Old bow in Beijing military museum

Peter Dekker · Post by **Peter Dekker** » Tue Jun 28, 2011 8:31 pm

Hi guys,

I made these pictures years ago, not quite realizing what I was looking at. Now I realize it is quite an interesting bow that so far seems to defy classification.

We briefly discussed this bow on Facebook in the group Traditional Manchu Archery http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=gro ... 8431067128 and concluded it would be nice to throw it on here as well to see what you guys think:

Plate says: "A bow and arrow of the Tang dynasty (618-907), unearthed in Gaochang area." It is unclear whether the string and arrows are original or associated. I personally doubt it is that old because of some fairly "modern" design features: The profile is much like Manchu, but the geometry of the ears reminds strongly of those on Northern Indian "crab" bows but with added bridges. But who knows, these features may be older than assumed.

JJ made a nice edited picture of it's profile in strung condition which I hope he will post here as well.

-Peter

jack farrell · Post by **jack farrell** » Wed Jun 29, 2011 3:00 am

Peter; The visible bridge is pushed up quite far toward the tip, the string style is also seen in India. Are these bamboo arrows? Nevertheless their cresting suggests long Qing style fletchings.

Uli · Post by **Uli** » Wed Jun 29, 2011 1:47 pm

really strange mixture of bow styles

do you know how long these arrows are ?

Peter Dekker · Post by **Peter Dekker** » Wed Jun 29, 2011 9:37 pm

jack farrell wrote:Peter; The visible bridge is pushed up quite far toward the tip, the string style is also seen in India. Are these bamboo arrows? Nevertheless their cresting suggests long Qing style fletchings.

Yes the arrows are bamboo. But we should be aware: The museum is full of mixups, like a Ming style rocket launcher filled with modified Qing arrows that were made to look like fire-propelled arrows. Who knows whether these arrows belong to the bow, or were added later. In any case, they're odd too! The crestings indeed suggest really long fletchings but the remains of the feathers -on both shafts- are only half the length of the cresting.

Uli, it was a while ago but I'm guessing they were a bit shorter than a meter. Maybe 85-90 cm long. They didn't strike me as as large as Qing arrows.

-Peter

JJ · Post by JJ » Thu Jun 30, 2011 11:04 am

Here my graphical "reconstruction" of a possible braced shape. If the string bridges are authentic, the bow must have been braced somehow like this to make a sense and gain stability.

I think this bow is quite close to the crab bow. Perhaps an early version? Early Turkic design?

Peter, when the museum text says "excavated in xxx and dated to ..." this seems to me like relatively precise information. Why shouldn?t it be true?

JJ

Peter Dekker · Post by **Peter Dekker** » Thu Jun 30, 2011 11:13 am

JJ wrote:I think this bow is quite close to the crab bow. Perhaps an early version? Early Turkic design?

I tend to think the same.

JJ wrote:Peter, when the museum text says "excavated in xxx and dated to ..." this seems to me like relatively precise information. Why shouldn?t it be true?

What makes me wary about all their information is that they have a mix of antique and reproduction and mix up all the dynasties and names on these signs. Typical boxer rebellion weapons are classified "Ming", etc. But you certainly have a point there, that this information regarding a dig in a certain place is pretty specific and may well be true.

Maybe we can try to find out more on that specific dig and what was found there. It must be documented somewhere. Stephen Selby?

-Peter

Justin Ma · Post by **Justin Ma** » Thu Jun 30, 2011 1:59 pm

Just from searching some Web sources, the Gaochang excavation seems to refer to the Astana Tombs in Xinjiang (northwest China), which was used as a public cemetery from 200 to 800 AD (Han dynasty through Tang dynasty). Various ethnicities inhabited and controlled the city of Gaochang over time, but the city was destroyed by a Mongolian attack in the early 14th century. Maybe Stephen or someone else can give a more authoritative answer.

Hmm... the more I look at it the more it reminds me of a Kaiyuan bow, which could kind of make sense if you believe Kaiyuan refers to the Tang dynasty period and if you believe the Wu Bei Zhi illustration of a Kaiyuan bow is somewhat accurate.

Stephen Selby · Post by **Stephen Selby** » Wed Aug 10, 2011 12:41 pm

It's a Qing bow. Ignore the nonsense put up by the Military Museum.

Peter Dekker · Post by **Peter Dekker** » Wed Aug 24, 2011 2:55 pm

I don't want to rule out a Qing possibility entirely, but we must note that it has many important departures from Qing design. If Qing, it is surely the strangest Qing bow we've come across: Ear geometry, string bridge shape & placement, and overall size are all different. I haven't seen any other "experimental" designs from the era.

-Peter