Do those cultures have descendants alive today? If so, they were "good enough".

 

Aschem wrote he that shoots far can shoot near.
Set up a barebow and find out.
"Best bow" is highly subjective. Horse bows are great for shooting off horseback I imagine, other arenas , maybe not so much. Homers Odysseus reportably shot through 12 axe heads. No one believed Troy existed, until they found it. I don't think those Welsh archers we dig up with the deformed skeletons devoted their lives to something they couldn't master. I think they could shoot the lights out.

 

Think but will never really know.

 

In ancient times variations on the longbow type were usual in most of the world if suitable timber or bamboo was available. In the Turkic regions, China, Mongolia and Korea short recurves were used with composites of wood, ramshorn and sinew. Cave drawings dating as far back as 60,000 years show the unmistakable arc of the longbow. It put the arc in archery. Recurves may just be a passing fad. - lbg

 

Recurves may just be a passing fad statement is an argument you would never win, there are records dating back to 2000 bC of Egyptians using recurves, recurves have been around in forever in one form or another, to say that they're just a passing fad is like saying sword fighting and fencing are just a passing fad!!!!!

 

How good would you be if archery was your job? And I mean if you weren't good you didn't eat. Practicing 8 hours a day and thinking about it for four hours.

I know when I'm on a 2 week hunt, I'm much better at the end then the beginning. Nothing else to think about except putting the arrow where you want it.

Bowmania

 

Accuracy by volume was the rule.

 

The Mongol armies of Genghis Khan used a composite bow made out wood, sinew and horn.

It was mass produced as well the arrows & strings : shot swiftly, it was the equivalent of the AK47 weapon.

It was enormously efficient, particularly in mass formations . . .

It wasn’t the epitome of accuracy, however.

It depended the mass formations used strategically for results.

–––––––––––––––––––

Hunting is another matters.

The hunters depended on stealth and close quarters to be effective.

The killing zone - the size of hand’s breadths & shooting less than 20 meters - brought consistent results . . .


regards,

John

 

For military use, massed fire was probably the norm. Archers weren't expected to hit an individual in a vital area, they were expected to hit a group of hundreds of soldiers. Much like volley fire with muskets and rifles.

 

At hunting ranges my selfbows even with stone points shoot well enough to hunt with. Native Americans (east coast usa) used bows between 35-45 lbs. i have seen some of the smithsonian collecting and the eastern woodland bows were not the stout poundages people think they would be. I have made exact replicas of 2 bows in the smithsonian collection in respect to length and width and thickness and they are 31 and 35 lbs.
Aboriginal cultures hunted often in groups and I doubt the same ethical hunting habits that exist today were even thought about then. In the day of the atlatl hunters just lobbed darts into the herd.
In the next few days i will make a stone point and arrow and shoot it from a selfbow as a covd19 project and post the video here.
60,000 years of primitive bow hunters killed more game with stone points and self bows then modern hunters will ever kill with modern bows and steel bladed points. I chuckle sometimes when guys are talking to me at the shop thinking one needs a 70lb modern compound with a 2+ inch mechanical to kill a whitetail. sure it's more effective but in PA woodlands shots are rarely over 25 yds and it certainly isn't necessary.
It should be noted Taking a stone point in the torso during battles in the distant past was a death sentence without modern medicine.

 

At hunting ranges my selfbows even with stone points shoot well enough to hunt with. Native Americans (east coast usa) used bows between 35-45 lbs. i have seen some of the smithsonian collecting and the eastern woodland bows were not the stout poundages people think they would be. I have made exact replicas of 2 bows in the smithsonian collection in respect to length and width and thickness and they are 31 and 35 lbs.
Aboriginal cultures hunted often in groups and I doubt the same ethical hunting habits that exist today were even thought about then. In the day of the atlatl hunters just lobbed darts into the herd.
In the next few days i will make a stone point and arrow and shoot it from a selfbow as a covd19 project and post the video here.
60,000 years of primitive bow hunters killed more game with stone points and self bows then modern hunters will ever kill with modern bows and steel bladed points. I chuckle sometimes when guys are talking to me at the shop thinking one needs a 70lb modern compound with a 2+ inch mechanical to kill a whitetail. sure it's more effective but in PA woodlands shots are rarely over 25 yds and it certainly isn't necessary.
It should be noted Taking a stone point in the torso during battles in the distant past was a death sentence without modern medicine.

Ironically, however, the local guys, all good shots and excellent hunters, wind up losing more deer over the seasons than the goofy young guy chasing deer with his homemade longbows or their kids who are just getting started. The mechanicals are hit-or-miss, and it definitely seems to be increasing the demand for "more power" from archery gear to compensate. Their kids all have good success rates, though, because they match the lighter bows with cut on contact heads. After long enough, the idea that anything less actually works becomes forgotten and the effectiveness of a heavy arrow and cut on contact head forgotten. We learn so much that we wind up forgetting how things work fundamentally :sbrug:.

 

Good answers here, but a lot of you went farther back then I thought you would, how about the Persian archers when Persia conquered the world, and how good were the roman archers, or did they like you said really not concentrate all that much on accuracy, both those empires most have had some incredible archers would they not? And the Egyptian archers? I know that accuracy was often not important but there must have been times when things were spread out when an archer Had to single out a certain enemy and hit accurately, I know i must be going too deep here but i dont believe that war archers never concentrated on singling out one man say with a sword in the confusion of war

 

Farther back yet, look at the cave painting. You see a number of Hunters around a kill with a dozen arrows in it. They were much better trackers than than we are today. They also spent much more time hunting learning hunting skills. Likely shot a lot more arrows than we do.

Although there are some remarkable shots recorded in history, like we on the internet they did not brag about there misses.

 

When you consider there were laws on the books requiring constant practice with the bow such as in England I would have to agree that some became very very good at it.

 

Some of those people grew up with a bow in hand. Indians shot through hoops on horseback. The English practiced "Reed shooting" at various yardage. Whether they shot for volume during war or to put meat on the table, in archery accuracy is the point [ pun intended ].

 

What I love about the old cave paintings is the arrows are often in the does/cows, not the antlered critters. Guess they hadn't developed trophy hunting yet then...

 

You don't have to go back a couple of hundred years to find examples of archery excellence ... back in 1951...
English archer Frank Bilson shooting a York round (100yards 80yards and 60 yards) with an all wooden English long bow and wooden arrows .. scored an astonishing grand total of 813 .... if you think that's easy ... give it a try

 

Don't know about ancient archers from years gone by... but this ancient archer has to work harder for good accuracy with every passing year.