Cretan hornbow, quiver and arrows

340 grains 175 fps is 31 joule. Around 155 fps with 10grains/lb.

The obviously arising question is the effectiveness of such an early hornbow- design compared to later, much more difficult to do hornbow- designs.
I guess that the use of siyahs makes only sense when you do a heavy bow for to benefit from the lever action, otherwise the additional weight of the siyahs flattens the energy of the bow.

Otherwise it is very, very hard and uncomfort to draw a heavy hornbow done with one of these early hornbow- designs.

So, when make siyahs sense and what?s their impact on archery in hunting and fighting?

Michael

About the same as Andrews hornbow, "156-160fps with a 1oz (437grain) arrow "
But faster then my Samick SKB :)

An interesting and nice performing bow. I would expect it to stack badly without siyahs though.

What period do the petroglyphs date to?

It might be useful to study the benefits of siyahs at lighter draw-lengths. I would assume they would still be beneficial despite the extra mass as the bow could be made shorter for the same draw length (hence reducing mass). If your requirements for a light-weight bow are not length critical (e.g. horse archery), it would be simpler to leave off the siyahs, horn and sinew and just build a longer self-wood flatbow. Not as much fun though.

Andrew

Andrew, I like your work and your statements.

I like and admire the later hornbow- designs with siyahs very much, they look good, it is a great feeling to shoot them.

But as a bowyer, I?m seriously interested in questons about bow- designs.
The advantages of siyahs are obviously, but I?m asking for the conditions of their need. Somewhere in the history of archery siyahs seemed to be necessary.

You are right, an earlier hornbow- design will stack, if the drawweight is to much.

Michael

I am not an expert on the oldest bows, but this bow could be a much better performer if made with more un-strung reflex. The long, less-stressed, horn-bellied bending limbs would allow for that. The energy storage and the arrow speed would be greater. Actually, if the extremities were made lighter by ending the horned sections closer to the grip and with the reflex, the bow could be one of the best.

The stacking is relative: a 50lb archer will be bothered by stacking in a 40lb bow, but not in a 30lb. An 80lb archer will be bothered by stacking in 70lb bow, but not in the 50lb. A 100lb archer etc... And another issue is if the stacking was indeed such a problem for the non-target bows of the ancients. I am not saying the stacking was enjoyed, but perhaps taken as normal.

Adam

I agree Adam, but we decided to avoid a greater reflex, cause we believe, that the greater reflex is a concept of later hornbow- designs.
Stacking is relative and a fact, cause compression- strength is limited.

Anyway it is interesting that long siyahs disappeared in Turkish designs, the Turkish bowyers counted much more on a great reflex and very seriously calculated cross- sections for to reduce the physical weight of their bows.

Michael

Dear Fellows,
In our Horseback Archers Society there is a very good private Library where there is a very interesting book: "CRETAN ARCHERS" written by a Greek Professor Michael E. Skoulikas (Athens 2002). http://www.horsebackarcherygr.com/ourlibraryiii.htm
[external image]
This book is consisted by 171 pages including many information and historical details concerning Cretan Archers, from the early Minoan era to the 17th century when first start to use firearms in Crete.
The author of this book seems to be very well informed.
Unfortunately, despite the many single details about history and activities of Cretan Archers, this entire book doesn't include technical information about Cretan Bows ever used, except a small paragraph (on page 55) where is written that, traditional Cretan Bow was nothing but a simple curved wooden piece, of 0.80 cm lenght. Furthermore, is written that Arrow was made of cane, with an obsian or metall pyle, and its lenght was 0.45-0.60 bearing fletching of vulture-feathers.
If a book such aforementioned doesn't include more technical information, I assume that definitely there are not!
The interesting point of this book is the picture on page 147, presenting a Cretan Archer of 19th century. This picture comes from a rare book [ VECELLIO CESARE: "Costumes anciens et modernes", Paris 1859] and seems to be very accurate in comparisson to other known sources of Greek and foreign bibliography.
[external image]
According this picture the Cretan Bow is very influented by the ancient Greek Bow as it seems in the hands of ancient Greek Archers, in Afea Temple (island of Aegina, near Pireus).
[external image]
Turning back to the previous picture of Cretan Archer, we can accept its accuracy in its singlest detail noticing the left sleeve of the Archer which is skintight in order to protect the hand enabling the free movement of the Bow-string.
Same book contains also a secong Cretan Archer's picture (page 15) from O. DAPPER's book "DESCRIPTION EXACTE DES ISLES DE L' ARCHIPEL", Amsterdam 1703. O. Dapper never visit Crete or other Greek islands, so his book consider to be out of reality in many points.
Finally, Micael E. Skoulikas mentioned in the table of Bibliography of his book a very important title: H.BERVE: "Sur les archers Cretois d' Alexandrie". This book I haven't read and maybe, without to be sure for that, it contains some technical information. Maybe!
Best wishes to redhawk-Michael in order to achieve a real Cretan Bow, informing us about that. :D

