Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T13:49:34.812Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Double Axe in Prehistoric Europe

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 October 2013

C. F. C. Hawkes
C. F. C. Hawkes
Affiliation:
British Museum
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

One of Professor Myres's outstanding activities within the present decade has been in the re-founding of the old tradition of International Congresses in prehistoric archaeology and in anthropology. Prehistorians of many lands have cause to be grateful for the facilities thus afforded them for getting to know one another better, and for the interchange of facts and ideas, and never more so than when the subject has been one to which Professor Myres himself has contributed. Those subjects are notoriously many, but from the International Congress of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences held at Oslo in 1936—the second of the new series—I recall with especial vividness his contribution, following those of Professors Childe and Menghin, to the discussion on the paper read by Mr. R. W. Hutchinson on Aegean Battle-axes. And it is a great pleasure to be able to turn to my notes—such as they were—of what he said that morning, as a startingpoint for my brief tribute in this volume to the inspiration of his manysided genius.

Type
Research Article
Information
Annual of the British School at Athens , Volume 37 , November 1937 , pp. 141 - 159
Copyright
Copyright © The Council, British School at Athens 1937

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 141 note 1 Mallowan Excavations at Arpachiyah, Fig. 51, 5, and Pl. X.

page 143 note 1 Schliemann-Sammlung 6479–81; Dörpfeld, Troja und Ilion II, 292 and 404.Google Scholar I owe the references to Mr. Hutchinson.

page 143 note 2 Childe Danube in Prehistory, 203 ff.

page 143 note 3 ‘Eurasian Shaft-hole Axes’: Eurasia Septentrionalis Antiqua IX (Minns volume, 1934), 157 ff.

page 144 note 1 Menghin, Weltgeschickte der Steinzeit (1931), 419–20.Google Scholar On Montelius' observations of 1898, and Evans' at the British Association in 1896, see below p. 150 (n. 2), and p. 158 (n. 8).

page 144 note 2 Cf. Forssander, Der Ostskandinavische Norden während der ältesten Metallzeit Europas (Lund, 1936), 7 ff.Google Scholar

page 144 note 3 Åberg, Das Nordische Kulturgebiet in Mitteleuropa (Uppsala, 1918), 91–2Google Scholar and Abb. 192 (Vienna Hofmus. 28101).

page 145 note 1 Buttler, Marburger Studien (1938), 27 ff.Google Scholar

page 146 note 1 Childe Danube in Prehistory, 93; AJA XLIV (1939), 23 (quoting Schránil, Vorgeschichte Böhmens und Mährens, Pl. VII, 2); cf. Pendlebury, Archaeology of Crete (1939), 69–70, 86Google Scholar, with Pl. X, 3b).

page 146 note 2 IPEK 1936–37, 16–31 (based on Neustupny's article in Pamatky archaeologicke IV (XL), 1936.

page 146 note 3 Wiener Prähistorische Zeitschrift XXIV (1937), 77–81.

page 147 note 1 Dacia III–IV, 1, 352–5; XXII Bericht Röm.-Germ. Komm. 76 (abb. 15), 77 (note 300).

page 147 note 2 Childe Danube in Prehistory, 213–14 and Fig. 113.

page 147 note 3 ESA II, 172 and Fig. 98, 1–2; cf. Fig. 99, 3.

page 147 note 4 Id. Fig. 99, 1.

page 147 note 5 So Childe, ESA IX, 163 and note 30.Google Scholar

page 147 note 6 E.g. Childe Dawn of European Civilization, ed. 1, 34, Fig. 13, 1–2.

page 148 note 1 Šturms, Die Ältere Bronzezeit im Ostbaltikum (Vorgeschichtliche Forschungen, Heft 10, 1936), 5–7 and Taf. IGoogle Scholar, d.

page 149 note 1 Witter, Die älteste Erzgewinnung im nordisch-germanischen Lebenskreis (Mannus-Bücherei Bd. 60, 1938).Google Scholar

page 150 note 1 E.g. Much, Die Kupferzeit in Europa (1893), 80–3Google Scholar; cf. Virchow, in Z.f.Ethn. 1891, 460.Google Scholar

page 150 note 2 In his ‘Chronologie der ältesten Bronzezeit’: Archiv f. Anthropologie 25, 456–61. He observes that European double-axe forms in general should be related to the ‘East-Mediterranean’ metal type, though the Minoan material was of course then unknown to him.

