On the String Bridges
Dear colleagues,
Recently I’m working on the article on Asian composite bows (including those were in use in European steppes and peripheries).
There are several questions existing (well, at least for me). One of the questions deals with so called string bridges. When the string bridges showed up in the history?
The main vectors here seem to be chronological and regional.
Thus if we divided the whole area of Asian composite bows into several regions (for example, China-Mongolia; Southern Siberia; East Desht-i-Kipchaq, West Desht-i-Kipchaq, Transoxiana-Middle Asia; Near East & Egypt; Transcaucasia; Turkey; etc.). The allocation of the some regions might be quite confused and tangled. So there should be added any historical, geographical and other specifications.
The chronological order should be even more precise. Thus any key dates should be added, not only centuries and existing states.
Well, let’s begin with the questions:
1. Is it right that the string bridges were unknown in China before the Manchurian reinforcement in the beginning of 17 century? Or may be there are some evidences at least during late Ming?
2. When the Arabic world became familiar with string bridges? The earliest picture of string bridges known to me is the picture of Hulagu (the dates uncertain, but it looks like the beginning of 14 century). If we almost for sure know that the Mongols were unfamiliar with string bridges when they came to the West – does it mean that they discovered this device in Iran? So when string bridges might be first used: late Caliphates or in the time of many Turkic invaders (Gaznavids, Seljuqs)? Or maybe the string bridges were not in used even after Tamerlan (i.e. 15 century due to the Muslim miniatures of that period)?
3. When the Turkish bow came into the well known shape? Is it right that some museum spacemen dated as far as 16 centuries?
4. The earliest Cream-tartar bows dated second half of 17 century. But are there any evidences of this type in use earlier?
Well, I understand that there are too many questions, but I do believe that slowly and earnestly we can achieve the truth.
Sincerely, Gleb
Recently I’m working on the article on Asian composite bows (including those were in use in European steppes and peripheries).
There are several questions existing (well, at least for me). One of the questions deals with so called string bridges. When the string bridges showed up in the history?
The main vectors here seem to be chronological and regional.
Thus if we divided the whole area of Asian composite bows into several regions (for example, China-Mongolia; Southern Siberia; East Desht-i-Kipchaq, West Desht-i-Kipchaq, Transoxiana-Middle Asia; Near East & Egypt; Transcaucasia; Turkey; etc.). The allocation of the some regions might be quite confused and tangled. So there should be added any historical, geographical and other specifications.
The chronological order should be even more precise. Thus any key dates should be added, not only centuries and existing states.
Well, let’s begin with the questions:
1. Is it right that the string bridges were unknown in China before the Manchurian reinforcement in the beginning of 17 century? Or may be there are some evidences at least during late Ming?
2. When the Arabic world became familiar with string bridges? The earliest picture of string bridges known to me is the picture of Hulagu (the dates uncertain, but it looks like the beginning of 14 century). If we almost for sure know that the Mongols were unfamiliar with string bridges when they came to the West – does it mean that they discovered this device in Iran? So when string bridges might be first used: late Caliphates or in the time of many Turkic invaders (Gaznavids, Seljuqs)? Or maybe the string bridges were not in used even after Tamerlan (i.e. 15 century due to the Muslim miniatures of that period)?
3. When the Turkish bow came into the well known shape? Is it right that some museum spacemen dated as far as 16 centuries?
4. The earliest Cream-tartar bows dated second half of 17 century. But are there any evidences of this type in use earlier?
Well, I understand that there are too many questions, but I do believe that slowly and earnestly we can achieve the truth.
Sincerely, Gleb
I have seen no evidence of string bridges prior to Manchu bows. Ming bows did have the string nock set forward of the line of the string; but they string lay in a flat section of the limb at the splice, like modern Korean bows. Before that, it seems that ears of the bow were behind of the line of the string so bridges were not necessary. Scythian styles had a trough to hold the string, but no bridges.
The Manchu design philosophy seems to have derived from their requirement to drive an extremely long and heavy arrow. No other bows in Asian history seem to have matched this requirement (the European longbow might have.)
