Primitive Archer
Main Discussion Area => Bows => Topic started by: BowEd on April 11, 2021, 04:41:23 pm
-
Good day everyone.Towards the end of february after the cold spell here I thought now is as good a time as any to take a few staves into the house to be made into bows.Especially before spring work starts here.Humidity gets pretty low here that time of year.Especially burning wood for heat.I do not have a heated bow shed but it did get up to 30 to 40 degrees F. yet that time of year to work on them in my tractor shed.All in all took around 5 to 6 weeks worth of time.Largest time consumers were waiting for bow limbs to rehydrate after heat treating and waiting for spar varnish to dry.
I brought in an osage,black locust,and a hickory.All three good local bow woods around me here.All approximately the same length 65 to 66 inches.All with 60/40 working limbs to lever percentages on their limbs.All with bulbous handles.All with a slightly raised [1/32"] gemsbok horn arrowpass's.All wrapped with beef rawhide lace handles.All handles close or 1/8" from being centershot.All with horn overlayed tips.0 hand shock on all three with a 10 grain arrow.All shoot a 12 to 13 grain arrow [600+ grain] into the mid to high 160's for excellent KE @ 44 ft.lbs.
All tillered to 28.5".All shot in.All heat treated and reflexed once with osage retaining 70% reflex,hickory and black locust retaining 60% of reflex.All after shooting 2 hours unbrace to 1/2" soft set returning to original resting reflex in 1/2 hour.Hickory and black locust rest with 3" reflex while osage rests with 4.5" reflex.Which tells me the limbs on these bows are not being overly stressed.
The osage had some hair like drying cracks top limb all within the limb except one out towards the tip where the lever narrows down.It was shellacked properly while drying but that can happen even with the best of precautions.I double sinew wrapped that area covering it with damp deer rawhide baseball stitched on the belly side.I matched it on the other limb.
Osage has around 12 rings to the inch/black locust around 16 rings to the inch/hickory around 25 rings to the inch.
-
It's good to see you posting some bows on here again Ed. You have this style just about perfected and this can help others do the same. :OK
-
Imgur works OK for me, Ed on my Chrome Book.
-
Yes same here.I just forgot to download them into imgur is all.My mistake.I went to my second 3D shoot so far this year.Good group of fellas I shoot with.It seems though I have forgotten how to post pictures from Imgur to forum.
I do have google chrome.I have pictures onto Imgur but it still does'nt post them.I click on BBcode[message board and forums] with no response.
OK....Sorry I forgot the routine.Forgot to paste.
(https://i.imgur.com/0PgjVUv.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/enAHKrp.jpg)
-
OK now for some serious transfer of pictures.Front to back...hickory.back locust,and osage.
(https://i.imgur.com/MM1R2SA.jpg)
Top to bottom....osage,black locust,hickory.
(https://i.imgur.com/JE7sOju.jpg)
top to bottom....osage,black locust,hickory
(https://i.imgur.com/6lMnJKI.jpg)
left to right....osage,black locust,hickory
(https://i.imgur.com/F76jYbJ.jpg)
left to right....hickory,black locust,osage
(https://i.imgur.com/gb5qsqP.jpg)
left to right....osage,black locust,hickory
(https://i.imgur.com/A4FMTcs.jpg)
osage against an osage
(https://i.imgur.com/Y0cWg93.jpg)
black locust against a black locust
(https://i.imgur.com/lsgPT23.jpg)
hickory against a hickory
(https://i.imgur.com/z1MCPfn.jpg)
Our magnolia is just budding here.Robin made sure I showed that.
(https://i.imgur.com/UTPa7ff.jpg)
osage full draw.50#'s @ 28"
(https://i.imgur.com/BuUXIEC.jpg)
black locust full draw.45#'s @ 28"
(https://i.imgur.com/chehJQq.jpg)
hickory full draw.50#'s @ 28"
(https://i.imgur.com/GXiBTjH.jpg)
Found this osage tree the other day.
(https://i.imgur.com/XFbAwxb.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/8VL2m8l.jpg)
-
Lovely bows. A fine effort indeed.
You also have some nice trees on your property.
-
Wow Ed you have been busy. Those bows are spectacular! The resting profile says it all. That snakeskin on the Osage bow turned out nice. Thanks for posting. Really nice photos!!
-
Beautiful work on those! Excellent tiller. That Osage is crazy! Don’t see many bows survive out of trees/staves like that.
-
Excellent work Ed... You have all 3 balanced and craftmanship is A+...Always enjoyed looking at your creations over the years...Nice work on the pictures, thanks for posting...
Don
-
That's quite the set of bows Ed. Great craftsmanship as always. Those numbers for 13 gpp are outstanding. Really shows the efficiency of that design when properly executed.
