Arab. arch. epig.

2005: 16: 154–160 (2005)

Printed in Singapore. All rights reserved

Composite bows at ed-Dur (Umm al-Qaiwain,

U.A.E.)
This article discusses seven bone fragments excavated during the second An De Waele
Belgian archaeological campaign at ed-Dur (tomb G.3831, area N). Rather Ghent University, Belgium
than weaving implements, these objects are identified as the reinforcing bone
laths of composite bows. Information on the composite bow in general—ori-
gins, structural composition and technical advantages—will be given.
Additionally, the question of which types of composite bows could have
been present at ed-Dur and what role these weapons could have played at
Ghent University
the site are discussed.
Department of Near Eastern Art and
Archaeology, St. Pietersplein 6
Keywords: archery, ed-Dur, Oman, weaponry, composite bow B-9000 Ghent, Belgium
e-mail: an.dewaele@ugent.be

Introduction Furthermore, pictorial evidence is often lacking in

In Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 2.1 (1991), the detail and written sources, especially by authors
preliminary report of the second Belgian campaign familiar with archery (5), are scarce.
at ed-Dur (1) was published. During that season the
large burial G.3831 in area N was excavated, and
among the grave goods ‘several weaving imple- The composite bow
ments made of animal ribs’ were found (2). The earliest bows were simply made of one flexible
Although bone objects (Fig. 1) were used in weaving wooden body. The composite bow (6) was developed
(3), another function for the artefacts from G.3831 during the fourth millennium BC. Since this type of
can be suggested. Rather than weaving implements, weapon displays much insight in the characteristics
they could have been the reinforcing bone laths of and functioning of a bow, it probably originated in a
composite bows. culture where there was a long tradition of archery,
The aim of this article (4) is to explain the function such as the Turkmenian Steppe, Iran, the Arabian
of these bone reinforcements in the composite bow, Peninsula, the Levant or Anatolia (7).
to give an overview of the types of bows which The composite bow was manufactured from
could have been present at ed-Dur, and to consider different kinds of pliable materials: over a wooden
the role of this weapon at the site. In studying these core (8), horn was glued on the inside—the belly—to
weapons, much literature on ‘the composite bow’ resist compression, and sinew was fixed onto the
was found but details on their bone laths were often outside—the back—to resist tension (9). Finally,
lacking, particularly in regard to their origins and parts of the bow or the whole weapon could have
evolution. This lack of information is a by-product of been covered with a sheath made of bark, leather or
the nature of the sources available on ancient tendon (10). Because of the complexity of the
bows—archaeological finds, iconographic represen- manufacturing process (e.g. the drying of the glue),
tations and written texts. Because of the perishable it took several months—sometimes even years—to
nature of the materials from which bows were complete a composite bow. Therefore, these weap-
manufactured, few remains have been excavated. ons were quite valuable (11).

154
 COMPOSITE BOWS AT ED-DUR

simple bow, the tension on the weapon was some-

times so strong that it broke the body. Another
advantage of composite bows is the fact that they
could be made smaller because their strength was
derived from the combination of the different
materials used, not from their length (17).
In the course of time, the composite bow became
widespread, from Europe to Japan, (18) and many
different types were developed. These can be clas-
sified by analysing both their profile and their
structural composition.
As already noted, it is not the aim of this article to
give an overview of all types of composite bows in
which stiffening bone/antler rods were used, since
this weapon underwent a very complex technologi-
cal evolution and enjoyed a very wide distribution
amongst very different kinds of people. Only those
types which could have been present at ed-Dur—the
types which are chronologically contemporary with
ed-Dur (19)—will be discussed.
The ‘composite segment bow’ (Fig. 2.a) was
already known at the end of the fourth millennium

Fig. 1.
A bone needle shuttle from Ghassul (Palestine), c. 3000 BC (after
Crowfoot, Textiles, basketry, and mats: Fig. 273 G).

