Slashing and thrusting with Late Bronze Age spears: analysis and experiment.

Anderson, Kate

Introduction

In the majority of research into the weapons and warfare of British prehistory, the spear--that most ubiquitous of weapons--has frequently been overlooked in favour of the sword. Most people think of a spear as a fairly simple weapon, used either for throwing or thrusting. However, the damage still visible on the edges of Late Bronze Age spears found in northern Britain is very similar to that found on contemporary swords, raising the question of whether spearheads were used in a similar manner, and whether damage patterns could be related to combat styles.

This paper intends to identify the most probable modes of spear use and discuss the implications for armed conflict in the Late Bronze Age of northern Britain. To that end, a total of 222 extant Late Bronze Age spears found in northern Britain (north of the rivers Dee and Humber) were identified, of which 40 per cent were examined for evidence of use.

Late Bronze Age spears

While Late Bronze Age spearheads from Britain as a whole have been examined and classified (e.g. Greenwell & Brewiss 1909; Coles 1960; Bridgford 2000; Davis 2006), little detailed work has been conducted on their use. Most authors implicitly interpret spearheads as thrusting or throwing weapons, depending on morphology, although Laux (1971) explicitly links use to size ratios. However, he provides little explanation or evidence for this reasoning, and does not consider other measurements and ratios that will affect structural integrity and balance, or the possibility of multi-functionality. Hafting arrangements are also potentially relevant to use. Molloy (2006) notes the possibility of hafting spearheads with a shorter shaft, making if possible to use them one-handed in the manner of a Zulu assegai. All the known complete shafts from Late Bronze Age European spears are over 1.43m in length (Hooper & O'Connor 1976), but since only six are recorded this does not preclude shorter examples being utilised.

Examination of ancient spearheads Wear-analysis can indicate modes of use. Bridgford (2000) identified six distinct forms of edge/combat damage on British Late Bronze Age swords, providing a valuable framework to analyse the damage sustained by spearheads. Bridgford herself noted the presence of similar damage on spearheads in her study, but attributed it to occasional, accidental parrying or pre-depositional ritual damage. However, such an explanation seems unlikely given that 31 per cent of the 89 spearheads from northern Britain examined for this paper show such damage, although none of it severe enough to suggest the sort of ritualistic, pre-depositional 'killing' of the weapon that is seen with contemporary swords. The visible traces of edge hammering conducted during manufacture on 58 per cent of the same population suggest that a proportion of the spearheads were being manufactured with the possibility of sustaining edge damage in mind. While those that were never edge-hardened would have been blunter and more prone to damage, if is possible that such examples were not intended for combat use and were either manufactured for decorative or votive purposes, or were hunting weapons, an activity less likely to require edge resilience.

Of the extant Late Bronze Age spearheads found in northern Britain, only 19 per cent show any form of tip damage, the vast majority of these plainly a result of poor casting, corrosion or post-depositional damage. Only 3 per cent of the total dataset appear to show point damage as a result of use. However, 31 per cent exhibited damage patterns on their edges identical to those identified by Bridgford on contemporary swords. In order to assess the implications of these observations a series of experiments was devised.

Experiments

The first aim of the trials, conducted at Sagnlandet Lejre in Denmark, was to determine whether a series of throwing and thrusting strikes onto leather and metal shields resulted in tip damage. Should this be the case, it would imply that the lack of such damage in the original dataset was the result of spears not being mainly thrown or thrust in this period. The second aim relates to the method of spear use. The similarity of the spearhead edge damage to that of swords suggests that the two weapons were used in a similar manner, with the spearheads possibly mounted on a short shaft and used one-handed. The trials provided an opportunity to test whether this would have been practical from a combat perspective and whether the damage patterns seen on the edges of the original spearheads could be replicated. Positive results would necessitate a re-examination of fighting styles and military organisation and training in this period.

