade itself remains of consistent enough form to suggest that what we see now is not too far removed from its original size and shape. It is also very thin, just 4.5mm, which is thin even for Type Breaghwy halberds which average out at 6.4mm. It is not very long either, at c.191mm originally (the blade is now buckled), when the average Irish halberd is about 270mm long. In its general form, it could pass for a dagger and that would be a more logical accompaniment to a burial in Early Bronze Age Ireland. However, what swings the balance for me is the length of the one surviving rivet, 18.5mm overall, which certainly suggests a shaft of halberd proportions, not a dagger handle.
The Breaghwy Halberd, Co. Mayo.
The find from Breaghwy, Co. Mayo (Mitchell, O’Leary and Raftery, 1940) [Ref: (NMI)1937:2802] is perhaps the best documented and best discussed of all the halberd finds.
The halberd was found in April, 1937 by Mr Anthony Durcan, who later sold the find to the Royal Irish Academy. The find was made while an old drain was being deepened and was brought up on the spade – its precise horizon was therefore known to within 10cm. The find-spot was near the western margin of a large bog, which lay in a depression surrounding Corrower Lake. The bog itself had been very extensively cut away. There was no trace of the handle and the halberd lay on its edge, with the short axis vertical. This may be significant and recalls the discovery of the Carn Halberd which was similarly found on its edge, with (according to the NMI file) the handle thrust into the bog beneath. One wonders whether the Breaghwy Halberd may have been deposited in the same way, but with its handle now long since decayed.
The site was visited by Frank Mitchell on 5 October, 1937 (Mitchell, O’Leary and Raftery, 1940). He made two borings, one at the place where the find had been made and the other some 25 metres away. From these borings a sketch section was made, reproduced here at Fig 6.3.
195
Fig 6.3: section across the find place of the Breaghwy Halberd (after Mitchell, O’Leary and Raftery,1940: fig 2)
The halberd was found at a depth of 155cm in a zone characterised by brown peat with much wood debris. Above this zone was a zone of coarse phragmites peat, while below it was a layer of gravel. The stratigraphy suggests that the zone in which the halberd was found had developed following invasion by trees of a zone of phragmites and cladium, in which later a wood-peat was formed. The water-table must subsequently have risen, allowing phragmites to reappear on top of this zone. Sphagnum peat may in turn have developed upon this but if it did, it had been completely cut away in the vicinity of the bog. It is interesting to note that the halberd was found at a depth of 155cm and that the drill was in gravel at 215cm. If the halberd was indeed deposited in the manner of the Carn Halberd, ie with shaft intact and thrust into the bog, then the shaft must have been about 60cm long or so, which would be considerably shorter than the Carn Halberd (c.1m) but quite consistent with the shaft sizes of halberds on Continental Europe.
Pollen analysis of the samples brought up (Fig 6.4) indicates that the halberd was found near the top of a zone dominated by Pinus. In the zone which immediately follows, Pinus falls back dramatically and is replaced by Alnus. These two zones are taken by the authors to correspond to Jessen’s Zones VI and VII and date the halberd, according to Raftery, to the “very end of the Middle Bronze Age and the beginning of the Late Bronze Age” (p.288). Not much reliance would be placed on such a date now, derived entirely on the basis of pollen analysis. In addition, Raftery’s interpretation of a depositional date around the Middle-Late Bronze Age transition seems too late, even for Type Breaghwy.
196
Fig 6.4: Pollen Diagram from Breaghwy (after Mitchell, O’Leary and Raftery, 1940: fig 3)
Exactly when he envisaged this transition occurring is unclear – in a later publication (Raftery, 1942) he opines that the Carn Halberd may not date much earlier than 1000 BC. The “dating” of the Breaghwy Halberd undoubtedly influenced his thinking and so we can probably assume that when Raftery talks about a date at the “very end of the Middle Bronze Age and the beginning of the Late Bronze Age” he is probably thinking in terms of c.1000 BC. This would certainly seem most unlikely, even for a late class of halberd such as Type Breaghwy.
The Hillswood Hoard, Co. Galway.
This is perhaps the most famous of the hoards of Irish halberds. It is comprised of seven halberds in all, five type Cotton and two type Carn [Refs: (NMI) W240-246]. It was found in 1850 during the building of the Midland Great Western Railway and presented to the Royal Irish Academy by the Chief Engineer, G.W. Hemans. The Chief Engineer’s letter is worth quoting in full:
June 8, 1850
197
Dear Sir, - I have the pleasure of sending you herewith, for presentation to the Academy on Monday night, seven bronze or copper spear-heads, found in the excavations of the Midland Great Western Railway a few days ago. They appear to me to have been cast in moulds, and are remarkably fine specimens, from their size and the perfect state of the rivets, mouldings, and cutting edge, which latter is almost as sharp as the metal is capable of being made. They were discovered about two and a half feet under the surface of a shallow bog, in the townland of Hillswood, parish of Kilconnell, county Galway; they were found stuck in a bunch in the ground, with the points down. No other relics appeared near them. I am yours very truly, G. W. Hemans Chief Engineer
As the Chief Engineer says, these are indeed “remarkably fine specimens.” (fig 6.5) They are each superbly cast and in excellent condition. All seven are long, elegant blades. The five Type Cottons are quite strongly curved, of classic design with sophisticated but delicate grooving along the edges.
Fig 6.5: Halberds from the Hillswood Hoard (Harbison, 1969a: fig 4)
198 Even in scanning through a catalogue of 150 or so drawn halberds, these five type Cotton halberds jump out and are immediately identifiable amongst an artefact-group known for the consistency of its design. It can be very difficult to tell halberds apart because they rarely carry any unique distinguishing features; however there is never any difficulty in immediately picking out the Cotton examples from Hillswood because they are quite simply the most beautiful halberds we have. The two Carn halberds are also superb examples of their type; again they present almost archetypal features, slightly broader and squatter than the Cottons but with the same elegantly cast grooved decoration along the edges.
With the exception of one of the type Cotton halberds, all retain one or more rivets, while four retain all three rivets. This poses certain questions about the manner of deposition: the hafts had clearly been removed before deposition since they were “found stuck in a bunch in the ground” but not by simply ripping them off, since the rivets and rivet holes are for the most part intact. The indications are that the hafts were removed quite carefully prior to deposition, or were perhaps cut-off close to the head. Ó Ríordáin’s suggestion that the hoard was “the property of an ancient craftsman who had brought these halberds together either for the purpose of re-hafting them or ….of using the metal for other purposes.” (1937, p199) seems unlikely, and not just because such a functional interpretation of hoard-deposition is now unpopular. The halberds have clearly seen little or no use (although one shows some fairly deep notching, while another two have some minor denting) and so were unlikely to have required rehafting; in addition, they could not possibly be rehafted with the rivets in place so it would seem unusual to take such care to protect the rivets when removing the original haft. The context, which is bog, and the manner in which the halberds were thrust into the ground points downwards, along with the superb casting and condition, are all strongly suggestive of a votive deposit .
Hillswood is interesting because, like Carn, Altnamackin and Breaghwy, this is one of the few instances where we can “imagine” the manner of deposition. In Carn, Altnamacken and possibly Breaghwy, the halberds seem to have been deposited with the hafts attached. In Hillswood, we know for certain that the hafts were removed or at the very least cut off. This is a deliberate destruction of the weapon, like the bending of the blade from Bride Street, Dublin, or the deliberate hacking of Late Bronze Age sword blades which Sue Bridgford has studied (Bridgford, 1997).
Hillswood is also important in helping us in the painful reconstruction of the internal chronology of Irish halberds. Two types of halberd are present here, Carn and Cotton, which means that for a period at least both were contemporary. The quality of the casting of the Hillswood blades marks this deposit as belonging to a period of confidence and sophistication in the development of halberds, and presumably therefore relatively late. While the quality and style of both types of halberd are quite similar – to the extent indeed that one could easily conceive of the same smith
199 as responsible for both - there is no confusion between the types: both are archetypal models of the Carn and Cotton classes and while archaeologists are often accused of imposing categorisations on prehistoric artefacts that would have been utterly meaningless to the craftsmen of the time, this is clearly not the case in this instance. There can be no doubt that the maker or makers of the Hillswood halberds were deliberately choosing to make and deposit two different types of halberd.
The Carn Halberd, Co. Mayo
This is one of the most famous of all Irish halberds [Ref: (NMI)1939:146] and has had enormous influence on the way in which halberds have been interpreted. It was discussed briefly in the previous Chapter but the context of its discovery is considered in more detail here.
It was found in August, 1939 by Thomas Farrell in a bog at Carn, Tirawley, Lacken, Co. Mayo. The find is quite unique in that the halberd was found with the handle intact and in relatively good condition. It was discovered about 40 inches below the surface in a bog which had been cut-away about 100 years previously. A lot of fir branches were mixed through the turf in the layer in which the halberd was found and one wonders whether this may not have been a deliberate construction, perhaps a trackway or perhaps even a formal structure from which to make depositions (such as may well have been the case at the much later site of Lisnacrogher, Co. Antrim – c.f. Harbison, 1988, p161; Waddell, 1988, p311). Fig 6.6: The Carn Halberd with its replica shaft [Ref: (NMI)1939:146] National Museum of Ireland The records of the National Museum of Ireland report that the handle was apparently “stuck down vertically for about 3ft or more into deeper bog”. Raftery (1942), however, states that “when found the blade of the weapon pointed upwards”. It is difficult to reconcile the two statements, unless we imagine the shaft as thrust at an angle into the bog, rather than vertically, with the blade slanting upwards. Either way, it is significant that the blade was on its edge, inviting comparison with the find from Breaghwy
200 discussed above, and also with Hillswood, in that the deposit is clearly thrust, rather than thrown, into the bog.
As regards the handle itself, when found this was reportedly about “as thick as the handle of a pickaxe” and about 4ft long in all (3ft 6inches according to Raftery). Unfortunately, the finder tore the handle off. It survived, however, long enough to be examined, for analysis to show that it was made of oak and for a “replica” to be made in which the halberd is now fixed (fig 6.6). The accuracy or otherwise of this replica has already been discussed in Chapter 5.
Altnamackin, Co. Armagh
Although the details are sparse enough, this find is included here as one of only two instances known where a halberd has actually been found in Ireland with the haft still attached [Ref (Armagh) 3-1964] The halberds and the circumstances of its discovery are described by Flanagan (1966).
It was found in 1963 at Altnamackin, Co. Armagh in the course of road building operations by the driver of a bulldozer. The actual find-place was on Route C200 , just over half a mile south of the Fane Valley Creamery and just on the Armagh side of the County Water, a stream which forms the boundary at this point between Armagh and Monaghan. As with the Carn Halberd discussed above, there is some confusion about the context of discovery: Harbison (1969) says that the halberd was found some 10ft deep in “blue clay” (which might indicate blue marl and accordingly an original wet context), while the much more detailed account by Flanagan makes no mention of the depth (which would seem excessive for a bulldozer clearing a new roadway) but states that the halberd was found “in sticky yellow clay”, apparently quoting the finder in this regard. One wonders what it is about the discovery of halberds with the haft intact that leads to such confusion amongst otherwise highly reliable authorities! The confusion about the colour of the clay may have arisen from the driver’s statement that it was the bright blue/green colour of the blade that caught his attention (Flanagan, 1966).
201
The halberd is bronze and is described by Flanagan as according with Ó Ríordáin’s Type 6, and by Harbison with his Type Breaghwy. It was reported that a wooden handle, or part of one at least, was attached to the halberd when found. Unfortunately this disintegrated completely when the halberd was moved. However, Flanagan reports that a haft- mark was discernible on one face of the hafting-plate and efforts were made in co- operation with the Department of Industrial and Forensic Science of the NI Ministry of Commerce to detect evidence on the other face as well. However, Fig 6.7: The hafting mark on the halberd from Altnamacken (Flanagan, 1966: Pl. 15) despite use of infra-red and ultra-violet photography, nothing was detected. The hafting-mark on the other face shows up well enough, however, when photographed through a green filter (fig 6.7).
Despite the fact that the shaft did not survive discovery, the Altnamackin find is of great importance since it shows that the Carn Halberd need not be regarded as unique: other halberds were clearly deposited in antiquity with the shaft intact. In addition, the evidence that we have of the fragility of the shaft suggests that other halberds may well have survived to the present with shaft intact only for this to disintegrate upon movement. While the findplace was clearly dryland – and is catalogued here on that basis – the environment was quite likely originally wet, as (both!) descriptions of the soil testify, as indeed does its proximity to the County Water. Then as now, the County Water may well have marked a boundary between two or more territories and again, the deposition of a halberd at this point is significant.
Killaha East, Co. Kerry
This is one of the few examples known from Ireland of a halberd occurring in a hoard containing metalwork of other types. The find is described by O’Connell (1939) and Harbison, (1968).
The find was made on 10 March 1939 by James O’Sullivan at Killaha East, Co. Kerry, about a mile and a quarter southwest of Kenmare. The finder was clearing stones from the face of an
202 outcrop of sandstone when he came across a group of metal objects piled under a waterworn slab of limestone erratic, resting on the side of a slope.
News of the discovery made its way to O’Connell who was informed that “a lot of copper swords” had turned up near Kenmare and he immediately set out for the town. When he arrived the following day, the finder, Mr O’Sullivan, had already given away several objects. However, O’Connell states that he was able to track down and recover all of these.
Fig 6.8: The hoard from Killaha, Co. Kerry (National Museum of Ireland)
203 The hoard was made up of one Type Breaghwy halberd (broken in antiquity) along with 6 axes, a dagger and an axe “ingot”. Only two of these might plausibly be regarded as “swords” and so one wonders, in the light of the original description, whether all the contents of this hoard were in fact recovered or whether there may have been more halberds or daggers present originally, notwithstanding what O’Connell says.
Four of the axes are of type Killaha, giving their name in fact to this axe-type. Another axe is unfinished, while only a fragment of the sixth survives. The dagger is of Miscellanous Type, tanged and riveted, with grooved decoration and is regarded by Harbison as unique (1969, p27).
The halberd is defined as Type Breaghwy on the basis of the hafting plate with its tiny rivet holes. Harbison (1968) wonders whether in fact parts of two different halberds are present: the remains are in Fig 6.9: The halberd from Killaha (Harbison, three fragments and the midrib on the 1969a: Pl.23) “middle” piece does not match up with that on the other two. However, these concerns are not raised again in his 1969 Catalogue and having examined the halberd myself it appears to me that all three pieces are in fact from the same halberd, although other smaller pieces are clearly missing. The (somewhat idealised) drawing at Fig 6.9 reproduced from Harbison’s own Catalogue, shows this fairly clearly. The blade, when pieced together, is in fact slightly scythed, which would not be the “classic” Breaghwy shape, and the overall “feel” is heavier and clumsier than one expects of this type. However, the hafting plate is diagnostic enough to confirm it as Type Breaghwy, along with the identification of the metal as bronze. All nine objects in this hoard bear similar orange patination and are of believably similar workmanship.
The Killaha Hoard is important for a number of reasons. As stated already it is one of the few instances where we find halberds in association with any other artefact type; it is also one of the few unequivocal dryland finds of halberds, either as hoards or single finds; the condition of the artefacts, some broken, some unfinished, might also argue for seeing this as a non-ritual deposit, even a founder’s hoard. It is as well to remember, with the current swing towards interpretation of most deposits as “ritual” to some extent, that large amounts of metal must have been recycled again and again in antiquity and we should not be surprised, therefore, to occasionally come across a collection intended for that end.
204
SECTION 2: DISTRIBUTIONS
Mapping generally The distribution of all Irish halberds is shown in Map 6.1, while Map 6.2 shows the distribution of those considered in the present study. A total of 77 halberds can be identified by type and located to townland or, in a few instances, just to county. For the rest of the Irish halberds, unfortunately we have no details of provenance.
The map shows Irish halberds to have a strong midland and central distribution. The coastal highlands are studiously avoided and instead the halberds concentrate in the low-lying areas of the Central Plain. To what extent this reflects an exclusive zone of production/use must be debatable, since this is also the area with the most extensive bogland and as we saw earlier, most halberds have been recovered from this type of context. So whether the distribution pattern reflects the area where most halberds were produced/used or just the area where most were deposited/recovered must remain in some doubt.
Map 6.1 Distribution of all Irish halberds of known provenance (Open symbol = county provenance only)
205
Map 6.2 Distribution of halberds examined as part of this study. (Open symbol = county provenance only)
However, there are a number of reasons for believing that the distribution reflects real patterns of Bronze Age production and use to some extent. A comparison of the distribution with maps for geology, soils and relief is instructive (Map 6.3). The distribution of the halberds closely follows the underlying geology of limestone. It is decidedly low-lying, tending in general to stay below the 300m contour. It is also concentrated to no small extent in the areas with the best drained soils (notwithstanding the selection of bogland within those areas for the purposes of deposition), avoiding both the poorer marginal soils to the west and the heavier clay soils of the southeast. In terms of land-use, the halberds are in fact concentrated in those areas best suited to the raising of livestock and which even now are the key zones for the production of beef in Ireland. This point is important and will be returned to later.
The distribution of halberds initially appears at odds with the other artefact and monument distributions for the Early Bronze Age. The axes of the period, for example, have a much broader distribution on the whole (Map 6.4) but on closer inspection can be seen in many ways to follow much the same paths through the country. The distribution of daggers (Map 6.5) corresponds quite well to the halberd map, although it is not as obviously concentrated in the midlands. Some similarities can be detected between the distribution of Early Bronze Age
206 hoards (Map 6.6) and that of halberds, although the north midlands zone, which is so important for the halberds, is absent from the map of hoards. A closer, although sparser, match is probably obtained with the distribution of those hoards which contain typologically later material, where the bias is now more strongly midland and northern (Map 6.7). Likewise, the distribution compares reasonably well with that of the goldwork of the period, which again has a strong midlands and northern bias (Map 6.8).
One of the best comparisons (Map 6.9) is with the distribution of Simpson’s ‘Late Series’ stone battle axes (Simpson, 1990; 1996), also of Early Bronze Age date and generally regarded as prestige items Waddell (1998, p.152). Three of these stone axes come from clear associated contexts3: two from urn-burials and one from a hoard, along with a Derryniggin axe. The dating is therefore roughly the same as that postulated for the halberds (although probably predating the use of Derryniggin axes – see Chapter 10). In the light of the connection which John Coles (1969) draws between the stone battle axes of Central Europe and the appearance of halberds there, the correspondence in distributional terms of the two artefact types here in Ireland is also of interest.
3 Tara, Co. Meath; Laheen, Co. Donegal; Clonmore, Co. Carlow (Simpson, 1990; 1996)
207 208 209
210
211 When we look at a map of the occurrence of Bronze Age metals, ores and mines (Map 6.12), we can see that while there are several instances where halberds occur close to known deposits of copper in particular, the main distribution of halberds occurs in a broad midland square in which there is no evidence for either ores or mining. Unlike the distribution of Early Bronze Age hoards, which show a surprisingly close connection with areas of ore-bearing rock, the halberds display no such affiliation with the initial act of production and their deposition occurs at some remove in space and perhaps time. Map 6.12: Sources of copper in Ireland (after Jackson, 1979).
Mapping by Type (Map 6.13) The distribution patterns of the individual halberd types are of some interest. Of all the types, type Cotton best reflects the distribution of halberds as a whole, which is hardly surprising given that it is by far the most numerous. Type Carn, the next most numerous, has a similar distribution, but without the eastern province that type Cotton includes. Type Clonard, represented by only 4 examples, is more easterly in outlook. However, it is type Breaghwy, once more, which challenges the norms: this halberd type, which as we have seen is so different in many respects to the other types, does not disappoint when it comes to distribution either. Type Breaghwy halberds are all found distributed around the periphery of the main halberd distribution.on the outskirts of that broad central zone but never in the heartland. By the same token, their distribution might be seen to be coastal in nature and certainly as a group they are closer to the coast wherever they are found than any of the other types. However, since there are wide stretches of the coast where they are not represented at all, it seems more likely that their distinctive distribution is a function not of proximity to the sea but of peripherality to the distribution of other halberds.
This is highly significant, for if, as appears to be the case, type Breaghwy halberds are later in date than most of the other halberds, their appearance on the periphery may suggest expansion from a central midlands heartland. In fact, if we go back and look at the main distribution map of Irish halberds (6.1) from the perspective of a central heartland, comparing it to the map for relief and drainage (6.3), the River Shannon and its tributaries could be seen to act as arteries along which the majority of halberd finds are distributed.
212 Carn Cotton
Clonard Breaghwy
Map 6.13: Distributions of the various halberd types
213 It is along this riverine axis that the type Carn halberds in particular are distributed, and it will be recalled that Harbison (1969a) considered this type to be the earliest of the halberds, and on good grounds. If type Carn is indeed the earliest of the halberds, then it is interesting that the Shannon and its tributaries should seem to play an important role in its distribution, establishing the first “beachheads” for the halberd in this region. The distribution of type Cotton halberds can be seen as consolidating and expanding this central heartland, with the minority type Clonard occupying an eastern province and the chronologically later and typologically distinct type Breaghwy distributed along the periphery.
The interpretation of the overall distribution of halberds in this manner, in terms of successive (but overlapping) phases of use and expansion raises critical questions about the origin of halberds in Ireland. Was the Shannon – the greatest and most extensive of all the Irish rivers – indeed the conduit along which the knowledge and use of halberds was transferred? And if so, did this river – emptying itself as it does into the western ocean – ultimately transmit the original influences from abroad?
Mapping by Context (Map 6.14) Map 6.14 shows the distribution of Irish halberds according to context of discovery. The sparseness of the contextual information available is brought sharply into focus by this map, when compared with the distribution-map for all halberds, which is much more thickly populated, even though less than half of all known halberds are actually represented. However, the broad pattern of distribution is reflected well enough and there is nothing to suggest that the contexted map is distorted in any way.
The central midland zone – which of course is the heartland of halberd distribution in Ireland – is heavily dominated by wetland finds, mainly bog finds from the great raised bogs which are so common in this region of Ireland. Rivers and lakes increase in importance as locations for deposition in the northern part of the midlands, and we might note that this is an area littered with small lakes and interconnecting rivers. By and large, it will also be remarked that the dryland finds tend to occur towards the periphery of the main distribution. The almost complete dominance of wetland finds in the central heartland of halberd distribution also suggests that many of those finds which are provenanced to this area but for which we have no details of context may well be wetland finds too.
To a certain extent then, the contexts of deposition reflect the landscape conditions in which they are found. There is, of course, no doubt that wetland zones are the preferred locations for deposition, but it seems that, having decided this, it may have been relatively unimportant whether that deposition took place in a bog, in a river or in a lake. We need to remember, of course, that in the Early Bronze Age, much of the raised bogs of the midlands would have still
214 contained good expanses of open water or fen. When we think of “ bog-finds” today our minds are understandably conditioned by what we know of bogs in the 20th and 21st centuries, which although unquestionably wetland zones are nonetheless a good deal more solid underfoot then they would have been 4000 years ago. Little distinction may have been made in the Early Bronze Age between the open stretches of water in boglands where deposition most likely took place and the open stretches of water of a river or a lake. Casting a halberd into a “bog” in the Early Bronze Age was probably greeted with a satisfying splash on impact, rather than the thud-glug likely to greet a similar act of deposition in “bogland” today! There would have been exceptions of course – the Hillswood find being a case in point where the halberd blades appear to have been thrust into a shallow bog, rather than cast into any stretch of open water. The Carn and Breaghwy halberds may also have been thrust rather than cast into bog or into lake sediment.
Map 6.14: Context of halberd finds
Bogs, rivers and lakes occur all over Ireland and are not confined to the central midlands by any means. For this reason, it is interesting to note that the dry land finds have tended to occur on the periphery of the main distribution zone. Clearly if the desire to deposit in a wetland context was strong enough, a suitable location could have been found and indeed the map clearly shows that
215 wetland deposition was taking place outside the central heartland. However, the fact that with perhaps just one exception all the dryland finds come from the peripheries, does suggest a shift in emphasis in these regions towards dryland deposition. This may well be linked with the unique distribution of Type Breaghwy halberds, which as we have seen also concentrate on the outskirts of the main distribution zone. It has already been noted (Table 6.6 above) that of all the halberd types, it is Type Breaghwy which maintains the strongest links with dry-land deposition. It was also suggested above that the overall distribution map for halberds in Ireland may reflect an expansion over time from a central heartland and that the occurrence of Type Breaghwy halberds along the peripheries is linked to the presumed later date of these halberds. If this is so, the tendency for dryland finds to occur on the peripheries also may too be a function of a changing depositional preference over time.
Mapping by other variables (Maps 6.15-19) There are other variables by which we might map the distribution of halberds. Figs 22-26 show a number of these, presenting the distribution of Irish halberds in terms of weight, general condition, rivet-hole damage, impact damage and aesthetics.
- Weight (Map 6.15) As regards weight, it seems that the heaviest halberds tend to be distributed more towards the periphery of the main distribution than the centre. This is certainly true for those in the 600-700g category, but is discernible in the 500-600g category too. The reverse is also true, in that most of the lighter examples, and in particular those in the 200-300g category, are to be found in central midlands, right in the heart of the halberd zone. Again, in the light of the interpretation suggested in the previous section, this might be explained in terms of a progressive development and expansion of the halberd-zone over time, involving also the evolution of bigger and heavier halberds. It will also be recalled from the evidence presented in Chapters 3 and 4 that these heavier halberds are less likely to be functional than their smaller cousins, on the grounds that their hafting is relatively less secure as well as the fact that they show less evidence for wear. Instead, these bigger halberds by-and-large seem to be more intended for display, and this may also reflect a function which had evolved over time. It is interesting, therefore, to see these largest halberds distributed in general around the periphery of this zone, in much the same manner as the typologically later Breaghwy halberds, and indeed those finds which are known to have come from “dry” contexts.
216 Map 6.15: Weight
Map 6.16: General Condition
217 Map 6.17: Rivet-hole damage
Map 6.18: Impact damage
218 - General Condition (Map 6.16) In terms of “general condition”, which is a more subjective evaluation than most others I have used, the distribution map is a little more complex. The halberds are broadly described in terms which reflect my overall impressions on handling each one: some are described as “perfect”, which means what it says; others are described as “good” , which may mean that the blade is still damaged to some extent, or that there is relatively minor damage to the rivetholes; others have “obvious wear” and have clearly been used and damaged; while those in the final categories are actually buckled or broken.
The distribution map (Map 6.16) shows that the various different categories of condition are fairly well represented in all of the main areas. Interestingly, however, many of the most seriously damaged examples, those which are broken or both buckled and broken, are to be found on the peripheries and if there has indeed been a chronological progression from the centre outwards, the map might suggest that these cases should be examined more carefully to see whether this damage results more from ritual destruction than use. When we do look at these in more detail, all four are Type Breaghwy whose tiny rivet holes are unlikely to have stood up to much vigorous use. Three are broken (Killaha, Ballingarry and Brockley) but the pieces are present in each case: arguably, if this had happened in ‘action’ it might have proved difficult to retrieve the missing pieces and thus may represent deliberate destruction of the blade; otherwise, the presence of all pieces may indicate that the damage took place at some stage during the millennia of deposition. One broken example, that from Brockley, has the remains of a tiny rivet still in place but neatly sheared off on either side. There is no indication that this was done after discovery and in fact the rivet itself is quite difficult to find. If the rivet was cut in antiquity, this might suggest that the shaft had also been removed before deposition; the blade may have been deliberately broken at the same time. The last of these halberds is from Athenry, Galway and was strongly buckled when I examined it. However, some question mark must lie over when this damage occurred, since it is not so apparent in the drawing in Harbison (1969). None of the halberds display any evidence of impact damage along the blade. In short, therefore, of those halberds on the periphery which are either buckled or broken, it seems unlikely that this damage occurred from actual use.
Only one halberd with such damage is to be found amongst the main midland distribution, which is otherwise dominated by halberds with either obvious wear or those in generally good but not perfect condition. As I have said, these categories are quite subjective but discussion of the more specific and measurable categories of wear below will help flesh out and interpret the patterns indicated here.
219
- Rivet-hole Damage (Map 6.17) One of these more measurable variables is the degree of rivet-hole damage on each halberd. The map here shows the distribution of three main groups, i.e. those with little or no damage to the rivetholes, those with some damage, and those with a high level of damage. The criteria used to categorise these is that described earlier (Chapter 4). Briefly, where the rivetholes are intact or merely cracked, the halberd falls into the first category; where the hole is actually burst but is still more than half its original size the halberd falls into the second category; where the holes are burst to such an extent that they are now less than half their original size or gone completely, they are assigned to the last category. The first thing to be noted here is that the vast majority of those halberds with provenances exhibit low to medium levels of damage to the rivetholes. Over 60% in fact are categorised as “little or none”, which contrasts sharply with the norm of just under 50% for the same category for halberds generally, ie both provenanced and unprovenanced finds. The explanation may simply be that those with the lowest rivet-hole scores are also those in the best condition, the most obviously “marketable” to the finder and more likely to be offered immediately for sale when the provenance details would have been collected. We have already noted that Type Breaghwy halberds tend to be the best provenanced of any type and a similar reasoning may apply to this. The other categories of damage tend to reflect the norms for the population as a whole much more closely, ie “medium”: 29% compared with 30%; “high”: 9% compared with 11%.
In terms of distribution, the halberds with the lowest scores in terms of rivet-hole damage are fairly evenly distributed. It’s worth noting, however, that most of those with medium to high levels of damage are located within the heartland zone. As we saw in Chapter 4, there are good grounds for believing that this type of damage results from actual use – if this is the case, then the distribution map suggests it was mainly in the heartland that halberds were actually used to any extent.
- Impact damage (Map 6.18) The map showing the distribution of halberds with use-wear on the blade tells a very similar story. Again, we have high numbers with no evidence whatsoever of notching or denting on the blade and these are spread fairly evenly across the general distribution. Again, it is principally within the main heartland that the blades which display either denting, notching or a combination of both, are to be found.
220 - Aesthetics (Map 6.19) The last variable to be considered is the distribution of halberds according to the perceived importance of aesthetic appeal. As we saw in Chapter 3, Irish halberds are not, for most part, decorated at all. Instead, they rely on a simplicity of form and a cleanliness of line for their aesthetic appeal. While a few halberds bear simple incised or punched decoration, the main decorative feature is the grooving and bevelling along the edges.
Map 6.19: Aesthetics
This particular distribution map is a little sparser than the others, since some halberds appear not to display even this limited concern with aesthetics, while others cannot be assessed due to wear or surface damage. None of these are mapped here. Many halberds are adorned only with bevelling along the edges, although as with the example from Breaghwy this can be quite pronounced and obvious. There seems to be a strong northern bias to this form of decoration, with only one example in the southern half of the country. On the other hand, the combination of grooves and bevels is very much a feature of the southern distribution, particularly if the borderline Hillswood hoard is included in this, as it might reasonably be. Finally, the halberds bearing more conventional decoration in the form of punching or incised lines are all found in the northern half. Again, the main heartland contains representatives of all decorative styles but even there the biases described above are very evident.
221
SECTION 3: ASSOCIATIONS
By and large, Irish halberds tend to have been recovered as single finds. However, as we have seen already a small number have been recovered as hoards. These are as follows:
Frankford, Co. Offaly Cotton, Co. Down Hillswood, Co. Galway Killaha East, Co. Kerry Derrinsallagh, Co. Laois
In addition, there is a possible association of a halberd with a tanged chisel from Letterkenny, Co. Donegal, but the questions raised about this hoard (Harbison, 1969, p.35) are such that it will not be considered any further here. Likewise, the label in the National Museum of Ireland for one of the Suck River halberds states that it was found with another [Refs: (NMI)1881:23-24], but as there is nothing else to support this and as it may simply mean they were found on the same day along the same stretch of river.
Others, while not having come from hoards, were recovered from established deposition sites, such as Keelogue Ford on the Shannon, Portora Ford on the Erne and Lough Gur, in Co. Limerick (cf Cooney and Grogan, 1994, 139-140). While not directly associated therefore with any other artefact, the halberds from these locations are nonetheless indirectly associated with the other metalwork deposited in those sites and belong to a clear tradition of deliberate deposition in these areas.
Finally, there is the association of the halberd from Moylough, Co. Sligo, with a cist burial. This has already been considered above in some detail and it will be recalled that no other artefact was found with the burial, although the covering slab to the cist carried some limited decoration in the form of a wavy band of incised arcs. The importance of the Moylough find is that it represents the only example of a halberd being found in association with a burial in this country, although such associations are well attested elsewhere, on the Continent in particular, but even closer to hand in Scotland. Recent radio-carbon analysis of the cremated remains has also, it will be recalled, given us our only secure date for an Irish halberd, i.e. c.1700-1600 BC.
The absence of halberds from the burial record of the period is a negative association shared with Early Bronze Age axes. As has been pointed out many times before (Harbison, 1968 and 1969b; Kavanagh, 1976 and 1991; Waddell, 1990; Kilfeather, 1991; Cooney and Grogan, 1994) if any artefact is to accompany an important burial in the Early Bronze Age in Ireland, it is usually a
222 dagger or a razor which is deposited, not an axe or a halberd. It may be relevant that these last are the only two metal artefacts that are also “separated” from the person in life, insofar as they are never directly “held” as such by anybody, being wielded instead through the intervention of a long wooden shaft. A dagger or razor is a much more personal weapon, easily carried on the person, and handled much more intimately. However, there may be much more pragmatic reasons why neither axes nor halberds turn up in graves which may have more to do with the fact that these are often the biggest and heaviest metal artefacts of the period and it may simply have been deemed too extravagant to commit these to the grave with the deceased when a smaller dagger or razor could serve the same purpose (O’Flaherty, 1995). This may be even more the case when we recall that the deposition of gravegoods is actually controlled by the mourners and not the deceased (Barrett, 1989).
The combination table below summarises the associations of Irish halberds. As can readily be seen, all of these associations are quite limited and this seriously restricts the type of interpretations we might otherwise expect to make.
Table 6.11
Find Halberd Type Axe Type Dagger Other Total
Carn Cotton Clonard Breaghwy L. ravel Ballybeg Killaha Unknonw Corkey Misc burialCist Cotton 3 3 Derrinsallagh 1 1 2 Frankford 1 1 3 1 1 7 Hillswood 2 5 7 Killaha East 1 4 3 1 9 Moylough 1 1 (1)
TOTALS 2 9 1 2 2 3 4 3 1 1 1
Associations of Irish Halberds
With the exception of the Moylough find, all the direct associations for halberds are within hoards. In general, Early Bronze Age hoards in Ireland tend to be very small averaging around 4 objects each, but with more than half containing just two or three objects (O’Flaherty, 1995). Against this backdrop, it is worth noting that although halberds only occur in 10% of hoards, these hoards include some of the largest known from this period: both Frankford and Hillswood hoards contained 7 objects each, while Killaha contained 9 objects. Only the hoards from Cotton and Derrinsallagh reflect the norm for Irish hoards of 2-3 objects. Put another way, 60% of the Early Bronze Age hoards which contain halberds comprise 7 or more objects while only 11% of
223 hoards which do NOT contain halberds are so big. In addition, in the four cases where details of context are known, three of the hoards came from bogs; the other, Killaha, was found under a stone. Even though the numbers are in themselves small, the percentage from wetlands, 75%, compares well with what we know of the preferred locations for deposition of halberds generally, but contrasts sharply with the position for Early Bronze Age hoards, where the majority – 60% - come from dry places (O’Flaherty, 1995).
The deposition of halberds in hoards, therefore, differs in a number of respects from the deposition of other objects in hoards of the same period. The hoards containing halberds tend (a) to be big and (b) to be deposited in wetland zones, whereas the norm for early bronze age hoards generally is that they are small and come from dry places. In their preferred location for deposition, these halberd hoards are clearly more influenced by the way in which halberds tend to deposited generally, rather than by the way in which hoards are deposited. If nothing else, this underlines the futility of examining hoard deposition as an isolated phenomenon, or believing that all hoards in some way have more in common with each other than they do with the single deposition of other metal artefacts simply because they are hoards.
In terms of the types of object with which halberds are associated, in the majority of cases these are in fact other halberds. There are 13 halberds known from Irish hoards and 10 of these are associated exclusively with other halberds. It should be noted, however, that because of the size of these hoards, these ten halberds represent just two hoards; if we are to consider the preferred associations on a hoard by hoard basis, then the picture is much more balanced: two hoards are exclusively made up of halberds, while the other 3 include other artefact types.
More type Cotton halberds turn up in hoards than any other type. Nine out of the 13 halberds, or just under 70%, are of type Cotton. This is a good bit higher than we might expect given that Type Cotton accounts for just 50% of the population as a whole. However, the fact that 5 out of the nine are contained in just one hoard suggests that we should probably not draw too many conclusions. As has already been pointed out, both Types Carn and Cotton turn up in the same hoard from Hillswood, with suggests that for part of the time at least these two types were in contemporary use. In fact, the sophistication of the casting and finish of both types within this hoard are suggestive of a relatively late date.
The associations in the other hoards are with flat axes and daggers. In all cases the flat axes are of the simplest types, ie Lough Ravel, Ballybeg or Killaha type, all of which would have been produced in an open mould. The simplicity of the casting technique contrasts sharply with the sophistication required to cast the halberds with which they are found. In addition, in one case, the Killaha Hoard, the associated halberd is of Type Breaghwy, which as we have seen, is likely to be the latest of the halberd types. It is interesting, therefore, to find it associated with Type
224 Killaha axes rather than the earlier Lough Ravel or Ballybeg types. No halberd has ever been found with the typologically later Ballyvalley or Derryniggin axes. It has been pointed out elsewhere (O’Flaherty, 1995) that insofar as the axes are concerned, the Early Bronze Age hoards seem to reflect a genuine chronological development of such artefacts in that in no instance is an axe ever found in association with another which is more than one “step” more evolved. In other words, Lough Ravel and Ballybeg axes may be found together or with Type Killahas, but never with Ballyvalleys or Derryniggins. The fact that halberds are never found in association with these later axe types either, strongly suggests that they had disappeared by the time the Ballyvalley and Derryniggin types had become popular. The fact that the latest of the halberd types is accompanied by the latest of the “simple” flat axes in the Killaha Hoard would also support this conclusion. We might further point out that it is really only on the Ballyvalley and Derryniggin axes that the practice of geometric decoration comes in – such decoration is rare in the extreme on the earlier axes4 and of course is also almost completely absent from the halberds. The strong conclusion is that we should regard the Irish halberds as broadly contemporary with types Lough Ravel, Ballybeg and Killaha axes. They probably occur closer to the middle and end of that series than the beginning, but seem to have largely disappeared by the time the later decorated, flanged axes appear. Such a hypothesis would suggest a fairly brief floruit for the halberd itself and again this is something which has been suggested in earlier Chapters for other reasons.
However, if the Irish halberds do indeed belong to the period which saw use of the simplest axes, this poses more questions than it answers. We might well ask why axes continued to be produced using the most basic technology when much more sophisticated techniques were being used, apparently contemporaneously, to produce halberds? We might also ask, although it is really a question for another chapter, why we have never found a mould for a halberd? In the absence of stone moulds, we might assume that halberds were cast in clay moulds, which would be much more difficult to locate. If this is in fact the case, then the contrast between the way in which the axes were produced and the way in which the halberds were produced becomes more marked still. A study of surviving clay mould fragments might well prove instructive – the possibility exists that evidence for halberd moulds might yet be uncovered in such collections.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
There is a lot of material to digest in this Chapter, which I will now try to summarise and draw some conclusions from.
4 It is never found on Lough Ravel or Ballybeg axes and only occurs on c.5% of Killaha type axes (O’Flaherty, 1995)
225 Halberds as an artefact group have very little details of context. Approximately 75% in fact have no details of context whatsoever. What is interesting and which emerged unintentionally from the analyses carried out in this chapter is that there is a structure to the way in which these contexted and uncontexted finds are distributed. Contrary to what might have been expected, the recording of context does not appear to have been completely random insofar as the artefacts themselves are concerned: it seems that the individual characteristics of the artefact played a role in influencing the decision as to whether context should be recorded. It was noted that those halberds which were in the best overall condition, or which were aesthetically pleasing, or which were distinctive in some other way – such as being particularly heavy – were most likely to have details of context associated with them. The “poorer” examples were less likely to attract such attention.
The proportion in which halberds are contexted or uncontexted may also differ across the halberd types themselves. Hence it was noted that Type Carn is significantly under-represented in terms of contexted examples, while Types Breaghwy and Cotton are over-represented. Both Types Breaghwy and Cotton are in fact more than twice as likely to be contexted as Type Carn. It is very difficult to think why this should be so. However, Type Breaghwy is certainly an “unusual” halberd and this may have played a certain role. In addition, Type Cotton is one of the most aesthetically pleasing halberds with almost a monopoly on the “double-groove and bevel” form of decoration; this too may have played a role in attracting more attention to the type. Ultimately, the explanation for the low proportion of contexted Type Carn halberds may have to be sought in a broader consideration of how and why details of context are remembered and recorded. It was suggested that the recording of context might be influenced by where and when the artifacts were found, whether for example the raising of a halberd from the bog in summer on the blade of a sleán is more dramatic, and therefore more likely to be remembered and recorded, than picking one off the surface of field, sometime after it has been ploughed in winter. Also, we might look at whether antiquaries were more active during certain months to see whether this influenced the quality of recorded information for finds made generally at that time. The investigation of these questions – fascinating in their own right – is, however, not the purpose of this research and so is most reluctantly set to one side.
Where we do have details of context, however, it is noteworthy that the vast majority of Irish halberds (75-80%) come from wet-places, mostly bogs. While the various analyses carried out have tended to underline the distinction between “wet” and “dry” contexts, further reduction of the wet category into river, lake and bogland indicated no discernible sub-patterning (other than, of course, the primacy of bogland deposition): the important thing as far as deposition was concerned was that it should be made in a wet place. In this regard, and as an aside, it may be worth noting that accurate reconstructions of the Early Bronze Age halberd, as described in Chapter 9, bear more than a passing resemblance to the head and neck of a waterbird, specifically
226 a crane or heron5, and this similarity may not have been lost on the Early Bronze Age people either.
The proportion of halberds that come from wet places is a good deal higher than other contemporary metalwork, such as axes and daggers, and compares rather better with the slightly later dirks and rapiers. Clearly, in depositional terms, the halberds are more closely associated with these later blades than with their own contemporaries and this may have certain implications for function. One wonders whether these dirks and rapiers in some way supplanted the halberd, at least in symbolic terms, but perhaps also in functional terms, marking a change to a different form of combat. It may be no coincidence either that the first spears appear at the end of the Early Bronze Age also, and again one wonders whether these have in some way assumed the role of the vanished halberds – they would certainly appear a logical replacement. The fact that a number of halberds have also come from significant places in the landscape - points which have seen successive deposition of high value weaponry throughout the Bronze Age, such as Keelogue Ford, Portora Ford and the Suck River - is a strong argument for viewing halberds in the same light as these later and often more obviously prestige weapons. Many of the favoured depositional areas are even today boundaries between counties or provinces and we need to be alive to the possibility that these were also boundaries in the past and that deposition may have been taking place in liminal zones. A similar suggestion has also been recently made by Aidan O’Sullivan (2002) in the context of the exploitation of resources in the Shannon Estuary.
The bias towards wetland deposition also runs counter to the established pattern for hoard deposition in the Early Bronze Age, which focuses on dry land sites. Again, the vast majority of Irish halberds are single finds but even in the 5-6 cases where halberds turn up in hoards, they tend to be in wetland contexts and also to be a good deal larger than the usual Early Bronze Age hoard. Within the hoards themselves, halberds are mostly found associated with other halberds, which limits the value these hoards have for building relative chronologies. However, it is significant that where halberds are found with axes, these are always of the simple flat-axe variety, ie Lough Ravel/Ballybeg or Killaha types. The fact that they are never found with the later flanged varieties suggests that halberds may have fallen out of fashion by this stage and been replaced by some other artefact, perhaps the longer dirks/rapiers or spears. The date obtained from the one instance where a halberd turned up in a grave (1700-1600BC) is broadly consistent with this hypothesis, especially as the halberd in question was of Type Breaghwy which with good grounds may be regarded as fairly late in the halberd series. All-in-all, a quite brief floruit is suggested for the halberd and again this would be supported by the extreme
5 corr in old and modern Irish and a strongly magical bird; note also corrán, a “little” corr, i.e. a sickle. What then is a large corr?! A halberd perhaps? The etymology of this word is interesting and hints at a great antiquity. Pushing it back to the Bronze Age is probably too much, but it makes for interesting speculation.
227 homogeneity of the type in Ireland, with some 80% or so belonging to the one basic three-rivet (Carn/Cotton) type. This question is discussed again in Chapter 10.
All in all, the Irish halberds seem to be treated in a quite different way to the rest of the metalwork in this period, much more given to deposition in wetland zones and when deposited in hoards, included in the biggest ones. It is not, with one exception, known from graves of the period and while this contrasts with daggers and razors, it links the halberd with the axe which is virtually unknown from graves either. This may be a simple expression of the economics of the time but it may also have been an expression of the role that these two artefacts played in society: the metal artefacts which do turn up in graves (daggers and razors) are small items easily carried on the person and handled in life in a very direct, “intimate” fashion. Halberds and axes, however, are “remote-controlled” weapons and tools, wielded through the intervention of a shaft of wood. They may not have been intimate enough to warrant deposition with the body of the deceased. For that matter, they may not even have been the personal property of anyone at all. Like Excalibur, which Arthur has no right to take with him from this world, individuals in the Early Bronze Age may simply have had a “life-interest” in the halberd or axe they wielded and following death of one custodian, these artifacts may have passed to another. Alternatively, they may have more explicitly represented community property. Needham (1988) has pointed to a very similar situation in Britain at this time, where the paucity of metal grave goods contrasts starkly with the extravagance of single and hoard deposition. Whatever the actual situation may have been – and we can only speculate – it is clear that halberds and axes were not deemed personal property in the sense in which ownership could remain with the deceased. This does not presuppose a particularly egalitarian Bronze Age society – we have only to look at our own society which places huge store by the accumulation of personal wealth but which commits its dead to the earth without a penny. We are pragmatic enough to know that it’s better in our pockets than theirs.
Some effort appears also to have been made to ensure that the “best” examples were obtained for wetland deposition: it was shown that (where the context is known) 93% of those in perfect or near perfect condition come from wet places. A higher than usual proportion of those from wetland locations also have rivetholes which are in perfect condition, suggesting that they may have seem very little actual use. Bridgford (1997a) has noted a similar bias on the part of Irish Late Bronze Age swords. On the other hand, while the majority of those from dry places also display little enough rivet-hole damage, a significant proportion – and almost twice that of the wetland finds – show quite serious levels of damage. The bias towards wetland deposition continues when we look at those halberds which are the most “aesthetically pleasing”, ie which include elements of form and design which seem more decorative than functional, since conventional decoration is rare in the extreme. Some 90% of these come from wet places too.
