The Scythian-type bows from Yanghai (Shanshan)

redhawk · Post by **redhawk** » Wed Nov 25, 2009 8:54 am

Adam, Bede,

It is possible: till now nobody has done any working reconstruction of the Subeixi bow matching the original measurements.
We don?t need to think about how it is done, we have recorded excavations enough: Stephen?s field recordings, my own olon kurin gol- recordings.....drawings of strung and unstrung Scythian bows.........etc. We?ve just to reconstruct what we see clearly, everthing else is a nowadays interpretation and another fake. Bede is very right about the way we should do it, without modern tools and glues.
I?ve done the olon kurin gol- reconstructions this way, I end up with a working bow, matching the original measurements. But this kind of construction is by far not the design I would like to do it again.
Scythian bows are beauties, but taking into account their making- of not to effective.
Maybe there have been craftmanship- techniques we don?t know nothing about anymore.

Michael

Dusan · Post by **Dusan** » Wed Nov 25, 2009 4:06 pm

I wil be dont so doubt. I believe that more of us have in mind reconstruction Saka bow project like Jack. Only vith good horn i have problem now...

jack farrell · Post by **jack farrell** » Fri Nov 27, 2009 4:35 am

Everybody's suggestions have been most helpful, keep up the good work. Adam's idea about ganging a mass together to bend made my wheels turn.

This is bringing back what I remember about steam bending wood. I have access to a wooded area in the country, so I went yesterday and cut some Youpon shoots which were very clean. I make arrows from this species and a few people have made bows, but it is not known as a bow wood. My other choice is a kind of wild plum/peach which cannot be exactly defined yet. I cut a number of sticks !" or so at the base. Some had natural bends which did not turn out to be all that necessary.

After some experimentation, the best result was wrapping very tightly with wire and a slip of sheet metal under the wire on the outside of each bend. The sticks had been cut down to 5/8" thick.

There are now three versions of the bends. 1. The original bend which appears to have been shot in or put in the grave strung. This is not the best shape to duplicate. 2. The more reflexed shape of the bow which will be shot in to look like the original after time. 3. A more severe curvature of the bow which will spring back from the form to produce number 2.

To save time I made two more sets of single limb forms: Top limb, the one with the hard bend in version 2 and 3 and the same for the bottom limb. The bent limb, if it works, will be split in half vertically and the horn slat sandwiched between. Then proceeding.

I know there will be some hollering about the lack of authenticity in technique but as Bede stated, first the bow must build before the issue of how the Scythians did it can be tackled. Possibly WHY would be down the road. I am not big on why.

You can see that it is possible to bend bow wood this extremely. Well we know it is because the Scythians did it!

This is a bottom 2 bend, the least extreme. More tomorrow, the four all worked. -j-

Adam Karpowicz · Post by **Adam Karpowicz** » Fri Nov 27, 2009 10:32 am

Jack - according to Stephen's plans the limbs were spliced to the grip (made of vertically laminated smaller pieces). So smaller, naturally bent pieces can be used for the grip. I have good success with sections of tree roots - easy to find with those sharp bends. The limbs had to be bent with heat however.

Adam

redhawk · Post by **redhawk** » Fri Nov 27, 2009 11:43 am

Hollering!

As we can see very clearly in the foundings, the Scythians did not bend the wood this way, they made lams for to get ultimate stabilization.
I?ve never stated, that it is not at all possible to bend wood with such a diameter. Cabinet- makers know it. But in bowery it is not to clever to do it like cabinet- makers do it, you?ve to make multi- lams for to get a stable curve.

Michael

jack farrell · Post by **jack farrell** » Fri Nov 27, 2009 10:03 pm

Adam; I will forgo the grip section for the "typical splice" detail in the second bow. The splice, and any reenforcement will be made at the section of the illustration (the 5th one) where the grip is noted. I believe that it is the same as the above one except the great deterioration disguises the grip location.

Michael; Please note that the lams are standing on the Yanghai bows not laying down one over the other. I understand that this is different than on the Olon Kurin Gol bow

Bede · Post by **Bede** » Sat Nov 28, 2009 2:30 am

Michael,
Walking stick makers have been heat bending wood thicker than most bow tips in tight curves for hundreds of years. I still have my grandmother's and the curve is the same as it was fifty years ago.

Modern cabinet makers have economic pressures to use techniques that have been developed in an industrial world. That doesn't mean there are no craftsmen who use old techniques and who are not as artistic as their predecessors, but they also practical people who have to get things done in a reasonable time with the materials that are readily available.

redhawk · Post by **redhawk** » Sat Nov 28, 2009 5:17 pm

The Subeixi bow has a multi-lam- grip spliced into the limbs!
Modern cabinet-makers are able to bent big diameter wood into an 8 with the help of some chemicals and heat. I?m a former cabiinet- maker.
But that?s not the question.
I?m disappointed, that?s it.
I thought the ATARNET is focused on authentical reconstructions!?

