AAP323 Endterm

7/31/2019 AAP323 Endterm

1/14

What were the significant changes and developments in martial equipment and combat

during the European Late Bronze Age and Iron Age?

REG. N: 110219789 WORD COUNT: 2862

In this essay I deal with the weaponry evolution and the changes in combat strategy since thelast phases of the Bronze Age to the beginning of the Iron Age in Europe. Our period of studyspares between second half of the 13 th century and 7th century (after Mederos, 1997), even if theyare used earlier and later sources for its development. First of all, I make reference to those sourcesavailable to this study, and its reliability. After that I explain the evidence on weapons based ondifferent offensive and defensive models. Finally I make a suggestion about combat tacticevolution, which only could be understood as an hypothesis because the lack of information.However, before beginning, there are some explanations I should give to understand the approachof this paper. The concept of Europe itself as any kind of unit is really problematic since anarchaeological point of view. Roughly, we could do a difference between the Mediterranean Europe,mainly Greece, and a non-Mediterranean one, the West and Continental Europe; of course, thatwould be an artificial difference and the material culture does not allow us to talk about strict

borders. The first difference would be chronological, while the Mediterranean Europe began its IronAge about 1120-1050, the Non-Mediterranean began it about 900-800 (1997: 77-8). But even when"both Europes" were "inside" the Iron Age, its social development was different, as it would beshow in the next lines.

Historical information is based in archaeological and text sources. Precisely, the differencesbetween both sources allowed us to understand better weaponry and combat tactics evolution: so,while texts do not pay special attention on weapon features, they explain us the different combatstyles; likewise, material culture did not tell us how they fought, it shows clearly different weaponscharacteristics. For our period of study, we do not have contemporary texts with perhaps a fewexceptions for the Greek case; however, some researchers had used later texts to understand Iron

Age societies (e.g. Almagro Gorbea, 2010; Jackson, 1964). Anyway, it also had been usedarchaeological information, specifically pottery decoration, to understand combat formations.However, we have so much information about weapon evolution that about its use in combat.

Even before the appearance of the homo sapiens we can find the presence of weapons in thearchaeological record, but since the Bronze Age, there is a huge growth of different types of thesetools (Taylor, 1993). For our period, they had been relatively well dated, based broadly in theirrelationship with pottery chronology; that had allowed to make different sequence of weapons,sequences that indeed are the basic information for evolution. Written sources, on the other hand, donot make description of weapon features, but about their connection with their owners and its use incombat. These sources are broadly useful for the case of Greece. There we have the first mention to

close formation. When writing was quite extended to the whole Europe, after Roman conquest orthe arrival of Christianity, close formation had been adopted for a long time. Texts sources,however, deal with the difficulty of author's perspective, who at the same time would have its owninterest. I talk more about that later.

Weapon research had used a difference between offensive and defensive ones. Offensiveweapons are those ones used to attack while other ones are used to protect; the development of thefirst ones affects directly to the second ones. Some other authors had understood chariots asweapons (in some way Kristiansen, 2009: 177), mainly offensive but also used as a defensive tool.In the last phases of the Bronze Age, the most important weapons in Europe were swords and spears(Armit, 2011: 508) (and probably axes if we understood them as weapons and not like common

tools (2011:510)).


2/14

The most important change that we can see between all Bronze and Iron Age weapons isevident: the use of a new metal, stronger and more available, if we compare it with softness andshortage of copper and tin. That change meant a definitive physical advantage over opponents,which allowed a fast dominance of that metal. Bradley had suggested a shortage of warfare inBronze Age Britain, considering most of weapons found in that period as ceremonial or votive(1984), which would mean an increasing of violence since the beginning of the Iron Age; I do not

agree with him, following Kristiansen (2002) and Sharpless (1989) based on evidence of weaponrecasting.

Typological changes are also important, because they could be related with the combat style(Armit, 2011: 507). In that sense, there is no clear evidence for typological change in Greece untilas late as the 8th century (Snodgrass, 1964); until that moment, some of the weapons tried tosimulate the aspect of previous ones from the Bronze Age (1964: 190-95). Instead, typologicalchanges in Europe happened practically as early as the new metal arrives, about 8 th century BC(Armit, 2011: 507). In the next paragraphs I deal with those typological changes, knowing that forGreece, when they happened, there were a long tradition of iron working. Broadly we could say thatthose changes are related with the effectiveness, a better use on the resources, and perhaps a more

extended use of weapons, or better, of metal-made weapons.

