Korean Vs. Turkish Bow
I hear people talk about how turkish bows are the pinnacle of bowmaking, but also that korean bows are extremely fast and efficient. What are your opinions or remote findings on these statements?
Nobody cant answer you . We dont have today strong, heavy korean horn bow in oldest konstruction(about 120lb). Todays korean "modern" hornbows have 60-70 lb max. Mostly 50-55 lb. Like we see ,nobody today cant shooting vith heavy 130lb turkisch hornbow...
But from all information about this thema- Turkish horn bow was realy pick of evolution of all composite bows. You can see in turk history that tartar bows was in his disain very similara to korean bows. Many of midle construction variants betveen tartar and turkish bows in museums show us that turkish bowyers try and search ideal disain. Probbably find him. :D
But from all information about this thema- Turkish horn bow was realy pick of evolution of all composite bows. You can see in turk history that tartar bows was in his disain very similara to korean bows. Many of midle construction variants betveen tartar and turkish bows in museums show us that turkish bowyers try and search ideal disain. Probbably find him. :D
I believe that Turkish and Korean bows have a similar origin from Turkish mercenaries serving the Mongolian empire. The Koreans made their bows of lighter materials and that made them more efficient; but in the process they became more difficult to maintain and more prone to damage. So there is no 'better': only 'different qualities'.
Yes, yes I remember that korean hornbows are very tender bows, and by efficiency, do you mean cast?
Where does the Mughal crab bow stand in this evolution? It seems to be a derivation of the Turkish bows. I am very keen on the performance qualities of the different horn bow designs and always like to hear opinions on this.
I know that most of you have a favorite design or style , but some sort of general consensus on over all feeling for the performance of the different styles must be out there.
Alan
I know that most of you have a favorite design or style , but some sort of general consensus on over all feeling for the performance of the different styles must be out there.
Alan
Mughal bow is evolution of old mongol ( moghul -mughal) bows. In fact all this bows have his oldest adrres in Mongol plains. Old Turcic tribes is too from this teritory. When tribes move from mother land , his culture including bows was more or less changed. Mughal bow is one of specific variation from the same model, like Turcic or Korean bows.
I agree with Dusan but would also like to clarify.
The earliest Turkic identity dates to about the 4th C. CE. There is some proof that bows with V-spliced siyahs date, in the earliest instances, to just a few centuries later. By 1200 CE Hunnic derived bows seem to have still been the norm and these made up common bows of Mongol armies, (I think).
By 1400, Turkic V-spliced bows became common.
So to my thinking standard Mongol era bows were derived from Hunnic design, whereas V-spliced Turkic designs represent the next generation. Turkish, Persian, Mughal and Korean bows would be cousins.
Manchu design would also be Turkic inspired from another branch.
Mughal bows include Sind, metal bows and probably Hunza besides crab (and of course self bows). Metal and Hunza bows are inferior, but crab and Sind are equal to Turkish.
Since many groups used Manchu type bows, we must assume that for some purposes they were at least as good as Turkic. -j-
The earliest Turkic identity dates to about the 4th C. CE. There is some proof that bows with V-spliced siyahs date, in the earliest instances, to just a few centuries later. By 1200 CE Hunnic derived bows seem to have still been the norm and these made up common bows of Mongol armies, (I think).
By 1400, Turkic V-spliced bows became common.
So to my thinking standard Mongol era bows were derived from Hunnic design, whereas V-spliced Turkic designs represent the next generation. Turkish, Persian, Mughal and Korean bows would be cousins.
Manchu design would also be Turkic inspired from another branch.
Mughal bows include Sind, metal bows and probably Hunza besides crab (and of course self bows). Metal and Hunza bows are inferior, but crab and Sind are equal to Turkish.
Since many groups used Manchu type bows, we must assume that for some purposes they were at least as good as Turkic. -j-
Jack thank you for your explanation ... erudite as ever.
Alan
Alan
Dusan , Thank you as well.
Alan
Alan
Allow me to throw my 2 cents in as well.
