Primitive Archer
Main Discussion Area => Bows => Topic started by: animus_divinus on February 01, 2011, 05:36:15 am
-
im interested in making a holmegaard bow soon, and was going to do some 3D design and rendering so i have patterns to work by, but before i can create these, i would like to know if anyone has any accuracte sketches of the holmegaard bow?...
ive seen the top view image of the museum bow, but cant get any side profile detail
-
Alot of people ask for this so I have tried to gather whatever info I had in one meaningfull picture:
(http://i995.photobucket.com/albums/af73/Holten101/Holmegrdkopi-1.jpg)
Note that either the photo or the drawing below is slightly distorted.
Its the best I can do right now...and all critism/corrections are welcome!
Cheers
-
very useful information, however theres hardly any noticable thickening of the outter limbs to stiffen them to act as levers like on the mollegabet
-
well.. anyway.. where did these dimensions come from?.. ill re-create this in my 3D cad program and maybe make a printable 2d drawing that y'all can print to scale and use as templates if anyones interested
-
Oh really;-)?
Sorry....you are right ofc, people have had a tendency to call lever tipped "Møllegabet" bows for "Holmegård"...I dont belive the Holmegård bow(s...there are two) were anything but straight forward pyramid bows....stiff outer limbs were definatly (imo) not a defining design characteristic of these bows.
One limb do have a shallow shoulder (reportedly the other bow also have a shoulder(s?)...but I have not seen the fragments for my self), but that could be the result of several things.
But keep in mind that the Møllegabet bow is only know from a mid-limb fragment, that had been descarded and secondarily used in a fish-trap ("ruse" in danish) (edit: or was that the Muldbjerg bow?)....the bow could for all we know, have been assymentrical.
Cheers
I have the dimentions from a danish bow building site: http://www.buewesth.dk/stenalderindex.html and http://www.bueogpil.dk/index.php?name=Sections&req=viewarticle&artid=9&allpages=1&theme=Printer
The latter will be hard to read....but the dimentions are there!
And picture from http://oldtiden.natmus.dk/udstillingen/jaegerstenalderen/jaegerstenalderens_buer_og_pile/verdens_aeldste_buer/language/u/
It would be more reliable if I had better sources I know:-/
-
Hmm...this thread got me searching. There are very few pictures floating around the internet of the danish stoneage bows. I did find this of what is supposedly the Møllegabet bow artefact (doesnt look anything like the drawings I have seen though):
(http://i995.photobucket.com/albums/af73/Holten101/Mllegabet.jpg)
I might find time to visit that museum soon...ill take plenty pictures when I do;-)
Cheers
-
Here's a pic of one
-
This is an interest thread. Thanks to those who posted photos. I find it very interesting that the Holmegaards were pretty much just pyramid bows. Jim
-
these are definitely interesting links... so apparently the "pyramid bow" was the most common stone age bow it seems, and some people say the shoulders of the holmegaard and mollegabet bows was the ending of a sinew backing that would stretch across the bow from shoulder to shoulder of the limb...
and so far, none of these museum pieces actually show a thickening of the limb.. merely shoulders, but no thicker outter limb that would remain straight except for the mollegabet which someone stated was only a misused fragment
so would could easily take from this thread so far that a proper stone age bow would be a simple pyramid type.. with, or without shoulders and one MIGHT add sinew between the two shoulders and might still be within the limits of an accurate reproduction
-
The sinew hypothesis has pretty much been discarded...the archeologist that first describes the bow have very little insight in bow making.
Im certain that the Møllegabet bow that a distinct thickening of the levers....the Holmegård specimens dont.
