Some interesting ancient Indian bows on youtube
Very interesting, PJ!
The first one seems to be a scythian bow, but it is held by the archer in an awkward way - presumably because the artist wanted to fit the whole bow, which is too big anyway, into the tiny coin.
Following are hunic/sassanidic bow types.
JJ
The first one seems to be a scythian bow, but it is held by the archer in an awkward way - presumably because the artist wanted to fit the whole bow, which is too big anyway, into the tiny coin.
Following are hunic/sassanidic bow types.
JJ
There are several references repeated through Greek literature of archers with long bows who shot them by putting the lower limb tip on the ground and placing the foot on it to draw the bow. The most likely explanation for this idea is that Greek soldiers saw archers bracing self bows before shooting and assumed it was all one action. At a distance this could easily be confused.
There was a strong Hellenistic influence on early Indian coins well into the Gupta period. The first coin could represent a Greek artisan's attempt to reproduce this idea and also adding small recurves to a bamboo long bow in the process.
There was a strong Hellenistic influence on early Indian coins well into the Gupta period. The first coin could represent a Greek artisan's attempt to reproduce this idea and also adding small recurves to a bamboo long bow in the process.
Bede,
some bow form also appears in later, byzantine and ''mediteranean'' art too.E.g. bow at the coin no.4 (and also 6) in this clip. I don't know if i can express myself in English but this is bow with the grip that looks flat, without ''set back'' look or any reflex. I was always curious how did they get this form.
Best regards,
some bow form also appears in later, byzantine and ''mediteranean'' art too.E.g. bow at the coin no.4 (and also 6) in this clip. I don't know if i can express myself in English but this is bow with the grip that looks flat, without ''set back'' look or any reflex. I was always curious how did they get this form.
Best regards,
If anybody interesting old "archery" coins here was in better resolution http://atarn.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t ... c&start=75
If I understand you correctly, are you talking about the bows with straight handles which the limbs are attached at an angle?
If so, this bow handle is very common and you will find many examples of it on this site. The design was used from China to the Roman empire for most of the first millennium. Antler plates in the form of trapeziums were found in many places where the bows were used.
If so, this bow handle is very common and you will find many examples of it on this site. The design was used from China to the Roman empire for most of the first millennium. Antler plates in the form of trapeziums were found in many places where the bows were used.
Yes, Bede, that's it. I will search ATARN for more informations.Anyway,thank you.Bede wrote:
If I understand you correctly, are you talking about the bows with straight handles which the limbs are attached at an angle?
If so, this bow handle is very common and you will find many examples of it on this site. The design was used from China to the Roman empire for most of the first millennium. Antler plates in the form of trapeziums were found in many places where the bows were used.
There just happens to be a pair of them in a box behind my chair here. North China, around 1000-1100CE.
Stephen,
These are belly side grip reinforcement plates. Are they straight or do they kick back at the beginning of the wider sections?
These are belly side grip reinforcement plates. Are they straight or do they kick back at the beginning of the wider sections?
Yes, belly side. There was no reinforcement on the back: just belly and sides. No they are quite straight. I think they are made of horse or cattle cannon bone.
Stephen and Bede,
Have you ever had idea which way limbs were attached at an angle on some straight handle? Was there some ''chock'' to hold the limb or there's some other way of attaching (or craftsman did reflex/deflex of the limbs leaving grip portion straight :shock: ). Really have no idea. :oops:
Have you ever had idea which way limbs were attached at an angle on some straight handle? Was there some ''chock'' to hold the limb or there's some other way of attaching (or craftsman did reflex/deflex of the limbs leaving grip portion straight :shock: ). Really have no idea. :oops:
From what I can tell, one technique was to cut the handle and limbs in one piece (or two joined at the hand with a slanting joint) and then shave away the belly side to thin out the limbs. The next step was to put in a slight bend towards the back were the handle faded out with heat. Then the horn strips were glued on with the limbs bent a little farther back. The normal reflexing when the sinew was applied accomplished the rest.
