ARCHER'S BOW IN THE HOMERIC 
 POEMS. 
 
 AN ATTEMPTED DIAGNOSIS. 
 
 (THE HUXLET MEMORIAL LECTURE FOR 1921.) 
 
 BY 
 
 HENRY BALFOUR, M.A., F.S.A., F.R.G.S., F.Z.S., F.R.A.I. 
 
 PUBLISHED BY THE 
 ogftf (^nfgrojjofogicaf Sneftfufe of <Breat (j^rifain ani Stefan^, 
 60, GREAT RUSSELL STREET, LONDON, W.C. 1.
 
 f
 
 PtR-SiyM (j'*'f>n » 0) MoQERN ^tRSV'^^ 
 
 N American 
 
 N Ar-\t Rl CAM 
 
 MoToKoloqical C la^si f ica.t i on 
 
 Composite Bovn/s 
 
 Btlov^ A tKt bows art o| woool. or^ Worn. 
 Alaove A tKt bows art o| wood. «n<a/ korn.
 
 THE ARCHER'S BOW IX THE HOMERIC POEMS. 
 
 Ax Attempted Diagnosis. 
 
 J/(? Huxley Memorial Lecture for 1921. 
 
 By Henry Balfour, M.A., F.S.A., F.R.G.S., F.Z.S., F.R.A.I., 
 
 Felhiv of Exeter College, Oxford ; Curator of the Pitt Rivers Mnseum. 
 
 When I was paid the very high compliment of being invited by the Council of this 
 Society to deliver the Huxley lecture for this year, my thoughts naturalh' turned to 
 the great scientist in whose honour this annual lectureship was established. A 
 giant among the older biologists, he was characterized by his broad outlook and by 
 the wide range of his scientific pursuits. As a leader in several sciences, he could 
 evaluate facts from a variety of points of view, and was thus pecuUarly able to see 
 the bearing of special items upon the more general and important problems. 
 
 In these days of ever-increasing specialization, a danger arises from the difficulty 
 of collating the imiumerable facts and observations which have been collected by 
 researchers. Generalists in science are growing scarcer, and it will become increas- 
 ingly difficult to bring together into their true relationship the scattered threads 
 spun by s])ecialists and weave them into a compact and substantial fabric. 
 
 In admiring recognition of the brilliant versatility of Thomas Huxley, I am 
 venturing, as a very humble disciple, to contribute towards the solution of a time- 
 honoured problem, by bringing together evidence derived from zoological, archajo- 
 logical and ethnological sources. Incidentally, since the importance of the application 
 of anthropological methods to the study of the classics is becoming more widely 
 recognized, I have been tempted, as an anthropologist, to intervene in the inter- 
 pretation of certain interesting and picturesque though obscure passages in the 
 Homeric texts. 
 
 In offering an essay upon the bow as described by Homer, I am fully aware 
 that many may regard my theme as a somewhat haclcneyed one. Attempts to 
 diagnose the Homeric bows have been numerous and have been made from a variety 
 of points of view, chiefly archaeological and ethnological ; but there still remains 
 much to be said, if we are finally to arrive at a satisfactory diagnosis of the 
 nature and structure of these weapons. In this essay I am offering more detailed 
 evidence in support of a suggestion which I made very briefly some thirty years 
 ago (in 1889), when I was engaged upon a comparative study of certain tyjies of 
 archery-bo ws.i 
 
 ' ■■ The Structure and .\flinities of the Composite Bow," Journ. of the Anthropological liidi- 
 lute, xix, 1890, p. 226. See also Dr. F. von Luschan's Ueber den Antiken Bo(jen, 1898. 
 
 a
 
 2 Henry Balfour. — The Archer s Bow in the Homeric Poems. 
 
 There are two principal references to the Homeric poems with which we are 
 mainly concerned in connection with this study : — 
 
 (1) The description of the bow of Pandarus in the fourth book of the Iliad 
 
 (line 105 et seq.). 
 
 (2) The description of the bow of Odysseus given in the twenty -first book of 
 
 the Odyssey. 
 
 According to Homeric tradition, these two bows were derived from different 
 sources ; that of Pandarus (a Lycian of Asia Minor) was apparently made locally for 
 Pandarus himself ; the bow of Odysseus (chief of Ithaca) was given to him by Iphitus, 
 son of Eurytus, king of CEchalia, which most authors have located in Thessaly. 
 How Iphitus came by this bow does not transpire. Thus, although the bow of 
 Pandarus was definitely of Western Asiatic origin, the Odyssean bow had been derived 
 from a Greek source, though we have no direct clue as to the country of its manufacture. 
 In spite of the possibly different provenences of the two bows which Homer had 
 in mind, it is well to consider both together, since the two descriptions seem to a 
 great extent to supplement one another, and together help to explain the type of 
 bow referred to by the poet. 
 
 In endeavouring to arrive at a diagnostic conclusion, we must bear in mind 
 that Homer, in all probability, was not himself addicted to archery, and that his 
 knowledge of the bow was derived from casual and uncritical observation, rather 
 than from any practical experience. He was a ballad-monger, not a soldier ; an 
 artist, not a scientist ; a romanticist rather than a pragmatist. Hence, in describing 
 even familiar objects, accuracy in detail concerned him less than picturesqueness in 
 expression. A master of epic poetry and narrative, wholly satisfying as such, he 
 yet leaves us longing for details which he might have supplied, and we have to 
 struggle to fill the gaps which he leaves in the archaeological picture. He often, no 
 doubt, describes what he saw, though with an uncritical eye, and his descriptions 
 have a real value to the archaeologist, inasmuch as they afford, at least, suggestive 
 hints of actuality ; and, moreover, their very meagreness, by leaving us unsatisfied, 
 tends to stimulate enquiry on scientific lines. 
 
 Of the bow of the Lycian Pandarus, Homer informs us that it was of large 
 size (fieya Tofo-') and was made from the horns of a wild goat (l^uXov 01709 aypiov) 
 which were 16 handbreadths in length (eKKaoSeKeiSaipa) ; that these had been prepared, 
 fitted together, polished and furnished with gilded tips by a skilled artificer (a worker 
 in horn, Kepao^oo'; T€KTa>v) ; that the bow was kept, when off-duty, in a bow-case 
 (cf. icrvXa to^op) ; that the bow-string was made of ox-sinews {vevpa (Boeia). When 
 drawn, the bow assumed an extreme curvature {KVKkorepe'i fieya ro^ov erewev). 
 
 These are points which are germane to our enquiry into the .structure of the 
 bow, and I omit reference to other incidental points which have no special bearing 
 upon this problem.
 