Manufacturing test replicas

A number of spears, a sword and a metal shield were commissioned for experimental use, based on Scottish finds. No examples of organic shields survive in Scotland, so the leather shield used in the experiments was roughly based on that found at Clonbrin, in Ireland.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

The spears were modelled on the most numerous type found in northern Britain (at 47 per cent of classifiable examples), often described as Class V (Figure 1) (Coles 1960; Ehrenberg 1977; Bridgford 1997; Davis 2006). Found across all regions of Scotland and northern England, it is leaf-shaped, riveted and has a hollowed midrib extending roughly three quarters of the total length of the spearhead. There are examples with both pristine and damaged edges. The spears were sand-cast with an alloy of 90 per cent copper, 9 per cent tin and 1 per cent lead and the edges were annealed twice and edge-hardened; the final weight of each was 190g. The shafts used were of seasoned ash wood--those used for throwing measuring approximately 1.5m in length and those used for slashing measuring approximately 0.78m in length. The shaft was wedged into the socket and then secured with a small tack driven through the rivet holes into the shaft. No ferrules were used.

After use, the hardness of 13 randomly selected spears was tested by Hannah Wilson, of the Mechanical Engineering Department of the University of Edinburgh (Table 1).

The degree of variability within each testing area differs, with a high level of homogeneity in hardness of the midribs, indicating an even distribution and proportion of the alloying metals within the metal matrix of the spears. There is some unevenness and individual anomalies in levels of edge hardness, possibly the result of varying force applied during the hammering process. Additionally, given that the areas being hammered and annealed grow progressively closer near the tip of the weapon the effect may have overlapped and increased during this stage of finishing (Wilson 2010). The hardness values for the midribs are similar to those found by Tylecote (1986) and Bridgford (2000) for the central areas of Irish and British Late Bronze Age weapons, which suggests that the relative proportions of metals within the alloy of the experimental weapons was appropriate. However, Tylecote's results from the edges of four axes found a mean of 117HV, the edges of a sword reached 112HV, but the edges of a work-hardened spearhead only registered 88HV (Figure 2).

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]

These results may well indicate variations between modern and prehistoric methods of edge-hardening. However, since Tylecote only tested one spear and one sword, his sample may be unrepresentative. Since the edge hardness of the experimental population is slightly higher than the (small) prehistoric population, their resilience to damage will be higher; quantitative data on the precise relationship between edge hardness and damage levels will require further testing.

Combat testing

It was hypothesised that a number of variables involved in a strike might affect the damage outcome:

* Angle of strike (measured at 45[degrees] and 90[degrees] to the ground)

* Movement of strike (stab, slash, throw, over-arm, under-arm)

* Mode of defence (edge of weapon or shield, face of shield, flat of weapon, held still or mobile)

* Defending material (sword, spear, metal shield, leather shield).

A repertoire of 30 strikes was developed with combinations of these variables in mind (Figure 3). These were termed formal strikes, and each was conducted twice. In addition, a fresh pig carcass was used as a substitute for a human body and slashes were made against the legs, body, throat and shoulder area, using the spears and sword (Figure 4). Experiments were also conducted by placing the shields on the ground or on straw bales and allowing the combatants to use the maximum force possible to investigate the length of time and force required to damage the materials significantly. These are termed informal strikes. The informal strikes were made with somewhat more force than the formal strikes; while the strength of formal strikes in the experiments was constrained for safety reasons, it is reasonable to suppose that strikes made in actual combat were also less than full force. Tactical and strategic combat decisions, mistakes and increasing exhaustion would ali limit the strength of a blow.

[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]

Results

The experiments swiftly produced some experiential data relating to the mechanics of striking and the spear shafts. Where the target was the end-focus of a strike (as opposed to lying along the trajectory of the strike) the spears were not very effective in causing damage. Particularly when striking the pig carcass, but also when striking the shields; such a technique often resulted in the weapon almost rebounding off the target, causing little damage. However, when used in a 'whipping' motion, cutting into the target and then continuing the movement to slash across and away, it was extremely effective. This was most notable during the strikes made against the pig carcass; the first strike method typically caused a very shallow, short cut to the epidermis while the second method was capable of cleaving skin, flesh and bone in one strike (see Figure 4, right to left). The greater the slashing movement involved, the more significant the damage.

