Main Discussion Area > English Warbow
Evidence OTHER than MR Bows of 120+ bows?
llkinak:
--- Quote ---As is made clear in that thread, all serious archaeologists dealing with Otzi's bow agree that it is an unfinished bow blank. The idea that it is a backwards-made 202 pound warbow is really not at all in line with the evidence, and doesn't make sense considering what we know of the weights of other neolithic bows from the region, and similar bows cross-culturally in other contexts.
--- End quote ---
Agreed. Also, in "The Crooked Stick A History of the Longbow", Hugh Soar says Otzi's bow is ""Made of yew, heartwood alone, is a little over 71 inches in length, and compares with his height of 5 feet 3 inches." It earlier says that "Axe marks on the limbs of Otzi's bow have suggested to some that the weapon was incomplete, since it lacks the smoother finish on other contemporary bows, although a bow does not have to be tidied to be useable. Moreover, careful examination has failed to detect string marks on the limb extremities; and while he carried what is believed to have been a string, his weapon was seemingly unstrung." (Soar, 2004.)
This being the case, I'm not sure we should be holding Otzi's bow out as an example of a heavy weight bow used in the late Neolithic period.
WillS:
It wasn't a 202lb warbow. You've misread the thread. The thread started regarding a 202lb warbow, but totally change tack (as is the way on forums!) to focus on Otzi's bow. It's quoted within the thread that the projected draw weight is around 160lb.
I don't buy the unfinished bow theory, just as I don't buy the Mary Rose unfinished bow theory. Why on earth would a hunter be halfway up a mountain, with a quiver of arrows and a half-made bow? Pretty damn pointless. Even the half made arrows is ridiculous - half were finished and fletched as can be seen by the remains of the whipping (but not able to be shot from anything if the bow wasn't finished?!?!?), and the other half were probably shafts found and taken by Otzi on his travels. Nothing about the situation makes a half finished bow plausible. A bow would be made in a workshop or clearing somewhere in a village, not lugged across the alps for no reason. "Just off love, gonna trek across perilous mountains full of bandits and wild animals. No, don't worry, I've got my quiver of arrows. What? The bow? No no, it's useless but I'll carry it with me anyway dear. Bye!"
I don't think so.
Atlatlista:
--- Quote from: WillS on November 06, 2013, 04:10:33 pm ---It wasn't a 202lb warbow. You've misread the thread. The thread started regarding a 202lb warbow, but totally change tack (as is the way on forums!) to focus on Otzi's bow. It's quoted within the thread that the projected draw weight is around 160lb.
I don't buy the unfinished bow theory, just as I don't buy the Mary Rose unfinished bow theory. Why on earth would a hunter be halfway up a mountain, with a quiver of arrows and a half-made bow? Pretty damn pointless. Even the half made arrows is ridiculous - half were finished and fletched as can be seen by the remains of the whipping, and the other half were probably shafts found and taken by Otzi on his travels. Nothing about the situation makes a half finished bow plausible.
Anyway, let's avoid it going off topic eh?
--- End quote ---
I can think offhand of half a dozen reasons why Otzi would have a half-finished bow blank with him - including perhaps that he had another bow in his possession that was taken by his murderers (though that doesn't explain why the valuable copper axe wouldn't have been taken also). Also, there is no evidence that Otzi was a hunter. He was probably a pastoralist and farmer living in a neolithic community nearby. "Hunter" really doesn't describe that population very well at all.
Really though, it doesn't matter why. All that matters is the evidence. The preponderance of the evidence makes it clear that the bow is unfinished - it doesn't look like other known examples from the same place and time, the draw weight not only doesn't mesh with those found in other neolithic contexts, but doesn't make sense for a hunting-weight bow in any culture (not even Medieval England where warbows really did have heavy draw weights), there are no signs of string nocks or other ways in which the bow might have been braced, and the bow itself had axe marks and other signs of it being unfinished, when compared to what other known finished bows looked like. Those are the facts. It makes no sense from a scientific standpoint to dismiss those facts just because you don't think they represent logical behavior on the part of the person involved. We don't know the full facts of what he was doing when he died, where he was going, whether or not he had other possessions that were lost on the way or in the altercation that ended his life, etc. There is so much that we don't know that we can't toss out what we do know on the basis of it not appearing to make sense to our eyes.
Atlatlista:
--- Quote from: WillS on November 06, 2013, 04:10:33 pm --- A bow would be made in a workshop or clearing somewhere in a village, not lugged across the alps for no reason.
--- End quote ---
Do you have a source citation for that? Have there been any identified bow workshop areas in neolithic villages in this region? Have archaeologists discovered bow making tools corresponding to particular locations in villages?
I suspect the answer to all of those questions is "no." You can't just make something up and say that's the way things were in the past. You have to have evidence. And that's the real problem with Stratton's interpretation of the bow as a 160 pound monster. He has no evidence to support his claims, other than the fact that he can shoehorn the bow into being a working replica. How many half-finished bows on this website could have the same thing done to them? All evidence points in the opposite direction, and it's not unreasonable to say so.
WillS:
We'll have to agree to disagree then :)
I've got no academic knowledge whatsoever on the topic, while you clearly do, so I won't insult your education by arguing! In my head, the thought of a primitive man away from the safety of his peers with a quiver of finished, ready arrows and nothing to shoot them with seems crazy. Two bows? Maybe. Hell of a lot to take on a journey as a lone man. (Although we don't know he was alone...)
Stratton reckons the tiny tool marks are a good indication that it was a finished bow. As far as he is concerned going to the effort of making such delicate, refined tool marks shows pride and care in finishing a product without the use of abrasives like sandpaper. I dunno if I agree entirely with that, but I can see the logic for sure.
I do think on a whole we underestimate primitive man and his strength and ability to use heavy bows. They lived a far harder life than us, and if soft couch potatoes like modern man can learn in a few years to use a 150lb bow, then surely, surely a hardened living-off-the-land primitive fella wouldnt have an issue.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version