Jump to content

Talk:Bow and arrow/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

I think the bow wasn´t a late invention in America! And they didn´t just have long- and flatbows, the Plains tribes like the Lakota(Teton Sioux) or Tsitsita(Cheyenne) had doubble-curved composite bows! Europeans never invented double curved composite bows! The Indians are not less clever than whites! Why they shouldn´t develope their own bows! Steve 13/11/06

I read an article about that, don't remember which tribe, but there's only a couple of men who still make their tribe's traditional horn and sinew laminated recurve bow.

Rojoe is a great bow hunter - removal

Removed: "Rojoe is a great bow hunter." Is this a joke someone placed here, or is there a reason for it? As far as I can tell, it's not relevant, and if it does contain something useful, it's not placed in context in order to make it comprehensible. Tom M 22:29, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone know what the meaning of the phrases "The middle part is biconvex . . . the convexity of the midsection decreases through time." This is in reference to the Holmegård bow and I would assume refers to a reflex or deflex in the handle of the bow, but cannot find a reference to a similar shape in the Bowyers Bible chapter on Ancient European bows which talks a good deal about these bows —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mev532 (talk • contribs) 23:57, 7 August 2005

No, I think it refers to the curve of the wood on the cut surface, like a lens. 80.126.21.216 (talk) 18:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Ballista

The ballista description sounds like it was written by a dumb person. --Lomacar 03:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

History

North America was settled by Paleo-Indian peoples during the late Pleistocene (about 20,000 years ago) who did not possess the bow and arrow. Was archery developed independently by Native Americans? I placed this same query in the discussion of the article on Archery Jay Gregg 18:15, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I suspect that there is a problem in the phrase "Mesolithic arrows have been found in England, Germany, Denmark and Sweden. They were often rather long (up to 120 cm [4 ft]) and made of hazel (Corylus avellana), wayfaring tree (Viburnum lantana) and chokecherry (Cornus alba)". To my knowledge, Chokecherry is native to North America, and would not have grown in Europe during the Mesolithic. Kie, Non-registered user, 2:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Chokecherry duly removed from Europe. Richard Keatinge 14:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Settlement to America

America was settled with at least three different waves before the arrival of Europeans(Newfoundland,Carribean)/Chinese(Peru). It must have started at least after 18000 BCE (marker-mutation on Y chromosome) from Asia and the last one of these waves arrived around 9000 BCE. 1000 BCE came the Inuit, Yupik and Unungun, but they are usually not counted. The oldest pictures of bows are found in the Pyrenees, dating back 15000 BCE and 11000-9000 BCE some remains are found in what is today Northern Germany and Denmark. The Inuit even had crossbows for whale hunting. So there is a chance, that the second wave (Apache and Comanche are descendants of these) brought some kind of bow along. But the history of settlement is varied and there are possibilitys of a small and very early European immigration based on the Kennewick-man and mitochondrial DNA-findings in Native Americans (mitochondrial DNA is just passed on by the mother, European immigrants usually did not allow their few women to the natives for reproduction). I have found some statements, that the bow used by Indians in North America is an Asian doublebow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.101.225.125 (talk) 01:36, 5 May 2006

But no very old bows have so far been found in the americas. Not even older than 1000 years, in fact 80.126.21.216 (talk) 18:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
== Not able to add image ==

Why is this not possible to add this image in this article. Is this because of the language difference for one being English and the other Dutch? http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Rama_sita.jpg

German(Deutsch) not Dutch(Nederlands). Yes it is not possible to transfer pictures from other language wikis, but every picture has a source and you can upload it into English wiki and do the painful firsttime procedure of tagging and sourcing it right. I asked the guy uploading it on German wiki to help you. Wandalstouring 12:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, De is for German. I am sorry. Thanks a lot for the help in explaining and also for the help with the image. I will add it later. Thanking you --Chanakyathegreat 09:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Electross

I removed this, it was someones idea of a joke. Just in case you don't think I'm qualified, I are engi . . enji . . . one of the guys who builds things and a former Royal Archer of the Kingdom of the West of the Society for Creative Anachronism.67.174.53.196 06:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Yumi Sexist?