At the extremities of the arms—the limbs—of the

bow, rigid ‘ears’ were fastened. These ears could
follow the curve of the body, but more often they
deviated from this line (12). They could have been
reinforced with bone or antler laths. A. MacGregor
describes these laths as follows: ‘characteristically
elongated and curving blade-like strips of bone or
antler, usually rounded and wider at one end and
irregularly plano-convex in section; the underside is
roughened to facilitate glueing to the ear of the bow
and the nock for the string is cut into the thinner of
the two edges, close to the rounded end’ (13). These
laths were used in pairs, one at each side of the ear
(14), and the laths of the upper and lower limbs
would usually have been of differing length (15).
The bowstring was attached to the ‘nock’, a groove
at the tip of the body of the bow. This nock was
either cut in the body or the ears themselves, or in
the bone/antler plates (16).
A perfect combination of all these elements Fig. 2.
created a bow which was much more elastic and The outlines of a segment bow (a); doubly convex bow (b); and
powerful than the simple bow types. In flexing a ‘Hunnic bow’ (c) (after Rausing, The bow: Fig. 5).

155
AN DE WAELE

BC. In the middle of the first millennium BC, ears This powerful type was developed in the Parthian
reinforced with bone/antler laths were added. This Empire from the Scythian doubly convex bow (24). It
type is called the composite segment bow of Median is unlikely that Scythian bows had bone reinforce-
type. It became widespread—both eastwards and ments since none have ever been found in Scythian
westwards (20)—and remained in use into the fifth cemeteries (25).
century AD. It is uncertain from which type of Finally, we have the ‘Hunnic’ or ‘Hsiung-nu’
composite bow these laths derived (21). According composite bow (Fig. 2.c) (26), which was developed
to G. Rausing, the best example of this weapon is the in Central Asia during the first century BC/first
famous ‘Yrzi bow’ (22), but according to M.C. century AD (27). The ears of this weapon were
Bishop this bow is not really representative of the stiffened with rods. In addition, the handle of the
Median type (23). In any case, the Yrzi bow is bow was reinforced with three trapezoidal laths (28).
probably the best archaeological example available
to illustrate the use of bone stiffenings (Figs 3–4).
Then, we have the so-called ‘Parthian bow’: a Bows in Arabia and at ed-Dur
doubly convex bow (Fig. 2.b) with typical long, thin According to pre-Islamic Arabic poetry, the bow
and forward-bending ears reinforced by bone laths. was a frequently used weapon in Arabia (29).
Originally, the Arabs used the simple, asymmetrical
bow (upper and lower limbs being of different
length). Later, the ‘Arab composite bow’ was intro-
duced: a large, segment-shaped bow with long ears
bent forwards, a descendant of the above-mentioned
‘composite segment bow’ with bone coverings.
When ed-Dur was occupied (late first century BC-
first half of the second century AD), this type was
widely used by the Arabs (30). Surprisingly, how-
ever, ed-Dur is the only site in the Arabian Peninsula
where bone nock-plates have been excavated. More-
over, no illustrations of the Arab composite bow
Fig. 3. have been found, perhaps because of the ‘iconoclas-
The ‘Yrzi bow’ (after Brown, A recently discovered compound tic tendencies common to Islam and to the pre-
bow: Fig. 1.2). Moslem religions of the country’ (31).

Fig. 4.
The ‘Yrzi bow’ (after Brown, A recently discovered compound bow: Pl. I).

