Archery in Archaic Greece

Todd Alexander Davis

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
under the Executive Committee
of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY

2013
 UMI Number: 3558087

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.

UMI 3558087
Published by ProQuest LLC (2013). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code

ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
 © 2013
Todd Alexander Davis
All rights reserved
 ABSTRACT

Archery in Archaic Greece

Todd Alexander Davis

Despite a renewed interest in scholarship about Archaic warfare, hoplites,

Homeric society, and several other related areas, archery in Archaic Greece has managed

to escape comprehensive study for half a century. Scholarship on the subject stands in

urgent need of update and revision. Certain erroneous beliefs about archery have become

canonical and are dangerous impediments to academic progress in those areas of study

that require an accurate and nuanced understanding of archers or archery.

I conclude that, contrary to popular opinion, there was no point in Greek history

when the bow was not used. Rather, it was used in a variety of ways to support,

supplement, and complement heavily armed infantrymen. Although archery could be

effective, especially against horses and light-armed men, the bow was not as effective

against heavily armed infantrymen for the simple reason that arrows would not often

have been able to penetrate Greek armor. This factor did not, however, mean that the

bow was impotent or “the mute weapon of a worthless man.” My study of wounds, their

treatment, infection, and the potential use of arrow toxins adds a fruitful and previously

unexplored perspective on the risks involved with facing an archer and on some of the

psychological considerations of doing so. In a form of warfare wherein armies were so

heavily dependent upon morale and so easily compromised by fear, an arrow was a

weapon of terror. Moreover, dying six days after a battle of tetanus did not accord with
the hoplites’ ideal of a ‘beautiful death’ – one of the prospects that fortified a warrior as

he girded himself for what was surely a horrifying ordeal.

I also argue that the identity of archers changed over time. Early on, warriors

might use a variety of weapons and the bow might have been used by just about anyone.

Later, with the advent of the hoplite phalanx, archers became light-armed specialists.

While convention holds that these archers were Scythian or Cretan mercenaries, I prove

that there is no compelling reason to believe that this was so. The archers were Greek

and likely derived from the lower classes of citizens. Moreover, despite its ideological

demotion among the elite, the bow did not carry an actively negative association until the

Persian Wars in the early 5th century B.C.E. This demotion represented an effort on the

part of the elite to justify and maintain their position of prominence socially and

politically at the expense of lower classes whose martial efforts among the light-armed

were often considered unworthy of acknowledgement.

In sum, the treatment of archery in the Archaic period is considerably more

nuanced than many scholars have allowed.

 Table of Contents

Introduction 1-28

Chapter 1. Did archery exist in Archaic Greece? 29-66

a. Material Evidence 29-41

b. Documentary Evidence 41-66

Chapter 2. How was the bow used? 67 – 120

a. Art Historical Evidence 67-71

b. Bow Types 71-77

c. Arrowheads and Arrowheads Typology 77-83

d. Model: Security-Mobility-Firepower 83-86

e. Advantages of the Bow (Range, Rate of Fire, etc.) 87-93

f. Positioning & Assault Groups 93-98

g. Tactics 98-123

1. Close Range Sniping 98-100

2. Massed Volleys 100-102

3. Pursuit 103

4. Counter Cavalry 103-105

5. Stealth Action 105-106

6. Siege 107-110

7. Counter Light-Armed 111-112

8. Harassment 112-113

i
 9. Naval 113-117

10. Mounted Archers 117-122

h. Some Notes on Non-Martial Archery 122-123

Chapter 3. Was archery effective? 124 – 166

a. The Arrow as a Weapon 124-125

b. Arrows Against Armor 125-137

c. Arrow Wounds 137-144

d. Treatment of Arrow Wounds 144-150

e. Poison & Infection 150-161

f. An ‘Ugly’ Death 161-163

g. A Weapon of Terror 164-166

Chapter 4. Who were the archers? 167-235

a. Dispelling Entrenched Notions 167-168

b. Scythian Archers? 168-173

c. Historiography of the Scythian Archer Figure 173-190

d. Who were the Scythians? 190-195

e. Greek Sources on Scythians 196-200

f. Black Sea Interactions 200-204

g. Secondary Contact – Greeks in the East 205-208

h. Why Scythians? 208-210

i. Cretan Archers 210-213

j. The Identity of Greek Archers 213-218

a. Therapontes 218-220

ii
 b. Emergence of Class Based Archery 220-222

c. Allied Specialists 223

d. Metics 223-227

e. Slaves 227-229

f. Thetes 229-235

Chapter 5. How did Greeks feel about archery? 236-270

a. The Homeric Perspective 237-246

b. Non-Homeric Archaic Attitudes 247-249

c. Material Evidence 249-257

d. Significance of Ethnic Dress in the Archaic Period 257-261

e. The Polarization of Ethnicity 261-270

f. Conclusion 270

Conclusion 271-278

a. Conclusions 271-275

b. Points Unable to be Resolved 275-276

c. Further Lines of Enquiry 276-278

d. A Final Note 278

Bibliography 279-312

Appendix. The Bow and How It Works 313-344

a. Shooting the Bow 313-323

b. Bow Type & Design Advantages 323-330

c. Glossary of Relevant Archery Terms 331-340

iii
 List of Images

1. Detail from the top of the rim on an Attic Black Figure Dinos Page 5

of unknown provenance, Circle of the Antimenes Painter,

520-510 B.C.E., Malibu, J. Paul Getty Museum 92.AE.88.

2. Attic Middle Geometric Skyphos from Eleusis, 770 B.C.E, Page 31

Eleusus 741.

3. Late Geometric Amphora from Paros, 750 B.C.E, Paros. Page 32

4. Proto-Corinthian Aryballos from Lechaion, 690 -680 B.C.E., Page 33

Corinth CP 2096.

5. Dagger from Mycenae, 16th c. B.C.E., NAMA 19. Page 33

6. Middle Protogeometric Hydria, from Lefkandi, Imported, Page 37

1000 B.C.E., Eretria S5112.

7. Diagram of a composite recurve bow. From Karasulas, A. Page 54

Mounted Archers of the Steppe 600 BC-AD 1300. (Osprey

Publishing, 2004), 20.

8. Diagram of a composite reflex bow. Illustration by Meredith Fluke. Page 54

9. Attic Red Figure Kylix from Vulci attributed to the Ambrosius Painter. Page 59

Vatican 16578.

10. Gold Olpe, 350-325 B.C.E., from Kul Oba, KO.ii. Page 59

11. Reconstruction of painted wooden beam from Tatarli in Phrygia. Page 71

Drawing by I. Dinkel.

12. Geometric Bows Page 72

iv
13. Abbreviated Arrowhead Typology Page 78

14. Comparison of a reinforced Scythian arrowhead and a Medieval Page 82

English armor piercing arrowhead.

15. Proto-Corinthian Aryballos, 675-650 B.C.E., Paris Louvre CA 1831 Page 94

16. Detail from the Northwest Relief at Ashurbanipal’s palace at Page 96

Ninevah, 668-630 B.C.E.

17. Terracotta sculptural group from Cyprus, 6th c. B.C.E. Page 97

Cesnola Collection, MET 74.51.1644.

18. Detail of the ‘Amathus Bowl.’ A Phoenician engraved silver bowl Page 108

from Amathus, Cyprus, 8th-7th c. B.C.E., British Museum.

19. Relief pithos. Tenian-Boeotian group. 650-625 B.C.E. Page 120

Boston, MFA 95.506.

20. Attic Black Figure Dinos, Painter of Acropolis 606, 570-560 B.C.E. Page 212

National Archaeological Museum in Athens.

21. Detail of Figure 20. Page 122

22. Modified instructional illustration of Archaic armor Page 127

on display at the Museum in Olympia.

23. Protocorinthian Aryballos, from Perachora, 675-650 B.C.E., Page 130

Athens National Archaeological Museum

24. Attic Red Figure Amphora, Alkimachos Painter, 460 B.C.E. Page 132

Museo Arqueológico Nacional.

25. Attic Red Figure Kylix, Sosias Painter, 475 B.C.E. Page 163

v
26-27. Details of archers from ‘François Krater.’ Attic Black Figure Page 169

Volute Krater from Chiusi. Signed by Kleitias (painter) &

Ergotimos (potter). 575 B.C.E. Florence, Museo

Archeologico Etrusco 4209.

28. Detail of archer from ‘François Krater.’ Attic Black Figure Page 170

Volute Krater from Chiusi. Signed by Kleitias (painter) &

Ergotimos (potter). 575 B.C.E. Florence, Museo

Archeologico Etrusco 4209.

29. Attic Red Figure Plate from Vulci, Signed by Epiktetos. Page 171

525-500 B.C.E. British Museum E135.

30. Attic Black Figure Neck Amphora, 525-500 B.C.E., Page 252

Metropolitan Museum of Art (New York) 41.162.171.

31. Attic Black Figure, Neck Amphora, 525-500 B.C.E., Page 253

Vulci, Group of the Bologna 16. Munich Antikensammlungen 1492.

32. Attic Red Figure Krater by Euphronios. 520-505 B.C.E. Page 254

Arezzo, Museo Civico 1465.

33. Attic Black Figure Neck Amphora by the Antimenes Painter, Page 255

525-510 B.C.E., Brussles Musées Royaux R291

34. Attic Black Figure Olpe, from Vulci, 550-500 B.C.E., Altenburg, Page 255

Staatliches Lindenau- Museum 203.

35. Attic Black Figure Amphora 525-500 B.C.E., Metropolitan Museum Page 256

of Art (New York) 98.8.9.

36. Attic Red Figure Oinochoe by the Chicago Painter, 450 B.C.E., Page 263

vi
 MFA Boston 13.196.

37. Portrait Ostrakon, Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Athen Page 267

Neg. no. 16172.

38. Detail of Behistun Relief Sculpture, late 6th c. B.C.E. Page 269

39. Daric, Sardis, Lydia, American Numismatic Society, Late 6th c. B.C.E. Page 269

1997.9.184.

vii
 List of Tables

1. Reproduction of a Table depicting amount of energy per weapon Page 133

required to penetrate bronze. From Gabriel and Metz 1992: p. 7.

2. Killed, Wounded, & Mortality Rates by Weapon in the Iliad. Page 139

3. Location of Wounds (by Weapon) and their Respective Page 140

Mortality Rates in the Iliad.

4. Distribution of Scythian archer in images over time Page 172

viii
 Acknowledgements
This was an interdisciplinary project and took several years to complete. Over

that time, I received an enormous amount of help from a variety of people and

institutions. I am deeply appreciative to all of them for their support and recognize that

this study would have been impossible without it.

First and foremost, I would like to thank my dissertation sponsor, Richard

Billows, whose support, confidence, and steady hand helped to guide me to a finished

product of which I am proud. In those moments when I lost sight of the forest for the

trees, his encouragement was invaluable to me. I would also like to thank the other

members of my committee. Suzanne Saïd and Elizabeth Irwin have been excellent

mentors, careful readers, and articulate no-nonsense critics in this project and others.

Ioannis Mylonopoulos was extremely helpful from the moment he became involved in

my work. I am also indebted to James Romm of Bard College who, on short notice,

agreed to serve as an outside reader and offered some very helpful suggestions regarding

future publication. I bear full responsibility for any errors or omissions that might appear

in work that follows.

Beyond my committee, I would like to thank Clemente Marconi of the Institute of

Fine Arts, who was instrumental in my selection of the topic and who was very

influential in the early stages of my research. Joanna Smith of Princeton University and

Natalie Kampen of Barnard College also played important roles along the way, guiding

my work with the material evidence before Professor Mylonopoulos joined the faculty at

Columbia. I am indebted to Joanna, who introduced me to archaeology, and is one of the

most thorough scholars with whom I have worked. Tally had an amazing (and much

ix
appreciated) ability to wade into unfamiliar territory, grasp the essentials immediately,

and then ask the perfect question, jump-starting my research efforts considerably. Last

but by no means least, I would like to thank Gareth Williams for his support and sage

advice for the duration of my time at Columbia.

I was fortunate to have had several excellent graduate-student colleagues at

Columbia too. Among them, I would like to thank Stephen O’Connor, James Tan, Lee

Ullman, and Lisa Mignone for modeling excellent scholarship in their own projects, for

inspiring me in my own, for reading and commenting on my work, and for trading

references with me. Working with these scholars and friends was one of the most

rewarding benefits of my graduate experience.

I received support over the years from the Alexander S. Onassis Public Benefit

Foundation. I would like to thank Amalia Cosmetatou, in particular, for giving me so

many opportunities to work with ancient art and Aspa Bitis who helped me to translate

articles from Modern Greek.

My colleagues at the Hotchkiss School were wonderfully supportive and

encouraging. Moreover, without the dedicated library staff here, I would never have

finished. I started teaching in the hopes that I would inspire students, but I have often

found that my students inspire me – one reason why I love teaching. My students’

excitement and curiosity about my work kept me as interested in my topic at the end of

the process as I was at the beginning!

My biggest support and inspiration, however, has been my wife, Meredith. In

addition to offering invaluable advice, helping me format footnotes, and doing some

illustrations, she finished her own dissertation while working and taking care of our two

x
children – both under the age of three. I am very fortunate to be married to someone so

extraordinary and it is to her and our two children, Milo and Olwen, that I dedicate this

dissertation.

xi
 1

Archery in Archaic Greece:

Introduction

Despite a renewed interest in scholarship about archaic warfare, hoplites, Homeric

society, and other related areas, archery in the Archaic period has managed to escape

comprehensive study for half a century.1 Scholarship on the subject stands in urgent need

of update and revision. The following dissertation is an attempt to address this need.

Before launching into a discussion of my evidence and approach, I would like to

introduce my reader to the subject by briefly examining two important pieces of

evidence. These should highlight the complexities of the issue and underscore both the

necessity and benefits of such a study. I will then use the remainder of the introduction to

present an overview of the evidence, articulate my position with regard to certain

peripheral but relevant issues, define some important terms, and describe the organization

and approach I have taken throughout the remainder of the dissertation.

The first piece of evidence is literary - a well-known and often cited passage from

the Iliad. The second is a widely recognized figure who appears in a large number of

1
The works of McLeod and, to a slightly lesser degree, Snodgrass remain the most complete treatments of
the subject. Both stand in need of revision and elaboration. McLeod’s unpublished dissertation remains the
most comprehensive work on the subject but he lacked much of the evidence now available to us. W.
McLeod, “The Bow in Ancient Greece, with Particular Reference to Homeric Poems” (Ph.D. Diss,
Harvard University, 1966). He also wrote several articles (11 altogether) deriving from this research, some
of which remain the most authoritative works of their kind. Snodgrass’ Early Greek Armour and Weapons
from the End of the Bronze Age to 600 B.C. (Edinburgh: University Press) originally published in 1964 is
the other most influential work on the subject, despite spanning just 15 pages. When other scholars have
addressed archery, they have done so by looking at individual elements of the larger picture, i.e. Scythian
Archers, Amazon Archers, Athenian Archers, Archery in the Iliad, Odysseus’ Bow, etc. These studies tend
towards methodologies that favor documentary evidence, art historical evidence, or archaeological
evidence, seldom bringing the various forms of evidence together in a meaningful way to create a more
complete picture. Toelle-Kastenbein’s more recent work fits this description, despite its title. It is a
fragmented treatment of the subject that takes great license in using vase-paintings as authoritative
illustrations. R. Toelle-Kastenbein, Pfeil und Bogen im antiken Griechenland (Bochum: Duris-Verl, 1980).
 2
Attic vase-paintings in the Late Archaic period. These two items together account for a

great deal of the confusion and many of the misconceptions regarding archery in Archaic

Greece.

The mute missile of a weak and worthless man?

Diomedes is kneeling down, stripping the armor from a corpse, when Paris, like a

sniper, strikes him in the foot with an arrow. A verbal exchange ensues in which

Diomedes berates Paris and his arrow - “for mute is the missile of a weak and worthless

man.”2 The archer in this passage is characterized by Diomedes as a contemptible coward

and likened to a woman or a child. The wound is described as inconsequential and the

weapon as impotent and psychologically unimposing.

This passage, while not the only one in Archaic literature disparaging of archery,

is easily the most vitriolic. For many (if not most) scholars, it as emblematic of long-held

negative attitudes towards archery in Homeric warfare and in Archaic Greece more

generally.3 Michael Sage, for example, writes, “In general it [the bow] is a weapon held

in low esteem in the poems, as is clear from the remarks of Diomedes …”4 Hainsworth

regards this speech as “an eloquent expression of the aristocratic spearman’s contempt for

2
Iliad 11.390. “κωφὸν γὰρ βέλος ἀνδρὸς ἀνάλκιδος οὐτιδανοῖο” The translation is my own. κωφὸν is a word
that pertains to a lack of sound. It is used on two other occasions in the Iliad (Iliad 14.16, 24.54). It both
cases is means ‘silent.’ Here, however, Diomedes contrasts the κωφὸν βέλος of Paris (βέλος being the
generic word for missile – spear, arrow, stone, etc.) with his ὀξὺ βέλος (sharp spear) two lines later. Thus,
‘silent’ here is used metaphorically to mean dull (or perhaps imperceptible). We will examine this
exchange in much greater detail later.
3
It is fair to say that this view is canonical.
4
M. Sage, Warfare in Ancient Greece: A Sourcebook (New York: Routledge, 1996), 10. My brackets.
 3
5
the bow.” Anthony Snodgrass, more tempered in his reaction, states, “It would be

premature to assert that the Greeks were permanently averse to archery, but there is

literary evidence, going back negatively to Homer and positively at least as far as

Pausanias, that for long periods this was true of mainland Greece.”6 These are widely

circulated and influential reference books written by top scholars in the field.7

To be sure, these themes, particularly the cowardice, impotence, and the

feminization of the archer are quite prominent in Classical literature, but the passage

should not be taken out of context. Immediately following Diomedes’ rant, Odysseus

(himself a prominent archer) steps in front of him to shield him from additional missiles.

Diomedes sits down and pulls the “swift arrow” from his foot as a “hard pain comes over

his flesh.”8 He then gets into his chariot and instructs his charioteer to drive him back to

the ships, “for his heart was heavy.”9 Thus, the Greeks lose one of their champions in a

form of warfare that hinges on the exceptional performance of exceptional front-fighters.

Eight books later, Diomedes is still leaning on a spear because of the painful wound.

Clearly, archery is more effective than Diomedes is willing to admit. In essence,

Diomedes has answered Paris’ shout of triumph with an exaggerated and venomous

personal attack that should not be taken at face value. How much credence should we

5
B. Hainsworth, in G. Kirk, G., ed., The Iliad: A Commentary. Volume III: Books 9-12 (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1993), 269.
6
A. Snodgrass, Early Greek Armour and Weapons, 141.
7
Although they represent just three of many such characterizations, I elect to cite these because a.) they are
sourcebooks and commentaries, referred to by novice and expert alike, and b.) they cover three different
(though interrelated) academic disciplines – history, classics, and archaeology.
8
Iliad 11.398. “ὀδύνη δὲ διὰ χροὸς ἦλθѳ' ἀλεγεινή”
9
Iliad 11.399-400. “ἤχθѳετο γὰρ κῆρ” The same short sentence is used to describe Agamemnon as he
withdraws from battle, after being wounded by a spear thrust to the arm (Iliad 11.274).
 4
give the rest of Diomedes’ invective? Ideology, here, has been taken for reality. This is

all too often the case with respect to archery.

It is not hard to see why this has happened. The documentary evidence for archery

is scattered and confusing. Most modern scholars have taken what they see as a

combination of neglect and denigration in the sources at face value, inferring that Greeks

not only held archery in low regard, but that archery was more or less a non-factor on the

battlefield during the Archaic and Classical periods.

This conclusion is familiar and even alluring. The evidence for archery is much

more abundant in the Classical period and it appears to offer a certain clarity. Literature

from the period, in a common antithesis, opposes the bow and the spear. The archer was,

at bottom, the anti-Greek – a foil against whom the triumphant Greek hoplite defined

himself. This archer was therefore foreign and probably, although not necessarily, from

the East. He was ineffective and cowardly, effeminate and slavish. He was certainly no

match for a hoplite. Passages, like the one uttered by Diomedes above, seem to invite the

retrojection of this worldview.

The Foreign Archer

Sometime in the early 6th century, Athenian vase painters introduced figures like

the one below into their iconography (Fig. 1).10 They are characterized by a pointed cap

of foreign inspiration, an unusual quiver, and a composite bow – distinctive for its

extreme curvature.11 Often they wear patterned jackets and trousers too (although this

10
Attic Black Figure Dinos, Circle of the Antimenes Painter, 520-510, J. Paul Getty Museum 92.AE.88.
11
A composite bow is composed of multiple materials (usually wood, horn, and sinew) as opposed to a
standard ‘self-bow’ constructed entirely from wood. Please refer to Appendix I for a detailed description of
the bow and how it works. This Appendix includes a glossary of archery terms.
 5
varies to a degree that will prove important). These attributes are generally associated

with Scythians, nomadic peoples who inhabited the Northern Black Sea region and

Eurasiatic Steppe from at least the early 8th c. B.C.E. until Roman times.12 For this

reason, these figures are referred to as Scythian archers.

Figure 1

Between 550-500 B.C.E. vases bearing one or more of these figures accounted for

5% of the more than ten thousand catalogued vases in Beazley’s archive from the period.

This is a staggering percentage given the considerable diversity of themes depicted on

vessels during the period – particularly for a figure about whom we have almost no other

information. There is no other evidence placing Scythians in Athens during the 6th

century. In fact, when Scythians do arrive in Athens - first as part of the Persian

12
The cap appears in Scythian images of themselves as well as in Persian depictions of them, as in some of
the reliefs at Persepolis and in the famous Behistun Inscription. Herodotus (7.64) also mentions the cap.
 6
invasions of 490 and 480 B.C.E. and then later as public slaves or ‘policemen’ sometime

in or after 476 B.C.E. – they cease to appear on vases altogether.

A number of scholars have tried to make sense of the phenomenon. The position

that has the most currency in modern historical scholarship, however, is that the images

represent actual Scythians.13 Moreover, it is common for scholars to go a step further and

take this as evidence of a Scythian presence in Archaic Athens. The argument is

problematic for a number of reasons - foremost among them is its circularity. Essentially

it states that the images result from the presence of the Scythians and that their presence

is proven by their inclusion on vases. Nevertheless, this is a comfortable conclusion for

someone well versed in Classical literature. For there, the equation between archer and

foreign is almost assumed – at least ideologically. Support is also drawn from Pausanias

who states that archery is not a Greek custom.14

Reputable scholars accept this explanation for the ‘Scythian’ archers with

frequency. For instance, in the recently published Cambridge History of Greek and

Roman Warfare, Hunt writes, “Scythians mercenary archers for example, are depicted on

Attic Vases of the late sixth century.” 15 This has had important ramifications for the

study of mercenaries, slavery, Black Sea trade, and more. Unfortunately, this position is

very unlikely to be accurate, as we shall see.

13
M.F. Vos, Scythian Archers in Archaic Attic Vase-Painting (J.B. Wolters: Groningen, 1963). This is the
only full-length monograph dedicated to the subject which may be one reason why the notion has not been
examined more arduously by ancient historians. Art historians are far less likely to subscribe to this view,
largely, I imagine, because the key to Vos’ argument is absurd to someone who is practiced in the study of
images. She alleges that artists would have to had seen Scythians in order to paint them so consistently.
14
Pausanias 1.23.4. “Ἕλλησιν ὅτι µὴ Κρησὶν οὐκ ἐπιχώριον ὂν τοξεύειν” Crete is distinguished from Greece
here. This statement, as we will see, has been granted undue authority. You can find the full passage in
Greek, my translation, and my critique in Chapter 1 on pgs. 44-45.
15
P. Hunt, “Military Forces,” in The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Warfare I, ed. Philip Sabin
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 122.
 7
Some Notes on the Evidence

The Archaic period presents the historian with a hornet’s nest of evidentiary

problems. Our texts are minimal and usually fragmentary. What we are lucky enough to

have has often been filtered through or disseminated by Classical or later sources with

their own agendas or ideologies. These texts combine with the normal problems of

interpretation associated with archaeological and art historical evidence to present a

dishearteningly uneven record for the period. The result is an era for which we have few

firm answers and a great deal of controversy. It therefore seems profitable to address

here some of the challenges posed by the evidence for archery in this period. In doing so,

I hope to clarify my position on some controversial subjects and persuade the reader that

they are worthy of being admitted into evidence.

Some Notes on the Evidence – Archaeology

Perhaps the biggest problem facing this study is a general lack of firm

archaeological evidence. Literary and art historical sources are representations. The

evidence we gather from them is second hand at best. Archaeology can present us with

an opportunity to examine evidence firsthand. This is not to say that archaeology is not

without its own set of interpretational concerns. It is worth considering some of these

broadly to emphasize these difficulties before treating our own evidence.16

16
This dissertation is interdisciplinary and it is my operating assumption (and hope) that it will be read by
scholars in various fields. I have tried, where possible, to give some background information to serve as a
theoretical context for non-specialists.
 8
Peter Ucko, for instance, collecting ethnographic data in a study of funerary

remains, cites three different explanations for the presence of grave goods in tombs.17

The Nankanse of Ghana believe that such goods have the power to keep the soul alive.

For the Lugbara of Uganda, grave goods represent a visible expression of the deceased

party’s social personality. In a third case, a group of people deposited goods in tombs in

order to dispose of objects with emotional connections to the deceased party. In essence,

it was a cathartic practice for the living rather than a meaningful gift for the dead in their

afterlives. Ucko’s is an excellent cautionary tale and one that makes its point with

frustrating clarity. One must proceed with great care.

The evidence available to us is also extremely limited. For example, we have yet

to excavate a single bow from Ancient Greece – even for time periods in which the

remainder of the record is clear as to the regular use and stature of the bow.18 This is

unfortunate but hardly surprising. The bow was made out of wood or, if composite,

some combination of wood, horn, and sinew – all perishable materials.19 We do have

some examples of bows from both Egypt20 and Russia21, but their value is limited to

purposes of comparison. A number of fully intact medieval English and Scandinavian

longbows have also been recovered. The analysis of these has proven very fruitful in

17
P. Ucko, “Ethnography and Archaeological Interpretation of Funerary Remains,” World Archaeology 5.1
(1969): 265.
18
The Mycenaeans, for instance, seem to have placed great value on the bow. Classical Athens had a corps
of citizen archers for most of the 5th century. Hellenistic armies employed specialized groups of archers as
well.
19
Herodotus even describes bows made of reeds. See Hdt. 7.64, 7.65, 7.67.
20
W. Petrie, “Tools and Weapons,” British School of Archaeology 30 (1917); and W. McLeod, “Egyptian
Composite Bows in New York,” AJA 66.1 (1962): 13-19.
21
E. Cernenko, The Scythians 700-300 B.C. (New York: Osprey Publishing, 1983). B. Brentjes, Arms of
the Sakas (India: Rishi Publications, 1996), 37.
 9
countering preconceived notions about what would and would not have been possible

with such weapons.22

Arrowheads are our main source of archaeological information. Like the bow, the

arrows themselves, which are usually made of out wood, reeds, or bone usually

decompose.23 Arrowheads, on the other hand, are often made out of stone, bronze, or iron

and stand the test of time. Their size and shape can offer useful information about the

size of the arrow itself, the size of the bow, and even the arrow’s intended purpose. Was

it meant for hunting or battle? Was it meant to be used against armored or light-armed

soldiers? How effective could it have been? A leaf-shaped ‘broadhead’ arrowhead, for

example, might be effective for hunting or against a light-armed soldier. It would have

been quite sharp and designed to slice through flesh, severely incapacitating a target via

blood loss. However, the same arrowhead would very likely have bent upon impact with

hoplite armor. A pyramid-shaped ‘bodkin’ type arrowhead, on the other hand, was

designed to withstand impact and was therefore more likely used to pierce armor. This

arrowhead would create a smaller puncture wound and draw less blood. It would

therefore be less deadly and worse for hunting. The Scythian-type three-edged

arrowhead seems to represent a compromise of sorts. Its third leaf would have provided

weight and structural support, making the arrowhead less likely to bend upon impact. At

the same time, the cross section would have helped to stabilize the arrow in flight and its

relatively lighter weight would have made it capable of a longer range.24

22
M. Strickland & R. Hardy, The Great Warbow: From Hastings to the Mary Rose (Alpharetta: Haynes
Publishing, 2011), 3-33.
23
For a discussion of bone arrow shafts see Brentjes, Arms of the Sakas (1996), 40.
24
Ibid., 40.
 10
The size of the arrowhead is also helpful is assessing the range from which it was

intended to be fired. A heavy arrowhead might be very effective at a close range, even

piercing an opposing soldier’s armor. The same arrowhead, however, might not make it

as far as a lighter arrowhead.25

Moreover, arrowheads can be typed and organized into groups based upon their

manufacture.26 This allows for the study of an arrowhead’s evolution or adoption and

ultimately reveals that no arrowhead can be considered characteristically Greek.

McCleod, using Snodgrass’ typology, notes that no type of arrowhead is confined to or

even seems to have originated in Greece.27 The bulk of arrowheads found can be

associated with Cretan and Scythian types, but it should be emphasized that this is not

evidence of a Cretan or Scythian presence. It implies some form of contact, however

diluted, but there is ample historical evidence that people were rarely shy about adopting

non-native military technology where it proved effective.28 These arrowheads,

particularly the Scythian variety, were quite popular in the ancient Mediterranean and

Near East and seem to have spread rapidly well beyond the regions for which we have

any credible evidence for a Scythian presence. Parts of Egypt, which the Scythians never

25
See Appendix I for an explanation of the physics behind this.
26
A. Snodgrass offers a very useful typology, which has become the standard in the field. Early Greek
Armour and Weapons (1964).
27
McLeod, “Egyptian Composite Bows,” 298. This typology is an important part of Snodgrass’s
influential theory that the bow fell out of favor on mainland Greece with the fall of the Mycenaeans and
was later reintroduced to the mainland from Crete. A. Snodgrass, Early Greek Armour and Weapons
(1964).
28
For a great example of this see P. Stary, “Foreign Elements in Etruscan Arms and Armour: 8th to 3rd
centuries B.C.,” Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 45 (1979): 179-206.
 11
reached, Sicily, Southern Italy, and France all yield Scythian arrowheads dating to the

Archaic period.29

So, arrowheads can be a great boon. Unfortunately, most have been recovered

from archaeological contexts that give us little or no indication of their dates. After

completing his survey on the subject, Snodgrass concludes that most examples come

from unstratified sanctuary deposits or from surface finds and that they are rarely found

in burials. He adds that stratified siege deposits are also uncommon, late when they do

occur, and then are only found where the assailants are known to be foreign.30 Since his

publication, many more arrowheads have been recovered, but his observations about the

troubling nature of their respective contexts stands.

Other archery-related objects have been discovered by archaeologists, but none

from mainland Greece dating to the time period in question.31 As a result, we will not

consider these. For the Archaic period, arrowheads and a few skeletal remains represent

the sum total of our archaeological information.

It is worth reminding ourselves of the adage that an absence of evidence does not

presume evidence of absence. The burden of proof requires the historian to show that the

bow did exist using the evidence at hand, however little there might be. Yet, one also

needs to account for the evidence that does not present itself. Inorganic artifacts, for

29
T. Sulimirski, (1954) “Scythian Antiquities in Western Asia,” Artibus Asiae 17.3/4 (1954): 306-308.
30
A. Snodgrass, Early Greek Armour and Weapons (1964), 141. Thermopylae, the Athenian Acropolis,
Olynthos, and Sardis are a few examples.
31
Archaeologists discovered an arrow mould on Samos dating to the Geometric period. An “arrow
smoother” and thumb ring dating to the Late Bronze Age were found at Mycenae. The former is a stone
with a long thin semi-cylindrical groove that is generally understood to have been an implement used to
smooth or sand down wooden arrows. The latter is a ring with a nub on it that was used to draw the bow in
such a way that the bow string on a strong bow would not slice into the archer’s thumb. Scythians used
such devices, although they were not alone in doing so.
 12
32
instance, show up disproportionately in contrast to reality. Sometimes arrows were

constructed with a fire-hardened wooden point rather than a metal head, and would

therefore be unlikely to survive.33 Persians, for instance, frequently used perishable

materials like wicker shields and wooden javelins with such fire-hardened points.34

Slavomil Vencl also points out that a lower population density, such as that

experienced during the early Iron Age, considerably lowered not only the finds, but also

the probability and frequency of clashes.35 While this does not serve as proof, it could

very well account for what is often described as a decline of archery after the Late Bronze

Age (followed by a reemergence in the Geometric Period). This description is based

upon the small number of arrowheads found that date to the period in question, but this

number, as we shall see, is growing. Furthermore, Coldstream suggests that mainland

Greece may have lost as much as three quarters of its population between the 13th and

11th centuries and then seen its population double or triple during the 8th century.36 The

number of arrowheads very likely exists in some proportion to the size of the population.

We might also consider changing burial and dedicatory practices, tomb robbery,

perishable fortifications, and the fact that victorious soldiers in Greece (and elsewhere)

would commonly strip the armor from their dead foes. All of these factors will influence

32
S. Vencl, “War and Warfare in Archaeology,” Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 3 (1984): 125.
33
McLeod, “Egyptian Composite Bows,” 255. Vencl, ibid., 125. Strabo 15.2.7, 16.4.9, 17.2.3.
34
Vencl, ibid., 125.
35
Ibid., 119.
36
J.N. Coldstream, Geometric Greece 900-700 B.C. (New York: Routledge, 2003), 367-8. A. Snodgrass,
The Dark Age of Greece (New York: Routledge, 2000), 364-7.
 13
the extant record. Most suggest that the actual number of bows and arrows would have

been considerably higher than our current evidence suggests.

Notes on the Evidence – Art

The most abundant source for information about the practice of archery in the

Archaic period is art - painted vases in particular. The nature of this evidence is also

problematic. There are numerous issues inherent in the interpretation of art -

preservation, context, and the potential influence of the marketplace, to name just a few.

At bottom, there is more to these images than immediately meets the eye and we must

resist the temptation to see the images as representations of an objective reality.

The Chigi Vase, for instance, is a well-known Protocorinthian Olpe found in

Etruria. 37 It dates to around 640 B.C.E. A scene on the shoulder of the vessel depicts

rows of hoplites in full panoply marching towards one another with spears raised. The

hoplites overlap one another to the degree that one soldier is nearly invisible behind his

peers. The overlapping perspective allows for the soldiers to be seen but gives the

impression of a densely packed line, soldiers fighting in close order. The vessel is often

taken to be the earliest depiction of hoplite warfare and it is frequently used as a terminus

ante quem for development of phalanx warfare due to the armor and close order depicted

on it. The scene looks ‘realistic’ in the sense that it conforms in many ways to what we

know, or think we know, about hoplite warfare from other sources. Yet, it is one of only

a few such depictions.

Although ancient vase painters could paint massed fighting, they usually chose

not too, instead focusing on duels, mythological scenes, departure scenes, chariot

37
Villa Giulia, Rome. Inv. 22678.
 14
processions and the like. If we broaden our focus a bit and account for general trends

before hazarding theories, we will see that there is no clear correlation between periods of

warfare and depictions of warfare. Vencl notes that depictions of war on Athenian vases

were more than twice as popular from 575-550 B.C.E. (relative to the total number of

vessels recovered from the period) than it was during the Persian Wars (490-479 B.C.E.).

The theme was even less popular during the Peloponnesian Wars.38 It may seem

counterintuitive, but it appears that the popularity of battle imagery declined markedly

with the frequency of battle. Thus, it is best to approach the art historical evidence with

Hölscher’s cautionary maxim in mind, “War in art is not war but art.”39

Although we will discuss most of these vases in their capacity as symposium

vessels, we should confront the inconvenient reality that most of the vessels for which we

have provenance, despite their Athenian manufacture, were found in tombs, or outside of

Greece, or both – that is, in tombs outside of Greece.40 There are 128 vessels depicting

Scythians in Lissarrague’s catalogue for which Beazley offers a provenance.41 Six were

found in Athens. Most were found in Italy. In fact, the Etruscan site of Vulci alone

yielded sixty-two of these vessels. Sicily, Ukraine, Romania, and locations in Greece

other than Athens are also listed by Beazley. We are hoping to admit these vases into

38
Vencl,“War and Warfare,” (1984): 126.
39
T. Hölscher, “Images of War in Greece and Rome: Between Military Practice, Public Memory, and
Cultural Symbolism,” Journal of Roman Studies 93 (2003): 2.
40
Marconi, for instance, describes two separate pots bearing Scythian images found in a tomb in Agrigento
on the southern coast of Sicily. See C. Marconi, “Images for a Warrior. On a Group of Athenian Vases and
their Public,” in Greek Vases: Images, Contexts, and Controversies, ed. C. Marconi (Leiden: Brill, 2004),
32.
41
Osborne, “Images of a Warrior. On a Group of Athenian Vases and their Public,” in Greek Vases:
Images, Contexts, and Controversies, ed. C. Marconi (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 48.
 15
evidence, so how do we know that these vessels and the imagery on them are not being

produced to suit the tastes of a foreign market?

In some cases, they are. The ‘Nikosthenic’ amphora, for instance, represents one

well-known effort by an Athenian potter, Nikosthenes, to imitate a shape that was

popular in the Etruscan town of Cerveteri. Not surprisingly, the bulk of these amphorae

are found in Etruria.42

Greeks could also be accommodating with regards to their choice of imagery as

well. The so-called Perizoma Group (circa 600 B.C.E.) offers an example of Greek artists

actually adapting their imagery to meet the needs of the Etruscan marketplace. This

group of vessels depicts competing athletes. Etruscans, however, did not compete nude,

as was common among Greeks. So these athletes are shown wearing a white-painted

‘perizoma’ (loincloth).43

Other examples of the adaptation of imagery are more subtle. A class of Attic

Black Figure amphorae known as ‘Tyrrhenian’ amphorae offers such an example. These

vases, the bulk of which were found in Etruscan sites along the Tyrrhenian Sea, date to

560-530 B.C.E.. The main difference in iconography is subject matter. They are noted

for scenes of graphic sex and violence uncommon in art from this time period in

mainland Greece.

42
N. Spivey, “Greek Vases in Etruria,” in Looking at Greek Vases, ed. T. Rasmussen, and N. Spivey
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 139-140. Nor is this the only example of an Athenian
potter adapting to a market by imitating a popular Etruscan shape. See Osborne, “Why did Athenian Pots
appeal to the Etruscans?” World Archaeology 33.2 (2001): 278.
43
N. Spivey, “Greek Vases in Etruria” (1991), 144. Shapiro also deals with this issue at length. H.A.
Shapiro, “Modest Athletes and Liberated Women: Etruscans on Attic Black-figure Vases” in Not the
Classical Ideal, ed. B. Cohen (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 318-329.
 16
Along these lines, another example, and one which is particularly apropos to this

particular argument, are scenes depicting hieroscopy (extispicy), that is, the practice of

examining the liver of a sacrificed animal.44 Roughly 2% of all of the scenes depicting

Scythian archers are hieroscopy scenes. Greeks did practice the ritual, but they seem to

have associated it with Etruscans.45 Although our sample size is relatively small, the

Attic vessels bearing depictions of the ritual for which we have provenance seem to

support this conclusion. All of them were found in Etruscan sites.46 Thus, it seems

reasonable to venture that Etruscans had a greater interest in these scenes than Athenians.

A final point worthy of mention in this discussion revolves around writing. An

impressive number of vases found in Etruscan tombs yield examples of what are often

referred to as ‘nonsense’ inscriptions. Often using Greek letters or symbols

approximating them visually, they are gibberish. This would seem to indicate a demand

for inscriptions, but clearly illustrates an inability to read them or perhaps an apathy

toward what they would say if intelligible.47 These pots were likely made for a foreign

market.

More often, however, it seems that Athenian iconography met the needs of its

market, Etruscan and otherwise, without having to accommodate specific demands.

Shapes and iconography popular in Athens found meaning in their new homes abroad.
44
See W. Burkert, The Orientalizing Revolution (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1992), 46-53.
According to Burkert the practice originated in the Near East where it was widespread geographically
(Anatolia, Syria, Palestine, Cyprus, etc.) and practiced by diverse peoples (Hittites, Assyrians, et alia). He
ventures that it spread to Etruria via Syria and Cyrus.
45
Osborne, “Why did Athenian Pots appeal to the Etruscans?” (2001), 283
46
Ibid. Osborne is able to compile a list of twenty-two hieroscopy scenes, all of which were painted “in or
around the last quarter of the sixth century.” Of these, eight have a relatively secure provenance.
47
N. Spivey, “Greek Vases in Etruria” (1991), 142; and Osborne, “Why did Athenian Pots appeal to the
Etruscans?” (2001): 178.
 17
One obvious example is the Panathenaic amphora. This vase was made with a very

specific Athenian purpose in mind. Filled with oil, it served as a prize for victors in the

annual Panathenaic games. Yet, even these can be found in Etruscan tombs, where we

can be sure that their Etruscan owners had no influence over their original iconography.48

Legible Greek writing, such as the popular ‘kalos’ inscription, is also much easier

to understand and defend as a product of Athenian taste that was then accepted by a

secondary Etruscan (or other foreign) market. It is unlikely that many Etruscans spoke or

read Greek. The presence of nonsensical inscriptions noted above may indicate a desire

for the look of writing, but they illustrate that correct Greek seems not to have been

expected in Etruria.

What of the numerous other locations around the Mediterranean and the Black

Sea where Athenian Vases – often with an identical program of iconography – are found?

The Scythian depictions alone are found as far away as Ukraine, as I mentioned above.

Should we credit the desires of the Etruscan market in Vulci for similar iconography

found in Olbia, Egypt, or Sicily?

We would also be remiss to exclude from consideration the ultimate provenance

of these vessels in Etruria. Most of them survive as a result of having been buried in

elaborate and extremely sturdy tombs. Such provenance is fortunate but very unusual.

Therefore, conclusions drawn from the great numbers of vases found in Italy are likely to

be skewed radically as a result of this happy accident of preservation. One should

therefore exercise caution in making assumptions due to the exorbitantly high numbers of

vessels with Etruscan provenance.

48
N. Spivey, “Greek Vases in Etruria” (1991), 143.
 18
Osborne, in a study comparing the iconography of scenes found on vessels

recovered from the Etruscan towns of Vulci, Tarquinia, Bologna, and Nola to that of

scenes found on pottery recovered from the Athenian agora, found that most of the

representations of daily life found at Vulci or the other three Etruscan sites can also be

found on vessels from the Athenian agora.49 He goes on to say that the same holds true of

depictions of mythological scenes. Certain scenes found in Etruscan cites, however, do

not appear on vases found in Athens. He concludes by arguing that the Etruscan market

had a voracious appetite for Athenian pottery but was discriminating. It just so happened

that much of Athenian iconography, designed with Athenian symposia in mind, suited

Etruscan funerary tastes or needs. This deduction brings us to the question of primary

and secondary usage.

Take, for example, the Panathenaic amphora mentioned above. Before burial in

an Etruscan tomb it was inscribed ‘συθѳινα’ (belonging to the grave), apparently in

preparation for its new function.50 A Panathenaic amphora was meant, as we noted, to

serve as a trophy. This was its primary function – the reason (excluding, of course, the

goal of making money through its sale) for the manufacture of the object. Somehow, this

vessel did not serve its intended function in Athens or did so and then went on to have

another life as an inscribed grave good in Etruria. This should be considered a secondary

function. This is not to deny the object (or its iconography) meaning within its new

context. The correlation between the iconography on the vases and tomb paintings (or

49
Osborne, “Why did Athenian Pots appeal to the Etruscans?” (2001): 280.
50
N. Spivey, “Greek Vases in Etruria” (1991), 143.
 19
51
other contextual details) within the tomb argues convincingly that it did have meaning.

The original intent, however, which is of concern to us, should be associated with the

object’s primary function.

Along these lines, an amphora, hydria, or almost any of these vessels may very

well have had multiple uses beyond the realm of the symposium. An amphora could be

used for the storage of liquid or dry goods. A hydria is often associated with the retrieval

of water from public fountains. Clearly, these objects and others could have been and

probably were used in other contexts. These uses, however, are too varied to anticipate.

Their primary association, or at least the association that we can most confidently

assume, is that of the symposium. So, a Panathenaic amphora would be primarily

considered an oil storage vessel and trophy, a krater should be considered to have been a

mixed vessel for wine, the hydria a vessel used to pour water into a krater as part of the

wine mixing process, etc.

In sum, I believe that Athenian vases were intended for an Athenian market unless

there is evidence to the contrary. I further hold that, though an image can have meaning

beyond its primary context, the iconography selected by an artist results from his desire

to appeal to a market comprised of people who intend to use the object in this primary

context. So, for the purposes of iconographical study, a krater, for instance, should be

first and foremost considered a mixing vessel for wine used at the symposium.

The symposium was an extremely important vehicle for ideology. This ritualized

and exclusive drinking party served elite men in myriad ways, most of which can be said

to revolve around aspects of social identity designed to teach and reaffirm elite ideology

51
See C. Marconi, “Images for a Warrior” (2004).
 20
in adolescents and adults alike. Beyond communal drinking, which itself constitutes an

important group bonding activity,52 poetry contributed to the sympotic discourse about

what it meant to be elite. The poetry sung and discussed at these parties was often

devoted to political and social themes. As Oswyn Murray observes, even the vocabulary

of this poetry, which tends to emphasize the prefix συν- (together), for example, reflects

the social bonding of the symposium environment.53 Military elegy, important in this

study, was relatively common and in it we can see the changing ideology discussed

earlier. Rather than focusing on a heroic exemplar, as Homer encourages us to do, elegy

exhorts a warrior to action and links his behavior to a community.54 “How long are you

going to lay down? When will you have a strong spirit, young men?” asks Callinus at the

beginning of one elegiac poem.55 Sympotic art echoed these same themes and promoted

many of the same elite values demonstrated by this poetry.

Notes on the Evidence - Literature

The extant literature is equally problematic. Part of this is due to its rare and

fragmentary nature as mentioned above. A scholar must also be careful to consider

questions of authorship, audience, context, and intent. Chronology too is an important

52
O. Murray, “War and the Symposium,” in Dining in a Classical Context, ed. W. Slater (Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan Press, 1991), 84.
53
Ibid., p. 97. Also see F. Lissarrague, The Aesthetics of the Greek Banquet, trans. A. Szegedy-Maszak.
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990), 8.
54
O. Murray, “War and the Symposium” (1991), 97.
55
Callinus Fr. 1. “µέχρις τ<έο> κατάκεισθѳε; κότ' ἄλκιµον ἕξετε θѳυµόν,/ ὦ νέοι; …” My own translation. This
is the beginning of the longest extant fragment of Callinus. It is believed that Callinus is here inciting his
fellow Ephesians against the invading Cimmerians. The poem is usually dated to the middle of the 7th c.
 21
consideration. Many scholars have been tempted to see not only a pattern of neglect

regarding archery, but one of outright contempt.

It is true that the bow is generally neglected in the extant written sources of both

the Archaic and Classical periods, but this neglect served the ideological end of

legitimizing one class’s claim to power at the expense of another class.56 Generally

speaking, the authors are merely displaying an interest in the hoplite or hero at the

expense of other types of troops. Why? Usually these texts are praising a hoplite civic

ideal to an audience of hoplites. The author may also have been a hoplite.57 This neglect

should in no way be taken as either the absence or impotence of archery. A careful

reading will reveal that archers are often present, mentioned obliquely or in passing.

Homer’s worth as a source is contentious. Regardless of one’s position on the

subject, however, we can appreciate the enormity of his influence in the 6th century

without embroiling ourselves in the controversy surrounding his date. That Homer was

committed to writing in Athens during the tyranny of Peisistratus speaks volumes about

his importance in Athens during this century and it supplements the ample art historical

evidence suggestive of Homer’s broad influence. We need not take his work at face

value to be sensitive to the ways in which later Greeks mined it for information as well as

inspiration. Thus, Xenophon’s Niceratus brags to his fellow symposiasts, “If any of you

wish to become a manager or a politician or a general, or like Achilles, Ajax, Nestor, or

56
H. van Wees, “Politics and the Battlefield: Ideology in Greek Warfare,” in The Greek World, ed. A.
Powell (New York: Routledge, 1995), 153: “From Homer to Aristotle, poets and writers slanted their
accounts of warfare past and present so as to attribute a decisive military role to those in power – or those
aspiring to power. Their bias was all the more effective for being less blatant: so much so that some of it
found its way into modern histories of ancient Greece, unchallenged until recently.”
57
Archilochos, for example, and later, Aeschylus, Thucydides, and Xenophon.
 22
58
Odysseus, you should befriend me. For I know about all these things.” Theognis also

assumes that his sympotic audience will have a familiarity with the poems of Homer

when he writes, “Do not remind me of my evils. Indeed I have suffered like

Odysseus…”59 The same can be said of Hesiod, Tyrtaios, and others to varying degrees.

None of these authors were bound in their influence or relevance by the limitations of

geography or chronology. While they vary in their ability to describe the ‘reality’ of their

respective times, they all reflect and promote certain attitudes and expectations. These

can be very helpful.

Classical authors, on the other hand, write in the aftermath of Greece’s epoch-

making victory over the Persians in 479 B.C.E. This had a profound effect on the way in

which peoples, events, and attitudes prior to the war were perceived and rewritten just a

few generations later. Some Greeks began to define themselves as Greek by contrasting

themselves to a foreign ‘other.’ A more clearly defined sense of panhellenism began to

emerge. To use Edith Hall’s term, Greeks ‘invented the barbarian.’60 Foreigners and

many of the characteristics associated with them would henceforth be laden with negative

connotations against which Greeks might compare themselves favorably. Archery was a

casualty of this new ideological climate.

The change was so drastic and enduring that even Greeks writing years later

would echo Classical views. Pausanias, for instance, writing the passage mentioned

above in the 2nd century C.E., claims to be puzzled during his survey of the Athenian
58
Xenophon Symposium 4.6. “ὅστις ἂν οὖν ὑµῶν βούληται ἢ οἰκονοµικὸς ἢ δηµηγορικὸς ἢ στρατηγικὸς
γενέσθѳαι ἢ ὅµοιος Ἀχιλλεῖ ἢ Αἴαντι ἢ Νέστορι ἢ Ὀδυσσεῖ, ἐµὲ θѳεραπευέτω. ἐγὼ γὰρ ταῦτα πάντα ἐπίσταµαι.”
59
Theognis 1123. “Μή µε κακῶν µίµνησκε· πέπονθѳά τοι οἷά τ' Ὀδυσσεύς,”
60
E. Hall, Inventing the Barbarian: Greek Self-definition through Tragedy (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1991).
 23
61
Acropolis when he observes a bronze statue of Diitrephes shot with arrows. He points

out that Crete is the only Greek region in which archery survived, adding that Homer’s

Locrians had given up the bow for the spear by the time of the Persian Wars. Even the

Malians, he writes, knew nothing about the bow until Philoktetes taught its use to them,

and they gave it up soon thereafter.

We can find another such example in Polybius. Writing in the 2nd century B.C.E.,

he idealized Greece’s military exploits, extolling a romantic vision of Greek hoplite

warfare in a pointed comparison to the Macedonian tactics practiced closer to his day.62

For the ancients, a proper victory was won in open hand-to-hand combat. So important

was this that, according to Polybius, Greeks would enter into pacts prohibiting the use of

missiles, announce their intentions to do battle, and fight at a previously specified

location. At the present, he adds by way of comparison, they say that it is a crime to do

anything open in war!

Finally, it deserves note that, as is the case with so many topics, the bulk of our

evidence (written and art historical) is Athenian. In my examination of all available

evidence, I found nothing in the non-Athenian evidence that contradicts that which we

find in the Athenian evidence. While is seems likely that the Athenians took a greater

61
Pausanias 1.23.4. According to Thucydides, a Diitrephes was an Athenian general elected to govern the
Thracian part of the Athenian empire (8.64). He also led a group of Thracian mercenaries who were
responsible for the massacre of Mycallesus in 413 B.C.E. (7.29). Some suggest an earlier Diitrephes. See
E. Gardner, A Handbook of Greek Sculpture (London: MacMillan and Co., 1897), 318. This is the passage
referred to above by Snodgrass.
62
Polybius 13.3.2-6. This passage suggests that the use of missiles was normal (why else make a
prohibition against there use?), but frowned upon. This passage is sometimes associated (incorrectly, I
think) with the so-called ‘prohibition of missiles’ in the Lelantine War. This will be discussed in greater
detail below.
 24
interest in the bow than many other Greeks, Athenian evidence pertaining to the bow’s

presence and capabilities appears to be representative and accurate.

There is, however, a silver lining to some of these vexing evidentiary obstacles.

The bow itself did not change technologically from roughly 700 B.C.E. to roughly 700

C.E.63 So, while armor, strategies, tactics, and attitudes changed over time, certain

observations about the bow and its capabilities will be applicable, even if the author is

Classical or later. While I will try not to roam too far temporally from the Archaic period,

certain later sources will prove useful in various ways.

Ideology

Now, before advancing any further, it is worth pausing for a moment to consider

and define my use of the term ideology. This is a loaded term and one that often

generates controversy. Some scholars use it in a vague sense – as if it is synonymous

with ‘worldview.’ For others, the word conjures up a very specific set of connotations,

often related to Marxist theory. I will adhere to a relatively broad definition of the term

so as to make it politically profitable in support of my contentions. Thus, the following

definition will allow us to account for the socio-political changes and pressures

mentioned above as well as reactions to them. I will define ideology as: “A kind of

symbolic self-expression which seeks to promote, sustain, and legitimize the political

interests of social groups in the face of opposing interests. Ideology can here be seen as a

discursive field in which self-promoting social powers negotiate questions central to the

reproduction of social power as a whole.”64

63
W. McLeod, “The Range of the Ancient Bow,” Phoenix 19.1 (1965), 3.
64
I am relying upon the work of T. Eagleton, Ideology: An Introduction (London: Verso, 1991), 29.
 25
Definition of Archaic.

Though I have elected to use the term ‘Archaic’ Greece, I do so in a broad

manner. While the traditional and tidy dates, 600-480 B.C.E., are useful in many

contexts, such a temporal limitation will prove problematic and rather artificial here.

There was no incident or proclamation in 600 B.C.E. that changed the nature, use of, or

attitudes about the bow. As we shall see, the use of the bow increased from the

Geometric period on. The identity of the archers and attitudes about the art changed

during this time, but the change was gradual – right up to the Persian Wars. For this

reason, 490-480 B.C.E. makes an excellent end point.

Our point of departure no is less clear. Though the bow’s merit relative to other

weapons in the Mycenaean period is debated, no serious scholar would deny that the bow

was used widely during the Late Bronze Age (LBA). It is the bow’s absence in the

archaeological record of ‘Dark Age’ Greece that has, in comparison with its frequency in

the LBA, sparked the commonly accepted belief that archery more or less disappeared on

mainland Greece with the collapse of the Mycenaean period and was later reintroduced

via Crete. ‘Archaic’ in this context will therefore refer to the period between the LBA

and the Persian Wars, roughly 1050 to 480 B.C.E.

Organization and Approach

I would like to conclude this introduction with a brief note about the focus of this

work and my organizational strategy. First, my interest in this project revolves around

archery as a weapon of war and the political ideologies that support and stifle it. The

meaning of the bow as it pertains to gods, therefore, is beyond the purview of this

dissertation. By necessity, I have to walk a finer line with respect to archer heroes. I
 26
include those of the Iliad because I view the battle narratives of the epic to be credible

approximations of 8th century. Even if I am wrong about this, the attitudes and actions

describes by Homer in the Iliad were exceedingly influential in Greece and not

infrequently emulated. So, the information gathered from the text is an invaluable

source. The exploits of the earlier generation of heroes – some of them archer heroes,

like Herakles, Idas, Actaion, Parthenopaios, Alcon, Eurytus, Bellerophon, Orestes, et alia

– belong, for the most part, to the realm of folklore.65 These will garner attention only in

passing.

Given the nature of the evidence, a thorough, linear, and smoothly chronological

‘History of Archery in Archaic Greece’ is problematic.66 It will be far more practical to

use the evidence we have to answer the questions essential to understanding the problem

at hand. Therefore, I will loosely organize my work around the following set of

questions:

• Chapter 1 - Did archery exist?

Although the answer to this question may seem obvious, there is, at present, no

scholarly consensus on the matter. This chapter will examine in great detail the material

and literary evidence at hand for the period and conclude that archery was not only

common in Archaic Greece, but that it was ubiquitous. Further, we will see that there is

65
The archer hero is a common Indo-European folk motif.
66
Because the evidence is scattered, and because the opinions about archery described above are so firmly
entrenched, I have opted to employ the persuasive powers of quantity. The evidence may be scattered, but
it is abundant – too abundant to ignore or to write off to anomaly.
 27
th
no good reason to believe that there was, until the 5 century, a “native aversion to

archery” or that archery disappeared and was reintroduced on the mainland.67

• Chapter 2 - How was archery used?

This chapter will begin with an examination of the types of bows and arrows in

use in Archaic Greece as a means of assessing their intent and capability. We will then

consider a basic model of military theory in order to contextualize the advantages and

disadvantages of fighting with the bow. The chapter will conclude with a comprehensive

assessment of the bow’s tactical deployment and what that deployment reveals.

• Chapter 3 - Was archery effective?

This chapter will evaluate the arrow’s lethality and then its ability to penetrate

armor. It will delve deeply into battle wounds and their treatment, the possibility (or

expectation) that arrows were poisoned, and the ideological significance for a hoplite or

aristocratic ‘front-fighter’ of dying as a result of an arrow wound. The arrow will be

considered within the context of psychological warfare – a weapon of terror.

• Chapter 4 - Who were the archers?

This chapter will approach the identity of the archers by first addressing the

deeply entrenched view that archers on mainland Greece were foreign. It will examine

the history of and reasoning behind both the Scythian and Cretan associations, proving

that neither were likely to have served as archers on the mainland during the Archaic

period. It will also examine the cases for therapontes, metics, mercenaries, and slaves,

67
A. Snodgrass, Arms and Armor of the Greeks (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999), 81.
 28
arriving at the conclusion that thetes offer the most plausible candidate for the Archaic

archer.

• Chapter 5 - How did Greeks feel about archery?

This chapter will begin by examining the Homeric perspective – often held to be

one that frowns upon archery. From here it will turn to other archaic documentary

sources and material evidence, focusing in particular on the images of the ‘Scythian’

archer. We will examine the significance of ethnicity during the period and then the

polarization of ethic identity in the wake of the Persian wars.

 29
Chapter 1
Did archery exist in Archaic Greece?

Material Evidence

As stated earlier, no bows have been found on mainland Greece. Our

archaeological evidence for archery revolves around arrowheads.68 By the 7th century

B.C.E., arrowheads appear in abundance on the Greek mainland. No one disputes this.

They are often found in sanctuaries, and sometimes within a stratigraphical context.69

The context offers little to nothing in the way of information about the identity of those

who dedicated them. Their sizes and shapes suggest a variety of potential uses. All seem

to have been adopted or, at the very least, derived directly from Cretan and Scythian

types of arrowheads. Again, to be clear, these types were so common throughout the

Mediterranean that they cannot be equated with a Cretan or Scythian presence.70 The

arrowheads appear in both bronze and iron, although the former is more common.

Snodgrass suggests that this may be due to the fact that bronze lends itself well to mass-

production.71

68
I am opting here to make a somewhat false distinction between ‘archaeological’ evidence and ‘art
historical’ evidence. Examples presented under the aegis of art history are, in fact, part of the
archaeological record. I make the distinction here as a means of organizing disparate forms of evidence
into a clear argument.
69
Excavations at Smyrna indicate that during the Lydian siege of Smyrna (c. 600 B.C.E.), both sides shot
arrows at one another. I will confine my treatment to the Greek mainland. See Snodgrass, Arms and
Armor of the Greeks (1999), 81.
70
Some form of early contact was possible, but even this could have been second hand or greater.
Although it is tempting to think otherwise, the fact is that effective tools were recognized as such and often
traveled.
71
Snodgrass, Arms and Armor of the Greeks (1999), 81.
 30
It is therefore probable that archery was not only present, but widespread on the

mainland by the Archaic period.72 The art historical record, at least in so far as it can be

relied upon to indicate a familiarity with the concept of archery, supports this. For as

long as there are human figures on Greek vases, archers are among them. Any perceived

‘disappearance’ of archers is synonymous with the disappearance of human figures

altogether on vases during the Protogeometric period.

The bow was wildly popular in depictions of battle on Geometric vase paintings,

many of them produced in Attic workshops. In these scenes, which take place on both

land and sea, archers appear fighting with and against soldiers bearing swords and spears.

Ahlberg, in her monograph on these battle scenes, found that the bow was as prevalent as

the sword and spear – even moreso in images representing naval engagements. She also

found that archers were not only directly involved in the fighting rather than standing off

at a distance, but that some soldiers carry the bow along with a shield, spear, and sword.73

An Attic Middle Geometric skyphos from Eleusis (Fig. 2), dated to the early

second quarter of the 8th century B.C.E. (circa 770 B.C.E.), illustrates the point nicely.

The top scene takes place on land and appears to depict a confrontation between two

small sets of warriors. There have already been some casualties in the confrontation as

two more corpses lie horizontally separating the two forces. Each side consists of an

archer with another soldier behind him. The archers are in the earliest stages of drawing

72
Ibid. Snodgrass points to examples from Sparta, Olympia, and Perachora from the mainland. He also
cites evidence from Smyrna (included above), Rhodes, Chios, Delos, and Greek settlements in Cyrene,
Egypt, Syria, and Cyprus. The whole Greek world seems to have been well acquainted with the bow
during this period.
73
G. Ahlberg, Fighting on Land and Sea in Greek Geometric Art (Stockholm, 1971)
 31
Figure 2

their bows. Behind the left archer, a damaged warrior stands bearing a spear and

exaggerated, though sheathed, sword. Behind the right archer, a warrior is about to throw

a javelin. The lower scene seems to represent an amphibious assault. A single archer

stands atop a boat manned by a single helmsman who appears to be actively working the

ship’s rudder. The bowman is about to draw his weapon at a heavily armed warrior who

carries two spears, a sword, and a shield, and who appears to be standing on dry land.

Another similarly dressed warrior stands on the other side of the boat. This skyphos

represents the earliest major action scene of the Geometric period and illustrates that

archers were prominently featured in battle on both land and sea.

A recently excavated amphora from Paros (Fig. 3), dating to the middle of the 8th

century B.C.E., depicts a battle scene pitting a force of archers and cavalry against a force
 32
74
comprised of slingers. Of particular interest here is the fact that the archers wear armor.

Both sport helmets, but the lead archer carries a large round shield and appears to have

another weapon, perhaps a spear or sword projecting improbably from his back. This is

one of many such examples from the period that rebut the notion that archers were seen at

this time as a light-armed specialists who were not central to the action.75

Figure 3

The popularity of the archer figure appears to decline during the Orientalizing

period, but archers continue to be portrayed. Again, archers, though less prominent now,

are directly involved in massed fighting. Although many of these images clearly

represent mythological scenes – usually Herakles dispatching a supernatural creature,

some appear to represent human battle scenes. For example, this Proto-Corinthian

Aryballos from Lechaion (Fig. 4), dating to the first quarter of the 7th century B.C.E.,

pictures an archer amidst spearmen, crouching as he draws his bow to benefit from the

cover of his compatriot’s shield. The Hellenist will be reminded of the Greek archer

74
This is actually the earliest depiction of slingers in Greek art. The vessel was excavated in 1984 and was
therefore unavailable to Ahlberg at the time of her writing. I use this example to illustrate that her
conclusions are supported by recent discoveries. See F. Zafeirpoulou & A. Agelarakis
“Warriors of Paros” in The Archaeology of War, ed. Editors of Archaeology Magazine. (New York:
Hatherleigh Press, 2005), 38-42.
75
Lest this combination of weaponry be dismissed as fictive or hyperbolic on practical grounds, consider
that Charlemagne had his infantrymen carry both a bow and a spear. Moreover, the Capitulary of Aachen
(circa 802 B.C.E.) “illustrates the type of equipment that the infantry was supposed to bring to muster
when summoned by the court.” See Strickland & Hardy, The Great Warbow (2011), 59. The list included a
lance, a shield, a bow (with two bowstrings), and 12 arrows.
 33
Teukros, seeking shelter between shots behind the massive shield of his half-brother

Aias. Yet this stance finds precedent in Mycenaean art as well (Figure 5), another

possible indication that there is some continuity between the expectations of Mycenaean

culture and that of the 8th century.76 Near Eastern archers were also deployed in this

manner throughout the period.77

Figure 4

Figure 5

It will be noted that the warrior behind whom the archer (Figure 4) crouches holds a

hoplite shield, complete with porpax and antilabe, both visible and emphasized. The

adoption of hoplite armor and the denser tactical formations generally thought to have

accompanied it may have relegated the bow to secondary status. The art historical

evidence would seem to support this hypothesis. However, the archaeological record

76
A decorated Mycenaean sword depicts a lion hunt scene wherein an archer takes precisely the same
position (crouched and drawing his bow) behind a spear-wielding shield-bearing companion.
77
See Y. Yadin, The Art of Warfare in Biblical Lands in the Light of Archaeological Study (London:
Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1963), 2 vols., as well as F. De Backer, “Some Basic Tactics of Neo-Assyrian
Warfare,” Ugarit-Forschungen 39 (2007/2008): 69-116.
 34
rebuts any argument that these changes rendered the bow obsolete. Excavations show a

virtual explosion of arrowheads at this time. The decline in the popularity of archery, if

indeed there was a decline, seems to have been limited to artistic media and was not true

on the battlefield.

In the 6th century B.C.E. depictions of archers begin to reappear in quantity. Due

to iconography or labels, the figures are often recognizable as mythological heroes (like

Herakles). If not heroes, they usually appear foreign – often, though not always, because

of the manner of their dress. There are some examples of archers wearing armor or

carrying other weapons from this period, but they tend to be exceptional.78 It is therefore

fair to say that archers were depicted as specialists at this time.

Thus far the evidence points towards the widespread presence of archery from the

8th century B.C.E. onward. Arrowheads and images of archers abound. Most of the latter

were created in Attic workshops. Collectively they do not suggest a discernable

difference in status between archers and spearmen until the development of the hoplite

shield towards the end of the 8th century or beginning of the 7th century B.C.E., at which

time archers began to evolve into light-armed specialists. It is safe to say that archery

was a consistent feature of Archaic battle throughout this time.

Despite this, it is common for scholars to imagine archery as an alien art that was

frowned upon by Greeks. Much of this has to do with a wide acceptance of what

Snodgrass describes as a “native Greek aversion to archery.”79 The archaeological

78
The same can be said of the literary evidence. Herodotus (7.92), for example, portrays his Lydians
wearing breastplates and greaves, but carrying bows.
79
A. Snodgrass, Arms and Armor of the Greeks (1999), 81.
 35
underpinnings of this argument are to be found in the scant record of the Protogeometric

period.

Due to the absence of arrowheads during the Protogeometric and Early Geometric

periods, particularly conspicuous after their popularity in the Mycenaean period,

Snodgrass envisioned a “long eclipse” after which the bow was reintroduced to mainland

Greece by Crete.80 At the time, only five arrowheads had been discovered which dated to

the periods in question.81 The ensuing years have yielded enough new data that it is time

to revisit this notion of an ‘eclipse.’ For if no such lacuna exists, there is no need to posit

the hypothesis of an ‘alien’ reintroduction of the bow to mainland Greece.

The most substantive and important new data comes from the site of Lefkandi on

Euboea where excavators have discovered a cemetery containing several warrior burials,

which are rare in later times, and helpful in allowing us to associate grave goods with

specific individuals.82 It is worth noting by the way that Mycenaean arrowheads, found

in such abundance, often appear in graves. So the change in cultural practice is one

important factor in determining what material evidence has been left behind in datable

contexts. These burials at Lefkandi not only offer new evidence for archery, but also

give us some comparative data.

80
A. Snodgrass, Early Greek Armour and Weapons (1964), 142. He makes this determination by using
arrow typologies and associating the double convex bow often depicted in Geometric scenes with the
Cretan single stave double convex wooden bow. McLeod identifies four different types of bows – one of
them possibly a sigma-shaped ‘Scythian’ composite bow – using the same evidence as Snodgrass. McLeod
The Bow in Ancient Greece (1966), 303-309. Lorimer identifies both simple and composite bows, the
latter of which she cites as evidence of a foreign presence, interpreting these vases as depictions of battle
between Greeks and foreigners. She cites Pausanias 1.23.4 as evidence that archery was not native to the
Greeks. H. L. Lorimer, Homer and the Monuments (London: Macmillan, 1950), 280-282.
81
One from the Kerameikos cemetery in Athens, two obsidian examples from Early Geometric Tiryns, and
two iron examples from Corinth.
82
Lefkandi has already made an enormous contribution to our understanding of Protogeometric Greece
with the discovery of the Heroön in 1980. Excavation on this site began in 1964 – the same year in which
Snodgrass published the work to which I have referred.
 36
Tomb 51 provides our most important new evidence. In it, excavators discovered

the cremated remains of an adult male in a lidded bronze cauldron. The cauldron had

been deposited into a niche in the side of a shaft. Grave goods were deposited in the

niche beside the cauldron. These included a ‘killed’ iron sword,83 a spearhead, and

twenty-five tanged arrowheads of various sizes.84 Unfortunately, these are fused together

into two solid masses, preventing a more exhaustive study.85

There were also four ceramic vessels in this shaft, one of which is of particular

interest to us.86 This imported hydria87 dating to around 1000 B.C.E. (see Figure 6,

below) contains the earliest (and only) human figures represented on a ceramic vessel on

the Greek mainland during the first 200 years or so of the Iron Age.88 Though the paint is

badly faded, the image remains visible. Two figures – both archers – sit facing one

another with arrows nocked. Their bows are strung but not yet drawn. The bows are

doubly convex in form (essentially resembling the letter ‘B’).89 The scene appears to

represent a duel. It is important not to exaggerate the significance of this vessel, as it is

83
Objects intentionally destroyed before burial are often referred to as ‘killed’ – the idea being that the
‘life’ of an object has been ended. The prevailing explanation for the practice revolves around preventing
reuse and therefore personalizing the object by associating it forever with the deceased.
84
For more on the particulars of arrowheads, see Chapter II and Appendix I.
85
M. Popham and I. Lemos, “A Euboean Warrior Trader,” OJA 14.2 (1995).
86
M. Popham, L. H. Sackett, and P. G. Themelis, Lefkandi I - The Iron Age Text: The Cemeteries.
(London: Thames & Hudson for the British School of Archaeology at Athens, 1980).
87
The vessel is thought to be of Levantine production. I include this vase here, rather than later in the ‘art
historical’ section, because of its specific context.
88
J. Hurwit, The Art and Culture of Early Greece (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1985), 55.
89
They are therefore either simple bows of the Cretan type, or composite bows (as their extreme curvature
would seem to indicate. A wooden bow of this form would likely (though not necessarily) break). If
Cretan, we have to wonder why an import that is believed to come from Syria would picture a Cretan rather
than a Near Eastern composite bow.
 37
an import. However, if we hold that images on vessels bear meaning to their viewers, it

is fair to suggest that the image on this vase was, at the very least, recognizable to its

viewers.

Figure 6

Lemos sees the combination of the arrowheads and vessel as evidence that

archery may have been practiced at this time, suggesting that “it is only chance that not

more has survived.”90 Moreover, a bronze amphora excavated from the heroön at

Lefkandi depicts relief figure of archers hunting animals on its rim. The imagery was not

therefore confined to ceramic materials alone. Importantly, there is no break in evidence

for archers on mainland Greece from the Mycenaean to the Geometric periods and

beyond. So long as there are human figures on vases, we find archers depicted.

Next, the niche opening was sealed with a boulder, and the shaft itself was filled

with ash and nine more iron arrowheads along with a smaller bronze one. Thus, with one

90
I. Lemos, The Protogeometric Aegean (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 123.
 38
grave, our total number of Protogeometric arrowheads increased from fewer than five to

thirty four. While this is definitely the richest tomb, this is not the only tomb at the site

yielding evidence of archery. It is worthy of note that, as I write this, only an estimated

2% of Lefkandi has been excavated.91

In Tomb 26, a shaft grave burial, excavators found the badly damaged but

identifiable remains of ten tanged and barbed iron arrowheads.92 They were located next

to the left pelvis, perhaps an indication that they were originally located in a quiver,

which has decomposed. Along the warrior’s left leg was an iron sword.

Lemos also notes another Late Protogeometric tomb from the site in which

excavators found 6 iron barbed and tanged arrowheads.93 From the location designated T

Pyre 1, the remains of horn and antler were found. These are two components used in the

construction of the composite bow. This is the closest we have come to evidence of an

actual bow, but the evidence here is entirely inconclusive.

There were also burials with no arrowheads. In four cases, the deceased was

buried with a spear and sword. In another case, the warrior was buried with an axe and

dagger.94 While the sword appears to be the most widespread weapon in the mortuary

record from Lefkandi, it is noteworthy that those burials containing arrowheads are

among the wealthiest found thus far at the site, likely attesting to the high social status of

the deceased.

91
J. Hall, A History of the Archaic Greek World (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2007), 7.
92
Popham et alia, Lefkandi I - The Iron Age Text (1980), Lemos, The Protogeometric Aegean (2002), 256-
7.
93
Lemos, ibid.
94
Ibid. Axes also have a tendency to be associated with Eastern soldiers. Scythian figures, for instance,
often carry a bow and axe.
 39
While Lefkandi accounts for the greatest number of arrowheads excavated in

recent years, it is not alone in yielding new archaeological evidence regarding the use of

archery. When Snodgrass wrote his aforementioned survey, the substantial mortuary

record from the Keramaikos cemetery in Athens had yielded a single arrowhead from the

Protogeometric period. Grave 28 yielded an arrowhead along with an iron sword and a

long knife.95 More recently, in the same cemetery, an iron arrowhead from the Early

Geometric period was found embedded in the shoulder of a young man.96 The photo is

not helpful in determining the type of arrowhead that is lodged in the bone, but its very

presence offers evidence of archery in action and used against humans.97

As in Lefkandi, there are other burials with no evidence of archery, but these too

are helpful, demonstrating the variety of weapons in use during the period. Lemos counts

three burials bearing only a sword, two more that have only a spearhead, and three others

that have both a dagger and a spearhead.98

Nor is our evidence confined to Lefkandi and Athens. Arrowheads like those

found at locations were also found at Vergina, in Thessaly, and at Delphi.99 These

95
A. Snodgrass, The Dark Age of Greece (2000), 233.
96
Lemos, The Protogeometric Aegean (2002), 123; B. von Freytag gen. Loringhoff, “Kerameikos 1992-
1994” in Archaologischer Anzeiger Heft 4. (Berlin: Deutsches Archaologisches Institut, 1995) Heft 4.
Berlin/New York.
97
Again, some scholars deny the bow’s use as a weapon of war (outside of the Iliad) and argue that it was
only used for hunting. For example, Vos states, “ … Whereas in Greece itself down to the fifth c. the bow
was little used (and then only in hunting) …” M.F. Vos, Scythian Archers in Archaic Attic Vase-Painting
(Groningen: J.B. Wolters, 1963), 1.
98
Lemos, The Protogeometric Aegean (2002).
99
See K. Rhomiopoulou, and I. Kilian Dirlmeier “Neue Funde aus der eisenzeitlichen Hugelnekropole von
Vergina, Griechisch Makedonien” in Praehistorische Zeitschrift 64 (1989). Also, P. Arachobite, P.
Ψολϖτοω πρϖτογεϖµετρικοω ταφοω στην περιοξη τϖν φερϖν ιν Ψεσσαλια: Δεκαπεντε ξρονια
αρξαιολογικεω ερευναω, 1975-1990 (1994) generously translated for me from modern Greek by Aspa
Bitis of the Alexander S. Onassis Public Benefit Foundation.
 40
compliment the few we already had from Corinth and Early Geometric Tiryns. While I

am confining my comments here to examples of arrowheads found on the Greek

mainland, it should be noted that evidence from Skyros, Rhodes, and Kos is consistent

with that of the mainland.

Ultimately, this is a small but useful sample size of material from which we can

draw some interesting conclusions. First, weapons from the Protogeometric time period

have only been found in graves. Swords, daggers, spearheads, axes, arrowheads, and

knives (the last of which may or may not have been seen as weapons) are all represented

in the mortuary record. Swords were the most common weapons. Arrowheads are found

with other weapons, suggesting that they are supplementary weapons and, significantly,

that there was no specialization in archery at this time (at least among the wealthy).100 At

the same time there is no evidence of an ideological aversion to the bow. Arrowheads are

found in some of the wealthiest burials of the period, suggesting that the bow, while

subordinate to the sword, was still used by powerful men. The Geometric vase paintings,

depicting archers in heavy armor and bearing swords and spears, are consistent with this

interpretation.

In the end, the material evidence resists the idea that there was a ‘long eclipse’ in

archery on mainland Greece. Models in which the bow and arrow were reintroduced to

the mainland by foreign or Cretan archers are entirely unnecessary. There is no reason to

believe that they ever left. Their respective forms may have changed over time to

incorporate effective technological influences from abroad, but the weapons were no less

Greek than spears or swords. The bow and arrow may not have been as popular, but they

100
Lemos, The Protogeometric Aegean (2002), 125-6.
 41
were fairly common relative to the scant Protogeometric evidence at our disposal and

quite widespread.101 We have every reason to believe that future excavations will

continue to bear this out.

Documentary Evidence

Turning to the documentary evidence, I would like to begin by assessing the two

literary sources most commonly cited as evidence by scholars who deny the presence

and/or the “Greekness” of archery during the Archaic period. The first comes from

Herodotus’ account of the Battle of Marathon.102 The passage is commonly used to

fortify the claim that there were no archers in the 6th century Athenian army. He writes:

After they had been arranged and the offerings were auspicious, only then did the
Athenians advance, at a run they threw themselves into the barbarians. The space
between the two armies was not less than 8 stades. And the Persians, when they
saw them attacking at a run, were preparing themselves to receive them, and they
considered them crazy and entirely suicidal, as they saw that they were few in
number and hastening towards them at a run, having neither horse nor archers
with them. But now the barbarians were surprised at this.103

It should be noted that this is the only reference in Herodotus to a lack of archers

among the Athenians. As noted earlier, the reference is ambiguous at best.104 Let us, for

101
There are convincing theories that the time period was characterized by widespread migratory
pastoralism. See J. Hall, A History of the Archaic Greek World (2007), 61. Though it proves nothing, we
would do well to remember that pastoral peoples are almost universally associated with the bow.
102
Herodotus 6.112.
103
This is my (rather literal) translation. The Greek is as follows: ‘ΩΩς δέ σφι διετέτακτο καὶ τὰ σφάγια
ἐγίνετο καλά, ἐνθѳαῦτα ὡς ἀπείθѳησαν οἱ ’Αθѳηναῖοι, δρόµῳ ἵεντο ἐς τοὺς βαρβάρους· ἦσαν δὲ στάδιοι οὐκ
ἐλάσσονες τὸ µεταίχµιον αὐτῶν ἢ ὀκτώ. Οἱ δὲ Πέρσαι ὁρῶντες δρόµῳ ἐπιόντας παρεσκευάζοντο ὡς δεξόµενοι,
µανίην τε τοῖσι ’Αθѳηναίοισι ἐπέφερον καὶ πάγχυ ὀλεθѳρίην, ὁρῶντες αὐτοὺς ἐόντας ὀλίγους, καὶ τούτους δρόµῳ
ἐπειγοµένους οὔτε ἵππου ὑπαρχούσης σφι οὔτε τοξευµάτων. Ταῦτα µέν νυν οἱ βάρβαροι κατείκαζον·
104
Ambiguities and omissions in the text have long frustrated historians. See A.W. Gomme, “Herodotus
and Marathon,” Phoenix 6.3 (1952): 77-83: “Everyone knows that Herodotus’ narrative of Marathon will
not do.” (p. 77).
 42
the sake of argument and clarity, reduce our evaluation to the passage itself, ignoring the

substantial evidence that points to Herodotus’ ideological biases.105

First, Herodotus does not say that there are no archers in the Athenian army. What

we are told is that the outnumbered Athenians advance at a run (or perhaps on the double)

without the support of cavalry or archers.106 This is what surprises the Persians.107 There

is nothing in this passage that points to an absence of archers in Archaic Athens. It is

possible that the Athenians fielded no archers or cavalry at the battle itself, but even this

is unclear.108 They may well have been present but held back for some reason.109

Arrows, as we shall see, could be effective but were generally not too much of a threat to

a formation of hoplites, although they did prove enough of an incentive to provoke an

advance on the run.110 To light-armed soldiers and horses, however, Persian arrows

105
At the time of his writing, there was already a well-developed and very public contrast of the bow and
the spear. Herodotus works to further this dichotomy. I would argue that Marathon should be read as his
demonstration of the prominence of the spear over the bow. For more on this mode of thought see J.A.S.
Evans, “Herodotus and the Battle of Marathon,” Historia 42.3 (1993): 279-307. For example, “Marathon
was a hoplite triumph where the thetes had no share of the glory. Thus, before Herodotus encountered the
oral sources on the battle, they were already contaminated by interest groups for whom Marathon was too
important to be left to historians …” p. 279. Furthermore, contemporary vase painting now pits hoplites
against Persian bowmen. It is, in fact, by far the most common representation of the bow after Marathon.
106
See W.W. How, “Arms, Tactics and Strategy in the Persian Wars,” JHS 43.2 (1923): 124. How
demonstrates here that advancing on the double was considered the correct way to attack archers. Thus,
even though Persian archers are not specifically mentioned, it is safe to assume that they were present.
107
Although the attack itself seems to have been a surprise, as the Persians who begin to prepare for it were
not apparently ready for it. See G. Shrimpton, “The Persian Cavalry at Marathon,” Phoenix 34.1 (1980):
27.
108
It is worth noting that Herodotus makes no mention at all of light-armed troops among the Athenians.
However, Pausanias (1.32.3, 10.20.2) notes the presence of a tomb at Marathon memorializing the liberated
slaves who fought and died for the Greeks there. For more on this see N. Loraux, The Invention of Athens.
The Funeral Oration in the Classical City, trans. Alan Sheridan (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press, 1986), 35. Did Herodotus include them among his hoplites or is it more likely that they fought as
light-armed soldiers and were ignored in his narrative?
109
Ibid., 34.
110
P.H. Blythe, “The Effectiveness of Greek Armour against Arrows in the Persian War: An
Interdisciplinary Inquiry,” (Unpublished PhD. Dissertation, University of Reading, 1977). There are
 43
would have been devastating. Given the number of Persians and their reputation for

widespread use and proficiency with the bow (the knowledge of which is surely

demonstrated by the unusually speedy advance of the hoplites)111, such an advance would

rightly have been considered a suicide mission for these troops. And what exactly would

these archers have done once they closed the very gap that gave them their only tactical

advantage? Archers by this time were quite simply not equipped for hand-to-hand

combat with more heavily armed solders. Perhaps they remained behind, out of bow

range, in support or to cover a retreat?112 This would certainly be in keeping with much

of our evidence for the tactical deployment of archers. Furthermore, should the same

passage be taken to mean that there were no horsemen in Athens?113

In describing the Battle of Plataea, which takes place a decade later, Herodotus

notes that there were organized groups of Athenian archers present at the battle.114 Both

Aeschylus and Plutarch note the presence of Greek archers at Salamis.115 Are we to

certainly exceptions to the rule, but they usually require uneven terrain or an advantageous tactical
development, like a flanking maneuver.
111
Note the repetition of δρόµῳ (at a run, or perhaps on the double).
112
J.A.S. Evans, “Herodotus and the Battle of Marathon,” (1993), 302: In his reconstruction, Evans places
archers and light-armed troops behind the hoplites.
113
Even if one agrees with Helbig (1904) that the Athenian cavalry of this time were little more than
mounted hoplites, it will be noted that the Athenians made use of Thessalian cavalry against the Spartans in
510-509 B.C.E. (Herodotus 5.63). The presence, therefore, of cavalrymen in Athens – native or foreign –
seems probable.
114
Herodotus 9.22. Plutarch Aristides 14.5.4. This takes place a decade after Marathon. Scholars often
see this as the beginning of archery in Athens. For example, P. Krentz, “Fighting by the Rules: The
Invention of the Hoplite Agôn,” Hesperia 71 (2002): 30. This example is one of many but is particularly
helpful in illustrating how deeply rooted the notion is, as Krentz himself is among the προµάχοι challenging
engrained ideas about warfare in Ancient Greece.
115
Aeschylus Persians 460. Plutarch Themistocles 14.2.3. Ctesias (Persica 26) claims that these archers
are Cretan. This and a number of other inaccuracies in Ctesias’ account of the Persian Wars are dealt with
in J. Bigwood, “Ctesias as Historian of the Persian Wars,” Phoenix 32.1 (1978): 19-41.
 44
believe that the Athenians were so moved by the ineffective use of archery against them

at Marathon that they reintroduced archery into their military practice during the decade

following Marathon? At bottom, the use of this passage to justify a belief that Athens

had no archers in the Archaic period is absurd.

Pausanias, writing much later, does not just contest the existence of archers in

Athens, he actually denies that archery is a Greek custom altogether. In his survey of the

Athenian Acropolis, he comes across a sculpture that surprises him because it depicts a

man riddled with arrows. He writes: “I was very surprised by the likeness of Diitrephes,

because it had been shot with arrows, archery is not a custom among Greeks except for

Cretans. For we know that the Opuntean Lokrians, whom Homer made set out for Troy

bearing bows and slings, were already fighting as hoplites during the Persian wars; the

practice of archery does not even remain among the Malians, but I think they did not

know it before Philoktetes, and that they stopped not long after that.”116

It is quite possible that Pausanias is merely relating a perception widely held

during his day. He is certainly no stranger to the use of orally transmitted evidence. Just

a few short passages earlier in recounting a story about the Tyrannicides, he states, “What

I am about to say has never been written down before, but it is generally believed by the

Athenian people.”117 Pausanias is parroting ideology. What was ‘generally believed by

116
Pausanias 1.23.4. This is my translation. The Greek reads as follows: τοσοῦτον µὲν παρέστη µοι θѳαῦµα
ἐς τὴν εἰκόνα τοῦ Δ∆ιιτρέφους, ὅτι ὀιστοῖς ἐβέβλητο, ῞Ελλησιν ὅτι µὴ Κρησὶν οὐκ ἐπιχώριον ὂν τοξεύειν·
Λοκροὺς γὰρ τοὺς ’Οπουντίους ὁπλιτεύοντας ἤδη κατὰ τὰ Μηδικὰ ἴσµεν, οὓς ῞Οµηρος ἐποίησεν ὡς φερόµενοι
τόξα καὶ σφενδόνας ἐς ῎Ιλιον ἔλθѳοιεν· οὐ µὴν οὐδὲ Μαλιεῦσι παρέµεινε µελέτη τῶν τόξων, δοκῶ δὲ οὔτε
πρότερον ἐπίστασθѳαι σφᾶς πρὶν ἢ Φιλοκτήτην, παύσασθѳαί τε οὐ διὰ µακροῦ·
117
Pausanias 1.23.2. For more on this subject see M. Pretzler, “Pausanias and Oral Tradition,” CQ 55.1
(2005): 235–249.
 45
the Athenian people’ about the bow after the Persian wars was different than what it had

been in actuality prior to the conflict.

On the other hand, he cites Homer and numerous other authors elsewhere. Many

of these authors (Herodotus, Simonides, et alia.) make mention of archers – Athenian

archers in particular. Furthermore, he himself mentions Greek archers on a few

occasions. 118 We are therefore compelled to see this as an example of selective neglect,

willful ignorance, or deception. In any case, it is inadmissible as evidence for the

absence or character of archery in Archaic or even Classical Greece. At best it can be

read to reflect an attitude toward archery constructed in the aftermath of the Persian Wars

and reinforced for centuries afterwards.

Contemporary literary sources have quite another tale to tell. Among the Archaic

literary sources for archery, the Iliad is most important. There are, however, sharply

divergent views regarding its merit as historical evidence. For some readers, the Iliad

will be inadmissible as a form of historical evidence. The poem, according to this view,

is at best an imaginative composite of historical elements that combine to form a

distinctly Homeric world. Others disagree. To them, the work broadly describes a reality

that existed in Homer’s time. While this view grants the author poetic license, it sees the

underlying social structures as generally accurate – particularly those relating to the

interrelated topics of politics and warfare.119

118
Pausanias 5.4.2, 10.21.4.
119
For an excellent and relatively recent treatment of this subject, see H. van Wees, “Homeric Warfare” in
A New Companion to Homer, eds. I. Morris and B. Powell (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 668-693; and H. van
Wees, “Leaders of Men? Military Organization in the Iliad.” CQ 36.2 (1986): 285-303. For an earlier
influential treatment, see M. Finley, The World of Odysseus (New York: Penguin, 1954).
 46
Regardless of one’s position, the Iliad serves as an excellent lens through which

to view the problem of archery, as it addresses all of the major questions relevant to the

present study. In supplementing the Homeric evidence with other Archaic and relevant

Classical evidence, I hope to illustrate a consistency that will admit the Homeric evidence

as reflective of real beliefs and attitudes consistent with the nature of the bow and its use

in Archaic Greece.

The general picture of the Homeric battlefield is one of individual confrontations

between named aristocrats. Warfare can be seen as a series of duals, where the προµάχοι

or ‘front-fighters’ earn their keep according to the paradigm described by Glaukos.120 A

more careful reading, however, and one that pays attention to peripheral details, reveals

an image of battle much more consistent with subsequent accounts of warfare. It is here

that we find evidence for a presence of archery that goes beyond the few well-known

individuals that usually come to mind. Arrows are, in fact, a standard feature of Homeric

warfare.121

In Book 3, Hektor attempts to end the war by brokering a deal that will reduce the

entire conflict to a duel between Paris and Menelaos. He ventures into the space in

between the two armies and, with his spear raised in what must have been a recognizable

sign of truce, reins in the Trojan soldiers who proceed to seat themselves behind him. As

he does so, we are told: “But the long-haired Achaians were shooting at him/ With arrows

120
Iliad 12.310-321.
121
The gods, Apollo and Artemis, as well as the earlier Greek heroes, Herakles and Idas, whose stories are
woven into the narrative of the epic, are all depicted as archers. I will concentrate here on archery as
practiced by mortals during the Trojan War. J. Ober, The Athenian Revolution (Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press, 1996), 57: “The use of projectile weapons (spears, arrows, rocks) is key to the action in
the Iliad.”
 47
122
and, aiming, they were shooting at him with stones …” Agamemnon, realizing that

Hektor is trying to communicate with the Greeks, calls for a cease-fire. The archers are

called ‘Achaians’ by Homer and addressed as ‘Argives’ and then as ‘sons of Achaeans’

by Agamemnon. The impression given is of a number of nameless Greek light-armed

soldiers taking advantage of an opportunity to strike down the Trojan prince at an

unguarded moment. There is nothing to indicate that there is anything at all unusual

about their presence or behavior.

In Book 15, as the Trojans assault the Greek encampment, Homer describes a

chaotic and desperate scene. The Trojans, lead by Hektor attack the Greeks en masse.

We are told: “But the Argives stood firm altogether and the battle cry rose up/ High-

pitched from both sides, from the bowstrings the arrows / Leapt, many spears from the

bold hands/ Some impaling the flesh of strong men, swift in war/ and many fixed in the

middle before reaching their white skin/ stood fast in the ground longing to get their fill

of flesh …”123 And then: “For as long as Phoebus Apollo held the motionless aegis in his

hands/ missiles from both sides struck and people fell.”124 As the battle rages on, troops

122
Iliad 3.79-80. τῷ δ' ἐπετοξάζοντο κάρη κοµόωντες Ἀχαιοὶ
ἰοῖσίν τε τιτυσκόµενοι λάεσσί τ' ἔβαλλον·
123
Iliad 15.312-17. This passage is used by some to demonstrate the early introduction of close order or
phalanx tactics. In my view, it is evidence of the tactical diversity present throughout the history of Greek
warfare.
Ἀργεῖοι δ' ὑπέµειναν ἀολλέες, ὦρτο δ' ἀϋτὴ
ὀξεῖ' ἀµφοτέρωθѳεν, ἀπὸ νευρῆφι δ' ὀϊστοὶ
θѳρῷσκον· πολλὰ δὲ δοῦρα θѳρασειάων ἀπὸ χειρῶν
ἄλλα µὲν ἐν χροῒ πήγνυτ' ἀρηϊθѳόων αἰζηῶν,
πολλὰ δὲ καὶ µεσσηγὺ πάρος χρόα λευκὸν ἐπαυρεῖν
ἐν γαίῃ ἵσταντο λιλαιόµενα χροὸς ἆσαι.
124
Iliad 15.318-19. This is my translation, by I would like to note that Lattimore’s translation of the word
βέλε is misleading. There is ample evidence that the word is all-inclusive in its meaning of ‘missile’ and
there is no special context in this case to indicate otherwise. Yet, he insists on ‘hand thrown missile.’
ὄφρα µὲν αἰγίδα χερσὶν ἔχ' ἀτρέµα Φοῖβος Ἀπόλλων,
τόφρα µάλ' ἀµφοτέρων βέλε' ἥπτετο, πῖπτε δὲ λαός.
 48
from both sides close the short gap between them and soldiers clash with swords and

axes: “… nor any longer/ were they standing apart awaiting the volleys of the bows and

javelins/ but stood up close to one another, with one mind…125

Thus we have a typical picture of Homeric battle. One side attacks in a group, the

other closes ranks to meet the charge. There is a volley of projectiles, arrows and

javelins, from both sides, some of which find their mark and some of which do not.

Finally, the two armies meet at close quarters resorting to hand held weapons.126

Still later, as the same gruesome battle rages on, Aias, who is looking for an

opportunity to cast his spear at Hektor, finds himself pinned behind his huge shield:

“covering his broad shoulders with an ox-hide shield/ he watched both the whistle of

arrows and the thud of javelins.”127 Despite the fact that soldiers have now begun to

engage in shock warfare, missiles continue to fly, adding their own distinctive sounds to

the cacophony of battle, and preventing one of the greatest Achaean heroes from joining

the fray.128 Later in the same book, as the two sides fight over the body of the dead

Trojan, Kebriones129, “many sharp spears struck the ground around Kebriones/ and many

125
Iliad 15.708-710. The assortment of weapons described here rather neatly corresponds to those found in
the warrior tombs at Lefkandi.
… οὐδ' ἄρα τοί γε
τόξων ἀϊκὰς ἀµφὶς µένον οὐδ' ἔτ' ἀκόντων,
ἀλλ' οἵ γ' ἐγγύθѳεν ἱστάµενοι ἕνα θѳυµὸν ἔχοντες
126
This picture is consistent with Ahlberg’s conclusions about tactics demonstrated on Geometric vases.
127
Iliad 16.360-1. ἀσπίδι ταυρείῃ κεκαλυµµένος εὐρέας ὤµους
σκέπτετ' ὀϊστῶν τε ῥοῖζον καὶ δοῦπον ἀκόντων.
128
Luce incorrectly argues that, “it is never suggested that the fusillades [of arrows] have any effect on the
course of the fighting.” See J. Luce, Homer and the Heroic Age (New York: Harper & Row, 1975), 108.
129
Iliad 16.772-775 πολλὰ δὲ Κεβριόνην ἀµφ' ὀξέα δοῦρα πεπήγει
ἰοί τε πτερόεντες ἀπὸ νευρῆφι θѳορόντες,
πολλὰ δὲ χερµάδια µεγάλ' ἀσπίδας ἐστυφέλιξαν
µαρναµένων ἀµφ' αὐτόν·
 49
feathered arrows leapt from bowstrings,/ many great throwing stones struck shields,/ as

they contended for his body.” 130

As we can see, there is no single distinct time when arrows make an appearance

during the course of battle. They are a ubiquitous feature of Homeric battle, a point

which is reinforced by the heroes’ verbalized expectations. Death by arrow is even a

formulaic part of the risk a hero assumes when he sets foot on the battlefield. Achilleus

tells Priam, “But even I will have my death and my strong fate,/ there will be either a

morning or an afternoon or a midday/ when some man in the fighting will also take my

life / either hitting me with a spear or an arrow from the bowstring.”131

Although this is certainly a foreshadow of the death awaiting Achilleus, it should

not be seen as an aberration on that account. The same formula is applied to

Agamemnon earlier in the poem, when Iris reports to Hektor, “But when, either struck

with a spear or hit by an arrow,/ he leaps onto his horses, then the power to kill will be

yours …”132 These examples and others like them establish that archery is a regular

feature of Homeric warfare.

130
The examples used here are explicit in their description of arrows, but sometimes arrows are included in
the narrative under the vaguer term missile - βέλος. In Iliad 13.555, Poseidon protects Antilochos ‘even
among the many missiles’ (καὶ ἐν πολλοῖσι βέλεσσιν). Having examined the usage of this word elsewhere in
the text, it is fair to say that arrows were among these projectiles.
131
Iliad 21.110-13. ἀλλ' ἔπι τοι καὶ ἐµοὶ θѳάνατος καὶ µοῖρα κραταιή·
ἔσσεται ἢ ἠὼς ἢ δείλη ἢ µέσον ἦµαρ
ὁππότε τις καὶ ἐµεῖο Ἄρῃ ἐκ θѳυµὸν ἕληται
ἢ ὅ γε δουρὶ βαλὼν ἢ ἀπὸ νευρῆφιν ὀϊστῷ.
132
Iliad 11.206-7. αὐτὰρ ἐπεί κ' ἢ δουρὶ τυπεὶς ἢ βλήµενος ἰῷ
εἰς ἵππους ἅλεται, τότε τοι κράτος ἐγγυαλίξει
κτείνειν
 50
A survey of subsequent Archaic sources indicates that the same can be said of all

Archaic warfare. A lengthy fragment of Archilochos,133 which is preserved in Plutarch’s

Life of Theseus, serves as an excellent example: “Not so many bows indeed will be

stretched, nor/ close-set slings shot, when Ares brings together a battle/ upon the plain,

but swords will carry out their mournful work;/ For those men are skilled in this type of

warfare/ the spear-famed masters of Euboea.”134 This passage has been linked to the

famous ‘prohibition of missiles’ that supposedly occurred during the Lelantine War in

Euboea and is preserved in the work of Strabo (and possibly Polybius).135 While we will

return to the issue of a ‘prohibition’ below, suffice it to say that Archilochus’ passage

records no such thing. Supporting the Euboeans’ reputation as close-fighters, he clearly

states that not many bows (οὔ τοι πόλλ`) would be used, as if in emphasis of his main

point. Be that as it may, even if one were to accept the connection between this passage

and the prohibition mentioned by Strabo, it still points to an understanding that bows are

common. Bows, according to this passage, are the norm.

Elsewhere, in a frustratingly incomplete fragment describing a siege on Lesbos,

Archilochus writes of abundant missiles and that the “and quivers were no longer

concealing slaughter ...”136 These arrows are considered deadly. Mimnermus137 in

133
Archilochos of Paros lived during the 7th century B.C.E.
134
Plutarch Theseus 5.3.1-5.3.5 Οὔ τοι πόλλ' ἐπὶ τόξα τανύσσεται οὐδὲ θѳαµειαὶ
σφενδόναι, εὖτ' ἂν δὴ µῶλον Ἄρης συνάγῃ
ἐν πεδίῳ, ξιφέων δὲ πολύστονον ἔσσεται ἔργον·
ταύτης γὰρ κεῖνοι δαίµονές εἰσι µάχης
δεσπόται Εὐβοίας δουρικλυτοί.
135
Strabo 10.1.2. Polybius 13.3.2-4.
136
Archilochos Fragment 98. This is my translation of Douglas Gerber’s restoration.
137
Mimnermus of Smyrna. Active in the latter half of the 7th century B.C.E.
 51
describing Smyrna’s struggle against the Lydians sounds particularly Homeric: “...when

he sped throughout the/ front-fighters in the combat of bloody war/, hard-pressed by the

sharp missiles of the enemy.”138 In describing what appears to be an armory, Alcaeus139

notes that greaves are intended to ward off arrows.140

Even the martial elegy of the Spartan Tyrtaeus, extolling the virtues of heavy

infantry, make repeated use of the ambiguous ‘βέλεα’ (missiles), even going so far in one

instance as to pair light-armed soldiers with their more heavily armed peers in an

arrangement that is reminiscent of that shared by Aias and Teukros in Homer’s Iliad:

“You, light-armed men, as you/ crouch beneath a shield on either side, throw/ huge rocks

and hurl your smooth javelins at them,/ standing close to those in full armour.” 141

In the works of Aeschylus and Simonides, archers are again part of the mix and

this time they are specifically Athenian. In a dedicatory inscription attributed to

Simonides, the author writes, “These arrows of tearful war rest here/ they lie beneath the

roof in Athena's temple/ they often induced groaning among the confusion of battle/ they

bathed in the blood of the Persian horsemen.”142 Aeschylus, himself a participant in the

138
Mimnermus Fragment 14.6. … εὖθѳ' ὅ γ' ἀνὰ προµάχους
σεύαιθѳ' αἱµατόεν<τος ἐν> ὑσµίνηι πολέµοιο,
πικρὰ βιαζόµενος δυσµενέων βέλεα·
139
Alcaeus of Mytilene. He was active at the end of the 7th and the beginning of the 6th century B.C.E.
140
Alcaeus 19. Wheeler suggests that greaves can be seen as anti-missile protection. See Wheeler, E.
(1987) Ephorus and the Prohibition of Missiles. TAPA 117. p.171.
141
Tyrtaeus Fragment 11. This description recalls the images in Figures 1, 3, 4, & 5.
ὑµεῖς δ', ὦ γυµνῆτες, ὑπ' ἀσπίδος ἄλλοθѳεν ἄλλος
πτώσσοντες µεγάλοις βάλλετε χερµαδίοις
δούρασί τε ξεστοῖσιν ἀκοντίζοντες ἐς αὐτούς,
τοῖσι πανόπλοισιν πλησίον ἱστάµενοι.
142
Simonides 6.2 Τόξα τάδε πτολέµοιο πεπαυµένα δακρυόεντος
νηῷ Ἀθѳηναίης κεῖται ὑπωρόφια,
πολλάκι δὴ στονόεντα κατὰ κλόνον ἐν δαῒ φωτῶν
 52
wars, notes (or even emphasizes) the demise of Persians stationed on the small island of

Psyttaleia at the hands, in part at least, of Athenians armed with bows and stones.143

Although there is little debate about the presence of a corp of archers in Athens

during the Classical period,144 one complete with its own officers (τοξάρχοι), it is

interesting to note that the participation of archers is irregularly noted and rarely

highlighted in Classical literature.145 Nevertheless, we still find mention of archers from

all over the Greek world during the period.146 In essence, the literary record from Homer

to Xenophon, is generally consistent in its treatment of archers as ubiquitous but ancillary

parts of a greater military whole.

Perhaps, it should not then be surprising to us that Homer’s descriptive details

indicate a familiarity with the bow’s construction and a realistic sense of its potential. He

uses a fairly extensive corpus of vocabulary, some of it rather specialized, to describe

archery, which, it seems fair to say, would have been familiar to his audience. There are

Περσῶν ἱπποµάχων αἵµατι λουσάµενα.

143
Aeschylus Persians 460. These are the same weapons used against Hektor in Iliad 3.79-80.
144
In addition to the evidence we have seen detailing their use at Plataea and Salamis, Thucydides
frequently includes archers when detailing the composition of forces in an engagement. There numbers are
not inconsiderable. According to his numbers, archers make up 21% of the Athenian troops sent to Melos
in 417/6 B.C.E. (Thuc. 5.84). They comprise 30% of the relief force sent to Amphilochia in 426/5 B.C.E
(Thuc. 3.107) and 40% of the force sent to attack the Peloponnese in 431 B.C.E. (Thuc. 2.23).
145
Van Wees goes into this phenomenon in great detail. See H. van Wees, Greek Warfare: Myths and
Realities (London: Duckworth, 2004), 61-76. For more, particularly on the way in which this neglect is
indicative of ideology, see P. Hunt, Slaves, warfare, and ideology in the Greek historians (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1998).
146
A reasonably thorough list includes: Samians (Hdt. 3.39, 3.45), Corcyrans (Thuc. 1.49.2), Corinthians
(Thuc. 1.49.2), Plataeans (Thuc. 3.2.3-4), Chians (Plut. Cimon 12.4), Phocians (Paus. 10.23.5), Eleians
(Paus. 5.4.2), Sicilians in huge numbers from as early as the Persians Wars (Gelon offers the Greeks 2,000
archers in Hdt. 7.158; Thuc. 6.20.4, 6.67.2), and of course Cretans (Pindar Pythian V 41; Plato Laws 834d,
625d; Xen. Ana. 3.3.16, 4.8.15, 5.2.32; Xen. Hell. 4.2.16, 4.7.7; Paus. 1.29.6, 4.19.4, 4.20.8, 7.16.1).
 53
147
two words used by Homer for bow, τόχον and βιός. Moreover, certain parts of the bow

are named. The centerpiece that joins the two halves of the bow and which the archer

would hold (most likely with his left hand) is referred to as the πήχυν.148 When stringing

a bow, an archer might loop his bowstring (νευρή)149 around the curved end of the

bowstave (κορώνη).150 Adjectives used to describe the bow include curved (ἄγκυλον,

καµπύλον),151 back-bent (παλίντονον),152 strong (κρατερός),153 well-polished (εὔξοον),154

great (µέγας),155 and faultless (ἀµύµων).156 The adjectives add vividness to the narrative

and no doubt serve metrical considerations, but many are also accurately descriptive of

the composite bow.

The adjective ‘back-bent’ (παλίντονον) holds special significance and requires

further exploration. It describes what archers today would call a recurve bow (Fig. 7) or

perhaps a reflex bow (Fig. 8). In its unbraced (unstrung) state, the arms of a reflex bow

curve away from the archer to such an extent that it will look not unlike the letter “C.” In

147
This made an impression in antiquity. Heraklitus notes the irony of the word βίος in a fragment of his
work, pointing out that a word that means life, can also mean something that brings death.
148
Iliad 11.375.
149
Iliad 4.122. The word means tendon or sinew. Comparative evidence indicates that sinew was used for
the bowstring. This particular tendon is specifically described as the tendon of an ox (βόεια).
150
Iliad 4.111.
151
Iliad 5.209, 6.322; Iliad 3.17, 5.97, 10.333, 12.372, 21.502.
152
Iliad 8.266, 15.443 (Teukros’ bow); Iliad 10.559 (Dolon’s bow).
153
Iliad 8.279.
154
Iliad 4.105, 13.594.
155
Iliad 4.124.
156
Iliad 15.463.
 54
an unbraced recurve bow (Fig. 7), only the ends of the bow curve away from the archer.

A bow can be understood as a spring, which absorbs human energy, stores it, and then

releases it into an arrow. A variety of shapes and materials will serve this purpose but not

all bows are equal. Bowyers were always on the lookout for ways to make the bow more

efficient. Both of these bows (which are related in theory and originate in Asia) store

more energy and should be able to fire an arrow farther than a simple bow.157

Figure 7

Figure 8

157
See Appendix I for a complete technical description of the bow and how it works.
 55
At the same time, these bows, because of their curvature, which can be quite

extreme, require special manufacture. Unlike the simple bow, they would not have been

manufactured from a single wooden stave. They require a composite construction.158 In

the ancient world, this usually meant supplementing a wooden core with a horn belly (the

part closest to the archer) and sinew backing (the part facing away from the archer). The

horn resists compression and the sinew, because of its elastic properties, stretches nicely.

The end result is a bow that is both capable of storing more energy and is more resistant

to breakage.159 When drawn, it could indeed look circular (κυκλοτερές), like Pandaros’

bow does when drawn.160 Furthermore, because of its properties and extreme curvature,

the drawn bow would have returned more quickly to its equilibrium, resulting in an arrow

with higher velocity and therefore a greater range.161 The adjective, παλίντονον, is

suggestive of all of this, and it finds support in Homer’s rare but helpful descriptions of

the bow.

158
According to Blyth, “Reflexing is therefore probably only worthwhile in composite bows made out of
materials such as sinew and horn which allow very large deflections, and in which the force builds up not
in a linear manner but very slowly at first and then more steeply.” See P. Blythe, “The Design and Material
of the Bow,” in Longbow: A Social and Military History, ed. R. Hardy (Cambridge: Stephens, 1976), 195.
159
It was also less likely to ‘set’, that is, to warp and hold its drawn shape to some degree – thereby
reducing its efficiency and especially its cast (the distance is can fire). See Hickman, C., Nagler, F, and P.
Klopsteg. Archery: The Technical Side. (National Field Archery Association), 50. The Scythian bow was
so resistant to ‘set’ that it could be carried strung in its bow case. Herodotus (2.173.12) relates a story
wherein the Egyptian Amasis describes his leadership style as follows, “String it tightly when you need to
use it, when not relax it. If strung tightly all of the time it will break.” The metaphor became proverbial.
See Horace Odes 2.10.19. The sentiment displays an accurate understanding of ‘set’ (see Appendix I).
160
Iliad 4.124. Assyrian composite bows, which seem to me the likeliest inspiration for this description,
are usually depicted as forming a large almost exaggerated circle when fully drawn.
161
Rausing, G. The Bow: Some Notes on its Origin and Development. Acta Archaeologica Lundensia,
Series 80.6. (Sweden: Lund, 1967), 31.
 56
The word is employed by later authors as well. Aeschylus uses it to describe a

Scythian bow.162 Herodotus uses it to describe an Arabian bow.163 Sophocles uses it to

describe the bow of Herakles.164 The first two examples are known to have been

composite bows. Herakles’ bow is usually pictured in both literature and art as a

Scythian bow. Thus, the word has a long history of describing the composite bow.

It may also be worth noting that Heraklitus’ use of a variation of the term,

παλίντονον, is a key in understanding his theory regarding the ‘Unity of Opposites.’165

He uses the word παλίντροπος (back-turning) to describe a harmony. Interpretations

about the precise meaning of the phrase abound, but all tend to revolve around either the

recurve design of the composite bow (one that it shares with the lyre) or the physical

process of firing an arrow (or plucking a lyre string).166 In either case, he takes advantage

of the properties of the composite bow in using it as an analogy – one that would fall on

deaf ears if his audience were unfamiliar with the composite bow.

Pandaros’ bow is the only bow described in the Iliad in any significant detail. At

Athena’s urging, he has decided to shoot Menelaos during the latter’s duel with Paris.

For all intents and purposes, this is an assassination attempt.167 We are told:

162
Aeschylus Choephoroi 162. I am using Murray’s reconstruction of the fragmented line.
163
Herodotus 7.69.1.
164
Sophocles Trachiniae 511.
165
Heraklitus Frag. 51. The concept is referred to by Plato as well. See Plato Symposium 187a.
166
For varying interpretations see C.J. Emlyn-Jones, “ Heraclitus and the Identity of Opposites,” Phronesis
21.2 (1976): 89-114; J. Snyder, “The Harmonia of Bow and Lyre in Heraclitus Fr. 51 (DK),” Phronesis
29.1 (1984): 91-95; and J. Ziolkowski, J. (2000) “The bow and the lyre,” CJ 95 (2000): 19-35.
167
It is not uncommon for the bow to be used in this manner.
 57
Immediately he unwrapped his well-polished bow of wild Ibex horn,
which once upon a time he himself had shot in the chest,
lying in a hiding place as it stepped down from the rock,
he hit it in the heart and it fell upside down from a rock.
The horns on its head were sixteen palms’ in length.
A bowyer working the horns bound them together,
Smoothing everything out well, he put on a golden string hook.168

We are meant to be impressed by its size and construction. Yet there are other important

details. The bow was wrapped prior to use.169 Pandaros had collected the raw materials

himself, while hunting with another bow. The bow in question was made by a specialist

(κεραοξόος).170 At first glance, it seems to have been constructed entirely of horn.

Unfortunately, such a bow would not likely have existed as described. Homer is

mistaken, has invented it entirely, or has exaggerated its appearance for poetic effect.171

Could Pandaros have drawn such a bow into a circle? Bows made entirely of horn,

though difficult to draw, have been used, as the thickness can be scraped down to make

them more manageable.172 Rausing, however, in his survey of bows, explains why this is

impossible in the present case, “Homer, however, states that ibex horns were used. A

bow made of two joined ibex horns would not have been serviceable. The ibex of Asia

168
Iliad 4.105-111. αὐτίκ' ἐσύλα τόξον ἐΰξοον ἰξάλου αἰγὸς
ἀγρίου, ὅν ῥά ποτ' αὐτὸς ὑπὸ στέρνοιο τυχήσας
πέτρης ἐκβαίνοντα δεδεγµένος ἐν προδοκῇσι
βεβλήκει πρὸς στῆθѳος· ὃ δ' ὕπτιος ἔµπεσε πέτρῃ.
τοῦ κέρα ἐκ κεφαλῆς ἑκκαιδεκάδωρα πεφύκει·
καὶ τὰ µὲν ἀσκήσας κεραοξόος ἤραρε τέκτων,
πᾶν δ' εὖ λειήνας χρυσέην ἐπέθѳηκε κορώνην.
169
Composite bows were particularly susceptible to wet weather, and the horn could be eaten by certain
bugs.
170
Translated here as ‘bowyer,’ the term literally means one who polishes horn.
171
So many of Homer’s details about archery are accurate, that I am inclined to believe that he was not
mistaken and therefore favor the latter explanation.
172
G. Rausing, The Bow: Some Notes on its Origin and Development. Acta Archaeologica Lundensia,
Series 80.6. Lund. Sweden (1976), 97.
 58
Minor and Aegean Ibex (Capra Hircus L.) differs from the Alpine Ibex (Capra Ibex L.) in

having horns that when joined would form almost a complete circle. Because they have a

wide core cavity, it would be impossible to pare them down enough to make them

flexible enough for use.”173

Henry Balfour offers a reasonable solution.174 He argues that because horn was

the most noteworthy element of the bow, and likely its only visible part, the term became

synonymous with the bow.175 He points to another instance in Homer where the word

κέρας is used as a poetic equivalent to τόξον176 and he cites later examples of the

phenomenon occurring in Anacreon, Theocritus, and even in Vergil.177 Finally, he

compares this description of the bow to the only other description of a bow in Homer –

that of Odysseus’ bow.178 This bow is repeatedly described as παλίντονον, even when

unstrung. Like some of the bows in the Iliad, it is curved (ἄγκυλον, καµπύλον) and

polished (εὔξοον). At no point is any material other than horn mentioned in its

construction.179 Like Pandaros, Odysseus keeps it wrapped up, this time in a bowcase

(γωρυτῷ).180 He also examines the horn for insect damage.181 We are told that the

173
Ibid., 97.
174
H. Balfour, Henry, “The Archer’s Bow in the Homeric poems – An attempted diagnosis,” Royal
Anthropological Institute Journal 51 (1921): 289-309.
175
The remainder of the bow would likely have been covered with bark or wound with sinew.
176
Iliad 11.385.
177
Anacreon Ode III. Theocritus 25, 206. Vergil Aeneid 9.859-861 (cornu).
178
Odyssey 21.10 ff.
179
Balfour, H. 1921: 291.
180
Odyssey 21.54.
 59
suitors are unable to string the bow and that they try to heat it in order to make it more

pliable.182 Odysseus on the other hand strings the bow with ease from a seated position.

Reflex and recurve bows are notoriously difficult to string. The most effective way to do

so is in a seated or crouching position, where one could use his leg as a fulcrum. This

posture was commonly depicted in Greek art during times when the composite bow was

prominent (Figs. 9 & 10). The figure on the left was intended for a Greek viewers, but

the figure on the right was made for a Scythian clientele. It is likely that this method was

fairly common among peoples who used this bow. Thus, all evidence points towards the

use, at least in these two special cases, of the composite bow.

Fig. 9 Fig. 10

Teukros also wields a ‘back-bent’ bow, making it very likely that his bow was

composite like those of Pandaros and Odysseus, but we are given no further details about

the bow itself. Nevertheless, through Teukros, Homer demonstrates a different element

of his technical knowledge about bows. His bowstring snapped by Zeus, Teukros

181
This is a serious problem with horn and one reason why Scythian archers (who use a composite bow
made of horn, sinew, and wood) carry their bows in a special bow case (goryt).
182
This is a common way to increase the elasticity of sinew.
 60
complains to his brother Aias: “Oh no! a divinity entirely cuts off our plans for battle/ he

who struck the bow out of my hand,/ who has snapped the fresh-twisted sinew of the

bowstring which I bound/ This morning, so that it would endure the often springing

arrows.”183 While a smaller detail, it is worthy of note that Teukros understands the

vulnerabilities of his weapon and prepares for them accordingly, changing bowstrings in

anticipation of a long day of usage.184 Twisting strands of sinew together is also how

bowyers make traditional bows even today.185

As with bows, the corpus of arrow-oriented vocabulary in Homer is impressive

and displays a technological understanding of how an arrow works. There are three

words used by Homer for arrow: ἰός, ὀιστόν, and βέλος. The first two are specific and

used interchangeably. The third is more vague and can describe any missile.186 To be

outside of missile range, for example, is to be ἐκ βελέων.187 Arrows are kept in a quiver

(φαρέτρης)188 which itself has a cover (πῶµα).189An arrowhead might simply be

183
Iliad 15.467-70. ὢ πόποι ἦ δὴ πάγχυ µάχης ἐπὶ µήδεα κείρει
δαίµων ἡµετέρης, ὅ τέ µοι βιὸν ἔκβαλε χειρός,
νευρὴν δ' ἐξέρρηξε νεόστροφον, ἣν ἐνέδησα
πρώϊον, ὄφρ' ἀνέχοιτο θѳαµὰ θѳρῴσκοντας ὀϊστούς.
184
Carrying extra bowstrings is standard practice for serious archers. This is why Xenophon finds it
noteworthy that the Cretan archers among his 10,000 find bowstrings while foraging for supplies in a
village. See Xenophon 3.4.17.
185
T. Baker, T. (2000) “Strings” in The Traditional Bowyer’s Bible Volume 2, ed. G. Asbell et alia (New
York: Lyons Press, 2000), 204-205.
186
The word describes arrows, javelins, stones, even a footstool at one point. Apollo shoots a βέλος at the
Greeks (1.51) and Patroklos cuts a βέλος from the thigh of Eurypylos (11.845).
187
This is a frequent consideration for warriors, particularly those stripping armor from an opponent or
caring for the wounded. See Iliad 4.498, 12.159, 18.232.
188
Iliad 1.45.
189
Iliad 4.116.
 61
190
described by the metal with which it was made, ‘iron’ (σίδηρος), for instance. The

arrow might be said to be weighted with bronze (χαλκοβαρής)191 or bronze-shod

(χαλκήρης).192 The head might have barbs (ὄγοι)193 or even be tri-barbed (ἰῴ

τριγλώχινι).194 The word for arrow shaft is δόναξ,195 which can also mean ‘reed.’196 The

shaft has notches (γλυφίδας)197 and is fletched with feathers (πτεπόεντες).198

Through the use of metaphor, Homer demonstrates that he knows how this

fletching works. Diomedes, encouraging Nestor to depart from the battlefield, speaks to

him with ‘winged words’ (ἔπεα πτερόεντα).199 The expression occurs sixty more times in

the poem (and as many more in the Odyssey).200 The fletching on an arrow steers and

190
Iliad 4.123.
191
Iliad 14.465.
192
Iliad 13.650, 13.662. Bronze and iron were, in fact, the two most common materials used in the
manufacture of arrowheads from the Iron Age onward. Stone or even sharpened fire-hardened wood were
also used.
193
Iliad 4.151.
194
Iliad 4.151 & 11.507 respectively. There is some controversy over the definition of τριγλώχινι. It
seems to describe either three barbs or three points.
195
Iliad 10.467, 11.584.
196
Iliad 10.467, 11.584. Reeds were commonly used as arrow shafts. Reed arrows are described later by
Xenophon and are represented in the archaeological record of both Egyptians and Scythians.
197
Iliad 4.122.
198
Iliad 4.117.
199
Iliad 8.101.
200
The term has been a subject of controversy for years, the height of which transpired during the first half
of the 20th century. In his survey of the literature, Combellack offers, “They are not, of course, unanimous,
but nearly all who have considered the point are sure that the poet is comparing human speech to the flight
of birds.” F. Combellack, “Words that Die,” Classical Journal 46.1 (1950): 21. For an influential but
divergent view see M. Parry, “About ‘winged words’,” Classical Philology 32 (1937): 59-63. My own
view accords most closely with that of J.A.K. Thomson, “Winged Words” Classical Quarterly 30.1 (1936):
1-3. Thomson offers a telling analysis of words that are ‘un-winged’ (ἄπτερος µῦθѳος) by comparison.
Kirk’s suggestion that πτερόεντα mean ‘swift’ rather than ‘winged’ seems to ignore both the linguistic and
 62
steadies it in flight. Without fletching, an arrow’s flight over any considerable distance at

all will be quite unpredictable.201 Both its range and aim would have been severely

effected. Thus, Homer is taking advantage of what must have been a familiar concept to

describe words directed at a specific person, or words that ‘hit their mark.’ It is fair to

assume that Homer would have expected his audience to understand his meaning. We

can therefore infer that an understanding of fletching was relatively common.202

Lest we dismiss this as a so-called ‘dead metaphor’ bereft of any sense of its

original meaning, it should be noted that archery serves as an attractive metaphor for

language throughout the literary record. Pindar, for example, favors archer imagery,

likening himself to an archer and his words to arrows.203 He writes, “My tongue has

many arrows…,”204 “I have many swift arrows under my elbow in a quiver that speak to

the wise…,”205 “I hope this big word will hit the mark like with an arrow from the

contextual evidence in favor of a clean translation that is unencumbered by the possibility that some sense
of the term has been lost in translation. G. Kirk, The Iliad: A Commentary. Volume I: Books 1-4
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 342.
201
Aeneas Tacticus offers an example of an arrow missing its mark because it is windy and the arrow has
been poorly fletched. Aeneas Tacticus Poliorcetica 31.27.2.
202
That the scholia writing about the term misunderstood it to mean something else should not trouble us.
They too were colored by the same prejudices exhibited by authors like Herodotus and Pausanias.
203
Simpson sees this popularity in Pindar as a link between the author and his divine patron, Apollo. See
M. Simpson, “The Chariot and the Bow as Metaphors for Poetry in Pindar’s Odes,” TAPA 100 (1969): 437-
473.
204
Pindar Isthmian 5.47 - γλῶσσά µοι τοξεύµατ' ἔχει
205
Pindar Olympian 2.82-85. … πολλά µ<οι> ὑπ'
ἀγκῶνος ὠκέα βέλη
ἔνδον ἐντὶ φαρέτρας
φων<άε>ντα συνετοῖσιν·
 63
206
bow.” Sometimes he makes others the shooters. In Isthmian II, he writes, “Swiftly

they shot honey-tongued songs at boys.”207

Pindar is not alone in availing himself of this useful metaphor. Aeschylus, in the

Agamemnon, has Cassandra ask, “Did I miss or like an archer hit the mark?”208 In the

Libation Bearers, Clytemnestra responds to the words of a disguised Orestes, “Subduing

me with a distant well-aimed arrows, you to strip unhappy me bare of that which is dear

to me.”209 In the Eumenides, the chorus admits during the climactic trial, “Every arrow

we had has already been shot.”210 Sophocles, in the Antigone, has Creon say to Teiresias,

“Old man, you are all like archers and I am struck by your arrow.”211 Teiresias responds

a few lines later, “These arrows like an archer I shoot …”212 Euripides’ Hecuba says to

Talthybius, “I shot my mind about these things fruitlessly,” by which she means ‘I said

my piece...’213 Aristophanes, in his Clouds, makes mention of “shooting down arguments

with phrases.”214

206
Pindar Nemean 6.26-28. … ἔλποµαι
µέγα εἰπὼν σκοποῦ ἄντα τυχεῖν
ὥτ' ἀπὸ τόξου ἱείς·
207
Pindar Isthmian 2.3 - ῥίµφα παιδείους ἐτόξευον µελιγάρυας ὕµνους,
208
Aeschylus Agamemnon 1194 - ἥµαρτον, ἢ κυρῶ τι τοξότης τις ὥς;
209
Aeschylus Choephoroi 694. τόξοις πρόσωθѳεν εὐσκόποις χειρουµένη.
φίλων ἀποψѱιλοῖς µε τὴν παναθѳλίαν.
210
Aeschylus Eumenides 676 - ἡµῖν µὲν ἤδη πᾶν τετόξευται βέλος.
211
Sophocles Antigone 1033. Ὦ πρέσβυ, πάντες ὥστε τοξόται σκοποῦ
τοξεύετ' ἀνδρὸς τοῦδε, …
212
Ibid., line 1084-85. Τοιαῦτά σου, λυπεῖς γάρ, ὥστε τοξότης
ἀφῆκα θѳυµῷ καρδίας τοξεύµατα
213
Euripides Hecuba 603 - καὶ ταῦτα µὲν δὴ νοῦς ἐτόξευσεν µάτην·
214
Aristophanes Clouds 944 - καὶ διανοίαις κατατοξεύσω
 64
Such imagery is not reserved for speech. A bow-shot can be descriptive, for

example, of a line of sight, as when Aeschylus’ Danaus speaks of men shooting arrows

from their eyes.215 The sun’s rays can be described as shafts.216 The bow’s shape can also

be used descriptively. Agathon in describing the letter sigma in an inscription says that it

looks like a Scythian bow.217 Likewise, Strabo capitalizes upon the Scythian bow’s

unique shape and a presumption that his audience would be familiar with it, to remind his

readers that some compare the shape of the circumference of the Black Sea to that of a

bent Scythia Bow.218 To Plato, a law should aim at a punishment like an archer.”219

Aristotle exploits arrow imagery to describe the swimming of dolphins.220

While aim is archery’s most commonly exploited characteristic, range, speed,

potential for pain, and even shape of the bow are used by authors. The regular and varied

use of such metaphorical imagery is constant throughout the written sources – both early

and late ones. Thus, it is highly likely that audiences or readers from the 8th century

B.C.E. onward would have been familiar to some degree with the bow. The efficacy of

such analogies depends on it.

215
Aeschylus Suppliant Maidens 1005.
216
Euripides Herakles 1090.
217
Agathon Frag 4.3.
218
Strabo Geography 2.5.22.
219
Plato Laws 934b.
220
Aristotle History of Animals 631a. This is a keen and appropriate observation because due to the
phenomenon of Archer’s Paradox (see Appendix I), arrows oscillate as then pass through the air on route to
their targets. The motion, particularly as the arrow first leaves the bow, looks very much like a dolphin
leaping through the waves.
 65
Homer also uses several adjectives to describe arrows, descriptors include thick

(ταρφέες),221 unshot (ἀβλῆτα),222 pointed (ἐχεπευκές),223 sharp (ὀξύς),224 strong

(κρατερός),225 and whistling (ῥοίζον).226 Most, however, typically revolve around speed

and pain. Arrows are fast (ὠκύς, ταχύς).227 When they strike someone, the painful

consequences are to be feared. They are described as inducing many groans

(πολύστονος)228 and sharp (πικρός),229 the latter word often being associated with the

sharp pains of child-birth.230 One of Teukros’ unshot fletched arrows is described as a

‘transmitter of dark pain’ (µελαινέων ἕρµ` ὀδυνάων ).231

Though scattered, the evidence is consistent and compelling. Archery was well-

known and ubiquitous in Archaic Greece. There is no reason to believe that it

disappeared from use and was reintroduced fto the Greek mainland. The bow was one of

an assortment of weapons in use during the period. The change we do see is that of a

move towards specialization, which appears to have coincided with the advent of hoplite

armor. The evidence resists the notion of a ‘native aversion’ to archery. Any aversion to

221
Iliad 11.387.
222
Iliad 4.117.
223
Iliad 1.51.
224
Iliad 4.185 et alia.
225
Iliad 5.104.
226
Iliad 16.361.
227
Iliad 5.106 et alia; 21.492.
228
Iliad 15.451. Teukros’ arrow.
229
Iliad 4.118 et alia.
230
C. Salazar, The Treatment of War Wounds in Graeco-Roman Antiquity (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 156.
231
Iliad 4.117.
 66
archery would seem to have been the product of an aristocratic ideology that priviledged

the acts (and consequently the arms) of the front-fighter.

 67
Chapter 2
How was the bow used?

Having established that archery was alive, healthy, and ubiquitous on mainland

Greece, we can now address its form – the weapon itself and the way in which the

weapon was used. Given the state of our evidence,232 it is tempting to avoid specifics

about the bow itself, satisfied that the Greeks did use a bow, and move on to the latter

question of its deployment. Unfortunately, the nature of the bow itself has too much to

do with its tactical capabilities. Thus, we are required to the extent that it is possible to

determine what kind of bows were in use during the period.

Art Historical Evidence

Greek vase painting is our best and most substantial source of information in this

regard. Yet, as stated earlier, we must recall Hölscher’s helpful maxim, “Art depicting

war is not war but art.”233 These are not illustrations of battle. With that in mind, I argue

that vase-painting should be admitted into evidence as credible testimony about the bow.

There are several reasons for this.

First, despite heavy stylization, artists did recognize differences in the bow.

Different types of bows employ different types of curvature. Some will have convex

curves, others concave curves, and still others will have both. The Scythian bow, which

will feature prominently throughout this dissertation, was actually shaped not unlike a

Greek ‘Σ’ when strung. In the case of this bow, the archers would often be depicted

232
That is, piecemeal and largely art historical.
233
T. Hölscher, “Images of War in Greece and Rome: Between Military Practice, Public Memory, and
Cultural Symbolism” Journal of Roman Studies 93 (2003): 2.
 68
wearing Scythian dress too. Artists faithfully represent this curvature in accurate ways.

They are depicting real bow types that actually existed and which accurately reflect the

laws of physics. Moreover, it is not uncommon to see multiple bow types on the same

vessel. So, while it would be imprudent to suggest that these artists had all been exposed

to the bows they depict, it is fair to think that they had some exposure to certain bow

types whether in person, second hand, or through art.

Bolstering this argument, authors recognized differences in the bow. Some

descriptions of the bow, for example, clearly denote a composite bow.234 Even more

compelling, although late or even after our time period, some authors make ethnic

distinctions about the bow. Aeschylus mentions a bent-back Scythian bow (Σκύθѳην

παλίντον') in the Libation Bearers.235 Agathon uses the Scythian bow to describe a

shape.236 Herodotus notes that the Scythians use their own native bow (τόξα

ἐπιχώρια).237 Ctesias makes a distinction between the Scythian and the Persian bow.238

Much later, Strabo, like Agathon, will famously use the Scythian bow (Σκυθѳικῷ τόξῳ) to

describe the shape of the Black Sea.239 Xenophon recognizes the Persian bow and notes

234
Iliad 8.266, 10.459, 15.443; Od. 21.180; Heraklitus Fr. 51.
235
Aeschylus Libation Bearers 161.
236
Agathon Frag. 4.3.
237
Hdt. 7.64.5.
238
Ctesias FGrH #688. While Ctesias’ credibility is often debated, this observation accords with what we
should expect based upon scientific studies of the bow.
239
Strabo 2.5.22.
 69
240
its advantage over the Cretan bow. There are also numerous dedicatory inscriptions at

Delos describing the dedication of Scythian (τόξον σκυθѳικὸν) bows.

Arrowheads are of some small assistance in this matter too. First, they provide

complementary evidence of exposure in some form to Scythian and Cretan archery. If

these arrowheads made their way to Greece, why not the bows too, particularly in light of

other evidence? Furthermore, the existence of Scythian arrowheads offers more

information. Some of them – let us consider the example found at Asine with a firm date

– are rather small, as is characteristic of Scythian arrowheads generally. It is also

characteristically socketed, rather than tanged, which gives us some sense of the arrow’s

diameter. Because of the correlation between size of arrowhead and size of arrow, and

the size of the socket, it is therefore likely that this arrow was small and light – not unlike

the 18-inch long arrows Snodgrass describes. Such an arrow would either break or

ricochet off of the bow stave as a result of archer’s paradox if the bow were too big or

powerful.241 Arrows can be shot from different bows, but it this arrow was fired from the

bow for which it was selected by the archer, we can reason that the bow would have been

rather small. Artistic and documentary evidence from this period and beyond indicates

that a bow this small is usually composite, where the added sinew and horn can

contribute properties to the bow that allow it the strength of a much larger bow. Usually

these, in both artistic and documentary evidence, are Scythian bows.242 Again, not proof,

but they do make sound complimentary evidence.

240
Xen. Anab. 3.3.16, 4.4.16.3.
241
There is a lengthy description of archer’s paradox in Appendix I.
242
Although the earliest of these probably postdates the Asine arrowhead by roughly 50 years.
 70
If we look to comparative evidence, we see similar adoptions of the foreign

weaponry in contemporary neighboring peoples. This can serve as supplemental, if not

complimentary evidence. The Egyptians, for instance, appear to have adopted the

Assyrian composite angular bow. It is depicted in their artwork, and therefore has many

of the same problems of interpretation as the bows in Greek art. However, in this case,

archaeology confirms the bow’s presence.243 This should, at least, open our minds to the

real possibility that the Greek images reflect real bows.

Another interesting example comes in the form of a Persian wooden panel from a

chamber tomb in Phrygia (Figure 11).244 In it we see the climax of a Persian victory over

a party of Scythians. The Persian king holds the chin of the Scythian leader and stabs

him in the stomach in a programmatic seen. The leaders are distinguished from one

another by their attire and especially by their hats. The Scythians wear pointed hats.245

Both sides have archers on horse and on foot. All of the Scythians carry the Scythian

bow. The Persian horse archers, with rounded hats, also carry the Scythian bow, but the

foot archers stationed behind the horses draw Persian bows. So thorough was the

adoption of the Scythian weaponry, that the victors feel comfortable depicting it in a

scene demonstrative of nationalistic pride. All of this is of interest to us for a few

reasons. First, we have evidence of the Scythian bow influencing a contemporary and

243
W. McLeod, “Egyptian Composite Bows in New York,” AJA 66.1 (1962): 13-19.
244
L. Summerer, “From Tatarli to Munich: The Recovery of a Painted Wooden Tomb Chamber in
Phrygia,” in The Achaemenid Impact on Local Populations and Cultures in Anatolia (6th-4th B.C.)
International Workshop Istanbul, 19-22 May. 2005, ed. A, Dinçol & I. Delemen (Istanbul: Türk Eskicag
Bilimleri Enstitusu Yayinlari, 2007), 131-154.
245
Herodotus notes this, but so to do Persian sources. The Persian inscription of Darius I at Behistun reads
“… Scythians who wear the pointed cap.” Trans. L. King & R. Thompson, The sculptures and inscription
of Darius the Great on the Rock of Behistûn in Persia: a new collation of the Persian, Susian and
Babylonian texts, (Longmans, London: 1907).
 71
neighboring land with whom mainland Greeks interacted. Second, the reasoning for the

bow’s adoption by a people already renowned for the use of their own bow seems

apparent: the Scythian weapon is superior for use on horseback. Its presence accords

with logic and is not likely to have been merely stylistic. Finally, as in Greece, the

presence of the bow is supported by textual and archaeological evidence – much more of

it in fact.

Figure 11

While none of this constitutes proof, it does point to the likelihood that some of

the bows depicted by Greek artists were accurate. For this reason, I think it reasonable to

use Greek art as one important source for information about the bow.

Bow Types

The bow, when fully drawn, tends to take on an almost circular shape.

Sometimes tips will still retain their reflexed appearance, indicating a strong likelihood

that a composite bow was intended, but even here, we need to exercise caution. A

Scythian bow will often be recognizable in a fully drawn state because of its distinctive

set-back handle, though not always. In short, a braced but undrawn bow is the most

responsible way to assess a bows type. When identifying a drawn bow, one should

exercise a very conservative approach. If anything, this will result in our underestimating

the prevalence of the composite bow in relation to the simple segment bow, and not the
 72
other way around which would have significant ramifications, but be based upon shaky

evidence.

At least three different types of bows are discernable in Geometric vase paintings.

The simple segment bow, a single curve reflexed composite bow, and a double curved

composite bow (Fig. 12).246

Figure 12

The simple segment bow (Fig 12, A) has a stave made of one piece of wood. It

might have some curvature, achieved through a (desiccating) process of heating and

bending the wood. These bows can be long or short. They are the easiest and fastest to

246
I discuss the construction and detail the scientific reasoning behind and merits of design differences in
Appendix I. There is also a glossary of archery terms in the appendix.
 73
make and are universal for that reason. Moreover, technically, a simple segment bow can

shoot as well as its composite cousins. The English longbow, for instance, was a simple

segment bow. This bow relies more on its length to store energy efficiently and

differences in the species of wood and even type of wood within the tree or branch can

make a significant difference in its performance. In appearance it will usually have a

gentle curve that comprises the majority of the stave. Complex curvature, which is

possible, was impractical and highly unlikely due to the high risk of breakage.

A composite bow, however, capitalizes on advantages of design in a way that is

hard for a simple bow to emulate. Further, and more importantly, it utilizes the structural

merits of different materials in order to produce a more energy efficient and, in many

cases, durable weapon. A short composite bow will outperform a simple segment (or

‘self’) bow of the same size (or larger depending up the bow). Composite bows are also

frequently wrapped in bark or with another recovering to protect the vulnerable horn and

sinew that have been glued to the wooden core. In the absence of complex curvature, we

should not take bark to indicate a composite bow, but it does suggest the possibility.

We have two different types represented here.247

The single curve composite bow (Fig. 12, B & C) is characterized by a single

curve on its stave bending away from the archer with the arms bending back towards the

archer and then reflexing in the opposite direction. The reflexed curvature in the arms

can be quite dramatic as in example C in the table above. It can vary in size. It is also

worth noting that this bow does satisfy Homer’s description of the composite bow as

247
Ahlberg states, “In all instances the composite type is used, which is the usual type in Geometric Art.”
G. Ahlberg, Fighting on Land and Sea in Greek Geometric Art (Stockholm: Svenska institutet i Athen,
1971), 44. This position is hard to maintain with the evidence available to us today and even found little
support among her contemporaries.
 74
curved (ἄγκυλον, καµπύλον) and bent-back (παλίντονον). It is a shape that has a long

history in the Eastern Mediterranean and Near East.248

The identification of the third bow (Fig 12, D) is more problematic and has been a

source of debate. This bow is characterized by an inset handle and two convex limbs.

This is an example of fairly complex curvature. A simple bow could be heated and

shaped in this manner, presumably to increase draw length (and consequently its power).

The advantages of this shape (in a simple bow) are “obscure” to Rausing, who notes that

wood, when subjected to the kind of heat required to permanently bend wood in this way,

loses its pliability.249 Benefits gained from the curvature of the wood would presumably

be compromised by a loss of elasticity in the wood. Moreover, such a bow would be

more likely to break than a composite bow of the same or similar shape. Nevertheless,

such a bow has a long history in the region, dating back to the Neolithic period. It was

common in Egypt, in Minoan Crete, and in Mycenaean Greece, among other places.

Even the Sub-Mycenaean archer dual we examined earlier (Fig. 6) depicts this bow.250

On the other hand, the deep inset handle and convex limbs were characteristic of

another bow that by this time had begun to make its way into the region with the

Cimmerians – the Scythian bow. Where other evidence for the simple double convex

bow after the Mycenaean period is difficult to come by, this new, significantly more

efficient and sensible weapon had begun a steady diffusion that would be both significant

and lasting. A Scythian type arrowhead was also found at Geometric Asine. Given the

248
Rausing points out an example of this bow on a victory stele of the Sumerian King Naram-Sin, dating to
2450 B.C. G. Rausing, G. “The Bow. Some Notes on its Origin and Development,” Acta Lund Ser. in 8.,
(1967): 195. The vaunted Turkish bow will take this shape when braced.
249
Ibid., 135.
250
It predates the advent of the Scythian bow.
 75
correlation of the diffusion of the Scythian bow and Scythian arrowhead, noted by

Rausing, the distinct possibility arises that the Scythian bow was known on the Greek

mainland by the Geometric period.

Returning to the depictions themselves, two more vexing issues arise that muddy

the waters. First, Scythian bows are noted for their reflexed tips. Indeed, this is one of

the attributes that makes a Scythian bow the formidable weapon that it is. This feature is

usually conveyed in later indisputable depictions of the bow. If the bow was stylized,

this attribute was a part of its stylization. That these bows lack this characteristic is the

key, and justifiably so, to Snodgrass’s argument that these are not meant to be Scythian

bows. He finds the argument that these are simple double convex bows, preserved in

Crete until the Geometric period much more plausible.251

Lorimer, who because of the complex curvature and historical context, identifies

the bow as Scythian, avoids the issue of reflexed tips.252 McLeod, who agrees with

Lorimer’s identification, recognizes that “reflexed tips are not prominently displayed on

the Attic Geometric bows” but adds “there are hints of them.” He goes on to point out

that even later Attic renditions of the bow did not always have conspicuously reflexed

tips.253

251
A. Snodgrass, Early Greek Armour and Weapons (1964), 142-143. He is arguing against Lorimer’s
Scythian identification of the bow. He also notes that arrowheads characteristic of the Bronze Age survive
in Crete to this time, a useful demonstration that some Bronze Age weaponry was preserved on Crete
during this time. He follows A. Schaumberg’s Bogen und Bogenschützen bei den Griechen
(Nuremberg: Hilz, 1913) in distinguishing this bow from the Scythian bow. Rausing also believes this to
be a simple doubly convex bow. See also G. Rausing, “The Bow” (1967): 135.
252
H. Lorimer, Homer and the Monuments (1950), 285.
253
W. McLeod, The Bow in Ancient Greece (1966), 250. He takes issue with Snodgrass’ statement “there
is hardly a hint of reflexed tips” on the bows.
 76
McLeod makes two other important points in identifying the bow as Scythian.

First, he points out that the bows in question almost always have very marked curvature

confined to the handle of the stave. This, he argues, makes them closer to Scythian bows

than to the simple double convex bow.254 His point about the nature of the Scythian bow

is valid, but by this reasoning, the Lefkandi vase (Fig. 6) and numerous Bronze Age

depictions around the Mediterranean, which not infrequently favor a radical B shape,

would also be Scythian bows. For chronological reasons, this cannot have been the case.

McLeod also makes an important point about the size of the weapons depicted. A

segment bow needs to be longer than a composite bow in order to achieve as much

power.255 Although bows certainly came in different sizes - short simple bows do appear

in the art historical record – a simple bow of this shape would, if meant to be accurate in

its scale, be so inefficient as to be implausible. On the other hand, this small size is one

of the greatest benefits of the Scythian bow. They tended to be small and were usually

depicted as such. The problem with this argument is that the bows differ radically in size

on our Geometric vase paintings. Notice the difference relative to the size of the archer

in the two examples given above (Fig. 12, D). The first looks very much like a Scythian

bow, and the second is much too big. This is not an exception to a rule.

Both interpretations of this bow have merit. Snodgrass’ interpretation is the safest

approach to the figures. The view espoused by Lorimer and McLeod make sense within

a historical and circumstantial context, but the art historical evidence is thin. In the

absence of other evidence, we should assume that these were not examples of the

254
Ibid., 249.
255
Ibid., 249.
 77
256
Scythian bow. It is fair to believe that some Greeks, even mainland Greeks, were

exposed to the Scythian bow in the Geometric period, but the evidence is not strong

enough to serve as the foundation for an argument about the bow’s use in the Geometric

period in Greece. We have to assume, for now, that the Scythian bow was not used

regularly until later. So, the exceptional range and suitability to use of horseback, which

we will describe below, should not be serious considerations for this period.

The Scythian bow does emerge on vases by the middle of the 7th c., where it is

one of three types of bow with the simple segment bow and the single curve composite

listed above. By the early 6th century, the single curve composite bow becomes rare and

we are left with a simple bow and the Scythian bow. By 550 B.C.E. or thereabouts, when

the Scythian bow has become the dominant bow portrayed in art, it will account for more

that 90% of the bows depicted on Greek vases.

Arrowheads & Arrowhead Typology

As noted earlier, the size and shape of an arrowhead can provide important

information about the archer’s intent, weapon, and its own capabilities. Assigning an

arrowhead to a ‘Type’ can be useful for tracing its origins and gleaning some potentially

useful information about intercultural contacts. It is also helpful in establishing a

common tongue for descriptive purposes. It is easy, on the other hand, to overestimate

the importance of an arrow’s ‘Type.’ The presence of a type associated with Crete,

Scythia, or Cyprus does not imply the presence of Cretans, Scythians, or Cypriots. There

are times, as we have just seen, when ethnicity clings to an object for one reason or

another. Just as often, if not more often, it does not. Some of the types described below

256
Though we should not be surprised to find evidence in the future that changes this.
 78
and the two types most often associated with the Archaic Greek mainland in particular

experienced a wide diffusion in the Mediterranean. The Type 3 ‘Scythian’ arrowhead,

far and away the most common in Greece, has been found from Egypt to France and

everywhere in between. Soldiers have a long history of adopting arms or tactics that

work. This arrowhead was apparently very successful.

Snodgrass’ typology remains the gold standard in the field.257 He identifies five

types and includes numerous variants (he has a Type 3a, 3b, and 3c for example). I will

reproduce below (Fig. 13) only those arrowheads necessary to meet the needs of my

argument.258

Figure 13

257
I spent a substantial amount of time collecting and grouping arrowheads before coming to the realization
that, even after 50 years, Snodgrass’ typology was not in need of revision.
258
The rest can be found in A. Snodgrass, Early Greek Armour and Weapons (1964), 141-156.
 79
Type 1 arrowheads are characterized by a tang, a boss where the tang meets the

head, and barbs at the lower corners.259 For this reason, it is often referred to as the

‘boss-and-barb’ type. The boss is an important feature, as it helps to prevent the

arrowhead from splitting the shaft upon impact. Considering the widespread use of reeds

as arrow shafts, this is a helpful addition. The barbs, if they penetrate the skin, make the

arrows difficult to remove, requiring them to be pushed through a wound or cut out -

increasing tissue damage and blood loss in either case. Even if the barbs did not

penetrate the skin, they could get caught in clothing, making them more challenging to

remove. These arrowheads are usually made of bronze, although iron is also a

possibility. They could be mass-produced in a mold (an appealing feature) or forged.

They come in a variety of sizes. Like all of these arrowheads, this type is widespread

throughout the Mediterranean and has parallels in other parts of the world and in other

time periods. Snodgrass associates this type, particularly in its later renditions, with

Crete, but adds that it is too widespread to indicate the presence of Cretan mercenaries.

The arrowhead’s origin seems to lie in Bronze Age Anatolia.260

Type 2 arrowheads are very much like Type 1 arrowheads. The key difference is

the lack of boss. Snodgrass finds that these are widespread in Greece between the

Mycenaean period and the 7th century, disappearing in the Classical period when they

were likely to have been supplanted by the ‘boss-and-barb’ type listed above.261 These

too are associated with Crete. Though they could be made of bronze, most samples in

259
A tang is a spike that sticks out of the bottom of the arrowhead and into the shaft of the arrow. The
punctured part of the shaft is then bound tightly to secure the head.
260
Ibid., 146-147.
261
This stands to reason. If archers are shooting at soldiers in hoplite armor, it makes sense that an
arrowhead might require the added stability of a boss.
 80
Snodgrass’ survey were made of iron. This arrowhead is not as efficient as its bossed

cousin, because it was more likely to break its shaft upon impact. It is therefore not

appropriate for all manner of shafts and is consequently less flexible. On the other hand,

it may be an indication that this was not as much of a concern to the archers using it. If

they were using sturdier materials for their shafts, the arrows would have been heavier. If

the arrows were heavier, they would have been less appropriate for long-range (flight)

use and more appropriate for closer aimed shots and penetration. The fact that so many

of them were made of iron, a harder material and less likely to bend than bronze, lends

itself to this theory nicely and dovetails with contemporary literary descriptions and vase-

paintings.

The fact that available evidence suggests iron as the preferred metal for what was

the dominant arrowhead in the period is also important. Not only was iron harder than

bronze, it was scarcer and more valuable. This is suggestive about the relative wealth of

the people using the bow and their commitment of a valuable resource to the endeavor.

Would someone using a weapon like this be content to fire it at an enemy from a great

distance, or would the relative value of the weapon itself contribute to the incentive of

using it at a closer range? In the absence of other more concrete evidence, we cannot be

certain.

Type 3 arrowheads are Scythian in origin and are widely referred to in current

literature as ‘Scythian arrowheads’ for this reason. They are very widespread, as noted

above, and become so common in Greece (the most common arrowhead found on

mainland Greece) that they are sometimes referred to as Greco-Scythian. Snodgrass

traces the origin of this term to Schmidt who disagreed with the term ‘Scythian’ and
 81
wrote, “They might be more properly termed Greco-Scythian, unless one preferred to call

them Southeast European, from the region in which they originated.”262 It turns out that

Schmidt was incorrect about the origins of the arrowhead, and that it actually made its

way west from the Transcaucasus rather than the other way around.263 His belief,

however, illustrates of just how widespread the arrowhead and gives pause for thought

about the relevance of origins and ownership of objects.

There are many variants on the Type 3 theme, but all evolve from a socketed

ancestor.264 This socket is the key characteristic of the arrowhead. The socket reduces

the possibility of breaking the arrow shaft upon impact and makes it easier to attach to the

shaft in the first place. The type is almost always mould-made, because of the difficulty

of forging a socket. Mass production was therefore likely. The arrowheads are usually

bronze, especially in Greece, and fairly small, averaging around 3 cm in length.265 They

were therefore efficient to make and efficient to use.

On the negative side, because they are socketed, they cannot be attached to arrows

of various diameters. Any extra mass would come from the material of the shaft and the

length of the arrow. Because not every bow can shoot an arrow of any length or weight,

this type of arrowhead offers some limitations and likelihoods regarding its use. Its size

therefore argues for long-range shooting as a probability, or at least as a primary use.

