On the Evaluation of Approaches to the Study of Composite Bows

The article deals with different approaches to the study of composite bows that are common in archaeological studies. The bibliography and historiography of bow finds is extensive. In terms of typology of the remains (details) of bows, two leading approaches can be identified: taking into account the number and shape of parts, and taking into account design features. Most references are related to the methodology of A.M. Savin and A.I. Semenov. However, the authors formulated their method very briefly. A review of the finds showed that the features they identified (pro-trusion of overlay on the side) are extremely rare. Savin and Semenov’s publications do not contain real finds with specific design differences, such as illustrations or a list (and the map does not substitute it) to verify their conclu-sions. The real purpose of the series of works was not to create a typology of bows but rather to attempt to impose ethnicity on a particular way of burial rite. The most complete summary of Eastern European bow finds was collect-ed by E.V. Kruglov. He expressed his commitment to the previously established method. However, in his works, the typological features were changed to a great extent (protrusion of overlay of the central part up). These signs are very rare and cannot be applied to collections. The methods of Savin and Semenov are not applicable. The number, loca-tion, and shape of the overlays remain the most significant features of archaeological bows, which are complemented only by technological features (reverse surface processing). For specific archaeological remains, a two-level classifi-cation is optimal, currently formulated by V.V. Gorbunov, with some modifications. It is important to note that there is no significant chronological distinctions between bows.