Bows from Siberia

Kviljo · Post by **Kviljo** » Thu Mar 13, 2008 2:50 am

As a half way follow-up on this thread: http://198.170.108.27/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=733

I'm currently writing a paper on so called two-wood bows, and came across these bows from Siberia.
It seems there are very little avaliable information about this type of bow, so I was wondering if any of you knew any litterature that mentions this type of bow? Or perhaps you know anything about them?

Please keep this thread clean of non-information-comments, but don't hesitate to post here if you know anything about these bows

If you would like to search the database yourself, follow this link:
http://anthro.amnh.org/javascript/pub_coll.htm

http://anthro.amnh.org/anthropology/dat ... 609&site=P

http://anthro.amnh.org/anthropology/dat ... 595&site=P

http://anthro.amnh.org/anthropology/dat ... 705&site=P

Andrew Hall · Post by **Andrew Hall** » Sat Mar 15, 2008 6:14 pm

Two useful articles that may have been mentioned in the original thread:
Ragnar Insulander, "The Two-Wood Bow", Acta Borealia, 1-2002, pp.49-73.
Ragnar Insulander, "Linneaus, Lapland and the Saami Bow", JSA-A Vol 42, 1999.

If you do a web search for Ragnar Insulander you should find some other articles he has written on the subject in various languages.

The long thread on the two-wood bows in Norwegian is here:
http://www.bueforum.no/viewforum.php?f=11
Look under "Den store tovedsbue-diskusjonen". There are quite a few photos of finds, drawings from archaeological reports and the odd reconstruction.?

Andrew

Kviljo · Post by **Kviljo** » Tue Jun 10, 2008 2:45 pm

Yep, those articles are good

I've just finished my own paper on these bows, and made some reconstructions based partly on the Siberian bows, and partly on a medieval find of a belly-laminate from Bergen, Norway.

Redhorse · Post by **Redhorse** » Tue Jun 10, 2008 5:15 pm

Fine looking bows.
How heavy are they, have you crono them yet and what glue did you use?

Kviljo · Post by **Kviljo** » Tue Jun 10, 2008 5:29 pm

Thanks

It depends on how far you draw them, but inbetween 50 and 100# at 23-26". I haven't chronoed them yet, but they shoot pretty good.

I've used regular wood glue, araldite, hidegule and fish glue. They seem to work just the same, although hideglue is no good since it gels too quickly. Fish glue on the other hand stays liquid in room temperature, so it's much more usable.

redhawk · Post by **redhawk** » Wed Jun 11, 2008 8:33 am

Hi Kviljo, last February I had been invited by the Russian Academy of Science to check different bow- findings, above all the Scythian bow finding of olon kurin gol.
The Russian archaeologists have excavated so much bow findings, so the number of the findings speaks for itself.
All the Siberian bows were two- wood laminations in the length of 130- 180cms, with a soft kind of siyahs. Often there were sinew- backed and wrapped with birchbark. The siyahs and the grip were often reinforced with bone or antler plates. I?ve seen hundreds of these reinforcements plates.
The so- called Novgorod bow is the typical design of a Siberian bow.
For the laminatons the Siberians used birch at the backside of the bow and kren, this is the hardest larch you can find in Siberia. So today the Russians call these bows krenovji.
They didn?t work with compression pine or juniper.

The Nerchin, Yakut Tunguses as well as Selenga Mongols and Bratskie tribes are told to have used hornbows, which they?ve bought from Chinese tribes. In the Northern regions of Siberia the kren- wood was often substituted by whalebone- plates.

Above all it has been the German scholar G.F. Mueller who has recorded a lot about Siberia. He had been in Siberia for several times from 1730- 1750.

Michael

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:09 am

This type of bow is hard shooting. What wood depends on what is available.

MJuingong · Post by **MJuingong** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 3:39 am

One thing puzzles me. In the dimensions for the first bow, a width of 16.7 cmis given, which equals almost 6 inches. It doesn't look that wide. Is the figure correct?

Redhorse · Post by **Redhorse** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 5:02 am

I notice that to, maybe it's the hight with ears.

Kviljo · Post by **Kviljo** » Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:15 pm

Redhawk, that's really interesting to hear! Do you have any recommendations regarding papers on these Siberian two-woods? - regardless of language.

I've got Medvedevs bow-paper, but that's about it.

Did they use compression-larch or just regular larch?

16,7cm might be the length of the ears. I would guess it is about 4-5 cm wide at the widest.

redhawk · Post by **redhawk** » Tue Jun 17, 2008 7:02 am

Kviljo, no, in Muellers report, you?ll not find more about the bows as I?ve just posted.
But I? ve examined more than 100 fragments of these bows when I was in Siberia. The birch- backings were made of small diameter trees or branches. The kren- wood was cut from even smaller branches, with a lot of knots and they had to decrown it for to get the needed width of 3-4cm.

In February you don?t have a good chance to see a living kren, everything is covered with ice and snow, the Russians told me that this kind of larch is more a bush than a tree.

Some of the bows were made asymmetrically. the longer limb up.

I guess that the Siberian two- wood bow is one of the most under-estimated bow- designs.

Michael

Kviljo · Post by **Kviljo** » Tue Jun 17, 2008 9:42 pm

I see. There's not much published on these then.

It would be awesome to have a close-up look at these some day! Interesting stuff you say about the stave-thickness. All the medieval belly laminates from Norway are from larger trees, with an approximate diameter of 12-25 cm. Guess it solely has to do with the avaliability of materials.

It's a rather weird design isn't it? A recurved paddle

But they really represent a brilliant design if you want a short, stable, wooden bow. - with the paddle-shape to allow for enough wood in the bow to store enough energy while still keeping the handle narrow. The extra mass at midlimb help stabilize them for better accuracy, and the recurves gives them a smooth draw regardless of the heavy bend at midlimb. They look like the result of trying to force a hornbow-design into a climate that won't allow the use of horn.

I'm quite curious to hear if the Siberian fragments have the same longitudinal lines as the Norwegian/Swedish/Finnish medieval ones? - like my reconstructions on the picture:

redhawk · Post by **redhawk** » Thu Jun 19, 2008 3:32 pm

Kviljo, I?ve just found some recordings I?ve done in Siberia.

Due to the cooperativeness of the Russian archaeologists I got every info
I want.

About glue: the Siberians used fishglue. They preserved the glue as small pellets, before the glueing they chewed these pellets until the glue got a processable consistency.

About arrowsheads:
With points made of bone:
tamary, an arrowhead that looks like a little club, as big as a small birds egg
Mumah: the arrowhead is one spike of bone
Wakar: four spikes of bone in a square, one in the middle

Points made of iron:
Dschaldiwun: a long spike
S?le?: a long rhombus
Pjelaga: like a fork, but with a transverse of wood to prevent deep penetration
Daptama: chisel shaped

The names of these arrowheads are in the language of the Tungus.

The arrowshafts were made of pine.

Michael

Kviljo · Post by **Kviljo** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 1:55 pm

Ahh, brilliant!

The long spike-arrowhead, was that considered a point for war/penetrating some kind of armour, or did it have some other use?

I was wondering, did you ever see these longitudinal incised lines on any of the bow-laminates? These occur the majority of medieval two-wood bows.

The backings were also de-crowned, or did they follow the outer growthring on the back?

Ashbow · Post by **Ashbow** » Tue Jun 24, 2008 12:20 am

Kviljo,

I just love your two-wood bows!
If I may ask you how did you do the bowstrings?

Bows from Siberia

Bows from Siberia

bows of Siberia....

bows of Siberia.....

bows of Siberia