Some questions relatng siyah.

If you're into archery physics, Bob Kooi has a large number of articles about the subject here:

http://www.bio.vu.nl/thb/users/kooi/

There is no specific serial relationship between Scythian bows and the Xiongnu ('Hun') long-eared bows.

The Scythian design did provide some leverage because the string 'unwound' the tightly-curled end of the bow-tip. We need to await Adam Karpowicz's detailed reconstruction of this bow to assess how effective it was.

The benefit of the siyah when applied to a bow with a relatively short limb is -

(a) it allows the archer to draw longer because the siyah tips can be (but are not always) forward of the natural resting position of the string. (Hence more energy stored.)
(b) the siyah acts as a lever not only to draw the limb backwards, but also to force the limb-tips inwards. This means that the length of the draw is used to bend the limbs, rather than to stretch them.

If a limb ends its maximum bend early in the draw and the energy of the archer is then put to the impossible task of stretching the limb backwards, that is called 'stacking'. I.e., the more you draw, the harder it gets. The siyah maximizes bending action on the limb and minimizes stacking. The additional weight of the siyah is the price that is paid for this improvement.

Steve Gardiner wrote an interesting article in the Traditional Bowyer's Bible IV on flight bows made from natural materials that had some interesting things to say about stiff ends on bows.

Dan Perry in Utah also has been experimenting with stiff ended bows both in traditional materials like the Holmsgard bow in wood and also with more modern composites.

Both bowyers could see some advantages in concentrating the bend nearer the grip, even without the Asiatic reflexed rigid ear which is the ancestor of the siyah.

As Stephen wrote, you pay for the mechanical advantage with weight. There is always a break even point in a design where further progress leads to diminishing returns.

As Stephen wrote, you pay for the mechanical advantage with weight. There is always a break even point in a design where further progress leads to diminishing returns.

I guess I should add that the disadvantage of the added weight of light siyahs might be offset by the additional stored energy derived from having the bow-tips forward of the alignment of the string.

Stephen has clearly pointed out the benefits of siyahs/recurves

I?ve done some reconstructions of Scythian hornbows during the last 4 years. Due to a lack of knowledge about their real construction I did them the usual way: horn at the bow?s belly, core of wood, sinew-backing.
Last February I had been invited by the Russian Academy of Science for to examine the Scythian bow-findings of olon-kurin-gol. I had to realize that the Scythian bowyers did their bows as laminations of 10- 14 parts of wood and horn. The olon kurin gol bow is a wooden lamination with 2 slats of horn just for to cover the belly side of the recurves. The horn-slats are grooved for to guide the string.
So I?m sure that Scythian bows whether as a hornbow or a laminated wooden bow are made along the same principle of design.
But if made as usual or as laminations the impact of the siyah/recurve is the same.
I would consider the Scythian recurves as a fore-runner for the siyahs, with a small impact of what is explained by Stephen( longer draw, more stored energy).
I made my first reconstructions of Scythian bows in a symmetrical design, the f/d curves were similiar to the f/d curves of longbows. It tooks some research for to realize that the Scythians have originally done their bows in asymmetrical designs, the tests with asymmetrical reconstructions of Scythian bows "produced" typical hornbow- f/d curves.

The Scythian bow Adam Karpovicz is trying to reconstruct is the so- called Subeixi bow. It is done like the olon kurin gol bow but with several slats of horn for to create the bows belly, the bow is backed with sinew , so we could call it a hornbow. But after having finished the olon kurin gol bow I?m definitely in serious doubts that the Subeixi- findings with a thickness of about 3cm are more than a grave- good.
The reconstruction of the olon kurin gol bow matches the measurements of the bow- findings and it works.

Michael

These are all good comments about the need for the siyahs as levers in a short bow.

I am a bit confused about Redhawk remark that the assymetrical design produced the typical f/d curve, while the symmetrical did not. As to the Subexi bow - the bow's thickness at the bending section is less than 3cm (according to the dimensions provided by Stephen), if I remember correctly even less tha 2cm and the bow is functional. I still have a dreadful problem with one of the limbs twisting, but now have a good idea how these bow were made. This bows had a vertical slat of horn through most of the limbs, plus the horn belly.

Adam

I too am concerned by these remarks about the Subeixi bows lack of practicality. At least the ones Stephen provided me cross sections and measurements for were reasonably proportions if you assume the middle section was more rigid than we would now make a bow. As well one of the bows had clearly be altered and repaired in its lifetime.