Aristotle,

thank you for your info. It is good for me to know, that there are more sources for to reconstruct Greek or Cretan bows.

I?ve just reconstructed such a bow posted in the book you mentioned.
The other 2 bows are dedicated to the Goddess Artemis.
All these bows are hornbows designed in very interesting styles.
But for to be serious I?ve not found much details about the original construction, just drawings and reliefs. I made them due to my knowledge, my experience as a bowyer and my capablities. Any further information would be very welcome.
I like these bows very much and I found them very under- estimated in the history of bowery.

The Cretan bows construction is made in cooperation with the infos and knowledge of my customer.

I hope you could help me for to reconstruct Greek and Cretan bows closer to the originals.

Michael

Dear Michael.

Thank you for posting!

As is very well known, ancient Greeks, (Athenians and Spartans) because of Virtu reasons, respect only blank weapons, as shorter as possible with the exception of the Spear. It means, they didn't esteemed Bows, and Archery was never included in Olympics or other competitions, officially. Furthermore, ancient Greeks thought that police-work was for inferior people, so they refuge to staff the police brigade consisted by Greeks, prefering to organize a police brigade consisted by Scythian slaves and all these permanently refering to Athenians and Spartans. Those Scythian were Archers bearing Bows and those images are shown in many statues and designs. This is why we have not as many as information about construction and shape of ancient Greek Bow today!
Except Athenians and Spartans, in other Greek population (as Thracians and Cretans) we see clear the use of the Bow and (in both of them) also the existence of strong Horseback Archers.
Despite aforementiond facts, it doesn't mean that ancient Greeks were not capable in Archery, to the opposite! Apollo, Minerva and Artemis were inventors (according Greek legends) and users of the Bow and Homer's descriptions show Ulisses as a very capable Archer.
The most complete descriptions about shape of ancient Greek Bow come from the Temple of Afea's Minerva in Aegina island [ http://www.travel-to-aegina.com/page.ph ... place_id=6 ], a monument excavated by the Bavarian archaelogists during the era of Bavarian King Otto I of Hellenes (first half of ninteenth century). Then, after excavations, protection as well as conservation-reasons dictate to transfer in Bayern many marble-parts (statues etc) of the Temple. All these parts exhibit in Muenchener Glyptothek [ http://plato.alien.de/service-bildarchi ... tothek.htm ] and I'm sure you have alredy visit it.
The more distinctive images enabling us to understand the shape of ancient Greek and Scythian Bows remain those from the Archers-statues on frieze of aforementioned Temple.

[external image]

So, we can observe the black and white reconstructions of above statues, as the are published in Blouet's 3-volume book ( Firmin-Didot, Paris, 1831)
enabling us to understand the shape of ancient Greek and Scythian Bow. These pictures show as clear as their shape.


[external image]

[external image]

[external image]


And the following colored reconstruction is a work of the German archaelogist Brinkmann:

[external image]

[external image]


Actually, this is the shape of the ancient Greek Bow as we can assume today and there is a full description of it in our webpage http://www.horsebackarcherygr.com/archery.htm (encode to Greek Windows) in Greek, unfortunately! :D .

Thank you again, Aristotle for the additional pics.

You?re right in claiming the shape of the real antique Greek bow as shown on your posted pics.
The attachment of the limbs as shown on the second pic from the above is very interesting. If I would know that the Greek bowyers have used screws, I would say this bow is done like a nowadays modern recurve with takedown- limbs.

