There are apparently no Neolithic bows surviving from the Mediterranean area. But the use of these weapons is depicted in a number of rock paintings in eastern Spain.
Many books on early man show depictions of these paintings. Photographs, however, do them more justice. People in the drawings are somewhat stylized, but the proportions are good, particularly when animals are shown. It is fair to assume the Spanish bows were typical Neolithic yews. Quality yew grew in the high country of Spain and Italy. Centuries later this wood was exported to England to create an archery legend of a different sort.
Some bows in the drawings show a set-back in the handle even when drawn. Clark incorrectly says this can only be accomplished by artificially warping the wood, but as hundreds of modern bowyers know, it is easily accomplished by using a naturally reflexed stave.
Bow hunting is often shown as a dynamic team effort in the drawings. The most famous shows a line of bowmen shooting arrows into red deer, presumably being moved in a drive.
Another drawing shows a melee of archers shooting ibex. Curiously, most of the ibex are shot in the neck. This may have been done to prevent a fast kill that could send the ibex down a mountainside — a hazard faced by modern sheep hunters. Perhaps it was more effective to deliver a wound that would leave the ibex dead in his bed, where he could be retrieved the next day. Several red deer are also shown shot in the neck.
The Spanish archers had plenty of nerve. One painting shows an auroch bull, impaled with arrows like a pin cushion, thundering in a mad rage after a fleeing bowman. The result of such an encounter is left to our imagination.
The Spanish rock paintings also document early military use of archery. One shows a unit of about 10 men trading shots with a group of about 17. Most of the combatants are running, and they are shown only a few yards apart. The scene suggests a combination of military organization and blood lust.
Other paintings may depict such organization. In one, a group of men with bows raised over their heads walks single file behind a man wearing a headdress. Another painting shows a warrior wearing a headdress mortally wounded and falling in battle. Yet another shows a prone individual, filled with arrows, who has just been executed by a line of archers.
Other ancient European artwork shows bowhunters chasing game while accompanied by dogs.
THE BRONZE AGE
The Neolithic yew styles survived well past the beginning of the Bronze Age, but they were soon to disappear.
This happened when bowyers learned they could make a bow with a single ring forming the back. This yielded an economic benefit. If the wood immediately under the bark could be the bow's back, the woodworking required to finish a double edge-ringed back was eliminated. Backward bows would sometimes still be made of smaller pieces of wood. But if larger pieces were used, the back followed one ring.
In the Bronze Age, bow design and construction settled into a familiar routine that would last for centuries.
This new technique also made things much easier when using "character" wood with bumps and dips on the surface. Evidence suggests all the older bows were made of extremely straight-grained material. By making the back follow one ring, bowyers could now handily use more common pieces of wood with more flaws.
Rausing said the oldest example of a bow with a single ring on the back is the Margreteberg, Vasby bow from Sweden. One end of a limb was found but the wood type is undetermined. Rausing says the first composite bows appeared in the Bronze Age. He speculates the Margreteberg bow could be a wooden copy of a composite. He says this because the bow had a very deep section of wood left behind the nock, which was cut across the back. Cutting the outer ring for the nock, however, could require such reinforcement to prevent fracture.
The bow apparently began a decline as a military weapon during the Bronze Age. The Iron Age began about 1,000 B. C., hot on the heels of the Bronze Age. Rausing classifies succeeding bows as Iron Age types.
These small knots on the back of an elm Holmegaard replica are showing no signs of deterioration.
Longbow, by Robert Hardy, lists some finds not included by Rausing. They include the 1935 discovery of an oak longbow found in Denmark, and dated between 1,500 and 2,000 B. C. Hardy says wood was removed only from the belly side. If this bow follows one ring on the back, and the dating is accurate, this may be the oldest bow of the modern conventional type. Hardy also mentions an oak flatbow found in Scotland, dated to 1,300 B. C.
Other recent finds were described in an article published by the Society of Archer Antiquaries. A number of bows were described that were found in the Italian lake of Ledro between 1929 and 1967. The wood is not identified. The bows are dated to the Bronze Age. They include bows made in the Holmegaard and Neolithic yew styles.
They also include a surprise. One of the bows looks just like a deflex recurve, which — in laminated glass form — became so popular in the 1950's and 1960's in the United States. The longest of these artifacts is 144 centimeters (56.5 inches). This appears to be a deviation from the man-sized bows used further north. The article describing these bows depicts the artifacts, and they show an extreme level of string follow. Shorter unbacked bows drawn fairly long lengths tend to follow the string excessively. By comparison, strain on the wood is at a more acceptable level and string follow tends to be reduced in unbacked man-sized bows.
