2 Serbian bows-''graphic'' reconstruction of bow shape by

This is first one. I will comment it later.

#This bow has shorter form with more reflexed grip.
As its form is shorter than many today traditional composite bows and reconstructed bows(i don't count turkish and korean bows) it is noticeable that rigid ends or ears(уши,ушице) are also shorter than modern traditional bows of Central Asia and China but longer than average bash in turkish bows.

Bow shape indicates typical old mongol type bow. I did my effort to get proof of adopting composite bow from Byzantium since Serbian rulers at the end of XIIIth c and especially during the rule of emperor Stephan Dushan when byzantine institutions,even military ones became strongly accepted, were under stronger byzantine influences. But also, beside German,French and Katalanian mercenaries from the western part of Europe which were employed in the armies of Serbian rulers, Oriental mercenaries had big role in warfare too.

Someone could say, if it has smaller form than today Mongolian ''Naadam'' bow how it could be mongolian type?. There's simple answer. Old mongolian bows from the era of Ghengis Khan and bit later were smaller in form since today mongolian bow design derived from Manchu style of later time.

The bow depicted at frescoe in Lesnovo and every other bow in Serbia and north Makedonija seem to be wrapped by thin layers of birch bark (it can solve question about light colour of the inner side of bow).At the first time i thought it could be silk as decoration having in mind that these bows, possibly rich decorated belonged to nobility, but i rejected it.It is done because of protection of the bow from moisture and rain and also damage.
After birch bark wrappings, bow was more than likely backed with leather from the same purpose as it was purpose of birch bark. The color of this what we could consider as leather is dark orange (possibly deer skin) and due to centuries we couldn't see was it ornamented or not but it can be possible perceiving that role of non-canonic elements such as weapon was to expose the power of landowners and rulers.

Interesting parts are the ears of the bow with ''slanting'' notchs where string, that painter was painting almost realistic in some parts though he made mistake in regards to position of it, was placed. Position of rigid ends has angle similar as it is in later Mongolian, Manchu or Chinese bows so it needed string bridge or knee to be added. Judging by the position of the string and darker parts near the end of limbs we can accept it as string bridge. This also can attest lack of knowledge and proof that string bridge that appears in later times existed in old mongolian type long time before Manchu style and also at some mediaeval serbian bows of mongolian/tatar type. Another interesting thing, it looks like that ears/siyahs have some groove or spout to lead the string to the bridge( i saw it in korean bows).
There's no evidence of sinew wrappings around the ears nor grip, as it is common in mongolian and magyar bows, but maybe we couldn't see it because of leather backing.Also, it is case with every bow from mediaeval Serbia.

I think it is too soon to talk about dimensions, i will tell more about it later but i estimated bow lenght 125-130 cm, ears 18 cm from tip till the beginning of splice. Lenght between string and grip is pretty big but it is matter of shorter form of the bow. It is impossible to notice deflex on the grip portion to avoid archer's paradox but painter wasn't man of 21the century.
Also i am sure that now, after we determine measurements we can work on replica and get proof is this working or not.Am sure it will work;-)

This is the bow of st.Prokopije depicted in the church of Serbian Peć Patriarchate in Kosovo and Metohija. and also reconstruction of its shape.I think it is most known and repeated frescoe of some warrior saint here at ATARN.

Very interesting, subject thanks for the information.

So, as it was case with previous bow, to determine the shape i used form common in mostly presented bows at serbian frescoes. To be honest i didn't visit both monasteries for a years (since N.A.T.O. bombing) and i worked only with pictures. Theres a lot of other elements that couldn't be seen at photograph and some of them i didn't observed.

Same as previous bow, bow that st.Procopius holds in the bowcase belongs to old mongolian style or even cuman bows slightly changed by some serbian bowyer.

As in other bows this bow has deeper reflex at the grip. Its form is shorter than today ''Naadam'' bows and distance between string of strung bow and grip is average and not characteristic as in previous one.
After sinewing, bow is wrapped by thin layers of birch bark and then backed by leather. It is very visible ridged part of siyah under leathered cover.

What is very interesting at this bow are ears. They are a bit crescent in shape, placed in the position that undoubtely need string bridge. Painter was very realistic depicting this bow so that we could see white color at the outer side of the ears which imply bone plates as decoration(or even birch bark layers). Even at photography, it is pretty visible that bone laths have 2 notchs in the raw. Sounds weird, but two notches even not common appear in some discovered graves, for exemple in Bulgaria. What could be role of 2 notches? I think answer is second string tied to the end of working limb and to the grip.It was reserve if one string breaks during the battle or hunting. As Stephen noticed, second string was common in Turkish army.

String was depicted very realistic,so we can see every thread in the string that could be made from sheep guts though serbian epics describe even strings made of interlaced strips horse skin but not tail.It is very visible in real.
As the angle of ears needs string bridge, darker parts under the place where ear and limb meet, at the base of ears, imply them, so that archer cant ''slightly increase the total energy stored by the draw and available to the arrow''.

It is not so easy to determine dimensions of this bow since lower part of St.Procopius' body is exaggerated (i do not want to enter reasons though i know why) so i used upper part and average height of today man,180cm (Slavic and Germanic peoples were taller than people of Orient), and bow can be up to 130cm(maximum), with ears 18cm as in previous one. I measured length of parts of body.

I am sure that replica of this bow is very possible. I will try maple 'cause bamboo wasn't wood of this part of world.Also, maple is very rated wood here such as elm. I wouldn't try ash though wooden bows were made of this kind of tree. Replica will tell will maple work or not. It is worth to try and if someone understood it as challenge let's do it.
I will come with some news soon if it is not forbidden;-)

Zoran, thanks for these pictures. it?s not common to find bows so well represented in art. I bet the artist had good knowledge of these bows. Good luck.

#Jose,
Thanx. Yes, artist had real weapon in front of him. Even if his purpose was to depict anchoretic look of saints same as warrior saints (minor or major) he also had at the same time to expose power of nobility/Maecenas and he did it by painting of weapon and military equipement. He had warriors which posed in different martial poses as pattern but it was canonic they to be presented anchoretic exhausted. Serbian mural painting kept basic characteristics of Eastern, Orthodox Christian iconography, but serbian artists even developped it and they had more possibilities to give original performance of some moments of life through details in religious composition.Painting same weapon couple of times they gave many of its elements in different ways so we can join all these confused details and get clear picture about look of weapon. It was same with bows.
#jbl Thank you.

