ming "kai yuan" bow related to crab bow?

[Justin Ma]

Could you post a picture from that painting showing the other bows too please?

From the painting (and re-linked from that previous thread), here's the part depicting a small-siyah bow: http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/83bcc54714.jpg

And here's another part depicting a bow of some style I can't determine: http://i44.tinypic.com/2myonjk.jpg

Perhaps little attention is given to Ming bows found so far by Chinese scholars because the bow is regarded a barbarian thing in the typical sino-centric view that still prevails over much Chinese scholarship.

Yeah... Regarding the bow as barbaric would be ironic since the bow had more prestige in ancient times. I can't say much about the scholarly climate, but the modern practice of Chinese martial arts focuses exclusively on melee techniques. It's as if the bow didn't exist --- this boggles my mind to no end.

[Stephen Selby]

The lack of the bows in Ming-Qing burials just reflects, I think, the transition in burial practices after the Yuan Dynasty. Burial goods in the Ming heavily featured ceramics. In the Qing, little was buried with the deceased other than a decent set of clothing and personal accessories. This may have been the result of the increased dominance of Buddhism in death cults in China.

Recently some archaeologists have alerted me to collections of Ming and Qing arms and armour as 'protective offerings' in remote temples and monasteries in Tibet. Swords and lamellar iron armour are well-known from such locations. I have asked them to check for Ming bows for me.

[Peter Dekker]

The lack of the bows in Ming-Qing burials just reflects, I think, the transition in burial practices after the Yuan Dynasty. Burial goods in the Ming heavily featured ceramics. In the Qing, little was buried with the deceased other than a decent set of clothing and personal accessories. This may have been the result of the increased dominance of Buddhism in death cults in China.

Thanks, that makes a lot of sense. Qianlong's tomb for example is covered top to bottom in sanskrit, not a word of Manchu or Chinese.

Recently some archaeologists have alerted me to collections of Ming and Qing arms and armour as 'protective offerings' in remote temples and monasteries in Tibet. Swords and lamellar iron armour are well-known from such locations. I have asked them to check for Ming bows for me.

Warriors of the Himalayas (by Donald J. Larocca) in an excellent source on this. It contains some pictures of these temple armories as well. Apart from Ming and Qing equipment we also see Indian arms in there. Bows other than Tibetan ones seem to be less common in these collections, but who knows they might turn up somewhere. Many of the items were so well-preserved in the Tibetan climate that leather thought to date of the 19th century was carbon dated to be 15th century instead.

-Peter

[Bede]

I saw in an old Wenwu or Kaogu a picture of a quiver said to come from the tomb of the Wanli Emperor. Unfortunately the printing of the time and the paper quality did not help in identifying its form.

[Justin Ma]

While we're on the subject of Freer Gallery paintings, I thought I'd share a link showing a Ming dynasty painting of a "Tatar horseman" holstering what looks like a Kaiyuan bow. The similarity of this bow with the bow used by the Ming emperor earlier in this thread is quite striking.

http://www.asia.si.edu/collections/zoom ... ectId=6612

It would be nice if there was some article tying together the lineages of the various Turkish-influenced bow designs that appeared after the collapse of the Mongolian Empire (Ming, Ottoman, Crimean Tatar, Crab, Persian).

[Ashbow]

Beautiful painting, if you look carefully there is one arrow present in the raider's bowcase.

[Bede]

Paintings of that period sometimes show the arrow just used and covered in blood temporarily put in the bow case.

McEwen wrote a study of the development of bow forms that might be a good start.

McEwen, E., "Nomad Archery; Some Observations on Composite Bow Design and Construction.", Arts of the Eurasian Steppelands, Ed. P. Denwood, 1977, p. 188

[Stephen Selby]

I've just noted a comment in the 'Wu Bei Zhi" of Mao Yuanyi:
" 'Kaiyuan' is what we now call 'big siyah'."

The word 'Kai Yuan' (开元) is the name of a reign period in the Tang Dynasty. It's also the name of a place in North China. But 'yuan' also means 'head', so it might have meant 'open head' or 'open at the head' referring to a bow.

[Justin Ma]

I'm thinking out loud, so please take my analogies with a grain of salt. I kind of think of Ming China as being this big playground for the various bow styles that emerged post-Mongolian empire. If we try to pair each bow from the aforementioned Ming painting with the closest bow it resembles from West or South Asia, then one possible matching is this:

Crimean Tatar <---> Ming short-siyah bow (long limb, short siyah): http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/83bcc54714.jpg
Ottoman <---> Ming "grooved-siyah bow" or some other style (short bow, no set-back handle): http://i44.tinypic.com/2myonjk.jpg
Crab/Persian <---> Ming Kaiyuan bow (because of the long Kasan, although the similarities are not as clear as the previous two): http://i41.tinypic.com/jv6mop.jpg

Random aside: I'm trying to look for a version of Wu Bei Zhi that I can peruse online. Is there such a site? In particular, I'm looking for the original Chinese text for the sentence "In Beijing, they have grooved-siyah and grooved [bridge?] bows, large siyah bows, small siyah bows, and they are all comparable to each-other" from Stephen's translation, as well as a few other sentences.

