© Idōkan Poland Association “IDO MOVEMENT FOR CULTURE. Journal of Martial Arts Anthropology”, Vol. 13, no. 3 (2013), pp. 37–47 DOI: 10.14589/ido.13.3.6 HISTORY Sylwester Czopek Instytut Archeologii, Uniwersytet Rzeszowski, ul. Hoffmanowej 8, 35-016 Rzeszów (Poland) E-mail: [email protected] Prehistoric cultures of warriors or warriors of prehistoric cultures? Submission: 1.07.2013; acceptance: 21.08.2013 Key words: prehistoric archaeology, weapon, warriors, sword Abstract: The article primarily aims at answering the question about the presence of warriors in prehistoric cultures of Central Europe. The author studies this issue on the basis of archaeological sources (material evidence of the existence of the cultures). He also uses written sources from the late antiquity. He concludes that prehistoric weapons are of crucial importance and their interpretation depends mainly on the contexts they are found in. What is also significant is the quality and quantity of particular types of armament. There are many arguments in support of the thesis concerning prevalence of symbols and meanings of e.g. the sword. In a synthetic sense, we can talk about two basic models: presence of a culture of warriors (referring mostly to the nomads) or just knowledge of war craft (referring to settled, farming communities). The question in the title is not just an accidental play the two codes, despite the evident cultural and on words. It juxtaposes two situations which, despite geographical differences. This raises the question certain similarity, have fundamental differences. to what extent these features are independent of The concept of ‘the culture of warriors’ implies the specific cultural and historical conditions and the existence of a broadly defined socio-cultural whether they reach much further – for example system in which the warrior is a key figure as a the ancient and prehistoric Europe. Another term representative of a certain subculture or even in the title refers to ‘the warriors of prehistoric as an essential element in the social hierarchy. cultures’ in the sense that emphasizes their presence In the realm of Central Europe we can notice (permanent or accidental), but without the whole it most explicitly in the Middle Ages, when the realm identified with the ‘subculture’ of warriors figure of the knight was identified not only with described above. Therefore their social role would an appropriate social status but, above all, with not have been important, especially in the context a particular ethos and code of behaviour, which of hierarchical social structures. was well exposed in many chivalric epics. The Before we attempt to answer the question chivalry included the accolade, the unwritten posed at the beginning, we should point out that code of honour, tournaments, rich tradition of the further we go back into prehistory, the more heraldry and identifying symbols and even the modest and ambiguous sources will be available funeral ceremony [Piwowarczyk 2006: 8-24]. These to us. Eventually we will be left only with material universal components, together with the adapted findings form archaeological excavations as well Christian elements, can be considered the basic as relatively frequent accidental findings – e.g. determinant of this period in the whole medieval weapons, which in this case are of particular Europe. Comparison of the commonly accepted and interest. Their detailed examination is the domain of desired chivalric qualities with the eight virtues of prehistoric archaeology, since in the reconstruction Bushido (rectitude,This courage, copy benevolence,for personal respect, use onlyprocess – it distributionutilizes the material prohibited sources from the This copy for personal use only – distribution prohibited — This copy for personal use only – distribution prohibited forpersonal only – distribution use copy — This prohibited onlyfor usepersonal – distribution This copy honesty, honour, loyalty, character) clearly shows excavations, but for their interpretation it also takes that there was considerable similarity between advantage of other disciplines, such as history (in Electronic PDF security by Committe of Scientific Research, Stowarzyszenie Idokan Polska Poland 38 “IDO MOVEMENT FOR CULTURE. Journal of Martial Arts Anthropology”, Vol. 13, no. 3 (2013) terms of the analysis of written sources) or cultural 243-284]. However, the subcultures of hunters and anthropology (e.g. with regard to the function and warriors, although similar in some respects, are significance of objects). Modern archaeology is different or even contradictory. not only about recorded findings of particular The situation changed quite markedly in the objects (only weapons [Libera 2006]) but it is Neolithic (6th – 3rd