STUDIA I MATERIAŁY – STUDIES AND MATERIALS

Acta Militaria Mediaevalia VIII

Kraków – Rzeszów – Sanok 2012, s. 177-212

Christof Krauskopf

WEAPON FINDS FROM THE “GRÜTTPOTT”

AT STOLPE ON THE ODER

Abstract:
Ch. Krauskopf, Weapon finds from the “Grüttpott” at Stolpe on the Oder, AMM: VIII, AMM VIII: 177-212

The “Grüttpott”, a round brick made keep at Stolpe on the Oder in northern Brandenburg, was probably built under Danish
influence at around 1200. Taken by the Ascanians after 1250, the castle changed several times possession, before it was besieged
by Frederick II, Elector of Brandenburg, in 1445 to get it back from Pomeranian dominion. During the siege, a great number of
weapons and other objects was buried when the upper stories of the keep collapsed. 1991 hundreds of artefacts, as there are
crossbow parts, bolt heads, brigandine plates, a fragment of a helm, fragments of several exploded handguns, firearm projectiles,
bones and many objects of daily life were found. In this article the weapon finds are discussed.

Key words: brigandine, helmet, firearms, crossbow, siege, castle

1

The „Grüttpott“ – a Danish-Pomeranian
castle in Brandenburg1
During the 2nd half of the 12th c., the Danish
kingdom succeeded in its efforts to expand into
the Slavic and German territories on the southern
shore of the Baltic Sea. The important Slavic temple
at Arkona on the island of Rügen was taken in
1168. In 1184, the Danes defeated the Pomeranian
fleet, and a year later Boguslaw I, the Duke of
Pomerania, was forced to become a vassal of the
Danish king Canute VI (Petersohn 1979, 438-440;
Holst 2009, 95, u Anm. 6), who went on to
conquer the county of Holstein in 1200-1201. The
Ascanian margraves of Brandenburg were also
eager to expand their territory. In 1211, they moved
northwards toward the Baltic Sea and, with the
consent of the Holy Roman Emperor Otto IV,
seized the Pomeranian towns of Pasewalk and
Stettin. This move brought them into direct
conflict with the Danes. In 1214, Otto’s successor
Frederick II confirmed Danish dominion over
Pomerania and Holstein, and, in the same year,
the Danish king Waldemar II recaptured both
towns. In little more than 50 years, the Danish
kingdom had gained great influence over the
Slavic territories along the southern Baltic coast.
The Ascanians reacted by attempting to secure
the northern border of their territory: according to
the Chronicle of the Margraves of Brandenburg,
written at the end of the 13th c., they occupied and
refortified the old Slavic stronghold at Oderberg.
Ascanian expansion had taken place at the
same time as the Danes control of the region to the
south of the Baltic Sea. Albrecht the Bear formally
inherited the territory of the Slavic Hevelli or
Stodorane, based around Brandenburg on the
Havel, when the last native prince, Pribislaw-
Heinrich, died childless in 1150. The succession
was disputed but Albrecht finally took possession
of Brandenburg itself in 1157. The dynasty already
held the lands of Zauche, which lay to the
south-east of Brandenburg, as allodium. These
had been granted as a gift to Albrecht’s son in
1130. The Ascanians used the two territories as
a base for expansion to the east. Their way led
them via Spandau, Bernau, Biesenthal, Bötzow
(Oranienburg), Eberswalde and Oderberg to the
Oder valley (fig. 1). At Oderberg they took

1 This article concentrates on the weapon finds. Other objects, as ceramics, stove tiles, buckles and more, will not be discussed.
I would like to thank Arkadiusz Michalak, Zielona Góra, and Jan H. Sachers, Bielefeld, for providing me with literature which was
not available in libraries nearby. And last but not least I would like to thank my colleague Jamie Jones, Wünsdorf, for his great help
in translating this article.
178 Christof Krauskopf

b e c d

g
h

k
k i
e c d

l
0 10 m
n
b

0 10 m

Fig. 2. Cross section of the Grüttpott, published in 1934 (after

Kunstdenkmäler 1934). In the upper storey, the rubble containing
the finds is depicted (grey display by the author).

Ryc. 2. Przekrój Grüttpott, opublikowany w 1934 r. (wg Kunst-

denkmäler 1934). W górnej kondygnacji rumowisko zawierające
omawiane znaleziska (na szaro – oznaczenia autora).

Fig. 1. Castles around 1200 between Spandau and the Oder: – castles
under Danish dominion; – Ascanian castles; – Danish influence
sphere south of the Baltic Sea (drawing by C. Krauskopf; after Holst
2009, fig. 1).

Ryc. 1. Zamki pomiędzy Spandau i Odrą ok. 1200 r.: – zamki pod
kontrolą Danii; – zamki pod kontrolą Dynastii Askańskiej; – strefa
wpływów duńskich na południowym wybrzeżu Morza Bałtyckiego
(rys. C. Krauskopf; wg Holst 2009, fig. 1).

possession of the Slavic earthwork fortifications

on the hill above the site of the later town and, as
already mentioned above, built a new castle contra
sclavos2 (Chronica... 1888, 120; for the castle at
Oderberg see Schulz 1998; 1999, 48ff.; Schütz
2006, 272). The chronicler Arnold of Lübeck
recorded a battle in 1198 between the Danes,
supported by Rugians, Polabians and Obotrites,
and a combined force of Ascanian and Pomeranian
Fig. 3. The Grüttpott upon Stolpe on the Oder. Photo by N. Schlaack.
troops3. Unfortunately, the exact location of the
battle is not described, but it is likely that the battle Ryc. 3. Grüttpott k. Stolpe n. Odrą. Fot. N. Schlaack.

2 To the castles in Brandenburg mentioned see also the digital map on castles of Brandenburg (www.dhm.de/ausstellungen/burg-
und-herrschaft/brandenburg).
3 Siquidem Otto marcravius de Brandenburch infestabat Kanutum regem, subiciens sibi quosdam Sclavos quos rex sue ditionis
esse dicebat. Unde commotus rex expeditionem contra eum ordinavit et classe terram suam intravit per aquam que Odera dicitur,
que in mari descensum habet. Cui occurrerunt Rugiani sive Rani cum Polabis et Obotritis. Rex tamen in insula Mone consistebat,
Petro cancellario [archbishop Peter Suneson of Roskilde] exercitum ducente (Arnoldus Lubecensis, 1868, 229).
 Weapon finds from the “Grüttpott” at Stolpe on the Oder 179

1
5
4

2 3

0 3 cm

7 8 9 10

11

13 14 15
12

16 17 18
1

19 20 21

Fig. 4. The Grüttpott upon Stolpe on the Oder: 1-21 – brigandine plates. Drawing by I. Borak.

Ryc. 4. Grüttpott k. Stolpe n. Odrą: 1-21 – zbrojniki brygantyny. Rys. I. Borak.

took place near Oderberg, where the river Finow
flows into the Oder valley. The first military contact
between the two expansionist powers must have
taken place somewhere along the lower Oder:
Arnold von Lübeck reports that Peter Suneson,
the bishop of Roskilde ...entered with the fleet
[of the Danish king] from his territory into the
river called Oder...4.
Both sides built castles in the border regions
to secure and strengthen their control. The
construction of the new castle within the old
Slavic earthworks above Oderberg dates according
to the chronicle of the margraves to 1214, although
the Ascanians had probably taken possession of
the site earlier.
One of the most remarkable medieval castles
in northern Germany is located about 12 km north
of Oderberg (fig. 2). The so-called “Grüttpott”5 at
Stolpe on the Oder is a massive brick-built round
keep, with a diameter of 18 m and a surviving
height of nearly 30 m. The lower parts of the walls
are up to 6m thick. At first glance, the keep appears
to have been built on a motte. However, the mound
was thrown up around the base of the keep, which
is covered up to a height of about 12 m. Only the
upper 18 m of the structure are visible above

4 See footnote 3. In other sources, the river Warnow is mentioned. The unlikeliness of this possibility has already been intensely
discussed (Fritze 1982, 336; Holst 2009, footnote 3).
5 “Grüttpott” means literally “pot of groats”. The name comes from a legend which tells the story of a robber baron who defended
the keep by throwing a pot full of groats onto the attackers below (Woeller 1979, 81).
180 Christof Krauskopf

ground. Apart from some minor work in and

around the keep, there have been no archaeological
excavations at the site6.
The theory that the Danes were responsible,
either directly or indirectly, for the construction of
the keep was first proposed by R. Schulz (Schulz
1998; 1999, 24f.), and new research by J.-Ch. Holst
1 has uncovered evidence that supports this hypothesis.
The results of his thorough analysis of the building
and the written sources suggest that the keep was
built, with Danish involvement, in around the year
1200 and was intended as a practical and symbolic
obstacle to Ascanian expansion (Holst 2009, 112f).
However, the building was never completed. Defeat
at the Battle of Bornhöved in 1227 weakened Danish
influence and the Ascanians seized control of the
2 southern Uckermark in 1230 (Petersohn 1979, 440,
footnote 14). They received the northern parts of
0 3 cm the Uckermark as a result of the Treaty of Landin
in 1250 (Enders 1992, 42; Krabbo, Winter 1955,
No. 730). According to Holst, the upper storey of
the Grüttpott was finished with bricks that are
Fig. 5. The Grüttpott upon Stolpe on the Oder: 1-12 – plate armour. typical of the Ascanian masonry of this period
Drawing by I. Borak and R. Schulze. (Holst 2009, 112).
Ryc. 5. Grüttpott k. Stolpe n. Odrą: 1-12 – zbrojniki płatów. Rys. I. Borak The first mention of an Ascanian steward at
i R. Schulze. Stolpe is in 12517. A marescaldus named Albert

0 10 cm

Fig. 6. The Grüttpott upon Stolpe on the Oder. Back part of the sallet. Photo by D. Sommer.

Ryc. 6. Grüttpott k. Stolpe n. Odrą. Tylna część salady. Fot. D. Sommer.

6 The earliest known activity on the site dates to the Bronze Age. Pottery finds indicate Bronze Age and Slavic occupation. Earthworks
to the north of the tower separate the southern part of the hill from the northern slope. Various surface finds, mostly pottery, are kept in
the collections of the Brandenburg Archaeological State Museum in Wünsdorf and the Ehm-Welk-Museum in Angermünde.
7 The steward (advocatus) Heinrich is mentioned 1251 as witness in a document concerning the town of Prenzlau (Codex... 1861, 89).
 Weapon finds from the “Grüttpott” at Stolpe on the Oder 181

0 3 cm

Fig. 7. The Grüttpott upon Stolpe on the Oder. Back part of the sallet. Drawing by I. Borak.

Ryc. 7. Grüttpott k. Stolpe n. Odrą. Tylna część salady. Rys. I. Borak.

appears as witness in the sources at about the
same time (Krabbo, Winter 1955, No. 828). The
margraves of Brandenburg stayed at Stolpe several
times8, and the stewardship remained in their hands
until 1354, in the 1st quarter of the 14th c. given as
pawn to the dukes of Mecklenburg (Ortslexikon
1986, 954; Enders 1992, 105f). In 1354, the Holy
Roman Emperor Charles IV, who at the time
was also Margrave of Brandenburg, gave the
stewardship to the dukes of Pomerania (Codex...
1845, 351f., 368f.). In 1423, the von Buch family,
who were vassals of the Pomeranian dukes, are
mentioned as stewards for the first time.
The siege of the Grüttpott in 1445
The Hohenzollern Burgrave of Nuremberg
was enfeoffed with the Margraviate of Brandenburg
during the Council of Constance in 1415. He
proceeded to put an end to almost a century of
unstable rule. The Ascanian line had died out
in 1320 and, in 1323, King Louis the Bavarian
appointed his eight-year-old son, also called Louis,
as margrave. Emperor Charles IV seized control
during the chaos that followed the brief reign of
the “false Waldemar” (1348-1350). He established
new standards of administration and attempted to
reorganise the territory. Following his death, the
margraviate remained property of the Bohemian
Crown but the region was neglected, and central
authority declined. The Brandenburg nobility,
particularly the families of Rochow and Quitzow,
tried to use the weakness of the margrave to
their own advantage. Frederick VI, Burgrave of
Nuremberg, was appointed as administrator in

8 Margrave Johann – 1257 (Codex... 1859, 369f.); Margraves Otto, Johann and Conrad – 1267 (Codex... 1857b, 211-213; Fey
1981, 57, 128, 262f.).
182 Christof Krauskopf

1411, and became Margrave and Elector of

Brandenburg in 1415.
As soon as he had taken power, Frederick
began a process of administrative reform and
sought to re-establish central authority. In 1413
and 1414, he laid siege to rebel towns and castles,
and managed to defeat the insurgent nobility.
He also tried to regain some of the former
territories in the border regions. This policy was
continued by his son, Frederick II, nicknamed
“Iron tooth”, who ruled from 1440 to 1470. He
besieged and captured numerous castles, and
later ordered that some of them be rebuilt or
strengthened (see Krauskopf 2011, 53ff).
He showed special interest in the region on
the Pomeranian border and in 1445 he laid siege
to the castle in Stolpe. A document, drawn up by
Hans von Buch in January 1446, confirms that
the Elector of Brandenburg had taken the castle
by force (Codex... 1857a, 367). The castle was
later returned to von Buch as a fief, a practice
which is well known from the medieval period.
0 3 cm By defending the castle against attack, von Buch
had fulfilled his duty as a vassal and proved to be
reliable. Frederick II could be sure that Hans von
Buch, having sworn an oath of fealty to his new
Fig. 8. The Grüttpott upon Stolpe on the Oder. Chainmail fragments. lord, would do the same for him. In 1447, the
Photo by C. Krauskopf. Elector Frederick and the margrave Frederick, his
Ryc. 8. Grüttpott k. Stolpe n. Odrą. Fragmenty kolczugi. Fot. C. son, reconcile themselves to the duke of Pomerania,
Krauskopf. Joachim. In this document, it is confirmed, that the

1 2 3 4 5 6

0 3 cm

Fig. 9. The Grüttpott upon Stolpe on the Oder. Bol theads, types 1-6: 1 – type 1; 2 – type 2; 3 – type 3; 4 – type 4; 5 – type 5; 6 – type 6. Drawing
by I. Borak and R. Schulze.

