Making a Replica Magyar bow and other Questions

welcome M Hardman,

Redhorse just posted the adress for a buffalo-horn supplier in the UK. Martin Hyslop knows his job, tell him what you want and he will supply you well.
I?m not a specialist in reconstruct Magyar bows, but usually the thickness of the core and and the horn are about 3-4mm, backed with 2-4 layers of sinew.

For to attach the ear to the limb I usually use the fishtail-joint( maybe this is not the correct English word?) and wrapp it heavily with sinew after glueing.

There really seemed to be almost no taper in the limbs, but for the measurements you should have a look at Andrew Halls posts here in the forum. He has reconstructed the Moshchevaya Balka bow.

Good luck, Michael

Thank you for your replies
however I have some more questions
is the horn 3-4mm thick by itself? or is it 3-4 mm thick together with the core?

can anyone who has made magyar bow post rough widths of their bow please?

Mike Hardman

Mike

The limited illustrations of the earlier Hunnic and Sassanian style bows tend to show a more even bend than the recent types, so I made my bows with a slight thickness taper. If I can remember correctly, my Moshcheveya Balka style bow has both core and horn tapering slightly from about 3.25 to 3mm each down the length (total 6.5 to 6mm). It could possibly do with a fraction more taper to get a circular tiller. The thickness would vary depending on your desired draw weight range and the bow dimensions.

The two bows from the Moshcheveya Balka site (which are slightly earlier but related to the Magyar types) have mid-limb widths of 1.6" and about 1.25". I would recommend going for a width similar to the larger dimension for stability.

Regards

Andrew

Thank you very much for those dimensions,
I am aiming to make a bow that will have a weight of 50-60lbs and to draw to 32-34 inches, how will that affect the thickness and width of the bow limb?

also, it occured to me that for a heavy bow the handle would have to be more substancial, do you have any idea what size I might have to use?

Mike Hardman

Mike

32-34 inches of draw is rather more than the originals were probably drawn. The more complete examples from the Moshcheveya Balka site in the St. Petersburg Hermitage collection are 27.5-29.5 inches long (not including the head). If you want a longer draw, scale the bow up in proportion in both length and width. I would keep the siyah lengths at 9-10" and lengthen the bending limbs.

My Moshcheveya Balka style bow came out at a surprisingly light 38lbs (the original had much thicker limbs though). The draw weight will go up in proportion to the width and the cube of the thickness of the limb. The draw weight will drop as the bow gets longer (I can't remember the factor), and will change dependent on the length and hence the leverage of the siyahs. My attempts to work out a rough formula for the draw weights have been a failure, hence the 38lb MB bow. Unfortunately, there is a bit of trial and error involved, but you can always add some more sinew to get the weight up a bit.

There should not be any need to fatten up the handles on these bows. The originals drew well in excess of your target weight and the later Turkish and crab bows had surprisingly delicate handles. The original was about 1" wide in the grip centre including side plates, widening to 1.2" at the ends of the grip. The wooden core will bulk up surprisingly with the horn on the belly, sinew on the back and the grip side plates.

Regards

Andrew

Dear All,
I have begun drawing my designs up today, and I realised that on some examples of horn bows that I have seen (and on all modern recurves) the widest ,part of the limb is several inches down the limb from the handle, I was thinking that 3"-4" was about right, any suggestions would be welcome.

What kind of splice is used to attach the handle to the limbs? I have read the thread which includes diagrams showing different handle splices, should I go for a simple fishtail splice or shall i overlap the limbs and add a handle pad as in diagram C?

Thanks for this much appreciated help

Mike

M Hardman, as Andrew has posted: for a higher drawweight add some more sinew on the back. If the finished bow will be still to weak you can force its reflex with dry heat, but I don?t know how much reflex is according to the original.
For the attachment of the limbs to the handle fishtail or overlapping will do the job.

Michael

Dear All

I think I may have misphrased my question,
Is the widest part of the limb on the handle or nearer the middle of the limb?

