Archaeologists and Bowyers – Advice please
- Thread starter Broch
- Start date
This is all very fascinating but I have to say I will believe the analysis carried out by modern scientific methods (2012) to those conducted in the 40's and published in the 50's. The species identified are recorded in the up to date publications - if there had been others they would have included them I'm sure.
The archy team have already proven that a suitable bow can be made out of willow to hunt fish and small game - I suspect duck and geese - so there's no argument about whether it would have worked. Consequently, I see no point in discussing whether or not such a bow was worth making (though I did start of by asking that exact question) - my quest now is to decide for myself how useful it would be.
I will say I'm pleased the question has resulted in so much discussion
The archy team have already proven that a suitable bow can be made out of willow to hunt fish and small game - I suspect duck and geese - so there's no argument about whether it would have worked. Consequently, I see no point in discussing whether or not such a bow was worth making (though I did start of by asking that exact question) - my quest now is to decide for myself how useful it would be.
I will say I'm pleased the question has resulted in so much discussion
There is, I think, a small catch. The old identification were apparently made from "twigs" that might not have been saved to later analysis (bad practise if so).
Also B said that they did not actually list the species found, to me that shows that it was not of primary interest.
Somebody stated that a bow might be made of almost any wood, I believe that to be true. But some bows are better than others. No one who's life might depend on it makes a worse bow than necessary. The list is important because of that, if a better wood was available that makes the willow bow a practise one with high probability. I would put out an argument that birch might be better but that again depends on what kind of wood was available. Here birch growing on wet land is of old considered mechanically inferior.
Also B said that they did not actually list the species found, to me that shows that it was not of primary interest.
Somebody stated that a bow might be made of almost any wood, I believe that to be true. But some bows are better than others. No one who's life might depend on it makes a worse bow than necessary. The list is important because of that, if a better wood was available that makes the willow bow a practise one with high probability. I would put out an argument that birch might be better but that again depends on what kind of wood was available. Here birch growing on wet land is of old considered mechanically inferior.
Also while interesting the on spot species found does not mean that others were not used, at least I would take a few klicks walk if I knew there to be better material.
Cherry (avium) is up there in my top 5 bow woods. But again its finding the right tree. I made about 11 bows and all were lovely, even the short lived knotty bows that were made just to test a theory. We are talking 60" hunting weight bows.
Bird - padus is a much stouter gnarled relative and i would very much doubt a chance of finding an individual of bow worthiness.
All a moot point if we never had it mind.
Bird - padus is a much stouter gnarled relative and i would very much doubt a chance of finding an individual of bow worthiness.
All a moot point if we never had it mind.
Interesting but now it is not quite clear to me what you mean by "knot". I have not actually done a bow from bird cherry but several from rowan where the problem is to find a straight grained one instead of the usual twisting.
dwardo - would you have a look at the proposed profile in post #55 please; is that worth trying in your experience or do you think I should go straight for a thicker mid section (or any other change
).The only reason I have proposed trying that profile is because it appears that was what was being worked towards - but, again, maybe that was a mistake and a thicker mid-section was planned.
dwardo - would you have a look at the proposed profile in post #55 please; is that worth trying in your experience or do you think I should go straight for a thicker mid section (or any other change
The only reason I have proposed trying that profile is because it appears that was what was being worked towards - but, again, maybe that was a mistake and a thicker mid-section was planned.
Crikey dude that's hard to follow in a graph lol. Draw it on the back of a fag packet and email me a pick haha.
So what length and draw weight are you after and roughly what type of timber we looking at?
Badgers mass principal will help a bunch here as will ignoring modern draw lengths in favour of functional, not to mention folk were more vertically challenged back then so short arms = shorter draw-length (generally)
- OK, I'll see if I can find a fag packet! The weight will be no more than 20Lb I suspect and the bow length will be about 1.4m long. Judging by the dimensions of the original it would have been around 22mm wide and around 16mm thick at the centre tapering to 8mm round at the tips. Eventually, once I've experimented a bit with the profiles I intend to make a willow version but I'm thinking of trying hazel first (I don't see much point in using ash) - I've found some goat willow but need to cut, split and dry it.It needs to be good enough to shoot a goose/duck at 30m in my opinion.
It needs to be good enough to shoot a goose/duck at 30m in my opinion.
55 inch is certainly doable. So like a mini English longbow profile, more Mary Rose than Victorian.
My lads little bow is from cherry and just about 50" Completely the wrong profile but mass is mass so wont be far off what you are aiming for.
Just "feeling" measurements as i mostly made it in the woods but i had to bring it right down to get to near 20lb. I swear the thing was punching holes using a short draw before I removed 15+lbs from it. (and before he put a hole in next doors car/fence whilst I was at work)..
I think easily 30m with a sharp arrow and someone capable of making the shot. I do wonder though if they just got closer and made a crappier bow
It was the same for the paddle holmie bow or molly as it was called for a bit, with the wide inner limbs skinny outers. Was all the rage and modern bowyers given our resources can make anything work. But you do have to wonder if it was just a bow that was lost in a field buy a poor kid, one who will be getting a right telling off when he gets home. Or just a folly soon discarded. Imagine someone digging up a "lamborghini aventador" in a few thousand year and thinking crikey how did they get their shopping in this transport device? Why did they make it so fragile that it would only last a few k before needing an over-haul? Madness!
Hazel is a great place to start just need to find something with a bit of width so you can play with measurements.
To really throw a nade into the can o worms add in heat-treating
Last edited:
Similar threads