 Henry Balfour. — The Archer's Bow in the Homeric Poems. 3 
 
 Thf bow of Odysseus, we are told, was also of large size {fJ^eya ro^ov), and \\as 
 kept in a decorated bow-case (yoypurw, o? ol -jrepiKeno t^aeu'o?). Again, the only 
 material mentioned in connection with its construction is hont. In its unstrung 
 state it was refiexed {iraXivToio';), curved or sinuous {uyKvXa or tcafiTrvka) ; this is 
 a very important point repeatedly emphasized by Homer. The surface was polished 
 [ev^oov). The bow was exceedingly difficult to string, and part of the test imposed 
 upon her suitors by Penelope was to string the bow as a preliminary to shooting 
 with it. Leiodes failed and so did Eurymachus and others of the yomiger men, and 
 even the son of the house, Telemachus, did not succeed in stringing this mightv 
 weapon. We may gather that knack, as well as strength, was required for the 
 stringing, since Odysseus strung the bow without effort [arep o-TrouSr;?). " even as an 
 expert on the phorminx and in minstrelsie easily strains a cord around a new tuning- 
 peg." In order to render the bow more supple and yielding, the suitors warmed it 
 at the fire and anointed it well with fat. That the bow was very liable to injury 
 from damp and other causes, we may infer from the fact that not only was it j^ro- 
 vided with a protecting bow-case, but Odysseus never took it to sea with him on 
 his expeditions, always leaving it at home. 
 
 These are the chief points in the Homeric rendering to which I wish to call 
 special attention. 
 
 Shooting-bows, in general, may be classified into four principal groups : — 
 
 (1) The plain or " self " bow, consisting of a single stave, usually of wood. 
 
 (2) Compound bows, built up by uniting two or more staves of similar materials. 
 
 (3) Composite bows, in which the bow is formed by the union of staves of 
 
 different materials. 
 
 (4) Sinew-backed bows (a variety of the composite bow), in which increased 
 
 strength and resiliency are given by the addition of a layer of longitudinally- 
 disposed sinews. This elastic reinforcement is applied to the back of the 
 bow, i.e. the surface which, in shooting, is furthest from the archer. 
 
 It is with the last two groups that I am especially concerned, since, as I pointed 
 out in 1889, sucli evidence as we have clearly indicates that the Homeric bows were 
 of composite .structure reinforced with a smew-backing. 
 
 Let us consider first the material of which the bows both of Paudarus and 
 Odys.seus are said to have been constructed. In both cases horn is the only material 
 mentioned. In the description of the bow of Pandarus it is specified that the horns 
 used in its construction were those of a wild mountain goat, killed by Pandarus 
 himself, and therefore, ])resuniably, locally. The local sjjccies of wild goat in Western 
 Asia Minor is the Persian Wild Goat, or Pasang {Capra hircus aegagrua), which is 
 and was abundant in the Taurus Mountains, at no great distance from the Lycian 
 home of'Pandarus, and is commonly believed to be the parent stock from which tlio 
 domesticated goats are descended.
 
 4 Henry Balfour. — The Archer's Bow in the Homeric Poems. 
 
 If we examine the horns of this wdld goat, we readily observe two facts. Firstly, 
 we cannot fail to note that if the natural horns, after being cut off the skull, were 
 merely set base to base and miited by means of a centre-piece or " grip " (tttJ^h?), 
 as seems to be suggested by several writers upon the subject,^ the resultant bow, while 
 it might possess artistic qualities and gratify poetic aspirations, would be entirely 
 useless for purposes of archery. The horns would be practically imbendable, and 
 would virtually have no resiliency at all, since, as in all the cavicorn ruminants, the 
 
 FIG. 1. HOKK or THE PERSIAN WILD GOAT AND DISSECTION SHOWING THE 
 
 BONY CORE WHICH SUPPORTS THE HORN SHEATH. 0-6 AND C-d, 
 TRANSVERSE SECTIONS THROUGH THE HORN AND THE CORE. 
 
 horns of the goat grow upon a central rigid core of bone (Fig. 1). Were they flexible, 
 they would be of little practical use to the goat ! 
 
 Moreover, if the sheathings of true horn were drawn off their bony cores, the 
 result would hardly be more effective, since, owing to their shape and structure, they 
 would still remain practically inflexible. 
 
 Hence we may, I thinlc, confidently rule out the suggestion that the entire horns 
 could have been so used, whether with or without their skeletal supports of bone. 
 
 1 Cf. T. P. Seymour, Life in the Homeric Age, 1907, p. 668,
 
 Henry Balfour. — The Archer's Bow in the Homeric Poems. 6 
 
 Indeed, some more elaborate process of manufacture than that of merely joining 
 together the pair of natural horns is indicated by the statement thnt a speciahst 
 (Kepao^6o<; tsktuv) was called in to make the bow. 
 
 Secondly, we may notice that if, as was suggested by Colonel Lane Fox in 1877,^ 
 strips or staves were cut from the horns to make the bow, the resultant weapon would 
 be so weak and flexible that a small child could easily string and draw the bow, 
 which would still be ineffective as a serious weapon. Staves of sufficient thickness 
 and width to serve the purpose vnaided could not be cut from the horns of a single 
 animal. Only the front and hind narrow marginal ridges would furnish material of 
 any degree of thickness, and even these would be far too thin and narrow (see Fig. 1, 
 transverse sections, a-b, c-d). That the horns must have been cut down, in length 
 at any rate, may reasonably be inferred from Homer's statement as to their length 
 — 16 handbreadths each {eKKaiBeKdSwpa), equivalent to about 48 to 50 inches, an 
 unusual though by no means unrecorded size for this species of goat. H these, or 
 staves cut from them, in their full length were united together end to end, the bow 
 would have measured 96 to 100 inches m length (8 feet to 8 feet 4 inches). If it 
 was Homer's intention to convey this impression, we must, I fear, conclude that, 
 in describing the fieya to^ov, or " long-bow," of Pandarus, the poet was also, 
 metaphorically, " drawing it." 
 
 It has been suggested to me more than once that the fact of Odysseus remaining 
 seated while he discharged his " test " arrow (e'/c ^ij>poio Kadrj/Mevo';, Odyssey, xxi, 
 420) proves that the bow cannot have been of great length. But this is not really the 
 case. If an archer were seated upon a bench of the ordinary height, the bow-hand, and 
 therefore the centre of the bow, would, in shooting, be raised about 3 feet 3 Inches to 
 3 feet 9 inches from the ground if the arrow were drawn to the eye ; and this would 
 admit of the use of a bow of a length up to nearly 6 feet 6 inches to 7 feet 6 inches, 
 althougli it is highly improbable that the Odyssean bow attained such dimensions. If 
 the arrow were drawn to the breast, in the manner adopted by Pandarus (/xafc3 "neXacev), 
 the maxinunu length of the bow would have to be reduced by about 12 inches. 
 
 For reasons which I have given, it is impossible to believe that the bow of 
 Pandarus was made of horn alone, if it was constructed from the horns of a single 
 wild goat, as stated. 
 