String bridges on Manchu bows were vulnerable. There were all sorts of tricks to stop them from falling off. Once a bridge came loose, a bow could no longer be used. It is not surprising that they were not widely popular.
s
The Manchu design philosophy seems to have derived from their requirement to drive an extremely long and heavy arrow. No other bows in Asian history seem to have matched this requirement (the European longbow might have.)
String bridges on Manchu bows were vulnerable. There were all sorts of tricks to stop them from falling off. Once a bridge came loose, a bow could no longer be used. It is not surprising that they were not widely popular.
s
Stephen,
I have seen string bridges in Ming Dynasty paintings.
several emperors are depicted with bows with string bridges that are more like the ones used in Iran and Central Asia and among the Krim Tatars. There are also Ming paintings of Mongols showing clear string bridges.
The painting of Hulegu, if it is the fine line drawing that has been extensively published of Hulegu with a bow and a mace reclining, is later than the 14th century. It is late fifteenth or early 16th century.
There is a string bridge depicted in the Rashid ed-Din, History of the World from about 1330 showing Rustam shooting his brother. All the Persian warriors in this copy are wearing Mongol clothes and using Mongol equipment. Most other similar bows in the manuscript are shown without string bridges. This suggests to me the artists were unfamiliar with them and possibly left them out normally.
Typical Turkish bows do not have string bridges. While most surviving Krim Tatar bows are post 17th century, the design is probably quite old. It is similar to one group of Ming bows and possibly originated from later Mongol bows.
I have seen string bridges in Ming Dynasty paintings.
several emperors are depicted with bows with string bridges that are more like the ones used in Iran and Central Asia and among the Krim Tatars. There are also Ming paintings of Mongols showing clear string bridges.
The painting of Hulegu, if it is the fine line drawing that has been extensively published of Hulegu with a bow and a mace reclining, is later than the 14th century. It is late fifteenth or early 16th century.
There is a string bridge depicted in the Rashid ed-Din, History of the World from about 1330 showing Rustam shooting his brother. All the Persian warriors in this copy are wearing Mongol clothes and using Mongol equipment. Most other similar bows in the manuscript are shown without string bridges. This suggests to me the artists were unfamiliar with them and possibly left them out normally.
Typical Turkish bows do not have string bridges. While most surviving Krim Tatar bows are post 17th century, the design is probably quite old. It is similar to one group of Ming bows and possibly originated from later Mongol bows.
I didn't recall the Ming paintings. I'll have to look for some.
D
D
Stephen, Bede, Thank you very much for your comments!
Bede, I have seen a couple Ming paintings with possible string bridges, but the pictures were not so clear and bow position not the best one for viewing string bridges. The same with Chinese paintings of Mongolian raiders. For me, it could not say clearly that, yes, their bows have the string bridges. Unfortunately I did not see Rashid-ad-Din picture with Rustam.
As far as I know the Hulagu painting in British Library is undated but you are right the painting style, cloth style (so called Mongolian fashion) might be led to the late date. I’m not familiar with surrounding decoration styles.
Yes, the typical Turkish bow doesn’t have the string bridges but seems to be that later they came to that idea.
The earliest Cream-Tartar bows known to me are in Topcali Museum and the bow of Tsar Alexey Mikhaylovitch (the exact date belongs to saadak and quiver so the bow might be later origin). Also there is an icon of Pskov (northern Russia) school dated late 14 - early 15 centuries that might depict the Cream-Tartar style bow.
Bede, I have seen a couple Ming paintings with possible string bridges, but the pictures were not so clear and bow position not the best one for viewing string bridges. The same with Chinese paintings of Mongolian raiders. For me, it could not say clearly that, yes, their bows have the string bridges. Unfortunately I did not see Rashid-ad-Din picture with Rustam.
As far as I know the Hulagu painting in British Library is undated but you are right the painting style, cloth style (so called Mongolian fashion) might be led to the late date. I’m not familiar with surrounding decoration styles.
Yes, the typical Turkish bow doesn’t have the string bridges but seems to be that later they came to that idea.
The earliest Cream-Tartar bows known to me are in Topcali Museum and the bow of Tsar Alexey Mikhaylovitch (the exact date belongs to saadak and quiver so the bow might be later origin). Also there is an icon of Pskov (northern Russia) school dated late 14 - early 15 centuries that might depict the Cream-Tartar style bow.