Ryc. 9. Grüttpott k. Stolpe n. Odrą. Groty bełtów: 1 – typ 1; 2 – typ 2; 3 – typ 3; 4 – typ 4; 5 – typ 5; 6 – typ 6. Rys. I. Borak i R. Schulze.
 Weapon finds from the “Grüttpott” at Stolpe on the Oder
1 2 3 4
0 3 cm
Fig. 10. The Grüttpott upon Stolpe on the Oder: 1-8 – bolt heads, type 1. Drawing by I. Borak.
Ryc. 10. Grüttpott k. Stolpe n. Odrą: 1-8 – groty bełtów, typ 1. Rys. I. Borak.
margraves had taken several castles, among them
Stolpe, by force and that they would keep them,
not hindered by Joachim and his heirs (Codex...
1847, 398-404 – Stolpe mentioned on 398).
The document of 1446 does not contain
a detailed description of the “Grüttpott” siege. As
there were no excavations, it stays uncertain, how
the siege was carried out. Very good archaeological
evidence for a siege in the mid 15th c. is given in the
castle of Kolno in Silesia (Marek, forthcoming)9.
However, the archaeological finds recovered in
the Grüttpott in 1991 and the research carried
out by Holst on the upper storey of the building
give at least some indication of what occurred.
The weapon finds
In 1991, as the inhabitants of Stolpe began to
renovate the village, their thoughts soon turned
to the castle on the hill above. It was difficult to
enter the keep. The lower storey could be reached
through a tunnel, dug in 1840, but the upper storey
was only accessible using a very long ladder. To
provide visitors with easier access, it was decided
to first remove the rubble from the upper storey.
A local association began to clear out the debris
but did not realise that it contained medieval
artefacts. About 130 cubic metres of rubble were
removed (Schulz 1999, 27). Members of staff
from the Brandenburg State Museum for Pre-
and Protohistory only became aware of these
9 I thank Lech Marek for giving me access to his unpublished article.
183
5 6 7 8
activities some time after they had occurred.
The rubble, which now lay at the foot of the keep, 1
was then sieved and several hundred artefacts
were recovered.
The removal of the rubble was an illegal and
destructive action, which resulted in the loss of an
enormous amount of information. The presence of
human bones and the large number of objects found
amongst the rubble suggest that the artefacts had
lain undisturbed since the partial collapse of the
building during the siege of 1445. A very small
number of finds, including four of the 50 coins
which were found, dates to after 1445 and was
obviously deposited at a later time. A thorough
investigation of the collapse debris and the artefacts
in situ would have provided information about
the damage to the keep, and about many of the
artefacts themselves. The assemblage of human
bone is very unusual and difficult to interpret.
Many of the open questions could probably have
been answered if the bones had been examined
in context with the other finds, especially the
pieces of armour. The loss of information was
not, however, the only damage caused by the
uncontrolled removal of the rubble. The rubble
layer had protected the masonry, especially the
brick-built floor of the upper storey. After it was
removed, the building was exposed to the elements.
The keep was not restored, and the upper storey
covered with a roof, until 2009 (fig. 3).
184 Christof Krauskopf

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

0 3 cm

Fig. 11. The Grüttpott upon Stolpe on the Oder: 1-9 – bolt heads, type 2. Drawing by I. Borak.

Ryc. 11. Grüttpott k. Stolpe n. Odrą: 1-9 – groty bełtów, typ 2. Rys. I. Borak.

Armour The plates measure between 25 and 27 mm and

Brigandine plates (cat. Nos. 1-24)
57 complete or fragmentary brigandine plates
were recovered (fig. 4). No fabric remains were
present and the metal plates were scattered amongst
the rubble, so no evidence survived to suggest how
the individual pieces might have fitted together. It is
therefore very difficult to reconstruct the form and
size of the armour, and, in comparison with the
coats of plates known from museum collections,
the Grüttpott examples are also difficult to date.
However, the date of the destruction of the tower
(late 1445) provides at least a terminus ante quem.
Most of the plates are so heavily corroded that
it is impossible to distinguish the original shape.
At least four types of plates can be differentiated.
There are 40 long rectangular pieces. These have
a width of only about 1 cm, rounded corners and
rows of densely packed rivets (fig. 4:1-13). Some
of them are corroded together. They were closely
set together in a part of the armour which had to
be flexible. The plates are bent along the long axis
and this suggests that they were parts of a faulds10.
They could equally have sat around the shoulder
and arm, as on the brigandine from 1470-1500 in
the Tower of London11, or formed part of a collar
or gorget to protect throat and neck.
The second type is rectangular with rounded
corners, and rivets on the upper edge (fig. 4:14-15).
overlapped the plates positioned below. They are
not bent and were therefore probably set in the
middle rows of plates, either on the back or the
front part of the armour.
The third type is parallelogram-shaped (fig.
4:16-18). The rivets are positioned on the upper
edge of the plates, leaving the bottom and either
right or left side free of rivets. The plates would
have overlapped, making the armour more difficult
to penetrate. The position of the rivets makes
it possible to differentiate between plates from
the right- and the left-hand side of the armour.
The parallelogram-shaped plates were placed in
the outer rows protecting the abdomen, where
the brigandine widened down towards the hips.
The fourth type is trapezoidal in shape with
shorter parallel sides (fig. 4:19-21). The rivets are
situated along three edges of the plates, on one
plate there are additional rivets in the centre. This
type of plates may have sit at the collar, narrowing
the brigandine around the neck12.
This type of armour is dated primarily by
comparison with medieval manuscript illustrations.
The earliest known depictions of coats of plate
are the paintings of Andrea Orcagna (before
1343-1344 – ca. 1368) and Bernardo Daddi
(ca. 1295-1348) (Stadler 2004, 27)13. However,
it is not to determine whether the armour shown

10 See the finds from Herbede (Peine 2004, fig. 10).

11 The brigandine is depicted by Stadler (2004, fig. 5). The shape of the plates cannot to be distinguished, but the vertically
positioned plates around the arms and shoulders appear to be smaller than the plates covering the body (see Martin 1967).
12 The Musée de l’Armée (Paris) owns a brigandine, dated to the time around 1500, that shows identical collar plates (seen in the
exhibition, July 5th, 2012). A similar example is shown by Calvert (1907, pl. 17:B).
13 Andrea di Cione (Orcagna): St. George on the depiction of Madonna with child (1337), San Giorgio a Ruballa, Osteria-Nuovo;
Bernardo Daddi: Crucifixion, Hunt Museum, mid 14th c., attributed to Daddi or his school (see www.huntmuseum.com/framesets_
collection/collection_paintings.html).
 Weapon finds from the “Grüttpott” at Stolpe on the Oder 185

to depict the rivets realistically in drawings of the

1 2 3
0 3 cm
Fig. 12. The Grüttpott upon Stolpe on the Oder: 1-3 – bolt heads,
type 3. Drawing by I. Borak.
Ryc. 12. Grüttpott k. Stolpe n. Odrą: 1-3 – groty bełtów, typ 3.
Rys. I. Borak.
has small plates, used in the fully developed
brigandine, or large plates, as used in the older
jacks of plate and the “coat armour” known as
“Lentner” in German because it was impossible
size (Spindler, Stadler 2004, 204). Even the 15th c.
depictions, such as those in Froissart’s Chronicles,
show a regular spread of rivets, and also decorative
elements14. When compared to the fully developed
brigandine of the 15th c., there are far too few rivets
visible on the armour shown in the illustrations.
The jack of plate and the brigandine show
a general development from large, similarly shaped
plates with fewer rivets in the mid-14th c., to
various forms of smaller plates in the 15th and
16th c.15 The mass grave at Visby contained
armour composed of large plates, most of which
were positioned vertically. At the time of the battle,
the brigandine had obviously not yet reached
the island. Thordemann and others suggest that
this was because the development of armour
was slower in northern countries, whereas the
brigandine was already in use in southern Europe
(Stadler 2004, 28)16. The light, flexible armour
is said to have been developed in the south
because of the warmer climate. The Visby material
is assumed to be characteristic of “backward”
northern Europe, while the southern European
“state of the art” is supposed to be represented
by the arsenal at Chalcis on the island of Eubea 1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

0 3 cm

Fig. 13. The Grüttpott upon Stolpe on the Oder: 1-11 – bolt heads, type 4. Drawing by I. Borak.

Ryc. 13. Grüttpott k. Stolpe n. Odrą: 1-11 – groty bełtów, typ 4. Rys. I. Borak.

14 E.g. Bibliothèque Nationale de Paris, ms. fr. 2644, fol. 135.

15 For more on the development of the coat of plates see Thordemann (1939). For history and development of the brigandine see
Lacy (1992) and Diotallevi (2008), for certain aspects, especially depictions of brigandines, see Spindler and Stadler (2004,
203ff). Richardson (1997, 40) names a source dating to 1171, which mentions laminis ferries arte consutis. He suggests that this
refers to an early form of the coat of plates used in the 14th c., and found in the mass grave of Visby.
16 It is very difficult to differentiate between brigandine and Lentner, as described by Gamber (1953, 84). His analysis of the
development of armour is based mainly on the evidence from illustrations. See also Gamber (1998, 38f.) for a discussion of
Lentner as an early form of the brigandine.
186 Christof Krauskopf

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

0 3 cm

9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Fig. 14. The Grüttpott upon Stolpe on the Oder: 1-15 – bolt heads, type 5. Drawing by I. Borak.

Ryc. 14. Grüttpott k. Stolpe n. Odrą: 1-15 – groty bełtów, typ 5. Rys. I. Borak.

(Post 1943, 231f., Abb. 11-12, 14-15; Stadler
2004, 28). However, the uncertain date of the
Chalcis finds puts this assumption into question.
According to Ffoulkes, the armour was hidden
before the Turkish conquest of Chalcis in 1470
(Ffoulkes 1911, 382)17. The Chalcis jack of plate
is made of equally shaped rectangular plates and
therefore does not represent the modern form of
the 2nd half of the 15th c. The plates from the
Grüttpott, which date to before 1445, seem to be
closer to the fully developed brigandine than the
Chalcis jack. However, neither this observation
nor the increasing number of finds from northern
and eastern Europe (Spindler, Stadler 2004, 205f)
contradicts the hypothesis of a southern European
origin for brigandine, and Stadler mentions a large
number of archaeological examples from in or
around the Alpes (Stadler 2004, 30)18.
The spacing of the rivets and the material
from which they are made are also important dating

17 The article by Blair (1982) on the weapon finds from Chalcis was not available.
18 There are additional archaeological finds of brigandine plates from several castles
and other sites throughout Europe: England:
Dominican Friary, Boston (Moorhouse 1972, 41f., fig. 8:3), Beeston Castle, Cheshire (Eaves 1989, 84f.); Scotland: Coldingham
Priory (Caldwell 1974-1975, 219ff.), Craigievar Castle, Aberdeenshire (Gabra-Sanders 1993); Sweden: Lund (Bergmann,
Billberg 1976, fig. 352); Finland: Kuusisto (Taavitsainen 2002); Germany: Tannenberg (Schmitt 2008, 164ff., Taf. 37-38),
Turmburg Nürings (Müller 1996, 153, Abb. 2-4), Kempten (Atzbach, Elser 2004), Runding (Ernst 2005, 343-347, fig. 4:1-3);
Herbede (Peine 2004), Wolfstein (Steeger 1998, 418, fig. 18, 20-24), Helfenstein (Fleischhauer 1934; 1936); Poland: Kolno
(Marek, forthcoming); Szczerba (Francke 1999; Marek 2008); Siedlątków (Głosek, Kajzer, Nadolski 1978, 48, pl. 47); Estland:
Otepää (Mäesalu 2004); Ukraine: Cembalo (Dyachkov 2011); Bulgaria: Tarnovgrad (Rabovyanov, Dimitrov 2011 – coat of
plates); Switzerland: Schönenwerd (Gessler 1933); Italy: Ripafratta (Amici 1989, 462ff., pl. 16).
 Weapon finds from the “Grüttpott” at Stolpe on the Oder
1 2 3 4
0 3 cm
Fig. 15. The Grüttpott upon Stolpe on the Oder: 1-4 – bolt heads,
type 6. Drawing by I. Borak.
Ryc. 15. Grüttpott k. Stolpe n. Odrą: 1-4 – groty bełtów, typ 6.
Rys. I. Borak.
criteria. According to Stadler, the distance between
the rivets diminishes in the 15th and 16th c. They
are often arranged as ornamentation, as can be seen
on the example from the Tower of London (Dufty,
Reid 1968, pl. CXXIII; Stadler 2004, 27, fig. 5)
or in the Deutsche Historische Museum (Burg und
Herrschaft... 162f.). Stadler also argues that the
plates on the “fully developed” brigandines of the
15th and 16th c. were fitted to the garment with
copper-alloy rivets because iron rivets would
have corroded and damaged the garment (Stadler
2004, 27). There are, however, a number of
examples with iron rivets, such as the brigandine
in the Churburg Armoury, which dates to the early
16th c.19 The rivets of particularly rich examples
were gilded.
The Grüttpott brigandine does not completely
confirm to this chronology. The small plates come
in various shapes and some of them are not
rectangular. The Grüttpott brigandine obviously
fitted to the shape of the body in the style of the
elegant late 14th century brigandines (ibidem, 30)
did. The distance between the rivets is quite
small but they are made of iron. When compared
to the brigandine from the “Turris Parva” in Tyrol
Castle, the shape of the plates and the densely
packed rivets appear more “modern”. However,
the Grüttpott plates do not seem to have been
19 The plates are tinned, but the rivets are described as iron (Trapp, Mann 1929, 14, pl. IX).
187
Fig. 16. Bolt heads – relation between type and weight.
Ryc. 16. Groty bełtów – korelacje między typami a wagą.
1
ornately decorated, as would be expected of
a brigandine dating to the 15th and 16th c. The
armour was probably produced in the late 14th or
the early 15th c., without costly ornamentation,
and probably belonged to a common knight
rather than a lord.
Plate armour (cat. Nos. 25-28)
Two larger pieces of metal appear to have
been parts of plate armour (fig. 5). They could be
fragments of breast or back plates, and so possibly
form part of the brigandine. The first is straight,
while the second is bent in one direction. Rivets
on the edges of the plates suggest that they were
attached to a garment or other pieces of the armour.
The finds from the castle at Chalcis include
examples of breast plates and it is probable that the
Grüttpott fragments were also riveted to a brigandine
(Ffoulkes 1911, plate LIV). Unfortunately they
are incomplete and it is impossible to determine
their exact position.
Further examples from different sites are
discussed by Marek and Konczewski. The finds
from Karpień Castle (Karpenstein) near Kłodzko
in Silesia, are of particular interest. The castle was
destroyed in 1443 and they therefore have a similar
terminus ante quem as the finds from the Grüttpott
(Marek, Konczewski 2010).
188 Christof Krauskopf
Fig. 17. Bolt heads – relation between type and length.
Ryc. 17. Groty bełtów – korelacje między typami a długością.
Fig. 18. Bolt heads from the Grüttpott with dates according to
Zimmermann (2000).
Ryc. 18. Groty bełtów z Grüttpott z datowaniem proponowanym przez
Zimmermanna (2000).
0 3 cm
Fig. 19. The Grüttpott upon Stolpe on the Oder. Crossbow nut.
Drawing by R. Schulze.
Ryc. 19. Grüttpott k. Stolpe n. Odrą. Orzech od kuszy. Rys. R. Schulze.
The helmet fragment (cat. No. 29)
Only a fragment of the rear part of a helmet
was recovered from the Grüttpott (fig. 6-7). The
helmet may well have been destroyed when the
ceiling of the upper storey collapsed. The “tail”
of the surviving piece, which protected the nape
of the neck, is rounded and short, with a row of
rivets along the lower edge. Two additional rivets,
positioned about 2 cm above the edge, probably
held the lining in place (Laking 1920, 225f.). The
latter can be seen on well preserved examples,
as sallets preserved in different collections20.
It is difficult to determine the exact type of
helmet on the basis of a single fragment. It could
be a later form of bascinet, similar to the so called
Noël Paton Bascinet, which dates to the 3rd quarter
of the 14th c. (ibidem, 241, Fig. 281:a-c), or an
early example of a sallet. The shape is reminiscent
of helmets from Chalcis (Ffoulkes 1911, pl. LII:8,
11-12; Vassiliatos 1999, fig. 4), an example in the
Collection in the Coburg Castle (Kohlhaussen
1951, 29) or an Italian sallet in the Kienbusch
Collection (Boccia 1992, fig. 25). Bashford Dean,
the arms and armour curator of the Metropolitian
Museum, took photographs of a big collection of
European weapons in the Turkish armouries in the
Istanbul National Museum during a longer journey
he undertook in 1919 and 1920. His notebooks
from the journey and the photographs are preserved
and were presented by Stuart Pyhrr. Especially
one of Deans photographs – shown by Phyrr
as nr. 14 – presents Italian sallets which have
similar neck parts as the Grüttpott example. Phyrr
dates these sallets between 1450 and 1510 (Pyhrr
1989, 92). All these examples and the fragment
from the Grüttpott have slightly curved “tails”. The
helmets from Chalcis are conical shaped and date
to the 14th century (Vassiliatos 1999, 135). The
Coburg bascinet in particular, which dates to the
time around 1400, shows signs of the development
of the sallet21.
The illustrations in Froissart’s chronicles show
different types of armour depending on the date
of the manuscript. The famous manuscript from
20 Churburg Armoury (Trapp, Mann 1929, pl. XXIX, XXXI,
XXXIX, XLIV), Kienbusch Collection (Boccia 1992, fig. 29-
32); Paris, Musée de l’Armée, Inv.nr. H 29 and H 30, dated to
1460-1470 and named as Barbutas, despite lack of the
characteristic T-shaped face opening (presented in the
exhibition, seen July 5th 2012).
21 It is questionable whether helmets with curved and extended
“tails” can be classified as bascinets. Post states that the curved
“tail” is one of three elements characteristic of a sallet (Post
1935, 101), although it is uncertain whether the example which
he discusses is already to be named sallet. It may be, as Post
himself says, a “missing link” between bascinet and sallet, but
still be referred to as a bascinet.
 Weapon finds from the “Grüttpott” at Stolpe on the Oder 189

0 9 cm

Fig. 20. The Grüttpott upon Stolpe on the Oder. English windlass. Drawing by R. Schulze.

