Archaeologists and Bowyers – Advice please

[Broch]

Archaeologists and Bowyers – Advice please

I have recently finished an Ash Longbow, and I’ve made a quite serviceable Holly ‘stick-bow’ that, to the best of my knowledge and surprisingly, has no archaeological evidence of use (I would enjoy being corrected on that). However, as some of you know, I am particularly interested in the Mesolithic and Neolithic peoples of Britain: how they lived and, in particular, how they used the plant and animal resources. So, my next project is a Mesolithic bow.

Obviously, I have been looking at Holmegaard and Mollaget bows but I’m also very interested in the bow found at Star Carr.

I’ve looked carefully at the dimensions and profile and, I confess, I’m not convinced. The one claim to fame for the bow is that it’s the oldest complete bow in the world; I suspect it’s not complete and that about a fifth of it is missing. Clearly, no one would like to admit that otherwise it becomes another Mesolithic part-bow. I also suspect it’s lost some of it’s girth due to shrinkage – why would anyone carve a bow from a stave (not a trivial task with flint tools) that wasn’t any stronger or better than one they could make from a stick?

So, my question to anybody in the know in the archaeology world is “is there any discussion on the bow that’s not published or public?” and my question to bowyers is “do you agree with me or, if not, what do you think the bow looked like?”.

 

[crosslandkelly]

I'll watch this with interest.

 

[Tengu]

I dont know much about bows...or the Mesolithic.

I would not be sure about your statement of the effort of work,

a) Flint tools are not much different than steel, and I suspect better than most grades brass/bronze

b) The bowyer, (probably a specialist by then, though I imagine most archers could make one at a pinch) probably wasnt concerned over time or effort.

c) Have you compared it to Anthropological bows; the Ona of South America made very nice ones. (Pitt Rivers or BM have one?)

 

[Broch]

I would not be sure about your statement of the effort of work,

a) Flint tools are not much different than steel, and I suspect better than most grades brass/bronze

Good point; I should have said that it's not a trivial task with any tools compared to making a stick bow.

c) Have you compared it to Anthropological bows; the Ona of South America made very nice ones. (Pitt Rivers or BM have one?)

Ona/Selk'nam bows are relatively 'young' but pretty much of a standard beautiful continuous tapered profile that can be found all over the world. European Mesolithic bows found in Denmark were typically 'flat' bows with stepped width although the Star Car one isn't, or doesn't appear to be - which makes it interesting.

 

[Toddy]

Do you mean this bow ?

Star Carr Wooden Bow - 3D model by University of York Archaeology (@UoYArchaeology)

Camera: Nikon D600 This wooden bow was discovered at the excavation site for Star Carr and Lake Flixton in 2015 under Professor Nicky Milner from the University of York. This model was archived using the Archaeology Data Service (ADS). Additional metadata and 3D data relating to this model is...

sketchfab.com

University of York has both a short film and a free to read book chapter on their research on the bow too.

The oldest complete bow in the world?

One of the most exciting discoveries at Star Carr was a wooden bow. In this film Mike Bamforth explains more.

www.futurelearn.com

Link is on that page for their articles.

I suspect you're perhaps trying to justify your own interest in the stick bow
Truthfully though, why would people have gone to all the effort to make any other kind if the stick bow was utterly reliable and effective ? Having made and used bows I can attest that the stick bow loses it's spring. It has nothing to create a difference in the tension along it's length and eventually it just kind of droops the shot, and one finds onself tightening and tightening the drawstring until it becomes totally ineffective.

Tapering a bow in a way tempers it. Using both heartwood and outer timber in the one length, like a good Yew longbow makes for a much superior tool.
As you know a flat bow isn't a 'stick' bow, and it's a lot of work to make a plain plank by hand from a round timber. Planks take on the curve though with use, and lose some of the spring as they do. I sometimes wonder if that's why the recurves were developed, to give back or enhance that spring. Then they compounded them

If your bow is pretty much your sole hunting method, then you want the best you can make and never mind how long it takes.

It's a fallacy to think that the people of the past worked and slaved every hour of their day just to scrape by. They didn't. They took as much satisfaction from making stuff as well as they possibly could, as we do.

As ever though, it comes down to resources. People use what they have, and humanity is both creative and adaptive, and prepared to search out the best materials they can. Doesn't always mean that they have it though, and the tiny proportion of surviving wooden artefacts in our UK is so very much not representative of anything more than just that; a tiny proportion.

We do have other very old bows in the UK, and as far as I know they're all shaped.

LIke this yew one from the Upper Tweed (near Carrifan wood) it's Canmore number is ID 71910, rc dates 4040 to 3640 bce





Interesting to hear how you get on with this

M

 

[John Fenna]

All very interesting - I too am interested in how our ancestors did things and am watching this thread with great interest!

 

[Wayland]

Can't help you much with this I'm afraid.

It's a subject that interests me but not one I know a lot about.

 

[Broch]

I agree with everything you're saying Toddy; it's all a matter of perspective and bows had been around a very long time by the Mesolithic period. I used the Star Carr research as my basis and, what is immediately obvious, is that it is asymmetric; it would be more symmetric and make more sense if it was about 20% longer - hence my proposal that it is not a complete bow. Of course, no body wants to admit that

I have successfully made stick bows that have lasted 'a season' - OK I have shot with them for fun over a period of months. If they are properly seasoned they do shoot well if the chosen limbs taper (as holly does) - OK, I accept that you would have difficulty making a 40 or 50Lb bow that way so you would be restricted to geese, ducks, and small game over no more than 30m (probably the range I take most of my prey over). My point is, the Star Car bow only pulls 10Lb - you don't need to split, season and carve a log to achieve that.

