Re: bronze age weapons
- From: "Uwe Müller" <uwemueller@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 09:44:31 +0100
"Hayabusa" <peregrine@xxxxxxxxxxx> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:jop60259pi9p05m8755501tsd040tjcb9h@xxxxxxxxxx
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 10:39:48 +0100, "Uwe Müller"in
<uwemueller@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
So most of the bronze age swords that we know of were not used as weapons
the narrow sense of the word, while most of the iron age swords were
weapons.
That seems to confirm my conjecture.
My point was, that we only know of those bronze age swords, that were not
primarily used as weapons. There are a number of bronze age weapon-swords,
so we know those existed too, but we don't usually find them.
To the contrary, there are only very few swords from the early iron age,
there are no hoards from that period and they were not being put into the
graves on a regular basis any more.
But I could pose my question in a different way. At the Varus
battlefield near Osnabrueck there are several skulls on display which
show long, straight cuts like from a sword. When does that type of
wound become common? In the earlier times there were signs of fights
with clubs - what was called a trepanation, a round cut hole into the
skull which the patient actually survived - was probably not so much a
religious custom than the attempt by the local shamane to heal a wound
done by a club. I seem to remember that trepanations were common ca.
4000 BCE. When does that stop?
Research has been done on skeletons from early medieval Reihengraeberfelder,
they show trepanations and slash/cut marks from swords. Published in the
Deutsche Aerztezeitung, I can get hold of the reference if you want.
There are a number of other occasions were trepanning was performed, not
only to cure injuries.
OTOH they were certainly not made for my hands, and
there might have been quite a difference in size between me and bronze or
iron age populations.
They weren't sissies, no matter how small you make them. If they were
20cm shorter than us now, they still had hands like toilet seats, they
were mostly farmers.
Well, that depends on the definition of 'farmers'. Being chief of logistics,
religion, foreign relations, social security etc. was an important part of
the lives of some individuals. It's like a 19th c. gutsbesitzer, he was a
farmer, but would not work on the fields.
http://www.quarks.de/dyn/26857.phtml
gives a size of about 170 cm for men for the Bronze Age (for Thuringia),
not enough to make a big difference. and no big difference to the iron age,
as their was only a slight growth up to 172 cm in the Migration age.
while Austrians seem to have benn smaller, about 165 cm
http://www.unet.univie.ac.at/~a8612692/ArchaeoNews/texte/980330zaehne.htm
all bronze age people were smaller at about 165 cm says
http://www.klm-hannover.de/medien/z-9607xx.htm
the biggest Bronze Age man was 182 cm, the biggest man from the early Iron
Age 195 cm. for maximun sizes (mainly neolithic) see
http://www.4.am/Wissenschaft/Wissenschaft/Manche_Urmenschen_waren_erstaunlic
h_gro%DF_20050627644.html
There seems to be no accepted value for prehistoric populations, while in
the south and east of central Europe a size of about 165 cm seems to be
regarded as having been normal, the middle and north reach 170 cm. There
seems to have been in increase in maximun height though, from late Bronze to
early Iron Age.
have fun
Uwe Mueller
.
- References:
- bronze age weapons
- From: Hayabusa
- Re: bronze age weapons
- From: Uwe Müller
- Re: bronze age weapons
- From: Hayabusa
- bronze age weapons
- Prev by Date: Re: bronze age weapons
- Next by Date: Re: bronze age weapons
- Previous by thread: Re: bronze age weapons
- Next by thread: Re: bronze age weapons
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
