A weapon of choice – experiments with

a replica Irish Early Bronze Age halberd

Ronan O’Flaherty∗

The halberd – a famous weapon of prehistoric Europe – is thought by some to have had a symbolic
rather than a functional purpose. To find out if, and how, it might have worked as a weapon, the
author tested a replica on a number of sheep’s heads, finding it highly effective in administering
killer blows. Studies taking off from these experiments show that the halberd probably performed
both in fighting and ritual, and in ritualised fighting, during its predominance in the Early
Bronze Age.
Keywords: Early Bronze Age, North-west Europe, experimental archaeology, conflict,

Method
halberds, rock art, warfare

Introduction
The halberd, so often presented as mysterious and enigmatic, is in fact a reasonably common
artefact of the Early Bronze Age in Europe. Just over 600 examples are known, with significant
concentrations in Ireland, Central Europe and Iberia, and with the majority dating to the
period between 2300 BC and 1900 BC (O’Flaherty 2002; Schumacher 2002; Brandherm
2003; 2004).
Archaeologists have tended to regard halberds as non-utilitarian, in the case of the Irish
examples pointing to a perceived weakness in the hafting technique, as well as a presumed
clumsiness in the hand (Ó Rı́ordáin 1937: 241; Macalister 1949: 132-34; Herity & Eogan
1977: 137; O’Kelly 1989: 164-65; Mallory & McNeill 1991: 102; Waddell 1991: 70; 1998:
129-31). In order to test this assumption, it was decided to design and construct a replica
halberd and test its effectiveness in a practical trial.
This paper is divided in two parts. The first part describes the results of the trials, while
in the second part the nature of combat in the Early Bronze Age and the role of the halberd
are reconsidered.

Making and using a replica halberd

A full account of the design and construction of the replica is published elsewhere (O’Flaherty
et al. 2002). However, for the purposes of this paper, suffice it to say that the blade is a
Cotton type (Harbison 1969: 41-5), which is the most common Irish type. It is not a direct
copy of any particular blade, but instead its dimensions have been created from a careful
analysis, in the hand, of some 69 Cotton type halberds, or about 74 per cent of the total
∗
Ballyhitt Lane, Barntown, Co. Wexford, Ireland
Received: 31 May 2006; Accepted: 7 September 2006; Revised: 22 October 2006
antiquity 81 (2007): 423–434
423
 Experiments with a replica Irish Early Bronze Age halberd

Figure 1. Replica halberd used in trials.

known population. It is cast from arsenical copper, the usual metal of the Irish halberds.
The shaft is of oak, as was that found with the halberd from Carn, Co. Mayo, the only
hafted example to survive intact (Raftery 1942). One other halberd, from Altnamacken, Co.
Armagh was hafted when found, but the shaft disintegrated on recovery (Flanagan 1966).
The proportions of the haft-head are based on careful measurements of rivets surviving
in situ on Irish halberds, while the dimensions of the shaft are based on assumptions drawn
from a combination of sources, including the Carn halberd, rock-art depictions and the
metal-shafted halberds of Central Europe. Again, for more details see O’Flaherty et al.
2002.
The dimensions of the finished replica (Figure 1) are as follows:

r Shaft length: 1220mm

r Shaft thickness: 24mm
r Shaft width: 33mm
r Shaft head: 14mm top, narrowing to 6mm at back.
r Length of blade: 250mm
r Thickness of blade: 9mm
r Rivet lengths: uppermost – 20mm, central – 22mm, lowermost – 22mm
r Rivet head diameters: 11.5-12mm
r Total weight: 1.5kg

There is evidence that some Bronze Age halberds from Ireland, at least, received post-
casting treatment in the form of annealing, cold-hammering and sharpening (Allen et al.
1970: 106-14). However, to avoid argument about the appropriate level of post-casting
treatment and its implications for the performance of the blade during trials, no such
treatment was applied to the replica blade. Furthermore (though in this case unintentionally)
the replica blade has an arsenic content of just 0.2 per cent, resulting in a softer metal than
that used in the prehistoric blades. In the circumstances, we can only conclude that however
well the replica performed under trial, an actual Bronze Age halberd would have performed
better.

424
 Ronan O’Flaherty

Figure 2. Comparison of human and sheep skulls. The sheep heads were all struck at the point indicated. The thickness of

Method
human and sheep skulls in this area is of the order of 3-7mm and 10-15mm respectively.

