Holten, just to get things straightened out, I've got a question. What woods are the three bows made of? The one Møllegabet , the complete Holmegard, and the incomplete Holmegard?
Furthermore, there is very little data available on the incomplete Holmegard. Do you happen to have a picture/drawing of that incomplete artefact? I'm wondering if the profile of that bow is any different from the profile of the complete Holmegard.
Funny that info so old is so hard to obtain in this day and age:-(. A paper from 1945 descibes two bows, but The National Museum reports fragments of 4 bows (iirc). The only material on the second, larger bow fragment, I could find is this drawing:
The shoulder and thickening of the outer limb is clearly visible. The profile is closer to, but not enought (imo....and this can be discussed) to make it none working. The bow was longer (160-170 cm), wider and more powerfull than the more well known complete bow.
Concerning the wood type I have to trust the original sources which reports that both the Møllegabet fragment and the Holmegård bows were Elm (most likely Wych Elm).
The Møllegabet fragment (belly view):
@Little John
I dont entirely agree on that point. The design is close to optimal for this wood type (imo) which indicates advanced knowledge of distribution of forces. Also the Holmegård bow is close to what can be considdered a "missing link" (im not convinced such a thing exists in bow development) between a (assumed) "primitive" pyramid bow...and the more derived lever-type bow represented by the later Møllegabet fragment.
As a side note: It is important that people look at the bows and make up their own mind....these posts are coloured by my pov!
Some links that might be of interest:
http://wiki.lafidelite-constantia.be/mediawiki/index.php/De_Holmegaard_booghttp://oldtiden.natmus.dk/udstillingen/jaegerstenalderen/jaegerstenalderens_buer_og_pile/verdens_aeldste_buer/language/u/http://www.buewesth.dk/stenalderindex.htmlHave fun and please chip in with opinions:-)
