Apache bows and arrows: Šmit 2016 study

The paper has two parts. The first reviews written sources on the use of the bow among the Chiricahua and Western Apache in the nineteenth century: memoirs such as Geronimo's, ethnographic studies published between 1930 and 1960, and period photographs. They describe single-curve mulberry bows about a metre long, composite reed arrows with hardwood foreshafts about 75 cm long, slightly shorter all-wood arrows for long shots, 30 to 40 arrows carried into major fights, and training that began in childhood with games of rapid and precise shooting.

The second part is an experiment. The author made a very light reed arrow, 70.7 cm and 9.7 g with a flint point, and a yew bow 105.5 cm long when strung, drawing about 18 kg at 70 cm, and shot it at various angles, measuring range and flight time. Ranges ran from 35.5 to 51.5 metres, with calculated launch speeds between 33.5 and 39.2 metres per second. Using a ballistic model the author estimates that such an arrow loses half its energy within 15 metres, and concludes that the useful range of reed arrows was well under 20 metres, offset by an almost flat trajectory over the first stretch and by the ability to shoot quickly with bows of modest strength.

For the historical part the author compares the memoirs and ethnographic collections, noting where a source is doubtful (for example the bows Geronimo made for tourists). For the experiment he used Slovenian materials: dry reed for the shaft, dogwood for the foreshaft and nock, small bird feathers fixed with thread and modern glue, and a 0.4 g flint flake as the point. Unable to find suitable mulberry branches, he made the bow from a yew branch seasoned for three years, with a doubled hemp string treated with beeswax.

Speed could not be measured with a bullet chronograph, so the author made six shots at different angles, measuring range with a tape and flight time with a stopwatch held in the bow hand; the first two shots were left out of the calculation. A model with air drag proportional to the square of velocity, fitted by finding the effective cross-section that made the estimated speeds of the different shots most alike, gave 3.61 ± 0.5 cm².

The experimental part rests on a single arrow and six shots. Flight time was taken by hand with a stopwatch started and stopped by the archer, and holding the stopwatch prevented a full draw: launch speed is not measured but derived from the model, and any imprecision in the timings feeds straight into the result. The bow is yew rather than mulberry, the string hemp and the arrow made from European materials; the author believes the differences matter little, but does not check.

The 20-metre limit does not come from a penetration test or any measure of effect on a target: it is inferred from the calculated loss of energy, compared with a .22 bullet and an airsoft pellet, and the abstract speaks of about 20 metres while the text says well under. The energy figures also start from 45 metres per second, more than the speeds estimated for the shots (33.5 to 39.2). The historical review relies on recollections often recorded decades later, with distances given from memory, and the application to the European Mesolithic and Neolithic is an analogy put forward by the author.

For a modern archer the study is mainly a window on the historical bow. By the author's calculations a very light arrow, 9.7 g from a bow of 16 to 18 kg, leaves reasonably fast but quickly loses speed and energy, which helps explain why the Apache used heavier all-wood arrows for long shots. Traditional archers who make their own arrows will recognise a familiar principle: a light arrow flies flatter over the first few metres, while a heavier one holds its energy better over distance. The figures come from a loosely reconstructed bow and arrow, so they serve as an order of magnitude, not as a reference for modern equipment.