Egyptian Composites

This bow's name is Isis. The form is at the lower of the photo. Two pre-steamed Ash laths make the limbs with the riser BETWEEN them; blocks for the tips should be below the laths. The horn follows on the belly. The unstrung shape is somewhat misleading. I am hoping that it makes a near triangle when strung.

Jack:

Very nice bow. I think you could have more reflex in the arms though - given to the bow before applying sinew. This would improve the performance without adding weight to the limbs. Egyptians must have known that!

You can still heat the entire bow now and give it more reflex, until the tips meet. There is no danger of over-stressing with such long limbs.

Adam

hi Jack,

I like this bow,it is really a "she".

I?m not so sure about increasing the reflex until the tips will meet.
For sure you could do it by heating the limbs,but the highly reflexed bows were developed later as in Egyptian times.

That's a really neat bow, Jack! I look forward to seeing more pics of it.


T

Thanks all. I wanted to have more reflex. But there are several Egyptian tomb paintings showing the royal archery workshop and none of the drying bows has extreme reflex. Because of the presence of birch bark on so many bows, it seemed natural to go to a harder core. There are no artifacts of any type from the period of birch wood. Birch bark was the commodity. And Water buffalo horn is much denser than Nubian Ibex, but Ageans are shown arriving with goat horns as tribute and these horns are shown being cut up in the Royal workshop so there I am. Shelly wants the most authentic reproduction possible with only technology from the period and the most authentic materials.

In one Central Asian phylosophy, the bow is a woman, the arrow is a man. She sends him out to do her bidding, and he immediately responds. -j-

In one Central Asian phylosophy, the bow is a woman...

No wonder many wives get upset when their husband comes home with a new bow (beau?) :lol:


T

I love your new project, Jack.

Please, give us as much details as you can on the construction.

Romain; All this info will one day be published so I don't want to tell all here. But I will show more as things develop.

Adam; Use this prototype to see how well the model works on an Ibex and Ash composite. The draw length will be 30.75 inches. This is not so efficient as bows of a much later period, we'll allow them to learn something in 2000 years! -j-

Jack:

The bow turned out to be about 50lb at 31" draw. This is assuming the total reflex is around 3" (measured immediately after unstringing!). With 5" total reflex it will be closer to 60lb (probably doable in lower humidity/temp). The stresses in the limbs are low for a horn bow, about 2% max. strain. The bow is overbuilt. It seems it is also a bit whip-tillered.

The result is not too accurate, since the program does not account for the oval limb cross-section (I subtractet 2mm limb thickness to approximate). I assumed sinew to be 1/4" thick at centre, then 1/8" up the limb and the edge sinew to be 1mm thick.

Adam

Well Adam, how do I feel? Having someone that I thought I knew refering to my goddess as overweight, inefficient, with skinny arms? The goddess that I have been spending so much time with lately, admiring. My great expectations! Alas!

But you have inspired me to take her to the desert, where she will be most at home, where she can do her utmost. There will be no disappointment whatever the outcome. Some goddesses are built for speed and some are more for looks.

I forgive you for your honesty, you are a man of science, an analytical person. Nevertheless, it is also known that you enjoy beauty and the sinewy curves of a traditional being.

I'll be OK. And just kidding,... somewhat. -j-

My most sincere apologies Jack. On the other hand, with her solid and robust personality, she can take the pressures of life so well.

Adam

Jack, could you please post a full draw picture?
I like the look of these bows but I can't picture how the limb would bend with that handle shape.

SW

Adam; No apology necessary. I have regained my composure and have some questions. The reflex is now 9.75"? Low stress, 2%. Because of the long length? If it were shortened slightly, the stress would increase? What % of stress do you consider dangerous?

Whip tiller refers to the tapering of the lumbs? This is very typical of E composites. Edge sinew is more like 1/8" or slightly less. Back 1/4 to 1/8 and more. Thanks for your help. If you want we can proceed to an ancient example.

Sam; There are many modern recurves with this shape! Will post as available. -j-

Hello all; This is a drawing of a Neo-Hittite, c.750BCE, after Von Luschan. Note that his bow is just a lick different than a Scythian one. Guess which release he uses. -j-

Jack:

The present reflex will diminish once you tiller and shoot the bow. The stress/strain will increase when the bow is shorter at the same draw length. 5% strain is normal for the composites. I had bows at 8% and could go higher. The core of bow usually breaks first, because wood can not take more than 1-2%.

