Z IRI DAVA STUDIA ARCHAEOLOGICA 27 2013 MUSEUM ARAD Z IRI DAVA STUDIA ARCHAEOLOGICA 27 2013 Editura MEGA Cluj‑Napoca 2013 MUSEUM ARAD EDITORIAL BOARD Editor‑in‑chief: Peter Hügel. Editorial Assistants: Florin Mărginean, Victor Sava, George P. Hurezan. EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD M. Cârciumaru (Târgoviște, Romania), S. Cociș (Cluj‑Napoca, Romania), F. Gogâltan (Cluj‑Napoca, Romania), S. A. Luca (Sibiu, Romania), V. Kulcsár (Szeged, Hungary), J. O'Shea (Michigan, USA), K. Z. Pinter (Sibiu, Romania), I. Stanciu (Cluj‑Napoca, Romania), I. Szatmári (Békéscsaba, Hungary). In Romania, the periodical can be obtained through subscription or exchange, sent as post shipment, from Museum Arad, Arad, Piata G. Enescu 1, 310131, Romania. Tel. 0040–257–281847. ZIRIDAVA STUDIA ARCHAEOLOGICA Any correspondence will be sent to the editor: Museum Arad Piata George Enescu 1, 310131 Arad, RO e‑mail: ziridava2012@gmail.com he content of the papers totally involve the responsibility of the authors. Layout: Francisc Baja, Florin Mărginean, Victor Sava ISSN: 1224–7316 Editura Mega | www.edituramega.ro e‑mail: mega@edituramega.ro Contents Radu Pop, Călin Ghemiş Contributions to the Knowledge of Parietal Art in North‑Western Transylvania. the Discoveries from Ileanda (Sălaj County) 7 Florin Gogâltan, Victor Sava, Lucian Mercea Sântana “Cetatea Veche”. Metal and power 21 Péter Polgár Anzeichen der Metallbearbeitung bei einer Fundstelle in der Gemarkung von Sopron 73 Cristian Ioan Popa A Bronze‑Age Hoard Discovered in Ampoiţa (Alba County) 81 Victor Sava, Dan Matei Prehistoric and Second‑fourth‑century Discoveries on the Present‑day Territory of Aradu Nou District, in the City of Arad 89 Cosmin Mihail Coatu, Adrian Socaci Des monnaies antiques appartenant a une collection privee 123 Iosif Vasile Ferencz Dacian Objects from Ardeu in the Collection of the MNIR 135 Cristian Constantin Roman Landmarks in the Development of Carthographic Representations of the Dacian Settlement in Ardeu (Municipality of Balşa, Hunedoara County) 145 Alexandru Berzovan Considerations on “Troianul” in Ţara Zarandului 161 Petru Ureche he Bow and Arrow during the Roman Era 183 Erwin Gáll Two 10–11th century arrow‑heads from the environs of Kotori/Cattaro – Herceg Novi/Castelnuovo. Archaeology (?) and art‑dealing in the Balkans 197 Erwin Gáll From the fortress of Stephen I (997–1038) to the centre of ‘lord Gelou’. Dăbâca (germ.: Dobeschdorf; hung.: Doboka) in the nationalist myths in the 20th Century. 203 Luminiţa Andreica Implications of a tibia and ibula fracture in the secondary adaptation of the skeleton of an individual discovered in Nădlac “Lutărie” (Arad County) 247 Florin Mărginean, George P. Hurezan, Augustin Mureșan he Medieval Church in the Village of Secaș (Arad County) and its Vestiges 253 Florin Ciulavu he Monetary Reform of Vladislav II of Walachia (1447–1448; 1448–1456). Survey of research 259 Corina Toma A Monetary Hoard Discovered in the Settlement of Cristur (Bihor County). Aspects on the Monetary circulation of halers in Crişana during the Second Half of the Sixteenth Century 279 Abbreviations 299 The Bow and Arrow during the Roman Era* Petru Ureche Abstract: he bow and arrow are not typical weapons to the Romans, but the lexibility of the Roman military system and its easiness to adapt made their adoption possible. In the Orient, archers were respected ighters, as the bow and arrow were used by those rich enough to aford expensive and eicient composite bows, which they usually used from horseback. In the western provinces of the Roman Empire the bow and arrow were typical weapons to lower social groups. In these areas people used simple bows, less eicient but easier to build and cheaper to buy. Keywords: bow, arrow, simple bow, composite bow, shooting range. As other weapons, the bow and arrow were not typical to the Romans, but were introduced to the Roman army under the pressure of populations that required diferent tactical approaches1. he bow was the easiest and oldest solution of transferring potential energy stored in the mate‑ rials employed in its construction into kinetic energy, with the goal of propelling a projectile faster than is possible with the human arm2. According to the production technique and the materials employed, bows can be classiied into three main categories: simple bows, made of a single wooden piece, tied with a string made of leather or sinew; bows strengthened with sinew in order to prevent them from braking and so as to increase their eiciency; and composite or relex bows that combine layers of horn, wood, and sinew in order to ease a more eicient transfer of energy stored in the bow3. Among them, the simple and composite types were used in the Roman army, while specialists believe that bows reinforced with sinew were only used in the Near Orient4. All bows were built in order to resist both tension and compression forces and to return to the original position without signiicant distortion during release. Energy was thus eiciently transferred from the bow’s limbs and the string into the arrow5. he simple bow (Pl. 1/1) isone of the irst man‑made mechanisms, fascinating through the fact that its simplicity generates a complex behavior6. his bow is typical through generating a slow velocity of the arrow as compared to the composite bow, and thus has a restricted shooting range7. In order for a bow to function at an optimum, the wood it is made of must possess increased elas‑ ticity, lexibility, and durability8. he mechanical properties of the simple bow show some weaknesses, mainly due to the characteristics