Gengis Khan Exhibit-Houston

Jack, very interesting.

The lower bow looks remarkably like the Omnogov bow, although heavier (Omnogov is about 1/2" thick mid limb). Do you think it has horn inserts at the tips?

Any idea where the exhibits come from? The website doesn't seem to say...

Andrew; We are so lucky that they chose the bows and arrows to show. Those do indeed look like horn inserts in the tips. Or on the other hand maybe they are wood (or bone?) overlays. Very interesting. The display is not yet open. I will go and check these things out when it does. Maybe make drawings.

Stephen; There is more to the site. Here is the page with the info.

http://www.hmns.org/exhibits/special_ex ... an.asp?r=1

Someone sent me a three page short essay by Don Lessem, exhibit organizer; The New Genghis Khan.

Jack, thank you for the link.

What strikes me is the very low angle between ears and limbs of the upper bow.
I think such configuration would easily lend itself for the use of a core without need of splicing separate ears. I wonder how a braced profile of the bow would look like.
Also the way the whole bow is covered with birch bark is quite interesting.

The shaft of the top arrow with a large broad head looks considerably thicker than rest of the arrows below.

Jack, I look forward to your comments when you have examined them.

Ashbow, the earlier Hunnic bows managed much greater limb-siyah angles than the upper bow without needing splicing. (They appear to have thinned the core and scarfed on a reinforcing layer after bending, sandwiching the siyah between a pair of bone plates). These bone siyah plates gradually fell out of use during the latter half of the first millennium, probably associated with the introduction of spliced-in siyahs (based on extremely limited evidence).

Covering the complete bow in birch-bark was probably quite common.

With its low reflex and limb/siyah angle, the upper bow looks like it would stack quite badly and not store much energy. Does anyone know if a lower-stress design like this could be made without horn?

The arrows may be from several sets, most seem too long to fit in the quiver.

Jack,
Regarding the arrows do yo mean that the cock feather is in line with the slot of the nock like a Turkish arrow?

The bottom bow looks a lot like what I would imagine the bow in "Khubilai Khan Hunting" would look like unstrung if it were related to the much later Moghul bows.

Are the white tips bitch bark covered or bone?

The quiver looks like an eighth or ninth century Turkish one from Tuva. No doubt they were still used since Stephen found a similar one. The Tuvan quiver had a set of broad heads with whistles for hunting. Perhaps this is a hunting quiver too.

Bede; I made a small edit to clarify. 4 Cock fletches are at 90 degrees to the string.

Some more about the arrows. If you could imagine a Mongol army always in need of ammunition. A soldier could hardly make all his own arrows. Nor would it be easy to return those to the shooter. Rather, arrow makers might have provided masses of arrows, those arrows distributed to the archers and added to original and recovered ones. Voila- a quiver full of mixed up arrows.

Any collection of arrowpoints of the era has the same random assortment of points. I have seen a collection taken from a single battle site in Russia in which the points are random.

It would be most helpful to have a site report about these finds. Forever speculating!

Thank you Jack for link ! Thaths , amazing ! In the end somthing diferent than todays mongolian touristic bows . I hear about similar mongolian bow in Japanese musem. Can anybody post picture from this bow ?

Jack,
Do you mean like this drawing?

Bede; Yes. Arrows 3 & 4 and 8 & 9 from the top appear to make a set, would fit the quiver and look to be as I describe above.

But wait till I can go to the exhibit for further clarification. -j-

Jack, please make sure to measure (or rather estimate) the length and the thickness of the bows as well. I am very interested in the top bow.

Adam

Thanks Jack.
Some of the feathers look spiralled in the photo. Is that real or are the shafts damaged and twisted?

Hi Jack and U2,

I have seen this exibition last year in the castle of Schallaburg in Lower-Austria. Did some pictures, but can?t find them ( maybe - sorry - i canceled). So the nocking was 90? the other way like Bede discribed (for three feathers-fletching).
I only have the comparison with Kyudo, where one feather is the leading-feather called "Hashi Riba". It?s directed to the sky, which means it?s parallel to the string and point vertical upwards. Think in Asien-archery most properties are related.
The exhibition was very interesting, but i have doubt if the equipement is origin of the time of Ghengis Khan. The artefacts are old and one bow is delaminated a little bit, but.......... :?

