[Archers] New Bow Classification (Period)

Mon Jan 24 18:36:43 PST 2005

Whether my bow fits the period category sort of depends on how you want to
interpret the rule.  I can include almost any modern bow or disallow almost
any actual period composite bow.

b.2.The bow must have a solid core of wood, or other period material. It
may have a single backing, and/or a belly lamination of any material.
However a period handbow should not simply have three thin laminations
with the power coming from the laminations.

and from your interpretation of the rule:

True, hence why a single lamination, on either (or both) sides of the
> bow was allowed.  It is also allowed in any material, partially from the
> aspect of allowing substitutions (ie, fiberglass as a substitution for
> period horn).

I have a core of wood throughout the bow.  (Not the same piece of wood but
it is wood) and only one fiberglass lamination on the belly and back.   At
first thought you might modify the rule to say a solid core of wood, however
that would disallow all period constructed Mongol style bows since their
core is at least five or more separate pieces of wood.  Also of course the
Mongol bows, and others have a sinew backing which adds to the power of the
bow  and any bow with wooden laminations will gain power from the
laminations.  And the horn belly of a Mongol bow is certainly there for
power almost exclusively.  Bows tend to split along the back not the belly.
And also of course you have just disallowed many of the English longbow
styles (i.e. Pip Bickerstaffe longbows which have no fiberglass but rely on
several laminations to give them their power and structural integrity.)
Nor could you shoot a traditional Yami to fit a Japanese personal since they
gain their power from combining several laminations of bamboo.

You also said:
A bow with a single thin fiberglass lamination, shoots
> nominally like one with a single horn lamination.  From 10ft away it can
> be impossible to tell the difference visually.  Yet the fiberglass bows
> can be much simpler to obtain.

Agreed but is the purpose to give a category that requires a bit more
commitment to archery to achieve success or just to look like your shooting
a period bow.  I don't know how a period definition can be written to
include all the possible types of bows.  But you could do it with simple
documentation.

This gets really tricky to my mind.  Trying to implement that,
> specifically, would make suddenly every marshal need to be a scholar on
> all types of period bows, from all cultures, during the 16th century
> back to pre-history.  And having folks get in arguments on the shooting
> line about the fact that in fact that is a period bow, and the marshal
> saying that it isn't.

The burden of proof should be on the archer to prove his period claim, not
the marshal to disprove his claim.
When I am wearing my pearl hat to judge an A&S category in which I have
little expertise I rely on the entrant to provide documentation that their
piece or construction is period (or if modern substitution is made that they
know what was really done.)
I don't see any marshal having to be an expert in any period style.  If you
want to shoot a period bow than bring something that shows what you are
shooting was period.  It isn't A&S so it shouldn't have to be to elaborate,
but if you want to stick a rest on a Mongol bow than bring a picture of a
Mongol bow with a rest.  If you want to back a bow with fiberglass than
bring something that talks about backing period bows with sinew which adds
to the power of the bow versus linen which doesn't materially affect the
power.  If you want to shoot a fiberglass belly bow than bring something
that shows they put horn on the belly.  In fact after a few events most
marshals in your area will know what you are shooting and give you a by on
the proof.

Many kingdoms grant Laurels to archers who make a study of archery and the
equipment.  Atlantia does not.  We have made  great progress within the
Archery martial skills of Atlantia.  If our best archers and crossbowman
gathered, any kingdom would be hard put to beat us and most probably
couldn't.  But we have a long way to go with the art side of archery.  To
open period classifications to almost any kind of "like" period bow will not
lend us much credibility on the artistic and craft side of archery.

You enter your crossbows in A&S (as well you should for they are beautiful)
Others of us are entering various other artistic and craft archery projects
from bows to quivers and arrows to bracers.  I personally believe that if we
continue to do this in our pursuit of archery as a craft we will eventually
see archery hold a place in A&S equal to armoring or cooking.  But it will
take a lot longer if we don't set period standards that will garner the
respect of the A&S side of the SCA

Having said all this, once the discussion is done I will support your
decision.

