Journal <strong>of</strong> Rom<strong>an</strong> Military Equipment Studies 16 2008 129 Fig. 14: Late Rom<strong>an</strong> Sc<strong>an</strong>dinavi<strong>an</strong> circular shields: a-b - Thorsberg (RADDATZ 1987, fig. 21), c - shield SATF from Illerup (ILKJÆR 2001, fig. 199).
130 Journal <strong>of</strong> Rom<strong>an</strong> Military Bartosz Kontny Equiment Studies 15 2007 % 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 3,3 3,1 3 2,8 1,3 8,3 B1 B1a B2b B2/C1 late stage <strong>of</strong> ph<strong>as</strong>e C1a-C1b C2-D Diagram 13: Frequency <strong>of</strong> graves furnished with arrowheads in the Przeworsk Culture from the Rom<strong>an</strong> Period 5 4 3 2 1 0 5 5 5 2 1 22 0 0 0 0 0 B1 B2a single arrowhead two arrowhead more two arrowhead B2b B1/C1 late stage <strong>of</strong> ph<strong>as</strong>e C1a-C1b C2-D 1 3 1 1 Diagram 14: Numbers <strong>of</strong> arrowheads in the Przeworsk Culture graves from the Rom<strong>an</strong> Period % 2,0 1,5 1,0 0,5 0,0 0 0 2 B1 B2a B2b B1/C1 late C2-D stage <strong>of</strong> ph<strong>as</strong>e C1a-C1b Diagram 15: Frequency <strong>of</strong> weapon graves furnished with axes in the Przeworsk Culture from the Rom<strong>an</strong> Period. 1,9 0 2 1,4 3 arrowheads were more e<strong>as</strong>ily destroyed when hitting the shield-boss th<strong>an</strong> needle-shaped ones (Fig. 15a-b) 169 . Although H. Paulsen concludes that the Nydam bows could have been used either in combat or for hunting, he believes that only 8 <strong>of</strong> the 23 bows <strong>an</strong>d 80 <strong>of</strong> at le<strong>as</strong>t 193 arrows 170 could have been used for military purposes. <strong>The</strong>refore a great deal <strong>of</strong> caution should be taken when considering the military use <strong>of</strong> bows in the Przeworsk Culture, especially <strong>as</strong> the registered arrowheads represented the less effective leaf-shaped type (Fig. 15c) 171 . For the same re<strong>as</strong>on the probability <strong>of</strong> the postulated subst<strong>an</strong>tial ch<strong>an</strong>ge <strong>of</strong> combat methods in the Younger <strong>an</strong>d Late Rom<strong>an</strong> Period resulting from the use <strong>of</strong> bows 172 , which w<strong>as</strong> tentatively interpreted <strong>as</strong> the outcome <strong>of</strong> the adaptation <strong>of</strong> the Barbari<strong>an</strong> weaponry to fighting with the Rom<strong>an</strong> army 173 , should be considered <strong>as</strong> doubtful. Judging from their minimal representation in the burial finds, the role <strong>of</strong> the axe in the Przeworsk Culture military equipment in the Rom<strong>an</strong> Period w<strong>as</strong> less th<strong>an</strong> that <strong>of</strong> the bow (the frequencies for the axes reached very low values, not exceeding 2%; <strong>as</strong> a result there is no b<strong>as</strong>is to make statements about <strong>an</strong>y trends) (Diagram 15). <strong>The</strong> above-presented state <strong>of</strong> affairs indicates that axes were used <strong>by</strong> the population occ<strong>as</strong>ionally <strong>as</strong> weapons, perhaps <strong>as</strong> a borrowing from the Elbe river b<strong>as</strong>in where, especially in the Younger <strong>an</strong>d Late Rom<strong>an</strong> Period, they were quite frequent in the burial <strong>as</strong>semblages 174 . In contr<strong>as</strong>t to the Elbe Cultural Circle, Luboszyce Culture or the Laeti’ burials in Gaul 175 this kind <strong>of</strong> weapon w<strong>as</strong> not <strong>an</strong> import<strong>an</strong>t element <strong>of</strong> Przeworsk Culture population military equipment. <strong>The</strong>re are also doubts <strong>as</strong> to the function <strong>of</strong> the battleaxes: they were treated <strong>as</strong> weapons 176 or <strong>as</strong> tools 177 . <strong>The</strong> former possibility seems to be more convincing. To conclude (Fig. 16) it should be remarked that in the light <strong>of</strong> the results presented above the b<strong>as</strong>ic <strong>of</strong>fensive weapons were shafted weapons used most probably in foot combat. As in the Early Rom<strong>an</strong> Period there predominated in burials pairs <strong>of</strong> shafted weapon heads <strong>of</strong> double functions (framea?) or representing l<strong>an</strong>ces <strong>an</strong>d javelins (especially in ph<strong>as</strong>e B 2b but also earlier, taking into account barbed javelinheads). <strong>The</strong>n - if it is <strong>as</strong>sumed that they reflected the actual military gear - it should be claimed that combat beg<strong>an</strong> with throwing one weapon (javelin) to<strong>war</strong>ds the enemy (combat with the use <strong>of</strong> two shafted weapons <strong>an</strong>d a shield at the same time h<strong>as</strong> to be excluded). Probably this w<strong>as</strong> done when running to<strong>war</strong>ds the enemy, which helped to incre<strong>as</strong>e the power <strong>an</strong>d r<strong>an</strong>ge <strong>of</strong> the missile 178 . In close combat the second
Change language