Zoran; Because of a lack of an actual prototype, maybe you should begin assuming that the murals are very accurate and use some evidence to disprove their accuracy rather than the other way around.

I find them to be reasonably accurate. My favorite is the St. Demetrios. The quiver is like other artifacts, Quiver is worn absolutly correctly, as is the bow. The horse tack is totally accurate. All looks good. The second one above is also very good.

The bows do not have their inspiration in Mongol style but rather in the Turkic style which seems to have predominated and influenced the later Mongol bows. (and preceded)

Preview the several long Kazakh bows which Dusan posted in his Russian bows post. The first bow above has a definite step in the upper limb/ridged area in the manner of a crab bow. Find Serindia's post on a bow from Xinjiang with a similar step down.

These saint's bows would probably be in the 150cm length and shoot arrows in the 80 cm length, the arrows like Tatar ones in the Kremlin collection. -j-

Zoran,
The second "string' is probably the same type of binding seen in the painting "Qubilai Qan Hunting" and in the Rashid ud-Din manuscript in Edinburgh where there is a miniature of Rustam shooting his brother. This is usually bound to both limbs and the handle.

I am puzzled by the reconstruction in one drawing of the grip bulging on the belly side. The murals show only the upper limbs without the handle.

As Jack has pointed out there is an intimate connection between Early Turkish and Early Mongol bows. Changes in the degree of reflex in the handle distinguish the earlier Turkish bows in Central Asia and the later Ottoman bows. For technical reasons, as Turkish bows were shortened from the original Central Asian prototypes, it looks like the the built-in reflex at handle was reduced. This clear when later Ottoman bows are compared with Crimean Tatar bows.

It is quite possible that Balkan bow design was affected by Kuman influence in the pre-Mongol period. During the Latin occupation of Constantinople, Kuman (Cuman/Kipchak) armies were engaged in fighting the Latin Crusaders on the side of various rulers. When the Mongols established the Qipchaq Horde, the re-established Byzantine Emperors made alliances with the Khans that lasted into the mid-fifteenth century. This would have allowed the latest Mongol bows to be seen and copied. In the 1300s, Turkish tribesmen from Anatolia started to infiltrate the Balkans. By the early 15th century, the Ottoman sultan was fully established in Adrianople (Edirne). This meant that Balkan bowyers would have seen the latest Ottoman designs.

Historically, the Balkans would have been influenced by Turks directly from the steppe, their Mongol conquerors and then the Ottoman Turks from Anatolia. Over the 13th to 15th centuries, most of latest bow types would have been seen in use by their neighbours. In earlier centuries, the Avars, the Old Bulgars, the Magyars and the Pechenegs all sent armies through the area either to raid or conquer parts of it. This is an extraordinary amount of exposure to composite bow designs.

# Jack, you are right about term I?ve incorrectly applied as Mongol type. But, when I used this term I did mean ??mongol?? in the figurative sense having in mind remains of Great Mongol Empire nearby Balkan area such as Golden Horde. It is often in Serbian language to use the word Tatar, both for Mongols of Genghis Khan and Tatars which is actually incorrect.I didn?t want to use term ??mongolian?? as ethnical but political one. So thank you because you corrected me to don?t do same mistake in the future.
And this is good introduction to say something in addition to Bede?s opinion.

# Bede, BINGO! Your observation about the influence of Cumans is fully justified. If you read my first post on this subject i have already mentioned Cumans and Tartars beside Yas as mercenaries in the medieval Serbian Army of XIVth century,although,after I started this topic, I run to avoid the subject of a direct influence on the appearance of design that is often repeated in the wall painting . My goal was to determine the shape of some bows that are only partially visible, and compare them with those ones which appear in its entirety. Also,at the very beginning, my goal was to put the presumption about material that could explain the white color on the inner side of bow and a darker color that dominates the outer side of each displayed bow. But since you imposed a topic influences, i will try to say the word more in favor of it.

The people of Turkic name, Kipchacs,in Russian chronnicles Polovci, in Byzantine Komanoi, in Latin Coman, Cumani, in Hungarian Cuni , in Serbian Kumani, was a branch of the Turks Khimacs that once lived in Siberia in the middle Irtysh, kin of Oguzes.Russian chronicles, mentioned them in the eleventh century in the steppes north of the Black sea.After decimation of Oguzes, Cumans became masters of the Russian steppes to the 1222., until the first attacks of Genghis Khan?s commanders.
Until then and beyond, they were very present in the events of the Balkan states, wheter as auxiliary troops,wheter as the power that influenced the arrival and maintenance of some dynasties in Balkan countries such as Bulgaria. Their role was in some moments crucial. We can notice big role of Cumans during the arise of Second Bulgarian Empire, we see them often as auxiliary troops of the Bulgarian, Serbian and Byzantine armies and there are even indications that some members of the royal lineage had cuman origin.
Therefore, we have to consider seriously the influence of Kipchacs/Cumans , though,Tatars just had a huge impact too, especially in Serbian army since King Stephan Uro? II Milutin.Tatars of Nogay khan were often influencing the situation in the Balkan countries. At the time of the fight for the throne among the kings Dragutin and Milutin, King Milutin took the advantage to the state? treasury that was located in Banjska where the bishop was Milutin?s confidant Danilo. Using money that he was available, Milutin was able to hire Tartars, Yas and Turkish mercenaries to defeat his brother. Tatars were a very important factor in the Serbian Army until Stefan Dečanski when Serbian rulers begun to employ a German, French and Catalan mercenaries.Tatar role in the events of the Balkan countries eventually ends with death of Beridbek Khan in 1359.
It is certain that we cannot avoid even the role of Turkish mercenaries often employed in the Balkan armies, christianized Turks, in byzantine chronnicles mentioned as Tourkopoloi.

I was briefly stoped at history,so that I could make the situation clearer when it comes to influences on the presence of such a design of bows in the medieval Serbian state of the thirteenth and fourteenth century, and this would confirm Bede?s observation. So when it comes to influences, we can now consider Cumans and Tartars as undeniable.

Two bows whose shape and design i tried to reconstruct are painted in the first half of the XIVth century.

The bow that belongs to the warrior saint painted in the monastery Lesnovo (north Makedonija) whose founder was a Serbian aristocrat John Oliver, sevastokrator at the time of the king and later emperor Stefan Dusan. Since the monastery was built in 1341. fresco dates from that time.
The second bow belongs to warrior saint st. Prokopije, painted in the monastery of Gracanica, which was built by King Milutin 1321.g. Since the monastery was painted between 1321 and 1322., a painter in this period could have the bow and other equipment in front of him.

