Bakkam nock on war arrows

Gokmen · Post by **Gokmen** » Wed May 17, 2017 8:40 am

question about bakkam gez on war arrows:
is it one piece or two pieces?
in literature it is described as 2 pieces. also there is some examples from flight arrows. Is it the same for war arrows?

Does it not make more sense to leave 2mm connecting the 2 parts? weight wouldnt be much more and maybe you would not need the sinew wrapping?

When looking at war arrows in museums, I can't be sure, mostly the inner part is painted so you can't see.

what do you think? have you seen any evidence for one or the other in any museums or collections?
thanks

e.g. here:
http://turcica.museum-kassel.de/204997/ ... bjekt.html

Kviljo · Post by **Kviljo** » Thu May 18, 2017 9:42 pm

I think that one in the picture is "self"-nocked. No glued on pieces, just sinew wrapped.

I have seen bakkam nock on (of course) flight arrows, but also on puta arrows. Same construction and shape, just bigger.

Sinew wrapping is likely necessary if the "lips" of the nock are closed, for the snap-on effect. If they are open, it can be ok to leave them unwrapped. Unwrapped nocks do not tolerate too thick strings though, so it is wise to wrap all nocks. - unless they are of the baspare type.

Bj?rn Sofeit · Post by **Bj?rn Sofeit** » Fri May 19, 2017 7:02 pm

If you consult Yücel, he talks about war arrows from p.299 onward. The translation isn't good enough to make out if he mentions the nocks, but he did so talking about the other 2 types of reed war arrows.

There are some plain (munitions grade) military arrows in Vienna that had their nocks repaired with various degrees of care in such fashion, but the overall impression looks like it's Adi Gez what they used per default.

Dunno if you can make it out here: