![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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
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:
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)
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)
I have done a fairly extensive rewrite. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 18:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
Rated as start because, although much of the article is well referenced, other areas lack citations. Monstrelet ( talk) 17:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:48, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:15, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 23:13, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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
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:
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)
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)
I have done a fairly extensive rewrite. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 18:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
Rated as start because, although much of the article is well referenced, other areas lack citations. Monstrelet ( talk) 17:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:48, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:15, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 23:13, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)