crimean tatar replica attempt

pics..

pics..

Uli wrote:

Dear all,

I have tried to replicate a crimean tatar bow (see pic)

technical details:
ntn original 142 cm my bow 146
string length original ? my bow 133cm
thickness sal original 1,5cm my bow 1,3cm
width sal original 3,3cm my bow 3cm

Materials:
core = 3-piece, ash for limbs, beech for grip
biconvex cross-section

from Pfeilschaft.de:
horn = water buffalo
sinew = deer
glue = rabbit (for core + horn)
+
sinewing with glue from sturgeon air bladder (supplied by PAZUZU)

tillering was done before sinewing, now there is only some small disbalance, so I plan to add some sinew at the weaker limb.

draw weight estimated 60-100 (not fully drawn yet)
I ll update on performance.

do you think I succeeded to copy the overall shape of the original ?
(some details like nock onserts and sinew wrapping are different)

has anyone made a replica of a crimean tatar bow ?

all comments and critiques are welcome !

Cheers out !
Uli 8)

WoW!! :shock: Interesting bow! I saw unstring crimean bow in Istanbul military museum(look at the picture) You know for me (I am only beginner) Your bow looks great!!!

Uli:

Congratulations, good work. Kasan looks short, tip looks long, is it original measurement? In addition string/kasan angle is too low, it is not normal for Tatar bow(it is not good for stability). I advice heat the kasan/sal from horn side(not too much) and bend it till string does not touch the kasan.
The Tatar bow which is in İstanbul Military Museum is very strong, I examine it last year.

Cem

Uli,

first congratulations for the pics and sharing with us your experience. I also think the bow looks more like a composite bow from Afghanistan (See: Dr. E. Grayson Collection, "Bogen, Pfeile, K?cher", page 103 or link: http://anthromuseum.missouri.edu/grayso ... arrow.shtm ) . Maybe I am wrong, but the similarites in shape are pretty close...

Please do not change too much of this bow, rather make it a good weapon.

Reto

Reto wrote:

Uli,

Please do not change too much of this bow, rather make it a good weapon.

Reto

I agree, please test it if possible, without changing the design.

Great job!

scemdonmez wrote:

Uli:

Congratulations, good work. Kasan looks short, tip looks long, is it original measurement? In addition string/kasan angle is too low, it is not normal for Tatar bow(it is not good for stability). I advice heat the kasan/sal from horn side(not too much) and bend it till string does not touch the kasan.
The Tatar bow which is in İstanbul Military Museum is very strong, I examine it last year.

Cem

You are lucky! Do you work there? And how much powerful are this crimean bow?

Hi Uli,
I am impressed by the look of your bow. Limbs bends nice (i love it). I suggest you only longer kasan and smaller angle of the siyahs (and shorter, though you will short it a bit) in your next attempt. Congratulations, you are on the good way now. Keep on workin' man.
Wish you all the best,
Zoran

Thank you for your support and advices !
Cem and Zoran: good points, I can see it now. especially the point about stability is important.
Reto: when building the bow I also noted this similarity to the indopersian design. These bows are appealing. However, the string in these does not touch the kasan either or ?
I consider making the kasan a bit longer by extending the sinew ridge, and straighten a bit by heat to be sure the string does only touch the kasan-bash transition.
let's see what happens.. :wink:

I have to agree with some of the other comments. When I was at the Grayson collection I handled both the Crimean Tatar bows there. They were quite different in size and the bash or tip of the ear had two distinct forms. One was the regular shape you see and the other was proud either side of the notch for the string.

They both had string bridges. From the angle of these I would say that both bows were intended to be strung with their kasans at an angle to the string rather than almost parallel as you have achieved. Perhaps a shorted string might be the solution if you have made this bow to the size of an original one. Edward McEwen made a few of these bows. I was able to shoot one of the smaller ones and found it very smooth to draw, accurate to shoot and comfortable to use. He has commented in print that he finds these bows practical and pleasant to shoot.

Uli, very nice bow!

I would consider also using a shorter string and opening the curve of kasan-kasan eye region. The bow might untwist otherwise... And, like Bede pointed out, it would be a good idea to add a string bridge like in original bows.

