Archäologische Beiträge Gedenkschrift zum hundertsten Geburtstag von Kurt Horedt ROMANIAN ACADEMY INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ART HISTORY CLUJ-NAPOCA Series Patrimonium Archaeologicum Transylvanicum Editors Sorin CoCiş AdriAn UrSUțiU Volume 7 IN STITUTUL DE A RHEOLO GIE ȘI ISTOR IA A RT E I CLU J - N A P OCA IN STITUTE OF A RC HA EOLOGY A N D A RT HISTORY CLU J - N A P OCA Archäologische Beiträge Gedenkschrit zum hundertsten Geburtstag von Kurt Horedt H e rau sg e b e r S o r i n Co C i ş ME GA VE RLAG Cluj-Napoca 2014 This work was supported by a grant of the Ministry of National Education, CNCS – UEFISCDI, project number PN-II-ID-PCE-2012-4-0210. DTP: Francisc BAJA Auf dem vorderen Umschlag: Die Goldibel aus dem Fürstengrab Nr. 1 von Apahida © Die Autoren, 2014 Descrierea CIP a Bibliotecii Naţionale a României Archäologische Beiträge - Gedenkschrift zun hundertsten Geburtstag von Kurt Horedt / ed.: Sorin Cociş. - Cluj-Napoca : Mega, 2014 ISBN 978-606-543-456-1 I. Cociş, Sorin (ed.) 902(498) Horedt,K. 929 Horedt,K. Editura Mega | www.edituramega.ro e-mail: mega@edituramega.ro INHALT / CONTENTS / SOMMAIRE TUDOR SOROCEANU KURT HOREDT. LA CENTENARUL NAŞTERII 9 TUDOR SOROCEANU KURT HOREDT. ZUM HUNDERTJÄHRIGEN JUBILÄUM SEINER GEBURT 13 MIRCEA BABEŞ DEUTSCHE ARCHÄOLOGEN IN RUMÄNIEN IN FRIEDENS- UND KRIEGSZEIT (1909–1918) 17 ATTILA LÁSZLÓ BEITRÄGE ZUR KUPFERMETALLURGIE IN DER ARIUŞD-CUCUTENI KULTUR. KUPFERGEGENSTÄNDE UND TONIMITATIONEN AUS DER SIEDLUNG VON MALNAŞ BĂI 31 RADU ARDEVAN DIE ERSTE ENTDECKUNG VON KOSON-MÜNZEN IN SIEBENBÜRGEN 43 VITALIE BÂRCĂ RECTANGULAR MIRRORS IN THE SARMATIAN ENVIRONMENT. NOTES ON THEIR ORIGIN AND THE DATING OF THE GRAVES CONTAINING THEM 49 ZSOLT VISY SOME NOTES ON THE EASTERN CORNER OF THE PROVINCE DACIA 65 IOAN PISO SUR LE STATUT MUNICIPAL DE POTAISSA 69 FLORIN FODOREAN MAPPING ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES USING DIGITAL CARTOGRAPHY. ROMAN DISCOVERIES AT THE CONFLUENCE OF THE RIVERS ARIEŞ AND MUREŞ 77 SORIN NEMETI, IRINA NEMETI CIVIC SPACE AND MUNICIPAL STATUTES IN POTAISSA 85 VASS LÓRÁNT CONTRIBUTION TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF BONE AND ANTLER BOW LATH PRODUCTION FROM ROMAN DACIA 99 COSTIN CROITORU CONSIDÉRATIONS SUR LES RELATIONS COMMERCIALES ENTRE ORBIS ROMANUS ET BARBARICUM, EN PARTICULIER L’ESPACE À L’EST DES CARPATES 121 SORIN COCIŞ DIE FIBELN MIT UMGESCHLAGENEM FUSS UND MIT ÄUSSERER SEHNE VOM TYP ALMGREN 158 UND 166 (NEUE BEITRÄGE ZUR CHRONOLOGIE DER SPÄTRÖMISCHEN KAISERZEIT IN WESTRUMÄNIEN) 127 ROBERT GINDELE DIE SIEDLUNG IN MOFTINU MIC – MERLI TAG. PROBLEME IM ZUSAMMENHANG MIT DEN MARKOMANNENKRIEGEN IN DEN SIEDLUNGEN IM NORDWESTEN RUMÄNIENS 139 RADU HARHOIU EIN GRÄBERFELD DES 4. JAHRHUNDERTS IN SCHÄSSBURG – WEINBERG (RUM. DEALUL VIILOR) – FUNDSTELLE „GRÄBERFELD“ (GRÄBERFELD 2) 153 VLAD-ANDREI LĂZĂRESCU IS THERE A MEANING BEHIND THE DISTRIBUTION PATTERNS OF THE LATE ROMAN COINS FOUND IN BARBARICUM? A COMPARATIVE APPROACH BETWEEN THE INNER- AND EXTRA-CARPATHIAN AREAS 207 ALEXANDER RUBEL DAS SPÄTANTIKE DONARIUM VON BIRTHÄLM (BIERTAN) IM KONTEXT DER RÖMISCHEN RELIGION 243 LAURENT CHRZANOVSKI A NOUVEAU SUR LE DONARIUM DE BIERTAN 253 ESZTER ISTVÁNOVITS, VALÉRIA KULCSÁR NEW FIND OF HUN AGE SADDLE PLATES FROM NORTH-EAST HUNGARY 269 CORIOLAN HORAŢIU OPREANU LATIN OR GREEK? THE CASE OF THE INSCRIPTIONS AND THE MONOGRAMS ON THE GOLDEN RINGS FROM THE ROYAL GRAVE APAHIDA I (ROMANIA) AND THE HOARD FROM REGGIO EMILIA (ITALY) 279 GÁLL ERWIN THE AVAR CONQUEST AND WHAT FOLLOWED. SOME IDEAS ON THE PROCESS OF ‘AVARISATION’ OF TRANSYLVANIAN BASIN (6TH–7TH CENTURIES) 295 IOAN STANCIU A WELL FROM THE EARLY MEDIEVAL SETTLEMENT AT JUCU DE SUS (CLUJ COUNTY, NORTH-WESTERN TRANSYLVANIA) 325 CONTRIBUTION TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF BONE AND ANTLER BOW LATH PRODUCTION FROM ROMAN DACIA* VASS LÓRÁNT Introduction B one and antler laths used as reinforcements on bow limbs represented essential components of bows used in the Roman army by archery units. They are commonly composed of a straight or curved body, a concave and a lat face. According to the structural element they reinforce, bow laths can vary in shape and size. Laths attached to the tips of the bow display a nock of various shapes: from rounded to rectangular or U-shaped, while laths stifening the grip part are, usually, lat and straight, or sometimes chopped at the edges. The back side of these objects is always unworked, with the spongy tissue left intentionally for a more efective gluing1. A signiicant amount of archaeological data (arrow heads, bow laths, arrow nocks) which can be related to archery units stationed in Roman Dacia were spotted in diferent auxiliary forts from the province. Despite this, metal arrow components have formed the subject of several articles and studies so far2, while bow elements manufactured from bone were analysed only in two studies. One of these studies, written by D. Benea, deals with the bone and antler workshop that functioned in the auxiliary fort from Tibiscum3. The second one belonging to L. Petculescu, ofers an analysis of the military equipment of * This work was supported by a grant of the Ministry of National Education, CNCS-UEFISCDI, project number PN-II-ID-PCE–2012–4-0618. 1 MACGREGOR 1985, 156. 2 GUDEA 1991; GUDEA 1992; GUDEA 2006; GUDEA 2008. 3 BENEA 2003. the Oriental archers in Dacia. This is the irst study and, so far, the only one in which bone laths were classiied and conclusions concerning the usage of the bow in Micia and in other sites from Dacia have been drawn4. The aim of this paper is to complete the picture ofered by L. Petculescu regarding the local production of bow components made of bone and antler, by discussing the evidence related to another similar production from Porolissum, one of the most important Roman military sites on the north-western limes of Dacia. A number of 51 antler- and bone bow laths that were used for reinforcing diferent types of composite bows are known, so far, from the ancient Roman settlement of Porolissum (Pl. I). The overwhelming majority was identiied in the auxiliary fort from the Pomet hill (43 objects), while a smaller number comes from the amphitheatre (4 pieces) and from two buildings (OL6, LM1) located in the military vicus (Fig. 1; Pl. II). Diferent types of bone ear and grip laths, among manufacturing debris, were recovered during the archaeological campaign led by N. Gudea in the great auxiliary fort from the Pomet hill in 1983–19845 and especially in 19876, from a limited area, fact which indicates the presence of a weapon workshop. In the following, the major types of bow laths found in Porolissum will be presented together with their spatial distribution. Issues related to the local workshop activity, production, technical features will also be clariied. 