A translation is also needed for the Barkol/Yuan bow. This bow is in the perfect stage of disintegration to make a full assessment but the pictures are not close enough.
As only 2/3 of the bow remains, it would appear to be quite a long bow, in the manner of a Hunza bow. Though it has opened up somewhat by the bend of the limbs, it does not appear to have had great reflex originally. The very tip is broken slightly giving the further look of a crab bow. But the step down in the middle siyah is rather unmistakable.
Something is delaminating on the grip where side plates would occur. This would not be a big surprise because of the narrowness of the grip.
The Barkol quiver is displayed from the back showing attachment holes.
The Uygur quiver could be described as a bent wood box. Bede, can you possibly make a reconstruction illustration of the Uygur quiver? This would be in your expertise. I see the points at the base in the manner of a Tibetan quiver, as you said. -j-
Anyone please feel free to comment on my observations. -j-
Archery and Relative Remains in Xinjiang
-
jack farrell
- Posts: 1864
- Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2005 3:40 am
- Location: Texas
-
serindia
- Posts: 46
- Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 12:27 am
- Location: Napoli
Bede, I understand what you mean. Of course, there aren't birds head nocks. I just make an example, because the shape of the bow only has one curve. Hence, scientifically, I named it as the Yanghai Type No.1, because the date is the earlist.Bede wrote:Serinda,
What do the museum people mean by the "Assyrian" type of bow? In western archaeology, that means an angular composite bow with birds head nocks. Technically, this is referred to as an Elamite bow in the Assyrian texts.
-
serindia
- Posts: 46
- Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 12:27 am
- Location: Napoli
Sorry, Andrew, I'm not sure. It was my first time to see them. If our fans want to know whether there is a nock insert, I will offer to do a X-ray scanning of it with the relative institution.Andrew Hall wrote:Jack,
I suspect you may be right and the Uighur bow had nock inserts. It was not clear from the automatic translation of the Russian article.
Serindia, can you confirm?
Andrew
-
serindia
- Posts: 46
- Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 12:27 am
- Location: Napoli
-
Andrew Hall
- Posts: 192
- Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 7:11 pm
- Location: UK
Serindia,
the tips of the Uighur bow appear to be split. You may be able to see in your original photos if this split only appears to be around the nock. If so it is probably from a missing nock insert. X-rays will not be needed.
X-rays would be useful for determining the core construction techniques and whether bone plates are used in the grip.
Jack,
the Uighur bow is labelled as 9-11th century.
According to Khudyakov in ?Armament of the Turfan Uigurs?, there is another fairly intact Uighur bow in a museum in Khami.
Andrew
the tips of the Uighur bow appear to be split. You may be able to see in your original photos if this split only appears to be around the nock. If so it is probably from a missing nock insert. X-rays will not be needed.
X-rays would be useful for determining the core construction techniques and whether bone plates are used in the grip.
Jack,
the Uighur bow is labelled as 9-11th century.
According to Khudyakov in ?Armament of the Turfan Uigurs?, there is another fairly intact Uighur bow in a museum in Khami.
Andrew
-
jack farrell
- Posts: 1864
- Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2005 3:40 am
- Location: Texas
Serindia; I was refering to the cards next to the Barkol and Uygur bows describing them and the dates. This would be helpful to have the complete description.
Andrew and all; If the Uygur bow dates to the 9-11th C, then your thesis that the Turkic period of bowmaking was interrupted by the Mongol era is finding physical proof.
Does it not seem odd that many Mongol bows represent a slightly more primitive technology than early Turkic? Maybe the key is in WHICH TURKIC?
In GK AND THE MONGOL EMPIRE, p.147, archaeologists were long confused by the ruins of Khar Balgas, thinking them to be the remains of the Mongol capitol. This turned out to be the more ancient remains of the Uygur capitol, smaller but of much more orderly construction than Kara Korum, the Mongol capitol. -j-
Andrew and all; If the Uygur bow dates to the 9-11th C, then your thesis that the Turkic period of bowmaking was interrupted by the Mongol era is finding physical proof.
Does it not seem odd that many Mongol bows represent a slightly more primitive technology than early Turkic? Maybe the key is in WHICH TURKIC?
In GK AND THE MONGOL EMPIRE, p.147, archaeologists were long confused by the ruins of Khar Balgas, thinking them to be the remains of the Mongol capitol. This turned out to be the more ancient remains of the Uygur capitol, smaller but of much more orderly construction than Kara Korum, the Mongol capitol. -j-
-
jack farrell
- Posts: 1864
- Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2005 3:40 am
- Location: Texas
-
PjSingh
- Posts: 138
- Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:11 pm
- Location: ohio
-
Bede
- Posts: 2360
- Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 11:57 am
- Location: Sydney, Australia
PJ,
I think your observation is accurate. The clothing and the turbans are probably Mogul. No doubt the curators chose the background because of the subject rather than the period of the material.
Jack,
I think that as more material comes to light, many of the bows now referred to as Yuan period will turn out to be related more to the Tangut or Xixia areas and perhaps some other local traditions. As a result you may find that your ideas about the development of bow design might be correct. When you look at the context of the finds, particularly the quivers, we are seeing a lot of hunting equipment. The Uighur closed quiver in this thread is more in the style of the military quivers despite its construction. The more reflexed bow in Texas exhibition looks like it is a further development of the 9th to 11th century Central Asian bows. Material is turning up at such a rate that it would be premature to come to any definitive conclusions, particularly about a multicultural period like the Mongol Empire. If we look at our own time, many different types of bow are in use at the same time and the most advanced types have not driven out the less developed.
