The Scythian-type bows from Yanghai (Shanshan)

You've been sitting on this gold mine of info while the bowmakers on here speculated about them? Grrrrr. :wink:

Wondeful! Thanks a lot. That brings us a lot nearer to the reconstruction of the scythian type composite.

Can you add some informations on the site where the bows were found, dating and so on(Couldn?t find this using the search function...)?

I guess the structure of the bow shows that the people who made them did not yet fully understand the qualities and the best placement of the horn in a bow!

The same seems to be true of the earlier Angular composites, which are to my knowledge the oldest known horn/wood/ sinew composites. The bows of the later hunnic type show an improved knowledge of the qualities of the materials, as they are constructed the way we are used to now (sinew on the back, horn only on the belly).

JJ

Thank you.
I have look at the grip, was the bow hold on the upper part of handle?
That would make it lean forward and it makes sense for me. Not as in this picture http://www.salukibow.com/images/HORNBOWSCYTHIAN32.jpg

On the other hand, they could probably be more accurately described as 'horn bows' than later types since the parts seem attached to a horn core. Fascinating construction.

On the location and dating, if you look through my untidy scribbles on the drawings, you will see the information. There is GPS data that you can look up on Google Maps. Yanghai is about 50 Km outside Turpan and lies at 90 metres below sea level.

The date of the burials where we got these bows and some similar ones is reckoned at about 700BCE. There were utility knives but no other bladed weapons. All males were buried with these bows (but no females). Many burials contained complete gorytoi and arrows (exactly as drawn by Bede elsewhere.)

All females were buried with equipment relating to weaving or personal care. One burial contained shamanistic objects; but included items that could be associated with bow construction - an adze and a pot of what seems to be glue.

Later burials at Yanghai contained bows similar to the Xiongnu model as well as East Chinese composite bows.

Thanks for posting the drawings. A very interesting construction. I suspect that many ATARNites will be considering building one of these bows.

Yanghai may be a very important site in both the quality of preservation and range of types of bows (I am assuming the later bows are as well preserved as the earlier ones). It could have important evidence on the development of the composite bow. Other sites with good preservation such as Subeshi and Niya are more limited in time periods and hence bow types.

I am not familiar with the term "East Chinese composite". What type is this?

Andrew

Welcome to try to reproduce it. I think it's the 'bow from Hell' in terms of difficulty of construction.

I am not familiar with the term "East Chinese composite". What type is this?

That's my own term. It refers to those surviving bows from the Warring States Period (c. 500-200BCE) which are clearly composite; but the use of horn is not clear. Typical examples are those recorded from the tomb of the Marquis of Zeng.

...............that?s more than hell to reconstruct such a bow... if you don?t understand the benchmark for to tiller them, you?ll be lost.........so have a look at my asymmetrical bow posting here and in the Paleoplanet.
Before making such a bow as a hornbow, try the asymmetry with an easy to do lightweighted selfbow.................
If some help is needed, I?ll be there.

Michael

Stephen,
Are you talking about the same style as the earless laminated bows from Chu?

I can't help noticing that the deflexed limb sections appear considerably narrower than the outer limb sections. Both visually in the picture of the entire bows and according to the given measurements.
If that area was the area of the most bending and stress you would think it would be wider or at least as wide as the rest of the limb.

Re. previous two posts:

Bede: 'Yes'.

Patrick: A problematic issue with these bows is that they appear seriously unstable. The strongly triangular cross-section may have been the solution. (Comment from Adam?) With the possible exception of the work that Adam has been doing, I have never seen a reproduction Scythian-style bow that looked close to my drawings.

If anyone is passing through Hong Kong, they are welcome to come and handle an original. (Seriously damaged; but that's a good thing in this instance.)

Well your waiting may be over :)
Were is the splice in the handle? Is there more splice in the limbs, tips?
Is the core horn made of several pieces or one in every limb?

Yes, the bending (deflexed) sections are a problem (this is why I have so much trouble tillering the replica).

Fortunately, the stiffest component of the sandwich - the core - is relatively flat, so the limbs can be coaxed to behave, especially with the deflex. I have seen a "primitive" bow made in Africa with similar situation, but it was permanetly deflexed.

The bow is not that hard to make, as long as slats cut from ibex horn are the base for the core. Then the wood sections of core are patched-on at both sides of horn as needed.

Adam

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... %93_03.jpg
Siberian Ibex can be hard to find :)

This is first version :) paper.
I made a vector drawing of it, anybody want a copy?

http://privat.bahnhof.se/wb304054/syt.odg
http://privat.bahnhof.se/wb304054/syt.jpg
Is the files. For the .odg you need openoffice. But then you can print it.

very nice work Stephen :idea: You are happy men for possibility to observ this bow. Du?an from Slovakia catch a dokument about mumies from Urumchi on Discovery last year. It seems, that mummy has scytian bow in gorytos. We spoke about it passionately. Is it Scytian, early Siberian Iron Age??? Only possibility for us was to buy book of Elizabeth Wayland Taylor " The Mummies from ?r?mchi".
Thank you very much.
Very interesting construction - quite simmilar as mediaval crossbow :shock:

I did note the similarity to crossbow construction but couldn't locate a drawing I had of a crossbow to really compare the exact structure.

When you check out the books on the Xinjiang mummies, please remember that the various mummies scan a long historical period and numerous cultures. For example, my 'Khotan Bow' is also part of the Xinjiang mummy legacy, but reflects a proto-Xiongnu design. Even at Yanghai, we found several different bow designs.

I came upon this illustration that some might find helpful. Haven't had time to meet with the translator. From the book ETHNOGRAPHICA; Traditional Armaments of the Kazakhs.

The grooved plates on the left are adjusted at the belly sides of the bow?s recurves. I guess them to be a reinforcement of the recurve and to guide the string.
At the olon kurin gol- grave-site those plates were excavated, they were made of horn.

Michael

Michael is riht. 1 and 2 - end of bows from bone and horn, 5-3000 bc. Altay - wright in text.

Dusan; 5 to three thousand? Should that be hundred? Can you translate all the text?

You are right Jack, its 5-300 bc. Other text says: arowheads from Kazachstan -same 5-300 bc. Drawing Saka archer from Sakas art -same time. Saka warrior shooting from his bow-autor reconstruction.
I dont understand clearly this double BB. One B (in russian V) is Vek- Veka-century. Gleb can help us :lol:

redhawk wrote:

The grooved plates on the left are adjusted at the belly sides of the bow?s recurves. I guess them to be a reinforcement of the recurve and to guide the string.
At the olon kurin gol- grave-site those plates were excavated, they were made of horn.

Michael

The two elements on the left are the string nocks at the bow tips.

Interesting that looks like korean tips.

In the legend to the bows tips typed: "horn and bone bow tips, Altay, 5-3 centuries BC" (not 5000-3000 BC).

The double BB (with the dot immediately after) in Russian abbreviation system means plural of century - i.e. "centuries".

I wrote same , Gleb only 2 B was problem, can you wrote mi in russian directly? Thank you. :D

Remember this post? I wanted to keep the information here fresh for reference.

I bit the bullet and started on a Scythian bow made as authentically as I am now able to. The first step was making this bow form. Taking a picture of the Subexi bow which toured Germany (My favorite one of all), projected it to a piece of paper, layered plywood and cut out both belly and back curves, inverted from the drawing. The two sided form will allow to attach to either curve. A significant reflex was added to the original curve to negate having been buried while strung.

Agrimi Ibex, from Crete, sidewall material, as per Adam K., was heated directly over gas flame and bent to the exact form shape. Nock ends are about 5/16" square proceeding to 3/16 X 5/8" maximum depth. This is the best material available to me. My Ibex lacked the stature of the original so the horn "backbone" had to be made in 3 pieces.

My only goal is to remain authentic and not break the bow before it can be shot. Period.

Length across is 44". The horn backbone will stand as in the original. Here are the three pieces glued together.

:shock: Congratulation Jack ! You are in hero way :P .I am very couriouse , how its ended.All best to your work.

Jack,
I think ancient bowyers probably had the same difficulty with horn length as you and probably solved it the same way. Was that a picture of the horn alone or the horn and its side strips?

Jack, same question as Bede. Is it the horn alone?Sidewalls?
Laminated wooden core?
The Olon kurin gol bow was made of at least 14 pieces. By far enough to run you crazy.
The core of the Subeixi is a lamination too, made of a center slat and sidewalls. For not talk of the multi- laminated grip.
I still don?t believe that the Subeixi is a shootable bow, so I?m very excited about your trial and if you?ll match the measurements(thickness!!) of the original.

Good luck, Michael

Jack, if the pic you?ve posted is the horn alone, glue it as soon as it possible to the core or fix it at your jig, otherwise it will return into its original shape.
Michael

This is only the very center horn piece of the bow. The pieces are not cut from the outer curve or the inner curve but are from the sidewall plates of horn, as Adam has suggested. I am at the beginning only.

Michael I think you are understanding one of the dilemmas of the chore. When wood is bent around a form and later released, there is spring back, a return to a less bent shape. So I bent this horn core by hand till it would stay in this shape independent of the form. (I hope)

In my experience to add heat later is to induce spring back Also to add 15 layers of glue is to induce spring back.

If bent wood is added to this horn they both together should want to spring back.

I do not have construction details of the Subexi bow but am using these from the Yanghai bows. Can anyone provide details of the Subexi bow(s)? Post here. -j-

I have some Chinese archaeological reports of the Subeshi cemeteries. The only relevant information on bow construction is a tiny cross sectional drawing showing what is probably similar construction to that of the Yanghai finds, and some text describing the horn between sandwiched between two pieces of wood. I assume they are of the same basic construction.

Best of luck with this challenging reconstruction.

Andrew

Jack, if you glue the core and the horn together, they will never or only a small amount spring back, that?s one of the reasons for to make laminations.
As Stephen and me are always mentioning, hornbows are a glueing process.

Michael

Michael; Have you or anyone else successfully bent wood into this small diameter curve? Please describe.

Why would two layers done this way not spring back?

Jack, it is not possible to bend wood with such a diameter into such sharp Scythian curves.
That?s why they laminated the bow of so many parts.
Look at my olon kurin gol plans.
They bent small and thin slats into the desired shape and then they glued them together, that?s the only sense- making explanation for making such a multi- laminated construction.

Laminations can?t spring back, cause they are glued.
Take 2 paperstrips, glue them straight and glue them in a curve. If you glue them in a curve you are reducing the glue- line, they can?t spring back.
The more strips you glue this way, the more stable the lam will be. That?s all.

