Persian Arrows

Bede · Post by **Bede** » Fri Sep 30, 2005 3:29 am

Jack,
As you know the Turks regularly repaired flight arrows. Perhaps the second splice was a repair. However, I have seen arrows with a sinew binding in front of the fletchings where there was no splice. I wonder if is was a reinforcement for the tip of the nock insert which might have fractured the shaft at that point. I have arrows that have bindings at the mid point which I always regarded as a reinforcement of a longitudinal crack in the reed.

I have other arrows where the shaftment area (from the nock to in front of the end of the feathers) was shaved down to remove the surface and a fine binding used to cover the same area. This was painted and the feathers glued to it. The argument was that the smooth surface fo the shaft would not hold the glue properly. Whenever I glued feathers to bamboo, they stayed in place, but I don't think the ancients were using the same glue.

jack farrell · Post by **jack farrell** » Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:03 pm

Bede; When Stephen got his Sind bow, some time ago, it came with arrows which were spliced at the same place. Reto's arrow had the same splice, and I own many arrows with a splice at the same place. It is unlikely, to say the least, that all these arrows were broken 6-8inches from the nock. No, it has something to do with the harmonics of archer's paradox, how this paradox would break these thin arrows, and how a splice at this place would change those harmonics. The heavy points found on many of these arrows would intensify the problem.

I do not know how one would test this theory. It might be dangerous for a hand-held model, and I cannot shoot a heavy bow at any rate. -j-

Bede · Post by **Bede** » Sat Oct 01, 2005 7:49 am

Jack,
I think from your comments it is worthwhile to recheck all my Indo-Persian arrows to see if they match yours. Manu of the heavy points have excessively long tangs. I have one where I measured the tang at 13 inches in a 27 inch arrow. So your idea of reinforcing the other end has merit.

One problem with the archer's paradox on these arrows is that they are often stiffer at the ends than they need to be for the normal bending of the arrow around the bow. The Turks barreled their arrows because they needed the greatest stiffness in the centre section. It is the same engineering principle that had self bow limbs taper towards the tips to ensure even bending.

jason hoffman · Post by **jason hoffman** » Sat Oct 01, 2005 9:28 am

Ok it looks like i have to be alot more specific in my requests, what i am trying to do is determine the weight and maximum velocity of the arrows around the 7th 6th and 5th centuries BC, ie the Persian Wars. This is to work out the possible effectivness of greek linen armour. Much of the information that i have been using is garnered from the Assyrian bow and arrow found in Egypt and dated around 1000 BC.

I attach a picture of the arrows i have collected, can people comment as to whether they feel that they are representative of arrowheads of that time.

Many Thanks
Jason

jack farrell · Post by **jack farrell** » Sun Oct 02, 2005 5:37 pm

Jason; I will attempt a reply to your questions. The top point is not familiar to me but appears to be a bi-lobed point which has had the flanges sharpened down to nothing. The middle point is similar to one of mine from Turkey with good provenance from a Greek city. The lower is roughly equal to one from Palestine.

According to Edward McEwen, Experimental archery; project velocities and comparison of bow performance. Antiquity 62.

A accurately-made angular composite 153 cm reproduced from an actual prototype, shot a 90 gram bamboo arrow with bronze point 32 mps to 109m; 50 gr 40mps; 40gr 47mps; and 25gr arrow with hardwood tip 52mps to 221m.

In my estimation, the correct reproduction of this bronze point would be a leaf shaped point with a tang, not socket, from Hudson's Bay company in Germany. The point is not sufficiently hardened, though. Hope this helps. -j-

jack farrell · Post by **jack farrell** » Sun Oct 02, 2005 5:54 pm

Bede; What did the point look like that had the 13 inch tang?

My prefered way to prepare a bamboo shaft is to straighten with direct heat first then flatten on a perfect surface using a 6 or 8 in. sanding block with #80 grit abrasive. Indo persian arrows do not have all the skin removed; Japanese, for instance, do. It is necessary to abrade prepatory to gluing or sinewing with water based glues.

Persian and Japanese arrows will have the decoration scraped away directly under the quill for direct contact to the wood (bamboo). This is so useful for alignment when fletching without a jig. -j-

mongolianarcher · Post by **mongolianarcher** » Wed Mar 05, 2014 5:51 am

In regards to the Indo-Persian equipment, Jack made the assertion that the intercultural mixes of India and Persia during the Mughal Dynasty created the finest archery equipment...arrows and bows.

Bede mentioned that in the Qajar dynasty they lengthened the draws and shot longer arrows. Does anyone have any pictures of the bows and arrows they shot then? Are these the bows that were wider at the limbs and had horn strips as opposed to whole pieces of horn?
In the Grayson Collection, there is a bow that is wide at the limbs that is from 18th to 19th century Iran; is this the kind that was typical of the Qajars?
http://anthromuseum.missouri.edu/grayso ... nbow.shtml

And here is another bow style of the same period:
http://anthromuseum.missouri.edu/grayso ... nbow.shtml

Is this the Indian "Kashmiri" or whatever kind of bowstyle, Bede, that you were referring to which was also shared with the Persians?

Bede · Post by **Bede** » Wed Mar 05, 2014 11:06 am

Jack,
The arrowhead was of the amaji type. It was polygonal in cross section, expanding from its base to just before the tip where it suddenly tapered to a point.

Most of the bows labelled as Persian in foreign collections are probably Qajar. The two in the Grayson Collection look to be. The second one is clearly some sort of decorative practice bow, possibly for teaching young princes to shoot. It is difficult to tell anything about their construction since the belly is usually covered with painted leather of bark. The ones in the Topkapi are almost certainly early (Safavid) and resemble the ones Dr Khorasani photographed for his book. Since there was more than one type of bow being made in Iran, it is likely that there are bows in foreign collections that have not been recognised as Persian, but might be identified if they have inscriptions.

mongolianarcher · Post by **mongolianarcher** » Tue May 20, 2014 5:12 pm

Bede, do you happen to have any pictures or representations of how the Iranians made their wooden arrows? Poplar you said? I suppose that the ones who used wooden arrows would have made them Turkic in design?

LC

Reto · Post by **Reto** » Wed May 21, 2014 8:02 pm

Lucas
They very often used reeds, a kind of "bamboo/grass", thin and very stiff.
BR
Reto

mongolianarcher · Post by **mongolianarcher** » Sat May 24, 2014 5:45 pm

Okay thanks Reto, and I can't find the post on ATARN, but I recall seeing a post that says that Iranian arrows or Mughal arrows are never bigger than .8cm in diameter...do you know where that would be?

Bede · Post by **Bede** » Mon May 26, 2014 7:46 am

There are some descriptions of arrow making in Persian literature. Usually a manual will concentrate either on reed or wooden arrows. For wooden arrows some degree of barrelling was normal. Reed arrows were made in the same manner as in India, which is not much different from Ancient Egyptian arrows. The biggest change was the replacement of the fore shaft by filling the hollow of the reed with plant resin which set hard when it cooled.
Some Indo-Persian arrows have almost all the shaftment made from a wooden insert which also forms the nock. This might have been done to control the balance of the shaft in the same way that barrelling contributed to the balance of a wooden shaft.