The structure of the Scythian bow
About two weeks ago I received a short manuscript translated from Russian by my friend D. Karasev; from a book by Cherkashenko. The essay is Complex bows used by the Scythians.
Let me start with the conclusion: there have been more than two thousand archeological excavations of Scythian tombs and no more than 20 have contained bow remains. He concludes that, in the manner of Herodotus, Scythians considered it proper that the sons should inherit their father's bows. It was not that the bows were too valuable, as Scythians have burried weapons of great value.
The Russians have only discovered (at the time) the actual wood remains of a single bow, made in the classic style of Northern composites, with two overlayed slats of wood and bone/antler stiffeners and a birch bark skin. There have also been found a good number of carved antler bow tips which were socketed on in the manner of figureheads. These take animal forms especially the heads of birds; eagle and vulture; but also wolf and cat.
Scythian bows took a myriad of shapes, from only slightly curved to elaborately and deeply curved, and from not recurved to very recurved. Self bows were not unusual, but the classic horse bow was between 60-90 cm long. The same bows in larger sizes appear to be Parthian and other Persians from 200 BC onward.
Some may find Karasev's information "The Sakian Gorytus" to be of interest, which is an article in the current Primitive Archer magazine. This is the only Scythian-style Quiver from Central Asia reported in English to date; and found only two years ago.
Please excuse my reference to" horn slats" in the article. There has never been a horn slat found associated with Scythian bows. Russians refer to the arms or limbs of bows as "Horns" or "Shoulders" so "horn slats" should have been translated as limb slats.
The Cherkashenko article has much good information which I will add to this post. Karasev's and my next article is reaching completion. -j-
Let me start with the conclusion: there have been more than two thousand archeological excavations of Scythian tombs and no more than 20 have contained bow remains. He concludes that, in the manner of Herodotus, Scythians considered it proper that the sons should inherit their father's bows. It was not that the bows were too valuable, as Scythians have burried weapons of great value.
The Russians have only discovered (at the time) the actual wood remains of a single bow, made in the classic style of Northern composites, with two overlayed slats of wood and bone/antler stiffeners and a birch bark skin. There have also been found a good number of carved antler bow tips which were socketed on in the manner of figureheads. These take animal forms especially the heads of birds; eagle and vulture; but also wolf and cat.
Scythian bows took a myriad of shapes, from only slightly curved to elaborately and deeply curved, and from not recurved to very recurved. Self bows were not unusual, but the classic horse bow was between 60-90 cm long. The same bows in larger sizes appear to be Parthian and other Persians from 200 BC onward.
Some may find Karasev's information "The Sakian Gorytus" to be of interest, which is an article in the current Primitive Archer magazine. This is the only Scythian-style Quiver from Central Asia reported in English to date; and found only two years ago.
Please excuse my reference to" horn slats" in the article. There has never been a horn slat found associated with Scythian bows. Russians refer to the arms or limbs of bows as "Horns" or "Shoulders" so "horn slats" should have been translated as limb slats.
The Cherkashenko article has much good information which I will add to this post. Karasev's and my next article is reaching completion. -j-
Jack,
thank you very much for your information about the bows. I have got a pictorial reconstruction of a bow found in 2001 in Tuva (Arzhan, Siberia) in a Scythian burial site. The reconstruction showed a bow which looked like the double-curved bows of Plains Indians (each limb forming a deflex letter D, with a slightly reflexed grip part), and was about 1,15m long (measured over the wood). It consisted of three layers of wood, each approx 1cm thick. So it was too heavy to be drawn. The wooden parts were wrapped in "something" which was gilted. But there were no horn or antler parts found. This finding is in accordance with the opinion that bows were given from fathers to sons, and were not put into graves.
But can they consist of wood only? If they are so short then there is need for a sinew backing. What about their draw weights?