Michael

jack farrell · Post by **jack farrell** » Sun Nov 29, 2009 3:14 am

Michael; Let us put off our disappointment long enough to discuss the details of the construction. I am hoping anyone with pertinent info will assist.

I already asked if anyone had the construction details of the Subexi bow and no one was forthcoming. Therefore I am using the ones from the Yanghai bows we see in Stephen's post which began this thread.

I am assuming that you are seeing that most late composite bows have horizontal layering whereas the Yanghai has a core of vertical layering. Do we agree so far?

My intention is to bend a larger limb core piece. When it is stable it will be cut VERTICALLY and the horn inserted VERTICALLY to form the basis of the core. When this is done other VERTICAL outer wood plates will be added.

Please tell me how this differs from what we see in the plans.

redhawk · Post by **redhawk** » Sun Nov 29, 2009 3:25 pm

Jack, my statement is not meant right against your actual project.
I have to notice that even serious bowyers are leaving the way of authenticity more and more. In my opinion this is the bad part of the work of Kassai, Grozer....................

You didn?t state till now that you will cut your bent core- wood vertically.
You?re right in stating that the Subeixi- bowyers used the core- slats vertically. The core slats of the olon kurin gol bow were arranged horizontallly,
But I can?t see how this could have impact on the way of the construction.

A look at the cross- sections of the core - slats of the olon kurin gol bow clearified that the olon kurin gol bowyers didn?t bent one bigger diameter wood for to cut it after into slats. They?ve worked and bent every slat for to glue them finally. This is according to Daniel T?s precious infos about wood -bending and the sense of laminations.

Do it your way, we?ll see the results, good luck, Michael

jack farrell · Post by **jack farrell** » Mon Nov 30, 2009 3:09 am

Actually; Michael, I did allude on several occasions that there would be a "standing horn backbone" in this design. And it is the soul essence of this design that the lams are standing side by side rather than laying down horizontally. The difference is being easily able to glue up a core as opposed to needing to resurrect a complex antiquated technique. I do not think this is overstated. But the confusion can be attributed to translation. I do intend to be authentic. Let us proceed.

To all; The grip section, and the reading of the plans causes me some confusion.

Can we agree that two bows are described in the plans?; the first one with the disintegrating limb, and the second with the chamois grip lashing.

On page two is a detail of a complex grip section. According to the lower grip drawing the horn stops for some distance and four new wood core strips are inserted. Where the boundaries of this grip occurs is not clearly delineated. HOWEVER, the section drawings spaced along the bow do not show a break in the horn core center. I find it difficult to locate the position of this splice and the details actually in conflict as to its existence.

Page five starts the second bow and the caption at the page top reads, "The horn core running through the whole body of the bow measures approx 5-6mm thick."

As the horn core must almost necessarily be spliced, a "typical splicing" is illustrated.

Please opine on this grip issue. -j-

Adam Karpowicz · Post by **Adam Karpowicz** » Mon Nov 30, 2009 10:43 am

As I see it (discussed with Stephen):

1. The grip has no vertical horn, it is spliced to the limbs with a vertical V-splice and two more pieces are overlayed at sides of grip to make it into a laminate of four vertical pieces.

2. The horn in the limbs in in one piece with no splices.

3. The "wooden" vertical laminations in the limbs are spliced as illustrated (basically added-on to the sides of the continous strip of vertical horn). I understand these splicing is present closer to where the ends begin to curve (there is a line across the limb in Stephen's drawing there).

Adam

jack farrell · Post by **jack farrell** » Sat Dec 05, 2009 1:57 pm

How many pieces of wood would this make in total? Stephen's grip illustration must be greatly forshortened.

Some wood species would bend easier than others. These might be species which, alltogether, would not have the resistance of traditional bow woods.

Since this design is so pre-modern in its technology, is it possible that the use of non bow woods would give a more desired effect?

A bow this short made of so much stout wood and horn may be quite inflexible, as Michael has pointed out often.

Patrick Menzies · Post by **Patrick Menzies** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 1:22 am

Stephen did mention the use of Tamarisk wood in these bows. That isn't generally thought of as a bow wood. It may have low bend resistance per thickness much like Yew.
That should be readily available in Texas as an invasive species.
I think it's usually called Salt Cedar.

Adam Karpowicz · Post by **Adam Karpowicz** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 11:03 am

I doubt if the exact number of wood laths is really that significant in this construction. The grip is made of four pieces and each limb of four as well. I think if the bowyer found a thicker curved piece for the grip, he would use it just the same and if the limbs could be made of longer laths to avoid the splice, then two vert. lams per limb could be used. It may be the thinner/shorter laths were easier to obtain and were more flexible to bend when taken from young saplings, but in the composite construction the sinew and horn dominate, no matter what species of wood is used.

I do not expect the bow to be excessively heavy when finished, provided the dimensions are followed and the thickness of the sinew wraps is subtracted.

Adam