LOW-TECH MAGAZINE

Can We Make Bicycles Sustainable Again?

2023-02-28T15:20:53+01:00

Cycling is the most sustainable form of transportation, but the bicycle is becoming increasingly damaging to the environment. The energy and material used for its production go up while its life expectancy decreases.

Illustration: Diego Marmolejo.

Cycling is sustainable, but how sustainable is the bicycle?

Cycling is one of the most sustainable modes of transportation. Increased ridership reduces fossil fuel consumption and pollution, saves space, and improves public health and safety. However, the bicycle itself has managed to elude environmental critique. [1] [2] Studies that calculate the environmental impact of cycling almost always compare it to driving, with predictable results: the bicycle is more sustainable than the car. Such research may encourage people to cycle more often but doesn't encourage manufacturers to make their bicycles as sustainable as possible.

For this article, I have consulted academic studies that compare different types of bicycles against each other or focus on the manufacturing stage of a particular two-wheeler. That kind of research was virtually non-existent until three or four years ago. Using the available material, I compare different generations of bicycles. Set in a historical context, it becomes clear that the resource use of a bike's production increases while its lifetime is becoming shorter. The result is a growing environmental footprint. That trend has a clear beginning. The bicycle evolved very slowly until the early 1980s and then suddenly underwent a fast succession of changes that continues up to this day.

The bicycle evolved very slowly until the early 1980s and then suddenly underwent a fast succession of changes that continues up to this day.

There are no studies about bicycles built before the 1980s. Life cycle analyses, which investigate the resource use of a product from “cradle” to “grave,” only appeared in the 1990s. However, the benchmark for a sustainable bicycle stands in the room where I write this. It’s my 1980 Gazelle Champion road bike – now 43 years old. I bought it ten years ago in Barcelona from a tall German guy who was leaving the city. He had tears in his eyes when I walked away with it. I have a second road bike, a Mercier from 1978. That is my spare vehicle in case the other one breaks down and I don't have the time for immediate repairs. I have two more road bikes parked in Belgium, where I grew up and where I still travel a few times a year (by train, not by bike). These are a Plume Vanqueur from the late 1960s and a Ventura from the 1970s.

The main reason why I have opted for old bicycles is that they are much better than new bicycles. Most people don’t realize that, so they are also much cheaper. My four bikes cost me just 500 euros in total. That would buy me only one low-cost new road bike, and such a vehicle surely won’t last 40 to 50 years – as we shall see. Of course, it’s not just old road bikes which are better. The same goes for other types of bicycles built before the 1980s. I ride road bicycles because I cover relatively long distances, usually between 35 and 50 km round trip.

Image: The bicycle I use most often, a Gazelle Champion from 1980. It has covered at least 30,000 km since I bought it in 2013.

What bicycles are made of

The first significant change in the bicycle manufacturing industry was the switch from steel to aluminium bicycles. Before the 1980s, virtually all bikes were made from steel. They had a steel frame, wheels, components and parts. Nowadays, most bicycle frames and wheels are built from aluminium. The same goes for many other bike parts. More recently, an increasing number of cycles have frames and wheels made from carbon fibre composites. Some bike frames are built from titanium or stainless steel. All of these materials are more energy intensive to produce than steel. Furthermore, while steel and aluminium can be recycled and repaired, composite fibres can only be downcycled and have poor repairability. [3]

Several studies have compared the energy and carbon costs of bicycle frames and other components made from these different materials – which all have different strength-to-weight ratios. That research has some limitations. Scientists use crude methods because they lack detailed energy data from bike manufacturing processes, and some studies come from manufacturers who pay researchers to review the sustainability of their products. Nevertheless, all put together, the results are pretty consistent. For the sake of brevity, I focus on emissions (CO2 = CO2-equivalents) and ignore other environmental impacts.

Before the 1980s, virtually all bicycles were made from steel.

Reynolds, a British manufacturer known for its bicycle tubing, found that making a steel frame costs 17.5 kg CO2, while a titanium or stainless steel frame costs around 55 kg CO2 per frame – three times as much. [4] Starling Cycles, a rare producer of steel mountain bikes, concluded that a typical carbon frame uses 16 times more energy than a steel frame. [5] (That would be 280 kg CO2). An independent 2014 study – the first of its kind – calculated the footprint of an aluminum road bike frame with carbon fork from the “Specialized” brand and found the cost to be 2,380 kilowatt-hours of primary energy and over 250 kg of carbon – roughly 14 times that of a steel frame (without fork) as calculated by Reynolds. [2]

A bicycle is more than a frame alone. Life cycle analyses of entire bikes show that the carbon footprint of all the other components is at least as large as that of a steel frame. [6] Scientists have calculated the lifetime carbon emissions of a steel bike at 35 kg CO2, compared to 212 kg CO2 for an aluminum bicycle. [7] [8] The most detailed life cycle analysis sets the carbon footprint for an 18.4 kg aluminum bicycle at 200 kg CO2, including its spare parts, for a lifetime of 15,000 km. The main impact phase is the preparation of materials (74%; aluminum, stainless steel, rubber), followed by the maintenance phase (15.5% for 3.5 new sets of tires, six brake pads, one chain, and one cassette) and the assembly phase (4.96%). [9]

Where & how bicycles are made

My steel bicycles date from a time when most industrialized countries had long-established domestic bicycle industries serving their national market. [3] These industries collapsed in Europe and North America following neoliberal globalization in the late 1970s. China opened to foreign investment and quickly became the largest bicycle manufacturer in the world. During the last two decades, China has made two-thirds of the world’s bicycles (60-70 million of 110 million annually). Most of the rest come from other Asian countries. Europe is back to producing ten million bikes annually, but the US only manufactures 60,000 bicycles per year. [3]

Throughout the twentieth century, manufacturing bicycles required substantial inputs of human labor. [3] According to the Routledge Companion to Cycling, “wheels were spoked and trued manually; frames were built by hand; saddle making was laborious; headsets, gear clusters (blocks), brake cables and gears were physically bolted on.” Since the 2000s, automation has considerably reduced the need for human labor. The largest Chinese bike manufacturer, which builds one-fifth of the world’s bicycles, has 42 bicycle assembly lines making 55,000 bicycles a day – almost as much as the US in a year. [3]

Domestic bicycles industries in Europe and North America collapsed following neoliberal globalization in the late 1970s.

The globalization and automation of the bicycle industry make bikes less sustainable. First, they introduce extra emissions for transportation (from raw materials, components, and bicycles) and for producing and operating robots and other machinery. Second, producing steel, aluminum, carbon fiber composites, and electricity is more energy and carbon-intensive in China and other bike-producing countries than in Europe and North America. [10] Most importantly, however, is that large-scale automated production represents sunk capital that needs to be working most of the time to spread overhead costs, driving overproduction. [3]

How long bicycles last

How much energy and other resources it takes to build a bicycle and to deliver it to a cyclist is just half the story. At least as importantly is how long the bike lasts. The shorter its lifetime, the more vehicles need to be produced over the lifetime of a cyclist, and the higher the resource use becomes.

For a long life expectancy, some parts of a bicycle need replacement. These are typically smaller parts such as shifters, chains, and brakes. [11] Until a few decades ago, component compatibility was a hallmark of bicycle manufacturing. [12] My bicycles are a perfect example of this. Most components – such as wheels, gear set, and brakes – are interchangeable between the different frames, even though every vehicle is from another brand and year of construction. Component compatibility allows for easy maintenance and repairability, thereby increasing the lifetime of a bicycle. Bike shops in even the smallest villages can repair all types of bicycles using a limited set of tools and spare parts. [12] Cyclists can do minor repairs at home.

Unfortunately, compatibility is hardly a feature of bicycle manufacturing anymore. Manufacturers have introduced an increasing number of proprietary parts and keep changing standards, resulting in compatibility issues even for older bicycles of the same brand. [1] [3] For example, if the shifter of a modern bike breaks after some years of use, a replacement part will probably no longer be available. You need to order a new set from a new generation, which will be incompatible with your front and rear derailleur – which you also need to replace. [12] For road bikes, the change from cassette bodies with ten sprockets (around 2010) to cassette bodies with eleven, twelve, and most recently thirteen sprockets have made many wheelsets obsolete, and the same goes for the rest of the drivetrain including shifters and chains. [12] [1]

Before the 1980s, most bicycle components were interchangeable between frames of different brands and generations.

Disc brakes, which are now on almost every new bicycle, all have different axle designs, meaning that every vehicle now requires proprietary spare parts. [1] Disc brakes also required new shifters, forks, framesets, cables, and wheels, making such bicycles incompatible with earlier designs. [12] The rise of proprietary parts makes it increasingly hard to keep a bike on the road through maintenance, reuse, and refurbishment. As the number of incompatible components grows, it becomes impossible for bike shops to have a complete stock of spare parts. [12] If a manufacturer goes bankrupt, proprietary spare parts will no longer be available.

Component incompatibility is accompanied by decreasing component quality. An example is the saddle, which hardly ever outlasts a frameset because it cracks at the bottom of the shell. [12] A little extra material would make it last forever – as proven by all saddles of my 40 to 50-year-old road bikes. Low quality affects some parts of expensive bicycles but is especially problematic for cheap bicycles made entirely of low-quality components. Cheap bicycles – bike mechanics refer to them as “built-to-fail bikes” or “bike-shaped objects” – often have plastic parts that break easily and cannot be replaced or upgraded. These vehicles typically last only a few months. [13, 14]

Illustration: Diego Marmolejo.

How bicycles are powered

So far, we have only dealt with entirely human-powered bicycles, but bikes with electric motors are becoming increasingly popular. The number of e-bikes sold worldwide grew from 3.7 million in 2019 to 9.7 million in 2021 (10% of total bike sales and up to 40% in some countries like Germany). Electric bikes reinforce both trends that make bicycles less sustainable. On the one hand, electric motors and batteries require additional resources such as lithium, copper, and magnets, increasing the energy use and emissions of bike manufacturing. Researchers have calculated the greenhouse gas emissions caused by manufacturing an aluminum e-bike at 320 kg. [8] This compares to 212 kg for the production of an unassisted aluminum bicycle and 35 kg for an unassisted steel bicycle.

On the other hand, the life expectancy of an electric bicycle is shorter than that of an unassisted two-wheeler because it has more points of failure. The breakdown of the extra components – motor, battery, electronics – leads to a shorter lifecycle due to component incompatibility. An academic study on circularity in the bike manufacturing industry observes a significant increase in defective components compared to unassisted bicycles and concludes that “the great dynamics of the market due to regular innovations, product renewals, and the lack of spare parts for older models make the long-term use by customers much more difficult than for conventional bicycles.” [15]

Electric bikes reinforce both trends that make bicycles less sustainable.

On top of this, electric bicycles require electricity for their operation, further increasing resource use and emissions. This impact is small when compared to the manufacturing phase. After all, humans provide part of the power, and the electricity use of an electric bike (25 km/h) is only around 1 kilowatt-hour per 100 km. The average greenhouse gas emission intensity of electricity generation in Europe in 2019 was 275 gCO2/kWh. [16] If an e-bike lasts 15,000 km, charging the battery only adds 41 kg of CO2, compared to 320 kg for producing the (aluminum) bicycle. Even in the US and China, where the carbon intensity of the power grid is 50-100% higher than the European value, electric bicycle production dominates total emissions and energy use.

Cargo cycles

Combining energy-intensive materials, short lifetimes, and electric motor assistance can increase lifecycle emissions to surprising levels, especially for cargo cycles. These vehicles are larger and heavier than passenger bicycles and need more powerful motors and batteries. There are very few life cycle analyses of cargo cycles. However, a recent study calculated the lifecycle emissions of a carbon fiber electric cargo cycle to be 80 gCO2 per kilometer – only half those of an electric van (158 gCO2/km). [17] The researchers explain this by the difference in lifetime mileage – 34,000 km compared to 240,000 km for the van – and the carbon fiber composites in many components, including the chassis of the vehicle. The lifecycle emissions of the cargo cycle, including the electricity used to charge its battery, amount to 2,689 kg. That is almost 40 times the lifecycle emissions of two steel bicycles (each with a 15,000 km lifecycle mileage).

Extending the useful life of electric bicycles has less impact on lifecycle emissions when compared to unassisted bikes. That’s because the battery needs to be replaced every 3 to 4 years and the motor every ten years, which adds to the resource use of spare parts. [11] This is demonstrated by a life cycle analysis of an electric steel cargo cycle with an assumed life expectancy of 20 years. [18] During its lifetime, the vehicle uses five batteries (each weighing 8,5 kg), two motors, and 3.5 sets of tires. Most lifecycle emissions are caused by these spare parts, with the batteries alone accounting for 40% of the total emissions. In comparison, the emissions for the steel frame are almost insignificant. [18] This particular cargo cycle was built for African roads and is not entirely representative of the average cargo cycle, mainly because of its heavy tires.

Cargo cycles have another disadvantage. Passenger bicycles and cars usually carry only one person, meaning that one passenger kilometer on a bike roughly equals one passenger kilometer in an automobile. However, for cargo, the comparison of ton-kilometers is more complicated. If the load is relatively light – usually up to 150 kg – the electric cargo cycle will be less carbon-intensive than a van. However, heavier loads require several cargo cycles to replace one van, which multiplies the embodied emissions. [18] Switching to electric cargo cycles without significantly reducing the cargo volume is unlikely to save emissions. Obviously, cargo cycles with steel frames and without electric motors and batteries -- for now still the majority -- will have much lower carbon emissions over their lifetimes.