The comment that the symmetrical construction of the bows that Redhawk made resembled a long bow in its force draw curve is no surprise since work David Betteridge did some years ago suggested that they were not comparable to more recent composite bows. He used the limited information we had at the time from a few excavations and mainly art. The interesting thing he pointed out was that Scythians depicted bracing bows were clearly not working with highly reflexed bows. The cross sections that were published at the time were deep rather than wide. This implied that they could not have been bent as much as the later composite bows especially the superficially similar Korean bows.

As to whether the working recurves of the Scythian style bows were the ancestors of siyahs, I very much doubt it. For at least 1,200 years, siyahs did not recurve. Within the period of use of the Scythian style bows, rigid siyahs were developed and used. Perhaps the major effect of Scythian style bows was in introducing of the set back hand grip which appeared with them and spread throughout other designs later. The working recurve, depicted in Persepolis and Susa in the hands of Persian and Elamite infantry, died out after the eclipse of the Scythian style bow itself.

The development of siyahs that recurved in the strung position of the bow is a late development that did not become common until after the Mongol Period.

Bede raises an interesting point about the degree of recurve on these bows.

Looking at archaeological excavations is not always helpful, but I would have expected that a bow preserved in damp conditions would lose any recurve it originally had, while those in extremely dry conditions (such as Xinjiang) would be preserved with the recurve accentuated due to excessive drying of the sinew.

All the bows I have studied in Xinjiang (several dozens) had little or no recurve when excavated. That included Saka (Scythian) type bows, Han and Tang hornbows and Hun/Mongol hornbows. Generally, more recent Manchu hornbows and their Mongolian and Tibetan counterparts have very limited recurve when unstrung.

On the other hand, Song and Ming paintings and illustrations of bow manufacture show very strongly recurved bows, newly-made and hung on racks. This may reflect Turkish influence in the Yuan period.

My conclusion is the strong recurve such as found on modern Korean and Turkish bows is a particular line of development in itself. Given the relative difficulty of stringing and maintaining strongly-recurved bows, there may have been tactical benefits in minimizing recurvation. To equate 'composite' and 'recurve' may not be appropriate.

I'm going to have to revise an article I have written to reflect this thought. :cry:

Stephen,
I hope I have not been unclear. By "reflex", I mean the bend towards the back of the bow found in unstrung bows that is past a straight line drawn vertically through the handle. By "recurve", I mean the degree the tips of a bow are bent towards the back of the bow when it is strung.

You can have a bow with a great degree of reflex, but with no recurvature at all. For instance you can make a Hungarian style bow with so much reflex that the tips touch each other when it is unstrung, but when strung there is no recurvature at all.

You can build a bow that has no reflex at the handle but is recurved at the tips when strung and when unstrung. Technically the bow has some form of reflex because the tips of the limbs bend towards the back when unstrung.

To me the Scythian style bows are deflexed because the limbs bend towards the belly rather than the back then curve towards the back at then tips even though the handle is set back. The unstrung bow has limbs that have different shapes at different points along its length.

These terms are not as precise as are necessary for describing the many different kinds of bows that people have made.

Looking at the cross sections, I think that the set back handle area is relatively rigid and doesn't contribute much to the stored energy of the bow. In long bow parlance the bow is whip ended. The thickness of the limbs controls the amount of reflex you can put them under.

Adam, my posting about the draw-curves is indeed a bit to cloudy. I want to point out that the impact of the Scythian siyah/recurve is only a little of what we know about later developed siyahs, f.e. in Mongolian bow- designs. But for to produce a more "hornbow typical" drawcurve the Scythians and some Siberian tribes used the asymmetrical design.
At the beginning of the draw you see a steep curve than it flattens, it flattens exactly when the shorter limb could not be bend any further.
As a result of being the bowyer for some research- projects focused on Scyhtian and Greek bows I had to deal a lot with asymmetrical designs, and I have begun to research this topic for myself with very interesting results. I think that the asymmetrical bow- design is completely underestimated and misunderstood. I?ll post my experiences soon.

Bede, now you are the one to make me confused.
Due to my experience the Scythian bow- design is nothing else than a bow reflexed in the handle- section with sharp a bit siyah- like recurves, expressed in the typical Scythian "design- language".
Due to my cooperation with James Harrod, one of the founders of the www.originsnet.org , and a scholar for prehistoric art, religion and semiotics my senses for a closer approach to history were opened a bit more. I realized that usually bowyers are to much focused on the practical impact of a design. Every culture has its own "language of design"!
I once posted an advice for James Harrod?s: The bow- A techno- Mythic Hermeneutic, you can download it from the adress above.