I?ll look if we could put this kind of bow in an upcoming research- project, I would like to do it in the way as shown on the pic. Due to its shortness it
is a hornbow.
Are there any construction details?

Michael

Thank you dear Michael!
You are right concerning limbs.
No, unfortunately not! There are not reliable construction details concerning ancient Greek bow. And archaelogical excavations didn't offer reliable testimonies. Despite, I'll continue my research and I'll inform you properly in any case.

One reason for the limbs so far ahead can be the draw length. With a 55" horn bow it can be difficult to compress horn enough with 26" draw. If limbs are in front of handle you get the compression. Or put on ears :)

I offer this info though I am definitely out of my area of expertise.

Snodgrass 1964 tells of the archaeological sources for the Cretian bow. He says that wood bows of European type should be most likely. There is also discussion for the Scythian type and also composites of a single bend with ears (recurves, maybe as seen in the Near East). He is very critical of all other sources, and names these.

Wachsmann demonstrates that Ageans in Egyptian burial murals provided horn for angular composites to be used in royal workshops though there is no evidence that they used them for this purpose themselves.

I have another very long text by M F Vos in which he concludes that Greeks do not represent Scythians accurately in Attic vases. One may see another example of this in the color representation of the barefoot Scythian with a knit body suit. One wonders if the bow is represented any more accurately.

About Greeks avoiding archery: A Russian archaeologist describes ancient weapons as long range, the bow, as middle range, the lance, and as short range, sword, mace and ax. One might assume that Ancient Greeks preferred the sword as most honorable because of the one on one up close and personal nature of its use.

Keep in mind that Greek soldiers belonged to the upper class. Scythians were considered as barbarians as they considered the Greeks.

There is discussion that Minoans were not Greek but of Persian origin. -j-

Jack,
I have to contradict you when you say the Greek soldiers belong to the upper class. They did look down on the Scythians for being barbarians because they could not speak Greek and effeminate like the Persians because they wore trousers. In any individual city like Athens they would also be looked down upon because they were not citizens.

The Greek vase painters simplified the Scythian and Persian garments to body hugging tights because that's what they thought would look good. In other works, the trousers are depicted as looser and more realistic. It is only when the market was foreign, Greek work for Scythian patrons, did they try for realism in our sense.

To be a hoplite in a Greek city army, you had to be free, a citizen and have enough income to pay for your spear, shield and other equipment. I think to join the navy, needed an oar and a cushion to sit on.

The upper classes in cities like Athens paid for ships or supplied cavalry. The ships were appreciated.

The original Minoans were not Greek speakers and what remains of their language (Linear A) is not obviously Indo-European. They considerably predate the Persians who were Indo-European speakers. An early form of Greek (Myceanean) was adopted in Crete following one of the collapses of Minoan civilization judging by the Linear B tablets in Knossos.

The Greeks preferred the spear as a weapon in combination with the large round shield (hoplon).

Bede; An archaeologist who works every year in the Agean told me that Hoplite Greek warriors were of the upper class. The head of a university archaeology department at another institution was present and agreed. Can you support your contradiction with a reference?

My point was to cast a possible doubt on the representation of the shape of the Scythian's bow by referencing Vos' text that in some cases Greeks might not show Scythians accurately.

Do you know of an actual Cretian bow which can enlighten Michael Redhawk's research? . -j-

Thanks Jack and Bede for your infos.

The shape of the Scythian bows as the Greek have posted it, is definitely allright. It is the same design I?ve seen in the excavation of olon kurin gol when I had been in Siberia the last February.
As I?ve posted, the Scythian bow at the times of olon kurin gol has been made as an all wood lamination.
Maybe the Greek bowyers have added horn for to be on top with the evolution of bows? The Subeixi- bow is of the same design, made as an wood- lamination with the back sinewed and a horn- belly.

I come more and more to the conclusion that my Cretan hornbow is of Minoan origin. The Minoans were deeply connected with cattle, remember the cult of the Minotaur.

Michael

jack farrell wrote:

Bede; An archaeologist who works every year in the Agean told me that Hoplite Greek warriors were of the upper class. The head of a university archaeology department at another institution was present and agreed. Can you support your contradiction with a reference?