We also need to remember that the majority of bows are found in arid areas because of the environmental conditions. In a given place the chances of survival would be influenced by the population densities of the various bow users, their burial customs, and sheer chance in finding an object. This doesn't take into account the fact that different bow constructions may have been used in different climates as mentioned in Arab Archery
I think your observation is accurate. The clothing and the turbans are probably Mogul. No doubt the curators chose the background because of the subject rather than the period of the material.
Jack,
I think that as more material comes to light, many of the bows now referred to as Yuan period will turn out to be related more to the Tangut or Xixia areas and perhaps some other local traditions. As a result you may find that your ideas about the development of bow design might be correct. When you look at the context of the finds, particularly the quivers, we are seeing a lot of hunting equipment. The Uighur closed quiver in this thread is more in the style of the military quivers despite its construction. The more reflexed bow in Texas exhibition looks like it is a further development of the 9th to 11th century Central Asian bows. Material is turning up at such a rate that it would be premature to come to any definitive conclusions, particularly about a multicultural period like the Mongol Empire. If we look at our own time, many different types of bow are in use at the same time and the most advanced types have not driven out the less developed.
We also need to remember that the majority of bows are found in arid areas because of the environmental conditions. In a given place the chances of survival would be influenced by the population densities of the various bow users, their burial customs, and sheer chance in finding an object. This doesn't take into account the fact that different bow constructions may have been used in different climates as mentioned in Arab Archery
Bede
-
serindia
- Posts: 46
- Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 12:27 am
- Location: Napoli
-
Bede
- Posts: 2360
- Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 11:57 am
- Location: Sydney, Australia
Serinda,
Some of the Scythian-style bows in Xinjiang are dated before Alexander and are thus pre-Hellenistic. Though the dating I have seen in reports and catalogues suggests a wide time span of usage, it does look like these bows were in Xinjiang for a long time. Considering the Pazyryk tombs and other archaeological evidence, it is more likely that the bows represent part of the steppe culture complex rather than a Hellenistic intrusion into Central Asia.
From the Macedonians' point of view, it must have been interesting to see bow types familiar from their northern borders when they reached Transoxiana.
Some of the Scythian-style bows in Xinjiang are dated before Alexander and are thus pre-Hellenistic. Though the dating I have seen in reports and catalogues suggests a wide time span of usage, it does look like these bows were in Xinjiang for a long time. Considering the Pazyryk tombs and other archaeological evidence, it is more likely that the bows represent part of the steppe culture complex rather than a Hellenistic intrusion into Central Asia.
From the Macedonians' point of view, it must have been interesting to see bow types familiar from their northern borders when they reached Transoxiana.
Bede
-
serindia
- Posts: 46
- Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 12:27 am
- Location: Napoli
Bede, in Magna Graecia, there are some images of the Scythian style archery ware are in the Archaic period. However, the No.2 cemetery of Yanghai is between the late of Spring & Autumn Period and the Warring Sates' period. I heard about some data of C14. However, comparing with the work, which we did in Barkol, the date could be late. In Barkol, the date of the C14 between the coffin and bone is 400 years, the former is earlier than the last.
Furthermore, Pazyrk is in the 2nd c. BC. Quite late.
Furthermore, Pazyrk is in the 2nd c. BC. Quite late.
Last edited by serindia on Sun May 02, 2010 2:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Bede
- Posts: 2360
- Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 11:57 am
- Location: Sydney, Australia
Serinda,
The latest tombs in Pazyryk were dated to the 2nd century but the earlier tombs were pre 5th century. I admit that I am not certain of the accuracy of some of the Russian dates after the debacle of the Ukrainian horse bones. A several thousand year discrepancy was hard to explain.
However, the cross sections of the Scythian-style bows are archaic (not as in Greek) which tend to suggest connections with other bows of similar internal structure. The dating and even the descriptions of some of the bows in Xinjiang are arguable, but the Spring and Autumn Period is from 770-463 BCE and that predates Alexander the Great and the Hellenistic Era that follows him.
The dating at Barkol sounds problematical to me unless you are referring to the span of the possible dates. It would be very unusual to find a coffin 400 years younger than its occupant unless the site was contaminated. Or alternately, perhaps the locals practised reburial.
The Scythian archers found depicted on pottery in Magna Graecia were often as not produced in Athens as export ware. Their dating is consistent with the Athenians exposure to Scythians whether through trading with the Black Sea or the famous police force of the Athens.
The latest tombs in Pazyryk were dated to the 2nd century but the earlier tombs were pre 5th century. I admit that I am not certain of the accuracy of some of the Russian dates after the debacle of the Ukrainian horse bones. A several thousand year discrepancy was hard to explain.
However, the cross sections of the Scythian-style bows are archaic (not as in Greek) which tend to suggest connections with other bows of similar internal structure. The dating and even the descriptions of some of the bows in Xinjiang are arguable, but the Spring and Autumn Period is from 770-463 BCE and that predates Alexander the Great and the Hellenistic Era that follows him.
The dating at Barkol sounds problematical to me unless you are referring to the span of the possible dates. It would be very unusual to find a coffin 400 years younger than its occupant unless the site was contaminated. Or alternately, perhaps the locals practised reburial.
The Scythian archers found depicted on pottery in Magna Graecia were often as not produced in Athens as export ware. Their dating is consistent with the Athenians exposure to Scythians whether through trading with the Black Sea or the famous police force of the Athens.
Bede