Practical trial
For a variety of reasons, which are discussed later, the Irish halberd seems best designed for
impact on bone rather than muscle. To be fatal, the target would most likely be the skull,
although other areas of the body (notably the rib-cage) would also be likely candidates.
Brandherm (2003) suggests that the throat may also have been a target. In the event, it
was decided to test the effectiveness of the halberd against the mass of bone in the skull
using sheep-heads, which provide the nearest readily available equivalent to a human skull
(Figure 2).
The trials took place at an abattoir in Co. Wexford, with the co-operation of local
management. The heads were obtained directly from the killing line. They were unskinned
and still warm and came from a mixture of yearlings and older ewes. The possibility of fixing
the heads to some form of structure for the trials, or placing them upon a raised surface had
previously been considered, but the risk of damage to the halberd if a blow missed its target
seemed too great. A sudden impact against a wood, metal or even a plastic surface might
easily have damaged the halberd irreparably, putting an end to the trials immediately. Even
if it did not end the trial, the damage suffered by the halberd would certainly have distorted
the test results. Having considered a number of options in advance, it was decided to sim-
ply take the heads outdoors and place them one by one on grass, in order to minimise any
potential damage to the halberd arising from a misdirected blow. As it happened, no such
accident occurred and all damage to the halberd results entirely from impact with the heads.
Images in rock-art clearly show halberds being raised high above the head, presumably
delivering the blow completely within the vertical plane (Figure 3). This makes complete
sense once one has handled a fully hafted halberd. The halberd is very comfortable and
balanced in the hand, but it has a tendency to swivel if not held securely, this being a
function of fixing a long heavy blade at right-angles to the shaft. Certainly, the replica
halberd appears best suited to short punching blows along the vertical plane, rather than

425
 Experiments with a replica Irish Early Bronze Age halberd

wide, scything attacks which could jar the

blade in its socket and possibly split the
haft. This is supported by analysis of wear-
patterns on Irish halberds, which suggests
that the most vulnerable point is at the back
of the hafting plate (O’Flaherty 2002: 149,
156). The rivet in this area tends to be the
one most often missing and the rivet-hole
here tends to show the greatest damage,
while the back of the hafting plate itself may
be dented or broken. All this is consistent
with delivery of heavy, direct, punching
blows with the impact directed along the
length of the blade and ultimately absorbed
Figure 3. Figures wielding halberds from the rock-art of Val where the back of the hafting plate meets
Fontalba, Mont Bego (after Abelanet 1986). the wood of the shaft. Taking all this into
account, it was decided to begin with a short
chopping motion, which could be reproduced again and again with reasonable accuracy and
consistency. If this failed to pierce the skull, a longer swinging blow would be adopted.
The heads were placed one by one on the grass and struck with the halberd. A point in
the centre of the forehead, between the eyes was selected and all blows were delivered to this
point. A few tentative blows were tried initially, to gauge the strength of delivery required
and length of lead-swing. These initial blows suggested that the halberd would not survive
long, as both shaft and blade could be felt to flex on impact. However, this was very quickly
revealed to be a result of lack of confidence in the delivery. Once this was corrected the
halberd proved itself to be extremely effective and highly resilient. A short chopping blow
(Figures 4 and 5), raising the weapon no more than a couple of feet from the head and
delivered with confidence rather than brute force was sufficient to pierce the skull, often
very deeply indeed (Figures 6 and 7). About half the time, the blade penetrated the skull on
the first blow; the rest of the time, it took two or three blows.
The blade was examined after 10 heads had been disposed of and was found to be
completely undamaged: the blade showed no sign of buckling (despite the inexpert use
which had resulted in a few ricocheting blows), and it remained firmly fixed in its haft. A
number of striations was noted towards the end of the blade, running in parallel to the line
of the blade, evidently resulting from passage of the blade through bone.
The trial was resumed and another 10 heads were struck and pierced successively. The
blade was then examined again and once more found unharmed. There was no buckling
of the blade, apart from a very slight, almost indistinct ‘ripple’ to the edge. In addition,
there had been some slight expansion of metal at the point, presumably resulting from
impact with the skull – a feature noted previously on some halberd blades in museum
collections. The blade, however, remained secure in the haft; there appeared to be no
loosening of the rivets whatsoever and the haft head was also quite undamaged. At this
point in time, having disposed of 20 sheep-heads, and there being every appearance
that the halberd might continue in effective use indefinitely, the trial was concluded.

