Bulgarian findings regarding composite bows

Lord Ruthven · Post by **Lord Ruthven** » Thu Apr 09, 2009 2:32 pm

As I promised in the serbian topic - here I'll put what I have.
Unfortunately there is not much - some bone plates - both from syahs and handle, some thumbrings and lots of arrowheads.

Lord Ruthven · Post by **Lord Ruthven** » Thu Apr 09, 2009 2:35 pm

And here are some thumbrings. Those are dated 7 th to 14th c.

MupKo · Post by **MupKo** » Thu Apr 09, 2009 4:00 pm

Lord Ruthven, you are right. Archeologists never seen working bow. If you want to find out anything about old bows, you need archeologist, historian, bow maker, and archer!!! And that's the main problem.
Write some basic Bulgarian history, for me and for others. Mix of Slavs and old Bugars, who were Turkish tribe, right? Archery tradition came from Turkish side? But Slavs were also archers, just not horse archers?

Lord Ruthven · Post by **Lord Ruthven** » Thu Apr 09, 2009 7:31 pm

You are absolutely right about archaeologists, historians, bow makers and archers. Actually the problem is not only regarding bows - it's the same with every piece of armory and weapons.

About the history - Well, there's dispute what are the origins of the old bulgars - turkick or sarmathian. There is historical, archaeological and linguistical evidence of both. The problem here is very politically charged - pro-rusian historians say old bulgars that came here were verry litle turkick tribe in the sea of slavs, anti-rusian historians - the bulgars were about the same number as slavs and were sarmathians. So for now there's a mess of opinions.
I hope the next generation historians will not be so politically charged so there might be a reason behind theories.
However, what is known is bulgars were good horse-archers who used only composite bows.
The slavs on the other hand also used bows with great success, but their bows, according to byzantine authors were selfbows. They were foot-archers. After the union of the ethnic groups and adoption of christianity during the reign of knyaz Boris it seems that the composite bow was addopted from all.

Later invaders (and in most cases - allies) were pechenegs, magyars, kummans who also used composite bows.

Best regards

Dusan · Post by **Dusan** » Thu Apr 09, 2009 7:53 pm

Ohohoo guys, if this thumbrings are earlier then Otomans - i mean from Avars or Bulgars times ,that is ,what i know very first thumbrings in European archeological founs. But this gold looks like turkish...

Bede · Post by **Bede** » Fri Apr 10, 2009 4:49 am

Probably some of the thumb rings are Byzantine too. The introduction of thumb rings into the Balkans probably had several sources. The Avars and the Avarian influenced Byzantines are good ones. However, it would be best to be cautious. The majority are likely to be Ottoman.

Regarding the ethnicity of the Bulgars, linguistic evidence indicates a Turkic origin. There are Turkish names and titles in early times. Later they merged into their Slavic neighbours, but it would be interesting to know if they picked up Slavic groups on their move West. Nothing was as clear cut as nineteenth century historians thought. Many invasions leave little or no genetic traces. Language and culture are often all that survives.

Modern nationalistic sentiments aside, the Balkans are a rich melting pot of cultures and civilisations. People living there today have many cultural traditions to be proud of. History has been hard on the area with many wars and invasions, but the people who are alive now can claim many cultural inheritances.

More great archaeological discoveries are sure to be made in Bulgaria and neighbouring countries. I hope some of the people writing here will help the archaeologists interpret the archery remains.

Dusan · Post by **Dusan** » Fri Apr 10, 2009 5:43 am

There is no question Bede. In this territory was long time before slavic people. Bulgars was runing from Big Bulgars kingdom from north steppes . Mongols army attacking Bullgars from his mother land.If there no so much Slavs , Bulgars save his turcic language and more original cultur. Same proces is in Russians ( or our brother country Czechs ). Rul control and warriors was vikings, but bigger cultural pressure from Slavs was vin.

Lord Ruthven · Post by **Lord Ruthven** » Fri Apr 10, 2009 8:09 am

Nah, actually slavs came here in the 6-th c. AD from the north. Between 6th and 7th c. they layed 5 sieges of Solun (Thesaloniki). Later when one of the Kubrat's sons - Asparukh came with part of the bulgars in the late 7th c. they formed an alliance.
One of the other brothers, the oldest - Bat Bayan, remained with part of the bulgars in the land of the Old Great Bulgaria (Παλαιά Μεγάλη Βουλγαρία in Byzantine chronicles) and was conquered by the Khazars (NOT THE MONGOLS). Other established the Volga-Bulgaria, which later adopted Islam and was destroyed in the 14th c. by the mongols. One went to Italy and the traces of him disappeared. 2 came to the Balkan penincula before Asparukh and settled near modern day Bitola in FYROM. The last written account about them is from the early 8th c. from a rock inscription regarding Tervel's help to Justinian II.