THE IRON AGE
When the Iron Age began, archery was apparently suffering a decline in Europe. By this time agriculture supported nearly every population; the bow no longer fed as many people as it once had. Advances in weapon technology produced swords and socketed spear heads. When archery reappeared in war, it was as long-range artillery. The close-range fighting was done by the man with the sword, who was relied on to close with and crush the enemy.
The bogs of Denmark and Northern Germany have yielded a number of Iron Age bows. They include discoveries at Vimose, Kragehule, Thorsbjerg, and Heechterp. Thirty-six bows were also found on a buried boat at Nydam. These bows date between 100 and 350 A. D., and are made like the English longbow. They follow one ring on the backs and have a basic D cross-section along their entire length. Some — like the Stellmoors and Mary Rose bows — also show a near-circular cross-section.
As a group, they are all not as wide or deep as the bows from the Mary Rose, which sank in 1545 A. D. Hardy says one of the Nydam bows was 1.1 inches wide and 1 inch deep at the thickest point. Rausing says these bows were yew, but Hardy said they were yew and fir.
The Vimose bows range from 66 to 77 1/2 inches in length. The strongest was 1.4 inches wide. The bowyers apparently left the yew sapwood as they found it on the tree. Some limb tips are almost entirely sapwood.
Rausing claims the Kragehul bows were ceremonially broken. Aside from that, they are identical to the Vimose bows. The Nydam bows' lengths range from 70 to 73.6 inches.
While these bows are virtually identical to the later English yew bows, they had their own peculiar features. Some had nocks cut into the wood, while others had two sets of nocks cut on each end. Presumably, this allowed the archer to use a heavier weight with the inner nocks, and a lighter weight with the outer nocks. Some nocks were cut as slots in the bow's back. Others had nocks cut in from both sides.
Jim Hamm has a theory about double-nocked bows that deserves consideration. A sinew or gut string will stretch in wet weather, dropping the bow's brace height. Under these circumstances, the archer could return brace height and bow weight to normal by simply slipping the string from the inner to outer nock.
Some of the bows are cut on the ends, as if they had been fitted with horn or metal nocks. A metal nock survives on a Nydam bow. Rausing describes it as 3.5-inch sharpened point, which could have been used as a lance in a fight.
A number of these bows also show signs of being wrapped. None of the wrappings survive, but marks are left on the wood, perhaps by resin used to attach the wraps. The wrapping were put on as ribbons about 4/lOths of an inch wide. Some wrappings circled the bow like stripes on a candy cane. Others crisscrossed on the back and belly. (Whatever urge the Meare Heath bowyer felt was obviously duplicated by these bowyers.)
If a modern observer was handed one of these Iron Age bows, he would certainly identify it as an English longbow. But just as Leif Erickson beat Columbus to the New World, other Scandinavians also beat the English to the English longbow.
This bow type may have survived until the English adopted it. Germanic tribes used the design to inflict losses on the Roman legions in several battles. The Germans' descendants later became the Saxons of England, but it has never been clearly demonstrated that the yew longbow went with them. Many later writers claim the English Saxons used short bows.
There is plenty of reason to think that mass production played a role in the development of the long yew design. The Danish, German, and English bows were all used for fighting. So the bowyers had the task of arming a number of men. Under these circumstances, there is a real advantage to producing as many weapons as possible from a single log. Make the bows narrow, and you will get more bows per log. Make each bow thick enough, and you will obtain the desired draw weight. Make the bow long enough and you will be assured of durability. The highly elastic yew will stand the strain of such a design. The Danish-German-English bow fulfilled all of these requisites.
In his 1926 book Archery, Robert Elmer argues that Scandinavians and Saxons spread the yew longbow to Great Britain before the Norman invasion of 1066. Elmer disputed claims that the Saxons were using short bows in 1066. He said this error stems from Saxon drawings not drawn to scale, and was given credence by an incompetent writer for Encyclopedia Britannica, who spread the information. Elmer also attacks the idea that the English longbow was copied from the Welsh bow. This claim deserves thought, since the Welsh bow was elm and the English bow was nearly a carbon copy of the Continental yew.
Rausing said the yew longbows appeared again in Germany in the 8th Century. Those we call Vikings, who came from Norway, Sweden, and Denmark, also used the same yew longbow. As evidence of Elmer's claim of Viking forays into the British Isles, Rausing said a Viking longbow and sword were found in an Irish crannog. In 870 A. D., the Danes defeated the Anglican King Edmund in Great Britain. Adding injury to insult, they tied him to a tree and skewered him with arrows. According to legend, this tree was torn apart in a storm in the early 1900's and metal arrowheads came falling out.
In case we agree too quickly with Elmer's arguments, Rausing said a Saxon grave on the Isle of Wight contained arrowheads and "traces" of a bow five feet long. A few such traces, however, are a poor substitute for an entire bow.
He also writes the Eranks were using short flatbows in the 10th Century, and bases this conclusion solely on depictions of artwork, which are poor substitutes for actual artifacts. Elmer's criticism is a valid one: Much old artwork is so stylized that the dimensions are completely unreliable. As an example, Elmer cites Swedish rock carvings. One shows a man shooting a bow that looks about three feet long. But a nearby carving shows a man behind a plow being pulled by animals "that look more like Scotch terriers than anything else."
Even though the narrow, long yew was spreading near and far, the old concept of the wide-limbed Holmegaard and Meare Heath was still around.
In Asby, Stigtoma, Sweden, the ends of a spruce flatbow were found, dated between 400 and 700 A. D. Rausing shows a drawing of one of these pieces. The bow appears to follow one ring on the back in typical Iron Age style. But the end of the limb is extremely wide with very little width taper. If this bow was dose to man-sized, it was just as overbuilt as the Meare Heath or the largest Holmegaard. This overbuilding would have been very valuable in a bow made of spruce, which is much less elastic than yew.
An early wood-backed bow appeared in Europe. A 1678 account describes the contemporary Lap bow of northern Scandinavia. The bow was birch, backed with pine which had been applied with fish glue.
One type of wooden bow has attained legendary status even though no artifacts survive: the Welsh bow. The legend stems mainly from an account written by Gerald de Barri, also known as Giraldus Cambrensis, or Gerald the Welshman. An Englishman, he journeyed through Wales in 1188, and described a siege at Abergavenny Castle in 1182. Pursued by Welsh archers, two soldiers ran into a castle tower and slammed the oak door behind them. The enraged Welsh let fly and sent their arrowheads completely through the door, which Gerald said was "a hand," or about four inches, thick. Such hostile encounters were common. The English and Welsh fought like cats and dogs for generations.
Gerald said the Welsh bows were made of elm "rough and lumpy, but stout and strong" and capable of inflicting severe wounds at close range. Hardy argues that Gerald's Latin, correctly translated, also says the bows could shoot a long distance.
If a real Welsh bow is ever discovered, it will be archery's biggest archaeological find since the Meare Heath. Some writers say the Welsh bow was short. This speculation is based on drawings. Hardy shows such an original drawing of a Welsh archer. The bow seems short, but the artwork is not to scale. The bow is as thick as the archer's wrist and the arrowhead is bigger than his fist. Elmer would agree such depictions are completely unreliable.
Pausing said Gerald wrote that the Welsh weapon was a flatbow. Hardy attacks Rausing's translation, and implies he thinks the English yew descended from the Welsh bow.
Leaving such squabbles aside, let this writer assure you of one thing: For a heavy, unbacked elm bow to shoot as hard as it possibly can, the bow must be wide-limbed and man-sized, in the tradition of the Holmegaard, Meare Heath, De Zilk, and Asby-Stigtoma. Such a bow can indeed be "rough and lumpy," as are many such elm bows 1 have made. If the Welsh elms were flat but narrow, or wide and short, efficiency would drop noticeably. If they were made like the English longbow, efficiency would fall even more, in direct proportion to increases in draw weight.
COMPOSITE BOWS
Composite bows were around in early Europe. They appear to have originated from troops fighting for the Romans, and from invading eastern tribes, such as the Huns.
We should leave Europe for a moment and travel to the Lena Valley in Siberia, between 3,000 and 2,000 B. C. Hunters were using short bows with bellies made of antler. The antler remnants of these bows were found in graves. Pausing said sixteen "bows" have been found. The antler is always smoothed on one side. The other side is always flattened and roughened, for gluing. Fifteen of the bows were made of two pieces of antler, and the remaining bow used three pieces. All evidence suggests the bows were straight-ended, without recurves or siyahs. On one bow, nocks are cut into the antler. In the others, presumably nocks were cut into the wood protruding from the ends. The length of these bows ranges from 40 to 59 inches. This, combined with the antler bellies.
