Mongol Bow in Silk Road Museum, Seoul

jack farrell · Post by **jack farrell** » Sat Sep 26, 2009 4:22 am

I have discussed this bow before but when I returned after #3 WTAF , all the archery materials had been moved to their own room in a well lit area. A change of position of this bow now allows more precise viewing and photography.

The bow would appear to have a one piece core or possibly have a single splice in the grip. Two belly horn slats are spaced at the grip by a bone, or more likely wood spacer of 4 or 5 inches to which they abut. The light is seen to pass through the joint. Grip is to the right.

Intact sinew on the grip may exceed 1/4 inch.

jack farrell · Post by **jack farrell** » Sat Sep 26, 2009 4:27 am

The other end of the horn belly slat ends just before the bend of the ear. A slat of wood abuts the horn, makes the bend of the ear and continues through to the tip of the nock. The ear is on the left.

jack farrell · Post by **jack farrell** » Sat Sep 26, 2009 4:30 am

The two nocks are identical in joinery. The small wood belly slat has been worked into the nocks. The left one is slightly damaged by being bitten by a small animal with sharp teeth. The grain is close and not noticeable.

jack farrell · Post by **jack farrell** » Sat Sep 26, 2009 4:34 am

I would identify this bow as an early Mongol invasion bow. An identifying feature of this type of bow is the spoon like nock tip with the notch cut close to the end. The same joinery is visible in both bow tips.

jack farrell · Post by **jack farrell** » Sat Sep 26, 2009 4:59 am

There are six documented Mongol bows and several other possible ones known not well documented.

Known ones are two HMNS bows which i shall henceforth refer to as the Shiluustei sum straight and curved bows (of Mongolia), one from the Budapest museum which Dusan has brought to our attention. This bow is reconstructed in this illustration. The bow in the Stephen Selby collection, published on atarn, is likewise with reconstructed tips. The Silk Road Museum bow is now documented here. Stephen has also published the Xining bow on Atarn.

It appears most likely that of all the Mongol bows accessible, all but the Shiluustei sum curved bow share a similar method of construction which is a modification of Hunnic styling and not yet Turkic. The Ss curved bow would now represent the earliest complete Turkic type bow known, though lacking a kasan of later bows. -j-

Dusan · Post by **Dusan** » Sat Sep 26, 2009 8:34 am

Good work Jack. Thank you . Interesting summary.I assume that Jesugei record was probably shooting vit somthing like "Ss curved- HMNS Museum" earlier turcic tipe bow.

Bede · Post by **Bede** » Sat Sep 26, 2009 9:10 am

Thanks to Jack for giving me details of this museum. I went there after the Third WTAF and took many photos.

Dusan are you referring to the shot by Yissunge, Chinggis Khan's grandson?

This bow is associated with a closed quiver, though I don't know if they were excavated together. The quiver is of a type that has been referred to on this site as Mongol, but the only securely dated one that I know of comes from Tuva and is possibly seventh to eighth century. It was associated with the Turks. Having examined the quiver closely and comparing it to the diagrams in the Russian notes, I think they are from the same cultural group. The design might have been transmitted to the Mongols, but it is more likely that this quiver and the others were used by Turkish soldiers, whether working for the Mongols or from an earlier period.

Unfortunately, carbon-14 dating for objects this close to our time is imprecise for finding something that was used within a hundred year period. I think that Jack has accurately summarised the bows of the type we see here. They seem to form a family. I think Jack has identified something very important in the relationship of the string nock to the tip. It is unusually close to the end of the bow.

The other bows in the museum cover a greater age range. The large collection of arrowheads show a wide variation too. Peter Dekker recognised many types similar to the Qing specifications but clearly much older. This degree of continuity in design is quite remarkable.

Again, I thank Jack for discovering this useful and accessible collection.

Dusan · Post by **Dusan** » Sat Sep 26, 2009 3:50 pm

Yes i mean Chinggis grandson and stone refering about his record.

Gleb · Post by **Gleb** » Sat Sep 26, 2009 5:49 pm

Very good comparison chart, Jack!
The Omnogov bow and Osinkinskiy burial ground bow (Altay Mnts, dated 10-12c AD) would be a nice add to the chart (as I think?).

Gleb

Dusan · Post by **Dusan** » Sat Sep 26, 2009 7:38 pm

This bow survive full , or this draw is only reconstruction , Gleb ?

jack farrell · Post by **jack farrell** » Sun Sep 27, 2009 3:17 am

Gleb; At the moment I would have to add the Osinkinskiy bow and the Omnogov bow to the category of bows we do not know enough about.

For instance I share some doubt with Dusan that the drawing is not of an intact bow but an artist's reconstruction of what one bow might have looked like. The details are very pleasing. However I have never heard of a report on this bow, nor a photo to support the drawing.

I have a picture of the Omnogov bow. It appears very similar to the Shiluustei sum curved bow. Andrew Hall has informed me that it has been radio carbon tested to about the 17th century. One radio carbon date, especially if suspect, is not all important. However, lacking other information, it would exclude the bow from the time frame.