It depends on how you define "upper class." The citizens were, generally speaking, an upper class compared to foreigners, slaves, and ordinary poor laborers--but there was additional social stratification within the citizenry itself. Not to mention that in Sparta things can get more confusing, since the relative social status of the various classes that could be recruited as hoplites (homoioi/Spartiates, neodamodeis, perioikoi, whatever) are rather hard to sort out.

Let me poke around for a bit and find some relevant sources. Somehow the name "George Cawkwell" keeps popping up in my head...

Jack,
We may be getting into a discussion based on the misuse of terms. Generally "upper class" refers to the top stratum of a society not necessarily including the ruling class. In Athens, for instance, that referred to a small group of very rich families. If you want to read about how Greek armies were organised in the Classical period, I suggest Western Way of War Infantry Battle in Classical Greece by Victor Davis Hanson. It gets down to the details.

Greece and Rome at War is another good title. There is a lot of published material on Classical Greek armies and even more on Attic pottery.

I agreed with your premise that the Greeks did not always accurately portray the Scythians.

Bede; I do not think that Dr Wachsmann or Fr. Bader misused the term upper class when they referred to Greek soldiers. Fr Bader explained that a soldier needed to afford armor and weapons and the time to practice with them and this was out of the reach of the lower classes.

Actually I have my plate full reading about Central Asia and your naming two books on history is not a reference.

Please be better prepared in the future if you intend to contradict me. Jack

Jack,
I still believe your friends would acknowledge that there was also a middle class. I did not dispute that the lower classes in Greek cities did not supply hoplites. I pointed out the requirements for being a hoplite in a previous post. They require enough income to purchase weapons and armour. You are right that there has to be enough time for people to train. If you don't have a lifestyle to support that spare time, you are only going to join up if you are particularly patriotic.

People like Socrates were hoplites. He was an itinerant teacher of philosophy and hardly a financial member of the Greek upper classes. Usually if a member of the wealthy class joined the army as a foot soldier it was because he wanted to show solidarity with the voters. Nicias and Miltiades are two examples. Of course they were made generals. There was no staff colleges in Ancient Greece.

If you want original sources try Herodotus, Thucydides and Arrian. Xenophon is useful too. I recommend the Anabasis.

Bede; You stated that you had to contradict me. I offered you my source. I did not make up this information. You can find that Dr S Wachsmann has published on bronze age seafaring, is an archaeologist and assistant professor. Fr E Bader also worked many summers at Akrotiri, Santarini besides running his university's archaeology program.

Anybody with a computer can find a list of books on Greek warfare. As you offer these 7 books as references to refute my assertion, I would assume that you have read these and know where to find a page citation which supports your contradiction. I ought not just accept your opinion as neither of us is a specialist on Greeks. You know how this works. You cite author, title and page, I look up the reference and check for accurate citation. It is not up to me to prove your assertion.

For instance you reference Herodotus. One quotes Herodotus by chapter and paragraph. Where in Herodotus does it disagree with my sources?

I really enjoy the generally friendly discourse here at ATARN but when you come on so disagreeably strong you ought to have some proof. I assume you know how this works. Jack

I'm scratching my head here...
"What Greece and when?" is the most important question in your discussion.
In the Heroic times?
In the time of the city-states?
Alexander's era?

The Minoan culture was between 4-5000 years ago; the most well-known times (and contemporary sources) from the city-states was some 2500 years ago. I suggest views on things differed between these eras, as much as - or more than - they did between different city-states.

I assumed Jack was talking about Classical Greece: The period from about 700 BC to 330 BC. However, I might be wrong because he is siting people whose area of expertise is in the Minoan/Mycenaean period.
Jack,
You made a number of bald assertions that I contradicted. I have given you the most accessible sources I could think of. Yes, I have read them all. The points I made are well known in Classical studies and rarely debated any more. I may have made a mistake in assuming you were talking about Classical Greece because you were discussing Greek representations of Scythians. In the Mycenaean period, the armoured warriors either were part of a military aristocracy or their professional followers. In the Classical period, I reiterate that, in the democracies, they were craftsmen and small farmers. Later in the Hellenistic period, armies were by and large professional.
You have two friends with professional interest in these areas. I am sure they can tell you the page numbers. If we are talking about different periods, I apologize.

