A few links to archaeological finds of composites

Andrew Hall · Post by **Andrew Hall** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 7:05 pm

I thought I should share a few links for information on archaeological discoveries of composite bows that I have found. Some I have mentioned before, others not.

The Toyo Bunko Rare Books archive have scanned and placed on-line a number of books covering the early expeditions into central Asia by western archaeologists.
The photograph of the Qum-Darya bow immediately after discovery can be found in Bergman's "Archaeological researches in Sinkiang" here (on the right of plate XIIIa):
http://dsr.nii.ac.jp/toyobunko/VIII-1-B ... 63.html.en
The description of the mass grave it was found in starts on their page 136 (book page 118) and the description of the bow on page 139 (121).

The site also has a photo of one of the Mazah-Tagh siyahs in Stein's "Innermost Asia" volume 3:
http://dsr.nii.ac.jp/toyobunko/T-VIII-5 ... 27.html.en
The brief description is in volume 1, their pages 168, 170-171 (book pages 92, 94-95).

Novisbirsk State University have a section of their web site on Central Asian Nomadic weaponry with a large collection of Russian language texts to download and an even larger bibliography.
http://www.nsu.ru/aw/index.jsp

I have mentioned Kaminsky's article "On the construction of Bow and Arrows of North-Caucasian Alans" in a recent post, but for those that missed it:
http://arc.novgorod.ru/asgard/libri.php3?cont=_bows

There is also a more general description of Khazar arms (with drawings of some bone plates from bows) in Komar and Sukhobokov's "Armament and military science of the Khazar khanate":
http://archaeology.kiev.ua/journal/0203 ... obokov.htm

Khudyakov's "Bow and Arrows from the Burial on the River Kam Tytugem in the Altai Mountains" has a description of the remains of a Hunnic style composite with some surviving woodwork in the grip:
http://new.hist.asu.ru/biblio/borod1/279-288.html

And for a bit of variety from the Russian links, here is a Chinese one with some low-res photos of some of the Niya finds:
http://www.wenbao.net/html/whyichan/kg/ ... ngju-2.htm
Far right is the Niya 95MNM1M8 bow. Next to it is the wide-limbed 95MNM1M4b bow. Page 1 has the simple wooden 95MNM1M4a bow. Page 3 has the bowcase and remains of the double-tubular quiver from the M8 grave in the left-most photo.

And another link showing a nice photo of the Niya 95MNM1M3 bow:
http://www.epochtimes.com/gb/3/5/21/c12989.htm

Anyone else got any useful links?

Regards

Andrew

jack farrell · Post by **jack farrell** » Fri Oct 06, 2006 2:00 am

Andrew; this is a mother lode of Central Asian material. Here is a link to ephedra grave goods found in Xinjaing. Look several pages farther and find a dozen descriptions of arrows (Tamarisk) and their cresting.

http://dsr.nii.ac.jp/toyobunko/VIII-1-B ... 06.html.en

TZH · Post by **TZH** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 8:11 am

Hi!

Could you tell me, what were hold in the second, smaller part of the double arrow quiver of the niya bow?

TZH

Andrew Hall · Post by **Andrew Hall** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 5:24 pm

TZH

The finds are too old to have any documentary evidence on the usage of the quiver. I would assume the longer quiver tube with the lid was used to store the arrows away from the weather, and the shorter lidless tube was for quicker access. Presumably the archer would move arrows between the tubes depending on his activities and the weather.

The longer tube is 35", so would completely cover the 33.1" arrows. The shorter tube is 29.1", so would leave a few inches of arrow sticking out to make them easier to grasp.

Regards

Andrew

Bede · Post by **Bede** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 12:16 am

I agree with Andrew. The shorter tube appears to be a parallel, but much earlier, development with the short outer, pocket on 15th and later century quivers from Turkey and Iran. The concept of segregating arrows in quivers might be very old. This is speculation. If someone finds an early literary reference to the practice, we would be on firmer ground.

TZH · Post by **TZH** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 7:10 am

Hi!

And there is used the same kind of quiver on the Orlat battle plaque by the mounted warriors? Or it is just a simple closed typ?

TZH

Andrew Hall · Post by **Andrew Hall** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 2:55 pm

TZH

The bowcase/quivers shown in the Orlat battle plaque certainly appear to be of the same form. Jack Farrell mentioned this in his Glade article. The bows are also of similar type to the Niya 95MNM1M3 and M8 bows.

For those who do not have access to a drawing of the Orlat battle plaque, there is one in "Heroic fights and dying heroes - The Orlat battle plaque and the roots of Sogdian art" by Markus Mode : http://www.transoxiana.org/Eran/Articles/mode.html

Regards

Andrew

TZH · Post by **TZH** » Sun Oct 15, 2006 4:07 pm

Hello!

