plumbatae from serbia_vujovic

Гласник Српског археолошког друштва Journal of the Serbian Archaeological Society

THE PLUMBATAE FROM SERBIA

Miroslav B. VujovićUniversity of Belgrade, Faculty of Philosophy, Department of Archaeology

Miroslav VujovićUniversity of Belgrade, Faculty of Philosophy, Department of ArchaeologyČika Ljubina 18-20 11000 Belgradee-mail: [email protected]

Мирослав ВујовићУниверзитет у Београду, Филозофски

факултет, Одељење за археологијуЧика Љубина 18-20

11000 Београдe-mail: [email protected]

Abstract: Plumbatae, a distinctive throwing weapon of late antiquity, have been attested in considerable numbers in Serbia, which supports Vegetius’ observation about their having been widely used by Roman troops in Illyricum. The distribution map of their findspots in Serbia shows concentrations along the Danube frontier and on major strategic sites in the interior of the province. The increasing use of plumbatae in the fourth and fifth centuries resulted from the fundamental changes introduced in the organization and armament of the Roman army during the Tetrarchy, and from the growing need to employ troops proficient in using missile weapons in battle.

Key words: Vegetius, plumbatae, Roman army, weapons, late antiquity, Tetrarchy, Illyricum

Апстракт: Плумбате, специфично бацачко оружје касноантичког периода, констатоване су на тлу Србије у значајном броју што потврђује наводе Вегеција о њиховој раширеној употреби међу римским трупама у Илирику. Карта распрострањености ових налаза указује на њихову концентрацију дуж утврђене линије дунавског лимеса у Србији, али и на местима са већеим војно-стратешким значајем у дубини провинцијске територије. Учестала употреба плумбата током IV и V века условљена је суштинским променама у организацији и наоружавању римске војске у периоду тетрархије, као и израженијом потребом за ангажовањем трупа оспособљених за дејство стрељачким наоружањем на бојном пољу.

Kључне речи: Vegetius, plumbatae, римска војска, наоружање, касна антика, тетрархија, Илирик.

25 (2009) 203–218.

ГСАД/JSAS 25 (2009)

204

The Roman army used several different types of throwing weapons. In its narrowest sense, the term covers the pilum and the lancea. In a broader sense, however, the Roman throwing weapons would include arrows, sling bullets and various hand-thrown or tor-sion artillery-launched missiles.

Vegetius, in his Epitoma Rei Militaris (I, xvii), refers to the weapons he terms plum-batae and ma(r)ttiobarbuli, reporting that every infantryman carries five of them in the concavity of his shield. Apart from these terms, the anonymous writer of De Rebus Bel-licis (X.1–3) labels the weapons as plumbatae mamillatae and plumbatae tribolatae. Characteristic of all of them was an appendage attached to the socket, or to the wooden arrow shank, in the form of a spindle-shaped, biconical or oval lead weight whose role was multiple (Fig. 1). First of all, it contributed to a greater range and penetration force of the missiles with narrow iron points, which was crucial in a battle against the ar-moured enemy. The lead weights also made it possible for plumbatae to attain a height of over ten metres and fly over the upright barriers shielding the fortified enemy positions. The lower end of the wooden shank fixed into the socket had stabilizers ensuring a more regular trajectory and greater range (Bennett 1991, 62). An effect of the weights was that such missiles had a characteristic ballistic trajectory making it possible to hit the enemies hidden behind the shields, breastworks or palisades. The heads, necks and shoulders of enemy soldiers were most vulnerable because plumbatae could fly along a high-arch tra-jectory and descend nearly vertically towards the target (Eagle 1989, 250–1). A distinct

Map 1. Previous list of plumbata finds (after: Buora 1997)Карта 1. Досадашња евиденција налаза плумбата (према: Buora 1997)

From Archaeological Collections

205

effect was produced by the sharp barbs of the iron point that made the removal of the missile from the wound difficult.

According to Vegetius (I, xvvii), plumbatae were used both as a defensive and as an offensive weapon. They were hurled from a distance in charge attacks, and were used for defensive purposes by making it impossible for enemy infantry or cavalry to reach the front line of defence without sustaining losses. The Аnonymus (XI.1) argues, how-ever, that such missiles could be used in hand-to-hand combat as well. It appears from his quite interesting account that the tail of the plumbata’s wooden shank was fitted with stabilizers with-out which its trajectory would have been irregular and unpre-dictable. As in arrows thrown from bows or torsion-powered devices, the stabilizers ensured a more regular flight, a more accurate hit and a consider-ably greater range. Modern ex-periments with plumbatae have shown that the hand-thrown weapon can travel a distance of up to seventy metres and twice as far if hurled with the aid of a sling or an amentum (Eagle 1989, 247–253; Southern and Dixon 1996, 115).

The finds of plumbatae are distributed over a vast area that coincides with the sites of Roman military units in late antiquity (Map 1). They have been found in Britain, Ger-many, Austria, Slovenia, Hungary, Greece, and as far as Georgia (Völling 1991, 289–97; Degen 1992; Southern and Dixon 1996, 113–4; Horvat 1990, 306, cat. no. 700, cat. 36; Leben and Šubić 1990, Pl. 2/ 16–18). Of the finds from the Balkan Peninsula worthy of mention are a few plumbatae recovered from the Kupa river near Sisak in Croatia as early as the beginning of the twentieth century (Hoffiler 1911, 173–4, fig. 16; Radman-Livaja 2004, 31, figs. 31–35).

