31691 P1200412 (2)

The early datę of the Wehringen grave is mainly justified by the bronze wagon Tutings which hctr.iv many close parallels in the Urn field period. The same reasoning is followcd in the case of Chaveria tumulus 16 (Vuaillat 1977, 89-103) and Lengenfeld tumulus 1 of 1894 (Torbrugge 1979, 307; pis 70; 71, 9-14; 79, 20-21) — in these graves on account of the early horse trappings which are quite at \ ariance with the rich horse-gear of Ha C1. The finds from these three graves will be discussed in detail helów. with particular refer-ence to their Gundlingen swords.

I Swords

The grave from Wehringen tumulus 8 is remarkable not only for its wagon. It has long been recognised that the swords in wagon-graves are almost always madę of iron and indeed Wehringen tumulus 8, with its bronze Gundlingen sword and chape, is the only exception (Kossack 1959. 124; 1970, 121)³.

Swords are known from 28 of the 58 wagon-graves of the Ha C phase (Parę forthcoming).

Of these swords. 27 are madę of iron, only one is of bronze (Wehringen). The significance of this ratio becomes apparent when the distributions of bronze Gundlingen swords and iron Hallstatt swords are compared with the distribution of Ha C wagon-graves (Figs 4-6). Within the area where wagon burial was practised in Ha C, both bronze Gundlingen swords and iron Hallstatt swords are commonly represented. Furthermore, over most of this area. swords of both types were available (the only exception is in the area around the Ammer- and Stambergersee, where bronze Gundlingen swords are rather in-freąuent). Considering that bronze swords were available in most of the areas where wagon burial was practised, it is elear that there must be a special reason why they were not deposited among the goods of the wagon-graves.

Linie is known about the typology of iron Hallstatt swords, partly because of the poor preservation of iron. and partly because research has concentrated on bronze swords. However, in his study of iron technology in the Hallstatt period, A. Rieth attempted an analysis of the lengths and shapes of the iron swords (1942, 23-31). Although he was mainly working from published materiał, and his drawings do not inspire much conGd-ence (1942.24-25), Ricth’s work nevertheless retains its importance. He concluded that most of the iron swords were of the broad slashing type (compar able to the Mindelheim type of bronze swords). but recognised a few iron swords which could be considered as co pies of the narrow bronze stabbing swords (Gundlingen type)⁴. Since then, M.-E. Marten has published two iron swords from Court-Saint-Etienne (1958, 2S5; 46, Gg. 5, 204. 219), originally ca. 52-53cm in length. which he compared to his Villement typeof bronze stabbing swords (shorter swords of the Gundlingen type). Two morę iron swords have sińce been found which are comparable with Gundlingen swords: from Saulces-

Champenoiscs, Ardennes (Flouest 1985, fig. 3, 5), and Fischbach-Schirndorf grave 200, in the Oberpfalz. associated with a chape of Kossack’s type A2 (unpublished). Rieth's conclusions seem to be valid, and the author has been able to find very few iron swords which can be related to the Gundlingen type, although there could be many morę in France (Wamser 1975, lists six morę; sec her cat. nos 73,227,370, 574,609 and 683).

Of the 27 iron swords found in Ha C wagon burials, 11 have survived to provide some typological Information. Although they are freąuently very poorly presenred, it is possi-blc to relate all these swords to the bronze Mindelheim type. Eight of the swords have the typical pommel tang⁵. On other swords, the characteristic features are the blunt trap-ezoidal point⁶, and the shoulders of the hilt⁷.

From the sample available we may condude that the wagon-graves of Ha C were gener-ally characterised by iron Mindelheim swords. The fact that bronze Mindelheim swords have so far not been found in wagon-graves could be explałned by two facts: 1. Bronze Mindelheim swords are much less common than their iron relativcs, and 2. Only a few of the bronze Mindelheim swords come from secure associations (see Schauer 1971,192-198). Be that as it may: whereas all the classifiable swords in wagon-graves correspond to the Mindelheim type, Gdndlingen swords are, with Wehringen tumulus 8 the notable exception, completely absent.

In view of these conclusions, the remarks madę above about bronze and iron swords should be amended. I suggest that it was not the metal which caused the exclusion of Gfindlingen swords from wagon-graves: the dassic wagon-graves of Ha C are charader-ised by iron swords simply because the great majority of Mindelheim swords were madę from that metal. It is presumably merely a matter of statistical probability that a bronze Mindelheim sword has not yet been found in a wagon-grave (but notę the Mindelheim sword-grave from Frankfurt-Stadtwald with horse-gear and yoke as pars pro toto of a wagon: Fischer 1979, 40-9). On the other hand, the fact that bronze swords have not been found in wagon-graves (Wehringen tumulus 8 is the only exception) shows that swords of the Gundlingen type, of which bronze examples are greatly prevalent. were somehow exduded from deposition in dassic Ha C wagon-gravcs (iron modeis of Gundlingen swords are likcwise absent from wagon burials - but this could be explained by their rarity). The foUowing sections will attempt to seek an explanation of this pheno-menon by an analysis of Gundlingen swords and their associations.

Theorigin of the Gundlingen type has already been the subject of detailed study. where-by the recognition by a number of authors of so-called ‘proto-Hallstatt’ swords, partic-ularly frcąuent in Western Europę, represented an important advance in the discussion (Briard 1965, 205-8; Schauer 1972; Martin 1975). But a lack of typological preciskm and the use of a bewildering variety of type names has been a serious obstade for the pro-

5