I will search for the pictures, hope to find them.

Peter

Guys, as time goes by,

the exibition was 2006! You can have a look at the homepage of Schallaburg, in case of this exhibition on http://www.schallaburg.at/ausstellungen/rueckblick , but there are unfortunately no pictures.

Stephen: this exhibition is done a cooperation between Germany (Bonn + Munich) and Austria (Ministry of culture) because of the 800 years annual of the establishment of "Dschingis Khans" empire.

Peter

This upper bow looks very close like Yuan period bow

[external image]

Andrew Hall wrote;

?the earlier Hunnic bows managed much greater limb-siyah angles than the upper bow without needing splicing. (They appear to have thinned the core and scarfed on a reinforcing layer after bending, sandwiching the siyah between a pair of bone plates). These bone siyah plates gradually fell out of use during the latter half of the first millennium, probably associated with the introduction of spliced-in siyahs (based on extremely limited evidence).?

Adrew,
This actually is a very interesting piece of information. Do you mean then that the earlier bowyers when making composites with static ears didn?t use fishtail splice for jointing ears to limbs at all but used extensively only other techniques?
Like this reinforced ear with the core extending through the ears?;
http://198.170.107.188/photo/showimg.ph ... nxsect.jpg
Or perhaps you were referring only to composites reinforced with bone plates?

So, assuming your above statement; if you link the decline in using the bone ear plates with introduction of the fish tail splice for jointing separate ears do you mean then that the supporting function of bone ear plates was no more needed because the splicing-in could give better effects and provided more rigid structure without the need of further reinforcement? Am I getting it right or maybe my reasoning leads me astray?

I wish I could read your article on the development of bone-reinforced composites in the journal of the Society of the Archer-Antiquaries someday.

Ashbow

I don't know of any evidence of spliced siyahs from the early first millennium, or from any time associated with bone siyah plates. The few known early examples use the bent core with a reinforcing strip construction (added to either back or belly). This joint does not need a saw, you can shape it using an axe and/or knife.

By the 8th C, some of the bows in Central Asia were using unlaminated wooden siyahs without bone plates (e.g. the fragments from Mazar Tagh). Although far from certain, the best guess is that these were spliced in. This is not the case for all bows at that time, as the bone reinforced finds from Moshcheveya Balka were not spliced. (The descriptions of the MB bows indicate that the siyahs were unlaminated and part of the limbs, joined at the grip. Whether they had the techniques to bend thick pieces of wood or just used two naturally shaped pieces is not known).

The reasons for the introduction and decline of the bone plates is uncertain. My guess is that the siyah plates were initially introduced to stop the very long, narrow Hunnic siyahs pulling sideways. The wood/horn/sinew/bone composite structure may have been lighter than a wider bone-less siyah of the same stiffness (as in the Miran bows). Look at the length and width of the Khotan siyah and consider the stresses on it from a slight limb twist. If the siyah did start to bend sideways, it could put horrible stresses on the scary looking grip joints.

As bow and siyah lengths dropped during the 1st millennium, it is probable that the need for the bone side plates reduced. By the end of this period, few bows were using bone siyah plates, although grip plates continued, some with side plates and the Mongolian types with a belly plate in the grip. Unfortunately there are very few finds documented to give further information on their siyah construction, but the known medieval finds appear spliced.

The Miran bows show there is not a one-to-one association between laminated siyahs and bone plates, but I suspect that they are generally linked. I don't know why some of the Hunnic derived bows continued to use bone siyah plates when they had siyahs shorter than the later solid types (as in the lower bow in the exhibition photo) which did not use them. Either a laminated structure is more unstable or it was just tradition.

Andrew,
I think you are right about it being for for traditional reasons rather than functionality. Some much later Turkish bows has ivory inserts in the tips that could have only adversely affected their performance, but they really look impressive.

Looking at early Chinese paintings of non-contact straight ears, it is clear that the artists took great pains to make sure the viewer knew how thin and narrow the ears were. This would support your functional explanation of the bone plates.

I too have noticed the late appearance of the fishtail splices in eared composite bows. Your explanation of the ease of constructing the earlier type explains the design well.

thanks for the ideas.

