2 Serbian bows-''graphic'' reconstruction of bow shape by

[Zoran Pavlovic]

Hello to everyone,
I just finished some of my observations on 2 composite bows depicted at medieval wall painting in old Serbian monasteries. To determine shape of these bows i used common shape of number of whole painted bows which appears in serbian medieval mural painting across Serbia and other parts which were lands of Serbian state in mediaeval times.

What is very interesting is the fact that all depicted bows have almost same shape, having shorter form than modern e.g. ''Naadam'' bows in Mongolia and also replicated Hungarian/Magyar ones(i also compared them with modern replicas). In all of them, reflex at the grip is slightly bigger than mentioned ones. Also, rigid ends or ears are always shorter in comparison to classic asiatic bows that we knows and they show variation in form from bow to bow though there are situations where same bow appears at several frescoes or it is painted/added later.

Even if a bow is stylized (it was purpose of painter 'cause of different reasons and i wouldn't comment it now), stylization can be noticed only at the ears and if it is not strong stylization as e.g. metal parts, the bow could be replicated. Usual for all the bows beside their form is dimly colour at the back and white at the inner part of the bow. I think i can solve this question.Also, looks like bows in medieval Serbian army from the very beginning of XIVth century till the mid of XVth c were unified and were mostly made in Serbia though they were adopted wether by military and trade relationships with Byzantium,Golden Horde, Bulgaria and Hungary, wether by oriental mercenaries, mostly Tatars, Yassians,Cumans and Turks beginning with the end of XIIIth century. About the proofs of using composite bows in Serbian army back to XIIth century it should be question for another topic.

So, i expect the opinion and critics of friends from atarn so that we can contribute to the world history, make knowledge about ancient archery more clear and also do some revitalizations.

[Zoran Pavlovic]

This is first one. I will comment it later.

[Zoran Pavlovic]

#This bow has shorter form with more reflexed grip.
As its form is shorter than many today traditional composite bows and reconstructed bows(i don't count turkish and korean bows) it is noticeable that rigid ends or ears(уши,ушице) are also shorter than modern traditional bows of Central Asia and China but longer than average bash in turkish bows.

Bow shape indicates typical old mongol type bow. I did my effort to get proof of adopting composite bow from Byzantium since Serbian rulers at the end of XIIIth c and especially during the rule of emperor Stephan Dushan when byzantine institutions,even military ones became strongly accepted, were under stronger byzantine influences. But also, beside German,French and Katalanian mercenaries from the western part of Europe which were employed in the armies of Serbian rulers, Oriental mercenaries had big role in warfare too.

Someone could say, if it has smaller form than today Mongolian ''Naadam'' bow how it could be mongolian type?. There's simple answer. Old mongolian bows from the era of Ghengis Khan and bit later were smaller in form since today mongolian bow design derived from Manchu style of later time.

The bow depicted at frescoe in Lesnovo and every other bow in Serbia and north Makedonija seem to be wrapped by thin layers of birch bark (it can solve question about light colour of the inner side of bow).At the first time i thought it could be silk as decoration having in mind that these bows, possibly rich decorated belonged to nobility, but i rejected it.It is done because of protection of the bow from moisture and rain and also damage.
After birch bark wrappings, bow was more than likely backed with leather from the same purpose as it was purpose of birch bark. The color of this what we could consider as leather is dark orange (possibly deer skin) and due to centuries we couldn't see was it ornamented or not but it can be possible perceiving that role of non-canonic elements such as weapon was to expose the power of landowners and rulers.

Interesting parts are the ears of the bow with ''slanting'' notchs where string, that painter was painting almost realistic in some parts though he made mistake in regards to position of it, was placed. Position of rigid ends has angle similar as it is in later Mongolian, Manchu or Chinese bows so it needed string bridge or knee to be added. Judging by the position of the string and darker parts near the end of limbs we can accept it as string bridge. This also can attest lack of knowledge and proof that string bridge that appears in later times existed in old mongolian type long time before Manchu style and also at some mediaeval serbian bows of mongolian/tatar type. Another interesting thing, it looks like that ears/siyahs have some groove or spout to lead the string to the bridge( i saw it in korean bows).
There's no evidence of sinew wrappings around the ears nor grip, as it is common in mongolian and magyar bows, but maybe we couldn't see it because of leather backing.Also, it is case with every bow from mediaeval Serbia.

I think it is too soon to talk about dimensions, i will tell more about it later but i estimated bow lenght 125-130 cm, ears 18 cm from tip till the beginning of splice. Lenght between string and grip is pretty big but it is matter of shorter form of the bow. It is impossible to notice deflex on the grip portion to avoid archer's paradox but painter wasn't man of 21the century.
Also i am sure that now, after we determine measurements we can work on replica and get proof is this working or not.Am sure it will work;-)

[Zoran Pavlovic]

This is the bow of st.Prokopije depicted in the church of Serbian Peć Patriarchate in Kosovo and Metohija. and also reconstruction of its shape.I think it is most known and repeated frescoe of some warrior saint here at ATARN.

[jbl]

Very interesting, subject thanks for the information.

[Zoran Pavlovic]

So, as it was case with previous bow, to determine the shape i used form common in mostly presented bows at serbian frescoes. To be honest i didn't visit both monasteries for a years (since N.A.T.O. bombing) and i worked only with pictures. Theres a lot of other elements that couldn't be seen at photograph and some of them i didn't observed.

Same as previous bow, bow that st.Procopius holds in the bowcase belongs to old mongolian style or even cuman bows slightly changed by some serbian bowyer.

As in other bows this bow has deeper reflex at the grip. Its form is shorter than today ''Naadam'' bows and distance between string of strung bow and grip is average and not characteristic as in previous one.
After sinewing, bow is wrapped by thin layers of birch bark and then backed by leather. It is very visible ridged part of siyah under leathered cover.

What is very interesting at this bow are ears. They are a bit crescent in shape, placed in the position that undoubtely need string bridge. Painter was very realistic depicting this bow so that we could see white color at the outer side of the ears which imply bone plates as decoration(or even birch bark layers). Even at photography, it is pretty visible that bone laths have 2 notchs in the raw. Sounds weird, but two notches even not common appear in some discovered graves, for exemple in Bulgaria. What could be role of 2 notches? I think answer is second string tied to the end of working limb and to the grip.It was reserve if one string breaks during the battle or hunting. As Stephen noticed, second string was common in Turkish army.

String was depicted very realistic,so we can see every thread in the string that could be made from sheep guts though serbian epics describe even strings made of interlaced strips horse skin but not tail.It is very visible in real.
As the angle of ears needs string bridge, darker parts under the place where ear and limb meet, at the base of ears, imply them, so that archer cant ''slightly increase the total energy stored by the draw and available to the arrow''.

It is not so easy to determine dimensions of this bow since lower part of St.Procopius' body is exaggerated (i do not want to enter reasons though i know why) so i used upper part and average height of today man,180cm (Slavic and Germanic peoples were taller than people of Orient), and bow can be up to 130cm(maximum), with ears 18cm as in previous one. I measured length of parts of body.

I am sure that replica of this bow is very possible. I will try maple 'cause bamboo wasn't wood of this part of world.Also, maple is very rated wood here such as elm. I wouldn't try ash though wooden bows were made of this kind of tree. Replica will tell will maple work or not. It is worth to try and if someone understood it as challenge let's do it.
I will come with some news soon if it is not forbidden;-)

[Jos?Dom]

Zoran, thanks for these pictures. it?s not common to find bows so well represented in art. I bet the artist had good knowledge of these bows. Good luck.

[Zoran Pavlovic]

#Jose,
Thanx. Yes, artist had real weapon in front of him. Even if his purpose was to depict anchoretic look of saints same as warrior saints (minor or major) he also had at the same time to expose power of nobility/Maecenas and he did it by painting of weapon and military equipement. He had warriors which posed in different martial poses as pattern but it was canonic they to be presented anchoretic exhausted. Serbian mural painting kept basic characteristics of Eastern, Orthodox Christian iconography, but serbian artists even developped it and they had more possibilities to give original performance of some moments of life through details in religious composition.Painting same weapon couple of times they gave many of its elements in different ways so we can join all these confused details and get clear picture about look of weapon. It was same with bows.
#jbl Thank you.

