INTRODUCTION
Introduction to the dating of cup marks
Cup marks are found on both portable and immovable rocks in many prehistoric and historic contexts throughout Europe. Cup marks are generally about 5 cm in diameter and up to 1 cm deep, although they can vary greatly in size, ranging from 1–20 cm in diameter and up to 6 cm deep (Glob Reference Glob1969, 111; Gosso Reference Gosso2010, 207; Iversen Reference Iversen2019a, 144). Cup marks are present in the early 4th millennium bc of Brittany and the Iberian Peninsula, as well as in the late 4th millennium bc in Great Britain and Ireland (Horn Reference Horn2015 30; Iversen Reference Iversen2019a, 144). In northern Italy, they can even be traced back to around 5000 bc (Gosso Reference Gosso2010, 208). In Central and Northern Europe, cup marks are mainly believed to exist from the Bronze Age onwards. However, the basis for this assumption is not solid and recent discoveries have shown that a rethink is needed.
In northern Germany and southern Scandinavia, cup marks discussed in the literature are predominantly dated to the Bronze Age (Table 1 summarises and compares different chronologies). This dating is, in particular, derived from cup marks in Sweden and Norway. These occur with centres along Norway’s west coast, south-eastern Norway, and Bohuslän, and in Uppland, and are associated with figures such as boats or people with weapons, verifying a Bronze Age date (Horn Reference Horn2015, 30). This date cannot, however, simply be transferred to Danish and north German cup marks. Bronze Age figurative art associated with cup marks seldom occurs in Denmark and when it does it is more often on the islands in the east than in Jutland in the west (with the exception of Djursland, easternmost Jutland), and more frequently so on the island of Bornholm (Felding Reference Felding2010, 85; Horn Reference Horn2022, 15). Such images are largely unknown in northern Germany (Horn Reference Horn2015, 31); here, rocks are only sporadically attributed with symbols other than cup marks, such as the cup marked capstone from Bunsoh that also exhibits engraved rings, hands, and feet (Ickerodt & Kelm Reference Ickerodt and Kelm2011). Thus, as one moves further away from the centre, the frequency of occurrence decreases (Felding Reference Felding2010; Horn Reference Horn2022, 15).
Table 1. Comparison of terminologies from different regions
In Denmark, and potentially in northern Germany as well (although this region has not yet been sufficiently researched), small ‘pocket-stones’ marked with cup marks (known as Lommeskålsten) have been discovered. These stones have 1–11 cup marks (Glob Reference Glob1969, 128). While Glob attributed these to the Bronze Age, subsequent excavations have revealed that they were already being created during the Late Neolithic (LN; Sørensen Reference Sørensen2018, 43). Even though pieces of such an age bear only a single cup mark, this demonstrates that the phenomenon began earlier than previously believed.
However, cup marks are more common on megaliths and free-standing stones in both Denmark and northern Germany. Over 275 megaliths in Denmark are associated with cup marks (Iversen Reference Iversen2019a, 144) but the dating of these to the Bronze Age remains dubious, with closed and dated contexts almost non-existent (Horn Reference Horn2015, 31; Iversen Reference Iversen2019a, 144–7). The age of the cup marks remains uncertain as the activity of creating them continued (or was revived) until at least the 17th century ad (Horn Reference Horn2015, 32).
In his extensive analysis of cup marks, Glob (Reference Glob1969) already expressed scepticism as to the restricted Bronze Age dating of those associated with megaliths, pointing to a number of contexts that open up the possibility of a LN date (1969, 119–24; cf. Iversen Reference Iversen2019a, 151). Additionally, Felding (Reference Felding2009, 58) suggests a LN date for several cup marked stones found in burial contexts (cf. Sørensen Reference Sørensen2018, 45). Dibbern (Reference Dibbern2016) confirms this with a cup marked stone from the megalithic grave of Albersdorf-Brutkamp (most likely a capstone belonging to the passage) that dates at least to the early LN (2350–1900 bc; 2016, 103–4).
Iversen (Reference Iversen2019a) also identified potential Early Neolithic (EN) and Middle Neolithic (MN) contexts with cup marks. While citing the work of Dibbern (Reference Dibbern2016), he dates the cup marks back to the construction and primary use phase of the tomb (c. 3600–3100 bc; 2019a, 146). Dibbern used stratigraphic observations for his own dating: the layer with the cup marked stone was filled in the early LN, offering a terminus ante quem for the cup marks (2016, 97, 103–4). This opens the possibility of an earlier date; however, caution in necessary.
Another late EN context (c. 3500 bc) mentioned by Iversen (Reference Iversen2019a, 146; cf. Kaul Reference Kaul1987; Iversen et al. Reference Iversen, Thorsen and Andresen2022, 169) is doubtful due to its state of preservation (a destroyed long dolmen at Onsved Mark, Zealand). This context can neither be verified nor refuted. Iversen’s suggestion that cup marks are linked to the spread of megalithism throughout Europe (2019a, 146) is straightforward but not supported by the data. However, even if these examples are not entirely clear-cut, they deliver enough evidence to urge a rethinking of the dating of megalithic structures with cup marked capstones in Denmark and northern Germany.
Recently, Iversen et al. published two stones with cup marks, each found in one of two adjacent enclosures on the island of Bornholm, with a terminus ante quem of 2900–2700 bc (2022, 163). This confirms the existence of cup marks in this period in Northern Europe (cf. Milstreu & Dodd Reference Milstreu and Dodd2018, 20). However, it is important to note that, during the period 3000–2600 bc, Bornholm is distinct from mainland Denmark and northern Germany. The MN V (late Funnel Beaker Culture – FBC) on Bornholm is characterised by highly decorated pottery and art in the form of sun motifs on clay plates, making it a distinct example of the late FBC in its area of distribution. The sun symbols are even unique within this region (cf. Kaul et al. Reference Kaul, Andresen and Thorsen2016; Nielsen & Nielsen Reference Nielsen and Nielsen2020). Additionally, late FBC palisade enclosures, and, later, the Swedish Boat Axe culture (BAC) are present on Bornholm, while both are absent from the mainland (cf. Iversen Reference Iversen2015). Until cup marks dating to the EN or MN are found elsewhere, it must be concluded that they are mainly confined to this island. However, this does not apply to cup marks on battle axes as will be shown in this paper.
Introduction to cup marks on battle axes, and objectives
Cup marks are one of three types of secondary markings of battle axe fragments, along with deep pecking holes and hourglass shaped holes (see below). The cup marks and other secondary treatments present on battle axes addressed in this paper are currently predominantly interpreted as markings for later drillings. Rarely, and only in early studies, have they been regarded as symbolic and partly associated with the wider cup mark phenomenon (Schwantes Reference Schwantes1958; Malmer Reference Malmer1962; Röschmann Reference Röschmann1963; Roe Reference Roe1966). Thus, this paper is a new attempt to establish the significance of cup marks on – and secondary uses of – battle axes.
Iversen’s paper (2019a) is titled The appearance, disappearance, and reappearance of non-figurative rock art during the southern Scandinavian Neolithic and Bronze Age. According to this and other studies, there should be a ‘gap phase’; the disappearance of cup marks as non-figurative rock art during the Younger Neolithic (YN; see Table 1 for correlation of dating and nomenclature), thus being associated with Corded Ware (CWC) societies. This notion stems from, and consolidates, simplistic narratives about social changes in the 3rd millennium associated with the emergence of these societies. Even though in a recent paper, Iversen et al. (Reference Iversen, Thorsen and Andresen2022) mention cup marks on YN battle axe fragments by citing Schultrich (Reference Schultrich2018), the notion of a ‘gap phase’ still needs to be disproved in an in-depth study dedicated to the phenomenon.
To provide a full understanding of cup marks on battle axes it is first necessary to introduce their secondary uses and modes of final deposition. This paper will demonstrate the diversity of secondary treatments of axes and illustrate the various interpretations of this. The present study is based on an investigation of battle axes originating in the YN throughout the northern German state of Schleswig-Holstein (Fig. 1). The focus is placed on single finds, with an emphasis on secondary reworked fragments. Building on recent research (particularly Dibbern Reference Dibbern2016; Sørensen Reference Sørensen2018; Iversen Reference Iversen2019a; Iversen et al. Reference Iversen, Thorsen and Andresen2022), this study explores the origins of the practice of marking objects and locations with cup marks. The objective of this study is to show that cup marks occur regularly on battle axe fragments related to the so-called Single Grave Culture (SGC), a regional variation of the YN CWC specific to northern Germany and Jutland (cf. Hübner Reference Hübner2005). Based on this, a reconstruction of the origins and original meaning(s) of adding cup marks to objects and places in the Neolithic of Northern Europe is proposed.
