Marisia - Maros Megyei Múzeum Évkönyve 34-35. (2014-2015)
Articles
126 Z. Győrfi organic material. Only the decorated rivets were visible, as the periods pictorial sources indicate it as well. The size of the plates is variable, but their length is generally between 8 and 9 cm, and their width 6-7cm. The plates’ thickness shows slight differences, most of them are somewhere between 1.1-1.5 mm thick. So far, we do not know of any such plates in Transylvania but very similar pieces are exposed at the permanent exhibition’s medieval part at the Alba Iulia museum. The preserved finds are the remains of plate armour that one can consider the jack of plate’s (brigantine) forerunner. One fastened metal plates to a poncho-like coat of plates, wearing probably a plated mail underneath in order to assure the protection of the upper body. Several works of history of weapons have dealt with the mentioned coat of plates’ origin and spread, and although most of the data related to armature have refined and toned the thesis of C. Blair and B. Thordeman’s monographic works, they did not fundamentally shake them. The beginning of its large scale use is set by references to the end of the 13lh and the beginning of the 14lh century.100 This type of armour is probably of North Italian origin,101 although many have assumed it came from the East.102 Research has attempted to set up a line of development for armour plates, but 14th century pieces of varied forms found on the Wisby battlefield103 imply rather that several different types of the mentioned armour were simultaneously used.104 The Wisby typology and analysis is of capital importance to this day, as it is the largest archaeological find ever. The Bistra plates resemble armour nr. 27’s plates 20-26 most, but determining their structure has not been successful.105 A segmented coat of armour was reconstructed from plates similar to ours, found in Bibentenburg in the vicinity of Zürich. Its publishers consider it the forerunner of the jack of plates (Plattenharnisch),106 just like Blair, who analyzed similar plates and came to the conclusion that it was often impossible to draw a clean-cut line between the two forms.107 One can often find similar armour components in archaeological material from Silesian fortresses. In shape and 100 Blair 1958, 39-41. 101 Nicolle 2002, 206-221. 102 Oakeshott 1960, 269-271. 103 Thordeman 1940. 104 Toll 2009, 88. 105 Thordeman 1940, 405-408, Fig. 393. 106 Leutenegger 2004, 98-100, Abb. 14. 107 Blair 1958, 59. size it is the Szczerba (Schnallenstein) plates that resemble the Bistra ones best.108 These and other analogous Silesian items have been dated to the second half of the 14th and first half of the 15th century.109 It would be useful to reconstruct the armour from the preserved pieces, but based on the number of plates we consider this a risky endeavour. We think that the Bistra armour was not much unlike the reconstructed Bibentenburg armour but its exact structure could only be determined by means of further plates. Depending on the battle conditions, the Bistra armour offered a more or less efficient protection to its wearer. It could, by all probability neutralize the effects of close combat and smaller bullets, but it is uncertain whether it could counter the impact of crossbows that have also been found in Bistra. 1. Angled plate, one side bent, slightly curved. Dimensions: Long sides (henceforth: Is): 8.8 and 8.6, short sides (henceforth: ss): 6.4 and 5.5. Its four rosette rivet heads are at an almost identical distance from each other. (2.5-2.9 cm). The average distance between the rivet head and the plate is of 2.4 mm. Pth: 1.1 mm (Fig. 6/1, 7/1) 2. Rectangular plate, very slightly curved. Dimensions: Is: 8.1 and 8.0, ss: 6.2 and 6.1. Of its four rosette rivet heads, set in two parallel rows, two are intact, one fragmented, one has perished. The average distance between the rivet head and the plate is of 2.1 mm. Pth: 1.1 mm (Fig. 6/2) 3. Rectangular plate, curved. Dimensions: Is 8.2 and 8.0, ss: 7.0 and 6,5. Its four rosette rivet heads are at almost identical distance from each other (2.3-2.4 cm). The average distance between the rivet head and the plate is of 2.0 mm. Pth: 1mm (Fig. 6/3) 4. Rectangular plate, very slightly curved. Dimensions: Is: 8.0 and 8.0, ss: 6.2 and 6.0. Its three rosette rivet heads are at almost identical distance from each other (2.3 cm). The average distance between the rivet head and the plate is of 2.4 mm. Pth: 1 mm (Fig. 6/4) 5. Rectangular plate, very slightly curved. Dimensions: Is: 8.5 and 8.4, ss: 6.5 and 6.3. Its three rosette rivet heads are at almost identical distance from each other (2.0-2.2 cm). The distance between the rivet head and the plate is of 1.8-2.0 mm. Pth: 1.8 mm (Fig. 6/5) 6. Rectangular plate, very slightly curved. Dimensions: Is: 8.6 and 8.5, ss: 6.1 and 6.1. Of its three rosette rivet heads two are at bigger distance on the longer side (2.2 cm) and at smaller distance on the shorter side (1.7 cm) from each other. The distance between the rivet head and the plate is of 2.0 mm. Pth: 1.8-2.0 mm (Fig. 6/6, 7/2) 7. Rectangular plate, very slightly curved. Dimensions: Is: 8.3 and 8.3, ss: 6.3 and 6.2. It has three 108 Marek 2008, 89. Fig. 3/1-2, 91-93. 109 Marek 2008, 97-99.