4 5 6 PETCULESCU 2002. GUDEA ET ALII 1986. GUDEA ET ALII 1988. 99 1. Function and distribution The bow type for which these bone laths were used was the composite bow, a weapon with eastern, Oriental origins, which appeared in the 4th millennium B.C.7 In comparison with the simple bow manufactured from a single wooden core, composite bows were produced by combining diferent raw materials: on a wooden core, horn (inside) and sinew (outside) were glued to resist tension and compression, and the whole structure was then wrapped into a sheath made of leather or bark8. From the perfect combination of diferent materials used for its manufacturing, a new type of bow resulted, much stronger and lexible in contrast to the simple wooden ones. As A. De Waele mentions, this type of bow could be smaller-sized, too, since its unique power of release was due to the combination of materials and not to its size.9 The composite bow passed through a serious evolution and not all types needed bone laths for reinforcement. Those types of bow that were covered with bone stifeners showed up in the 1st millennium B.C. and were kept in use until the 5th century A.D. The composite construction had a set-back handle, angled ears and asymmetric limbs10. This type of bow is easier to draw and it required less energy for a higher penetrating power than the simple wooden bow11. On the tips of the bow, bone and antler plates of diferent dimensions were attached, usually in pair12. According to the general observations, seven bone or antler laths were stifening a composite bow: a set of two ear-laths mounted on the two tips and three attached to each side of the grip part13. D. Ciugudean believes that laths with rectangular (U-shaped) nock were larger-sized and they helped to ix the bowstring, while the other end of the string was set into to the rounded nock of the laths from the other tip14. L. Petculescu deines two groups of ear laths among the material from Micia: 1) ear-laths with angular terminal and 2) ear laths with rounded terminal. According to him, ear-laths with angular terminal have stifened the lower part of the limb15. Other attaching methods were also known; H. Mikler reminds of two ear-laths from Bar Hill that displayed attaching holes for rivets for a better ixing16. Concerning the use of bows in the Roman army, DE WAELE 2005, 154. DE WAELE 2005, 154. 9 DE WAELE 2005, 155. 10 BISHOP-COULSTON 1993, 136. 11 For detailed description of ancient bow types and information concerning their use see: URECHE 2013. 12 MACGREGOR 1985, 158. 13 URECHE 2013, 185. 14 CIUGUDEAN 1997, 38. 15 PETCULESCU 2002, 765. 16 MIKLER 1997, 16 and note 85. 7 8 100 it is almost exclusively associated to the auxiliary units, although some ear-lath inds inside legionary fortresses may suggest that composite bows were not limited only to the auxiliary archery units17. The use of simple bow is traditionally related to archers recruited from the western part of the Empire, while composite bows, which enabled ighting manoeuvres, were the typical shooting weapon of the better trained Oriental archers18. Thus, this type of shooting weapon has spread inside the Roman Empire from the East19, after the second Punic war, when archery units recruited from the Orient were employed in the Roman army20. Th. Fischer admits that bows were generally spread in the Imperial Age, and their use was not limited only to units recruited from the Orient21. Bone and antler laths are to be found in almost every province situated along the Roman limes. H. Mikler, referring to the distribution map of these objects, elaborated by J. Coulston, assets that they can be found almost everywhere from Britannia, Germania Superior,Germania Inferior, Raetia, Noricum, Pannonia, Syria to Aegyptus22. The list can be completed by similar inds from Transdierna, in Moesia Superior23. Bone stifening laths are well represented in the Dacian provinces as well. Composite bows with such stifening plates are considered by L. Petculescu a typical equipment element of the eastern archery units garrisoned in the Dacian provinces.24 Moreover, even their local production could be identiied in two auxiliary forts: in Micia and Tibiscum. In the auxiliary fort from Micia, 35 bone laths covering the tips and the grip of the bow were discovered25. The artefacts, manufactured from red deer antler, with the exception for two items, belonged, besides other uninished antler objects, to a store inside the fort dated to 106–107 A.D26. The group of inds, consisting of inished antler laths, semi-inished or rejected examples, indicate a manufacture in progress that could have functioned in a specialized workshop inside this fort. The width of the laths from Micia varies signiicantly, suggesting that the same military troop has simultaneously used bows of diferent type and size27. MIKLER 1997, 17. In Dacia, although in a reduced number, bone reinforcements are also known from Apulum and Potaissa, Roman cities where the two legions of the province were stationed. – CIUGUDEAN 1997, 38, Pl. XXX/2–4. 18 URECHE 2013, 184. 19 DESCHLER-ERB 1999, 22. 20 BÍRÓ 1994, 19. 21 FISCHER 2012, 201. 22 MIKLER 1997, 17 and note 97. 23 PETKOVIČ1995, Taf. 38. 24 PETCULESCU 2002, 765. 25 PETCULESCU 2002, Fig. 1–3. 26 PETCULESCU 2002, 765. 27 L. Petculescu reminds of two laths with a signiicant diference 17 Another workshop, specialized, among others, in antler bow lath production, was identiied in a timber construction from the small auxiliary fort at Tibiscum, dated between 106 and 165 A.D.28 The lath fragments from Tibiscum, many of them still uninished, are all elongated and rectangular laths without nock that were mounted in the central, grip part of the bow29. Other ear-lath fragments with nock were also recovered from the principia of the big auxiliary fort at Tibiscum30, but one cannot establish if there is any connection between them and the workshop from the small auxiliary fort. The aforementioned workshop from Tibiscum, according to D. Benea, was specialized also in the production of other cavalry components, like bone arrow nocks, otherwise a very rare artefact found in Roman contexts31. D. Benea considers that the number of bone arrow nocks is too small for servicing a military unit composed of 500 archers and, according to her calculations, the workshop should have produced daily 138 nocks in order to fulil the requirements of the troop.32. Bone and antler laths from other sites from Dacia were reported from Romita33, Cristeşti34, Urluieni35, but they were also found in settlements where legions were stationed: Apulum36 and Potaissa37. Taking into account that in the majority of those auxiliary camps where bone laths were found (Romita, Micia, Tibiscum) eastern archery units were stationed (Tab. 1), L. Petculescu believes that composite bows with bone stifeners were introduced in Dacia by these sagitarii recruited from East and they are essential elements of their traditional ighting strategy38. Although it is impossible to prove this presumption, the existence of two workshops with the same production line and proile in the same period and in two forts where eastern archers were stationed (Micia, Tibiscum), should be more than coincidental. Provenance Military unit Micia Cohors II Flavia Commagenorum equitata sagittariorum Stationary Reference From the age of PETCULESCU Trajan to the 3rd 2002, 765. century A.D. in size, lath no. 18 being twice as long and wide than lath no. 19. – PETCULESCU 2002, 765, Fig. 2/18–19. 