Primitive Archer
Main Discussion Area => Bows => Topic started by: Kviljo on November 03, 2007, 10:10:52 am
-
Just finished a new potential flightbow. It's 2,5" wide at the fades, and feels like it is about 70# at 28". 74" ntn. It had some natural stringfollow, and it has followed the string 3" by now. I shot it at the local range tonight, and it seems to be quite fast in spite of the stringfollow. Hoping to get rid of some of the stringfollow with some dry heat.
The handle has a small knot at it's center, and it is deflexed there, plus the upper limb is deflexed a little right at the midlimb fade. Most of the tillering was done watching how the growthrings faded out from the fades. Really hard to tell how it is bending when the bending area is so small.
(http://kviljo.no/bue/3tomholmegard/2.jpg)
(http://kviljo.no/bue/3tomholmegard/3.jpg)
(http://kviljo.no/bue/3tomholmegard/4.jpg)
(http://kviljo.no/bue/3tomholmegard/5.jpg)
(http://kviljo.no/bue/3tomholmegard/6.jpg)
-
pics dont show for me
-
Now they probably do :)
-
Thats a great looking bow, I've never tried that style, what is the advantage of the holmgard style?
VB
-
Very nice workmanship! I do not think I would worry too much about the string follow now, might cause more problems trying to remove it. The handle is real neat! how does it feel in your hand?
-
Well, I think I see the reason it took the set. Looks like there may be too much outer limb and not enough inner limb. Hope that helps!
-
That is a wicked looking bow. How does it shoot with all that non working wood on the tips.
Greg, this is a REAL holmegard, not a Tennessee holmegard. ;D Justin
-
Thanks folks :)
That's probably half-way correct D.T.. There is enough wood for the job, but this design translates normally stressed wood into a lot of stringfollow, since all the stringfollow will be close to the handle. Bad for cast, but this design is pretty effective so it's cast isn't too bad, plus low string tension at brace is good for accuracy. But I hope some heat treatment will take care of some of the stringfollow at least.
-
Hi,
I do believe it's spelled "Holmegaard", after the town and region in Denmark where the original artifact was discovered.
I have made many Holmegaard tillered bows, and consider it my speciality. I have made many self Holmies from maple, osage, and elm. I just finished one for a customer which was hickory backed maple, 46# @ 27", 66" NTN. The advantage of this tillering style, with the non-bending , narrowed outer tips, is reduced string angle at full draw. The stiff outer limbs act as levers, increasing cast. If tillered correctly, string follow, or what I generally call "set", is no worse than any other bow. With Holmies, you can make a shorter bow with less string angle, and reduced finger pinch at full draw. I think with your bow, you've made the bending portion of each limb too short. I usually don't make the outer non-bending limb more than 12", regardless of the bow's OAL. Holmies traditionally have pin nocks as well, to keep the tips as light as possible. I also try to keep the bending limb 2" wide, and the same width for its entire length. You also want to keep the bending limb portion the same thickness for its length, as well. If I can figure out how to send pics, I will send some of the Holmies I have made.
-
Justin, it seems to shoot quite well. I tried some 75g 1/2" ash shafts with it, and they didn't seem too slow.
I would call it a conventionalized holmegård, begause (probably) none of the originals was this extreme.
Yep adb, it's called Holmegård, or Holmegaard for those who havent got the Å on their keyboard :)
But it is not correct that a bow with limbs that is 2" wide from the fades to the transition at midlimb should have the same thickness along the whole 2" wide area. Such a bow would stress the wood too much near the grip. They should either have a taper in thickness, or in width.