Bede; Apology accepted. I spent some time looking around and in the time of the Hoplites, starting around 700 Bc, I found no information to contradict what my friends told me. Societies were stratified, soldiers were arming themselves with new, hand me down and heirloom armaments. There was no standardization of gear. Each had to provide for themself. The gear was very expensive for the time and peoples of the lower cast had work responsibilities which prevented them from participating, Some were probably prevented from owning arms at all.

I suggest we return to the subject which is archery of ancient Crete.

Michael, you stated that bows you have seen in Siberia are like those the Scythians illustrated on page one are holding. I have always wondered about the hard bend above the grip, the very abrupt bend. Did you see this on a Scythian bow? This is widely represented in Classic art works from Greece to India but not in nomadic art. Jack

jack farrell wrote:

About Greeks avoiding archery: A Russian archaeologist describes ancient weapons as long range, the bow, as middle range, the lance, and as short range, sword, mace and ax. One might assume that Ancient Greeks preferred the sword as most honorable because of the one on one up close and personal nature of its use.

Keep in mind that Greek soldiers belonged to the upper class. Scythians were considered as barbarians as they considered the Greeks.

These are both true!

Concerning short hand-weapons (blades) it was a matter of Βravery, their choise!

Concerning soldiers (Athenian State, and NOT "democracy") they were FREE citizens (it means, members of all classes except lowest). The only exception was in Arginuses battle [ http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bataille_d ... _Arginuses ]. Especially the riders (Hippeis) were from the most rich people because they had to support financially their horses, so , they had the right of long hairs something they didn't the rest soldiers.

In the beginning I mentioned "NOT democracy": as is clear (PLATO "THE STATE" book VIII, etc.) the term "democracy" was absolutely negative in ancient Greek world bearing the meaning of the absolutely tyranny! "Ουκ εξ άλλης Πολιτείας τυραννίς καθίσταται ή εκ δημοκρατίας" mentioned Platon in his "STATE" (democracy is the origin of tyranny). It's very strange that political reasons dictate the embellishment of this negative term in modern times as well as the forgery of ancient literature translating even the "STATE" of Platon into "DEMOCRACY"!
Even Pericles was a dictator (Aυτός αυτώ πάντα επιτρέπειν/Αρχή δε του μόνου Ανδρός).

Apologies for the off topic nature of this post.

I am intrigued Aristotle.

From reading translations of Herodotus and Thucydides work's, I had formed the image that a tyranny was a state run by a single family or person (perhaps an Oligarchy could describe it), and that in Athens after the tyrannicide (I do not know the names off-hand, looking them up seems superfluous), due to revolution a new state run by lot was put in place, people were placed into 'tribes' as a matter of organisation. I understand that any Archon is likely to take dictorial qualities, but I thought the system ran so that anyone could be ostracised if they gained too much power, and an Archon could only hold power for a year in normal circumstances.
This new state we currently describe as democracy from 'demokratia' (sorry I don't know how to use the greek alphabet here). Is this really a complete misconception, and demokratia really a misnomer? (what does demokratia literally mean?) How would you describe the political system of Athens during the Persian invasion and up until the Sicilian Expedition in the Peloponnesian war?


As an aside, often in Thucydides, when he gives an account for the numbers on each side, there are on a significant number of occasions a good ratio of archers to hoplites. This could just be because 'archers and peltasts' come under the description of 'psiloi' from which the expression might be translated. There might also be abundant mercenaries from non-Hellenic cities.

As a comment on the apparent bravery of close combat weapons and the inferred cowardice therefore of ranged weapons, how does this reflect on Odysseus, who kills the suitors with his mighty bow, after his display of talent? Or Herakles, who is famed as the greatest archer to have lived, and who's bow and arrows were present at both sackings of Troy? I prefer to think that a good reason is made for something AFTER is becomes apparent it is useful, and had the Hellenes excelled at archery, they would have extolled that as brave equally so.

