Thoughts on Scythian bow performance in relation to origins
Not sure if there's been a thread like this or not but I'd like to make some quick points about Scythian bows and how they perform and to see what others think.
I was alway a great fan of these bows because I started archery as a finger release drawer. First modern laminate version I picked up blew me away in terms of speed and power. They're also excellent for hunting in my opinion particularly if you are a ground stalker. They're compactness makes them perfect for this and they can still deliver a punch. Yet not everyone likes them and after going through some of the other types of Asiatic bows over the years (Khotan, Korean, Persian) I can see more clearly this bows flaws but also its triumphs performance wise.
So for starters, I own both a laminate-glass backed version and horn composite at same draw weights. Both perform relatively the same though I haven't measured their fps yet. The sameness is though of course in the overall feel, and the most notable characteristic about Scythian bows IMO is how they stack rather quickly. But even though my draw is always rather reduced with these (not always to the 28 inches) even with short draws the bow seems to deliver alot of speed and even power.
It also made me wonder, is this part of the reason why bows back in the day, particularly like the Asiatic composite types, were made to be so heavy in draw weight? Were these ancient Scythian archers always doing a "full draw" or were they relying on their knowledge of design principles (limb specifications plus certain draw weights) to make a weapon that did not require excessively long draws yet was able to deliver an effective "punch" upon short drawing these bows? Was this the key to them being the effective mounted machine guns they were told as being by ancient Greek chroniclers?
I say this because my experience with Khotan and Korean bows are very different. They seem to follow design principles that allow for longer draws and of course have a more supple feel because of this. Both too are more versatile it seems with draw releases, also a plus. So I started to think about utility of certain bow types over the years. The rather rigid nature of the Scythian bow, with its greatest of ease lying in a fingered release over just about any other draw technique, made me wonder how exactly did it arise?
As I stated earlier, the bows of Khotan and Korean styles are very versatile and supple, precisely IMO what is needed for a weapon to be used in a military situation where life and death can often depend on the nature of the weapon a soldier uses. But Scythian bows have this design that seems primordial in essence. Granted, its usually regarded as the first staple design of the Asiatic composites but here's the question:
Did it arise initially for hunting needs or military needs?
I ask this because I find bows of the Khotan and Korean types far easier to be fast at drawing with which was the desire it seems of the ancient mounted archers. Both thumb and Sassanid draw techniques lend themselves well here to achieving this. But with the Scythian this is harder to achieve, and appropriate draw techniques are limited yet early Scythian archers were said to be the mounted machine guns of their times just like all others who succeeded them.
I'm not completely buying it with the Scythian bow and wonder myself just what was its initial intent? I am indeed leaning on hunting these days given its nature but feel perhaps as Bronze age steppe societies became more complex, the mounted archer adjusted to going from a mere mounted hunter to one ready to serve in a military context even if the hardware wasn't initially designed for such.
So what are your thoughts on the Scythian bows performance?
I was alway a great fan of these bows because I started archery as a finger release drawer. First modern laminate version I picked up blew me away in terms of speed and power. They're also excellent for hunting in my opinion particularly if you are a ground stalker. They're compactness makes them perfect for this and they can still deliver a punch. Yet not everyone likes them and after going through some of the other types of Asiatic bows over the years (Khotan, Korean, Persian) I can see more clearly this bows flaws but also its triumphs performance wise.
So for starters, I own both a laminate-glass backed version and horn composite at same draw weights. Both perform relatively the same though I haven't measured their fps yet. The sameness is though of course in the overall feel, and the most notable characteristic about Scythian bows IMO is how they stack rather quickly. But even though my draw is always rather reduced with these (not always to the 28 inches) even with short draws the bow seems to deliver alot of speed and even power.
It also made me wonder, is this part of the reason why bows back in the day, particularly like the Asiatic composite types, were made to be so heavy in draw weight? Were these ancient Scythian archers always doing a "full draw" or were they relying on their knowledge of design principles (limb specifications plus certain draw weights) to make a weapon that did not require excessively long draws yet was able to deliver an effective "punch" upon short drawing these bows? Was this the key to them being the effective mounted machine guns they were told as being by ancient Greek chroniclers?
I say this because my experience with Khotan and Korean bows are very different. They seem to follow design principles that allow for longer draws and of course have a more supple feel because of this. Both too are more versatile it seems with draw releases, also a plus. So I started to think about utility of certain bow types over the years. The rather rigid nature of the Scythian bow, with its greatest of ease lying in a fingered release over just about any other draw technique, made me wonder how exactly did it arise?
