Evans, Arthur J.: The Palace of Minos: a comparative account of the successive stages of the early Cretan civilization as illustred by the discoveries at Knossos (Band 2,1): Fresh lights on origins and external relations (London, 1928)

CONNEXIONS: LIBYAN AND EGYPTIAN FACTORS 49

a sheath,1 is identical with that shown in pre-dynastic reliefs 2 (Fig. 24, a)
which in fact supplies the prototype of the earlier Egyptian hieroglyph- for
bow, (| pit orpeti).z It does not appear to have been a 'composite' bow

of the Asiatic class, but rather a specialized variety of the ' plain ' bow of a
type that still survives in Somaliland.4 The bow itself was regarded as
a specially Libyan weapon, and the Libyan tribes are referred to collectively
as the 'Nine Bows'. The arrows of Neith (Fig. 24, a, 0) show the same
connexions. They are of the same chisel-edged type that is seen in the
hands of the huntsmen on a pre-dynastic palette of the class referred to, one
of whom holds a batch of three such arrows (Fig. 24, a). The bowmen here
wear plumes, and it is noteworthy that arrows of this type, similarly bunched
together, are held by what appear to be negroized Libyans, who also wear
the national ostrich plumes, in a wall-painting at Beni-Hassan (Fig. 24, 5).6
Flint-tipped arrows of this broad-edged type occur in Egyptian tombs6 Chisei-
(Fig. 23, c), and are abundant in the Neolithic settlements of the Saharan arrows-
region7 (Fig. 23, d). It is interesting to observe that this chisel-edged type also
is seen in the hands of the huntsman shooting a wild goat (Fig. 23, e) on
the ivory half-cylinder of M. M. I a date, from Knossos, illustrated in Vol. i

1 The so-called ' shuttle' of Neith was thus
convincingly explained by Miss M. A. Murray,
Ancient Egypt, 1921, Pt. II, pp. 35-7.

2 E.g. on limestone vase, Hierakonpolis, PL
XIX. 1, and on slate palette in the Louvre,
Heuzey, Rev. Archeologique, 1890, PI. IV-V,
and p. 145 seqq. De Morgan, Recherches sur
lesorigines de I'Egypte, 1897, pp. 264, 265, and
Fig. 864.

s See Lepsius, Der Bogen in der Hieroglyphik
(Z.f ag. Sprache, 1872, pp. 79-88).

* This is the opinion of Mr. Henry Balfour,
the first authority on the evolution of the bow.
The Structure and Affinities of the Composite
Bow were already discussed by him in the
R. Anthr. Inst. Journ. for 1900 (vol. xix, p. 220
seqq.). The great rarity of the composite
type in Egypt is shown by Dr. Felix von
Luschan (Ueber den antiken Bogen, p. 193),
who, out of some eighty Egyptian bows ex-
amined by him, found only a single composite
specimen, now in the Berlin Museum. It is of
Rameses I's time and apparently of Hittite
origin (see, too, C. J. Longman, The Bows of
II.

the Ancient Assyrians and Egyptians (R. Anthr.
Inst. Journ., xxiv, 1895, p. S1) and H. Balfour,
On a remarkable ancient Bow (ib., vol. xxvi,
1897, p. 210 seqq.).

5 Cf. Heuzey, loc. cit, p. 149 d, e One
warrior holds a bunch of three arrows, just
like a figure on the pre-dynastic tablet.

6 See Chabas, Antiquite historique, p. 380
seqq , and J. Evans, The Ancient Stone Imple-
ments of Great Britain, p. 329, Fig. 272. The
flint was secured to the shaft by bitumen. Cf.
types from the shell-mounds of Mugem, Portu-
gal (H. Obermaier, Fossil Man in Spain,
p. 324, Fig. 135, and p. 325, Fig. 136 a).

Two specimens, however, are recorded as
having been found as far afield as Denmark
(Madsen, Afbildninger of Danske Oldsager:
Steenalderen, PI. XXII, 18/ 19: cf. Chabas,
op. cit., p. 382, and J. Evans, op. cit, p. 365).

7 The resemblance they present to trapezoid
flints of a Late Capsian class ranging from
Syria to Portugal may even suggest an 'epi-
palaeolithic' origin.