And finally a comment on bows, I believe that in one of Homer's poems, there is a part in which one of the archers (perhaps Teucer) is described shooting, and the 'horns come together'. He draws to his breast. You could read this as a wooden bow with horn tips (as in Beowulf, a similar reference is made to a non-hornbow), or a bow made of horn, and the horns come close, as they would on a short bow like the one Redhawk has made. A very good bow it looks as well.

Regards

Same, apologies for the off topic nature of this reply.

Yes, indeed! There is a great misconception concerning the use of term "democracy". This term (ΔΗΜΟΚΡΑΤΙΑ) consists by two other : ΔΗΜΟΣ (public) + ΚΡΑΤΟΣ (power). In this term ("democracy") the meaning of Public was not the "entire people" but the "common herd". According Hellenes of Antiquity the only who had the right to rule was the "ΕΠΑΪΩΝ" (Knowlegable) and not the People as we understand the election-system today. And the Knowlegeable was an acceptable personality, where "acceptable" means a person with a personal offer to the city or people. To the opposite, according same, if the common herd ruled this is tyranny.
The best source to understand the spirit of ancient Hellenes concerning policy and political systems is the Plato's "STATE" and its VIII book.
The political system of Athens during the Persian invasion was something like the recent ...Junta (1967-1974) period where the real leader was Miltiadis (a noble and very rich General) fighting against Alcmeonides. This system, of course, had nothing to do with "democracy" as "democracy" is known today.It was Aristocracy (ΑΡΙΣΤΟΣ + ΚΡΑΤΟΣ=according to merit+power) and this term "Aristocracy" today is under same great misconception where "Aristocracy" means a "a rich upper class" in terms of money. Miltiades was an aristocrat (according to merit).
Yes, you are right, according many sources Hellenes were very capable Archers (as privats) and, of course, there were military units of Archers, but the ancient Hellenic society didn't encourage the practice in Archery for bravery reasons. For this reason, Archery wasn't among the Olympic games.

For any further on this "out-of topic" please feel free to contact me in horsebackarchers at yahoo.gr

Thank you!

Best regards from Athens! :D

Aristotle; As far as the archer heroes Hercules and Odyssus; would it be correct to say that Hercules was the father of Scythians and Odyssus probably an Minoan, neighter of whom was a Greek? -j-

Dear Jack,
Thank you for posting!
There are many modern "streams" claiming that Minerva was black etc. As an archaelogist appreciate only facts and, really, there are no facts confirming such claims.
Actually Scythians were very connected to Hellenes and Thrace area (I'm born there) was something like a wide gate connecting Hellas and Eastern Peoples, but, since Homeric times till Roman Hellas dominated in many respects the area. Scythians adopt many Hellenic elements as Hellenes did same.
But from any point of view, Hercules and Ulysses were Hellenes.
Best regards from Athens!

even in its offtopics this thread is great!

Democracy means nowadays nothing else than the exploitation of the people by some rich families or clans.

The bow- findings didn?t have much bend now, I guess time has done its job. All the recurves and reflex were almost gone, due to the influence of humidity and decay of the wood. The degree of bend was the reason for a serious dispute between the leader of the research, Prof. Godehardt and me. I?m persuaded that the Scythian bow- design needs a hard bend for a good performance, Prof. Godehardt disagreed. So I did one reconstruction with a hard bend and, the other ones I had to do with a soft bend. We haven?t done all tests, but actually the "hard bend Scythian" is the better performer. I guess the hard bend produces a better string- angle, and the limb- vibration after the release is less.
The more I work with these Scythian bow- designs the more mysteries I discover.
I should add that the Subeixi- bow as described by Stephen and Bede makes now sense to me. It is a shootable bow- design and construction, but still the thickness of the Subeixi- bow- findings make me cross.

The reconstructions of the olon kurin gol- bow- findings is finished, tests will be done till the end of September, then there is a lot to post here in the ATARNET.

Michael

redhawk wrote:

Democracy means nowadays nothing else than the exploitation of the people by some rich families or clans.

True!

These dacian bows ilustrated by Piranesi looks very similar to ancient greek bows, with straight handle.

Quivers are very interesting.


http://www.georgeglazer.com/prints/aand ... jan-2.html