Ryc. 20. Grüttpott k. Stolpe n. Odrą. Winda angielska. Rys. R. Schulze.

Bruges, which dates to around 1470-147522, shows
many examples of sallets, while bascinets are
depicted in the older manuscripts. An illustration in
a manuscript from the middle of the 15th c., also
from Bruges, shows both, bascinets and sallets at
the battle of Nicopolis23. The soldier in the middle
of the picture obviously wears a bascinet, soldiers
on the right part bascinets and sallets.
With its slightly curved “tail”, the Grüttpott
helmet may be a late bascinet, an early sallet or
a transitional type somewhere between the two.
It could date to the period around 140024.

22 Bibliothèque Nationale de Paris, fr. 2644, e.g. fol. 135 (see http://mandragore.bnf.fr).
23 Bibliothèque Nationale de Paris, fr. 2648, fol. 456.
24 To the development of helms see also work of Gamber (1953, 90f). He calls the sallet a variant of the bascinet that gets high
importance in western Europe since the 1420s.
190 Christof Krauskopf

Crossbow elements and projectiles

0 3 cm
Fig. 21. The Grüttpott upon Stolpe on the Oder. Spanning hook.
Drawing by I. Borak.
Ryc. 21. Grüttpott k. Stolpe n. Odrą. Hak naciągowy do kuszy.
Rys. I. Borak.
Chain mail fragments (cat. No. 30)
Most of the 38 fragments of chain mail are
corroded together into solid lumps (fig. 8). It is
very difficult to distinguish any details. The iron
rings are – as far as it can be detected – riveted,
they have a diameter of 1cm or slightly more. Some
of the rings are cut, obviously with a sharp weapon
or tool. If this is a result of weapon use against
the bearer remains unclear.
Bolt and Arrowheads (cat. Nos. 31-81)
117 bolt or arrowheads have been found.
Unfortunately more than half of them are so
fragmentary that a more exact classification is
impossible. 51 are wholly, or at least partially,
intact and different types can be identified (fig. 9).
If the shaft is missing, it is not possible to
distinguish between projectile heads intended for
bows or those meant for crossbows25. As already
stated by Zimmermann, this can only be determined
by experiment to decide which form and weight of
projectile can be used effectively with the different
weapons (Zimmermann 2000, 21). A weapon cannot
be identified by the weight of the projectile head
alone, an exception being very heavy bolt heads,
because the weight of the shaft has also to be taken
into account. Zimmermann found preserved bolts
in the Habsburg depot and among the finds from
the glacier in the Lötschen Valley (Valais canton,
Switzerland) with heads that weighed less than
20 g (ibidem, 20). According to Harmuth, the
weight of the shaft is equal to that of the head
(Harmuth 1986, 172). He states that crossbow
bolts weighted between 30 and 60g but there are
many examples from the archaeological record
which weigh less, and it seems doubtful that all
of these were designed for bows (Zimmerman
2000, 20)26. Various parts of crossbows were
found at the Grüttpott and it can be assumed that
they were the main weapon that was used. For
these reasons the term bolt head will be used in
this publication.
45% (23) of the bolt heads are leaf-shaped
with a diamond cross section, and 45% are diamond-
shaped and also have a diamond cross section.
Only five examples (10%) are square in cross
section, only one of these is diamond-shaped.
And only four (8%) have a slender leaf shape with
a diamond-shaped cross section. No bodkin heads
have been found.
Type 1
Eight slender, leaf shaped bolt heads were
found (fig. 10). They have long points with long,
conical sockets. The length varies between 74 and
95 mm, the weight between 13 and 29 g. Most of

25 It is regrettable that research is not yet at a stage where it is possible to satisfactorily separate these two types of weapon. It may
be the case that some forms of arrowhead were interchangeable, being equally effective when used with a crossbow (Jessop 1997, 44).
Preserved shafts are rare. A recent find of a partly preserved shaft was found in Kolno (Marek, forthcoming).
26 Zimmermann (2000, 21) also quotes the complaint from an officer in 1454 about bolts which were too light. However, we do
not know, whether this refers to the shafts, to the heads or to the whole bolts. Payne-Gallwey states, that in his experiments lighter
bolts were not as effective as heavier ones, but gives no detailed information about the crossbow which was used, mentioning only
a strong steel bow (Payne-Gallwey 1974, 16f.). Maybe lighter bolt heads were quite effective when used with weaker steel
crossbows or composite bows.
 Weapon finds from the “Grüttpott” at Stolpe on the Oder 191

them are longer than the examples of other types,
except those of Type 2 (fig. 17), and are lighter
than most of the other examples from the Grüttpott
(fig. 16). It is uncertain whether these slender points
were designed to penetrate chain mail. They do
not have the nail-like character of the characteristic
slender armour piercing arrowheads described by
O. Jessop (1997, 48). He suggests that nail-shaped
arrowheads often go unrecognised because they
resemble normal nails when corroded. According
to Kempke, bodkin points were developed in
northern Europe as a response to the development
of armour (Kempke 1988, 302) and were brought
to Britain by the Normans in the 11th c. They first
appear after the battle of Hastings and seem to
spread along the routes of Norman expansion.
They may have been designed especially for use
with the longbow (Jessop 1997, 49) and it is
questionable whether they could have been used
with the crossbow.
Bolt heads designed for the penetration of
chain mail would seem out of date in the 15th c.,
but still existed in some regions. Special bodkin-
shaped bolt heads called Dalpilar, produced in
Dalarna in Sweden, had been abandoned according
to an order of the Swedish king Gustav Våsa in
1521 (Ekdahl 1998, 31)27. Chain mail had become
increasingly rare and been replaced by plate armour
and brigandines. The thin, slender bolt heads from
the Grüttpott would certainly not have been able
to penetrate armour plates28. However, not every
warrior wore plate. The sharp-pointed bolt heads
would have easily penetrated leather armour and
so their efficacy should not be underestimated.
Type 2
This type has a leaf-shaped blade with
a diamond cross section (fig. 11), the most common
form during the medieval period (Zimmermann
2000, 51; see also Jessop 1997, 44). In his typology,
Jessop describes examples of between 30 and
80 mm in length and 8 and 16 mm in width
(Jessop 1996, 199). The Grüttpott finds are between
52 and 92 mm long, and weigh between 23 and
38 g. Zimmermann, who analysed 3872 bolt and
arrowheads from 199 sites (Zimmermann 2000, 11),
refers to them as western European medieval type
of arrowheads as such (ibidem, 51). He designated
the type T 2-5 and with 2275 examples, it makes up
58% of the material which he examined. However,
this type does not represent the largest group
among the Grüttpott finds. It makes up only 18%
(9) of the total and is clearly outnumbered by the
bolt heads of Type 5, which have broader, diamond-
shaped blades. Zimmermann gives a dating range
from the 13th to the 15th c. and so it is not surprising
that this common type was also found at the
Grüttpott. By the 15th c., however, this type of
bolt head had been superseded and this will be
discussed in more detail below.
Type 3
Some of the smaller bolt heads are square
rather than diamond-shaped in cross section (fig. 12).
According to Payne-Gallwey it is necessary to
use bolt heads with greater width to thickness
ratio in order to reduce friction with the stock
(Payne-Gallwey 1974, 127). However, the bolt head
would only have made contact with the edges of
the stock groove and therefore the difference in
friction produced by diamond and square-shaped
bolt heads was probably minimal. According to
Zimmermann, bolt heads with square-shaped cross
section were uncommon (Zimmermann 2000, 45). 1
In fact they existed everywhere29. It is not clear
whether or not they had a special function, and they
may have had more penetrating power, or caused
more damage to the target.
Type 4
The blade of this type has a similar shape to
that of Type 2, but the socket is cylindrical (fig. 13).
Zimmermann does not mention bolt heads with
cylindrical sockets, and it is possible that he made
no distinction between cylindrical and conical
sockets. This type represents 23% (12) of the total
number and makes up the second largest group
of bolt heads found at the Grüttpott. They vary in
length between 58 and 80 mm, and in weight
between 30 and 48 g.
Type 5
Bolt heads with diamond-shaped blades and
cylindrical sockets make up 29% (15) of those
recovered and are thus the most frequent type
found at the Grüttpott (fig. 14). The length varies

27 This exception might be another indication that the development of body armour was retarded in Scandinavia, as Bengt
Thordemann assumed interpreting the finds from Wisby. See above.
28 For data on experiments concerning the effectiveness of longbow arrows against plate armour see Jones (1992).
29 Some examples throughout Europe: Switzerland – various sites (Zimmermann 2000, 45f. – types T 1-4, T 1-5l, T 1-5s),
Tremona-Castello, Tessin (Martinelli, Lehmann 2007, fig. 22); Germany: Neuss, Nordrhein-Westfalen (Pause 2010, fig. 12:1-2)
Schnellerts, Hessen (Krauskopf 1995, Taf. 37:1-2), Wolfstein, Bavaria (Leja 2005, fig. 7:3); Czech Republic: Moravia – various
sites (Žákovský 2011, fig. 22), Mštenice (Nekuda 1985, fig. 193, 198); Italy: Ripafratta (Amici 1989, pl. XV), Poland: Opole
(Wachowski 1982), France – various sites (Serdon 2005), Lithuania – various sites (Rackevicius 2002).
192 Christof Krauskopf

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 10 11 12

19

13 14 15 16 17 18

Fig. 22. The Grüttpott upon Stolpe on the Oder: 1-19 – projectiles for firearms. Photo by C. Krauskopf.

Ryc. 22. Grüttpott k. Stolpe n. Odrą: 1-19 – pociski do broni palnej. Fot. C. Krauskopf.

between 55 and 80 mm. Zimmermann’s type T 2-6
shows the same form as Type 5 from the Grüttpott
and is dated to between the 14th and the 16th c.
Those examined by Zimermann have a maximum
weight of 50 g, whereas the Grüttpott examples
weigh up to 63 g. The type has the broadest blades
of all of the Grüttpott finds. It seems that the
slightly shorter and broader bolt heads of this type
became more common than the longer and more
slender form of type 2 during the 15th c.
 Weapon finds from the “Grüttpott” at Stolpe on the Oder
Fig. 23. Diameter of projectiles.
Ryc. 23. Średnica pocisków.
Type 6
These four bolt heads are relatively short,
with a short cylindrical socket, a broad diamond
or square-shaped blade and a very wide angled
point (fig. 15). They measure from 60 to 77 mm
in length and weigh 32 to 56 g. Zimmermann dates
his similar type T 1-2 to the 15th c. His examples
are 60 to 70 mm long and weigh 30 to 40 g. The
relation between blade length and broadest point
of the blade is 3:1, a value, which is not reached
in the Grüttpott material.
Differences between the types
It is questionable to look for typological
development among a group of artefacts which
were deposited during a single event. All these
weapons can be dated exactly to the year 1445 and
were all in use at the same time, so examples of
chronological development are not to be expected.
However, regardless of their synchrony, the bolt
heads do show certain differences which can at
least demonstrate tendencies in development.
The long and slender leaf-shaped bolt heads
of Type 1 are usually dated to the 12th and 13th c.
(Krauskopf 1995, pl. 36; Zimmermann 2000, 49f.).
They are both lighter and longer as all the other
types found at the Grüttpott (fig. 16-17). Those of
Type 2 were common between the 13th and 15th c.,
and show similar tendencies. They weigh 36 g at
most and are far lighter than the Types 5 and 6,
which have a maximum weight of 63 g and 56 g
respectively. However, the heavier bolt heads are
30 See also the remarks of Richardson (1997, 42f.) on the development of plate armour as response to the development of the
crossbow.
31 Harmuth (1986, 99) states, that the double-axle lock was introduced at the end of the century.
193
also much shorter than those of Types 1 and 2
(fig. 17). According to the range of dates provided
by Zimmermann, the artefacts from the Grüttpott,
which were obviously in use at the same time,
represent the chronological development of bolt
head forms during the Middle Ages (fig. 18). 1
Up until the 15th c., bolt heads become shorter,
broader and heavier, mainly as a result of advances
in crossbow technology and as a response to
development in plate armour. Heavy crossbows,
which could only be loaded with using a windlass
or a spanning stand, needed heavier bolts to fire
effectively (Payne-Gallwey 1974, 16f.)30.
Crossbow elements
The Nut (cat. No. 82)
The 15th c. crossbows were equipped with
a simple single-axle lock and trigger mechanism31.
When spanned, the string was locked in place by
the nut, which was usually a cylindrical piece of
horn. The string was held in a rounded groove,
cut lengthways into the nut, while the end of the
bolt was fitted into a square notch cut in front of the
groove, and held by two lugs. Western European
crossbows did not have an axle running through
the nut (Harmuth 1986, 86), while in central Europe
the nut was held in place by a catgut, which was
passed through a hole bored through the centre
and wrapped around the stock of the crossbow.
An iron wedge, or sear pin, was driven into the nut
to prevent the iron trigger from damaging the horn
(Payne-Gallwey 1974, 95ff.; Harmuth 1986, 99ff.).
194
1
2
0 5 cm
Fig. 24. Fragments of hook guns. Photo by D. Sommer.
Ryc. 24. Fragmenty ręcznej broni palnej. Fot. D. Sommer.
The Grüttpott nut, made of red deer antler32,
shows all these details (fig. 19). The opening for
the trigger is relatively small in comparison to
the massive iron wedge33.
The windlass (cat. No. 83)
An English windlass, a very specific artefact,
was also found (fig. 20). There are examples of
windlasses in collections and museums but finds
from archaeological sites are very rare. With the
excellent dating to the time before 1445, the
Grüttpott windlass seems to be one of the oldest
preserved examples in European collections.
An illustration of a windlass is shown in
Konrad Kyeser’s Bellifortis (Kyeser 2000, 76r).
Wheels for spanning cords are attached to both
sides of the windlass, which was mounted on the
butt of the stock. Most of the examples presented
in the literature use a pulley system. The Grüttpott
windlass consists of only the sleeve, which was
fitted over the stock, the winding mechanism and
the handles. A ridge in the middle of the axle
separated the two spanning cords. The ends of
the cords ran through holes on each end of the
axle and were secured with knots. The cords ran
down to the spanning hook, to which they were
32 I thank Susanne Hanik, Brandenburg State Office for Heritage Care and Archaeological Museum, Wünsdorf, for the
classification of the material.
33 Archaeological finds of crossbow nuts are common (see e.g. Wojciechowski 1989; Rackevicius 2002; Marek, forthcoming).
Christof Krauskopf
3 4
attached, and back up to the windlass, where
they were fastened to the hooks on each side of
the sleeve. It is uncertain whether the Grüttpott
windlass had pairs of wheels, as shown in Payne-
Gallwey’s reconstruction (Payne-Gallwey 1974,
fig. 76). There might have been wheels on the
spanning hooks. If the spanning cords were fastened
directly onto the hooks on the sleeve, there would
have been no pulleys to increase the force which
could be applied. The windlass was probably used
to load a light crossbow which did not require
an additional two-pulley system to span the bow.
However, it is also possible that a system of
pulleys was attached to the hooks on the windlass
sheath. A simple windlass alone gave a mechanical
advantage of 10:1, a single pulley block 30:1
and double-pulley system 45:1. A crossbow
that required a windlass to load would have fired
a bolt with considerable force and it is therefore
more probable that the crossbow, rather than the
longbow, was the cause of the change from mail
to plate armour (Richardson 1997, 42f.).
The spanning hook (cat. No. 84)
Spanning hooks are-well known as
archaeological finds (e.g. Nekuda 1975, pl. LXVI;
 Weapon finds from the “Grüttpott” at Stolpe on the Oder 195

0 10 cm

Fig. 25. Hook gun. Photo by D. Sommer.

