ming/turkish bow in qing gallery

[Justin Ma]

I stumbled across this image and was a little confused. http://www.shenzhouhi.com/web/userfiles ... %AE%AD.jpg

The original article was at http://www.shenzhouhi.com/web/news/new-1072.html .

The bow in the picture has an Ottoman-Turkish (perhaps Ming-era) design. But the arrows are clearly Qing period. My questions: What museum is that from? And is the bow genuine (i.e., a Qing-era version of a Ming bow)?

[gaoxiang]

The bow is indeed a Palace Museum collection. But shape is typical of Turkey bow.

[Bede]

The Palace collections also have Crimean Tatar swords and other indications of West Asian contacts. The Torghut brought back equipment that was definitely similar to Persian and Turkish items of the same time. It is possible that the bow was acquired during the Qianlong reign. There are also arrows elsewhere in the collections that resemble Turkish and Persian arrows.

[Uli]

as there are also crimean tatar swords - doesnt that bow look like one (with a lower than usual set back grip) ?

[jack farrell]

Another museum item separated from its provenience information. Most other bows in this collection have an elaborate leather pennant with origin information attached.

[Peter Dekker]

Yes I believe this is a crimean tatar bow.

Jack: Yes it is too bad. Last time I was there (Palace Museum) this bow plus the Qing hunting arrows next to it, and an imperial "grand review" bow case and quiver set were presented as "the emperor's bow and arrows". Most visitors would naturally get the impression it was the actual bow he carried in combination with the rest of the gear.

Most items that lost their tags are often misidentified for being something else. For example, the book Qingguan Wubei is accurate on everything in there with a tag but those items missing their tags have inaccurate descriptions: Some standard military arrows are said to be for "bird hunting" and some broadheads with whistles are labelled "grand review" arrows. This while period texts show that there were no such arrows in the emperor's "grand review" quiver.

-Peter

[Scott M. Rodell]

Well, it is difficult to see much detail in the photo, but it does appear that this bow has string bridges & is quite similar to a Qing "Southern Bow" (i.e. Ming Style Bow) that Stephen Selby published in his recent article, "The Bows of China," in the Winter 2010 Issue of the Journal of Chinese Martial Studies (see: http://www.martialstudies.com.hk/). I think we should keep in mind that there were undoubtedly 10s of 1000s of Ming bows in China when the Manchus conquered the remnants of the Ming dynasty. Certainly, there must have been some interaction between the Ming & Manchu archery traditions, at least on a local level, all over the Empire. If so, it would not be very surprising to see some sort of hybrid bows, like this one, develop.

From a personal point of view, I really enjoy shooting my Manchu bow, but it is big & long, & not easy to travel with. I'd love to have a "Southern Bow," like in photo attached to this thread, for when I am on the road. I imagine there were quite a few Manchus who felt the same.

[Bede]

I imagine the Manchu horsemen always carried their bows in bow cases and found it not to be a problem. Hauling bows around in modern times can be a problem, particularly into certain countries with unusual luggage rules.

[Peter Dekker]

I agree with Bede here that there is no evidence to support the idea that the Manchus found their bows hard to carry around.

Short Qing bows other than pellet bows are extremely rare. It does appear that some minorities such as the Yi did use shorter bows up to at least the first half of the 19th century. A bow very similar to the bow published by Stephen Selby in the aforementioned article is depicted in a Miao album being used by a Yi tribesman. (See Deal and Hostetler: A CHINESE MIAO ALBUM, university of Washington Press 2005, pp 2.) Similar bows were also used in Tibet and Qinghai up to fairly recently.

No textual evidence or artwork found so far supports the fact that the Manchus or even the Chinese military carried short-eared bows. So yes shorter bows did remained in use but with the evidence currently available there is no reason to assume they were common among the Manchu or Chinese military.

Well, it is difficult to see much detail in the photo, but it does appear that this bow has string bridges & is quite similar to a Qing "Southern Bow"

I know this bow very well because I visited the museum often when I still lived nearby. It bears all the hallmarks of Crimean Tartar manufacture:

-Well-defined kassan sections
-A D-shped limb cross-section (as opposed to oval on Chinese bows)
-Ear geometry and construction
-Golden painted decoration over leather

For examples of other Crimean Tatar bows, see: Grayson, C.E. et al: TRADITIONAL ARCHERY FROM SIX CONTINENTS, pp 67-68.

It was probably from the personal collection of the Qianlong emperor, which as you know consisted of various weapons from all over Asia.

The string bridge is not an exclusive Manchu feature, smaller string "cushions" like these are found in a variety of bows such as Turkish, Persian and Korean examples. Moreover, the large bridge seen on top is something added later, probably in recent times even, to stabilize this old strung bow.

-Peter

[Scott M. Rodell]

I agree with Bede here that there is no evidence to support the idea that the Manchus found their bows hard to carry around.

Short Qing bows other than pellet bows are extremely rare...

No textual evidence or artwork found so far supports the fact that the Manchus or even the Chinese military carried short-eared bows. So yes shorter bows did remained in use but with the evidence currently available there is no reason to assume they were common among the Manchu or Chinese military...

Here's a painting I found that caused me to question the idea that Manchus uniformly always used bows with long siyah. (I had to cut the painting into 2 parts to make it small enough to post). This painting clearly shows a group of Manchu Hunters using short Ming type bows. Perhaps the reason we don't see more of these short eared bows in paintings is we have been looking at paintings of military men & battles?

[Scott M. Rodell]

Here is the lower portion of the painting posted above...

[Scott M. Rodell]

produced this today:
http://www.findart.com.cn/b6ed1e91e15cc ... y=&npage=5

Not the finest example of Qing era painting, so we can't put too much stock in it. That being said, the bows depicted are quite short with fairly stubby ears.

Here's one close up:

[Scott M. Rodell]

...No textual evidence or artwork found so far supports the fact that the Manchus ... carried short-eared bows...

The more I look at paintings of Manchus hunting vs. military images, the more I find shorter eared bows...

[Bede]

Scott,
You have to be very careful using paintings to justify the shape of a bow. One of the paintings you cite is clearly in an archaic style and is most probably a copy of a much earlier painting. The first one has several problems suggesting the artist was not trying for a really representational approach. The bows are very thin and sketchily draw and the quivers are quite out of proportion.

You can argue that this is a new type of bow and quiver, but it is more likely that the artist was not trying too hard to represent the details of archery equipment. The painting looks like a lower grade copy of an original in the imperial collection. These are to be distinguished from some excellent if amaturish paintings which do not have the finish of court productions, but do show evidence of direct observation.

[Scott M. Rodell]

... You have to be very careful using paintings to justify the shape of a bow ... it is more likely that the artist was not trying too hard to represent the details of archery equipment...

I certainly agree with you that we must be quite careful reading too much into paintings. On the other hand, portrait artists are going to depict what they commonly see. They aren't going to make up something that is vastly different than observed. If an artist sees long bows everyday, he isn't likely to paint a bow half the size. And if you look closely at the first image I posted, it is not a low quality painting, check the overall detail of everything in that painting. If the artist took pains to get details of clothing, leaves, etc right, it seems logical to assume he took the same care representing the archery equipment. I think we better be very careful before we dismiss it because it doesn't support currently accepted ideas.

Here is are details from another painting from the Freer Gallery here in Washington, DC. As in the paintings posted above, it shows Manchu hunters, painted in detail using short bows.