@Bede - some of the titles are definately turkic, the others - are not, and there are quite a lot sarmathian names, toponims and words, as well as the turkic ones. So the lingistic and archaeological evidence is that bulgars were not homogeneous turkic tribe, but maybe a mix of turkic and sarmathian tribes, or maybe turkic tribe with strong sarmathian influence or vice versa.

As for the thumbrings - those from archaeological sketches are dated 7th - 9th c. and are 100% bulgarian, from burrials. The bronze one (actually it's not gold, it's bronze) is 14th c. and really looks like ottoman, and the other is 13th c., origin - unknown.

Dusan · Post by **Dusan** » Fri Apr 10, 2009 11:09 am

This Slavs coming in 6 -th c. is old oficial and today not very serious theorie. Bud stil function. Most historicians stay in new theorie , but very controverse - because is not oficial chronical surces that Slavs was in Europa teritory much more earlier...I mean the Great Bulgar state in Volga .

MupKo · Post by **MupKo** » Fri Apr 10, 2009 12:39 pm

I think that we should not discuss when Slavs come, and what nationality were Bulgar, topics like that can make confrontations that we don't need.
Lord, about Slav bows, are you sure that Byzantine sources says that Slavs used selfbows? I reed only one, and not original, then translation. It says-Slavs don't use knifes, then two small spears, wooden bow and small poisoned arrows. (Jovan Efeski) Wooden bow can be more then selfbow, and it have sense, if it is true that Slavs were well known archers, but on the other hand small (short) arrows can meen short draw=primitive bow=selfbow?

Lord Ruthven · Post by **Lord Ruthven** » Fri Apr 10, 2009 2:17 pm

Actually, you are correct. What is said is "wooden bow" (it's in Strategicon by Pseudo Maurice actually, not in Joan Efeski). But the logic I use is the same as yours: "but on the other hand small (short) arrows must mean short draw=primitive bow=selfbow?"

Dusan · Post by **Dusan** » Fri Apr 10, 2009 3:08 pm

I dont try any flame , Mupko, but here all time talking about history. You are interesting about slaws bows ,but not about Slaws and his contact with nomads tribes ..? Its important i mean . For example Novgorod bow. Everybody mean that if he was found in Nowgorod - its Slaws bow .Realy ? This bow have same construction like many of nort nomads tribes bows without horn ...Entusiats in Czech and Slovak rep. was in very intensive discusin about same thema, but without real end . No archelogical foundings . Only some text (same Byzantine sources), more iron arrowheads , but many more nomads arrowheads and nomad(Avars, Huns, Sarmats, Old Magyars..) horsearchers graves.

Andrew Hall · Post by **Andrew Hall** » Fri Apr 10, 2009 3:16 pm

Lord Ruthven,
thanks for posting the pictures of the bone plates. Do you have any dating information? (I would assume they are comparable in date with the early Avar types, which the complete example of item 16 resembles with the exception of the distinctive rounded tip.)

I have seen fragments like 30 and 31 being reported as handles for Hungarian bow cases.

There are mentions of a Hunno-Bulgar bow type linked to the ancient Bulgars in southern Russian in some of the Russian archaeological sources. I have yet to see any drawings of this type type but from the descriptions it would appear to be similar to the early Avar types. Most of the finds are just bone plates, but a more intact 6th C "proto-Bulgarian" bow was found at Porechny Island in the lower Don. Unfortunately this has yet to be published.

Andrew

Gleb · Post by **Gleb** » Fri Apr 10, 2009 3:53 pm

Andrew, the bone plates (## 29, 30, 31) reminds me the end plates of soft Hungarian bow case. Here the reconstruction version of such a bow case made by a Russian researcher and published at Tozje Gorod (reconstruction-reenactment forum). The only thing these plates usually came in pairs.

Gleb · Post by **Gleb** » Fri Apr 10, 2009 3:54 pm

more pictures