:)
It seems that many bows all seem oddly related such as in famous pictures of chinese fighting ghengis khan's horsearchers, it shows both sides using similar bows, and they both look like the sterotype of the crab bows, which followed generations later, but koreans, turks,mughals, all have that similar design in certain parts. Koreans are a bit more tender and have slowly evolved as all the other types of bows mentioned, but they all have been changed for different areas. Stephen selby's comment really was spot on on my question.
Also Jack, you are completely right about how your hunnic bows are the ancestors of my yuan bows. Neither have their string touching the limb, and they both have long ears, among other similarities.
:)
It seems that many bows all seem oddly related such as in famous pictures of chinese fighting ghengis khan's horsearchers, it shows both sides using similar bows, and they both look like the sterotype of the crab bows, which followed generations later, but koreans, turks,mughals, all have that similar design in certain parts. Koreans are a bit more tender and have slowly evolved as all the other types of bows mentioned, but they all have been changed for different areas. Stephen selby's comment really was spot on on my question.
Also Jack, you are completely right about how your hunnic bows are the ancestors of my yuan bows. Neither have their string touching the limb, and they both have long ears, among other similarities.
One interesting aspect is the relationship between language and horn bows. Many of the so-called Altaic languages were also horn bow cultures. I bet that could make a good research topic for someone so inclined.
The theory that the design came only from Turkey?? I don't buy it...
Those horn bow designs were existed long before that...
To prove? Easy! just look at Stephen's Avatar, that image were how old? 2,000 years? Isn't the size and profile of that bow looks like so called "Tat-Tar" , "Korean" or "Turkish"....
My point of views are those bow designs were all exist in the history time line... Some periods some designs were preferred... Except Qing dynasty, The Manchurian were very cruel to Han Chinese and so many Chinese tradition were banned... Chinese traditional costume were banned and everybody must wear Manchurian cloths and ugly ugly pig-tail hair style... Of course, Chinese bows were banned as well, and replaced to Manchurian style bow... Which I will call it 韃子弓...
For the dignity of Chinese, and according to what Manchurian have done to Chinese... That is why I am so very very detest about things in Qing dynasty... I'll never wear Manchurian costume and will never build Qing bow...
Qing bow is not Chinese bow.. It is just a 韃子弓(Barbarian bow ) for me..
Those horn bow designs were existed long before that...
To prove? Easy! just look at Stephen's Avatar, that image were how old? 2,000 years? Isn't the size and profile of that bow looks like so called "Tat-Tar" , "Korean" or "Turkish"....
My point of views are those bow designs were all exist in the history time line... Some periods some designs were preferred... Except Qing dynasty, The Manchurian were very cruel to Han Chinese and so many Chinese tradition were banned... Chinese traditional costume were banned and everybody must wear Manchurian cloths and ugly ugly pig-tail hair style... Of course, Chinese bows were banned as well, and replaced to Manchurian style bow... Which I will call it 韃子弓...
For the dignity of Chinese, and according to what Manchurian have done to Chinese... That is why I am so very very detest about things in Qing dynasty... I'll never wear Manchurian costume and will never build Qing bow...
Qing bow is not Chinese bow.. It is just a 韃子弓(Barbarian bow ) for me..
Yokhua; Please do not misunderstand me. I use the word Turkic to describe the cultures of Tutkestan, that is Central Asian, Middle Asia or Inner Asia, whichever term one prefers, and not just Turkish peoples of Turkey.
Turkestan is the homeland of the Turkic peoples, from Siberia to North Afghanistan, Xinjiang to Turkmenistan and later outward from there.
Are you going to Korea? -j-
Turkestan is the homeland of the Turkic peoples, from Siberia to North Afghanistan, Xinjiang to Turkmenistan and later outward from there.
Are you going to Korea? -j-
What's a Hunza bow?
Hornbow in Afganistan.
How is it different to other types of bow?
There is a Hunza bow in the Grayson Collection. It is a derivative of the later steppe bows which is roughly assembled and which had non-contact siyahs in its present form. There are strong relationships to other Indo-Persian bows.
Perhaps we should be clearer about what is meant by Moghul/Mughal bows. The composite bows used in the Indian subcontinent were divided into four classes by the people living there and the descriptions are in the Hidayat ar-Rami. The easily recognised ones are the Chahar Kham (four curved bow) or the Sind bow, the Moghul bow (which resembles a Persian bow in strung shape), the crab bow and the Kashmiri bow. This is not a definitive description of those four types. I have some problems understanding the descriptions of bows I have not seen and I am using working translations that might be refined later.
