Some questions relatng siyah.

[Sinsigel]

While reviewing some archey related works, I realized that I couldn't understand some basic issues about siyah precisely.
The stiffened siyah(which invention is usually credited to Huns) functions as a lever, allowing smoother draw and maximizin the draw length. And it is also thought to be an improvement over the previously used Scythian style recurved tips.
My question begins here. Does this mean that the 'lever-effect' allowing smoother draw isn't applied to Scythian style ears?
Another question, too, is abot the siyah. Over half a century ago, Dr. Klopsteg demonstrated in his work that bow with rigid tips will store more energy than the bow without ears even though both have same draw lengt and draw weight. Can someone explain this in more details?

[Hyarmendacil]

If you're into archery physics, Bob Kooi has a large number of articles about the subject here:

http://www.bio.vu.nl/thb/users/kooi/

[Stephen Selby]

There is no specific serial relationship between Scythian bows and the Xiongnu ('Hun') long-eared bows.

The Scythian design did provide some leverage because the string 'unwound' the tightly-curled end of the bow-tip. We need to await Adam Karpowicz's detailed reconstruction of this bow to assess how effective it was.

The benefit of the siyah when applied to a bow with a relatively short limb is -

(a) it allows the archer to draw longer because the siyah tips can be (but are not always) forward of the natural resting position of the string. (Hence more energy stored.)
(b) the siyah acts as a lever not only to draw the limb backwards, but also to force the limb-tips inwards. This means that the length of the draw is used to bend the limbs, rather than to stretch them.

If a limb ends its maximum bend early in the draw and the energy of the archer is then put to the impossible task of stretching the limb backwards, that is called 'stacking'. I.e., the more you draw, the harder it gets. The siyah maximizes bending action on the limb and minimizes stacking. The additional weight of the siyah is the price that is paid for this improvement.

[Bede]

Steve Gardiner wrote an interesting article in the Traditional Bowyer's Bible IV on flight bows made from natural materials that had some interesting things to say about stiff ends on bows.

Dan Perry in Utah also has been experimenting with stiff ended bows both in traditional materials like the Holmsgard bow in wood and also with more modern composites.

Both bowyers could see some advantages in concentrating the bend nearer the grip, even without the Asiatic reflexed rigid ear which is the ancestor of the siyah.

As Stephen wrote, you pay for the mechanical advantage with weight. There is always a break even point in a design where further progress leads to diminishing returns.

[Stephen Selby]

As Stephen wrote, you pay for the mechanical advantage with weight. There is always a break even point in a design where further progress leads to diminishing returns.

I guess I should add that the disadvantage of the added weight of light siyahs might be offset by the additional stored energy derived from having the bow-tips forward of the alignment of the string.

[redhawk]

Stephen has clearly pointed out the benefits of siyahs/recurves

I?ve done some reconstructions of Scythian hornbows during the last 4 years. Due to a lack of knowledge about their real construction I did them the usual way: horn at the bow?s belly, core of wood, sinew-backing.
Last February I had been invited by the Russian Academy of Science for to examine the Scythian bow-findings of olon-kurin-gol. I had to realize that the Scythian bowyers did their bows as laminations of 10- 14 parts of wood and horn. The olon kurin gol bow is a wooden lamination with 2 slats of horn just for to cover the belly side of the recurves. The horn-slats are grooved for to guide the string.
So I?m sure that Scythian bows whether as a hornbow or a laminated wooden bow are made along the same principle of design.
But if made as usual or as laminations the impact of the siyah/recurve is the same.
I would consider the Scythian recurves as a fore-runner for the siyahs, with a small impact of what is explained by Stephen( longer draw, more stored energy).
I made my first reconstructions of Scythian bows in a symmetrical design, the f/d curves were similiar to the f/d curves of longbows. It tooks some research for to realize that the Scythians have originally done their bows in asymmetrical designs, the tests with asymmetrical reconstructions of Scythian bows "produced" typical hornbow- f/d curves.

The Scythian bow Adam Karpovicz is trying to reconstruct is the so- called Subeixi bow. It is done like the olon kurin gol bow but with several slats of horn for to create the bows belly, the bow is backed with sinew , so we could call it a hornbow. But after having finished the olon kurin gol bow I?m definitely in serious doubts that the Subeixi- findings with a thickness of about 3cm are more than a grave- good.
The reconstruction of the olon kurin gol bow matches the measurements of the bow- findings and it works.