As I stated earlier, the bows of Khotan and Korean styles are very versatile and supple, precisely IMO what is needed for a weapon to be used in a military situation where life and death can often depend on the nature of the weapon a soldier uses. But Scythian bows have this design that seems primordial in essence. Granted, its usually regarded as the first staple design of the Asiatic composites but here's the question:
Did it arise initially for hunting needs or military needs?
I ask this because I find bows of the Khotan and Korean types far easier to be fast at drawing with which was the desire it seems of the ancient mounted archers. Both thumb and Sassanid draw techniques lend themselves well here to achieving this. But with the Scythian this is harder to achieve, and appropriate draw techniques are limited yet early Scythian archers were said to be the mounted machine guns of their times just like all others who succeeded them.
I'm not completely buying it with the Scythian bow and wonder myself just what was its initial intent? I am indeed leaning on hunting these days given its nature but feel perhaps as Bronze age steppe societies became more complex, the mounted archer adjusted to going from a mere mounted hunter to one ready to serve in a military context even if the hardware wasn't initially designed for such.
So what are your thoughts on the Scythian bows performance?
Sometimes it is possible to over think these things. The only composite bows the Scythians would have been able to compare their bows to were variations of the angular composite of the Middle East. Being nomads, they would have travelled more than most and possibly seen more bow types than their sedentary neighbours, but with a subsistence pastoral economy they were unlikely to have sat around the camp fire designing variations of the bow to try out. They would have made bows just like dad and granddad did with minor modifications that accumulated over the generations. The early very short western variation of the Scythian bow with its 55 cm draw had advantages and disadvantages. The short draw was faster and more of the small arrows could be carried easily. Remains of gorytoi have been found with up to 75 bronze arrowheads associated with them. Rather than the machine gun, they can be compared to a repeating pistol. Against unarmoured enemies or people like the Ancient Greeks who liked to show off their legs, these short arrows could be very effective. However, there were limits. They were probably not very good against shields and armour since even with their small arrowheads they did not have sufficient mass to carry enough kinetic energy to do real damage.
When the Romans came up against the Parthians at Carrhae, they were amazed at the penetration of the arrows, pinning arms to shields and feet to the ground. At this time, the Parthians were either using the large form of the Scythian bow, like the Xinjiang versions, or the early versions of the rigid straight eared bows that were popular later. The longer draw transferred more energy to the arrow and enabled it to be a more effective military weapon. Additionally the larger arrow could be optimised for a bigger broad head and made a more efficient hunting weapon.
All early Scythian arrowheads are relatively light. The standard mould for making arrowheads produced two three bladed and one two bladed head at a time. These would be fairly ineffective as hunting heads in modern terms. They would rely on deep penetration and accurate organ damage for their effectiveness much the same as North American "bird points".
One can be misled by modern reproductions. Except in the case of recent ones based on the deep sections of the Xinjiang bows, most are made with flat, rectangular cross sectioned limbs, which behave differently than the deep narrow limbs of the old bows. The bow David Betteridge made 15 years ago and shot in Qinghai last year was built to the old western Scythian bow specs (based on information from Russian archaeological journals). It shot its short arrows very fast and had a considerable range. It was small and portable. It was uncomfortable to shoot with three fingers but performed well anyway. Two fingered drawing was easier. Its sheer convenience was probably the reason it remained so popular for so long. It was when they were made bigger that the complex nature of the bows started to approach a position of diminishing returns. Probably the later bows were just easier to make.
When the Romans came up against the Parthians at Carrhae, they were amazed at the penetration of the arrows, pinning arms to shields and feet to the ground. At this time, the Parthians were either using the large form of the Scythian bow, like the Xinjiang versions, or the early versions of the rigid straight eared bows that were popular later. The longer draw transferred more energy to the arrow and enabled it to be a more effective military weapon. Additionally the larger arrow could be optimised for a bigger broad head and made a more efficient hunting weapon.
All early Scythian arrowheads are relatively light. The standard mould for making arrowheads produced two three bladed and one two bladed head at a time. These would be fairly ineffective as hunting heads in modern terms. They would rely on deep penetration and accurate organ damage for their effectiveness much the same as North American "bird points".
