THE COMPOSITE BOW FROM THE EARLY MEDIEVAL CEMETERY OF VUKOVAR-LIJEVA BARA (GRAVE 92)

Autor analizira terenske podatke o nalazima iz groba 92 s groblja Vukovar-Lijeva bara gdje su osim bročanog nakita (karičice, narukvica, prsten) otkriveni ulomci prekrivnih koštanih pločica staromađarskoga rejleksnog luka, te dva noža i vrh strelice. U okviru predložene tipološke podjele ulomci prekrivnih pločica s Lijeve bare pripisani su pločicama sa završecima suženima prema vrhu (tip 1).Weapons and military equipment represent the rat\u27est and least numerous group of objects from the grave inventories at the cemetery of Lijeva Bara in Vukovar, consisting only of assault weapons and equipment (28 examples): arrowheads predominate (78.57%), with far less numerous quivers (17.86%) and only one composite bow (3.57%). Assault weapons and equipment were discovered in 14 primarily male or probably male graves (ratio: 2:1), meaning their proportion among the graves with finds measures 7.33%. The only composite bow from the Vukovar site comes from grave 92, discovered during the second excavarion campaign while excavating quadrants V/l3 and VJ/13, located ill the northwestern section of the excavated portion of the cemetery. The first indications of its existence were noted during removal of the fourth excavation layer (ea. 100 cm), where "in field b) at its base a skull was noted in the loess " (Diary, ad 30.8.]952), and because of the emphasized difference in depth in terms oJ the other graves in quadrant VI/3 (gr. 82, 83. and 91, and 84 and 97), it was immediately suggested that this probably "indicates a chronological gap in burial" (Diary, ad 31.8.1952). Work in quadrant Vll3 continued thefollowing day with the excavation oJthe 5\u27" excavation stratum "into the loess subsoil" (Diary, ad ].9.1952), but the skeletanfrom grave 92 IVas Ilot touched even during the next two days, not until the 4" ofSeptember, when it finally began to be uncovered. At that point the skeleton was determined to be male, and thefinds were listed as: "l bronze earring below the left ear, 2 bronze rings with separated ends, j bronze bracelet on the right hand, and along the right femur on the outside l iron knife and 3 arrowheads, as well as several bone fragments from a bow" (Diary, ad 4.9.]952). For afurther two days, the grave was cleaned, and the field documentation oj the finds continuedfor another two days -lasting altogether with interruptionsfor three days (4-619.1952) -with a further four days passing before removal of the skeleton "with a subsequent find oja small circle!" (Diary, ad 10.9.1952), when the /ist ofgrave finds was definitively concluded in the field documentation: "j. A small bronze cirelet below the left ear; 2. Part ofa bronze ring on the right hand; 3. Part ofa bronze ring on the right hand; 4. A bronze bracelet on the right arm; 5. Nine bone fragments that served as reinforcement for a bow, found on the chest, on the right side of the stomach to the right hip; 6. Three arrowheads (nomadie type),found on the right side of the thigh; 7. An iron knife on the right side oJthe thigh bone. During removal: 8. A small bronze circlet below the left ear." (Field Record, no. 9216.9.1952). Of the original nine finds (Diary, ad 4.9.1952), and then eleven finds classified into eight groups ofobjects (Field Record, no. 9216.9.]952.), nine items were listed and described in the old museum inventary list (P-inv. AMZ), with only eight objects in the new museum inventary list (5-inv. AMZ). Even this later figure had to be corrected and additionally reduced by one object after resroration and conservation, as it became evident that the eight originally inventoriedfinds includedfragments (2 pieces) ofone and the same iron knife. ln this manner the number ofpresently preserved finds from grave 92 has been reduced to ollly seven items, so that only together with the lost and currently non-existing fragment ofthe rhomboid tip ofan iron arrowhead can the figure ofa total oJ eight objects be realized (PI. 1_2):\u27 }. Circlet-bronze; 5-2531 (G.13-J,813). 2.Circlet -bronze; 5-2532 (G.J3-1,813). 3.Bracelet -bronze; 5-2530 (G. 4). 4.Ring -bronze; 5-2533 (G. 22). 5.Knife,fragments -iron; 5-2534,2536 (G. A). 6. Knife, fragments -iron; S-2535 (G. A). 7. Bow, composite (re flex}, covering latks, sections in fragments (ll pieces) upper pair of laths (9 pieces), damaged, incomplete; grip laths, fragments (2 pieces), incomplete, lost; lower pair of laths, undiscovered; S-253711-9 (G. A); 7.j -upper laths, fragments (5 pieces) -bone; 5-253711-5; 7.2 -upper lalhs, fragments (4 pieces) -bone; S-253716-9; 7.3-4* -grip laths,fragments (2 pieces) -bone; incomplete, lost; 7.5-6* -lower laths -bone; undiscovered (unpreserved). 8. * Arrowhead, lip, fragment -iron; lost (G. A). r* -Denotes objects that were not discovered in the field, or, iftheyexistedJor known or unknown reasons were not preserved, as they were subsequently misplaced, lost, or in some other manner disappeared without atrace; G. = Giesler 1981}. A prominent position among these objects is occupied by the remains of the covering laths of a composite (reflex) bow, the only witnesses to the existence ofthis kind ofassault weapanry among the graves uncovered at Lijeva Bara. The field documentation contains little about the find itself, and at first merely the existence was Iwted of "several bone fragments from a bow" (Diary, ad 4.9.1952), while several days laler it was conclusively stated that "on Ihe chest, the right side of the abdomen to the right hip" of the deceased was a total of "Iline bonefragmenrs that served to reinforce a bow" (Field Record, no. 9216.9.1952). In addition to such meager wrillen data, the location of the grave and the circumstances of the find are somewhat more clearly defined by two not entirely corresponding photographs taken on the second day of excavating grave 92 (Diary, ad 5.9. 