Oh! and no I will not claim my modern longbow as a period bow.  :>)

Colum

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Siegfried" <crossbow at freeshell.org>
To: "Peter Darby" <pjdarby at comcast.net>
Cc: <archers at atlantia.sca.org>
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2005 5:14 PM
Subject: Re: [Archers] New Bow Classification (Period)

> > Just for general discussion, here are some thoughts.  By definition my
fancy
> > modern longbow could be classed as a period bow.  It is 1/8 inch off
> > centercut and the core is of wood.
>
> Would it?  Think carefully; however I don't QUITE remember your bow
exactly.
>
> However, is it similar to this one in style/construction?
> http://www.3riversarchery.com/Product.asp?c=8&s=16&p=0&i=20931X
>
> If so, then no, it doesn't pass.  Realize that the phrasing used was 'a
> wood core, allowing a single backing and/or belly lamination'.
>
> That means that a modern laminate style longbow, as per that link, does
> not qualify.  It must be a stick, with an allowed backing and/or belly
lam.
>
> >  Laminations of wood I would allow
> > since many of the best bow woods tend to be somewhat expensive such as
yew
> > and Osage.
>
> True, hence why a single lamination, on either (or both) sides of the
> bow was allowed.  It is also allowed in any material, partially from the
> aspect of allowing substitutions (ie, fiberglass as a substitution for
> period horn).  Also from a slight conceed to allowing things to be a bit
> easier.  A bow with a single thin fiberglass lamination, shoots
> nominally like one with a single horn lamination.  From 10ft away it can
> be impossible to tell the difference visually.  Yet the fiberglass bows
> can be much simpler to obtain.
>
> Similarly would fall things such as the woodbows.com bows, which have a
> linen cloth backing.
>
> > I would further state that a period bow should replicate some
> > existing historical bow.  Here is where is would get tricky;
> > [snip]
> > I would stick with a definition that requires a period bow to be true to
a
> > historical type.
>
> This gets really tricky to my mind.  Trying to implement that,
> specifically, would make suddenly every marshal need to be a scholar on
> all types of period bows, from all cultures, during the 16th century
> back to pre-history.  And having folks get in arguments on the shooting
> line about the fact that in fact that is a period bow, and the marshal
> saying that it isn't.
>
> Nope, don't like it.
>
> Hence why the wording was brought up the way that it currently was.  The
> main driving force here, is to get more people shooting bows that look
> period, that look primitive, and to encourage, and call out, those that
do.
>
> Whether it is a Mongolian Recurve, ELB, Roman Composite Recurve, or a
> Native American Flatbow.
>
> (And yes, before it is asked, by the very vague way that the SCA rules
> are written, Native Americans are 'SCA-Period', as they were known in
> the 16th century to the courts of Europe, and in fact visited.  AND, I
> know at least 1 person in the SCA with a Native American Persona)
>
> >  Perhaps if
> > our period category became a source of pride for archers who are trying
to
> > reproduce historical equipment.  Their target accomplishments would then
be
> > ancillary to the interest and pride in their equipment.
>
> I agree.  At the same time though, I (and some other marshals), don't
> want it to become SO exclusive that noone is shooting in that category
> because there are only 2-3 bows that meet the category in Atlantia :)
>
> At that point, it has defeated the purpose of encouraging folks to move
> more period, because they had to jump from what they had to extremely
> period.
>
> Also note, this can always be changed in the future, and I expect this
> category, over the next (bear with me) decade+ to end up
> changing/growing/etc.
>
> Thanks for the comments ...
> NEXT!
>
> Siegfried
>
> _______________________________________________
> Archers mailing list
> Archers at seahorse.atlantia.sca.org
> http://seahorse.atlantia.sca.org/mailman/listinfo/archers
>