Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 34 (2020) 102613 Available online 19 October 2020 2352-409X/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. The important role of bow choice and arrow fetching in projectile experimentation. A ballistic approach Christian Lepers a , Veerle Rots a, b, * a TraceoLab/Prehistory, University of Li` ege, Place du 20-août 7, 4000 Li` ege, Belgium b Maître de Recherches du FNRS, Belgium A R T I C L E INFO Keywords: Projectiles Ballistic experiments Bow Arrow Fletching Kinetic energy ABSTRACT Projectile experiments are regularly performed in prehistoric studies, but few studies try to control the ballistic behaviour of the propulsion system used. The ballistic behaviour of a weapon is determined by different vari- ables. In the case of bow-and-arrow technology, important variables are the spine, the weight and the fetching of an arrow, next to the draw weight of the bow, its morphology and the materials used for its manufacture. Ballistic experiments are essential to understand the impact of each variable while using different combinations of bow and arrow. We present the results of ballistic experiments focussed on the impact of fetching and bow choice on an arrow’s behaviour. Measurements of the kinetic energy along the fight trajectory of different types of arrows show their highly variable behaviour depending on the type of fetching and the type of bow used. The results demonstrate (1) the importance of an informed choice of the bow and arrow combination used in projectile experiments to guarantee reliability and (2) the necessity to master the physical laws that are controlling weapon systems. 1. Introduction Projectiles have attracted a lot of attention over the years, especially within the larger framework of debates on human behaviour and tech- nological evolution (e.g., Hughes, 1998; McBrearty and Brooks, 2000; Brooks et al., 2006; Shea, 2006; Shea and Sisk, 2010; O’Driscoll and Thompson, 2018; Rots et al., 2017). This interest has stimulated the development of experimental programs aimed at recognizing projectiles in the archaeological record (see Rots and Plisson 2014: Table 1 for an overview up to 2014; but also Cattelain, 1994; Cattelain and Perp` ere, 1995; Stodiek, 2000; and since 2014: e.g., Iovita and Sano, 2016; Langley, 2016; Coppe and Rots, 2017) and, more recently, at the recognition of propulsion modes (e.g., Hutchings, 2011; Coppe et al., 2019). The search for ways to identify weapons projected from a dis- tance has been important over the last decennium, as these weapon delivery systems (i.e., spear-thrower and bow-and-arrow) are consid- ered more “complex” and on those grounds argued to be associated with modern humans only (cf. Shea and Sisk, 2010). While distinctive criteria have been proposed to identify projectiles archaeologically (for a recent review see Coppe and Rots, 2017), no reliable and independently tested criteria are yet available for the identifcation of weapon systems even though propositions have been made. In most cases, the experimental reference on which these attempts rely have been far too limited in scope to actually provide the required in-depth insights. Studying projectile technology and how it changed and/or varied through time is chal- lenging and this largely independent of the exact research question. Indeed, most studies on projectile technology rely on experimental work, but projectile experiments are confronted with a complex inter- play of multiple variables and this complexity is not always fully considered (cf. Rots and Plisson, 2014). In addition, ballistic studies are extremely rare hampering a thorough understanding of weapon tech- nology as quantitative data are essential to monitor the impact of each variable. Even for the kinetic energy, a value that is considered impor- tant by many, have the frst comparative data for each weapon system become available only recently (Coppe et al., 2019). Bow-and-arrow technology is frequently used in projectile experi- ments (Rots and Plisson, 2014), either with so-called “traditional” and modern bows (e.g., Fischer, 1981; Fischer et al., 1984; Moss and Newcomer, 1982; Barton and Bergman, 1982; Bergman and Newcomer, 1983; Albarello, 1986; Odell and Cowan, 1986; Geneste and Plisson, 1990; Cattelain and Perp` ere, 1995; Caspar and De Bie, 1996; Soriano, 1998; Cromb´ e et al., 2001; Chesnaux, 2008a, 2008b; Grimaldi, 2009; * Corresponding author at: TraceoLab/Prehistory, University of Li` ege, Place du 20-août 7, 4000 Li` ege, Belgium. E-mail address: veerle.rots@uliege.be (V. Rots). Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jasrep https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2020.102613 Received 27 July 2020; Received in revised form 24 September 2020; Accepted 1 October 2020