Fig. 1. The location and borders of the modern federal state of Schleswig-Holstein from where the main data was obtained. There are more than 1200 battle axes from single-find contexts in this region (according to Schultrich Reference Schultrich2018)
This paper has three core goals. First, to (re-)introduce the topic of cup marks on battle axes into the discussion. Secondly, to associate the cup marks on battle axes with the wider cup mark phenomenon, in an attempt to fill the proposed ‘gap phase’; and thirdly, to tackle simplistic narratives about social changes in the 3rd millennium bc associated with CWC societies.
To achieve these goals, some material based questions will first be raised, concerning both the frequency of cup marks and other additions on battle axes from a diachronological perspective and their physical attributes; ie, their precise positioning and (any) differentiation according to shape.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
One cannot rely on a study of the literature alone to provide a thorough examination of battle axes with cup marks and other types of secondary treatments. Many battle axes that have turned out to have cup marks were not labelled as such in the literature. Also, only the diameter of such a feature is made clear in illustrations of axes, with the depth only rarely being documented. The basis of this study is formed through an analysis of ∼1460 battle axes from modern day Schleswig-Holstein, of which more than 300 pieces were investigated in person by the author of this paper. The methods applied include a typological and typo-chronological appraisal of the battle axes, measurements of the dimensions of the different secondary treatments, and a basic statistical analysis of the number of axe fragments with additions and the development of such additions over time. Moreover, the approach also involves a differentiation between types of secondary shaft hole axes, to distinguish ‘functional’ from ‘non-functional’ axe fragments and, furthermore, to distinguish between different methods of secondary marking.
ANALYSIS AND THE CHAⒾNE OPÉRATOIRE
After presenting an introduction to the main typological trends of battle axes in Central Europe, the chaîne opératoire will be detailed, with a focus on the final life-steps of a battle axe; ie, its fragmentation and re-use. Here, an analysis of the fragmentation, re-use, and – associated with this – the different types of secondary treatment, will also be introduced.
Introduction to battle axes: Separation to simple shaft hole axes, chronology, contexts
Battle axes emerge as a distinct type of object in Central Europe c. 4000 bc, and flourish until c. 2200 bc (Zápotocký Reference Zápotocký1992), continuing throughout the Bronze and Iron Ages (Schmidt Reference Schmidt1993, 68; Frehse Reference Frehse2013, 5; Iversen Reference Iversen2015, 106–8). Battle axes are defined by their shaft holes and their elaborate, rather complex, form. The diverse forms with arcs and edges, as well as the (mostly) blunt cutting edges, distinguish battle axes from shaft hole axes with sharp cutting edges and of a less elaborate design (Hoof Reference Hoof1970, 80; Zápotocký Reference Zápotocký1992, 154). Simple shaft hole axes could be reworked several times after breaking (Lekberg Reference Lekberg and Knutsson2004, 262–5) (Fig. 2), while battle axes were (almost) never reworked to become serviceable pieces again (see below).
Fig. 2. Several recycling stages of a simple shaft hole axe from the Swedish LN according to Lekberg (Reference Lekberg and Knutsson2004). For each stage, the neck was ground to a rounded shape and a proper shaft hole was drilled
Simple shaft hole axes develop in the late YN on the basis of battle axes. In this phase, the shaft holes move near to the butt of the axes and the shapes becomes simpler. However, during the YN III complex forms also continue to be produced (cf. Hübner Reference Hübner2005, 127–33; Schultrich Reference Schultrich2023b, 64–6; Fig. 3). In the LN and Older Bronze Age, elaborated battle axes vanish temporarily or permanently in most regions of Northern Germany and Southern Scandinavia and simple shaft hole axes now dominate (Schultrich Reference Schultrich2023b, 66; 2018, 114–15; cf. Lekberg Reference Lekberg and Knutsson2004).Footnote 1 In some regions, complex forms re-appear in the Younger Bronze and Iron Age (Schmidt Reference Schmidt1993, 68; Frehse Reference Frehse2013, 5).
Fig. 3. Two rough-outs with cup marks, both Schleswig-Holstein, unknown locality (Schultrich Reference Schultrich2018, cat. 1647, 1645)
For the battle axes of the Neolithic, generally speaking, two typological breaks occur. In the EN, c. 4000–3300 bc, hammer axes (Flat hammer axes [F] and Knob hammer axes [K]) existed. During the MN, c. 3300–2800 bc, the hammer axes came to be replaced by different forms of double axes (Nordic Double axes [D], Lancet-shaped Double axes [L], Round-butted axes [R], Neck-comb axes (Nackenkammäxte) [N]). These, in turn, are replaced at the onset of the YN by different variants of hammer axes (Zápotocký Reference Zápotocký1992, 2; Klimscha Reference Klimscha2016, 86). The reality is more complex than this simple outline (Schultrich Reference Schultrich2023a, 288–90), but for the purpose of this paper there is no need to deal with this in detail.
Over the course of time, the contexts to which battle axes are associated change. During the EN, they only occur sporadically in burial contexts. Minor concentrations of burial contexts occur in Denmark and north-eastern Germany, where the battle axes are often (c. 33%) fragmented; ie, only one axe-half is present (Zápotocký Reference Zápotocký1992, appx; Schultrich Reference Schultrich2022, 357). This changes during the MN, when a different typology becomes predominant. The proportion of battle axes from burials related to single-find contexts increases significantly. Fragments, in contrast, become increasingly less frequent (albeit with regional variations in this regardFootnote 2 ). In the YN, when the CWC related SGC emerges, the absolute number of battle axes from all contexts drastically increases (in Sschleswig-Holstein there are ∼210 MN (according to Zápotocký Reference Zápotocký1992) and 1461 YN pieces according to Schultrich Reference Schultrich2018). This is especially the case during the earlier phases of the YN, where about 65–70% of all known graves are attributed with a battle axe (Hübner Reference Hübner2005, 605). However, the proportion of burial finds in relation to single finds remains rather constant and, in some regions, even decreases (Schultrich Reference Schultrich2022, 357, 461–2, 604; Reference Schultrich2023a, 291; cf. Hübner Reference Hübner2005; Ebbesen Reference Ebbesen2011; Iversen Reference Iversen2015). At present, we know of hardly any fragments from YN burial contexts (Schultrich Reference Schultrich2018, 21). Thus, significant changes appear on two occasions: During the MN c. 3100 bc, and with the onset of the YN c. 2850 bc.
The first steps
No extraordinary skills are required to create a battle axe; however, it is a time-consuming process (Olausson Reference Olausson1997, 130–2). Most estimations derived from an experimental basis are over 50 – and mostly between 80 and 100 – working hours (Zápotocký Reference Zápotocký1992, 144; Olausson Reference Olausson1997, 130; Wentink Reference Wentink2020, 114). Manufacture requires a solid stone material. Within the material culture of Schleswig-Holstein, the most frequent stone used is diabase (so-called Åsby-Diabase; Schultrich Reference Schultrich2018, 164–7; cf. Wentink Reference Wentink2020, 113). This is a stone typical of the glacial moraines of the region. It is robust but relatively easy to process. If necessary, the stone could first be split into smaller pieces, with the selected piece being shaped with a hammerstone, bit by bit, roughly into the desired shape, using a pecking method (Olausson Reference Olausson1997, 132; cf. Wentink Reference Wentink2020, 112–13). If this was successful, ie, no mistakes were made by the manufacturer and no cracking appeared in the stone that rendered it useless, the manufacturer(s) proceeded to the next step.
Many rough-outs of YN battle axes at different stages of production are present in the archaeological record of northern Germany; these are mostly attributed with cup marks or deep drillings (Fig. 3). Generally, the shaft hole, or at least the marking for it, was created after the axe was pecked and ground to the desired form but before the time-intensive polishing was finished. This may well be due to the fact that the finalising of the drilling was a process with a high potential for failure (Zápotocký Reference Zápotocký1992, 144; Olausson Reference Olausson1997, 130–2; Goldhammer et al. Reference Goldhammer, Hartz and Paulsen2012, 127–8).