28 BENEA 2003, 224. 29 BENEA 2003, Taf. VII/1–3. 30 PETRESCU-ROGOZEA 1990, Pl. XI/5–7. 31 BENEA 2003, 226. 32 BENEA 2003, 226. 33 MATEI-BAJUSZ 1997, Pl. LXXXII/1. 34 PETICĂ-ZRINYI 2000, Pl V/7. 35 BOGDAN CĂTĂNICIU 1994, 348, Fig. 14/a. 36 The laths were found in the canabae: CIUGUDEAN 1997, 77, nr. 459–461, Pl. 30/2–4. 37 Oral information provided by M. Bărbulescu to D. Ciugudean. – CIUGUDEAN 1997, 37, note 2. 38 PETCULESCU 2002, 765. Romita Cohors I S Beginning with (Ituraeorum the 2nd century Sagittariorum) A.D. Cohors VI Thracum Tibiscum Cohors I sagittariorum milliaria equitata Numerus Palmyrenorum Tibiscensium From the age of Trajan to Marcus Aurelius. 120 – 3rd century A.D. MATEIBAJUSZ 1997, 67–95. PETOLESCU 1997, 109–110, 124–125; BENEA 2003, 223. Tab 1. Roman auxiliary forts from Dacia with archery units where bone bow laths were found. 2. Workshop (Pl. II-III) The increased number of inished and semi-inished antler and bone bow laths in the auxiliary fort from the Pomet hill (Porolissum) is surely the result of activities taking place in a workshop that functioned within the walls of this fort. The possible workshop was specialized in manufacturing weapon components, since the majority of these objects were found in one context, near building B 10, interpreted as a water cistern39 (Pl. III). The archaeological context in which they were identiied indicates a later reuse phase of the respective building, dated to the 3rd century A.D.40. The concentration of diferent archaeological material around building B10 may attest the fact that, at a certain time, the water cistern was decommissioned and used subsequently as a waste pit. Taking into account the fact that all the bow laths recovered from this context represent broken or rejected debris, completed by some half-inished objects, it is highly probable that the laths can be interpreted as debris gathered and deposited in this place at a certain time. Some lath fragments were also found in the garbage pit G1 from latus praetorii dextrum41. (Pl. VI/16, X/16, VII/22). These ind spots indicate that the majority of the objects arrived there in secondary position and that the workshop may have functioned in another location. The archaeologist have noticed a concentration of weapons (arrow and spear heads) in building C4 located in the latus praetorii sinistrum42. On the other hand, the biggest quantity of bone and antler objects is to be found here, among which many manufacturing debris. Bone arrow heads of diferent types, so far a unique group of artefacts, were also discovered in this building43. Among the weapons deposited in this building we ind two bone bow lath fragments (Pl. VI/13, VII/23) as well. This could suggest, theoretically, that the workshop special39 40 41 42 43 GUDEA ET ALII 1988, 150–154. GUDEA ET ALII 1988, 153. GUDEA ET ALII 1986, 122. GUDEA ET ALII 1988, 149. GUDEA 2006, Fig. 10/1–17; GUDEA 2008, Abb. 10/1–17. 101 ized in producing weapon elements may have been functioned xiliary in fo this building, and the broken, rejected piecesphitheatr as well as the manufacturing debris were gathered ilding and refused OL in a later period. Another presumption ilding concerning LM the localization of the workshop is represented by the hypothesis according to which the workshop functioned somewhere around building B10 and thus, the great quantity of laths identiied in this place would be explained by this proximity. Beside this hypothesis, another possibility can be considered: the lath fragments around building B10 were pieces which broke or got damaged during their usage and were rejected by their owners in this place which functioned at that time, probably, as a garbage pit. However, in absence of precise archaeological observation and data, none of the aforementioned hypotheses can be taken for granted. In this situation one can also presume that the presented objects are the result of diferent production activities that happened in diferent sequences of time. 2.a. Manufacturing techniques (Pl. IV) The composite bow laths from Porolissum are almost exclusively manufactured of red deer antler, a typical raw material used for the production of this type of artefact. Only the antler can ofer high resistivity, compaction, lexibility and strength required by the composite bow draw. A common element of all types of bow laths from this material is that the arched face of the laths was worked by iling, iling marks being very visible in almost every case on the margins and around the nocks. The reverse of each lath, which has been kept intentionally in its original anatomical form, displays also striking ile marks in order to facilitate the gluing on the bow tips. On the basis of the tool marks observed on the surface of the objects, it was possible to reconstruct the chaîne opératoire of the manufacturing process (Pl. IV). All the stages of bone and antler working in general could be identiied: a. preparation of the raw material for manufacturing (Pl. IV/A); b. proper manufacturing (Pl. IV/B); c. inishing techniques (Pl. IV/C). A: Cylindrical chips were cut of the antler tine with the help of a saw. These antler cylinders were cut then into many parts by vertical splitting and cutting. B: 1. The uneven anatomical surface of the antler was smoothened by iling. (Pl. IV/50–51). 2. The plates were then worked by chiselling until they were fashioned to the proper semi-circular shape. 3. The semi-circular laths were evened also by iling. C: The margins of the laths were tapered by rasping and the surface was evened (Pl. IV/30; 14). 102 Building OL 6 7% Amphitheatre 8% Building LM1 2% Auxiliary fort from the Pomet hill 83% Fig. 1. The provenance of the bone bow laths from Porolissum. 