1952), and to a certain extent by one probably contemporary photograph of the entire quadrant VlJ3 showing all the graves discovered in it (Diary, ad 5.9.1952)\u27 The disparity ofthe first two photographs mentioned here, well known from earlier and published several times, is evident not merely in the fact that one ofthem shows the whole skeleton (Fig. l:l), and the other merely part ofthe trunkfrom the head to the pelvis (Fig. 1 :2), blll also in the varied quantity and distribution offragments ofindividual objects jound in the grave: first of all, the fragments of covering bone laths (1119 specimens), one oftwo iron knives (3/2 pieces), and the unpreserved and hence in the AMZ currently non-existing fragment ofan iron arrowhead (J /J example). The photographs Jurther display laths broken into several parts but assembled, certainly by a helping hand, to form a raw composed of a varied number oj nonJunctionally arranged fragments. placed on the right side ofthe skeleton approximately in the area in which they were probably for the most part originally discovered. The greatest number of lath fragmenIs, a total oj eleven, is visible only in the photograph of the entire skeleton (Fig. 1:1). Of these eleven fragments, nine fragments belang to the upper pair oj lalhs (no. 7. II1-5; no. 7.211-4), and the remaining two fragments found along the upper part ofthe righl thigh, today unpreserved and nonexislent, should be al/ributed to the bone laths of the grip oj the composite bow (no. 7.3-411). In reference to the lower pair ofcovering laths, whose parts could be expected to be found along or on the lower part ofthe skeleton, primarily at the height of the right knee ojthe deceased or even somewhat lower, it seems that absolutely nothing was either noted or collected in the field. The fragments of the upper laths offer the possibility ofa quile accurate reconstruction of the appearance and dimensions of one lath. and a somewhat poorer reconstruction of the appearance and dimensions of the other lath (Pl. 2): five fragments that fit perfectly next lo one another belong to the firsl upper lath (no. 7.1115), while the other lath is represented by four fragments, only the upper (wo oj which today can be said lo be mutually and directly connected (no. 7.211-4). The length of the joined fragments of the first lalh measures 23.52 cm, but because of the incomplete preservation oj the lower fragment (115) the total length of this lath should be increased by a few centimeters, so that the original length ofthe upper pair ojcovering laths would have measured between 24.5 and 26.5 cm, but certainly Ilot more than 28.5 cm. The greatest width ofthe lath measured 2.28 cm (no. 7.1/4), with a thickness oj 0.40 cm (no. 7.214). The thickness of the laths is least on the ends, measuring only 0.19 (7.211) or 0.20 cm (no. 7.111) on the two upper ends, and 0.15 cm onthe single partially preserved lower end (no. 7. 1/5). The notchfor drawing the bow (nock), partly preserved on only one covering lath (no. 7.111-5). is located 4.7 cm below the tip offhe lath, is around 0.46 cm deep and 0.35 cm wide. The hale for arivet (or for attachment) is located only 1.00 cm below the tip ofIhe upper lath, and was drilledfrom the outside towards the inner side, with a diameter of0.28 on the visible exterior side, and 0.24 on the interior side. A raw offour shallow transverse grooves crosses the upper outer edge ofthe more completely preserved lalh (no. 7.1/1-5). The hypothesized fragments ofthe bone laths of the central section of the bow are not preserved, but it is possible to see them in both photographs. ln the first photograph these two fragments (no. 7.3-411-2), placed vertically one above the other, are visible on the lower end of the raw of broken bone laths in the area of the right hip and upper section ofthe right thigh ofthe skeleton (Fig. 2), while in the other photograph only one of the fragments can be seen (no. 7.3-411), placed in a completely different location, on the chest of the skeleton at the very top ofthe raw ofbroken bone laths (Fig. 3). Despite the incomplete and in general poor slale ofpreservation, the excavated covering laths exhibit clear structural characteristics ofthe early Hungarian type reflex bow, where originally there would have been three pairs oflatllS in use, arranged at both ends (or ears) and on the grip ofthe bow (2+2+2). The covering laths of the ears ofthe early Hungarian bows were of varied shape, because of which they can be classified to at least three main typological groups (Fig. 4): 1. -Laths gently tapered from the base towards the nock and top (e.g.: Letkes-Uglaegetđ l, gr. 59; Magyarhomorog-K6nyadomb, gr. 23; Novi Bečej-Matejski brod, gr. 1; Pilin-Leshegy, gr. 1; SarkadkereszturBama tanya, gr. 12 and 81; Voiteni-Temeskoz, gr. 3). 2. -Laths globularly broadened at the nock and top (Bekes-Povddzug, gr. 45; Karos-Eperjesszog l, gr. 111936; Karos-Eperjesszog II, gr. 60; Letkes-Uglaegetđ, gr. 71; Szer-Kiszner tanya, gr. 1). 3. -Laths narrowed at the nock and curved outward (Bekes-Povddzug, gr. 58; Karos-Eperjesszog III, gr. 14). The body ofthe upper pair ofthe Vukovar covering laths has an arched curve and is evenly tape red towards the notch for drawing and the ear ofthe lath, which is characteristic for the most common typological group, with the greatest number of variants ofearly Hungarian composite bows of the 1fJ" and early 11th centuries (group 1). In fact , the form of the somewhat broader and seemingly more massive lathsfrom Vukovar is most similar to the laths from the cemetery of Letkes-Teglaegetđ I in the western part of Hungary on the far side o fthe Danube (Pest County), and probably also the laths from the cemetery of Voiteni-TemeskOz in the Banat region of Romania. Translated by: B. Smith Dem