One can be misled by modern reproductions. Except in the case of recent ones based on the deep sections of the Xinjiang bows, most are made with flat, rectangular cross sectioned limbs, which behave differently than the deep narrow limbs of the old bows. The bow David Betteridge made 15 years ago and shot in Qinghai last year was built to the old western Scythian bow specs (based on information from Russian archaeological journals). It shot its short arrows very fast and had a considerable range. It was small and portable. It was uncomfortable to shoot with three fingers but performed well anyway. Two fingered drawing was easier. Its sheer convenience was probably the reason it remained so popular for so long. It was when they were made bigger that the complex nature of the bows started to approach a position of diminishing returns. Probably the later bows were just easier to make.
Well I don't think I overthought anything really I'm just trying to start a topic here/get the discussion going:D , but the Scythian bow is persistent enough in appearance over the years that it more or less reflects a specific concept of a bow or design. Yes it was passed down over many generations from elders to sons but it has a recognizable outline which makes it distinct. They certainly weren't drafting things out or anything like, like how an engineer would, but its recongnizable/persistent enough. So they probably had a "plan" in mind before they started making the bow which is the most basic aspect of design.
I'm also aware that variation occured over time and place. There is a difference between western and eastern Scythian bows in terms of material used, construction methods and even size. That I understand.
It sounds like though the longer bows became desired for military use more if I hear you correctly. The longer Scythian bows were 47 inches and shorter ones closer to 42 inches if I recall.
Interesting about diminishing returns with larger bows. Many seem to like those as style of choice but I know of course there can be a difference between modern vs. original construction. So are the most faithfully recreated Scythian bows proving to be the fastest perhaps of the Asiatic composites?
I've heard for years the complexity of making Scythian bows based on the ones found at archaeological sites. Also interesting how the 2 fingered release was easier for the recreated bow as that's present day opinion on how Scythians drew based on archaeological depictions. Sometimes the bow tells you what to do. But it does seem limited in terms of how one can draw the bow most effectively.
I'm also aware that variation occured over time and place. There is a difference between western and eastern Scythian bows in terms of material used, construction methods and even size. That I understand.
It sounds like though the longer bows became desired for military use more if I hear you correctly. The longer Scythian bows were 47 inches and shorter ones closer to 42 inches if I recall.
Interesting about diminishing returns with larger bows. Many seem to like those as style of choice but I know of course there can be a difference between modern vs. original construction. So are the most faithfully recreated Scythian bows proving to be the fastest perhaps of the Asiatic composites?
I've heard for years the complexity of making Scythian bows based on the ones found at archaeological sites. Also interesting how the 2 fingered release was easier for the recreated bow as that's present day opinion on how Scythians drew based on archaeological depictions. Sometimes the bow tells you what to do. But it does seem limited in terms of how one can draw the bow most effectively.
Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that changing circumstances put pressure on bow makers to come up with a more effective design. I would not be surprised to find that both long and short forms were in use at the same time, but that the relative numbers in use changed in relation to the requirements of the targets or even the predominance of one group over the other.
I was not sure that the really small Scythian bows were effective until I saw David Betteridge's reproduction. Perhaps I should add that it was made without clamps or elaborate forms. Binding with cord was the main way the parts were held together while the glue dried and it was even substantially repaired after some years of disuse in the traditional manner. David is going to test it with a chronograph soon so we shall have some solid figures on its performance.
I was not sure that the really small Scythian bows were effective until I saw David Betteridge's reproduction. Perhaps I should add that it was made without clamps or elaborate forms. Binding with cord was the main way the parts were held together while the glue dried and it was even substantially repaired after some years of disuse in the traditional manner. David is going to test it with a chronograph soon so we shall have some solid figures on its performance.
Bede, awesome picture, thanks for sharing this is really good stuff.
I've always wondered what the western Scythian bows were like and its nice to see David's recreation here. Construction is certainly different from what I've seen of the eastern type, and the use of cord/binding is something I didn't know was used among the Scythians just north of the Black Sea. Was this recreation based on remnants found from a kurgan in Ukraine or Russia? Also is this version just wood and sinew?
Definitely looking forward to those chronograph results, as I've wondered much about this myself over the years.
I've always wondered what the western Scythian bows were like and its nice to see David's recreation here. Construction is certainly different from what I've seen of the eastern type, and the use of cord/binding is something I didn't know was used among the Scythians just north of the Black Sea. Was this recreation based on remnants found from a kurgan in Ukraine or Russia? Also is this version just wood and sinew?
Definitely looking forward to those chronograph results, as I've wondered much about this myself over the years.
The bow is a full horn-wood-sinew composite. It was based on the section of a bow found in the Ukraine. The thin leather wrapping is part of the repair process though binding is shown in some vases from Athens. The cross section is circular. Despite the recurved tips being very thin, they are quite rigid. As you can estimate, the amount of horn used in such a small bow is minuscule and several ungulates on the steppe or in the mountains of the Caucasus could have been the source.