of the ibers in the wood employed in its construction. hus, in the case of a bow with limbs long enough for a good shot, the energy necessary for the limbs to detention requires more of the bow’s potential energy than in the case of a composite bow with shorter limbs9. hus, due to the oscillations of cord and limbs, the energy transfer into the arrow is ineicient10. he simple bow gradually looses in power over long use, due to the properties of the wooden ibers to stretch under continuous pressure. In order to preserve the strength of such a bow for a longer period, one has to apply as little as possible pressure upon the wood. his was achieved by bending the ends to * 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 English translation: Ana M. Gruia. Țentea 2012, 101. Miller et al.1986, 180; Paterson 1966, 78; French et al. 2006, 533. Miller et al. 1986, 179–180; Coulston 1985, 226; Feugère 1993, 212. Rouault 1977, 63, 141. Miller et al. 1986, 180. French et al. 2006, 533. Xenophon, Anabasis, 3.3.7. Cartwright, Taylor 2008, 77, 82. Paterson 1984, 109 apud Miller et al. 1986, 180. Klopsteg 1947, apud Miller et al. 1986, 180. ZIRIDAVA, STUDIA ARCHAEOLOGICA, 27, p. 183–196 184 ◆ Petru Ureche the front and maintaining a minimum distance between the bow’s string and body11. Also, when not used, the bow had to be unstrung. It is diicult to shoot accurately with a simple bow, even more if it is a short one, since even the smallest variation in pulling the string triggers signiicant variation in the arrow’s light and speed12. hus, in order to reach the same result in diferent moments with a simple bow, one needs diferent shooting angles and string stretching lengths. his reduced its eiciency, especially when the goal wasto hit a certain spot repeatedly. For this reason it may be said that in the case of simple bows used during Antiquity, precision was rather an exception than a rule13. In order to shoot an arrow at a satisfying speed and over an acceptable distance14, a wooden bow must measure over 180 cm in length; only thus isit capable of sustaining a strong extension of the string. Nevertheless, this means the archer has to adopt a standing position and this reduces to minimum the possibility of performing tactical maneuvers15. Simple bows were employed mainly by archers recruited from the western provinces of the Empire, where they were part of the lower social classes. In the eastern provinces, the archers were respected ighters, many of the rich becoming mounted archers and thus afording expensive, eicient bows. Also, the oriental populations beneited from extensive training required by the use of bows both on horseback and on foot16. Oriental archers used “Turkish‑type” composite bows17, the most eicient ones of the time18 that provided superior penetration power and were thus more efective despite their smaller size as compared to simple bows19. For this reason, composite bows were adopted by several populations of archers20. he composite bow (Pl. 2/1–3) transfers potential energy more eiciently to the arrow, since no energy is lost through the oscillation of the limbs which is typical to the simple bow. Also, while shooting a relex bow, the place where the bow is held remains rigid, thus providing increased accuracy and luency of action21. he composite bow can be drawn easier than the simple bow, thus more power can be obtained with less efort than with a simple bow having the same dimensions22. his characteristic provides the archer with the possibility of choosing between two tactics: throwing lighter projectiles over longer distances or shooting heavier projectiles that have an increased piercing capacity23. Making and using such a bow required superior skills for both the bowyer and the archer24. An archer needs regular training in order to use a bow eiciently and with complete control25. When training, an archer maintains his pose after shooting and watches the arrow until it reaches its target, but while ighting he has no time to loose between the shots26. he stronger the bow, the more skill was required of the archer27. Besides the central part made of a slender pieceof wood, reinforcement elements were also used in the construction of composite bows, made of (mainly) deer antler and bone. he complementary properties of the materials used in the composition of the diferent segments of the bow, connected through gluing and tying, provide much bigger force of propulsion than that of other types of bows28. hus, sinew withstanding intense bending and antler withstanding intense 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Grayson 1961, ig. 1a apud Miller et al. 1986, 181. Milleret al. 1986, 181. Milleret al. 1986, 181. Ureche 2010, 36. McEven 1978, 188 apud Miller et al. 1986, 182. Bradbury 1985, 12. Peddie 1996, 90. Ruscu, Ruscu 1996, 216. Bârcă 2009, 274. Herodot, he Histories, 1.73 – on the Skythians using it; Pausanias, Description of Greece, 1.21.5–1.21.6. Paterson 1966, 72–73; McEwen, McLeod1986, apud Miller et al. 1986, 187. Coulston 1985, 247. Miller et al. 1986, 187. Bradbury 1985, 12. Paterson 1966, 69. McAllister 1993, 15. Bivar 1972, 283. Feugère 1993, 211; Dixon, Southern 1992, 53. he Bow and Arrow during the Roman Era ◆ 185 compression are connected on the opposite parts of the wooden core. he latter is made of non‑resinous, not very hard wood, marked with grooves29 dueto which the adhesive adhered better30. It was too thin to contribute signiicantly to the bow’s power, but provided the surface on which the sinew and antler elements were glued and aligned in order to store and then