Increases the suspicion the bows may have been backed with sinew. Conceivably, the bows could have used wood and antler only.
Either way, the composite bow concept is extremely old.
One of the earliest types in Europe was the Yrzi bow. It had a horn belly, wooden core, and sinew back. There were no recurves or siyahs, but the bow was shaped like a C bent toward the back when unstrung. The bow used laths of bone for the limb tips, and the nocks were cut into the bone.
These bone pieces have been found in ancient Roman camps. They have also appeared in Russia, China, and Hungary.
Rausing says Hun bows also used bone reinforcements at the handles. An eastern tribe called the Avars invaded Europe at the beginning of the Middle Ages, using composites with recurved ears. Rausing says the Hun bow was straighter at the ends, similar to the Yrzi bows.
Like the Welsh bow, the classical Grecian bow has become legendary although no artifacts survive. Homer described it as two ibex horns joined at the handle. Rausing said this cannot be done because of the shape of ibex horns. He apparently did not know that horn and baleen — like wood — can be steamed into a new shape. Tim Baker once sent me a small piece of baleen about a foot long that he had recurved. I cut nocks and strung it. It pulled about three pounds. It shot an arrow weighing about 50 grains with a force that surprised me. If the mechanical problems can be licked, I have no doubt a solid-horn bow could be extremely effective.
But Rausing may be right when he says the Grecian bow was a composite. To be sure, the scores of Renaissance artists who depicted the Grecian bow never saw one.
ARROWS
Perhaps the most surprising thing about ancient European arrows is that the bifaced stone arrowhead — so familiar in America because the Indians used them — was a late development.
The earliest European arrows used heads made of retouched stone flakes. The bifaced head usually has a lens-shaped cross section with scars on both sides.
The oldest European stone heads were made by taking a flake knocked from a core, and working the edges only. These heads typically had a smooth surface on one side and fluted scars on the other. By the Bronze Age, bifaced arrowheads were finally in widespread use.
Chisel-shaped stone arrowheads such as these were used extensively in Stone Age Europe. They are easily made from small flakes.
Perhaps we should say "proven bifaced arrowheads," because a collection of artifacts more than 15,000 years old tantalizes the imagination.
From a cave in Eastern Spain emerged a number of beautifully made bifaced points which were the right size for arrows. Clark shows several at actual size, with some 1.5 inches long and one only 15/16ths of an inch.
These points are from the Late Solutrean industry. Earlier and later industries (specifically, the Magdalenian) concentrated on blades knocked from cores. But the biface was in its glory in the Solutrean, with superb bifaces of all sizes produced.
Some publications say the Solutrean diet included deer and goats. Conceivably, the small Solutrean points could have been used with an atlatl on deer and goats. They cannot be accepted as arrowheads without more evidence, which does not exist.
The earliest definite European arrowheads are described in “Pa jagt med stenalder-vdben" (A Hunt with Stone Age weapons), or "Macro and Micro Wear Traces on Lithic Projectile Points," published in the Journal of Danish Archaeology Volume 3, 1984. The authors are Anders Fisher, Peter Vemming Hansen, and Peter Rausmussen.
This paper divides the flake arrowheads into two types. One is the Brommian point, made from a fluted flake. Sometimes, a tang is chipped into the base. Larger Brommian points were probably used on spears or darts, or as knives. The second is the transverse, or chisel point. The sharp edge faces the path of the arrow, like a chisel. (This type seemed most common among the Danish Holmegaard-era archers.)
The authors conducted a number of tests (including shooting replica points into recently killed animals) and concluded the wear traces shown by many transverse and Brommian artifacts are those that would have resulted from hunting. Four arrows have been found with chisel-shaped points still attached. The Danes also note bones have been found which were struck with chiselshaped points.
The blade, burin, and microlith stone technologies predate archery. Apparently the earliest archers simply modified these flakes and microliths as arrowheads. 1 made and shot a few Brommian points into a dirt embankment, and they all broke quickly. By comparison, a good biface — even if made of glass or obsidian — proved more durable. This may be why the biface replaced the flake head.