Bede is confused by bulge at the grip on the belly side. When I tried to reconstruct the form of this bow I had in mind two frescoes from the same monastery where the two soldiers appear with the same bow as a whole. Both bows have the same angle notch point for the string as one that i tried to reconstruct, the difference is a different color on the side of the back and ears looks like covered by bone plates. My opinion is that in all three cases, a same bow is shown by several times so that we can connect the details that are lacking in some representations of the bows. I will insert these pictures soon so we can continue discussions.
As to the second bow carried by sv.Prokopije , I did the reconstruction of comparing a number of bows that are shown in its entirety and more or lesser, have similar characteristics.
Jack, I agree with you that the artist scored an accuracy of impression but sometimes it can be seen as exaggerated.Seems to be that the bowcase of sv.Prokopije is much bigger in size but it can be seen that the lower part of his body is a bit exaggerated.Also, painter wanted to highlight each part of equipment and seems to be bowcase was painted later in order to be highlighted.
I probably made a mistake when I estimate the length of the braced bow as 130cm. I would rather take the average of your estimates so that the length of bow can be 140cm.
For me it was a challenge to do reconstruction of bow where only the upper limb is seen. As I mentioned in previous posts only replica will tell am I right.
If someone would like to contribute, i would be glad to see different opinions and critics,especially i would be glad if someone could help us to determine dimensions.
Ottoman bow form appears much later, on a fresco from the early fifteenth century, but it is a matter for another discussion.
As I mentioned in previous posts only replica will tell am I right.
I hope I did not exaggerate too much.
God bless you all,
Zoran

Great work, Zoran.
However, I will disagree that those bows are serbian, as in those times (especially mid 13-th to the end of the 14-th c. ) there was a tremendous influence between the ever fighting balkan states, the kuman merceneries used by all sides and the tatar and mongol invaders.
I do think that this bow type was common for all balkan states.

What is more, I think that it replaced the old bulgarian and magyar type of bows in the region. My assumption is based on the fact that all bone syah plates found in the present day Bulgaria are from the 7-th - 11-th c. After that - nothing. When it is added to the fact that the armies of Bulgaria, Serbia and the other Balkan states in the 13-th and 14-th c. are built in Byzantine stile, thus loosing their own light cavalery of horse archers but using Cuman merceneries for that purpouse, it gives a picture how that happened.
I'm not assuming that we (from the Balkan states as a whole) did not use bows. On the contrary! But I believe that we adopted this new type of bow, replacing the old ones. Because of this I think it is impossible to say "This bow is serbian, this is bulgarian, this is bosnian, etc."

You can add to that research one of the best depictions known to me - that of St. Demetrios from Markovi Kule. Pay special attention to the bow in case held by the little angel on the top-left part. It shows the complete case and half of the bow. I will try to find better pictures of that particular angel and post them ASAP.
[external image]

Best regards!

Two things you might find interesting about that painting:

Despite the Byzantine decoration of the robe he is wearing it has a Mongol collar. This style of coat closure with the left side overlapping the right was introduced by the Mongols. When the Ottomans adopted this style of garment they called it by the Persian word Humayuni which meant imperial. All their other clothes overlapped right over left. The implication is that the painter had seen Mongols or this style had been adopted by the people the artist based his painting on. The riding stance is Byzantine, but the bit and bridle are steppe influenced.

The bow case in the angel's hand has the opening cut slanting back to the string. Most bow cases have the top of the bow case at right angles to the string or slanting up towards it. This is to give more support to the bow and balance the bow and case. However, the design I have seen in several South East European paintings show this angle which might be designed to make taking the bow out of the case more quickly.

Lord Ruthven wrote:

Gret work,Zoran.
However, I will disagree that those bows are serbian, as in those times (especially mid 13-th to the end of the 14-th c. ) there was a tremendous influence between the ever fighting balkan states, the kuman merceneries used by all sides and the tatar and mongol invaders.
I do think that this bow type was common for all balkan states.

Thank you for your comment bulgarian friend.
In regarding to the first objection about term ??serbian bow?? that you set I'd love to give you an explanation.

I do not know did you only solely focuse attention to the pictures and title of theme, but I gave an explanation of the influence of Cumans and Tatars on the development of this design in the post before your post, and I wish if you could read it again. I promise, I will write more comprehensive posts here at ATARN because people sometimes do not have enough time to keep attention to the whole topic.

When I used the term ??serbian bow?? I didn?t think about the term that would be instruct to this design as autochtonous weapon of the Serbs, it would be nonsense. The term is used in the meaning of this weapon as a part of military equipment of Serbian mediaeval army, and I wanted to emphasize it in the main title.When I described these bows I even did?t use the term ??serbian bow?? in my posts except title nor my desire was to influence the acceptance of new design that would have that name. Once, when I (or someone else) complete this research or publish it,I will focus myself on the Serbian archery as a whole and not on the composite bow of Serbs as their authentic weapon because authentic weapon could only be the old wooden bow that the Serbs,Croatians and other Slavs of South Eastern Europe were brought from their ancient homeland about whom modern archeology is silent. I am the professional, historian and I strictly stay to the rules that history as science tells, so my goal is not to favor nor belittle the value of anyone as the circle of schauvinistic historians in the Balkans do. I hope you're satisfied with this answer to your objection.

quote:''I'm not assuming that we (from the Balkan states as a whole) did not use bows. On the contrary! But I believe that we adopted this new type of bow, replacing the old ones. Because of this I think it is impossible to say "This bow is serbian, this is bulgarian, this is bosnian, etc."

Of course, we the nations of the South Eastern Europe undoubtely used composite bows of that time.This is the fact that no one could deny. And not only that we have used horn bows, but they were even made in our countries, and it is evidenced by place names throughout Serbia as well as Tulare(tul-quiver), Lukari(luk-bow), ?titari(shield), Strelari(strela,strijela-arrow) ... And we must not exaggerate the role of Cumans? in our armies. Reflex bow was present in this region for centuries before the frescoes were created, before the Cumans emerged as mercenaries. On this, evidence in Serbia is from the twelfth century, but we will discuss it later.
* This picture that you posted I already commented on the topic 'from the Military Museum in Belgrade. "
Bede well observed details for the bowcase held by an angel. Thank you Bede. However, it is very interesting the position of string of the bow of sv.Dimitrije.Painter represented bow in the case very true as Jack noticed.
Lord, if you decide to do some research on the medieval reflex bows in Bulgaria you could use image on the Psalter, which is stored in Bayerische Staatsbibliothek in Munich. A horseback archer shooting an arrow very true appears , bow can be seen till the middle of the lower limb .