Best regards,
Erhard
thank you very much for your information about the bows. I have got a pictorial reconstruction of a bow found in 2001 in Tuva (Arzhan, Siberia) in a Scythian burial site. The reconstruction showed a bow which looked like the double-curved bows of Plains Indians (each limb forming a deflex letter D, with a slightly reflexed grip part), and was about 1,15m long (measured over the wood). It consisted of three layers of wood, each approx 1cm thick. So it was too heavy to be drawn. The wooden parts were wrapped in "something" which was gilted. But there were no horn or antler parts found. This finding is in accordance with the opinion that bows were given from fathers to sons, and were not put into graves.
But can they consist of wood only? If they are so short then there is need for a sinew backing. What about their draw weights?
Best regards,
Erhard
Erhard; Cherkashenko quotes A I Milukova that for joining of the bow components, besides bark, which was used on the Kirchi bow, glue and raw tendons were used, which in the course of drying formed a strong and resiliant mass.
I do not necessarily take this to mean that the Kirchi bow had sinew, but was reported to be three layers of wood.
Cherkashenko himself reports a Scythian bow to consist of several wooden parts, bone, horn (antler?) tendons and bark in its construction. To Mishulin's suggestion that a Scythian bow was made from a horn pair as in Homer, Ch. states that they were not made from horn; that this idea is wrong.
Why could the Arzhan bow not be a functional bow? -j-
I do not necessarily take this to mean that the Kirchi bow had sinew, but was reported to be three layers of wood.
Cherkashenko himself reports a Scythian bow to consist of several wooden parts, bone, horn (antler?) tendons and bark in its construction. To Mishulin's suggestion that a Scythian bow was made from a horn pair as in Homer, Ch. states that they were not made from horn; that this idea is wrong.
Why could the Arzhan bow not be a functional bow? -j-
Dear Jack,
the bow was composed of three layers of wood, each 1 cm thick (not wide)! For the riser part, two additional layers had been added, giving a thichness of 5 cm. The total length was about 100 cm. The form was that of a "double-convex" bow without recurves, similar to bows of the Red Indians of the plains. So altogether the bow is much too thick (as compared to its length) to be drawn.
Best regards,
Erhard
the bow was composed of three layers of wood, each 1 cm thick (not wide)! For the riser part, two additional layers had been added, giving a thichness of 5 cm. The total length was about 100 cm. The form was that of a "double-convex" bow without recurves, similar to bows of the Red Indians of the plains. So altogether the bow is much too thick (as compared to its length) to be drawn.
Best regards,
Erhard
I am having a hard time giving these texts the time necessary to work out the correct translation with the Russians. But here is, I believe, an accurate quote from E. V Cherkashenko, Kiev, 1981:
The only well preserved bow from the territory of Scythia was found in 1967 by Archaeologist Ms.S.S. Bessonov in the burial mound #2, in the Archaeological Group of the ?Three Brothers?; 20 km (15 miles) to the south of the ancient town Kerch. Here?s a brief description of this find:
?Nearby the arrows there lay? the archer's bow of 64 cm length. It was a primitive segment-shaped bow composed of three wooden slats wrapped spirally with wood bark 1.3-1.5 cm wide.
The total thickness of the bow is 2 cm. The bow was straight at the moment when the mound was opened, and later when it dried it took a concave shape.
The upper slat from one side had been rounded in thickness and tapered to a fine edge. Its other end is thicker and narrows up to 0.5 cm. The middle slat ends on both sides with flat blades of which one is slightly widening. The third plate is broken from both sides. The two upper slats have shifted in respect to one another by 6.5 cm.
On the inner surfaces of the side slats there are small longitudinal grooves (one tiny groove on each side for gluing). All the glued surfaces are covered with small oblique scratches?
The only well preserved bow from the territory of Scythia was found in 1967 by Archaeologist Ms.S.S. Bessonov in the burial mound #2, in the Archaeological Group of the ?Three Brothers?; 20 km (15 miles) to the south of the ancient town Kerch. Here?s a brief description of this find:
?Nearby the arrows there lay? the archer's bow of 64 cm length. It was a primitive segment-shaped bow composed of three wooden slats wrapped spirally with wood bark 1.3-1.5 cm wide.