-
kvilgo,
Sorry, I disagree. If you tiller as suggested, you do not end up with a proper Holmegaard tiller. The tiller ends up, as your's, with more or less a conventional elliptical tiller. This defeats the whole purpose of this type of bow. If you look at the pics of your bow at full draw, it's basically an even bend from fade to tip. This is not correct. When tillering, ignore the stiff non-bending outer limbs, and tiller looking at the bending portions only. The tiller on the bending limbs should be an even arc, much like a horsebow. You should end up with 3 distinct portions of the bow: 1. a stiff, short (4 to 5") nonbending handle, 2. even width and thickness bending limbs, and 3. no more than 10 to 12" non-bending outer limbs. Do a subject search for Holmegaard bow on this message board sight, and look for an excellent article written by Dennis La Varenne entitled: "Tillering the Holmegaard Bow." It's very comprehensive. There has been some controversey regarding the construction of this type of bow in the Trad Bowyers Bibles, and in Vol 2, it was suggested these bows were made "backwards." This turned out to be incorrect, and was revised in Vol 3. These bows are a little tricky to get right, but when you do, pound for pound, they shoot smooth and sweet, with excellent cast. Remember, to keep all the advantages of a Holmie... keep it short. <68", to take advantage of this style of tiller. Your bow, at 74", is defeating the purpose. Just because it's a Holmegaard shape, doesn't make it a Holmegaard tiller.
-
:)
One question: If you take a regular board and bend it, where and how does it bend?
Yep, it progressively bends more towards the center. The same thing applies to a holmegård that has a bending portion with uniform thickness and width. Too much stress on the wood near the grip. To stress the limbs equally, you need to give it a taper either in width or in thickness. Ask any of the experts, and you get this answer. You could even try it in Alan Cases program "Supertiller".
Other than that, we agree. The outer limbs should only bend a little, just to make sure they are as light as possible. At least that is true for some of the holmegårds. There are a lot of variations in the approx 20 originals, from close to pyramid-shape, to the ones that have a clear separation between the inner and outer limbs.
-
See this illustration:
http://p081.ezboard.com/fpaleoplanet69529frm13.showMessage?topicID=6870.topic
This bow should have an even thickness along its bending inner limbs. That way, they will get a circular tiller and be evenly stressed.
-
Hmmm! There was a guy on here a while back that had a great article on tillering a Holmy bow. Do a search on the design and you should find it. Great article that will explain it all.
-
Yes, as I've already mentioned in previous post: the article is by Dennis La Verenne, entitled: "Tillering the Holmegaard Bow." Do a search on this sight, and you'll find it. It's under ozbow.com.....
kviljo... the outer limbs should not bend at all!!! Otherwise it's not a Holmegaard tiller, it's just a Holmegaard shape!!! The pic of the tiller on the bow you posted is circular, not Holmegaard.
Also, I thought there was only 1 Holmegaard artifact? 20? Can you shed some light on the basis of this statement? I'd be very interested, considering Holmies are my passion. Thanks.
-
I haven't red that article, but I'd love to. I'll see if I can find it on the web. That ozbow.com-page looks to be a page for some guys making and selling bows for a musical instrument...?
If the outer limbs are not bending at all, they are being overly heavy, and performance will be really bad. They need to bend just a little, to make sure they are as light as possible. The small amount of bend won't do much harm to the energy storage.
Jürgen Junkmanns, in his book "Pfeil und Bogen, herstellung und gebrauch in der jungsteinzeit" (2001), states on page 14 that there are "etwa 2 Dutzend" (approx 24) finds of holmegård bows from Denmark. It's a good book, but sadly it's only in german.
And as said before, there are some variation to the design in the original artifacts. One of the most complete, looks more like a regular pyramid flatbow, than my overly conventionalized version.
-
Hey guys, I just got through reading the chapter in TBB2 about these bows. At the begining of the chapter they say there are many variations to the bows they are discusing, and if there is only one bow of this type maybe you are both correct. Joel
-
I just red the article.
http://www.fiarc.org/public/Forum/Data/jeval/2005102714414_Tillering%20the%20Holmegaard%20Bow-2.pdf
And I'm not impressed, to be quite honest. The guy should have done a little more research, and made more than 3 holmegårds before he decided to draw the first drawig in the article and state over and over again that it needs to have parallell thickness and width.
It is simply wrong, and it is sad that everything that gets written and published somehow usually gets quoted again and again. :(
If you're still not convinved, we're back to the question about how a regular board will bend?
Found these nice photos by the way:
http://www.archerymuseum.org/holm.htm
-
Kviljo,
How will a regular board bend? Depends on how it is shaped. What do you mean by "regular?" I don't understand how this relates to Holmegaard tiller.