3. Bow lath types It was possible to identify several types of laths which were classiied according to the shape of the terminal and nock, as well as the bow part they reinforce. Half-inished items, as well as fragments of laths that cannot be ranged in any of the known types, were also taken into account. 1) Ear-laths with rounded terminal and: a) an U-shaped nock b) a rounded nock 2) Ear-laths with squared terminal and: a) an U-shaped nock b) a rounded nock 3) Grip-laths: a) rectangular laths chopped at both edges b) rhomboidal shaped laths 4) Undetermined fragments 5) Half-inished bow laths Type 1.a 1.b 2.a 2.b 3.a 3.b No. 1 1 9 Provenance Amphitheatre Building OL6 Auxiliary fort from the Pomet hill 1 Building LM1 14 Auxiliary fort from the Pomet hill 1 Amphiteatre 1 Auxiliary fort from the Pomet hill 1 Auxiliary fort from the Pomet hill 1 Auxiliary fort from the Pomet hill 1 Auxiliary fort from the Pomet hill Plate/Catalogue no. Pl. V/1. Pl. II/2. Pl. V/3–7, VI/8–11. Pl. VI/12. Pl. VI/13–18, X/14. Pl. VII/27. Pl. VII/28. Pl. VII/29. Pl. VIII/30, X/30. Pl. VIII/31. 4 2 Amphitheatre 3 Building LM1 13 Auxiliary fort from the Pomet hill 5 2 Auxiliary fort from the Pomet hill Pl. VIII/32–33. Pl. VIII/34–36. Pl. VIII/37–42, IX/43–49; Pl IV/38, 41. Pl. IX/50–51, IV/50–51. Tab. 2. Table indicating the find spots of the bone laths from Porolissum. a b Type 4 Type 5 15 19 11 Type 1 1 2 1 1 Type 2 Type 3 2 Type 4 Type 5 Fig. 2. Distribution of different lath types in Porolissum. Items belonging to type 1 and 2 represent the xiliary fo majority phitheatr(Fig. 2) of composite bow laths recovered ilding OL from the auxiliary fort from the Pomet hill and from ilding LM other spots. The laths from these two types initially covered the upper and the lower ears of the composite bow which served for setting up and attach the bow string. Type 1. (Pl. V, VI, VII/19–26) This type includes ear-laths with rounded terminal. According to the shape of the nocks, two subtypes were established. If we accept D. Ciugudean’s view, according to which ear laths with U-shaped nock (type 1.a Pl. V, VI/8– 11) served for ixing the bowstring, then these items were exposed to pressure the most. Those with a rounded nock (type 1.b – Pl. VI/12–18, VII/19–26) were used for attaching the other end of the string. It is not known to which extent the precise functionality of the lath can be identiied on the basis of the nock shapes. However, the diferent shapes are not purely coincidental, the U-shaped nocks are set deeper into the laths and thus, they facilitate any kind of ixing or attaching methods. The group of laths with rounded nock dominates easily the other type. Type 2 (Pl. VII/27–29). The type characterized by a square terminal and a U-shaped (type 2.a Pl. VII/27–28) or rounded (type 2.b – Pl. VII/29) nock is not so well represented. Only three items could be ranged into this group: two recovered from the auxiliary fort from the Pomet hill (Pl. VII/28–29) and one from the amphitheatre (Pl. VII/27). L. Petculescu assets that laths of this type would have covered the lower tip of the bow and the bowstring was tide in this nock44. Without rejecting this opinion, we believe that the diferent ear-lath terminal forms followed mainly the shape of the bow stave, and the formal variation could be explained by the diferent shaped bows that were used. The artefacts from type 1 and 2 recovered from the auxiliary fort from the Pomet hill can be also deined taking into consideration the orientation of the ear laths. Thus, 13 ear laths of type 1 and 2 are orientated to the right and 13 to the left. If one takes into account the fact that ear laths were used in pairs (a pair on each tip), to stifen the bow, the 13 pairs of laths from Porolissum could have covered a number of 6.5 composite bows. Naturally, these are only theoretic calculations, there are many pieces with diferent width and nock dimensions and thus, their real number would have been considerably higher. The many lath fragments that could not be included in any of the types would also increase the number of possible individuals. Another interesting feature related to these artefacts is represented by a phenomenon also noticed in Micia45. The width of the ear laths attached to the bow tips difers considerably from one to another, fact which could indicate that in Porolissum a set of diferent sized bows were in used at the same time or in different periods. Hypothetically, according to the dimensions of laths belonging to type 1 and 2, four bow types of diferent dimensions can be deined: 1) bows with 15–17 mm tip width (Pl. VI/9, 13; VII/29); 2) bows with 18–20 mm tip width (Pl. V/4–5, 7, VI/8, 16–18; VII/24, 26); 3) bows with tips measuring between 21–23 mm (Pl. VI/10, 14, VII/19–23, 28) and 4) bows with 23–24 mm wide tips (Pl. VI/11; 8VIII/30). The majority of the ear-laths belongs to a more solid type of bows that were used, probably, for ighting purpose. L. Petculescu mentions that the width of the ear laths also deines the strength and rigidity of the bow. One can draw a bow of reduced width with a greater speed; however, it has a lower impact force. They seem ideal for hunting purposes46. Using the bows with reduced dimensions for hunting in Porolissum is highly probable and especially if one takes into account the logistic of such a large auxiliary fort47. PETCULESCU 2002, 765. PETCULESCU 2002, 765. 46 PETCULESCU 2002, 765. 47 Although, according to the archaeozoological analyses made on the animal bone assemblage from diferent buildings from Porolissum (customs oice, building LM3, L7), the proportion of wild animal bones (red deer, roe deer, bufalo, wild boar and fox) is insigniicant and hunting may have had only a random character, the large quantity of antler objects as well as the presence of the half-inished objects in the auxiliary fort could attest a serious wild animal exploitation. This may be conirmed only in the future when the archaeozoological analysis of animal 44 45 103 Type 3. This type gathers those laths that were mounted on the bow grip. Only two artefacts could be ranged in this group. An elongated, rectangular-shaped lath of type 3.a (Pl. VIII/30), chopped at the two terminals, was attached, very probably, on the transversal part of the grip. The chopped ends would have served for facilitating the mounting of the lath on the grip, eventually; the object was additionally tied on these two latter terminals. The single object of type 3.b is a rhomboid lath (Pl. VIII/31), attached on the front side of the grip. Type 4 (Pl. VIII/32–42; IX/43–49). Due to their fragmentary state, a total number of twenty lath fragments could not be ranged