Dear friends,

I’ve look through Russian monographs on the Asian steppes of 6-12 AD. Please take a look what might be useful for the case with Genghis exposition bow, Yuan bow and closed quivers.

The bow found at Osinkinskiy burial ground (Altai Mnts) dated 10-12AD (pre-Mongolian invasion). Attributed to Kirghiz on Enisey. Looks almost the same as Yuan bow. But the strange thing that turns me nervous – I could not find any reference to the registered archaeological report for this excavation or this bow. The only reference in monograph of well-known Khudaykov (Enisey’ Kirghiz Arms, 6-12AD. Novosibirsk, 1980) goes to a dissertation abstract published in 1974! I will try to find the hidden truth.javascript:emoticon(':)')



Look on the drawings of a few closed quivers excavated in Russian Federation or former USSR territory. At the moment I could not find any pictures of the quivers although some of them on open display in museums now.

The next batch of closed quivers.

and the last one

Beatiful , Gleb. We have smal portion information from Russia ! And many says , in Russian museums are houndreds artefacts.

Pradal?aj iskať. ?čeň n??na vsem !

Andrew, Bede
Thank you for clarification

Gleb,
Interesting pictures, the position of the two dots on the stout ears of the bow on the picture look like if the ears or some strenghtening pieces on them were somehow pinned.

Gleb,
That looks like a very large bow if my interpretation of the scale is correct.

The closed quivers look a lot like the early Turkish ones. Birch bark may have been very popular at the northern edge of the steppe.

Gleb; Very well done. Thanks indeed. But 60 inches would not be an unusual size for such a bow. I guesstimated one in the Silk Road museum, Seoul, to also be 60 inches. Also with bark quiver, mixed arrows. -j-

Bede, Jack!

Please be aware that the scale in the bow drawing is a metric one! The same with all Soviet/Russian archaeological drawings.

Does anybody have a fine picture of Omnogovi bow? I could not find the article here.

"

We have smal portion information from Russia !"

That's because we were living in a happy "Iron curtain" grounds :D :P :)

Dzenkuie! For all the warm words!

Here is a drawing I posted earlier. I hope this helps.

Bede, thank you very much!

Here is few other drawing of closed quivers I find at the moment.

A picture of closed quiver (mentioned in the charts already) in State Historical Mus in Moscow.

And a version of reconstruction of Golden Horde quiver (drawing)

Gleb; This is some very good material you have posted and it is much appreciated.

Bede; If the Omnigov bow is as you have drawn, it would appear to be of a much later period than the Mongol invasion. Its short length with kasan ridge and tip shape are not elements of other Mongol invasion era bows.

Stephen's Mongol bow is 60 inches along the belly without missing tips. -j-

Bede, Jack

The drawing of the Omnogov bow in the Atex and Menes article is somewhat misleading. The bow has an angle between limb and siyah, and no ridged portion of outer limb. From the set it had taken, it did a lot of bending mid-limb. It is very similar to the lower bow in the exhibition photo (also see the post on my approximation). The bow is of late date (1720+/-100) but of early design.

Gleb,
thanks for the quiver photo, I have seen most of the Siberian quiver drawings in various documents from the Novisbirsk State University web site, but it is great to see an original. I wonder how they were suspended, as most do not show any signs of strap attachment.

Dear all,

found the fotos, but only from one bow. The other was really old, looked like the upper bow from the exhibition in Houston, birch-covered and partly delaminated; there were ~ 10 arrows with different points too, but unfortunately I couldn?t take a foto.

Bede, Stephen, you sure can say, if this bow is an origin dated to the time of Ghengis Khan; for me it looks like an old chinese bow?!

Peter

Peter,
In my opinion it is a Qing bow of the Manchu period. Incidentally, I have an identical bow case to the one in the pictures also Qing.

Andrew,
Do you draw your conclusions about the bow from the drawings and pictures in the article, or do you have more information? McEwen told me he did the reconstruction from their measurements.

I agree that the bow looks like the lower bow in Jack's picture. I think that is the type of bow that was introduced at the time of the Mongol Empire. Stephen's contributions, I think, represent transitional forms used by various cultures conquered by the Mongol armies. However, it is possible that the lower bow in Jack's picture is much later, perhaps 16th or 17th century.

