Gengis Khan Exhibit-Houston

Gleb · Post by **Gleb** » Sat Feb 28, 2009 6:56 am

A picture of closed quiver (mentioned in the charts already) in State Historical Mus in Moscow.

And a version of reconstruction of Golden Horde quiver (drawing)

jack farrell · Post by **jack farrell** » Sat Feb 28, 2009 1:19 pm

Gleb; This is some very good material you have posted and it is much appreciated.

Bede; If the Omnigov bow is as you have drawn, it would appear to be of a much later period than the Mongol invasion. Its short length with kasan ridge and tip shape are not elements of other Mongol invasion era bows.

Stephen's Mongol bow is 60 inches along the belly without missing tips. -j-

Andrew Hall · Post by **Andrew Hall** » Sat Feb 28, 2009 4:23 pm

Bede, Jack

The drawing of the Omnogov bow in the Atex and Menes article is somewhat misleading. The bow has an angle between limb and siyah, and no ridged portion of outer limb. From the set it had taken, it did a lot of bending mid-limb. It is very similar to the lower bow in the exhibition photo (also see the post on my approximation). The bow is of late date (1720+/-100) but of early design.

Gleb,
thanks for the quiver photo, I have seen most of the Siberian quiver drawings in various documents from the Novisbirsk State University web site, but it is great to see an original. I wonder how they were suspended, as most do not show any signs of strap attachment.

Kyudohund · Post by **Kyudohund** » Sat Feb 28, 2009 7:17 pm

Dear all,

found the fotos, but only from one bow. The other was really old, looked like the upper bow from the exhibition in Houston, birch-covered and partly delaminated; there were ~ 10 arrows with different points too, but unfortunately I couldn?t take a foto.

Bede, Stephen, you sure can say, if this bow is an origin dated to the time of Ghengis Khan; for me it looks like an old chinese bow?!

Peter

Bede · Post by **Bede** » Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:00 am

Peter,
In my opinion it is a Qing bow of the Manchu period. Incidentally, I have an identical bow case to the one in the pictures also Qing.

Andrew,
Do you draw your conclusions about the bow from the drawings and pictures in the article, or do you have more information? McEwen told me he did the reconstruction from their measurements.

I agree that the bow looks like the lower bow in Jack's picture. I think that is the type of bow that was introduced at the time of the Mongol Empire. Stephen's contributions, I think, represent transitional forms used by various cultures conquered by the Mongol armies. However, it is possible that the lower bow in Jack's picture is much later, perhaps 16th or 17th century.

Are you sure there was no kasan on the Omnogorov bow?

Jack,
The Omnogorov bow is from a later period as you guessed. The question is whether or not it represents a survival of much earlier bows or if it is a late Ming pattern. There are strong indications from the art of Iran, China, Byzantium and the Balkan states that a new type of bow was introduced around the time of the Mongol Conquest. It had a defined kasan and tip area. Whether the kasan was ridged is arguable from the art works because they are not that precise, but all later bows with the same profile have ridged sections. I think that the evidence points to the earlier bows having a limb / siyah transiton with a built in angle and a slighter angle between the kasan/tip transition. Later Persian and Ottoman bows changed that configuration, while many Indian bows retained it and so did Krim Tatar bows.

Regarding the suspension of closed quivers, most of the birch bark ones had applied wood or bone strips with the suspension slots in them. These could be easily detached. Horn ones would possibly be eaten away. Some Quivers from miniature illustrations show one edge suspension point and probably one back one. There are surviving metal mounts that could come from the inside face of closed quivers. Suspension bone plaques are often mentioned in Russian archaeological reports.

Andrew Hall · Post by **Andrew Hall** » Sun Mar 01, 2009 4:30 pm

Bede,
I have a drawing and a couple of photos of the bow, one from the original article and one from a Japanese museum or exhibition catalogue. Copyright issues prevent posting them, so I have attached a photo of my approximation with some notes. The original has twisted badly, so it is difficult to judge the symmetry of the siyahs, but probably had more limb/siyah angle than my version at one end.

