Irish Early Bronze Age Bows: form and function by Stephen Lalor, BA (Mod.), MLitt, PhD The thesis is submitted to U.C.D. in part fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of MSc in Experimental Archaeology U.C.D. School of Archaeology Supervisor: Dr Barry Molloy Head of School: Professor Aidan O’Sullivan August 2023  Table of Contents Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv Statement of Original Authorship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .v Chapter 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 The bow. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 The position up to the end of the 20th century . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 The current state of knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 The current approach to the subject. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 The structure of the study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Note on units. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Chapter 2 Irish Early Bronze Age bows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 The Barrysbrook Bow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 The Newtowndonore Bow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 The North Donegal Bow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 The Enniskeeen Bow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 The Ballymackeehola Bow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 The Drumwhinny Bow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 General features. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 The furrows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 The eyelets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Bow length . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 The back vs. the belly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 The sapwood. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Chapter 3 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Approaches and problems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19 Experimental archaeology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Technical considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Chapter 4 The Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Arrow velocity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Force/Draw relationship. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 The yew bow. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 The manau bow. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 The hickory bow. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Chapter 5 Interpretation and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Summary of the results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Issues of interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Skill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Restricted access. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 The furrows. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Chapter 6 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Significance of the furrows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Expertise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Hunting and conflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Inspiration for the furrows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Future options for study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47 Appendix I - Other possibly prehistoric Irish bows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47 Appendix II – A note on wristguards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Illustrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Bibliography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79  Abstract The project aimed at addressing a gap in our understanding of the place of archery in Bronze Age Ireland presented by the relative absence of archery in the literature. The study examined the six prehistoric Irish bows that have come to down to us, all from the Early Bronze Age, to help fill that gap. All were found to have exceptional design features with at least four of these bows having furrows running along the belly of the bow, a feature for which there is evidence nowhere else. Drawing on the principles of experimental archaeology the study compared the performance of three sample bows before and after furrows had been cut to replicate the Early Bronze Age bows. The results showed a negative but insignificant impact on the bows’ performance. The study concludes that the purpose of the furrows was display, whether of prowess, prestige or authority. The furrows were probably related to the Bow-Shaped Pendants of the contemporary Bell Beaker Culture in Britain and the Continent.   Statement of Original Authorship I hereby certify that the submitted work is my own work, was completed while registered as a candidate for the degree stated on the Title Page, and I have not obtained a degree elsewhere on the basis of the research presented in this submitted work. Acknowledgements There are many people to whom I am very grateful. I should like to thank Dr Niamh Curtin, Assistant Keeper of Irish Antiquities, and Dr Bernard Gilhooly, both of the National Museum of Ireland and Niamh Baker, Curator of Archaeology, National Museums, Northern Ireland, for facilitating my access to their holdings. I should like to thank Mr Tristram Whyte, Conservation, Policy & Fundraising Officer, Irish Peatland Conservation Council for advice on dating bogs. Ms Traudi Ferguson gave me most valuable help with her translations from the German and Mr Tom Moylan, President of Greenhills Archers Club, provided valuable technical advice and assistance. My thanks also go to Dr Barry Molloy for his advice and guidance and to Professor Aidan O’Sullivan for encouraging me from the very start of my foray into archaeology. My very special thanks go to Dr Eamonn P. Kelly, retired Keeper of Antiquities in the National Museum of Ireland, an e-mail from whom started me on my journey in the first place. And, finally, my heartfelt thanks to my wife, Louisa Edwards, for her sterling advice and her heroic proofreading which kept my egregious spelling within the bounds of literacy.  Chapter 1 - Introduction The Bow The invention of the bow, (Figure 1.1), created a light, portable weapon of considerable power. It essentially consisted of two levers joined in the middle, the whole under stress from a string which joins and draws the tips to form a portable store of potential energy, which can shoot projectiles accurately up to about 150 metres. Although it is apparently a simple mechanism, it will be useful at the start to clarify a number of technicalities and names of parts. Figure 1.1 Parts of a self-bow. The part of the bow facing away from the archer is called the back of the bow and comes under great tension when the bow is drawn. On the other hand, the part of the bow facing the archer is called the belly of the bow and is compressed when the bow is drawn. The brace height is the distance from the belly of the bow to the point on the bowstring where the arrow is held (called the nocking point), when the bow is at rest. The grip is the part of the bow held by the archer. It is located just below the centre point that the arrow passes on release. The grip sometimes has extra material left on the bow for added strength. The draw length is the distance from the belly of the bow to the archer’s fingers when the bow is drawn but before the arrow is released. The string is usually held in place at the tips of a bow by notches called bow nocks although exceptionally in the case of the Irish Early Bronze Age bows, eyelets were used instead. The distance between the nocks or eyelets is called the bow’s effective length. A self-bow is a bow made from a single piece of timber, Six bows have survived in Ireland from the Early Bronze Age whose ages span the 700 years from 2200 B.C. to 1500 B.C. They roughly coincide with the Bell Beaker phenomenon in Ireland and, as no Bell Beaker bows have been recorded elsewhere (Clément 2021 p. 29), they may well be the only Bell Beaker bows to have been retrieved from the archaeological record. More interestingly, the six surviving Irish Early Bronze Age archery bows have design features which appear to show them to be not just functional tools but also to be expressions of an attitude to weapons as boasts of prowess, emblems of authority or symbols of prestige. In particular, at least four of the bows have furrows running along the belly of the bow which are found nowhere else and at no other time on any other bow in the world. From the point of view of archery, the furrows are an intriguing puzzle for they have no obvious purpose. Through replicating the furrows on modern self-bows and observing their effects this study set out to answer the question were they intended for function or display? and hence into attitudes towards weapons in the period. Valuing bows for hunting is what immediately springs to mind. It might seem that, even after the development of farming in Ireland, hunting would be a major activity. Yet only a relatively small proportion of bones of wild animals compared with those of domestic animals has been recovered in the Irish Bronze Age settlements. Although not a settlement, at Newgrange, apart from red deer, the bones of just five wild mammals were found, mountain hare, fox, brown bear, wild cat and, possibly, a wild boar; the only bird remains were goshawk (van Wijngaarden-Bakker 1986 p. 94). This suggests that hunting was not an important source of food for the people of the time, most of their prey being inedible. On the other hand, the large number of Bronze Age swords recovered in Ireland, and the fact that much of the bronze produced here was used for the manufacture of weapons (Molloy 2017, p. 2), tells us that combat was a constant feature of Irish life in that period. Finding a stone arrowhead embedded in the hipbone of someone buried, also in the Bronze Age, at Poulnabrone in Co. Clare (Lynch 1988 p. 106), points to the use of archery in the combat of the period also. Unfortunately, although there have been many arrowheads recovered from the period, direct evidence of bows has been considered slight (Molloy 2017 p. 4). Indeed, consideration of the place of archery in ancient Irish society has largely been absent from Irish scholarship. The position up to the end of the 20th century. The English poet and colonist, Edmund Spenser, in his View of the Present State of Ireland, written at the end of the 16th century, connected the archery of the Irish of his times back to the ancient Scythians (Spenser 1970 p. 57). Irish scholars have, however, given little attention to archery in Ireland before the coming of the Vikings. Writing in 1873, Eugene O’Curry observed It is remarkable that in none of our more ancient historical or romantic tracts, is there any allusion whatever to Bows and Arrows; and what is more remarkable, indeed I might say what is more important, there is no model found for it among the other stone and metal weapons which have come down from ancient times, either in Erinn or any of the neighbouring countries. (O’Curry 1996 vol. ii, p. 272). He went on to say that the story of the murder of Niall of the Nine Hostages, in 405 A.D., by the poison from an arrow of a fellow Irishman ‘. . . contains the earliest reference to the Bow and Arrow that I have ever met with in Irish writings’ (O’Curry 1996 vol. ii, p. 287), and that that story is held by many scholars to be a much later interpolation. P.W. Joyce was actually aware of the existence of flint arrowheads but was moved to remark, in 1912, that It is curious that bows and arrows are very seldom mentioned in our old writings: and the passages that are supposed to refer to them are so indistinct, that if we had no other evidence it might be difficult to prove that the use of the bow was known at all to the ancient Irish. However the matter is placed beyond dispute by the fact that flint arrow-heads are found in the ground in various parts of the country (Joyce 1912 p. 335). He did, however, speculate, in 1913, ‘that bows for archers were made of yew as well as other wood; but I have not met with any passage mentioning this’ (Joyce 1980 Vol II, p. 311). Irish scholars continued to be aware of the lack of information available on ancient archery. For instance, Michael Herity and George Eogan, (Herity and Eogan 1978 p. 42) discuss the absence from Ireland of Neolithic bows although bows from that time had been recovered in Somerset in England. Some commentary was more concerned to note the absence of evidence for archery in Ireland from about 1500 B.C. essentially until the attacks by the Vikings in the middle ages (Adams and Mallery 1997 p. 78), from when extensive recoveries have been made (Halpin 2008). The current state of knowledge. In the present century the pattern continued unchanged. In reference to both the Neolithic and the Early Bronze Age, while defensive structures in Britain were recognised as being specifically laid out to favour the archer (Mercer 1999 p. 156), archery in Ireland has gone largely unmentioned. In the important analysis of hillforts and warfare in the Irish Bronze Age (O’Brien and O’Driscoll 2017), the weapons considered are halberd, rapier, sword, spear and shield, but there is no reference to archery (O’Brien 2017 p. 405). In the same year, Barry Molloy wrote ‘Without extant bows and a dearth of arrow-shafts, little can be said about the role of archery in combat, although the continued use of lithic arrowheads demonstrates that projectiles may have been used in interpersonal combat’. (Molloy 2017 p. 4) The workmanship, and knowledge of appropriate timber for bow building, acquired over thousands of years of experience, as shown by the Drumwhinny Bow fragment, together with its consequences for both hunting and warfare in the Bronze Age, was, however, remarked on by McHugh and Scott (2014 p. 89). And so, despite the fact that archery is evidence of an important cognitive leap in human development (Daltun 2022 p. 220), Molloy and Horn (2020) discuss weapons, warriors and warfare in Bronze Age Europe and barely mention the bow. This should not really be a surprise considering that the period covered by this study is about 700 years long, for which we have a mere six objects from which to draw inferences. The key challenge to the study of Bronze Age archery is the tendency for most archery tackle, apart from the arrowhead, to decay over time. This has meant that most of our evidence has been lost. There are few enough bows, there are fewer arrow shafts and there is no absolutely certain bowstring. It might be considered hardly surprising that the most recent survey of the field (Waddell 2023) does not mention bows at all. The current approach to the subject Based on academic literature, an understanding of prehistoric archery in Ireland would probably best be inferred by analogy from the practice in contemporary Britain and Europe. The most illuminating bow is that recovered at Tisenjoch in the Ötztal Alps still with the ‘Ice Man’ archer who carried it. He and his bow dated to the Copper Age between 3350 and 3100 B.C. (Junkmanns et al. 2019 p. 285). The bow is covered with the small cut marks of an adze suggesting that the bow was unfinished (Junkmanns et.al 2019 p. 286). Two later bows, from the Early Bronze Age, recovered at Loetchenpass in Switzerland, are interesting in that they have pronounced keels, for part of the length of their bellies. The bows are generally ‘man height’ except for the Ice Man’s bow, which is considerably longer than he was tall (Junkmanns et al. 2019 p. 286). Closer to home, the Meare Heath Bow, which is middle British Neolithic from about 2690 BC, is a flat bow made from yew. It appears to have been made without the sapwood, (the phloem) but including the layer just below the sapwood, (the cambium), which is relatively pliable, elastic and strong (Prior 2013 n.p.). It was probably cut from a tree between 80 and 100 years old. Intriguingly, the back of the bow was covered with tool marks visible under a microscope (Prior 2013 n.p.), suggesting a technique by which the building of other ancient bows might be studied. Perhaps the paucity of scholarly notice of archery in ancient Ireland may be put down to the influence of the Irish sagas and early histories which have, essentially, no reference to archery in those distant times. That, coupled with the generally weak evidence for archery in the archaeological record for almost a millennium and a half, from about 1,200 B.C. to 800 A.D. , seems to have deflected attention from an activity which in other times and places had a central part in the structure of society. The situation began to change with the publication of an account of the Drumwhinny Bow fragment, in the Ulster Museum, by Winfred Glover (Glover 1979) and of a piece about the bow by Alf Webb (1980). Both were confident that the fragment was from a bow but while that identification was rejected by Jürgen Junkmanns in his truly magisterial volume on prehistoric bows, (Junkmanns 2013 p. 297), that rejection was, in turn, rebutted by the present writer (Lalor 2021 p. 23). The present century saw the report of only the second Irish prehistoric bow but it is the oldest Irish bow found to date. In 2001 the Irish Archaeological Wetland Unit recovered the Barrysbrook Bow which was subsequently reported briefly in 2002 in Archaeology Ireland (McDermot et al. 2002 p. 30) and by Cara Murray in Past (Murray 2004 pp. 2-3). And that is the situation as it stands at the moment. The structure of the study This study hopes to fill in, to some extent at least, some of the missing pieces in our understanding of Irish Early Bronze Age archery. In particular it will study the surviving bows for what can be learnt from them and their exceptional design. It is hoped that experimental archaeology can be brought to bear to permit plausible inferences to be made about the significance of those design features to gain an insight into their use for hunting, warfare, and whether they were functional or projections of power, prestige, threats or status. Archaeologists have taken many approaches to learning about the lives of the people of prehistory. The study of the material culture of our prehistoric past has been largely based on the great number of recovered objects of relatively imperishable materials such as ceramics, bones, metals and stone. However, over the thousands of years in which those objects were in use, they were vastly outnumbered by materials of biological origin which played a much larger role in people’s lives. Plants and animals not only nourished people but timber, plant fibre, animal parts, all went into making everyday objects and objects of prestige and value. Such objects survive hardly at all and those that do are often in a very fragmentary state. The scientific study of those objects has provided a treasury of information. When culture, analogy, measurement, robust scrutiny, are brought into the study there is a great deal more that can be done. Framing explanations based on what is believed to be the best available evidence, has formed much of the history of archaeology. It might be called informed speculation. In many circumstances that was probably the only available approach but in the last fifty years or so it has been hugely reinforced by the rigorous application of scientific techniques. Scientific experiments, from the fields of DNA to LIDAR and beyond, have opened up the world of prehistory like never before. In this study, however, we are faced with the challenge of interpreting the furrows on some Irish Early Bronze Age bows. For that purpose, the development of a new approach, that of experimental archaeology, has proved invaluable. It is an approach which has weathered extreme criticism (Peterson & Narmo 2011 p. 28-9), and has emerged unscathed. This first chapter has examined the current state of knowledge of the matter. Up to the end of the 20th century, little attention had been paid to ancient archery in Ireland possibly because little was known about it (although it might also be said that little was known because little attention had been paid). Since the turn of the present century rather more information has come to light and discoveries on the Continent and in Britain have provided stimulus to further investigation. A search through the topographical records in the National Museum of Ireland revealed the existence of un-reported bows, and the distinctive features of Irish bows of the period. Why the bows were built in such an unusual design, and what it can tell us about the relation between contemporary archery and society, are the questions addressed by this study. Because so much of the study is based on knowledge of the bows, and the information is not available elsewhere, the second chapter provides a detailed account of each of the bows in question. The third chapter sets out the approach that was used in this study. Technical considerations of the underlying physics of a bow’s structure were taken into account. The nature of the materials being studied, and the intellectual tools available for studying easily biodegradable material of four thousand years ago, left experimental archaeology as the best means to make the investigation. The strategy of building a replica bow without the distinctive features, testing it, adding the features and testing it again, was adopted as likely to give the clearest and least ambiguous results. The fourth chapter presents the background to building a bow and how bows were used in the experiments, the results of the experiments and an analysis of the results. The fifth chapter provides an interpretation and discussion of the experiments in the context of other features of Irish Bronze Age bows and also of wider studies. The sixth chapter draws the arguments together, offers conclusions based on the experiments and their results, and offers future options for study. Note on units. English archery is so dominant that while archers in continental Europe normally use metric units they also use Imperial units for draw weights and draw lengths, often in the same sentence. Giving equivalents rarely adds clarity, and gives a spurious impression of precision, so the normal mixture of imperial and metric units has been used in this study.  Chapter 2 - Irish Early Bronze Age Bows Introduction In light of the fact that very little has been published about the Irish bows it is necessary to give detailed consideration to the six Irish Early Bronze Age bows that have been recovered so far (Figure 2.1). All the bows in question are in Irish museums, five in the National Museum of Ireland and one in the Ulster Museum. (Four other bows of unknown date, but possibly prehistoric, are held in the National Museum of Ireland and a further, fifth, bow, for which there is good evidence, has since been lost, (see Appendix 1)). The information in this chapter, except where otherwise stated, is either from the museums’ topographical files or the author’s own observations. Named from the places they were found, with approximate dates, the six bows are: The Barrysbrook Bow c. 2,200 B.C., (C14) (recovered in 2002). The Newtowndonore Bow c. 2,200 B.C., (C14) (recovered 2005). the North Donegal Bow c. 2,000 B.C., (C14) (recovered 1986). the Enniskeen Bow, c. 1,650 B.C. (context) (recovered 1885). the Ballymackeehola Bow c. 1,600 B.C., (C14) (recovered 2007). the Drumwhinny Bow c. 1,500 B.C. (C14) (recovered 1890). The Barrysbrook Bow (Figures 2.2 and 2.3) Figure 2.2 The Barrysbrook Bow, found in the Ballybeg bog in the Townland of Barrysbrook, Co. Offaly, after recovery (photograph R.Sands p. 21, McDermott et al 2003 p. 21). Figure 2.3 The Barrysbrook Bow with detail of the tip (IAWU 2001, Appendix 5: Artefact Illustrations, Drawing by Simon Dick). This, the oldest extant Irish bow, was recovered, partly exposed, from a water-filled drain in a bog in Barrysbrook, Co. Offaly, in 2001. The site is at the bottom of Croghan Hill, a conspicuous feature on a landscape with over a hundred prehistoric sites (McDermot et al. 2003 p. 21). The bow has been dated to between 2,399 B.C. and 2,042 cal B.C. (IAWU 2001 p. 28). It was made of yew (Taxus bacata) that was felled at the end of the growing season (IAWU 2001 p. 28). The surviving portion of the bow is 1.36 meters long, is D-shaped in cross-section and is between 0.9 cm and 2.7 cm thick with a maximum width of 3.6 cm, but damage makes it hard to be sure whether or not it was originally wider. The back of the bow is flat, with dark material which may possibly indicate the presence of the wane. The bow fragment itself bends slightly towards the back of the bow presumably warped by the shrinking sapwood. The fragment is also twisted at the broken end. Drumwhinny Bow North Donegal Bow Newtowndonore Bow Barrysbrook Bow Enniskeen Bow Ballymackeehola Bow Figure 2.1 Sketch showing the locations where the Early Bronze Age bows were recovered (the precise place for the North Donegal Bow is unknown). The intact tip of the bow does not have a nock to hold the string, instead it tapers to 1.95 cm in width; is round and with an eyelet 0.25cm in diameter which is 1.6cm from the end of the tip. There is no bowstring mark. The grip was not reinforced. Due to its condition it was not possible to examine the cross-section, and consequently the sapwood-heartwood boundary, as would be desirable in the examination of a bow (McDermott et al. 2002: Murray 2004). A close examination of the surface of the bow reveals small transverse cracks which are diagnostic of sapwood shrinking. The full length of the bow was originally probably about 1.81m. The Newtowndonore Bow (Figure 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7) Figure 2.7 Sketch by the author of the Newtowndonore bow fragments. Three fragments of this bow (Figure 2.7) were recovered in the Bog of Allen, in the townland of Newtowndonore in Co. Kildare, in 2016. It was revealed by a turf cutting machine which, unfortunately, badly damaged it and rendered it fragile, although the find report described the wood as ‘very hard’ and ‘not waterlogged’. After its accession by the National Museum of Ireland (item no. 2016:226) it was determined that the bow is made of yew and it has been radiocarbon dated to 2,277 B.C. to 2,025 B.C. (95%). One tip did not survive, the other tip does not have a nock but has an eyelet almost a centimetre from the tip. There are string marks from the eyelet at right angles to the bow (Figure 2.5), rather than at an angle as might be found on medieval bows as made by a loop or bowyer’s knot. Figure 2.6 Author's sketch of the cross-section of the Newtowndonore Bow (exaggerated for clarity). The find report describes a groove 15 mm wide, but from a close examination the cross-section is more complicated than that. There is a furrow running the length of each section of the bow. It consists of a rounded ridge between two upright sides, very similar to the cross-section of the North Donegal Bow. The sketch of the cross-section (Figure 2.6) may convey the idea better. The furrow runs past the eyelet to the tip of the bow. Figure 2.4 Fragment of the Newtowndonore Bow showing the tip with string marks and eyelet, and suggesting either the presence of a single or double furrows. (private communication). Figure 2.5 Author's sketch of the eyelet showing the orientation of the marks of the bowstring The large fragment is bent at an angle of roughly 60°. Straight length c. 86 cm Actual length c. 92 cm Width (same along length) 2.2 cm The smaller fragment bends very slightly towards the string and has an eyelet at the tip. Length c. 47 cm Width c. 2.0 cm Tapering to c. 1.18 cm Eyelet diameter c. 0.4 cm Distance from tip c. 0.9 cm The smallest fragment is about 26 cm long and appears to have been split lengthwise, the other part being missing. Width of the furrow on the three pieces c. 1.5 cm Depth of the furrow on the three pieces c. 0.1 cm The North Donegal Bow (Figures 2.8a, 2.8b, 2.9 and 2.10) In 1986 the North Donegal Bow was reported to the National Museum of Ireland by a member of the public from whom it was subsequently bought. It is intact and was reported to have been found while cutting turf in north Co. Donegal. It was acquired by the museum in 1986 (item no. 1986:106), but has not yet been reported in the literature. It has been C14 dated to 2128-1926 B.C. (95%). Figure 2.8 a Detail of the North Donegal Bow showing the furrow and one of the eyelets. (© National Museum of Ireland, photographer Peter Moloney). Figure 2.8b Author’s sketch of the cross-section of the North Donegal Bow, exaggerated to show the curved ridge down the middle of the bow (not to scale). Figure 2.9 The North Donegal Bow (© National Museum of Ireland, photographer Peter Moloney). Figure 2.10 Detail of the North Donegal Bow showing transverse cracks (© National Museum of Ireland, photographer Peter Moloney. The dimensions of the bow are: straight 168.5 cm actual 174.0 cm eyelet from tip 1.0 cm eyelet diameter 0.5 cm the eyelet measurements were the same at both tips effective length 171.0 cm The bow is in quite good condition but has a number of cracks along its back. The cracks are associated with small flakes lifting from the surface and appear to be a result of the bow being flexed. Importantly, they do not appear to be the result of shrinkage and so are not evidence of the presence of sapwood (Figure 2.10). The bow has a fracture which appears to have been repaired in modern times with simple string binding. The grip was not reinforced. It did not prove possible to establish which was the upper and which the lower limb. The bow has a furrow, almost the full width of the bow, which consists of two outer ridges with ‘right’ corners, about 1 mm deep, running down most of its length suggesting the omega 'ω' cross-section. It has a central curved ridge reminiscent of that on the Newtowndonore Bow (Figure 2.8b). This feature begins at the actual tip of the bow and runs past the eyelet for about 136 cm. After an absence of about 10 cm, it takes up again for a further 7 cm. The ridges do not reach the far tip. The interruption appears to have been caused by the presence of a large knot. The timber in the North Donegal Bow has not been determined but there are many small knots visible along its belly, most near the centre of the bow. The knots are circular, about 2 mm in diameter, a larger one is oval and about 3 mm x 4 mm. One has fallen out where the bow fractured. Yew has many ‘pins’, that is, small knots from which branches grow (Hodgkin 1951 p. 81), suggesting that this bow is made of yew. Their presence along one side only suggests that the bow is built from a bough from which many small branches were beginning to grow, rather than from the trunk of the tree (brought to my attention by Mr Tom Moylan), which would be considered standard bow building practice. The combination of the flaking on the back of the bow and the knots on the belly of the bow show that the bow was built from a stave which was less than ideal, suggesting that the bow was built more for display purposes than for use. The Enniskeen Bow (access was not possible; no image available) According to the topographical files in the National Museum, the Enniskeen Bow was found in 1884, at a depth reported to be twelve feet, in Enniskeen Bog, near Kingscourt, Co. Cavan, and accessioned by the National Museum in 1885 (NMI 1885:360). The bow, apparently of yew, is well-formed and still strong. There are two different accounts in the files which give different lengths, one 5ft 10 ins and the other 5ft 1.5 ins. The circumference at middle, where it is thickest, is about 10.2 cm; and it tapers to its tips, where provision, without saying what kind, was made for reception of the string. There is a bare description of the bow in the Museum Register but no analysis was subsequently undertaken and it was not publicly reported. Access to the bow was not possible and neither photograph nor drawing of the bow is currently available. The age of the bow can be estimated from the depth at which it was found. Twelve feet is equal to 3.658 m. A bog’s catotelm (the portion of a bog below its actively growing upper layer), typically grows at 1mm per year (Mackin et al. 2017 p. 6), which would suggest the bow is about 3,658 years old. Making a rough adjustment for compaction which would suggest an older bow on the one hand, but for the faster growth of the upper bog layer (the acrotelm) on the other hand suggesting a younger bow, would suggest that an approximate date of 1,600 B.C. would be a reasonable estimate. The Ballymackeehola Bow (Figures 2.11, 2.12, and 2.13) Figure 2.11 The Ballymackeehola Bow showing the reinforced grip (photographs by Richard Weinacht, ©National Museum of Ireland). Figure 2.12 Detail of the of the Ballymackeehola Bow showing the eyelet and furrows. The dark stain indicates that the bow has been heat treated over a fire to reduce moisture and improve compression strength. (photograph by Richard Weinacht, ©National Museum of Ireland). Figure 2.12b Sketch of the cross-section of the of the Ballymackeehola Bow and the Drumwhinny Bow showing the furrows (not to scale). Figure 2.13 The back of the Ballymackeehola Bow showing the eyelet and also the transverse cracking caused by shrinkage after recovery (photograph by Richard Weinacht, © National Museum of Ireland). The Ballymackeehola Bow was recovered on an unknown date in the townland of Ballymackeehola in Co. Mayo. It was dug from a bog by a turf cutter who put it into in the rafters of an outhouse where it lay for decades. Many years passed before it came to the notice of the National Museum (Dr Eamonn P. Kelly personal communication). It was donated to the National Museum of Ireland in 2007 (item no. 2007:33) by new owners of the property, and after conservation in the museum it was radiocarbon dated to between 1,732 B.C. to 1,535 B.C. (95%). The surviving fragment is 131.5 cm long but the bow was probably about 186 cm long originally. The missing portion appears to have rotted away, the end of the fragment being weathered and rotted with extensive woodworm holes present. The remaining limb has a maximum width of 4.7 cm tapering to 2.1 cm and a maximum thickness of 2.25 cm tapering to 2.1 cm. The grip has an essentially 'D' cross-section with a shallow groove. Its width is 2.8 cm tapering to 2.1 cm; its thickness is 3.8 cm tapering to 0.9 cm. The eyelet is 0.5 cm in diameter and is about 1.3 cm from the tip. The back of the bow has the transverse shrinkage cracks which are diagnostic of the presence of sapwood. There also appears to be a clear boundary between the lighter coloured sapwood and the darker heartwood. The belly of the bow has two parallel furrows running from tip to grip and from grip to tip separated by a narrow ridge. The furrows are ‘U’ shaped, less than 1.0 mm deep and up to 1.0 cm at their widest; they both narrow towards the grip and the tip. The furrows give the limbs an omega 'ω' cross-section (Figure 2.12b) slightly similar to the North Donegal bow, above, but more closely resembling the Drumwhinny Bow mentioned below (Figure 2.14). There is a shallow groove on the grip of the bow but it does not follow the furrows on the limbs and may have a natural rather than human origin. The furrows on the limbs do not meet at the grip, so there is no sense of continuity from one to the other. The protuberance on the back of the bow near the present break has no clear explanation. The Drumwhinny Bow (Figures 2.14 and 2.15) The fragment of timber known as the Drumwhinny Bow was acquired by the Ulster Museum (Accession No. BELUM A4032) in 1890 from a private collection. Only portion of one limb had survived but that was enough to have it catalogued as a self-bow made of yew. A C14 test estimated the Drumwhinny Bow to be from between 1,680 B.C. to 1,326 B.C.; like the others described above, it is from the Bronze Age (Hedges et al. 1991 p. 123). Figure 2.14 The Drumwhinny Bow now in the Ulster Museum, Belfast (Glover 1979 p. 324. Figure 2.15 The Drumwhinny Bow fragment (photograph curtsey of the Ulster Museum). The surviving fragment is 17.2 cm long and 3.1 cm at its widest, tapering to 2 cm with an eyelet at the tip. There is no nock. Along its length it has two scooped-out parallel ‘U’ shaped furrows giving it a cross-section resembling an omega 'ω'. According to the museum catalogue, when it was found in Drumwhinny Bog, Kesh, Co. Fermanagh, it was 20 ft under the surface; a leather thong with a knotted end, now lost, hung from the eyelet (Glover 1979 pp. 323-4). It has not been possible to tell if the sapwood is present. An important objection to the fragment being part of a bow was raised in his magisterial Pfeil Und Bogen by Jürgen Junkmanns, to whom it seemed to be 'more than improbable' that it could be a bow at all, although he believed that it might have begun as part of a bow but have been modified to be used in the production of textiles (Junkmanns 2013, p. 297) . That conclusion was rebutted strongly by the present writer, basing his argument on intact, or largely intact, bows of similar date which can be confidently identified and which shared features that Junkmanns found so improbable (Lalor 2021 p. 23). General Features The furrows The furrowed bows are quite exceptional in archery worldwide and are the major focus of this study and will be discussed in greater detail further on. The eyelets While eyelets at the tips of bows are not entirely unknown outside Ireland, they are very rare. Not only do all extant prehistoric Irish bows have eyelets at their existing tips, but some Hiberno-Norse (Cathy Moore - personal communication) and the even later Anglo-Norman bows recovered in Ireland (Rynne 1961 p. 200), have eyelets at their tips, suggesting that it is a characteristic of Irish bow design. The prevalence of eyelets reinforces the view, indicated by the furrows, that the people of the Irish Bronze Age had a bow building and stringing culture which differed materially from that of Britain and western Europe. Jessica Ryan-Despraz (2022 p. 22), suggests that the forms at either end of bows reflect aesthetic choices and are cultural whereas the construction of the body of the bows represents choices about technique and function. Clearly it is not that simple. The eyelets performing a practical function, do not obviously reflect a purely aesthetic choice and the results of the experiments reported in this study suggest that the furrows did not represent a choice about technique and function. Bow length There is some evidence that a self-bow works best when its length approximates the height of the archer (Junkmanns 2019 p. 298). Archers taller than their bows will tend to have arms too long for their bows and be at risk of over-drawing and breaking them. Archers shorter than their bows will tend to have arms too short for their bows and struggle to keep the tip off the ground and will tend to under-draw the bow and loose performance. The lengths of the intact prehistoric Irish bows, and estimates of the original lengths of fragmentary bows when that is reasonably possible, may help to estimate the heights of people in the Bronze Age, when the full range of prehistoric Irish bows becomes available for examination. There is also a suggestion (Ryan-Despraz 2022, p. 23), that smaller bows were too weak for hunting or war and were either toys or practice pieces for younger archers, but that neglects the possibility of the use of poison arrows for both hunting and warfare (Tlatoani 2010, which would obviate the need for a strong bow. The back vs. the belly The presence of the furrows on the bows is so exceptional that it occurred to the author that they might, in fact, be on the back of the bow, possibly to hold reinforcing sinew or rawhide strips. The double furrowed Ballymackeehola Bow (Figure 2.11) is a powerful counter example. It has a reinforced grip, that is, extra timber left on the belly of the bow at the grip to strengthen the bow. It would not make sense to put that reinforcing on the back of the bow. The sapwood Because the bows have been found in bogs, which stain timber, it has often proved impossible to distinguish the sapwood from the heartwood by colour. This is an important issue, particularly in the case of yew. Compared to other timber, the sapwood when left on the back of a bow has very superior tensile strength when stretched as the bow is drawn. The heartwood is much stronger under compression when left on the belly of the bow. It has been shown, however, that the wane (the part of the tree between the sapwood and the bark), and therefore the sapwood, was in fact retained on the backs of prehistoric bows (Junkmanns 2019 p. 301). In the case of prehistoric bows that have been recovered from bogs but not properly conserved, shrinking along the sapwood typically results in transverse cracks. Such cracks are visible in the photographs of both the North Donegal Bow (Figure 2.10) and the Ballymackeehola Bow (Figure 2.13). It would have been perverse for the bowyer to make a bow with the sapwood on the belly (as suggested by J.G.D. Clark (1963 p. 53)), while also placing the reinforcing grip on the back of the bow. It is clear that the furrows, where they are present, are on the belly of the bow. Conclusion In sum, while all the bows under consideration are made of yew, which is normal for the period, they have two features which make them stand out from the bows of other times and places. First, where the tips of the bows survive, all have eyelets instead of nocks to hold the bowstring. While there is a small scattering of prehistoric bows with eyelets on the Continent, many of them have clear nocks as well, suggesting that the eyelet was used to attach a short string designed to hold the bowstring in place when the bow was being stored unstrung. The Irish bows are quite different and point to a community with distinct norms for the building of bows. Secondly, four of the bows have furrows running the length of the bow. Two of the bows, the Newtowndonore Bow and the North Donegal Bow, have a broad rounded centre ridge (Figures 2.6 and 2.8b), and two, the Ballymackeehola Bow and the Drumwhinny Bow, have a narrow ridge (Figures 2.12 and 2.14). Such furrows are found nowhere else, ever, and although we have only four examples from which to draw a conclusion they clearly point to a distinct bow-building philosophy. The examination of the Irish Early Bronze Age bows has provided a great deal of information but the bows also raise many questions. It was quite reasonable for Junkmanns to conclude that the Drumwhinny fragment might not be part of a bow as its remarkable omega 'ω' cross-section had not been found on the limbs of bows of any other time or any other place. As shown above, however, there are four surviving Early Bronze Age bows with that feature. What purpose could that cross-section have had? It might be purely decorative, it might have improved the bow’s performance by lightening the limbs and producing a faster cast (the speed the arrow leaves the bow), or it might have injured the performance of the bow by weakening the compression of the bow’s belly, reducing the bow’s cast. An answer to the question would tell us a lot about the bowyers who built such bows, the archers as hunters or warriors, the community in which they lived, and their place in that community. It was the purpose of the experiments at the centre of this study to attempt to answer that question, and to address at least some of the issues that the answers throw up.  Chapter 3 Methodology Introduction The aim of this research was to gain an insight into life in the Irish Early Bronze Age through the study of the bows from that period that have come down to us. In particular, it was intended through experimenting with a replica bow, to draw lessons from the furrows that run down the bellies of some of the bows. It attempted to approach, as closely as possible, an ‘ideal type’ replica of an Irish Early Bronze Age bow and, by testing the bow before and after the furrows had been cut, to deepen our understanding of the place of archery in that society. The ‘ideal type’ does not accurately represent any particular bow but is a synthesis of the features of the various bows under consideration. Approaches and problems Experimental archaeology consists of recreating objects from the past as accurately as possible, analysing the replicas made, and analysing the process through which they were made and what both can tell us about how they were used and viewed. By this means a great deal can be learned about the lives of the people who made them (Coles 1973 p. 13; Mathieu 2002 p.1). The study of prehistoric archery is particularly suited to experimental archaeology because the biological origin of most of archery equipment means that it usually rots away over time. For instance, there were surely thousands of bows in existence in the Irish Early Bronze age but only six bows of the period are known to have been recovered. With only hints remaining in the archaeological record, experiment is necessary if we are to deepen our insights into the material lives and culture of our distant predecessors. Much has been learned from the recreation of the bow recovered with Otzi, the Ice Man (Spindler 1993), from Stuart Prior’s recreation of the Meare Heath Bow (Figures 3.1 & 3.2; Prior 2013) and from the medieval bows modelled on those recovered from the Mary Rose (Hardy 1976). Recreations can tell us a great deal about the skill and technology which went into the building of the original bows. Figure 3.1 Drawing of the replica Meare Heath bow (Prior 2013). Figure 3.2 Drawing of the Meare Heath Bow (Prior 2013). The bow presents a particular problem because so few prehistoric bows survive and there is no direct evidence from earlier than about 9,000 B.C. (Meadows et al. 2018 p. 113). Only about 200 Neolithic bow and arrow fragments have survived in Europe (Junkmanns et al. 2019 p. 284). No bow older than about 2,300 B.C. has been recovered in Ireland, and none between 1,500 B.C. and the bows from the Hiberno-Norse period recovered at Wood Quay in Dublin. Even if bows were not so rare, experimental archaeology would play an essential part in gaining