How bicycles are used

In recent years, many cities have introduced shared bicycle services. In theory, shared bicycles could lower the number of bikes produced and thus decrease the environmental impact of bicycle production. However, building and operating bike-sharing services adds significant energy use and emissions. Furthermore, shared bicycles don’t last as long as privately owned bicycles. Consequently, shared bike services further reinforce the trends that make bicycles less sustainable.

A 2021 study compares the environmental impact of shared and private bicycles while including the infrastructure that each option requires. It concludes that personal bikes are more sustainable than shared bicycles. [8] The research is based on the Vélib system in Paris, France, which has 19,000 vehicles, roughly half with an electric motor. Vehicle manufacturing and bike-sharing infrastructure cause more than 90% of emissions and energy use. The remaining emissions are due to the construction of cycle lanes (3.5%), the rebalancing of the bicycles to keep all stations optimally supplied (2%), and the electricity used for charging the batteries of the electric bikes (0.3%). Altogether, a shared bicycle from the Vélib system has an emissions rate of 32g CO2/km, which is three to ten times higher than the rate of a personal bike (between 3.5 gCO2/km for a steel bicycle and 10.5 g CO2/km for an aluminum bicycle. [8]

Building and operating bike-sharing services adds significant energy use and emissions

The scientists found that the bike-sharing service led to a 15% drop in bike ownership. However, they also calculated that the average lifespan of a shared bicycle is only 14.7 months, with an average lifetime mileage of 12,250 km. In comparison, the average lifetime of a personal bike in France, based on a 2020 survey, is around 20,000 km – almost 50% higher than for shared bicycles. The Vélib system includes 14,000 bike-sharing stations with a total surface of 92,000 m2 and an estimated lifetime of ten years. Each of the 46,500 docks consists of 23 kg steel and 0.5 kg plastic. The power consumption of each bike-sharing station is around 6,000 kWh per year. Due to the high impact of the infrastructure, the lifecycle emissions of shared electric bikes are only 24% higher than those of shared non-electric vehicles. [8]

The environmental footprint of bike-sharing systems can vary significantly between cities. A life cycle analysis of bike-sharing services in the US found carbon emissions of 65g CO2/km – twice as high as in Paris. [19] This is largely because the US systems rebalance the bicycles using diesel vans, while the French service employs electric tractors. The US study also looks at the newer generation of “dockless” bike-sharing services, which score even worse. Dockless shared bikes can be parked anywhere and located through a smartphone application. Although this removes the need for stations, each bicycle requires energy-intensive electronic components, and the system also generates emissions through communication networks. [19] [10] Furthermore, dockless systems require more bicycles and involve more rebalancing.

A life cycle analysis of Chinese bike-sharing services, many dockless systems, shows high damage rates and low maintenance rates for bicycles. The annual damage rate is 10-20% for reinforced bicycles and 20-40% for lighter vehicles which have become more common. In practice, a shared bicycle becomes scrap when the bike part with the worst durability breaks down. Repair is virtually not happening. [10] Finally, when the companies go bankrupt, bike sharing creates mountains of waste – including bicycles in good condition. [10] [1]

Image: Lifecycle carbon emissions per kilometre of riding a bicycle. Data sources: [8] [17] [19] [26] Graph: Marie Verdeil.

Not every bicycle replaces a car

None of this should discourage cycling. Even the most unsustainable bicycles are significantly less unsustainable than cars. The carbon footprint for manufacturing a gasoline or diesel-powered car is between 6 tonnes (Citroen C1) and 35 tonnes (Land Rover Discovery). [20] Consequently, building one small automobile such as the C1 produces as many emissions as making 171 steel bicycles or 28 aluminum bicycles. Furthermore, cars also have a high carbon footprint for fuel use, while bikes are entirely or partly human-powered. [21] Electric cars have higher emissions for production but lower emissions for operation (although that depends entirely on the carbon intensity of the power grid).

The bicycle even holds its advantage when its much shorter lifetime mileage is taken into account. [22] Gasoline and diesel-powered cars now reach more than 300,000 km, double their lifetime in the 1960s and 1970s. [23] If a bicycle lasts 20,000 km, it would take 15 bikes to cover 300,000 km. If those are steel bicycles without an electric motor, the total carbon footprint for manufacturing is still six times lower than for a small car: 1,050 kg of CO2. If the bikes are made from aluminum and have electric motors, then emissions grow to 4,800 kg CO2, still below the manufacturing carbon footprint of the small car.

However, not every bicycle replaces a car. That is especially relevant for shared and electric bikes: studies show that they mainly substitute for more sustainable transport alternatives such as walking, using an unassisted or private bicycle, or traveling on the subway. [19][24] In Paris, shared bikes have three times higher emissions than electric public transportation. [8] In addition, many carbon-intensive bicycles are bought for recreation and are not meant to replace cars at all – they may even involve more car use as cyclists drive out of town for a trip in nature. In all those cases, emissions go up, not down.

How to make bicycles sustainable again?

In conclusion, there are several reasons why bicycles have become less sustainable: the switch from steel to aluminum and other more energy-intensive materials, the scaling up of the bicycle manufacturing industry, increasing incompatibility and decreasing quality of components, the growing success of electric bicycles, and the use of shared bike services. Most of these are not problematic in themselves. Rather, it's the combination of trends that leads to significant differences with bicycles from earlier generations.

For example, based on data mentioned earlier, manufacturing an electric bicycle made from steel would have a carbon footprint of 143 kg. Although that is four times the emissions from an unassisted steel bicycle, it is below the carbon footprint of an aluminum bicycle without an electric motor (212 kg). Especially if the battery is charged with renewable energy, riding an electric bike can thus be more sustainable than riding one without a motor. Likewise, an aluminum bicycle with a long life expectancy – for example, through component compatibility – could have a lower carbon footprint than a steel bicycle with a more limited lifespan.

Many researchers advocate switching back to producing bicycles from steel instead of aluminium and other energy-intensive materials. That would bring significant gains in sustainability for a relatively low cost – slightly heavier bicycles. Steel frames would also make electric and shared bikes less carbon intensive. Some researchers promote bamboo bike frames, but the benefit compared to old-fashioned steel or even aluminium frames is unclear. [27] A “bamboo bicycle” still requires wheels and many other parts made out of metal or carbon fibre composites, and the frame tubes are usually held together by carbon fibre or metal parts. [6] Furthermore, the bamboo is chemically treated against decay and becomes non-biodegradable. [1]

Reverting to domestic and less automated bike manufacturing is a requirement for sustainable bicycles.

Better component compatibility would increase the life expectancy of bicycles – also electric ones – through repair and refurbishment. It would bring no disadvantages for consumers, even on the contrary. However, unlike a switch to steel frames, better component compatibility would hurt the sales of new bicycles. A study concludes that “the abandonment of standardization is a profitable business model because it ensures that bicycles can only be ridden for so long.” [1] The decreasing sustainability of bikes is not a technological problem, and it’s not unique to bicycles. We also see it in manufacturing other products, such as computers. One bike mechanic observes: “The problem here is capitalism; it’s not the bikes.” [14]

Reverting to domestic and less automated bike manufacturing is a requirement for sustainable bicycles. The main reason is not the extra energy use generated by transportation and machinery, which is relatively small. For example, shipping from China adds around 0.7 to 1.2 gCO2/km for shared bicycles. [8] More importantly, domestic and manual bike manufacturing is essential to make repair and refurbishment the more economically attractive option. By definition, repairing is local and manual, so it quickly becomes more expensive than producing a new vehicle in a large-scale, automated factory. [10] Locally made bicycles would increase the purchase price for consumers. However, better repairability would allow for a longer life expectancy and a lower cost in the long term. Addressing bike theft and parking problems is also essential because they are often a reason for buying cheap, short-lasting bicycles. [25]

Finally, shared bicycle services can have their place, and we will probably see further improvements in their resource efficiency – the newest bike-sharing stations in Paris have reduced their power consumption by a factor of six. [8] However, shared bicycles are unlikely to become more sustainable than private bicycles because they always require rebalancing and a high-tech infrastructure to make the service work. Furthermore, getting attached to your bike can be a strong incentive to take care of it well and thus increase its life expectancy, as I can testify.

Kris De Decker

Read Low-tech Magazine offline.
Subscribe to Low-tech Magazine's newsletter.
Support Low-tech Magazine via Paypal or Patreon.

SOURCES

[1] Szto, Courtney, and Brian Wilson. "Reduce, re-use, re-ride: Bike waste and moving towards a circular economy for sporting goods." International Review for the Sociology of Sport (2022): 10126902221138033. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/10126902221138033

[2] Johnson, Rebecca, Alice Kodama, and Regina Willensky. "The complete impact of bicycle use: analyzing the environmental impact and initiative of the bicycle industry." (2014). https://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/10161/8483/Duke_MP_Published.pdf

[3] Norcliffe, Glen, et al., eds. Routledge Companion to Cycling. Taylor & Francis, 2022. https://www.routledge.com/Routledge-Companion-to-Cycling/Norcliffe-Brogan-Cox-Gao-Hadland-Hanlon-Jones-Oddy-Vivanco/p/book/9781003142041

[4] Cole, Emma. “What’s the environmental impact of a steel bicycle frame?” Cyclist, November 7, 2022. https://www.cyclist.co.uk/in-depth/11003/steel-bike-frame-environmental-impact

[5] Mercer, Liam. “Starling Cycles publishes environmental footprint assessment and policy.” Off-road.cc, July 2022. https://off.road.cc/content/news/starling-cycles-publishes-environmental-footprint-assessment-and-policy-10513

[6] Chang, Ya-Ju, Erwin M. Schau, and Matthias Finkbeiner. "Application of life cycle sustainability assessment to the bamboo and aluminum bicycle in surveying social risks of developing countries." 2nd World Sustainability Forum, Web Conference. 2012. https://sciforum.net/manuscripts/953/original.pdf

[7] Chen, Jingrui, et al. "Life cycle carbon dioxide emissions of bike sharing in China: Production, operation, and recycling." Resources, Conservation and Recycling 162 (2020): 105011. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921344920303281

[8] De Bortoli, Anne. "Environmental performance of shared micromobility and personal alternatives using integrated modal LCA." Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 93 (2021): 102743. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S136192092100047X

[9] Roy, Papon, Md Danesh Miah, and Md Tasneem Zafar. "Environmental impacts of bicycle production in Bangladesh: a cradle-to-grave life cycle assessment approach." SN Applied Sciences 1 (2019): 1-16. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s42452-019-0721-z

[10] Mao, Guozhu, et al. "How can bicycle-sharing have a sustainable future? A research based on life cycle assessment." Journal of Cleaner Production 282 (2021): 125081. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959652620351258

[11] Leuenberger, Marianne, and Rolf Frischknecht. "Life cycle assessment of two wheel vehicles." ESU-Services Ltd.: Uster, Switzerland (2010). https://treeze.ch/fileadmin/user_upload/downloads/Publications/Case_Studies/Mobility/leuenberger-2010-TwoWheelVehicles.pdf

[12] Erik Bronsvoort & Matthijs Gerrits. “From marginal gains to a circular revolution”. Paperback (full-colour): 160 pages, ISBN: 978-94-92004-93-2, Warden Press, Amsterdam. https://circularcycling.nl/product/from-marginal-gains-to-a-circular-revolution/

[13] US petition that calls for end o built to fail bikes gaining support in BC. https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/u-s-petition-that-calls-for-end-of-built-to-fail-bikes-gaining-support-in-b-c

[14] Aaron Gordon. “Mechanics Ask Walmart, Major Bike Manufacturers to Stop Making and Selling ‘Built-to-Fail’ Bikes”, Vice, January 13, 2022. https://www.vice.com/en/article/wxdgq9/mechanics-ask-walmart-major-bike-manufacturers-to-stop-making-and-selling-built-to-fail-bikes

[15] Koop, Carina, et al. "Circular business models for remanufacturing in the electric bicycle industry." Frontiers in Sustainability 2 (2021): 785036. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frsus.2021.785036/full

[16] https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/overview-of-the-electricity-production-3/assessment

[17] Temporelli, Andrea, et al. "Last mile logistics life cycle assessment: a comparative analysis from diesel van to e-cargo bike." Energies 15.20 (2022): 7817.. https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/15/20/7817

[18] Schünemann, Jaron, et al. "Life Cycle Assessment on Electric Cargo Bikes for the Use-Case of Urban Freight Transportation in Ghana." Procedia CIRP 105 (2022): 721-726. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212827122001214

[19] Luo, Hao, et al. "Comparative life cycle assessment of station-based and dock-less bike sharing systems." Resources, Conservation and Recycling 146 (2019): 180-189. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921344919301090

[20] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/green-living-blog/2010/sep/23/carbon-footprint-new-car

[21] Bicycles are entirely or partly powered by food calories. Some people argue that the life cycle energy requirements of bicycles are higher than other modes, when one considers the impact of food require to provide additional calories that are burned during the bicycle use. However, the majority of people in car-centered societies take in more calories than their sedentary lifestyle requires. Increased cycling would lead to lower obesity rates, not to higher calorie intakes.