Thanks for the answers!
My last question: how were the arrows hold in the quviers? Head under or head up? (Could it be that in these kind of quivers were hold the arrows with the head up(ward)?.)

TZH

Andrew Hall · Post by **Andrew Hall** » Sun Oct 15, 2006 5:04 pm

TZH

I don't think the orientation is documented anywhere, but in a photo of the Niya M3 grave as it was excavated you can just make out the arrows in the shorter quiver tube, and they appear to be point down.

It would make sense to place the arrows point down, otherwise there is a risk of the archer stabbing themselves on the exposed tips (the lidless tube being shorter than the arrows). Even with the longer tube, trying to extract sharp broadheads stored point up would not be recommended, especially on a moving horse. The later closed quivers were longer than the arrows and had an opening at the side designed to guide the archer into grasping the arrow behind the point.

Regards

Andrew

jack farrell · Post by **jack farrell** » Sun Oct 15, 2006 9:36 pm

Andrew; have you seen decorated bone laths for reenforcing Central Asian bows? (Scrimshawed)

In your article, you state that a bow could probably not be reconstructed by the bone laths alone. But maybe it could be. One could compare critical dimensions on known bows. One could extrapolate dimensions from artwork (such as the excellent representations on the Orlat Plaques)and compare the ratios to known bows for a secondary source. If the ratios of primary sources to secondary sources was good, a large pool of bows would be had, maybe statistically significant.

Having a siyah lath and a grip lath would define three of the five parts of a bow. -j-

Stephen Selby · Post by **Stephen Selby** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 1:25 am

There are plenty of well-preserved samples of bows with bone laths to understand how the laths were used: I don't think the problem of 'reconstructing a bow from the laths' arises.
I have seen laths with decoration in the form of pairs of concentric circles lightly drilled in. This is a typical form of decoration from Inner Mongolia and Eastwards.
I have seen archaeological evidence of arrows both point up and point down in closed quivers. I think that point up was a norm, because it was normal to have a number of different arrowhead types for different purposes in one quiver (like a golf clubs in a bag!) You could only make your choice if the point was visible.

Andrew Hall · Post by **Andrew Hall** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 6:28 pm

Jack

Yes, I have seen the decorated bone laths.

The statement on the difficulty of reconstructing bows from the plates was without any surviving complete examples to base things on (perhaps I should have added "alone" to the end of the sentence: "... but it can be difficult to reconstruct the form of the bows from these alone").

Having the bone lathes is a great help in determining the form of the bow, but they only hint at the overall dimensions of the bow, and often give little information on the grip/limb and limb/siyah angles and none on limb width. Prior to the discoveries in Xinjiang, there was considerable variation in estimates for the shapes and lengths of these bows. For instance, the large laths from Vienna-II-Simmering have been estimated to have been from a bow of anywhere between 120-130 to 180 cm in length. The earlier reconstructions of shape showed considerably less reflex than the Xinjiang finds (probably based on the Karabulak drawings).

The Yingpan M19 and Niya M3 and M8 bows give us a few useful examples of the asymmetric "Hunnic" bow, but from a comparatively limited area and timespan. The Orlat battle plaque shows highly reflexed asymmetric bows of similar general form the these finds, but are artistic impressions. The battle plaque is very useful in showing shooting styles and how the quivers/bowcases were worn. It is less useful for calculating detailed measurements of the bows (I have tried).

We still don't know whether the level of reflex in these bows was common, or limited to the eastern regions of Asia. The Yrzi find from Syria is from about the same time period and shows much less reflex (as well as no grip plates). Similarly, the proportion of bending limb to siyah may various from region to region. We also have variations through time.

Regards

Andrew

TZH · Post by **TZH** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 12:23 pm

Hi!

Is this a decorated plate, or a simply carving for sinew? De carvings are too high above the sinew tying, isn't is? (it's avarian)

TZH

Andrew Hall · Post by **Andrew Hall** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 9:00 pm

TZH

The picture is a bit too small to be able to make out any decoration. Do you have one at a higher resolution?

An example of a decorated bone plate from a bow can be seen in item 3 here:
http://alwian.host.net.kg/Eng/Galereia/ ... ie_arh.htm

Regards

Andrew

TZH · Post by **TZH** » Sun Oct 29, 2006 12:34 pm

Hi!

Ok, I'll post a larger photo soon.
In the page archaeology.kiev.ua/journal/0202300...etc is a scricpt and a picture of the saddle-plate of Kudirge?

TZH