Zoran Pavlovic wrote:

When I used the term ??serbian bow?? I didn?t think about the term that would be instruct to this design as autochtonous weapon of the Serbs, it would be nonsense. The term is used in the meaning of this weapon as a part of military equipment of Serbian mediaeval army, and I wanted to emphasize it in the main title.When I described these bows I even did?t use the term ??serbian bow?? in my posts except title nor my desire was to influence the acceptance of new design that would have that name. Once, when I (or someone else) complete this research or publish it,I will focus myself on the Serbian archery as a whole and not on the composite bow of Serbs as their authentic weapon because authentic weapon could only be the old wooden bow that the Serbs,Croatians and other Slavs of South Eastern Europe were brought from their ancient homeland about whom modern archeology is silent. I am the professional, historian and I strictly stay to the rules that history as science tells, so my goal is not to favor nor belittle the value of anyone as the circle of schauvinistic historians in the Balkans do. I hope you're satisfied with this answer to your objection.

Well, I didn't mean that you're shovinistic or whatever in that manner. If what I wrote sounded that way - my apologies! What I meant was that in the 13th and 14th c. we all used the same type of bow.

Zoran Pavlovic wrote:

quote:''I'm not assuming that we (from the Balkan states as a whole) did not use bows. On the contrary! But I believe that we adopted this new type of bow, replacing the old ones. Because of this I think it is impossible to say "This bow is serbian, this is bulgarian, this is bosnian, etc."

Of course, we the nations of the South Eastern Europe undoubtely used composite bows of that time.This is the fact that no one could deny. And not only that we have used horn bows, but they were even made in our countries, and it is evidenced by place names throughout Serbia as well as Tulare(tul-quiver), Lukari(luk-bow), ?titari(shield), Strelari(strela,strijela-arrow) ... And we must not exaggerate the role of Cumans? in our armies. Reflex bow was present in this region for centuries before the frescoes were created, before the Cumans emerged as mercenaries. On this, evidence in Serbia is from the twelfth century, but we will discuss it later.

Well, I'm not exaggerating. They played significant role in the restoration of Bulgarian Tsardom and the war with Byzantine empire (1185) defending the restoration. In the battle of Adrianople in 1205, according to the sources, there were between 14 000 and 22 000 cuman mercenaries. That was the peak of their usage, but still they were used as a big part of the armed forces in the Battle of Philipopolis in 1208 and the consequent years up to 1230.

Zoran Pavlovic wrote:

Lord, if you decide to do some research on the medieval reflex bows in Bulgaria you could use image on the Psalter, which is stored in Bayerische Staatsbibliothek in Munich. A horseback archer shooting an arrow very true appears , bow can be seen till the middle of the lower limb .

Could you please post more information? I am doing a research and that is a new information for me. I am also a beginner horse-archer, so that is even more interesting for me.

My main point was that according to the archaeological evidence, bone syah plates were found in layers up to 11th c. We know that after that the bow didn't disappear as a weapon on the Balkans, so it must have changed its construction type. This is exactly the time the Cumans entered eastern European plains. In addition, after restoration of Bulgarian tsardom, the Bulgarian rulers did not restore the light cavalery of horse archers, that was the main part of the army before. They used Cuman merceneries for that role instead.
That leads me to the conclusion that after the Cumans came, the bulgarian and magyar types of bows were replaced with the cuman turkish type of bow that is shown on the frescoes.
That new type was built here, on the Balkans too. After all, the Cumans had settled here. I do agree that probably it was built by the locals too. What is more, as you pointed out, there is a lot of toponimes connected to the bow, arrows and the shooting.

Best regards!
Aleksandar

Zoran, your conclusions are making sense. These bows will work, if reconstructed along your studies. I?lld like more bows would have been depicted as seriously like these bows!

Is this the Serbian bow you mentioned on my blog? Sorry, for not having replied to your comment, but I got so much mails based on the articles on my blog, this blog is time- consuming, but I like very much to run it.

Michael

Zoran, your conclusions are making sense. These bows will work, if reconstructed along your studies. I?lld like more bows would have been depicted as seriously like these bows!

Is this the Serbian bow you mentioned on my blog? Sorry, for not having replied to your comment, but I got so much mails based on the articles on my blog, this blog is time- consuming, but I like very much to run it.

Michael

#Michael,
Thank you very much. You gave me the courage to continue my research this way. I need to do a bit more studies and will start some replicas soon but i am in doubt what wood to use for the beginning. I considered maple for limbs and ash or elm for the ears having in mind that it is common wood of area good for the reflex bows beside cornel wood.Also, i do not know how wrapped birch bark could affect the bow performance(if my presumption is correct). To be honest, it is my first attempt to try replica of any depicted bows and it is big challenge though i tried two turkish replicas and all failed but i will be not discouraged, on the contrary.

There' a lot of ''working'' bows at the frescoes, seriously depicted.Also, there's a lot of stylized bows, e.g. in one monasteries there's two stylized bows similar in construction (when i say stylized i do mean ears) but third one seems to be same but ''working'' bow in regards to ears. On the other hand, if you compare it with bow of same design but with a bit longer ears and from earlier time in some Greek monastery in Athos you are in doubt is this transmited from some other frescoe(though at Serbian frescoe it appears in whole). I will insert some new stuff soon.

I think i have something very interesting for you and other friends. This is a bit problem for me but i think it couldn't be problem for you and other friends from ATARN.
Warrior saint Ares from monastery Manasija holding ''like a'' altered crab-bow design.In the same monastery st.Mercurius is holding the bow visible in whole but of same design. Grip doesn't have anything to do with Indian crab-leg, Turkish or Crimean tatar bow. Look at the string at the bow of st.Mercurius, same position as in scythian type?????!!!!;-). I am sure it is possible to do reconstruction but i will do more research on it. Hope you got some idea.
On my post on your blog, never mind pls, i only gave you support because i appreciate your work.
#Aleksandar, the number of Cuman auxilliaries is surely exaggerated, wether it is Latin chronicle wether it is Bulgarian one. Even if i wouldn't like to say but seems to be that later Turkish chronicle were less prone to exaggeration in description of battles as European ones.

