Bow Evolution

[jbl]

I have been wondering about the evolution of the Asian bow. The first bows known to us that are classified as "Asian" were the Scythian which were very short and had recurve tips. The next bows were the so called Hun with longer siyahs, this style seemed to last for over a milineum as they morphed into the Avar, Magyar, Manchu etc. The next bows were the Turkish and Korean again short like the Scythian and with smaller siyahs.

OK my question is two fold the first is if the longer siyahs were found superior to a shorter bow why did the Turkish bow develop and secondly why if the Turkish bow is superior to the longer siyahs why didn't the Steppe tribes start using a bow similar to the Turkish bow after the Scythian bow was "replaced?" I am sure that there was trial and error so it would stand to reason the Huns or some other group would have tried to make a modified Scythian that would have been very similar to a Turkish bow.

[Justin Ma]

Is it fair to say you're specifically referring to horn bows? Asian longbows and wood composites would likely have a different evolutionary path.

That said, I imagine it's hard to expect smooth transitions. Conquests can change things abruptly by creating knowledge voids or altering economic incentives. In China: long-siyah, non-contact recurve bows were the norm from the first millennia through the end of the Yuan dynasty (1271--1368 AD). During the Yuan dynasty, the Mongolian rulers dismantled the Chinese long-siyah bow industry. The influence of Turkish craftsmen filled the knowledge void with shorter, Turkish-style bows in the succeeding Ming dynasty (1368--1644 AD). Then when the Manchus took charge in the Qing dynasty (1644--1911 AD), they made their bow the standard for military examinations --- thus eliminating incentives to construct Ming-style bows.

The common thread I've noticed for almost all post-Mongolian empire Asiatic horn bows is that they became contact recurves --- siyahs angled forward of the string at rest. These include Ottoman, Crim-Tatar, Persian, Indo-Persian Crab, Manchu, Ming, and Korean designs, which together occupy all parts of the limb-length and siyah-length spectrum.

[JJ]

There are 5 major steps in the development of hornbow technology to be observed (apart from minor regional/ethnic differences/varieties).

1. Angular composite bow type (I like to call it mesopotamian type)-Deflexed handle, symmetric limbs, only very slightly recurved ends

2. Scythian type - Reflexed handle, asymmetric limbs, strongly recurved tips

3. Hunnic type - Reflexed handle, C-shape reflex, asymmetric limbs, long, slightly recurved non contact siyahs. Same type more or less in Mongol era, but with symmetric limbs

4. Turkic type - Slightly reflexed handle, strongly recurved long contact (?) "crab-type" siyahs. Introduction of the V-splice, which made higher siyah angles possible

5. Modern composite (Turkish, Indo-Persian, Krimtatar,Korean, Manchu etc.) - slighly reflexed or straight handle, sometimes heavily reflexed limbs, long or short strongly reflexed contact siyahs

I think one of the reasons of the abandonment of the long eared "hunnic-type" siyahs could be a stability issue.

JJ

[Bede]

I must disagree with JJ, but not with his chronology. Generally speaking the non-contact siyah bows are more stable, not less stable than recurved siyah bows.

I am also not sure of the contention that Turkish bowyers introduced the shorter recurved siyah bow into the Mongol empire. The latest illustrations of bows in the Turkish influenced West before the Mongol invasions in the Warqa wa Gulshah manuscript shows non-contact siyah bows. Most of the Turkish tribes migrating west brought non-contact siyah bows with them. It is more likely that the recurved tips were a gradual development of non-contact siyah bows. They could have first appeared as non-contact siyah bows with slight kinks in the final third of the siyahs, which were later exaggerated.

Another point is how the design of one bow superseded another. Considering how long each successive bow type dominated its users, there is little or no chance they were aware of previous bow types by the time the next innovation took over. So the fact that the Scythians had recurves would have meant nothing to people a thousand years later. In many places, people did not know what people over the hill were doing. This might have been one of the advantages nomads had, but it might be unwise to neglect their cultural conservatism too.

In Byzantium, extremely conservative art traditions preserved the shape of Scythian bows in art long after the bows had stopped being made. However, the Byzantines were adopters rather than innovators. They successfully copied the new technologies of their enemies and tried to improve their inherited technologies, but they were a rare civilisation.

[jack farrell]

I think JJ has made a succinct and accurate chronology. I would also agree with his statement that Hunnic type bows have a stability problem. Of the all wood prototypes I have made, some of the knees could easily be swung from side to side. A wider upper limb would be an advantage.

Let us not forget Rausing's reference to antler lath bows from Siberia and Bede's excellent material on those bows. There is little at all on the period from the late Neolithic 2500 BCE till the Scythian, 800BCE in Asia that is.

Has anyone seen information on Angular bows in Asia? or others of the Bronze age?

[Stephen Selby]

I have been wondering about the evolution of the Asian bow.

Evolution? What Evolution?? It was Intelligent Design wasn't it?

More seriously, I have written about the 'development' of Asian bows along the lines set out in this thread; but I really want to caution everyone that the data is very limited. We tend to see Design X from Period I in location A, and then Design Y from Period II (this is just a fanciful period name) from location B.

