Talk:History of archery

Moerou toukon

Moerou toukon (block log) has been permanently blocked as a sockpuppet of the Indian nationalist editor Freedom skies (block log · checkuser^confirmed), who has a history of

• POV-pushing[1][2][3]
• citing unreliable sources[4]
• misrepresenting his sources[5][6]

The Arbitration Committee has found that Freedom skies has "repeatedly engaged in edit-warring" and placed him on revert parole. When examining Freedom skies' editing, be mindful of the following:

• Can whatever source Freedom skies cites be considered reliable and up to date?
• Do his edits accurately reflect the content of the sources cited?
• Do his edits reflect "the prevailing view in the relevant academic community"?
• If not, do his edits give minority views undue weight?

JFD 06:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Use of the bow and arrow in the Americas

I was shocked when I was told that the bow and arrow were brought to the Americas by Europeans. I came to this article to confirm or deny this statement and it says almost nothing about the use of archery in the pre-Columbian Americas. The one claim made in this article is backed up by an article from 1901! I'm not an expert on this and i wouldn't know where to start, but for you archery experts out there can you support or deny this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthurian Legend (talk • contribs) 17:21, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

http://www.westernartifacts.com/museum.htm

According to this website, there exist many arrowheads found in North America that date back well before Columbus. :Mortician103 (talk) 03:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

There's no doubt at all that the pre-Columbian Americans knew archery. The first written accounts are from Columbus' first voyage. The article should at least mention that the bows are used by the natives of both North and South America as well as by the Inuit. It is known that the some tribes and the Inuit used composite bows, anywhere else some kind of long bow was used. -- 91.67.198.27 (talk) 04:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Bows and arrows were in widespread use when Europeans arrived in the Americas. So were atlatls. Dating the first use is difficult anywhere in the world because stone points - which survive very well and of course are very widespread - may have been used on atlatl darts or on spears. To demonstrate the use of bows you really need to produce the bows themselves, and they just don't survive that well. There are a few from Northern European bogs, which is why the history of archery currently starts there. I've read comments that archery was fairly recent in the Americas, but I'd love to find a good secondary source on the subject. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Suggest deletion

As there is little here (apart from the pictures) not already,and generally better, in the Archery article. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Expansion with material from Archery

I have done a fairly extensive rewrite.Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Further expansion

User:Ghostexorcist suggests expanding the section on China. It is not the only section in which considerable expansion would be possible. Indeed, almost anything to do with archery could be put in here. May I suggest that this article can be expanded, but that we should take full advantage of internal and external links and further reading to keep it encyclopaedic, but still a lot shorter than my archery bookshelf?Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The Amazonian tribe

Is real. Someone pointed out that this wasn't actually first contact and cried foul, and Survival International pointed out that they'd never said it was first contact, they'd been monitoring this group for years from the air, but they had never spoken with the people. Who are definitely aiming bows, possibly loaded. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Sub-Saharan Africa Archery

I don't see much information on this page detailing if and/or when sub-Saharan African people created and/or used bows. I know Nubians had extensive interaction with Egyptians and were used as soldiers, so maybe they were taught to create the bow and arrow? Does anyone have any reliable sources of information concerning this? Mortician103 (talk) 03:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Sub Saharan Africa Archery

Well, according to the Egyptians themselves, Nubians were fierce archers. It seems as if Egyptians (along with Greeks, Persians, and other ancient civilizations) believed Nubians to be better archers than themselves, which, along with the fact that the oldest arrowheads are found in sub-Saharan Africa, leads me to wonder if Nubians taught archery to Egyptians, rather than the other way around. The practice of archery either sprang up independantly in numerous spots (Native Americans were practicing archery before they had any known contact with outsiders), or it started in sub-saharan Africa and spread from there. But as far as Egyptians and Nubians, I'm pretty sure Nubians and other more southern Africans were archers before anyone else. With all the wild game in sub-Saharan Africa, from warthogs to zibras, it makes sense that they would have been one of the first to "arch". LOL.