Cheers
-
id like to see a photo of the mollegabet fragment
as far as sinew goes.. who knows, that would be the first thing to wear away on an old bow as moisture would cause whatever has been used to glue it on to dissolve and release without much trace
like many people believe these guys lived in caves when in fact they had structure not all that simpler than a medieval hut.. but 9000 years of weather would make the earth materials wash away and the wood to rod
anyway, im almost finished with my rendering of the holmegaard bow according to the dimensions given before, but drawing a spline line between the lengths given results in a bit uneven curvature which could easily be due to weathering, so when im done with drawing one up according to specs given, im going to recreate one to be a little smoother, and scaled up to fit myself and try to make one
-
Hi Animus
-Elm doesnt need sinew
-The specs given + sinew would make it whip tillered...its tiller fit the profile well without sinew
-There are no traces of surface treatment (roughing) of the back as would be expected if it was sinewed
-Denmark has very wet weather (even back then)...and there are no caves
Only "reason" to think sinew at all, is the occurrence of shoulders....and as we know now there are plenty reasons a bow can have shoulders....sinew is rarely one of them.
Cheers
-
Its said that the mollegabet bow had a draw weight, if my memory serves me, around 20 pounds. This tells me it was probably a child's bow or possibly a prototype.
-
bucksbuey.. if only a fragment of the mollegabet has been found, how can anyone be sure about any part of it?... ive seen the fragments of the mollegabet bow, and this "stiffening" section of the outter limbs could have just as easilyy been the riser section of the bow... theres no real way to tell the narrower, thicker section was actually outter, non bending limbs or merely just the riser and someone misinterpreted the find... might not be a bad idea to disreguard the commonly perceived mollegabet design until real evidence is found to support the widening limbs
in reguards to all of this.. to be the most typical of a stone age period, a holmegaard, with or without shoulders would be best
i guess if someone wanted to create a holmegaard style, drawing out the narrowing of the riser, and the shoulders leading to the limbs, and then a compound radius curve starting almost straight and leading gently into a point would be simple and accurate
stitching a piece of rawhide over the grip wouldnt be outside of the technological abilities of stone age society, but then neither would the use of hide glue which evidence shows they had at that time
im not sure if nocks are even neccessary, but from some of the fragments it would appear they had atleast a slight nock, which could also suggest they may have
some of these photos show a dark band around the limbs, any idea what these are made of? it could be horn
-
just took about 5 minutes to create this with my solid modeling CAD software.. its 72 inches long, has the typical holmegaard type riser section, radiused, tapering limbs of consistant thickness... only problem is i only made these limbs 1/2 inch thick, so it would probably be a little light, the holmegaard was about 3/4 inch thick.. so for a black i would start out with a 1 inch limb and tiller it down to what i want from there... i used 2" for limb width, so this bow will scale up to the average height of a modern human (i didnt round the edges on the back yet in the rendering)
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4140/5410007930_9b72386c9e_b.jpg
-
@Bucksbuoy
KenH made a post awhile back were he relays information from Juergen Junkmanns (scholar in Prehistoric bows), who belives the bow was 39 and 48 inches long and 20#-45# and "undoubtedly a youth bow."....personally I would NEVER say "undoubtedly"...but Juergen Junkmanns knows his prehistoric bows;-)
http://www.primitivearcher.com/smf/index.php/topic,18123.15.html
@Animus
This is a drawing (and only available materiale with a scale I have been able to find):
(http://i995.photobucket.com/albums/af73/Holten101/mollegabet1.jpg)
The infered outer limb is too narrow and shallow to have been the handle...and it tapers towards, what is infered to be the nock. I see no reason to dismiss that it was indeed a lever tipped bow (remember it postdates the Holmegård bow). If we really want to be sceptic, then we cant really be sure its a bow at all;-).....it just happens to be a damn effectiv design for an Elm bow.
As I said before...Ill have go see the fragment my self, then ill make a thread.
Cheers
-
if you look at the fragments, it assumes this is a tapered outter limb.. however, should it be a youth bow which is likely, the grip itself would be smaller than that of a full size bow, and if thats the case what tapers into what is assumed to be an outter limb could just as easily be a small riser, and the fragment is backwards
-
Sorry Animus...but that would mean the 1-1.5 cm wide/deep handle would have to handle the stress from a 3.5 cm wide and 1.5 cm thick/deep limb (that is very close to the dimentions of my 64", 50# bows of the same design). A handle of 1-1.5 cm cant do that....and it also would not explain the taper of both limb and tip?
