Marta, Liviu (szerk.): Satu Mare. Studii şi comunicări. Seria arheologie 29/1. (2013)
Laura Dietrich: Projectile weapons of the Late Bronze Age int he Easter Europe. The case of the Noua-Sabatinovka-Coslogeni cultural complex
Laura Dietrich the distal end28. The hook at the end can be made of bone or wood or a naturally formed tree branch can be transformed into it. Darts are very similar in shape to arrows; a separation can be made only based on parameters like neck or shoulder width, length, thickness and weight29. Atlatls were widely used, for example in America and Australia; they are also known from Paleolithic sites in France or Africa30. A certain technological supremacy of the bow as a launching system has to be taken into account, which led also to the replacement of the atlatl by the bow (although in many regions both weapons were used contemporaneously). Nevertheless, accuracy analysis has demonstrated that both weapons are to some degree comparably effective, although operating an atlatl demands more skill31. Generally the archaeological visibility of the atlatl is low, especially when it is completely made of wood; darts remain undiscovered between the arrowheads, when no metric analysis is conducted. For the Bronze Age the presence of this weapon has not even been taken into account so far, but it will be in the present paper. Another type of projectile weapon is the spear (javelin). In German it is called ‘Speer’ or ‘Wurfspeer’, in Romanian ‘suliţă’ or ‘lance’. Broadly one can differentiate between throwing and thrusting spears, but an appropriate approach in this sense is missing for the NSC, as well as use wear or metric analysis. Using an exact definition, only throwing spears can be classified as projectile weapons. Multi-functionality is also possible. Since use wear analysis is not available for NSC projectile points, only a small control group of definite spear heads was included in the present study. The majority of the analyzed finds is constituted of smaller projectile points of bone and stone; bronze is also present, but is not frequent. Two classifications were made, a first one based on morphological traits, a second one based on metrical data. Five morphological groups could be separated, each with a few variants, the criteria being the general shape, shape of the blade and the shafting mode (fig. 3). Type 1. Bullet-shaped projectile points (bone and bronze) The body can be faceted or rounded. Projectile points of this type have lengths between 2 and 3,5 cm, and widths up to 0,7 cm; the thickness is the same as the width. This type was mentioned by Florescu32 for some NC settlements and was defined by Klochko33. Nevertheless, the function of some of these objects as projectile points is still questionable. An almost identical object from the Noua-Settlement from Rotbav was identified as a needle support (‘Nadelhalter’), because it was found together with a similarly decorated needle34. However, we cannot exclude that some of these pieces could have been projectile points; further analysis should concentrate on the use-wear. Type 2. Elongated flat projectile points (bone) Characteristic for this type is that the shaft and the blade are not separated from each other, only a few pieces have on one side a cut which suggests a separate blade. Projectile points of this type have lengths between 3 and 7 cm, widths up to 1,3 cm and they are usually very thin (0,2-0,5 cm). Three variants could be recognised, anyway it is not sure if objects of variant C are really projectile points or awls. Even if the form suggests this, the exact function should be assured by use-wear analysis. A. Basic form, wider or narrower, most times asymmetrically elongated, although also symmetrical pieces (with the biggest width in the middle) occur. B. With ‘barbs’ in the middle. C. With ‘barbs’ in the lower part. The first two variants were defined by Beldiman35 based on the NC Settlement from Zoltán. Furthermore, Beldiman reconstructed the hafting possibilities of this type of projectile points36, which are either strapped to or inserted into the shaft. Type 3. Triangular tangless projectile points (bone and flint). “Modern reconstructed atlatls can be seen for example here: http://www.worldatlatl.org/: http://www.grinnell.edu/academic/ anthropologv/iwweb: http://wtvw.speerschleuder.de/. 2,e.g. Thomas 1978, Shott 1997; O'Shea 2006; Bretze et al. 2006. 30e.g. Thomas 1978; Shott 1997; O'Shea 2006; Bretze et al. 2006; Ames et al. 2010; Whittaker 2009. 31 Whittaker 2013. 32 Florescu 1991,73,fig. 142, 2-5, 7-10. 33 Klochko 1993,43, %. 3/14-16; 2001, 201, %. 79/9-12 34 Dietrich 2010 with %. 1. 35 Beldiman 2002,117, fig. 11/1, 11/2, type 1 and 2. 36 Beldiman 2002, Fig. 15/1.1,1.2. 184