Ryc. 25. Hakownica. Fot. D. Sommer.

1985, fig. 197-198; Harmuth 1979; Wojciechowski A very rare object among the finds from
1989, fig. 5-6; Sensfelder 2000; Zimmermann 2000, the Grüttpott is the hook of a spanning bench 1
Abb. 6; Groß 2005; Świętosławski 2008, 191-195; or stand or of a great crossbow (fig. 21). The
Žákovský 2011, 129f., fig. 21). A single or double- double hook is attached by a hinge to a mounting
clawed hook hung on a leather strap which was plate with three holes for rivets or nails. The
attached to a ring on the crossbowman’s girdle. This plate was either riveted to a leather strap, as in
method of drawing the bow was not without risk the spanning stands shown in Konrad Kyeser’s
and Harmuth refers to an accident, mentioned in the Bellifortis and the manuscript of Johannes
written sources, in which a crossbowman was killed Bengedantz, or directly nailed to the wooden disc,
(Harmuth 1986, 188). Stationary spanning benches which was turned with a lever while spanning the
or stands made it safer, easier and faster to span the crossbow. The latter alternative seems unlikely,
bow, but these were probably only used behind as the example found at the Grüttpott is not
stationary fortifications, for example during siege bent. It still may be possible, that the hook
warfare, and not in open battle. The crossbowman was fastened to a leather strap and used with
did not have to load the weapon himself, and a single a spanning stand.
assistant would have been able to reload the weapons Large spanning hooks were used to load heavy
of several marksmen. According to Harmuth, four crossbows, such as that depicted in a manuscript
spanning benches for large crossbows are still in the Munich State Library36 and the Grüttpott
existent34, but not a single example of a spanning hook was – if not part of a spanning stand –
stand is known to have survived. Illustrations of the probably used with such a weapon37. The fitting
latter device exist in some manuscripts and these would have been nailed to a spanning mechanism,
served as the basis for a physical reconstruction35. working with lever or a screw.
34 Spanning benches were intended to be used when replacing the string of a crossbow (Harmuth 1986, 170; Burg und Herrschaft...
2010, 159, Kat. 7.24). A stringing rack (probably for longbows) survives in Haddon Hall (Credland 1990, 20, fig. 12:a-b).
35 See Kyeser, fol. 76v, 77r, 78r; a reconstruction is shown by Richter (2006, fig. 96); Bengedans, fol. 49r (Bengedans 2006);
Anonymus of the Hussite wars, fol. 18r, 29v (Hall 1979); physical reconstruction by R. Bernges (after www.binsy.org; see also
Bernges 2012). I thank Rüdiger Bernges for giving me acces to his unpublished article.
36 See Cgm 600, fol. 18v; 1st quarter of the 15th c. (Credland 1990, fig. 3; Leng 2000, 138f.;). Another impressive example is
shown by the Anonymus of the Hussite Wars, fol. 40r (Hall 1979).
37 Some medieval illustrations show the double hook of the spanning mechanism, but no details how it was fastened.
(e.g.: Österreichische Nationalbibliothek Wien, Cod. 3069, fol. 22v; for other examples see Leng 2000, 139; Nicolle 2002, 9 – Walter
de Milimete, Christ Church College Library, Oxford, Ms. 92; 23 – Mariano Taccola, De ingeneis, Staatsbibliothek München,
Ms. Lat. 197, fol. 40r). The use of the Grüttpott example will be studied further. I thank Jens Sensfelder for his valuable remarks.
196 Christof Krauskopf

Firearms Comparison of the size of the shot and the calibre of

Projectiles (cat. Nos. 85-104)
23 firearm projectiles were recovered from
the Grüttpott (fig. 22). Only one of them is an iron
ball (fig. 22:1). All the others are cylindrical lead
objects. According to V. Schmidtchen, the form
of lead projectiles was irrelevant, because the
material is rather soft and would not damage the
barrel, either while loading or while firing a gun
(Schmidtchen 1977, 22, 69). Cylindrical lead
missiles are only rarely mentioned or illustrated
in the literature. Strzyż mentions a number of
cylindrical projectiles, mainly from sites in the
Czech Republic. The missiles are mostly cast of
pure lead but can have an iron core, as do some
of those found at the Grüttpott. They come from
sites associated with the Hussite wars, such as the
finds from the castle of Nový Hrad near Kunratic,
which was besieged in 1420 and 1421 (Strzyż
2011, 50)38. Cylindrical lead shots were excavated in
Sión in Bohemia and Tepenec in Moravia (Jánská
1963, 242; Vránová, Vrána 2008, 459, fig. 2-3).
The published examples from Poland are mostly
spherical, although some are ellipsoid in form
(ibidem, 51f). L. Marek shows cylindrical examples
from Kolno in Silesia (Marek, forthcoming). Seven
cylindrical projectiles are known from the
Tannenberg Castle in Germany. One, measuring
16 mm in diameter, is deformed, as are some of
the smaller Grüttpott finds. The other objects
from Tannenberg, which are unfortunately not
illustrated, measure between 15 and 35 mm in
diameter and fit in with the range of the Grüttpott
finds39 (Schmitt 2008, 158; Kat. 2617; pl. 36:18;
Kat. 2627-2632).
Lead projectiles are referred to in the written
sources but details of shape are not given. Sagittae
(bolts) and pellotae are mentioned (Blair 1983,
28)40. Rimer translates the latter as bullets (Rimer
1996, 76).
The diameter of the projectiles from the
Grüttpott ranges between 14 and 31 mm, and it is
very striking that no groups, based on diameter,
are represented (fig. 23). The size tolerance for
shot can be up to 2 or 3 mm41, and so there could
have been two groups of a smaller calibre (14 to
17-18 mm and from 18-19 to 21 mm) and two of
a larger calibre (26 to 29 mm and 30 to 32 mm).
the firearms recovered from the Grüttpott revealed
that only one of the guns, with a calibre of between
15 and 18 mm, could have fired the ammunition
that was found. The other had a calibre of 22
to 25 mm, which was too big for the smaller
projectiles. It would have been impossible to fire
the larger projectiles with either of these weapons.
The variety of projectile sizes suggests that
there must have been at least four guns, each of
a different calibre, in use at the castle. Pieces of
at least three different guns have been found.
However, this information may be misleading as
there might have been guns with conical bores
at the Grüttpott (Müller 1997, 16) and the linear
increase in Projectile calibre seems to suggest
that this was indeed the case. It is not possible
to calculate the calibre of the weapons used simply
by measuring the size of the projectiles that were
found (see also Marek, forthcoming).
Handguns (cat. Nos. 105-108)
18 fragments of copper alloy-handguns,
including a hook gun, were found (fig. 24).
A second, smaller hook is made of iron. Some
of the pieces fitted together, making it possible
to partially reconstruct at least one of the weapons
(fig. 25). A socket on one end of this gun indicates
that it was fastened on a stock. Socketed handguns
appear around 1400 at the latest and one discovered
at the site of Tannenberg Castle in Germany dates
before 1399 (von Hefner, Wolf 1850, pl. VII:A;
Schmitt 2008, 160f., fig. on p. 488). A second,
fragmentary gun from Tannenberg also has a socket
(Schmitt 2008, 160; pl. 36:19). Socketed guns
can still be found in illustrations dating to the
1470s (MacLaghlan 2010, 31) and an early
example with a preserved stock was found in the
Courland-Lagoon in 1871 (Thierbach 1886, 4,
fig. 3; Kunz 2008, 27).
The chamber of the Grüttpott gun has a
diameter of 27.5 mm. A large triangular hook was
attached to the bottom of the chamber. It remains
uncertain whether all of the surviving barrel pieces
belong to this gun. By comparing the calibres of the
barrel fragments, it is possible to distinguish
between at least three guns at the Grüttpott. Two
different calibres (15 to 18 mm and 22 to 25 mm)

38 Other sites are mentioned, mostly castles, but also the settlement of Mštenice (Nekuda 1985, fig. 193, 198-199).
39 The weight of the missiles is not given.
40 Privy Wardrobe Account of Robert de Mildenhale, 17 October 1344 to 29 September 1351: armaturis, gunnis cum sagittis et
pellotis reparare (Tout 1911, 688). See also the depiction of Walter de Milimete and the Loshult-gun (Rimer 1996, fig. 1-3) and
a bolt from a manuscript in the British Library, Add. MS. 24945, 15th c. (Brackenbury 1865, fig 1). Cylindrical-shaped projectiles
are not mentioned by Kunz (2008, 146).
41 If too large, the shot could get stuck and the barrel might explode – as it obviously happened during the siege of the Grüttpott
in 1445. I would like to thank Bernd Eccarius, Bernau, for his suggestions regarding this question.
 Weapon finds from the “Grüttpott” at Stolpe on the Oder 197

and a gun with an astonishing thin barrel wall of
only 7 mm could be identified. It is impossible
to estimate the length of the barrel. However,
as mentioned above, the different calibres do not
necessarily represent different weapons and could
belong to a single handgun with a conical bore.
Unfortunately, the fragments are too small to indicate
whether or not this was the case. Many pieces of
the barrel are also missing. The missing pieces,
and presumably other objects, were taken from
the collapsed part of the keep at some time in the
past. It is obviously impossible to say whether this
occurred in the aftermath of the battle or later.
The form and the position of the flash pan
provide important dating evidence. The edges
of the pan from the Grüttpott are upturned,
a development which occurred in the 15th c.
(for the following see Hoff 1969, 6f). The pan
of the Tannenberg gun consists of a concave
depression in the top of the chamber, without raised
edges, and a vertical touch hole. Until the 1st half of
the 15th c., the pan and the touch hole were usually
positioned on top of the chamber but were later
moved on to the side, possibly to remove them
from the user’s field of vision, making it easier to
aim the weapon accurately. The pan itself consisted
of either a shallow round cavity with upraised
edges on the outer surface of the chamber or of
a small separate plate, also with upturned edges,
which was soldered into place. The position of
the broken-off-hook indicates that the pan of the
Grüttpott gun, which has raised edges, sat on the
side of the chamber42.
The condition of the gun fragments suggest
that an explosion took place during the siege. The
walls of the barrels are up to 15 mm thick and
those of the chamber up to 20 mm. It would have
taken immense force to tear these guns apart. One
barrel fragment is deformed and the thick material
has apparently been blown outwards (fig. 24:3).
The inner surface of the bore is very rough with
jagged ridges and points of metal, which rise up to
2 mm above the underlying surface43. Late medieval
manuscripts which describe the handling of firearms
always include safety advice (Leng 2000, 44f).
Accidents were common, the usual causes being
material faults, metal fatigue, overloaded weapons
or blocked barrels. Further examples of blown
barrels and exploded guns are known from other
late medieval castles (Marek, Konczewski 2010,
fig. 11; Miazga 2010; Chudzińska 2011).
The use of firearms in Brandenburg during
the 15th c. is recorded in several written sources.
The earliest reference that came to my knowledge
dates to 1420 and comes from an inventory of the
castle at Oderberg. It mentions a cast gun, weighing
18 hundredweight, and a forged gun, as well as
powder and lead shot. There is no description of
the form of the shot (von Raumer 1831, 1, 85). The
other references in the written sources date to the
2nd half of the 15th c.44
The date of the finds – are they related to
the siege of 1445?
The coins from the upper storey of the
Grüttpott date to between 1330 and 1519. The
majority of them were minted in the 1st half of the
15th c. Of the others, three date to the 2nd half of the
15th c and only a single coin dates to 1519. There
are also two modern coins, which date to 1952 and
1975. Leukhardt suggests that the coins from the
1st half of the 15th c. could have been the contents
of a purse which was lost during the events of
late 1445 (Leukhardt 2009, 66)45.
The weapon finds are difficult to date exactly
but none of them would appear to date to later than
the middle of the 15th c. The bolt heads can be dated
to between the 13th and the 15th c., and most of them
would have formed part of a 15th c. arsenal. Some
are of an older type, which may have been kept in
the armoury for whatever reason, and used in times
of crises, regardless of whether or not were suitable
for the weapons that were being used. The windlass
and the hook of a spanning bench or stand indicate
the use of heavy crossbows, probably with steel
bows. The handguns can be dated to the late 14th
or, more probably, to the first half of the 15th c.
The iron brigandine plates with closely-spaced iron
rivets suggest body armour of the late 14th or early
15th c. The early sallet, with a slightly curved neck,
fits in with the armour very well.
The cause of the partial collapse of the
keep may have been an accidental explosion. As
described above, one of the gun fragments is
deformed and the rough surface has jagged ridges
and points of metal on the surface of the bore.
However, it would have taken more than just
a single exploding handgun to cause the degree