228 There is also a suggestion, but not the best marked, that the heavier halberds have tended to come from wet places.
In terms of the way in which these artefacts were treated before deposition, there is evidence that the shaft was deliberately removed before deposition in some cases, or perhaps cut off at the head. This is clearly a deliberate destruction of the weapon, which relies as much upon the shaft for its being as it does upon the metal blade. In the continental and African rock-art, as we will see later, it is never represented without its shaft, so the removal of this is clearly a highly significant act. In some instances, we know that the blade too was deliberately damaged before deposition – the clearest example coming from Bride Street in Dublin where the blade was found doubled over. However, we also have excellent evidence that halberds could be deposited with the shaft still intact: the best known example is the eponymous Carn Halberd, but other finds – certainly that from Altnamackin and maybe Breaghwy itself - testify to the practice.
Turning to look at the distribution of these artefacts, it is immediately clear that there was a strong, central heartland based around the midland counties of Leinster, east Connacht, South Ulster and North Munster. This is where most halberds have been found, with the exception of type Breaghwy which inhabits the peripheries. The distribution of Irish halberds is therefore largely co-spatial with limestone geology and the best-drained soils. It is predominantly low- lying and ideally suited to pastoral farming. Even today, this is beef country and if we are looking for what gave Bronze Age communities in this area the edge over others in terms of being able to “afford” halberds, which represent significant investment in metal and craftsmanship, then we may need to look no further than their herds of cattle. There are other factors too which may have played a role: the distribution of Irish halberds can be related to the course of the River Shannon and its tributaries. This great river and its attendant waterways must have provided an excellent means of communication through the zone, allowing halberds to be transported freely in many directions. Ultimately, the Shannon may have been a conduit for external as well as internal influences and to seafarers its huge estuary must have been a beacon to lure the adventurous into the very heart of the island. Exotic Continental varieties of halberd are known from Ireland, such as the unprovenanced Gambara-type halberd, otherwise found only in Northern Italy, or the Argaric types from Cavan and Rockforest, Co. Tipperary. While the huge bulk of halberds found here are clearly of Irish type and presumably of native production, there is no doubt that influences flowed in and out of the country. Given that the engine-room for halberd use and production(?) in Ireland appears to have been the great Central Plain, it may well have been the Shannon River that transmitted these influences.
In other respects, the distribution of Irish halberds can be compared with the distribution of some of the axes, particularly Type Killaha, as well as the goldwork from the period which has a strong north central bias. There is also a certain correspondence with the distribution of single burials,
229 sufficient to allow us to equate the halberds with this broad community rather than with any other. A very close match in distributional terms is obtained with Simpson’s “Late Series” Battle Axes. These Battle Axes would be of similar date, strongly linked to the single burial rite, and clearly items of considerable prestige and value. They are of course also superficially similar to halberds and certainly attest to the symbolic value of artefacts of this size, shape and construction. Indeed John Coles (1969) has sought the origin of the halberd in Europe in areas where the stone battle-axe occurs. The main point of difference here, however, is that the Irish battle axes are not infrequently found in graves, unlike halberds. Nor do they appear to show much evidence of use or concern with functionality, which again is something many halberds do.
There is also some evidence from the various distribution maps to suggest a sequence to the spread of halberds in Ireland. Type Carn, often regarded as the earliest type, tends to cluster around the Shannon and its tributaries, defining the broad bones of a distribution which will later be filled in and extended by the most popular and widespread halberd, Type Cotton. Type Clonard – few in number – appears very much a local experiment in the eastern province, while Type Breaghwy, probably the last of the halberd types to develop, is distributed along the peripheries. Also towards the outskirts of the main distribution are the heaviest and less functional halberds and, as with type Breaghwy, it might be suggested that this reflects a development over time, so that by the time the fashion has spread to these areas, it has also changed somewhat, placing a greater emphasis on display than before. In the same vein, most of those halberds with medium to high rivet-hole scores, consistent with actual use, are to be found within the main heartland of halberd distribution, although whether this is simply because this is where most halberds are to be found anyway, rather than an indication that in this region halberds tended to be “used” rather than displayed, is unclear. However, it is also true to say that most of those halberds distributed along the outskirts tend to be low-scoring in terms of rivet-hole damage, so the distribution map may indeed reflect a real, changing function as the use of halberds spreads. What seems to run counter to this hypothesis is the fact that some of the most seriously damaged halberds, in terms of general condition, also occur on the outskirts. However, a re-examination of these finds suggested that this damage may not have resulted from actual use but may reflect deliberate destruction or damage after deposition.
Final Words Overall then, we are presented with a quite complex picture of the halberd in Ireland. It is strongly linked with the practice of wetland deposition to an extent which other contemporary metalwork is not. In this regard it previews the role which will be played by later generations of obviously prestige weaponry, to which class we might now consider the halberd to belong. Like this later weaponry, the halberd is virtually never deposited in graves. Nor is it often to be found in hoards, but when it is, it skews the normal profile of such hoards from small and “dry” to large and “wet”. The halberd is strongly concentrated in the Central Plain, possibly reflecting the
230 wealth of a society built upon cattle, and probably using the Shannon and its tributaries as a means to communicate and receive influences. Over time, the use of halberds may have spread throughout this area but it is only on the peripheries that what is probably the latest type, Type Breaghy, is to be found. Both form and function may have changed over time in this way to result in a greater emphasis being placed on display rather than functionality. Its period of tenure was short, however. Just what replaced the halberd in Early Bronze Age society is not clear, but both the dirk/rapier and the spear are strong candidates. If we can tell how and why this artefact was replaced, we may come to understand much about its function.
231 Chapter 7
Contemporary Images of Halberds: Rock Art, Stelae-Statuary and Miniatures
‘Natural forms’, wrote Djerzinski, ‘are human forms. Triangles, interweavings, branchings, appear in our minds. We recognise them and admire them; we live among them. We grow among our creations, human creations, which we can communicate to men, and among them when we die. In the midst of space, human space, we make our measurements and with these measurements we create space, the space between our instruments’. Michel Houellebecq, Atomised. ______
As the title of this Chapter suggests, the purpose of what follows is to examine the contemporary images of halberds which were created by Early Bronze Age cultures themselves. The analysis takes in rock art, of which the most useful collections are to be found in the Western Mediterranean and Galicia; stelae and statuary, principally those of the Iberian peninsula; and miniature halberds, of which a number of examples are known from the Wessex graves.
One of the problems which one encounters when trying to analyse this type of art and the rock-art in particular is the fact that so many of the key publications show the art out of context. It is true that archaeologists are becoming increasingly aware of the landscape perspective of this art (and indeed its social implications – e.g. Goldhahn, 1999) but what I am more concerned about in this instance is the context of what might be termed its “colleague” art. In other words, when you examine key monographs (such as Abelanet, 1986 or Chenorkian, 1988) what you see are individual motifs, taken off the surface, classified and presented together, without reference to what they were originally associated with. Also, one might like to look at the disposition of the art on the outcrops themselves, e.g. are the various motifs focused on natural features of the rock, such as fissures or hollows, are they grouped, leaving expanses of bare rock elsewhere – the “space between” that Michel Djerzinski is so concerned with in the quotation at the start of this chapter. This is not possible given the manner in which the art has traditionally been presented to the student. Obviously, this approach has its strengths in terms of grasping the range of motifs being used, classifying and ordering these, but it seriously interferes with one’s ability to understand the relationship between those motifs. This is obviously extremely important for a study such as this, which would like to consider the associations between the different metal artifacts depicted as well as analyse those depictions themselves. Unfortunately, in many cases it is simply not possible to do this through the published material with any degree of certainty and we need to acknowledge this limitation before proceeding any further.
232
A more precise problem is also encountered when one seeks to identify actual models for the images amongst the halberds which have survived to the present day in the archaeological record, for as De la Peña Santos (1979, 81) comments
El hecho de que las armas se representan enmangadas dificulta la clasificación tipológica de las mismas ya que los tipos reales se encuentran sin empunadura... [The fact that the arms are represented hafted makes their typological classification difficult, since the real types are never found hafted…]
Despite this, where the depictions are detailed enough, it is possible at times to identify examples where the artist must have seen or been familiar with a particular type of halberd. These will be pointed out and discussed as we go along.
This chapter is divided into three parts. In the first part, we look at the overall picture of rock-art and stelae-statuary generally in Bronze Age Europe, identifying those instances where images of halberds occur. The deposition of miniature halberd pendants as grave-goods in the Wessex zone of Southern Britain will also be noted. In the second part, we move to consider these particular depictions of halberds in greater detail, while in the third we will attempt to pull the various strands together and draw some conclusions.
SECTION ONE: OVERVIEW
For convenience, the subject-matter here will be considered under two broad headings, ie rock- art and stelae-statuary. Rock-art in particular was created at many different times in prehistory and history and the zones discussed below often contain examples from many different periods. However, the art selected for discussion here is generally accepted as of Bronze Age date, and indeed the weaponry attests to this. This being the case I have largely avoided any chronological discussion in the various sections.
Rock-Art The principal concentrations of Bronze Age rock-art in Western Europe are as follows (fig 7.1 refers): Mont Bego (France) Val d’Aoste (France) Valcamonica (Italy) Galicia (Spain) High Atlas Mountains (Morocco) Scandinavia and Northern Europe Northern Britain Ireland
233
While it may seem a little strange to include the rock art of the High Atlas Mountains in Morocco in a consideration of the rock art of the European Bronze Age, this body of material is in fact highly relevant, particularly with regard to the depiction of halberds.
Fig 7.1: Principal concentrations of rock-art
Morocco
The body of material of interest to us lies in a single region of the High Atlas Mountains which first came to the attention of European archaeologists in 1948. In this year, one M. Pinguet - a teacher from Casa Blanca - drew to the attention of the then Inspector of Moroccan Antiquities, M. Antoine, the existence of a series of rock-carvings in the mountains near the winter resort of Oukaïmeden, about 80km from Marrakech. M. J. Malhomme was entrusted with the task of investigating and recording these carvings, to which he devoted over ten years of his life, culminating in the publication in 1959 and 1961 of his two volume monograph, Corpus des gravures rupestres du Grand Atlas. Further work and analysis was carried out by A. Simoneau (1977) and A. Jodin (1964, 1966).
234 Chenorkian (1988) identifies two broad categories of carvings, i.e. “figurative” and “non- figurative”. The first category is subdivided into anthropomorphic, zoomorphic and weaponry themes and it is obviously in this last sub-category that our particular interest lies. Amongst the weapons to be found depicted in this rock-art, Malhomme (1959, 1961) has identified halberds, daggers, boomerangs and bows-and-arrows, a list to which Chenorkian (1988) would add axes also. The depictions of halberds will be examined in detail in Section 2.
The Iberian Peninsula
The Bronze Age rock-art of the Iberian peninsula is concentrated in the main in the province of Pontevedra, in Galicia in the northwest of the peninsula. The principal sources are Anati (1968), De la Peña Santos and Vazquez Varela (1979), De la Peña Santos (1980) and Bradley (1997). The art occupies a variety of landscapes, including coastal areas and uplands, each dominated by different motifs, abstract on the coast and animal depictions in the foothills to the east. Galician rock-art is closely related to the distribution of water, shade and fertile soils, with much of the animal carvings focusing on a number of small upland basins that provide moisture during the summer droughts (Bradley, 1995b). The carvings rarely occupy particularly conspicuous positions but seem to place more emphasis on pathways through the hills, perhaps linked to the routes travelled by the red deer so often depicted (Bradley, Criado and Fábregas, 1994). Few major carvings are found on vertical or steeply-faced surfaces, but those that do include a high proportion of weapon-imagery.
The rock-art of Galicia has been considered by many authors over the years, most of whom profess to see the art as being produced within a broader “Atlantic” province. MacWhite (1946 and 1951) saw an origin for several Irish rock-art motifs in Galicia, which then were passed on to Scandinavia via Scotland. Cuevillas (1952) agrees that several Galician motifs transferred to the British Isles and Anati (1963) reiterates this hypothesis. Glob (1969) argues for the emergence of specific local traditions of rock-art at an early period throughout Europe, but accepts direct relations for the British Isles and Galicia. Despite this enthusiastic endorsement of trans-cultural exchange, De la Peña Santos and Vazquez Varela (1979) wisely point to the dangers of drawing too many conclusions on the basis of similarities in art-styles. They point out that close parallels for the Galician art exist also in native South American rock art, as well as in African work from Angola and Mozambique. They also make the important point that similar art could well have appeared in other media as well, that has not stood the test of time as well as stone. This might in some way explain the fact that art of this type now appears concentrated in certain areas of Europe only.
235 De la Peña Santos and Vazquez Varela (1979) see the rockart of Galicia as extending in time from c.3000BC through to the beginning of the Christian era. They identify the following motifs: Cupmarks (cazoletas) Circle combinations Spirals Labyrinths Animals Human figures Idols Weapons Other
Depictions of weapons have a highly restricted distribution in comparison to rock-art generally in Galicia, concentrating almost exclusively in the province of Pontevedra. Chenorkian (1988) identifies six weapon themes, i.e. shields, swords, axes, halberds, daggers and points, distributed across 13 sites. For De la Peña Santos and Vazquez Varela, however, the most important weapon types represented are shields (escudos), daggers, axes and halberds.
France - Mont Bego
Very little introduction is required for Mont Bego, whose Vallée des Merveilles has a long history of documentation dating back to 1650. The first comprehensive work on the subject, however, is that of Clarence Bicknell who in 1913 published his Guide to the prehistorick rock engravings in the Italian Maritime Alps. The rock art of this area was the subject of sporadic research over the next half-century or so until systematic investigations were begun in 1967 by de Lumley.
The Mont itself is 2873m high, dominating an area of lakeland that is quite remote and removed from more agriculturally exploitable valleys. Approximately 40,000 rock carvings have been identified to date, generally to be found at altitudes of between 2100-2500m. De Lumley (1976) has identified 8 specific zones of rock-art within the Mont Bego concentration, but broadly speaking we can think in terms of two principal zones, ie the Vallée des Merveilles and Fontanalba.
De Lumley (ibid) groups the Mont Bego carvings thematically into horned figures, anthropomorphic figures, geometric figures, weapons and miscellaneous classes. The carvings themselves can vary significantly from a few centimetres in size to 3 metres. The art includes many composite pictures, made up of geometric forms, weapons, implements, human figures, ards and animals. Suggestions of some sort of bull cult are common amongst commentators.
236 Depictions of weapons account for about 15-16% of all carvings and about 21% of the “representative” art. The types of weapon shown consist of daggers, “scythes” (of which more anon), halberds, axes and various others. In Chenorkian’s opinion (1988), daggers and halberds are the two most obvious weapons depicted, and these account alone for 18% of the “representative” art in the entire region.
Italy - Val Camonica
The rock-carvings of the Val Camonica region are, by-and-large, a discovery of the 20th century. Many researchers have contributed to the corpus of material known today, including Laeng (1951), Suss (1958) and Fumagalli (1956). With the foundation in 1964 by Anati of the Centro camuno di Studi preistorici, the study of the carvings in this area began to be organised on a systematic basis and by 1976 some 130,000 carvings had been identified. This number continues to be augmented from year to year.
Fig 7.2: Main concentrations of rockart in Val Val Camonica itself is a 70km long Camonica (after Chenorkian, 1988: fig 28) valley in the middle of the Italian Alps, a little to the north of the town of Brescia. Its altitude varies from about 200m at lake level to 1700m at the Pass of Tonale at its northernmost extremity. It contrasts markedly with the other great centres of rock art at Mont Bego and the High Atlas Mountains through its geographic coherence, confined as it is to a single long valley. It is also distinguished by its relatively low altitude, which means the art is always fairly accessible, although it may also be less visible than, for example, at Mont Bego. Its location allows one to think in terms of permanent occupation and agricultural activity in the immediate vicinity.
There are two main concentrations of carvings, one near Luine in the centre of the valley and the other, more important assemblage, further north near Capo di Monte. Huge numbers of carvings can sometimes be found on individual rocks, such as the great rock at Naquane which measures 48m long and carries 885 representations.
237
Anati (1976) identifies 4 phases in the development of the rock art in this region. In Phases I and II, depictions of the human figure with arms raised occur. The overall presentation is haphazard, however, in Phase I, while compositions appear in Phase II. The first metals are represented in Phase IIIA and quite complex compositions of sun-symbols with weapons (axes, daggers, halberds) and quadrupeds occur. Abelanet (1986) sees evidence in this of a solar cult.
In terms of “themes”, Anati (1976) has identified 158 main types of carving, organised within 5 broad categories. These are as follows:
Table 7.1 Categories A. Human and anthropomorphic types 48 B. Animals 21 C. Structures, vehicles, heavy tools 16 D. Weapons and tools 23 E. Schematic figures, symbols, abstract art 50
Within category D, Anati identifies seven separate weapon groups (fig 7.3), ie daggers and swords, halberds, axes, spears, bows, shields and “forks”, the latter a curious type of implement which may in fact have more in common with our own pitchforks, than with weaponry per se. In general, representations of arms in Val Camonica are less numerous but more varied than Mont Bego.
238 Fig 7.3: Motif typologies in Val Camonica (after Anati, 1976, reproduced in Chenorkian, 1988: fig 29)
Other Alpine Sites (fig 7.4) Le Val d’Aoste An important concentration of rock-art occurs in this area, much of which however is geometric and not of much use in the interpretation of the subject matter in hand at present.
Lake Garda An important series of carvings is known from the region immediately surrounding Lake Garda. The art of the area includes depictions of axes and daggers, but as yet no depiction of a halberd has been identified that I know of.
239
Fig 7.4: Other alpine sites (after Chenorkian, 1988: fig 23)
Northern Europe and Scandinavia This area saw one of the most prolific expressions of rock art in prehistoric times. The art is to be found across different locations in northern Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland and Karelia. Malmer (1981) supplies a broad analysis of the art in this zone. In general, a north- south divide is discernible, with wild animals dominating the art of the north, and ships and agricultural motifs appearing in the south. Malmer sees this as reflecting the prevailing economic situation in each area. He also points out that much of the art is linked to ideas of wealth and status, eg depictions of metal objects, rich garments, wheeled vehicles and ships. Looking at the broad sweep of North European rock-art, Malmer identifies and discusses ten motifs, ie Table 7.2 Motif No. Examples Ships 3,877 Carts 61 Ards 8 Weapons 457 Clothing 10 Hands 33 Feet 1,016 Circles 648 Human figures 1,034 Animals 2,378 (64% in north) Motifs in Northern European Rock Art (data from Malmer, 1981)
Depictions of weapons are distributed mainly across Scania, Ostergotland and Malar (all southeast Sweden). Within this distribution the different weapon motifs themselves show
240 specific geographic preferences. The depictions are also produced at various scales: some are life size, some are larger/smaller than life. In most cases there appears no physical need to vary the scales, eg to make them fit on a particular surface, and Almgren (1962) has consequently suggested that these differing scales are applied deliberately and are significant. Despite the many and varied depictions of weapons, Malmer does not specifically mention the occurrence of any carvings of halberds. “Halberd-like” implements, however, do appear as part of his corpus of “ceremonial weapons” (fig 7.5) although I would be unhappy to regard any of these as definite representations of halberds, per se - in fact, if anything they would appear to resemble sickles more than weapons. John Coles (pers.comm) has drawn attention to some similar depictions from Alta in the far north of the region, but similarly expresses doubts that these are halberds. The only absolute reference that I am aware of to a halberd in the rock-art of this region is by Majolie Lenerz de Wilde (1991) who draws attention to a carving from Bohuslän, Sweden, which allegedly shows a halberd (fig 7.6). However, I am not convinced and since this appears to be the only possible example known from Northern Europe/Scandinavia, it is not proposed to consider the art of this area any further.
Fig 7.6: Suggested representation of halberd from Bohuslän, Sweden (after Lenerz-de Wilde, 1991: fig14
241 Ireland and Northern Britain
The rock art of this zone tends to be schematic and, apparently, largely non-representational. Depictions of axes (unhafted) are known from Ri Cruin and Nether Largie 2 in Argyll, Scotland (Morris, 1977), and of course there are the well-known carvings of axes at Stonehenge as well. There is one possible depiction of a halberd (fig 7.7) on one of the Calderstones, Merseyside. The carving depicts what may be a halberd-blade fixed to a very short shaft, no longer than the blade itself (B9). It appears on the rock-face in association with a number of other carvings, including spirals, arcs and footprints. The carving is described by Forde-Johnstone (1957), who is not himself completely convinced that it is a halberd. For my part, I feel it bears more than a passing resemblance to the carved footprints elsewhere on the stone, particularly to that pecked in outline only and partly obscured by the modern cross (B11). Because of the uncertainty surrounding this possible halberd depiction, it is not proposed to consider it further.
In passing, however, it is worth noting Macalister’s imaginative interpretation of the Clonfinlough Stone, where he considers that a number of human figures are represented, some carrying halberds. He goes on to say: “The apparent weapons suggest that it was a military, probably a hostile expedition….Perhaps the men contemplating the sculptured field are victors in some encounter: before them is the battle field, printed with the footmarks of the flying foe, strewn with weapons cast away in their flight…” (1928, 2ndedition, p52)
242 The carvings which Macalister interprets as human figures with “arms akimbo” seem unlikely candidates (fig 7.8). However, viewed in the context of the Galician art, these same carvings might easily be interpreted as schematic halberds themselves! There is no agreement about the interpretation of these carvings and it is not proposed to consider them further here.
Stelae and statuary
Iberian Stelae The carved stelae of southwestern Iberia form one of the most important groups of Bronze Age rock-carving known in Europe today. Many of the finds have been known for some time, most being chance finds rather than the result of systematic programmes of research. While a great deal of the published work is of the nature of descriptions of individual pieces, there has been an increasing effort in the direction of synthesis in the last 30 years or so, epitomised by the work of Almagro who, following many monographs, published Las estelas decoradas del suroeste peninsular in 1966 which has served as the basic text for many years.
Chenorkian (1988) considers a total of 68 stelae from Iberia, along with a further 3 from France, which clearly belong to the Iberian school. In terms of weaponry, Chenorkian’s inventory can be summarised as follows: Table 7.3 Bows 9 Shields 41 Helmets 9 Swords 48 Axes 4 Axe-idols1 14 Halberds 6 Spears 33 Daggers 2 TOTAL 166
Weaponry Motifs in the Stelae-Statuary of Iberia (data from Chenorkian, 1988)
From my own examination of the published texts, I would increase the figure for depictions of halberds to at least 19, and possibly as much as 23 if certain disputed identifications are included. These will be considered in greater detail in the next section.
1 The term “axe-idol” above probably needs some explanation. This is a literal translation of Chenorkian’s “haches-idoles” otherwise known in French as idoles dolméniques. The majority of writers before Almagro had interpreted this particular motif as an axe with a highly curved cutting edge and Chenorkian is also happy to regard it as a depiction of a weapon.
243
The Menhir-Statues of Corsica
The archaeological recognition of these monuments begins in 1840, when M. P. Mérimée, then Inspector-General of the Historic Monuments of France, described the example from Appriciani in his Notes de Voyages. However, it was to be more than 100 years later before any serious research into these carvings was undertaken, by R. Grosjean, whose work continued uninterrupted until his death in 1975. Grosjean published extensively during this period, including a very useful paper entitled Les armes portées sur les statue-menhirs de Corse (1962). Grosjean also attempted a classification of these carvings in 1967, dividing them into six main groups, of which Group 5 comprises those statues which carry arms. Unfortunately, fascinating though the carvings are, none include depictions of halberds and so, for the purposes of the present study, they may be disregarded.
Stelae-statuary of Lunigiana, Italy.
About 44 of these carvings are known, both whole and fragmentary. They belong to the region around La Spezia and Carrare, along the Ligurian/Tuscan border. As is the case with most of the Iberian stelae, the Lunigiana carvings have tended to be chance discoveries and not the result of any concerted research effort. The first recorded discovery was in 1827 but it was not until 1908 that the first attempt to examine these carvings together was made, when Mazzini included 14 in his Monumenti Celtici in Val di Magra. The basic text, however, is Ambrosi’s Corpus delle statue-stele lunigianesi, which appeared in 1972. A limited number of arms are depicted, including daggers, swords, axes and javelins but no halberds.
Other Alpine Sites
La Valtellina Two carved stelae from this area are of interest. At Caven 1 occurs a series of carvings which includes a figure holding a leaf-shaped halberd aloft. A similar halberd appears at Caven 2. These will be discussed in detail in the next section.
Alto Adige Eight stelae are known from this region, of which six carry depictions of arms. The arms shown include daggers and axes, but no halberds.
244 Germany Examples of stelae-statuary are known from different parts of Germany but at the moment I am only aware of one which dates clearly to the Early Bronze Age and which includes undisputed depictions of halberds. This is the stone from Tubingen-Weilheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, and it will be discussed in detail in the next section. One other possible carving from Anderlingen, Hannover, is also discussed.
Miniatures Miniatures of Bronze Age weapons/tools are known from a number of European contexts, where they were apparently worn as pendants. Miniature halberds, however, are only known from one part of Europe, as far as I can tell. These are the examples which were recovered from three of the “golden barrows” of the Wessex Culture of Southern Britain. These will be discussed again in greater detail in the next section.
SECTION TWO: ANALYSIS
Having considered briefly the range of relevant contemporary imagery created by Bronze Age artists, it is immediately obvious that while this is relatively widely dispersed through Atlantic and Mediterranean Europe, images of halberds only occur in certain areas. The situation is summarised below (Table 7.4) but in broad terms it can be seen that images of halberds occur in only about half of the areas where this type of art was being produced in the Bronze Age. Virtually all of Northern and Western Europe, with the exception of Galicia, is devoid of such images. It will be argued later that this is not without significance. Table 7.4 Region Art type Depicts halberds Mont Bego (France) Rockart Yes Valcamonica (Italy) Rockart Yes Galicia (Spain) Rockart Yes High Atlas (Morocco) Rockart Yes Val d’Aoste (France) Rockart No Lake Garda (Italy) Rockart No Scandinavia and Northern Europe Rockart No Northern Britain Rockart No Ireland Rockart No Iberia Stelae/Statuary Yes Baden-Wurttemberg (Germany) Stelae/Statuary Yes Valtellina Stelae Yes Corsica Stelae/Statuary No Lunigiana Stelae/Statuary No Alto Adige Stelae No Wessex (Britain) Miniatures Yes
Regions where images of halberds occur
245
In what follows, we will move to consider these images of halberds in detail on a region by region basis. One of the things that will rapidly become clear is that these images have much to offer in terms of reconstructing the shaft-lengths of Early Bronze Age halberds, something about which we know virtually nothing. Since the images were obviously produced originally at many different scales, we need some frame of reference which allows us to extract the relevant information regarding shaft lengths and to compare one region with another. I have decided to work on the basis of “blade-shaft ratios”, ie expressing the length of shaft as a function of the length of visible blade. For example, a ratio of 1:3 implies that the art depicts halberds with shafts three times as long as their visible blades.
For the purposes of distinguishing between different parts of the shaft itself, I have avoided using terms like “proximal” and “distal” which appear in the rock-art literature in particular but which can be confusing depending on what perspective the reader naturally assumes when looking at these types of depictions. Instead, I have decided to simply use the terms “top” and “bottom”, which in terms of the shaft mean exactly what they say.
Morroco: rock-art
The depictions here are all to be found in the rock-art of the High Atlas Mountains. Chenorkian (1988), using an elaborate series of formulae which I do not propose to discuss here, distinguishes three types of halberd in the art. These three types are reproduced at fig 7.9. The principal distinguishing feature which Chenorkian uses is length of blade: thus Type 1 has a relatively short blade, Type 2 has a medium-sized blade and Type 3 has a long blade. There are other distinguishing features, however, such as width: Type 1 and Type 3 are quite narrow blades (Type 1 particularly so) while Type 2 is wide; and hafting-position: Type 3 is always fixed right at the end of the shaft, Type 1 never so, while Type 2 varies. Blade-shaft ratios across the three types are fairly constant at about 1:2, 1:3 or 1:4, although Type 3 may represent a halberd with a much shorter shaft, not much longer than the blade itself.
In looking for the actual models for these depictions, we rapidly run into problems because only one real halberd has ever been found in Morocco. This is a bronze halberd from the Bronze Age site of Mers (Ponsich, 1970) which resembles halberds of the Iberian Carrapatas type (Chapter 2), consisting as it does of a broad triangular blade with three rivet-holes set in a shallow hafting plate. However, this type of halberd cannot have served as the model for all or even most of the Morrocan rock-art carvings. The proximity of Iberia and its undoubted status as one of the great centres of production and use of the halberd in Bronze Age Europe suggests that it is to this peninsula that we might look with more confidence for the real models for the Atlas art.
246
Fig 7.9: Various types of halberd carvings from the High Atlas Mountains, Morocco (Chenorkian, 1988: figs 38-41)
Moving to consider the three main types of depiction, the principal features can be summarised as follows:
Type 1 Depictions of this type (fig 7.9) show a halberd which has a reasonably short and narrow blade. The shaft too seems to be quite short, with a blade-shaft ratio of around 1:2 or 1:3 (longer examples are known, however) giving the impression of short, stocky weapon designed for dealing punching blows. The “business-end” of the shaft shows evidence of being strengthened by widening the shaft at the back of the hafting-point. Rivets, where they are depicted, tend to be three in number, running in a straight line from top to bottom. The shaft also expands suddenly at the bottom in many cases, resembling the design of modern axe-handles and presumably functions in exactly the same way, providing greater purchase on the shaft.
247 As has already been pointed out, only one real halberd has ever been found in Morroco and this does not fit the description implied by the Type 1 depictions. In fact, there is only one possible model for this type of halberd anywhere in the region and this is in the El Argar dominated zone of neighbouring Iberia. While no Argaric halberd has survived with haft intact, Chenorkian at least sees good evidence that the “silhouette” of a hafted El Argar halberd would closely resemble the Type 1 depictions from Morocco (fig 7.10 refers). He points out that because of its characteristic elongated hafting plate, the shaft on an El Argar halberd would have to continue some noticeable distance above where the blade is seen to project in order to accommodate this hafting plate. This is precisely how the Type 1 depictions are represented. The model of an El Argar halberd also helps explain why the upper portion of the shaft in these depictions is so much wider than the lower if one considers the “hidden” element of a greatly elongated hafting plate, requiring this type of extended reinforcement.
All-in-all, Chenorkian is quite convincing in arguing that these Type 1 Moroccan carvings are in fact images of fully hafted El Argar halberds. If he is right, as I believe him to be, the most striking conclusion is just how short the shaft must have been. From the evidence of the carvings, it would seem that the shafts of this type of halberd were generally no more than around twice or three times the length of the blade. Given an average visible length of blade for this type of halberd of c.20cm (and often much less), this would suggest that a shaft of no more than 40- 60cm long could be regarded as normal. Such a weapon is quite different from the usual perception of the Bronze Age halberd, which is frequently thought of as having a shaft three times or more that length, approaching a pole-arm in functionality. This may well be true of halberds from some parts of Europe (and the Carn shaft is telling testimony that such shafts did exist), but the evidence from Morocco clearly indicates that for one of the main centres of production of halberds, these weapons were conceived quite differently. It seems that we should consider the Argaric halberd as a hand-weapon and this would be consistent with its depictions on some of the Iberian statuary, notably Valdefuentes which will be considered later.
248
Fig 7.10: Comparison of Atlas carving with reconstructed Argaric halberd (Chenorkian, 1988: fig 105)
Type 2 Type 2 carvings (fig 7.9) show a wide triangular halberd, with a pronounced midrib and often with lateral grooving. Like the Type 1 carvings, the shaft seems short with a blade-shaft ratio of between 1:2 and 1:3. These shafts also end frequently in the type of bulbous swelling described above, while at the business end, the shaft often expands at the back to accommodate what is clearly a rounded hafting plate. Rivets, where depicted, can be arranged in either a linear or rectangular pattern. In stylistic terms, Chenorkian (1988) also draws comparisons with the carvings on the stele from Longroiva, Portugal (fig 7.25), which composition includes an image of a halberd. The style of carving on this stele, itself somewhat atypical in Iberian art, would not he argues be out of place in the High Atlas mountains.
Type 2 depictions show many similarities with the Carrapatas-type halberds of Iberia and it will be remembered that the only halberd ever to be found in Morocco is very likely of this type also. If these carvings do in fact represent Carrapatas-type halberds, then on the basis of the size of blades which have survived to the present, which suggest a visible blade length of about 26cm, we might think in terms of a halberd with a shaft of about 40-60cms long. Again, this is far from a pole-arm and much better thought of as a hand-weapon.
Type 3 Type 3 depictions cannot be matched with any certainty to “real” halberds found anywhere else in Europe, although Chenorkian does consider at some length Irish and Italian models before abandoning any hope of a hypothesis. Once more, from our perspective, the important fact is that
249 the shaft is short - in some cases the blade-shaft ratio is 1:1. Again, if the relative proportions are correct, we are looking at a hand-weapon. The position of the blade right at the top of the shaft would suggest a halberd with a rounded/trapezoidal hafting plate, rather than an elongated one and therefore these drawings could not be thought of as representing Argaric type halberds. Chenorkian considers it most likely to represent a later halberd type to the other two and quite possibly one of native origin.
Summary In summary then, the Moroccan carvings show a halberd with a surprisingly short but sturdy shaft, clearly designed more as a hand-weapon than a pole-arm and intended to deliver heavy punching blows in the case of Type 1, and more cutting blows with Types 2 and 3. There are excellent grounds for believing that the so-called Type 1 carvings are in fact representations of fully-hafted El Argar halberds, while the Type 2 carvings have more in common with Carrapatas type halberds, or indeed with the more widely-distributed “Atlantic”-types (Chapter 2).
Iberia
Contemporary depictions of halberds in Iberia can be found in both the rock-art of Galicia and on the stelae/statuary from elsewhere.
Looking at the rock-art of Galicia first, I have been able to identify at least 19 examples of depictions of halberds through the published drawings. The sites are as follows:
Castriño de Conxo (fig 7.11): Three halberds are represented, two highly stylised, the other showing more detail including a possible midrib, lateral grooves and a rounded hafting plate (De la Peña Santos, 1980). The relevant blade-shaft ratios are about 1:2. All three show halberds with the blade fixed right at the end of the shaft. It is interesting to note that the carving of the larger halberd has a projection from the lower shaft, which is similar to those shown on some of the depictions from Mont Bego. The other carvings on this rockface include seven daggers and four possible shields, also variously interpreted as “idols” or double-looped axes. Chenorkian (1988) for some reason regards these depictions of halberds as doubtful, but having examined the published drawings and photographs myself, I would be completely satisfied with their identification.
250
Fig 7.11: Castriño de Conxo (after de la Peña Santos, 1980: fig 3)
Primadorna 1 (fig 7.12) This quite complex composition includes two halberds, along with four daggers, one possible shield and a variety of apparently non-representational art. Both halberds display broad midribs. The larger of the two is sharply pointed and has a rounded hafting plate. The other is round- nosed and has no hafting plate. Both blades are fixed right at the end of their shafts. The blade- shaft ratios are 1:2 and 1:3. Schubart (1975) interpreted the smaller halberd as an Argaric type, which may be stretching the available evidence, but the bigger (with the rounded hafting-plate) is highly suggestive of the Carrapatas type (De la Peña Santos and Vazquez Varela, 1979; De la Peña Santos, 1980). The larger of the two has a projection from the end, very similar to the example at Castriño de Conxo.
251
Fig 7.12: Primadorna 1 (after de la Peña Santos, 1980: fig 4)
Poza da Lagoa (Monte Penide) (fig 7.13) The carvings on this rock face comprise three halberds, simply drawn and very similar to those from Conxo and Xan de Deus (see under), along with two daggers, three cupmarks and a variety of other lines, some of which may represent other weapons (De la Peña Santos and Vazquez Varela, 1979; De la Peña Santos, 1980). The depictions of the halberds all show
broad triangular blades, two sharply Fig 7.13: Poza da Lagoa (after de la Peña Santos, pointed and one rounded. The blade to 1980: fig 7) shaft ratios are about 1:3.
252 Xán de Deus (fig 7.14) A possible halberd is depicted here, in association with cupmarks and concentric circles. The halberd is simply executed, consisting of no more than the outline of a round-nosed blade attached to a long curved shaft (De la Peña Santos and Vazquez Varela, 1979; De la Peña Santos, 1980). Stylistically, it resembles two of the Castriño de Conxo examples considered above but with a much longer shaft - the blade-shaft ratio in this instance is 1:4. Fig 7.14:Xán de Deus (after de la Peña Santos, 1980: fig5) Montecelo (not illustrated) Sobrino Lorenzo-Ruza writing in 1956 remarked that new rock carvings had been found in this area, with the example at highest altitude consisting of
“un hermoso motivo o representación de alabarda, con mango metálico, y de probables puñales...” [a beautiful motif or representation of a halberd, with a metal shaft, along with some probable daggers...] (1956, p260).
The carvings cannot now be located and it is possible that the rock was destroyed in the erection of a TV mast (De la Peña Santos, 1980).
Laxe do Chán (fig 7.15) Two halberds are clearly depicted here, and de la Peña Santos (1980) suggests that two or possibly three others may also be identified. One of these is unhafted and in the absence of any shaft it is very difficult to see how one can identify it as a halberd from the schematic carvings at our disposal. De la Peña Santos allows that it may in fact be a dagger blade but regards this possibility as “remote” (1980, 121). The next also consists of the carving of a blade only, although in this instance use may be made of a natural crack in the rock to represent the shaft. De la Peña Santos comments that traces of a midrib may be discerned also in this example. The last consists of a triangular motif situated more or less in the centre of the main group of carvings, with possible rivets but again without a shaft. De la Peña Santos is more reserved about identifying this as a halberd allowing that there are “serious doubts”.
253
Fig 7.15: Laxe do Chán (after de la Peña Santos, 1980: fig 6)
As regards the two unquestioned examples (i.e. those with clearly depicted shafts) both represent broad triangular blades, sharply pointed and in one case secured by 2 or perhaps 3 rivets. The blade-shaft ratios are 1:3 and just under 1:2. In general form, these and the other two possible halberds approximate to the Carrapatas type.
Leiro (fig 7.16) At least one and perhaps two halberds are depicted on the rock surface at Leiro, in conjunction with two probable daggers and a variety of cupmarks and circular motifs (fig 7.16). The site only came to De la Peña Santos’ attention after the publication of his corpus of halberd carvings in Galicia and so is not described in that otherwise comprehensive paper. However, the site is well described by Calo and Gonzalez (1980) and Bradley (1997) raises the possibility that it may be Fig 7.16: Leiro (after Costas, 1993) connected in some way with the weapons hoard discovered nearby (Meijide, 1989) which was comprised of similar artifacts to those depicted at Leiro. The indisputed halberd carving shows a broad triangular, pointed, blade with obvious midrib. fixed just below the end of a fairly short shaft. The blade-shaft ratio is c.1:2. The second possible carving shows a round-nosed blade, again with a midrib, and “fixed” to a long, sinuous line which neatly divides the rock-surface in half. This line appears to be a natural crack or fault and the artwork is distributed fairly evenly on either side. The juxtaposition of the
254 blade with this line fools the eye into seeing a hafted halberd, a device which may be intentional and which may be paralleled at Laxe do Chán (see above).
Auga da Laxe (fig 7.17) This is a comparatively recent find, brought to notice as far as I am aware by Costas (1984) and discussed briefly in Bradley (1997). It is perhaps the finest of all the Iberian compositions which include halberds. The carvings depict six halberds, 11 daggers, eight escutiforms and one strange rake-like implement. Bradley (1997) for some reason only lists five halberds and nine daggers in this composition.
Fig 7.17: Auga da Laxe (after Costas, 1984)
All the motifs are well executed and in the case of the halberds, each is shown complete with midrib and sometimes what may also be the lateral grooving so often found on Carrapatas type halberds. The blades are all triangular, generally round-nosed although some are more pointed than others. No hafting plate is shown for any of the halberds. All are fixed to reasonably long shafts, generating blade-shaft ratios of between 1:3 to 1:5. The varying ratios produced are in this case a function of differing shaft lengths since the blade depictions are for the most part the same size (c.0.3m long). Two of the halberds are shown with protrusions from the bottom of the shaft, one possibly forked and reminiscent of a depiction from Primadorno I (see below), the other curling back to create a sort of “fish-hook” affair. A striking feature of the overall composition is the manner in which it confronts the onlooker, with the largest of the daggers standing about 2.5m tall.
Discussion These Galician carvings form part of wider arsenal of weaponry which finds itself represented in the rock-art of the region. Along with halberds, we find carvings of daggers, axes and shields. De la Peña Santos and Vázquez Varela (1979) date these to a relatively restricted period running
255 from c.2500-1000 BC on the basis of the types of weapons represented. The halberd depictions are dated to a more restricted period within this time frame, from around 2000 to 1300 BC (on the basis of the widely-held Spanish view of the period of use of halberds). Indeed, whereas the rock art itself can be seen to cover a wide period from the Neolithic into the Iron Age, depictions of weapons are much more tightly confined, very largely to the Early Bronze Age. Something clearly happens during this period to make the depiction of weapons important, which was not so in earlier or later periods. The position to which weapons are now raised obviously reflects a new preoccupation with arms, possibly to do with the status which the more restricted distribution of metal weapons can bestow, possibly even some sort of cult of arms.
As we have seen already, where it is possible to identify the halberd type from the carvings, most would probably fall into the Carrapatas class, which in fact is the type of halberd actually found in this broad region anyway. Schubart (1975) suggested that the smaller halberd from Primadorna 1 might represent an Argaric type halberd, but the comparison is not convincing. Nothing has been found as yet which could possibly be a depiction of the Montejícar type halberd, which with its characteristic spur at the back would be instantly recognisable even in a schematic carving.
Some of the Galician carvings clearly depict halberds which have protrusions extending from the shaft, always towards the bottom and often at right angles to the shaft. While it would be tempting to dismiss these as mistakes or additions, the same feature occurs in some of the Mont Bego art and therefore it may well represent an actual design of shaft.
In terms of distribution it is very interesting indeed to note that while the zone of Galician rock art stretches quite extensively across Galicia as a whole, the depictions of weapons, including the Fig 7.18: Distribution of weapon carvings in Galicia (after Bradley, 1998: fig 8.6) halberds, are much more restricted geographically (fig 7.18). Depictions of weapons generally in this area also tend to occupy a different type of location from other motifs (Bradley, 1998), commanding more extensive vistas and sometimes positioned in such a way that they directly confront the viewer. It is also significant, I think, that in terms of the other weapons with which they are associated in the rock- art, halberds are either found alone, with other halberds or with daggers. They are never depicted
256 in association with axes in the Galician art. All of these depicted associations strongly reflect the actual finds-evidence generally in the Atlantic zone where halberds tend to be either found alone, with other halberds or blades and less frequently with axes. This contrasts with the Italian art, for example, which can see halberds and axes carved together on the one rockface, an association which in turn reflects the archaeological evidence for Italy and Central Europe.
In addition it is worth noting that in the Galician rock-art, halberds are never shown carried by figures, unlike the daggers and short-swords. This might be seen as in some way distinguishing the halberd from other weapons, but I would be loath to make too much of this. In the vast majority of cases, all weapons whether they be daggers, halberds, axes or swords are depicted without the addition of human figures so to this extent the treatment which halberds receive as a type has much more in common with what is generally true for other weapons than not.
Stelae-Statuary
The number of Iberian examples of this type of art currently stands at about 40 (Bueno Ramirez, 1991) but this figure can be expected to rise with continuing research. Roots in megalithic art are often suggested, with the decorated plaques of the Alenteja Culture (c.3000BC) recently identified as particularly relevant by Bueno Ramirez. The production of these stelae may have begun c.2500BC but certainly continued down to the Later Bronze Age. While the various carvings show sufficient homogeneity to be identified as a group, there is nonetheless significant regional variety as well, while some undoubtedly show wider Mediterranean influences. In terms of possible function, Bueno Ramirez (1991) suggests that this may be connected with ideas of protecting places of burial, although he also sees some evidence in their production for an appropriation of ideological symbolism by a new social elite. This he regards as beginning a process which will later be articulated in the Late Bronze Age stelae of the south-east of the Peninsula.
In terms of statuary, the principal examples of relevance to this study appear to be the “idol” from Agallas (Sevillano S.José, 1991) and the statue-menhir from Valdefuentes de Sangusín (Santonja Gómez, M. and Santonja Alonso, M., 1978) along with similar work from Peña Tú, Sejos, Los Santos and Hernán Pérez VI (the last four bearing as much resemblance to stelae than to statuary per se). In terms of the stelae “proper”, the best examples seem to be Trigaxes 1, Abela, Assento, Longroiva, San Juan de Negrilhos and Tabuyo del Monte.
The Agallas“Idol”(fig 7.19) The Agallas idol belongs to a group of related carvings to be found in the western part of the Iberian peninsula, which are regarded as ranging in date from the Chalcolithic to the Late Bronze
257 Age. These share certain features in common, most notably the fact that they are anthropomorphic, highly stylised and of a fairly uniform size and shape (0.4-1.4m high). Function is unclear, although most authorities would interpret them as idols of some sort and there would be a tendency to regard those wearing necklaces as female and those carrying arms as male (Sevillano S.José, 1991).
Fig 7.19: the Agallas idol (after Sevillano S.José, 1991: fig 5)
The example from Agallas is fairly typical of the genre, with the exception that the necklaces in this instance run seamlessly into the diadem and that the arms are clearly defined from the shoulder down, with the hands also suggested by 5 deep cuts. Most remarkable of all, however, is the fact that running upwards from the left arm is a representation of a halberd. The halberd is carved in a completely different style, by simple narrow incision, and appears to represent a Type Carrapatas. The halberd has an obvious triangular blade and is equipped with quite a long shaft: the blade-shaft ratio is 1:4. The shaft appears curved but this is likely to be a function of the rock-surface.
As Sevillano S.José (1991) points out, it is highly significant that the halberd is carved across an area of the idol which was clearly damaged in antiquity, showing that it cannot be contemporary with the original work. He also points out that since the idol itself is a modern recovery, excavated in situ, and since at least half of the halberd was concealed underground, it cannot be modern “graffiti” either. While halberds are carried by a small number of other anthropomorphic figures (Peña Tu, Tabuyo del Monte and Sejos) the Agallas idol is the only example of this particular type of “classic” anthropomorph, as defined by Barceló (1988), to carry a weapon.
258
Valdefuentes de Sangusín, Salamanca (fig 7.20) This is a particularly fine example of Iberian menhir-statuary from the province of Salamanca and well described by Santonja Gómez and Santonja Alonso in 1978. The piece probably finds its best parallels amongst the north Portuguese work although there are strong grounds for seeing wider mediterranean connections as well, through southern France, Corsica and Italy (Bueno Ramirez, P. 1991). The carving is of a commanding figure, about 1.6m high and about 50cms across the “shoulders”. Emblazened across the central torso is a beautifully executed composition depicting a Fig 7.20: Valdefuentes de Sangusín (after Bueno Ramírez, long pointed sword and a halberd. 1991: fig 1) Both are presented in proportion to the size of the statue as a whole and are therefore effectively life size. The manner of presentation is clearly significant and reminiscent of a formal regalia. The halberd looks to be of Argaric type - a long, narrow blade with the haft projecting at the top to accommodate the highly expanded hafting plate which is the signature of this halberd type. Again, we see that the haft is short, with a blade-shaft ratio of just over 1:2. In this case, given the life-size execution of this carving, we are probably talking about a real shaft about 40cm long.