One of the most important changes was the length of swords, which became shorter, whileits point of balance moved closer to its hilt, allowing a stronger use of the weapon. Naue II typesword (Fig. 1) represents those old features, while in the rest of Europe we have different examples,as the carp's tongue (Fig. 2). One of the most famous short sword-type in Aegean would be kopis,while in Europe we could find some different types, from different influences of that Greek sword,as Italic machairai or Iberianfalcata (Fig. 3), or original European types (Fig. 4)

Spearheads, on the other hand, began its changes over sixteen and fifteen centuries inGreece, becoming more narrow and lighter (Snodgras 1964: 190), and in the specific case of Britainwe could clearly talk about more effective models (Fig 5 and Fig. 6). Its use in hand-to-handcombat is represented in some pottery (Fig. 7 and Fig 8), different texts (e.g. Hom. Il. XIV, 508 andfollowing; Tyrtaeus) and even further Greece, in literature (The Tain e.g. 388-392; 600-629) and

pottery (Fig. 9). For Greece, Snodgrass in some way relates typological changes with thedevelopment of the javelin, as an specific weapon different that the earlier throwing spear(Snodgrass, 1964: 192). However, the most important of the projectile weapons adopted in Iron Agewas the bow; it was known since Paleolithic, and became so representative in late Neolithic burialsin Britain, related with beaker pottery (Harrison et al. 1999: 13). In their features they adopt someof the physical features that were before used for spearheads and javelins, to make more effectivewounds (Fig. 10).

There were some typological changes in defensive weapons, I think the most important inGreece because their relationship with the combat style (see below). Shields were well-known inBronze Age Aegean, as it is represented on iconography (Fig. 11). We also have evidence ofhelmets in Europe, as it is represented in Early Bronze Age carving in Bohuslan caves, Sweden(Fig. 12). But in that case, first changes would appear since Submycenean period (Fig. 13): size ofshields was reduced drastically, becoming round (Snodgrass, 1964:189). Their first appearance had

been related with Naue II type sword had allowed to this author suggest a link between them andtheir origin (1964: 192); I do not think the evidence is strong enough to consider a definitivecertainty. Even those changes are adopted and kept in Greece, we can see that in the rest of Europewould have an strong presence of bigger shields (Fig. 14), even of course we know some different

cases of circular little shields (Fig. 9). Change of shape between rectangular and circular shieldsshould be related with a better use of the space.


3/14

Typological relationship had allowed (orforced) to researchers to make a link betweenGreek and rest of Europe weapons. Snodgrass suggests that some weapons could arrive or havestrong influence from the East civilizations (1964: 204), but he considers more important anddecisive European tradition, based broadly on traditional influence since the arrival of Naue IIswords. However, I think that that arrival was made by the Naue II sword-fighters themselves,considered as mercenaries (Drews, 1994: 147-9). In Bronze Age, there was not dependence from

the North territories, but a demand of (military) labour force; metal crafting was much morespecialized in the Mediterranean core area than in the European transition area to raw tin. Thecontinuity until 8th century BC suggests another kind of proposal: I think that new Iron Ageweapons were originated in Greece, even accepting influences from some other territories.

The change between Bronze Age tactics and Iron Age ones had been broadly explained asthe change between the heroic combat of Iliad (e.g. XIV, 501 and following) and the closeformation in regiments. In the first ones, the warrior (a hero in the Epic) fights alone in duel againsthis opponent, or even more than one, by turns (The Tain, 1287 and following): since recent timeswe have proofs of massive combats in Bronze Age Europe (Jantzen et al. 2011), but even in thatcase there are not traces of any kind oforderedcombat. Close formations are based in the support

between individual warriors. Different actions of those individuals do not only benefit to the warriorhimself, but to the rest of its regiment: at the same time, an error made by one of them affected tothe rest. This change between heroic combat and close formation one had been usually related withthe typological changes. Smaller swords but stronger and in a high number, the same that spears,would be protected by a wall of shields, smaller than their predecessors because they are supported

by their neighbour protection, that would form a hulk which, moving forward, would squash theenemy, literally. At the same time, bows would be much more effective against big and heavyregiments than against single running warriors.