There is no need for a computer to calc the strains. Take one half of limb thickness and divide by the radius of bending. Multiply by 100 for the strain in % at this section of limb.

Yes whip-tillering means the outer limbs bend more at full draw. Nothing unusual, although such bows tend to be slower.

I took the 1mm edge sinew at the widest point of limbs. Closer to the back side it would be more, because of the oval cross-section. If there was more sinew at edges, the bow will be lighter still.

I can model another one, if you like.

Adam

I shuld have added the strains as calculated are in relation to a straight limb. Strains from the straightened out reflex are added for the total strain.

Adam

Jack,
I think you will find that the bow is meant to be an angular composite like the Assyrian ones with turned over nocks instead of recurved tips. The problem with the reproduction is the scale. Neo-Hittite sculptures from around Carchemish are prone to that difficulty, just look at the noses on some of those bas reliefs.

I agree heartily with you about the release. Finger tabs and a bracer are a dead give away.

Bede; If there were two angular bends in the bow rather than one, everyone would describe it as Scythian. This bow is a development on Angular bows with knob and collar type string notches. There would have to be a groove at the notch ends to support the string. If there was any bending action in this turned over notch, and I do not see how one could deny that there would have to be some, then these turned over ends can be fairly described as recurves; albeit with a tighter angle than Scythian. There are dozens of representations like this of Duck-Head Angular composites crossing the cultures of the Ancient Near East.

The tassle on the Quiver is not uncommon to Scythian Gorytoi. Stephen, note the X on the Quiver face.

As Hittites have been reported to be of "Persian" type, and they are contemporary to Scythians, some continuity seems certain.

My question is: how would one make such recurves in a composite? Redhawk? Anyone? -j-

Jack,
The Hittites were long gone by the time of the Scythians. They were local Indo-European speaking people in Anatolia, who incorporated Hurrian (non-Indo-European speaking) peoples as well. The Neo-Hittite states were formed when the collapse of the Hittite Empire occured after the invasions of the Sea Peoples. The Hittites were part of the international scene that included the Assyrians and the Egyptians of the New Kingdom.

There are Assyrian records of the Persians moving down towards what became Persis (the present province of Fars) under the name of Parsua. They are not associated with the Hittites and there is no serious suggestion that they came from Anatolia or Northern Syria where the Neo-Hittites lived.

As for the ends of the bows, I believe that like the Assyrian bows the turned over tips were solid and carved out of the end of the bow. This is much easier to do than make a 180 degree recurve. Like you, I think there was a groove that carried over the tip of the bow onto the back where the string was fastened. This is clear from the Assyrian reliefs. When Mebert made his reconstructions last century, he made a duck's head and drilled a hole through the eyes to take the string (I inspected one in a private collection). This is clearly not what was originally done.

I agree with you that the defining qualities of the Scythian bow are its setback grip and its recurved tips. I also agree that there is a relationship between the angular bow and the Scythian in that they bow shared a deep cross section. With the exception of a one or two bows in the tomb of Tutankhamun, the majority of angular bows seems to be thick in proportion to their width. This also implies that they were not as highly reflexed as later bows, though maybe it is possible. Adam might have tested this. The strange relationship of the horn and wood in angular bow cross sections might have affected the degree to which they can be reflexed too. This is separate from the discussion about recurves obviously.

Bede; How would it be useful to the cast of a bow to install nonfunctioning duck figureheads to the bow tips? anyone? -j-

hi Jack,

even a nonfunctioning recurve is working cause the bending section of the bow is shortened and this gives more cast.

I agree with Bede,the ends of the bow were carved out.But I could also imagine that these recurves were spliced into the limbs and are made out of horn or bone.It is also possible to steam-bent these recurves,even they are curved so hard,if you choose your wood very carefully it works.

The recurves of my Scythian reconstructions are non-working,maybe a very,very little bit.

Jack,
I do not know why there was a change in design, but one thing is that the string applies its pressure to the limb at the very tip: there is no mass past that point. Also it is not possible to draw to a point where the string comes out of the nock.

If you look at some of the Tutankhamun bow nocks, you see that the ones with carved heads are already tending towards the rollover tip.