[22] This a purely theoretical calculation, because cars encourage much longer trips than bicycles.

[23] Ford, Dexter. “As Cars Are Kept Longer, 200,000 Is New 100,000.” New York Times, March 16, 2012. https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/18/automobiles/as-cars-are-kept-longer-200000-is-new-100000.html?_r=2&ref=business&pagewanted=all&

[24] Zheng, Fanying, et al. "Is bicycle sharing an environmental practice? Evidence from a life cycle assessment based on behavioral surveys." Sustainability 11.6 (2019): 1550. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/6/1550

[25] Larsen, Jonas, and Mathilde Dissing Christensen. "The unstable lives of bicycles: the ‘unbecoming’of design objects." Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 47.4 (2015): 922-938. https://orca.cardiff.ac.uk/id/eprint/131212/1/M%20Christensen%202015%20the%20unstable%20lives%20of%20bicycles%20ver2%20postprint.pdf

[26] Calão, Júlio, et al. "Life Cycle Thinking Approach Applied to a Novel Micromobility Vehicle." Transportation Research Record 2676.8 (2022): 514-529. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/03611981221084692

[27] A comparison of the life cycle emissions of a bamboo versus an aluminium bicycle showed little difference (233 vs. 238 kg CO2). [6]

Read Low-tech Magazine Offline

Read Low-tech Magazine with no access to a computer, a power supply, or the internet. The printed archives amount to four volumes with a total of 2,398 pages and 709 images. They can be ordered in our Lulu bookstore.

What if We Replace Guns and Bullets with Bows and Arrows?

2022-11-23T12:05:28+01:00

The bicycle and the bow are both highly efficient, human-powered technologies that could substitute for two very harmful alternatives: the car and the firearm. Why do we promote one but not the other?

Image: University of Chicago students practice archery. Image by Bardon, Emmet. University of Chicago Library, Special Collections Research Center.

Why did firearms and bullets replace bows and arrows? To many, this sounds like a stupid question with an obvious answer: the firearm succeeded the bow because it’s a superior weapon. Let’s investigate.

Strength and skills

Hand-held firearms are usually assessed or compared in terms of performance characteristics such as lethality, range, and rate of fire. However, if we apply the same criteria to bows, two difficulties quickly present themselves. First, the performance of the bow depends on the archer's strength. The bow is a human-powered weapon and thus only as powerful as the archer who draws it. That is not the case with the firearm, where the energy comes from explosives, and the shooter's strength is of little importance.

The force required to pull a specific bow is typically measured in pounds (lbs) and expressed as the bow’s “draw weight.” Nowadays, most recreational archers and bow hunters shoot bows with a draw weight of 30 to 70 lbs. The effort to draw such a bow corresponds to lifting a weight of 15 to 35 kg. [1] Similar draw weights seem to have been quite common throughout (pre)history, both for hunting and warfare. However, some archers used bows with higher draw weights. For example, during the heydays of the longbow in medieval England, the draw weight for war bows peaked between 100 and 140 pounds, with some archers shooting 200 pounds weapons. Composite bows had higher draw weights, too. [2-6]

The bow is a human-powered weapon and thus only as powerful as the archer who draws it

Second, how the bow performs depends to a large extent on the skills of the archer. [4] [6-7] Both the bow and the firearm require the shooter to develop aiming skills. However, the archer first has to master “pulling the trigger.” He or she needs to perform a sequence of actions flawlessly to make an accurate shot even possible. A slight variation in body posture or a jerky string release is enough to make the arrow go off the mark. In comparison, pulling the trigger of a firearm requires less practice. Aiming is more difficult with a bow than with a firearm as well. Unless the target is very close, the archer needs to compensate for gravity and shoot the arrow in an arc – hence the word archery. [8] Because bullets travel much faster than arrows, a gunner can aim in a straight line, which is easier.

Preindustrial bow vs. modern firearm

For reasons that will become clear, I compare the modern firearm to the preindustrial bow, not the modern bow. I include self-bows (made from a single stave of wood) and composite bows (which consist of layers of different materials, usually wood, horn, and sinew). Furthermore, I assume that a relatively strong and skillful archer draws the bow. We have a pretty accurate picture of what premodern archers and their weapons could accomplish, thanks to written resources, archeological evidence, and scientific experiments with replicas of preindustrial weapons.

1. Lethality

The lethality of a weapon is the capacity to cause death or harm. Every weapon can kill, but some are more likely to do so than others. The lethality of firearms is often defined by calculating momentum and kinetic energy of bullets. These concepts from physics indicate the ability of bullets to penetrate a target. Penetration increases with the projectile's speed and weight. Bullets travel faster than arrows, but arrows are heavier than bullets. [9]

Nevertheless, if you calculate the momentum and kinetic energy of arrows, even the most potent bow seems much less lethal than a firearm. When shot from a 170 lbs war bow, an arrow's kinetic energy is only 96 foot-pounds, compared to 117 foot-pounds for a bullet fired from a small 0.22LR caliber pistol, 383 foot-pounds for a round fired from a 9 mm caliber pistol, and 1,300 to 2,800 foot-pounds for a projectile fired from a rifle. [10] The difference for momentum is smaller, but bullets clearly win in both cases.

Arrows are much more energy efficient than bullets. The shape of an arrow – unlike that of a bullet – favors penetration

However, arrows are much more energy efficient than bullets. The shape of an arrow – unlike that of a bullet – favors penetration. Because of its elongated shape, an arrow's mass per cross-sectional area (the sectional density) is much higher than in the case of a bullet. [11-13] Consequently, an arrow requires much less momentum and kinetic energy to penetrate tissue to the same depth as a bullet. There is no need for a 170 pounds war bow – a bow with a draw weight of 45 lbs can kill almost any creature on this planet. Medieval English longbow archers only used such high draw weights because their arrows had to penetrate thick steel plate armor, which became common in the 1400s. [4] [6]

Because of its elongated shape, an arrow's mass per cross-sectional area (the sectional density) is much higher than in the case of a bullet. Image credit: Tim Ormsby.

However, bullets do more damage when they hit the target. Arrows penetrate tissue by slicing and cutting, similar to the damage done by a dagger or a knife. Consequently, injury is limited to the tissue incised by direct contact with the arrowhead. In contrast, bullets penetrate tissue by brute force, which can cause significant damage to tissue and organs not directly touched by the projectile. This effect becomes more pronounced as bullet caliber and speed increase and is most noticeable with rifles. [9] [11-14] [15]

Based on wound damage alone, one could thus argue that bullets are more lethal than arrows. Small caveat, though: if the archer is skillful enough to hit vital body parts, an arrow can be just as lethal. The gunner, on the other hand, doesn’t need to aim so precisely to make a kill. Furthermore, it can be difficult – and sometimes impossible – to remove arrowheads from a victim’s body, even in a modern healthcare context. [11] Arrowheads tend to get stuck into bones, and war arrowheads often had barbs that complicated removal. [16]

2. Range

Range distinguishes a missile weapon from a melee weapon (used in close combat). The person holding the weapon with the most range can hit the other while the other cannot hit back. In hunting, range makes it less likely that the hunter gets killed. The maximum range of a weapon defines how far you can shoot a missile, and the effective range marks how far you can cast it with sufficient accuracy and hitting power.

Conveniently, a bowshot was a common measure of distance. In England, it was eventually standardized at 204 yards (187 meters). [6] Being a standard, this was not the range obtained by stronger archers, who used bows with higher draw weights. [2] Historical sources from the middle ages put the maximum range of a war longbow between 200 and 400 yards (183-366 meters). [4] [6] The current record with an English longbow, established in 2017, is 412.82 m. [17] Composite horse bows obtained longer ranges, between 300 and 530 meters. [18] The current record, established in 2019, stands at 566.83 meters. [19-20]

Unlike a bullet, an arrow remains lethal during its entire flight

Modern firearms have a much greater maximum range than preindustrial bows. However, their effective range is similar, at least for pistols and guns (not so for rifles). For example, the maximum range of a Beretta M9 handgun – a US military weapon – is 1,800 meters, but its effective range is only 50 meters. The US Army defines the effective range of a firearm as the maximum range at which an average soldier can hit a stationary, torso-sized target with an accuracy of 51%. I could not find similar data for archers, but the available information suggests that the bow can obtain a similar accurate range.

For example, a study of a 1916 archery competition in New Jersey – when archers still shot wooden self-bows – revealed the accuracy of the five best archers, each shooting a total of 90 arrows from three different distances: 40, 50, and 60 yards (37, 46 and 55 meters). The target measured 121 cm in diameter (the typical practice target), not a human torso but a comparable size. The percentage of arrows that hit the target was 98% at 37m, 96% at 46m, and 88% at 55m. [21-22]

Image: English singer, poet, and archer Ingo Simon shooting a Turkish composite bow. Via Bow International.

Comparing the range of bows and firearms is far from straightforward. Bullets travel very fast initially (almost 3,000 km/h) but quickly lose speed along their trajectory. In contrast, an arrow travels relatively slowly (150-250 km/h) but loses very little speed. [56] The same characteristics that make it easily penetrate a target also help to penetrate the air. Furthermore, unlike bullets, arrows fly – they are among the first applications of aeronautics, thousands of years before the invention of the airplane. [9] [23]

As a consequence, an arrow remains lethal during its entire flight, even at maximum range. Stronger still, its lethality increases if shot at an angle of 45 degrees, compared to shooting at medium range. [4] [6] [9] [24] The arrow will gain speed – and thus momentum and kinetic energy – on its way down. In contrast, when you shoot a bullet in an arc for maximum range, it will have lost so much speed that it’s unlikely to be lethal when it hits the ground. [25] A bullet not only needs more momentum and kinetic energy to penetrate a target. It also requires more speed to compensate for its inferior aerodynamics.

Although the accurate range of bows is smaller than that of rifles (which can be effective up to a distance of several hundreds of meters or more), the maximal cast of powerful bows equals the effective range of some rifles. As we shall see later, unlike recreational archers in the West today, preindustrial archers routinely practiced their skills at the ultimate range of their weapons. [26]

3. Rate of fire

The rate of fire determines how many projectiles a weapon can launch in a given time frame. The higher the rate of fire, the higher the chance that one of the projectiles will hit the target.

When visiting a modern archery shooting range, one gets the impression that bows have a much lower rate of fire than firearms. However, modern archery is 100% focused on millimeter accuracy. Aiming is a slow process that often involves fiddling with instruments and looking through sights – many modern bows are essentially sniper weapons. Previously, archers aimed intuitively, with both eyes open and fixed on the target. Intuitive aiming requires more skill – it depends on eye-body coordination, like throwing a stone – but it can be just as accurate and has the obvious advantage of speed.

Medieval English archers had to be able to shoot 10 to 12 well-aimed arrows per minute -- one shot every 5 to 6 seconds. [6] [9] [27] The best longbow archers could launch up to 30 missiles per minute – one every two seconds. [28] This is comparable to the sustained rate of fire for semi-automatic firearms – between 12 and 15 rounds per minute. [29] The sustained rate of fire includes the time it takes to aim, reload, and prevent overheating and malfunctioning of the firearm. For the bow, it depends on the dexterity, strength, and endurance of the archer.

In the hands of skillful and strong archers, bows can produce a similar rate of fire as semi-automatic weapons, and they can outperform guns and pistols

Firearms can surpass their sustained rate of fire for a short time, ignoring the time for cooling down the weapon. Most semi-automatic weapons (which fire one bullet for each pull of the trigger) obtain a rapid rate of fire of about 45 rounds per minute. If there is no need to reload ammunition, the rate of fire can increase even further. The average shooter can fire a semi-automatic handgun at a rate of about 2 to 3 bullets per second while pointing at a single stationary target. However, military training aims to produce a well-aimed shot every one to two seconds. [29]

Composite bow archers, in particular, developed ways of shooting that could compete with the rapid rate of fire for semi-automatic weapons. Horse archers launched arrows with a thumb draw, which differs from the Mediterranean draw used by self-bow (and modern) archers. The horse archer put the projectile on the other side of the bow (right side if right-handed) and pressed it against the string with a thumb ring. The thumb draw allows you to nock and launch with one continuous movement. Some Native Americans used the pinch draw – which had similar advantages. [30]

A Manchu archer shooting a composite bow with a thumb release. Source: Klopsteg, Paul Ernest. "Turkish archery and the composite bow: a review of an old chapter in the chronicles of archery and a modern interpretation." (1947).

Image: The thumb draw. Source: Klopsteg, Paul Ernest. "Turkish archery and the composite bow: a review of an old chapter in the chronicles of archery and a modern interpretation." (1947).