By examining the data closely, we find different forms of rough-outs. Some appear to be very uneven and it may well be that the manufacturers discarded them before investing too much energy in preparing a piece that would likely never be completed. Some rough-outs, however, do not seem uneven (Fig. 3), and are also devoid of cracks or the potential crack zones that can occur in such stones. The choice behind leaving such pieces unfinished may well have been down to other reasons.Footnote 3
When it comes to drillings, two different kinds are evident; the ‘pecking’ technique and the ‘true drilling’ technique. In the Neolithic of northern Germany, most shaft holes were made using a hard tool in combination with water and sand to peck a hole (Zápotocký Reference Zápotocký1992, 145; Olausson Reference Olausson1997, 130–2; Schultrich Reference Schultrich2018, 182; Wentink Reference Wentink2020, 113–5). Before the shaft hole’s inner surface became polished, the pecking technique would have led to a cup mark, deep pecking hole, or hourglass shaped hole (in successive order), as frequently evidenced in the material of Sscleswig-Holstein. In other regions, such as central and southern Germany, Switzerland, or the Czech Republic, holes were more often drilled using narrow instruments (Zápotocký Reference Zápotocký1992, 145; Wolf Reference Wolf1993; Goldhammer et al. Reference Goldhammer, Hartz and Paulsen2012, 128).Footnote 4 If unfinished, such a ‘true’ drilling technique would lead to a ring-shaped hole (see Fig. 10, below).
The polishing of the axe body can be of varying quality and cover different parts. These differences most likely reflect different functional purposes. Most battle axes of the early YN are almost completely polished, with a high quality finish. Residual evidence of the pecking technique (in the form of small depressions) is only seldomly visible (Schultrich Reference Schultrich2018, 172–5, tab. 67). In the later YN and the LN, many simple axes are only polished near the cutting edges while the rest of the body is evidently coarser (Schultrich Reference Schultrich2018, 172–5; Reference Schultrich2023b, 65).
Use-life
An investigation of the use life of battle axes is a desideratum. Generally, scholars agree that battle axes were not merely mundane wood-working tools as they are too elaborate, mostly have blunt cutting edges, and the shafts are too thin (Zápotocký Reference Zápotocký1992, 166; cf. Wentink Reference Wentink2020, 123). However, some battle axes exist with cutting edges that are sharp and have proportionately thick shaft holes (cf. Hübner Reference Hübner2005, 90). This is already indicative of some degree of functional diversity. Most scholars regard battle axes as socially valued, prestige, or individual status objects, as they are often present in grave contexts. Such a social value becomes even more evident through the fact that battle axes were depicted on stone slabs and stelae, were also sometimes made of copper, and – more symbolically – clay or amber miniatures are known from a number of contexts (Seregély Reference Seregély2008, 281–2; Kerig Reference Kerig2010; Frieman Reference Frieman2012; Schultrich Reference Schultrich2023a, 294). Also, interpretations of the battle axe as a weapon – or at least a symbolic weapon – are prevalent, with such interpretations being heavily intertwined with those of the implements as status objects (Zápotocký Reference Zápotocký1992, 154–6, cf. Horn Reference Horn2014, 221). It is undeniable that violent encounters occurred in which weapons of various kinds were used (Varberg Reference Varberg, Frieman and Eriksen2015, 97; Horn Reference Horn2021, 56–9). However, actual use as a weapon or any other type of implement has not (yet) been objectively verified and it is likely that battle axes served multiple functions (Hübner Reference Hübner2005, 637).
In principle, only use-wear analysis can help clarify precisely what these axes were used for. However, even such analyses have significant limitations, as axes in burial contexts may well have been made exclusively for this purpose, or resharpened immediately prior to deposition (Hübner Reference Hübner2005, 79–81; Wentink Reference Wentink2020, 119). Hübner (Reference Hübner2005) showed through a simple observation of the traces of use-wear, which occur on both the cutting edges and the butts, that huge regional variations in types of use exist. In some areas (as is the case for Schleswig-Holstein), the axes of the YN seem almost unused while, in other areas such as Thisted and Ringkøbing, Jutland, they appear to be heavily worn (Hübner Reference Hübner2005, 80). Also, many axes bear reworked cutting edges. The question of what the battle axes were used for, however, remained unaddressed.
Frieman (Reference Frieman2012) undertook a more detailed analysis of the trace marks of the LN knob-butted hammer axes of north-western Europe, determining that both the cutting and butt ends commonly bear trace marks, with the cutting edges bearing evidence of flaking, probably stemming from a percussive use like woodworking. Wentink (Reference Wentink2020) made experiments to recreate the trace marks of SGC battle axes from the Netherlands. The best match was obtained by chopping the roots of trees (2020, 120–5).
At present, we cannot judge whether this is the definitive source of such use marks. However, even if it does turn out to be the case, this only provides an explanation for the use of such axes in this specific region and period, due to the limited nature of the study. Generalised statements on the use of (types of) battle axes, which occur across a vast territory spanning from Western to Eastern Europe for a period of more than 2000 years, must be avoided. The above-mentioned comparison by Hübner (Reference Hübner2005) exemplifies the potential for huge differences within a relatively small region.
The end of life of battle axes
Coming to the end of the life of the battle axe, our corpus of knowledge becomes much broader. From what is known, we can see that they were commonly deposited either in graves or as single finds; only seldom are they discovered in multi-object hoards or settlement contexts.
Graves, multi-object hoards, and single finds
YN battle axes appear mostly as single finds, followed by finds in graves, hoards, and lastly settlement contexts. Significant changes to the frequencies of occurrences of battle axes in these contexts appear during the late YN.
The context category of single find is by far the largest one across all SGC regional groups and even in all CWC regional groups (Schultrich Reference Schultrich2022, 444; cf. Iversen Reference Iversen2015; Schultrich Reference Schultrich2018; Kolář Reference Kolář2018; Ahola Reference Ahola2020). While some scholars denote them as loose finds or unidentified graves, this interpretation is not supported by the data: The fact is that, across all periods examined here, a number of isolated finds have been found in seas, rivers, bogs, etc., demonstrating that they were deposited intentionally (Sørensen Reference Sørensen and Siemen1997, 228; Iversen Reference Iversen2015, appx G, 212–213; Schultrich Reference Schultrich2018, 43–4). Based on this and further arguments (see below), the majority of single finds without a clear or known context can be regarded as intentionally deposited items (Schultrich Reference Schultrich2018, 43–5; Ahola Reference Ahola2020, 121).
In Jutland and Schleswig-Holstein, almost 1500 YN battle axes are recorded from single burial contexts (Hübner Reference Hübner2005, 68). Additionally, around 90 axes in Denmark and around 40 in Schleswig-Holstein have been found in collective graves (Ebbesen Reference Ebbesen2011, 364; Schultrich Reference Schultrich2018, 36). In some cases, they appear to have been freshly made specifically for the burial while, in others, they bear evidence of use (cf. Hübner Reference Hübner2005, 80). Regardless of presence of indicators of use, during the YN battle axes are almost always are complete in the graves, which is reflective of a conscious idea of burying complete axes only (see below).
Settlement contexts with battle axes are generally rare. This, however, might be affected by the overall rarity of early and middle YN settlements (cf. Hübner Reference Hübner2005, 638; Schultrich Reference Schultrich2018, 54). At the end of the YN and in the LN, settlements become more frequent, with simple shaft hole axes occasionally being found within them (Sørensen Reference Sørensen2018; Borup Reference Borup2019). These simple axes of the LN are, however, not the same as the rather elaborate battle axes addressed in this paper. Four of the five known battle axes from settlement contexts in Schleswig-Holstein are of a very late YN type (Schultrich Reference Schultrich2018, 160 and catalogue). The five pieces together account for just 0.4% of all battle axes from known contexts.
Indications for multi-object hoards with battle axes are incredibly rare during the EN and MN, even if we consider material from across the entire region of the battle axes’ distribution (cf. Zápotocký Reference Zápotocký1992, 164–5). Also, there is no evidence for multi-object hoards containing battle axes in northern Germany and Denmark during the early and middle YN. This changes in the late YN (c. 2450/2350 bc), when a few hoards include rather clumsy battle axes or rough-outs (Schultrich Reference Schultrich2018, 52; cf. Rech Reference Rech1979, Taf. 3; Ebbesen Reference Ebbesen1982, 156). This altered deposition practice corresponds with multiple changes. These include a decreasing importance of battle axes in burials (whereas pottery increases; Hübner Reference Hübner2005, 605; Schultrich Reference Schultrich2023b, 69), increase in absolute numbers (Schultrich Reference Schultrich2018, 162), and a diversification of the shape and quality (huge differences in the elaboration and, thus, time spent on manufacturing; Schultrich Reference Schultrich2018, 176–7; Reference Schultrich2023b, 64–6). Also, as mentioned above, most settlement finds are derived from this phase. Moreover, in this phase secondary axes become visible in the archaeological record for the first time (see below). Hereafter, with the onset of the LN battle axes become superseded by the flint dagger as a primary status symbol in burial and hoard contexts (Hübner Reference Hübner2005, 686–90; Vandkilde Reference Vandkilde2005, 32; cf. Müller & Vandkilde Reference Müller and Vandkilde2020). Thus, the gradual decline/change of the social meaning(s) of the old established symbol of the battle axe becomes visible in the archaeological record in the late YN (Schultrich Reference Schultrich2018, 178–9; Reference Schultrich2023b, 64–7).