426
 Ronan O’Flaherty

Method
Figure 4. Positioning the blow. Figure 5. Delivering the blow.

Figure 6. Deep puncturing. Figure 7. The distinctive, clean incision.

Conclusions from trials

As noted already, halberds have traditionally been regarded as non-functional, ceremonial
artefacts. In particular, the mode of hafting and the slightness of the haft head have
been cited as reasons why this artefact could not have been put to any practical use.
However, despite the deficiencies of the replica noted already as compared with the
prehistoric originals, it nonetheless revealed itself to be a remarkably effective weapon.

427
 Experiments with a replica Irish Early Bronze Age halberd

The halberd consistently delivered a clean, narrow puncture wound, up to 5 or 6cm long
(Figure 7) depending on the depth to which the blade penetrated. The small rounded
end of the blade ensures that the full force of the blow is administered to a tiny area of the
skull first, virtually guaranteeing a puncture each time. The fact that the end of the blade
is rounded rather than brought to a sharp point adds strength to this area, which otherwise
might bend or even snap on first impact. It also suggests that the blade is designed for impact
on bone rather than muscle, where a sharp pointed weapon would seem more appropriate
than a blunt-nosed one.
The results of these trials strongly suggest that the Irish halberd is very carefully designed
to perform as an effective weapon. That is not to say that all Irish halberds were used in this
way, but they certainly could have been and it certainly explains aspects of their design. In
addition, the replica halberd survives in a condition that I would categorise as ‘perfect’ in
a museum example, suggesting that even these apparently unused halberds could have seen
some action.
Combat possibilities
These practical trials vividly attest to the effectiveness of the Irish Early Bronze Age halberd
as a weapon. In fact, contrary to what Treherne (1995: 109) asserts, it is arguably the
halberd, if anything, and not the sword which is ‘the first object clearly designed for combat
instead of simply being adapted from an existing tool form’. Taking account of the extensive
distribution of the halberd in Ireland (where it outnumbers contemporary daggers), and its
wider distribution throughout Europe which is amplified by its depictions in the rock art of
the period, it is entirely reasonable to argue that the halberd was the weapon par excellence
of the Early Bronze Age.
As regards the nature of combat during the Early Bronze Age, this must be considered
in the context of the wider debate about the role and nature of war and violence in human
society. This debate has often centred on whether warfare can be explained in functional
terms, whether it is adaptive, and why some societies undertake it frequently while others
do not (Fried et al. 1967; Keegan 1994).
Over the last ten years or so, there has been a considerable increase in the volume
of archaeological literature dealing with warfare in prehistory (e.g. Edmonds & Thomas
1987; Sharples 1991; Drews 1993; Louwe Kooijmans 1993; Treherne 1995; Carman 1997;
Osgood 1998; Carman & Harding 1999; Osgood & Monks 2000; Guilaine & Zammit
2001; Kristiansen 2002). Much of this has reflected on later prehistory, or on aspects of
combat in the classical world, and so is not directly relevant to the period or society under
consideration here. However, it is widely accepted now amongst archaeologists that small-
scale raiding and feuding was a common feature of Early Bronze Age society. From an
anthropological perspective, there are a great many accounts and references which might be
considered for the purposes of a consideration of the pursuit of combat and war amongst
pre-state societies (e.g. Chagnon 1967; Väyda 1976; Ferguson & Whitehead 1992). Space,
however, does not allow for a detailed consideration of these here. Nonetheless, the following
description from Divale (1973: 21) of warfare amongst the mountain peoples of New Guinea
may help us visualise how some of these encounters developed: ‘Each army was composed of
warriors, usually related by marriage, from several allied villages. Even though large numbers of

428
 Ronan O’Flaherty

Method
Figure 8. Rock-art depictions, Foppe di Nadro. Note the tiny human figure (top centre) who carries both a halberd and a
short sword or dagger (after Abelanet 1986).