Are you sure there was no kasan on the Omnogorov bow?

Jack,
The Omnogorov bow is from a later period as you guessed. The question is whether or not it represents a survival of much earlier bows or if it is a late Ming pattern. There are strong indications from the art of Iran, China, Byzantium and the Balkan states that a new type of bow was introduced around the time of the Mongol Conquest. It had a defined kasan and tip area. Whether the kasan was ridged is arguable from the art works because they are not that precise, but all later bows with the same profile have ridged sections. I think that the evidence points to the earlier bows having a limb / siyah transiton with a built in angle and a slighter angle between the kasan/tip transition. Later Persian and Ottoman bows changed that configuration, while many Indian bows retained it and so did Krim Tatar bows.

Regarding the suspension of closed quivers, most of the birch bark ones had applied wood or bone strips with the suspension slots in them. These could be easily detached. Horn ones would possibly be eaten away. Some Quivers from miniature illustrations show one edge suspension point and probably one back one. There are surviving metal mounts that could come from the inside face of closed quivers. Suspension bone plaques are often mentioned in Russian archaeological reports.

Bede,
I have a drawing and a couple of photos of the bow, one from the original article and one from a Japanese museum or exhibition catalogue. Copyright issues prevent posting them, so I have attached a photo of my approximation with some notes. The original has twisted badly, so it is difficult to judge the symmetry of the siyahs, but probably had more limb/siyah angle than my version at one end.

I suppose you could relate the lower section of the siyah to a kasan ? it has a triangular in cross section, but the horn and sinew stop at the base of the siyah. Unlike the drawing in the article, McEwen's reconstruction has an angle between limb and siyah, although it looks to be lacking a bit of grip set-back.

There are some contemporary illustrations of bows with limb proportions and siyah shape similar to the Omnogov and lower exhibition bow, so I suspect the type was a medieval one. It is interesting that "Capture of a Town" and "Stampeded Horses" from Jami-et-Tawarikh show siyahs painted or partially painted black, a feature on both bows. (Painting and Culture of the Mongols, M.S. Ipsiroglu, illustrations 8 and 9).

Thanks for the info on quiver suspension. I can't see any holes for attaching any wood or bone strips in the photo, but it is possible the owner was left handed.

Color reconstruction Kovalevka kurgan quiver

[external image]

interesting hunic bow bones from 1,2-Niredhaza,4-Szeged-Hungaria

[external image]

Well guys, I just got back from the GK exhibition. But my internet is not working so we will have to wait just a little longer.

I can tell you that in the exhibit both bows were close to the glass and easy to see. Andrew hit it right on by saying that the upper bow looks like a backed wood bow. The other has 5 pieces of horn belly and spliced in recurves. The transition is rounded triangular, the siyah itself is triangular with a horn insert in the nock. No kasan.

The horn bow is in medium condition which means that almost everything is showing. The tips appear to have been painted black.

Quiver is suspended by one slotted piece of bone at the opening and another somewhat down the neck made of wood. The hangers are quite polished from use.

Some arrows are "Persian fletched" and others are "Mediterranean" possibly all made from shoots.

Will get back when the machine can post the field notes. -j-

Andrew,
When I queried McEwen about the lack of reflex at the grip in the strung bow, he said that it disappeared with bracing. Perhaps I am a bit imprecise referring to the kasan. I mean the triangular section of the siyah, whether or not it has been hollowed out to form a clear ridge. Since the only original Turkish bow I have is in this form rather than the more common form, I tend to give equal attention to both possibilities.

I would not be surprised at the limb/siyah angle being larger because that makes more sense if the bows developed from straight siyah types. That would mean that Indian crab bows are archaic in form compared to Sind bows and Crimean Tatar bows and that they are in the same relation to modern (16th century) Turkish and Persian bows.

I am familiar with the paintings you mention. I think the artists were aware of the new forms of the siyah in use but had not worked out a standard way to depict them. I think they started with an old pounced form and redrew it to fit the newer structure.

Jack,
I look forward to your report. Are the horn strips butt-spliced or laid down parallel to each other.

My connection has repaired itself miraculously!!!

The "Backed" Bow

Arrows;

Arrow points & Misc.

Jack,
My first question is was the butt joint of the horn over a thick part of the limb or the half inch thick bending section?

jack farrell wrote:

The "Backed" Bow

Jack, relating to your sketch of the 'backed bow', this is close to the one that I have got. What are your observations about the nock? My one has no indications of a string nock at all. Did you see any horn or bone reinforcement at the tip of that bow?

Bede; To my eye the center horn section was much too long for safety. The splice above the grip was just below the thinnest part of the limb. The overall bow is delicately made, masterful and confident. It appears to have been put in a grave strung. There is some damage to the lower recurve bend splice where the core also moved slightly to reveal the joint. The lower limb twisted slightly and the horn raised slightly in the grip to reveal itself. So the answer is that the bowyer did not make a mistake using these short sections of horn.

The belly faced out in the case where one could get very close and observe all the damaged areas well. So satisfying staring at the ancient horn and joinery, bark work.

Stephen; This bow was in more intact condition with no sign of attached tip. It was a self wood nock and rather classic Mongol look. A skin of bark was mostly complete except for a large scar above the grip on the side not displayed out. Nevertheless, I could see a thick sinew backing and sinew spiral wrapping and what looked like wood.

The overall look was less masterful than the other. If I had wanted to make a Mongol bow without horn this would seem a safe shape. Of course I cannot say for certain that it is not a very shot in hornbow.

I would rather think the top bow is a hornbow. At 3/4 inch mid-limb thickness a wood/sinew bow would be probably overstressed at only around 53" ntn length. Note the limbs in the as-made, relaxed bow had reflex as well as the grip, adding to the stress. Overall reflex in the bow as-made would be, while not as much as in the other bow, still quite substantial.

Adam

Thanks Jack.
I remember a Ming encyclopaedia mentioning the Northern Barbarians used four pieces of sheep horn to make bows. They were probably referring to the Mongols.

Without getting too off-topic: can you folks suggest the best equipment to use to xray my bow? Can I just walk into a medical xray service, or will the result be wrong?

I took a bow into a regular medical X-Ray centre. I told them to treat it like a child's X-Ray. The result was usuable. It was an Indian bow and there was a lot of of metal in the covering, but the horn and sinew layers stood out.

Jack,
Thanks for the drawings and notes. The placement of the joints between the horn strips is quite strange, but they obviously got them working. This is not a bow design that requires particularly long strips, so they must have been limited on materials (or skilful enough to know it did not matter). It is interesting that the bow lacks the bone grip plate which is regarded as the identifying characteristic of the Mongolian bow by Russian archaeologists.

That 3" by 4 1/4" arrowhead would need a powerful bow.

Bede,
Am I understanding you correctly in that you have a Turkish bow were horn does not run up the kasan? Or were you referring to a less "ridgy" shape than usual?

The limb siyah angles of my approximation match one end of the original, but the significant twist made judging the angle at the other end rather tricky, it may be slightly greater.

What do you mean by "pounced form" in the artwork?

I have not managed to find much information on how the later "boneless" composites evolved. I have seen a small drawing of three late 12th to 13th century composites which look quite like the more recent Turkish bows, so the origins may well go some way back. Looking at the drawings in "Arms and Armour of the Crusading Era", I got the impression that bows shaped roughly like the recent Turkish bow were in use is western Asia before the Mongolian form was introduced by the invading hordes. Judging bow types from artwork is somewhat tricky though.

Andrew,
I was referring to the cross section being closer to a true triangle. The horn runs up the kasan. On the belly of the sal, the horn has a rounded profile and the sinew on the back is flat.

There are surviving paintings in the Varqa va Gulshah manuscript which clearly show straight ended non-contact siyahs. Much of the published work using redrawing of originals leads to shortcuts based on what the draftsman is expecting to see. Also dating can be problematic. Manny of the smaller Turkish appearing bows appear to be strongly influenced by Classical norms. There were strong Byzantine and hence Classical influences in some types of Middle Eastern art.

By pounces I am referring to the practice tracing an early drawing onto a transparent piece of parchment, pricking small holes along the outlines and then dusting the whole thing with powdered charcoal to put an outline on your painting surface. This was the most common way of repoducing figures in Middle Eastern art. It accounts for many of the archisms that turn up and the frequent reversing of figures. Sometimes the shape was redressed in contemporary clothes. The quality of the output was determined by how the artist could transform the original form.