However, I think Snodgrass is right when he asserts how ease had been treated combat tacticevolution in early historical Greece (1964: 190). This author suggests a delay in the development ofclose formation, some decades or even centuries later than the weaponry changes, about 650 BC(1964: 202). He focus his line of argument in the chronology (and its interpretation) of different

potteries (1964: 197 and following). He also quoted Tyrtaeus (1964: 202), reasserting that date.However, I think we could consider Herodotus as the first one that, in some way, make reference tosome kind of close formation in an episode of the Illiad, specifically where the new Achilles' shieldis described (XVIII, 478-608). This specific episode had been discussed for long (e.g. BlancoFrejeiro, 1986; Hardie, 1985), but it could allowed us to talk about close formation about onecentury earlier than Snodgrass suggests, precisely when, according to him, the most of modernequipment appears (1964: 195). He says that the material is the prerequisite of the idea (ibid);

but that prerequisite (even if I am not agree it is a prerequisite) would have been done between the

first iron appearances in Greece and the second half of the second century.Ease in the research quoted before could be said even more right for the rest of Europe. In

that case we have no texts that proved that change from heroic to close formation; indeed, I thinkthere is no any source that could reassert that change, nor its permanence in the earlier way. So,main problem that we shall deal is lack of sources, and we should accept more open and wideresearch and hypothesis. It has been said by Randsborg that there were an equipment change (1995:165)), that one that in Greek world we relate to close formation, but in opinion of John and PatriciaCarman that movement has no prosperity (2005: 221). I suggest we could make an approach tocombat tactics of those peoples since Classical sources. It is true that the most of them are late, but

because the clear effectiveness of that tactic, I do not think it is probably a coming back to heroic

warfare.


4/14

So, the information gave us by Classical texts make clear differences between their combatstyle (as Greekphalanx and Roman regiments) and that from other European peoples. There is nodoubt about subjectivity of those authors, inside the dichotomy ofBarbarism against Civilization,

but those authors that gave us more detailed explanations showed us a similar picture. Caesar toldus how Britannic chariot warriors were left in combat alone while their charioteers wait for them ifit is needed to rescue them (Gal. IV.33). Tacitus, also about Britons, said that they were more used

to fight in woods than in open field (Agr. 36). It does not seem like there are traces of close combatneither on Cantabri (Cass. Dio H.R. XLIV, 5), or German peoples (Tac.Ann. 1.55 and following).Perhaps for those case of specific warfare it could be understood as an attempt to stop Roman warmachine, but generally shows a totally different style to understand warfare strategy.

There are some other sources to suspect the continuous use of open formation. Sincemythological sources, we could reassert that kind of open tactics following Dillon, who suggeststhat Tain Bo Cuailnge must be related with the Iron Age (1985), where Cu Chulain is a clearexample of heroic combat (of course, we should not forget the propagandistic role of myths andtales, that could make us a confusion between what it was and what it was expect to be). On theother hand, the same argument that Armit uses to explain elite warriors in Bronze Age, the specific

skill to brandish specialized weapons (2011: 510), could be understood for Iron Age changes; thefastchange quoted before, does not necessarily means a change to close formation tactics. However,it should be add that in some cases, as for Roman conquest of Hispania, there had been some casesrevised (Quesada: 2011), but I consider this case specially late, and peoples from Iberian coast had areally long contact with Phoenicians, Greeks and Carthaginians (e. g. Wagner, 2011). At the sametime, hillforts in Britain do not show some variability (common in earlier periods) in weapons(Sharpless, 1989: 86).

Perhaps we could relate that with their social structure. Even if following Aristotle (as it hasbeen followed) it could been made some some relationships between democracy and warfare (Pol.1254b), for our case Caesar told us that Gaulish commoners were treated as slaves (Gal. VI.13) again, we should understand the interested Caesar viewpoint -, which really faces with out conceptof relatively big group of warriors with some political power in the community. The role of CentralEurope in an hypothetical World System would be similar, and its social structure would not changeso much even with the arrival of a new technology: it is even possible that social hierarchies werereasserted more than democratized. Preservations of determined ideology as Bronze Age warriorhonour in Iron Age (Armit, 2011: 511) would not been probable without a preservation of thoseinstitutions that create and support it. All that of course would not deny a possible more democratic

period (or at least, not so centralized) in specific periods related with general instability, as theUrnfield archaeological culture or the Submycenaean period in Greece.

However, it should be explained changes in weapons, given that, as Armit had said (2011:507), they could be related with more deep changes. First one, the change in the raw material,should be explained as a result of competitiveness. Other ones, however, could be related with itsrelationship, in those European societies, with wealthier lands, precisely as some kind of prestigegood (even useful), in the same way that had been interpreted some different objects, as thechariots, with different uses in the core areas than in the periphery of the World-System (e. g.Moreno Arrastio, 2000).


5/14

We have seen that even if some of the typological changes are present in the wholecontinent, there are not traces of the combat style changes that clearly appears in Greece, even thereare some clues that point at just the opposite; furthermore, perhaps reluctance to adopt some ofthose changes weapons features should be related with a reluctance in adopting those combattactics, surely because social structure of those societies did not allow a cooperative method

between larger group of warriors, as hoplites represent . In this specific case shortage of sources did

not allow us to make a more detailed explanation. I think we should understand Iron Age Europecombat tactics as a transition phase between the heroic style and the close formation, where thecloser regions to the core area would adopt more similar tactics where the furthest regions wouldkeep their traditional order.

FIGURES:

Each figure is followed by their respective source.

Figure I

Naue II swords. I found this figure on JUNG, R. and MEHOFER, M. (2006) A Sword ofNaue II Type from Ugarit and the Historical Significance of Italian-type Weaponry in the Eastern

Mediterranean,p. 115. in Aegean Archaeology volume 8, Warsaw. Original source is thefollowing, quoted as Jung and Mehofer did: Swords, Naue II, type A, Enkomi, hoard find from well212. After J. LAGARCE, La cachette de fondeur aux pes (Enkomi 1967) et l.atelier voisin, in C.

F.-A. SCHAEFFER (ed.), Alasia I. Mission archologique d.Alasia IV (Paris 1971), fig. 18 : 1,4. 1= Lagarce fig. 18:4; 2 = Lagarce fig 18:1."


6/14

Figure II

Carp's Tongue swords, Nantes type. I found this figure in BRANDHERM, D. and

MOSKAL-DEL HOYO, M. (2010) Las espadas en lengua de carpa aspectos morfolgicos,metalrgicos y culturalesp. 437in Trabajos de Prehistoria volume 67 issue 2, Madrid. Originalsource is the following, quoted as Brandherm and Moskal-del Hoyo did: a Amboise; b Challans; cSafara; d Saint-Yrieix Vnat - (a segn [after] Bastien 1966: Fig. 3; b segn Verney 1990: Fig. 1,4; c segn Brandherm 2007a: Lm. 26, 164; d segn Coffyn et al. 1981: Lm. 4, 1)."

Figure III

"Comparison between (a) an Italic machaira (Gualdo Tadino), (b) a Greek kopis

(Prodromi) and (c) an Iberian falcata (Almedinilla). After Quesada 1997."found in Quesada-Sanz,F. (2011) "Guerrilleros in Hispania?"in Ancient Warfare, volume 2


7/14

Figure IV

A fragment of an Iron Age sword found in Essex, photo from the Portable AntiquitiesScheme website, http://finds.org.uk/database/artefacts/record/id/132409 (last access 12th April2012).

Figure V

A Bronze Age spear from Surrey, photo fromthe Portable Antiquities Scheme website,

http://finds.org.uk/database/artefacts/record/id/492775(last access 12th April 2012).
http://finds.org.uk/database/artefacts/record/id/132409http://finds.org.uk/database/artefacts/record/id/492775http://finds.org.uk/database/artefacts/record/id/492775http://finds.org.uk/database/artefacts/record/id/132409


8/14

Figure VI

An Iron Age spear from Somerset, photo from the Portable Antiquities Scheme website,http://finds.org.uk/database/artefacts/record/id/250855 (last access 12th April 2012). It could benoticed a more developed model.

