Talk:Composite bow

Comment

Good article, but you didn't mention anything about the string, such as what it was made of and how it is attached to the bow.

Not bad, but I believe there were problems with the glue in wet weather. -- ???

Someone (68.1.175.249) has added a comment to the effect that fish glue is less sensitive than hide glue to moisture. This is unreferenced and I propose to remove it. Richard Keatinge 09:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention the it was difficult to get the correct tiller. Without the correct tiller, it's difficult to even keep from losing the string when shooting. Very sensitive stuff.

My nitpick is in the bibliography, actually. The books are titled "The Traditional Bowyer's Bible".

Comments

The English in here is rather bad. The article is choppy, sometimes repetitive, and is often vague in addition to having some grammatical errors. Cleanup is required.

As noted above, there should be some sources, perhaps someone with knowledge of bows and a reference book could add additional information.

Micaelus 04:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I have had a go, adding and editing quite a large section from Bow (weapon), though there is plenty of room for further cleanup and improved references. Richard Keatinge 16:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there actual evidence that Asian nomads invented the bow? If this is merely "conceivable," the assertion should be restated in less specific terms or else dropped. PhD 14:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Good question. I don't think anyone has ever suggested that anyone else invented the things, but nobody wrote the details down at the time. Can you suggest a better phrase? Richard Keatinge 21:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I have added some notes of caution about bow performance. Kooi concludes that "The results of this research further indicate that the development of archery equipment may not be a process involving progressive improvements in performance. Rather, each design type represents one solution to the problem of creating a mobile weapon system capable of hurling lightweight projectiles. While a composite bow displays considerable design and technological innovations when compared to a self bow, it will not necessarily shoot an arrow farther or faster. Performance criteria such as those applied by Pope and Hamilton ignore the fact that a good or bad bow may only be gauged within the context of the functional requirements of the archer." I have added some comments which I hope may put occasional over-enthusiastic claims into a sound engineering perspective. Richard Keatinge 12:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by the sentence regarding asymmetric bows: "To some extent, this combines the power of a longer bow with the convenience of a shorter one." Technically speaking, a longer bow will be more flexible (and hence have lower draw weight and therefore less "power") than a shorter bow of the same width and thickness. I wonder if an explanation based on tillering or reduced stress on the material is more appropriate. Otherwise, I am thinking about removing or rewording that sentence. - Jtma (talk) 12:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, the phrasing was mine and could certainly be improved. I was trying to express the idea that, on a horse, a shorter lower limb allows the archer to use the bow more freely. The overall bow length (and hence draw length and energy stored) can be kept up by having a longer upper limb. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

No worries. The reasoning is akin to the why the Japanese Yumi is asymmetric. However, the Manchus successfully used very large, symmetric composite bows (up to 1.7 m in length when strung) from horseback. It could be the Manchus developed an innovative horseback shooting technique suitable for large bows, but it also makes me wonder whether there's more to bow asymmetry than just horseback usage. Let me ask around and get back to this point later. - Jtma (talk) 12:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Responding to Image request

The main article on bows has this "modern reconstruction of a historical composite bow", if that helps. --Grimhelm (talk) 14:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

...The bow in the image is made of fiberglass. I was going to leave it until we can get an image of a genuine item. But I'll leave it in for now. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I peruse a forum that some horn bow makers regularly visit. If I asked one of them for permission to use a photograph of their work on Wikipedia, would that suffice? - Jtma (talk) 12:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

If the author gives their permission in the specific form required by Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission), I think that's fine, not that I'm a lawyer. Definitely not if they won't, and worth noting that it's not OK if they just say it's fine to use on Wikipedia. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Great, I'll ask. The guy in question is a bowyer named Gao Xiang. He doesn't speak English, so we'll see if it's successful. In the meantime, let me give you a preview of the photos he posted on the forum: unstrung Kaiyuan bow and strung Kaiyuan bow. - Jtma (talk) 15:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