For short bursts of fire, composite bow archers kept extra arrows in their bow or string hand, allowing a higher rate of fire than when pulling arrows from a quiver. The fastest way of shooting involved laying up to five arrows on the bow parallel to each other, nocking each one consecutively. Lars Anderson, a Danish archer who revived the interest in Asian archery in the West in recent years, shoots up to ten aimed arrows in just 5 seconds – two per second. Anderson also manages to shoot three arrows in just 0.6 seconds after putting them ready on the bow. [31]

4. Ammunition supply

In the hands of skillful and strong archers, bows can thus produce a similar rate of fire as semi-automatic weapons, and they can outperform guns and pistols. However, they cannot compete with automatic firearms (machine guns), which fire bullets as long as the shooter presses and holds the trigger. The machine gun appeared in the 1860s and can fire 30 rounds in just two seconds. [29]

Furthermore, most archers will run out of ammunition faster than gunners. English longbow archers carried a maximum of about 25-50 arrows with them, which would all be gone after shooting a few minutes at maximal rate of fire. In contrast, US soldiers take seven magazines with a total supply of 200 bullets. [29] On their campaign in France, English archers were followed by dozens of supply wagons with spare arrows. [6]

Parthian horse archers operated with a camel supply of more than 1,000 animals loaded with spare arrows

Horse archers carried more ammunition, from 60 to 80 arrows and up to 400 arrows in saddleside quivers. Their tactics were also aimed at keeping the enemy on the move, which facilitated the collection and reuse of their arrows. Horse archers could quickly ride to the supply train and back. Parthian horse archers, who defeated the Roman army several times, operated with a camel supply of more than 1,000 animals loaded with spare arrows. [24]

5. Stealth & handling

A weapon's size and the space required to use it also determine its performance. Preindustrial bows were featherlight (around 500 g) but larger than modern firearms, and the archer needed more elbow room to launch a projectile. A gun or rifle can be shot from almost any position, while a self-bow is most effective when the archer is standing. That makes it harder for the archer to conceal himself and makes the weapon unpractical in some environments. Its size and light weight also makes the bow an inferior melee weapon. Archers usually carried a sword for hand-to-hand combat. [8] In contrast, the modern firearm works as a ranged and melee weapon.

Image: A archer prepares to launch an arrow while huddled on the ground. Photo by Rudolph Martin Anderson, 1916, Canadian Museum of History. CC BY-SA 4.0.

On the other hand, the composite bow is much shorter than the self-bow. The thumb release gives the archer flexibility to be able to shoot to any direction and nearly in any position. There are also historical examples of small “pocket bows” with short draw lengths, lethal only at short range. [32] Furthermore, although the size of some bows makes it harder for the archer to conceal himself, bows partly compensate for this by being silent. The sound of a gunshot immediately gives away the position of the shooter.

When inferiority ruled: early firearms

When comparing the performance characteristics of preindustrial bows and modern firearms, it’s tempting to conclude that firearms replaced bows because they are indeed technologically superior. The difference in performance may not be as big as many people would have suspected. But even the most skillful archers from the middle ages could not compete with all types of modern firearms, especially not with rifles and machine guns.

However, bows became obsolete centuries before the advance of modern firearms. On the Europen continent, firearms – first the arquebus, then the musket – became the dominant hand-held missile weapons from the 1500s onwards. [9] [33] The reason could not have been a better technical performance, because preindustrial firearms were in almost every respect inferior to bows. Firearms only matched bows in technical performance between the 1850s and the 1900s, thanks to industrial manufacturing methods. [9] [24]

Image: Men firing muskets. Credit: Edd Scorpio, Wikimedia commons. CC BY-SA 3.0.

The only technical advantage of early firearms was their lethality. Just like today, a bullet did more damage than an arrow. [34-35] However, unlike today, actually hitting the target was quite a challenge. Compared to bows, early firearms were inaccurate, had a short range, and a low rate of fire. Before the twentieth century, gunners received no training at all because firearms were inaccurate, even in the hands of experienced shooters. [27] As late as 1793 – after roughly 300 years of use on the battlefield – a series of trials in England showed that the musket was less accurate than the longbow. [34] Around the same period, Benjamin Franklin considered arming American Revolutionary soldiers with longbows because they were more efficient than muskets. [4] [24] [27] [36]

As late as 1793 – after roughly 300 years of use on the battlefield – a series of trials in England showed that the musket was less accurate than the longbow

The main weakness of early firearms – and the last one to be solved – was their low rate of fire. The musketeer had to follow a series of manual steps for every shot. [34] In the time a man needed to load his musket and fire one round, a skillful archer could launch up to a dozen arrows towards him. During the US Civil War (1861-1865), the range of rifles had become similar to the range of war bows (200-300 yards), but the rate of fire was still as low as three bullets per minute. [9] Preindustrial firearms were also unreliable, while bows seldom failed. Even in the late 1700s, roughly 15% of musket shots misfired, increasing to 90% in wind and rain. Finally, a musket was as long as a bow and much heavier (7-9kg). [36]

Image: A 17th century Dutch musket. Source: Rijksmuseum, image in the public domain.

Image: An English Civil War manual of the New Model Army showing a part of the steps required to load and fire an earlier musket. Image in the Public Domain.

The firearm also had tactical disadvantages. First, while the flat trajectory of bullets made aiming easier, it also meant that the volume of fire was limited further. [4] [6] Archers could stand in deep formations and shoot simultaneously with several ranks at once – the archers in the back shooting over the heads of those in front. This technique, called “volley shooting”, had been in use since Antiquity. [24] In contrast, only two ranks of musketeers could shoot simultaneously (one rank kneeling, the other standing). Likewise, musketeers could only target the front ranks of an enemy force, and they could not lob their projectiles over a castle wall.

Second, archers could kill indirectly (and cause a lot of destruction) with fire arrows. These were slightly longer projectiles that carried combustible materials. Some types were for immediate use, while others required preparation in the field. [4] [37] Their effect could be devastating in a time when people made buildings and ships from flammable materials. Defensive forces could set fire to supply wagons or siege engines of attacking armies. [6] Horse archers ignited the high grasses of the steppes to stop opposing troops. [33] Using fire arrows, bows were “firearms”, too.

The crossbow

The firearm was not the first weapon to replace the bow. On the European continent, the crossbow became the dominant missile weapon in warfare by the 1200s. Early firearms then largely superseded crossbows in the 1500s. [4] [6] The crossbow, around since Ancient times, is a human-powered spring just like the bow. However, its operation is very much like that of a firearm. The projectile is locked in place, and the shooter only needs to aim to make an accurate shot. The crossbowman tensions the weapon through different mechanisms, like a stirrup, a double crank windlass, or a pulley system.

Image: crossbow with ammunition. Germany, 16th-17th century. Wood, leather, steel; overall: 37.2 cm (14 5/8 in.). Source: Internet Archive.

People often consider the crossbow technically superior to the bow, and that it largely replaced the bow in Europe only seems to confirm this. However, a comparison of the performance characteristics shows two equally valid weapons, each with its own advantages and disadvantages. A crossbow bolt was more powerful than an arrow, making it better suited for piercing armor. [38] Furthermore, a crossbowman needed less elbow room and could wear heavier body armor that would have interfered with the operation of a bow. [8] However, the crossbow was very heavy and its rate of fire was just as low as that of a firearm. Neither were crossbows suited for launching missiles in an arc.

When we compare the performance of the crossbow to that of the early firearm, a curious observation follows: the crossbow is clearly the superior weapon. It shared the low rate of fire with the early firearm, but at least the crossbow had an accuracy, range, and reliability that could match the bow. The crossbow was also relatively silent in operation and did not produce smoke (as all early firearms did). And yet, the firearm replaced the crossbow, not the other way around. Consequently, contrary to what most people assume, the bow and the crossbow were not succeeded by weapons that were superior in their technical performance. The opposite happened. Between 1400 and 1900, European armies replaced first-rate weapons by inferior weapons.

Taking the skill and effort out of killing someone

Looking at performance characteristics alone, the evolution of hand-held missile weapons in Europe seems to make little sense. Differences in manufacturing techniques don’t seem to explain it either. Bullets were cheaper to produce than arrows, but self-bows were more economical to make than firearms. The sequence from bow to crossbow and firearm makes more sense when we compare these weapons in terms of their learnability. The crossbowman only needed to aim well and could shoot in a straight line instead of an arc, which made the crossbow simpler to use than the bow. It also required less muscular strength than the bow, but the crossbow was still a human-powered weapon. The firearm did away with that.

Rather than being technically superior weapons, firearms took the skills and muscular effort out of killing someone from a distance

Rather than being technically superior weapons, firearms took the skills and muscular effort out of killing someone from a distance. The main reason most European armies switched from bows to crossbows and then firearms was the short learning curves of these weapons. Crossbowmen and musketeers required little or no training, while it took many years of practice to build an archer skillful and strong enough to be of use in warfare. [4] [6-8] [39-40] The crossbow and the firearm thus expanded the number of people in a given population that could become soldiers. That was great news for those in power because they could now build large armies quickly.

Archery practice

The importance of learnability is easy to forget nowadays because firearms are extremely easy to operate. With a machine gun, it’s not even necessary to aim well. In contrast, putting together and maintaining an army of archers required a lot of effort. Wherever the bow was an important weapon on the battlefield, archery practice was part of daily life. A well-documented example is England, where the longbow was retired from military service only in 1595 – roughly 400 years after most European armies had switched to crossbows and a century after the advance of early firearms.

Image: High school archery practice, 1962. Source: The Newark Public Library. Internet Archive.

The English crown forced its entire male population to practice archery. Legislation started in the 1250s and became increasingly strict in the centuries that followed. [4] [6] [8] [41-42] All men between the ages of 17 and 60 had to own a longbow and were obliged to practice on Sundays and festive days. Parents had to provide boys with a bow and arrows by age seven. Other sports as football, tennis, and handball, were outlawed to eliminate distractions from archery practice.

Wherever the bow was an important weapon on the battlefield, archery practice was part of daily life

The principal mode of archery practice was shooting at the butts. These were mounds of earth, stone, and peat situated on common land that measured up to 200 meters long. These shooting grounds (known as butts, too) could be in the open countryside, within towns and villages, or on land adjoining castles or forts. [4] [6] [55] Archery practice also involved prick or clout shooting, which is the art of shooting an arrow in a large arc and dropping it into a target from above at maximum range. This trained archers in volley shooting. Another form of practice was shooting at the popinjay, almost straight up into the sky. This trained archers for sieges and naval battles, where they had to hit targets high in the rigging of enemy ships.

In horse archer cultures, the type of practice was different, reflecting more mobile tactics on the battlefield. [24] The most typical military training in composite bow cultures were games where archers ran their horses over specially designed tracks, shooting sideways, backward, and up in the air at consecutive targets along both sides of the route. A 17th-century Ottoman archery manual of military horsemanship described nearly 20 different drills, sometimes combining the bow and the sword. [4] Many nomadic people taught their children to ride animals and shoot bows from a very young age. [36]

A Mongolian child archer. Credit: Nasanbat Nasaa. Via Traditional Manchu Archery.

A Mongolian horse archer. Credit: Nasanbat Nasaa. Via Traditional Manchu Archery.

For many centuries, archery was a religious duty and a sign of status in the Islamic Crescent, from Turkey to India. It developed as a martial art and a ritual practice that supported social order and spiritual development in China, Japan, Mongolia, and Korea. [43-44] The focus was not just on accuracy and range but also on rapid shooting, endurance, and shooting from awkward positions. For example, a particular practice in Japan was to launch arrows while kneeling at a target 131 yards away, despite the obstacle of a low overhanging roof. Another challenge was hitting a target repeatedly over a sustained period. In 1686, one archer shot 13,053 arrows over 24 hours (9 per minute), of which 8,133 hit the mark (more than five arrows per minute). [4]

Modern bows have taken part of the skill – and much of the fun – out of archery as a sport. [45] A contemporary recurve bow with sight is accurate even in the hands of absolute beginners. When shooting across greater distances, instruments help the archer to launch the projectile with the correct ballistic trajectory. Often, the fingers do not even touch the bowstring. There's a mechanical release between the string and the fingers, and the archer pulls a trigger. The Olympic recurve bow adds stabilizers for better aiming. The compound bow, the most popular bow for hunting, has a system of cams from which the bowstring unwinds, which reduces the strength that the archer needs to hold the bow at full draw.

The cannon

When the English eventually gave up archery, it was only after much debate. [6] [24] [36] The English longbow, being such a versatile weapon, was not defeated by the hand-held firearm alone. It was made obsolete by a new artillery weapon, the cannon. Large groups of longbowmen standing close together were an easy target when artillery became more mobile and effective. [4] [42] The composite bow (and the crossbow) held out much longer against the firearm and the cannon. [34] [43] [46-47] In China, archery disappeared from military training only in 1901 – roughly the time that firearms had finally achieved the same performance as bows. [48]

In China, archery disappeared from military training only in 1901 – roughly the time that firearms had finally achieved the same performance as bows

Since the Greeks and the Romans, European warfare made relatively little use of missile weapons. Battles were mostly stationary melee fights: men bashing on each other with swords, lances, axes, pikes, halberds, and hammers. When bows and later firearms entered the battlefield, men kept standing in rigid lines, shooting into each other. [24] Mounted warriors carried swords and lances, not bows and arrows. In contrast, Eastern warfare centered around large numbers of highly mobile horse archers who would never enter a melee fight. Horse archers galloped towards an enemy, launched a volley of arrows towards them at long range, and then quickly turned around and disappeared out of sight. Such dispersed hit-and-run forces were difficult to stop with cannons. [24] [47]

European warfare: men standing in rigid lines, shooting into each other. Image depicts the battle of Agincourt (1415). Source: Antoine Leduc, Sylvie Leluc et Olivier Renaudeau (dir.), D'Azincourt à Marignan. Chevaliers et bombardes, 1415-1515, Paris, Gallimard / Musée de l'armée, 2015, p. 18-19, ISBN 978-2-07-014949-0

Image: Mongolian horse archers. Credit: Nasanbat Nasaa. Via Traditional Manchu Archery.