[external image]
(Milit?rhistorisches Museum Wien)

JJ

Vonegelut:

Yes, I was there last year, I measured Ottoman and Tatar bows. İt was pleasure.

Cem and JJ,
Is it an optical illusion or do the original bows have fairly flat bellies on the grip and the reflex comes just afterwards? I say that because I felt in the bows I saw that the handle seemed more like a Turkish one with a reflex on each side of where you held it. this contrasts with Korean bows where the handle is curved on the belly side (and later built up with the applied hand support).

Notice also in JJ's picture, the string bridge is higher on the end towards the grip. The normal arrangement is for the string to leave the bridge parallel to its surface on the grip side since this is where the softer core of the string is.

Bede,
Original Turkish bows have not flat bellies on the grip. Reflex start very near to grip in flight and -or target bows. Many bows I see grip and sal are straight-not reflexed ( in military and Topkapı; museum ). All I measured and see in old bows have always rounded grip bellies.

Cem

I know what you mean, Bede, about the reflex in the grip, I too wondered about this detail. I think it varied - some bows could have the grip almost straight through the grip with limbs refelxed at both sides, or the apex of the reflex was at the center of grip like Korean). The Tatar bows I saw were normally the latter type, but not always.

The bows pictured here are not too typical Tatar actually, because the grip reflex is not quite enough for the type. I would call such bows hybrids with bridges.

The bridges on Tatar bows were higher towards the kasan and lower towards the tip (but still rounded). The shape was usually somewhat triangular looking from the belly.

Adam

I had the impression that the bows pictured here are a little reflexed inside the handle area, while the reflex increases just beneath the grip. The sal are quite straight, but the kasaneye area is again strongly reflexed.

[external image]
Handle of a bow in Vienna



[external image]
Bede you are right in your observation on the string bridges. "Bridges" on this one in the Milit?rhistorisches Museum Vienna are almost circular with a shallow ridge in the center.



[external image]

[external image]
On another bow from the same museum the bridges have a totally different shape.

Adam, in the bows in Vienna is the original Turkish type and Tatar type are quite near in shape and size. Some turkish ones also carry bridges. But somehow they are easily to diferentiate. There are obvious differences in the reflex of the limbs and the kasan ridges of the turkish ones are more prominent. Tips seem to be straighter in turkish design and more curved in Tatar bows. Maybe a melting of traditions in late 17th century bows?

[external image]


JJ

Thank you JJ- nice pics. I think we dont need building precise line between bow desins. I know its very tipical for human sience - pu every thing to his " box" and call him vith his special name. Like many times earlier we agree- bows evolution /like in nature/ was growth not only in linear line . Because this , "Otoman" bows was not only bow vith striaght handle vitout string bridges but "tatar" bow too, or his "hibrids".

Your comments and pics are very helpful !

Note: there is no Celik at the grip, but a horn plate (I also did this).

Regarding Dusan's comment: at Tirendaz Archery Şinasi Acar & Dr. Murat ?zveri write that the shop of a deceased turkish bowyer had only tatar bows (!).
http://www.tirendaz.com/en/?page_id=316

Citation: This document about the inheritage of Yusuf Beşe confirms some previous literature reporting that Crimean Tartar bows were made in Istanbul. This document also enlightens some dark points about the authentic Turkish shooting technique. Crimean Tartar bows were drawn longer and shot naturally with longer arrows. The shorter Turkish arrows exhibited in the museums fail in explaining the longer draws described in some old reports. The fact that Crimean Tartar bows were made in the capital city supports the possibility that this type of bows were preferred and used by civil and/or military archers other than the warriors of the Crimean Kaghan.
In fact, the modern Anglo-American discrimination of Turkish-and Tartar bows is questionnable since Crimean Tartars had been a part of the Ottoman Empire and army. We believe that both bow types can be brought together under the lable ?Ottoman bow?.

"seem to be straighter in turkish design and more curved in Tatar bows" - very good observation. Tips a little curved on the back side.

"Ottoman bows" sound fine to me.

