Mongol Bow Reconstruction

Uli · Post by **Uli** » Mon Aug 08, 2011 5:14 am

Dear all,

Going through relevant pictures and regarding the Shiluustei Sum bow find, I noticed a remarkable similarity between bows depicted (top to down)

a) in Rashid-al-Dins World history
b) Khublai Khan hunting scene
c) the Shiluustei Sum hornbow
-> see collage attached

My questions are:
1) Would you agree that this is a hint towards a "typical" mongol bow design (at least concerning the golden horde territory) ?
2) Can anybody support this hypothesis with further facts/pictures/bow finds ?
3) Has somebody made a replica ?
4) Can someone supply information on measures of the Shiluustei Sum hornbow (other than those already posted)

Best,
Uli

jack farrell · Post by **jack farrell** » Mon Aug 08, 2011 12:28 pm

Uli; Standardization of military equipment is a modern concept. You can see by your bottom pic just how different Mongol era bows were to eachother.

Think of these as schools of bow making, with design changes and a time continuum. The Shiluustei sum bow is a snapshot on the timeline.

As I noted before, the Rashid ed Din bow in the top pic has the same decoration as the Shiluustei sum bow.

Uli · Post by **Uli** » Tue Aug 09, 2011 2:49 pm

OK - lets call it examples of a prevalent school of bowmaking during the mongol empire... (related to mughal bows)

Uli

Peter Dekker · Post by **Peter Dekker** » Tue Aug 09, 2011 8:26 pm

I agree, they seem rather similar examples of a prevalent school of bow making. Interestingly, such bows are seen in use by Song troops and also Jurchen Jin forces. It was quite a popular bow design for a long time, used over a large part of the silk road and beyond.

I've been lucky enough to shoot an excellent replica made by Yokhua, and it really shot quite well. It does stack a little at the end due to the angle of the ears, but it has the major advantage of being incredibly stable. The angle of the ears automatically pulls the arms in alignment when you pull the bow, and so the whole is far less susceptible to damage due to twist. Quite a contrast to later bows with forward pointing ears that tend to be rather sensitive. For a nomad people that were on the move all the time through various terrain and weather conditions, I can imagine it is a perfectly suited bow.

-Peter

jack farrell · Post by **jack farrell** » Tue Aug 09, 2011 9:40 pm

Serindia posted pics of a Uygur bow from Xinjiang which belongs in the continuum.

Did I not post enough details to reproduce this bow?

Uli · Post by **Uli** » Tue Aug 09, 2011 9:54 pm

Peter, thank you for your info. I shall have a look on Song and Jurchen sources.

Jack, yes I saw you did a great job making a lot of details on the Shiluustei bow available. Some details however were not possible to address or I missed it: width and thickness data (+with or without taper towards ears ?).
cross-section at sal (rounded horn belly or merely flat? sinew back flat or convex ?). Well, I also hope to to see this bow in Mongolia myself..

Thank you for the input !

Uli

Uli · Post by **Uli** » Fri Aug 12, 2011 7:44 am

a little computer work..

Zoran Pavlovic · Post by **Zoran Pavlovic** » Fri Aug 12, 2011 11:59 am

Uli,
It is amazing how your graphical reconstruction approves accuracy of most illustrations in Gami at Tawarih, Shahnama and other Mongol influenced documents. There?s a number of depicted bows which show this shape of the bows and not only deep reflex at the handle portion. What is common for depicted bows is white belly which imply birch bark (my opinion) and long siyahs, less or more angled. In Rashid ad Din?s illustrations some are very close to Shiluustei sum bow whom strung position you reconstructed , maybe with less angled ears as in second bow.

Despite nomadic lifestyle as foundation, Mongol military organization was very progressive specially in comparison to the military organization of European feudal countries and was very modern for that time. I am in agreement with Jack that we cannot talk about total uniformity of archery and other military equipment as it was case in later armies of absolute monarchies established in Europe or nowadays armies, but if we pay more attention not only to archaeology but even to old illustrations we could talk about slightly uniformity of Mongolian equipement of Ghengis Khan era bearing in mind fantastic organization he established before Ottomans did later (I talk about Middle ages but not about time of Absolute monarchies established later in Europe) . So, my opinion is that bows of GK era share same characteristics with some variations.Uli, I think that you are on the right way to come to the common bow shape and characteristic used in Mongol era.

jack farrell · Post by **jack farrell** » Fri Aug 12, 2011 12:50 pm

Uli; Good job. I think you have shown the bow at half draw, a bit more relaxed at brace. As I remember the cross section was lenticular, elliptical. The area above the bend was sub triangular. Maybe some small taper to the limb, as I recall.

There is some text supporting the idea that each town, if large enough to support a bow maker(s) had their own techniques of bow making. This depended on ambient weather conditions, availability of materials and tradition/training. My opinion is that bows were made in workshops as a specialized craft and not made by each man "out in the field".

Remember that a Mongol warrior was to equip himself, come ready for a march, was not paid at all, and received a share of plunder as recompense.

In antiquity, if your army went far enough, for long enough, you might expect to never see home again.

Zoran Pavlovic · Post by **Zoran Pavlovic** » Fri Aug 12, 2011 1:28 pm

What i wanted to say in my previous post.
Illustration from Kullyat-i Hafiz Ebru, 15 century and how i think it should be at full draw.

Zoran Pavlovic · Post by **Zoran Pavlovic** » Fri Aug 12, 2011 1:31 pm

Uli,
Sorry if i interrupt your computer reconstruction but this is how i see this bow at full draw.Pls, can you do your reconstruction on full draw?
*just note illustration above
regards,

jack farrell · Post by **jack farrell** » Fri Aug 12, 2011 1:36 pm

I think the entire limb flexes from above the grip to the bend. The grip is not so built up as a later Turkish bow and there is no kasan before the bend.

Zoran Pavlovic · Post by **Zoran Pavlovic** » Fri Aug 12, 2011 1:59 pm

Jack,
Did you think this...

jack farrell · Post by **jack farrell** » Fri Aug 12, 2011 3:23 pm

Maybe a larger radius from grip to bend. Not so stressed. One recurve and ear were a little shorter, is that correct?

Zoran Pavlovic · Post by **Zoran Pavlovic** » Fri Aug 12, 2011 3:34 pm

No Jack, it shouldn't be shorter, i think i wasn't precise.