[FIGURE 4 OMITTED]

In addition, the spear shafts exhibited a tendency to snap off, either at the socket or around 0.05m below it, leaving a distinctive 'jagged' appearance, whenever the blade was struck very hard against another object (Figure 5). During the course of the experiments, five spear shafts were snapped in this way. Removing the remains of shaft from the spearhead was found to be prohibitively difficult, rendering it useless for further work. A further discovery was an addition to the six damage types identified by Bridgford, described as 'flattening'. Flattening was produced six times during the experiments (Figure 6), seemingly as a result of strikes against 'blunt' metallic objects. Where parallels are found for the jagged appearance of the broken shafts and 'flattening' damage in Late Bronze Age examples, a re-evaluation of those spearheads should be a priority, given these clear indicators of usage.

The hypothesis that the absence of tip damage meant that spears were not used for thrusting or throwing was found to be incorrect. Thirty of the formal strikes involved throwing or thrusting with a spear point, yet only two of these caused any damage, in both cases very minor. A further two informal strikes caused more pronounced tip damage, after being stabbed down onto, or thrown at, a metal shield. The resilience of the spearhead tips under a range of conditions suggests that the lack of visible damage to the original tips was not the result of lack of use; indeed, damage to the shields suggests that prehistoric spears were thrown and thrust.

Although both the formal and informal stabbing strikes to the shield faces were made with some force, they resulted in surprisingly little damage, certainly not making the sorts of punctures seen on the South Cadbury and Long Wittenham shields (Coles 1962; Needham 1979; Coles et al. 1999). However, this strike frequently resulted in a quite minor damage type (Figure 7) similar to that seen on the Beith shield (Figure 8), both apparently dented under significant force applied through a small point.

[FIGURE 5 OMITTED]

When throwing the spears, the shields were penetrated on almost every occasion, causing a very distinctive damage pattern (see Figures 9 & 10), also noted by Molloy (2009) and visible on the Long Wittenham and Beith shields. Although the spears did not penetrate through the shield enough to cause a risk to the defender, the finding that only a thrown spear, as opposed to a thrust spear, could penetrate the shield face is crucial in understanding the behaviours that did, and did not, lead to damage.

The second hypothesis, that the damage seen on the original spearheads reflected spears being used in a sword-like manner was proved to be correct--to an extent. Slashing strikes require the use of a short shaft. Although a long shaft is necessary when making a spearcast, it risked striking the attacker's inner elbow and tangling with their legs when used in a slashing motion. In addition, long shafts require the user to shift grip numerous times throughout a single strike in order to retain control. In a larger group, such shafts would present a significant risk to colleagues of the spearbearer, as well as to any opponents.

The spears were used to make a total of 24 slashing strikes, 18 resulting in visible edge damage. While the angle of strike, most types of movement and the movement or immobility of the defending material had no apparent effect on the outcome, two patterns did emerge. First, where the spear was used in a slashing motion against a metal object with a sharp edge (another spear edge, sword edge, or the edge of the metal shield) it almost invariably resulted in a chip to the edge of the attacking spear. Second, where the spear was used in a slashing motion against a blunt metal object (the face of the shield or flat of the sword) it resulted in flattening to the spear edge. Perhaps unsurprisingly, strikes against the leather shield caused the spearheads no damage but strikes against the metal shield frequently did, while strikes against the sword and other spearheads almost invariably did. Table 2 shows that the strikes resulted in a very low range of damage types, dominated by chipping. This does not correlate to the patterning seen on the original spearheads, which showed a wider and more even spread of damage types.