I agree with you Bede, in stating that the Scythian bows have no reflex in the limbs, maybe a little, but if you look at the bow as a whole, the limbs are deflexed. I think Novotny?s reconstruction of the Subeixi- bow is an "over-interpretation".
There is absolutely no evidence for that, the rare pics of unstrung Scythian bows just tell the opposite is true. I think this is a misunderstanding of the Scythian bow- design.

I?ve several times posted my doubts of the Subeixi- bow being more than a grave good, I?m still in doubt. I know Stephen?s field- recordings and I?m still wondering if a limb of a short bow with such a big cross- section could work.

I?m looking for Adam?s reconstruction!

Michael

Stephen Selby wrote:

I'm going to have to revise an article I have written to reflect this thought. :cry:

Which article is this? Maybe I'm sleeping in the class.

Personally I think the Scythian bow can be thought of as a"double deflex" reflex design. I don't think the sharp deflex portions on either side of the reflexed handle are meant to bend much if at all.
To me it looks more like each outer limb is very much like Adam's experimental short deflexed bow. Instead of just having one sharp deflex right in the center of the handle, the deflex is split into two sections.
This would theoretically allow the slightly reflexed outer limbs to be only lightly stressed at brace and be able to deliver virtually all their bending capacity to the arrow.
I always thought too much emphasis was placed on the obviously bent sections of the bow under the assumption that they were the main energy storing portion. I think it is just an undulating "riser".
If Adam cut his short deflex model in half and spliced each half to a sharply reflexed/deflexed handle piece - presto, Scythian bow.

The Scythians were very proud of the shape of their bows. This may be the entire story. In the absence of other composite bows, these would be the best design.

Let me make some other observations. The reflexed grip would make a built in overdraw device. Any leverage advantage of a reflexed grip is immediately lost on the prebent limbs. Together with the pronounced recurves the main advantage seems to be extra length squashed into a short shape. Not being in a C or circular shape at rest would create stability.

Many bows of the period were put into graves strung. This should be considered.

My vote is beauty over function. One must note the large numbers of arrows Scythians carried. Maybe flight shooting of poisoned arrows at eachother was somehow preferred. Whereas a Mongol or Chinese carried ten arrows, some Scyths carried 50 or 100 or more.

There is an interesting Scythian bow at Phoenix Ancient Art. It looks of dubious antiquity based on preservation but it certainly fits the shape criteria. It is listed as being made of Bamboo but that looks a bit unlikely as it is hard to see any evidence of nodes.
I still see no evidence that the Scythian bow was reflexed in any way and even less that many of them were actual composites.
The extreme range mentioned in some records would be possible with a very high draw weight wooden based bow shooting some of the tiny arrows that the Scythians apparently used.
Keep in mind that short all wooden "foot" bows have reached 700-800 yards.
Until someone makes a very heavy draw "wooden" Scythian bow we won't know for sure what they actually accomplished.
I'm working on it though.
I have mentioned before that the Scythian bow seems more like a handheld crossbow prod capable of shooting a large number of short arrows to extreme range in rapid fashion.

. I think Novotny?s reconstruction of the Subeixi- bow is an "over-interpretation".


Hi redhawk I have a Novotny subeixi bow and I use it on horseback archery (see my blog if you want: http://jakpradere.blogspot.com/
so I am interessed when you said "over-interpretation" you just "think" or you have any proof to that?what proof please?

best jak

Patrick's idea about the heavy weight crossbow prods is a possibility, given the all-wood-thick-limbed bows of low draw length excavated from the graves.

The bows do not resemble however the grip-deflexed bows I used to make. In my bows, the entire limb, including the outer reflexed part, had to bend, otherwise the wood would not take the stresses of full draw.

In the Scythian bow I am trying to replicate now, the apex of the deflex in the limbs acts almost like a hinge, taking all the bending, somewhat assisted by the grip which also bends to some degree, The outer, reflexed limbs (past the deflex) do not bend at all. It is possible the "cam-effect" of the rigid-ended recurve is present, but I could not determine this yet.

I now belive this bows were not really "engineered" later bows, where the mechanics were better understood. These bows were made to follow the curvature of the ibex horns and forced to deflex in the limbs to be useable. It is possible the extreme deflex in some of them was acquired by keeping them strung and used for a long time, but some of it had to be forced during manufacture.

Adam

For to be able to discuss everything posted here I need to know, what is a crossbow prod, I can?t find any sense- making translation.

Adam, I don?t believe that the typical Scythian curvature was done for to match the shape of the ibex- horn. The Scythian all wood laminated bows were done in the same curvature. I?m convinced that the design is according the Scythian sense for design or beauty( as Jack has called it).
The reflex does not bend, the grip a little, that?s my experience too.
I state that the key for to understand the Scythian design is the asymmetrical design, I?ll post the details next week within a topic focused on asymmetry in bow- design.