So I have replaced the initial photo with one of a genuine horn, bamboo, sinew composite. I obtained permission from Gao Xiang himself, and have submitted an email to the OTRS team for verification. - Jtma (talk) 01:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Source for poundage

Does anyone have a reliable source for the claims of high poundage in the lede: Some Mongolian composite bows are known to have been able to produce a draw weight of nearly 160 lb (72.5 kg).? - CompliantDrone (talk) 15:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I removed the claim since no one has provided a source for over six months. - CompliantDrone (talk) 06:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

This is a to-do for the future, but Stephen Selby's "Chinese Archery" contains historical sources that state Chinese horn bow draw weights were typically in the 70 kg range. I'm sure composite bows from other cultures had similar poundages. - Jtma (talk) 11:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Another reference: Adam Karpowicz's "Ottoman Turkish Bows: Manufacture & Design" discusses war bows in the 120 lb range. - Jtma (talk) 12:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Good article?

Is it time for a nomination? Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

To answer my own question, I hope so, and I have added the nomination. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Composite bow/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 10:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 10:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Initial comments

This article might make GA-status this time round, if sufficient work is carried out to bring it up to the required. Much of the article appears to be at our about GA-level, particularly the latter parts of the article, starting with the Origins and use section. However, the WP:Lead is clearly inadequate, as is the Construction section. A number of the references are merely raw web links; and no attempt has been made to "correctly" cite them. Pyrotec (talk) 19:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC), but I did "clean some up" as I reviewed the article. Pyrotec (talk) 08:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

There are also technical terms that are undefined (or un-linked) and sometimes not discussed; and there seems to be little discussion of strings and none of arrows. Pyrotec (talk) 07:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

There also seems to be a lack of consistency regarding the scope of this article: much of the article is written from a historical perspective and it mostly covers natural materials, but modern-day composite bows and glass-fibre construction seems to have been thrown in as a "after-thought" in a couple of places. If is intended that the article is to cover both historical/traditional and modern composite bows, then it needs to be made consistent, i.e. construction needs to include glass-fibre lamination and glass-fibre (perhaps carbon fibres) need to be included as construction materials. Pyrotec (talk) 07:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm now going to work my way through the article section by section, but I'm going to leave the WP:Lead until last. The Lead is, at best, a disaster, so its going to need a re-write - I also suggest that guide WP:Lead is studied, but I will come to that later on.

• Construction -

• This section is at best a disaster. I would suggest that Crossbow, which has a Construction section, Longbow, which has a Design and construction, or English longbow, which has a Description be studied as good (but not GA) "Bow" articles to emulate.
• It "reads" as a set of instructions, possibly of the type found in flat pack furniture, for building a composite bow but without the illustrations and the list of parts. Wikipedia is intended to be an encyclopedia, not a recipe for building a composite bow.
• It is completely uncited, so it is little more than a set of opinions and it is written in the present tense, so its not intended to be a summary of how composite bows were made.
• It is incomplete: it seems to stop at "After months of drying the bow is ready for finishing", with no discussion of finishing unless of course the comment "Thin leather or waterproof bark may be used, to protect from moisture, and recent Turkish bows were often highly decorated" is intended to be a description of the finishing process.

• Materials -

• I'm not convinced that this section, is a stand-alone section in its own right. Both it and the Construction section are quite "thin"; and I think the article would read better if this was made a subsection within the Materials section.
• It appears to be written roughly "as seen by the archer, in that bone is discussed first, followed by wood, then sinew; and then it goes back to bone substitutes. In which case, bone substitutes could be discussed alone with bones. However, the sequence of the Construction section is wood, horn, sinew; and then waterproofing and decoration, which is not mentioned here. Some consistency between these two initial sections would, I suspect, improve the readability of the article.
• Ref 1 is merely a "label" for a website: no credit is given to the (named) author of the web site, the title of the article is not given, nor the date of the website. I suggest that it is properly cited, using {{cite web}} if necessary - the use of this template is not mandatory, but the referenced does need to be properly given, and it is not properly cited at present.
• Half of the first paragraph (three sentences) is referenced by citation 1, but the second are third sentences are unreferenced, and seem to be merely opinions.
• Ref 2 is a book, but it is not properly cited (use {{cite book}} if necessary) and the web link is WP:SPAM - its an invitation to buy the book.
• The technical term "The siyahs" is used, but no attempt is made to explain what they are; and I've not been able to find a separate article in wikipedia that describes them. Interestingly, they are described later in this article in the Technical changes to classical times section, but since they are named here first they aught to be defined here.
• The next two paragraphs are uncited and seem to be merely opinions.
• Ref 4 is merely two separate "label"s for the same website: no credit is given to the corporate author of the web site. I suggest that it is properly cited, using {{cite web}} if necessary - the use of this template is not mandatory, but the referenced does need to be properly given, and it is not properly cited at present.
• Ref 5 appears to be entirely WP:SPAM.

....stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 20:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

• Advantages and disadvantages of composite construction -

• Mostly well referenced, but the first paragraph is entirely unreferenced and the statement about draw-weight and energy aught to have a citation. As should the final sentence of the third paragraph.
• These are technical terms and their meanings are not defined nor discussed. There is no mention of the magnitude of these parameters and how they might compare to other types of bow construction.

• Origins and use -

• Its not clear what reference 9 is meant to be: there is a web link but it appears to be broken.
• I presume on the basis of ISBNs that references 10 and 11 are books. They should be properly cited.
• The third paragraph is mostly unreferenced. Since various claims are being made, citations should be provided so that they are WP:Verifiable.

• Technical changes to classical times -

• Overall, a much better section.
• Ref 12 needs to be properly cited (see above).
• In Scythian bows, bending tips, it states that "Variants of the Scythian bow were the dominant form for millennia in the area between China and Europe", but no attempt is made to define the time frame (other than millennia); and its not clear what is meant by "the area between China and Europe".

• • Siyahs/kasans, stiff tips -

• Generally OK, but the sentence "Later, it became usual to stiffen the ends of composite bows" is unnecessarily vague. The obvious (unasked) question is "when?" and that is not answered.

• • Laths stiffening the grip -

• Ref 22 should be properly cited.
• Ref 23 has a broken web link. The reference seems to be book, if it is the web link in not really needed but the citation should be properly made.

• Post-classical development -

• Refs 25 & 26 should be properly cited.
• The claims made in final sentence in the first paragraph should have a citation(s), so that they can be made WP:Verifiable.
• Refs 27, 28, 29 & 30 should be properly cited.

• American sinew-backed bows -

• The beginning of this section, i.e. "When Europeans first contacted Native Americans, some bows, especially in the area that became California, already had sinew backing" is rather vague in respect of date(s).

• Modern living traditions of composite bows -

• The first paragraph contains a number of claims: all are unreferenced.
• The Korean bow and the Perso-Parthian bow subsections are unreferenced.

• Scope -

• This article is about a weapon (for killing things - people & animals) and whilst there is a great deal about the history of the bows' development there is almost no technical detail. Nothing about strings: draw-strength and energy is mentioned but without a string these can't exist; and presumably development of bows would have gone in parallel with development of strings.
• The projectile, arrows, are almost ignored, they are mentioned only once, in Scythian bows, bending tips.
• There is almost no mention of size, it is only mentioned in Scythian bows, bending tips and Additional stiffening laths.
• There is little mention of range: it is mentioned in Mongol bow and Korean bow.

• WP:Lead -

• This is intended to both introduce the topic and provide a summary of the main points in the article. Perhaps that is what it attempts to do? It's quite superficial in its coverage, perhaps expanding it to about twice its current size to include a summary of the main points in the article might bring it up to standard.