Michael

[Adam Karpowicz]

These are all good comments about the need for the siyahs as levers in a short bow.

I am a bit confused about Redhawk remark that the assymetrical design produced the typical f/d curve, while the symmetrical did not. As to the Subexi bow - the bow's thickness at the bending section is less than 3cm (according to the dimensions provided by Stephen), if I remember correctly even less tha 2cm and the bow is functional. I still have a dreadful problem with one of the limbs twisting, but now have a good idea how these bow were made. This bows had a vertical slat of horn through most of the limbs, plus the horn belly.

Adam

[Bede]

I too am concerned by these remarks about the Subeixi bows lack of practicality. At least the ones Stephen provided me cross sections and measurements for were reasonably proportions if you assume the middle section was more rigid than we would now make a bow. As well one of the bows had clearly be altered and repaired in its lifetime.

The comment that the symmetrical construction of the bows that Redhawk made resembled a long bow in its force draw curve is no surprise since work David Betteridge did some years ago suggested that they were not comparable to more recent composite bows. He used the limited information we had at the time from a few excavations and mainly art. The interesting thing he pointed out was that Scythians depicted bracing bows were clearly not working with highly reflexed bows. The cross sections that were published at the time were deep rather than wide. This implied that they could not have been bent as much as the later composite bows especially the superficially similar Korean bows.

As to whether the working recurves of the Scythian style bows were the ancestors of siyahs, I very much doubt it. For at least 1,200 years, siyahs did not recurve. Within the period of use of the Scythian style bows, rigid siyahs were developed and used. Perhaps the major effect of Scythian style bows was in introducing of the set back hand grip which appeared with them and spread throughout other designs later. The working recurve, depicted in Persepolis and Susa in the hands of Persian and Elamite infantry, died out after the eclipse of the Scythian style bow itself.

The development of siyahs that recurved in the strung position of the bow is a late development that did not become common until after the Mongol Period.

[Stephen Selby]

Bede raises an interesting point about the degree of recurve on these bows.

Looking at archaeological excavations is not always helpful, but I would have expected that a bow preserved in damp conditions would lose any recurve it originally had, while those in extremely dry conditions (such as Xinjiang) would be preserved with the recurve accentuated due to excessive drying of the sinew.

All the bows I have studied in Xinjiang (several dozens) had little or no recurve when excavated. That included Saka (Scythian) type bows, Han and Tang hornbows and Hun/Mongol hornbows. Generally, more recent Manchu hornbows and their Mongolian and Tibetan counterparts have very limited recurve when unstrung.

On the other hand, Song and Ming paintings and illustrations of bow manufacture show very strongly recurved bows, newly-made and hung on racks. This may reflect Turkish influence in the Yuan period.

My conclusion is the strong recurve such as found on modern Korean and Turkish bows is a particular line of development in itself. Given the relative difficulty of stringing and maintaining strongly-recurved bows, there may have been tactical benefits in minimizing recurvation. To equate 'composite' and 'recurve' may not be appropriate.

I'm going to have to revise an article I have written to reflect this thought.

[Bede]

Stephen,
I hope I have not been unclear. By "reflex", I mean the bend towards the back of the bow found in unstrung bows that is past a straight line drawn vertically through the handle. By "recurve", I mean the degree the tips of a bow are bent towards the back of the bow when it is strung.

You can have a bow with a great degree of reflex, but with no recurvature at all. For instance you can make a Hungarian style bow with so much reflex that the tips touch each other when it is unstrung, but when strung there is no recurvature at all.

You can build a bow that has no reflex at the handle but is recurved at the tips when strung and when unstrung. Technically the bow has some form of reflex because the tips of the limbs bend towards the back when unstrung.

To me the Scythian style bows are deflexed because the limbs bend towards the belly rather than the back then curve towards the back at then tips even though the handle is set back. The unstrung bow has limbs that have different shapes at different points along its length.

These terms are not as precise as are necessary for describing the many different kinds of bows that people have made.

Looking at the cross sections, I think that the set back handle area is relatively rigid and doesn't contribute much to the stored energy of the bow. In long bow parlance the bow is whip ended. The thickness of the limbs controls the amount of reflex you can put them under.