release a maximum of energy31. Diferent types of wood could be used for the diferent sections of the bow’s core32. he composite bow appeared in areas with insuicient wood to build simple bows and with a wide practice of horseback riding, thus requiring a type of bow with increased maneuverability33. hus, the use of antler and bone became necessary in the attempt to build stronger bows. Sometimes, the use of such materials led to the production of larger bows, since the bone would have turned the wooden frame too rigid34. Usually, composite bows included seven bone items, two at each tip and three at the grip. hose at the ends were diferent in size, with the upper larger than the lower. he reinforcement elements on the grip were placed one on each side and one in the inner part of the bow. he use of bone and antler made the grip and the ends remain ix while the ballistics was taken over by the extremely lexible limbs35. As each layer was added, the bow was left aside until the adhesive dried completely before the next layer was applied, so as the entire manufacturing process could take more than a year36. he adhesive employed was very lexible and did not granulated in time; it was obtained from dried ish swimming bladders37. Antler elements were glued during winter, when the low temperatures and elevated humidity delayed the drying of the adhesive and provided better gluing. On the other hand, since the ibers obtained from sinew cannot be successfully applied on cold weather, this was usually done during the warm spring days38. Since the setting and removal of the string on a relex bow was a delicate procedure, as the limbs might become twisted, bowyers were often the onesto set the string as well39. his was possible since bows of this type did not deform and did not lose power even if left strung for a long period40. For the setting of the string on a relex bow the latter was sometimes heated in order to become more lexible41. During the same process, the limbs of a relex bow were adjusted so that it became an extremely eicient weapon, with increased accuracy and strength42. hus, with the string set in the beginning of a campaign, the bow was ready to be used even during surprise attacks43. Composite bows were expensive by comparison to other bows, since certain types of wood, antler, and bone were required and dueto the lengthy production process that might have lasted up to ten years for an excellent bow44. Dueto the long time required in the making of a bow, one can suspect that they were made in series of several hundreds45. here are two main types of relex bows: Scythian and Hunnish. hese were bows with double relex, with the ends curved towards the shooting direction46, while the grip was straight or a little curved47. he Hunnish bow included bone reinforcements in its construction, while the Scythian one had seven wooden reinforcements48. 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Balfour 1897, 212. Paterson 1966, 70. Miller et al. 1986, 182. Paterson 1966, 70. Miller et al. 1986, 184. Bârcă 2009, 276. Bârcă 2009, 276. Paterson 1966, 74–75 ; Klopsteg 1947, Latham, Paterson 1970, 8,McEwen, McLeod1986 apud Milleret al. 1986, 184. Miller et al. 1986, 184; Paterson 1966, 72 Paterson 1966, 74–75. Paterson 1966, 76; Klopsteg 1947, 90 apud Miller et al. 1986, 185. Unlike the simple bow.Miller et al. 1986, 184. Paterson 1966, 76, 82. Paterson 1966, 76–77. Miller et al. 1986, 185. Anglim 2007, 82. McEwen 1978 apud Miller et al. 1986, 182. Bârcă 2009, 274. Bârcă 2009, 275. Bârcă 2009, 275. 186 ◆ Petru Ureche When the bow was not used, the string could be detached in order for the wood to preserve its natural curvature. he unstrung bow is oriented opposite the curvature, as seen in the case of the Parthian bow from Yrzi49 (Pl. 3/1). he bow could be stringed in the beginning of campaign or in the beginning of a battle50. For this, in the case of Hunnish‑type bows (with bone and antler reinforce‑ ments), the archers bent their bow on their knees51. In order to attach the string to the other type of relex bow, to the Scythian one, the bow was bent by pushing one hand against the upper end, while the stability of the lower part was ensured against one’s leg. With the other hand, the archer would push the string loop over the reinforcement’s string groove on the upper limb. A depiction of this stringing method decorates a vessel found inside the Scythian tumulus in Kul’ Oba (Kerci, Crimea)52(Pl. 4/1). In Roman‑era archaeological contexts, the only elements preserved from the structure of bows are those made of bone or antler, labeled under the generic term of bow reinforcements53(Pl. 3/2). hey have been grouped, according to where they were attached to the wooden core, in two catego‑ ries: central and terminal reinforcements54. he size and shape of bow reinforcements depends on the size of the bow to which they were attached55. hus, long, wide, and less curved reinforcements were employed on large bows, used by pedestrian archers56, while the smaller and more curved ones were used on smaller bows, employed by horse archers57. he fact is also conirmed by the discoveries made inside the bow making workshop in Micia58, where the two types of reinforcements were used by the same military unit, the cohors II FlaviaCommagenorumSagittariaEquitata that included both foot soldiers and cavalrymen59. It is also possible that reinforcements of diferent size were used in the composition of the same bow60. Arrows are the most abundant archaeological inds connected to archers61, dueto the large number of arrows used and therefore lost. he