At this point I'm putting the review On Hold. Pyrotec (talk) 09:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for your useful comments. Before I address them I must apologise for the vagueness on several issues. The fact is that I don't have the information to make these points more definite, and as far as I know nobody else does either. This applies to most of the dates, to the geographical areas, and to either effective or maximum ranges. Also to strings; anything can be used, and no string type is consistently associated with composite bows. We might write something on arrowheads, since metal ones often do survive and the "Scythian" trilobate type is well-recognised, but even then we don't actually know which type of bow shot them. The development of composite bows happened over a very long time, in a very large area inhabited by people who generally wrote very little of anything and nothing about bows, and the archaeology of organic remains is minimal. Whatever Attila the Hun and his predecessors were doing, they weren't writing down details of bow construction! Secondary sources are either equally vague, or give the best details available of specific archaeological finds. I've included a few specific details - possibly too many, as I don't think they're generally suitable for an encyclopedic article. I might move the text about the Qum-Darya bow to the references, if you agree. In the American case, while a very few bows have been preserved as archaeology from before European contact, we generally can't give any more precise indication than the fact of a certain bow type being in use when the Europeans arrived and started writing things down. And I don't think that a detailed chronology of the American frontier is appropriate or even useful here. As for the modern materials, I don't think we need to say anything about them except that they have been used to make cheap imitations.

Anyway, thanks again, all further comments welcome, and I'll get to work, tomorrow I hope. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not asking for original research and that would not be appropriate, so if the information is not available I'm happy to accept a clear statement or statements, that the information is "not known", is "inconsistent", has "not survived", etc, as appropriate. The article has certainly been improved over the last ten days. Are you still working on it? Pyrotec (talk) 15:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm hoping that it's now ready to pass. I've been through all of your points and tried to use them, thanks again. If there are any further issues - I do hope not - I'll attend to them tomorrow. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

There were several links (four or five) to disambiguation pages, so I've moved them all accept one to what I think is the right articles. Perhaps my changes (see article's revision history here) could be checked; and the one I did not do (i.e. Mamluk dynasty), changed to the correct article. Thanks. Pyrotec (talk) 18:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

The article has been much improved, I'm therefore closing this review.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Well illustrated.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Well illustrated.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

In the light of the discussion above and recent improvements, I'm happy to award this article GA-status. Congratulations on bringing the article up to GA. Pyrotec (talk) 19:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for your time and trouble. Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

multiple changes

I have removed "The composite construction can be an asset in regions where suitable wood for self bows is on short supply, but woods which can stand either draw stress (such as birch) or compression stress (such as pine) but not both are abundant. Woods which would not make a decent bow on themselves can be successfully combined to make a bow." which seems to apply to laminated bows rather than to composite bows made with horn. The word "raids" was added to "incursions"; I can't see that this adds anything. A list of possibly or definitely Turkic peoples who did indeed use composite bows has been added; we don't need a complete list here and the sentence already mentions Turkic peoples. Finally, the arms of Savonia have been added, featuring a drawn recurved bow. I don't see any reliable evidence that it was in fact composite and while this image might possibly be of interest, I'd suggest that a good reference for the fact of it being a composite bow, and for some comment about its use in the area, might be better. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments on advantages section

I am surprised that there is no mention of the increased energy storage potential in composite limbs. The effect is well described in Clarence Hickman's 1935 patent 2,100,317[1]. In short, if you take a 2x4 piece of wood, cut it into 2 1x4's, bend them circularly to the point of almost breaking, and glue them together, here's what happens: the laminated 2x4 will support 50% more weight before breaking while supporting a load that is trying to un-bend it (it breaks easily in the other direction). It will also bend 50% further (in one direction only) before breaking. The laminated 2x4 will store up to 2.25X more energy. Hickman achieved over 2X energy storage in reality. Here's a great article that was pointed out to me on a message board: [2].

The 1997 article by Kooi and Bergman is not a reputable source for the claim that there is little practical benefit to composite bows, other than smaller size. They only mathematically modeled non-composite bows, and from the text, they are clearly unaware of the effects of laminating highly stressed layers. They attributed the flight distance records of composite bows only to improved materials, and show a clear lack of understanding of composite materials. On the other hand, they never claimed to be experts in laminated materials. Taking their quote in their conclusions as evidence that there is little benefit to composite bows is a poor choice, IMO.

