For Erhard Godehardt:
Your experience of tracking down Scythian bows in museum collections is very similar to mine, though you have done a better job. I had heard of both the bows you mentioned, but your additional information is very interesting.
I have an arrow on my desk that has an arrowhead almost identical to those used in your photograph. It is a reed Indo-Persian arrow designed for a 70 cm draw. The steel in the head is wootz. The nock was inserted wood and the opening for the string was 5mm. The reed portion of the shaft was a uniform 7.5 mm. Due to the deteriotation of the pointed shaftment, it is had to tell how many feathers, but other similar arrows had 3 or 4, 6mm-high feathers of an average length of 10-12 cm. Though the arrow is several hundred years old, it still is stiff enough for a 35-40 pound bow with a three fingered draw.
Regarding the strength of bows used on horseback, while there is no reason you could not draw a very heavy bow on horseback, your choice is governed by what the other writers have mentioned here. In Scythian times, it was normal to shoot many light, small-headed arrows. It would be logical to use a bow that you can shoot many times without becoming tired. By the Qing conquest of China, several cultures had start carrying fewer, heavier arrows and shot them with more powerful bows. However, an argument for not using the "most" powerful bows is that you want the bow completely under your control. You still have to ride and listen for the commands of your troop commander. Someone standing still in in a mass of infantry can concentrate fully on drawing without any distractions and so remain in control of a heavier bow.
We should also remember that a heavier bow has to be an efficient bow as well. Composite bows can be made more efficient than English longbows. They do not need to be as heavy in draw weight to get the same effect.
Adam Karpowicz
It would be rather useful to define a "heavy" and "average" bow for this discussion. The buffalo hunts are not a good example, since the kills were done at the point blank range.
It is my impression the archers in countries where bowhunting is allowed, commonly use heavier bows than elsewhere. In North Amrica, an average bow is 50lb, while many use a 60-65lb for an extra assurance of a clean kill. There quite a few who can easily use bows in excess of 75lb. Many of the hunters have desk jobs and practice only occasionally. Only the most dedicated practice every day for, perhaps, a half hour.
Now, imagine a culture permeated with the use of bow as the most important weapon. Even the 3-5 year old children would hunt rabbits with a bow riding sheep 8^). Young people practice constantly to develop the skill and spend practically all their time oudoors doing heavy physical work which includes combat. No doubt there is a great pressure by peers and commanders to engage the enemy from as far as possible for your own and others protection. Heavier bows have flatter trajectory even at a closer distance. Add to that a life spent for the most part in a military camp with the usual macho attitudes (by both sexes if present). Under these circumstances there has to be a trend to use the heaviest bows possible.
Imagine you do heavy physical work all your life and your survival and reputation depends on your strength and skill in the use of bow.
If now a hunter considers a 50lb bow average, what would be an average bow for these people?
Adam
jack farrell
Adam; Your argument seens plausible, I have no strong opinion on the matter, but let me add some information to the mix. Wasn't it in Saracen archery that archers are admonished not to shoot the strongest bow that they can shoot but to shoot one that is totally comfortable to them, least your opponent shoot faster and aim more accurately?
One of my favorite quotes is in Indian Archery (India) where archers are admonished to shoot 400 arrows a day and if that is not possible, to shoot 200 arrows a day. Within 6 months you are guaranteed to be among the best archers in the world. For me a 100 arrow round is a tiring experience. Several times, I have shot 200 arrows in a round. This is almost crippling to do with my average bow, impossible to do with a strong bow. I have been a carpenter all my adult life with hard physical exercise almost daily. Though I am strong and fit, my tendons are mush. A #40 bow is all I can handle.
Use Kassai for an example. He is like a military person, riding hard, and shooting every day. He shoots a #35 bow. But he rides agressively and hits the target!
Adam Karpowicz
Jack:
I would think you are an exception: hunting with a 40lb bow is not even allowed in Canada. 45lb is the minimum.
Shooting 200 arrows a day will make you a very strong archer, if your tendons and joints are exercised from childhood and can take the pressure. The muscles involved in archery are different than for example weightlifting and need special attention.
I am not a sporty person and I have had a desk job for most of my life. I found it is very easy to progress from a weak bow to a 50lb-er, and then, with minimal exercise to 65lb. I do not exercise, only pull a bow or rubber bands for a couple of times every day (if I remember). My archery practise takes place only in the summer. Still, I can pull 90lb and shoot a 70lb bow all day.
Someone would have to give me a good explanation why Turkish bows in museums are so strong. Only then I can accept the "weak bow" theory.
Adam
Patrick Menzies
Adam, I agree that living a very physical life and shooting from an early age can make you very strong as far as bow shooting goes. I worked hard as a kid on a farm and did lots of rope climbing, chin ups etc. I am no weight lifter(5-11 160) but I have drawn a 100 plus pound longbow to 32 inches. I handed the same bow to my older brother who almost never shoots and he made it look like a kids bow. I personally think the ancient archers shot heavy bows no matter what the type. I wouldn't be surprised if the Scythian bows were more like hand held crossbow prods.
Most people seem to complain of finger pain when trying to draw a bow. Having tough fingers goes a long way as well. Pat
Godehardt
Hello Adam, hello Patrick,
if someone draws a bow 32 inches and has then 100 lbs on his fingers and shoulder, this does mean that (for a fistmele of 8 inches and a nearly linear force-draw-curve like for English longbows) he has drawn less than 70 lbs at 25 inches! Horse archers usually have rather short draw lengths of 24-26 inches. Do you really believe that an archer who draws 100 lbs at 32 inches is capable to draw 100 lbs at 25 inches? I started my archery "career" with a compound bow with a peak weight of 42 lbs at 21 inches. It was no big problem for me to draw then horse bows with a weight of 50 lbs at 26 inches. However, I could not draw a compound bow with a peak weight of 50 lbs at 20 inches! The physics are really different in these pulling processes. We always should give the draw length when we speak about draw weights.
Also we should keep in mind that the over-trained war archers from England had their problems with their shoulders. Many of them had severe degenerations. This has been found by Mrs. Stirland and is published in her book where she describes the skeletons found in the Mary Rose ship. I cannot believe that horse archers and hunters use bows so strong to damage their health. They most probably knew which bow weights they could handle comfortably.