into any typology. They could have belonged to ear laths as well as to laths covering the grip. The dimensions of these fragments also vary just like in the case of lath of type 1 and 2. It is very interesting that, in comparison to similar lath fragments from Micia, all the fragments from Porolissum have a straight body and none of them have an arched shape48. Type 5. Among the antler and bone lath material from the auxiliary fort on Pomet hill, some semi-inished laths were also found. There are two deer antler plates (Pl. IX/50–51) which have been already cleaned and cut into the wished shape, displaying two sides, one curved and the other lat. These objects indicate the fact that for bow lath manufacturing an antler piece was used, which was cut, cleaned and sculpted with knife and chisel on the whole length of the piece, afterwards evened with a ile, as the striking tool marks reveal. There are other lath fragments that can be interpreted also as manufacturing debris or half-inished items. An ear lath fragment of type 1, very irregular in shape, is broken along the terminal and displays striking ile marks on the surface (Pl. V/7; Pl. X/7). One cannot exclude the possibility that this lath has been already broken during the manufacturing process and no efort was put into further iling and inishing procedures, being simply rejected. On two other objects with broken terminals (Pl. VI/8, 18) it was possible to notice that the laths have been subjected to pressure mostly around the nocks. This part being thinner and latter than the rest of the object, it did not resist to continuous pressure. Analogies. Similar objects to those belonging to type 1 are to be found at Colchester49 (Britannia), Mogontiacum50 (Germania Superior), Brigetio51, bone material from the auxiliary fort from the Pomet hill will be done. – see GUDEA 2009, 49–53, 58–65. 48 PETCULESCU 2002, ig. 1/6–7, 2/20 27, 3/34, 36, 38–39. 49 CRUMMY 1995, nr. 4245, ig. 160/4245. 50 MIKLER 1997, Taf. 6/1, 2, 4. 51 BÍRÓ 1994, Pl. VI/34. 104 Intercisa52 (Pannonia), Horraeum Margi53 (Moesia Superior), and, from the Dacian provinces, at Micia54, Romita55, Cristeşti56, Apulum57, Tibiscum58 and Urluieni59. Analogies for type 2 are less in number; they were reported at Mogontiacum60 and, from the Dacian provinces, at Micia61 and Tibiscum62. Close analogy for type 3.a grip lath was identiied only in Tibiscum63, and for type 3.b at Micia64. Other grip-laths of simple forms are known at Intercisa65 and Tibiscum66. Dating. Concerning the dating of bone and antler bow laths in the provinces from the Roman Empire, it was observed that they beneited from a large period of use, beginning with the 1st century up until the 4th A.D.67. A bow lath from Horraeum Margi was, for instance, recovered from a layer dated in the 5th century A.D.68. In the lack of precise archaeological observations, antler and bone laths from the Dacian provinces are dated generally to the 2nd and 3rd centuries A.D. Only in the case of the laths from Tibiscum and Micia it was possible to establish a more accurate dating (2nd century A.D.)69. The majority of the composite bow stifeners from Porolissum were unearthed from a reused context related to water cistern B10, all of them being found in secondary position, which dates to the 3rd century A.D. Thus, the proper period of use of the bows as well as the chronological limits of the workshop activity could not be deined. BÍRÓ 1994, Pl. VI/35–38. PETKOVIČ 1995, nr. 631, T. XXXVIII/5. 54 PETCULESCU 2002, ig. 1/1–17. 55 MATEI/BAJUSZ 1997, Taf. LXXXII/1. 56 PETICĂ/ZRINYI 2000, PL V/7. 57 CIUGUDEAN 1997, nr. 459–461, Pl. XXX/2–4. 58 BONA ET ALII 1983, nr. 1, 5, Pl. 11/1, 11; PETRESCU/ ROGOZEA 1990, nr. 2, Pl. 11/5. 59 BOGDAN CĂTĂNICIU 1994, 348, Fig. 14/a. 60 MIKLER 1997, Taf. 6/3. 61 PETCULESCU 2002, Fig. 2/20–22. 62 BONA ET ALII 1983, nr. 4, Pl. 11/2. 63 BENEA 1983, Fig. 2/2. 64 PETCULESCU 2002, Fig. 3/37. 65 BÍRÓ 1994, Pl. VII/40, 42, 42. 66 BENEA 2003, Taf. VII/5, 6, 8, 10. 67 H. Mikler reminds of bow laths dated already to the age of Augustus, recovered from the military forts from Oberaden, Dangstetten. The artifacts from Vindonissa and Mirebeau date to the 1st century A.D., while the bow laths from Zugmantel and Stockstadt to the 2nd and 3rd centuries A.D. The author evokes other laths from Carnuntum and Carleon which come from a 4th century A.D. context (MIKLER 1997, 17, notes 86–93). 68 PETKOVIČ 1995, nr. 631, T. XXXVIII/5. 69 Taking into consideration the fact that laths were recovered from the workshops of the two auxiliary forts, dated in an interval between 106–170 A.D. (Micia – PETCULESCU 2002, 375), respective 118–165 A.D. (Tibiscum – BENEA 2003, 227), the dating of the objects should also correspond with the period during which the workshops were functioning. 52 53 4. Conclusions Each military unit, according to their proile and ighting techniques, had its own weaponry and equipment that required permanent maintenance and replacement in the case of damage or loss. Some weapons components like bow stifeners or arrow heads were consumable articles that needed permanent replacement which implied the existence of a local production in specialized workshops70. The increased number of such weapon components in Porolissum is the result of such service activity imposed by the inner demand of the military units garrisoned in the auxiliary forts from this settlement. It is very hard to attribute the bows with bone stifening laths to a speciic military unit. In this attempt three military troops can be taken into consideration. Among archery units or other auxiliary troops having archery units stationed in Porolissum beginning with end of 2nd century and at the beginning of the 3rd century A.D. one can mention: 1) cohors I Ituraeorum71, probably sagitarii, stationed in the auxiliary fort from the Pomet hill; 2) numerus Palmyrenorum Porolissensium72, a cavalry archery unit, considered to be garrisoned in the auxiliary fort from the Citera hill, 3) vexillationes from legio III Gallica73, with unknown garrison, and, eventually, 4) cohors III D(acorum)74, an archery unit from Syria arrived with a squad from legio III Gallica, as well with an unknown garrison. Unfortunately, relating these bone and antler weapon components to one of the aforementioned military units is nearly impossible in the absence of additional evidence. However, we do believe that it is too much coincidence that diferent bone bow components (stifening laths, arrow heads) appear in those military forts where eastern archery units have The existence of local workshops producing weapon components is well illustrated by the collection of Roman laths found in the Carleon rampart-back building, which included earlaths and uninished lath fragments. – BISHOP/COULSTON 1993, 135. Another example comes from Carnuntum from a deposit dated the 2nd – 3rd centuries A.D., where trilobate arrowheads were found together with bow laths. – FISCHER 2012, 201. 