Yanghai (Scythian) bow drawn pictures
Taking advantage of higher humidity in the shop, I finally got around to draw the bow on the scale to show the movement of the limbs during the draw. Please have a look - on one of the pics the reading of the scale can be seen above the bow - 110lb at about 1/2 inch short of the proper AMO 28 inches. (AMO 28in draw = 26.25in from the belly of the grip). The real 28 inches draw will be several pounds more than AMO, since the grip is 1 inch thick, not 1.75in. Anyway, the bow is 115-120lb at 28in.
Note most of the bending takes place at the centre 2/3 of the bow - at the grip and at the deflexed portions of limbs. The outer limbs flex very little. However, the bow was made according to the drawing by Stephen, where the thicknesses of the outer limbs were not given. I took the photos of the origimal as the guide for that and assumed there is an even taper down from past the deflexed sections toward the tips. I have no doubts the original bows could have the outer limbs thinner, or thicker, so the flexing of the limbs there would vary from bow to bow. The incresed flexing in the outer limbs would reduce the stresses, but not necessarily make the bows more efficient and may cause more stacking for lesser energy storage.
In making this bow, I aimed to find as much as possible about the manufacturing process and to determine the final draw weight, not to test for performance. This can be done better once more such bows are reproduced, since the bending of limbs, the overall shape and the exact thickness/width of limbs will vary, which is obvious from the pictures of the originals. I shot the bow part-drawn a few times and it seems quite fast, even with the string follow etc., and there is very little hand shock.
Here is a short movie of the bow on the scale: http://s806.photobucket.com/albums/yy34 ... idrawn.flv
Adam
Note most of the bending takes place at the centre 2/3 of the bow - at the grip and at the deflexed portions of limbs. The outer limbs flex very little. However, the bow was made according to the drawing by Stephen, where the thicknesses of the outer limbs were not given. I took the photos of the origimal as the guide for that and assumed there is an even taper down from past the deflexed sections toward the tips. I have no doubts the original bows could have the outer limbs thinner, or thicker, so the flexing of the limbs there would vary from bow to bow. The incresed flexing in the outer limbs would reduce the stresses, but not necessarily make the bows more efficient and may cause more stacking for lesser energy storage.
In making this bow, I aimed to find as much as possible about the manufacturing process and to determine the final draw weight, not to test for performance. This can be done better once more such bows are reproduced, since the bending of limbs, the overall shape and the exact thickness/width of limbs will vary, which is obvious from the pictures of the originals. I shot the bow part-drawn a few times and it seems quite fast, even with the string follow etc., and there is very little hand shock.
Here is a short movie of the bow on the scale: http://s806.photobucket.com/albums/yy34 ... idrawn.flv
Adam
another picture:
Adam, it looks great. Congratulations.
Wow, that looks fantastic! Congrats on successfully making it! :)
Very nice indeed Adam, look forward to your further work on this design.
Alan
Alan
:mrgreen: Outstanding!! I hope you are planning on writing down what you learned from making it. :) (We'll buy the book :wink: )
And what a good looking bow!
Do you have any thoughts on how far these were drawn? - I'm thinking of the extra little bit of potential unrolling of the recurves. Could they be unrolled completely, or perhaps the massive recurving and nock configuration would make the tips unsafe if they were unrolled fully?
And what a good looking bow!
Do you have any thoughts on how far these were drawn? - I'm thinking of the extra little bit of potential unrolling of the recurves. Could they be unrolled completely, or perhaps the massive recurving and nock configuration would make the tips unsafe if they were unrolled fully?
Thanks for the comments.
Ivar, the tips do not "unroll" in these bows, because the tips, together with the outer limbs are near-rigid, so they are nothing like the modern recurve. The string lifts-off the reflexed ends providing a little extra energy, but not much. The arrows found with the bows were up to 32 inched long.
Adam
Ivar, the tips do not "unroll" in these bows, because the tips, together with the outer limbs are near-rigid, so they are nothing like the modern recurve. The string lifts-off the reflexed ends providing a little extra energy, but not much. The arrows found with the bows were up to 32 inched long.
Adam
Ops, my bad - I ment that the string perhaps could be lifting off the recurve all the way to the nock without having trouble with stability or string centering in the groove? But at 32" I guess it would unroll the string or lift off all the way? Otherwise it would seem like the design had a bit of unused mass at the very end of the tips?
(Again, what a cool bow! :D )
(Again, what a cool bow! :D )
Adam,
The shape of the bow looks very much like some of the bows in the Greek vase paintings. The brace height also looks like some depictions and seems to conform to the shapes of the gorytos plates (they are quite wide) for the shorter form of this bow sometimes used in the West.
There other forms of the bow depicted with smaller brace heights. They look more stretched out. Perhaps the performance of these bows would be slightly different.