In the book, Masterpieces of Chinese Portrait Painting in the National Palace Museum, a Ming emperor identified as Shih-tsung (in the Wade-Giles transcription) is shown on horseback in armour. His bow in its bow case is depicted in profile. There appears to be a clear flat string bridge in the Tatar style. The bow also has very large nocks. The same painting is identified as the emperor, Xuande, in the recent book, The Chronicles of the Chinese Emperors though the emperor himself is not seen in the section illustrated in this book. However, it is part of the same scroll. Xuande reigned from 1426-1435.
Another painting of a Mongol archer of the same period is in the Victoria and Albert Museum in London. This shows a horse archer wearing a cloth wrapped around his head, his right arm out of his robe, a Mongol quiver with a square opening on the outside face, and a bow with Manchu style string bridges (shaped like a Chinese pillow). The bow is smaller than a Manchu bow would be in proportion to the archer.
In reference to Turkish bows, outside the illustration in Payne-Gallwey, I cannot recall one with string bridges. However, sometimes smaller Krim Tatar bows are identified as Turkish.
Regarding the Hulegu drawing, it is best to remember that manuscripts could be illuminated, written and illustrated over many years. The paintings don't have to be contemporary with their surroundings. There are Persian books illustrated a century later in India by Mughal artists. Spaces were left for the paintings to be finished later. The Mongol wraparound robe was adopted by the Turks and Persians and called Humayuni or "imperial". It is seen in Ottoman paintings as of Mehmet al-Fatih and many Safavid paintings where a front opening overcoat is worn over the top.
Another painting of a Mongol archer of the same period is in the Victoria and Albert Museum in London. This shows a horse archer wearing a cloth wrapped around his head, his right arm out of his robe, a Mongol quiver with a square opening on the outside face, and a bow with Manchu style string bridges (shaped like a Chinese pillow). The bow is smaller than a Manchu bow would be in proportion to the archer.
In reference to Turkish bows, outside the illustration in Payne-Gallwey, I cannot recall one with string bridges. However, sometimes smaller Krim Tatar bows are identified as Turkish.
Regarding the Hulegu drawing, it is best to remember that manuscripts could be illuminated, written and illustrated over many years. The paintings don't have to be contemporary with their surroundings. There are Persian books illustrated a century later in India by Mughal artists. Spaces were left for the paintings to be finished later. The Mongol wraparound robe was adopted by the Turks and Persians and called Humayuni or "imperial". It is seen in Ottoman paintings as of Mehmet al-Fatih and many Safavid paintings where a front opening overcoat is worn over the top.
Departure Herald <出警圖>
Anonymous, Ming Dynasty (1368-1644), Ming Dynasty (1368-1644)
Handscroll, ink and color on silk, 92.1 x 2601.3 cm
Collection of the National Palace Museum, Taipei.
[external image]
Anonymous, Ming Dynasty (1368-1644), Ming Dynasty (1368-1644)
Handscroll, ink and color on silk, 92.1 x 2601.3 cm
Collection of the National Palace Museum, Taipei.
[external image]
![[external image]](http://i41.tinypic.com/jv6mop.jpg){kind=link}
Another bow from the same scroll:
Could these bows be artistic depictions of the Kai-yuan (開元弓) bow on the right in the last picture (from the Ming encyclopedia San-ts'ai t'u-hui <三才圖會>)?
[external image]
[external image]
Could these bows be artistic depictions of the Kai-yuan (開元弓) bow on the right in the last picture (from the Ming encyclopedia San-ts'ai t'u-hui <三才圖會>)?
[external image]
![[external image]](http://i44.tinypic.com/2myonjk.jpg){kind=link}
[external image]
![[external image]](http://i43.tinypic.com/29yjgx.gif){kind=link}
I'm very interested in the emperor's bow in Departure Herald <出警圖> ; and working on it already....It seems to be a very high performance bow. can't wait to finish.
The real copy from me will be finished in about an year.... as for the string bridges...of course! that will be IVORY... thinking, maybe if I can collect enough materials I need, the bow tips will also be ivory. Since it is a bow for the emperor, everything must be the best, either white horns or black horns with "tiger tail" patterns will be used.
the pictures? Sorry! gotta wait till October..