Only by making one and comparing it to a standard nock can we measure any differences. It might be something as simple as being easier to brace or more likely to centre the string.

I agree with redhawk that the duck's head could be spliced as well though I am still not sure anyone would go to the trouble of steam bending them.

The ultimate reason might be that they look nice.

Incidentally, I saw some earlier versions of these nocks on a drawing of Ramesses defeating the Libyan invasion. The Libyan bows had semi-circular projections on the back of the tips. The bows were angular.

I hope to try making this Neo-Hittite version. The easiest way to make the duck head would be to carve it out. Can't imagine that this would be strong enough in the delicate proportions shown. A steam-bent version, if possible, would have some spring-back when released. But Redhawk's idea about making it in horn has merit. Maybe leaving the tip on the horn slat when it is cut off, heating and bending it, and applying it to the wooden core for sinewing. What do you say to that? Horn is an honorable material for a nock. -j-

hi Jack,

Mr.Godehardt mailed this picture to me.Maybe you can see a bit more now.The tips of my "scythians" are made like you thought about them in your last posting.But is also possible to form the tips(duckhead.....)and then you can fix them with a wooden nail at the end of the bow.It works and I?ve seen it in the book of Holger Eckhardt,but I?m in doubt that our ancestors have done this way.The ducks on this painting seem to be swans?

Hawk; thanks to you and your friend for the illustration. It did seem as though these turned-down nocks would facilitate solo stringing, as Bede has mentioned. This pic would undermine that theory. Note in the VonLuschan pic that the botton bowstring loop is tied down.

On the foreshafted cane arrows, the node placement is noted. I was not really trying to indicate that his bow was as short as a Scythian bow. Only that it is not a long bow. Since his arrows are unarmored, without attached points, my overall impression is of a sharpshooter set up for distance shooting. The full quiver suggests a readiness for a lot of shooting. -j-

I wonder if the string isn't just permanently tied to both tip extremities of bow. Then unstringing would be done by slipping the string off the grooves in the tips. And stringing done by bending the bow and placing the string (already tied to the extremities) into the grooves. This method would allow to keep the string with a bow at all time. Perhaps this can explain the grooved, tight-recurved tips in these bows? A neat, alhough not too efficient method, since the tips are dead mass there.

Another thing: note the helper is needed to string the bow on the picture. It means the bow must have been reflexed quite a bit when unstrung.

Adam

I remember reading in the 'African Archery' chapter of The Bowyers Bible that their longbows had a hole burned through one end, the the string passed through from back to front then knotted. The bow is then braced by flexing the bow and slipping the string into a groove in the tip of the bow.

So maybe it is possible.

Dave

Adam and Dave,
The Assyrian illustrations, on which the drawing is based, also show unstrung bows and the reflex is not that great. However, if the string went over the top of the tips and and hooked over the beak, bracing might require two people.

Having one end of the bowstring tied to the bow and the other as a loop that was slipped over the tip at bracing is common to many cultures over a vast amount of time. It has obvious advantages like being able to set the string length by varying the knots of the tied end.

Even the limited reflex of the Assyrian bows would make them unsuitable for the African technique Dave mentions. The amount of reflex is similar to the surviving Egyptian angular bows. The African bow nocks might share the same physical advantages from the string going straight over the tips. As well, they would not have the added mass.

Because the bowstring was pulling up over the tip, I wonder if there were any physical advantages.

The stringing method I suggested above could be done with any kind of bow, regardless of reflex in the limbs. I was not clear in my post.

One should check however, if the path of string around the tip curves is of correct length for such bows.

Adam

Maybe the archer is having difficulty because he is wearing a skirt! Note the modest pose. He is probably not a horse archer.

Hawk-there is evidence that at least some Indians dressed this way previous to the arrival of the horse. -j-

Right. Clearly you wouldn't want to get the crown jewels snarled in the string... 8)

And so difficult shooting the bow while riding sidesaddle! -j-

Well, to get back on subject, here is an Isis update. After 2 to 4 sinewings. my Egyptian composite rested one month. Several days were spent slowly working her into various teplek formers. On the first attempt to string her she gave out a crack which everyone heard. Using a pebble to rap her revealed no noticable splits. The problem was determined to be a weakness in the grip; the horn in that area was roughed up with a metal sawblade and a 1/8 " horn riser, 3 1/2 long was glued to the belly over the existing horn and 3 very short sinewings were added to the back of the grip. After 10 days another attempt was made to string her, the grip held stiff but one limb was alarmingly weaker than the other at one point. Two more sinewings to the weak place, more drying time. Now the bow was dangerously difficult to string so a scraping of the sinew backing with lots of sanding produced a slightly weaker but smoother bow. Stringing on two knees seemed most safe but when I had to let her down because of the resistance, she got away from me and reversed herself. I can only blame myself as Redhawk already posted instructions for stringing an Angular bow. Stringing on one knee worked just fine.