But there is no data to show that Design X wasn't current in another location at another age. "No data" means "don't know". Tribe A might have used Design X in daily life, but preferred to be buried with bow Design Y. I have extensively studied Asian Bronze Age weapons (which are common and well-preserved). It is pretty clear that the weapons found in burials are derived from weapons in daily use but specially modified for afterlife use. There is in particular a tendency to place weapons of archaic design and decoration in burials. If your prospective enemies are likely to have been dead for some time, that has a sort of logic.

S

[jiao]

the Scythian bow very like chinese hieroglyphical "bow" on the bone,
huns in first chinese dynasty ,they are marriage chinese by peace way and war way,that time chinese not add dog or bow to his nation name (barbarian/heathen)
in han dynasty war and after the war , some huns go , some huns in china as chinese friend, the atarn logo picture is a ture style bow on a han tomb
after ham dynasty, we can see some north china bow like huns bow,till to yuan dynasty, we can find the bow long ear and short ear on each dynasty,

only the crossbow can call the invent of chinese, the hornbow we can not know who copy who, that time has no copyright

[jbl]

Thank you for the info it makes sense that the bows in the graves were not "working" bows. It would also make sense that these bows were used side by side-kind of like Homo Sapiens and Neaderthals:)

[Bede]

I am not sure that you can characterise all burial goods as archaic or specifically burial goods. It is clear from the Xinjiang burials that many of the grave goods were everyday items. The best preserved graves were the shallowest and not those of the richest inhabitants. It is unlikely that they were in a position to have specially made goods for their funerals.

In other contexts this is not true. There are objects in many Chinese tombs that are clearly models, which is either shown by their small size or their construction. Likewise there are things done to objects which show some kind of ritual was performed to render them fit for the afterlife or reduce their power to harm the living. One burial in the Tsaidam Basin had the bow broken and strung backwards as well as the arrows upside down in the quiver.

Stephen's comment about the isolation of the surviving specimens should be a warning to us all. If I was buried with my car and dug up in a thousand years, what could you tell about the ownership of cars in the 21st century or their frequency or their origin? Since I might be the only person buried with a car in Australia, what could you tell about burial customs? There are only a few hundred bows in archaeological contexts scattered all over the whole world so we may have to wait a while before we have a comprehensive study of the development of composite bows.

Regarding ancient angular bows, all the surviving examples are from Egypt though in the past some were thought to have originated outside the Kingdom. However, they are extensively reported in the art of the Hittites and Assyrians and lists of components have been preserved in at least one inscription.

[ravenbows]

This is a good thread, and no doubt one that needs a lot of examination.
Personally, doesn't location and available materials play a role in all of this? Also, how about manufacturing techniques?

And, to a lesser degree, how about genetics? Does the fairly large manchu, or mongol bow come to existence due to the physical characteristics of those people. You take a bow so different, yet just as capapble like the korean, it has to be more than just differences in design theory that such a dynamic little creature comes to existence.

Great post

[Stephen Selby]

Introduction of a new bow design is, I suppose, a disruptive technology. What can bring it about is a very wide range of factors. On the other hand, the data we have is very limited. Even in the case of such a recent example as the development of the first SONY Mavica digital camera, there is already confusion about who the inventor was.

[Bede]

I think there is less of a link between the physical make up of the archer than there is to the environment and history. The Manchu developed their bows in a forest hunting environment where there were large predators as well as active prey. You need a bow that would shoot accurately over short ranges and would have the knock down power to take out prey that was relatively close to you. It would not be good to have a tiger discussing the merits of your shooting after you had hit him with an arrow.

The Early Mongol bows were more suited to the treeless steppe where you could see your prey a long way off. When the Manchus absorbed the Mongols into their banner system, they issued them with Manchu bows and expected them to shoot in the Manchu manner. In this way, history triumphed over environment. Mongol archers in the Manchu armies were used in the same way as Manchu archers so there was no incentive for them to use their original bows which were optimised for a different tactical system.

[jiao]

bede:
The Manchu developed their bows in a forest hunting environment

my hometown in heilongjiang province north area and i stay there for 27 years ,300 year ago manchu also live there
the forest is:
1 you can not see anythings out 10M
2 many big and small tree, you can not run fast,no road
3 before you find animal the animal find you first and run away fast than you
4 in forest many people has a gun but killed by bear, i know some hunter use army's gun
5 avoid sheep come in forest, they will lost in forest, some city people said his ancestor depasture sheep in the forest
6 if more snow and more green , don't come in the forest

in china northeast has forest and grassland and small hill, not only forest



you can see here is two link of forest lot pics
http://image.baidu.com/i?ct=201326592&c ... sp=0#pn=18

http://image.baidu.com/i?ct=201326592&c ... =rs9#pn=54

hunt?:D

[Bede]

Thanks Jiao for the pictures.

The ancestors of the Manchu extended even further north beyond the Amur river.

[jkekoni]

I would not consider 4 and 5 different types at all. Just different styles within same type. (like with and without bone etc...)

V-splice is probably a remarkable invention, however it more like "how to make" than "what kind of"- invention, but it might be reasonable to call distinct type, since I have understood that pre-splice bows had only a little reflex and post-splice a lot more.

To twist things one could mix the North european 2-wood bow into the equation.