Map 2. Plumbata finds from SerbiaКарта 2. Налази плумбата у Србији

M. Vujović The Plumbatae From Serbia


206

A number of plumbatae have also been discovered in Serbia (figs.1–3; pl. I; Map 2), but they have received little scholarly attention. The finds come from the sites of Zemun, Kostolac, Dubravica, Čezava, Karataš, Mihajlovac, Borđej, Svrljig, Pirot, Gamzigrad and the environs of Svi-lajnac and Negotin.1 In the early twentieth century a plumbata head was also discov-ered in the environs of Roman Bassiana near modern Ruma (Hof-filer 1911, 174, note 1). That the latter is not a lonely find in the area of the Lower Pan-nonian limes in Serbia is shown by three re-cent finds, two from Žarkovci at the foot of Fruška Gora and one from Zemun (Вујовић 2008, 126–8, fig. 1).

Almost all finds of plumbatae in Serbia come from late Roman or early Byzantine for-tified military sites. Svrljiški Grad (Svrljig Fort) was an important fort on the left side of the Timok. It probably was connected with the nearby settlement and station on the Roman road Naissus–Ratiaria, the usual civilian and military route from the Danube towards the interior of the province (Petrović, Filipović 2008). The exceptionally well-preserved plumbatae from this stratified site (fig. 3/1,2), being chance

1 Three iron heads with characteristic points, one from an unknown site (fig.), now in the National Museum, Bel-grade; one from the Roman fort of Novae near Čezava (fig.); and one from Gamzigrad (fig.) miss their lead weights, a recognizable feature of plumbatae. Their shape and size suggests that they should be identified as plumbatae that lost their weights on impact or due to the passage of time, an identification additionally corroborated by the find of a detached weight at Gamzigrad (fig.).

Fig. 1. Plumbata heads and weights, Gamzigrad (Romuliana) Сл. 1. Врхови и оловни тегови плумбата из Гамзиграда


207

finds, may only roughly be dated to the fourth–sixth century. They are probably linked with war operations which unfolded in those turbulent centuries and which could not possibly have left an important strategic point such as Svrljiški Grad unaffected.

The same goes for the plumbata head from Pirot (fig. 3/4), discovered on the strati-fied site of Pirotski Grad (Pejić 1983, cat. no. 116; Milovanović 1985, 46, cat. no. 78), where deposits ranging from Eneolithic through late medieval, including late Roman and early Byzantine, have been archaeologically attested. The surviving fortification is of a late medieval date. The Roman name of Pirot—Tures—suggests a fort whose purpose was to defend the settlement and control the important Naissus–Ratiaria road along the section running through the Trgoviški Timok valley via Kalna (Petrović 1976, 107).

There is no detailed information about the findspot and context of discovery for the iron plumbata head from Svilajnac (fig. 3/5). Svilajnac is known to have been sited at the important junction of the road running from the southeast, from Bosnia, towards the Danube, and the Morava arterial road that connected Margum and Horreum Margi. Near the town cemetery, Felix Kanitz observed Roman structural remains. In the ruins on Baćica hill not far from there, “by the Roman road, on its eastern side”, he recognized the remains of the Roman castellum that protected the nearby settlement (Каниц 1985, 66–7; Garašanin 1951, 202).

There are no accurate records for the findspot and context of discovery for three plumbata heads kept in the National Museum at Požarevac (fig. 2/7–9) (Milovanović 1985, 46, cat. nos. 34 and 35). Presumably one come from the environs of Viminacium, one of the major strongholds in the Danube Valley and the base of Legio VII Clau-dia. Two other specimens from the same museum originate from Dubravica (Margum) and Veliko Gradište (Pincum), also important civil centres and military fortifications. Situated on the confluence of Morava and Danube, in Late Roman period Margum is mentioned as a military camp of the local auxiliary units (auxilium Margense) and an important port of the danubian fleet (Classis Stradensis et Germensis) destroyed by the Huns in 441.

On plumbata heads from private collections we also have no precise information. First is from Zemun (fig. 3/6) and the second one (fig. 2/6) moust likely from Iron Gate region (Najhold 2009, 67).

Nonetheless, most plumbatae from Serbia have been found during archaeological excavations and can be dated quite reliably. The finds from Čezava come from mid-fourth century deposits. The plumbata from Tower II (fig. 2/2) has been dated by the coins of Valentinian I (367–375) and by other finds from the same layer. Another exam-ple from the same site (fig. 2/3) was discovered in the central zone of the military camp, in the layer dated to the second half of the fourth century (Васић 1984, 114).

Two fragmented lead-weighted iron plumbata heads come from the site of Blato near Mihajlovac (fig. 2/10,11), where a small late antique stronghold (36 by 36 m), a typ-ical fort with a tetrapylon, has been excavated. To judge from the archaeological record



208

Fig. 2. Plumbata heads from Serbia: unknown site (1, 6), Čezava (2, 3), Žarkovci (4, 5), Kostolac (7), Veliko Gradište (8), Dubravica(9), Mihajlovac (10, 11)Сл. 2. Врхови плумбата из Србије: непознато налазиште (1, 6), Чезава (2, 3), Жарковци (4, 5), Костолац (7), Велико Градиште (8), Дубравица (9), Михајловац (10, 11)


209

on this site and the established chro-nology of Roman military architec-ture in the Djerdap zone of the Danube frontier, this forti-fied lookout tower was built during the Valentinianic renovation of the limes in the third quarter of the fourth century. It was de-stroyed either in the early 400s or in the Hunnic inva-sion of 441, which are the chronologi-cal boundaries for the plumbatae from this site (Tomović 1986, 406, fig. 23/3; Špehar 2004, cat. no. 722).

