The Scythian-type bows from Yanghai (Shanshan)

redhawk · Post by **redhawk** » Sat Dec 12, 2009 8:03 am

The number of laths used is significant. I remember Stephen told me about 70 fiindings at the Subeixi- site all done the same way.
In a total I guess we?ve about 80 findings of Scythian bows, all made of at least 12 single parts of wood and horn.

Subeixi- reconstructions made like common hornbows(core horn- belly sinewed back) have been done by some bowyers.
The question remains the same: could a bow made exactly like the Subeixi- findings work?
Everything else is again an interpretation!

Michael

jack farrell · Post by **jack farrell** » Sat Dec 12, 2009 1:15 pm

I also think it makes a difference how the core is constructed.

If one looks at the bows which preceded these, Near Eastern angular, not one of the forty documented bows has a one piece spliced in grip. If one looks at what followed, the Hunnic types, none has a one piece grip. This technique does not appear till the Turkic period. Although this method may be a good experimental technique, it appears anachronistic to Scythian bow building.

However, neither can I accept at the moment that all Scythian bows (of Xinjiang) were built the same. For instance look at the second bow. It has a weak place re enforced with a belly lath of wood over horn. Maybe this is original to the first construction. It would not be necessary to add this detail. And each bow has a different curve.

I see the grip splicing without horn as a response to not having a horn slat long enough to make the join.

The question is not did they work but how did they work? And WHY? -j-

Adam Karpowicz · Post by **Adam Karpowicz** » Sat Dec 12, 2009 4:37 pm

I am afraid there is a confusion between the "how" and "why".

As to "how" the bows worked/performed one must follow:

1. The design, to have exactly the unstrung curvature (or nearly exactly for obvious reasons) and exactly the same final dimensions: length, thickness and width. Plus the bow must have a horn belly and the sinew back (I think the horn belly may be absent in other specimens).

2. The distribution of materials in the bow. In this case the bow must have the vertical horn in the limbs, but not in the grip (unless we find grips with horn). From the engineering point of view it does not matter if the wood of grip or the wood of limbs was made of one, two or a hundred vertical pieces, although for stability it may be advisable to keep the number of pieces symmetrical in relation to the vertical plane of the bow. The wood alone will work and bend the same regardless of the splicing, as long as the bond betw. the lams is good. Any slight difference will be insignificant and can safely be discarded. The same applies to the vertical horn - the horn can be spliced along the length in the limb section with no significant change in performance, draw weight etc. I emphasize the vertical splices, beacause one can see performance and weight differences in horizontally laminated limbs, especially when the so called "Perry" reflex is given during the glue-up. Again, all this applies only if the design curvature is followed - i.e the bow is deflexed in the bending sections and reflexed in the tips etc.

As to "why". In my view the method of construction to make the bow as this one, is entirely related to the availability of materials and the proven (at the time) skills of a bowyer. It is much easier to find suitably curved thin sticks than big chunks of wood which require felling big trees or branches. Thin sticks are easy to cut and bend, and if there is not enough width for the bow due to some defect in the stick, then another sliver can be glued on to the side. The two add-on side pieces in the grip are here clearly put on to incresee the width of grip (after the limbs were spliced-in), for the grip to end as 4-piece construction. Maybe other bows, once examined, will show more or less pieces there.

Now, the type of joinery shows what technique was used at the time. It seems the vertical scarf type was well mastered, presumably before the V-splice. However, if the laths for the grip or for the limbs were put together with a V-splice, it would have no bearing on the performance, at least not enough for anyone to see it in testing. The grip styles Jack is talking about were not put in the bows to achieve certain performance characteristics, but because the bowyer was taught to use these splices at the time. Once a better splice was invented to reduce the rate of failure, or be more compatible with the materials, it would gradually replace the old methods.

As to "why" in the sense of the design characteristics, we need to make and shoot these bows first. And, as Stephen and I have determined, the bow limbs clearly have the shape of ibex horns, pointing to its origins.

Adam

redhawk · Post by **redhawk** » Tue Dec 15, 2009 8:25 am

Adam, Jack, about the grip I agree
The olon kurin gol bow is made of 2 lathes running through the length of the bow, so it is a must to enforce the grip with additional wooden plates.
About small saplings I agree again, as I ?ve mentioned the olon kurin gol findings are made of very small diameter woods, the thickest one is measuring about 2cm. Adam has pointed out the advantages of working with small saplings.

But again: the number of glue- lines within the limbs has very much impact on their bending- capablities. That?s the main reason I ?m still in heavy doubts about the subeixi- findings.
Till I?ve done the olon kurin gol reconstruction I thought we can ignore the direction in which wood should be bent. It is Tim Baker who stated in one of the TBB?s, that the wood fibre doesn?t care in which direction it is bent. But it is not as simple: wood is stiffer when bent vertically, especially when you use small diameter woods.

Michael

jack farrell · Post by **jack farrell** » Fri Dec 18, 2009 2:57 am

I made up five trial limbs, as posted and took them out of the form yesterday; just under one month drying time from green wood. The limbs are nice and dry and did not spring back excessively. Several different bends were used with varying success. Some damage definitely occurred to all limbs but splintering could be glued up for a finished item.