At the same time, horse archers were not interested in firearms or crossbows because their battle tactics depended on a high rate of fire. Those weapons would have forced them to completely revise their tactics, which had proven very successful – even against European cavalry with early firearms. [47] Native American horse archers also killed European colonists far into the nineteenth century. In the hands of the horse archer, the bow only found defeat when it met the repeating rifle.

Sustainable violence?

Advocating for a revival of the bow and arrow – at the expense of the firearm – sounds absurd and unrealistic. But is it? Reintroducing the bow would only bring us benefits. It follows the same sound thinking behind other low-energy strategies, such as switching from cars to bicycles. The bike and the bow are both highly efficient, human-powered technologies that would be advantageous to human and planetary health.

First, reverting to the bow and arrow would be a pacifying move. If firearms made it possible for states to build larger armies and fight wider wars, then reverting to bows and arrows – and other historical missile weapons such as trebuchets, catapults, and ballistas – would bring us less extensive conflicts. It would decrease the number of people in a given population who could become effective soldiers (unless archery practice becomes ingrained in daily life again). A society that switches from cars to bicycles would similarly bring shorter travel distances and more local ways of life (unless people train by cycling dozens of kilometers per day).

Reverting to the bow and arrow would decrease the number of people in a given population who could become effective soldiers

Second, reverting to bows would make warfare less damaging to the environment. We don't often assess weapons in terms of energy efficiency and sustainability. However, the production of firearms and bullets depends on an intricate global supply chain that involves infrastructures, factories, mines, and fossil fuels. So on top of the human suffering that firearms cause, they also pose a longer-term problem, just like other modern technologies.

On the other hand, bows and arrows can be hand-made from many natural and human-made local materials. (See “When lethal weapons grew on trees”). Furthermore, artisanal production has an additional pacifying effect. Early firearms were hand-made products just like bows, and in both cases, the weapon supply was limited to what craftspeople could produce. With industrial manufacturing methods, these limits disappeared, facilitating large armies and extensive fighting.

Image: Outdoor archery practice at Palm Beach Junior College, 1950s. Source: Palm Beach State College Archives - Harold C. Manor Library - Lake Worth campus. Found at Internet Archive.

Third, low-tech manufacturing methods based on local materials also provide military self-sufficiency – the condition in which a state (or another political organisation) is able to procure or produce domestically quantities and qualities of military supplies, raw materials, and equipment for its survival or its foreign policy goals in general. [33] For example, modern ammunition depends on antimony, concentrated in China. Without it, we could not sustain the bullet speeds of today. [49-50]

It’s possible to build firearms with more local, low-tech manufacturing methods, but these would not have the same performance characteristics. For example, the British Sten machine gun – an important weapon during World War Two – can be made in a bicycle shop using minimal welding and machining. However, it was a notoriously unreliable weapon, and its maximum range was only 100 meters, easily surpassed by a skillful archer. [51]

Image: A Sten gun. Source: Museum Rotterdam, via Wikimedia Commons. CC BY 3.0.

Finally, replacing the firearm with the bow would reduce the damage done by missile weapons in a civilian setting, such as mass shootings, accidents, and suicides. In theory, a mass shooting could happen with a bow and arrows. However, it would take an archer years of dedicated practice, while a gunner can start out of the box. Bows are also much less likely to cause lethal accidents when not in use. Unlike firearms and crossbows, they cannot be carried and stored in a loaded position. [11] Finally, the bow is a very unhandy weapon for suicide – it would require you to pull the string with your toes while aiming at yourself. [11]

Military technology leads by example

Even if you agree that reverting to the bow and arrow would bring advantages, you probably find it unrealistic. That may well be true, but in that case, it’s also unrealistic to make a transition to a more sustainable society. We cannot combine a low-tech lifestyle with high-tech weapons for several reasons.

First, military technology is one of the main drivers of technological progress. Many products that are destroying our environment were originally developed for military purposes. Second, the global supply chain that underpins modern firearms is at the heart of economic growth and all environmental problems. We cannot keep it working only for manufacturing weapons and dismantle it for all other purposes. Third, the capitalist system needs rising levels of military spending as an outlet for growing amounts of accumulated surplus capital. The global economy invests heavily and increasingly in warfare, conflict, and repression – high-tech weapons are big business. [52-54]

Image: High school archery practice, 1962. Source: The Newark Public Library. Internet Archive.

For all these reasons, rather than keeping weapons out of the sustainability discussion – they should be our focus. If we cannot imagine low-tech warfare, we cannot imagine a low-tech, sustainable, and fair society. Switching to low-tech weapons sounds unrealistic because it would require global cooperation, but the same holds for lowering the emissions from fossil fuels. Switching to low-tech weapons sounds unrealistic because it involves “uninventing” things, but this also applies to many other problematic everyday products.

Indeed, military technology is one of the few domains in which we have collectively decided not to use certain technologies. Humanity has banned many types of weapons in warfare, such as chemical and biological weapons, blinding laser weapons, and poisoned bullets. Meanwhile, no country has succeeded in outlawing SUVs, although their danger to other road users and the environment is well-known. As weird as it sounds, military technology leads by example.

Kris De Decker

Subscribe to Low-tech Magazine's newsletter.
Support Low-tech Magazine via Paypal or Patreon.
Read Low-tech Magazine offline: 4 books available.

Image: an Apsaroke man on horseback. Image by Edward Sheriff Curtis, 1908.

Notes & References

[1] A bow’s draw weight also depends on the size of the archer and the shooting style, which determine the draw length. The farther the archer can pull back the string, the more energy the bow’s limbs will store. Draw weight is typically measured at a draw length of 28 inches, but the same bow will be more potent in the hands of a taller archer. The same holds for the shooting style. Nowadays, most archers draw the bow string until the chin, while historical archers often drew the bowstring until the ear, the shoulder, or beyond – thus increasing the draw length and draw weight of the bow.

[2] Randall, Karl Chandler. Origins and Comparative Performance of the Composite Bow. Diss. University of South Africa, 2016. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/79170491.pdf

[3] Pontzer, Herman, et al. "Mechanics of archery among Hadza hunter-gatherers." Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 16 (2017): 57-64. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2352409X17303309

[4] Loades, Mike. War Bows: Longbow, crossbow, composite bow and Japanese yumi. Bloomsbury Publishing, 2019.

[5] Lower than average draw weights usually implied the use of poisoned arrows.

[6] Roth, Erik. With a Bended Bow: Archery in Mediaeval and Renaissance Europe. The History Press, 2011.

[7] Nieminen, Timo A. "The Asian war bow." arXiv preprint arXiv:1101.1677 (2011). https://arxiv.org/pdf/1101.1677.pdf

[8] Dougherty, Martin J. The Medieval Warrior: Weapons, Technology and Fighting Techniques: AD 1000-1500. Lyons Press, 2011.

[9] Denny, Mark. Their arrows will darken the sun: the evolution and science of ballistics. JHU Press, 2011.

[10] https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/Muzzle_energy

[11] Karger, Bernd, et al. "Experimental arrow wounds: ballistics and traumatology." Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery 45.3 (1998): 495-501.

[12] Madhok, Brijesh M., Dipesh D. Dutta Roy, and Sashidhar Yeluri. "Penetrating arrow injuries in Western India." Injury 36.9 (2005): 1045-1050.

[13] Ashby, Ed. "Momentum, kinetic energy, and arrow penetration (and what they mean for the bowhunter)." (2005): 1564244295094. https://www.arcieridelbernabo.it/wp-content/uploads/7-Ashby-Momentum-Kinetic-Energy-and-Arrow-Penetration.pdf

[14] MacPhee, Nichole, et al. "A comparison of penetration and damage caused by different types of arrowheads on loose and tight fit clothing." Science & Justice 58.2 (2018): 109-120.

[15] The type of bullet or arrowhead also influences wound damage. Some bullets are designed to expand or fragment on impact, further spreading the damage and increasing the chance that a vital organ is damaged. [9] Likewise, broadhead arrowheads, which have razor-edged metal blades, cause extensive bleeding. [11] On the other hand, field-tip points (which are used for target practice) typically do not cause bleeding until the arrow is removed, because the relatively small puncture wouund is filled by the shaft. [11]

[16] Extracting arrows is one of the rare medical disciplines that was better developed in the past than it is today – few surgeons these days have experience with arrow wounds. There is a significant danger of injuries, including to the operating surgeon. [11] The spoon of Diocles was an ancient medical instrument to extract arrows from the body without causing additional trauma. After enlargement of the wound, the instrument was used to follow the shaft and detect the arrowhead. The cups of the spoon then enclosed the arrowhead and pulled it out. Cornelius Celsus, who developed the surgical instrument, also wrote a chapter on the removal of arrows in his medical treatise, De medicina. In it, he proposed two ways to extract an arrow: extracting the arrow from the side where it entered the body (using the spoon of Diocles), and pushing or pulling it through the body after incision of the soft tissue at the opposite site. The second approach, which Celsus preferred if possible, involved tying the arrowhead to a horse, a bent stick, or a crossbow to pull it out. Sushruta, an Indian surgeon, reported such extraction methods already four millenia before Celsus. See: Karger, Bernd, Hubert Sudhues, and Bernd Brinkmann. "Arrow wounds: major stimulus in the history of surgery." World journal of surgery 25.12 (2001): 1550-1555 & Karger, Bernd, et al. "Experimental arrow wounds: ballistics and traumatology." Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery 45.3 (1998): 495-501.

[17] https://www.bow-international.com/features/long-distance-shooting-a-brief-history/

[18] Chan, Hok-lam. "The Distance of a Bowshot": Some Remarks on Measurement in the Altaic World." Journal of Song-Yuan Studies 25 (1995): 29-46.

[19] https://www.bow-international.com/features/long-distance-shooting-a-brief-history/

[20] These distances refer to “normal” bows. Composite bow cultures are also keen on “flight shooting”, which involves special bows with very light arrows. These can fly for more than 1,000 meters far.

[21] Bettinger, Robert L. "Effects of the bow on social organization in Western North America." Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews 22.3 (2013): 118-123.

[22] Another example illustrates the aiming skills of historical archers, even if it refers to a very short distance of only 10 yards. Turkish archers could surround a target the size of a coin with five or six arrows so that all of them were touching the outside of the target but none broke the border. [34] In yet another example, antropological research in the 1920s observed that the best native American archers were able to hit a very small target – the size of a quarter – “regularly” from distances up to 25-35 metres. In a final example, Ishi, the last Yahi (Californian) Indian, in the early 20th century, shot a squirrel through the head at 40 yards. [27]

[23] The throwstick is another example of prehistorical aeronautics: https://www.throwsticks.com/history-science

[24] Hurley, Vic. Arrows against steel: the history of the bow and how it forever changed warfare. Cerberus Books, 2011.

[25] The bullet can still do damage, but it’s unlikely to penetrate the target. Shooting a bullet (almost) straight up into the air is more dangerous.

[26] In Asia, archers still shoot at large distances. For example, the typical target distance in Korea is 145 metres, in Turkyy 160-190m. [2]

[27] Townsend, Joan B. "Firearms against native arms: a study in comparative efficiencies with an Alaskan example." Arctic Anthropology (1983): 1-33.

[28] Redmond, Gerald. "Longbow: A Social and Military History." (1977): 121-124.

[29] Wallace, E. Gregory. "Assault weapon myths." S. Ill. ULJ 43 (2018): 193.

[30] The pinch draw involves grasping the end of the arrow between the end of the straightened thumb and the first and second joint of the bent forefinger. Instead of nocks, these arrows are knobbed at the end.

[31] Lars Anderson’s feats are not uncontested, and he is controversial in the archery community. You will find some articles and videos written and made by archers who debunk his techniques or claims. However, while I support a critical attitude, I have also experienced that primitive archers and modern archers disagree about everything. Furthermore, Anderson's skills have been recorded officially, be it for accuracy, not rate of fire: he entered the Guinness Book of Records after shooting seven consecutive arrows through a keyhole. https://www.odditycentral.com/news/archer-shoots-seven-arrows-through-10mm-keyhole-sets-world-record.html. Finally, horse archery still has skillful practitioners in many regions where the composite bow once played an important role. Those archers seem to shoot just as well as Lars Anderson. See for example this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utNOiSfyOD8

[32] See page 139 in The Bowyer’s Bible, Volume 4 [45], and pages 250 and 283-284 in Mike Loads’ book War Bows. [4]

[33] Esper, Thomas. "Military Self-Sufficiency and Weapons Technology in Muscovite Russia." Slavic Review 28.2 (1969): 185-208.

[34] Lanan, Nathan. "The Ottoman Gunpowder Empire and the Composite Bow." The Gettysburg Historical Journal 9.1 (2010): 4.

[35] Historically, arrows did not necessarily have to kill to have the desired effect. First, those who survived being shot with arrows (or early firearms) often succumbed to wound infection. [27] Second, having an arrow stuck in your body is inconvenient, even if the wound is not lethal or problematic. Third, not every arrow had to kill. Blunt force against armor also wore an enemy out. Mike Loads, the author of several books on historical archery, dubbed arrows “steel-clad fists with a considerable range.” [4]

[36] Davies, Jonathan. "'A COMBERSOME TYING WEAPON IN A THRONG OF MEN': THE DECLINE OF THE LONGBOW IN ELIZABETHAN ENGLAND." Journal of the Society for Army Historical Research 80.321 (2002): 16-31.