 It is true that bows do exist which are made entirely of horn, as, for instance, 
 in India and Java (Fig. 2), but these are made from the huge horns of the Indian 
 Buffalo {Bos bubalis), from which staves of far greater stoutness and width may be 
 cut than can possibly be obtained from the horns of any member of the goat family. 
 But even such horn-bows as these are by no means very powerful, and would not 
 test the strength and skill of ]iractised archers. It does not seem possible that a 
 bow possessing the enormous power attributed to that of Odysseus could have been 
 
 ' Catalogue of the Anthropological Collection, 1877, p. 47.
 
 Henry Balfour. — The Archer s Bow in the Homeric Poems. 
 
 1^3 
 
 FIG. 2. 
 Left. — BOW MADE BY RIVETING TOGETHER TWO 
 STAVES OF BUFFALO-HORN : INDIA. LENGTH 
 38 INCHES. PITT RIVERS MUSEUM. 
 
 Right. — BOW made by uniting two staves 
 
 OF BUFFALO-HORN \VITH A CENTRAL WOODEN 
 GRIP : JAVA. LENGTH 42 INCHES. PITT 
 RIVERS MUSEUM. 
 
 FIG. 3. 
 SINEW-BACKED BOW MADE FROM THE HORNS 
 OF THE ROCKY' MOUNTAIN SHEEP : OSSAGE 
 TRIBE, MISSOURI, U.S.A. LENGTH 38^ 
 INCHES. PITT RIVERS MUSEUM.
 
 Henry Balfour. — The Archer's Bow in the Homeric Poems. 7 
 
 made solely of horn, even though buffalo-horn were available, wliitli, though possible, 
 as I shall later suggest, is by no means certain. 
 
 Thus, we are driven to conclude that both the bows referred to, while admittedly 
 made ivilh horn, must have been reinforced with some other material or materials. 
 
 The use of horns and antlers of various kinds in bow-making is very widespread, 
 particularly in the Asiatic region and among the Eskimo and North American Indians. 
 Owing to the dearth of wood suitable for bow-making, the Eastern and Central Eskimo 
 of the arctic New World frequently make their bows from flat laths cut from the 
 antlers of the cariboo (or New World reindeer). These are united together at the 
 centre, usuaOy with rivets. As such bows would be far too weak for effective use, 
 they are invariably reinforced along the back with a continuous lacing of plaited or 
 twisted sinew cord, forming a " backing " of several strands extending from end to 
 end, and braced to the bow at intervals with transverse sinew lashings. When the 
 bow is strung, and still more when it is drawn, the greater part of the strain is taken 
 by the sinew-backing, whose elasticity gives a strong rebound. A fairly u.seful bow, 
 possessing strength and resiliency, is thus arrived at by the reinforcement of a 
 material (antler^) which, if used alone, would be ineffective. This form of Eskimo 
 bow is a simple and, as I believe, a primitive type of the sinew-backed composite-bow. 
 
 Among the North American Indians (e.g. the Sioux, Ossage, Shoshone, Utah 
 and Oregon tribes, etc.) bows made of horn occur frequently, but in this region the 
 true horn of cavicorn animals is usually emjjloyed. Many examples of bows made 
 from the horns of the Rocky Mountain sheep (Ovis canadensis) have been collected, 
 while, more rarely, specimens made from cow-horn, bison-horn, or wapiti-antler 
 have been noted. These bows are usually, if not invariably, backed with sinews, 
 but they differ from the antler-bows of the Eskimo, inasmuch as the sinews form 
 a layer closely moulded and glued to the back of the bow, of which they form an 
 integral part (Fig. 3). In some of these North American bows the sinew-backing is 
 concealed from view by a protecting covering of snake-skin or other material, so 
 that only the horn is visible externally, and, at first sight, horn might appear to he the 
 only material used in their structure. 
 
 Improvements upon these rudimentary types of sinew-backed bows are prevalent 
 throughout a vast area of Asia, extending from Siberia through Mongolia, Tartary, 
 Tibet, Corea, Manchuria and China, into India, Persia and Turkey. Throughout 
 this extensive region one nearly always finds that, where horn and sinews are used 
 together in bow-construction, there is also introduced a tliird material, wood. 
 
 • Deer antlers, though very commonly designated " horns," are not true Iiorns. Anatomi- 
 cally, they are in reality solid osseous structures deposited from a vascular layer lying imme- 
 diately undernealh the skin. They are the analogues (possibly the homologues) of the bony 
 cores of cavicorn ruminants (oxen, sheep, goats and antelopes), and diflfer materially from the 
 true horns of the latter, which arc hollow structures of keratin, deposited as epidermal growths 
 outsitle the vascular layer (or corium). Deer antlers also dilTer from the horns and osseous horn- 
 cores of cavicorn animals in being deciduous, i.e. annually shed and annually rebuilt.
 
 8 Henry Balfour. — The Archer s Bow in the Homeric Poems. 
 
 Wherever this trijjle association of materials occurs, the wood is used to form the 
 central core, or skeletal support, of the bow. The horn layer is glued along the 
 " belly "1 of the bow, and the moulded layer of sinews supplies the " backing " 
 (Fig. 4). This is an admirable association of materials. The wooden staves afford 
 central support together with some resiliency ; the horn, being a compressible 
 substance, gives resistingly to the crushing strain imposed upon the " belly,"' which 
 becomes strongly concave when the bow is drawn ; while the elasticity of the sinews 
 effectively takes the tensile strain thrown upon the " back," which becomes markedly 
 
 FIG. 4. — TRANSVERSE SECTION THROUOH THE LIMB OF A MANCHU BOW. 
 n = CORE OF BAMBOO ; hh = L.WERS OF MOULDED SINEWS ; C = BUFFALO-HORN ; 
 (Id = THIN STRIPS OF HORN PROTECTING THE MARGINS. ACTUAL SIZE. 
 
 convex. For, when a bow is drawn, the " belly " or " ventral " surface suffers 
 compression and the " back " is stretched, to an extent varying with the degree 
 of curvature imposed upon the bow by the action of drawing the bow-string in 
 shooting. Hence, these three materials, so disposed, work ideally together, and a 
 bow of almost any degree of power can be constructed in this way. 
 
 The best Asiatic and Turki.sh bows are built up on these lines (Fig. 4), though 
 many of them, especially in India and Persia (Fig. 5), were completehj enveloped in 
 thin bark, or other similar protective material, lacquered over, and they do not 
 exhibit externally any trace of their elaborate composite construction, which is 
 
 FIG. 5. — TRANSVERSE SECTION THROUGH THE LIMB OF A PERSIAN BOW. 
 
 aa = CORE OF WOOD ; h — moulded sinews ; CC = STRIPS OR RODS OF BUFFALO-HORN ; 
 dd = LATERAL STRIPS OF HOP.N. ACTUAL SIZE. 
 
 only revealed by dissection. The Manchu (Fig. 4), Chinese, Corean, Central A.siatic 
 and Turkish bows, however, are not so completely encased ; for, while the sinew- 
 backing and joints are invariably protected with a sheathing layer (usually of bark 
 or leather), the horn remains exposed and can clearly be seen. This point has a 
 bearing upon our diagnosis of the Homeric bows, since in these, too, the only visible 
 part of the structure was horn. 
 
