Ancient bows from Mongolia from an exhibition in Bonn Pt. 3

jack farrell · Post by **jack farrell** » Sun Feb 05, 2012 2:43 pm

Fenris and all; I know you are just the messenger so this critique is not pointed at you. There is an anonymous author who's reputation as a bow builder we know nothing about who makes a claim about an ancient artifact which is being reported by a second person in translation. This is the exact opposite of peer review.

I can understand the position of a writer but we at ATARN also have a position.

There is another way of testing the strength of a bow. We here have strong reason to believe that typical Asian war bows were noticeably stronger than European wood war bows up until the late Medieval period. It would be counterintuitive that Scythians were shooting bows in the #120 range and by 1200 to 1600 years later the average war bow had fallen by one third in draw strength.

So until further information becomes clear, I remain aghast at the anonymous authors results. But thankyou for bringing this information to light. The struggle is interesting.

Patrick Menzies · Post by **Patrick Menzies** » Sun Feb 05, 2012 7:06 pm

I'm not sure that stating the Scythians actually used 120 lb bows is an equally valid peer reviewed argument either.
Certainly this Mongol bow does not LOOK like a particularly heavy draw bow, in fact none of these three bows do.
I know it is tempting to go on about lost arts and how we don't really know how the bows were made, what the glue was constituted of etc. etc. but there is only so much that can be done with the materials and so much one can expect from what is actually sitting right there in that glass case.
I would bet good money that none of these three bows ever drew over 120, nor would any precise replica.

Adam Karpowicz · Post by **Adam Karpowicz** » Mon Feb 06, 2012 1:28 am

I am not sure what you are trying to imply here Patrick, but nobody said anything about "lost arts" to find the excuses for poor performance. The methods and materials are known well enough. Both Jack and I reproduced the Scythian bow and found it to be heavy. Since this bow was the only one available for reproduction, we can not say if its weight represented the true average. With this in mind, I wrote the range of the bows would start at 80lb and go up. We are dealing with statistics here.

Now, we have problems with the Mongol bow reproduced for the exhibition and I believe these concerns are reasonable. After looking at other bows' measurements, I believe the bow in question was most likely the lightest and I believe this bow would be around 80lb, not 60lb. The other bows would be heavier. I do not believe any of these bows "ever drew over 120lb", but they would come close to that weigth at 30in draw.

Adam

Patrick Menzies · Post by **Patrick Menzies** » Mon Feb 06, 2012 2:11 am

Just pre-empting the inevitable argument that tends to be brought up by enthusiasts of any bow style when performances don't match the legends. ;)

Which specific Scythian bow was it that you used as your model?
That picture posted of 4 or 5 of them looked rather varied in size and thickness even if the basic shapes were remarkably consistent.
I see little reason to doubt that the average bow was pretty heavy back then relative to the 45 pound bows common now but the standard thought almost seems to be that Mongol bows were all 160 pounders capable of piercing armor at a quarter mile.
What makes you feel that the other mongol bows were heavier?
I am still a bit cocerned that the minimal tip reinforcement, particularly in the one with long willow siyahs might hinder that.
Just the side to side stability of those in a heavy warbow seems dubious.
It was pointed out that the bow does actually have tip reinforcement but I don't really see how it was added. I see no sign of it at the very tip nor from the belly side.
Is it just slotted into a kerf only on the back?

Redhorse · Post by **Redhorse** » Mon Feb 06, 2012 7:21 am

What was the purpose with the bows back then?
For a long time they made bows and did refine them for use. My guesse is that anything less 80 was not enough. Any arrow with a mass need some kind of energy, so what did they shoot at?
Reenacting is fine but is still play and with a little macho the bows can be claim +160 lb

or a modern cityslicker is not capable of shooting more then 60 lb

. Non of that can dictate the historical bows weight.
Willow can make a tip, we have try it. But the string will weare it down so a piece of horn in the nock can be enough.

Fenris · Post by **Fenris** » Mon Feb 06, 2012 4:10 pm

@Jack Farrell and others

Don't worry I don't feel myself being criticized

, especially since the authors (Joachim Rutschke) opinion does not reflect my own. Unfortunately I do not have access to such artifacts, like old bows etc., neither I have the methods of observing them properly. Due to that limitation I have to rely on the information given on ATARN by authors like you or Adam and others as well. My brief opinion on this is that the average draw weight for a grown man on horseback was about 110 lbs at 28". Less for bows drawn longer; maybe 80-90 lbs for bows drawn to 32 inches. I know that there is proof for tartar bows with significantly more than 120 lbs at 28 " though ?
Anyway, I can tell you that there was a huge dispute at "fletchers-corner" on this issue. Since there a quite a few people over there who normally pull 120 lbs longbows for cloud shooting the fraction of people tending towards heavy bows was quite strong. Anyway the author (Joachim Rutschke) is convinced that shooting from horseback, may only be reasonable with bows ranging from 60 - 80 lbs in average. So this study on the bows found in the Altai may reflect/support his own opinion on that topic.