Figure VII

Paintings from the well-known Chigi vase, photo from K.F. Johansen,Les Vases Sicyoniens,Paris, 1923, accessed through Wikipedia webpagehttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hoplites_Chigi_Vase.PNG (last access 12th April 2012)
http://finds.org.uk/database/artefacts/record/id/250855http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hoplites_Chigi_Vase.PNGhttp://finds.org.uk/database/artefacts/record/id/250855http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hoplites_Chigi_Vase.PNG


9/14

Figure VIII

Paintings from a pottery in the Athens Archaeological museum, photo by Grant Michell,accessed through Wikipedia webpagehttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hoplite_fight_from_Athens_Museum.jpg (last access 12th

April 2012)

Figure IX

Fragment of the Warriors Vasefrom Numantia. Photo by A. Plaza. Thefigure was found on MARCO SIMN,F. (2008), Images of Transition inProceedings of Prehistoric Society 74.The spear warrior could be observed inthe left, while the round shields aretypical of both warriors, even if they arenot in close formation with anybody.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hoplite_fight_from_Athens_Museum.jpghttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hoplite_fight_from_Athens_Museum.jpg


10/14

Figure X

An Iron Age arrowhead from Lancanshire,photo from the Portable Antiquities Schemewebsite,

http://finds.org.uk/database/artefacts/record/id/98685 (last access 12th April 2012). It could benoticed a more developed model.

Figure XI

Decoration from a dagger a pottery in the Historical Museum of Athens, unknown author,accessed through Wikipedia webpagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hunting_Mycenaean_Dagger.jpg (last access 12 th April 2012)


11/14

Figure XII

Rock carving from Bohuslan (Sweden), photo from Tanums Hllristningsmuseum Undersls, accessed through Swedish Rock Art Research Archive webpage, http://www.shfa.se/?lang=en-GB(last access 12th April 2012).

Figure XIII

Warrior Vase from Mycenae in the National Archaeological Museum from Athens,photo by Adam Carr, accessed through Wikipedia webpage

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Greec_ancient_vase.jpg (last access 12th April 2012)
http://www.shfa.se/?lang=en-GBhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Greec_ancient_vase.jpghttp://www.shfa.se/?lang=en-GBhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Greec_ancient_vase.jpg


12/14

Figure XIV

Chestery shield from the Iron Age, photofrom the British Museum found in its webpage

http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/highlight_image.aspx?

image=ps179137.jpg&retpage=21064 (last accessed 12th April 2012)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ALMAGRO GORBEA, M. (2010) "De la pica celta a la pica castellana. La literatura comonuevo campo de estudios de la Hispania cltica". Cuadernos de Arqueologa de la Universidad de

Navarra. N 18, p. 9-40.

ARMIT, I. (2011) Violence and society in the deep human past in British Journal of Criminology,volume 51. Oxford University Press.

BASTIEN, G. (1966)Quelques objets indits de lge duBronze prevenant des dragages de laLoire la Ville-aux-Dames et Amboise (I.-et-L.) in Bulletin de la Socit Prhistorique Franaise63: CCLXCCLXVI. Paris.

BLANCO FREJEIRO, A. (1986) "El escudo de Aquiles",Historia 16, n. 121, May. Madrid

BRADLEY, R (1984) The social foundations of prehistoric Britain: Themes and variations in thearchaeology of power (London).
http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/highlight_image.aspx?image=ps179137.jpg&retpage=21064http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/highlight_image.aspx?image=ps179137.jpg&retpage=21064http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/highlight_image.aspx?image=ps179137.jpg&retpage=21064http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/highlight_image.aspx?image=ps179137.jpg&retpage=21064


13/14

BRANDHERM, D. (2007) Las espadas del Bronce Final en la Pennsula Ibrica y Baleares"Prhistorische Bronzefunde IV, 16. Franz Steiner. Stuttgart.