The finds from the Djerdap zone of the Danube limes include another two fragmented plum-bata heads, dis-covered during the excavation of the Roman and early Byzantine fortifica-tions on the sites of Bordjej and Karataš (Diana) (Špehar 2004, cat. nos. 723 and 724). The site of Bordjej has also yielded a lead weight, possibly detached from a plumbata. The same as the find from Mihajlovac, it was discovered within a smaller tower with a tetrapylon built under the early Tetrarchy

Fig. 3. Plumbata heads from Serbia: Svrljig (1, 2), Mediana (3), Pirot (4), Svilajnac (5), Zemun (6), Negotin (7)Сл. 3. Врхови плумбата из Србије: Сврљиг (1, 2), Медијана (3), Пирот (4), Свилајнац, околона (5), Земун (6), Неготин, околина (7)



210

and renovated under Justinian I (Cermanović-Kuzmanović and Stanković 1984, 217–21; fig. 211/5).

The example found during the systematic excavation of the sumptuous late Roman villa at Mediana (fig. 3/3) was recovered from the remains of the structure identified as a crafts centre. Its chronological boundaries are set between the second half of the fourth and the mid fifth century, when the villa was demolished.

The largest assemblage of plumbatae in Serbia has been discovered during the excavation of the fortifications and residential structures of late antique Romuliana at Gamzigrad. In the area of the emperor Gallerius’ palace plumbatae were recovered from the structural remains of the thermae in the southeast part of the imperial residence and from one of the towers (Tower 19) that defended the gate in the west wall of the younger fortification (Живић 2003, 67, cat. nos. 299–302). The plumbatae discovered within the excavated area of the thermae have been stratigraphically dated to the second half of the fourth century. The plumbata heads and lead weights from Tower 19 (fig. 1/3, 4, 6), all fragmented, come from the layers dated by coins and other finds to a period between the 380s and early decades of the 400s. A few missiles from Romuliana (fig. 1/5), although missing their lead weights, may also be identified as plumbatae. In terms of shape, size and date they fully correspond to the surviving iron plumbata heads. The damage reg-istered on the detached lead weight from Tower 19 (fig. 1/7), which unmistakably be-longed to a plumbata, shows that the force of impact on a solid body could cause the missile to break apart.2

Although looking alike at first sight, the plumbata heads from Serbia occur in three basic variants defined by the shape of the point. All terminate in a socket and most have a rhomboid-sectioned two-barbed point which ranges from 7.8cm to 16.5cm in length. The shortest example comes from Gamzigrad (fig. 1/2), and the longest are from Gamzigrad, Žarkovci and Mediana (figs.1/1; 2/5; 3/3). The shaft can be oblong or circular in section.3 The three variants of the point are: 1) wide massive triangular-shaped points with short barbs (fig. 2/1–4; pl. I/2–4 ); 2) long narrow points whose width is virtually the same as the width of the shaft (fig. 3/3–7), and whose barbs can be either shorter or longer and outward or inward bent; 3) the plumbata head with a three-leaf point from the environs of Dubravica (Margum) (fig. 2/9; pl.I/1), a very rare shape attested at Intercissa (Völling 1991, 295). In addition to the shapes registered in Serbia, plumbata heads with leaf-shaped or massive pyramidal points are also known (Bennett 1991, fig. 1/1–3; Völling 1991, fig. 1). The lead weights are biconical (pl. I/3), oval (pl. I/4)or spindle-shaped (pl. I/1, 2, 5).

In terms of manufacture, the heads from Svrljiški Grad, Kostolac and Veliko Gradište stands apart with their twisted shafts (fig. 2/7, 8; 3/3; pl. I/2, 3). This metalwork-2 The weight could have come off the iron shaft also as a result of heat, either in a fire or in the process of recycling

lead artifacts, since lead was a much sought-for raw material used for various purposes.3 In defining the shape of cross-sections the possibility should be taken into account that the originally rectangular-

sectioned plumbata shafts could have become “rounded” by corrosion.


211

ing technique, obviously employed to strengthen the missile’s metal head, is observable in the finds from the late antique fort of Schaam, Pilismarót, dated to about 370, Grün-wald and Iža-Leányvár (Völling 1991, 291, 295; Degen 1992, figs. 4/13 and 5/3).

CATALOGUE

1. Iron plumbata head with spindle-shaped lead weight on socket. Fig. 1/1. Gamzigrad (Romuliana). Shorter triangular rhomboid-sectioned point with damaged barbs. Shaft elongated, square-sectioned. Dimensions: L. 16.5cm. National Museum Zaječar: inv. no 941. Bibliography: Живић 2003, 150, cat. no. 299.

2. Iron plumbata head with spindle-shaped lead weight on socket. Fig. 1/2. Gamzigrad (Romuliana). Shorter triangular rhomboid-sectioned point with one barb preserved. Di-mensions: L. 12cm. National Museum Zaječar: inv. no 942. Bibliography: Живић 2003, 151, cat. no. 302.

3. Iron plumbata head with biconical lead weight on socket. Fig. 1/3. Gamzigrad (Rom-uliana). Point missing. Dimensions: preserved L. 9.4cm. National Museum Zaječar: inv. no 1514. Bibliography: Живић 2003, 151, cat. no. 300.

