During a recent visit, I had the opportunity to take a few photos at the Archäologische Staatssammlung, München (the Bavarian State Archaeological Collection in Munich). Unfortunately, the majority of their Roman thru Early Mediaeval artifacts were not currently on display, only a few pieces being shown while that area of the museum is under going renovations. Their bronze collection is fabulous however, and I throughly enjoyed myself. My apologies for the quality of these photos, I am not terribly adept with a camera under optimal conditions and photgraphing objects through a reflective display case, without a flash, was a trying process indeed.
I hope these are of interest!
[ Linked Image ]
[ Linked Image ]
[ Linked Image ]
[ Linked Image ]
[ Linked Image ]
[ Linked Image ]
[ Linked Image ]
[ Linked Image ]
[ Linked Image ]
[ Linked Image ]

and a few more...
[ Linked Image ]
[ Linked Image ]
[ Linked Image ]
[ Linked Image ]
[ Linked Image ]

Thx a lot for these pics!
My favourites are the Hallstatt-sword (the one with the oversized "pommel") and the Gladius blade. I'm surprised about the good condition of that Gladius-blade. The spine on that sword is almost invisible.

Interesting that you took a pic of the "Goldhelm". There's still a debate among archeologists about how these pieces were actually used. Most likely they were worn by priests during ceremonies.

Thanks for the pictures! C.L. Kirk wherever you are you definitely need to add some of those images to your collection...

I thought it was a creative way to show the tops of the pommels using mirrors.

Very neat. Thank you! I rather like that axe with a scythe handle.

And also, I'm going to jump on the "what IS that thing?" bandwagon with Steve. Wolfgang's comment seems to have given us the name, but can you tell us a little more about the piece, please?

Egads! I went there not but two years ago, and remember seeing 'that thing'. It's in the 'gold room'. Yet for the life of me I can't remember what it was, though the back of my head says it has some sort of ritual significance.

Perhaps it was the royal dunce cap? *grin*

I do remember, though, they had a great Slavic section which had a few axes and a number of glass rings that I found very interesting.

I also remember a sword that had a pinned handle like a falcata.

If only the camera hadn't run out of power before I got there. Bah!

Here's some information on "What is that?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_hat

Unfortunately the english wikipedia site has very little information on the Goldhut from Ezelsdorf. That's the one on the pic.

However, here's what the scientists found out: The marks on the hat are actually a calendar. It's quite a complex system as you can see here (unfortunately only in German)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/de/0/06...ktion1.JPG

All three hats found in Germany and the one in France share the same calendar-functions.

It's still debatable on whether these things are actually hats worn by priests during ceremonies. They could have been mounted on a thick pole as well. Well, lots of mysteries there ;)

I wouldn't be surprised if someone would come up with a new interpretation in the not too distant future. Most interpretations change as soon as new evidence is available.

Some scientists see the Goldhats in connection with the Nebra Skydisk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebra_skydisk

Thanks for the links Wolfgang! There wasn't much information provided on the "hat" by the museum itself, but I included the photo along with the weapons simply because it is one of the museum's better known artifacts and one certainly worth seeing.
While I'm neither an archaeologist nor an anthropologist, it would have been my inclination to believe that these pieces would have been mounted on a pole or stump rather than worn. The base and opening of this particular "hat," for example, is very round and does not appear to have been shaped with a human skull in mind. However, the oldest of the known "hats," that found in Schifferstadt, apparently had the remains of what is taken to be a chin-strap attached to it, and most archaeologists have no accepted that these objects were in fact worn, at least occasionally.
As Wolfgang says, it would not be surprising in the least were this interpretation to change as new evidence comes to light. Thanks again!

I dug out this old thread to share one more picture with you.
On one of the older pictures you can see a smaller seax. These days it is displayed in a special exhibition, so it is easier to get a closer view.
Note the runes on the blade.

Enjoy. :)

---

 Attachment: 184.84 KB
[ Download ]

 Attachment: 249.09 KB
[ Download ]

I study in Munich and I can visit this museum and others every day for free. If you need other photos or images from a different angle, just send me a PM. With some preparation and a reasonable explanantion I can again visit the archives. The Landesamt für Denkmalpflege is also nearby where I can get drawings of many things found in Bavaria, especially if they are considered important. Please don't ask my why in the 21th century we have so much manpower devoted to detailed drawing, colouring or shading and inking archaeological finds and features, while we still have no guideline or idea on how to archive digital data.

[quote="Arne Focke"]

Kurt Scholz wrote:

Please don't ask my why in the 21th century we have so much manpower devoted to detailed drawing, colouring or shading and inking archaeological finds and features, while we still have no guideline or idea on how to archive digital data.

As an archaeologist I can answer part of that. In drawings you can bring things out more clearly which might be overlooked in a digital picture. For example the runes on this seax could be made more prominent to draw the eye towards them. Very helpful if you are working on the subject.
[quote]

As a soon to be archaeologist, I say that we are simply overdoing it. I totally agree that drawings can be a very useful way to explain an object. In theory that's quite a good approach, but there are reasonable limits and the current practice is often beyond reason. Making drawings of features and afterwards painting them in uniform brown on a table far away from the feature is just one example of what goes wrong.
Long talk short, go to a foreign European country, show their archaeologists how documentation is really handled here and look at their reactions.

We are really getting offtopic. If you want further discussion we should do it via PM.