So - is there any disagreement in archaeology circles as to whether this is a complete bow or not? and what profile do we think the original bow had?

Here are the measurements for the bow as unearthed:

 

[Toddy]

Does the Star Carr bow have either notches or wear marks at both ends that would indicate that it is 'complete' as interpreted ?

Can you see such on the University of York's illustrations ?
Somewhere (heaven knows where, it was a long time ago when I was studying this) I have a print off from the site archives on the wooden artefacts that were recovered. I'm pretty sure if we can find the original archaeological illustration that it will clearly show the fine detail of the tips of the recovered bow. Bound to be available on the net by now, surely ?

M

 

[Broch]

I have:

"STAR CARR
NICKY MILNER, CHANTAL CONNELLER AND BARRY TAYLOR
Volume 2: studies in technology,
subsistence and environment"

and from the drawing (I'll see if I can upload a copy) one tip does not look as tapered or as finished as the other to me. I suppose, one thought may be that it was never completed or that it was abandoned because it was thinned too far at point 4 - just musings really

It's fascinating yet frustrating in equal measure!

 

[Broch]

I think you should be able to zoom into this drawing.

From the above reference publication,

Figure 29.7 (page 380): Bow <113300> alongside cross sections through bow and cross section of bow within pole (Copyright Chloe Watson, CC BY-NC 4.0).

 

[Broch]

If anyone's interested in this era, the Futurelearn course that Toddy's post references above is free and very interesting (perhaps a little light if you're well into this)

Explore Star Carr & Archaeology - Online Archaeology Course

Explore Star Carr, one of Britain's most important archaeological sites, with this online archaeology course from the University of York.

www.futurelearn.com

 

[Toddy]

Okay, from that we can't see whether it has notches or not.

All archaeological research has to be available for further study. That's the ground rules. So, you need to suss out where the artefact is being held, and if you are a genuine researcher or someone studying this with any valid reason, then they have to make it accessible to you. If that cannot be done for whatever reason (might be undergoing conservation for instance) then you ought still be able to access the actual drawings and photographs taken of the artefact.
If someone else has posited a similar suggestion re the length then perhaps those people might be able to help with your own research.

M

 

[Tengu]

What planet are you on, Toddy?

 

[Broch]

Thanks for the suggestions Toddy; I'll delve deeper.

Sorry, should have said, the full text says there is "no discernible nock or notch". But, as you're aware, there are ways of attaching a string to a light bow without a nock. Unfortunately the team haven't published the profile dimensions of the two trial bows they made and, I suspect judging from the photographs and the video, they made their limbs symmetrical.

The text also says that an experienced woodworker took just 1.5 hours to make the bow from the split willow stave using stone tools - so I take back all I said about time and effort!

 

[bobnewboy]

As a sometime hobby bowyer, I do wonder if this artefact is indeed an archery bow at all. Willow as a stave material would be a choice of a desperate bowyer as it is really rather unsuited to the task, even in experienced hands. I presume that in the era this bow is from, there would have been a much larger choice of wood species from which to make an archery bow, due to a much greater extent of forest in the country. Almost any other whitewood would be far better suited to the task, and would perform and last better as an archery bow than willow. If it was an archery bow, being made from willow and being of around 4 feet in length it would be unlikely to support much more than a 18-20 inch drawlength, and only a low draw weight as indicated by Broch. This would mean that it would be a marginal hunting or self defence weapon at best, because of its lowly performance. If it was longer and more symmetrical, then a longer lasting, passable bow might have been possible, but again it would only perform fairly poorly.

The artefact shows some set in the shape of the bow. Also the crafting of the bow shows knowledge of the grain orientation required to have the strength to be strung with a brace height. So I wonder if it could have been a friction fire lighting bow, rather than an archery bow? A stick item made in the way it was, considering the grain, and lighter section at one end - possibly the free, not held end - could be ideally suited for that task.

 

[Tengu]

Made from willow? Oh boy.

The people at Star Carr were in a wetlands environment, though presumably they had access to other woods.

And presumably they knew enough about wood properities to make an informed choice.

I have a mental picture of a guy breaking a bow upon a hunt; and making a stick bow in a hurry.

But this isnt a stick bow, as you said. its specialy formed from a log. A lot of effort

and a lot of effort for a bow drill bow.

Apart from Cricket bats, what is willow good for??

 

[santaman2000]

Double post.

 

[santaman2000]

.......

Baskets and fishing poles.

 

[Broch]

This if from early Mesolithic - so, no, there was not as much forest or the breadth of woods to choose from; the ice had not long receded. At this time there was no Ash or Oak and certainly not Yew - they will have come later by the late Mesolithic. The Landscape was much more wetland, reedbeds, Willow, and some Birch and Alder. We tend to loose track of the timescales but the Mesolithic period lasted about 5,500 years!

I agree though, Willow does not tend to make a good bow but it may have been 'good-enough' for its purpose whatever that was. The archaeological team made a replica and shot a fish - maybe that's all that was needed.

Unfortunately, one wood I do not have is willow so my experimental archaeology is doomed from the start. I'll have to find some