Korean Vs. Turkish Bow

JJ · Post by JJ » Thu Jul 01, 2010 3:55 pm

Ginni, very good pictures of interesting bows you found there! Is there more bow stuff? I was not able to navigate to the bow pictures on the sac site so far... Can you give the link to the gallery?

I remember once seeing a modern korean bow with bamboo belly in the former national folk museum in Seoul.

Bamboo could probably stand the pressure better than "normal" hardwoods.

JJ

ginni · Post by **ginni** » Thu Jul 01, 2010 7:59 pm

Here is the link JJ:

http://www.sac.or.kr/eng/bows/index.html

Description of the second bow:
?14. Wooden Bow - Middle Choseon era

Length : 156cm
Courtesy : Yeonsei University Museum?

Another wooden belied bow:

?11. Cypress Bow - Middle Choseon era

Length : 162cm
Courtesy : Yeongsei University Museum
Composite curved bow made of cypress,
used in battle and hunting.?

Dusan · Post by **Dusan** » Thu Jul 01, 2010 8:04 pm

Uli earlier started this thema in "Comparative anatomy" http://atarn.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1616

ginni · Post by **ginni** » Fri Jul 02, 2010 7:35 am

Sorry! Somehow I missed that thread.

jack farrell · Post by **jack farrell** » Fri Jul 02, 2010 4:55 pm

There is one of these "circular" bows in the Ashmolean museum in England in a case of Chinese archery items. I cannot read the label as to provenience. Jan S. or Peter D. may know.

The Bows and Arrows Museum, Seoul, has many reproduction crossbows of horn composite construction with recurved ears which are very robust. Then there are the colossal bows which Thomas reported on years ago.

The old Korean war bows were in the 160 cm size.

Dusan · Post by **Dusan** » Sat Jul 03, 2010 7:59 am

I know about this large wood composites , but i think more about this litle wooden beasts - this is 123cm

121,9cm bamboo bow

another -modern

but this bamboo bows was much smaler and describe like -hunting and war bows.

106 -107 cm Suno period bows
Probably for crossbow but still wooden and extra short...

JJ · Post by JJ » Sat Jul 03, 2010 8:58 am

Dusan, I think Suno means something like crossbow, probably repeating crossbow or double crossbow. It is stated in above link provided by Ginni under category "No", which depicts crossbows.

A friend told me that the bigger wood bellied composites with enormous nocks probably were crossbow bows.

JJ

Dusan · Post by **Dusan** » Sat Jul 03, 2010 9:23 am

If you mean JJ, the 4 pic./Bamboo hunting +war bow/ like cross bow , thats realy mistake. This short bow was clearle describ from many sources (Duvernay). Its definitely not crrossbow bow.

jack farrell · Post by **jack farrell** » Sat Jul 03, 2010 6:17 pm

I remember an article some years ago about these small backed Korean bows and how one was reproduced as a horse bow. It would make more sense that it was from a cross bow, though. i wonder if anyone has more information on these? Did Thomas rethink the proposition?

Dusan · Post by **Dusan** » Sat Jul 03, 2010 9:13 pm

I think that every info about this samll horse bow is in T.Duvernay site about Korean Archery. If i good remember, one of this new reconstruction bow was like givt him from his korean friend master Park. I hope that T.D. shoot vith and can tell us his experiences.

Stephen Selby · Post by **Stephen Selby** » Mon Jul 05, 2010 1:44 am

On the Korean 'circular' hornbows, I think that they are most unsuitable for use as crossbow prods. So far reflexed, they will certainly deflex after being shot a few times as a crossbow. Also, they seem to have a clear grip. For crossbow mounting, the grip would have a rectangular cross-section.

But some of the heaviest bows may have been for the strength test in the Korean military examination (like the Chinese one) and not used for shooting arrows.

Bede · Post by **Bede** » Tue Jul 06, 2010 4:48 am

Stephen,
I am assuming you are writing about the two bows labelled F.

When those bows are complete they have two applied pieces either side of the centre. When the bow is mounted in the stock, it fits into a circular aperture. The two fittings are bound on then, allowing the bow to rotate in the stock slightly to maintain string position against the surface of the stock without friction.

They are composite bows, but they are not horn bows. The belly is wood on the ones I have examined where the lacquer cover is damaged. Bracing them would have required several persons and some type of frame. The rotation of the bow would have made bracing it on a frame easier too. My guess is they would be left braced for the duration of a campaign.

Alex S. · Post by **Alex S.** » Tue Jul 06, 2010 1:04 pm

Bede wrote:Stephen,
The two fittings are bound on then, allowing the bow to rotate in the stock slightly to maintain string position against the surface of the stock without friction.

This is very smart if it is actually working this way!
Almost all friction problem will not occur with rotation on bow in stock, increasing efficiency of crossbow. In this way, I believe round cross section is desire for smooth action of the rotation.

Has reproduction been made to confirm this mechanics? I wonder if there is some danger of string jumping from this rotation, causing some kind miss fire, maybe tighter fit can decrease chance of rotating too easily.

Btw, about belly of bow, it seems rather impossible with wooden belly. Most wood have too high stiffness to compress this much. Though before I read some fruit wood is being used, maybe it refer to the core wood? Bamboo it is possible, quite easy actually, many people already doing. Though retained reflex is not so much, you need put very large reflex, maybe only half stay so I think when build maybe actually better build with more reflex than hornbow. With yumi they build with 45 cm and expect to loose half after worked in. The interesting thing about bamboo is it can gain reflex when humidity changes. I remember my bamboo bow does quite commonly, sometimes have 2" set, then when weather changes it gains 3" reflex.

Stephen Selby · Post by **Stephen Selby** » Wed Jul 07, 2010 3:31 am

Bede wrote:Stephen,
The two fittings are bound on then, allowing the bow to rotate in the stock slightly to maintain string position against the surface of the stock without friction.

I see what you are saying; but I would have some doubts as to whether that would be a good solution. Either the prod would be held so loose as to cause the arrow to mis-fire; or it would be semi-tight: but that would lead to unpredictable movements that would differ between shots.

IN THEORY at least, the prod would best be kept fixed in a forward/downward orientation.

Bede · Post by **Bede** » Wed Jul 07, 2010 8:21 am

I know that reproductions were made with sinew/wood/horn construction. All the bows I saw that were damaged enough to see the belly had wooden bellies. I find it hard to believe that the bows would not fail, but I assume that the compression of the spiral layer of sinew was sufficient to prevent the wood from failing. In reaction to compression, materials thicken. If something prevented that, the material would be strengthened.

Regarding the firmness of the bow in the stock, I can only comment on the side to side movement which would have been minimal if the small blocks I saw were in place. Incidentally, I mentioned the circular mounting holes because that is what Bootes showed in his paper. I would have expected that a hollow like in Han crossbows would have been more likely. I don't know if any of our Korean correspondents have seen original Chosun dynasty crossbow stocks of that type. The stocks in Bootes seemed very decorated and perhaps were for sport not war.

It should be relatively easy to make a round handle on a fast recurve bow and test the behaviour of the string against the surface of the stock. The other thing to examine is whether the Korean bows were symmetrical around the centre line of the belly or if the tips were out of line. Since hand bows often had some asymmetry it is possible that crossbows had the same and could be bound in tightly.