Jaroslav
100 lbs is 100 lbs. You are speaking out of perspective a man who shoots 50#.
I m 165 cm tall (say short), weight only 63 kg (130#). Not only I can draw 100#, but I can shoot 100 consecutive arrows in dozen/rounds. To say first, strenght matters at third place. Sadly I havent found bow which would defeat me, but I hope to make some long draw 130#.
1. Technique - heavy bow technique does. I have copyed part of mine from kjudo and using heavy bow chinese stance, which seems to be derived from siting position.
2. Sturdines, or stamina. Also hardness. Means some people are somehow stocky and fit even without training. If you could jump up, hold yourself on the top of the 2 m high wall by fingers and pull yourself up faster than you can say "yes", then you are there. Working with hands is also a measure. Heavy bow shooters recruit from blacksmith/farmers/heavy machinery stock or breed.
The people of past have been working with hands more than any of us can imagine. Go figure.
3. Strenght - but hardly determined in gym. Most powerlifters are somehow muscle bound, with bad coordination and grumly hands. Perhaps push-ups are again good measure. I can do 40-50 without training. 20 would be enough for any task.
Say that normal hard working man can do 100# bow. If you cant, your technique sucks. Substract 1/4 for horse archery and you ll get your average 75# heavy hunting bow which is probably everything what was used in warfare until proper body protection was introduced, what lead further in introducing heavy long draw bows shooting heavy arrows ending inenvitably blind route of 150# and more and in development of crossbow in china.
As the english say you can get lot of people shooting heavy bows, but only few with a degree of accuracy.
Back to scythian bows - there are some guys on PA site using rivercane for arrows. This one is probably better stuff than bamboo. What about replicating arrow exactly to get possible spine.
Surelly archers of old didnt knew spine, but they werent stupid. Most of any arrows found match to the bows in the manner that arrow goes at the place you are looking on.
Adam Karpowicz
"100 lbs is 100 lbs. You are speaking out of perspective a man who shoots 50#. "
Absolutely, a 100lb is a 100lb. My exerciser weights (see the picture on ATARN) are 90lb from zero draw length.
Patric: this is what I meant. Ask a farm kid who throws hay all day long to pull a bow. The strength is combination of joint strength, tendons and the technique, as Jaroslaw said. Most of us can not even imagine this, we are degenerates...8^)
I am not sure though if the average for a horse bow would be only 75lb. I think the bows could be underdrawn by a couple of inches when shot from a horse at a closer distance and in full gallop, but could have been as heavy. Then the archers could use the full power of the bow in a stationary position, also on a horse.
Adam
Jaroslav
Adam - I thought 75# as possible average for scythyan bows. Judging what has been said about arrow and that with development of armor the later drawweight went up quickly.
Say 75# at full draw and with inch or two underdraw for snapshooting 65#. For a normal man of that era it would feell like 40# for us.
I m have not much of knowledge about horse archery or hornbows. I m only thinking in terms of what I do with heavy bows. Sorry.
jack farrell
Guys; This discussion is why we need a "Nomad Archer Contest". Wouldn't you want to know how the best archers can do on their second hundred arrows? And shooting backwards? And after all that have a penetration contest, flight shooting contest etc? Take it to the limit, like battle. And make the contestants use their same primitive equipment for all? -j-
Jaroslav
Count me in. :) :)
Patrick Menzies
It is probably a bit misleading to say the average farm kid of today is a robust specimen(except around the midsection). The days of digging postholes with a spade, swinging an axe and putting up tons of hay with no elevator are in the past. Not to mention clearing rocks from fields by hand. If there is a way of automating a task today it will be done. We tried to make these tasks even more difficult to challenge ourselves. Two bales of hay carried as far away from our body as we could hold them. Throwing them to the top of the wagon or across the hay mow if we could. You have to want to challenge yourself a bit.
I would say chin ups or rope climbing will develop those pulling muscles better than anything.
I disagree with the point made that 100 pounds at a long draw indicates that 100 at a shorter draw will be tougher. If the Scythian archers did actually do that low draw to the armpit of the bow arm then I would think that is a function of a heavy short draw. You can really put a lot of pressure into a draw that way. More than you can by trying to do a short draw to a higher anchor. Pat
Adam Karpowicz
Patric, you make a good point, it is indeed much easier to draw down, not up. I felt this was "cheating", but I saw compound archers do this.
With this in mind, I'd say 80-85lb for the average draw of the eastern Scythian bows. A bit more than the 75lb Jaroslaw is suggesting and not reaching the 100lb which seems to be a psychological barrier.
What do you think? Erhard?
Adam
Adam Karpowicz
In the post above I should have said "Scythian", not "eastern Scythian".
Actually, the short western Scythian bow should feel like a compound bow, drawn only to the peak draw weight at around 21". The compound bows seem to be easier to draw, dont't they...
Adam
Stephen Selby
Sorry that Li Chengfen is not on ATARN. I'll put it up. (It's in my book. Sometimes I forget things, like a squirrel burying nuts :oops: )
Li Chengfen said:
1. The Lethal Weapon
To quote ?Xun Zi?, ?If the arrow isn?t correctly matched to the bow, even Yi couldn?t score a hit with it. When he talks of ?matched, it means ?the arrow [weight] goes according to the [weight of the] bow and the bow goes according to the strength of the archer.? So when the arm is strong and the bow is weak, we call it ?the arm fooling the bow?; and when the bow is heavy and the arm is weak, we call it ?the bow fooling the arm.? In my travels and among my sharp-shooting friends, I have some who can fully draw a bow of ten ?li? (54.6 Kg). But in their day-to-day practice, they never draw more than nine. This illustrates the desire to co-ordinate bow, arrow and strength.
In the old days, they used to use ?stones? to measure the draw-weight if bows. Nowadays, we use ?li? as a unit of weight. I don?t know what caused the change. Anyway, nine catties and four ounces (5.46 Kg) makes a li and ten li make a stone (54.6 Kg). Another version has it that nine catties and 14 ounces (5.83 Kg) makes a li. If a bow had a draw-weight of five li (27.3 Kg) and the weight of the arrow was four qian (15 gm), then it would fishtail in flight and be unstable. On the other hand, if the draw-weight of the bow were three li (16.4 Kg) and the arrow weight was seven qian (26gm), the flight of the arrow would be sluggish and the release wouldn?t be crisp. Why would that be? Because the weights are not correctly adjusted!