4. Iron plumbata head (?) with spindle-shaped lead weight on socket. Fig. 1/4. Gamzigrad (Romuliana). Dimensions: L. 7.8cm. National Museum Zaječar: G1 T. Bibliography: Живић 2003, 151, cat. no. 301.

5. Iron plumbata head (?). Fig. 1/5. Gamzigrad (Romuliana). Shorter triangular rhomboid-sectioned point with one barb preserved. Dimensions: L. 10.1cm. National Museum Zaječar: excav. inv. no. C-28/1997. Unpublished.

6. Lead plumbata weight, deformed. Fig. 1/7. Gamizgrad (Romuliana). Dimensions: L. 4.3cm. National Museum Zaječar: excav. inv. no. C-466. Unpublished.

7. Lead plumbata weight, spindle-shaped. Fig. 1/6. Gamizgrad (Romuliana). Preserved part of socketed iron shaft. Dimensions: L. 4.3cm. National Museum Zaječar: excav. inv. no. C-413. Unpublished.

8. Iron plumbata head with biconical lead weight on socket. Fig. 3/5. Svilajnac area. Elon-gated triangular rhomboid-sectioned point with short barbs. Shaft short, square-sectioned, deformed. Dimensions: L. 14cm. Mića Stojković Elementary School Archaeological Col-lection, Umčari: inv. no.: unknown. Unpublished.

9. Iron plumbata head with spindle-shaped lead weight on socket. Fig. 2/7; pl. I/2. Kos-tolac (Viminacium). Shorter triangular rhomboid-sectioned point with one barb preserved. Shaft square-sectioned and twisted. Corroded. Dimensions: L. 11. 9 cm. National Museum Požarevac: inv. no.: 02/ 1899. Unpublished.

10. Iron plumbata head with spindle-shaped lead weight on socket. Fig. 2/9; pl. I/1. Dubravi-ca area (Margum). Three-leaf rhomboid-sectioned point with short barbs. Shaft short, square-sectioned. Dimensions: L. 14. 3cm. National Museum Požarevac: inv. no.: 02/ 1235. Bibliography: Milovanović 1985, 32, cat. no. 35; Jacanović, Spasić-Đurić 2003, 14.

11. Iron plumbata head with spindle-shaped lead weight on socket. Fig. 2/8; Pl. I/3. Veliko Gradište (Pincum). Shorter triangular rhomboid-sectioned point with one barb preserved. Shaft short, square-sectioned amd twisted. Dimensions: L. 12. 7 cm. National Museum Požarevac: inv. no.: 02/ 230. Unpublished.

12. Plumbata head. Petrovci, Ruma area. Bibliography: Hoffiler 1911, 174, fn. 1.13. Iron plumbata head with spindle-shaped lead weight on socket. Fig. 3/3. Mediana (Me-

diana). Elongated rhomboid-sectioned point with larger inward-bent barbs. Shaft elon-



212

gated, circular-sectioned. Dimensions: L. 16.5cm. National Museum Niš: excav. inv. no. C-1304. Unpublished.

14. Iron plumbata head with spindle-shaped lead weight on socket. Fig. 3/4. Pirotski Grad. Elongated rhomboid-sectioned point with short barbs. Shaft elongated, square-sectioned. Dimensions: L. 15cm. Ponišavlje Museum, Pirot: inv. no. 116. Bibliography: Pejić 1983, cat. no. 116; Milovanović 1985, 46, cat. no. 78.

15. Iron plumbata head with spindle-shaped lead weight on socket. Fig. 3/7. Negotin area. Triangular rhomboid-sectioned barbed point. Shaft elongated, circular-sectioned. Inside socket, rivet for fixing wooden shank. Dimensions: L. 13.5cm. Negotinska Krajina Mu-seum: inv. no. 119. Bibliography: Vujović 1998, 97–8, fig. 1.

16. Iron plumbata head with biconical lead weight on socket. Fig. 2/4. Žarkovci area (Srem). Triangular rhomboid-sectioned point with short barbs. Shaft short, square-sectioned. Di-mensions: L. 11.7cm. Local Museum, Ruma: inv. no. 708. Bibliography: Вујовић 2008, 126–7, fig. 1.

17. Iron plumbata head (?) with traces of lead on socket. Fig. 2/5. Žarkovci area (Srem). Massive triangular rhomboid-sectioned barbed point. Shaft elongated, square-sectioned. Dimensions: L. 16.2cm. Local Museum, Ruma: inv. no. 711. Bibliography: Вујовић 2008, 126–8, fig. 1.

18. Iron plumbata head with spindle-shaped lead weight on socket. Fig. 3/2. Svrljiški Grad. Triangular rectangular-sectioned point with barbs slightly bent inwards. Shaft elongated and twisted, square-sectioned. Dimensions: L. 14.5cm; W. 59g. Museum: inv. no . Un-published.

19. Iron plumbata head with biconical lead weight on socket. Fig. 3/1. Svrljiški Grad. Lower socket end and weight damaged. Triangular rhomboid-sectioned point with outward-bent barbs. Shaft short, circular-sectioned. Dimensions: L. 12cm; W. 35g. Museum: inv. no .: unknown. Unpublished.

20. Fragmented iron plumbata head with oblong-sectioned iron shaft and biconical lead weight. Point missing. Fig. 2/11. Mihajlovac, Blato. Dimensions: preserved L. 13cm. Djerdap Museum: inv. no. unknown. Bibliography: Tomović 1986, 406; Špehar 2004, cat. no. 722, Pl. XLIII/722.