The total thickness of the bow is 2 cm. The bow was straight at the moment when the mound was opened, and later when it dried it took a concave shape.
The upper slat from one side had been rounded in thickness and tapered to a fine edge. Its other end is thicker and narrows up to 0.5 cm. The middle slat ends on both sides with flat blades of which one is slightly widening. The third plate is broken from both sides. The two upper slats have shifted in respect to one another by 6.5 cm.
On the inner surfaces of the side slats there are small longitudinal grooves (one tiny groove on each side for gluing). All the glued surfaces are covered with small oblique scratches?
The gilt may be the tip-off. According to ATTILA AND THE NOMAD HORDES by David Nicolle (Osprey, 1990) page 13, gilt-covered bows were symbols of princely rank among the Huns. Nicolle does point out that other nomads didn't have that. But that book definitely deals with post-Scythian nomads, starting with the Huns.
MJ; David Nicolle is a favorite author of mine, very talented. Golden bows were one of the mythological fetishes of the Scythians as per Herodotus.
But King Tut was buried with several golden bows(pre 1300 BC) , one of which is considered as a hand-me-down. Since these bows are fully developed, it may be assumed that their prototypes lay farther back in antiquity, maybe much farther back.
But King Tut was buried with several golden bows(pre 1300 BC) , one of which is considered as a hand-me-down. Since these bows are fully developed, it may be assumed that their prototypes lay farther back in antiquity, maybe much farther back.
Dear Jack,
Mr. Cherkashenko's report is only on bows found in kurgans in the Ukraine. For these kurgans, you also can study several papers and books of Renate Rolle and Holger Echardt who speak of just two bow findings in Scythian graves (one of these bow staves is said to be about 60 cm long, the other one 80 cm, I believe). Of course, there are some small artefacts like bone plates for the recurves or the risers, but too few to say something about the shape and structure of Scythian bows from the Ukraine.
The last finding of a bow, which I was speaking of, dates back to the year 2001. It is from Tuva in Siberia. Now it is in the Hermitage of St. Petersburg. I have got from Dr. Nagler and Prof. Parzinger a drawing of the bow as found in situ and meanwhile, I have got the permission to show this drawing to other people. I will append it here. I also have the drawing of the reconstruction as done in St. Petersburg. As I told you, this gave a "double-convex" bow (reflex handle, deflex limbs, no recurves). This finding and the reconstruction made us believe (that is "redhawk", another bowyer and me) that it was no working bow. Therefore we built some "Scythian bows" based only on the pictorial findingd from Scythian bowls and Greek vases and vessels. Pictures of these working reconstructions have been already put into the ATARN some months ago by redhwak and by me.
Best regards,
Erhard Godehardt
Mr. Cherkashenko's report is only on bows found in kurgans in the Ukraine. For these kurgans, you also can study several papers and books of Renate Rolle and Holger Echardt who speak of just two bow findings in Scythian graves (one of these bow staves is said to be about 60 cm long, the other one 80 cm, I believe). Of course, there are some small artefacts like bone plates for the recurves or the risers, but too few to say something about the shape and structure of Scythian bows from the Ukraine.
The last finding of a bow, which I was speaking of, dates back to the year 2001. It is from Tuva in Siberia. Now it is in the Hermitage of St. Petersburg. I have got from Dr. Nagler and Prof. Parzinger a drawing of the bow as found in situ and meanwhile, I have got the permission to show this drawing to other people. I will append it here. I also have the drawing of the reconstruction as done in St. Petersburg. As I told you, this gave a "double-convex" bow (reflex handle, deflex limbs, no recurves). This finding and the reconstruction made us believe (that is "redhawk", another bowyer and me) that it was no working bow. Therefore we built some "Scythian bows" based only on the pictorial findingd from Scythian bowls and Greek vases and vessels. Pictures of these working reconstructions have been already put into the ATARN some months ago by redhwak and by me.
