Mongol Bow in Silk Road Museum, Seoul

The other end of the horn belly slat ends just before the bend of the ear. A slat of wood abuts the horn, makes the bend of the ear and continues through to the tip of the nock. The ear is on the left.

The two nocks are identical in joinery. The small wood belly slat has been worked into the nocks. The left one is slightly damaged by being bitten by a small animal with sharp teeth. The grain is close and not noticeable.

I would identify this bow as an early Mongol invasion bow. An identifying feature of this type of bow is the spoon like nock tip with the notch cut close to the end. The same joinery is visible in both bow tips.

There are six documented Mongol bows and several other possible ones known not well documented.

Known ones are two HMNS bows which i shall henceforth refer to as the Shiluustei sum straight and curved bows (of Mongolia), one from the Budapest museum which Dusan has brought to our attention. This bow is reconstructed in this illustration. The bow in the Stephen Selby collection, published on atarn, is likewise with reconstructed tips. The Silk Road Museum bow is now documented here. Stephen has also published the Xining bow on Atarn.

It appears most likely that of all the Mongol bows accessible, all but the Shiluustei sum curved bow share a similar method of construction which is a modification of Hunnic styling and not yet Turkic. The Ss curved bow would now represent the earliest complete Turkic type bow known, though lacking a kasan of later bows. -j-

Good work Jack. Thank you . Interesting summary.I assume that Jesugei record was probably shooting vit somthing like "Ss curved- HMNS Museum" earlier turcic tipe bow.

Thanks to Jack for giving me details of this museum. I went there after the Third WTAF and took many photos.

Dusan are you referring to the shot by Yissunge, Chinggis Khan's grandson?

This bow is associated with a closed quiver, though I don't know if they were excavated together. The quiver is of a type that has been referred to on this site as Mongol, but the only securely dated one that I know of comes from Tuva and is possibly seventh to eighth century. It was associated with the Turks. Having examined the quiver closely and comparing it to the diagrams in the Russian notes, I think they are from the same cultural group. The design might have been transmitted to the Mongols, but it is more likely that this quiver and the others were used by Turkish soldiers, whether working for the Mongols or from an earlier period.

Unfortunately, carbon-14 dating for objects this close to our time is imprecise for finding something that was used within a hundred year period. I think that Jack has accurately summarised the bows of the type we see here. They seem to form a family. I think Jack has identified something very important in the relationship of the string nock to the tip. It is unusually close to the end of the bow.

The other bows in the museum cover a greater age range. The large collection of arrowheads show a wide variation too. Peter Dekker recognised many types similar to the Qing specifications but clearly much older. This degree of continuity in design is quite remarkable.

Again, I thank Jack for discovering this useful and accessible collection.

Yes i mean Chinggis grandson and stone refering about his record.

Very good comparison chart, Jack!
The Omnogov bow and Osinkinskiy burial ground bow (Altay Mnts, dated 10-12c AD) would be a nice add to the chart (as I think?).

Gleb

This bow survive full , or this draw is only reconstruction , Gleb ?

Gleb; At the moment I would have to add the Osinkinskiy bow and the Omnogov bow to the category of bows we do not know enough about.

For instance I share some doubt with Dusan that the drawing is not of an intact bow but an artist's reconstruction of what one bow might have looked like. The details are very pleasing. However I have never heard of a report on this bow, nor a photo to support the drawing.

I have a picture of the Omnogov bow. It appears very similar to the Shiluustei sum curved bow. Andrew Hall has informed me that it has been radio carbon tested to about the 17th century. One radio carbon date, especially if suspect, is not all important. However, lacking other information, it would exclude the bow from the time frame.

These two bows warrant more looking into. If anyone can supply reports on them, I would be much interested.

It should be added that now that the SR Museum bow has been moved, it is possible to see the reflex of the lower limb is significantly less than in the drawing. The two Ss bows and Genghis Khan exhibit have moved on to the Denver Museum of Nature and Science.. Jack

Jack, Thanks for posting the photos. The use of a bone grip belly strip with expanding ends butting to the horn seems to be used as an identifying characteristic of Mongolian bows by Russian archaeologists. This was in use from about the 10th to 18th centuries. Other materials could have been used (horn or wood), but usually only the bone would survive and bows without a grip belly strip would not be visible.

I must have had a miscommunication on the dates. The Omnogov bow was carbon dated at 1720AD +/- 100 (which is quite a large uncertainty for a late date). It was found in a cave burial in the northern Gobi Desert in the Omnogov Aimak. It is thought to be a late survivor of an earlier design (Atex & Menes, JSAA 38 ). The close match to the Shiluustei sum curved bow tends to agree with this.

I have seen the Osinkinskiy bow drawing in Khudyakov Yu. S. "Armaments of the Yenisey Kyrgyz VI-XII centuries A.D", where he likens a bow found on the River Ect to it. Automatic translation from Russian is not very clear, but the description of the River Ect bow gives the impression that there is some surviving woodwork. The ends are attached to the core with "wooden grooves" - spliced in siyahs? Khudyakov's type sketch has the bow with a bone back strip, which does not make sense.

