Evidence OTHER than MR Bows of 120+ bows?

[llkinak]

As is made clear in that thread, all serious archaeologists dealing with Otzi's bow agree that it is an unfinished bow blank.  The idea that it is a backwards-made 202 pound warbow is really not at all in line with the evidence, and doesn't make sense considering what we know of the weights of other neolithic bows from the region, and similar bows cross-culturally in other contexts.

Agreed.  Also, in "The Crooked Stick A History of the Longbow", Hugh Soar says Otzi's bow is ""Made of yew, heartwood alone, is a little over 71 inches in length, and compares with his height of 5 feet 3 inches."  It earlier says that "Axe marks on the limbs of Otzi's bow have suggested to some that the weapon was incomplete, since it lacks the smoother finish on other contemporary bows, although a bow does not have to be tidied to be useable.  Moreover, careful examination has failed to detect string marks on the limb extremities; and while he carried what is believed to have been a string, his weapon was seemingly unstrung."  (Soar, 2004.)

This being the case, I'm not sure we should be holding Otzi's bow out as an example of a heavy weight bow used in the late Neolithic period.

[WillS]

It wasn't a 202lb warbow.  You've misread the thread.  The thread started regarding a 202lb warbow, but totally change tack (as is the way on forums!) to focus on Otzi's bow.  It's quoted within the thread that the projected draw weight is around 160lb.

I don't buy the unfinished bow theory, just as I don't buy the Mary Rose unfinished bow theory.  Why on earth would a hunter be halfway up a mountain, with a quiver of arrows and a half-made bow?  Pretty damn pointless.  Even the half made arrows is ridiculous - half were finished and fletched as can be seen by the remains of the whipping (but not able to be shot from anything if the bow wasn't finished?!?!?), and the other half were probably shafts found and taken by Otzi on his travels.  Nothing about the situation makes a half finished bow plausible.  A bow would be made in a workshop or clearing somewhere in a village, not lugged across the alps for no reason.  "Just off love, gonna trek across perilous mountains full of bandits and wild animals.  No, don't worry, I've got my quiver of arrows.  What? The bow? No no, it's useless but I'll carry it with me anyway dear.  Bye!"

I don't think so.

[Atlatlista]

It wasn't a 202lb warbow.  You've misread the thread.  The thread started regarding a 202lb warbow, but totally change tack (as is the way on forums!) to focus on Otzi's bow.  It's quoted within the thread that the projected draw weight is around 160lb.

I don't buy the unfinished bow theory, just as I don't buy the Mary Rose unfinished bow theory.  Why on earth would a hunter be halfway up a mountain, with a quiver of arrows and a half-made bow?  Pretty damn pointless.  Even the half made arrows is ridiculous - half were finished and fletched as can be seen by the remains of the whipping, and the other half were probably shafts found and taken by Otzi on his travels.  Nothing about the situation makes a half finished bow plausible.

Anyway, let's avoid it going off topic eh?

I can think offhand of half a dozen reasons why Otzi would have a half-finished bow blank with him - including perhaps that he had another bow in his possession that was taken by his murderers (though that doesn't explain why the valuable copper axe wouldn't have been taken also).  Also, there is no evidence that Otzi was a hunter.  He was probably a pastoralist and farmer living in a neolithic community nearby.  "Hunter" really doesn't describe that population very well at all.

Really though, it doesn't matter why.  All that matters is the evidence.  The preponderance of the evidence makes it clear that the bow is unfinished - it doesn't look like other known examples from the same place and time, the draw weight not only doesn't mesh with those found in other neolithic contexts, but doesn't make sense for a hunting-weight bow in any culture (not even Medieval England where warbows really did have heavy draw weights), there are no signs of string nocks or other ways in which the bow might have been braced, and the bow itself had axe marks and other signs of it being unfinished, when compared to what other known finished bows looked like.  Those are the facts.  It makes no sense from a scientific standpoint to dismiss those facts just because you don't think they represent logical behavior on the part of the person involved.  We don't know the full facts of what he was doing when he died, where he was going, whether or not he had other possessions that were lost on the way or in the altercation that ended his life, etc.  There is so much that we don't know that we can't toss out what we do know on the basis of it not appearing to make sense to our eyes.

[Atlatlista]

  A bow would be made in a workshop or clearing somewhere in a village, not lugged across the alps for no reason. 

Do you have a source citation for that?  Have there been any identified bow workshop areas in neolithic villages in this region?  Have archaeologists discovered bow making tools corresponding to particular locations in villages?

I suspect the answer to all of those questions is "no."  You can't just make something up and say that's the way things were in the past.  You have to have evidence.  And that's the real problem with Stratton's interpretation of the bow as a 160 pound monster. He has no evidence to support his claims, other than the fact that he can shoehorn the bow into being a working replica.  How many half-finished bows on this website could have the same thing done to them?  All evidence points in the opposite direction, and it's not unreasonable to say so.

[WillS]

We'll have to agree to disagree then 

I've got no academic knowledge whatsoever on the topic, while you clearly do, so I won't insult your education by arguing!  In my head, the thought of a primitive man away from the safety of his peers with a quiver of finished, ready arrows and nothing to shoot them with seems crazy.  Two bows? Maybe.  Hell of a lot to take on a journey as a lone man.  (Although we don't know he was alone...)

Stratton reckons the tiny tool marks are a good indication that it was a finished bow.  As far as he is concerned going to the effort of making such delicate, refined tool marks shows pride and care in finishing a product without the use of abrasives like sandpaper.  I dunno if I agree entirely with that, but I can see the logic for sure.

I do think on a whole we underestimate primitive man and his strength and ability to use heavy bows.  They lived a far harder life than us, and if soft couch potatoes like modern man can learn in a few years to use a 150lb bow, then surely, surely a hardened living-off-the-land primitive fella wouldnt have an issue.

[Atlatlista]

We'll have to agree to disagree then 

I've got no academic knowledge whatsoever on the topic, while you clearly do, so I won't insult your education by arguing!  In my head, the thought of a primitive man away from the safety of his peers with a quiver of finished, ready arrows and nothing to shoot them with seems crazy.  Two bows? Maybe.  Hell of a lot to take on a journey as a lone man.  (Although we don't know he was alone...)

Stratton reckons the tiny tool marks are a good indication that it was a finished bow.  As far as he is concerned going to the effort of making such delicate, refined tool marks shows pride and care in finishing a product without the use of abrasives like sandpaper.  I dunno if I agree entirely with that, but I can see the logic for sure.

I do think on a whole we underestimate primitive man and his strength and ability to use heavy bows.  They lived a far harder life than us, and if soft couch potatoes like modern man can learn in a few years to use a 150lb bow, then surely, surely a hardened living-off-the-land primitive fella wouldnt have an issue.

My lab works with the Hadza, a hunter-gatherer group still using bows to hunt big game in Africa.  Their bows get up to 100 pounds of draw weight.  I don't disagree that Otzi's bow, when finished, might have been of a relatively heavy draw weight.  90-100 pounds certainly isn't unreasonable or out of the realm of possibility (though cross-culturally 50-60 pounds seems more normal).  So, I'm not opposed to the idea of heavy weight bows, I just don't see that we can make a claim for that in this particular instance, with this particular evidence.  Had the bow been finished, it would have been an incredible find.  I'd likely have 3 replicas hanging in my living room as the Otzi discovery was one of the main reasons I grew up wanting to become an archaeologist.  So, I definitely respect the idea of wanting to recreate his weapons, I just don't think it can be done with his bow, worse luck for that.

I also think that there is a lot missing in the story about where he was going and what he was doing - especially since things turned very violent and resulted in his death.  Was that part of the world exceptionally violent then?  Was warfare prevalent?  Were communities isolated and aggressive towards one another?  The trouble is we just don't know.  Novels of speculation could be written, but from a scientific standpoint we're stuck with what we've got - which is actually an incredible abundance of information, information we've never had for any other European context from this age before.

I wonder if the stave was a trade item though.  Look at how often we trade for staves on this and other forums.  A good yew stave might have been something worth quite a bit at the time.  Of course, that's every bit as speculative as anything else, but I like to wonder as much as the next person.

[meanewood]

Hi Atlatlista

Way to much common sense for us to handle!
Wild speculation is far more interesting, especially when it comes to Otzi's exploits in the Alps!

[WillS]

I'm pretty much with you on most of that.  The one thing I can't ignore is that it looks so incredibly similar to the found Mary Rose bows (and the Viking Bow).  The cross section is identical, the dimensions are identical, the length is very close if a tiny bit short.

I really like the idea of Otzi trekking across the alps to trade, it works logically and there's no reason for it not to be so.  However, if you were going to trade a premium stave of yew, surely you wouldn't reduce it to dimensions which we as bowyers know make an excellent, high performance bow first.  I know that most bowyers on here and other forums wouldn't bother paying for somebody's half finished bow.  For a stave, yes.  With the options available to layout your own personal design, choose your draw weight, fit the length to the user, but not a half finished bow.  It's not worth anything to anybody other than original craftsman.

Looking at the cat scans, the bow cross section is complete.  It's been rounded nicely, the edges of the back are smoothed (usually only done right at the end of work, before final tillering) and the thickness and profile tapers are cut and finished.  The only thing that would suggest that it's not a finished bow are the mystery of the string nocks, and the tool marks.  I find it really believable that in the absence (or lack of knowledge) of something like sandpaper, a bow would look rough to those who use abrasives to finish.  The nocks... who knows.  But again, he was found with string.  You gotta admit, a body found with coiled bowstring, finished arrows.... and a bow.... sounds like a complete picture.  To take the bow (which looks finished apart from the tool marks) and theorise that it's just a blank doesn't work - to me!

It's like the people who think the Mary Rose went sailing straight into battle with crates of unfinished bows.  It's ludicrous, and doesn't work, logically. 

I'm no expert, not by a long shot, so all I can do is theorise and put forward my personal opinion and hopefully you won't see this as an argument, but as a set of opinions as that's all it is.  Otzi fascinates me, and I wish like you there was just that missing piece of the puzzle that would answer the questions, but we haven't got it, so we'll have to sit back and just... guess!

Interesting thread though!  Original topic disappeared somewhere, so hopefully Kevin won the argument...

[toomanyknots]

I think it could of easily been a reflexed bow (or stave) with a flat belly. Makes sense if he is scrapping the belly mostly to tiller. I doubt people back then cared much for cross section.

[llkinak]

It's like the people who think the Mary Rose went sailing straight into battle with crates of unfinished bows.  It's ludicrous, and doesn't work, logically. 

If they were sailing into battle, why would any bows, finished or not, be in crates?  Probably because they were not intended for use in that battle.  I don't know if the bows on the MR were staves or finished, though I tend to think the latter.   I guess my point is that not jumping to conclusions isn't really all that ludicrous. 

[WillS]

Because it's pretty impractical to be walking around a ship while it's on the move, holding 7ft long pieces of wood.

I don't know if you've been to the Mary Rose Museum, but there isn't exactly a whole heap of headroom onboard.  The only place onboard that ship that you could stand upright holding a bow 80 inches long and not be hindered is on the top deck.  So the only logical, practical place to keep hundreds of standard issue weapons is in crates.  When the ship stops, and battle commences, the bows are unloaded, handed to the archers and the archers go to the one place they can use them (top deck or castles fore and aft) and shoot.