Cheers
-
if you say so, many bows similar to the holmegaard have been found, and some complete.. only a single mollegabet fragment, theres certainly enough evidence for us to know what the holmegaards were all about, the mollegabet is all speculation and theory at best... wood preserves well under cold water... if you want to find more neolithic bows im sure there are some at the bottom of the north sea.. and i bet none are of what the mollegabet is suggested to be
-
Interesting conversation going on here. If I'm reading everything right so far then what we assume to be a Mollegabet is based on speculation and conjecture? Do we replicate a type of bow that didn't exist?
Hank
-
well, id say duplicated a bow that may or may not have existed, no proof to prove it really existed... when you think that its merely a small fragment that was actually misused and abused before anyone realized what it was, combined with weathering as well... hard to tell what it really was or could have been just based on what was found
-
Ah...there is nothing like internet archeology;-)
(http://i995.photobucket.com/albums/af73/Holten101/mollegabetII.jpg)
No...there is no stamp on the Møllegabet fragment that says "bow".
It is however made of wych elm (THE prefered wood type for stoneage bows), it is carved as would be expected for a flat bow...back untouched, belly flat, cross-section eliptical, with dimentions corrosponding (roughly) with those of a hunting weight flatbow.
Co-incidently the inferred reconstruction yeilds am extremely effective bow (in my mind an improvment on the pyramid type bows pre-dating it).
The fragment is open to interpretation, anyone can come see it, and im sure alternative interpretations are more than welcome with archeological publishers.
Or we could choose to discard it...and say, heck, we have no idea what this is! But archeology (fortunatly) doesnt work like that...it is not an exact science, and qualified guess work playes a huge part in what we THINK we know about the deep past.
Im sorry that the material avaliable freely on the internet is so scarce. As of now I dont have access to the original publications and as such my sources are as good as yours (ok...being able to read danish helps)....but I can tell you that the Muldbjerg bow (same period as the Møllegabet bow) are reported by some to be a lever bow too (I cant confirm that it is...and have no pictures at all, which is why I have left it out so far).
Personally I have no doubt that the Møllegabet fragment is indeed a piece of a bow...but I will gladly revise that view if evidence suggesting otherwise is presented.
Cheers
-
as you can see from the fragment itself without a suggestive outline that would suggest the narrowed end is actually an outter limb and not perhaps a riser, you could see how that section could actually be just the riser section of a small bow
reguardless of this, ive decided not to build a stone age type bow until im able to get a wych elm sapling to do it with properly, and at that point i think ill be ambitious enough to try it with stone tools too
-
as you can see from the fragment itself without a suggestive outline that would suggest the narrowed end is actually an outter limb and not perhaps a riser, you could see how that section could actually be just the riser section of a small bow
We have been though this I think, and I have explained why I dont buy that interpretation:-)
reguardless of this, ive decided not to build a stone age type bow until im able to get a wych elm sapling to do it with properly, and at that point i think ill be ambitious enough to try it with stone tools too
Now that is a good idea....I hope we can pick up this thread again at that point:-)
Cheers...and happy bowyering
-
i dont see any reason to end a thread about learning more about something... however, wouldnt mind knowing where to actually find wych elm saplings or branches large enough to make a bow... cant even find north american elms around here
-
I'm going to keep on building 'em even if the design idea is based on supposition. It's an effective design, efficient, fast shooting and they plainly look cool. Plus, they are fun to build. What more could you want in a bow?
Hank
-
i dont see any reason to end a thread about learning more about something... however, wouldnt mind knowing where to actually find wych elm saplings or branches large enough to make a bow... cant even find north american elms around here
A well, I didnt really mean to end it;-)...I just felt like I was going in circles...it is a very interesting subject, but im not sure I can contribute with more until I have more data:-).