Thus for a bow with a draw-weight of three li, (16.4 Kg), the arrow to use is ten quan in length. The term ?quan? is equivalent to one ?ba?, and an arrow of ten ?ba? has a weight of 4.5 qian (16.6 gm). A bow with a draw-weight of four li (21.8 Kg) uses an arrow length of between 9.5 ba and 10 ba, either of which is within the correct proportions, and the weight should come out at 5.5 qian (20.3 gm). Draw-weights of five to six li (27.3 ? 32.8 Kg) also need an arrow length of 9.5 quan; and when you get up to draw-weights in the region of seven of eight li (38.2 ? 43.7 Kg), you use an arrow of only 9 quan, and if the length is up to 9.5 quan, that is still acceptable. So the length of an arrow depends on the draw-weight of the bow. And the height of the string string-bridge also depends on the draw-weight of the bow. The ?string-bridge? is to guide the string at the upper limbs. If it is of the incorrect height then the string won?t be properly adjusted to the bow.
So when you are adjusting a bow, examine the arrows and get the weight and length of the arrows right for the weight of the bow. Once that is done, [the sharpness of] your eye and power [of your draw] work together and your [shot] will never err. Moreover, you can allow no shoddy workmanship as regards the breadth of the bow-limbs, taken together with the bracing height, the rigidity of the grip and the way the fletching is done: proper adjustment between all these things is of the greatest importance.
A good bow has a belly face rather than a broad one. The brace height should allow for proper tension and the grip should be wide enough to give sufficient strength. The broadening of the grip should be gradual, not abrupt. The cutting of the arrows should provide for barelling between the nock toward the head. If the arrow shafts are cylindrical, it is better for them to be on the thick side. The fletching should be short and the string should be thick. If it is thick, it will fit snugly into the nock and remain steady without sliding out. That is all on adjusting the bow and arrows.
The equipment you use in normal, daily practice is different to what you use in battle. If you use a narrow bow, it looks pretty and you can use it day-to-day. But in the battlefield you need a broad bow. If the bow is heavy, it will have good penetration, and if it is broad, it won?t come unstrung. The minimum length for an arrow should be no less than nine quan. Shorter than that and it cramps the shoulder and back joints [at the draw].
Supposing you have a bow with a draw-weight of 3.2 li (19 kg), and you use an arrow nine quan in length weighing six Chinese ounces (22 gm). This seems not to follow the correct proportions, yet it will still fly very fast and stable. A correct proportion is certainly involved here, and it is to be found by giving further attention and becoming conversant with it. This is the outline of ?the lethal weapon.?
The mnemonic goes:
?Take a light hand to your bow, and choose an arrow long;
Set the arrow on the string and make your intent fierce and strong.
The way to draw the bow has the draw and bow arms dividing into a yin and yang;
As the arrow leaves the bow, it carries one point each of skill, stability, accuracy and viciousness.?
?Stability?, ?accuracy? and ?viciousness? are three methods in archery. A person who wants to excel in his field must have a comprehensive grasp of the ins and outs of his ?lethal weapon.?
MJuingong
Thank you. Perhaps I missed it, but I see no passage relating to "short drawing". Did I miss something?
Stephen Selby
As far as Li Chengfen is concerned, it is the comment:
In my travels and among my sharp-shooting friends, I have some who can fully draw a bow of ten ?li? (54.6 Kg). But in their day-to-day practice, they never draw more than nine. This illustrates the desire to co-ordinate bow, arrow and strength.
But there is more on the subject in other authors. I'll try to draw them together here.
Nick
:roll: As far as I can see, this argument will continue to and fro – between those who insist that the bows of old were all prodigiously strong, and those who say they weren’t so strong after all. The only way to prove it will be through empirical tests based on replicas made to exact dimensions and as near as possible identical materials - as has been done with English bows.
I think there are a number of elements to this argument. There are some people who are drawn to the ‘they don’t make ‘em like they used to’ kind of opinion – to regard people of today as too physically degenerate. While it is true in this day and age there are probably examples of the most appalling physical unfitness ever seen – I think a strong person now is pretty much like a strong person 500 or 1000 years ago. Also it is fairly obvious that a full-time professional archer will be more adept at all elements of archery than someone who just does it as a recreation.
I feel bows would have varied a lot in strength depending on their intended purpose in the past i.e infantry, artillery, cavalry, hunting bows, and also bows intended as sidearms so to speak – for use by a person for whom the bow was not their primary weapon.
Maybe a point to ponder would be: if people in the past are meant to be have been so much tougher and stronger than now, why are not other tools and implements proportionately heavier and larger? You could get more work done faster – using your strength, with heavier axes, picks, shovels and sledgehammers etc. If anything tools from the past tend to be look smaller and lighter than those today (probably more efficient!).
Adam Karpowicz
Thanks Stephen. The principles of spine matching are well summarized here.
Obviously heavy bows were used in combat. The shorter arrows for such bows would have the required higher spine weight.
Could you plese give the date for this? And how long is 9li?
Adam
Fox
Folks,
I share what have been said. Since Nov 2003, I shot regularly (weekly) and worked from 30lb to now 50lb bows. My right thumb skin is still on its way to be thickened to take 50lb. My left thumb can only take 35lb. Though I use thumb ring, I find the skin thinckening is essential to be a good archer?! Anyway to build up thumb for drawing heaving bow?
Fox
MJuingong
Mr. Selby:
Thank You. But I must admit that my reading of theLi comment referred to weight of pull, not length of pull.
Vty,
MJuingong
redhawk
hi you all,
I think we are talking of drawweights of every kind of ancient bows.
First of all:100lbs is not 100lbs.The law of the lever tells another story.100lbs is 100lbs if you don?t move this weight.But if this weight is moving or is moved it starts to be a different thing.
Every archer will affirm that a 100lbs longbow with a 28" draw is weaker than a shorter bow with the same drawweight at a 24" draw.
Every bowyer will make a heavier string for the shorter bow as for a longer bow with the same drawweight.