In bowery sidewalls are used to stabilize siyahs, recurves, grips, same technique: adding glue- lines.

Michael

Michael; I will take your comments under advisement. I know Germans have a proud history of bending wood. Can anyone else comment about bending wood into a tight curve?

Aside from the well-known important things (wet wood, steamed or boiled, no grain violations), there are a few engineering considerations that I think are important.
Michael is right about the laminations. When they are glued together and want to spring back, they must stretch glue. The glue resist this shear stress more or less and helps to maintain the shape. Another advantage is the reduced thickness. The strain on the surface is approximately proportional to the thickness and inversely proportional to the bending radius. So if you want to bend over a smaller radius you must use thinner wood to keep the strain tolerable. If you exceed a certain strain, the wood will break.
This is the simplified elastic theory. With wood, it is not only a matter of geometry. Wood is viscoelastic, which means that it's mechanical properties depend on a number of things (time, temperature, humidity...). The time-dependence causes e.g. the reduction of draw weight as full draw is maintained or the gradual recovery of string follow after unbracing. For bending wood, this time-dependence can be exploited when the bending is performed slowly. When the bending is applied in a slow manner, the wood fibres have more time to rearrange themselves and accomodate the deformation; the stress will be lower than in fast bending. The breaking strain is also larger than in fast bending. A slow bending can therefore increases the chances of success. This benefit is counteracted by the decreasing temperature, so one cannot bend it over 5 minutes, but in my experience half a minute doesn't hurt.

I have not tried it, but perhaps a soft plastic - 4mm polypropylene or something like that - on the outer side lath during bending can help to prevent fibres from lifting.

Excellent work Jack!
I am very curious to know how this bow work and if your theory about griping position is right.

Very nice start Jack, please report on the progress.

In my effort to reproduce this bow, I try to find answers to two questions: how such bow was made and why. As to how, I believe the (vertical) horn strip and the side wood were bent together and I assure you (Michael) it is possible and I am sure it is the only logical way to proceed. I will post the results once I finish the bow, but this will take some time.

Adam

I haven't made a bow this way, but I found fresh cut wood (green) could be bent a lot further on a smaller radius. However, Jack can tell you that the minimum bending radius of the piece and its thickness are very closely related.

There are several people attempting to reproduce these bows. Everyone should be encouraged to experiment. It might be useful to remember that the originals were made without G clamps and probably without rigid forms. I don't suggest that bowyers should start out that way, but if you come up with a high tech solution, please try and work out how a nomad could have achieved the same result. A working bow should be the first objective. After that, there are many opportunities to discover the ancient ways that bowyers arrived at the same result.

Adam, Bede,

It is possible: till now nobody has done any working reconstruction of the Subeixi bow matching the original measurements.
We don?t need to think about how it is done, we have recorded excavations enough: Stephen?s field recordings, my own olon kurin gol- recordings.....drawings of strung and unstrung Scythian bows.........etc. We?ve just to reconstruct what we see clearly, everthing else is a nowadays interpretation and another fake. Bede is very right about the way we should do it, without modern tools and glues.
I?ve done the olon kurin gol- reconstructions this way, I end up with a working bow, matching the original measurements. But this kind of construction is by far not the design I would like to do it again.
Scythian bows are beauties, but taking into account their making- of not to effective.
Maybe there have been craftmanship- techniques we don?t know nothing about anymore.

Michael

I wil be dont so doubt. I believe that more of us have in mind reconstruction Saka bow project like Jack. Only vith good horn i have problem now... :D

Everybody's suggestions have been most helpful, keep up the good work. Adam's idea about ganging a mass together to bend made my wheels turn.

This is bringing back what I remember about steam bending wood. I have access to a wooded area in the country, so I went yesterday and cut some Youpon shoots which were very clean. I make arrows from this species and a few people have made bows, but it is not known as a bow wood. My other choice is a kind of wild plum/peach which cannot be exactly defined yet. I cut a number of sticks !" or so at the base. Some had natural bends which did not turn out to be all that necessary.

After some experimentation, the best result was wrapping very tightly with wire and a slip of sheet metal under the wire on the outside of each bend. The sticks had been cut down to 5/8" thick.

There are now three versions of the bends. 1. The original bend which appears to have been shot in or put in the grave strung. This is not the best shape to duplicate. 2. The more reflexed shape of the bow which will be shot in to look like the original after time. 3. A more severe curvature of the bow which will spring back from the form to produce number 2.

To save time I made two more sets of single limb forms: Top limb, the one with the hard bend in version 2 and 3 and the same for the bottom limb. The bent limb, if it works, will be split in half vertically and the horn slat sandwiched between. Then proceeding.

I know there will be some hollering about the lack of authenticity in technique but as Bede stated, first the bow must build before the issue of how the Scythians did it can be tackled. Possibly WHY would be down the road. I am not big on why.

You can see that it is possible to bend bow wood this extremely. Well we know it is because the Scythians did it!

This is a bottom 2 bend, the least extreme. More tomorrow, the four all worked. -j-

Jack - according to Stephen's plans the limbs were spliced to the grip (made of vertically laminated smaller pieces). So smaller, naturally bent pieces can be used for the grip. I have good success with sections of tree roots - easy to find with those sharp bends. The limbs had to be bent with heat however.

Adam

Hollering!

As we can see very clearly in the foundings, the Scythians did not bend the wood this way, they made lams for to get ultimate stabilization.
I?ve never stated, that it is not at all possible to bend wood with such a diameter. Cabinet- makers know it. But in bowery it is not to clever to do it like cabinet- makers do it, you?ve to make multi- lams for to get a stable curve.

Michael

Adam; I will forgo the grip section for the "typical splice" detail in the second bow. The splice, and any reenforcement will be made at the section of the illustration (the 5th one) where the grip is noted. I believe that it is the same as the above one except the great deterioration disguises the grip location.

Michael; Please note that the lams are standing on the Yanghai bows not laying down one over the other. I understand that this is different than on the Olon Kurin Gol bow

Michael,
Walking stick makers have been heat bending wood thicker than most bow tips in tight curves for hundreds of years. I still have my grandmother's and the curve is the same as it was fifty years ago.

Modern cabinet makers have economic pressures to use techniques that have been developed in an industrial world. That doesn't mean there are no craftsmen who use old techniques and who are not as artistic as their predecessors, but they also practical people who have to get things done in a reasonable time with the materials that are readily available.

The Subeixi bow has a multi-lam- grip spliced into the limbs!
Modern cabinet-makers are able to bent big diameter wood into an 8 with the help of some chemicals and heat. I?m a former cabiinet- maker.
But that?s not the question.
I?m disappointed, that?s it.
I thought the ATARNET is focused on authentical reconstructions!?

Michael

Michael; Let us put off our disappointment long enough to discuss the details of the construction. I am hoping anyone with pertinent info will assist.

I already asked if anyone had the construction details of the Subexi bow and no one was forthcoming. Therefore I am using the ones from the Yanghai bows we see in Stephen's post which began this thread.

I am assuming that you are seeing that most late composite bows have horizontal layering whereas the Yanghai has a core of vertical layering. Do we agree so far?

My intention is to bend a larger limb core piece. When it is stable it will be cut VERTICALLY and the horn inserted VERTICALLY to form the basis of the core. When this is done other VERTICAL outer wood plates will be added.

Please tell me how this differs from what we see in the plans.

Jack, my statement is not meant right against your actual project.
I have to notice that even serious bowyers are leaving the way of authenticity more and more. In my opinion this is the bad part of the work of Kassai, Grozer....................

You didn?t state till now that you will cut your bent core- wood vertically.
You?re right in stating that the Subeixi- bowyers used the core- slats vertically. The core slats of the olon kurin gol bow were arranged horizontallly,
But I can?t see how this could have impact on the way of the construction.

A look at the cross- sections of the core - slats of the olon kurin gol bow clearified that the olon kurin gol bowyers didn?t bent one bigger diameter wood for to cut it after into slats. They?ve worked and bent every slat for to glue them finally. This is according to Daniel T?s precious infos about wood -bending and the sense of laminations.

Do it your way, we?ll see the results, good luck, Michael

Actually; Michael, I did allude on several occasions that there would be a "standing horn backbone" in this design. And it is the soul essence of this design that the lams are standing side by side rather than laying down horizontally. The difference is being easily able to glue up a core as opposed to needing to resurrect a complex antiquated technique. I do not think this is overstated. But the confusion can be attributed to translation. I do intend to be authentic. Let us proceed.

To all; The grip section, and the reading of the plans causes me some confusion.

Can we agree that two bows are described in the plans?; the first one with the disintegrating limb, and the second with the chamois grip lashing.

On page two is a detail of a complex grip section. According to the lower grip drawing the horn stops for some distance and four new wood core strips are inserted. Where the boundaries of this grip occurs is not clearly delineated. HOWEVER, the section drawings spaced along the bow do not show a break in the horn core center. I find it difficult to locate the position of this splice and the details actually in conflict as to its existence.

Page five starts the second bow and the caption at the page top reads, "The horn core running through the whole body of the bow measures approx 5-6mm thick."

As the horn core must almost necessarily be spliced, a "typical splicing" is illustrated.

Please opine on this grip issue. -j-

As I see it (discussed with Stephen):

1. The grip has no vertical horn, it is spliced to the limbs with a vertical V-splice and two more pieces are overlayed at sides of grip to make it into a laminate of four vertical pieces.

2. The horn in the limbs in in one piece with no splices.

3. The "wooden" vertical laminations in the limbs are spliced as illustrated (basically added-on to the sides of the continous strip of vertical horn). I understand these splicing is present closer to where the ends begin to curve (there is a line across the limb in Stephen's drawing there).

Adam

How many pieces of wood would this make in total? Stephen's grip illustration must be greatly forshortened.

Some wood species would bend easier than others. These might be species which, alltogether, would not have the resistance of traditional bow woods.

Since this design is so pre-modern in its technology, is it possible that the use of non bow woods would give a more desired effect?

A bow this short made of so much stout wood and horn may be quite inflexible, as Michael has pointed out often.

Stephen did mention the use of Tamarisk wood in these bows. That isn't generally thought of as a bow wood. It may have low bend resistance per thickness much like Yew.
That should be readily available in Texas as an invasive species.
I think it's usually called Salt Cedar.

I doubt if the exact number of wood laths is really that significant in this construction. The grip is made of four pieces and each limb of four as well. I think if the bowyer found a thicker curved piece for the grip, he would use it just the same and if the limbs could be made of longer laths to avoid the splice, then two vert. lams per limb could be used. It may be the thinner/shorter laths were easier to obtain and were more flexible to bend when taken from young saplings, but in the composite construction the sinew and horn dominate, no matter what species of wood is used.