Has horn been found yet in the western kurgan bows? If I remember correctly, David when making his bow assumed they could have, but had only all-wood laminates as examples. His bow may then be an example of the eastern style in lighter weight.
Dusan posted a few interesting links in Russian a while ago, where it seemed there could be two forms of Scythian bows - one all wood laminate with a peculiar splice for the bow ends with the nock and less grip reflex, and the other of the Xinjang style or similar. The former could be the real "western" bow.
I want to add, the original reasons for this type of bow to appear does not need to reflect a some kind of performance advantage. I now tend to think these bows were made to: 1. imitate a special shape of animal horns, and 2. effectively use all available good wood by gluing together little pieces for the best effect - that way the bowyer did not have to rely on perfect staves to make heavy enough bows for the army.
Adam
Dusan posted a few interesting links in Russian a while ago, where it seemed there could be two forms of Scythian bows - one all wood laminate with a peculiar splice for the bow ends with the nock and less grip reflex, and the other of the Xinjang style or similar. The former could be the real "western" bow.
I want to add, the original reasons for this type of bow to appear does not need to reflect a some kind of performance advantage. I now tend to think these bows were made to: 1. imitate a special shape of animal horns, and 2. effectively use all available good wood by gluing together little pieces for the best effect - that way the bowyer did not have to rely on perfect staves to make heavy enough bows for the army.
Adam
When I originally looked at the Russian reports, I was very worried about the identification of materials. In some reports of later bows, where the diagrams clearly showed horn laths de-laminating longitudinally, the layers were identified as bone. I am also unsure of the burial practices. In Pazyryk, there are instances of items that were quite elaborate being used as purpose-made grave goods (e.g. the boots with iron pyrites crystals sewn to the soles) and other instances of useful items being stolen (like the lack of bronze arrowheads in the same graves). In Western Scythian burials there are occasions where roughly cut twigs were used to substitute as arrows in the gorytos. There is a possibility that not all of the grave goods were actually working bows, but even so they show a good knowledge of laminating procedures.
Regarding the shape of the tips, there is evidence from the Later Assyrian bas-reliefs that a turned over tip was being used in the seventh century BCE in the Middle East. The source of the change in tip design was believed to come from Elam. The Assyrians commented on using Elamite bowyers. In many reliefs, these tips look like a duck's head laying on the back of the bow with the bill pointing towards the grip. However, in some it is clear that the bill and most of the head is separate from the back of the bow. When one compares that to the much later glazed brick representations of Persian archers from the palace at Susa, one can see the bird's head mounted on the recurved ends of the bow, but with the string still going over the top of the head to loop around the beak. Earlier reliefs in Assyrian show Elamite troops with the same type of head bands and similar pendant decorations hanging from their back quivers as the archers in Susa. What I am suggesting is that recurved tips were more widely used than just in Scythian bows and that the development might have a practical rather than a symbolic purpose.
I do not feel at this stage of discovery, that we really have enough evidence to say very much about the bows except that the ones excavated in Xinjiang really seem to match the images in art of the Western Scythian bows in shape and sometimes surface depiction. Their construction is certainly as elaborate as angular composites in cross section and may be prefigured by that methodology. The earliest representation (pre-Scythian) I have seen that might be of a gorytos shows straight ended bows with set back grips. In which case, we might be looking at proto-Scythians adopting a recurved tip style and incorporating it into their short set back gripped bows. The advantages of even a non working recurve would be immediately obvious.
I could see the string unwinding from the recurve of David's bow and I assume it had a beneficial effect on the string/tip angle. I am not so sure of the effect of the bird's head tips on angular composites since I have never seen or shot a bow built that way. I think this is another area worth exploring with reproductions. It would have been really useful if the Assyrians had left one of these bows in Egypt as well as the straight ended ones.
Regarding the shape of the tips, there is evidence from the Later Assyrian bas-reliefs that a turned over tip was being used in the seventh century BCE in the Middle East. The source of the change in tip design was believed to come from Elam. The Assyrians commented on using Elamite bowyers. In many reliefs, these tips look like a duck's head laying on the back of the bow with the bill pointing towards the grip. However, in some it is clear that the bill and most of the head is separate from the back of the bow. When one compares that to the much later glazed brick representations of Persian archers from the palace at Susa, one can see the bird's head mounted on the recurved ends of the bow, but with the string still going over the top of the head to loop around the beak. Earlier reliefs in Assyrian show Elamite troops with the same type of head bands and similar pendant decorations hanging from their back quivers as the archers in Susa. What I am suggesting is that recurved tips were more widely used than just in Scythian bows and that the development might have a practical rather than a symbolic purpose.