The unquestionable contemporary association in this carving of a halberd with a long sword, with a blade perhaps 65cm long, is one of the clearest indications that the halberd in some form or other should not be considered a purely Early Bronze Age phenomenon. Similar real swords, though not quite so long, have been found in this broad area of central Spain (Brandherm, 1998) and are considered to date from the Middle Bronze Age (roughly 1600BC onwards). The Valdefuentes statue, along with some of the stelae compositions considered below, clearly indicates that in this part of the world halberds continued in use well after the main period of their use elsewhere. The combination of halberd and sword like this can now be recognised also as a genuine feature, and we can even suggest that this combination is a combat-panoply, with
259 warriors armed with sword in right hand and halberd in the left, since this is consistently how these two weapons appear to be represented.
Los Santos, Salamanca (not illustrated) This is a quite poorly preserved stele, upon which is carved a representation of a human figure shrouded in a mantle. In the lower portion of the decorated sector, however, can be seen a depiction of a halberd-blade in low false relief. I have only found a reference to this carving in Bueno Ramirez, (1991) but the accompanying plate is not actually show the halberd depiction in question.
Hernán Pérez VI (not illustrated) This is one of series of stelae from Hernán Pérez. Bueno (1984) has identified a depiction of a halberd, apparently of Carrapatas type, on stele VI. The weapon is carved in a different style to the rest of the composition. Again , I have not actually seen an illustration of this work.
Trigaxes 1 (fig 7.21) A narrow-bladed halberd is clearly depicted in the lower right quadrant. The style of blade is Fig 7.21: Trigaxes 1 (after Chenorkian, suggestive of an Argaric halberd, but there seems 1988: fig 8) to be insufficient space allowed at the top of the shaft to accommodate an expanded hafting plate. The blade-shaft ratio is about 1:3. Pride of place in this composition goes to sword which runs down the centre of the stele from top to bottom.
260 Abela (fig 7.22) This is an interesting composition showing a narrow- bladed halberd similar to that at Trigaxes 1 but with an extremely long haft. The ratio of blade to shaft is nearly 1:7. The halberd is accompanied by a sword attached to a belt and by one of those strange “axe- idols” or possibly in this case a sheathed dagger.
San Juan de Negrilhos (fig 7.23) The halberd here appears in the left half of the stele, is of similar type to those discussed already and has a blade-shaft ratio of nearly 1:5. Pride of place is again taken by a sword, possibly held between two arms, Fig 7.22: Abela (after Chenorkian, but on the basis of clearer carvings elsewhere more 1988: fig 8) likely to be suspended upon a belt.
Fig 7.23: San Juan de Negrilhos Fig 7.24: Assento (after Chenorkian, 1988: fig 9) (after Chenorkian, 1988: fig 8)
Assento (fig 7.24) This stele is interesting for the range of artifacts with which we find the halberd associated. This carving is one of the few instances outside Italy that I am aware of where a halberd is depicted in association with an axe, or in this case two axes. Also included in this veritable armoury is a sword - apparently sheathed - along with a variety of daggers and the ubiquitous axe idol. The halberd appears in the lower right quadrant and is well drawn, showing the haft curling over the top of the halberd-blade in a manner which is quite common in these carvings, finishing at the opposite end in a bulbous swelling. The halberd blade is quite narrow but appears to have a rounded hafting plate. The blade-shaft ratio is quite high at 1:4.
261
Longroiva (fig 7.25) The carving here shows a halberd with a broad blade and pronounced midrib fixed to what is quite a short haft. The blade-shaft ratio is 1:2.5. About half way down the shaft can be seen a series of lines quite clearly carved, spread out in a palmate fashion. It is unclear exactly what this is intended to represent - it conceivably represents a human (left) hand with the thumb hidden while grasping the shaft, or it could simply represent some sort of binding for attaching the halberd to something else. The other equipment depicted includes a bow, with a quiver of arrows, Fig 7.25: Longroiva (after Chenorkian, and a dagger. 1988: fig 15)
Tabuyo del Monte (fig 7.26)
The central motif in this carving is a tabular form divided into decorated sections. This is flanked on one side by a dagger and on the other by a halberd with a broad triangular blade fixed at the very end of a relatively long shaft - the blade-shaft ratio is 1:4. The halberd blade is quite unusual in so far as it appears to show two rivets running horizontally along the blade. There are
no real parallels for this type of halberd. Fig 7.26: Tabuyo del Monte (after Chenorkian, 1988: fig 15) The shaft shows markings about halfway down which are similar to those at Longroiva - in this case, two of the lines extend at right angles to the shaft and may again represent either a hand or some form of attachment, such as frequently accompanies depictions of swords on these stelae.
Discussion In terms of those considered in his monograph, Chenorkian (1988) suggests that it is possible to identify two broad types of halberd in these carvings. Type 1 has a narrow blade with a shaft that
262 is characterised by a swelling at the top, curving towards the blade. The length of the shaft varies and the blade is fixed just below the end. Type 2, on the other hand, is a broad-bladed halberd, fixed right at the end of the shaft. The example from Longroiva clearly shows a midrib and the shaft also swells at the top, albeit away from the blade. I must admit to some confusion as to the basis for distinguishing two groups here, as the Longroiva carving clearly shows the blade as fixed just below the end of the shaft, like Type 1, rather than at the end itself. However, if one simply relies on the shape of the blade, then there do appear to be two types of halberd represented, ie a narrow-bladed type and a broad-bladed type. Chenorkian comments that neither type really resembles the halberds actually found in Iberia, although Type 2 undoubtedly shows similarities with Carrapatas type blades. Schubart (1973) has even postulated that these Type 1 carvings are not actually halberds at all, but some form of pick.
The inclusion of halberds on the stelae of Longroiva and Tabuyo del Monte, which he dates to c.800BC, has led Almagro (1966, p205) to comment that this should leave us in no doubt as to the persistent popularity of the halberd over a very long period of time. However, there appear to be very few grounds for dating these stelae to the Late Bronze Age at all: all the elements depicted could well fit within the cultural context of the Early Bronze Age. From the many associations with swords, however, it is clear that the halberd continued in use longer than might normally be appreciated.
The function of the stelae in particular is not well understood. They seem to have been associated with cist burials but there is also certainly evidence that they once stood in the open air. They do not appear to have been associated with elaborate grave goods but Bradley (1998) comments that the carved images themselves may have substituted for the actual artifacts.
Mont Bego – rock-art Chenorkian (1988) begins his analysis of the depiction of halberds in the art of the western Mediterranean by asking the question, “are we looking at halberds or at scythes?” (p.133). Several commentators, looking at the Mont Bego examples in particular, have indeed interpreted these as scythes (eg De Lumley, 1976, p224; Abelanet, 1986, p.224). But then again, some authorities looking at actual halberds, have seen these as scythes also (eg Ryan, 1976). At one level, the argument is somewhat circular, insofar as we may simply be having a disagreement about what function the implement we generally call a “halberd” serves, while agreeing that this is nonetheless the model for the depictions which appear in rock-art. At another level, however, there is the fact that many of the Mont Bego “halberds”, with their exaggerated blades and long shafts, do not closely resemble any of those halberds which have survived to the present day. Abelanet and De Lumley would argue that what we are in fact looking at is a bronze age scythe, and even though such implements have not actually been found in the material record, these
263 representations should encourage us to rethink our interpretations of those “halberds” which have survived. Abelanet sees as significant the fact that the so-called “halberd” disappears from the material record in the Middle Bronze Age at just the time when the sickle first appears and this, he argues,
“montre bien qu’il [ie the halberd] s’agissait d’un instrument agricole” [...clearly shows that it (the halberd) was an agricultural instrument]. (1986, p.224).
De la Peña Santos (1980) also refers to the “occasional” interpretation of the Mont Bego carvings as scythes without commenting directly one way or the other. However, many other authorities such as Bocquet (1977) and Chenorkian (1988) have dismissed this hypothesis quite conclusively. While we need not rehearse their arguments again here, suffice it to say that the scythe as we know it today, and as some have professed to see it in the Mont Bego rockart, simply does not exist in Europe before the Middle Ages and would be extremely difficult, if not actually impossible, to cast as a functional object in bronze (Bocquet, 1977). Most commentators would tend to regard what is being depicted in the rock art of Mont Bego as images of the Bronze Age halberd as it has survived in the known archaeological record, with allowance for exaggeration. Having discussed the matter quite comprehensively, Chenorkian draws the reasonable conclusion that:
Il nous semble donc parfaitement établi qu’aucune représentation de faux ne peut avoir été gravée sur les dalles du Mont Bego, a l’Age du Bronze. [It seems, therefore, perfectly well-established that no representation of a scythe could have been carved at Mont Bego during the Bronze Age]. (1988 p.134)
The carvings of halberds from Mont Bego are not particularly detailed but they are nonetheless very interesting insofar as some are shown wielded by human figures, which gives an idea as to how these weapons may have been used.
Chenorkian (1988), following his preferred classification of this type of carving generally in Europe, identifies three broad types of halberd, based on short, medium and long blades. The short blades are fixed right at the end of their shafts, the long blades just below, while the medium sized blades can be fixed either way. The longest blades tend to have straighter sides, while the shorter are more rounded (fig 7.27).
264
Fig 7.27: Various depictions of halberds from Mont Bego (after Chenorkian, 1988: figs 72-3)
Anati (1966) has recognised both Chalcolithic (Remedello) and Early Bronze Age (La Polada) types amongst the halberds depicted. Bocquet (1977) has seen Unetice influence in others. Chenorkian sees the La Polada civilisation as particularly relevant and suggests that it is also possible to identify examples amongst the drawings of Calvatone and Cotronei type halberds.
From our perspective there are a number of particularly interesting carvings from Mont Bego which actually show halberds being wielded by human figures. Fig 7.28 reproduces one of these carvings, from Val Fontanalba. In this dramatic and lively scene, three figures, one of whom is clearly male, are shown brandishing what certainly look like long halberds Fig 7.28: Figures armed with halberds. Val above their heads. Abelanet (1986) Fontalba, Mont Bego (after Abelanet, 1986: fig comments that these might be 49) regarded as reapers using some form of primitive scythe. However, for the reasons outlined above, there is absolutely no basis for
265 interpreting these as scythes, nor indeed have such scythes ever been found in a Bronze Age context. A student of metalwork would have no difficulty identifying these as depictions of halberds and furthermore, I would argue that three different types of halberd are shown, or at least three different hafting arrangements. All three halberds are hafted right at the end of their shafts. Both rounded and square hafting plates appear to be represented while in one instance the shaft continues up over the butt-end of the blade to form a slight protrusion at the top.
One of the most remarkable features of these carvings is the series of knots or swellings which are shown running along the length of the shaft itself. These are most obvious on the halberd held by the figure to the left, but also appear on the other two halberds as well. This is a most perplexing element of the carving. Barfield (1969) thought they might be evidence of the splicing of several shorter shafts together to create one enormous shaft, taking it for granted that the relative scales of the different components of the picture are true. This does not seem very likely since it would be much easier to simply get the required length of shaft as a single piece. In addition, the scale cannot be correct, since it would suggest a halberd blade of nearly a metre long, for which there is quite simply no archaeological evidence. It is quite possible that they could represent bindings fastened along the length of the shaft to prevent it splitting (and it should be remembered that most of these shafts were probably very narrow - see Chapter 9), or possibly to stop the shaft slipping through the hand when in use. They could conceivably represent “trophies” of some sort, and this might explain why there are different numbers of each on the three halberds in question; they also strongly recall the bindings used by samurai on their pole-arms and discussed briefly in Chapter 9 which were designed to allow the shaft to be used as a rudimentary ladder to help the warrior climb quickly over obstacles and walls. Whatever the interpretation, this is the only example of this feature that I am aware of either in rock-art or anywhere else but it is an indicator once more of just how much information is forever lost to us.
The manner in which these three figures wield their arms is also of interest. The halberds are clearly shown raised aloft over the head, held in both hands in two of three cases, and always right at the end of the shaft itself. All this would seem to suggest a downward striking blow, designed to be delivered from as far away as possible. The stance of the two figures to the left and right who stand with legs splayed in what appears to be the very act of striking would support this interpretation. The halberds shown here are clearly an entirely different weapon to the El Argar halberd, which we have seen, appears to be better regarded as a hand-weapon, used for close combat and wielded single-handedly. The Mont Bego figures strongly suggest comparison with polearms, although the scale is clearly distorted to emphasise the weapon and not the man. In this regard, it should be noted that the relative proportions of blade to shaft in those depictions runs from c.1:3.5 to 1:5, which given an average length of blade of c.25cms elsewhere in this part of Europe (Chapter 2), suggests a shaft length of between 75 and 125 cms.
266 Other examples of Mont Bego halberds are shown at fig 7.27. Several different types seem to have served as models but as indicated at the very start of this chapter this is one of the examples where publication has removed these from context, effectively preventing us from judging the contemporaneity or otherwise of each without viewing the original compositions. However, the carvings clearly show a number of different ways of hafting halberds, either at the very end of the shaft or just below it, with rivets distributed in a linear fashion or forming an arc across the hafting plate. One of the halberds clearly shows a midrib while at least three and possibly four show a strange protrusion from the butt of the shaft. Another shows a similar protrusion about halfway up the shaft. It is by no means clear what these are intended to represent but they are amongst those features of Mont Bego halberds which have prompted some commentators to see these carvings as representing scythes. There are other interpretations, of course, and it is quite easy to think of ways in which these types of protrusions could have functioned in pole-arm type combat, as a means of unseating one’s opponent or for adding purchase to the blade. There is always the possibility that these “additions” are not original, but on the face of it this seems unlikely. It will be remembered that some of the Galician depictions show such projections from the shaft of the halberds as well.
It will also be noted in fig 7.27 that there are a number of examples which have forked protrusions emanating from the blades. In one case, the fork protrudes from the butt-end of the blade and the effect created, which is not unlike a bull’s head, may suggest a possible link back to the wider bull-imagery which is so important at Mont Bego (Abelanet, 1986). One wonders whether there is a connection between the halberd itself and the cult of the bull in this region - certainly the shape of a halberd blade and inferred manner of use could well be seen as mimicking the goring attack of a bull’s horn. This is mentioned in passing only and it is not proposed to dwell upon the hypothesis further. However, “elk-headed” axes are known from the Scandinavian rock-art (Malmer, 1981) so the hypothesis may not be as far-fetched as it first appears. Fig 7.29: the “Sorcerer” petroglyph, Mont Bego (after Abelanet, 1986).
Before leaving the art of Mont Bego behind us, mention must be made of the famous “Sorcerer” carving (fig 7.29). This remarkable trompe l’oeil carving shows simultaneously both a face and a form with hands aloft wherein are grasped two long blades. These are normally interpreted as dagger blades (eg Abelanet, 1986; Bahn, 1998) but their shape is very much that of Mont Bego halberds and given the trompe l’oeil effect of the whole composition, it is possible to see in the lines of the raised arms the shafts of halberds as well.
267
Italy (Val Camonica and Valtellina)
At least one and arguably two basic types of halberd appear in the rock-art of Italy, distinguished quite simply by the shape of the blade: one is leaf-shaped, the other is not (fig 7.30).
Fig 7.30: Depictions of halberds from Val Camonica (after Chenorkian, 1988: fig 76)
Opinion is divided as to whether the first group should be regarded as halberds at all. Chenorkian (1988) and Anati (1968) would include these as representations of halberds. Abelanet (1986), on the other hand, does not recognise the leaf-shaped examples as halberds at all, preferring to refer to these as “axes” instead. The depictions of these leaf-bladed artifacts are of some interest, as no “real” examples of such axes or halberds have survived in the archaeological record. Despite this, Anati manages to date the “type” as a halberd to between 1650 and 1300 BC (Anati, 1968, p.98). The only possible “real” model for this type of leaf-shaped blade that I can suggest might be the halberds of Gambara type (fig 7.31) which have a highly distinctive curved blade, which might just suggest an overall leaf-shaped character when actually hafted (fig 7.32).
268
Fig 7.31: Italian halberds of Gambara type (after Bianco Peroni, 1994: fig 4)
Chenorkian (1988) limits his classification of the Italian carvings to the two types described above, ie leaf-shaped and non-leafshaped types (“foliacée et non-foliacée”). Briard (1976), however, would subdivide this latter group into two subgroups, one of which depicts arms of Remedello and Polada types, while the second shows more strongly the influence of the Aunjetitz cultures. Anati (1968) identifies three broad groups of carvings, one representing stone prototypes, one representing Remedello/Montemerano types and one showing the halberds influenced by Central and Western Fig 7.32: Reconstructed Gambara-type halberd (left) as a European models (in which he possible model for the leaf-shaped examples in the Italian includes the leaf-shaped halberds). rock-art (right) All-in-all, the classifications developed by Anati and Briard seem a little complicated, given the carvings available for analysis and Chenorkian’s simple bi-fold division is probably more realistic.
269
Chenorkian lists four examples of the leaf- shaped type and 12 of the second “regular” type in his catalogue of Italian carvings. However, in this he falls victim to the misleading practice described at the start of this chapter of reproducing individual rock-carvings out of context, for two of his 12 regular types have in fact been “removed” from a larger composition which actually includes two more halberds of Fig 7.33: Halberds from Val Camonica (after Suss, 1958) the same type (fig 7.33).
Two of the leaf-shaped type are to be found as part of a single composition on a rock-face from Paspardo in Val Camonica (fig 7.34). They are found in association with carvings of daggers of Remedello type, a solar symbol, a stag and a series of horizontal incised lines. Abelanet (1986) comments that the composition may be modelled on that of statue-menhirs and that the incised lines may in fact represent a belt, a suggestion which seems reasonable.
Nine of the “regular” type of halberd included by
Chenorkian in his analyses are actually to be found Fig 7.34: Paspardo (after Abelanet on the same rock at Corni Freschi, Montecchio, 1986) while, as already stated above, a further four are to be found together on another rockface in the valley. Both clearly constitute single compositions (fig 7.35). The Montecchio composition is highly reminiscent of an actual weapons hoard both in the careful ordering of its “contents” and exclusive representation of a single weapon-type. Bradley (1997) has commented in relation to some of the Galician weapon-carvings that they may in fact have signalled the deposition of actual arms nearby. This may be the case here Fig 7.35: Montecchio (after also but it is also possible that the actual drawing Abelanet, 1986) of the objects themselves might have represented
270 an “offering” in its own right, in much the same way that the production of Orthodox ikons centuries later was in itself seen as an act of devotion. It might be useful in some cases to think of this type of rock-art in this context, i.e. in the same way in which we look at deliberate deposition of artifacts.
The composition at Montecchio is carefully organised so that the halberds appear stacked together and the overall presentation is well- balanced. In the various published drawings of this composition (one of the most commonly reproduced images), the eye of the viewer is drawn immediately to the lowermost halberd in this composition which incorporates a concentric-circular motif into the body of the blade itself. In reality, however, and having examined photos kindly supplied by Elizabeth Shee Twohig, this motif is not as dominant as the published Fig 7.36: Italian halberds of Villafranca-Tivoli type drawings would suggest - the circular (after Bianco Peroni, 1994: fig 4). motif is much less visible and quite crudely executed. Whether this motif is contemporary with the halberd, or pre/postdates it is by no means clear. One way or another, it seems to be carefully incorporated into the drawing of the halberd at its widest point. These halberds have long blades, with clearly defined, prominent and narrow mid-ribs and relatively short shafts: the blade-to- shaft ratios are about 1:2 or less. On the basis of the overall shape but in particular the pronounced narrow midribs, I would believe that we are Fig 7.37: Foppe di Nadro. Note the tiny human figure (top centre) who carries both a halberd and a dagger or short looking here at sword. (after Abelanet, 1986) representations of
271 halberds of Villafranca-Tivoli type (fig 7.36). The distribution of this type of halberd is also broadly consistent with these carvings. Drawing on average blade lengths of about 31.4cm for real halberds of this type (which are amongst the very largest of Italian halberds), with visible blade lengths of about 29.4cm, the shafts could not have been much more than 60 cm long. These are clearly hand-weapons in the manner of the El Argar types.
An interesting composition is shown at fig 7.37. This is from Foppe di Nadro, again in Val Camonica, and displays a bewildering selection of weaponry, mostly different types of daggers and swords. Abelanet (1986) draws attention to a socketed, looped axe in this composition which must date to the late Bronze Age. Many of the other swords and daggers depicted would not be inconsistent with this date. However, what is of particular interest to us is the tiny figure at the top-centre of the composition, who carries in one hand a sword or dagger and in the other a halberd. The blade-shaft proportions of this halberd are similar to those at Montecchio discussed above, which I suggested revealed them to be hand weapons, and this is clearly the case here where the halberd is held in one hand only. The combination of halberd and sword/dagger is also interesting since it mirrors the combination on some of the Iberian statuary and may also suggest a much later period of use for halberds in this part of Europe also. A very similar carving appears at Naquane (fig 7.38) which is clearly of late date showing as it does warriors equipped with crested helmets, swords and shields. However, again one of these warriors also appears to be equipped with a halberd which he holds aloft in much the same fashion as the little figure at Foppe di Nadro. The combination of such chronologically diverse equipment is perplexing to say the least.
272
One must always remember, of course, that many of these rock-art compositions may have been created over long periods of time and not all elements need be seen as contemporary (although this would not explain the combination of helmet, sword and halberd carried by the warrior at Naquane - it may not be a halberd, of course). In fact, the research carried out by Anati (1968) led him to suggest that some of the compositions in
Valtellina are a product of art added to the same surface in successive phases. For example, in discussing the carvings Fig 7.38: Two figures from Naquane (Abelanet, 1986). The figure to the lower at Caven I and Caven II (fig 7.39), right appears to be holding a long bladed Anati suggests that the entire halberd in his hand. composition can be deconstructed into successive art-phases. In Caven I, he regards the earliest carvings as being of daggers, a solar disc and some animals. The next stage sees the addition of a leaf-shaped halberd and an axe, centre-stage as it were, accompanied by more daggers and more animals. The final stage is the carving of the wagon. Caven II follows a similar development resulting in a very similar final composition. Anati sees these various phases as quite distinct and representing in turn Chalcolithic, Early, Middle and Late Bronze Age contributions. However, it would not be difficult to dispute elements of Anati’s successions, or indeed to dispute his entire hypothesis and it would have to be said some of the conclusions he applies here are inconsistent with those he reaches elsewhere in earlier and later publications. In the case of Caven I, there are good grounds for seeing this as a single phase composition (with the possible exception of the wagon) in the manner in which it reflects the overall shape of the rock and distributes its peripheral carvings in an even and balanced manner around the central emblem of halberd and axe. The central position given to these two artifacts is clearly significant - the other metal objects actually point to them - and it may also be significant that in both Caven I and Caven II the halberd physically dominates the axe and is the weapon positioned closest to the solar symbol. One is reminded in passing of the position accorded to the halberds within the Dieskau hoard (Fortsch, 1905), where they appear to have been the last objects to be placed and lie on top of the others. In Caven II, it is also worth noting that the halberd is held aloft by a vaguely humanoid figure who appears to have the vestiges of horns upon his head. The sex of the figure does not appear to be in doubt, with the halberd shaft itself springing directly from his loins and apparently quasi-phallic itself.
273
Fig 7.39: The carved slabs at Caven I and II (after Chenorkian, 1988: fig 34)
Germany
Baden-Wurttemberg This carved stone (fig 7.40), from Tubingen-Weilheim, is a comparatively recent find having come to light in commercial excavations in the early 80s. It has been described by Reim (1986) and I am indebted to Ms Ines Hagan for bringing it to my attention.
274
The stone was discovered in several fragments but originally stood about 4.5m high and weighs over 5 tonnes. The fragments were found at a depth of about 1.5m on a dark clay layer which probably represented the old ground surface. The stone is decorated on two sides; one side (“the back” according to Hartmann) is almost completely covered with cup marks and angular grooves; the other (the “front”) displays five halberds carved in low relief along with a large oval. Reim describes the stone as unique in the area north of the Alps although he does recognise similarities amongst the statue- menhirs of the Sud-Tirol and sees the Weilheim stone as evidence of early contacts between the Neckar area and Alpine Italy. Several Early Bronze Age sites are known in the vicinity of the stone and indeed a real halberd was recovered
from the Neckar gravel at Rottenburg- Kiebingen. Fig 7.40: The Tubingen-Weilheim stone (after Reim, 1986: fig 67) The carvings of the halberds are very well- executed and are presented stacked one above the other to the left of the oval, which itself occupies pretty much the central position on the stone. The halberds are all equipped with fairly short shafts, with blade-shaft ratios ranging between 1:1 and 1:2.5. At least three of the five - and the three most prominent at that - have shafts with expanded ends, of the type which will now be quite familiar. Two of these three also have overhangs above the blade, again of the type known elsewhere. Despite these similarities, there seem to be at least two, maybe three, different types of blade depicted. One is characterised by a broad triangular blade, while another has a narrower blade curving down slightly which resembles some of the Iberian carvings of presumed El Argar types. A possible third type is characterised by a more rounded, narrow blade fixed at the very end of the shaft.
Stylistically, the halberd carvings have been compared by Reim (1986) to those on North Italian stelae and rock-art. However, in reality they compare best with some of the halberds carved on
275 Iberian stelae (see above), although there are also close similiarities with some of the Mont Bego halberds, particularly Chenorkian’s Type 3.
Anderlingen, Hannover (not illustrated) Ó Ríordáin (1937) draws attention to a cist burial from Anderlingen, Kreis Bremervörde, Hannover (Hahne, 1907/8). The burial incorporated a carved slab as the end stone on the southern side of the cist and this depicts three human figures, the central character holding some sort of implement aloft. Hahne, who first brought the find to notice, was in no doubt that the implement in question was an axe. However, Ó Ríordáin considers it possible that it represents a halberd. The argument turns upon whether a depression in the surface of the stone in the blade- area of the implement is natural or not and given this uncertainty, as well as the fact that the stone was interfered with after discovery by local boys, it is probably best not to include this carving in our considerations.
Britain (Wessex Culture) The rock-art of Britain is largely abstract in nature but as we have seen already, there is one possible depiction of a halberd, on one of the Calderstones, Merseyside (fig 7.7). Because of the uncertainty as to whether or not this carving actually depicts a halberd, as indicated already it is not proposed to consider it further. However and as also mentioned earlier, miniature halberd pendants are known from three Wessex burials, ie Wilsford G8 and Preshute G1(a), both Wiltshire, and Hengistbury Head, Hampshire. These are slightly different to the types of art considered before insofar as what we are looking at are “models” rather than “drawings” of halberds, a form of highly portable art which in all likelihood was actually worn on the person. The individual finds are considered under:
Wilsford G8 The miniature in this case was found on the floor of a fine bell-shaped barrow along with the primary cremation deposit. The grave-goods included a gold and bronze ring, two gold-bound amber discs, a gold button-cover, a bone pendant, partly covered with gold, nine other amber pendants of different shapes and an accessory cup (Clarke, Cowie and Foxon, 1985). The site was excavated by Colt Hoare and Cunnington in the early 19th century and according to Colt Hoare (1812) no other barrow opened by him produced “such a variety of singular and elegant articles” (201-2). The barrow forms part of the well-known linear barrow cemetery on Normanton Down, to the south of Stonehenge.
276
Fig 7.41: Grave assemblage from Wilsford G8, including miniature halberd (two views). After Annable and Simpson,1964 and Taylor, 1980).
The miniature halberd (fig 7.41 ) consists of a copper or bronze blade slotted into an amber haft bound with four ribbed strips of sheet gold. It survives in fragmentary form, with only a portion of the blade remaining intact. The shaft is of rectangular section, which is quite surprising since a shaft of oval or round section might be expected as normal, on the basis of the metal shafted types of central Europe, although it should be remembered that the replica shaft of the Carn halberd is also of rectangular section. The gold bindings on the shaft are clearly intended to imitate bindings on a wooden haft, such as appear in skuomorphic form on the metal hafted halberds of central Europe. The surviving shaft measures c.25mm long by 10mm wide and 7mm thick. The blade measures c.10mm wide at the hafting point but survives to a length of just 6mm (dimensional information drawn from Annable and Simpson, 1964, Taylor, 1980 and Clarke,
277 Cowie and Foxon, 1985). A single broken perforation occurs at the base of the amber shaft and a pair of holes perforate the core at right angles to the blade. Cunnington (Cunnington MSS., X, 6) comments rather disturbingly that “there was a great deal of decomposed brass lying about this article and I am almost afraid that we missed another article corresponding with this”. The pendant is in the possession of the Devizes Museum (Annable and Simpson, 1964), on loan to the British Museum.
Preshute G1, Manton, Marlborough This is one of the best known finds from the Wessex 1 period. It comes from the Manton Barrow, Preshute G1(a), an isolated bowl barrow one mile west of Marlborough. On the old land surface was found the skeleton of what was assumed to be a female, wrapped in a fine woollen cloth and accompanied by a rich series of goods. These included a necklace of shale disc beads, a gold-bound amber pendant, a miniature copy of a halberd with a gold-bound amber shaft and a bronze blade (fig 7.42), a gold bound shale biconical bead and a small knife-dagger with an amber pommel and two accessory cups (Annable and Simpson, 1964). One of the cups is of the characteristic “grape” type of Wessex 1 which is most often, but by no means exclusively, found in female graves (Megaw and Simpson, 1979). The gold bound discs have traditionally been seen as evidence of contact with the eastern Mediterranean (Evans, 1914, 42; Evans, 1960). The halberd pendant, on the other hand, is seen by some authors (Annable and Simpson, 1964, Megaw and Simpson, 1979; Clarke, Cowie and Foxon, 1985) as imitating metalshafted halberds of central European type (see below) but in reality the detail of the miniatures is insufficient to point to any particular point of origin. The shaft of the halberd pendant is decorated with horizontal incised lines and has a double perforation at its base. Like the Wilsford example, the shaft is square-sectioned, curving out at the back in imitation of those real types which accommodate the hafting plate in this manner. It measures c.32mm long by 10mm wide and 6mm thick. The blade, which is fragmentary, survives to a length of c.14mm and 10mm width (dimensional information drawn from Annable and Simpson, 1964, and Taylor, 1980).
278
Fig 7.42: Grave assemblage from Preshute G1, including miniature halberd (two views). After Annable and Simpson, 1964 and Taylor, 1980
Hengistbury Head The pendant here comes from an urn grave group in Hampshire, one of three excavated in 1911- 12 by Bushe Fox (1915). The miniature halberd has a blade of bronze or copper set in a club- shaped haft of amber, originally secured by two tiny rivets (fig 7.43). It accompanied the primary cremation of a young adult under an inverted collared urn in a bowl-barrow, along with two gold cones or button covers, three amber beads, and accessory cup (Clarke, Cowie and Foxon, 1985). The blade of the halberd pendant is intact and depicts a broad triangular blade, with an obvious midrib, coming to a sharp point and measuring c.14mm long by 8mm wide. The shaft is c.18mm long and10mm wide at the “top”, narrowing to c.5mm at the opposite end. At the “base” of the haft are two further perforations, in the same plane as the blade, for suspension of the pendant.
279 The find is in private possession (information taken from Longworth, 1984 and Clarke, Cowie, and Foxon, 1985).
Fig 7.43: Grave assemblage from Hengistbury Head, Dorset, including miniature halberd (Longworth, 1984)
Discussion The halberd miniatures are of considerable interest, not so much for the information which they provide about hafting and length of shaft (which is poor) but for their clearly defined chronological context and associations. All three are products of the Wessex “Culture”, belonging to the first phase of the well-known series of rich graves from southern Britain. Absolute dating for Wessex 1 graves is still problematic but they belong to Needham’s Period 3, and a “broad currency in the 19th -18th centuries cal BC is suspected” (Needham, 1996, p.132). It is particularly interesting to note that no “real” halberds are known from this culture, although a number of commentators have seen these miniatures as imitating metal-hafted Unetice types (Annable and Simpson, 1964, Megaw and Simpson, 1979; Clarke, Cowie and Foxon, 1985). Taking up a contrary position, however, Paul Ashbee (1978) has suggested that these pendants are more likely to represent wooden hafted halberds and that the gold bindings and incised decoration should be interpreted as skuomorphic renderings of the bindings which presumably were used to strengthen wooden shafts. I would incline to agree with Ashbee that this is what they represent, but since such skuomorphs are to be found on the metal-shafted halberds as well, the Wessex miniatures could just as easily draw their inspiration from central Europe. The real fact of the matter is that it is not really possible to pinpoint one source above another as the
280 inspiration for these beautiful miniatures, although if the size of the shaft is anything to go by, this type of short-handled halberd seems to be continental rather than insular in style.
What is clear, however, is that these miniatures were perceived as items of enormous value, genuine symbols of power and possibly even protection to their wearers. This is all the more interesting since “real” halberds form no part of the material culture of Wessex and so we might well wonder why the interest in the “toy” version. Wessex society could be quite exclusive when it wanted to be - it shows no interest, for example, in apparently contemporary Irish objects such as lunulae and sun-discs (Taylor, 1980)2. Harbison (1970) noted that the Irish decorated axes, lunulae and halberds are well-represented outside Wessex and argued that the trade-route from Ireland to Germany by-passed this territory, calling in at Cornwall instead to pick-up tin. However, whatever about the axes and lunulae, it would appear that the Irish halberds had effectively disappeared by the time of Wessex 1, with the exception of the numerically small Type Breaghwy (Chapter 10) so we need place no great store by their absence from Wessex burials. Of course, they don’t appear in the Wessex “zone” before the Wessex culture either, so the people living there at that time might just as easily be argued to have “rejected” Irish imports too. The presence of miniature halberds in Wessex rather than the real thing may simply indicate that there were no real halberds in use anymore, except in Continental Europe where it would appear they had assumed a largely ceremonial role. A largely ceremonial or ritual role there might well manifest itself in similarly symbolic miniature halberds in Wessex.
It should, of course, be acknowledged that the creation of these miniatures may reflect a purely passing whim on the part of Wessex society: two out of three of the pendants (Wilsford and Preshute) have come from graves which may contain the work of a single master craftsman (Megaw and Simpson, 1979; Taylor, 1980) and so this fascination with halberds could well have been a very personal thing for one person rather than a more broadly-based interest. Certainly, the attention to detail in these miniatures is significant: the overall shape of the head is quite accurate, with the shaft even expanding at the back in the case of the Preshute example to accommodate an unseen hafting plate; the shape of blade, where it survives in the pendant from Hengistbury Head, is very good even down to the characteristic midrib which is quite clearly shown; and as we have already seen, the pendants from both Wilsford and Preshute have decorative panels on the shaft which seem to imitate bindings on a wooden shaft. In addition, it is perhaps significant that although the shafts may be of amber or gold, the blades are always copper or bronze as they would be in reality, as if this material is a critical component in the whole and not to be substituted. Many writers, when discussing “real” halberds, have seen a
2 The dating of the lunulae is also problematic. Needham (1996) tentatively suggests that a date late in his Period 2 might be appropriate, ie predating Wessex 1 graves, but also points to evidence for a later date (p.130). For a recent discussion of the dating of the lunulae, see Waddell 1998 (pp.134-7).
281 deliberate archaism in the choice of copper for the blade by bronze-using societies and the retention of this metal even in the miniature examples (if indeed it is copper) may be another reflection of this.
Overall, the impression given is that the maker or makers of these miniatures have seen real halberds and have carefully observed and copied them even if such artifacts were not used by their own culture. Given the accuracy of the representation in respect of so many details we must allow the possibility that the length of shaft - although short - may be broadly accurate too, suggesting a hand-weapon of continental type rather than a pole-arm. The fact that in two out of three cases the shaft is of rectangular section, like the Carn halberd, means that we may have to consider this as a possible shape for the timber shafts of real halberds.
SECTION 3: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
Distribution The casual observer of European rock-art may at first be impressed by the apparent homogeneity of motifs and practice across Europe as a whole but this is very quickly replaced by an appreciation of the extent to which the different regions have in fact forged quite individual paths. This point has been made several times by different authors (eg Abelanet, 1986; Chenorkian, 1988); and expressed again most recently by Richard Bradley (1997), who puts it quite succinctly when he says that
“Despite the striking similarities that we can recognise between areas that were considerable distances apart, rock art was really a resource that was available to be used by very different groups of people. Its characteristic symbolism provided a spur for local inventiveness...” (ibid, 213).
The same is true of the depictions of halberds in this art and indeed of the representation of arms more generally. We saw above that while the tradition of stone carving is distributed relatively widely across Western and Northern Europe, depictions of weapons are only found in a subset of these areas, while depictions of halberds are found only in a subset of that subset. Clearly a different set of values operated in those areas which saw a flourishing of representations of weaponry and it is notable also that although the tradition of prehistoric rock-art extends from the Neolithic down to the Iron Age in most regions where it occurs, the depictions of weapons are really a feature of the Bronze Age art only. Again, something is clearly happening at this time which enhances the role and status of metal weaponry within the societies producing this art, prompting suggestions of “a cult of arms” by several authorities (Abelanet, 1986; Chenorkian, 1988; Bradley, 1997). Such a suggestion will come as no surprise to anyone familiar with Bronze Age archaeology in Europe, where the deposition of fine metalwork in graves, hoards and
282 single deposits has been seen as a characteristic feature of this period for a very long time. It is in this context that the halberd itself needs to be considered and the depictions of this artifact in the rock-art of the period have a valuable contribution to make to our understanding of the function of the halberd.
I mentioned earlier that depictions of halberds are only found in the carvings (rock-art, stelae and statuary) of certain areas of Europe and it was suggested that it might be significant that these are concentrated away from the main areas of production and distribution of real halberds (fig 7.44). The extent to which this dichotomy is “real” or “perceived” is by no means clear. For example, Ireland and Northern Britain must be one of the main centres of production of halberds in Bronze Age Europe and at the same this region is also one of the main centres for the production of rock- art during this period as well; yet within this rock-art there is not a single representation of a halberd. At one level, one might conclude that it is the very richness in the real artifact which makes its representation in the art unnecessary. This could be an interesting line of argument, developing earlier suggestions that the deposition of metalwork and depiction of metalwork may have served much the same purpose for Bronze Age societies and where you could deposit the real thing, you might not need to draw its image. However, this would be to ignore the fundamental profile of the rock-art of Ireland and Britain whose imagery is, by-and-large, abstract anyway and where any type of representational motif is rare indeed.
Fig 7.44: Distribution of halberd images ► compared with that of real halberds (circled)
283 A similar story might be told of Iberia, where most real halberds come from the southeast but most of the images are to be found in the northwest or centre. However, the fact is that there is no tradition of rock-art in the southeast at this time within which the halberd might have been depicted. So the absence of any images in the southeast may simply be the result of a more fundamental absence of an appropriate medium.
Morocco offers a more convincing picture, for here is one of the largest collections of halberd imagery anywhere in Bronze Age “Europe” and yet only one single real halberd has ever been found here. The reverse seems to be the case in Northern Europe, which despite being one of the major centres of representational rock-art for the Bronze Age, includes no depictions of halberds that I am aware of, but which does have substantial collections of real halberds instead. Southern Britain has few real halberds, but it does produce “model” ones instead, in miniature and in precious material. Some sort of shadow is being thrown here, and whatever the qualifiers that are applied in one region or another, the overall pattern emerging is that where there are plenty of real halberds, there are few or no images, and where there are most images, there are few or no real halberds.
I am inclined to believe that this pattern is real and that it reflects the exclusivity of halberds within the highly exclusive armoury of Bronze Age weapons generally. It will be argued in Chapter 10 that the distinctive distribution pattern of real halberds in Europe is a reflection of the distribution of the most powerful and wealthy Bronze Age societies; in a society which prized metal weaponry as prestige symbols, halberds may have been amongst the ultimate luxury items, both because of their distinctive design and because of the difficulty and expense of their production. In Ireland, halberds are amongst the biggest single pieces of metalwork of the period (Chapter 3), while in Germany and Poland the detail lavished upon the metal hafted types is testimony to the high symbolic value which these artifacts could carry (Chapter 2). I would argue that the reason they appear so prominently in the artwork of precisely those regions where they are least common is another reflection of the esteem in which they are held. Indeed in general terms, one might also argue that the higher degree of representation of other metal weaponry in the rock-art of these areas might also be related to a scarcity of the real thing, at least in the quantities which allowed/encouraged actual votive deposition elsewhere (we cannot deny, however, that factors other than the amount of metal in circulation could influence depositional practice). As has already been suggested above, the careful rendering and ordering of some of the rock-art compositions (such as that at Montecchio, Italy) is strongly reminiscent of actual votive deposits and demands that we at least consider this type of art in the same terms.
At a lower level, it is also possible to determine patterning within the individual regional collections. Bradley (1996) has pointed out that the distribution of depictions of weapons in the rock-art of Galicia tends to be positioned towards the edges of the major concentrations of art and
284 generally close to rivers or their estuaries. It is possible that this may actually reflect traditions of deposition also, which throughout the “Atlantic” zone connect the deposition of blades with watery contexts, themselves often forming natural territorial boundaries. It is also apparent that within this already truncated zone where depictions of weaponry occur there may exist further geographical subdivision in terms of the type of weapons depicted; certainly the distributions of depictions of halberds and axes tend to be mutually exclusive (fig 7.45).
However, one of the most valuable contributions which a study of the contemporary depictions offers us with regard to the Bronze Age halberd is to show us what this artifact looked like, how it was hafted and how it was used. Table 7.5 below summarises some of the basic information which can be gleaned from the art and I will go on to discuss some aspects of this.
285 TABLE 7.5
REGION
Morocco Iberia France Italy Germany Wessex
BLADE Broad triangle Narrow Pointed Rounded Midribs Rivets
SHAFT Overhang Expanded end Shaft Projections Blade fixed at end of shaft Blade fixed below end of shaft
BLADE-SHAFT 1:3-1:4 1:2-1:7 1:3-1:5 1:2-1:3.5 1:1- 1:1 RATIOS 1:2.5 POSSIBLE Argar, Argar, Unclear Villafranca/ Unclear Unclear MODELS Carrapatas Carrapatas Tivoli; Gambara ART ASSOCIATIONS halberds daggers (n/a)* swords (n/a)* (n/a)* (n/a)* axes (n/a)* (n/a)* people ? animals (n/a)* (grave-finds) *(n/a: category not depicted in the regional art)
Comparison of variations in depictions of halberds in each main art-region
286 Morphology and Typology One of the most practical things which the rock-art can tell us is how the blade was attached to the shaft and what length that shaft was. This is information which is at a premium, since the original wooden shafts of halberds virtually never survive and archaeologists have tended to concentrate, naturally, on the part of the artifact that does survive, namely the blade. This has led to the “recognition” of a plethora of classes and sub-classes of halberd throughout Europe, permitting much useful reference and cross-reference. However, of itself this classification exercise is fundamentally flawed, because it ignores the shaft which is the single component capable of radically changing the function of the weapon as a whole. It is often forgotten that the halberd, like the axe, is a composite weapon in a way in which swords and daggers are not: it is as much about a piece of wood attached to a blade as it is about a blade attached to a piece of wood. The shaft is a critical part of this type of weapon; the manner in which the weapon is wielded is much, much more a function of the length of shaft than it is of the size or shape of the blade.
Looking at this aspect of the evidence, the first thing we can say from the contemporary depictions is that there were clearly two basic types of halberd in use during the Bronze Age, ie a short, stout hand- weapon not unlike a “tomahawk” and a longer, probably two-handed weapon which has more in common with a pole-arm (although unlikely ever to reach the length of historical pole-arms). Judging by the art, shaft-lengths for the first type would have been about 50cms long, while the second type in general seem to have had shafts c.1.2m long, but possibly as long as 1.5m. Different regions may have had different preferences - certainly, the El Argar halberd of south-eastern Iberia seems always to have been used as a hand-weapon, while in Ireland (if the surviving shaft on the Carn halberd indicates the norm), longer two-handed halberds may have been more popular. Both types may have been in use simultaneously elsewhere in Europe - the Mont Bego fight scenes clearly show the longer type in use (irrespective of exaggerated scale) while other carvings there and in Val Camonica suggest the presence of halberds with shorter shafts. The metal-shafted halberds of Central and Northern Europe, with their short handles, should perhaps be regarded as more closely connected in functional/cultural terms with the shorter halberds of the Mediterranean region rather than their longer Atlantic cousins. Indeed the overall design of many of these metal-shafted types reflects the manner in which Argaric halberds are depicted in the rock-art and their silhouettes could easily be confused for some of the Moroccan art.
Staying with the haft for the moment, it is not possible to say from the two-dimensional carvings produced by Bronze Age artists of what shape section the real shafts might have been. The metal hafted halberds of Central Europe indicate that shafts of oval or sometimes round section would have been normal but the Wessex miniatures pose the interesting possibility of rectangular section shafts. The shaft of the Carn halberd, it was also recalled, although a reconstruction (and a poor one at that) is also of rectangular section and this may well have been the form of the original. An oval or rectangular shaft would have been more functional than a round sectioned example, being less likely to turn in the hand when in use. It also allows the shaft to make up in bulk in one plane what it is denied in the other:
287 in other words, although the rivet-lengths on halberds imply a quite thin shaft, if it is of oval or rectangular section it could be substantially wider than it is thick.
Mention of the rivets prompts some consideration of how this element of the halberd is depicted in the art. Depictions of rivets are rare enough, but do appear in the Moroccan art in particular. Where they are depicted, they tend to be few in number per halberd: two, three and four would be most usual, and generally distributed in a straight line down the haft. The blades on the Wessex miniatures are secured by two tiny rivets.
Overall, the contemporary depictions can show substantial attention to detail, sufficient to suggest in some instances that particular types of halberd known from the archaeological record were serving as models for the artists. By far the most easily identified type is the El Argar halberd with its expanded hafting plate and narrow(ish) blade but other local types may have served as models elsewhere. The clear implication is that in a great many cases whoever was carving the image had actually seen real halberds of particular types, notwithstanding the fact that the archaeology of some rock-art regions (such as Morocco) suggest these artifacts to have been extremely rare in the locality.
Functionality The menhir-statues of Iberia are also of enormous interest since they seem to indicate the use of these shorter halberds in conjunction with long daggers or swords. This type of combat is also suggested by isolated rock-art images (eg Foppe di Nadro - fig 7.37) and we can even postulate that the manner of use was to hold the sword in the right hand and the halberd in the left. The formal posture of the remarkable menhir statue from Valdefuentes de Sangusín (fig 7.20) also suggests that the combination of sword and halberd may have represented a sort of ceremonial regalia, and this may further strengthen the argument for seeing a link with the metal-hafted types of central Europe, which are clearly non-functional display items.
For the longer-shafted type, the Mont Bego fight scenes provide graphic evidence of how these may have been used in combat (fig 7.28). The halberds in this case are wielded with two hands, gripping the very end of the shaft presumably for maximum leverage and apparently swinging the weapon over- arm. With the full weight of the reinforced halberd head behind it, this would deal a crushing blow. The problem, of course, is that the impact of such a blow would undoubtedly put enormous stress on the rivets and one can readily understand why halberd-rivets are so thick and heavy. It is also possible to see why the triangular arrangement of rivets (which is the most popular form of hafting) might have evolved, as when in use the impact will be taken by the back of the hafting plate and it would make sense to limit the number of rivet holes in this area (see also Chapter 4).