Jak, I know your bow done by L.Novotny, I?m anyway sure it is a great shooter, but I would be more careful calling it a Scythian bow, maybe to call it Novotny?s interpretation of a Scythian bow would be more correct.

Every Scythian bow- finding I?ve examined does not have such a great reflex, this is not a final proof, cause a reflex could have been damaged by time, but not such a sharp reflex as Novotny has done. The final proof is the pic in the book of Toelle- Kastenbein, this Scythian bow looks very similiar to the Subeixi bow you could find posted in the ATARN. Maybe Stephen knows some other pics of unstrung Scythian bows.

Michael

Adam , I am still a bit unclear as to why a laminated wooden reflexed limb extending off a deflexed section(either right in the center of the riser as in your Deflex or deflexed inner limb like the Scythian) should not be able to take a reasonable amount of bend. Theoretically a bow with sharp enough deflex will have the outer limb section that uncurls barely moving past being straightened. The energy would be stored in the process of being straightened (like a working recurve) rather than actual bending.
How will that overstress the wood necessarily?
Particularly if is heavy in draw weight and of short draw. Your bows were still drawn normally. What about a thicker limb only drawn 20-22 inches?

I might add that I am thinking only of the early wooden models of Scythian bow. Could it be that the later models were of the same shape in composite structure and the realization came about that there was a better shape for composite construction?

Michael, A crossbow "prod" is merely another word for the bow section of a crossbow. My thinking is that a Scythian bow would be much like the bow you see on some modern crossbows. Usually that would be a very short solid fibreglass recurve of very high draw weight and low draw length. You could remove one of these from the stock and shoot it by hand quite effectively with some practice.

Patrick

I was not clear about the stresses. If, as you say, the outer, past-deflex limb was rigid (as in Subexi bow) the stress of bending is concentrated at the area at and around the end of deflex/beginning of reflex. In a horn/sinew composite the composite limb can take the stress (very high at the small and thick section of bow), while an all-wood bow the stress is too much and the bow would break. This is why the outer limb in an all-wood bow has to bend to reduce this localized stress. Straightening and bending is the same thing. If a bow was much longer, with the area longer as well, then the wood could survive. I calculated the stresses in this type of bow and even in the short western Scythian bow the stress is too much for this short bows.

Michael:

Beauty comes from nature too. The shape of limbs in this bows follow exactly the shape of ibex horn and are build with the inner vertical strip of horn in this shape as well - obviously cut from the sides of ibex horn. I do not see any other explanation why this shape was chosen for the bows. It is quite possible, once the design took hold, bows were made from wood or horn laminations later to imitate it.

Adam

Maybe I?ve to less fantasy, I guess ibex horns look like other horns used to look.
Due to my knowledge it is proven that the original Scythian hornbow is done with a "puzzle" of hornslats on its belly( this is what Stephen mentioned too in another thread).
I think it was Homer who mentioned that the Scythians have used ibex horns, and till nowadays ibex are living in the Altai- region, so ibex is a sense- making choice.

Michael

Adam, I actually meant that the bow would possibly bend between the end of the deflex up to the base of the recurve(with possible slight flex in the recurve as well. That is not to say that I don't think it might also flex slightly through the handle and deflexed areas as well.
I just don't think it would make sense to build a bad hinge into a bow and then work it even more by drawing the bow.
I'm not sure that I would agree that straightening is exactly the same as bending as far as the ability of wood to take the compressive forces.
If you make a forced reflex laminated limb in Perry reflex style it tends to hold reflex better. It also would not chrysal until bent close to the limit of the wood strength.
My idea is to make a handle and deflex inner limb section and splice in two short laminated reflexed limb sections with the typical small recurves. Just to see what the effect of having short "outboard" reflexed limbs seems to be.

To Redhawk, I agree that there is problem in the nomenclature especially when the bow has such a complex profile. Perhaps the Scythian bow can be called a (starting from the "handle") reflex deflex recurve.

Without several alternate versions of this bow to test with shooting, we will not know how much the design affects shooting. Undoubtedly, the smaller, Western Scythian bows shooting short arrows had issues with effective draw length. If they came first, then the later larger bows in the East might be seen to have inherited a less than effective design. Cultural conservatism would then be the reason for the shape rather than aesthetics. I am still not sure why a shorter angular bow was not constructed to shoot the 55 cm Western Scythian arrows. My guess is that the Scythian bow had a background in the area or the area that the Scythians developed parts of their culture.