[37] Various types of fire arrows existed. In the cage type, a wick of wool, hemp or tow, saturated with a flammable compound, was stuffed into a cage that formed the arrowhead. This type of fire arrow could be prepared in the field whenever the need arose. Archers carried push-fit cages, wicks, and combustable materials to convert a regular arrow into a fire arrow in an instant. In contrast, the bag type fire arrow had to be prepared in advance, but it was more reliable than the cage type, which had the tendency to extinguish during flight. In a bag type fire arrow, an extra long arrowhead was inserted through a sausage of incindiary materials, encased in a linen bag. See [4] and [6].

[38] Although the crossbow had a much higher draw weight (up to 1,000 lbs), this was partly compensated by a lower efficiency (roughly 40%) and a shorter draw length than the bow: an arrow is much longer than a crossbow bolt.

[39] Antropological research reveals that hunting performance with the bow and arrow peaks surprisingly late in life, after peaks in strength. Source: Edinborough, Kevan Stephen Anthony. Evolution of bow-arrow technology. University of London, University College London (United Kingdom), 2005.

[40] Grund, Brigid Sky. "Behavioral ecology, technology, and the organization of labor: How a shift from spear thrower to self bow exacerbates social disparities." American Anthropologist 119.1 (2017): 104-119.

[41] https://www.longbow-archers.com/historylistdates.html

[42] Phillips, Gervase. "Longbow and hackbutt: weapons technology and technology transfer in early modern England." Technology and Culture 40.3 (1999): 576-593.

[43] Grayson, Charles E., Mary French, and Michael John O'Brien. Traditional archery from six continents: the Charles E. Grayson collection. University of Missouri Press, 2007.

[44] https://web.archive.org/web/20151012222623/http://www.atarn.org/training/chinese_archery_bckgrnd.htm

[45] This is a recurrent theme in the Bowyer’s bible. Hamm, Jim. "The Traditional Bowyer's Bible, Volume One / Two / Three / Four." (1992-2008).

[46] Although the Ottoman Empire was a pioneer in the use of gunpowder for artillery and infantry, it kept using horse archers well into the 1550s – for about as long as the English kept their longbowmen. [34] Muscovite Russia maintained horse archers to defend their southeastern borders against the Tartars until the end of the 1600s. [33] In the Middle East, archery declined only by the turn of the 19th century, and East Asia transitioned to firearms only by the early twentieth century. [43] In China, archery disappeared from military training in 1901 – roughly the time that firearms had finally achieved the same performance as bows. [48] In China, the bow coexisted as a military weapon alongside firearms for almost a millenium.

[47] May, Timothy. "Nomadic Warfare before Firearms." Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Asian History. 2018. https://oxfordre.com/asianhistory/asianhistory/abstract/10.1093/acrefore/9780190277727.001.0001/acrefore-9780190277727-e-4

[48] Selby, Stephen. Chinese archery. Vol. 1. Hong Kong University Press, 2000.

[49] Leckie, Cameron. "Lasers or longbows?: a paradox of military technology." Australian Defence Force Journal 182 (2010): 44-56.

[50] The US is heavily reliant on China and Russia for its ammo supply chain. Congress wants to fix that. Defense News, June 22, 2022. https://www.defensenews.com/congress/budget/2022/06/08/the-us-is-heavily-reliant-on-china-and-russia-for-its-ammo-supply-chain-congress-wants-to-fix-that/

[51] Thompson, Leroy. The sten gun. Bloomsbury Publishing, 2012.

[52] Robinson, William I. The global police state. London: Pluto Press, 2020.

[53] Phillips, Peter. Giants: The global power elite. Seven Stories Press, 2018.

[54] Gregory, Anthony. "Rise of the warrior cop: The militarization of america's police forces." (2014): 271-275.

[55] https://web.archive.org/web/20060905114227/http://www.eng-h.gov.uk/mpp/mcd/butts.htm
MONUMENTS PROTECTION PROGRAMME, MONUMENT CLASS DESCRIPTION, ARCHERY BUTTS, JANUARY 1990

[56] Arrows typically retain 75-80% of their initial velocity on impact, as well as 60-65% of kinetic energy. Source: Gorman, Stuart. The Technological Development of the Bow and Crossbow in Later Middle Ages. Diss. Trinity College Dublin, 2016. Refers to: Strickland, Matthew J., and Robert Hardy. The great warbow: from Hastings to the Mary Rose. Sutton, 2005.

Read Low-tech Magazine Offline

Read Low-tech Magazine with no access to a computer, a power supply, or the internet. The printed archives now amount to four volumes with a total of 2,398 pages and 709 images. They can be ordered in our Lulu bookstore.

When Lethal Weapons Grew on Trees

2022-11-23T11:55:29+01:00

While manufacturing modern firearms and bullets depends on a global supply chain and fossil fuels, bows and arrows can be made anywhere out of anything, using only human power and simple hand tools.

Image: Tanimber islander with very large bow and arrow in leather armor, Dutch Indies. Source unknown.

Many bows and arrows ago

The bow is one of humanity's most essential and fascinating technologies, perhaps only eclipsed by the controlled use of fire. Despite endless academic speculation on the subject for almost 200 years, we don't know when archery originated. [1] Bows and arrows were made from organic materials, which do not preserve for long. The oldest archaeological finds come from peat bogs, glaciers, and water-logged lake sediments – oxygen-free environments that prevent organic materials from decaying. [2] In the 1930s, in Stellmoor, Germany, archaeologists found roughly 100 arrow shafts dated to between 8,000 and 10,000 BC. [3] The oldest bow came to light in the 1940s in Holmegaard, Denmark. Scientists dated it to between 6,500 and 7,000 BC.

The bow and arrow are much older than these records indicate. One reason is that prehistoric bows were of a very sophisticated design, a point we return to later. Second, archaeologists have unearthed much older projectile points. The arrowhead is the only part of the bow and arrow made of inorganic material and thus preserves much longer. However, it can be hard to distinguish arrowheads from projectile points used with other weapons, most notably the spearthrower or atlatl. [4-5] While keeping this in mind, some studies have pushed back the date for the first bow and arrow use to between 35,000 and 70,000 years ago. [6] But even arrowheads cannot tell us the whole story because fire-hardened wooden points may have preceded bone and stone points.

Human powered springs

In mechanical terms, the bow is a spring made up of two flexible, elastic limbs held under tension by a string. When the archer pulls the string back, energy accumulates in the bow. When the archer releases the string, the energy transmits to the arrow, which flies out of the bow. The bow is a highly efficient technology: the arrow's kinetic energy (usable energy) is close to the total energy expended. [7][8] Arrows are also very efficient, much more so than bullets: they lose little speed in flight and require little energy to penetrate a target. [9]

The bow is a highly efficient technology: the arrow's kinetic energy is close to the total energy expended.

The bow and arrow is a missile (or ranged) weapon for striking from a distance. Simple missile weapons are launched using unassisted bodily force, for example, thrown stones, throw sticks, or hand-cast spears (“javelins”). Complex missile weapons interpose a launcher between the human and the missile. Such weapon systems include the bow as well as the sling, the blowgun, the spearthrower, and the firearm. [4] In the hands of a skillful and muscular archer, the (pre)historical bow was a powerful and accurate weapon. The firearm replaced the bow because it was easier to use, not because it was technically superior. [9]

Diversity of bow designs

Our forebears have used the bow and arrow on every continent except Australia (where spearthrower and throw stick prevailed) and Antarctica. The large geographical distribution and long history led to a wide diversity of bow designs determined by the local circumstances – the available materials and tools, the landscape, the climate, the use of the weapon, the social context, and so on. All bows consisted of a stave and a string, but the materials, dimensions, forms, shooting styles, and other features varied considerably. [10-11] That is not the case with modern firearms, which are the same everywhere.

Essentially, there are two types of bows, opposites on a scale: the self-bow and the composite bow. Self-bows are made from a single stave of wood, while composite bows consist of several layers of various materials (usually wood, horn, and sinew). Other bows are somewhere in between. For example, laminated bows consist of several layers of the same material, and backed self-bows are hybrids between self-bows and composite bows. Self-bows dominated forested continents (Europe, the Americas, and Africa). Composite bows ruled in the drier regions (Middle East and Eurasia). Many intermediate forms probably emerged because of contact between different cultures.

Self-bows

The self-bow distinguishes itself by its durability and ease of construction, maintenance, and repair. It consists of a single (often straight) stave of wood. The most famous design is the longbow. As its name implies, the longbow is known for its length. It was about as tall as (or taller than) the archer who drew it. People often associate this bow type with the English longbow, which became an important battlefield weapon in the late middle ages. However, the longbow was used across Europe and other continents, while its design is much older. For example, Ötzi, the mummy found in the Italian Alps in 1991, carried a 182 cm longbow dating back to 3,300 BC. [12]

Image: Longbow archers. Image by Peter Trimming. Source: Wikimedia Commons. CC BY SA 2.0.

Image: Replica of a yew Welsh war bow, which was shorter than the English longbow. Source: A short war-bow examined, J.Spencer & H.D.Soar. Found at War Bow Wales.

The historical longbow differs from the so-called longbows still used at archery ranges in the Western world. The British Longbow Society, formed in 1951, restricts the term longbow to a Victorian and Edwardian ideal when archery had become a recreational activity. Ironically, their narrow criteria exclude all historical longbows – even the famous medieval English war bows. [10] [13] “Modern” longbows are usually laminated bows with a stiff center section, while (pre)historical longbows were self-bows bending with a continuous arc. Modern longbows have an arrow rest cut out in the middle part of the bow (either left or right), but with historical longbows, the arrow often rested on the archer’s bow hand.

The second type of self-bow is the flat bow. It is only slightly shorter than the longbow but has a different cross-section. The longbow either has a circular shape or a D-shape. The English longbow, for example, has a flat “back” and a rounded “belly” – the belly being the side of the bow that faces the archer. In contrast, a flatbow is flat on both sides. Compared to the longbow, which has narrow limbs and is usually the widest at the handle, the flatbow has wider limbs but a narrow handle. [14]

Image: a flatbow made by master bowyer Greg Anderson. Source: North Wood Traditional Archery.

In the 1930s, American scientists set out to discover the optimal shape of a bow. To their surprise, they found that the D-shaped profile of the longbow – the only known historical western design at the time – is not the most efficient one. [14] Rather, a rectangular cross-section works best because it induces more uniform strain across the limb’s width. That makes the bow less prone to breakage. The scientific discovery led to the design of the (recreational) American flatbow, which the scientists considered new. [15] In the 1940s, however, archaeologists discovered the oldest prehistoric bow. It was a flatbow – the earlier mentioned Holmegaard. The Meare Heath bow, discovered in 1961 and dated to roughly 4,500 years ago, was also a flatbow. [16-17] The American researchers also failed to notice that their innovation had been used for centuries by Native Americans. [14]

Historically, the powerful draw of tall self-bows served for combat and hunting large animals. For hunting small game at close range, shorter hand bows (known as “small bows” or “birding bows”) were sufficient. These weapons were less powerful, used shorter and lighter arrows (often with blunt arrowheads), and were drawn to the breast instead of the ear. [13]

Image: Historical bows from the African continent, showing the large size differences. Source: Leakey, Louis Seymour Bazett. “A New Classification of the Bow and Arrow in Africa.” The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 56 (1926): 259-299.

Tension and compression

For a bow limb to store energy, the wood must have both strength (to withstand tension) and elasticity (to withstand compression). If a bow is overdrawn, two things can happen. If the wood is stronger in tension than in compression, as it is usually, the wood fibers in the belly of the bow will compress, and the bow will not fully return to its original form. The wood has exceeded its elastic limit, and the power of the bow is forever reduced. On the other hand, if the wood is stronger in compression than in tension, overdrawing the bow will result in a splintered back or a fracture. [18]

Some wood species are especially well-suited to make bows. Historical bowyers considered yew to be one of the best materials. [13] Yew grows (slowly) across many parts of the world. Its sapwood (the white wood on the outside of the tree just below the bark) excels under tension. Its heartwood (the redwood that makes up the center) excels under compression. Therefore, in a yew bow, sapwood forms the back, and heartwood forms the belly. [19] Another excellent bow wood is osage orange, native to North America, but it can thrive in many climates. Only heartwood is used – osage orange has high bending strength and elasticity. [20] Both wood species are also highly resistant to decay.

Image. A yew selfbow, showing hardwood and sapwood, made by master bowyer Jack Pinson, Under Warden, Ireland. Source: Living Longbows.

Image: an osange orange flatbow, built by master bowyer Simon Sieß. It’s nearly impossible to find a straight stave of osage orange long enough for a bow, because the wood is full of twists, knots, and thorns. The bowyer works around these defects. Source: Stonehill Primitive Bows.