[Zoran Pavlovic]

[i]It would be nice if there was some article tying together the lineages of the various Turkish-influenced bow designs that appeared after the collapse of the Mongolian Empire (Ming, Ottoman, Crimean Tatar, Crab, Persian)[/i]

Justin,
Sorry if i interrupt but if you try to find some connection maybe you or anyone else should even pay attention to Serbian medieval painting. Almost every depicted bow from XIII to XV century in Serbian medieval monasteries (most of them,although built by Serbian rulers and landlords are out of present days Serbia) has some equivalent in earlier (Avar) or later period seen in Indo-Persian,Turkish or even Chinese depictions.
We should bear in mind that nomad archery had important influence in Balkans, in Serbia,Bulgaria,Wallachia/Romania and Byzantium there were present owing to Kipchacs,Tatars,Turcopoli as mercenaries (i am talking about post Genghis Khan era). So, local craftsmen adopted it very soon.We were discussed some altered crab bows or four curved bows but there's a number of other depictions, such as bows where painters was very accurate to represent extra sinew layer along the middle of the limbs (one bow depicted in several frescoes in Decani monastery or one in Lesnovo).
I hope picture i'll insert will show some amazing similarities to the bows you inserted bearing in mind turkic influence on Serbian bows.
I've never seen original pattern that Gao Xiang used for his Kaiyuan bow replica but serbian bow from Staro Nagoricane (present day R.Macedonia-FYROM) from XIVth century can give you some answers (see Golden Horde) where, how, why.It looks exaggerated long-eared bow (i do not want to go to hypothesis that this ''dragon claw'' bow have some relations to later Order of Dragon whom most of serbian knights belonged), if you see it in real you can measure it till the knees of warrior saint (seems like bow is assymetric but i am sure it is painter's exaggeration). Same bow appears in the composition at one frescoe from same monastery-see thread about Serbian bows here at ATARN. What painter has never exposed is any ridge in the rigid portion of the limb.
So, i think that turkic (Turco-Tatar) influence was present even in some Chinese bows. MuPko's post in this topic is good opinion how influences have been spreaded.
Best regards,[/quote]

[Peter Dekker]

Good hypothesis, Justin.

It seems that the nomadic influence on Ming warrior culture was profound. Not only with bows, but central Asian sabers were also praised and copied during the Ming. You can see quite some Ming artwork depicting men with central Asian style sabers with crossguards in artwork, and a few remaining examples exist with raised backedges (yelman) commonly found on Turkic sabers. According to Philip Tom, the whole idea of a curved sword was introduced into China by steppe nomads and replaced the native zhibeidao. The round guard, in turn, was probably a Japanese innovation that the Chinese started to copy from somewhere during the Ming. During this time, Ottoman firearms were also taken as examples to base new Chinese muskets on. In summary, they were much more open for foreign influences during this period than is often assumed.

-Peter

BTW I can help you get the full Wubeizhi if you like, or just the archery section for starters. PM me for details!

For an essay on Ming appreciation of foreign swords, see: Military Culture in Imperial China. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009.

[Justin Ma]

I've just noted a comment in the 'Wu Bei Zhi" of Mao Yuanyi:
" 'Kaiyuan' is what we now call 'big siyah'."

I had a chance to look at the bow illustrations in a scanned copy of Wu Bei Yao Lue (&#27494;&#20633;&#35201;&#30053;) by the Ming dynasty author Cheng Ziyi. One illustration depicts a "Taiping Village Bow" (&#22826;&#24179;&#23528;&#24339;) which the text describes as distinct from the Small-Siyah Bow (&#23567;&#31245;&#24339;), as bearing a resemblance to the Goryeo (&#39640;&#20029;) bow, and as being of a high-quality construction that can be used in both northern and southern climates.

Another illustration depicts the "General Purpose Bow" (&#36890;&#29992;&#24339;), which was also discussed in Stephen's "Bows of China" article in JCMS. I have a little trouble interpreting the sentence: "&#26041;&#20854;&#24368;&#65292;&#38263;&#20854;&#38536;&#65292;&#39640;&#20854;&#24355;&#65292;&#34180;&#20854;&#25949;&#12290;"

Finally, Wu Bei Yao Lue depicts the "Big-Siyah Bow" (&#22823;&#24368;&#24339;), which is supposed to be a long, wide and sturdy bow used both for horseback and infantry archery. The outline of the bow resembles the Southern Qing Bow in Ming style from the JCMS "Bows of China" article. Needham describes the big-siyah bow as being preferred for military use.