(sorry for all these novice questions, but i'm trying to avoid any bow failures that are faults in my design)

cheers

Mike

Dear All

After looking hard round the Atarn archives (its amazing what you can find there if you look) I have found the answer to my question. I've ordered my materials now and I'll post again when I have got a finished core.

Thanks for your all help

cheers

Mike

Andrew Hall wrote:

The originals drew well in excess of your target weight ....

I would so love to try this, if I didn't have a bad habit of injuring myself with every woodworking tool I try. But, I have seen this talked *around*, by you guys who know more, but not actually described flat-out, unless I missed it. What is the actual guess regarding the original's draw weight?

Thanks.

Russ

The draw weights of the originals is not really known (no originals are in a state to draw), but we can make some assumptions.

There is some information on the limb thickness for the Moshcheveya Balka bow kept in the Hermitage collection - core + sinew from 6-8mm (most of the horn has been nibbled off), horn up to 6mm, so we could have up to 14mm limb thickness. As bending stiffness is proportional to thickness cubed, that would put it about twice the draw weight of my version at about 80lbs. Different ratios of materials would adjust the draw weight - I assume the larger horn proportion would put the weight up.

Another estimate could be taken from the arrows. I made a replica of one of the better preserved MB arrows from the same wood species (birch). I placed it on an arrow spining jig and it was stiff enough for the pointer not to reach the scale. From a bit of estimation I came to the conclusion that it was about 120lbs spine. The modern spine ratings are for a centre-shot recurve with a target weight point - shooting round the grip requires a whippier shaft, a heavy head a stiffer one. There is also no guarantee that the shaft was spined for the bow and wood can vary quite a bit in stiffness.

The other hint on the draw weights of the bows is the size of the arrowheads. Some of the Hunnic and Mongol heads are huge, especially in comparison with the light Scythian heads.

I have seen several people shoot English longbows of the 150lb class with apparent ease, but has anyone got any experience of shooting a 100+lb bow from a horse?

Regards

Andrew

Thanks.

And.... Not me! I had Grozer do a custom job on his TRH that's closest to the MB bow, and it's 78-83 depending on your draw length: Hidan Csaba and I in Hungary had come to a conclusion pretty close to what you're telling me, based on other data. But my ribs wear out after about fifty shots or so, and I don't currently have a safe venue for practicing with my strength bow... that will hopefully change this spring with a flu-flu and a really massive foam head, combined with a trash can on some hay bales.

That's a really stiff arrow... but if all your arrows were about the same, then the spine difference would wind up being accounted for in your aim, and I guess it would work out...

When one is shaping the horn into strips, what do you do about the convex inside the horn, is it usual to leave it or do you have to take it down so the strip is completely rectangular?

Many thanks

Mike

I have the wild idea that under 70 lb there is no need for reinforced tips. The wood will be enough but over 70 it would need bone or something else.
I have break many tips that has been only wood. Laminated wood is stronger, but did they use that?

So I leave the curve on the inside of the horn and reinforce it with bone? I assume then that the weaker bit of the horn i.e. the curved bit, goes on the siyah end of the limb.?

Many thanks

Mike

Mike

It is usual to have the tip of the horn in the grip and the base towards the siyah. You normally need a larger horn if you go the other way.

Regards

Andrew

I'm finally nearing the horn glueing stage, and I have a few questions which I would be thankful if someone answered

1. how deep should the scores in the wood and horn be?
2. if my horn is too short is it acceptable to use another piece to cover the handle?
3. is it alright to use clamps to hold the horn onto the wood?
4. how many coats of hide glue should I apply to my maple core before I apply the horn?

If anyone could help me on these questions I would be very grateful.

Many thanks

Mike

Andrew, do you have some info on said Moschewaja Balka arrows?
(Photos of arrowheads, weight and info on shafts if anything survived)


Jaro

P.S. I m perfectly capable to draw 90# sitting. (I tried on barrel) but I do not have horse to practice any horse archery.

Mike

I will leave others to answer questions on horn/core gluing technique as I have had a few problems with this, but you should be able to use another horn piece to cover the handle as long as you get a nice tight butt joint between the pieces and bind the joints.

