Lably
Skip to content

Männerbund

Indo-European youthful warrior-bands

  • 23 min read
  • 3 chapters

Related on Lably

Through Nazism

Scholars such as Kim McCone (1987) and Gerhard Meiser (2002) have theorised the existence of the Männerbund based on later Indo-European traditions and myths that feature links between landless young males, perceived as an age-class not yet fully integrated into the community of the married men; their service in war-bands sent away for part of the year in the wild, then defending the host society for the rest of the year; their mystical self-identification with wolves and dogs as symbols of death, lawlessness, and warrior fury; and the idea of a liminality between vulnerability and death on one side, and youth and adulthood on the other side.

Historiography

Terminology

In Indo-European studies, the modern German term Männerbund (literally 'alliance of men') has been traditionally used to refer to the concept. The term was first coined by German academics in the early 20th century to refer to a type of war-band among the Germanic peoples, and was later adopted by international scholars to describe similar groups in other cultures, particularly within Indo-European traditions.

Some writers, including Harry Falk, Jan N. Bremmer and Stefan Zimmer, argue that it can be misleading since the war-bands used in reconstructions were made up of adolescent males, not grown-up men. Other terms have been proposed as preferable alternatives, including Bruderschaft ('fraternity, brotherhood'), Jugendbünde ('youth group'), Jungmannschaft ('young [group of] men'), and 'black youths'.

Invention of the concept

The concept was developed in the early 20th century by scholars such as Heinrich Schurtz (1902), Hans Blüher (1917), Lily Weiser-Aall (1927), Georges Dumézil (1929), Richard Wolfram (1932), Robert Stumpfl (1934), Otto Höfler (1934), Stig Wikander (1938), and Henri Jeanmaire (1939).

Early research on the Männerbund begins with Heinrich Schurtz's Altersklassen und Männerbünde (1902), which emphasised the role of men's secret societies in traditional cultures. Schultz's work, together with Lily Weiser-Aall's ideas of male association among early Germanic peoples, later shaped German and Austrian scholarship, led by Otto Höfler, on Germanic and Scandinavian initiation rites, often grounded in assumptions of Germanic continuity. From the late 1930s, Höfler's concepts of secret cultic societies also informed Scandinavian scholarship, including that of Stig Wikander, who posited comparable institutions in ancient Indian and Iranian contexts.

These theories circulated within German Völkisch movements in the period 1900–1920s due to the mystification of Germanic cults of the dead, then within Nazi intellectual circles during the 1930–1940s. Recent research has highlighted the far-right ideological foundations of most of the early studies. Höfler, in particular, was affiliated with the SS Ahnenerbe, and his theories were generally received favourably by the Nazis. Owing to these associations, Männerbünd theories fell into academic disrepute after the Second World War.

Modern research

From the 1980s onward, the Männerbund theory has been the subject of renewed critical examination within Indo-European studies, with major contributions by Harry Falk (1986), Kim McCone (1987), Bruce Lincoln (1991), Priscilla K. Kershaw (2000), Michael P. Speidel (2002), Gerhard Meiser (2002) and James P. Mallory (2006). Scholars have identified possible survivals of Männerbund-type institutions in Germanic, Indo-Iranian, Greek, Roman, Celtic, and Balto-Slavic traditions, although debate persists over which features can legitimately be assigned to the Proto-Indo-European period (c. 4500–2500 BCE) and which result from later diffusion among Indo-European-speaking groups. While the term *kóryos itself can be reliably traced to the Proto-Indo-European language, it is also not clear if it should be associated to the concept of Männerbund.

Kim McCone, whose 1987 study is often credited with initiating modern research on the subject, argues that there is "sufficient lexical and certainly structural correspondences to reconstruct a [Proto-Indo-European] 'war-band' comprising an age set of young unmarried and landless (but free) men who lived off the land, engaged in predatory activities, had a particular association with wolves (less so, dogs or bears), were famous for their berserkr-like behaviour in battle, and might form the 'shock troops' in military engagements".

On the basis of ethnographic evidence, Gerhard Meiser (2002) summarised several recurring features of youthful war-bands in Indo-European traditions. These groups consisted of adolescent males initiated together as an age cohort, typically from prominent families. They were sent away to live outside their own society for a number of years as landless youths, possessing nothing but their weapons. In this liminal condition, they were permitted to raid, steal, and take sexual license with women of other groups without incurring the legal penalties they would face at home, while their activities focused on military training, heroic recitation, and attacks on outsiders. They wore animal skins, adopted wolf- or dog-like behaviour, and often bore names with canine or lupine elements, reflecting symbolic ties to death, liminality, fecundity, and sexual license.

Criticism and limits

Critics such as Stefan Zimmer are sceptical of attempts to derive a unified system from sources that span different periods. He argues that the evidence used in reconstructions of the Männerbund refers to a range of distinct institutions, all loosely connected to the broader notion of a 'war band'. According to Zimmer, such groups "may well have been part of [Proto-Indo-European] social life, and may be postulated with good reason, but this assumption can in no way be considered probable, as the sources simply are insufficient to bear the weight of argument needed".

J. P. Mallory also cautions that youthful war-bands cannot be reconstructed as a static, millennia-old institution, an issue reflected in the wide variation of the comparative evidence, and notes the lack of archaeological data for dog-identified warriors, a gap that recent research has sought to address. Mallory writes that "on the basis of Celtic-Germanic comparisons, one can posit the specific institution of the war-band in at least the western periphery of the Indo-European world. To what extent it may be ascribed to a broader region or an earlier antiquity in Indo-European depends on what further evidence can be adduced. The existence of cognate terms in Baltic, Greek and Iranian would at least indicate that the [word] *korios itself is of Proto-Indo-European antiquity".

According to Mikkel Nørtoft, it is possible that the link between young male warrior institutions and dogs attributed by some scholars to the Proto-Indo-European period (4500–2500 BCE) may have emerged only after the Corded Ware period, spreading with chariotry and horseback riding from around 2000 BCE in connection with the Sintashta, Andronovo, and Srubnaya cultures. In this model, the historical and mythological accounts of dog-warrior groups may represent later cultural diffusion across the Indo-European-speaking world through expanding long-distance trade and marriage networks among elites.

Sign in to keep reading

2 more chapters are free with a Lably account.

More in Archaeology