The shape of the bow looks very much like some of the bows in the Greek vase paintings. The brace height also looks like some depictions and seems to conform to the shapes of the gorytos plates (they are quite wide) for the shorter form of this bow sometimes used in the West.
There other forms of the bow depicted with smaller brace heights. They look more stretched out. Perhaps the performance of these bows would be slightly different.
Such a beautiful bow!
Does the outer wrapping go down into the string groove and continue around? Or did you have to cut the sinew skin?
How far does the sinew backing follow through the inside curve of the tip?
Does the outer wrapping go down into the string groove and continue around? Or did you have to cut the sinew skin?
How far does the sinew backing follow through the inside curve of the tip?
Adam,
Very impressive work...........do you have any plans of shooting the bow at full draw?
Very impressive work...........do you have any plans of shooting the bow at full draw?
Wow. One word incredible.
Thanks everyone for the comments. Yes, this bow was a challenge...
As to the performance. I think we should not split hairs over that. The other originals show different recurvature at the outer limb and some seem to have just a short hook at the very end. It may mean the old bows straighten-out in the graves, but I doubt it, since clearly the limbs are made on the base of the ibex horns. The horns would not straighten much inside the limb spontaneously without some pressure, so it is reasonable to expect the curve to stay close to original. And each pair of horns had to have a different shape as well.
I believe the "lift-off" effect was not counted on in this bows and the bowyers paid little attention to it. Possibly as a side effect in some of the bows this was taking place, but if the archer actually noticed anything it is another matter. Yes, the string would clear the tips almost completely on this bow when drawn to 32 inches, but this would happen easily on many other such bows at a much shorter draw.
This is ane of the reasons why I feel no urgency to test the bow, since the performance will vary quite a bit from bow to bow. We need more such bows to have something more to work with.
Jack, the sinew backing and the wrap goes all the way to the bits of horn sticking out at the ends, but the sinew is cut through in the groove except maybe for an inch where the groove starts at the outer limb. I am very curious how your bow turns out, so we can compare them both.
Adam
As to the performance. I think we should not split hairs over that. The other originals show different recurvature at the outer limb and some seem to have just a short hook at the very end. It may mean the old bows straighten-out in the graves, but I doubt it, since clearly the limbs are made on the base of the ibex horns. The horns would not straighten much inside the limb spontaneously without some pressure, so it is reasonable to expect the curve to stay close to original. And each pair of horns had to have a different shape as well.
I believe the "lift-off" effect was not counted on in this bows and the bowyers paid little attention to it. Possibly as a side effect in some of the bows this was taking place, but if the archer actually noticed anything it is another matter. Yes, the string would clear the tips almost completely on this bow when drawn to 32 inches, but this would happen easily on many other such bows at a much shorter draw.
This is ane of the reasons why I feel no urgency to test the bow, since the performance will vary quite a bit from bow to bow. We need more such bows to have something more to work with.
Jack, the sinew backing and the wrap goes all the way to the bits of horn sticking out at the ends, but the sinew is cut through in the groove except maybe for an inch where the groove starts at the outer limb. I am very curious how your bow turns out, so we can compare them both.
Adam
Congratulations Adam, how long is the drying period?
İs it stable bow?
Cem
İs it stable bow?
Cem
Adam- "bardzo pienkny -niesamovity " -congratulation !
Cem, thanks - the drying after last sinew layer was no more than 1 month before I pulled the bow on the scale. I did not worry about the loss of cast in this bow, and rather liked the string follow for safety.
The bow stable and the limbs do not have the tendency to twist, despite the odd construction (narrow limbs). The sinew wrapping helps to resist the torque.
Adam
The bow stable and the limbs do not have the tendency to twist, despite the odd construction (narrow limbs). The sinew wrapping helps to resist the torque.
Adam
Adam, once again you have made a great contribution to this area of archaeology. I doubt whether such an accurate reconstruction had been drawn since these bows went out of fashion.
Phantastic work :shock: You are master. I?m looking for shooting quality
Thanks. Mysa, do not hold your breath - my machine is still in pieces...
Adam
Adam
:) can't help, this sounds so familiarly.Adam Karpowicz wrote:
the drying after last sinew layer was no more than 1 month before I pulled the bow on the scale.
Adam
Made any f-d yet?
When I brace a turk bow I have almost same weight in limbs at brace as the full draw. From reflex to brace is many inch draw. With deflex you should have less weight, and few inch draw, can you make a measure of that?
Its not easy brace a 100 lb reflex bow behind leg.
amazing
![[external image]](http://hfsword.com/bbs/attachments/gn2O_l1.jpg){kind=link}
Great work!
Really nice to see that your replica looks exactly as cartoon-ish as on the ones depicted on period artwork depicting them. It is almost a caricature of a composite bow as we know it from later times. I find it very interesting to see that such an extreme form is so old.