[redhawk]

Adam, my posting about the draw-curves is indeed a bit to cloudy. I want to point out that the impact of the Scythian siyah/recurve is only a little of what we know about later developed siyahs, f.e. in Mongolian bow- designs. But for to produce a more "hornbow typical" drawcurve the Scythians and some Siberian tribes used the asymmetrical design.
At the beginning of the draw you see a steep curve than it flattens, it flattens exactly when the shorter limb could not be bend any further.
As a result of being the bowyer for some research- projects focused on Scyhtian and Greek bows I had to deal a lot with asymmetrical designs, and I have begun to research this topic for myself with very interesting results. I think that the asymmetrical bow- design is completely underestimated and misunderstood. I?ll post my experiences soon.

Bede, now you are the one to make me confused.
Due to my experience the Scythian bow- design is nothing else than a bow reflexed in the handle- section with sharp a bit siyah- like recurves, expressed in the typical Scythian "design- language".
Due to my cooperation with James Harrod, one of the founders of the www.originsnet.org , and a scholar for prehistoric art, religion and semiotics my senses for a closer approach to history were opened a bit more. I realized that usually bowyers are to much focused on the practical impact of a design. Every culture has its own "language of design"!
I once posted an advice for James Harrod?s: The bow- A techno- Mythic Hermeneutic, you can download it from the adress above.

I agree with you Bede, in stating that the Scythian bows have no reflex in the limbs, maybe a little, but if you look at the bow as a whole, the limbs are deflexed. I think Novotny?s reconstruction of the Subeixi- bow is an "over-interpretation".
There is absolutely no evidence for that, the rare pics of unstrung Scythian bows just tell the opposite is true. I think this is a misunderstanding of the Scythian bow- design.

I?ve several times posted my doubts of the Subeixi- bow being more than a grave good, I?m still in doubt. I know Stephen?s field- recordings and I?m still wondering if a limb of a short bow with such a big cross- section could work.

I?m looking for Adam?s reconstruction!

Michael

[rosa]

I'm going to have to revise an article I have written to reflect this thought.

Which article is this? Maybe I'm sleeping in the class.

[Patrick Menzies]

Personally I think the Scythian bow can be thought of as a"double deflex" reflex design. I don't think the sharp deflex portions on either side of the reflexed handle are meant to bend much if at all.
To me it looks more like each outer limb is very much like Adam's experimental short deflexed bow. Instead of just having one sharp deflex right in the center of the handle, the deflex is split into two sections.
This would theoretically allow the slightly reflexed outer limbs to be only lightly stressed at brace and be able to deliver virtually all their bending capacity to the arrow.
I always thought too much emphasis was placed on the obviously bent sections of the bow under the assumption that they were the main energy storing portion. I think it is just an undulating "riser".
If Adam cut his short deflex model in half and spliced each half to a sharply reflexed/deflexed handle piece - presto, Scythian bow.

[jack farrell]

The Scythians were very proud of the shape of their bows. This may be the entire story. In the absence of other composite bows, these would be the best design.

Let me make some other observations. The reflexed grip would make a built in overdraw device. Any leverage advantage of a reflexed grip is immediately lost on the prebent limbs. Together with the pronounced recurves the main advantage seems to be extra length squashed into a short shape. Not being in a C or circular shape at rest would create stability.

Many bows of the period were put into graves strung. This should be considered.

My vote is beauty over function. One must note the large numbers of arrows Scythians carried. Maybe flight shooting of poisoned arrows at eachother was somehow preferred. Whereas a Mongol or Chinese carried ten arrows, some Scyths carried 50 or 100 or more.

[Patrick Menzies]

There is an interesting Scythian bow at Phoenix Ancient Art. It looks of dubious antiquity based on preservation but it certainly fits the shape criteria. It is listed as being made of Bamboo but that looks a bit unlikely as it is hard to see any evidence of nodes.
I still see no evidence that the Scythian bow was reflexed in any way and even less that many of them were actual composites.
The extreme range mentioned in some records would be possible with a very high draw weight wooden based bow shooting some of the tiny arrows that the Scythians apparently used.
Keep in mind that short all wooden "foot" bows have reached 700-800 yards.
Until someone makes a very heavy draw "wooden" Scythian bow we won't know for sure what they actually accomplished.
I'm working on it though.
I have mentioned before that the Scythian bow seems more like a handheld crossbow prod capable of shooting a large number of short arrows to extreme range in rapid fashion.