Help me identify an asiatic bow

Bede · Post by **Bede** » Tue Aug 26, 2008 2:26 pm

I am aware that the Kalmyks are the Torghuts that were "left behind". It is unlikely that the Torghuts used Manchu bows until they returned to Central Asia. They were not part of the Qing military establishment and probably used bows directly descended from earlier Mongol bows like the Krim Tatars. However, considering the quiver at Vienna, maybe they did bring Qing equipment with them. Perhaps it was more available when they were migrating.

The real problem is the contamination of collections with misidentified artifacts. Many bows that were captured and have good documentation are really valuable to historians, but there were many nineteenth century collectors of curiosities and they often made fanciful claims for their origins.

Alam ed Din, Adnan · Post by **Alam ed Din, Adnan** » Tue Aug 26, 2008 4:54 pm

The Dzungars battled the Qing Armies many times before moving to the Northern Caucasus plains - maybe they copied/recycled the Qing bow design in way similar to how Tibetans do....but you're probably right about the contamination.Good to talk to you again, Bede.I haven't been around for some time.

Peter Dekker · Post by **Peter Dekker** » Tue Aug 26, 2008 5:13 pm

I think the bow is most definitely of Qing / Manchu origin, because all design features correspond exactly to the way the made bows in this era.

The drawing you attached is a little peculiar, as the ears don't seem to come into play. I guess this is an error in the representation of the bow. But you're right that there is quite some similarity with the Manchu type.

But we know that Manchu beile Nurhaci had typical Tibetan ironwork on his saber, while wearing an armor styled on Ming design. Their bows may well have spread through the many tribes in the area as well. It is too bad that there is so little artwork depicting people in this era to spread some more light on the matter.

On the matter of identifying this bow, see pictures below:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Kangxi-Jagd.jpg
The Kangxi emperor in armor. Note the bow in two colors of bark, with very similar decoration on the birch bark. This type of decoration was apparently used on bows from their times of conquest way up to the early 19th cent. Unfortunately this version is not too clear, there are much more detailed versions reprinted in books such as: "China, the Three Emperors".

Manchu Imperial guard Zhanyinbao who served in Eastern Turkestan. Collection of the Metropolitan Museum, NY. Note how little his bow changed since Kangxi was painted about a century earlier, and how incredibly close it is to the even earlier bow that started this thread.

The real change in design patterns of these bows seems to have begun in the late Qianlong reign, probably as a result of Qianlong's own experimentation with a mix of traditional and more contemporary design patterns. However the construction of these bows never seemed to have seen a lot of change from the times of conquest up to the early 20th century.

-Peter

robno · Post by **robno** » Tue Aug 26, 2008 6:42 pm

Stephen Selby wrote:
bowyer tom wrote:I?m not sure weather it is white buffalo horn or if it is horn from som other cattle. The belly is however very light in colour...
The bows as they hang since end of 1600... Questioned bow is #2 from top.
I'm a bit worried about the attribution of ths bow. I think it's a made-in-China Manchu bow, no earlier than 1800. Could the Museum have thrown it in by mistake? These things happen...

It is highly unlikely that the museum did it, but one of the owners of the palace may at one point have mixed things up a bit. The import from China in the 18th and 19th century did not only bring china, which can be found in all palaces in this country, but also other types of handicraft.

The question of whether the museum made a mistake can easily be checked, luckily, since it was after 1967 they took over and by then there were a lot of regulations on how they should put everything into catalogue - and thus those records are available.

Peter Dekker · Post by **Peter Dekker** » Tue Aug 26, 2008 6:53 pm

I'm a bit worried about the attribution of ths bow. I think it's a made-in-China Manchu bow, no earlier than 1800. Could the Museum have thrown it in by mistake? These things happen...

Stylistically I tend to disagree because I haven't seen this particular style on any bows made after 1800. Then again, sometimes archaic styles were reproduced in later eras but it would be the first of this style I would encounter.

The condition looks extremely good though, perhaps too good, for a bow of the 1600's.

It would be interesting to check the museum's records.

-Peter

Bashqort · Post by **Bashqort** » Fri Feb 27, 2009 3:50 pm

dear bowyer tom
was there any bow marked as bashkirian (bashkurt, bashkirt etc.)?

Alam ed Din, Adnan · Post by **Alam ed Din, Adnan** » Sat Feb 28, 2009 11:07 pm

click to enlarge - another one....