I do not feel at this stage of discovery, that we really have enough evidence to say very much about the bows except that the ones excavated in Xinjiang really seem to match the images in art of the Western Scythian bows in shape and sometimes surface depiction. Their construction is certainly as elaborate as angular composites in cross section and may be prefigured by that methodology. The earliest representation (pre-Scythian) I have seen that might be of a gorytos shows straight ended bows with set back grips. In which case, we might be looking at proto-Scythians adopting a recurved tip style and incorporating it into their short set back gripped bows. The advantages of even a non working recurve would be immediately obvious.
I could see the string unwinding from the recurve of David's bow and I assume it had a beneficial effect on the string/tip angle. I am not so sure of the effect of the bird's head tips on angular composites since I have never seen or shot a bow built that way. I think this is another area worth exploring with reproductions. It would have been really useful if the Assyrians had left one of these bows in Egypt as well as the straight ended ones.
When I mentioned the imitation of the animal horns, I meant the tiprecurvature in the Xinjiang bows. I should have been more clear.
In bows as short as the Scythian, a some kind of a forward positioned nocking is necessary to avoid slipping of string during shooting. This, I believe is the origin of the, often rather small, tip "reflex" in the short western bows. This would then naturally lead to all sorts of embelishments (bird's head etc.). The turned-over tips would have minimal, or no effect on the performance of the bows.
The reflex in the David's bow, as well as in some of the Xinjang bows is quite pronounced, and would add to the energy storage somewhat. At the same time, as I wrote before, this effect could not be intended, since other bows have the reflex much smaller or none.
I will try to look for the link to the Russian drawings of a laminated bow, which could represent the western version of Xinjang.
Adam
In bows as short as the Scythian, a some kind of a forward positioned nocking is necessary to avoid slipping of string during shooting. This, I believe is the origin of the, often rather small, tip "reflex" in the short western bows. This would then naturally lead to all sorts of embelishments (bird's head etc.). The turned-over tips would have minimal, or no effect on the performance of the bows.
The reflex in the David's bow, as well as in some of the Xinjang bows is quite pronounced, and would add to the energy storage somewhat. At the same time, as I wrote before, this effect could not be intended, since other bows have the reflex much smaller or none.
I will try to look for the link to the Russian drawings of a laminated bow, which could represent the western version of Xinjang.
Adam
I have only seen one of the Xinjiang bows in person and photographs of about eight others. The ones I have seen seem to have more recurvature than reflex. There seems to be a degree of deflexing out from the set back of the handle to in someway reduce to reflex due to the apparently non-working recurves. David concluded from the deep cross-sections of the bow fragments from Russia that the reflex could not be too great or the limbs would be over stressed. He also pointed out that the depictions of Scythians bracing their bows would only work if the reflex was moderate.
The separate horn nock pieces containing the raised horn ridges indicates to me that a horn wedge was added to a glued up wood bow and then carved out. At least, this design would lack the central standing horn core used to carve out the nock post on the Xinjaing versions.
The stringing is done in an easier manner by kneeling and clamping the reflexed grip with the calf as is illustrated in the Black Sea vase.
The stringing is done in an easier manner by kneeling and clamping the reflexed grip with the calf as is illustrated in the Black Sea vase.
Jack,
Look at the vase again. He has the left leg with the bow under it extended and the bow is not clamped under the calf as you suggest. The other leg is bent with the foot under the right buttock and the bow tip resting on the right thigh. Sitting on a chair was easier for my friend than sitting on the ground.
Early Scythian bows did not have separate horn nocks. The items identified as such by Soviet archaeologists were later found to be bridle ornaments. Looking at the earliest depiction in the absence of actual items, the nocks appear to be simple shouldered ones like the later Xinjiang bows.
Look at the vase again. He has the left leg with the bow under it extended and the bow is not clamped under the calf as you suggest. The other leg is bent with the foot under the right buttock and the bow tip resting on the right thigh. Sitting on a chair was easier for my friend than sitting on the ground.
Early Scythian bows did not have separate horn nocks. The items identified as such by Soviet archaeologists were later found to be bridle ornaments. Looking at the earliest depiction in the absence of actual items, the nocks appear to be simple shouldered ones like the later Xinjiang bows.