Egyptian double compound bow
Hi all,
I have been trailing through the site with all the finds from Tutankhamuns tomb. I came across a rather interesting item which was titled the same as this thread.
I would like an opinion on whether this bow was actually used and could two bows together give you any benefit. Forgive me for I have not researched much further into egyptian bows and things, but I think the discussion could shed some light on the bow, and its uses, if any.
Any ideas.
http://www.ashmolean.museum/gri/carter/048f.html
I have been trailing through the site with all the finds from Tutankhamuns tomb. I came across a rather interesting item which was titled the same as this thread.
I would like an opinion on whether this bow was actually used and could two bows together give you any benefit. Forgive me for I have not researched much further into egyptian bows and things, but I think the discussion could shed some light on the bow, and its uses, if any.
Any ideas.
http://www.ashmolean.museum/gri/carter/048f.html
Accidently Erhard Godehardt (he?s an ATARNO too) and me are just preparing a research-project focusing on these and some other old Egyptian bows.
We believe this design to be very interesting cause the hightech-bow-industry (Hoyt) applied for patent on the so-called split-limb-technology in 1993.
Nowadays almost every modern compound-bow has spilt limbs. But the ancient Egyptian bowyers had the same idea more than 3000 years ago.
We are very excited about our first working reconstructions of this design.
Within the next 2 weeks I?ll do a reconstruction made of wood for checking out the physical and mechanical behaviour of this design.
We have some presumptions, one reason for this design could be that with this design you could string a very strong bow with 2 times half the power. We guess that this design makes very stable limbs too.
We will post the results in the ATARN-forum
Michael
We believe this design to be very interesting cause the hightech-bow-industry (Hoyt) applied for patent on the so-called split-limb-technology in 1993.
Nowadays almost every modern compound-bow has spilt limbs. But the ancient Egyptian bowyers had the same idea more than 3000 years ago.
We are very excited about our first working reconstructions of this design.
Within the next 2 weeks I?ll do a reconstruction made of wood for checking out the physical and mechanical behaviour of this design.
We have some presumptions, one reason for this design could be that with this design you could string a very strong bow with 2 times half the power. We guess that this design makes very stable limbs too.
We will post the results in the ATARN-forum
Michael
I have seen a picture of Mughal (India) double-eared bow like this. It is in the collection of V&A in London. Interesting.
Adam
Adam
My thinking is that both of Tuts double bows were shamanic devices comparible to divining rods used even today to dowse for water. Most of his bows contained inscriptions with incantations. -j-
In conversation, David Betteridge mentioned a theory about the double-limbed Egyptian bows where it is seen as a solution to doubling the weight of the bow. The complex construction of some Egyptian angular bows did not make it easy to scale them up for heavy weights. The type of bow appears to have died out.
Aside from the bow Adam mentioned, there is another double-limbed bow in the Topkapi Palace Museum which was given by the Shah of Iran to the Sultan of Turkey. It was braced by Deli Hasan. The bow had been sent as a challenge.
The limbs of the Egyptian bows were not split all the way to the grip so I am not sure the limbs could be braced separately without twisting the main limbs.
Aside from the bow Adam mentioned, there is another double-limbed bow in the Topkapi Palace Museum which was given by the Shah of Iran to the Sultan of Turkey. It was braced by Deli Hasan. The bow had been sent as a challenge.
The limbs of the Egyptian bows were not split all the way to the grip so I am not sure the limbs could be braced separately without twisting the main limbs.
The Topkapi bow is of different construction - basically two bows joined by cross pieces and spaced apart, but drawn as one.
These bows have only the exteremities split in two. My impression is the bows were strung with two strings. Each string spanned two corresponding tips at the same side of bow. It could be an experiment to achieve something like a centre-shot bow (note this could not be done with a bow with only one tip, even if leanig sideways, because of torque).
Possibly, the bows, strung as above, were used with pebbles for birds, not with arrows. Since the string was at the side, the pebble would not hit the grip?
Adam
These bows have only the exteremities split in two. My impression is the bows were strung with two strings. Each string spanned two corresponding tips at the same side of bow. It could be an experiment to achieve something like a centre-shot bow (note this could not be done with a bow with only one tip, even if leanig sideways, because of torque).
Possibly, the bows, strung as above, were used with pebbles for birds, not with arrows. Since the string was at the side, the pebble would not hit the grip?
Adam
Bow #1 , the Double bow, has one grip and two upper limbs and two lower limbs. I believe that an experiment will demonstrate that both pairs of limbs must be used together to avoid destroying the bow. Therefore, the string would also form a double Y as does the bow. I cannot remember seeing any representation of a pebble bow in Egypt in this era. Bow #1 is weak, as are most of Tut's composites.
