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
comparison to all other variants (up to 11 cm). They may look more slim and narrow than other projectile points, but due to the barbs sticking out considerably they are in reality quite wide and have a high penetration force. A. Small shaft, three facets (bone). B. Long shaft, three facets (bone). C. Long shaft and barbs, three and four facets (bone). D Concave base (bone). E. Socketed projectile points, four facets (bronze). All variants can be found under different names in the works of Klochko46, and Beldiman47 and were mentioned by Florescu48. Nocks (Fig.3., bottom) Florescu49 classified these objects as ‘arrowheads’ and Klochko50 as ‘bone rings for straightening bowstrings’. It is probable that the objects have to be interpreted as nocks, i.e. the part of the arrow where the bowstring enters. Nocks can be made simply by grooving the wooden rearmost end of the arrow, but nocks made separately of bone or wood and set into the arrow are also known (reconstruction fig. 3, below)51. This has the advantage that not the whole arrow splits when high forces act on the notch. All types and variants are spread in the whole area of the NSC, without visible concentrations. However this image should be treated with reservation, as it is clearly biased by the state of research and publication. Origin and analogies of the projectile points were discussed in detail by Klochko52. Most of the forms are of local origin53, being already used in the Early and Middle Bronze Age in this region54, for others an eastern origin can be assumed55. However, not the origin of different forms of projectile points will be discussed here, although this subject should be further analysed in a separate study integrating the data on all weapon types. Of high interest is a metrical analysis, which can offer insights into the function of the projectile points and the launching systems. Metrical analysis A large number of studies deal with the possibilities of separating arrow heads from dart points. Various attributes are used, like for example width, neck width, thickness and weight56, neck width, shoulder width, thickness and length57, or weight, tip cross sectional area (TCSA) and tip cross sectional perimeter (TCSP)58. Of particular interest is the so called tip cross sectional area, which is measured based on the maximum width and thickness of a point59, using the formula: TCSA=([l/2 thickness] x width). The TCSA reflects the force necessary to penetrate a target to a lethal depth, measured in the size of the impact hole, and represents a mechanical rather than a stylistic argument60, the TCSP in change takes into account not only the area, but also the point's margins61. This metric analysis was applied successfully to projectile point collections from America and to Palaeolithic finds from Africa and the Near East, but never to artefact collections of the Bronze Age. Projectile weapons of the Late Bronze Age in the Eastern Europe. The case of... 46 Klochko 2001,199, fig. 79/4-6 as ‘three petal hafted arrowheads’; 201, fig. 79/7 as ‘three faceted bush based arrowhead’. 47Beldiman 2002,117, fig. 11/6, type 6. 48 Florescu 1991, fig. 140/2, 5-6, 8-9, 141/1. 49 Florescu 1991, fig. 141/3-7, 10-12. “Klochko 2001, 232, fig. 92/6. 51 On nocks see for example Eckhardt 1996, 74, Riesch 2002, 49. 52 Klochko 1993,2001, 199-202. “Using the term „local“ seems to come somehow in contradiction with the assumption of an eastern origin of the projectile points, but that depends in fact on our definitions of the cultural processes in the Early Bronze Age of Eurasia. As some forms are already attested in the region in the Middle Bronze Age, the term ‘local’, in the sense of continuity from Middle to the Late Bronze Age, can be used. Where some specific forms were invented is another topic that must be discussed in relation to other weapons, considering cultural processes like diffusion, communication and migration during the Early and Middle Bronze Age. 54 Klochko 1993; 2001, 158-163; 179-183, especially 193, fig. 77. “Malov 1991, Fig. 4; Malov2002, Fig. 4. “Thomas 1978. 57 Shott 1997. “Hughes 1998. 59 see Hughes 1998, Shea 2006, Ames et at. 2010, Sisk/Shea 2011. “Sisk/Shea 2011,2-3. 61 Sisk/Shea 2011, 3, fig. 1. 187
