Mongolian Arrows
Such as the archer that shot an arrow over 536 meters, what type of arrows did the Old Mongolians use in the eastern mongolian empire such as during the yuan dynasty? Also, I am not talking about types of arrows the mongolians got from captured nations in Central Asia, but in their homeland. Please can someone tell me the design specs of these arrows?? I am trying to make reproductions for horse archery demonstrations.
There was an arrow maker's box of tools reported in Kaogu (1963 Vol. 3 p. 158 and pl. VIII). This contained made up arrows and various tools. It was dated to the Yuan dynasty.
The 51 arrows were wood and from 70 to 82 cm long. The arrow heads were of various shapes and materials. The metal arrow heads were made with flat blades of various shapes (pointed, complex curved edged, forked etc.), round bolsters, where they entered the shaft, and tangs. The bone arrow heads had several shapes. The author referred to "barrel" shapes. The front of the arrow head could be faceted like a three sided pyramid or round and flat with a central nail that continued through the head and formed a tang.
The photographs were not of high quality, but the fletching was long and straight cut with a pointed leading edge and a rounded trailing edge. It might have been twice the width of the shaft in height. This is only a guess.
The kit was found in Xinjiang in the desert.
Another find in the journal Wenwu (1973 vol.10 p. 28 and figures and plates), consisted of a bow, arrows and possibly the archer. The arrows had similar shaped fletching, tanged metal arrow heads, and shafts about 71.5 cm long. The arrow heads were more robust than the ones cited before and looked like they were designed for armour piercing. The surviving parts of the tang were short. The neck below the head was quite long. These looked like heavy strong arrows.
One group looks predominately like hunting equipment with blunts and broad heads while the other looks more military. The second group was found with saddles of two different styles, one like the Jin (Jurchen) and the other like the later Mongol.
I think your desire to find pure Mongol arrows might be hard to realise. The empire really mixed everything up and the Mongols were very adaptable to new environments.
The 51 arrows were wood and from 70 to 82 cm long. The arrow heads were of various shapes and materials. The metal arrow heads were made with flat blades of various shapes (pointed, complex curved edged, forked etc.), round bolsters, where they entered the shaft, and tangs. The bone arrow heads had several shapes. The author referred to "barrel" shapes. The front of the arrow head could be faceted like a three sided pyramid or round and flat with a central nail that continued through the head and formed a tang.
The photographs were not of high quality, but the fletching was long and straight cut with a pointed leading edge and a rounded trailing edge. It might have been twice the width of the shaft in height. This is only a guess.
The kit was found in Xinjiang in the desert.
Another find in the journal Wenwu (1973 vol.10 p. 28 and figures and plates), consisted of a bow, arrows and possibly the archer. The arrows had similar shaped fletching, tanged metal arrow heads, and shafts about 71.5 cm long. The arrow heads were more robust than the ones cited before and looked like they were designed for armour piercing. The surviving parts of the tang were short. The neck below the head was quite long. These looked like heavy strong arrows.
One group looks predominately like hunting equipment with blunts and broad heads while the other looks more military. The second group was found with saddles of two different styles, one like the Jin (Jurchen) and the other like the later Mongol.
I think your desire to find pure Mongol arrows might be hard to realise. The empire really mixed everything up and the Mongols were very adaptable to new environments.
So it is almost like a long parabolic cut then for the feathers?
Lucas
Lucas
Long parabolic is a good description. The pictures I saw showed that there was more parallel section than the classic parabolic. Persian miniatures show what looks like a "banana" cut in use by Mongol troops.
I have tried both shapes on arrows and they both work well.
I have tried both shapes on arrows and they both work well.
I think that the persians showed them as banana cuts becuase they used them themselves such as stated in arab archery. Also what do you mean by parallel section?
Also, Bede, what do you think would be the height and length of the parabolic, and banana feathers?
There was a change in the depiction of fletching in Iran between the production of the Warqa wa Gulshah manuscript in the late twelfth to the early thirteenth century to the style used in the Ilkhanid manuscripts. In the Warqa wa Gulshah, Fletching was straight leading edge rounded back parabolic and was short.
The Warqa wa Gulshah was produced in the Seljuk successor state milieu of Middle East somewhere between Syria and western Iran. While the fletching is not very clear, it can be made out adequately.