Jaro

The arrows from Moshcheveya Balka in the St Petersburg Hermitage collection are catalogued in "Die Gr?ber der Moscevaja Balka (The Graves of Moshcheveya Balka)" by Anna A. Ierusalimskaja, Editio Maris, Munich, 1996.

The arrow shafts in the collection are mostly made from birch (others ash and hazel), heavily barrelled with a slightly bulbous nock. The more complete examples are from 27.5-29.5 in. long, thickest part between roughly 9 and 12mm in diameter and were fitted with tanged arrowheads (only one of which remains). The remaining head is a flat tanged iron type, 120mm long including tang and 15mm wide, rhombic shape with widest part near tang. Tanged iron three-bladed heads would also be in period. The attachment for three fletchings can be seen on some shafts, these were 4.3-5.1 in. long. Most of the shafts were dyed red, a few had a broad blue-green strip painted on the shaftment.

Regards

Andrew

Andrew,
How were the feathers oriented and how close to the nock did they come?

Bede

The following is based on the drawings of the four most complete shafts.

There is a gap of about an inch between the fletchings and the base of the nock.

The fletching orientation seems to be inconsistent - one has a fletching in line with the string, one 90? from the string and two at an angle that if the fletchings were 120? apart, would probably have a cock feather 90? from the string.

Kaminskiy's "On the construction of Bow and Arrows of North-Caucasian Alans" (which also references the MB finds in the Krasnodar collection) has two drawings - one with the cock feather in line with the string, and another has an angle of something 70? with inconsistent spacing between fletchings.

Andrew

On the MB internet site, the shape of the fletchings is unusual in that the tallest part of the fletch is forward. This brings me to a conclusion which is a bit difficult to explain.

If one makes a fletch out of the windward side of the feather, instead of the traditional lee side, one ends up with a very curved over fletch. If it is to align at 90 degrees to the string, its placement would be pushed over a bit. This arrow will spiral much faster than a usual arrow.

The high hump in the fletch is the exact shape of the untrimmed windward side of many bird feathers, especially the first few primaries of birds of prey and others.

I have tried goose this way with good results. Jack.

Thanks Andrew, excellent info.

Jaro

The "windward" side of turkey tail feathers. Note the hump forward in the fletch, these make really perfect fletchings, no trimming necessary. Other good attributes. -j-

Did the fletchings really survive completely or are we talking about archaeologists' reconstructions?

Bede

The MB arrows in the St Petersburg collection only show a rectangle on the shaft where the fletchings were mounted.

Kaminskiy's article summarises the MB arrows in the Krasnodar collection and finds from the Zmeyskiy tomb. The text describes the position, length and angle of the fletchings, but these could be determined by the marks on the shaft that the St. Petersburg finds show, so do not necessarily indicate the fletchings have survived.

Andrew

This what I thought, but I wanted to confirm it. Fletching survival is low outside of arid areas. However, the marks of the bases of the feathers on the shafts often survive.

Andrew; How do you suppose the fletchings were rendered for the drawing with such a novel cut to the fletchings? Are you translating from the German? -j-

Jack

Just to clarify things, the sources for the comments are as follows (both of which I have translated using on-line translation services with a bit of manual editing):

The drawing showing the fletching shape in the on-line article comes from "On the construction of Bow and Arrows of North-Caucasian Alans" by Kaminskiy in Russian which summaries the MB finds. See http://asgard.tgorod.ru/libri.php3?cont=_bows

The German catalogue of all the MB finds in the St. Petersburg collection is "Die Gr?ber der Moscevaja Balka (The Graves of Moshcheveya Balka)" by Anna A. Ierusalimskaja.