Reinforcing of the halberd head has been mentioned briefly above. This appears in various forms in the rock-art of the different regions, notably Iberia, Morocco and Italy. In some instances the haft
288 visibly expands at the back of the halberd head to accommodate and strengthen the hafted blade, but in other cases the haft also curls forward on to the blade itself which I have described in the table above as an “overhang”. This may simply be aesthetic, but there is no denying that this would also restrict upward movement of the blade following impact as well as adding additional weight to the blow. At the other end of the shaft, a bulbous swelling is often evident, which presumably adds purchase to the shaft in the manner in which the expanded end on a modern axe-handle prevents the shaft from slipping through the hand. Some depictions of halberds show a variation of this, however, where rather than having a swelling at the end of the shaft, the shaft ends in a “T” or an “L” shape. This phenomenon is most often seen in Mont Bego, but there are also examples from Galicia and Val Camonica. It should probably, therefore, be regarded as a genuine, if perplexing feature of some halberd shafts. It may reflect a more active role for the shaft itself in combat and it will be seen later (Chapter 9) that in the medieval period combatants using halberds would often lead with the shaft, fighting quarter-staff fashion. “T” or “L”-shaped protrusions could have been useful for hooking the opponent’s shaft, or indeed tripping him before delivering the coup de grâce. It is perhaps significant that these protrusions do not occur on depictions of the shorter halberds, where, if the hypothesised function is correct, they would be useless.
Another unusual feature of some of the depictions of halberds - this time exclusively from the Mont Bego collections - is the series of swellings distributed along the length of the shaft itself (fig 7.28). Some of the metal-hafted halberds from central and northern Europe show similar, albeit smaller, features which appear to be skuomorphic renderings of the bindings used to strengthen wooden shafts. The decoration on the miniature halberds from Wessex shows similar imitation of these bindings. This is a possible explanation for the Mont Bego examples, although it would have to be said that the proportions are wrong and the number of swellings shown varies from halberd to halberd. Other explanations may relate to the manner in which the shaft is to be used, perhaps to deliver blows like a quarter staff or to give greater purchase to the combatant as he grips the shaft. A direct parallel of course is known from the samurai period in Japan and has already been discussed above and will be referred to again in Chapter 9. Another possible interpretation would be to see these swellings as records of victory, trophies like notches on the pistol of a gunfighter. The possibilities are endless and while we will never know the answer, it does emphasise once more the complexity of the halberd as a composite weapon of wood and metal and once more we are reminded of just how much has been lost to us forever.
Associations and Chronology Depictions of halberds are often found as part of bigger compositions and these can be useful for indicating how halberds were associated with other artifacts in the minds of the artists of the time. Some danger, of course, lies in assuming that the various depictions are contemporary and certainly many compositions appear to be the result of motifs added over long periods of time. The most common and widespread associations are with other halberds and with daggers and this would fit easily with the Early Bronze Age date normally ascribed to halberds. This possibly reflects wider traditions
289 of association in Europe, certainly in Atlantic Europe, since even in those areas where there are no contemporary depictions of halberds, the pattern of association of halberd with halberd is reflected in the actual deposition of real halberds while the association with daggers is borne out by the greater predeliction of both types to turn up in wet places as compared to axes (eg O’Flaherty, 1995). It is worth noting as well that, with the exception of the Italian art, halberds tend not to be depicted alongside axes. In the rock-art of Galicia, as mentioned earlier, the depictions of halberds and axes are not even found in the same area.
With the exception of Mont Bego, halberds are rarely shown actually being wielded by humans. Daggers and swords are more likely to be shown in this manner but in most cases, the Bronze Age weaponry tends to be depicted one step removed from the human figure. This might be seen as further evidence for linking these depictions with actual votive deposition, since in both cases the human figure is one step removed. However, in the Iberian statuary, as we have seen already, the halberd is sometimes portrayed as part of the personal accoutrements of the carved figure and in some cases the figure also bears a sword, indicating that the halberd continued to be used in Iberia for quite some time, probably well into the Middle Bronze Age there. The combination is not confined to Iberia either, and reference has already been made to two similar associations in Val Camonica (Foppe di Nadro and Naquane). Both these regions have produced early examples of swords, so the association is perhaps not as significant in terms of chronology as it might be elsewhere in Europe. More surprising, perhaps, is the dating of the weapon-carvings from southwestern Iberia, which have been viewed as of first, rather than second, millennium date “notwithstanding their halberds and curved axes” (Coles and Harding, 1979; Schubart, 1975). Whether the function of the halberd had changed by this time is arguable but one way or another the evidence of the art tells us that we need to think in terms of a much longer life-span for the halberd in some regions than we might otherwise expect. Again, the evidence of the metalwork itself suggests as much: there are two halberds from the Hunt Collection in Limerick, both of which are socketed rather than riveted and whose overall form is more suggestive of Middle - Late Bronze Age work than Early. One of these is Spanish in origin, while the other is allegedly Syrian. The provenances of neither can be certain, however (see Chapter 5).
Symbolism The Italian rock-art compositions are probably the most complex and provide the most varied series of associations for the halberds depicted. Halberds are clearly incorporated in detailed compositions which include axes, daggers, human figures, animals and solar symbols. As remarked above, the complexity of these compositions has led Anati to see them as multi-phase creations but his thesis is highly arguable. What is interesting is the central position held by halberd and axe in Caven 1, appearing as emblems about which the other depictions are gathered. One is reminded of Barrett’s view of hoards as being built around certain core-symbols such as the axe (Barrett, 1985), stressing again the links already noted between depiction and deposition. It is also worth recalling that in both Caven I and Caven II the halberd is dominant over the axe and is the weapon positioned closest to the solar symbol.
290
The Wessex miniatures were discussed at the end of the last section and it was suggested that the richness of the materials with which they are composed (amber and gold) is telling evidence of the status which real halberds must have held. However, it was also noted that the use of these precious materials is always confined to the shaft - the blade remains steadfastly of copper or bronze, like its real counterpart and possibly reflecting the archaism which some authorities have seen in the choice of copper for so many halberds. Such archaism often suggests that the symbolic role may be most important. It may be significant that by the time these miniatures were being created (c.16th century BC) the heyday of the halberd as a functional weapon was long past, at least in Ireland and northern Britain where it is argued elsewhere (Chapters 9 and 10) it was being supplanted by the spear. The more ostentatious and functionless Breaghwy type was probably coming more into use in Ireland developing a trend here which arguably saw the halberd becoming more an expression of power than a weapon. The fact that no real halberds seem to have been used by the Wessex culture suggests that they may indeed have slipped out of circulation by this stage but it may also reflect that society’s ability to exclude elements of neighbouring cultures which failed to excite its imagination, particularly it would have to be said its neighbours to the north and west, looking instead to Brittany and Central Europe for inspiration (Megaw and Simpson, 1979; Clarke, Cowie and Foxon, 1985).
Of the body of contemporary depictions considered, the Wessex miniatures probably provide the most telling evidence of the symbolic role which halberds may have played during the Bronze Age in Europe. Some other evidence has also been alluded to, such as the compositions at Caven 1 and 2, with their solar and animal imagery, as well as the menhir-statuary of Iberia which suggest that the halberd there may have formed part of a sacred regalia with the sword. Insofar as it is possible to determine a male/female orientation for the halberd itself, where depictions of the artifact are accompanied by human figures which can be sexed, the figures are male. This is hardly surprising if the halberd is regarded as part of the combat panoply of a Bronze Age warrior; however, it is interesting to note that in the case of the Wessex miniatures at least one (that from Preshute) was recovered from a female burial (although we should be wary of accepting without reservation the sexing of skeletons from some of these early excavations).
We also saw that a recurring feature of the rock-art in particular is the way in which it seems to mimic actual depositions of metalwork and there are excellent examples of halberd carvings (notably at Montecchio) which demand to be considered in the same context as ritually deposited arms. There are other examples of this symbolic role which we might consider also, such as the Mont Bego carvings with their strong suggestions of some sort of bull-cult. In this context I suggested earlier that some of the halberd carvings themselves from this area have additional “spurs” or extensions which call to mind the depictions of bulls elsewhere in this region (fig 7.27). Mention was also made of the carvings from several regions which show the halberd blade slanting upwards, rather than the downwards which would arguably be a more functional choice. I suggested that this might be quite deliberate and might be paralleled by some of the metal-shafted examples which position the blade in this manner also. A
291 possible explanation might be to see in this a deliberate reversal of the more usual functional presentation, indicating that these arms are not for actual use. And of course, we should not forget the most obvious statement of all, which is the fact that halberds - unlike axes - are always shown hafted as if the artist cannot conceive of them in any other way (pace de la Peña Santos, 1980). Depictions of unattached axe-heads are not infrequent components of the rock-art repertoire, suggesting that these artifacts can have meaning without a shaft, and this reflects the reality of the material evidence which clearly shows that some axe-heads were never intended to be hafted at all (eg the well-known find from Brockagh, Co. Kildare of an axe-head encased in a made-to-measure sheath). In my examinations of the Irish halberds, I have never come across even one example which did not show evidence of having been hafted at some stage, although some of the Scottish halberds may not (Coles, 1969b). For the most part, it seems, the Bronze Age mind could only imagine the halberd if hafted.
The final piece of evidence offered by the contemporary depictions for the symbolic role of halberds is of course that they are depicted at all. Most of these depictions are clearly in themselves symbolic and much time and ink has been spent in discussing just what all this art means. The art is not simply decorative, but is created to articulate meaning for the artist and for the viewer. For example, Richard Bradley (1996) has recently shown how the rock-art of Atlantic Europe is logically structured and presented and how it relates to the landscape around it and to routeways through that landscape. Susan Johnston (1991), writing of the situation in Ireland, suggests that rock art is to be found most frequently in those areas where agricultural land is least productive, but often positioned so that it overlooks the better land. Other writers have seen in rock-art a record of entoptic experience (Lewis-Williams and Dowson, 1988) or of shamanistic practice (Turpin, S.A. 1994)3. There is fairly universal acceptance therefore that there is more to rock-art in particular than meets the eye. In this regard, we would do well to remember that the inclusion of weapons in the rock-art and other carvings of Western Europe is not a constant feature of that art but rather a feature of the art produced during the Bronze Age only. As was mentioned earlier, the new attention given to weapons in the art reflects the heightened interest in weaponry within contemporary Bronze Age society. Many authorities would see the appearance of a “cult of arms” at this time, exemplified by the production of prestige weapons (some of which would have been useless in combat (Coles 1979)), the dispersal of cultural packages, the appearance of “warrior-graves”, the practice of deliberate deposition, etc. Considering the depictions of halberds in their wider context like this reminds us that very similar (perhaps stronger) messages can be read in the rock-art/carvings of this period for the status of other metal weapons as well and we should careful not to over-emphasise the particular status of one.
3 For a particularly vivid comparison with Shamanistic practice, see Vitebsky, 2001 pp.112-3. Also O’Flaherty, 2001.
292 Chapter 8
Mining, making and metallography
‘There’s nobody on the line with caffeine nerves or a history of clinical depression. Just the eerie weave of chromium alloys carried in interlocking arcs, block iron and asphalt sheeting, soaring ornaments of coachwork fitted and merged. Robots tightening bolts, programmed drudges that do not dream of family dead.
- Don DeLillo, Underworld.
INTRODUCTION
There are approximately 2400 artifacts of copper or bronze known from the Early Bronze Age in Ireland, with about 700 of these dating from what some authorities have termed a “Copper Age”, ie c.2400-2100 BC. Northover, O’Brien and Stos (2001) have recently proposed a four stage structure to the development of early Irish metallurgy during this initial Copper Age, basing this squarely on the model suggested by Burgess in 1979. These four stages are as follows:
Stage 1 Introduction of copper metallurgy from the Continent, marked by the appearance of thick-butted axes of Castletownroche type.
Stage 2: The Castletownroche type axe quickly evolves into a specific insular type, Lough Ravel. Case (1966) referred to this as an “Impact Phase” when the influence of Continental Beaker metallurgy was strong. Tanged copper knives and daggers appear of international Beaker type.
Stage 3: Type Ballybeg axes appear, along with the first halberds and rivet-notched knives.
Stage 4: Development of the copper axe is finally overtaken by the appearance and rapid adoption of tin-bronze between 2200 and 2000 BC, resulting in the widespread distribution of Type Killaha axes. Type Breaghwy halberds probably appear around this time also, or shortly afterwards.
293 As can be seen, the four stages proposed relate closely to successive phases of axe development and can therefore be related broadly to Harbison’s model for axe typology (1969b). Harbison does not of course distinguish between the Castletownroche and Lough Ravel axes but otherwise the successive stages are as suggested by him in relation to the axes and in relation to the metalwork generally (1973). They also correspond broadly to Needham’s (1996) Metalwork Assemblages I and II. John Waddell (1998) presented a useful tabular summary of the various models proposed for these earliest metalworking stages and this has been adapted below (Table 8.1) to include the model proposed by Northover, O’Brien and Stos (2001). Waddell himself suggested a simple fourfold division of the entire Early Bronze Age into Knocknagur, Killaha, Ballyvalley and Derryniggin Phases, again using the basic axe typologies as the basis. All these models work well and to a large extent simply offer differing levels of complexity as required. While the chronology of halberds generally is discussed elsewhere (Chapter 10), for the purposes of this chapter, the model suggested by Northover, O’Brien and Stos (2001) is adopted. Table 8.1
Waddell Harbison Burgess Needham (for Northover et Approximate Britain) al dates (Waddell 1998) Castletownroche Stage 1 Knocknagur Metalwork Lough Ravel Assemblage I Stage 2 2400-2200BC Knocknagur and II Frankford Stage 3
Frankford- Killaha Metalwork Stage 4 Killaha Killaha- Assemblage 2200-2000BC Ballyvalley III
Ballyvalley Metalwork Ballyvalley Assemblage IV 2000-1600BC
Scrabo Hill Metalwork Assemblage V
Derryniggin Derryniggin Derryniggin Metalwork 1600-1500BC Assemblage VI
The various models suggested for the metal working phases of the Early Bronze Age (adapted from Waddell, 1998: table 3)
294 MINING
We have surprisingly good information now about how and where copper was mined in the Early Bronze Age in Ireland, thanks to the work of researchers such as Jackson (1979) and O’Brien (1994, 1995, 1996). The earliest source appears to be a distinctive arsenical metal, believed to originate in southwest Ireland, probably in the Mizen and Beara peninsulas and at Ross Island, Killarney (Map 8.1). Ross Island was almost certainly a major source of arsenical copper before 2000BC. Indeed, the dates obtained for Ross Island and the chemical composition of the metal suggest that this was the source for much if not most of the copper in circulation for the earliest metal-working stages in this country, i.e. the Castletownroche, Knocknagur and Frankford stages (O’Brien, 1995). The site also continued to supply metal to the succeeding bronze-using Migdale-Killaha stage (ibid). The recent lead-isotope analyses carried out by Rohl and Needham (1998) also points to Ross Island as the most likely source of copper in the earliest metalworking stages in Britain as does similarly recent work by Paul Budd (1998).
Several other mines are known in Ireland and Britain, but the dates obtained for these all centre on later in the Early Bronze Age (ie post 2000 BC) or in the Middle Bronze Age (Fig 8.1).
Fig 8.1: radio carbon dates for mines in Britain and Ireland (O’Brien, 1996: fig 40)
There may certainly have been other mines in use during this period which have not yet been recognised – there are after all many sources of copper in Ireland (Map 8.2).
295 Map 8.1 Early sources for arsenical copper
Map 8.2 sources for copper in Ireland (after O’Brien, 1994 and Jackson, 1979
296 O’Brien (1996) has pointed out that there are several reports in the 19th century mining literature in Ireland of “old men’s workings” in the Wicklow, Tipperary and Waterford ore-fields. In addition, the distribution of Early Bronze Age hoards shows a surprisingly close correspondence with the distribution of known outcrops of copper ore all over the country (O’Flaherty, 1995) and this may suggest that the metal industry at the time was to some degree built upon exploitation of local ores. Harrison (1980) considered that small pockets of copper-rich ore, valueless today, could have been identified by botanical prospection (cf Cannon 1960) during the Bronze Age and supported local metal industries. However, there is still no direct evidence of the existence of other mines and even if these did exist, they may not have come into use until later in the Early Bronze Age. For a number of reasons, therefore, it seems most likely that the copper being used by the Irish industries at the time that halberds were in circulation here was from the mines of the southwest. As we shall see later, metallographic analysis further suggests that the Irish halberds were in fact made from this metal.
These first mines have been investigated and discussed in detail by Billy O’Brien (e.g.1994, 1995, 1996 and 1999) and as a result we know a great deal about the way in which the copper was extracted. The basic method used appears to have involved setting fires against the rockface, following which chunks of stone could be prised off the weakened surface either by hand or using picks of various kinds, some wooden examples of which have survived in flooded mines at Mount Gabriel. O’Brien (1996) has suggested that about 5cm depth of rock could be removed in this way before requiring the process of fire-setting to begin again. The stone removed was then crushed and sorted by hand to produce a richer mineral concentrate. The next stage would have been to smelt the concentrate but, with the exception of Ross Island, there is no archaeological evidence for any smelting on site, or off site for that matter (O’Brien, 1996). However, we know technically what would have been required, ie a system of generating and maintaining temperatures of up to 1100°C, of supplying ore and collecting smelted metal and slag. The system illustrated at Fig 8.2, which is borrowed from a proposal for early metallurgy in Iberia, probably reflects the type of operation in use here.
297 The evidence collected at Mount Gabriel illustrates the peripheral activity required to sustain these mining operations. The main period of use of the Mount Gabriel mines appears to have been c.1700- 1500BC, during which time some 4000 tonnes of rock was excavated from the 32 known workings there. It is estimated that this would have required anything between 4,000 and 14,000 tonnes of round wood fuel which had to be felled somewhere and transported to the site. From samples preserved in waterlogged conditions on site, it appears that the main fuel was oak and hazel and that bronze axes were being used to cut these, telling evidence that notwithstanding any symbolic role these axes were also put to Fig 8.2: Stages in the smelting of copper practical use. (Cacho Quesada, 1991: fig 21)
Mention was made above of the evidence for smelting at Ross Island. This site is unusual in that a work-camp was identified here during excavations, associated with the earliest phase of mining dating to c.2400-2000BC. The camp revealed evidence for a range of post mining activity including ore concentration, smelting and temporary habitation. Hut foundations and food waste in the form of bone-fragments were also identified. Most interesting, perhaps, was the identification of some 400 shards of beaker-ware, representing at least 20 vessels, presumably used for holding drink. The association between Beakers and alcoholic drink has been noted on a number of occasions (eg Dineley, 1996) and the possibility that alcohol-consumption is associated here at Ross Island with evidence of the first metallurgy is extremely interesting, mirroring as it does the early mythology of Goibhniu, the founder of metalworking and the host of serious beer-drinking festivals for the gods – the fledh Ghoibhnenn (O’Flaherty, 1999). However, most interesting of all is the fact that it would appear that the metal being used to supply the industries which produced the Irish halberds was controlled by Beaker-using societies. Halberds have often been regarded as part of the Beaker package in certain parts of Europe (Harrison, 1980). In this regard, it is worth noting that although the mines are all in the southwest, the main area of distribution of the halberds is across the central plain, over 150 miles away. While the very earliest hoards of metal objects have a
298 strongly southern bias, it is significant that none of these contain halberds. Flanagan (1979) has shown that while the initial production industry seems to have been focused in the south, it shifted northward as the Early Bronze Age progressed and many of the later axe-types seem to be products of an industry based squarely in the north, irrespective of where the metal was being mined. In other words, we should not assume that just because the metal was being mined in the southwest that this was also where the axes, daggers and halberds were being designed and produced. While this may have been true for the very earliest stages, the indications are that the later axe-industries were powered from the north. One might be tempted to see in this the re-emergence or recovery of this area as a traditional producer of axes, formerly high quality polished stone axes, now high quality metal axes. It is also interesting in the context of the halberds, making us wonder whether the focus of this industry in the central plain similarly builds on earlier tradition in this area. Certainly, as we have seen in Chapter 6, this region is also strongly represented in the distribution of stone battle axes, an implement which shares many similarities to the halberd.
METHODS OF FABRICATION
Casting techniques The casting technique used to produce halberds has never been properly addressed. The simple fact of the matter is that a halberd mould has never been found anywhere in Europe that I am aware of, apart from one possible example from Laderas del Castillo, Spain. This find is mentioned by José Luis Simón García (1999, p.195), crediting an earlier unpublished doctoral thesis by Simón (1995). However, the mould is not depicted and it is by no means certain that it is for a halberd for the author himself describes it as “un molde bivalvo con matriz en ambas caras, el cual serviría para fundir alabardas o puñales nervados” [a bivalve mould with a matrix on each face, which would serve to cast halberds or midribbed daggers]
The medium is not mentioned but is presumably stone. Closer to home, Tylecote (1986, p.82) mentions a halberd mould from Broughshane, Co. Antrim, but inspection quickly shows this to be for a sickle.
There are a limited number of ways in which it is possible to cast metal and only some of these methods could possibly have been used in the Early Bronze Age. These are as follows: 1. casting in stone moulds 2. casting in clay moulds 3. casting in sand moulds
Bronze moulds, although used later, are obviously an impossibility at this early stage of copper-working. Whatever else we say about the fabrication techniques used to produce halberds, we can say with certainty that they were produced in bivalve, not univalve, moulds. This much is evident from the pronounced, cast,
299 midribs as well as the deeper decorative grooving on some examples. There is also the fact that on a number of halberds the midribs on either side do not “match-up” exactly, or curve differently, which may be result of one of the sides of the mould slipping during casting (eg Derrinsallagh [Ref: (BM)1854, 7-14, 216]). Halberds, therefore, must be amongst the very first, if not actually the first, objects to be cast in bivalve moulds. The fact that all halberds were produced in this way is in itself very interesting since the axes with which they are found in hoards are all produced in open moulds, a more primitive technology. One might ask with good reason why if Irish smiths had the technology to work with bivalve moulds they did not extend this to the production of axes at this time. Later axes of Types Ballyvalley and Derrniggin were of course produced in bivalve moulds but it is quite likely that by the time these had become popular, the halberd had all but disappeared, as we shall see later. So we are left with the conundrum of this unique artefact appearing in Ireland quite suddenly and without obvious antecedents, springing fully developed like Athena from the head of Zeus, and produced with sophisticated casting techniques apparently unknown to pre-halberd using societies. Many of the Early Bronze Age daggers of course would also have been produced in bivalve moulds, but unlike the halberds, we have little direct evidence of the contemporaneity of these daggers with the simpler flat axes: Early Bronze Age daggers occur in association with axes in only five cases (O’Flaherty, 1995) and one of these is with a palstave (Cloonascragh) and so clearly quite late. Of the other four cases (Frankford, Killaha, Knocknagur and Whitespots), in only one instance – Whitespots - is the dagger of a type which suggests possible bivalve casting, and at an early stage, given the association with a Lough Ravel axe. In all the other cases, the daggers are simple productions, cast using the same technology as the axes they accompany, using simple open moulds. The halberds of the period are apparently unique at this stage in that as an artifact-type they are all produced in bivalve moulds. There are sound grounds, therefore, for seeing the halberds as the vehicle by which bivalve casting is introduced to Ireland. This in itself is a strong indication that the artefact itself is not of native invention, for if the technology by which it was produced was not already in Ireland, how could the artefact have been first produced here? And if the technique was imported from abroad it is likely to be used first to produce the artefact-type with which it was originally associated.
In fact, the technique of closed casting in a two-piece mould seems to have first penetrated central and western Europe in the last stages of the third millennium (Sherratt, 1976, p.578) with the introduction of a new range of metal artefacts from the Caucassus. We can, therefore, with a high degree of certainty, regard the technique as an introduction here too. In the circumstances, one might be tempted to view the entire population of Irish halberds as imported products of a more sophisticated Continental industry. However, our examination of typology and indeed metallurgy does not bear this out. The Irish halberds are very distinctly “Irish”. While it has been argued already (Chapter 2) that it is possible to identify broad “families” of halberds with an Atlantic tradition centred on Ireland, there are very strong local traditions within those families. Very few halberds in Europe have such large hafting plates as the Irish examples and
300 very few indeed have the distinctive curved midrib of our most numerous type, Cotton. So wherever the original “idea” came from, it was quickly adapted to an Irish design. For the same reason, it seems unlikely that we can attribute the appearance of halberds in this country to the arrival of new peoples, although there is sufficient circumstantial evidence to allow such an argument to be made1. This circumstantial evidence might include the distribution of early halberds around the Shannon and its tributaries, the paucity of direct associations with other metal work, the relative sophistication of their casting compared with contemporary Irish metalwork, the presence of at least one (possible) pithos burial here (Castle Saffron, Co. Cork) , the presence of exotic halberd types such as the unprovenanced Gambara type halberd and the two Argaric examples from Rockforest, Co.Tipperary and from Co. Cavan. However, if we were to seriously propose that the Irish halberds were introduced by intruders from the Continent, we would still be hard-pushed to suggest where they might have come from, since there is nothing quite like the Irish halberds elsewhere in Europe. Rather it seems we should consider the appearance of halberds here as resulting initially from well-established continental contacts, but evolving rapidly into an Irish style.
To return to the question of just how the Irish halberds were cast, it seems most unlikely that they were cast in stone moulds, given the durability of this medium and the fact that we have never found such a mould for a halberd (pace Tylecote, 1986) while we have found stone moulds for axes, daggers and razors. This is even more peculiar since there are far more halberds in existence than either daggers or razors and the laws of chance would suggest that if all three were being produced in the same way, we should have found at least one mould for a halberd by this stage. Arguments that such complex moulds might have been too difficult to carve in stone at this early stage are effectively countered by Liam McNally’s very practical observation that it is extremely easy to cast a metal chisel and once equipped with this essential tool the carving of more complex moulds becomes eminently achievable (1996).
It is more likely, however, that with the production of halberds we are seeing the first evidence of the use of clay moulds in this country. While this is a “solution” in one sense, it is disingenuous in another, insofar as clay moulds are not generally believed to have been used this early, at least not in Ireland or Britain (Tylecote, 1986), and there is no direct evidence that this technique was ever used for halberds. This said, clay moulds, of course, have to be broken in order to extract the cast metal and for this reason their chances
1It is now deeply unfashionable to hypothesise on the basis of folk-movements in antiquity, the tendency instead being to emphasise the evidence for continuity. However, for opposing views, see Mallory, 1989, pp.164-185; Kristiansen, 1991.
301 of survival and recognition are much reduced. In addition, where these moulds have been found in later prehistory, they tend to come from habitation sites of one form or other (even if these are specialist metalworking sites) and the Early Bronze Age is notoriously poorly represented in this regard. Perhaps one day we will find an Early Bronze Age site with hundreds of shards of clay moulds for halberds and the problem will be no more, but for the present we continue to speculate. It should be acknowledged, however, that elsewhere in Europe there is no such shortage of habitation sites dating to the Early Bronze Age and none of these has turned up a mould for a halberd either. It is, of course, quite possible that we have already found clay moulds for halberds but simply have not recognised them as such amongst our collections. After all, we have never actually looked for halberd moulds amongst these, precisely because nobody ever thought they might be there. These moulds are all believed to date from much later in the Bronze Age and would tend therefore to be interpreted in terms of Middle and Late Bronze Age artefacts, not Early Bronze Age ones. We also need to remember that what we are talking about here Fig 8.3: Possible leaf or grass impressions on are shards of moulds - we shouldn’t expect to halberd blade. Were the imprints transferred from a find a “halberd”, just something of appropriate clay mould? [Ref: (NMI) W236] National Museum of Ireland. shape and size. It would be very interesting to carry out a specific research project to see are there any shards amongst these existing collections which might potentially at least belong to a halberd mould.
Another small piece of evidence which possibly suggests the use of clay moulds are the impressions which appear in relief on a very small number of halberds. Some of these take the form of leaves or grass blades (fig 8.3) and it is possible that they result from impressions made upon the clay of the moulds while still wet. However, they might also result from wrappings of organic material tied around the halberd blades before deposition, or from decaying vegetation pressing against the blade after deposition and resulting in differential corrosion or patination, or mineralization of the organic material itself.
302 The final method by which halberds may have been cast is by the use of sand-moulds. This is by far the most controversial proposal, since it is largely held that casting in sand moulds only emerged as a technique in the 18th century AD and was never used before this (Brown, 1976; Tylecote 1986, p.84). Indeed, the fact that the two axes from the Glencar Hoard, Co. Sligo, appeared to have been cast in this manner was one of the reasons Burke and Megaw (1966) declared both to be forgeries. However, a small number of other writers have considered the possibility of early use of sand moulds. Muller-Karpe (1990) suggests that such technology was in use in the second millennium BC in Mesopotamia, perhaps earlier, while Davey (1988) goes further and sees this technique as the first method likely to have been used in antiquity. Waddell (1998) also mentions the possibility in the context of early Irish metallurgy (p.138). More recently still, Barbara Ottaway and Scott Seibel (1998) have made a case for the use of sand-casting during the Early Bronze Age in Europe, or rather during the copper-using period since they hold that this technique probably proved unsuccessful for tin-bronzes. Unfortunately, the very nature of sand casting is such that the moulds themselves never survive and so the argument in favour of its use is based on the absence of evidence for any other casting techniques. This is not a very satisfactory basis on which to build an argument, since it avoids the possibility that stone or clay moulds simply have not yet been found, or recognised, or that they were disposed of in a particular way which makes recovery/identification today very difficult. On the other hand, there is no point in simply closing our minds to the possibility that sand- casting was used in the earliest periods and there is certainly plenty of circumstantial evidence to support this. The technique is, after all, an obvious one: it is immediately apparent to any one walking on a beach, for example, that the sand holds the imprint of one’s feet and anything else which might be pressed into it. Arguably, too, an open stone mould is no more than a recreation of this phenomenon in another medium and one which would not be achieved unless the basic principle of an imprint had previously been grasped. It is likely, too, that the simpler ingots and copper cakes may well have been cast in a sand matrix since no great perfection of form was required Even in 20th century Ireland simple lead weights were cast by scooping a shallow hole in the bog and pouring the molten metal directly in. The result would be far from perfect, but it sufficed, was cheap and fast. A similar principle may well have applied in the Bronze Age where finesse of finish was not a priority.
Ottaway and Seibel (1998) have certainly shown that it would have been entirely possible to cast early metal work in sand-moulds and that the technology would not have been beyond the capabilities of the smiths of the time. They also point out – and this is perhaps most interesting – that sand is slower-cooling than either stone, clay or metal moulds. For this reason they believe that the type Killaha axe found at Newgrange (O’Kelly and Shell, 1979) was not cast in a stone mould since metallographic analysis indicated slow-cooling. However, the fact is that – regardless of what the metallographic analysis suggests - stone moulds for precisely this type of axe DO exist. In addition, it could be argued that preheating the mould in advance would have slowed the rate at which the cast metal cooled. In fairness to both authors,
303 they acknowledge the existence of stone moulds for these axes in Ireland but, referring to Tylecote (1986), state that “they do not appear in Ireland until later in the EBA” (p.60). I am not sure what this means, since irrespective of when they appeared, these moulds were clearly used for producing the very type of axe under consideration here as a candidate for sand casting, and I am not aware of any way in which one type Killaha axe is immediately identifiable as earlier than another.
However, as we will see later, analyses carried out by Penniman and Allen (1960) indicated that in at least two cases, the halberds examined appeared to have cooled slowly in a “heat-insulating” mould. This was interpreted by the authors as being either of clay or stone, preheated, but since in the case of halberds – unlike that of the Killaha axe above – no moulds of either clay or stone are known, it is quite possible on the basis of Ottaway and Seibel’s arguments that the casting medium was sand. Sand-casting as the means by which halberds were produced is a very attractive option, since it explains very neatly why there are no surviving moulds. However, one would have to ask why this technique was being used for halberds but not, apparently, for any other contemporary metalwork, for all of which we have examples of stone moulds. Ottaway and Seibel’s argument would see sand-casting as predating the other techniques, being replaced by stone, clay or metal when it was realised that the slow-cooling encouraged by sandmoulds produced cast objects with very poor mechanical properties2. If the technique had already been replaced by stone moulds for axes, why would it persist for the halberds? However, if we are to argue the case, we might point out that the axes are produced in simple open moulds, relatively easily produced in stone, while a more sophisticated bivalve technique is required for the halberds. These bivalve moulds would certainly have been easier and faster to produce in sand than in stone and since Irish halberds are of copper and not of tin bronze, the brittleness normally produced by slow cooling in sand would not have been as pronounced. In fact, this might be one of the reasons why copper was the material of choice for halberds, since the production of bronze in sand moulds would have been unsatisfactory. Alternatively, we might hypothesise that the use of bivalve sand moulds was pioneered in the production of copper halberds but was found unsatisfactory later for the production of bronze objects and this is why the bivalve technique was subsequently effected through the medium of stone and clay. In short, the sand-casting theory has much to commend it as an explanation for the way in which halberds were produced in Early Bronze Age Ireland, but unfortunately it is not apparently susceptible of proof. Sand moulds leave no direct evidence behind them and the metallographic evidence adduced so far is not conclusive. It would be very interesting, however, to see some focused experimental work on the relative cooling effects of sand moulds and preheated stone/clay moulds, or insulated moulds. If a marked difference is still asserted, we may be able to look more positively at the possibilities suggested by sand-casting.
2 Ó Faoláin and Northover (1998) have a different view of the effect of slow-cooling, seeing this as providing “better homogenization of the metal” (p.73).
304 Post-Casting Treatment Mention has been made already of the study carried out by Penniman and Allen (1960). This was a most useful investigation of the metallurgy of four Irish halberds and has a number of interesting points to make with regard to production techniques. The study was specifically carried out to test assumptions that copper artefacts were largely forged to shape while bronze ones were cast to their finished form. The results of these investigations tell us much of the way in which these halberds may have been produced. One of the halberds examined was defined as a “blank”, i.e. an unfinished example where in particular the hafting-plate had yet to be bored to take the rivets. Penniman and Allen believed this to be the first stage in the production of a halberd, that this is the condition in which most halberds would have been taken from the mould. In each of the cases examined, the halberds had been cast in bivalve moulds, believed to have been of stone or clay and probably preheated. The molten metal would have been poured from the pointed end of the weapon, facilitating the production of a thin hafting-plate, necessarily thin to allow the rivetholes to be drilled through afterwards. The dendritic structure of samples taken from the blades indicates that they would have been allowed to cool slowly in the mould. Once this process was complete, the blade could be removed and given a light forging to trim the rough casting fins off. The next stage was to make the cutting-edges by alternate cold-forging and annealing. Practical experiments by Liam McNally (1996) suggest that the appropriate annealing temperature for copper is around 500°C and that this can be recognised visually when the heated copper begins to turn a dull red colour. Penniman and Allen’s investigations show that dramatic increases in hardness were achieved by a final cold hammering, although again practical experiment by McNally (and others) indicates that cold-hammering should be used with care at this stage as it can make the blade brittle. In the case of the halberds examined by Penniman and Allen, however, cold-hammering had increased the edge hardness remarkably from 62HB to 150HB. The ability to increase hardness levels to this extent was greatly facilitated by use of arsenical copper. The blade might then be lightly worked across its whole surface. The edges would have been sharpened by grinding, and all the specimens examined – with the exception of the halberd blank – showed evidence of grinding. Some halberds might have been completely forged cold, as suggested by the evidence of one of the specimens, while the others – including the bronze one – had been forged and annealed. In other words, to answer one of their own original research questions, there was no difference in the metallurgical technique applied for making weapons in either bronze or copper. This is borne out also by more recent experimental work carried out by Simon Ó Faoláin (Ó Faoláin and Northover, 1998) who identified no less than 9 post-casting operations in the production of Late Bronze Age swords, within three broad stages of work. These operations, in the order assumed carried out, were as follows:
Primary Work Hardening Treatment Finishing work Fettling; Removal of casting jet; Rivet- Annealing; cold hammering Filling of blowholes; fitting handle; hole perforation smoothing of surface; sharpening.
305 These operations, although for the production of bronze swords, relate well enough to the various stages proposed by Penniman and Allen and probably represent the succession of tasks undertaken in the production of halberds as well. Extensive experimental work has also been carried out more recently by Sue Bridgford (1999), again on the production of Late Bronze Age swords, and this amongst other things showed that the use of copper hammers for the hardening treatment produced a high-quality edge finish (it should be stated, of course, that there is no evidence for the existence of copper hammers when halberds were in production). The dramatic increase achieved in hardness by way of the careful post-treatment mentioned above will not have gone unnoticed. Indeed, in a later paper Allen, Britton and Coghlan (1970), comment that the arsenical copper artefacts of the Early Bronze Age “are, in respect of their hardness, practically as good as the material of the Late Bronze Age” (p.24). In relation specifically to the halberds from the period, they state that these were often “of sound material, skilfully cast and excellently finished” (p20), that they represent “very fine examples of casting and forging in copper” (p.20) and that their makers “could attain a high metallurgical standard, and indeed a most remarkable one for their time” (p.21) - high praise indeed.
It has been observed by a number of writers that the rivets on halberds are often of softer metal than the blade and at one stage it was believed that this was a deliberate practice of Early Bronze Age smiths. Penniman and Allen in testing this hypothesis note that this could not always have been the practice as one of the rivets which they examined had been forged hot from the same metal from which the blade had been cast. Since then, of course, others have pointed out (eg McKerril and Tylecote, 1972; Tylecote 1986) that the relative softness of the rivets was actually a function of working the metal down to such a small size, resulting in the loss of easily volatilized elements such as arsenic. This would of itself produce a softer metal and indeed this was to best advantage all round, as it is better to secure a blade to an organic haft using a softer rivet. The holes to take the rivets would have been drilled through the thin hafting plate, probably using a hollow tube-drill filled with sand and water. The investigators were able to tell from one of the blades that the holes had been drilled from both sides – this would presumably have been done at an early stage in the process, perhaps immediately after removal from the mould, before any annealing or forging was carried out. Parker (1970) also notes evidence for the drilling of rivet holes. The rivets themselves appeared to have been forged from pre-cast rods using a round die. One head of the rivet may have been pre-formed by heating and forging before insertion into the blade/haft, and once inserted the other end seems to have been closed cold against the haft.
Matching of Halberd Profiles In the context of investigating the means of fabrication of the halberd blades, it was felt it might be useful to see if there were any “sibling” castings amongst the halberd blades which have survived to the present; in other words if it seemed that any of these blades had been cast in the same moulds. If no siblings were
306 identified at all, then it would seem most unlikely that the medium of production was stone moulds, where the expected model would be few moulds and many castings. If, however, siblings were identified, this could indicate the use of stone moulds in some instances at least, although it is of course quite possible that repeated production of clay moulds using the same wooden template could produce the same effect.
The best way of starting appeared to be to compare the profiles of as many halberds as possible with each other, using in addition the size, shape and position of the midrib as key matching criteria. Harbison’s 1969 Catalogue seemed a promising departure point, containing as it does standardised images of 167 halberds, all drawn to the same conventions and to the same scale. It was initially hoped that the comparison exercise could be carried out by computer but following discussion with experts in the field, no appropriate software could be identified. Some related software exists in the commercial sector to ensure mass- production of objects of exactly the same predefined proportions but this was not suitable for actual “image-matching” which was what this exercise was about. In addition, the process of scanning the images themselves could give rise to distortion and matching of these images was likely to involve substantial human intervention on- screen.
In the end, it was decided to carry out the matching by eye. To do this, each of the plates of Harbison’s Catalogue was copied onto transparencies and then each halberd image superimposed on each other. The process was laborious, involving almost 30,000 individual visual comparisons but was successfully carried out over a period of just two days, with rests to avoid eyestrain. It was quickly confirmed that the size, shape and relative position of the midrib was the key to comparing the halberds. Comparison of profiles was also critical, but these outlines can be significantly altered by the effects of corrosion and other damage. In practice matches were made by initially identifying likely candidates, and by then fitting one profile over the other, using the midrib as the axis. To be declared a match, both halberds had to line up perfectly on the midrib, accurately reflect the size and shape of the midrib and closely follow the overall outline of each other’s blades. The rivet holes and hafting plate were not deemed essential to the match: the available evidence suggests that the holes would not have been cast in place, but would have been drilled at a later stage and there could be no guarantee that two halberds cast in the same mould would necessarily have their rivetholes drilled in exactly the same places. As regards the hafting-plate, this is the area most likely to be damaged on any halberd and its outline can be significantly altered in this way. Provided, therefore, that a close match could be made on the basis of the midrib and blade outline, this was deemed sufficient to determine likely sibling castings. Many such matches were almost exact, leaving the proposition in little doubt.
All-in-all, having compared 167 halberds with each other (ie those actually illustrated in Harbison, 1969a), a total of 27 initial matches were identified. These 27 cases were then examined again in detail, resulting in
307 the dismissal of nine as uncertain but the addition of three strong new matches. One other remarkably exact match was dismissed when it was realised that one image was in fact a negative of the other. The two halberds in question are those from Collinward and Frankford (fig 8.4). The image included for Collinward is not in fact an image of that halberd at all – this was confirmed after examining the halberd in the hand in the Ulster Museum. From copy-correspondence in the museum, it appears that a negative image of the Frankford halberd was mistakenly supplied to the publishers of the PBF series and that this image was subsequently ascribed to Collinward and published as same. What is somewhat disturbing, however, is that although one is a negative of the other, the image for Collinward includes some gratuitous representation of grooving along the edges, which is not in the original image for Frankford and which can only have been added when the drawings were being “standardised” for publication.3
Fig 8.4: The published drawings of the Collinward and Frankford halberds (Harbison, 1969a: Pl. 13 and 14). The drawing for Collinward is in fact a negative of the Frankford image, and was apparently published in error within the Catalogue. (A photograph of the Collinward Halberd can be found in the Catalogue accompanying this study – Appendix 1).
3 This is not the only example of poor draftsmanship in this catalogue: a unprovenanced halberd in the National Museum of Scotland (Harbison No.266) is depicted as if its hafting plate has been sliced off – in reality, the hafting plate is just bent back. See also Chapter 5.
308 The final figure for matches resulting from this exercise then is 19 (Table 8.2). It is of course possible to extrapolate further from these matches using individual halberds as common denominators to construct further matches not initially identified. This exercise was in fact carried out for a sample of cases leading swiftly to the identification of a further 12 “matches”. However, when these were then examined in detail, only one of the additional matches survived to be included in the final list. The reason for this is that whereas it might seem that two individual halberds which are linked separately to a third halberd should consequently be linked to each other as well, when the cases are examined it is often simply not possible to say this with the same degree of certainty as with their original matches. For example, Halberd A may be matched to 90% certainty with Halberd B, which is in turn matched with 90% certainty to Halberd C; Halberd A may well therefore be matched to Halberd C as well, but only with 80% certainty. It was decided not to clutter-up the table of probable matches with ancillary possible matches, which could extend indefinitely. Instead, what we have in Table 8.2 is a list of halberds whose profiles and midrib structure match very closely indeed to each other and over which I would be prepared to stand. The individual drawings are in Appendix 4 and a quick comparison of the halberds in question will show just how close these matches are in fact. Table 8.2 Halberd Ref Type Provenance Weight Halberd Ref Type Provenance Weight
1 Harb.165 Carn none n.a WG1597 Carn Castlecomer 545 2 Harb.272 Cotton none n.a W244 Cotton Hillswood 579.1 3 R1576 Clonard Derrycassan 218.9 A101.B.1906 Clonard None 490.4 4 1943/74 Cotton Ards Beg n.a W237 Cotton None 425.1 5 1935.448 Cotton Crott 502.9 R1317 Cotton None 436.25 6 1929/1498 Cotton Cotton 511 W239 Cotton None 525.2 7 1968:251 Cotton R.Shannon 649.1 W237 Cotton None 425.1 8 Harb.238 Cotton None n.a WG1597 Carn Castlecomer 545 9 Harb.238 Cotton None n.a Harb.165 Carn None (n.a) 10 P253 Cotton None 349.7 P257 Carn None 291.5 11 P1948/105 Cotton Cloonymorris 295.3 SA1913/112 Cotton Tullamore 265.7 12 1934/10737 Cotton Armoy 585.8 1849,3-1, 45 Cotton S.Kileta 657 13 1943/74 Cotton Ards Beg 1968:251 Cotton R.Shannon 649.1 14 W242 Cotton Hillswood 539.2 1853:2-28: 2 Cotton Bantry 567 15 W244 Cotton Hillswood 579.1 1853:2-28: 2 Cotton Bantry 567 16 W244 Cotton Hillswood 579.1 65/1935 Cotton Armagh 614.6 17 1930/36 Cotton Hill of Allen 647.2 W242 Cotton Hillswood 539.2 18 R2553 Cotton Clonloghan 550.6 1964/44 Cotton Greagnafarna 655.9 19 65/1935 Cotton Armagh 614.6 1853:2-28: 2 Cotton Bantry 567 Suggested Halberd Matches (“n.a” entries under Weight indicate that I have no details of weight for these halberds)
309 Where available, I have also included the halberd weights, as weighed by me. Two of the matches above are very close on weight, ie nos.6 and 15, with only 12-14 grams between the halberds concerned. Others lie within 30-50g of each other, which for reference is a little heavier than a teaspoon and, all things considered, must represent a very close match given the potential loss of metal through post-casting treatment, corrosion and damage, as well as the presence or not of rivets. With just two exceptions, the matches identified all lie within 17% of each other in terms of weight, while six lie within 10% or closer (table 8.3). Table 8.3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
n. n. 45 n. 87 97 65 n. n. 83 90 89 n.a 95 98 94 83 84 92 a a % a % % % a a % % % % % % % % %
Suggested Matches: % Comparison of Individual Weights
It seems highly likely, therefore, that at least some Irish halberds are sibling castings, either cast in the same stone mould or in moulds created using the same (wooden?) template. While it does not allow us to pronounce with any greater certainty on the method of casting used, it certainly means we cannot rule out the possibility of the existence of stone moulds, notwithstanding the fact that none have been found. It also allows us think in terms of some centralisation of the industry and indeed of some of these halberds as products of particular smiths. If we look at a distribution map of these suggested sibling castings (Map 8.3), we can see that some of these halberds must have been traded quite widely. Halberds from as far apart as Hillswood, Co. Galway, and Bantry, Co. Cork, appear to have been produced either in the same mould or by the same smith. A halberd from even further afield, Armagh, also closely matches the one from Bantry. Others such as that from Clooneymorris, Co. Galway, and Tullamore, Co. Offaly, have travelled less far apart. The halberds from Clonloghan, Co. Clare, and Greagnafarna, Co. Leitrim, may have been transported to their respective destinations along the Shannon River. The closely matched halberds from Armoy, Co. Antrim and Slieve Kileta, Co. Wexford, are situated at opposite ends of the country but are both coastal and could easily have been transported by shore-hugging vessels travelling the Irish Sea, or exported to both destinations from a workshop in the central midlands, the heartland of halberd distribution. It may in fact be significant that so many (relatively speaking) of the halberds which are located outside the main area of halberd distribution, seem to be sibling castings. One might legitimately wonder whether many if not most are products of midland workshops, rather than locally cast. Certainly, as Map 8.3 shows, it is through and across the midlands that the connecting lines pass and had we the provenances for the matches to the halberds from Castlecomer, Derrycassan, and Crott the conjunction of lines across the midlands would be still more complex. Once more, as we saw in Chapter 6, the evidence points to the midlands as the engine room for halberd production.