You always mention Cuman type. It is sure that all these bows are of asiatic origin but this design even appears in Byzantium too. We do not know any artefact about Cuman bows and i do not want to use this word, i only can say Cuman or Tatar influence having in mind about them as auxilliaries, but their number wasn't over 2000(who had a possibility to pay more than 10 000 mercenaries which could easy turn against their boss after delay of first salary, if they weren't volunteers) . How Serbian King Milutin would break rebellion of Turkish (christianized Turkopoloi) auxilliaries lead by Melik (even chronicle says ''their bows broke then'' as allusion on their defeat) in the 80's of XIII century during the war with Byzantium if their number was over e.g.2-3 000)?

Also, i have big surprise for you soon in regards to bows in Bulgaria from the time of Ivan Alexandar. You will see that it is similar to some ''short ear'' bows from Serbia and surprisingly same design but with visible horn on the belly, differently than white color on Serbian bows that imply birch bark, and also similar design to those one that appears in Psalter. Just need to scan it. It will help you sure;-) I am not sure will you use term Bulgarian bow after that, and specially Cuman one,cause all we in Balkans used same bow design;-))))-joking!
Best regards,
Zoran

...Another one from same monastery. Same bow. I focused my attention only at the bow but Bede and other friends will notice two arrows in the bow case beside bow. I have explanation, do anyone of you have it?;-)
Best regards,
Zoran

A kuman with his bow (related siyah bones with wide ends had been found in the Dasti Kipchak from the 11-13 th Cent.). Sz?kelyderzs, Transylvania.

http://szekelyderzs.com/Kepek/legenda_unesco.jpg

Zoran, I have two miniatures from a kodex from somewhere arround Athos, but with battle scenes. I want to see your frescos, so hurry up!! :-)

Zolt

Great, Zoltan!.
I am in bigger puzzle now;-) If this is similar design how string would be attached? Is there some ''groove'' like in scythian bow type to lead string? It will be interesting question.
On frescoes, coming soon;-)
Best regards:)

Possibly. But a relative small bight on the upper and a knot on the lower siyah nock could be the answer.
I think the same type bows are depicted in the hungarian Picture Chronic but the siyahangle is smaller.

Zolt

It is possible that the artist was more familiar with Western equipment than oriental. He has painted the plate armour with great skill, but the bow is only a cartoon.

I think that you can only take from this painting that the bow had recurved tips. I think the artist saw one or had one described to him, but he had no direct knowledge of the shape. Alternately, he did not think it was important enough to paint.

But f.e he painted the closed quiver quite exactly. (there are other parts of the fresco (It's really telling the story like a cartoon), where the quiver is shown from the other side)

The artist could have probably painted a better bow if the original were more colorfull. If he had seen the "juan bow" (allower dark brown) he could had gave back only the correct shape, too.
(I hate "if" sentences :roll: )

Zolt

I could accept Bede's opinion.
Since monastery Manasija was built by despot Stephan Lazarevic (1395-1427) when Serbia arose as economical and political factor for a time, it was a time when fire weapon entered Serbian army and also crossbow was prevalent. It is quite possible that painter only saw or have heard about older representations of early frescoes and represented his impression. Also, i share your opinion that painter didn't think about importance to represent clear shape as some painters have their impressions (though, we cannot think about frescoe painters as those ones of Rennaissance or modern).

There's a bow in monastery Kalenic from the same time, represented as altered crab bow where position of string is unnatural. But after observations it was established that landowner was originally depicted without bow and bow is painted later after his death. This means that it could be same case with these bows i inserted. When you observe these bows in real it is impossible to get some clear conclusion.

Zoltan, i think that ''if'' could give answers on many questions.Did anyone noticed two arrows in the arrow case?.So common for steppe archers. Also, i looked up at Painted Chronicle.Can say, i am impressed, it is real treasure about costumes and armour in mediaeval Hungary. Depicted bows are pretty different than those ones which appear at Serbian frescoes but it also can help to clear situation.
Anyway, thank to both of you.
Best regards,
Zoran

I find the second illustration very believable. Look again at the recurve. There is one angle where the ridge begins and another more extreme one at the "bend" of the ear. This feature can be seen clearly in bows collected from battlefields of the period, for instance in Vienna armory museum. Maybe the proportion is slightly off. OK. But I find it good.

There are illustrations of Chinese bows from Dunhuang murals which also show composite bows with white bellies. Consider white ox horn, or mountain Ibex horn. There is a good reason not to decorate the belly of a bow if the maker wanted to show off the quality of the horn. Horn is mostly weather proof as birch bark is, so nothing lost.

I fail to see confusion. These are Turkic period bows made in a format somewhat different than Ottoman. These are not bone reenforced bows of the Hunnic period.

Variation is a very good thing. If Dusan can find a Siberian Buryat bow being displayed in a museum near Moscow, then your exact bow is out there in a museum display somewhere waiting to be recognized. I would say that a version on Tatar would fit well.

Have you noticed how one we discussed earlier is a close match for the Ming bow that the Chinese man posted not long ago? I see no mystery. Jack.

Jack,
I agree that the ears of second bow are represented more realistic than the same bow appearing at fresco of Saint Mercurius. We will need to find an artifact that can help us in the final reconstruction. It would be good if anyone has a picture of the bow from the Vienna museum whom Jack mentioned, and put it here so that we can come some concrete conclusion.

On white belly. Your consideration about ox or ibex horn is completely acceptable. Buffalo was never present in Balkan, there is a similar horn cattle in Kosovo and Metohija, which locals called ''bivoljica'' but with shorter horns. To be honest I have not dealt with their origin and how long they are present in these regions, whether they were at the time that we consider.
Ibex horn is quite possible option because of the vicinity of Greece as it was probably present in this region in the Middle Ages. The white bellied bows also appear at Byzantine frescoes of this time which is not case with Bulgarian frescoes.Could be quite possible to obtain ibex horn by commercial relationships with Byzantium.So, even if replicas of the bows wrapped by birch bark show efficiency, we can take into account the ibex horn. I am skeptical about the Ox horns in the region as very short for making reflex bow, but i certainly talk about it from the perspective of modern times. Due to the vicinity of Hungary where gray longhorn cattle is present even today, we can even accept the fact that it was widespread in the Middle Ages in most parts of the Balkans or horn could be obtain by the trade relationships with Hungary. I hope we will find a solution and make this mystery more clear. So, there are several possibilities, birch bark, trade with Hungary and the Byzantine Empire, or using of OX horn because it was the most affordable in this area,also the vicinity and presence of Tatars.