156
 COMPOSITE BOWS AT ED-DUR

Description of the bone reinforcements excavated at ed- Made from an animal rib. A complete curving lath
Dur (area N, G.3831): with rounded upper part (with U-shaped nock)
1 & 2. N 81 & N 112 (32) (length: 21.2 cm; width: tapering towards the rounded lower part. Plano-
max. 1.6 cm; thickness: max. 0.4 cm) (Figs 5–6) (33). convex section.
Made from an animal rib. Very slightly curving 5. N 110 (length: 10.8 cm; width: 1.2 cm; thickness:
lath with rounded upper part (with U-shaped nock) 0.35 cm) (Fig. 5).
tapering towards the rounded lower part. Plano- Made from an animal rib. A fragment, probably
convex section. from a lath whose upper and lower parts were
3. N 108 (length: 23.6 cm; width: max. 1.7 cm; broken off irregularly. Plano-convex section.
thickness: max. 0.4 cm) (Figs 5–6). 6. N 111 (length: 6.9 cm; width: 0.9 cm; thickness:
Made from an animal rib. A complete curving lath 0.3 cm) (Fig. 5).
with rounded upper part (with U-shaped nock) Made from an animal rib. A fragment, probably
tapering towards the rounded lower part. Plano- from a lath whose upper and lower parts were
convex section. broken off irregularly. Plano-convex section.
4. N 109 (length: 22.4 cm; width: max. 1.6 cm; 7. N 113 (length: 4.3 cm; width: 1 cm; thickness:
thickness: max. 0.4 cm) (Figs 5–6). 0.3 cm) (Fig. 5).

N 111

N 110

N 113

0 1 2 cm

N 81 & N 112
N 109

N 108
Fig. 5.
N 81 & N 112, N 108, N 109, N 110, N 111 and N 113 (drawings Erik Smekens).

157
AN DE WAELE

crystal, glass [paste] and pearl), an intaglio decor-

ated with the goddess Athena and a silver obol
(34).
The number of bone plates in the tomb points to
the presence of at least two composite bows. Since
neither the shape nor dimensions of bone laths are
diagnostic of the type of composite bow to which
they belonged, we can only guess which types
were present. In all likelihood, the ed-Dur laths
derive from the large, segment-shaped ‘Arab
composite bow’ which was widespread during
the main occupational phase of ed-Dur. However,
because of the excavation of many imported
objects (35) at the site, the presence of the
‘Parthian’ bow as well as the ‘Hunnic’ bow cannot
be excluded.
With regard to tomb G.3831, E. Haerinck has
suggested that it could have been the final resting
place of a sort of tribal ruler (36). Moreover, G.3831
was the only tomb (37) in which bone laths of the
composite bow were discovered. This fact may
reinforce the hypothesis that the burial was that of
an important person (or persons).
What function could these bows have had? Were
N 81 & N 112
they used in warfare and/or hunting? Were they
precious gifts or simply curiosities exchanged dur-
N 109 ing trade or barter activities?
N 108
Bows are not often mentioned with reference to
Fig. 6. combat in southeastern Arabia, but according to D.T.
N 81 & N 112, N 108 and N 109 (photographs Erik Smekens).
Potts, ‘The absence of references can be attributed to
the fact that the [pre-Islamic Arabic] poetry is
concerned with individual reputation which can
Made from an animal rib. A fragment, probably only be achieved in hand-to-hand combat’ (38).
from a lath whose upper part was broken off Composite bows, especially those with rigid ears
irregularly. Plano-convex section. and bone reinforcements, were extremely powerful
The large tomb G.3831 (c. 6 · 5.40 m) was weapons. As such, they were probably manufac-
unique amongst the 121 graves excavated by tured with the intention of fighting. Whether the
Ghent University. It was the only above-ground bows of ed-Dur were really used during combat is,
tomb discovered and its entrance would have however, impossible to say.
faced the temple of ed-Dur. How many individu- On the other hand, archaeozoological research
als were buried in this grave is uncertain since the has indicated that hunting was not a very
tomb was badly disturbed. On the basis of some important activity at ed-Dur. Only a few remains
grave goods (one arrowhead and two spindle of hare, gazelle and the Arabian oryx were found
whorls), the burial of a man and a woman may be (39).
postulated. Although the tomb was plundered, Whatever the case may be, the composite bow was
many artefacts were still present. These included a powerful and accurate weapon and thus it would
fragments of glass vessels, an iron arrowhead, iron have been a valuable and highly valued object.
nails, bone plaques, bone inlay pieces, spindle Moreover, the rarity of this weapon at ed-Dur may
whorls, beads (agate, amethyst, carnelian, rock point to the fact that composite bows were only

158
 COMPOSITE BOWS AT ED-DUR

owned by a very few, élite members of society. In all Acknowledgements

probability, the composite bows discovered in tomb I would like to thank Professor Ernie Haerinck for drawing my
G.3831 reflected the prestige and authority of their attention to the interesting bone fragments from ed-Dur and for
the suggestions he made during the writing of this paper.
owners.