The same drawweight produces more energy within the shorter bowlimbs.
Anyway I?ve studied all your contributions seriously and learned a lot and there is still much more to learn and to do.
I still believe that the bow for the common daily use in a nomadic life of a horse archer has had a drawweight from 45-70lbs.It?s enough to crash a shield with some arrows shot by an experienced archer.
All the old bows in museums,in private collections(Grayson,Pope) almost never have a drawweight more than 70lbs.The Turkish bows are really an outstanding work of art and craftmanship,but not at all the average bow.
7 years ago I had the opportunity to have a look at 2 replicas of Turkish flight bows done by the well reputated Helmut Mebbert,cause the stupid son of the actual owner of these bows has tried to draw the bows backwards and the hornstrips had partially separated from the wooden cores.It was not so difficult to repair them,and I was allowed to shoot these bows:57lbs at 28",49lbs at 28".The first bow shots a flightarrow 316m,the second one shots the same arrow 285m.Thats really enough.
If we look at the education of nomadic children in the past,we see a lots of archery-games with the focus on mobility and firepower,thats what Diana has posted.
The best archer in our archery-community here in my hometown is shooting with the worst bow(longbow,ash,28",45lbs) and he even doesn?t spine his witchhazel-arrows! But he is shooting every day for at least 1-2hours.He even shoot out every kind of modern bows.That the result if you practice a lifelong.You don?t need a heavy bow to hit your marks.
I would say kill is kill.And a being stroke by a deadly arrow will not discuss the drawweigth of the bow that shots the arrow,it will admire the skill of the archer?
Stephen Selby
Li Chengfen (Ming) commenting on Qi Jiguang (Ming):
General Qi [Ji-guang] said, ?When you fire in the face of the enemy, as long as you keep up your courage, keep the level of your strength stable, keep your potential energy high and restrain it on a short leash, then no-one will be able to get away from you. In the face of the enemy, you are forced to draw, of course. But do not pull the bow to the full extent of your strength; and make sure every shot counts. Only with your arms straight and even can you take a firm stance: this will enhance your potential energy. Then you need to wait until the enemy is within about ten paces. Fix it so that you are sure of hitting with a single shot, then you are sure to make a kill. Even if you are afraid the enemy is almost upon you, even if you fear the points of the first blades upon you, [wait for that moment] and then shoot to kill and your skill will be rewarded ten-fold.

Although the bow and arrow are long-range weapons, long-range weapons can be put to short-range use. If your strength gives you a range of a hundred paces, you can shoot at fifty paces; if you can only manage fifty paces, you should shoot at twenty five. The length of your range can be regarded as your ?potential energy?; the use at short range can be regarded as ?restraining it on a short leash.? (?Strength with a range of a hundred paces? means an effective shooting range of a hundred paces.) If you adjust your shooting so that you shoot with just half of the strength available to you, that leaves you with power to spare and you will not be plagued by errors and losses.
So when you are involved with the enemy in cavalry warfare, shoot the largest target on the field: don?t feel that you always have to shoot at people. The famous poem goes:
[?When you pull a bow, then pull a bow that?s strong,
And when you fire an arrow, fire the one that?s long!]
Before you shoot the rider shoot the horse,
First take the leader, ere you take the rebel throng!?
jack farrell
I do not mean to monopolize but in ARAB ARCHERY, a Moroccan text from the 1520s, the author seems to be in complete agreement with Li Chengfeng.
Some draw weights mentioned for the Khurasanian #22,45 and 52. For the Persians; 52,60, and 112. Other archers; #52,60, 67,75, 112 and 150! Competition bows; #75.
He claims that archery instructors the "world over" state the practical range of a bow shot is 45 bow lengths, with a maximum range of 100 bow lengths. (pp 172-174)
This would appear to verify everyone's theories. There were archers of all ability levels in antiquity. If one went to battle, one might like to take along anyone who could shoot well. -j-
Adam Karpowicz
Redhawk, you misunderstood the point: we are talking about the weight of bows at every draw length, be it 28 or 24". And Mebert is not an example to follow, I have heard his bows were rather poor. He was no closer to the 10th c. archers than you or I. We all like to make bows we can use too. There is no fun in making a bow good only for the wall.
Indeed, all archery texts warn against overbowing. And target or practice bows were always made particularly weak. What we want to know is the *average* weight of a war bow, an want to define the average, not the range of all possible bow weights (as in Jack's post). If a bow feels like a toy to you, even if it is nice to shoot with, you will not take to battle.
There is no doubt on my mind the 50lb bows were such toys for the ancients. A life spent on physical exercise has its consequences. How can you possibly compare that with the recreational archery of today?
For credible penetration reseach one must be realistic about the *average* bow weight, or be more specific about what is tested. And above all let us not forget this is a hobby and we are supposed to have fun.
Take it easy
Adam
jack farrell
Adam; I think we are all having fun. But to answer the question of what ancient war bows were like we need some kind of proof. As my friend, archeologist Lee Patterson says, "don't give me your theory without offering some proof. That is just an opinion."
An average bow would be to take all the known specimines added together and divided by the number. Would that be useful? Or the median would be the most mentioned number. Again, maybe not so good?
What we have also not asked ourselves is the draw weight of professional archers of today, FITA archers shoot alot of arrows. Maybe add 10-20%for war bows because it is so stated in old texts. Surely it would be difficult to believe that the human physique has degenerated over the last millinum. We skew the scientific value of a conclusion by assuming the ancients were better than us. What they had was a continuity of fantastic bow making. -j-
Adam Karpowicz
Well Jack, have a look at the dimensions of old Turkish and Tatar bows. And consider the draw weight of the English longbows as found with the Mary Rose. And the draw weight of some of the Chinese war bows.
Now, we need a proof that archers in other countries were weaker.
Adam
Jaroslav
FITA is artificial thing. The technique they use is just about good for light sporting bow. They just hold too long, they draw with rigid bowhand, using only relatively small muscle group on shoulder.
Heavy bow technique is aplicabe for any kind of bow - it uses large muscles of breast and back to get the bow drawn. It utilises different principes to achieve degree of accuracy - heavy bow archer loses his arrow when his frame achieves full limit and the most important factors are probably dynamics and good rhytm. Rhytm being perhaps most important factor.