Bow #5, the Captive bow, has one grip and two upper and two lower limbs, yet the limbs are joined along their lengths as one without a break. There is one upper and one lower nock, each the head of a captive foreigner, Agean and Nubian. To string the bow is to strangle two captives, which is the symbolic purpose of the bow. #5 is among the sturdiest of all known angular composites. (McLeod, p 30)
Bow #4, the Bow of Honor, is a formidably sized weapon completely sheathed in sheet gold and mosaic. There is a possibility that this piece was inherited by Tut. My thinking is that there is a superior bow, a legendary weapon, underneath the decoration.
These three bows would appear to be a group whose power lays within the spiritual realm rather that the functional. -j-
Bow #5, the Captive bow, has one grip and two upper and two lower limbs, yet the limbs are joined along their lengths as one without a break. There is one upper and one lower nock, each the head of a captive foreigner, Agean and Nubian. To string the bow is to strangle two captives, which is the symbolic purpose of the bow. #5 is among the sturdiest of all known angular composites. (McLeod, p 30)
Bow #4, the Bow of Honor, is a formidably sized weapon completely sheathed in sheet gold and mosaic. There is a possibility that this piece was inherited by Tut. My thinking is that there is a superior bow, a legendary weapon, underneath the decoration.
These three bows would appear to be a group whose power lays within the spiritual realm rather that the functional. -j-
Adam,
You are right about the bow in Turkey, the construction is different.
I think Jack is right about stone bows though. I haven't seen an Ancient Egyptian reference to them either. In the sense that these were artifacts meant for burial, there is a strong chance that the bows were decorated for the after life. Perhaps there are real bows under all the ornament. The cross sections of the damaged bows are functional.
It is an interesting concept that the double limbed bows might have some religious significance. I do not remember any deity having a bow that was described that way. There might be something in the Book of the Dead.
You are right about the bow in Turkey, the construction is different.
I think Jack is right about stone bows though. I haven't seen an Ancient Egyptian reference to them either. In the sense that these were artifacts meant for burial, there is a strong chance that the bows were decorated for the after life. Perhaps there are real bows under all the ornament. The cross sections of the damaged bows are functional.
It is an interesting concept that the double limbed bows might have some religious significance. I do not remember any deity having a bow that was described that way. There might be something in the Book of the Dead.
Bede, Adam,
Did you see the bow in Topkapi palace said to have belonged to the Prophet Mohammed? What sort of bow was that?
S
Did you see the bow in Topkapi palace said to have belonged to the Prophet Mohammed? What sort of bow was that?
S
Stephen:
I spent a long time looking at this bow at Topkapi. It comes with a very well made case too.
The bow seems to be made of cane with the nodes visible, and about 5 feet long. The cane is in the round, no taper at all, except for maybe 6 inches at tips. I did not see any nocks for the string. There are (as I recall) four sections betw. the nodes, each slightly angled. I realize even a straight stick can be strung to serve as a bow, but I do not believe this was the main purpose of this artifact.
I wonder if the double eared bow, strung with two strings, could be used with some kind of very stiff and thick projectiles. This may work quite well. To concede the bow is yet another "ceremonial" specimen, would be a defeat.
Adam
I spent a long time looking at this bow at Topkapi. It comes with a very well made case too.
The bow seems to be made of cane with the nodes visible, and about 5 feet long. The cane is in the round, no taper at all, except for maybe 6 inches at tips. I did not see any nocks for the string. There are (as I recall) four sections betw. the nodes, each slightly angled. I realize even a straight stick can be strung to serve as a bow, but I do not believe this was the main purpose of this artifact.
I wonder if the double eared bow, strung with two strings, could be used with some kind of very stiff and thick projectiles. This may work quite well. To concede the bow is yet another "ceremonial" specimen, would be a defeat.
Adam
There are 29 existing composite bows in the King Tut collection. There are 9 others in other museum collections. That three of these specimines are not PRIMARLY functional bows is not a problem but a good thing. If it were not for burials and the underlying belief in life after death, we might not have very many bows to study at all.
These bows must come from a culture which believes that a bow would be useful in another life.
Many Egyptian dieties carried sticks/scepters with forked ends.
The double bow with the doubled-single string would contain four of these symbols. -j-
These bows must come from a culture which believes that a bow would be useful in another life.
Many Egyptian dieties carried sticks/scepters with forked ends.
The double bow with the doubled-single string would contain four of these symbols. -j-
There is not at all any proof that these bows neither have been working bows nor "ceremonial bows" or nothing but grave goods.
But I?m convinced that this bow-design is great.
The dimensions of the cross-sections make a working bow, usually grave-goods have the cross-sections to big for to be a working bow.
If we go on thinking that every "unknown" bow-design is a "somehow grave-good" we will finally loose to much of the history of bowyery.
Michael
But I?m convinced that this bow-design is great.
The dimensions of the cross-sections make a working bow, usually grave-goods have the cross-sections to big for to be a working bow.
If we go on thinking that every "unknown" bow-design is a "somehow grave-good" we will finally loose to much of the history of bowyery.
Michael