The next major group of paintings were the ones in Rashid ed-Din's History of the World. They clearly show large symmetrical curved feathers in the shape we assume was meant by "balance pan" in the Arab manuals. This style was already known in the Middle East and similar fletching was found on broken Roman and Persian arrows at Dura Europus. The paintings emphasise the length and height of the feathers.
Earlier paintings in cave temples in Central Asia/North China show similar large symetrically cut feathers. Undoubtedly, this style was old and continuously used. Certainly, the Mongols would have been exposed to it. Whether they all used it or there were some types of arrows that it was appropriate for is something that has not been established.
Stephen Selby quotes an ancient prescription for the length and height of fletching. The feathers should be about one fifth of the arrow length long and the height should match the diameter of the arrow. Looking at the photographs I have seen of excavated arrows, I think that the height of the feathers ranged from one to two diameters high. The length looked about right at one fifth of the full length of the arrows. If the Mongols were like modern archers, they probably would have different types of fletching for different arrows.
Regarding what I meant by parallel, some old parabolic fletching was characterised by a rounded trailing end and a gradual taper to the leading end. Others had the rounded trailing end, but the feather ran parallel to the shaft before tapering into the leading end. The second type had a higher surface area and was better with large arrow heads.
Another advantage of a larger surface area for the fletching is that it straightens the arrow flight out more quickly allowing closer-range shooting. The large Manchu arrows are the logical end of this development. Having the arrow travelling straight is important when trying to maximise its penetration.
The Warqa wa Gulshah was produced in the Seljuk successor state milieu of Middle East somewhere between Syria and western Iran. While the fletching is not very clear, it can be made out adequately.
The next major group of paintings were the ones in Rashid ed-Din's History of the World. They clearly show large symmetrical curved feathers in the shape we assume was meant by "balance pan" in the Arab manuals. This style was already known in the Middle East and similar fletching was found on broken Roman and Persian arrows at Dura Europus. The paintings emphasise the length and height of the feathers.
Earlier paintings in cave temples in Central Asia/North China show similar large symetrically cut feathers. Undoubtedly, this style was old and continuously used. Certainly, the Mongols would have been exposed to it. Whether they all used it or there were some types of arrows that it was appropriate for is something that has not been established.
Stephen Selby quotes an ancient prescription for the length and height of fletching. The feathers should be about one fifth of the arrow length long and the height should match the diameter of the arrow. Looking at the photographs I have seen of excavated arrows, I think that the height of the feathers ranged from one to two diameters high. The length looked about right at one fifth of the full length of the arrows. If the Mongols were like modern archers, they probably would have different types of fletching for different arrows.
Regarding what I meant by parallel, some old parabolic fletching was characterised by a rounded trailing end and a gradual taper to the leading end. Others had the rounded trailing end, but the feather ran parallel to the shaft before tapering into the leading end. The second type had a higher surface area and was better with large arrow heads.
Another advantage of a larger surface area for the fletching is that it straightens the arrow flight out more quickly allowing closer-range shooting. The large Manchu arrows are the logical end of this development. Having the arrow travelling straight is important when trying to maximise its penetration.
Here are some rough diagrams of the shapes of fletching we have been discussing. The first is the most common on surviving Middle Eastern arrows of the 16th to the 19th century for target or war archery. Those Indo-Persian arrows with surviving fletching either have a long low variation of this or the next type with the slightly parallel edges. The balance pan or banana cut is common from old paintings and also some surviving Central Asian arrows.
All of these profiles can be either higher or lower and longer or shorter. These diagrams are only approximations. The nock end of the arrow is to the right in the drawings.
All of these profiles can be either higher or lower and longer or shorter. These diagrams are only approximations. The nock end of the arrow is to the right in the drawings.
Thanks for the illustations! I have held a antique manchu arrow, and it looked identical to the parallel parabolic you showed but alot longer. I have decided to use the first of your illustrations because I am not planning on using large arrowheads, THANKS.
Lucas sent me this PM but I think it best to move the conversation here. -j-
"Ive seen the turkish article on turkish made arrows with DOGWOOD nocks, I want to know how do you get the bark off and shape the nock? Just sandpaper?