Fragments and secondary axes (I)
There are quite a few fragments of axes present in the database, ie, axe-halves (Figs 5 & 6, below). Almost all battle axe fragments in the archaeological record are broken at the shaft hole in the central section, so that both remaining axe-halves possess a part of the former shaft hole (Figs 8–11, below; cf. Zápotocký Reference Zápotocký1992, 163; Schultrich Reference Schultrich2018, 180–4). Occasionally, such axe-halves are to be found in EN and MN burials, indicating that they were not perceived as waste but rather had a certain, possibly symbolic, function. The fact that during the YN (almost) no broken battle axes were placed in burials (Schultrich Reference Schultrich2018, 211) shows that in this phase the symbology partially shifted; now it became important to furnish the deceased with proper axes. However, this does not mean that broken axes did not have a certain meaning for YN societies.
Fig. 4. A late YN K6 axe with reworked neck end and high quality secondary shaft hole (photo: Claudia Janke, Schloss Gottorf Schleswig, 2016; after Schultrich Reference Schultrich2018, 501)
Fig. 5. The number of battle axes from the YN gen (= general, ie those that could not be specified chronologically) and YN I–III of three sub-regions of Schleswig-Holstein, and the number and percentage (Y axis to the left) of axe halves and axe halves with additions (frag + add) in the form of cup marks, deep drillings, or hourglass shaped holes. The percentage of fragments from the YN gen is higher as it is impossible to more precisely determine the type of many fragments
Fig. 6. The number (Y axis to the left) of preserved axe halves in the record of Schleswig-Holstein and the number and percentage of axe halves with additions in the form of cup marks, deep drillings, or hourglass shaped holes
Fig. 7. The number of battle axes according their preservation in three different regions (Schultrich Reference Schultrich2022, 361). The ratio of cutting edges and neck ends is given in brackets. Alp: circum-Alpine CW-groups; CG: central German CW-groups, SH: Schleswig-Holstein, SGC. The high proportion of broken axes in the Alpine region is related to the specific depositional practices in Western Switzerland. Here, a depositional strategy occurs that is unique to CW societies as the axes are primarily derived from settlement contexts (cf. Wolf Reference Wolf1993)
Fig. 8. Symbolic shaft holes on YN battle axes. 1–3: cutting-edges, 4–5: butts. 1: Deep drilling; 2, 4 & 5: Cup marks; 3: Hourglass shaped small shaft hole (after Schultrich Reference Schultrich2018, 501–5 and catalogue). 1: Lohbarbek (cat. 1513); 2: Tensbüttel (cat. 147); 3: Idstedt (cat. 1210); 4: Itzehoe (cat. 1499); 5: Husby (cat. 1206) (photos: Claudia Janke, Schloss Gottorf Schleswig, 2016)
Fig. 9. YN axe fragments with secondary drilling holes or cup marks. 1–9: cutting edges; 10, 12: butts; 11: middle fragment (after Schultrich Reference Schultrich2018 (500–3 and catalogue). 1: Satrup (cat. 1306); 2: Idstedt (cat. 1210); 3: Hrzgt. Lauenburg O.Fo (cat. 255; 4: Flensburg-Weiche (cat. 172.2); 5: Reinfeld (cat. 1593); 6: Jesrbek (cat. 1575); 7: Köthel (cat. 221); 8: Drage (cat. 1149a); 9: Pinneberg (cat. 762); 10: Rantrum (cat. 383); 11: Pinneberg (cat. 763); 12: Reinfeld (cat. 1592)
Fig. 10. Secondary, unfinished drillings on battle axes from Central Germany. 1: Bad Langensalza (Matthias Reference Matthias1987, Tab. 29.4); 2: Camburg, Jena (Loewe Reference Loewe1959, Tab. 110.7); 3: Graischen, Eisenberg (Loewe Reference Loewe1959, Tab. 111.9); 4: Würchwitz (Mathias 1987, Tab. 114.12)
Fig. 11. FN and MN battle axe fragments with cup marks (1–3, 5–6, 8, 10) or secondary, small and hourglass shaped drillings (4, 7, 9). 1–8 from Zápotockýs (Reference Zápotocký1992) tables and from Schleswig-Holstein (SH) or Denmark (DK), without scale. 1: Viöl, SH; 2: Immenstedt SH; 3: Eckernförde, SH; 4: Frestedt, SH; 5: Aukamp-Seedorf, SH; 6: Rendsburg, SH; 7: Jellinge, DK; 8: Allesø, DK; 9: Unknown locality; 10: Brodersby, SH (Schultrich Reference Schultrich2018, 504; photos: author)
To show this, we will examine some possible secondary treatments of the axes. Generally, broken battle axes can be reworked or left ‘as is’. If they are to be subjected to secondary reworking, there are two main ways of doing this which lead to different usability – and likely also symbolic – values. One of these is a reworking to create functional secondary axes (Figs 2 and 4), while the other is a more symbolic treatment.
Above, we addressed the morphological and social property changes of battle axes occurring in the late YN. In this phase, for the first time, with the exception of rare earlier findings, functional secondary axes were made from broken battle axes. In the late YN, long and elaborate K1-type axes (typology of Hübner Reference Hübner2005) were reworked to K6 axes (Hübner Reference Hübner2005, 132; Fig. 4). For this, the butt was ground to a roundish form. This caused the former shaft hole to become almost or completely invisible. The object was then given a new shaft hole whose diameter and straightness was similar to those of the original. Thus, it became similarly useful (Lekberg Reference Lekberg and Knutsson2004, 262–5). After the late YN, morphologically simpler LN and Bronze Age ‘working axes’ were regularly treated in this way. In particular, thousands of ground stone shaft hole axes have been recorded in the LN of eastern central Sweden, which have been reworked on more than one occasion. Such axes started their lives being rather long, becoming shorter and shorter with each reworking (Lekberg Reference Lekberg and Knutsson2004, 262–5; Fig. 2). Such a treatment cannot, however, be reconstructed for battle axes during most of the Neolithic.
Fragments and secondary axes (II): unfinished drillings and cup marks
Another form of secondary battle axe exists, where those performing the reworking did not intend to create proper and ‘useful’ (in the sense of use in the same manner as the primary object) axes. To show their significance, we first have to consider some aspects concerning YN axe-halves.
In the YN material of today’s Schleswig-Holstein, more than 1400 battle axes have been recorded, of which more than 1200 are isolated finds (Schultrich Reference Schultrich2018, 160–1; see Fig. 1, above). Dependent on the respective sub-region,Footnote 5 between 12% and 31% (∼ average 19%) of the battle axes in the record are axe-halves (Fig. 5). In neighbouring regions, we see similar proportions; in north-eastern Germany 12% (Jacobs Reference Jacobs1991, 20), in northern Saxony-Anhalt 27% (Beran Reference Beran1990, 40), and in Sweden 25% (Malmer Reference Malmer1962, 669; Reference Malmer1975, 101).
Interestingly, in Schleswig-Holstein there are about double as many cutting edges (n=100) preserved as there are butts (n=45; Fig. 6). This pattern does not reflect different chances for finding, as both sides of YN battle axes are of relatively similar shape to one another (Schultrich Reference Schultrich2018, 181). The same pattern (346 cutting edges and 151 butts) is evident in the material of the BAC in Sweden, as noted by Malmer (Reference Malmer1962, 666–71). This pattern is also observed in north-eastern Germany and northern Saxony-Anhalt (Schultrich Reference Schultrich2018, 180–4; cf. Beran Reference Beran1990; Jacobs Reference Jacobs1991). Accordingly, in these areas there was probably some kind of structural difference of how/where people deposited cutting edges and butts respectively (already Malmer Reference Malmer1962; Reference Malmer1975). This probably conscious pattern further contributes to the notion of considering single finds as intentionally deposited objects.