71 GUDEA 1989, 166–168. According to N. Gudea, the respective unit arrived in Porolissum immediately after 106 A.D and remained in the same garrison until the end of the 3rd century A.D. – GUDEA 2008, 203–204. For a thorough analysis of the ancient literary evidence and for the history of the unit, see ȚENTEA 2004. 72 GUDEA 1989, 174–175; GUDEA 2008, 203–204; PETOLESCU 2002, 141. 73 GUDEA 1989, 159–160, GUDEA 2008, 204. 74 GUDEA 1989, 168–169. Although the respective unit initially was not an archery unit, N. Gudea believes that soldiers of the troop may have adopted the archery ighting tactics during their station in Syria – GUDEA 2008, 204. According to new interpretations, the respective cohors was identiied with cohors III Campestris. – MARCU 2009, 100. stationed (Tibiscum, Micia). In Tibiscum75, as well as in Micia76, a workshop specialised in bone bow lath production was functioning, just like in Porolissum, and these three forts are the only places where bone arrow heads and nocks have been attested. It is more than probable that the production of weapon components in all the three cases followed the same production line which can be explained by the same equipment and weaponry used in all the three places. All we can airm for sure is that the antler and bone working workshop from the auxiliary fort on the Pomet hill has a military character and it was specialized in large-scale production of diferent bow components: bow laths, arrow heads, which is underlined by the uninished items of the same types. From the perspective of production, the workshop from the fort shows similarities with workshops displaying a similar proile from the auxiliary forts from Micia and Tibiscum. These elements indicate a standardized bone and antler weapon manufacturing on the level of the Dacian provinces, determined, very probably, by the eastern archery units from these provinces. 70 75 76 BENEA 2003. PETCULESCU 2002, 765. 105 CATALOGUE Type No. Description 1 Ear-lath fragment with a wide U-shaped nock. L 60 W 20 Ear-lath fragment with 153 rounded terminal and U-shaped nock. The lath bears iling marks on the edges. 3 Ear-lath fragment with a 45 wide regular U-shaped nock. Worked only on one side. 4 Ear-lath fragment with 52 a slightly elongated U-shaped nock. Worked only on one side. File marks on the surface. 5. Almost complete ear-lath 82 with a slightly elongated U-shaped nock, broken at the edge. Worked only on one side. File marks on the surface. 6 Ear-lath fragment with a 52 slightly irregular U-shaped nock, broken at the edge. Worked only on one side. File marks on the surface. 7 Ear-lath debris, rejected 66 after the terminal had broken. Worked only on one side. Green bronze stain and striking ile marks on the surface. 8 Ear-lath fragment, broken 126 along the U-shaped nock. Worked only on one side. Gentle ile marks on the surface. 9 Ear-lath terminal fragment, 34 broken under the U-shaped nock. Worked only on one side. Gentle ile marks on the surface. 10 Almost complete ear-lath 96 fragment with a U-shaped nock, broken at the edge. Worked only on one side. Striking ile marks on the whole surface. 11 Ear-lath fragment with an 72 U-shaped nock. Worked only on one side. Gentle ile marks on the surface. 21 4 Military vicus, OL sector, building O 6. 21 4 19 2 1a 106 I.N. cc. 1665/1987, MIAZ MIAZ Dating Plate 2nd half of Pl. V/1 the 2nd c. A.D. 2nd–3rd c. Pl. V/2 A.D. Auxiliary fort from the Pomet hill, cistern B10 MIAZ 3rd c. A.D. Pl. V/3 3 Auxiliary fort from the Pomet hill, cistern B10 MIAZ 2nd- 3rd c. Pl. V/4; A.D. Pl. X/4 16 2 Auxiliary fort from the Pomet hill, cistern B10 MIAZ 3rd c. A.D. Pl. V/5 18 3 Auxiliary fort from MIAZ the Pomet hill, around the cistern B10 3rd c. A.D. Pl. V/6 18 4 Auxiliary fort from MIAZ the Pomet hill, around the cistern B10 3rd c. A.D. Pl. V/7; Pl. X/7 17 2 Auxiliary fort from MIAZ the Pomet hill, around the cistern B10 3rd c. A.D. Pl. VI/8 16 2 Auxiliary fort from MIAZ the Pomet hill, around the cistern B10 3rd c. A.D. Pl. VI/9 18 3 Auxiliary fort from MIAZ the Pomet hill, around the cistern B10 3rd c. A.D. Pl.VI/10; Pl. X/10 21 Th Find spot 3,5 Amphitheatre, room ‘R’ 3.5 Auxiliary fort from MIAZ the Pomet hill, around the cistern B10 3rd c. A.D. Pl.VI/11 Reference VASS 2006, 647, nr 30, Fig. 6/30. TAMBA 2008, Fig. VI.1.24 1b 12 Narrow ear-lath fragment with rounded head and nock. 13 Ear-lath fragment with an irregular-shaped nock. Worked only on one side. File marks on the surface. 14 Ear-lath fragment with a deep and rounded nock. Worked only on one side. File marks on the surface. 15. Ear-lath fragment with a rounded nock. Worked only on one side. File marks on the terminal and edges. 16 Ear-lath fragment with a rounded nock. Worked only on one side. Gentle ile marks on the surface. 17 Ear-lath fragment with a wide rounded nock. Worked only on one side. File marks on the surface. 18 Ear-lath fragment broken along the nock. Worked only on one side. Striking ile marks on the surface. 19 Ear-lath fragment with a rounded nock. Worked only on one side. Gentle ile marks on the surface. 20 Ear-lath terminal with a rounded nock. Worked only on one side. Striking ile marks on the edges. 21 Ear-lath terminal with a rounded nock. Worked only on one side. Gentle ile marks on the surface. 22 Ear-lath fragment with a rounded nock. Worked only on one side. Gentle ile marks on the surface. 23. Ear-lath fragment with a rounded nock. Worked only on one side. Gentle ile marks on the surface. 24 Ear-lath fragment with a wide and rounded nock. Worked only on one side. Striking ile marks on the surface. 25 Ear-lath fragment with rounded nock. File marks on the surface. 26 Ear-lath fragment with deep and rounded nock. Worked only on one side. File marks on the right edge. 38 16 4 Military vicus, LM sector, building LM1 Auxiliary fort from the Pomet hill, building C4, inner court Auxiliary fort from the Pomet hill, around the water tank B10 Auxiliary fort from the Pomet hill, around the cistern B10 MIAZ 2nd–3rd c. Pl. VI/12 TAMBA 2008, A.D. Fig. VI.3.24. 