These two bows warrant more looking into. If anyone can supply reports on them, I would be much interested.

It should be added that now that the SR Museum bow has been moved, it is possible to see the reflex of the lower limb is significantly less than in the drawing. The two Ss bows and Genghis Khan exhibit have moved on to the Denver Museum of Nature and Science.. Jack

Andrew Hall · Post by **Andrew Hall** » Sun Sep 27, 2009 9:46 am

Jack, Thanks for posting the photos. The use of a bone grip belly strip with expanding ends butting to the horn seems to be used as an identifying characteristic of Mongolian bows by Russian archaeologists. This was in use from about the 10th to 18th centuries. Other materials could have been used (horn or wood), but usually only the bone would survive and bows without a grip belly strip would not be visible.

I must have had a miscommunication on the dates. The Omnogov bow was carbon dated at 1720AD +/- 100 (which is quite a large uncertainty for a late date). It was found in a cave burial in the northern Gobi Desert in the Omnogov Aimak. It is thought to be a late survivor of an earlier design (Atex & Menes, JSAA 38 ). The close match to the Shiluustei sum curved bow tends to agree with this.

I have seen the Osinkinskiy bow drawing in Khudyakov Yu. S. "Armaments of the Yenisey Kyrgyz VI-XII centuries A.D", where he likens a bow found on the River Ect to it. Automatic translation from Russian is not very clear, but the description of the River Ect bow gives the impression that there is some surviving woodwork. The ends are attached to the core with "wooden grooves" - spliced in siyahs? Khudyakov's type sketch has the bow with a bone back strip, which does not make sense.

Anyone know what sort of tips the Osinkinskiy bow has? The lower one looks almost as if it is metal fit-over type with a rivet to secure.

The designs with large grip set back and low limb-siyah reflex (Osinkinskiy, Silk road museum) look like they would stack very badly.

Andrew

Gleb · Post by **Gleb** » Sun Sep 27, 2009 12:09 pm

Jack and Andrew, you are both right ? I? made a hasty decision too weary for a expansion of bow chart. Mia culpa!

The bow reconstruction was published in Khudyakov Yuliy. "Armaments of the Yenisey Kyrgyz VI-XII centuries A.D", Novosibirsk, 1980, p. 69. And it a representation of Es? bow, not the Osinkinskiy burial bow.

Khudyakov writes about 4 types of Yenisey Kyrgyz bows:
1. tip and handle side plates;
2. handle side plates;
3. handle side and frontal plates;
4. tip frontal plates (one example find in a burial on river Es?, not Ect)).

He compares the last type (Es? bow) with a find at Osinkinskiy burial. Es? bow dates: total length ? 12cm. The bow find consist of wooden core and horn belly plates. The bow tips with bow string notches and string catch is lengthen at the and fasten together with wooden rabbets (for me it looks more like wooden nails). Further he writes that ?probably the length of horn frontal plates equal to the bow length from the handle up to ledge (?) close to bow tips and it?s around 30cm long and 3cm wide. On the outer side these plates have slanting notches. The wooden core (except of tips) covered with clued birch bark.
.
On Osinkinskiy burial bow:
During the archaeological researches on Osinkinskiy burial (1970 Savinov D.G.) was find the remnants of 4 (!) bows. 1. handle side and tip frontal (as written by Savinov but it really looks as tip side plate) plates (№№ 3 and 5 in picture), 2. tip frontal (4), 3. handle frontal plate (6), 4. handle frontal and tip frontal plates (1 & 7).

Andrew Hall · Post by **Andrew Hall** » Sun Sep 27, 2009 3:16 pm

Gleb
I had read Khudyakov's text as the illustrated bow being the Osinkinskiy bow. I don't know why Google Translate converted "Есь" to "Ect.", unless it thought it was an OCR problem (reading "ь" as "t.").

If the Es' bow does have wood and horn surviving, it puts it in a very select group and worthy of further investigation. (You have a minor typo in the length - it is 120cm rather than 12cm.)

I don't understand Khudyakov's explanation of the construction of the bow (the use of frontal for both back and belly does not help). His type summary drawing only shows bone plates on the back of the limbs (the other types make sense). Why would you use wooden nails?

I am not convinced that items 1 and 3 in the photo are bow parts. If the groove in the end is for the string attachment, which what Savinov seems it indicate, the tip would be horribly wide and heavy. If mounted to the side, rather than the back, I would expect the groove to be deeper on one side.

Items 6 and 7 are typical "Mongolian" grip belly plates of the type that may be fitted to the Silk Road Museum bow.

Andrew

Bede · Post by **Bede** » Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:37 am

Regarding the Omnogov bow, it survived substantially intact though considerably twisted. There is a photograph of the bow on p. 72 of Vol. 38 of the Journal of the Society of Archer-Antiquaries. There are also photographs of McEwen's reproduction. When I question him about the lack of setback in the handle, he said the reproduction was made with a setback, but the original was slight and it disappeared when he strung the reproduction.