But, back to the original topic. Jack, your observations on the size of second bow, the bow of St. Procopius, and a comparison with the Kazakh bow at the topic about bows from the Russian museums can lead us to a cleaner solution. Incredible coincidence with the first version i made whom I didn't insert. Even more mysterious correspondence with a bow that appears on a fresco of Saint Mercurius in the Greek monastery of Mount Athos speaks on one's behalf. What confused me was the slope that string shows indicates the position that the bow take into the quiver but when I consider your remark, almost triple coincidency.Please, if other friends at ATARN can consider this as we do. And of course, thanks for the observations and suggestions.

Kazakh bow from Ethnographic museum in St.Petersbug,Russia. Similar form and position in the quiver.

:lol:
I mean my (grammatic) difficulties to use them.

Zolt

The Kazakh bowcase is reflected in the Demetrios angel's case. The foot of the case is hooked. This is reflected in another of Bashkir origin (late origin also in Kazakhstan) in Dusan's post p. 10.

This bow also of p. 10 reflects the two bends of the beginning ridge and "bend" of the Manasija bow above.

Note similarity to Sind bow.

St. Demetrios carries a bow of different inspiration. The string does not contact the ear. This is an earlier Hunnic type.

The string of the Mercurius bow also does not touch the bend of the ear. This is another, maybe Hunnic type. You can see that it does not require a bowcase with a hooked foot.

Mercuris' equipment is possibly fanciful. Is that a real helmet? Armor? But the bow is reflected exactly in the Demetrios bow.

I hope I have finally determined the form of the bow of St.Mercurius, painted on frescoes in Lesnovo I inserted at the beginning of this topic. Since a similar bows appear on several frescoes , the bow of St Procopius from the same monastery served as a model for revival of the bow only partially visible..

It is a similar design, although bow of St. Mercurius has more reflexed limbs, which causes a greater distance between the string and grip. As in all Serbian frescoes where bows are visible as a whole, they have a strongly reflexed grip, I?ve determined stronger reflex at the handle and I think it could be the ultimate form.
On the bow of sv.Prokopije from Lesnovo, the shape of this bow was not difficult to determine. The distance between the string and the handle is smaller, but what they have in common is sloped nock at the ears where the string is attached.
My opinion is that these ones are two different bows of similar design. The bow of st.Mercurije possibly tends to early version of tatar bow type that later evolved into the Crimean Tartar bow with set back handle.

Length of unstrung bows could be 126 cm or a bit more.
In making replicas I'll take care of several things:
1. the bows do not have to be hornbows but even ?two wood? bows.
2. white color on the belly implies birch bark or other material used for decoration, such as silk.

Since the experiment with the horn could be quite expensive at first attempts I will work on ?two wood? bows with the same method as hornbows, using several layers of sinew.
After successful reconstruction of 3 bows could make sense I will work with horn and then many other bows that appear in the frescoes.

Has anyone studying Serbian bows noticed when depictions of archers first showed arrows with different coloured feathers? There have been some discussions about this in the context of French and English archery. Different coloured fletching implies that you look at the arrow when you nock it to see which way it attaches to the arrows. Some people assume that this is a sign of target equipment.

In a artwork this implication is not necessary. An artist will often choose the most attractive version of an object to illustrate. In the case of a saint, perhaps there is a subtext that the arrows will be always be as accurate as target arrows.

Bede,
Different color of feathers appears at several frescoes.In this topic I just focused myself on bows but it is good chance to consider other facts. Knowing the fact that only war equipement is depicted, different color could imply cock feather so that archer could easy manage with arrow but I don't think it could be target arrow. Also, arrow is longer than average arrows (which appears at most of frescoes) in comparison to whole body of saint which could imply drawing till the ears or so.

Zoran,
What I meant was that horse archers in particular and any archers who have to shoot quickly must train themselves not to look at the arrows when nocking. A different coloured cock feather would be wasted in this situation. However, in the deliberate process of target shooting, there would be time for more careful inspection of the equipment.

Regarding the painting, I am not suggesting the arrows are target arrows, but that the artist added details that might not have been in the original to make a better looking picture. Perhaps all arrows were made with separately coloured cock feathers, but military arrows are often mass produced and perhaps not as refined as target arrows.

2. white color on the belly implies birch bark or other material used for decoration, such as silk.

... or white wood, such as mapple, birch or hazel. Or that the dark horn was not paineted since it would be hard to tell apart from dark backround and dark armour.

Or whitish horn or horn that the bleached to whitish. (Urea bleached hair, why not horn?)

Bede wrote:

Zoran,
What I meant was that horse archers in particular and any archers who have to shoot quickly must train themselves not to look at the arrows when nocking. A different coloured cock feather would be wasted in this situation. However, in the deliberate process of target shooting, there would be time for more careful inspection of the equipment.

Regarding the painting, I am not suggesting the arrows are target arrows, but that the artist added details that might not have been in the original to make a better looking picture. Perhaps all arrows were made with separately coloured cock feathers, but military arrows are often mass produced and perhaps not as refined as target arrows.

Bede,
It happens to me to react hastily sometimes.It is difficult to me to understand professional phrases in english language suddenly.Yes, Why not target arrows as you suggested. Of course that archer needed to practice archery regularly and to shoot target, though surely not ''victorian targets'' but e.g. ''shooting the apple through the ring''. Sometimes i behave like that i discovered ''cock feather'' and archery :oops:
Best regards,

jkekoni wrote:

2. white color on the belly implies birch bark or other material used for decoration, such as silk.

... or white wood, such as mapple, birch or hazel. Or that the dark horn was not paineted since it would be hard to tell apart from dark backround and dark armour.

Or whitish horn or horn that the bleached to whitish. (Urea bleached hair, why not horn?)

Or why not ram's horn.
Since buffalo is not domestic animal in Balkan peninsula it was easier to obtain long sheep horn from autochtonous sheeps of Balkan called ''pramenka'' (in Serbia and Montenegro svrlji?ka, pirotska, karakačanska-old long horn breed from Greece present even in Serbia and Bulgaria,very rare today, sjenička, or lička, dalmatinska,istarska in Croatia). There was semi-dependent shepperd population called ??vlachs?? in medieval Serbia whom Codex of emperor Dushan explicitly mentioned under category called ??Sebri??.
Wow, seems it will be very hard work :P love it.
Thank you jkekoni, thank you Bede.
Regards,

Hi! There were water buffalos (Биво) in Serbia, Balkan, and rest od South Eastern Europe (even Italy). They were introduced as early as VI century with Avar invasion. (Buffon, Oeuvres comletes, vol 4. Paris, 1938)
In Serbia water buffalos were bred since 1200. (at least) Dechani Monastery had water buffalo breeders (Биволари). (Ulmanski, Bivo, Narodna enciklopedija Srpsko-hrvatsko-slovenacka, I knjiga, Zagreb, 1926)

That is very interesting. I knew about the buffalo in southern Italy, but the early introduction into the Balkans is interesting. I doubt the Avar connection though. They were nomads and had no use for water buffalo though they probably used their cattle to pull their carts like modern Mongols. The steppe is not a good habitat for water buffalo.