iron head is the part usually preserved, but in the eastern provinces, where the climate allowed for better preservation conditions, entire arrows were also found. An arrow consists of head, shaft, and letching62. An arrow head is usually made of metal. It seems that the Huns used arrows with bone heads that shattered on impact and could be extremely dangerous against enemies not wearing armor63. For the Roman period, the most often encountered arrow heads are those three‑lobe‑shaped in section64, a type spread by oriental archers in the entire Empire besides the composite bow65, One sometimes inds also arrows with four‑lobed‑section‑heads, lat heads, pyramidal heads, and heads for ire arrows(Pl. 1/2). he production of three‑lobed arrow heads was extremely complex and required highly special‑ ized masters. he process included twelve steps66 and thus required an average of 105 minutes for each item67. Two methods were employed for attaching the arrow head to the shaft: with the aid of a cap(Pl. 1/2 a, c) or a socket tang(Pl. 1/2 b, d, e). 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 Coulston 1985, 222, ig. 2. Yadin 1963, 63–64, apud Miller et al. 1986, 181. Feugère 1993, 212. Bârcă 2009, 275. Coulston 1985, 223. Petculescu 2002, 765. Țentea 2007, 155. Coulston 1985, 245–246. Dixon, Southern 1992, 53. Petculescu 2002, 765. Petculescu 2002, 789. Bârcă 2009, 276. Miller et al. 1986, 189. McAllister 1993, 20. Ammianus Marcellinus 31.2.8–31.2.10; Coulston 1985, 268. Țentea 2012, 108; Pauli Jensen 2009, 370. Coulston 1985, 264; Țentea 2007, 154. Zanier, Guggenmos 1995, 21, Abb. 2, 3. Zanier, Guggenmos 1995, 22. he Bow and Arrow during the Roman Era ◆ 187 he best materials for making the shaft are rush68, reed69, corneal or pine tree wood70, and bulrush. hese materials combine the essential characteristics of an arrow; they are light, rigid, elastic71 and aero‑ dynamic. About rushand reed, a Persian manual states that they must be mature, dried, modeled, and strengthened72. Elasticity is extremely important since an arrow’s shaft must be able to curve beside the bow when it is released, but then to return to the shooting line in order to reach the target accurately73(Pl. 2/4). Because when it is made of rush or reed the shaft can be very light and there is a danger it might get carried away by the wind74, the tip must be provided with a weight75. In the case of arrows discov‑ ered in Egyptian tombs, this was ensured by ebony tips76, while stone or bone arrowheads were used in the Orient, ca. 6000 B.C., inserted into a wooden cane and attached to the tip of the arrow. In the case of arrows employed during the Roman period, the necessary weight was usually accomplished with the aid of the metal head, and in cases this was insuiciently heavy, the tip was inserted into a wooden cane that was attached to the shaft77. his type of arrow was also used in order toprevent the shaft from shattering on impact with a target wearing armor78 or in order to make it more diicult to extract from a wound. An arrow’s letchings were attached to the back of the shaft, near the notch where the string was ixed and had the role of providing the arrow with speed and stability during light, making the hit more precise and stronger79. In all preserved antique examples that are known so far, the letchings are made of feathers80. Arrows can be of diferent size and weight and can have diferent shafts and heads, according to the archer’s strength, the manner in which the bow is employed, the target’s vulnerability81, the shooting range, and the archer’s purpose82. Archers carried several types of arrows which they used according to circumstances. hus, they employed heavier arrows in order to penetrate armor and lighter ones for harassment from a distance83. Since archers and bows are of diferent size, the arrows as well must be adapted for each archer. For this reason, one can presume that each archer had a stock of arrows made especially for him, and when they ran out he tried to use standard‑size arrows or to use/reuse those shot by the enemy84. Since a large number of arrows was shot even during short battles85, very large quantities of reed or rush were needed; one can presume that such plants were cultivated in areas with archers86. From a purely mechanical perspective, the maximum eiciency of a bow is reached when used with a very heavy arrow, capable of taking over the entire propelling force of the string. his arrow did not cover a large distance, but its impact when hitting the target was signiicant; if the head was well chosen, it could penetrate armor. A light arrow, even if reaching higher speed, cannot take over the entire energy transmitted by the string87. hus, depending on the archer’s goal, he could be armed with a smaller bow and a light arrow when required to hit a target located farther away and when he needs fast arrows, or a larger bow and a heavy arrow when ighting against an enemy wearing armor and thus needing an arrow with increased force of penetration88. 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 Ascham 1869, 116; Mason 1893, Moseley 1792, 115–119, apud Miller et al. 1986, 188. Plinius, 16.65. Pausanias, Description of Greece, 1.21.5–1.21.6. Elmer 1952, 264, apud Miller et al. 1986, 188. McEwen 1974, 84 apud Miller et al.1986, 185. Paterson 1984, 44, apud Miller et al.1986, 188. Plinius, 16.65. Mason 1893, 660–661, Heath, Chiara 1977, 47 – 50, apud Miller et al.1986, 188. McLeod 1982, 55, Rouault 1977, 63, apud Miller et al.1986, 188. Miller et al.1986, 188. Coulston 1985, 268. Plinius, 16.65. McAllister 1993, 22. Coulston 1985, 264. Miller et al.1986, 187. Paterson 1984, 44; Heath 1980; McEwen 1974 apud Milleret al.1986, 188. Xenophon, Anabasis, 3.4.17; Coulston 1985, 270. Miller et al.1986, 188. Moens 1984, 24; Roth 1970, 156 apud Miller et al. 1986, 188. Paterson 1966, 80. Paterson 1966, 80–81. 