42 Formerly the flash pan has been described as sitting on top of the chamber (Krauskopf 2007, 252), due to the incomplete restoration.
43 The cause of the destruction of the gun await further analysis.
44 Vierraden (Codex... 1857b, 384f): in 1471 stone gun, chariot gun, 15 hackbucks, powder mentioned; Oderberg (Codex... 1857a,
374) in 1472 guns mentioned; Zossen (Codex... 1856, 275) in 1491 different types of guns, fire bolts, iron and lead shot,
gunpowder, crossbows, bolts and shafts and a “leire”, obviously a spanning mechanism, mentioned.
45 This is yet another reason to regret that there was not a professional excavation of the finds in situ.
198 Christof Krauskopf
of destruction seen in the upper storey. It is
possible that this small explosion was only the
initial incident that led to the detonation of
a larger quantity of gunpowder.
It is very difficult to prove conclusively that
the archaeological finds and the event that led to
their burial under a pile of rubble are connected
with the siege of the Grüttpott mentioned in the
written sources. There might have been other
incidents which could have caused the damage
to the keep, the death of a person, the loss of
a purse and the burial of a number of objects
under the rubble. However, the finds suggest
Catalogue46
1. a – 2 fragments of brigandine plates, corroded to each
other; rectangular, not bent; upper plate 4 rivets, lower 3,
at the upper edge; on the left side 1,4 cm without rivets
(fig. 4:1);
b – l. – 3,4 cm; w. (each) – 1,2 cm;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und
Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. No. 1995:93/54/19.
2. a – 7 brigandine plates, corroded to each other;
rectangular, bent in longitudinal direction; 7, respectively
8 rivets at upper edge, on the left side 1,2 cm without
rivets (fig. 4:2);
b – l. – 6,2 cm; w. (each) – 1,2 cm;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und
Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. No. 1995:93/54/84.
3. a – 7 brigandine plates, corroded to each other;
rectangular, bent in longitudinal direction; 6, respectively
7 rivets at upper edge, some rivet heads missing; on the
left side 1,3cm without rivets (fig. 4:3);
b – l. – 5,4 cm; w. (each) – 1,0 cm;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und
Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. No. 1995:93/54/81.
4. a – 5 brigandine plates, corroded to each other;
rectangular, bent in longitudinal direction; 5, respectively
6, some rivet heads missing; on the left side 1,1 cm
without rivets; on the left side 1,3 cm without rivets
(fig. 4:4);
b – l. – 4,8 cm; w. (each) – 1,0 cm;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und
Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. No. 1995:93/54/82.
5. a – 2 brigandine plates, corroded to each other,
rectangular, bent in longitudinal direction; 6 rivets at
upper edge; on the right side 1,2cm without rivets;
b – l. 5,1 cm, w. (each) 1,2 cm;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und
Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. No. 1995:93/54/79.
46 a – description (type of artefact, figure), typology; b – measurement and weight of the artefact (w. – width; l. – length; sdm. –
socket diameter; dm. – diameter; bl. – blade length; pw. – maximum point width; wt – weight); c – Inv. No. Data are given in
brackets when the object is not complete.
that this all happened in the 15th c. There are no
further references to calamitous events in the
written sources and the castle stayed in the hands
of the Electors of Brandenburg. It is therefore
most probable that all of the material, with the
exception of the few objects that were lost by
later visitors to the ruined keep, was buried in
late 1445.
dr Christof Krauskopf
Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege
und Archäologisches Landesmuseum
Zossen
6. a – Brigandine plate, rectangular, bent in longitudinal
direction; 6 rivets at upper edge;
b – l. 5,0 cm, w. 1,2 cm;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und
Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/54/78.
7. a – 3 brigandine plates, corroded to each other,
rectangular, bent in longitudinal direction; 6 rivets at
upper edge, some rivet heads missing; left side 1,1cm
without rivets (fig. 4:5);
b – l. 4,9 cm, w. (each) 1,2 cm;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und
Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. No. 1995:93/54/77.
8. a – 2 brigandine plates, corroded to each other,
rectangular, bent in longitudinal direction; 6 rivets at
upper edge, most of the rivet heads missing; left side
1,3 cm without rivets ( fig. 4:6);
b – l. 5,0 cm, w. (each) 1,2 cm;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und
Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. No. 1995:93/54/74.
9. a – brigandine plate, rectangular, bent in longitudinal
direction; 8 rivets at the upper edge; on the left side
1,3 cm without rivets (fig. 4:7);
b – l. 6,3 cm, w. 1,2 cm;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und 1
Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv.no. 1995:93/54/71.
10. a – 2 brigandine plates, rectangular, corroded to each
other, slightly bent in longitudinal direction; 8 rivets at the
upper edges; on the right side 1,2 cm without rivets (fig. 4:8);
b – l. 6,2 cm, w. 1,2 cm;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und
Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. No. 1995:93/54/66.
11. a – Brigandine plate, rectangular, bent in longitudinal
direction; 9 rivets at the upper edge, 2 rivet heads
missing; on the left side 2,1cm without rivets (fig. 4:9);
 Weapon finds from the “Grüttpott” at Stolpe on the Oder
b – l. 7,7 cm, w. 1,2 cm;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und
Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. No. 1995:93/54/68.
12. a – 3 fragments of brigandine plates, rectangular,
corroded to each other; 5 respectively 6 rivets at the upper
edges, some of the rivet heads are missing (fig. 4:10);
b – l. (3,8) cm, w. 1,1 cm;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und
Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. No. 1995:93/54/55.
13. a – Brigandine plate, rectangular, bent in longitudinal
direction; 3 rivets with rounded heads (fig. 4:11);
b – l. 4,4 cm, w. 1,2 cm;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und
Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. No. 1995:93/54/52.
14. a – Brigandine plate, rectangular, bent in longitudinal
direction; 7 rivets at upper edge; right side 1,3 cm
without rivets (fig. 4:12);
b – l. 5,6 cm, w. 1,3 cm;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und
Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. No. 1995:93/54/28.
15. a – 2 brigandine plates, corroded, bent in longitudinal
direction; 5 rivets at upper edge; left side 1,3 cm without
rivets (fig. 4:13);
b – l. 4,5 cm, w. (each) 1,2 cm;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und
Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. No. 1995:93/54/27.
16. a – Brigandine plate, rectangular, not bent; 9 rivets
at the upper edge, 2 of them missing (fig. 4:14);
b – l. 6,0 cm, w. 2,9 cm;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und
Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. No. 1995:93/54/65.
17. a – Brigandine plate, rectangular, not bent; 12 rivets
at the upper edge, probably damage by bolt head (?)
(fig. 4:15);
b – l. 8,0 cm, w. 2,6 cm;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und
Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. No. 1995:93/54/64.
18. a – Brigandine plate, parallelogram shaped, slightly
bent in longitudinal direction; 12 rivets at the upper
edge; on the left side 1,5cm without rivets; most of the
rivet heads missing (fig. 4:16);
b – l. 9,9 cm, w. 2,4 cm;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und
Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. No. 1995:93/54/70.
19. a – Brigandine plate, parallelogram shaped, one
small side damaged, deformed; 10 rivets at the upper
edge; on the right side 1,3cm without rivets (fig. 4:17);
b – l. 7,8 cm, w. 2,5 cm;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und
Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. No. 1995:93/54/62.
20. a – Brigandine plate, parallelogram shaped, slightly
bent in longitudinal direction; 10 rivets; on the left side
1,3 cm without rivets (fig. 4:18);
199
b – l. 7,9 cm, w. 2,7 cm;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und
Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. No. 1995:93/54/2.
21. a – Brigandine plate, trapezoid, not bent; 35 rivets
at upper, lower and right edge, at the right side in the
middle group of rivets; left (short) edge without rivets
(fig. 4:19);
b – l. 8,1 cm, w. 2,3-3,1 cm;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und
Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. No. 1995:93/54/72.
22. a – Brigandine plate, trapezoid, bent in longitudinal
direction; 19 rivets at upper and lower edge; on the left
side 1,3cm without rivets (fig. 4:20);
b – l. 7,1 cm, w. 1,3-2,4 cm;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und
Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. No. 1995:93/54/3.
23. a – Brigandine plate, pentagonal, bent in longitudinal
direction; 8, respectively 10 rivets on longer edges; on
side 2cm without rivets (fig. 4:21);
b – l. 8,0 cm, w. 1,5-2,5 cm;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und
Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/54/73.
24. a – 58 fragmented brigandine plates;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und
Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/54/5-
18, 20-26, 29-36, 37-51, 53, 54, 56-61, 63, 67, 69,
75, 76.
25. a – Iron sheet, fragment of plate armour, slightly
bent, curved edges; 2 rivets at left edge (fig. 5:1);
b – ca. 7,8x7,4 cm;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und
Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/54/1;
26. a – Iron sheet, fragment of plate armour, bent in
longitudinal direction; 3 or 4 rivets at the edges (fig. 5:2);
b – ca. 9,0x7,4 cm;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und
Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/54/4.
27. a – Iron sheet, fragment of plate armour (?), hole
(rivet, damage?);
b – ca. 11x8,0 cm;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und
Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/54/80.
28. a – Iron sheet, fragmented, bent in longitudinal
direction; 2 holes (rivets, damages?);
b – ca. 9,2x5,0 cm;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und
Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/54/83.
29. a – Fragment of a sallet or bascinet; curved neck part
with rivets along the neck edge and 2 holes (for rivets?)
ca. 2cm above neck edge (fig. 6-7);
b – ca. 22,2x15,7 cm;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und
Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/69.
200 Christof Krauskopf
30. a – 38 fragments of chain mail, corroded to solid
lumps (fig. 8);
b – diameter of rings 1,0-1,1 cm;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und
Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/61/1-14.
31. a – Leaf shaped, long point with diamond cross
section, long conical socket (fig. 10:1); type 1;
b – l. 95 mm, sdm. 11 mm, bl. 60 mm, pw. 14 mm, wt. 23 g;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und
Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/55/4.
32. a – Leaf shaped, long point with diamond cross
section, long conical socket (fig. 10:2); type 1;
b – l. 80 mm, sdm. 7 mm, bl. 46 mm, pw. 14mm, wt. 22 g;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und
Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/55/5.
33. a – Slender leaf shaped point with diamond cross
section, conical socket (fig. 10:3); type 1;
b – l. 75 mm, sdm. (10) mm, bl. 45 mm, pw. 8 mm, wt. 13 g;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und
Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/55/42.
34. a – Slender leaf shaped point with diamond cross
section, conical socket (fig. 10:4); type 1;
b – l. 91 mm, sdm. (13) mm, bl. 55 mm, pw. 10 mm, wt. 19 g;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und
Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/55/55.
35. a – Leaf shaped point with diamond cross section,
long conical socket (fig. 10:5); type 1;
b – l. 92 mm, sdm. 12 mm, bl. 55 mm, pw. 16 mm, wt. 37 g;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und
Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/55/107.
36. a – Leaf shaped point with diamond cross section,
long conical socket (fig. 10:6); type 1;
b – l. 74 mm, sdm. 9 mm, bl. 51 mm, pw. 11 mm, wt. 19 g;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und
Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/55/116.
37. a – Slender leaf shaped point with diamond cross
section, long conical socket (fig. 10:7); type 1;
b –l. 87 mm, sdm. (10) mm, bl. 47 mm, pw. 14 mm,
wt. 21 g;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und
Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/55/119.
38. a – Leaf shaped, point with diamond cross section,
short conical socket (fig. 10:8); type 1;
b – l. 84 mm, sdm. 11 mm, bl. 54 mm, pw. 13 mm,
wt. 29 g;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und
Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/55/121.
39. a – Diamond shaped short point with diamond cross
section, short conical socket (fig. 11:1); type 2;
b – l. 80 mm, sdm. (15) mm, bl. 45 mm, pw. 13 mm,
wt. 30 g;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und
Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/55/1.
40. a – Diamond shaped short point with diamond cross
section, short cylindrical socket (fig. 11:2); type 2;
b – l. 70 mm, sdm. 7 mm, bl. 42 mm, pw. 16 mm, wt. 23 g;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und
Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/55/2.
41. a – Diamond shaped point with diamond cross
section, cylindrical socket (fig. 11:3); type 2;
b – l. 72 mm, sdm. 13 mm, bl. 40 mm, pw. 18 mm,
wt. 32 g;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und
Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/55/70.
42. a – Leaf shaped point with diamond cross section,
conical socket (fig. 11:4); type 2;
b – l. 79 mm, sdm. 11 mm, bl. 42 mm, pw. 19 mm, wt. 38 g;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und
Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/55/79.
43. a – Leaf shaped short point with diamond cross
section, conical socket (fig. 11:5); type 2;
b – l. 78 mm, sdm. 14 mm, bl. 41 mm, pw. 17 mm, wt. 32 g;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und
Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/55/80.
44. a – Leaf shaped point with diamond cross section,
conical socket (fig. 11:6); type 2;
b – l. 77 mm, sdm. (12) mm, bl. 44 mm, pw. 16 mm, wt. 29 g;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und
Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/55/89.
45. a – Leaf shaped point with diamond cross section,
conical socket (fig. 11:7); type 2;
b – l. (67) mm, sdm. (11) mm, bl. 40 mm, pw. 16 mm,
wt. (24) g;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und
Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/55/92.
46. a – Leaf shaped point with diamond cross section,
conical socket (fig. 11:8); type 2;
b – l. 75 mm, sdm. 12 mm, bl. 40 mm, pw. (17) mm, wt. 36 g;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und
Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/55/102.
47. a – Leaf shaped, slender point with diamond cross
section, long conical socket (fig. 11:9); type 2;
b – l. 88 mm, sdm. 11 mm, bl. 40 mm, pw. 14 mm, wt. 23 g;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und
Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/55/110.
48. a – Slender, short point with square cross section,
long broad conical socket (fig. 12:1); type 3;
b – l. 79 mm, sdm. 12 mm, bl. 40 mm, pw. 12 mm, wt. 31 g;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und
Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/55/3.
49. a – Diamond shaped, short and broad point with
square cross section, short conical socket (fig. 12:2);
type 3;
b – l. 60 mm, sdm. 13 mm, bl. 36 mm, pw. 18 mm, wt. 40 g;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und
Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/55/108.
 Weapon finds from the “Grüttpott” at Stolpe on the Oder
50. a – Leaf shaped short point with square cross section,
short conical socket (fig. 12:3); type 3;
b – l. 63 mm, sdm. 11 mm, bl. 45 mm, pw. 16 mm, wt. 33 g;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und
Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/55/109.
51. a – Leaf shaped point with diamond cross section,
short cylindrical socket (fig. 13:1); type 4;
b – l. 60 mm, sdm. 11 mm, bl. 35 mm, pw. 17 mm, wt. 33 g;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und
Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/55/76.
52. a – Leaf shaped point with diamond cross section,
conical socket (fig. 13:2); type 4;
b – l. 78 mm, sdm. 12 mm, bl. 45 mm, pw. 18 mm, wt. 36 g;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und
Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/55/82.
53. a – Diamond shaped point with diamond cross section,
cylindrical socket (fig. 13:3); type 4;
b – l. 70 mm, sdm. 12 mm, bl. 40 mm, pw. 18 mm, wt. 38 g;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und
Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/55/83.
54. a – Leaf shaped short point with square cross section,
conical socket (fig. 13:5); type 4;
b – l. 70 mm, sdm. 12 mm, bl. 37 mm, pw. 20 mm,
wt. 45 g;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und
Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/55/86.
55. a – Diamond shaped short point with diamond cross
section, short conical socket (fig. 13:4); type 4;
b – l. (55) mm, sdm. (11) mm, bl. 23 mm, pw. 18 mm,
wt. 27 g;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und
Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/55/85.
56. a – Leaf shaped short point with square cross section,
conical socket (fig. 13:6); type 4;
b – l. 75 mm, sdm. 12 mm, bl. 43 mm, pw. 17 mm, wt. 44 g;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und
Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/55/87.
57. a – Leaf shaped point with diamond cross section,
conical socket; type 4;
b – wt. 36g, l. 73mm, sdm. 12mm, bl. 38mm, pw. 18mm;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und
Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/55/96.
58. a – Diamond shaped short and broad point with
diamond cross section, short cylindrical socket (fig. 13:7);
type 4;
b – l. 66 mm, sdm. 12 mm, bl. 43 mm, pw. 20 mm, wt. 39 g;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und
Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/55/104.
59. a – Leaf shaped broad point with diamond cross
section, long cylindrical socket (fig. 13:8); type 4;
b – l. 64 mm, sdm. 11 mm, bl. 32 mm, pw. 17 mm, wt. 33 g;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und
Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/55/105.
201
60. a – Leaf shaped point with diamond cross section,
short cylindrical socket (fig. 13:9); type 4;
b – l. 58 mm, sdm. 12 mm, bl. 31 mm, pw. 17 mm, wt. 30 g;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und
Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/55/106.
61. a – Leaf shaped point with diamond cross section,
conical socket (fig. 13:10); type 4;
b – l. 80 mm, sdm. 14 mm, bl. 43 mm, pw. 21 mm, wt. 48 g;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und
Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/55/117.
62. a – Diamond shaped short point with diamond cross
section, short cylindrical socket (fig. 13: 11); type 4;
b – l. 61 mm, sdm. 12 mm, bl. 36 mm, pw. 20 mm, wt. 44 g;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und
Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/55/120.
63. a – Diamond shaped short point with diamond cross
section, short slender cylindrical socket (fig. 14:1); type 5;
b – l. 57 mm, sdm. 11 mm, bl. 37 mm, pw. 18 mm, wt. 29 g;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und
Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/55/6.
64. a – Diamond shaped short point with diamond cross
section, short slender cylindrical socket (fig. 14:2); type 5;
b – l. 56 mm, sdm. 12 mm, bl. 34 mm, pw. 17 mm, wt. 31 g;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und
Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/55/7. 1
65. a – Diamond shaped broad point with diamond, nearly
square cross section, cylindrical socket (fig. 14:3); type 5;
b – l. 65 mm, sdm. 13 mm, bl. 40 mm, pw. 25 mm,
wt. 54 g;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und
Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/55/25.
66. a – Leaf shaped point with diamond cross section,
conical socket (fig. 14:4); type 5;
b – l. 77 mm, sdm. 11 mm, bl. 49 mm, pw. (28) mm,
wt. 58 g;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und
Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/55/62.
67. a – Diamond shaped broad point with diamond cross
section, cylindrical socket (fig. 14:5); type 5;
b – l. 68 mm, sdm. 15 mm, bl. 43 mm, pw. 26 mm,
wt. 51 g;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und
Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/55/84.
68. a – Diamond shaped point with diamond cross
section, cylindrical socket (fig. 14:6); type 5;
b – l. 70 mm, sdm. 11 mm, bl. 40 mm, pw. 18 mm, wt. 37 g;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und
Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/55/88.
69. a – Diamond shaped short point with diamond cross
section, short conical socket (fig. 14:7); type 5;
b – l. 76 mm, sdm. 13 mm, bl. 49 mm, pw. 21 mm, wt. 52 g;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und
Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/55/93.
202 Christof Krauskopf
70. a – Diamond shaped point with diamond cross section,
cylindrical socket (fig. 14:8); type 5;
b – l. 62mm, sdm. 8 mm, bl. 40 mm, pw. 18 mm, wt. 32 g;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und
Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/55/95.
71. a – Diamond shaped broad point with diamond cross
section, cylindrical socket (fig. 14:9); type 5;
b – l. 58 mm, sdm. 11mm, bl. 33 mm, pw. 19 mm, wt. 32 g;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und
Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/55/99.
72. a – Leaf shaped point with diamond cross section,
conical socket (fig. 14:10); type 5;
b – l. 71 mm, sdm. 12 mm, bl. 46 mm, pw. 18 mm, wt. 30 g;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und
Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/55/103.
73. a – Diamond shaped broad point with diamond cross
section, cylindrical socket (fig. 14:11); type 5;
b – l. 80 mm, sdm. 11 mm, bl. 46 mm, pw. 23 mm,
wt. 63 g;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und
Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/55/111.
74. a – Diamond shaped short and broad point with
diamond cross section, short cylindrical socket (fig. 14:12);
type 5;
b – l. 67 mm, sdm. 15 mm, bl. 42 mm, pw. 23 mm,
wt. 51 g;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und
Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/55/112.
75. a – Diamond shaped point with diamond cross
section, cylindrical socket (fig. 14:13); type 5;
b – l. 71 mm, sdm. 9 mm, bl. 46 mm, pw. 20 mm, wt. 24 g;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und
Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/55/113.
76. a – Leaf shaped point with diamond cross section,
conical socket (fig. 14:14); type 5;
b – l. 52 mm, sdm. 8 mm, bl. 37 mm, pw. 18 mm, wt. 25 g;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und
Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/55/114.
77. a – Diamond shaped short point with diamond cross
section, short cylindrical socket (fig. 14:15); type 5;
b – l. 63 mm, sdm. 15-12 mm, bl. 42 mm, pw. 20 mm, wt. 45 g;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und
Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/55/118.
78. a – Diamond shaped broad point with diamond cross
section, cylindrical socket (fig. 15:1); type 6;
b – l. 69 mm, sdm. 16 mm, bl. 43 mm, pw. 23 mm, wt. 54 g;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und
Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/55/47.
79. a – Diamond shaped short point with diamond cross
section, short conical socket (fig. 15:2); type 6;
b – l. 60 mm, sdm. 12 mm, bl. 34 mm, pw. 17 mm, wt. 32 g;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und
Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/55/73.
80. a – Diamond shaped point with diamond cross
section, cylindrical socket (fig. 15:3); type 6;
b – l. 67 mm, sdm. 12 mm, bl. 42 mm, pw. 20 mm,
wt. 56 g;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und
Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/55/77.
81. a – Diamond shaped point with diamond cross section,
cylindrical socket (fig. 15:4); type 6;
b – l. 77 mm, sdm. 10 mm, bl. 43 mm, pw. 18 mm, wt. 36 g;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und
Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/55/81.
82. a – Crossbow nut, red deer antler; hole through the
centre, iron wedge driven into the nut; broad string
groove, square notch for the bolt (fig. 19);
b – dm. 3,8 cm, w. 2,8 cm;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und
Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/55/8.
83. a – Windlass, iron; rectangular sleeve with 2 hooks
with arrow-shaped ends on either side; 2 handles, axle in
a frame, ridge in the middle of the axle (fig. 20);
b – ca. 50,5x27,9 cm;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und
Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/55/11.
84. a – Spanning hook, iron; double hook, attached by
a hinge to a mounting plate with 3 holes for rivets or
nails (fig. 21);
b – 34,5x6,0 cm;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und
Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/103.
85. a – Cylindrical lead shot, rear chipped, front with
deepening, rounded edges (fig. 22:1);
b – l. 26 mm, dm. 29 mm, wt. 165 g;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und
Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/151/2.
86. a – Cylindrical lead shot, uneven (fig. 22:2);
b – l. 21 mm, dm. 30 mm, wt. 123 g;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und
Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/151/3.
87. a – Cylindrical lead shot, rear flat, front very uneven;
fragment (?) (fig. 22:3);
b – l. 19 mm, dm. 28 mm, wt. 65 g;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und
Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/151/4.
88. a – Cylindrical lead shot, both ends flat, sharp edges,
slightly oval (fig. 22:4);
b – l. 25 mm, dm. 23-27 mm, wt. 116 g;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und
Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/65/11.
89. a – Cylindrical lead shot, front broken; iron core
(fig. 22:5);
b – l. 26 mm, dm. 26 mm, wt. 88 g;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und
Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/65/9.
 Weapon finds from the “Grüttpott” at Stolpe on the Oder
90. a – Cylindrical lead shot, rear flat, front hexagonal
chamfered (fig. 22:6);
b – l. 23 mm, dm. 21 mm, wt. 69 g;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und
Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/65/1.
91. a – Cylindrical lead shot, iron core (fig. 22:7);
b – l. 22 mm, dm. 21 mm, wt. 62 g;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und
Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/65/10.
92. a – Cylindrical lead shot, rear angular, front polygonal
chamfered (fig. 22:8);
b – l. 25 mm, dm. 21 mm, wt. 70 g;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und
Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/65/12.
93. a – Cylindrical lead shot, both ends flat (?), sharp
edges (fig. 22:9);
b – l. 25 mm, dm. 20 mm, wt. 77 g;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und
Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/65/8.
94. a – Cylindrical lead shot, deformed, rear flat, front
slightly chamfered (fig. 22:10);
b – l. 19 mm, dm. 18 mm, wt. 47 g;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und
Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/65/3.
95. a – Cylindrical lead shot, very uneven, black (fig.
22:11);
b – l. 26 mm, dm. 19 mm, wt. 42 g;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und
Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/67/5.
96. a – Conical lead shot, iron core (fig. 22:12);
b – l. 24 mm, dm. 17 mm, wt. 43 g;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und
Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/65/2.
97. a – Cylindrical lead shot, both ends flat, sharp edges,
slightly deformed (fig. 22:13);
b – l. 14 mm, dm. 19 mm, wt. 23 g;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und
Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/66.
98. a – Cylindrical lead shot, slightly oval, rear and front
angular (fig. 22:14);
b – l. 12 mm, dm. 16-18 mm, wt. 17 g;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und
Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/151/1.
99. a – Cylindrical lead shot, deformed, rear flat, front
slightly chamfered (fig 22:15);
b – l. 15 mm, dm. 16 mm, wt. 20 g;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und
Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/65/7.
203
100. a – Cylindrical lead shot, slightly oval, rear flat,
front slightly chamfered (fig. 22:16);
b – l. 13 mm, dm. 16 mm, wt. 20 g;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und
Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/65/4.
101. a – Cylindrical lead shot, both ends flat (fig. 22:17);
b – l. 15 mm, dm. 14mm, wt. 22 g;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und
Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/65/.
102. a – Cylindrical lead shot, slightly oval (fig. 22:18);
b – l. 31 mm, dm. 18 mm, wt. 17 g;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und
Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/67/3.
103. a – Ball, iron (fig. 22:19);
b – l. mm, dm. 21 mm, wt. 39 g;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und
Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/115.
104. a – Cylindrical lead shot, both ends flat, sharp
edges, uneven;
b –, l. 17 mm, dm. 22 mm, wt. 62 g;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und
Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. no. 1995:93/65/4.
105. a – 8 fragments of the octagonal chamber and the barrel
of a socketed hookgun; copper-alloy; the chamber is burst; 1
the stock was fastened with a nail, running through two
holes in the socket; edged ignition pan on top of the chamber;
triangular hook at the bottom of the barrel (fig. 25);
b – dm. of the stock 33 mm; dm. of the chamber 27,5 mm;
thickness of the wall of the chamber 15 mm; l. 75 mm;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege
und Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. No. 1995:93/
64/1-2, 4.
106. a – 4 fragments of octagonal gun barrels; copper-
alloy (fig. 24:1, 4);
b – dm. 14-18 mm; thickness of the wall 13-17 mm;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und
Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. No. 1995:93/64/6,8-9.
107. a – Fragment of an octagonal gun barrel; copper-
alloy (fig. 24:2);
b – dm. 24,5 mm; thickness of the wall 7-9 mm;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und
Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. No. 1995:93/64/7.
108. a – Fragment of octagonal barrel; copper alloy;
deformed, surface of the bore rough with jagged ridges
and points of metal (fig. 24:3);
b – dm. 16 mm; thickness of the wall 11-13 mm;
c – Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege
und Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Inv. No. 1995:93/
64/10.
204 Christof Krauskopf