Even though the horn could be thinned out at the transition to the full thickness of the handle, it would still serve to hold the reflex in place. This is not the only way to do it, but it should work, I think.
Even though the horn could be thinned out at the transition to the full thickness of the handle, it would still serve to hold the reflex in place. This is not the only way to do it, but it should work, I think.
Bede,
It is nice explaination and perhaps this is most easiest way of making this sort of bow.
It is nice explaination and perhaps this is most easiest way of making this sort of bow.
I think it is worth trying out. Some of the old bows have an extra strip glued on the belly side of each tip section before the antler side pieces are glued on.
I think the Qum Darya bow also had a separate horn strip on the belly side of the tips and the main belly horn strip partly overlaid it.
I think the Qum Darya bow also had a separate horn strip on the belly side of the tips and the main belly horn strip partly overlaid it.
I think one approach was to produce an extended, carved core in two parts, joined at the grip with a splice like this:Zoran Pavlovic wrote:
Stephen and Bede,
Have you ever had idea which way limbs were attached at an angle on some straight handle? Was there some ''chock'' to hold the limb or there's some other way of attaching (or craftsman did reflex/deflex of the limbs leaving grip portion straight :shock: ).
This is also a usefl X-ray. Note that the splice seems to be in the x-y plane here instead of the x-z plane.
S
If the two halves were cut out as Stephen suggests, it would be possible to get greater uniformity in the core. There are many old bows that were made this way.
Does it means that ears aren't spliced if two bow parts are carved from one piece of wood? I can't notice that this bow form has any splice in the siyahs portion, it is pretty difficult to get conclusion only by picture. But this design is very impressive.
Ear splices came quite late in bow development. Most of the early long eared bows were made with integral tips. Usually the bone strips on the sides were enough, but one of Stephen's bows and the Qum Darya bow had shaped pieces glued to the belly of the tip. I think I posted a coloured cross section of it in the original discussion of it.
Here is the drawing again. It was based on Stephen's X-Ray.
Here is the drawing again. It was based on Stephen's X-Ray.
It is true that these early bows display amazing carving skills. I would have ventured that the makers had little faith in the strength of their glue to take the stresses of siyah splices; but then the Saka bows, which originated in the same general area though much earlier, have splices all over the place. Maybe the issue was that a siyah splice is taking heavy stress at just one location, whereas in Saka bows the stresses are more evenly distributed over the limbs. I'm sure Adam would have valuable insights.
Yes, the cores of Saka bows had the stresses distributed between all three vertical laminations with the inner one-piece horn. These bows could get away with all kinds of splices, although the bending section (the deflex) did not seem to have the splice, probably by design for safety.
The back-to-belly cut splices, V or scarf, must have been a great invention at the time. These splices are much stronger than the horizontal splices (cut side-to-side as in the first picture), even when the same glue was used. One should, however, consider the location of the splice as well. The farther away from the bending sections, the less stress on the limb. A splice at the static tip end is very safe and can be left practically exposed with no reinforcement. A splice closer to the inner limb, such as in the Korean bows now or in Indo-Persian bows would break if not sandwitched betw. the horn and sinew.
I think the laminated siyahs (horizontally spliced) only reflect the attempt to buuild up the thickness in the tips as required for stiffness when the core pices were not sufficietly thick there, and are not a deliberate design feature of the bows.
Adam
The back-to-belly cut splices, V or scarf, must have been a great invention at the time. These splices are much stronger than the horizontal splices (cut side-to-side as in the first picture), even when the same glue was used. One should, however, consider the location of the splice as well. The farther away from the bending sections, the less stress on the limb. A splice at the static tip end is very safe and can be left practically exposed with no reinforcement. A splice closer to the inner limb, such as in the Korean bows now or in Indo-Persian bows would break if not sandwitched betw. the horn and sinew.
I think the laminated siyahs (horizontally spliced) only reflect the attempt to buuild up the thickness in the tips as required for stiffness when the core pices were not sufficietly thick there, and are not a deliberate design feature of the bows.
Adam