Justin Ma wrote:Angela, didn't you say you were done with this thread two or three posts ago?
I was, because I wasn't getting the impression that all the people in this debate were really interested in discussing this in a realistic and objective fashion, and being open for other's argumentation (I listened to your arguments and described why I find them less convincing - my arguments, on the other hand, are either described as "cherry picking" or ignored completely). But when I am wrongly accused of something or cited wrongly, I like to put the record straight. No hard feelings, apology accepted.
Justin Ma wrote:And I'm still interested in learning details about written and archaeological sources which support the hypothesis one way or the other (such as the finds you mentioned).
Although I have little interest in carrying on the discussion as it was, I'm glad to share the basis of my thoughts on this matter (since you ask nicely
).
As mentioned before, I am very wary about taking ancient written and image sources at their face value. Of course for many topics they are the only sources we have, but we always have to ask what is behind it, and how credible they really are (people in antiquity were no less prone to bragging than people are nowadays).
Same goes for actual bow finds. Both calculations and reconstructions can give an approximate idea of draw weight. But these are only of interest if one is sure that the bow was actually used (and from horseback) and not just grave good or ceremonial ?show? weapon. Unfortunately, many finds fall into the latter group, especially for nomadic cultures who left behind no settlements (and therefore no ?everyday? goods), but whom we know only from their graves. While bows from grave goods are likely to give a good idea of construction type, they need not necessarily have corresponded to actual strengths. It?s relatively easy to identify a bow which was not used (due to nonfunctionality), but it?s much more difficult to prove the opposite. Same applies for the Xinjiang ?Scythian? bow described by Karpowicz and Selby in the article posted earlier by Daniel T, and for the Topkapi bows. Archaeological objects are worth much less without knowing their context, and that goes for most artifacts (that is why the complete documentation of a whole archaeological site, and not just digging the objects out, is so important).
The study which I find particularly interesting in the face of this discussion was published as a
book chapter two years ago-unfortunately only in German (I think so, anyway). Those of you who don?t understand German can still look up the illustrations of the reconstructed bows and look up the tables (page 27 onwards).
The author was authorized by the German Archaeological Institute (DAI) to study the bow remains recovered from the Scythian burials Arzan 2 (2001) and Olon Kurin Gol (2006). From their measurements and documentation, they reconstructed the Olon Kurin Gol bow and tested its efficiency, including shooting at a variety of shield types with different arrow weights. These are to my knowledge the only surviving (and accessible) Scythian bows which are complete enough to allow measurements. The Subeixi bow (which is described in the next chapter of the same book, by H. Riesch and J. Rutschke, the latter being my aforementioned fellow mounted archer Snake-Jo) does, in my opinion, not actually count as Scythian (although the time period is similar), and, in the authors opinion, may non-functional due to the over-thick arms (not actually sure if this is the right term in English...), causing it to break sooner or later (I think this may be the same bow as the Xinjiang?)
? Bow from Kurgan Arzan 2 (Tuva, late 7th century B.C.). Bow was made only of wood, no sinew or horn. It was constructed from several layers of wood and wrapped with bark. In the opinion of the authors, this bow was not functional, as the arms were very thick, causing the bow to have such high draw weight that the risk of the wooden bow breaking when drawn would have been very high. In the opinion of the authors, this bow may have been made purely as a grave good (page 32 last paragraph). In my opinion, the arrows support this theory: They iron arrowheads had intricate inlays made of pure gold. Fitting for a king?s burial, but probably not the thing one would use for shooting at enemies. The arrow shafts were only 45-60cm long. A sketch of this bow in situ and a reconstruction sketch are to be found on page 33.
? Bow from Olon Kurin Gol (400-300 B.C.), Pazyryk Culture, Altai. Construction is the same as in Arzhan: Several layers of wood stuck together and wrapped with bark, approx. 128 cm long. The thickness of the bow is, in the author?s opinion, appropriate for normal use. The arrows found in this grave were longer than those in Arzhan, between 68-75 cm (the size of the goryt supports this). The initial calculations from the bow dimensions led to a draw weight estimation of under 280 N (62#) at a draw length of 65 cm; later reconstructions of this bow by the author showed considerably lower draw weights, namely 100 N (=22# !) at 68cm. Again, one might ask whether this bow may also have been purely a grave good, but that simply goes to show that one has to ask this question of
all bows from a funerary or unknown context (and not "cherry pick" any of them, be it the 22# or the 120#!)