262
H. Schmidt, “Archaeological Excavations in Anau and Old Merv,” in Explorations in Turkestan,
Prehistoric Civilizations of Anau: Volume 1, ed. R. Pumpelly (Washington D.C.: Carnegie Institution of
Washington, 1904), 183
263
T. Sulimirski, “The origin of the ‘Scythian’ arrowheads,” Artibus Asiae 17 (1954): 308-313.
264
I include a variety (multiple edges, with and without barbs, etc.) in the Table to give a sense of this. The
photo is taken from E. Cernenko, The Scythians 700-300 BC (1983), 21. It should also be noted that
Scythians themselves carried a variety of different types of arrows, presumably for different purposes.
They coexisted comfortably.
265
A. Snodgrass, Early Greek Armour and Weapons (1964), 154.
 82
A closer look at the most common variant in Greece below (Fig. 14) reveals an

added effort to strengthen the arrowhead by giving it a third stabilizing edge. The

arrowhead had an internal socket and is often not barbed. Though it is still small (again,

they average about 3 cm), an effort had been made to enhance its penetrative powers.

This third edge reduces bending in the event that the arrow strikes armor. That said, such

an arrowhead of this type is less likely to puncture deeply or shred flesh like the leaf-

shaped broadhead. This arrowhead is meant for puncturing armor, drawing blood,

wounding, weakening, and otherwise hindering an enemy. In the figure below, I have

juxtaposed this arrowhead with a 5-inch long socket English ‘armor-piercing’ arrowhead

in order to illustrate the structural similarities.266 It is fair to surmise that this arrow was

meant to penetrate more than unprotected flesh.

Figure 14

266
By no means is this an attempt to equate the two. It simply highlights the structure and lends credibility
to the idea that this structural modification was indeed meant to increase the arrow’s penetration.
 83
The earliest datable Type 3 arrowhead on the Greek mainland comes from

Geometric Asine. There is also evidence for it being used both by and against the Greek

inhabitants of Smyrna when it was attacked by the Lydians in the late 7th century B.C.E.

After that the type appears more commonly in the Greek East and on the mainland.

Type 4 arrowheads, commonly associated with Cyprus, were also intended to

pierce armor and look very much like the ‘bodkin’ arrows uses to pierce chain mail in the

Medieval period.267 They are fairly narrow and have four sides, like a stretched pyramid.

These arrowheads are also tanged. They appear in both bronze and iron. There are no

barbs and the emphasis in their design is clearly on structural stability. It has been

speculated that they may have been able to pierce bronze, which may make it more than a

coincidence that they have been found in great numbers among other Persian arrowhead

at Thermopylae, Marathon, and on the slopes of the Acropolis.268

Type 5 arrowheads are the most basic of all of these types. Consequently, they

are ubiquitous and found throughout time and across civilizations.269 Their main

characteristics include a leaf shape and a tang. They lack barbs and have no boss.

Beyond this, they come in many variations and appear in both iron and bronze.

Security-Mobility-Firepower

Before we examine the ways in which the bow was employed, it is worth

considering the weapon in the context of battle and relative to other weaponry. I will use

267
Like the Type 1 arrowheads, they too owe their origin to Bronze Age Anatolia. See A. Snodgrass, Early
Greek Armour and Weapons (1964), 154.
268
Snodgrass cites the possibility that arrowheads like these were responsible for the punctures in the
Crowe Corslet from Olympia. Ibid., 154.
269
Ibid., 155.
 84
the blunt instrument of the “Mobility-Security-Firepower” model as an efficient paradigm

for examining the bow.270 Ferrill describes the model succinctly: “The three

indispensable ingredients of warfare – mobility, security, and firepower – are so

interrelated that a change in one requires corresponding changes in the others. A soldier

is more mobile in the field if he wears no armour, but he is less secure; he has more

firepower if he carries a heavy and immobilizing supply of weapons; if he gains security

with heavy armour, he loses both mobility and firepower.”271 In the sources available to

us, it is clear that the weaponry and dress of archers is not static throughout the Archaic

period, so we will break the period into two stages – the first being before the adoption of

hoplite armor and the specialization of the archer, and the second falling after the change.

In Homeric warfare, soldiers seem to fight as archers or as spearmen, but rarely

both at the same time.272 When fighting with the bow, their weaponry and armor is not

described, although it is clear from descriptions of Teukros, that he does not have a

shield.273 He protects himself behind the massive shield of his half-brother Aias. This

alone would give him more mobility than his shield bearing peers, but it also means that

he has less security and is forced to rely on more heavily clad, but less mobile,

infantrymen for protection. Firepower (largely due to his range) is his real advantage; he

can get off more shots against a spear or sword bearing enemy. At close range, his

arrows will have a better chance of penetrating armor, but the underwhelming penetrative

270
I will also generalize for the sake of argument, before turning to specific practices as evidenced by the
text. This model can be used to assess any soldier and is helpful in assessing technological changes to arms
and armor as well.
271
A. Ferrill, The Origins of War (New York: Thames and Hudson), 44.
272
Helenus is the only one to do so in the Iliad. He kills Deïpyrus with a sword and in the next motion
aims and fires his bow at Menelaus. Iliad 13.576-600.
273
Iliad 8.267 – 8.270. Tyrtaeus Frag 11.28.
 85
powers (as we will see) of these bows would have diminished this advantage to some

degree. On the other hand, his ability to hit his target (presumably an unprotected area)

would have increased with the proximity. Perhaps then these two factors should cancel

each other out. A final point of consideration is that the short distance would allow an

enemy to close with the archer more quickly, at which point the archer’s lack of security

would be exposed. This proximity would limit the number of shots an archer would be

able to achieve.274 It is fair to say that our literary sources suggest a slight advantage in

mobility and firepower, and a fairly significant lack of security.

Geometric vase painting depicts archers irregularly armed, although here, an

archer might also be armed with spears or even a shield in addition to the bow.275 His

mobility will therefore be compromised, but the bow maintains or adds an element of

increased firepower – he can begin attacking an adversary from a distance, and then

change off to a more appropriate weapon for hand-to-hand combat. These archers, who

comprise more than a third of all of the soldiers on these vases, fight intermingled with

other types of soldiers. If this is meant to represent real battle, one would assume that

security came largely from more heavily clad peers.

With the development of the hoplite shield and the tactics that would evolve into

hoplite phalanx warfare, archery became a more specialized endeavor. Archers are

referred to as such or are grouped generically with other light-armed troops. Their dress

274
This is the traditional argument for the Greeks’ double-time advance upon the Persians at marathon.
Some scholars have argued that speed was a result of a desire to attack before the Persian cavalry could be
deployed. In light of Blythe’s compelling argument about the Persian arrow’s ability to penetrate Greek
shields from close range, however, the avoidance of arrows still seems the best and most straightforward
explanation to me.
275
Armored or shield-bearing archers do exist throughout the Archaic period, but they appear with
significantly less frequency over time.
 86
and weaponry become much more clearly defined and unambiguous in art. Literary

references to them from this point down to Herodotus are rare and those that do exist do

not give us a clear understanding of their role on the field. The art historical evidence,

when it does show them fighting, tends to place them in the fray, just as Homer did.

Their uniforms suggest a light quilted padding of linen or leather thereby leading to

significantly greater mobility.276 Their bows are almost invariably Scythian, which

would favor both mobility and increased firepower – at least as a function of their

considerable range.

Horse archers, depicted from as early as 560 B.C.E. (and who still have a well

defined presence in Athens during the Classical period), increased their mobility by a

wide margin. If the archer practiced the so-called ‘Parthian shot’, as all Eastern archers

did, he might also dramatically increase his firepower, shooting while in motion or even

in flight.277 Because horses at this time were not heavily armored, however, this archer

also offers an increased target zone and has reduced security. For killing or

incapacitating the horse will stop the archer too.278

When we see the ways in which archers were used in the following pages, it will

be helpful to evaluate their deployment through the lens of this model. Some of the uses

exploit these strengths and weakness. Some do not. In each case, it is a delicate

balancing act of considerations.

276
Such light quilted armor is common among archers all over the world throughout our historical record.
It was surprisingly effective at minimizing projectile wounds.
277
There is ample evidence that this was practiced by virtually every people who fielded mounted archers.
278
Along with those around the falling or panicked horse. For a vivid description of the risks and dangers
of horses in battle see J. Keegan, The Face of Battle (New York: Viking Press, 1976), 94-97.
 87
Advantages

It is also worth exploring the bow’s most significant advantages (range and

mobility) in greater detail. Depending upon his bow, his skill, and his objective, a Greek

archer could shoot an arrow up to 500 meters. He would have been expected to fire quite

accurately for 50-60 meters. He was less accurate but still effective up to a range of 160-

175 meters.279 A Cretan-type simple bow would have had a maximum range of not much

more than this.280 A Scythian-type recurve bow, on the other hand, might have been able

to shoot as far as 500 meters – the winning distance in an archery contest recorded in an

inscription in Olbia circa 300 B.C.E.281 The last case should be regarded as an

exceptional and inaccurate shot. A shot of over 250 meters with this type of bow,

however, should be considered quite feasible, if not routine. It should also be noted here

279
W. McLeod, “The Range of the Ancient Bow,” Phoenix 19.1 (1965): 1-14. W. McLeod, “The Range of
the Ancient Bow: Addenda,” Phoenix 26.1 (1972): 78-82. After nearly 40 years, McLeod’s two articles
remain the best treatment of the subject. He presents the numbers I use here in McLeod 1972: p. 78. The
number 50-60 meters is derived from a combination of sources and the distance between fortification
towers. Presumably archers would have had to shoot with accuracy when the walls were being attacked.
Blythe, approaches the materials through a scientific lens, edges the distance of an aimed shot up to 70 m
and defines as an ‘aimed’ shot, one which falls within a radius of 60 cm, (an area of 1.13 m). He adds that
this would be considered poor shooting. See P. Blythe, The Effectiveness of Greek Armour (1977), 179.
Vegetius (Epitoma rei militaris 2.23) in the 4th century C.E. writes that archers and slingers should practice
shooting at hay bails 600 feet away. 1 Roman foot = .971 English feet. So that would be 582.6 feet or 178
meters. This could be considered Vegetius’ effective distance for the bow. Krentz makes it 175-190
meters, see P. Krenz, The Battle of Marathon (New Haven: Yale University, 2010), 27.
280
McLeod has the maximum range for the Cretan bow between 155-190 meters. See McLeod “The Range
of the Ancient Bow: Addenda,” (1972): 14. By comparison, 220 meters was not an unusual target range for
the single-stave English yew ‘longbow.’ McLeod (1972): 13.
281
McLeod, “The Range of the Ancient Bow” (1965): 3. The winner’s name was Greek, Anaxagoros. His
location (Olbia) favors a Scythian bow and the recorded distance certifies it, as no other bow could have
shot nearly as far. This may seem exaggerated, but is plausible based upon comparative information.
Karasulas cites an inscription dating to 1225 C.E., which places the winning shot in a contest with a
Mongolian bow (a very close relative of the Scythian bow) at 536 meters. See A. Karasulas, Mounted
Archers of the Steppe 600 B.C. – A.D. 1300 (Oxford: Osprey, 2004), 23. The archer’s guild in Ottoman
Turkey was comprised of members who could all shoot about 560 meters (they would have used a Turkish
flight bow - a superior descendent of the Scythian bow and constructed in similar fashion. See W. McLeod
“The Range of the Ancient Bow” (1965): 9. Rausing notes a 1913 C.E. experiment in England in which a
200 year old Turkish bow shot an average distance of just over 440 meters. See Rausing “The Bow,”
(1967): 30.
 88
that the Scythian bow, because of its design, was easier to draw and hold than other bows

of similar strength, which were likely to have been in use. This would make it easier to

aim well and to shoot rapidly.

One of McLeod’s key pieces of evidence regarding the maximum distance of the

Persian bow relies upon Herodotus’s description of the Persian assault on the Athenians

who had barricaded themselves on the Acropolis.282 He calculates a distance of about

155 meters with a vertical distance of 30 meters, concluding that the Persian archer has a

range greater than 155 meters.283 Blythe, in reexamining this evidence, makes a fairly

significant amendment. The arrows used were incendiary arrows and, as such, had cloth

wrapped around them.284 This would have added to their drag. Blythe calculates a

reduction in the range of these arrows by something between 25% and 50%. Because of

this, he reasons that these Persians with their standard arrows would have had a

maximum range of at least 235 meters.285 Persian bows had better range than Cretan

bows according to Xenophon, so, while it is possible that McLeod underestimates the

range of the Cretan bow, it is unlikely that he did so by much.286 The Scythian bow, on

282
Hdt. 8.52.
283
W. McLeod, “The Range of the Ancient Bow” (1965): 4.
284
For the record, McLeod does not miss that these are incendiary arrows, he just does not adjust his
calculation to accommodate the fact. See W. McLeod “The Bowshot and Marathon,” JHS 90 (1970): 197-
198.
285
P. Blyth, The Effectiveness of Greek Armour (1977), 54. He adds that, assuming these were the best
Persian bowmen, common archers should have been able to manage at least three quarters of that (175
meters). Conversely, if they were not the best, and there is no compelling reason to imagine that they were,
then the best archers should have been able to shoot much further.
286
Xen. Anab. 3.3.15. In 3.3.10, Xenophon describes the Cretans as picking up Persian arrows and
practicing shooting them at a trajectory over a distance, implying that this is unusual for them and noting a
range-based difference between the archers on each side.
 89
287
the other hand, outdistanced the Persian bow. It is not unreasonable, therefore, to take

this as a conservative minimum distance for the range of the Scythian bow with 500

meters being an extreme upper limit. Moreover, McLeod points out that a ‘bowshot’

(σαγιττοβόλη, τόξου βολή) was actually a formal unit of measurement in Byzantium and

defines it as 324.3-337 meters.288 The Byzantines were no stranger to the Scythian bow,

having fought both with and against it routinely. Thus, I suggest that this distance is a

reasonable conjecture for the outer effective range of the Scythian bow.289

Such shots will not have been accurate, nor would they (as we will see in the next

chapter) have had much of an effect upon armored soldiers in terms of casualties, but

they would likely have taken an important and often overlooked psychological toll.

Against light-armed soldiers, horses, or pack animals, such shots would have been

considerably more problematic. A shot from closer up, might even have been able to

pierce armor.

In addition to this, there is good reason to believe that an archer would have

carried as many as 200 or more arrows with him into battle and may well have been able

to resupply from the army’s reserves.290 He could also shoot 10 or more aimed shots per

minute – more if harassing an enemy over a great distance where accuracy was not to be

287
Ctesias 17. Ctesias’ reliability is often questioned. Here, however, science supports his claim.
Everything we know about bow design indicates that the Scythian bow, like many of its Eastern cousins
and progeny, had an impressive range.
288
W. McLeod, W “The Range of the Ancient Bow: Addenda” (1972): 82.
289
Ashley calculates 380 yards (347 meters) in J. Ashley, The Macedonian Empire: The Era of Warfare
under Philip II and Alexander the Great (Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, Inc., 1998): 66.
290
Thucydides 7.43.2. Snodgrass discusses the Scythian goryt’s ability to hold as many as 200 – 300
Scythian arrows in A. Snodgrass, Arms and Armor of the Greeks (1992), 82.
 90
291
expected. This may seem improbable, but more recent historical accounts confirm the

awesome speed and efficiency of the expert archer in this regard. One eye witness in the

mid-1800’s describes Apache warriors shooting from horseback in this way: “The

rapidity with which their arrows are placed upon the string and sent is a mystery to the

bystander, and must be seen to be believed. No repeating arms ever yet constructed are

so rapid.”292 This is a considerable amount of firepower, and even if it was not revered, it

was certainly respected.

As an exercise in appreciation, let us put this firepower in perspective using an

extremely conservative approach. Let us say that that the average flight bowshot was 200

meters (well beneath the probable number). Let us also say that a group of hoplites,

despite being dressed in as much as 60 pounds of armor, was able to run at world record

speed (we will call it 20 seconds for the sake of argument) to cover that distance and still

manage enough energy and oxygen to fight effectively.293 Let us now say that there are

300 archers shooting at them.294 This mass of hoplites, regardless of its size would make

an easy though moving target for archers even at the outer extreme of this range. They

would face almost 1000 arrows before closing the gap in this unrealistically optimistic

scenario.

291
See R. Miller, E. McEwen, and C. Bergman, “Experimental Approaches to Ancient near Eastern
Archery,” World Archaeology 18.2 (1986): 178-195; and E.V. Cernenko The Scythians 700-300 B.C.
(1983), 12. Karasulas argues for 12 per minute, in Mounted Archers of the Steppe (2004). Strickland and
Hardy argue that Turkish archers could shoot as many as 5 arrows in 2.5 seconds in M. Strickland & R.
Hardy, The Great Warbow (2011), 100.
292
D. Jones, Poison Arrows: North American Indian Hunting and Warfare (Austin: University of Texas
Press, 2007), 64.
293
The 200 meter world record is 19.19 seconds and is held by Usain Bolt of Jamaica. The gold medalist
in the 1900 Olympics (Walter Tewksberry of the United States) ran it in 22.2 seconds.
294
If you examine the number of times that Thucydides describes number of archers deployed, this number
is the median.
 91
There are numerous references to missile range throughout our documentary

sources. Homeric heroes hasten to get out of missile range (ἐκ βελέων) when recovering

the dead or injured or when stripping armor from a corpse.295 Tyrtaeus uses similar

language in encouraging his audience not to stand outside the range of missiles (ἐκτὸς

βελέων).296 Later, Herodotus relates that Miltiades and the Ionians, serving Darius in his

Scythian campaign, tore down a bridge the distance of a bowshot (ὅσον τόξευµα

ἐξικνέται) for the purposes of defending it.297 Thucydides notes that the Athenians

anchor their ships beyond arrow range at Decelea.298

Even if a bowshot was not a formal unit of measurement, as it would become in

later times, there seems to have been a generally understood idea about how far a bow

could shoot. For this reason, Circe can describe distance and proximity to Odysseus (and

Homer to his audience) by using the bow’s range as a metaphor. In the former case she

praises a route by saying, “not even a strong man could shoot an arrow to Skylla’s cave

from the ship on the path she suggests.”299 She then describes Charybdis’ proximity to

Skylla by stating that he could shoot an arrow across the distance.300 This would have

been meaningful information to a Homeric audience, just as it was meant to be for

Odysseus.

295
Iliad 4.498, 12.159, 18.232.
296
Tyrtaeus Frag. 11.28: “µηδ` ἐκτὸς βελέων ἑστάτω ἀσπίδ` ἔχων”
297
Herodotus 4.139.4.
298
Thucydides 7.30.2.4.
299
Odyssey 12.83-84.
300
Odyssey 12.101-102.
 92
A final point about range: an army that finds itself outranged by an opponent’s

archers or other light-armed troops is in trouble. This is vividly described by Xenophon.

His ‘Ten Thousand’ find themselves at a disadvantage due to the fact that their Cretan

archers are outranged by their Persian counterparts. The archers are forced to march

inside a hoplite square, which slows the entire column down and prevents the light-armed

archers from scouting or guarding the rear. They ultimately solve the problem by turning

to a contingent of Rhodians, whose slings outdistance the Persian bows.301 Range alone

effects soldiers’ behavior on battlefields and dictates to some degree where they anchor,

how they march, etc. This should be factored into any consideration of how effective a

bow can be and how ubiquitous they were.

Mobility, as we have seen, is the other important advantage an archer has over a

heavily armed soldier, although this is an advantage he would have shared with his fellow

light-armed troops. Yet, it does not seem to have been fully exploited until the 7th

century B.C.E. when the widespread adoption of hoplite armor led to archery becoming a

specialty. When archers shed their cumbersome armor, they gained speed and the ability

to fight effectively on rugged, uneven, or steep terrain. Conversely, places with this type

of geography were thought to breed archers, Crete being a good example. 302 Plato puts

the advantage of the light-armed archer in perspective. In describing a hypothetical

training competition, he has a hoplite in full panoply run for 4 miles over a smooth course

to a temple and back.303 The hoplite is meant to compete against an archer in archer

301
Xenophon Anabasis 3.3.7 ff. These Rhodians are serving as hoplites and happen to know the sling
because it is so common on Rhodes. It would be difficult to maintain an argument that held that there were
no hoplites practiced in the bow.
302
See Xenophon Anabasis 4.2.28.3, Plato Laws 625d.
303
This panoply was lighter in Plato’s time than it was for much of the Archaic period too.
 93
clothing (τοξικὴν στολήν), who must run for 12 miles over hills and through varied

country and back. The winner of this competition will get a prize.304 Presumably, the

two challenges are considered to be roughly equivalent in difficulty.

Positioning

Because of their mobility, archers and other light-armed troops were used in a

variety of ways. Even when their role became more clearly defined and specialized in the

late Archaic and Classical periods, archers were deployed with other light-armed troops

as often as they were used as a unit.305 Although their advantages were exploited, a

consistent tactical convention regarding their deployment never developed. They might

be stationed in front of a phalanx306, behind it307, on either flank308, or even mixed in with

the more heavily armed soldiers – woven in (ἐµπλεκόµενοι τῇ φάλαγγι) as Asclepiodotus

puts it.309 This last point deserves a bit more elaboration.

Homer vividly describes a mixed tactical unit that fits this description. Teukros

fights along side his half-brother Aias, sheltered behind his massive shield and

304
Plato Laws 833b.
305
This had advantages and disadvantages, as we shall see. One advantage is the ability to work in tandem
towards an objective. So, Polybius (10.30.9) describes archers ‘covering’ their light-armed peers in their
effort to take over a position.
306
Xenophon Ana.4.8.15, Polybius 16.18.7, Onosander 17.1.1.
307
Iliad 13.722, Pausanias 4.8.12, Asclepiodotus 2.1.14.
308
Xen. Ana.4.8.15, Dionysius Hal. 20.1.7, Pausanias 4.11.3, Polybius 5.53.9.
309
Asclepiodotus (6.1) writes, “The light –armed and peltasts will be positioned according to necessity,
sometimes in front of the phalanx, sometimes behind it, sometimes to its right, sometimes to its left …
sometimes woven into the phalanx that are stationed at the side of men.” Much later, Vegetius will write of
archers in heavy armor placed in the second row (Veg. 2.15). Asclepiodotus is describing the Macedonian
phalanx and Vegetius Roman tactics. They are worth mentioning here as a means of dispelling the notion
that such mixed tactics were Homeric fictions or interpolated Assyrian tactics. Even at a time when
archery was an extreme specialization, mixed formations were sometimes deemed worthy of merit.
 94
310
opportunistically venturing beyond its safety to shoot Trojans. Tyrtaeus describes a

similar deployment with light-armed troops sheltering behind the shield of a heavily

armed soldier.311 Although vase paintings are an unreliable source for information about

tactics (and may have been referencing an idealistic relationship embodied by Teukros

and Aias), the grouping appears enough, and divorced from any specific context, to

suggest comfort with the concept. A Proto-Corinthian Aryballos, for example, depicts a

single archer wearing a crested Corinthian helmet (Fig. 15). His arrow is knocked and

half drawn, making his bow difficult to identify. He kneels behind a spearman in full

hoplite panoply who is engaged in combat, spear raised high.

Figure 15

This position might seem incongruous with traditional views of hoplite phalanx

warfare and it is. We need to recall, however, that the tight overlapped-shield formation

310
Iliad 8.267 – 8.270.
311
Tyrtaeus Frag 11.28.
 95
likely evolved over time and may never have existed during the Archaic period in the

way described by Thucydides fifty years after the Persian Wars.312 For much of the

entire period in question, available evidence suggests that formations were more open.

It should be noted that there was precedent for this pairing in the Eastern

Mediterranean. Assyrians used formations like this to great effect. De Backer recently

identified two different types of these formations.313 The first involved archers in couples

beside or just behind heavily armed (shielded) infantrymen.314 The other involves

“couples composed of an archer and a spearman/shield-bearer, bearing a heavy armour-

like scale corslet and helmet.”315 Figure 16 below is an example of the latter. This detail

comes from the Northwest Relief at Ashurbanipal’s (668-630 B.C.E.) palace at Ninevah,

and depicts a battle against light-armed Arabs, some of whom fight from camels. The

shielded infantryman protects the archer, while the latter increases the duo’s firepower by

increasing the range of their threat. Against light-armed troops, cavalry, or other mixed

formations, this was a particularly fruitful pairing. The combination appears frequently

in Assyrian art and is considered by many scholars to represent an authentic tactic.

Another terracotta sculptural group (Figure 17) from Cyprus dating to the 6th century

312
Thucydides 5.71. The debate over the development of the hoplite phalanx is long. In essence, the
debate revolves around the construction of the hoplite shield and its suitability for anything other than
phalanx tactics. Hanson makes the case for the early adoption of disciplined hoplite phalanx tactics: “In
short, the expense and careful, peculiar construction of the shield were justified only by its application to
this particular type of massed fighting.” See V. Hanson, “Hoplite Technology in Phalanx Battle” in
Hoplites: The Classical Greek Battle Experience, ed. V. Hanson (New York: Routledge, 1991), 76. The
case for open order and the flexible use of hoplites is best made by H. van Wees, in Greek Warfare: Myth
and Realities (2004); and L. Rawlings, “Alternative Agonies: Hoplite martial and combat experiences
beyond the phalanx,” in War and Violence in Ancient Greece, ed. H. van Wees (London, 2000), 233-259.
313
F. De Backer, “Some Basic Tactics of Neo-Assyrian Warfare,” Ugarit-Forschungen 39 (2008): 69-115.
314
Ibid., 72. He calls this the ‘Assault Combat Group.’
315
Ibid., 74. He refers to this as the ‘Armoured Support Combat Group.’
 96
B.C.E. shows a similar formation. The archer knees behind an infantryman who holds a

smaller round shield. Cyprus, which was subject to Assyria for some time, was

obviously one area where Greeks would have been exposed to elements of Assyrian

culture. In Chapter 4, I will illustrate some of the ways in which Greeks had been

exposed to and influenced by Near Eastern military practices. Suffice it to say here that

they were.316 The adoption of the Scythian bow is one example. The adoption (and

subsequent modification) from the Assyrians of the ‘Kegel Helmet’ is another.317

Writing off the formation we observe in Greek poetry and art to an artistic mimicry of

Near Eastern artistic conventions – and, to be sure, Near Eastern influence was

considerable during the period in question – would be to ignore evidence of other cultural

influences for the sake of expediency or ideology.

Figure 16

316
Starr finds the same to be true of the Etruscans and cites Near Eastern influences on their arms and
warfare from 725-650 B.C.E. in P.F. Starr, Chester G. Starr Essays in Ancient History (Leiden: Brill,
1979), 179.
317
T. Everson, Warfare in Ancient Greece (Stroud: Sutton, 2004), 73.
 97
Figure 17

Moreover, comparative evidence illustrates the utility of such a formation. The

English, for example, spent a great deal of time experimenting before they demonstrated

the awesome potential of massed arrows with the longbow at both Crecy (1346 C.E.) and

Agincourt (1415 C.E.). In their survey, Strickland and Hardy describe a number of

battles in which archers mingled with knights or were paired with infantrymen. At the

Battle of Bourgthéroulde (1124 C.E.), archers were mixed in with infantrymen (who were

actually dismounted cavalrymen).318 This was meant to be a defensive position against

an enemy with a formidable cavalry. The archers were ordered to shoot the horses. The

Count of Meulan believed that his cavalry would sweep away the infantry and ordered a

charge, which failed disastrously due to the effectiveness of the archers. Fourteen years

later, the English were victorious again at the Battle of Standard (1138 C.E.) using the

318
M. Strickland & R. Hardy, The Great Warbow (2011), 71-72. The idea of dismounting cavalry is
another interesting parallel with Archaic Greek warfare.
 98
319
same formation. This time, however, they were fighting against unarmored Scots. At

both the Battles of Irfon Bridge (1282 C.E.) and Maes Moydog (1295 C.E.), they used

mixed formations of knights and bowmen to break the tight formations of Welsh

Spearmen.320 This formation was not the only one used during this period – it was just

one of many tactical options employed against different kinds of foes when it was

deemed strategically prudent to do so.321 There is no reason to believe that the Greeks

would not have recognized the potential of mixed formations in certain circumstances or

operated with an arsenal of tactical options.

Tactics

I. Close Range Sniping

Because Homeric warfare hinges on the participation of aristocratic front-fighters

(προµάχοι), their entrance into or withdrawal from a battle can have an enormous impact

in the fighting, physically and psychologically. So, it is not surprising then that one of

the most prominent archery tactics on the Homeric battlefield involves sniping at leaders.

Menelaos, Diomedes, Aias, and Hektor are all victims of repeated attempts by archers.

Others are killed by arrows due to a combination of their proximity to an intended target

and the poor aim (often the result of divine intervention) of the bowman. Near misses

319
Ibid., 75.
320
Ibid., 35. Given the limitations of Greek bows against hoplite armor, this would not have been optimal
against a hoplite phalanx, but against light-armed troops or in open order, such an alignment could have
proven highly effective.
321
It is also worthy of note that the longbow existed for hundreds of years before the tactical potential of
the ‘hail of arrows’ was recognized and deliberately employed. Might the same slow manner of
development be true of the hoplite shield?
 99
often result in unintended deaths – a distressing element of chance that added to the

horror of war.

Nevertheless, unsuspecting soldiers are especially targeted. In the passage

mentioned above, Aias raises his shield a little and Teukros looks around (παπτήνας) for

a target and shoots. In the next few moments, he kills eight named warriors with his

mighty bow (τόξου κρατεροῦ) and receives high praise from Agamemnon for his

efforts.322 Elsewhere, Pandaros targets Menelaos during the latter’s duel with Paris,323

Diomedes is targeted by Paris while the former is stripping the armor from a corpse,324

and the Achaians shoot at Hektor while he is trying to call for a truce.325 Aias routinely

finds himself targeted and hard-pressed by arrows.326

These are not instances of archers taking advantage of their great range and

shooting into a crowd. They need to be close – perhaps within the 50-70 meter range or

closer – to gain the accuracy they require. They are often in the fray, fighting from a

fairly close proximity – close enough to talk to one another.327 Helenos shoots at

Menelaos from within the latter’s spear range.328 Moreover, they look for targets, and

aim at them, as Teukros does above. These points are highlighted by Homer. Often

archers are described as ‘noticing’ (ἐνοησε) their targets. Pandaros, for example, ‘notices’

322
Iliad 8.267 ff.
323
Iliad 4.105 ff.
324
Iliad 11.368 ff.
325
Iliad 3.79-80.
326
Iliad 11.589, 16.361.
327
Iliad 11.366.
328
Iliad 13.587. Although, in this case, the encounter illustrates proximity not tactics. Helenos is rushed
by Menelaos.
 100
329
Diomedes, takes aim and shoots him in the shoulder. Later, Paris ‘notices’ Eurypylos,

takes aim, and shoots him in the leg.330 If one does something noticeable, they often find

themselves targeted.

Later examples include the killing of Masistius, the Persian cavalry officer, at the

Battle of Plataea or Philip of Macedon, who famously was shot in the right eye with an

arrow from the city wall as he was inspecting his men’s siege preparations at the siege of

Methone.331 Philip was not even engaged in combat at the time. While his injury was

not catastrophic, it could have been. In the Battle of Hastings, one of the first medieval

European battles in which the bow played a decisive role, an incident like this is believed

to have been one of the turning points in the battle. According to one chronicler, when

Harold II, the Saxon King, was shot in the eye (or “laid low by a chance blow” as he puts

it), his army broke up and fled.332 The scene is depicted on the famous Bayeux Tapestry

as well, which was made just a few years after the incident.333

II. Massed Volleys

The Lokrians are the only example of a group of massed archers fighting together

in the Iliad. During the Trojan assault on the Greek ships, Homer tells us that the light-

armed Lokrians positioned themselves behind the heavily armed troops and using bows

329
Iliad 5.95.
330
Iliad 11.504-507.
331
For Masistius see Hdt. 9.22. For Philip see A. Riginos, “The Wounding of Philip II of Macedon: Fact
and Fabrication,” JHS 114 (1994): 106. She regards this version by Theopompus of Chios (FGrH 115 F
52) as the earliest and most accurate version of this incident, which would ultimately have a number of very
popular and sensationalized fictional versions.
332
J. Bradbury, The Medieval Archer (Dover, N.H.: The Boydell Press, 1985), 28-32. This description
comes from the Chronicle of Battle Abbey written in the 12th c.
333
Circa 1070.
 101
and slings, “firing close volleys they were shattering the ranks (φάλαγγας) of the

Trojans.”334 A little further on, Homer adds that the Lokrians, “were unseen shooting

from behind, and the Trojans remembered nothing of the joy of battle/ for the arrows

utterly confounded them.”335 In this case, massed archers shoot dense volleys that break

the Trojans’ massed formation. Such a tactic is associated with Near Eastern armies, and

it was perhaps not too much of an exaggeration to imagine a volley of massed arrows that

would “blot out the sun.”336 Homer’s example is the only one in Greek literature before

Sphacteria in 425 B.C.E., illustrating Greeks deploying massed archers to great effect, a

clear example that archery was not developed to its full potential despite hundreds of

years of continuous use.337

Lest we lay the entire blame for this on ideology, we need to remember that this is

a tactic that relies on volume, and Greeks never fielded the kind of numbers that could

‘blot out the sun’ in the Archaic period.338 Even if every single Lokrian at Troy was on

the field with bow in hand, there would have been only 2000 men (40 ships)339 and this

would have been the largest number of archers deployed together on one occasion

throughout Archaic or Classical history, according to our evidence. Peoples who

334
Iliad 13.718. ‘ταρφέα βάλλοντες Τρώων ῥήγνυντο φάλαγγας’
335
Iliad 13.721-2. οἳ δ' ὄπιθѳεν βάλλοντες ἐλάνθѳανον· οὐδέ τι χάρµης
Τρῶες µιµνήσκοντο· συνεκλόνεον γὰρ ὀϊστοί.
336
Herodotus 7.226.
337
As we saw earlier, this was true in England for quite some time too, despite the existence and use of the
yew longbow. This may have had something to do with the ability to muster and arm large numbers of
lower class citizens. Even the Lokrians in their 40 ships would have amounted to fewer than 2000 archers.
338
We will explore the ideology issue in Chapter 5.
339
I am not suggesting that we take the numbers seriously. I raise them for the sake of argument.
 102
successfully developed and exploited massed archery tactics were often those deploying

huge numbers of men, like the Persians or the English.

Another consideration is this: armies reliant upon the bow to kill developed

massed arrow tactics out of necessity. These peoples realized that the likelihood of one

arrow killing a man, even a poorly armored man, was slim (unless the arrow was

poisoned). Thus, their objective was to shoot so many arrows that individual adversaries

would be struck a number of times. Milner makes the good point that surgeons’ reports

in America’s Indian Wars were biased towards those who lived. Those who died on the

field often had multiple arrow wounds.340 Coues, a military surgeon at the time, wrote

that some men were “porcupinized.”341 Hill, documenting the same wars a few years

earlier, wrote, “We have not seen more than one or two men wounded by a single arrow

only. In three of our soldiers shot by the Navahos, we counted forty-two arrows.”342

Greek armor, as we shall see, was very effective against arrows and significantly limited

the amount of exposure a soldier faced against archers. Frankly, it would have been

difficult to ‘porcupinize’ a heavily armed Greek soldier. So, the objective of archery was

different and did not favor, what would likely have been a very wasteful tactic in most

cases.343

340
G. Milner, “Nineteenth-Century Arrow Wounds and Perceptions of Prehistoric Warfare,” American
Antiquity 149 (2005).
341
E. Coues, “Some Notes on Arrow Wounds,” The Medical and Surgical Reporter (1866): 323.
342
J.H. Hill, “Notes on Arrow Wounds,” American Journal of the Medical Sciences (1862): 68.
343
Wasteful not only in terms of arrows, but, more importantly, in terms of manpower.
 103
III. Pursuit

Because their mobility was a major asset, archers were useful in the pursuit of fleeing

opponents too.344 While an armored warrior stands a good chance of avoiding fatal

wounds when facing his enemy, flight exposes soldiers more vulnerable back side. Thus,

Meriones shoots and kills Harpalion while the later is fleeing. The arrow hits him in the

buttocks and passes into his internal organs from there.345 Later, Teukros kills the fleeing

charioteer, Kleitos, hitting him in the back of the neck with an arrow.346 Aristophanes, in

one of his comedies, mentions a certain Cephisodamus, a veteran, who was killed in

flight by an archer.347 It is precisely for this reason that, years later, Xenophon deploys

his Cretan archers to cover his hoplites’ retreat, pitting archer against archer.348

IV. Counter Cavalry

Bows are also used against horses in the Iliad. Nestor is nearly killed by Hektor

when Paris shoots his horse, leaving him stranded.349 The same thing happens to

Masistius (mentioned above) at Plataea.350 There is no indication that horses were

344
Conversely, hoplites are not very good at it – particularly when chasing light-armed (Xen. Anab.
3.4.27). It could also be dangerous for a hoplite to break formation and pursue an enemy. Feigned flight
was a common tactic in antiquity and was even used by the Spartans (Hdt.7.211) for this very reason. Even
in flight, archers could be dangerous. Xenophon notes that some of his men were wounded while pursuing
the fleeing Carduchi (Anab. 4.3.33). Horse archers might also be familiar with the famous ‘Parthian Shot.’
345
Iliad 13.651. K. Saunders, in “The Wounds in Iliad 13-16,” CQ NS 49/2 (1999): 345-363, claims that
the wound is unrealistic, but failed to account for the typical kneeling (or even seated) stance of the
Homeric archer and the irregularities of the terrain. That said, Homer’s descriptions of wounds and their
consequences are very clearly exaggerated.
346
Iliad 15.445.
347
Aristophanes Acharnians 711.
348
Xenophon Anabasis 5.2.32.3.
349
Iliad 8.81.
350
Hdt. 9.22.6.
 104
armored at this time. They were therefore vulnerable to arrows and other projectiles.

This vulnerability was psychological as much as it was physical. Anderson quotes Sir

John Froissart in emphasizing this detail: “the horses of the French knights at Poitiers

smarting under the pain of the wounds made by the bearded arrows would not advance,

but turned about, and by their unruliness threw their riders and caused the greatest

confusion.”351

This is one reason why archers might be posted on the flanks or even in a mixed

unit. A heavily armed infantryman was vulnerable to being flanked by a highly mobile

cavalryman. Archers could protect the flanks of individuals or whole divisions. That

said, archers themselves were even more vulnerable to cavalrymen, as the latter were

more mobile, could close faster, and, in close proximity, would likely overwhelm a light-

armed soldier. Archers needed the protection of the infantrymen or at least the balancing

presence of their own cavalry. The best protection against cavalry was a mixture of

heavily armed infantrymen and archers.

For this reason, the Spartan king Pausanias sends to the Athenians asking them to

send their archers for support against the Persian cavalry.352 Simonides’ dedicatory

epigram notes that a dedicated bow and arrows had bathed themselves in the blood of

Persian horsemen.353 Xenophon writes that the Spartans’ hired Cretan archers would

have been useful against Boeotian Cavalry had they not been off plundering.354 Nicias

351
J.K. Anderson, “Greek Chariot-Borne and Mounted Infantry,” AJA 79.3 (1975): 175-187.
352
Hdt. 9.60.
353
Simonides 6.2. That he does not refer to them as ‘Persian archers’ is interesting, defying the stereotype.
354
Xen. Hel. 4.7.7.
 105
asks for many bowmen and slingers to stand their ground against the enemy’s cavalry.355

Lamarchos brings Argives and bowmen to fend off the Syracusan cavalry, which is

attacking the right wing of the Athenian army.356 The archer’s importance in neutralizing

cavalry is clear.357

V. Stealth (Scouting, Ambushes, Raids, etc.)

The bow is also associated with stealth in the Iliad. When an individual or small

group wishes to move quickly and/or remain undetected, the bow is a good option. Book

10 revolves around an episode often referred to as the Doloneia, which provides a

treasure trove of information about the kinds of activities for which the bow is deemed a

choice weapon.358 First, the main objective of both the Trojans and Greeks in this

episode is to gather information about the other under cover of darkness. So, they each

send out scouts in the middle of the night on a reconnaissance mission.359 The mission’s

danger is highlighted by the fact that both sides feel it necessary to entice volunteers with

impressive incentives. The Trojans send Dolon. Diomedes volunteers to go out for the

Greeks and selects Odysseus to accompany him. All three wear hides rather than bronze.

355
Thuc. 6.22.
356
Thuc. 6.101.
357
This may help to explain the lack of Athenian cavalry at Marathon and Plataea. The quantity of Persian
archers would have rendered them ineffective, resulting in lots of dead horses.
358
Though the Doloneia’s authenticity in the original Iliad is the subject of debate, I take it to be a product
of the Archaic period and therefore valid in this discussion.
359
Pausanias describes an interesting episode relating to foreign archers, wherein the Persians at
Thermopylae fire their arrows at night towards the Spartans as a means of discerning their proximity given
their limited visibility in the darkness. Again, we have the bow being used at night for stealthy intelligence
gathering purposes. See Pausanias 1.40.2.
 106
360 361
Dolon carries a bow and spear. Diomedes carries a sword and shield. Odysseus

carries a sword and a bow, one of the terrible weapons (ὅπλοισιν δεινοῖσιν) given to him

by Meriones.362 Neither spy uses his bow, but the choice of weapon is meaningful and

sensible.

On route to the Trojan camp, the Odysseus spots Dolon and lays an ambush,

wherein their speed (and consequently their ability to run Dolon down) is part of the

calculus.363 We see archers used this way in later times too against both Greek and

foreign enemies. The Phocians, for example, ambush the Celtic invaders with bows.364

Thucydides details an ambush set by Demosthenes for the Spartans at the Battle of Olpae

involving 400 hoplites and as many as 60 Athenian archers.365 Fearful of being

outflanked, he hides the troops in a sunken road behind bushes. The ruse works and the

Spartans are defeated losing their commander, Eurylochus, in the process. Again, we see

mixed groupings of soldiers.366

360
Iliad 10.260.
361
Iliad 255-257.
362
Iliad 10.254. Again, this combination of weaponry and armor suggests the mixed unit or which Aias
and Teukros are the example par excellence.
363
Iliad 10.338-371. They would not have been able to pursue Dolon is heavily armed.
364
Pausanias 10.23.5.
365
Thucydides 3.107-108.
366
Lest someone try to associate a ‘dirty’ tactic with archers alone, it should be noted that 87% of this force
was hoplites. Moreover, among images depicting ambushes, Achilleus’ ambush of Troilus is, by far, the
most common scene. Achilleus is depicted in heavy armor – usually hoplite gear, crouching behind a
fountain as Troilus rides up to it.
 107
VI. Siege

One might expect to find more evidence for the use of archers in siege warfare in the

Iliad. This is, after all, an extraordinarily prolonged siege. Nonetheless, the action in the

Iliad at least takes place in the plain before the city. The Greeks do not storm the city and

little attention is paid to any defensive measures taken by the Trojans. If anything, it is

the Greek camp (with the active participation of Teukros’ bow) that finds itself defending

against a full-scale assault when the Trojans storm their camp and begin burning their

ships. 367 The only other Archaic reference to siege warfare comes from a fragmentary

poem by Archilochus, which references siege warfare (complete with fortifications,

towers, and ladders) on Lesbos. He writes, “… and many missiles were sent forth/ ... and

quivers were no longer concealing slaughter / ... of arrows …”368

Archaeological evidence also supports the notion of siege warfare in the Greek

East during this time period with invasions from the South (Lydians), the East (Assyrians

and Persians) and North/Northeast (Cimmerians and Scythians). Gyges, a neighboring

Lydian king well-known to Greeks and a likely contemporary of Archilochus, died when

Sardis was sacked by Cimmerians in circa 650 B.C.E. During the Lydian siege of Greek

Smyrna in circa 600 B.C.E., our archaeological records suggest that both the Lydians and

the Greek defenders were using Scythian type arrowheads.369 Furthermore, the use of

Ionian mercenaries throughout the Near East dating at least to the early 7th c. is well-

367
Iliad 12.352.
368
Archilochus Frag. 98. This is my translation of Douglas Gerber’s restoration.
369
A. Snodgrass, Arms and Armor of the Greeks (1999), 81.
 108
370
attested. This was a turbulent century in the history of the region and many of the

conflicts involved sieges. The engraved silver ‘Amathus Bowl’ (Figure 18), a Phoenician

made object found in a burial at Amathus in Cyprus, offers a compelling and datable

piece of material evidence in support of this notion.

Figure 18

370
The following bibliography is not comprehensive but includes several of the most influential and recent
works on the subject. I have tried to include in an effort to be as persuasive as possible, works from
different fields (philology, art historical, archaeological) and different perspectives (Greek and Near
Eastern): J. Boardman, The Greeks Overseas (4th Edition), (London: Thames and Hudson, 1999); T.F.R.G.
Braun, “The Greeks in the Near East,” CAH 3^2.3 (1982): 1-31; R. Brown, “Greeks in Assyria: Some
Overlooked Evidence,” CW 77.5 (1984): 300-3; A. Kurt, “Greek Contact with the Levant and Mesopotamia
in the First Half of the First Millenium B.C.: A View from the East” in Greek Settlements in the Eastern
Mediterranean and the Black Sea, ed. G. Tsetskhladze & A. Snodgrass (Oxford: Archaeopress, 2000), 17-
25; G. Lanfranchi, “The Ideological and Political Impact of the Assyrian Imperial Expansion on the Greek
World in the 8th and 7th Centuries B.C.” in The Heirs of Assyria, ed. S. Aro and R. Whiting (Helsinki: The
Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 2000), 7-34; W.D. Niemeier, “Archaic Greeks in the Orient: Textual
and Archaeological Evidence,” BASOR 322 (2001): 11-32; K. Raaflaub, “Archaic Greek Aristocrats as
Carriers of Cultural Interaction,” in Commerce and Monetary Systems in the Ancient World: Means of
Transmission and Cultural Interaction, ed. R. Rollinger & C. Ulf (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2004),
197-217; J. Waldbaum, “Greeks in the East or Greeks and the East? Problems in the Definition and
Recognition of Presence,” BASOR 305 (1997): 1-17.
 109
The fragment in the figure depicts a siege in which Ionians, armed with round

shields and spears, fight on both sides of an assault.371 In both cases, Ionian soldiers are

accompanied by Near Eastern soldiers, and in both cases, they fight with the support of

archers. In fact, the Ionians manning the towers are paired with archers. Given the

frequency of interaction between mainland and Eastern Greeks, it is difficult to imagine

that the concept of a siege and siege warfare would have been unfamiliar on the

mainland.

Was it practiced? As Josiah Ober puts it, “… our commonsense expectations are

confounded. Until the mid-fourth century BC, Greek poliorcetics remained rudimentary,

and well-walled cities usually secure from enemy attack.”372 He points to the presence of

a city wall in Athens by the mid-6th century and allows that other major cities were

walled during this period as well, but the fortification histories are not clear.373 Given the

pittance of evidence supporting the use of siege warfare and the weight of the evidence

against it (generally revolving around the hoplite’s unsuitability in arms and attitude for

the task), we should conclude that siege warfare, on the mainland, was fairly uncommon

and poorly developed until the 4th century.374

In the cases when we do see archery used or discussed in siege situations, it is fair

to say that it is active and important for both attackers and defenders. Attacking archers

might shoot at people manning fortifications (especially in an effort to cover other light

371
J. Myres, “The Amathus Bowl: A Long-Lost Masterpiece of Oriental Engraving,” JHS 53.1 (1933): 25-
39.
372
J. Ober, “Hoplites and Obstacles,” in Hoplites: The Classical Greek Battle Experience, ed. V. Hanson
(New York: Routledge, 1991), 173.
373
Ibid., 180.
374
Ober enumerates these reasons – ibid., 110-183. Aeneas Tacticus belongs to this time period.
 110
375
armed troops scaling the walls) , bombard their trapped enemy with masses of

arrows376, shoot fire arrows into the city to set the place ablaze377, or communicate with

partisans on the inside of the city by firing message arrows over the wall to

predetermined locations.378

Defenders would fire at assailants, perhaps concentrating on those enemies

nearest to the gate.379 They might make a sortie, as the Athenians do toward the end of

the Peloponnesian War. This force included a mix of hoplites, light-armed, and

archers.380 The Plataeans also use archers in a daring nighttime escape attempt.381 We

learn from Thucydides that the Milesians have revolted from the Athenians and expecting

an Athenian siege, had sent to Pontus for archers and grain.382

375
Xen. Anab. 5.2.12, Aeneas Tact. 36.1, Polybius 8.4.1.
376
Thucydides 4.32.2. I include Sphacteria here as a siege-like situation.
377
Hdt. 8.52, Aeneas Tact. 32.8.
378
Hdt. 8.128, Aeneas Tact. 31.2, Plut. Cimon 12.4.3.
379
Aeneas Tact. 39.4. Shooting from atop the walls would also give them a greater range than opponents
using similar arms. Polybius 8.5.6. Vitruvius later states that roads should enter the gate sof a city from
right to left so that the unprotected right side of assailants would be exposed to projectiles from the walls,
adding that Mycenae, Tiryns, and Messene were all constructed like this (Vit.1.5.2).
380
Thucydides 8.71.
381
Thucydides 3.23.
382
Thucydides 3.2. This is often taken as evidence for the presence of Scythians archers in Greek warfare.
We need to be cautious, however, in making that assumption. Miletus had been the most active colonist in
the Black Sea for many years prior to the Persian Wars. Their colonists had been fighting against Scythians
for many years and given the need to address light-armed with light-armed as we will see below, these
colonists will surely have radically increased their own use of the bow. So, this could very well be an
example of Miletus sending to its progeny for support. See G. Tsetskhladze, ed., The Greek Colonization
of the Black Sea Area: Historical Interpretation of Archaeology (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1997); as
well as G. Tsetskhladze, “Greek Penetration of the Black Sea,” in The Archaeology of Greek Colonization:
Essays dedicated to Sir John Boardman, ed. G. Tsetskhladze & F. De Angelis (Oxford: Oxford University
Committee for Archaeology, 1994) 111- 135.
 111
VII. Counter Light-Armed

Another important function of archers in particular and light-armed troops more

generally was to protect hoplites from enemy light-armed, who, with their range or

mobility, could do considerable damage to a heavily armed soldier. Thucydides’ account

of the Athenian disaster in Aetolia is an excellent example of this. The Aetolian soldiers

were lighted-armed javelin throwers and employed hit-and-run tactics, refusing to engage

the Athenian hoplites. They advanced on the Athenians throwing javelins and then

withdrew when the Athenians came out to meet them. In both cases, Thucydides writes,

the Athenians were worse off.383 But as long as the Athenian archers had arrows and

were able to use them, we are told, the Athenians held out – “the light-armed Aetolian

men were driven back when shot at.”384 When the archers were finally scattered and the

hoplites worn out from the unremitting attack, they turned and fled, an act which played

to another strength of light-armed troops – pursuit. The Aetolians chased them down and

killed them. Demosthenes, the Athenian general, appears to learn a valuable lesson from

this encounter and bases part of his subsequent (winning) strategy against the Spartans on

light-armed hit-and-run tactics supported by archery from high ground.385

Xenophon’s Anabasis features numerous encounters with light-armed adversaries.

His Cretan archers play an important role in fending off light-armed javelin throwers and

archers during their long retreat home.386 At one point Xenophon notes that the

383
Thucydides 3.97.3. “ἐν οἷς ἀµφοτέροις ἥσσους ἦσαν οἱ Ἀθѳηναῖοι.”
384
Thucydides 3.98.1. “τοξευόµενοι γὰρ οἱ Αἰτωλοὶ ἄνθѳρωποι ψѱιλοὶ ἀνεστέλλοντο.”
385
Thucydides 4.32.
386
Xen. Anab. 4.3.31, 5.2.32, 5.4.23.
 112
Arcadians are vulnerable to light-armed troops because they lack archers, slingers, and

cavalry.387 Yet the presence of archers may not be enough. Recall that at one point,

Persian archers outrange Cretan archers, forcing the latter to seek protection inside of a

defensive hoplite square.388

VIII. Harassment

Some of these interactions involve not an allout assault, but rather a sustained

harassment which could alter troops movements, sap morale, or provoke attacks. This

tends to be more psychologically than physically challenging, resulting in minimal

casualties but provoking a variety of emotional responses ranging from ire to angst. If,

on the off chance that a key person is killed or wounded, so much the better for morale.

Persian archers accomplish all three of the aforementioned goals at various points during

the Battle of Plataea according to Herodotus. The Persians, for instance, cover the

Gargaphian spring with their archers and cavalry so well, harassing the Greeks who

approach to resupply, that the Greeks end up moving their camp closer to another water

supply.389 In a scene that highlights the effective exploitation of range to harass an

enemy into an encounter, Herodotus describes the Persians shooting at the Spartans as

they perform their customary pre-battle sacrifice. He writes that many fell and many

more were wounded (ἔπιπτόν τε αὐτῶν ἐν τούτῳ τῷ χρόνῳ πολλοὶ καὶ πολλῷ πλέονες

ἐτρωµατίζοντο). One of these men was Kallikrates, who laments that he did not get to

387
Xen. Anab. 6.3.7.
388
Xen. Anab. 3.3.7.
389
Hdt. 9.49 – 50.
 113
390
die in battle. Spartan discipline is stressed in this encounter by the fact that the allied

Tegeans refuse to wait under these circumstances and charge the Persians, provoked by

the Persians to charge without their allies.391

Examples of harassing fire and its effects abound in later literature. Xenophon’s

men are unable to attempt a river crossing for fear of the enemy’s archers. Because the

river was breast high and shields would need to be carried above the head (lest the current

carry the man away), they were fearful that they would be shot in the face and decide not

to cross.392 Later the men cross the river under covering fire from their own archers.393

Polybius notes light-armed soldiers being sent ahead of a phalanx on the march in order

to secure a pass, presumably so that the phalanx will not have to endure harassing fire in

unfavorable terrain.394

IX. Naval

Sadly there is no literary evidence from the Archaic period documenting naval

battle. We are given a few examples of archers being on board ships (Homer’s Lokrians,

for example), but we never see them in action. This is one area where we have to turn to

Classical authors for help. Herodotus writes that Polykrates, the tyrant of Samos, had a

navy comprised of 100 fifty oared ships and 1000 archers. These are conspicuously

round numbers to be sure. If they are useful at all, it is to indicate the likelihood that the

390
Hdt. 9.72.6.
391
Hdt. 9.61.13.
392
Xen. Anab. 4.3.6.
393
Xen. Anab. 4.27-28.
394
Polybius 10.29.5.3.
 114
Samian navy consisted of a significant number of archers on deck – 10 per ship. This is

the navy that Herodotus records defeating the Lesbians in a sea battle.395

Thucydides provides us with some useful information. It is clear that despite the

dominance of the ram in the trireme warfare of the Classical period, Greeks, even

Athenians, still could and did avail themselves of other perhaps cruder tactics when the

need arose. Thucydides description of a naval engagement between Corinth and Corcyra

is a good example. We are told that both sides had many hoplites, many javelin throwers,

and many archers. The ships, he writes, were prepared ‘in the archaic fashion’ (τῷ

παλαιῷ τρόπῳ).396 The fight was like a land battle (πεζοµαχία).397 There appears to be

some sense that this is the way it used to happen before the full development of the

trireme and sophisticated (and well-practiced) ramming tactics.

We learn more in his description of the Sicilian expedition. Thucydides has

Nicias address his discouraged troops, and explain the Athenian strategy, which must

have seemed unusual to them.398 The ships have been loaded with archers and javelin

throwers. This would not have been done, were the battle taking place on the open sea,

because the weight of the extra people would compromise maneuverability.

Themistocles’ decree which supposedly called for 14 hoplite epibatai and 4 archers

aboard each trireme, was an ideal predicated on a.) the ship being an Athenian trireme

395
Herodotus 3.39. If authentic, this will have taken place at or shortly before 525 B.C.E.
396
Thucydides 1.49.
397
The Corinthians win on the left wing and, instead of capturing the disabled soldiers, they sail around,
killing them. Archers would certainly be efficient in this area and are used for executions in other venues.
398
Thucydides 7.62.
 115
399
and b.) open water ramming tactics. According to Thucydides, the circumstances of

this particular battle, where maneuverability was not an option, dictate a move to tactics

that will make this more like a land battle (πεζοµαχίᾳ).400 Notably, they are prepared to

do so. They will use grappling hooks to prevent ramming ships from backing away. The

Sicilians on the other hand, are prepared to deal with this. They have stretched hides over

their ships to prevent the grappling hooks from taking hold.401 The battle itself begins

with men shooting and throwing at approaching ships with arrows, javelins, and

stones.402 The ships close and the hoplites engage. It is difficult to imagine that the

hoplites waited patiently for their turn as the ships closed, without participating in

whatever way was available to them (bow, javelin, or stones) as the ships closed.

Regardless, this gives us a bit more detail about how a battle may have been carried out

‘in the old manner’ (τῷ παλαιῷ τρόπῳ).

There are also instances in post Archaic literature describing archers fighting

ship-to-shore and shore-to-ship. Thucydides describes Demosthenes deploying 60

hoplites and ‘a few archers’ (τοξότας ὀλίγους) to the edge of the sea to stop an

amphibious assault at Pylos by 43 Spartan ships.403 They were aided by the difficultly of

399
Plutarch Themistocles 14.2.3. It is essential that we not retroject this sentiment when considering earlier
naval practices. Moreover, should we even take it at face value? An inscription from the Peloponnesian
War (IG 1^3 60.9-18) notes 30 ships – each with 5 volunteer epibatai, 40 hoplites, 10 archers, 10 peltasts.
It would be hard to imagine this as normal, but it serves as another exception to the ‘rule’ and it reminds us
that Herodotus’ description Polykrates’ allocation may not have been so hyperbolic.
400
This speaks as much to the ubiquity of archery in land battles as it does about its presence in naval
battles.
401
It is difficult to imagine that this use of grappling hook and its countermeasure were invented here. It
seems more likely that these tactics were common.
402
Thucydides 7.70.
403
This is typical of the care with which Thucydides details hoplite numbers and the neglect with which he
treats archers.
 116
the rocky ground and the reluctance of most of the Spartans leaders to run themselves

aground (hence overwhelming the defenders), but the accomplishment is impressive

nonetheless. We are not told what the hoplites and archers actually did, but it seems

probable that the archers were very active in this engagement where their range and

firepower would have given them an advantage.

Later Pausanias describes Greeks attacking Brennus’ Celts at Thermopylae from

their ships.404 In this case, they bring their ships close to shore and bombard the Celtic

flanks. There is no attempt to land. The archers use their range to pummel the Celts with

a barrage of artillery from an unassailable location.

Although Archaic literature is mute on the subject, Geometric vase paintings

speak volumes. Naval warfare was very much a part of the vase-painters repertoire and

presumably appealed to the ideology of the elites who purchases their wares. In

depictions of naval warfare, archers feature prominently. Ahlberg counts 12 bows, 11

spears, and 5 swords in scenes of naval battle.405 She also groups the battles into four

categories: ‘Coastal Raids’, to which the bulk of the Geometric depictions belong, ‘Naval

Battles’, ‘Attempted Landing or Retreat’, and ‘After the Sea Fight.’406 She states that

archers appear as defenders of ships in most cases.407 This seems to me to be

problematic. How does one discern who is attacking and who is defending a ship?

Usually, it is not clear. These archers are not standing on a wall shooting at a besieging

404
Pausanias 10.21.4.
405
Deprived of context, this is of limited value, but the distribution lends itself to the idea that viewers were
comfortable with the idea of archers fighting on ships. The distribution on land is as follows: 13 swords, 12
bows, and 10 spears. G. Ahlberg, Fighting on Land and Sea in Greek Geometric Art (1971), 44.
406
Ibid., 59.
407
Ibid., 44.
 117
army. This could be an amphibious assault or raid, or a depiction of an army defending its

ships, as the Greeks do in Book 12 of the Iliad. In sum, we find archers shooting ship to

ship, ship to shore, shore to ship, and shooting at people in the water. They fight in

mixed formations or carry mixed weaponry themselves. To the extent that one can

discern tactics from these scenes (and land battle scenes), Ahlberg concludes, “… the

natural way in these tactics of first using the bow and arrows or javelins and then settling

the battle with close sword fighting is well attested in the Geometric representations.”408

Importantly, nothing here contradicts later sources.409

X. Mounted Archers - Hippotoxotoi

One final military application of the bow deserves mention. In the Classical

period, Athens made use of mounted archers (ἱπποτοξόται). Thucydides includes them

among the archers available to Athens at the start of the Peloponnesian war and later

records that the Athenians in Sicily received reinforcements from home that included 30

more mounted archers.410 One would imagine that shooting from horseback requires

great skill, and this was true. Why else send to Athens for 30 mounted archers when a

408
Ibid., 54.
409
It is likely that sea battles had this character in the Eastern Mediterranean for some time. The famous
relief of Ramses III (1192-1160 B.C.E.) at Medinet Habu depicts a naval battle in which the Egyptians
defeat of the ‘Sea Peoples.’ In it, 4 Egyptian ships have trapped 5 enemy ships between themselves and the
shore. Each Egyptian ship has both archers and infantrymen who are surrounded by oarsmen. The
numbers are not standard (3 archers to 4 infantry on one, 4 archers to 2 infantry on another, etc.). There is
also a slinger in the crow’s nest of each Egyptian ship – appropriate in the sense that he would need the
space to whirl his sling. This illustrates an understanding of the need for artillery on board as well as varied
troops for flexibility in engagements. The Egyptian forces are aided by archers on the shore, who fire at
enemy ships. Viking longships also employ archers in naval battles of this character. See Strickland &
Hardy, The Great Warbow (2011), 56-57. They do so despite illustrating what DeVries calls a ‘disregard
for the bow as a battlefield weapon,’ in K. DeVries, Medieval Military Technology, (Peterborough, ONT:
Broadview Press, 1992), 35.
410
Thucydides 6.94.4.
 118
ready supply of archers and horses is already present? It is fair to imagine that this took a

lot of practice, learning how control the horse with only one’s legs while shooting with

two hands. Xenophon also makes mention of mounted archers. They are, according to

him, “the horse-archers are deemed worthy of this, and indeed they even ride ahead of the

cavalry commanders.”411 When Herodotus mentions mounted archers, he is always

referring to foreigners, either Scythians fighting against the Persians or Persian mounted

archers at Plataea (who were themselves probably Scythians).412 In both cases, they are

effective. In the latter case, they ‘harm the entire Greek army’ since, ‘being mounted

archers, they were difficult to close with.’413 That Greeks might want to adopt mounted

archers makes sense. The weapon had a huge impact on military history. Virtually every

European people who fought against it recognized its merit. The Carolingians,

influenced by the Avars, established a corp of mounted archers.414 The Franks were so

impressed by the mounted archers they faced during the Crusades that they actually

employed a corp of Muslim mounted archers, despite the vehement religious hostilities of

the time.415

It is tempting to imagine that the mounted archers fighting for Athens in the

Classical period were Scythians. This is a period in which we have credible information

about Scythians living in Athens and the Scythian bow itself, widespread among Greeks,

411
Xen. Memorabilia 3.3.1 - καὶ γὰρ οἱ ἱπποτοξόται τούτου γε ἀξιοῦνται· προελαύνουσι γοῦν καὶ τῶν
ἱππάρχων.
412
Herodotus 4.46.12, 9.49.
413
Ibid., 9.49 - ἐσίνοντο πᾶσαν τὴν στρατιὴν τὴν Ἑλληνικὴν … ἱπποτοξόται [τε] ἐόντες καὶ προσφέρεσθѳαι
ἄποροι
414
Strickland & Hardy, The Great Warbow (2011), 60.
415
Ibid., pg. 109.
 119
is likely to have developed to accommodate the needs of archers on horseback. Its small

size and easier draw made it ideal for horseback, particularly if an archer wanted to

perform the famous ‘Parthian shot’, which was widespread throughout the Near East and

Steppe.416 Lysias, however, mentions that Alcibiades was at one point enrolled as a

mounted archer.417 So, it is unreasonable to imagine that this squadron was solely

comprised of Scythian mercenaries, though they were certainly masters of mounted

warfare.

Unfortunately, we learn nothing about the practice in our literary sources that can

be used to deduce anything meaningful about mounted archers in the Archaic period. If

anything, it would appear that the Greeks’ experience with them in the Persian Wars

provoked the formation of a small core of them in Athens. Nonetheless, there is the

possibility that Greeks were experimenting with mounted archers earlier than that. As

was the case with naval warfare, the art historical record speaks where the written record

is silent. Mounted archers appear in Greek art work (albeit infrequently) from as early as

650 B.C.E.

The archer below (Figure 19) appears on a relief pithos in Boston. It is assigned

to the Tenian-Boeotian group and dates to 650-625 B.C.E.. The archer is one of many in

a procession. His attire and equipment make him an enigma. His cap is pointed, a detail

that tempts us to think that he is Scythian, according to both Greek and Persian artistic

and literary convention. His bow and quiver, on the other hand, are problematic. He

416
The Parthian Shot was one wherein the archer can turn around while riding away in flight and shoot. It
was commonly used in the hit & run tactics of mounted archers whose mobility and firepower could thus
be optimized.
417
Lysias In Alcibiadem 2. It is noteworthy that this was a time period in which Athens credibly did have a
corps of Scythian archers functioning as ‘policemen.’
 120
carries a short single curve composite bow, like the ones depicted widely in geometric art

and used widely. He does not carry the characteristic Scythian double curved composite

bow, which is used universally by the Scythians and Cimmerians. His quiver is just that -

a quiver and not the distinctively shaped Scythian goryt. Moreover, it is positioned on

his back, rather than on his hip, as is the Scythian practice. The cap is the only feature

indicative of foreign ethnicity, and as we will see, this need not mean that the figure is

actually foreign. This archer could be Greek, could be foreign, or could be entirely

imaginary. Regardless, his presence indicates a familiarity with the tactic.

Figure 19

A similar figure is seen in action on an Attic Black Figure Dinos in the National

Archaeological museum in Athens (Figure 20).418 It is attributed to the Painter of

Acropolis 606 and dates to 570-560 B.C.E. There are four bands of narrative decoration

on the vessel. One of them depicts a battle between mounted archers and mounted

javelin throwers. The archers (Figure 21) are all at full gallop with bows drawn. The

418
Another example dating to this same time period depicts a single mounted archer in battle with archers
and hoplites. There are archers on both sides of the conflict and arrows fly in both directions. This archer,
clad in a chiton, is also at full gallop with bow drawn, but his bow is difficult to identify. He does not
appear to wear a hat of any kind and carries a quiver (not a goryt) on his hip in the Scythian style. ABF,
Dinos, 575-550 B.C.E., from Cerveteri, Vatican 16594.
 121
bows, drawn to the ear in Scythian fashion, are unambiguously of the Scythian type. The

quivers are not Scythian, but rather the over the shoulder Greek style arrow receptacle.

They wear caps similar to the cap in Figure 19, but these ones droop in a manner

inconsistent with other images of Scythians. They also wear chitons. The javelin

throwers are distinguished only by their hats and by their weaponry. They ride horses

and wear chitons of the same type. They each hold one javelin at the ready and another

in reserve. They wear shallow brimmed hats.

Based upon the Archaic evidence, we cannot be sure if mounted archery was a

tactic used by mainland Greeks. These images suggest a familiarity with the mounted

archer but make no effort to codify his appearance. The caps may suggest ‘oriental’ but

we should not mistake this for actual ethnic identity. There is more to suggest that these

images are not Scythians, than the other way around.

Figure 20
 122
Figure 21

A Few Thoughts on Non-Martial Archery in Archaic Greece

So far we have focused on the use of archery in battle, but it is also worth noting

that the bow was used in other contexts too. There are two instances of the bow being

mentioned as part of competitions in the Iliad. Achilleus’ Myrmidons (not the Locrians)

shoot the bow as part of the games that occupy their leisure early in the poem419 and

Teukros faces off with Meriones in an archery contest featured in the funeral games of

Patroklos.420

The other non-martial way in which heroes in the Iliad use the bow is for hunting.

Pandarus, as we saw, won the raw materials comprising his present bow by shooting the

ibex with another bow.421 Two similes, which draw on bow-hunting for their descriptive

power, reinforce this association. In one, Odysseus is surrounded by Trojans who are

described as scavengers waiting to feast on a stag who has been defeated by the pain of a

419
Iliad 2.775.
420
Iliad 23.850 ff. Archery contests of this sort seems to employ a recognizable folk motif common in
Western Literature down to Robin Hood.
421
Iliad 4.107-10.
 123
422
hunter’s arrow. In the other, Antilochos is compared to a hound springing towards a

fawn who has been broken by a hunter’s arrow.423 There was a certain preference, at

least among aristocrats, for the spear or javelin, sometimes along with nets and hunting

dogs, but the idea of hunting with a bow was not foreign to the Greeks. Thus, when

archers in battle take aim and shoot skillfully, it is plausible that they have had plenty of

practice.

In conclusion, it is fair to say that archers were deployed in myriad ways on the

Greek battlefield – both on land and at sea.

422
Iliad 11.476-8.
423
Iliad 15.580.
 124
Chapter 3
Was Archery Effective?

Having examined the myriad ways in which archers were employed in Archaic

Greece, we turn now to the bow’s effectiveness. Was it an effective weapon? Or was it

the ‘feeble’ weapon described by Diomedes? Rather than beginning with a broad tactical

assessment of the weapon’s accomplishments, we will begin by focusing on how

individuals experienced the bow on the battlefield – an approach that has much merit and

has not been explored previously. We will then broaden our focus, applying this

information to tactics and battlefield results.

The Arrow

We have already seen (in Chapter 2) some ways in which the bow could be an

effective weapon. The examination of casualties and wounds is another extremely

fruitful, if morbid, means of assessing the bow’s efficacy. Generally speaking, arrows

kill or incapacitate through blood loss and tissue damage. When shot from a distance, as

they usually would have been, arrows would have wavered in their descent, resulting in

enlarged and irregular wounds, complicating the healing process.424 Barbs were often

added to prevent easy removal and to maximize potential tissue damage - a barbed arrow

had to be cut out or pushed through and out the other side of an appendage, resulting in

more pain, blood loss, and tissue damage.

424
V. Hurley, Arrows Against Steel: The History of the Bow. (New York: Mason/Charter, 1975), 23.
 125
Moreover, an arrow is a relatively large germ-bearing surface and serious

infections would commonly have resulted from such wounds.425 Poison was another

possibility. The resultant injuries and deaths had consequences on the battlefield, but

none seems to have been greater than the fear they inspired in combatants. In his book on

archery, Vic Hurley details an account of a British officer, who, in 1792 C.E., advocated

a return to the longbow from the flintlock musket. The officer gave six reasons for this.

Among them were two that are very relevant to this discussion: “The flight of an arrow

inspires terror (this is apparently because sometimes you can see it coming but cannot not

avoid it). And, “A man wounded by an arrow has to be attended at once (even if it was

not a serious injury, he seems unable to fight until the arrow is removed).”426 Homeric

battle scenes bear this out. Six arrow wounds are described in the Iliad and in each case,

regardless of the location of the injury, the wounded combatant withdraws from action.427

In four cases, we are told that the person seeks immediate medical attention.

Arrows against Armor

In order to kill or wound, an arrow has to penetrate or puncture its target. So, it

will be helpful to consider how successful Greek armor would have been in protecting a

soldier from enemy arrows. The short answer is: quite successful. Although surveys of

damage to armor have proven inconclusive, it is unlikely that arrows would have been

able to penetrate the armor of the ancient Greeks with any consistency. A landmark

425
Ibid. This will be discussed in great detail below.
426
See Hurley Arrows Against Steel (1975), 23-24.
427
Menelaus 4.104 ff (belly); Diomedes Iliad 5.98 (shoulder) & 11.377 (foot); Machaon 11.507 (shoulder);
Eurypylos 11.582 (thigh); Glaukos 12.385 (arm).
 126
scientific study by Blyth relating specifically to the ability of Athenian armor to stand up

against Persian archers at Marathon plausibly concludes,

To sum up, a Greek Hoplite could quite happily rely upon his bronze helmet to
keep out both Persian and Scythian arrows, and on his breastplate and greaves, if
he wore them. On the other hand, his armor was far from complete, and the eyes,
right arm, and the neck were particularly vulnerable. His shield would provide
adequate protection against arrows from the Scythian bow, which was carried by
some of the opposing infantry and perhaps all their cavalry, but not, at short range
against those from the Persian infantry bow. A Greek commander, therefore,
could not afford to expose his men to heavy infantry barrage at close range for
long periods, but must charge, if necessarily, repeatedly, in order to keep the
enemy at a distance or destroy them.428

The bows used by the Greeks were of equal or less power and Greek armor of the

Archaic period was equivalent or better in its protective capacity. Although the ideal

hoplite panoply included helmet, cuirass, greaves, and shield, soldiers of the Archaic

period would sometimes supplement with extra pieces of armor.

Figure 22 below illustrates some of the individual augmentations or modifications

that could be, and evidently were, made to existing panoplies. Using armor excavated at

Olympia during the Archaic period, the figure adds shoulder, belly, forearm, thigh, ankle,

and foot guards to the more regular cuirass, helmet, and greaves.429

428
P. Blyth, The Effectiveness of Greek Armour (1977), 195-196.
429
This is a modified version of the instructional illustration on display at the Museum in Olympia.
 127
Figure 22

These pieces do not seem to have been the norm, but they appear in enough

quantity during the 6th century B.C.E. as dedications at Olympia that we do need to factor

them into our equation. The psychological and prophylactic merits of such armor would

have to have been weighed against the burden of the added weight and heat. This may

have been why it was not more widely adopted.430 Tactical developments may also have

led to their being extraneous.

Jarva’s examination of the armor at Olympia found that ankle guards were the

third most common piece of dedicated armor (after helmets and greaves). It is more

commonly represented than the bronze cuirass – a possible symptom of the increasing

430
As armor develops over time, it gets thinner and lighter, though harder (see Blythe (1977), pg. 84.)
Even greaves, first evidenced in 675 B.C.E., become less common over time (ibid., 78; E. Jarva,
Archaiologia on Archaic Greek Body Armour (Rovaniemi: Pohjois-Suomen Historiallinen Yhdistys, 1995),
141; A. Snodgrass, Arms and Armor of the Greeks (1999), pg. 45). The conventional, and reasonable,
argument based upon Thucydides’ description (5.71) in conjunction with the design of the shield supposes
that the left side of the shield protects the right side of the soldier to one’s left in a tight formation. If so,
why suffer the added weight and discomfort of extra armor? Thus, the existence of such armor adds
credence to the opinion that hoplites fought in a more open tactical formation for much of the Archaic
period. That vases fail to show this armor is an indication of the care that we must take in using vases as
evidence. These articles were clearly not a part of the ideological panoply - hence their absence on the
vases. Greaves were, which is why they were usually included.
 128
th
popularity of linothorax or even scale armor in the 6 century. These along with the less

common foot guards would have impinged upon a soldiers mobility. Everson suggests

that the ankle guard might have been used by horsemen.431 Thigh guards, though only

one turned up at Olympia, are the most commonly represented supplemental armor on

vases. These, along with the abdomen-protecting mitra, may have been an effort to ward

off an underhand spear thrust. There are also both upper and lower arm guards in

evidence, the former being the more common. Interestingly, this upper arm guard

covered the right (unshielded) arm. Jarva examined seventeen of these at Olympia,

dating the earliest to 670 B.C.E. and the remainder to 600-510 B.C.E.432 This does not

serve as proof, but it is certainly suggestive of an open formation or at least the tactical

flexibility to fight in a more open formation. Would the added heat, weight, and

inflexibility be worth it if a soldier could reasonably expect to be protected by the left rim

of the man to his right?