21. Fragmented iron plumbata head with corroded iron shaft and biconical leaden weight. Point missing. Fig. 2/11. Mihajlovac, Blato. Dimensions: preserved L. 11.5cm. Djerdap Museum: inv. no. unknown. Bibliography: Tomović 1986, 406, fig. 23/3.

22. Fragmented iron plumbata head with corroded iron shaft and biconical lead weight. Point missing. Karataš (Diana). Shaft short, oblong-sectioned. Dimensions: preserved L. 12cm. Djerdap Museum: C-205. Bibliography: Špehar 2004, cat. no. 723.

23. Fragmented iron plumbata head with corroded iron shaft and biconical lead weight. Point missing. Bordjej. Shaft short, oblong-sectioned. Dimensions: preserved L. 9.7cm. Djer-dap Museum: inv. no. unknown. Bibliography: Špehar 2004, cat. no. 724.

24. Corroded iron plumbata head with spindle-shaped lead weight on socket. Fig. 2/2. Čezava (Novae). Triangular rhomboid-sectioned point with short barbs. Shaft short, square-sectioned. Dimensions: preserved L. 11cm. Djerdap Museum: excav. inv. no. 2066/69. Bibliography: Vujović 1998, Pl. XXXII/1.

25. Plumbata head (?) with two-barbed point and fragmented narrow socket. Fig. 2/3. Čezava (Novae). Lead weight missing. Dimensions: preserved L. 9.3cm. Djerdap Museum: ex-cav. inv. no. 1830. Bibliography: Vujović 1998, Pl. XXXII/2.

26. Iron arrow (plumbata?) head. Fig. 2/1. Serbia, unknown site. Triangular rhomboid-sec-tioned two-barbed point. Shaft short, circular-sectioned. Socket with rivet hole preserved. Dimensions: L. 10.5cm. National Museum, Belgrade: inv. no. 3155/ III. Unpublished.


213

27. Lead (plumbata?) weight, spindle-shaped with circular central perforation. Bordjej. Di-mensions: L. 4.2 cm. Djerdap Museum: inv. no. unknown. Bibliography: Cermanović-Kuzmanovic and Stanković 1984, 217–21, fig. 211/5.

28. Iron plumbata head with biconical lead weight on socket. Fig. 2/6; pl. I/4. Serbia, un-known site. Triangular rhomboid-sectioned barbed point. Shaft elongated, circular-sec-tioned. Inside socket, rivet for fixing wooden shank. Dimensions: L. 15.3 cm; W. g. Private collection. Unpublished.

29. Iron plumbata head with spindle-shaped lead weight on socket. Fig. 3/6; pl. I/5. Zemun. Elongated rhomboid-sectioned point with short barbs. Dimensions: L. 13.7 cm.. Private collection. Najhold 2009, 67.

In contrast to the view based on the small number of known finds that plumbata type missiles were not widely used by the Roman army (Bennett 1991, 60), some classi-cal sources offer a very different picture. Vegetius (I, xvii), for instance, reports that the bravery and proficiency in using plumbatae earned two legions in Illyricum the name Martiobarbuli Iovani and Martiobarbuli Herculani, and that they were the pride of the emperors Diocletian and Maximian.

The manner in which plumbatae were handled has been an issue of especial inter-est. Classical sources do not make it clear if they were hand-thrown or they in fact were arrows flung from artillery machines, bows or slings. The results of experimental use suggest that they are likely to have been thrown by hand or with the aid of a strap similar to the amentum, which extended their range considerably (Musty and Barker 1974; Ea-gle 1989; Griffiths 1995). Vegetius (III, xv) reports that the martiobarbuli or, as he also calls them, exculcatores and armaturae, usually carry five missiles in the hollow of their shields each and, with their precise and well-timed use of plumbatae, can aptly substitute for archers (I, xvii). On the battlefield, they were in the fourth line that comprised light-armed soldiers such as archers and spearmen (III, xiv). As he clearly distinguishes them from archers and slingers, it appears that they indeed formed separate units trained in using plumbatae as hand-hurled missiles. Vegetius recommends the use of plumbatae, along with other missile weapons, not only in direct combat but also in sieges, in defend-ing forts, even in naval battles (IV, xxi, xxix, xliv).

Plumbatae began to be used widely from the mid third century and especially dur-ing the fourth, and their use continued into the early Byzantine period (Eagle 1989, 247), but their origin in fact is much older (Griffiths 1989, 260). Their likely predecessors are the cestros and the cestrofendon, missiles that Polybius and Livy mention with reference to the Third Macedonian War.4

As a result of various historical events that type of missile weapons was not re-introduced and widely used in the Roman army until the third and fourth centuries. The

4 Polybius (XXVII, 11) and Livy (XLII, 65, 9–10) speak of the effective Roman use of those missiles against Per-Polybius (XXVII, 11) and Livy (XLII, 65, 9–10) speak of the effective Roman use of those missiles against Per-seus’ troops in 171 BC, describing the cestros (cestrofendon) flung from a sling as a short-shafted dart fitted with stabilizers and a massive metal point. In terms of shape, manner of use and effect, it is largely analogous with the late antique plumbata.