I do not expect the bow to be excessively heavy when finished, provided the dimensions are followed and the thickness of the sinew wraps is subtracted.

Adam

The number of laths used is significant. I remember Stephen told me about 70 fiindings at the Subeixi- site all done the same way.
In a total I guess we?ve about 80 findings of Scythian bows, all made of at least 12 single parts of wood and horn.

Subeixi- reconstructions made like common hornbows(core horn- belly sinewed back) have been done by some bowyers.
The question remains the same: could a bow made exactly like the Subeixi- findings work?
Everything else is again an interpretation!

Michael

I also think it makes a difference how the core is constructed.

If one looks at the bows which preceded these, Near Eastern angular, not one of the forty documented bows has a one piece spliced in grip. If one looks at what followed, the Hunnic types, none has a one piece grip. This technique does not appear till the Turkic period. Although this method may be a good experimental technique, it appears anachronistic to Scythian bow building.

However, neither can I accept at the moment that all Scythian bows (of Xinjiang) were built the same. For instance look at the second bow. It has a weak place re enforced with a belly lath of wood over horn. Maybe this is original to the first construction. It would not be necessary to add this detail. And each bow has a different curve.

I see the grip splicing without horn as a response to not having a horn slat long enough to make the join.

The question is not did they work but how did they work? And WHY? -j-

I am afraid there is a confusion between the "how" and "why".

As to "how" the bows worked/performed one must follow:

1. The design, to have exactly the unstrung curvature (or nearly exactly for obvious reasons) and exactly the same final dimensions: length, thickness and width. Plus the bow must have a horn belly and the sinew back (I think the horn belly may be absent in other specimens).

2. The distribution of materials in the bow. In this case the bow must have the vertical horn in the limbs, but not in the grip (unless we find grips with horn). From the engineering point of view it does not matter if the wood of grip or the wood of limbs was made of one, two or a hundred vertical pieces, although for stability it may be advisable to keep the number of pieces symmetrical in relation to the vertical plane of the bow. The wood alone will work and bend the same regardless of the splicing, as long as the bond betw. the lams is good. Any slight difference will be insignificant and can safely be discarded. The same applies to the vertical horn - the horn can be spliced along the length in the limb section with no significant change in performance, draw weight etc. I emphasize the vertical splices, beacause one can see performance and weight differences in horizontally laminated limbs, especially when the so called "Perry" reflex is given during the glue-up. Again, all this applies only if the design curvature is followed - i.e the bow is deflexed in the bending sections and reflexed in the tips etc.

As to "why". In my view the method of construction to make the bow as this one, is entirely related to the availability of materials and the proven (at the time) skills of a bowyer. It is much easier to find suitably curved thin sticks than big chunks of wood which require felling big trees or branches. Thin sticks are easy to cut and bend, and if there is not enough width for the bow due to some defect in the stick, then another sliver can be glued on to the side. The two add-on side pieces in the grip are here clearly put on to incresee the width of grip (after the limbs were spliced-in), for the grip to end as 4-piece construction. Maybe other bows, once examined, will show more or less pieces there.

Now, the type of joinery shows what technique was used at the time. It seems the vertical scarf type was well mastered, presumably before the V-splice. However, if the laths for the grip or for the limbs were put together with a V-splice, it would have no bearing on the performance, at least not enough for anyone to see it in testing. The grip styles Jack is talking about were not put in the bows to achieve certain performance characteristics, but because the bowyer was taught to use these splices at the time. Once a better splice was invented to reduce the rate of failure, or be more compatible with the materials, it would gradually replace the old methods.

As to "why" in the sense of the design characteristics, we need to make and shoot these bows first. And, as Stephen and I have determined, the bow limbs clearly have the shape of ibex horns, pointing to its origins.

Adam

Adam, Jack, about the grip I agree
The olon kurin gol bow is made of 2 lathes running through the length of the bow, so it is a must to enforce the grip with additional wooden plates.
About small saplings I agree again, as I ?ve mentioned the olon kurin gol findings are made of very small diameter woods, the thickest one is measuring about 2cm. Adam has pointed out the advantages of working with small saplings.

But again: the number of glue- lines within the limbs has very much impact on their bending- capablities. That?s the main reason I ?m still in heavy doubts about the subeixi- findings.
Till I?ve done the olon kurin gol reconstruction I thought we can ignore the direction in which wood should be bent. It is Tim Baker who stated in one of the TBB?s, that the wood fibre doesn?t care in which direction it is bent. But it is not as simple: wood is stiffer when bent vertically, especially when you use small diameter woods.

Michael

I made up five trial limbs, as posted and took them out of the form yesterday; just under one month drying time from green wood. The limbs are nice and dry and did not spring back excessively. Several different bends were used with varying success. Some damage definitely occurred to all limbs but splintering could be glued up for a finished item.

The use of youpon does not seem to be worth the effort. So a return to the country to collect peach shoots was successful. The one peach prototype looks like very good bow making wood. Found one piece big enough for a self bow. This will be a good experiment. I bent up enough wood for two cores from peach.

This is a very severe process. The 3/4" pipe clamp can produce 1200 pounds or more of compression and an 18" Jorgenson furniture clamp can produce about 900. These tools are maxed out on the bending process. It might be helpful to check out Scythian cart making/ wheelwright work. Some old wheel makers steam bent the rims over forms using immense pressures.