 1 I.e. the surface which is turned towards the archer in shooting.
 
 Hkxrv Bai.four. — The Archer's Bow in the Homeric Poems. 9 
 
 It seems to be more than probable that the poet, uninitiated into the mysteries 
 of practical bow-construction, assumed, from the examples which he had noticed, 
 that the bows were made solely of that material which alone could be seen ; and, 
 ex pedes Herculem, from a " few feet " of visible horn he conceived, in the Odyssean 
 bow, a weapon of " Herculean " strength, being unaware that horn was insufficient 
 unless reinforced. 
 
 From tlie analogy offered by other bows of considerable power in the construc- 
 tion of which horn is used, we must, I think, conclude that an elastic " backing "" of 
 sinews was a sine qua non, and that this important structural element is not referred 
 to simply because it was invisible, being overlaid with a protective sheathing, after 
 the fashion universally prevalent throughout Asia in recent times. Without this 
 powerful " backing " the bow of Odysseus would have been a relatively feeble 
 weapon, and Penelope's test of her suitors' prowess would have sunk to the level 
 of a very " soft option." 
 
 Even if we accept this seemingly inevitable conclusion, a constructional difficulty 
 still remains and invites suggestion. The bow of Pandarus is, as I have mentioned, 
 described as having been made from the horns of a single wild goat. Now, from 
 each horn of the pair only two very narrow staves possessing reasonable thickness 
 could be cut, one from the front and one from the hind margin (Fig. 1, sections a~b, 
 c-d). The lateral portions of the horn are too thin to prove serviceable. Two of 
 the strips at least would be required to equip the " belly " of each limb of the bow, 
 and it is very doubtful if these would suffice. But, assuming, for the sake of 
 argument, that two pairs of strips, sufficiently stout and wide to be useful 
 for the purpose, could be furnished by a single pair of goat's horns, and 
 that the " belly " of the bow was formed of a pair of horn strips to 
 each limb, after the fashion adopted in making recent Persian bows (Fig. 5) 
 (in which several narrow horn strips are imited together to form the 
 " belly ") ; thi'n. judging again by analogy, it is practically certain that, 
 in addition to being glued to the central wooden core and to each other, the 
 strips would also be braced to the bow with a transverse seizing of sinews ; 
 which (like the sinew-6ocA-i«^) would have to be protected from damp by a layer of 
 bark or leather. 
 
 But, in this event, the horn would be no more visible than would the sinew-baching, 
 and the poet would have had nothing tangible to describe, and must have been 
 dependent upon hearsay for his belief that even horn played a part in the 
 structure. 
 
 If, as I think we may fairly assume, the horn layer was exposed to view, I feel 
 compelled to suggest that, possibly, the horn used was not derived from the wild 
 goat at all, but from some other cavicorn ruminant whose horns could furnish staves 
 of the requisite width and stoutness to sujjply a single stave for each limb of the 
 bow.
 
 10 Henry Balfour. — The Archer's Bow in the Homeric Poems. 
 
 Two animals seem to ofier possible alternatives : — 
 
 (1) The Armenian Wild SheejD, or Asiatic Mouflon {Ovis orientalis lypica),^ 
 
 which, like the Pasang, occurs in the Taurus Mountains, and whose 
 horns are of relatively massive build — long, broad and fairly thick. 
 Horns of 40 inches in length are recorded for this species. I fancy that 
 fairly ser^^ceable staves could be cut from the horns of this animal, 
 capable of furnishing each limb of the bow with a single horn stave ; 
 witness the use made of the horns of the allied Rocky Mountain Sheep 
 in North American bow-making. I suggest that, possibly, a lack of 
 zoological knowledge may have led Homer to confuse the wild sheep 
 with the wild goat, a by no means unnatural error. The story of the 
 killing of the animal by Pandarus himself in the neighbourhood of his 
 Lycian home might still hold good. 
 
 (2) The buffalo suggests itself as another plausible alternative. Nearly all 
 
 recent Asiatic composite bows are " bellied " with staves cut from the 
 horns of the buffalo (the Indian Buffalo, or Arni, Bos bubalis). These 
 horns are often of enormous length, up to 6 feet and more, and are 
 capable of furnishing very broad and stout staves. Is it possible that 
 the very powerful bows referred to by Homer were made with the horns 
 of this animal ? I am aware that this sjiecies is very generally believed 
 to have been confined to India until a relatively recent date, when it 
 spread westward into Asia Minor and elsewhere as a domesticated 
 beast. 
 
 At the same time, as has been pointed out by Diirst, Ward and others, one 
 cannot ignore the ample evidence which points to the water-buffalo having been well 
 known in Mesopotamia at a very early date. A. H. Layard^ discovered a Baby- 
 lonian seal of green jasper upon which is engraved the figure of a bovine animal 
 which can be no other than the water-buffalo (either the Ami, Bos bvbalis, or its 
 prototype Bubalus antiquus, or B. palaeindiciis). W. H. Ward, in his valuable 
 works on Oriental seal-cyhnders, gives illustrations of many similar cylinders,^ 
 on which, it is averred, the legendary hero Gilgamesh is represented overcoming, 
 or in one case giving water to, a buffalo (Figs. 6 and 7). The earliest cylinder-seals 
 usually depict the Bison [B. bonasus) of the hill-forests ; but on the somewhat later, 
 though still early, examples, from the time of Sargon I (c. 2870 B.C., according to 
 Professor Langdon) onwards, the water-buffalo of the swamps of Southern Baby- 
 lonia is usually represented, and is distinctly differentiated from the bison. On 
 
 1 Ovis musimon orientalis, Brandt ; Ovis gmelini, Blyth. 
 
 ^ Discoveries in the Ruins of Nineveh and Babylon, 1853, p. 605. 
 
 ' The Seal-cylinders of Western Asia, 1910, figs. 26, 27, 1.356, 156, 161, 163, 167, 172, 176, 
 180, 183 and 203 ; Cylinders and other ancient Oriental Seals in the Library of J. P. Morgan, 1919, 
 pi. vii, fig. 41.
 
 Henry Balfour. — The Archer s Bow in the Homeric Poems. 
 