[jack farrell]

Zoran; Because of a lack of an actual prototype, maybe you should begin assuming that the murals are very accurate and use some evidence to disprove their accuracy rather than the other way around.

I find them to be reasonably accurate. My favorite is the St. Demetrios. The quiver is like other artifacts, Quiver is worn absolutly correctly, as is the bow. The horse tack is totally accurate. All looks good. The second one above is also very good.

The bows do not have their inspiration in Mongol style but rather in the Turkic style which seems to have predominated and influenced the later Mongol bows. (and preceded)

Preview the several long Kazakh bows which Dusan posted in his Russian bows post. The first bow above has a definite step in the upper limb/ridged area in the manner of a crab bow. Find Serindia's post on a bow from Xinjiang with a similar step down.

These saint's bows would probably be in the 150cm length and shoot arrows in the 80 cm length, the arrows like Tatar ones in the Kremlin collection. -j-

[Bede]

Zoran,
The second "string' is probably the same type of binding seen in the painting "Qubilai Qan Hunting" and in the Rashid ud-Din manuscript in Edinburgh where there is a miniature of Rustam shooting his brother. This is usually bound to both limbs and the handle.

I am puzzled by the reconstruction in one drawing of the grip bulging on the belly side. The murals show only the upper limbs without the handle.

As Jack has pointed out there is an intimate connection between Early Turkish and Early Mongol bows. Changes in the degree of reflex in the handle distinguish the earlier Turkish bows in Central Asia and the later Ottoman bows. For technical reasons, as Turkish bows were shortened from the original Central Asian prototypes, it looks like the the built-in reflex at handle was reduced. This clear when later Ottoman bows are compared with Crimean Tatar bows.

It is quite possible that Balkan bow design was affected by Kuman influence in the pre-Mongol period. During the Latin occupation of Constantinople, Kuman (Cuman/Kipchak) armies were engaged in fighting the Latin Crusaders on the side of various rulers. When the Mongols established the Qipchaq Horde, the re-established Byzantine Emperors made alliances with the Khans that lasted into the mid-fifteenth century. This would have allowed the latest Mongol bows to be seen and copied. In the 1300s, Turkish tribesmen from Anatolia started to infiltrate the Balkans. By the early 15th century, the Ottoman sultan was fully established in Adrianople (Edirne). This meant that Balkan bowyers would have seen the latest Ottoman designs.

Historically, the Balkans would have been influenced by Turks directly from the steppe, their Mongol conquerors and then the Ottoman Turks from Anatolia. Over the 13th to 15th centuries, most of latest bow types would have been seen in use by their neighbours. In earlier centuries, the Avars, the Old Bulgars, the Magyars and the Pechenegs all sent armies through the area either to raid or conquer parts of it. This is an extraordinary amount of exposure to composite bow designs.

[Zoran Pavlovic]

# Jack, you are right about term I?ve incorrectly applied as Mongol type. But, when I used this term I did mean ??mongol?? in the figurative sense having in mind remains of Great Mongol Empire nearby Balkan area such as Golden Horde. It is often in Serbian language to use the word Tatar, both for Mongols of Genghis Khan and Tatars which is actually incorrect.I didn?t want to use term ??mongolian?? as ethnical but political one. So thank you because you corrected me to don?t do same mistake in the future.
And this is good introduction to say something in addition to Bede?s opinion.

# Bede, BINGO! Your observation about the influence of Cumans is fully justified. If you read my first post on this subject i have already mentioned Cumans and Tartars beside Yas as mercenaries in the medieval Serbian Army of XIVth century,although,after I started this topic, I run to avoid the subject of a direct influence on the appearance of design that is often repeated in the wall painting . My goal was to determine the shape of some bows that are only partially visible, and compare them with those ones which appear in its entirety. Also,at the very beginning, my goal was to put the presumption about material that could explain the white color on the inner side of bow and a darker color that dominates the outer side of each displayed bow. But since you imposed a topic influences, i will try to say the word more in favor of it.