warriors were involved, there was little or no military effort; instead, dozens of individual duels
were engaged in. Each warrior shouted insults at his opponent and hurled spears or fired arrows.
Agility in dodging arrows was highly praised . . . In spite of the huge array of warriors involved in
these pitched battles, little killing took place . . . . In the event that someone was badly wounded
or slain, the battle would usually cease for that day’.
Many of the most important points to be gleaned from the various anthropological
accounts are summed up in this quotation, for example the individual duels, the posturing,
the long-range nature of the conflict, with use of projectiles dominating the proceedings,
and the resulting low level of casualties. Undoubtedly, there must have been occasions when
matters were brought to a closer range and it is in those clashes that we might envisage the
halberds being brought into play.
The contemporary depictions from continental Europe (both rock-art and stelae-statuary)
show warriors wielding long-handled halberds raised high over the head in combat(?) with
other similarly armed warriors (Figure 3). In other examples (Figure 8), warriors are depicted
armed with both halberd and sword raising the interesting possibility that in these cases,
which illustrate short-handled halberds, they might have been used with swords as specific
type of combat panoply. Such use is unlikely to have been made of the Irish halberds,
however, unless in conjunction with a dagger but does reinforce the view that elsewhere in
Europe the halberd had a clear combat role.
Comparison with the ‘historical’ halberd, the pole-arm which was used extensively in
Europe during the Middle Ages, shows how the Bronze Age Irish halberd might have been
used. Only one treatise surviving from the period is devoted exclusively to the technique of

429
 Experiments with a replica Irish Early Bronze Age halberd

halberd combat. This is Le Jeu de la Hache, written down sometime in the fifteenth century
and published for the first time by Sydney Anglo in 1991. This text is particularly valuable
because it describes in great detail how pole-arms of this sort might be used in single combat,
rather than as the weapon of massed infantry. This may shed some light on how the Early
Bronze Age halberd, regarded by so many commentators as clumsy and ineffective, could
have been used very effectively in the hands of a skilled warrior.
Anglo (1991) makes the important point that in fighting hand-to-hand with pole-arms,
the technique adopted was much like that used in quarter-staff play. ‘Long handled swinging
strokes’, he comments, ‘were easily countered and were not greatly admired . . .’ (p. 115). In
fact, the author of the Jeu specifically recommends that combatants should lead with the
queue or shaft of the weapon and a striking feature of the whole treatise is the extent to
which this part of the weapon is relied upon for both attack and defence. Anglo points
out that the queue is mentioned more than three times as often in this text as the dague
(the spur protruding from the back of the axe-head), while the axe-blade itself appears to
have been rarely used. This observation is of immense interest as it reminds us that what
has survived from the Early Bronze Age is only part of the whole weapon: we are missing
the shaft (rarely considered as more than a prop for the blade) which may have been the
most important part of the whole weapon, particularly for those types with reasonably long
shafts.
The experience of sword-play in medieval Europe also helps us envisage how the Early
Bronze Age halberd may have been used. The point is made by Oakeshott (1960: 158-59)
that swordsmen would do everything possible to protect their blades from unnecessary
impact with an opponent’s weapon, because of the
damage which would result. We should not be
surprised if in the Early Bronze Age, combatants were
to take even more care of their expensive metal blades
and only strike with that portion of the weapon when
they were reasonably confident of hitting the target.
It seems, therefore, that we need to think of
the halberd as being used judiciously, not in wild,
swinging strokes that could be easily avoided and
which were risky to both blade and user. In particular
we might imagine considerable use of the shaft
as a precursor to creating the opportunity for a
killing-blow. Pole-work like this would also provide
an opportunity to display skill and expertise in
the handling of the weapon, without endangering
the copper head, and indeed if the ethnographic
examples are anything to go by, this type of encounter
may have been sufficient of itself to conclude some
conflicts. Contemporary Bronze Age depictions often
show halberds with large bulbous ends to the shaft
Figure 9. Rock-art depictions of halberds with
bulbous terminals – High Atlas Mountains, (Figure 9), and if these are in fact accurate depictions
Morocco (after Chenorkian 1988). they also hint at substantial use of the shaft to deal