-
that hickory full draw picture is great...and full draw for sure... the tiller looks spot on as always... thanks.
-
Very nice bows Ed. They are like triplets :)
I've just made one for a customer. Will try and get some pics up.
-
very nice bows, I hope I'll be able to craft something close to them in a cuple of decades lol. The black locust one has quite a strange colour or it's just me? is it stained? In my experience that wood gets a much more orange-brown-ish colour, but maybe it's just the ones that grow here :)
-
Nice work as always Ed. Always enjoy seeing your work. Thanks for sharing
Bjrogg
-
A lot of work there. Looks great thanks for sharing. Like the matched pics with the standing trees.
Mike
-
Thanks fellas.The locust was left natural.The dark streak is natural too.Our black locust is a greenish brownish color.I like it.The honey locust's heart wood is a salmon color.Osage can be orange or yellow or yellow with red streaks in it too.I did like the way I stained the hickory though.I got highlights of light green,gray,and tan with some dark streaks of reddish brown.Osage was left natural too.
I'm slowly but surely getting people around here involved with these wooden bows with my searching for good trees.There's always the skeptics though of course but they never call my challenge.I think it's because my bows don't have sights on them.....Ha Ha.
Love to see your style of holmgaard bownarra.I'm sure it'll be great.
This design can be taken to any advanced stage you want as far as percentage of working limbs to levers.50/50 is nice too.They do look odd compared to your conventional looking streamlined or recurved looking type of bows but perform well.People that shoot em like em.To me they are easier to make than recurves,but there's always a certain time factor into making any bow.
It's one of the most ancient designs on the planet.
-
Great work and good pictures.
-
beautiful bows and pictures but arent those mollegabet style bows?
holmgaards are basically flat bows
(https://i0.wp.com/www.digitaldigging.net/wp-content/uploads/Holmegaard-1.jpg?ssl=1)
-
In order to understand holmgaards you need to know the concept of their function.Inner working limbs with stiff non working levers.That is the description of the function of holmgaards.
-
Lovely triplets, great work
-
hate to be so fussy but from the pictures and drawings it seems that holmegaard bows where pretty similar to pyramid bows
I do not see any particular depth at tips that could act as non working lever
(https://en.natmus.dk/typo3temp/assets/images/csm_Bue_fra_Holmegaard_IV__H4-1_19dc0f18a3_53a06b4357.jpg)
-
If you read farther into the efficiency of how a holmgaard works it says it all.They are made according to function.They are tillerred to have inner working limbs with stiff non working outer limbs.If you want it said that my version is a more modern type design [refined]then let it be so,but still the function of the bow is the same.The efficiency of the design dictates this.
I don't think you hate to be so fussy.You have always rather enjoyed being a desk chair non showing of your work participant on this forum.
-
What's in a name? That which we call a bow by any other name would shoot as sweet.
Replica's have been made with similar dimensions and have shown a tiller shape with stiffer outer limbs and working inner limbs. Who ever made the bow did not have "matching width profile to tiller shape" in mind. Regardless, the concept of that tiller shape and how it can be used for efficiency has bled into a variety of bows and styles. Holmegaard/mollegabet/etc... Let the man show off his work! ::)
-
Ed your bows look incredible.... gut
-
Nothing short of Awesome Ed. Fine work and Craftsmanship as always. :OK
Good to see ya posting here again. Hope to be able to see you and the bows soon.
-
I shot that same 3D course this weekend! I had no idea that you lived close to me. Beautiful bows.
Matt
-
Masterful- well done Ed.
-
Excellent bows, Ed no matter what you call them. Those osage trees are pretty crazy too and your Japanese tulip magnolia is coming along nicely. :OK
-
If you read farther into the efficiency of how a holmgaard works it says it all.They are made according to function.They are tillerred to have inner working limbs with stiff non working outer limbs.If you want it said that my version is a more modern type design [refined]then let it be so,but still the function of the bow is the same.The efficiency of the design dictates this.
First off I wasn't judging how good your bows are. They look awesome and I bet they shoot very well.
I was asking where did you find notice that holmegaard bows had non working levers
From what I can find holmegaard were almost pyramid bows. Full bending limbs.
Mollegabet had non working levers but were different bows even if the regions of provenance are quite close
I don't think you hate to be so fussy.You have always rather enjoyed being a desk chair non showing of your work participant on this forum.
That's quite a low blow. To each his opinion.
I'm sure I never intentionally offended anyone (especially you) and I always read with pleasure all the forum posts.
-
Nice rigs. I enjoy looking at them.