It is important to realise that the bows made in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries may have the external form of earlier bows, but the constructional methods may be those of the location where they were made.
It is easy to think that because a bow had roughly the same profile as another that the construction and the history is the same, but this is not true. Personally I think that the appearance of the triangular section kasan is the turning point in bow construction between the contact and non-contact siyah. Many authors have drawn a comparison between the early non-contact siyah bows of the Liao and Jin dynasties and the later Manchu bows. There were linguistic, geographic and ethnic relationships between the three peoples, but the non contact Jin bows only had similar siyah to limb proportions. Excavated bows show they were of the old construction of the previous thousand years and not the later Ching recurved construction.
The change in how bows were put together (the introduction of the "V" splice) and the way they operated (recurved tips) must have happened over several centuries. Using art and archaeology to identify the turnover point is imprecise. The chance finds of bows might be of some backwater where old technology dominated. The artist's rendition may contain stylisations that had been handed from master to pupil instead of direct observations.
Having said that, I have found another clear representation of a recurved tipped bow in the Dietz Album, a collection of pages from the World History of Rashid ed-Din. This copy is dated 1330 and is now in Berlin. Most of the other bows in the painting look transitional, but one has clearly recurved tips. The transitional bows have elements of the recurve but are drawn as straight non-contact eared bows. It would be easy to assume that several types of bows were in use at the same time and that one came to dominate.
Perhaps we should be clearer about what is meant by Moghul/Mughal bows. The composite bows used in the Indian subcontinent were divided into four classes by the people living there and the descriptions are in the Hidayat ar-Rami. The easily recognised ones are the Chahar Kham (four curved bow) or the Sind bow, the Moghul bow (which resembles a Persian bow in strung shape), the crab bow and the Kashmiri bow. This is not a definitive description of those four types. I have some problems understanding the descriptions of bows I have not seen and I am using working translations that might be refined later.
It is important to realise that the bows made in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries may have the external form of earlier bows, but the constructional methods may be those of the location where they were made.
It is easy to think that because a bow had roughly the same profile as another that the construction and the history is the same, but this is not true. Personally I think that the appearance of the triangular section kasan is the turning point in bow construction between the contact and non-contact siyah. Many authors have drawn a comparison between the early non-contact siyah bows of the Liao and Jin dynasties and the later Manchu bows. There were linguistic, geographic and ethnic relationships between the three peoples, but the non contact Jin bows only had similar siyah to limb proportions. Excavated bows show they were of the old construction of the previous thousand years and not the later Ching recurved construction.
The change in how bows were put together (the introduction of the "V" splice) and the way they operated (recurved tips) must have happened over several centuries. Using art and archaeology to identify the turnover point is imprecise. The chance finds of bows might be of some backwater where old technology dominated. The artist's rendition may contain stylisations that had been handed from master to pupil instead of direct observations.
Having said that, I have found another clear representation of a recurved tipped bow in the Dietz Album, a collection of pages from the World History of Rashid ed-Din. This copy is dated 1330 and is now in Berlin. Most of the other bows in the painting look transitional, but one has clearly recurved tips. The transitional bows have elements of the recurve but are drawn as straight non-contact eared bows. It would be easy to assume that several types of bows were in use at the same time and that one came to dominate.
Bede; Welcome back, was wondering if you were writing something or vacationing.
I find the profile of a strung bow in artwork as an unreliable indicator of structure and cultural affiliation. Except for Rashid who sets a duifferent standard for artwork. He was after all preparing a history of Mongol conquest and more.
I prefer to rely on artifacts and ethnographic collections if the provenience is good.
Much of Afghanistan was under Mughal control during the period. Grayson' Hunza bow is like one in the Koppedrayer collection and one i photoed in Tashkent, Uzbekistan. It is a long, crude hornbow painted black with multiple thin belly slats and sinew lashings at intervals. There is no kasan and no indication of siyah splice. Arrows are like massive Qing and the quiver is similarly constructed.
Grayson's Hunza.
