Ash "holmegård" (pics)

[Knocker]

I bet that there was just as many argument between the bowyers of the time over the merits of different bow styles.  In those days, the supporters of the wrong man probably starved or were eaten up!     And sadly, I wonder how many types of bows were created of which there are no artifacts in existence?

Shouldn't we question how representative an artifact was of the state of the art at the time?  Was the artifact you are looking at the peak of a master bowyers skills?  Or the first bow a boy made when trying to copy one he had seen someone else shooting?  I have read a theory that the Iceman was still working on his bow and that it wasn't completely finished.  If he had survived, would he have thrown away his makeshift bow when he got back to civilization and traded a bunch of hides and meat for a better one?  How many of the bows of antiquity were made by craftsmen, and how many made out of necessity - with the idea in mind that ANY bow is better than none at all? 

With a find like the Mary Rose, you can look at many bows and draw legitimate conclusions.  With just a few bows, who knows?  If an archaelogist finds one of "my" bows in the distant future, I hope they don't think that it is typical of the 21st century bowyers skills...      If I ever do make a truly fine Holmegaard, I'm NOT going to stick it in a glacier or a peat bog - I can tell you that much!   

Keith

[Ronnal]

Respect Kviljo, Respect Adb.

U both make beutiful bows. allthoug you do not agree on some fundamental teories. Now I am certainly not an expert on bows, but I am an engineer, and I follow both your arguments with great interrest.

I am not overly familiar with the Holmegaard design, and have not read much about it. But as an engineer I feel quite certaiin that noone have actually bend the wool in a 8000 year old artifact. Actually even a few hundred year old piece of wood will be very brittle even if stored under ideal conditions. Again I am no expert so please bear (or beer : )with me here. So if noone have bend this artifact, we do not actually know how the original did  bend before it was put into the soil....

Now that being said, I did make a holmegaard look alike to my 4yo son allmost one year ago. This bow have taken much set which I only  partially can blame on him not remembering to unstring the bow after shooting and leaving it strung overnight a couple of times. The nonbending outer limb is more than 1 third of the bows length. The nonbending outer limb, the bending inner limb and the nonbending hanlde section are all of equall lenght making them 1/5th of the bows n/n length. Its performance is fair for its drawlength and weight.

After reading Kviljos monolog early in this tread, I took this  bow and slowly reduced the thicnkess and width of the outer limb until it started to bend just a little, and evenly. Still nearly all the bend is in the inner limb., The bend in the outer limb is not visible to the naked eye, but I have measured it. I was amazed of how much wood could be remooved from the allready narrow outer limbs.

The difference in performance was incredible. For his usual, heavy arrow (really very heavy for the draweigth as a real arrow thin enough for a 4yo boys draw weight woudl be very fragile) the difference was not very dramatic - about 20%, but I have an arrow made from the broken tip of a bamboo fishing rod. Very light and flexible. This was shot both before and after shaving, and after modification the shooting length was doubled.

Sadly the thin outer limbs could not withstand the usual handling of a 4yo so it broke the next day accompanied by a lot of tears.

Back to the argument from Kviljo, How could the bowyer know that the outer limbs where as light as could be unless he thinned them untill they just started to bend ?

No I want to ask a question that have come to my mind. If the outer limb of the Holmegaard did bend, even if it bend just a little. Is this a hybrid between a flatbow and a ELB ? Or is it even the precessor of the longbow we know from Englands history ?

Best regards
Ronald.

[Kviljo]

Keith, that's true, but I don't think we can transfer our internet-activated multi-cultural differentiated bowmakertraditions to the stone age
All mesolithic bows from Denmark seem to be of the same type. And that within a period of a couple of thousands years. So I think we can be pretty certain that there must have been a rigid bowmakerstradition that at least partly prohibited them from trying other experimental designs.


Nice one Ronnal!  Although sad to hear the bow broke.

Very true, hopefully no one have tried to bend these old bows. Even the testbending of the 450 year old Mary Rose bows didn't go well.


There seems to be common agreement that the holmegårds are not the forefathers of the english longbow. At least that's what Gad Rausing stated back in 1967, in his book "The bow".
The English longbow seems to be tracable at least back to 3-400 AD, but it probably relates to Ötzis neolithic longbow as well. Anyway, the holmegård is really the typical flatbow, and that is pretty far from the longbow-type. Maybe it could have been possible to trace a development from the holmegård to the longbow, if we had more finds, but we don't have any evidence for it as I see it. I guess it really depends on how we define things. After all, our flatbow/longbow typology is something that we force upon the material, while there might not be such a separation between the bows in the first place. Maybe these are just "the best way to make a bow from a wooden stave", where elm forces a wider bow than yew. That way, one could imply an at least partly contionus tradition from holmegårds up till today. Some neolithic/bronze age bows, and the Alamannian type longbow could perhaps be seen as a transition between the flatbow and the longbow.

[jwillis]

Nice bows--both of them!

I've just recently migrated over to this site from Leatherwall primarily.  You guys know WAY more about making bows and the discussions are more constructive and informative as well.  This holmegaard technology is new to me  .  It's interesting to see how bowmakers have been seeking stiffer, lighter tips and good tiller since the stone age.  This is another way to skin the cat so to speak.

Jim

[Badger]

Jim, good to see you over here, I had a feeling it wouldnt be long before you showed up! Steve

[jwillis]

Steve, thanks!

adb3112, Do you agree that in the full draw pic of your bow, that it looks like the inner limbs are bending more at the fades?  Because they appear to bend that way to my eye, which supports the opposing argument.  Jim

[Aries]

I think every one is missing the point abd is tryin to make, the bow is supposed to bend more it the fades, and the bows design apparently lends itself to such a tiller. I just started a bow with abd's traditional tiller, and i will post it when it is completed. In TBB 4 a Record setting flight bows is pictured and nearly all bend is right outside the fades, properly tillered( I know i wont be able to pull it off lol, but its worth a shot) this bow could stand up to the stress.      Ty