Shawn~
-
Lovely bows :)
Del
-
If you read farther into the efficiency of how a holmgaard works it says it all.They are made according to function.They are tillerred to have inner working limbs with stiff non working outer limbs.If you want it said that my version is a more modern type design [refined]then let it be so,but still the function of the bow is the same.The efficiency of the design dictates this.
First off I wasn't judging how good your bows are. They look awesome and I bet they shoot very well.
I was asking where did you find notice that holmegaard bows had non working levers
From what I can find holmegaard were almost pyramid bows. Full bending limbs.
Mollegabet had non working levers but were different bows even if the regions of provenance are quite close
I don't think you hate to be so fussy.You have always rather enjoyed being a desk chair non showing of your work participant on this forum.
That's quite a low blow. To each his opinion.
I'm sure I never intentionally offended anyone (especially you) and I always read with pleasure all the forum posts.
I don't take much offense from what you stated other than that you are misinformed,and seem to want to insist.In the past your comments have been the definition of low blows.In Wiki-Pedia if you read farther on the efficiency of holmgaards and the reason why.Also a fella by the name of Tim Baker did more research on this style of bow than anyone stating again and again the dynamics of such a bow.
If you made bows you would understand.One reason why you are disconnected about the subject and others you comment on.
If that's too blunt for you to each their own opinion.
-
Thanks fellas for your insightful comments.
-
They sure work fine and draw smoothly. These three are top shelf BowEd!
Sure it's always interesting to build the same bow from different woods. How do they perform? Does more reflex beat the rest?
Thanx for showing (-S
-
The key factor for me is if the inner limbs are tillered properly with the least amount of stress and the outers are reduced enough they all perform above average.A few feet per second more or less because of an inch or two more or less of reflex depends more on that as it does with any type bow I make.D/R self and backed bows or static recurve or working recurve or D section or flat or straight limbed or flipped tipped bows or sinewed bows or complex composite bows.Not to mention take down bows.I made at least 30 bows for 2 years before I ever joined this forum back in 2011.
Density of the wood and it's charcteristics to be good bow wood mean a lot.Many times my heat treated hickories out shoot any self bow I've got.Black locust is a superb bow wood if designed and treated right also.I don't have much HHB growing around me here but would like to make a few more bows from that wood as well as winged elm also.
You hav'nt been around long enough to see them all.My supply of bows of this design have dwindled through sales by my friend who owns a traditional bow shop in the city.It was time to renew some and the plain fact I like these type of bows.
-
Do you wrap and glue the bottom knock so it doesn't slip off? I've never seen anyone do that and if that's what you did I think that's a good idea
-
looking good
-
I love the look of these holmgaard/mollegabet bows, and I'd love to make one some day. I get the idea that they perform best, and shoot very fast, with low-weight arrows. Can they be made effective with heavier (say, 500-600g) arrows?
-
No Allen that's just a 1/8" wide black rubber innertube band [called a ranger band that I bought from a survival company] on there that holds the string loop on there when the bow goes in and out of a bow case.I have my strings twisted to the exact right brace height and want to keep it that way.
The string angle at full draw is so low producing a sweet draw that it is in no danger ever of slipping off.
To the contrary Badger they shoot heavier arrows very well or both light and heavy arrows really.The bows being 65 to 66 inch long help with the heavier arrows.When you make one you'll see that they have 2 fades on each limb.The arrows I shoot to hunt with off them are around 650 grains off a 50# bow.
Thanks Marc.
-
Really enjoyed seeing the H or M bows, three great bows, three locally sourced materials...
I noticed the osage sort of had squarish upper limbs, was that on purpose or am I seeing something that actually isn't there.
Really nice work.
-
Nice bows Ed. Looking good . Arvin
-
gifford.....Staves from larger logs will have flatter backs most times.Limbs on that holmgaard are a shade under 1.5" wide.I usually don't chamfer and round over edges on limbs more than an 1/8".The handles' edges get more of a chamfer for gripping comfort.
Thanks Arvin.
-
Awesome set of bows there. Make sure you take pictures of you splitting that twisted osage.
-
OK rps3......I split the snaky grained log today scoring it with the chain saw to make sure it split where I wanted.I could only use half the log.Other half had some large branches on it.I scored the half log I wanted to keep with 2 lines with the chain saw and split it.The wavy bark lines looked good and lined up end to end with a good crown flat and straight and no propellering.Split up a straight different log then too.Total of 7 straight staves 5.5 to 6 feet long from that log and 3 snaky staves 68" long from the other log.
I gave my friend Gary a straight stave and a snaky stave for helping me.He's a good man and an expert bow maker himself.When first seeing the log the first thing he said was.....This is wild!!! I stepped into the house to a message from him telling me he had way too many tomato plants started and said to come on over and get some.
In the previous picture of the snaky grained tree we cut the log out that is the third branch to the right.There are actually 4 branches coming out from the trunk if you look closely.Thank God for skid loaders.....Ha Ha.
(https://i.imgur.com/V7iAuxo.jpg)
-
This whole Holmegaard/mollegabet thing confused me for a while, but I'm pretty sure the Holmegaard bows were one whole bow and fragments from another bow found in Holmgaard in Denmark and both were even tapered bows.
The Mollegabet was a lever bow found in Mollegabet in Denmark.
Nice bows whatever you want to call them.
-
Nice batch of Osage staves, Ed. Love those snakey staves! Can’t wait to see what you make with them.
-
Thats a beautiful sight...nice thick rings too! Enjoy!
-
Yes the rings are very nice.You must be able to zoom in on the picture.I left the snaky staves wide.I'll get the bark and sapwood off.Shellack them and get a centerline on them to see what I got.Then let mother nature do her thing drying them.
I'm not confused about what my bows are.I am a dutchmen though.
The snaky tree is a tree with a 4' tall 3' across for sure main trunk with snaky bark.Then three or maybe four 16" thick limbs coming out like pipes and branching out a good 40 foot wide.The snaky bark pattern continued on out even into the less diameter limbs.Probably a good 35 to 40 feet tall altogether.I say is a tree because we did not kill it.
Sam told me another tree like it was about 50 yards away along a ridge for years till someone removed it to put a fence line in.We looked a good half a mile each way from this tree to find more but did'nt see any.I know I've walked many a mile looking for osage trees for bows over the last 12 years and this is the first time I've come across one like this.
I did see some maybe 4 or 5 of the thickest,straightest,and longest mulberry tree trunks I've seen in quite a while and 1 wonderful impressive pipe straight 16" thick 40' tall red cedar with no branches on 1 side too.Sam has owned that land for over 23 years.
I traded him a semi heavy duty Viking table top sewing machine for those logs.They sew their own clothes being Amish.He has 12 kids.8 boys and 4 girls.They will run the sewing machine with an air pump motor.I still have my heavy duty singer I use for my leather work and other things.
-
Ed...you have been busy! The staves look great and I'm looking forward to seeing the bows that they make. :OK It sounds like you also have a few fine mulberry staves to get later...a good find. Can't wait to hear the story about cutting this wood and see what you have once the bark is off.
-
Yea busy enough to not get done some things that need doing.....Ha Ha.
-
Beautiful, I do love the look of those lever bows.
Cat didn't seem too impressed though (lol)
-
If the cat did make bows that survived and lived over a very long period of time I would consider his or her points of bow making.....Ha Ha.
The cat is 1 of five that Robin helped raise on the front porch throughout the winter.We have them here amongst others to catch mice,and that they do very well.In the fall many times they will tag along as I go to the deer stand to hunt in the woods.Much like a dog.In fact that is what they are doing too "hunting" only in the most primitive way that is out there.I respect that.
In fact they stay hanging around my stand as I'm in it.They are a good alarm type system for me telling me something is coming.
-
I'm not confused about what my bows are.I am a dutchmen though.
Lol, a little back history for the new guys, as this was discussed a while back.
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/paleoplanet69529/holmgards-are-they-all-the-same-t23167.html (https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/paleoplanet69529/holmgards-are-they-all-the-same-t23167.html)
very nice bows Ed.
-
Willie, thanks for posting the link to PaleoPlanet.
As I read it, it occurred to me that I had read it before but forgot where it was.
I'm finishing up a Mollie now, osage. I'll have it at MoJAM as it needs a bit of tweaking with a form and heat gun.
-
Yes I've been in those type of discussions before in the past.
-
Awesome bows Ed. Great finishes and it’s nice to see the variety in species.
-
Incredible bows! Outstanding in all aspects.
-
Your bows look great. It is obvious that you are a very good bowyer and that you get so much out of wooden bows that many glass bow makers cannot.The tiller is spot on for a bow with stiff lever ends.
I don't think they are Holmegaard bows, though.
Two old elm bows were found in a bog near the Danish town of Holmegaard.
Both in fragments and only one complete.
Both bows have in common that they were built from a sapling, the round outside of the elm is the back of the bow and the belly of the bow is the inside of the elm scraped flat.
In both bows there is no real stepped taper in the width of the limbs.
Exactly how the bow was tillered can only be surmised in retrospect.
A few thousand years later, fragments of a children's bow made of elm were also found in Denmark, which has the main feature of an extreme width tapering of the limbs in the last third of the limbs.