188 ◆ Petru Ureche he strongest arrows were short, with narrow heads, meant to penetrate armor according to the same principle as the pilum89. In order for the arrow to reach its target, the archer had to pay attention that its trajectory was unobstructed and that the string would not catch at his equipment90. he bow sheath, quiver, (Pl. 2/4) and arrows are extremely important elements of an archer’s equipment. he bow sheath is an essential item in an archer’s equipment since both the string and the attached and glued wooden, bone, and antler parts can be destroyed by dampness. here is no direct proof of such sheaths having been used in the Roman army, but they are depicted on Sassanid and Parthian reliefs91. Among the Sassanid, the bow sheath was called kamandan92. he quiver, usually made of leather, was also very important, since it protected the arrow from becoming damp. In visual sources it is depicted as being cylindrical in shape among the Romans, carried on one’s back93, connected to the balteus, as seen on sculptural monuments (one funerary stone from Walbersdorf)94, in the case of soldiers on foot, while horse archers carried it by the right side of the saddle, behind the rider95, or at the waist96. Scythians and Parthians used a single sheath for both bow and arrows, called gorytos by the Greek97. Traces of quivers were found in Sarmatian tombs, as traces of leather, wood, or birch tree bark. hey were cylindrical in shape and painted or even deco‑ rated with bronze appliqués98. Quivers were also used by the Sassanid archers, who called it tirdan99. Another element of the archery equipment consisted of arm guards100. hey were used to protect the left arm from injuries that may result from releasing the cord. No material evidence of such elements being used by the Romans has been found, but they are depicted worn by archers on Trajan’s Column. he lack of archaeological remains might be explained by the fact they were made of organic materials101 or might be the result of certain materials having been wrongly identiied and erroneously attributed to other categories. Archery arm guards are mentions in the fourteenth line of the Rig‑Veda as gasatagna102. Vegetius mentions the fact that those archers for whom the armor was not a speciic element were forced to wear it since they were unable to carry shields103. It is possible that the archers were also equipped with lances, in order to reduce their vulnerability when facing the danger of being captured by the enemy, but due to the lengthy periods they spent training in archery, the time available for practicing with other weapons was rather limited104. he archery units recruited in the Roman army initially preserved their traditional equipment, dress, ighting style, and ield instructions in their native tongue105. After a while though, Oriental archers underwent a strong process of Romanization that is also relected militarily. hus, they gradually gave up the traditional, cone‑shaped helmets, since they werenot produced in Roman workshops. Also, the Roman sword, plus sometimes several spears, gradually replaced the traditional battle axe, the bipennis106. he shooting distance and eiciency depend both on the archer’s physical characteristics (physical force, length of the arms, wideness of the chest) and on those of the bow (weight, characteristics of component materials)107. 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 Goldsworthy 1996, p. 185. McAllister 1993, 15. Coulston 1985, 271. Farrokh 2005, 15. Zanier 1988, 7. Coulston 1985, 271. Schleiermacher 1984, no. 23, apud Dixon, Southern 1992, 57. Coulston 1985, ig. 29, 30, 33; Dixon, Southern 1992, 57, Fig. 23 Anglim 2007, 97. Bârcă 2009, 286, Fig. 116. Farrokh 2005, 15. Vegetius, 1.20. Coulston 1985, 277; Dixon, Southern 1992, 55. Bârcă 2009, 287. Vegetius 1.20; 2.15 McAllister 1993, 38. Țentea 2012, 102. Țentea 2007, 154; Țentea 2012, 106. Paterson 1966, 78. he Bow and Arrow during the Roman Era ◆ 189 Specialists disagree on the shooting range of composite bows108. hus, ancient authors claim that an archer on foot could hit a target 600 feet away (180 meters)109, while a mounted archer, employing a weaker bow110 and thus having a smaller shooting range, was able to hit a target measuring 90 cm in diameter from a distance of 70 meters, according to Saracen manuals111. Modern researchers have diferent opinions on the topic. After an experiment performed during the reign of Napoleon III it has been concluded that a Roman archer could shoot an arrow as far as 165–175 meters112; Bivar suggests a maximum distance of up to 230 meters, but with maximum eiciency only at 90 meters113; Collingwood and Richmond agree with Bivar on the efective range of the composite bow, but believe it could be deadly up to a distance of 137 meters114; McLeod believes that the archer could hit his target accurately from a distance of 50–60 meters115. he most optimistic view on the shooting range of an arrow is that a war arrow, weighing 30 gr., shot from a composite bow, could easily reach 330 – 370 meters, while the accomplishments of light arrows are almost unbelievable, reaching up to 700 meters116. One of the main reasons behind such diverging opinions on the shooting range of a Roman bow is the fact that an archer’s talent was much more important