Bibliography
Sources:

Arnoldus Lubecensis
1868 Arnoldi Chonica Slavorum, ed. J. M. Lappenberg, Hannover.
Codex...
1845 Codex Diplomaticus Brandenburgensis, Sammlung der Urkunden, Chroniken und sonstigen Geschichtsquellen
für die Geschichte der Mark Brandenburg und ihrer Regenten, A 5, ed. A. F. J. Riedel, Berlin.
1847 Codex Diplomaticus Brandenburgensis, Sammlung der Urkunden, Chroniken und sonstigen Geschichtsquellen
für die Geschichte der Mark Brandenburg und ihrer Regenten, A 7, ed. A. F. J. Riedel, Berlin.
1856 Codex Diplomaticus Brandenburgensis, Sammlung der Urkunden, Chroniken und sonstigen Geschichtsquellen
für die Geschichte der Mark Brandenburg und ihrer Regenten, A 11, ed. A. F. J. Riedel, Berlin.
1857a Codex Diplomaticus Brandenburgensis, Sammlung der Urkunden, Chroniken und sonstigen Geschichtsquellen
für die Geschichte der Mark Brandenburg und ihrer Regenten, A 12, ed. A. F. J. Riedel, Berlin.
1857b Codex Diplomaticus Brandenburgensis, Sammlung der Urkunden, Chroniken und sonstigen Geschichtsquellen
für die Geschichte der Mark Brandenburg und ihrer Regenten, A 13, ed. A. F. J. Riedel, Berlin.
1859 Codex Diplomaticus Brandenburgensis, Sammlung der Urkunden, Chroniken und sonstigen Geschichtsquellen
für die Geschichte der Mark Brandenburg und ihrer Regenten, A 18, ed. A. F. J. Riedel, Berlin.
1861 Codex Diplomaticus Brandenburgensis, Sammlung der Urkunden, Chroniken und sonstigen Geschichtsquellen
für die Geschichte der Mark Brandenburg und ihrer Regenten, A 21, ed. A. F. J. Riedel, Berlin.
Chronica...
1888 Chronica Marchionum Brandenburgensis, ed. G. Sello, Forschungen zur Brandenburgischen und Preußischen
Geschichte 1, pp. 111-180.

Scholarship:

Amici S.
1989 I reperti metallici e non metallici delle campagne di scavo 1983-1984, Archeologia Medievale 16, pp. 460-475.
Atzbach R., Elser A.
2004 Spätmittelalterliche Fragmente einer Plattenpanzerung aus Kempten im Allgäu, [in:] Das Brigantinen-
Symposium auf Schloss Tirol, Tirol, pp. 32-39.
Bengedans J.
2006 Johannes Bengedans’ bøssemester- og krigsbog om krigskunst og kanoner, vol. 1-2, ed. H. Blosen,
R. Agnete Olsen, Aarhus.
Bergmann K., Bilberg I.
1976 Vapen, Archaeologica Ludensia 7, pp. 387-396.
Bernges R.
2012 Schnell gespannt! Verwendung eines Spannbocks im Mittelalter, Jahrblatt der Interessengemeinschaft
Historische Armbrust 2012, ed. J. Sensfelder, pp. 46-52.
Blair C.
1982 Notes on Armour from Chalcis, [in:] Arms and Armour at Dorchester, London, pp. 7-14.
1983 Early Firearms, [in:] Pollard's History of Firearms, ed. C. Blair, Feltham, pp. 25-32.
Boccia L. G.
1992 Ancient Italian Pieces in the Kienbusch Collection, [in:] Studies in European Arms and Armor.
The C. Otto von Kienbusch Collection in the Philadelphia Museum of Art, Philadelphia, pp. 33-65.
Brackenbury H.
1865 Ancient Cannon in Europe. Part 1. From their first Employment to A.D. 1350, Woolwich.
Burg und Herrschaft...
2010 Burg und Herrschaft. Eine Ausstellung des Deutschen Historischen Museums Berlin, ed. R. Atzbach,
S. Lüken, H. Ottomeyer, Dresden.
Caldwell D. H.
1974-1975 Fragments of a Brigandine from Coldingham Priory, Berwickshire, Proceedings of the Society of
Antiquaries of Scotland 106, pp. 219-221.
Calvert A. F.
1907 Spanish Arms and Armour, Being a Historical and Descriptive Account of the Royal Armoury of Madrid,
London.
Chudzińska B.
2011 Pozostałości średniowiecznej ręcznej broni palnej z zamku w Muszynie, AMM VII, pp. 203-214.
Cunha E., Silva A. M.
1997 War lesions from the famous Portuguese medieval battle of Aljubarrota, International Journal of
Osteoarcheology 7, pp. 595-599.
 Weapon finds from the “Grüttpott” at Stolpe on the Oder 205