This bow is called the Mollegabet bow after the place where it was found.
Based on the Mollegabet bow, this thin end is formulated as a non-bending lever.
Holmegaard and Mollegabet bows come from Denmark are several thousand years old (the Holmegaard a few thousand older) and are both made of elm, but they are different bows. Perhaps the Mollegabet is a further development and improvement in design in terms of performance, just as it can be argued that the lever ends of the Mollegabet may be the forerunners of the Syahs in composite bows.
Quite a bit has been written about the Holmegaard bow, and quite a bit has been revised (keyword: backwards tillering), just as there are many construction sketches marked Holmegaard bow but showing a Mollegabet bow.
I have seen the Holemgaard bow and one-to-one copies of the find in museums in Denmark and Belgium and have also talked to some archaeologists researching the bow.
The first bow I built is also in this Neolithic style and made of elm. The bow is now more than 25 years old and is rarely shot... :BB
In the beginning I also called it a Holmegaard. I was proud to have built a bow based on the oldest archaeological find. Then at some point I called it the Mollegabet style and praised the Mollegabet as a further development of the Holmegaard with a design that could hardly be bettered even by computer calculations....
Today I just say Neolithic bows from Denmark.
P.S.The design principle that I see behind the Holmegaard is, on the one hand, efficient construction (a sapling can be felled and processed with stone tools faster than a large tree),
On the other hand, the durability of white wood: the tensile stability is approx. 4 times greater than the compressive stability, which is why a narrow or, in this case, rounded back in cooperation with a wide flat belly is sufficient.
One can discuss for a long time about the perfect tiller for such a bow. The version with stiff, non-bending lever ends is more efficient, but the uniform bend over the entire limb length is ultimately easier to manufacture and probably more durable. With which premise the bow makers in Holmegaard used to build their bows, none of us can say with certainty today.
Furthermore, we do not know if there were more and possibly other types of bows in Denmark at that time.
Last but not least: We should be happy about the beautiful bows here and not argue about names. (-S
-
Thanks fellas.
In the past I've been in discussions of this subject and listened to everyones' opinion.Most opinions were those with 0 bow building experience of this type of bow or any bow for that matter, and still farther by those who don't even shoot bows.The described principles not the pictures of such a bow is what I build them by headlined as holmgaard bows.The smoothness of draw with low string angle/0 hand shock/great performance are the appealing features of such a bow.IMO through experience and time they can be just as durable as full length limb working bows.
Bottom line to the principle is short healthy working limbs with the least amount of outer mass weight.Large handled short working limbs and light outer limbs fall under this efficient principle also IMO.Both have the leverage to be efficient using hunting weight and target weight arrows.The D/R reflex design is up there too.All bows of any design tillered properly should be respected.
Fiberglass bow manufacturers "have" been in the past through promotion and money making reasons tried to exploit these bow making principles.Claiming it's a new bow making principle with no referral as to it's new found origin.
The oldest bows of this style I've made are going on a little over 10 years.Some used multiple hunting seasons and summer off season 3D shooting.Still in great condition.In tiller with no adjustments etc.
I rather doubt this type bow was a fore runner of the asian type bows as their history is very old also,but can see the logical anology connecting them with the lever principle.If so they did us a favor enhancing it's performance.
Conjecture is something that will always be controversial.Many different type bows are shown on here with titles to a certain culture.Are they all correct?Who knows.I look at the tiller and it's condition after use.
A name of neolithic origin is a logical surmise.I'm just a bow maker lucky enough to be in a position here to enjoy the process with still much to learn as the list of different types of bows is endless.Mastering them all could take 2 lifetimes depending on ones' ambition.
The appealing part of bow making other than the primitive origin of hunting and the respect of the beauty of wood and it's different bow making characteristics was for me and for those beginning to make bows is that a person can go down into the bottom or on the ridges and acquire bow and arrow making material with 0 investment other than time and make a bow and arrow of their choice. :BB
-
Hello Ed,
first of all, I'm right there with you - your last sentence also reflects a big part of my enthusiasm for bow making.
It's the case with many things that misnomers have become commonplace - but that doesn't make them right.
I've also been excited about bows in this style since I saw the first bow of this type. I also got to know the bows with the long narrow non-bending lever ends as Holmegaard but after I had more information, visited museums, read books and built such a bow every now and then in between, I realized that the designation Holmegaard does not fit.
The technical considerations about the advantages of the mesolithic bows with the non-bending narrow ends have only been spread by the design theories in the traditional bowyer's bible. There were probably some scientists like Kooi, Hickmann, Nagler Klopsteg who also did research and calculations in these areas but they did not call them Holmegaard...
