Question about the Archaemenid Persian draw and thum-draw.

Bede · Post by **Bede** » Mon May 21, 2007 3:34 am

An interesting theory, but there is too much evidence of the Sassanian and Mediterranean releases in art. You might be able to get away with a secondary release on a small Scythian bow, but I think a two fingered Mediterranean is more likely.

Russ Mitchell · Post by **Russ Mitchell** » Mon May 21, 2007 5:58 pm

And I don't really comprehend the difference between the tertiary and Sassanid releases well enough to discuss it meaningfully, sorry...

Bede · Post by **Bede** » Mon May 21, 2007 10:31 pm

The Sassanian release draws the string with the two middle fingers below the arrow. The index and small fingers point straight ahead. Sometimes it appears that the little finger was curved, but it is unclear whether it was on the string or curved into the palm.

istanbuli · Post by **istanbuli** » Thu Jul 12, 2007 11:13 am

Selams to friends.
Among one of the mosaic floor coverings discovered very recently in Turkiye is one panel depicting -as the experts so claimed- an Amazon queen warrior named Penthesileia in a game party. That was an ordinary digging for a recreation park facility until these findings from the 4th century showed up. Now the whole project is due to change completely for an open archaeology park. Until then the mosaics are said to be covered again with a special protective material called jeoteks.
Anyway here is the picture of that queen warrior just prior to the release. She is on horseback and shooting backwards. Unluckily the part of mosaic panel where the bow should have been is missing.
Best shoots!

Bede · Post by **Bede** » Thu Jul 12, 2007 10:46 pm

Has the mosaic been dated?

istanbuli · Post by **istanbuli** » Fri Jul 13, 2007 10:04 am

as much as its being of 4th century if it means anything as it might be simply a suggestion by the researchers.
notice the way she draws the string.

M Hardman · Post by **M Hardman** » Fri Jul 13, 2007 11:31 am

It looks like the Sassanian release but with only one finger drawing the string?

MJuingong · Post by **MJuingong** » Sun Jul 15, 2007 3:34 am

Seems to me allfingers are drawing the string. That might make it difficult to get a clean release.

Are we sure the artist could observe and reproduce accurately?

Jason DuLac · Post by **Jason DuLac** » Sun Jul 15, 2007 7:09 pm

Artists are notorious for innacurate representations, today and in the past! Maybe there's some truth in the fingers position on the mosaic, maybe not. Artistic license...

J.

istanbuli · Post by **istanbuli** » Mon Jul 16, 2007 11:19 pm

Why not she be locking the thumb with the middle finger instead of the index one, and as depicted in the mosaic, letting the other fingers pointing somewhat to the target. Also index finger may support the arrow well like in Sassanid?s.
I today gave that draw a chance and it worked anyway. But I am more comfortable with my own pretty much. So artist might well have tried to draw down what he really had seen. If this was a common way in that region why should he have invented and drawn an unreal thing to weaken his piece of art instead of drawing what is real.
e

Bede · Post by **Bede** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:46 am

I think the artist has made little effort to adjust the standard template they used for drawing a hand. There is some shading suggesting that the index and middle finger may be bent more than the other two. This might mean a Flemish release (one finger over and one finger under the arrow).

However, I agree with the general skepticism of the artist's serious attempt to show how the string was held. We are too used to photography and forget that every brush stroke in a painting and tile in a mosaic is put there by a person who is interpreting the world, not recording it.

jack farrell · Post by **jack farrell** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 12:22 pm

Imagine someone paying a classicly trained artist to do an expensive piece of permanent artwork in their home. Imagine that the theme was military in nature. Would that patron be satisfied by a grossly erronious rendering of that theme?

When hunters have photos of themselves made do they hold the gun upsidedown? Do they pull the trigger with their ring finger? What would their contemporaries say if they were to see such a gross violation of established norms? Most of the prestiege would drain out of the rendering immediately. -j-

Adam Karpowicz · Post by **Adam Karpowicz** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 1:01 am

I am with Bede on this one. The chance such way of drawing had anything to do with reality at the time is very small.

"Would that patron be satisfied by a grossly erronious rendering of that theme?"

This is assuming the patron actually new, or cared, how to use a bow. The figure is most likely a mythological one and the method of drawing was unimportant or irrelevant in this picture.

Adam

istanbuli · Post by **istanbuli** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 11:52 am

This is not a responce to anyone:)
That mosaic panel is a huge work indeed. For me it would not make any difference whether the subject was of the time or of the mythology.The artist might have spent a very long time to produce such a work and possibly was paid well too. What is more, most of the architectural buildings of the old days were actually some great and prestigious projects of their times. Only best people were in charge of building and decorating them.
Today we may find quite a few people who could naturally know and say a thumb release from the mediterranean one as so called modern life has already changed everything forever. But the artist and the patron whoever they were for sure lived when the archery was of great importance for the daily life. And of course we are somehow speaking of one of those ?woman warriors? as the main character depicted on the scene.
The artists had many different ways of expressions through the art history. The experts can provide a wider information on that indeed. But only perhaps in the last century they introduced some surrealist, unnatural or more expressionist paintings which in many cases we hardly understand what the theme was on those canvases or other art pieces. Yet if we go back we find most of the old art pieces as giving more information in detail as documentaries of their time no matter to which degree they had been exaggerated by the artists.
I still find that strange release something deserving to be considered. Otherwise why do we bother examining so many other apparently weaker clues on the objects of different materials and art pieces to explore the truths of the old days?
e

Bede · Post by **Bede** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 1:20 pm

I think there is a valid point to be made as to why we would choose one piece of art over another. However, when we evaluate art as being representational, we must be aware of the traditions involved and whether there were accepted ways of depicting certain figures.

It is almost certain that the artist had never seen a female archer. What he was depicting was a mythological scene which had a tradition of its own going back to the 6th century BC in painted pottery. Instead of illustrating what he saw, he was interpreting a tradition. His patrons were not looking for an exact representation. They were looking for a well executed example of a genre work.

It is easy to be misled because we are focussed on details to think people of the time shared our obsession. I would be more convinced of a new style created by artist to please an elite interested in archery as a source of information than a time-worn tradition created for a culture that rarely prized archers. Persian artists working for the Ilkhans in Iran produced interesting and information-rich paintings, but they are still not a documentary source of the objects depicted. It is only when there is an object to confirm their accuracy that you should attempt to draw conclusions. Late Roman and Byzantine artists often combined various Classical styles in new ways that reflected their current preoccupations rather than the reality around them. Armour modeling the muscles of the body appears in Byzantine art long after the actual objects had ceased to be used.

This does not diminish the interest or importance of this mosaic. It just means we should not try to read too much into it.