The potential for a conscious decision having underlain deposition patterns becomes even more evident when we compare this pattern to the material of other CWC regions. In regions such as the western Alpine area or central Germany, the ratio of cutting edges to butts is much more balanced (Fig. 7). When we accept that single finds are consciously deposited artefacts, as becomes evident from a few isolated finds from seas, bogs, and rivers (Schultrich Reference Schultrich2018, 43–5), it becomes apparent that we are facing regionally differentiated nuances of a symbolic treatment of the two battle axe parts.
The potential symbology becomes even more apparent when we regard secondarily reshaped fragments. In Schleswig-Holstein, in three sub-regions investigated more closely, during the YN c. 28% (YNI: 27.5%, YNII: 16.7%, YNIII: 25%, YN gen: 34%) of all fragments bear evidence of secondary reworking (Fig. 5). In contrast to the ‘proper’ secondary axes addressed above, here we mean that the axe-halves were subjected to the first steps of the drilling of new holes but that this process was not completed. These are shallow cup marks (<1 cm) on one or both sides of the axe (Fig. 8, 2, 4–5; Fig. 9, 6–9), or deeper drillings (>1 cm) on one or both sides (Fig. 8.1). Sometimes the drillings from both sides meet each other in the middle of the axe but, in these cases, the novel shaft hole is much smaller than the original one and is mostly hourglass shaped (Fig. 8, 3; Fig. 9, 3–5). Thus, the secondary drillings are not of a similar degree of utility to the primary ones. Moreover, the broken sides of cutting edge fragments with such additions were never reground to proper butts, as described above for the K6, LN, and Bronze Age axes (Figs 2 and 4). This furthermore indicates a different secondary function.
The high frequency of early, middle and late YN broken axes attributed with such additions (Fig. 5) demonstrates that this is a well-established phenomenon throughout the entire phase in northern Germany. Table 2 shows that cup marks dominate the three modes of secondar drilling during all stages of the YN. A tendency toward a decrease in the variability is evident, ending with cup marks eventually becoming the only form. However, the database for Table 2 is too small to make statistically significant chronological observations.
Table 2. the number of fragments with the three different methods of symbolic drilling based on material from schleswig-holstein that could be physically examined, during the stages yn i–iii
To differentiate between cup marks and drilling holes a depth of ∼1 cm was used as demarcation. The number of additions differs from Fig. 4 because some axes could only be investigated by means of illustrations, which are not well-suited to this type of analysis.
In older literature on the archaeological material of northern Germany, a variety of explanations for these additions can be found, ranging from the mundane to the ritual (on the problem of distinction, see below; Schwantes Reference Schwantes1958; Loewe Reference Loewe1959; Röschmann Reference Röschmann1963; Paulsen Reference Paulsen1996). One could argue that cup marks are indicative of later (unfinished) drillings. This idea is influenced by battle axe rough-outs whose begun drillings indeed can be regarded as to be finished (but see below). However, in the material of Schleswig-Holstein there is no evidence of broken battle axes of the earlyFootnote 6 and middle YN that were reworked into proper axes.
This changes, however, in the late YN (see above). Moreover, ∼18% of all butts from the YN bear evidence of cup marks (Fig. 6; Fig. 9, 10–12). Secondary axes made from butts are non-existent in the late YN, LN, and Bronze Age. This means, in these cases, the cup marks cannot have been intended as markings for later drillings. Additionally, a number of battle axe fragments exist with cup marks not perfectly centred, or even laterally positioned (Pieper Reference Pieper1940, 270–6; Schultrich Reference Schultrich2018, Tab. 17,4; 42,3). Thus, such axe fragments with added cup marks may never have been intended to become proper secondary axes. On the basis of this, the additions may well have borne a symbolic function (see below).
SPATIALLY AND TEMPORALLY BROADER PERSPECTIVES ON CUP MARKED BATTLE AXES
Battle axes with secondary additions are neither temporally nor spatially restricted to northern Germany but occur throughout many CWC regions and also pre- and post-date CWC horizons.
Throughout the British Isles, battle axes appear in the context of the middle part of the Bell Beaker phase and continue to be present during the Early Bronze Age (Roy Reference Roy2020, 241). Roe (Reference Roe1966, 214) noted that 16% of all battle axe fragments bear cup marks (12 out of 74 fragments). Even though the British battle axe phenomenon starts much later compared to that of the continent, it is probably connected to a similar symbology (see below). The ratio of single finds to grave finds (21%) (Roy Reference Roy2020, 256), which is very similar to Central Europe (Schultrich Reference Schultrich2018, 161; Reference Schultrich2022, 444), further demonstrates similarities in the symbology and likely also a common origin, or rather a CWC contribution to the Bell Beaker phenomenon in Britain (cf. Case Reference Case and Nicolis2001, 369–74).Footnote 7
In the areas where the ‘true drilling’ technique (see above) dominates (for this paper, only the material of central Germany has been reviewed), a few axe fragments possess ring-shaped drillings and sometimes also cup marks (Fig. 10). Interestingly, a few complete axes here also possess drilling marks (Fig. 10, 2). It is probably for this reason that Loewe (Reference Loewe1959) terms them Fehlbohrung (failed drillings). However, these are located far from the central area of the axes and are therefore more plausibly additions as opposed to failed attempts.
The central German pieces – and especially the fragments with additions – moreover indicate that how (whether by the pecking or drilling technique) the symbolic drilling was made was of minor importance, with the act of drilling – or the (unfinished) drilling itself – bearing the greatest significance.
To unfold the temporal dimension, battle axes from the EN and MN of northern Germany and Denmark were assessed using tables from Zápotocký (Reference Zápotocký1992). These tables do not represent all battle axes of his catalogue, in which he does not address cup marks, and accordingly the data is limited and potentially gives a rather conservative impression. However, these tables show a few axe-halves with cup marks or hourglass shaped drillings (Table 3; Fig. 11). While studying material in the archive of the Archaeological Museum Schloss Gottorf in Schleswig, the author of this paper came across several other MN axe fragments (ie, type R and D axes) with such additions by chance (Fig. 11, 9–10). According to this, the actual number of fragments with additions may well be much higher than indicated by Zápotocký’s tables and on Table 3. Beside the evidence from Schleswig-Holstein and Denmark, his tables show that cup-marked battle axe fragments also occur in other regions; in Bohemia, Moravia, and Central and Southern Germany on EN- and MN flat hammer-axes, knob-butted hammer-axes, and round-butted axes (Zápotocký Reference Zápotocký1992, tab. 2.7, 5.13, 8.16, 10.3, 36.2, 36.9, 72.3, 81.9, 82.10, 82.13). However, during the (later) MN, this form of treatment appears to be somewhat less intensive in those southern regions, as no lancet-shaped battle axes were found with cup marks (see Table 3).
Table 3. the number of all types of en and mn battle axes flat hammer axe (f); knob-butted hammer-axe (k); round-butted axe (r); double-axe d); neck-comb axe (n); and the number of fragments, depositions, & fragments with additions from schleswig-holstein and denmark
Based on Zápotocký’s (Reference Zápotocký1992) tables. Additionally, for comparison, the MN double-axe variant lancet shaped axe (L) from central & southern Germany, Austria, and Switzerland (Schultrich Reference Schultrich2022) is included. Note that the actual number of fragments with additions could be much higher, as indicated by chance observations made when analysing the later axes for this study.
The occurrence of EN, MN, and YN broken axes with such additions demonstrates that this is a well-established phenomenon during the entire Neolithic in northern Germany, Denmark, and probably also beyond. It also contributes to the discussion of whether there is a cultural break in the early 3rd millennium bc in Central Europe, linked to the emergence of the CWC complex (see below).
During the EN and MN of northern Germany and Denmark, several other present phenomena are helpful in achieving a better understanding of the cup mark phenomenon related to battle axe fragments. From this period, a few ground stone axes are preserved that possess small holes. Ebbesen (Ebbesen & Crabb Reference Ebbesen and Crabb1984, 125) interprets these as being functional, related to the hafting of the axe upon the shaft. Klassen (Reference Klassen2014), in contrast, regards the holes as being symbolic because they are often unfinished and also because they are not a necessary addition for the hafting, as shown by many axes without such holes (2014, 205). These holes may well, however, continue a tradition of earlier Jadeite axes, which spread from the Western Alps throughout Western Europe in the 5th millennium BC (ibid., 211; cf. Pétrequin et al. Reference Pétrequin, Cassen, Errera, Klassen, Pétrequin and Sheridan2013). Whatever their origin and function, they testify to the addition of holes to artefacts other than battle axes in the FN and MN.