Anyone know what sort of tips the Osinkinskiy bow has? The lower one looks almost as if it is metal fit-over type with a rivet to secure.

The designs with large grip set back and low limb-siyah reflex (Osinkinskiy, Silk road museum) look like they would stack very badly.

Andrew

Jack and Andrew, you are both right ? I? made a hasty decision too weary for a expansion of bow chart. Mia culpa!

The bow reconstruction was published in Khudyakov Yuliy. "Armaments of the Yenisey Kyrgyz VI-XII centuries A.D", Novosibirsk, 1980, p. 69. And it a representation of Es? bow, not the Osinkinskiy burial bow.

Khudyakov writes about 4 types of Yenisey Kyrgyz bows:
1. tip and handle side plates;
2. handle side plates;
3. handle side and frontal plates;
4. tip frontal plates (one example find in a burial on river Es?, not Ect)).

He compares the last type (Es? bow) with a find at Osinkinskiy burial. Es? bow dates: total length ? 12cm. The bow find consist of wooden core and horn belly plates. The bow tips with bow string notches and string catch is lengthen at the and fasten together with wooden rabbets (for me it looks more like wooden nails). Further he writes that ?probably the length of horn frontal plates equal to the bow length from the handle up to ledge (?) close to bow tips and it?s around 30cm long and 3cm wide. On the outer side these plates have slanting notches. The wooden core (except of tips) covered with clued birch bark.
.
On Osinkinskiy burial bow:
During the archaeological researches on Osinkinskiy burial (1970 Savinov D.G.) was find the remnants of 4 (!) bows. 1. handle side and tip frontal (as written by Savinov but it really looks as tip side plate) plates (№№ 3 and 5 in picture), 2. tip frontal (4), 3. handle frontal plate (6), 4. handle frontal and tip frontal plates (1 & 7).

Gleb
I had read Khudyakov's text as the illustrated bow being the Osinkinskiy bow. I don't know why Google Translate converted "Есь" to "Ect.", unless it thought it was an OCR problem (reading "ь" as "t.").

If the Es' bow does have wood and horn surviving, it puts it in a very select group and worthy of further investigation. (You have a minor typo in the length - it is 120cm rather than 12cm.)

I don't understand Khudyakov's explanation of the construction of the bow (the use of frontal for both back and belly does not help). His type summary drawing only shows bone plates on the back of the limbs (the other types make sense). Why would you use wooden nails?

I am not convinced that items 1 and 3 in the photo are bow parts. If the groove in the end is for the string attachment, which what Savinov seems it indicate, the tip would be horribly wide and heavy. If mounted to the side, rather than the back, I would expect the groove to be deeper on one side.

Items 6 and 7 are typical "Mongolian" grip belly plates of the type that may be fitted to the Silk Road Museum bow.

Andrew

Regarding the Omnogov bow, it survived substantially intact though considerably twisted. There is a photograph of the bow on p. 72 of Vol. 38 of the Journal of the Society of Archer-Antiquaries. There are also photographs of McEwen's reproduction. When I question him about the lack of setback in the handle, he said the reproduction was made with a setback, but the original was slight and it disappeared when he strung the reproduction.

Andrew,

There is a kind of confusion in case of bow drawing in Khudyakov?s "Armaments of the Yenisey Kyrgyz VI-XII centuries A.D". He writes:

?Наиболее близкой в типологическом, хронологическом и территориальном отношении аналогией можно считать лук с фронтальными плечевыми накладками из Осинкинского мо?гильника на Алтае (табл. XV, 3).?
"The typological, chronological and territorial analogy (of ES? bow) might be considered the bow with frontal shoulder (limb) plates from Osinkinskiy burial in Altay (Fig. XV, 3)."

On the Fig XV, 3 depicted the bow exactly analogous to Khudyakov?s description of Es? bow (!). The bow tips separately lengthen to the limbs and fasten together with wooden rabbets (wooden nails). Among bow finds at Osinkinskiy burial not even mentioned such features.

Khudyakov?s description of Es? bow:

?Кибить лука состоит из деревянной планки ? спинки, роговых плеч ? накладок, образующих внутреннюю сторону.?
?The bow basis consists of wooden core ? back, and horn shoulders formed the inner side?.

As I understand there is a vaguely usage of terms. It should be read as: ?wooden core with horn strip on the belly side?.


As concerning item 1 in the picture why it could not be used as tip frontal (i.e. tip back) plate?

As for item 3 Savinov gives it as handle side plate.



Bede, could you please give the Omnogov bow photo here?

Regards, Gleb

Khudyakov bow , Altay, Kam Tytugem river:

[external image]


This Xining bow is maybe similar to this other bows. Especialy end of tip.

[external image]

Like this bow from Korean Taklamakan muz. (is this the same from your pics , Jack ?):

[external image]

Dusan; The yellow picture is the same bow, the Silk Road Mongol bow, taken in the earlier display two years ago. -j-

Thank you Jack. Have you more pics :wink: ?

[external image]

...a detail from the siyah of the SRM Mongol bow.

best regards, JJ

Thank you JJ. Maybe other Atarn people have some too... All bow pic would be nice :D .