millennium BC) – a period that also about the contexts of their occurrence (e.g. is regarded by archaeologists as the beginning of especially important grave inventories), because modernity. The main determinants were in this case they often affect the final interpretation [Вандкилде sedentary lifestyle and framing. Attachment to a 2009: 269-270]. Thus, this kind of inference is of specific territory, effort required to build permanent interdisciplinary character. dwellings (settlements with houses), and the need Prehistoric Europe (from the earliest times to to protect the cultivated fields and herds of animals the mid-1st millennium AD) is a mosaic of many were the factors that certainly triggered some tribes and cultures. In this brief sketch it is difficult defence mechanisms. In a relatively short period to give an exhaustive answer to the question about of time (for prehistoric reality) – the Neolithic and significance or even the existence (or its lack) of the late Bronze Age (second half of the 3rd – 2nd/1st the group of specialised warriors. I can only focus millennium BC) – we can observe an increasing here on several broader issues. Firstly, we should importance of weapon and even the emergence of emphasize source deficiencies and lack of broader defensive architecture – various systems preventing points of reference, which is a result of limited access to the inhabited settlements. The grave interpretation based on material (archaeological) inventory is gradually changing and in the whole artefacts. The classification of weapon as ‘a tool of Central Europe it has a role of the identifier of of war’ and distinguishing it from ‘a hunting tool’ social status or it even indicates one’s belonging may already be considered controversial. In the to a certain group of military character, which development of civilization, particularly with regard probably formed a kind of subculture, precisely to older periods, it is almost impossible. It is obvious defined and identified, yet nowadays difficult to that the effectiveness of flint tools used for hunting recognize [Zakościelna 2008; Вандкилде 2009: (javelins – spears armed with flint blades, bows 273-280], in cultural anthropology known as war with arrows with insets) or fighting was similar, clubs or brotherhoods [Nowicka 1997: 386-387]. In which is proved by the experimental archaeology the inventories of some graves we find objects that [Coles 1977: 167-175]. However, the question that at the beginning still have a dual function (weapon- is bothering us here refers to the existence of a tool – e.g. long flint knives), but they already clearly group of warriors. In the Palaeolithic (up to about identify only a certain group of men [Вандкилде 10th-9th millennium BC) and Mesolithic (9th-6th 2009: 281-287]. In 4th – 3rd millennium BC there millennium BC) communities each man had to appear in the grave inventory shaft-hole axes, made be a hunter, since hunting was the primary source of horn, stone or copper, almost always placed in of obtaining food. Both material (flint tools from front of the face of the dead, which distinguishes the the excavations) and intangible (interpretations of graves of men [Вандкилде 2009: 287-290], buried cultural anthropology) aspects allow us to indicate in a different – in comparison with women – ritual that the line between being a hunter and a warrior (different orientation of the bodies). These objects could have been very easy to cross. Evolution certainly are no longer only ‘tools’, although small of a group of specialized warriors is therefore heads of arrows or larger heads of spears which not a matter of some technological threshold accompany them, can still have a ‘dual use’. (effectiveness of fighting tools), but rather a demand The axe, particularly that of a double blade, of society. It was well captured by the definitions of regardless of what material it is made from, has war and fighting [Harrison 2008] which stress the a deep symbolic significance. It manifests power, specified group target. In the period discussed here often being an attribute of gods [Eduardo 2007: we certainly cannot talk about it. Fighting occurs 423-424; Lurker 2011: 460]. Therefore it does not only on a personal level, to achieve personal benefits come as a surprise that it was so significant in grave (such as in Quest for Fire [Rosny 1998], popularised inventories of the late Neolithic and early Bronze by the film of the same title). In the cultural system Age [Zapotocký 1992]. there could not have existed a specialised group In the Bronze Age (2nd half of the 3rd – beginning of warriors as a kind of subculture, typical of the of the 1st millennium BC) the role of the shaft-hole subsequent periods. But there was present a group axe is taken