I find the profile of a strung bow in artwork as an unreliable indicator of structure and cultural affiliation. Except for Rashid who sets a duifferent standard for artwork. He was after all preparing a history of Mongol conquest and more.
I prefer to rely on artifacts and ethnographic collections if the provenience is good.
Much of Afghanistan was under Mughal control during the period. Grayson' Hunza bow is like one in the Koppedrayer collection and one i photoed in Tashkent, Uzbekistan. It is a long, crude hornbow painted black with multiple thin belly slats and sinew lashings at intervals. There is no kasan and no indication of siyah splice. Arrows are like massive Qing and the quiver is similarly constructed.
Grayson's Hunza.
Jack,
I have been staying in the US with the Koppedreyers and we have been on the road much of the time so checking in was not easy. I have seen their bow and it is a cousin of the Grayson one. The crudeness of construction may be the result of a gradual loss of the technology as bows became less important or it may represent a folk tradition in the area.
The illustrators of the various editions of Rashid ed-Din's history had different priorities than we do. They were not trying to give diagrams of bow construction nor were they trying to separate weapons into ethnographic types. However, when something significant like a recurve appears, it is worth considering even if it is not conclusive. In one illustration, you can find many ways of depicting a bow. The illustrators seem to have been experimenting with different ways of representing the world.
In general I agree that an illustration is not a definitive method for identifying a bow, but since there seems to be a common practice now of illustrating archaeological discoveries out of context (e.g. tenth century bows used to illustrate a book about the twelfth and thirteenth century Mongols), we must make the best judgements we can.
I have been staying in the US with the Koppedreyers and we have been on the road much of the time so checking in was not easy. I have seen their bow and it is a cousin of the Grayson one. The crudeness of construction may be the result of a gradual loss of the technology as bows became less important or it may represent a folk tradition in the area.
The illustrators of the various editions of Rashid ed-Din's history had different priorities than we do. They were not trying to give diagrams of bow construction nor were they trying to separate weapons into ethnographic types. However, when something significant like a recurve appears, it is worth considering even if it is not conclusive. In one illustration, you can find many ways of depicting a bow. The illustrators seem to have been experimenting with different ways of representing the world.
In general I agree that an illustration is not a definitive method for identifying a bow, but since there seems to be a common practice now of illustrating archaeological discoveries out of context (e.g. tenth century bows used to illustrate a book about the twelfth and thirteenth century Mongols), we must make the best judgements we can.
Thanks for the info regarding Hunza bows. I might have seen one in a monastery museum in Leh, Kashmir, but unfortunately photography wasn't allowed. At first I thought it was a very large and poorly made Turkish bow. It was braced and looked like a quarter circle with siyahs at the same sort of angles as you see on Turkish bows but slightly longer. It was also extremely big. Unfortunately the lighting wasn't good enough to see if it had lashings or finer details of the construction.
In the same city I also saw a crab bow and a chahar kham. The crab bow was quite small, I think it would only just have been 90 cm - 1 metre strung. I don't know how large these normally were but Jaap Koppedrayer's and Grozer's versions are much bigger. The chahar kham was broken and not strung, but it wasn't very big. It might have been 80 cm unstrung, measured in a straight line from both nocks (an unconventional way of measuring but I can't measure curves in my head very well).
There was also a crab bow in Jaipur which had a limb width of 10 - 12 cm (estimated).
Do you have any pictures of the Kashmiri or Mughal/Persian bow? How are they different to the chahar kham and crab bows?
In the same city I also saw a crab bow and a chahar kham. The crab bow was quite small, I think it would only just have been 90 cm - 1 metre strung. I don't know how large these normally were but Jaap Koppedrayer's and Grozer's versions are much bigger. The chahar kham was broken and not strung, but it wasn't very big. It might have been 80 cm unstrung, measured in a straight line from both nocks (an unconventional way of measuring but I can't measure curves in my head very well).
There was also a crab bow in Jaipur which had a limb width of 10 - 12 cm (estimated).
Do you have any pictures of the Kashmiri or Mughal/Persian bow? How are they different to the chahar kham and crab bows?
The Mughal style of the Persian bow has the angle at the base of the siyah almost the same as the angle of the tip to the ridged part of the siyah. This can be done with Turkish construction, but was usually done in the Persian style with multiple strips of horn on the belly.