Somebody definitely needs to add Nubia to the article, though. I am one of those "Afro-centrists", so I look for afro-exclusionism, even when its not there. But, I think this article's total lack of information about Nubian archery and it's abundance of information about European archery is pretty damn Afro-exclusionist. As of now, the article has that "everything was invented by white people" theme to it. Maybe I'm looking too Afro-centristicly at the whole thing, but it gets kind of old for black people to be excluded from historicle significance. Thatmaned (talk) 18:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

All we need is reliable sources. There are difficulties with archaeology - Africa's a bit short of peat bogs and glaciers, which preserved much early European archery, and stone points are pretty much the same from arrows or from small throwing spears. I'd love to have a full history of who invented the bow and where, but we're not likely to find out. A comment on Nubia shouldn't be hard to source from Egyptian archaeology and written records though.Richard Keatinge (talk) 06:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

when it come to europe even if it is in balkan or gorgia it was europe and there are westan asia ,central asia, south asia, euroasia, east asia, india ,china ,arub, egypt not africa.but how europe is one not divided. it seen that divide and rule is the moto of the writer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.162.59.66 (talk) 11:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Is this a response to my query when reverting your (the IP's) recent removals of cited material from the article? If so, it won't do. We use the same common English terminology and geopolitical definitions as our sources, regardless of our personal point of view on... whatever you mean, which I have to say I can't quite make out but seems to hang loosely on perceived cultural or geopolitical Imperialism. If you feel there's a useful point to be made on an article topic, please make it by citing reliable scholarly sources relevant to the topic. Haploidavey (talk) 12:40, 15 June 2011 (UT

But still you did not ans how balkan and gorgia which is like cape of good hope to england is Eropion and which is egyption is not mention African.And so many Asia and one erope.common English terminology and geopolitical definitions as our sources is it mean what english scholar says.I am just asking why this double stander with all respect to everyones viewe.

OK, I think I get your meaning but this probably isn't the most appropriate venue for discussion of these conventions (and what underpins them) in any depth, or to specific purpose in the development of this article. Have you any specific suggestions on how this article could be improved? Haploidavey (talk) 15:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I just wanted to know why is so and secound there are to many thing which look like lack of sensitivity mentioning about enything out of Eroup. like it said ,Mythological figures such as Arjuna, Eklavya, Karna, Rama, Lakshmana, Bharata and Shatrughan are also associated with archery.And what wbout Apolo and greek gods are they are not mythological but no mention of it.Third if this is not a place to discusion then why it is in this page.if you think my point is write than remove it form the artical.And plz give me some point what is relevant to the topic from your point of view.cos what I said is not relevant to this artical. Thanx very much for understanting my views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nkatyan (talk • contribs) 15:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, that's much, much clearer; I do seem to have missed or mistaken your earlier points. In fact, I completely agree with you - yes, the article should cover the topic worldwide, if it possibly can, and in reasonable depth, using appropriately "broad brushstrokes". I think we all want the best possible coverage; the article's geographic and cultural gaps stem from scarcity of reliable sources, rather than any particular cultural orientation or preoccupation among its editors. If you can remedy the shortfalls in any way, with material based on reliable, scholarly sources, that would be very useful indeed. Best, Haploidavey (talk) 16:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

We don't really know when archery began.....

Archery, as we know it, is a far cry from its earliest development. Austrlian Aborigines hunted game with bows from distances exceeding 200 meters, as their oral tradition has it. Australian bows range from about half a meter length (used in "pursuit" hunting) to about 2.3 meters, used in sport and war.

Arrows vary from flat unfletched sticks about 700 cm long, tipped with rotten Kangaroo liver to 3-fletched and 4-fletched cylindrical arrows, with large flint or obsidian points that resemble barbs. The complexity of the weapon made it less than popular, owing to the development of the boomerang and later, steel spikes that were thrown from as far as 75 meters. Yet another development was the Kumawala (?), which amounts to a slotted stick, swung in a wide arc, sending the wooden or metal projectile considerable distances with surprising accuracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocmike3 (talk • contribs) 05:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

MILHIST initial assessment

Rated as start because, although much of the article is well referenced, other areas lack citations.Monstrelet (talk) 17:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Villavar