Cup marks, however, are not associated with anything other than battle axes until the LN, provided we choose to neglect the unique find from Bornholm (see above), and instead only consider evidence from archaeologically secure contexts (Sørensen Reference Sørensen2018, 45). Even if Iversen (Reference Iversen2019a) is correct, and some cup marks on megaliths were created during the EN or MN, during the YN cup marks are obviously restricted to battle axes. Hereafter, in the LN changes related to a diversification of the potential media bearing cup marks appear. Now they could be added to other artefacts and to locations (Dibbern Reference Dibbern2016; Sørensen Reference Sørensen2018).
However, there is evidence to date this diversification back to the late YN. We have already seen that in this phase a variety of social behaviours connected to battle axes change: they now appear in multi-object hoards, they now can be reworked to proper secondary axes, there is now a huge difference in quality. Figure 12 shows a wedge axe from Schleswig-Holstein with a cup mark. Another example comes from a burial in Denmark (Hübner Reference Hübner2005, cat. 1406). Generally, wedge axes date to the middle and late YN (Hübner Reference Hübner2005, 448–52). Thus, they may also possibly testify to the beginning of attributing cup marks to items other than battle axes, starting in the late YN. However, more evidence is required to prove this idea in the future.
In this regard, the potential development shown on Table 2 must be highlighted. While the cup mark phenomenon loses its strict association with battle axes in the YN III, it can also be inferred that the variety among secondary drillings shrinks to cup marks only. Thus, the potential diversification of media goes hand-in-hand with the limitation to shallow cup marks.
Interim conclusions
The late YN (2450–2250 bc) is a crucial period in terms of practises related to battle axes: They now appear in settlements and multi-object hoards, the diversity in quality increases, and simple shaft hole axes develop. This morphological development will eventually lead to the LN and Bronze Age simple shaft hole axes, which are frequent in parts of Sweden, Jutland, and northern Germany. As mentioned above, these simple shaft hole axes could be reworked several times into functional axes (Fig. 2). To make a new axe from the old, the front end with the cutting edge was always used (to the right on Fig. 2). Here, a new shaft hole was drilled and the new butt (the former broken edge) was reground to a new round(ish) butt (Fig. 4). To distinguish a proper, functional secondary axe from a battle axe fragment with secondary attributes, three things are required: 1. A shaft hole near the butt; 2. A secondary shaft hole that has similar physical attributes to the primary one; ie, being more-or-less straight and of a similar size; and. 3. A reworked butt.
Battle axe fragments of the early and middle YN lack these three characteristics (Figs 8 and 9). Thus, these fragments were never intended to become secondary axes with an identical functionality as the primary ones. A few EN and MN battle axe fragments, a few pieces from central German CWC contexts, and many fragments from the YN of northern Germany possess secondary drillings (or additions) that are different to those of simple shaft hole axes. For the matter of analysis, three different drilling stages have been defined, which are indicative of a sequential process. These are shallow cup marks (<1 cm), deep drillings (>1 cm), and hourglass shaped holes, with each representing a progression of the previous stage. While early and middle YN battle axe fragments bear all three stages of additions, later fragments lack the final two stages, with cup marks alone being present.
These additions are distinct and not simply abandoned reperforations. This has been established because there are (almost) no pieces that are evidently properly finished secondary battle axes, ie, with reground butts and proper shaft holes. Furthermore, a number of butts with such additions are present in the archaeological record (Fig. 6; Fig. 9, 10–12). Even in later times, when proper secondary axes were produced, butts were never used for this purpose. Therefore, there must be a different explanation.
DISCUSSION
Cup marks: symbolic shaft holes?
In our modern, European and functionalist way of thinking, the distinction between profane and ritual is associated with either rational or irrational actions. Thus, the cup marks and early stage drillings considered here ought to be irrational in nature, since they can hardly be explained rationally according to today’s standards. However, we cannot pre-suppose this way of thinking for prehistoric communities. We should accept that their behaviour is subject to different rationalities than those imaginable in the present (cf. Fontijn Reference Fontijn2002; Wentink Reference Wentink2006; Ballmer Reference Ballmer2010; Brück & Fontijn Reference Brück, Fontijn, Fokkens and Harding2013). It is probable that people did not distinguish between the two realms and that ritual actions may have served a specific purpose that we cannot comprehend.
In older literature, one will find different ideas on how to explain cup marks and other early stages of drillings. As cup marks occur on rough-outs, many scholars are inclined to also classify broken pieces with cup marks as rough-outs for secondary axes. Loewe (Reference Loewe1959, 66) refers to the unfinished drillings as drilling errors (Fehlbohrung), as they sometimes occur on complete battle axes of central Germany (Fig. 10). Paulsen (Reference Paulsen1996, 89) considers cup marks to be an expression of a recycled product for training. However, two observations already stressed speak against these notions: First, rough-outs with cup marks may well have also had a symbolic function. Second, there are no fragments with finished secondary drillings and reground butts present in the archaeological record until the late YN.
More cautiously, Roe (Reference Roe1966) states that ‘the explanation remains obscure, but it is clear that it was considered worthwhile to carry out a complete or partial secondary perforation on broken battle-axes that would appear useless to the uninformed, and that in some way this enhanced their value’ (Roe Reference Roe1966, 215). Malmer interprets the Swedish YN material in a similar manner (Reference Malmer1962, 662–71). Other early scholars dealing with cup marks – both on fragments and on rough-outs – wrote of a ‘sun cult’ (Schwantes Reference Schwantes1958; Röschmann Reference Röschmann1963, 83–6). Paulsen refers to yet other scholars who speak of a symbolic item of a more daily rite; a ‘pocket altar’ (Taschenaltar) (cf. Paulsen Reference Paulsen1996, 89). This idea is interesting, as it opens the possibility for a ‘middle way’ between a strictly mundane or strictly ritual interpretation. For the cup marked stones from LN settlement contexts, Sørensen asks if ‘the cup-marks could have been a simple symbolic representation of rock art embedded in an everyday tool as a link to the ritual sphere?’ (Reference Sørensen2018, 45). Müller (Reference Müller2008) links the miniature clay battle axes from Wattendorf-Motzenstein (cf. Seregély Reference Seregély2008) to a more profane symbolic world (Müller Reference Müller2008, 397). Thus, it may be the case that the addition of cup marks and other unfinished drillings to battle axe fragments was a conscious action with a certain meaning in a more everyday symbolic realm. To access any possible meaning, we need to consider the entire phenomenon of battle axes.
The wider meaning of battle axe deposition and cup marks
Battle axes were most commonly deposited as single finds and cup marked battle axe fragments are almost exclusively single finds. The battle axe itself possibly had a high symbolic value either for the burial ritual itself or for both the ritual and the lifetime of the deceased, marking them as a special person, whether as an adult, free person, warrior, etc. To cite Bradley (Reference Bradley2005), special artefacts in prehistoric societies may have been attributed with souls, characters, and names. Thus, depositing artefacts in the landscape instead of the grave may well have also had a certain meaning. When we think of depositions in terms of their structuring of the landscape, the deposition of individual battle axes could have served the same purpose: structuring, or in-taking, claiming it for yourself or your group (cf. Varberg Reference Varberg, Frieman and Eriksen2015).
Horn (Reference Horn2014, 201) recognised that the blades of Neolithic (Chalcolithic) and Bronze Age halberds were often detached from the shaft before deposition. He moreover states that, alongside other reasons, depositing weapons can serve as an ‘execution’ of an object perceived as a burden (cf. Freud Reference Freud1999).Footnote 8 After an act of violence, the victorious party possesses a malicious object that has caused damage or even killed, which must be destroyed in order to ward off evil spirits (Horn Reference Horn2014, 216–9). As the deliberate destruction and deposition of weapons and other artefacts associated with conflict is attested from the Bronze and Iron Ages (eg, Blankenfeldt & Carnap-Bornheim Reference Blankenfeldt and von Carnap-Bornheim2017), we can propose that this behaviour was also present in Neolithic societies.
Even if we do not accept the interpretation of the ‘killing’ of artefacts, this idea at least raises the possibility that battle axes were deposited after having performed some kind of service. This could be one possible explanation for the high frequency of battle axes from single find contexts; they were all deposited after having fulfilled a function. It may be the case that the battle axes had already been destroyed, or, alternatively, they were rendered useless specifically for the purpose of deposition.