I have seen composite bows from Kashmir, but I am not sure if they are the Kashmiri style or just a variation on the Mughal type. The illustrated page was on the WWW at some stage and a bow of one of the types has been illustrated on this site in the past. I have tried to get the link but have failed so far.
I have seen composite bows from Kashmir, but I am not sure if they are the Kashmiri style or just a variation on the Mughal type. The illustrated page was on the WWW at some stage and a bow of one of the types has been illustrated on this site in the past. I have tried to get the link but have failed so far.
If anyone is doing any research there, give me a PM - it's something I'd love to get into but am unable to do any on my own.Thomas Duvernay wrote:
One interesting aspect is the relationship between language and horn bows. Many of the so-called Altaic languages were also horn bow cultures. I bet that could make a good research topic for someone so inclined.
You are completely right about the Altaic language correlation. I wonder how someone could prove the causation of the "Altaic language branch". Maybe traderoutes? So your question meant to find out if Altaic language relationship is true? Or how it may have come about?
Thomas' statement about the correlation between language and bow type is interesting. Korean is a Ural-Altaic language and this vast area is well within an area thought to be ancestral to horn bows. However, bow development was so prone to passing cultural barriers and of such great antiquity that it seems like an exercise in futility to name some start place for a type.
According to Duvernay, Korean archery was redefined for target purposes early in the 20th century. There are several large Korean made war bows in the Military museum and their publication. These bows are longer and much more robust than target bows.
Turkish type bows were almost certainly developed in Central Asia and refined in a thousand workshops from there to Europe and in between. A Korean bow is built on the format of the Turkic bow, as were the majority of other late types. I assume the types to be of comparable construction.
According to Duvernay, Korean archery was redefined for target purposes early in the 20th century. There are several large Korean made war bows in the Military museum and their publication. These bows are longer and much more robust than target bows.
Turkish type bows were almost certainly developed in Central Asia and refined in a thousand workshops from there to Europe and in between. A Korean bow is built on the format of the Turkic bow, as were the majority of other late types. I assume the types to be of comparable construction.
Yokhua, the more I look at these Han images, the more that I am convinced that they show Xiongnu and Saka enemies / occasional allies of the Han Chinese. That is particularly striking when you see the battle scenes on some of the Han tomb walls in Shandong.yokhua wrote:
To prove? Easy! just look at Stephen's Avatar, that image were how old? 2,000 years? Isn't the size and profile of that bow looks like so called "Tat-Tar" , "Korean" or "Turkish"....
Some old korean bows have yhe triangular shape of the kasan, very similar to krimean tatar bow:
[external image]
[external image]
Even this late 19 century bow have a small ridge remembering the old fashion:
[external image]
V-splice, triangular shape of kassan, overall shape, I see more similarities than differences.
[external image]
[external image]
![[external image]](http://www.sac.or.kr/eng/bows/img01/0013_2.jpg){kind=link}
[external image]
![[external image]](http://www.sac.or.kr/eng/bows/img01/0015_2.jpg){kind=link}
Even this late 19 century bow have a small ridge remembering the old fashion:
[external image]
![[external image]](http://www.sac.or.kr/eng/bows/img01/0002_2.jpg){kind=link}
V-splice, triangular shape of kassan, overall shape, I see more similarities than differences.
[external image]
![[external image]](http://www.turkishculture.org/images/image_all/bowyer/bow8.jpg){kind=link}
You are right Ginny. We talked about same problem in another place. People was surprised . First time some Atarns closer see ridge in old Korean bows. This bows must function closer like tatar bows, than todays korean sporting bows .
In another poin was more trouble vith construction ridge tipe bow than "simplie" todays Korean bow who working in most his bending partclose to the tip. For me is more "shock" that most of that old bows was describe like all wood kompozite vithout horn !
In another poin was more trouble vith construction ridge tipe bow than "simplie" todays Korean bow who working in most his bending partclose to the tip. For me is more "shock" that most of that old bows was describe like all wood kompozite vithout horn !
The second bow is a hornbow without horn, having wooden belly.
They made wooden belied bows longer than hornbows, but how they have done to the wood to resist at such compresion?