I've been making some edits to the Kerala article, mostly on origins and early history and culture; Villavar (which I've tagged for clarification) currently redirects to Archery. It should probably redirect or pipe-link to History of archery#Indian Subcontinent but as in the Kerala article, nothing there explains the term. Does anyone (Richard K, for instance?) know of reliable scholarly sources on archery's role in Villavar culture? (I've placed a similar request at Archery) Haploidavey (talk) 13:13, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Advent of Islam

The bow and arrow constituted the classical Indian weapon of warfare, from the Vedic period, until the advent of Islam,what is the point. what happen to bow and arrow after avdant of islam. Islam came to india frist comig to ancient iran and iraq.if enything good or bad which is not clear, has to do with advent of islam than it should have mention above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nkatyan (talk • contribs) 15:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of archery. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110131123346/http://www.cultural-china.com/chinaWH/html/en/11Kaleidoscope599.html to http://www.cultural-china.com/chinaWH/html/en/11Kaleidoscope599.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 09:48, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of archery. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121125050714/http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/archers.html to http://martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/archers.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 01:15, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Original research on Saharan rock art

At this edit you have reinstated the original research with the comment "Rv, WP:OR". I note you're a new editor and I wonder if you are quite clear about what WP:OR is, why we're not supposed to do it, and why we're supposed to remove it rather than reinstate it?

Just to repeat from Talk:Composite bow I have removed a claim that composite bows were known in the Tassili plateau in the Mesolithic. This is referenced to a nice piece of rock art that shows a decurve bow. The art isn't dated and isn't diagnostic of a composite bow.

I have also removed a claim that San people were responsible for rock art on the Tassili n'Ajjer. San people are mentioned, but there's no obvious indication that it mentions San people in the Sahara or anywhere near it. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:27, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@Richard Keatinge: Composite bows are about the materials used to make the bow it is not about the bow being decurve and the Round Head rock art are associated with the San Bushmen you can even see them wearing arrows on their heads in the recent illustration I added to the San people wiki, you and the other user are pushing a pov. Toltol15 (talk) 19:55, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@Toltol15: Regarding Roundhead art, I do not believe that to be the case. Roundhead art is from the southern/central Sahara, where, as far as I know, there is no evidence of the San (or other Khoisan peoples) ever living (Khoisan peoples are thought to have historically lived in southern Africa and possibly parts of southerly East Africa, but not North Africa). Can you provide (here in Talk) a reliable source (WP:RS) that explicitly attributes Saharan roundhead (or other mesolithic Saharan/North African) art to San or Khoisan peoples? Skllagyook (talk) 20:16, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@Toltol15: The art is associated with Kalahari bushmen not with Niger-Congo or Nilo-Saharan as you are stating, and I even posted an illustration showing them wearing arrows on their head like in the art, saying there are Niger-Congo or Nilo-Saharan is WP:OR Toltol15 (talk) 20:35, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@Toltol15: It would have been WP:OR to add the statement that the art was Niger-Congo or Nilo-Saharan to the article without a source. But I did not add that claim to the article (as you can see) and have no immediate plans to add it at all - though there are sources that propose that (Nilo-Saharan and Niger-Congo peoples have been theorized to have lived/ranged more widely in the Sahara in that period, e.g. by scholars like Roger Blench and Christopher Ehret). But I simply edited the article to state that the art was made by hunters and herders from the Mesolithic in Tassili (which is well supported) without mentioning ethnicity or language. As explained, if you want to add the statement that San or Kalahari Bushmen were responsible, you need a reliable scholarly source that expicitly states or proposes that (such a source would seem unlikely, since the Khoisan are not, as far as I know, believed to have ever lived in Northern Africa, let alone the Kalahari Bushmen in particular, who are a specific Khoisan tribe/ethnic group local to a region of South Africa - the Kalahari.) It is not enough (by the policies of Wikipedia) to simply assert the claim or arrive at it through your own impressions, reasoning or synthesis of sources (which would be WP:OR).