Credland A. G.
1990 Notes on the Crossbow Spanning Bench, Journal of the Society of Archer-Antiquaries 33, pp. 13-22.
Diotallevi D.
2008 Per una storia della Brigantina, [in:] Un Vestito da Battaglia, una brigantina del ´500, ed. M. G. Barberini,
Roma, pp. 13-20.
Dufty A. R., Reid W.
1968 European Armour in the Tower of London, London.
Dyachkov S.
2011 The 15th Century Brigandine of a Crossbowman from the Genoese Fortress of Cembalo, AMM VII, pp. 175-190.
Dziedzic P., Michalak A., Szczepanek A.
2011 Co kości mówią nam o wojnie? Uwagi na marginesie odkryć urazów na czaszkach z masowej mogiły
z grodziska w Niesulicach koło Świebodzina, AMM VII, pp. 49-78
Eaves I.
1989 On the Remains of a Jack of Plate excavated from Beeston Castle in Cheshire, Journal of the Arms and
Armour Society 13/2, pp. 84-85.
Ekdahl S.
1998 Die Bewaffnung der schwedischen Bauern im Mittelalter, FAH 11, pp. 17-38.
Enders L.
1992 Die Uckermark. Geschichte einer kurmärkischen Landschaft vom 12. bis zum 18. Jahrhundert, Weimar.
Ernst B.
2005 Spätmittelalterlich-frühneuzeitliche Schutz- und Trutzwaffenfunde von der Burgruine Runding, Lkr. Cham,
Beiträge zur Archäologie in der Oberpfalz und in Regensburg 7, pp. 339-350.
Fey H.-J.
1981 Reise und Herrschaft der Markgrafen von Brandenburg (1134–1319), Köln-Wien.
Ffoulkes Ch. J.
1911 On Italian Armour from Chalcis in the Ethnological Museum at Athens, Archaeologia 62, pp. 382-390.
Fiorato V., Boylsten A., Knüsel C. (eds.)
2000 Blood Red Roses. The archaeology of a Mass Grave from the Battle of Towton AD 1461, Oxford.
Fleischhauer W. 1
1934 Spangenharnischfund auf Burg Helfenstein, ZfHWK N.F. 4, pp. 250-252.
1936 Zum Spangenharnischfund von Burg Helfenstein, ZfHWK N.F. 5, pp. 110-111.
Francke C.
1999 Fragmenty zbroi z zamku Szczerba w Gniewoszowie, pow. Kłodzko, Silesia Antiqua 40, pp. 100-114.
Fritze W. H.
1982 Das Vordringen deutscher Herrschaft in Teltow und Barnim, [in:] Frühzeit zwischen Ostsee und Donau.
Ausgewählte Beiträge zum geschichtlichen Werden im östlichen Mitteleuropa vom 6. bis zum 13. Jahrhundert.
Germania Slavica III, ed. W. H. Fritze, Berlin, pp. 297-374.
Gabra-Sanders T.
1993 Part of a 16th Century Quilted Jack of Plate found at Craigievar Castle, Aberdeenshire, Journal of the
Arms and Armour Society 14/3, pp. 147-152.
Gamber O.
1953 Harnischstudien: V. Stilgeschichte des Plattenharnisches von den Anfängen bis um 1440, Jahrbuch der
Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen in Wien 50, pp. 53-92.
1998 Geschichte der mittelalterlichen Bewaffnung. Teil 6, Waffen- und Kostümkunde 40, pp. 33-62.
Gessler E. A.
1933 Ein neuer Spangenharnisch in der Schweiz, ZfHWK N.F. 4, pp. 107-109.
Głosek M., Kajzer L., Nadolski A.
1978 Broń średniowieczna z ziem polskich, Łódź.
Groß U.
2005 Spannhaken. Seltene Funde mittelalterlichen Armbrust-Zugehörs, Denkmalpflege in Baden-Württemberg 34,
pp. 225-230.
Hall B. S.
1979 The technological Illustrations of the so-called “Anonymus of the Hussite Wars”, Codex latinus Monacensis
197, Part 1, Wiesbaden.
Harmuth E.
1979 Belt-spanners for crossbows, [in:] Art, arms and armour. An international anthology. Vol. 1, ed. R. Held,
Chiasso, pp. 100-107.
1986 Die Armbrust. Ein Handbuch, Graz.
Hawkins D.
1990 The Black Death and new London cemeteries of 1348, Antiquity 64, pp. 637-642.
Hoff A.
1969 Feuerwaffen I, Braunschweig.
206 Christof Krauskopf

Holst J.
2009 The Tower named „Grüttpott“ at Stolpe upon Oder, [in:] Expansion – Integration? Danish-Baltic Contacts
1147–1410 AD, ed. B. F. Jensen, D. Wille-Jørgensen, Vordingborg, pp. 95-118.
Jánská E.
1963 Archeologický výzkum hradu Sión, Archeologicke Rozhledy XV, pp. 220-247
Jessop O.
1996 A new artefact typology for the study of medieval arrowheads, Medieval Archaeology 40, pp. 192-205.
1997 European iron arrowheads. Evidence for their technological development and geographical distribution,
[in:] Military Studies in Medieval Europe. Papers of the ‚Medieval Europe Brugge 1997' Conference 11,
ed. G. De Boe, F. Verhaeghe, Zellik, pp. 43-49.
Jones P. N.
1992 The Metallography and relative Effectiveness of Arrowheads and Armor during the Middle Ages, Materials
Characterization 29, pp. 111-117.
Kempke T.
1988 Zur überregionalen Verbreitung der Pfeilspitzentypen des 8.-12. Jahrhunderts aus Starigard/Oldenburg,
Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission 69, pp. 292-306.
Knüsel C., Boylston A.
2000 How has the Towton project contributed to our knowledge of medieval and later warfare?, [in:] Blood Red
Roses: The Archaeology of a Mass Grave from the Battle of Towton, 1461, eds. V Fiorato, A. Boylson,
C. Knüsel , Oxford, pp. 169-188.
Kohlhaussen H.
1951 Kunstsammlungen der Veste Coburg, Coburg.
Krabbo H., Winter G.
1955 Regesten der Markgrafen von Brandenburg aus askanischem Hause, Berlin.
Krauskopf C.
1995 „... davon nur noch wenige Rutera zu sehen seyn sollen ...“ Ausgrabungen in der Burgruine Schnellerts, Bamberg.
2007 Gegen den Kurfürsten. Waffenfunde aus dem Obergeschoss des Grützpotts bei Stolpe an der Oder, [in:]
aedificatio terrae. Beiträge zur Umwelt- und Siedlungsarchäologie. Festschrift für Eike Gringmuth-
Dallmer zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. G. H. Jeute, J. Schneeweiß, C. Theune, Rahden-Westfalen, pp. 247-254.
2011 “...mit guten Büchsen, Armbrust und anderen notdürftigen Wehren...”. Veränderungen im Wehrbau
brandenburgischer Burgen während des 15. Jahrhunderts, [in:] Die Burg im 15. Jahrhundert, ed. J. Zeune,
Braubach, pp. 49-62.
Kunstdenkmäler
1934 Die Kunstdenkmäler der Provinz Brandenburg. Band III, Teil 3: Kreis Angermünde, Berlin.
Kunz P. H.
2008 Technische Entwicklung der Feuerwaffen 1200 bis 1900. Eine Zusammenfassung der wichtigsten historischen
und technischen Daten in Texten, Zeichnungen und Bildern, Zürich.
Kyeser K.
2000 Konrad Kyeser Bellifortis. Clm 30150, ed. U. Montag, München.
Lacy M. S.
1992 The development of the coat of plates (Compleat Anachronist 69), Milpitas.
Laking G. F.
1920 A Record of European Armour and Arms II, London.
Leja F.
2005 Vorbericht über die Ausgrabungen in der Burgruine Wolfstein, Stadt Neumarkt i.d. Opf., Beiträge zur
Archäologie in der Oberpfalz und in Regensburg 7, pp. 351-374.
Leng R. (ed.)
2000 Anleitung Schießpulver zu bereiten, Büchsen zu laden und zu beschießen. Eine kriegstechnische Handschrift
im cgm 600 der Bayerischen Staatsbibliothek München, Wiesbaden.
Leukhardt M.
2009 Die Fundmünzen aus dem Stolper Burgturm, Beiträge zur Brandenburgisch/Preußischen Numismatik 17,
pp. 60-67.
MacLaghlan S.
2010 Medieval Handgonnes. The first Black Powder Infantry Weapons, Oxford.
Mäesalu A.
2004 Die archäologischen Brigantinenfunde in der Burg Otepää, Estland, [in:] Das Brigantinen-Symposium
auf Schloss Tirol, Tirol, pp. 104-118.
Marek L.
2008 Medieval Armour from Szczerba castle, AMM IV, pp. 87-124.
forthcoming Castle at War. Archaeological Record of Fighting at the Siege at the Castle of Kolno in Silesia,
[in:] Schlachtfeld und Massengrab – Spektren interdisziplinärer Auswertung von Orten der Gewalt.
Conference papers, Arbeitsberichte zur Bodendenkmalpflege in Brandenburg.
 Weapon finds from the “Grüttpott” at Stolpe on the Oder 207

Marek L., Konczewski P.

2010 Oblężenie i upadek zamku Karpień. Interpretacja źródeł archeologicznych, AMM VI, pp. 93-120.
Martin P.
1967 Waffen und Rüstungen von Karl dem Großen bis zu Ludwig XIV., Frankfurt am Main.
Martinelli A., Lehmann S.
2007 Tremona-Castello. Vorläufiger Bericht zu den Untersuchungen in einem mittelalterlichen Dorf
des Südtessins von 1998 bis 2007, Mittelalter – Moyen Age – Medioevo – Temp medieval 12/4,
pp. 121-142.
Miazga B.
2010 Wyniki badan rentgenofluorescencyjnych fragmentu lufy z zamku Karpień, AMM VI, pp. 117-120.
Moorhouse S.
1972 Finds from Excavations in the Refectory at the Dominovan Friary Boston, Lincolnshire Historical
Archaeology 7, pp. 21-54.
Müller H.
1997 Gewehre, Pistolen, Revolver. Europäische Jagd- und Kriegswaffen des 14. bis 19. Jahrhunderts, 2nd ed.,
Berlin.
Müller M.
1996 Die Turmburg Nürings bei Falkenstein im Taunus, [in:] Burgenforschung aus Hessen. Begleitband zur
Ausstellung, ed. W. Böhme, Marburg, pp. 151-156.
Nekuda V.
1975 Pfaffenschlag. Zaniklá stredoveká ves u Slavonic, Brno.
1985 Mstenice. Zaniklá stredoveká ves u Hrotovic, Brno.
Nicolle D.
2002 Medieval Siege Weapons 1. Western Europe AD 585-1385, Oxford.
Ortslexikon
1986 Historisches Ortslexikon für Brandenburg. Teil VIII: Uckermark, ed. L. Enders, Weimar.
Pause C.
2010 Weapons and Military Equipment from the Burgundian Siege of Neuss in 1474-1475, AMM VI, pp. 121-144.
Payne-Gallwey R. 1
1974 The Crossbow. Its construction, History and Management, 5th ed., London.
Peine H. W.
2004 Ein Blick in die Waffenkammer des Hauses Herbede an der Ruhr, [in:] Das Brigantinen-Symposium auf
Schloss Tirol, Tirol, pp. 40-77.
Petersohn J.
1979 Der südliche Ostseeraum im kirchlich-politischen Kräftespiel des Reichs, Polens und Dänemarks vom
10. bis 13. Jh. Köln et. al.
Post P.
1935 Von den Anfängen der Schaller, ZfHWK NF 5, pp. 100-103.
1943 Ein Panzerfragment aus der Frühzeit der Brigantine, ZfHWK NF 7, pp. 224-239.
Pyhrr S. W.
1989 European Armor from the Imperial Ottoman Arsenal, Metropolitan Museum Journal 24, pp. 85-116.
Rabovyanov D., Dimitrov S.
2011 Medieval Armour from the Royal Palace in the Bulgarian Capital Tarnovgrad, AMM VII, pp. 161-174.
Rackevičius G.
2002 Arbaletas ir lankas lietuvoje XIII-XVI a., Vilnius.
Richardson T.
1997 The Introduction of Plate Amour in Medieval Europe, Royal Armouries Yearbook 2, pp. 40-45.
Richter H.
2006 Die Hornbogenarmbrust. Geschichte und Technik, Ludwigshafen.
Rimer G.
1996 Early Handguns, Royal Armouries Yearbook 1, pp. 73-78.
Schmidtchen V.
1977 Die Feuerwaffen des Deutschen Ritterordens bis zur Schlacht bei Tannenberg 1410. Bestände, Funktion
und Kosten, dargestellt anhand der Wirtschaftsbücher des Ordens von 1375 bis 1410, Lüneburg.
Schmitt A.
2008 Burg Tannenberg Seeheim-Jugenheim, Lkr. Darmstadt-Dieburg. Eine spätmittelalterliche Ganerbenburg im
Licht der archäologischen Funde, Bonn.
Schulz R.
1998 Stolpe, eine Turmburg des späten 12. Jahrhunderts an der Oder. Eine Befestigung der Dänen in Pommern
gegen die Markgrafen von Brandenburg? Château Gaillard 18, pp. 211-221.
1999 Barnim und Uckermark – eine Burgenlandschaft. Entdeckungen entlang der Märkischen Eiszeitstraße 2,
Eberswalde.
208 Christof Krauskopf