What would also be interesting would be to check for tool marks on the originals. It would be natural that sticks were draw shaved into shape. This could be done with a knife or special tool. But cutting the horn; seems like this would require a saw for these bows to be common. However, most everything made of metal by Scythians was bronze. There was an unusual collection of bronze short swords in the SRMS with iron blade tips. This was new to me.

Does anyone have info on Scythian tools for crafts? Michael, did you note tool marks on Scythian bow parts?

In about another month i will know how the new cores look. The horn is keeping its shape. There is no such thing as making one of anything. -j-

Tool marks, I guess, but not to obviously, maybe knife.
But above all I was very impressed how even and plane the gluelines are still fitting.
Some Russian archeologists, I had the chance to cooperate with, told me the findings of wood- working tools include knifes and axes.

Michael

I wonder if someone has tried to estimate the length of string on Stephen's picture (the small one one with several bows)? This is assuming the tip-to-tip distance for the bows is about 112cm (not along the curve). There must be software to do this kind of measuring I think. The string seems to be a little more than that, about 115cm.

Adam

For my first Scythian bow, I did the try and error thing.
I don?t have any of my Scythians here, but if I recall it right, I did the string about 6- 7cm shorter than the length from tip to tip. This seems to be quite short, but cause of the deflexed grip it is a must to get a sufficient brace height.
I don?t have heard about any software for to get the string length, even the AMO didn?t talk about any software.

But you?ve done the Scythian with a heavy reflex, so things are different

Am I right, you are on the way to string your version of the Subeixi?


Good luck, Michael

Yoo Se hyun ( Co director Young Jip Bows and Arrows Museum, Seoul) got excited about the Silk Road Museum, Seoul, and got them to take out their new Scythian bow and allow him to photograph it. He sent me this picture.

Andrew worked out the scale. It would appear that the bow was put in the grave strung and that the deceased was expected to do battle immediately in the afterlife. No rest for the weary! -j-

Thanks Jack. The bow probably relaxed somewhat in the grave after the string deteriorated and it could have a little higher brace than now in the picture. The apparent straightening of the upper arms suggest some flexibility there, at least in the lower limb. And obviously the effect of "unrolling" of the recurves during the draw was not taking place in this bow, although it could be happening in other bows to a limited extent.

Adam

Exciting pic, Jack, thanks for sharing it.
Obviously this bow is not as thick as the Subeixi- findings in its working parts.
Where has this bow been excavated?
Adam, I don?t think there is any "unrolling" of the recurves in Scythian bows, cause the recurves of all the findings I?ve seen, are reenforced with hornplates. "Unrolling" makes not to much sense, this would work counterproductively against the design.
Michael

No provenience on this bow; so one should assume Xinjiang. The gut or rawhide string is tied at one end with a timber hitch. Be aware that there is some distortion due to perspective, which is not directly above.

Andrew has adjusted the image and scaled it but this is his property.

Maybe this pic help you boys. Its from mi friend who was in last WTAF. String is visible.

[external image]

[external image]


[external image]

Adam,
I have some software that measures perimeters of objects. I can take something in a photo and measure the components by drawing curved lines over them. Straight lines are a breeze.

I have seen numerous comments that the recurves won't bend, but I keep asking myself why did they think it necessary to change the cross sections as much as they did unless to increase the flexibility?

Yes, this bow seems to have flexible ends, unless the original ibex horns looked like that. There may be some flexibility in the ends at full draw, but as far as I can tell, the sections past the deflexed arms were probably nearly rigid.

Thanks for your offer to measure the string.

Adam

Bede, the Scythian bows I could examine are all made with horn- plates for to reenforce the recurves. The hornplates lay loose beside the recurves in the grave. Russian archaeologists told me about those plates in every kurgan they?ve excavated.
Maybe the Chinese archaeologists have missed the plates?

With or without reenforcements such a laminated recurve would never bent, cause of its sharp angle, maybe a little bit, but much to less as to talk of "unrolling".
What?s the sense of a recurve, when it "unrolls"? What about the leverage- effect?

Michael

Maybe "unroll" is a wrong word. I meant the cam effect when the (maybe rigid) recurves bend down and the string lifts off the limbs.

How long were the horn plates you saw and how were they shaped?

Adam

Both the bows I saw in photographs and the one I saw in Seoul had complete tips. The surface treatment was the same as the body of the bow and was not broken or damaged. Stephen provided cross sections from bows that were in less good condition. They had a lateral wood-horn-wood lamination at the tip with sinew on the back. The central horn laminate is prolonged to form the peg to attach the bow string.

Are we talking about the same type of bow? I have seen both curved and straight side plates from bow tips excavated in Russia and China. From their sizes and shapes, they were unlikely to be attached to Scythian style bows. There are also the bridle toggles that appear to have been mistaken for bow tips some decades ago in the Soviet Union.

Adam, these plates covered the belly of the recurves, including the nocks, with a groove for the string. Due to the groove and the nocks they can?t be mistaken. I remember that Dusan has posted recently some pics of such findings.

Bede, we are discussing the same type of bow in general, but there a different types of Scythian bows.
I don?t think that the recurves of the bow posted in the museum of Seoul have been reenforced with horn- plates.
But anyway there can?t be a bending.
Adam has clearified what he means by using the term "unrolling"

Michael

well, Redhawk, maybe mean this pics. Its realy looks like this tipe of bows from Korea museum can be reainforcet under the sinew lier vith horn or -like russian text say bone plate ...(?)