Just somebody make some replicas and get the arrows shot! Nothing else will end this discussion. :twisted:
I ordered some horn from Peter Cua and I have to send him money finaly to get 2 pairs! Then I gonna make one heavy beast.
This short and rather scrappy quality clip of me shooting 100# bow which I shot to study what I actually do.
Its a longbow, but the drawing part is probably universal to any heavy weapon. The arrows are 32 1/2??, I m getting the thing to 30?? as I m just a small lad.
Its 10 Mb if you are interested in downloading it:
"Just somebody make some replicas and get the arrows shot! Nothing else will end this discussion. "
Right. I have come close however. I have just finished modelling the Subeixi bow as described by Stephan and Bede on ATARN. The software was provided by Dave B. (you know who Bede) and allows to input dimensions, shape, material properties and string tension. I have used it before with good success for self and sinewed bows, composites and fibergalss laminates. Since it does not allow for some details and triangular limb cross-sections, I reduced the thickness accordingly, also reduced the cross-section to account for the silk wrapping.
To err on the conservative side, I modelled the sinew and horn to be almost 1cm thick, not likely the case in any bow. This greater thickness of horn and sinew, with only a thin lath of wood in between, reduces the stiffness of the bow (sinew and horn are about 5x less stiff than wood) and threfore the draw weight. I used the draw length of 31" (about 80cm) as it would be for the eastern Scythian bows. The stresses in the bow are not too much even at this draw length. Also, I used low string tension at brace (something rather for a 40lb bow) to make sure the results are not exaggerated in any way.
I got in excess of 100lb for this bow with about 2" total string follow in the unbraced position. With no string tension (the bow is in effect as if at brace when unstrung), not likely to be the case, the bow was about 85lb.
With no horn, only sinew and wood, the bow would be more than 150lb weight.
Anyway, I knew (as I said before) the bow had to be more than 80lb. Now it seems it is more like 100+lb. Woudn't the western Scythians be as strong as the eastern?
Of course if the Subeixi bows are grave goods, we are back to where we started.
Adam
Stephen Selby
Adam, does the computer model produce any graphic output to show what it might look like as it is pulled back?
jack farrell
If the Subeixi bow was constructed only of wood laminates, it does not seem possible that it could have drawn 31". This also appears unlikely for a sinew backed version. This would be very risky for a horn composite given the relative humidity of the bow's burial location near the Taklamakan Desert.
Considering that other Scythian bows are associated with Goroiti with lids which would put a much lower absolute size to the arrow, another model might be appropriate. We also do not have a date for the burial. Because of the size of the bow, it could represent an artifact of a date later than the Scythian culture. Scythian style bows remained popular for some time after the culture evolved.
It also seems inappropriate for a bow to be so curved, to be so difficult to manufacture, that it should lay in a straight line when unstrung. Almost surely this is from being strung at the time of burial. Since wood self bows are also found in the area from all periods, why go to all the trouble for an all wood laminate for a functional bow?
My theory: Among the Scythians, the bow was the symbol of authority to be handed down from father to son. When the father was burried, the son inherited the father's bow. The father would be buried with a substitute. Just as Hercules left his bow for his sons, to decide who was the most fit to become king. It was the ability to draw the bow that determined who should rule. To bury the actual bow would be unScythian.
See the Chasti Urn. The father gives the bow to his son while keeping another in his gorytus. -j-
Adam Karpowicz
Stephen:
This is the shape in full draw, an approximation, since I do not know exact measurements. I did not model the extreme recurvature of the tips, but this would not change much.
Adam Karpowicz
Jack:
The Subeixi bow is all we have for now. The other finds are not real bows, only grave goods.
It is interesting that if the bow was made without horn, the wood could probably survive the compression stresses (at about 1.5% max strain) with a very thick sinew layer. Assuming the deflex in the limbs was deliberate, but not as great as in the present condition.
I would rather think the bow is a true horn bow. I do not share your view about the extreme dryness being detrimental for the bows. I have around 20% relative humidity in my house over winter (read most of the year) and can still use the bows. I do not know what could happen at 0%RH...
As to the draw length/arrow length, I would think Bede and Stephen can answer this question much better. However, at the 51" length, a horn bow would indeed be drawn to 31" without problems. Lesser draw would not utilize the full bending ability of the composite.
I agree the deflex is not entirely manufactured, but acquired during use, normal for all horn bows. The problem is that if is this is true, then the initial draw weight of this bow would be much greater again. The 100lb I modelled was with an acquired string follow or a deliberate deflex. It is conceivable the bows were made with the front (inner) section of horns - this would also explain the triangular cross-section of limbs. If so, then the bow would be deflexed in the limbs from the start. The outer sections of limbs could then be made of wood/snew with no horn.
Adam
Stephen Selby
The 'crude length' of the Subexi bow (i.e. just setting a ruler against the extremities and measuring in a straight line) was 130cm, and the arrows were around 86cm (a couple of cm variation between arrows) including the iron tips.
Adam Karpowicz
Stephen:
The 130cm was given as the length along the curve. 119cm as the length in a straight line between the tips. I reproduced it exactly as given in Bede's article.
I will check the draw weight at 86cm draw.
Adam
Adam Karpowicz
It just occured to me the arrowhead length should be subtracted, How long were the arrowheads? And the depth of arrow nocks?
Adam
jack farrell
My copy of a probable copy of a Greek "Squat Lekythos attributed to the Painter of Oxford, 1920. Greek Attic. Early Classical, ca, 450 BCE, Terracotta..." Title is Artemis Running with her bow. After, From Myth to life; Images of Women in the Classical World, Caroline Houser.
Artemis, godess of the hunt and childbirth is shown persuing prey. She wears a panther skin to refer to her hunting prowess and her ties to Asia.
Sorry that I could not make out her draw hand better. Was working from a very small pic. Moms, no need to alter your daughter's physique to make this shot. Nice hunting dress! -j-
Adam Karpowicz
It is a great picture Jack. Note the length of the arrow. At full draw her bow, although smaller, would look very similar to the Subeixi bow.
Adam
Stephen Selby
How long were the arrowheads? And the depth of arrow nocks?