Schütz A.
2006 Die hoch- und spätmittelalterlichen Burgen und Adelssitze in der Uckermark, Land Brandenburg.
Bestandsaufnahme und vergleichende Untersuchungen vom späten 12. bis zum Ende des 15. Jahrhunderts.
Berlin (http://edoc.hu-berlin.de/dissertationen/schuetz-antonia-2007-05-10/PDF/schuetz.pdf).
Sensfelder J.
2000 A gothic spanning hook, Journal of the Society of Archer-Antiquaries 43, pp. 20-24.
Spindler K., Stadler H.
2004 Eine neuerworbene Brigantine im Südtiroler Landesmuseum Schloss Tirol, [in:] Das Brigantinen-Symposium
auf Schloss Tirol, Tirol, pp. 192-206.
Serdon V.
2005 Armes du diable. Arcs et arballètes au moyen âge, Rennes.
Stadler H.
2004 Die Brigantine von Schloss Tirol in ihrem waffenhistorischen Kontext, [in:] Das Brigantinen-Symposium
auf Schloss Tirol, Tirol, pp. 20-31.
Steeger W.
1998 Ausgrabungen auf der Burgruine Wolfstein, Beiträge zur Archäologie in der Oberpfalz 2, pp. 395-422.
Strzyż P.
2011 Średniowieczna broń palna w Polsce. Studium archeologiczne. Łódź.
Sutherland T.,
2000 Recording the grave, [in:] Blood Red Roses: The Archaeology of a Mass Grave from the Battle of Towton,
1461, eds. V Fiorato, A. Boylson, C. Knüsel , Oxford, pp. 36-44.
Świętosławski W.
2008 Późnośredniowieczne militaria z reliktów wieży w Jemiołowie koło Olsztynka, AMM IV, pp. 189-198.
Taavitsainen J.-P.
2002 Brikantiinin levyjä Kuusiston linnasta, Suomen Keskiajan Arkeologian Seura 4, pp. 68-73.
Thierbach M.
1886 Geschichtliche Entwicklung der Handfeuerwaffen, Dresden.
Thordemann B.
1939 Armour from the Battle of Wisby, vol. 1-2, Stockholm.
Trapp O., Mann J.
1929 The Armoury of the Castle of Churburg, London.
von Hefner J., Wolf J. W.
1850 Die Burg Tannenberg und ihre Ausgrabungen, Frankfurt am Main.
von Raumer G. W.
1831 Codex diplomaticus continuatus. Sammlung ungedruckter Urkunden zur brandenburgischen Geschichte,
Berlin.
Vassilatos N.
1999 Middelalderhjelmene fra Chalkis, Våbenhistoriske Årbøger 47, pp. 132-144.
Wachowski K.
1982 Średniowieczna broń miotająca na Śląsku w świetle znalezisk z Ostrówka w Opolu, APolski 27/1, pp. 167-202.
Vránová V., Vrána J.
2008 Olověné projektily z hradu Tepence, CB 11, pp. 457-460
Woeller W.
1979 Volkssagen zwischen Hiddensee und Wartburg, Berlin.
Wojciechowski T.
1989 Znaleziska fragmentów kusz na ziemiach polskich, Kwart. HKM 39/3-4, pp. 481-496.
Žákovský P.
2011 Stredoveká a rane novoveká militaria ze sbírek Lovecko-Lesnického Muzea v Úsove na Morave,
AMM VII, pp. 105-159.
Zimmermann B.
2000 Mittelalterliche Geschossspitzen. Kulturhistorische, archäologische und archäometallurgische Untersuchungen,
Basel.
 Weapon finds from the “Grüttpott” at Stolpe on the Oder
Christof Krauskopf
ZNALEZISKA BRONI I UZBROJENIA Z „GRÜTTPOTT”
W ciągu 2. połowy XII w. Królestwu Danii udało
się opanować słowiańskie i niemieckie terytoria na
południowym wybrzeżu Morza Bałtyckiego. W 1214 r.
następca Otta – Frederick II – potwierdził duńską do-
minację nad Pomorzem i Holsztynem, a w tym samym
roku duński król Waldemar II odzyskał miasta po-
morskie Szczecin i Pasewalk, zajęte wcześniej przez
Askańczyków w 1211 r. W mniej niż 50 lat Królestwo
Danii uzyskało znaczący wpływ na słowiańskie te-
rytoria wzdłuż południowych wybrzeży Morza Bał-
tyckiego (ryc. 1). W tym samym czasie miała miejsce
ekspansja askańska. W odpowiedzi na pomorsko-
duńską agresję, Askańczycy ufortyfikowali stary sło-
wiański gród w Oderbergu.
Jeden z najbardziej niezwykłych średniowiecz-
nych zamków w północnych Niemczech, zlokalizo-
wany ok. 12 km na północ od Oderbergu, został
wybudowany ok. 1200 r. pod wpływem Duńczyków
(ryc. 2-3). Tzw. “Grüttpott” w Stolpe n. Odrą to ma-
sywna wieża zbudowana z cegieł, o średnicy 18 m
i zachowanej wysokości 12 m pod i 18 m ponad zie-
mią. Mury w przyziemiu osiągają grubość do 6 m.
Aż do XV w. zwierzchnictwo nad zamkiem
zmieniało się kilkakrotnie. W 1445 r. Fryderyk II,
Elektor brandenburski, oblegał i zdobył go, wyłączając
z pomorskiego dominium. W trakcie oblężenia górne
kondygnacje wieży uległy zawaleniu, grzebiąc liczne
przedmioty codziennego użytku i broń. W 1991 r. do
Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und
Archäologisches Landesmuseum przekazano ogromne
ilości zabytków znalezione na terenie zamku.
Znalazło się wśród nich 57 kompletnych bądź
fragmentarycznie zachowanych zbrojników brygantyny.
Większość płytek jest tak mocno zniszczona, że właś-
ciwie niemożliwe jest dziś ustalenie ich pierwotnego
kształtu. Można jednak wśród nich wyróżnić co naj-
mniej 4 typy zbrojników (ryc. 4). Ogólnie pancerze
zbrojnikowe rozwijały się według zbliżonego schematu:
od dużych w zbliżony sposób uformowanych płytek
z niewielką ilością nitów w połowie XIV w., do ma-
łych, różnorodnego kształtu zbrojników w XV i XVI w.
Cztery, większych rozmiarów fragmenty blachy,
wydają się pochodzić ze zbroi płytowej (ryc. 5). Mogą
one stanowić elementy napierśnika bądź naplecznika.
Nity na krawędziach płyt sugerują że były przytwier-
dzone do tekstylnego podkładu lub innej części pan-
cerza.
W „Grüttpott” znaleziono również fragment tyl-
nej partii hełmu (ryc. 6-7). Zachowany ułamek, który
chronił prawdopodobnie kark noszącego, był dość
209
W STOLPE NAD ODRĄ
Streszczenie
krótki i nieco zaokrąglony, z rzędem nitów wzdłuż
dolnej krawędzi. Zabytek ten stanowi prawdopodobnie
fragment późnego basineta lub wczesnej salady.
Ponad połowa ze 117 grotów bełtów (lub strzał)
jest niestety tak fragmentarycznie zachowana, że nie-
możliwa jest ich dokładna klasyfikacja. Wśród 51 za-
chowanych w całości, lub co najmniej w większej części
nienaruszonych, wyróżnić można kilka różnych typów
(ryc. 8-14). Długie i smukłe liściowate groty typu 1 są
zwykle datowane na XII i XIII w. Są on lżejsze i dłuższe
od wszystkich innych typów odkrytych w „Grüttpott”
(ryc. 15). Okazy zgrupowane w typie 2 były powszech-
ne między XIII a XV w. i wykazują analogiczną
tendencję. Są one znacznie lżejsze od okazów typów
5 i 6. Cięższe groty są jednakże również dużo krótsze
niż te typów 1 i 2 (ryc. 16). Zabytki z „Grüttpott”, które
z pewnością używane były w tym samym czasie, uka- 1
zują nam chronologiczny rozwój form grotów bełtów
w okresie średniowiecza (ryc. 17). Od XV w. groty
stają się krótsze, szersze i cięższe, co związane było
z rozwojem technologii budowy kusz oraz z odpo-
wiedzią na znaczne udoskonalenie zbroi płytowej.
Wykonany z poroża jelenia orzech do kuszy
odkryty w „Grüttpott” ma wszystkie typowe elementy
dla tej kategorii przedmiotów ze znanych środkowo-
europejskich mechanizmów spustowych kusz (ryc. 18).
Otwór na spust jest jednak relatywnie mały w po-
równaniu do wielkości masywnego żelaznego klina
przymocowanego do orzecha, by zapobiec jego znisz-
czeniu przez żelazny spust kuszy.
Wyjątkowym przedmiotem wydaje się angielska
winda (ryc. 19), jako że archeologiczne znaleziska
tego typu przedmiotów są niezwykle rzadkie. Winda
z „Grüttpott” złożona jest z tulei, którą przymocowa-
no powyżej ramy mechanizmu naciągowego i rączek.
Bardzo rzadkim znaleziskiem spośród przedmio-
tów z „Grüttpott” jest hak z ławki naciągowej bądź
podstawy do kuszy wałowej (ryc. 20). Przedmiot ten
składa się z podwójnego haka przymocowanego za-
wiasem do płytki rękojeści z trzema otworami na nity
bądź gwoździe. Była ona bądź przynitowywana do
skórzanego pasa, bądź przymocowana bezpośrednio do
drewnianego dysku, który obracano wraz z dźwignią
podczas naciągania kuszy.
Odkryto również 20 pocisków do broni palnej
(ryc. 21). Tylko jeden z nich jest żelazną kulą (ryc. 21:1) –
wszystkie pozostałe wykonano z ołowiu i mają cylin-
dryczny kształt. Ich średnica waha się między 14 a 31 mm,
i uderzające jest, że na jej podstawie niemożliwe jest
wyróżnienie grup o ściśle określonym kalibrze (ryc. 22).
210 Christof Krauskopf
Różnorodność rozmiarów pocisków wskazuje, że musiały
być one używane jako amunicja do co najmniej czterech
egzemplarzy broni palnej, każdego o innym kalibrze,
bądź broni o konicznym wnętrzu lufy, na co może
wskazywać linearny wzrost rozmiarów pocisków.
Odkryto również 18 fragmentów odlanej z brązu
ręcznej broni palnej, w tym hak do jej mocowania
(ryc. 23). Drugi, mniejszy hak wykonano z żelaza.
Niektóre z fragmentów pasowały do siebie, czyniąc
możliwym częściową rekonstrukcję choć jednej z bro-
ni (ryc. 24). Stan zachowania fragmentów broni palnej
sugeruje, że eksplozja gazów wewnątrz komory, która ją
rozerwała, nastąpiła w trakcie oblężenia. Ścianki lufy
mają grubość do 15 mm, a te komory do 20 mm. Po-
trzeba było ogromnej siły, by rozerwać tę broń na częś-
ci. Jeden fragment lufy jest wyraźnie zdeformowany
i widać, że mimo dużej grubości materiału została
ona rozsadzona na zewnątrz (ryc. 23:3).
W trakcie badań odkryto również 25 kości ludz-
kich, wybranych spośród występujących w ogromnych
ilościach kości zwierzęcych. Pozyskane kości ludzkie
Bettina Jungklaus
Christof Krauskopf
HUMAN SKELETAL REMAINS FROM THE “GRÜTTPOTT” AT STOLPE
25 human bones were identified among
a much larger quantity of animal bone1. They were
probably part of a single skeleton and it is unlikely
that the remains of two or more individuals were
present in the keep. The bones represent almost
all parts of the body and include one fragment of
the left parietal bone, the right mandible, the 7th
cervical vertebra, five dorsal vertebrae, one upper
lumbar vertebra, an almost complete manubrium,
the right humerus, one complete and six fragmentary
right ribs, four fragmentary left ribs, the left fibula
and the 3rd, 4th and 5th metatarsals from the left
foot (fig. 26).
The material is mostly fragmentary and
provides very little information about the individual.
Sex determination was difficult because the cranium
and pelvis were missing. The only surviving
indicator, the angle of the jaw, seems to suggest
a male. The individual appears to have been adult
and was probably between 30 and 50 years old at
1 The animal bones consist mainly of late medieval material (presumably of the garrison’s food) and the remains of animals
which had inhabited the keep after it’s partial collapse, or had been brought in by predators.
pochodzą niemal ze wszystkich części jednego szkie-
letu (ryc. 25). Osobnik ten wydaje się być płci męskiej,
i zmarł pomiędzy 30. a 50. rokiem życia. Niestety, same
kości dostarczają zbyt małej ilości informacji tłuma-
czących ich obecność w wieży. Z niewyjaśnionych
powodów co najmniej część ciała poległego komba-
tanta musiano pozostawić pod rumowiskiem po częś-
ciowym zawaleniu wieży.
Monety odkryte na terenie zamku datowane są na
okres między 1330 a 1519 r., jednak większość z nich
pochodzi z 1. połowy XV w. Również broń sugeruje
datowanie całego materiału odkrytego na terenie wa-
rowni na XV stulecie. Jako że oblężenie zamku w 1445 r.
potwierdzone jest przez źródła pisane, prawdopodobne
wydaje się jego zniszczenie właśnie w tym czasie.
Żadne ze znalezisk nie podważa tej interpretacji. Ma-
my więc rzadką możliwość przestudiowania materiału
z terminus ante quem określonym dokładnie do kon-
kretnego roku.
Tłumaczenie: Arkadiusz Michalak
APPENDIX
the time of death. This is indicated by the ante-
mortem loss of the two rear molars in the surviving
piece of jawbone and a number of open sutures
on the fragment of parietal bone. The degenerative
alteration of the 9th dorsal vertebra is also evidence
of advanced age (fig. 27). None of the long bones
were completely preserved and so it was impossible
to estimate the height of the individual.
It is hard to believe that a human body was
left unburied. Every baptised Christian, unless he
had committed a mortal sin, was supposed to
be buried in hallowed ground. The siege of the
Grüttpott was, for both sides, a righteous battle –
as Hans von Buch states in the document dated to
January 1446 (Codex... 1857a, 367) – and fallen
warriors could expect a proper burial. On the other 1
hand there are examples, that fallen warriors were
not buried immediately. After the battle of Wisby,
fought in summer 1361, the dead bodies seem to
have been left several days unburied. The state of
 Weapon finds from the “Grüttpott” at Stolpe on the Oder 211

Fig. 27. Degenerative alteration at the 9th dorsal vertebra. Photo 1by
B. Jungklaus.

Ryc. 27. Zmiany degeneratywne dziewiątego kręgu dorsalnego.

Fot. B. Jungklaus.

Fig. 26. Skeleton with mark of the preserved bones – display of bones
by B. Jungklaus.

Ryc. 26. Szkielet z oznaczonymi zachowanymi kośćmi – oznaczenia

kości B. Jungklaus.

decay might have been the reason why some of

the warriors were not stripped off their armour.
The reason may have been, that the inhabitants
of Wisby did not dare to leave the town earlier,
because of the presence of the Danish forces and
then buried the dead in great hurry (Thordemann
1938, 94f.). If this is correct, the delay did not
occur because of disregard for the fallen. After the
burial a memorial cross was erected (Thordemann
1938, fig. 4). Might the mass burial near Wisby Fig. 28. 6th dorsal vertebra with injury. Photo by B. Jungklaus.
be sufficient to fulfil the duty to bury the fallen Ryc. 28. Szósty krąg dorsalny z urazem. Fot. B. Jungklaus.
properly, other examples show, that the Christian
duty was not fulfilled in every case. In 1385 a battle
was fought near Aljubarrota in Portugal. Obviously
the fallen were kept unburied for several years burying the victims, as the excavations of a mass
before they were laid in a mass grave (Cunha, Silva grave at East Smithfield prove (Hawkins 1990).
1997, 596). Even in extreme situations, as during Uncommon burial methods do not necessarily prove
the plague, order and dignity were respected, when an “un-Christian” attempt (Sutherland 2000, 43).
212
The example of the mass grave at Towton shows
nevertheless disregard for the fallen who belonged
to the opponents of a crowned king. In this case
both parties were regarded as traitors – the leaders
of both parties were crowned kings – and the
different orientation of the buried as well as traces
of disfigurement of the bodies may show a different
interment, executed by the winning party (Knüsel,
Boylston 2000, 186). As the battle of the Grüttpott
seems to have been a righteous fight, a post mortal
punishment or disregard seems unlikely. However,
it might still be possible that the fallen warrior
was left intentionally unburied in the upper storey
of the Grüttpott. But this possibility still does not
explain the selection of the bones and it does not
explain where the rest of the corpse was left.
At least two possible interpretations can be
offered to explain the incomplete skeleton. The
body may have been torn to pieces by an explosion
during the battle. After the end of the siege, as many
body parts as possible were collected and buried.
Those which were under the rubble could not be
reached and were left behind. A second possibility
is that the whole body remained under the rubble
and, after the flesh had decayed, fell literally bit
by bit through the opening in the vertex of the
2 It is said, that in the 1960s or 1970s a skull was found in the keep. This information was kindly provided by a local inhabitant.
The whereabouts of the skull remain uncertain.
3 For the identification of war lesions see also Dziedzic, Michalak, Szczepanek 2011.
Christof Krauskopf
vault and into the lower storey of the keep. They
were removed from there when Leopold von
Buch dug the tunnel into the basement in 1840.
The latter seems unlikely because it does not
explain why the body was left in the keep after
the siege. There also seem to be too few body
parts to support this theory, although it is possible
that some individual bones were already removed
from the tower at a later date2.
During the osteological examination of the
material, care was taken to look for traces of
damage which could be related to explosion but
no such evidence was found. All of the fractures
occurred are post mortem, and only one single
ante- or peri-mortem wound could be observed.
This consisted of a sharp force (puncture) injury
to the 6th dorsal vertebra, possibly caused by
a lance or a crossbow bolt3. The vertebra was
ruptured by the force of the blow (fig. 28).
Unfortunately the bones provide too little
information to explain their presence in the keep.
For whatever reason, at least part of the body of
a fallen combatant, who might have been killed
or seriously wounded by a crossbow bolt, had to
be left under the rubble after the partial collapse
of the keep.
dr Bettina Jungklaus
Anthropologie-Büro Jungklaus
Berlin
dr Christof Krauskopf
Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege
und Archäologisches Landesmuseum
Zossen