An image of Khoisan people with arrows on their heads is not a reliable source for the claim that North African Mesolithic art (from the opposite end of the continent) was created by the Khoisan. Two cultures can often have similar, or seemingly similar, practices, including something like wearing arrows on their heads (assuming both groups practiced this), without being related. You need a (reliable) source that explicitly states/esplicitly supports what you want to add. Please familiarize youself with the pages on reliable sources, original research (OR), and WP:SYNTHESIS. Skllagyook (talk) 20:59, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Skllagyook's remarks are correct. Toltol15 is also correct to say that "Composite bows are about the materials used to make the bow it is not about the bow being decurve". You have provided no reference for the (decurve) bows in the picture being made of composite materials. While I suppose composite bows could be made in a decurve form, they normally aren't. Suggesting that the bow depicted is composite is not only original research, it is exceedingly improbable. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:30, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Sibudu Cave and degrees of certainty

We have a number of references from the research group that has been working on the (one) putative bone arrowhead from Sibudu Cave. I'm impressed that they've done so much work to demonstrate that, indeed, this arrowhead shows patterns of wear and fracturing that are what we'd expect if the artifact had been used as an arrowhead. From the initial summary: "Our results support the claim that bone weapon tips were used in South African hunting long before the Eurasian Upper Palaeolithic." And they do conclude in the final line of their 2018 paper (10.15184/aqy.2018.11) that "These lines of evidence suggest that the microcrack pattern found in the bone arrow point from the HP layers at Sibudu Cave (dated to 61.7±1.5 kya) reflects a taphonomic history that includes longitudinal impact, followed by heating and drying. This study demonstrates that bow hunting was practised in southern Africa long before its appearance in the Eurasian Upper Palaeolithic." Now, this is primary evidence, which we may use here with suitable caution and by consensus; it's not a definitive consensus of academic opinion. I note that while the findings are compatible with the point having been used as an arrowhead, there are no findings that test the hypothesis (the obvious default hypothesis I'd suggest) that the findings would be identical if it had been used as a javelin or spear point instead.

We also have Lambert's study of stone bladelets.(http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2011.04.001) She produces more evidence along the same lines, pointing out that "Most of the pieces in this study are so small(<20 mm in length) that if a transverse hafting position, impact use and contact with animal material can be confirmed, almost no other interpretation than that of arrow tips seems feasible.". Nevertheless, she concludes more cautiously that "This study increased the recognized number of small quartz backed tools from Sibudu with traces that best fit an interpretation of having been used as transversely hafted arrowheads, perhaps similar to those used elsewhere in Africa during the Holocene (see Clark et al., 1974; Clark, 1977; Binneman, 1994; Lombard and Parsons, 2008). It supports and strengthens the premise that bow and arrow technology could have been used at Sibudu from 64 ka, probably in combination with hand-delivered weaponry, traps and snares " I'm not an expert on whether microliths under 2cm long could have been used on spears/javelins, but I don't see why not and no evidence is presented to counter this null hypothesis. We also don't have anything that resembles a bow from Sibudu Cave - which would potentially be pretty definitive evidence. One lives in hope.

In this context, I feel that an encyclopedia should use one of the more cautious available forms of words. Instead of "the remains of bone and stone arrowheads have been found" as we have at present, I'd like to write something like "the remains of bone and stone points, some of which have been interpreted as arrowheads rather than javelin or spear points, have been found". How do others feel? Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:26, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@Richard Keatinge: The opinion among several experts/studies who have studied them seems to be that they were arrow heads (or likely were). I do not see any reason to change to the phrasing (as your last edit did). The change seems to base the uncertainty on your opinion/interpretation of the studies (rather than the analyses of the studies themselves). It seems that this might perhaps fall under WP:OR; it does not seem that our own opinions of the studies' uncertainty should be brought to bear on the article's phrasing, when several studies have concluded that arrows were used (or most likely used) at the cite.

Also, you wrote:

"I'm not an expert on whether microliths under 2cm long could have been used on spears/javelins, but I don't see why not and no evidence is presented to counter this null hypothesis."

However, it does not seem that the objects' size is the only reason for the studies' conclusion(s). They (or several of them) do test the hypothesis that the points were used as spears or javelins and conclude in favor of the hypothesis thar they were arrows. Lombard (2011) for instance (in the abstract) says:

"I show that more than 50% of the pieces could hardly have been used in any way other than to tip arrows in a transverse position. This outcome supports previous inferences that some of these small stone tools, and perhaps a bone point from the same context, signify the use of bow and arrow technology during the Middle Stone Age."