I've split this topic. To follow Dusan's thread on interesting bows in Russian collections, go here: http://198.170.107.188/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1256

S

I printed out the pic of the Mongol hornbow and did some scaling. In the Museum I measured twice and had another person stand back and agree on scale from a tape measure.

The overall bow measures 57 inches over the belly curves. Both recurves are at 10 inches and the right limb to the center of the grip is 19 while the other is 18; You can see a kind of bump, hard corner on the belly of the recurve bend where the horn ends. I measured from this point. The right limb has bark covering the one joint in the horn not visible.

The original is a publicity photo. In the display, the items are rotated to the left with the right side up, quiver up and the arrows which are too large inserted into the quiver. The curved side of the horn bow faces the outside of the display where the horn is visible.

The coloring on the siyah looks like sinew where all was painted but only the sinew retained the paint and the rest sluffing off.

Adam, I can see what you mean about a 3/4 inch limb being rather stout for a backed bow. Guess I am drawn to go and reinvestigate with a flashlight. I hope they understand. -j-

I went back to the museum with a flashlight. Surprisingly, they were not adverse, in fact we talked at length about the bows and the exhibit. They gave me contact information about the organizer to inquire about provenience. Very strange that nothing in the exhibit indicated the find place of artifacts.

About the straight bow. There is a scar in the birch bark in the lower part of the grip and sinew and wood are definitely visible, not horn and not bone. This was the reason for my belief that this was a backed bow. HOWEVER, with a light is possible to see a tear in the bark below the grip, at three inches below the approximate centerline. Looking into the tear there is a small void indicating that at this point there appears to be a butt joint in the materials. This indicates that this probably is a hornbow by having the horn abutt a shoulder in the grip wood. See below.

Note a somewhat unusual notch in the back of the complete nock. Besides that, the missing nock end is rather smooth which could be possible joinery. This does not really make sense but the incomplete end is high and difficult to see.

The curved bow would appear to be 57 inches in overall length along the belly. What looked like horn on the belly grip turned out to be sinew covering wood. The core has a shoulder let in above and below the grip leaving 3" for the horn sections to press against. Such construction would speak to the spiral wrappings above and below the grip.

THE HORN OF THE BELLY IS FOR SURE PALE YELLOW GREY AND APPEARS TO BE TIEN SHAN IBEX However the nock ends are dark, blackish and are not the same species. Neither are they painted.

The lower recurve is damaged, as I stated earlier but with a light it is possible to see the three layers of the bow. The damage is drawn in too low.

If the organizer of the exhibit responds with more provenience I will post that information. How can an entire exhibit be without provenience? -j-

Just to let everyone know that at least one of the arrows visible has been refletched. Now I suspect that they might have all been. They are just too good for burial arrows. Scratch any statements about fletch size, nock alignment, shape and etc. Jack

This is very useful Jack, thanks. I think you are right about the nock pieces being spliced to the siyah in the straight bow (similar to the curved one). The sinew "step" may come from an attempt to string the bow backwards, thus loosening the joint and cutting into it (the other tips was probably lost in the process altogether).

Adam

Adam; I meant that it looks like the Xining bow had been strung backwards but this may also apply to the straight HMNS bow. However, since the complete nock on the HMNS straight bow is wood, does it make any sense that a wood nockpiece would have been spliced in? Certainly if it had been the grain would not run diagonally?

I would encourage Stephen to look deeply into the v-splice at the ends of his Yuan bow(the third Mongol bow) for evidence of horn nock remnants. -j-

Yes, I think it makes sense to splice wood to wood if the grain violation is severe. But in this case, since both tips seem to be spliced in, perhaps a harder wood was added on. Fot the relatively longer bows the tips are more exposed to damage and this feature as a precaution could have been present.

Adam

I hope I am not beating this to death but I returned to the museum like a fly drawn to nectar. A docent had an LED light and I noticed yet another horn plate at the lower limb. It was a piece about 3" long and seemed to be rising off the core! Wherever it has been for all this time it may not be used to our humidity!