Thanks for the info on the Holmegaard artifacts, very interesting. I still think 20 is an exaggeration, however.
I'm sorry you disagree on the article written by Dennis. What exactly do you disagree with? I think it's well written, and based on first hand experience. Very logical, at least to me. I've made several bows, both self and backed, using this method, and they're excellent shooters. The advantages of the Holmegaard tiller are lost with elliptical tiller.
-
By regular board I mean a regular uniform thickness and width board. In principle exactly the same as the article would like to shape the bending portion of the holmegård :)
If it is made that way, the bending portion of the limbs will then get too much bend near the handle, and the bow will break there first. It will not have a circular tiller.
If you want a holmegård with 2" wide parallell inner limbs to be evenly stressed, the inner limbs need to have a taper in thickness. Not by much, but noticeable.
In the other hand, if you want a holmegård with inner limbs that are uniform in thickness, you need to give it a taper in width. That will be more noticable, quite like the drawing that Tim Baker posted on the other forum that I linked to.
-
This is an interesting conversation. And it will help me as I give another try at this design. Twice it has eluded me, and I have a very nice elm stave just waiting for me to give it another go.
My understanding is that this style bow is superb, and I love the very ancient European designs above many other styles of bow.
Ivar, beautiful work as always, very clean.
Dane
-
kviljo,
I'm trying to post pics, but everytime i do, I get an error code saying the file is too large. Any suggesstions as to what I'm doing wrong?
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Hey!!! It worked!!
Kviljo,
The previous pic is of a Holmegaard I finished recently. It's 66" NTN, 50# @ 28". Hickory backed maple. The back has been stained dark brown. I'll try posting some more pics. Maybe I was just trying to send too many at once.
-
OK, here goes another try. Some more pics of the same bow.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
And here is one at full draw
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
adb pics have to be 200kb or less in size, nice looking bow.
-
Nice bow and pictures! Looks like a very nice handle too! :)
But I would have to say that it is bending too much near the handle, just as such a bow would do if its wide limbs had uniform thickness and width.
You can probably test this by seeing where it followed the string. My bet is that the outer part of the wide limbs show no set, while the inner parts should have taken at least some set.
For the wood to be evenly stressed on such a bow with parallell width, it actually needs to bend progressively more out from the handle, not progressively more towards the handle.
Try it, I'm sure you won't be disapointed speed-wise :)
-
Kviljo,
Now before you say more, try this.... take a piece of paper, hold it up vetically to your computer screen, and cover up the outer non-bending portions of the limbs on the pic at full draw. Now what do you think of the tiller?
When tillering a Holmegaard, you have to ignore the outer limbs, and tiller the inner limbs only. If, that is, you want to end up with a Holmegaard tiller. The outer limbs act as levers, and should NOT bend... at all. Also, look at the string angle at full draw. Very much reduced, compared to a regularily tillered longbow.
Yes, the bow bends at the fades. No crysalling. String follow on this bow is less than 1". To me, this is Holmegaard tiller.
-
Here are some more pics of the handle
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Looking forward to a FULL DRAW picture of your bow.
-
Kviljo,
Notice the proportion of outer to inner limb. I usually go 2/3, 1/3, making the stiff non-bending outer limbs no more than 12", regardless of bow length. There has to be more bending than non-bending limb. Otherwise, the bow will take huge set, and will crysall at the fades.
I have broken 2 Holmegaards over the years, but they have both been at the distal taper, not at the fade. Probably the best Holmie I've made was a 62" hickory backed osage, 55# @ 27". A screamer. Cast was incredible. Alas, but happily, it is in the hands of the person I made it for.
-
Hey, Oldbow
Full draw pic is posted.
-
kviljo, nice work with the ash. Hard stuff to finesse without having it crush itself. Respect
adb3112, beeee-m
-
Shooter,
beeee-m? I don't get it?
-
sorry...I dunno how to spell it. an expression the kids are using these days when they're wicked impressed :)
-
Shooter,
LOL. I should know that one, I've got 3 teenage daughters!!