[FIGURE 6 OMITTED]

[FIGURE 7 OMITTED]

The original spearheads exhibit a high proportion of bowing, also seen on the experimental spears but not to the same degree. Considering the relative hardness values of the spear edges, these results suggest that the level of edge-hardening is the dominant factor in affecting the type of edge damage sustained; a softer edge is more likely to bow, while a harder edge will chip.

Discussion

The experimental results are primarily relevant to considerations of spear shafting, modes of use, causes of damage and the role of edge hardening. The experimental spearheads were certainly effective at slashing when used with a short shaft, and the presence of edge damage on ancient examples implies this mode of use. However, this style of combat is not without practical problems given the number of shaft breakages, which could happen when struck against either shield, the pig carcass or another weapon, but only during slashing strikes. It seems logical that attempts would have been made to strengthen the shaft, probably through the use of binding or fire-hardening.

Damage on some Late Bronze Age shields strongly suggests that spears were cast at them; this raises interesting questions about the context of this, since the combat effectiveness of thrown spears is doubtful. Even experienced spear casters found that maintaining accurate aim on a small target from anything more than approximately 3m away was difficult. They also travel relatively slowly in flight, providing an alert and unencumbered opponent time to move to safety. It seems likely that these types of spearheads could only have been combat-effective in a throwing capacity if a large number of spearbearers cast at a large, solid block of opposing combatants unable to manoeuvre swiftly out of the way. It is perhaps more likely that spears were thrown for a purpose other than injuring an opponent. There could have been a symbolic or psychological advantage to making some kind of throw in a combat situation, or the casting of spears at a shield could have been an element of a pre- or post-combat ritual, or of a pre-depositional ritual. If a sword can be ritually 'killed' before deposition then the same treatment could be applied to a shield.

[FIGURE 8 OMITTED]

The resilience of the spear tips to damage, and their effectiveness in causing damage to shields and flesh, indicates that spears could have been commonly employed as a thrusting weapon without resulting in evidential use-wear. Consequently, although the experimental damage patterning indicates that spears were used as slashing, sword-like weapons, such a mode of use should not necessarily be considered exclusive. It was not possible to link particular variables to particular damage patterns, although it was shown that the key variable affecting any form of damage is the defending material. Only in the case of 'flattening' could the occurrence of a specific type of damage be accurately predicted from the known variables. Such difficulties may be linked to the disproportionately high level of chipping in the experimental population. There are two potential causes for the disparity between the original and experimental damage groupings. First, the methodology of the strikes may not have been comprehensive enough in scope. Second, as previously noted, the harder edges of the experimental spears may have predisposed them to chip rather than bend, as a high proportion of the softer prehistoric examples did. It would be illuminating to discover whether the damage patterning in the prehistoric spearhead population could be replicated using experimental spears with a softer edge.

[FIGURE 9 OMITTED]

Assuming that edge hardening is indeed the key variable for the severity and type of damage sustained, it raises questions regarding trends in levels of edge-hardening and combat damage over time; and also how such weapons would fare without being edge-hardened. Of the classifiable northern British spears examined for this research, at least 68 per cent show edge treatment, visible to the naked eye as a bevel along the edge (Figure 11).

The chronology of Late Bronze Age spear typologies, while lacking in precision, can roughly divide the material into earlier (represented in blue and red) and later types (represented in green). Assuming edge-hardening was a practical attempt to limit damage when spears were employed as slashing weapons, it seems reasonable to suppose that rates of edge-hardening and instances of combat damage would appear in inverse proportion. This does seem to occur, albeit in very small numbers. There is a very slight reduction in the relative amount of combat damage on the spears dating from the latter part of the Late Bronze Age at the same time as a marginally larger growth in the numbers being edge-hardened. Interestingly, although 38 per cent of the spearheads that do not have edge-hardening do show edge damage, they are all from the earlier group. Application of a simple chi-squared test to the 'earlier' and 'later' groups of material returns a result of 3.6 (with 1 degree of freedom), which, at a probability of 0.10 per cent, indicates a statistically significant relationship between levels of edge-hardening and combat damage. Although a probability of 0.05 per cent would render the result more reliable, it does indicate a general trend towards the end of the Late Bronze Age to use spears more frequently as slashing, rather than thrusting, weapons.