 11 
 
 the still later seals the Aurochs (Bos "primigenius) takes the place of the buffalo. 
 The long, rugose horns of the latter beast, characteristically turned backward over 
 the shoulders, are unmistakabh- indicated on the seals of Sargon I and his successors. 
 Dr. J. U. Diirsti even mentions a seal of the " Kings of Sirgidla,"- which has 
 been referred to 5000 B.C., upon which an undoubted buffalo is engraved. This 
 
 FIG. 6. — FIGl'BES OF THE WATER-BUFFALO EXGKAVED ON AN EARLY 
 BABYLONIAN SEAL-CYLINDER OF .JASPER. (FROM W. H. WARD, 
 
 Seal Cylinders oj H'. Asia, 1910, fig. 167.) 
 
 author is of opinion that the water-buffalo was indigenous in Babylonia as a wild 
 species from the earliest times and that it probably survived until the Assyrian era. 
 Aristotle {Hist. Animalium, ii, 4) alludes to wild bo\anes in Arachosia (Afgha- 
 nistan), differing completely from the domesticated type ; being black and of 
 
 FIG. 7. — FIGURES OF THE WATER-BUFFALO ENGRAVED ON AN EARLY 
 BABYLONIAN SEAL-CYUNDER OF THE TIME OF SARGON I. (FROM 
 W. H. WARD, ibid., fig. 26.) 
 
 powerful build, and whose horns were characterized by a marked backward sweep 
 {to. 8e KepaTa i^vTTTid^oi/Ta e^ovai ficiWoi/-). This description suggests the water- 
 buffalo rather than any other wild bovine, and there can be little doubt that tliis 
 is the animal that was referred to by Aristotle in the fourth century n.c. 
 
 • Die Hinder, and also his article on "Prehistoric Bovidae " in V Anthropolngie, .\i. 1900. 
 pp. 129-158. See also R. Lydokker, The Ox and iU Kindred, p. 180. 
 
 * i.e. SirpuUa or Sirburla (=- Lagash), one of the oldest Sumerian cities. The earliest 
 identified King of Lagash is Ur-Nina, who is dated 3000 B.C. by Professor Langdon. The seal 
 referred to by Diirst may, presumably, be referred to the oldest Sumerian culture.
 
 12 Henry Balfour. — The Archer's Bow in the Homeric Poems. 
 
 The Sassanide limiting scene, represented in Fig. 1.5, proves that the water- 
 buffalo still existed in a wild state in Persia during the early part of the seventh 
 century a.d. Among the victims of Khosrau II are two unmistakable buffaloes, 
 one of which has already been wounded by the royal archer. 
 
 The ancient figures of the now extinct buffalo {Bubalus antiquus) engraved upon 
 rock-surfaces in Western and Southern Algeria, ^ and believed to date back to late 
 Quaternary times, point to a still wider extra-Indian dispersal of a bubaline animal 
 closely akin to the Indian Arni, which appears to have spread into North Africa at 
 an early date. 
 
 Diirst^ mentions that fossil buffaloes, nearly allied to B.-palaeindicus, have been 
 found in Italy and other parts of Europe, as far north as Dantzig. 
 
 Hence, it is evident that water-buffaloes in a wild state were widely dispersed 
 in early times outside the confines of India, and the possibility of the horns of this 
 
 g 
 
 FIG. 8. — TRANSVERSE SECTION THROUGH AN ASSYRIAN BOW FOUND IN AN EGYPTIAN 
 TOMB OF THE XXVITH DYNASTY. 
 
 O AND 6 = WOOD ; C, d AND 6 = hoRN ; /' AND P = LAYERS OF MOULDED SINEWS ; 
 g = OUTER SHEATHING OF BARK. ACTUAL SIZE. PITT RIVERS MUSEUM. 
 
 animal having been used in bow-making in Western Asia, and, perhaps, also in Eastern 
 Europe, seems far from remote. 
 
 Moreover, a bow of elaborately composite structure, probably of Assyrian 
 origin, was discovered in Egypt in a tomb of the XXVIth dynasty. This bow I 
 partially dissected to ascertain its structural details, and it proved not only to be 
 backed with layers of sinews, but also to be fitted along the " ventral " surface with 
 broad staves of black horn which I believe to be buffalo-horn.^ A transverse section 
 of this bow is shown in Fig. 8. 
 
 At least, we may admit the possibility of buffalo-hoin having been employed in 
 the construction of such bows as that associated with Odysseus, the enormous strength 
 of which would be rendered more credible by this supposition (assuming, of course, 
 that there was also a powerful backing of sinews). I know of Manchu bows, com- 
 
 1 A. Vomel, Carte GeologiqtiederAlgerie,lS9S; MonograjMesde Paleontologie,18Q3. G. B. M. 
 Flamand, V Anihropologie, iii, 1892, p. 145, and xiii, 1902, p. 510. Gautier, *., xv, 1904, p. 495. 
 L. Peringuey, Trans. S. African Philosophical Soc, xvi, 1906, pp. 404, 405. 
 
 2 Quoting Von Baer, 1823, F. Romer, 1875, and Rutimeyer, 1875. 
 
 3 This bow I obtained from Professor Petrie and gave to the Pitt Rivers Museum. I 
 described it fully in the Journ. Anthrop. Soc, xxvi, 1897, pp. 210-220.
 
 Henry Balfour.— JAe Archer's Bow in the Homeric Poems. 
 
 13 
 
 posed of buflEalo-horn, wood and sinews, wliich would probably have defied the 
 strength and skill e\en of Odysseus himself, or of Teucer, the Salaminian, or the 
 Trojan Philoctetes ! 
 
 To be sure, the acceptance of the suggestion that it may have been the horns 
 of the buffalo and not of the goat whicli furnished an important element in the 
 structure of these Homeric bows, involves the repudiation of Homer's picturesque 
 tale of the hunting of the wild mountain goat by Pandarus and the use made by 
 the latter of his troph)\ But I have already pointed out the practical difficulties 
 
 UNSTRUNGi 
 
 FIG. 9. — TATAR COMPOSITE BOW, SHOWING 
 THE SHAPE ASSUMED IN THE rNSTRUNG 
 AND IX THE STRUNG STATE. C. ^L. 
 LENGTH (.strung) 65 INCHES. PITT 
 MYERS MUSEUM. 
 
 FIG. 10. — PERSIAN COMPOSITE BOW, EXHIBIT- 
 ING EXTREME REFLEX CURVATUBE IN THE 
 UNSTRUNG STATE. C. +. PITT KIVEBS 
 MUSEUM. 
 
 which militate against acceptance of this ])oetical embellishment and call for an 
 alternative rendering. 
 
 Whatever the particular kind of horn employed may have been, I tliink that 
 there can be little doubt that the bows of the Homeric sagas were composite, sinew- 
 backed bows of the Asiatic type. Apart from the reasons which I have already given, 
 there are others which lead one unmistakably to the same conclusion. 
 
