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

[redhawk]

Zoran, your conclusions are making sense. These bows will work, if reconstructed along your studies. I?lld like more bows would have been depicted as seriously like these bows!

Is this the Serbian bow you mentioned on my blog? Sorry, for not having replied to your comment, but I got so much mails based on the articles on my blog, this blog is time- consuming, but I like very much to run it.

Michael

[Zoran Pavlovic]

Zoran, your conclusions are making sense. These bows will work, if reconstructed along your studies. I?lld like more bows would have been depicted as seriously like these bows!

Is this the Serbian bow you mentioned on my blog? Sorry, for not having replied to your comment, but I got so much mails based on the articles on my blog, this blog is time- consuming, but I like very much to run it.

Michael

#Michael,
Thank you very much. You gave me the courage to continue my research this way. I need to do a bit more studies and will start some replicas soon but i am in doubt what wood to use for the beginning. I considered maple for limbs and ash or elm for the ears having in mind that it is common wood of area good for the reflex bows beside cornel wood.Also, i do not know how wrapped birch bark could affect the bow performance(if my presumption is correct). To be honest, it is my first attempt to try replica of any depicted bows and it is big challenge though i tried two turkish replicas and all failed but i will be not discouraged, on the contrary.

There' a lot of ''working'' bows at the frescoes, seriously depicted.Also, there's a lot of stylized bows, e.g. in one monasteries there's two stylized bows similar in construction (when i say stylized i do mean ears) but third one seems to be same but ''working'' bow in regards to ears. On the other hand, if you compare it with bow of same design but with a bit longer ears and from earlier time in some Greek monastery in Athos you are in doubt is this transmited from some other frescoe(though at Serbian frescoe it appears in whole). I will insert some new stuff soon.

I think i have something very interesting for you and other friends. This is a bit problem for me but i think it couldn't be problem for you and other friends from ATARN.
Warrior saint Ares from monastery Manasija holding ''like a'' altered crab-bow design.In the same monastery st.Mercurius is holding the bow visible in whole but of same design. Grip doesn't have anything to do with Indian crab-leg, Turkish or Crimean tatar bow. Look at the string at the bow of st.Mercurius, same position as in scythian type?????!!!!;-). I am sure it is possible to do reconstruction but i will do more research on it. Hope you got some idea.
On my post on your blog, never mind pls, i only gave you support because i appreciate your work.
#Aleksandar, the number of Cuman auxilliaries is surely exaggerated, wether it is Latin chronicle wether it is Bulgarian one. Even if i wouldn't like to say but seems to be that later Turkish chronicle were less prone to exaggeration in description of battles as European ones.

You always mention Cuman type. It is sure that all these bows are of asiatic origin but this design even appears in Byzantium too. We do not know any artefact about Cuman bows and i do not want to use this word, i only can say Cuman or Tatar influence having in mind about them as auxilliaries, but their number wasn't over 2000(who had a possibility to pay more than 10 000 mercenaries which could easy turn against their boss after delay of first salary, if they weren't volunteers) . How Serbian King Milutin would break rebellion of Turkish (christianized Turkopoloi) auxilliaries lead by Melik (even chronicle says ''their bows broke then'' as allusion on their defeat) in the 80's of XIII century during the war with Byzantium if their number was over e.g.2-3 000)?

Also, i have big surprise for you soon in regards to bows in Bulgaria from the time of Ivan Alexandar. You will see that it is similar to some ''short ear'' bows from Serbia and surprisingly same design but with visible horn on the belly, differently than white color on Serbian bows that imply birch bark, and also similar design to those one that appears in Psalter. Just need to scan it. It will help you sure;-) I am not sure will you use term Bulgarian bow after that, and specially Cuman one,cause all we in Balkans used same bow design;-))))-joking!
Best regards,
Zoran

[Zoran Pavlovic]

...Another one from same monastery. Same bow. I focused my attention only at the bow but Bede and other friends will notice two arrows in the bow case beside bow. I have explanation, do anyone of you have it?;-)
Best regards,
Zoran

[TZH]

A kuman with his bow (related siyah bones with wide ends had been found in the Dasti Kipchak from the 11-13 th Cent.). Sz?kelyderzs, Transylvania.

http://szekelyderzs.com/Kepek/legenda_unesco.jpg

Zoran, I have two miniatures from a kodex from somewhere arround Athos, but with battle scenes. I want to see your frescos, so hurry up!!

Zolt

[Zoran Pavlovic]

Great, Zoltan!.
I am in bigger puzzle now;-) If this is similar design how string would be attached? Is there some ''groove'' like in scythian bow type to lead string? It will be interesting question.
On frescoes, coming soon;-)
Best regards:)

[TZH]

Possibly. But a relative small bight on the upper and a knot on the lower siyah nock could be the answer.
I think the same type bows are depicted in the hungarian Picture Chronic but the siyahangle is smaller.

Zolt

[Bede]

It is possible that the artist was more familiar with Western equipment than oriental. He has painted the plate armour with great skill, but the bow is only a cartoon.

I think that you can only take from this painting that the bow had recurved tips. I think the artist saw one or had one described to him, but he had no direct knowledge of the shape. Alternately, he did not think it was important enough to paint.

