Reassessing the Evidence for the Composite Bow in Ancient Eurasia

Datos Bibliográficos

ID7514689
AutoresGabriel Šaffa (0000-0003-2618-6424, University College London, autor de correspondencia)
Año2026
Volumen33
Número1
Fecha de publicación2026-03-01
Peer ReviewedSí
Open AccessSí
TipoARTICLE
RevistaJournal of Archaeological Method and Theory (JOURNAL)
Identificadores de la revistaISSN: 1072-5369 • E-ISSN: 1573-7764
EditorialSpringer Science and Business Media LLC (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1007/s10816-025-09750-4
OpenAlexW4415231302
IdiomaEN
Citas recibidas1
Referencias citadas94

Prevailing theories suggest that the composite bow originated in the fourth millennium BCE and developed independently in multiple regions. However, these claims often rest on insufficiently analyzed evidence and inconsistent definitions of what constitutes a composite bow. This paper reassesses the origins and development of the full—horn–wood–sinew—composite bow by integrating iconographic and material data, framed within broader archaeological context and supplemented by genetic evidence on human population history. It argues that the supposed Early and Middle Bronze Age examples of composite bows are better understood as double-convex self bows, implying that (1) the full composite bow was a Late Bronze Age innovation, likely emerging in the first half of the second millennium BCE, and that (2) this technology originated only once—probably in the Near East—and spread rapidly across Eurasia, mirroring the diffusion patterns of other major innovations, such as domestic horse, the spoke-wheeled chariot, and horseback riding. The paper also challenges the assumption that early Indo–European groups used composite bows, finding no compelling evidence to support this claim. Instead, it identifies the Indo–Iranians as key agents in the transmission and further development of composite bow technology, culminating in the emergence of the distinctive Scythian design by the fourth century BCE. While these findings clarify important aspects of the composite bow history, many questions remain. Future research incorporating philological, linguistic, and quantitative methods—especially cultural phylogenetics—holds significant potential for deepening our understanding of the bow–and–arrow technology

Archaeological evidence · Bronze Age · Context (archaeology · Cultural heritage · Mirroring · Population · Archaeology and ancient environmental studies · Eurasian Exchange Networks · Historical and Archaeological Studies