Colletiere a Charavines crossbow

Evening!
I'd like to make a replica of this crossbow and believe it is 110cm ttt and 3cm wide at centre (according to https://www.bourges1ere.fr/Archeologie.htm)

Can anyone add to this, I really need thickness at centre, ideally, I could do with thickness at limb centre and at the nocks as well.

Thanks in advance,
Andrew

So, this is what I have, probably enough for a decent replica but I would love the reasurance of accurate measurements and a front elevation.  I've contacted the museum but with France going into lockdown I think I'm going to have to be patient.

according to https://www.bourges1ere.fr/Archeologie.htm

L'arbrier est en frêne et mesure 80 c de long par 3 cm de largeur.

The tiller is of ash and 80cm long by 3 cm wide.

L'arc est en orme et mesure 110 cm de long par 4 cm de largeur

The bow is elm, 110 cm long and 4 cm wide.

Draw weight of the featured replica is 54lbs.

Thank you for that, that's really useful, could I confirm if that is for the original artefact or for the modern reproduction?  I did not realise the original was elm rather tban yew. From what I can see in the photos, the modern repro looks like its nowhere near 3 or 4cm thick.

Elm makes sense for a bowstave: not as good as Yew perhaps, but the original craftsman probably didn't have a lot of choice.  To a great extent, I expect basic bows like the Charavines crossbow were made with what was available.  Keep up the good work!  DRW

Elm would be correct for the period, writing in the early 13th century Gerald of Wales records the Welsh wood of choice for bows was Wych Elm and I believe there were Elm longbows in the Mary Rose inventory.  Ironically if I have to use Elm its going to be more expensive and more difficult to source than Yew thanks to Dutch Elm Disease.

There's one of the problems of trying to replicate the original.  Do you try to get the identical materials in the original, or do you do what the original craftsman did, and use what is available in Your locale.  Either way could be considered authentic.  Here in Texas, a local craftsman would probably use bodark (Bois d'Arc) for the prod.  That's the best locally available wood for self-bows. Whatever floats your boat.  DRW

It might come to that, yew would also be correct for the period and would give a decent data set on draw weight and performance characteristics, maybe reducing thickness by 10% would be necessary.

stuckinthemud1 wrote:From what I can see in the photos, the modern repro looks like its nowhere near 3 or 4cm thick.

Wide. I do not really speak French, but my dictionary translates "largeur" as width or wideness.
Thickness of the limbs seems to be about 1½ cm at bridling. Just comparing against the mentioned 3cm tiller top.

Thanks guys. I enlarged the image to A3 and scaled up the various measurements, arriving at, 4cm thickness at centre from back to belly with the back being 3cm wide.

Have emailed the museum twice now but still heard nothing. In the meantime a wych elm stave has just been delivered.  Felled about two weeks ago, I'll trim it to a little  oversize and seal the ends for 6 months or so.

Nooo, finally tracked down a specialist academic in France who confirmed the bow fragments in the drawings were all of yew, the bolt fragments also recovered from the site were ash. Now I have two fine wych elm billets and no project to use them on.  So annoying.  Ah well, no doubt they'll make something fab at some point.

Well, I finally found the text to go with the illustrations.  The illustrations have slightly misled me.

 
 
When making my first replica of the CC crossbow, I wish I had access to the relevant section of this document and so I have cut that section, in full, from the thesis and offer an English translation which I have drafted from a Google Translate version – GT doesn’t cope entirely well with the technical terms.  If you feel I have made any errors in the translating, please post a comment.  I'll add some thoughts in a seperate post so as not to muddy this one too much.


