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

redhawk · Post by **redhawk** » Fri Feb 17, 2012 9:02 pm

Justin, the arrow weighs 195grs. About the same arrow- weight the Osmanians used to shot flights.

But don?t come up with low- efficiency. Efficiency is completely overrated, the key is the bow/arrow- interaction.

About one and a half year ago, when I was new to flight- archery, I had a question in the PALEOPLANET FLIGHT SHOOTING SECTION: why are short bows shooting that fast? It was Adam Karpovicz answering in his typical short and clear style: limbs are moving faster... that?s it.

I?m not at all interested in goofing any other kind of bows, but if anyone is goofing selfbows I?ll argue back with real data. I?m attracted by speed, speed is real beauty to me. As I mentioned above my challenge is the 49lbs selfbow shooting 300f/s.
I was in hornbows for a long time, but since I?ve broken my spine I?ll never again able to draw more than 55lbs. A hornbow of that weight will never match my dreams of speed.

Michael

Justin Ma · Post by **Justin Ma** » Fri Feb 17, 2012 9:05 pm

Thank you Michael. As I've said before, I'm impressed with the ingenuity of your 137.5/triangle bows. Best of luck in your pursuit of a 300 fps bow.

Edit: I also understand that longer bows, if made correctly, have limb leverage in their favor in contrast to shorter bows (the Assyrian/Egyptian Triangle horn bow being a prime example).

Redhorse · Post by **Redhorse** » Fri Feb 17, 2012 9:38 pm

195 grains in 206 fps is 18.38 ftlb or 24.91 J.
44 lb 23 inch draw, straight fd-curve 40-44 ftlb, 41-45%. Recurve will have more energy.
Long way to go before it is near a horn bow

Some of my worst has been under 60% efficency.

Patrick Menzies · Post by **Patrick Menzies** » Fri Feb 17, 2012 9:54 pm

Is this going to morph into one of those kinetic energy wins even if the bow is no longer shot by a human and the arrow never strikes a target?
I was very interested in the data Adam gave on here but would like to see a bunch of self bows or wood based bows also strapped to that machine.
I wonder why those bows were never sent out into the real world?
What do you think is the best way to compare the two styles?
Same draw weight and length using the same arrow?

If I show you numbers will the data be invalid because a composite wasn't tested using the same arrow and chrono?
I think Kviljio used the same arrow to test his Ipe/boo flight bow and his Turkish bow. Have you seen his results from those shots?
Please let me know what you have seen before I do all the research that you should have at least dabbled in before you became so sure of your stance.

Redhorse · Post by **Redhorse** » Fri Feb 17, 2012 10:18 pm

I have a racingcar, but are not allowed to race with it. Because I have 5 gear and the other just 4.

Patrick Menzies · Post by **Patrick Menzies** » Fri Feb 17, 2012 10:26 pm

What was the extra gear again?

Orda Khan · Post by **Orda Khan** » Fri Feb 17, 2012 10:33 pm

How about opening another thread to continue this argument (which all of you should know will never be resolved) rather than hijacking this one?

Patrick Menzies · Post by **Patrick Menzies** » Fri Feb 17, 2012 10:38 pm

It doesn't need to be resolved but finally getting a chance to compare was nice. That's why it was brought up on this thread.
We got access to an actual bow, a replica was made and tested. Why was that even done if the info was going to be ignored?

Fenris · Post by **Fenris** » Fri Feb 17, 2012 10:53 pm

Orda Khan wrote:How about opening another thread to continue this argument (which all of you should know will never be resolved) rather than hijacking this one?

I so totally agree! This was suppose to be a thread about the Zargalant Bow, not a composite vs. selfbow playground. The topic is much worth discussing (!) but you guys are turning round in circles. I'd suggest: Define your rules and compare the data (like at WTT) and put them in separate thread. I am sure it'll have a lot of hits

.

Kevin

Justin Ma · Post by **Justin Ma** » Sat Feb 18, 2012 3:47 am

Sorry for derailing the thread, folks. Looking forward to hearing more about this bow.

JR · Post by JR » Sat Feb 18, 2012 8:41 am

@Fenris: Thank you for leading to the topic.
@Jack: I try to write you a letter (OT: museum)

It was a great feeling when we (Holger Riesch, Uli Stehli and me) kept the Jargalant bow at our hands for the first time. The bow had an oval-shaped cross section, was light in weight, and I estimated (first) the draw weight round about 80-100 lb/28?. Holger Riesch gives a historical review of research work and historical context (p. 181), Uli Stehli made quiver and arrows (p. 191).
As I am a busy scientist, there is not much time left to repeat all the data of the book. Therefore I try to give only the specifics for discussion. I separate it into chapters.