Returning to the items associated with the ideal hoplite panoply, we begin with

greaves. The earliest evidence for greaves in Greece comes from a tomb in Dendra

dating to the Late Bronze Age.433 The greave then disappears from evidence with the

Mycenaeans until 675 B.C.E. when we have evidence of it on a vase-painting.434 Greaves

are frequently mentioned by Homer. The term well-greaved Achaeans (ἐϋκνήµιδας

431
T. Everson, Warfare in Ancient Greece (2004), 103. A cavalryman’s legs and feet, a an infantryman’s
chest level, would be particularly vulnerable to projectile or slashing/stabbing weapons. This suggestion
seems very plausible. Xenophon (De re equestri 12.10) describes how a cavalryman’s shins and feet are
exposed even when the thighs are covered with part of the horse by a protective horse-blanket.
432
T. Everson, ibid., 106-107.
433
A. Snodgrass, Arms and Armor of the Greeks (1999), 24-25. These are the earliest, but they are not
alone in LBA Mycenaean Greece.
434
Ibid., 53.
 129
435
Ἀχαιοὺς) appears no fewer than 31 times in the Iliad alone. Hesiod uses the same

term.436 Alcaeus, in the early 6th century, describes bronze greaves that ward off strong

missiles.437 According to Blyth’s findings, Alcaeus was accurate and his point is directly

applicable in a consideration of arrows. Interestingly, greaves from the Archaic period

are longer that their Mycenaean predecessors, covering the shin from ankle to just above

the knee – an area exposed to danger with the spread in popularity of the round Argive

hoplite shield. Over the course of the 6th c. these became more form-fitting.438 In the 5th

c., greaves began to decline in popularity, but they never disappeared entirely.

Alcaeus’ line, mentioned above, deserves a closer look in the context of this

discussion. Our evidence, though circumstantial, suggests that greaves may even have

been developed as a response to the early hoplite’s vulnerability to the bow. The Argive

shield left the legs unprotected. The less common underhanded spear thrust may have

been a concern, but an opponent engaged one-on-one would be in a position to adjust the

height of his shield to meet an attack. An unseen arrow would have been a problem.

The image below (Figure 23) highlights this. This Protocorinthian aryballos dates

to 675-650 B.C.E., right around the time we begin seeing greaves represented in art work.

Only after this point do we find them dedicated in sanctuaries. So, this vase appears to

have been made around the same time they were reintroduced. The aryballos depicts a

battle. The presence of the aulos player suggests that there is some organization on the

435
The same epithet appears in the Odyssey where it is used to describe Achaeans or ‘companions’.
In the Iliad, Homer also uses the term bronze-greaved (χαλκοκνήµιδες) once. Later, Achilleus’ greaves are
described as ‘finely beaten out tin’ (κνηµῖδας ἑανου κασσιτέροιο) (Iliad 18.613).
436
Hesiod Frag. 23a line 17.
437
Alcaeus Frag. 357.6 - λάµπραι κνάµιδ⌊ες, ἄρκ⌋ος ἰσχύρω / βέλεος,
438
A. Snodgrass, Arms and Armor of the Greeks (1999), 92.
 130
part of the soldiers to the left, who have marched into battle at a set tempo or who will be

expecting tactical instructions via the instrument.439 The soldiers do not all carry a

standard shield. One spearman carries a round, presumably Argive shield, although the

image is not detailed enough to show the porpax or antilabe. The other carries a

Boeotian shield. This side also has a kneeling archer in the mix, who wears a hard-to-

discern cap like that of the aulos-player. The archer has shot an arrow, which has struck

or is just about to strike the shin of the foremost adversary. This image illustrates that a

kneeling archer embedded in a mixed formation would be in a terrific position to shoot at

the legs.

Figure 23

Earlier we saw evidence that this mixed formation was a distinct possibility at

least early in the Archaic period, and if the formations were more flexible than the hoplite

phalanx orthodoxy permits, they may have paired with hoplites or fought mixed into the

front lines for much of the Archaic period. Moreover, when they do, they tend to kneel.

Archers on Geometric vases are more commonly seen standing than kneeling. During the

7th century, on the other hand, archers (at least those depicted in battle) have a tendency

439
The Chigi Vase depicts an aulos player presumably playing as the soldiers march in close formation to
fight. The aulos was used in this and other ways and is often associated with warfare and athletic
competitions.
 131
to kneel. Kneeling in this position is definitely no way to shoot the bow over a great

distance, so kneeling archers can be expected to be in close range and consequently to

have a high degree of accuracy. As we will see, the results of Blyth’s study would have

been no surprise to the Greeks. They tended to shoot at unarmed parts of the body.

Thus, bare legs would be the first appendage seen by a kneeling archer.

These tactics would have declined as the hoplite phalanx developed a closer

order. This coincided with, and may even have resulted in the greater frequency of the

more efficient but less powerful Scythian bow. Archers were now becoming specialists,

taking advantage of their range and less frequently emerging from behind a shield, like

Teukros, to shoot at the enemy. Their arrows would now be shot from a distance and

likely at a trajectory. These arrows could strike any unprotected area, but were not

specifically being shot at the unprotected leg anymore. With this change, the greave goes

into decline, a decision perhaps that the risk no longer justified the weight, expense, or

discomfort. Snodgrass also notices that greaves appear earlier and in greater frequency in

areas were the Greeks are fighting barbarians. Most of these barbarians were

characterized by their archery. There seems to be a relationship between the greave and

the bow.

That a piece of armor might evolve like this, as a response to a weapon, is not far-

fetched. The shield apron, for example, is another Greek reaction to the bow. After the

Persian wars, we begin to see evidence that some Greeks attached an apron to the bottom

rim of their shields (Fig. 24). This was likely an effort to keep Persian arrows off of the

legs.440

440
A. Snodgrass, Arms and Armor of the Greeks (1999), 103-104.
 132
Figure 24

It is important, however, to put the arrow in its relative perspective. The chart

reproduced below (Table 1) illustrates that, of several weapons, only the axe was capable

of penetrating bronze, given the likely amount of energy that would have been wielded

by the combatant using it. Neither the spear, not the sword could regularly penetrate

bronze either. If there was an advantage to the spear or sword, it had less to do with the

weapon’s capabilities. Fighting ‘in close’ allowed a soldier to force his opponent out of

position, so that he could attack an unprotected area. This is a more actively offensive or

aggressive role. The archer, who often waited for opportunities, was more passive.

Passive, however, does not mean ineffective. As Blythe states, “Parts of the body that

might be protected from hand weapons by parrying would remain vulnerable to a shower

of bullets.”441

441
P. Blyth, The Effectiveness of Greek Armour (1977), 18.
 133
Table 1

Weapon Energy Produced Energy Required

by wielder to Penetrate Bronze
Gladius (Hacking) 101 151
Gladius (Thrusting) 21 182
Penetrating Axe 77 66
Eye Axe 70 85
Cutting Axe 70 189
Sickle Sword 77 245
Spear (Overhand) 71 137
Spear (Underhand) 14 137
Javelin 67 99
Arrow 47 76
Gabriel and Metz 1992: p. 7. All measurements are in ‘foot-pounds.’ 442

Blyth finds that perforation of bronze could be affected by the material, shape,

thickness, support, backing, and size of the armor, as well as by the direction of attack.443

This last point is quite important. As a rule, when the angle of attack increases, the

likelihood of arrow penetration will decrease.444 Most arrows are shot from a distance

and therefore, due to their trajectory will not strike their targets at ninety degrees.

Furthermore, curves in the shape of armor and “deliberate angling” on the part of the

blacksmiths, who were well aware of this detail, will also result in fewer direct hits, and

consequently a lower probability of penetrating the target.445

Blyth also calculates that chances of an arrow striking a fatal area at 1 per 1080

arrows shot from a distance greater than 70 meters (.93 deaths per one thousand soldiers)

442
One foot-pound of force is the amount of energy expended when one pound of force acts through a
distance of one foot along the direction of the force.
443
P. Blyth, The Effectiveness of Greek Armour (1977), 87.
444
P. Jones, “The Target,” in Longbow, ed. R. Hardy (Cambridge: Patrick Stephens, 1976), 208.
445
Ibid., 207.
 134
446
and at 1 per 452 at range under 70 meters (2.21 deaths per one thousand soldiers).

There are too many variables (motion, infection, etc.) unaccounted for to consider this

estimate accurate, but his attempt reasonably accounts for range, rate of fire, armor

protection, and accuracy among other things. It is too well-considered to be ignored

entirely. Even if we consider his numbers to be a loose approximation, they are

extremely helpful in understanding the uses and limitations of an archer on the field.447

That said, small variations in armor or weapons could tip the balance.448 Armor

was not universally impenetrable to arrows. If it was deficient in any way or if it was

struck from close range or at a fortuitous angle, an arrow might pierce it. Should this

happen, the removal of the arrow would become that much harder. Both Plutarch and

Arrian describe a ghastly injury sustained by Alexander in which an arrow pierces his

breastplate, essentially nailing it to him.449 The removal is time consuming and

painful.450

Some soldiers, even on the Homeric battlefield, did not wear bronze armor.

Instead, if they wore armor at all, they wore something called linothorax, a cuirass made

out of layers of linen.451 According to Blyth, these linen corselets may have been

446
P. Blyth, The Effectiveness of Greek Armour (1977), 179.
447
They may also explain the Greek’s failure to adopt large-scale massed arrow volleys as an offensive
tactic. The calculation also does not consider wounds or later deaths by infection or the like.
448
P. Blyth, The Effectiveness of Greek Armour (1977), 1.
449
Plutarch Alexander 63.3: The arrow was shot from close range. The arrowhead is described as
exceedingly large and the shaft described as wood. This is clearly meant to be an armor piercing arrow.
Arrian 6.10.2 – 6.11.1: This description cites Ptolemy as a source and describes blood gushing and air
hissing from the wound. He nearly dies from blood loss.
450
Plutarch Alex. 63.5.
451
Aias son of Oileus (Iliad 2.529), Adrastus and Amphius (Iliad 2.830). Linothorax cuirasses were also
worn by Assyrians (Hdt. 7.63) and were known to the Egyptians (Hdt. 2.182, 3.43). The reduction over the
 135
452
designed “primarily to resist a slashing blow, or as a second line of defense.”

Relatively little is know about the manufacture of the armor, but recent research on the

subject seems to confirm Blyth’s theory. Through a process of experimental

archaeology, Aldrete and Bartell claim to have reconstructed linothorax. Their research

suggests that such a cuirass 1 cm thick (11-18 layers of linen) would have sufficed to

protect its wearer from an arrow or a slashing attack.453

Everson also points to the possibility of scale armor, which appears on some vase-

paintings (see Fig. 25, pg. 163). Scale is usually associated with the East. Assyrians,

Persians, Cypriots, and Scythians all wore scale armor – leather or linen with small (5x3

cm) overlapping bronze or even iron scales.454 Everson makes a compelling argument for

linen being worn over the scales.455 People wearing it therefore might not be recognized

as doing so in images.

It is fair to say then that armor was an effective way to limit one’s vulnerable

areas, but those areas did exist and extent documentary evidence usually conforms to

what was probable with respect to arrows. Wounds usually occur to the face, neck,

limbs, and back. The same holds true in vase paintings throughout the time in question.

Although Chalkidian Black Figure artists of the 6th century B.C.E. seem to have

developed a taste for the theme, the armor piercing shot is very uncommon in Greek art.

course of the later Archaic period in dedicated bronze cuirasses may be representative of the increasing use
of linothorax.
452
P. Blyth, The Effectiveness of Greek Armour (1977), 194.
453
G. Aldrete and S. Bartell (2009). Paper delivered at AIA. Poster displayed at 2010 AIA.
454
T. Everson, Warfare in Ancient Greece (2004), 108-109.
455
See Hdt. 9.22. Masistias does this. He appears to be invulnerable to the Greeks at first. It is entirely
possible that Scythian archers with their patterned coats and trousers were not as light-armed as they
appear.
 136
In the literature, we often see archers aiming at unprotected areas of the body.

Teukros aims at the unprotected or naked arm (γυµνωθѳέντα βραχίονα) of Glaukos, for

example.456 Thucydides describes Plataean archers doing the same thing, shooting at

uncovered parts of the body (τὰ γυµνά) in his account of the siege of Plataea.457 This

suggests a healthy understanding of both bow and armor by Greek archers. It also

suggests that the regularity of wounds to the face, throat, thighs, and back are not entirely

by chance, at least not when an archer is shooting from a closer range. Recognizing the

disadvantages of his weapon, an archer sought to maximize its capabilities. He did not

simply fire in the direction of the enemy and cross his fingers.

There is an enormous amount of comparative data that supports this. Plutarch, for

instance, tells us that Caesar directs his men to aim their projectiles at the faces of

Pompey’s cavalry at Pharsalus, assuming that they would benefit from the latter’s fear of

facial disfigurement.458 Strickland and Hardy note a remarkable number of cases wherein

medieval nobles or knights were killed or injured by arrow wounds to the face and

present evidence for leaders exhorting their men to aim at the face.459 More recently, a

1987 medical study of arrow wounds on warring tribesmen in Papua New Guinea found

that high incidences of wound location corresponded to the areas at which the tribesmen

claims to be aiming – the head and the backs of the knees were favorite target areas

456
Iliad 12.389.
457
Thucydides 3.23.4.
458
Plutarch Caesar 45.2. We will return to this concept shortly.
459
M. Strickland & R. Hardy The Great War Bow (2011), 278-279.
 137
460
because they were unprotected and incapacitating. In the latter case, the shot was

meant to hobble its victim so that he could be finished off from a closer range with a

hand-held weapon.

Arrow Wounds

Now we can turn our attention to the wounds themselves. In the Iliad, thirteen

named men and one horse are killed with arrows (this comprises 6% of all of the dead

humans recorded by Homer). Six more named men are wounded (this accounts for 30%

of the wounded). The location of the wounds is telling. One man is struck in the

buttocks (while fleeing) and we are told that the arrow passes into his bladder with fatal

consequences.461 Two of the wounds are to the head: Nestor’s horse is struck on the top

of the head and Paris shoots Euchenor in the face.462 Diomedes is wounded by Paris in

the flat of his foot.463 Both Diomedes and Machaon are hit in the shoulder, and in the

case of Diomedes, Homer specifies that the arrow enters at the very edge of the hero’s

corselet.464 Eurypylos is wounded in the thigh,465 Glaukos in the arm,466 and Kleitos is

460
G. Milner, “Nineteenth-Century Arrow Wounds and Perceptions of Prehistoric Warfare,” American
Antiquity (2005), 144-156. Milner also describes the high incidence of arm wounds as consistent with
defensive wounds. The warriors will sometimes see the arrow coming and put up their arms to protect
themselves.
461
Iliad 13.651. Saunders doubts the possibility of the shot, viewing the incident as pure fiction, but he
fails to take into account variations in terrain and the fact that archers often brace for their shot on one knee
or even in a seated position. Teukros may have been shooting uphill or at least upward. I do not think that
the issue is an important one, but I also do not think that it is reasonable to dismiss the description on ill-
considered grounds. K. Saunders “The Wounds in Iliad 13-16” CQ, NS 49/2 (1995): 345-363.
462
Iliad 8.81, 13.671.
463
Iliad 11.377.
464
Iliad 5.98, 11.597. Regarding the former (Diomedes), the description adds to the drama of the scene,
precisely because an audience would have known that one inch to the left and Diomedes would have been
protected by his corselet.
465
Iliad 11.582.
 138
467
shot in the neck. Of these wounds, all are located in unprotected places. The

remaining three described wounds require a bit more attention.

Teukros shoots both Gorgythion and Archeptolemos in the chest.468 In neither

case, is their armor mentioned, so it is entirely possible that they were not in full panoply.

When armor is mentioned, arrows tend to have minimal effect. Helenos, for instance,

shoots Menelaos in his corselet and the arrow bounces off.469 Pandaros’ shot hits

Menelaos in a peculiar place, striking a buckle on his war belt at the seam in his

cuirass.470 The arrow draws blood but fails to penetrate deeply enough to embed the

barbs and do serious damage. It has barely scratched the surface. Details like this and

the example of Diomedes’ shoulder wound above emphasize the uneasy truth described

earlier by Jones: small variations in armor or angle could tip the balance.

Altogether, death occurs in cases where the wound is to the head (2), to the

bladder via buttocks (1), chest (2), and neck (1). Those struck in the shoulder (2), arm

(1), belly (1), thigh (1), and foot (1) suffer injury, but live and in some cases return to the

fight. The distribution of wounds over the body is wide and clearly oriented to

unprotected parts of the body. Where armor is explicitly mentioned, the arrow has a

reduced effect or none at all. Despite the poet’s tendency to exaggerate, these results

seem remarkably plausible and in accordance with realistic expectations.

466
Iliad 12.387.
467
Iliad 15.445.
468
Iliad 8.303, 8.312.
469
Iliad 13.583.
470
Iliad 4.104.
 139
It may, therefore, be surprising that arrows have a 68% mortality rate in the Iliad.

The number is unreasonably high and follows the pattern of exaggerated mortality rates

in the text as a whole.471 Consider the following table (Table 2). Relatively speaking the

percentage does not appear so egregiously exaggerated, particularly when we consider

some of the mortal wounds meted out by other weapons.

Table 2

Weapon Killed Wounded Mort Rate

Spear 101 10 91%
Sword 31 0 100%
Arrow 13 6 68%
Stone 5 3 63%
Unspecified 90 1 99%
Total # 240 20
As a % 92% 8%

The next table (Table 3) illustrates the location of wounds by weapon. The first

line, for instance, illustrates that there were twenty-eight hits to the head recorded in the

Iliad and it breaks them down by weapon. It then shows that this number represents 21%

of all hits mentioned by Homer, and that they were described as fatal 96% of the time.

471
C. Salazar, The Treatment of War Wounds in Graeco-Roman Antiquity (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 135.
Killing is of more interest to Homer than wounding. There are likely a number of reasons for this (drama,
expediency, etc.), but I would suggest that none is more important than ideology. Suffering a painful death
in a tent or elsewhere hours, days, weeks, or even months later hardly meets the definition of a ‘beautiful
death.’
 140
Table 3

Location Spear Sword Arrow Stone Total % Total Hits % Fatal

Head 18 5 1 4 28 21% 96%
Neck 11 7 1 2 21 16% 90%
Chest 16 0 2 1 19 14% 95%
Belly 13 3 1 0 17 13% 94%
Shoulder 8 0 2 0 10 8% 70%
Back 10 0 0 0 10 8% 90%
Arm 4 2 1 0 7 5% 43%
Side 6 0 0 0 6 5% 83%
Liver 3 1 0 0 4 3% 100%
Thigh 2 0 1 0 3 2% 33%
Hip 1 0 0 1 2 2% 50%
Butt 1 0 1 0 2 2% 100%
Calf 1 0 0 0 1 1% 100%
Groin 1 0 0 0 1 1% 100%
Hand 1 0 0 0 1 1% 0%
Foot 0 0 1 0 1 1% 0%
Total 96 18 11 8 133

If we compare the first chart with the second, we see that a sword wound to the

arm is fatal, as is a spear wound to the calf. This may have important ideological

significance, suggesting a hierarchy of weapons as depicted by Homer, but we should

exercise caution here. Not all spear wounds are fatal and these incredible deaths are

exceptional. Obviously, we should not expect accuracy in these numbers.472 Are they to

be discarded? If nothing else, we do gain a sense from examining this information that

Homer’s details about arrow wounds are no more (and may even be less) exaggerated

472
The accuracy of the descriptions are also debated. Williams makes an argument for accuracy in E.
Williams “The Wound of Glaukos,” G&R 6.2 (1959), 148. For alternative considerations see K.B.
Saunders, “The Wounds in Iliad 13-16,” CQ 49.2 (1999), 345-363; and W. Friedrich, Wounding and Death
in the Iliad (London: Duckworth, 2003)
 141
473
than his treatment of other weapons. This data also demonstrates that ideology should

not be mistaken for efficacy. Few would argue that the spear is not the most privileged of

weapons in the Iliad, but the sword is the deadliest weapon.474

A Homeric audience would have heard that arrow wounds tended to be fairly well

distributed over the body. They would have heard that arrows were unlikely to pierce

armor and were therefore more effective if aimed at unarmed parts of the body, unarmed

soldiers, or horses. In short, they would have heard that the bow could be an effective

weapon but was not as deadly as the spear or sword. All of this is supported by the art

historical record and modern science.

Although there are a number of references to archers in later sources, descriptions

of arrow wounds are, like the archers themselves, rare. Simonides’ dedicatory

inscription, as we saw earlier, notes that the dedicated arrows had “bathed themselves in

the blood of the Persian horse-fighters.”475 Thucydides’ description of the Battle of

Sphacteria prominently features archery, and offers the noteworthy point that the

Spartans were injured in the head as a result of wearing only their felt caps, rather than

their helmets.476 Xenophon describes numerous encounters with archers that result in

473
Given that Homer’s details are consistent with traditional historical sources and modern scientific
research, it seems foolish to discount them out of hand.
474
The distribution of weapons on Geometric vases also paints a more nuanced picture than does Homer.
G. Ahlberg, in Fighting on Land and Sea (1971) counts 24 bows, 21 spears, and 18 swords. Broken down
further into land and sea engagements, the numbers are even more interesting and useful – Land Battles: 13
swords, 12 bows, 10 spears. Sea Battles: 12 bows, 11 spears, 5 swords. At sea, the sword will be useful
only after the ships have closed or landed. So, these numbers accord more with realistic expectations than
ideology. The high incidence of the bow in both cases is telling.
475
Simonides 6.2 - Περσῶν ἱπποµάχων αἵµατι λουσάµενα.
476
Thucydides 4.34.3.
 142
477
Greek casualties, but few of these are described. What we do have, however, seems

consistent with Homer’s descriptions.

Herodotus’ description of the death of Kallikrates at the battle of Plataea is one

good example to which we will return often in the following pages.478 Kallikrates is

struck in the side while seated at his battle station during Pausanias’ pre-battle sacrifice.

He is then carried from the ranks and dies a lingering death. He is said to be disappointed

because the arrow had deprived him of the opportunity to fight and accomplish

something ‘worthy of merit.’479

In an episode reminiscent of Nestor’s near-death experience in the Iliad,480

Herodotus describes the death of the Persian cavalry captain, Masistias.481 Here, it is not

the man, but rather his horse that is slain with an arrow to the side. The result is a

grounded and stranded Persian officer amidst Athenian enemies. He is ultimately

dispatched with a spear through the eye, a rare vulnerability, given his special scale

armor.

In the Hippocratic corpus we find an example of an Aristippos who was struck in

the abdomen by a “powerful and dangerous arrow.”482 The pain in his abdomen, we are

told, was terrible. Another patient was struck by “a sharp arrow to the back a little below

477
Xenophon Anabasis 3.4.26, 4.1.10, 4.3.33, et alia.
478
Herodotus 9.72.6. Plutarch Aristides 17.8.5.
479
Flower and Marincola imagine the Spartans to be sitting on the ground under cover of their shields while
sacrifice is taking place. See Herodotus’ Histories Book IX, ed. M. Flower and J. Marincola (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2002).
480
Iliad 8.81.
481
Herodotus 9.22.6. Plutarch Aristides 14.6.3.
482
Hip. Epidemics 5.1.98.1 - Ἀρίστιππος ἐς τὴν κοιλίην ἐτοξεύθѳη ἄνω βίῃ χαλεπῶς· ἄλγος κοιλίης δεινόν·
 143
483
the neck.” His use of adjectives recalls Homer’s - powerful, dangerous, sharp. In

neither case is it clear if the victim was wearing armor when struck. In both, the victim

dies a slow painful death.

Xenophon’s Carduchi, on the other hand, shoot arrows that are capable of

piercing Greek armor. These men are described by Xenophon as the “best archers.”484

They use extremely long bows, the bottoms of which they actually brace on the ground

when they shoot. Given their size and the size of the arrows they fire, they are likely to

have been quite powerful. Their arrows are so long that the Greeks pick them up and

reuse them as javelins.485 As arrows, they are capable of passing through shields and

breastplates. Indeed, arrows of this size would only have been appropriate for close

range, given the limitations that their length, weight, and the fact that they are unfletched

would impose on their cast.486 Leonymus, a Spartan in the rearguard, is killed by just

such an arrow that strikes him in the side after penetrating through his shield and

jerkin.487 Elsewhere, Basias, an Arcadian, was shot through the head.488 That Xenophon

finds these arrows so worthy of note is a tribute to their exceptional nature. While these

armor-piercing arrows are an exception rather than the rule, it is important to note that

483
Hip. Epidemics 5.1.47.1 - Ὁ πληγεὶς ὀξεῖ βέλει ἐς τοὔπισθѳεν µικρὸν κάτω τοῦ τραχήλου,
484
Xenophon Anabasis 4.2.28.
485
This may seem like a comment intended to exaggerate the size of the arrows, but it should be noted that
it would have been foolish if not impossible to reuse the arrows with their own much smaller bows.
486
See Hickman, Nagler, and Klopsteg, Archery: The Technical Side (1947), 46.
487
Xenophon Anabasis 4.1.18. This is the third example we have seen of a shot to the side. This may be
an area of particular vulnerability or be indicative of archers flanking soldiers in order to avoid their armor.
Incidents like this no doubt influenced Xenophon in his advice about armor and covering gaps with
pteruges and the like (De re equestri 12.1-10). It will, however, be noted that Leonymus wears a jerkin and
not a bronze cuirass here.
488
Ibid.
 144
there are examples, plausible ones according to Blyth’s scientific study, where arrows can

pierce armor.

The Treatment of Arrow Wounds

Another related means of examining the effects of archery, both physical and

mental, is by looking at the treatment of wounds. Provided that a soldier did not die

immediately, and managed to find treatment, what could he expect? In this respect,

Homer offers more information than any other author down to Hippocrates in the 5th

century, who wrote a treatise on the removal of arrows that unfortunately has not

survived.489

After Diomedes has finished reprimanding Paris,490 he turns his attention to caring

for his wounded foot: “Thus he spoke, and Odysseus the spear-famed coming up from

nearby/ Stood before him; and Diomedes sitting down behind him and pulled out/ The

swift arrow from his foot, and the hard pain came over his flesh./ He leapt up into the

chariot and ordered his charioteer/ To drive him back to the hollow ships; for his heart

was heavy.”491 For all of his mouthy bravado a few lines earlier in comparing this wound

to a “scratch” or a blow from a “foolish child or a woman,”492 Diomedes has been

489
C. Salazar, “Fragments of Lost Hippocratic Writings in Galen’s Glossary,” CR 47.2 (1997), 543-547.
He was not alone among ancient authors in having done so. Both Celsus and Paul of Aegina wrote detailed
descriptions of how to remove arrows.
490
An important scene to which we will return below.
491
Iliad 11.396-400. Ὣς φάτο, τοῦ δ' Ὀδυσεὺς δουρικλυτὸς ἐγγύθѳεν ἐλθѳὼν
ἔστη πρόσθѳ'· ὃ δ' ὄπισθѳε καθѳεζόµενος βέλος ὠκὺ
ἐκ πόδος ἕλκ', ὀδύνη δὲ διὰ χροὸς ἦλθѳ' ἀλεγεινή.
ἐς δίφρον δ' ἀνόρουσε, καὶ ἡνιόχῳ ἐπέτελλε
νηυσὶν ἔπι γλαφυρῇσιν ἐλαυνέµεν· ἤχθѳετο γὰρ κῆρ.
492
Iliad 11.388-9. νῦν δέ µ' ἐπιγράψѱας ταρσὸν ποδὸς εὔχεαι αὔτως.
οὐκ ἀλέγω, ὡς εἴ µε γυνὴ βάλοι ἢ πάϊς ἄφρων·
 145
493
eliminated as a threat for the remainder of the poem. Hobbled, he requires protection

from Odysseus, himself a renowned archer. He is then forced to self-treat, removing the

arrow (which has pierced the flat of his foot and penetrated through the top of his foot so

far that it sticks into the ground beneath him) by pulling it out, probably through the top

of his foot to avoid more damage. Because the barbed arrowhead was not actually lodged

in his foot, the procedure would have been relatively uncomplicated, but Homer

emphasizes that he is in great pain and discouraged as he withdraws from battle. Eight

books later, Diomedes is pictured in the front ranks of the assembly with Odysseus, who

had been wounded by a spear. Both men are leaning on their spears because “they still

had painful wounds …”494

Sometimes a warrior will turn to a comrade for help. When Pandaros hits

Diomedes in the shoulder with an arrow, the latter turns to his charioteer, Sthenelos, for

help.495 The arrowhead in still lodged in his shoulder. Sthenelos pulls out the arrow, and

“the blood shot up through the pliant tunic.”496 Athena enables him to return to battle

temporarily, but later we find him nursing the wound: “But the gleaming-eyed goddess

Athene came suddenly upon the son of Tydeus’/ and found the king near his horses and

chariot,/ cooling the wound which was made when Pandaros shot him with an arrow./ For

the sweat made him sore beneath wide strap/ of the circular shield; he was weakened

493
This is likely to be a foreshadowing of Achilleus’ fatal injury at the hands of Paris.
494
Iliad 19.49 - ἔτι γὰρ ἔχον ἕλκεα λυγρά· We are reminded here of Herodotus’ description of the Spartan
Kallikrates who dies a ‘lingering’ death as a result of an arrow wound at Plataea.
495
Iliad 5.109-10.
496
Iliad 5.113 - αἷµα δ' ἀνηκόντιζε διὰ στρεπτοῖο χιτῶνος.
 146
because of this, and his arm was suffering./ Holding up the shield strap, he wiped off the

dark blood.”497

There were, however, a few healers on the field. Machaon is the most famous

example. He is summoned to tend the arrow wound sustained by Menelaos at the hands

of Pandaros.498 Agamemnon’s expectations are clear, Machaon will heal the wound and

stop the pain, “But a physician will handle the wound and apply/ medicines to it, which

make an end of the dark pains.” 499 Machaon removes the barbed arrow, opens the war

belt to examine the wound and then does something curious: “But when he saw the

wound where the bitter arrow struck,/ he sucked the blood and knowing how, applied

soothing medicines upon it…”500 This is generally, and with good reason, often taken to

mean that Machaon fears the arrow to have been poisoned, a point to which we will

return below.501

497
Iliad 5.793-798. Τυδεΐδῃ δ' ἐπόρουσε θѳεὰ γλαυκῶπις Ἀθѳήνη·
εὗρε δὲ τόν γε ἄνακτα παρ' ἵπποισιν καὶ ὄχεσφιν
ἕλκος ἀναψѱύχοντα τό µιν βάλε Πάνδαρος ἰῷ.
ἱδρὼς γάρ µιν ἔτειρεν ὑπὸ πλατέος τελαµῶνος
ἀσπίδος εὐκύλου· τῷ τείρετο, κάµνε δὲ χεῖρα,
ἂν δ' ἴσχων τελαµῶνα κελαινεφὲς αἷµ' ἀποµόργνυ.
498
Iliad 4.104.
499
Iliad 4.190-91. ἕλκος δ' ἰητὴρ ἐπιµάσσεται ἠδ' ἐπιθѳήσει
φάρµαχ' ἅ κεν παύσῃσι µελαινάων ὀδυνάων.
500
Iliad 4.217-18. αὐτὰρ ἐπεὶ ἴδεν ἕλκος ὅθѳ' ἔµπεσε πικρὸς ὀϊστός,
αἷµ' ἐκµυζήσας ἐπ' ἄρ' ἤπια φάρµακα εἰδὼς
πάσσε, …
501
See A. Heubeck, S. West, and J.B. Hainsworth, A Commentary on Homer’s Odyssey. Volume I.
Introduction and Books I-VIII (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988), 107-8. We will return in greater detail to
the subject later. Suffice it to say that there is precedent for arrow poison in Homer’s Odyssey (I.261-2).
Poison would certainly explain the high mortality rates, but there is no further corroborating evidence. For
a very broad treatment, see C.J. Longman and H. Walrond, Archery (New York: Frederick Ungar
Publishing Co., 1967), 71.
 147
Machaon is not the only healer on the Greek side though. At one point Homer

notes that healers are “knowledgable about many medicines” are working on Diomedes,

Odysseus, Agamemnon, and Eurypylos.502 The case of Eurypylos is elaborated upon in

detail. He asks Patroklos for help, alleging that Patroklos has been taught the use of

healing medicines by none other than Achilleus. He notes that Machaon has been injured

and that another apparently well-known healer, Podaleiros, is fighting and unavailable.503

Patroklos then demonstrates his skills by performing surgery on Eurypylos’ thigh: “And

stretching him out there, he cut from his thigh with a knife/ the sharp painful arrow, and

from it the black blood/ he washed away with warm water, and he put upon this a bitter,

painkilling root/ crushing it up with his hands, one which stopped all kinds/ of pain. And

the wound dried, and the blood stopped.”504 An arrow, especially one with barbs, which

had not pierced all the way through the body was especially problematic because its

removal required further pain and tissue damage. The arrow would have to have been

pushed through the wound or cut out, as Patroklos has done here.505 In either case, it

means more pain, suffering, and blood loss.

502
Iliad 16.28 - ἰητροὶ πολυφάρµακοι
503
Iliad 11.821 ff. It is also worth noting that all of these healers can attribute their knowledge of medicine
to the Centaur, Cheiron.
504
Iliad 11.843-847. θѳεράπων δὲ ἰδὼν ὑπέχευε βοείας.
ἔνθѳά µιν ἐκτανύσας ἐκ µηροῦ τάµνε µαχαίρῃ
ὀξὺ βέλος περιπευκές, ἀπ' αὐτοῦ δ' αἷµα κελαινὸν
νίζ' ὕδατι λιαρῷ, ἐπὶ δὲ ῥίζαν βάλε πικρὴν
χερσὶ διατρίψѱας ὀδυνήφατον, ἥ οἱ ἁπάσας
ἔσχ' ὀδύνας· τὸ µὲν ἕλκος ἐτέρσετο, παύσατο δ' αἷµα.
505
In the 4th century B.C.E., a special instrument for the purpose of removing arrowheads was invented by
the physician Diokles of Carystus, a student of Aristotle. It was known as the ‘Spoon of Diokles.’ Celsus
7.5.3.
 148
The value of these doctors is illustrated by the Achaean reaction to Machaon’s

injury, when Paris hits him with a tri-barbed arrow in the shoulder.506 The reaction is one

of collective fear. The sentiment is clarified by Idomeneus, “A healer (ἰητρός) is a man

worth many other men/ for cutting out arrows and applying soothing medicines.”507

Modern science suggests that Machaon’s reputation was well-deserved. Although

someone could live with an arrowhead lodged in his body, it was not advisable to leave it

in the wound. In an 1851 C.E. account of a arrow wound received by a Texas settler, a

historian writes, “Tom was wounded in the leg by an arrow, and when it was withdrawn

the spike remained, but was not noticed at the time, as the man who pulled it out threw it

down without looking at it. The wound would never heal, and two years after it was sore

and running corruption.”508 Another account states, “When Kelso drew the arrow from

his wound during the fight and threw it down, he failed to notice in the excitement of the

time that the spike had failed to come with the shaft. For twenty-two years the wound

would not heal until by a surgical operation the iron arrow head was discovered and

removed, and the wound then healed.”509

Removing it could be quite challenging. As noted above, if it was barbed, the

doctor would have to push it through or make an additional incision and cut it out. He

might even have difficulty finding it. Points would often come off when shafts were

506
Iliad 11.507.
507
Iliad 11.514-515. ἰητρὸς γὰρ ἀνὴρ πολλῶν ἀντάξιος ἄλλων
ἰούς τ' ἐκτάµνειν ἐπί τ' ἤπια φάρµακα πάσσειν.
508
D. Jones, Poison Arrows: North American Indian Hunting and Warfare (Austin: University of Texas
Press, 2007), 66.
509
Ibid., 66.
 149
510
jerked out. Coues, reporting on these wounds first hand during the Indian Wars, leads

us to believe that this was probable. He writes that the “shaft is almost invariably seized

and jerked hurriedly out by the patient at the moment of being struck” and elsewhere,

“frantic wrenching at the stick may break off a portion of it inside.”511 When separated

from the shaft, arrowheads can be “difficult to locate and extract.”512 Coues also adds the

point, which he describes as “common and troublesome”, that stone arrowheads have a

tendency to break apart in the wound, further complicating removal.513 Even if located

and in one piece, the arrowhead may prove challenging to remove. Lieutenant Colonel

Joseph Bill, who served in the American West and who, between 1862 and 1882 C.E.,

wrote about arrow wounds and his thoughts with regard to their treatment, offers another

instructive firsthand anecdote. In describing his removal of an iron arrowhead lodged in

one patient’s humerus (arm bone – one of our unprotected areas), he writes, “bracing my

knees against the patient’s thorax. I applied all the traction I could muster. Suddenly the

arrowhead flew out of its seat, and I would have fallen on the floor, had not the steward

caught me.”514 In addition to all of this, as we have seen, doctors had to address the

possibility of poison and manage pain.

In short, arrows could be deadly or incapacitating and the effect could be

physical, mental, or both. As Nestor points out to Agamemnon, “… I think that we

510
G. Milner, “Nineteenth-Century Arrow Wounds” (2005), 147.
511
E. Coues, “Some Notes on Arrow Wounds,” The Medical and Surgical Reporter 14 (1866): 323.
512
G. Milner, “Nineteenth-Century Arrow Wounds” (2005), 151.
513
Ibid., 151; and E. Coues, “Some Notes on Arrow Wounds” (1866): 322.
514
J. Bill, “Notes on Arrow wounds,” American Journal of Medical Science 44 (1862): 371.
 150
515
should not enter/ the fight; for one cannot fight on when he is wounded.” Top warriors

on both sides of the confrontation had to withdraw from action due to arrow wounds,

which were both painful, a common theme, and frightening (particularly if we allow for

the potential of poison tips).516 For the sake of an instructive comparison, let us again

consider the work of Bill. He notes that the surgeon should take pains to comfort the

patient, because “although arrow wounds are not attended with much shock, they are

usually the cause of great depression of spirits.”517 This finds corroboration in the Iliad

and elsewhere.

Twice-harmful missiles518 – The possibility of poison

The possible use of arrow poison is another important consideration in

understanding the effectiveness of archery.519 When Menelaus is wounded by Pandarus’

arrow, Machaon, the physician, treats the wound in an unusual way, and one not repeated

in the poem.520 Homer writes that Machaon “immediately (αὐτίκα) drew out the arrow

…” and then, “but (αὐτὰρ) when he saw the wound where the bitter arrow entered, having

515
Iliad 14.62-3. … πόλεµον δ' οὐκ ἄµµε κελεύω
δύµεναι· οὐ γάρ πως βεβληµένον ἐστὶ µάχεσθѳαι.
516
Even gods struck by arrows suffer unbearable pain. Both Hera and Hades are said to have been struck
by arrows of Amphitryon and to have endured unbearable pain. Hades even has to withdraw to Olympus
and seek the treatment of the immortal doctor Paeëon (Iliad 5.392-404).
517
B. Karger, H. Sudhues, and B. Brinkmann, “Arrow Wounds: Major Stimulus in the History of Surgery,”
World Journal of Surgery 25 (2001): 1550-1555. See also Bill, “Notes on Arrow wounds” (1862): 365.
518
Silius Italicus describes poison arrows this way (I.322). Though late, it is a vivid and useful way to
describe the horrible potential of a poisoned arrow.
519
A student of Greek will not fail to recognize the relationship between the Greek word for bow (and
sometimes even ‘arrow’) ‘toxos’ (τόξος) and its English derivatives ‘toxin’ and ‘toxic’.
520
Iliad 4.127-219.
 151
521
sucked out the blood (αἷµ’ ἐκµυζήσας) he applied soothing herbs …” While poison is

not mentioned specifically, Machaon’s treatment of the wound implies that he is

concerned about poison. While this scene cannot offer conclusive evidence that poison

was used, it introduces some interesting questions. Did ancient Greeks use arrow poison?

Did soldiers go into battle with the concern that a seemingly insignificant arrow wound

could cost them their lives?

Greeks were certainly no strangers to the use of poison. Although there is no

consensus among the sources for the author of the strategy, most agree that the town

Kirrha was poisoned with hellebore to end the First Sacred War.522 The Hippocratic oath

contains a prohibition against the use of φάρµακον θѳανάσιµον (deadly poison).523

Socrates’ use of hemlock to commit suicide after his guilty verdict was well known, and

illustrates that poison had gained some form of formal acceptance by the 5th century.524

While we have no definite examples of its use in battle during Archaic or even Classical

Greece, it is fair to say that arrow poison was also well known in Greece – just as it was

in other ancient Mediterranean and Near Eastern cultures, and from an early time period

521
Iliad 4.217-219. Murray translates ἐκµυζήσας as ‘sucked out’ (Loeb). Others offer ‘squeezed out.’
522
A. Mayer, Greek Fire, Poison Arrows, and Scorpion Bombs: Biological and Chemical Warfare in the
Ancient World (London: Duckworth, 2003), 100-101. Mayer covers the debate within the sources well.
Pausanias even credits Solon as the strategist (10.36.6-7).
523
Οὐ δώσω δὲ οὐδὲ φάρµακον οὐδενὶ αἰτηθѳεὶς θѳανάσιµον, οὐδὲ ὑφηγήσο µαι ξυµβουλίην τοιήνδε· (Oath 18-20)
This pledge is prominently placed just after the very first medically-oriented vow “I will use treatment to
help the sick according to my ability and judgment, but never with a view to injury and wrong-doing.”
(Loeb Translation lines 16-18).
524
L. Cilliers & F.P. Retief, “Poisons, Poisoning and the Drug Trade in Ancient Rome,” Akroterion 45
(2000): 88.
 152
525
too. Just as the word for bow (τόξος) would become synonymous with poison, the most

common Greek word for arrow (ἰός) could also mean poison.526 This linguistic

connection is difficult to ignore.

The most common Greek word used for poison is the somewhat ambiguous

φάρµακον, which simply means drug or medicine.527 It can therefore be helpful or

dangerous. In the latter case, we find the term distinguished by helpful adjectives or

context, as it is above. Thus, τὰ τοξικὰ φάρµακα are drugs for arrows, φάρµακα, οἷς τὸ

βέλη χρίονται are drugs with which to smear arrows, ϕάρµακον ἀνδροϕόνον is a man-

killing drug and so on. In some cases, a single drug could be both medicine and poison in

the form of a toxic overdose. Opium, for instance, was used as a painkiller, but might be

taken to commit suicide, at least by Roman times.528 Likewise, black hellebore, which

was a powerful narcotic, was used as a curative for ailments ranging from epilepsy to

flatulence, but it was also known to have been poisonous and even used as an arrow

poison for hunting by Celts. It was widely available but Antikyra in the Corinthian Gulf

seems to have been famed for it.529 Aconite, sometimes known as wolfsbane because of

its use in poisoning wolves (and later known as monk’s hood because of the shape of its

flower), was known by the Greeks and widely available in different varieties. This is a

525
Job 6:4 mentions poisoned arrows, and they have been excavated from Egyptian tombs. Miller,
McEwen, & Bergmann, “Experimental Approaches to Ancient near Eastern Archery,” World Archaeology
18.2 (1986) cite the example of poisoned arrows found in an Egyptian tomb.
526
It can also mean ‘rust’ – a possibility, which will be interesting to consider as we think about the
possible conflation of infection and poisoning in Greek minds.
527
By the time of Strabo, the association of arrows and poison was so well known that he could simply use
the adjective τόξικον to mean ‘poison.’ Strabo 3.4.18.
528
Pliny NH 2.197, 20.197-199.
529
Pliny NH 25.48-52; 25.25.61. Theophrastus HP 9.10.2-4.
 153
common arrow toxin around the world and its name very likely derives from the Greek

word for dart (ἄκων, - οντος). It was also used in the treatment of eye ailments. In

describing the medicinal properties of deadly nightshade, Pliny complains of Greek

writers who refer to the drug as dorycnion (from the Greek word δόρυ), because “spears

before battle had their points dipped in it, as it grows everywhere.”530

The earliest references to arrow poison in Greek literature appear in Homer.

Odysseus was said to travel first to Ephyre and then to Taphos specifically for the

purpose of procuring arrow poison.531 Homer writes that Athena in the guise of Mentes,

leader of the Taphians, tells Telemachos that she had met Odysseus when the latter was

on his way back from Ephyre where he had gone to search for a ‘man-killing drug’

(φάρµακον ἀνδροφόνον) to smear on his arrows (ἰοὺς χρίεσθѳαι).532 She adds that Ilus, the

leader of Ephyre, would not give it to him, since he feared the gods. Despite this,

Odysseus was undeterred and sailed to Taphos for the same purpose where her (i.e.

Athena/Mentes’) father, Zeus/Anchialus, who apparently did not share Ilus’ concern,

gave it to him.533 Ilus’ refusal to give Odysseus the toxin would seem to make the issue

of poison a moral one. Yet, Athena relates this story with no hint of disapproval. If Zeus

530
Pliny NH 21.105.179. Thus, the association of poison with ‘cowardly archers’ might be a bit hasty,
given the linguistic suggestion that both spear and javelins (above) may have been treated with poison.
531
While it seems likely to have been located in western Greece, the location of Ephyre remains unknown.
It is mentioned twice in the Odyssey (Od. 1.259, 2.328), both times as a location where one might obtain
poison. In the latter case, the suitors fear that Telemachos will go to Ephyre and procure poison to put in
their wine. (Odyssey II.328-30) Whether or not these poisons are different is unclear. Taphos has been
identified as modern Meganissi, an island not too far north of Ithaca. Some suggest that he was after
aconite.
532
Odyssey 1.261-2.
533
Odyssey 1.262-264.
 154
is meant to have been the decision maker in this narrative, he too signs off on its use. If

not Zeus, then Anchialus does.

Is this episode meant to illustrate that Odysseus and Anchialus are deviants who

do not fear the gods? Does Athena turn a blind eye because of her special bond with the

wily hero? Such an argument might have more traction if this incident stood alone, but it

does not, as we shall see. It should, however, serve as a reminder that attitudes tend to be

varied and complex, even with regard to something as intuitively repugnant as poison.

To say that Greeks considered poison to be a taboo or even that they frowned on its use is

to offer only one side of the story. The attitude is clearly not universal and peoples’

actions do not always coincide with their words. If something was useful or effective, it

was likely to have proponents, despite any potential social stigma attached to it.534

Further, moral condemnation is no guarantee that certain practices will cease. This

dynamic is something we will explore further in assessing attitudes towards the bow,

which follow a similar pattern.

Though Odysseus’ example is well known, Herakles is the most famous Greek

hero to use arrow poison. According to what appears to have been an early tradition, he

dipped his arrows into the poisonous blood of the hydra.535 He then used these arrows in

several of his adventures. Ironically, poison is ultimately responsible for his own

excruciating death when his wife, duped into believing that the poisoned blood of Nessos

534
Recall this earlier note - The Franks were so impressed by the value of Muslim horse archers that they
employed a contingent of them despite the religious hostilities toward Muslims in the wake of the
Crusades. See M. Strickland & R. Hardy, The Great Warbow (2011), 109.
535
Alkman Frag. 815, Apollon. 4.1390, Diod. 4.11.5, Pausanias 2.37.4, Hesiod’s Shield 132, et alia.
 155
could serve as a love potion, smears it upon Herakles shirt with gruesome

consequences.536

Philoktetes inherits the bow and arrows from Herakles. Bitten by a poisonous

snake en route to Troy, he is abandoned by his comrades on an island, only to be

retrieved ten years later when it becomes clear that his presence and the bow of Herakles

was necessary for victory over the Trojans. Clearly, Greek mythology suggests a

complicated relationship with poison. It seems that one is playing with fire when using

arrow poison – perhaps a ‘live by the sword, die by the sword’ dynamic?

Later, arrow toxins, like the bow itself, would become associated with foreigners

by Greek authors. Virtually every people associated with the bow are described as using

poisons. Persians, Celts,537 Ethiopians,538 Indians,539 and Scythians540 are mentioned.

The Greeks essentially imagined themselves to be surrounded by poisoners – perhaps this

contributed to the increased frequency of greaves among Greeks interacting with these

peoples?

Aristotle records that Scythians have a poison (σκυθѳικόν φάρµακον) that they

apply to their arrows. He goes on to describe an elaborate process by which newborn

venomous snakes are killed, fermented, and then mixed with human blood which has

536
Medea also infuses a garment with poison.
537
Aristotle Mir. 837a., Strabo 3.4.18.
538
Theophrastus HP 9.15.2, Strabo 16.4.10.
539
Theophrastus HP 9.15.2, Strabo 15.2.7. The texts of the Laws of Manu (c. 500 B.C.E.) and then the
Arthashastra (4th century B.C.E.) provide independent corroboration. See A. Mayor, Greek Fire, Poison
Arrows, and Scorpion Bombs (2003), 53. The Indians were apparently so reliant upon the bow that the
Rig-Veda makes no distinction, according to Rausing, between the word for bow and the word for weapon.
Moreover, in the same text, the word for tactics means ‘the art of using the bow.’ See G. Rausing, “The
Bow,” (1967), 94.
540
Aristotle Mir. 845a, Theophrastus HP 9.15.2.
 156
541
been also been allowed to decompose while buried in a dunghill. Perhaps somewhat

surprisingly, it may well have been the dunghill that was the deadliest component of this

concoction. According to Guido Manjo, “The spores of tetanus thrive in the feces of

domestic animals.”542

Theophrastus also mentions an arrow poison used by both the Ethiopians and

Scythians, but his version is of botanical origin. He writes, “Thus in Ethiopia there is a

certain deadly root with which they smear their arrows. And in Scythia there is this and

there are also others, some of which kill at once those who eat them, some after an

interval, shorter or longer, so that in the latter case men have a lingering death.”543

Poison is also a concern of several of the later medical writers. Galen, Celsus,

Rufus, Aetius, and Paul of Aegina all discuss wounds made by poisoned arrows (along

with other poisoned weapons).544 Rufus, for example, counsels, ‘It is necessary to ask in

advance about arrow poisons, because many have developed poisons which they apply to

their arrows, and they kill even if they make but a small wound.’545 Celsus, in a passage

that evokes Machaon’s unusual treatment of Menelaus, instructs his readers to extract a

541
Aristotle Mir. 845a.141. As hyperbolic a description as this seems, similar processes are documented
among certain Native Americans tribes. The use of rotten venomous snakes, mixing them with blood, feces
or other animal or insect matter, and burying them for a time to promote the decay and fermentation are all
described. See D. Jones, Poison Arrows (2007).
542
G. Manjo, The Healing Hand: Man and Wound in the Ancient World (Cambridge: Harvard University
Press, 1991), 200.
543
Theophrastus HP 9.15.1-3. Loeb Translation. Rolle also finds evidence that the Scythians used
hemlock to poison their arrows. See R. Rolle, The World of the Scythians, trans. F.G. Walls. (Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1989), 65.
544
C. Salazar, The Treatment of War Wounds in Graeco-Roman Antiquity (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 28. It is
easy to be lulled into the belief that poison is solely the provenance of the bow. This is not the case.
545
Rufus Qu. Med. 50ff. Salazar, ibid., 29.
 157
poisoned arrow faster than they might extract any other arrow, and then to use a remedy

normally used on snakebites.546

Ethnographic studies may help to shed light on some of the potential effects of

arrow poison. A bacteriological study conducted in 1896 of poison arrows used by

natives of New Hebrides (modern day Vanuatu in the South Pacific) yields some

interesting information.547 The researcher describes the natives ‘rendering themselves a

terror’ to their enemies by using poison arrows. The poisoning process, however, did not

involve venomous fauna or toxic flora. Instead it involved dipping the arrows into the

soils of certain marshes with the result that the arrows would carry infection-causing

bacteria. The study found two types of bacteria in the selected marshes. The first is

known as septic vibrion, which causes a malignant edema and is fatal, sometimes within

a few hours. The second was tetanus, also fatal and horrifying, as we will see. This

account blurs the fine line between infection and poison. Would the wounded recognize

a difference between the two? Would the archer? Is the intentional application of deadly

bacteria to an arrow any different than the application of a root or venomous concoction?

Clearly these natives selected their soil with deadly intention.

In other cases the ‘poisoning’ might have been entirely unintentional. During the

Hundred Years War, for example, the French accused the English of using poison arrows.

The latter denied the charges vehemently. Fairly recent work on the arrows excavated

from the wreck of the Mary Rose, however, indicates that the French may have been

accurate. The research showed that copper sulphate was used to protect the arrow

546
Celsus VII.5.5/310.24f. Salazar, ibid., 29.
547
Dantec, “The Bacteriology of Arrow Poison,” Scientific American 75.20 (1986), 360.
 158
fletchings and set the glue holding them to their shafts and that some of this had gotten

onto the shafts themselves. Had this compound entered a wound, the result would likely

have been fatal.548 So, the English had in fact poisoned some of their arrows without

realizing it or intending to do so!

New world chronicles and ethnographies offer no shortage of impressions of

poison arrows. Some of the most vivid involve the Caribs, who, like Herakles, were said

to carry both the bow and the club. In one recent study of Carib warfare, Whitehead cites

firsthand European accounts of an arrow poison derived from a plant and its impressive

effect. An account written by Cabeliau in 1597 C.E. reports that “if anyone is hit by them

[the arrows], so that blood flows, he must perforce die within twenty-four hours: his flesh

dropping from his bones: so that the Spanish greatly fear that nation and their arrows.” 549

Another account written by Van Berkel in 1695 C.E., explains simply that “of those who

are wounded, few recover.”550 Another states that antidotes to arrow-poison were known

but carefully guarded for the purpose of maintaining a strategic advantage over the

Europeans.551

Similar stories are recounted in the United States. One chronicler traveling with

Coronado in 1540 described a case in which “the skin of the soldier struck by the

poisoned arrow rotted and fell off until it left the bones and sinews bare, with a horrible

548
M. Strickland & R. Hardy, The Great Warbow (2011), 26.
549
N. Whitehead, “Carib Warfare, ca. 1500-1820,” in The Anthropology of War, ed. J. Haas (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1990), 150.
550
Ibid.
551
Ibid.
 159
552
smell.” In another case, an arrow passed through the sleeve of a man’s coat, scratching

him along the way. He thought nothing of the scratch. In two days, he swelled up and

later died.553 There are several accounts like this one.

In the above examples, we see two instances of archers intentionally smearing

their arrows with an infectious agent. They are poisoning their arrows by deliberately

causing infection. It stands to reason then that the line between deliberate poisoning and

unintentional infection may well have been quite blurry.

Whether or not Greeks poisoned their arrows, the threat of infection was very

real. The Hippocratic corpus, for example, relates a story of a man who contracted

tetanus (referred to as ὀπισθѳοτονικος by the Greeks because of the backward stretching

convulsion of the victim).554 It describes a man who has been wounded by a missile

(βέλει) in the back just below the neck.555 The wound is described as insignificant in

appearance and not deep. Nevertheless, before long he was arched back in convulsions

like those who suffer from tetanus. His jaws locked. If he attempted to swallow liquid, it

came out through his nose. Then, on the second day, he died. This terrifying death is

certainly a far cry from the ‘beautiful death’ aspired to by Greek hoplites. Moreover, we

might consider for a moment what this patient’s family and friends would have thought

about this scenario. The man has a seemingly insignificant arrow wound and then dies a

painful and disfiguring death two days later. Might they, like the French described

above, believe their friend to have been poisoned?

552
D. Jones, Poison Arrows (2007), 38.
553
Ibid., 41.
554
Hippocrates Epidemics 5.47.
555
We are not told whether or not he was wearing armor. Even so, this constitutes an unprotected place.
 160
As there was no way to immunize against infections, their rates in ancient armies

were likely equivalent to those in armies up to the 20th century. According to a study by

Gabriel and Metz of infection rates in the Penisula War, Crimean War, the Civil war, the

Franco-Prussian War, and early in WWI, the average rate of tetanus infection for battle

wounds was 5.6% with a mortality rate of 80%.556 It was untreatable.

While it was the most common possibility, tetanus was not the only type of

infection to be contracted on the battlefield. Gas gangrene and septicemia (blood

poisoning) were also possibilities. In antiquity, both would usually have proven fatal.

Gangrene required amputation.557 Septicemia requires antibiotics. Moreover, on the off

chance that an arrow ruptured an artery, the chances of contracting a lethal infection were

especially high.558 Gabriel and Metz found that, despite the availability of penicillin,

49% of arterial wounds in WWII resulted in gas ganrene.559

556
Gabriel & Metz, A History of Military Medicine: From Ancient Times to the Middle Ages (New York,
Greenwood Press, 1992), 27
557
Manjo claims that amputation was not practiced by the Greeks until well after the time of Hippocrates.
G. Manjo, The Healing Hand (1991), 191. Aeschylus, on the other hand, makes mention of amputation
metaphorically, although in a manner that indicates an accurate understanding of the practice or at least its
context. Aeschylus Agamemnon 848-850: ὅτῳ δὲ καὶ δεῖ φαρµάκων παιωνίων,/ ἤτοι κέαντες ἢ τεµόντες
εὐφρόνως/ πειρασόµεσθѳα πῆµ' ἀποστρέψѱαι νόσου.
558
Arterial wounds are rare. Gabriel & Metz, A History of Military Medicine (1992), 24: The authors
submit the following percentages for number of arterial wounds among wounded soldiers: American Civil
War .29 %, WWI .40%, WWII 1%, Korea 2.4%. These numbers would be higher than ones we would
expect to find for Greeks, given the nature of the weaponry. Although Celsus notes twice in his section on
the removal of arrows that special care should be taken to avoid veins and arteries (Celsus 7.5.1c, 7.5.4c).
559
Ibid., 25. The authors then offer the following reconstruction: “Available data on wound mortality and
infection produce a rough statistical profile of the causes of wound mortality facing the soldier on the
ancient battlefield. Of 100 soldiers, 13.8% would die of shock or bleeding within the next 2-6 hours after
being wounded. 6% would likely contract tetanus and 80% (4.8) of them would die within three to six
days. Another 5% would get gangrene. 80-100% (4 or 5) would die within a week. 1.7% would get
septicemia and 83-100% (1) would die within 6-10 days. So, on average, 1 in 4 wounded soldiers would
die of their wounds within 6-10 days.”
 161
The association between arrows and poison is longstanding and, it would seem,

universal. While we do not have any hard evidence that poison played a role in Archaic

Greek warfare, the perception, real or imagined, that arrow poison might be used should

be factored into our understanding of the psychological burden carried by a soldier facing

archers.560 Arrows were, in fact, an instrument of terror.

Battle was clearly a horrifying ordeal, but Greeks fortified themselves by creating

and clinging to an ideology that imagined the great glory to be won in the so-called

“beautiful death” on the battlefield. Evidence for this ideology is present in media

ranging from the poems of the symposium, to vase paintings, to inscriptions on grave

steles. One marble grave stele from Megara dating to 480 B.C.E. depicts a hoplite and

bears an inscription that reads, “I speak, I, Pollis, the dear son of Asopichos, not having

died a coward, with the wounds of the tattooers, yes myself.”561

An Ugly Death

Unfortunately, an arrow was more likely to maim and disfigure than to kill. With

an arrow wound, a warrior had an increased probability of pain and future suffering to

endure. Milner’s study mentioned earlier cites a case study from the Indian Wars in

which a time-of-death was recorded for each of 35 people who were wounded by arrows.

560
Vic Hurley offers a comparative example in which English arrows proved effective enough against the
French that the latter protested that the English had poisoned their arrows. There is no record of the
English poisoning their arrows in battle, but they did sometimes poison them with hellebore for hunting
purposes. See V. Hurley, Arrows Against Steel (1975), 22.
561
Getty Villa 90.AA.129. See T. Kaplan, The J. Paul Getty Museum: Handbook of the Antiquities
Collection (Los Angeles: J. Paul Getty Trust, 2002), 63. Scythians were known for the practice of
tattooing.
 162
49% of them died when injured or shortly thereafter. The remaining 51%, however,

survived for anywhere from 6 hours to roughly 7 weeks.562

This did not accord with Greeks’ idealized vision of battle. When facing archers,

there was little to be gained and much to lose. This cost benefit analysis is apparent in

several episodes throughout Classical literature, many of them contributing to what is

seen as a contemptuous attitude towards the bow.

The best example of this is probably that of the Spartan prisoners captured at

Sphacteria. The idea that Spartans would surrender under any circumstances was

apparently quite shocking and they were met with much derision by their Athenian

captors on account of it. Thucydides reports that one of the Spartan prisoners retorts to a

heckler, “A spindle, by which he meant arrow, would be worth a lot, if it could

determine the good men.”563 The soldier uses derisive and effeminizing language to

describe the arrow, but his complaint is a testimony to archery’s effect. The idea that the

circumstances of one’s death was entirely beyond his control and that an unseen or

random death could rob him of the ‘beautiful death’ sanctified by his ideology could

deprive a soldier of his incentive to fight.

The death of Kallikrates, mentioned earlier, is another example. It is not death

that bothers him, but death at the hands of an unseen, unchallenged enemy.564 The

psychological effects of arrows therefore must have been considerable.

562
G. Milner, “Nineteenth-Century Arrow Wounds” (2005), 146.
563
Thucydides 4.40.2 - ἀπεκρίνατο αὐτῷ πολλοῦ ἂν ἄξιον εἶναι τὸν ἄτρακτον, λέγων τὸν οἰστόν, εἰ τοὺς
ἀγαθѳοὺς διεγίγνωσκε. This is tough talk for someone who has surrendered. In some ways it can be
compared to Diomedes’ upbraiding of Paris.
564
Herodotus 9.72.6. It is not surprising that both examples here are Spartans. They are often the
mouthpiece for criticism of behavior deemed contrary to the hoplite ethos – an ethos, which for them,
reaches a point of sanctity comparable to the chivalry of medieval knights. Imagine the horror of the
 163
The tondo of a well-preserved kylix painted by the Sosias Painter (Fig. 25) offers

one artist’s treatment of the problem and provides evidence that early 5th century B.C.E.

symposiasts may well have considered some of these issues within the context of the

symposium. It depicts Achilleus tending to a wounded Patroklos, both men are clad in

scale armor. The latter has suffered an arrow wound in the arm – his left (i.e. shield) arm,

interestingly.565 The offending weapon lies beneath Patroklos’ right knee. The quiver on

his back raises the interesting question of what exactly Patroklos was doing on the

battlefield. Achilleus stares intently at the wound while he dresses it with a bandage.

The artist illustrates Patroklos’ pain through his body language.

Figure 25

French knights experiencing the murderous efficacy of the longbow at Agincourt. It must have been
comparable to the Spartan sentiment at Sphacteria.
565
If he were holding a shield, this would bolster Blyth’s contention.
 164
A Weapon of Terror

Above, I have illustrated several ways in which the bow was an effective weapon.

Most of these have one common theme - fear. The bow was as much a psychological

weapon as a physical one. Numerous studies have shown that casualties in hoplite

warfare were relatively low for the winner and higher for the loser, the bulk of the killing

taking place when one side broke and fled.566 As Gabriel and Metz put it, “The real killer

on the battlefield was fear.”567 Archery was a significant contributor to that fear.

How did this translate on the battlefield? Promachoi were impeded or pinned,

like Aias, behind a shield. Soldiers encumbered themselves with extra armor. Armies

camped and ships anchored outside of bowshot. Hoplites double-timed their advance to

meet an enemy with lots of archers. Soldiers were discouraged, angered, and provoked

into breaking ranks.568 Cavalry might keep their distance, be held in reserve, or be

excluded altogether. Javelin throwers were kept at bay. Ships enjoyed (or suffered) the

added element of artillery fire and had to take precautions to protect their rowers. Routes

were changed, rivers uncrossed, marches slowed, ships were not beached, and city gates

566
This is generally accepted. I list two relatively recent examples here: P. Krentz, “Casualties in Hoplite
Battles,” GRBS 26.1 (1985): 13-20; N.G.L. Hammond, “Casualties and Reinforcements of Citizen Soldiers
in Greece and Macedonia,” JHS 109 (1989): 56-68; R. Gabriel & K. Metz, A History of Military Medicine
(1992).
567
R. Gabriel & K. Metz, A History of Military Medicine (1992), 19. Krentz agrees, “I would argue that
hoplite battles were largely psychological confrontations: which side would lose its nerve first?” P. Krentz,
“Continuing the Othismos on Othismos,” AHB 8:45 (1994). The importance of fear and morale was no
secret to military men. There are well-known maxims pertaining to the importance of both attributed to
Napoleon, Frederick the Great, and others.
568
It has been argued persuasively that this was the most important effect of English archery even in some
of their most noted victories (Crecy, Poitiers, Agincourt). DeVries argues that archers did not kill many
men, but rather harassed “their enemy to such an extent that they broke into a disordered charge. This then
caused the victory – not the archery force itself – but the archery-induced charge into a solid infantry line,
which was neither broken nor defeated.” See K. DeVries, Medieval Military Technology (1992), 38.
 165
were not stormed. Archery was responsible for all of this, despite the fact that most

arrows could not pierce Greek armor.

Perhaps the greatest effect of archers (and to some extent this can be said of other

light-armed troops as well) on the battlefield was forcing an opponent to account for

them. Two of the most catastrophic (and consequently educational) defeats of the

Peloponnesian war (Aetolia and Sphacteria) happened as a result of inadequate light-

armed support against a superior light-armed force. Athens reacted by ramping up its

light-armed deployments and Sparta by raising and hiring mercenary archers.569

Although this is later than the time period upon which we are focusing, it is difficult to

imagine that the same logic did not apply earlier. We have much less evidence, but that

which is available to us indicates that light-armed troops and archers in particular were a

fixture on both sides of every engagement. It seems likely that one reason for this is the

disadvantage one would put themselves in by not having them on the field. In order to

take advantage of its most decisive unit, the heavily armed troops, an army had to insure

that it was able to close with an opponent and that it was as unmolested as possible en

route to doing so.

Thus, archery in Greece ultimately had something of a defensive character. It

could be and was used offensively to great effect from time to time. Sniper fire in an

569
I would argue that as hoplite warfare evolved into the overlapping shield formations generally
associated with it, archery though less effective or decisive than it was in Homeric warfare became even
more necessary. As hoplite formations and tactics became less flexible, the hoplites greatest strengths
exposed them against enemies who chose to fight via alternate methods. Hit and run or unrelenting
harassment strategies in particular could wear a hoplite army down and even destroy it. Archers and other
light-armed troops therefore became a necessary precaution. A hoplite phalanx in the field without them
exposed itself to extraordinary risk. Thus, the ‘armored support combat group’ pairing represented by Aias
and Teukros in the Archaic warfare depicted by Homer evolved into a complimentary pairing of large
groups of hoplites with large groups of archers.
 166
570
open order engagement could cripple an army depriving it of its foremost promachoi.

The massed arrows of the Lokrians were potent, just as those of the Athenians at

Sphacteria would later be. History supplies us with a lengthy list of testimonials to the

devastating effects of mounted archers. Yet, Greeks failed to capitalize on these

advantages. Part of this was undoubtedly ideological, as we shall see. Some of it may

also have been related to the geography of mainland Greece and its suitability for large

numbers of cavalry. Some of it likely had to do with demographics. Massed volleys

usually only work when there are masses of archers shooting them. Battles in Archaic

Greece appear to have been relatively small-scale engagements, nothing like those seen

in Persia or later in Western Europe, where massed arrow tactics were used to great

effect.

At bottom, despite Diomedes’ angry skepticism, archery was effective and

terrifying. Shock troops, be they hoplites or their predecessors, were always the decisive

element in Archaic (and Classical) Greek warfare, but the flexibility and firepower

provided by archers and other light-armed troops fulfilled the necessary role of insuring

that the shock troops had the opportunity to fulfill their mission.

570
Effective, though not catastrophic or decisive. We should recall that Achilleus is lost to an arrow, but
the Greeks still win the war. Despite Diomedes’ cynicism, Menelaus, Diomedes himself (twice),
Eurypylos, Nestor, Glaukos, and Machaon are all lost for some time on the battlefield. Some never return
to it in the course of the Iliad. Machaon’s injury is accompanied by a telling contra factual condition – the
Greeks would have stood their ground if Machaon had not been injured. Diomedes is stopped at the height
of his aristeia, having just driven Hektor from the field. When promachoi are removed from the fight,
whether wounded or killed, the tide of the battle can turn.
 167
Chapter 4
Who were the Archers?

Let us now turn to the archers themselves. As noted above, the bow did not

change very much from 700 B.C.E. to roughly 700 C.E. The Greeks who used it on the

battlefield, however, did change. This was largely a consequence of the widespread

adoption of hoplite armor, its expense relative to other arms, and the ideology that, over

time, came to accompany it – an ideology given official legitimacy in the early 6th

century B.C.E. reforms of Solon that linked property class to military service and both to

political rights. The evidence we have examined thus far suggests clearly that the archers

could be of the same class of warrior as the spearman in the 8th c. In fact, it was not

uncommon for the same person to fight as both archer and spearman. The identity of

Greek archers begins to get murky when hoplite armor becomes the norm.

Dispelling Firmly Entrenched Notions

Before we address the question of who these archers were, however, it will be

prudent to start in the negative, dispelling the tenacious but erroneous notion that they

were either Scythians or Cretans. These identifications have become canonical.571 The

bulk of the evidence for Scythians is art historical and circular in its logic. The bulk of

the evidence for Cretans, on the other hand, is documentary and applied retroactively. In

both cases, the nature of the weapon is erroneously seen to be an indication of a foreign

571
P. Hunt, “Military Forces” in The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Warfare I, ed. C. Rowe and
M. Schofield (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 122. Also, “In the archaic period archers
often seem to have been outsiders to the central world of the city-states. Scythian mercenary archers for
example, are depicted on Attic vases of the late sixth century.” R. Gabriel, The Ancient World (Westport,
CT: The Greenwood Press, 2007): “Greek hoplite armies usually had no archer units, although there is
evidence of a unit of Scythian archers armed with the composite bow during the Peloponnesian Wars.”
 168
presence and arguments for each seem to take for granted a longstanding aversion to

archery.572

Scythian Archers?

Because the vast number of vases depicting Scythians represents such a high

percentage of our Archaic source material, we will start here. Altogether there are

roughly 700 surviving Athenian vases and fragments bearing images of archers dressed in

Scythian garb dating from the years c. 575-475 B.C.E. Of the entire corpus of 10,498

catalogued vases dating to between 550-500 B.C.E., an impressive 5% have depictions of

Scythian archers on them.573 Given the considerable diversity of themes represented on

vessels during this period, these numbers are staggering – particularly for a figure about

whom we have almost no other information.

Sometime around 570 B.C.E., Athenian vase painters introduced the figure of an

archer dressed in Scythian garb into their iconography. The famous François Krater is

perhaps the earliest example.574 Here three archers participate alongside some of

Greece’s most renowned heroes in the Kalydonian Boar Hunt.575 Apart from their use of

572
We will deal with this element of the argument in Chapter 5.
573
I have compiled my numbers using the extensive catalogue provided by F. Lissarrague, L’autre guerrier
(1991). The Beazley Archive (which dates in overlapping 50 year periods) records 10,498 Athenian Vases
from the years 550-500 B.C.E. Thus, the 568 vases from the years 550-500 represent 5% of the total.
Beazley’s archive does not account for every extant vessel or fragment, but does give us a good estimate of
the number that is helpful in illustrating the statistical significance of these images. The spike is interesting
but beyond the scope of this work. For more on that specifically, see R. Osborne, “Images of a Warrior.
On a Group of Athenian Vases and their Public,” in Greek Vases: Images, Contexts, and Controversies, ed.
C. Marconi (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 24.
574
The famous François Krater, a Volute Krater from Chiusi. Circa 570 B.C.E. Signed by Kleitias
(painter) & Ergotimos (potter). Florence, Museo Archeologico Etrusco, 4209.
575
Barringer stresses a particular association between Scythians and Atalanta on scenes depicting the
Kaledonian Boar Hunt, although they do appear elsewhere. See J. Barringer, “Skythian Hunters on attic
Vases” in Greek Vases: Images, Contexts, and Controversies, ed. C. Marconi (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 24.
 169
the distinctive Scythian bow, their dress sets them apart from their peers, albeit only

slightly, as all of them sport tall pointed hats (bashlyks) with earflaps (Figs. 26-28).576

For a time, the bow and this hat, or some version of it, would be the only major

distinguishing feature of Scythian costume.577

Figure 26 Figure 27

There is some debate over the significance of the labels and over whether or not the names have an ethnic
significance. The archer depicted below is associated with the euonymous name “Toxamis.”
576
This hat would later be associated with Scythians by Herodotus (Hdt. 7.64). It was also a common
association among the Persians who as Behistun, refer to Scythians ‘who wear the pointed hat.’
577
Figure 28 also demonstrates what is referred to as the ‘Scythian draw,’ in which the thumb (often with
the help of a metal thumb ring), wraps around the string and the fore and middle fingers clamp down over
the thumb for support. In this draw, the thumb faces the ground and the pinky finger is facing the sky.
Such a draw is helpful in pulling a strong bow, but is particularly helpful in maximizing the potential of this
particular bow in that it allows for a slightly longer draw length as the archer pulls the string to his ear. The
addition draw length – even if only a matter of an inch or two – pays disproportionately large dividends
when it comes to stored energy, velocity, and cast. This draw was as widespread as the bow and should be
seen as a technique evolved to maximize utility of a certain weapon, not a sign of ethnicity, as it often has
been.
 170
Figure 28

The image endured over the following decades, appearing on symposium vessels

in relatively small numbers. While the Scythian costume never became completely

standardized, it is fair to say that by 540 B.C.E. a uniform of sorts had evolved (Fig.

29).578 In addition to the cap, which was usually pointed but, as in this case, could be bent

at the top,579 the figures began to wear a long sleeve patterned jacket, and patterned

trousers.580 The distinctive sigma-shaped bow (mentioned earlier) and the Scythian

goryt, a peculiar case that served as both bow case and quiver, are frequent.581 The case

could be worn hanging from the shoulder (as seen here) or was seen attached to a belt and

578
Figure 29 is an Attic Red-Figure Plate from Vulci dates to the last quarter of 6th c. It is signed by
Epiktetos. British Museum E135.
579
This may have been an adaptation dictated by the limitations of the space on the vessel. It also muddies
the waters of interpretation, because the Persian cap, similar in many ways to the Scythian cap, is rounded
at the top. Persian art for instance makes a distinction between their own and Scythian caps (see Figure
11). It is not clear that Attic art does, at least not in the Archaic period. In any event, this type of departure
from the norm is used by Ivantchik and others to argue for a generalized ‘Oriental’ association.
580
Trousers are associated with Northern peoples generally. They are also associated with peoples who
favor fighting on horseback.
581
In Figure 29, the case has a bend in it because it is meant to accommodate a short strung Scythian bow.
It is easy to distinguish from other types of quivers. This is an object that is treated with extreme
inconsistency.
 171
582
hanging off the left hip. Sometimes the figure will carry an axe or short dagger

(ἀκινάκης) as well.583 Scythians appear in several types of scenes, including but not

limited to scenes involving arming, departures, combat, and hieroscopy.584 They are

usually not the focal point of a piece, but are no more marginal than other non-hoplites

who appear on these vessels – be they military or civilian. Perhaps the most unusual

aspect of the Scythian in the figure below is that he is pictured alone on the plate.

