trying to learn more about holmegaard bows

[Holten101]

@Bucksbuoy
KenH made a post awhile back were he relays information from Juergen Junkmanns (scholar in Prehistoric bows), who belives the bow was 39 and 48 inches long and 20#-45# and "undoubtedly a youth bow."....personally I would NEVER say "undoubtedly"...but Juergen Junkmanns knows his prehistoric bows;-)
http://www.primitivearcher.com/smf/index.php/topic,18123.15.html

@Animus
This is a drawing (and only available materiale with a scale I have been able to find):


The infered outer limb is too narrow and shallow to have been the handle...and it tapers towards, what is infered to be the nock. I see no reason to dismiss that it was indeed a lever tipped bow (remember it postdates the Holmegård bow). If we really want to be sceptic, then we cant really be sure its a bow at all;-).....it just happens to be a damn effectiv design for an Elm bow.

As I said before...Ill have go see the fragment my self, then ill make a thread.

Cheers

[animus_divinus]

if you look at the fragments, it assumes this is a tapered outter limb.. however, should it be a youth bow which is likely, the grip itself would be smaller than that of a full size bow, and if thats the case what tapers into what is assumed to be an outter limb could just as easily be a small riser, and the fragment is backwards

[Holten101]

Sorry Animus...but that would mean the 1-1.5 cm wide/deep handle would have to handle the stress from a 3.5 cm wide and 1.5 cm thick/deep limb (that is very close to the dimentions of my 64", 50# bows of the same design). A handle of 1-1.5 cm cant do that....and it also would not explain the taper of both limb and tip?

Cheers

[animus_divinus]

if you say so, many bows similar to the holmegaard have been found, and some complete.. only a single mollegabet fragment, theres certainly enough evidence for us to know what the holmegaards were all about, the mollegabet is all speculation and theory at best... wood preserves well under cold water... if you want to find more neolithic bows im sure there are some at the bottom of the north sea.. and i bet none are of what the mollegabet is suggested to be

[Hank]

Interesting conversation going on here. If I'm reading everything right so far then what we assume to be a Mollegabet is based on speculation and conjecture? Do we replicate a type of bow that didn't exist?

Hank

[animus_divinus]

well, id say duplicated a bow that may or may not have existed, no proof to prove it really existed... when you think that its merely a small fragment that was actually misused and abused before anyone realized what it was, combined with weathering as well... hard to tell what it really was or could have been just based on what was found

[Holten101]

Ah...there is nothing like internet archeology;-)



No...there is no stamp on the Møllegabet fragment that says "bow".

It is however made of wych elm (THE prefered wood type for stoneage bows), it is carved as would be expected for a flat bow...back untouched, belly flat, cross-section eliptical, with dimentions corrosponding (roughly) with those of a hunting weight flatbow. 

Co-incidently the inferred reconstruction yeilds am extremely effective bow (in my mind an improvment on the pyramid type bows pre-dating it).

The fragment is open to interpretation, anyone can come see it, and im sure alternative interpretations are more than welcome with archeological publishers.

Or we could choose to discard it...and say, heck, we have no idea what this is! But archeology (fortunatly) doesnt work like that...it is not an exact science, and qualified guess work playes a huge part in what we THINK we know about the deep past.

Im sorry that the material avaliable freely on the internet is so scarce. As of now I dont have access to the original publications and as such my sources are as good as yours (ok...being able to read danish helps)....but I can tell you that the Muldbjerg bow (same period as the Møllegabet bow) are reported by some to be a lever bow too (I cant confirm that it is...and have no pictures at all, which is why I have left it out so far).

Personally I have no doubt that the Møllegabet fragment is indeed a piece of a bow...but I will gladly revise that view if evidence suggesting otherwise is presented.