[external image]

[external image]

[external image]


text sayd, that this bows was from Altay - 500-300 B.C.

Interesting variant, possibly for bows with no vertical horn? How long were these tip fragments?

Adam

I?ve seen these horn end pieces in Russian publications, too.

[external image]

They seem, as Michael says, to be a regular feature in Scyth type bows. Adam, assuming that the width is around 2,5 cm at the nock shoulder, the longer piece in the drawing above is a little longer than 20 cm.

It makes sense, because horn is very easy to bend in a sharp and extremely narrow curve, but wood not. So it keeps the wood thickness at this place lower, and that would be easier to bend.

[external image]

I think that in the Silk Road Museum specimen a darker material can be recognised on the belly side of the siyah curve. So there could be a horn piece similar to the russian pieces, too. Maybe Stephen didn?t recognise it in the Yanghai bows? It is without an x-ray difficult to decide...

JJ

Yes, it makes sense. and the bows will gain durability. I think I will follow the Stephen's construction as shown before for now.

Adam

Thanks Dusan, thanks JJ for sharing those pics.
As mentioned above, these grooved hornplates did lay loose beside the bows in the kurgans I?ve had the chance to check the findings.
Yes, the recurves gain more durability. these means more storing of energy in the working part of the limbs and more stress on them.

Michael

"these means more storing of energy in the working part of the limbs and more stress on them. "

Not at all, the horn is actually more flexible than wood, so the stiffness of the tips is less with horn laminated there. This is assuming the thickness of tips with no horn is the same. Being less stiff, the tips could then bend a little, thus relieving stress at the bending sections of limbs. When the tips are stiffer (all wood), they do not bend or bend less and the limbs have to work harder. I am not saying the tips are actually bending in this design (the tips seem too thick for that in most of these bows), only try to illustrate the principle.

The horn laminated at the tips adds durability and as JJ said may help in the construction. At the same time the horn is heavier than wood slowing down the limbs.

Adam

Adam,
it?s right what you say about the flexibility of wood and horn. But the additional glue- line is what makes the recurve more stable.
It?s quite usual to add plates of horn or bone for to make recurves more stable and secure.
I would add that these hornplates are a stable basic for a secure string- groove too.

I don?t think you are right in general about the flexibilty of horn and bow- woods. It depends on the wood and what you mean by flexibilty.

A little progress report; my darling bow is almost ready for sinew. The wood turned out to be Mahaleb Cherry, Prunus mahaleb L. There are nine forms.This is a small cherry tree (Persian) which was imported for root stock grafting which escaped cultivation; Robert A Vines, p388. All small branches were used, steamed and bent.

I disassembled the earlier horn core, assembled the wood ones and conformed the horn to it. The horn was more flexible than the wood. The limb slats are vertically scarfed as is the horn which is supposed to be Nubian Ibex and Agrimi Ibex but is not so delicately tapered as the Nubian which Dusan posted. I will get back on this. It is definitely Ibex as I cut them from whole horns.

The two wood limb pairs are scarfed at the grip; the horn is in three pieces. Another pair of grip slats widen the center reflex.

A belly of two long Ibex slats join another short grip piece.

The profile picture was taken at nearly 90 degrees.

There is much I would change, the learning curve is great, but I am too far down the road to turn back. There is concern that this will produce a functioning bow. The Yanghai dimensions were followed closely.

another

tip

one more. Of course there is nothing about the shape of an ibex horn which suggests the shape of this bow. It is, however, ideally suited to the shape of its predecessor, the Near Eastern Angular composite, whose construction can be strangely similar. Just not the shape.

The Scythian bow is also not the bow of the Greek heros of the bronze age, as this is an iron age invention. -j-

Looks great, Jack!
Have you any data about relevant use Mahaleb cherry ? Ours Prunus woods are little haevier than other white woods- but this is super flexible wood.

Wow ??stunning piece of work there, Jack!
Keep on going (I'll be in touch soon).

Congrats,
Jan

jack,
That is a very nice piece of work. I agree that there is more similarity in construction to angular bows than we would have thought without Stephen's cross sections.

For some of the others, working recurves are a continuing tradition in American archery. The farther from the grip, the more force is needed to bend a bow limb with constant thickness and width. However, the bows we have been discussing have been deliberately thinned down in the recurved section. There are two possible reasons for this, weight reduction and increased bending potential. So far everyone seems to agree that the thickness is too great for much bending.

Regarding some of the Russian discoveries, it seems that as the saying goes, there is more than one way to skin a cat. It is clear that everyone is aiming at the same shape of bow, but, in different places, different solutions have been found. Considering the vast geographic spread of these bows, I am not surprised. It is good to get these objects up on the web site so interested bowyers can see them.

Very nice Jack, the joinery is flawless.

Could you post the dimensions? In particular the thickness and the width of the deflexed sections (working limbs in the narrowest spot)?

Adam

An overall 1/16 inch allowance was made for a sinew skin. These are total dimensions, skin and all.

Dusan; I do not know the properties of this wood. I used it because I wanted to use live wood and am limited to what I have.

Adam; the deflex in each limb will approximate 3/4 wide by 1 inch high. Maybe you also find this disturbing according to what we understand about bow making practices.

