bronze age weapons

I am presently reading a popular archaeology book compiled by Göran
Burenhult, the English title is "People of the Past" (I bought the
German translation which is presently on sale everywhere). There is a
second volume on ancient (post-prehistory) civilizations. For me it is
nice to read fairly new ideas about ancient people, and archaeology of
regions I am quite unfamiliar with, such as SE Asia.

Question here: the weapons of the European bronze age always look very
dramatic, exqusitely made, but I do not really recall to have seen a
sign of wear in the pictures, nor on the weapons I have seen in
museums. The damage there is commonly intentional and was done when
these weapons were destroyed and sacrificed to the gods (thrown into
the water).

This differs quite a bit from the weapons of the Romans, eg. in the
museum of Alesia/France where Caesar's troops broke the back of the
free Gauls, and even more for the Viking weapons eg. in Schloss
Gottorf in Schleswig which show every sign of heavy use in battle.

There is another difference - the swords from the iron age and later
look like industrial ware, done by the hundreds, at relatively low
cost, to be used; whereas the weapons from the bronze age are very
carefully decorated, they must have been extremely costly even then.

The idea that much of bronze age armour was merely for display is old.
But is there actually evidence for bronze age weapons being used in
defense or attack? I also keep wondering because the handles of bronze
age swords differ from those of medieval swords - the latter are long
enough for a tight grip with a strong fist, whereas those from the
bronze age are way too short for a male hand.



Comments welcome.

fkoe
.