an understanding of how people in the Irish Early Bronze Age made and used bows and arrows (Marsh 2010 p. 7). Experimental Archaeology Experiments can help us to understand how a bow, in the condition in which it was recovered from the ground, was made and used, stripping out the taphonomy, i.e. the chemical and biological changes it underwent after deposition. Well-formed archaeological experiments control variables, create accurate data sets, and make precise records of the findings to test theories or hypotheses. Experimental archaeology has, for instance, been used to estimate when the atlatl (Figure 3.3) was overtaken by archery in North America (Hughes 1998 p. 363) and the relative effectiveness of the two weapon systems (Bergman, McEwen and Miller 1988 p. 658). Figure 3.3 Drawing of an atlatl and dart, by Ruby Bolding. http://www.choctawschool.com/home-side-menu/iti-fabvssa/2012-articles/the-awesome-atlatl.aspx downloaded 8th January 2020. Experiments with archery for itself began in the 1920s with Sexton Pope (Figure 3.4), who reported on experiments he did, recording the distance that a wide range of quite ancient bows could shoot various arrows, and he carefully reported which bows were 'better' than which (Pope 1923). Unfortunately he did not take into account that bows might be of different design for different purposes nor that some he dismissed were from museums with poor storage conditions. The lives of the archers were not considered at all. Figure 3.4 Sexton Pope testing the penetration of a redwood board 1" thick with a blunt arrow from a 75 lb bow at 20 yards. (Pope 1923 p. 99) The scientific testing of bow performance was given impetus by Clarence Hickman in the late 1930s with accurate methods to determine the velocity and acceleration of bow limbs and arrows (Hickman 1937 p. 404). Further progress was made by Paul Klopsteg (1943 p. 175) as a by-product of his profession as a physicist (Klopsteg 1943 p. 191). Experiments got a boost from the Meare Heath Bow recovered in Britain and dating from about 2,500 B.C. (Clark & Godwin 1962 p. 219). Interestingly, it was bound diagonally with leather bands and strips of a material, probably sinew. Experiments with a replica (Figure 3.5) showed it to be technically very advanced (Prior 2000b p. 19). Stuart Prior concluded that a hunter using such a bow could kill a deer at 50 m, and that the leather bands reduced the noise of the bow, allowing the hunter to get in a second shot at an unsuspecting prey if the first arrow missed (Prior 2000b p. 24). Figure 3.5 Stuart Prior testing a replica of the Meare Heath bow. (Prior 2013 n.p.). Important experiments on the effectiveness of medieval armour against iron arrowheads were performed by Peter Jones (Jones 1992 p. 111), although he was more interested in the quality and design of the armour than the performance of the bow. That said, by demonstrating the persuasive power of experiments, he contributed to the momentum which experimental archaeology was gaining. In 2005, members of a team at the Defence Academy of the United Kingdom in Swindon, in the south of England, conducted war bow trials which build on Jones's work (Bourke & Whetham 2007 p. 58). They replicated the medieval longbow, more accurately replicated metal armour, and measured the kinetic energy of the arrows and the penetration of different types of arrowhead. The British Royal Armouries have also carried out a series of experiments with various weapons, including longbows, to see if the power of early firearms was greater than traditional bows. They established that the velocity of a projectile from an early firearm was about 400 metres per second against that of a bow about 35 metres per second, a clear result (Richardson 1998 p. 51). The study of the 'Mary Rose' archery gives considerable promise for future experiments. A computer based mathematical model of a longbow, created by B.W. Kooi (1993, Kooi & Bergman 1997), was applied to the bows from the 'Mary Rose' and their performance calculated. The performance of replica 'Mary Rose' bows was also tested, and the results were consistent with one another (Hardy et al. 2011). A separate study by Keith Watson (2011) estimated the performance of the 'Mary Rose' bows based on the arrows from the ship and produced figures that were about 30 per cent less than the Kooi results. Since Watson's conclusions were based solely on the energy received by the arrow, however, and did not include energy lost in the limbs when shooting the bow, the difference could be reconciled (Gorman 2016 p, 62). There has been a question over replicating ancient self-bows in modern times as differential felling of the best trees has reduced their quality over the centuries, but the 'Mary Rose' results give us confidence for future experiments on other bows. It is a difficulty with experimental archaeology that archaeologists are trained to approach excavations, their core activity, with an open mind, whilst experiments require a goal clearly specified in advance. For example, Steve Tomka's 2013 experiments were announced as covering the transition from the atlatl to archery. He explored the performance of bows but, without a guiding hypothesis, failed entirely to examine the performance of the atlatl. Weaknesses in the earliest experiments may be excused; Sexton Pope did not take into account that bows might be of different designs for different purposes, nor that some he dismissed were from museums with poor conditions, but his contribution was immense. This study has used experimental archaeology to analyse the Irish Early Bronze Age bows which had furrows running down the length of the belly of each limb, from tip to grip (Figure 2.9), for what they can tell us about life in Bronze Age Ireland, and, perhaps what they can suggest about attitudes to warfare. Many metal weapons and stone arrowheads have been recovered, and many hillforts show evidence of having been violently destroyed. A study of the furrows should add a new string to our bow, so to speak. The objective was to consider the reasons why the furrows might have been made and to suggest conclusions about the place of archery in contemporary life and warfare. It was important that the research be done with readily available resources and within the timeframe allowed. Questions addressed included: What do the bows tell us about the people who made and used them? Do they reveal skill in making them? taste in designing them? ambition in using them? Where did they live? what does the dispersed location of the finds, and the species of timber from which they were made, tell us? Technical considerations The bow and arrow as it existed for thousands of years is a quite a complex mechanism despite its familiarity and apparent simplicity. Importantly, it is a store of potential energy which can be converted to kinetic energy and propel an arrow forward at a vastly greater velocity than any spear or atlatl can be thrown. How that is achieved can be seen from the diagram of a bow (Figure 1.1). The back of a self-bow, one made of a single material, almost universally of timber, is placed under great tension when the bow string is drawn back. In the process it absorbs immense potential energy. Conversely, the belly of a self-bow absorbs potential energy through being placed under compression (Figure 1.1). The goal of the bowyer is to build a bow of a material can best cope with those forces (McEwan, Miller and Bergman 1991 pp. 76-82). Later bows were made of different materials glued together, the materials chosen to manage the forces as best as possible. The early bowyers had not mastered such composite technology but over the centuries they discovered that certain timber could meet the needs of the bow very effectively. The feature which made it possible was the different material qualities of growing timber. As trees grow the cells at the centre of the trunk actually die, the cells lose their walls at their top and bottom and they become merely fine tubes through which the tree draws up water and dissolved nutrients from the ground. The outer living cells of the tree, the sapwood, continue to live and grow, adding girth to the tree over its lifetime. It turns out that the sapwood of most trees has great ability to absorb tension while the ‘dead’ heartwood is much better at absorbing compression. A bow built in such a way that the back of the bow is made of sapwood and the belly of the bow is made of heartwood will perform particularly well. The timber of some trees is much more suitable than others for bow building. Although very serviceable bows can be made of elm, ash and other timber, from Neolithic times it was found that, in Europe, the elasticity of the sapwood and the resilience of the heartwood of yew (Taxus bacata) outshines all other timber. It is not surprising, then, that where known, all the Irish Early Bronze Age bows which have been recovered are made of yew, but it does show that the bowyers of the time had a good command of their craft. Coming back to the furrows of the Irish Early Bronze Age bows, how did the furrows affect the behaviour of the bow?. It was possible that the furrows improved the performance of the bows. A feature of the design of the bow which weakens its performance is the weight of its limbs. When the arrow is loosed the limbs spring forward bringing the string and the arrow with them. The heavier the limbs, the more energy it takes to propel them forward and the less energy is available to propel the string and arrow in turn. Simply put, heavier limbs will lower the performance of a bow, lighter limbs, all other things being equal, will improve the performance of a bow. On the other hand, as the belly of the bow is compressed, clearly the more material in the belly of the bow the more energy it can absorb by compression and, therefore, the more energy is available to propel the arrow forward. This suggests that the more compressible material on the belly of the bow the better the performance. In our case it was not at all obvious which effect of the furrows would be dominant and, indeed, it might well have been the case that the furrows’ effects would cancel one another out. But even if the existing prehistoric bows had been in a fit state to be shot (and the authorities allowed such an outrage), the impact of their biographies would preclude any useful conclusion as to their performance when new. The only way to tell was to build a bow and test it before and after. Strategy The experimental strategy being pursued in this study was to pose the precise question: did the bow furrows improve the performance of the bow, degrade it, or leave its performance unaffected? If improved, it might imply that bows were primarily tools of the warrior’s or hunter’s trade. If degraded, it might imply that the bow held a significant symbolic or ritual meaning (who would degrade a weapon without a powerful reason?). If the performance was largely unaffected it might imply that the furrows were mostly decorative and that they were intended for display, whether or not the bow was also used for shooting arrows. It was decided to perform the experiments using three self-bows, one of yew, one of a type or rattan called manau, and one of hickory. The experiments consisted of taking a self-bow without furrows; testing the bow; and then cutting furrows before testing again to observe the effect of the furrows. Two performances of the bows were measured, the velocity of the arrow on release both before and after the cutting of the furrows and the force/draw curve for the bow, again both before and after the cutting of the furrows. A force/draw curve is a graphical representation of the amount of energy stored in a bow. The ‘x’ axis shows the length of the draw at various distances, typically measured in inches, and the ‘y’ axis shows the force required to draw the bow to those distances, again, typically in pounds. All the graphs were drawn to the same scale which allows comparison to be made between the bows in different states. The higher the force/draw the higher the energy stored. The shape of the curve shows where in the draw the most energy is stored. The slope of the curve shows the rate at which the energy is being stored, whether it is at a fixed rate or varying at different draw lengths. The graphs were generated using force/draw curve software created by Jim Thorne (Thorne n.d.). Issues An issue with this study in that it used only a single yew bow supplemented by two self-bows of other woods. This was forced upon it by the great difficulty in sourcing yew at all, and the extreme difficulty of building a bow from seasoned yew. The present writer has become convinced beyond conceivable doubt that our prehistoric predecessors had the sense to work freshly felled timber although they probably roughed out green staves and allowed them to season to allow for the correction of any buckling or warping before finally finishing the bow. Also, one aims at undertaking experiments that can be replicated. One cannot, of course, replicate the natural material of self-bows exactly and, furthermore, it is not possible to revert to the unfurrowed bow once the furrows have been cut and start again. Nevertheless, it appears to the author that the research reported here is at least exploratory, if not absolutely conclusive. Chapter 4 The Results Introduction The purpose of the experiments was to enrich our insight into the lives of the people of the Irish Early Bronze Age through a greater understanding of their archery practice, particularly their bowyers, and the bows they built. This chapter, therefore, describes the labour which goes into building a self-bow, specifies the criteria the experiments set out to measure, and gives the results of the experiments. A small number of observations are also included which are not directly relevant to the results but may be useful to future researchers in this field. As all the known Irish bows built at that time whose timber has been identified, were of yew, it was decided to begin work on bows of that species. A suitable yew log proved extremely difficult to source but eventually a log of Irish yew (Taxus bacata fastigiate) was sourced from a tree felled on the grounds of the abbey at Monasterboice in 2017. The log (Figure 4.1) was 196 cm in diameter. It was 15.5 cm at its widest and 13.0 at its narrowest (Figure 4.2), i.e. it had an average circumference of about 48 cm. Probably our best estimate of how such bows were built comes from the Tisenjoch bow of Ötzi, the Iceman. He had a bow stave 182 cm long which was still unfinished, and was apparently still working on the bow with his copper axe when he died (South Tyrol Museum 2023 n.p.). An axe of that type could fell a tree in 35 minutes without sharpening (Ursula Frayne College 2023 n.p.). It was decided that while the experiment did not require complete fidelity to Bronze Age technology, a decent respect for the methods of the time would deepen the insights which could be available from the project, without actually having an impact on the finished product. It was decided, therefore, to work on the building of the bow using hand tools throughout the process and so the tools used were from a modern carpenter’s hand tool kit. Figure 4.1 The yew log from Monasterboice Abbey. Figure 4.2 cross-section of yew log showing the sapwood/heartwood boundary. Figure 4.3 splitting the log with hand tools. Figure 4.4 The log split along its length. Figure 4.5 Roughing out the half log with a hatchet. Figure 4.6 The rough stave marked with a centre line for future reference. Figure 4.7 The bow begins to take shape. Figure 4.8 The bow emerges from the stave. Figure 4.9 Tillering the bow. Figure 4.10 Boring an eyelet.  