However, not all bows were made from yew or osage orange wood – far from that. Self-bows have been and can be made out of almost any type of wood, even wood that looks unlikely to make a bow. More important than the choice of wood is to match the design of the bow to the compression and tensile strength of a specific wood species. [21] A bow made of an inferior wood species can be protected from breaking or exceeding its elastic limit by adding more wood in the form of a longer or a wider bow. Bows made from excellent bow woods such as yew and osage orange have very narrow limbs, but bows made from weaker and less elastic woods can perform just as well with wider limbs. Less suitable bow wood also benefits from a rectangular cross-section (a flatbow design).

How to make a self bow

A self-bow can be made in a couple of hours – excluding the time to season the wood. It takes skill to make an excellent weapon, but building a crude self-bow is within everyone's reach. Before metal tools were available, it was much easier to work wood that was still fresh and green. Therefore, seasoning wood took place after the bow was largely shaped. Once the wood had dried, the bow was finished with stone scrapers. The authors of the Bowyer’s Bible (a series of books that revived the interest in traditional archery during the 1990s) describe an experiment. They enter the forest with empty hands and come out with a bow that took them only six hours to make with stone-age tools: a rock, a self-made wood axe, and a fire. [14]

Without metal tools, it took a lot of effort to cut down large trees to obtain bow wood. Some Native Americans invented an ingenious technique that involved prying bow staves from trunks and branches of living trees. [22] They cut two V-shaped notches at the upper and the lower end of the intended stave, which was then left in the tree for several years until it had seasoned. Finally, they wrenched the stave from the tree using a lever and shaped the bow. Some old trees still show the scars of this process. Bowyers could exploit the same tree for bow staves over many centuries.

Image: Prying bow staves from living trees. Source: Wilke, Philip J. "Bow staves harvested from Juniper trees by Indians of nevada." Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 10.1 (1988): 3-31.

I could not find any references to bow stave trees in other regions, but coppicing and pollarding could also provide bow wood without cutting down entire trees. Yew trees were often pollarded. Another method was to plant them together in groups so they would grow straight up for perfect bow staves. When metal tools became available, harvesting bow wood and shaping a bow became easier. From then on, most bows were made from seasoned wood. However, the essential tools for a traditional bowyer have remained limited: a sharp hand axe, a wood rasp, and a scraper. [13-14] [23-24]

Shaping a self-bow comes down to following the grain and character of the wood. If using logs, the first step is to split them into halves or quarters, using a wedge so that the crack follows the grain. Each piece of wood dictates the style and shape of a self-bow. For example, if there’s a twist in a part of the bow stave, the design will follow it, resulting in a partly twisted bow. The central part of the self-bow-making process is “tillering”: the bow limbs are made thinner and thinner by taking wood away from the belly side, little by little, and taking care not to take away too much. The back of the bow remains unchanged and follows the split-off growth ring of the stave. [13] [25]

Image: Freshly cut wood split into bow staves. Source: Wikimedia Commons. Image by MartinFields (CC BY-SA 3.0).

Image: A self bow in the making by master bowyer Jack Pinson, Under Warden. Ireland. Source: Living Longbows.

The composite bow

The composite bow is the opposite of the self-bow in almost any respect. Rather than taking material away, the composite bow consists of several layers of material glued together – usually wood, horn, and sinew (animal tendon or ligament). The bow is covered with bark or leather and sealed with lacquer. Rather than a long, straight stave, the composite bow is short (110 cm on average) and nearly always a recurve bow – a combination of reflex bow limbs (which bend away from the archer) and deflex bow limbs (which bend towards the archer). [7] [26-32]

In a composite bow, the wood mainly serves as a framework for building up the other layers. Horn (which is excellent in withstanding compression) formed the belly of the bow, and sinew (which has very high tensile strength) formed the back of the bow. The horn usually came from the water buffalo, abundant in regions where the composite bow was adopted. The sinew came from the backs of deer, antelope, or cattle (thick pieces lying along both sides of the ridge bones of the spine) or from the Achilles heel of cattle.

Because the combination of these materials performs better than even the best bow woods, a composite bow can bend with a larger arc in proportion to its length than a self-bow. Consequently, it can be made shorter than an equally powerful self-bow. That made it perfect for horseback, as the archer can easily switch the bow from side to side. Most cultures who adapted the composite bow were horse archers, and the weapon is also known as a horse bow. The composite bow was also the weapon of choice for the chariot archer, who predates the horse archer.

Left: Tatar composite bow, showing the shape assumed in the unstrung and the strung state. Right: Persian composite bow, exhibiting extreme reflex curvature in the unstrung state. Source: Balfour, Henry. “The Archer’s Bow in the Homeric Poems.” The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 51 (1921): 289-309.

Image: Horse bow (strung and unstrung) made by master bowyer Bjørn Schmidt. Source: Bjørn Schmidt.

Image: A collection of composite bows in various sizes. Source: Peter Dekker, Mandarin Mansion.

It seems most likely that the composite bow developed in Central Asia and then spread into India, North Africa, Russia, Eastern Europe, China, Korea, and Japan. We do not know how old the composite bow is. The oldest archaeological finds date to 3,000 BC, but the region has less ideal conditions for preservation than Europe, where archaeologists found the oldest self-bows. Unlike the self bow, which is usually a straight stave and only varies in its cross-section, the composite bow appears in an extraordinary diversity of bow designs. [26] Many composite bows had siyahs – non-bending levers at the end of the bow limbs that further increased the draw length and reduced the muscular power required to pull the bow.

How to make a composite bow

The composite bow is superior in performance to the self-bow. It can shoot arrows faster and farther with less effort. However, it takes more skill to use and requires a very elaborate manufacturing process. Making a composite bow takes 50 to 100 hours, spread over months or even years. [18] The more powerful the bow, the more time it takes to make it. The bowyer dips bundles of sinew in warm glue and lays them lengthwise across the bow. Each layer of sinew has to dry before the next one can be put on. The bowyer gradually pulls the bow to longer and longer draw lengths, a few centimeters at a time until the bow tips touch or cross. Once the bow is complete, it is cured over a low fire. Unlike a wooden bow, where tillering relies one removal of surplus wood, tillering a composite bow was achieved through manipulating the limbs by pressure and modest heat.

The composite bow is also less durable and requires more maintenance than the self-bow. Its susceptibility to humidity requires continuous care – a composite bow needs to be kept warm and dry. In cold weather, archers stuffed the bows inside clothes and took them to bed. If possible, they warmed the bow over a fire before shooting. The Chinese (who built the largest composite bows) used dedicated warming cabinets to maintain or restore the recurve form lost during use. Composite bows also had to be protected from animals eating the sinew parts. Worms may eat the horn. [7] [26-32] [45]

Image: making a composite bow. Source unknown. Via Mihkel Tammet.

Image: A composite bow in the making. Source: The modern reproduction of a Mongol era bow based on historical facts and ancient technology research. Jason Wayne Beever & Zoran Pavlović, EXARC Journal Issue 2017/02.

Backing: fusing the self and composite bow

To a certain extent, the advantages of the composite bow can be transferred to the self bow. Making a bow longer or wider is not the only way to make a powerful weapon from inferior wood. The other method is reinforcing or “backing” a bow. [33-34] That involves gluing a material with high tensile strength on the back – the side of the bow facing away from the archer. The backing material can be sinew like in the composite bow. However, other materials work as well, or even better: rawhide, gut, skin, silk, and many vegetable fibers such as flax, hemp, or jute. Some reinforced bows were built of sinew-backed antler.

Backing allowed designs that were impossible to make in wood alone, such as short but powerful bows. Reinforced self-bows were common to indigenous peoples of North America [35-36] When the Spanish introduced horses on the continent, Native Americans were quick to note the advantages of shooting from horseback, and adapted their bows by making them shorter – 90 to 110 cm. Being a simplified form of the Asiatic three layer construction, sinew-backed bows share some of the disadvantages. Backing increases the production time of a self bow to between eight and twenty hours, spread out over a period of two weeks to a month, and a reinforced bow needs protection against humidity.

In addition, adding a backing was a common way to repair a self-bow. If a bow developed a splinter on the back, gluing on rawhide, flax, or sinew could fix the problem. [34] If a bow had taken too much set – if it had exceeded its elastic limit – another technique could be used. The bowyer turned the bow around, letting the back become the belly, and applied backing to the new back (which used to be the belly).

Image: A wide limbed bow with sinew backing. Source: National Museum of the American Indian, Smithsonian.

Image: juniper west coast style bow, built by master bowyer Simon Sieß. Only the nocks are strengthened with sinew. Source: Stonehill Primitive Bows.

Image: sinew preparation. Source: Making the sinew-backed bow, Jeff Martin, Primitive Lifeways.

Image: sinew backing. Source: Making the sinew-backed bow, Jeff Martin, Primitive Lifeways.

Cable-backed bows

The price for the most inventive bow-making method goes to the Inuit, who faced two problems. First, they had a limited choice of bow wood. This was either driftwood, or spruce and fir, very brittle woods that lack elasticity. [14] [37] Second, animal glue is difficult to use in cold air, jelling almost instantly. The Inuit solved this by making bows from materials such as sheep horn, caribou antler, and baleen, which they reinforced by "cable backing". This was the use of elevated sinew cables that ran up and down the limbs, fixed by an elaborate system of knots.

The backing consisted of a continuous stout twine made of sinew up to 45 meters long. The bowyer wrapped it around one of the bow nocks, ran it down the back of the bow, then wrapped it around the other bow nock, ran it up the back again, and so on, until several dozens of strands were on the back. Next, the strands were twisted and fixed to the bow with knots in sometimes very complex patterns. Little flat rods served for twisting the cords. They were used in pairs, holding one in each hand to secure the same amount of twist in the two. [14] [37]

Any backing must be proportional to limb mass across the bow, meaning it has to be thicker at the grip and thinner towards the bow tips. With a glued-on backing, this is easy to achieve: add more backing layers in the middle of the bow. However, it’s hard to reduce the diameter of a cable from grip to tip. The Inuit solved this by running part of the cables for just a portion of the limb length. Up to a dozen threads only extended across the middle of the bow. Most cable-backed self-bows were short flatbows – at most 125 cm long. [14] [37]

Image: Cable-backed bows. Source: Murdoch, John. "A study of the Eskimo bows in the US National Museum." Report of the United States National Museum for the year 1884.

Cord bindings

Yet another method for making a bow out of inferior wood was the use of cord bindings. Rather than gluing a backing on the back of the bow, or stretching cables from one end to the other, cord bindings consisted of backing material that was wrapped around the bow.

A famous example of this technique is the Meare Heath bow. Found in 1961 in the peat bogs of Somerset, England, it dates back to about 2,690 BC. This flatbow – 6 cm wide and 190 cm long – had both transverse and criss-cross leather and sinew bindings. A replica of the bow – made with stone age tools – showed that it was an excellent weapon, surpassing the performance of the English longbow that appeared a few thousand years later. [17] Cord bindings continued to be used in the middle ages, also on some composite bows. [13] For example, the Hunza in Afghanistan wrap their entire bows with sinew. [10]

Finally, there’s the Japanese bow, the yumi, which is a category of its own. The yumi is a laminated bow – made from at least seven layers of bamboo and wood – but its construction and design is clearly influenced by the composite bow. The yumi distinguishes itself by its length (it can surpass two metres) and its assymetry – the upper limb is two-thirds the overall length. The longer limb allows a longer draw while the shorter limb allows to shoot the bow from horseback or while kneeling. Making a yumi required the bowyer to use his hand and feet, working quickly with fast-drying glues that could be softened again in a steam tent. [10]

Image: drawing of the Meare Heath bow. Source: Clark, J. G. D. "Neolithic bows from Somerset, England, and the prehistory of archery in north-western Europe." Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society. Vol. 29. Cambridge University Press, 1963.

Image: A replica of the Meare Heath bow, made by master bowyer Greg Anderson. Source: North Wood Traditional Archery.

Image: The Penobscot bow. Yet another method to build a bow from inferior wood. The bow’s draw weight is increased by adding a second limb. Source: National Museum of the American Indian, Smithsonian.

Growing arrows

By itself, the bow is not a useful weapon. It requires ammunition in the form of arrows. Finding wood for arrows was much easier than obtaining wood for bows. [13] [38-39] Most wood species make good arrows, and the wood can be shorter. Arrows were usually less than a metre long, except in the tropics, where they could be much longer. Before the arrival of metal tools, arrow shafts were made from either shoots and saplings or cane, bamboo, and reeds – depending on what was available locally. These materials already have the shape of arrow shafts and grow in different lengths and diameters. [40]

Shoots and saplings were debarked, straightened over a fire, finished, and then seasoned for a few weeks or months. These arrow shafts were solid and relatively heavy, which increased mass and penetration. Canes, bamboo, and reeds did not require debarking and were waterproof without further treatment. On the other hand, they were hollow and much lighter than shafts made from shoots and saplings. A separate foreshaft made from wood or bone was inserted into the hollow shaft to give them sufficient strength and mass. The nock was reinforced to prevent the bowstring from splitting the arrowshaft. [38-39]

Metal cutting tools gave birth to a new method, which allowed arrow shafts made from sawn timber. Wooden boards are cut into small squares the size of arrow shafts and then have their four corners shaven off, making them octagonal. These shafts are then rounded with sandpaper or sandstone. “Split timber shafting” reduced the time to make arrow shafts, made it possible to produce arrows in large numbers, and improved their ballistic capabilities. [38-39] [41]

Image: A set of arrows with wooden points and blunts. Source: National Museum of the American Indian, Smithsonian.