430
 Ronan O’Flaherty

blows or perhaps trip or disarm the opponent. If a kill was required, it seems likely that the
primary target would be the head of one’s opponent – aiming elsewhere runs the risk of
trapping the halberd without hope of recovery and without inflicting a fatal wound. Further,
as pointed out earlier, the fact that the Irish halberds are blunt-nosed rather than pointed
seems to indicate intention to impact on bone rather than muscle. The practical trials have
shown that a blow to the head, correctly delivered, is virtually guaranteed to penetrate the
skull deeply and kill.
To no small extent, the halberd demonstrates many of the characteristics of a ‘champion’s
weapon’, requiring considerable skill to use effectively. It is certainly not the type of weapon
to take along on a raid, where the objective is generally to get in and out as quickly as
possible. The halberd is not constructed for action in a melée, where bow-and-arrow serve
better from a distance, and daggers, clubs and axes are more effective should things come
to close quarters. The halberd requires too much attention, demanding the use of both
hands and a cool head to avoid unexpected damage, as well of course as sufficient room
to manoeuvre. In a ‘ritualised’ setting, however, against another opponent similarly armed,

Method
the halberd would be effective and impressive from the point of view of the onlooker, a
perfect vehicle to display the prowess (and wealth) of a champion. Treherne (1995: 111)
has argued convincingly that, ‘by the Middle Bronze Age, the prevailing “ideology” was largely
centred on the male (gendered) individual and the display of his personal accoutrements acquired
through inter-regional exchange and emulation, with novel themes of drinking, driving/riding,
body-decorating and fighting’.
But need we wait until the Middle Bronze Age to identify these traits? In the Early Bronze
Age and in the form of the warrior equipped with halberd, we have the very model of such
a champion and such a society. The burial evidence for the period in Ireland leads us to
suspect a male-dominated society (Mount 1991) and with its roots firmly in broader Beaker
traditions, we can detect also those other traits identified by Treherne: the consumption of
alcohol, the introduction of the horse and a more martial aspect than heretofore. And in the
halberd, we have the very model of a champion’s weapon, beautiful, costly and requiring
skill and courage to wield, perfect for display.

Conclusion: the roles of the halberd – and its demise

We should remember, drawing once more upon the anthropological evidence (and in
particular the experience of the Maring of New Guinea – see Väyda 1976) that serious
conflict may only have occurred at intervals of many years. The evidence of wear that is
apparent on many Irish halberds in the form of nicks and dents (O’Flaherty 2002: 110-
19) may therefore represent extensive use over a long period of time, accumulated from
sporadic combat, interspersed with periods of non-use. A similar observation is made in
a recent paper by Woodward et al. (2005) in relation to Early Bronze Age daggers of
Armorico-British type from certain ‘Wessex’ burials, where the pattern of wear suggests
long periods of use and perhaps heirloom status. The lesson for us is to avoid the extreme
assumptions: too often we tend to think in terms of weapons as either functional or
ceremonial when they can fulfil both roles simultaneously. Bridgford touches on much the
same point when she says, ‘A sword may simultaneously be, or have the potential to be, a

431
 Experiments with a replica Irish Early Bronze Age halberd

beautiful object, an efficient killing tool, a symbol of power and wealth, an implied or actual
threat, a sacrifice, a gift, a reward, a pledge of loyalty and/or an embodiment of the idea of conflict’
(1997: 95).
The same is true of the halberd and one is minded of Brück’s arguments about the
artificiality of the distinctions drawn by modern researchers between what is symbolic and
what is practical (1999).
The manner in which the Early Bronze Age halberd is likely to have been used meant
that its success depended on certain norms of combat being respected. Unlike its medieval
cousin, the Early Bronze Age halberd is really only suitable for single combat against a
similarly or worse-armed opponent, and only in circumstances where defensive armour is
not being used. A wood and leather helmet would have afforded considerable protection
against a halberd-blow as would a simple shield of wood, leather or wicker. As the Irish
halberd was probably wielded two-handed, it is difficult to see how its user could also
manage a shield. Armed with a shield, a warrior equipped even with just a dagger is likely to
get the better of an opponent armed with a halberd. Unlike the spear, the halberd cannot be
used as thrusting weapon to get past an opponent’s guard and it runs serious risk of damage
on impact with a wooden, wicker or leather shield.
In this context, it may be significant that changes were taking place during the Bronze
Age at this time in relation to daggers. These were now becoming longer, changing from
a stabbing weapon to a thrusting one. It is interesting to speculate whether the dagger and
the halberd, which both reflect a stabbing action, fell from fashion around the same time
because of developments in combat which saw a thrusting action emerge instead, reflected
by the evolution later of weapons like the rapier and the spear. Just as the halberd replicates
the stabbing action of a hand-held dagger at long-range, so too does the spear replicate
the thrusting action of a rapier, again at long-range. Recent experimental work suggests
that the spear out-performs the rapier in combat and so became the primary weapon of
the Middle Bronze Age in Britain (Davis: 2006). In this respect, it is tempting to see the
spear as ultimately replacing the halberd, in the same way as the rapier ultimately replaces
(at least in part) the combat potential of the dagger. The surprisingly early dating of the
Kilmahamogue shield to 1950-1540 BC (3445 + − 70 BP: OxA-2429. Hedges et al. 1991),
also suggests that this form of defensive equipment may have started to make its presence
felt in Ireland around the time that halberds fall out of fashion here. That being the case, the
demise of the halberd in Ireland may have been a direct function of its previous importance
as a weapon rather than a symbol: once it ceased to be viable as a weapon, it could either
become symbolic or disappear. In practice, it seems to have done both.