TROISIÈME PARTIE : LE MOBILIER ARCHÉOLOGIQUE - TYPOLOGIE, TECHNIQUE DE FABRICATION
(Amont/Serdon) available at:  
http://theses.univ-lyon2.fr/documents/lyon2/2003/serdon_v/pdfAmont/serdon_v_troisieme_partie.pdf
 
 
P200++
C. Les éléments d'arcs et d'arbalètes
En effet, un arbrier complet, parfaitement identifiable, a été mis au jour sur le site (Musée Dauphinois, n° inv. 80-91-112). Il est confectionné en hêtre et mesure 496 mm de longueur. Il est pourvu d'une rainure creusée dans le bois dans sa partie supérieure sur 200 mm de longueur environ. L'extrémité de l'arbrier, ou crosse, présente     une section circulaire d'approximativement 20 mm de diamètre ; elle s'étend sur environ 145 mm.
La partie centrale de l'arbrier est nettement plus large et une encoche est aménagée dans le bois pour le logement du dispositif destiné à retenir la corde (elle mesure 59 mm de long sur 4 mm de large et 24 mm de profondeur). À 9 mm du bord supérieur, les étroites parois sont percées, de chaque côté, d'orifice carré de 4 x 4 mm. Cependant, au vu de la faible largeur de cet espace, il interdit l'usage de noix traditionnelles : en effet, le mécanisme permettant de retenir et de déclencher la corde doit être très différent des noix d'arbalète plus traditionnelles, par ailleurs découvertes à Colletière et dont les dimensions dépassent largement celle du logement pratiqué dans le corps de cet arbrier. Celles-ci devaient s'adapter sur d'autres modèles d'armes,  vraisemblablement de calibres plus importants. La pièce, servant de déclencheur, doit être plate et perforée de la même manière. Un axe permet de maintenir le tout de façon solidaire. L'arbrier présente une encoche profonde dans laquelle venait se loger la corde lorsque l'arme est bandée. Par une rotation du déclencheur, actionné par la détente, la corde se dégage ainsi de ce logement et propulse le trait. Nous proposons une hypothèse de restitution d'après les pièces découvertes à Charavines et selon un modèle inspire d'exemples ethnographiques321.
 
En effet, un groupe de trois objets est à mettre en relation avec le mécanisme de détente d'arbalète. Ces pièces sont morphologiquement identiques mais de gabarits différents : leur module varie de 79 à 114 mm d'envergure. Leur forme évoque le bec d'un oiseau. La partie terminale, amincie et de section rectangulaire, est percée d'un trou carré. Cela nous conduit donc à envisager la présence sur le même site de deux types distincts d'arbalètes utilisées de façon contemporaine ; elles pourraient correspondre alors à des usages différents. L'arbrier se termine par une partie beaucoup plus large
dans laquelle est aménagée une encoche ; sa largeur conditionne celle de l'arc. Celui-ci est emboîté dans ce logement et fixé vraisemblablement par des ligatures. Quatre autres fragments de bois de diamètre similaire et dont une des faces est creusée d'une rainure nous amène à les interpréter comme des fragments d'arbriers.
Le seul arc d'arbalète complet mesure 980 mm d'envergure pour un diameter moyen de 18 mm ; une telle arbalète devait avoir une puissance sinon considérable du moins plus élevé qu'un simple "arc à main". Sa section est triangulaire aux extrémités et devient circulaire, puis semi-circulaire au centre. Une encoche est aménagée sur l'arc pour permettre le passage du carreau. Par ailleurs, quinze éléments d'arcs ont été  découverts sur le site de Colletière. Ces fragments ont très probablement appartenus à des arcs d'arbalète, mais aucun exemplaire n'a conservé sa partie centrale qui montrerait sans ambiguïté la zone de contact avec l'arbrier. Cependant les diamètres et les profils sont similaires à ceux de l'exemplaire entier. Ils sont confectionnés en if (taxus) pour la plupart, mais aussi en hêtre (fagus), aulne (ulmus), noisetier (corylus)… La plupart des éléments présentent des coches sur les poupées d'arc, simples ou doubles, destinées à la fixation de la corde. Ce dispositif à double encoche sert vraisemblablement à régler la tension de la corde. Aucun renfort en corne n'était donc prévu.
 
