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