A holmegaard thought...

[nowhereman]

Hi,

Not sure if anyone has had this thought or posted anywhere,...

Has anyone considered that the holmegaard artifact could be an unfinished bow? My theory is the shape could have been the result of a bow that was being worked holding the tip in the hand, removing wood towards said hand, thereby leaving a risen tip by the nature of the movement. I realised that when I was working in this way, I'd cut the nocks and was avoiding nicking them with the scraper. Ergo, a tipwards bulge on the belly. Maybe the bowyer was stopped short mid scrape and dropped it in a hurry...

Maybe the edges could have happened in the same way; after the bowyer perhaps observed a positive change in the bow after thinning the tips 'in general', again, if worked with scrapers (i used flint and cabinet scraper on the stave in question) whilst holding the tip braced along the legs in a sitting position, with the limb tip along the forearm or on the thigh then you see a gentle taper emerge, and a slight widening again as the scraper pressure lightens towards the end of the stroke.

I have a feeling that the bowyer was probably as skilled as any other at the time, yet perhaps had that little extra imagination and vision to change something in a way that was logical and productive. When I try to make a bow logic and productivity are like phantoms =)  but then again I dont have to feed a family with one, so it allows for a certain amount of conjecture i guess;-).

What is certain for me, in my relatively short experience shaving sticks is that the search for tiller and function come solely (at the moment) from the demands of the piece of material to be worked, i.e the pattern of nature and structure in a potential stave instills the frame of mind, movement and physical dynamics that produce a functional, durable tool, or with a particularly imaginative bowyer, a work of art emerges (the artifact). For me the Holmegaard looks beautiful, like an unfinished, mildy informed happy accident by a sound, experienced bowyer who was looking in the right direction with clear vision...


regards

v

[dbb]

I like the way you are thinking.But isnt it a logical way to work one limb roughly finished form and then the other, rather than leaving both in the same unfinished state?

/Mikael

[peshikthe]

some of my best shooters have been happy accidents.lol

[Holten101]

I appreciate the idea...but there is one big problem with it. There are two Holmegård bows (a short and a long one)....both have the characteristic shoulders. So either its a design characteristic or two unfinished bows at roughly the same stage of completion...or something else. Option 1 or 3 seems most likely to me.

I agree there is something "fishy" about these bows...they dont exploite the stiff lever "principle" (in lack of a better word) or the ease of manufacture of parallel taper in a regular pyramid design.

Cheers

[MWirwicki]

Nowhereman:  Interesting and way to think outside of the box.  Of course, we do know that the Asiatics used (and still do) a lever system so it may stand to reason that they weren't the only ones to think of it. 

DBB:  When I'm making bows, I switch from limb to limb.  Rarely, do I set a bow down in any stage of build that isn't symmetrical.  But then again, if the wife calls it might be the equivelant to what may have occurred way back when....

Holten:  You mentioned a short one?  I am aware of the 65' long Holme.  How long was the short one?  I am currently finishing a short version, just for the challenge (and for kicks 'cause I like to build short bows).

[Holten101]

@MWirwicki
The well know, complete bow in the exehibition at the National Museeum in Denmark is the shorter bow (154 cm/60.6") and the longer, but incomplete artefact was inferred to be 160-170 cm/63"-67". The latter was most likely significantly heavier draw in weight.

Only illustration I can come by is this one:


Cheers

[MWirwicki]

Holten:  Thanks!  Very interesting.  I didn't know, and as I like to say, "Still learning....."

[nowhereman]

Hi...

dbb - i agree its logical to work one then the other to attain the balance and final rough shape of the bow, and it would bug the hell out of me to leave one limb worked and not the other. However I also still think that an interruption could have caused an abrupt cessation of work, yep probably an earbending from the wife.

peshikthe - yep, i can relate to that:-)

Holten101 - thats very interesting, hmm so there are 2 HG bows...do you think a design feature of this kind and subtle complexity would have manifested itself into a stave just by working and re-working or that the bowyer planned it so? I was not aware of a smaller stave or the existence of another type and now i'm thinking that ideas for this design could have been passed on through nomadic trade/plunder.... The 'something else' might be coincidence?;-) Or maybe the design wasnt exploited due to a plain old lack of understanding.. That illustration is interesting and unless someone told me i wouldnt have made it out to be HG, apart from maybe the cross section - i'm taking it to have a crowned back/flat belly?

MWirwicki - so the lever thing is apparant in other cultures? wierd one...ancient tribal minds unfettered and un-cluttered by todays onslaught of rubbish may have evolved at a similar rate, and a similar direction thus producing roughly the same logical mechanical conclusions...


I'm now quite impatient to continue working:-)

Thanks for the replies/input

Kind regards

_V
 

[Holten101]

My personal belive is that the Holmegaard bows were intentionally designed to have ONE faintly shouldered limb. Why they did this is unknown to me...but im open to suggestions;-).

The Holmegaard bows were nothing like the latter Møllegabet design with true stiff levers...but they do look like what I would have come up with, if I was told to make a hypothetical "missing link" between a simple flatbow/pyramid and a Møllegabet (now im assuming that the Møllegabet fragment is indeed a bow, and that it was symetrical).
The Holmegaard bows could represent a snapshot in the gradual development from one type of bow to another....but this is engineering and transitional stages are most likely very short lived, so that would be pushing probability;-).

The bows could even have been retired tools, secondarily shaped to fit some other purpose...I dont buy that, but its a possibillity:-)

I realise now that im of no help what so ever;-).

Just my 2 cents

Cheers