‘Hot interpretation’ of battle

N. James ∗

Tilted for us to see them straight on, 45 human skeletons were stacked in tight rows, with
two more, arms out-stretched, on top of them (Figure 1). Below lay artillery and musket
shot set out with equal neatness. Owing, perhaps, to such clinical arrangement, or to the
unfamiliar angle, or perhaps to the sturdy frame marked ‘LÜTZEN, 6. NOVEMBER 1632’, or
else to the gallery’s classical formality, the full horror only registered later, after seeing many
more bones, much finely crafted weaponry and armour, and pictures and plans of fights
both modern and ancient. It was the first display in Krieg: eine archäologische Spurensuche
(‘War: an archaeological search for traces’), an exhibition at the Prehistory Museum in Halle
shown from November 2015 to May 2016.
The Battle of Lützen was a turning point in the Thirty Years’ War, as Sweden halted
the Catholic advance on Saxony; but King Gustav Adolf was killed. The bones were lifted
in a block from the field where the grave was found in 2011. In all, there were some
125 skeletons. Bar one coin, nothing but bones was recovered (Meller & Schefzik 2015b:
402): the bodies must have been stripped. We were shown analyses of the bones. The king’s
bullet-torn tunic was displayed along with swords and armour, camp kit, records of the time,
paintings of the scene and portraits of the generals. There was a documentary film about the
battle and we were shown video sequences of experimental musketry. There were displays
on other incidents too, including sherds and a cannon ball from the terrible destruction
of Magdeburg. Also shown was Dresden’s copy of the treaty at Osnabrück, bearing the
signature of Queen Christina, the king’s heir, which helped to end the war.
The Halle Museum’s permanent collection of prehistoric archaeology is one of Europe’s
best, and in the quality of its presentation, perhaps the very best. Exhibits include the Nebra
Disc, the finds from the Early Bronze Age ‘royal’ grave at Leubingen and the Neolithic
family buried at Eulau. It was surprising, then, to find a display here on Lützen; but the rest
of the exhibition, in a second gallery, was devoted to prehistory from the Palaeolithic to the
Late Bronze Age.
The argument was loosely evolutionist. It started with a short film and territorial analysis
of conflict among the chimpanzees studied by the Boesch team and with analyses of
hominid injuries at Maba (Guandong), Sima de los Huesos (Atapuerca), Krapina, Sungir
and Shanidar. Among other Mesolithic evidence shown were the skeletons from the Cave
of the Children (Liguria), one with a lancehead among the ribs; from Montfort St Lizier
(southern France), with a blade stuck in a vertebra; and from Skateholm I (Scania), with signs
of scalping; and the burial from Teviéc (Brittany) was assembled replete with its covering
antlers and a digital scan of the injuries. Next came a map of Neolithic diffusion from the
Levant, and clips of Robert Gardner’s film of battle, injuries and death among the Dani
in New Guinea. The Mesolithic bow and fragmentary club from Holmegård were shown

∗
Division of Archaeology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3DZ, UK (Email:
nj218@cam.ac.uk)


C Antiquity Publications Ltd, 2016 doi:10.15184/aqy.2016.137
1100
 ‘Hot interpretation’ of battle

Debate

Figure 1. In your face: part of the mass grave at Lützen (photograph by Juraj Lipták, shown with permission from the
Landesamt für Denkmalplege und Archäologie Sachsen-Anhalt).