page 150 note 3 Congr. Internat. Anthr. Arch. Préhist., Paris 1900, 340–1.

page 150 note 4 Z.f.Ethn. 37, 519–25.

page 150 note 5 Id 770–2, 1007–9.

page 150 note 6 Manuel d'Archeologie II, 1, 403–7.

page 150 note 7 Bonn. Jahrb. 123, Beilage, 105; id. 127, 109. For another (not on map) see p. 159.

page 150 note 8 Danube in Prehistory, 177, 193.

page 150 note 9 Brit. Mus. Bronze Age Guide (1920), 137–8.

page 150 note 10 Id. with Fig. 146; Childe Danube in Prehistory, 243, with Fig. 143, top.

page 152 note 1 See the analyses given by him in Die älteste Erzgewinnung usw. (p. 149, n. 1), I, as follows:—Tabelle I, nos. 50–1 (p. 230), with text p. 116; Tabelle II, nos. 135–8 (p. 236), with text p. 121. These results are covered by the summaries on pp. 120–1, 124.

page 152 note 2 This has unfortunately not actually been analysed.

page 152 note 3 Reinerth Die jüngere Steinzeit der Schweiz, evidence in lists 231 ff. (‘Westische Keramik’ here actually includes both pottery of the Michelsberg and the Horgen culture (see abb. 49, 50, 59) as defined by Vogt Germania 18, 89–94; ‘Mischkeramik’ here also the Horgen or Horgen-Altheim culture, into which ‘Süddeutsche Schnurkeramik’ intrudes: see Vogt, id.); Forssander, Ostskandinavische Norden (p. 144, n. 2), 18 ff. For the axe itself, see Ischer, Die Pfahlbauten des Bielersees, 32 and 94–6 with Taf. XI, 1.

page 153 note 1 Menghin Weltgeschichte der Steinzeit, 398.

page 153 note 2 Chronologie der jüngeren Steinzeit in Süddeutschland, 56–7; Die jüngere Steinzeit der Schweiz, 188, with abb. 74–5 and map 8.

page 153 note 3 Germania 18, 94.

page 153 note 4 Thus Åberg Nordische Kulturgebiet (p. 144, n. 3), 39, with abb. 40–1, and Menghin, loc. cit.

page 153 note 5 Thus Childe (developing Reinerth, locc. citt.), Danube in Prehistory, 177.

page 153 note 6 Childe, Arch. Journal LXXXVIII, 49–51 and map, 45, fig. 2.Google Scholar

page 153 note 7 Hawkes, JacquettaAntiquity VIII, 38–40Google Scholar; Vogt, Anzeiger f. Schweiz. Altertumskunde, XL (1938), 1, 1–14.Google Scholar

page 154 note 1 Kendrick The Axe Age, 31 ff.; Forde, DaryllMan 1929, 80Google Scholar; Hawkes, JacquettaArchaeology of the Channel Islands, II: Jersey (1939), 7–9.Google Scholar

page 154 note 2 Déchelette, Manuel d'Archéologie I, 585.Google Scholar

page 154 note 3 The distribution of stone double axes in France mapped in Fig. 1 has been compiled from those noticed by Evans, JohnAncient Stone Impts (ed. 2), 186–7Google Scholar; Mortillet, deMusée Préhistorique (ed. 2), Pl. LVIII, 631–2Google Scholar; Déchelette, Manuel d'Archéologie I, 516–18Google Scholar; Rouzic, LeL'Anthropologie XLIV, 502–5Google Scholar; Hure, Bull. Soc. Préhistorique Française XV, 261 ff.Google Scholar; Cabrol and Pauron id. XXXIV, 487–8 (Fig. 7); and the classified lists given by Marcel Baudouin id. XII, 291 ff., and Aveneau de la Grancière and Harmois id. XIII, 230, 280, 308 ff, in which double-axe types have been picked out from hammer-butted forms.