Recently, archery forums have talked a lot about "Perry reflex", as well. As an example, user avcase [3] describes a 6-lamination limb, where two sets of three layers are first laminated in low stress, but high curvature. These two curved limbs are then forced straight and laminated together, creating a straight limb with 2X the energy storage potential (in only one direction) compared to a self-bow of the same wood. This shows that beneficial stress in composite bows can be used in any desired shape. Hickman's patent described this very well. I would recommend citing Hickman and describing this important benefit of composite bows.WaywardGeek (talk) 10:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that patents are reliable sources in our sense, even if they specifically described composite bows which this one doesn't. The lamination example you mention is interesting, but we would need a better source for that as well. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

More comments

http://www.manchuarchery.org/did-qing-ban-archery-mongolia This site seems to be arguing that the idea that the Manchus banned archery in Mongolia is just a myth.

It may be. But it is supported by a moderately-respectable reference. And the site you quote is not usable for Wikipedia, nor are its arguments which are circumstantial and would be the worst kind of original research if presented here. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:22, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

The section on analogous bows in the new world ends with "The full three-layer composite bow with horn, wood, and sinew does not seem to be recorded in the Americas, and horn bows with sinew backing are not recorded before European contact" which seems to be a bit misleading. Yes there was a lot that wasn't recorded before European contact but sinew-backed bows made of buffalo or bighorn sheep horns do seem to have been well known to tribes of the Great Plains and American Northwest with a number of surviving examples in various museums. I know for certain that there are a couple of horn bows at Idaho State University. 97.121.9.8 (talk) 00:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

They're very difficult to build without good saws for the horn. We aren't asserting that they definitely didn't exist, we are following our sources and saying that horn bows are not recorded before contact. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:22, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Far earlier

composite bows are depicted far earlier than the 2nd millennium, e.g. Uruk Stele, c. 3500 BCE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:C2:23C2:F201:E8BE:BE94:6A5E:8FC3 (talk) 13:24, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

We would need reputable secondary sources to say so here. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:43, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Composite bow. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110709110150/http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/millwarj/website%20images/centralasiaimages.htm to http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/millwarj/website%20images/centralasiaimages.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060823003915/http://www.ashmolean.org/gri/9bow.html to http://www.ashmolean.org/gri/9bow.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:29, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

composite bow depicted on indus civilization seal

This seal is from NW Afghanistan indus site and displayed in schoyen gallery MS 2645.

indus civilization composite bow 202.188.53.210 (talk) 04:59, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Interesting. The drawn bow on the left does seem to show significant reflex. The two strung bows on the right do not. To include this in the article, however, we would need a reliable source guessing that it does indeed depict a composite bow - it's possible to make a self bow with considerable reflex - and I'd guess that an actual dated relic would be useful. Also, what can be said about the dating of this seal? Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:05, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

mature harappan 2600-1900 BC 202.188.53.210 (talk) 10:12, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Disadvantages section

The disadvantages section could use better citations. There are basically no citations backing up the claims about certain humid areas using the composite bows less— the only cite is the Strategikon reference. All the other links are just precipitation charts. Having a direct cite for these claims would be really helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1007:B116:4F6B:98D:7E78:507D:CA98 (talk) 01:47, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Decurve bows in the Sahara

At this edit I have removed a claim that composite bows were known in the Tassili plateau in the Mesolithic. This is referenced to a nice piece of rock art that shows a decurve bow. The art isn't dated and isn't diagnostic of a composite bow.

I have also removed a comment about Saharan charioteers in the Mesolithic. I agree that the rock art given as a reference does represent a chariot, and it's obvious enough that we could say so. But again, it isn't dated. And, since it doesn't include a bow, it isn't relevant to this article.

The book doesn't seem to support any of the comments made here. In particular, searching it for "composite" brings up nothing, and while bows are mentioned and so are San, there's no obvious indication that it mentions San people in the Sahara or anywhere near it. Or composite bows.

Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:18, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

At this edit you have reinstated the original research with the comment "Rv, WP:OR". I note you're a new editor and I wonder if you are quite clear about what WP:OR is, why we're not supposed to do it, and why we're supposed to remove it rather than reinstate it? Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:18, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@Richard Keatinge: First of you have not assumed good faith and revert the edit calling it WP:OR when it was not, second this is the Composite bow wiki and third the time book mentions of the bow is the Epipaleolithic which is Mesolithic for Europe. Toltol15 (talk) 18:04, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm happy to assume your entire good faith, but the edit is still OR for the reasons that I give. Indeed, this page is about composite bows - the references are not and don't belong here. And the book does mention bows in Bubaline art, which dates them to before 5,000 BP and indeed to the local Epipaleolithic / Mesolithic, but it still doesn't mention composite bows.

Would you be kind enough to check our OR policy, and possibly then remove the offending comment? Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:18, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@Richard Keatinge: The rock art is dated to 12ka I don't know what you are talking about. Toltol15 (talk) 18:31, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

If either of these pictures, or mention of chariots, bows etc is more specifically dated, please let us have the exact reference. A reasonable extract from the book would suffice. I don't think that any such reference exists. Some of the rock art may go as far back as 12000 BP, but that doesn't imply that any specific artwork does so. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:21, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources

This article contained a reference to the so-called "Silk Road Foundation", also known as "Silk Road". It's an online publisher. The website can be found here:

https://www.silkroadfoundation.org

This publication sometimes refers to itself as "Silk Road Journal", but should NOT be confused with Silk Road Journal Online, which has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion.

The Silk Road Journal in question is based primarily around Asian archaeology and history. It typically publishes theoretical articles written by researchers who appear to mostly hail from Russia and China. The sole editor of the publication, an American man named Daniel Waugh, has candidly stated that it has no formal peer review:

http://www.silkroadfoundation.org/newsletter/vol15/srjournal_v15.pdf

From the outset, there has been no formal process of peer review, such as one expects in the standard academic journals. We still solicit articles (a task which largely has devolved on me over the years), though we also receive (but have not been overwhelmed by) unsolicited submissions.

Decisions on what to publish (as with any journal) ultimately rest with the editor, who in this case, for better or worse, has acted as the peer reviewer. I often see what I think is gold in material that could never find its way into a standard academic publication. But the perils of rarely seeking outside opinions may mean things slip through without acknowledgement that a subject has been thoroughly treated elsewhere.

The lack of formal peer review does have the unfortunate consequence that junior scholars hoping to advance in their profession may avoid us, since their promotion will depend in the first instance on peer reviewed publication, however excellent (and widely cited) a piece might be which we would publish. Yet in some cases where there is a premium for academics in other countries to publish in a respected journal in English, we have been able to provide just such an opportunity. Many of the senior scholars we have solicited for contributions have politely refused to write for us, since they are already over-committed [...]

So, the Silk Road Foundation is a speedy publishing mill for primary research that is not formally peer reviewed. The editor describes himself as someone who often sees "'gold in material that would never find its way in to a standard academic publication'". A lot of researchers don't want to be published by Silk Road Foundation, and those that do are disproportionately from non-English speaking countries, who struggle to get their theories published in standard English-language journals.

To my mind, this is very near to the definition of predatory publishing, with the exception that the Silk Road Foundation does not even provide the benefits of high-end predatory puboishers, like DOI. It's really more like an internet blog.

The Silk Road Foundation is cited on various ethnical and archaeological articles on Wikipedia, often advancing pet theories, which is out of touch with WP:RS, which says that Wikipedia should prioritize high-quality, peer reviewed secondary research over this kind of stuff.

Although I'm not aware of any controversial material in this particular Wiki article related to its Silk Road Foundation reference, and I have no enmity for the Silk Road Foundation or its publisher, or its authors, this source does not meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources, and should not be cited. Hunan201p (talk) 08:02, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Working tips

The Scythian section speaks much about a "working tips" phenomenon, but I'm not seeing this mentioned in the source given:

http://www.atarn.org/chinese/scythian_bows.htm

I am unable to verify Otto Maenchen Helfen, but even so, his work can only purely theoretical and not based in archaeology, as the only forensic and experimental research on these bows dates to the very recent 21st century.