This time both limbs bent slightly in the "propeller" shape, but was more or less cured when small tip pieces were cut off and new notches cut.

I started shooting her today, building the draw length slowly. She shoots smoothly with little hand shock. I drew her only about 24" but will work up. A great advantage to a bow with a deflex grip is accuracy. The new control is exhilerating. Poor thing has already gone through a war and was only born in Feburary. Will post pics as things progress. PS. Ibex horn is a different animal. -j-

One month drying after 4 layers of sinew is kind of short. The stability increases with the drying time, you could probably avoid some of your problems, if you let the bow dry for a year or so.

One can be "scientific" about the drying: normally one layer is dried by most bowyers for a min. of 1 week (depending on the ambient humidity, I find in high summer humidity it is more like 2-3 weeks). Since the diffusion of vapours (moisture) through materials goes up with the square of thickness, then 2 layers will require 2^2 x 1 = 4 weeks. And your 4 layers 4^2x1=16 weeks. I usually test bending of my bows after about three months, but let dry for at least 6 months to a year. The stability and increased stiffness is very noticeable.

Adam

Adam; I see your point. Since half the sinew is on the edges, some even on the belly, an increase in drying time should increase stability. Now the drying time is almost 2 months but what with the addition of dabs of sinew here and there for tillering I should probably set the clock back. My dilema is that performance tests will need to start soon. Should I take her to the desert? Is that too radical decrease of humidity? My town averages between 50 and 75% most days, and 95 F.+ every day of summer -j-.

Jack:

Patience is a virtue of the hornbowyer... If I were you, I would leave the bow alone for another few months. In the meantime I am sure there are other projects to finish, other bows to make...8^)

If you do not allow the bow to dry, the testing will be on a "wet", fresh bow, not on an "average", seasoned Egyptian. I am not sure what you mean by the "desert". It would probably be best to find out what were the conditions of use for these bows first and maybe replicate. It takes about 2 weeks to equilibrate a bow to a new humidity/temp.

Adam

hi you all,
I?m back from my holidays in Sardegna and there the humidity/ temperature conditions makes me cross and thinking again of making replicas.I had a prototype of one of my hornbows with me and the reflex rised within one week for 2cm on both limbs.Drawweight increases at about 12 lbs.
Conditions in Germany before were wet and cold,in Sardegna we have had every day 30-34C.

Jack,time will heal all wounds.
If I make a horn-or sinew-backed bow,I really like to work on it without any time-limit.

This morning, on Discovery Channel, they had a dramatization of the Battle of Meggido, where the pharaoh Tuthmosis' army fought those of Syrian tribes. Lots of bows in it, but of course most all looked like more modern recurves, with the archers shooting three-finger with tabs. Typical. However, it was nice to hear them mention fish airbladder glue with their explanations of what woods were used (I think they mentioned birch and elm).

Did the Egyptians in the 15th C. B.C. use a thumb ring release, or something else?


T

Thomas,
There is a little dispute about that. Jack's archaeologist friend, Shelley, suggests they did use a thumb ring. I disagree on the basis of the research I did on early thumb rings (http://www.atarn.org/chinese/thumbrings ... _rings.htm). I found that there were no reliable reports of archers' rings from Ancient Egypt in the archaeological record. Most people studying Egyptian representations of articles from the point of view of archery like Morse did not think that the Egyptians were using the thumb release.

The general consensus was that they used both the Tertiary Release and the Mediterranean Release. Later in the first few centuries of the current era, the kingdoms of Nubia developed a cylindrical thumb ring. This did not appear to affect Egypt proper, which by this time was a Roman province. The Nubians also developed a unique horse bit and seem to have been very inventive.