page 154 note 4 The most notable is that from the tumulus-burial (not actually megalithic, but of this same culture) at Kervadel, , Plobannalec, , Finistère, : Matériaux 1881, 265 ff, Pl. VI, Figs. 8–8 bis (274)Google Scholar; reproduced by Forde, Antiquaries Journal VII, 17, Fig. 4, 1 (cf. 18, 31, 37).Google Scholar Part of another comes from the fourth lateral-chambered megalithic ‘dolmen’ at Kervinion near by (Matériaux id. Fig. 2–2 bis: Forde id. 5), and in the Morbihan Le Rouzic publishes examples from Mané-Meur (Quiberon), and Moulet (Brech), Le: L'Anthropologie XLIV, 502–5, Figs. 14, 1, 15 and 16, 1Google Scholar; both are megaliths of his ‘dolmen à galerie’ class 2 (id. XLIII, 235 ff). Lastly, there is part of one from the east chamber of the transeptal gallerygrave of the Grand-Carreau-Vert (St. Michel-chef-chef), Loire-Inf, found with a bellbeaker and pieces of plain pottery: Matériaux 1886, 284 ff, Figs. 2 and 8.

page 155 note 1 Appreciated by Rouzic, LeL'Anthropologie XLIV, 504.Google Scholar

page 156 note 1 The earliest French Bronze culture would seem to be the so-called Rhône culture in the east, which Ünze (Die Vorgeschichtliche Trianguläre Vollgriffdolche, 1938) has shown to be contemporary with those of Central Europe and Upper Italy; thence springs the Armorican or Breton culture, the invasion of which Piggott, (Proc. Prehist. Soc. IV, 1, 64–6, 94–5)Google Scholar has dated between 1800 and 1700 B.C.

page 156 note 2 See Kerforne, F. paper and map in Bull. et Mém. Musée de Penmarc'h (Inst. Finistérien d'Études Préhistoriques), 1926.Google Scholar

page 156 note 3 Forde, Man 1929, 80.Google Scholar

page 156 note 4 Piggott, Proc. Prehist. Soc. IV, 1, 55 ff.Google Scholar: daggers, Devizes Mus. Cat. 2 23, X50a (Roundway) and Stourhead 81 (Mere); Wilts. Arch. Mag. XLVII, 178, n. 3 (Winterslow).

page 156 note 5 Piggott loc. cit.

page 156 note 6 Piggott loc. cit. 69 ff.

page 157 note 1 Piggott loc. cit. 57.

page 157 note 2 Elgee Early Man in N.E. Yorkshire, 62–4, Fig. 20, 1 and pl. XI, 1; he regarded it as probably of copper: actually it has 8·9 per cent, tin, as compared with 3·3 in the Topsham axe and 7·1 in the French.

page 157 note 3 Piggott, loc. cit. 70 (Fig. 8, 7), 83.Google Scholar

page 157 note 4 Smith, R. A.Archaeologia 75, 77 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Piggott loc. cit. 83.

page 157 note 5 Loc. cit. 95–6.

page 158 note 1 Elgee, in Whitby Gazette, 27 Nov. 1936, 12, with photograph.Google Scholar

page 158 note 2 Childe Danube in Prehistory, 218–19 and map VI. Reinecke, (Germania 17, 256–9)Google Scholar eliminates the Austrian (and a Swiss) specimen, and rejects the Hungarian ones as dealers' pieces: he also doubts the Thiel example (n. 4) on account of its patina. But an occasional wandering of these hook-tanged daggers to Europe remains a possibility. As Mr. J. R. Stewart has kindly made clear to me, the type is not native to Cyprus, but has a wide range in the Near East: the earliest known comes from Megiddo.

page 158 note 3 Ischer Die Pfahlbauten des Bielersees, 94, abb. 79.

page 158 note 4 Bull. Soc. Arch. Champenoise 32 (Dec. 1938), 161–2.

page 158 note 5 Tallgren, Pontide Préscythique (ESA II), 161–2 (Chtetkovo)Google Scholar, 162–3 (Kozorésovo), 173; Dörpfeld, Troja und Ilion I, 394–5Google Scholar: cf. Schliemann Ilios no. 1429–30 (I cannot trace the Hungarian specimen).

page 158 note 6 Childe Dawn of European Civilisation (ed. 1), 106–7; Gimpera, BoschComm. Internat. Préhist. Médit. Occidentale, Barcelona 1935, 29–35.Google Scholar

page 158 note 7 Montelius, Civ. Primitive en Italie I, pl. 34, 15Google Scholar; Déchelette, Manuel d'Archéologie II, 407.Google Scholar Their ultimate Aegean derivation was pointed out by Sir Arthur Evans in his British Association address at Liverpool in 1896 (Report, 921).