2nd visit in Exhibition.
Some observations:
Adam, the bow is 5 - 5,5 cm wide in mid-limbs and approx. 1,6-1,8 mm thick.
Bede, it seems that there is a transverse sinew winding on the horn in midlimb, but it?s hardly visible, so if it?s really there it must be very thin.
Jack, other than stated before, the splice of the upper siyah is not visible, because there are dark sinew remains over it, but it seems to me that the slot which is clearly visble there, is not a drying crack, but made intentionally because of its regularity. So it is probably the same technique seen in modern Korean siyah splices with a prolonged cut.
String is heavily waxed (?) and polished. Thickness about 3-4 mm. The fibers are extremely fine where they have separated.
The arrows: I must admit that on the first visit I didn?t notice they are made of very well polished bamboo with one exception. The nodes are ground away completely. Really astonishing is that they are tapered! It was done with hardwood inserts that cover the whole fletching area. A simple V-splice is used for inserting these rear ands... Arrow nocks fit the string with about 4-5 mm width.
JJ
Ancient bows from Mongolia from an exhibition in Bonn Pt. 3
-
Fenris
- Posts: 41
- Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 12:21 pm
- Location: Germany, Dresden
If I had only known ... I was about to visit the exhibition yesterday 
.
Anyway taking the above measurements:
-5-5,5 cm wide and 1,6-1,8 cm thick (maybe about 2-3 mm less for the wrapping (sinew?) and cover (birchbark))
-length of the bow maybe around 140-145 cm
Compared to a similar design given in the "Reflexbogenbuch" (Avar bow)
The draw weight of the bow should be somewhere between 120 (!) and 180 lbs. That is very impressive and puts the proto-turkish design in a row with the war bows in topkapi palace.
To the wood discussion of the zargalant bow: I agree with the postings of Adam and JR. There is a wide range in modulus and density within a given species. Within a given genus it is even more. So it may be impossible to rebuild the exact (!) wooden core. It is more reasonable to take a wood with intermediate density and modulus and proceed. Plum wood for sure is a good choice.
To the identification of the genus: Looking at the book chapter of material analysis, one can see that tamarisk wood was within the focus of the institute responsible for the material analysis (they identified the whip as tamarisk wood). I would assume the analysis was correct, since the guys at "Labor fuer quartaere Hoelzer, Lagenau" seem to be quite specialized and professional.
Anyway I realized we are talking about two different bows in the same thread. It may be a bit difficult to distinguish in between for readers which bow is talked about (as it was for me:)). Since JJ started a thread for each bow maybe everything can be put in order!?
Kevin
.Anyway taking the above measurements:
-5-5,5 cm wide and 1,6-1,8 cm thick (maybe about 2-3 mm less for the wrapping (sinew?) and cover (birchbark))
-length of the bow maybe around 140-145 cm
Compared to a similar design given in the "Reflexbogenbuch" (Avar bow)
The draw weight of the bow should be somewhere between 120 (!) and 180 lbs. That is very impressive and puts the proto-turkish design in a row with the war bows in topkapi palace.
To the wood discussion of the zargalant bow: I agree with the postings of Adam and JR. There is a wide range in modulus and density within a given species. Within a given genus it is even more. So it may be impossible to rebuild the exact (!) wooden core. It is more reasonable to take a wood with intermediate density and modulus and proceed. Plum wood for sure is a good choice.
To the identification of the genus: Looking at the book chapter of material analysis, one can see that tamarisk wood was within the focus of the institute responsible for the material analysis (they identified the whip as tamarisk wood). I would assume the analysis was correct, since the guys at "Labor fuer quartaere Hoelzer, Lagenau" seem to be quite specialized and professional
.Anyway I realized we are talking about two different bows in the same thread. It may be a bit difficult to distinguish in between for readers which bow is talked about (as it was for me:)). Since JJ started a thread for each bow maybe everything can be put in order!?
Kevin
-
JJ
- Posts: 317
- Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 9:38 am
- Location: Germany
)-
JR
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 5:39 pm
- Location: Germany
-
Justin Ma
- Posts: 309
- Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 6:00 am
- Location: Bay Area, California, USA
- Contact:
-
Fenris
- Posts: 41
- Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 12:21 pm
- Location: Germany, Dresden
-
Dusan
- Posts: 990
- Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2007 6:29 pm
- Location: Slovakia
-
Dusan
- Posts: 990
- Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2007 6:29 pm
- Location: Slovakia
-
Adam Karpowicz
- Posts: 753
- Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2005 11:57 am
- Location: Canada
Thanks JJ. If the bow is 145cm ntn and the limbs 4.8 x 1.4 cm (1mm bark thickness subtracted), I get 85lb. This is compared to a weaker 50lb bow of roughly similar shape to the Mongol bows (the 50lb bow is nothing to brag about - a converted Turkish bow).
JR - where are the CT-scans of the Zargalant bow?
Adam
JR - where are the CT-scans of the Zargalant bow?
Adam
-
JR
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 5:39 pm
- Location: Germany
@Admins: Is it possible to push my explanations of the Zargalant bow to the right place?
http://198.170.107.188/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=2240
In the meantime I continue here...sorry!
CT scan of Zargalant bow
The different layers in a CT scan of an archaic bow showing cross sections are not easily to determine, because sinew layer and horn layer show the same compact mass. I discussed this together with an orthopaedic surgeon; he had the same opinion and could not differentiate. (compare pic 3, page 184).
Comparisons with the original layers were necessary. Therefore it was a good choice to choose one of the broken bows for reconstruction. Measurements at the original layers show the real position and dimension: The horn layer (on top pic 3) has a pointed oval shape, the sinew layer is on back and lateral of the wooden core and a little bit lateral of the horn.