They made wooden belied bows longer than hornbows, but how they have done to the wood to resist at such compresion?
Ginni,
I know that the smaller hand bows with wooden bellies were enclosed in sinew. The larger war bows may not have been. I haven't seen enough to be certain. The very strong wooden bellied crossbows were spirally wrapped in sinew. I saw one where the lacquer had fallen off and the sinew had become loose. The crossbows did not have ears (siyahs).
I know that the smaller hand bows with wooden bellies were enclosed in sinew. The larger war bows may not have been. I haven't seen enough to be certain. The very strong wooden bellied crossbows were spirally wrapped in sinew. I saw one where the lacquer had fallen off and the sinew had become loose. The crossbows did not have ears (siyahs).
I Agree vith Bede. I see more short (95-115cm) non horn bows . Its logical if this bows was longer but- oposite - this all wood shortiees are small :lol: :shock:
Ginni, very good pictures of interesting bows you found there! Is there more bow stuff? I was not able to navigate to the bow pictures on the sac site so far... Can you give the link to the gallery?
I remember once seeing a modern korean bow with bamboo belly in the former national folk museum in Seoul.
[external image]
Bamboo could probably stand the pressure better than "normal" hardwoods.
JJ
I remember once seeing a modern korean bow with bamboo belly in the former national folk museum in Seoul.
[external image]
![[external image]](http://i281.photobucket.com/albums/kk224/upo546/Ko-21-32-1.jpg){kind=link}
Bamboo could probably stand the pressure better than "normal" hardwoods.
JJ
Here is the link JJ:
http://www.sac.or.kr/eng/bows/index.html
Description of the second bow:
?14. Wooden Bow - Middle Choseon era
Length : 156cm
Courtesy : Yeonsei University Museum?
Another wooden belied bow:
?11. Cypress Bow - Middle Choseon era
Length : 162cm
Courtesy : Yeongsei University Museum
Composite curved bow made of cypress,
used in battle and hunting.?
[external image]
http://www.sac.or.kr/eng/bows/index.html
Description of the second bow:
?14. Wooden Bow - Middle Choseon era
Length : 156cm
Courtesy : Yeonsei University Museum?
Another wooden belied bow:
?11. Cypress Bow - Middle Choseon era
Length : 162cm
Courtesy : Yeongsei University Museum
Composite curved bow made of cypress,
used in battle and hunting.?
[external image]
![[external image]](http://www.sac.or.kr/eng/bows/img01/0012_2.jpg){kind=link}
Uli earlier started this thema in "Comparative anatomy" http://atarn.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1616
Sorry! Somehow I missed that thread.
There is one of these "circular" bows in the Ashmolean museum in England in a case of Chinese archery items. I cannot read the label as to provenience. Jan S. or Peter D. may know.
The Bows and Arrows Museum, Seoul, has many reproduction crossbows of horn composite construction with recurved ears which are very robust. Then there are the colossal bows which Thomas reported on years ago.
The old Korean war bows were in the 160 cm size.
The Bows and Arrows Museum, Seoul, has many reproduction crossbows of horn composite construction with recurved ears which are very robust. Then there are the colossal bows which Thomas reported on years ago.
The old Korean war bows were in the 160 cm size.
I know about this large wood composites , but i think more about this litle wooden beasts - this is 123cm
[external image]
121,9cm bamboo bow
[external image]
another -modern
[external image]
[external image]
but this bamboo bows was much smaler and describe like -hunting and war bows.
[external image]
106 -107 cm Suno period bows
Probably for crossbow but still wooden and extra short...
[external image]
![[external image]](http://img.janforman.com/th/123cmcompositzdrevabojovyaloveckystred.Choseanaisw.jpg){kind=link}
121,9cm bamboo bow
[external image]
![[external image]](http://img.janforman.com/th/1219cm38cms13cmhbambusadrevoceleslachyay3u.jpg){kind=link}
another -modern
[external image]
![[external image]](http://img.janforman.com/th/celobambusobd5.jpg){kind=link}
[external image]
![[external image]](http://img.janforman.com/th/K.woodbow3st31.jpg){kind=link}
but this bamboo bows was much smaler and describe like -hunting and war bows.