Brommian style heads were found with the Stellmoor arrows. At the same excavation, splinters of stone were found in reindeer bones.
Microliths — flakes even smaller than Brommian heads — were found on an arrow from south Sweden, Clark says. A pointed piece was used as the tip with a longer flake positioned on the side of the shaft as a cutting blade. Both were set in the shaft with resin.
Clark says an arrow found at Zugerburg-Gasboden Switzerland had a bifaced head mounted to the shaft. The end of the shaft, the wrappings, and all but the edges of the biface were covered with resin. This may have been an attempt at improved penetration, by creating a smooth surface.
Split wood such as pine, ash, and yew were typical European arrow shafts. The Danes used guelder rose, which is a viburnum. Many of these arrows may have been worked from a shoot.
The Stellmoor arrows seem unique among ancient European arrows, because they were spliced. Both shaft and foreshaft were made of pine. Foreshafts seemed to range from 6 to 7.8 inches long. The longest surviving Stellmoor arrow, out of more than 100 found, is 29 inches long. Perhaps the Stellmoor archers carried spare foreshafts, in case a miss broke the foreshaft.
Ancient arrows tended to be on the long side. An incomplete Holmegaard arrow is 86 centimeters (33 inches). Another Danish arrow was 102 centimeters (39.7 inches).
This is consistent with primitive arrows used elsewhere. North American Indian arrows were frequently long for the draw. Arrows used in South America and New Guinea are often quite long.
My experiments with wooden bows and untipped arrows have convinced me that using extra-long arrows makes accuracy easier because the arrow's center of gravity is in a more favorable position (which is to say, closer to the bow than the string as the bow is drawn). This is supported by the accounts of Maurice Thompson, who said he and his brother Will used untipped reed arrows about a yard in length.
Ancient European arrows seem to have been fletched with split feathers. One Danish arrow shows fletching 16 centimeters (6 1/4 inches) long. Clark notes many white-tailed eagle bones have been found at Danish Stone Age sites, suggesting this bird provided a favorite fletching.
The authors of "Pd jagt..." note one arrow was found at Vinkelmose in Denmark that had a barrelled shaft, tapered on both ends and thicker in the middle.
Socketed metal arrowheads were found with the Danish and German Iron Age bows. With the composite bow came the first use of socketed three-blade heads in a style that would be familiar to many bowhunters. The greater striking force of the composite bows made three-blade heads an effective option. Since a wooden bow hits with fewer foot-pounds of force, penetration would suffer with three-blade heads. Two-blade heads are far more effective with wooden bows, then and now.
USING THE DESIGNS TODAY
Even if you have no interest in "duplicating" ancient European bows, you can still make good use of ancient European designs and techniques.
American archery writers for many years scorned woods such as ash, hickory, elm, and oak for bows. There was logic to this criticism, because Osage orange and yew can stand higher levels of strain than these "white" or "second-string" woods. This means the white woods are not the best candidates for the narrow-limbed designs favored by the bowyers who used Osage and yew.
However, if we make a white-wood bow from healthy wood with a moisture content of about 9 percent, and we make the bow man-sized with limbs about two inches wide, things change. Now, the white wood can stand the strain of shooting. If the bow is well-made, there will be very little string follow. And the white wood bow will shoot just as fast as a narrow Osage or yew bow of similar weight. It will also be just as durable. (See Vol. 1 chapters on Design and Performance and Other Bow Woods.)
Whether you intend it or not, this design is the descendant of the ancient European bows. If the limb width is fairly constant along most of the limbs, you have a bow that mimics the Meare Heath or Asby-Stigtoma design. If limb width tapers more sharply from mid-limb to tip, you have a bow that mimics the Holmegaard design.
When available, board staves of woods such as oak and hickory can make fine bows. They can be unbacked and edge-ringed, when the cut-through rings appear as straight lines on the back, parallel with the limbs. This edge-ringed technique was used by the Stellmoor bowyers.
Tim Baker wrote in Volume 1 about the advantages of removing the high crown from the back of a bow made from a small log. Creating this flat back improves distribution of strain in the limbs, improving durability and makes it easier to minimize string follow. The trick is to make the cut-through rings appear as straight lines on the back. Baker says it is also quite important to make the back as parallel as possible with the fibers running end-to-end along the stave. Baker and others who use this technique are duplicating the double edge-ringed method used with the Neolithic yews.