214

probable reason behind this late (re)introduction of a missile comparable with the Hel-lenistic cestros was the radical change in warfare and military equipment that marked late antiquity, notably the reign of Diocletian and his successors. Apart from changes to the Tetrarchic administrative and bureaucratic systems, the reforms encompassed the army, bringing about a more cost-effective organization and supply of combat units. The setting up of state factories for mass arms production in various parts of the Empire was an attempt to ensure a steady supply of arms to troops. The principle on which those fabricae armorum operated was mass and economical production rather than lavish ap-pearance and quality (Bishop and Coulston 2006, 238–40).

The wider use of plumbatae under the late Empire may be looked at as an expres-sion of not only a different, more practical, approach to military equipment, but also of a more efficient use of the army in the changed conditions of warfare. The unremitting conflicts in the east, notably with the Parthians, highlighted to Roman strategists the in-creasing need for archery units. Such units were usually made up of mercenaries of Ori-ental origin (Greeks, Syrians etc) and their use was quite costly. The Roman withdrawal from Dacia under Aurelianus in 272 and the loss of Palmyran archers undoubtedly high-lighted the need for fresh archery units in the Danube basin. The training of regular troops, unskilled in using the bow and arrow, would have taken too long for achieving a satisfactory level of combat efficiency. On the other hand, modern experiments have shown that not even amateurs would have found it difficult to master the use of plumbat-ae. Vegetius himself (I, xvii) insists on the necessity of training recruits to use plumbatae and on their introduction into the equipment of regular infantry and cavalry troops. This practically means that the same troops could be used both as a “conventionally”-armed force in close combat and as a force in long-range combat, which provided a significant tactical advantage.

Inadequate knowledge about the actual distribution of plumbatae in the Balkans has led some researchers to doubt Vegetius’ reference to this weapon as being widely used by the Roman troops in Illyricum (Bennett 1991, 60). The finds presented in this paper, however, substantiate Vegetius’ statements. The number of plumbata heads registered in Serbia alone is greater than the number discovered in Britain, commonly thought of as having yielded the largest number of finds. If the plumbatae from other parts of former Illyricum, such as Croatia and Hungary, are added to the Serbian ones, the total becomes significantly larger, not to mention the possibility that there may be unpublished or misi-dentified finds in museum collections. I am hopeful that this paper will draw attention to this problem and help create a more accurate picture of the distribution and use of plumbatae in the Balkans.


215

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSMy attention to some finds, without which this overview of the distribution of plumbatae in Serbia

would not have been complete, has been drawn by my colleagues, and I would like to use this opportu-nity to express my gratitude to all of them. My special thanks go to Slobodan Drča (National Museum at Niš), Dragana Spasić-Djurić (National Museum at Požarevac) and Slobodan Velimirović (Regional Museum at Ruma) for permission to publish the plumbata heads from Niš, Požarevac and Žarkovci respectively. Vojislav Filipović has drawn my attention to two plumbata heads discovered at the foot of Svrljiški Grad, Branko Najhold, Jelena Kondić and Slavica Krunić to the examples kept in the private collections and the collection of the Mića Stojković Elementary School at Umčari. I am also grateful to Mr Novdelja Obradović, Director of the school, for providing access to the school collection. I am especially grateful to Mr Borisav Lakić of Niš, a retired Y.P.A. major and expert in missile weapons, for supplying helpful information about the use and effects of cold missile weapons in battle.

REFERENCES

Anonimus = Anonimus. 1984. Anonymi Auctoris De rebus bellicis, ed. Robert I. Ireland, Lipsiae: Bibliotheca scriptorvm Grecorvm et Romanorum Tevbneriana.Barker, Philip. 1979. The Plumbatae from Wroxeter, in Aspects of De Rebus Bellicis, Papers presented to Edward A. Thompson, eds. Mark Hassall – Robert I. Ireland, British Archaeological Report International Series 63., 97–99. Oxford: B.A.R. Bennett, Julian. 1991. Plumbatae from Pitsunda (Pityus), Georgia, and some observations on their probable use, Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 2, 59–63.Bishop, Mike, and John C. N. Coulston. 2006. Roman Military Equipment from Punic Wars to the Fall of Rome, (third edition) Oxford: Oxbow Books.Buora, Maurizio. 1997. Nuovi studi sulle plumbatae (= mattiobarbuli?). A proposito degli stan-ziamenti militari nell’Illirico occidentale e nell’Italia orientale nel IV e all’inizio del V secolo, Aquileia Nostra, Bolletino dell`Associazione nazionale per Aquileia 68: 227–246.Cermanović-Kuzmanović, Aleksandrina i Stanković, Svetozar. 1984. Borđej, Forteresse de la basse antiquité, fouilles de 1980, Ђердапске свеске II, 217–221. Београд: Археолошки институт у Београду, Народни музеј, Филозофски факултет.Degen, Rudolf. 1992 Plumbatae Wurfgeschosse der Spätantike, Helvetia Archaeologica 23/1992-1, 139–147.Eagle, John. 1989. Testing plumbatae, in: Roman Military Equipment: the Sources of Evidence. Proceedings of the Fifth Roman Military Equipment Conference, ed. Carren. van Driel-Murray, BAR International Series 476, 247–253. Oxford: B.A.R.Гарашанин, Mилутин и Драга Гарашанин. 1951. Археолошка налазишта у Србији, Београд: Просвета.Griffiths, Bill W. 1995. Experiments with plumbatae, The Arbeia Journal IV, 1995, 1–11. South Shields, Tyne and Wear: The Arbeia Society, Tyneside Free Press..Griffiths, Bill W. 1989. The sling and its place in the Roman imperial army, in: Roman Military Equipment: the Sources of Evidence. Proceedings of the Fifth Roman Military Equipment Confer-ence, ed. Carol van Driel-Murray, BAR International Series 476, 255-279. Oxford: B.A.R.Horvat, Јana. 1990 Nauportus (Vrhnika), Ljubljana: Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti.Hoffiler, Viktor. 1911. Oprema rimskog vojnika u prvo doba carstva I, Vijesnik Hrvatskoga arheološkog društva n.s. XI, 10–240.Jacanović, Dragan, Dragana Spasić-Đurić. 2003. Margum, Požarevac: Nationalmuseum.