The Tutankhamun tomb goods included gloves and a strange kind of mitten so they could have used shooting gloves in Ancient Egypt because they knew the technology. Taking into account that we have almost everything from underwear to musical instruments from Ancient Egypt, I think the lack of thumb rings is important if negative evidence.

The main cause of confusion is the stylised way the Egyptians depicted the archer's drawing hand. I think they were trying to depict the Tertiary release. I might be wrong.

Shelly and I go round and round about the Egyptian thumb release. King Tut's gloves demonstrate amply that a thumb release COULD have been used. Shelly is a rather well known archeologist of the Near East and also an archer and he maintains that he sees a thumb release in the conventionalised art of Egypt, 1400 BC. He holds out for both techniques. There is the Von Lousen artwork of the Neo Hittite of 700BC with, I think, unquestionable representations of three finger tab and arm guard.

Because we all have our prejudices, when anyone throws a theory at me, I want to know where the museum is in which that evidence exists. This is only scientific. As Bede points out, there is a lot of Egyptian archery gear of the period. Tut was buried with the most elaborate assemblage known, 400+ arrows, 29 composites, numerous self bows, bow boxes, strings, really everything an archer could want. But not one thumb ring. Nor a leather thumbguard. So there is no physical evidence for thumb rings, in his tomb or in other Egyptian dynastic tombs.

Here is another real puzzler. There were several stick walking-type canes with a curved tip just like a modern type which were found in Tut's archery gear. Because his tomb had been ransacked in antiquity, it might be said that these were not origionally with the archery gear but were merely misplaced.

However, there was another found in Xinjaing, in a burial, and had been inserted into the Sogdian-type quiver. There was also present, an asymetrical Sogdian-type bow, which the Egyptians did not have. This is almost identical to a modern walking cane with a hooked top.

Now, I have received a Russian text by S I Rudenko, and under the chapter Ceremonial Gorytus of the 4th Century BC, there is a drawing of a relaxed Scythian elder, wearing his bow and gorytus(quiver/bowcase) holding a short shepherd's crook.

Can anyone think of how these diverse archers could have used a cane for an ararchery related purpose? -jack-

Can anyone think of how these diverse archers could have used a cane for an archery related purpose?

Hmmm... The only thing that came to my mind is unlikely. Here in Korea, the person who goes to the target to gather arrows on the ground uses a cane-like device, to save on bending over. However, that is a more modern appliance suited to Korean archery, where arrows will be spread around the ground.


T

In Pant's Indian Archery there is a photograph of a metal device carried in the quiver that was used for picking up arrows off the ground. It had a split end with a horizontal hollow to pick up the arrow and a slider you could release to stop the split opening up and dropping the arrow.

So, Thomas, the Koreans are not unique. Maybe we older archers don't like bending over. Stephen described a Chinese bow with the tip modified to do the same thing.

Jack's comment about the curved stick reminds me that the Egyptians had fighting sticks like they do in India (lathis). There is a German book on Ancient Egyptian Sports that describes their use. I am not sure if they were the same as Jack described.

Jack and I share a slightly skeptical view of the interpretation of ancient things. Archaeologists have a hard time in some ways. They are trying to make sense of objects from what can be very few clues.

From McLeod, Self bows and other Archery Tackle from the Tomb of Tut'ankhamun; "Bent staff. Found in literature, art and burials, sometimes in association with the bow. It is reasonable to surmise from its name (which seems to include the word 'bow') that it is part of the archer's tackle, but its precise function is unknown. 'It has been variously identified-never with much conviction- as a bow stringer, a bow stand, a bow case..., part of an archer's shelter..., or one of a pair of racks or "formers", to which the recurved bow was lashed...during its shaping."

There is no information that these canes had a split end for retrieving arrows.

Could a cane be used to assist in shooting? Or in stringing a bow? -j-

I revive my old post with an obituary for my experimental angular composite Egyptian bow, Isis. While attempting to shoot her in, the limbs reversed themselves. I believed that this was caused by the low brace heigth. So I increased the brace heigth and when I began shooting her, only to about 24 inches, a patch of sinew raised on each limb. To be honest, there had developed several alarming bleached white places on the sinew of the arms.

After much deliberation, I took the advice of a friend and soaked her in water to recycle the horn and sinew. After removing the sinew (18 hours of soaking), it was revealed that the back layer of the core was broken cleanly transversely in three places. There is also two additional long transverse breaks in the back core layer only. None of these breaks follows the grain. The belly core and horn were undamaged.