Figure 4.11 The split in the bow. Figure 4.12 The Yew Bow that lived. Figure 4.13 The Manau Bow. Figure 4.14 The Hickory Bow. The log was initially split using hatchets and a cold chisel as wedges, driven by a lump hammer (Figure 4.3). The grain proved reasonably straight and the log split along its length (Figure 4.4). The hope was to make two bows from the log. The work revealed that the log was slightly curved and it was decided to make one bow so that it would have a slight natural recurve. The other bow would have a slight decurve which would make it less suitable as a bow but would make a good practice piece and could also act as an insurance should the recurve prove problematic. Work on the practice piece revealed some cracks in that stave which required its length to be reduced and also that the sapwood had been affected by ivy growing around the log before the tree was felled. Splitting the log alone took two hours and was exhausting. The half log had a ‘D’ cross-section, 15.0 cm straight side and 6.5 cm across the centre of the ‘D’. This stave proved immensely difficult to work and in desperation a hand saw was used to remove some of the material, but only at this stage. Reverting to splitting the stave using wedges was crude and uncontrolled but worked out quite well. The stave was then roughed out with a hatchet (Figure 4.5). The log was marked with a centre line as a guide for future work (Figure 4.6). The curve presented a difficulty but, using a string to cast a shadow, a straight line could be marked. That allowed further, finer, work to be done and the bow began to take shape (Figure 4.7). At this stage, a number of issues intruded. First, the curve of the stave was uneven to the point that the mid-section chosen for the grip would not work. It was necessary to remove more of the tips of the stave in order to produce a reasonably even basic curve. That meant that it would no longer be possible to even approximate a bow with a reinforced grip, such as the Ballymackeehola Bow. A reduction in length to 155 cm meant that a certain resemblance to the North Donegal Bow, 140 cm, was now the nearest possibility. Slowly the bow emerged from the stave (Figure 4.8). After more working it began to be possible to tiller the bow (Figure 4.9). Although not essential, for some verisimilitude, eyelets were bored at both tips (Figure 4.10). After tillering, a number of practice shots were taken. The following day, with the slightest flexing of the bow to string it and continue the experiment, it split with an latidunal crack very close to the grip (Figure 4.11). The failure of a bow that seemed to show great promise demonstrates the important level of judgment and skill required to make a successful bow, and demonstrates that the bowyers in prehistory had immense skill and application to their task. The broken bow was, however, only one of two bows built from the log and it was decided to enlist the other, weaker, bow (Figure 4.12). It was also decided to use a self-bow of manau (a species of rattan) built by the author and modelled on the medieval English warbow (Figure 4.13). Finally, as a commercial yew self-bow could not be sourced, it was decided to buy a self-bow built of hickory (Figure 4.14) from a supplier in the United States of America. In order to ensure reasonable comparability, as many factors as possible were kept constant. Because sinew or other natural fibre is liable to stretch or shrink erratically, string stretch was minimised by using modern Dacron B55/B50 thread. Modern string was used for consistency; the B50/B55 standards have slightly greater elasticity than the ‘fastflight’ strings which have virtually no elasticity, but would be very hard on a timber self-bow. The same standard arrows were used throughout. The brace height (see Figure 1.1) of each bow was kept constant, although that need not make a significant difference (Randall 2016 p. 100). The un-strung profile of each bow was unchanged throughout. Arrow nock friction was kept constant through the use of the same string and serving throughout (‘serving’ is a thread wrapped around the bow string at the part where the arrow nock is held by the archer). The tests were run over the shortest possible period of time to ensure constant humidity (something which can affect both bow and string), and comparable results. Figure 4.15 the ‘ProChrono Pal’ chronograph The study focused on two properties of the bows, the release velocity of arrows from the bows and the force necessary to draw the bows at different draw lengths. Arrow velocity Arrow velocity was measured using a ‘ProChrono Pal’ chronograph (Figure 4.15), which measures the time it takes for an object to travel between two light sensors. The first sensor detects the change in the intensity of the light as the projectile passes above it and initiates a timing mechanism which runs until the projectile passes above the second sensor. An LCD display on the front of the chronograph converts the time taken to pass between the sensors into the velocity of the projectile. Force/Draw relationship The force required to draw the each bow, the draw weight, was consistently measured at different distances from the bow, in one inch increments. Measuring was done at increasing lengths in order to minimise the distortions of possible hysteresis (Randall 2016 p. 130). Hysteresis might cause different draw weights to be produced depending on whether the bow was being gradually drawn from brace height or gradually released from full draw. Graphs showing the measurements as force/draw curves were created to assist analysis. To avoid the experiments being vitiated by the bows breaking it was decided to keep draw weights below that normally used by practicing archers. In the event, the string on the yew bow failed during the second round of tests but the results recorded did remain significant.  The yew bow The yew bow was tested, furrowed and then retested. Dimensions Bow Length 54 inches String Length 52 inches String Type B55 Dacron String Strands 12 Brace Height 5 inches Draw Length 18 inches Peak Draw Weight 13 lbs Arrow Weight 448 grains Yew bow test results (for force/draw curve see Figures 4.16 and 4.17). Draw length draw weight un-furrowed Draw weight furrowed 8 ins. 4 bs 4 lbs 9 ins. 4.5 lbs 4.5 lbs 10 ins. 5 lbs 5 lbs 11 ins. 6 lbs 6 lbs 12 ins. 7 lbs 7 lbs 13 ins. 8 lbs 8 lbs 14 ins. 9 lbs. 9 lbs 15 ins 10 lbs 10 lbs 16 ins. 11 lbs 17 ins 12 lbs 18 ins 13 lbs Average Release velocity: Un-furrowed 66.6 fps Furrowed 67.0 fps Bow Mass: Un-furrowed 279 grams Furrowed 274 grams Weight of furrow material removed 5 grams  The manau bow The manau bow was tested, furrowed and then retested. Dimensions: Bow Length 70 inches String Length 63.5 inches String Type B50 Dacron String Strands 18 Brace Height 7.25 inches Draw Length 24 inches Peak Draw Weight 32 lbs Arrow Weight 448 grains Manau Bow Test Results (for the force/draw curve see Figures 4.18 and 4.19). Draw length draw weight un-furrowed Draw weight furrowed 8 ins 7 lbs 6 lbs 9 ins 8 lbs 8 lbs 10 ins 10 lbs 10 lbs 11 ins 12 lbs 11 lbs 12 ins 13 lbs 13 lbs 13 ins 15 lbs 15 lbs 14 ins 16.5 lbs 16 lbs 15 ins 18 lbs 17 lbs 16 ins 19.5 lbs 19.5 17 ins 22 lbs 21 lbs 18 ins 23 lbs 22 lbs 19 ins 24.5 lbs 24 lbs 20 ins 26 lbs 26 lbs 21 ins 28 lbs 27.5 lbs 22 ins 30 lbs 30 lbs 23 ins 31 lbs 31 lbs 24 ins 32 lbs 33 lbs Mean Average Release Velocity Un-furrowed 76.2 fps Furrowed 74.8 fps Bow Mass Un-Furrowed 772 grams Furrowed 753 grams Weight of furrow material removed 19 grams  The hickory bow The hickory Bow was tested, furrowed and retested. Dimensions Bow Length 72 inches String Length 63.5 inches String Type B50 Dacron String Strands 14 Brace height 6.5 inches Draw Length 24 inches Peak Draw Weight 34 lbs Arrow weight 448 grains Test results: Draw length draw weight un-furrowed Draw weight furrowed 8 ins 7 lbs 6 lbs 9 ins 8 lbs 8 lbs 10 ins 10 lbs 10 lbs 11 ins 12 lbs 11.5 lbs 12 ins 14 lbs 13.5 lbs 13 ins 16 lbs 15 lbs 14 ins 17 lbs 17 lbs 15 ins 18.5 lbs 18.5 lbs 16 ins 20 lbs 19.5 lbs 17 ins 22 lbs 22 lbs 18 ins 24 lbs 23 lbs 19 ins 26 lbs 25 lbs 20 ins 27 lbs 26.5 lbs 21 ins 29 lbs 29 lbs 22 ins 30 lbs 30 lbs 23 ins 32 lbs 32 lbs 24 ins 34 lbs 34 lbs 25 ins 36 lbs 36 lbs Mean Average Release Velocity Unfurrowed 86.7 fps Furrowed 83.0 fps Bow mass Un-furrowed 470 grams Furrowed 458 grams Weight of furrow material removed 12 grams For the Force/Draw Curve for the un-furrowed hickory Bow see Figure 4.20, and for the furrowed hickory Bow see Figure 4.21. Figure 4.16 Yew Bow un-furrowed – Force/Draw Curve Figure 4.17 Yew Bow furrowed - Force/Draw Curve Figure 4.18 Manau Bow un-furrowed - Force/Draw Curve. Figure 4.19 Manau Bow furrowed - Force/Draw curve. Figure 4.20 Hickory Bow un-furrowed - Force/Draw Curve. Figure 4.21 Hickory Bow furrowed - Force/Draw Curve. The three bows with their furrows are shown in Figure 4.22. Figure 4.22 The three bows after the grooves had been cut.  Chapter 5 Interpretation and Discussion Introduction In this chapter, the results of the experiment are discussed together with the techniques used. Issues with the control of variables are considered in relation to the reliability of the results. The general outcome of the experiment is discussed and an hypothesis generated to explain the outcome. The documentation of the experiment consisted of written descriptive notes of the experiments as they were being undertaken, photographs, and the recording of data of the arrow velocities and the draw weight/draw length relationship. Each played its part. The descriptive notes were an important discipline in ensuring that what was being done was what was intended. The photographs add a visual sense of the overall experiment. The experiment rested on the data collected during the tests. It was hoped to control the variable of air speed when doing the velocity test by doing it indoors. The equipment refused to work indoors as the only lighting available was fluorescent, which is unsuitable because it is intermittent. Fortunately it was possible to conduct the tests outdoors on two separate days each with wind speed zero on the Beaufort scale. Variable humidity, which could affect the behaviour of both the timber and string of the bow, was controlled for by conducting the tests on days of similar humidity and temperature, an issue which had not been foreseen but worked out by chance. The possibility of arrows of different weights affecting the results was avoided by using a set of matching arrows which varied in weight by less than 2 grams. Summary of the results The yew bow was a weak bow with a peak draw weight of 13 lbs at 18 ins. The low draw distance was chosen to avoid the bow breaking in the first instance and to ensure comparability between tests. The mass of material removed when the furrows were cut proved very small, at five grams. The effect of the furrows on the draw weights at different lengths was insignificant, although the failure of the bowstring at 16 ins on the furrowed bow, and re-stringing would have introduced too many new variables, meant that a full comparison proved impossible. The average release velocity was very slightly higher on the furrowed bow than on the bow before the furrows were cut, which was a surprise though the difference was slight. The manau bow was a more powerful weapon with a peak draw weight of 32 lbs at 24 ins but for comparison with the yew bow it had a draw weight of 23 lbs at 18 ins. The mass of material removed when the furrows were cut was 19 grams. The effect of the furrows on the draw weight was variable and slight; mostly the furrows lowered the draw weight, but at one length it increased slightly. The average release velocity at 24 ins was a little lower after the furrows had been cut. The hickory bow was more powerful still with a peak draw weight of 34 lbs at 24 ins, and for comparison with the yew, it had a draw weight of 24 lbs at 18 ins. The mass of material removed when the furrows were cut was 12 grams. The effect of the furrows on the draw weights at different lengths was slight; the furrows reduced the draw weight, when the effect was noticeable at all. The effect of the furrows on the average release velocity was to lower it but the difference was slight, a reduction of four percent which was not perceptible to this archer. Issues of interpretation A number of issues need to be addressed in the interpreting of the test results. As a source for the understanding of the Early Bronze Age, the six bows that have come down to us are not necessarily a representative sample of the bows in existence at the time of their deposit. On the other hand, they are the best evidence we have and it is reasonable to make the most of it. Skill One thing learned is the depth of skill and craft which the bows display. Even with modern hand tools, making a bow is a difficult undertaking and making a good bow requires long training and practice. It also shows the level of social engagement involved: the tool makers, the wood workers and bowyers, the string makers, the arrowhead makers, the storage and workspaces, the cooks to prepare the food for all the above, all before the bow and arrow was used. It might be said that in the event of an emergency anyone could make a bow of a poor but serviceable quality, but making a bow that is not likely to shoot straight or with reasonable power is the work of desperation. Anyone with serious intentions will require a good bow and that implies a restricted craft and, almost certainly, a restricted class of skilled bowyers whose position in society would be recognised and rewarded. The furrowed side of the Ballymackeehola Bow, for instance, shows a dark stain suggesting that it has been heat treated (Figure 2.12). Heat treating a bow means heating the belly of the bow to just above a temperature that is too hot to touch for more than a second or two (St Louis 2008 p. 60). The heat reduces the moisture content of the timber and increases its compression strength. Yet another sign of the skill and attention to detail of prehistoric Irish bowyers. Restricted access Not everyone was likely to own and use a high quality bow (Ryan-Despraz 2022 p. 23). Building a bow to a high standard was a difficult undertaking which would have made bows expensive to acquire, however they were paid for, and would probably not be generally available to children and the elderly, and at least some women. There is also the possibility that social norms would have restricted the ownership of bows to a class of hunters or warriors. Heroic literature of later millennia suggests that archery was commonplace among elite warriors, with few references to armies of archers. The fact that bows are made of timber has its own implications. Access to sources of appropriate trees would be, in many cases, not simply a matter of walking into the nearest wood and felling the most convenient tree. It would take knowledge of the best species of timber to fell; practice in identifying the best specimen of tree to fell (or harvest, if the knowledge of how to carve a suitable stave from a living tree was available (Figure 5.1)); judgment in choosing a tree that was knot free, grew in a microclimate that did not cause unfavourable