Otherwise, you've either got soldiers standing around bumping bow limbs on the ceilings of all the decks (useless, irritating and will damage the bows) or the bows are kept on the floor, where they roll around amongst people's feet (useless, irritating and will damage the bows)

[Atlatlista]

I don't disagree about the MR bows.  I think they were clearly finished bows, intended for use.  However, they show many different features different from Otzi's bow (prepping for string nocks or horn nocks for example).  And the context is very different - a warship which is presumably ready for battle when it's at sea.  We don't know what Otzi was prepped for when he went out that day, we don't know what he was doing, etc.  So, the comparison doesn't work for me.

That having been said, despite the initial argument which started this thread, I think the MR bows are sufficient evidence to support the idea of quite heavy war bows in the medieval period in and of themselves.

[WillS]

Yep agreed.

I don't think there's any sensible argument that the bows on the MR were made massively bigger and heavier than the norm, especially not for use onboard a ship.  Just because it was Henry VIII warship doesn't mean the men onboard were suddenly able to pull and use massive bows all of a sudden. 

Out of interest, would anybody agree that it's likely medieval bows were actually heavier, on account of them needing to shoot further than when fighting ship to ship?

[llkinak]

Because it's pretty impractical to be walking around a ship while it's on the move, holding 7ft long pieces of wood.

I don't know if you've been to the Mary Rose Museum, but there isn't exactly a whole heap of headroom onboard.  The only place onboard that ship that you could stand upright holding a bow 80 inches long and not be hindered is on the top deck.  So the only logical, practical place to keep hundreds of standard issue weapons is in crates.  When the ship stops, and battle commences, the bows are unloaded, handed to the archers and the archers go to the one place they can use them (top deck or castles fore and aft) and shoot.

Otherwise, you've either got soldiers standing around bumping bow limbs on the ceilings of all the decks (useless, irritating and will damage the bows) or the bows are kept on the floor, where they roll around amongst people's feet (useless, irritating and will damage the bows.)

The crates were below deck, though, correct?  So the question remains, since the battle had already commenced, why were crated bows down there where they were not immediately to hand?  The crates could have been stored on the fighting deck, but I believe they were located below that.  So, we've got a few possibilities:
1.  The bows in the crates were spares, which raises the question about why so many were needed.
2.  The bows in the crates were not intended for use in that battle for one reason or other, in which case why have them on board?
3.  The bows in the crates are only a portion of the bows the ship had onboard, the rest being lost.  In which case where are the other crates and what sort of bows did they contain? 
4.  (I agree this is the least likely) The things in the crates are, for some reason, unfinished staves not ready for use, so why bother to have them at hand for fighting?
5.  The crates started out on the fighting deck during the battle but somehow migrated to a lower deck when the ship sank.
(There are probably more, but I'm feeling the brain pain as it is and can't think too much more before I pull something.)   

[Atlatlista]

Yep agreed.

I don't think there's any sensible argument that the bows on the MR were made massively bigger and heavier than the norm, especially not for use onboard a ship.  Just because it was Henry VIII warship doesn't mean the men onboard were suddenly able to pull and use massive bows all of a sudden. 

Out of interest, would anybody agree that it's likely medieval bows were actually heavier, on account of them needing to shoot further than when fighting ship to ship?

I definitely don't agree that medieval bows were heavier to shoot further.  Distance was never a major factor in the design of the English medieval bow and its arrows.  The arrows, with their giant fletchings, thick shaft diameters, and heavy steel heads are designed for penetration at close-medium range, not for long distance shooting.  I think that the preponderance of the textual evidence from the period is suggestive of the use of war bows at close range - less than 100 yards.  They certainly could have been shot further, and were on occasion, but the majority of the actual killing in battle seems to be closer than 100 yards in the textual accounts.  This also jives with what we know about accuracy (most archers would find it inordinately difficult if not impossible to target an individual person beyond 100 yards), and penetration of the armor of the period (which occurs at much closer ranges - less than fifty, or even as close as 20 yards).