What I have learned so far about the Stone Age is that people developed from a pragmatic point of view. And pragmatic in this case is: how can I produce a working result with what I have, with what is around me, with as little effort as possible...
and I would like to bet that the bows then were not as finely tillered as they are today, but that rather small flaws were accepted and compensated for in other ways (for example: shooting style, different arrows).
In the course of a bowmaker's career, our ancestors then steadily improved through the experience they gained with each new bow.
-
Hello Andrew....
You sound like an open minded individual.Pleasant to talk to.It's very good you took the time to investigate these type of bows,and then made some to boot.Kuddos to you.Personally I'm not a world traveler and never had a desire to be but can benefit from those who are.The way I see it we are lucky here compared to those long ago to have the spare time to build bows.A luxury really.Making bows now is an expression of ones' self nowadays.
Each bow maker can make them to any degree that they want.The extra time and patience taken should not be commented to with rude like remarks and most times on the PA it is not.Many designs out there are very efficient.Most are more work to make of those.I'm more practical but do like a nice looking bow.If it does'nt improve it's durability or performance it's not worth the time.
In a lot of ways it is like carpentry or house building.There are those who are excellent framers and those who are excellent finishers.When the 2 come together we all benefit.
I seem to remember the conclusion in the past of the name of these type bows was to label them as lever type bows.Whatever type culture or nationality they show up in so be it.As I truly believe most all these bows made nowadays have been done before at some time or another.
-
Nice bows Ed.
To each his own :)
-
That's about the size of it Mike.
-
IMO the bow artifacts found in Holmgaard and Mollegabet, are referred to by those names in order specify which bow is which as a matter of convenience.
The same thing is done with the finds at Nydam and the Mary Rose site.
There is some variation in the bows found there, but not too much to render that referral non descriptive.
For example, some bows found at Nydam have binding present and some don't, but the design is pretty much the same.
So if I said my bow is based on the Nydam artifacts, that could apply whether is was bound or not.
The difference with the Holmgaard and Mollegabet bows is that they are different designs, date from different times, were found at different sites and referring to them by name is the same as a description of their design.
There should be no confusion as to what design a person is referring too when using the names Holmgaard and Mollegabet.
We should try not to perpetuate dogma which is what has happened in many articles from books and on forums.
-
The bows I showed if tillered normally like any other bow would bend too much in the outer limbs raising string angle losing the smooth draw of it.Not as much beneficial energy is gotten from the tips bending as the mid to inner limbs bending.It's all about the tillering of these bows.
IMO the bows shown are a more streamlined version in the transition area from working limb to stiff lever than a mollie version.
Information I acquired about these bows was from reputable people who did the research besides myself of course.
-
Pure class! 8)
-
Ed,
I'm not nearly as cosmopolitan as you might think.
I come from Germany and it is not far to Denmark, Belgium, France, Switzerland,....
At prehistoric tournaments (there are events every year in Europe) you can meet many archaeologists and experimental archaeologists and benefit from their experience and knowledge. Some of the tournaments take place at archaeological sites and open-air museums. There were and are also often exhibitions on the subject of bow and arrow et al.
Among other things, I have met there often Jürgen Junkmanns. He has also significantly expressed in the linked thread on paleo planet.
For his book he has researched about 20 years and listed all bow finds in Europe and partially analyzed (he has also found out 2 or 3 years ago during investigations that the bowstring of Ötzi was twisted from sinew and not from plant fibers).
A good knowledge of the history and development of bows and arrows has nothing to do with being good at archery or building good bows and, conversely, you can build good bows or be a good archer without knowing what you actually have in your hand.
As I have already written, I think the name Holmegaard for your shown bows is wrong. You are thus widely spread rumors and misinterpretations sat on so also the Holmegaard principle has nothing to do with the stiff and non-bending ends.
You are of course free to call what you do.
It's just a pity that knowledge and findings are passed on to the future incorrectly.
That is the book of Dr. Jürgen Junkmanns may be others are interested in his knowlegde:
"Pfeil und Bogen: Von der Altsteinzeit bis zum Mittelalter"
Autor/inJürgen Junkmanns
VerlagVerlag Angelika Hörnig,
2013 ISBN3938921277, 9783938921272
-
I'm not as uninformed as you might think.
The reputable people who did the research I referred to were experienced bowyers Tim Baker,Flemming Arlune of Denmark,and Erret Callahan from the TTB volume 3.Their width and thickness measurements were taken from the casting of the original displayed bow.They conclude the narrowed portion of the outer limb did maintain it's full thickness.
Maybe others are interested to read this book.
(https://i.imgur.com/L1G65EN.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/41N3Ujl.jpg)
-
I know the TBB. Great books.