216

James, Simon. 1986. Evidence from Dura-Europos for the origins of Late Roman helmets, Syria 63, 107–134.Каниц, Феликс. 1985. Србија, земља и становништво од римског доба до краја XIX века, Књига I, Београд: Српска књижевна задруга.Leben, France., Šubić, Zorka. 1990. Poznoantični kastel vrh Brsta pri Martinj Hribu na Logaški planoti, Arheološki vestnik 41, 313–354. Ljubljana. Livy = Titus Livius. 1979. History of Rome, Loeb Classical Library XII (L 332), Books XL-XLII, trans. Evan T. Sage and Alfred C. Schlesinger. Cambridge Mass. and London: Harvard University Press.Миловановић, Душан. 1985. Уметничка обрада неплеменитих метала на тлу Србије: обрада, од позне антике до 1690, Београд: Музеј примењене уметности.Najhold, Branko. 2009. TAVRVNVM ROMANVM, Zemun: Trag. Pejić, Predrag. 1983. Arheološko blago Ponišavlja, Pirot: Muzej Ponišavlja.Петровић, Петар. 1976 Ниш у античко доба, Ниш: Градина. Petrović, Vladimir. P., Filipović, Vojislav. 2007. Newly-discovered Traces of Roman Naissus-Ratiaria Road and the Problem of Locating two Timacum Stationes. Balcanica XXXVIII, 29–43.Polybius = Polybius. 1926. The Histories, Loeb Classical Library, V (L 160), Books XVI–XXVII, trans. William. R. Paton. Cambridge Mass. and London: Harvard University Press.Radman-Livaja, Ivan. 2004. Militaria Sisciensia – Nalazi rimske vojne opreme iz Siska u fun-dusu Arheološkog muzeja u Zagrebu, Katalozi i monografije Arheološkog muzeja u Zagrebu I, sv.1, Zagreb: Arheološki muzej u Zagrebu.Rupnik, László. 2009. New Plumbata mamilata find from Szentrendre, Ex officina..., Studia in Honorem Dénes Gabler, ed. Szilvia Bíró, Györ, 491–499.Sherlock, Dan. 1979. Plumbatae – a note on manufacture, in: Aspects of De Rebus Bellicis, Pa-pers presented to E.A. Thompson, eds. Mark Hassall – Robert I. Ireland, BAR International Series 63, 101–102. Oxford: Sim, David. 1995. Experiments to examine the manufacturing techniques used to make plum-batae. The Arbeia Journal IV, 1995, 13–19.Southern, Path and Karen. R. Dixon. 1996. The Late Roman Army, London: Yale University Press.Špehar, Perica. 2004. Materijalna kultura ranovizantijskih utvrđenja na prostoru Đerdap. Magistarska teza, Univerzitet u Beogradu.Tomović, Miodrag. 1986. Mihajlovac - “Blato”: Une Forteresse de la Basse Antiquite, Ђердапске свеске III, ур. Владимир Кондић, 401–431. Београд: Археолошки институт, Народни музеј, Филозофски факултет. Musty, John, and Philip Barker. 1974. Three plumbatae from Worxeter, Shropshire, The Ant-quaries Journal 54/ ii: 275–277.Vasić, Miloje. 1984. Чезава: Castrum Novae, Старинар (н.с.) XXXIII–XXXIV: 122–191.Völling, Thomas. 1991 Plumbata - mattiobarbulus - martzobarboulon, Bemerkungen zu einem Waffenfund aus Olimpia, Archäologischer Anzeiger1991: 287–298.Völling, Thomas. 1992. Plumbatae sagittae? Anmerkungen zu Waffenfunden aus dem au-gusteischen Lager von Haltern, Boreas 14–5: 293–296.Vujović, Miroslav. 1998. Naoružanje i oprema rimskog vojnika u Gornjoj Meziji i jugoistočnom delu Panonije. Magistarska teza, Univerzitet u Beogradu.Вујовић, Мирослав. 2008. Плумбате из Срема. Весник Војног музеја 35: 126–128.Vegetius, Flavius Renatus. 1990. Epitoma Rei Militaris, ed. Leo F. Stelten. American University Studies, Series XXII, Vol. II, New York: Peter Lan Publishing. Живић, Maja. 2003. Felix Romuliana: 50 година одгонетања, Зајечар: Народни музеј у Зајечару.


217

Мирослав Б. вујовић

PLUMBATAE ИЗ СРБИЈЕ

Резиме

У делу Epitoma Rei Militaris, Вегеције наводи посебну врсту бацачког оружја које назива plumbata или ma(r)ttiobarbuli (Vegetius: I, XVII). То су пројектили са карактеристичним оловним тегом на усадном тулцу гвозденог врха који су ути-цали на повећање домета и пробојне моћи избаченог оружја. Захваљујући могућ-ности да лете у високом луку, плумбатама су успешно неутралисани противници заклоњени иза штита или палисаде а оштри бочни закрилци отежавали су вађење пројектила из ране.