I don't doubt that earlier authors theorized about a "lift-off" effect from working tips, but strong doubts have been cast on this hypothesis. For example:

https://atarn.org/chinese/Yanghai/Scythian_bow_ATARN.pdf

There have been claims that the recurved outer-ends of limbs in this bows  increased the energy storage of the bow, due to the “lift-off” of the bowstring  from the ends, which progressed as the bow was drawn, thus levelling out the  forces for a smooth, stack-less draw. While the effect was possible to a degree in  the case of low-strung bows with more recurved limbs, it is to be doubted the  lift-off was ever intended in this design to increase performance. Many of the  original Scythian bows have the limbs nearly straight with only a small  recurvature, in some cases merely a hook to hold the string. Obviously, ibex horns were not the same and the lift-off effect cannot be recognized as an intended feature of the bows. The only apparent function of the recurved tips, similarly to other composite bows would be the added stiffness in the tips, which  helps to increase the energy storage by forcing the limbs to bend closer to the  grip.

and,

Moreover, the cross-sectional and  side profile of the bows could vary between different specimens, as well as the  flexibility of the outer sections of bows, which came to be nearly rigid in the replica.

Also, the Wiki says that lathes are totally absent in Scythian bows. Again the source predates the forensic examinations of Scythian bows, which did reveal wooden grip lathes:

Two thin fillets can be seen at the sides of the grip in the original bow. They were  added to increase the width of the grip and partly the limbs close to the grip.  Apparently the species of wood, possibly tamarisk, traditionally used for these  bows, did not yield laths of sufficient size.

So the article needs a bit of clarification here and there - Hunan201p (talk) 17:27, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Good article reassessment

Composite bow

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted due to sourcing issues. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:25, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

A 2011 promotion that doesn't meet the modern criteria. Significant uncited text that isn't to the level of WP:BLUE, and some of the sources aren't really all that great. For instance, the Karpowitz source appears to be self-published, and several of the other web sources are dodgy. One footnote commits original research, as " Tutankhamun: Anatomy of an Excavation. (The notes were made in the 1920s and describe composite bows as "compound"; the modern compound bow did not exist at this time.)" is sourced to a source that simply refers to things as compound bows. Will need some work to get back up to the modern standards. Hog Farm _Talk 03:42, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

As noted, there are various issues with citations. For example, one citation is used to cover three volumes of a work published over several years, which rather defeats the object of being able to verify the cited facts. Many others lack page numbers. Some areas are thin on citations - for example there are many definite statements in the modern usage section which ought to be independently cited. The popular culture section seems pointless. That said, if someone is willing to put in the work, the bones of a good article remain. Monstrelet (talk) 15:41, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for helpful comments. Before I dig in to the relevant books (in storage, behind twelve years of newer books), a minor point: Karpowicz (Karpowicz, Adam (2008). Ottoman Turkish bows, manufacture & design. ISBN 978-0-9811372-0-9. Archived from the original on 9 August 2017.) is indeed self-published, but he is an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications, e.g. http://www.atarn.org/chinese/Yanghai/Scythian_bow_ATARN.pdf Archived 18 May 2011 at the Wayback Machine. SCYTHIAN BOW FROM XINJANG. Adam Karpowicz and Stephen Selby (first published in the Journal of the Society of Archer-Antiquaries, vol 53, 2010). Would you agree that it's reasonable to use his self-published work? Or not?

I wonder if Tutankhamun's bows being composite and not the modern definition of compound could legitimately be covered by WP:SKYBLUE, since the excavation reports say what they're made of and modern compound bows weren't invented until the 1960s? If so, what would be the appropriate way of saying so? Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:12, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I think there is a degree of subject-specific knowledge required by an ordinary reader about the change in meaning of compound bow that moves this outside WP:SKYBLUE. Monstrelet (talk) 10:01, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, probably best to remove the entire comment then. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:19, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.