310 Several place-names appear as a recurring theme in Table 8.2 above, with Hillswood particularly to the fore. In all, there are 26 instances where the provenance of the halberd in question is mentioned, but these represent just 16 different locations. In other words, where the provenance of at least one of the halberds is known, 40% of the time this is a repeat entry, ie that location occurs elsewhere in the table. Again this is a very high statistic and suggests the existence of a small number of key production centres. It is also noteworthy that the only two exclusive halberd hoards known from Ireland are both represented in this table, ie Cotton and Hillswood, perhaps suggesting that these areas may have been centres of production. The location of the Cotton Hoard so far away from the main area of halberd distribution may mean that the sibling halberd found in that hoard was in fact produced elsewhere, or it may mean that even on the peripheries there were centres of halberd production. Of course, it should also be remembered that although peripheral in terms of halberd distribution in Ireland, the Cotton Hoard is in fact quite central in terms of Irish/Scottish distributions.
There are one or two other points arising from Table 8.2 above to which the reader’s attention might be directed. In the first place, virtually all the matches involve Type Cotton, way out of line with what might be expected on the basis of the proportion of all halberds represented by that type. It will also not escape attention that in three instances a type Cotton halberd is matched with a type Carn – this is telling evidence of just how closely these two types are related. I have commented previously (Chapter 2) that when examined in the hand it can often be difficult to tell a Carn from a Cotton, particularly the finer examples of Type Carn. In addition, in some Type Cottons, the diagnostic midrib can be much more strongly curved on one side than the other4.
It will also be noted from the above table that the halberds which have been matched are all quite heavy. Of the 32 halberds for which I have weights, 23 or 72% are over 500g. The average weight for a halberd is around 400g, and within the population as a whole only 25% exceed 500g. Finally, out of the 19 matches, only 2, or just 10.5% are between unprovenanced halberds - a surprising statistic given that about 50% of Irish halberds are completely unprovenanced.
All in all we can detect a certain pattern in the matches which have been suggested: the halberds are heavier (and bigger) than average, have a much higher than usual chance of being provenanced and are almost exclusively of type Cotton – even the type Carns are quite “Cotton-like”. Some of this is a function of preservation – it is not really possible to match any halberd unless it is in good condition and many of those
4 While for consistency throughout this work I have used Harbison’s designations of class in each case examined by him, there would be a very small number of cases where I would disagree, seeing a halberd as Carn rather than Cotton, or vice versa. These exceptions are noted on my database, but not discussed here as they make little difference to the overall figures and are, after all, a matter of opinion.
311 considered above are in excellent condition. As pointed out in Chapter 6, this also makes it much more likely that they will be provenanced and because of their good condition, they will be heavier than the poorer preserved halberds. For this reason it’s probably unwise to draw too many conclusions based on weight, condition and provenance, except to say that it is just as likely that lighter, poorly preserved and unprovenanced halberds have siblings too which simply cannot be identified. There is no reason to assume a different production technique for these. However, the dominance of Type Cotton in these matches cannot be explained away so easily: it is nevertheless by far the most numerous halberd type and so, given a casting industry based on the production of multiples, it is perhaps not surprising that the most numerous halberd type should also provide us with the greatest evidence of sibling blades.
Map 8.3: Distribution of possible sibling halberds (where provenance known)
312 METALLOGRAPHIC ANALYSES
Virtually all the sampled Irish halberds are made of copper, with the exception of halberds of Type Breaghwy, which are of bronze. This is now accepted to such a degree as to have become a truism for Irish halberds, although sampling of more recent finds from the North of Ireland (Ramsey, Bourke and Crone, 1994) revealed that two finds from the River Blackwater - a Type Carn and a Type Cotton, which one would automatically assume to be copper, were in fact of bronze. It is probably the case that other unsampled Irish halberds will be revealed as bronze in future tests but this is unlikely to materially affect the general truth of the statement that the vast majority of Irish halberds are made of copper.
In terms of the metal itself, its earliest use in Ireland has long been associated with a distinctive composition first identified during research conducted by the Ancient Mining and Metallurgy Committee of the Royal Anthropological Institute (Coghlan and Case, 1957; Coghlan, 1963; Case, 1966). This distinctive composition, shared by early axes, halberds and daggers, is characterised by a particular impurity pattern comprised of arsenic, antimony and silver (As>Sb>Ag). Originally described as “Group 1” metal, this impurity pattern was confirmed by subsequent research programmes by the Stuttgart institute (Junghans et al, 1960, 1968), Oxford (Allen et al, 1970) and the British Museum (Craddock, 1979). Following further work carried out by Northover (1980a,b; 1982) leading to the identification of distinct metal groups in circulation during the insular Bronze Age, this metal type is now more generally labelled Type ‘A’. A most useful summary of just what this ‘A’ metal is can be found in Northover, O’Brien and Stos (2001) and although a little long it is quoted here in full as particularly relevant to this study, being the metal from which the majority of Irish halberds appear to have been made:
“This ‘A’ metal in its broadest terms can be characterised by arsenic, antimony and silver as the only significant impurities. Other elements tend to be at trace level, or certainly no higher than 0.05%. In particular iron and sulphur are at low levels despite the use of iron-containing sulphide ores. Generally iron was not reduced to the metal while sulphur was often lost by oxidation during the melting and casting of the copper. The spread of arsenic contents is very wide, from less than 1% up to 5%. There are two reasons for this, the first a natural spread due to the variability in both ore and smelting practice, the second the loss of arsenic to oxide or vapour during the melting and pouring of the metal. Different arsenic contents can be broadly associated with different types of object, so that halberd blades have the highest, possibly due to a combination of metal selection and casting in closed moulds. Large axes have a lower range, perhaps because of less control and losses during melting and casting in open moulds. Small axes and halberd rivets have variable but low arsenic contents, the effects of repeated recycling. McKerrell and Tylecote (1972) suggested that this loss could be the result of natural wastage rather than deliberate oxidative reduction (see O’Brien, 1999a for further discussion).….. In Ireland, the use of copper during the final Neolithic (Copper Age) is dominated by ‘A’ metal, with over 95% of objects made from this composition. All classes are represented, including axes and halberds of all types, rivets and daggers……
313 The circulation of ‘A’ metal was not confined to Ireland as approximately two- thirds of the 140 early copper objects (axes, daggers, halberds, rivets, awls and personal ornaments) analysed from Britain have arsenic, antimony and silver as their principal impurities. Some 80% of the analysed copper axeheads in Britain have ‘A’ metal compositions, and their distribution centres on Western Britain.” (pp27-28).
This type ‘A’ metal is one of a series of metal types identified by Northover (1980a; 1980b), running from A-G on the basis of varying impurity patterns. As indicated above, ‘A’ metal completely dominates the early copper-using period and indeed analyses of Type Killaha axes, which are bronze, suggests the continuing use of ‘A’ metal during this period also (Northover, 1980a; 1982). This is important for the halberds as Type Killaha axes are the last axes with which halberds are found in hoards. By this stage of course, the halberds in question are also of bronze, belonging to the small and distinct Type Breaghwy group, which it has been argued (Chapter 3) is itself late in the series of halberds. After this point in time, either the association with axes is broken or, which for reasons discussed elsewhere appears more likely, the halberds fall out of use completely. Metallographic analyses support this conclusion, as it is with the next stage of axe production, the developed Ballyvalley and Derryniggin types, that we see a dramatic change in metal composition. The ubiquitous ‘A’ metal is replaced by metals with an arsenic-silver impurity pattern (Northover’s ‘F’ metal) or by those with very low impurity levels (Northover’s ‘C’ metal). The halberds, as we have seen, are made from ‘A’ metal and it is interesting that this metal type falls from use around the same time that the halberds disappear. The major changes in metallurgy happening around this time seem to be accompanied by some broader cultural change which also makes the halberd redundant, but perhaps – as has been suggested elsewhere in this work – ushers in some innovations instead. It is around this time too that the first spearheads appear, and it is possible that these replaced the halberd, introducing a thrusting rather than stabbing action to polearms, which mirrors the shift from stabbing daggers to thrusting rapiers.
Metallographic analysis then allows us, in the first place, to identify the metal type from which the Irish halberds are made and to say that this is the same metal from which the vast bulk (95%) of early copper artefacts in this country are made. The “traditional” association of halberds with flat axes and copper daggers is reinforced now by their manufacture from a common metal type. Secondly, the fact that this metal type falls out of use later in the Early Bronze Age when the more developed flat axes start to appear, which have no associations with halberds, supports the hypothesis that the halberds too have gone by this stage. In this way, metallography helps us to “sandwich” the production of halberds in Ireland to Northover et al’s Stages 3 and 4, in real chronology probably sometime between 2400 – 2000 BC ( Northover, O’Brien and Stos, 2001). An important point to make also is that this ‘A’ metal is a distinctively Irish metal and so we can with a high degree of confidence view the Irish halberds as precisely that, Irish, notwithstanding questions about the ultimate “origin of the species” or the problems posed by
314 the method of their manufacture. In terms of identifying a particular source for the metal used in their production, it seems reasonably certain now that this lies in the southwest as suggested 40 years ago by Coghlan and Case (1957). On the basis of lead isotope analysis - a technique pioneered by Rohl and Needham (1998) for the insular Bronze Age - Northover, O’Brien and Stos (2001) conclude that Ross Island, County Kerry, was central to the production of the ‘A’ metal used to produce the axes, halberds and daggers of the Early Bronze Age in Ireland. In fact, the authors see the overwhelming reliance of the early copper industries on this one ore source as, in all likelihood, the reason why the early copper artefacts are all of such remarkably consistent metal composition. So, not only can we say that the Irish halberds are of native manufacture, grounded in the broader metal-using industries of the period, but we can propose that the metal from which they are produced in all likelihood came from Ross Island, Co. Kerry, a metal- production site controlled by Beaker-using people.
Mention has already been made of the work of the Stuttgart group in the analysis of metal artefacts of the European Bronze Age. This work is well known and the results were published in a series of monographs during the ‘60s and early ‘70s (Junghans et al , 1960, 1968 and 1974) and comprise a tremendous archive of data, analyses, maps and drawings for the European metalwork. While the more recent work by Northover, O’Brien and Stos might be regarded as “cutting-edge” research, the SAM monographs – although now 30-40 years old - remain of enormous value in terms of the overall European picture.
The Stuttgart team divide the European metalwork into several different classes or materielgruppen on the basis of chemical composition. As with Northover’s groups, these are designated by letters of the alphabet, with subgroups identified numerically, eg A, A1, C2d etc (fig 8.5). However, exactly what conclusions we can draw from these materialgruppen is unclear: the authors have mapped them by every conceivable parameter, organising them by artefact type, by region, by period and so on and some of the results are certainly very interesting. What they do not tell us really is where the metal used for making the various artefacts has come from: the various groups proposed have not been linked to specific ore sources although the authors can suggest that certain types are “typical” of the metal industry of a particular region at a particular time. This, however, is not the same as saying that all artefacts of that materialgruppe are from that region, or even that they have been made from scrap metal imported from that region. In fact, in relation to the materialgruppen identified by the SAM team, over 90% could happily come from Irish ores (Peter Northover, pers.com). However, it is interesting when we examine the metalwork and can see that a particular artefact type is made from metal of one materialgruppe when other contemporary metalwork is not; or if at some stage the materialgruppe changes for that artefact type. In such cases, “something” is clearly happening: the problem is that we can’t really tell what that is on the basis of the metallographic analyses alone. They are “pointers”, however, and it is in this context that the analyses available for the Irish halberds are examined.
315
Fig 8.5: The SAM materielgruppen (Junghans et al, 1968: SAM2.2 Diagram1)
In terms of the Irish halberds, the most important materielgruppen are ‘E11’ and ‘B2’. These are described in SAM1 (1960, pp62-63) and the main points made are as follows:
E11 The focal point for artifacts made from this metal group is the British Isles, with 46% of the results coming from this region. There is a second concentration (13%) in Sardinia and Italy. The Irish/English group is notable by the number of halberds represented and the authors wonder whether this metal type is in some way connected with the spread of halberds or the spread of copper.
B2 This is a typical “Aunjetitz” copper, most commonly found in the Bohemia-Myer- Schliesen area, which accounts for 20.9% of the result. Other strong concentrations are to be found in middle Germany, the North-East, the North and the North-West. These are all areas, the authors comment, where the influence of the Aunjetitz cultures can be discerned. However, they are also quick to point out the links across to Britain and Ireland, asserted through the halberds and decorated axe-heads, and therefore see it as no surprise that the British Isles should in fact have the third highest representation of this copper. In this instance, they feel that there may well be case for seeing an Irish- British influence on the development of the Aunjetitz culture in the first place.
316 The notes above make it immediately apparent how the approach taken by one set of researchers can create distinctions between metal groups that another set will not regard as significant. In this case, the SAM analyses determine two separate metal groups which are both of equal importance in the making of Irish halberds. However, as we have seen, Northover’s analyses would see virtually all the Irish halberds and the other early metalwork as being made from pretty much the same metal, ie his type ‘A’. Indeed when viewed in this context, the Irish-British associations which are so strong in both SAM groups discussed above make more sense, if there is in fact considerable overlap between these two groups anyway.
A further note of caution should be sounded about the use of the SAM data. The tables published in the various volumes can be difficult to follow, making it uncertain that all relevant analyses or artefacts have been included. In particular, there is a danger that tables of information can be taken out of context: some give the impression of being overall summaries when in fact they may simply summarise the analyses considered in that particular volume. For example, most of the Irish material is considered in SAM 1, which deals with some 900 analyses in all. SAM 2 deals with some 9,000 analyses, very few of which are of Irish artefacts. It is unclear, however, just what the tables that accompany this second volume actually analyse and colleagues more competent than myself in this field have been unable to shed light on this. For example, about 50 halberds from Region 5, British Isles and Brittany, are considered in SAM 1, of which 19 were of materielgruppe B2, with 17 of these from Ireland making this one of the most important metal groups for Irish halberds. However, in Table 8, SAM 2.2 (Junghans et al, 1968), which purports to summarise the overall position for the 96 halberds from this region, there are no entries whatsoever under the heading materielgruppe B2, although we know from the earlier volume that there must be at least 19 examples. Either (a) there has been a mistake, and these earlier analyses have not been included, or (b) the classification of the 19 B2 halberds has changed (but there should be no reason to do this since no new analyses were carried out) or (c) this Table is not in fact intended to be a summary of the overall position. Unfortunately, the discrepancy in the tables of data presented is not immediately apparent unless one has independently analysed the data presented in Volume 1. One can easily be led astray, with the result that Vandkilde, for example, in her excellent 1996 monograph, faithfully reproduces the data presented in Volume 2 as an overall summary of the metal compositions of all European halberds. She therefore states that no halberds of B2 metal are known from Ireland, when in fact this is one of the two most important groups for the Irish halberds.
With this in mind, I have concentrated in what follows purely on the data in SAM 1, which includes all the analyses for the Irish halberds and which lists these individually with cross references to Coghlan and Case (1957) so that there can be no mistake. For the purposes of this work, these analyses are sufficient.
317
Map 8.4: key zones for SAM E11 metal, one of the two most important types for Irish halberds (Junghans et al , 1960)
Map 8.5: key zones for SAM B2 metal, one of the two most important types for Irish halberds. (Junghans et al , 1960)
318 If we compare the breakdown of the Irish halberds by materielgruppen with that for all halberds from all areas of Europe and then with the breakdown for all artefacts from all areas, a number of differences are immediately apparent (Chart 8.1). The Irish halberds are predominantly of E11 and B2 metals. However, when we look at the picture for halberds in Europe as a whole, we can see that four main metal types predominate: these include E11 and B2, but also A and E01. Other types such as C2, C3b and F2 play significant but less important roles. When we look at the position for European metalwork in its entirety, things change quite considerably: there is much less dependence on a small number of metal types, with seven groups in all of some significance. B2 remains of importance, but E11 is transformed into a minor player, being predominantly as we know an insular metal, and while it is of local importance and of importance to the halberds as a group, in overall terms it is of no great significance. On the other hand, metal groups C3b and E00 assume much greater importance for the European metalwork as a whole. It is not strictly fair, of course, to compare one population with another like this, especially since the “All Artefacts” category spans a much wider chronological period. However, it does bring to attention the fact that European halberds – and even more so the Irish halberds – are cast from a relatively small pool of metal groups, suggesting more restricted production than for Bronze Age artefacts generally. And of course, the surviving distribution of these artefacts across Europe tells us as much anyway, concentrating as it does in three main zones, ie Ireland, Central Europe and Spain. The fact that such a restricted pool of metal is being used, combined with the restricted surviving distribution pattern, probably means that halberds were really only in use in some parts of Europe during the Bronze Age; in other words we should not expect the known distribution pattern to radically change in the future. If we look in a little more detail at the Irish material, we can draw a few more conclusions. A summary of the data contained in SAM 1 in relation to the Irish halberds is given in Table 8.4 under:
319 Table 8.4 Museum Ref Provenance Type Metal- Key Zone group Cork Cork 58 Ireland Carn B2 Central Europe Newbury S.224 Ireland Carn B2 Central Europe Bristol E1774 Ireland Carn B2 Central Europe Bristol F864 Ireland Carn B2 Central Europe Pitt Rivers 1487 Ireland Carn B2 Central Europe NMI R1576 Derrycassan Clonard B2 Central Europe Ulster A134.1911 Ireland Clonard B2 Central Europe Ulster A101.B.1906 Ireland Clonard B2 Central Europe Ulster A101.A.1906 Ireland Clonard B2 Central Europe NMI W269 Ireland Clonard B2 Central Europe NMI P255 Ireland Clonard B2 Central Europe NMI 1927.44 Tullyvallen Clonard B2 Central Europe NMI 1929.1499 Cotton Cotton B2 Central Europe AshMus 1927.283 Ireland Cotton B2 Central Europe NMI 1874.32 Offaly Cotton B2 Central Europe NMI 1881.24 River Suck Cotton B2 Central Europe NMI SA 1913.112 Tullamore Cotton B2 Central Europe NMI 1928/392 Moylough Breaghwy E00 Yugoslavia NMI W295 Rockforest Misc E00 Yugoslavia Newbury S224 Ireland Rivet E00 Yugoslavia Ulster A745.1954 Limavaddy Breaghwy E01 Iberia AshMus 1927.2848 Ballybogey Carn E01 Iberia NMI 1903.235 Ballyboley Carn E01 Iberia AshMus 1927.2832 Cavan Misc E01 Iberia NMI 1877.57 Ireland Misc E01 Iberia Ulster A480.1937 Ireland Rivet E01 Iberia NMI 1937:2802 Breaghwy Breaghwy E11 Ireland-Britain Cork L188.57 Cork Breaghwy E11 Ireland-Britain NMI 1968/250 Ballyhaise Carn E11 Ireland-Britain Ulster A107.1926 Tullamore Carn E11 Ireland-Britain Cambridge 25.286 Ireland Cotton E11 Ireland-Britain NMI W234 Cavan Cotton E11 Ireland-Britain NMI R2553 Clonloghan Cotton E11 Ireland-Britain NMI 1929.15 Cotton Cotton E11 Ireland-Britain UCD UCD Ireland Cotton E11 Ireland-Britain Ulster Ulster 4025 Ireland Cotton E11 Ireland-Britain Ulster A480.1937 Ireland Cotton E11 Ireland-Britain NMI W263 Keelogue Ford Cotton E11 Ireland-Britain AshMus 1927.2831 Letterkenny Cotton E11 Ireland-Britain NMI 1891/13 Lough Gur Cotton E11 Ireland-Britain NMI W238 Meath Cotton E11 Ireland-Britain Fermanagh 186.1913 Portora Ford Cotton E11 Ireland-Britain Salisbury 307 Brackstone River Shannon Cotton E11 Ireland-Britain NMI 1881.23 River Suck Cotton E11 Ireland-Britain Ulster A1.1935 Culmore, Derry Breaghwy Ally F1 Central Europe
Breakdown of Irish halberds according to SAM materielgruppen ( “Key Zone” indicates the area where the highest concentration of artefacts of the relevant metal type is to be found).
320 Breakdown of Metal Groups: All artifacts, all areas E01 E00 C3A E10 C3B E11 B1 C1 C2 B2 A F2 F1
Breakdown of Metal Groups: Halberds only, all areas E01 E00 C3A E10 C3B E11 B1 C1 C2 B2 A F2 F1
Breakdown of Metal Groups: Irish Halberds only E01 E00 C3A E10 C3B E11 B1 C1 C2 B2 A F2 F1
Chart 8.1: Comparison of the various metal and artefact groups
321 As we have seen, five materielgruppen are represented amongst the Irish halberds, ie B2, E00, E01, E11 and F1. The basis for the classification of these groups is given in Table 8.5: Table 8.5 Metal Group Classification Bi Sb Ag Ni As B2 <0.08 >0.4 >0.25 <0.5 >0.2 E00 <0.08 <0.19 1.7 <0.04 <0.1 E01 <0.08 <0.19 1.5 <0.04 >0.1 E11 <0.08 <0.19 1 <0.04 >0.1 F1 <0.08 2 <0.1 >0.04 7
Basis for the classification of the materielgruppen relevant to the Irish halberds
As already indicated, it is immediately apparent from the above that there are just two materielgruppen of any importance, ie E11 and B2, with 18 and 17 examples respectively, representing about 80% of the halberds analysed. When we look at how these materielgruppen are distributed amongst the different halberd types some interesting patterns emerge (Chart 8.2). Type Cotton, for example, the most numerous Irish halberd, is always either of B2 or E11 metal. Type Breaghwy/ally, probably the latest of the halberd types, is never of B2 metal, is often E11 but can be of more “unusual” types, like E00, E01 and F1. Type Clonard, a highly distinctive four-square riveted halberd, is always of B2 metal, and with 7 out of the known 15 examples of these halberds included here, this is also by far the most extensively sampled type. Type Carn, perhaps the earliest of the halberd types, is most often of B2 metal, with E01 and E11 of equal importance next.
100% 90% 80% 70% F1 60% E11 50% E01 40% E00 30% 20% B2 10% 0% Breaghwy Bwy Ally Carn Cotton Clonard Misc
Chart 8.2: Breakdown of Irish halberds according to type into SAM materielgruppen.
322 The fact that such patterns can be determined is probably not without significance, but it is by no means clear just what it means. In relation to Type Clonard, however, which is wholly of B2 metal it may well be that this represents a change in the ore-source being used (Billy O’Brien, pers. comm.) and in this regard it may be relevant that so many of those analysed are either of known Ulster provenance or are held in Ulster museums. It might also suggest that, if a change in ore source is involved and if the earliest ore-source is Ross Island, then type Clonard may be a relatively later halberd. These are “pointers” only, however, and the basis for making the suggestion is tenuous in the extreme.
It is also interesting that the most numerous halberd, Type Cotton, is made from the most common metal types of the period, while the earlier and later Carn and Breaghwy halberds show no such desire to conform. However, we have to remember also that these materielgruppen are a subjective classification and the studies undertaken by Northover, as pointed out already, indicate that virtually all the halberds, axes and daggers from this period are made from one basic ‘A’-type metal. However, what is of some significance is when we turn to look at the “key zones” for each metal group: while the majority are either “Irish-British” or “Central Europe”, one small group, E01, is centred in Iberia. Two out of the three “Miscellaneous” halberds are made of this metal, ie the halberd from Cavan in the Ashmolean Museum [Ref: (AM)1927.2832] and the unprovenanced example from the National Museum of Ireland [Ref: (NMI)1877:57]. Both of these are shown at figure 9.6 and are immediately recognizable as Iberian Argaric types. In fact, with the exception of the Rockforest halberd, these are the only two Argaric halberds that I am aware of from this country and the fact that these are made of a metal type also characteristic of Iberia cannot be without significance. A third halberd made from this metal, a Type Carn from Ballybogey, Co. Antrim, and also in the Ashmolean Museum [Ref: (AM)1927:2848] could also pass as an Iberian Carrapatas-type halberd (fig 8.6). In effect, three out of the five halberds made of E01 metal, whose key- zone is Iberia, could themselves actually be imports from that region.
323
Fig 8.6: Three of the five halberds made from “Iberian” metal (E01). In form also, these halberds strongly resemble Argaric and Carrapatas types from Iberia (L-R: Cavan, Rockforest and Ballybogey. After Harbison, 1969a: Pl 8 and 24)
If we turn to look at how the various metal-groups distribute themselves across Ireland in terms of halberd finds, there are certain patterns to be determined (Map 8. 6). Not surprisingly, the main area of concentration is across the north midlands, with all metal types well represented here. However, E01 (the “Iberian” metal) is strongly northern in distribution, as is B2 although with a greater geographical spread. E11 is the only type to be represented in the southern half of the country. While we need to be careful about drawing too many conclusions, and bearing in mind that other metallographic analyses do not make the same distinctions as the SAM team, it is interesting that the B2 metal which is one of the two most common in use in Irish halberds should not stray south. We also recall that all Clonard halberds which have been tested have been shown to be of this metal and that these too are absent from the south. There may, therefore, be some grounds for regarding the use of B2 metal as signalling a change of some sort in halberd production, perhaps accompanied by a greater reliance on northern industries. Again, however, this hypothesis comes with a health warning: we simply do not understand enough about just what these SAM metal groups really represent.
324
Map 8.6 Distribution of halberds of various SAM materielgruppen across Ireland
CONCLUSIONS AND FINAL THOUGHTS
This chapter was intended to look at questions of mining, making and metallography: what then can we say about the Irish halberds from this perspective?
It seems likely now that the copper from which the Irish halberds were made was mined in the southwest of Ireland, in all probability at Ross Island, Co. Kerry. This mine was controlled by Beaker-using peoples, and seems to have supplied most if not all of the metal used in the earliest stages of the Copper/Bronze Age in Ireland. We can be pretty sure, therefore, that the halberds found here were in fact made in this country and were not imported from one of the other major halberd production centres on the Continent. This much
325 was apparent already from the distinctive Irish typology of the halberds found here. This said, it is quite possible that some halberds of exotic appearance, such as the two Argaric types considered above, represent actual imports from abroad, on the basis of the SAM metallographic analyses. This is important in terms of asserting direct contact between halberd-using communities here and on the Continent. However, for the vast bulk of the halberds found here in Ireland, in what is still the most important centre for halberds in all of Europe, it seems we can safely regard these as products of Irish industries.
This in itself poses us with some problems. In the first place, these Irish halberds are products of a much more sophisticated casting technique than used for any other contemporary metalwork. They are clearly produced in bivalve moulds at a time when all other artefacts are being produced in open moulds. This fact in itself suggests that we cannot regard the idea of the halberd as native, since it would seem too much to suggest independent, simultaneous inspiration for both a new artefact and a new casting technique. It seems more likely that the idea of both artefact and casting technique were introduced at the same time and that the halberd was in fact the first metal object to be cast in bivalve moulds in this country. Just what these moulds were made of is another matter: no stone moulds exist for a halberd, either here or abroad, and no remains of clay moulds have been identified either, although it was suggested that a full reconsideration of the clay mould fragments in the various collections here might well reveal a few potential halberd moulds. Sand casting provides an intriguing possibility, supported to some extent by metallographic analyses and perhaps explaining just why no moulds for halberds exist. The effect of casting in sand, which according to Ottaway and Seibel (1998) would be to produce a blade with poor mechanical properties, might explain why the technique could be used successfully for the more malleable and ductile copper but less so for later bronze implements. However, the hypothesis is not susceptible of proof, at least at present. Future metallographic analyses may well strengthen the case for sand-casting, if these are designed to test and compare the effects of heat-insulating moulds of different kinds.
The second “problem” posed relates to relative chronology of halberd production within Europe. The dates for the earliest Irish metalwork have been pushed back considerably in recent years and it seems likely now, on the basis of the dates suggested for the main production phases (Northover, O’Brien and Stos, 2001), that the principal period of production/use of the halberd in Ireland was around 2400-2000 BC. This is a relatively short period of time – but, in fact, the period may well have been tighter still, since the halberds are unlikely to have been produced in the very earliest stages and we know that Type Breaghwy, the latest type, is probably already in place around 2200 BC, given its association with Killaha axes. The high degree of conformity in halberd typology would also suggest a relatively short floruit, with little “evolution” of the type discernible. This means that in European terms the Irish halberds are amongst the earliest known examples of the type, and yet it seems unlikely the artefact originated here. This being so,
326 in terms of a stimulus we are forced to look for earlier Continental material. This is not easy to find but is considered again in the separate chapter on Chronology (Chapter 10)
Returning to the question of fabrication, we have a fairly clear idea, from the metallographic analyses, of how the Irish halberds were actually cast and finished. The halberds were probably cast as blanks, allowed to cool slowly in the mould, trimmed and given a light forging before drilling the rivet-holes. The fact that the rivetholes were drilled rather than cast may also explain why the hafting plate on halberds is so thin. This would be followed by alternate forging and annealing, and finally some cold-hammering and grinding. The hardness of the edges could be dramatically increased by this final cold-hammering, producing a blade that could match the quality of Late Bronze Age work. The care taken to produce a tough, sharp blade again testifies to a strong functional imperative. We saw from the matching of halberd profiles that some of these halberds at least must be sibling castings and that a limited form of mass production may have been responsible for both the wide distribution and numerical supremacy of Type Cotton halberds. The tendency for particular named find-sites to occur more than once in the table of likely matches strongly suggests the existence of a small number of key production centres, probably based in the midlands, where the bulk of the Irish halberds are distributed anyway. A relatively high proportion of halberds on the periphery of the main distribution also appear to be siblings of halberds produced elsewhere, sometimes unprovenanced. The fact these halberds are siblings and located along the periphery also suggests that the production zone may have lain elsewhere. The sibling castings identified also tend to be unusually heavy, and while this may simply be a function of their excellent preservation which facilitated the matching exercise in the first place, it may also reflect a growing centralisation of the production industry as time progressed, since many of these heavy halberds also appear to be late on the basis of size, quality and functionality.
The detailed metallographic analyses carried out by the SAM group and more recently by Peter Northover are of considerable value in helping us place the Irish halberds in their proper national and international context. Northover’s work has established clearly that the halberds are made of his ‘A’ metal, characterised by a particular impurity pattern of arsenic, antimony and silver. This metal formed the backbone of the early copper industries and one of the most interesting things to note is that when this metal changes with the appearance of the developed flat axes, we lose any evidence for the continuing use of halberds too. This is further reason for believing that the main period of use of this artefact type in Ireland was quite restricted and that it predates these later axes.
327 The SAM group’s work, although more problematic, confirms nonetheless that the Irish halberds are made from quite specific metalgroups, just two in number, ie SAM materielgruppen E11 and B2. The range of metal types used is quite restricted when compared with the Continental halberds, for which four main metal-types predominate, but these are in turn quite restricted in comparison with the range of metal types used for European metalwork in general.
When we look a little closer at the Irish situation, we can see that certain of the halberd types are more likely to be made from one metal group than another. For example, it is probably not without significance that the most numerous, indeed “archetypal” Irish halberd - Type Cotton - is always made of the two most common halberd metal types, ie E11 and B2. It is certainly significant that Type Clonard, a unique four- rivetted halberd, is made exclusively of B2 metal, possibly indicating its emergence as a type at a time when this metal was most generally in use, or suggesting that its development was a more localised phenomenon, a hypothesis supported by its restricted distribution. It is also noteworthy that what we regard as both the earliest and the latest halberd types, ie Carn and Breaghwy, also show least tendency to “conform” in terms of the metal from which they are made, showing relatively high proportions of more unusual E01 and E00 metals. Overall, the SAM materielgruppen confirm our existing perceptions of the way in which the halberd in Ireland evolved, which have been made on the basis of typology: a strong “core-type” represented by Type Cotton, which has close links to the partially earlier Type Carn, but with Type Clonard and Breaghwy revealed as exceptional, small-scale and perhaps localised developments.
328 Chapter 9
Functionality: making and using a replica halberd; historical and ethnographic parallels; combat in the Early Bronze Age
“The helmet was a simple head-piece without a visor. So he ingeniously made good this deficiency by fashioning out of pasteboard a kind of half visor which, fitted to the helmet, gave the appearance of a complete head-piece. However, to see if it was strong enough to stand up to the risk of a sword cut, he took out his sword and gave it two strokes, the first of which demolished in a moment what had taken him a week to make. He….reconstructed the visor…and not caring to make another trial of it, accepted it as a fine jointed head-piece and put it into commission.” Miguel de Cervantes, The Adventures of Don Quixote.
This chapter attempts to understand how the Irish Early Bronze Age halberd may have been used. It approaches this problem in a number of ways. First, historical and ethnographic parallels are examined in order to see how halberds, or halberd-like implements, have been used in other places at other times. Next, we look at the construction of a replica of an Irish Early Bronze Age halberd and how this performs in practical trials (and the quote above perfectly captures the horrible dilemma facing anyone who has made a replica, wants to test it but fears the consequences!). Finally, a proposition is developed for combat in the Early Bronze Age and for how the halberd may have been employed in such combat.
HISTORICAL USE OF HALBERDS AND HALBERD-LIKE IMPLEMENTS
The basic design of the prehistoric halberd is quite simple, consisting as it does in most cases of a large triangular blade fixed at right angles to a shaft. One would expect, therefore, to find this basic design repeated from place to place and from time to time; and indeed, other implements have been found and do exist which resemble the prehistoric halberd quite closely. What is surprising, however, is that this simple design is not more commonly found than it is. If we could answer why this should be, we might well come to a better understanding of the function of the prehistoric type.
As with so many things, the path to the answer may lie in the presumptions which underpin the question. It is an oft-quoted truism amongst archaeologists and other specialists (eg Singer et al, 1954) that a halberd is simply a dagger attached at right-angles to a shaft. At a superficial level this is perhaps true. However, in the vast majority of cases it would be difficult indeed to confuse a halberd- blade with a dagger-blade. Even without its heavy rivets, even without its hafting plate, a halberd is unlikely to be misclassified as a dagger, for a whole variety of reasons (size, shape, mid-rib, weight,
329 material etc). Of all the Irish examples that I have examined in the hand I have only seen one which could be confused with a dagger: this is the halberd from Moylough [Ref: (NMI) 1928:392] and this example is in every way atypical. It is true that amongst the Continental examples are some which resemble daggers closely (see Chapter 2) but this may well be because they are in fact daggers. There are also amongst the Polish material studied by Gedl (1976) some daggers which look like halberds, but again this may well be because that is precisely what they are, as some authorities hold. However, these are all very much exceptional and from a total population which exceeds 600 halberds in Europe as a whole, they are statistically insignificant. In the vast majority of cases, the halberd is easily identified as a special blade, and is most unlikely to be confused with a dagger.
Indeed, if making a halberd was as simple as attaching a dagger at right angles to a shaft, then maybe the practice would be more common and the design repeated more often in time and space. All the evidence suggests, however, that one cannot actually make a good, workable halberd in this fashion and that the blade needs to be designed differently. Certainly, the halberd shares features with daggers, but it also shares features with axes, and perhaps more so. The morphological differences between halberd-blades and dagger-blades must reflect a difference in function; when those morphological differences begin to narrow, we might well look to see whether the function of one or other is also beginning to change, or rather whether the functionality of one is actually becoming less important.
This section will examine the historical use of the halberd, and halberd-like implements. However, before tackling the historical and ethnographic material, I felt it necessary to underline again the distinctiveness of the prehistoric halberd and the precision of its design. It is very difficult indeed to find true parallels. Nevertheless, a comparison even with other pole-arms is instructive.
According to McNeill (1990), the halberd as we know it in medieval western Europe was developed by the Swiss and Germans, around the end of the thirteenth century. The term “halberd” itself comes from the German, helm meaning “staff”, and barte, meaning “axe”. Accordingly, it comes as little surprise to learn that what might be called the “historical” halberd, in its earliest manifestations, was effectively an axe with a very long shaft which could be two metres or more in length (fig 9.1). It was a multi-purpose weapon, and, perhaps surprisingly, showed itself to be an effective and flexible weapon for footsoldiers. The right-angled blade could be used to hook an enemy to the ground , even if he was on horseback, where he could then be quickly despatched. A second opposing spike, or spur, was added in the fifteenth century to allow the halberd to be used to break open helmets and rip armour.
330 Very few texts, dealing generally with either the period concerned, or with contemporary weaponry, devote much time to discussion of the halberd. One of the few to provide any sort of detailed commentary is the Encicliopedia Universal Illustrada, which offers the following useful definition for the halberd (alabarda):
“Arma antigua de corte y punta, que consta de una aguda hoja de 30cm approximadamente de longitud, en cuyo extremo inferior hay, por un lado, una cuchilla transversal en forma de hacha o de media-luna, y por el opuesto un hierro recto o encorvado hacia abajo, que servia para desarzonar a los jinetes enemigos, introduciendose por entre las junturas de la armadura...”
[An ancient bladed and pointed weapon, which consists of a sharp spearhead of approximately 30cm length, at the lower end of which there is, at one side, a transverse blade in the form of an axe or of a half-moon, and at the opposite side a spike, either straight or curved downwards, which was used to unseat enemy horsemen, entering by way of chinks in the armour...]
The Encicliopedia, in contrast to McNeill, considers the Western European halberd as being of Danish origin, seeing subsequent use and modification in Germany, Switzerland, Italy and France. It records its first use in Germany as early as 1313 AD.
While the historical halberd can be seen to vary considerably in a number of small details in general, the weapon as employed by the infantry of the period tended to conform to the basic type already described, ie a very long axe with an opposing spike, all topped off with a spear-head. One interesting variant, sometimes called a bec de corbin, or a Lucerne Hammer, is more like the Early Bronze Age halberd, consisting as it does of a dagger-like blade - rather than an axe - affixed to the end of a long pole (fig 9.1). In his book, “The Hapsburgs: Embodying Empire”, Adam Wheatcroft describes the use made of the halberd by the Swiss in defeating a large force of Austrian knights by Lake Morgarten in 1315. He describes the halberd as
“possibly the most deadly polearm ever devised.....In the hands of a brawny Schwyzer, the halberd inspired terror. Swung in an arc, a blow from the massive axe blade, almost three feet long, could lift a knight from the saddle.” (p7).
Sir Charles Oman, in his The Art of War in the Middle Ages (1953), has something similar to say about the terrible efficacy of the halberd:
“Swung by the strong arms of an Alpine herdsman, it would cleave helmet, shield or coat of mail like pasteboard. The sight of the ghastly wounds which it inflicted might well appall the stoutest foes; he who once felt its edge needed no second stroke.” (pp77-8)
331 Dramatic stuff indeed. However, the contemporary literature is strangely silent as regards the details of how the halberd was used. In fact, there is only one treatise surviving from the period which is devoted exclusively to the technique of halberd combat. This is Le Jeu de la Hache, written down sometime in the fifteenth century and published for the first time by Sydney Anglo in 1991. This text is particularly valuable because it describes in great detail how polearms of this sort might be used in single combat, rather than as the weapon of massed infantry. This may shed some light as to how a weapon which so many commentators have regarded as clumsy and ineffective (Chapter 1) could in fact be used very effectively in the hands of a skilled warrior. For this reason it is proposed to devote a little bit of space to discussing this text.
Fig 9.1: Various types of medieval halberd.
1. Spanish 16th century 2. Swedish, 16th century 3. English, 18th century 4. Italian, c.1510. 5. Saber halberd – unusual Swiss or German variant, c.1650. 6. Bec de corbin – weapon of footsoldier c.1550. 7. Pole-axe, c.1400-50 8. Pole-axe, c.1470 – intended for fighting on foot in the lists 9. Pole-axe with hammer. Probably Swiss, 16th century.
Diagram Group.
Polearms were used in chivalric combat from the late 14th to the early 16th century. As regards the type used in this form of combat, as distinct from the infantry weapon, there appear to have been two main forms, ie those which were actually equipped with axe-blades and those which had a hammer- head. Both types were usually balanced with a spike or a dagger-blade on the other side, and in general topped-off with another dagger blade or a spear-head on top (dague). The “business-end” was fixed to the haft by strong pyramidal bolts which might project so far on either side as to
332 constitute transverse spikes, a feature which is seen on some of the Early Bronze Age halberd heads from central Europe as well. The haft would be strengthened and protected by metal bands (something also suggested in the morphology of the Early Bronze Age metal hafted halberds of central Europe and in the rock art of Mont Bego and Northern Italy) and was often equipped with a leather strap at the end to guard against the weapon being suddenly wrenched out of the combatant’s grip. The author of the Jeu de la Hache does not mention the length of the pole itself, but other texts suggest that a length of about six foot would be normal, while contemporary illustrations indicate that both longer and shorter shafts were in use.
Fig 9.2: Single combat using pole-arms (15th century). Anglo, 1991
333
Anglo (1991) makes the important point that in fighting hand-to-hand with polearms, the technique adopted was much like that used in quarter-staff play. “Long handled swinging strokes”, he comments, “were easily countered and were not greatly admired...” (p115), something which we would do well to remember when considering how the Early Bronze Age halberd might have been used (fig 9.2).
In fact, the author of the Jeu specifically recommends that combatants should lead with the queue or shaft of the weapon and a striking feature of the whole treatise is the extent to which this part of the weapon is relied upon for both attack and defence. Anglo points out that the queue is mentioned more than three times as often in this text as the dague, while the “business-end” proper appears to have been rarely used. Again this comment is of immense interest to a consideration of the surviving Early Bronze Age halberd blades, as presumptions as to how these “should” have been used has tended to colour archaeologists’ opinion as to whether they were used at all. All our perceptions as to how blades are used in combat have, to some extent, been coloured by the interpretations presented by Hollywood films, which delight in the clash of steel upon steel. The fact of the matter is that, when engaged in this type of hand-to-hand combat, the last thing you want to hit with your blade is your opponent’s blade - you are, after all, trying to connect with a somewhat softer target. We should not be surprised if in the Early Bronze Age, combatants were to take even more care of their expensive metal blades and only strike with that portion of the weapon when they were reasonably confident of hitting the target. This is the very point that Oakeshott (1960) makes when he describes sword-fighting in medieval Europe:
“To begin with, one combatant would strike at the other. … a good deal of preliminary manoeuvring and feinting took place before one combatant or the other saw his opportunity and smote. The other would then defend himself either by taking the blow on his shield, or by evasive action…It was only when the shield had been so cut up that it was useless that one used one’s sword to parry with, and then one would try only to use the flat of it, for if sword-edge clashed with edge much damage resulted.” (pp. 158-9).
We should also do well to remember, as the author of the Jeu de la Hache teaches us, that what has survived to us from the Early Bronze Age is only part of the whole weapon: the stout shaft which virtually never survives and is rarely considered as more than a prop for the blade, may in fact have been the most important part of the whole weapon, particularly for those types with reasonably long shafts.
With this efficacy, it is not surprising that the halberd remained one of the principal weapons of European infantry up until the fifteenth century, when it gradually began to be replaced by the pike, and later still by the rifle-and-bayonet. Both these replacements would seem to indicate that the
334 advantages in combat of the historical halberd (which combines elements of both spear and axe) ultimately lay as a long spear, rather than a long axe. The process of replacement of the historical halberd with pike may point to a similar replacement model in the Early Bronze Age, where in fact the first spears start to appear at roughly the time that halberds disappear. The thrusting action of a spear can be controlled more effectively at greater distances than the stabbing action of a halberd: an eight foot long spear is eminently functional but an eight foot long halberd of Early Bronze Age design is not. Once spears began to be produced the halberd’s days may well have been numbered. In addition, it may be significant that similar changes were taking place during the Bronze Age at this time in relation to daggers. These were now becoming longer and longer, changing from a stabbing weapon to a thrusting one in the form of rapiers. It is interesting to speculate whether both the dagger and the halberd which reflect a stabbing action fell from fashion around the same time because of developments in combat which saw a thrusting action emerge instead, reflected by both rapier and spear.
It is also interesting to note that the historical halberd lingered on right into the 19th century as a “leading staff”, or a sign of military rank. Presumably its length and distinctive shape contributed to its selection for this purpose. It is still used, in fact, as a ceremonial weapon by the Vatican’s Swiss Guard. Again, we might reflect on the relevance of this process of change to what we see in the Early Bronze Age when in Ireland and elsewhere a more symbolic role for the halberd begins to emerge.
Overall, however, the label of “halberd” seems quite inappropriate when applied to the Early Bronze Age device. A more appropriate comparison might be made between the Early Bronze Age halberd and the historical weapon types categorised as “picks” and “war-hammers” (fig 9.3 and 9.4) The Diagram Group’s Weapons: An International Encyclopedia from 5,000BC to 2,000AD, defines these two weapons as follows:
“The pick is a piercing weapon, with a dagger-like blade set at right-angles to a haft, so allowing it to be swung with great effect. A related weapon, the war- hammer, was used in Europe, Persia and India when plate-armour and chain mail were common. This took the form of a small hammer-head, used to stun a helmeted opponent, and was invariably combined with a pick.” (p.20).
Picks achieved a very wide currency as a weapon over both time and space. Stone versions were used by the aboriginal inhabitants of Australia and by the Maori of New Zealand. Bone or antler versions are also known, including one intriguing example from Ireland included in Wilde’s Catalogue. The antiquity of this example is unclear, but in its curving profile and flattened point it strongly resembles our Bronze Age halberds, although its manner of hafting (shaft-hole) is without metal parallels at this time in Ireland. Metal versions of picks were in use in India, in Afghanistan and Pakistan at different times in the past and also in Japan, where the weapon was known as a kama yari.
335 Fig 9.3: Picks
1. Wooden pick from New Caledonia 2. Australian aboriginal fighting pick. Stone blade on wooden shaft.
3. Toki, or Maori war-adze. Jade blade bound to carved wooden haft.
4. Bronze Age halberd, metal shafted.
5. Zaghnal or Indian fighting pick. All steel with silver-plated haft.
6. All-steel fighting pick from Afghan-Pakistan border. Decorated with brass and silver.
7. Kama-yari a Japanese fighting pick. When used as a parrying weapon with ball-and-chain attached it is called a kusarigama.
Fig 9.4: War hammers
1. Typical plain horseman’s hammer. Wrought iron haft, bound with copper wire at grip.
2. Wooden haft clad with iron. Bavarian c.1450-1500.
3. All steel. Damascened in gold, velvet grip. Indian or Persian.
4. Square hammer-head and octagonal pick, on wooden haft. Possibly Italian. 16th century.
5. Diamond-shaped pick, with pointed hammer-face. Oak haft. Possibly French, c.1450.
6. Wooden haft, protected with metal side-straps. Italian, 1490.
336 War-hammers, on the other hand seem to have developed primarily in response to the use of chain mail and plate armour, not unlike certain types of historical halberd, to which the war-hammer shows more than a passing resemblance. The hammer-like protrusion was used to stun an armoured opponent, who could then be opened up quickly and killed using the dagger-like pick on the other side. The war-hammer won particular popularity in Europe during the 15th and 16th century. Both the pick and the war-hammer are relatively short weapons, mounted on a shaft which in general was no more than 40 or 50cm in length.