To Adam, did the bows with exceptionally thick grips have symmetrical limbs? If they didn't, it would be hard to see them as cross bow lathes. Also, I am interested why you consider the recurves to be static rather than working. They have been thinned down and flattened in comparison with the rest of the limbs. I thought this might be it enable bending.

Bede, I should be clear that I didn't think of them as actual bows for crossbows but merely functioning in a similar manner. A short, high weight short draw bow designed to shoot a shorter than typical arrow over long range..

To clarify, I include a picture of the bow as it was made. Note where it bends. The outer limbs do not bend - they are still too thick, despite the flattening towards the ends. I should say I made the bow exactly according to the measurements by Stephen - length, thickness and width all along the limbs.

The recurves are therefore static, they do not uncurl. The string lifts-off the limbs as the draw progresses for the increased energy storage in the bow (I have not gone that far though with my tests). Note the bending is concentrated at the deflexed sections, so wood alone (Perry reflexed lams or not) would not take the stress of full draw.

Adam

Adam, I am more interested in the possibility of early Scythian bows being laminated wood. If they were then there may be some subtleties of bend being overlooked while the later composite styles are studied.

I can't really see the bows being as reflexed as the one you show. There is the possibility that a good deal of that will disappear with use. But based on the numerous depictions in art of unstrung Scythian bows it would need to be a considerable amount.
Do you think the wooden models found were actually functional?
BTW Nice bow you have made. I'll be following the progress and reports closely.

I forced more deflex before stringing (almost all reflex was gone). This picture shows the work in progress.

I doubt if the wooden bows were functional, unless sinew was added to the backs.

Adam

I could see that if you go by the thick three slat bow often mentioned but Michael shows on his site the bow from the Altai being multiple strips with the sidewalls as well and horn only at the recurve bases. No evidence of sinew backing and yet signs of wrapping at the high stress points.
He managed to get a light model working so it remains debatable at this point.

A sinewed all horn bow can take a very extreme draw.

One of Tut's bows appears to have been made of vertical laminates, with sinew in between! -j-

Thanks Patrick, I clearly misunderstood.

I think Jack's comment about the Tutankhamun bows should be looked at. They were not highly reflexed, but the David Betteridge-made one I shot which was extremely smooth in drawing and shooting despite the deep cross sections of the limbs.

The vertical laminated bow that Jack mentions appears to have alternating horn and wood laminations across its width that first reminded me of old German composite cross bows though they are even more bizarre in their construction sometimes. The later publication of Xinjiang bows with 3 to 5 laminations in the core seemed quite close in design if not in construction.

I must admit that if I were Adam, I would have approached the bow the way he did, but the more I see the evidence in the form of both artefacts and artistic depictions the less sure I am of how these bows were set up in manufacture.

If we make the assumption that the bows were first small and later were developed into the larger Xinjiang bows, there is not to much equipment needed for a tribesman working on the construction. Unlike us, they would not have heavy forms or other tackle. The bow in construction would probably been put in a box or a bag and carried around in a cart until it was finished.

Whether the first prototypes were sinew, wood and horn composites or laminated wood would not much matter if the reflex was low and the draw was in proportion to the length. We are almost programmed to see the setback handle as a product of the reflex of the bow. This is what is common from modern (the last millennium) bow making. However, before the Scythian bow, most bows had either straight hand grips or deflexed ones like the angular composite bow.

If the early Akkadian bows were of simple composite construction, they may have had a slight reflex-induced setback in the hand grip, but it is almost invisible in the artwork which is all that survives.

I am not a bowyer so I heavily rely on the insight of bowyers as well as looking at bows that I have access too. This might be why I have difficulty understanding the design of these Scythian style bows.

What about reverse engineering?
Why the handle that way? What it does is, move the limbs far out from the archer. That allows a longer draw. How do horn store energy best, a short much bending area or a long less bending area? If the ears are straight at full draw, should that not give stack? If static, would that not keep pushing the limbs together?
Is reflex necessary? My straight limb horn bows shot hard and fast.

Bede, there is really no bending in the recurves. The measurements of the findings are to big for to allow any bending.
I agree to call the design reflex-deflex-recurve.
If I?m right the cross- sections of the Subeixi- findings are made of even more than 3-5 pieces of wooden and horn- slats?

Thank you Patrick for your translation of the crossbow- prod, I?ve to think it over.