Say 4 cm for the socketed, iron arrowheads and 0.4cm for the depth of the nock.
I looked back at my sketches of the Subexi bow that I did at the Institute in Urumqi, and I see that I showed 130cm as the crude length.
In the image that Jack put up, you can see the grip on the bow limb that is clearly above the most acute part of the middle curve. I have seen this in other pictures. When I and Xu Kaicai (former Chinese national archery coach) looked that the Subexi bows, we were quite stumped at guessing how it was held, as there was no sign of a place that would have allowed a comfortable grip.
S.
jack farrell
Adam; This is a beautiful bow that Artemis draws. There are other Scythian bows with rather abrupt bends in the limbs. This one also lacks the curled recurves. Reminds me of sort of a double angular bow. Very fetching.
You are probably aware of late angular bows with somewhat "duckhead" siyahs which are even more curved than Scythian bow tips. These must have also had a deep groove in the curves to prevent the string from falling off. Though our best information is that the angular bow, ca. 1800 BCE, predated the earliest Scythian bows, ca. 800 BCE, by about a thousand years, the Duck head angular, ca. 700 BCE, and the scythian bow are contemporaneous to eachother.
So my next project is a reproduction of a Neo-Hittite duck head Angular composite with Ibex, the one illustrated in Von Luschan, 1898 will provide the prototype. The detail of the illustration is amazing, decoration and all. I will make a drawing soon and post it for all to see. -j-
jack farrell
Stephen and all; I have come to the working hypothsys that the manner of gripping a Scythian bow is an aiming technique for elevation. I think there are some references that will corroborate. There are many illustrations in artwork which show archers with Scythian-type equipment holding the bow above center, at the center and below center. It may likewise prove useful to think of these bows being symetrical or asymetrical, for the same reason.
My friend, Karasev, refers to a 30 years war that the Sakas had with the Parthians in the second century BCE and afterwards the Parthians began manufactureing their own bows of Scythian pattern of a larger size. This occured after the introduction of "Siberian" bows with horn lath reenforcements.
My thinking is that Greeks also made "Scythian" bows. It is just not believible that they used only imported composites. -j-
Adam Karpowicz
Stephen:
Thanks for the measurements. It means the draw length for this arrrow would be around 81cm. This would add a few pounds to the weight of the bow.
Jack:
I am looking forward to see your reproductions. Do you follow length/width/thickness dimensions of existing bows? If you have the dimensions, I could try to model the bows. Except for the shapes, I know very little about angular bows.
Adam
redhawk
hi Jack,
the very sharp almost semicircled recurves of these bows forced the string to stay in line,no need to make the grooves extra deep.I even wondered why this kind of recurve has disappeared cause it added a kind of eccentric action on the draw of the bow too.They are easy to do out of horn,if you you do them out of wood take care that the back-and the belly-side of the wood have a closed growthring all over its length,so the steam-bending will be successful.
I prefer to shot the scythians while holding them below the center,so the arrow was shot out of the center of the bow.There you have the longest possible string-arrow-contact.
I?m almost sure that the Greeks have started to build the scythian bows by their own and that they have developed their own version of this bow that maybe leads to the so-called Cupids bow.
On old paintings you can see that they were very similar.
Is there any painting of an etruscan bow?I remember that the ATARNO Zoran Pavlovic has posted that the scythian bows look almost like etruscan bows,which he has seen on an old painting.
Murat ?zveri
Hi everybody,
Very nice debate!
What I think is that heavy bows must have been used. As Adam says the Turkish-Ottoman bows have tremendous draw weights. The Ottoman ambassador who shot two flight arrows in front of the members of Toxophillus society in England used a bow in 65 pound range. But he admitted that he is not even a kemankes (cam-un-cash), a licenced archer and the distance he achieved would not be taken seriously. After all, the draw weight of the bow could have been measured for 28'' draw as it was usual in English longbows. Although it's not very clear how long Ottoman archers drew, the actual draw weight might have been slightly higher.
It's very well known that the flight archers (many of them were soldiers) were extremely strong. Tozkoparan has gained his nick name by breaking the beech bark covering the bows back, just because he grasped the grip too firm ("Toz" is the beech bark and 'Tozkoparan" means "the toz-ripper"). Miralem Ahmed Aga was known to be holding two sheeps in each hands on his shoulder height until they are skinned. Another one could bend horseshoes in his hands and this phenomenon has been witnessed several times.
If it comes to combat archery please keep in mind that the ancient warriors had to pierce the enemy's armor to eliminate it. Accuracy is essential but heavy bow-arrow combination was also a must to reach the enemy's body.
How they were able to draw so heavy bows is another question. As mentioned before some are born to be Hercules. There was a friend of mine who could easily perform 130 regular push-ups when he was only a 17 years old teenager. He didn't use to train regularly except playing soccer at weekends (once or twice a week). His muscle size was like of a bodybuilder. I also can remember another boy who was able to beat anybody in arm wrestling without any detectable effort. He was not a "sportman" neither. I weight trained with him once to see his performance with weights and realised that only some spesific muscle groups (forearm for example) are stronger than usual. Maybe that kind of people were selected as archers.
The draw weight an archer can handle is technique-dependent too. I shoot both olympic style, split finger instinctive and (very recently) Asian-Turkish style with a thumbring. My olympic recurve is a 40 pounder but it really makes me tired because I have to hold it steady several seconds during aiming. On the other hand I use a 50 pounder for instinctive shooting and my performance is usually better because I do not hold the string for long: I snap shoot. I think, the ancient warriors used to snap shoot too especially on horseback.
jack farrell
Redhawk; Can you discuss the making of the wooden core of a scythian bow? Are there two laths? And the grain? Are you also saying that you have made one with horn with no wood core? There were such creatures in the Persian world.
I don't have information on Etruscian bows. But of course, would be interested.
Adam, What dimentions do you need. I have the paper on many Angular composites. -j-
Dave
Jack, when and where was this paper published?