Is it just me or is the last sentence of the Yumi bow paragraph sexist? It basically is saying that broken thumb section of bow is a problem to woman because they can't take the pain.

If that is a historical observation (i.e. real attitude of Japanese warriors in the past), it should remain, but be noted as such. We shouldn't attempt to rewrite history just because our cultural attitudes have changed. ⇔ ChristTrekker 17:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I took that last sentence out.

"A disadvantage that causes problems more for the female archers, if the glove or yugake is damaged and the thumb and wrist became excessively articulated, the archer may have to endure pain while drawing, or indeed be unable to draw their bow."

Something like that really needs to be sourced, and described as a historical attitude. I have no knowledge of the subject I'm afraid, but I feel that this is inappropriate without rigorous sourcing. I may be entirely wrong here, but the sentence reads like a translation from a book, so a source may exist. But even then, it should be described as an attitude rather than fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.122.161 (talk) 16:33, 16 July 2007

types of bows

Are the flat bow and korean bow a subtype of some other, such as long bow or composite bow? If so, let's reflect that. Also, as all these types have main articles, can we tighten up the entries here and summarize them to make this article read more like an overview? ⇔ ChristTrekker 17:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

There's been some discussion over at Talk:archery regarding how to classify bows. That much detail probably belongs here rather than there. ⇔ ChristTrekker 19:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I have moved all the various sections on (slightly) different sorts of composite bow, to the Composite bow article? It seems a bit overdue. Richard Keatinge 14:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Could someone please put reference about selfbow —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.215.142 (talk) 10:39, 23 January 2007

I have also set up articles on bow types, classified mainly by material and by profile shape.Richard Keatinge 14:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Penetration of armour

In the Middle Ages, European powers made effective use of the longbow as a major weapon of war. It was an extremely effective weapon in battle and could penetrate armor from a considerable distance.

I saw a history TV programme about longbows recently in which the Royal Military College of Science tested a longbow's ability to penetrate armour of the time. They showed that it could penetrate it, but only at a range of 20 m or less. So, 'considerable distance' is not really true. Blaise 21:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I saw a similar show, (maybe the same, maybe not) and I noticed multiple mistakes: The bow was under poundage, the bow was underdrawn, the arrow was under spined, the "bodkin" point was not the design actually used, and they did not use tallow as a penetrating agent. Draw your own conclusions.71.197.106.123 01:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Either way, longbow penetrating armour from considerable distance is both vague, and not proven. Firstly, 20 m is not a considerable distance- it is point blank range. Secondly, "armour" can be many things- padded and quilted armour, maille, and plate are very different beasts. We also need citations for this. 38.98.155.132 18:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

There's a History Channel show which used modern forensic techniques to examine historic battles. One episode was on the Battle of Hastings where an army of organized English peasants defeated the French "army" made up of individual nobles wearing steel plate armor, some on foot and more on horseback. They found that there were three primary factors which led to the English victory. One was the mud, it stuck in heavy globs to the steel armor boot plating of the knights on foot. Second was the terrain, the English were on top of a low and narrow ridge which caused a 'bottleneck' the French had to advance through in order not to have the disavantage of attacking from low ground. Third was the effect of the thousands of high-trajectory longbow fired arrows on the French horses. With hundreds of horses down from arrow strikes, the French couldn't advance, leaving them vulnerable to further arrow attacks and close in hand to hand fighting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizzybody (talk • contribs) 05:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

There is an equation for it HERE: http://web.mit.edu/21h.416/www/militarytechnology/armor.html I haven't run the math on it, but I expect a longbow with a Mary Rose sort of draw weight (150-200 lbs), and a direct hit would do the job. I've read medieval plate being somewhere between 1.5 and 2.0 mm thick, with the later being largely 'proof' against the crossbow. Theblindsage 01:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Age of Bows

The statement "The oldest bows known so far come from the Holmegård swamp---" begs the question, how old were these bows? If they know they are the oldest, they had to date them. That data should be included here. Olan7allen 00:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)olan7allen

Late to answer, I know. ... the Holmegaard bows are from about 6000 BC. — NRen2k5(TALK), 07:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
no, rather older, about 8000 bc. 80.126.21.216 (talk) 18:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
"from the Grotta dell'Addaura in Italy" - But at least the italian article about this grotta makes no reference to bows or archery. What is the reason for its inclusion as proof for the oldest bows here? 80.126.21.216 (talk) 18:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Shortbow

