Old Man's Holmegaard replica bow

[PatM]

I think your mistake was to use those dimensions as indicative of the original bow in original condition.     They should just be a guideline with the bow ultimately  properly tillered.

 Other replicas using the same dimensions look too bendy near the grip with stiffer outer limbs.

[scp]

I understand the advantages of stiff levers. I just do not see them in the original artifact

Probably no stiff levers in the Holmegaard, unlike in the Møllegabet.

See, https://donsmaps.com/longbow.html

Cf. https://www.digitaldigging.net/holmegaard-bow-reconstruction/

[scp]

.... With so few of scrapes made to it I'm sure it got made rather quickly. Maybe a few more scrapes would have rounded mid limb of the top limb some. ....

The middle of top limb does appear to be a little stiff. But one might also say that the bottom limb is a little stiff in the inner limb. Or that he is holding the bow too high up and the knocking point is too high as well.

Is it possible that the maker is talking about 50 sessions of scraping?

[bradsmith2010]

I didnt think of that Pat,, the original condition could have varied quite a bit,, as we know ,, a slight variaition can make a dramatic difference in tiller,,,

[gifford]

Thanks for the links, interesting stories about how to make the bows with stone age tools. End products look pretty darn good to me.

[willie]

I didnt think of that Pat,, the original condition could have varied quite a bit,, as we know ,, a slight variaition can make a dramatic difference in tiller,,,

I agree that deterioration of the original allows some interpetation by bowyer, but I disagree with Pat going so far as to characterize old mans replication as a mistake.

[PatM]

I guess deliberate bad tiller is on purpose.

[bownarra]

Lets look at this another way the maker of the original knew what he was doing right?
Do you think they made this bow to shoot flight arrows?
Why would a bowyer make a bow less efficent than it could be?
There is a pretty strong possibility that the original was used for hunting, agreed? So in general heavier arrows and efficency for penetration would really matter...right? This being the case a whip tillered bow just ain't going to cut the mustard.....
Less than an added 1/16th thickness, a 32nd might be enough. will make the outers stiff so...are you certain that the originals measurements were perfect with no degradation of the original?
A holmguaard with stiff outer limbs is a probably one of the best straight staves designs out there. A whip tillered flatbow on the other hand....
I've just finished a holmguaard replica i'll post some pics soon to show you how I think the original was tillered

[GlisGlis]

@Bownarra

I reckon your thinking is for a big part correct.
I'm not sure we can assume that in the period the bow was done they had the knowledge or the will to take advantage of the full potential of that specific design.
As a few scrapes and some wood difference may lead to a whip tillered bow on one side or a relative still outer bow on the other it would be safe to stay on an average position in my opinion.
the Holmegaard design do not show evidence of pronounced stiff levers so why engrave in stone "holmgaard had stiff outer limbs"?

[PatM]

Making a replica and observing horrible tiller emerge just doesn't make sense unless you are making a wall hanger.

[AndrewS]

In the bog near Holmegaard 2 bows were found in fragments.
Typical of a Holmegaard is the construction from a young tree / sapling. The back is rounded and the belly is flat. Worked was the handle, the belly and a little towards the limb ends (tips). This sometimes creates a small shoulder, but does not have to. In the two finds, these shoulders are not at all to very little pronounced. In the two Holemgaard bows there is also no increase in thickness in the outer limbs.
This all speaks for a normal tiller, in which the bow bends evenly over the entire limb except for the outermost 4-5 inches.
The stiff tip concept is more likely from the Mollegabet bow, a find also from Denmark but several thousand years younger. Only a few pieces of this bow have been found and it is assumed that it was a child's bow.
The construction of a mollegabet is also suitable for saplings and the energy storage and delivery is certainly a bit more efficient - but the bow may not be as safe and durable.

In my opinion, it is very difficult to reconstruct a bow according to the original dimensions of the found objects. Even less than 1/32 inch in thickness can make the difference between 30lbs and 60lbs....and that's exactly why Tiller is not easy.


A very good description of the construction of a Neolithic bow in the mix style Holmegaard / Mollegabet shows the film that was shown on German television in a learning and information program for children (of all ages  )

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fX7PyULwJFI

[Pat B]

Very interesting video, Andrew. One thing I noticed with his string he twisted it but not reverse twisted like a Flemish twist string or other cordage. Any idea if that was the technique during the time of the Holmgaard/ Molle bows or is it just how this modern/primitive bowyer does it?

[AndrewS]

Twisting fibers is elementary to get strong cords from fibers. Such a cord knotted to the ends of the bow and you have a string.
Flemish splices probably do not exist since the Stone Age.
Since when then also the reverse twisted cords with incorporated little ears(without knots) exist, there I was unfortunately not there  .
The String of Ötzi was twisted sinew. Another and similarly old find from Spain is made of nettle and also twisted.

[willie]

wall hanger?

[gifford]

Thanks for posting the link to the video on making the bow with stone age tools. Making one with modern hand tools is enough of a challenge for me. :-)