Thanks for the compliment!
-
It's still the same, adb :) It is not distributing the stress evenly. But I wouldn't worry if it took so little set.
If made properly, there is no reason they shoul crysal easier at the fades.
What I have been describing is a bow that would distribute the stress evenly along the wide parts of the limbs. And there is no reason to think that the original holmegård bows were not made to distribute the stress evenly.
-
Thanks for this discussion Gentlemen. I had seen photos of Holmegaard bows, but did not understand what made them unique until this thread, and the article by Dennis La Verenne. This is a more advanced design then I will attempt for a while, but you have both created thought-provoking and beautiful, functional, bows.
The Holmegaard tiller takes some getting used to looking at, but the non-bending limbs make sense. They are are mechanical levers right? Much the same as an atlatl, that doesn't bend itself, but adds mechanical advantage to the projectile. At first look you would think that getting all of the bend from the inner limb would stress the wood too much, but then you realize that the extension provided by the non-bending limbs does not require the inner limbs to BEND AS FAR to achive draw length, and thus minimizes that stress.
Thanks again,
Keith
-
OK, Kviljo. We agree to disagree! That is the great thing about bow making... there is more than one way.
-
There is more than one way, but only one truth :)
How can you say that such a bow Dennis La Verenne decribes will distribute the stress evenly?
Do you agree that a bow with even thickness should bend in a perfect circle?
-
Kviljo,
How can I say that the stress is distributed equally? Because I've made several of this tiller type that do, with minimal set, only minimal failures, and none which have crysalled, in both self and backed types. Proof of the pudding...
I agree that a bow with even thickness does not bend in a perfect circle. That's the whole point with a Holmegaard tiller. I don't want the tiller shape to be circular. It seems you're missing the point. I don't want a "Holmegaard" shaped bow which is circularilly or elliptically tillered. You lose all the advantages of this design.
Delphilabs,
Yes, the non-bending outer limbs act as levers, increasing cast, but reducing string angle at full draw. You've hit the nail on the head with the inner and outer limbs, and how they relate. This design is about 9000 years old. The skill of Neolithic bowyers is incredible, when you come to understand this bow's design. Highly efficient. A marvel of physics and engineering. Our archery ancestors were truly ingenious.
-
No no :)
Theoretically, do you agree that a bow which has even thickness along it's whole lenght, should bend like a circle, to be evenly stressed?
The answer is yes, and the reason is that the thickness decides how much the wood can bend before it breaks. More thickness and you won't be able to bend it as far before it breaks. Less thickness and you can bend it further without damaging the wood. If the thickness is the same along the whole bow, then it should also bend just the same along it's whole lenght. Like a perfect circle. That way the stress will be evenly distributed.
If you follow me on this, then you should follow me on the next point too:
To make an even-thickness bow bend like a circle, you have to taper it in width.
Agree?
If not, then were do you stop agreeing?
If you agree with all this, then apply it to a holmegård, and you'll see that if it's inner limbs have even thickness and width, then it is not ideally tillered. Such a bow will have too much dead-weight in the outer part of the wide inner limbs, and too much stress in the inner part of the wide inner limbs.
-
That is really the coolest looking design I have never seen any thing quiet like it
-
Kviljo,
Remember an old truth about wood... any wood. Wood which is twice as wide, is twice as strong. Wood which is twice as thick, is eight times stronger!! The whole point of a Holmegaard tiller is to AVOID a circular tiller. Otherwise, you're just building a regularly tillered bow, with narrowed outer limbs. The entire bow does not have to be "evenly stressed." Only the inner limbs are supposed to bend.
Like I said before, we agree to disagree. That is OK.
-
So does the inner limbs have a normal tiller then completely stiff outter limbs? Joel
-
That's true, adb. But you really want the inner limbs to distribute the stress as evenly as possible. If not, you'll end up with a bow thats overbuilt in some places, while it is underbuilt in other places. A slow bow that will break too easily. Not something to go hunting with in the mesolithic :)
So yep, deerhunter, a holmegård should have normally tillered inner limbs, while the outer limbs should be a little stiffer than the wider inner part of the limbs. How much difference there should be, depens on how much difference there is in width. In theory the whole bow should be equally stressed to get the most speed and durability from the wood, like any other bow type.
