I DON'T HAVE MUCH ON AFRICAN BOWS AND ARROWS IN MY FILES BUT WILL SEE IF I CAN TAKE A FEW PICTURES OF ITEMS IN MY COLLECTON SOON. HERE IS A PICTURE OF 4 CONGO ARROWS.

Precisely so , whilst the argument for smaller weaker bows in a forests is sound , the evolution of longer more powerful bows for game hunting in grassland savannah was essential in an environment where cover is scarce and a greater killing range was needed . This is seen the world over , except perhaps in nomadic horsemen who with the advantage of speed could get so much closer to game without the same need for stealth ... the smaller bow being more convenient when on horseback.

Again, not quite. All things considered a bigger bow is desirable, because they tend to be more accurate and to throw bigger arrows. The English longbow and the older woodbows exemplified by the Eastern North American Indian bows are all examples of this, as are some African bows. If you live in the eastern US, which has a plethora of good bow wood (oak, hickory, ash, etc.), this is a really good solution.

There are two other big factors: weather and the availability of poisons. In a rain forest (or on the water) bows tend to either rot or warp (think about wet wood), so in such an environment, you're stuck with some version of a big wood bow, ideally with no knots. Those palm-wood Papuan bows are a good example. In somewhat drier environments, you can start adding backings (sinew, horn, bamboo, etc) to improve the spring, creating many variations on the compound bow. This was done all over the northern hemisphere, from the Arctic (cable backed bows) to Turkey, Korea, China, California, etc. This is an ideal solution if you're living in an area where good bow-woods are scarce but there are big ungulates to provide the other material. It's also not a bad solution if you want to beef up a big wood bow. Backings tend to be glued on, and glues can go bad in wet weather, so there's a trade-off between power and versatility/durability.

Small compound bows are useful for horseback, and are the classic solution adopted by the steppes nomads, all the cultures they contacted, and the Plains Indians. Small and powerful, they are also fussy, need a fair amount of care, and can be inaccurate (due to the small arm length).

As for poisons, they seem to be used where available. For example, some northern California tribes used small sinew-backed bows capable of taking a deer on power alone. They also poisoned their tips with rattlesnake venom. The ancient Greeks reputedly poisoned their arrows, as did the Ainu when they were hunting bears with them. The Kalahari bushmen have a crappy environment for bow woods and few tools to work them, but they have some excellent toxins, so they use light bows with tiny needle-like poisoned arrows, and kill with those. The west African tribes such as the Tiv reportedly use a mix of Calabar bean and whatever snake venom they can get their hands on, and build normal wood bows but use prickly arrowheads to get the poison in. And so forth.

Thing is, bows and arrows aren't simple. Their design takes into account the local environment, materials available, and intended use, and a lot of clever bowyers have independently come up with similar solutions for thousands of years.

Best,

F

Hi Fearn,
yes generalising.... for more recent times. A number of tribes still to this day hunt with 'smaller' bows ......the rest tend to use AK45's. I agree that up the middle of the 20th century, larger bows with greater draw poundage were much more evident. Perhaps WW2 in Africa allowed greater and easier access to firearms....negating the use of the high draw weight, long bow ??
There does not seem to be many references as to the wood species used in African bowery. It seems that,in some areas, the wood may not be totally suitable and leather is used to re-inforce the bow.

All the best
David

1 Lake Tumba men-1900.
2 Marungu - Tanganika.
3 Pygmée

For some things, bigger bows are better. Sometimes bigger arrows are better. Not always! Consider Arab/Turkish sub-drawlength arrows used with arrow-guides, or the more extremely short Korean version, where the arrows were about 1/2 the draw length.

The English longbow is one of the bows optimised for maximum energy, which is very important for armour penetration. Most game animals don't wear armour, so not such a big deal for hunting bows.

Some of the stone/iron age European bows are large, probably moderate draw weight (i.e., pretty high draw weight for us moderns), and inefficient. Inefficient is a Bad Thing in modern archery, since it robs you of speed, and thus of flat trajectory. But if you're a hunter who has to make his own arrows, low velocity is not always a bad thing - it's easier to find you arrows when you miss.

For a self bow, starting from scratch, I find it's easier to make the bow than the arrows. Losing/breaking arrows is a largely ignored disadvantage of powerful and efficient bows.

As you say, it isn't simple. The optimisations for warfare, hunting, and sporting archery are all different. That's not even looking at the different types of warfare, hunting, and sport! We can add ritual archery to the list, too.

The third bow looks very much like the Cameroon bow I posted at the beginning of this thread and is of a similar size. :)

I want to thank everyone posting, the discussion is very interesting and its great to get a better understanding behind the regional evolution of different bow types. The fact that backed bows wouldn't hold up well in many African regions isn't something I had ever realized. It's interesting how different development paths can still come up with very effective local solutions.

Great stuff and I look forward to learning more.

HADZABE TRIBE: THE LAST ARCHERS OF AFRICA

Intresting blog.
http://kwekudee-tripdownmemorylane.b...of-africa.html

.

This is an appealing issue for me. I am trying to spot some info about this topic, but it reveals hard to happen.
But at searching the theme i have read a lecture from qualified sources that bows and crossbows were used by both sides in the take over of Lisbon, Silves and Santarem from the Moors, in the XII century... Moors having invaded the peninsula in the VII century, coming from North Africa.
The lecturer inferred that there is not much material written on this theme in the period, due an ideologic despise against weapons that killed at distance, in favour of swords and lances, used in singular combat; hence the bow being called the forgotten weapon of the Reconquest.
It is also known that crossbows and bows were the vital weapon in battles fought by Portuguese low nobility, supported by populars, against Spaniards top royalty in the XIV century, to reassure Portugal independence; having the Portuguese been helped by allied British archers with their long bows. We may conclude that Portuguese bows were shorter, but i could find no evidence in my (rather simple) search.
Drawings of Portuguese archers or crossbow men are rare; and even the ones that show up are symbolic or alegoric.
On the other hand we can read chronicles of the discoveries period (XV-XVI century), where the crossbow is often mentioned. Perhaps at this stage the bow was abandoned.