twisting and bending, had straight grain and was of suitable length; and skill in applying the physical effort in removing the stave from the tree. Figure 5.1 Possible method for removing a bow stave from a tree. (Wilke 1988 p. 22). The difficulty of making a high quality bow would be increased by a requirement to cut furrows along its length. Cutting such furrows is not easy and represents an investment of time and effort which requires a lot of motivation. Such furrows are known from no other time or place and clearly speak to a people with an identity all their own. This is not to say that they were cut off from the rest of humanity, physically or culturally, but that they possessed a sense of identity, a sense that ‘this is how we do things even if others do things differently’. The furrows What do the furrows tell us? In particular, what does our experiment tell us about furrows on the Irish Early Bronze Age bow? In the first place, it tells us that the furrows were not easy to cut. Keeping them straight, to an even width and depth was not easy. For a Bronze Age bowyer it would have been difficult. To make the work easier, the initial stave would have been roughed out while it was still green and relatively soft. That stave would be allowed to season. Timber, when green, can warp as it seasons but If the bow was made from a seasoned stave, the bowyer could compensate for any warping that occurred during seasoning. After ensuring that no more warping was likely, careful working could then transform the stave into a straight bow that was not going to warp over time. At last the furrows could be cut, a difficult and skilled task. Although yew is a conifer and so classed as a softwood it is, in fact, harder than some hardwoods so we can say that the furrows were not cut for frivolous reasons. The fact that the furrows were difficult to cut shows that the bows were considered worthy of a great deal of attention and effort, even though the effort involved in cutting the furrows did not lead to an improvement in the bow’s performance. For similar reasons we can dismiss the possibility that the attitude to the bow was one of indifference as mirrored in the silence described in Chapter 1. In addition, the visibility of the furrows means that their presence would be known to the whole community to whom an explanation for their presence would be necessary. Decorating bows is not entirely unknown. One example, admittedly of a much later period, is the decoration of an early la Tène Glauberg bow (Figure 5.2). The decoration was less than a millimetre deep and at first it was thought to imply that the fragment was not a bow. A replica demonstrated that the decoration did not affect its performance and it was concluded that the fragment was, in fact, a fragment of a bow (Flügen and Lessig-Weller 2014 p. 137). Interestingly, like the Irish bows, the ornament was on the belly of the bow. Figure 5.2 The carved ornament on the belly of the reconstructed early la Tène Glauberg bow filled with red pigment. (Flügen and Lessig-Weller 2014 p. 137). More extreme are the hollowed bows of Niederwil-Egelsee from the Swiss Neolithic (Figure 5.3). The illustrated fragment of a bow consist of a burnt tip of yew. It was apparently very finely worked leaving very faint tool marks and required a great degree of effort. The cross-section is a deep crescent shape. It is speculated that the purpose of that shape was to improve resilience and breaking strength (Waterbolk et al. 1991 p. 123). It is not clear if the hollow is on the back or the belly of the bow. A closer contemporary of the Drumwhiny Bow is the Edington Burtle Bow (Figure 5.4) which was found on the Somerset Levels in England. It dates from the British Bronze Age, about 1500 B.C., and has a single furrow on its back, running from the grip of the bow to the top of the bow and a furrow also running from the grip to the bottom of the bow. Its cross-section, too, resembles a 'C'. The only remotely comparable bows of which information was available are both of relatively recent origin and from places a long way from Ireland and from each other. One is the bow with a single ridge on its belly of the Haida people of the north Pacific coast of Southern Alaska and Northern British Columbia (Niblack 1890 p. 289), (see Figures 5.5 and 5.6). The illustrations are not clear but a replica (Figure 5.6) gives a good idea of their shape. The bow generally follows the form of the North American flat bow but has a ridge running down the middle of its belly which resembles the ridge created between the furrows of the Irish bows. The bowyer confirms that the replica shoots straight and that the design works very well (Andres 2017 n.p.). The other vaguely similar bow is a modern Central African bow, of which, also, little is known, which has a single furrow running the length of its belly (Brazier 2019 p. 58). It is not at all clear what purpose those furrows might have had. A digression around nomenclature is necessary. Some modern bows are 'reflexed' with flat tips that might allow the bowstring to shift from side to side (Figure 5.7). To prevent that, they have short grooves to keep the movement of the bowstring true to the line of the bow and the intended target. The furrows discussed here are quite different. Figure 5.3 Niederwil Bow fragment (Waterbolk et al. 1991 p. 123). Figure 5.4 The Edington Burtle Bow (https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/paleoplanet69529/the-edington-burtle-bronze-age-bow-photo-heavy-t54123.html accessed 7th July 2023). Figure 5.5 Haida Bow from Queen Charlotte Island, British Columbia (Niblack 1890 p. 288) Figure 5.6 Replica Haida bow (https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipNeBHCXZNXNXo3wyIP6moPUey2P6U6AJwZMDWUSnOamu7jzlw0ZRL-ctfKRo9CQkQ/photo/AF1QipNLaGLyyBOfxQ6v2Rak9884odGOZFqji3HUUgRQ?key=OWppdWQ5RjhONXppTXp5cEJJdWRycU1rZkd3RFlB accessed 10th July, 2023). Figure 5.7 A modern reflex bow tip showing the nock and the string groove. (author's photograph). Conclusion The experience of attempting to build a yew bow from scratch indicates that a prolonged apprenticeship would generally be required and bowyers would need to be very skilful; not everyone can make a decent bow. Experience, practice, study, all go together to make a more competent, efficient, bowyer. In any community, one who had mastered the knowledge of trees, timber, and woodworking, would be able to fill the niche better than most and, perhaps, become the expert bowyer of the community, perhaps, even, the specialist (Pelegrin 2007). The experiments have shown us that the furrows were not to improve the performance of the bows. On the other hand, not only were the bows built with great labour, time, and skill, pointing to the respect for the archery of which they were a central part. But the attention given to cutting the furrows, and the considerable skill with which they were cut, points to the conclusion that the furrows had an importance and significance of their own.  Chapter 6 Conclusions Introduction This research aimed at gaining an understanding of the significance of the double furrows in some Irish Early Bronze Age bows. The approach taken was experimental archaeology which has been used elsewhere to great effect (Coles 1973; Flores and Paardekooper 2014), especially in the comparison of different types of bows from different periods and different places. Experimental archaeology has not previously been used to examine the effect of changing the design of a bow, looking at it before and after the changes had been made. It was a slightly novel approach which has confirmed its value in this study. Following the experiments undertaken it can be concluded that the furrows had little impact on the performance of the bows. The results suggest that the furrows had no real functional impact and that their significance lay elsewhere. Figure 6.1 Barbed-and-tanged siltstone arrowhead (length 52 mm, width 25 mm) from Ballyglass West, Co. Mayo. (NRA 2009 frontispiece, Photo: Jonathan Hession). Figure 6.2 The Denny Bow of Scotland (Switsur 1974 p. 57). Figure 6.3 The King in Scotland inspecting guard of honour from the Royal Company of Archers. Significance of the furrows It had been expected that there would be one of three outcomes, degradation of performance, improvement of performance or no substantial impact on performance. In the event it was found to be the last. The furrows must, therefore, be meaningful rather than functional. Had the cutting of the furrows degraded the performance of the bows it might be concluded that action of cutting the furrows was, in some sense, a religious or secular ritual imprinting on the bow, for only a serious ritual would justify the deliberate degradation of an instrument that had required so much effort and skill to make. Had cutting the furrows improved the performance of the bows it might be concluded that they had been cut for purely functional reasons. The fact that the furrows made no substantial difference to the bows’ performance implies that their significance lies in their importance to those who saw them, rather than to those who used them to shoot arrows, in a way similar to the contemporary ‘U’ and ‘V’ shaped decorations on shields which were probably invented in Ireland and whose beginnings slightly overlap our period (Hencken 1950; Uncleman 2015 p. 183). The attachment of meaning to archery tackle is known from other sources. While arrowheads of chert and flint were more readily available, arrowheads of unnecessary refinement, which had been made with great artistry, have been found in Ireland. Examples would be the arrowheads of jasper (National Museum of Ireland 1968:8561), mudstone (Gillespie 2006 n.p.), rock crystal (Driscoll 2010 p. 61), basalt probably from the Giant’s Causeway (Ó Néill et al. c. 2001, plate 4), rhyolite (Zvelebil, Moth and Peterson 1990), soapstone (Siggins 2005 n.p.), limestone (Foley 1972 n.p. ), and the beautiful siltstone arrowhead (Figure 6.1), which all testify to their significance as meaningful in themselves rather than being intended for practical use. Fine Armorican arrowheads from modern northern France were apparently intended for display only, reserved for the Early Bronze Age elite (Nicolas 2019 p. 125). A possible instance of a purely ceremonial bow from about 1,300 B.C., is the Denny Bow of Scotland (Figure 6.2), which is made from a less than ideal timber, oak (Quercus) (Switsur 1974 p. 57; Gordon and Webb 1978 p. 20). A modern take is the ceremonial carrying of bows by the Sovereign’s traditional bodyguard in Scotland, The Royal Company of Archers (Figure 6.3). Expertise The bow and arrow weapon system demands great precision. Anyone who has shot an arrow from a bow understands that. Years of practice honing the crafts which are the foundation of archery went into their manufacture. Efficiency in manufacture and in use nudged functional progress and their effectiveness was the foundation of the status they acquired. The effort that went in to making the Irish omega bows shows that the bow played an important part in the lives of the people of the Early Bronze Age. Their manufacture shows years of experience in making and designing bows. To make even a simple bow requires considerable skill. To make a bow of a standard that would be demanded by a serious hunter or combatant required the skill and application of an expert, and possibly a specialist (Pelegrin 2007). The Early Bronze Age bowyers were skilled woodworkers who were well able to bring high standards of design to their sophisticated efforts. Their furrowed bows tell a story of intentionality and agency requiring even more skill and effort in order to make bows that would project the significance conferred on them. It is certainly the case that bows could be a badge of prestige. Because they generally decay when deposited in the ground, few have survived and fewer remain intact. Their ability to retain the signs of their significance does not readily survive their conditions underground. While many durable artefacts of prestige have been recovered from graves of the period, bows have not, due to the poor preservation conditions in graves. The prestige of archery can, however, be seen in some grave related stelae. There is, for instance, the image of a bow and arrow on a stele no. 25 in the cemetery of Le Petit-Chasseur, Sion, Switzerland, which dates from about 2,400 B.C. (Figure 6.4). A similar example which also shows a bow is the stele at St-Martin-de-Corléans (Figure 6.5), in Italy, which dates from about 2,000 B.C. Both stelae show the importance of the bow and arrow for those they commemorate, either those who wielded the bows or those who made them. Figure 6.4 Detail of Stele #25 from the Petit Chasseur in Sion, Switzerland, dating from 2700–2150 BC showing a bow and arrow [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurgan_stelae accessed on 19th February 2023]. Figure 6.5 Detail of Stele at Saint-Martin-de-Corléans Val d’Aoste, Italy, showing a bow.[Wikipedia https://travelbloggeritaliane.it/saint-martin-corleans/ accessed 19th February 2023]. Hunting and conflict Archery was a large part of hunting in prehistoric times but according to Herity and Eogan (1978 p. 216) by the time of the Irish Bronze Age most animal remains found at settlement sites are of domesticated animals rather than wild animals that had been hunted for domestic consumption. On the other hand lots of arrowheads have been recovered. With little evidence of widespread hunting it must be the case that the bows were largely intended for conflict. There remains the possibility that the bows were used for prestige hunting of more dangerous animals such as wild boar (a very fierce adversary) which could be consumed at the kill site. The bow hunting of trophy animals that could be displayed to show the prowess of the chief or warrior who had made the kill, was an association made very explicit in other places such as ancient Assyria (Figure 6.6). Figure 6.6 In a show of royal power the Assyrian King Ashurnasirpal II (883–859 B.C.) hunts wild lions. (Collins 2019 p. 35). Figure 6.7 Artist’s reconstruction of an Irish enclosed middle Bronze Age settlement. (O'Brien, W. and O'Driscoll, J. (2017) Hillforts, Warfare and Society in Bronze Age Ireland, Oxford: Archaeopress Archaeology. p. 445). Although prestige can be gained by prowess in hunting wild beasts, it is in conflict that it is most brutally asserted. The Bronze Age in Ireland looks like a time when warfare replaced small scale combat. Hillforts give every appearance of being defences against organised attack. Double ditches look like obviously defensive features (Figure 6.7). Hillforts suffered catastrophically violent destructive acts reminiscent of battlefields (O’Brien O’Driscoll and Hogan 2018). New technology and tactics for swords, halberds and arrowheads, were developing at the same time (O'Brien 2017 p. 414). On the other hand, a study of Irish Bronze Age swords suggests that the period in Ireland may not have been as warlike as previously thought (Bell 2018 p. 152), but it was certainly not free from conflict. And warfare confined to combat between high status warriors fighting with sword and shield cannot be the whole story. The evidence of recoveries from the Bronze Age battlefield at Tollense in Germany is that many of the causalities were killed not just by clubs and spears but also by bows and arrows (Jantzen 2011 p. 424; Brinker et al. 2015 p. 40). A