[TZH]

But f.e he painted the closed quiver quite exactly. (there are other parts of the fresco (It's really telling the story like a cartoon), where the quiver is shown from the other side)

The artist could have probably painted a better bow if the original were more colorfull. If he had seen the "juan bow" (allower dark brown) he could had gave back only the correct shape, too.
(I hate "if" sentences )

Zolt

[Zoran Pavlovic]

I could accept Bede's opinion.
Since monastery Manasija was built by despot Stephan Lazarevic (1395-1427) when Serbia arose as economical and political factor for a time, it was a time when fire weapon entered Serbian army and also crossbow was prevalent. It is quite possible that painter only saw or have heard about older representations of early frescoes and represented his impression. Also, i share your opinion that painter didn't think about importance to represent clear shape as some painters have their impressions (though, we cannot think about frescoe painters as those ones of Rennaissance or modern).

There's a bow in monastery Kalenic from the same time, represented as altered crab bow where position of string is unnatural. But after observations it was established that landowner was originally depicted without bow and bow is painted later after his death. This means that it could be same case with these bows i inserted. When you observe these bows in real it is impossible to get some clear conclusion.

Zoltan, i think that ''if'' could give answers on many questions.Did anyone noticed two arrows in the arrow case?.So common for steppe archers. Also, i looked up at Painted Chronicle.Can say, i am impressed, it is real treasure about costumes and armour in mediaeval Hungary. Depicted bows are pretty different than those ones which appear at Serbian frescoes but it also can help to clear situation.
Anyway, thank to both of you.
Best regards,
Zoran

[jack farrell]

I find the second illustration very believable. Look again at the recurve. There is one angle where the ridge begins and another more extreme one at the "bend" of the ear. This feature can be seen clearly in bows collected from battlefields of the period, for instance in Vienna armory museum. Maybe the proportion is slightly off. OK. But I find it good.

There are illustrations of Chinese bows from Dunhuang murals which also show composite bows with white bellies. Consider white ox horn, or mountain Ibex horn. There is a good reason not to decorate the belly of a bow if the maker wanted to show off the quality of the horn. Horn is mostly weather proof as birch bark is, so nothing lost.

I fail to see confusion. These are Turkic period bows made in a format somewhat different than Ottoman. These are not bone reenforced bows of the Hunnic period.

Variation is a very good thing. If Dusan can find a Siberian Buryat bow being displayed in a museum near Moscow, then your exact bow is out there in a museum display somewhere waiting to be recognized. I would say that a version on Tatar would fit well.

Have you noticed how one we discussed earlier is a close match for the Ming bow that the Chinese man posted not long ago? I see no mystery. Jack.

[Zoran Pavlovic]

Jack,
I agree that the ears of second bow are represented more realistic than the same bow appearing at fresco of Saint Mercurius. We will need to find an artifact that can help us in the final reconstruction. It would be good if anyone has a picture of the bow from the Vienna museum whom Jack mentioned, and put it here so that we can come some concrete conclusion.

On white belly. Your consideration about ox or ibex horn is completely acceptable. Buffalo was never present in Balkan, there is a similar horn cattle in Kosovo and Metohija, which locals called ''bivoljica'' but with shorter horns. To be honest I have not dealt with their origin and how long they are present in these regions, whether they were at the time that we consider.
Ibex horn is quite possible option because of the vicinity of Greece as it was probably present in this region in the Middle Ages. The white bellied bows also appear at Byzantine frescoes of this time which is not case with Bulgarian frescoes.Could be quite possible to obtain ibex horn by commercial relationships with Byzantium.So, even if replicas of the bows wrapped by birch bark show efficiency, we can take into account the ibex horn. I am skeptical about the Ox horns in the region as very short for making reflex bow, but i certainly talk about it from the perspective of modern times. Due to the vicinity of Hungary where gray longhorn cattle is present even today, we can even accept the fact that it was widespread in the Middle Ages in most parts of the Balkans or horn could be obtain by the trade relationships with Hungary. I hope we will find a solution and make this mystery more clear. So, there are several possibilities, birch bark, trade with Hungary and the Byzantine Empire, or using of OX horn because it was the most affordable in this area,also the vicinity and presence of Tatars.

But, back to the original topic. Jack, your observations on the size of second bow, the bow of St. Procopius, and a comparison with the Kazakh bow at the topic about bows from the Russian museums can lead us to a cleaner solution. Incredible coincidence with the first version i made whom I didn't insert. Even more mysterious correspondence with a bow that appears on a fresco of Saint Mercurius in the Greek monastery of Mount Athos speaks on one's behalf. What confused me was the slope that string shows indicates the position that the bow take into the quiver but when I consider your remark, almost triple coincidency.Please, if other friends at ATARN can consider this as we do. And of course, thanks for the observations and suggestions.

[Zoran Pavlovic]

Kazakh bow from Ethnographic museum in St.Petersbug,Russia. Similar form and position in the quiver.

[TZH]

I mean my (grammatic) difficulties to use them.

Zolt

[jack farrell]

The Kazakh bowcase is reflected in the Demetrios angel's case. The foot of the case is hooked. This is reflected in another of Bashkir origin (late origin also in Kazakhstan) in Dusan's post p. 10.

This bow also of p. 10 reflects the two bends of the beginning ridge and "bend" of the Manasija bow above.

Note similarity to Sind bow.

St. Demetrios carries a bow of different inspiration. The string does not contact the ear. This is an earlier Hunnic type.

[jack farrell]

The string of the Mercurius bow also does not touch the bend of the ear. This is another, maybe Hunnic type. You can see that it does not require a bowcase with a hooked foot.

Mercuris' equipment is possibly fanciful. Is that a real helmet? Armor? But the bow is reflected exactly in the Demetrios bow.