Kevin

redhawk · Post by **redhawk** » Tue Feb 07, 2012 7:46 am

I?ve posted my opinion several times here: hornbows drawing less than 80lbs are not worth the effort and will be outperformed even by selfbows(mass, physical weight).
About J.Rutschke: this is the guy who even don?t know how to make a hornbow.
He, some others and me are the authors of the "REFLEXBOGEN- BUCH". In his chapter "Hornbow- basics" he?s really posting that a hornbow has to be done as follows: 1. make a wooden core plus adding siyahs
2. sinew- back the core!!!!!!!!!!!
3. glue the horn to the wood/sinew- lam!!!!!!!!!!!

He has not at all understand the physics and chemistry of a hornbow.

I got in heavily trouble about that with the publisher, cause he found Rutschke?s hornbow- basics just another bowyer?s opinion.
I really feel ashamed to be one of the authors of this book.

Michael

Uli · Post by **Uli** » Tue Feb 07, 2012 4:08 pm

I?ve posted my opinion several times here: hornbows drawing less than 80lbs are not worth the effort and will be outperformed even by selfbows(mass, physical weight).

right

I really feel ashamed to be one of the authors of this book.

nevermind, for me its still a great book

TZH · Post by **TZH** » Tue Feb 07, 2012 9:05 pm

For me too!

Fenris · Post by **Fenris** » Wed Feb 08, 2012 11:01 am

Well, well, well ? his way of building a horn bow can never be called traditional and besides that he is facing some strange problems while building the bows. We had discussions about that too. Besides the critical points like stability during the glue up of the horn, or deformation of the wooden core during sinewing, the method may have some merit too. Like for example the fact that each layer is tillered for itself, which may result in an evenly balanced bow, without the need to retiller every time it is strung!? Anyway, to my knowledge no one ever made a comparison between the two (or more) methods in building a horn bow.
But I have a question regarding a reconstruction. Since now we got the exact dimensions of the originals (as written in the catalog (I don't have mine, yet)): Is anybody here in the forum making an attempt to rebuild a copy himself? In any way this would be a very interesting attempt, maybe giving a more realistic draw weight and other characteristics of the original bows. Further on, does anybody have measurements etc. of mongol/proto turkic bows from the 1200 century?

Kevin

Uli · Post by **Uli** » Wed Feb 08, 2012 11:48 am

for measurements see for example "Shiluustei Sum bow" and "Arcat Del bow" here on ATARNet.

Fenris · Post by **Fenris** » Mon Feb 13, 2012 9:50 am

I have a question according to the arrows presented in the catalog of the exhibition. A brief description of the only complete preserved arrow gives the following measurements:
- Length is 77 cm including the arrow point, so ca. 74-75 for the bare shaft
- Material of the shaft is birch, it is about 1 cm at it's thickest point (middle) and 0.8 cm at the thinnest (after nock) --> barreled
- the point weight is about 14 gramms
Given this approximate measurements, what would you assume would be the spine of the arrow, or the draw weight of a fitting bow (drawn to full lenght)?
I am asking cause I can not guess the spine of a barreled arrow, I am just not experienced with it. Given the material (birch), and the fact that the arrow is barreled I would assume it to have a rather high spine suitable for a bow with 80+lbs.

Greetings Kevin

Adam Karpowicz · Post by **Adam Karpowicz** » Mon Feb 13, 2012 7:37 pm

Kevin - barreled shafts' spine is either the same or a few pounds more than the parallel and this one must be quite high (25/64in shaft). The problem is that the spine is a poor predictor of the bow's weight, especially poor in the case of shooting with a thumbring. The shaft must be heavy though and the arrow was probably shot with a heavier bow for the performance to be reasonable.

BTW, one needs very good measurements along the bending part of limbs to make a decent replica of a bow. The catalog of the Bonn exhibit does not give enough to go by. Maybe the Zargalant bow could be the closest with a bit of imagination. We really need someone (one of our German members?) to make contact with the museum.

Adam

Fenris · Post by **Fenris** » Tue Feb 14, 2012 10:54 am

As far as I understood JJ already made an attempt to contact the museum to get a closer look at the bows (http://atarn.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1936&start=0). Unfortunately his request was rejected, claiming they have already somebody (J. Rutschke).
Additionally I think the exhibition will only stay in Bonn until the end of april and will move elsewhere afterwards (not sure about this). Maybe then there is a chance to get hands on it.
I any case I think the contact should be made or supported by someone with a good amount of international reputation, experienced in observing old artifacts. I think we have some choice here at atarn

.
For sure I think we should get the data of the bows cause otherwise it might be lost somehow, vanishing in some drawer in the museum. Cause as you already stated the information given in the book is very limited and just refers to one of the 3 bows.

Kevin

Adam Karpowicz · Post by **Adam Karpowicz** » Tue Feb 14, 2012 11:43 am

Yes, the contact with the museum is definitely worth pursuing once the bows return from the exhibit.

It may be that the replica by Rutschke turns out to be right on in terms of the true draw weight, but there are a few issues: the section of his replica does not match the original, the method of construction was not followed, the siyahs look too thick and the 20lb drop in weight is excessive. On top of that he seemed to use side walls of horn for the belly.

I think one can make another replica of the Zargalant bow based on the profile and the given measurements for the span of the bow etc. The only detail that remains is the exact location of the CT-scanned cross-section of the (bending) limb. Once this is known, then the rest of the limbs' measurements can be deduced. I wonder if Mr.Rutschke could be approached to tell us where exactly that was?

Adam