The Scythian-type bows from Yanghai (Shanshan)

redhawk · Post by **redhawk** » Mon Jan 11, 2010 2:47 pm

Bede, the Scythian bows I could examine are all made with horn- plates for to reenforce the recurves. The hornplates lay loose beside the recurves in the grave. Russian archaeologists told me about those plates in every kurgan they?ve excavated.
Maybe the Chinese archaeologists have missed the plates?

With or without reenforcements such a laminated recurve would never bent, cause of its sharp angle, maybe a little bit, but much to less as to talk of "unrolling".
What?s the sense of a recurve, when it "unrolls"? What about the leverage- effect?

Michael

Adam Karpowicz · Post by **Adam Karpowicz** » Mon Jan 11, 2010 3:31 pm

Maybe "unroll" is a wrong word. I meant the cam effect when the (maybe rigid) recurves bend down and the string lifts off the limbs.

How long were the horn plates you saw and how were they shaped?

Adam

Bede · Post by **Bede** » Tue Jan 12, 2010 12:28 am

Both the bows I saw in photographs and the one I saw in Seoul had complete tips. The surface treatment was the same as the body of the bow and was not broken or damaged. Stephen provided cross sections from bows that were in less good condition. They had a lateral wood-horn-wood lamination at the tip with sinew on the back. The central horn laminate is prolonged to form the peg to attach the bow string.

Are we talking about the same type of bow? I have seen both curved and straight side plates from bow tips excavated in Russia and China. From their sizes and shapes, they were unlikely to be attached to Scythian style bows. There are also the bridle toggles that appear to have been mistaken for bow tips some decades ago in the Soviet Union.

redhawk · Post by **redhawk** » Tue Jan 12, 2010 7:43 am

Adam, these plates covered the belly of the recurves, including the nocks, with a groove for the string. Due to the groove and the nocks they can?t be mistaken. I remember that Dusan has posted recently some pics of such findings.

Bede, we are discussing the same type of bow in general, but there a different types of Scythian bows.
I don?t think that the recurves of the bow posted in the museum of Seoul have been reenforced with horn- plates.
But anyway there can?t be a bending.
Adam has clearified what he means by using the term "unrolling"

Michael

Dusan · Post by **Dusan** » Tue Jan 12, 2010 10:07 am

well, Redhawk, maybe mean this pics. Its realy looks like this tipe of bows from Korea museum can be reainforcet under the sinew lier vith horn or -like russian text say bone plate ...(?)

text sayd, that this bows was from Altay - 500-300 B.C.

Adam Karpowicz · Post by **Adam Karpowicz** » Tue Jan 12, 2010 10:35 am

Interesting variant, possibly for bows with no vertical horn? How long were these tip fragments?

Adam

JJ · Post by JJ » Tue Jan 12, 2010 11:07 am

I?ve seen these horn end pieces in Russian publications, too.

They seem, as Michael says, to be a regular feature in Scyth type bows. Adam, assuming that the width is around 2,5 cm at the nock shoulder, the longer piece in the drawing above is a little longer than 20 cm.

It makes sense, because horn is very easy to bend in a sharp and extremely narrow curve, but wood not. So it keeps the wood thickness at this place lower, and that would be easier to bend.

I think that in the Silk Road Museum specimen a darker material can be recognised on the belly side of the siyah curve. So there could be a horn piece similar to the russian pieces, too. Maybe Stephen didn?t recognise it in the Yanghai bows? It is without an x-ray difficult to decide...

JJ

Adam Karpowicz · Post by **Adam Karpowicz** » Tue Jan 12, 2010 3:08 pm

Yes, it makes sense. and the bows will gain durability. I think I will follow the Stephen's construction as shown before for now.

Adam

redhawk · Post by **redhawk** » Wed Jan 13, 2010 9:04 am

Thanks Dusan, thanks JJ for sharing those pics.
As mentioned above, these grooved hornplates did lay loose beside the bows in the kurgans I?ve had the chance to check the findings.
Yes, the recurves gain more durability. these means more storing of energy in the working part of the limbs and more stress on them.

Michael

Adam Karpowicz · Post by **Adam Karpowicz** » Wed Jan 13, 2010 10:29 am

"these means more storing of energy in the working part of the limbs and more stress on them. "

Not at all, the horn is actually more flexible than wood, so the stiffness of the tips is less with horn laminated there. This is assuming the thickness of tips with no horn is the same. Being less stiff, the tips could then bend a little, thus relieving stress at the bending sections of limbs. When the tips are stiffer (all wood), they do not bend or bend less and the limbs have to work harder. I am not saying the tips are actually bending in this design (the tips seem too thick for that in most of these bows), only try to illustrate the principle.

The horn laminated at the tips adds durability and as JJ said may help in the construction. At the same time the horn is heavier than wood slowing down the limbs.

Adam

redhawk · Post by **redhawk** » Wed Jan 13, 2010 11:43 am

Adam,
it?s right what you say about the flexibility of wood and horn. But the additional glue- line is what makes the recurve more stable.
It?s quite usual to add plates of horn or bone for to make recurves more stable and secure.
I would add that these hornplates are a stable basic for a secure string- groove too.

I don?t think you are right in general about the flexibilty of horn and bow- woods. It depends on the wood and what you mean by flexibilty.

jack farrell · Post by **jack farrell** » Wed Feb 24, 2010 3:36 am

A little progress report; my darling bow is almost ready for sinew. The wood turned out to be Mahaleb Cherry, Prunus mahaleb L. There are nine forms.This is a small cherry tree (Persian) which was imported for root stock grafting which escaped cultivation; Robert A Vines, p388. All small branches were used, steamed and bent.

I disassembled the earlier horn core, assembled the wood ones and conformed the horn to it. The horn was more flexible than the wood. The limb slats are vertically scarfed as is the horn which is supposed to be Nubian Ibex and Agrimi Ibex but is not so delicately tapered as the Nubian which Dusan posted. I will get back on this. It is definitely Ibex as I cut them from whole horns.

The two wood limb pairs are scarfed at the grip; the horn is in three pieces. Another pair of grip slats widen the center reflex.

A belly of two long Ibex slats join another short grip piece.

The profile picture was taken at nearly 90 degrees.

There is much I would change, the learning curve is great, but I am too far down the road to turn back. There is concern that this will produce a functioning bow. The Yanghai dimensions were followed closely.

jack farrell · Post by **jack farrell** » Wed Feb 24, 2010 3:40 am

another

jack farrell · Post by **jack farrell** » Wed Feb 24, 2010 3:45 am

jack farrell · Post by **jack farrell** » Wed Feb 24, 2010 3:47 am

one more. Of course there is nothing about the shape of an ibex horn which suggests the shape of this bow. It is, however, ideally suited to the shape of its predecessor, the Near Eastern Angular composite, whose construction can be strangely similar. Just not the shape.

The Scythian bow is also not the bow of the Greek heros of the bronze age, as this is an iron age invention. -j-