than the manufacturing technology of the bow117. I believe that the shooting range was rather large, and that suggested by McLeod is much closer to the distance at which a strong spearman could throw his weapon. I also think that the 700 meter shooting range is exaggerated. As for the wooden bow, some researchers believe it had a shooting range of 210–230 meters118, while others mention that it was three times less efective than the composite bow (i.e. ca. 60 m)119. No exact details on the distance from which an arrow could pierce armor are available, but since Parthian archers were capable to penetrate the armor of Roman soldiers at Carrhae without entering the shooting range of their weapons, the pila, one can presume that armor penetration could be achieved from a distance of 30 – 50 m120. he large number of sagittarii troops recruited between the irst and the third century A.D.121 proves the special and extremely signiicant role that such troops played due to certain characteristics: mobility122, wide shooting range123, penetration power, volume of arrows shot, and the accuracy of their shooting124. hus, despite the fact that the bow and arrow were not traditional Roman weapons, the Romans managed, dueto the lexibility of their military thought, to employ them at maximum capacity by recruiting populations with experience in this ield. PetruUreche Babeș‑Bolyai University Cluj‑Napoca Cluj‑Napoca, ROU petru_ureche@yahoo.com 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 See also Ureche 2008, 253 – 254. Vegetius 2. 23. Paterson 1966, 85. Goldsworthy 1996, 184; Ureche 2009, 334. Anglim 2007, 82; Goldsworthy 1996, 184. Goldsworthy 1996, 184. Bârcă 2009, 276–277. Goldsworthy 1996, 184. Peddie 1996, 90. Goldsworthy 1996, 184. Peddie 1996, 92, table 4. Anglim 2007, 82. McAllister 1993, 16. Davies 1977, 269–270; McAlister, Appendix 1, 95–101. McAllister 1993, 38. Bradbury 1985, 5. Farrokh 2005, 14. 190 ◆ Petru Ureche BIBLIOGRAPHY Anglim 2007 Ascham 1869 Balfour 1897 Baieret al. 1976 Bârcă 1994 Bradbury 1985 Brown 1937 Cartwright, Taylor 2008 Coulston 1985 Davies 1977 Dixon, Southern 1992 Elmer 1952 Farrokh 2005 Feugère 1993 French et al. 2006 Goldsworthy 1996 Grayson 1961 Heath 1980 Heath, Chiara 1977 Klopsteg 1947 Latham, Paterson 1970 Lepper, Frere 1988 Mason 1893 McAllister 1993 McEwen 1974 McEwen 1978 McEwen, McLeod 1986 McLeod 1982 S. Anglim, G. Jestice, R. S. Rice, S. M. Rusch, J. Serrati, Fighting Techniques of the Ancient World 3000 BC – AD 500: Equipment, Combat Skills and Tactics. New York 2002. R. Ascham, Toxophilus 1545, he School of Shooting. London 1869. H. Balfour, On a remarkable Ancient Bow and Arrows believed to be of Assyrian Origin. he Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 26, 1897, 210–220. P. Baier, J. Bowers, C. R. Fowkes, S. Schoch, Instructor’s Manual. Colorado Springs 1976. V. Bârcă, Consideraţiiprivindarmamentul, tipul de trupeşitacticamilitară la sarmaţi. AMN 31, 1, 1994, 55–68. J. Bradbury, he Medieval Archer. London 1985. F. E. Brown, A recentlydiscoveredcompositebow. SeminariumKondakovianum 9, 1937, 1–10. C.Cartwright, J. H. Taylor, WoodenEgyptianarcherybows in thecollections of the British Museum. he British MuseumTechnicalResearchBulletin 2, 2008, 77–83. J. Coulston, Roman Archery Equipment. In:M.C. Bishop (Ed.), he Production and Distribution of Roman Military Equipment. BAR International Series, 275. Oxford 1985, 220–336. J. L. Davies, Roman Arrowheads from Dinorben and the ‘Sagittarii’ of the Roman Army. Britannia 8, 1977, 257–270 K. Dixon, P. Southern, he Roman Cavalry. London 1992. R. P. Elmer, Target Archery. London 1952. K. Farrokh, Sassanian Elite Cavalry AD 224–642. Oxford 2005. M. Feugère, Les Armes des romains de la République à l’Antiquité tardive. Paris 1993. R. M. French, B. A. Curtis, V. Pham, Mechanics of a Simple Bow.Proceedings of the International Modal Analysis Conference: 24th Conference and Exposition on Structural Dynamics (IMAC XXIV), 2006, 533–543. A. K. Goldsworthy, he Roman Army at War 100 BC – AD 200. Oxford 1996. C. E. Grayson,Notes on Somali archery. Journal of the Society of Archer‑Antiquaries 4, 1961, 31–32. E. G. Heath, Archery: a MilitaryHistory. London 1980. E. G. Heath, V. Chiara, Brazilian Indian Archery. Manchester 1977. P. Klopsteg, TurkishArcheryandtheCompositeBow, second edition. Evanston 1947. J. D. Latham, W. F. Paterson, Saracen archery: an English version and exposition of a Mameluke work on archery (ca. A.D. 1368). London 1970. F. Lepper, S. S. Frere,Trajan’sColumn. Gloucester 1988 O. T. Mason, North American Bows, Arrows and Quivers.Annual Report, Smithsonian Institution 6, 1893, 31–79. D. W. McAllister, Formidabile Genus Armorum: he Horse Archers of the Roman Imperial Army. British Columbia 1993. E. McEwen, Persian archerytexts: chaptereleven of Fakhr‑I Mudabbir’sAdabal‑harb (earlythirteenthcentury). Islamic Quarterly 18, 1974, 76–99. E.McEwen, Nomadicarchery: someobservations on compositebow design andcon‑ struction. In: P. Denwood (Ed.), Arts of the Eurasian Steppelands. London 1978, 188–202. E. McEwen, W. McLeod, he ancientEgyptiancompositebow: some notes on itsstructureand performance. American Journal of Archaeology, 90, 1986. W. McLeod, Tutankhamun’scompositebows. Journal of the Society of Archer‑Antiquaries 7, 1982, 16–19. he Bow and Arrow during the Roman Era Miller et al. 1986 Moens 1984 Moseley 1792 Paterson 1966 Paterson 1984 Pauli Jensen 2009 Peddie 1996 Petculescu 2002 Roth 1970 Rouault 1977 Ruscu, Ruscu 1996 Schleiermacher 1984 Țentea 2007 Țentea 2012 Ureche 2008 Ureche 2009 Ureche 2010 Yadin 1963 Zanier 1988 Zanier, Guggenmos 1995 ◆ 191 R. Miller, E. McEwen, C. Bergman, Experimental ApproachestoAncientnearEastArchery. World Archaeology 18, 2, [WeaponryandWarfare], 1986, 178–195. W. F. Moens, he ancientEgyptiangarden in the New Kingdom. A study of repre‑ sentations.OrientaliaLovaniensiaPeriodica15, 1984, 11–53. W. Moseley, An essay on archery. London 1792. W. F. Patterson, he Archers of Islam. Journal of the Economic and Social History of theOrient 9, 1/2, 1966, 69–87. W. F. Paterson, Encyclopedia of Archery. London 1984. X. Pauli Jensen, North Germanic archery. he practicalapproach – resultsandper‑ spectives. In: A. W. Busch, H.