Archers rarely (only 5% of the time) appear alone.

Figure 29

582
It should be noted that while this becomes the most common approach to depicting Scythians, it is far
from universal. Scythians wore their goryts attached to belts around their wastes.
583
The Scythians seem to have adopted the ἀκινάκης after exposure to it in their early conflicts with the
Medes. They are more frequently depicted with an axe, which is the most efficient way to penetrate armor
(Table 1). The weapon was a fine last resort, should an enemy close on an archer, but it was much more
useful in killing wounded and immobile heavy infantrymen. Implements like these were used to dispatch
wounded or incapacitated French infantry by English archers at Agincourt. The weapon addressed the
arrows deficient penetrative power.
584
Hieroscopy images are found in disproportionately high numbers among the Etruscans.
 172
During the final quarter of the century, the Scythian archer spikes wildly in

popularity.585 86% of all of the images of the Scythian Archer in Attic Vase-Painting

come from this period (Table 4). Then, by 490 B.C.E., a monumental date in the history

of Greece,586 the Scythian archer has nearly disappeared.

Table 4

The iconographic importance of the figure has long been a subject of scholarly

inquiry, as we shall see. Foremost among the patterns or trends involving the images, is

the Scythian’s association with archery. The vast majority of Scythians on Greek vessels

are depicted as archers. Perhaps more significantly, the inverse is also true - almost all

(93%) of the archers on Athenian vases during this time period (c. 575 – 475 B.C.E.) are

depicted as Scythians. The association between archery and Scythians in this period is

indisputable, and it is not confined to material culture. If Oswald Szemerenyi is correct,

the word Scythian itself derives from an Old Iranian word meaning ‘shooter’ or ‘archer.’

585
If we use Lissarrague’s more specific dates, this surge in popularity occurs in an even more refined
period, between c. 520-510 B.C.E. F. Lissarrague, L’autre guerrier: archers, peltastes, cavaliers dans
l’imagerie attique (Paris: La Découverte; Rome: Ecole française de Rome, 1991)
586
The Battle of Marathon.
 173
Furthermore, he argues that the Greek word for bow, toxon, is itself a Scythian loan

word.587 Thus, the vast number of depictions, the exclusion of other archers (of typically

Greek appearance), and the flawed notion that artists would have had to have seen

Scythians to employ this imagery has led to a belief that will not go away.

Yet, it bears repeating that there is no other credible evidence indicating that

Scythians existed in Athens during this time period. In fact, when they do become a

physical reality in Athens - first as part of the Persian invasions of 490 and 480 B.C.E.

and then later as public slaves or ‘policemen’ in or sometime after 476 B.C.E. – they

cease to appear on vases altogether.588 The Scythian archer, who more often than not is

pictured as an ally or companion of the hoplite during the Archaic period, becomes the

Persian (or Amazon) enemy. In sum, the enigmatic Scythian archer enjoyed a relatively

brief but very important place in Attic vase painting, especially during the late Archaic

period.

Historiography of Research on Scythian Archers

There have been several attempts over more than a century to unravel the mystery

of the Scythian archer. Most of these come up in the course of other arguments as

scholars try to make sense of evidence they hope to use toward another end. Some,

however, attack the issue head on and more substantively.589

587
O. Szemerenyi, Scripta Minora: Volume IV (Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität
Insbruck, 1991), 214-215.
588
Andocides On the Peace 5.7. Aeschines 2.174. The date, organization, and use of this force is fairly
cryptic and controversial. There is even some doubt as to whether all of the public archers were Scythian.
That they were Scythian seems secure based upon the way in which Aristophanes pokes fun at their speech,
their use of the whip in the Lysistrata and Thesmophoriazusae.
589
The following treatment is not exhaustive. I offer only those arguments which, in my research, have
seemed to me to be the most influential and/or provocative.
 174
Although they differ in their details, the arguments essentially vacillate between

two fundamental positions. There are those who imagine the figures to represent actual

people – either Scythians or ethnically dressed Athenian archers - and those who do not.

The debate, as far as its influence upon modern scholarship is concerned, begins in 1891

with the work of the German classicist Konrad Wernicke, who, in a study of the Athenian

policemen, argues that the Scythians were inspired by foreign mercenaries hired by the

tyrant, Hippias, son of Peisistratos. Upon the tyrant’s demise they would have served the

polis. These, according to his argument, were the earliest of the Scythian policemen, so

well known to us through the comedies of Aristophanes during the Classical period. 590

A few years later, another German classicist, Wolfgang Helbig, in two works

concerned with the military history of Archaic Athens, agreed with Wernicke’s

Peisistratid association. 591 He argues that the figures were real Scythians who had been

recruited at Sigeion.592 With the fall of the Peisistratids, and access to Sigeion

presumably terminated, Scythians were no longer available. From this point on, the

figures represented Athenians in Scythian costume - a point which he makes by stressing

what he sees as differences in the facial physiognomy of the figures.593 To Helbig, the

archers functioned as squires to Athenian hoplites. A mounted hoplite in particular had

590
K. Wernicke, “Die Polizeiwache auf der Burg von Athen,” Hermes 26 (1891): 51-75.
591
W. Helbig, “Eine Heerschau des Peisistratos oder Hippias auf einer schwarzfigurigen Schale,”
SBMunchen II (1897): 259-320. W. Helbig, Les hippeis atheniens (Paris: Klincksieck, 1902).
592
Sigeion is near Troy on the Hellespont. According to Herodotus (5.94), Peisistratos took the island by
force from the Mytilenians and installed his illegitimate son Hegesistratos as tyrant. This was the start of a
long-standing animosity between the Athenians and Mytilenians. The Peisistratids would later end up
fleeing there in exile.
593
Some scholars have fixated on facial physiognomy, beards, and hair. These approaches do not stand up
to scrutiny. There are definitely some examples of difference, but it is not common.
 175
need of such help, as he required someone to care for his horse after dismounting to

fight.594

A decade later, the French archaeologist André Plassart, in a substantial study of

archers in Athens, argued that the figures represented Athenians in costume.595 He

believed that Scythian costume was adopted as a fashion by Athenian aristocrats who

were inspired by Ionians, rather than by Scythians themselves. 596 The dress then became

widespread among these aristocrats’ hyperetai.597 So, while Plassart does not imagine

real Scythians in Athens at that time, he too thought that the images represented a reality.

Ellis Minns, on the other hand, who published his massive survey of Scythian

culture in the same year as Plassart’s article, urged caution in identifying figures dressed

in the aforementioned style as Scythians.598 He argues that the dress, and in particular the

Scythian goryt, is too variable or inaccurate to know for certain whether Scythians were

meant. He points to two examples where inscribed names seem to indicate that archers

from the north are meant, but warns that in the absence of such information, “It is much

safer to call such figures oriental archers.”599

594
W. Helbig, Les hippeis atheniens (1902). This relationship would have been akin to that of the Homeric
Charioteer and warrior. The connection is explored at greater length in P.A.L. Greenhalgh, Early Greek
Warfare: Horsemen and Chariots in the Homeric and Archaic Ages (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1973). Presumably, the archer in this scenario would not fight.
595
A. Plassart, “Les archers d’Athennes” REG 26 (1913): 151-213. (Revue des études grecques)
596
See Thuc. 1.6.3 for a famous example of Ionian influence upon Athenian fashion.
597
Hyperetai are servants who attended soldiers in battle or on campaign.
598
E.H. Minns, Scythians and Greeks: a survey of ancient history and archaeology on the north coast of
the Euxine from the Danube to the Caucasus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1913). For more on
the difficulties of distinguishing between Scythian and Persian dress see W. Raeck, Zum Barbarenbild in
der Kunst Athens im 6. und 5. (Bonn: R. Habelt, 1981). Raeck regards the Scythian figures as
representations of mercenaries in Athens (pp. 15-16).
599
Ibid., p. 56. Minns is unreasonably conservative here. Greeks referred to the bow as the ‘Scythian
bow.’ They also identified the pointed hat and could distinguish Scythians from Persians. It is more likely
 176
Twenty years later, Helmut Schoppa, in a study of barbarian costume, envisaged

the figures as a reflection of Athenian hoplite practice of employing Scythians attendants,

like Helbig.600 Here too, they represented ethnic Scythians. They did not, in his view,

comprise a unit of archers within the army. He also attributed their surge in popularity to

an artistic interest in their elaborate outfits.

Maria Jongkees-Vos, in the first large-scale study of the problem, followed

several of the earlier arguments in determining that the figures represent the presence of

real Scythians in Athens.601 She argued that Scythians arrived sometime around 540-530

B.C.E., when images of them first began to gain in popularity. At this point, archers on

vases began to appear regularly in barbarian costume.602 She saw this as an indication

that vase-painters had every intention of depicting an existing costume.603 To her, it was

“impossible that so many different painters should have invented an identical fantastical

costume at the same time.”604 She concluded, “There is only one possible explanation,

that they did not know what a Scythian really looked like, or, even more likely, detailed accuracy was
unimportant to them. Hence, the variability in dress and the absence of other typically Scythian features.
This practice of mixed dress was common in depictions of cavalry and other light armed troops as well and
may have been a reality. See B. Cohen, “Ethnic Identity in Democratic Athens and the Visual Vocabulary
of Male Costume,” in Ancient Perceptions of Greek Ethnicity, ed. I. Malkin (Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 2001), 235-274.
600
H. Schoppa, H. (1933) Die Darstellung der Perser in der griechischen Kunst bis zum Beginn des
Hellenismus (Coburg, 1933), 20.
601
M.F. Vos, Scythian Archers in Archaic Attic Vase-Painting (Groningen: J.B. Wolters, 1963). Vos uses a
corpus of material numbering 400 vases. Because hers is one of only two full-scale works devoted to the
subject, it is frequently cited as authoritative or conclusive in scholarship. Her conclusion seems viable
until one examines her argument.
602
Ibid., 1963: 40. Recall, however, that the images began to appear in an early form 30 to 40 years earlier.
603
Ibid., 1963: 43.
604
Ibid., 1963: 43. Their costumes are far from identical.
 177
i.e. that from c. 530 on the Attic Vase Painters daily saw this costume and depicted it

from nature.”605

Furthermore, these archers were actual Scythians, and not Greeks in Scythian

costume. Like Helbig, Vos emphasized differences in facial physiognomy. She pointed

to the juxtaposition of images on vase-paintings that highlight ethnicity through direct

contrast with Thracians. She also noted the almost universal presence of the distinct

Scythian bow. Most of all, however, she leaned heavily on the supposition that archery

was not a part of Greek warfare before 480 B.C.E.606 There are two major documentary

sources of evidence that Vos uses to support this claim. First, she cites Pausanias

(1.23.4) as evidence that Greeks, excepting Cretans, never regularly practiced archery.607

Then she cites Herodotus (6.112) to support her argument that the Athenians had no

archers in their army by 490 B.C.E. when they fought at Marathon.608 The latter point is

especially important in her argument as it provides her with a terminus post quem for the

presence of Scythians in Athens.

Ultimately, Vos sees them as having served as a specialized corps within the

army, with no special connection to the hoplite. They were not attendants. They would

have been subject to the polis, as opposed to the tyrant. She concludes that they left

Athens around the time that their representations began to disappear (which she dates to

c. 500 B.C.E.), but remained in the memory of vase-painters. The variations from ‘true

605
Ibid., 1963: 43. She does, however, admit their presence in mythological scenes, where they were added
‘anachronistically’ (p. 35).
606
Ibid., 1963: 1. I hope to have conclusively addressed this misconception.
607
Ibid., 1963: 59. She cites Pausanias’ statement as ‘fact.’
608
Ibid., 1963: 60. This too she cites as ‘fact.’
 178
Scythian dress,’ which she sees as more common after their departure, reflect the fact that

they were no longer a part of the artists’ everyday lives.609 Their disappearance is attested

by the Athenians’ lack of archers at Marathon, but they returned after 476 B.C.E. in a

different capacity – as the policemen described by Andocides, Aeschines, Aristophanes,

and others.

Karl-Wilhelm Welwei, in a larger study of the use of slaves in warfare, rejects

(rightly) Vos’s notion that Scythians would have had to have been seen to have been

painted.610 Like Vos, he cites Herodotus’ contention that the Persians were surprised

when the Athenians did not field archers at Marathon611 as evidence that Athens lacked

them. Yet, he goes even further, pointing to a lack of evidence for archers in Archaic

Athens altogether. He also points to variation in the Scythian costume as evidence that

Scythians did not exist in Athens. Thus, with no archers and no Scythians in Archaic

Athens, these figures were not meant to represent reality at all. They belong to the realm

of epic legend, where they do have a special association with hoplites. They serve as the

escorts of Homeric warriors who appear in heroic panoply.

Gloria Ferrari Pinney wrote another of the most influential articles on the subject

a decade later.612 Her argument takes a more nuanced approach to the dichotomy between

fact and fiction. She writes, “This essay is devoted to the archer in Scythian garb, to

609
Ibid., 1963: 28.
610
K.W. Welwei, Unfreie im antiken Kriegsdienst (Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1974)
611
Herodotus 6.112.
612
G. Ferrari Pinney, “Achilles Lord of Scythia,” in Ancient Greek Art and Iconography, ed. W. Moon
(Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1983), 127-146.
 179
explore the possibility that he belongs neither wholly to history nor to fancy, but is a

hybrid creature whose nature partakes of both.”613

First, she agrees with Welwei in seeing no evidence for the presence of archery in

the Athenian army in the 6th c. B.C.E.614 She notes a ‘bewildering variety’ of images and

argues that due to this, the figures’ costume can be reduced to their equipment and

Scythian cap, which itself has variations.615 Moreover, the costume can be divorced from

its ethnic meaning and used to indicate that a figure was another type of Asian or even

just an archer.616 These figures, in her view, represent “nomads from the north,” their

costume indicating geography rather than nationality.617

Yet, like Welwei, Ferrari Pinney places the Scythians within the world of epic:

“Archers in Scythian dress belong entirely to epic legends.”618 But these are not just any

epic legends – at least not at first. She connects the figures to a specific epic context,

suggested by a line in a fragment of a poem by the 7th/6th c. B.C.E. lyric poet Alkaios of

613
Ibid., 127.
614
Ibid., 131. She also cites as evidence Herodotus 6.112.
615
Ibid., 127 - “No single explanation seems to fit the bewildering variety of images…”, 129. Looking to
comparative evidence, we see that this variety is not uncommon among light armed. The Norman archers
on the Bayeux Tapestry, for instance, wear a variety of outfits. The variety relative to that of other type of
soldiers is noticeable. They all carry the same bow and wear long sleeve shirts and trousers. More wear
small pointed caps than anything else, but some wear helmets of nothing at all on their heads. Colors and
patterns of dress differ. Some wear pieces of armor. Some have quivers at the waist while others wear the
quiver over the shoulders. It may simply be that there was a general style favored by archers, which could
be modified or supplemented according to an archer’s means and comfort. In short, the lack of standard
uniform relates directly to social class. This would certainly represent a possible scenario in Archaic
Greece.
616
Ibid., 130.
617
Ibid., 137. In the case of the Scythians, I believe that the two are inseparable.
618
Ibid., 139. This can often be said of hoplites too who are reimagined as panoply-bearing Homeric
heroes. Although scenes are often meant to be Homeric, the hoplite equipment is contemporary. In the
absence of other evidence, why should we interpret the archer’s equipment as ‘epic’ in nature or
inspiration? Where in epic is this figure described?
 180
619
Myteline. In it he refers to Achilleus as ‘Lord of Scythia.’ These figures are the

companions accompanying Achilleus in his capacity as Lord of Scythia. She sees this

association as accounting for the early iconography (until around 530 B.C.E.), after

which the “followers of one hero become generic squire figures.”620 The Scythian archer

motif transfers to a variety of other epic scenes. While the figures’ attire represents some

knowledge about the appearance of contemporary Scythians, they do not represent real

archers.621 Their costume merely marks them as secondary characters, companions of

heroes, rather than heroes.622

Just a few years later, François Lissarrague approached the problem more

comprehensively, assembling a corpus of nearly 700 vases for examination – by far the

most extensive catalogue to date. Furthermore, he went beyond archers to discuss

depictions of cavalry and other light-armed troops, helpful here for comparative

purposes.623 In a way, one would not be too far off in imagining a spectrum of opinions

with Vos at one end, Lissarrague at the other, and Ferrari Pinney somewhere in the

middle. Where Vos sees the archer as an illustration of real life, and Ferrari Pinney

619
Ferrari Pinney interprets this line as a reference to a tradition, recorded in the Aithiopis by Arktinos of
Miletus, that described Thetis taking the dead body of Achilles to Leuke, an island near Olbia in the Black
Sea, for burial, p. 133. For more ample evidence for a cult of Achilles in the Black Sea and particularly at
Leuke, see G. Hedreen, “The Cult of Achilles in the Euxine,” Hesperia 60.3 (1991): 313-330.
620
Ferrari Pinney, “Achilles Lord of Scythia,” (1983): 139. But what of the earlier images? It was Peleus
and not Achilleus who participated in the Kaledonian boar hunt depicted on the François Krater.
621
Ibid., 139.
622
For more on the way in which these ‘generic’ images might have functioned, see C. Marconi,
“Images for a Warrior. On a Group of Athenian Vases and their Public,” in Greek Vases: Images, Contexts,
and Controversies, ed. C. Marconi (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 38-40.
623
Lissarrague, L’autre guerrier (1990). I am deeply indebted to his thorough catalogue and chronology,
both of which have served as a launching point for much of my work. Many of the same principles and
conclusions are restated in English in F. Lissarrague, “The Athenian Image of the Foreigner,” in Greeks
and Barbarians, ed. T. Harrison (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2002).
 181
perceives an image that conflates the real and imagined, Lissarrague offers a more

abstract explanation firmly rooted in ideology and the imagination.

He begins by laying the foundation of his argument. Here are three of his

‘givens’ which are of particular relevance to his argument (and with which I agree): 1.

Images are bearers of meaning. 2. Iconography is tied to aristocratic ideology. 3. The

principles of warfare in Archaic Athens cannot be separated from those described in epic

poetry. Within this framework, Lissarrague takes a structuralist approach which

ultimately sees the archer (or other non-hoplite) as a means of defining the hoplite.

The Scythian archer, in his view, is an imaginary construct of the ‘other,’ which

incorporates foreign attire and the bow into a symbol of the anti-hoplite. It thus serves an

ideological function at the symposium, offering the hoplite elite an opportunity for self-

definition. It is a process in which the hoplite defines himself negatively, that is, he

defines what he is through a direct visual comparison with what he is not. His approach

is quite radical in viewing the archer and hoplite as a conceptual (rather than tactical)

pair. According to this argument, the hoplite cannot be perceived as such without the

archer.624

The archer here tends to be marginalized. This iconography, he states,

emphasizes “the gulf dividing the two levels” (archer and hoplite), and “confers on the

less noble weapon a strange appearance that enables the importance of the hoplite

warrior, the citizen soldier seen as an epic hero, to be thrust into prominence.”625

624
The peltast, on the other hand, is separate.
625
Lissarrague, “The Athenian Image” (2002), 115.
 182
Robin Osborne raised the issue of Scythian Archers recently as part of an

argument about the intended viewership of a set of vase-paintings.626 He focuses his

attention on the surge in the number of images between 520-510 B.C.E. and their decline

and disappearance thereafter. He sees the Scythians not as a link to the past but to the

present, noting (contra Ferrari Pinney) that “the Skythian on these Athenian pots

arguably guarantees the contemporaneity of the imagery as surely as black squires

guarantee Memnon’s mythic status.”627 Their presence, particularly in the large number

of departure scenes, renders these scenes non-epic. That said, he argues that there was

not much Athenian warfare between 560 and 510 B.C.E.628 So why the explosion of such

images? Ultimately, he argues that the images demonstrate an Athenian need in the

period between 520 and 510 B.C.E., not for an army that reflected their everyday

experience, but instead for what he calls a ‘virtual army.’ According to Osborne, military

imagery never reflected Athenian military reality.629 A spike in images of this type

constitutes “something of a call to arms for Athenians.”630 Then, after the Persian wars, a

democratic army may not have been comfortable with a military imagery that

incorporated Scythians.631

626
R. Osborne, “Images of a Warrior,” (2004).
627
Ibid., 50.
628
Ibid., 50. Also see F. Frost, “The Military before Cleisthenes.” Historia 33 (1994): 283-294.
629
R. Osborne, “Images of a Warrior,” (2004), 52.
630
Ibid., 52.
631
Ibid., 52.
 183
Askold Ivantchik even more recently addressed the corpus of material by arguing

that Scythian attire had no ethnic association at all.632 He argues that the rigid correlation

between archer and Scythian costume alone raises doubt about the costume relating to

ethnicity.633 Such figures were not meant to be Scythians or any other specific people,

and were more likely to have been oriental in general. The association of costume and

weapon was more important than that of costume and ethnicity.634 He sees attire in the

Attic iconography of the Archaic period as relating to role and status.635 In many

respects, his view is not unlike those of Ferrari Pinney or Welwei. Scythian costume, in

his view, was an iconographic convention symbolizing a subordinate archer character

who accompanies a hero. He also sees the figures as epic in character, equating them to

epic therapontes.636 There is a metaphorical connection with the present. Epic heroes are

depicted as hoplites, for instance, who, in turn, represent not real people but idealized

citizens.637 Likewise the Scythian represented not a real archer but a therapon.638 But for

632
Ivantchik, “'Scythian' Archers on Archaic Attic Vases: Problems of Interpretation.” Ancient Civilizations
12, 3-4 (2006): 97-271. I find this difficult to believe, although I do agree with two of his next three points:
that the rigid correlation between archer and Scythian is important and that the association of costume to
weapon is more important than costume and ethnicity. Greeks surely noticed exotic dress (take, for
example, Herodotus 6.35.2 – wherein Miltiades son of Kypselos recognizes some Dolorici walking by
because of their clothing and weapons). Moreover, stereotyping people via costume was standard
ethnographic procedure. I believe that a Greek might describe such clothing (at least its key elements) as
Scythian, but make no assumptions about the ethnicity of the wearer, particularly after the style became the
norm for archers. They would even have considered it appropriate attire. Recall that they did refer to the
bow as a Scythian bow regardless of who was using it for hundreds of years.
633
Ivantchik, “'Scythian' Archers on Archaic Attic Vases,” (2006), 199.
634
Ibid., 246.
635
Ibid., 244.
636
‘Companions.’ These are the subordinate and usually nameless characters who accompany Homeric
heroes into battle.
637
Interestingly, it is the action or scene that is usually anachronistic and not the equipment. This favors an
argument that the archer equipment, at least, is contemporary. The scenes might represent a mythical past,
but the equipment, like the hoplite armor, would be contemporary.
 184
639
Ivantchik, the prototype for these archers was first Median and then Persian. The

convention went out of use, he argues, because, after the Persian Wars, the clothing did

become associated with ethnic identity – Persian ethnic identity.640

Each of the studies above has both merit and limitations. I do not intend to go

through each one praising and finding fault. It will, however, prove fruitful to look at the

collective body of work in an effort to underline some of the most problematic issues

raised in the scholarship.

First, do the images represent real people or not? Vos would find little support

today for her claim that Scythians would need to have been present in order to have been

painted. Welwei is quite right to reject this idea. Her hard line, however, and our

reaction to it, provoke some important and even discomforting questions. If artists were

not painting figures familiar to them, why do the figures, painted by dozens of artists,

share certain important characteristics?641 Why are some of the details, like the Scythian

bow for instance, so true to life? Nonetheless, it should be remembered that the vase-

paintings themselves are the only evidence suggestive of the presence of Scythians in

Athens. Thus, such an argument is circular – saying, in effect, that the images represent

Scythians whose presence in Athens is attested by the images themselves.

638
Ivantchik, “'Scythian' Archers on Archaic Attic Vases,” (2006), 246.
639
Ibid., 244.
640
Ibid., 247. For more on this see E.D. Frolov, The Scythians in Athens, VDI 1.135-42. (1998)
641
Gombrich (pgs. 81-82) illustrates exactly how this can happen. He uses the example of Albrecht
Dürer’s 1515 woodcut Rhinoceros. Dürer had never seen a rhinoceros and relied upon secondhand
evidence and his own imagination. The result is something that generally resembles a rhinoceros, but is
significantly off with respect to its details. This model then served as a model for all subsequent renderings
of the rhinoceros – even those in natural history books – until the 18th century. See E. Gombrich, Art and
Illusion (London: Phaidon Press, 1962), 63-83.
 185
This is not, however, the only reason why so many scholars believe that the

images reflect a presence of foreign mercenaries. The notion that mainland Greeks

simply did not practice archery in warfare is quite common. For some, this strengthens

or even compels the argument that archers, when pictured, whether real or imagined,

would appear as foreigners.642 Afterall, they reason, archery is not Greek. For Bittarello,

this fact is “the key aspect revealing Teucer’s link with Troy.”643 This position is central

to the arguments of both Welwei and Ferrari Pinney, both of whom argue that the figures

are epic in nature, and do not represent mercenaries. This belief about archery has

several sources but is commonly rooted in the two passages, referenced above by Vos -

one from Pausanias and the other from Herodotus.644

Could this garb be an actual costume, as suggested by Helbig and Plassart? It

would be unwise to dismiss the notion.645 As Beth Cohen points out, “Virtually all vase

depictions of exotically costumed male figures were once believed by modern scholars to

document the presence of foreigners in Athens. Frequently, however, no foreign

physiognomies, beards, hairstyles, or names distinguish male figures who look at home in

642
See W. Raeck, Zum Barbarenbild in der Kunst Athens im 6. und 5. (Bonn: R. Habelt, 1981). A.
Snodgrass, Arms and Armor of the Greeks (1999), and P. Hunt, “Military Forces,” in The Cambridge
History of Greek and Roman Warfare I (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 108-146, are
some relatively recent and influential examples.
643
M. Bittarello, “The ‘Teucer Paradigm’ and the Eastern Other in Western Literature,” in Comparative
Literature and Culture 9.3 (2007).
644
Pausanias 1.23.4, Herodotus 6.112. These are cited by both Welwei and Ferrari Pinney. Vos relies
upon the Herodotus passage as well. Though I have dealt with these earlier, I reiterate here that the
statement made by Pausanias is willfully misleading and historically invalid. The evidence offered by
Herodotus is ambiguous at best.
645
There is ample evidence for costume of the mainland influenced by or taken directly from the Ionians or
even Lydians and (later) Persians. Thucydides 1.6.3, being perhaps the most famous example. These
arguments, however, dismiss the association between the costume and the bow as well as the fact that
archery ceases to be associated with the elite in the 6th c. when hoplite armor has become firmly
entrenched.
 186
646
exotic costume, and, recently many of these figures have been seen as Athenians.” In

the absence of definitive literary or archaeological evidence, it will be difficult to

prove.647 Yet, we do have some oblique (and late) references as well as some

circumstantial evidence that supports this idea. Plato, for example, mentions ‘archer

equipment’ in his Laws.648 The ‘Old Oligarch’ writes that the Athenians, unlike other

Greeks, adopted elements of custom and dress from other Greek and non-Greek

peoples.649

This is supported by the work of Cohen who, though describing cavalrymen,

notes a history of “cultural co-optation” from peoples both within and beyond Greece and

sees ‘foreign’ dress and ‘foreign’ dress intermingled with Greek dress as a venerable

Athenian custom established in the 6th century.650 Indeed, foreign dress (or elements of

it) during the period is generally accepted to have been literal rather than just figurative in

other contexts too – the symposium, for example.651 Why should Scythian costume (as

646
B. Cohen, “Ethnic Identity in Democratic Athens,” (2001), 243.
647
M. Roaf, “Ethnicity and Near Eastern Archaeology: The Limits of Inference,” in Ethnicity in Ancient
Mesopotamia, ed. W.H. Van Soldt (Nederlands Instituut Voor Het Nabije Oosten, 2005), 306.
Roaf highlights the complexities of evaluating the meaning of costume. He describes a study of portraits of
men who were painted in their youth and then again in their old age. One of them is depicted in his youth
“wearing the costume of a Bakhtiari tribesman, but as an old man he wears the clothing of the British
upper class. As a young man his dress is associated with adventure, excitement, exotic, but as old man his
dress matches his own ethnic and social position, indicating not only his ‘Britishness’ but also his class and
education.”
648
Plato Laws 833b.
649
Xenophon (Old Oligarch) Constitution of the Athenians 2.8.
650
B. Cohen, “Ethnic Identity in Democratic Athens,” (2001), 243-260. She also sees this in civilian
contexts too (250) and cites pragmatic consideration among other reasons (243, 247, 251). The dress in
question here is Thracian. Cohen also mentions a psychological benefit of wearing foreign uniform, that is,
that it might impart upon its wearer some of the attributes thought to characterize the natives it represents
(247).
651
Ibid., 244-245.
 187
varied and imprecise as it is depicted) be excluded from the Greek martial wardrobe?

Modern comparative research on the adoption and use of military costume has much to

offer on the subject.

Consider the case of the Hussars. This was an extremely effective band of

mercenary light-armed cavalry serving the Hungarians in the 15th century C.E. So

effective were they, that numerous other European countries raised bands of their own

light-armed cavalry from their own people and called them Hussars. Interestingly, the

original Hungarian uniform with its distinctive tall square hat and button-laden jacket

stuck. England’s famous ‘charge of the light brigade’ was “for the most part carried out

by Englishmen dressed up as either Hungarians or Poles.”652 Even the hairstyle and

distinctive mustache might be retained. French Hussars were known to enhance their

mustaches with boot polish to obtain a more authentic Hussar look!653 The manner of

dress had become so associated with the military role and reputation of the original

Hussars, that the costume and even the name ‘Hussar’ was adopted, though they lacked a

cultural or ethnic association with the soldiers wearing it. Elements of the costume even

crossed the Atlantic and survived into the 19th century in the armies of the United States,

Mexico, Peru, et alia. Martin finds evidence for its popularity lasting until World War

I.654 Yet, the costume, despite the possibility of some practical advantages, was mostly

important in as much as it was symbolic of a role. In short, the garb was a symbolic

reference to a much-heralded and distant (both geographically and chronologically)

652
T. Abler, Hinterland Warriors and Military Dress: European Empires and Exotic Dress (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1999), 1.
653
Ibid., 27.
654
P. Martin, European Military Uniforms: A Short History (London: Spring Books, 1963), 35.
 188
regiment. This is why the Scythian costume’s association with the bow is so important.

These archers are not given a bow because they are meant to be Scythians. They are

dressed like Scythians (the archers par excellence), because they are archers.

The 19th century (C.E.) French Zouaves offer another enlightening example.655

Originally, this was a regiment of light-armed Moorish Algerian soldiers taken into the

French army after the conquest of Algeria in the 1830’s. Their bravery was

commendable and their dress distinctive, characterized by baggy red pants, a sash, a short

open blue coat, and a red fez. Within a few years, the French had their own (non-

Algerian) Zouaves. Soon there were Polish, Spanish, and even Papal Zouave regiments.

America too adopted the unit and American Zouaves fought for both armies during the

civil war. In all cases, the traditional dress was maintained (sometimes slightly modified)

and worn with pride. So, detachments of American soldiers dressed in the manner of

Algerian Moors and calling themselves Zouaves fought in the American Civil War.

Again, the dress was associated with a fighting unit, not a nationality or ethnicity, and it

was worn with pride.

Leaving costume aside, the relationship between Scythian archer and hoplite is

also vital to many of the arguments above. Most see a special relationship between the

archer and hoplite, and therefore interpret the archer as a squire, companion, or attendant.

Often times this strengthens an epic interpretation. For Lissarrague the two combine to

form a conceptual pair, the one literally defining the other. Vos, on the other hand, sees

655
R. Smith and R. Field, Uniforms of the Civil War: An Illustrated Guide for Historians, Collectors, and
Reenactors. (New York: The Lyons Press, 2001). R. Smith, R. American Civil War Zouaves (London:
Osprey Publishing, 1996).
 189
no such relationship. Osborne, like Lissarague, envisages a conceptual model, but does

not focus on a pairing of the two.656

No explanation thus far has adequately accounted for the strange life of the image

in Archaic Athens. It is tempting, especially given the temporal distribution of the vases,

to view the phenomenon of the Scythian archer as a response to a specific historic event

or series of events. This has been the cornerstone of several approaches to the problem,

some of which we have examined above. These are important considerations, but relate

more to the sudden increase in popularity, or perhaps the metamorphosis of a preexisting

idea in around 520 B.C.E.657

As I mentioned earlier, there is no evidence indicating that Scythians existed in

Athens in the 6th century.658 Mainland Greeks would, however, have been aware of a

distant Scythian presence to their north and east via Black Sea trade and interaction with

the Ionians. These Ionians would have been directly affected by the Scythians’ close

cultural contemporaries, the Cimmerians, by 652 B.C.E. when Sardis was sacked by the

latter.659 While the Scythians did not live in Greece, their influence was profound

656
Osborne also hits the nail on the head when he zeroes in on the surge of images ca. 520-510 B.C.E. as
the key to their interpretation. They beg for a historical link or explanation. What was happening at that
time in Athens that made the iconography of the Scythian Archer so suddenly popular? And yet, a
satisfactory explanation should consider the presence and development of the image before this explosion
of popularity and account for its disappearance shortly thereafter. The purview of this dissertation is more
general than that of the examination of the Scythian archers alone. I plan to address this issue more
specifically in a future publication.
657
Again, I will consider this issue in a separate article. Here, we are concerned with the image of the
archer generally.
658
Scholars making this argument use the vases in question as their evidence, which, as we have seen, is a
circular argument.
659
The Cimmerians were conflated with the Scythians at times. The used the ‘Scythian bow’ and wore the
pointed ‘bashlyk.’
 190
nonetheless. Understanding this, will help us to understand the adoption of the weapon

and help us to keep the Scythian images in proper perspective.

Who were the Scythians?

Before considering the essential question of what the Greeks knew or thought

they knew about the Scythians, it will be useful to sketch out in brief what little we know

about the Scythians.660 They have left us no historical writing of their own. That

documentary evidence, which does exist, was written by foreigners, some of whom were

enemies. As we saw above, myriad Greek authors touched upon the Scythians in some

way. The earliest surviving detailed account is that of Herodotus. However, the Greeks

were not alone in writing about the Scythians and we find references to them in both

Assyrian court documents and Hebrew texts as well. While the literary evidence

available to us is relatively sparse, the archaeological record is considerable. Fortunately,

Scythian burial practices were such that they offer a fair amount of important evidence.

Scythians buried their dead in under enormous mounds, called kurgans. Thousands of

these have been excavated and have yielded valuable data about their occupants. Thus,

between the documentary and archeological evidence, it is possible to understand

something of the Scythians.

Broadly speaking, the people we know as ‘Scythians’ were a nomadic people,

who migrated west in waves to the northern reaches of the Black Sea from northern Iran.

660
My introduction will, by necessity, be brief. There is a growing body of literature on the subject. The
best recent and comprehensive overviews are: 1.) T. Sulimirski, & T. Taylor, “The Scythians” in
Boardman. J. et alia (eds.) CAH III, 2.2, ed. J. Boardman et alia (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1991); and 2. R. Rolle, The World of the Scythians (1989). The former offers an excellent historical
overview, updated and streamlined from Sulimirski’s original 1954 article in the same series. The latter
delves more into the culture of the Scythians.
 191
661
They were the earliest of a long list of horse riding archer peoples who made this trip.

The term ‘Scythian’ is itself somewhat misleading. Like the Celts, Scythians were not a

single unified people, a point duly noted even in antiquity. The name was used to

describe a great variety of nomadic peoples who inhabited the Eurasiatic Steppe and

shared some recognizable cultural characteristics. The tribes could, however, differ from

one another quite radically, as Strabo take pains to point out.662 Moreover, the Scythians

that made waves in the 7th c. were not the same Scythians who were present in the 5th c.

There were, in fact, five major archaeologically discernable phases in the region between

750 and 250 B.C.E..663 The differences seem to have led to numerous misconceptions

and inconsistencies, exacerbated by a tendency to focus on the sensational.664

Greeks, however, were not alone in using such a generalizing label. The Persians

had their own umbrella term to describe these nomads, referring to all such peoples to

their north as ‘Saka,’ a word deriving from the old Iranian for ‘nomadic.’665

Interestingly, and particularly germane to this discussion, the Greek term ‘Scythian’ also

seems to have been borrowed from an old Iranian word – a word meaning ‘archer.’666 As

we shall see, these two characteristics, a nomadic lifestyle and the expert use of the bow,

were universally noted and warranted, according to the archaeological record.

661
The list includes Sarmatians, Hungarians, Huns, and Mongols among others. R. Renate, ibid., 19.
662
Strabo 7.3.9.
663
T. Sulimirski & T. Taylor. “The Scythians” (1991), 555.
664
Strabo 7.3.9. “Oddity is an ethnocentric principle” J. Redfield, “Herodotus the Tourist,” CP 80 (1995):
97.
665
O. Szemerenyi, Scripta Minora (1991), 212.
666
Ibid., 214-215.
 192
th
The Scythians appear to have been well established in Western Asia by the 7

century B.C.E.667 The date of their initial arrival west of the Caucasian Mountains,

however, has yet to be firmly established and remains a subject of some controversy.

The recent carbon dating of objects excavated from Scythian kurgans places Scythian

culture on the Eurasiatic Steppe and northern Black Sea area by the end of the 9th or early

8th centuries B.C.E.668 When they arrived, another related steppe culture, that of the

Kimmerians, was already flourishing there.

Kimmerians appear to have been recognized in antiquity as a different people, but

their history – or what we can make of it – is relevant here because their culture was hard

to distinguish in some important ways from Scythian culture.669 For example, they used

the Scythian bow and fought from horseback. Archaeological evidence for the

Kimmerians is sparse. It appears as though they migrated West to the Northern steppe

towards the end of the Late Bronze Age.670 The group that remained in this area was

later assimilated by the Scythians. Large groups of Kimmerians swept south from here.

In the last quarter of the 8th century, they were organized and imposing enough to

challenge some of the great powers of the region.671 Shortly before 714 B.C.E., they

defeated the Urartian king, Rusa I, and invaded Assyrian territory. The Assyrians

667
T. Sulimirski, “Scythian Antiquities in Western Asia,” Artibus Asiae 17.3/4 (1954): 283.
668
A. Alekseev, “Some Problems in the Study of the Chronology of the Ancient Nomadic Cultures in
Eurasia,” Journal on the Methods and Applications of Absolute Chronology: Geochronometria 21 (2002):
148.
669
Hall “doubts that Greeks could distinguish Skuthians and Cimmerians prior to Herodotus.” See E. Hall,
Inventing the Barbarian (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989), 110. Culturally, they would have been
hard to distinguish, but Kimmerians are referenced enough in the Archaic period that it would be difficult
to suggest that they were not considered discrete groups of people.
670
T Sulimirski & T. Taylor. “The Scythians” (1991), 558.
671
Ibid., 559.
 193
defeated them, but Sargon II died in the battle. Not long thereafter they invaded

Cappadocia, Paphlagonia, and Phrygia, destroying in 680 B.C.E. the Phrygian kingdom

of Midas, who was well-known to and even intermarried with the Greeks.672 In 640

B.C.E., they captured the Lydian capital of Sardis, defended by Gyges who, very likely

fought with a number of Ionian Greek allies and mercenaries.673 After this, they suffered

two successive major defeats: the first (in either 637 or 626 B.C.E.) at the hands of

Alyattes of Lydia (likely accompanied by Ionian subjects, allies, and mercenaries) and

the second (in either 635 or 625 B.C.E.) at the hands of the Assyrians under

Ashurbanipal, who was accompanied by Scythian allies (and very likely Ionian

mercenaries).674 This broke the Kimmerians as a major power in the region. While they

probably continued to live in Cappadocia, they disappear from history at this point,

having enjoyed nearly a century of military prowess in an area heavily populated by

Ionian Greeks.

The Scythians overlapped with the Kimmerians in the region, almost following in

their footsteps. The two interacted, sometimes fighting with one another and sometimes

against one another. An Assyrian inscription notes the defeat by Asarhaddon of a joint

Mannaean/Scythian/Kimmerian army. This action which firmly places Scythians in the

area of modern day Azerbaijan or even Northwestern Iran and pushing southward by the

early 7th century B.C.E.675. Shortly thereafter, Asarhaddon established an alliance with

672
Ibid., 559. J. Boardman, The Greeks Overseas: Their Early Colonies and Trade, 4th ed. (London:
Thames and Hudson, 1999), 86.
673
This is likely the climax of a series of confrontations to which Callinus Frag. 5a was referring.
674
T. Sulimirski & T. Taylor, “The Scythians,” (1991), 559.
675
E.D. Phillips, “The Scythian Domination in Western Asia: its record in history, scripture and
archaeology,” World Archaeology 4.2 (1972): 131.
 194
676
the Scythians. The Scythian king Bartuatua (Herodotus’ Protothyes ) was powerful

enough to ask for and receive a marriage with Asarhaddon’s daughter – a certain

indication that the Scythians, or at least the group of Scythians under the leadership of

Bartatua, had attained a place of significant power and importance in the region by the

mid-7th century B.C.E.677. The alliance proved mutually beneficial, helping the Assyrians

to halt the aggressions of a large coalition of enemies (which included the Kimmerians)

and presenting an opportunity for the Scythians in the ensuing power vacuum. This was

the beginning of the period of Scythian domination in Asia described by Herodotus.678

Their destruction of the Urartian capital of Karmir-Blur is a promising place to

locate their rise to power. So, 625 is probably the latest date that a Scythian rise would

have taken place.679 In 614 B.C.E. the Medes took Assur. In the following year, the

Medes and Babylonians struck an alliance against their common enemy, Assyria. In 612

B.C.E., the Assyrian capital of Nineveh fell to the alliance, permanently ending Assyrian

power in the region. As Phillips puts it, “These were days of opportunity for the

Scythians.”680 Scythians overran much of Western Asia reaching as far south as the

Egyptian border.681

676
Hdt. 1.103.
677
E.D. Phillips, “The Scythian Domination in Western Asia,” (1972): 131.
678
T. Sulimirski & T. Taylor, “The Scythians,” (1991): 564-565.
679
T. Sulimirski, “Scythian Antiquities in Western Asia” (1954): 313.
680
E.D. Phillips, “The Scythian Domination in Western Asia,” (1972): 133.
681
Where, according to Herodotus, they were stopped by Psammetichus (Hdt. 1.105).
 195
682
Herodotus describes this period as one distinguished by chaos and plunder. It

appears to have had more the character of an extended raid, than of a formal conquest.

This may well have been the case. Scythians appear in the Old Testament in the Books

of Jeremiah and Ezekiel. In the former they are described as a vast army from the North

on horseback armed with bow and spear. They are cruel and merciless.683 Elsewhere

they are mighty warriors with quivers ‘like an open grave.’684 In Ezekiel, they are

described as advancing like a cloud that covers the land.685 In both cases they are

described as an instrument of destruction used by God, like a plague.

Sometime around 600 B.C.E., the Medes, having consolidated their power, began

to expand, annexing Urartu. Not long afterwards, they defeated the Scythians and drove

them back north out of Asia Minor. This happened sometime before the Median

conquest of Lydia in 590 B.C.E. Thus, the period of Scythian rule in Asia Minor came to

an end.686

Scythians played a major role in the history of the region as ally, enemy, and

agent of change. They were known far and wide and would likely have been a very

impressive fighting force. Their most important weapon was adopted by virtually every

people with whom they came into contact. They would have interacted with Ionian

Greek mercenaries on a number of occasions and likely Greek traders and travelers as

well.

682
Hdt. 1.106.
683
Jeremiah 6.22-26.
684
Jeremiah 5.16-17.
685
Ezekiel 38.16.
686
T. Sulimirski & T. Taylor, “The Scythians,” (1991): 567.
 196
Greek Sources

The Greek author Strabo (64 B.C. – 24 A.D.) offers an instructive start in an

examination of the Greek understanding of Scythians. His massive and ambitious

Geography, published around the turn of the millenium, melds both broad and trivial

historical and geographical details from the known world into a work meant to serve the

interests of the statesmen and generals responsible for governing the world in a single

empire.687 In doing so, he considered the Scythians at length and repeatedly. They are, in

fact, of considerable importance to him, not only as the primary inhabitants of the North,

but also as the linchpin in his argument that Homer was the first Geographer. Strabo was

well-educated, well-traveled, and enticingly, he was born on the Black Sea in an area

abutting Scythian territory. Most importantly, however, Strabo had at his disposal (and

availed himself of) numerous earlier Greek sources.688 He thereby offers an informed

retrospective view.

Yet, despite the resources available to him in the first century, his portrayal of the

Scythians is frustratingly murky. The Scythians occupy the vast North, a territory which

ranges from sunrise to sunset and is mirrored in the South by an equally vast Ethiopia.

687
Strabo 1.1.16.
688
In relating information about Scythians, Strabo cites Homer (8th B.C.E.), Hesiod (7th B.C.E.), Aeschylus
(5 B.C.E.), Herodotus (5th B.C.E.), Chaerilus (5th B.C.E.), Ephorus (c. 405-330 B.C.E.), Eratosthenes (c.
th

285 – 194 B.C.E.), Apollodorus (c. 180-120 B.C.E.), Polyclitus (c. 3rd B.C.E.). It should be noted that he
does not blindly follow the opinions of these others. In one case, for instance, he notes that he disagrees
with Ephorus’ position that the proverbially wise Scythian, Anacharsis, had invented, among other things
the bellows and the potter’s wheel. (7.3.9)
 197
Scythia is arguably, in fact, synonymous with the North, just as the Ethiopia represents

the South, India the East, and Celtica the West.689 It abuts the territory of the Amazons.690

As a nomadic people, they are pastoral and this is reflected in a diet, which

centers on sheep, fish, and especially mare’s milk.691 They are preoccupied with justice,

but have been corrupted to an extent by their contact with Greeks to the south.692 They

are expert horse handlers.693 They use a bow – a Scythian bow, he tells us, with its own

unique shape to which he compares the Black Sea.694

There are three individual Scythians whom Strabo deems worthy of mention.

Madys the Scythian is recalled for driving the Cimmerians out of their territory.695 He

notes Idanthyrus the Scythian who overwhelmed Asia all the way to Egypt.696 And he

mentioned Anacharsis the Wise, who was by far the most famous of the three.697

As distant barbarians, the Scythians predictably have some rather un-Greek

habits. The guest-host relationship has little value – Scythians in one region sacrifice

689
Strabo 1.1.13, 1.2.28, 2.1.17, 11.6.2. He follows Ephorus in 1.2.28, so this view existed from at least the
4th century. E. Hall, Inventing the Barbarian (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989), 110 – “in the fifth
century as throughout antiquity the term skuthai often embraced all peoples to the north of the Danube.”
690
Strabo 11.5.1.
691
Strabo 7.3.2 (citing Homer), 7.3.7 (citing Hesiod), 7.3.9 (citing Aeschylus), and 11.8.7. This drink was a
Scythian staple. It is known as koumiss and is a fermented, mildly alcoholic mare’s milk which is
apparently quite high in Vitamin C. See R. Rolle, The World of the Scythians (1989), 93.
692
Strabo 7.3.7, 7.3.8, 7.3.9, 7.4.7. The cryptic Scythian wise man Anacharsis, ultimately regarded as one
of the so-called Seven Sages, and to whom numerous maxims were attributed, is an excellent example of
this ‘just barbarian’ philosophical model.
693
Strabo 7.4.8.
694
Strabo 2.5.22, 11.7.4.
695
Strabo 1.3.21. Madys may have been the product of Bartuatua, the Scythian King, and his Assyrian
bride.
696
Strabo 15.1.6.
697
Strabo 7.3.9. Here he is citing Ephorus again.
 198
698
visitors. Their diet of milk and meat included human flesh in some areas, with one

group using human skulls as drinking cups.699 Instead of revering their elders and

honoring the dead, Strabo tells us that Scythians stone their elderly to death – an

improvement over their former practice of feeding them to their dogs.700 They also drink

unmixed wine and are therefore prone to drunkenness. 701

They are a nomadic people and this characteristic is so fundamental to their

identity that he equates the term nomadic and Scythian.702 Beyond a few salacious

details, there is little that is not firmly rooted in customary ethnographic practice of Greek

antiquity. He writes, “Indeed, there is not only a certain mode of life common to all such

peoples, of which I often speak, but their burials, customs, and their way of living as a

whole, are alike. They are self-assertive, uncouth, wild, and warlike, but, in their

business dealings, straightforward and not given to deceit."703 Interestingly, this is an

accurate snapshot of extent Greek literature as a whole. Strabo’s vision of Scythians was

not much different than that of Herodotus.

Scythia was known to the Greeks in the 8th century and referenced in passing by

Hesiod and Eumelus.704 Homer and later Callinus mention the Kimmerians, but not the

698
Strabo 5.3.12.
699
Strabo 4.5.4, 7.3.6-9. For the significance of this diet see B.D. Shaw, “Eaters of Flesh, Drinkers of
Milk: The Ancient Mediterranean Ideology of the Pastoral Nomad,” Ancient Society 13/14 (1983): 5-31.
700
Strabo 11.11.3.
701
Strabo 11.8.5. By the beginning of the 5th century, one could be said in jest to be ‘drinking like a
Scythian’ (Σκυθѳικὴν πόσιν) (Anacreon 11b.3).
702
Strabo 1.2.27, 11.8.7. He claims in 1.2.27 that all Greek authors back to Homer did the same with
respect to northern nomads. The term ‘Scythian’ itself was therefore generic.
703
Strabo 11.8.8.
704
Eumelus 3b, 451.f., Hesiod Frag. 150.15, 151.1.
 199
705
Scythians. Mimnermus makes mention of the Scythians being at war with the

Amazons.706 Alcaeus mentions Scythians, which seem to be a type of shoe, but in

another poem indicates that he knows of the people.707 Sappho mentions a cryptic

‘Scythian wood.’708

In the 6th to early 5th c., our information does not improve. Ananius seems to

reference geography calling upon Apollo to return to his temple or end up among the

Scythians.709 Anacreon famously coined the phrase Σκυθѳικὴν πόσιν (Scythian drinking)

to describe, here in jest, the practice of getting drunk as a result of drinking unmixed

wine.710 In another, much smaller fragment, he refers to the bent-bowed (ἀγκυλοτόξων)

Scythians, employing the same word used by Homer to describe the Paionians.711

Epimenides makes mention of the famous Anacharsis the Scythian, to whom we will

705
Odyssey 11.14. Homer’s Kimmerians inhabit a land of fog and darkness at the edge of the earth.
Callinus Frag. 5a. Callinus describes an army of Kimmerians advancing … Perhaps the capture of Sardis
(678 B.C.E.)?
706
Mimnermus Frag. 21a.
707
Alcaeus 318.1, 354.1. The latter citation involves Achilleus being ‘King of the Scythians.’ This line
has inspired much speculation. See G.F. Pinney, “Achilles Lord of Scythia” (1983), 127-146; and G.
Hedreen, “The Cult of Achilles in the Euxine,” Hesperia 60.3 (1991): 313-330.
708
Sappho Frag. 210.1. Photius' Lexicon says that this is a wood that produces a yellow dye for use in
coloring wool or the hair. Perhaps this was used on the brightly colored and patterned Scythian clothes?
709
Ananius Frag. 1.
710
Anacreon Frag. 11b.
711
Anacreon Frag. 3. Iliad 2.848.
 200
712 713
return briefly. Pindar mentions ‘nomadic Scythians’ without further description and

Simonides mentions ‘distant Tanais of Scythia.’714

Aeschylus would have been introduced to Scythians, who fought for Xerxes in the

Persian Wars. Like the others before and, for the most part, after him, it is their Northern

geography,715 their nomadism,716 and their bow - a back-bent Scythian bow - which is of

interest to him.717 In a fragment he also described Scythians as well-ordered (εὔνοµοι)

and eaters of mare’s-milk cheese.

This is the extent of the Archaic and Early Classical documentary evidence for

Scythians. It amounts to a list of ethnographic stereotypes. This is not to say that the

stereotypes were not accurate, because some of them were, but it hardly testifies to

extensive firsthand experience with Scythians.

Black Sea Interactions

That the Greeks had some familiarity with the Black Sea in the 8th c. is attested in

the writings of Hesiod and Eumelus. Nevertheless, Greek colonization and commercial

exploitation of the Black Sea began in the second half of the 7th c.718 This was initiated

712
Epimenides Frag. 1.5.
713
Pindar Frag. 105b.1.
714
Simonides 7.496.2.
715
Aeschylus Prom. 2, 414-419; Eumenides 703.
716
Aeschylus Prom. 707-711.
717
Aeschylus Prom. 707-711; Choephoroe 161.
718
G. Tsetskhladze, “Greek Penetration of the Black Sea in Tsetskhladze,” (1994), 115. Hind argues for
abortive attempts to colonize Cyzicus and Sinope in the last quarter of the 8th c., which were driven off by
Cimmerians. J. Hind, “Megarian Colonisation in the Western Half of the Black Sea,” in The Greek
 201
and dominated by Ionian Greeks, Milesians in particular, for some time. Although

Miletus was the first to colonize the area, they were not alone. After circa 560 B.C.E.

evidence suggest that Samos, Chios, Epheus, and Smyrna joined them.719 Colonizing

activity increased in the in the Cimmerian Bosporos between roughly 580 B.C.E. and 530

B.C.E. when Persian pressure obliged Miletus to cease their colonization.720 In 554

B.C.E. Megara and Boeotia founded Herakleia, on the southern coast (far from Scythian

territory).721

The Athenians did not found settlements of trading posts until the 5th c., when

they began to establish cleruchies around the Black Sea.722 Athenian pottery has been

found in abundance in the area (most in the context of Greek settlements), but serves as a

problematic indicator of an Athenian presence – even as traders. Tsetskhladze points to

the presence of potmarks in Ionian script on many vases, an indication that they might

have been traded or carried by Ionians. Moreover, at least by the time of the Persian

wars, the Aeginetans were trading in the Pontus.723 This is not to say, however, that the

Athenians did not recognize the importance of the area. Boardman points to Athenian

efforts to secure “strongpoints on an artery of growing commercial importance to her.”724

Colonization of the Black Sea Area: Historical Interpretation of Archaeology, ed. G. Tsetskhladze
(Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1997), 133.
719
G. Tsetskhladze, “Greek Colonization of the Black Sea Area,” (1997), 36.
720
G. Tsetskhladze, “Greek Penetration of the Black Sea in Tsetskhladze,” (1994), 120.
721
Ibid., 120. See also Hind, J. (1997) “Megarian Colonisation in the Western Half of the Black Sea,”
(1997), 133.
722
Ibid., 48.
723
Ibid., 52. Hdt. 7.147. T.F.R.G. Braun, “The Greeks in Egypt,” in CAH 3^2.3 (1982), 38.
724
J. Boardman, The Greeks Overseas: Their Early Colonies and Trade (1999), 264.
 202
725
Some time around 600 B.C.E. Athens seized Sigeion from Lesbos. Around 50 years

later, Miltiades (the Elder) colonized the Thracian Chersonese, building a wall across the

peninsula to protect against native inhabitants. Upon his death, control was handed to his

maternal half-brother, who lasted only a short time before being killed in 516 B.C.E..

With this, Miltiades (the Younger) was sent from Athens by the Peisistratids to rule. By

513 B.C.E., he was a vassal of Persia and accompanied Darius I on the latter’s expedition

to Scythia. Roughly three years later, the Scythians invaded the Thracian Chersonesus

and remained there for three years. Miltiades fled their approach and returned when they

departed. Later, in circa 500 B.C.E., he seized the small islands of Lemnos and

Imbros.726 For a good part of the 6th c., Athens controlled access to the Black Sea from

the Aegean, and it is reasonable to imagine that this would have given them a pretty good

idea about what was happening in the Ionian colonies.

While scholarship has often marked the Black Sea as an important source for

metals, fish, grain, and slaves, Tsetskhladze argues that these claims have been

exaggerated, particularly during the Archaic period, when he notes that trading is mostly

between colonies and mother cities.727 He also points out that there is no evidence at all

for a Pontic grain trade at this time, adding that if we assume it to have existed, it too

would likely have been between colony and mother city.728 If grain from the area was

725
Ibid., 264.
726
Ibid., 264-265.
727
G. Tsetskhladze, “On the Pontic Grain Trade in the Archaic and Classical Periods,” VDI 26 (1997), 243.
728
Ibid., 244.
 203
th
reaching the Greek mainland, it would not have done so until the second half of the 6 c.

and the 5th c. in the case of Athens.729

The slave trade is of particular interest in our discussion. As noted above, the

Black Sea region is often seen as an important source of slaves, and it was in the

Hellenistic period.730 There is, however, no evidence whatsoever for slaves from the

Black Sea in Greece prior to the 5th century. Even when the area had opened up

considerably following the Persian Wars and Athenians had established a firm presence

there, importing grain and the like, we still find very little evidence for slaves from the

area in mainland Greece. Avram find a total of 10 inscriptions indicating the presence of

Scythians in Greece during the century.731

In short, evidence pertaining to mainland Greek involvement in the Black Sea

prior to the 5th c. suggests that firsthand contact with Scythians in that area at that time

would have been quite limited. The colony at Herakleia was well outside of Scythian

range and even postdated the Kimmerian domination of Phrygia. The Ionian colonies to

the North and West (the East was colonized much later) appear to evidence mixed

occupancy – a graffito on an object from Hermonassa, for example, indicates the

presence of a Cretan craftsman, but evidence like this is rare.732 It is clear that there was

knowledge about and an interest in the area in Athens, but firsthand contact through the
729
Ibid., 244.
730
Polybius 4.38, Strabo 11.2.3.
731
A. Avram, “Some Thoughts about the Black Sea and the Slave Trade before the Roman Domination
(6th-1st Centuries B.C.)” in The Black Sea in Antiquity: Regional and Interregional Economic Exchanges,
Black Sea Studies 6, ed. V. Gabrielsen & J. Lund (Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 2008), 242-245. In
one case, the person enlists as a soldier at the end of the 5th c. He tries to make the case that Scythians were
sold on the slave market as ‘Maiotians’ due to the location of the slave market. Even if true, the available
evidence does not effect the Archaic period. 2008
732
G. Tsetskhladze, “Greek Colonization of the Black Sea Area,” (1997): 36.
 204
avenues of colonization, direct trade, or slave ownership would have been rare during the

Archaic period. Miltiades, and his fellow occupants on the Thracian Chersonese would

have had some direct contact with the Scythians, but this was roughly 50-60 years after

the image of the Scythian archer had begun to appear on Attic Vases and a decade or two

after the uniform had become standardized and the image commonplace. So, this

interaction, though tempting, cannot have been responsible for the images. It also

bolsters the argument that most mainland Greeks would only have had a vague and

idealized notion of Scythians until the Persian wars.

Secondary information would have been abundant. Ionian settlers would have

been trading with and fighting against Scythians for 50 years or more before the

Scythian-inspired images first appeared on the François Krater. These interactions would

only have intensified as time passed. Peisistratid involvement in Sigeion would surely

have improved access to this information, but why assume that Scythians were present in

Sigeion at the time or available for hire as mercenaries?733 There is no corroborating

evidence for this and even if there were, why assume that these were the ἐπικούροισι,

whom Herodotus mentions, from the area of the Strymon River (in Thrace)?734

733
This view, noted above as one of the original explanations for Scythian images, continues to be popular.
For example, Hall states, “Scythians do not appear in Homer, but Peisistratus had hired a troop of Scythian
archers who provoked an efflorescence of portraits in sixth-century vase-painting …” E. Hall, Inventing the
Barbarian (1989), 138.
734
Hdt. 1.64. Lavelle takes on this argument squarely and shoots it down convincingly. See B.M. Lavelle,
“Herodotos, Skythian Archers, and the doryphoroi of the Peisistratids,” Klio 74 (1992): 78-97. The
arguments of Wernicke and Helbig are therefore creative but wholly dependent upon the presence of the
images themselves, again making for a circular argument.
 205
Secondary Contacts – Greeks in the East

The existence of extensive contacts between mainland Greece and the East is

well-known. For the purposes of this argument, I would like to focus on just a few

important aspects of this contact that would have brought Greeks into direct or close

contact with Scythians (and Kimmerians).

The earliest documented military contact in our time period between Ionians and

eastern peoples begins in the 8th century. An Assyrian inscription dating to 738 B.C.E. in

the reign of Tiglath-pilesar III reacts to what appear to be Ionian raiders attacking a

vassal state.735 In the same year, the Assyrians defeat the Neo-Hittite kingdom of Unqi,

which included Al Mina, where Greeks, the Euboeans in particular, are thought to have

had a presence since as early as 825 B.C.E.736 Over the next 15 years or so, a few more

Assyrian inscriptions evidence military conflict with Ionians, culminating in one that

Lanfranchi translates, “Sargon, who like a fisher, fished the Ionians in the midst of the

sea like fishes, and gave rest to Que and Tyre.” 737 In 709 B.C.E., Sargon II and the

Assyrians took Cyprus, where the engraved silver ‘Amathus Bowl,’ mentioned earlier

735
G. Lanfranchi, “The Ideological and Political Impact of the Assyrian Imperial Expansion on the Greek
World in the 8th and 7th Centuries BC,” in The Heirs of Assyria, ed. S. Aro, S. and R. Whiting (Helsinki:
The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 2000), 8. It is worth noting that Kurt has a more conservative
view. She does not see the identification of Ionians as necessarily meaning Greeks and argues that the
“main attested Mesopotamian-Greek links date to the Neo-Babylonian period only and appear to be at a
level of supplying manpower needs in the realms of palace production and the army.” See A. Kurt, “Greek
Contact with the Levant and Mesopotamia in the First Half of the First Millennium B.C.: A View from the
East,” in Greek Settlements in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Black Sea, ed. G. Tsetskhladze & A.
Snodgrass (Oxford: Archaeopress, 2002), 24.
736
This area was also invaded several times in the early half of the 7th century by the Urartians, who had a
history of fighting with and against both the Kimmerians and Scythians and who also fought with a
composite bow from horseback (even employing the so called Parthian shot).
737
G. Lanfranchi, “The Ideological and Political Impact of the Assyrian Imperial Expansion,” (2000), 14.
 206
738
(Figure 18), was found. Recall that the Phoenician vessel features a siege scene in

which Ionians fight for and against Assyrians. In 700 B.C.E., inscriptions relate a naval

confrontation between Ionians and Assyrians near Tarsos in Cilicia.739 In the same year,

Al Mina was rebuilt with a stronger Greek element.740

If the second half of the 8th c. can be characterized by hostile relations between

Ionians and Assyrians, the 7th c. evidence differs in generally pointing to Ionian

mercenaries working for the Assyrians. In 681 B.C.E., Asarrhadon won the Assyrian

throne with the help of a mercenary army that included Greeks.741 It is possible that

Ionians fought for Midas and the Phrygians with whom they were bound by marriage and

with whom they have strong commercial ties. The Phrygian Kingdom was destroyed in

680 B.C.E. by an army of Kimmerians and allies (a group which may have included

Scythians). In the middle of the century, three inscriptions relating to business

transactions involving slaves point to an Ionian military presence high up in Assyrian

military circles.742 Ionians, after their defeat at the hands of the Lydians, also fought for

them as subjects and mercenaries and would have been actively involved in their

struggles against the Kimmerians, culminating in the 640 B.C.E. loss of Sardis. By the

738
From the Late Bronze Age on, Cyprus was a nexus of trade between the east and west. Consequentially,
Cyprus had a long history of Greek presence. According to Burkert, Cypriot linear writing, which was
used for Greek, lasted from roughly 1100 to the 3rd century B.C.E., surviving Phoenician, Assyrian, and
Egyptian rule. See W. Burkert, “Near Eastern Connections,” in A Companion to Ancient Epic, ed. J. Foley,
(Oxford, Blackwell, 2005), 292.
739
Ibid., 294.
740
J. Boardman, “Al Mina and History,” OJA 9 (1990): 169-190.
741
K. Raaflaub, “Archaic Greek Aristocrats as Carriers of Cultural Interaction,” in Commerce and
Monetary Systems in the Ancient World: Means of Transmission and Cultural Interaction, ed. R. Rollinger
& C. Ulf (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2004), 208.
742
They date to 659, 654, and 631 B.C.E. R.B. Brown, “Greeks in Assyria: Some Overlooked Evidence,”
CW 77 (1983): 300-301.
 207
end of this turbulent century, we have evidence of Ionian mercenaries fighting for the

Neo-Babylonians and the Egyptians at Carchemish. Antimenidas, the brother of Alcaeus

of Myteline, for example, fought for the Babylonians.743 The Ionian mercenary presence

in Egypt at Naucratis under Psammetichus I is well-attested and continued through to

Egypt’s subjugation by Persia.744 Niemeier cites evidence for the presence of Ionians at

the border fortress of Arad in the employ of Judah ca. 600.745 All three of these peoples –

the Neo-Babylonians, the Egyptians, and the Judeans – had confrontations with the

Scythians at the turn of the century during their brief but sweeping period of conquest.

Such contact continues into the 6th c. with Ionian mercenaries fighting for Egypt

and Persia throughout the century – sometimes in positions of authority. Scylax of

Caryanda, for instance, was said to have led a naval expedition from the Indus River to

Egypt on the Red Sea on behalf of Darius.746 In the battle of Pelusium (525 B.C.E.) in

which the Persians finally conquered Egypt, Ionian Greeks appear to have fought on both

sides – Phanes of Halicarnassus playing the role of traitor as he switched sides from

Egypt to Persia. It will be noted that by this time, the Scythian bow was used widely and

played a more central tactical role in the armies of both Persia (who may have had actual

Scythian mercenaries too) and Egypt.

743
Alcaeus Frag. 350.
744
It was during the reign of Psammetichus I that we begin to see large numbers of Greeks in Egypt at
Naucratis - see J. Boardman, The Greeks Overseas: Their Early Colonies and Trade (London: Thames and
Hudson, 1999), 112. See also, T.F.R.G. Braun, “The Greeks in Egypt,” CAH 3^2.3 (1982), 32-50.
745
W.D. Niemeier, “Archaic Greeks in the Orient: Textual and Archaeological Evidence,” BASOR 322
(2001): 18.
746
Herodotus 4.44.
 208
In short, it is fair to say that Ionians would have been directly and indirectly

involved in fighting for and against Scythians and Kimmerians (along with other and

peoples who used their weapons) for the better part of two hundred years.747 Direct

involvement with Scythians and Kimmerians would have been concentrated in the 50 to

60 years prior to the introduction of their imagery on Greek vases.

Why Scythians?

The vague notion of mare-milking archers powerful enough to go ‘toe-to-toe’

with the Persian empire and looming nomadically near the edges of the world makes

Scythians about as foreign as foreign could be for a Greek. Yet, the importance of the

foreign appearance of these Scythians on vases has been exaggerated and in some cases

misused in modern treatments of the subject. Ethnocentricity in Athens, and in Greece as

a whole, may have existed to some extent but our evidence strongly suggests this

negativity was largely a development of the Classical world.748

The Scythian figures on our symposium vessels do not represent real Scythians.

Greeks would have been familiar with the Scythian reputation for being masters of

archery – a reputation supported by every form of evidence available to us.749 This

747
Rauflaub (2004) and Burkert (2005) illustrate (in very different ways) the myriad nature of Greek-Near
Eastern interaction and the channels by which that information would travel to Greeks. In addition to
frequent and longstanding ties to Phoenicians and Lydians, elites were among those who traveled to and fro
and mercenaries traveled home to settle or make dedications. J. Hall, “Ethnocentricity” in The Cambridge
History of Greek and Roman Warfare, ed. P. Sabin et alia (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007),
86. “Elites maintained extensive networks of contacts with Greek and non-Greek peers through
intermarriage and guest-friendship (xenia): the ruling Basilid family of Ephesus regularly took wives from
the Mermnad dynasty of Lydia in the seventh and sixth centuries and Lydian rulers contracted bonds of
xenia with the leading families of Miletus, Athens, Sparta and the Aegean Islands.”
748
See Chapter 5.
749
The archaeological evidence is particularly compelling. See E.V. Cernenko, The Scythians 700-300
B.C. (New York: Osprey Publishing, 1983).
 209
renown would have been compounded by the adoption on mainland Greece (and

throughout much of the eastern Mediterranean) of the composite ‘Scythian’ bow and

arrowhead in the late 7th or early 6th century. This weapon was not only technologically

superior to the ‘segment’ bow commonly used in Greece, but its sigma shape was

distinct, and so it was associated with the Scythian people from whom it was adopted.

We have literary evidence, for instance, that demonstrates the ethnic association.

Aeschylus, who was particularly keen on pointing out cultural differences between

Greeks and ‘barbarians’ (by which he means Persians) mentions a ‘backbent Scythian

bow’ (Choephoroi 161-2).750 He had every reason to believe that this reference would

not have been lost on his audience. Thus, their reputation and distinctive looking weapon

combined with the lack of an actual Scythian presence in Athens to make them an

attractive symbol – their absence allowing artists and authors a certain freedom of

expression. This would change radically when Scythians became a part of Athenian

reality in the early 5th century.

The figures, then, whether real or imagined, should be seen as archers751 and like

their armored hoplite companions, they were idealized or metaphorical versions of the

light-armed troops who actually served as archers.752 The most important element of

these Scythians, and the one, whose importance has generally been overlooked, is their

association with the bow – their bow. It is the adoption of this revolutionary weapon at

750
Choephoroi (or Libation Bearers) is the second part of the Oresteia trilogy that won first prize at the
Athenian City Dionysia in 458 B.C.E. The word παλίντον' (backbent) is a common Homeric epithet for
the composite bow, but Homeric bows are not associated with Scythians.
751
Much as the hoplites pictured are generally considered to represent idealized warriors or heroes.
752
I believe that this was an actual though informal costume, but this is impossible to prove
incontrovertibly.
 210
th th
the end of the 7 or beginning of the 6 century that leads artists to select Scythians as

their archer ideal. The figures are not depicted as archers because they are Scythian.

They are depicted as Scythian because they are archers and there is no reason to believe

that the images en masse were disparaging. We need to look elsewhere for the identity of

our archers.

Cretan Archers

Turning from the North to the South, we need to examine the case for Cretan

archers. Despite its long and well-deserved reputation for archery, there is even less

evidence that Cretan archers were involved in any significant way in Archaic warfare on

the mainland. Like the Scythians, their technology was influential on mainland Greece.

The suggestion that Cretans were the archers, however, has no support in the Archaic

period.753

First, they are nearly absent from the literary record of the period. Crete sends 80

ships with the Greeks on the Trojan expedition. Unlike the Lokrians, or the men from

Thaumakia and Methone who followed Philoktetes, or even the Myrmidons for that

matter, no mention of archery is made in association with Crete. They are lead by

Idomeneus, the ‘spear-famed’ (δουρικλυτός), who never uses a bow at Troy. Meriones,

Idomeneus’ second in command, does use a bow, but it is his secondary weapon. He

kills Harpalion with a bronze weighted arrow, while the latter is fleeing.754 By contrast,

753
Pausanias’ account of the First Messenian War (Pausanias 4.8.3.8-12, 4.11.3.3, 4.19.4.4-9, 4.20.2.4) is
wholly unreliable - the retrojection of a Classical battle. Moreover, Pausanias has already committed
himself (at 1.23.4) to the notion that, of the Greeks, only the Cretans regularly practiced archery. Even
from Classical Period to the Byzantine period, when Cretan archers make frequent appearances as highly
regarded mercenary specialists, they are not the only archers on the field.
754
Iliad 13.651.
 211
755
he kills two and wounds another man with a spear. Elsewhere, he gives Odysseus a

bow, a quiver, and a sword before Odysseus goes off on his night raid756 and he competes

against Teukros in an archery competition during Patroklos’ funeral games.757 These are

the only literary references to Cretan archery in the Archaic period.

Pindar’s Pythian V is the next appearance of Cretan archery in literature.758 He

makes mention of Cretan bowmen setting up an image in a shrine. After this, in the 5th

century, contingents of Cretan archers begin to appear with frequency, particularly in

conjunction with the Spartans by whom they appear to have been hired to combat

Athenian and Messenian light-armed troops and archers.759 Xenophon, Polybius, and

Pausanias all make reference to the Spartan hire of Cretans.760

Even the Athenians who have a well-established and large body of archers are not

above hiring Cretan mercenary archers. Ctesias claims that Themistocles sent for Cretan

archers before Salamis, although this seems dubious given the combination of Ctesias’

credibility issues and both Aeschylus’ and Herodotus’ omission of the detail.761

Thucydides describes their presence as part of the Athenian forces during the Sicilian

755
Iliad 5.59, 13.529, 13.568.
756
Iliad 10.260.
757
Iliad 23.850ff.
758
Dated to 462 B.C.E.
759
Sphacteria was an important lesson. They are not unable to raise their own archers. Thucydides tells us
that, after Pylos, the Spartans raised 400 horsemen and four hundred archers 4.55.2. Cretan archers,
however, show up with more regularity in the following years. This levy must have been an emergency
measure, although their ability to do so has implications when considering the ubiquity of archery in
Greece.
760
Xen. Hellenica 4.2.16, 4.7.7. Polybius 13.6.8.6.
761
Ctesias Fragment 30. Numerous ancient authors (Aristotle, Plutarch, et alia) call his credibility into
question. Many modern scholars share these frustrations. Thucydides offers us our first solid evidence for
Cretan mercenaries in Greece.
 212
expedition and distinguishes them from the other archers present. He writes that the

expedition included 400 ‘Athenian Archers’ and 80 ‘Cretan archers.’762 Even in small

numbers, the Cretans were desirable. Pausanias also references a Tomb of Cretan

bowmen amidst Athenian war memorials.763 Snodgrass notes an inscription from 282

B.C.E. recording the employment of a Cretan archery coach for Athenian archers.764

Cretan archers also make an important appearance internationally in Xenophon’s

Anabasis where they play a crucial role in several encounters. We are told that there are

200 of them on the expedition.765 We see them playing an important role in mountainous

terrain.766 We see them plundering for bowstrings,767 practicing with foreign arrows,768

and covering the infantry’s retreat against enemy archers.769 We see them mixed in with

peltasts stationed on the flanks of an army and in the middle of a hoplite square.770

No doubt, Cretan archers have an impressive resume. If we accept what

Snodgrass refers to as Greece’s ‘aversion to archery,’771 it is tempting to imagine a

noteworthy presence of Cretan archers on the mainland during the Archaic time period.

762
Thucydides 6.25.2, 6.43.1. They also send for more cavalry and 30 mounted archers.
763
Pausanias 1.29.6.8. Plato (Laws 625d, 834d) and Aristotle (History of Animals 612a) also mention
Cretan archers, although in these cases they are in Crete or hypothetical. It is fair to say that regardless of
how often they were employed by Athens, Cretan bowmen were proverbially good.
764
A. Snodgrass, Arms and Armor of the Greeks (1999), 126.
765
Xen. Anab. 1.2.9.
766
Xen. Anab. 4.2.28.3.
767
Xen. Anab. 3.4.17.4.
768
Xen. Anab. 3.4.17.3.
769
Xen. Anab. 5.2.32.3.
770
Xen. Anab. 4.8.15.4.
771
A. Snodgrass, Arms and Armor of the Greeks (1999), 40.
 213
Yet, the supporting evidence is problematic. Essentially it amounts to three points. First,

Cretan archery did not experience the same ‘decline’ endured by archery on the mainland

during the Dark Age. Thus, Cretan bowmen were available for use on the mainland

when local archers were not. Secondly, Cretan bows appear in artwork and Cretan

arrowheads in archaeological remains of the period. Third, Cretan archers are important

during the Classical period.772 The combination is not compelling, particularly given the

lack of documentary evidence during the period.

Such temptation must be resisted. I think that I have been able to show that any

‘decline’ on the mainland has been exaggerated, reflecting instead general population,

settlement, and burial trends as much (if not moreso) than anything else. Furthermore,

like the Scythian bow and arrowhead (and effective military technology generally), the

Cretan arrowhead spread far and wide – too far and wide to represent credibly the

presence of Cretan bowmen.773 Snodgrass even points to a mould for the Cretan-style

arrowhead being found on Samos.774 Finally, a Classical presence of Cretan archers on

the Greek mainland is hardly proof of an Archaic presence. As is so often the case, the

simplest explanation is the correct one – archers on the mainland in the Archaic period

were mainland Greeks.

The Identity of Greek Archers

The archaeological, art historical, and Homeric evidence indicates that archery

was not originally confined to any one class. In the 8th c., a warrior might carry and even

772
Ibid., 40, 81.
773
Ibid., 81.
774
Ibid., 81.
 214
775
be buried with both spear and bow. Archery, with the Lokrians being the lone

exception, was not yet a specialty. Defining someone as an archer at this time had no

connotation beyond the obvious, i.e. that the person was carrying or shooting a bow. We

have examined the relevant material evidence above. Let us now return to the literary

evidence, the earliest of which is found in Homer.

The Lokrians, who accompany Philoktetes to Troy, are the best example of a

group of soldiers described as archers.776 They are listed in the catalogue of ships as

‘well-skilled in the strength of the bow in battle.’777 Later, as the Trojans assault the

Achaean camp, the Lokrians are described as archers and slingers who do not wear heavy

armor and who fire their projectiles from behind their heavy infantry unseen by the

Trojans.778 While the Lokrians are the only archers who fight together as a unit,

Achilleus’ men, the Myrmidons, also use the bow during competition.779

On the Trojan side, the Paionians from Amydon, who are led by Pyraichmes, are

the only people described as archers (‘bearing the bent-back bow’).780 Unlike the

Lokrians, however, their fighting style is ambiguous. They are described elsewhere as

775
The decline in the practice of burying the dead with weapons hurts our ability to associate weapons with
individuals.
776
Thucydides (1.10.4) recalls that the Lokrians were armed with the bow in his ‘Archaeology.’ Pausanias
(1.23.4) uses the Lokrians as an exception to his rule that archery was not a Greek custom.
777
Iliad 2.720. Weaponry is among the descriptive characteristics used by Homer to define different
nationalities.
778
Iliad 13.712-22.
779
Iliad 2.773-5.
780
Iliad 2.848, 10.428. Amydon is thought to have been in Maceonia.
 215
781
“lords of horses.” They are never described firing a bow and may even be seen using a

spear.782

Of the individual archers mentioned by Homer, four are Trojan and four are

Greek. Paris is the most famous Trojan archer.783 Pandaros is another.784 Helenos and

Dolon round out the list of named Trojan bowmen, although it will be noted that Dolon

carries but never actually fires his bow.785 Philoktetes is mentioned in the catalogue as an

archer, but he never actually appears in battle during the Iliad, having been abandoned en

route to Troy. Odysseus’ skill with the bow is elaborated upon in detail in the Odyssey,

but he fights only with a spear in the Iliad. At one point he carries a bow during his night

raid with Diomedes, a sure sign that he is proficient in its use, but he uses it only to whip

the stolen horses of Rhesus. Teukros, on the other hand, is routinely depicted using the

bow and Meriones, who actually defeats Teukros in an archery contest during the funeral

games for Patroklos, also fights with the bow, although it does not appear to be his

preferred weapon.786

On that note, it is worth pointing out that most heroes in the Iliad use more than

one weapon. In fact, only 24% of the named heroes in the Iliad who are credited with

781
Iliad 16.287. It is tempting to put one and one together and posit the theory that Homer is describing
mounted archers, but this conclusion would find no support elsewhere in the text.
782
Iliad 16.287-90, 17.353-5.
783
Iliad 8.81, 11.377, 11.507, 11.582, 13.671. While it does not take place in the Iliad, recall that it is
Paris’ arrow that ultimately kills Achilleus, striking him in his vulnerable heel.
784
Iliad 4.104, 5.98.
785
For Helenos – Iliad 13.583. For Dolon – Iliad 10.459.
786
In Iliad 7.137-40, Nestor relates a story wherein he describes an Areithoös, who is called a club-fighter
because he fights with neither the spear nor the bow. This raises the interesting possibility that these two
weapons, the bow and spear, were seen as the two common defining options. Areithoös is an exception to a
norm, which would seem to indicate archery’s popularity.
 216
787
more than one casualty or kill use a single weapon. 65% of them use two weapons and

another 12% use three different weapons in battle.788 Sometimes weapons are used in

combination – the sword, for instance is often used for the coup de grace against an

opponent who has already been wounded by a spear.789 At other times, necessity

prevails, and an unarmed warrior will turn to the nearest weapon at hand, or even his own

bare hands.790 Yet, sometimes, heroes choose to use one weapon over another, as when

Helenos elects to use his bow against Menelaos or when Aias hurls an enormous stone at

Hektor.791

The archers listed above follow this pattern. Ignoring the two examples above of

men who do not actually fight in the narrative of the Iliad (Philoktetes and Dolon) and

Odysseus who only uses a spear, we note that Teukros, Paris, Pandarus, and Meriones all

make use of the spear.792 Helenos kills a man with his sword.793 While it may be

possible to discern preferences for the bow in some cases, it is clear that when we

787
Notably, Odysseus is among them. The others are Aineias, Idomeneos, Poulydamas, and Pandaros.
788
This is consistent with evidence from Proto- and Early Geometric burials as well as Geometric vase-
painting.
789
This is a major factor in the sword’s 100% mortality rate. Achilleus kills more men with a sword (14)
than with his spear (10).
790
Iliad 3.355 ff. Menelaos loses his spear when it gets stuck in Paris’ shield. He threw draws is sword
which shatters on Paris’ helmet. Weaponless, he grabs Paris with his bare hands.
791
Iliad 13.583 - Helenos, having just killed his man with a sword, chooses to use the bow against the
approaching Menelaos. Iliad 13.409 ff. – Aias strikes Hektor with such force that the latter vomits blood
and passes out.
792
Teukros – Iliad 13.17, 15.478; Paris – Iliad 3.340, 15.341; Pandaros – Iliad 5.280; Meriones – Iliad 5.59,
13.529, 13.568. Meriones is credited with four kills where his weapon is not described. Pandaros relates to
Aeneas (Book 5.192-205) that his father had urged him to lead the Trojans fighting from his chariot
(presumably as a ‘front-fighter’) but that he had elected to spare the horses, fearful that he would lack
fodder for them because of the mass of men, and to fight instead with his bow. Should we expect that he
would have forsaken a weapon given to him by Apollo (Iliad 2.827)?
793
Iliad 13.576.
 217
describe someone as an archer, we should be aware that the term, in the Iliad, has limited

value. An individual is an archer when he fights as one. The only specialists that appear

in the narrative are the Lokrians, and even they come armed with slings. Their leader,

Aias the lesser, son of Oïleus, wears linothorax and uses a spear.

Altogether we find a range of warriors in the Iliad that can be described as

archers. They span social classes, accounting for nameless Achaean and Trojan λαοί, as

well as certain individual heroes who can claim elite status.794 Lorimer’s assessment that

these are not ‘first-class heroes,’ however, is probably fair.795 Sarpedon is clear in his

famous exhortation to Glaukos that those men who are honored before all other are

honored so because they are front-fighters (προµάχοι), a term which implies bearing

spear and shield and engaging in shock warfare and duels in the front ranks of the army

or of one’s adherents.796 It is important to note that at issue is status, and not efficacy. It

would be hard to argue that Paris outranks Hektor, Teukros outranks Aias, or Meriones

outranks Idomeneus. But a pecking order based upon military efficiency would be

misleading. Teukros, for example, is far more effective than most on the battlefield. He

kills fifteen men and wounds another – all but one of them with the bow. Only Patroklos,

Diomedes, Hektor, Aias, Achilles, and Odysseus kill more men. There are some notable

794
One commonality is the proximity of these archers’ homes to the sea. In this context we might consider
G. Ahlberg, Fighting on Land and Sea (1971), 107 – “Archers are more distinctly connected with sea fights
than with fighting on land and then mostly as defenders of a ship.” This raises the interesting possibility of
the archer’s naval importance.
795
See also Heubeck, West, and Hainsworth, A Commentary on Homer’s Odyssey (1988), 107. “Odysseus
does not use a bow for fighting in the Iliad, where it is evidently regarded as no proper weapon for a major
hero.”
796
Iliad 12.310-321.
 218
names missing from this list - Agamemnon, Menelaos, Idomeneos, Aineias, and

Sarpedon to name a few.

It is worth mentioning here that, among those who wish to maintain a strict

dichotomy between the bow and the spear in the Archaic period or who wish to justify a

negative, ‘foreign’ view of the bow, much is made of Teukros’ heritage. According to

Classical (and later) sources, Teukros was the product of Telamon and Hesione, the

daughter of Laomedon, the king of Troy who was defeated by Herakles and his

companions.797 In this story, she was given to Telamon as a prize by Herakles. While

this heritage was exploited by tragedians in the 5th century, Homer just refers to Teukros

as the bastard son of Telamon.798 His name itself may be indicative of his heritage, but in

the absence of other evidence, we need to exercise great caution in making assumptions

about the implications of names.799 Furthermore, even if Teukros’ parentage is meant to

be implied by his name, there is no suggestion in Homer that either he or the bow was

foreign. Simply put, this is a non-issue until the Classical period.

Therapontes?

Some have suggested or implied that archers should be viewed as the θѳεράποντες

or ἑταίροι of higher-ranking heroes, words that mean something akin to ‘comrades-at-

arms’ and ‘companions’ respectively.800 Sometimes a hero might be described as both.

797
Sophocles Aias 1299-1303 – where Teukros defends himself from Agamemnon’s slight, by recalling
that Agamemnon’s grandfather was Phrygian and that his mother was from Crete. Xenophon Kyn. 1.9.
Teukros is also said to have left Salamis in exile and to have settled in Cyprus (with all of its eastern
associations) where he founded a new Salamis.
798
Iliad 8.281-284.
799
Ivantchik highlights the dangers of assuming ethnic associations of names in Ivantchik 2006: 221-223.
800
This is a feature of some of the arguments examined in Chapter I, notably that of Ivantchik (2006).
 219
Meriones, for instance, is described as the θѳεράπων of Idomeneus, who refers to him in

the same passage as “φιλταθѳ` ἐταίρων,” dearest of his companions.801 In a study of the

two terms as they are used in the Iliad, George Stagakis points out that a θѳεράπων is also

the ἑταῖρος of his associate and that, “The evidence, unmistakably, demonstrates that the

therapon relation is a personal relation.” 802 He then hastens to add that the relationship is

not exclusive. One person can be the θѳεράπων of several people.803 On can also be the

θѳεράπων of a god. Both Diomedes and Odysseus, for instance, are referred to as the

θѳεράποντες of Ares.804 Furthermore, one who is described as a θѳεράπων can have people

who in turn are described as his θѳεράποντες. Patroklos is described as the θѳεράπων of

Achilleus, but then Automedon (himself another of Achilleus’ θѳεράποντες) appears as the

θѳεράπων of Patroklos.805 Thus, given that someone who is a θѳεράπων can also have

θѳεράποντες, and that even those among the highest rank can be θѳεράποντες, even if only

to a god, the term will present difficulties to the scholar seeking a clear means of

identifying archers with rank in the Iliad, especially as so few of the aforementioned

θѳεράποντες ever fight with bows. If we are prepared to employ very loose and rather

toothless definitions of these words as descriptive of interpersonal relationships, we can

use them, but it is clear that they are of limited value.

801
Iliad 13.246-50.
802
G. Stagakis, “Therapontes and Hetairoi, in the Iliad, as Symbols of the Political Structure of the
Homeric State,” Historia 15.4 (1966): 411. He concludes that the two terms are interchangeable in the
Iliad.
803
Ibid., 411.
804
Iliad 19.46-7. Diomedes’ identification as a θѳεράπων should serve as a caution to those trying to equate
the term with archers.
805
G. Stagakis, “Therapontes and Hetairoi, in the Iliad” (1966): 411. Iliad 23.90, 16.864, 16.279
(respectively).
 220
It is perhaps better to focus on the idea of the front-fighter (πρόµαχος), mentioned

by Sarpedon above, than on θѳεράποντες or ἑταίροι. There is an interesting passage in

which Poseidon strides among the Greek front-fighters urging them to perform an

unusual exchange with the result that: “The good man takes possession of the good arms

and the worse arms are given to the worse man.”806 These ‘good’ weapons are defined as

large shields, bronze helmets, and spears. It seems that even among the heavily armed

front-fighters, there are better arms and worse ones. It is clear that the best of the front-

fighters are definitely meant to fight as bronze-clad, spear-bearing, heavy-infantrymen.

Elsewhere we see that all front-fighters fight this way. Even Paris is described as a front-

fighter when he is dressed in bronze and wielding a spear.807 So, in essence, anyone in the

Homeric world can be an archer should he choose to use ‘worse’ weapons and some of

these same men can be ‘front-fighters’ is they elect the ‘good’ arms. The evidence does

not support a systematic relegation of the archer to an assistant or secondary status at this

time.

The Emergence of Class-based Archers

After the adoption of hoplite armor, those who could afford to fight as hoplites

would likely have done so, lest they forfeit the social status that accompanied such

service as demonstrated by the praise heaped upon hoplites by the lyric poets.808 When

property classes were created in Athens, or at least, formally recognized under Solon’s

806
Iliad 14.383 - ἐσθѳλὰ µὲν ἐσθѳλὸς ἔδυνε, χέρεια δὲ χείρονι δόσκεν
807
Iliad 330-38.
808
Conversely, and arguably more importantly, they would have avoided the shameful social stigma that
would have attended the avoidance of hoplite service. This ‘hoplite ideology’ is thorough and far-reaching.
Poetry is but one area where such praise is apparent. Vase painting is another.
 221
reforms, the top three classes, the pentacosiomedimni, the hippeis, and the zeugitai were

obligated to serve as cavalry and hoplites.809 The most plausible explanation is that

archers were recruited from among the lowest class, the thetes, who were not legally

bound to fight, but who would have had incentive to do so. While logical and generally

agreed upon, this position is frustrated by a paucity of 6th century evidence, confused by

perceptions about the use of non-citizen military personnel (like Peisistratos’ ‘epikouroi’

and the foreign archers described in detail above), and muddied by a growing recognition

in modern scholarship that reality was likely more complicated than Solon’s reforms (or

accounts of them) might have us believe. We have dealt with the first two issues at some

length. The third deserves some attention.

Van Wees (and others) has challenged traditional scholarship, which, following

the logic of Aristotle, equates hoplite service with political power.810 He sees hoplites as

divided (economically and politically) not between a small wealthy elite and a broad

middle class, but between a wealthier half who enjoyed certain political rights and duties

and a poorer half who did not.811 The former included not only the pentacosiomedimni

and the hippeis, but the zeugitai too, whom he argues were considerably better off

(relatively speaking) than is generally conceded. Their service was compulsory. The

809
Defining cavalry at this period is difficult and controversial. Opinions range from seeing the hippeis as
conventional cavalry, mounted hoplites who would ride to battle and dismount to fight, or as a purely
honorary role. For a good overview and introduction to the issues, see L. Worley, Hippeis: The Cavalry of
Ancient Greece (Oxford: Westview Press, 1994); and J.A.S. Evans, “Cavalry About the Time of the Persian
Wars: A Speculative Essay,” CJ 82.1 (1986): 97-106. For an important and provocative perspective see
P.A.L. Greenhalgh, Early Greek Warfare: Horsemen and Chariots in the Homeric and Archaic Ages
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973)
810
H. Van Wees, “The Myth of the Middle Class Army: Military and Social Status in Ancient Athens,” in
War as a Cultural and Social Force: Essays on Warfare in Antiquity, ed. T. Bekker-Nielsen & L.
Hannestad (eds.) (Copenhagen: Det kongelige danske videnskabernes selskab, 2001), 45-71. Gabrielson
agrees with Van Wees. See V. Gabrielson (2002), p. 88.
811
Van Wees, “The Myth of the Middle Class Army” (2001), 45.
 222
latter half, a conclusion derived from examining the disconnect between the number of

hoplites described by Thucydides and the amount of cultivatable land available to

Athens, was comprised of thetes, who served voluntarily.812 Power then, Van Wees

argues, was reserved for those who contributed to the common good via military service

and possessions (taxes), the former not being enough on its own.813 He concludes, “the

distinction between compulsory and voluntary hoplite service was created to legitimate a

property-based political system.”814

Without wrangling over the details and controversies of Van Wees’ argument

here, it is fair to say that he makes a strong case for the widespread voluntary inclusion

thetes in the army.815 Although he focuses on the body of hoplites available to Athens,

there is no reason to imagine that they would not also have served as archers, javelin-

throwers, and the like. Archery was, by this time, firmly tied to a lower class status. We

need not look beyond the citizen body to find archers. The hire of foreign mercenaries to

serve as archers was unnecessary and the theory should not be forced in the absence of

compelling evidence.

812
He writes, “In sum: if we posit the smallest likely citizen population and the largest feasible number of
adult male citizens per household, the lowest possible zeugite census and the largest plausible proportion of
non-landed sources of income, the smallest conceivable farms and the largest probable number of landless
citizens, we must still conclude that at least a third of the soldiers were thetes.” See Van Wees, ibid., 53.
Their incentive would have been a desire for pay, reward, booty, patriotism, or glory.
813
Van Wees, “The Myth of the Middle Class Army” (2001), 57-58.
814
Ibid., 62.
815
The willingness to serve as hoplite epibatai in the navy is attested by Thucydides.
 223
Allied Specialists?

This is not to say that Athenians were averse to deploying allied troops during the

Archaic period.816 Peistratus, for instance, relies on allied aid from Thebes and Naxos in

his recapture of Athens in 546 B.C.E.817 Hippias uses allied Thessalian cavalry to great

effect against Spartans in 511/510 B.C.E. at Phalerum.818 While these examples both fall

under the Peisistratid tyranny, several examples in Thucydides indicate that the practice

was neither symptomatic of tyranny nor discarded under democracy. In bringing

reinforcements to the Athenians at Pylos, Cleon brings a force that does not include any

Athenians at all, instead taking, “Lemnians, Imbrians, peltasts from Aenus, and 400

archers from other places.”819 Thucydides also details a treaty between the Athenians,

Argives, Mantineans, and Elians, which establishes a policy with regard to the

provisioning and pay of allied hoplites, archers, light infantrymen, and cavalry.820 It is

implied that all parties involved have archers.

Metics?

Then there are the non-Athenian Athenians to consider – metics and slaves.

According to David Whitehead, “The first evidence of metics in Athens’ armed forces

816
Peisistratus is said to use Argive mercenaries in his recapture of Athens in 546 B.C.E. (Herodotus 1.61).
Lavelle (1992) argues that, in calling the Argives ‘mercenaries’, Herodotus is further demonstrating a
consistent hostility towards Argos. According to Lavelle, the Argives were, in fact, allies like the Thebans
and Naxians.
817
Herodotus 1.61.
818
Herodotus 5.63.
819
Thucydides 4.28.4.
820
Thucydides 5.47.6. This passage assumes that each city has each type of soldier. Further, archers are
separated from light-armed infantry here, distinguishing them from javelin or stone throwers. This
distinction is not always found. See Thucydides 4.32.4.
 224
821
dates from the outbreak of the Peloponnesian war. There is no indication that this was

anything but established practice by then, but when it began is unknown.”822

The passages cited, though brief, tell us a great deal about the nature of metic

military service. The first one takes place in 431 B.C.E. during the first Peloponnesian

invasion of Attica and relates to Athens’ financial and military resources. It says that

they had an army of thirteen thousand hoplites, with sixteen thousand more in garrisons

and on battlements at Athens. The latter number is composed of the oldest and youngest

levies and the metics who were hoplites.823

Later in describing the Athenian invasion of the Megarid of the same year, we are

told that the Athenians “invaded with their whole levy (Ἀθѳηναῖοι πανδηµεί), metics

included (αὐτοὶ καὶ οἱ µέτοικοι), under the command of Pericles…”824 He goes on to add

that this was the largest army of Athenians ever assembled and that the number included

3000 metics as well as a number of light armed troops (χωρὶς δὲ ὁ ἄλλος ὅµιλος ψѱιλῶν οὐκ

ὀλίγος).825

We might also add to these examples Thucydides’ description of the Delium

campaign, which takes place a few years later in 424/3 B.C.E. The Athenians have again

mobilized all the Athenian forces (Ἀθѳηναῖοι πανδηµεί), among whom he includes

821
Thucydides 2.13.7, 31.1-2.
822
D. Whitehead, The Ideology of the Athenian Metic (Cambridge: Cambridge Philological Society, 1977),
84.
823
Thucydides 2.13.6-7 - µετοίκων ὅσοι ὁπλῖται ἦσαν. This should be considered a testament to the prestige
of hoplite service and a caveat in uniformly linking such service to citizenship. That said, they are
relegated to guard duty.
824
Thucydides 2.31.1.
825
Thucydides 2.31.2.
 225
826
Athenians, metics, and ‘foreigners who were present in Athens’ (ξένων ὅσοι παρῆσαν).

Then, when the two armies line up in preparation for battle, the Athenians find

themselves at a great disadvantage. While the Theban alliance fields more than ten

thousand light-armed troops, the Athenians have few.827 Thucydides explains that those

who had joined in the invasion originally were much more numerous than those of the

enemy. They had mostly followed unarmed (ἄοπλοι), as part of the citizens and

foreigners at Athens (ξένων τῶν παρόντων), and they had already started on their way

home.”828

The metics described here are hoplites. Furthermore, they are noted separately

from light-armed troops in all cases. There is no direct indication given that metics, who

were not hoplites, were incorporated into Athenian land forces.829 Finally, their

participation is exceptional. Three thousand (not an inconsiderable number) of them

have hoplite armor, which strongly suggests that they fought or expected to fight.

However, they serve in a reserve and defensive roll, left behind to guard the walls with

the youngest and oldest Athenian hoplites. Later, their inclusion is mentioned only as

part of engagements where all Athenian forces (Ἀθѳηναῖοι πανδηµεί) are mustered (one of

826
I would include thetes among the Ἀθѳηναῖοι πανδηµεί, particularly when both metics and ξένων ὅσοι
παρῆσαν were being deployed.
827
Thucydides actually writes that they have none, but then he mentions light-armed troops among the
casualties. This is a good example of the neglect received by light-armed troops.
828
Thucydides 4.94.1. Strassler comments that most of the poor Athenians who would have made up a
corp of light-armed troops in another state’s army probably served in Athens’ navy. See R. Strassler, The
Landmark Thucydides. (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1996), 275.
829
There is enough ambiguity with respect to the identity of the light-armed to allow for the possibility that
metics served as light-armed troops, but this evidence is no proof. Ridley disagrees and finds this passage
to be suitable evidence of metic psiloi. See R. Ridley, “The Hoplite as Citizen: Athenian Military
Institutions in their Social Context,” L’Antiquite Classique 48 (1979): 510.
 226
them being described as the ‘largest army of Athenians ever assembled’). I suggest that

they are noted because their deployment is unusual. They are used in cases of emergency

and possibly not as light-armed troops at all. This evidence leads me to believe, perhaps

contrary to Whitehead (above), that the deployment of metic hoplites in a non-defensive

land-based action was unusual, if not unprecedented, before the Peloponnesian War.

Metic participation in the navy is another story. Xenophon, for instance, notes

that a polis needs metics, not only because of their role as craftsmen, but because of their

role as oarsmen in the navy.830 It is very likely that these oarsmen had occasion to fight,

as they did at Spacteria.831 However, there is no example wherein Athenian oarsmen

(metic or otherwise) were armed with bows. Arming oarsmen with bows would have

been much more challenging and much less effective than arming them with scavenged

javelins and wicker shields as Demosthenes does at Pylos in 425 B.C.E.832

Finally, the sentiment expressed by Xenophon above may not have been based

upon a tradition that was very old. Thucydides describes an incident that takes place

during the Athenian siege of Myteline in which the Peloponnesians set out to attack

Athens, reasoning that her strength would be depleted with the bulk of her navy engaged

at Lesbos. The Athenians, determined to counter this perception, man one hundred ships

with citizens of all classes except for the top two (the pentacosiomedimni and hippeis) –
830
Xenophon Anabasis 1.12.
831
Thucydides 4.32.2. Hans van Wees makes a concise and compelling argument for the military
participation of oarsmen, assembling numerous examples to make his point. See van Wees 2004: pp. 62-
63. Although I agree with van Wees, it bears mentioning that there is no example wherein oarsmen were
armed with bows. Thucydides (1.10.5) offers the example of Philoktetes’ Lokrian oarsmen, who were all
archers, but this is not framed as a historical incident within the framework of his Peloponnesian War
narrative.
832
Thucydides 4.9.1. The bow is expensive enough to preclude its use among those who have not trained
to use it. Without training an archer’s effectiveness would have been significantly reduced and would,
therefore, have failed to justify the expense.
 227
833
and metics. The incident is significant because it is exceptional. That the zeugitai, who

comprised a large percentage of the hoplite class, were pressed into duty as oarsmen in

this case marks this event as an emergency worthy of note to Thucydides. Therefore, this

may reasonably be seen to suggest that even in the navy at this point in the war, the use of

metics may have been limited to extreme circumstances.834

Slaves?

Slaves were another potential source of light-armed troops who deserve

mention.835 Like archers, they seem to have been ubiquitous on the battlefield. Rachel

Sargent, in her two-part work on the subject, sums it up concisely, “That slaves were

present in every army levied by Athens may be safely assumed from the many

inadvertent remarks to be found not only in the strictly military writers but in the other

Greek authors, yet they seem to have been so customarily a part of the organization that

only under exceptional conditions are they more than thus casually mentioned.”836

833
Thucydides 3.16.1.
834
Thucydides (1.121.3-4) has the Spartans describe Athenian naval power as paid foreigners (ξένους),
bought rather than homegrown (ὠνητη … µᾶλλον ἢ οἰκεία). Beyond the fact that this speech (with the
caveat, of course, that Thucydides, and not the Spartans, wrote it) reveals an impressive underestimation of
the Athenians and may therefore mark a Spartan hubris in their misunderstanding of Athenian naval
supremacy, Thucydides does not use the term for metic. Elsewhere, as we have seen, he marks a
distinction between µέτοικοι and ξένοι. That metics are increasingly utilized may be an indication that
Athenian manpower has been severely taxed over the course of the war.
835
The bibliography on this topic is extensive and detailed. See H. Van Wees, Greek Warfare: Myths and
Realities (2004); P. Hunt, Slaves, warfare, and ideology in the Greek historians (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1998); K.W. Welwei, Unfreie im antiken Kriegsdienst (Wiesbaden; Steiner, 1974);
R. Sargent, “The Use of Slaves by the Athenians in Warfare,” in Warfare by Land, CP 22.2 (1927): 201-
212; and R. Sargent, “The Use of Slaves by the Athenians in Warfare,” in Warfare by Sea, CP 22.3 (1927):
264-279.
836
R. Sargent “The Use of Slaves,” (1927): 203.
 228
Most of their duties were not combat related. Generally, they served as attendants for

their masters, seeing to their myriad needs. They cooked, carried baggage, bore

messages, carried armor, etc.837 Among the many terms for such personal assistants is

one that sticks out because of its relationship to some of the Homeric evidence raised

above and because of its inclusion in some of the arguments pertaining to the identity of

the Scythian archer.838 The word is θѳεράποντες.839 Could these servants have served as

archers in the army of Archaic Athens?

There were certainly occasions when slaves fought. Thermopylae and Plataea are

two well-publicized examples of helots serving and dieing with their Spartan masters.

Examples from Athens are less sensational, but they do exist. For instance, Pausanias

attests to having seen at Marathon a tomb for the slaves who fought and died there in 490

B.C.E.840 It seems that they were set free, or at least promised their freedom, prior to their

participation in the battle.841 This was common practice when it is recorded that slaves

were asked to participate in a military engagement.842 How else to insure that they would

not desert their captors?843

837
Aristophanes Acharnians 1097 ff offers a credible glimpse at these duties that is supported by non-
comedic sources (Thucydides and Xenophon). He pictures a personal attendant preparing food, polishing
armor, helping his master to arm, and carrying his master’s shield.
838
Some of the other terms: ὑπασπιστής (shield-bearer), σκευοφόρος (baggage-carrier), ἀκόλουθѳος
(follower, attendant).
839
Thucydides 7.13.2. Athenians here complain that their servants (θѳεράποντες) deserted them.
840
Pausanias 1.32.3.
841
Pausanias 7.15.7, 10.20.2.
842
Thucydides 1.55.5, 7.15.2. Xenophon Hellenica 1.6.24.
843
This was obviously not inevitable, but it was a very real possibility. Thucydides (7.27.5) reports that the
Athenians saw the desertion of twenty thousand of their slaves during the siege of Decelea.
 229
Fighting and rowing, however, were not exactly the same thing. To that end, A.J.

Graham argues that slaves “regularly formed part of the mixed band of crewmen who

rowed the Athenian triremes, and their masters included fellow crewmen.”844 More

recently, Krentz suggests that as many as 20-40% of the oarsmen on Classical Athenian

ships would have been slaves.845 Allowing for this likelihood, we still run into the same

problem we saw above with respect to metic crewmen. Outside of Homer, there are no

examples of oarsmen fighting with bows, and the provisioning of these soldiers with

bows would have been problematic.

Thetes

With this, we turn our attention back to the Athenian citizenry, and our most

likely source of Athenian archers – the thetes. To be clear, there are no sources from the

Archaic period specifically linking archery to the thetic class. Our evidence is

circumstantial. The top three property classes, as mentioned above, were bound to serve

as horsemen and hoplites. Their political rights depended upon it, and later, they could

be prosecuted for dodging the draft.846 Moreover, service required a hoplite to furnish his

own equipment.847 At seventy five to one hundred drachmas, roughly four months’

wages for a skilled worker (1 drachma/day), the cost was prohibitive.

844
A. Graham, “Thucydides 7.13.2 and the Crews of Athenian Triremes,” TAPA 122 (1992): 269. For the
record, this is not a commonly accepted position. General opinion now tends to see the occurrence as
relatively uncommon.
845
P. Krentz, “War” (2007): 150. See I.G. 1^3, 1032 as evidence.
846
M. Christ, The Bad Citizen in Classical Athens (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006).
847
The Athenian practice of supplying shields and spears to ephebes begins after our period.
 230
As noted earlier, thetes were not obliged to fight – a circumstance that seems to

have cost them (or justified their lack of) certain political rights. Despite this, they were

not expressly forbidden from participation in military actions and there are a number of

potential motivations for fighting, patriotism, prestige and booty among them.848 The

bow was still more specialized and expensive (15 drachmas) than the javelin (3

drachmas), but the cost was considerably more manageable than the hoplite panoply and

it did fulfill a vital need, as we have seen.849 It stands to reason then, that citizen archers

who were not wealthy enough to warrant mandatory service as hoplites would have been

drawn from this class, as would other light-armed soldiers. The deduction finds further

support in the literature of the Classical period.

Because the point accords with a general consensus of scholarship, it is not

necessary to reinvent the wheel by exhaustively listing the evidence. A few examples

should suffice to make the point. First, Thucydides in enumerating the forces sent to

Sicily, he mentions five thousand hoplites from the roles (ἐκ καταλόγου) and seven

hundred marines (ἐπιβάται) from the thetes.850 Thus, it is clear that thetes did fight, and

even armed as hoplites.851 If these men could afford hoplite armor, they could certainly

848
If a substantial number of thetes served as hoplites without a corresponding increase in status or rights,
the motivation for service must have been strong in other ways. Further, if thetes could afford hoplite
armor, surely a reasonable number could have afforded the less expensive bow.
849
Van Wees, Greek Warfare: Myths and Realities (2004), 62. R. Ridley, “The Hoplite as Citizen:
Athenian Military Institutions in their Social Context,” L’Antiquite Classique 48 (1979): p. 509 offers the
example of an Attic Stele recording a confiscation sale in which a javelin is sold for two drachmas, and a
spear without a butt-spike for one drachma four obols. The cost of a bow is just 15-20% of that of the
hoplite panoply.
850
Thucydides 6.43.1.
851
In his article, “The Myth of the Middle Class Army” (2001), H. Van Wees argues compellingly that this
was the rule rather than the exception, and that their service was not confined to the ‘marines.’ As I
suggested earlier, as ‘epibatai’ they may well have fought as archers too.
 231
have afforded the less expensive bow, which would have been a useful hunting

implement and would, if composite and taken care of, have lasted for quite a long time.

In arguing against a proposal in 403 B.C.E that would have granted citizenship to

repatriated Athenians only if they owned land, Lysias complains that this would deprive

Athens of many hoplites, horsemen, and archers.852 This suggests that thetes served

several military needs, archery included. That service with the bow is considered low-

class is perhaps best exemplified by the same author in a speech written for the

prosecution of Alcibiades (the younger). In it, he notes that Alcibiades had suffered the

insult of having been left to serve among the hippotoxotai (horse archers).853

Epigraphic evidence also makes a strong argument for the likelihood that archers

were citizens and thereby likely to have been thetes. The so-called Themistoclean Decree

describes the recruitment of archers from the citizen body, as does a mid-5th century

B.C.E. decree which requires the prytanizing tribe to provide three citizen archers to

guard the acropolis against thieves and runaway slaves who might seek refuge there.854

Archers are also frequently included on inscribed casualty lists of the Classical period

where they are listed as τοξόται and often distinguished by adjectives from “Barbarian

archers” and even “Cretan archers” who by now were being used by to supplement their

852
Lysias Against the Subversion of the Ancestral Constitution of Athens 4.3 - ὁπλίτας πολλοὺς καὶ ἱππέας
καὶ τοξότας.
853
Lysias Against Alcibiades II.6. The usefulness of mounted archers is attested in Xenophon Mem. 3.3.1.
854
The former decree is discussed at length in M. Jameson, “The Provisions for Mobilization in the Decree
of Themistocles,” Historia 12.4 (1963): 385-404. For the latter (I.G. i^2, 44) see K. Wernicke, “Die
Polizeiwache auf der Burg von Athen” in Hermes 26 (1891): 51; and J. Hurwit, The Athenian Acropolis
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 55.
 232
855
native corp. Gertrude Smith also points out that they are distinguished from ξένοι

(whom she associates with metics), σύµµαχοι (allies), and ἔγγραφοι (whom she identifies

as metics with rights, the so-called ἰσοτελεῖς).856

A further consideration in this discussion is the nature of the bow as a weapon.

Although archers were not infrequently grouped with other light-armed troops in battle

narratives, their weapon was considerably more sophisticated. Consequently it required

great skill to wield effectively. Moreover, if the bow was composite, like the back-bent

bows described earlier, it would have been particularly “sensitive to the slightest mistake

of the archer.”857 That this was recognized by Greek authors is evident in numerous

sources. Herodotus, for instance, describes in detail the lengthy archery education of the

Persians, a people well known for their use of the bow.858 There is also an instructive

passage in Xenophon’s Memorabilia in which the author observes that a Scythian or

Thracian would not fare well fighting as a hoplite against Spartans, and conversely, that a

Spartan would not fare well fighting against a Scythian or Thracian as an archer or

peltast. Courage, according to this argument, is gained through practice.859 It is for this

855
Despite this, perhaps as a sign of their lower status, archers do seem to be added as an afterthought at
times. See D.W. Bradeen, The Athenian Agora Inscriptions: Funerary Monuments (Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1974)
856
G. Smith, “Athenian Casualty Lists,” CP 14.4 (1919): 351-364; and B. Merritt, “Greek Inscriptions,”
Hesperia 21.4 (1952): 340-380.
857
Rausing, “The Bow,” (1967): 29.
858
Herodotus 1.136.6.
859
Xenophon Memorabilia 3.9.2. Plato Laws 795b also notes a big difference between the practiced and
unpracticed soldier. As a result, his utopian arrangement (Laws 813d) includes a civic space where men
can practice physical exercises associated with warfare. He includes archery.
 233
860
reason that Agesilaus encourages his archers to practice by offering them prizes. Even

skilled archers have to practice in order to adjust to variations in their gear. The Cretans

among Xenophon’s Ten Thousand, reduced to reusing enemy arrows, need to practice

with them – in particular, firing them at a trajectory.861 Arrows are fitted to the bows that

shoot them. So a difference in length, as in this instance, is potentially quite

problematic.862 This is but one of many reasons why an unpracticed archer would make

an ineffectual soldier.863

The manufacture of a bow also required special knowledge and this would likely

have limited to some degree the availability of the weapon. The construction of a

composite bow, for example, required a bowyer to work with horn, sinew, wood, bark,

and adhesives. If the composite Scythian bow, which appears to have been in use, was

even remotely as difficult to make as its Turkish descendent, the process would have

taken enormous skill and considerable amounts of time.864 Even the simple wooden bow

860
Xenophon Agesilaus 1.25.5. He also offers prizes for the ‘best equipped’ archer (Xenophon Hellenica
4.2.5).
861
Xenophon Anabasis 3.4.17.
862
P. Pratt, “The Arrow” in R. Hardy, Longbow (1976), 199.
863
I refer you to the section on ‘Archer’s Paradox’ in Appendix I for another excellent example – but one
that requires a relatively long explanation. The need for practice may also have contributed to keeping
numbers down.
864
The Turkish bow was an improvement upon the Scythian bow, but the two are constructed in roughly
the same manner using the same materials. Outlining what we know about the construction of the latter
will be helpful in impressing upon the reader some of the difficulties that may have been encountered in the
manufacture of the former. As per Rausing, “The Bow,” (1967): 155-162: The stave was built on a core of
wood - preferably maple wood because of its properties. Furthermore, wood from a certain region was
deemed best. Horn from water buffalos was used, because the horn of domestic cattle would split under
stress. Sinew was taken from the neck or the heel of bulls or horses. It was cleaned, dried, and then
pounded into bundles of flax-like fibers, which were separated with a comb and sorted according to length.
With the three main raw materials prepared, the pieces were glued together. The quality of the adhesive
was very important. Made of tendons or fish parts (the Turks preferred the skin and mouth of the Danube
sturgeon), its preparation was essential to the process. Next, the stave was shaped, horn pieces were glued
to its belly, and the bow was dried thoroughly. The back was then roughened (for adhesive purposes), the
 234
was not easy to make. This was not simply a matter or finding a decent sized branch and

fitting it with a string suitable for the purpose. As Hickman et alia point out, “Wood

varies from limb to limb and even within the same limb – due to factors like grain, knots,

curing, moisture content, cell size, etc. There is a variation in the strength of the wood

and in the amount of set that it will take. It takes experience to do it right.”865 Evidence

from medieval England suggests that construction of the single stave simple ‘long bow’

was not unlike the composite bow with its extraordinary requirements with regards to

material selection and aging.866

The bow should therefore be considered a specialty item, requiring more skill to

make and greater skill to use than other weapons associated with light-armed troops.

This fact is reflected in the weapon’s cost (at least five times that of a javelin according to

van Wees’ numbers above), in the archer’s tendency to be distinguished from other light-

armed troops in historical accounts and on casualty lists, and in the archers’ low numbers

relative to other types of troops. It may even have contributed to the Greeks’ failure to

capitalize on the advantages of the bow, exploiting the massed volley tactics, which they

knew could be effective.

stave was bent backwards (to insure that the bow would be reflexed), and bundles of sinews and glue,
molded together by hand, were glued to the back. The mixture of sinew fibers of different lengths and glue
in the backing was the secret of each bowyer. Stave was dried thoroughly and then a second layer or the
sinew/glue mixture was applied over the first one. The bow was now bent into an even more reflex shape
and put into storage for a year or more. Finally, after it was dried in direct sunlight for several days, the
bow was braced and drawn for final adjustments. Surprisingly, modern experiments show that the number
of man-hours is not great but that the materials needed to be aged between each phase of manufacture.
Thus, the average time it took to manufacture a Turkish Bow was anywhere from five to ten years.
Rausing suggests that there is “every reason to believe that the bowyers in antiquity were not much
different.” That said, the bow had a long lifespan, with evidence that suggests it is not uncommon for a
Turkish bow to shoot well after two hundred years or more.
865
Hickman, Nagler, and Klopsteg, Archery: The Technical Side (1947).
866
As with the Turkish bow, the English Longbow was more advanced than its Mediterranean counterpart.
Nonetheless, a consideration of the bowyer’s concerns can give us some sense of the process.
 235
While it is impossible to determine with absolute certainty the identity of archers

after the advent of hoplite arms, the evidence, such as it is, makes a strong case that

archers – perhaps even all Athenian archers - volunteered or were recruited from the

thetic class.867 Slaves were unlikely to have served as archers. Mercenary (and this may

include Scythian) and allied archers were used during the Classical period in small

numbers, but there is no evidence of their presence in Athens prior to the Persian Wars.

Furthermore, as tantalizing an argument as a metic link might be,868 there is simply no

evidence that the metics ever served as archers, despite serving as reserve hoplites.

867
That they were recruited from the citizenry is known. That the citizens in question were thetes is a near
certainty.
868
Due to the Eastern origin of many of the metics.
 236
Chapter 5
How did Greeks feel about archery?

It has long been held that archery was considered to be ineffective, cowardly,

base, foreign and generally contemptible in Ancient Greece. It is no exaggeration to say

that this position or some variation thereof is nearly universal in scholarship.869 No

directed attempts have been made to disentangle views common in Classical Greece from

those held earlier, despite a great deal of recent scholarship highlighting the change in

Greece’s ideas about itself and others after the Persian Wars.870 On the contrary, scholars

commonly justify their position by citing what they regard as a healthy distain for archery

in the Iliad.871

869
We can extend ‘scholarship’ back to the Hellenistic period. The following sample of opinions covers
roughly the last fifty years and at least three different but directly relevant fields of scholarship. A.
Snodgrass, Arms and Armor of the Greeks (1999), 83-84: “The Greeks did not pride themselves at their
skill in archery, and there are numerous derogatory references to the bow, as an alien and somewhat
effeminate weapon, in their literature.” H.A. Shapiro, “Amazons, Thracians, and Scythians,” in GRBS 24.1
(1993): 110-111: “Since fighting with bow and arrow was not a Greek custom’ even the earliest archers
wear barbarian, if not Scythian dress.” R. O’Connell, Soul of the Sword: An Illustrated History of
Weaponry and Warfare from Prehistory to the Present (Old Tappan, NJ: Free Press, 2002), 35: “By
contrast (to heavy armor) archers are portrayed as basically ineffectual or worse in the case of the
adulterous bowman Paris.”
870
E. Hall, Inventing the Barbarian (1989); E. Hall, “Asia Unmanned: images of victory in Classical
Athens,” in War and Society in the Greek World, ed. J. Rich and G. Shipley (London: Routledge, 1993),
107-33; J. Hall, Hellenicity: Between Ethnicity and Culture (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press,
2002). J. Hall, Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997); C.
Morgan, “Ethne, ethnicity and early Greek states, ca.1200-480: an archaeological perspective,” in Ancient
Perceptions of Greek Ethnicity, ed. I. Malkin (Harvard: Harvard University Press, 2001), 75-112.
871
A. Snodgrass, Early Greek Armour (1964), p. 141: “It would be premature to assert that the Greeks were
permanently averse to archery, but there is literary evidence, going back negatively to Homer and
positively at least as far as Pausanias, that for long periods this was true of mainland Greece.” G. Ahlberg,
Fighting on Land and Sea (1971), 53: “It is noteworthy that archers in the Homeric songs are not
significant – this with few well known exceptions…” R. Gabriel, Culture of War (1990), 90: “In the Iliad,
the bow is presented as being the weapon of cowards or one of evil character.” For a more nuanced (and
correct) opinion, see S. Farron, “Attitudes to Military Archery in the Iliad,” in Literature, Art, History:
Studies on Classical Antiquity and Tradition. In Honour of W. J. Henderson, ed. A.F. Basson and W.J.
Dominik, (New York: Peter Lang, 2003), 184: “Contempt for archery and archers is not uniform or
universal in the Iliad.” Also see Lendon and E. Hall.
 237
The argument usually begins (and often ends) in modern scholarship with a

reference to Diomedes’ colorful reprimand of Paris in Book 11, a passage considered by

many to be emblematic of Greek attitudes towards archery in Homeric warfare, and in the

Archaic period generally.872 It therefore makes a great deal of sense to come full circle,

carefully parsing the passage with which this dissertation began.

The Homeric Perspective on Archery

Diomedes, reveling in his incomplete victory over Hektor, stops to strip the armor

from the body of a subsequent victim, Agastrophos. Paris ‘notices’ him and, taking

advantage of Diomedes’ distraction, leans against a column, carefully aims his bow, and

releases an arrow. The missile strikes Diomedes in the flat of the foot hard enough to

penetrate through the foot and stick into the ground beneath it.873 Paris shouts in

tempered triumph, excited to have hit Diomedes but disappointed that the wound will not

be fatal. Homer describes Diomedes’ reaction as follows:

Unafraid, the mighty Diomedes answered him:

Archer, braggart, brilliant with the bow, seducer of girls,
If you should fight against me in hand-to-hand combat,
Your bow and thick-flying arrows would not help you;
Now, having scratched the flat of my foot, you boast this way.
It bothers me no more than if a woman or unwitting child hit me;
Mute is the missile of a weak and worthless man.874

872
Recall my earlier citation of Michael Sage, for example: “In general it [the bow] is a weapon held in low
esteem in the poems, as is clear from the remarks of Diomedes …” See M. Sage, (1996) Warfare in
Ancient Greece: A Sourcebook (New York: Routledge, 1996), 10. Salazar accepts this passage without
reservation as indicative of the Homeric attitude towards archers. See C. Salazar, “The Treatment of War
Wounds” (2000), 156.
873
Some see a thematic parallel here with the wound that kills Achilleus. See Louden B. The Iliad,
structure, myth, and meaning. Johns Hopkins University Press. 2006: 90.
874
Iliad 11. 384-390. The translation is mine. Some translate κέρᾳ ἀγλαὲ as ‘lovely in your locks.’ In
doing so, he passes over the more likely and logical (given the context) translation of κέρᾳ as ‘bow.’
Technically, the word means ‘horn.’ Horn was used in the construction of the composite bow. Authors
will sometimes employ synecdoche in referring to the whole bow as ‘horn’ – often its most visible and
ideologically prominent component. The word appears six other times in the Iliad and in each case it refers
 238
Diomedes derides the archer as a ‘useless’ soldier, reducing him to the status of a

woman or child. The bow is a ‘mute weapon’, the arrow a feeble projectile, and

Diomedes’ wound is merely a ‘scratch’. In all, archery is depicted as ineffective and

psychologically unimposing, and the archer as useless and effeminate.

To be sure, these themes, particularly cowardice and the feminization of the

archer, are prominent in Classical literature. As a result, this perspective is alluring, but it

should not be taken out of context. We examined the consequences of this arrow wound

above (Chapter 3). To summarize: Immediately following Diomedes’ castigation of

Paris, Odysseus, himself a skilled archer, steps in front of the former to shield him from

to the horn of an ibex, a cow, or an ox. Still, many bend over backwards to find another meaning.
Hainsworth favors Lattimore’s translation because “if κέρας were taken as a reference to the bow the gibe
τοξότα would be otiose” in B. Hainsworth, The Iliad: A Commentary (1993), 269. I am not certain I
understand why extraneous should trump emphatic here. Interestingly, Hall points out that τοξότα itself is
a hapax, suggesting that it may have been a late entrant to language of the epic and therefore loaded with
later connotations. (Hall 1989: 42). Moreover, ἀγλα- appears numerous times in Homer where it refers to
rewards, gifts, sons, deeds, contests, water, a temple, and, in one case, limbs. It is never used to describe
the head or hair. The argument for an alternative ‘lovely in your locks’ translation seems to be based on the
interpretations of scholiasts. They differ in their opinions, but both translations are noted as possibilities. I
suggest that the weight of the contextual and linguistic evidence favors the simpler ‘horn’ definition. For
more linguistic evidence, see A. Nussbaum, “Head and Horn in Indo-European. W. de Gryter. 1986.
Moreover, Hall, casting doubt on certain interpretations of the scholiasts, points to ways in which they
retrojected Classical beliefs onto the Archaic period, noting that “Hellenocentric interpretations
anachronistically applied” in E. Hall, Inventing the Barbarian (1989), 21-23. I believe that this is an
excellent example of Classical (or later) ideology permeating modern scholarship. To go even further, the
word λωβητὴρ, which Lattimore translates with the connotation-laden ‘foul-fighter,’ also bears mention. It
appears three other times in the Iliad. He renders it ‘braggart’ once, describing Thersites (Iliad II.275) and
‘failure’ twice (Iliad 11.385, 24.239). In light of the fact that, only a few lines before, Paris laments his
failure to have delivered a mortal wound or that Diomedes will allege a few lines later that Paris is
boasting, would not either of these translations be more appropriate? Why change here? We might also
consider Heath (2005) who argues that this word is used specifically in relation to people who bring
humiliation upon others, especially by violating the guest host relationship or by failing to bury the dead in
J. Heath, The Talking Greeks. Speech, Animals, and the Other in Homer, Aeschylus, and Plato (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2005), 150. If true, this concept could be linked to παρθѳενοπῖπα, just as κέρᾳ
ἀγλαὲ is tied to τοξότα, creating a clever interlocking structure in the line. The Greek passage is as follows:

Τὸν δ' οὐ ταρβήσας προσέφη κρατερὸς Δ∆ιοµήδης·

τοξότα λωβητὴρ κέρᾳ ἀγλαὲ παρθѳενοπῖπα
εἰ µὲν δὴ ἀντίβιον σὺν τεύχεσι πειρηθѳείης,
οὐκ ἄν τοι χραίσµῃσι βιὸς καὶ ταρφέες ἰοί·
νῦν δέ µ' ἐπιγράψѱας ταρσὸν ποδὸς εὔχεαι αὔτως.
οὐκ ἀλέγω, ὡς εἴ µε γυνὴ βάλοι ἢ πάϊς ἄφρων·
κωφὸν γὰρ βέλος ἀνδρὸς ἀνάλκιδος οὐτιδανοῖο.
 239
additional missiles. Diomedes sits down on the ground and pulls the ‘swift arrow’ from

his foot and ‘hard pain comes over his flesh.’875 Diomedes then gets into his chariot and

instructs his charioteer to drive him back to the ships, ‘for his heart was heavy.’876 And

so, for a time, the Greeks lose one of their champions in a form of warfare that hinges on

the exceptional performance of exceptional front-fighters. Eight books later, Diomedes is

still leaning on a spear because of the painful wound.877

Some scholars regard this episode as evidence of “the ultimate failure of the

bow,” a common Homeric theme.878 Such a position, however, disregards context

entirely. As we have seen, it was commonly acknowledged in antiquity that arrows

wound. Wound locations and descriptions of aimed shots clearly indicate that wounding

was, in fact, the common objective of the archer. He might hope to kill an enemy, but

rarely had the expectation that he would do so. If a weapon achieves its goal, should it be

described as a failure? Instances wherein archers miss targets or have arrows repelled by

armor should be considered case-by-case and compared with instances wherein spearmen

suffer the same fate.879 In doing so, we find a remarkable amount of consistency from

875
Iliad 11. 397-398.
876
Iliad 11. 396-400.
877
Iliad 19.49.
878
H. Mackie, Talking Trojan: Speech and Community in the Iliad (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield
Publishers, 1996), 53. G. Kirk, The Iliad: A Commentary. Volume 2, Books 5-8 (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1990), 64
879
G. Kirk, The Iliad: A Commentary. Volume 2: Books 5-8 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1990), 64 cites Iliad 8.292 ff. as an example of Teukros’ failure. He shoots at Hektor and misses, killing
Gorgythion instead. His next shot is turned away by Apollo, swerving to hit Hektor’s charioteer,
Archeptolemos, instead. Compare this incident with Iliad 8.119 ff. Here Diomedes throws a spear at
Hektor, misses him, and kills Hektor’s previous driver, Eniopeos. Just as Pandaros (Il. 4.104) and Helenos
(Il. 13.585-590) fail to pierce the armor of Meneleos with arrows, Diomedes’ spear fails to pierce the
helmet of Hektor, wounding him by knocking him out instead. The ambidextrous Asteropaeus (Il. 21.163-
199) hurls two spears at Achilleus. One fails to penetrate his shield and the other gives him a grazing
wound on his forearm. Achilleus then misses Asteropaeus with his famous ash spear and dispatches him
 240
weapon to weapon. Misses and armor-repelled shots are a common means of heightening

drama and emphasizing fate or divine intervention.

Fenik looks at the scene from a different perspective altogether. To him, this

incident represents an example of “motif transfer” because “the bow has succeeded where

the spear has failed.”880 It is the bow that stops Diomedes just as it will eventually be the

bow that stops Achilleus. In each case, Paris achieves what Hektor cannot. In no way

does this imply that the bow was considered a superior weapon. Allegations of thematic

failure, however, are not accurate. Attitudes towards the bow are much more nuanced

than that.

The veracity of Diomedes’ tirade is clearly problematic too. In essence,

Diomedes has answered Paris’ fist-pumping shout with an exaggerated and venomous

personal attack that should not be taken at face value.881 This type of invective is a

common feature of Homer’s narrative.882 For example, Hektor calls out to the fleeing

Diomedes, “Surely you have become a woman!”883 This insult damages Diomedes’

with a sword. Should these (and there are other instances like them) be considered thematic examples of
the failure of the spear?
880
B. Fenik, Homer and the Nibelungenlied: Comparative Studies in Epic Style (Harvard: Harvard
University Press, 1986), 15-17.
881
There may be some irony here as well. Let us not forget that Diomedes is no stranger to the use of
projectiles either. He uses a stone (traditionally a light-armed staple and sometimes grouped in with other
‘missiles’ under the term βέλεα) to injure Aineias (Il. 5.305). Lendon sees all of these conflicts as
“uncomfortable humanizing elements of the Epic,” lamenting that “too many scholars fixate on
oversimplistic dichotomies that do not emerge until later” J.E. Lendon, Soldiers and Ghosts: A History of
Battle in Classical Antiquity (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2005), 33-35.
882
And indeed it continues throughout the Archaic and Classical periods. Archilochus was reputed to have
driven his ex-betrothed to hang herself with his invective. See W.K. Pritchett, GSAW Vol. II. (Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1974), 153.
883
Iliad 8.163 - γυναικὸς ἄρ' ἀντὶ τέτυξο. The insult seems to wound Diomedes, who struggles with
whether or not to return to the fight. Achilleus is the only hero in the Iliad who never flees or withdraws
from battle, a detail that is often overlooked in allegations of cowardice. Lendon notes an “unsettled
tension” that exists between different heroes’ assessments of their duties not to withdraw in battle: J.E.
 241
κλέος and nearly provokes him to return impetuously to battle. Provocation is but one of

many motivations for this tough talk. Along these lines, Odysseus gloats over the dead

body of Sokos, addressing the deceased man directly.884 Why taunt a dead man? It is

because Sokos had verbally challenged him earlier. This was an affront to Odysseus’

κλέος and he therefore felt compelled to get in the last word.

Tough talk can also intimidate an enemy, thereby playing into the important and

often overlooked psychological elements of Homeric confrontations. Hektor replies to

Achilleus’ provocation during their climactic duel: “Son of Peleus, do not hope to

frighten me with words/ as if I am a child. I myself also know/ how to mock and utter

evil words.885 It is as if invective is one of the weapons in the warrior’s arsenal –

something to be learned and cultivated.

Furthermore, these jabs are just as likely to be directed at friends (and even

family) as at enemies. Unprovoked, Hektor rebukes Paris, “Ill-omened Paris, best in

appearence, woman-crazy, deceiver …”886 Hektor himself is insulted by Glaukos, for his

avoidance of Aias, “Hektor, splendid to look at, but you lack much in your fighting…”887

Odysseus famously rebukes Agamemnon when the latter suggests quitting the war,

“Destructive man! I wish you had command of another shameful army and were not lord

Lendon, Soldiers and Ghosts: A History of Battle in Classical Antiquity (New Haven: Yale University
Press, 2005), 35.
884
Iliad 11.450 ff.
885
Iliad 20.431-33. Πηλεΐδη µὴ δὴ ἐπέεσσί µε νηπύτιον ὣς
ἔλπεο δειδίξεσθѳαι, ἐπεὶ σάφα οἶδα καὶ αὐτὸς
ἠµὲν κερτοµίας ἠδ' αἴσυλα µυθѳήσασθѳαι.
886
Iliad 3.39 & 13.769 - Δ∆ύσπαρι εἶδος ἄριστε γυναιµανὲς ἠπεροπευτὰ. The line is exactly the same. It is
comparable in structure, and to a degree in form, with Diomedes’ earlier diatribe.
887
Iliad 17.140 ff. Ἕκτορ εἶδος ἄριστε µάχης ἄρα πολλὸν ἐδεύεο.
 242
888
over us!” Shame is a powerful motivator regularly exploited by men who are well

aware of its power.

This verbal sparring is so fundamental to the language of conflict that even the

gods are not above it. Hera responds vehemently to the verbal barbs of Artemis, “How

are you daring fearlessly to stand/ against me, you dog? It will be hard for you to oppose

me…”889 She then proceeds to beat her physically.

Thus, Diomedes’ abuse of Paris is far from unique and it strains credulity to call

this passage “an eloquent expression of the aristocratic spearman’s contempt for the

bow.”890 That said, the term τοξότα (and the passage generally) is meant by Diomedes to

be derisive. Though it is uncommon, this is not the only time archery is used this way in

the Iliad. Akamas, a companion of Aineias, insults the Argives by calling them ‘arrow

shooters’ (ἰόµωροι).891 His precise meaning is unclear, but the connotation is clearly

negative in its context. An earlier use of the same term illustrates its provocative intent.

Agamemnon has arrived on the field and begins exercising his leadership. We are told

that, ranging through the troops, when he saw men eager for fighting, he would

888
Iliad 14.83 ff. οὐλόµεν' αἴθѳ' ὤφελλες ἀεικελίου στρατοῦ ἄλλου
σηµαίνειν, µὴ δ' ἄµµιν ἀνασσέµεν …
Odysseus uses the same strong word (οὐλόµεν') to describe Agamemnon that Homer uses to describe
Achilleus’ µῆνιν (Il. 1.1-2).
889
Iliad 21.481 ff. πῶς δὲ σὺ νῦν µέµονας κύον ἀδεὲς ἀντί' ἐµεῖο
στήσεσθѳαι; χαλεπή τοι ἐγὼ µένος ἀντιφέρεσθѳαι
890
B. Hainsworth, The Iliad: A Commentary (1993), 269. Hainsworth goes on to state (baselessly, I argue)
that this sentiment is characteristic of the Iliad. He also draws in the Franks by way of comparison. Yet
the Franks arm themselves with “mail shirts, helmets, shields, lances, swords, and quivers of arrows”
(Strickland & Hardy, The Great Warbow (2011), 59). The literature of chivalry is therefore not necessarily
accurately reflective of common attitudes. Moreover, the case for a comparison of Homeric and chivalric
literature is thin. Later Greek literature expressive of hoplite ideology makes a far better case for
comparison.
891
Iliad 14.479.
 243
encourage them. And then: “Whomever he might see avoiding the hateful war/ these he

especially upbraided with angry words:/ ‘Argives, arrow-fighters, have you no shame,

you cowards?”892 The term (arrow-fighters) is supposed to inspire shame and seems

rooted in archers fighting from a distance, “avoiding war.”893 It cannot, however, be

divorced from the context of the ‘tough talk’ described earlier. It may be worth noting

that Akamas himself does not stand his ground when attacked by Penelaos.894

On the other hand, archers can be the subjects of high praise. At one point,

Teukros is seen, paired with Aias, and shooting from behind the cover of his massive

shield. In close succession, he kills eight men. Homer describes Agamemnon’s reaction:

Agamemnon the lord of men rejoiced as he saw him

Destroying the Trojan phalanx with the strong bow;
Coming near to him, he stood and spoke a word to him:
Telamonian Teukros, dear heart, ruler of your people,
Shoot in such a way; that you might become a light for the Danaans,
And to your father Telamon, who cared for you when you were young,
And though you were a bastard, who attended to you in his own house.
Bring him into glory, though he is far away;
But I will tell you this, and it will be accomplished:
If the aegis-bearing Zeus and Athena grant me
To sack the well-wrought citadel of Troy,
The first gift of honor after mine I will put into your hands;895

892
Iliad 4.240-42 - Ἀργεῖοι ἰόµωροι ἐλεγχέες οὔ νυ σέβεσθѳε;
893
This sentiment increases over time, mirroring the evolution of the hoplite. The martial elegy of Tyrtaios
consistently exhorts men to close ranks and fight close up. Thucydides’ hoplites are usually described as
fighting ‘ἐν χερσὶν’ (hand-to-hand). But, J.E. Lendon, Soldiers and Ghosts: A History of Battle in
Classical Antiquity (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2005), 34: “Yet it never strikes archers in the Iliad
to be ashamed of their craft, or their friends to be ashamed of archers.”
894
Iliad 14.486. He is later killed by Meriones, one of the ‘arrow shooters’ he insults, although Meriones
wields a spear at the time (Il. 16.342-343).
895
Iliad 8.278 ff. Though Agamemnon raises Teukros’ illegitimate birth, he makes no mention of Teukros
being ‘foreign’ (here or elsewhere). This myth will be exploited for ethnocentric purposes by the
tragedians of the 5th c. τὸν δὲ ἰδὼν γήθѳησεν ἄναξ ἀνδρῶν Ἀγαµέµνων
τόξου ἄπο κρατεροῦ Τρώων ὀλέκοντα φάλαγγας·
στῆ δὲ παρ' αὐτὸν ἰὼν καί µιν πρὸς µῦθѳον ἔειπε·
Τεῦκρε φίλη κεφαλή, Τελαµώνιε κοίρανε λαῶν
βάλλ' οὕτως, αἴ κέν τι φόως Δ∆αναοῖσι γένηαι
 244
There is no indication that his actions are anything but praiseworthy. Agamemnon

encourages him. His actions are a tribute to his father. He is a ‘light’ to the Danaans.

Elsewhere, Hektor refers to Teukros as the Achaeans’ ‘best man’ (ἀνδρὸς ἀριστῆος) a title

to which all Homeric heroes aspire.896 Aias encourages Teukros to use his bow.897

Hektor praises Pandaros’s archery and encourages him to use the bow.898 Pandaros

himself reveals that he had the option of fighting via chariot and opted for the bow.899

Even during Pandaros’ treacherous attempt on Menelaos’ life, Agamemnon, who will

insult some of his soldiers as arrow-shooters just forty-five lines later, laments that

Menelaos has been killed by someone “who knows well how to shoot arrows from bows”

- “a glory to him [the archer], but a sorrow to us.”900 According to Lendon, “Despite the

contempt in which using the bow was held by some heroes, it turns out to be a heroic

arête just like fighting with the spear.”901 I would add that this contempt is situational

and limited, definitely not systemic.

πατρί τε σῷ Τελαµῶνι, ὅ σ' ἔτρεφε τυτθѳὸν ἐόντα,

— καί σε νόθѳον περ ἐόντα κοµίσσατο ᾧ ἐνὶ οἴκῳ·
τὸν καὶ τηλόθѳ' ἐόντα ἐϋκλείης ἐπίβησον.
σοὶ δ' ἐγὼ ἐξερέω ὡς καὶ τετελεσµένον ἔσται·
αἴ κέν µοι δώῃ Ζεύς τ' αἰγίοχος καὶ Ἀθѳήνη
Ἰλίου ἐξαλαπάξαι ἐϋκτίµενον πτολίεθѳρον,
πρώτῳ τοι µετ' ἐµὲ πρεσβήϊον ἐν χερὶ θѳήσω,
896
Iliad 15.489.
897
Iliad 15.440.
898
Iliad 5.171-178.
899
Iliad 5.204-205.
900
Iliad 4.197. My brackets. ὅν τις ὀϊστεύσας ἔβαλεν τόξων ἐῢ εἰδὼς
Τρώων ἢ Λυκίων, τῷ µὲν κλέος, ἄµµι δὲ πένθѳος
901
Lendon 2005: p. 34.
 245
This does not preclude a hierarchy of weapons. Sarpedon’s famous exhortation to

Glaukos clearly links social and political standing to “fighting among those in front.”902

The spear was the primary weapon of these πρόµαχοι, the sword their secondary weapon.

When warriors fight as πρόµαχοι, this is how they arm themselves. Odysseus, Meriones,

Teukros, and even Paris, fight and kill with the spear when they engage in hand-to-hand

combat in the front ranks. This is also why the mortality rate (91%) of spear wounds is

so inflated and why the spear accounts for more than two thirds of all deaths in the Iliad.

The spear enjoyed a clear ideological preference.903

Conceding this, however, does not imply that the bow was reviled. We need not

imagine this to be a zero sum game. Even among the heavy infantryman’s arms and

armor, there were distinctions made between better and worse.904 Greeks were nothing if

not agonistic and this permeated virtually every facet of Greek culture. Inferring a binary

opposition in attitude towards the bow and spear in these muddy waters, particularly in

light of the evidence described above, is mistaken.

If anything, there is more to suggest that the bow and the spear were viewed in the

Iliad as a pair, perhaps even privileged together above other weapons. Apart from the

obvious association of Aias and Teukros, or the fact that some prominent archers fight as

spearmen and vice versa, there are more than a few references throughout the Iliad

902
Iliad 12.310-321. Pritchett refers to this as the “code of aristocratic militarism” in W.K. Pritchett, The
Greek State at War (1985), 26.
903
The important ideological symbolism of the bronze panoply and hoplite arms has been explored in some
detail. See H. van Wees, “Greeks Bearing Arms: The State, the Leisure Class, and the Display of Weapons
in Archaic Greece,” in Archaic Greece: New Approaches and New Evidence, ed. N. Fisher & H. van Wees
(London: Duckworth, 1998), 333-378. C. Morgan, “Symbolic and pragmatic aspects of warfare in the
Greek world of the 8th-6th centuries B.C.,” in War as a Cultural and Social Force, ed. L. Hannestad and T.
Bekker Nielsen (Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 2001), 20-44.
904
Iliad 14.370-374, 382.
 246
pairing the two weapons. Iris, for example, predicts to Hektor that Zeus will permit a

Trojan victory when Agamemnon leaves the field, ‘wounded by a spear or struck by an

arrow.’905 During Patroklos’ aristeia, ‘many spears were thrust and many arrows shot’

over the body of Kebriones.906 Achilleus addresses the supplicating Lycaon with some

harsh words about mortality, offering that he too will die, ‘struck by a spear or an arrow

from a string.’907 Nestor relates the story of Areithoös, who is called a ‘club-fighter’

because he fights with neither the spear nor the bow.908 This point raises the interesting

possibility that these two weapons, the bow and spear, though they are used in

conjunction with swords, slings, and stones, were prominent enough among Homeric

warriors to define their options. Areithoös is an exception to a norm, and requires a

distinct description. We are led to believe that armies had spearmen and bowmen.

Everything else was exceptional (not necessarily uncommon, but ideologically

exceptional). There are other similar occasions in which Homer is more vague – Hektor,

for instance, finding his men behind the wall “struck by missiles or stabbed.”909 But

when the pairing is detailed, we almost always find the spear and the bow.910

905
Iliad 11.206.
906
Iliad 16.773.
907
Iliad 21.113.
908
Iliad 7.137-40.
909
Iliad 13.764.
910
The former is the ideological choice of the heavily armed front-fighter, the latter is represents the light-
armed ideal, as it is the most expensive to buy, the most time-consuming to learn, and the most effective
piece of light-armed weaponry on the Archaic battlefield.
 247
Non-Homeric Archaic Attitudes

What little documentary evidence beyond Homer that we have from the Archaic

period seems consistent with Homer’s. Bows are ‘famous’911 and arrows are ‘swift,’912

‘bitter,’913 or ‘strong.’914 The short passage from Archilochus mentioned earlier which is

often linked to the Lelantine War and Strabo’s prohibition of missiles is worth revisiting

here.915 It reads, “Not so many bows indeed (οὔ τοι πόλλ`) will be stretched tight, nor/

frequent slings slung, when Ares joins men in the moil of / war upon the plain, but

swords will do their mournful work;/ For this is the warfare wherein those men are

expert/ Who lord it over Euboea and are famous with the spear.”916

The passage is quoted (and preserved) by Plutarch in his Life of Theseus as

evidence of the Euboean Abantes’ reputation as swordmen.917 Moreover, this is not a

prohibition. It is simply a description, and a logical one at that, given the reputation of

911
Hesiod Catalogue of Women 33a.29.
912
Hesiod Catalogue of Women 33a.33.
913
Mimnermus (Strobaeus 3.7.11).
914
Alcaeus 19.
915
Donlan lists several publications making this connection. See W. Donlan, “Archilochus, Strabo and the
Lelantine War,” TAPA 101 (1970): 132. The idea that there was a Greek prohibition of missiles has often
lead to a tempting comparison with medieval chivalric codes and the bow’s condemnation by the church.
The Second Lateran Council in 1139 C.E. set a law forbidding the use of arrows against Christians. There
are numerous factors which recommend a comparison between medieval chivalry and the hoplite ethos –
particularly that credited to the Spartans – but the Archaic evidence suggests that chivalry was more
radical. See E. Wheeler, “Ephorus and the Prohibition of Missiles” (1987): 157.
916
Plutarch Theseus 5.3.1-5.3.5. I presented the Greek and my translation of the passage on page 50.
917
Iliad 2.543. The Iliad may have been the original source for this reputation.
 248
918
the combatants. Its association with the Lelantine War is possible but uncertain. There

is no connection, however, with the passage in Strabo.919

Strabo claims to have seen a stele in Amarynthus proclaiming a ban on missiles

(φράζουσα µὴ χρῆσψѱαι τηλεβόλοις). As he illustrates a familiarity with Archilochus

elsewhere, Strabo could have made the connection explicit but he does not.920

Furthermore, Wheeler makes a compelling case for Strabo’s stele as dating no earlier

than the 5th century B.C.E.921 In the unlikely chance that it did, it is possible that Strabo

would not have been able to read a 7th century B.C.E. inscription.922 Wheeler ultimately

concludes that Strabo is relying upon Ephorus who, as a panhellenist, had an agenda in

recording the passage.923 Whether or not we agree with this conclusion, there are a

number of reasons to doubt that the passage from Strabo reflects attitudes from the 7th or

8th century B.C.E.924

Polybios also references a Greek practice of agreeing not to use hidden weapons

or those that can be shot at a distance.925 Is Polybios referencing this same prohibition of

missiles? Regardless, his mention of such an agreement is no more credible than his

918
E. Wheeler, “Ephorus and the Prohibition of Missiles,” (1987): 161.
919
Strabo 10.1.12.
920
W. Donlan, “Archilochus, Strabo and the Lelantine War,” TAPA 101 (1970): 133.
921
E. Wheeler, “Ephorus and the Prohibition of Missiles,” (1987): 163, 174.
922
Ibid., 174.
923
Ibid., 179. “The connection with Ephorus with a ban on missiles lies with Ephorus the panhellenist, not
the Ephorus the peripatetic.”
924
Josiah Ober, in a chapter entitled “The Rules of War in Classical Greece,” remarks that this tradition of
a ban on missiles “looks very dubious.” See J. Ober, The Athenian Revolution (Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1996), 55.
925
Polybios 13.3.2-4.
 249
predecessor’s and may even be less so. Polybios is widely regarded to be “romantizing

the ancient principles of Greek warfare,” erecting the model of an idealized Greek past

for a Roman present.926

Nonetheless, it is important to recognize that the bow’s reputation was not static.

As a consequence of the bow’s increasing association with a lower social class, attitudes

towards the weapon changed, though not as dramatically as one might think. The bow’s

long history and its prevalence in the popular Homeric epics may have had something to

do with this, as we shall see. In any event, if there is one consistency that can be said to

reflect a change in attitude toward the bow during the post-Homeric Archaic period, it is

neglect.

It would be foolish to underestimate the importance of neglect in demonstrating

attitude or ideology. Unfortunately, assessing exactly what this means with respect to

attitudes is impossible. It is fair to surmise that aristocratic hoplites preferred to hear

about and promote the exploits of their own class. That which was emphasized or

neglected reflected the ideology of the authors and audiences who participated in the

literature’s performance. In this environment, interest in archery waned and it began to

disappear from songs of war. Nevertheless, outright hostility or contempt are simply not

supported by the evidence. This would change with the defeat of Persia.

Material Evidence

Because of the challenging nature of our evidence, archaeological data is

extremely limited in its contribution to our understanding of attitudes. It does, however,

926
W.K. Pritchett, The Greek State at War, Volume 2 (1974), 180-183. Polybios’ efforts to credit Greeks
with a disdain for ambushes also finds no support from Homer. His imposition of his own battlefield ethics
on antiquity are clear.
 250
offer at least one fairly important point. The burial data from Lefkandi described earlier

clearly makes the case that the bow (or at least the arrows that survive) was, in the early

Archaic period, at home in aristocratic warrior burials. This would change with the

adoption of hoplite armor and the ideology that accompanied it. All evidence indicates

that the bow had lost this place of privilege by the mid-7th century.

Vase-paintings provide an abundance of information, but it is, as we saw earlier,

enigmatic in the extreme. Like the archaeological and literary evidence, the art historical

record also indicates that attitudes towards the archer were not static throughout the

Archaic period. Archers were abundant and prominent in Late Geometric vase-painting.

They fight in both primary and supporting roles. Some archers also bear the arms and

armor of their infantrymen peers.