It is a method with valuable potential. It allows the bowyer to make a flat-backed, wide-limb bow from a small-diameter tree.
RECONSTRUCTIONS
If you want, you can make bows exactly like the ancients.
A Holmegaard replica has a special requirement. The ancient Holmegaards did not have rings appearing 100 percent as perfectly straight lines on the back. Most of the rings did appear as straight lines, but the Holmegaards were often made with the center rings on the back disappearing into feathered points. Sometimes these points were aimed at the handle, sometimes the tips, sometimes both.
This is a close-up of the back of an elm Holmgaard replica. The rings of growth feathering off were also found on the back of some originals.
Here's the special requirement: If a Holmegaard is made this way, the limbs must be almost identical in length, and the limbs must bend evenly. If the bow is not made this way, the feathered points of grain on the back may tend to separate.
All drawings and photos of Holmegaards I have seen show limbs virtually the same length.
A backward bow will also have these feathered points of grain. The backward bow is also safer if the limbs are the same length.
If a Holmegaard is made so no feathered points appear on the back, odds of success will be better in case one limb is longer than the other. This requirement
The growth rings on the back of this Neolithic yew replica appear as straight lines and feathering points near the limb tip.
Was revealed to me when I made an elm Holmegaard replica with one limb about an inch longer than the other. A feathered point on the shorter limb began to lift up slightly. I was puzzled, since the original Holmegaards had backs made this way. I couldn't decide what to do until I remembered a couple of earlier bows given strong pulls when the limbs were unequal. One bow splintered on the back. On the other bow, a limb snapped in two. With each bow, the damage occurred on the stiffer limb. The limb causing the trouble on the Holmegaard was the stiffer limb.
I shortened the longer, more limber limb. I closed the damaged feather point with cyanoacrylate glue and sanded it smooth. It stayed closed. End of problem.
If a Holmegaard or backward bow is made correctly, it can yield other surprises.
This backward bow is in no danger of breaking despite the tool marks on the back.
This ash Holmegaard replica cracked in the back above a knot entering from the limb’s side. In retrospect, this spot should have been left raised.
Tim Baker sent me a backward bow made of walnut. The back is interesting. It has many tool marks that would break a bow following one ring on the back. But this bow is in no danger of breaking.
This example inspired me to completely flatten some small knots on the elm Holmegaard, to see if they would splinter or deteriorate. The bow is thoroughly broken in, and the knots show no sign of damage.
This was an interesting test, but another bow yielded different results. An ash Holmegaard split almost immediately on the back above a knot that came out of the side of the limb. Another knot on the ash — which looked almost exactly like a knot on the elm — also began to crack immediately.
Therefore, the safest practice with a Holmegaard has to be raising the knots on the back. This is done exactly like raising a knot on a normal bow. With one exception: You're not following one ring.
Baker suggests ash is a poor candidate for a Holmegaard bow. He suspects odds of success are improved by sticking to woods with a better tension-to-com-pression ratio, such as elm, hickory, yew, oak, or Osage.
Some writings note the original Holmegaards were made of elm grown in the shade, with fairly fine grain. However, thin rings are not a requirement for a Holmegaard or backward bow. They can also be made successfully with thicker-ringed wood. In terms of performance, adequate limb width is more important with an elm Holmegaard.
I attempted to glue a riser onto the back of a backward bow, to create the Holmegaard look. The wood cracked under the riser at the first small bend.
If cut-through rings feather off the back of a Neolithic yew replica, the safest plan has to be to make the limbs equal length.
There is also a benefit to making sure the bow is made so the arch of the rings are centered in the middle of the bow. If they are off center, I have found the bow may warp to one side. This is not a functional liability, but cosmetics are affected.
It is worth mentioning there are no "snake" bows or "character" bows among available depictions of ancient European bows. Some of these bows look pretty rough. But the bowyers tended to use very straight-grained material. It is easiest to imitate the ancients and use the straightest grain you can find.
However, character wood can be used if workmanship meets the challenge.
' Keep the bow limb parallel with the grain. If the rings show a bump in your Holmegaard stave, best to make sure the finished limb has the bump left in it. If you make an incorrect diagnosis of how the grain runs, the back of the bow may splinter.
You do not need yew for a double edge-ringed bow. You can use virtually any wood and get good results by following Baker's advice. If not using yew, you can expect best results from a flatbow design. If using a white wood, you can expect best results by making a long, two-inch wide flatbow.