‑J. Schalles (Eds.), Wafen in Aktion, Aktender 16. Internationalen Roman MilitaryEquipmentConference (ROMEC), Xanten, 13. – 16. Juni 2007, XantenerBerichte 16. Mainz 2009, 369–375. J. Peddie, he Roman War Machine. Boduin 1996. L. Petculescu, he militaryequipment of oriental archers in Roman Dacia. In;Ph. Freeman, J. Bennett, Z.T. Fiema, B. Hofmann (Eds.), Limes XVIII, Proceedings of theXVIIIth International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies, Amman, Jordan(September 2000), Volume II. Oxford, 2002, 765 – 770. W. Roth, An IntroductoryStudy of theArts, CraftsandCustoms of theGuianaIn‑ dians. New York 1970. O. Rouault, Archives Royales de Mari 18: Mukannisum: l’administration et l’economiepalatiales 2 Mari. Paris 1977. D. Ruscu, L. Ruscu, „EKTAΞIΣ KATA AΛANΩN” a luiArrianşistrategiadefensivă aImperiului Roman epocăhadrianică.EphNapVI, 1996, 205–235. M. Schleiermacher, RömischeReitergrabsteine. Die kaiserzeitlichen Reliefs des triumphierendenReiters. Bonn 1984. O. Țentea, AuxiliaCommagenorum in Dacia. AMN 41–42, 1, 2004–2005 (2007), 141–160. O. Țentea, Strategies and tactics or just debates? An overview of the ighting style and military equipment of Syrian archers.StudiaUniversitatisBabeş‑Bolyai, Historia, 57, 1, 2012, 101–115. P. Ureche, About the tactics and ighting particularity of the Auxiliary infantry in Roman Dacia.AMN 43–44, 1, 2006–2007 (2008), 247–261. P. Ureche, Tactics, strategies and ighting particularities of the equitatae cohorts in Roman Dacia.In:Near and Beyond the Roman Frontier. Proceedings of a collo‑ quium held in Târgovişte, 16–17 October 2008. Bucharest 2009, 329–338. P. Ureche, Echipamentșitactică de luptă la trupele de diversiune din Dacia Romană. AnuarulȘcoliiDoctorale“Istorie. Civilizație. Cultura.” IV, 2010, 35–40. Y. Yadin, he Art of Warfare in Biblical Lands. New York 1963. W. Zanier, RömischedreilügeligePfeilspitzen. SJ 47, 1988, 7–25. W. Zanier, W. S. Guggenmos, ZurHerstellungrömischerdreiplügeligerPfeilspitzen. SaalburgJahrbuch 48, 19–25. 192 ◆ Petru Ureche a b c d 1 2 Plate 1. 1. Simple bow (taken from http://rangersapprentice.wikia.com/wiki/Longbow?ile=English_longbow. jpg); 2. Types of arrow heads and shafting methods (taken from Cowan, McBride 2003, Fig. D). e 1 skytnian bow 4 ◆ 193 Plate 2. 1‑3. Types of bows (taken from Karasulas, McBride 2004, 8, 20, 23); 4. Arrow bending by the bow in light (taken from Miller, McEwen, Bergman 1986). he Bow and Arrow during the Roman Era 3 mongol bow 2 turkish bow 194 ◆ Petru Ureche 1 2 Plate 3. 1. he bow from Yzri (taken from Brown 1937, 4); 2. Bow reinforcements (taken from Karasulas, Mcbride 2004, 22). he Bow and Arrow during the Roman Era ◆ 195 1 2 Plate 4. 1. Bowing an arrow, drawing on the pot from Kul Oba (taken from Karasulas, McBride 2004, 60); 2. Antoninianus. Obverse ‑ Postumus, Reverse – Bow and quiver/quiver (RIC 5.2, Postumus 291). Abbreviations AAC AARMSI ACSSTU ActaArchHung AÉ AGGH AIINC AISC AJPA Alba Regia AMN AMP AnB S.N. Analele ANTIM Apulum ArchKorrbl ArhMed AS ATS AUVT BAM BAR International Series Banatica BÁMÉ BCȘS BerRGK BHAB BSNR Caietele CIVA CCA CCDJ CN CNA Corviniana Crisia Cumania Dacia N.S. DMÉ DolgKolozsvár Acta Archaeologica Carpathica. Cracovia. Analele Academiei Române. Memoriile Secțiunii Istorice. București. Annals. Computer Science Series Tibiscus University. Timișoara. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae. Budapest. Archaeologiai Értesitõ. Budapest. Acta Geodaetica et Geophysica Hungarica. Budapest. Anuarul Institutului de Istorie Națională Cluj. Cluj‐Napoca. Anuarul Institutului de Studii Clasice. Sibiu. American Journal of Physical Anthropology. New York. Alba Regia. Annales Musei Stephani Regis. Az István Király Múzeum Közleményei. Székesfehérvár. Acta Musei Napocensis. Cluj‑Napoca. Acta Musei Porolissensis. Muzeul Judeţean de Istorie şi Artă Zalău. Zalău. Analele Banatului, Serie nouă. Timişoara. Analele Asociaţiei Naţionale ale Tinerilor Istorici din Moldova. Chişinău. Apulum. Alba‑Iulia. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt. Urgeschichte, Römerzeit, Frühmittelalter. Mainz. Arheologia Medievală. Brăila, Reşiţa, Cluj‑Napoca. Acta Siculica. Sepsiszentgyörgy/Sfântu Gheorghe. Acta Terrae Septencastrensis. Sibiu. Annales d’Université Valahia Targoviste, Section d’Archéologie et d’Histoire. Târgoviște. Brvkenthal Acta Mvsei. Sibiu. British Archaeological Reports, International Series. Oxford. Banatica. Muzeul Banatului Montan. Reșița. A Béri Balogh Ádám Múzeum Évkönyve. Szekszárd. Buletinul Cercurilor Științiice Studențești. Istorie‑Arheologie‑Muzeologie. Alba Iulia. Bericht der Römisch‑Germanischen Komission des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Frankfurt a. M .