Also, mongolians werent known to use bamboo, so I have bypassed making "mongolian" bamboo shafts but I will still make some to experiment with by buying from the chinese guy on ebay. But, mongolian arrows were usually made of poplar, and birch, and used feathers 1/5 the length of the shaft, but the only thing left I have to question is, is what do they do with the nocks?-I read somewhere a while ago that they spliced it, is this true? Also, did they use sinew to reinforce the ends with sinew Lucas"
Did you see JJ's post on his Turkish arrows? These are barreled. Mongols did not splice in nocks. Imagine his arrows in poplar or birch with carved nocks.
The hollowing leading to the nocks is mainly done with a thumb plane (Stanley tools), a miniature plane, indispensible and inexpensive.
I take a parallel shaft, cut away with a knife in front of the nock. Use the thumb plane to hollow a taper towards mid shaft and from there to the point. Use a Hooked scraper to remove the plane marks and sandpaper to remove scraper marks.
I use a hacksaw blade to cut the nock slot, a drill to cut the bottom of the notch in a radius, a sharp knife to clean out excess wood and a folded piece of sandpaper to make the nocks exactly sized. A fine rasp is used to clean up the outside of the nock and some final shaping with sandpaper. It takes just a bit longer to do than to type this email.
Of course use sinew lashing in front of the nock, over the leading edge of the fletch quill and at the point if necessary
"Ive seen the turkish article on turkish made arrows with DOGWOOD nocks, I want to know how do you get the bark off and shape the nock? Just sandpaper?
Also, mongolians werent known to use bamboo, so I have bypassed making "mongolian" bamboo shafts but I will still make some to experiment with by buying from the chinese guy on ebay. But, mongolian arrows were usually made of poplar, and birch, and used feathers 1/5 the length of the shaft, but the only thing left I have to question is, is what do they do with the nocks?-I read somewhere a while ago that they spliced it, is this true? Also, did they use sinew to reinforce the ends with sinew Lucas"
Did you see JJ's post on his Turkish arrows? These are barreled. Mongols did not splice in nocks. Imagine his arrows in poplar or birch with carved nocks.
The hollowing leading to the nocks is mainly done with a thumb plane (Stanley tools), a miniature plane, indispensible and inexpensive.
I take a parallel shaft, cut away with a knife in front of the nock. Use the thumb plane to hollow a taper towards mid shaft and from there to the point. Use a Hooked scraper to remove the plane marks and sandpaper to remove scraper marks.
I use a hacksaw blade to cut the nock slot, a drill to cut the bottom of the notch in a radius, a sharp knife to clean out excess wood and a folded piece of sandpaper to make the nocks exactly sized. A fine rasp is used to clean up the outside of the nock and some final shaping with sandpaper. It takes just a bit longer to do than to type this email.
Of course use sinew lashing in front of the nock, over the leading edge of the fletch quill and at the point if necessary
Jack, I recall the article documenting the manufacture of Manchu bows. It was titled "Bow and arrow manufacture in Chengdu" and published in a Taiwanese magazine (tanslated by JSAA I think). The hollowing beween the bulbous nock and the middle of the shaft was accompished with a special tool that looked sort of like a pencil sharpener with a skewed blade. I did not figure out how to use this tool at the time, but it may be a clue for you.
This is all from (imperfect) memory, so I may be wrong, but perahps worth checking.
Adam
This is all from (imperfect) memory, so I may be wrong, but perahps worth checking.
Adam
The Mongolians did not use bamboo shafts. There was little or no bamboo available in Mongolia. Even in North China at the beginning of the Jin (Jurchen) dynasty, wooden arrows were the normal material.
Jack is right about the applied nock pieces. This is only documented in Turkish arrows amongst Middle Eastern and Central Asian peoples. They do exist among some tribal peoples in India where they use wide bamboo strings. However the side pieces are bound on parallel to the shafts.
There are modern Mongolian arrows with applied horn nocks in the Grayson Collection. They are from the 1920s to 1930s. The nock is hollowed out on the arrow end and a tenon is carved on the arrow and then inserted into the nock. This is similar to the way Turkish horn nocks are attached (bashpare).
