Apparently they used a page of the old atarn front that no longer exists.
It's another type of bow that existed parallel to the type of Cagaan Chad and Shilusteii Suum, which is also mentioned in the article.
I found an old pic that I had saved some years ago:
The hardwood overlays for the nocks are missing.
This is the bow from the museum that the article in the JSAA vol.3 mentions:
The Yuan bow, this one and the bow from Chonot Uul, of which there is a detailed set of measurements available in Rutschke (2015) are the same type. The Chonot Uul bow is mentioned in the article, but they don't seem to realize that it is the same type of bow that the article is based on. There's a couple of factual errors, e.g. that this bow has a core of willow and not beech, and that contrary the quote that it is V-spliced in the ears, Rutschke (2015) states on p.84 that there are no CTs of this bow and that it is not clear how it is joined. Although, it is visible that the grip seems to be laminated by overlapping and is not spliced. The laminate also reaches into the limb. The belly of this bow is strongly convex, the glueline is flat.
It is interesting to note that the flat glueline is also the case in the bow of Cagaan Chad, which was examined via CT. That's rare.
Quite puzzling why multiple strips were taken for a reproduction of such a bow, as this is not a technique of this period. No such bows have been found from this era. Bows with multiple strips of horn were first described by Balfour (1890): Structure and Affinities of the Composite Bow. You can typically find them in persian bows several centuries later, and in another form over a strongly convex core. Which contrary to the statement in the article doesn't automatically make a bow of high drawweight, but exactly the opposite. It might, if you've never done it and didn't look up measurements of originals. Further reading in Karpowicz's book in the part about cross-sections.
I don't really understand what this article wants to do. There's alot of info and this and that from the historical side, which is nice, but what's the goal of the 2nd part, aside from promotion of the bowyer?
"The cross-section of the siyahs is close to a particular intact bow from Xining Museum."
It doesn't properly source the bow that it claims to reproduce - there is no datatable with measurements in the article, and no mention where to find those or where they really got it from -, and the design of the bow that they made doesn't match what they claim to reproduce. Neither in material, design, geometry or cross-section of the limb. Why call it a reproduction then? Ok, it's now modern. Actually, when you look into the article, it barely claims that the bow has anything to do what the article goes on about for the most part.
It's a composite bow, made the way that Jason does it, but not a reproduction or based on facts, which are available, if you want to quote them.
His scythian bows would probably qualify for this.
