Klaipėdos piliavietės arbaleto strėlių antgaliai

LTKlaipėdos pilis visų pirma buvo gynybinės paskirties statinys. Deja, apie pilies karių ginkluotę žinome išties mažai. Archeologinėje piliavietės medžiagoje galime pamatyti keletą kirvių, ietigalių ar kalavijo fragmentų, bet kiekiu kitas ginkluotės radinių grupes smarkiai lenkia arbaleto strėlių antgaliai. Straipsnyje analizuosime per 39 Klaipėdos piliavietės tyrinėjimų metus sukauptą strėlių antgalių rinkinį, kuris saugomas Mažosios Lietuvos istorijos muziejaus archeologijos fonduose. Tyrimo objektas - arbaleto ir lanko strėlių antgaliai. Vis dėlto lanko strėlių antgalių skaičius yra gerokai mažesnis, todėl jų analizė yra labiau simbolinė. Statistinės lentelės sudarytos pagal antgalių priklausomybę arbaletinėms ir lanko strėlėms, taip pat pagal jų rūšį - įmoviniai ir įtveriamieji. Matavimais buvo nustatyta: antgalio svoris, ilgis, galvutės ilgis, plotis (matuojamos dvi skersinio pjūvio įstrižainės), įmovos angos arba kaklelio skersmuo. Taip pat pagal tam tikrus formos požymius nustatomas antgalio tipas. Tipologija pasirinkta remiantis archeologo dr. Gintauto Rackevičiaus sudarytu ir aprašytu lanko ir arbaleto strėlių antgalių sąvadu. Jo atliktas didžiulis darbas surašant visus Lietuvos teritorijoje rastus strėlių antgalius pasirodė knygoje „Arbaletas ir lankas Lietuvoje XIII-XVI a.“. Neliko nuošalyje ir Klaipėdos pilis, kurios medžiagą iki 2000 m. tyrimų jis pristatė darbe, kuriame galite rasti daugiau informacijos apie viduramžių šaunamuosius ginklus. Šiame straipsnyje pateikiama archeologinė medžiaga iš tyrimų iki 2014 m. imtinai, atlikti detalūs matavimai ir duomenų analizė.Pristatomi kiekvienų metų tyrimai, kada buvo rastas nors vienas strėlės antgalis, trumpai pateikiama informacija iš ataskaitų apie kasinėtą plotą, sluoksnius, kuriuose rasti antgaliai. Panagrinėti net vieni stambesni tyrimai, kuriuose nerasta jokių strėlių antgalių. Tai atlikta siekiant nustatyti, kokio pobūdžio vietose neaptinkama antgalių ir kodėl, nuo kokių amžių jie nebenaudojami Klaipėdos pilyje. Paskutiniai tyrimo metai, kurių medžiaga naudojama analizėje, - 2014 m. Jos matavimus ir tipo nustatymą atliko MLIM Archeologijos skyriaus vedėja Roma Songailaitė, taigi noriu padėkoti jai ir kitiems skyriaus darbuotojams už pagalbą renkant medžiagą. [Iš straipsnio, p. 140]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Klaipėdos piliavietė; Arbaletai; Strėlių antgaliai; Klaipeda castle site; Crossbows; Boom tips.

ENThis is a study of arrow heads and bolts which were collected during archaeological excavations at Klaipėda castle over the course of 39 years. The collection of arrow head finds is now kept at History Museum of Lithuania Minor and consists of 376 objects. 18 of them are bow arrow heads, while the remaining number of artefacts were identified as crossbow bolt heads. As a result, the latter group was used as the basis for this study. Statistical data was organised according to the type of arrowheads, i. e. whether they belonged to bows or crossbows, and were further divided into groups of socketed and hafted. Measurements of different parts of arrow heads were taken: such as weight of the bolt, length, length of the tip, width (two measurements taken diagonally) and diameter of the socket or neck. Furthermore, the type of tip was identified by considering its shape. This article also reviews information gathered during archaeological investigations at the castle site which were conducted every year since 1975. Information presented includes data on excavated areas and layers which contained bolt finds. Moreover, finds collected over the years demonstrate the arsenal of the castle’s crew. During the investigation in 1975, it was found that area 12 contained an assemblage of bolts dated to the period between the middle and the second half of the 14th century. It was discovered that during this particular period crossbow bolt type 14 was dominant. Type 14 were hafted, had a bipyramidal head, were square in cross-section and had sharp and flat sides of their neck. During excavations between 1976 and 1980 at least a couple of crossbow bolts were found each year. However, tip types and find contexts were different for each case. The same can be noted about finds which were recovered during excavations in years 1986,1995,1997,1998 and 1999.It was established that bolt finds date to the time frame between the 14th and the end of the 16th century. However, results gathered Lfuring excavations in 2000 revealed that finds of this type were no longer in circulation from the 17th century onwards. The aforementioned cases demonstrate that crossbow bolts were widely spread over the territory of the castle as a result of being lost or thrown away as waste. The assemblage of bolts collected during excavations in 2014 acted as an incentive to perform this study. This was mainly due the fact that bolts of almost all known types were recovered that year. However, archaeological layers have been dated to the period between the 14th and the 16th century, which is a different time frame than noted above. A considerable number of bow arrow heads were also recovered during the same excavation. It must be noted that most of the finds were found in a defensive ditch. Find concentration in this particular spot was interpreted as indicative of a situation wherein bow arrow heads were used by Samogitian warriors who were constantly attacking castle of the Order. It was further suggested that some of the crossbow bolts also belonged to the Samogitians as it is known that during the 16th century Lithuanian warriors used crossbows. An analysis of head and bolt measurements revealed that they were not produced uniform: the weight and size probably depended on the amount of prepared raw material. Even though it has been ascertained which tip types were the most popular, it is still not possible to identify the place and time of their production. This is mainly due to the fact that one type of tip could have easily been transformed into another type with a couple of hits with a hammer.Moreover, it would be logical to assume that weight of the prepared raw material would match the tip type being produced and thus would be the invariable. However, in reality tip mass of any specific type differed two or three times. Even so, some tendencies do exist, therefore, more archaeological material is needed for analysis and for accurate identification of types. [From the publication]