-
Kviljo,
NO, NO, NO.... the answer to deerhunters question is: yes. The inner limbs have normal tiller, and the outer limbs DO NOT BEND! If the outer limbs bend, their effect as levers is reduced. The whole bow is NOT equally stressed... only the inner limbs.
Sorry, but it's also a Neolithic artifact.
-
My litterature says they date to between 8000 bc to 5000 bc, the neolithic period in Denmark begins at 4200 bc. Which finds date from the neolithic? That said, they probably were used in the neolithic too, but I don't know of any holmegård-like finds from the neolithic.
But okay, then we agree in principle, the inner limbs should be normally tillered, while the outer limbs should at least bend less than the inner parts. But that doesn't presuppose that the outer part of the limbs should be any less stressed. If they do not bend at all, they will be overly heavy and reduce cast significantly compared to a bow with lighter tips. That's the theory.
Again, do you understand this:
Theoretically, do you agree that a bow which has even thickness along it's whole lenght, should bend like a circle, to be evenly stressed?
The answer is yes, and the reason is that the thickness decides how much the wood can bend before it breaks. More thickness and you won't be able to bend it as far before it breaks. Less thickness and you can bend it further without damaging the wood. If the thickness is the same along the whole bow, then it should also bend just the same along it's whole lenght. Like a perfect circle. That way the stress will be evenly distributed.
If you follow me on this, then you should follow me on the next point too:
To make an even-thickness bow bend like a circle, you have to taper it in width.
If not, what is the problem? Maybe I could refrase something, if it is unclear.
It's hard to say wether the original bows were made that way, or with overly heavy outer limbs. After all they're not bendable anymore, and we're left to make qualified guesses about it. But I'd credit them with the knowledge and experience to be able to make good fast durable bows.
-
No, the outer limbs should not bend AT ALL. Not even a little bit. That is why they are thicker, but reduced in width, to a pin nock. It keeps them from being overly heavy. That is the whole point to a Holmegaard tiller. You could keep the outer limbs full width and thickness, but then they would be unnecessarily massive, slowing cast. When I tiller a Holmegaard, I only look at the inner limbs. They are the only ones bending. Tiller is NOT circular over the bows entire length. The rest of what you are saying about how a board bends is a red herring. It doesn't apply to this type of tiller.
Anyway, I'm not going to change your mind, so, I give up. I enjoy building these bows, and I will continue with good success. Thanks for the discussion. I guess my only other point is: be careful what you're willing to call something when you post it, you might not be accurate. Just because it looks like something you claim, doesn't necessarily make it so. No offense intended.
-
What a worthwhile discussion! I am far from being a bow master, but I think you are both correct as far as your thoughs of original design intent. Last night I did some searches and viewed photos of the original bow. I would think that it must have bent, to some extent throughout the whole limb.
That said I feel that ADB3112 design is a step forward from the original design. While it is more complex to build correctly it should produce a light Fast bow.
Thank you both for a very informative discussion!
-
Thanks for the discusion guys I learned a lot. When I read about this bow design in TBB2 it became my favorite one. So it will be my first usable bow made from Yew. Thanks again. Joel
-
adb,
Looking closely at the full-draw pic the bow appears to bend significantly more near the fades than the rest of the inner limb. Is the bow deflexed near the handle?
-
Good discussion chaps,i dont know which one of you is correct but i like them both!
-
Hey, Oldbow
Full draw pic is posted.
Hmmm, sorry to be so obtuse but on what page? I see yours but not Kviljo's
-
Hey, Oldbow
I posted a full draw pic on page 2 of this thread. Thanks,
adb3112
-
The article that Hillary Greenland(sp) wrote a few years ago in PA suggests that the outter limbs do bend a bit. I guess to alleviate the stresses on the inner limb.