[external image]
![[external image]](http://img.janforman.com/th/St.bambusakykorejskewd4b.jpg){kind=link}
106 -107 cm Suno period bows
Probably for crossbow but still wooden and extra short...
Dusan, I think Suno means something like crossbow, probably repeating crossbow or double crossbow. It is stated in above link provided by Ginni under category "No", which depicts crossbows.
A friend told me that the bigger wood bellied composites with enormous nocks probably were crossbow bows.
JJ
A friend told me that the bigger wood bellied composites with enormous nocks probably were crossbow bows.
JJ
If you mean JJ, the 4 pic./Bamboo hunting +war bow/ like cross bow , thats realy mistake. This short bow was clearle describ from many sources (Duvernay). Its definitely not crrossbow bow.
I remember an article some years ago about these small backed Korean bows and how one was reproduced as a horse bow. It would make more sense that it was from a cross bow, though. i wonder if anyone has more information on these? Did Thomas rethink the proposition?
I think that every info about this samll horse bow is in T.Duvernay site about Korean Archery. If i good remember, one of this new reconstruction bow was like givt him from his korean friend master Park. I hope that T.D. shoot vith and can tell us his experiences.
On the Korean 'circular' hornbows, I think that they are most unsuitable for use as crossbow prods. So far reflexed, they will certainly deflex after being shot a few times as a crossbow. Also, they seem to have a clear grip. For crossbow mounting, the grip would have a rectangular cross-section.
But some of the heaviest bows may have been for the strength test in the Korean military examination (like the Chinese one) and not used for shooting arrows.
But some of the heaviest bows may have been for the strength test in the Korean military examination (like the Chinese one) and not used for shooting arrows.
Stephen,
I am assuming you are writing about the two bows labelled F.
When those bows are complete they have two applied pieces either side of the centre. When the bow is mounted in the stock, it fits into a circular aperture. The two fittings are bound on then, allowing the bow to rotate in the stock slightly to maintain string position against the surface of the stock without friction.
They are composite bows, but they are not horn bows. The belly is wood on the ones I have examined where the lacquer cover is damaged. Bracing them would have required several persons and some type of frame. The rotation of the bow would have made bracing it on a frame easier too. My guess is they would be left braced for the duration of a campaign.
I am assuming you are writing about the two bows labelled F.
When those bows are complete they have two applied pieces either side of the centre. When the bow is mounted in the stock, it fits into a circular aperture. The two fittings are bound on then, allowing the bow to rotate in the stock slightly to maintain string position against the surface of the stock without friction.
They are composite bows, but they are not horn bows. The belly is wood on the ones I have examined where the lacquer cover is damaged. Bracing them would have required several persons and some type of frame. The rotation of the bow would have made bracing it on a frame easier too. My guess is they would be left braced for the duration of a campaign.
This is very smart if it is actually working this way!Bede wrote:
Stephen,
The two fittings are bound on then, allowing the bow to rotate in the stock slightly to maintain string position against the surface of the stock without friction.
Almost all friction problem will not occur with rotation on bow in stock, increasing efficiency of crossbow. In this way, I believe round cross section is desire for smooth action of the rotation.
Has reproduction been made to confirm this mechanics? I wonder if there is some danger of string jumping from this rotation, causing some kind miss fire, maybe tighter fit can decrease chance of rotating too easily.
Btw, about belly of bow, it seems rather impossible with wooden belly. Most wood have too high stiffness to compress this much. Though before I read some fruit wood is being used, maybe it refer to the core wood? Bamboo it is possible, quite easy actually, many people already doing. Though retained reflex is not so much, you need put very large reflex, maybe only half stay so I think when build maybe actually better build with more reflex than hornbow. With yumi they build with 45 cm and expect to loose half after worked in. The interesting thing about bamboo is it can gain reflex when humidity changes. I remember my bamboo bow does quite commonly, sometimes have 2" set, then when weather changes it gains 3" reflex.
I see what you are saying; but I would have some doubts as to whether that would be a good solution. Either the prod would be held so loose as to cause the arrow to mis-fire; or it would be semi-tight: but that would lead to unpredictable movements that would differ between shots.Bede wrote:
Stephen,
The two fittings are bound on then, allowing the bow to rotate in the stock slightly to maintain string position against the surface of the stock without friction.