Neither pick, war-hammer nor historical halberd provide exact parallels for the halberd of the Early Bronze Age in Europe, though they do provide some insight on the one hand as to how a right-angled dagger blade might function as a weapon, and on the other how long pole-arms could be used effectively as weapons, even in chivalric combat. The pole-arms of one country in particular, however - Japan - provide some more precise parallels for the Early Bronze Age halberd and these are worth examining in a little more detail. In considering these particular weapons, we are fortunate to also have a body of literature which describes how these could be used effectively in hand-to-hand combat, and in a manner which belies their apparent unwieldiness.
The polearm which most closely resembles the Early Bronze Age halberd is the hoko which consists of a long spear with a transverse dagger-like blade fixed just below the head (fig 9.5). The information which follows is from Knutsen (1963).
In some types of hoko, the actual spearhead itself has all but disappeared, leaving us with a weapon which looks very like the Early Bronze Age halberd indeed. In fact this weapon seems to find its ultimate origin in what is called the ko, which actually consisted quite simply of a bronze blade hafted at right angles to a long shaft, and which is of some antiquity, with examples dating certainly from the last centuries BC. The true hoko, the Fig 9.5: The hoko, a Japanese polearm (after Knutsen, 1963) pole-arm used by the specialist samurai warriors, was developed in the Nara period, in the latter half of the first millennium, AD. It is clear from contemporary literary accounts and drawings that polearms of this nature were used for hand-to-hand combat, often single combat. Whole schools devoted to teaching the art of warfare using polearms existed in Japan for hundreds of years, developing skills which far surpassed anything in Europe. As we know, polearms in Europe, whether pikes or halberds, were used by phalanxes of infantry to
337 disrupt the flow of battle, particularly the movement of cavalry. They were not a weapon which, in general, would be used in single combat, nor one which the “great” warriors of the day would make their own – that honour belonged almost exclusively to the sword, occasionally perhaps the axe. In Japan, however, weapons like this were treated quite differently and it is clear that the professional samurai class actually used these polearms to fence with, and could perform feats which would seem well-nigh impossible using a weapon which seems so inherently awkward and clumsy.
Take this account, quoted in Knutsen (1963), of an encounter that took place during the Battle for the Uji Bridge in 1180AD:
“Gochim-no-Tajima, throwing away the sheath of his long naginata, strode forth alone on to the bridge, whereupon the Heike straightaway shot at him fast and furious. Tajima, not at all perturbed, ducking to avoid the higher ones and leaping over those that flew low, cut through those that flew straight with his whirring halberd, so that even the enemy looked on in admiration. Thus it was that he was dubbed “Tajima, the Arrow-cutter”.” p.33.
Tajima, in this encounter, is using a naginata, which is like a curved sword-blade fixed to the end of a pole, and not a hoko. However, the principle of its use was very similar. In Japan, the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries saw the revival of the hoko, which became an effective weapon in the hands of the skilled spearmen of the period. Knutsen (1963) comments that the single short arm proved very useful to parry a thrust and turn aside an opponent’s weapon, and could also be used to inflict damage on the enemy’s shaft with the sharp edge of the blade. The hoko could also be used to hook into an opponent’s armour and drag him to the ground, in much the manner of the European halberd.
The samurai possessed a number of other halberd-like implements in their arsenal of weapons. Some of these, like the O-kama-yari and the Kama-yari, are sickle-like weapons, the central spike or spear- point having disappeared entirely. Another, the magari-yari resembles the historical European halberd closely.
Careful attention was given to the hafting of these Japanese polearms, again revealing a deliberateness of purpose, the importance of which might be lost to the modern observer. Naginata, for example, which as we saw above are basically a curved sword blade fixed vertically to the end of a shaft, have these shafts carved to oval-section, the better to transmit and absorb the shock of hand- to-hand combat. Hokos, on the other hand, have shafts of round or pear-shaped section, the latter designed to give a more definite grip in the hand and prevent the weapon twisting unexpectedly in the hand. Both these designs of shaft are the result of deliberate decisions, intended to overcome difficulties observed in actual combat. The fact that so few original shafts belonging to Early Bronze Age halberds have survived to the present makes it impossible for us to determine whether similar
338 decisions were taken in the past. However, the metal-shafted halberds of Aunjetitz Europe tend to be of oval section and this very likely reflects the preference in wooden shafts as well. In addition, the two shaft-hole halberds in the Hunt Museum (see Chapter 5) were clearly originally equipped with shafts of oval section. The reconstructed Carn Halberd has a shaft of rectangular section, which might just reflect the poor preservation of the original or might be a genuine shape, since the halberd miniatures from Wessex have similarly shaped shafts (Chapter 7).
Fig 9.6: Samurai using polearms as an improvised ladder to scale outer defences of a fortress (Knutsen, 1963).
Another insight offered by the Japanese weapons relates to the method of fixing the blade to the shaft: most of the blades on polearms were tanged and riveted to the shaft, and experience showed that this made for a very secure hafting. After the metal had corroded a little, it became almost impossible to remove the blade (Knutsen, 1963). The degree to which the Japanese warriors exploited the full potential of their pole-arms is shown in a wonderful illustration, dating from 1791, of the Wars of the
339 Gempei. This depicts samurai scaling the defences of a fortress with the help of ropes knotted at intervals to long spearshafts to create a form of rudimentary ladder (fig 9.6).1
Ó Ríordáin (1937) has also drawn attention to the halberds of the Han Dynasty (c.200BC-200AD) and to pick- like implements from Russia dating to the middle of the first millennium BC (pp.291-3). Ó Ríordáin speculates on possible earlier connections between Europe, Russia and China but comes to the conclusion that, if anything, the eastern examples should be seen as having emerged from European influence, rather than the reverse. In this he exemplifies much of the archaeological Fig 9.7: A set of Shang weapons. Shih Chang-ju, 1951 (reproduced in Chang, 1980) concern at the time to identify an “origin” for the western European halberd. However, his instincts were not entirely misguided for perhaps the closest parallel for the halberd of Early Bronze Age Europe is to be found in the ko-halberd of the Shang civilisation of ancient China (roughly 18th-12th century BC). According to Shih Chang-ju’s (1951) reconstructions, based on archaeological finds and epigraphical information, the ko-halberd of this period in China seems to have consisted of a bronze blade hafted onto a wooden shaft about 1.1 metres long (fig 9.7). As Chang (1980) says, this weapon seems to have formed part of a set which included bow-and-arrows, shield, small bronze knife and sharpening stone. A series of sacrificial burials accompanying house floor yi-7 at Hsiao-t’un suggests that the ko-halberd may have been used for fighting from chariots (Chang, 1980), with each chariot carrying three charioteers: one in the middle, driving the horses and using a whip; one to the left acting as a striker and equipped with a ko-halberd; while the last stood to the right and was armed with bow-and-arrows.
1 The treatment of the pole-arms in this scene is strongly reminiscent of depictions of halberds in the rock-art of Mont Bego, where similar grommets along the shafts are represented (see fig 7.28).
340 MAKING AND USING A REPLICA HALBERD
Designing and making the halberd An account of the design and construction of the replica in question has recently been published in Archaeology Ireland (O’Flaherty, Rankin and Williams, 2002). The following draws heavily upon that publication.
The major problem in reconstructing an Irish halberd is not with reproducing the blade, for which we have plenty of models, but with designing the shaft to which it was originally attached. With just two exceptions, none of the 186 blades known from Ireland has ever been found with its shaft attached, and as we know, only one of these survived long enough for a replica to be made. The story is similar elsewhere in Europe and the extreme paucity of direct evidence means that we have to look to other sources for the information necessary to reconstruct the shafts of Early Bronze Age halberds.
Length One of the first things to be determined was just how long the shaft should be. This has a major implication for interpreting function as well, as without knowing the length of shaft we cannot know whether we are looking at a short hand-weapon or a longer pole-arm. The evidence from Central Europe in the form of the metal-shafted types suggests both short and longer weapons with shafts of up to 70cms long. Another source of information investigated was the extensive collections of rock-art and sculpture, discussed in Chapter 8. It is clear from the art that there were in fact two basic types of halberd in use in Europe during the Bronze Age. One type is a short hand-weapon, not unlike a “tomahawk”, while the second is clearly a pole-arm of sorts. Two examples from the Bronze Age art (fig 9.8) illustrate these two basic types.
341
Fig 9.8: The two basic halberd types used in Europe during the Early Bronze Age: (left) a short hand- weapon depicted on the statue from Valdefuentes de Sangusín, Spain; and (right) a longer pole arm shown in use here in this example from Mont Bego.
This is quite an important thing to be able to say, as there has been a tendency to see halberds as fundamentally the same artifact wherever the blades have been found in Europe, when in fact it seems now that we may well be looking at quite different types of weapon from a functional point of view. It underlines not just how relevant the length of shaft is to our understanding of these weapons, but also how restricted our interpretations would be if we confined ourselves exclusively to the more conventional archaeological evidence of the surviving blades themselves. After all, one could never tell from the blades alone what length of shaft they were originally attached to but we have tended to work on the basis that they were all roughly the same size.
While the art can be quite explicit in terms of the types of halberds it illustrates, the scale of these depictions naturally causes some problems: the example shown from Valdefuentes is fairly easy to interpret as the statue is more or less lifesize, however the second example from Mont Bego is clearly at a hugely exaggerated scale. Since it is impossible to know what this scale might be and since in the vast majority of cases, the depictions of the halberds are unassociated with any more accurate indication of perspective, it will be recalled that in Chapter 8 it was decided instead to express the shaft length as a function of the length of blade; in other words to say that the depicted shaft is so many times the length of the depicted blade. This proved eminently workable and varying patterns in blade-shaft ratios could be established for different types of halberd in different areas of the order of c.1:2 and c.1:3 or1:4. Those closest to the Irish types have ratios of c.1:3 or 1:4, ie the shaft tends to be three or four times as long as the blade to which it is attached. On this basis, given the average
342 length of an Irish halberd blade as c.270mm, we might think in terms of this being attached to a shaft of about 1 metre long. This postulated length, derived from the art, compares closely with the actual length of the only known halberd shaft to have been found in Ireland, the Carn Halberd, which was 1.1m long (Raftery, 1942). The evidence of the rock-art, therefore, independently corroborates the evidence of the Carn Halberd and allows us to regard the length of its shaft as reasonably typical.
Material Having established the likely length of shaft, the next thing to decide on was the type of wood to be used. Again, there are differing messages to be gleaned from the Continental evidence: one halberd was found along with the famous Leubingen burial (Höfer, 1906), and from the fragments of wood which survived, the shaft appeared to have been made of whitethorn. On the other hand, we know that the two halberds from Melz (Robel), Mecklenburg, in Germany were originally equipped with shafts of ash and lime (Schoknecht, 1971). From Ireland, as mentioned already, we have details of one shaft which survived intact, ie the Carn Halberd, and this was made of oak. While a choice of some form of springier wood like ash might have been a preferred choice, it was decided to carve the shaft of the replica halberd from oak in deference to the evidence of the sole surviving Irish example. Later, this was found in fact to have been an excellent choice as the shaft ended up being so slender that it depended heavily on the strength of oak for its functionality.
Shape of the Shaft-pole
The next step in producing the design for the replica was to establish the shape and form of the shaft-pole. From the rock-art, it was clear that many halberd shafts expanded widely at the bottom (fig 9.9). Some representations even suggest that the shaft may have ended occasionally in a wide bulbous swelling, which poses interesting questions about how this end of the shaft may itself have been used in combat. It is worth noting that from medieval texts such as Le Jeu de la Hache (Anglo, 1991) one is advised to lead with the shaft rather than Fig 9.9: Terminals on halberd shafts, the blade and indeed much of the fighting with taken from contemporary rock-art. medieval pole-arms - at least in single combat - seems to have relied on quarter-staff techniques using the shaft. However, it was decided to resist the temptation to produce a halberd with this large bulbous swelling at the end and instead opt for a
343 less controversial but equally attested design which sees the shaft splaying out gently at the end, in the manner of a modern timber-axe and serving the same function of providing added purchase to the grip.
The next thing to be decided was whether the shaft should be round, oval or rectangular in section. The rock-art provides no clue in this regard, but on the basis of the design of the metal-shafted halberds - which themselves must ultimately have been inspired by wooden examples - it seems most likely that the shaft should be of oval rather than round section. Again, such a design would be consistent with the presumed intended use of a halberd, providing additional strength in the direction of the blow and helping to stop the shaft from suddenly twisting in the hand of the user. Modern timber axes are also of oval section for the same reason. The metal-shafted halberds are quite slender, with shafts of c.3.5cm x 2cm section, but then so also is the shaft on the reconstructed Carn Halberd which currently measures c.2.2cm x 1.5cm in section (varying substantially over the length, however). It must be remembered, however, that this shaft is itself a reconstruction of the original which is long since decayed, and by all accounts not a very good reconstruction at that. The finder, Thomas Farrell, is recorded as describing the shaft as being “as thick as the handle of a pick-axe” when he found it in 1939 and the current reconstruction certainly does not reflect that. On balance, it was decided to go with section dimensions similar to those of a metal-shafted halberd, while acknowledging the real possibility that thicker shafts were being used in the Bronze Age.
Shape of the Shaft-Head The most difficult part of the reconstruction is undoubtedly the design of the shaft-head. However from the detailed studies of the surviving halberd blades (Chapters 3 and 4 in particular refer) the following statements can be made:
The rivets on Irish halberds are generally around 20-25mm long The torso lengths of these rivets, ie the length between the heads, is generally (in 85% of cases) 14-19mm. This provides a good basis for establishing the thickness of the shafthead at the point of contact with the rivets. There is an established pattern to the torso lengths of the rivets on Irish halberds: for those secured by three rivets (the vast majority of Irish halberds), the middle rivet is the shortest (86% of cases), the top rivet is the longest (85% of cases) and the bottom rivet lies somewhere in between. Using these relative rivet lengths and their position in the shaft head as a skeleton around which to reconstruct the shape of the original shaft head, it can be seen that this must almost always have been of consistent design, ie broadest to the top and front and narrowest at the back, expanding gently again where the head meets the pole of the shaft.
344 Because the hafting-plates of Irish halberds frequently show damage and denting to the back, it falls to reason that they must have been impacting against something else: for this reason it is believed that the wooden shaft-head into which the blade fitted was solid and that a slot was cut into which the thin hafting plate could be inserted. In other words, it was probably not a split-haft, or if it was, it was solid-backed.
Because there are a number of different types of Irish halberd and the individual dimensional data changes subtly across each one, it was decided to reconstruct a Type Cotton halberd, the most common Irish type, using average dimensions generated from the data. Hence the reconstruction would not be of any particular halberd known, but would draw on the common characteristics of all its type.
On the basis of the foregoing a blue-print for the production of a replica halberd was prepared (fig 9.10) and this was given to the historical reproduction company Irish Arms based in Ardee, Co. Louth, in the persons of Boyd Rankin and Lynne Williams. The next section, which describes the making of the halberd, is based on their report.
Making the Replica
Since the purpose of this reconstruction was for practical experimentation in use rather than for research into the methods of production, it was decided to make the halberd head using modern methods of smelting, casting and first-stage finishing. Whilst it is perfectly practical to authentically reproduce the entire process of manufacture from smelting the ore using a bowl furnace and leather bellows, to casting the metal in 2-part soapstone moulds, and finishing entirely by hand, this level of detail was not required for the project. In addition, of course, and as pointed out in Chapter 8, we actually don’t know what sort of moulds were used to case halberds, whether they were stone, clay or even sand. In any case, in terms of the trials that were being proposed, the critical test for the replica halberd would be how the hafting survived in practice. It is the thinness of the haft head and the supposed weakness of the riveting which many authorities have pointed to as evidence that the Early Bronze Age halberd could never have been put to practical use. As regards the blade itself, this was neither hardened nor sharpened (as we know real halberds would have been), and was cast from almost pure copper with a very low arsenic level of c.0.2%. To that extent, the only effect of not reproducing the manufacture of the halberd blade in exact accordance with what we assume to have been the procedure would be to produce a less effective blade than the original. Therefore, however the replica halberd performed in trial, we could with a high degree of safety assume that an Early Bronze Age blade would have performed at least as well, and probably better.
345
Fig 9.10: Specification for the construction of a replica Type Cotton halberd
Using the diagrams and specifications provided, and after viewing a selection from the National Museum of Ireland’s collection of Irish halberds at first hand, Irish Arms produced a halberd head pattern, or “positive”, carved in beech wood. Beech was chosen because of its very smooth, close grain which facilitates a fine surface finish, essential to ensure a clean negative impression when pressed into the sand mould. The positive was made approximately 2% larger than the required final dimensions to allow for wastage in the fettling process.
The halberd head was cast from copper in a two-part sand mould (fig 9.11), which has the advantage of being a simple and reliable method of casting. The disadvantage of using sand is that the resulting casts are not as fine as those produced from stone or ceramic moulds and require more finishing work. Replicas of the copper axe head from the late Neolithic Hauslabjoch “Iceman” find in the Otzaler Alps have been produced by the same method.
346
The copper used to cast the halberd head was obtained from commercial sources with the required percentage of arsenic, and formulated to replicate as closely as possible the metallurgical make up of early metals. Arsenic lowers the melting point of the copper and adds hardness.
After casting, the rough fettling Fig 9.11: pouring the metal removed the sprues and seams and the real work of final finishing was continued by hand. Dimensions were constantly checked to ensure the correct tapering throughout the length, and especially at the hafting plate. The three rivets, all of different lengths, were individually cut from bar copper and formed. An initial experiment in using a specially made rivet set to produce the domed ends of the rivets proved to be less successful than the simple expedient of hammering the ends over once the halberd was positioned in the shaft.
The specifications for the shaft required the choice of a suitable piece of seasoned Irish oak. The carving and shaping of this extremely hard and dense wood entailed careful work to minimise splitting and cracking. The methods and tools used were similar to those employed in the shaping of archery bows; hand planes, spoke shave and scraper. The final length and shape of the shaft as specified was also dictated to by the properties of the wood itself, and the weight of the halberd head, which affects the heft, swing and hand positioning during use. Having previously replicated various later forms of historical hafted weapons such as long handled fighting axes and pole arms; Irish Arms noted with interest the similarities in hand grip and taper throughout the shaft.
The fitting of the halberd into the shaft head entailed the making, and discarding, of several prototypes before a practical slotted head, which was shaped to accommodate the three different lengths of rivets, could be produced. The first attempts were not sufficiently deep at the solid back of the head and tended to be too light to counterbalance the weight of the halberd blade. Splitting was also a problem until more thickness of wood was allowed in this area.
347
Fig 9.12: Views of the replica halberd
As previously mentioned the final setting of the rivets also involved some experimentation. An attempt to “engineer” the domed heads by the use of a cup-shaped rivet set plate failed to produce sufficient roundness and left a ridge around the perimeter. Tapping a splay at each end of the rivet not only produced a more rounded profile; it also tightened the blade within the head slot and avoided the splitting which had been a problem with earlier models.
The similarity of the finished shaft to a modern axe or pickaxe handle has been previously noted, and may perhaps be explained by the observation that the reason things are the shape they are is dictated to by the practicalities of nature. The hands of Bronze Age people would have been about the same size and shape as our own, maybe a little smaller, and what feels comfortable to hold and wield to us would have felt equally so to them. Simply, that is the best and most practical shape for an object that is to be used in a certain manner.
The finished artifact
Views of the finished halberd are at Fig 9.12 and the weapon itself is submitted for examination along with this thesis.
348 The ‘vital statistics’ of the finished replica are as follows: Shaft length: 122cm Shaft thickness: 24mm Shaft width: 33mm Shaft head: 14mm top, narrowing to 6mm at back. Length of blade: 250mm Thickness of blade: 9mm Rivet lengths: 20mm top, 22mm back, 22mm bottom Rivet head diameters: 11.5-12mm Total weight: 1.5kg
In only two respects does the replica differ significantly from the specification. The middle rivet should be the shortest overall – it is not, but that said, there are many Irish halberds with a middle rivet of this length. Also, because of confusion over my original instructions, the arsenic level of the copper in the blade is only 0.2% rather than 2%, which would be more usual and which would give a stronger blade.
There are a number of other minor “deficiencies” in this replica as compared with the originals. In terms of the rivets, enormous difficulty was encountered in producing the high domed heads so characteristic of Irish halberds and these were eventually simply closed over. If we had been able to reproduce the domed heads accurately, this would probably have achieved a stronger fix of blade to shaft.2
It should also be pointed out that the blade received no annealing or cold-hammering after removal from the mould, nor were the edges sharpened. Both these processes would probably have been applied to the original halberds (and indeed metallographic analyses of some have proved this to be so), producing harder, sharper blades. Without such post-casting treatment and with an arsenic content fractionally that of most Irish halberds we can only assume that however well the replica performs under trial, an actual Bronze Age halberd would perform better. It is important to remember this when we move to examine the results of practical trial in the next section.
The production of this replica halberd has been highly educational. It allows us to feel what it was like to actually hold and wield an Early Bronze Age halberd and this could never be achieved if we
2 Further work carried out since the replica was completed has allowed me to suggest the actual lengths of rod required to both span the haft and produce the heads (Chapter 4). In addition, a rereading of the analyses carried out by Penniman and Allen (1960) suggests that one head of the rivet may have been pre-formed by heating and forging before insertion into the blade/haft, and once inserted the other end was closed cold against the haft. I have also suggested that the rivet holes through the shaft may have been counter-sunk, which would have eased the production of domed heads.
349 confined our experience to an examination of the surviving blades alone. The blades which are currently preserved in various museum collections are after all just one part of a composite weapon. It is impossible to appreciate how the Early Bronze Age halberd might have worked without factoring in its shaft. In this regard, our reconstructed halberd is remarkably comfortable and balanced in the hand, although it has a disturbing tendency to swivel if not held securely, this being a function of fixing a long heavy blade at right-angles to the shaft. On the other hand, this fluidity of movement allows the bearer to spin the halberd quite lightly in the hand and recover position quickly. The shaft is certainly thin, and especially the shaft-head, but the practical trials discussed in the next section have resolved the question as to whether this slimness seriously weakens the hafting or not. The shaft is, after all, about the same thickness as a modern hurley, which experience shows to be quite a good design despite the heavy use it is put to. Certainly, the replica halberd appears best suited to short punching blows, rather than wide, scything attacks which could jar the blade in its socket and possibly split the haft. Again, one is reminded of the techniques employed in the medieval period when using pole-arms in single combat, when the advice was to lead with the staff and only employ the head for administering a coup de grace once your opponent had left himself unprotected. Similarly, the evidence of wear on Irish halberds suggests that the most vulnerable point is in fact at the back of the hafting plate. The rivet in this area tends to be the one most often missing and the rivet-hole here tends to show the greatest damage, while the back of the hafting plate itself may be dented or broken. All this is consistent with delivery of heavy, direct, punching blows with the impact directed along the length of the blade and ultimately absorbed where the back of the hafting plate meets the wood of the shaft.
Practical Trial
Much time has been spent in this volume examining the type of damage exhibited by Irish halberds and assessing whether or not this indicates that the halberds could have been put to some practical use. However, the only way of actually determining this once and for all was to experiment with the replica halberd and see how it performed in action. Obviously, trying it out against human heads was not an option, so the question was to identify a source of animal heads which offered the best parallels. After discussion with veterinary personnel from the Department of Agriculture, it was decided that it would be best to work with sheep-heads, preferably fairly young animals (fig 9.13). Contact was made with Mr Liam Walsh of ICM Camolin, a specialised sheep killing plant just north of Ferns, Co. Wexford. After some initial, understandable hesitation, Mr Walsh readily agreed to help and I am most grateful to the company for their assistance in this matter. ICM Camolin kill up to three thousand sheep a day, so supply of the heads was not a problem. What was a problem, however, was that as part of national controls to prevent the spread of BSE, these heads are officially classified as Specified Risk Material (SRM). After killing, the heads and other risk material are
350 collected for separate, secure disposal so there could be no question of removing the heads from the plant. In addition, after any trials were concluded, the heads would have to be returned to the production chain for safe disposal as SRM.
Fig 9.13: comparison of human and sheep skulls. The sheep heads were all struck at the point indicated above. The thickness of human and sheep skulls in this area is of the order of 3-7mm and 10-15mm respectively.
The trial was eventually set up for 30 August, 2002. I arrived at the plant shortly after 10am accompanied by a colleague, Mr Christy Philpott, who had agreed to assist and to record the proceedings.
The ICM plant is uniquely designed on three levels. The animals are killed on the uppermost level and then the usable and non-usable product is segregated and passed to the relevant lower levels for processing. The SRM material, including heads, is passed down a chute to the lowest level where it travels along a short conveyor belt before being dumped into designated bins for disposal. While it was originally intended that we should collect the heads we needed from these bins (which contain a great many less pleasant things than the heads of dead sheep), plant management were fortunately persuaded to let us “borrow” the heads from the conveyor belt stage and return them to the belt once more when we were finished.
The heads are obtained directly from the killing line on the upper floor and so were fresh and warm when collected by us. They were quite intact, unskinned and came from a mixture of yearlings and older ewes. Twenty heads were collected in all (Fig 9.14) and transported outside to a grassy area where it was proposed to carry out the trials. The possibility of fixing the heads to some form of structure, or placing them upon a raised surface had previously been considered, but the risk of damage to the halberd if a blow missed seemed too great. A sudden impact against a wood, metal or
351 even a plastic surface might easily have damaged the halberd irreparably, putting an end to the trials immediately. Even if it did not end the trial, the damage suffered by the halberd would certainly have distorted the test results. Having considered a number of options in advance, it had been decided to simply place the heads one by one on grass, in order to minimise any potential damage to the halberd arising from a misdirected blow. As it happened, no such accident occurred and all damage to the halberd results entirely from impact with the heads.
Fig 9.14: The sheep-heads, as collected before trials
352
The trials were filmed on video and with static photography. A short video clip (transferred to CD) is also available to be viewed. A selection of static shots are included in this chapter. Before starting a small crack in the haft-head was noted. This was photographed lest it be mistaken later for impact- damage and so that any further damage to this area could be measured (fig 9.15).
The rock-art clearly shows halberds being raised Fig 9.15: small crack in haft head, noted before trials began. high above the head, presumably delivering the blow completely within the vertical plane (fig 9.16). This makes complete sense once you have handled the halberd since, as reported above, a sideways action can result in the halberd blade slipping to one side. It was decided to begin with a short chopping motion, which could be reproduced again and again with reasonable accuracy and consistency. If this failed to pierce the skull, a longer swinging blow would be adopted.
The heads were placed one by one on the grass and struck with the halberd. A point in the centre of the forehead, between the eyes was selected and all blows were delivered to this point. A few tentative blows were tried initially, to gauge the strength of delivery required and length of lead-swing. These initial blows suggested that the halberd would not survive long, as both shaft and blade could be felt to flex on impact. However, this was very quickly revealed to be a result of lack of confidence in the delivery. Once this was corrected the halberd Fig 9.16: Manner of wielding the halberd, as depicted in the rock-art of Mont Bego. proved itself to be frighteningly effective and highly resilient. A short chopping blow (figs 9.17 and 9.18), raising the weapon no more than a couple of feet from the head and delivered with confidence rather than brute force was sufficient to pierce the skull, often very deeply indeed (figs 9.19 and 9.20). About half the time, the blade penetrated the skull on the first blow; the rest of the time, it took two or three blows. The need for multiple blows probably arose from inexpert use of the weapon, allied to a certain 21st century distaste of committing such violence in the first place.
353
There had been some speculation in advance as to the type of wound which would be created, i.e. whether it would produce a wide shattered hole or a clean puncture. As it happened, the halberd consistently delivered a clean, narrow puncture wound, up to 5 or 6cm long (fig 9.20) depending on the depth to which the blade penetrated. The small rounded end of the blade ensures that the full force of the blow is administered to a tiny area of the skull first, virtually guaranteeing a puncture each time. The fact that the end of the blade is rounded rather than brought to a sharp point adds strength to this area, which otherwise might bend or even snap on first impact. It also suggests that the blade is designed for impact on bone rather than muscle, where a sharp pointed weapon would seem more appropriate than a blunt-nosed one. Once the skull is pierced, the degree of force behind the blow determines the depth to which the blade will be driven, while its expanding sides then widen the cut in either direction in a clean slicing motion. The blade cut through the bone of the skull with remarkable ease. The ease with which the blade could be withdrawn from the wound, in most cases, was also noteworthy.
The blade was examined after 10 heads had been disposed of and was found to be completely undamaged: the blade showed no sign of buckling (despite the inexpert use which had resulted in a few ricocheting blows), and it remained firmly fixed in its haft. A number of striations were noted towards the end of the blade, running in parallel to the line of the blade, clearly resulting from passage of the blade through bone.
The trial was resumed and another 10 heads were struck and pierced successively. The blade was then examined again and once more found unharmed. There was no buckling of the blade, apart from a very slight “ripple” to the edge. In addition, there had been some slight expansion of metal at the point, obviously resulting from impact with the skull – I have noted but not remarked on this type of damage on some of the Early Bronze Age halberds in the course of museum work and it seems clear to me now what this results from. The blade, however, remained secure in the haft; there appeared to be no loosening of the rivets whatsoever and the haft head was also quite undamaged, despite the crack noted earlier. At this point in time, having destroyed twenty sheep-heads, and there being every appearance that the halberd might continue in effective use indefinitely, as well as the need to restrict further interference with the disposal of SRM, the trial was concluded. The pierced heads were returned to the conveyor belt for disposal. Gloves and headgear were discarded, boots disinfected and the halberd itself thoroughly cleaned and disinfected.
354 Fig 9.18: Delivering the blow
Fig 9.17: Positioning the blow
Fig 9.20: The distinctive, clean incision
Fig 9.19: Deep puncturing
355
Conclusions Irish halberds have traditionally been regarded as non-functional, ceremonial artefacts (Chapter 1). In particular, the mode of hafting and the slightness of the haft head have been cited as reasons why this artefact could not have been put to any practical use. These trials were carried out with an exact replica of an Irish type Cotton halberd, made of copper with a very low arsenic level of 0.2%. The blade had neither been hardened by cold-hammering nor sharpened, from both of which processes a “real” halberd would have benefited. Nor for that matter do the rivets have the high-domed heads so characteristic of many Irish halberds and which would undoubtedly help secure the haft. Despite the deficiencies of the replica as compared with the originals, it nonetheless revealed itself to be a remarkably effective weapon, slicing skulls open with disturbing ease and proving very comfortable to handle. Repeated blows against twenty sheep skulls, of similar strength to a human skull, failed to inflict all but the most minor damage to the halberd and there was no indication that it could not continue in such use for a prolonged period of time.
There is no doubt in my mind that the Irish halberd is very carefully designed as a most effective weapon. That is not to say that all Irish halberds were used in this way, but they certainly could have been and it certainly appears to be the basis for their design. In addition, the replica halberd survives in a condition which I would categorise as “perfect” in a museum example, suggesting that even these perfect halberds could have seen some use. I have argued earlier that the type of notching and denting noted by me along the blades of many Irish halberds in all likelihood results from impact with another blade, or with the shaft of another weapon. Given the likely manner of use, with great care taken to avoid precisely this type of damage (Oakeshott, 1960, 158-9), the condition of even those halberds without such impact damage cannot now be taken as an indicator of lack of use.
COMBAT AND CONFLICT IN THE EARLY BRONZE AGE
There are two highly significant points to be gleaned from the historical and ethnographic parallels considered above: the first is that despite appearances a pole-arm of the size and design of the Early Bronze Age halberd can be an extremely effective and versatile weapon in the hands of an experienced warrior; the second is that we should consider the halberd very much as a composite weapon, in which the shaft can play a variety of roles and is not simply an extension of the hand. The practical trials described in the previous section vividly attest to the effectiveness of the Irish Early Bronze Age halberd as a weapon. In fact, contrary to what Treherne (1995, 109) asserts, it is the
356 halberd, if anything, and not the sword which is “the first object clearly designed for combat instead of simply being adapted from an existing tool form”.
Having established that a weapon like the Early Bronze Age halberd could indeed have worked and that similar weapons have been used to great effect at different time in different places, it remains to speculate just how it may have been used during the Early Bronze Age in Ireland.
As regards the nature of combat during the Early Bronze Age, this must be considered in the context of the wider debate about the role and nature of war and violence in human society. This debate has often centred on whether warfare can be explained in functional terms, whether it is adaptive, and why some societies undertake it frequently while others do not (Fried, Harris and Murphy, 1967; Keegan, 1994). Notwithstanding such virtuous affirmations as the 1986 Seville Statement (subsequently adopted by the American Anthropological Association) in which all characterizations of man as naturally violent were condemned, it remains a fact that violence is endemic in human society. It is difficult indeed to point to any one society which is spared this tendency: the pacific nature of some hunter-gatherer societies, such as the San bushmen and the Semai of the Malaysian jungle, has been indicated (Robarchak, 1986) but, in the case of the San at least, and as Keegan (1994) points out, this may result from a desire for self-preservation, avoiding conflict at any cost with their more aggressive cattle-raising neighbours, the Bantu. Over the last ten years or so, there has been a considerable increase in the volume of archaeological literature dealing with warfare in prehistory (e.g.Edmonds and Thomas, 1987; Sharples, 1991; Drews, 1993; Louwe Kooijmans, 1993; Treherne, 1995; Carman, 1997; Osgood, 1998; Carman and Harding, 1999; Osgood and Monks, 2000). Much of this has reflected on later prehistory, or on aspects of combat in the classical world, and so is not directly relevant to the period or society under consideration here. However, a number of general themes discussed in these publications are relevant to the discussion here and they will be considered in what follows, as appropriate. The whole question of how we define “warfare” is of some interest and even the words we choose to use can influence the course of the discussion. Malinowsky (1964, 247) defines it as an “armed contest between two independent political units by means of organised military force, in pursuit of tribal or national policy”. However, this definition is too exclusive and clearly does not embrace the type of small-scale conflict, carried out by non-professional military that we know to be endemic in many pre-state societies. Ferguson (1984,5) sees warfare as an “organized purposeful group action, directed against another group, that may or may not be organized for similar action, involving the actual or potential application of lethal force”. Milner (1995, 221) states that warfare “refers to purposeful violence calculated to advance the ambitions of separate political factions, regardless of who was involved, the regularity of the fighting, the numbers of participants or specific combat tactics.” Although quite different in some respects, there are a number of common themes in these
357 three definitions: warfare, it seems, must be deliberate or planned, group-based, involve use of force and be intended to advance a particular objective. It is unclear whether we should imagine this form of action taking place in the Early Bronze Age in Europe, although it is arguably more clearly evident as the Bronze Age progresses. In the earlier period, a more ad hoc approach to fighting might, initially at least, seem more appropriate, the type that Osgood and Monks (2000, 7) have described as “opportunistic and sporadic, unplanned and …[with] no obvious or consistent motives”. However, we need to remember the evidence from the preceding Neolithic for what appear to concerted and planned attacks on enclosed sites in Britain (Mercer 1980 and 1981; Dixon, 1979). We should also consider the role that “ritual” may have played in all this: what may present itself as sporadic, smallscale, disorganized fighting may in fact arise from closely respected traditions of cyclical violence, such as is recorded amongst the Maring of New Guinea, to be considered below. What seems generally accepted is that violence was in all probability endemic in prehistoric societies in Europe, irrespective of how it was organized or controlled (e.g. Louwe Kooijmans, 1993, 18; Osgood and Monks, 2000, 138; Harding, 2000, 272;). Whether we can actually use the term “warfare” to describe this type of violence is another matter, particularly in the Early Bronze Age in Ireland, and insofar as possible, I have tended in what follows to use terms like “raiding” or “feuding” which gives a better impression of the sporadic, smallscale and perhaps tribal character we believe conflict at this time assumed.
An interesting map produced by Keegan (1994) shows that most of the world’s conflicts have taken place within a very limited geographical area (fig 9.21) and that in all about 70% of the world’s 60m square miles of dry land is either too high, too cold or too waterless to conduct warfare3. In fact, Keegan points out that the zone of organized warfare coincides with that which geographers call “land of first choice”, i.e. those easiest to clear of forest and most productive under agriculture, and in particular on the borders of such lands. In this regard, it is interesting to note the comment made by Sharples (1991, 80) that there are a priori grounds for believing that “after the introduction of agriculture, warfare was a constant feature of the prehistoric societies of the British Isles”. While most of Keegan’s thesis is concerned with periods later than that under consideration here, his general point that the tide of war tends to flow one way, i.e. “from poor lands to rich, and very rarely in the opposite direction” (1994,75) is worth bearing in mind when we consider the Bronze Age. He also makes the obvious but often neglected point that history and ethnography shows warfare to be an exclusively male preoccupation, with very, very few exceptions.
3 Anticipating the counter-argument which illustrates its point by reference to the desert battles of World War II, Keegan points out that Rommel’s and Montgomery’s desert armies in fact clung to the coast.
358
Fig 9.21: The killing fields – most of the world’s major historical conflict has taken place in the zone bounded by the toned line. Keegan, 1994 (p.69).
Many ethnographic studies of warfare have been carried out over the years, and some of these are considered here. Large scale, organized battles involving a professional class of soldiers only occur in state-societies or kingdoms – most other types of society practice small-scale, sporadic and informal raiding and this was probably the nature of warfare carried out during the earliest periods of the Early Bronze Age when the halberd was in use. To this extent, the well-known studies of the Yanomamö of South America (Chagnon, 1967) and the Maring of New Guinea (Väyda, 1976) are of some interest in helping us to imagine just how warfare might have been pursued by Early Bronze Age societies in Ireland. Divale’s (1973) commentary on warfare amongst the mountain peoples of New Guinea also provides insight, as do elements of Aztec and North American Indian practice.
The Yanomamö are by all accounts an extremely aggressive people, in which violence is encouraged in young males from a very tender age4. They live in villages of about 40-250 inhabitants about a day’s march from each other. The Yanomamö practice shifting agriculture, reclaiming land from the forest, planting small crops and then moving on when soil fertility is exhausted. Conflict is often over women and passes through a series of ritualised stages, including “chest-pounding” (where the
4 Recent studies have begun to challenge this view of the Yanomamö - see Ferguson and Whitehead, 1992
359 combatants take turns to give and receive violent blows to the chest), club-fights and raiding – the latter often taking the form of nothing less than premeditated murder, as war-parties lie in wait for a vulnerable victim, kill and then flee the scene. Feasts may be organized through a third party in which the unsuspecting guests are massacred by their enemies who have carefully planned the ruse. The widows are then redistributed amongst the victors.
The Yanomamö are to a certain degree unusual in their whole-hearted commitment to violence. Other so-called primitive societies, while indulging enthusiastically in battles and scraps of all sorts, tend to find a way to stop it getting out of hand. Indeed, Keegan (1994) has recently counseled against applying 20th century presumptions when considering the nature of primitive warfare, presumptions which derive largely from the extreme and ruthless nature of warfare in the last 100 years or so. He points out (p.387) that “primitives have recourse to all sorts of devices which spare both themselves and their enemies from the worst of what might be inflicted”. This is a very valuable point and probably directly relevant to the Bronze Age experience where the archaeological evidence for violent death, while not unknown, is still fairly unusual. Many pre-state societies “manage” their warfare in a manner which allows it to be pursued but limits the fatalities. Chief amongst these devices is the exemption of certain categories of society from combat and its consequences, notably women, the elderly and the very young. Conventions may also be applied to when, where and how war may take place. Most important of all, perhaps, is the use of ritual to define and control the nature of the combat, often ensuring that bloodshed is limited and quickly followed by reconciliation.
The Maring of New Guinea are a case in point (Vayda, 1976). Like the Yanomamö, the Maring subsisted on a pattern of shifting agriculture, raising pigs and small crops of tubers and moving frequently. Unlike the Yanomamö, however, population density in the territory of the Maring was quite high, being of the order of around 100 inhabitants to the square mile. The social unit was a cluster of clans ranging in size from 200-850 people. In terms of weapons, the Maring maintained a formidable arsenal, including bows, arrows, spears, shields and polished stone axes. With these they conducted fights which passed through several carefully regulated phases, recognized as such by the Maring themselves. These included “nothing” fights, “true” fights, raids and routs. “Nothing” fights represent typical ritualized combat, with groups of warriors exchanging volleys of arrows and taunting their opponents – rarely was anyone seriously injured. This type of fighting normally took place during periods of long calm and was as much about creating the right conditions for negotiation as anything else. “True” fights narrowed the physical range of combatants to include the use of hand- weapons but again what is surprising is that, although battles could go on for days, casualties were still rare. Occasionally a spear-throw might bring down a man and if his enemies were quick enough they could rush in and finish him off with an axe. Otherwise, there could be long breaks in the combat by agreement between the parties, particularly if it was raining or if the men need to repaint
360 their shields. “True” fights, however, might lead on to a much bloodier rout, often precipitating the deaths not just of combatants but also of women and children. Raiding too was charged with deliberate murderous intent, as one clan cluster set out on an expedition to destroy another.
Success in these more martial endeavours was invariably followed by thanks-offering feasts, where surplus pigs were consumed in honour of ancestor-spirits. However, because pigs were only in surplus every ten years or so, it was incumbent on major conflict to follow and respect a similar timescale. To attempt warfare without the basis for thanking the ancestors was to court disaster. As a result, the Maring developed a policy of actually creating excuses for serious warfare every ten years or so, to coincide with their surplus of pigs. Vayda points out that as the ten year cycle reached its end, the neighbouring clan clusters began to offer each other the type of slights and insults designed to occasion war and eventually honour demanded satisfaction.
What is fascinating about the Maring approach is both the degree to which warfare was controlled and the degree, as a result, to which deadly weapons of war might only be put to real use once every few years. In the case of the Maring, the existence of deadly, functional weapons of war did not mean that warfare was either endemic or that these weapons were used all the time. However, the fact that they were only sporadically used does not in any way lessen their “reality” as weapons. This could be quite significant for our interpretation of Bronze Age weapons, not just the halberds, since the evidence of wear that has been identified along the blades may have been accumulated over a long, long time, during which the weapon may have enjoyed extensive periods of non-use. It might still have been brandished, displayed or employed as a threat, but not actually used in the conventional sense. This does not make it an exclusively non-functional object any more than the existence of use-wear makes it exclusively non-ceremonial. The tendency on the part of archaeologists to define “ritual” in terms of whatever appears irrational or non-functional has been identified and criticized by Brück (1999) and her arguments are particularly apposite in this regard. Brück points out that the distinction drawn by modern researchers is a product of post-Enlightenment rationalism and has little to do with how prehistoric societies viewed their behaviour. It is not so much that the symbolic and the practical are two sides of the one coin, she argues, but rather that they are the same thing (ibid, 325).
There is plenty of evidence to suggest that warfare was both important and perhaps commonplace in the Bronze Age and there is a growing body of opinion which rejects the view of Bronze Age weapons as primarily ceremonial. An analysis of Irish Late Bronze Age swords (Bridgford, 1997a) revealed that over 90% of those examined had been damaged by edge notching, deemed most likely to have resulted from combat use. Most British swords of the same period show similar evidence of use (Bridgford, 1997b). The halberds examined as part of the present study also display direct
361 evidence of edge-to-edge damage. Osgood and Monks (2000, 139) conclude that at the start of the Bronze Age “archery was of huge importance, at least in terms of warfare”, and to a large extent this suggestion is based on the burial evidence, which links violent death most often to injury by arrows. However, because the arrow heads remain in the body after burial and are therefore easily identified as the cause of the injury, a degree of caution should be exercised in assuming that this automatically means that archery was the primary martial art in force at the time - injuries from a dagger or stabbing sword/rapier would be less easy to identify. In addition, having reviewed some of the evidence (considered below in more detail) I was surprised to see that so many victims appear to have been stabbed by spears, or shot with arrows, in the pelvis area. One might wonder indeed whether these are actually evidence of warfare or if they represent ritual murder instead – deliberate wounding of a man like this in the pelvis area is reminiscent of the wounding of the Fisher King (amongst other mythological figures) where the purpose was to destroy his vigour and fertility.
However, there is little doubt that the bow-and-arrow was extensively used in the preceding Neolithic, when, as Edmonds and Thomas (1987, 192) point out, there was such an “intimate association” between this weapon and the attack and destruction of enclosed settlements at Crickley Hill, Carn Brea and the Steepleton Enclosure. The authors similarly draw the conclusion on the basis of depictions in megalithic art that this weapon was of “signal importance” and, on the basis of the burial evidence, that it was largely associated with males (ibid, 192). They also argue that the shift to petit tranchet arrowheads in the later Neolithic was driven by a desire to inflict bigger, more profusely bleeding wounds, rather than the heavy penetrating and frequently fatal wounding caused by other types of arrowhead. This they see as marking a shift to a more ritualized form of combat, where the intention is to horrify and shock rather than kill. This calls to mind Treherne’s (1995) fascinating hypothesis of the evolution of the Bronze Age warrior and the increasingly important role of image and the spectator. It is also reminiscent of what we know of Aztec warfare, where the weapon of choice – the wooden sword edged with razor-sharp slivers of stone – is intended to disable, not to kill, thereby allowing the subsequent sacrifice of the defeated opponent (Clendinnen, 1991, 81). The strong male associations of archery and the possibility of a shift to a more ritualized form of combat towards the end of the Neolithic are all of interest to us in the context of our consideration of the role the halberd might have played in later societies.
362 Continuing our review of the weapons (or potential weapons) of the period, by far the most common metal artifact in these islands at this time is the axe. Although Osgood and Monks (2000) do not consider this to have been used as a weapon, and make little or no reference to the axe in the course of their extensive consideration of the weaponry of the period, it must be allowed that it certainly could have been used in this fashion. In the absence of palaeopathological evidence, however, it will always be very difficult to prove this. Unlike the halberd or the sword, the axe has the more utilitarian function of working wood and consequently evidence of wear and resharpening on this artifact is no evidence of specific use as a weapon. The dagger, on the other hand, while potentially multi-functional, is highly likely to have had as one of those functions that of a weapon. The fact alone that its evolved forms of rapier and sword are clearly offensive suggests as much, as does its inclusion in “warrior” burials and its depiction in the rock-art and stelae-statuary. Osgood and Monks (2000, 23) see the dagger as a “one-chance” weapon for use at close-quarters, the context of the discussion suggesting that they believe it may not have seen much use for this reason. I am not sure, however, that this view of the dagger as a one-chance weapon would be generally accepted – there are plenty of accounts both historical and modern of quite lengthy “knife-fights” and if indeed the objective is to provide a spectacle, with plenty of blood but not necessarily a fatality, a fight between two opponents Fig 9.22: Use of dagger at close quarters, from armed with daggers may have been an engraved gold ring, Shaft Graves, Mycenae. entirely appropriate. In addition, we have After Fagan, 1986: fig 18.9) quite vivid portrayals of the use of daggers in combat from the Mycenaean period (fig 9.22) leaving us in little doubt that this type of weapon could be used effectively. In passing, it is worth remarking on the manner in which the warrior in Fig 9.22 wields the dagger: it is held firmly in the fist, and brought downwards in a stabbing motion. It is easy to see how the design of the halberd replicates this action, but extends the reach of the warrior’s arm. I have argued elsewhere that the halberd is to the dagger what the spear is to the rapier and that the evolution of the latter two may well reflect a shift in combat style from a close quarter stabbing action to a more “remote” thrusting action.
