SQUARE PEGS AND ROUND HOLES

Why Traditional Archers Often Don't Fit In

This is not the first time I have noted a certain divide twixt modern and traditional archery, and it probably won't be the last. On this occasion, however, I want to focus more strongly on the difference between the skills and purposes of these forms of archery. Moreover, and with this in mind, I will suggest that clubs, tournaments, targets and most of what is deemed the norm today are not appropriate for traditional archery.

Let us begin with the original purposes and skills of traditional archers. The two primary purposes were hunting and warfare. While accuracy was necessary for both, archers were never aiming for small spots as we do in modern archery. Strength as well as proper form were required of trained war archers, as was "rate of fire". Of course, one may argue that strength and speed are not necessary for the modern sport or for archery as a form of recreation. But in the same sense one can argue that there is no need for pinpoint accuracy either. The only reason there is a need for it is because we have come up with rules and a scoring system for the game of archery. Since hitting a small spot and accumulating points on a target face are the foundation of archery as a sport, equipment has been developed to enable archers to execute their shots with greater accuracy. These enhancements and modifications are not part of traditional shooting.

Target practice is nothing new. War archers throughout the ages have trained through target practice, but the goal was a little different. For example, in Saracen Archery, we read how archers would train to loose three arrows in quick succession to hit a target 3 feet in diameter in size 75 yards away. While this is by no means an easy feat, attempting to hit a target 3 feet in diameter is not the same as trying to hit a bullseye. 

We read also in Arab Archery that war archers would train by practising something called 'The Imitation Horseman'. The targets involved were discs the size of a shield and the size of a helmet, as these are what the archers were training to hit on the battlefield. Again, not easy to accomplish at long range, but still not the same as trying to hit a bullseye on a modern target face.

It is true that there are different categories for different forms of archery in many tournaments and competitions today, but all the same, the skills of traditional archery are not fully considered. I wonder whether target faces and scoring should be very different for traditional archery, while speed should perhaps also be taken into consideration. I think this would be a fairer way of measuring a traditional archer's skill, while also being honest about what accuracy and effectiveness really meant in archery before it became an Olympic sport.