Marisia - Maros Megyei Múzeum Évkönyve 34-35. (2014-2015)
Articles
Medieval Weapons from Bistra Muresului 119 weapons are represented within the find by lance spearheads used in close combat and arrowheads coming from bow and crossbow arrows used as long range weapons. 1. Staif-weapons Of the close combat weapons only three spearheads can be classified as staff-weapons. All three present similar formal characteristics. The leaf shaped flake with a sharp spine turns narrower towards the end and continues in a cylindrical socket. The socket mounts up to half of the spearhead’s length in two cases and only to a third of it in one case. Spearheads are rarely found during archaeological research and are mostly poorly preserved, therefore their dating and systematization stands on uncertain ground. Spearheads found during the excavation in Iacobeni (Mezőszentjakab)8 and Loman (Lomány)9 were probably similar to the ones found in Bistra. The conditions of their finding, in both cases support their dating to the 14th and 15th century. Based on analogies from the Carpathian Basin,10 as well as on finds from farther regions,11 they can be dated to the period between the 12th and 15th centuries. 1. Leaf shaped, lean, sharp spine spearhead. Total length: 28.1 cm; Socket length: 8 cm, Socket diameter: 2.2 cm; Largest width: 3.9 cm; Weight: 134 g (Fig. 3/1) 2. Leaf shaped, lean, sharp spine spearhead. Total length: 26 cm; Socket length: 12 cm, Socket diameter: 2,1 cm; Largest width: 3.5 cm; Weight: 175g (Fig. 3/2) 3. Leaf shaped, lean, sharp spine spearhead. Total length: 22 cm; Socket length: 10 cm, Socket diameter: 2 cm; Largest width: 3.2 cm; Weight: 122 g (Fig. 3/3) 2. Long-range weapons The memory of the medieval Transylvanian archery’s weapons is almost exclusively kept by different types of arrowheads as we know of only a few Transylvanian medieval finds related to bows and crossbows. This issue has never been thoroughly and comprehensively treated in Transylvania, either from a historical or an 8 Pintea 1967, 537, fig. 9/8. 9 Ghenescu 2009, 120, 123, Pl. II/l. 10 A comprehensive, more thorough collection and systematization in the Carpathian Basin took place in Slovakia: Ruttkay 1976, 299-301; for finds in Hungary, see: Kovács 1970, 91. 6. ábra 6, 93. 7. ábra 1, 99; Kovács 1986, 260-261; Kovács 1988, 222-223. 11 Kirpicnikov 1966, 3,10-11, Fig.l; Nadolski 1956, 54-56, 264. Tabi. XXIV/2, 4, 266. Tabi. XXVI/3-4; Bron 1978, 61, 83-84. Fig. 3. Spearheads from Bistra Muresului (Drawn by M. Ferenczi) archaeological point of view. The general works of military history from the 1970s are mostly based on written and pictorial sources and only allude to archaeological finds.12 A few of these latter will be mentioned further on in a short historical overview dedicated to the subject.13 The vast majority of the preserved artefacts ended up in the museums’ possession as stray finds or without the context of discovery. Due to the unclear finding circumstances the identification of the arrowheads’ function remains in most cases questionable. While the heavier, more robust crossbow boltheads were mainly, but not exclusively used for military purposes until the 16th century, the simpler and formally diverse arrowheads’ function is hard to determine. In the case of some of the below discussed items we cannot exclude a double function.14 2.1. Arrowheads Arrowheads can formally be divided into several groups. We will first discuss the tanged and socketed bow arrowheads, and later boltheads used for crossbows. One must highlight however that overlaps between the two groups may occur, and it is often very difficult to draw a sharp distinction line between them.15 * 12 Vlädescu - König 1972, 63-66; Vlädescu 1973, 79-84. 13 Bordi 2006. 14 References also often mention the possible double function of the finds. In his typology, Jessop describes several arrowhead groups as such (see multi-purpose’ types): Jessop 1996. Zimmermann speaks similarly of crossbow boltheads: Zimmermann 2000. 22-24. 15 On determining the arrowheads’ functions, types and on problems of interpretation: Zimmermann 2000, 19-21.