The people of Turkic name, Kipchacs,in Russian chronnicles Polovci, in Byzantine Komanoi, in Latin Coman, Cumani, in Hungarian Cuni , in Serbian Kumani, was a branch of the Turks Khimacs that once lived in Siberia in the middle Irtysh, kin of Oguzes.Russian chronicles, mentioned them in the eleventh century in the steppes north of the Black sea.After decimation of Oguzes, Cumans became masters of the Russian steppes to the 1222., until the first attacks of Genghis Khan?s commanders.
Until then and beyond, they were very present in the events of the Balkan states, wheter as auxiliary troops,wheter as the power that influenced the arrival and maintenance of some dynasties in Balkan countries such as Bulgaria. Their role was in some moments crucial. We can notice big role of Cumans during the arise of Second Bulgarian Empire, we see them often as auxiliary troops of the Bulgarian, Serbian and Byzantine armies and there are even indications that some members of the royal lineage had cuman origin.
Therefore, we have to consider seriously the influence of Kipchacs/Cumans , though,Tatars just had a huge impact too, especially in Serbian army since King Stephan Uro? II Milutin.Tatars of Nogay khan were often influencing the situation in the Balkan countries. At the time of the fight for the throne among the kings Dragutin and Milutin, King Milutin took the advantage to the state? treasury that was located in Banjska where the bishop was Milutin?s confidant Danilo. Using money that he was available, Milutin was able to hire Tartars, Yas and Turkish mercenaries to defeat his brother. Tatars were a very important factor in the Serbian Army until Stefan Dečanski when Serbian rulers begun to employ a German, French and Catalan mercenaries.Tatar role in the events of the Balkan countries eventually ends with death of Beridbek Khan in 1359.
It is certain that we cannot avoid even the role of Turkish mercenaries often employed in the Balkan armies, christianized Turks, in byzantine chronnicles mentioned as Tourkopoloi.

I was briefly stoped at history,so that I could make the situation clearer when it comes to influences on the presence of such a design of bows in the medieval Serbian state of the thirteenth and fourteenth century, and this would confirm Bede?s observation. So when it comes to influences, we can now consider Cumans and Tartars as undeniable.

Two bows whose shape and design i tried to reconstruct are painted in the first half of the XIVth century.

The bow that belongs to the warrior saint painted in the monastery Lesnovo (north Makedonija) whose founder was a Serbian aristocrat John Oliver, sevastokrator at the time of the king and later emperor Stefan Dusan. Since the monastery was built in 1341. fresco dates from that time.
The second bow belongs to warrior saint st. Prokopije, painted in the monastery of Gracanica, which was built by King Milutin 1321.g. Since the monastery was painted between 1321 and 1322., a painter in this period could have the bow and other equipment in front of him.

Bede is confused by bulge at the grip on the belly side. When I tried to reconstruct the form of this bow I had in mind two frescoes from the same monastery where the two soldiers appear with the same bow as a whole. Both bows have the same angle notch point for the string as one that i tried to reconstruct, the difference is a different color on the side of the back and ears looks like covered by bone plates. My opinion is that in all three cases, a same bow is shown by several times so that we can connect the details that are lacking in some representations of the bows. I will insert these pictures soon so we can continue discussions.
As to the second bow carried by sv.Prokopije , I did the reconstruction of comparing a number of bows that are shown in its entirety and more or lesser, have similar characteristics.
Jack, I agree with you that the artist scored an accuracy of impression but sometimes it can be seen as exaggerated.Seems to be that the bowcase of sv.Prokopije is much bigger in size but it can be seen that the lower part of his body is a bit exaggerated.Also, painter wanted to highlight each part of equipment and seems to be bowcase was painted later in order to be highlighted.
I probably made a mistake when I estimate the length of the braced bow as 130cm. I would rather take the average of your estimates so that the length of bow can be 140cm.
For me it was a challenge to do reconstruction of bow where only the upper limb is seen. As I mentioned in previous posts only replica will tell am I right.
If someone would like to contribute, i would be glad to see different opinions and critics,especially i would be glad if someone could help us to determine dimensions.
Ottoman bow form appears much later, on a fresco from the early fifteenth century, but it is a matter for another discussion.
As I mentioned in previous posts only replica will tell am I right.
I hope I did not exaggerate too much.
God bless you all,
Zoran

[Lord Ruthven]

Great work, Zoran.
However, I will disagree that those bows are serbian, as in those times (especially mid 13-th to the end of the 14-th c. ) there was a tremendous influence between the ever fighting balkan states, the kuman merceneries used by all sides and the tatar and mongol invaders.
I do think that this bow type was common for all balkan states.