Dave in oz
Romain
I found one etruscan drawing depicting a bow on Google :) :
Posting this, I'm using up the remains of my prcious posting quota... :(
jack farrell
Dave; There are about 39 known examples of Egyptian composite bows. 29 of these were in the King Tutankhamun burial, making it the mother lode of all composite bow burials. It is documented by Oxford U. Press., W. McLeod. The Brooklyn bow by McLeod; The Oxford bow by Balfour, and Hickman, The Berlin bow by Longman. Four Met bows by McLeod. Another Ciaro bow by Lucas-Harris. A Ciaro bow by McLeod. Another Cairo bow by Robinson.
Look for the COMPOSITE BOWS FROM THE TOMB OF TUTANKHAMUN, by McLeod, 1970. about 60pp. You'll be buisy for some time. -j-
Adam Karpowicz
Jack:
I need the length, thickness and width, preferably measured in several places along the limbs. The thicknesses of the component materials would be useful too.
I realize it may be impossible working from a photograph. Hopefully one width/thickness measurement would be given with it.
Adam
redhawk
Romain,thank you for the picture.
This bow looks very similar to the scythian bows.It looks again like a double-curved bow,the deflex seems to be not the sharp,the recurve is softer and not so long.
The arrows seem to be as long as the bow?
Jack,this evening I?ll post "my making" of the wooden core of the scythian bows.
Andrew Hall
There is a brief description and some simple drawings of some of the Subeixi bows in "New Achievements in Archaeological Research in Xinjiang during the Time Span (Continuation) 1990-1996", Xinjiang Institude of Archaeology and the Museum of the Xinjiang Autonomus Region, 1997, ISBN 7-80547-550-4 (Chinese text).
From my rough translations they are definitely horn/sinew bows, but the construction may differ from the later bows. There is a tiny cross-section drawing shown by the grip of one of the bows that has a 'T' shape inside the triangular cross-section. The description mentions the horn being glued to two pieces of tough wood. I would assume that the top of the 'T' is the layer of sinew, the upright is the horn, and the two triangular pieces filling in each side are the wooden pieces. An angular composite found at Thebes has a similar construction, though with a more rounded cross-section.
I will e-mail the drawings and text to Stephen to see if a coherent translation agrees with my assumptions.
Regards
Andrew Hall
redhawk
hi Jack,
when I was planning the reconstruction 3 possibilities came in my mind and I discussed them with Mr.Godehardt and then we made our decision to make it with a wooden core running through the whole length of the bow from tip to tip.I made the core like a usual selfbow of mulberry,I still have done 2 another scythian bows with caucasian yew and osage as a core.The shape was done by steambending at first the grip with its heavy reflex/deflex and then the recurves.I used jigs for a correct symmetric bending.
The second way to do it is the "glue-shaping" with 2 laths as you have done it with your egyptian composit.
The third way coming in my mind is to do it with a heavy reflex allover the whole length of the bow,as Adam has assumed.But in the Sycthian times there were no highly reflexed bows.Anyway Adam has "provocated" me to do it this way for my own private research.I?ve started it only made out of horn,sinew and bone.My favourite bows are hornbows with a bending section made of horn and sinew,without a wooden core.
It is also possible to do the "without wooden core-version" with less reflex,but then you need a thick hornstrip and the bow will be very heavy and "suck" the energy.
Very interesting is the actual posting of Andrew Hall.But at the moment I have to think about the sense of this kind of construction
Stephen Selby
Andrew Hall from the UK has just emailed me a short paragraph from a book in Chinese called "New Achievements in Archaeological Research in Xinjiang between 1990-1996", Xinjiang Institute of Archaeology and the Museum of the Xinjiang Autonomus Region, 1997, ISBN 7-80547-550-4.
I have translated the Chinese text giving details of two Subexi bows:
Bows, arrows, gorytoi.
Four sets were excavated in all, generally similar in form. The bows were sinuous in shape and had all [been] snapped at the grip and the string cut in two with a sharp blade. The items were placed together within their gorytoi. Between two and six wooden-shafted arrows were placed respectively in each gorytos.
Specimen from burial M4:8
One composite [bow]. The body of the bow is divided into inner and outer layers. The inner layer is horn in the form of a thick strip, sandwiched between two layers of flexible wood. The assembly is glued together. The outer layer is wound around with ox sinew. There is a turtle-head shaped string nock at each extremity. The string is made from thick ox sinew 0.4cm in diameter.
The middle of the bow is triangular and the ends of the limbs are oval for an average of one third of the length of the limb, which is 121cm long in total.
There are two wooden arrows similar in form, The shafts are circular [in section] and they are triple fletched. The points are made of wood, one having a triangular section with blade edges and one having just one edge. The points are made separately from the shafts and then glued together and bound with thread around the outside. The total length is 80cm.
One gorytos made of leather, reinforced with wood along the edges. There is a main compartment for the bow and sub-compartments to take the arrows. At the top are two leather straps, the main one of which would go over the shoulder and the lesser one could be tied around the waist and fixed with an iron hook. The centre portion is 30cm wide and the opening at the top 20cm wide, length 94cm. (Ill. 17,10)
Specimen from burial M27:11
One bow, six arrows and one gorytos. Bow?s length is 112cm, length of arrows 81cm, other details as Specimen M4:8 above. (Ill. 17,9)
The implication of this is that sinew was employed on the limbs as a binding material rather than to lend tensile strength. But I would caution against accepting the archaeologist's analysis without further observation. I should also like to see independent confirmation of the structure of the limb as 'thick horn sandwiched between two layers of flexible wood.'
Adam Karpowicz
The (obviously deliberate) breakage at the grip and the cut strings seem to indicate the bows could be real bows, not grave goods.
A very interesting construction. There has to be a practical reason for laminating the materials vertically. perhaps the horn strips were taken from the sides of horns, because horns in use did not allow to cut flat strips of sufficient thickness. Perhaps the horns were more round, cut in half vertically, and both halfs flattened with heat, allowing to cut several flat, vertical strips.
The length of 121 and 112cm must have been measured in a straight line.
Archeologists are notoriously loose in the choice of words. How do they know the sinew was taken from an ox? Now this statement will confuse researchers for generations.
Adam
redhawk
ehi,
Adam,your ideas on the hornstrips make absolutely sense.