 The frequent repetition of the expressions ro^ov TraXivrovov, urfKvKa To^a 
 and Kafi-rrvXa ro^a, as applied to the bow in its wisfrung state, shows that the
 
 14 Henry Balfour. — The Archer s Bow in the Homeric Poems. 
 
 bow of Odysseus, at any rate, was reflexed when in a position of rest ; and the 
 emphasis laid upon this characteristic suggests that this reflexed curve of the unstrung 
 bow was a very marked feature, i 
 
 ^Eschylus (525-456 B.C.) mentions the %Kv6iKa /SeX?; vaXivTova in his Choephori, 
 160, i.e. the " reflexed Scythian bows," I3e\.r} being a periphrasis for rofa, the bow 
 being identified with its missiles. Scythian archers (ro^oTai,) appear to have been 
 employed as police at Athens from 480 B.c.^ Sophocles (495-406 B.C.) also refers 
 to TraXivrova To^a (Tr. 511). The terms ajKiiXa and Ka/nrvXa are also applied to 
 bows which were strung and ready for use, so that these adjectives maj^ refer to 
 bows whose outlines were sinuous both in the unstrung and in the strung state. 
 
 Now, this backward curving of the bow in the unstnmg state is a feature pecu- 
 liarly associated with bows of composite construction, and is rarely seen, and usually 
 only slightly marked, in single-stave and compound bows. Nearly all the Asiatic 
 
 FIG. 11. — BOW EXHrBITINO THE " CUPId's BOW " FORM. 
 ON A COIN OF PHILETABRUS OF rERGAMUS. 
 
 composite, sinew-backed bows are reflexed (TraXti/TOfa), some of them to a very 
 remarkable extent, which would not be possible in bows of simple structure 
 (Figs. 9 and 10). Usually, when strung, these bows assume the well-known " Cupid's 
 bow " curvature (Fig. 9), a shape frequently represented in ancient Greek art ; 
 this fact indicates a familiarity with bows of composite structure (Fig. 11). 
 
 Another point to be noted is the statement KVKXvreph fxeya lo^ov eretvev, in the 
 description of the drawing of his bow by Pandarus (Iliad, iv, 124). The term 
 Kv/cXorepe^ suggests that the bow, when fully drawn, was strained almost into 
 circular form ; a poetic exaggeration, no doubt, but evidently intended to convey 
 the idea of a very high degree of curvature, such as well-made composite bows can 
 
 1 Cf. Iliad., viii, 266 ; x, 459 ; xv, 443 ; Herodotus, \ai, 69. 
 ' Cf. T. G. Tucker, The Choephori of Mschjlus, 1901, p. 46.
 
 Henry Balfour. — The Archer s Bow in the Homeric Poems. 
 
 15 
 
 well sustain, while bows of simple structure would break under the strain involved 
 in such extreme bending. We may compare Virgil's account of the shooting of 
 Arruns by Diana's " valkyrie," Opis (Mneid, x\, 859-861) :— 
 
 " Cormtque infensa tetendit el duxil huge, donee curvata coirenl inter se 
 capita. . . ." 
 
 Here we note the same exaggerated bending of the bow " till the ends met," which 
 is comparable to the Kv^Xoieph of Homer. It is noteworthy that in this 
 passage (as also in Mneid, xi, 773, " spicula torquebat Lycio Gortynia cornu ") the 
 word cornu is used for bow, instead of arcum, suggesting that the bows in question 
 were made of, or, more probably icith, horn. Compare Ovid (Met. iv, 303) 'fleclentrm 
 cornua." In like manner, Anacreon (Ode III) uses Kepa<; as equivalent to to^ov — Kepas- 
 d^\a^e<; fj,€v -qpuv, av Se KapZlr)v TrovriaeK. So, too. Homer (Iliad, xi, 385) Kepa 
 uy\a(, and Theocritus (25, 206). 
 
 FIG. 12. 
 
 a — BOW IN BOW-CASE. ON A SILVER COIN OF ERYTHRAE. C. FOURTH CENTURY B.C. 
 b — BOW IN BOW-CASE. ON A SCYTHIAN VASE FROM CHERTOMLYK, S. RUS.SIA. 
 
 Again, as I have already quoted, the bows both of Paudarus and Odysseus were 
 kept, when " off-duty," in special bow-cases. This also suggests very strongly that 
 these bows were of composite construction, since the use of a protecting bow-case 
 prevails wherever composite bows are employed (among the Eskimo, American- 
 Indian and Asiatic peoples), while a bow-case is but rarely associated with a siiigle- 
 .stave bow. Among Asiatic archers the bow-case is frequently beautifully decorated 
 (cf. yupuTo'; cj)a€ti'6<; of the Odyssey). The bow-case, which sometimes held the 
 arrows as well, is referred to by various Greek and Latin authors under the iiiiines 
 y(opvT6<:, To^oO)']Kr], corytus, and where it is represented in painting or sculpture, 
 the bow contained in it is clearly a composite bow, as judged by its shajjc (Fig. 12). 
 
 Tliat Odysseus did not care to take his how to sea with him on his travels (Odyssey 
 xxi, 39) may, perhaps, have been due less to his sentimental desire to preserve it 
 as a memento of his dead friend Iphitus (as stated by Homer), than to the practical
 
 16 
 
 Henry Balfour. — The Archer's Bow in the Homeric Poems. 
 
 necessity of protecting this delicate weapon from deterioration by damp atmospliere, 
 by which composite bows are specially liable to be affected. 
 
 Further, the bow of Odysseus was, at the suggestion of Antinous. subjected to 
 special treatment — warming and greasing — in order to render it more supple and 
 amenable {ro^ov . . . ddXiTwv evda Kal evda aiXac irvpo^). This also is reminiscent 
 of the careful preparation undergone by Asiatic composite bows, whereby the horn 
 was softened and suppled by heat and the sinews were rendered fully elastic. 
 
 Odysseus himself examined the bow very carefully, testing it to see if perchance 
 boring grubs had eaten into the horn (Tretpw/ieTO? evda Kal evda, Mr] Kepa i7re? eSoiev, 
 line 394). If one may judge from the remains of ancient composite bows found 
 in Egypt, the horny portions of their structure were specially liable to insect 
 attacks. In some instances the horn has been entirely eaten away. The sinews 
 
 OL. t C 
 
 FIG. 1:5. — METHOD OF STRINGING ANCIENT COMPOSITE BOWS. 
 
 a — FEOM A SCYTHIAN ELEOTEUM yASE FROM KUL OBA, NEAK KERTCH. 
 b — FEOM A GREEK PAINTED VASE IN THE LOUVRE. C — FROM A THEBAN COIN. 
 
 also, though to a lesser extent, were attractive to insects, the wood alone seeming 
 to have resisted their attentions. ^ 
 
 The fact that considerable knack, as well as strength, was required in stringing 
 the bow of Odysseus, is another point in favour of composite construction, as it is 
 certain that greater skill and dexterity are called for in stringing the strongly reflexed 
 Asiatic bows, than are needed for any bow of simple or " single-stave " type. I can 
 speak from experience and know how difficult and risky it is. 
 