Pages 200 onward
C. The parts of the crossbows
Indeed, a complete tiller, perfectly identifiable, was brought to light on the site (Musée Dauphinois, inv. no. 80-91-112). It is made of beech and measures 496 mm in length. It is provided with a bolt groove some 200 mm long, approximately. The end of the tiller has a circular section of approximately 20 mm in diameter; the butt is about 145mm long. The central part of the shaft is much wider and a notch is carved in the wood to house the device intended to hold the drawn bow string (it measures 59mm long by 4mm wide and 24mm deep). 9mm from the top, the narrow walls are pierced, on each side, with a square hole of 4 x 4 mm.
However, given the small width of this space, it prohibits the use of nuts traditional: indeed, the mechanism making it possible to retain and release the bow string must be very different from the more traditional crossbow nuts, otherwise discovered at Colletière and whose dimensions largely exceed that of the housing practiced in the body of this tiller, these were to adapt to other models of weapons, probably larger calibers. The piece, serving as a trigger, must be flat and perforated in the same way. An axle makes it possible to join the trigger to the tiller. The tiller has a deep notch in which the string was held once the weapon was drawn. By rotating the trigger, the bow string is pushed up out of the notch, releasing the drawn bow.
 
We propose a hypothesis of restitution according to the pieces discovered in Charavines and according to a model inspired by ethnographic examples. Indeed, a group of three objects is to be related to the mechanism of this crossbow trigger. These pieces are morphologically identical but of different sizes: their module varies from 79 to 114 mm in wingspan. Their shape evokes the beak of a bird. The terminal part, thinned and of rectangular section, is pierced with a square hole.
This therefore leads us to consider the presence on the same site of two types distinct from crossbows in contemporary use; they could use them for different uses. The tiller of the second type ends in a much wider part in which is arranged a notch; its width determines the width of the bow which is nested in this housing and probably fixed by ligatures. four more fragments of wood of similar diameter, one side of which is hollowed out with a groove leads us to interpret them as tiller fragments.
The only complete crossbow lath measures 980 mm in wingspan for a diameter medium 18mm; such a crossbow had to have a power, if not considerable, then higher than a simple "hand bow". Its section is triangular at the extremities and becomes circular, then semi-circular in the center. A notch is provided on the lath to allow passage of the bolt. In addition, fifteen bow elements were discovered on the Colletière site. These fragments most likely belonged to crossbow laths, but no specimen has preserved its central part which would show unambiguously the zone of contact with the tiller. However, the diameters and profiles are similar to those of the complete specimen. They are made of yew (taxus) for the most, but also in beech (fagus), elm (ulmus), hazel (corylus)… Most elements feature nocks, single or double, intended for the string attachment. This double notch device is probably used to adjust the string tension. No horn reinforcement was therefore planned.

So, the illustrated trigger mechanisms are from Asian crossbows, the spur at the bottom that creates the 'stop' is not a European feature and the archaeological drawings do not show a socket to receive the spur.  Whether the trigger would stick up in the air as in the Asian type (and on my version), or lie flatter as most reconstructions now show is unknown as a trigger has not been found at the site.  

Also, though my post number 12 says a French source believed all the bow remains to be yew, the text clearly stated that bows had been identified primarily as yew, but also in beech (fagus), hazel (corylus) and elm (ulnus).  I suspect the beech will one day be found to be incorrect as it is not a highly regarded bow-wood

"We propose a hypothesis of restitution according to the pieces discovered in Charavines and according to a model inspired by ethnographic examples. Indeed, a group of three objects is to be related to the mechanism of this crossbow trigger. These pieces are morphologically identical but of different sizes: their module varies from 79 to 114 mm in wingspan. Their shape evokes the beak of a bird. The terminal part, thinned and of rectangular section, is pierced with a square hole."

It seems to me that the L pieces in the illustrations were in fact found at the Charavines site but their function is unknown and they were only proposed as possible triggers through etnographic examples. I mean they even give their dimensions, you don't give dimensions and put drawings of some unrelated Asian triggers in an archeological publication on 11th ct. French site without a very good reason. Maybe they are triggers, maybe they aren't, is what I get from the text.

What is unsupported by evidence is carving any stops in the trigger groove, you'll either have to make these L pieces work without one or conclude they are not triggers at all.

That is exactly what I thought, and my replica used the drawings to replicate the birds mouth trigger, ignoring the indicated shape of the hollowed out trigger recess in the drawing of the tiller which does not fit the triggers in the drawings. When I got hold of the thesis I was able to follow the references and was a little miffed to say the least when I found the drawings were of the “ethnographic examples” found in a museum exhibition of Asian crossbows and used to justify the hypothesis of a narrow lever trigger .

