PtR-SiyM (j'*'f>n » 0) MoQERN ^tRSV'^^ N American N Ar-\t Rl CAM MoToKoloqical C la^si f ica.t i on Composite Bovn/s Btlov^ A tKt bows art o| woool. or^ Worn. Alaove A tKt bows art o| wood. «n<a/ korn. — 2 Henry Balfour.—The Archer s Bow in the Homeric Poems. There are two principal references to the Homeric poems with which we are mainly concerned in connection with this study : (1) The description of the bow of Pandarus in the fourth book of the Iliad (line 105 et seq.). (2) The description of the bow of Odysseus given in the twenty -first book of the Odyssey. According to Homeric tradition, these two bows were derived from different for sources ; that of Pandarus (a Lycian of Asia Minor) was apparently made locally Iphitus, Pandarus himself ; the bow of Odysseus (chief of Ithaca) was given to him by son of Eurytus, king of CEchalia, which most authors have located in Thessaly. How Iphitus came by this bow does not transpire. Thus, although the bow of Pandarus was definitely of Western Asiatic origin, the Odyssean bow had been derived from a Greek source, though we have no direct clue as to the country of its manufacture. In spite of the possibly different provenences of the two bows which Homer had in mind, it is well to consider both together, since the two descriptions seem to a great extent to supplement one another, and together help to explain the type of bow referred to by the poet. In endeavouring to arrive at a diagnostic conclusion, we must bear in mind that Homer, in all probability, was not himself addicted to archery, and that his knowledge of the bow was derived from casual and uncritical observation, rather than from any practical experience. He was a ballad-monger, not a soldier ; an artist, not a scientist ; a romanticist rather than a pragmatist. Hence, in describing even familiar objects, accuracy in detail concerned him less than picturesqueness in expression. A master of epic poetry and narrative, wholly satisfying as such, he yet leaves us longing for details which he might have supplied, and we have to struggle to fill the gaps which he leaves in the archaeological picture. He often, no doubt, describes what he saw, though with an uncritical eye, and his descriptions have a real value to the archaeologist, inasmuch as they afford, at least, suggestive hints of actuality ; and, moreover, their very meagreness, by leaving us unsatisfied, tends to stimulate enquiry on scientific lines. Of the bow of the Lycian Pandarus, Homer informs us that it was of large size (fieya Tofo-') and was made from the horns of a wild goat (l^uXov 01709 aypiov) which were 16 handbreadths in length (eKKaoSeKeiSaipa) ; that these had been prepared, fitted together, polished and furnished with gilded tips by a skilled artificer (a worker in horn, Kepao^oo'; T€KTa>v) ; that the bow was kept, when off-duty, in a bow-case (Boeia). (cf. icrvXa to^op) ; that the bow-string was made of ox-sinews {vevpa When drawn, the bow assumed an extreme curvature {KVKkorepe'i fieya ro^ov erewev). These are points which are germane to our enquiry into the .structure of the bow, and I omit reference to other incidental points which have no special bearing upon this problem. — Henry Balfour.—The Archer's Bow in the Homeric Poems. 3 Thf bow of Odysseus, we are told, was also of large size {fJ^eya ro^ov), and \\as kept in a decorated bow-case (yoypurw, o? ol -jrepiKeno t^aeu'o?). Again, the only material mentioned in connection with its construction is hont. In its unstrung {iraXivToio';), state it was refiexed curved or sinuous {uyKvXa or tcafiTrvka) ; this is a very important point repeatedly emphasized by Homer. The surface was polished [ev^oov). The bow was exceedingly difficult to string, and part of the test imposed upon her suitors by Penelope was to string the bow as a preliminary to shooting with it. Leiodes failed and so did Eurymachus and others of the yomiger men, and even the son of the house, Telemachus, did not succeed in stringing this mightv weapon. We may gather that knack, as well as strength, was required for the stringing, since Odysseus strung the bow without effort [arep o-TrouSr;?). " even as an expert on the phorminx and in minstrelsie easily strains a cord around a new tuning- peg." In order to render the bow more supple and yielding, the suitors warmed it at the fire and anointed it well with fat. That the bow was very liable to injury from damp and other causes, we may infer from the fact that not only was it j^ro- vided with a protecting bow-case, but Odysseus never took it to sea with him on his expeditions, always leaving it at home. These are the chief points in the Homeric rendering to which I wish to call