Archers in 7th century vase-painting, appear less frequently.927 When they do,

they are usually engaged in a supporting role, kneeling behind a hoplite, following

someone with a shield, or shooting from amidst a crowd of spear-bearing hunters at their

prey. Like the Late Geometric archers, they fight both for and against hoplites or other

heavily armed troops. They are often clad in overtly Greek or non-descript attire.

Without getting into the details of respective compositions, it is fair to say that archers are

usually more peripheral than central to the action of a sequence. Regardless, when we

focus on the nature of the activities depicted, we find archers engaged in action that

accords with the supplemental behavior customary of archers in Archaic literature.

927
This applies to both the number of vases depicting archers altogether (in proportion to the number of
scenes depicting warriors generally, that is) and the number or archers in proportion to other types of
fighters on a vase. I exclude images of Herakles from consideration here. Herakles was a common subject
for much of the 7th and 6th centuries. Usually he is armed and fighting with a bow.
 251
th
Vase-paintings of the 6 century are both helpful and vexing. The corpus of

material is enormous, which allows us to establish certain statistical trends or

tendencies.928 This is a great boon. On the other hand, the vast majority of the archers

are dressed in Scythian garb. A full 93% of the vases featuring archers, which date from

between 550-500, depict them as Scythians. The matter of ethnic dress is, therefore, a

feature that cannot be avoided. It is also one that has lead to numerous problematic and, I

would argue, unmerited interpretations and assumptions. I have argued that these images

are dressed like Scythians because they are archers and not the other way around. So, we

will first consider their roles as archers on the vessels (what they are doing) before

turning to the question of ethnicity (what they are wearing).

On these vases, archers are rarely (5% of the time) depicted alone. Usually they

accompany hoplites in a variety of different types of scenes.929 Some of these are

familiar, like the battle (Fig. 1 Intro) and hunting (Figs. 26-28) scenes we saw earlier. Far

more of them represent displays of ritual civic activity.930

928
There are nearly 700 surviving Athenian vases and fragments bearing images of archers dressed in
Scythian garb dating to the years 570-480 B.C.E. Of these, 94% date to between 550-500 B.C.E. – and
constitute impressive 5% of all catalogued vases from this 50-year period of time. The Beazley Archive
(which dates in overlapping 50 year periods) records 10,498 Athenian Vases from the years 550-500 B.C.E.
Thus, the 568 vases from the years 550-500 represent 5% of the total. Beazley’s archive does not account
for every extant vessel or fragment, but does give us a good estimate of the number that is helpful in
illustrating the statistical significance of these images.
929
Having examined hundreds of vase paintings, I have selected images below which I consider to be
characteristic of the types of scenes described. While there are many variants, none of these images are
exceptional in any way. Collectively, they will give the reader a strong sense of how archers functioned on
vases (at least Attic vases) of the 6th century.
930
Combat scenes only account for 13% of the images. Lissarrague breaks the scenes down into a number
categories – departure scenes, arming scenes, chariot scenes, epic scenes, etc. F. Lissarrague, L’autre
guerrier (1991). While establishing discrete groups like these is tempting, we must exercise great care in
doing so and consider many statistics derived from such groupings to be misleading. It is often difficult to
discern whether figures in a scene are returning, departing, processing, or doing something else entirely.
‘Epic’ scenes are even trickier to pin down, as many, if not most, of these scenes conflate the epic with the
present day.
 252
Scenes portraying the final moments before heading off to battle, for example,

‘departure scenes,’ as they are called, are very common. In these scenes, warriors are

celebrated by family or polis (often represented by Athena herself). Usually, though not

always, the hoplite is the primary focus of such a scene (Fig. 30).931 In the figure below,

an armed hoplite stands between, and is literally framed by, an old man and a woman.

He is the focal point of the image, or rather his shield is. The hoplite here has essentially

been reduced to his most important attribute. He is a shield with limbs. The archer is

significantly overlapped by the hoplite and is discernable only by his hat, his bow

protruding beyond the outer edge of the shield, and an extra pair of unarmed legs.932 The

shield protects them both.933

Figure 30

931
Attic Black Figure Neck Amphora, 525-500 B.C.E., Metropolitan Museum of Art (New York)
41.162.171.
932
The hoplite almost always overlaps the archer, and not the other way around.
933
This image is an apt metaphor for the treatment of archers in both art and literature during the Archaic
period. The hoplite or heavily armed soldier dominates the focus, but the archer, sometimes nearly
invisible, is always there in the background, a necessary and important appendage to the more relevant and
important hoplite.
 253
A large percentage of the images depict archers with hoplites in or next to chariots

that are either coming, going, or otherwise moving in some kind of procession (Fig.

31).934 In the scene below, a hoplite rides on a four-horse chariot with his driver.935 The

chariot approaches a woman, standing on the right. Behind, and overlapped by, the

chariot is a hoplite carrying both shield and spear and an archer, whose head with its

distinguishing cap pops up between the two hoplites. The bottom of the archer’s quiver

is discernable beneath the tails of the horses. A dog looks up at the warriors from

beneath the horses. The chariot and its horses dominate the scene, but the hoplite is still

both prominently and centrally featured. Again, the archer is a featured and peripheral

part of the background.

Figure 31

934
The archers’ only consistent attribute is his peripheral appearance. The images vary in action and
composition widely enough that no consensus opinion can be made about the archers functioning as drivers
or caretakers for the horses, as has been done. Some seem to fit this description, most do not.
935
His driver is not an archer. Chariot drivers are often referred to as their respective warriors’
therapontes. This image therefore militates against the argument (seen earlier) that these Scythians
represent heroic therapontes. Again, the Scythian garb is firmly tied to archery.
 254
Nearly 20% of the images in question picture one or more archers kneeling

beside, standing, walking, or running with one or more hoplites (Fig. 32).936 In the scene

below, a single archer is running with three hoplites. Although overlapped by the hoplite

on the left, the archer is somewhat interlaced (improbably so) with the central hoplite –

the arm and leg of the hoplite overlapping those of the archer, but the bow and quiver of

the archer overlapping the hoplite’s leg. There is a striking consistency of pose among

the four soldiers. A Scythian bow appears to have been substituted for a shield in the

archer’s left hand. An arrow has been substituted for a spear – emphatic because it is so

quixotic – in the right hand. Attire and weaponry are the only things that differentiate

the archer and hoplites.

Figure 32

936
Attic Red Figure Krater by Euphronios. 520-505 B.C.E. Arezzo, Museo Civico 1465. These are likely
to be Amazons, who were depicted at the time just like Greeks. They lack facial hair and are often painted
white to emphasize their genders.
 255
Archers are also seen riding or leading a horse, watching an extispicy with one or more

hoplites (Fig. 33),937 accompanying a hoplite carrying a fallen comrade (Fig. 34),938 or

standing with a hoplite while the latter arms for war (Fig. 35).939

Figure 33

Figure 34

937
Attic Black Figure Neck Amphora by the Antimenes Painter, 525-510, Brussles Musées Royaux R291.
938
Attic Black Figure Olpe, from Vulci, 550-500, Altenburg, Staatliches Lindenau- Museum 203.
939
Attic Black Figure Amphora 525-500, Metropolitan Museum of Art (New York) 98.8.9.
 256
Figure 35

In each of these three scenes, the archer is off to the right and helps to frame the

scene – although it should be noted (as in Fig. 35) that hoplites can perform this function.

The important point here is that the archer participates via his mere presence in important

and solemn religious and civic rituals. He is rarely emphasized but often present, paired

with a single hoplite or mixed in with more.

In all cases, archers play supporting roles for hoplites, who enjoy pride of place,

as they do in Archaic literature. Although they are rarely the focal point of a scene, they

do nothing that could accurately be described as negative, cowardly, or ineffective.940

There are some combat scenes that feature archers running or running away and

(improbably) shooting backwards at the enemy, but hoplites too are depicted in the same

way, even running in one direction while fighting with spear or sword backwards. We

cannot attach this kind of flight or cowardice specifically to archers or other light-armed

troops. Archaic vase-painters simply do not defame archery. Archers fight with hoplites

940
There will always be individual exceptions, but an examination of the quantity of vases allows us to note
statistically significant trends.
 257
against other hoplites. They are a regular and comfortable feature of martial imagery.

The relationship between spear and the bow should be characterized as ‘both … and’

rather than ‘either … or.’

The Significance of Ethnic Dress in the Archaic Period

Any animosity or overtly negative sentiment therefore will have to be attributed to

the archer’s clothing. Whether we take these figures to be Scythian, vague oriental

peoples, nomads from the North, or Greeks in Eastern costume, we cannot avoid the fact

that these archers wear ethnic garb.941 I have suggested above that the costume was part

of an actual, though informal, uniform worn by Greek archers. Unfortunately, we may

never know for sure why archers were depicted in this way on Attic vessels. We may,

however, be able to decide whether or not a foreign appearance was meant to express

animosity or some other negative view of the practice. Was ethnic attire infused with a

meaning that might reasonably lead us to believe that Greeks frowned on archery?

Evidence pertaining to ideas about ethnicity in the Archaic period suggests that

scholarship favoring this perspective conflates a Classical worldview with an Archaic

one.

Few would argue that the Greeks did not have a sense of their own ethnicity in the

Archaic period. What it meant to them and how they expressed it, however, differed

fairly radically from one period to the next. As Edith Hall cautions, “A clear sense of

ethnicity does not necessitate the uniform sense of hostility towards all outsiders implied
941
In the previous Chapter, I presented a fairly thorough history of the scholarship on the Scythian imagery.
Although there are numerous interpretations, some of the most recent and most thorough treatments of the
figure revolve around the discovery of the ‘Other.’ As Cohen puts it: “In one view, Athenians were
depicted wearing exotic dress as a symbol that denoted their “playing the Other” whenever they
participated in activities or behavior that opposed or transgressed the Greek norm.” B. Cohen, “Ethnic
Identity in Democratic Athens” (2001), 243. The non-normative behavior in this case is the practice of
archery. However, I think that I have shown that the practice was, in fact, quite normal – just not elite.
 258
by the concept ‘barbarian.’ Such hostility waxes and wanes according to historical

circumstances.”942 The historical circumstances in question here surround the Persian

Wars and their aftermath, during which time Greeks “invented the barbarian.” These

wars “engendered polarization between Greek and barbarian.”943

This is not to oversimplify the process by which a heightened and redirected

consideration of ethnicity evolved. The polarization, which represented a renovated

worldview, did not happen overnight and did not merely revolve around a sense of

enmity for the invaders who sacked Athens, although the sentiment must not have been

negligible. Miller has found that a “Greek sense of ethnicity was not event-driven so

much as a function of large-scale socio-economic developments.”944 The Persian Wars

represented such a development, but so too did their aftermath. Hall sees this re-

conceptualization as part of an effort to legitimize the role of Athens in the Delian

League – and an effort to attain what she calls “cultural authorization.”945 Emerling

points out that cultures emphasize ethnic identity as a means of promoting cooperation

within group members.946 There is no better way to unify a group than to present it with –

even define it against - a common enemy, particularly when doing so has the added

benefit of reminding the group of one’s leadership role in defeating that enemy.

942
E. Hall, Inventing the Barbarian (1989), 8.
943
Ibid. Jonathan Hall agrees, viewing the 5th century as a time when the expression of ethnicity is
characterized by an “oppositional mode.” See J. Hall, Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity (1997).
944
M. Miller, “The Myth of Bousiris: Ethnicity and Art,” in Not the Classical Ideal: Athens and the
Construction of the Other in Greek Art (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 413.
945
E. Hall, Inventing the Barbarian (1989), 2.
946
G. Emerling, “Ethnicity in Complex Societies: Archaeological Perspectives,” Journal of Archaeological
Research 5.4 (1997), 310.
 259
Having addressed the point that there was a change in attitude between the

Archaic and Classical periods, and to some small extent explaining why, we must now

turn to the more pressing issue of attitudes about ethnicity in the Archaic period. Some

have argued that an ethnocentric orientalism extended back as far as Homer.947 The

Trojans, so the argument goes, have fewer heroes. Their heroes are not as heroic. Their

soldiers are not as organized. They speak different languages. They are associated with

the bow. I believe that recent scholarship has thoroughly torpedoed this position. Edith

Hall is quite persuasive in her coming to the simple conclusion that there is no

denigration of the Trojans in the Iliad.948 Cartledge agrees: “Homer bears little or no

trace of ethnocentric and derogatory stereotyping of barbarians” adding “Nor is any such

process of ‘othering’ apparent in the seventh or sixth centuries B.C.E.”949

As we saw earlier, there was an interest in foreign peoples during the period and

significant amounts of interaction. Greeks conducted business, fought, and even

intermarried with foreigners and we have no indication that there was a stigma attached

to these associations. As Jonathan Hall shows, even the Phoenicians, who tended to be

the subjects of bad press, were targeted because of what they did and not because of who

they were.950 There is little if any indication, however, that Greeks had much of an

947
Coleman makes a heroic effort to justify this belief, but his argument (for the Archaic period) does not
stand. Even he admits that “attitudes were then more varied and generally less pejorative than they later
became.” See J. Coleman, “Ancient Greek Ethnocentrism,” in Greeks and Barbarians: between Greeks
and Non-Greeks in Antiquity and the Consequences of Eurocentrism, ed. J. Coleman & C. Walz (Bethesda,
MD: CDL Press, 1997).
948
E. Hall, Inventing the Barbarian (1989), 32.
949
P. Cartledge, The Greeks: A Portrait of Self and Others (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), p. 53.
He also writes (pg. 13) that the word barbarian is “not in the Iliad and not pejorative or orientalist when it
did enter the language.”
950
J. Hall, A History of the Archaic Greek World (2007), 248, 261.
 260
951
interest in foreign ethnicity as it related to their own. Recent work on ethnicity has

shown that the structural oppositions at play in the Archaic period revolved around social

class, rather than ethnicity.952 This was the product of an aristocratic worldview.953

This position is consistent with the role of archer during the period and is an

enticing way in which to interpret the images we examined above. Miller, evaluating

vase paintings through the lens of Hall’s work, found that ethnicity in Archaic art appears

only on figures of lower social standing.954 So, rather than being figures of lower standing

because they are foreign, they are foreign because they are figures of lower standing (and

this would include cavalry who may have been of a higher class, but who held less

standing according to the dominant hoplite ethos than did hoplites). Images like the ones

in question undoubtedly expressed and reinforced an aristocratic hoplite ideology. Yet

we would be wise to keep in mind that archers were of lower standing. So, in this regard,

these images are not idealistic departures from an objective reality.

A final point of consideration here is raised by Cohen, who wonders, “… how

long each of these fashions continued to be regarded as distinctly foreign.”955 The degree

of ethnic specificity is debatable.956 During the Archaic period, however, the fashion had

951
M. Miller, “The Myth of Bousiris” (2000), 420. Hall also writes: “Being Greek was far less important
than being Athenian, or Spartan, or Theban, in the Archaic period” in E. Hall Inventing the Barbarian
(1989), 9. Also see J. Hall, “Ethnocentricity” (2007), 85-107.
952
Hall, J. Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity. Cambridge. 1997: 31-36.
953
M. Miller, “The Myth of Bousiris” (2000), 420.
954
Ibid., 440. This may be why the Scythian image diminished so conspicuously during the last decade of
the 6th c. In addition to an increase in anti-Persian politics associated with the period, democratic reforms
challenged the existing aristocratic ideology and the way in which it was expressed.
955
B. Cohen “Ethnic Identity in Democratic Athens” (2001): 250-251.
956
A.I. Ivantchik, “‘Scythian’ Archers on Archaic Attic Vases: Problems of Interpretation” Ancient
Civilizations 12, 3-4 (2006): 97-271.
 261
not been in vogue for too long. Scythians were known, even if only in a vague and

mysterious way and ethnic adjectives were used to describe objects known or believed to

be associated with those peoples - Scythian wood, Scythian bow, etc. Because the

meaning of the dress was not yet tarnished with the connotations later inherent in the

term ‘barbarian’, there is no reason to imagine that a viewer would have fixated on the

ethnic dress and may instead have seen only an archer.

The Polarization of Ethnicity

Greek ethnographic practices and a more clearly developed sense of panhellenism

and ethnocentrism in the years following the Persian Wars lead to the war’s depiction in

both art and literature as a victory of the spear over the bow. It was during this time that

the Scythian archer ceased to appear as an ally, and a Persian archer began to appear

almost exclusively as an eastern enemy, often brandishing his bow (even when not using

it) against a spear-bearing hoplite.957 The figure (Fig. 36) below epitomizes this

Classical dichotomy.958 This oinochoe features a nude hoplite. Though stripped of his

corselet to reveal his idealized naked body, he wears the remainder of the standard Greek

hoplite panoply – a helmet, greaves (shown frontally and in profile), a spear, a shield, and

a sword that hangs down behind his left leg. The hoplite’s shield, arguably the focal

point of the image, is attended to with great care by the artist, who explores its concavity,

957
The distinction between Persians and Scythians at this point is controversial. The pointed hat is one
point of emphasis, but artists always applied a great deal of license in rendering the cap. I would suggest
that the bow is helpful here. As we saw earlier, the Persians, especially for their mounted archers, had
adopted the Scythian bow, which they used alongside their own. There are times when a character bearing
a Scythian bow may reasonably be thought to represent a Persian. I have seen no images that portray
someone who is definitely meant to be Scythian carrying anything other than a Scythian bow. The weapon
made an impression on the Greeks, retained its ethnic name ‘Scythian bow’ through the Roman period, and
was always associated with Scythians and Scythian dress by the Greeks.
958
Attic Red Figured Oinochoe by the Chicago Painter, 450 B.C.E., MFA Boston 13.196.
 262
decoration, and rim in detail. The hoplite is pictured just before delivering a fatal thrust

of his spear to the heart of the Persian opposing him. The hoplite steps into the blow,

almost as if giving chase to the Persian. The Persian faints away from the spear, his legs

turned as if about to flee.

The Persian is safely identified as such, not because of his saggy cap, bushy

beard, or sword (ἀκινάκης), but because of his long Persian bow.959 The artist offers an

important detail about the Persian’s weapons and perhaps their futility against the hoplite.

For just behind the Greek, we see an arrow flying through the air at a downward

trajectory. The Persian missed. His bow is no use to him. Instead he must resort to his

backup weapon, the sword, which he holds above his head to deliver a slashing bow.

This too will prove futile. Not only is the hoplite’s longer spear about to kill, but his

shield is poised to deflect the Persian’s sword. This Persian is clearly no match for the

hoplite, and his body language suggests that even he has come to this realization. A dual

of this kind has no precedent in the Archaic period.

959
The hat, beard, and sword are all criteria used by scholars make arguments distinguishing Persian from
Scythian. They are each problematic. I have discussed the hat in the note just above. Though it is the
iconographical detail for which we have both documentary and comparative evidence, it is not the most
reliable indication of specific ethnicity on Attic vases. Scythian beards are often described as short and
pointed, but these too are rendered with such variance (or not at all) that they too offer a problematic means
of discerning ethnicity. Apart from the bow the sword may be the best indication of Persian ethnicity.
Scythians are strongly associated and usually depicted with an axe, not a sword. This is somewhat ironic
given the fact that the Persians adopted the weapon from the Medes, who themselves adopted it from the
Scythians. Scythian archaeology and imagery indicates the use of both the ax and this sword.
 263
Figure 36

Aeschylus was the first author to fully exploit this new ideology, establishing a

dichotomy between the two weapons that would play prominently in Greek literature for

hundreds of years.960 His Persians, published within a decade of the Battle of Salamis,

would have been performed before an audience of hoplites, many of whom had

experienced the battle firsthand. He sets his tragedy in the Persian court as it awaits news

of the battle. Here Aeschylus has the Persian chorus of old men wonder aloud whether

the drawing of the bow or the spearheaded lance was victorious, reducing a naval

engagement to a land engagement and pitting archers against hoplites.961 A few lines

later, the Persian Queen Atossa, curious about the customs of the Greeks, ask the Chorus,

“Is the bow-stretching shaft native to their hand?” They reply, “Not at all. They have

960
See E. Hall, Inventing the Barbarian: Greek Self-definition through Tragedy (1991).
961
Aeschylus Persians 146-149.
 264
962
spears for close fighting and they carry shields for armour.” Darius himself is referred

to as ‘τόξαρχος’, lord of the bow.963 When the bad news arrives that the Persian force has

been annihilated, we learn that “bows protected none.”964

There are numerous examples in the Classical literature that incorporate this

theme with varying levels of sophistication (or even, in the spirit of Euripides, dissent),

but it is Sophocles who provides perhaps the most concise means of assessing the extent

to which attitudes towards archery changed.965 Aeschylus’ Persians was atypical in using

historical context and characters. Tragedy customarily relied upon mythology for both,

and numerous heroes were known to have been archers.966 Because archery, by this time,

was held to be cowardly and un-Greek (at least among the hoplite class), the clash

between what we might call ‘myth-history’ and contemporary prejudices provided

authors with a fertile ground for exploration and invention. Sophocles demonstrates this

in his Ajax with a novel treatment of Teukros.

As detailed above, Teukros was among the Iliad’s finest warriors. He kills

several men, fights with multiple weapons, and is at one point referred to as the ‘best

man’ (ἀνδρὸς ἀριστῆος) of the Achaeans. His illegitimate birth is acknowledged by

962
Aeschylus Persians 239-240. πότερα γὰρ τοξουλκὸς αἰχµὴ διὰ χεροῖν αὐτοῖς πρέπει;
{Χο.} οὐδαµῶς· ἔγχη σταδαῖα καὶ φεράσπιδες σαγαί.
963
Aeschylus Persians 556.
964
Aeschylus Persians 278 - οὐδὲν γὰρ ἤρκει τόξα . Herodotus (9.62.6) agrees with Aeschylus to an extent.
He grants to the Persians equivalent courage and strength, but credits the superiority of Greek hoplite
tactics for the victory. This implies superior arms, but includes tactical considerations into the assessment.
965
I recommend the memorable debate that takes place in Euripides’ Herakles regarding the relative merits
of the bow versus the spear.
966
Herakles, Philoctetes, Odysseus, Teukros, Orestes, and Bellerophon are but a few.
 265
967
Homer’s use of the term ‘νόθѳον’, but it is inconsequential in the text. Efforts by

scholars to link his behavior or attitude to his Trojan roots revolve around Teukros’ use

of the bow and the incorrect presumption that it was, even at this early date, considered

un-Greek and characteristic of Trojans.968

Teukros’ character in Sophocles’ Ajax is both admirable and sympathetic. Yet, to

a Classical audience, he is not without defects and these are seized upon by his

enemies.969 Menelaos derides him as an archer in an exchange that not only draws

attention to the bow’s supposed inferiority as a weapon, but also highlights some of the

class issues that had become bound up in the subject over the years since the adoption of

hoplite armor and Solon’s formalization of the connection between of property class and

military service:970

Menelaos: “The archer seems to think that he is not small (οὐ σµικρὸν).”
Teukros: “I have acquired no vulgar art (βάναυσον τὴν τέχνην).”971
Menelaos: “You would boast greatly if you were to take up a shield!”
Teukros: “Even light-armed (κἂν ψѱιλὸς) I would be a match for you in full
panoply.”

967
Iliad 8.284. According to Apollodorus (3.12.7), Teukros’ mother was the Trojan princess Hesione, the
daughter of Laomedon and sister of Priam. She was given as a prize to Telamon by Herakles.
968
For example, see M. Bittarello, “The ‘Teucer Paradigm’” (2007): 3.
969
Menelaos and Agamemnon are not sympathetic characters. The audience is meant to side with Teukros.
Yet, these criticisms of Teukros would have been considered legitimate to many (if not most) in attendance,
and they are amply substantiated in Classical literature. The villains are therefore parroting popular
rhetoric in denigrating a character with whom the audience sympathized. I suspect that the effect would
have been discomforting.
970
Sophocles Ajax 1120-1123. That the word choice is laden with class consciousness argues against this
being ‘tough talk’ of the type seen above in the Iliad. Teukros’ responses indicate a preexisting awareness
of the class issue.
971
βάναυσον is without precedent and seems to have a literal sense of ‘as of a craftsman’ or ‘unworthy of a
freeborn man.’ See J. Kamerbeek, The Plays of Sophocles, Commentaries I: The Ajax, trans. H. Schreuder.
(Leiden: Brill, 1963). For another helpful example of the word see Plato Laws I.644a.
 266
Agamemnon then attacks Teukros upon the basis of his birth, one which Teukros

himself freely acknowledges as illegitimate, describing himself with Homer’s word

‘νόθѳον’.972 Agamemnon’s assault, however, has less to do with legality than ethnicity.

Teukros is one-half barbarian. In the derisive rhetoric of Agamemnon, this point is

exaggerated to a ridiculous degree, as he dismisses Teukros by saying, “ For I do not

understand your barbarian tongue (τὴν βάρβαρον γὰρ γλῶσσαν ).”973

That (or perhaps whether) he is the product of a Greek father and barbarian

mother is of little or no consequence to Homer. In the social climate that followed the

Persian Wars, however, such allegations carried weight.974 Aeschines, for example,

would accuse his political rival Demosthenes of the same charge on more than one

occasion, claiming the latter’s mother to have been a Scythian nomad.975 Teukros has

undergone a serious metamorphosis from the time of Homer. Described at one point in

Homer as the ‘best man’ among the Achaeans for his deadly exploits with the bow, his

role as an archer and his barbarian lineage are worthy of rebuke in Classical Athens. It is

also noteworthy that the roles are attacked in that order – first the bow and only then his

ethnicity. The bow, despite its use by Athenians, had become that powerful a symbol.

972
Sophocles Ajax 1013.
973
Sophocles Ajax 1263. This is wonderfully ironic coming from Agamemnon, whose grandfather Pelops
came from Phrygia. This should heighten our understanding of this as pure polemic rhetoric.
974
It is also possible that in addition to the stigma of barbarian blood, the recently passed citizenship laws
of 451/0 B.C.E. and the social conditions surrounding them would have raised awareness about and created
expectations for ‘proper’ marriages in Athens.
975
Aeschines On the Embassy 78; Against Ctesiphon 172.
 267
The ostrakon pictured below (Fig. 37) demonstrates the symbolic effect of the

bow in action.976 This sherd was one of 700 cast in hopes of ostracizing a certain Kallias,

son of Kratios, whose name is inscribed on the other side. It is one of sixteen (and the

only one with a drawing on it) that accuses Kallias of ‘Medizing.’ In this particular case,

the voter proclaims his reasoning by scratching a rudimentary but very identifiable

illustration of a Persian (or ‘Mede’, as he would have been called by Athenians, who had

a tendency to conflate the Persian and Medic ethnicity). The artist, who is clearly literate,

feels no need to label the image or detail his reasoning. The image of a ‘Mede,’ with his

large Persian bow prominently displayed in his left hand – the visual vocabulary used by

the Achaemenid kings, is enough to declare his belief that Kallias has Persian

sympathies.

Figure 37

976
Portrait ostrakon. Deutches Archäologisches Institut, Athens. J. Hall, J. A History of the Archaic Greek
World (2007), 269-270. R. Osborne, Greece in the Making 1200 – 479 B.C. (New York: Routledge, 1996),
332-333.
 268
This ideology did not evolve in a vacuum. In fact, the ‘oppositional’ mindset had

a ready-made paradigm to oppose. The bow, for the Persians, was not only an important

weapon or war. It was a symbol of power and virility. Persian iconography had long

capitalized upon the political importance of this symbol, but this was never more

apparent to the Greeks than it was with Persia under Achaemenid rule. Under Darius in

the last quarter of the 6th century, the Persians overhauled preexisting practices relating to

the expression of imperial power and invented a new ‘iconography of power.’977 The

bow was given a prominence in this imagery in both monumental and portable art.978

The relief at Behistun (Fig. 38) is an excellent example. Here, Darius is pictured

trampling a fallen enemy, his bow atop his foot as a symbol of military might.979 He

stands at the head of a line of bow-wielding Persians. He is, in essence, the first

archer,980 or perhaps as Aeschylus noted, the ‘lord of the bow’ (τόξαρχος).

977
M.C. Root, The King and Kingship in Achaemenid Art: Essays on the Creation of an Iconography of
Empire (Leiden: Brill, 1979); M.C. Root, “The Persian Archer at Persepolis: Aspects of Chronology, Style
and Symbolism” REA 91.1-2 (1989): 33-50; and A. Kurt, “The Achaemenid Concept of Kingship” (1984):
156-160.
978
“It is difficult to imagine that at this late stage of intercultural contact and influence that many Greeks
were not aware of this meaning” in C. Zutterman, “The Bow in the Ancient Near East, A Re-Evaluation of
Archery from the Late 2nd Millenum to the End of the Achaemenid Empire,” Iranica Antiqua 38 (2003):
142-143.
979
Ibid., 142-143.
980
A. Kurt, “The Achaemenid Concept of Kingship,” (1984): 158.
 269
Figure 38

During this same time, Darius minted gold coins that were to known as ‘darics’

(Fig. 39).981 They had a long life and were widely circulated. On them, a crowned and

robed king is portrayed, kneeling (or running) and holding both bow and spear. Coins

like these would have been available to Greeks through their myriad interactions with

Persians. Later, these coins were referred to by Greeks as ‘archers.’982

Figure 39

981
Daric, from Sardis, Lydia, American Numismatic Society 1997.9.184. There seems to be some
disagreement concerning the origin of the name. Some believe (as the Greeks did) that it derived from
Darius, but it may be more likely that it came from the Persian word for gold. Herodotus mentions Darius’
minting of coins in 4.166.
982
Plutarch Artaxerxes 20.6.2, Agesilaus 15.6.5.
 270
In this context, a contrast between the bow and spear made a lot of sense. Beyond

ethnographic practices that sought to define peoples by, among other things, their

weaponry, elite ideology in much of Greece had long revolved around the practice of

hoplite warfare. The spear and bronze panoply were infused with meaning. The

Persians, on the other hand, were already exploiting the imagery of the bow to represent

their version of power and virility. The bow was therefore easily equated with tyranny

and the spear with democracy. The weapons represented much more than military

systems. They stood for political systems and more.983

Conclusion

The contrast between hoplite and archer during the Archaic period revolves

around class and not race. Our evidence suggests that archers were not central to the

military prowess of the polis, but that they were regular participants in its service. They

are even idealized by being dressed in the garb of esteemed archer stereotype. The model

is therefore not one that opposes a hoplite positive to an archer negative. Instead it

suggests that hoplites are the ‘best of the Achaians,’ to borrow a Homeric description.

The distinction may seem minute, but it is actually essential to our understanding of elite

self-perception. It is one thing to see oneself as good when compared to something

inherently bad, but quite another to see oneself as the best among the good, particularly

given the ways in which the political world had been reconfigured during the Archaic

period, presumably in response to pressure from the lower classes.

983
E. Hall, Inventing the Barbarian (1991), 2. Also, C. Zuttermen, “The Bow in the Ancient Near East”
(2003): 142-143: “The bow represented more than a failed weapon. It was a failed system of governance, a
misguided vision for courage and manhood. Because the spear won, it could assume the bow’s meaning to
an extent. This is clear in the tragedies too.”
 271
Archery in Archaic Greece:
Conclusion

Certain erroneous beliefs about archery are canonical and have become dangerous

impediments to academic progress in those areas of study using archers or archery as a

means to some greater end. In the introduction to this dissertation, I attempted to

highlight some of these beliefs through the use of a few familiar examples from Archaic

literature and art. I posed five questions meant not only to address these misconceptions,

but also to provide a thematic framework for a practical systematic study of the subject:

Did archery exist in Archaic Greece? How was it used? Was it effective? Who were the

archers? What did people think about the bow?

Conclusions

Archery did not disappear with the collapse of Mycenaean Greece only to

reappear later through contact with Crete or in the hands of foreigners. There was no

“native aversion to archery”984 in Archaic Greece nor is there good reason to believe that

archers on mainland Greece at any time from 1050 – 490 B.C.E. were not ethnically

Greek. The most substantive development for archery after the Bronze Age was the

elite’s newfound preference for other weapons – the sword, at first, and then the spear,

particularly after the emergence of hoplite warfare. The bow became a secondary or

supplementary weapon. This did not, however, preclude its use. There is, in fact, no

point in Greek history when the bow was not used. The allegation made by Vos that

984
Snodgrass, A. 1999:81.
 272
down to the fifth century the bow was little used “and then only in hunting” is

baseless.985 The bow was common from the sub-Mycenaean period through the Persian

Wars and beyond.

The bow was used in a variety of ways to support, supplement, and complement

heavily armed infantrymen (hoplites and their predecessors). An army without archers

was vulnerable to enemy cavalry or light-armed soldiers whose mobility and firepower

might enable them to flank or simply assail a hoplite army without giving the latter an

opportunity to engage. On the march or on uneven terrain, archers could use their range

to keep these types of hostile forces at bay, protecting out-of-formation or otherwise

disadvantaged hoplites. In this light, arguments in favor of an increased importance of

archery on the fringes of the Greek world make sense. It is precisely in many of these

areas that armies favored both cavalry and archery. Thus, having one’s own force of

archers would have been a rather important precaution. Interestingly, this defensive

character is central to archery’s tactical use in Archaic Greece. There were definitely

ways in which the bow was used offensively, but even these were rarely decisive.

There were two ways in which the bow was used most successfully by other

armies that favored archery – massed volleys and mounted archery – that were never fully

developed in Archaic or even Classical Greece. It is tempting to see this as the deliberate

suppression of tactics that could have been devastating to infantrymen and undermining

to their claim of power. Suppression of this kind is well-known to have occurred as

Medieval chivalry wrestled with the growing efficacy of the bow. It is difficult to imagine

985
Vos, M. 1963: 1. She makes exceptions for Homer’s Lokrians and Cretans.
 273
that ideology did not play a role in Greece, but it would be negligent to stop there. The

bow’s defensive character may have contributed to this. Massed volleys and mounted

archery, both of which were known and employed sparingly, were more offensive tactics.

They required more archers and more horses to be utilized effectively. Large swathes of

mainland Greece would have been poor terrain for large cavalry forces and horses were

quite expensive. Furthermore, the training required to use a bow and especially the

training required to shoot effectively from horseback would certainly have been limiting

factors. Many if not most citizens with the money to buy a bow and the leisure to

practice it would likely have been able to afford basic hoplite equipment. This is one area

where ideology may have played an important role. The social incentive to fight as a

hoplite would have been far greater. Moreover, one wonders if armies would have been

able to afford the manpower. Archaic engagements are reckoned to have been fairly small

in scale. If relatively small contingents of archers were able to provide the defensive

measures and deterrents required in an engagement, would not the extra manpower be

more useful in the phalanx?

As noted above, archery could be effective, especially against horses and light-

armed men. The bow was not as effective against heavily armed infantrymen for the

simple reason that arrows would not often have been able to penetrate Greek armor. This

is undoubtedly another factor that contributed to its underdeveloped offensive capability.

This factor does not, however, mean that the bow was ineffective or “the feeble weapon

of a worthless man.” My study of wounds, their treatment, infection, and the potential

use of arrow toxins adds a fruitful and previously unexplored perspective on the risks
 274
involved with facing an archer and some of the psychological considerations of doing so.

In a form of warfare wherein armies were so heavily dependent upon morale and so easily

compromised by fear, an arrow was a weapon of terror. Moreover, dying of tetanus six

days after a battle did not accord with the hoplite’s ideal of a ‘beautiful death’ – one of

the prospects that fortified a warrior as he girded himself for what was surely a horrifying

ordeal.

The identity of archers changed over time. Early on warriors might use a variety

of weapons and the bow might be used by just about anyone. Later, with the advent of

the hoplite phalanx, archers became light-armed specialists. Hoplites favored the spear.

Warriors, though they might be very familiar with the bow, would fight as hoplites if they

could afford to do so, leaving the bow to men of lesser means and status. Again, the bow

was relatively expensive and required skill to use proficiently. Thus, the thetes (and fairly

well-off thetes at that) rather than slaves or foreigners are the most likely candidates to

have served as archers in the Archaic (and to a large degree in the Classical) period. Once

more, there is no compelling reason to believe that the archers fighting in Archaic Athens

or elsewhere in Greece were Scythians or Cretans.

Finally, despite its ideological demotion among the elite, the bow did not carry an

actively negative association until the Persian Wars in the early 5th century B.C.E.

There is no disputing that the spear is the more prominent weapon and front-fighters (and

later hoplites) the most important warriors on the Archaic battlefield. This sentiment

would only grow stronger in time as armor evolved and aristocrats abandoned the bow
 275
altogether. The treatment of archery in the Archaic period, however, is considerably more

nuanced than many scholars have allowed.

Points unable to be resolved

As is often the case for studies in the Archaic period, we are forced to accept the

unsettling fact that ‘probable’ may be the highest degree of certainty we can hope to

achieve in some regards. I have highlighted the numerous evidentiary problems associated

with the period and with this study in particular. Some of them, unfortunately, are

insurmountable. This may well be why this subject has eluded study for so long. There

are two issues that are particularly vexing to me as I draw to an end.

First, we cannot and likely will not ever know the exact nature of the bow used by

the Greeks in the Archaic period. All signs point to the coexistence of a few different

types of bow, the Scythian being the best and most idealized. Given its complicated and

time-consuming manufacture, however, I cannot imagine that every archer campaigned

with a Scythian bow in hand. Just as hoplites are depicted on vases in full panoply, but

often wore supplementary gear or discarded certain elements, so too were archers

depicted with the Scythian bow. The realization that they did not all have the same bow

and that some of the bows may have differed considerably in their capabilities from

others is an impediment to understanding tactics and deployments. We are able to

discuss generalities, but details in individual accounts are more challenging. For instance,

how far away is an army camped just beyond bowshot? For how many meters did an
 276
army have to advance while subject to bowshot before closing with an enemy? It really

depends on the bow.

Another frustration is an inability to firmly point to thetes (or other fairly well-off

lower class people) as ‘the archers’ in Archaic Greece. The evidence indicates that thetes

did serve as archers, but there is not enough to show that they always served as archers.

We can only say that they probably served in this capacity on a routine basis. In some

ways, assessing all of the evidence, we are compelled to comply with Occam’s razor in

identifying Archaic Greek archers. This is unsatisfying, but far more agreeable than the

alternative – doing cartwheels to justify the ‘likelihood’ of another candidate despite the

evidence. For, the evidence is more helpful in illustrating who the archers were not.

Further lines of enquiry

In his very useful study of political ideology as it relates to the battlefield, van

Wees writes, “The notion, propagated by ancient authors and accepted by modern

scholars, that archaic and classical battles were won and lost by hoplites alone thus stands

in need of some revision.”986 I would like to think that this dissertation is a step in that

direction. Nonetheless, throughout the course of my research it became clear to me that

there is much work to be done with respect to light-armed troops – especially in the

Archaic period. Best’s 1969 Thracian Peltasts and their Influence on Greek Warfare is

one of very few studies of light-armed troops, and even his excellent work could benefit

986
van Wees, H. “Politics and the Battlefield: Ideology in Greek Warfare” in Powell, A. (ed.) The Greek
World. Routledge. London. 1995: 165.
 277
from revision given the advances in scholarship over the past forty-three years. Archers

were but one of many types of light-armed troops on the battlefield. They may have

been the most specialized, but they were not alone and, at times, may not even have been

the most effective of their light-armed peers. I hope to publish some of the research I

have compiled on slingers, for example, in the future. There is also much to be done with

respect to javelin throwers and stone throwers.

My efforts to incorporate comparative data into my work have also convinced me

that a major comparative study of Classical hoplite ideology and Medieval chivalry would

bear much fruit for both disciplines. I alluded to this above in discussing the potential

suppression of certain tactics for ideological reasons. The so-called ‘prohibition of

missiles’ is one area where the similarities have been exploited, but there is little available

beyond this.

From the rarely explored to the hackneyed: I think that the question of Scythian

archers on Attic Vase Painting of the late Archaic period deserves still more attention. I

believe that my work will contribute greatly to subsequent study of the subject and I have

thrown my hat in the ring, arguing that a.) the images are absolutely not meant to be real

Scythians, b.) they are dressed (and intended to be dressed) like Scythians because they

are archers and not the other way around, c.) this may well have been a real though not

entirely standardized uniform, d.) the costume is related to the weapon – the distinctive

Scythian bow, e.) the costume and weapon do not denigrate the archer, but rather idealize

him in much the same way that the hoplite panoply idealizes the hoplite, f.) the role, and

not the dress, of the archers in their depictions relegate them to lower class status, g.) the
 278
corpus of material indicates that the archers are being incorporated into rather than

excluded from a place on the battlefield and in the important civic and religious rituals

surrounding it. I have not ventured an opinion here on the explosion of these images in

the last quarter of the 6th century (86% or 496 vases according to the Beazley archive),

which may well be the key to understanding the whole figure. There is also an excellent

body of recent work available on ethnicity and strong and growing body of work on

cultural exchange and on the Greek presence in the Black Sea.

A Final Note

Finally, this dissertation has been for me, and I hope for my reader, a powerful lesson in

the pervasiveness of Classical ideology, the danger of circular reasoning, the necessity for

responsible interdisciplinary research, and the importance of turning over old stones.
 279
Archery in Archaic Greece
Bibliography

Abler, Thomas. Hinterland Warriors and Military Dress: European Empires and Exotic
Dress. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.

Adler, Bruno. “Pfeil und Bogen in Kult und Sage.” Weltkreis 2 (1931): 101-33.

Ahlberg, Gundrun. Fighting on Land and Sea in Greek Geometric Art. Stockholm:
Svenska Institutet i Athen, 1971.

Albright, William Foxwell and George Mendenhall. “The Creation of the Composite
Bow in Canaanite Mythology.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 1.2 (1942): 227-229.

Alekseev, Andrei. “Some Problems in the Study of the Chronology of the Ancient
Nomadic Cultures in Eurasia.” Geochronometria: Journal on the Methods and
Applications of Absolute Chronology 21 (2002).

Allely, Steve, Tim Baker, Jim Hamm, Paul Comstock, and Steve Gardneret. The
Traditional Bowyer’s Bible Volumes I-IV. Guilford, CT: The Lyons Press, 2000-2008.

Anderson, John Kinloch. Hunting in the Ancient World. Berkeley: University of

California Press, 1985.

Anderson, John Kinloch. “Hoplites and Heresies: A Note.” Journal of Hellenic Studies
104 (1984): 152.

Anderson, John Kinloch. “Greek Chariot-Borne and Mounted Infantry.” American

Journal of Archaeology 79.3 (1975): 175-187.

Anderson, John Kinloch. Military Theory and Practice in the Age of Xenophon.
Berkeley: University of California Press, 1970.

Arachobite, P. “Yolvtow prvtogevµetrikow tafow sthn perioxh tvn fervn"

in Yessalia: Dekapente xronia arxaiologikew ereunaw, 1975-1990. 1994.

Arafat, K.W. “State of the Art—Art of the State. Sexual Violence and Politics in Late
Archaic and Early Classical Vase-Painting.” In Rape in Antiquity, edited by Susan Deacy,
Karen F. Pierce, 97-121. London: Duckworth/The Classical Press of Wales, 1997.

Arafat, K.W. and C. Morgan. “Athens, Etruria and the Heuneburg: mutual
misconceptions in the study of Greek-Barbarian relations.” In Classical Greece: Ancient
Histories and Modern Archaeologies, edited by I. Morris, 108-134. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1994.
 280

Armstrong, A. “Trial by Combat Among the Greeks.” Greece & Rome 19.56 (1950): 73-
79.

Armstrong, C.B. “Casualty Lists in the Trojan War.” Greece & Rome 2nd Series 16.1
(1969): 30-31.

Aro, Sanna and Robert M. Whiting, eds. The Heirs of Assyria: Proceedings of the
opening Symposium of the Assyrian and Babylonian Intellectual Heritage Project.
Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 2000.

Ashley, James. The Macedonian Empire: The Era of Warfare under Philip II and
Alexander the Great. Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland & Company, Inc., 1998.

Avram, Alexandru. “Some Thoughts about the Black Sea and the Slave Trade before the
Roman Domination (sixth-first centuries BC).” In The Black Sea in Antiquity: Regional
and Interregional Economic Exchanges, edited by V. Gabrielsen and J. Lund, 242-245.
Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 2007.

Balfour, Henry. “The Archer’s Bow in the Homeric Poems – An Attempted Diagnosis.”
Royal Anthropological Institute Journal 51 (1921): 289-309.

Balfour, Henry. “On the Remarkable Ancient Bow and Arrows Believed to be of
Assyrian Origin.” Anthropological Institute Journal 26 (1897): 210-20.

Barringer, Judith M. “Scythian Hunters on Attic Vases.” In Greek Vases: Images,

Contexts, and Controversies, edited by Clemente Marconi. Leiden: Brill, 2004.

Barringer, Judith M. The Hunt in Ancient Greece. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University
Press, 2001.

Barringer, Judith M. “Atalanta as Model: The Hunter and the Hunted.” Classical
Antiquity 15 (1996): 48-76.

Barth, Fredrik. “Introduction.” In Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social

Organization of Culture Difference, edited by Fredrik Barth, 1-38. Long Grove, IL:
Waveland Press, 1969.

Bazant, J. “Art and History.” Listy filologické 104 (1981): 13-33.

Bergman C.A., E. McEwen and R. Miller. “Experimental Archery: Projectile Velocities

and Comparison of Bow Performances.” Antiquity 62.237 (1988): 658-670.

Best, Jan G. Thracian Peltasts and their Influence on Greek Warfare. Groningen:
Wolters-Noordhoff, 1969.
 281
Bill, J. “Notes on Arrow wounds.” American Journal of Medical Science 44 (1862): 365-
387.

Billows, Richard. Marathon: How One Battle Changed Western Civilization. London:
Duckworth, 2010.

Bittarello, Maria B. “The ‘Teucer Paradigm’ and the Eastern Other in Western
Literature.” Comparative Literature and Culture 9.3 (2007).

Blegen, Carl. “Inscriptions on Geometric Pottery.” American Journal of Archaeology 38

(1934): 10-28.

Blok, Josine H. The Early Amazons. Modern and Ancient Perspectives of a Persistent
Myth, volume 120 of the Religions in the Graeco-Roman World series. Leiden: Brill,
1995.

Blyth, Philip. The Effectiveness of Greek Armour against Arrows in the Persian War
(490-479 B.C.). PhD diss., University of Reading, 1977.

Blyth, Philip. “The Design and Material of the Bow.” In Longbow, edited by R. Hardy.
Cambridge: Patrick Stephens, 1976.

Boardman, John. “Al Mina and History.” Oxford Journal of Archaeology 9 (1990): 169-
190.

Boardman, John. Athenian Black Figure Vases. London: Thames and Hudson, 1974.

Boardman, John. Athenian Red Figure Vases: The Archaic Period. London: Thames and
Hudson, 1975.

Boardman, John. Athenian Red Figure Vases: The Classical Period. London: Thames
and Hudson, 1989.

Boardman, John. Early Greek Vase Painting. London: Thames and Hudson, 1998.

Boardman, John. “Trade in Greek Decorated Pottery.” Oxford Journal of Archaeology 7

(1988): 27-33.

Boardman, John. The Greeks Overseas: Their Early Colonies and Trade. 4th Edition.
London: Thames and Hudson, 1999.

Boardman, John. Pre-classical: from Crete to Archaic Greece. New York: Penguin
Books, 1967.

Boardman, John. “Old Smyrna: The Attic Pottery.” Journal of the British School of
Athens 53-54 (1958): 152-81.
 282

Boardman, J. and N.G.L. Hammond, eds. The Cambridge Ancient History, III.3: The
Expansion of the Greek World, 8th to 6th centuries B.C. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1982.

Boedeker, Deborah and Kurt Raaflaub, eds. Democracy, Empire, and the Arts in fifth-
century Athens. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2003.

Bolton, James D.P. Aristeas of Proconnesus. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962.

Borthwick, E. Kerr. “The Wise Man and the Bow in Aristides Quintilianus.” Classical
Quarterly 41.1 (1991): 275-278.

Borthwick, E. Kerr. “P.Oxy. 2738: Athena and the Pyrrhic Dance.” Hermes 98 (1970):
318-31.

Bothmer, Dietrich Von. Amazons in Greek Art. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1957.

Bouzek, Jan. Greece, Anatolia and Europe: Cultural Interrelations during the Early Iron
Age. Jonsered: Paul Astroms Forlag, 1997.

Bovon, Anne. “La représentation des guerres perses et la notion de barbare dans la 1ère
moitié du Ve siècle.” Bulletin de correspondence hellénique 87 (1963): 579-602.

Bowie, E.L. “Lies, Fiction and Slander in Early Greek Poetry.” In Lies and Fiction in the
Ancient World, edited by Christopher Gill and T.P. Wiseman, 1-37. Austin: University of
Texas Press, 1993.

Bowra, Cecil Maurice. On Greek Margins. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970.

Bowra, Cecil Maurice. Heroic Poetry. London: MacMillan, 1952.

Bradbury, Jim. The Medieval Archer. Dover, NH: The Boydell Press, 1985.

Bradeen, Donald W. The Athenian Agora Inscriptions: Funerary Monuments 17.

Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1974.

Brain, Peter and D.D. Skinner. “Odysseus and the Axes: Homeric Ballistics
Reconstructed.” Greece & Rome 2nd Ser. 25.1 (1978): 55-58.

Braun, T.F.R.G. “The Greeks in the Near East.” In Cambridge Ancient History (III 2.3),
series edited by J. Boardman, 1-31. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982.

Braun, T.F.R.G. “The Greeks in Egypt.” In Cambridge Ancient History (III 2.3), series
edited by J. Boardman, 32-50. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982
 283
Braund, D. Scythian Archers, Athenian Democracy and a Fragmentary Inscription from
Erythrae. In Antichnÿi mir. Vizantiya. A special volume in honour of the 70th birthday of
V.I. Kadeyev, edited by V. F. Meshcheryakov, 48-56. Kharkov, 1997.

Braund, Davis and G. Tsetskhladze. “The Export of Slaves from Colchis.” Classical
Quarterly 39.1 (1989): 114-125.

Brélaz, Cédric and Ducrey, Pierre. “Une grappe de balles de fronde en plomb à Erétrie.
La technique de fabrication des projectiles et l' usage de la fronde en Grèce ancienne (pl.
23-24).” Antike Kunst. Hrsg. von der Vereinigung der Freunde antiker Kunst 46 (2003):
99-115

Brenne, Stefan. “‘Portraits’ auf Ostraka.” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen

Instituts 107 (1992): 161-185.

Brinkman, J. “The Akkadian Words for ‘Ionia’ and ‘Ionian’.” In Daidalikon: Studies in
Honor of Raymond V. Schoder, S.J., edited by Robert Sutton, 53-71. Waucoda, Il:
Bolchazy-Carducci Publishers, 1989.

Broneer, Oscar. “Excavations on the North Slope of the Acropolis.” Hesperia, 2 (1933):
341-2; 4 (1945): 114-116.

Brown, Christopher L. & Philip D. Morgan, eds. Arming Slaves: from Classical Times to
the Modern Age. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006.

Brown, Frank Edward. “A Recently discovered compound bow (from the necropolis at
Baghouz, near Abou Kemal, Iraq, c. 200 B.C. – A.D. 300).” Annales de l’Institut
Kondakov 9 (1937): 1-10.

Brown, John Pairman. “Archery in the ancient world.” Biblische Zeitschrift 37 (1993):
26-42.

Brown, R.B. “Greeks in Assyria: Some Overlooked Evidence.” Classical Weekly 77

(1983): 300-3.

Browning, Ethel. Toxicity of Industrial Metals. London: Butterworths, 1969.

Bryce, Trevor. The Trojans and their Neighbors. London: Routledge, 2006.

Bucholz, Hans Gunter. “Der Pfeilglatter aus dem 6 Schachtgrab von Mykene und die
helladischen Pfeilspitzen.” Deutsches archaologisches Institut Jahrbuch 77 (1962): 1-58.

Buchner, Max. “Das Bogenschiessen der Agineten.” Zeitschrift fur Ethnologie 40 (1908):
845-56.
 284
Budge, Ernest A. “Assyrian bronze mould dated 800-700 B.C. in the British Museum
used for making arrowheads.” Society of biblical archaeology proceedings 6 (1883-84):
109-110.

Bugh, Glenn R. “Andocides, Aeschines and the Three Hundred Athenian Cavalrymen.”
Phoenix 36 (1982): 306-312.

Buhler, Georg, trans. Laws of Manu. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1886.

Buitron-Oliver, Diana et alia. The Odyssey and Ancient Art: an Epic in Word and Image,
exh. Cat. Annandale-on-Hudson, N.Y: Edith C. Blum Art Institute, Bard College, 1992.

Buitron-Oliver, Diana, ed. New Perspectives in Early Greek Art. Volume 32 in the
Studies in the History of Art Series. Washington D.C.: National Gallery of Art, 1991.

Bulanda, Edmund. “Les Thraces sur une oenochoe a figures noires.” Eos 31 (1928): 297-
303.

Bulanda, Edmund. Bogen und Pfeil bei den Völkern des Altertums. Vienna: Hölder, 1913.

Bulanda, Edmund “Strzal mistrzowski Odysseusa. Der Meisterschuss des Odysseus.” Eos
14 (1908): 158-66.

Burgess, Jonathan. “Achilles Heel: The Death of Achilles in Ancient Myth.” Classical
Antiquity 14.2 (1995): 217-244.

Burkert, Walter. “Near Eastern Connections.” In A Companion to Ancient Epic, edited by

John Miles Foley. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2005.

Burkert, Walter. The Orientalizing Revolution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University

Publishing, 1992.

Butts, Heber. “Medicine looks at Archery.” American Bowman 1 (1936).

Calhoun, George M. “The Art of Formula in Homer: Epea Pteroenta.” Classical

Philology 30 (1935): 215-217.

Carman, John. “Beyond the Western Way of War: Ancient Battlefields in Comparative
Perspective.” In Ancient Warfare: Archaeological Perspectives, edited by John Carman
and Anthony Harding, 39-55. Sutton: Stroud, 2004.

Carpenter, Thomas H. Art and Myth in Ancient Greece. London: Thames and Hudson,
1991.

Carter, John. “The Beginning of Narrative Art in the Greek Geometric Period.” Annual of
the British School at Athens 67 (1972): 25-58.
 285

Cartledge, Paul. The Greeks: A Portrait of Self and Others. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2002.

Cartledge, Paul. “The Greeks and anthropology.” Classics Ireland 2 (1995): 17-28

Cartledge Paul (1990)

“Herodotus and “the other”: a meditation on empire.” Echos du monde classique XXXIV
(1990): 27-40

Cartledge, Paul. “The Machismo of the Athenian Empire, or the Reign of the Phaulus?”
In When Men were Men: Masculinity, Power and Identity in Classical Antiquity, edited
by Lin Foxhall and John Salmon, 54-67. London: Routledge, 1998.

Cartledge, Paul and F. David Harvey, eds. Crux: Essays in Greek History Presented to
G.E.M. de Ste. Croix on his 75th Birthday. London: Duckworth, 1985.

Catling, H. and E. Catling. “Objects of Bronze, Iron, and Lead.” In Lefkandi I: The Iron
Age, edited by Mervyn R. Popham, M. and L. H. Sackett. London: Thames and Hudson,
1980.

Cavanagh, W.G. Attic Burial Customs, c. 2000-700 B.C. PhD diss., University of
London, 1977.

Cawkwell, George. The Greek Wars: The Failure of Persia. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2005.

Cawkwell, George. “Early Colonization.” Classical Quarterly 42 (1992): 289-303.

Cernenko, E.V. The Scythians 700-300 B.C. Volume 137 in the Men at Arms Series.
New York: Osprey Publishing, 1983.

Childe, Vere Gordon. “Axe and adze, bow and sling – Contrasts in Early Neolithic
Europe.” Schweizerische Gesellschaft fur Urgeschichte Jahrbuch 40 (1950): 156-62.

Childe, Vere Gordon. “War in Prehistoric Societies.” The Sociological Review 32 (1941):
127-138.

Christ, Matthew. The Bad Citizen in Classical Athens. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2006.

Christ, Matthew. “Conscription of Hoplites in Classical Athens.” Classical Quarterly 51

(2001): 398-422.

Cilliers, L. and F.P. Retief. “Poisons, Poisoning and the Drug Trade in Ancient Rome.”
Akroterion 45 (2000).
 286

Clairmont, Christoph W. Classical Attic Tombstones. Kirchberg: Akanthus, 1993.

Clairmont, Christoph W. Gravestone and epigram; Greek memorials from the archaic
and classical period. Mainz on Rhine: Verlag P.V. Zabern, 1970.

Coghlan, Herbert H. “An Investigation of Five Bronze Arrowheads.” Sibrium 10 (1970):

305-331.

Cohen, Beth. “Ethnic Identity in Democratic Athens and the Visual Vocabulary of Male
Costume” in Ancient Perceptions of Greek Ethnicity, edited by Irad Malkin, 235-274.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2001.

Cohen, Beth, ed. Not the Classical Ideal: Athens and the Construction of the Other in
Greek Art. Leiden: Brill, 2000

Cohen, Beth. “From Bowman to Clubman: Herakles and Olympia.” The Art Bulletin 76.4
(1994): 695-715.

Coldstream, John N. Geometric Greece: 900-700 BC. London: Routledge, 2003.

Coleman, John. “Ancient Greek Ethnocentrism.” In Greeks and Barbarians: between

Greeks and Non-Greeks in Antiquity and the Consequences of Eurocentrism, edited by
John Coleman and Clark Walz. Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, 1997.

Combellack, Frederick M. “Words that Die.” Classical Journal 46 (1950): 21-6.

Connor, W.R. “Early Greek Land Warfare as Symbolic Expression.” Past and Present
119 (1988): 3-29.

Cope, Zachary. “Treatment of Wounds Through the Middle Ages.” Medieval History 2
(1958): 163-174.

Cottrill, F. “Medieval description of a bow and arrow.” Antiquaries Journal 23 (1943):

54.

Coues, E. “Some Notes on Arrow Wounds.” The Medical and Surgical Reporter 14
(1866): 321-324.

Cowley, Robert and Geoffrey Parker, eds. The Reader’s Companion to Military
History. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1996.

Cree, A.T.C. “The Axes Text in the Odyssey.” Classical Review 16 (1902): 194-5.

Croix, Horst De la. Military Considerations in City Planning: Fortifications. New York:
G. Braziller, 1972.
 287

Crook, Robert F. “Did the Ancient Greeks and Romans understand the Importance of the
effect produced by rifling in modern guns?” Classical Review 30 (1916): 46-8.

Crosby, Alfred. Throwing Fire: Projectile Technology Through History. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 2002.

Crowley, Jason. The Psychology of the Athenian Hoplite: The Culture of Combat in
Classical Athens. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012.

Curtis, John E. and Nigel Tallis. Forgotten Empire: The World of Ancient Persia.
Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005.

Dales, George F. “Notes on Sumerian Archery, and archery on steles.” Society of Archer-
Antiquaries Journal 4 (1961): 36-7.

Dantec, M. “The Bacteriology of Arrow Poison.” Scientific American 75 (1896).

Dawkins, R.M. The Sanctuary of Artemis Orthia: excavated and described by members
of the British school at Athens. London: Macmillan, 1929.

Dawson, Doyne. The Origins of Western Warfare: Militarism and Morality in the Ancient
World. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1996.

De Backer, F. Some Basic Tactics of Neo-Assyrian Warfare. Volume 39 in the Ugarit-

Forschungen Series. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2008.

Descoeudres, Jean-Paul, ed. Greek Colonists and Native Populations, Proceedings of the
1st Australian Congress of Classical Archaeology held in honour of Emeritus Prof. A.D.
Trendall. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990.

de Souza, Philip and John France, eds. War and Peace in Ancient and Medieval History.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.

DeVries, Kelly. Medieval Military Technology. Peterborough, Ont: Broadview Press,

1992.

Dewald, Carolyn and John Marincola, eds. The Cambridge Companion to Herodotus.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.

Dillon, Sheila and Katherine Welch. Representations of War in Ancient Rome.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.

Donlan, Walter. “Archilochus, Strabo and the Lelantine War.” Transactions of the
American Philological Association 101 (1970): 131-142.
 288
Donlan, Walter and J. Thompson. “The Charge at Marathon.” Classical Journal 71
(1976): 339-43.

Downes, W.F.D. “The Offensive Weapon in the Pyrrhic.” Classical Review 18 (1904):
101-6.

Drews, Robert. “The Earliest Greek Settlements on the Black Sea.” Journal of Hellenic
Studies 96 (1976): 18-31.

Drews, Robert. “The First Tyrants in Greece.” Historia 21 (1972): 129-44.

Eagleton, Terry. Ideology: An Introduction. London: Verso, 1991.

Emerling, Geoff. “Ethnicity in Complex Societies: Archaeological Perspectives.”

Journal of Archaeological Research 5.4 (1997).

Emlyn-Jones, C.J., Lorna Hardwick, and John A. Purkis, eds. Homer: Reading and
Images. London: Duckworth, 1992.

Engh, Douglas. Archery Fundamentals. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, Inc., 2005.

Evans, Sir Arthur. “The Early Neolithic, Libyan, and Egyptian Relations with Minoan
Crete.” Royal Anthropological Institute Journal 55 (1925): 220-1.

Evans, James A. S. “Herodotus and the Battle of Marathon.” Historia 42.3 (1993): 279-
307.

Evans, James A. S. “Cavalry About the Time of the Persian Wars: A Speculative Essay.”
Classical Journal 82.1 (1986): 97-106.

Everson, Tim. Warfare in Ancient Greece: Arms and Armour from the Heroes of Home to
Alexander the Great. Stroud: Sutton Publishing, 2004.

Farenga, Vincent. Citizen and Self in the Greek City State. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2006.

Farron, Stephen. “Attitudes to Military Archery in the Iliad.” In Literature, Art, History:
Studies on Classical Antiquity and Tradition. In Honour of W. J. Henderson, edited by
A.F. Basson and W.J. Dominik, 169-184. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2003.

Fellner, Stephan. “Der Homerische Bogen – Eine naturwissenshaftliche

Untersuchungen.” Zeitschrift fur die oesterreichischen Gymnasien 46 (1895): 193-208.

Fenik, Bernard. Homer and the Nibelungenlied: Comparative Studies in Epic Style.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1986.
 289
Fenik, Bernard. Typical Battle Scenes in the Iliad: Studies in the Narrative Techniques of
Homeric Battle Description. Wiesbaden: F. Steiner, 1968.

Ferguson, R. Brian. “A Paradigm for the Study of War and Society.” In War and Society
in the Ancient and Medieval Worlds, edited by K. Raaflaub and Nathan Rosenstein, 389-
437. Washington, DC: Center for Hellenic Studies, 1999.

Ferrill, Arther. The Origins of War. New York: Thames and Hudson, 1985.

Finley, Moses I. The World of Odysseus. New York: Viking Press, 1954.

Fischer, Henry G. “The archer as represented in the First Intermediate Period (Egypt).”
Journal of Near Eastern Studies 21 (1962): 50-2.

Flower, Michael and John Marincola, eds. Herodotus’ Histories Book IX. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2002.

Foley, John, ed. A Companion to Ancient Epic. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing,
2005.

Fornara, Charles. “The Hoplite Achievement at Psyttaleia.” Journal of Hellenic Studies

86 (2009): 51-54.

Foxhall, Lin. “‘A View from the Top’: Evaluating Solonian Property Classes.” In The
Development of the Polis in Archaic Greece, edited by Lynette Mitchell and P.J. Rhodes,
113-136. New York: Routledge, 1997.

Foxhall, Lin and John Salmon, eds. When Men were Men. Masculinity, Power and
Identity in Classical Antiquity. New York: Routledge, 1998.

Frankfort, Henri. The Art and Architecture of the Ancient Orient. New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1996.

Fraser, A.D. “The Suitors’ Competition in Archery.” Classical World 26 (1932): 25-29.

Frederic, Louis-Frederic. L’arc et La Fletche: Les Symboles. Paris: Philippe Lebaud,

1995.

Friedrich, Wolf-Helmut. Wounding and Death in the Iliad. London: Duckworth, 2003.

Friis Johansen, Knud. The Attic Grave Reliefs of the Classical Period. Copenhagen: E.
Munksgaard, 1951

Frolov, E.D. “The Scythians in Athens.” Vestnik Drevnii Istorii (1998): 135-42.

Frost, F. “The Military before Cleisthenes.” Historia 33 (1984): 283-294.

 290

Gabriel, Richard and Karen Metz. A History of Military Medicine: From Ancient Times
to the Middle Ages. Volume 124 in the Contributions in Military Studies Series. New
York: Greenwood Press, 1992.

Gabriel, Richard and Karen Metz. From Sumer to Rome: The Military Capabilities of
Ancient Armies. New York: Greenwood Press, 1991.

Gabriel, Richard. Culture of War. New York: Greenwood Press, 1990.

Gantz, Timothy. Early Greek Myth: A Guide to the Literary and Artistic Sources.
Volumes I-II. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993.

Garlan, Y. “War and Peace.” Vernant (1995): 53-85.

Germain, Gabriel. Genese de l’Odyssee. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1954.

Georganas, Ioannis. “Weapons and Warfare in Early Iron Age Thessaly.” Mediterranean
Archaeology and Archaeometry 5.2 (2005): 63-74.

Georges, Pericles. Barbarian Asia and the Greek Experience. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press, 1994.

Gill, C. “Bow, Oracle, and Epiphany in Sophocles’ Philoctetes.” Greece & Rome, 2nd ser.
27.2 (1980): 137-146.

Gleba, Margarita. “You are What You Wear: Scythian Costume as Identity.” In Dressing
the Past, edited by Margarita Gleba, Cherine Munkholt and Marie-Louise Nosch, 13-28.
Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2008.

Goebel, A. “Das Axtschiessen in der Odyssee.” Neue Jahrbücher für Philologie 22

(1876): 169-73.

Gombrich, Ernst. Art and Illusion: A Study in the Psychology of Pictorial Representation.
New York: Pantheon Books, 1960.

Gomme, A.W. “Herodotus and Marathon.” Phoenix 6.3 (1952): 77-83.

Graf, Fritz. Greek Mythology: An Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University

Press, 1993.

Graham, A.J. “Thucydides 7.13.2 and the Crews of Athenian Triremes.” Transactions of
the American Philological Association 122 (1992).

Graham, A. J. “Commercial Interchanges between Greeks and Natives.” Ancient World

10 (1984): 3-10.
 291

Graham, A.J. Colony and Mother City in Ancient Greece. Chicago: Ares, 1973.

Graham, A. J. “Patterns in Early Greek Colonization.” Journal of Hellenic Studies 91

(1971): 35-48.

Greenhalgh, P.A.L. Early Greek Warfare: Horsemen and Chariots in the Homeric and
Archaic Ages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973.

Greenhalgh P.A.L. “Aristocracy and Its Advocates in Archaic Greece.” Greece and Rome
XIX (1972): 190-207.

Greenewalt Jr., C.H. Jr. “Arms and Weapons at Sardis in the mid-Sixth century B.C.”
Arkeoloji ve Sanat 79 (1997): 2-13.

Griffith, Guy Thompson. The Mercenaries of the Greek World. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1935.

Gunter, A. “Models of the Orient in the Art History of the Orientalizing Period.” In
Achaemenid History V: The Roots of the European Tradition, edited by H. Sancisi-
Weerdenburg and J. Drijvers. Leiden: Nederlands Institut Voor Het Nabije Oosten, 1990.

Guralnick, E. “The Egyptian-Greek Connection.” In Greeks and Barbarians: between

Greeks and Non-Greeks in Antiquity and the Consequences of Eurocentrism, edited by J.
Coleman and C. Walz. Bethseda, MD: CDL Press, 1997.

Haas, Jonathan. The Anthropology of War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,

1990.

Hackett, Sir John, ed. Warfare in the Ancient World. London: Sidgwick & Jackson,
1989.

Hainsworth, B. The Iliad: A Commentary. Volume III: Books 9-12, general editor, G.
Kirk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.

Hall, Edith. “The Archer Scene in Aristophanes’ Thesmoporiazousae.” Philologus 133

(1989): 38-54.

Hall, Edith. “Asia Unmanned: Images of Victory in Classical Athens.” In War and
Society in the Greek World, edited by John Rich and Graham Shipley, 107-133. London:
Routledge, 1993.

Hall, Edith. Inventing the Barbarian: Greek Self-definition through Tragedy. Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1989.
 292
Hall, Jonathan. Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1997.

Hall, Jonathan. “Ethnocentricity.” In The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman

Warfare, edited by P. Sabin, et alia, 85-107. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2007.

Hall, Jonathan. A History of the Archaic Greek World 1200-479 BCE. Malden, MA:
Blackwell, 2007.

Hall, Jonathan. Hellenicity. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2002.

Hamilton, Richard. “Slings and Arrows: The Debate with Lycus in the Heracles.”
Transactions of the American Philological Association 115 (1985): 19-25.

Hammond, N.G.L. “Casualties and Reinforcements of Citizen Soldiers in Greece and

Macedonia.” Journal of Hellenic Studies 109 (1989): 56-68.

Hanfmann, George M.A. “Narration in Greek Art.” American Journal of Archaeology

61/1 (1957): 71-78.

Hannestad, Lise. “War and Greek Art.” In War as a Cultural and Social Force: Essays
on Warfare in Antiquity, edited by Tonnes Bekker-Nielsen and Lise Hannestad, 110-187.
Copenhagen: Det kongelige danske videnskabernes selskab, 2001.

Hannestad, Lise. “Athenian Pottery in Italy c. 550-470: Beazley and Quantitative

Studies.” Cronache di archeologia e di storia dell’arte 30 (1991): 211-16.

Hanson, Victor Davis. “The Status of Ancient Military History: Traditional Work, Recent
Research, and On-going Controversies.” Journal of Military History 63/2 (1999): 379-
413.

Hanson, Victor Davis. Hoplites: The Classical Greek Battle Experience. New York:
Routledge, 1991.

Hanson, Victor Davis. The Western Way of War: Infantry Battle in Classical Greece.
New York: Knopf. 1989.

Hardy, Robert. Longbow: A Social and Military History. Cambridge: Stephens

Publishing, 1976.

Harrison, Thomas, ed. Greeks and Barbarians. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press,
2002.

Harsh, Philip. “The Role of the Bow in the Philoctetes of Sophocles.” American Journal
of Philology 81.4 (1960): 408-414.
 293

Hartog, François. The Mirror of Herodotus: The Representation of the Other in the
Writing of History. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988.

Hatto, A. “Archery and Chivalry: A Noble Prejudice.” The Modern Language Review
35.1 (1940): 40-54.

Hayes, A. Wallace. Principles and Methods of Toxicology. New York: Taylor & Francis,
2001.

Haynes, D.E.L. “A bronze arrowhead from Cyrene.” British Museum Quarterly 16

(1951): 45-6.

Heath, John. The Talking Greeks. Speech, Animals, and the Other in Homer, Aeschylus,
and Plato. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.

Hedreen, G. “The Cult of Achilles in the Euxine.” Hesperia 60.3 (1991): 313-330.

Helbig, Wolfgang. Les hippeis atheniens. Paris: Klincksieck, 1902.

Helbig, Wolfgang. “Eine Heerschau des Peisistratos oder Hippias auf einer
schwarzfigurigen Schale.” SB Munchen II (1897): 259-320.

Helbig, Wolfgang, ed. Das Homerische Epos aus den Denkmalern erlautert.
Archaologische Untersuchungen. Leipzig: B.G. Teubner, 1884.

Heubeck, Alfred, Stephanie West, and J.B. Hainsworth. A Commentary on Homer’s

Odyssey. Volume I. Introduction and Books I-VIII. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988.

Hickman, Clarence, Nagler, F, and P. Klopsteg. Archery: The Technical Side. New York:
Derrydale Press, 1947.

Hickman, Clarence. “The Dynamics of the Bow and Arrow.” Journal of Applied Physics
8 (1937): 404-409.

Hickman, Clarence. “Velocity and Acceleration of Arrows: Weight and Efficiency as

Affected by Backing the Bow.” Journal of the Franklin Institute 208 (1929): 521-37.

Hill, David J. Finnemore. Archery in the Ancient World, with Special Reference to
Greece. PhD diss., University of Leeds, 1967.

Hill, David J. Finnemore. “A Greek Convention against Missiles c. 700 B.C.E.” Society
of Archer-Antiquities Journal 4 (1961): 21.

Hill, J.H. “Notes on Arrow Wounds.” American Journal of the Medical Sciences (1862).
 294
Himmelmann, Nikolaus. Reading Greek Art: Essays by Nikolaus Himmelmann, edited by
W. Childs. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998.

Hijmans, B.L. “Archers in the Iliad.” In Festoen: opgedragen aan A.N. Zadoks-Josephus
Jitta bij haar zeventigste verjaardag, edited by J.S. Boersma. Gronigen: H.D. Tjeenk
Willink, 1976.

Hind, John. “A Sea ‘Like a Scythian Bow’ and Herodotus’ ‘Rugged Peninsula’ (Hist. 4.
99).” In North Pontic Archaeology: Recent Discoveries and Studies, edited by Gocha R.
Tsetskhladze, 25-31. Leiden: Brill, 2001.

Hind, John. “Megarian Colonisation in the Western Half of the Black Sea.” In The Greek
Colonization of the Black Sea Area. Historical Interpretation of Archaeology, edited by
Gocha R. Tsetskhladze, Tsetskhladze, 131-152. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1997.

Hölscher, T. “Images of War in Greece and Rome: Between Military Practice, Public
Memory, and Cultural Symbolism.” Journal of Roman Studies 93 (2003): 1-17.

How, W.W. “Arms, Tactics and Strategy in the Persian Wars.” Journal of Hellenic
Studies 43.2 (1923): 117-132.

Howard, Michael, George Andreopoulos, and Mark Shulman. The Laws of War:
Constraints on Warfare in the Western World. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994.

Hunt, Peter. Slaves, warfare, and Ideology in the Greek historians. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1998.

Hurley, Vic. Arrows Against Steel: The History of the Bow. New York: Mason/Charter,
1975.

Hurwit, Jeffrey. “Reading the Chigi Vase.” Hesperia 71 (2002): 1-22.

Hurwit, Jeffrey. The Athenian Acropolis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.

Hurwit, Jeffrey. “The Dipylon Shield Once More.” Classical Antiquity 4 (1985): 121-26.

Isaac, Benjamin. The Invention of Racism in Classical Antiquity. Princeton: Princeton

University Press, 2006.

Isaac, Benjamin. The Greek Settlements in Thrace until the Macedonian Conquest.
Leiden: Brill, 1986.

Ivantchik, A.I. “‘Scythian’ Archers on Archaic Attic Vases: Problems of Interpretation.”

Ancient Civilizations 12 (2006): 97-271.
 295
Ivantchik, A.I. “Who were the ‘Scythian’ Archers on Archaic Attic Vases? I.” Vestnik
Drevnii Istorii 242 (2002): 33-55.

Ivantchik, A.I. “Who were the ‘Scythian’ Archers on Archaic Attic Vases? II.” Vestnik
Drevnii Istorii 243 (2002): 23-42.

Jacob, Oscar. Les Esclaves publices a Athenes. Liège: Oscar Press, 1928.

Jameson, M. “The Provisions for Mobilization in the Decree of Themistocles.” Historia

12.4 (1963): 385-404.