Cheers

[animus_divinus]

as you can see from the fragment itself without a suggestive outline that would suggest the narrowed end is actually an outter limb and not perhaps a riser, you could see how that section could actually be just the riser section of a small bow

reguardless of this, ive decided not to build a stone age type bow until im able to get a wych elm sapling to do it with properly, and at that point i think ill be ambitious enough to try it with stone tools too

[Holten101]

as you can see from the fragment itself without a suggestive outline that would suggest the narrowed end is actually an outter limb and not perhaps a riser, you could see how that section could actually be just the riser section of a small bow

We have been though this I think, and I have explained why I dont buy that interpretation:-)

reguardless of this, ive decided not to build a stone age type bow until im able to get a wych elm sapling to do it with properly, and at that point i think ill be ambitious enough to try it with stone tools too

Now that is a good idea....I hope we can pick up this thread again at that point:-)

Cheers...and happy bowyering

[animus_divinus]

i dont see any reason to end a thread about learning more about something... however, wouldnt mind knowing where to actually find wych elm saplings or branches large enough to make a bow... cant even find north american elms around here

[Hank]

I'm going to keep on building 'em even if the design idea is based on supposition. It's an effective design, efficient, fast shooting and they plainly look cool. Plus, they are fun to build. What more could you want in a bow?

Hank

[Holten101]

i dont see any reason to end a thread about learning more about something... however, wouldnt mind knowing where to actually find wych elm saplings or branches large enough to make a bow... cant even find north american elms around here

A well, I didnt really mean to end it;-)...I just felt like I was going in circles...it is a very interesting subject, but im not sure I can contribute with more until I have more data:-).

I have no experience with north american wood types...but alot of wood types will yield good pyramid/lever bows. In my experience anything that carries nuts, berries or fruit is worthwhile trying out...I have seen succesfull "Molly-type" bows made of Birch and ofc Oak.

Cheers

[animus_divinus]

i hear many people say one wood is great, another wood is great but its hard to really determine the hierarchy of them all

i know yew is top, osage is second, lemonwood seems to be third.. ipe is in there somewhere, hickory... then after that who knows, theres elm, red oak, white oak, maple, ash, the list goes on.. its hard to really put these into an order, or atleast ordered groups as to whats what in bow making

as stated im going to hold off on a holmegaard type bow until im able to get a decent branch or sapling to do it the right way, the traditional way, may even try it with stone tools... but i am looking to build a wood kiln/curing oven from a length of tube steel with a rack that i can lay a bow stave into, as opposed to waiting 2 years for it to dry out naturally

untill that time comes im going to work my upper body into the heavier class of bows, during the uprising of great civilizations they trained for war, prior to that they trained daily as a source of food.. so id like to follow a regular routine and build into the 80lb+ bows while learning the traditional bow making methods using hand tools on the side

[Dane]

The best bow wood is the wood you have available.

That is a bit tongue in cheek, but use what is available to you right now. For me, local woods are elm, hickory, ash, hophornbeam, birch, and some others. Elm is amazing wood, if a bit challenging to harvest due to interlocking grain. Osage doesn’t grow in the New England area, so that is not a wood I worry about. Same with yew – I do have some, and it does grow in Massachusetts, but is very rare in my area. Lemonwood in the US is nearly impossible to acquire due to the Cuban embargo, but if you are lucky, you can find it in board form, as I did a few years ago. A hardwood specialty dealer can be a godsend to get started sooner, and if you can visit yourself to select the right boards for your needs, all the better.

Putting off making bows until tomorrow sometimes mean tomorrow never comes. Just jump in and have fun. And, there are a number of Stone Age bows you can replicate (and that are nearly or completely intact and documented) not just Holmies and Mollies. A great book on some of these designs is “The Bow Builder’s Book.” I got my copy for 24 bucks on Amazon, and it is strongly slanted toward Mesolithic, Neolithic, and some other periods. Internet research can help you find other bow styles to replicate or get inspired by. The 4th volume of the Bowyer’s Bible has a pretty all-inclusive listing of ancient bows by Tom Mills that can help you do the research.

Dane

[animus_divinus]

these old bows were made of samplings or branches though... where they had the contrast of the regular wood and the heartwood to make a bow from, im not so sure an unbacked self bow would be as functional or not, so i may go with a later period backed bow and wait till i have the means to dry out saplings, branches, or quarter logs to make proper staves