1. Wooden core:
As far as I know, it is the first time that an exact determination of the wood of an Mongolian bow of the 8. Century is published. A special institute determined Prunus spec. (p. 383) that means, the exact species of tree is unknown, but we know the genus Prunus. In Europe there are a lot of different trees of this species, for example P. cerasifera, P. mahaleb, P. padus, P. domestica, P. persica.
I have exercise with a lot of European species because of tinkering wood since 40 years. When I investigated the broken piece and the broken layers of wood (Pic. 2), sinew and horn, the wooden core seems to me like P. domestica because of some characteristics: P. domestica is a hard, beautiful brown colored wood with a smooth and dense surface, good elasticity, but not so strong bending power. You can see this wood on picture 2 of my collection of bow woods, left column on top. So I decided to take this Prunus species for the bending portion. The siyahs seemed a little bit lighter in color, they were determined as Prunus spec. too. Therefore I decided to take P. mahaleb for the siyahs. I do not know which Prunus species in the Mongolia of the 8. Century has grown, but this was a good choice, I think.
Building the core is demonstrated in the book (p. 185). But some aspects are of worth mentioning additionally: All parts were clearly visible in the CT-pictures, dovetail splice, two additional parts of the handle. The dimensions of the siyahs are identical with the original bow, please compare p. 183 and p. 249: the left, broken arm is somewhat in tension, so viewing direction more or less from top.
There is a determination of the hide glue: It is hide glue (glutine) of normal characteristics without any additions. The finished wooden core (glued together, tillered, and draw till 28?) was very narrow (28 mm) and made an elastic impression by bending.
(will be continued with chapter 2: CT)

redhawk · Post by **redhawk** » Sat Feb 18, 2012 1:51 pm

JR, you?ve to count in woods you can?t know cause they are not growing here.
When I was ordered to research the bow- findings of olon kurin gol at the University of Novosibirsk i did the failure to compare the wood of the findings with my knowledge about wooden- species. I ended up with blackthorn ( a prunus too). There was no money left for a DNS- determination of the wood, so I did the bow with 2 central strips of blackthorn.
2 years later the university mailed me the results of finally done tests:it is tamarisk- wood. The tamarisk is also known as salt cedar and very common in the Eurasian steppe. The wood is well known for to be dense and elastic.
To me it looks like a mix of plum and yew- wood.
Stephen Selby once posted results of further DNS- tests about other Scythian bow excavations with the same result, tamarisk even heat- treated.
So be careful with the plum, JR!

For those who are really interested in flightshooting with wooden bows go to http://www.paleoplanet69529.yuku.com/fo ... t-Shooting or visit my blog BOWXPLOSION https://redhawk55.wordpress.com , tag for flightshooting. You?ll found some bows and arrows made by me, chronos, exciting pics of the flightbows used in the 1920- 1940ies ( absolutely great bow designs, shooting very far!!). You?re welcome, Michael

Adam Karpowicz · Post by **Adam Karpowicz** » Sat Feb 18, 2012 4:27 pm

JR -thank you very much, you are a good man...

The Prunus species vary widely in hardness and density (I think there are hundreds of them). For example in my part of the world Prunus virginiana (chokecherry) is a hard, very dense wood, heavier than maple. Prunus pensylvannica (pin cherry) is soft and light like willow. I doubt if the difference would manifest itself too much in the bending portion of limbs, since the wood (rather thin and narrow) is well encased in sinew and horn.

So, there was a V-splice in the siyah/limb joint?

I am looking forward for more! Please do show the dimensions and the location of the CT images.

Adam

JJ · Post by JJ » Sun Feb 19, 2012 10:52 am

Wow, I didn?t look for a few days and I see this thread became very popular, thanks!!!

JR glad to see you here, I remember that you attended one of my seminars but I didn?t realize it?s already 20 years that have passed since then;-))

I am excited to hear that there is a v-splice visible in the x-rays of the 8th century bow. To my knowledge the earliest evidence of this kind of joining the siyahs (Jack could probably correct me).

JR is there a chance to see these X-rays or CT?s made of the bows? And would there be a chance for ATARN members to see the bows in person after they were removed from the displays in between exhibitions??

To all: The artifacts are certainly not resting in Germany, they are not possesions of the Bonn Museum, but of the Mongolian archaeological authorities or the state itself. After they were shown in the Netherlands and in another exhibition in Eastern germany they will go permanently to Mongolia in 2013.

JJ

JR · Post by JR » Wed Feb 22, 2012 1:20 pm

Another appendix for the wood examination:
As biologist I know the different methods for the analysis:
DNA-tests are expensive, will take a lot of time and are often not possible with old wood of the surface.
Microscopic investigations, so called histological analysis, are a safe practice which leads on to the genus and sometimes to the species. Especially, if it is used together with phase contrast imaging or histofluorescens methods.
Actually the macroscopic view was used (p. 381, 383). May be, this has been revised sometimes. But for me: I had to work with the result of the analysis nevertheless!
The attachement is no actual picture of the bow-wood, only an example for P. avium.