Yuan Dynasty Closed Quiver

Stephen Selby · Post by **Stephen Selby** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 1:35 pm

I have posted and commented photographs of a Yuan Dynasty (1279-1368) closed quiver here:
http://198.66.52.119/photo/index.php?fo ... uan%20Bow/

If anyone wants to know what sort of quiver was used by the troops of Khublai Khan, this probably gives the answer.

Details of the bow will follow.

Russ Mitchell · Post by **Russ Mitchell** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 4:04 pm

Yep... arrowhead-up, as I suspected. Took me forever to figure out how to deal with that draw...

Romain · Post by **Romain** » Sat Apr 01, 2006 12:11 am

Beautiful discovery !

Everything is in a very good state of conservation....

Stephen Selby · Post by **Stephen Selby** » Sat Apr 01, 2006 1:08 am

Yep... arrowhead-up, as I suspected. Took me forever to figure out how to deal with that draw...

Agreed that arrowheads were commonly up in close quivers; but I put them in that way for these photos. I don't actually know how they were placed at the time of excavation. I have a Six-Dynasty stone sculpture of a soldier carrying one of these quivers, where the arrowheads were clearly down.

Rather than ragarding this issue as a matter of 'rules', I would encourage you to think in terms of the arrowheads being up if it was necessary to choose a certain type of arrow when they were mixed in the quiver (as in this specimen.) If only one type of arrow was in the quiver (e.g. on the battlefield), then parhaps they could have been either way.

S.

Bede · Post by **Bede** » Sat Apr 01, 2006 2:15 am

Stephen,
I doubt if your theory is right. Most closed quivers are wider at the base to accommodate the fletching. By design, they were meant for the arrows to be put in point uppermost. However, if you came across one of these quivers and were used to open quivers, you would naturally place the arrows in point down. After a while you might notice that your fletching was getting ruffled, when removing the arrows, and reverse the process.

Closed quivers seem more popular for hunting and travel. Evidence from various surviving quiver remains suggest that arrow head variability was alway present except in Chinese crossbow quivers issued by the government. Archers love variety.

Groups of people are made up of individuals and you can only get approximations of individual behaviour by looking at random survivals of evidence from the group.

The quiver is fascinating. I always look forward to your discoveries.

Bede · Post by **Bede** » Sat Apr 01, 2006 2:21 am

Does the login on the photo site equate to the AtarnNet login?

jack farrell · Post by **jack farrell** » Sat Apr 01, 2006 6:49 pm

How would one insert fletched arrows into this quiver fletch-first?

Andrzej Abratowski · Post by **Andrzej Abratowski** » Sat Apr 01, 2006 10:06 pm

I think that the position of arrows should be connected with the way of loading?

Stephen Selby · Post by **Stephen Selby** » Sun Apr 02, 2006 11:41 am

jack farrell wrote:How would one insert fletched arrows into this quiver fletch-first?

They may have put them in a silk bag then inserted them. I'll try putting in a fist-full of Korean arrows and let you know.

Bede · Post by **Bede** » Sun Apr 02, 2006 2:08 pm

Jack,
I had that question from a young man with one Gr?zer's closed quivers. It is easy to insert the arrows nock first one at a time. Even the last arrow is no problem.

If you you want to put a bunch of arrows in together, Stephen's solution works. I have seen pictures of handkerchiefs with a long ribbon on one corner. Something like that would have worked to protect the fletching and could easily be retrieved.

Many of the early closed quivers are quite small and probably were filled one arrow at a time. When you took the arrow out, the feathers were smoothed down in the correct direction.

In would be interesting to know how military arrows were bundled for distribution. The English used 24-hole spacers, the Koreans bound the arrows together in mats with straw.

jack farrell · Post by **jack farrell** » Sun Apr 02, 2006 8:13 pm

This quiver is not so different than Japanese open quivers of wood made to hold large battle arrows which were loaded point first. There seem to be about 10 of these for this quiver. To use korean flight shooting type arrows for a trial would not be so accurate. Presuming that there is evidence for fletchings, how long were they? Could the fletchings have been contained in the opening space? Is there evidence for the heigth of the fletch? It might be reasonable that flight-type arrows could be loaded nock first, but if the fletchings were large, this would be a problem.

Should we believe, given the large distribution of these quivers, that a silk scarf would have been a standard battle item necessary for restocking a quiver?

Lastly, carrying these arrows point up would create a great difference in balance of the quiver compared to point down. -j-

Stephen Selby · Post by **Stephen Selby** » Mon Apr 03, 2006 1:50 am

Jack, I can help with some questions:

Arrows were triple, helical fletched. Feather is missing but quills preserved. No sign of silk binding. Fletch length 11.5cm. Rear of fletching 1.5cm from bottom of nock. As the feathers are missing, I can't measure the height of the fletching, but modern Tibetan arrows, which I believe reflect a long tradition of Central Asian arrow making, have fletching no higher than the max. diameter of the shaft.

As to your point about the balance, these quivers were tied with two lugs close to the mouth, and would have been almost vertical.

Bede · Post by **Bede** » Mon Apr 03, 2006 5:28 am

Jack,
Japanese Ustsubo quivers have spacers at the mouth to take the points of the arrows though they do not work well for target points. The spacers are strips of leather which are designed to hold the blades of hunting arrows. Most war arrow heads fit though. I have inspected four of these Japanese quivers personally and seen numerous others in paintings and phtotgraphs. What I can't work out is how they were tied on.

The Japanese closed quiver was worn at a high angle with the mouth down and was very similar to the ebira or open quivers which also had spacers for the heads. Drawing an arrow was quite complicated.

Putting arrows into these quivers was probably no harder for people used to it than anything else connected with a craft like archery.

jack farrell · Post by **jack farrell** » Mon Apr 03, 2006 1:02 pm

If the fletches were cut as low as the diameter of the shaft, then they could have been inserted without any device. It would be good to find some supporting data such as artwork etc.

The overall length of the fletch from the top of the arrow, 13 cm, 5 1/8", may not exceed the opening size of the quiver. If both of these statements are fairly accurate, then the arrows could easily be inserted nock first or point first.

The array of arrowpoints is bewildering and would cause some minor problem in an emergency. But it would certainly be easier to select between them if the points were showing.

Presumably, given the level of preservation, a device could be inserted into the lower quiver to look for the imprint of a fletch or iron stains.

This single find is certainly interesting but it would not be valid to assume that conclusions would apply to all other such equipment.

Is there a story to accompany this item? -j-

Russ Mitchell · Post by **Russ Mitchell** » Mon Apr 03, 2006 2:46 pm

It corresponds well with Cuman quivers, which were actually made with a "door" in the side in order to allow the arrows to be loaded in much like a slug in a pump shotgun.