Jack, do you mean the limbs of tut?s bows are made without a wooden core? I?m just preparing a research of some of the bows found in tut?s grave and haven?t found a proof for such a construction. I don?t exclude this possibility.
I?ve done some Bighorn Mountain Sheep horn- bows and some experimental bows without core, but they are developing tiller- problems and became more and more hard cause of the advancing polymerisation of the proteins within the glue, horn and sinew.
Maybe the Egyptians solved the tiller problems by "puzzling together" hornslats, but I think a core works as a kind of buffer for to limit the effects of the polymerisation and to keep a bow in a straight line?
But still the horn/sinew lamination without a core is charming me, I don?t think there would another material outperforming its capablities to withstand stretch and pressure.


Adam, your bow will turn out to be another step in the research of Scythian bows.
But you know, I don?t believe in the heavily reflexed limbs of this design.
If you?ve worked according to Stephen?s field recordings I can?t believe that the grip will bend, cause it is posted as "a spliced- in handle" with a cross- section of 2.5x3.5cm consisting of 6 glued slats. There can?t be a bend that could contribute something to the whole construction.
Adam, don?t take me wrong, you know that I?m really deeply involved in the reconstruction of Scythian bows, I really would like to know if you?ve done this reconstruction according to Stephen?s field- recordings.

Michael

"If you?ve worked according to Stephen?s field recordings I can?t believe that the grip will bend, cause it is posted as "a spliced- in handle" with a cross- section of 2.5x3.5cm consisting of 6 glued slats. There can?t be a bend that could contribute something to the whole construction.
Adam, don?t take me wrong, you know that I?m really deeply involved in the reconstruction of Scythian bows, I really would like to know if you?ve done this reconstruction according to Stephen?s field- recordings. "

I realize why you ask these questions. It is very difficult, even for an experienced bowyer, to accept that this bow can be made with such reflex, given the thickness of the limbs. It is almost beyond belief the arms of the bow can be bent to such a huge deflex without failure. I took this project on as a challenge to test the methods of construction and I assure you it is possible to have the working limbs bent so much starting from this sections straight (or actually somewhat reflexed as are the ibex horns). Since the limbs are so thick, the 2.5x3.5cm grip does bend a little too, which I could determine by drawing the bow to some 20 inches (the actual arrows were longer, maybe 30in). I have a problem with the deflexed section of the upper limb which developed twist - it maybe that Stephen's dimensions for this particular spot was in error.

The basic construction is this: multiple slats of wood were added onto the inner, vertical core of ibex horn. The core had to be cut from the sides of the whole horns, since only the sides of horn could produce 1/2 to 5/8 inch back-to-belly dimensions (with about 1/4in side-to-side dimensions). The vertically laminated wood pieces, added onto the horn core, were rather small, put together with scarf joints, probably reflecting the difficulty in finding wood of suitable length. The grip section is all wood, again laminated vertically in the similar way. With the inner horn core taken from full length ibex horns, this is the only logical construction for this bow from the practical point of view. It would be a complete waste of time if a bowyer first made the inner horn core deflexed in the arms and then added the wood slats. It is conceivable this could have been done later to imitate the final deflexed shape as it became accepted, but the "first" Subeixi bows had to be made with the full reflex (as the horns are), and then deflexed with heat and pressure to make the bow manageable. Maybe the all wood specimens were the imitations of the original construction with the deflex built-in and maybe these replicas were useable, I do not know.

Adam

Thank you, Adam, I guess you?ve made my doubts lapsed.

I?ve just opened the topic of the bow-finding of olon kurin gol here, stay in the hardware: the bow- finding of olon kurin gol.

Michael

Adam why is it that the horn couldn't have just been reversed so it was deflexed rather than reflexed to begin with?
If horn was scarce and you were building bows with it then perhaps it would make sense to those bowyers to cut the horn into multiple pieces and fit the pieces onto the bow wherever they naturally formed that pleasing shape.

"If horn was scarce and you were building bows with it then perhaps it would make sense to those bowyers to cut the horn into multiple pieces and fit the pieces onto the bow wherever they naturally formed that pleasing shape."

It is possible to do, but no self-respected craftsman would ever go through so much trouble, when one-piece ibex horn instantly makes the bow limb. There is too much work, and adding more wooden pieces onto such horn core would be even more work.

As I said, bending the thick limb into the deflex is not only possible, but may become easy with a bit of practice. All craftmen, then and now, always look for a simple and time-saving solution.

Adam

Redhawk,
One of Tutankhamen's composite bows had a vertical wood/horn laminate wrapped in sinew and covered in birch bark. Most of the others had a flattened "H" wooden core (one central piece and two side pieces). The back side of the H was notionally a channel for sinew and the belly side for horn. The moisture content of the tomb and the long period buried meant that all proteins, horn and sinew, had hydrolysed to black goop. These were all angular bows with deflexed hand grips.