Best regards,
Erhard Godehardt
If I understand the drawing, and the scale is correct, this bow is over 6 feet long. 3cm thick limbs would make a shootable, all-wood laminated bow.
Adam
Adam
Adam,
the dimensions given in the drawing are a little bit misleading. The bow was broken in several pieces and scattered on the ground.
I append another drawing showing the reconstruction as performed by the archeologists from St. Petersburg, where the bow now is. From this reconstruction (if it is correct) you will understand that it shows a bow which will not work "in daily life" since it is much too thick for its length. I am waiting for information on the width of the limbs and whether they had the same width over the whole length or not. Unfortunately, now many of the archeologists are on excavations so that I will have to wait until this autumn to get an answer.
As can be seen from this picture, the different staves of wood do NOT run over the whole length of the bow but are composed of short pieces. If the pieces are not the result of the damage over time but are original from the production, then even more the bow is for the eternal life of the buried man only. Probably it would break when drawn.
There was also a gorytos filled with arrows laying on the pieces of the bow. If I was informed correctly, then the arrows all were about 70-72 cm long, which is rather long for such a short bow.
Erhard
the dimensions given in the drawing are a little bit misleading. The bow was broken in several pieces and scattered on the ground.
I append another drawing showing the reconstruction as performed by the archeologists from St. Petersburg, where the bow now is. From this reconstruction (if it is correct) you will understand that it shows a bow which will not work "in daily life" since it is much too thick for its length. I am waiting for information on the width of the limbs and whether they had the same width over the whole length or not. Unfortunately, now many of the archeologists are on excavations so that I will have to wait until this autumn to get an answer.
As can be seen from this picture, the different staves of wood do NOT run over the whole length of the bow but are composed of short pieces. If the pieces are not the result of the damage over time but are original from the production, then even more the bow is for the eternal life of the buried man only. Probably it would break when drawn.
There was also a gorytos filled with arrows laying on the pieces of the bow. If I was informed correctly, then the arrows all were about 70-72 cm long, which is rather long for such a short bow.
Erhard
This is beginning to look more and more like a shooting bow. Lenghtened to 1m, the grip now 4cm.
But I am suspicious. How did the Hermitage pull up all those pieces into a bow of exactly 1m? Such an exact size. And the joinery. To make this reconstruction out of the mess in the first drawing. How would they determine this curve?
I am coming to the conclusion that burial bows from west of the Caspian may represent funeral props, the actual working bows having been bequeathed to the survivors. Dimensions of actual bows can be made from the openings of Gorytoi. Presumably, the actual bows would have fit the cases. It is difficult to believe that a 60 or 80cm bow could have earned the Scythians their reputation as archers. Not enough nock-down power.
A bow of multiple layers of different woods, sinew backed, with bone stiffening plates and birch bark covering would fit nicely into the Northern composite construction seen in later bows. Minus the sinew backing but with little reflex might also be a possibility given the short draw, miniature arrowheads and arrow poison. Depends on how afraid their enemies were of poisioned arrows. One would not think that an enemy shot with a poisioned arrow would die before the fight was over.
Any ideas? -j-
But I am suspicious. How did the Hermitage pull up all those pieces into a bow of exactly 1m? Such an exact size. And the joinery. To make this reconstruction out of the mess in the first drawing. How would they determine this curve?
I am coming to the conclusion that burial bows from west of the Caspian may represent funeral props, the actual working bows having been bequeathed to the survivors. Dimensions of actual bows can be made from the openings of Gorytoi. Presumably, the actual bows would have fit the cases. It is difficult to believe that a 60 or 80cm bow could have earned the Scythians their reputation as archers. Not enough nock-down power.
A bow of multiple layers of different woods, sinew backed, with bone stiffening plates and birch bark covering would fit nicely into the Northern composite construction seen in later bows. Minus the sinew backing but with little reflex might also be a possibility given the short draw, miniature arrowheads and arrow poison. Depends on how afraid their enemies were of poisioned arrows. One would not think that an enemy shot with a poisioned arrow would die before the fight was over.
Any ideas? -j-