study at Ejsbøl North, Jutland, Denmark, found that in local conflicts over ten percent of the combatants were archers (Rau 2007 p. 151). The Irish Early Bronze Age bows coincide with Bell Beakers in Ireland and Jessica Ryan-Despraz (2022, p. 90) concludes that Bell Beaker archery elsewhere in Europe was largely for warfare and was linked directly to a high status for its warriors. Given their size, it might seem reasonable to refer to the Irish bows as ‘longbows’. The authoritative British Longbow Society defines a longbow as ‘the traditional type with a stacked belly, horn nocks, and limbs made of wood only. All surfaces shall be convex. Furthermore, the thickness (depth) of the limbs, measured from the belly of the bow to the back of the bow shall at no point be less than three quarters of the overall width of the limb at the same point’ (Hardy, 1976, 9). That definition excludes the Irish bows but our analysis suggests that we can reasonably now refer to the Irish Early Bronze Age bows as ‘war bows’. Inspiration for the furrows A question which the furrows raise is, what could possibly have inspired them in the first place? A digression to the Continent may throw some light on the matter. The Bell Beaker culture arose in Europe about 2,500 B.C. and was associated, not just with the pottery from which it is named, but with a set of archery related material culture that included flint arrowheads, wrist guards and bow-shaped pendants frequently made from boar tusks (Fitzpatrick 2013 p. 43, see also Figures 6.8 and 6.9). Most of the pendants have been decorated in a way that resembles the Meare Heath bow but some of them are relatively plain (see items 1,2 & 3 of Figure 6.8). Their precise role is debated but they have a clear association with archery. It is true that in his article on Bell Beaker archery equipment, Nicolas Clément (2021 p. 29;) says that ‘no Bell Beaker bows have been recovered’, putting it down to the fact that the Bell Beaker people did not live in lake dwellings, the context in which most Neolithic bows have been found on the Continent (see also Junkmanns 2013). Figure 6.8. Examples of bow-shaped pendants made of wild boar tusks (Clément 2021 p. 27). Figure 6.9 Two items of the Bell Beaker Set - flint arrowheads and a bow-shaped pendant (Fitzpatrick 2013 p. 43). Figure 6.10 The main groupings and burial rites of the Bell Beaker Network c. 2400 BC. The hatching shows, respectively, the southern province, the western province and the eastern province. [drawing by Liz James, Wessex Archaeology] (Fitzpatrick 2013 p. 42). Figure 6.11 Late Bronze Age perforated boar's tusk (K65) from Kilgreany Cave (Dowd 2002 p. 85). Figure 6.12 Reconstruction of a grave from Germany with a hypothesized bow placement (Heyd 2007p. 354). Figure 6.13 Boar tusk showing furrows down its inner arc (author's photograph). Figure 6.14 Boar tusk. ( https://saga-of-survival.fandom.com/wiki/Boar_Tusk?file=Boar_Tusk.png accessed 31st March 2023). Figure 6.15 Wristguards and boar tusks (https://bellbeakerblogger.blogspot.com/2016/08/about-bow-shaped-and-rod-shaped.html -accessed 30th May 2023) The comparison with Ireland is revealing. In Ireland, settlement with Beaker pottery appears to begin roughly 2,500 B.C. and ends, again roughly, 1,700 B.C. (Roberts, Uckelmann and Brandherm 2013 p. 25). The recovered Irish bows span the period from about 2,200 B.C. to about 1,500 B.C. which largely coincides with the presence of the Bell Beaker phenomenon in Ireland. The Bell Beaker phenomenon is inferred from a number of different traces, some or all of which may or may not be present. Thus the Bell Beaker phenomenon in Ireland is similar to that on the Continent but is not generally included in the other grouping (Figure 6.10) and is quite different in many ways (Carlin 2019 p. 215). For instance, the diagnostic beakers are rarely or never found in graves, cremated remains are never found in Beaker burials but in food vessels, so it is not surprising that there might be a difference between Continental and Irish fashions in boar tusk ornaments. While decorated bow-shaped pendants have not been recovered in Ireland, boar tusks perforated in ways that would allow them to be worn as pendants or fasteners have been found (Figure 6.11; Dowd 2002 p. 85). As with the Continental finds, most of the tusks found in Ireland are from human burial sites during the Bronze Age (Carden 2012 p. 15). They were generally found in the presence of arrowheads and wristguards, carrying a strong association with archery, and it is even possible that they had originally been buried with bows which have not survived (Sarauw 2007 p. 74). That possibility has been graphically illustrated by Volker Heyd (2007 p. 354) (Figure 6.12). Although there is evidence for contact between Ireland and the European Atlantic coast, hollow-based arrowheads found frequently in Ireland, including at Ross Island, are more closely paralleled in central Europe (Fitzpatrick 2013 p. 59). There was certainly some contact between Ireland and that part of the Continent in which bow-shaped pennants were being made. We may therefore ask if the boar/tusk association which led to the tusks on the Continent being decorated like bows, lead to Irish Bronze Age bows, conversely, being decorated to resemble tusks? An examination of a number of boar tusks shows that they have furrows running down their inner surface (Figures 6.13, 6.14 and 6.15). The existence of boar tusks as bow-shaped pendants and their association with the Bell Beaker archery panoply must strongly suggest that those furrows were the inspiration for the furrows on the contemporary Irish bows. Were they a mark that a bow, or its owner, had killed a wild boar? Or were they simply an emblem intended to associate the owner of the bow with the values of courage, strength and ferocity, associated with wild boars - somewhat like a jaguar on the bonnet, or go-faster stripes painted, on a motor car? It seems probable. Future options for study: There is a gap in our knowledge of arrow hafting methods and the effects of fletching on weapon design. The different designs of arrowheads have proved very useful in organising our chronologies and assembling the evidence for particular cultures but work is needed also to further our understanding of bow tip design and weapon evolution from a functional point of view in the Irish context. Experiments might establish if broken bows had been broken deliberately or in use. The fact that a number of bows survived intact into modern times raises the question of whether or not those recovered in fragments were broken deliberately, and were deposited as votive offerings. Microscopic examination of the breaks should show if the layers on the belly of the bow, or the back of the bow, had lifted away. If the latter, the bow might have broken in use, but if the former, it is more likely that the bow was broken deliberately. Experiments should be undertaken with limb-length staves to develop a test for the direction of breaks. The landscape in which bows were deposited may also have been significant. A desk research on the precise locations, where known, could well give indications of significance. The map of known depositions (Figure Appendix 1.I) suggests that many were deposited near water (although it is difficult to go far from water in Ireland). The interpretation of deposition can be influenced by the state of the bow, whether intact or broken, but also by the context in which the bow was deposited, as was pointed out in the case of bronze weapons (Knight 2019 p. 268). A contextual investigation, as David Fontijn has done for bronze (Fontijn 2008 p. 104), should provide new insights into the identities of the communities in which the depositions were made. This experimental archaeological project has provided the basis for future research into archery in Bronze Age Ireland and points to future work, using that approach on other areas of Bronze Age life where recoveries of material culture are scarce. Framing clear hypotheses based on what is believed to be the best available evidence is not a truth criterion but it is a hugely important heuristic device available to archaeologists, and they should cling to it fiercely. The End  Appendices Appendix I - Other possibly prehistoric Irish bows 1. a bow found in Dundrum, Co. Tipperary (item no. NMI Register No. 3150:Wk297; RIA; old no. R2470); 2. a bow recovered at Glassely, Co. Kildare (item no. NMI Register No. 1945.8); 3. a bow found in an unknown location (NMI Register No. X3703); and 4 a bow found in Derrinlough (item no. 2014:152), Co Offaly, which is unfinished. This unfinished bow is of particular interest for what it might tell us about bow building practice but it has not proved possible to examine any of the bows at the present time. The only other known unfinished prehistoric bow is that of the Tisenjoch Iceman which has roughly a D cross-section and was being built of yew (Taxus bacata). It was formed using an adze which made cuts between 0.5 cm to 1.0 cm as the bowyer turned the stave for convenience (Junkmanns 2019 p. 286). 5. a bow found at Derryfadda which, if it was ancient at all, appears to be lost (Hencken 1935 p. 74; Glover 1979, p. 325). There is a sketch of the find locations Figure Appendix I.1.  . Dundrum, Tipp. Bow Glassely Bow Derrinlough Bow Derryfadda Bow Newtowndonore Bow North Donegal Bow Barrysbrook Bow Enniskeen Bow Ballymackeehola Bow Drumwhinny Bow Figure Appendix I.1 A sketch of the locations where the EBA bows were recovered (the precise place for the North Donegal Bow is unknown). The approximate location, where known, of bows of possible antiquity shown in red italics.  Appendix II - A note on wristguards Archaeologists have recovered many ground and polished stone strips from Irish Chalcolithic and Bronze Age graves (Harbison 1995, p. 91). They call these strips 'wristguards’ because of their position beside the lower arm of the human remains. They have also been recovered in Britain and on the Continent (Figure Appendix II.1). Wristguards have generally been identified with archers’ bracers by archaeologists. There are a number of objections to that identification (Smith 2006; Fokkens et al.2008). First, archers’ bracers are worn along the inner forearm of the bow hand to protect it from the string and to protect the bowstring from loose clothing, during shooting (Figure Appendix II.2). Wristguards, by contrast when recovered in graves, are often found at the outside of the forearm. Secondly, they are vastly over engineered, being made frequently of imported stone when a simple leather strip would suffice. Thirdly, they are frequently too short to be useful for that purpose. Fourthly, they can be the wrong shape, having a lip where they should have a bevel; the elevated lip would make it much more likely to catch the bow string than to deflect it away from the forearm. One can see from the image (Figure Appendix II.3) that the vertical edge at the tips of the skilfully made upward curve is totally inappropriate for use as a bracer. Alternative suggestions for their purpose have been that the wristguards had a ceremonial (Nicolas 2019 p. 134), ritual, status, cultural or social significance (Case 2004, 26). One thinks of the lanyard on a modern military dress uniform and its descent from the string used to join the plate armour of a medieval knight (the 'bracer' is so called from an Old French word brasseüre meaning the part of a suit of armour that protected the forearm). The wristguards certainly have a strong association with archery tackle in the archaeological record but surely not as bracers. Writing as an archer rather than a student of archaeology, may the present writer suggest the possibility that wristguards were, in fact, forearm shields used by archers in combat to protect their forearms from being slashed by knives or short shafted spears (Anderson 2011 p. 606)? Consider the archer with bow and arrow facing enemy combatants wielding swords, knives, or short shafted spears. In close combat an archer’s bow arm would be left very vulnerable. A wristguard worn on the outside of the archer's bow forearm would certainly be a help against a slashing blade, and a deflecting lip would be a useful extra. As such they may reasonably be considered, not so much a process (Tsoraki et al. 2023), as a forerunner of body armour, and possibly also the ancestor of the first shields which, according to W. O’Brien (2017 p. 405), date to about 1950 to 1600 B.C. Figure Appendix II.1 Wristguards come in many shapes (Fokkens et al p. 111). Figure II.2 Replica of slate stone wrist-guard as it might have been worn as a bracer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_wrist-guard downloaded 16th May 2018. Figure Appendix II.3 Archers wrist-guard, about 13 cm long, recovered at Dunnamanagh, Co. Tyrone from 2,500-2,200 B.C. (National Museum of Ireland ref. 1927:317) [author's photograph).  Bibliography Adams, D.Q. and Mallery, J.P. Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture (Taylor & Francis, 1997). Anderson, K. (2011). Slashing and thrusting with Late Bronze Age spears: Analysis and experiment. Antiquity, 85(328), 599-612. doi:10.1017/S0003598X00067983, accessed 31st July 2023. Andres, P. (2017) Primitive Archer blog, http://www.primitivearcher.com/smf/index.php/topic,61515.0.html, accessed 31st July 2023. Bell, D.R. (2018) ‘A shifting chronology of combat damage: Reassessing the evidence for use and reuse on Irish Bronze Age swords,’ in Horn, C. and Kristiansen, K. (eds.) (2018) Warfare in Bronze Age Society, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 152-180. Bergman, C.A., McEwen, E. and Miller, R. (1988) ‘Experimental Archery: Projectile velocities and comparison of bow performances’, Antiquity, Vol. 62, pp. 658-70. Bourke, P. and Whetham, D. (2007) ‘A report of the findings of the Defence Academy warbow trials Part 1 Summer 2005’, Arms & Armour, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 53–75. Brazier, J.V. (2019) 'The History of the Bow in Africa and North and South America - The Ethnographic Approach 2018 Archery Exhibition in Italy' Journal of the Society of Archer-Antiquaries, Vol. 62, pp. 50-60. Carden, R.F. (2012) Review of the Natural History of Wild Boar (Sus scrofa) on the island of Ireland, (Report prepared by Ruth Carden for the Northern Ireland Environment Agency, Northern Ireland, UK, National Parks & Wildlife Service, Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, Dublin, Ireland and the National Museum of Ireland – Education & Outreach Department). Carlin, N. (2019)  The Beaker Phenomenon? Understanding the character and context of social practices in Ireland 2500-2000 BC, Leiden: Siderstone Press.   