Wu Fu -a Qing general from a Gansu garrison inspecting a horn bow...

Chiron · Post by **Chiron** » Thu Mar 19, 2009 1:41 am

I personally think that this is not the Qing dynasty bow, at least the Qing Dynasty is not a true arch. Since the Qing Dynasty arch is one of the salient features of the string tall pillows, and the above picture do not see any string pillow.

Bede · Post by **Bede** » Fri Mar 20, 2009 12:47 am

Chiron,
You are right about the string bridges, but they sometimes come off old bows. There are some in the Imperial Collections that have only one left or none. If you see the bows in person, you can see the marks where they were.

The bow in the original photograph has a broken nock so it has see some rough handling. In many cases the string bridges were only glued on with hide or fish glue which is moisture sensitive.

Chiron · Post by **Chiron** » Fri Mar 20, 2009 9:42 am

Bede,
I agree with your opinion, is indeed likely to exist you say this situation. Under normal circumstances but the museum exhibits on display after restoration must deal with in order to restore the original look of the exhibits. But it is regrettable that the museums mentioned above does not seem to have carried out this work.
--------
Chiron

jack farrell · Post by **jack farrell** » Fri Mar 20, 2009 4:55 pm

In the Central State historical museum in Almaty, Kazakhstan there are two bows listed as Kazakh which I suppose are of Qing origin. Additionally there are two others listed as Bashkir of similar origin. One arrow is obviously Qing while others appear locally made.

I showed a pic to Stephen and he agrees. Even the decoration is in the Chinese taste so it seems unlikely that the bows were Chinese inspired but rather that they were obtained from China.

There is yet another in the Tashkent, Uzbekistan museum. This alltogether might suggest that there was a trade in bows of Qing manufacture.

Therfore the bow in Sweden might well be a Turkic bow but not of their manufacture.

Chiron; Most western museums will not restore artifacts. This confuses researchers as to what is original and what is not. Rather, artifacts might be stablized to prevent further deterioration or else nothing is done. Probably more of the latter. -j-

Dusan · Post by **Dusan** » Fri Mar 20, 2009 5:55 pm

Jack i posted pics from uzbek or kazaks muzeum in Russian findings. Like you said -its Chines bows.

Chiron · Post by **Chiron** » Fri Mar 20, 2009 7:00 pm

Ancient between the country are generally communicate through war and trade of these two forms. Because of geopolitical reasons, China's northwest frontier and some Central Asian countries since ancient times between the close, of course, there is one of the war, but also there is trade. However, once the largest in modern times or the Central Plains culture moved westward in 1862 -1870 in Ningxia and Gansu in China's Muslim area of large-scale riots, after the Qing Dynasty army camp brutal repression, the Muslim armed forces through hardships, fled into the Russian territory of Russia Czar to accept, in 1942 Russia was also "do the East" was officially named for this nation. Now the nation are located in Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan and other countries. I think the Kazakh Chinese museum collections and arrows that are possible evidence of historical events.

Chiron · Post by **Chiron** » Fri Mar 20, 2009 7:11 pm

jack farrell:
Forgive my blunt, I can not agree with your opinion. As far as I know, the British Museum on the Museum with specialized agencies, there is a lot of Chinese are also excellent long-term restoration experts employed there. Repair of cultural relics are now a very popular professional disciplines, by the museum and heritage experts favor, of course, repair of cultural relics before they will conduct a comprehensive and detailed heritage assessment, including risk assessment, as you say, once the repair is wrong, it is irreversible.
___________
Chiron

Chiron · Post by **Chiron** » Sat Mar 21, 2009 12:31 am

Chiron wrote:
jack farrell wrote:
Chiron; Most western museums will not restore artifacts. This confuses researchers as to what is original and what is not. Rather, artifacts might be stablized to prevent further deterioration or else nothing is done. Probably more of the latter. -j-

jack farrell:
Forgive my blunt, I can not agree with your opinion. As far as I know, the British Museum on the Museum with specialized agencies, there is a lot of Chinese are also excellent long-term restoration experts employed there. Repair of cultural relics are now a very popular professional disciplines, by the museum and heritage experts favor, of course, repair of cultural relics before they will conduct a comprehensive and detailed heritage assessment, including risk assessment, as you say, once the repair is wrong, it is irreversible.
___________
Chiron

Help me identify an asiatic bow

Re: Help me identify an asiatic bow