I have no experience with north american wood types...but alot of wood types will yield good pyramid/lever bows. In my experience anything that carries nuts, berries or fruit is worthwhile trying out...I have seen succesfull "Molly-type" bows made of Birch and ofc Oak.
Cheers
-
i hear many people say one wood is great, another wood is great but its hard to really determine the hierarchy of them all
i know yew is top, osage is second, lemonwood seems to be third.. ipe is in there somewhere, hickory... then after that who knows, theres elm, red oak, white oak, maple, ash, the list goes on.. its hard to really put these into an order, or atleast ordered groups as to whats what in bow making
as stated im going to hold off on a holmegaard type bow until im able to get a decent branch or sapling to do it the right way, the traditional way, may even try it with stone tools... but i am looking to build a wood kiln/curing oven from a length of tube steel with a rack that i can lay a bow stave into, as opposed to waiting 2 years for it to dry out naturally
untill that time comes im going to work my upper body into the heavier class of bows, during the uprising of great civilizations they trained for war, prior to that they trained daily as a source of food.. so id like to follow a regular routine and build into the 80lb+ bows while learning the traditional bow making methods using hand tools on the side
-
The best bow wood is the wood you have available.
That is a bit tongue in cheek, but use what is available to you right now. For me, local woods are elm, hickory, ash, hophornbeam, birch, and some others. Elm is amazing wood, if a bit challenging to harvest due to interlocking grain. Osage doesn’t grow in the New England area, so that is not a wood I worry about. Same with yew – I do have some, and it does grow in Massachusetts, but is very rare in my area. Lemonwood in the US is nearly impossible to acquire due to the Cuban embargo, but if you are lucky, you can find it in board form, as I did a few years ago. A hardwood specialty dealer can be a godsend to get started sooner, and if you can visit yourself to select the right boards for your needs, all the better.
Putting off making bows until tomorrow sometimes mean tomorrow never comes. Just jump in and have fun. And, there are a number of Stone Age bows you can replicate (and that are nearly or completely intact and documented) not just Holmies and Mollies. A great book on some of these designs is “The Bow Builder’s Book.” I got my copy for 24 bucks on Amazon, and it is strongly slanted toward Mesolithic, Neolithic, and some other periods. Internet research can help you find other bow styles to replicate or get inspired by. The 4th volume of the Bowyer’s Bible has a pretty all-inclusive listing of ancient bows by Tom Mills that can help you do the research.
Dane
-
these old bows were made of samplings or branches though... where they had the contrast of the regular wood and the heartwood to make a bow from, im not so sure an unbacked self bow would be as functional or not, so i may go with a later period backed bow and wait till i have the means to dry out saplings, branches, or quarter logs to make proper staves
-
i hope that soon.. and i know youre all with me on this.. that through some stroke of luck we stumble upon a much older bow than the holmegaard, humans have been using bows for atleast 30,000 years, closer to 50,000, i would just absolutely love the opportunity to rebuild one of these should we ever find a preserved specimen of one of these... however, most the settlements of this time period were around coastal waters in which most, if not all of these settlements will be at the bottom of the north and mediterranian seas
-
im actually going to do some tests soon.. its been proven that some stone age people 35,000 years ago have had the use of callogen based glues (hide glue).. but for much longer, and more widespread they used tars made from pine and birch barks as adhesives.. im going to try some of these materials, as well as glue made from mixing red ochre on wood to test their abilities to hold materials together, as well as their preservative properties... pine tar is a great sealer and preservative of wood, im curious as to how birch stacks up to see about maybe using birch tar/oil as an adhesive for bone/hone nocks, as well as a preservative of the wood
to clarify, birch can be used as glue, preservative, leather treatments, what i meant was id like to test how these stack up against modern alternatives.. come up with actual numbers and data to get a better understanding of the materials stone age people actually had... i know its off topic, but those interested in stone age archery might also appreciate other stone age tech.