So now I start over.

Refering back to the literature, there are several of these bows from antiquity which had an additional horn layer just above the sinew! But only a couple out of 40 or so of these bows known had a flattish limb crossection.

My Isis also had a more extreme reflex than any other, which I had hoped would relax somewhat after shooting in to look like the best of the origionals. Too rounded of a crossection and excessive reflex probably did her in.

Luckily, the book isn't going any faster than the bow and Shelly assures me there is time for another try. Pretty slow motion, eh? Your comments are welcome especially of the encouraging or informative kind. Thanks, Guys. -j-

Sorry to hear that :(

What do you make of the breakage? A fault in the design or a problem with the material?

s.

hello Jack,sometimes bowyery is self-torturing experience.
As every bowyer I don?t like transverse damages at all.But in this case it seems to be possible to remove the complete growthring at the bows back and to "replace" it with a thicker sinew-section?It will give the bow more reflex and speed.Could you post a picture of the bow?Maybe your Isis wants this.Good luck!I?ve done the same with 2 of my to slow scythian reconstructions and it works very satisfying.

Redhawk; The photo is at the front of the thread, dimensions and all.

I accept your advice as right on. But I will start completely over.

Stephen, I think that I will wait for advice for a concensus. What do you think the problem was? -j-

Jack,I mean a picture from the damaged bow.When I look at your posted pictures,I can?t see any problem.I think that the problem is really within the wooden backlayer or it is a glue-problem.

Stephen, I think that I will wait for advice for a concensus. What do you think the problem was?

Somehow, when you wrote:

the back layer of the core was broken cleanly transversely in three places

It made me think that there were weaknesses in the wood that you used for the core. The core takes shearing stress and a breakage would normally be along a shearing plane rather than simple transverse. Design flaws tend to cause failure in one place. Though of course, the damage could have been cumulative.

hello again,yesterday I didn?t realize that the bows core was made of two layers of wood.In the grip-section there is a 3rd layer.I really dont understand this construction.I would do it as a one piece-core and steambend the angle in the centre of the bow.I would trust more in a one-piece-core,having avoided some more glue-lines.I could imagine that the 3rd layer in the center would work like a "wedge" when you release the bows string?

This morning the horn finally released from the wood core. Three full days in water! The two core layers released yesterday. After three days in water the glue is not fit for company.

This layered core was used because an origional bow was made this way. The experiment is to reproduce a shooting composite with the most authentic technique and materials possible. A lot was learned by bow makers since that time. That new technology shouldn't be used in this experiment.

Tut's collection does have a number of children's bows made with a single core lath.

Isis was loosly modeled after the Brooklyn-Saqqara bow with two core laths sandwiched over a riser lath, with horn belly and sinew back. Additionally there were two more side core laths which were not included in Isis.

This laminated core was very sucessful in the prototype Anat, which was merely a backed bow. Since the cores were cut from the identical board of kil dried ash, the material can hardly be blamed. A failure of the wood would follow the grain. This did not occur.

My thinking is that the back layer was too thick. In the B-Saqq. bow, it is only half the thickness of the belly lath.

But, Hawk, I am also of the thinking that the core is excessive.

I look forward to hearing from Adam and anyone else with an opinion. -j-

Jack:

Too bad about the bow. My feeling is the catastrophic event of the "limb reversal" could cause delaminations between the back core wood and the sinew layer. Such local delaminations cause breakage of cores when a bow is stressed, because the core not longer has the protection of sinew there and fails in tension.

Fearing this, I religiously score the backs of cores with a toothed scraper (a bit denser than for the horns), exactly parallel to the limbs, then coat with several layers of thin glue. I saw such scoring on old bows - this helps to hold the sinew in place. It is particularly important for bows with the reflexed bending sections of limbs, like yours.

All this scoring calls for woods that have very little visible grain (diffuse porous), such as maple etc. The grainy woods like ash, elm or oak are not the best choice for the composites.

Adam

Adam; Another issue is the origionality of the wood core. The only two samples to be scientifically tested both came back as ash. From two independent testers.

Also, the sinew did not become detached from the wood, but was torn from itelf.