CARMAN, J. and CARMAN, P. (2005)"War in prehistoric society: modern views of ancientviolence"in Warfare, Violence and Slavery in Prehistory edited by Parker Pearson, M. And ThorpeI.J.N. BAR International series 1374, Oxford.

COFFYN, A., GMEZ, J. MOHEN, J-P. (1981) Lapoge du bronze atlantique. Le dpt deVnat."in Lge du bronze en France 1. Picard. Paris.DREWS, R. (1994) The Endofthe Bronze Age. Changes in Warfare and the Catastrophe c.a.1200

BC. Princeton.

HARDIE, P. R. (1985), Imago mundi: Cosmological and Ideological Aspects of the Shield ofAchilles,Journal of Hellenic Studies, CV.

HARRISON, R.J., JACKSON, R. and NAPTHAN M. (1999)" A rich bell beaker burial fromWeelington Quarry, Marden in Herefordshire." in Oford Journal of Archaeology n18

JACKSON, K. (1964). The Oldest Irish Tradition: A window on the Iron Age. Cambridge.

JANTZEN, D. et al. (2011) A Bronze Age battlefield? Weapons and trauma in the Tollense Valley,north-eastern Germany in Antiquity 85. York.g

JUNG, R. and MEHOFER, M. (2006) A Sword of Naue II Type from Ugarit and the HistoricalSignificance of Italian-type Weaponry in the Eastern Mediterranean, in Aegean Archaeologyvolume 8, Warsaw.

KRISTIANSEN, K. (2002) The tale of the sword swords and swordfighters in Bronze AgeEurope in Oxford Journal of Archaeology, Volume 21, no. 4

KRISTIANSEN, K., (2009) "The emergence of warrior aristocracies in later European prehistoryand their long-term history (Chapter 11)"from Carman, J & Harding, A. (eds),Ancient Warfare

pp.175-189, Stroud, England: The History Press

LAGARCE, J. (1971) La cachette de fondeur aux pes (Enkomi 1967) et l.atelier voisin, in C.F.-A. SCHAEFFER (ed.), Alasia I. Mission archologique d.Alasia IV. Paris

MARCO SIMN, F. (2008), Images of Transition in Proceedings of Prehistoric Society 74.

London.MEDEROS MARTN, A. (1997) "Nueva cronologa del Bronce Final en el Occidente de Europa"in Complutum 8: 73-96. Madrid.

MORENO ARRASTIO, F. J. (2000) Tartessos, estelas, modelos pesimistas in Intercambio ycomercio preclsico en el Mediterrneo. Actas del I Coloquio del CEFYP, Madrid 1998, edited byFernndez Uriel P., Wagner C.G. and Lpez Pardo, F. Madrid.

QUESADA-SANZ, F. (1997) Montefortino type and related helmets in the Iberian Peninsula: astudy in archaeological context in Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies, Volume 8,

p.151-166. Oxford.

QUESADA-SANZ, F. (2011) "Guerrilleros in Hispania?"in Ancient Warfare, volume 2. Edited by


14/14

Karwansaray. Zutphen.

RANDSBORG, K. (1995) "Hjortspring: warfare and sacrifice in early Europe". Aarhus UniversityPress.

SHARPLES, N. (1989) "Warfare in the Iron Age of Wessex"from Scottish archaeological review 8

pp.79-89, Glasgow: University of Glasgow. Department of Archaeology

SNODGRASS, A., (1964) "Conclusions (Chapter 9)"from Snodgrass, A.,Early Greek armour andweaponspp.189-212, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press

TAYLOR, R.J. (1993) Hoards of the Bronze Age in SouthernBritain: analys is and inter pretation. BAR228. Oxford.

VERNEY. A. (1990) Le dpt de Challans (Vende). Bulletin de la Socit PrhistoriqueFranaise 87: 396-417. Paris.

WAGNER, C.G. (2011) "Fenicios en Tartessos: Interaccin o colonialismo?"in Fenicions inTartessos edited by lvarez Mart-Aguilar, M. BAR International Series 2245, Oxford.