 If we compare, as Anuchin^ has done, the prevailing method adopted by Oriental 
 archers in stringing bows of composite build with some of the Ancient Greek renderings 
 of the process as apiDlied to bows of similar shape, we see at once that the action 
 was similar. The figure on the famous Kul Oba vase of a Scythian archer stringing 
 
 1 See my paper in the Journ. Aiithrop. 
 den Antiken Bogen, 1898, p. 193. 
 
 ' Uik i Strely, Moscow, 1887, p. 23. 
 
 fnsl.. xxvi, plate ix ; also Von Luschan's Ueber
 
 Hexry Balfour. — The Archers Bow in the Homeric Poems. 
 
 17 
 
 his bow, shows the bow crooked between the legs, the upper end being forcibly drawn 
 back to meet the loop at the end of the bow-string (Fig. 13, a). Compare with this 
 the figure taken from a painted Greek vase in the Louvre (Fig. 13, b), and with that 
 on an Ancient Thebau coin (Fig. 13, c), and it will be noted that the method is the 
 same in all three cases. This is not the process usually applied to bows of simple 
 construction, but it has ])revailed among the Eastern users of the composite bow. 
 
 A. 
 
 B 
 
 FIG. 14. — ONE END OF .V BROKEN BOW, PKKH.VrS OF PERSIAN ORKilN, FOIND .\T BKLMES.\. 
 
 EGYPT. (R0M.\N period.) 
 
 A, LATER.iL VIEW; B, VENTRAL VIEW; C, DOKSAI- VIEW. 
 
 a — WOODEN CORE ; 66 = PL.\TES OF BONE ENCASING THE CORE AND BEARING THE NOCK : 
 
 f = STAVE OF HORN COVERING THE VENTRAL SURFACE : l\ -^ REMAINS OK SINKW-BACKING. 
 
 who were able to string verv powerful 1miw> iji this iniinncr, tliougli {■onsiderjililc 
 dexterity was required. 
 
 These are the principal reasons which lead mc to urge that tlic two bows specially 
 referred to bv Homer were not constructed of horn nlone. the oiilv uiMterial mentioned, 
 l)ut were of composite build, in which horn, wood and sinews were combined as 
 es.sential component elements. This diagnosis is the result of a com]iarative ;ind 
 
 b
 
 Henry Balfour. — The Aivlw/.f Bow in the Homeric Poems. 
 
 anatomical study of ancient and modern bows, and on archaeological, ethnological and 
 iioological groimds this conclusion seems to me to be inevitable. 
 
 That the Greeks, and, for that matter, the Etruscans and the Romans, were 
 familiar with exotic types of the composite bow, is evidenced by their having frequently 
 depicted bow-forms, which can only have been practical if a sinew-backing were 
 employed as reinforcement. Presumably, these composite types were derived from 
 the Asiatic region — from Asia Minor, Mesopotamia, Persia or Scythia. The latter 
 region appears likely to have been an early distributing centre for the composite 
 bow, southward and westward, since the Scythians were particularly famous as 
 archers and undoubtedly used this tj'pe of bow. Cyaxares (GSl-SQi B.C.), King of 
 Media, is said by Herodotus (i, 73) to have retained at his court certain Scythians 
 in order that they might give instruction in the use of the bow.^ 
 
 HG. 15. — KOSE.^U II (CHOSROKS), KING OF FIiKSIA, Hl'XTIKG BrPFALOES, ETf. FROM A 
 
 SASSANIDE DISH IN THE CABINET DES ]m:bd.\illes, pabis. {Rerw Arckeologiqiie, XL, 1902.) 
 
 A fragment of a composite bow, dating to the Roman period, found at Belmesa 
 in Egypt, was given to me by Professor Flinders Petrie in 1897 for the Pitt Rivers 
 Museum. This fragment testifies to the influence of the northern type of bow upon 
 that of tTie Persians. It consists (Fig. 14) of the nock-bearing end of a bow, built 
 up with horn, wood and sinews, overlaid with plates of bone, and differs markedly 
 from the developed Persian bo\\s of later times, but corresponds closely with a 
 representation^ of a bow in the hands of King Chosroes II (Khosrau II). who 
 
 ^ At a date later than the Homeric sagas, in 512 B.C., Darius, the Persian King, invaded 
 Greece from Persia, and reached the lower Danube during his so-called " Seytliian " invasion. 
 Later on, Jlegabazus, one of his generals, conquered the Thracian sea-board, and Macedonia 
 came under the Persian rule. 
 
 * On a Sassanide dish in the Cabinet des Medailles, Paris ; Rcnie Archiolojique, xl, 1902, 
 p. 2-12.
 
 Hknkv Bai-four. Tlic Archer's Hnw in /Iif Homeric Pncms. 19 
 
 ■conquered Egypt caily in tlu' st'venth (.•ciitury a.d. (Fig. 15). This ty])e of bnw 
 shows affinity with bow-forms which are cliaracteri.stic of N.E. and Central Asia, 
 particularly with Chinese and Manchu ('xamplcs. Those vaguely defined and 
 imperfectly identified )ieo])le. the " Scythians/' if not themselves of .Mongolian 
 origin, at least a]>pear to have had contact with the Mongolians of Cential Asia, and 
 we may rea.sonahlv assume that their type of bow was influenced by that of ])eoples 
 living further to the East and North. Tlie wide overrunning of the Asiatic regions 
 by the Scythian raiders probably was a material factor in .spreading both their fame 
 as archers and their characteristic type of bow. 
 
 The ])ecuLiarly unequal curves of the two limbs of the Scythian bows were noted 
 by the Pontine geographer Strabo^ (about the beginning of our era), who compared 
 their outline, when strung, to that of the Black Sea ; the two large unsymmetrical 
 
 FIG. 16. — BOWS \\nTH UNSYMMETRICAL CURVKS. 
 a — FROM A REPRESF.NTATION OF AN AMAZON ON A GRECIAN VASE FROM CANINO. BRITISH 
 
 MUSEUM. {Archaeologifi. xxi.v, p. 139.) 
 
 6 — FROM A FIGURE OF HERCULES PAINTEU ON A ORECIAN Crater. (REICHEL, " HOMERISCHE 
 
 WAPPEN," 1901. p. .54.) 
 
 northern ba3-s of wiiich resembleil the curves of the bow, while tlie relatively straight 
 southern coast suggested the bow-string. Others^ have likened the Scythian bow 
 to a very early form of the Greek sif/ma, in which the curves were un.syinmetrical. 
 This asymmetry is indicated in many of the ancient Greek pictorial renderings of the 
 bow, in which the two limbs of the bow are represented as having unequal curvature, 
 one limb being more strongly flexed than the other (Fig. 16, a and h). Figures of 
 Hercules occur on Tlieban and other coins showing a bow of this asynunctrical 
 composite form, and it has been suggested by Rich that this may be the bow received 
 liy Hercules from the Scythian shepherd Teutarus (Fig. 10,6). Tiieocritus (hiyll. xiii) 
 
 ' IT, V, 22. Cf. Amniianus MarccUinii.s, Rer urn Gestarinn, xxii, ch. 8. 
 ^ Cf. Rich, Diet, of Roman ami Greek Antiquitw, \H~X Athcnseus, quoting Agathon, 
 compares it witli the (Jrcik 2, but the particular foriu of this letter is not Htated.
 