‑ Berlin. Bibliotheca Historica et Archaeologica Banatica. Timişoara. Buletinul Societății Numismatice Române. Societatea Numismatică Română. București. Caietele CIVA. Cercul de Istorie Veche și Arheologie. Alba Iulia. Cronica cercetărilor arheologice. București. Cultură şi civilizaţie la Dunărea de Jos. Muzeul Dunării de Jos. Călăraşi. Cercetări Numismatice. Muzeul Național de Istorie a României. București. Cronica Numismatică și Arheologică, Societatea Numismatică Română. București. Corviniana. Acta Musei Corvinensis. Hunedoara. Crisia, Muzeul Ţării Crişurilor, Oradea. Cumania. A Bács‑Kiskun Megyei Önkormányzat Múzeumi Szervezetének Évkönyve. Kecskemét. Dacia. Recherches et Découvertes Archéologiques en Roumanie, Bucureşti; seria nouă (N.S.): Dacia. Revue d’Archéologie et d’Histoire Ancienne. Bucureşti. A Debreceni Déri Múzeum Évkönyve. Debrecen. Dolgozatok az Erdély Nemzeti Múzeum Érem‑ és Régiségtárából (Travaux de la section numismatique et archéologique du Musée National de Transylvanie). Kolozsvár/Cluj‑Napoca. ZIRIDAVA, STUDIA ARCHAEOLOGICA, 27, p. 299–302 300 ◆ Abbreviations DolgSzeged Drobeta EME EphNap ETF FdI FolArch Germania História HK HOMÉ Istros JAHC JahrbRGZM JAMÉ KL Korall Közl Lucrări GT Marisia MCA MEKSB MFMÉ StudArch MFMÉ MonArch MHB MIM MSW MW NK NNT NZ OJA OpHung PBF Potaissa PZ Régészeti Füzetek RÉSÉE RI RM RRH Sargetia Dolgozatok a Szegedi Tudományegyetem Régiségtudományi Intézetéből. Szeged. Drobeta. Muzeul Regiunii Porților de Fier. Drobeta Turnu‐Severin. Erdélyi Múzeum Egyesület. Cluj‑Napoca. Ephemeris Napocensis. Cluj‑Napoca. Erdélyi Tudományos Füzetek – Erdélyi Múzeum Egyesület. Kolozsvár/ Cluj‑Napoca. File de istorie, Muzeul de Istorie. Bistriţa. Folia Archaeologica. A Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum Évkönyve. Annales Musei Nationalis Hungarici. Budapest. Germania. Anzeiger der Römisch‑Germanischen Komission des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Berlin. História – történelmi folyóirat. Budapest. Hadtörténelmi Közlemények. Budapest. A Herman Ottó Múzeum Évkönyve. Miskolc. Istros. Muzeul Brăilei. Brăila. Journal for the Association of History and Computing. Michigan University. Jahrbuch des Römisch‑Germanischen Zentralmuseums zu Mainz, Mainz. Janus Pannonius Múzeum Évkönyve. Pécs. Kartograické listy. Bratislava. Korall Társadalomtörténeti Folyóirat. Budapest. Közlemények az Erdélyi Nemzeti Múzeum Érem‑ és Régiségtárából. Kolozsvár/Cluj‑Napoca. Lucrări Ştiinţiice. Istorie‑Ştiinţe‑Pedagogie, Institutul Pedagogic. Oradea. Geographia Technica. International Journal of Technical Geography. Cluj‑Napoca. Marisia. Marisia. Studii și materiale. Arheologie – Istorie – Etnograie. Târgu‑Mureș. Materiale şi Cercetări Arheologice. București. A Miskolci Egyetem Közleménye. A sorozat, Bányászat. Miskolc. A Móra Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve. Studia Archaeologica. Szeged. A Móra Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve. Monumenta Archeologica. Szeged. Monumenta Historica Budapestinensia. Budapest. Materiale de Istorie și Muzeograie, Muzeul de Istorie a Municipiului București. București. Materialy Starozytne Wczesnosredniowieczne. Kraków. Materialy Wczesnośredniowieczne. Kraków‑Wrocław‑Warsawa. Numizmatikai Közlöny, Magyar Numizmatikai Társulat. Budapest. Norsk Numismatisk Tidsskrift. Numismatische Zeitschrift, herausgegeben von der numismatischen Gesellschaft in Wien. Wien. Oxford Journal of Archaeology, Oxford. Opuscula Hungarica. Budapest. Praehistorische Bronzefunde. Potaissa. Studii şi comunicări. Turda. Prähistorische Zeitschrift. Berlin. Régészeti Füzetek. Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum. Budapest. Revue des Études Sud‐Est Éuropéenes. l’Institut d’Études Sud‐Est Européennes de l’Académie Roumaine. București. Revista de Istorie, Institutul de Istorie „Nicolae Iorga”. București. Revista Muzeelor. Centrul pentru Formare, Educație Permanentă și Management în Domeniul Culturii. București. Revue Roumaine d’Histoire, Academia Română. București. Sargetia, Muzeul Civilizației Dacice și Romane Deva. Abbreviations Savaria SCIVA SCN SCȘI SIB SlovArch SMIM SMK SSCR Speculum StComCaransebeş StComSatuMare Stratum plus Studia Caroliensia Studia Comitatensia Századok Terra Sebus hraco‑Dacica Transilvanian Review TS UPA VAH VMMK World Archaeology ZfA Ziridava ZMSW ◆ 301 Savaria – a Vas megyei múzeumok értesítője. Pars historico‑naturalis. Szombathely. Studii şi Cercetări de Istorie Veche (şi Arheologie). Bucureşti. Studii și Cercetări Numismatice. Institutul de Arheologie „Vasile Pârvan”. București. Studii și Cercetări Științiice. Istorie. Studii de Istorie a Banatului. Universitatea de Vest Timișoara. Slovenská Archeológia. Bratislava. Studii și Materiale de Istorie Medie. Institutul de Istorie „Nicolae Iorga”. București. Somogyi Múzeumok Közleményei. Kaposvár. Social Science Computer Review. North Carolina State University. Speculum. Cambridge Journals Online. Cambridge. Studii şi Comunicări. Etnograie. Istorie. Caransebeş. Studii şi Comunicări. Satu Mare. Stratum plus Journal. High Anthropological School University. Cultural Anthropology & Archaeology. Studia Caroliensia. A Károli Gáspár Református Egyetem szakfolyóirata. Budapesta. Studia Comitatensia. Tanulmányok Pest Megye Múzeumaiból. Szentendre. Századok. A Magyar Történelmi Társulat Folyóirata. Budapest. Terra Sebus. Acta Musei Sabesiensis. Sebeș. hraco‑Dacica. Bucureşti. Transilvanian Review/Revue de Transylvanie. Cluj‑Napoca. Történelmi Szemle. A Magyar Tudományos Akadémia Történettudományi Intézetének Értesitöje. Budapest. Universitätsforschungen zur Prähistorische Archäologie. Bonn. Varia Archaeologica Hungarica. Budapest. Veszprémi Megyei Múzeumok Közleményei. Veszprém. World Archaeology. London. Zeistchrift für Archäologie. Berlin. Ziridava, Complexul Muzeal Arad. Arad. Zeitscrift für Münz‑, Siegel‑ und Wappenkunde. Berlin.