544 ANNUAL EEPORT SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION, 1910. 



and imitated by the native craftsmen of this region at any rate; while 

 a suggestive clue is afforded as to the possible date at which an appre- 

 ciation of the capabilities of the foreign weapon may have led to 

 early attempts by the natives to produce weapons of similar type. 



It is generally supposed that the art of the bronze founders of 

 Benin was itself introduced from western Europe, and the Portu- 

 guese have usually been suggested as the likely teachers of the process. 

 This very plausible theory is not, however, conclusively proved as yet, 

 and arguments against it have been presented by Mr. H. Ling Roth.^ 

 Be this as it may, even if we assign to the Portuguese the credit of 

 having introduced to the natives the difficult art over which the latter 

 obtained so complete and remarkable a mastery, it is not necessary to 

 assume that every European represented upon the plaques and other 

 castings is of necessity a Portuguese. Once the art was developed by 

 the natives, any Europeans with whom they came in contact would 

 be equally liable to have their characteristics portrayed, and, as I 

 have pointed out, there were among the early exj^lorers of the region 

 not only Portuguese, but also Europeans of French, English, Dutch, 

 and Danish nationalities. It is of importance to bear this in mind 

 in connection with the probable introduction of the crossbow. 



The prevalent idea that the native African crossbows are degener- 

 ate imitations of European forms is based upon the notion, a per- 

 fectly true one, that the well-known types of this weapon used for 

 military and sporting purposes from the fifteenth century onward 

 were comi^lex weapons of elaborate construction, involving a bow of 

 steel, an elaborate wooden stock, and a skillfully designed and com- 

 plex mechanism for the release. This is undoubtedly so, the cross- 

 bow having already been in use for centuries in Europe, and having 

 been developed through successive stages of improvement into a 

 highly perfected appliance. It had reached almost the zenith of its 

 development. At the same time, we should not lose sight of the fact 

 that not only had more primitive types necessarily existed — proto- 

 types whence were derived the later, improved forms — but, further, 

 that under certain conditions some of these archaic forms persisted 

 into quite late times, and continued to be manufactured alongside of 

 the more perfected varieties. The older forms survived, in fact, as 

 long as their simpler construction and relative cheapness continued to 

 supply a want. 



Now, in a single small district on the western coast of Norway 

 there may still be seen in serious use a form of crossbow which it 

 would be hard to parallel for simplicity and rudeness of construction. 

 It seems like an anachronism in an environment of highly special- 

 ized weapons of modern type. It is, however, no mere plaything, but 

 an appliance of practical utility, upon which the livelihood of its 



1 Great Benin, 1903, Chap. 19. 