 20 HENfiY Balfour. — Tlia Archer's Bow in the Hoiueric Poems. 
 
 suggests that this was so. This asymmetrical curvature, which is very commonly 
 noticeable in the Asiatic composite bows of recent times, was, I believe, not intentional, 
 but due to the difficulty of building up the two limbs of a bow of composite structure 
 so as to give them exactly equal strength and flexibihty. 
 
 It is significant that the most renowned archers among the Greeks had their 
 homes near the sea-coasts, and were, therefore, specially accessible to foreign influence. 
 Odysseus inhabited Ithaca, Philoctetes, Mount Hermaeus and Lemnos, Teucer 
 Salamis, Meriones Crete. 
 
 To sum up briefly : from the I'videnoe which I have given, and which could 
 easily be elaborated further. I think that we must assume that the Homeric bows 
 specially referred to were of the Asiatic type, having a central supporting core of 
 wood, a stout layer of horn glued along the " ventral '' surface, and a powerful 
 "backing" of longitudinally disposed sinews. That only the horn should have 
 been visible externally is perfectly in keeping with the practice of the bow-makers 
 of Central and Northern Asia, and also of Turkey, who leave the horn exposed, 
 while covering and concealing the more delicate sinew backing and the lateral margins 
 of the bow with a protecting sheathing of bark or leather. If Homer only refers to 
 that material which could be seen, and was unaware of the other essential structural 
 details, we can hardly blame him — a poet among a people whose practice of archerv 
 was relatively limited — since in far more recent times a similar omission to refer 
 to the sinew-backing may frequently be noted in descriptions of Turkish and Persian 
 bows,^ in which allusion is made to the horn but no reference is made to the sinew 
 reinforcement, although the latter was certainly an essential feature in the structure 
 of these bows. The poet's lack of detailed knowledge of bow-construction is paralleled 
 by a similar ignorance exhibited by artists in all ages, whose toxographic error.s 
 form in themselves a curious and interesting subject for study. 
 
 Finally, the probability of the reflexed " horn " bows referred to by Homer having 
 had an Oriental parentage, seems, as some have .suggested, to be reflected in the 
 legendary origin assigned by the Greeks to the bow and arrows. According to 
 Pliny {Hist. Nat. vii, cap. 57), the Greeks attributed the invention of these weapons 
 alternatively to Scythes, son of Jupiter, and to Perses, son of Perseus (" Arcum et 
 sagittam Scythen Jovis filium, alii sagittas Persen Persei filium invenisse dicunt "'). 
 The names of these legendary inventors have a familiar ring in connection with 
 ancient archery, and suggest very strongly that the origin of the myth may be sought 
 in the actual derivation of the Greek composite bow from the Scythians or the 
 Persians, two peoples who were especially renowned in antiquity for their skill in 
 archery. 
 
 ' e.g. Barbosa (1514) describes a "Turkish" bow seen at Ormuz, Persian Gulf, as "made 
 of buEfalo's horn and stiff wood, painted and gilded." Similar iucomiilete de.-?criptions could 
 be quoted from much later writers. 
 
 Harrison and Soy))-. Lid., Printers in Ordinary to His Majesty, Si. Martin's Lane, London.
 
 University of California 
 
 SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 
 405 Hilgard Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90024-1388 
 
 Return this material to tfie library 
 
 from wfiich it was borrowed. 
 
 tL 0CT16 1995
 
 ROTH ANTflROPOLOGICAl INSTITDTE OF GREAT 
 BRITAIN AND IRELAND. 
 
 This Institute was established in 1871 by the amalgamation of the older ^ 
 
 Anthropological Society and Ethnological Society. It has for its object the 1 
 
 promotion of the Science of Mankind — ^Anthropology — by the accumulation of ;; 
 
 observations bearing on man's past history and present state in all parts of the ' 
 
 globe. It investigates, in a rigorously exact manner, everything that can throw \ 
 
 light upon the laws of man's nature : his origin, history, and capabilities of i 
 
 progressive development and civilization. It studies him structurally and "' 
 
 psychologically, under the several types in which he is found in various regions ; i 
 and comparatively, in relation to the rest of the wiimal kingdom. The ultimate 
 object of the Institute, therefore, is to build up a Science of Man on a basis of 
 
 well-ascertained fact, and logically deduced inference. As means to this end, ; 
 
 the Council of the Institute has adopted a plan of operations, the principal ^ 
 
 heads of which are as follow : — i 
 
 1. Meetings for the reading of papers and for discussion of anthropological 
 
 questions. 
 
 2. The issue of a Journal containing Reports of the Proceedings at the i 
 
 Meetings, with other matters of anthropological interest. J 
 
 3. The appointment of Local Correspondents in all parts of the world to ) 
 
 collect information, and to aid the Institute in its operations. ' 
 
 4. The maintenance of a library, which contains sets of all the principal J 
 
 Anthropological Journals published in the United Kingdom or j 
 
 elsewhere, besides a large and valuable collection of books of ] 
 
 reference, travels and researches, an extensive collection of photo- j 
 
 graphs and lantern slides, and much unpublished material for the 1 
 
 use of students of Anthropology. Fellows residing in the country, j 
 
 as well as in London, can borrow books from the library. ^ 
 
 5. The appointment of Committees to conduct special investigations, as J 
 
 occasion ofEers, in the various branches of Anthropology. I 
 
 6. Co-operation with the British Association for the Advancement o* 
 
 Science, and with foreign scientific societies in anthropological Ulliversi 
 
 investigations ; co-operation with individuals and institutions in aid South 
 
 of explorations and in the establishment of local centres of Libn 
 
 anthropological study ; and generally, the stimulation of individual 
 
 and local efforts to further the objects of the Institute. 
 
 The annual subscription is Two Guineas, which is due on election (imless 
 
 such election takes place in the month of November or December) and on the 
 
 1st of January in each succeeding year. A Member may at any time compound 
 
 his future subscriptions by the payment of £31 10s. 
 
 Persons who wish to become Fellows of the 
 Institute are requested to communicate with the 
 Secretary, 50, Great Russell Street, W.C. 
 
 Barriton and Sons, Lid., Printert in Ordinary to Hi* Majesty, SU Martin's Lane, London.