Jarva, Eero. Archaiologia on Archaic Greek Body Armour. Rovaniemi, Finland: Pohjois-
Suomen Historiallinen Yhdistys, 1995.

Johansen, Knud F. The Iliad in Early Greek Art. Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1967.

Johnson, J. “The Scythian: His Rise and Fall.” Journal of the History of Ideas 20.2
(1959): 250-257.

Jones, D. Poison Arrows: North American Indian Hunting and Warfare. Austin:
University of Texas Press, 2007.

Jordan, Boromir. The Athenian Navy in the Classical Period: a Study of Athenian Naval
Administration and Military Organization in the Fifth and Fourth Centuries B.C.
Berkeley: University of California Press, 1975.

Kalinka, Ernst. “Die griechischen Bogenschutzen.” Klio 22 (1928): 250-260.

Kamerbeek, J. The Plays of Sophocles, Commentaries I: The Ajax. Translated by H.

Schreuder. Leiden: Brill, 1963.

Kaplan, T. The J. Paul Getty Museum: Handbook of the Antiquities Collection. Los
Angeles: The J. Paul Getty Trust, 2002.

Karageorghis, V. “Cyprus.” In Cambridge Ancient History (III 2.3), series edited by J.

Boardman, 57-70. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982

Karger, B., H. Sudhues, and B. Brinkmann. “Arrow Wounds: Major Stimulus in the
History of Surgery.” World Journal of Surgery 25 (2001): 1550-1555.

Keating, R.F.A. “Some notes on science and archery.” British Archer 14 (1962-3): 53-4.

Keegan, John. The Face of Battle. New York: The Viking Press, 1976.

King, Cynthia Ann Kent. Military equipment in Homer and on Attic geometric vases.
PhD. diss., University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, 1969.
 296

King, L. and R. Thompson. The Sculptures and Inscription of Darius the Great on the
Rock of Behistûn in Persia: A New Collation of the Persian, Susian and Babylonian
Texts. London: Longmans, 1907.

King, L. “Sennacherib and the Ionians.” Journal of Hellenic Society 30 (1910): 327-335.

Kirk, Geoffrey. The Iliad: A Commentary. Volume I: Books 1-4. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1985.

Kirk, Geoffrey. The Iliad: A Commentary. Volume 2: Books 5-8. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1990.

Kirk, Geoffrey. “Ships on Geometric Vases.” Journal of the British School of Athens 44
(1949): 93-153.

Klopsteg, P.E. “Physics of bows and arrows.” American Journal of Physics 11 (1943):
175-92.

Kooi, B.W. and C.A. Bergman. “An approach to the study of ancient archery using
mathematical modeling.” Antiquity 71.271 (1997).

Krentz, Peter. The Battle of Marathon. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2010.

Krentz, Peter. “War.” In The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Warfare, Vol. I,
edited by P. Sabin, et alia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.

Krentz, Peter. “Fighting by the Rules: The Invention of the Hoplite Agon.” Hesperia 71
(2002): 23-39.

Krentz, Peter. “Deception in Archaic and Classical Greek Warfare.” In War and Violence
in Ancient Greece, edited by H. van Wees, 167-200. London: Duckworth, 2000.

Krentz, Peter. “Casualties in Hoplite Battles.” Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 26.1
(1985): 13-20.

Kurt, A. “Greek Contact with the Levant and Mesopotamia in the First Half of the First
Millenium BC: A View from the East.” In Greek Settlements in the Eastern
Mediterranean and the Black Sea, edited by G. Tsetskhladze and A. Snodgrass, 17-
25.Oxford: Archaeopress, 2002.

Kurt, A. “The Achaemenid Concept of Kingship.” Journal of Persian Studies (1984):

156-160.

Kurtz, Donna and Brian Sparkes. The Eye of Greece: Studies in the Art of Athens.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982.
 297

Lachenaud, Guy. L' arc-en-ciel et l' archer. Récits et philosophie de l' histoire chez
Hérodote. Limoges: Pulim, 2003.

Lanfranchi. G. “The Ideological and Political Impact of the Assyrian Imperial Expansion
on the Greek World in the 8th and 7th Centuries B.C.” In The Heirs of Assyria, edited by
S. Aro, and R. Whiting, 7-34. Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 2000.

Lattimore, Richard. The Iliad of Homer. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1951.

Laubin, Reginald and Gladys. American Indian Archery. Norman: University of

Oklahoma Press, 1980.

Lavelle, B.M. “Herodotos, Skythian Archers, and the Doryphoroi of the Peisistratids.”
Klio 74 (1992): 78-9.

Lawrence, A.W. Greek Aims in Fortification. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979.

Lazenby, J.F. “The Myth of the Hoplite’s Hoplon.” Classics Quarterly 46 (1996): 27-33.

Lazenby, J.F. “Hoplite Warfare.” In Warfare in the Ancient World, edited by Sir John
Hackett. London: Sidgwick & Jackson, 1989.

Lemos, Irene. The Protogeometric Aegean: the Archaeology of the Late Eleventh and
Tenth Centuries. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.

Lemos, Irene. “Songs for Heroes: The Lack of Images in Early Greece.” In Word and
Image in Ancient Greece, edited by N.K. Rutter and B.A. Sparkes. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press, 2000.

Lendon, J.E. Soldiers and Ghosts: A History of Battle in Classical Antiquity. New
Haven: Yale University Press, 2005.

Levey, M. “Medieval Arabic Toxicology: The Book of Poisons of Ibn Wahshiya and Its
Relation to Early Indian and Greek Texts.” Transactions of the American Philosophical
Society, New Series 56.7 (1966): 1-130.

Lissarrague, François. “The Athenian Image of the Foreigner.” In Greeks and

Barbarians, edited by T. Harrison. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2002.

Lissarrague, François. L’autre guerrier: archers, peltastes, cavaliers dans l’imagerie

attique. Rome: Ecole française de Rome, 1991.

Lissarrague, François. The Aesthetics of the Greek Banquet. Translated by A. Szegedy-

Maszak. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990.
 298
Long, Timothy. Barbarians in Greek Comedy. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University
Press, 1986.

Longman, C.J. and H. Walrond. Archery. New York: Frederick Ungar Publishing Co.,
1967.

Longman, Charles James. “The bows of the ancient Assyrians and Egyptians.”
Anthropological Institute Journal 24 (1894): 49-57.

Loraux, N. The Invention of Athens. The Funeral Oration in the Classical City.
Translated by Alan Sheridan. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1986.

Lorimer, Hilda. Homer and the Monuments. London: Macmillan, 1950.

Lorimer, Hilda. “The Hoplite phalanx with special reference to the poems of Archilochus
and Tyrtaeus.” Annual of the British School at Athens 42 (1947): 115-18

Louden, Bruce. Homer’s Odyssey and the Near East. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2011.

Louden, Bruce. The Iliad, Structure, Myth, and Meaning. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press, 2006.

Lowenstam, S. “Talking Vases: The Relationship between the Homeric Poems and the
Archaic Representations of Epic Myth.” Transactions of the American Philological
Association 127 (1997): 21-76

Luce, J.V. Homer and the Heroic Age. New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1975.

Lunoly, J.A. “Arrow wounds.” New England Journal of Medicine 20 (Mar. 1952): 44-6.

Luschan, Felix von. “Der Bogen des Pandaros.” Deutsches archaologisches Institut,
Archaologischer Anzeiger 29 (1914): 106-7.

Luxford, J.S.O. Robertson. “Throwing arrows.” Classical Review 33 (1919): 151.

MacDonell, Sir P.J. “The Tactics of Odysseus.” Greece and Rome 5 (1935-36): 103-20.

Mackie, Hilary. Talking Trojan: Speech and Community in the Iliad. Lanham, MA:
Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 1996.

Malkin, Irad. Ancient Perceptions of Greek Ethnicity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press, 2001.

Majno, Guido. The Healing Hand: Man and Wound in the Ancient World. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press, 1991.
 299

Marconi, Clemente. “Images for a Warrior. On a Group of Athenian Vases and their
Public” In Greek Vases: Images, Contexts, and Controversies, edited by Clemente
Marconi. Leiden: Brill, 2004.

Marsden, Eric William. Greek and Roman Artillery: Historical Development. Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1969.

Martin, P. European Military Uniforms: A Short History. London: Spring Books, 1963.

Mayer, A. Greek Fire, Poison Arrows, and Scorpion Bombs: Biological and Chemical
Warfare in the Ancient World. London: Duckworth, 2003.

McCartney, Eugene S. “Marvellous feats of archery.” Classical Journal 35 (1940): 537-

41.

McCartney, Eugene S. “Folklore of marksmanship.” Classical Journal 22 (1926): 140-

141.

McEwan, E., et al. “Early Bow Design and Construction.” Scientific American (1991):
50-56.

McLeod, Wallace. “The Bow at Night: An Inappropriate Weapon?” Phoenix 42.2 (1988):
121-125.

McLeod, Wallace. “The Range of the Ancient Bow: Addenda.” Phoenix 26.1 (1972): 78-
82.

McLeod, Wallace. “The Bowshot and Marathon.” Journal of Hellenic Studies 90 (1970):
197-198.

McLeod, Wallace. “Were Egyptian composite bows made in Asia?” Society of Archer-
Antiquaries Journal 12 (1969): 19-23.

McLeod, Wallace. “The Ancient Cretan Bow.” Society of Archer-Antiquaries Journal 11

(1968): 30-31.

McLeod, Wallace. The Bow in Ancient Greece, with Particular Reference to Homeric Poems. Ph.D.
diss., Harvard University, 1966.

McLeod, Wallace. “The Range of the Ancient Bow.” Phoenix 19.1 (1965): 1-14.

McLeod, Wallace. “Archery in ancient Greece.” Greek Heritage 1/3 (1964): 102-9.

McLeod, Wallace. “Gluphides (The arrow nock.)” Classical Review 78, NS 14 (1964):
140-1.
 300
McLeod, Wallace. “Egyptian Composite Bows in New York.” American Journal of
Archaeology 66.1 (1962): 13-19.

McLeod, Wallace. “Homer’s Three-pointed Arrows.” Society of Archer-Antiquaries

Journal 4 (1961): 29-30.

McLeod, Wallace. “Triglochis (three-pointed).” American Journal of Archaeology 64

(1960): 370-1.

Mellink, Machteld J. Kizilbel: An Archaic Painted Tomb Chamber in Northern Lycia.

Philadelphia: University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, 1998.

Merritt, B. “Greek Inscriptions.” Hesperia 21.4 (1952): 340-380.

Milik, J.T. “An unpublished arrowhead with a Phoenician inscription of the eleventh-
tenth century B.C.” American Schools of Oriental Research Bulletin 143 (1956): 3-6.

Miller, H.F. “The Practical and Economic Background to the Greek Mercenary
Explosion.” Greece and Rome 31 (1984): 153-159.

Miller, M. “The Myth of Bousiris: Ethnicity and Art.” in Not the Classical Ideal: Athens
and the Construction of the Other in Greek Art, edited by B. Cohen. Leiden: Brill, 2000.

Miller, Margaret. Athens and Persia in the Firth Century B.C. A Study in Cultural
Receptivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.

Miller, Margaret. “Foreigners at the Greek Symposium?” In Dining in a Classical

Context, edited by W.J. Slater, 59-81. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1991.

Miller, M.C. “Midas as the Great King in attic Fifth-century Vase Painting.” Antike Kunst
31 (1988): 79-88.

Miller, R., E. McEwen, and C. Bergman, C. “Experimental Approaches to Ancient Near

Eastern Archery.” World Archaeology 18.2 (1986): 178-195.

Milner, G. “Nineteenth-Century Arrow Wounds and Perceptions of Prehistoric Warfare.”

in American Antiquity (2005): 144-156.

Minns, Ellis H. Scythians and Greeks: a survey of ancient history and archaeology on the
north coast of the Euxine from the Danube to the Caucascus. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1913.

Moon, W.G., ed. Ancient Greek Art and Iconography. Madison WI: University of
Wisconsin Press, 1983.
 301
Morgan, C. “Symbolic and pragmatic aspects of warfare in the Greek world of the 8th-
6th centuries B.C.” In War as a Cultural and Social Force: Essays on Warfare in
Antiquity, edited by T. Bekker-Nielsen and L. Hannestad, 20-44. Copenhagen: Det
kongelige danske videnskabernes selskab, 2001.

Morgan, C. “Ethne, Ethnicity and Early Greek States, ca.1200-480: An Archaeological

Perspective.” In Ancient Perceptions of Greek Ethnicity, edited by I. Malkin, 75-112.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2001.

Morris, S. “Greek and Near Eastern Art in the Age of Homer.” In New Light on a Dark
Age: Exploring the Culture of Geometric Greece, edited by S. Langdon, 56-71.
Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Press, 1997.

Morrison, J. & J.F. Coates. The Athenian Trireme. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1986.

Murray, Oswyn. “War and the Symposium.” In Dining in a Classical Context, edited by
W.J. Slater. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1991.

Murray, Oswyn. Early Greece. London: Fontana Paperbacks, 1980.

Mylonas, George and D. Raymond, eds. Studies Presented to David M. Robinson. St.
Louis, MO: Washington University Press, 1953.

Myres, J. “The Amathus Bowl: A Long-Lost Masterpiece of Oriental Engraving.”

Journal of Hellenic Studies 53.1 (1933): 25-39.

Neer, Richard. Style and Politics in Athenian Vase Painting. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2002

Nelson, H. “The Naval Battle Pictured at Medinet Habu.” Journal of Near Eastern
Studies 2.1 (1943): 40-55.

Nicholls, R.V. “Old Smyrna, the Iron Age Fortifications.” Annual of the British School of
Athens (1958-59): 128-34.

Niemeier, W-D. “Archaic Greeks in the Orient: Textual and Archaeological Evidence.”
Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 322 (2001): 11-32.

Nikiforov, V.P. and S.A. Savouk. “New data of Ancient Bactrian body-armours (in the
light of finds from Kampyrtepe.)” Iran 30 (1992): 49-54.

Nilsson, M. “Political Propaganda in Sixth Century Athens.” In Studies Presented to

David M. Robinson, edited by G. Mylonas and D. Raymond, vol. 2, 743-48. St. Louis,
MO: Washington University Press, 1953.
 302
Noonan, T. S. “The Grain Trade of the Northern Black Sea in Antiquity.” American
Journal of Philology 94 (1973): 231-242.

Ober, Josiah. The Athenian Revolution: Essays on Ancient Greek Democracy and
Political Theory. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996.

Ober, Josiah. “Hoplites and Obstacles.” In Hoplites: The Classical Greek Battle
Experience, edited by V. Hanson, 173-196. New York: Routledge: 173-196.

Osborne, Robin. “Greek Archaeology: A Survey of Recent Work.” American Journal of

Archaeology 108 (2004): 87-102.

Osborne, Robin. “Images of a Warrior. On a Group of Athenian Vases and their Public.”
In Greek Vases: Images, Contexts, and Controversies, edited by Clemente Marconi.
Leiden: Brill, 2004.

Osborne, Robin. “Why did Athenian Pots appeal to the Etruscans?” World Archaeology
33.2 (2001): 277-295.

Osborne, Robin. “An Other View: An Essay in Political History.” In Not the Classical
Ideal: Athens and the Construction of the Other in Greek Art, edited by B. Cohen.
Leiden: Brill, 2000.

Osborne, Robin. Archaic and Classical Greek Art. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1998.

Osborne, Robin. Greece in the Making 1200 – 479 B.C. New York: Routledge, 1996.

Osborne, Robin. “The Myth of Propaganda and the Propaganda of Myth.” Hephaistos 5/6
(1984): 61-70.

Page, Denys. Folktales in Homer’s Odyssey. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press,
1962.

Parke, H.W. Greek Mercenary Soldiers: from the Earliest Times to the Battle of Ipsus.
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1933.

Parlama, L. and N. Stampolidis, eds. The City Beneath the City: Antiquities from the
Metropolitan Railway Excavations. Athens: Kapon Editions, 2000.

Parry, Milman. “About ‘winged words.’” Classical Philology 32 (1937): 59-63.

Petrie, W.M. Flinders. Tools and Weapons. London: British School of Archaeology in
Egypt, 1917.
 303
Phillips, E.D. “The Scythian Domination in Western Asia: Its Record in History,
Scripture and Archaeology.” World Archaeology 4.2 (1972).

Phillips, E.D. “The Legend of Aristeas: Fact and Fancy in Early Greek Notions of East
Russia, Siberia, and Inner Asia.” Artibus Asiae 18.2 (1955): 161-177.

Pinney, Gloria Ferrari. “For the Heroes are at Hand.” Journal of Hellenic Studies 114
(1984): 181-183.

Pinney, Gloria Ferrari. “Achilles Lord of Scythia.” In Ancient Greek Art and
Iconography, ed. by Warren Moon, 127-146. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin
Press (1983).

Plassart, A. “Les archers d’Athennes.” Revue des études grecques 26 (1913): 151-213.

Pocock, L.G. “Arrow and axeheads in the Odyssey.” American Journal of Philology 82
(1961): 346-57.

Pope, Saxton T. Hunting with the Bow and Arrow. San Francisco: James H. Barry & Co.,
1923.

Popham, M. and I. Lemos. “A Euboean Warrior Trader.” Oxford Journal of Archaeology

14.2 (1995).

Popham, M. “Precolonization: Early Greek Contact with the East.” In The Archaeology
of Greek Colonization: Essays dedicated to Sir John Boardman, edited by G.R.
Tsetskhladze and F. De Angelis. Oxford: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology,
1994.

Popham, M., L.H. Sackett, and P.G. Themelis, eds. Lefkandi I - The Iron Age: The
Cemetaries. London: Thames and Hudson (for the British School of Archaeology,
Athens), 1980.

Pretzler, M. “Pausanias and Oral Tradition.” Classics Quarterly 55.1 (2005): 235–249.

Pritchett, William Kendrick. The Liar School of Herodotos. Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben,
1993.

Pritchett, William Kendrick. The Greek State at War Volumes I-V. Berkeley: University
of California Press, 1971-1985.

Pritchett, William Kendrick. Studies in Ancient Greek Topography. Berkeley: University

of California Press, 1965.

Raaflaub, Kurt, J. Ober, and R. Wallace. The Origins of Democracy in Ancient Greece.
Berkeley: University of California Press, 2007.
 304

Raaflaub, Kurt. “Archaic Greek Aristocrats as Carriers of Cultural Interaction.” In

Commerce and Monetary Systems in the Ancient World: Means of Transmission and
Cultural Interaction, edited by R. Rollinger and C. Ulf, 197-217. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner
Verlag, 2004.

Raaflaub, Kurt. “Archaic and Classical Greece.” In War and Society in the Ancient and
Medieval Worlds, edited by K. Raaflaub and Nathan Rosenstein. Washington, DC:
Center for Hellenic Studies (1999).

Raeck, W. Zum Barbarenbild in der Kunst Athens im 6. und 5. Bonn: R. Habelt, 1981.

Randall, Richard H. “Medieval Armour Proverbs.” Arms and Armour 3 (1960): 217-19.

Rasmussen, T. and N. Spivey. Looking at Greek Vases. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 1991.

Rausing, Gad. The Bow. Some Notes on its Origin and Development. Volume 6 in the
Acta Archaeologia Ludensis Series. Lund: CWK Gleerups Förlag: 1967.

Rawlings, L. “Alternative Agonies: Hoplite martial and combat experiences beyond the
phalanx.” In War and Violence in Ancient Greece, edited by H. van Wees, 233-259.
London: Duckworth, 2000.

Reade, J.E. “The Neo-Assyrian Court and Army: Evidence from the Sculptures.” Iraq 34
(1972): 87-112.

Ready, Jonathan. Character, Narrator, and Simile in the Iliad. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2011.

Reboreda Morillo, S. “L’arc et les fleches en Grece a la fin de l’age du bronze et au debut
de l’age du fer.” Dialogues d'histoire ancien 22.2 (1996): 9-24.

Redfield, J. “Herodotus the Tourist.” Classical Philology 80 (1995).

Reichel, Wolfgang. Homerische Waffen: Archaologische Untersuchungen. Vienna:

Bogen, 1901.

Reymond, Rene du Bois. “Bogen und Bogenschiessen auf griechischen Munzen.”

Zeitschrift fur Numismatik 35 (1925): 241-52.

Rhomiopoulou, K. and I. Kilian Dirlmeier. “Neue Funde aus der eisenzeitlichen

Hugelnekropole von Vergina, Griechisch Makedonien.” Praehistorische Zeitschrift 64
(1989).
 305
Rich, John and Graham Shipley, eds. War and Society in the Greek World. New York:
Routledge, 1993.

Ridley, R. “The Hoplite as Citizen: Athenian Military Institutions in their Social

Context.” L’Antiquite Classique 48 (1979): 508-548.

Riginos, A. “The Wounding of Philip II of Macedon: Fact and Fabrication.” Journal of

Hellenic Studies 114 (1994).

Roaf, M. “Ethnicity and Near Eastern Archaeology: The Limits of Inference.” In

Ethnicity in Ancient Mesopotamia, edited by W. van Soldt. Leiden: Nederlands Institut
Voor Het Nabije Oosten, 2005.

Robinson, Eugene. “The Egyptian Composite Bow.” Archery 23 (1951): 4-5.

Roccos, Linda Jones. Greek Costume: An Annotated Bibliography, 1784-2005. Jefferson,

N.C.: McFarland & Co., 2006.

Rolle, R. The World of the Scythians. Translated by F.G. Walls. University of California
Press. Berkeley.

Rollinger, R. and C. Ulf, eds. Commerce and Monetary Systems in the Ancient World:
Means of Transmission and Cultural Interaction. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2004.

Romm, J. The Edges of the Earth in Ancient Thought. Princeton University Press, 1994.

Root, Margaret Cool. “The Persian Archer at Persepolis: Aspects of Chronology, Style
and Symbolism.” Revue des etudes anciennes 91.1-2 (1989): 33-50.

Root, Margaret Cool. The King and Kingship in Achaemenid Art: Essays on the Creation
of an Iconography of Empire. Leiden: Brill, 1979.

Rose, H.J. “Odysseus’s bow and the scolytidae.” Classical Philology 29 (1934): 343-4.

Ross, R. “Wound Healing.” Scientific American 220 (1969): 40-50.

Rostovtzeff, M. “The Parthian Shot.” American Journal of Archaeology 47 (1943): 174-

87.

Rudenko, Sergei. The Frozen Tombs of Siberia: the Pazyryk burials of Iron Age
Horsemen. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1970.

Rumpf, A. Chalkidische Vasen. Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1927.

Runciman, W.G. “Greek Hoplites, Warrior Culture, and Indirect Bias.” Journal of the
Royal Anthropological Institute 4.4 (1998): 731-751.
 306

Russo, Joseph. “Odysseus’ trial of the bow as symbolic performance.” In Antike Literatur
in neuer Deutung, edited by Anton Bierl, Arbogast Schmitt, and Andreas Willi, 95-102.
München: K. G. Saur, 2004.

Sage, Michael. Warfare in Ancient Greece: A Sourcebook. New York: Routledge, 1996.

Saggs, R. “Assyrian Warfare in the Sargonid Period.” Iraq 25.2 (1963): 145-154.

Salazar, Christine. The Treatment of War Wounds in Graeco-Roman Antiquity. Leiden:

Brill, 2000.

Salazar, Christine. “Fragments of Lost Hippocratic Writings in Galen’s Glossary.”

Classics Review 47.2 (1997): 543-547.

Salmon, J. “Political Hoplites?” Journal of Hellenic Studies 97 (1977): 84-101.

Santosuosso, Antonio. Soldiers, citizens, and the symbols of war. Boulder CO: Westview
Press, 1997.

Sargent, Rachel. “The Use of Slaves by the Athenians in Warfare: I. In Warfare by

Land.” Classical Philology 22.2 (1927): 201-212

Sargent, Rachel. “The Use of Slaves by the Athenians in Warfare: II. In Warfare by Sea.”
Classical Philology 22.3 (1927): 264-279.

Saunders, K. “The Wounds in Iliad 13-16.” Classics Quarterly 49/2 (1999): 345-363.

Schaumberg, Anton. Bogen und Bogenschütze bei den Griechen mit besonderer
Rücksickt auf die Denkmäler bis zum Augang des archäisen Stils. Nurnberg: B. Hilz,
1910.

Schefold, Karl. Myth and Legend in Early Greek Art. New York: Harry Abrams, 1966.

Schein, Seth L. “Herakles and Odysseus’ Bow: Mythological Allusion in the Odyssey.”
In Eranos. Proceedings of the 9th international symposium on the Odyssey, edited by
Machi Païsi-Apostolopoulou, 395-407. Ithaca: Centre for Odyssean studies, 2001.

Schmidt, H. “Explorations in Turkestan.” In Prehistoric Civilizations of Anau: Volume I,

edited by R. Pumpelly. Washington, DC: Carnegie Institution of Washington, 1904.

Schmitt, P. and A. Schnapp. “Image et société en Grèce ancienne; les représentations de

la chasse et du banquet.” Revue archeologique (1982): 57-74

Schnapp A. “Images et programme: les figurations archaïques de la chasse au sanglier.”

Revue archeologique (1979): 195-218
 307

Schoppa, Helmut. Die Darstellung der Perser in der griechischen Kunst bis zum Beginn
des Hellenismus. Coburg, 1933.

Schwartz, A. “The early hoplite phalanx.” Classica & Mediaevalia 53 (2002): 31-64.

Scott, John A. “Poisoned Arrows in Homer.” Classical Journal 23 (1927-8): 619-20.

Scott, John A. “The use of poisoned arrows in the Odyssey.” Classical Journal 19 (1923-
4): 240-1.

Scott, John A. The Unity of Homer. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1921.

Scrzhinskaya, M.V. “Heroes of Cimmerian and Scythian Legends in Greek Poetry and
Vase Paintings, Seventh and Sixth Centuries B.C.” Vestik Drevnei Istorii 4 (1986): 84-95.

Sellet, Frederic. “Beyond the point: projectile manufacture and behavioral inference.”
Journal of Archaeological Science 31.11 (2004): 1553-1566.

Shapiro, H.A. “Modest Athletes and Liberated Women: Etruscans on Attic Black-figure
Vases.” In Not the Classical Ideal: Athens and the Construction of the Other in Greek
Art, edited by B. Cohen. Leiden: Brill, 2000.

Shapiro, H.A. “Amazons, Thracians, and Scythians.” Greek, Roman and Byzantine
Studies 24.1 (1983): 105-114.

Shaw, Ian. Egyptian Warfare and Weapons. Princes Risborough: Shire Publications,
1991.

Shaw, B.D. “Eaters of Flesh, Drinkers of Milk: The Ancient Mediterranean Ideology of
the Pastoral Nomad.” Ancient Society 13/14 (1983): 5-31.

Sherwan, Alexander. “The bow of Odysseus.” Classical Philology 31 (1936): 168.

Shrimpton, G. “The Persian Cavalry at Marathon.” Phoenix 34.1 (1980).

Simpson, M. “The Chariot and the Bow as Metaphors for Poetry in Pindar’s Odes.”
Transactions of the American Philological Society 100 (1969): 437-473.

Singor, H.W. “Eni Protoisi Machesthai: Some Remarks on the Iliadic Image of the
Battlefield.” In A New Companion to Homer, edited by I. Morris and B. Powell, 182-199.
Leiden: Brill, 1997.

Smith, G. “Athenian Casualty Lists.” Classical Philology 14.4 (1919).

 308
Smith, Robin and Ron Field. Uniforms of the Civil War: An Illustrated Guide for
Historians, Collectors, and Reenactors. Guilford, CT: The Lyons Press, 2001.

Smith, Robin. American Civil War Zouaves. Oxford: Osprey Publishing, 1996.

Snodgrass, Anthony. The Dark Age of Greece. New York: Routledge, 2000.

Snodgrass, Anthony. Arms and Armor of the Greeks. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press, 1999.

Snodgrass, Anthony. Homer and the Artists: Text and Picture in Early Greek Art.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.

Snodgrass, Anthony. “Homer and Greek Art.” In A New Companion to Homer, edited by
I. Morris and B. Powell, 560-597. Leiden: Brill, 1997.

Snodgrass, Anthony. Archaic Greece: The Age of Experiment. Berkeley: University of

California Press, 1980.

Snodgrass, Anthony. Early Greek Armour and Weapons from the End of the Bronze Age
to 600 B.C. Edinburgh: University Press, 1964.

Snyder, J. “The Harmonia of Bow and Lyre in Heraclitus Fr. 51.” Phronesis 29.1 (1984):
91-95.

Souza, Philip de. The Greeks at War: From Athens to Alexander. Oxford: Osprey
Publishing, 2004.

Spence, I.G. The Cavalry of Classical Greece: A Social and Military History with
Particular Reference to Athens. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993.

Spivey, N. “Greek Vases in Etruria.” In Looking at Greek Vases, edited by T. Rasmussen

and N. Spivey. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.

Stagakis, G. “Therapontes and Hetairoi, in the Iliad, as Symbols of the Political Structure
of the Homeric State.” Historia 15.4 (1966).

Stanford, W.B. “A Reconsideration of the Problem of the Axes in Odyssey 21.”

Classical Review 63 (1949): 3-6.

Stansbury-O’Donnell, M.D. Pictorial Narrative in Ancient Greek Art. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 1999.

Starr, C. “Homeric Cowards and Heroes.” In Chester G. Starr Essays in Ancient History,
edited by A. Ferrill and T. Kelly, 58-63. Leiden: Brill, 1979.
 309
Stieber, M. “Aeschylus’ Theoroi and Realism in Greek Art.” Transactions of the
American Philological Association 124 (1994): 85-119.

Storch, R. H. “The Archaic Greek Phalanx, 750-650 B.C.” Ancient History Bulletin 12
(1998): 1-7.

Strassler, Robert. The Landmark Thucydides. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1999.

Strickland, Matthew and Robert Hardy. The Great Warbow: From Hastings to the Mary
Rose. Stroud: Sutton Publishing, 2005.

Struck, Peter. Birth of the Symbol: Ancient Readers at the Limits of their Texts. Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 2004.

Stubbs, H.W. “The Axes Again.” Classical Review 62 (1948): 12-13.

Sukenik, Yigael. “The Composite Bow of the Canaanite Goddess Anath.” American
Schools of Oriental Research Bulletin 107 (1947): 11-15.

Sulimirski, T. & T. Taylor. “The Scythians” In Cambridge Ancient History (III 2.2),
series edited by J. Boardman. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991

Sulimirski, T. “Scythian Archaeological Remains in Western Asia.” Artibus Asiae 17

(1954): 295-308.

Sulimirski, T. “The Origin of the ‘Scythian’ Arrowheads.” Artibus Asiae 17 (1954): 308-
313.

Summerer, L. “From Tatarli to Munich: The Recovery of a Painted Wooden Tomb

Chamber in Phrygia.” In The Achaemenid Impact on Local Populations and Cultures in
Anatolia (Sixth-Fourth centuries B.C.), edited by A. Dinçol and I. Delemen, 131-154.
Istanbul: Turkish Institute of Archaeology, 2007.

Sutherland, Caroline. “Archery in Homeric Epics.” Classics Ireland 8 (2001): 111-120.

Szemerényi, Oswald. Scripta Minora: selected essays in Indo-European, Greek, and

Latin (Volume IV), series edited by P. Considine and J. T. Hooker. Innsbruck: Institut für
Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Insbruck, 1987-1992.

Thalmann, William G. The Swineherd and the Bow: Representations of Class in the
Odyssey. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1998.

Thomson, J.A.K. “Winged Words.” Classics Quarterly 30.1 (1936): 1-3.

Toelle-Kastenbein R. Pfeil und Bogen im antiken Griechenland. Bochum: Duris-Verl,

1980.
 310

True, M. Greek Vases in the Getty Museum (Volume 5). Los Angeles: The J. Paul Getty
Museum, 1991.

Trundle, M.F. “Identity and Community among Greek Mercenaries in the Classical
World: 700-322 B.C.” Ancient History Bulletin 13.1 (1999): 28-38.

Tsetskhladze, Gocha R. and A.M. Snodgrass, eds. Greek Settlements in the Eastern
Mediterranean and the Black Sea. Oxford: Archaeopress, 2002.

Tsetskhladze, Gocha R. “Trade on the Black Sea in the Archaic and Classical Periods:
some observations.” In Trade, Traders and the Ancient City, edited by H. Parkins and C.
Smith, 52-74. New York: Routledge, 1998.

Tsetskhladze, Gocha R. “Greek Colonization of the Black Sea Area: Stages, Models, and
Native Population.” In The Greek Colonization of the Black Sea Area. Historical
Interpretation of Archaeology, edited by G.R. Tsetskhladze. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner
Verlag, 1997.

Tsetskhladze, Gocha R. “On the Pontic Grain Trade in the Archaic and Classical
Periods.” Vestnik Drevnii Istorii 26 (1997): 243-252.

Tsetskhladze, Gocha R. “Greek Penetration of the Black Sea.” In The Archaeology of

Greek Colonization: Essays dedicated to Sir John Boardman, edited by G.R.
Tsetskhladze and F. De Angelis, 111-135. Oxford: Oxford University Committee for
Archaeology, 1994.

Udwin, Victor. Between Two Armies: The Place of the Duel in Epic Culture. Leiden:
Brill, 1998.

Uhlenbrock, Jaimee Pugliese. Herakles, Passage of the Hero through 1000 Years of
Classical Art, New Rochelle, NY: Artistide D. Caratzas, 1986.

van Soldt, W.H. Ethnicity in Ancient Mesopotamia. Leiden: Nederlands Institut Voor Het
Nabije Oosten, 2005.

van Wees, Hans. Greek Warfare: Myths and Realities. London: Duckworth, 2004.

van Wees, Hans. “The Myth of the Middle Class Army: Military and Social Status in
Ancient Athens.” In War as a Cultural and Social Force: Essays on Warfare in Antiquity,
edited by T. Bekker-Nielsen and L. Hannestad, 45-71. Copenhagen: Det kongelige
danske videnskabernes selskab, 2001.

van Wees, Hans, ed. War and Violence in Ancient Greece. London: Duckworth, 2000.
 311
van Wees, Hans. “Greeks Bearing Arms: The State, the Leisure Class, and the Display of
Weapons in Archaic Greece.” In Archaic Greece: New Approaches and New Evidence,
edited by N. Fisher and H. van Wees, 333-378. London: Duckworth, 1998.

van Wees, Hans. “Homeric Warfare.” In A New Companion to Homer, edited by I.

Morris and B. Powell, 668-693. Leiden: Brill, 1997.

van Wees, Hans. “Politics and the Battlefield: Ideology in Greek Warfare.” In The Greek
World, edited by A. Powell. New York: Routledge, 1995.

van Wees, Hans. “Leaders of Men? Military Organization in the Iliad.” Classical
Quarterly 36.2 (1986): 285-303.

Vencl, S. “War and Warfare in Archaeology.” Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 3

(1984): 116-132.

Venit, M.S. “Herakles and the Hydra in Athens in the First Half of the Sixth Century
B.C.” Hesperia 58 (1989): 99-113.

Vollkommer, Rainer. Herakles in the Art of Classical Greece. Oxford: Oxford University
Committee for Archaeology, 1988.

Von Freytag, Gen. Loringhoff. “Kerameikos: Tätigkeitsbericht 1992-1994.”

Archäologischer Anzeiger 209 (1995)” 627-59.

Vos, M.F. Scythian Archers in Archaic Attic Vase-Painting. Groningen: J.B. Wolters,
1963.

Wace, A.J.B. “The Lead Figurines.” In The Sanctuary of Artemis Orthia at Sparta, edited
by R.M. Dawkins, 249-84. London: Macmillan, 1929.

Waldbaum, J. “Greeks in the East or Greeks and the East? Problems in the Definition
and Recognition of Presence.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 305
(1997): 1-17.

Webster, Thomas B.L. From Mycenae to Homer, A Study in Early Greek Literature and
Art. London: Methuen, 1958.

Welwei, Karl-Wilhelm. Unfreie im antiken Kriegsdienst. Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1974,

Wernicke, K. “Die Polizeiwache auf der Burg von Athen.” Hermes 26 (1891).

Wheeler, E. “Ephorus and the Prohibition of Missiles.” Transactions of the American

Philological Association 117 (1987): 157-182.

Wheeler, E. “The Hoplomachoi and Vegetius.” Chiron 13 (1983).

 312

Whitehead, David. “Immigrant Communities in the Classical Polis: Some Principles for a
Synoptic Treatment.” L’Antiquite Classique 53 (1984): 47-59.

Whitehead, David. The Ideology of the Athenian Metic. Cambridge: Cambridge

Philological Society, 1977.

Whitehead, N. “Carib Warfare, ca. 1500-1820.” In The Anthropology of War, edited by J.

Haas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.

Whitley, J. “Archaeology in Greece 2003-2004.” Archaeological Reports 50 (2004): 1-

92.

Whitley, J. “Social Diversity in Dark Age Greece.” Annual of the British School at
Athens 86 (1991).

Wilkinson, R.H. “The representation of the bow in the art of Egypt and the Ancient Near
East.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 20 (1991): 83-89.

Willets, R. F. Ancient Crete. A Social History. New York: Routledge, 1965.

Williams, E. “The Wound of Glaukos.” Greece & Rome 6.2 (1959).

Winter, T.N. “The Place of Archery in Greek Warfare.” Lincoln, NE: Faculty
Publications, University of Nebraska, 1990.

Worley, Leslie. Hippeis: The Cavalry of Ancient Greece, Boulder: Westview Press, 1994.

Wrede, Walthier. “Die Bogenschutzen auf schwartzfigurigen Vasen.” Deutsches

archaologisches Institut in Athen, Mitteilungen 41 (1916): 362-7.

Yadin, Yigael. The Art of Warfare in Biblical Lands in the Light of Archaeological Study
(2 vols.) London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1963.

Yamauchi, E. “The Scythians: Invading hordes from the Russian Steppes.” The Biblical
Archaeologist 46.2 (1983): 90-99.

Zafeirpoulou, F. and A. Agelarakis. “Warriors of Paros.” In The Archaeology of War,

from the editors of Archaeology Magazine, 38-42. New York: Hatherleigh Press, 2005.
Ziolkowski, John E. “The Bow and the Lyre.” Classics Journal 95 (1999-2000): 19-35.

Zuttermen, C. “The Bow in the Ancient Near East, A Re-Evaluation of Archery from the
Late Second Millenum to the End of the Achaemenid Empire.” Iranica Antiqua 38
(2003): 119-165.
 313
Archery in Archaic Greece:
Appendix I: The Bow and How It Works

A truce has been called. Menelaos has challenged Paris to a dual (µονοµαχία).

The winner will get Helen. An end to the bloodshed and horrors of war is near.

Unfortunately, Athena has other plans and she provokes Pandarus, the skilled Lykian

archer, to break the tenuous truce. As Pandarus prepares to assassinate Menelaos, Homer

sings987:

Straightway he unwrapped his polished bow, of a leaping

wild goat which he himself had shot in the chest once upon a time,
as it was coming down from a rock, he was lying in wait in a hiding place,
he hit it in the chest and it fell flat on a boulder.
The horns that grew from the goat’s head were sixteen palms’ length.
A bowyer smoothing them out, joined together them together,
Smoothing everything out well, he put on a golden tip.

This short passage describes Pandarus’ bow. Like Achilleus’ spear988,

Agamemnon’s staff989, and Meriones’ helmet990, the object has an important history. We,

the audience, are meant to be impressed by its size and construction. Moreover, a giant

bow made entirely of horn would be likely have been very difficult to draw. Is this a sign

of Pandarus’ heroic strength?

987
Iliad 4.105-111. αὐτίκ' ἐσύλα τόξον ἐΰξοον ἰξάλου αἰγὸς
ἀγρίου, ὅν ῥά ποτ' αὐτὸς ὑπὸ στέρνοιο τυχήσας
πέτρης ἐκβαίνοντα δεδεγµένος ἐν προδοκῇσι
βεβλήκει πρὸς στῆθѳος· ὃ δ' ὕπτιος ἔµπεσε πέτρῃ.
τοῦ κέρα ἐκ κεφαλῆς ἑκκαιδεκάδωρα πεφύκει·
καὶ τὰ µὲν ἀσκήσας κεραοξόος ἤραρε τέκτων,
πᾶν δ' εὖ λειήνας χρυσέην ἐπέθѳηκε κορώνην.
988
Iliad 16.140-144
989
Iliad 2.100-108
990
Iliad 10.261-270
 314
Unfortunately, such a bow would not likely have existed as described. Homer is

mistaken, has invented it entirely, or has exaggerated its appearance for effect.991

Odysseus’ bow is repeatedly described as ‘palinthonos’ i.e. bent backwards, reflexed. It

was also megatoxon – a big bow. According to Rausing, “Bows made from oryx horns

joined together have actually been used. The power can be regulated by scraping down

the thickness of the horns. Homer, however, states that ibex horns were used. A bow

made of two joined ibex horns would not have been serviceable … Because they have a

wide core cavity, it would be impossible to pare them down enough to make them

flexible enough for use.”992

Now let us jump ahead 700 years or so to the Greek philosopher, Onosander, who

lived during the first century C.E. and wrote a highly regarded work on generalship

entitled Strategikos, which he dedicated to the Roman statesman and general, Quintus

Veranius Nepos. In one short passage he writes, “If the archers are placed in front of the

remaining body of troops, they will shoot their arrows as if at a target; but hidden behind

or in the middle of the other troops, they will shoot high, so that the arrows have force for

the upward flight, and then, even if they fall on the head of the enemy, they will have

spent their force and fail to distress to the enemy.”993

991
So many of Homer’s details about archery are accurate, that I am inclined to believe that he was not
mistaken.
992
Rausing, G. The Bow: Some Notes on its Origin and Development. Acta Archaeologica Lundensia,
Series 80.6. Lund. Sweden. 1967: 97.
993
Onosander 17.1.12 ff. οἵ τε τοξόται προϊόντες µὲν τῶν ἄλλων εἰς αὐτὰ
τὰ σώµατα καὶ κατὰ σκοπὸν ἐκτοξεύουσι τὰ
βέλη, µετὰ δὲ τοὺς λόχους ἢ ἐν αὐτοῖς µέσοις
ὄντες εἰς ὕψѱος τοξεύουσιν, ὥστε πρὸς µὲν τὴν
ἄνω φορὰν τόνον ἔχειν τὸ βέλος, αὖθѳις δέ, κἂν
κατὰ κεφαλῆς πίπτῃ τῶν πολεµίων, ἐκλελύσθѳαι
καὶ µὴ πάνυ τι λυπεῖν τοὺς ἐχθѳρούς.
 315
Onosander’s assertions may seem logical, but a student of the bow will notice that

his reasoning is flawed. Ultimately, he is right, but for the wrong reasons. Onosander

discounts the effect of gravity on the velocity of the arrow and erroneously states that the

arrows “will have spent their force” on the upward flight, depriving them of the velocity

needed for a desirable impact. Modern research, however, demonstrates that

gravitational pull on the arrows downward flight compensates for the arrow’s loss of

velocity due to its upward trajectory. It is the distance traveled by the arrow that will

affect its velocity. Because firing with less of a trajectory means that the arrow will

travel a slightly shorter distance, it will have a slightly higher velocity. The impact will

be roughly the same regardless of whether the arrow is shot in a straight line or in an arc.

Again, it is the distance traveled that matters. There are other reasons a general might

want to position his archers before his infantry – aim, counter cavalry, counter light-

armed, et alia – but Onasander’s explanation is flawed.

The examples above, one technological in nature and the other tactical, illustrate

that a detailed understanding of the bow and how it works is essential to the study of

archery. If we hope to approach the truth, we must be able to distinguish the possible

from the impossible, or at the very least, the probable from the improbable. Fortunately,

there is no shortage of information on the subject.

Due to the bow’s enormous influence on military history, particularly its impact

on British military history, and its popularity as a topic of research in the realm of

Applied Physics, we can find detailed information about almost every aspect of archery.

In what follows, I will offer an abbreviated layman’s account of the science of the bow,

stripped of the mathematical formulae that may serve as a barrier of entry to some
 316
readers. My goal, in doing so, is to provide a general understanding of archery that will

both support and supplement the argument I have laid out in the preceding pages of this

dissertation and to which I can refer the reader who might seek a more detailed

explanation of my reasoning in certain areas. I have elected to place this information in

an appendix in an effort to streamline my earlier argument, but the information is relevant

and, included here, will function as a necessary reference. It is also meant to be

accessible and therefore comprehensible to a humanities-oriented readership.

There are a number of relevant sources in my bibliography, but, should the reader

wish for a more detailed understanding than that offered here, I direct him or her to the

following three sources. First, the Bowyer’s Bible is a four volume series that covers just

about every topic (sometimes recursively) that a scholar might wish to know. Though the

series is written with the bow maker in mind, the articles are, for the most part, an

excellent marriage of science and anecdote, the latter of which teases out some of the

pragmatic considerations that a mathematical model would ignore. The series is also

fairly recent and up to date. Next, Rausing’s 1967 book, The Bow. Some Notes on its

Origin and Development, remains invaluable, particularly in its accessible attention to

bow types and their historical development. Finally, Kooi and Bergman’s 1997 article

“An approach to the study of ancient archery using mathematical modeling”, which was

published in Antiquity, is an important, though somewhat limited, approach to the

subject.

Finally, I have attached to this appendix a glossary of archery-specific terms

which may be of some use in navigating the remainder of this appendix and some of the

body of this dissertation. It is not meant to be comprehensive.

 317
Much of what follows paints the picture of a weapon of extreme sophistication.

On the one hand, this is true. A good bow, designed for maximum efficiency and

durability in the hand of an expert is a technical marvel. Some bows like this have stood

the test of time and still shoot remarkably well.994 Bows like these, however, are not

likely to have been the norm in ancient Greece. Happily, they did not have to be in order

for archery to be effective.

A skilled bowman could in fact demonstrate what Hardy calls ‘primitive’ archery

to great effect. He relates an anecdote about an archer in England observing a

competition in which competitors were using sophisticated modern equipment. Unable to

stand idly by, this bowman ‘cut a hazel stick from a hedge, put a string to it, and using

modern target arrows shot a complete round, ending with a score half way up the

card.”995 The result might be less predictable, but the weapon could be effective,

particularly in the hands of someone who knew how to use it. This factor makes it more

likely that a greater number of people used it.

Shooting The Bow

A bow is a storage device and functions very much like a spring. In simple terms,

it is comprised of a stave with a bowstring tied from one end to the other. An archer

places an arrow on the bowstring (i.e. he nocks it), and then draws the string back

towards himself. As he does so, energy from his muscles at work is transferred into the

994
A Turkish Bow, for example, described by Rausing for example in G. Rausing “The Bow. Some
Notes on its Origin and Development.” Acta Lund Ser. in 8., 6, Lund. (1967), 31. Mary Rose bows
described in M. Strickland & R. Hardy The Great Warbow: From Hastings to the Mary Rose. Haynes
Publishing. (2011), 1-33. T. Baker “Bow Design and Performance” in S. Allely et alia The Traditional
Bowyer’s Bible Volume I. The Lyons Press. (2000), 53: “ … functioning life of a wooden bow is
measured in decades in many cases. Horn-sinew bows may shoot strongly for a century or more.”
995
R. Hardy, (1992), 16.
 318
bow stave, where it is stored until the arrow is released. Generally speaking, a longer

draw results in more work and consequently more stored energy.996 So any measures on

the part of a bowyer to increase ‘draw length’ are likely to have been done with this in

mind. When the string is released, the bent limbs move forward, returning to their initial

braced (or strung) position. Energy is transferred and concentrated by the bowstring into

the arrow and results in the arrow being projected at a much higher velocity than if it had

been thrown.997

Given this description, it is easy to fathom the anecdote by Hardy reported above.

Energy – its storage and transferal – is the purpose of the bow and the objective of the

bowyer. At some level, just about any piece of wood and string will do. Not

surprisingly, however, numerous factors contribute to the process in subtle ways.

Manufacture requires a delicate balancing act between the stability of weapon and its

effectiveness. The skill of the archer is also quite important. According to Kooi and

Bergman, “If performance is strongly dependent on a design parameter, the archer has to

take care that the value of this parameter is as constant as possible. To achieve this,

archers need skill as well as technique.”998 Understanding the nuances of a bow and

being consistent in shooting it are not skills that are developed overnight.

Let us reconsider the same act (of shooting the bow) from the perspective of a

thoughtful expert. The archer nocks his arrow. As he draws the bowstring, the energy of

996
C. Hickman (1947), 91. Potential energy available for projecting the arrow is proportional to the square
of the distance drawn.
997
G. Rausing (1967), 16. Generally speaking, the bow it a tool designed to transform slow human
muscular power into fast mechanical movement, the muscular power being stored in the tension of the
limbs of the bow during the draw and then transferred to the arrow during a very short period at release.
Also see page 152.
998
B. Kooi & C. Bergman (1997), 127.
 319
his efforts is transferred into the bow stave where it is stored as potential energy. The

bow bends, its back999 stretching as the fibers of the material comprising it elongate. At

the same time, fibers on the belly1000of the bow are compressed. Both actions strain the

stave and will need to have been accounted for – for if it cannot handle the strain, it will

break. This is one reason an archer might prefer the use of a composite bow, which

capitalizes on the special properties different materials to form a more durable and

efficient weapon. Usually this entails the use of sinew to back the bow, as sinew has

excellent tensile properties. Wood is still used for the relatively unstressed ‘core’ of the

stave. Horn, which is remarkably resistant to compression, is generally used for the

bow’s belly.

The bow is likely to be fairly strong (this is an expert after all) and the string

(made of strands of rolled together sinew) will not be easy to pull. He will likely have to

use multiple fingers on the string (as many as four) or possibly his thumb.1001 Our expert,

wanting to get the most out of the bow, will draw the bowstring back as far as possible.

Those last few inches of draw add a disproportionate amount of velocity to the arrow

upon release. A longer draw also has the advantage of being easier to hold and aim in a

drawn position and it is therefore likely to have been more accurate than a bow requiring

a shorter draw.1002 For this reason, he may draw the string all the way back to his ear

rather than his body. The thumb draw will be particularly useful in this regard. At a

999
The part facing away from the archer.
1000
The part facing the archer.
1001
The so-called ‘Scythian draw’. A finger and thumb draw is the sign of a bow with a weak draw weight
or perhaps a signal that an archer has superhuman strength, as may be the case in certain artistic renderings.
1002
T. Baker (2000), 75.
 320
certain point near the very end of the draw, he will feel a point of extreme resistance.

This is called ‘stack’ and it is the result of a high (and thus disadvantageous) string angle

and not a product of the bow materials reaching a breaking point.1003 When he has drawn

the bowstring back as far as possible, he releases the arrow.

In releasing the arrow, a primary concern is likely to be velocity. The arrow’s

velocity when leaving the bow has much to do with the distance of its cast1004 and its

penetrating power (via velocity’s contribution to momentum). It depends not only on the

power of the bow, but on the speed with which the drawn bow returns to equilibrium1005

and how efficiently it transfers its energy to the arrow. This, in turn, relies on the design

and construction of both the bow and the arrow along with their appropriateness for one

another. Small adjustments can have significant consequences and it can be a zero sum

game – each open door potentially closing another.

Once he has released the bowstring, the energy transfers from the string to the

arrow in the form of kinetic energy, as the string is now in motion. Hopefully a lighter

string was used, because a lighter string means that more kinetic energy flows into the

arrow. 1006 If the arrow is large, it will take longer for bow’s limbs to propel it, but it will

make up for some of the lost velocity by absorbing more energy from the bow. The bow,

1003
Ibid., 53. This is a common misconception. When wood is at or near its breaking point, the fibers in
the belly of the bow begin to fail and it becomes easier to draw. It stands to reason that the converse is also
true – a bow with less stack is easier to draw.
1004
The distance it travels.
1005
Rausing, G. 1967, pg. 31.
1006
Kooi, B. & C. Bergman “An Approach to the study of ancient archery using mathematical modeling” in
Antiquity 71. (1997), 126.
 321
having passed on more of its energy will be less likely to ‘jump’ or ‘kick’ (recoil) in the

archer’s hands. In short, the shot will be more stable and therefore more accurate.

Because of the force being exerted upon it by the bowstring, the arrow actually

oscillates as it leaves the bow and for some time after. The amount of oscillation,

depending largely upon the arrow’s ‘spine.’1007 In doing so, the end of the arrow will tap

against the grip1008 on its way out of the bow. This causes a phenomenon commonly

known as ‘archer’s paradox’ in which the arrow will veer off to the right or left of its

target.1009 This is one reason why archers need to practice and one reason why arrows

need to be calibrated to their bows – another point that might be lost on a layman. Our

expert will have taken a few practice shots and will have accounted for this phenomenon

when he aimed.

Once in flight, the arrow, still vibrating will begin to straighten out in its flight

path. This has to due with the air pushing against the arrow’s fletching and rotating it as

it passes through the air. The distance that the arrow will travel, its ‘cast’ to remain

technical, is a function of its initial velocity and the resistance it meets en route to its

target. The arrow’s fletching, for instance, while necessary to straighten out an arrow in

flight, is also one of the biggest culprits in slowing it down – a great example of the zero

sum relationship among design factors. Another is the arrow’s size, which will determine

how much or how little wind resistance and how much gravitational pull it will encounter

in its flight path. Fletching in ‘flight arrows’ intended to achieve great distance are

usually cropped. Conversely, large fletching is intended to achieve accuracy over more

1007
Stiffness. Arrows that have too much or too little spine for their bow are especially at risk here.
1008
The handle.
1009
This will be explained in great detail below.
 322
moderate distances. Xenophon’s Carduchi and Herodotus’ Lykians with their featherless

arrows would have been using heavy arrows from a close proximity, since, deprived of

their ‘guidance systems’, their arrows would have flown erratically over a distance.

Bows are usually considered to be either target bows or flight bows. The former

prizes accuracy to some degree while the latter is concerned mostly with distance. Let us

assume that this archer was trying to hit something. He will hope that when his arrow

reaches its objective, it still has enough momentum (a product of its mass and current

velocity) to penetrate its target and to do so as deeply as possible. Assuming that he

understands the nature of that target, he will have used an arrowhead appropriate to the

task at hand. Is the target armored? Are we trying to puncture armor? Slice flesh?

Deliver poison? These are questions he would likely have considered, provided he had

the means to be flexible.

Bow Type & Design Advantages

Bows can be divided into two categories: self (or simple) bows and composite

bows. Within these designations there are numerous variants, some of which we will

examine below. A self bow is a bow made out of a single piece of wood. It may have

added bone or horn tips, but the stave itself is made out of wood alone. I have described

a composite bow above. Both have merits and disadvantages. Although it is often

assumed that the composite bow is the superior weapon, a fairly recent study of the bow

by Kooi and Bergman found that “the composite bow had no inherent superiority over

the wooden self-bow, so long as the latter was made from the most favorable timber and

expertly used.”1010

1010
B. Kooi & C. Bergman (1997), 134.
 323
If the composite bow can be said to have an advantage over its peer, it is in its

flexibility. Because different properties are used in the composite bow’s construction,

certain effects are possible that cannot be achieved by a self-bow. A composite bow, for

example, can be as powerful but much smaller than a longer self-bow. The latter is

dependent upon the quality of its wood, the length of its limbs, and sometimes a degree of

curvature in order to maximize its energy storage and transferal capabilities. The

composite bow, through its use of different materials glued together, is a better candidate

for the kind of complex curvature that can compensate for a smaller size.

As we have seen, a bow’s performance is the result of a delicate balancing act of

myriad factors. Often a bowyer or archer will make decisions based upon an elaborate

cost benefit analysis, giving up something in one realm to achieve something in another.

As Kooi and Bergman conclude, “… it is not always possible to determine a single

feature that accounts solely for a good or bad performance of the whole bow.”1011 Most

scientists and bowyers evaluate bows by their efficiency, that is, the amount of the energy

put into the bow that actually makes it into the arrow. 1012 This is not the only way to

think about a bow and may even be somewhat deceptive from the perspective of the

archer, but it is a useful way of approaching differences in design.1013 We will begin by

1011
Ibid.
1012
C. Hickman (1947), 91: He defines efficiency as follows: “… the kinetic energy of the arrow as a
percentage of the energy put into the bow.” The higher the bow efficiency, the greater amount of energy
transferred from the bow to the arrow.
1013
Baker makes an excellent and pragmatic case for considering a more pragmatic approach, perhaps from
the archer’s perspective. He argues for a cast per pound definition due to the fact that a 50 lb. bow storing
100 units of energy and shooting at 80% efficiency is still not as good as a 50 lb. bow storing 200 units of
energy shooting at 60% efficiency. If velocity is the goal, the second bow is preferable. See T. Baker
“Bow Design and Performance” in Allely, S. et alia The Traditional Bowyer’s Bible Volume I. The Lyons
Press. (2000), 44.
 324
examining a typical Greek self-bow and then move on to the prominent Scythian

composite bow. These should be enough to highlight most of the nuances in and

advantages or limitations of design that would have bearing on our argument.

There are no descriptions in our Archaic sources of the self-bow. We are again forced to

rely upon art historical evidence. Let us return to the image depicted in Figure 3 (pg. 32).

Here we see two simple self-bows – even more identifiable as such because they are not

yet drawn. The archers in this figure have nocked but not drawn their bows. Bows like

these would have been made out wood. If well-made, they have been designed not only

to take advantage of a specific type of tree, but also the different properties of the wood

within that tree – combining what is often referred to as heartwood and sapwood or early

wood and late wood to great effect.

Figure 3

The stave itself will have been dried out carefully over time. A surprisingly high

percentage of a stave’s weight can sometimes be attributed to water. Drying it out too

much or too quickly can damage the wood or diminish its quality.1014 Though these

particular bows are not curved in any way, a certain degree of curvature could and often

1014
For a good description of a modern bowyer’s process, see R. Hardcastle “Cutting and Seasoning
Wood” in Allely, S. et alia The Traditional Bowyer’s Bible Volume I. The Lyons Press. (2000), 39-41.
 325
was achieved in self bows by bending the wood over fire until it set. The curvature had

advantages, but the process had significant structural risks.

The bow’s size could vary wildly. A long bow, in theory, was capable of more

work, because, having greater mass than a smaller bow, it could store more energy. It

also has the advantage of a lower ‘string angle’ when drawn, a factor which reduces stack

and increases the bow’s efficiency. Furthermore, long limbs can act as stabilizers,

leading to more consistency of aim and a cleaner release.1015 The limbs, however, would

have to be as thin as possible. Long heavy limbs require more energy to throw

themselves forward upon release of the string and take more time to return to equilibrium

(its braced but not drawn state), resulting in a slower shot and hence, a lower initial

velocity. This, in turn, would effect the bow’s cast. Long heavy limbs also have a

tendency to waste energy by producing a hard recoil and more vibrations.1016 The

extraordinary English longbow, which could measure as long as 80 inches, capitalized on

the superior properties of yew, had tapered limbs to maximize efficiency, and banked on

its power compensating for any energy lost.

Employing the same logic in reverse, a shorter bow might give an arrow a higher

initial velocity, by limiting wasted energy and returning to equilibrium faster.

Furthermore, as Hickman and his colleagues discovered in their important scientific study

of the bow, “The more a limb is moved from its normal unbraced position, the greater the

force which tends to move it back to that position.”1017 A short bow at full draw will

1015
T. Baker “Bow Design and Performance” (2000), 75.
1016
T. Baker “Bow Design and Performance” (2000), 44.

1017
C. Hickman (1947), 149.
 326
require more bend in its limbs than a long bow. It also benefits from a longer draw, but

suffers from a high string angle and consequently has a tendency to stack. Such a bow is

considerably more maneuverable on the battlefield. Although this has nothing to do with

efficiency, it is an important contextual consideration for the light-armed soldier,

mounted archer, or for the soldier who, like the soldier in Figure 3, bears the bow in

addition to other weapons. A shorter bow would likely have been preferable on

horseback, in bushes, or simply on the run.

Another important consideration in discussing any bow is its bracing height (the

distance between the handle of the bow and the bow string when braced). As is the case

in almost all aspects of the bow, there are advantages to both high and low brace heights.

A high brace height is an indication that the stave is already bent to some fairly

significant degree. It is, in essence, pre-stressed and it is easier to draw.1018 The distance

between braced string and stave also reduces the uncomfortable and energy sapping

‘string slap’ on the wrist1019 as well as the bow’s ‘paradox’, which has the advantage of

making the bow shoot more accurately.1020 The pre-stressing of the stave, however, can

lead to an increased frequency of breakage or to the wood warping into that position

permanently. This is called ‘set’. Set reduces the elastic quality of the stave, diminishing

its efficiency. This is one reason why self-bows must be unstrung when not in use. The

properties of composite bows make them more resistant to set.

A low brace height makes a bow more difficult to draw. Yet it also increases an

arrow’s velocity because the string must travel further from full draw to its equilibrium

1018
Ibid., 21.
1019
Ibid., 96.
1020
T. Baker “Bow Design and Performance” (2000), 75.
 327
point. This imparts more energy on the arrow. The lower brace height does not stress the

stave as much and the bow is less likely to break or ‘set.’

One way in which bowyers adjusted to address the danger of set was to

compensate for it by ‘reflexing’ their bows. A reflex bow is one that, when unstrung, has

curved arms that turn away from the archer. The curvature can be slight or radical. To

accomplish this, the bowyer must heat the stave and bend it. This process is challenging

on a wooden stave and much easier to accomplish with a composite. The resulting bow

is better able to resist ‘set’ and has the added benefit of increasing the bow’s efficiency.

Because the string must travel further in order for the limbs to return to this adjusted

equilibrium, the arrow receives more energy.

‘Recurving’ a bow was another way in which curvature could compensate for

deficiencies or augment preexisting qualities of a bow. A recurved bow is one on which

the tips of the bow (rather than the limbs themselves) curve away from the archer and

part of the bowstring actually touches the stave. This too was an easier design to achieve

on a composite bow than a self bow, though by no means impossible.

The curved ends put the limbs in a state of higher stress when braced than is the

case for bows with straight tips. Therefore, the design adds draw weight earlier in the

drawing motion and adds draw length, since the tips to which the strings are attached

need to travel further than straight tip equivalents. Both of these effects increase the

amount of energy available to the arrow. Furthermore, recurved tips reduce string angle

and therefore minimize stack, allowing for a longer and smoother draw. At bottom, a

recurved bow is much more efficient than an equivalently sized self-bow. So, an archer

wielding a short recurve bow is harnessing many of the advantages of a much longer self
 328
bow. Again, this would have been an important consideration for a light-armed soldier

or mounted archer.

Now let us turn to the Scythian bow, which not only has direct bearing on parts of

my argument in the preceding pages but is also a terrific example of the composite bow’s

flexibility. For, the Scythian bow combines a number of the characteristics discussed

above and does so in a way that would be impossible to replicate in a self bow. There

are three important features that characterize a Scythian bow: a stiff ‘set-back’ handle,

reflexed limbs, and recurved tips. We have discussed the advantages of the reflexed

limbs and recurved tips. I would like to be more explicit about the intent of the set-back

handle.

Rausing describes the ‘set-back’ handle as one which is placed “behind the plane

attained by the back of the limbs of the bow when braced.”1021 It is much closer to the

string than an ordinary handle and requires great curvature in the limbs to be achieved.

The result is a comfortable and unbending handle that reduces recoil while at the same

time reducing brace height and deriving the benefits associated with that.

The result is a remarkably small (2-3 feet) remarkably efficient weapon. Almost

everything about the weapon is designed to increase draw length and front-load the work

required to pull the bow. It stores much more energy than an equivalent self bow and

wastes very little energy. It achieves a rather high draw weight relative to its size. It is

harder to pull at first, perhaps resulting in the need for the Asiatic ‘thumb draw’ described

above, but then easier to hold and aim from a drawn position. This is a bow that will

attain very high velocity. Moreover, the composite materials and compensatory curved

1021
G. Rousing (1967), 20.
 329
design with resist set to such a degree that the Scythian bow was carried strung in its

goryt (bow case) and was thus immediately available should the need arise.
 330
Glossary of Relevant Archery Terms

Anchor

This is the point to which an archer will draw his bowstring. An anchor point might be at

one’s ear, cheek, chin, chest, or elsewhere. The anchor point related directly to Draw

length (see below).

Archer’s Paradox

Upon release, a bowstring pushes an arrow forward with great force. This force has a

deforming effect on the arrow, as the back of the arrow is moving faster than the front.1022

This causes the arrow to oscillate as it leave the bow and for some time in flight. The

oscillation is important in absorbing energy, but it also causes the arrow to wobble. As it

does so it will strike the grip and will need to bend around it in order to fly towards its

target. If the arrow has too much or too little ‘spine’ (see below) for the bow firing it, it

will veer off in one direction or another to some degree. The archer’s paradox is to

realize that he cannot aim directly at his target, but must instead account for this effect

(which is referred to, because of this association, as ‘paradox.’) This is one factor that

requires an archer to be skilled.

Back

This is the side of the bow facing away from the archer when he or she is holding a

drawn bow. The face of the bow on the opposite side to the string.

1022
D. Engh (2005), 23.
 331
Backing

“Anything glued to the back of the bow for protection or improvement of cast is called

backing.”1023 Usually, this will be sinew. Backing a bow reduces its chances of

breaking.1024

Belly

This is the side of the bow facing the archer when he or she is holding a drawn bow. An

ancient composite bow from the area in question here will often employ horn on the belly

of the bow because of its resistance to compression.

Bowcase

This is a case in which a bow and sometimes arrows could be carried.

Bowshot

A given bow’s range. This will differ greatly due to the power of the respective bow.

Bowstring

The cord that attaches to both limb tips and transforms stored energy from the limbs into

kinetic energy in the arrow

Brace

The act of attaching a bowstring to the bow.

1023
G. Rausing (1967), 17.
1024
C. Hickman (1947), 1.
 332
Brace Height

This refers to the distance between the grip and the string. All things being equal, a low

bracing height will result in more speed because the bowstring must travel further to

reach its starting point. It also puts less stress on the bow in its braced state, leading to

less ‘set’ and reducing the possibility of breakage. That said, increasing the bracing

height makes the bow harder to draw in the initial and middle stages of the motion. This

results is more work on the part of the archer and consequently more energy transferred

to the bow at an earlier stage. In conjunction with other modifications, such as those

commonly found in composite bows – reflexing for instance, a high bracing height can

increase cast. It also has the advantage of reducing ‘paradox’ and can lead to a greater

degree of accuracy.1025 (Synonymous with ‘String Height.’)

Cast

A bow’s cast is the distance it can shoot an arrow. This distance is also referred to as the

bows ‘range.’

Composite Bow

This is a bow that combines multiple materials in the construction of the bow. When a

bow stave bends, the fibers in its center are not stressed. The fibers in the back and belly

of the bow, on the other hand, are stressed.1026 A composite bow seeks to exploit this

fact. This will usually entail the use of sinew on the back (because of its superior elastic

properties) and the use of horn on the belly (because of its resistance to compression).

1025
T. Baker (2000), 75.

1026
B. Kooi & C. Bergman (1997), 132.
 333
Drag

This is the force of resistance on an object as it moves through the air. An arrow’s

fletching, though necessary for guidance over a distance, is the major culprit where drag

is concerned. The arrowhead and body of the arrow will also face some drag – the bigger

the head or missile, the greater the drag. Because the arrow expends its kinetic energy

trying to overcome drag, drag is a major limitation on its cast. Archers attempting to

shoot great distances will crop their fletching and prefer smaller arrowheads.

Draw

Pulling an arrow against the bowstring for a shot. The last few inches of the draw

contribute disproportionately more energy to the draw than the first few inches, unless the

bow has been manufactured to counter this effect.1027

Draw Length

This is the distance that a bowstring can be drawn by an archer. It is an important factor

in determining an arrow’s velocity.

Draw Weight

The number of pounds of force required to draw an arrow 28 inches. The standard way

of describing a bow refers to its draw weight. The higher the draw weight, the more

powerful the bow (if well-made) and the more challenging it is to draw. A bow’s draw

weight is an important factor in determining an arrow’s velocity.1028

1027
C. Hickman (1947), 165.
1028
T. Baker (2000), 45.
 334
Ears

Some bows have stiff extensions added to them which bend forward away from the

archer. The string is attached to the ends of these. These extensions are referred to as

ears. They form levers as the bow is draw, making it easier to hold the bow in a drawn

state.1029 Composite flight bows often have ears. Unstrung, a bow with ears with curl up

away from the archer and look like the letter “C.”

Efficiency

Loosely put, this is the difference between the work put into drawing a bow and the work

transferred to the arrow.

Fletching

A modification made to an arrow with the objective of stabilizing it in flight. Usually

this will take the form of feathers of some kind affixed to the arrow towards its back end.

Flex

The amount of bend in an arrow. The opposite of spine.

Goryt

This is the bowcase favored by the Scythians. The case is worn on the left hip and

attached to either a belt or a strap around across the archer’s torso and around his neck.

The case is designed to hold a strung Scythian bow and arrows.

Grip (also referred to as the ‘Handle’)

This is the part of the bow held by the bow hand. A narrow grip reduces ‘Paradox’ and is

consequently a factor that can lead to a higher degree of accuracy. A grip need not be

stiff, but a stiff grip can lead to less shock upon release. This in turn is a factor in an

1029
G. Rausing (1967), 17.
 335
arrow’s accuracy. On the other hand, a bend in the handle bow, though it can ‘kick’, be

uncomfortable to hold, and lead to certain limitations on materials used, can store more

energy than a stiff handle.1030

Hooke's Law

Deformation of an object is proportional to the force causing it.

Horn

The end of a bow’s limb to which the bow string is attached is often reinforced with a

rigid attachment.1031 Usually, this attachment was made of horn. It is therefore referred

to as horn. It is light and therefore detracts from the bow’s velocity in no appreciable

way.1032 As the tips of limbs are vulnerable to breakage, this was often considered a wise

addition.

Hysteresis

Derived from the Greek word for ‘deficiency’, a bowyer would use the term to describe

the energy that does not make it from the bow to the arrow. Bowyer Tim Baker uses the

following analogy to illustrate the effect, “Drop a rubber ball from four-feet high and it

might bounce back three feet. Internal friction or dampening has stolen some of the

ball’s energy. The same is true when drawing and releasing a bow.”1033 Although the

effects will relatively small, accounting for much less energy-loss than most significant

design alterations, hysteresis is one factor a bowyer will consider in selecting materials.

1030
T. Baker, (2000), 54.
1031
G. Rausing (1967), 17.
1032
C. Hickman, C. (1947), 49.
1033
T. Baker, T. (2008), 141.
 336
Materials will varies with regard to their degree of internal friction. This is one reason

why certain woods, or even certain parts or certain woods, are preferable to others.

Kick

This is the recoil force felt in the bowhand after release. The recoil is generated by

excess energy which did not transfer into the arrow. Recoil is a factor in accuracy.

Limbs

The upper and lower working parts of the bow. These will require some measure of

elasticity. Long limbs store more energy but have a slower cast because more energy

remains in the limb after release, dissipating in the form of a hard shock or ‘kick’, a

twang of the bowstring, and limb vibrations.1034 (Synonym = arm)

Limb Mass

This is the weight of the limbs.

Loose

The act of shooting an arrow from a bow. Synonym for ‘Release’.

Mass Placement

This refers to the location of the weight in the bow. Weight closer to the tips of the bow

slows down the cast. Shifting weight toward the handle has the opposite effect.1035 This

is, in part, because a relatively small amount of energy is stored toward the ends of limbs.

So, extra mass there is wasted and contributes to limb vibration and energy loss.1036

1034
Ibid., 66.
1035
T. Baker (2000), 66.
1036
T. Baker (2008), 117.
 337
Momentum

This is the quantity of moving body as determined the product of its mass and velocity.

Nock

a.) The notch at the end of an arrow into which one would set a bowstring. b.) The act of

placing an arrow on the bowstring.

Quiver

A quiver is generic term (compare with the more specific ‘goryt’ above) for a container

used to hold an archer’s arrows. There are two characteristic types of quivers – one is

carried on the back, the other on the left hip and suspended from a strap that crosses the

torso and hangs around the neck. Sometimes these are associated with ethnicity. Artistic

depictions (our only evidence) favor an argument that Greeks started with a back quiver

and gradually moved towards a hip quiver, which ultimately became more common but

never completely eradicated its competitor.

Recurve

To curve the ends of the bow away from the archer; acts as a level to spread forces.

Recurve Bow

A recurve bow has limbs which, when unstrung, has ends (or tips) that turn away from

the archer. A recurved bow gives a shorter bow the low-stacking (see below)

characteristics of a longbow.1037 It also stores more energy than an equally sized straight

bow. The recurve strains the bow and often it is more advantageous when designing a

recurve bow to make it composite, thereby taking advantage of the properties of sinew

and horn. Recurve bows can be difficult to string and tend to be noisier than some of

1037
T. Baker, (2000), 70.
 338
their peers. In an unstrung state, they can also be confusing to someone unfamiliar with

them.1038

Reflex Bow

This is a type of bow which, when unstrung, curves in its away from the archer in a ‘C’

shape. They can be very challenging to string for this reason. The reflex modifications

usually add ‘ears’ and increase bracing height, making the bow harder to draw in the

initial and middle stages of the motion. This results in more work on the part of the

archer and consequently more energy transferred to the bow. It also reduces ‘set’ which,

in turn, can reduce cast.1039 A Turkish flight bow, referenced in this work, is a good

example (arguably the best example) of a highly reflexed bow. The Scythian bow is

slightly reflexed.

Release

The act of shooting an arrow from a bow. Synonym for ‘Loose.’

Self Bow

A bow made from a single piece of wood. Synonym for ‘Simple’ Bow.

Set

This is when the wood of a strung bow warps, assuming the curved shape as its own.

This constitutes damage to the original elasticity of the bow and it reduces cast.

Shaft

The main part of an arrow, which runs between the arrowhead and the nock.

1038
R. Laubin, (1980) American Indian Archery Volume 4. University of Oklahoma Press: 7-8.
1039
C. Hickman (1947), 50.
 339
Sinew

High-tensile strength animal tendons with a high spring constant.

Spine

Stiffness of arrow, how little the shaft bends when compressed. (see archer’s paradox)

Stack

The word can be used as a noun or verb. A bow can be said ‘to stack’ or to have ‘stack.’

When a bow becomes suddenly harder to draw during the last few inches of its draw. It

is the result of a high (and thus disadvantageous) string angle and not a product of the

bow materials reaching a breaking point.1040 It stands to reason that the converse is also

true – a bow with less stack is easier to draw.

Stave

Piece of wood from which a bow can be made.

Tang

A metal spike sticking out of the arrowhead. It is used in attching the arrowhead to the

shaft of the arrow. The tang is inserted or driven into the shaft. The shaft is then bound

to help secure the arrowhead. This arrowhead is easier to make than its socketed relative,

but can break the shaft on impact.

Velocity

Ratio of distance traveled to the time it is traveled in.

1040
T. Baker, (2000), 53. This is a common misconception. When wood is at or near it’s breaking point,
the fibers in the belly of the bow begin to fail and it becomes easier to draw.