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 differentiated ways of use for the narrow spears of cluster three72 and four73. Also analysing the use-wear would be useful in tracing the function of these two clusters of objects. Contexts and meanings Most finds of arrow heads and possible darts come from settlements, an apparent discrepancy to the spears, which come mostly from bronze hoards due to their material. Anyway this distinction is not absolute, as spears are also attested in settlements. Furthermore, differences can be seen between NC and SC finds. Almost all arrow heads and dart points of the NC were found in settlements, while the projectile points of the SC come from settlements and also from graves (although not in big numbers). The proposed atlatl is present only in settlements. How can these contexts be interpreted and what roles of projectile points can be deduced from them? To get an answer to this question, the finds must be analyzed in their cultural contexts. It has been shown that almost all arrow heads were found in settlements; some of them come- as also other finds of the NSC- from the ‘ashmounds’, which were preferably excavated, while areas near the ‘ashmound’ remained unexplored74. Based on the discoveries from Rotbav, one can think about the ‘ashmounds’ as intensely used activity areas in the form of basins deepened into the earth, well-limited from the inhabited area, and slowly filled during use but also intentionally ‘closed’ at the end of their use-lifes, through depositions that were found immediately under their surface75. The fact that some finds of pottery, animal bones, tools etc. are concentrated here shows that the ‘ashmound’ represents somehow a center of communal life. This special mode of deposition76 related to the ‘ashmounds’ could be the explanation for the relatively massive appearance of projectile points in the NSC and their apparent scarcity in other earlier settlements and cultural milieus, like for example the Wietenberg, Monteoru or Tei Cultures, where no ‘ashmounds’ exist and the projectile points not usually constitute grave goods. Indeed, a large percentage of the arrow points could have been integrated in the depositional process in the ‘ashmounds’, although for most of the analyzed pieces find contexts are missing or were not published. In conclusion, one could argue that even if many more projectile points are known from the NSC, that does not necessarily mean that they were not with the same intensity used in other cultural milieus, being poorly preserved/handed down77. But, for example, in Rotbav, where a big surface near the ‘ashmound’ was excavated, it could be observed that the projectile points came almost exclusively from outside of the ‘ashmound’. They were not deposited and represent with high probability discarded items. Of course the situation in Rotbav cannot be transferred on all ‘ashmounds’, but there is a big probability that at least in some regions the visibility of projectile points is not affected by the depositional processes and they really do appear in larger numbers than in earlier periods. Another aspect of archaeological visibility is the quasi-absence of arrow heads from the hoards, which can lead easily to a false image of the weaponry in the NSC and the importance of projectile points. Not only the big amount, but also their diversity denotes a wide use. A function as a hunting weapon is possible, however the high diversity of projectile types renders an exclusive use in hunting rather improbable. Finds of wild animal bones are attested in NSC settlements usually in small amounts of up to 5%, more rarely up to 20%, thus the usual quantities in a world dominated by animal husbandry. Attested are inter alia deer, wild boar, hare, aurochs, antelope, wild ass, fox, wolf, bear, lynx, badger, nutria and otter; also birds and fish bones are known78. Particular weapons could have played a role for hunting on ‘special’ occasions. They may reflect the importance to point out the traditional identity as a hunter for people living in a society whose world view was deeply entangled with animals79, but there are no hints that hunting became more important than in the earlier periods (in which projectile points are less visible), or that it takes a more important role in the cultic sphere. The large amount, the various sizes and shapes of the projectile points lead to the conclusion that they must have played an important role in armed 72for definition of the type see Klochko 2001,204-207; Dergacev 2002,132 with further literature. 73 for the definition of these two types see Klochko 2001, 203-204; Dergacev 2002, 132-133. 7< Dietrich 2011,2012,2013. 75 Dietrich 2009. 76 Dietrich 2013. 77In this sense already Hansen 1994, 82-97 for the Late Bronze Age finds in Central Europe. 78Bălăşescu, Radu, in preparation; El Susi 2002; Boroffka 2005, 142; Sava 2005, 145-146; Bindea/Kelemen 2011. 79 Dietrich 2011b. 190