[FIGURE 10 OMITTED]

[FIGURE 11 OMITTED]

Conclusions

The results of these experiments prompt some suggestions about the nature and practice of conflict in the Late Bronze Age. The use of the word 'warfare' in this area of research is controversial since its meaning is both loaded and ambiguous; 'conflict' or 'violent conflict' are frequently found to be less problematic (Carman 1997). However, should warfare (in the sense of organised groups deliberately engaging in socially sanctioned armed violence with each other) have occurred in the Late Bronze Age, it is probable that only relatively small numbers of well-trained individuals would have been involved in formalised combat. Comparatively few weapons have been found in northern Britain which do not indicate clear progression between high and low status items based on aesthetics and decoration. Consequently, these were probably made for the elite minority who, for reasons of status and personal safety, may well have spent considerable time training in their use. Certainly the modes of use indicated by these experiments and the skill required to ensure their effectiveness suggests high levels of training investment. The ease and swiftness with which the weapons panoply became heavily damaged during the experiments might also point to short-lived single combats taking the place of inter-group fighting.

If groups rather than individuals fought, neither the modes of use indicated here, nor the evidence from the prehistoric material, suggest the use of techniques suitable for individuals fighting as a unit, such as an earlier version of the Saxon shield wall. Instead, the space required during the experiments for using the weapons effectively, and the damage sustained, suggest that where groups were fighting, it would essentially have consisted of a melee of individual fights.

Finally, we turn to the status of spears. The high status, expensive and symbolic nature of Late Bronze Age swords and metal shields is undeniable, but different components of the weapons panoplies are likely to have been chosen for use depending on individual sets of circumstances. For example, given the difference in damage sustained by the sword and spears during the experiments, and the relative force that could be deployed with each, the spear might have been a more desirable choice for combats of longer duration, while a sword may have been more appropriate for single combats. The results of this study indicate that employing the same combat techniques for spears and swords is not only possible, but likely; the two weapons are comparable in terms of the skills required and their effectiveness (albeit that the spear has a far smaller cutting edge, requiring more precision), while the risks of spear shaft breakage are mirrored by the propensity of bronze sword blades to warp under pressure. It is possible to speculate on the reasons behind using an ostensibly less effective spear as a sword 'replacement', such as economics and supply constraining an individual's choice of weapon. However, given the technical attributes of the spear and the parity of skill required to wield spears and swords, the spear was probably not the low-status weapon we have come to view it as, but an important part of the weapons panoply in its own right. For these reasons, spears deserve far more attention in the arena of Late Bronze Age combat research.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank many people for their involvement in this project. Sagnlandet Lejre and The Moray Endowment Fund provided very generous funding to allow the project to go ahead. Dr Jane Blackford, Dr Sue Bridgford, Lisa Brown, Neil Burridge, Prof. Chris Hall, Dr Fraser Hunter, Jim Hutcheson, Dr Ane Jepsen, Anna McGauley, Dr Barry Molloy, James Parrish, Dr Marianne Rasmussen, Elizabeth Richardson, Dr Gordon Thomas, Dr Marion Uckelmann and Hannah Wilson kindly supplied their time, expertise and advice. I would like to thank especially Aubrey Roberts, Dr Rosemary Roberts, Dr Niall Anderson and Fraser Anderson, without whose support this project would have been impossible.

References

BRIDGFORD, S.D. 1997. Mightier than the pen? (An edgewise look at Irish bronze swords), in J. Carmen (ed.) Material harm: archaeological studies of war and violence: 95-115. Glasgow: Cruithne Press.

