Korean Bows vs. Turkish Bows
Greetings all, I've been lurking for months, finally getting around to participating.
Some background: I've purchased Adam Karpowicz's fantastic treatise on the Turkish bow, and have been preparing to make a few attempts at one. In the meanwhile, I've been digesting all the information I can get on the subject of traditional composite bows.
Enter the Korean Traditional Bow: I've been watching videos on YouTube from raw materials to finished bow, and I'm curious if anyone else has noticed these things as well, or if they have any thoughts on the subject. Specifically, several things jumped out at me as unusual (compared to Turkish bows) when watching the KTB videos.
First, the core is bamboo, outside as the belly, inside as the back. The nodes appeared to be filed down. This violates everything I've heard about bamboo bows, but I suppose being on the compression side might change things, particularly when backed with horn.
Next, neither the core nor the horn is grooved as far as I can see. Both are smooth. If the Koreans can get by without grooving, can a Turkish bow? I can't imagine why not - the grooving seems to be a good idea, but given adequate gluing, probably unnecessary in general.
Finally, the sinew applications I've seen involve making bundles or knots of sinew, mixing them with glue, and making a "sheet" of sinew and glue. This is cooled a bit, probably not dried, and applied to the bow in sheet form. This seems far more straightforward and elegant a solution than applying a single bundle at a time.
There might be more of note - I sure wish I understood Korean! But for now, I think this is enough. Anyone have any thoughts or comments? I'd be glad to hear from you all!
Thanks,
Tim
Some background: I've purchased Adam Karpowicz's fantastic treatise on the Turkish bow, and have been preparing to make a few attempts at one. In the meanwhile, I've been digesting all the information I can get on the subject of traditional composite bows.
Enter the Korean Traditional Bow: I've been watching videos on YouTube from raw materials to finished bow, and I'm curious if anyone else has noticed these things as well, or if they have any thoughts on the subject. Specifically, several things jumped out at me as unusual (compared to Turkish bows) when watching the KTB videos.
First, the core is bamboo, outside as the belly, inside as the back. The nodes appeared to be filed down. This violates everything I've heard about bamboo bows, but I suppose being on the compression side might change things, particularly when backed with horn.
Next, neither the core nor the horn is grooved as far as I can see. Both are smooth. If the Koreans can get by without grooving, can a Turkish bow? I can't imagine why not - the grooving seems to be a good idea, but given adequate gluing, probably unnecessary in general.
Finally, the sinew applications I've seen involve making bundles or knots of sinew, mixing them with glue, and making a "sheet" of sinew and glue. This is cooled a bit, probably not dried, and applied to the bow in sheet form. This seems far more straightforward and elegant a solution than applying a single bundle at a time.
There might be more of note - I sure wish I understood Korean! But for now, I think this is enough. Anyone have any thoughts or comments? I'd be glad to hear from you all!
Thanks,
Tim
Korean horn and core are grooved but not matching. Most Turkish bows also did not have matching grooving, Matching grooving is somewhat of a fetish that modern Turkish replicators have picked up on. Grooving or texturing or scoring by some method is an essential step.
Thanks for your response! I'm still looking for a video depicting grooved horns/core, and or a demonstration of the grooving process - the following videos don't show it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKdb71kF ... ure=relmfu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjPOkPl5 ... re=related
That would certainly go a long way towards bridging the gap between Turkish and Korean bows, though, so I'll keep digging!
Edit: Success!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1t_31Bxn ... re=related
Shows, for a few seconds, the grooved surface of the horn and bow.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKdb71kF ... ure=relmfu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjPOkPl5 ... re=related
That would certainly go a long way towards bridging the gap between Turkish and Korean bows, though, so I'll keep digging!
Edit: Success!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1t_31Bxn ... re=related
Shows, for a few seconds, the grooved surface of the horn and bow.
AFAIK glue line failures are one of the most common failures as are core failures, so I can see there is reason why many modern boyers prefer matching grooves, despite not being common in historical artefacts.
I think I wrote a little about the Korean method in the book. They use longer backstrap sinew, which does not require end-to-end joining as the Turkish shorter leg sinew.
It would be difficult to blend the ends of already gelled but shorter strips on a bow. And joining the strips beforehand would probably be a waste of time.
The pre-gelled strips have their advantages (especially when many bows are sinewed together) and are worth experimenting with.
Adam
It would be difficult to blend the ends of already gelled but shorter strips on a bow. And joining the strips beforehand would probably be a waste of time.
The pre-gelled strips have their advantages (especially when many bows are sinewed together) and are worth experimenting with.
Adam
Adam,
Right you are! I just noticed your mentions of Korean techniques on pp 102 and 106; the bit about them using backstrap sinew is new information, I think, and welcome at that. I remember reading your preference was to avoid it in favor of leg sinew.
I guess one reason I thought flat-gluing might be reasonable was that modern laminate bows are made in this manner, with little more than roughed up surfaces - is this more a function of the strength of modern materials (fiberglass and glues)?
At any rate, I'm very glad for all your responses :-)
Thanks again,
Tim
Right you are! I just noticed your mentions of Korean techniques on pp 102 and 106; the bit about them using backstrap sinew is new information, I think, and welcome at that. I remember reading your preference was to avoid it in favor of leg sinew.
I guess one reason I thought flat-gluing might be reasonable was that modern laminate bows are made in this manner, with little more than roughed up surfaces - is this more a function of the strength of modern materials (fiberglass and glues)?
At any rate, I'm very glad for all your responses :-)
Thanks again,
Tim
Interesting and frequently discussed issue..
I do non-matched grooving, with limited experience. Have had bow breaks during brace and string breaks during shooting with delamination. In any case the break line was not in the glue line, rather the wooden core would split and leave a layer of wood on the horn.
The same applies for broken contemporary mongolian bows I examined.
So I'd be reluctant to prefer matched grooving over generous pre-coating of roughened surfaces.
Arab Archery citation: "the more glue it contains, the stronger/stiffer the bow. Infact the quality of the bow depends on the glue."
:wink:
I do non-matched grooving, with limited experience. Have had bow breaks during brace and string breaks during shooting with delamination. In any case the break line was not in the glue line, rather the wooden core would split and leave a layer of wood on the horn.
The same applies for broken contemporary mongolian bows I examined.
So I'd be reluctant to prefer matched grooving over generous pre-coating of roughened surfaces.
Arab Archery citation: "the more glue it contains, the stronger/stiffer the bow. Infact the quality of the bow depends on the glue."
:wink: