Was Tacitus right? On the existence of hitting weapons of organic materials amongst the Balt tribes

Abstract

The article is meant as a commentary to the reference in Tacitus (Germania 45,3) to ‘fustis’, i.e., a non-metal trauma weapon of the Baltic Aestii who have been identified with the Dollkeim-Kovrovo Culture. The word fustis was understood by the Romans as a straight or a wavy stick. From the surviving Roman soldiers’ grave-stones, the fustis appears to have been used as a coercive measure, in restraining an unruly crowd or during tax collecting. The written and the archaeological sources are analysed for evidence on the use of cudgels/clubs from the metal age. Examples are invoked from ethnography of cudgel use in hunting and combat (from a distance and at close range). The Balt fustis has been interpreted also as a battle axe. The author challenges this view stressing that in writing of the fustis Tacitus makes it plain that it was not made of metal. An argument is made for the use of fustis as a hunting cudgel, something that is confirmed in the West Balt Barrow Culture, the predecessor of the Dollkeim-Kovrovo Culture. One explanation is that when Tacitus wrote his account the latter was still at an early stage when conservative cultural features presumably were still strong; alternatively the information about fustis is an archaism drawn from the period of the West Balt Barrow Culture.