Translation Kaminskiy's of section on arrows:
"Alan arrows are most fully represented in the materials of the Zmeyskiy tomb and of Moshchevaya Balka. In the mentioned burial from Moshchevaya Balka was found a wooden quiver with five wonderfully preserved arrows, prepared from birch and ash. They have a length from 0.60 to 0.80 m and a thickness from 0.8 to 1 cm. Their length depended, probably, not so much from the sizes of bows, as from the designation of arrows. Thick short arrows had armor-piercing tips and were intended for shooting at close distances. Thin and long arrows served to engage target at long distances. The majority of arrows had the three-blade tail assembly, which was manufactured as follows. <Automatic translation goes a bit haywire here - something to do with splitting the feather and gluing>. The ends of the rods of tail assembly were additionally wound by sinew or horse hair. Sometimes tail assembly got down to the cut for it was finger on the heel of arrow and it was slightly bent by arc to the left. This gave rotary motion to arrow. This tail assembly is characteristic for the short thick arrows (Fig. 10). In other cases the tail assembly was by straight line and high raised above the nock (Fig. 11). Its length varied from 10 to 15 cm. As shown in materials on the ethnography of Kazakhs, the length of tail assembly depended on sizes and weight of the tip of arrow. <Note the drawing and text do not appear to match as Fig 11 has the bodkin>

Cuts for it is finger on the heel of arrow and the ends of the shaft near the tip were wound by tendons. This winding provided grip for the fingers when shooting, and protected the end of the shaft from splitting. The diameter of the shaft of arrows near the tip was determined by the diameter of support on the tip. This decreased air resistance and increased the flight speed of arrow. On some arrows the heel is painted in the dark blue colour..."

I will not include a translation of the whole section on arrows from Ierusalimskaja's book as it is a copyright text that has not been placed on the internet. The key sentence on the fletchings is:
"At the lower shaft part traces of three feathers or (after Kaminsky) parts of a feather distributed evenly over the surface are nearly without exception."

In conclusion, I don't know the origin on the fletching shape in Kaminskiy's drawings.

If anyone can do a better translation of Kaminskiy's article, feel free.

Andrew

Without going into too much detail, I think that some of the conclusions about the uses of the arrows can be questioned. An underdrawn, short, heavy arrow is not particularly suitable for shooting at armoured enemies at close range. This is especially true when one considers the spread of arrow lengths (20 cm between the longest and the shortest). However, I have a short heavy arrow from India in the amaji form which is designed for qighaj shooting, the sport where you aim at a target on the ground near your horse's feet as you gallop past. In that exercise, the shorter draw and consequent lack of power are not critical. Penetration was still valued as some targets shown in early Persian miniatures are shields laid flat on the ground.

The short distance used in qighaj shooting would need rapid stabilisation if you were using a Mediterranean release which might explain the spiraling of the feathers, if that is what the text implies.

I have seen the perils of translating when expert (i.e. highly literate in Russian and English) translators have shown me the difference between a word for word translation and an idiomatic one.

Andrew,

this link http://asgard.tgorod...................... in Making a Replica Magyar bow and other Questionsis is deathly not for the human beeing but for our computers. Only good armours can prevent from penetration. Best wishes from the IT-Security.....

Reto


PS: I appreciate your comments/atricles not only in Atarn but also in society of archer-antiquaries

My thinking is that these are arrows from two different archers even if in the same quiver. They are not made the same. One is for a much stronger bow with shorter draw.

A possible translation for the part where the machine makes a poor translation; "The feather was split so that 1/4 of the quill would remain together with the wide part of the vane ('large fan'). After this the wide vane was glued to the shaft".

I still maintain that on the upper arrow, the one which was intended to spiral quickly, the narrow vane was used instead, hence the bulge on the forward part of the fletch.

Drawing after Kaminskiy. -j-

I think Jack's argument is sound. Just because arrows are found in one quiver, it doesn't mean the archer used them. They may have been picked up on the battlefield.

Reto wrote:

Andrew,

this link http://asgard.tgorod...................... in Making a Replica Magyar bow and other Questionsis is deathly not for the human beeing but for our computers. Only good armours can prevent from penetration. Best wishes from the IT-Security.....

The reason might be that the website collects cookies and the anti-spyware is set to give a warning. ATARN also collects cookies so that you can be told what posts are 'new' each time you log on. There is no security risk.