In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

  Since the second half of the nineteenth century, the systematic study of early medieval arms and armor has depended upon documentary sources and artistic representations.1 Examples of early weaponry are extremely rare. Often, those that do exist either have been significantly altered over time or have been retrieved from highly specialized archaeological contexts, such as burials, which reveal little about primary functional relationships.2 A total of  complete weapons ( spears and  javelins),  fragmentary weapons ( javelins and  or  swords), and  hafted spike (found with a group of  javelins) were recovered from the Serçe Limanı wreck (Fig. -); how the missing iron of these weapons was perfectly replicated in epoxy resin is described in chapter . Dating to the early eleventh century A.D., found in an undisturbed archaeological context , and preserved in their original, functional assemblage, they represent a unique find of real importance (Fig. -). Neither the staff weapons nor the sword remains contained sufficient iron for metallurgical analysis. However, examination of the substantial hafting remains from the staff weapons indicates that the hafts were a hardwood, specifically beech, either Fagus sylvatica or Fagus orientalis.3 Initial qualitative compositional analysis of the bronze hilt (WP ) revealed proportional amounts of arsenic, zinc, lead, cobalt, nickel, copper, and tin. The reasonably high proportion of lead allowed isotopic study, which suggests southeastern Bulgaria as the source of the lead, and particle-induced X-ray emission (PIXE) analysis revealed no trace of silver wash or gilding on chapter 21 The Weapons Joseph K. Schwarzer II Illustrated by Sema Pulak the surface of the hilt, but did corroborate the original compositional data.4 In the field of weaponry studies, there is considerable variance in terminology. For consistency, the majority of terms used throughout this chapter are those most frequently encountered . In a few instances, it was necessary to devise new terms for unique features. Figures -a–d and -a illustrate the types of weapons recovered from the site and provide a guide to nomenclature used in this study; Figure -e does the same for the hafted spike (WP ), and Figures -f–g represent a reconstructive interpretation of this object. Figure -b diagrams the measurements provided in the catalog entry for the bronze sword hilt (WP ). The catalog is divided into three sections: Staff Weapons, Swords, and Hafted Spike. The section on staff weapons is further divided into subsections on Spears and Javelins. Table - is a distribution list, which summarizes the locations of the weapons on the wreck; a separate list records weapon groups in which spears and javelins were found together in situ (Table -). Tables - through - present measurements of staff weapons, accompanied by a list of abbreviations used in those tables; explanatory diagrams are given in Figure -. The typological listing of javelins in Table - is based on observed similarities of overall form, length, and, most important , blade length. Javelins WP  through a,  through , , and  were too fragmentary to attempt a classification, and WP a is so fragmentary that it is not included in the #     measurement tables. This proposed typology is by no means intended to be definitive and is suggested here only as a basis for further research and comparative study. As blade length is the most frequently encountered diagnostic feature of spears and javelins cited in medieval treatises,5 a listing of javelin blade lengths, arranged according to type, each type summarized with range and mean blade lengths, is provided in Table -. The relationship of these weapons to the site and the broader cultural and politico-economic significance of these finds are issues treated in the concluding section of this chapter . Little is known about the armament of early medieval merchant vessels. As examples of such armament, the weapons from Serçe Limanı are unparalleled and offer the first evidence of this aspect of everyday maritime commerce in the early eleventh century. Staff Weapons Unless otherwise stated, all hafts of the staff weapons are shaped to the interior, conical dimensions of the weapon socket, but normally the hafts do not abut the edges of the socket base and are not flush with the exterior surfaces of the socket walls. Spears WP . Iron spear-head. Inv. No. GW . Fig. -. [Lot ] O UR/. L. of head .; l. of blade .; l. of socket .. Light spear. Blade broad, thin, rhombic in section; reverse longitudinal medial ridge extends from base of socket to tip of blade. Blade edges nicked and chipped. Section of blade . long, extending from . above junction blade/ socket to . below tip, is .–. broader to right...

Share