--2000. Weapons, warfare and society in Britain 1250-750 BC. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Sheffield.

CARMAN, J. (ed.) 1997. Material harm: archaeological studies of war and violence. Glasgow: Cruithne Press.

COLES, J.M. 1960. Scottish Late Bronze Age metalwork: typology, distribution and chronology. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 93: 16-134.

--1962. European Bronze Age shields. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 28:156-90.

COLES, J., P. LEACH, S. MINNIT, R. TABOR & A. WILSON. 1999. A Later Bronze Age shield from South Cadbury, Somerset, England. Antiquity 23: 33-48.

DAVIS, R. 2006. Basal-looped spearheads: typology, chronology, context and use (British Archaeological Reports International series 1497). Oxford: Archaeopress.

EHRENBERG, M. 1977. Bronze Age spearheads from Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire (British Archaeological Reports British series 34). Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.

GREENWELL, W. & W.P. BREWIS. 1909. The origin, evolution and classification of the bronze spear-head in Great Britain and Ireland. Archaeologia 61: 439-72.

HOOPER, B. & B. O'CONNOR. 1976. A bronze spearhead and its shaft from the River Thames at Hammersmith. Archaeological Journa1 133: 33-71.

LAUX, F. 1971. Die Bronzezeit in der Luneburger Heide. Hanover: Veroffentlichungen der urgeschichtlichen Sammlungen des Landesmuseums zu Hannover.

MOLLOY, B. 2006. The role of combat weaponry in Bronze Age societies: the cases of the Aegean and Ireland in the Middle and Late Bronze Age. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University College Dublin.

--2009. For Gods or men? A reappraisal of the function of European Bronze Age shields. Antiquity 83: 1052-1064.

NEEDHAM, S. 1979. Two recent British shield finds and their continental parallels. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 45:111-34.

TYLECOTE, R.F. 1986. Metallurgy in archaeology: a prehistory of metallurgy in the British Isles. London: E. Arnold.

WILSON, H. 2010. Damage to ancient bronze spears. Unpublished undergraduate dissertation, University of Edinburgh.

Kate Anderson, Department of Archaeology, University of Edinburgh, West Wing, Old Medical School, Teviot Place, Edinburgh EH1 2QZ, UK

Received: 6 May 2010; Accepted: 3 July 2010; Revised: 1 September 2010

Table 1. Vickers Hardness Values of the experimental spearheads,
tested on the uppermost part of the midrib and in the small channel
where the blade wing and blade edge meet.

Weapon Hardness of edge near Hardness of edge near
 socket (HV/30) tip (HV/30)

Spear 2 154 165
Spear 3 136 181
Spear 4 197 182
Spear 5 156 190
Spear 6 149 160
Spear 7 122 168
Spear 10 154 150
Spear 11 125 128
Spear 14 134 115
Spear 15 101 129
Spear 16 120 158
Spear 17 136 120
Spear 18 115 156
Mean: 138 (lsd = 24.34) 154 (lsd = 24.45)

Weapon Hardness of midrib
 (HV/30)

Spear 2 82.5
Spear 3 88.7
Spear 4 93.3
Spear 5 73.3
Spear 6 81.7
Spear 7 84.4
Spear 10 75.6
Spear 11 73.5
Spear 14 75.6
Spear 15 68.2
Spear 16 69
Spear 17 73.8
Spear 18 69.9
Mean: 77.6 (lsd = 7.83)

Table 2. Proportionate representation of damage types from the total
number of instances of damage in the original and experimental
spearhead populations. (NB: flattening was not studied in the
original population and therefore figures are unavailable in this
category.)

 Bows Chips Notches Nicks Scores Tears
Material (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

Original spears (89) 47 19 15 7 1 11
Experimental 13 75 0 0 0 6
 spears (33)

 Flattening
Material (%)

Original spears (89) Unknown
Experimental 6
 spears (33)