It is funny, to me, how a primitive bow like the Holmgaard bows seem so complicated to us modern bowyers. I'm sure the Holmgaard people didn't think about how difficult it would be to build one...they just did it! Pat
-
Nice to hear that the two monologues (;D) was worth the effort.
adb, check out this video:
http://kviljo.no/bue/flight.wmv
Those two "holmegårds" I shoot in the video have outer limbs that do bend. But not much. Just enough to make sure they are as light as possible.
But how on earth can it be a red herring, when you suggest that you could use two small boards (that is uniform thickness and witdth, like a board) as inner limbs and still get a good tiller. That is nonsense. It is not possible. If one understand the board-bending-thing, then you indirectly should understand that there needs to be a taper in either thickness or width, or both. If you want to distribute the stress evenly.
I have never written that this overly conventionalized ash bow of mine is even close to the holmegård artifacts. It really isn't, but the style is what we would like to call holmegård, even if it is a bit extreme. That's why it sais "holmegård", not a replication of an artifact :)
Oldbow, I haven't posted a full draw image yet. Hoping to post a picture of it when I have heat treated and finished it.
-
I think kviljo is right in that the amount of bending depends on the width of the outer limb. I like the fact that his bows bend a little. There is another significant difference in the bows you guys posted. It appears that kviljo's bow has quite a bit of narrowed outer limb. abd3112's bow has very little narrowed limb by comparisons. It was educational for sure. Justin
-
I would say that there is only an indirect relation between width and amount of bend.
How much a section of limb should bend, depends directly on how thick it is. How much it actually is bending, depends on how thick and wide it is compared to the rest of the bow.
...which actually means that when evaluating the tiller of a bow, you only need to know the thickness. Thickness + tiller = width. In other words, if you know the tiller, and the thickness, it should be possible to calculate the width. However, it is a bit hard to do since very small variations in thickness do a lot to how much the bow should bend.
-
Interesting discussion. I noticed that the antiquity bow photo has the entire limb tapered in width, more like a flatbow, without a narrower outboard section. On the other hand, the illustration below it has the inner, working limb portion tapered and narrowed outboard section.
I have to agree with kviljo on the need for tapering to make it evenly stressed for durability and performance. Also, it seems that narrowing and thinning the outboard lever section until it (just) starts bending will allow it to be optimally lightened. When it just starts to bend is the signal that it is as light as possible but still rigid. If the outer levers are allowed to bend then why have them? ::)
Jim
-
I bet that there was just as many argument between the bowyers of the time over the merits of different bow styles. In those days, the supporters of the wrong man probably starved or were eaten up! >:D And sadly, I wonder how many types of bows were created of which there are no artifacts in existence?
Shouldn't we question how representative an artifact was of the state of the art at the time? Was the artifact you are looking at the peak of a master bowyers skills? Or the first bow a boy made when trying to copy one he had seen someone else shooting? I have read a theory that the Iceman was still working on his bow and that it wasn't completely finished. If he had survived, would he have thrown away his makeshift bow when he got back to civilization and traded a bunch of hides and meat for a better one? How many of the bows of antiquity were made by craftsmen, and how many made out of necessity - with the idea in mind that ANY bow is better than none at all?
With a find like the Mary Rose, you can look at many bows and draw legitimate conclusions. With just a few bows, who knows? If an archaelogist finds one of "my" bows in the distant future, I hope they don't think that it is typical of the 21st century bowyers skills... :'( If I ever do make a truly fine Holmegaard, I'm NOT going to stick it in a glacier or a peat bog - I can tell you that much! ;D
Keith
-
Respect Kviljo, Respect Adb.
U both make beutiful bows. allthoug you do not agree on some fundamental teories. Now I am certainly not an expert on bows, but I am an engineer, and I follow both your arguments with great interrest.
I am not overly familiar with the Holmegaard design, and have not read much about it. But as an engineer I feel quite certaiin that noone have actually bend the wool in a 8000 year old artifact. Actually even a few hundred year old piece of wood will be very brittle even if stored under ideal conditions. Again I am no expert so please bear (or beer : )with me here. So if noone have bend this artifact, we do not actually know how the original did bend before it was put into the soil....
