Construction difference between three types of turkish bows?
Although I've tried to find out the difference of construction between three types of turkish hornbows(i.e. flight, war, target bow), I couldn't get the exact answer I'd been looking for.
Ralph Payne-Gallwey's <The book of the crossbow> says that neck tendons of ox or stag was used for making turkish bow - which seems to be the flight one. - , Dr. Klopsteg's <Turkish archery> says that achilles tendon(of cattle?) was used for 'bow' - the book doesn't clearly state what kind of bow it is - , steer tendon for war bows, cow tendon for best flight bows. However, I'm still confused about the use of different sinews for different type of bows. And I'm still having a doubt whether the sinew is the only difference between the three types of bow. What clearly, is the difference between the construction of the three type of turkish bows?
P.S.: Was the method of stacking more than a layer of sinew
confined to flight bows only?
Ralph Payne-Gallwey's <The book of the crossbow> says that neck tendons of ox or stag was used for making turkish bow - which seems to be the flight one. - , Dr. Klopsteg's <Turkish archery> says that achilles tendon(of cattle?) was used for 'bow' - the book doesn't clearly state what kind of bow it is - , steer tendon for war bows, cow tendon for best flight bows. However, I'm still confused about the use of different sinews for different type of bows. And I'm still having a doubt whether the sinew is the only difference between the three types of bow. What clearly, is the difference between the construction of the three type of turkish bows?
P.S.: Was the method of stacking more than a layer of sinew
confined to flight bows only?
In the summer, I met Cem Donmez. He has started a systematic study of Turkish hornbow construction and has studied many examples in museums. He is the person that I would recommend as an expert to answer your question.
You can send him a personal message through ATARNet using the PM function and writing to scemdonmez .
You can send him a personal message through ATARNet using the PM function and writing to scemdonmez .
I am sure that Adam Karpowicz will have some comments on this subject.
Payne-Gallwey's comments have been generally discounted by most researchers. In this forum there have been comments about the likely reason that Payne-Gallwey thought that the results of his dissolution of the sinew layer had produced pieces of neck tendon.
I have recently been working with the Turkish bows and arrows in the Grayson Collection. In general, I would say that the most easily distinguishable features are those of flight bows with their exposed sinew (varnished sometimes), narrow limbs and small, delicate ears. Several of the bows were clearly designed for long distance shooting, but because of their painted leather coverings could not be conditioned in the way flight bows were. There were two bows with rounded, slight overhangs beyond the nocks. One of these had large ivory inserts in the ears. This extra weight at the tips would have affected their perfomance.
My conclusion from this inspection was that the major differences between the classes of bows was in the form of the bow (its shape) and the particularly design of the ears in some cases. Exaggerating some characteristics made a fast bow for flight or a stable bow for target shooting. This is also true for war bows which required power, stability and performance.
The advice about steer and cow tendons may have been followed, but it is hard to to tell whether it had any scientific validity. Likewise, there are comments about the inner and outer parts of the horn being used. Did this mean strips from different parts of the horn or from the outer and inner surfaces of the same part of the horn? The Turkish bowyers had a keen sense of what was necessary to make a good bow. However, some of the comments sound suspiciously like folk beliefs where like things deliver like characteristics.
Our Turkish contributers with access to Mustafa Kani's original text may be able to help.
Payne-Gallwey's comments have been generally discounted by most researchers. In this forum there have been comments about the likely reason that Payne-Gallwey thought that the results of his dissolution of the sinew layer had produced pieces of neck tendon.
I have recently been working with the Turkish bows and arrows in the Grayson Collection. In general, I would say that the most easily distinguishable features are those of flight bows with their exposed sinew (varnished sometimes), narrow limbs and small, delicate ears. Several of the bows were clearly designed for long distance shooting, but because of their painted leather coverings could not be conditioned in the way flight bows were. There were two bows with rounded, slight overhangs beyond the nocks. One of these had large ivory inserts in the ears. This extra weight at the tips would have affected their perfomance.
My conclusion from this inspection was that the major differences between the classes of bows was in the form of the bow (its shape) and the particularly design of the ears in some cases. Exaggerating some characteristics made a fast bow for flight or a stable bow for target shooting. This is also true for war bows which required power, stability and performance.
The advice about steer and cow tendons may have been followed, but it is hard to to tell whether it had any scientific validity. Likewise, there are comments about the inner and outer parts of the horn being used. Did this mean strips from different parts of the horn or from the outer and inner surfaces of the same part of the horn? The Turkish bowyers had a keen sense of what was necessary to make a good bow. However, some of the comments sound suspiciously like folk beliefs where like things deliver like characteristics.
Our Turkish contributers with access to Mustafa Kani's original text may be able to help.
In old times bowmaking was a secret for the military in Turkey, so many bowyers did not give the secrets. Telis-i resail-?r rumat (Turkish archery book) is a summary book. This book does not explain the secrets of archery. Sinew backing was a serious art. In Telhis it wrote that the sinew was in two layers and five pieces. In every layer the glue and sinew was weighted. The bowyers learnt the secrets of the other bowyers by putting the bows in the water and separating the sinew and weighting it.
When a new bow is being made the glue and sinew total weight is 140gr. War and target bows wood are approx. 30gr heavier then the new made bows. The flight bows the glue and horn are a little less, sinew is more. According the research I have done in the museums the sinew weight cannot be known. The sinew used in bows are taken from wild animals. The sinew used are transparent and they do not look like cow tendons. Also the flight bows sinew method is different. I do the calculation according to sinew thickness.
Cem
When a new bow is being made the glue and sinew total weight is 140gr. War and target bows wood are approx. 30gr heavier then the new made bows. The flight bows the glue and horn are a little less, sinew is more. According the research I have done in the museums the sinew weight cannot be known. The sinew used in bows are taken from wild animals. The sinew used are transparent and they do not look like cow tendons. Also the flight bows sinew method is different. I do the calculation according to sinew thickness.
Cem
I agree with the comments by Bede and Cem. It is however very difficult, if at all possible, to tell the difference between the types based only on the profile of an unstrung, and totally relaxed bow. Also the sinew/glue amounts as listed in Telhis are confusing. As Cem said, there is proportionally more sinew in flight bows.
From what I have been able to determine (an article with comments will appear in 2006 issue of the JSA-A), generally the flight bows have kasan sections longer by 2-3cm, while the overall length remains the same, and it is similar to all other types excluding the longest older and infantry bows. The grip section will also tend to be a bit thinner to allow room for the wrappings (mushamma). The sinew layer may be also rounded (stacked) on the back and may not be decorated or covered.
Massive tips (Bayezid or rounded types) will also be absent, although most Ottoman bows had the tips rather slim to begin with.
Adam
From what I have been able to determine (an article with comments will appear in 2006 issue of the JSA-A), generally the flight bows have kasan sections longer by 2-3cm, while the overall length remains the same, and it is similar to all other types excluding the longest older and infantry bows. The grip section will also tend to be a bit thinner to allow room for the wrappings (mushamma). The sinew layer may be also rounded (stacked) on the back and may not be decorated or covered.
Massive tips (Bayezid or rounded types) will also be absent, although most Ottoman bows had the tips rather slim to begin with.
Adam