On page 1921, Lombard , mentioning the conclusions of various tests, states (of "transverses hailing and application) that:

"Transverse hafting and application (Fig. 3b), that will support the hypothesis that bows and arrows were used at thesite from w 64 ka (e.g.Lombard and Phillipson, 2010; Wadley andMohapi, 2008). Most of the pieces in this study are so small(<20mm in length)that if a transverse hafting position, impact use and contact with animal material can be confirmed, almost no other interpretation than that of arrow tips seems feasible."

On page 1925:

During the analysis 1039 use-traces were recorded on the 16tools, providing the data for multi-stranded, contextual interpretations of the hafting orientation and use of each tool. Thisapproach guarantees that interpretations never rely on a single strand of evidence. Even if a single trace-type (e.g. blood) in misread, the overall interpretation is based on multiple lines of supporting and constraining evidence, and therefore remains the best-fit explanation for the use-trace data set recorded on each tool .Table 1 summarises the results, and shows that 56% (n¼9) of the backed quartz tools in the sample was hafted transversely. Eight of these tools have scars or fractures along their sharp edges that are consistent with those observed on replicated backed tools used as transversely hafted arrows during hunting experiments (see Yaroshevich et al., 2010), and eight have accompanying animal residues that support the hunting interpretation. It is therefore my reading that at least nine tools in this sample were probably used as transversely hafted arrowheads. This finding strengthens previous suggestions for the use of bows and arrows at Sibudu before 60 ka (Backwell et al., 2008; Wadley and Mohapi, 2008; Lombard and Phillipson, 2010)."

https://www.academia.edu/4561170/Quartz_tipped_arrows_older_than_60_ka_further_use_trace_evidence_from_Sibudu_KwaZulu_Natal_South_Africa

It seems to me that the phrasing may be better returned to what it previously was. Skllagyook (talk) 12:22, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Mmm. To me it seems clear that the papers do not state certainty, they argue possibility. They also mention the possibility of use as spear/ javelin points, and state personal opinion for regarding (some of) these points as arrowheads, rather than any references or empirical ethnographic findings for their decision criteria. Here we are facing the problem that we are using using primary studies: "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." Transverse hafting and small tool size are facts for which these papers are reliable. They are not reliable when they state, without references or evidence, that these facts are evidence for use as arrows rather than spear or javelins. If it appears that there is an academic consensus that such small tools, transversely hafted, can only have been intended as arrowheads, then we'd be justified in stating so. And, of course, recognizable fragments of a bow would be fairly definitive. Until we have either of those things, we should include some forms of words that give moderate room for uncertainty. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:09, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

@Richard Keatinge: You wrote:

"They also mention the possibility of use as spear/ javelin points, and state personal opinion for regarding (some of) these points as arrowheads, rather than any references or empirical ethnographic findings for their decision criteria."

This does not seem to be entirely the case. The earlier papers mention the possibility of use as spear or javelin points (i.e. seem to have been a bit more tentative). But Lombard (2011) and Blackwell et al. (2018) conclude fairly strongly in favor of use as arrowheads (for some of the stone points, and for the bone point, respectively). Lombard (2011) concludes that the use(s) of some of the points is indeterminate, suggests that still others were more likely to have been spear or javelin points, and also (as quoted above) that some other points (yet another portion of the assemblage) were most likely used as arrowheads. Regarding empirical ethnographic findings, in Blackwell et al. (2018) comparisons are made (in size, shape/form, wear/signs of impact/cracks, material, and other features) between the Sibudu bone point and the bone arrowheads used by recent/modern Khoisan groups such as the San - Blackwell et al. (2008) also made some observations of this - (some of the study is devoted to this, similarities are found, and the authors conclude that the Sibudu bone point was likely an arrowhead as well and used for much the same purposes as those of the Khoisan).

Blackwell et al. 2008:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0305440307002142#:~:text=Recently%20discovered%20bone%20implements%20from,Klasies%20River%20provided%20inconclusive%20evidence.