Did they make a cheese like mozzarella in the Balkans with buffalo milk?

In English, there is confusion in common speech between oxen (any castrated male cattle used for hauling), steers (castrated male cattle used for food) and the general term cattle referring to all bovines including water buffalo. Another term for oxen is bullocks which has a similar derivation and is strongly associated with haulage.

Does the Serbian word, Биво, have a similar derivation to the English, beef?

[external image]

This cattle is called in romanian bivol and peaople still grow it.
It can have 50-60 cm horns, but all I have seen have poor quality for bows, even for rings, alot of cracs...

Ginni, you?ve to look for the younger cattle.
The buffalos in Italy are breeded for the real mozzarella, the breeders are obligated by law to care for a watering hole.
Of much more interest is the Podolica- cattle in the very south of Italy, who is directly descended from Anatolia.
The horns of Podolica- cattle are looking like a perfect bow.
Michael

We have less terms in Serbian.
Cattle=goveda
Bull=bik
Castrated male=vo
Water buffalo=bivo
In old serbian it was bivol, so Ginni, we share term. L was lost in singular, but preserved in plural-bivoli, and term for female-bivolica.
WB were mainly used as draft animals in Serbia. Two wb do the same work as 3 oxes. They are faster than oxes, and slower than horses, ideal for many jobs. In 1997 there was around 16000 wb in Serbia, but today their number is much much less, and they are protected as genetic resource.
WB skin was very appreciated. And horn? Don't know. Young wb from Serbia, 18-20 months old, with 290kg body weight had 1,4kg horns (0,7kg each). (Ognjanovic, 1974) Full grown male have 500-700kg. 97% of wb population is in Asia, so best horns are surely there.

Some more horns from Serbia. (Domestic animals are my profession, I hope yuo don't mind if it is a little off topic.)

Balkan goat-long hair and long horns

Pramenka (Sjenicka variety)

Oup, thats wonderfull news ! I know about w.bufalos in south /Serbia, Italia, Romania, Bulgaria.../ 100 and more years ago , but i dont think that stil live i this countrys. 100 years ago here in Slovakia was many same long horn cattles. Now i know only about fue animals in Hungaria .

Vitoroga zuja
Hungarians call it Racka (Serbian)

What is Podolac cattle? Is this also called grey cattle? The horns look like horns I have seen that were from a species called grey cattle. I wanted to get a pair of these horns, but the people who had them would not give me any because they had to account for the horns and other body parts due to some BSE regulation. At least that is what they said.
I believe they would look great on a bow!

Daniel

Dusan wrote:

Oup, thats wonderfull news ! I know about w.bufalos in south /Serbia, Italia, Romania, Bulgaria.../ 100 and more years ago , but i dont think that stil live i this countrys. 100 years ago here in Slovakia was many same long horn cattles. Now i know only about fue animals in Hungaria .

Yes Dusan, water buffalo still lives in southern part of Serbia specially in Kosovo and Metohija. Mirko gave some datas about first mention of buffalos in Serbia, also prince Lazar wore helmet with buffalo horns in the Battle of Kosovo 1389. between Serbian army and Ottoman army lead by sultan Murat I. Serbian patriarch Pajsije Janjevac died after attack of furious w.buffalo/bivol back in 1647.
Water buffalos in this part of Europe are similar to those ones in Iran having shorter horns than those ones in Korea,China, Philippines,Vietnam but enough for composite bows shorter form as it was in mediaeval Serbia (110-115cm nock to nock strung). I use my theory of ram's horn of autochtonous breeds from Serbia and Balkan to explain white colour at the belly if it is not silk, birch bark or bleached horn as decoration.
See the picture below, ancient breed of Balkan called Karakachanska ovca(sheep), ram has very big horns.

Bede,
Word buffalo has similar roots in all indo-european languages.
In Slavic languages and also Romanian it is: bivol (read beewohl) in all South Slavic languages or bivo/биво in some Serbian dialects, byvol in Slovakian, buvol in Polish.
In Germanic languages it is:buffalo
B?ffel (m.)
buffel
buffel
b?ffel
buffall
b?ffel
buffel
English,German, Dutch, Frisian, Norvegian,Swedish.

Mirko, you forgot Krakachanska sheep;-)

There is an inscription on a stone monument from Ashkalon, Turkey ? about the 7th C BCE about buffalos.

If we talked about bufalos and catles in global vith touch of history, we must say that this animal was the oldest totem-idol- god - simbol or how we call him for maybe 90 % of old nomads and his next big kingdoms.( Greks Zeus, MinoTAURUS, ...) Like many historical debat about linguistic question - its controversary- but interesting about word TUREK- TURK - TURY- what is oldest slavic name for all asian nomads- because his totem-god.Evan in 9-10 cen. we call Pechenyeh, Kipchaks , and other tribes (next Hungarians) TURCI. Some very old texts where Celts we call "TURY" too.
Like we now this name have to this days big representat of this culture - TURKEY and his ancestors we cal TURCIC tribes... I dont know how word use turcic people for TUR - ( or Bufalo, Catle) who was the oldest name for no domesticate - wild big animal who live in all Europa to east azia.

Dusan; I am not disagreeing with you. But the peoples of Ashkalon were not Turkic, were not nomads. I am pointing out only that there were water buffalos in this area in the first millennium BCE. The city was most likely destroyed by Cimmerians from the Black sea area.

But for these representations of bows with white bellies, my thinking is that they were probably Ibex horn, which was common to the area until the 19 th or 20th centuries CE. The horns are large and the mountsin variety have only a single curve, not spiraled.

Jack i agree vith you /mi post was litlle out- only answer in ligwistic ekvilibration ...) i think that most of old culture composites was from Altaj, Himalayas, Kaukaz... Ibex/or argali/. Not from diferent cow spieces.Water buf horn have extra diferent quality against other cow or Zebu, or longhorns.