ANCIENT SOURCES

ARISTOTLE. Aristotle in 23 Volumes, Vol. 21, translated by H. Rackham. Cambridge, MA, HarvardUniversity Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd. 1944. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0058%3Abook%3D6%3Asection%3D1317b(last accessed 12th April2012)

CASSIUS DIO. Dio's Roman History. Cassius Dio Cocceianus. Earnest Cary. Herbert Baldwin

Foster. William Heinemann, Harvard University Press. London; New York. 1914-. Keyboarding.http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text;jsessionid=010E8F192357C663DC3117FC4A4837CE?doc=Perseus%3atext%3a2008.01.0593(last accessed 12th April 2012)

JULIUS CAESAR. C. Julius Caesar. The Commentaries of Caesar. William Duncan. St. Louis.Edwards and Bushnell. 1856.http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text;jsessionid=010E8F192357C663DC3117FC4A4837CE?doc=Perseus%3atext%3a1999.02.0076(last accessed 12th April 2012)

TACITUS. Complete Works of Tacitus. Tacitus. Alfred John Church. William Jackson Brodribb.Sara Bryant. edited for Perseus. New York. : Random House, Inc. Random House, Inc. reprinted

1942.http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text;jsessionid=010E8F192357C663DC3117FC4A4837CE?doc=Perseus%3atext%3a1999.02.0078(last accessed 12th April 2012)

TIN BO CALNGE RECENSION I. CELT. Corpus of Electronic Texts Edition.http://www.ucc.ie/celt/published/T301012/index.html(last accessed 12th April 2012)

HOMER. Homer. The Iliad with an English Translation by A.T. Murray, Ph.D. in two volumes.Cambridge, MA., Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann, Ltd. 1924.http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text;jsessionid=010E8F192357C663DC3117FC4A4837CE?doc=Perseus%3atext%3a1999.01.0134(last accessed 12th April 2012)

TYRTAEUS. Poems, edited online by Gottweinn.dehttp://www.gottwein.de/Grie/lyr/lyr_tyrt_gr.php (last accessed 12th April)
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0058%3Abook%3D6%3Asection%3D1317bhttp://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0058%3Abook%3D6%3Asection%3D1317bhttp://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0058%3Abook%3D6%3Asection%3D1317bhttp://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text;jsessionid=010E8F192357C663DC3117FC4A4837CE?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2008.01.0593http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text;jsessionid=010E8F192357C663DC3117FC4A4837CE?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2008.01.0593http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text;jsessionid=010E8F192357C663DC3117FC4A4837CE?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0076http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text;jsessionid=010E8F192357C663DC3117FC4A4837CE?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0076http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text;jsessionid=010E8F192357C663DC3117FC4A4837CE?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0078http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text;jsessionid=010E8F192357C663DC3117FC4A4837CE?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0078http://www.ucc.ie/celt/published/T301012/index.htmlhttp://www.ucc.ie/celt/published/T301012/index.htmlhttp://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text;jsessionid=010E8F192357C663DC3117FC4A4837CE?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0134http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text;jsessionid=010E8F192357C663DC3117FC4A4837CE?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0134http://www.gottwein.de/Grie/lyr/lyr_tyrt_gr.phphttp://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0058%3Abook%3D6%3Asection%3D1317bhttp://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0058%3Abook%3D6%3Asection%3D1317bhttp://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text;jsessionid=010E8F192357C663DC3117FC4A4837CE?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2008.01.0593http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text;jsessionid=010E8F192357C663DC3117FC4A4837CE?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2008.01.0593http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text;jsessionid=010E8F192357C663DC3117FC4A4837CE?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0076http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text;jsessionid=010E8F192357C663DC3117FC4A4837CE?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0076http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text;jsessionid=010E8F192357C663DC3117FC4A4837CE?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0078http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text;jsessionid=010E8F192357C663DC3117FC4A4837CE?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0078http://www.ucc.ie/celt/published/T301012/index.htmlhttp://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text;jsessionid=010E8F192357C663DC3117FC4A4837CE?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0134http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text;jsessionid=010E8F192357C663DC3117FC4A4837CE?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0134http://www.gottwein.de/Grie/lyr/lyr_tyrt_gr.php

Date post:	05-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	tono-gomez-rincon
View:	218 times
Download:	0 times

AAP323 Endterm

Documents