Mongol bow and quiver find in Tsagaan Khad

Amarutu · Post by **Amarutu** » Thu Sep 08, 2011 10:08 pm

Thank you, Jack.
As you recognized - I really struggled with the word "woodbeam" and "beam". The German word used in all these cases was "Balken" in the original. A "Balken" is a collective word for wooden boards with a sqare cross section - and always bigger ones - something to place the roof of a house on etc. Is there a better English word?

jack farrell · Post by **jack farrell** » Thu Sep 08, 2011 11:44 pm

Amarutu; A beam is a large structural piece whereas a board is thinner such as used in furniture or a shelf. Lumber is the generic. There are thick and thin wood items in the picture.

I see your use of the word funeral is correctly made but in English this is a ceremony for the dead. I used grave though he is not buried; interment would be most correct but ponderous, so-grave. Deranged more often means crazy, so does disturbed but is used commonly by archaeologists. You did just fine, and thanks.

About the bow. Look on p. 327. IMHO the bow was put in the grave strung as it is in worse condition that the other wood items. The limb on the right split, throwing off the horn slat which rested against the bone (Or maybe more correctly antler) grip reinforcement. The wood core remains intact. The bow was not wound with sinew but was sinewed longitudinally back, belly and sides. The only lashing is a small one between core and grip. There are small rocks or other item sticking to the left of the grip.

The left limb is complete, hiding the horn, but the nock end is missing from the tapered tenon on the far left. The nock end shown, p. 327 upper, looks like a two piece assembly but escapes me how it would be attached. Ideas? The nock piece shown could be right or left. The string loop would be small as the ghost shows. The spatulate, spoon shape nock piece is quite like others of pure Mongol type, as is the narrow limb.

Dusan · Post by **Dusan** » Fri Sep 09, 2011 7:27 am

Can sombody post pics , or link vith this pages ?I cant find book...Thanks

Uli · Post by **Uli** » Fri Sep 09, 2011 9:18 am

see Andrew Halls link on page 1

Dusan · Post by **Dusan** » Fri Sep 09, 2011 10:18 am

Ouch...

, sorry i dont understand. I mean you talk about Ulambayar Erdenebat work ... or somthing another...

jack farrell · Post by **jack farrell** » Fri Sep 09, 2011 12:24 pm

This is the main page. Go to part 7 on the lower area of that page, The artifacts and discussion starts on page 307.

http://hss.ulb.uni-bonn.de/2009/1958/1958.htm

Uli · Post by **Uli** » Sun Sep 11, 2011 3:24 pm

a little more info:

Dr. Erdenebat writes in his dissertation that

- Acat Del bow is the oldest mongolian bow find
- made with a bone plate reinforcement at grip
- and a scored horn plate at the back (?!) of the bow
- he thinks the bow has been broken before giving it to the grave
- so part of one limb is missing

furthermore:
- complete bows were only found in cave tombs
- here cites the Omnogov bow as one example
- in earth tombs only remain bone plates
- all bows found are composites

jack farrell · Post by **jack farrell** » Tue Sep 13, 2011 3:15 am

Some comments;

There is additional info on the carbon dating giving the one and two sigma scores for the date.

The scoring could only be seen on the horn backing retrieved from the casket, the other limb is complete. Supposedly both bow tips were present in the casket. Therefore the bow broke in the casket after being strung too long. I think there is some philosophy there.

The deceased would be carrying on in the next life as he did in the present else-wise weapons would not be necessary. It seems a bit sad that he would need to be prepared for combat immediately after the funeral, such that the bow would need to be strung. Or maybe that was a happy situation? The Novgorod bow is the same situation, six or seven centuries later. One siyah is bent permanently at 90 degrees to the other.

In my opinion, most horn bows left strung will eventually self destruct.

The info on the bow is minimal compared to what we now have on arrows; Nineteen arrows, mostly in good to excellent condition. We see crestings, for the first time we see the cut of the fletch, the portion of shaft exposed between nock and fletch, we see many fletches are lashed down, we see several nock lashings are covered with birch bark, we see standard three fletching and common spacing, we see that the vanes are not stripped off the quill but the quill is cut down, and most importantly to me is the strong preference for chisel and spatula points rather than pointed broad types.

This is always something that was a question to me. When one sees a collection of battlefield points, one never knows what percentage of the original points were made up of what kind of point. In the Arcat Del quiver, 11 0f 19 arrowheads did not have a pointed head.

I see this quiver having been filled one each by those attending the funeral. The species of bird feather varies, the crestings are different and etc. They are all different arrows, not a set.

Uli · Post by **Uli** » Tue Sep 13, 2011 5:48 am

maybe every friend gave an arrow to the deceased ?

Bede · Post by **Bede** » Tue Sep 13, 2011 5:38 pm

Nomads sometimes broke weapons before burying them to prevent the spirits of the dead using them against the living.

jack farrell · Post by **jack farrell** » Tue Sep 13, 2011 6:20 pm

The spirit would be pissed that you broke his bow and then use his sword against you.

jack farrell · Post by **jack farrell** » Thu Sep 15, 2011 12:58 pm

"Nomads sometimes broke weapons before burying them to prevent the spirits of the dead using them against the living."

I think it would be informative to investigate this notion. A citation would be a useful first step.

Consider this; A mature warrior dies near Arcat Del. His family collects the remains. puts it in a casket along with his saddle , bow and arrows and quiver along with his sword- all valuable items which the living could make use of but out of respect for their relative, they include them in the burial. Then the casket is transported to an inaccessible rock cave pinnacle, not an easy task at all.

Why would they damage the bow and leave everything else intact?

More importantly, why should they have any fear for one so revered?

Bede · Post by **Bede** » Thu Sep 15, 2011 11:26 pm

In many cultures spirits of the dead were considered unpredictable and potential malicious. Not all nomadic cultures followed the same customs despite the fact they might look similar to us.

This information is generally available the the literature of nomad religions and north Asian culture. There does seem to be a distinction between the primary weapon of the dead person and their other goods. There might be a valuable area of research to find if swords were considered serious weapons or more important as status symbols. It looks like they might have tried to disarm and placate their ancestors at the same time.

jack farrell · Post by **jack farrell** » Fri Sep 16, 2011 2:27 am

Of course in Shamanism and Tengrinism people revered and feared the spirits of the dead but that does not answer why they should fear their family member. This does not follow and is leading to seeing a broken bow as leading to this convoluted conclusion.

"Literature of the nomad religions" is not a citation on burial practice.

Bede · Post by **Bede** » Fri Sep 16, 2011 6:40 am

Jack,
I do not believe when I make comments on this forum that I am writing a scientific or historical paper. Nor do I think that this forum is the place to discuss the logic of people's religious views. If you want citations, do some research and read the existing literature. I suggest doing a search in the JSTOR archive or some other reputable source of archived papers and articles.

Feel free to doubt my opinions or memory. I make mistakes as do most people. However, I am not trying to mislead you or anyone else when I offer comments.