Now that being said, I did make a holmegaard look alike to my 4yo son allmost one year ago. This bow have taken much set which I only partially can blame on him not remembering to unstring the bow after shooting and leaving it strung overnight a couple of times. The nonbending outer limb is more than 1 third of the bows length. The nonbending outer limb, the bending inner limb and the nonbending hanlde section are all of equall lenght making them 1/5th of the bows n/n length. Its performance is fair for its drawlength and weight.
After reading Kviljos monolog early in this tread, I took this bow and slowly reduced the thicnkess and width of the outer limb until it started to bend just a little, and evenly. Still nearly all the bend is in the inner limb., The bend in the outer limb is not visible to the naked eye, but I have measured it. I was amazed of how much wood could be remooved from the allready narrow outer limbs.
The difference in performance was incredible. For his usual, heavy arrow (really very heavy for the draweigth as a real arrow thin enough for a 4yo boys draw weight woudl be very fragile) the difference was not very dramatic - about 20%, but I have an arrow made from the broken tip of a bamboo fishing rod. Very light and flexible. This was shot both before and after shaving, and after modification the shooting length was doubled.
Sadly the thin outer limbs could not withstand the usual handling of a 4yo so it broke the next day accompanied by a lot of tears.
Back to the argument from Kviljo, How could the bowyer know that the outer limbs where as light as could be unless he thinned them untill they just started to bend ?
No I want to ask a question that have come to my mind. If the outer limb of the Holmegaard did bend, even if it bend just a little. Is this a hybrid between a flatbow and a ELB ? Or is it even the precessor of the longbow we know from Englands history ?
Best regards
Ronald.
-
Keith, that's true, but I don't think we can transfer our internet-activated multi-cultural differentiated bowmakertraditions to the stone age :)
All mesolithic bows from Denmark seem to be of the same type. And that within a period of a couple of thousands years. So I think we can be pretty certain that there must have been a rigid bowmakerstradition that at least partly prohibited them from trying other experimental designs.
Nice one Ronnal! Although sad to hear the bow broke.
Very true, hopefully no one have tried to bend these old bows. Even the testbending of the 450 year old Mary Rose bows didn't go well.
There seems to be common agreement that the holmegårds are not the forefathers of the english longbow. At least that's what Gad Rausing stated back in 1967, in his book "The bow".
The English longbow seems to be tracable at least back to 3-400 AD, but it probably relates to Ötzis neolithic longbow as well. Anyway, the holmegård is really the typical flatbow, and that is pretty far from the longbow-type. Maybe it could have been possible to trace a development from the holmegård to the longbow, if we had more finds, but we don't have any evidence for it as I see it. I guess it really depends on how we define things. After all, our flatbow/longbow typology is something that we force upon the material, while there might not be such a separation between the bows in the first place. Maybe these are just "the best way to make a bow from a wooden stave", where elm forces a wider bow than yew. That way, one could imply an at least partly contionus tradition from holmegårds up till today. Some neolithic/bronze age bows, and the Alamannian type longbow could perhaps be seen as a transition between the flatbow and the longbow.
-
Nice bows--both of them!
I've just recently migrated over to this site from Leatherwall primarily. You guys know WAY more about making bows and the discussions are more constructive and informative as well. This holmegaard technology is new to me ;). It's interesting to see how bowmakers have been seeking stiffer, lighter tips and good tiller since the stone age. This is another way to skin the cat so to speak.
Jim
-
Jim, good to see you over here, I had a feeling it wouldnt be long before you showed up! Steve
-
Steve, thanks!
adb3112, Do you agree that in the full draw pic of your bow, that it looks like the inner limbs are bending more at the fades? Because they appear to bend that way to my eye, which supports the opposing argument. Jim
-
I think every one is missing the point abd is tryin to make, the bow is supposed to bend more it the fades, and the bows design apparently lends itself to such a tiller. I just started a bow with abd's traditional tiller, and i will post it when it is completed. In TBB 4 a Record setting flight bows is pictured and nearly all bend is right outside the fades, properly tillered( I know i wont be able to pull it off lol, but its worth a shot) this bow could stand up to the stress. Ty