Primitive Archer
Main Discussion Area => Bows => Topic started by: Stiks-N-Strings on March 29, 2011, 10:08:37 pm
-
What is the difference between the two. From what I can tell from all the pics and everything I've looked I can't see the difference. Other than where they where found.
Am I missing something.
I'm building a molle out of a piece of hackberry. Sinew backed it last night and put some copperheads on it today. Can't hardly stand leaving it set to wait on the sinew to cure.
Stiks
-
Stiks, sorry...can't answer your question BUT you can't just mention progress on a cool bow and not drop in at least a pic or two ;D
-
Lee, NO WAY on the pics, the last two bows I posted pics of before they where done blew up on me. Both Yew staves and they are hard to come by in these parts. I think it was bad joo joo LOL
No pics till it's done, sorry.
Stiks
-
http://www.perinnejousi.fi/keskustelu/files/mollegabet_bow_435.jpg this is a mollegabet
http://images.yuku.com/image/jpeg/46036d2e10790b5b308c1c96211f6633afc656ae.jpg this is a holmegard. the confusion occurred when the tbb1(I beleive) identified the mollegabet as a holmegard. One of the sceintists who had studied both and is a bowyer(j.j.junkman I believe) submitted a post on pp that corrected the issue. I dont know if he was the first to raise the issue but its the first that I know of.
-
not sure
but i think the mollegabet design is older than the holmegard design
-
Fair enough Stiks...I certainly wouldn't want to be the bringer of bad luck by asking you to post so I'll retract my request in hopes that even the faintest wisps of bad joo joo blow right through town. Plus, I'm a sucker for Yew and would give my left eye tooth to play with some so I can only imagine your pain.
Look forward to see the full draw shots when it's completed!
-
should finish up next week Lee. depends on how the sinew looks.
Thanks for the info guys. seems to be alot of confusion on this issue.
Stiks
-
I've had really bad luck posting pics before the bow is done too. I wont do that again, maybe I'm a little superstitious but it just works out better for me too.
-
Okie I never had that problem til late. Usually I break'em before I even get pics ;D It just occurred to me a few days ago I was counting my chickens before the hatch LOL
-
not sure
but i think the mollegabet design is older than the holmegard design
No, for sure not, the Holmegaard is the older one. (by two thousand years I believe)
-
The difference between a Holmegård and a Møllegabet is a much discussed subject. Both artefacts are from denmark; the Holmegård bow (6500-7000 B.C) is a complete bow (two bows actually...one which is incomlete iirc) and the Møllegabet bow (5250-5070 B.C) which consists of a mid/outer limb section.
The holmegård is (in my oppinion) a pretty straight forward pyramid bow:
(http://i995.photobucket.com/albums/af73/Holten101/holm21.jpg)
The shoulder (ONLY one limb has what might be inferrede to be a shoulder) is so insignificant that I would hesitate to call it a defining design characteristic...it did not have true, stiff levers. The shoulder on one limb could have been made for a number of reasons....but the second bow also have a narrow outer limb, which leads me to belive its intentional at least. I have no doubt that this functionally was a pyramid bow...maybe tillered to have slightly stiff outer limbs (reconstructions indicates this)
The Møllegabet is a true lever tipped bow (IF its is a bow....I belive it is):
(http://i995.photobucket.com/albums/af73/Holten101/mollegabet1.jpg)
Admitted...it could have been asymetrical, but there is little doubt that the preserved outer limb was none-workning.
Normally the name "Holmgård" is used about lever tipped bows...I belive that is incorrect;-)
Cheers
-
The Holmie bows did not follow a groth ring on the back and were backward bows with rised handls on the backs, don't know about the Mollies. Kenneth
-
thank you Holten101, well presented !!
-
I totally agree with Ken! Thanks Holten!
Stiks thanks for asking the question too as I was wondering the same thing. It seems these names get interchanged a lot.
-
The Holmie bows did not follow a groth ring on the back and were backward bows with rised handls on the backs, don't know about the Mollies. Kenneth
Hi Little John
That is how it is represented in TBB, but it is not correct. The bows (I can only confirm the Holmegård artefact...since I have only seen that in person) have natural backs (i.e the outer growth ring underneath the barch is the back.
I raised the question on a danish bow builders forum when I read the miss-interpretation of he bow in TBB, and got this interesting reply:
"Hi Holten,
I translated parts of TBB 2 into German, also the contribution of Paul Comstock about the prehistoric bows of Europe, the German version is available under www.bogenschiessen.de. I´ve seen the original bow before and was - like you - very surprised by Pauls theory of the "backward bow". After talking to the German editors I contacted Paul, and we exchanged some transatlantic mails. We - especially Paul - found out then, that a fatal error happened to him while reading archaeological drawings. European Archaeologists draw objects in a different way than woodworkers will. Woodworkers draw four views, rolling the object clockwise on the ground, archaeologists draw 4 views flipping the object over the edge anti-clockwise, so that drawn view and the edge of the next view are positioned near each other. If you compare this to the drawn cross section and misinterprete the way of changing the view, you may come to the conclusion, that the belly of the bow is the back. Paul was very unhappy about this, but we decided to leave the translation of his contribution without corrections, and we added some remarks by him making clear that he was mistaken. Your - and my - way of building holmegaards is and will be the right one. I wrote to Paul - who has never seen the Danish elm bows personally - that I could have made the same mistake while writing about the flat bows of the American plains indians without ever having one in my hand. You may call this the "Karl-May-syndrom", Karl May was a very famous German author who had written a lot of books about the Wild West and Arabia without ever having left his home town.
Mvh
ULFR"
I hope this clears out some missunderstandings:-)
Cheers
-
Holten101,
Thank you for the explanation of the way Paul Comstock made his "error" concerning the "backward bows". Given that most of the recent information regarding the bows he was talking about say they are conventional and not backward, I wondered how this could have occurred if he had actually held them in his hands.
Craig.
-
Holten, now I am really confused. I am working on what I thought would be a hybrid between a holmie and a molie. Actually it is going to be a double edge ringed bow worked from a small diameter salt cedar stave with a raisedhandle on the back but with the narrow lever tips of the molie. This stave has two inches of reflex and I am going to heat treat the belly and sinue the working part of the back and was going to call it Homly Mollie. Don't know what to call it now. Well any way a bow is a bow. Kenneth
-
John just call it a one off custom . sounds cooler
-
Found this pic of the Holmegaard
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v71/acutus/Post-379-1179037409.jpg)
At this location.
http://wiki.lafidelite-constantia.be/mediawiki/index.php/De_Holmegaard_boog
Don't know how many had seen it.
-
This has turned out to be a truly interesting and informative post. I got a molle sinewed and curing and got to thinking Is it really a molle or a holmgard.
It's definitely a molle. From what has been posted and shared here it is quite obvious which is which and I am greatful for the education on the subject. Really makes me want to learn more about the ancient bows and their origins and uses. Holten thanks for all the info. Acutus that pic makes me want hold that bow ;D
Got to love it! Stiks
-
Hi Little John
Sounds like an interesting project...make sure to keep us up to date (with pics and all):-)....eksperiments like that will allways be rewarding even if you cant label the bow (labels in this case are inherently doubious anyways;-).
As a side note I can tell that early interpretations of the Holmegård artefact included the idea that the bow could have been sinewed (this could, according to the author, explain the shoulder(s)). Having seen the artefact several times (one is enough tho;-) and made numerous flat bows of wych elm (including Holmegård-type and Møllegabet-type bows) I can say that it is unlikly (had I been more bombastic I would say there is "NO way";-)) that they were sinewed.
I hope to get a first hand view of the Møllegabet artefact and other...not so well documented bows this summer (if time permits). I will ofc take pictures and post my findings/view in here:-)
Cheers
-
Holten, just to get things straightened out, I've got a question. What woods are the three bows made of? The one Møllegabet , the complete Holmegard, and the incomplete Holmegard?
Furthermore, there is very little data available on the incomplete Holmegard. Do you happen to have a picture/drawing of that incomplete artefact? I'm wondering if the profile of that bow is any different from the profile of the complete Holmegard.
-
Just thinking, if the original holmi bows follow a ring on the back then what really makes them different from more modern bows other than being old. Kenneth
-
Holten, just to get things straightened out, I've got a question. What woods are the three bows made of? The one Møllegabet , the complete Holmegard, and the incomplete Holmegard?
Furthermore, there is very little data available on the incomplete Holmegard. Do you happen to have a picture/drawing of that incomplete artefact? I'm wondering if the profile of that bow is any different from the profile of the complete Holmegard.
Funny that info so old is so hard to obtain in this day and age:-(. A paper from 1945 descibes two bows, but The National Museum reports fragments of 4 bows (iirc). The only material on the second, larger bow fragment, I could find is this drawing:
(http://i995.photobucket.com/albums/af73/Holten101/HolmegrdII.jpg)
The shoulder and thickening of the outer limb is clearly visible. The profile is closer to, but not enought (imo....and this can be discussed) to make it none working. The bow was longer (160-170 cm), wider and more powerfull than the more well known complete bow.
Concerning the wood type I have to trust the original sources which reports that both the Møllegabet fragment and the Holmegård bows were Elm (most likely Wych Elm).
The Møllegabet fragment (belly view):
(http://i995.photobucket.com/albums/af73/Holten101/mollegabetII.jpg)
@Little John
I dont entirely agree on that point. The design is close to optimal for this wood type (imo) which indicates advanced knowledge of distribution of forces. Also the Holmegård bow is close to what can be considdered a "missing link" (im not convinced such a thing exists in bow development) between a (assumed) "primitive" pyramid bow...and the more derived lever-type bow represented by the later Møllegabet fragment.
As a side note: It is important that people look at the bows and make up their own mind....these posts are coloured by my pov!
Some links that might be of interest:
http://wiki.lafidelite-constantia.be/mediawiki/index.php/De_Holmegaard_boog
http://oldtiden.natmus.dk/udstillingen/jaegerstenalderen/jaegerstenalderens_buer_og_pile/verdens_aeldste_buer/language/u/
http://www.buewesth.dk/stenalderindex.html
Have fun and please chip in with opinions:-)
-
I don't know enough to really have any oppinions as to the history of these bows, but do know that a modified Mollllle is my favorite bow and don't really see any need to make other styles. I used to think they were Holmies, just from reading the bowyer bibles. Kenneth
-
I agree Little John
My Holmegårds turn out slow`ish and with more hand shock than I like, were as my Molly-type lever bows, are all sweet and fast shooters:-)
Mollies are my favorite too:-)
Cheers
-
I got sinewed back molle about finished. As soon as the sinew is cured I just need to shoot her in and tweek the tiller and put the finishing touches on it.
Sure have enjoyed all the info that came forward on this post.
Thanks, Stiks
-
Hi..!
Here are some links that are covered by the word of Holten101...
http://www.feuer-steinzeit.de/programm/bogenbau.php
http://www.co2air.de/wbb3/index.php?page=Thread&postID=1103640
This here a little more hard limbs...
http://www.jw-gpw.eu/Boegen/Steinzeit/Nr.1_Holmegaard_Ulme/Nr.1_Holmegaard_Ulme.html
http://www.jw-gpw.eu/Boegen/Steinzeit/Nr.2_Holmegaard_Esche/Nr.2_Holmegaard_Esche.html
George