Gengis Khan Exhibit-Houston

[Dusan]

This upper bow looks very close like Yuan period bow

[Ashbow]

Andrew Hall wrote;

?the earlier Hunnic bows managed much greater limb-siyah angles than the upper bow without needing splicing. (They appear to have thinned the core and scarfed on a reinforcing layer after bending, sandwiching the siyah between a pair of bone plates). These bone siyah plates gradually fell out of use during the latter half of the first millennium, probably associated with the introduction of spliced-in siyahs (based on extremely limited evidence).?

Adrew,
This actually is a very interesting piece of information. Do you mean then that the earlier bowyers when making composites with static ears didn?t use fishtail splice for jointing ears to limbs at all but used extensively only other techniques?
Like this reinforced ear with the core extending through the ears?;
http://198.170.107.188/photo/showimg.ph ... nxsect.jpg
Or perhaps you were referring only to composites reinforced with bone plates?

So, assuming your above statement; if you link the decline in using the bone ear plates with introduction of the fish tail splice for jointing separate ears do you mean then that the supporting function of bone ear plates was no more needed because the splicing-in could give better effects and provided more rigid structure without the need of further reinforcement? Am I getting it right or maybe my reasoning leads me astray?

I wish I could read your article on the development of bone-reinforced composites in the journal of the Society of the Archer-Antiquaries someday.

[Andrew Hall]

Ashbow

I don't know of any evidence of spliced siyahs from the early first millennium, or from any time associated with bone siyah plates. The few known early examples use the bent core with a reinforcing strip construction (added to either back or belly). This joint does not need a saw, you can shape it using an axe and/or knife.

By the 8th C, some of the bows in Central Asia were using unlaminated wooden siyahs without bone plates (e.g. the fragments from Mazar Tagh). Although far from certain, the best guess is that these were spliced in. This is not the case for all bows at that time, as the bone reinforced finds from Moshcheveya Balka were not spliced. (The descriptions of the MB bows indicate that the siyahs were unlaminated and part of the limbs, joined at the grip. Whether they had the techniques to bend thick pieces of wood or just used two naturally shaped pieces is not known).

The reasons for the introduction and decline of the bone plates is uncertain. My guess is that the siyah plates were initially introduced to stop the very long, narrow Hunnic siyahs pulling sideways. The wood/horn/sinew/bone composite structure may have been lighter than a wider bone-less siyah of the same stiffness (as in the Miran bows). Look at the length and width of the Khotan siyah and consider the stresses on it from a slight limb twist. If the siyah did start to bend sideways, it could put horrible stresses on the scary looking grip joints.

As bow and siyah lengths dropped during the 1st millennium, it is probable that the need for the bone side plates reduced. By the end of this period, few bows were using bone siyah plates, although grip plates continued, some with side plates and the Mongolian types with a belly plate in the grip. Unfortunately there are very few finds documented to give further information on their siyah construction, but the known medieval finds appear spliced.

The Miran bows show there is not a one-to-one association between laminated siyahs and bone plates, but I suspect that they are generally linked. I don't know why some of the Hunnic derived bows continued to use bone siyah plates when they had siyahs shorter than the later solid types (as in the lower bow in the exhibition photo) which did not use them. Either a laminated structure is more unstable or it was just tradition.

[Bede]

Andrew,
I think you are right about it being for for traditional reasons rather than functionality. Some much later Turkish bows has ivory inserts in the tips that could have only adversely affected their performance, but they really look impressive.

Looking at early Chinese paintings of non-contact straight ears, it is clear that the artists took great pains to make sure the viewer knew how thin and narrow the ears were. This would support your functional explanation of the bone plates.

I too have noticed the late appearance of the fishtail splices in eared composite bows. Your explanation of the ease of constructing the earlier type explains the design well.

thanks for the ideas.

[Gleb]

Dear friends,

I’ve look through Russian monographs on the Asian steppes of 6-12 AD. Please take a look what might be useful for the case with Genghis exposition bow, Yuan bow and closed quivers.

The bow found at Osinkinskiy burial ground (Altai Mnts) dated 10-12AD (pre-Mongolian invasion). Attributed to Kirghiz on Enisey. Looks almost the same as Yuan bow. But the strange thing that turns me nervous – I could not find any reference to the registered archaeological report for this excavation or this bow. The only reference in monograph of well-known Khudaykov (Enisey’ Kirghiz Arms, 6-12AD. Novosibirsk, 1980) goes to a dissertation abstract published in 1974! I will try to find the hidden truth.javascript:emoticon(':)')



Look on the drawings of a few closed quivers excavated in Russian Federation or former USSR territory. At the moment I could not find any pictures of the quivers although some of them on open display in museums now.

[Gleb]

The next batch of closed quivers.

[Gleb]

and the last one

[Dusan]

Beatiful , Gleb. We have smal portion information from Russia ! And many says , in Russian museums are houndreds artefacts.

Pradal?aj iskať. ?čeň n??na vsem !

[Ashbow]

Andrew, Bede
Thank you for clarification

Gleb,
Interesting pictures, the position of the two dots on the stout ears of the bow on the picture look like if the ears or some strenghtening pieces on them were somehow pinned.

[Bede]

Gleb,
That looks like a very large bow if my interpretation of the scale is correct.

The closed quivers look a lot like the early Turkish ones. Birch bark may have been very popular at the northern edge of the steppe.

[jack farrell]

Gleb; Very well done. Thanks indeed. But 60 inches would not be an unusual size for such a bow. I guesstimated one in the Silk Road museum, Seoul, to also be 60 inches. Also with bark quiver, mixed arrows. -j-

[Gleb]

Bede, Jack!

Please be aware that the scale in the bow drawing is a metric one! The same with all Soviet/Russian archaeological drawings.

Does anybody have a fine picture of Omnogovi bow? I could not find the article here.

[Gleb]

"

We have smal portion information from Russia !"

That's because we were living in a happy "Iron curtain" grounds

Dzenkuie! For all the warm words!

[Bede]

Here is a drawing I posted earlier. I hope this helps.

[Gleb]

Bede, thank you very much!

Here is few other drawing of closed quivers I find at the moment.