If the limbs are done the same as eachother, then there are 3 pieces of horn in each limb and not 2. Short ones at the grip and ear splice, long in between. There must be some way I can handle these items. -j-

Just got off the phone with the organizer of the Genghis Khan exhibit and both of these bows, arrows and quiver were borrowed from the National Museum in Mongolia. They came to the exhibit without provenance.

Jack,
Carrying on from what Adam said, I have pictures of Siberian bows which were made from laminated wood were tips were spliced in to be carved into nocks. At the time I saw these, I could not check the type of wood used to see if it was tougher than the limbs. It might have been used to get the extra thickness.

oops!

Now comes information from the National Museum of Mongolia about the bows. Both HMNS bows were found in a cave in Shiluustei sum, Zavkhan province in Western Mongolia. The materials are said to be ibex horn, sinew, birch wood, birch-bark and the arrows made of wicker.

I am attempting to find an archaeological report on the site. In the exhibit there is a desiccated corpse but without any mention of site association. Maybe there is a connection. Andrew Hall pointed out two other cave sites where bows were present.

The organizer of the exhibit points out an upcoming book on Mongols by Honeychurch, edited by Wm. Fitzhugh as a possible source of information. The book, due out July 15, has a prerelease price of $26.40 on Amazon. Fitzhugh is a former curator at the Smithsonian.

The museum does not appear to have a sophisticated knowledge of historic bowbuilding, by the reference. -j-

Thank you Jack. Good work !

Jack,
I wonder what they meant by wicker. Generally it means something woven from osiers or twigs. The root in English is from an old Scandinavian word for willow.

Bede; Allowing for some problems with translation, a stick was what I had in mind when I saw the arrows rather than something split from a log (lumber). Wicker would also be a synonym for withe, a slender stick. Note on my drawing that I wrote red ozier next to the quiver bent stick parts, p.3. Reminded me of red ozier dogwood, not willow.

Maybe there is an ozier dogwood in Mongolia good for arrows? -j-

jack farrell wrote:

New exhibit opening in Houston, Texas. 200 items of the era. Two bows, nine arrows, one quiver.

http://www.hmns.org/exhibits/special_ex ... gh.asp?r=1

If you can enlarge the picture of the arrows one can see on four or five arrows that the cock feather is at 90 degrees to the nock. However,the fletches go all the way to the nocks like a Turkish arrow. To me this would suggest a thumb release because of little space to hold the arrow for another release.

The upper bow is like other Mongol bows known, such as Stephen's. The lower bow however has much more bent recurves though the rest is as before. Very stout, thick limbs. The upper bow has been more "shot in".

Cost to see the exhibit is $22. They are very proud of the material. Bet they do not allow photography. Museum going is getting more like theatre every day.

I am sorry for bringing up such a late topic but, were the arrows around 30 inches long not including the large points?

Lucas; If I said 30" I meant the shaft. -j-

OH so the yuan dynasty didnt use the long draw did they. Maybe they just drew to the ear. What do you suppose? Since the huns had similar designs, did they have similar length draws around 30inches ?

Lucas; Complex question. The Hunn arrows in the SRMS may be just a touch longer than the Mongol arrows. I would not say for sure that the Mongol arrows were drawn fully. If you can imagine a huge factory operation making arrows for tens of thousands of archers then you might expect arrows to be generic, maybe most being as long as necessary. maybe not all archers fully drew their allotment of arrows. Maybe an arrow was most fully drawn on some instance but not always.

Maybe we can expect that the typical Mongol was not as tall as a typical modern person.

I think I remember you saying that you are tall so you must decide if your bow will be proportionally larger than an original or equal to the original. -j-

Jack,
Have your drawings been dropped from this thread?

Whoops; But you can find two drawings in the proceedings of the WTAF seminar 2009, p 67. It shows four horn slats but there turned out to be 6!

Thanks Jack.
It is valuable work.

This exhibit has now moved on to Irving, Texas, between Dallas and Ft. Worth. Apparently the bows and arrows are part of the display.

http://stephaniesuesansmith.com/genghis ... is-summer/

This is the first exhibit in my knowledge to bring Mongol period archery gear to the USA. There were two different period bows, numerous arrows and a birch bark quiver in the display. The admission cost is now $12. Almost half of the Houston price!