What is more, I think that it replaced the old bulgarian and magyar type of bows in the region. My assumption is based on the fact that all bone syah plates found in the present day Bulgaria are from the 7-th - 11-th c. After that - nothing. When it is added to the fact that the armies of Bulgaria, Serbia and the other Balkan states in the 13-th and 14-th c. are built in Byzantine stile, thus loosing their own light cavalery of horse archers but using Cuman merceneries for that purpouse, it gives a picture how that happened.
I'm not assuming that we (from the Balkan states as a whole) did not use bows. On the contrary! But I believe that we adopted this new type of bow, replacing the old ones. Because of this I think it is impossible to say "This bow is serbian, this is bulgarian, this is bosnian, etc."

You can add to that research one of the best depictions known to me - that of St. Demetrios from Markovi Kule. Pay special attention to the bow in case held by the little angel on the top-left part. It shows the complete case and half of the bow. I will try to find better pictures of that particular angel and post them ASAP.


Best regards!

[Bede]

Two things you might find interesting about that painting:

Despite the Byzantine decoration of the robe he is wearing it has a Mongol collar. This style of coat closure with the left side overlapping the right was introduced by the Mongols. When the Ottomans adopted this style of garment they called it by the Persian word Humayuni which meant imperial. All their other clothes overlapped right over left. The implication is that the painter had seen Mongols or this style had been adopted by the people the artist based his painting on. The riding stance is Byzantine, but the bit and bridle are steppe influenced.

The bow case in the angel's hand has the opening cut slanting back to the string. Most bow cases have the top of the bow case at right angles to the string or slanting up towards it. This is to give more support to the bow and balance the bow and case. However, the design I have seen in several South East European paintings show this angle which might be designed to make taking the bow out of the case more quickly.

[Zoran Pavlovic]

Lord Ruthven wrote:

Gret work,Zoran.
However, I will disagree that those bows are serbian, as in those times (especially mid 13-th to the end of the 14-th c. ) there was a tremendous influence between the ever fighting balkan states, the kuman merceneries used by all sides and the tatar and mongol invaders.
I do think that this bow type was common for all balkan states.

Thank you for your comment bulgarian friend.
In regarding to the first objection about term ??serbian bow?? that you set I'd love to give you an explanation.

I do not know did you only solely focuse attention to the pictures and title of theme, but I gave an explanation of the influence of Cumans and Tatars on the development of this design in the post before your post, and I wish if you could read it again. I promise, I will write more comprehensive posts here at ATARN because people sometimes do not have enough time to keep attention to the whole topic.

When I used the term ??serbian bow?? I didn?t think about the term that would be instruct to this design as autochtonous weapon of the Serbs, it would be nonsense. The term is used in the meaning of this weapon as a part of military equipment of Serbian mediaeval army, and I wanted to emphasize it in the main title.When I described these bows I even did?t use the term ??serbian bow?? in my posts except title nor my desire was to influence the acceptance of new design that would have that name. Once, when I (or someone else) complete this research or publish it,I will focus myself on the Serbian archery as a whole and not on the composite bow of Serbs as their authentic weapon because authentic weapon could only be the old wooden bow that the Serbs,Croatians and other Slavs of South Eastern Europe were brought from their ancient homeland about whom modern archeology is silent. I am the professional, historian and I strictly stay to the rules that history as science tells, so my goal is not to favor nor belittle the value of anyone as the circle of schauvinistic historians in the Balkans do. I hope you're satisfied with this answer to your objection.

quote:''I'm not assuming that we (from the Balkan states as a whole) did not use bows. On the contrary! But I believe that we adopted this new type of bow, replacing the old ones. Because of this I think it is impossible to say "This bow is serbian, this is bulgarian, this is bosnian, etc."