So, after seeing Wu Bei Yao Lue, I'm confused for a couple reasons. (1) Wu Bei Zhi claims that the Kaiyuan bow is presently called Big-Siyah bow, but I see very little resemblance between the Kaiyuan bow and the Big-Siyah bow based on the illustrations. (2) There is virtually no overlap between the types of bows discussed in Wu Bei Zhi (Kaiyuan, Small-Siyah, Xifan Yong Wood bow, etc) and Wu Bei Yao Lue (Taiping Village bow, Big-Siyah, General Purpose) --- is this due to the difference in time or geography of the authors who wrote them? I hope there's yet another illustrated Ming dynasty military reference that can shed some light on this discrepancy.

[Peter Dekker]

I had a chance to look at the bow illustrations in a scanned copy of Wu Bei Yao Lue (&#27494;&#20633;&#35201;&#30053;) by the Ming dynasty author Cheng Ziyi. One illustration depicts a "Taiping Village Bow" (&#22826;&#24179;&#23528;&#24339;) which the text describes as distinct from the Small-Siyah Bow (&#23567;&#31245;&#24339;), as bearing a resemblance to the Goryeo (&#39640;&#20029;) bow, and as being of a high-quality construction that can be used in both northern and southern climates.

That's very interesting! I wonder where this village was. Contemporary China seems to have several places with this name, the two near Beijing are probably the most likely places.

I have a little trouble interpreting the sentence: "&#26041;&#20854;&#24368;&#65292;&#38263;&#20854;&#38536;&#65292;&#39640;&#20854;&#24355;&#65292;&#34180;&#20854;&#25949;&#12290;"

The main problem in this sentence seems to be the character &#25949;.

For the rest, I get: "Angular ears, long limbs, a high handle, thin bi."

Matthew's describes &#25949; as "Poor, unworthy, vile, worn out. It is also a modest term for "my" and "our".

Could he be describing the factors he thinks make a bad bow? Bulky ears, long limbs, and a high brace height and thin working limbs all make the bow less efficient when looking at it from a poundage / arrow velocity standpoint.

Finally, Wu Bei Yao Lue depicts the "Big-Siyah Bow" (&#22823;&#24368;&#24339;), which is supposed to be a long, wide and sturdy bow used both for horseback and infantry archery. The outline of the bow resembles the Southern Qing Bow in Ming style from the JCMS "Bows of China" article. Needham describes the big-siyah bow as being preferred for military use.

Makes sense. The bigger the ear, the heavier the arrow it can effectively propel. Such bows have all the "poor" qualities described above in order to be able to deliver larger arrows.

So, after seeing Wu Bei Yao Lue, I'm confused for a couple reasons. (1) Wu Bei Zhi claims that the Kaiyuan bow is presently called Big-Siyah bow, but I see very little resemblance between the Kaiyuan bow and the Big-Siyah bow based on the illustrations.

I have a hunch that the Wubeizhi might mean that the Kaiyuan and the Big Ear Bow are similar, rather than identical. They both have great lever action from their long rigid ears. Similarly, a Ming text on fighting calls Japanese swords and maces the same, probably indicating they both strike with great force and should be treated in a similar way, not implying that they are the same object. At least, that would make the statement in the Wubeizhi make a lot more sense.

(2) There is virtually no overlap between the types of bows discussed in Wu Bei Zhi (Kaiyuan, Small-Siyah, Xifan Yong Wood bow, etc) and Wu Bei Yao Lue (Taiping Village bow, Big-Siyah, General Purpose) --- is this due to the difference in time or geography of the authors who wrote them? I hope there's yet another illustrated Ming dynasty military reference that can shed some light on this discrepancy.

I think all factors might play a part. Also, objects might have different names in different "scenes". Drawing a parallel to edged weapons, the official term for a waist-worn saber in the Qing was a peidao but the term used in more operational literature was yaodao (identical meaning, different character). The probable reason to call them peidao at court: peidao was a more classy term that harks back to old literature like the Book of Songs, that every Han official was very familiar with. Peidao therefore was a favorable for the Manchus to use, because it made a link to old rulers who also carried dao, instead of jian. The Manchus, and Qianlong in particular, was very concerned with legitimizing Manchu rule and had a strong focus on making connections with the past to legitimize his, and Manchu rule in general. There may have been similarly obscure reasons to give bows different names as well.. depending on the agendas of the authors. It would be interesting to learn more about them and their lives, perhaps that might give more insight in what they wrote and why they wrote it.

It could also well be that there were a myriad of different bows and that both authors had been exposed to different main types. They sure keep us busy with all these indiscrepancies!

-Peter

[Justin Ma]

For those who were curious about the Wu Bei Zhi (WBZ) and Wu Bei Yao Lue (WBYL) illustrations we're talking about, here's a quick lineup: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25634276/MingBows.png

From left to right: General Purpose bow (WBYL), Big-Siyah bow (WBYL), Taiping Village bow (WBYL), Xifan wood bow (WBZ), Small-Siyah bow (WBZ), Kaiyuan bow (WBZ).