The use of youpon does not seem to be worth the effort. So a return to the country to collect peach shoots was successful. The one peach prototype looks like very good bow making wood. Found one piece big enough for a self bow. This will be a good experiment. I bent up enough wood for two cores from peach.

This is a very severe process. The 3/4" pipe clamp can produce 1200 pounds or more of compression and an 18" Jorgenson furniture clamp can produce about 900. These tools are maxed out on the bending process. It might be helpful to check out Scythian cart making/ wheelwright work. Some old wheel makers steam bent the rims over forms using immense pressures.

What would also be interesting would be to check for tool marks on the originals. It would be natural that sticks were draw shaved into shape. This could be done with a knife or special tool. But cutting the horn; seems like this would require a saw for these bows to be common. However, most everything made of metal by Scythians was bronze. There was an unusual collection of bronze short swords in the SRMS with iron blade tips. This was new to me.

Does anyone have info on Scythian tools for crafts? Michael, did you note tool marks on Scythian bow parts?

In about another month i will know how the new cores look. The horn is keeping its shape. There is no such thing as making one of anything. -j-

redhawk · Post by **redhawk** » Fri Dec 18, 2009 9:06 am

Tool marks, I guess, but not to obviously, maybe knife.
But above all I was very impressed how even and plane the gluelines are still fitting.
Some Russian archeologists, I had the chance to cooperate with, told me the findings of wood- working tools include knifes and axes.

Michael

Adam Karpowicz · Post by **Adam Karpowicz** » Fri Jan 08, 2010 7:26 pm

I wonder if someone has tried to estimate the length of string on Stephen's picture (the small one one with several bows)? This is assuming the tip-to-tip distance for the bows is about 112cm (not along the curve). There must be software to do this kind of measuring I think. The string seems to be a little more than that, about 115cm.

Adam

redhawk · Post by **redhawk** » Fri Jan 08, 2010 8:37 pm

For my first Scythian bow, I did the try and error thing.
I don?t have any of my Scythians here, but if I recall it right, I did the string about 6- 7cm shorter than the length from tip to tip. This seems to be quite short, but cause of the deflexed grip it is a must to get a sufficient brace height.
I don?t have heard about any software for to get the string length, even the AMO didn?t talk about any software.

But you?ve done the Scythian with a heavy reflex, so things are different

Am I right, you are on the way to string your version of the Subeixi?

Good luck, Michael

jack farrell · Post by **jack farrell** » Sat Jan 09, 2010 1:07 am

Yoo Se hyun ( Co director Young Jip Bows and Arrows Museum, Seoul) got excited about the Silk Road Museum, Seoul, and got them to take out their new Scythian bow and allow him to photograph it. He sent me this picture.

Andrew worked out the scale. It would appear that the bow was put in the grave strung and that the deceased was expected to do battle immediately in the afterlife. No rest for the weary! -j-

Adam Karpowicz · Post by **Adam Karpowicz** » Sat Jan 09, 2010 2:59 am

Thanks Jack. The bow probably relaxed somewhat in the grave after the string deteriorated and it could have a little higher brace than now in the picture. The apparent straightening of the upper arms suggest some flexibility there, at least in the lower limb. And obviously the effect of "unrolling" of the recurves during the draw was not taking place in this bow, although it could be happening in other bows to a limited extent.

Adam

redhawk · Post by **redhawk** » Sat Jan 09, 2010 8:04 am

Exciting pic, Jack, thanks for sharing it.
Obviously this bow is not as thick as the Subeixi- findings in its working parts.
Where has this bow been excavated?
Adam, I don?t think there is any "unrolling" of the recurves in Scythian bows, cause the recurves of all the findings I?ve seen, are reenforced with hornplates. "Unrolling" makes not to much sense, this would work counterproductively against the design.
Michael

jack farrell · Post by **jack farrell** » Sat Jan 09, 2010 2:12 pm

No provenience on this bow; so one should assume Xinjiang. The gut or rawhide string is tied at one end with a timber hitch. Be aware that there is some distortion due to perspective, which is not directly above.

Andrew has adjusted the image and scaled it but this is his property.

Dusan · Post by **Dusan** » Sat Jan 09, 2010 4:54 pm

Maybe this pic help you boys. Its from mi friend who was in last WTAF. String is visible.

Bede · Post by **Bede** » Mon Jan 11, 2010 1:14 pm

Adam,
I have some software that measures perimeters of objects. I can take something in a photo and measure the components by drawing curved lines over them. Straight lines are a breeze.

I have seen numerous comments that the recurves won't bend, but I keep asking myself why did they think it necessary to change the cross sections as much as they did unless to increase the flexibility?

Adam Karpowicz · Post by **Adam Karpowicz** » Mon Jan 11, 2010 2:41 pm

Yes, this bow seems to have flexible ends, unless the original ibex horns looked like that. There may be some flexibility in the ends at full draw, but as far as I can tell, the sections past the deflexed arms were probably nearly rigid.

Thanks for your offer to measure the string.

Adam