Of course, we the nations of the South Eastern Europe undoubtely used composite bows of that time.This is the fact that no one could deny. And not only that we have used horn bows, but they were even made in our countries, and it is evidenced by place names throughout Serbia as well as Tulare(tul-quiver), Lukari(luk-bow), ?titari(shield), Strelari(strela,strijela-arrow) ... And we must not exaggerate the role of Cumans? in our armies. Reflex bow was present in this region for centuries before the frescoes were created, before the Cumans emerged as mercenaries. On this, evidence in Serbia is from the twelfth century, but we will discuss it later.
* This picture that you posted I already commented on the topic 'from the Military Museum in Belgrade. "
Bede well observed details for the bowcase held by an angel. Thank you Bede. However, it is very interesting the position of string of the bow of sv.Dimitrije.Painter represented bow in the case very true as Jack noticed.
Lord, if you decide to do some research on the medieval reflex bows in Bulgaria you could use image on the Psalter, which is stored in Bayerische Staatsbibliothek in Munich. A horseback archer shooting an arrow very true appears , bow can be seen till the middle of the lower limb .

[Lord Ruthven]

When I used the term ??serbian bow?? I didn?t think about the term that would be instruct to this design as autochtonous weapon of the Serbs, it would be nonsense. The term is used in the meaning of this weapon as a part of military equipment of Serbian mediaeval army, and I wanted to emphasize it in the main title.When I described these bows I even did?t use the term ??serbian bow?? in my posts except title nor my desire was to influence the acceptance of new design that would have that name. Once, when I (or someone else) complete this research or publish it,I will focus myself on the Serbian archery as a whole and not on the composite bow of Serbs as their authentic weapon because authentic weapon could only be the old wooden bow that the Serbs,Croatians and other Slavs of South Eastern Europe were brought from their ancient homeland about whom modern archeology is silent. I am the professional, historian and I strictly stay to the rules that history as science tells, so my goal is not to favor nor belittle the value of anyone as the circle of schauvinistic historians in the Balkans do. I hope you're satisfied with this answer to your objection.

Well, I didn't mean that you're shovinistic or whatever in that manner. If what I wrote sounded that way - my apologies! What I meant was that in the 13th and 14th c. we all used the same type of bow.

quote:''I'm not assuming that we (from the Balkan states as a whole) did not use bows. On the contrary! But I believe that we adopted this new type of bow, replacing the old ones. Because of this I think it is impossible to say "This bow is serbian, this is bulgarian, this is bosnian, etc."

Of course, we the nations of the South Eastern Europe undoubtely used composite bows of that time.This is the fact that no one could deny. And not only that we have used horn bows, but they were even made in our countries, and it is evidenced by place names throughout Serbia as well as Tulare(tul-quiver), Lukari(luk-bow), ?titari(shield), Strelari(strela,strijela-arrow) ... And we must not exaggerate the role of Cumans? in our armies. Reflex bow was present in this region for centuries before the frescoes were created, before the Cumans emerged as mercenaries. On this, evidence in Serbia is from the twelfth century, but we will discuss it later.

Well, I'm not exaggerating. They played significant role in the restoration of Bulgarian Tsardom and the war with Byzantine empire (1185) defending the restoration. In the battle of Adrianople in 1205, according to the sources, there were between 14 000 and 22 000 cuman mercenaries. That was the peak of their usage, but still they were used as a big part of the armed forces in the Battle of Philipopolis in 1208 and the consequent years up to 1230.

Lord, if you decide to do some research on the medieval reflex bows in Bulgaria you could use image on the Psalter, which is stored in Bayerische Staatsbibliothek in Munich. A horseback archer shooting an arrow very true appears , bow can be seen till the middle of the lower limb .

Could you please post more information? I am doing a research and that is a new information for me. I am also a beginner horse-archer, so that is even more interesting for me.

My main point was that according to the archaeological evidence, bone syah plates were found in layers up to 11th c. We know that after that the bow didn't disappear as a weapon on the Balkans, so it must have changed its construction type. This is exactly the time the Cumans entered eastern European plains. In addition, after restoration of Bulgarian tsardom, the Bulgarian rulers did not restore the light cavalery of horse archers, that was the main part of the army before. They used Cuman merceneries for that role instead.
That leads me to the conclusion that after the Cumans came, the bulgarian and magyar types of bows were replaced with the cuman turkish type of bow that is shown on the frescoes.
That new type was built here, on the Balkans too. After all, the Cumans had settled here. I do agree that probably it was built by the locals too. What is more, as you pointed out, there is a lot of toponimes connected to the bow, arrows and the shooting.

Best regards!
Aleksandar