Blackwell et al. 2018:

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/antiquity/article/antiquity-of-bowandarrow-technology-evidence-from-middle-stone-age-layers-at-sibudu-cave/144C2A7FAB990C2AA559D810C3297CFA/core-reader

Skllagyook (talk) 04:49, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. What they don't do - though they do express a strong point of view - is actually provide evidence that the finds couldn't be javelin points and have to be arrowheads. They may well be right - but they don't provide definitive evidence, they have not tested the hypothesis. They are a primary source and we should not take their POV as certain. A good encyclopedia should not repeat the POV of primary sources. Unless and until we have the appropriate evidence, we should not state as a certainty that these artifacts were launched from a bow. It's certainly possible. But it's not definitely certain. We need language that allows a degree of uncertainty. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:29, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Richard Keatinge: Below is a 2020 study (by Bradfield, Lombard et al. 2020) further reinforcing the conclusion of likely bow hunting in South Africa before 60,000 years ago (also concerning another bone point, termed "SAM42160", from around the same region and period). However, it does not seem to be entirely conclusive, but does discuss some reasons why the points are more likely to be arrows than spear points or javelins. Thus it seems for now it is appropriate for the article to describe the points as either "likely arrowheads" or as "considered likely to be arrowheads" (as it currently reads), expressing likelihood/probability but not certainty in Wikivoice .

https://www.academia.edu/43076270/Further_evidence_for_bow_hunting_and_its_implications_more_than_60_000_years_ago_Results_of_a_use_trace_analysis_of_the_bone_point_from_Klasies_River_Main_site_South_Africa

From the introduction:

"Multiple lines of evidence have been mounting over the lastdecade to support bow hunting in South Africa before 60 ka. Use-wear, micro-residues, macro-fractures indicative of impact, and their distribution patterns have been cited as evidence that some stone tools were hafted and used as arrow tips or barbs at sites like Sibudu Cave and Umhlatuzana Rock Shelter in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa...and experimental work continues to assess best-fit scenarios (e.g., Pargeter et al., 2016a, 2017; Schoville et al.,2017). Bow hunting is further corroborated by the discovery of a bone point from a Howiesons Poort context at Sibudu Cave datingto 61.7 ± 1.5 ka with macro- and micro-fractures that suggest it experienced longitudinal impact usually associated with such use... Similar bone artefacts are known from ethno-historical sources to have been used as arrowhead or link-shafts by southern African hunter-gatherers (e.g., Vinnicombe, 1971; Wiessner, 1983; Deacon, 1992;Brad field, 2012),and are still used in this manner today (see Wadley et al., 2015)..."

"The SAM 42160 bone point is slenderer than other Middle Stone Age bone points from southern Africa, plotting closer to arrow-heads from the Iron Age and historic periods than to bone points from older contexts..." (page 5)

"...the distribution and orientation of micro-striations suggest the proximal 9 mm of the artefact was hafted, probably in a reed shaft. The darker discolouration of this section, a common feature on ethno-historic arrowheads, lends credence to this interpretation (Fig. 8). Socketing a bone arrowhead into a reed or hollow wooden shaft was the preferred method of hafting employed by southernAfrican hunters in historic times (Sparrman, 1977),..."(page 8)

Regarding distinguishing the putative arrows(s) from javelin points (and some reasons why they are considered more likely to be arrowheads) the authors write:

Arrows, of course, are not the only type of projectile weapon that would experience longitudinal impact. The impact velocity of a modern commercial javelin is comparable to the impact velocity of an arrow shot from a traditional San hunting bow (cf.Hitchcock and Bleed, 1997; Milks et al., 2019), and we ought to expect similar fatigue stresses and fractures in javelin tips as we do in arrowheads... There is, however, circumstantial evidence why we discount the possibility that SAM42160 was anything other than an arrowhead.

1. The distribution of hafting traces only 9 mm from the proximal end of the bone indicates that the bone was not hafted in a manner conducive to withstand repeated use as a javelin (see Cotterell and Kaminga, 1992; Knecht, 1997).

2. The morphological and traceological characteristics of SAM42160 is similar to thousands of Holocene and ethno-historic examples of bone arrowheads found throughout southern Africa.