Thanks. I am curious about the final draw weight of your bow (in the heat of summer!).

Adam

Congratulations Jack, well done!

Cem

Jack, great job, very well done. Keep it on, sinew it and let it cure.
I guess you?re of the patient ones.
You?ve matched the amount of asymmetry to be seen in the original much more exactly than Adam. You know, I love asymmetrical bow- designs.
Waiting for final full- draw pics!!
I?ve never seen a full-draw pic of a subeixi- bow- reconstruction!

Bede, do you really think these recurves could work?

There seems to be another significant difference in the subeixi and the olon- kurin gol- Scythians types of bows- design(subeixi is much more a hornbow than the olon kurin gol bow):
The limbs of the olon kurin gol bow are tapered in width and thickness from the grip- section till the nocks very carefully. This provoques much more working in the limbs itself. Whereas the subeixi- bow is above all working in the sharp curves at the ends of the grip- section.
I think this is necessary, cause even the best wood- lamination would not stand such tension/pressure as it is caused by such a sharp (and short) curve.
Maybe we could assume that the Scythian hornbows were spreaded among the more Southern regions and the Scythian wooden lams were spreaded in the Northern regions of the Central Asian Steppe .

By the way Jack, did you know that a Greek hero bow- type had been already used by stoneage- hunters from the upper valley of the river Nile.
On the attached pic of a petroglyph you can easily recognize the Greek hero bow- type with the " reversed recurves ".

Something to think about.
It is told that the Cretans have used angular bow- designs too, any more info about that?

Michael

Hi Jack,

a real wonderfull bow! My highest respect!
All the best!

Peter

Great pics.hope you succeed!

Thanks for the encouragement everyone but I am not quite there yet. Soon the long wait begins.

Michael, that is the typical shape of an Egyptian long bow- three curves rather than 5. There was one I posted from Israel, 2500 BCE. It was olive wood, no backing.

The reason for choosing the Subexi was because of the extreme asymmetry.

Jack, I guess you missed my question.
This Greek hero- type bow is the same bow like the old Egyptian bow.
Maybe this is one more of the innumerable adaptions the Ancient Greek were known for.

Cretan angular bows??

Michael

Michael; Am not sure if I have information relating bronze age Greek self bows to Egyptian self bows. Maybe start a thread and see where it goes. Show what you have. There is interest.

We all hammered Cretan bows thoroughly some years ago. There were lots of posts and illustrations. See what you can find there. As I recall there were self bows with the Ibex horn a trade good to Egypt. Try Minoan also.

The petroglyph is of a self bow with a reflexed grip and deflexed tips. This is a common solution to the problem of bows that would otherwise follow the string if highly braced. Aside from Ancient Egyptian bows in museums and other petroglyphs in Africa, some North American Indians made similar bows, but shorter. Bows that look the same are still used in parts of North East Africa.

I have seen a picture of a replica bow made which looks like a cross between those Greek bows without a setback handle and some of the longer bows on the Susa glazed brick pictures of the Persian bodyguards of the Great King. It is being made with the cross sections of a Xinjiang bow. I am looking forward to hearing how it behaves.

I am hoping some of the very precise replicas being made by some of the contributors to this thread will answer the question of whether the recurves worked or not. Even a small amount of flexure might contribute to the bow's performance. On the other hand, the lowering of weight gained by making the tips thinner and narrower might be enough to justify the design. We will know when a few of the reconstructions are tested by their makers.

Jack, beautiful piece of work.

Curves are as wonderful as those of a gorgeous female. Can't wait to see how it turns out.

Hi Bede and other
I understand you want see a subeixi working....right?

if yes you can see pics on my blog(where I use subeixi bow )

http://jakpradere.blogspot.com/

see post at june,2008 and post sept,2009 for use during HA

Bonjour Jak; Long time no see. I have great respect for Lucas' bow making ability and am fond of his Scythian reproduction which you have. There is a picture of it in my Scythian file.

However, he made this bow before Stephen published on the Yanghai bows. We could not have guessed about the complex and unusual construction in the five originals. Now that we know these details, there is interest in more precise construction before making shooting trials.

I found the Maechen-Helfen book THE WORLD OF THE HUNS on amazon for less than the price of the postage! He published several more representations of Scythians drawing their bows, works by Scythians, not Greeks.

A kind friend sent me a copy of Tolle-Kastenbein's work on Greek archery. This will take some work to analyze because it is in German. But a picture is worth a thousand words.

There is also a long text which requires re reading about how Greeks misrepresent Scythians in Attic type potteries.

All works show bows which are symmetrical and asymmetrical and shot with small limb up as well as large.

Once again I am looking for representations of Scythians drawing bows which are works of Scythians themselves.

bonjour jack

thank you :I wonder why you want see that.Did someone (a boyer) have made such a scythian bow like yanghai bow?

else hope to see you again because I need to have an ameridian bow because I dont have any of them...what a shame

I always read yours post very interessing

best jak

Jak; Adam K is finishing a Yanghai style bow. There is some good interest here on atarn.

You do not have an Osage bow? Pity! We can fix that. -j-

Hi Jack

no I dont have osage bow!!!!.....please send me by PM informations on your bows

best jak

Just a quick question: I read the article in the JSAA and the table with dimensions only gives one number for thickness. In the picture and the sketch the shorter limb is thinner. What is the thickness of the lower limb then?

Daniel