The oxen-thing could be right.The oxen was known in the old chinese agriculture(I "googled" upon it),maybe they took their sinew cause it was easy to get.I?ve never used cattle neither oxen-sinew,and I can?t believe in their elasticity.
jack farrell
Adam and all; I posted the working drawings of the Egyptian Angular under that post. -j-
Bede
For Adam:
There is one Egyptian bow with several vertical laminations rather that the three in this one. Since the Tutankhamum bows exhibited so many different cross sections it looks like people were still actively experimenting with lamination designs.
The other area where vertical laminations were used in composite bows was in European crossbows. There the belly was wood and the core was vertical laminations surrounded by thick sinew. These bows were never as stressed as a normal hand bow of composite design.
Some things that are worth considering are that
The cross-sectional composition at the centre of the bow may not be the same as the limbs. This is strongly indicated by the profile changes in the cross sections of the Xinjiang bows.
The bow may have been broken ritually and that might have been considered necessary because of its magical significance rather than whether or not it was a real bow.
The proportion of the width of the belly taken up by the horn strip may have increased in the flatter sections of the limbs.
The bows may have been constructed by people from a differnet bow making tradition just as funeral objects made to look like the originals. This I think is unlikely.
I know most of this is obvious, but this discussion is getting very long and we might be losing sight of what we are talking about.
Stephen Selby
A very interesting construction. There has to be a practical reason for laminating the materials vertically. perhaps the horn strips were taken from the sides of horns, because horns in use did not allow to cut flat strips of sufficient thickness. Perhaps the horns were more round, cut in half vertically, and both halfs flattened with heat, allowing to cut several flat, vertical strips.
Adam, wouldn't you be worried about making assumptions based on the structure of the (supposed) grip? From what I've seen of hornbows, the grip does not usually reflect the construction of the working sections of the limbs. Could the grip have been built like the cross-section above but the lamination changed to lateral on the working section?
redhawk
hi you all,
the construction reminds me a russian bow I had to do right now.This bow is a composit made of birch and juniper and sinew-backing.As a reinforcement of its recurves a piece of bone was vertically inlayed and the sides of the grip were also reinforced with bone-plates.The working sections of its limbs were done without any vertical inlays.
I will glue hornstrips and a strip of mulberry in the dimensions of the subeixi-bow(working-section) and try to bent it,cause I?m really in doubt that it will bent enough.
Adam Karpowicz
Stephen:
Since as stated in the article, the two thirds of the bow have the triangular section (together with the grip, this is how I understand it), I would assume the construction to be as drawn by Andrew for this length. 2/3rd is quite a bit, so this would be the cross-section of the working limb, or most of it.
In response to Bede, my feeling is the flattened outer 1/3 of limbs have no horn at all. This would explain the cross-section of the limbs. And the all-wood 1/3 would add stiffness to the tips for less stack. The tips could be either spliced-in or continue all through the bow as a flat strip under sinew.
If I remember correctly, the Egyptian construction indeed consisted of vertical strips of wood for the core, but the horn strip was inlayed into the belly as a flat strip. I can be wrong.
Adam
Patrick Menzies
Adam, I have always wondered why so many horn bows have horn way out to the ends , particularly the ones which have working hinges for the bending sections. The idea of using many sections of wood for the core never really made sense to me(except in a wood shortage situation). I have long been toying with the idea of making a one piece core composite with horn only on the bending section. My personal feeling is that the scythian bow wasn't strongly reflexed. The pictures of them being braced apparently indicate this. So my plan is a short elm recurve with a layer of horn lining the deflexed arches. Perhaps the bows were deflexed to allow easier stringing while actually on horseback. Pat
Bede
Pat,
I have some thoughts for you that might help.
The Turkish bows I inspected in the Grayson Collection often had the horn scraped away from the upper ends of the kasan or ridged section. Even the grip was often thinned down. I assume that this was more to fit the hand than for anything else. The bow I shot at Utah, made by Harry Drake in the Turkish style, had the horn scraped away at both ends of the limbs. The grooves for the gluing of the horn to the core were still visible. This is true of original bows where the horn has been scraped away from the core at the kasan. The Omnogorov bow was built with the horn not reaching the ends of the ridged section. Adam may have a straight forward reason for these various approaches based on constructional needs.
Adam's experience also will better explain the sectional cores. I would not doubt that the Scythian bows had one piece of the core extending the full length. Bows like Stephen's Khotan bow with large grips may have started the two part construction with a diagonal splice at the grip. They also had applied wooden strips on the belly at each end to form the ears. Later Turkish, Persian and Chinese bows with their "V" splices seem to be a development of this. Possibly it was done for greater strength.
Adam Karpowicz
Pat, your idea for a bow is sound. I think there was a shortage of not only wood, but also horn. So using horn in the bending section only makes sense. One thing to remember: the composite limbs can take a lot of bending. It means the deflex in the limbs could not be very great. I think the limbs were straight (or nearly straight) off the reflexed grip when the bow was made. The rest of the deflex is string follow. The layer of sinew would have to be rather thick, around 1/4".
Bede is correct, the horn in the kasan section should be thinner. In flight bows it may only reach to 1/2 of kasan and be very thin. I saw a disassembled bow where the horn layer was ending no more than 2" beyond sal. This is to make the limb ends as light as possible, since the wood alone is lighter than horn. Lighter limbs move faster.
I found there is a problem with the durability in this type of construction. There is a lot of shear/compression stress on the glue line betw. the horn and wood and the horn tends to delaminate if made too short. It may not matter for the short-lived flight bows, but durability would be important for the war bows. In bows where the horn is present (even if thinner) on the kasan section this problem does not arise.
Adam
jack farrell
Pat and all; On the different kinds of bows.... from Arab archery, 1500s.
"The hand bow is of three varieties: Hijazi Arab, composite and Persian, which is also Turkish. ... The bows of the Hijazi Arabs are also of three kinds: One is made from a single stave: another is made of a stave or two staves joined lengthwise: and the third is backed or reinforced.... The method is that of shaving the wood down. The reinforced bows are those which have the horns of goats placed in the belly and the sinew on the back...
The second variety of hand bow is the composite. It is composed of four different materials: wood, horn, sinew and glue....It is called composite because of the manner of its construction. It is also described as separated, because of the disconnected nature of its parts before they are put together.
The third variety of hand bows- the Persian and Turkish- are made in the same way as the Arab composite bow...."