References
1. Between 1986 and 1994, the late pre- 5. Bishop MC, ed. The production and Kondakov (Seminarium Kondakovianum)
Islamic site of ed-Dur (Umm al-Qai- distribution of Roman military equipment. 9: 1937: 6.
wain, U.A.E.) was studied by an Proceedings of the Second Roman Military 16. Rausing, The bow: 16.
international team—including scholars Equipment Research Seminar. Oxford: 17. Zutterman, The bow in the ancient
from Belgium, Britain, Denmark and BAR Int Ser, 275: 1985: 223. Near East: 122.
France. For more information and 6. In 1877, General Pitt-Rivers coined the 18. James, The excavations at Dura-Europos.
bibliographical references, see Haer- term ‘composite bow’. He was the first Arms and armour: 191.
inck E. The seventh and eighth Belgian to classify the different sorts of bows 19. The main occupation phase of ed-Dur
archaeological expeditions to ed-Dur by analysing their technology. (to which burial G.3831 is dated) is
(Umm al-Qaiwain, UAE). AAE 7: 1996: Although the term ‘Scythian bow’ is situated between the last decades of
69–74; and Haerinck E. Internationali- sometimes used as a synonym of the first century BC and the beginning
sation and business in SE-Arabia dur- ‘composite bow’, this weapon was just of the second century AD. We will
ing the late 1st c. B.C./1st c. A.D. one type of composite bow. See Raus- consider the types of composite bows
Archaeological evidence from ed-Dur ing G. The bow. Some notes on its origin provided with bone/antler reinforce-
(Umm al-Qaiwain, U.A.E.). In: Potts and development. Lund: CWK Gleerups ments, which date to between the
DT, Naboodah H & Hellyer P, eds. Förlag, 1967: 11, 109. second half of the first millennium BC
Proceedings of the First International 7. Simpson StJ. Bone, ivory, and shell: and the second century AD.
Conference on the Archaeology of the Artefacts of the Persian through 20. According to Simpson, Bone, ivory,
United Arab Emirates (Abu Dhabi, 15–18 Roman periods. In: Meyers, The Oxford and shell: 345, the Romans would have
April 2001). London: Trident Press, Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near adopted this bow from their Syrian
2003: 195–206. East: 345; Zutterman C. The bow in the auxiliaries.
2. Haerinck E, Metdepenninghen C & ancient Near East: A re-evaluation of 21. Rausing, The bow: 105, 138.
Stevens KG. Excavations at ed-Dur archery from the late 2nd millennium 22. Rausing, The bow: 138. The Yrzi bow
(Umm al-Qaiwain, U.A.E.) - Prelimin- to the end of the Achaemenid period. was found in a tomb (dated to the first
ary report on the second Belgian IrAnt 38: 2003: 124. century BC-third century AD) in the
season (1988). AAE 2: 1991: 41; Haer- 8. Several different kinds of wood could part called ‘Yrzi’ from the necropolis of
inck E. The University of Ghent South- have been used in one bow. Baghouz (c.40 km southeast of Dura-
East Arabian Archaeological Project. 9. James S. The excavations at Dura-Euro- Europos). The exceptionally good pre-
Excavations at ed-Dur (Umm al-Qaiwain, pos conducted by Yale University and the servation of the bow (the grip, one
United Arab Emirates), vol. II. The tombs. French Academy of Inscriptions and Let- entire limb, horn and sinew as well as
Leuven: Peeters: 2001: 30–31, Pls 57 ters 1928 to 1937. Final report VII. The the bone laths) was noteworthy. See
and 60. arms and armour and other military Brown, A recently discovered com-
3. Examples of bone artefacts used in the equipment. London: The British Mu- pound bow: 1.
weaving process can be found in seum Press, 2004: 191. 23. Bishop, Production and distribution of
Crowfoot GM. Textiles, basketry, and 10. Paterson WF. The archers of Islam. Roman military equipment: 240.
mats. In: Singer C, Holmyard EJ & Hall JESHO 9: 1966: 77. 24. Rausing, The bow: 105 and 142.
AR, eds. A history of technology. I. From 11. Brentjes B. Arms of the Sakas (and other 25. Bishop, Production and distribution of
early times to fall of ancient empires. tribes of the Central Asian steppes). Roman military equipment: 241.
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1965: 432, Varanasi: Rishi Publications, 1996: 37. 26. G. Rausing calls this type the ‘Qum-
Fig. 273 G; and Liebowitz HA. Bone, 12. Lawrence L. History’s curve. Saudi Darya bow’. Bishop, Production and
ivory, and shell: artefacts of the Bronze Aramco World 54/5: 2003: 6. distribution of Roman military equipment:
and Iron Ages. In: Meyers EM, ed. The 13. MacGregor A. Bone, antler, ivory and 242.
Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the horn. The technology of skeletal remains 27. László G. The significance of the Hun
Near East. New York/Oxford: Oxford since the Roman period. London/Syd- golden bow. Acta Archaeologica Acad-
University Press, 1: 1997: 341, Fig. 2. ney: Croom Helm, 1985: 156. emiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 1: 1951:
4. This paper forms part of my PhD 14. MacGregor, Bone, antler, ivory and horn: 99; Ilyasov JY & Rusanov DV. A study
dissertation at Ghent University on the 158. on the bone plates from Orlat. Silk road
small finds from ed-Dur, found during 15. Brown FE. A recently discovered art and archaeology 5: 1997–1998: 126. A
the Belgian excavations at the site. compound bow. Annales de l’Institut summary of the known information on