I suppose you could relate the lower section of the siyah to a kasan ? it has a triangular in cross section, but the horn and sinew stop at the base of the siyah. Unlike the drawing in the article, McEwen's reconstruction has an angle between limb and siyah, although it looks to be lacking a bit of grip set-back.

There are some contemporary illustrations of bows with limb proportions and siyah shape similar to the Omnogov and lower exhibition bow, so I suspect the type was a medieval one. It is interesting that "Capture of a Town" and "Stampeded Horses" from Jami-et-Tawarikh show siyahs painted or partially painted black, a feature on both bows. (Painting and Culture of the Mongols, M.S. Ipsiroglu, illustrations 8 and 9).

Thanks for the info on quiver suspension. I can't see any holes for attaching any wood or bone strips in the photo, but it is possible the owner was left handed.

Dusan · Post by **Dusan** » Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:32 pm

Color reconstruction Kovalevka kurgan quiver

interesting hunic bow bones from 1,2-Niredhaza,4-Szeged-Hungaria

jack farrell · Post by **jack farrell** » Mon Mar 02, 2009 12:15 am

Well guys, I just got back from the GK exhibition. But my internet is not working so we will have to wait just a little longer.

I can tell you that in the exhibit both bows were close to the glass and easy to see. Andrew hit it right on by saying that the upper bow looks like a backed wood bow. The other has 5 pieces of horn belly and spliced in recurves. The transition is rounded triangular, the siyah itself is triangular with a horn insert in the nock. No kasan.

The horn bow is in medium condition which means that almost everything is showing. The tips appear to have been painted black.

Quiver is suspended by one slotted piece of bone at the opening and another somewhat down the neck made of wood. The hangers are quite polished from use.

Some arrows are "Persian fletched" and others are "Mediterranean" possibly all made from shoots.

Will get back when the machine can post the field notes. -j-

Bede · Post by **Bede** » Mon Mar 02, 2009 12:49 am

Andrew,
When I queried McEwen about the lack of reflex at the grip in the strung bow, he said that it disappeared with bracing. Perhaps I am a bit imprecise referring to the kasan. I mean the triangular section of the siyah, whether or not it has been hollowed out to form a clear ridge. Since the only original Turkish bow I have is in this form rather than the more common form, I tend to give equal attention to both possibilities.

I would not be surprised at the limb/siyah angle being larger because that makes more sense if the bows developed from straight siyah types. That would mean that Indian crab bows are archaic in form compared to Sind bows and Crimean Tatar bows and that they are in the same relation to modern (16th century) Turkish and Persian bows.

I am familiar with the paintings you mention. I think the artists were aware of the new forms of the siyah in use but had not worked out a standard way to depict them. I think they started with an old pounced form and redrew it to fit the newer structure.

Jack,
I look forward to your report. Are the horn strips butt-spliced or laid down parallel to each other.

jack farrell · Post by **jack farrell** » Mon Mar 02, 2009 3:55 am

My connection has repaired itself miraculously!!!

jack farrell · Post by **jack farrell** » Mon Mar 02, 2009 4:02 am

The "Backed" Bow

jack farrell · Post by **jack farrell** » Mon Mar 02, 2009 4:03 am

Arrows;

jack farrell · Post by **jack farrell** » Mon Mar 02, 2009 4:05 am

Arrow points & Misc.

Bede · Post by **Bede** » Mon Mar 02, 2009 5:05 am

Jack,
My first question is was the butt joint of the horn over a thick part of the limb or the half inch thick bending section?

Stephen Selby · Post by **Stephen Selby** » Mon Mar 02, 2009 8:55 am

jack farrell wrote:The "Backed" Bow

Jack, relating to your sketch of the 'backed bow', this is close to the one that I have got. What are your observations about the nock? My one has no indications of a string nock at all. Did you see any horn or bone reinforcement at the tip of that bow?