The real copy from me will be finished in about an year.... as for the string bridges...of course! that will be IVORY... thinking, maybe if I can collect enough materials I need, the bow tips will also be ivory. Since it is a bow for the emperor, everything must be the best, either white horns or black horns with "tiger tail" patterns will be used.
the pictures? Sorry! gotta wait till October..
I guess I wasn't ready to call the arrangement of the 'kai yuan' bow type a 'string bridge', but it's arguable.
I assumed that 'Kai Yuan' is a place name. Have our Chinese friends got any better information about the origin of 'Kai Yuan' as a name for bows?
I assumed that 'Kai Yuan' is a place name. Have our Chinese friends got any better information about the origin of 'Kai Yuan' as a name for bows?
I agree with Stephen. These two drawings do not look like a proof of the existence of string bridges.
Adam
Adam
Whereas the drawings are unclear, the picture of the Emperor is unambiguous. The fact that smaller figures in the painting show slightly different bows and now bridges reinforces the point I made about artists reverting to type drawings rather than being precise observers.
Bede; Perhaps post the picture so we can decide for ourselves. -j-
Jack,
Dwanyin has posted the picture above in this thread. It is the one of the moon faced horseman on the armoured horse. You can see a small white support where the string joins the ear. I think it depicts a string bridge similar to the Crimean Tatar style. The bow itself might be a descendent of the one you illustrated from Texas. It has a sharp angle at what Adam calls the kasan eye.
Unfortunately, I only had copyrighted versions of this painting, but luckily someone else had access to a copy.
I am looking for a web published copy of the Mongol horseman so that I can put a link in here to it.
Dwanyin has posted the picture above in this thread. It is the one of the moon faced horseman on the armoured horse. You can see a small white support where the string joins the ear. I think it depicts a string bridge similar to the Crimean Tatar style. The bow itself might be a descendent of the one you illustrated from Texas. It has a sharp angle at what Adam calls the kasan eye.
Unfortunately, I only had copyrighted versions of this painting, but luckily someone else had access to a copy.
I am looking for a web published copy of the Mongol horseman so that I can put a link in here to it.
Bede,Bede wrote:
Whereas the drawings are unclear, the picture of the Emperor is unambiguous. The fact that smaller figures in the painting show slightly different bows and now bridges reinforces the point I made about artists reverting to type drawings rather than being precise observers.
I think they are accurate depictions of a different type of bow. There is a rider located behind the emperor carrying another bow for the emperor. It looks obviously different from the one the emperor himself is carrying in the post above. Also, the other details in the painting are historically accurate, so I don't think the artist would purpously leave out details on the other bows.
[external image]
![[external image]](http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/83bcc54714.jpg){kind=link}
Dwanyin,
Your observations are correct I think, but there is a tendency in the type of representation we see in these paintings to show fewer details in the less important people's pictures.
Personally I think that there are two types of bows used in the Ming dynasty, the long necked (long kasan in Turkish terms) and the short necked (more like a Turkish or Persian bow). I feel from the paintings I have seen that there are probably string bridges used on both, but they are of the flat Crimean Tatar form. These are easily omitted in paintings.
The lack of them in a depiction is incidental to the fact that they clearly were know and used on some bows. There is no reason to assume that in a country the size of China they were used on all bows since there are viable alternatives. The Turks and Persians lived next to each other, but used different approaches to string bridges.
Your observations are correct I think, but there is a tendency in the type of representation we see in these paintings to show fewer details in the less important people's pictures.
Personally I think that there are two types of bows used in the Ming dynasty, the long necked (long kasan in Turkish terms) and the short necked (more like a Turkish or Persian bow). I feel from the paintings I have seen that there are probably string bridges used on both, but they are of the flat Crimean Tatar form. These are easily omitted in paintings.
The lack of them in a depiction is incidental to the fact that they clearly were know and used on some bows. There is no reason to assume that in a country the size of China they were used on all bows since there are viable alternatives. The Turks and Persians lived next to each other, but used different approaches to string bridges.
Serbian wall painting from 1307/1308. St Nikita. This could be string bridges. Later bow paintings are without them.
[external image]
[external image]
![[external image]](http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/8697/stnikita201lh2.jpg){kind=link}