Uselessness does not only encompass broken stones that we can reconstruct archaeologically. The mere act of burying makes an implement inaccessible and thus unusable (Horn Reference Horn2014, 216–9). Also breaking – or breaking off – the shaft would render a weapon unusable but, due to the poor degree of preservation of wooden shafts,Footnote 9 we cannot reconstruct whether and how often this happened. An interesting observation in this regard comes from Scania. In the megalithic tomb of Gillhög, one complete-but-fragmented YN battle axe was found associated with destroyed flint axes. These have been interpreted as deliberate offerings as opposed to secondary burial gifts (Olausson Reference Olausson, Furholt, Hinz, Mischka, Noble and Olausson2014, 272). Such contexts are lacking in the YN of northern Germany but this example shows that battle axes and fragments (or the act of destruction) could have borne a certain meaning. Before that, during the MN (3300–2800 bc), broken battle axes are often found in megaliths in Schleswig-Holstein (Zápotocký Reference Zápotocký1992, 163; Schultrich Reference Schultrich2022, 357). Just as fragments in general may have had some significance, so too may single finds of fragments. And as shown above (Figs 6 & 7), cutting edges and butts were obviously deposited differently, thus having different ‘meanings’.
This all brings us to the potential meaning of cup marks themselves: If a YN battle axe became obsolete because it broke during use or was intentionally broken, and thus not deposited in a grave context, it could be equipped with a secondary, non-proper, shaft hole. There is only one YN (single) burial in the area under study (from Flensburg-Weiche) known to have two battle axes associated with it: an unbroken one and a broken piece with a secondary, small, hourglass shaped drilling (Fig. 9.4) (Struve Reference Struve1955, cat. 126a, Tab. 5.8–9; Schultrich Reference Schultrich2018, cat. 172). It could be the case that the broken piece was the original possession of the deceased, especially when we accept the interpretation of grave goods as being personal items (however, see the critique above). Following this idea this might indicate that, after an axe broke, the person acquired a new axe but also retained (part of) the former one. The meaning of the former axe was transformed by adding an unfinished or pars pro toto drilling, to demonstrate its ideal value. While this novel meaning is primarily linked to depositions in non-burial contexts, in this one instance the person retained the former axe.
Iversen et al. (Reference Iversen, Thorsen and Andresen2022) cite a study by Thomas (Reference Thomas2016), who connects the cup marks at the Neolithic burial site of Ness of Brodgar, Orkney, to phases of architectonical transformations. Iversen et al. interpret the cup marks from the enclosures on Bornholm in a similar manner (2022, 165). This train-of-thought could also account for the cup marked capstone from Albersdorf-Brutkamp – a megalith that was deliberately destroyed, perhaps at the same time as the cup marks were made (cf. Dibbern Reference Dibbern2016). Such interpretations conform to the one presented in this paper: battle axe fragments that were attributed with cup marks fulfilled a specific function connected to the afterlife of the classic use-stage; thus, a transformation of the life and meaning of the artefact.
The cradle of cup marks and the diversification of use
Iversen (Reference Iversen2019a) has posited that cup marks as a form of non-figurative art appeared in the EN/MN, disappeared during the YN, and re-appeared in the LN of Denmark and northern Germany. The few early contexts with cup marks from Denmark and northern Germany he mentions – the late EN Onsved megalith (cf. Kaul Reference Kaul1987) and the possible EN/MN cup marks from Albersdorf (cf. Dibbern Reference Dibbern2016; Iversen et al. Reference Iversen, Thorsen and Andresen2022, 169) – however, are not entirely certain. One clear context dates to the very end of the MN, however, this is located on the island of Bornholm. Taking this as reference for the entire area of discussion is not adequate, as Bornholm and northern Germany differ in many respects, as outlined above. However, as a caveat to this, clear contexts that verify a Bronze Age date for cup marked capstones are not present in northern Germany either. At present, the few contexts Iversen cites strongly indicate that we have to rethink the established view. And this argument is strengthened with the analysis of battle axes in this paper. Here it has been shown that the concept of cup marks was indeed known during the Neolithic, at least on battle axe fragments. This makes Iversen’s assumption that cup marks were placed on megaliths during the Neolithic more plausible.
Iversen also argues that during the YN no pictorial art or art-like forms were present and, thus, no cup marks were present (2019a, 150). However, battle axes of the YN possess cup marks and other additions, which we can classify together as symbolic shaft holes. According to this, on the one hand we can verify his ideas regarding early cup marks, while on the other we can also fill the gap he proposes.
As EN, MN, and LN battle axe fragments also possess cup marks and other additions, we can reconstruct a common thread, with the YN specimens connecting the early and late battle axe fragments with cup marks. There are even more common threads connected to battle axes. In many CWC contexts throughout Central and Northern Europe, different forms of symbolic battle axes occur: miniature pieces of hard stone or models of battle axes (mostly likewise miniature in form) made of clay, amber, or soft stone (Hübner Reference Hübner2005, 161, 354; Seregély Reference Seregély2008, 281–2; Larsson Reference Larsson2017, 48). Such symbolic battle axes are not unique to the YN CWC; rather, they continue a tradition from times past (cf. Zápotocký Reference Zápotocký1992, 161–2). And, later on, in the LN, we still find a few battle axe models made of amber (Schwantes Reference Schwantes1958, 359; Vandkilde Reference Vandkilde2014, 70; Woltermann Reference Woltermann2016, 130). Thus, the symbology related to the battle axe idea is continuously present throughout the periods covered by this paper, with there being no hiatus during the YN CWC.
Leaving the cup marked capstones of megaliths aside, it is still unclear precisely when cup marks departed from their strict relationship with battle axe fragments and began to be added to portable stones. One could argue that the evidence of the MN V cup marks from Bornholm already testifies to a diversification of the cup mark phenomenon (cf. Iversen et al. Reference Iversen, Thorsen and Andresen2022). However, after the filling events of the two enclosures, no cup marks other than on battle axes are known for a period of several centuries (Iversen et al. Reference Iversen, Thorsen and Andresen2022, 169).
All evidence to date points to the late YN being the crucial phase for the cup mark phenomenon. In the late YN, ie, during the transition to the LN, many changes are evident. A material culture associated with the Bell Beaker horizon appears (Kleijne et al. Reference Kleijne, Weinelt and Müller2020), followed by the re-introduction of metal artefacts (Vandkilde Reference Vandkilde2017; Brozio et al. Reference Brozio, Stos-Gale, Müller, Müller-Scheeßel, Schultrich, Fritsch, Jürgens and Skorna2023). Also, changes in climate and probably associated changes in settlement structures and architecture, as well as plant cultivation, appear (Kleijne et al. Reference Kleijne, Weinelt and Müller2020). Moreover, the transition is marked by battle axes finally losing their function as primary status objects, with flint daggers taking their place (Hübner Reference Hübner2005, 686–90; Schultrich Reference Schultrich2023b, 68–70).
In this phase, for the first time in regions other than Bornholm, cup marks lose their strict battle axe association and evidently (albeit rarely) transition to other objects (Figs 12 & 13). At the same time, the former diversity evidenced among secondary drillings shrinks, becoming exclusively limited to cup marks. It may well be the case that, in relation to all the other changes that characterise the transition to the LN, a different perception of cup marks developed, allowing them to lose their strict association with battle axes.
Fig. 12. YN wedge axe from Malente, Schleswig-Holstein (cf. Schultrich Reference Schultrich2018, cat. 606, Tab. 31.5; photo: Claudia Janke, Schloss Gottorf Schleswig, 2016)
Fig. 13. Timescale with the different media for cup marks. The line indicates the frequency of battle axe fragments with cup marks and other additions (from Tables 2 & 3). 1: MN axe, Brodersby (photo: author, 2015; cf. Schultrich Reference Schultrich2018, 504); 2: YN axe, Itzehoe (Photo: Claudia Janke, Schloss Gottorf Schleswig, 2016; cf. Schultrich Reference Schultrich2018, cat. 1499); 3: YN wedge axe from Malente (photo: Claudia Janke, Schloss Gottorf Schleswig, 2016; cf. Schultrich Reference Schultrich2018, cat. 606, Tab. 31.5); 4: LN cup marked stone, Østbirk (Borup Reference Borup2019, 105; cf. Sørensen Reference Sørensen2018, 44); 5: MN cup marked stone, Vasagård East (Iversen et al. Reference Iversen, Thorsen and Andresen2022, 165); 6: Cup marked capstone, Albersdorf (Dibbern Reference Dibbern2016, 98)
The meaning of traditions in the 4th and 3rd millennium bc
By saying cup marks and figurative art disappeared during the YN, Iversen (Reference Iversen2019a) reproduces a common narrative that we have faced in recent literature: the notion that everything changes with the emergence of the CWC. This notion, however, stems from a simple reading of complex genetic and archaeological data. This paper is an opportunity to tackle this narrative from a local, material-based perspective.