3. There is a total absence of ethno-historically recorded bone-tipped javelins used in southern Africa. When these weapons are at play they are either single-component sharpened wooden or metal-tipped implements

"These points caution against an inferential leap ascribing SAM42160 to anything other than an arrowhead - unless clear evidence can be provided to the contrary. Considered together, the morphology, use-wear, residue, and micro-fracture evidence, as well as the absence of evidence of possible alternative uses, support a scenario in which SAM 42160 was hafted, coated in an adhesive (and possibly poisonous) substance, and used as part of an impact weapon such as an arrowhead, in a similar manner as the Sibudu bone point is thought to have been used and as twentieth century bone points were used by local hunter-gatherers."

"Bow hunting has several advantages over other hunting strategies. An arrow travels along a straighter trajectory than a javelin, which has a large parabolic arc, thus increasing the accuracy of the hunter (Cotterell and Kaminga,1992; Knecht,1997; Hughes,1998). This is particularly advantageous in closed, thicketed vegetation.The environment during theearly Howiesons Poort in the southern Cape was cooler and probably wetter than today. The area around KRM was characterized by a mixed environment, with closed, bushy vegetation (Klein, 1976; Van-Pletzen-Vos et al., 2019), a situation similar to Sibudu Cave, 15 km from the east coast farther north (Clark, 2013, 2017)." (page 10) Skllagyook (talk) 19:12, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your work. We seem to have a consensus on a good form of words for an encyclopedia. I will hope to read one day of recognizable fragments of bows - or, conceivably, of spear-throwers - being found. Richard Keatinge (talk) 22:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

A hafted point with internal fractures consistent with stresses occasioned by high-velocity, longitudinal impact.

At https://www.academia.edu/43076270/Further_evidence_for_bow_hunting_and_its_implications_more_than_60_000_years_ago_Results_of_a_use_trace_analysis_of_the_bone_point_from_Klasies_River_Main_site_South_Africa?email_work_card=title Further evidence for bow hunting and its implications more than60 000 years ago: Results of a use-trace analysis of the bone point from Klasies River Main site, South Africa Justin Bradfield, Marlize Lombard, Jerome Reynard, Sarah Wurz.

we find

"The bone point (SAM 42160) from 60 ka deposits at Klasies River Main Site, South Africa, is reassessed. We clarify the stratigraphic integrity of SAM 42160 and confirm its Middle Stone Age provenience. We find evidence that indicates the point was hafted and partially coated in an adhesive substance. Internal fractures are consistent with stresses occasioned by high-velocity, longitudinal impact. SAM 42160, like its roughly contemporaneous counterpart, farther north at Sibudu Cave, likely functioned as a hafted arrowhead. We highlight a growing body of evidence for bow hunting at this early period and explore bow-and-arrow technology might imply about the cognition of people in the Middle Stone Age who were able to conceive, construct and use it."

Another primary study, again not conclusive evidence for archery as against spear throwing, but interesting and possibly relevant. Should we include it and if so how? Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:42, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@Richard Keatinge: I mentioned the study in the previous discission (above). Possibly it can be added as a ref to the articles (with the other related refs for the section on Subudu, if it has not been already) except perhaps it could be edited to also mention the site (near the Klasies River) where this artifact was found. Maybe it could read something like:

"The oldest known evidence of arrows comes from South African sites such as Sibudu Cave and a site near the Klasies River, where bone and stone points considered likely to have been arrowheads have been found, dating from approximately 60,000–70,000 years ago."

Skllagyook (talk) 14:16, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Gong she huo shi liu jian.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:13, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Medieval Period

The section on the medieval period is very sparse, considering it's the time when archery use was most common. It's also got terrible style - just a list of factoids. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:59, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I've started the process of making it better. Lots more to be done. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:31, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

700-800m accurate range unsupported

In the Asia section, it is said "13th century bows were said to be able to shoot 700–800 meters accurately". That is unsupported by the linked article, who notes 500m ranges, but for distance championships, not accuracy. Reports of "shooting a plate" or a horn through an opening at that distance in the article are likely distorted brags or "heroic deeds". Or we have to believe the Mongol archer DID call out the vertebra they would shoot before killing foxes while riding at 500m... 45.72.221.52 (talk) 17:22, 8 April 2023 (UTC)