Acknowledgements
This paper reflects aspects of research carried out as part of a PhD thesis submitted to the School of Archaeology,
University College Dublin. I am grateful for the advice of many in this regard, but in particular acknowledge
with gratitude the input and support of Dr Joanna Brück and Professor Barry Raftery who supervised my original
research, and the invaluable advice of Dr Stuart Needham on so many aspects of the research. Mr Liam Walsh
of ICM Camolin, a specialised sheep killing plant in Co. Wexford, facilitated the trials which were recorded
by Mr Christy Philpott by video and still photography. The replica halberd was made by Boyd Rankin of Irish
Arms and is testament to his craftsmanship.

432
 Ronan O’Flaherty
References
Abelanet, J. 1986. Signes sans paroles: cent siècles d’art
rupestre en Europe occidentale. Poitiers: Hachette.
Allen, I.M., D. Britton & H.H. Coughlan. 1970.
Metallurgical reports on British and Irish Bronze Age
implements and weapons in the Pitt Rivers Museum
(Pitt Rivers Museum occasional papers on
technology10). Oxford: Pitt Rivers Museum,
University of Oxford.
Anglo, S. 1991. ‘Le Jeu de la Hache’: a
fifteenth-century treatise on the technique of
chivalric axe combat. Archaeologia CIX.
Brandherm, D. 2003. Die Dolche und Stabdolche der
Steinkupfer- und der älteren Bronzezeit auf der
Iberischen Halbinsel (Prähistorische Bronzefunde,
Abteilung VI, Band 12). Stuttgart: Steiner.
–2004. ‘Porteurs de hallebardes?’. Varia Neolithica 3:
279-334.
Bridgford, S. 1997. Mightier than the pen? An
edgewise look at Irish Bronze Age swords, in
J. Carman (ed.) Material harm: archaeological
studies of war and violence: 95-115. Glasgow:
Cruithne Press.
Brück, J. 1999. Ritual and Rationality: some problems
of interpretation in European Archaeology.
European Journal of Archaeology 2(3): 313-44.
Carman, J. (ed.) 1997. Material harm – archaeological
studies of war and violence. Glasgow: Cruithne Press.
Carman, J. & A. Harding. 1999. Ancient Warfare.
Stroud: Sutton.
Chagnon, N.A. 1967. Yanomamö social organisation
and warfare, in M. Fried, M. Harris & R. Murphy
(ed.) War: the anthropology of armed conflict and
aggression: 109-59. New York: National History
Press.
Chenorkian, R. 1988. Les armes métalliques dans l’art
protohistorique de l’occident Méditerranéen. Paris:
CNRS.
Davis, R. 2006. Basal-Looped Spearheads. Typology,
chronology, context and use (British Archaeological
Reports International Series 1497). Oxford:
Archaeopress.
Divale, W. 1973. War in Primitive Society. Santa
Barbara: ABC-Clio.
Drews, R. 1993. The End of the Bronze Age: Changes in
Warfare and the Catastrophe ca.1200 BC. Princeton
(NJ): Princeton University Press.
Edmonds, M. & J. Thomas. 1987. The archers: an
everyday story of country folk, in A.G. Brown &
M.R. Edmonds (ed.) Lithic analysis and later British
Prehistory (British Archaeological Reports British
Series 162): 187-99. Oxford: British Archaeological
Reports.
433
Ferguson, R.B & N.L. Whitehead. (ed.) 1992. War
in the Tribal Zone. Expanding states and indigenous
warfare. Santa Fe: School of American Research
Press.
Flanagan, L.N. 1966. A bronze halberd from
