Out of curiosity...

[Barrage]

Holmegaard vs Mollegabet

Seems like the new buzzword for a Holmegaard is Mollegabet?  Just curious to know some opinions on what the differences are between these two.  Or are they basically the same style bow but different archaeological finds?

[kylerprochaska]

Ive been wondering the same thing Barrage....guess we'll have to wait for someone who knows

[KenH]

Two completely different designs more than 2000 years apart in time.

The Møllegabet has very distinct shoulders where the working limbs fade into the static tips.  This is the archaeological sketch made of the bow in place in the underwater archeological dig at Møllegabet, which is dated circa 7000 years Before Present.  The dark parts indicate the actual recovered wood.




The Holmgård design does not have defined shoulders, just tapers from the handle fades to the static tips, gradually changing cross-section.  This is a photograph of the bow recovered from the Holmgård dig, dated circa 5000 years BP (approximately the same age as Otsi the Ice Man).



Two completely different cultures as far apart in time as we are from the time of Christ.  Same design?  Not a chance!  Same general part of the globe, yes - the Baltic - specifically Denmark. 

Neither design is a Viking bow.  They predate the Vikings by 4000-6000 years.

[CraigMBeckett]

KenH forgot to add that Møllegabet  bows hasve been wrongly called Holmgård for a time now, which is why you  Barrage and you kylerprochaska have thought of them as Holmgård.

A bit more info can be found on

paleoplanet69529.yuku.com/topic/23167?page=1

Look at post 8 it from a Swedish archeological researcher.

Craig.

[Kegan]

Glad you asked, I always thought they were called Andaman-Holmegaard (not that I can spell any of this mind you)!

[RyanY]

I guess I've been naming my bows wrong. I didn't hear of the Mollegabet till I saw it on this thread. Thanks for the clarification. I've been asking myself the same question.

[KenH]

Andaman Island bows are completely different again.  The Andaman Islands are most of the world away from Denmark, off the coast of India.  They may look superficially like a Holmgård, being a  flatbow with rigid outer limbs, but Andaman bows have a distinct S curve shape when unstrung.

atarn.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1072&highlight=andaman

archerylibrary.com/books/badminton/docs/chapter03/chapter3_2.html

Linking contemporary Andaman bows with prehistoric Holmgård bows is just wrong.  Like saying icicles and pineapples are related because they both have water in them!

[CraigMBeckett]

KenH, you beat me to the link for the Badminton Library book 

It is to be noted that even with these bows people have exaggerated the ends of the limbs to make them more like the Møllegabet, but if you look at the photos in the Badminton Library book you will see that the originals were not like that.

Craig.

[Parnell]

I'm wondering about differences in wood cross-section, as well.  The ancient European bows section in TBB2 covers some of that in there, I think, but wonder what the take is on Mollagabet cross section?

[medicinewheel]

...
The Holmgård design ... dated circa 5000 years BP (approximately the same age as Otsi the Ice Man).
...
Two completely different cultures ... Same general part of the globe, yes - the Baltic - specifically Denmark. 
...

The Holmgård is the older bow of the two, actually the oldest bow we know of, >9000 BP; TWICE as old as Ötzi's bow!
Holmgård and Møllegabet are finds from Denmark, Skandinavia, Baltic Sea (not from the Baltic, that's further north)

[Treene]

And there has been the Stellmoor-bow (a bow found in a bog, north-east of Hamburg). It is even older than the Holmgard, but got lost in WW II.

Treene

[CraigMBeckett]

And there has been the Stellmoor-bow (a bow found in a bog, north-east of Hamburg). It is even older than the Holmgard, but got lost in WW II.

If by lost you mean destroyed in an allied bombing raid on Hamburg in WW2.

The Stellmoor bow fragments were estimated to be 10,000 years old.  Note the word estimated.

Craig.

[KenH]

You're right Medicine wheel; I flipped the Holm/Mølle dates.  And I guess I shouldn't have used the term Baltic anything.  The waters of the Kattegat and Skagerrak really aren't part of the Baltic Sea even.

Parnell - the Møllegabet cross sections are shown on that sketch...  The original working limbs appear more flattened ovals than rectangular with rounded corners the way most folks make them today.  And the stiff outer limbs also appear more lenticular to oval in section.

I don't think I've see sections of the Holmgård find; but they appear more oval than flat.  It depends on whether we're looking at a photo of the back or the belly (or if there's any difference.

[Treene]

The cross section of the Holmgard bows is a straight flat belly, and a back like the tree is grown. The trees usually are only 10cm ( < 4 inch) diameter, so the back is oval.
Not all found bows and bow fragments have got an "shoulder, and the shoulder is only on one limb of the bow.  So, the "shoulder" may be just an big branch on the opposite of tree, the diameter got smaller.

Treene

[CraigMBeckett]

Parnell,

Below are a couple of different photos of the Holmgård, you can get an idea of the sectional shapes from them.

[attachment deleted by admin]