The three breaks in the wood core were most unusual in that they were broken cleanly against the grain with no shredding of the grain and the sinew still well attached. The wood layers took 2 days of soaking to separate and the horn slats took three. The glue held.

Was the core too thick? Or maybe the back layer only?

Jack,my experience with ash,yew and elm have become worser and worser.I started to wonder about the qualities of these woods as bow-woods in the past.What I?ve found out is that there are woods suffering much from the increasing pollution of the air,"acid rain".......If I have to make a bow with one of these woods,I use staves from trees grown as far as possible away from cities,streets....They are really of much better quality.I cut and dry them by my own.
Woods like black locust,osage,maple seem not to be affected.
Maple is the best wood for being glued with the old glues.

Jack,
Can you tell us what bows were tested, when and by whom? Of course, it is necessary to know the core structre for the bows too.

Was this published separately or is it referred to in some of the references we both use?

You turn up some useful information as well as your practical experiments.

The separation of sinew from itself can be just as bad as the delamination, basically the same thing, if fibres clse to wood are affected.

I have heard of core breakage before and traced it to the use of kiln dried wood. Kiln drying can make wood rather brittle which does not cause problems with selfbows, but can in the composites.

Adam

Tests on bows. Composite bows from the Tomb of Tut...,McLeod, 1970, p.31.

"The typical composite consists of a wooden core, with a layer of sinew applied to the back, and a layer of horn on the face; the whole bow is usually covered by a protective bark sheath. It seems likely that in general the Tut... bows adhere to this scheme.

The wood of one bow (probably 16) was identified by Dr. Lawrence Chalk, Imperial Forestry Institute, Oxford, as ash (Fraxinus sp.), probably not manna ash (F. ornus). Carter had also submitted specimines of 'wood and bark decoration from composite bows' to L.A. Boodle, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew; the fragments were unnumbered but there is no reason to assume that they came from the same bow as the sample submitted to Chalk by Lucas. Boodle identified the wood as flowering or manna ash (F. ornus).

Field shooting tests were conducted by McEwen, Experimental Archery: projectile velocities and comparison of bow performances, Antiquity 62, 1988. He does not specify the materials in any of his reproductions, as if design was the only criterion. These tests take place in England where high humidity would inhibit maximum performance of composites.

Problems identifing the materials;

1.To accurately asses the capacity of an Egyptian composite, origionality must be maintained. Otherwise the results are discounted.

2.The bows have not been examined in nearly 100 years. Egypt will not allow examination. Scientific tests have improved.

3.Two wood samples from 32 bows is not a statistically accurate sampling.

4.Horn, sinew and glue, and wood have become difficult to differentiate. In one case, all the non wood parts on bows standing up melted out and form a black pool. Black horn and light yellow horn have been identified.

5. An extensive search of Egyptian artifacts has produced no reference to Birch wood. Most or all composite bow materials were imported.

Jack,
I have the McLeod references. If you like, I can ask McEwen what materials he used in the bow.

David Betteriddge made an accurate reproduction, except for the horn. He only had buffalo at the time I think. It was one of the type with the H shaped core. It was a remarkably smooth bow to draw and shoot. It had no stacking and no kick in the hand.

Bede; of course, ask Mc Ewen. And ask Betterriddge which wood he used. This information will be very useful.

I doubt that I will rebuild this bow in ash no matter what. I also have air dried ash but have had some problems with it. Strangely enough, one of the fastest bows that I've made is an ash longbow. But as Adam has pointed out, that is a different kind of animal.

I will look forward to hearing from you. Thanks -j-

Jack,

I don't know if this is a useful input for you, but a few time ago I was looking a TV program on recent archeological discoveries in Egypt, and among other interesting things I listen that the only wood which was easily available in Egypt was the palm wood. I have not heared a name of a single type of these wood, but they show it is still used today for a kind of basket/containers. It seems very flexible and strong at the same time.

I hope this can be of any help for your future works.

Best regards,

Gianrico

Jack,
I spoke to McEwen last night. He said he had made over twenty of the triangular composite bows. Aside from using ash, he also experimented with hickory and Canadian rock maple for the cores.

He commented that due to the way lumber yards cut the wood, you can often get pieces with the grain compromised that look perfectly sound when you buy them. I am sure you already knew about that problem.

I am still trying to contact David. I will let you know when I do.

Thanks Bede. Per chance was horn mentioned? Species?