Bows from Miran

jack farrell · Post by **jack farrell** » Sun Jul 26, 2009 9:13 pm

Thankyou Stephen for republishing our article here on ATARN and to Andrew Hall for preparing the article for same. These are a pair of bows found on the Silk Road which had not been published before.

http://atarn.org/chinese/miran/Bows%20a ... Miran.html

It has now been two years since I promised to share this information. So goes writing.

This September I will present a paper in Korea at the WTAF on "The Bow in Central Asia". I do not think they will mind if I immediately turn it over to Stephen for republication here. To my thinking this topic has not been published before.

To those who come to Korea, copyright considerations there allow my oral presentation to contain many illustrations not allowed elsewhere. A picture tells a thousand words. Hope to see you all there! Jack

Stephen Selby · Post by **Stephen Selby** » Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:22 am

Thanks to you and Andrew for your efforts. Check out the article on Indonesian trad archery, too. This is an exciting new area for ATARN.

Dusan · Post by **Dusan** » Mon Jul 27, 2009 4:54 pm

Wonderfull boys ! Very interesting ! We are closer to the history bow evolution.

daryush · Post by **daryush** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 1:11 am

That's a really interesting article, especially about the different bow shapes. Do you know anything about their cross-section?

jack farrell · Post by **jack farrell** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 5:05 pm

Hunn type bows are very interesting because every one is somewhat different. One thing they have in common is that the ears are not spliced on but the limb slat is curved around to form the core of the recurve. The horn builds this up and other slats are added to fill out the necessary thickness. Most usually bone plates fill out the edges and replace the core at the nock, where the bone plates meet.

In the earliest versions, the limb core slats overlap at the grip and are reenforced with bone plates.

In the Miran bows, the grips are short and, as Andrew has pointed out, this makes it less likely that there is a splice, and therefore probably also lacks bone grip plates.

Therefore, the core is likely one piece with a riser at the grip with additional slats reenforcing the ears and making a type of kasan, as it were.

The unique feature of these bows, though they are constructed somewhat differently, is that each has two spiral layers of sinew opposing eachother, in addition to the usual lateral one. The stature, curve and nocks are almost identical. Alltogether, it is most likely that the same person made both bows, or at least that they were made in the same workshop.

I will go further and say they were both carried and burried with one individual. I have demonstrated in earlier posts that it was not unusual in the first millennium for archers to carry two bows.

Andrew can certainly add to this. Jack

redhawk · Post by **redhawk** » Sat Aug 01, 2009 8:39 am

Thanks Jack and Andrew for sharing this.

Maybe I?ve missed something.
Are you talking about hornbows or all wood laminated bows, similiar to the olon kurin gol findings?

Michael

jack farrell · Post by **jack farrell** » Sat Aug 01, 2009 1:11 pm

These bows are covered almost entirely with sinew so it is not possible to know the construction exactly. But other Hunn bows are hornbows.

Even before seeing these bows I wondered about the practicality of wrapping a bow diagonally with sinew. Do ATARNites have an opinion on the engineering?

Redhorse · Post by **Redhorse** » Sat Aug 01, 2009 2:12 pm

Diagonally so the sinew don't separate. But why wrap? Maybe the belly and back need that so they don't separate. Glue issue?

Dusan · Post by **Dusan** » Sat Aug 01, 2009 2:18 pm

From mi point of view diagonally wraping have only one reason- hold all components fast together.. If you need good compact holding ,you have no vay - only diagonaly sinev. This must be strong heavy war or hunter bows , because if archer need more fine and tuning sporting bow, every gram sinev slower his bow down.

jack farrell · Post by **jack farrell** » Sun Aug 02, 2009 3:08 am

One of the bows was altered after final construction, the heavy bow. An additional layer of longitudal sinew was added after the two spiral layers, surely to further strengthen the bow. By the dimensions, Andrew guesses that the heavy bow drew at least twice what the light bow did.

Now if the heavy bow pulled 120 or 130, which I suppose is possible, then the light bow would have pulled only 60 or 65#.

The heavy bow was a kind of artillery for extreme distance but the light bow was for accuracy. And the bows are associated with what looks like leather armor scales, so the implication is military. Of course there is no proof but there is evidence.

There are representations of Sakians using these bows to shoot the horse and at warriors faces, as these were the only unarmored targets. -j-

Stephen Selby · Post by **Stephen Selby** » Mon Aug 03, 2009 2:25 am

I have seen diagonal wrapping with sinew on both Xiongnu and Scythian-type bows. It seems to be associated with potential points of weakness. Since some Central Asian bows were made of overlapping components, these potential weak points were more common. It must have worked ok...

redhawk · Post by **redhawk** » Mon Aug 03, 2009 6:57 am

I?ve seen tracks of diagonal wrappings at the bow- findings of olon kurin gol too. The grip- section, the recurves, the sharp curves at both sides of the grip had been wrapped, I guess with sinew, it makes sense to wrap these spots. I did it on my reconstructions too.

Jack, did you record the relation of the lengths of the longer and the shorter limb. Maybe you remind that I?m looking for the Golden ratio within asymmetrical bows?
Is there really no track of any horn- slats at the bow?s belly?

Michael

daryush · Post by **daryush** » Mon Aug 03, 2009 5:33 pm

Stephen Selby wrote:I have seen diagonal wrapping with sinew on both Xiongnu and Scythian-type bows. It seems to be associated with potential points of weakness. Since some Central Asian bows were made of overlapping components, these potential weak points were more common. It must have worked ok...

Are overlaps inferior to splicing the parts together? How come?

jack farrell · Post by **jack farrell** » Mon Aug 03, 2009 11:57 pm

Michael; I did not handle the bows. They were in a private museum which I was visiting. The museum had many wonderful items including these bows and a Mongol one with quiver of arrows in the same case. I never asked to open the case and examine them. The backs of both Hunn bows faced out. I took pictures, made drawings. noted details, and that was all. Later, I teamed up with Andrew Hall because of his important work on the subject.

We discussed the project for much of a year and this article is the result. Somewhere there are alot of these bows in burials, but for now very few have been found and are published. Now there are two more.

Daryush, of course a V-spliced together bow core (Turkic type) is superior to layered (I am afraid to say laminated because someone will ask if Hunns had fiberglass and epoxy) Is a cartridge rifle better than a muzzle loader?

Is a modern race car better than a steam driven car? Of course they are. Technology developes over time. But the ancients did not know what they did not know. Centuries or a millinneum separates Hunn technology from Turkic.

Personally I am interested in the entire spectrum of the History of the bow., as are many others. -j-

daryush · Post by **daryush** » Tue Aug 04, 2009 12:03 am

I don't quite understand why a V-splice is superior to layering / overlapping though ...

Bows from Miran

Bows from Miran

miran bows

Miran bows