The CT-pictures are sole property of the museum. They allowed to give some data of the construction to a circle of interested people.
The picture of page 184 is cross-section near by the handle, where the grip-section tapering to the limb. Most part of the limb has a thickness of 0,6 cm (horn) and 0,5-0,6 cm of wood (table p. 189) tapering to the ends (siyah-knee) to 1,64 cm (5,6 wood, sinew: 3,4, horn: 5,4, rest: glue and birch-layer)
Middle of the limb: 0,6 cm horn, 0,6 cm wood, 0,4 sinew, 0,2 birch-layer (2 x), little bit glue between birch and sinew, 1,8-1,9 cm thickness altogether
The measurements of the CT-pictures had to be equalized to the real thickness seen in the broken parts of the bow, because 1200 years let the organic materials shrink or swell, depending to the situation in the earth and their contact to humidity. But at the broken parts especially the sinew layer seemed to be swollen.
http://198.170.107.188/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=2240
In the meantime I continue here...sorry!
CT scan of Zargalant bow
The different layers in a CT scan of an archaic bow showing cross sections are not easily to determine, because sinew layer and horn layer show the same compact mass. I discussed this together with an orthopaedic surgeon; he had the same opinion and could not differentiate. (compare pic 3, page 184).
Comparisons with the original layers were necessary. Therefore it was a good choice to choose one of the broken bows for reconstruction. Measurements at the original layers show the real position and dimension: The horn layer (on top pic 3) has a pointed oval shape, the sinew layer is on back and lateral of the wooden core and a little bit lateral of the horn.
The CT-pictures are sole property of the museum. They allowed to give some data of the construction to a circle of interested people.
The picture of page 184 is cross-section near by the handle, where the grip-section tapering to the limb. Most part of the limb has a thickness of 0,6 cm (horn) and 0,5-0,6 cm of wood (table p. 189) tapering to the ends (siyah-knee) to 1,64 cm (5,6 wood, sinew: 3,4, horn: 5,4, rest: glue and birch-layer)
Middle of the limb: 0,6 cm horn, 0,6 cm wood, 0,4 sinew, 0,2 birch-layer (2 x), little bit glue between birch and sinew, 1,8-1,9 cm thickness altogether
The measurements of the CT-pictures had to be equalized to the real thickness seen in the broken parts of the bow, because 1200 years let the organic materials shrink or swell, depending to the situation in the earth and their contact to humidity. But at the broken parts especially the sinew layer seemed to be swollen.
-
Fenris
- Posts: 41
- Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 12:21 pm
- Location: Germany, Dresden
Visiting the exhibition "Steppenreiter" two weeks ago, I spend a bit time in reading further on in the cataloge of the exhibtion. I stumbled over the essays written about the harp found along with the man and bow from Zargalant. In the conclusion part of the article scientist claim, that the man found together with the artifacts may be a musician but never a warrior of his time. According to them there are severeal hints like the missing battle axe and sword that are typicaly found along with turkish warriors of that time. Despite that, a harp is a very special gift for a burried, that is usually not found. So that may give a explanation for the relatly low draw weight of the zargalant bow.
regards Kevin
regards Kevin
-
Uli
- Posts: 600
- Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 7:33 pm
- Location: Saxony (home), Baltic (now)
-
benzi
- Posts: 8
- Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 4:48 pm
- Location: germany
http://www.primusverlag.de/titel.php?ar ... 2273684785Adam Karpowicz wrote: where are the CT-scans of the Zargalant bow?
Adam
yellow - horn
red - sinew
greeting benzi
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
-
Adam Karpowicz
- Posts: 753
- Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2005 11:57 am
- Location: Canada
Yes, thanks. There is only this one section scan in the catalog, which I have.
JR says:
"The measurements of the CT-pictures had to be equalized to the real thickness seen in the broken parts of the bow, because 1200 years let the organic materials shrink or swell, depending to the situation in the earth and their contact to humidity."
I noticed the proportions of the CT-scan do not correspond to the measuremens given (the mm numbers). If I understand JR correctly, the 19.1 total thickness is a sum of measurements taken from the other limb of the bow, where the materials could be seen from the side or have separated, assuming the materials changed dimensions also in the unbroken, bark-covered (CT-scanned) limb as well.
Since the bark on the unbroken limb is not loose, then the total thickness of limb there should rather be (nearly) unchanged with age? Then the 19.1mm thickness at the grip could actually be more than that. This actually seems reasonable, since the limbs show fairly even taper from grip to siyah. The measurements JR shows above: 14.4mm at siyah, 18-19mm at middle and 19.1mm at grip do not give even taper in the limb. I would expect something above 20mm at the grip.
JR - does it make sense to you?
Adam
JR says:
"The measurements of the CT-pictures had to be equalized to the real thickness seen in the broken parts of the bow, because 1200 years let the organic materials shrink or swell, depending to the situation in the earth and their contact to humidity."
I noticed the proportions of the CT-scan do not correspond to the measuremens given (the mm numbers). If I understand JR correctly, the 19.1 total thickness is a sum of measurements taken from the other limb of the bow, where the materials could be seen from the side or have separated, assuming the materials changed dimensions also in the unbroken, bark-covered (CT-scanned) limb as well.
Since the bark on the unbroken limb is not loose, then the total thickness of limb there should rather be (nearly) unchanged with age? Then the 19.1mm thickness at the grip could actually be more than that. This actually seems reasonable, since the limbs show fairly even taper from grip to siyah. The measurements JR shows above: 14.4mm at siyah, 18-19mm at middle and 19.1mm at grip do not give even taper in the limb. I would expect something above 20mm at the grip.
JR - does it make sense to you?
Adam