C Antiquity Publications Ltd, 2016

1101
 N. James

along with nine Neolithic clubs. Below an array of maceheads, typological displays of bronze
weaponry implied military organisation. Accompanying maps suggested specific tactics—or
ideas—by demonstrating that most shields are from the British Isles and most halberds
are from four far-flung regions, especially Ireland. Symbolism was addressed explicitly with
Neolithic and Bronze Age blades of gold from Romania and the Balkans, five Nuragic
statuettes (Sardinia), one of the horned helmets from Viksø (Denmark), and the stele from
Arco, in the Italian Alps, showing daggers and halberds. Aerial photographs and diagrams
illustrated the fortifications at Eisleben, Bischofswiese and Crickley Hill; and there were
photographs to suggest precedents for mass burial from Wassenaar, Sund (Norway) and
perhaps at Tormarton (England). There was one of the Eulau burials and the Beaker warrior
from Apfelstädt. A distinct section was devoted to the Late Bronze Age running fight in
the Tollense Valley, with analysis of the combatants’ ages and injuries and their weapons
(including ‘Baseball Bat’ and ‘Croquet Mallet’; see Jantzen et al. 2011). Alongside the main
display of prehistoric finds were two supplementary displays: about discoveries from Spain,
Italy and Germany, including ‘massacre among the first farming cultures’ at Talheim; and
then Bronze Age finds from Egypt, with a copy of the great relief of the Battle of Kadesh from
Abu Simbel, the life-size model of a battle chariot, an account of the Battle of Megiddo, a
Stätzling-type sword blade from Bubastis, perhaps of the Sea People, and pictures, for good
measure, of Naram-Sin’s Victory Stele and the Standard of Ur from Mesopotamia.
Assembled from no less than 38 collections in Germany and 23 elsewhere in Europe,
Krieg was a feat of systematic curatorship as well as masterful and imaginative design. The
exhibits throughout were clearly mounted, spaced and lit. Economical labels and pithy wall
texts were supplemented by reproductions of scenes in the prehistoric rock art of Spain,
Scandinavia and South Africa and by striking paintings made for the exhibition, including an
impression of the burying at Lützen. There was no catalogue but a small book corresponded
to the exhibition’s topics in order; and a very big, lavish one provides scholarly notes on
ancient warfare and weaponry, mass graves, ethology and ethnography and on the Thirty
Years’ War in central Germany (Meller & Schefzik 2015a & b).
Compelling in itself, and perhaps particularly stimulating for historians as they turn to
material culture—if not to physical anthropology too—the display on Lützen was used
as a source of analogy for alerting archaeologists to aspects of the prehistoric evidence for
warfare (Carman 2013: 40, 98). Krieg’s argument was, however, left all but implicit. An
inconspicuous opening panel asked ‘What is war?’ and sketched a couple of general answers.
The prevailing suggestion was that it arises, in the first place, from competition over resources
and depends, in the second, on organisation or leadership. Recently discovered evidence of
a Late Stone Age massacre in Kenya has been ascribed to competition over land for foraging
(Lahr et al. 2016). The exhibition could have assessed the likelihood of Palaeolithic or Bronze
Age competition more clearly or specified the resources at stake during the Mesolithic and
the nature of Neolithic chieftainship. As for fighting, while there were hints about the
importance of terrain, there was scope for more attention to district geography. For Lützen
is one of those sites that has witnessed battle more than once (the second time was in 1813).
Had Krieg covered the Iron Age, when more people seem to have taken part, issues
about who fought would have loomed more boldly. Considering murmurs about renewed
European war even while the exhibition was prepared and displayed, would it have been

C Antiquity Publications Ltd, 2016

1102
 ‘Hot interpretation’ of battle

apt to address recruitment? The issue was implied in the surprising comparison with Egypt
and Mesopotamia, showing rows of soldiers. Reviewing the European archaeology in the
accompanying book, Harald Meller and Anthony Harding do affirm that soldiering was
probably a recognised role in the Bronze Age (Meller & Schefzik 2015b: 242–56). Data
on health, diet and biography from Lützen’s bones show how, by analogy, and preservation
permitting, profiles of prehistoric fighters could be obtained (Meller & Schefzik 2015b:
405–20). Perhaps, for example, now that injuries on 64 skeletons from along the Tollense
have been recorded, the collection could be studied for biography and social identity too
(Meller & Schefzik 2015b: 350): what can we deduce about why those men fought?
The curators’ decision to leave the prehistoric finds unshrouded by more discussion
was effective, however. As Uzzell (1989: 46) has urged, museums should show both our
“finest achievements” and “shameful events of our past”: some “[i]nterpretation . . . has to
be shocking”. Most of us must have left Krieg both sombre and thoughtful.

Acknowledgements
Julia Kruse, at the museum, courteously arranged for my visit and provided the figure. I benefited from discussion
with Susan Pollock and Chris Scarre.

References MELLER, H. & M. SCHEFZIK (ed.). 2015a. Krieg: eine

archäologische Spurensuche—Begleithefte zur
CARMAN, J. 2013. Archaeologies of conflict. London:
Sonderausstellung im Landesmuseum für
Bloomsbury.
Vorgeschichte, Halle. Halle: Landesamt für
JANTZEN, D., U. BRINKER, J. ORSCHIEDT, Denkmalplege und Archäologie Sachsen-Anhalt.
J. HEINEMEIER, J. PIEK, K. HAUENSTEIN,
– 2015b. Krieg: eine archäologische
J. KRÜGER, G. LIDKE, H. LÜBKE, R. LAMPE,
Spurensuche—Begleitband zur Sonderausstellung im
S. LORENZ, M. SCHULT & T. TERBERGER. 2011. A
Landesmuseum für Vorgeschichte, Halle (Saale).
Bronze Age battlefield? Weapons and trauma in the
Halle: Landesamt für Denkmalplege und
Tollense Valley, north-eastern Germany. Antiquity
Archäologie Sachsen-Anhalt.

Debate
85: 417–33.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00067843 UZZELL, D.L. 1989. The hot interpretation of war and
conflict, in D.L. Uzzell (ed.) Heritage interpretation
LAHR, M.R. F. RIVERA, R.K. POWER, A. MOUNIER, B.
(Vol. 1): 33–47. London: Belhaven.
COPSEY, F. CRIVELLARO, J.E. EDUNG, J.M. MAILLO
FERNANDEZ, C. KIARIE, J. LAWRENCE, A. LEAKEY, E
MBUA, H. MILLER, A. MUIGAI, D.M. MUKHONGO,
A. VAN BAELEN, R. WOOD, J.-L. SCHWENNINGER,
R. GRÜN, H. ACHYUTHAN, A. WILSHAW & R.
FOLEY. 2016. Inter-group violence among early
Holocene hunter-gatherers of West Turkana,
Kenya. Nature 529: 394–98.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature16477


C Antiquity Publications Ltd, 2016

1103