Adam,
Thanks for your explanation. All this requires more thought on my part. I believe that Stephen expressed some doubt that the arrows displayed with the Subeixi bows were necessarily found with them, but the gorytos supports that kind of length. I will have to go over the measurements of the bow again. I must be getting confused about the proportions.

I am also not confident that the area of the grip nearest the string (i.e. the deepest point of the setback) is really the grip. Depictions of archers in Greek and Etruscan art often are shown holding the bows in odd places. It could be that the artists were having difficulties in dealing with an asymmetric bow.

Bede is correct about the one Tut bow being strips perpendicular to the back of wood and either sinew or horn. On the Tut bows it is no longer possible to differentiate between horn and sinew. Of all 43 approximately angular composites known, 33 of them Tut's, there are 15 different cross sections, the commonest one is a slat of wood, one of horn and sinew backing. Mc Leod, plate 14.

Back to Scythian. In the Miran bows from Xinjaing there was some deterioration causing the layers and sinew to expand slightly so that exact dimensions could not be guaranteed. This seems expected. So the dimensions are not a critical first step but to make working prototypes is.

Second, Tienshan Ibex is yellow/grey color and at this age it may be difficult to differentiate it from wood.

I would not discourage any avenue of investigation but an Ibex horn has a single arching bend. How this translates to a five bend Scythian bow is not apparent. However the length of these bows is at the maximum size of a SINGLE trophy Ibex horn. Homer does say that the horn was taken to a worker of horns. This does not exclude wood but this is not stated. Nor for that matter is sinew.

I do know that twists in horn can negate eachother when multiple slats are used on each limb.

I'm curious as to why only Ibex horn seems to be brought up. Is it so certain that this would be the only available horn?
I have been hearing that the bows were a"mosaic" of horn so why the focus on the shape of the Ibex horn in full?
I would speculate that Saiga Antelope horn would be a much more likely source of horn for the Steppe region. It must have existed in huge numbers in those days and larger samples of the horns would have been available.

Some of the horns seen bear a much more striking resemblance to Scythian bows than any other type.
Would it not make sense that the Scythians would be much more likely to obtain horn from an animal they could almost certainly run down on horseback rather than crawling around the rocks trying to shoot a few thousand ibex for bows?

Some additional thoughts, cause I don?t think we got it.
Thanks Bede and Jack for to update my knowlegde about tut?s bows.
We haven?t decided which bows of tut we will reconstruct, but for sure a split- limb will be one of the reconstructions. I would prefer also one of the bows with the cross- section we were talking about here.

Adam, your reconstruction makes sense from your point of view. That?s a nowadays bowyer?s point of view.
But according to my experience nowadays bowyers care too much for an only practical sense within a design which is originally meant to come as close as possible to qualities of beauty(or just a unique language of shapes and signs) of a strange culture.
Maybe the Scythian bowyers didn?t live in the same time frames we use to organize our life today?
There is still no evidence of such a great reflex in the Scythian hornbows.
According to Stephen the Scythian bows bellies were made of multiple horn-slats, even your point of view makes sense too.
One of the first Scythian hornbows I did(in the common hornbow- way) for a research- project was done with a great reflex too, the bow turned
out to be a disappointment: a quite lame f/d- curve.
So I?m looking for the tests with your bow.

Patrick, your thoughts about resources for horn make sense.
Jack, it is true, that you can prevent the twisting of horn by using multiple slats of horn.

Michael

I am afraid there is a misunderstanding here.

The bow I am making started as full reflex, but as I said, it is made PERMANENTLY DEFLEXED by heat and pressure to have the exact shape of the original. It means this bow is no longer reflexed (see the pic - the bow will be even more deflexed). It is exactly the same as if made from multiple inner stats of horn for the deflexed shape from the start. The performance of this bow will be NO BETTER than that of a bow made deflexed, as long as the dimensions of the limbs are the same. I did not attempt to make a better bow starting with the full reflex. I wanted to find the most practical way to make the bow. Of ourse "there is no evidence" of bows so reflexed, because the bows (so reflexed at the start) were forced into the permanent deflex in manufacture. I am only talking about the method of manufacture, not about performance.

As to why this shape to begin with - we can debate it as much as we want, everyone can obviously have a different opinion. I believe the bow's arms are so much like the ibex horns (plus the presence of the inner horn strip) that the ibex horns had to be the initial impulse to make this shape. It almost inconceivable for a bowyer to somehow decide to make a bow so oddly shaped. I am convinced the first bowyer saw the ibex horns and made the bow on its base, probably aided by some religious beliefs. I think the first bows of this shape could be made of ibex horn/sinew alone, then the wood was added at the sides as the cost saving measure. Once the shape was accepted, other modifications were made, such as the addition of horn belly slats, splicing the inner horn core to make use of shorter strips etc.