Gleb; I remain confused about the Siberian Mongol bow and how accurate the illustration is. It is a valuable source but more information is needed.

JJ; Thanks for the clear photo. My carera is not a professional model.

Todays post is about the arrows accompanying the bow. My photo is not great so I will describe them. Anyone with a clear photo please post.

I guesstimate the shafts to be 3/8 diameter in the middle, barreled to both ends. The wooden part is not likely to exceed 29 inches. The nocks, about 1inch long take the form of cones expanding back to the 3/8 diameter. with wide semicircular notches.

No fletchings are present but the quill remains, having been stripped from the feather rather than having been cut from the quill, form a typical Mediterranean three fletch. (which is to say that the cock feather lays at 90 degrees to the string). Quill skin remains appear to not exceed 4 1/2 inches in length and end about 2 inches from the nock end of the arrows.

A winding of some fiber, most likely sinew by the unwound coil of that material remaining on one arrow, threaded its way over the entire fletched area closely spaced to approximately 3/16 inch. A spiral "ghost" of this winding is apparant on all the arrows.

Cresting is as follows; all arrows were painted red under the fletch and white for 1" at the nock. Besides this one arrow has a thin black band immediately forward of the red area and another has one separating the white and red. -j-

[external image]

The arrows were difficult to photpgraph, Jack...

The nocks to me seem not usable for thumbring shooting (they look too short for taking good grip of the string).

The binding of the fletching is strange. Looks very crude seen from today. But I?ve seen the same thing on turkish arrows in Vienna. Maybe an effort to hold the feathers on the shaft during all possible weather conditions? Natural glues could get solved by heavy rain.

It comes to my mind that in Western Europe people used birch pitch for fletching at least until the Viking age, although hide- or bone glues must have been available for a long time then....

JJ

Not really a better photo, but you can see the marks the binding left and what I consider to be the remains of the fletching.

And another view of the bow

Thanks for posting guys.

JJ; someone posted about birch tar as glue years ago. I have been on the lookout for it in artifacts ever since. I suspect that Egyptians used it for applying birch bark decorations to bows. Have never seen it myself in an artifact. It is also said that Egyptians used bituminum (King's English for tar, also asphaltum). The possibility for a mistake exists. If someone were to post on Birch tar, I would enjoy.

Jan; the second of your pics are my beloved Miran-Hunnic bows, which were displayed next to the Mongol bow.

For all the recognition of the strength of Mongol bows, the one Hunn bow was stouter. Not a trend, just an observation. -j-

Yes the bow in the 2nd picture of Jan is of a hunnic period bow. By the way, Jack, one can see the bone plates very easily;-)

In a region where natural bitumen or asphalt is available, I don?t think people concern about making birch bark pitch. They will use bitumen instead. Real Birch bark tar can easily be recognised by its disinctive aromatic smell when its is warmed up a little (even on material that is thousands of years old).

I would be curious if birch pitch would have been used by american indians. I know it wasn?t used on their arrows, but somebody told me once it was used in making bark canoes in North America (?)...

JJ

I would be curious if birch pitch would have been used by american indians. I know it wasn?t used on their arrows, but somebody told me once it was used in making bark canoes in North America (?)...

That's interesting, I haven't heard of that, I only know that coniferous gum mixed up with animal fat have been used for sealing bark canoes.

Sorry, I'm going off-topic here.

Maybe Jack can find out ???

[external image]

fletching of turkish 17th century war arrows in Vienna. They show a similar binding like the Mongol arrows from SRM. Some of the nocks are also very, very shallow.......

JJ

JJ; Those are really nice pics of the Turkish war arrows. Your camera does a good job. Note that the color scheme is close to the Mongol ones in the SRM. This cresting color scheme is often seen in ancient Asian paintings.

The plates you are seeing in the ears of the Miran bows are horn plates. Andrew informs me that this would be the first example known of this technique. Isn't it fascinating how each new discovery opens up the typology of bows? Several additions will need to be made to the Miran article.

I will open a Birch tar thread to keep things organized.

Just for the comment on the shallowness of the nocks influencing their use with thumb draws: as long as there is cusp on the sides of the slot, you can generally use a thumb draw. Nocks with a slight swelling make this particularly easy.

After reading some archaeological reports, I think that the absence of sinew bindings on some of the arrows might be the result of rodent damage. This is not to suggest that all arrows without sinew in these burials had it chewed off. As Peter Dekker has pointed out, large diameter arrows with self nocks were often made without bindings because of the lower stress from the thicker strings used with them.

Today, i was visite silkroad museum for skeching this bow.
but...
It removed !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! lol

Oops ? Jack, you're right (of course ?), one of my pictures shows the two "Hunnic" bows.
This is the correct picture showing the Mongol bow.

jack farrell wrote:

There are six documented Mongol bows and several other possible ones known not well documented.

Jack, this post is really the answer to all those who ask what Mongol bows of the Empire Period were like. No relation to the modern Mongolian bows used in the Naadam, and also quite distinct from the Omnigorov bows with bone reinforcement at the tips and grip that crept into this discussion later.

S