Other evidence of the importance of warfare can be seen in the appearance of warrior-burials across Europe at this time and what appear to be combat scenes, perhaps ritualized, in the rock-art. The stelae of southwestern Iberia, considered in Chapter 7, and those from elsewhere in the Mediterranean testify to a cult of arms during the Bronze Age. The stele from Petit Chasseur in Switzerland depicts a warrior wearing what may be quilted armour, which would have been particularly effective against
363 arrows (Osgood and Monks, 2000, 83). John Coles has suggested that the depictions of warriors in Scandinavian rock-art with enlarged bodies and calves may be intended to represent some form of body armour and greaves (Coles, 1990) and of course, we have actual archaeological evidence of such armour from elsewhere in Europe. The appearance of such carefully designed defensive equipment (irrespective of whether those which have survived would have afforded much protection) at least implies an origin in a real need for such protection. Whatever about the sheet bronze equipment, Coles’ (1979) experiments have shown that leather shields are extremely effective in practice against the bronze weapons of the period. A mould for the production of just such shields from Kilmahamogue, Co. Antrim, has been radiocarbon-dated to the surprisingly early date of 1950- 1540 BC (3445+ 70BP: OxA-2429. Hedges et al, 1991), testifying to the need for and existence of practical defensive equipment around this time. This Kilmahamogue shield, which is V-notched, establishes links both culturally and geographically with the martial statuary of Iberia where similar shields are depicted.
Evidence for conflict may also exist in the form of defended settlements and especially some of the more obviously “fortified” examples. However, Sharples (1991) warns of the dangers inherent in interpreting such evidence, contradicting Bradley (1984, 122) who suggests that such defended settlements represent “actual warfare”. Sharples points out (1991,82) that in Wessex, during periods of the Iron Age when hillforts dominate the archaeological record, there is virtually no evidence of weaponry more sophisticated than the sling. He interprets this as resulting from a change in the nature of wealth during the periods in question. He argues that an emphasis on agricultural production invested power in the communal ownership of land in the Early and Middle Iron Age, whereas in the succeeding period, when evidence for weaponry is more prevalent, the power base had shifted to the individual. Individuals can be killed and power acquired, but to do so personal weapons such as swords and spears were required. Whatever the accuracy of the interpretation, the argument is valid and it would seem that the presence of hillforts or other fortifications need not necessarily imply widespread conflict. Such a view would be consistent with the evidence from Ireland, where the work of the North Munster Project of the Discovery Programme would place significant store by the symbolic role of hillforts in Late Bronze Age society (Condit and O’Sullivan, 1999; Grogan, 1999). A related argument is made by Louwe Kooijman (199_, 18) who points out that “tribal types of warfare do generally not leave conspicuous archaeological traces: they do not involve defensive structures, specialized weapons and armour, large-scale destruction, specialised warrior groups etc”. In other words neither the presence nor absence of what might at first seem the more obvious indicators of societal violence can be taken at face value.
The most tangible evidence for combat in the Bronze Age comes, of course, from the burial record, where we have occasional finds of what appear to be the victims of Bronze Age aggression. While
364 bearing in mind the points made by Sharples (1991) and Osgood and Monks (2000) in relation to the interpretation of the burial evidence (in which they argue that what may appear at first to be evidence of warfare may result from excarnation practices, ritual murder or punishment) there are nonetheless a number of cases where conflict appears to have been responsible. In addition, the distinction suggested between conflict and ritual murder/punishment may itself mislead and say more about modern concepts of conflict than it does about prehistoric: for example, it has been strongly argued that the extensive warfare pursued by the Aztecs was in no small measure to obtain victims for ritual murder (Clendinnen, 1991). With these stated caveats, we can turn to look at some of the direct evidence for violence in Early-Middle Bronze Age society. At Tormarton, in Gloucestershire, the skeletons of two young men aged about 19 years were discovered, both presenting injuries inflicted by Bronze Age weapons (Knight et al, 1972). One had a hole in the pelvis which had apparently been made by a lozenge-sectioned spearhead, while the other, who had also been pierced in the pelvis, actually retained part of the bronze spearhead embedded in the bone, as well as part of a second spearhead in the lumbar vertebrae. A similar find from Dorchester, Oxfordshire again produced a skeleton with the tip of a bronze spear embedded in its pelvis (Ehrenberg, 1977). The body from a Beaker burial in the ditch at Stonehenge had apparently been shot with flint-headed arrows (Evans et al, 1983). The Early/Middle Bronze Age multiple burial from Wassenaar, Netherlands (Louwe Kooijmans, 1993) with its clear evidence of violence and even massacre, sent ripples of shock through the Dutch archaeological community, which had heretofore seen this period as one of peaceful agrarian subsistence (ibid, 17). The Wassenaar burial comprised the remains of 12 individuals, mostly males but also women and children, 5 of whom provided tangible evidence of violent attack, and all of whom were in fact interpreted as victims of a massacre by the excavator. A number of burials from Spain with Neolithic or Copper Age dates, include the remains of individuals killed by arrows (for a full list see Osgood and Monks, 2000, 46). Some of the burials from the Tumulus Culture show similar evidence of violent death: one from Klings in Germany had a bronze arrowhead embedded in a vertebra (Feustel, 1958, 8), while at Stetten, near Karlstadt, also in Germany, a skeleton was unearthed with an arrowhead jutting out of the humerus (Fröhlich, 1983, 41). Closer to home, we have the example of the skull from Drumman More Lake, Co. Armagh, which was discovered with a bronze dagger driven through the bone (Waddell, 1984).
It will be noted from the above that the burial evidence produces no major massacre sites or mass graves, no “war cemeteries”. All the available evidence suggests small scale fighting or feuding, and this is consistent with what might be expected on the basis of ethnographic accounts. Harding (2000, 274) in his consideration of the nature of warfare during this period opines that “small scale raiding by parties numbering not more than a few score might well have been the prevailing mode of aggression”. Small groups like this can be quickly brought together, moved and dispersed whereas armies require a high level of social organization, ready supply of men and materials, and the political
365 will and ambition to carry through long campaigns in the field. Even allowing for the impressive scale of political and social development over the course of the Bronze Age, the surviving evidence strongly suggests that warfare during this period remained the concern of small bands of warriors rather than armies. The waterways of the period would very likely have been extensively used for such attacks - the Hjortspring find of the Iron Age, with its possibilities for identifying commanders and paddlers, may represent just such a raiding party (Randsborg, 1995).
There is of course another form in which violence manifests itself in many societies and that is “ritual murder”. The importance of this to societies such as the Aztec is well-known (eg Clendinnen, 1991) but it was also important to earlier societies such as the Egyptian where it is sometimes depicted in the artwork of the period, such as the image of Rameses II below (fig 9.22) pictured dispatching a Nubian captive. Ritual slaughter of captives was well- established amongst the North American tribes such as the Pawnee or the Huron, and it was not unknown in fact for the captive to willingly participate in his own sacrifice (Turney-High, Fig 9.23: Rameses II in the act of executing a captive (British Museum) 1949; Clendinnen, 1991). The reasons behind this practice are complex but tend to relate to the need to sustain the community by appeasement of the gods. We cannot exclude the possibility that such activities may also have been practiced by certain Bronze Age communities and that the surviving weaponry may also have been used to this end. The example already referred to above of the skull from Drumman More Lake, Co. Armagh, which had a dagger driven through it, may well fall into this category. With the evidence that already exists for this practice during the Late Bronze Age Ireland (Cooney and Grogan, 1994, p.147), it is worth bearing in mind that the halberd would have provided an excellent means of execution. The practical trials described elsewhere in this chapter suggest that such a wound would be readily identifiable as inflicted by a halberd; until such evidence materializes, however, the possibility of the Irish halberds being used for this purpose must remain purely speculative.
366 Discussion It is widely accepted now amongst archaeologists that small-scale raiding and feuding was a common feature of Early Bronze Age society. The following description from Divale (1973, 21) of warfare amongst the mountain peoples of New Guinea may help us visualize how some of these encounters developed: Each army was composed of warriors, usually related by marriage, from several allied villages. Even though large numbers of warriors were involved, there was little or no military effort; instead, dozens of individual duels were engaged in. Each warrior shouted insults at his opponent and hurled spears or fired arrows. Agility in dodging arrows was highly praised…In spite of the huge array of warriors involved in these pitched battles, little killing took place….In the event that someone was badly wounded or slain, the battle would usually cease for that day.
Many of the most important points to be gleaned from the anthropological accounts considered above are summed up in this quotation, eg the individual duels, the posturing, the long-range nature of the conflict with use of projectiles dominating the proceedings and the resulting low level of casualties. Undoubtedly, there must have been occasions when matters were brought to a closer range and it is in those clashes, the “true” fights of the Maring and worse, that we might envisage the halberds being brought into play. There is no doubt that in Ireland the halberd was a popular weapon – the numbers recovered alone tell us this, exceeding as they do the population of daggers recovered for the same period. The outcome of conflict may even have been decided by combat between champions and the type of damage displayed by some Irish halberd blades strongly suggests that they were used in combat against an opponent armed with another edged metal weapon. This was presumably another halberd, since the daggers of the period would not have presented much of a challenge, while an axe is simply not constructed the right way to produce the type of damage observed. To a certain extent, the halberd might be regarded as the weapon of a champion, requiring considerable skill in its use. It is certainly not the type of weapon to take along on a raid, where the objective is generally to get in and out as quickly as possible. The halberd is not constructed for action in a melee, where bow-and- arrow serve better from a distance, and daggers, clubs and axes are more effective should things come to close quarters. The halberd requires too much of its owner’s attention, demanding the use of both hands and a cool head to avoid unexpected damage, as well of course as sufficient room to manouevre. In a “ritualized” setting, however, against another opponent similarly armed, the halberd would be effective and impressive from the point of view of the onlooker, a perfect vehicle to display the prowess (and wealth) of a champion. Treherne (1995, 111) has argued convincingly that
“by the Middle Bronze Age, the prevailing ‘ideology’ was largely centred on the male (gendered) individual and the display of his personal accoutrements acquired through inter-regional exchange and emulation, with novel themes of drinking, driving/riding, body-decorating and fighting”.
367 But need we wait until the Middle Bronze Age to identify these traits? In the Early Bronze Age and in the form of the warrior equipped with halberd, we have the very model of such a champion and such a society. The burial evidence for the period in Ireland leads us to suspect a male-dominated society (see Chapter 10) and with its roots firmly in broader Beaker traditions, we can detect also those other traits identified by Treherne: the consumption of alcohol, the introduction of the horse and a more martial aspect than heretofore. In the halberd, we have the very model of a champion’s weapon, beautiful, costly and requiring skill and courage to wield, perfect for display. Even the razor, which Treherne sees as almost emblematic of the warrior’s world, epitomizing his concern with personal beauty and distinctive appearance, is present in the Early Bronze Age, although – occurring as they do mostly in Cordoned Urn burials – these may fall just outside the period of halberd use. If Treherne’s interpretation is correct, however, they may signal the presence of a warrior elite, and there is no reason to assume that this elite only appeared at this point and not before.
The contemporary depictions from continental Europe (Chapter 7) show warriors wielding long- handled halberds raised high over the head, apparently in combat with other similarly armed warriors. In other examples, warriors are depicted armed with both halberd and sword raising the interesting possibility that in these cases, which illustrate short-handled halberds, they might have been used with swords as specific type of combat panoply. Such use is unlikely to have been made of the Irish halberds, however, unless in conjunction with a dagger.
In terms of the way in which the longer-handled halberds may have been wielded, the medieval text Le Jeu de la Hache considered earlier has much to offer. In particular we might imagine considerable use of the shaft as a precursor to creating the opportunity for a killing-blow. Pole-work like this would also provide an opportunity to display skill and expertise in the handling of the weapon, without endangering the copper head, and indeed if the ethnographic examples are anything to go by, this type of encounter may have been sufficient of itself to conclude some conflicts. The extent to which combatants sought to protect their blade from impact against an opponent’s is also very important since our imaginations are conditioned to the reckless clash of blade against blade offered to us by Hollywood movie moguls. It is most unlikely that any self respecting Bronze Age warrior would fight in this fashion as he risked too much damage to his blade; similarly, we need to think in terms of the halberd as being used judiciously, not in wild, swinging strokes that could be easily avoided and which were risky to both blade and user. It is quite possible, however, on the evidence presented by some of the surviving blades that halberds did clash, as the nicks and notches suggest. Broader denting may well have resulted from a blow being parried by the wooden shaft of the opposing weapon (fig 9.24).
368 Contemporary Bronze Age depictions often show halberds with large bulbous ends to the shaft, or protruding spurs, and if these are in fact accurate depictions they hint at substantial use of the shaft to deal blows or perhaps trip or disarm the opponent. If a kill was required, it seems likely that the primary target would be the head of one’s opponent – aiming elsewhere Fig 9.24: Parrying a blow runs the risk of trapping the halberd without hope of recovery and without inflicting a fatal wound. In addition, as pointed out earlier, the fact that the Irish halberds are blunt- nosed rather than sharply pointed seems better designed to impact on bone rather than muscle. The practical trials described elsewhere in this chapter have shown that a blow to the head, correctly delivered, is virtually guaranteed to penetrate the skull deeply and kill. We need to remember, of course, that serious conflict may only have occurred at intervals of many years and that the evidence of wear that is seen on many Irish halberds may represent extensive use over a long period of time. Sue Bridgford has pointed out (pers.comm) in relation to the swords that burrs and notches would probably have required rehoning, since otherwise they could catch in the scabbard. That would not necessarily be the case for a halberd, however, and so the nicks and dents that they display could well have been accumulated from many sporadic fights, interspersed with periods of non-use. Again, the lesson for us is to avoid the extreme assumptions: too often we tend to think in terms of weapons as either functional or ceremonial when they can fulfill both roles Fig 9.25: Adapted from a staged photo, simultaneously. Bridgford touches on much this graphically illustrates the the same point when she says vulnerability of the human skull and the relative size of the halberd blade.
“A sword may simultaneously be, or have the potential to be, a beautiful object, an efficient killing tool, a symbol of power and wealth, an implied or actual threat, a sacrifice, a gift, a reward, a pledge of loyalty and/or an embodiment of the idea of conflict” (1997, p.95).
The same is true of the halberd and we have already pointed to Bruck’s arguments about the artificiality of the distinctions drawn by modern researchers between what is symbolic and what is practical (1999).
369
There are other matters to be considered in relation to the use of the halberd. It is certainly true that, however effective it may have been as a weapon, it enjoyed only a relatively brief floruit during the Bronze Age (see Chapter 10). Much the same seems to have been the case with its namesake in the medieval period. This seems to hint at an inability to adapt this weapon to changing circumstances or indeed improve the design which leaves it susceptible to replacement by a more advanced weapon in a way that the sword, for example, is not. Swords simply get better or change form; the halberd disappears or assumes a ceremonial role. We saw that in medieval Europe, the halberd – although hugely successful and popular for a time – was replaced, relatively quickly, by the pike and a similar process of replacement may have occurred in the Early Bronze Age.
The manner in which the Early Bronze Age halberd is likely to have been used meant that its success depended on certain norms of combat being respected. Unlike its medieval cousin, the Early Bronze Age halberd is really only suitable for single combat against a similarly or worse-armed opponent, and only in circumstances where defensive armour is not being used. A wood and leather helmet would have afforded considerable protection against a halberd-blow as would a simple shield of wood, leather or wicker. As the halberd was probably wielded two-handed (although Cambrensis’ remarks on the ability of the medieval Irish to wield their heavy battle axes one handed should not be forgotten), it is difficult to see how its user could also manage a shield. Armed with a shield, a warrior equipped even with just a dagger is likely to get the better of an opponent armed with a halberd. Unlike the spear, the halberd cannot be used as thrusting weapon to get past your opponent’s guard and it runs serious risk of damage on impact with a wooden, wicker or leather shield, particularly as its shape would render it almost impossible to withdraw without wrenching out the rivets. In the circumstances, it is unlikely to be pure coincidence that the halberd disappears around the same time as the spear comes in. The change in function of the dagger from a stabbing to a thrusting weapon may reflect a similar shift in combat technique. The surprisingly early dating of the Kilmahamogue shield also suggests that this form of defensive equipment may have started to make its presence felt around this time too. That being the case, the demise of the halberd in Ireland may be a direct function of its previous importance as a weapon rather than a symbol: once it ceased to be viable as a weapon, it could either become symbolic or disappear. In practice, it seems to have done both.
370 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The evidence presented in this chapter has shown the Irish Early Bronze Age halberd to be remarkably effective in practical trials and that the reservations expressed by previous writers are without much foundation. Ethnographic and historical parallels provide some clues as to just how it might have been used in practice and in particular have pointed to the use that could be made of the shaft. There is widespread agreement amongst archaeologists now that combat was a recurring feature of Early Bronze Age society, and probably assumed the character of sporadic raiding and feuding. Many Irish halberds show clear evidence of use but what we have learnt of the manner in which they must have been handled makes it unlikely that they would have been used in these types of sudden, sporadic raiding. However, the Irish halberd would seem eminently suitable for use in more formalised combat between champions. The skill required in its use, as well as the expense of its manufacture and the possibilities offered for display, suggest that it may have been the weapon of choice of a warrior elite during the Early Bronze Age, of the class imagined by Treherne (1995). Anthropological accounts suggest the form these more ritualised encounters may have taken, with small groups of combatants facing each other, initial flights of arrows, posturing, scuffles and then the possibility of single combat between champions. It is in this context that it appears we should imagine the halberd being brought into play, both for posturing and actual combat. The limitations of the weapon, however, were such that once more effective defensive equipment was developed, such as the shield, and more effective offensive weapons such as the thrusting spear, its days were numbered.
371 Chapter 10
Questions of Time and Space
‘Which came first, the chicken or the egg?’ Gosse’s answer: ‘Either, at God’s pleasure, with prochronic traces of the other’.
- Stephen Jay Gould, Adam’s Navel.
Aunt Ada Doom sat in her room upstairs.....alone. There was something almost symbolic in her solitude. She was the core, the matrix; the focusing point of the house.....and she was, like all cores, utterly alone. You never heard of two cores to a thing, did you? Well then.
- Stella Gibbons, Cold Comfort Farm.
Establishing the precise absolute and relative chronology of the Irish and European halberds is more than a little problematic. It is of interest to us not just from the perspective of pure chronology but also because if the chronology can be established with certitude, we may also be able to put an end finally to speculation as to “which came first?”, i.e. did the halberd originate here in Ireland, as Ó Ríordáin would have argued, or in Italy, Spain or Germany as Barfield, Clarke and Raftery respectively contended. As we saw in Chapter 1, much of the archaeological debate about halberds over the last century has focused on this very point, to the exclusion to an extent of questions of at least equal importance. The question of halberd origins has been fraught with problems and sensitivities and one might be tempted to adopt Henry Gosse’s imaginative solution to the theological problem of evolution (1857), in which he argued that the hard evidence of evolution proved nothing, since a perfect Creator would have needed to create life with traces of a previous existence to account for its current shape; for example, on the very first day of its creation the hippo would have appeared with “normal” sized teeth but these teeth on that very first day must have displayed traces of previous wear since that is how a hippo’s teeth assume their normal size. In other words, evidence of previous existence proves nothing, according to Gosse, and we should stop deluding ourselves. It would be nice to be able to adopt a similar line for the halberds and say that it really doesn’t matter, but that is hardly an option: as Stephen Jay Gould points out, we reject Gosse’s inventive cogitations not because they are wrong but because they are unsusceptible of scientific proof and therefore useless.
372 THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE IRISH HALBERDS
The Irish halberds pose a number of specific problems in terms of dating. In only two instances have they ever been found with the shaft or remains of same still attached and in neither case were reliable radiocarbon dates obtained. In the first case, the Carn Halberd, a date of c.1050bc was obtained from the shaft (Harbison, 1988, 119). This is an old date and simply too late to be accepted, even allowing for calibration. In the second case, Altnamacken, the shaft crumbled away shortly after discovery. In fact in only one instance has a reliable radiocarbon date for an Irish halberd been obtained: this was for the halberd from Moylough, Co. Sligo, which uniquely was found with a burial, a cremation, from which a date of 1700-1600 cal BC (3610+40BP) was obtained1. This date in all likelihood represents a terminus ante quem for the majority of Irish halberds, as the Moylough halberd is a type Breaghwy and an unusual example of the type at that. This, combined with its deposition as a grave-offering, makes it highly likely that the Moylough halberd is very late indeed in the series.
In addition, we know that since the earliest evidence for metallurgy in this country is around 2500BC, and since the Irish halberds are in fact made of Irish metal, we can take this date as an effective terminus post quem for the manufacture of halberds in this country.
What we can say with a high degree of certainty, therefore, is that the period of use of halberds in Ireland must fall between 2500-1700BC. In order to refine this, we have to rely on an elaborate combination of limited associations and deductions based on metal-type, typology and decoration. We touched on various aspects of chronology in the chapters dealing with these specific aspects of the halberds, particularly in Chapters 3, 6 and 8. It is proposed to bring these various strands together now and propose both an absolute and an internal chronology for the Irish halberds.
To begin, it is as well to remind ourselves of the parameters for the Early Bronze Age in Ireland. It will be recalled from Chapter 8 that a number of different models have been proposed at various stages, notably by Harbison (1973), Burgess (1979), Needham (1996), Waddell (1998) and Northover, O’Brien and Stos (2001). These were summarised into a single table in Chapter 8, based on one devised by Waddell (1998). This is reproduced here again for ease of reference:
1 This date was communicated by Anna Brindley to the Bronze Age Forum Conference in Edinburgh, 13-15 October, 2000. I have not found it published elsewhere.
373 Table 10.1
Waddell Harbison Burgess Needham (for Northover et Approximate Britain) al dates (Waddell 1998) Castletownroche Stage 1 Knocknagur Metalwork Lough Ravel Assemblage I Stage 2 2400-2200BC Knocknagur and II Frankford Stage 3
Frankford- Killaha Metalwork Stage 4 Killaha Killaha- Assemblage 2200-2000BC Ballyvalley III
Ballyvalley Metalwork Ballyvalley Assemblage IV 2000-1600BC
Scrabo Hill Metalwork Assemblage V
Derryniggin Derryniggin Derryniggin Metalwork 1600-1500BC Assemblage VI
The various models suggested for the metal working phases of the Early Bronze Age (adapted from Waddell, 1998, table 3)
On the basis of the hoard associations (Chapter 6) the period in which halberds appear to be used in this country is principally Waddell’s Knocknagur phase, or Northover’s Stages 1-3. This is because in a few cases halberds have been found in hoards with axes, and when they are the axes are always of the simple flat copper variety, ie Lough Ravel/Ballybeg types, or in one case bronze Killaha types, with which a type Breaghwy halberd is associated (the hoard from Killaha East, Co. Kerry – see also below). The fact that they are never found with the later flanged varieties, like Derryniggin and Ballyvalley axes, suggests that halberds may have fallen out of use by the time these axes began to appear. It has been pointed out previously (Chapter 6) and elsewhere (O’Flaherty, 1995) that insofar as the axes are concerned, the Early Bronze Age hoards seem to reflect a genuine chronological development of such artefacts in that in no instance is an axe ever found in association with another which is more than one “step” more evolved. In other words, Lough Ravel and Ballybeg axes may be found together or with Type Killahas, but never with Ballyvalleys or Derryniggins. The fact that halberds are never found in association with these later axe types either, strongly suggests that they
374 had disappeared by the time the Ballyvalley and Derryniggin types had become popular. In addition, in the only instance where an example of what is probably the latest halberd type, Breaghwy, was found in a hoard, it was in turn accompanied by the latest of the “simple” flat axes, a type Killaha. Both of course are of bronze, rather than copper, establishing a further connection. All in all, such limited associations as do exist point to the main period of use for Irish halberds as broadly contemporary with the production of flat copper axes. In the form of Type Breaghwy halberds at least, it extends partially into the period of use of Killaha axes as well, but no further.
This argument, adduced on the basis of hoard associations is supported in other ways. It has already been pointed out (Chapter 3) that the Irish halberds are almost never decorated in the conventional sense and this is a feature they share with the flat copper axes and the vast majority (95%) of Killaha axes. Conventional decoration is only a feature of the Ballyvalley and Derryniggin axes, and these do not appear until later in the Early Bronze Age.
Furthermore, in Chapter 8, it was pointed out that metallographic analysis shows that the halberds and the copper axes are all made from a common metal type (Northover’s ‘A’ metal), stressing once more the connection between the two artifact types. This connection is further strengthened by the fact that this metal type falls out of use later in the Early Bronze Age when the more developed flat axes start to appear, which as we have seen have no associations with halberds. Once more, the conclusion is that the halberds too have gone by this stage.
Finally, the fact that so many halberds conform so tightly to a basic design, and appear to respect basic and common “rules of thumb”, strongly suggests that as an artefact-type it was relatively shortlived. The preciseness of the design in so many cases – and this was noted in particular when we looked at the dimensional information – is not consistent with an artefact that has had time to evolve and adapt itself to particular needs or changing circumstances.
For all these reasons, it seems that we should place the period of production and use of Irish halberds in Waddell’s Knocknagur phase, or more precisely in Northover et al’s Stages 2 and 3, which mark the appearance of Lough Ravel and Ballybeg axes respectively. The period of use must also extend into Stage 4 when Killaha axes appear but this may only affect Type Breaghwy halberds. Indeed, Needham (1996) comments that halberds of Type Breaghwy were made using bronze “as soon as the alloy became available to judge from the Killaha East association” (p.130). It is unlikely in the circumstances that largescale production of copper halberds continued alongside this shift to bronze. Again we recall the late date for the type Breaghwy halberd from Moylough.
375 Northover et al (2001) have already placed their four-stage “Copper age” in the period 2400-2000 BC, with the transition to bronze happening rapidly around 2100 BC. A variety of radiocarbon and dendrochronological dates support these conclusions. The earliest activity at Ross Island has been dated to this period (O’Brien, 1995); metal axes – probably of copper - were being used to shape the timbers at Corlea around 2259BC (Raftery, 1996); a bronze axe of Type Killaha was found at Newgrange in associations dated to c.2200BC or earlier (O’Kelly and Shell, 1979). In Britain, the core of a bead from the Migdale Hoard was dated to 2290-1870BC (3655+75 BP: OxA-4659) (Needham et al, 1997) which corresponds well with that for the start of the contemporary Killaha phase here. In addition, a tanged copper dagger from southern Britain similar to those found in the Knocknagur, Frankford and Whitespots hoards, has been dated to c. 2200-2000BC (Northover, 1995). The dating suggested by Northover et al for their “Copper Age” is also consistent with the dating of Needham’s Material Assemblages I, II and III.
All in all, the dating proposed for this Copper Age seems quite secure. This being the case, we can now view the Irish halberds as dating principally from this period, probably peaking between 2400- 2200BC, which is indeed a very restricted period of use, as we had already hypothesised on the basis of the typologies.
With such a restricted period of use, it hardly seems worthwhile attempting to establish an internal chronology, but as we have seen already there are some grounds for drawing a small number of conclusions in this regard. Types Carn and Cotton were clearly contemporary for some time at least, as examples of both types appear in the same hoard from Hillswood, Co. Galway. However, type Carn seems to be the earlier type, being shorter and confined to a more restricted range of lengths. Its straight midrib has continental equivalents which are lacking for Cotton and which may be important, as Harbison (1969a) has pointed out, in terms of locating an ultimate origin for the Irish halberds. If the ultimate origin for the Irish halberd is to be found outside Ireland then it is reasonable to assume that its first form here would mimic these other halberds and there are no real parallels abroad for the curved Cotton midrib. Furthermore, since it seems that the progression of development in Ireland was from a more functional to a less functional object, the fact that type Carn halberds are stouter and have more evidence overall for wear than type Cotton (although not in terms of impact damage) also supports the hypothesis that Carn begins earlier. Finally, the view expressed in Chapter 3 that type Cotton is in many ways an elongated type Carn, notwithstanding the curve of the midrib, again suggests that Carn was there first. The longest Cottons are certainly not early since they represent products of smiths operating at the height of their craft. All in all, it would seem that we should regard type Carn as beginning earlier than type Cotton. However, the superb quality of the casting of both the Carn and Cotton halberds from Hillswood also suggests that, although beginning
376 earlier, the type may have continued in use alongside type Cotton for the remaining period, albeit in declining popularity.
This accounts for about 80% of the Irish halberds, leaving us just types Breaghwy and Clonard to fit into place. It has been argued again and again in this work that type Breaghwy is “different”. This halberd type seems to have been created exclusively for display. This is attested by the insecurity of its hafting, the (probable) use of highly decorative but functionless rivets, the use of bronze, the thinness of the metal and its greater width, which seems intended to display this metal to best advantage. These halberds also show virtually no evidence for wear or impact damage and if not deliberately broken, often survive in pristine condition. There are a number of reasons for seeing these halberds as relatively late in the series:
(a) they are made of bronze and not copper (b) in the one hoard association that exists, they are found with Type Killaha axes, and not with flat copper axes like the other halberds (c) they are the only halberd ever to be found in a grave, marking a complete departure with mainstream halberd traditions (d) in the instance where such a halberd was found in a grave, radiocarbon dating places the find c.1700-1600BC, which is very late indeed. (e) The emphasis which this halberd places on display, the absence of evidence for use-wear and its distribution pattern along the fringes of the halberd heartland similarly suggest a later date.
In the circumstances, it seems reasonable to place the Breaghwy halberds at the end of the series.
Type Clonard poses a number of problems in terms of its relative dating, in that the type encompasses some of the most primitive and sophisticated halberds. Its distributional pattern suggests that we should regard it as something of a local experiment in the eastern province which never really caught on elsewhere (Chapter 6). However, along with Carn, this is the stoutest of the Irish blades, with the biggest hafting plates and with its considerable weight of metal directed more towards strength and thickness than to length, like Cotton. It also displays high levels of impact damage. It would appear, therefore, to belong to the period when Irish halberds were conceived and probably used as actual weapons, and before ideas of display had assumed priority. Again however, the superb casting of some examples of the type – such as the eponymous halberd from Clonard itself [Ref: (NMI) 1932:7019] – suggests that the type continued in use for some time, quite possibly as long as any Cotton halberd.
377
On the basis of the foregoing, we might suggest the following model for the absolute and relative chronologies of Irish halberds (heavier shading indicates peak periods):
Table 10. 2 2500BC 2400BC 2300BC 2200BC 2100BC 2000BC 1900BC Carn Cotton Clonard Breaghwy
Suggested absolute and relative chronology for Irish halberds
THE ORIGIN OF THE HALBERD
The debate about the origins of the halberd in Europe has been going on now for at least 100 years (Chapter 1). The principal candidates for the honour of being the home-land of halberds have been Ireland, Germany, and Iberia and, to a lesser extent, Italy.
More halberds have come from Ireland than from any other part of Europe and this, supported now by the very early dates for the production of halberds here, argues strongly in favour of an origin here for the type. However, there is a fundamental problem with this argument and reference has already been made to this in the previous chapter. The problem is that these Irish halberds are products of a much more sophisticated casting technique than used for any other contemporary native metalwork. They are clearly produced in bivalve moulds at a time when all other artefacts are being produced in open moulds. Since the bivalve casting technique does not at this time seem to exist independently of the halberd, there are sound grounds for seeing the halberd as the vehicle by which this casting technique was introduced to Ireland. This must be a strong indication that the artefact itself is not of native invention, for if the technology by which it was to be produced was not already in Ireland, how could the artefact have been first produced here? It would seem too much to suggest independent, simultaneous inspiration for both a new artefact and a new casting technique.
It would appear, therefore, that we cannot regard the idea of the halberd as native. It seems more likely that the idea of both artefact and casting technique were introduced at the same time and that the halberd was in fact the first metal object to be cast in bivalve moulds in this country.
378
This being the case, we are left with a problem: where else in Europe are there halberds which predate those in Ireland? The answer is: at present, nowhere. I have not been able to find one radiocarbon date that is earlier than those we have adduced here as applicable to halberds. In the radiocarbon chronologies quoted by Harding (2000) which in turn draw principally upon Randsborg (1996), the period Br A1 to which we would date the earliest halberds in Central Europe begins around 2200 BC. Broadly speaking, the Aunjetitz culture with which these halberds are so closely connected, would be seen as dating to the period 2300-1800BC (Sherratt, 1998b). None of these dates are any earlier than those we have for halberds in Ireland. In fact, the earliest specific date that I am aware of for a halberd is for the example from Leubingen, which is dated dendrochronologically to 1942+ 10BC (Becker, Jäger et al, 1989). This is a wooden shafted halberd and therefore probably relatively early in the Central European sequence which is dominated later by metal-shafted types. A similar mound at Łęki Małe, Poland which also produced a halberd is dated to around 2000BC on the basis of the grave finds, as are the great halberd hoards of the period (Sherratt, 1998b, p.260). Further to the north, the Danish halberds are dated to the Late Neolithic (II), a relatively short period running from c.1950-1700BC (Vandkilde, 1996).
For Iberia, Harding (2000) again drawing principally on Randsborg (1996) quotes a start date of 2300-2250BC for the Argaric Bronze Age, which is the earliest we might consider the halberd as appearing there (pace Savory,1968). Castro et al (1993-94:p91) would actually date the appearance of Argaric halberds somewhat later, with a period of use from c.2000-1800 BC, which would now be more generally accepted by Spanish archaeologists (Montero, 1999).
The difficulties in establishing a coherent chronology for the Early Bronze Age in Italy have already been identified by Peroni (1994). Some of the halberds clearly date to before 2000BC - the probable grave find from Roggiano Gravina, a Gambara type halberd, was associated with a dagger of the vaso campaniforme period which begins about 2500BC but continues for another 800 years. Whatever about the precise dating, it is most unlikely that Italy can produce halberds of substantially earlier date than Ireland.
Harbison (1969a, p.55) had speculated on an origin for the halberd in the eastern Mediterranean without actually having any examples to which he was happy to refer. The Aegean halberds subsequently identified by Branigan (1974), of which I have already expressed some doubts (Chapter 2), are quite unlike any of the European types and although dated to roughly the same period by
379 Branigan, ie between 2500-2000BC or later, certainly do not date any earlier. This, and their dissimilarity to any of the European halberds, effectively rules them out as possible prototypes.
At this point, we find ourselves in an unusual position: it has often been said that if only we had the dates, we could put an end to the speculation about “which came first”, the Irish, German or Iberian halberds. Now that we have the dates, they don’t seem to anything at all! In fact, it is fairly clear that obtaining further dates is not really going to solve anything, given the limited room that exists for manouevre with the current dates. And indeed to pursue the chimera of further dates is to deny the huge import of what is being revealed to us, which is that the halberd as an idea appears to have spread so rapidly throughout Europe that it seems to burst forth simultaneously in several areas at once. The challenge is to interpret this.
In order to do this, it is probably worth looking at the three key areas, Ireland, Iberia and Germany in a little more detail, specifically in terms of the social background.
THE SOCIAL BACKGROUND: IRELAND, IBERIA AND GERMANY
Ireland
As we saw in Chapter 8, recent discoveries at Ross Island, Co. Kerry have revealed that the earliest evidence for copper mining in Ireland dates to approximately 2400BC, and it is highly significant that it appears to have been controlled by Beaker-using peoples. We saw also that metallographic analyses carried out by Peter Northover suggested strongly that this mine supplied the metal from which many Irish Early Bronze Age objects were made, including halberds. This ‘A’ metal, as it is termed, continued to be used up to and including the period in which the first bronze axes, Type Killaha, were produced but after this time the metal type changes and halberds disappear as well (see Chapter 8). We have shown already that the Irish halberds seem to be the product of the very first centuries of metalworking in this country, with a main period of use between around 2400BC and 2000BC. Some 186 halberds are known from Ireland making this country the single most important area for the production and use of this artefact anywhere in Europe. It is against the social context of that earliest metal-using period that the production of these halberds must be considered.
Mention has already been made of the presence of Beakers at Ross Island and there seems little enough doubt now that the earliest metallurgy in this country must be considered as emerging out of the waves of new influences rippling across western Europe at this time, of which the so-called
380 Beaker Package is emblematic. However, as is well enough known the classic Beaker burial is rarely found in Ireland and even less than elsewhere in Europe is there evidence here for the presence of large numbers of newcomers at this time. The new pottery was quickly adapted to an insular form of “foodvessel” of bowl and vase traditions and radiocarbon dates now place the use of these vessels to around 2300-1900BC 2 . The vase tradition probably continued for some centuries more, perhaps even as late as 1400BC (Williams, 1985; Ó Ríordáin and Waddell, 1993; Brindley and Lanting, 1993) and both overlap with the period of cinerary urn deposition as well. However, regardless of when these pottery types fell out of use, it appears that both types of foodvessel, and urns (of the vase tradition at least) represent the ceramic industry prevalent in Ireland at the time in which halberds were in use. These pots are known in the main from deposition in graves of the period, which in line with what is happening elsewhere in Europe, are now dominated by individual burial rites, rather than the more communal traditions of the preceding Neolithic. It must be recognised, however, that even in the later Neolithic an increasing emphasis on the individual was already perceptible (Cooney and Grogan, 1994, 73) and so the more radical shift seen in the Early Bronze Age may well find its roots in existing traditions rather than imported practice. There is more obvious continuity in the form of the wedge tombs common in the western half of the country and the complementary nature of the distributions of both forms of burial has been commented on many times before (eg Harbison, 1988, 107). Arguably, one can see two “world views” as present in Ireland at this time, as represented by the two burial rites, but we should be careful not to over-emphasise the differences since a common material culture appears to have been shared by both communities. Halberds, however, are concentrated in those areas dominated by the individual burial rite, perhaps reflecting the stronger continental links of this community or perhaps reflecting a society which sought to assert the role of the individual to a greater extent, through possession of key prestige weaponry.
The burial evidence for the period is complex and Cooney and Grogan (1994) have warned about the dangers of interpreting this complexity strictly in terms of chronological change. Instead, they seek to emphasise the role of deliberate choice in deciding how the remains of the dead were to be treated from the range of variable options available, many of which were contemporaneous for at least part of the time (ibid, 113). Within the period of the Early Bronze Age there is evidence for both inhumation and cremation, single interment or multiple burial, use of both cists and pits, provision or not of grave-goods. There is some evidence from southern Leinster (Mount 1991) that adult males are over- represented in the burial record, suggesting a male-dominated society, while children are under- represented. The under-representation of children has also been recognized in North Munster (Grogan, 1989). With a few notable exceptions, the graves of this period tend to be sparsely
2 The available RC dates for the Bowl tradition are usefully summarised by Waddell, 1998, p. 164 note 59).
381 furnished. In terms of metal goods, the most that might accompany the deceased into the grave is a dagger or later a razor. On the other hand, ritual deposition of metalwork outside the burial context appears to have played a very important part of the social life of the Early Bronze Age communities. Many of the metal artifacts in museum collections today, including the halberds, must have entered the archaeological record by this route.
The settlement evidence for this period, as for much of the Early Bronze Age in Ireland, is limited. When this is contrasted with the solid evidence for well-built rectangular houses in the preceding Neolithic, it seems likely that here in Ireland - as happened in those areas of Europe where the Corded Ware cultures had spread – there was a move to less substantial forms of settlement (Sherratt, 1998a, 192). However, a number of sites appear to date from this period:
Beaker pottery has been recovered in settlement contexts at Dalkey Fig 10.1: Food vessel burial Island where the scattered sherds suggest temporary occupation only of the halberd using period (Keenogue, Co. Meath: with no structures apparent (Liversage, 1968). At Knowth, there Waddell, 1998, fig 56.1). were 5 separate concentrations of pottery, some associated with hearths or pits but again no structures could be determined (Eogan and Roche, 1997). At Monknewtown, the excavator suggested that the evidence for habitation represented a conical house of oval plan (Sweetman, 1976). At Newgrange, a confusing series of pits, postholes and foundation trenches was interpreted as representing a series of circular houses with central hearths (Cooney and Grogan, 1994). Charred cereal remains from this site yielded calibrated radiocarbon dates of c.2488- 2284BC (3885+35 BP: GrN-6342) (O’Kelly et al, 1983). There was evidence of metalworking on site here in the form of stone rubbers, hammers, an “anvil” and a type Killaha axe (O’Kelly and Shell, 1979) but it is by no means certain that this is directly associated with the occupation evidence and the typology of the axe would suggest a date some centuries later. At Lough Gur (Simpson, 1971), Beaker pottery turned up in some quantity at Site D, associated with one roughly oval house and one D-shaped house, and a halberd was recovered from the lake itself. A stockaded enclosure at Donegore, Co. Antrim has been dated to 2000 BC (Mallory and MacNeill, 1991, p.95) and similar enclosed sites are known from a few centuries later, for example at Cullyhanna Lough (Hodges, 1958). Wetland sites were probably in use at this time, even though firm evidence for such Bronze Age occupation is for later in the period (O’Sullivan, 1998). At least one halberd find is recorded from a crannóg (Drummond Otra, Co. Monaghan) and the circumstances of discovery of others (eg Carn) could be interpreted as representing wetland occupation of some sort also. Additionally, we could probably expect that the rich estuarine and coastland resources would have been exploited at this time also, as was certainly the case a little later at Carrigdirty Rock in the Shannon Estuary,
382 where a circular post-built house has been dated to 1681-1529 BC (3330 + 25: GrN-20976. O’Sullivan, 2001). In fact, circular and oval houses of similar construction have turned up at several sites with Middle Bronze Age dates, such as at Curraghatoor and Chancellorsland, Co. Tipperary (Doody, 1997) and Moynagh Lough, Co. Meath (Bradley, 1997, 1999). It is quite possible therefore that a similar but perhaps less substantial form of settlement was the norm in the Early Bronze Age as well. As well as the more usual evidence for settlement, one new “surrogate” indicator appears around this time also: this is the well-known fulacht fiadh upon which opinion continues to be divided (Buckley, 1990) and which may have the served the purpose of either a cooking site or a washing/sauna site, or perhaps even both as at least one early text would have it (Ó Drisceoil, 1990). Typically dating to c.1600BC-900BC, these sites may have earlier ancestry and were to become increasingly common over the course of the Bronze Age.
In general, Cooney and Grogan (1994) have seen the settlement evidence of the Early Bronze Age as representing a “widespread break with the pattern established in the Final Neolithic” (p.105), with increased use of lower-lying ground along river-valleys and uplands in some areas. To some extent, settlement may have been reacting to deteriorating farming conditions: blanket-bog growth was certainly accentuated after 2500BC and soil deterioration was common (Cooney and Grogan, 1994). Edwards (1985, p.207) has opined that by the early 2nd millennium most of the forest cover had in fact gone. Later Early and Middle Bronze Age sites such as Belderrig (Caulfield, 1988) and Carrownaglogh (Herity, 1981) were engulfed by blanket bog and even at the time of occupation may have represented marginal settlement, resulting from increased pressure on land resources. Certainly, the artefactual evidence, combined with the burial record, suggests that most of the country was occupied by this stage, including areas which do not appear to have been as important during the Neolithic.
The economy of the period, not surprisingly, was based on agriculture although there may have been an increased emphasis on livestock rather than arable crops. Again, this reflects a broader pattern across temperate Europe at this time, where Harding (2000) has described Bronze Age economies as “truly cattle dependent” (p.142). At Newgrange, the animal remains suggested a heavy dependence on beef and pork, although other domesticated and wild species were also present, including horse (Van Wijngaarden-Bakker, 1974, 1986). The extent to which cereal production in this area had suffered due to the stripping of turf for passage-tomb construction has been the subject of some speculation for a number of years now (cf O’Kelly, 1989) but even in the previous period, cattle- rearing was of enormous importance, if the scale and presumed function of the Céide Fields is anything to go by. In addition, Ireland has always been good cattle country and with the demise of the unusually favourable conditions during the Neolithic, it is not to be wondered that stock-rearing
383 would assume greater importance. The opening of large areas of the countryside, as noted by Edwards (1985), would also have encouraged pastoralism. The extensive settlement of the countryside, as well as the common ceramic and metallurgical traditions all imply the existence of good trade and communications systems. The new metal artifacts achieved a wide distribution across the country as a whole in a relatively short time, indicative of both the demand for these artifacts and the means for acquisition. Rivers undoubtedly played an important role in facilitating trade, but the arrival of the horse – probably as a traction animal, since at this early stage in the animal’s breeding it would have been illsuited to riding – would have greatly facilitated movement by land as well. The importance of such communications is given tangible substance by the construction of toghers across bogland in order to allow pedestrian (and perhaps vehicular) passage – Corlea 6 not only dates from the period of halberd use, dated dendrochronologically to 2259+9BC (Raftery,1996), but its location in the north midlands places it in the heartland of the halberd-using communities.
To sum up, then we appear to be looking at a society which has broken to a large extent with earlier Neolithic traditions but which is unlikely to represent the presence of new intruders to any great extent. In the contemporary wedge-tomb and “single” burial traditions, we may be looking at two broadly distinct communities, but ones which nonetheless are closely related in terms of material culture. Society is probably male dominated and seems to stress the importance of the individual to a greater extent than before, particularly in the parts of the country adhering to the new single burial traditions, which are also the areas where halberds predominate. The landscape is largely cleared of its tree cover in many areas and pastoralism seems of particular importance. In the scrubland and remaining forest areas, pigs were probably herded. The settlement evidence is slighter than in the preceding Neolithic but the landscape appears settled and well populated, with round houses and possibly some enclosed settlements. There is good evidence for trade and communications and communities across the island have access to the new metal tools and weapons. Deliberate deposition of these new metal goods, in both wet and dry locations, is a feature of society at the time and the comparative richness of some of these deposits contrasts with the general austerity of the burial traditions where few metal goods were committed to the earth with the deceased.
Iberia
The beginnings of metallurgy in Iberia are to be found in the Millaran culture of southeastern Spain, around the middle of the third millennium BC. Although actual finds of metal artifacts are relatively few (mostly flat-axes, punches and daggers), there is plenty of evidence for smelting and casting (Cacho Quesada, 1991, 37). This earliest metal-using period was based on rich local ores and was accompanied by what Sherratt (1998) has described as a “remarkable florescence of tomb-building
384 and ritual activity” (p.196). These tombs were collective, however, and although rich grave-goods were deposited, no attempt appears to have been made to distinguish the graves of individuals. The megalithic tradition appears to have begun in the west, spreading to the centre and the south but reached its apogée in the middle of the third millennium, coinciding with the beginning of metallurgy (Cacho Quesada, 1991). Not all burials, however, were either collective or deposited in specifically constructed tombs: an examination of the context of human remains recovered at Valencina de la Concepción, Sevilla (Godoy, Espinosa and Moreno, 1992) along with a re-evaluation of a number of other burials, has shown that burial in the habitation zone (loosely defined to include possible hutsites, living-spaces, ditches and silos) also occurred during this period. This is quite important in terms of understanding the shift to this type of burial by later Argaric communities.
Settlement in this earliest metal using period is characterised by the construction of elaborate settlements or regional centres, defended by impressive walls with complex entrances and bastions, the latter suggesting links with Sardinia, Sicily and the Aegean (Sherratt, 1998a). Such sites occur both in Atlantic and Mediterranean Iberia, including sites such as Zambujal and Vila Nova de São Pedro in Portugal and the famous Millaran communities in Almería in southern Spain. At Los Millares itself, the fortified citadel was supplied with water by a canal while outside the walls a necropolis of some 100 tombs extended across the flanks of the promontory. At the entrance to some of these tombs were found the so-called “idols”, carved stone anthropomorphic images, some of which have been compared to examples of Irish megalithic art, particularly at Fourknocks, Co. Meath.