? On the discussion about draw weights, the authors say following as an introduction (Cited from page 34, the translation is mine, I have tried to translate as accurately as possible): ?it is often claimed that ancient and medieval lows had high draw weights. These assumptions are based on the fact that English longbows, drawn to 76cm, needed a draw strength of 390-780 N, constituting a draw weight of 40-80 kp, sometimes even more (Hardy 1992, Rees 1993, Strickland-Hardy 2005). A further indicator of high draw weights comes from an Assyrian relief, which shows two archers stringing a bow (images to be found in Bulanda 1913 and Marcotty 1997). Archaeologists retrieved 15th and 16th century English long bows from the wreck of the Tudor warship Mary Rose (Stirland 2001, Strickland-Hardy 2005). These finds allowed an estimate of draw weight s which ranged from 390 N and 735 N. The draw weight of the Germanic bow retrieved from the Nydam boat was considerably lower (Beckhoff 1963, Paulsen 1995, Raddatz 1963). Some of the Alamanic bows (Riesch 1999, 2001a, 2001b, 2002) which were found as grave goods do not seem to be constructed for everyday use, but as grave goods only. The reconstructions (of Riesch) show that the arms were too thick to bend properly, the reconstruction broke when drawn. With an arm diameter of over 9cm2, the Arzhan bow (which has a drawn length of approx. 95 cm), this bow is also not appropriate for real use. ? The authors believe the Assyrian bow to have been drawn by two men due to the construction particularities, not due to an excessive draw weight.
? The author cites Karpowicz, who showed that draw weights over 315 N bring no particular increase in range or initial speed. This is because higher draw weights need thicker arms, which reduce arrow speed after release. Karpowicz therefore recommends an optimal draw weight of 265-295 N at a draw of 75 cm. Asbell (2000) also contradicts the generally accepted assertion that a hunting bow must have at least 245 N ? Draw weights of 200 N are enough for large game such as deer and elks.
? The extremely high draw weights of the English long bows can be observed as shoulder joint arthrosis. Stirland (2001) reports that a high degree of degenerative joint disease was indeed observed in the shoulders of the Mary Rose skeletons. The same cannot be said for Scythian skeletons. The male and female Scythian skeletons studied by Michael Schulz (a very experienced palaeopathologist) showed signs of a good musculature within the normal range, but no abnormal degeneration, whereas the knees and hip joints did show signs of abnormal strain (probably due to riding). As the bow was one of the most important weapon for these cultures, the author deduces that the draw weights of these bows are unlikely to have been particularly high.
? Godehardt states that a short wooden bow without horn backing can be used up to a draw weight of 300 N, and that he does not believe that ancient horseback archer used higher draw weights (page 36)
? Reconstructions were tested against reed shields, which are typical of the time (Scythian and Sassanid, e.g. Dura Europos, Pazyryk Kurgan) from a distance of 12m. The bows used were drawn to 58-59 cm, with an actual draw weight at that length of 212-228 N (=47-51 #).
? The shield showed various penetration depths mainly depending on the arrowhead type: The rhomboid and triangular arrowheads showed a high degree of penetration even at low draw weights and short draw. Bearing in mind that the bamboo used for the reconstruction was likely to be stronger than the material used originally, such arrows would have had little difficulty penetrating such shields. Only the ?three-winged? arrowheads were less effective.
? Most interestingly, the bow with the lowest draw weight, nr. 203, had the highest arrow speed and showed the highest effectivity in target shooting.
The list of cited literature can be found on page 56 onwards.
So what are my conclusions from this:
? The only actual finds all seem to be non-functional, and vary greatly in reconstructed draw weight. You can measure all the historical bows in the world: If you?re not sure how they were used, the knowledge you gain from these is limited.
? At least for the time in question, draw weights of over 60# were not necessary: With the right arrowheads, bows of 45-50# could pierce the typical reed shields.
? Palaeopathological evidence shows that the bows regularly shot by the central Asian horse archers were no way near as strong as those known for English longbow archers: The latter left their mark in extensive shoulder joint degenerative disease. The Scythian skeletons showed signs of good musculature, but no abnormal joint degeneration.
In addition, my experience in horseback archery leads me to believe that a high draw weight (one where you ?really have to put your back into it?, if you get my meaning) would be counter-productive from horseback, as explained earlier in this thread. I stress that I am not an expert and that this is simply my personal opinion, although I know that it is shared by many horseback archers who are a lot better than I am.
Therefore I believe that the horseback archers would most likely have used bows between 45-55#, maybe 60# from horseback. But, in my opinion, certainly not the cited 90-120#.
Ant to avoid any further heated discussion, that is my opinion, if someone has good reasons for believing something else, each to their own.