Any chance anyone has an authoritative source denouncing the 'shortbow' as a DnD-derived neologism? Theblindsage 01:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It isn't. Short bows exist, they were normal for Bushmen and Californians. They were never European, though there were late Victorian historians who thought they were. See The Great War Bow by Strickland and Hardy. Richard Keatinge 10:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1

Proposed new article structure

Lead
Construction
  /* Already in article */
History 
  Earliest
  Middle
  Late (height)
  Modern
Use
  Range and effect
  Warfare
  Hunting and sport
In fiction
See also etc.

please discuss. - brenneman 06:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, and I'd also like to see a structure that avoids unreasonable duplication between this page and Archery. Crudely, the bits on the present archery page that give details on the hardware could be moved here, leaving only links and very brief descriptions; correspondingly any bits from this page on the use of bows could be moved to Archery. We should also try to make sure that the amount of duplication between this page and the pages on, for example, composite bow, recurve bow, and longbow is kept to a minimum; this page I suggest should be an overview of the hardware. (Most of the text is probably written already.) Does this seem a reasonable idea? Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Goodness, I hadn't even gotten to the satellite pages like Archery yet. I had imagined this page as the "centre" of this set of articles, but now that I look at Archery, it appears to me it might be a more appropiate choice. There's going to be some places where the overlap is 100%, though... History of archery == History of bows for the most part.
With respect to the "links and very brief descriptions": These are jumping off places frm the more general subject. Since, for example, bowhunting is a rational next step from both the bow and archery pages might it make sense to have a similar (or even identical) sections for it in both articles?
brenneman 00:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Seems good to me. (It is a bit difficult to draw a sharp line between the hardware (Bow) and the methods of using it (Archery), and you've stimulated me into toying with the idea of merging the pages - but then they'd be very long, and the concepts are separable to a large extent. I'd suggest that we could leave them on two pages, with a bit of self-discipline on what goes where.)
Do you fancy having a go? Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

July 2011

This article had fallen off my list, but now I'm again interested in improving it. However, the more I look the more I think that this should be merged into Archery. Any thoughts? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 02:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Entirely different subject. It would be like merging lance with jousting. If anything, archery would need to be merged into this article. — kwami (talk) 13:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Let the merge and purge begin

Deflex bow, Reflex bow‎ Decurve bow‎ and Recurve bow‎ all now redirect to Bow types - brenneman 07:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Please add detailed diagram

This article could really use a diagram, there are any number of descriptions of the parts of the bow that are not clear. Also, the term 'string bridge' which appears in the article on the Mongol Bow needs to be included. --BooksXYZ (talk) 10:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

law

I would be helpful to add a section on the laws in various countries on owning and/or carrying a bow --UltraMagnus (talk) 20:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

On the 60 000 year old African arrowhead

My edit was probably not well formulated.

However, the source for that ancient arrowhead is more careful than the formulation in the Wikipedia text:

[1]

A slender point is consistent with a pin or needle-like implement, while a larger point, reminiscent of the single specimen from Peers Cave, parallels large un-poisoned bone arrow points from LSA, Iron Age and historical Bushman sites. Additional support for the Sibudu point having served as an arrow tip comes from backed lithics in the HP compatible with this use, and the recovery of older, larger bone and lithic points from Blombos Cave, interpreted as spear heads. If the bone point from the HP layers at Sibudu Cave is substantiated by future discoveries, this will push back the origin of bow and bone arrow technology by at least 20,000 years, and corroborate arguments in favour of the hypothesis that crucial technological innovations took place during the MSA in Africa.

I find "has been identified as arrowhead" much stronger than the original claim, so I think the text should be adapted a bit.

