3 holmgaards

[BowEd]

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.

[bownarra]

Nice bows Ed.
To each his own

[BowEd]

That's about the size of it Mike.

[meanewood]

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.

[BowEd]

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.

[sieddy]

Pure class! 

[AndrewS]

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

[BowEd]

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.

[AndrewS]

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.

[BowEd]

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.

[bradsmith2010]

I agree there is room for interpretation in tillering and probably was variation from bow to bow,,

[maitus]

Exellent work! Holmgaard will be my next project now . Never done it before. 

[AndrewS]

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.

[BowEd]

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.

[willie]

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?