Clark, G. and Godwin, H. (1962) 'Prehistoric ancestors of the weapons which brought England victory at Crecy, Poitiers and Agincourt: Neolithic Long-Bows of 4500 years ago', The Illustrated London News, (10th February), pp. 219-221. Clark, W. (1963) ‘Neolithic bows from Somerset, England, and the prehistory of archery in north-western Europe’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, Vol. 29, pp. 50-98. Clément, N., (2021), 'The prestige of warriors: Bell Beaker archers’ equipment in Central Europe', Préhistoires Méditerranéennes, pp. 1-63. (on-line URL : http://journals.openedition.org/pm/2167; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/pm.2167 created 2020, posted on-line 29th January, 2021, accessed on 26th June 2023. Coles, J. (1973), Archaeology by Experiment, London: Hutchinson, pp. 13-18. Collins, P. (2019) Assyrian Palace Sculptures, London: The British Museum Press. Daltun, E. (2022) An Irish Atlantic Rainforest – A Personal Journey into the Magic of Rewilding, Dublin: Hachette Books. Dowd, M.A. (2002) ‘Kilgreany, Co. Waterford: Biography of a Cave’ The Journal of Irish Archaeology, Vol XI, pp. 77-97. Driscoll, K. (2010) Understanding quartz technology in early prehistoric Ireland, Volume 1, Thesis is submitted to University College Dublin for the degree of PhD in the College of Arts & Celtic Studies, January 2010. Fitzpatrick, A.P., (2013) ‘The arrival of the Beaker Set in Britain and Ireland’, in Koch J.T. and Cunliffe, B. (eds), Celtic from the West: rethinking the Bronze Age and the arrival of Indo-European in Atlantic Europe, Oxford, Oakville, CT: Oxbow Books, pp. 41–70. Flores, J.R and Paardekooper, R. (2014) ‘Histories of Experimental Archaeology: Documenting the past for the future’ in Flores, J.R and Paardekooper, R. (eds.) Experiments Past: Histories of experimental archaeology, Leiden: Sidestone Press, pp. 7-14. Flügen, T. and Lessig-Weller, T. (2014) ‘The bow armament of the Celtic prince from Glauberg - from findings to reconstruction’, Experimental Archeology in Europe, Vol. 13, pp. 129 – 143. Foley, C. (1972) National Parks and Monuments Branch, Office of Public Works, Excavations.ie: http://www.excavations.ie/report/1972/Kilkenny/0000124/ (posted on-line n.d., accessed January 2018. Fontijn, David (2008) ‘Everything in its Right Place? On selective deposition, landscape and the construction of Identity in Later Prehistory’ in Jones, A. (ed.) Prehistoric Europe: Theory and Practice, pp. 86-106. Gillespie, R. (2006) ' A highway to the past of Ireland' The Connaught Telegraph, 12th January. Glover, W. (1979) 'A prehistoric bow fragment from Drumwhinny Bog, Kesh, Co. Fermanagh' Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 45, pp. 323-7. Gordon, H.; Webb A. (1978) 'Prehistoric Bows of Britain' Journal of the Society of Archer-Antiquaries, Vol. 21, p. 20. Gorman, S. (2016) The Technological Development of the Bow and the Crossbow in the Later Middle Ages, Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Trinity College Dublin. Halpin, A. (2008) Weapons and Warfare in Viking and Medieval Dublin, Dublin: National Museum of Ireland. Harbison, P. (1995) Pre-Christian Ireland: From the First Settlers to the Early Celts, London: Thames & Hudson. Hardy, R. (1976) Longbow: a social and military history, Portsmouth: The Mary Rose Trust. Hardy, R. et al. (2011) 'Assessment of the Working Capabilities of the Longbows', in Hildred, A. (ed.) Weapons of Warre: The armaments of the Mary Rose, Portsmouth: The Mary Rose Trust, 2, pp. 627-32. Hedges, R.E.M. et al. (1991) 'Radiocarbon dates from the Oxford AMS system: Archaeometry datalist', Archaeometry, Vol. 33, pp. 121-34. Hencken, H. (1950) ‘Herzsprung Shields and Greek Trade’ American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 54, pp. 295-309. Hencken, H. and O'Neill, A. (1935) 'Tumulus at Carrowlisdooaun, Co. Mayo', Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland, series 7, Vol. 5, No. 1 (June 20), pp. 74-83. Herity, M. and Eogan, G. (1978) Ireland in Prehistory, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Heyd, V. (2007) ‘Families, Prestige Goods, Warriors and Complex Societies: Beaker Groups of the 3rd Millennium cal BC Along the Upper and Middle Danube’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, Vol. 73, pp. 327-379. Hickman, C.N. (1937) 'The Dynamics of a Bow and Arrow', Journal of Applied Physics, Vol. 8, (June), pp. 404-409. Hodgkin, A.E. (1951) The Archer's Craft, London: Faber and Faber. Hughes, S.S. (1998) 'Getting to the point: Evolutionary change in prehistoric weaponry', Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, (December), Vol. 5, No. 4, pp. 345-408. IAWU (2001) Peatland Survey Supplementary Report Appendix 5: Artefact Illustrations, Irish Archaeological Wetland Unit. Jantzen, D. et al. (2011) 'A Bronze Age battlefield? Weapons and trauma in the Tollense Valley, north-eastern Germany', Antiquity, Cambridge University Press, Vol. 85, No. 328, pp. 417–433. Jones, P.N. (1992) 'The Metallography and Relative Effectiveness of Arrowheads and Armor During the Middle Ages', Materials Characterization, Vol. 29, pp. 111-117. Joyce, P.W. (1912) A Concise History of Ireland, Dublin: M.H.Gill. Joyce, P.W. (1980) A Social History of Ancient Ireland, New York, Arno Press, (reprinted from 1913). Junkmanns, J. (2013) Pfeil Und Bogen: Von der Altsteinzeit bis zum Mittelalter, Ludwigshafen: Verlag Angelika Hornig. Junkmanns, J. et al. (2019) 'Neolithic and Bronze Age Archery Equipment from Alpine Ice-Patches: A Review on Components, Construction Techniques and Functionality', Journal of Neolithic Archaeology, 21, pp. 283–314, doi10.12766/jna.2019.10, posted 2019, accessed 11th July 2023 . Klopsteg, P.E. (1943) 'Physics of Bows and Arrows', American Journal of Physics, Vol. 11, August, pp. 175-192. Knight, M.G. (2019) ‘Going to Pieces: Investigating the Deliberate Destruction of Late Bronze Age Swords and Spearheads’ Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, Vol. 85, pp. 251–272 © The Prehistoric Society doi:10.1017/ppr.2019.3 First published online 17 June 2019, accessed 30th July 2023. Kooi, B.W. (1993) 'On the Mechanics of some Replica Bows', Journal of the Society of Archer Antiquities, Vol. 36, pp. 14-18. Kooi, B.W., and Bergman, C.A., (1997) 'An approach to the study of ancient archery using mathematical modelling' Antiquity, Vol. 71, pp. 124-134. Lalor, S. (2021) 'Is the Drumwhinny Bow really a bow?' Archaeology Ireland, Vol. 35, No. 1, spring, pp. 22-23. Lynch, A. (1988) 'Poulnabrone - A Stone in Time', Archaeology Ireland, vol.2. no.3, Autumn 1988. pp.105-107. Mackin, F. et al. (2017) 'Best practice in raised bog restoration in Ireland', Irish Wildlife Manuals, No. 99, National Parks and Wildlife Service, Department of Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, Ireland. Marsh, E.J. (2010) 'Introduction' in Ferguson, J.R. (ed.), Designing experimental research in archaeology: examining technology through production and use, Boulder, Colorado: University Press of Colorado. Mathieu, J.R. (2002) 'Introduction', in Mathieu, J.R. (ed.), Experimantal Archaeology: Replicating past objects, behaviours, and processes, Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, International Series 1035, pp. 1-10. McDermott, C. et al. (2002) 'Of bogs, boats and bows: IAWU survey 2001', Archaeology Ireland, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 28–31. McDermott, C. et al. (2003) 'Bog Standard?', Archaeology Ireland, Vol. 17, No. 4, pp. 20-23. McEwan, E., Miller, R. L., and Bergman, C. A. (1991) ‘Early bow designs and construction’, Scientific American, Vol. 264, pp. 76-82. McHugh, R. and Scott B.G. (2014) ‘The Prehistoric Archaeology Of County Fermanagh’, in Foley, C. and McHugh, R. (eds.), An Archaeological Survey of County Fermanagh, Belfast, Northern Ireland Environment and Heritage Service: Colourpoint Books. Meadows, J. et al. (2018) 'Dating the lost arrow shafts from Stellmoor (Schleswig-Holstein, Germany)', International Yearbook for Ice Age and Stone Age Research, Vol. 65 Büchenbach: Verlag Dr. Faustus, pp. 105-114. Mercer, R. J. (1999) ‘The Origin of Warfare in the British Isles.’ in Carman, J. and Harding, A. (eds.), Ancient War – Archaeological Perspectives, Trowbridge: History Press, pp. 143–156. Molloy, B. (2017) 'Hunting Warriors: The transformation of weapons, combat practices and society during the Bronze Age in Ireland', European Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 280-316. Molloy, B. and Horn, C. (2020) ‘Weapons, Warriors and Warfare in Bronze Age Europe’, in Fagan, G.G. et al. (eds), The Cambridge World History of Violence, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 117-141. Murray, C. (2004) ‘The Barrysbrook Bowstave’, Past: the newsletter of the Prehistoric Society, Oxford University Press, Vol. 46, pp. 3-4. Niblack, A.P. (1888) The Coast Indians of Southern Alaska and Northern British Columbia:, Washington, D.C.: The Smithsonian Museum, DOI https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.35856 posted on-line 2009, accessed 27th June 2023. Nicolas C. (2019) The production and use of archery related items as a reflection of social changes during the Late Neolithic and the Early Bronze Age in Europe, in Kadrow, S. and Müller, J. (eds.), Habitus? The Social Dimension of Technology and Transformation, Leiden, Sidestone Press, pp. 115-139. Nicolas, C. (2017) ‘Arrows of Power from Brittany to Denmark (2500-1700 BC)’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, Vol. 71, pp. 219-245. Ó Néill, J.; Schulting, R.; Whitehouse, N.; Adams, K; and Ker, T.; (c.2001) Data Structure Report 5: Investigations at Ballyarnet (Occupation Site), Co. Londonderry [AE/O2/71], Belfast: Centre for Archaeological Fieldwork, School of Archaeology, Queen's University Belfast. O'Brien, W. (2017) 'Hillforts and Warfare in Bronze Age Ireland' in O'Brien, W.0 and O'Driscoll, J. (eds.), Hillforts, Warfare and Society in Bronze Age Ireland, Oxford: Archaeopress Archaeology. pp. 393-414. O'Brien, W.0 and O'Driscoll, J. (eds.), (2017) Hillforts, Warfare and Society in Bronze Age Ireland, Oxford: Archaeopress Archaeology. O’Brien, W., O’Driscoll, J. and Hogan, N., (2018) ‘Warfare and the burning of hillforts in Bronze Age Ireland’ in Fernandez-Gotz, M. and Roymans, N. (eds.) Conflict Archaeology: Materialities of Collective Violence from Prehistory to Late Antiquity, Oxford: Routledge pp. 69-77. O'Curry, E. (1996) (first published 1873), On the Manners and Customs of the Ancient Irish, Dublin: Éamonn de Burca. Pelegrin, J. (2007) Réflexions sur la notion de ‘spécialiste’ dans la taille de la pierre au Paléolithique, in: Desbrosse, R. and Thévenin, A. (eds.),  Arts et cultures de la  Préhistoire, Hommages à Henri Delporte. Documents préhistoriques 24. Paris: éd. du Comité des Travaux historiques et scientiques, pp. 315-318. Peterson, B. and Narmo, L-E. (2011) 'A journey in time', in Peterson, B., and Narmo, L. E. (eds.), Experimental Archaeology: Between Enlightenment and Experience, Acta Archaeologica Lundensia, Vol. 8, No. 62. pp 17-48. Pope, S. (1923) 'A Study in Bows and Arrows', American Archaeology and Ethnology, Berkeley: University of California Publications, Vol. 13, No. 9, pp. 329-414. Prior S.J. (2013) 'The Meare Heath Bow Reconstruction' Parts 1-4, (http://www.digitaldigging.net/meare-heath-bow-reconstruction/ posted on-line 3rd December, 2013, accessed 8th March 2023. Prior, S. (2000a) 'Recreating the Neolithic Meare Heath bow - reassessing the past through Experimental Archaeology', Journal of the Society of Archer-Antiquaries, Vol. 43, pp. 44-48. Prior, S., (2000b) ‘The skill of the Neolithic bowyers: Reassessing the past through experimental archaeology’, in Webster, C.J. (ed.), Somerset Archaeology: Papers to mark 150 years of the Somerset Archaeology and Natural History Society, Taunton: Somerset County Council, pp. 19-24. Rau, A. (2007) 'Remarks on finds of wooden quivers from Nydam Mose, southern Jutland, Denmark' in Bliujienė, A. (ed.) (2007) Weapons, Weaponry and Man, Archaeologia Baltica volume 8, Klaipéda : Klaipėda University Press, pp. 141-154. Richardson, T. (1998 ) 'Ballistic testing of historical weapons', Royal Armouries Yearbook, Vol. 3, pp. 50-52. Roberts, B.W., Uckelmann, M. and Brandherm, D. (2013) ‘Old Father Time: The Bronze Age Chronology of Western Europe’, in Fokkens, H. and Harding, A. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the European Bronze Age, Oxford: University Press, pp. 17-44, Ryan-Despraz, J. (2022) Practice and Prestige: An Exploration of Neolithic Warfare, Bell Beaker Archery, and Social Stratification from an Anthropological Perspective, Oxford: Archaeopress Publishing. Rynne, E. (1961) 'Was Desmond Castle, Adare, erected on a ringfort', North Munster Antiquarian Journal, Vol. VIII, No. 4, pp. 193-202. Sarauw, T. (2007) 'Male symbols or warrior identities? The ‘archery burials’ of the Danish Bell Beaker Culture' Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 65-87. Siggins, L. (2005) 'Schoolboy finds Bronze Age arrowhead' Irish Times, 24th June. South Tyrol Museum of Archaeology, Bolzano, Italy, ‘The Iceman’s Equipment’, iceman.it, https://www.iceman.it/en/equipment/ posted on-line 2016. accessed 7th May 2023. Spenser, Edmund (1970) A View of the Present State of Ireland, Oxford: Clarendon Press. [compiled 1596]. Spindler K. (1993) The Man In The Ice, Phoenix, London: Orion Books, Ltd. St Louis, Mark (2008) ‘Heat-treating bows’ in Hamm, J. (ed.) The Traditional Bowyer's Bible, New York: Bois d’Arc Press, Vol. 4, pp. 59-74. Switsur, R. (1974 ) ‘The prehistoric longbow from Denny, Scotland’, Antiquity, Vol. 48, No. 189, pp. 56-58. Thorne, J. Force draw curve software, http://buildyourownbow.com/how-to-make-and-read-a-forcedraw-curve-part-3/#:~:text=A%20force%20draw%20curve%20shows,stored%20during%20the%20draw%20stroke. posted on-line 2011, accessed on 22th June 2023. Tlatoani, H. (2010) ‘Why you can eat meat from animals killed with poison arrows and darts’. paleoplanet69529.yuku.com, https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/paleoplanet69529/why-you-can-eat-meat-from-animals-killed-with-pois-t39210.html, posted on-line 2010, accessed 28th June 2023. Tomka, S. A. (2013) 'The Adoption of the Bow and Arrow: A Model Based on Experimental Performance Characteristics', American Antiquity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Vol. 78, No. 3, pp. 553–569. Tsoraki, C., et al. (2023) “From Typology and Biography to Multiplicity: Bracers as ‘Process Objects,’” Cambridge Archaeological Journal. Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–22. doi: 10.1017/S0959774323000094. Accessed 5th August, 2023. Uckelmann, M. (2015) ‘A Bronze Age Ornament Network? Tracing the Herzsprung Symbos across Europe’, In Rebay-Salisbury, K., Brysbaert, A. and Foxhall, L. (eds.), Knowledge Networks and Craft Traditions in the Ancient World: Material Crossovers, London: Routledge, pp. 182-198. Ursula Frayne Catholic College, (2016), https://ursulafrayne.libguides.com/year7/humanities/investigatingtheancientpast/otzitheicemana, posted on-line 2016, accessed 7th May 2023. Van Wijngaarden-Bakker, L,H. (1986) ‘The Animal Remains from the Beaker Settlement at Newgrange, Co. Meath: Final Report’, Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy: Archaeology, Culture, History, Literature, Vol. 86C, pp. 17-111. Waddell, J. (2023) The Prehistoric Archaeology of Ireland, (3rd ed.), Dublin: Wordwell Books. Waterbolk, H.T.; und W. van Zeist (1991) Eine Siedlung der Pfyner Kultur: Band IV: Holzartefakte und Textilien, Bern: Academical Helvetica, Watson, K. (2011) 'Estimating Longbow Weights from the Arrow Shaft Data', in Hildred, A. (ed.), Weapons of Warre: The Armaments of the Mary Rose, Portsmouth: The Mary Rose Trust, Vol. 2, pp. 617-8. Webb, A. (1980) 'Prehistoric Bows in Ireland', Journal of the Society of Archer-Antiquaries, Vol. 23, pp. 20-21. Wilke, P.J. (1988) ‘Bow Staves Harvested from Juniper Trees by Indians of Nevada’, Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 3-31. Zvelebil, M., Moth, E. and Peterson, J. (1990). 'Monvoy, Co. Waterford', in Bennet. I. (ed) Excavations 1989: a summary account of archaeological excavations in Ireland, Dublin: Wordwell. i 1 1 22 2 22 iii