Image: Replicas of prehistoric arrows, made by master bowyer Greg Anderson. Source: North Wood Traditional Archery.

Image: Replicas of medieval arrows, made by Heritage Longbows. Source: Heritage Longbows.

Image: The nock of an arrow. Made and photographed by Tim Ormsby. Via ATARN Traditional Asian Archery.

Image: Replicas of medieval arrowheads, made by master bowyer Jack Pinson, Under Warden, Ireland. Source: Living Longbows.

The shaft is the structural element of the arrow to which the arrowhead, the fletching, and the nock are attached. Historically, the nock was often cut into the shaft, sometimes reinforced with bone, horn, or hardwood. The fletching usually consisted of three feathers, which could come from many birds (such as goose and turkey). They were glued to the shaft and bound with sinew thread. [13]

Arrowheads were made from many materials, including stone, bone, antler, teeth, and metal (bronze, wrought iron, steel). Metal arrowheads appeared most recently but did not perform better than arrowheads made from primitive materials. However, they were faster and more economical to manufacture. Wooden points remained in use through history alongside more durable but labor-intensive materials. [42] The shape of an arrowhead varied along with its use – hundreds of different types have existed. Arrowheads were fixed to the shaft with glue and a sinew binding, or inserted into a hollow shaft.

Reuse and repair of arrows

Making a set of arrows took considerably more time than making the average self-bow. However, archers routinely reused their projectiles. You can’t shoot a bullet, then put it back in a firearm and fire it a second time. However, you can launch the same arrow over and over again. That is evident in practice shooting, but it happened just as well during the hunt and on the battlefield. Arrows could change sides several times in a battle. They were picked up from the ground or extracted from dead enemies or comrades. [10] [29] [43]

Because they were valuable, even impaired arrows were routinely collected for repair. Limited repairs happened on the battlefield or during the hunt, and some fletchers could be attached to armies, extending the ammunition supply. If an arrow shaft broke close to the arrowhead – a common point of failure – attaching a new arrowhead was a quick fix to make a new, slightly shorter arrow. Even if the projectile became undersized for one archer, it could still serve a somewhat smaller archer. The Hazda, a tribe in Africa, used arrows that were longer than necessary and were cut shorter several times after breakage. [2]

If the shaft broke in another place, it could be repaired by a more elaborate process called “footing.” This technique, which required metal tools, involved splicing with fishtail joints. Finally, arrowheads and feathers could be reused to make new arrows.

Image: Tools of the arrow maker. Source: Mason, Otis T. North American bows, arrows, and quivers. JM Carroll, 1893.

Growing bowstrings

The combination of a bow and a set of arrows is still not a weapon. The missing part is the bowstring, which brings the two together. Like bows and arrows, you can make strings from many different materials, and a suitable source of fiber is never far away. Historically, most bow strings were either made from vegetable fibers (hemp, flax, milkweed, ramie, nettle) or animal fibers (silk, sinew, rawhide, gut). Even human hair makes bow strings. Bowyers can grow their bow string material by planting some hemp or flax, which also provides material for backing bows and for making linseed oil – a traditional bow and arrow finish. [44]

The Bowyer’s Bible dedicates a long chapter to making completely serviceable strings in the field even under the most primitive conditions: “Pull a fiber-bearing plant from the ground, pull a twig from a tree – for use as a spindle – and with this caveman’s gear, a thread can be spun finer and stronger than the finest machine-spun equivalent. With a little bit of practice, using a drop spindle, it takes about one and a half hours to spin a bowstring’s worth of thread. Using a spinning wheel, it can be done in twenty minutes. When spinning is complete, you are about fifteen minutes away from a flawless, first-class bowstring.” [44]

Turning a thread into a bow string can be done in different ways. The “endless string” is the easiest to make. You drive two nails into a wooden board, and the distance between them equals the desired string length (a bit shorter than the bow itself). The string is winded back and forth around the nails until you reach the desired strand number – usually 12 to 16 strands. The two loose ends are then tied together, reinforced with a separate thread, and made into loops that can be attached to the bow nocks. In some regions, archers used knots rather than loops to attach the string to the bow, which allowed them to adjust the length of the bowstring. [44]

Image: Bow strings made by master bowyer Greg Anderson. Source: North Wood Traditional Archery.

Image: A bowstring made by master bowyer Jack Pinson, Under Warden. Ireland. Source: Living Longbows.

Do weapons need to be sustainable?

Historic and prehistoric bows and arrows were entirely made from natural and locally available materials. These came from plants and trees (wood, cane, bamboo, flax), animals (tendon, bone, feathers, glue), and minerals (stone and metal points). Nowadays, just like 10,000 years ago, one can walk into a forest or any other natural environment with empty hands and come out with a functional weapon. Even the tools to make it are in nature. The manufacturing is entirely human-powered, only aided here and there by a fire. Ammunition can be reused, repaired, and recycled.

That raises some questions. First, should weapons be sustainable? The use of bows and arrows was a perfect example of what we nowadays call the “circular economy.” In contrast, the manufacturing of modern firearms depends on a highly complex, globally interconnected, and interdependent supply chain, which consists of mines, factories, transport and power systems, fossil fuels, and parts of the economy such as finance and communication technology. Few of the materials required to make modern firearms are available locally or naturally, and the production creates waste and emissions. The same holds for modern bows and arrows made of metals, plastics, and synthetic composites.

Second, if it’s relatively easy to make lethal weapons, especially self-bows, why are we not plagued by waves of bow violence analog to gun violence? There’s a lot of unease about 3D-printed firearms and “ghost guns” (unregistered firearms built up from anonymous gun parts), but how is that different from entering a forest with bare hands and coming out with a weapon that could kill an elephant? These days the choice of local materials has only grown. Any modern material that bends and returns can become a bow. You can make arrowheads from window or bottle glass, electronic modules, or old saw blades. [18] No firearm user can achieve the self-sufficiency of the preindustrial archer.

Third, if modern firearms depend on fossil fuels and a global supply chain, what if this context disappears? Could low-tech, artisanally made firearms compete with longbows, flatbows, and composite bows? In the following article, I try to answer these questions, and make a proposal: “What if we replace guns and bullets with bows and arrows?”.

Kris De Decker

Subscribe to Low-tech Magazine's newsletter.
Support Low-tech Magazine via Paypal or Patreon.
Read Low-tech Magazine offline: 4 books available.

Notes & References

[1] Bergman, Christopher A. "The development of the bow in Western Europe: a technological and functional perspective." Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 4.1 (1993): 95-105. https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1525/ap3a.1993.4.1.95

[2] Cattelain, Pierre. "Hunting during the Upper Paleolithic: bow, spearthrower, or both?." Projectile technology. Springer, Boston, MA, 1997. 213-240.

[3] Meadows, John, et al. "Dating the lost arrow shafts from Stellmoor (Schleswig-Holstein, Germany)." (2018): 105-114. https://quartaer.obermaier-gesellschaft.de/pdfs/2018/2018_05_meadows.pdf

[4] Lombard, Marlize, and John J. Shea. "Did Pleistocene Africans use the spearthrower‐and‐dart?." Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews 30.5 (2021): 307-315.

[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spear-thrower

[6] Grund, Brigid Sky. "Behavioral ecology, technology, and the organization of labor: How a shift from spear thrower to self bow exacerbates social disparities." American Anthropologist 119.1 (2017): 104-119. https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/am-pdf/10.1111/aman.12820

[7] Randall, Karl Chandler. Origins and Comparative Performance of the Composite Bow. Diss. University of South Africa, 2016. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/79170491.pdf

[8] Denny, Mark. Their arrows will darken the sun: the evolution and science of ballistics. JHU Press, 2011.

[9] See the second part of this article series: “What if we replace guns and bullets by bows and arrows?”.

[10] Loades, Mike. War Bows: Longbow, crossbow, composite bow and Japanese yumi. Bloomsbury Publishing, 2019.

[11] Baker, Tim. “Bows of the world”. "The Traditional Bowyer's Bible, Volume Three." 1994. 43-98.

[12] https://www.primitiveways.com/Otzi's_bow.html

[13] Roth, Erik. With a Bended Bow: Archery in Mediaeval and Renaissance Europe. The History Press, 2011.

[14] Hamm, Jim. "The Traditional Bowyer's Bible, Volume Three." 1994.

[15] "Archery: The Technical Side" Edited by C. N. Hickman, Forrest Nagler & Paul E. Klopsteg, 1939.

[16] Clark, J. G. D. "Neolithic bows from Somerset, England, and the prehistory of archery in north-western Europe." Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society. Vol. 29. Cambridge University Press, 1963. See also: Comstock, Paul. “Ancient European Bows”. The Traditional Bowyers Bible (1993): 113-154.

[17] Prior, Stuart. "The skill of the neolithic bowyers—reassessing the past through experimental archaeology." Somerset archaeology. Papers to mark 150 (2000): 19-24. https://www.somersetheritage.org.uk/downloads/publications/150years/HES_150_Years_Chapter_4.pdf

[18] Hamm, Jim. "The Traditional Bowyer's Bible, volume one." (1992).

[19] Strunk, John. "Yew Longbow." The traditional bowyer's bible, volume one (1992): 117-130.

[20] Hardcastle, Ron. “Osage Flat Bow.” The traditional bowyer's bible, volume one (1992): 131-148.

[21] Comstock, Paul. “Other Bow Woods”. The traditional bowyer's bible, volume one (1992):149-164.

[22] Wilke, Philip J. "Bow staves harvested from Juniper trees by Indians of nevada." Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 10.1 (1988): 3-31. https://escholarship.org/content/qt4v5249w9/qt4v5249w9.pdf

[23] Clay Hayes, Traditional Bowyer’s Handbook: How to Build Wooden Bows and Arrows.

[24] Comstock, Pail. “Tools”. The Traditional Bowyer's Bible, Vol. 3. Globe Pequot, 1994: 17-42

[25] Hamm, Jim. “Tillering”. The traditional bowyer's bible, Vol. 1. (1992): 257-287.

[26] Loades, Mike. The Composite Bow. Bloomsbury Publishing, 2016.

[27] Balfour, Henry. "On the structure and affinities of the composite bow." The Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 19 (1890): 220-250.

[28] Nieminen, Timo A. "The Asian war bow." arXiv preprint arXiv:1101.1677 (2011).

[29] Hurley, Vic. Arrows against steel: the history of the bow and how it forever changed warfare. Cerberus Books, 2011.

[30] Grayson, Bert. "Composite bows." The Traditional Bowyers Bible, Volume Two (1993): 113-154.

[31] Schmidt, Jeff. “Korean archery”. The Traditional Bowyer’s Bible, Volume Three. 1994: 99-114.

[32] https://www.mandarinmansion.com/article/qing-bow-glossary

[33] Hamm, Jim. “Sinew-backing”. The traditional bowyer's bible, volume one (1992): 213-232. See also: Comstock, Paul. “Other backings”. The traditional bowyer's bible, volume one (1992): 233-257.

[34] Bergman, Christopher A., and Edward McEwen. "Sinew-reinforced and composite bows." Projectile Technology. Springer, Boston, MA, 1997. 143-160.

[35] Allely, Steve. “Eastern Indian Bows”. The traditional bowyer's bible (1992): 165-194. Herrin, Al. “Eastern Woodland Bows”. The traditional bowyer's bible volume 2 (1993): 51-80. Hamm, Jim. “Plains Indian Bows”. The traditional bowyer's bible volume 3 (1994): 115-142.

[36] Edinborough, Kevan Stephen Anthony. Evolution of bow-arrow technology. University of London, University College London (United Kingdom), 2005.

[37] Murdoch, John. "A study of the Eskimo bows in the US National Museum." Report of the United States National Museum for the year 1884 (Pt. 2 of the Annual Report of the Board of Regents of the Smitshonian Institution for the year 1884) (1884). https://repository.si.edu/bitstream/handle/10088/29824/1884_Murdoch_307-316.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

[38] Massey, Jay. “Self arrows”. The traditional bowyer's bible, volume one (1992): 299-320.

[39] Lotz, Mickey. “Arrows of the world”. The traditional bowyer's bible, volume four (2008): 213-254.

[40] Longbow arrows usually weighed around 70-90 grammes, while composite bow arrows were between 20 and 40 grammes. Large composite bows, such as the Manchu bow, shot 100 gram arrows. [28] Arrows measured between 45 and 150 cm, depending on the culture and the materials available. For example., South Americans used long arrows in the jungle, to find their arrows back and to not deflect the arrow in the undergrowth. [14][4]

[41] [Sadlo 2012] Sadło, Maciej. "Experimental Studies in the Field of Ballistics on Different Types of Arrow Shafts." Chronika, Volume XI (2021): 76. http://www.chronikajournal.com/resources/Chronika%20volume%2011.pdf#page=82

[42] Waguespack, Nicole M., et al. "Making a point: wood-versus stone-tipped projectiles." Antiquity 83.321 (2009): 786-800.

[43] Dougherty, Martin J. The Medieval Warrior: Weapons, Technology and Fighting Techniques: AD 1000-1500. Lyons Press, 2011.

[44] Baker, Tim. “Strings”, The traditional bowyer's bible volume two (1993): 187-259.

[45] http://www.manchuarchery.org/content/composite-bow-care-and-maintenance