This are drawings of the original founds. Only one bow is complete.
The measurment taken by Jürgen Junkmanns from the original is written in the paleoplanet thread (posted by willie in answer 52 ) on side 2.
I think there are some differences, but who is right?
I have seen the original and 1:1 copies (with all breaks and scarfs) and the original is more like the pics below than the reproduction from Callahan. I like Callahan a lot and he open a new world for all flint knappers.... but with his copy of the bow he is wrong, cause he had pronounced some details like the shoulders in one limb.
-
The shoulders can be streamlined to not be as noticeable from the top view but still maintain the full draw profile.Again it's all about the tillering of such a bow.Who's right???Those long ago felt stacking on a bow just as severly as they do nowadays.The dynamics of an actual string and stick bow has'nt changed in that regard.It was more their bread and butter for existence than bowyers of today.The amount of craftsmanship we only get a peek at once in a while from other cultures and are amazed as to how articulate they were.
-
I agree there is room for interpretation in tillering and probably was variation from bow to bow,, )P(
-
Exellent work! Holmgaard will be my next project now :). Never done it before.
-
I have marked the "shoulders" in the pic. No shoulder in the other limb.
If you build a copy the outcome depends mainly on the wood.
The best example is the bow Oldbow has presented a few days before. A slight whip ended tiller based on the measurement of the found. The bow of Oldbow has no shoulders and is complete different in the outcome as you mentioned a holmegaard has to be.
Different copies from differnet wood produce different results with the same basic dimensions. There are copies that have a normal flat bow tiller, there are results that are slightly whip ended just as there are results with stiff limb ends and the main bend just after the grip in the first half of the limbs and there are even some models that bend too much in the grip.....
If you want to build a bow with a certain bending behavior from the beginning, you build it like this - without given dimensions and also from other woods.
Just because a result of a replica gave a certain result, it does not mean that the original was the same.
Perhaps even Callahan pioneered the stiff lever ends with the bend in the first half of the limb by analyzing his replica and noting the advantages of this tiller.
Maybe we should call it Callahan mesolithic design (or something like that).
And since there are now different results (all based on the original dimensions), it is very presumptuous to title a principle based on only one possible result like the amen in the church.
-
I believe we are coming close to being on the same page here.I've built this type of bow from at least 9 different types of woods,black cherry,hickory,osage,kentucky coffee tree,winged elm,red elm,osage,black locust,maple,and even red cedar all with different dimensions according to the densities of the wood to achieve the same draw weight that I'm trying for at 28" length of draw.Some species of wood multiple times.Even some bamboo backed bows and sinewed bows.Sapling bows also.All come out with the same profile at full draw.You are hung up on dimensions.In fact 1 dimension only and 1 type of wood only.I keep saying it over and over it's all about the tillering.
PS....I really prefer a denser type wood just because I don't like extra wide limbed bows.Nothing wrong with them shooting wise it's just my preference.
-
Maybe we should call it Callahan mesolithic design (or something like that).
Lets leave behind any attribution to the mesolithic bowyer for a moment and consider the recent Callahan "discovery".
Is there a ratio of stiff tip : working limb that has proven out to have better efficiency?
-
Willie.....
At least a 60/40 ratio.The more extreme the more work.Even eliptical tiller benefits in a smaller way with the last 6" to tip being stiff if tillered correctly.It still all depends on the health of the working limbs.It's one reason why my local hickory pleases me.It's dense enough.Tough enough.Loves a heat treatment gaining draw weight which promotes side tillering to lighten limbs.
Bamboo backed bows of a dense wood is top shelf.
Badger in the past made some super bows in the holmgaard design with needle like tips.
-
Dogma 1 v 0 Reason
Anything said by anyone is pretty much worthless when it contradicts provable facts and they are that the Holmgaard artifact has a reasonably even taper in both width and depth considering that this was achieved with stone tools.
The mollegabet artifact however has a noticeable 'shoulder' in the width taper and its depth remains constant at this point until the tip.
This represents a considerable difference in design and how it would be tillered.
It is common to refer to archaeological artifacts by referring to the place where they were found ie Tolund man, Nydam bows, Gokstad ship
This confusion and difference of opinion is being driven by dogma and there is no need to perpetuate this when the facts should be apparent to anyone.
I reserve the right to call my bows Tom, Dick or Harry but it would not be helpful as a descriptive reference.
-
Willie.....
At least a 60/40 ratio.The more extreme the more work.Even eliptical tiller benefits in a smaller way with the last 6" to tip being stiff if tillered correctly.It still all depends on the health of the working limbs.It's one reason why my local hickory pleases me.It's dense enough.Tough enough.Loves a heat treatment gaining draw weight which promotes side tillering to lighten limbs.