The question can be asked if Neolithic yews could have been built in some style other than that depicted in the illustrations. The answer is yes.
Tim Baker's earliest readings on the subject simply said Neolithic yews were all heartwood. So he grabbed some yew and cut all the sapwood off. He was left with the outer heartwood rings forming the back. The back did not follow one ring perfectly, however. A few rings, perhaps three or four, had been cut across in a number of spots. But the back was nonetheless quite parallel with the rings.
The bow worked fine. Baker has concluded that unless badly tillered or grossly abused, such an all-heartwood yew bow will be durable and perform well. Most of Baker's bows made this way are fairly light, quite long, or both. I gave the theory a sterner test by making a 67-inch bow that pulled 60 pounds. There is no sapwood and several heartwood rings have been cut across on the back. Aside from that, it looks like an English longbow. It has been shot about 1,000 times and is in perfect condition.
A successful variation of the Neolithic yew technique is to remove the sapwood and allow the outer yew heartwood rings to form the back of the bow.
No
My bow had knots in the back. I raised them by leaving them surrounded by a mound of white sapwood that protrudes from the heartwood back. This proved a superb way to produce an unbacked yew bow when the original stave had knots in the back. Before learning this lesson, the only thing 1 could think of was to put rawhide on a yew bow with knots in the back.
If making a Holmegaard, backward bow. Neolithic yew, or all-heartwood yew, there is a step you can take that can help you a great deal. A very great deal. Like a 15 on a scale of 10.
1 have gotten away with bloody murder on unbacked bows by giving them long stringing time before 1 give them long draws. These bows had less than ideal backs. The rings were particularly thin, or the spring growth was thick, or the rings had been cut through here and there.
Let's say we have a new, unbacked bow. The tiller looks great on the tillering board. We string the bow, and the tiller still looks good. It's not too heavy. We pull the bow to half-draw a few times, and everything looks rosy.
If all this is true, my next preferred step is to set the strung bow aside for at least six hours.
Keep in mind that when I'm hunting, my bow will be strung for six or eight hours at a stretch. It is my belief that if an unbacked wooden bow cannot stand long stringing time like this, it's hardly worth owning.
Also keep in mind that if an unbacked wooden bow is designed well and built well, long stringing time is not a problem. The bow will not take on excessive string follow, because a good bow is made to stand the strain. It is long enough for the draw length and wide enough for the draw weight. And when the bow is used for hunting, it will be thoroughly broken in. That new unbacked bow we just put aside is not thoroughly broken in. The wood under compression is providing more resistance now than it will when the bow is broken in. And because it provides more resistance, it will put more strain on the back now than it will later. The back will be able to take it later. It may not be able to take it now.
I once finished two unbacked bows simultaneously, made the exact same way. The wood was the same, and the condition of the backs was identical. One was given eight hours stringing time before I gave it a long draw. It held up fine and is still a fine shooter. The other bow I braced for the first time. All was OK. I pulled it to half-draw. All was OK. I pulled it to full draw. It exploded.
My all-heartwood yew bow mentioned above gave me the heeby-jeebies when I first finished it. "No way is this gonna work," I warned myself. At 5 p. m. on a Monday, I braced the bow for the first time. I sat down, trying to work up the nerve to draw the bow. I finally worked up the nerve at 5 p. m. Tuesday. The bow had sat braced all that time. This bow still follows the string 11/2 inches, and I sigh in ecstasy when I think about how fast it shoots. So 24 hours of stringing time was not too much. Another large part of this bow's success resulted from not bending it very far when it was still too heavy (before attempting one of these bows, it would be a good idea to read, then re-read, the chapter on Tillering in Vol. 1).
It is certainly true that pulling the new unbacked bow to half-draw 200 or 300 times, then increasing the draw with more pulls, probably works as well. OK, I'm lazy.
In
It is also true that a fellow could make 20 or 30 unbacked bows and pull the daylights out of them when first braced and experience no trouble. As for myself, better safe than sorry.
? ??
Those of us devoted to wooden bows often shake our heads when some compound or plastic-toting writer refers to bowhunting as "an ancient sport."
Hunting with a space bow is a sport only about 25 years old.
Hunting with a fiberglass bow is a sport only about 40 years old.
Hunting with a wooden bow is a sport thousands of years old.
If ancient or traditional is what you seek, what better bow to hunt with than one conceived in ancient Europe?
World History