That is really very odd, and not at all in line with standard archaeological practice. So the trigger could be anything, even a straight stick; and the bottom of the trigger groove could be curved just for the ease of carving as that is a natural shape for a chisel to follow. Or the guy making it missed the initial angle. It happens.
Thanks for investigating that to the full depth, it is after all Europe's oldest extant crossbow and quite a few reconstructions were influenced by this hodge-podge assumption of the authors.

From what I know about Asian crossbows, it is not at all impossible that those triggers were actually mounted similar to this: 



and a real life example:

Juniper wrote:That is really very odd, and not at all in line with standard archaeological practice. So the trigger could be anything, even a straight stick; and the bottom of the trigger groove could be curved just for the ease of carving as that is a natural shape for a chisel to follow. Or the guy making it missed the initial angle. It happens.
Thanks for investigating that to the full depth, it is after all Europe's oldest extant crossbow and quite a few reconstructions were influenced by this hodge-podge assumption of the authors.

Yes, the trigger would be a worked stick that had grown in a useful shape - no cutting across the grain on a critical component. The curved hollow is deliberate as the string sits a couple of mm down in the groove and itself is a couple of mm thick and then the trigger needs to sit below the string which it lifts up and out of the groove.

Yes, completely contrary to good practice,I trained in archaeology, including draftsmanship for archaeological recording purposes, and it is incredibly frustrating that the paper uses a merged image with next to no explanation or reference that I can find.  The text uses the phrase "ethnographic examples" and the reference is "Musée de l'Homme, Paris, section Asie, responsable Annie Montigny."

The fact is the three triggers in the diagram are from the Musee del 'Homme, and are of "ethnographic examples", while the diagram of the tiller is from Gaolon, 1996, citing "BÉAL (J.-C.), GENIN (M.), "Éléments d’arc antique en bois de cerf découverts au Verbe Incarné à Lyon", Art et Archéologie en Rhône-Alpes, 3 (1987), p. 3-10. Les auteurs ont dressé une carte des fragments découverts sur l'ensemble de l'Europe"

Unfortunately, I have not been able to get hold of either paper (yet)

Juniper wrote:From what I know about Asian crossbows, it is not at all impossible that those triggers were actually mounted similar to this: 



and a real life example:

So the archaeologists didn't even get the trigger the right way up?  I just wish they had known that the lever arm trigger mechanism s probably the oldest and longest surviving form of crossbow trigger and even nowadays people use the top pivot trigger in "backwoods bows"- I got told this in a forum somewhere, but for the life of me can't remember where, but someone said something like, "I usd to make that kind of bow back when I was a boy..."   They really didn't need to come up with a new hypothesis, they just needed to know a bit about simple wooden crossbows

Given the amount of "cultural exchange" between France and the UK in the pre-Conquest era, I would not be surprised to see similar all-wood top-lock crossbows in Anglo-Saxon hands (given the A-S excellence at woodworking), at least for hunting. 

I can even imagine smaller one-hand descendants of such bows as a simple Border Reiver latchet used by less wealthy riders -- you don't need a heavy draw bow to harass/injure horses and unarmored riders at nearly-touching ranges!

The one things I did not agree with on the archaeological drawing was how the artist envisioned the prod being held in place.  You solution is much more believable.

I do some Anglo-Saxon era reenactment with the SCA and Regia Anglorum, and I'm thinking seriously of making a replica of this crossbow as part of my "kit".   My current "range weapon" is a David & Goliath sling replicating ones found in the archaeological digs at Jorvik.

It is a really fun bow to shoot, make the lath about 90cm long and somewhere between 30 and 40mm wide, control power with thickness.  Use a class 1 bow wood that likes a flat profile, so not yew - you will struggle to get the draw weight below 100# if you use a round belly cross-section.  Ash might work ok, apple might, elm should be a good choice.  I would avoid hazel as it is compression weak.  A really out-there choice that is totally not historically accurate is scotch broom but it makes a wicked crossbow