Adam

Patrick; Many horns can be used to make a bow, especially those from a cold climate. However Ibex is a huge focus of Scythian artwork and is somehow related to masculinity and virility.

This does not mean that it was used, just an indication.

There is some proof that it was the horn of choice for the Egyptians.

Try the reverse engineering, who can shot a bow with that angle in wrist? I can't. So how would the tillering look like if the bow is hold with straight wrist? I t had to be in perfect balance or it breaks the wrist.
Any sense in brutal reflex in wood? But if given to a hornbow maker he will put in the reflex he is used to do.
How do the fd-curve look like?
If I try to make that bow I start with straight handle and work with the limbs till I get the effect that give a nice fd-curve. When I know how to do the limbs so they don't break I would try the angular handle and chase the balance tiller. And I probaly find out what they did aim with that construction.
I would not try to make a look a like copy.

Jack:

"...Ibex is a huge focus of Scythian artwork ..."

It sounds even more interesting. We may put together an article about the bow. Ibex known now as "Persian" has horns identical to the limbs' profile. If one could trace the area where it roamed at the time, the origin of the bow can be found...

Adam

There was a short movie on youtube in witch Mongol bow bow builder use adze to cut that little pieces of horn that are not good for bow building and after that he used saw to cut strips of horn. Interesting thing is that he has finished limbs with siyah before he attached them to the grip.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJw8ETRFhKo

Scythian bows and ibex horn.

I have remarked elsewhere that the limbs of the Subexi bows are reminiscent of ibex horns. I admit though that I can't prove that they were actually made of that horn. Although I have the technology to identify wood from cell structure (the wood used was smoky tamarisk), I have no technology to determine what animal horn or bone came from.

A very striking point, however, is that none of the Subexi-type bows I studied had long lengths of horn in their limbs. They were all mosaics of horn, by-and-large symmetrical in the manner that the horn was laid down.

Another minor interesting detail. Bodies, fabrics, wood and sinew were generally well-preserved in Subexi burials; but horn was invariably attacked by a small rodent or large insect that left minute striations in the bite marks.

This is one of a pair of Ibex horns I found at the bazaar in Tashkent, Uzbekistan; starting price $40. But no way would they pass customs so I left them there. Two pairs available.

These would be the type which were available to the maker of the Subeshi bow. There are many other kinds of Ibex.

Have i missed a published set of plans on this bow? There isn't enough information (dimensions, etc) being passed around in this discussion to tell heads from tails.

Stephen, would you mind to post your recordings here or mail them to Jack?
I appreciate Jack?s experienced sense for history in general and especially for archery of the Central Asian Steppe very much.

Michael

I did some drawings, but they remained incomplete because the complexity of the bow and damage to the original made it difficult for me to do it properly. Also I drew in quite a large format and I will need to find a way to reduce them to a useful digital format.

Stephen,
I have a copy and can convert them into digital drawings on the weekend. If you like I can put them on the web site. I was preparing an article and it makes no difference to me when I do the drawings.

Jack mentioned that aged sinew layer expands and in the article by Andrew and Jack on Miran bows it was said the sinew was "puffed up" (great article by the way, congratulations!).

Are there any literature refs about this effect? Or is it the first time you have seen it in an old bow?

Adam

Adam; Thanks for the compliment. Andrew did a superlative job. Without him this would be a different kind of article. For those who have not seen it, the article is about two bows found on the Silk Road in Xinjaing, China. The article is in the latest JSAA.

This is the oldest bow I have seen in person, well over one thousand years old. I think you can see from illustrations 5 and 7 and others that things are coming apart.

McLeod talks about this problem discussing the Tut bows which are 3300 years old. A slightly different effect though.

Jack, would you mind expanding on this effect? What did McLeod say it was? Why do you say the layer is "puffed-up"? Do you see looseness of the sinew strands or signs of swelling of the layer?

Thanks
Adam

Thanks for the complements on the article, I am grateful to Jack for the opportunity to co-write on such interesting finds.

I look forward to seeing the drawings of the Scythian bow structure as information on these bows is hard to obtain. They would be an interesting type to attempt to reconstruct, and being made from a mosaic of horn would enable me to use some of the off-cuts I have from previous bowmaking.

The references to following the shape of the ibex horns probably implies that they did not use scarfed in solid wood siyahs like the find at Vengerovo-7 in Siberia (see http://history.novosibdom.ru/node/52 ). I wonder if the bows had the same variety of internal constructions as the Egyptian angular composites.

Andrew