Do you have any ideas as to why these were made the way they were? It seems like a lot of work, and the way the horn goes through them seems counterproductive. (Although bowyers that made similar constructions like Jaap say that it works fine.)
It would be great to see how a design like this compares to traditional Turkish and Korean bows but I get your point in how little representative a first try potentially is in that regard.
EDIT: BTW, as for the tips: I think they might be produced like this because this construction seems really strong: A curling tip like this would be very well protected against shearing and thus could potentially be constructed lighter than a less curling tip that needs to deal with the same draw weight. It is not only the way the stress is put on the very tip, but also the friction caused by the string still rubbing the ear in the last stages of the draw that probably relieves stresses off the very tip.
-Peter
Really nice to see that your replica looks exactly as cartoon-ish as on the ones depicted on period artwork depicting them. It is almost a caricature of a composite bow as we know it from later times. I find it very interesting to see that such an extreme form is so old.
Do you have any ideas as to why these were made the way they were? It seems like a lot of work, and the way the horn goes through them seems counterproductive. (Although bowyers that made similar constructions like Jaap say that it works fine.)
It would be great to see how a design like this compares to traditional Turkish and Korean bows but I get your point in how little representative a first try potentially is in that regard.
EDIT: BTW, as for the tips: I think they might be produced like this because this construction seems really strong: A curling tip like this would be very well protected against shearing and thus could potentially be constructed lighter than a less curling tip that needs to deal with the same draw weight. It is not only the way the stress is put on the very tip, but also the friction caused by the string still rubbing the ear in the last stages of the draw that probably relieves stresses off the very tip.
-Peter
I had a lot of discussions with archaeologists from a number of countries when introducing Adam's reconstruction of the Saka bow in Xi'an. A particular related point coming from experts in historical bronze casting in Asia is that communities adhered to formulae that were not the best technology available while it was clear that they were aware of better technologies around them.
I also had the chance to examine horn bows from a horizon earlier than the Saka bows from Shanshan. (i.e. the Scythian design was current between around 800 - 200BCE, while the earlier horizon bows are thought to represent the same community from 1000 - 800BCE). The earlier bows had some degree of sinuous curve like the Saka bows but were made of wood/horn/sinew in a much more 'conventional' manner (from our present standpoint). That is, a horn belly, wood core and sinew backing with sinew winding.
I have gained a very string impression that the Saka interest in the predominantly horn bow with extravagant curves was more connected to their totemic use of the mountain ibex than to an objective desire for technological excellence.
I also had the chance to examine horn bows from a horizon earlier than the Saka bows from Shanshan. (i.e. the Scythian design was current between around 800 - 200BCE, while the earlier horizon bows are thought to represent the same community from 1000 - 800BCE). The earlier bows had some degree of sinuous curve like the Saka bows but were made of wood/horn/sinew in a much more 'conventional' manner (from our present standpoint). That is, a horn belly, wood core and sinew backing with sinew winding.
I have gained a very string impression that the Saka interest in the predominantly horn bow with extravagant curves was more connected to their totemic use of the mountain ibex than to an objective desire for technological excellence.
Stephen thanks for this report.
That?s the point: every type of bow is not only done according to the knowledge of the best avaible technology, it is also done according to actually dominating cultural conditions, like the totemic use of the ibex f.e.
Interesting to hear, that the forerunners of the Saka- bows were made in the usual hornbow- way. Pics? What kind of horn?
Was the olon kurin gol bow mentioned somehow?
Michael
That?s the point: every type of bow is not only done according to the knowledge of the best avaible technology, it is also done according to actually dominating cultural conditions, like the totemic use of the ibex f.e.
Interesting to hear, that the forerunners of the Saka- bows were made in the usual hornbow- way. Pics? What kind of horn?
Was the olon kurin gol bow mentioned somehow?
Michael
I want to add my usual question: are these "earlier bows" asymmetrical?
The existence of these " much more conventionally done bows" is implying, that the Subeixi- bow is not the one and only Scythian type of bow, as some ATARNOS are strongheaded affirming.
Michael
The existence of these " much more conventionally done bows" is implying, that the Subeixi- bow is not the one and only Scythian type of bow, as some ATARNOS are strongheaded affirming.
Michael
Yes, assymetrical.redhawk wrote:
I want to add my usual question: are these "earlier bows" asymmetrical? Michael
As to your second point, the location of excavation was the same as the 'saka' bows - Yanghai - ; but they didn't actually have 'Made in Scythia' stamped on them :) Without further evidence, there could be an argument that they belonged to an earlier non-Saka culture. Unfortunately I never had a chance to excavate them in situ and the excavation report has not been prepared. Because these finds are 'un-exciting' to archaeologists, it may be some time before they are written up. But I'll make more inquiries.
S