While the early periods of these cultures remain obscure, by the middle of the third millennium a flourishing arsenical copper industry had developed, making axes, chisels, knives and awls in quantity (Harrison, 1980). Evidence for metalworking on many settlement sites is common (Cacho Quesado, 1991). Lithic industries were also prolific. Pottery was usually fairly plain, but occasionally could be decorated or even painted, like the example from Tarajal, currently in the National Museum in Madrid. Many luxury goods were also produced, including alabaster bowls, and when Beakers first appear in the peninsula at this time, they seem to have found a ready and appreciative customer base. Some of the sites are massively fortified by any standards – one thinks immediately of Zambujal with its enormous bastioned citadel, whose walls were widened by successive generations through the simple expedient of adding on a new layer of masonry over the existing one.
385
Fig 10.2: Plans of the heavily fortified sites of Vila Nova de São Pedro and Zambujal (Harrison, 1980, fig 85)
The economic basis of these communities was mixed farming, with all the major cereal crops and legumes produced and livestock reared. On the coastal sites, shellfish were gathered and eaten. In Almería, where water was in short supply, the sites exploited intensive floodwater agriculture and used simple irrigation methods to support vigorous nucleated communities. Flax was cultivated and textiles of linen and wool appear to have been common (Harrison, 1980).
As the Beaker influence became more pronounced, undecorated vessels began to appear in single graves in cists under barrows, such as at San Pedro de Bruriz, Lugo, at Los Pasos, Zamora, and at Villalmanzo, Burgos. Within the peninsula, a number of different Beaker groups have been distinguished. Two main varieties are now recognised, ie a “Maritime” Beaker, distributed along the coastlands and a “Continental” type, slightly later, and itself subdivided into several regional subgroups (Cacho Quesado, 1991). Along with this new pottery and new funerary rites, the Beaker period in Iberia saw the use of metal become general and the types of artefact being produced become more varied. These now included axes, daggers, halberds, punches, Palmela points as well as the first goldwork. Arsenical copper remained the material of choice, although some tin bronzes also date to this period. It is at this point in time, according to Senna (1994), that we can think in terms of the Carrapatas halberds appearing and there is the possibility that these may in fact be the first Iberian halberds.
386 Despite the spread of Beaker ceramics across the peninsula, there is no real evidence for any largescale folk-movement and the Early Bronze Age period “proper” displays a basic continuity with the preceding Eneolithic (Coles and Harding, 1979). However, as the new technology bedded down, the cultural uniformity which characterised the earlier Chalcolithic began to break up and regional groups re-emerged or were redefined. Groups on the Meseta continued earlier Beaker traditions, but coastal groupings in particular redefined themselves in this period, the latter half of the third millennium. Many of these Early Bronze Age communities were semi-urban, using little stone and much metal, and burying their dead now in single graves in a tradition which stands in stark contrast to the collective burial which was still being practiced in the Millaran period. Once more, this reflects a broader European shift away from the community towards emphasis on the individual.
In the Southeast, the El Argar culture emerged in a series of new centres of population, of which El Argar and El Oficio are amongst the best known. The settlements are concentrated in eastern Andalucia and Murcia in an area c.300km wide by up to 200km inland, and seem to appear around 2200 BC (Sherratt, 1998b). These consist for the most part of hilltop settlements, near to sources of water, defended by thick stone walls enclosing rectangular houses laid out in streets. At some sites, there is clear evidence that water was being channelled through the town for the use of the inhabitants. In their choice of location, defences and use of irrigation, these Argaric sites display considerable similarities with the earlier Millaran communities. However, they differ in two important respects: their houses were rectangular, not circular and their dead were not laid to rest in a necropolis outside the town but in cists underneath the floors of the houses themselves. It will be recalled that recent research shows that burial within the habitation zone was also practised in the Chalcolithic but to nothing like the same extent. The Argaric burials appear to be secondary, having been transferred to the houses once the flesh had decayed. They are generally individual interments, or of two people, in which case they tend to be of a man and woman, or an adult and child. Cacho Quesado (1991) sees this as evidence of a social structure built upon the family. At El Argar itself, large numbers of burials were recovered, both in cists and pithoi. The burials were accompanied by plentiful grave goods, clearly distinguishable by sex: men received copper or bronze axes, daggers or halberds while the women had awls and knives. Silver ornaments were also deposited including rings and diadems. Later on, swords would be similarly deposited. The pottery is especially fine, including elegant chalices, many with a burnished metallic finish which recalls the metal drinking vessels used elsewhere in the Mediterranean.
387 Blance (1964) divided the Argaric grave groups into two horizons: Argar A was characterised by cist graves, with inhumations accompanied by “classic” Argaric halberds, triangular daggers, stone-bracers, V-perforated buttons and tall bowls with low carination; Argar B had burial in pottery jars (pithoi), accompanied by axes, 4-rivetted daggers, silver diadems and pottery chalices. Blance regarded Argar A as earlier, on the basis of metal artefact typologies but the stratigraphic
Fig 10.3: Argaric burial (Cacho Quesada, 1991, separation is non-existent. To Phase B, it fig 23) seems, we should date the Montejícar type halberds, with their distinctive protruding tail (Schubart, 1973) and so we can view the entire Argaric period as relevant to the use of halberds. However, since there are so few Montejícar halberds (c.6) in comparison with the classic, earlier Argaric type (c.40) the earlier period is clearly the most important. Castro et al (1993-94, p91) would date the classic Argaric halberds to the period c.2000- 1800 BC, and this date would now be quite generally accepted (Montero, 1999). Analysis of the grave goods accompanying Argaric interments by Lull and Estévez (1986) led them to suggest that 5 different “ranks” could be discerned, with the top two representative of the dominant class. Interestingly, these dominant ranks included children’s burials, suggesting that wealth and status could be hereditary or ascribed.
The economy of these fortified settlements appears to have been based on carefully controlled agriculture, using cisterns to collect water and irrigation systems to transport it. Wheat and barley was grown and saddle querns testify to the grinding of grain (Coles and Harding, 1979). Loom weights show that earlier traditions of textile weaving continued.
In Valencia, the settlement pattern is similar to the Argaric southeast, although burials within houses are rare. Fortified hilltop settlements occur here also, and the metalwork is also comparable but not as plentiful. Coles and Harding (1979) have suggested that the communities here may represent an intrusive element since no Eneolithic predecessors are immediately obvious. Our knowledge of the Early Bronze Age societies elsewhere is more restricted. In the Meseta Sur, and more specifically in the provinces of Albecete and Ciudad Real, a Cultura de las Motillas has been identified, characterised again by the construction of fortified settlements, this time on artificial mounds (Cacho Quesada, 1991). The fortifications take the form of a central tower surrounded by one or two
388 concentric walls, against which the dwelling-houses are scattered. The best known sites include Los Romeros, Azuer and Palacios and the material culture recovered so far appears related to the Argaric (Cacho Quesada, 1991). Elsewhere in the Meseta, Beaker traditions survived and again the various communities seem to have chosen sites which would be easy to defend, although some open settlements are also known, many in the area around Madrid. Metalworking is poorly represented but the grave-goods deposited with the cist-inhumations of these groups suggest links to the Argaric southeast also.
The discussion here on Iberia has concentrated heavily on the southern part of the peninsula, which, as well as producing the most halberds, is also the best documented. About 76 halberds are known in total from Iberia (Chapter 2), most concentrated in the southeast in the areas controlled by the El Argar Culture, others (and of a different type) tending to be spread through North Portugal and adjacent parts of Spain. These halberds, of Carrapatas type, are more recognisably “international” in form and indeed have sometimes been seen as indicative of the type of close Atlantic relations which are postulated around this time (Almagro Gorbea, 1995). While finds of such halberds have generally been regarded as sparse (most writers mentioning only around 8 in all) and tightly concentrated in North Portugal (Schubart, 1973) extensive reading of the Spanish literature carried out in connection with this present work reveals at least 20 known finds of halberds of this type, spread over a much wider area. However, because halberds of this type are not generally found in either burial or settlement contexts but rather as stray finds (see Chapter 2) we have little direct evidence of the communities which must have used them. From the associated finds with flat axes and daggers, such as at Leiro (Harrison, 1974a) and Partida de las Naves, however, they certainly belong to an Early Bronze Age milieu, not dissimilar in Almagro Gorbea’s opinion to Food Vessel communities in Ireland (1995). We have mentioned already that the Carrapatas halberds are considered by some Spanish archaeologists (Almagro Gorbea, 1995; Senna, 1994) to have emerged at quite an early stage and there is therefore the possibility that they actually predate the Argaric types.
In summary then, the social context in which halberds emerge and are used in Iberia is quite complex and it is perhaps foolhardy to attempt to consider this as a single region. There are three distinct types of halberd in use and they each have equally distinct chronological and geographical zones. The Carrapatas type – possibly the earliest and certainly the most “international” type – seems to have emerged at a time when Beaker influences were strong. These halberds occur principally in the west and little is still known about the nature of the societies operating in that part of Iberia at that time. Equally the manner of their deposition, as hoards or single finds, makes it difficult to connect these halberds with confidence to any particular settlement sites. However, it also ties these communities into a broader “Atlantic” tradition of votive deposition and the type of metalwork with
389 which the Carrapatas halberds are associated (flat axes and daggers) would be quite at home in other Beaker-inspired cultures as far afield as Britain and Ireland. The other two halberd types, ie the Argaric and the Montejícar, belong to an entirely different type of society and fortunately one about which we know a great deal. These societies are highly sophisticated, proto-urban communities living in heavily fortified sites whose very location often reveals these communities over-riding concern with defence. The halberds are associated particularly with the Argaric communities of the southeast, whose wealth seems to have derived at least as much from intensive irrigation cultivation as from control of mineral resources. These communities were wealthy, with artefacts of copper, silver and gold and show some evidence of links with eastern Mediterranean groups. In contrast to both the emphasis on the individual which had emerged elsewhere in western Europe and the earlier megalithic communal traditions, the burial evidence for the Argaric groups suggests that it is the family above all upon which society is structured.
Germany
The social background to the use of halberds in Germany must be considered in the context of the broader Aunjetitz culture. The foundation for the rise of the Aunjetitz culture appears to lie in its location in central Europe, at a cross roads for ideas and commodities flowing across Europe and with direct access to substantial local supplies of copper. Knowledge of metalworking and casting techniques were transmitted from the southeast and the east, while Corded Ware and Beaker influences brought with them ideas of individual status, elitism and martial endeavour. Contact with Aegean stimulated a taste for prestige goods and the emphasis was now on individual prestige through the possession of material goods
Radiocarbon dates for the culture peak between 2200-1900BC (Stadler, 1995) and during this time central Europe quickly became a powerhouse of innovation and metallurgy. About 130 halberds are known from this area, encompassing Central Germany, Austria, former Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Poland, with the vast majority of these (100+) coming from Germany where their production is a feature of the so-called Aunjetitz or Únětice Culture.
The culture itself takes its name from a cemetery of the period near Prague. Some 60 graves were discovered here containing material typical of other cemeteries in Bohemia, ie triangular daggers, ring-headed and eyelet pins, leg/arm spirals, spirally folded rings (the so-called noppenringe), droplet earrings, spiral beads, amber beads, and “hour-glass” cups. Analogous material is known from Moravia, Slovakia, Austria, Bavaria, Thuringia, Saxony and Silesia (Coles and Harding, 1979).
390
Copperworking had been introduced to this area on a small scale by Corded Ware groups. However, it was the later Beaker-using cultures who were the first to alloy the copper with tin from Bohemia and this, combined with new techniques being transmitted ultimately from metalworking centres in the Caucasus, seems to have stimulated the growth of a major metal industry in this part of Europe.
The Aunjetitz period begins around 2400BC. This appears to have been a warlike society, or at least one which placed great store by the trappings of war and combat. The chief weapon was the dagger, now improved with the addition of a cast-on solid metal hilt. Axes and halberds too were produced in huge numbers. Many of these weapons are highly decorated and Aunjetitz metallurgists had discovered the technique of encouraging surface enrichment of tin, so that a silvery appearance to the blade could be produced (Sherratt, 1998b, 259). Metal ornaments are also a feature of the period, notably a type of neckring with flattened and recurved ends, called an Ösenring. These Ösenringen seem to have been produced in standardised form somewhere in the eastern Alps and may in fact have served as a form of proto-currency. They were traded widely, many reaching central Germany along the Danube, through the former Czechoslovakia. The items of exchange for these rings were presumably luxury goods such as furs or amber but the net effect, as Andrew Sherratt has pointed out (1998b, p.259), was to lead to the accumulation of even more metal-goods by German magnates who, by any standards, were already rich in such commodities. Just why there was a demand for all this metal was is difficult to understand but the deposition of the enormous hoards of this period probably acted as a means of removing some of this metal from circulation and thereby enhancing the prestige of local leaders. The size of some of these hoards is indeed staggering: at Bresinchen, for example, the artefacts recovered included 103 flanged axes, one double axe, two metal-hafted halberds, eight daggers, ten ingot torcs, nine heavy rings, two Thuringian rings and eleven leech-shaped rings (Breddin, 1969). At Dieskau, the hoard deposited included fourteen halberds, seventeen bronze rings, two bronze arm spirals, one flanged bronze axe (prob. of Irish origin), two shaft hole axes of bronze, twenty-three spiral bronze beads, ten bronze ösenringen, three bronze rivets from a halberd(s), a number of small fragments of sheet bronze work, also from a halberd, and a necklace of 106 amber beads plus fourteen more beads (Fortsch, 1905).
391
The appetite for metal in Aunjetitz society was huge and there is no doubt that its possession was a clear symbol of power and influence. While the earliest graves are not notably rich in metal, especially when compared with those of the “classic” Aunjetitz period, metal objects are found in some of these graves. Pins, ösenringen, arm/leg spirals, and simple triangular daggers have all been recovered from early graves. In the classic period, however, even more metal was deposited in this way, in particular weapons which might include longer daggers, sometimes with metal hilts, flanged axes and, in Poland, metal-shafted halberds as well as ornaments of bronze and gold (Coles and Harding, 1979). The burial rite for the Aunjetitz period was generally inhumation, with the body usually crouched and laid in flat cemeteries (Primas, 1977). A general study of the Aunjetitz burials (Matousek, 1982) has shown that of the 377 graves studied, only two had mounded coverings. The dead were generally laid on their right side, head to the south. The graves were laid out in irregular rows, with some evidence of grouping within the cemeteries. Analysis of the burials in the cemetery of Tesetice-Vinohrady in south Moravia (Lorencová, Benes and Podborsky, 1987) reveals a sharp distinction between males and females in terms of grave goods: males were quite poorly equipped with just three daggers and three ornaments recovered in total; female burials, on the other hand, produced a total of 29 ornaments but just one dagger. In addition, and quite surprisingly, child burials produced five daggers and 26 ornaments. Clearly both women and children could acquire significant status in death and probably in life, although whether this was held in their own right or as
392 a “reflection” of the wealth and status of a related dominant male is less clear3 . In contrast, the male burials present a more austere character.
The character of male burial was to change, however, during the classic Aunjetitz period, and the centuries around 2000BC in particular saw the construction of great burial mounds in Central Germany and adjoining territories. At Leubingen, in Germany, an 8.5m high tumulus concealed a complex wooden mortuary chamber, within which were found the bodies of an old man and a child lying at right angles across his hips (Höfer, 1906). The bodies were accompanied by a rich array of grave-goods, including a wooden-hafted halberd. Also recovered were a whetstone, a serpentine pick, three small triangular daggers, two flanged axes and three chisels, while associated with the child’s body were 2 massive gold eyelet pins,1 gold spiral bead, 1 massive gold bracelet or arm-ring and 2 gold finger rings. The Leubingen burial has recently been dated by dendrochronology to 1942+10 BC (Becker, Jäger et al, 1989). A similarly rich grave, again from under a high mound, from Helmsdorf, Germany, has also been dated by dendrochronology to 1840 + 10BC (ibid). At Łęki Małe, in Poland, another rich grave produced two massive armlets, a number of ceramic pots, the remains of a dagger, a halberd, a pin, two small wire coils and a small axe or possibly a chisel.
The material assemblage recovered at Leubingen has been interpreted as including a carpenter’s tool- kit (Sherratt, 1998b) while a cushion stone also recovered suggests metalworking. Arguably, the “carpenter’s” chisels might just as well have been used for metalwork, either for creating the moulds or for trimming flash. Other tombs right across Europe have also yielded smith’s equipment. This is strong evidence of the high esteem in which smiths were held and of the wealth they could accumulate; alternatively it suggests that the art of metalworking was one jealously guarded by the elites in society. Whatever the precise interpretation, it is abundantly clear from the burial evidence that Aunjetitz society was highly stratified, with local leaders able to accumulate enormous wealth and direct the construction of great burial mounds, sometimes with elaborately constructed timber grave chambers, as at Leubingen and Helmsdorf. Barrow burial was by no means uncommon across Aunjetitz Europe but as Anthony Harding (2000, 99) points out, treating them all as “high status” is problematic, as it leaves open the question of what happened to high-status individuals in areas where there are no barrows.
Agricultural activity appears to have been largely cattle-based, as was the case across much of temperate Europe at this time. Cereal production was also in evidence, and in Germany in particular there is strong representation of naked barley, emmer and millet as well as legumes (Harding, 2000,
3 Shennan (1975) has suggested such an interpretation in relation to the rich female burials in the cemetery at Branč, Slovakia.
393 146). The settlement evidence in this period is not as well represented as the burial/ritual element. In common with much of Europe outside the Aegean, Aunjetitz Europe is characterised by an absence of elaborate, permanent dwellings for any upper stratum of society. Large fortified settlements do appear in a few areas, notably at the edge of the Carpathian Mountains where they seem intended to control the important trade routes passing through this area. Some of these are extremely impressive such as Spišsky Štvrtok (Vladár, 1973) or Nitriansky Hradok (Tocík, 1981), both in Slovakia, the latter being surrounded by a timber-framed rampart of a kind not generally known in Europe until the Late Bronze Age. However, these are very much local developments in a particular area and for the most part across Aunjetitz Europe, which encompasses much of the North European Plain, the settlement pattern is dispersed, low-lying and apparently open. Some villages are known (Coles and Harding, 1979; Harding, 2000) but the internal structure of these can be quite varied. Thus in Early Bronze Age Zürich-Mozartstrasse, rows of “modular” box-like rectangular buildings, each one barely sufficient for a single family unit (Gross, 1987), while a similar arrangement appears at the Forschner settlement on the Federsee in Baden-Württemberg (Torke, 1990). Elsewhere, such as at Brezno in the Czech Republic, two distinct settlement areas were found some 200m apart along a river terrace, with six long houses in one and five in the other (Pleinerová, 1966 and 1990). “House 32” is in fact the largest building known from the entire Aunjetitz area, measuring 32 x 6.5m (Harding, 2000).
The Aunjetitz Culture exerted enormous influence on its immediate neighbours, where similar industries soon developed using Aunjetitz designs and supplied by Aunjetitz metal. External relationships were also maintained much further afield, westwards with Wessex and Britanny and south to Switzerland and Northern Italy. To no small extent, these relationships follow lines of communication first laid down in the Beaker Period.
In summary then, the halberd in Aunjetitz Europe is a product of a vigorous and wealthy society, occupying a pivotal position at the centre of crisscrossing trade-routes across Europe. Contemporary society appears highly stratified, with individual leaders capable of commanding the resources to construct and equip elaborate tombs for the afterlife. Women and children could also acquire status it seems, even if only as a reflection of the glory of a significant male other. Huge votive offerings of metalwork were deposited, including many halberds which here – perhaps more than anywhere else in Europe – could assume an almost exclusively symbolic role, when we consider the numbers of metalshafted types (Chapter 2). There is a proliferation of fine weaponry and ornaments but no great palaces or urban centres. The enormous emphasis which is placed on weaponry surely testifies to the importance of warriors in this society and this may find its roots in earlier Corded Ware and Beaker influences.
394 Discussion
As we have seen already, the halberd seems to have appeared roughly around the same time in Ireland, Central Europe and Iberia but in three radically different societies.
In Ireland, there is clear evidence of a break with earlier traditions in the form of burial customs and settlement patterns. The society that uses halberds here is characterised by dispersed settlement, round houses, an economy that appears to be built on livestock and a burial rite that favours the individual. Most of these changes are synchronous with the arrival of metalworking and halberds are one of the earliest products of this new industry. Halberds here are found most as single finds, in wet places. In Iberia, there is no such break with earlier traditions and halberds appear in well established metal-using communities. The key societies that use halberds live in highly fortified semi-urban settlements, protected by strong bastioned walls, with houses laid out in streets and with water piped into the settlement. This is a rich, sophisticated society in touch with wider Mediterranean developments and practising intensive agriculture. Its metallurgy is relatively simple but shares with Ireland the practice of using arsenical copper. In this society, halberds occur primarily as grave deposits. In Central Europe, halberds appear as a feature of the hugely influential Aunjetitz culture. This culture, standing at the crossroads of the most important trade-routes across Europe, rapidly becomes an enormous producer and consumer of metal goods, depositing huge hoards of weapons and ornaments and sending the leaders of society to their graves richly equipped for the otherworld. The standard of metalworking far exceeds anything in either Ireland or Iberia and rapidly the halberds appears to lose any functionality and instead become beautifully produced skuomorphs of the real thing. They occur most often in hoards, and occasionally in graves.
The three key halberd-producing societies in Europe are therefore not only physically removed form one another, but culturally quite distinct also. There are, of course, a number of common themes. All three societies have previously bought into the Beaker Package, and the lines of communication established during that period continue to play an important role in transmitting influences later. All three societies emphasise the role of the individual, and in the case of Germany and of Ireland this is in direct contrast to earlier Neolithic traditions. Direct links from one region to another are rare, but there are Argaric type halberds in Ireland and even one possible pithos burial from Castle Saffron, Co. Cork. A probable Irish axe turns up in the Dieskau Hoard from Germany. Most importantly, perhaps, all three societies are rich in metal and all have direct access to ores. All three are locally confident and influential: Ireland supplies metal and designs to neighbouring Britain; Aunjetitz Germany spawns copy-cat cultures along its frontiers; El Argar dominates southern Iberia. In the case of Germany and Ireland there is more than a little of the nouveau riche about these societies: the
395 speed with which they acquire both mastery of the new metal and wealth is remarkable; El Argar has a little more of the “old money” about it, but it is still a new incarnation of an older society and it too is desirous of prestige objects. Perhaps this is where we should be seeking the common ground, rather than in direct contact between the three zones. Each lies at the centre of its own sphere of influence, accepting ideas and influences but quite confident enough at this stage to pursue its own path. Perhaps it is this combination of confidence, wealth and access to raw materials that feeds the demand for, amongst other things, the halberd and which in turn denies similar expression to other communities. It is noteworthy that in Ireland and Central Europe the halberd is a shortlived phenomenon, an extreme form of display created in the first flush of metallurgical excitement. In Ireland, where there is good evidence for functional use, it drops out of fashion by the middle of the Early Bronze Age when new symbols of power such as the gold lunulae become available and when, functionally, the new thrusting spears offer an overall better combat option. In Central Europe, the halberd had very quickly assumed an almost exclusively ceremonial role, as testified by the prevalence of non-functional metal-shafted types. Only in Iberia is there evidence for longer use, probably in the form of the Montejícar type, which is itself a further native adaptation, few in number and to a certain extent little more than a curiosity.
INTERPRETING THE EVIDENCE
How then should we interpret the sudden and almost simultaneous appearance of halberds in these three different regions of Europe?
Let us first summarise what we know:
(i) halberds seem to have appeared at more or less the same time in Germany, Ireland, Spain and possibly Italy (ii) these four zones all have extremely strong, influential metal industries (iii) these zones all have access to substantial copper resources (iv) these zones are also co-spatial with known archaeological “cultures” or traditions (v) Beaker traditions are present and influential in each of the zones
If we then look at a distribution map of halberds in Europe (fig 10.5) the first question to be asked is “How do the dots relate to each other?” There are a number of ways we can look at this, ie
396 1. in terms of material exchange patterns 2. in terms of symbolic exchange patterns 3. in terms of folk movements 4. in terms of independent developments
A lot of the analytical techniques used today concentrate on the first, but these really only work where we are actually talking about movement of artifacts. With the European halberd that is not the case: what we are looking at here is not the exchange of an artifact across territories, but the regional expression of a shared idea. It is important to remember that although there are halberds in Ireland, Germany and Spain, they are all locally produced, not imported. To that extent, the various techniques which have been developed for analysis of artifact exchange do not help us here. The fourth approach listed above is not really an option either – it passes the bounds of reason to believe that three or four different areas in Europe could each independently invent the same weapon at the same time. Similarly, there is no real evidence for largescale folk-movements at this time, at least not between the key areas of Ireland, Germany and Spain, although Kristiansen (1991) has argued the case for migrations as underpinning the spread of the single grave and corded ware cultures. With so few other links between the areas in question other than their use of halberds, we can not realistically rely on a folk-movement argument to explain the appearance of halberds in each of these areas. It would seem, therefore, that the appearance of halberds in Europe during the Early Bronze Age is best viewed in terms of symbolic exchange, in other words in the exchange of ideas rather than things.
397
If indeed the appearance of halberds in Europe around this time results from symbolic exchange, we need to evaluate how and why this took place and between what entities. Much analysis of exchange (material or symbolic) has been carried out using the concept of core-and-periphery in some form or other. This concept has been to the fore in many disciplines, including archaeology for decades but it was really after Wallerstein’s The modern world-system appeared in 1974 that the approach became academically fashionable. Wallerstein specifically intended, of course, that his ideas should not be applied to societies earlier than 1450AD but this has not prevented archaeologists, or historians for that matter, from attempting to adapt his ideas to the interpretation of much earlier societies. Even the less aggressive idea of diffusion includes notions of dominance, of the priority of one area over another, which is effectively that of the “core”. In fact Renfrew (1986) has suggested that this ‘new’ concept of core and periphery is in fact just an example of old-fashioned diffusionist thought in a new guise. More recently, Timothy Champion (1989) has revisited the question, arguing vigorously for a refocusing of effort on the customizing of concepts of centre and periphery to allow for their specific application in archaeology.
However, the rapidity of the symbolic exchange in this instance and the difficulty in identifying any one dominant centre, or indeed evidence of any significant exchange of the artifacts themselves, makes things a little more complicated. In many ways, the phenomenon we see is akin to the type of exchange which occurs in 21st century society via the web, where ideas are notified to a “third place” where they may develop further and from which other users may select or reject them. In Early Bronze Age Europe, the notion of halberds seems to develop and spread in much the same way, in that there is no single “core” or centre from which, for example, we can show that down-the-line trading occurs. Instead, it is as if the idea comes from a “third place” and a number of equally participating societies choose to select it, around the same time, adapting it to their own particular environments. There is, of course, no physical third place but the pattern of distribution, the timing and the typologies all behave as if there is.
If this is the case, we are probably best looking at the problem in terms of “peer polity interaction” as defined primarily by Renfrew and Cherry (1986). In some ways this is just another manifestation of diffusionist thought, but the emphasis it places on symbolic exchange and its recognition of such exchange as occurring between equal partners makes it particularly attractive as a model for interpreting the appearance and distribution of halberds in Europe. One of the primary precepts of peer-polity interaction is that “one need not postulate a single innovatory core center, to which other areas are peripheral” (Renfrew and Bahn, 1996 (1998 edition), p.366). Interpretations based on peer polity interaction place an emphasis on equal participation in flows of ideas and innovations forward
398 and back between the groups concerned. This is certainly the case with the European halberds. Another way to look at it is to see many “cores” interacting with each other but generating their own “peripheral” spheres of influence.
If we look at the two maps of Early Bronze Age Europe below (Figs 10.6 and 10.7) we can see that this in many ways is what Harding (2000, 422) suggests. These two maps illustrate on the one hand the variety of contemporary societies and on the other the existence of what Harding refers to as “cores” but what are equally and perhaps better described as “peer polities”. It will also be recalled that we envisaged something of this nature in Chapter 2 when we imagined “anchor-zones” for halberd production and diffused influence.
Fig 10.6: Regional groups in Europe during the earlier Bronze Age (2500-1800 BC). Bellbeaker expansion is shown by way of arrows, followed by the emergence of regional bronze using cultures. (from Sherratt, 1998b, 246).
399
Fig 10.7: A model of Europe as a series of major centres or cores (hatched) and locally important zones (rectangles) all interacting with neighbours and centres further afield (from Harding, 2000: fig 13.1)
If we look at the simplified map at Figure 10.6, we can see that key zones for the production and use of halberds in Europe (fig 10.5) correspond well to the territories of certain known Early Bronze Age groups. While the use of language such as “territories” and “groups” is loaded with inference and may not be warranted given that what we are really talking about here are “style-zones” for artifacts, or areas of common burial tradition, it is nonetheless the case that these areas are recognizably distinct for one reason or another in the archaeological record. What is also significant is that the distribution of halberds is very much restricted to certain of these areas; in other words, there are large tracts of Early Bronze Age Europe which did NOT apparently use the halberd. The distribution of halberds is quite tightly defined by the existing boundaries of particular societies and the space in between is equally well defined by being outside those boundaries. Nor do these key-zones for halberds necessarily show any evidence for particular links with each other across these other territories, as we saw in the previous section.
On the face of it, we seem to be looking at a situation where these key zones are interacting directly with each other at one level, and with neighbouring territories on another. It would seem fair to represent the first as a form of peer-polity interaction, albeit that this is postulated entirely on the basis of one artifact type, and the second in terms of core-peripheral exchanges.
400 Renfrew and Bahn (1996) have summarized some of the ways in which this type of peer-polity interaction can take place as follows:
Competition between neighbouring polities, for example at games, assemblies etc; Competitive emulation where one polity tries to outdo its neighbours in some sort of common activity, for example feasting, monument construction etc; Warfare, when carried out within well-understood rules and not necessarily with the intention of capturing territory; Transmission of innovation which happens rapidly within the interaction sphere; Symbolic entrainment, ie a tendency for the symbolic systems in use to converge; Ceremonial exchange of valuables; Flow of commodities which takes place between the participants, but not, it is emphasized, in terms of a core and periphery; Language and ethnicity: peer-polity interaction, it is argued, may foster development of common languages and even common ethnicity.
Several of the above categories seem relevant to a consideration of the place of halberds in Early Bronze Age Europe, particularly ideas of symbolic entrainment, transmission of innovation and even competitive emulation. The similarity of the artifact throughout Europe, its almost simultaneous adoption in different parts of Europe and the rapidity of the transmission of the new technique of bivalve casting all suggest the type of interaction described above between three or four powerful groups in Ireland, Germany, Spain and maybe Italy. Less influential, powerful or rich groups, for a while at least, may have been satisfied to simply obtain any new metal artifacts and this in several models of exchange is seen as devaluing the original and requiring the elite to seek new symbols (see, for example, Miller, 1982: 89). Aunjetitz Europe, Ireland, El Argar and Italy may have been amongst those which looked for something more, a commodity that set them apart but which also offered a common symbolism. That, for a time at least, may have been the halberd.
I say for a time only, because it is clear that in Ireland its period of use was quite constricted. Elsewhere, in Aunjetitz Europe for example, the halberd seems to have remained in use for much longer – long enough for the flanged bronze axes to develop in Ireland (given the presence of an Irish/British axe of this type in the Dieskau Hoard). By this time in Ireland, the halberd was probably just a memory but in Aunjetitz Europe it was still a reality, even though its function seems to have changed radically, assuming a presumably ceremonial role in the guise of metal-shafted halberds. In Iberia, the halberd remained in use long enough to evolve into the unique Montejícar form and possibly even longer, if the Cuenca Halberd discussed in Chapter 5 is of the late date it appears to be.
401 In the beginning, however, the halberds all look pretty much the same, particularly in their hafted form, in which – as was remarked in Chapter 2 – the often diagnostic hafting plate was concealed: once hafted, Italian, Irish or Aunjetitz blades – even Argaric blades – don’t look that different. This is precisely what we would expect from peer-polity interaction, where locally made-goods conform to pan-regional styles. In this instance, the forms of the halberds across Europe suggest transmission of an idea rather than a prototype: the idea of a big, strong blade hafted at right angles to a shaft is easily conveyed and requires only the will, skill and resources to convert into reality. To no small extent, in fact, the elite Early Bronze Age groups would have been already sensitized to this type of symbol, with a common background in Beaker and battle-axe traditions. It is unlikely to be pure coincidence that the areas in which the halberds appear are also those where stone battle-axes have been found and/or between which paths of communication were established in the Beaker Period. John Coles speculated in this direction as far back as 1969 when discussing the Scottish halberds.
In terms of both social background and “beginnings”, it seems that we might consider the halberd as appearing first in Aunjetitz Europe, possibly derived ultimately from the stone battle-axes of the preceding Battle Axe Culture and originally at least quite functional in design. Knowledge of the artefact type in this form would have travelled along established Beaker lines of communication right across Europe but only in Ireland and Iberia would there have been societies rich enough in metal to imitate its form at this time. In Ireland, as we saw in Chapter 8, the idea must have been imported since the technique of bivalve casting used to produce the halberd was not known here previously nor used for any other contemporary metal work. In Iberia, where the Carrapatas type may well have been the earliest halberd, it is significant that this is also the most “international” of the Iberian types and quite possibly an introduced artefact type. The classic Argaric halberd and the later Montejícar type are both arguably best understood as native adaptations. In Ireland the halberd seems ultimately to have assumed a more ceremonial role before slipping out of fashion completely, perhaps no more than a few hundred years after its introduction. In Aunjetitz Europe, while it may have lost its functional quality very early on, it rapidly assumed a well-established symbolic role which allowed it to continue in use even longer than in Ireland, if the “Irish/British” axe in the Dieskau Hoard is a realistic indicator of date. In Iberia, removed to no small extent from broader European affairs, the halberd was to continue locally important for centuries more.
402 Chapter 11
Conclusions
Suddenly Collins sought his pocket, revealing as he did so a large revolver strapped to his thigh. He produced a stubby pencil and a little book. ‘As we pursue it’, the much encouraged golden voice went on, ‘it ever eludes us but it becomes more and more present until all that we see or are swims in a divine ether’….Sharply Collins said: ‘Your point, Mr Russell?’
Oliver St John Gogarty: As I was going down Sackville Street.
Halberds have been the subject of archaeological comment and research for about 150 years or so. Much of this discussion has tended to focus on questions of origin and typology, with function the subject of only the most generalised statements. However, the cumulative effect of this research has been to leave us with a body of material that is relatively well documented if not as well understood. We have known for quite some time now that the production and use of halberds focuses on three main areas in Europe, traditionally given as Ireland, (east) Germany and south-eastern Spain, although Italy is sometimes added to that list. The extensive cataloguing and reporting of finds over the last 30 years or so has not substantially changed this interpretation, although other areas – particularly of Atlantic Europe such as Scotland, France and western Iberia - have assumed new importance. There has been a substantial increase in the numbers of halberds known since the last census by Ó Ríordáin in 1937, when some 363 halberds were counted. I have been able to record some 600 halberds from Europe as a whole but despite this increase the overall pattern of distribution has not significantly altered. The importance of Ireland relative to the other European regions has changed, however, and this country now accounts for just over 30% of all finds, and not the 40% still quoted in archaeological literature. In addition, as was pointed out in Chapter 2, since the figure for Ireland is completely up-to-date while those for other regions are not, the only way in the short-term for the Irish percentage to go from here is down.
In most parts of Europe, the halberd seems to be a product of the earliest periods of metallurgy, dating to around 2200-2000BC and continuing in use for varying periods of time after that. There is no basis from the dates available for identifying one region as a “homeland” for the halberd; instead what is more significant is the fact that the idea, wherever it first emerged, was so rapidly adopted in a number of important Bronze Age regions apparently at the same time. These regions are not contiguous and there is no evidence for a gradual diffusion of ideas and styles out of one core area
403 and into others. Instead the key-zones concerned, which are each at some considerable remove from each other, rapidly developed their own styles and traditions, becoming “anchor-zones” for a much wider territory. Ireland and Aunjetitz Europe were particularly influential in this regard, and the halberd-users of contiguous territories show evidence of the influence exerted by their powerful neighbours, in terms of style, material and even depositional practice. The best model for interpreting the distribution of halberds in Europe seems to be in terms of peer polity interaction. None of the zones dominates the other, and each is confident and influential in its own sphere. Indeed, the evidence for direct trade between the zones is extremely limited and certainly there is very little evidence for exchange of the halberds themselves. Instead we seem to be looking at the transfer of an idea amongst polities who could afford it and who chose to distinguish themselves by its material production and use. Certainly, all three areas identified as anchor zones (Ireland, Aunjetitz Europe and El Argar) have vigorous, self sufficient metal industries, with ready access to copper, and to a certain extent this distinguishes them from their near-neighbours and links them with each other.
However, the floruit of the halberd appears to have been shortlived in both Ireland and Aunjetitz Europe. It may have gone out of fashion in Ireland as early as 2000BC, and in Aunjetitz Europe a little while after. In other “non-anchor” zones, there is evidence for substantially later use. In Britain, for example, there are the Islay and Stoke Ferry hoards, the associations of the halberd in each case suggesting Middle – Late Bronze Age dates. The carved stelae from southwestern Iberia which depict halberds are often regarded as of middle to late Bronze Age date while more specific associations in the art of the period suggest contemporaneity with early swords. Even allowing for the early use of swords in Spain, the evidence suggests a much longer period of use for halberds in this region than elsewhere. Of all the key zones, the El Argar region is the most introspective and self-sufficient. Its halberds are of distinctive and unique design and are the only ones which show evidence of prolonged evolution, developing into the Montejícar types and perhaps even still later socketed types, if we recall the example from Cuenca.
Elsewhere, however, the halberd appears to have gone out of fashion quite quickly. Its disappearance may have been accelerated by new trends in combat and weaponry. The daggers of the halberd period are stabbing weapons and to no small extent the design and use of the halberd mimics this action. These daggers, however, rapidly evolved into longer thrusting weapons and the logical corollary of this in a pole-arm is the spear, not the halberd. It is interesting, therefore, to note that at the time the halberds fall out of use, the first spears are also beginning to appear. This replacement model is also one which, coincidentally, is found in medieval Europe where the halberd is replaced by the pike. Coincidentally – or perhaps not – the medieval halberd found itself a new role as a ceremonial object, a symbol of rank and power, and there is no doubt that in Early Bronze
404 Age Europe, the halberd of that period also won itself a few extra generations of use by assuming a symbolic role. This is most clearly attested by the metal-shafted halberds of east-Germany and Poland, but also by the Breaghwy-type halberds of Ireland which it has been conclusively shown throughout this study to have been non-utilitarian in design and to show least evidence for wear.
Halberd blades from many different parts of Europe are recognisably similar, again supporting the hypothesis of a rapid ideological diffusion and shortlived floruit. However, it would be wrong to regard them all as the same “weapon”. One of the main contributions made by a careful study of the rock-art and other contemporary depictions is that there were clearly two different types of weapon in use. One was a polearm, clearly intended for use two-handed, while the other was a much shorter hand-weapon. Depictions of the latter from both Spain and Northern Italy show it in association with long daggers or even swords. In some cases, the one character is clearly wielding both, encouraging speculation that the smaller “hand-halberd” may have formed part of a combat-panoply for use in this fashion. It is this form of the halberd which may have been particularly conducive to a ceremonial function, since the metal-shafted halberds are also quite short, and the depicted example on the statue-menhir from Valdefuentes in Spain – which is presented with a sword in almost emblematic fashion – is short-handled too. We might also point to the tentative evidence outlined in Chapter 6 for a short haft to the eponymous, ceremonial Breaghwy halberd.
However, insofar as the Irish halberds are concerned, there is strong evidence for adducing a primarily functional role as a weapon. The evidence from extensive examination of the blade, rivets and rivet-holes all suggests that many Irish halberds were actually “used” in the conventional sense. Furthermore, some halberds have been rehoned; even broken halberds could be “rescued” in this fashion and put to renewed use as we saw in Chapter 5. Similarly, some halberds show evidence of rehafting implying some considerable period of use. Despite the received wisdom that Irish halberds were simply too weak to work in practice, experimentation with a replica halberd has shown the contrary to be the case. Irish halberds are in fact frighteningly effective and surprisingly resilient. As we saw in Chapter 10, even after repeated and inexpert use on up to twenty sheep heads of at least equal bone thickness to a human skull, the replica halberd exhibits virtually no wear. In consequence, the amount of damage which is exhibited by some of the museum pieces is in my opinion evidence of even greater sustained use. The practical trials also showed how the design of the Irish halberd optimises its functionality in this regard; in particular the fact that the point is broad and rounded adds critical strength to this area on impact, while the stout midrib reinforces the blade along the line of the blow, protecting against buckling. All in all, the design of the vast majority of Irish halberds seems driven by a functional, not ceremonial, imperative. It is significant that what is probably a later ceremonial type, Breaghwy, tends to be wider, thinner, with a flatter midrib and small rivets – all features which are the direct opposite of those that give the other Irish halberds their strength.
405
How the halberd might have been used in combat is a most interesting field of discussion. Mention has already been made above of the depictions in the rock-art of short-handled halberds being used in conjunction with dirks or swords. Such an association was hardly possible for the longer pole-arm version and indeed the rock-art again bears this out, depicting such halberds being wielded two- handed. The rock-art also shows the shafts of many halberds as swelling-out at the end, sometimes quite significantly. If we look at the way in which similar pole-arms were used in the medieval period, we see that the practice was to lead with the shaft, rather than the head, and in this context such swellings may have served a very practical offensive purpose. Much combat might have been pursued in this manner, protecting the metal head until an opportunity presented itself, or indeed allowing honour to be satisfied by a form of combat which posed little threat to life and limb: ethnographic accounts strongly suggest that primitive warfare contained a substantial element of “posturing” and that an intention to inflict fatalities or injuries should not always be assumed.
Like so many other metal artifacts, the usefulness of the halberd was not confined to either practical or ceremonial purpose in this life. Formal deposition was clearly an important means of gleaning additional value from this artifact. Across Europe, halberds were deposited in quite different contexts: in El Argar and Italy we find them as grave goods principally; in the Atlantic zone they often occur as single finds, mainly in wet places but also in dry contexts as well; in Aunjetitz Europe halberds may accompany rich burials, but in the main are found as part of the tradition of massive hoard deposition so characteristic of this region and time. In Ireland, the particular focus of this study, the vast majority (75 - 80%) come from wet contexts, where details of context are known. This is a higher proportion than any other contemporary metal artifact and points to a particular association of this weapon with wet places, prefiguring the association of later blades with such contexts. In addition we noted an even closer association of perfect/near perfect halberds and of aesthetically pleasing halberds with wetland contexts (90%+), clearly suggesting some deliberate selection of the best halberds for such deposition. Allied to this selection of halberds is the decision whether or not to leave the shaft attached. It was pointed out that whereas axes may be depicted without shafts in the rock-art, halberds are never so, suggesting that these weapons could not be “imagined” without shaft. It is certainly the case that some Irish halberds were deposited shaft intact, but equally others had the shaft removed or at least cut-off, and this in all likelihood represented a ritual destruction of the weapon, given the importance of the shaft. Some of the more catastrophic damage to the blades and hafting-plates of Irish halberds may equally have resulted from a form of deliberate destruction. Other halberds may have been wrapped carefully prior to deposition – fabric- like impressions on the blades of at least two halberds seem to testify to this practice.
406 Within Ireland, it is in the central midlands where halberds predominate, and it was suggested that the wealth which powered the production and acquisition of halberds in this region may have been built on cattle, this land being particularly suited to pastoralism. The River Shannon and its tributaries both unite and divide this land and it is significant that the distribution of Irish halberds can be related to these waterways. The earliest and most populous types concentrate in this area, with the apparently later Breaghwy types distributed along the peripheries. There is also greater evidence for use-wear on the halberds from this central heartland, suggesting that the tradition may have spread outwards or have been adopted by more peripheral groups later when the halberd was assuming a more symbolic role.
Unlike their Aunjetitz cousins, the Irish halberds are almost always made of copper and it has been argued by earlier writers (e.g. Evans, 1881) that this was deliberate decision on the part of the manufacturers. However, given the dating and associations of the Irish halberds, such as they are known, it seems much more likely that they are products of societies that had access only to copper, and that they started to be made of bronze almost as soon as that material became available. What is highly significant is that the Irish halberds were produced using a sophisticated bivalve casting and to an extremely high standard, at a time when every other contemporary metal artifact here was being made in an open mould. No halberd mould has ever been found but metallographic analyses leave one in no doubt that the halberds found here are in fact of Irish manufacture. The Irish halberds are also remarkable for the consistency of their design and the relationship of their various proportions to one another. In fact, it is possible to adduce certain “rules of thumb” which the Irish smiths must have respected, e.g. a halberd should be around 8-9mm thick, about 60-80mm wide, with a 40mm deep hafting plate, but within those constraints could be as long as one cared to make it; the rivets should be cut about twice as long as necessary to span the haft, this leaving sufficient copper to beat up the characteristic domed heads. The degree to which these principles are respected suggests strongly that halberds were only in use in Ireland for a relatively short period and that there were probably a limited number of manufacturers. Careful examination of the profiles and midribs of 167 or so halberds suggests that a small but significant number were cast in the same mould or from the same template, suggesting in turn the existence of particular production centres for the Irish halberds, presumably situated in the midlands. Some halberds, such as those in the Hillswood Hoard, may even be the work of the same master-craftsman. In terms of technology, the likelihood is that clay, or perhaps sand, moulds were being used. In fact, it is highly probable that the technique of bivalve casting was first brought to Ireland for the purpose of producing halberds and was only later applied to other types of metal artifact. This has another implication, for if the technique for producing halberds was not known already in this country, it is most unlikely that the type originated here, as Ó Ríordáin and many others have argued. Its origins, ultimately, must lie outside Ireland.
407 The different analyses carried out in the course of this study have tended to confirm Harbison’s typology, with his various classes asserting themselves in different ways. However, a continuing theme through all the analyses is the singularity of type Breaghwy. This halberd differs in almost every way possible from the other types. It is made of bronze rather than copper; its rivets are tiny and functionless rather than thick and strong; it is wider, flatter and thinner than the others; its hafting plate is shallow and the rivet holes are distributed in a line along the edge, rather than spaced securely at critical points in a deeper plate. Where the other types are found in wet places, Type Breaghwy is more often found in dry places; where the others cluster in the midlands, type Breaghwy inhabits the peripheries. It is concerned with display where the others emphasise functionality. It is late, where the others are early. In short, it is everything the others are not and there is much to be learnt from its study. It casts into sharp relief the characteristics that distinguish the majority of Irish halberds and like a persistent devil’s advocate forces re-evaluation again and again of these characteristics. I owe this halberd type a particular debt of gratitude: without such an antithesis, this thesis would have been much harder to write.
In the quotation at the start of this chapter, Michael Collins brings an unforeseen termination to the meanderings of George Russell (Ǽ) with his abrupt “Your point, Mr Russell?”. Meandering is a pleasant occupation and I have no doubt indulged in this from time to time over the course of this volume. However, I also hope that I have made my point.
408