Bamboo backed bows of a dense wood is top shelf.
Badger in the past made some super bows in the holmgaard design with needle like tips.
Handle size will mean a lot too.I've built them with 8" handles up to 10" handles.
-
Dogma 1 v 0 Reason
Anything said by anyone is pretty much worthless when it contradicts provable facts and they are that the Holmgaard artifact has a reasonably even taper in both width and depth considering that this was achieved with stone tools.
The mollegabet artifact however has a noticeable 'shoulder' in the width taper and its depth remains constant at this point until the tip.
This represents a considerable difference in design and how it would be tillered.
It is common to refer to archaeological artifacts by referring to the place where they were found ie Tolund man, Nydam bows, Gokstad ship
This confusion and difference of opinion is being driven by dogma and there is no need to perpetuate this when the facts should be apparent to anyone.
I reserve the right to call my bows Tom, Dick or Harry but it would not be helpful as a descriptive reference.
Each to his own opinion and that's as far as it goes here.As I said before I'm not confused about the bows I posted.
-
nice
-
Ed, I have always said that these types of bows are excellent, that I myself am also excited about the design. I have also built such bows from a wide variety of woods.The design and principle behind it is just good.
But this design is not like the Holmegaard! The Holmegaard principle is also misnamed, because the Holmegaard principle, is that of a normal flat bow.
Callahan built a replica and drew conclusions from the replica. On the same basis (starting from the original find) other bow makers made replicas and came to different results. So that also other conclusions were drawn.
What makes the result of Callahan more correct than the results of the other researchers and bow makers???
That he worked with Tim Baker, who may have whispered design considerations to him?
That he slightly overemphasized the shoulders in the limbs and thus influenced the result?
He writes himself that his replica would not be 100% like the original, that it would be a bit thinner...
As a bow maker, you know yourself that a few chips in the wrong place decide whether the bow is a premium bow or firewood.
Holmegaard is and remains the wrong name for a bow with pronounced shoulders just as it is the wrong name for the Tiller principle with the long stiff lever ends.
The third volume of the TBB came on the market over 25 years ago. Callahan himself was in Denmark over 40 years ago. To date, there are many new results from other researchers who have also investigated with newer methods that challenge the older results.
Callahan principle would give E. Callahan more posthumous credit for his work than harping on false interpretations.
-
What's in a name Ed? Look like a Holmgaard to me or a Royal wit Cheese. Thing is you'll hunt em and fill the pot with what they were intended for.. . . Killin food fer the pot. Don't sweat the Bander Log Ed. They not killing any critters with what they make.
HH~
-
Andrew.....We in the past got into making these type of bows because of the qualities it has as stated.To even go into making them into a D/R design also.Although a person has to be careful to not reflex the ultra thin levers too much for stability reasons.These descriptions do not change the dynamics of these bows.
Your points are well taken.Tims' sometimes over ambitious nature could very well influence the results.The majority of his writings are still spot on and have helped many a new bowyer get bows built under his belt.
I would imagine noone would be offended if a holmgaard bow was posted as a flat bow then because that's just what it is.This is all rather silly in my mind as I have a more practical outlook on such things.
In the future maybe I will post them as mesolithic type bows as a general description to appease those who seem to be offended.Until then people will just have to grin and bear it.
You will have to excuse my stubborn nature but as an independent farmer it's that stubborn nature that gets things done.It's all relative to me.
HH.....I hear what your saying.
-
Wow! Those are some beautiful bows Ed. You did an exceptional job holding the reflex. I can't wait to hear how far they will cast an arrow!
-
Thanks Steve.Hav'nt heard from you in a while.Your friend Tim is getting looked over here.I must say again you guys did us all a favor putting out those BB books.
I'm quite confident of these bows' cast.My main concern nowadays is the amount of KE I can get from heavier arrows.I did something different.I only tillered these bows out to 20" with minmal set as a flat profiled bow.Estimating it's final draw weight at that stage to be what I wanted at 28" taking into account each woods draw weight gains from heat treating from past experience.Goal was to hit draw weight without any further removal of wood and be in tiller.Osage won't gain much but did from the set in reflex.Hickory gained 7 to 8 pounds mostly from heat treatment maybe some from reflex and black locust gained little from heat treatment or reflex which is why it's only at 45#'s.Knowing the differences in wood is what I tried to use to my advantage for less stress and set.
For the aspiring bowyers out there.....Get familiar with what counts the most.It'll make you a better bowyer of these self bows in the design department and understanding it.History is history and should not and will not ever go away.A name of origin is paper thin compared to the depth of understanding it's function.It's where the rubber meets the road.