Thank you lots for posting this. (by the way, how do you insert pics into the text, not as attachement?) It is good to see these new angles.
I personally think the mollegabet bow IS a bow for someone small, might be adult or youth, male or female, but I don't see any other way to shoot than with the entire hand plus the arrow on that handle. I think the reason for the bows thickness is that it wasn't drawn as far as we do nowadays. long draw is much more typical for military bow use in historical contents. Many, in fact most, bow hunting pre-industrial cultures use shorter draws. There may be a mark on the arrow or just training used for a much shorter, yet constant draw. To get a decent weight, then, the bow will be thicker, looking overly hard to our eyes.
As far as the back of the Muldbjerg bow is concerned, I also think it is reduced to a certain shape. I wouldn't say carelessly, but pragmatically. Mind you, working with the tools of their time was very different, no such thing as a drawknife for that one bowyer. Much less cutting, much more splitting and slow grinding. And the way it is displayed next to a paddle makes it also more obvious: that bow was a tool, good enough was good enough. The fact that parts of the bow were later used in a fish trap makes it very clear that function was on the maker's mind. In fact, the holmegaard specimen looks made a bit more carefully.