44 15 3 MIAZ 3rd c. A.D. Pl. VI/13 80 19 3 MIAZ 3rd c. A.D. Pl. VI/14; Pl. IV/14; Pl. X/14 62 19 4 MIAZ 3rd c. A.D. Pl. VI/15 58 17 3 Auxiliary fort from the Pomet hill, garbage pit G1 MIAZ 2nd–3rd c. Pl. VI/16; A.D. Pl. X/16 69 17 3 Auxiliary fort from the Pomet hill, around the cistern B10 Auxiliary fort from the Pomet hill, around the cistern B10 Auxiliary fort from the Pomet hill, around the cistern B10 Auxiliary fort from the Pomet hill, around the cistern B10 Auxiliary fort from the Pomet hill, around the cistern B10 Auxiliary fort from the Pomet hill, garbage pit G1 MIAZ 3rd c. A.D. Pl. VI/17 64 17 3 MIAZ 3rd c. A.D. Pl. VI/18; Pl. X/18 71 20 4 MIAZ 3rd c. A.D. Pl. VII/19 42 22 3 MIAZ 3rd c. A.D. Pl. VII/20 48 20 3 MIAZ 3rd c. A.D. Pl. VII/21; Pl. X/21 74 20 3 MIAZ 2nd–3rd c. Pl. VII/22 A.D. 79 23 3 Auxiliary fort from the Pomet hill, building C4 53 12 4 Auxiliary fort from MIAZ the Pomet hill, around the cistern B10 3rd c. A.D. Pl. VII/24, Pl. X/24 80 19 4 2nd–3rd c. Pl. VII/25 A.D. 82 20 3 Auxiliary fort from MIAZ the Pomet hill, around the cistern B10 Auxiliary fort from cc. 280/84 the Pomet hill, MIAZ between buildings C4 and C5 cc. 280/84 2nd–3rd c. Pl. VII/23 MIAZ A.D. 2nd–3rd c. Pl. VII/26 A.D. 107 2a 2b 3a 3b 4 27 Ear -lath fragment with a lat and trapezoidal terminal and a U-shaped nock. File marks on the edges 28 Ear-lath fragment with lat head and a U-shaped, slightly bevelled nock. 30 20 60 20 2 3 14 4 99 16 2 78 17 4 30 13 35 34 Fragment of a bow lath with striking ile marks on the right edge. 35 Fragment of a bow lath with striking ile marks on the left edge. 36 A very narrow bow lath fragment with striking ile marks on the left edge. 37 Fragment of a bow lath tapering to one end. File marks on the right edge. 29 Narrow ear-lath fragment with lat terminal and a rounded nock. Striking ile marks on the right edge. 30 Complete grip lath, chopped uniformly at both terminals. Worked only on one side. File marks on the surface. 31 Rhomboid shaped grip lath fragment, broken at both terminals. 32 Central part of a bow lath with a strongly worn out surface, possible debris. Striking ile marks on the right edge. 33 Fragment of a bow lath. 3.5 Amphiteatre, room cc. 2nd half of Pl. VII/27 VASS 2006, 647, “R” 1665/1987 the 2nd c. nr 32, Fig. 6/32. MIAZ A.D. Auxiliary fort from MIAZ the Pomet hill, around the cistern B10 Auxiliary fort from MIAZ the Pomet hill, around the cistern B10 Auxiliary fort from MIAZ the Pomet hill, around the cistern B10 3rd c. A.D. Pl. VII/28; Pl. X/28 3rd c. A.D. Pl. VII/29 3rd c. A.D. Pl. IV/30; Pl. VIII/30 2nd–3rd c. Pl. VIII/31 A.D. MIAZ 3 Auxiliary fort from the Pomet hill, cistern C3 Amphitheatre 15 3 Amphitheatre 45 15 4 2nd half of Pl. VIII/33 VASS 2006, 647, nr 33, Fig. 6/33. the 2nd c. A.D. 2nd–3rd c. Pl. VIII/34 TAMBA 2008, A.D. Fig. VI.3.31. 47 15 4 MIAZ 2nd–3rd c. Pl. VIII/35 TAMBA 2008, Fig. VI.3.31. A.D. 24 9 4 MIAZ 2nd–3rd c. Pl. VIII/36 TAMBA 2008, Fig. VI.3.31. A.D. 75 14 4 MIAZ 3rd c. A.D. Pl. VIII/37 38 Fragment of a bow lath with striking ile marks on the surface. 58 15 4 MIAZ 3rd c. A.D. Pl. IV/38; Pl. VIII/38 39 Fragment of a bow lath tapering to one end. Striking ile marks on the surface. 40 Slightly curved fragment of a lath tapering to one end. File marks on the right edge. 41 Fragment of a bow lath with a sharp, L-shaped fracture on the lower part. 50 16 3 MIAZ 3rd c. A.D. Pl. IV/39; Pl. VIII/39 87 13 3 MIAZ 3rd c. A.D. Pl. VIII/40 91 15 3 MIAZ 3rd c. A.D. Pl. IV/41; Pl. VIII/41 42 Fragment of narrow bow lath. 46 11 3 Military vicus, LM sector, building LM1 Military vicus, LM sector, building LM1 Military vicus, LM sector, building LM1 Auxiliary fort from the Pomet hill, around the cistern B10 Auxiliary fort from the Pomet hill, around the cistern B10 Auxiliary fort from the Pomet hill, around the cistern B10 Auxiliary fort from the Pomet hill, around the cistern B10 Auxiliary fort from the Pomet hill, around the cistern B10 Auxiliary fort from the Pomet hill, around the cistern B10 cc. 1667/1987 MIAZ MIAZ MIAZ 3rd c. A.D. Pl. VIII/42 108 cc. 2nd half of Pl. VIII/32 VASS 2006, 647, nr 31, Fig. 6/31. 1665/1987 the 2nd c. MIAZ A.D. 4 Type 5 43 Slightly curved fragment of a wide lath with striking ile marks on the edges. 66 17 4 Auxiliary fort from the Pomet hill, around the water tank B10 Auxiliary fort from the Pomet hill, around the cistern B10 Auxiliary fort from the Pomet hill, around the cistern B10 Auxiliary fort from the Pomet hill, around the cistern B10 Auxiliary fort from the Pomet hill, around the cistern B10 Auxiliary fort from the Pomet hill, around the cistern B10 Auxiliary fort from the Pomet hill, around the cistern B10 44 Fragment of a lath with striking ile marks on the edges. 33 15 2 45 Fragment of a lath with striking ile marks on the left margin. 40 15 3 46 Fragment of a wide and very thin lath. 57 20 1 47 Fragment of a narrow bow lath tapering to one end. 40 17 3 48 Fragment of a bow lath, broken at both ends. 63 20 2 49 Fragment of a bow lath broken on both terminal and along one margin. On the centre of object green copper alloy stain is visible. 50 Half-inished bow lath fragment cut on both ends. Striking cut, chiselling, iling and splitting marks on the surface. 51 Half-inished, slightly trapezoidal shaped bow lath fragment with striking chisel and cut marks on the surface. 50 17 3 78 24 4 Auxiliary fort from MIAZ the Pomet hill, around the cistern B10 3rd c. A.D. Pl. IV/50; Pl. IX/50 55 19 5 Auxiliary fort from MIAZ the Pomet hill, around the cistern B10 3rd c. A.D. Pl. IV/51; Pl. IX/51; Pl. X/51 ABBREVIATIONS USED IN CATALOGUE L – length in mm W – width in mm Th – thickness in mm I.N. – inventory number MIAZ – Muzeul Județean de Istorie și Artă Zalău (The County Museum of History and Art Zalău) REFERENCES BENEA 2003 D. BENEA, Militaria aus Tibiscum. Werkstätt zur Horn- und Knochenbearbeitung, in D. Benea (ed.): Istoria aşezărilor de tip vici militares din Dacia romană, (Timişoara 2003), 223–235. BÍRÓ 1994 M. T. BÍRÓ, The bone objects of the Roman Collection. Catalogi Musei Nationalis Hungarici II., (Budapest 1994). BOGDAN CĂTĂNICIU 1994 I. BOGDAN-CĂTĂNICIU, Castella de la Urluieni, StCercIstorV, 45/4, 1994, 327–355. MIAZ 3rd c. A.D. Pl. IX/43 MIAZ 3rd c. A.D. Pl. IX/44 MIAZ 3rd c. A.D. Pl. IX/45; Pl. X/45 MIAZ 3rd c. A.D. Pl. IX/46 MIAZ 3rd c. A.D. Pl. IX/47 MIAZ 3rd c. A.D. Pl. IX/48 MIAZ 3rd c. A.D. Pl. IX/49 BONA ET ALII 1983 P. BONA/R. PETROVSKY/P. ROGOZEA, Tibiscum – Cercetări arheologice (II) (1976–1979), Acta Mus. Napocensis 20, 405–432. BISHOP/COULSTON 1993 M. C. BISHOP/J. C. N. COULSTON, Roman Military Equipment from the Punic War to the Fall of Rome, (London 1993). CIUGUDEAN 1997 D. CIUGUDEAN, Obiectele din os, corn şi ildeş de la Apulum, (Alba Iulia 1997). CRUMMY 1995 N. CRUMMY, The Roman small inds from excavations in Colchester 1971–1979. Colchester Archaeological Reports 2. (Colchester 1995). DE WAELE 2005 A. DE WAELE, Composite bows at ed-Dur (Umm al-Qaiwain, U.A.E.), in: Arabian Archaeology and. Epigraphy 16, 2005, 154–160. DESCHLER-ERB 1999 E. DESCHLER-ERB, Ad Arma!: Römisches Militär Des 1. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. in Augusta Raurica, Forschungen in Augst 28, Augst 1999. 109 FISCHER 2012 TH. FISCHER, Die Armee der Caesaren. Archäologie und Geschichte, (Regensburg, 2012). GUDEA 1989 N. GUDEA, Porolissum. Un complex daco-roman la marginea de nord a Imperiului Roman. I, Acta Mus Porolissensis XIII, 1989, 1–1178. GUDEA 1991 N. GUDEA, Römische Wafen aus den Kastellen des westlichen limes von Dacia Porolissensis, Ephemeris Napocensis I, 1991, 69–81. GUDEA 1992 N. GUDEA, Addenda et corrigenda la „Römische Wafen aus den Kastellen des westlichen Limes von Dacia Porolissensis“ (Ephem Napapocensis 1, 1991, 68—80), Ephemeris Napocensis II, 1992, 249. GUDEA 2006 N. GUDEA, Sagittarii Porolissenses şi armele lor. I. (Sagittarii Porolissenses and their weapons), in: C. Gaiu, C. Găzdac (ed.): Fontes Historiae, Studia In Honorem Demetrii Protase, (Bistrița 2006), 395–415. GUDEA 2008 N. GUDEA, Sagittarii Porolissenses und ihre Kampfwafen. I., in: L. Kocsis (ed.): The Enemies of Rome. Proceedings of the 15th International Roman Military Equipment Conference, Budapest 2005, Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies, vol. 16 (Budapest 2008), 201–212. GUDEA 2009 AL. I. GUDEA, Soldatul roman în Dacia (106–275 p.Ch). Studiu de arheozoologie privind creşterea animalelor şi regimul alimentar în armata romană/The Roman Soldier in Dacia (AD. 106–275). An archaeozoological study concerning the animal breeding and diet in the Roman army, (Cluj-Napoca 2009). GUDEA ET ALII 1986 N. GUDEA/E. CHIRILĂ/AL. V. MATEI/I. BAJUSZ/D. TAMBA. Raport preliminar în legătură cu cercetările arheologice executate la Moigrad (Porolissum) în anii 1983–1985, Acta Mus. Porolissensis X, 1986, 119–155. GUDEA ET ALII 1988 N. GUDEA/E. CHIRILĂ/A.V.MATEI/I. BAJUSZ/D. TAMBA, Raport preliminar în legătură cu săpăturile arheologice şi lucrările de conservare şi restaurare executate în complexul daco-roman Porolissum în anii 1986–1987, Acta Mus. Porolissensis XII, 1988, 147–189. MACGREGOR 1985 A. MACGREGOR, Bone, antler, ivory and horn, (London-Sydney, 1985). MARCU 2009 F. MARCU, Organizarea internă a castrelor din Dacia. The internal planning of Roman forts of Dacia, (Cluj-Napoca 2009). MATEI/BAJUSZ 1997 A. MATEI/I. BAJUSZ, Castrul roman de la Romita-Certiae. Das Römergrenzkastell von Romita-Certiae, (Zalău 1997). 110 MIKLER 1997 H. MIKLER, Die römischen Funde aus Bein im Landesmuseum Mainz, Monographies instrumentum 1, (Montagnac 1997). PETCULESCU 2002 L. PETCULESCU, The military equipment of oriental archers in Roman Dacia, in: Ph, Freeman, J. Bennett, Z.T. Fiema, B. Hofmann, (ed.) LIMES XVIII. Proceedings of the XVIIIth International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies held in Amman, Jordan (September 2000), Volume II, BAR International Series 1084 (II), 765–770. PETOLESCU 1997 C. C. PETOLESCU, Die Auxiliareinheiten im römischen Dakien, ActaMusNapoc 34, 66–141. PETOLESCU 2002 C. C. PETOLESCU, Auxilia Daciae. Contribuţii la istoria militară a Daciei romane, (Bucureşti 2002). PETICĂ/ZRINYI 2000 M. PETICĂ/A. ZRINYI, Obiecte de os în colecţiile Muzeului Judeţean Mureş, Marisia XXVI, 2000, 123–135. PETKOVIČ1995 S. PETKOVIČ, Rimski predmeti od kosti i roga sa teritorije gornje Mezije (The Roman items of bone and antler from the territory of Upper Moesia), (Beograd 1995). PETRESCU/ROGOZEA 1990 M. S. PETRESCU/P ROGOZEA, Tibiscum – principia castrului mare de piatră (I), Banatica, 10, 1990, 107–137. TAMBA 2008 D. GH. TAMBA, Porolissvm. aşezarea civilă (vicvs militaris) a castrului mare. Observaţii în legătură cu aşezările civile ale castrelor de trupe auxiliare din Dacia Porolissensis, (Cluj-Napoca 2008). ŢENTEA 2004 O. ŢENTEA, Cohors I Ituraeorum Sagittariorum Equitata Miliaria, in: L. Ruscu, C. Ciongradi, R. Ardevan, C. Roman, C. Găzdac (eds.) Orbis Antiqvs. Studia in honorem Ioannis Pisonis, (Cluj-Napoca 2004), 805–814. URECHE 2013 P. URECHE, The Bow and Arrow during the Roman Era, Ziridava 27, 2013, 183–197. Vass Lóránt Muzeul Judeaţean Mureş v_lorant@yahoo.com Dealul POGUIOR LA STRÂMTURĂ FÂNTÂNA ŞUŞIGULUI Dealul MĂGURIŢA ŞCOALA Dealul IONAŞ N ROATA DUNGII COMORII hill PORCARULUI hill E NI RO GO UR FERICE hill SO AI E CORNIŞTEA hill ŞT hi ll MĂGURA hill hi ll CLOCOŢĂL hill Terrace of sanctuaries Vama CITERA hill LM 1 CĂMNINI hill Buildings OL 1-6 POMET hill Amphitheatre LA POIANĂ Roman cemetery URSOIEŞ Dacian fortification Earthen vallum Watchtower Stone wall Double earthen vallum with stone turrets Fortlet Roman building Cemetery Defensive trench 0 100 200 300 Roman road m Pl. I. Porolissum (plan after Nicolae Gudea, edited by C. Găzdac) 111 Customs office Citera A auxiliary Fort building LM1 vicus/Municipium building ol 6 vicus/Municipium Pomet auxiliary fort Forum B Ursoieş roman cemetery LEGEND: Composite bow laths Pl. II. Spatial distribution of the bone and antler composite bow laths în Porolissum: A – Building Lm1 (after TAMBA 2008); B – Building Ol6 (After TAMBA 2008). 112 B6 B 12 B 11 B5 B4 B 13 B 10 B 14 B9 B 15 B3 B 16 B7 B3 B2 B1 G C8 C 5/7 C3 C4 C2 C9 N 0 10 20 30 40 50 m Legend Bow laths Bone arrowheads Pl. III. Spatial distribution of the bone and antler military equipment in the auxiliary fort from the Pomet hill (plan after Marcu 2009). 113 A B 1 2 38 50 51 41 39 C 30 Pl. IV. Reconstruction of the chaîne operatoire of the bow lath manufacture (Drawing after MacGregor 1985; photos of the objects taken by L. Vass) 114 14 1 3 4 2 6 7 5 0 5 cm Pl. V. Ear laths: Type 1.a.: 1 – amphiteatre; 2 – building OL6; 3-7 – auxiliary fort from the Pomet hill. Scale 1:1. 115 12 9 11 13 10 8 14 15 16 18 17 0 5 cm Pl. VI. Ear laths: Type 1.a: 8-11 – auxiliary fort from the Pomet hill; Type 1.b: 12 – building LM1; 13-18 – auxiliary fort from the Pomet hill. Scale: 1:1. 116 21 20 19 22 23 29 24 25 27 28 26 0 5 cm Pl. VII. Ear laths: Type 1.b: 19-26 – auxiliary fort from the Pomet hill; Tip 2.a: 27 – amphitheatre, 28 – auxiliary fort from the Pomet hill; Tip 2.b: 29 – auxiliary fort from the Pomet hill. Scale 1:1. 117 33 32 31 30 36 35 34 39 42 38 40 41 37 0 5 cm Pl. VIII. Bow laths: Type 3.a: 30 – auxiliary fort from the Pomet hill; Typep 3.b: 31 – auxiliary fort from the Pomet hill; Type 4: 32-33 – amphitheatre; 34-36 – military vicus, building LM1; 37-42 – auxiliary fort from the Pomet hill. Scale 1:1. 118 44 45 47 46 43 49 48 51 50 0 5 cm Pl. IX. Bow laths: Type 4: 43-49 – auxiliary fort from the Pomet hill; Type 5: 50-51 – auxiliary fort from the Pomet hill. Scale 1:1. 119 28 24 7 14 10 4 21 16 18 0 51 45 Pl. X. Bow laths form the auxiliary fort from the Pomet hill (Photos: L. Vass). Scale 1:1 120 5 cm