County Armagh. Ulster Journal of Archaeology 29:
95-6.
Fried, M., M. Harris & R. Murphy. 1967. War: The
Anthropology of Armed Conflict and Aggression.
New York: The Natural History Press.
Guilaine, J. & J. Zammit. 2001. Le Sentier de la
Guerre – Visages de la violence préhistorique.
Paris: Seuil.
Harbison, P. 1969. The Daggers and the Halberds of the
Early Bronze Age in Ireland (Prähistorische
Bronzefunde, Abteilung VI, Band 1). Munich:
Beck.
Hedges, R.E.M., R.A. Housley, C. Bronk Ramsey &
G.J. Van Klinken. 1991. Radiocarbon dates from
Method
the Oxford AMS system: Archaeometry date list 23.
Archaeometry 33: 121-34.
Herity, M. & G. Eogan. 1977. Ireland in Prehistory.
Oxford: Routledge.
Keegan, J. 1994. A History of Warfare. London:
Pimlico.
Kristiansen, K. 2002. The tale of the sword – swords
and swordfighters in Bronze Age Europe. Oxford
Journal of Archaeology 21: 319-32.
Louwe Kooijmans, L.P. 1993. An Early/Middle
Bronze Age multiple burial at Wassenaar, the
Netherlands. Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 26:
1-20.
Macalister, R.A.S. 1949. The Archaeology of Ireland
(second edition). London: Methuen.
Mallory, J.P. & T.E. McNeill. 1991. The Archaeology
of Ulster from Colonization to Plantation. Belfast:
Institute of Irish Studies, Queen’s University Belfast.
Mount, C. 1991. Early Bronze Age burials – the social
implications. Archaeology Ireland 5(2): 21-3.
Oakeshott, R.E. 1960. The Archaeology of Weapons.
Woodbridge: Boydell Press.
O’Flaherty, R. 2002. A consideration of the Early
Bronze Age Halberd in Ireland – Function and
Context. Unpublished PhD thesis, University
College Dublin.
O’Flaherty, R., B. Rankin & L. Williams. 2002.
Reconstructing an Irish Early Bronze Age halberd.
Archaeology Ireland 16 (No.3): 30-4.
O’Kelly, M.J. 1989. Early Ireland. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Ó Ríordáin, S.P. 1937. The halberd in Bronze Age
Europe. Archaeologia 86: 195-321.
Osgood, R. 1998. Warfare in the Late Bronze Age of
North Europe (British Archaeological Reports
International Series 694). Oxford: Archaeopress.
 Experiments with a replica Irish Early Bronze Age halberd
Osgood, R. & S. Monks. 2000. Bronze Age Warfare.
Stroud: Sutton.
Raftery, J. 1942. A bronze halbert from Carn, Co.
Mayo. Journal of the Galway Archaeological and
Historical Society: 54-6.
Schumacher, T.X. 2002. Some remarks on the origin
and chronology of halberds in Europe. Oxford
Journal of Archaeology 21 (3): 263-88.
Sharples, N. 1991. Warfare in the Iron Age of Wessex.
Scottish Archaeological Review 8: 79-89.
Treherne, P. 1995. The warrior and his beauty: the
masculine body and self identification in Bronze
Age Europe. Journal of European Archaeology 3.1:
105-44.
434
Väyda, A. 1976. War in Ecological Perspective.
New York: Springer.
Waddell, J. 1991. The earlier bronze age, in M. Ryan
(ed.) The Illustrated Archaeology of Ireland : 68-71.
Dublin: Country House.
–1998. The Prehistoric Archaeology of Ireland. Galway:
Galway University Press.
Woodward, A., J. Hunter, R. Ixer, M. Maltby, P.J.
Potts, P.C. Webb, J.S. Watson & M.C. Jones.
2005. Ritual in some Early Bronze Age gravegoods.
Archaeological Journal 162: 31-64.