To put it simply: pioneering studies on ancient DNA (as Allentoft et al. Reference Allentoft, Sikor, Sjögren, Rasmussen, Rasmussen and Stenderup2015; Haak et al. Reference Haak, Lazaridis, Patterson, Rohland, Mallick and Llamas2015) have shown that the 3rd millennium bc was a phase of highly dynamic population movements. They linked this to the spread of the CWC and the demise of the respective pre-existing societies (Kristiansen et al. Reference Kristiansen, Allentoft, Frei, Iversen, Johannsen, Kronen, Pospieszny, Price, Rasmussen, Sjögren, Sikora and Willerslev2017). The genetic observations returned simplistic ideas on archaeological cultures being monothetic blocks and coherent groups of people to the fore (for a critique, see Furholt Reference Furholt2019; Reference Furholt2021; Frieman & Hofmann Reference Frieman and Hofmann2019; Johannsen et al. Reference Johannsen, Larson, Meltzer and Vander Linden2017). The current state of knowledge is that we do not know how fast the processes happened, nor which mechanisms were at play, especially in regions such as northern Germany where we lack bone preservation (Furholt Reference Furholt2019, 120–1; Schultrich Reference Schultrich2023a, 281–2). For the region of today’s Bohemia, recent studies indicate that the initial CWC formation processes were much more complex and different to what was expected (Papac et al. Reference Papac, Ernée, Dobeš, Langová, Rohrlach and Aron2021). Additionally, we know that migrations and a high degree of mobility are not phenomena restricted to the 3rd millennium and limited to CWC societies but, rather, that they also occur earlier and are associated with many archaeological complexes (Nielsen & Johannsen Reference Nielsen and Johannsen2023; Dunne et al. Reference Dunne, Szilágyi, Casanova, Griffiths, Knowles, Evershed and Hofmann2023; Schultrich Reference Schultrich2023b).
The simple scenarios still fail to provide explanations for the regionally different traditions passed down from the preceding archaeological cultures to the regional CWC societies. Even though CWC emerges as a common denominator across many regions, the novel practices introduced by it are always set against the backdrop of a continuation of local traditions (Beckermann Reference Beckermann2015; Schultrich Reference Schultrich2018; Kroon et al. Reference Kroon, Huisman, Bourgeois, Braekmans and Fokkens2019; Iversen Reference Iversen, Olsen, Olander and Kristiansen2019b; Furholt Reference Furholt2019; Kolář Reference Kolář2020).
Acknowledging that the symbolic secondary treatment of battle axe fragments is a tradition passed down from the societies of the 4th to those of the 3rd millennium, has consequences for the recent discussions on the Central European Neolithic. One could argue that this tradition is connected to battle axes in all places in which they occur and, thus, migrants could have brought it with them when they moved. However, from the perspective of northern Germany, many traditions exist, some of them even being unique to the region. Just a few examples: Land use (and its regional variations) remained – on the basis of pollen analyses in seas and bogs in the western and the eastern parts of the region respectively – stable at the transition to the YN (Feeser & Furholt Reference Feeser and Furholt2014; Schultrich Reference Schultrich2018, 68–74; Reference Schultrich2023a, 283). Megaliths were re-used in parts of the region (today’s districts of Dithmarschen and Steinburg) at the beginning of the CWC period (Schultrich Reference Schultrich2018, 36; Reference Schultrich2023a, 285). The causewayed enclosure of Albersdorf-Dieksknöll was established in the 38th century bc, re-used several times during the MN, and also during the YN up until the 25th century (Dibbern Reference Dibbern2016). This is an exceptional finding for that region, where enclosures were mostly abandoned in the late 4th or very early 3rd millennium and thus centuries before the advent of YN CWC societies (Schultrich Reference Schultrich2018, 62–4; Reference Schultrich2023a, 285–6; cf. Grünewald Reference Grünewald2022).
Taking all this evidence together shows that, at least in this part of the CWC ‘sphere’, the degree or speed of the potential turnovers was probably rather low, with the local FBC groups being highly involved in the early CWC formation process, ie, they probably passed down the symbolical treatment of broken battle axes – a highly valued object in both phases.
CONCLUSION
This paper established the significance of Neolithic battle axe fragments with three specific additions: cup- arks, deep drillings, and unfinished drillings. These additions were not intended to prepare a properly useful secondary axe, as is well testified in the case of simple shaft hole axes of the LN and Bronze Age (<23/2250 bc). The differences lie in the fact that the additions were never finished, the butts were never reground, and a number of butt fragments have been found bearing cup marks and other additions. Butts, even in later times with proper secondary (simple) axes, never formed the basis for secondary axes. It is likely that these secondary treatments reflect a conscious action and an intention to create a different meaning for the axe halves. This paper proposes that such secondary drillings be termed symbolic – or pars pro toto – shaft holes.
Especially important among the three additions are the cup marks. Five conclusions in relation to the appearance and dating of cup marks can be made:
-
1. Cup marks are present on battle axe fragments.
-
2. Cup marks were present during the Early and Middle Neolithic (c. 4000–2800 bc) in Denmark and northern Germany.
-
3. Cup marks were present during the Younger Neolithic (2800–2250 bc) in even larger numbers than before.
-
4. In the late YN (starting c. 2450 bc), two of the three additions seem to vanish, with cup marks being the only form to endure.
-
5. When we exclude the findings from Bornholm, the first artefacts other than battle axes to have borne cup marks do not date to or pre-date the late YN.
Together, these five findings demonstrate a common thread spanning from the Early Neolithic to the Bronze Age societies of northern Germany (and partly Denmark). They furthermore show that the custom of adding cup marks to objects other than battle axes, which is a significant action and symbol of the LN and Bronze Age, begins in the late YN.
The first secure evidence of cup marks on megaliths appears with the LN. As the evidence for EN and MN cup marked capstones of megaliths is still not entirely clear, we have to conclude that the cup mark phenomenon originated as a symbolic shaft hole on battle axe fragments, from which it was passed down to other media and locations, presumably in the late YN. However, even if EN and MN contexts were to be confirmed, this would not decrease the significance of the battle axe fragments, as there is an apparent lack of cup marks on objects other than battle axes during the YN. Thus, if during the EN and MN cup marks were placed on locations, this practise had presumably been forgotten, later being re-invented in the late YN (Fig. 13).
As presented in this paper, the late YN (and the LN) was a crucial phase regarding the social meaning of battle axes; many changes are evident in this horizon (Bell Beakers, re-introduction of metal items, settlement changes, and plant cultivation, see above). As presented above, in the late YN a general diversification of the use of battle axes (multi-object hoards, settlements, proper secondary axes, diversification morphology) also appears. At the same time, the former diversity evidenced among secondary drillings decreases, becoming limited to cup marks (Table 2).
In this phase, for the first time in regions other than Bornholm, cup marks lose their strict association with battle axes and make a transition to other objects (albeit rarely) (Figs 12 & 13). It may well be the case that, in relation to all the above-mentioned changes that characterise the transition to the LN, a different perception of cup marks developed, allowing them to lose their strict association with battle axes.
In a phase of transformation, people might have felt the need to structure their world and to give places and actions meaning. Above, we termed the cup marks on axes ‘symbolic shaft holes’. With such additions, the former meaning of the battle axe was altered: perhaps it was honoured by giving it a pars pro toto shaft hole in a phase of (artefact based) transformation; however, a proper shaft hole was reserved for proper battle axes only.
The term ‘symbolic shaft hole’ cannot be applied to the later cup marks on stones other than battle axes. However, the idea of attributing items and places with a certain meaning is sustained (cf. Thomas Reference Thomas2016; Dibbern Reference Dibbern2016; Iversen et al. Reference Iversen, Thorsen and Andresen2022). In a phase of tremendous social transformation during the late 3rd millennium bc, the custom of attributing valued objects with cup marks had now become applied to other artefacts and places. The later significant LN and Bronze Age cup marks thus might stem from an old tradition, one that was initially associated with battle axes.
Acknowledgements
This study is funded by the DFG Collaborative Research Centre CRC1266 ‘Scales of Transformation – Human-Environmental Interaction in Prehistoric and Archaic Societies’ (German Research Foundation – Project number 2901391021 – SFB1266). The English language has been finely polished with the aid of Andrew Lawler, for whom I would like to express my gratitude.
Open access