Adam is also correct. There is a carpenter's tool made from a piece of bone or a half piece of bamboo with a series of notches cut in it. A knife back is put in the a notch and the arrow shaft is rotated by hand against it to pare it down. The initial work is done with a series of planes with blades that are progressively more concave. Since they cannot be brought right up to the nock, the other tool is used to finish off this part. The tool acts as a guide and support for the shaft.
The whole process of arrow making is described in the translation with diagrams of the tools and the work bench. The nocks are usually self nocks though there are Chinese nocks made separately.
Jack is right about the applied nock pieces. This is only documented in Turkish arrows amongst Middle Eastern and Central Asian peoples. They do exist among some tribal peoples in India where they use wide bamboo strings. However the side pieces are bound on parallel to the shafts.
There are modern Mongolian arrows with applied horn nocks in the Grayson Collection. They are from the 1920s to 1930s. The nock is hollowed out on the arrow end and a tenon is carved on the arrow and then inserted into the nock. This is similar to the way Turkish horn nocks are attached (bashpare).
Adam is also correct. There is a carpenter's tool made from a piece of bone or a half piece of bamboo with a series of notches cut in it. A knife back is put in the a notch and the arrow shaft is rotated by hand against it to pare it down. The initial work is done with a series of planes with blades that are progressively more concave. Since they cannot be brought right up to the nock, the other tool is used to finish off this part. The tool acts as a guide and support for the shaft.
The whole process of arrow making is described in the translation with diagrams of the tools and the work bench. The nocks are usually self nocks though there are Chinese nocks made separately.
So mongolians used self nocks? And sorry for my ignorance but do you mean the shaft was barrel tapered or had grains that are circular instead of paralleled?
A barreled shaft is thickest near the middle and tapers to the point and to the nock. The nocks, though, are left the diameter of the center of the shaft.
Parallel shafts are like a dowel. Tapered shafts usually taper to the nock,but not always.
A barreled shaft with a bulbous nock is a rather universal way to make a shaft from solid wood. Bamboo arrows do not have the thickness altered greatly because the outside wood is denser than the inside. But though most all bamboo shafts taper to the nock, some are absolutly parallel and a few are thinner at the point than at the nock.
A bamboo shaft need not be as thick as a wood shaft to attain the same spine, so large nocks were often added to accommodate thick strings.
Even Japanese war bows had thin strings so their arrows had self nocks cut into the bamboo above a node. Japanese arrow bamboo arrows were made in somewhat thicker diameters compared to Mughal arrows. This has to do with the length of Japanese shafts, but also because Mughals used so called Mountain bamboos which are stouter than Japanese arrow bamboo.
Therefore Mughal bamboo arrows usually had nock plugs where Japanese bamboo war arrows did not.
It is a very modern idea to try to model the physics of a thing. The traditional way would be to make one correctly without reinventing anything and try it out. This would lead to understanding why. -j-
Parallel shafts are like a dowel. Tapered shafts usually taper to the nock,but not always.
A barreled shaft with a bulbous nock is a rather universal way to make a shaft from solid wood. Bamboo arrows do not have the thickness altered greatly because the outside wood is denser than the inside. But though most all bamboo shafts taper to the nock, some are absolutly parallel and a few are thinner at the point than at the nock.
A bamboo shaft need not be as thick as a wood shaft to attain the same spine, so large nocks were often added to accommodate thick strings.
Even Japanese war bows had thin strings so their arrows had self nocks cut into the bamboo above a node. Japanese arrow bamboo arrows were made in somewhat thicker diameters compared to Mughal arrows. This has to do with the length of Japanese shafts, but also because Mughals used so called Mountain bamboos which are stouter than Japanese arrow bamboo.
Therefore Mughal bamboo arrows usually had nock plugs where Japanese bamboo war arrows did not.
It is a very modern idea to try to model the physics of a thing. The traditional way would be to make one correctly without reinventing anything and try it out. This would lead to understanding why. -j-
By about August I will post pictures of my newly made arrows for everyone to critic and see. They will be made of birch for authenticity and durability, gray goose feathers for its resemblence for eagle feathers and their being weather resistant naturally, and horn nocks because I dont want to worry about my nocks breaking anytime soon.
Thanks for all your feedback, Jack, Bede, Adam!
Thanks for all your feedback, Jack, Bede, Adam!