Also, the link to the Discovery page should be changed to the link to the original paper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik Springelkamp (talk • contribs) 16:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Bow

The description of the bow and the description of each part of the bow is well written. The history section is lacking in every single way. It only describes the bow in early B.C. times, and has no information on development and improvement after that. Illustrations are very good in proving its existence in history, but do not apply to what is currently written in the article, maybe an illustration that specifies the different parts of the bow would be better. Only 1 contribution has been made, but it has not been approved or applied to the actual article. The sources given are lacking substantial information and are very little for a subject of this magnitude. There are 3 links present. The first link does not seem to be a reliable source, the second link does not work, and the third is an article about the mathematics involved in ancient archery (which does not apply to what is currently written). This article complements what is written on Encyclopedia Britannica, because it explains much of the workings of the bow, while Britannica only talks about its early history. HIST406-10rgomez (talk) 14:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)HIST406-10rgomez, Oct. 4, 2010

As you'll see from the above discussion, it can be a bit tricky to know what to put in this article, what in Archery, what in Bow shape, and what in History of archery, to all of which this page has wikilinks. it seems good to avoid significant duplication between these various pages. How would you suggest improving these articles? Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Strain is a fractional change in a length; draw weight is a force. They cannot be compared.

"A rule of thumb is that a string should withstand a strain at least four times the draw weight of its bow" This sentence makes no sense. Strain is change in dimension (eg., length) divided by the original dimension under force. Draw weight is a force. One cannot multiply strain by four and arrive at a force. So what is this potentially useful sentence trying to say? Is it that the string should be able to withstand a TENSION (which is a force) that is at least four times the draw weight? Or is it that the string should be able to withstand a strain that is at least four times the strain it experiences when under the full draw weight? Two different things. Or is it even trying to say something else?

This also could do with... a citation. 86.148.76.1 (talk) 21:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Tension. Suitably changed. There will be a citation somewhere in the Traditional Bowyer's Bible, but it's too late to look it up tonight. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Critique of Bow and Arrow Wiki page

The Bow and Arrow http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bow_and_arrow

The Wikipedia article on “bow and arrow” has much to be desired. The opening summary simply states, “The bow and arrow are a projectile weapon that predates recorded history and is common to most cultures.” The importance of a weapon used throughout most of history deserves a bit more of an introduction. I would suggest adding a statement in regards to the era in which the bow and arrow was most used. Something else worth suggesting would be how deadly and important the weapon was to warfare throughout history.

The article is organized into sections: description, history, and bow construction. Bow construction is further broken down into limbs, strings, and crossbows. The description is very technical, and could use some work on how it is written. The different types of bows and arrows would be a good use of the description section. Introducing the cultures that used bow and arrows as a form of hunting and as a form of warfare would be something else of use in the section. The article should describe the impact on society and warfare. The cost effectiveness should be included in one of the sections. The history section lacks anything after 3300 BC. The importance of bow and arrows throughout Greece, Rome, and the middle ages needs to be included in the history section, as well as many other cultures. There will be lots of work to be done on the history of bow and arrow.

The illustrations lack context and are irrelevant to most of the discussion. The pictures on the page consist of, a modern day bow and arrow, two sculptures depicting the use of bow and arrow, and a coat of arms with a bow and arrow in it. I would suggest showing pictures of paintings from the time. The addition of drawings from the time would be helpful, possibly from the renaissance era, when it would be more likely that there is a publication of some sort. Depictions of the medieval archery corps would lend to the discussion of medieval warfare.

The article has been changed many times a month for the last 3 years. It does not appear that any of the changes has been significant. The article is still lacking and could use quite a bit more information. I will focus my work on the history section. There are only 7 sources for the entire article, which 4 of them are from the same book. I plan to add more resources from scholarly journals that focus more on the history of the bow and arrow. The Wikipedia page is lacking in comparison to that of a real encyclopedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HIST406-11smcgrath (talk • contribs) 00:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Also looking forward to your ideas. You may wish to check the articles History of archery, longbow, English longbow and Composite bow which may be useful as main articles on specific subjects. The references are indeed a bit lacking here; the source for most of the facts is the Traditional Bowyer's Bible as per the Further Reading list. We could have a reference to this work after almost every sentence. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Improvements...