Adam

Cem,
I think the way I think of the grip is that I am describing it from an archer's point of view. That is I only mean the part actually held in the hand rather than the extensions on either side. What I meant was that between to tir ge?imi and its mirror on the lower part of the grip the belly side was closer to a straight line (axially) than in some reconstructions. I agree the belly is rounded. I have only handled a dozen original Turkish bows, but they all had rounded bellies.

Uli,
I think you might be throwing out the baby with the bathwater as the English expression goes. Almost all depictions of Tatars by people who had seen them or their equipment show longer bows with the characteristics of the classic Tatar bow. Murat's article proved that the bowyers in Istanbul made Tatar-style bows. However, this doesn't mean that they were Turkish bows. The Crimean Khans maintained the largest section of bow-armed cavalry in the later Ottoman army until they were conquered by the Russians. They were subsidised and supported by the government and it is not surprising that bows were made for them in Istanbul. One of the Grayson Collection's Crimean Tatar bows is signed by a prominent Istanbuli bowyer. I think it is most likely that Tatar bows were still being made in Istanbul even after the fall of the Crimea for ex-patriot Tatars and for export to the Caucasus where they were also popular.

Regarding draw length, there are several points that should be made. When you specify the anatomical points to which an arrow is drawn, you have not specified the arrow length; people vary in size. It is also a mistake to assume the largest individuals were necessarily the strongest. The Prussian Hussars were at one time limited to people 163 cm tall. I am roughly that height and I draw a 71 cm arrow to my ear. That is completely within the drawing range of a short Turkish bow. As Adam has pointed out elsewhere, at that length some bows stack, but in my experience it is not subjectively noticeable in most cases because it occurs just as the shoulders are fully engaged. There are two main groups of surviving Ottoman war arrows, one in the 72 cm range and another centred around 84 cm. Most smaller arrows (not all) are clearly not war arrows. The two main ranges can be associated with the two bow types.

I do not mean to imply there were no cross overs. I think that in all closely related technologies people would try the other's product and undoubtedly some would find it suited them better. Taybugha's draw to the ear in his time and place was closer to 78 cm suggesting that the physical size of the average military archer in Egypt was a little greater so there is the possibility that bows built for larger or smaller individuals in both styles would have existed. I think that explains the size variation in the Tatar bows I have seen. I have heard that there is a size variation in Turkish bows too.

I do agree that some times studies can lead to incorrect conclusions. There have been several articles in the past on Turkish flight arrows in English which imply that they were made in a standard length. I have several and examined many others and have not found that true. It seems that some collections were much more uniform in size than normal and those collections were more accessible and were written about. The incorrect conclusions were then taken as fact. I would not be surprised if new research shows that in certain areas or guilds there were standard sizes for certain competitions.

Bede,
These facts are interesting and provide the best explanation. Good to have your expert knowledge here. Btw: in German it's literally same about babies and bathwater :wink:

short update:

shortened the tips, reduced kasan bent a little bit
added small horn bridges, now string is touching kasan only at bridges

after leaving it strung for 2 days, draw weight was only 40-50lbs

now added some sinew and put it to cure again - my goal would be minimum 80 lbs or more , maybe at limb thickness like the original (1,5cm) it will be stronger

do you have some tips how to make the bow stronger ?
:?

[quote="Uli"]short update: My congratulations Uli!!! Your crimean tatar bow looks amazing!!!!!!!!!! :)

Now that looks good now that you added the final touches, and I agree with the placement of the string bridges! Tatar is my favorite along with Persian bows! :)

Any updates on the final draw weight and how it shoots? Thanks!

Not yet - I want to let it cure some time :-)

Hi Gentleman,

very nice bow!!! Keep up the good work Uli.

Does anybody of the experts now how the string bridges were fixed on belly and what kind of material it was most of the time.
I was thinking it could be ivory or maybe bone, cause on lots of tatar bow the bridges are pretty rounded on the ages, seems like pice of bone or somthing.

Hi by the way I?am new to this forum, if I?am finished with my composit I will sure post it here.

Greeting!

Ruben