159
AN DE WAELE

the bone plates from Central Asia can 33. Figs 5–6 were created by Erik Smekens, 38. Potts, Pre-Islamic weaponry: 200.
be found in Litvinsky BA. 2001. The draughtsman and photographer of the 39. Van Neer W & Gautier A. Preliminary
temple of Oxus in Bactria (South Tajikis- Belgian team at ed-Dur. report on the faunal remains from the
tan). Vol. 2. Bactrian arms and armour in 34. Haerinck, The tombs: 29–30. coastal site of ed-Dur, 1st-4th century
the ancient Eastern and Greek Context. 35. This material includes objects A.D. Umm al-Quwain, United Arab
Moscow: Vostochnaya Literatura: 2001. from both the Roman and Parthian Emirates. In: Buitenhuis H & Clason
(in Russian). Empires, Characene, India, South AT, eds. Archaeozoology of the Near East.
28. Bishop, Production and distribution of Arabia etc. Haerinck, Internationalisa- Proceedings of the First International
Roman military equipment: 243. tion and business in SE-Arabia: 202– Symposium on the Archaeozoology of
29. Potts DT. The pre-Islamic weaponry of 205. Southwestern Asia and adjacent areas.
Southeastern Arabia. AAE 9: 1998: 200. 36. Haerinck E. Boom and bust at ed-Dur. Leiden: Universal Book Services, 1993:
30. Rausing, The bow: 88–89, 138. Minerva 13/4: 2002: 43. 114.
31. Rausing, The bow: 89. 37. Most of the graves analysed at ed-Dur
32. As fragments N 81 and N 112 join each by the Belgian team were plundered.
other they will be described as one Of the 121 tombs excavated, only
lath. fourteen were unplundered.

160