I'm planning on working on this article throughout August for the WP:Core Contest - and just figured I'd give a heads up to everyone that some cleanup and major expansion are probably headed forward. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Fragments vs bow in one piece

In the history section, the article says the bow in one piece was older than the bow fragments, so are the fragments noteworthy? 66.66.149.221 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:38, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Good question. They seem to have similar notability in the sources that I recall. The Stellmoor fragments are no longer available, and were never dated by modern methods - they might even be older than the Holmegaard bow. From ten thousand years later they're pretty much part of the same cultural milieu. Richard Keatinge (talk) 22:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Age of bows vs other weapons

16,000 BCE is considerably older than the oldest sling we've found; the oldest atlatl is only from 17,500 BCE, though they are believed to have been in use since ~30,000 BCE. The Woomera is actually of more recent vintage according to its article, only originating around 3,000 BCE.

Is there a source on the age of slings? Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:46, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

The oldest I can find is Çatalhöyük, which is 7,500 BCE. Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:50, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Few Miscellaneous points

The article reads like a novice wrote it. Teachers and students of early man, refer to the paleolithic era. A very primitive era which predates bows. And the experts use the term "lance blade" or "lancelate." Which basically is a spear, but thats the specific term used. Early specimens suggest very rudimentary design more suited for a spear, not a bow and arrow. Very Large specimens are knives, as opposed to spear points. 206.192.35.125 (talk) 12:36, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

History - New World

The history section currently says the B&A spread to all continents except Australia by the end of the Ice Age. The citation for this is an article that only talks about Australia. I know of no literature indicating the presence of bows in North or South America until much later. I have not done literature research in this area for many years, so it's possible that older material has been found in the last score years or so, but a quick search on scholar.google and Jstor turned up no such material. The best reference I ran across was one to this one. It's not new but not extremely old: "Adoption of the Bow in Prehistoric North America," North American Archaeologist Volume 9, Number 2 / 1988 Pages: 123 - 145 by John H. Blitz, DOI: 10.2190/HN64-P1UD-NM0A-J0LR /http://anthropology.ua.edu/reprints/22.pdf.

In it, the author says that the earliest known bow (in 1988, citing a 1970 article) was from Africa, ca. 11,000 B.C. (p. 126). Mesolithic bows were common in parts of Europe and in Africa (ib.). On the same page, he laments that the N.E. Asian data are "uncertain."

He then goes on to establish a tentative chronology for North America (p. 127). The Paleoarctic Tradition provides his earliest examples. These date to 9K~6K B.C. (citing Dumond 1978), derived from N.E. Asian industries for which he offers no dates. In the interior, there is equivocal evidence from 6KBC, with the first definitive evidence not coming from before 3KBC.

Moving into the temperate part of the continent, he finds no-where where there is evidence for the bow before 2KBC. In fact, his map of dates of distribution (Figure 1, on p. 132) shows 200 BC as the earliest date for any of what is now southern Canada and any of the U.S.

Looking at the area adjacent to Mexico, we see AD 500 (by Baja) and AD 600 as the earliest dates for bows-and-arrows. While the article does not deal with South America, barring trans-oceanic sources, the technology could not have spread thither (our article is about spread, not independent invention, which is not considered) before at least that time (mid first millennium AD) (unless we posit a band of people passing through with-out leaving a trace of their technology). In fact, some views of Meso-American pre-history see B&A technology a little later than this time as arriving and upsetting the political situation. In any case, at least based on Blitz's article, we have no basis for retaining a claim of spread after the end of the glacial period, unless we take a loose interpretation of "after," meaning any time not before or during. In that case, though, "except Australia" is wrong, since there are bows in use in Australia today. 211.225.33.104 (talk) 02:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks for your comments and for this interesting and useful reference, which will allow this article and others to be significantly improved. I will try to find out if there's anything more recent, but in this context an article from 1988 seems perfectly acceptable. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:18, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bow and arrow. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:23, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

No citation is needed.

In the section titled "Parts of the bow" there is the following: "While the string is held, this stores the energy later released in putting the arrow to flight.[citation needed]" This is not controversial. It's elementary mechanics of the sort taught in an undergraduate class. No citation is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.223.130.32 (talk) 03:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Lede Section

The lede is too short. I'm considering either writing a new 2-paragraph summary of the article, or simply removing the "Description" heading so that content becomes part of the lede. Thoughts? Power~enwiki (talk) 03:46, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Types missing

  • Is yumi the only asymmetrical bow ??


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bow_and_arrow/Archive_1&oldid=1253863278"