Налази плумбата познати су са веома широког простора, из Британије, Немач-ке, Аустрије, Словеније, Хрватске, Мађарске, Грчке, све до Грузије (карта 1). Већи број металних врхова плумбата са карактеристичним оловним теговима нађен је и на тлу Србије (карта 2; сл. 1–3; т. I) на локалитетима: Костолац, Чезава, Кара-таш, Михајловац, Борђеј, Медијана, Сврљиг, Пирот, Гамзиград, а појединачно су откривени у околини Свилајнца и Неготина. Почетком XX века један примерак је евидентиран и у околини Bassianaе код Руме, а дa он није једини са доњопа-нонског лимеса у данашњој Србији сведоче још три врха. Два су недавно нађена у подножју Фрушке горе код Жарковаца а један примерак потиче са непознатог локалитета у Земуну.

Готово сви налази плумбата из Србије потичу са локалитета на којима су кон-статоване римске или рановизантијске фортификације. Већина је откривена током археолошких истраживања и даје солидну основу за датовање. На Чезави (сл. 2/2, 3) су плумбате откривене унутар римског кастела, у слојевима који су датовани новцем Валентинијана I у другу половину IV века. Два фрагментована гвоздена врха са локалитета Блато код Михајловца (сл. 2/10,11) нађена су у касноантичком утврђењу са тетрапилоном, подигнутом у трећој четвртини IV века. Врхови плум-бата нађени су у слојевима из времена уништења ове фортификације почетком V века или у великом продору Хуна 441. године. Фрагментовани примерци су от-кривени и током ископавања римских и рановизантијских утврђења код Борђеја и Караташа (Diana).

На територији Србије, највећи број врхова плумбата констатован је при-ликом истраживања утврђења и резиденцијалне архитектуре у Гамзиграду, тј. касноантичкој Ромулијани. Нађени су у оквиру остатака терми у југоисточном делу царске резиденције, као и у једној од кула (кула 19) које су браниле капију западног бедема млађе фортификације. На основу стратиграфије унутар терми, плумбате (сл. 1/1–3) су датоване у другу половину IV века, а у кули 19 (сл. 1/4,



218

6, 7) потичу из слојева опредељених у период од осамдесетих година IV века до првих деценија V века.

Сви врхови плумбата из Србије имају усадни тулац, а већина и пробојац ром-боидног пресека, који се завршава са два закрилца. Њихова дужина износи од 7,8 до 16,5 cm. Иако сличног облика, издвају се три основне варијанте пробојца. Прву чине широки и масивнији пробојци троугаоног облика, са краћим задњим трном (сл. 2; Т I/ 1–4). Другу варијанту одликују дугачки уски пробојци чија се ширина не разликује много од ширине тела гвозденог врха (сл. 3; т. I/5), док трећој припада јединствен примерак троперног пробојца (сл.2/9; Т I/1) нађен у околини Дубравице (Margum).

Плумбате су у римској војсци интензивно коришћене од средине III, а посебно током IV века и то највероватније због коренитих измена у начину вођења рата и опремања трупа у тетрархијско доба. Интензивнија употреба плумбата у време позног Царства проистекла је из потребе за све већим бројем најамничких једини-ца стрелаца који су ангажовани у сукобима са Парћанима. После напуштања Да-кије у време Аурелијана (272) било је неопходно да се формирају нове стрељачке трупе у Подунављу. Уместо дуге и неизвесне обуке редовних јединица у гађању луком и стрелом, римски стратези одлучили су да трупе наоружају плумбатама. Вегеције истиче неопходност обуке регрута у коришћењу плумбата, као и увођење овог оружја у редовне пешадијске и коњичке трупе (Vegetius: I, 17). То је прак-тично значило да су, према потреби, исте јединице могле да делују и као снаге за ратовање „конвенционалним“ оружјем у директном сукобу, али и за далекометну борбу, што је омогућавало велику тактичку предност.

Недовољно познавање заступљености плумбата на балканском тлу, упутило је поједине ауторе да изразе сумњу у Вегецијев навод о распрострањеној употреби овог оружја међу римским трупама у Илирику. На територији Србије, међутим, евидентирали смо знатно већи број врхова плумбата него у читавој Британији, где је до сада, забележено највише примерака. Ако нашим налазима додамо и врхове са осталих простора некадашњег Илирика, из Хрватске и Мађарске на пример, добијамо знатно већи број који, ипак, потврђује Вегецијеве речи. Надам се да ће овај рад допринети бољем сагледавању распрострањености и употребе плумбата на тлу Балканског полуострва.

Изворни научни рад / Original scientific articleПримљено: 15. априла 2009.Одобрено: 1. септембра 2010.UDK: 355(497.11) „652“


ГСАД/JSAS 25 (2009) M. Vujović Т. I

Plumbata heads: Dubravica (1), Kostolac (2), Veliko Gradište (3), unknown site (4), Zemun (5)Врхови плумбата: Дубравица (1), Костолац (2), Велико Градиште (3), непознато налазиште (4), Земун (5)

1 2 3 4 5

plumbatae from serbia_vujovic

Documents

fixing wooden

epitoma rei

oprema rimskog

harvard university

de rebus bellicis

mark hassall

biconical

iron plumbata