IN THEORY at least, the prod would best be kept fixed in a forward/downward orientation.
I know that reproductions were made with sinew/wood/horn construction. All the bows I saw that were damaged enough to see the belly had wooden bellies. I find it hard to believe that the bows would not fail, but I assume that the compression of the spiral layer of sinew was sufficient to prevent the wood from failing. In reaction to compression, materials thicken. If something prevented that, the material would be strengthened.
Regarding the firmness of the bow in the stock, I can only comment on the side to side movement which would have been minimal if the small blocks I saw were in place. Incidentally, I mentioned the circular mounting holes because that is what Bootes showed in his paper. I would have expected that a hollow like in Han crossbows would have been more likely. I don't know if any of our Korean correspondents have seen original Chosun dynasty crossbow stocks of that type. The stocks in Bootes seemed very decorated and perhaps were for sport not war.
It should be relatively easy to make a round handle on a fast recurve bow and test the behaviour of the string against the surface of the stock. The other thing to examine is whether the Korean bows were symmetrical around the centre line of the belly or if the tips were out of line. Since hand bows often had some asymmetry it is possible that crossbows had the same and could be bound in tightly.
Regarding the firmness of the bow in the stock, I can only comment on the side to side movement which would have been minimal if the small blocks I saw were in place. Incidentally, I mentioned the circular mounting holes because that is what Bootes showed in his paper. I would have expected that a hollow like in Han crossbows would have been more likely. I don't know if any of our Korean correspondents have seen original Chosun dynasty crossbow stocks of that type. The stocks in Bootes seemed very decorated and perhaps were for sport not war.
It should be relatively easy to make a round handle on a fast recurve bow and test the behaviour of the string against the surface of the stock. The other thing to examine is whether the Korean bows were symmetrical around the centre line of the belly or if the tips were out of line. Since hand bows often had some asymmetry it is possible that crossbows had the same and could be bound in tightly.
I haven't been on in a while, but I noticed this thread getting some activity.
I am assuming people are referring to the mokgung (木弓) made by Geuk-hwan Park many years ago when they are talking about a "horse bow" in reference to me. Although I have never shot it (I have never even braced it), I do own it (much to the chagrin of my wife).
I am assuming people are referring to the mokgung (木弓) made by Geuk-hwan Park many years ago when they are talking about a "horse bow" in reference to me. Although I have never shot it (I have never even braced it), I do own it (much to the chagrin of my wife).
Thomas; My question is; do you still think the original is a horse bow and not a cross bow? How do you know this? Thanks.
Yes, thats very interesting , please tell us your experiences . Its srurprise to me - you never shot him ?!? I remember pics tutorial how Geuk-hwan Park heating and stringing this litlle-big bow .
Thomas,
on your page there is no limb thickness stated for the original and the reproduction mokgong (http://www.hornbow.com/mokgoong.html). However, from the photographs it seems that the original is at least twice as thick as the reproduction. Maybe it is only related to the angle of the photograph, but do you remember or know the thickness of the limbs of the old bow?
Thanks, JJ
on your page there is no limb thickness stated for the original and the reproduction mokgong (http://www.hornbow.com/mokgoong.html). However, from the photographs it seems that the original is at least twice as thick as the reproduction. Maybe it is only related to the angle of the photograph, but do you remember or know the thickness of the limbs of the old bow?
Thanks, JJ
I couldn't say the original definitely wasn't a crossbow prod, but I would tend to doubt it--mostly, it's just a feeling. However, I think if it was a prod, the bowyer would have noticed and mentioned it.
I think I had listed the dimensions (including limb thickness) of the bow some time before, although I could be mistaken. Sometime after I return to Korea I'll check it again.
T
I think I had listed the dimensions (including limb thickness) of the bow some time before, although I could be mistaken. Sometime after I return to Korea I'll check it again.
T
Tom,
Are you writing about the bows labelled "F" or one of the others?
Are you writing about the bows labelled "F" or one of the others?
"F"?
Page 3 of this post has a Korean bow posted by Dusan with an "F" in the lower right corner.
Ahhh... The fourth picture down in his post is the bow I'm referring to.