special attention. Shooting-bows, in general, may be classified into four principal groups : " " (1) The plain or self bow, consisting of a single stave, usually of wood. (2) Compound bows, built up by uniting two or more staves of similar materials. (3) Composite bows, in which the bow is formed by the union of staves of different materials. (4) Sinew-backed bows (a variety of the composite bow), in which increased strength and resiliency are given by the addition of a layer of longitudinally- disposed sinews. This elastic reinforcement is applied to the back of the bow, i.e. the surface which, in shooting, is furthest from the archer. It is with the last two groups that I am especially concerned, since, as I pointed out in 1889, sucli evidence as we have clearly indicates that the Homeric bows were of composite .structure reinforced with a smew-backing. Let us consider first the material of which the bows both of Paudarus and Odys.seus are said to have been constructed. In both cases horn is the only material mentioned. In the description of the bow of Pandarus it is specified that the horns used in its construction were those of a wild mountain goat, killed by Pandarus himself, and therefore, ])resuniably, locally. The local sjjccies of wild goat in Western Asia Minor is the Persian Wild Goat, or Pasang {Capra hircus aegagrua), which is and was abundant in the Taurus Mountains, at no great distance from the Lycian home of'Pandarus, and is commonly believed to be the parent stock from which tlio domesticated goats are descended. ! 4 Henry Balfour.—The Archer's Bow in the Homeric Poems. If we examine the horns of this wdld goat, we readily observe two facts. Firstly, we cannot fail to note that if the natural horns, after being cut off the skull, were " merely set base to base and miited by means of a centre-piece or " grip (tttJ^h?), as seems to be suggested by several writers upon the subject,^ the resultant bow, while it might possess artistic qualities and gratify poetic aspirations, would be entirely useless for purposes of archery. The horns would be practically imbendable, and would virtually have no resiliency at all, since, as in all the cavicorn ruminants, the FIG. 1. HOKK or THE PERSIAN WILD GOAT AND DISSECTION SHOWING THE BONY CORE WHICH SUPPORTS THE HORN SHEATH. 0-6 AND C-d, TRANSVERSE SECTIONS THROUGH THE HORN AND THE CORE. horns of the goat grow upon a central rigid core of bone (Fig. 1). Were they flexible, they would be of little practical use to the goat Moreover, if the sheathings of true horn were drawn off their bony cores, the result would hardly be more effective, since, owing to their shape and structure, they would still remain practically inflexible. Hence we may, I thinlc, confidently rule out the suggestion that the entire horns could have been so used, whether with or without their skeletal supports of bone. 1 Cf. T. P. Seymour, Life in the Homeric Age, 1907, p. 668, Henry Balfour.—The Archer's Bow in the Homeric Poems. 6 Indeed, some more elaborate process of manufacture than that of merely joining together the pair of natural horns is indicated by the statement thnt a speciahst (Kepao^6o<; tsktuv) was called in to make the bow. Secondly, we may notice that if, as was suggested by Colonel Lane Fox in 1877,^ strips or staves were cut from the horns to make the bow, the resultant weapon would be so weak and flexible that a small child could easily string and draw the bow, which would still be ineffective as a serious weapon. Staves of sufficient thickness and width to serve the purpose vnaided could not be cut from the horns of a single animal. Only the front and hind narrow marginal ridges would furnish material of any degree of thickness, and even these would be far too thin and narrow (see Fig. 1, transverse sections, a-b, c-d). That the horns must have been cut down, in length at any rate, may reasonably be inferred from Homer's statement as to their length — 16 handbreadths each {eKKaiBeKdSwpa), equivalent to about 48 to 50 inches, an unusual though by no means unrecorded size for this species of goat. H these, or staves cut from them, in their full length were united together end to end, the bow would have measured 96 to 100 inches m length (8 feet to 8 feet 4 inches). If it was Homer's intention to convey this impression, we must, I fear, conclude that, in describing the fieya to^ov, or " long-bow," of Pandarus, the poet was also, metaphorically, " drawing it." It has been suggested to me more than once that the fact of Odysseus remaining seated while he discharged his " test " arrow (e'/c ^ij>poio Kadrj/Mevo';, Odyssey, xxi, 420) proves that the bow cannot have been of great length.