Yes Daniel, Podolac is same as (Hungarian) gray cattle. Name Podolac probably came from its region of origin-Podolija, but it also means-one in the lowland. In Balkan highlands cattle with very short horns was bred-Busha.

Observing about 15 bows from Serbian monasteries I found similar results like Zoran did:
Handle was set back
Bows were short (115-140cm)
Bow ears were short (10% of bow length)

It don't have sense but for me the closest design is Korean! I just want to share my impression.
I'll post more detail measurement result soon.

[quote="MupKo"]

Observing about 15 bows from Serbian monasteries I found similar results like Zoran did:
Handle was set back
Bows were short (115-140cm)
Bow ears were short (10% of bow length)

Mirko,
I started core for two bows, ash wooden core 100 cm lenght, ears 12 cm (10-12,5cm is usual dimension i measured with exceptions of some bows where ears are 18 cm), limbs- width 3,8 cm, 4mm thick,flex centered, ram's horn should be 4mm thick, deep curved handle portion should be 18 cm, hide glue, cattle tendons .
I am not in agreement with you that Serbian bows had similarity with Korean design, also, from my opinion mural painters were very precise and average strung bows lenght should be 110-115 cm.with some exceptions, maybe you think it was similar to Korean design 'cause there was no ridged section where the ears are spliced with limbs but i will try ridged section first, for security. It should be ''triple curved'' bow.
Puno pozdrava

Well' guys, I'm back with a new photo. It is from Staro Nagorichane in modern day FYROM. The church was built by the serbian king Milutin on top of an older one in 1313. The frescoes hadn't been painted over ever since, so they date to 1313 too. Also there is the thomb of the bulgarian tsar Michail III Shishman.

WOW!!! I have never seen that one!!! Great. Is that two finger draw? Better picture? On most frescoes saint warrior have bow in quiver or holds it in hands, but this is firs one I have seen with bow usage. Bows at full draw!!! Thank you!

Zoran, on bow length-maybe some bows were just 110-115, but... If you compare bow length with saint warrior's height, hip width or knee height, bows are 90-120cm. If you compare them with waist width, head size, shoulder width or arm length, bows are 130-150cm. Lower part of warriors body was painted larger, and upper smaller. You have noticed that for sure. This picture that Lord Ruthven posted suggest even larger bow! Why? In this situation BOW is in the center of attention. On others WARRIOR is main thing, bows are just part of his equipment. Here arches are without other arms and armor, they are present just as somebody who holds bow. On others bow is just something that warrior holds. That affected size. Probably.

I said that it looks like Korean because it was short with short ears and set back handle. I don't know much about detail bow construction. Just talking about shape.

Good luck with replicas!!!

Determination of bow dimensions on Serbian medieval frescoes
Mirko Ivković, August 2010.
Weapons are commonly found on Christian frescoes. They are held by Christian martyrs? executioners, soldiers, angels and saint warriors. On frescoes in Serbian monasteries, executioners and angels prefer swords, soldiers spears and swords, and bows are (usually) reserved for saint warriors. Maybe 20-30% of saint warriors have bows. Sveti Dimitrije (st Demetrios), sveti Merkurije (st Mercurius) and sveti Prokopije (st Procopius) especially like archery.

Gavro ?krivanić measured saint warriors? height and bow length and comparing these two values concluded that ?Length of Serbian composite bow was 90 to 120 cm? (35.4 to 47.2 inches). (Oru?je u srednjovekovnoj Srbiji, Bosni i Dubrovniku, Beograd: Naučno delo, 1957.) Well, that?s short! 90 cm bow? Zoran Pavlović recently made more realistic estimate for two bows from Lesnovo monastery, 125-130 cm, and 110-115 cm for average bows (ATARNet discussion forum/Hardware/ 2 Serbian bows-''graphic'' reconstruction of bow shape by). I decide to make comprehensive study.

I found 15 pictures of saint archers? frescoes with visible enough bows and good enough resolution for measurements. 6 from Dečani, 3 from Lesnovo, 2 from Pećka Patrijar?ija and Markov manastir and 1 from Sveti Nikita and Veluće. Measurements were made in Inkscape, vector graphics editor program. Bows were measured tip to tip, along the string. If just half of bow was visible it was assumed that other half is of same length. If bow was in quiver it was assumed that quiver fits very good to bow, i.e. that bow tip is very close to the quiver tip. Body dimensions taken to compare with bow length and their assumed values were: height-180cm, face length (chin to hair)-20cm, shoulder width-50cm, waist width-40cm, hip width-40cm, waist to top of head distance-80cm, leg length-85cm, lower leg length-50cm, arm length-80cm, shoulder to elbow-40cm, elbow to fingertip-50cm. Also, arrow length was assumed to be 80cm, and closed arrow quiver length to be 85cm.

Not all body parts were visible on all pictures. 109 comparisons were made, 7 per bow on average.

Average bows' length when compared with different parameters:
Parameter.............Bow length (cm, in)
Waist width......................146......58
Face length......................135......53
Elbow to fingertip.............132......52
Shoulder width.................131......52
Waist to top of head........125......49
Quiver length...................121......47
Arrow length....................119......47
Leg length.......................117......46
Shoulder to elbow...........116......46
Arm length ......................115......45
Warrior?s height...............114......45
Lower leg length..............107......42
Hip width.........................103......41

Length for different bows (average for all comparisons for that bow)
Monastery................................Archer.............Bow length (cm, in)
Patriarchate of Peć..................St Procopius............153.......60
Marko?s monastery...................St Demetrios...........147.......58
Marko?s monastery...................Angel......................145.......57
Monastery of saint Nikita..........St Nikita..................142.......56
Lesnovo...................................St Mercurius............136.......54
Lesnovo...................................St Demetrios...........129.......51
Dečani.....................................St Eustatius.............123.......48
Dečani.....................................Unknown I...............121.......48
Dečani.....................................St Nestor.................117.......46
Dečani.....................................St Victor...................117.......46
Dečani.....................................St Mercurius ............116.......46
Patriarchate of Peć.................St Demetrios............113........44
Lesnovo..................................St Procopius.............112........44
Dečani.....................................Unknown II...............98........39
Veluće.....................................St Dejan....................97.........38

Average for all bows and all measurements is 124cm (49?). Most of bows are in 110-140cm range, and not 90-120 as previously described.

I did two more parameter measurements following same methodology.
Rigid tip lenght was on average 10% of bow lenght, varying from 8 to 14%. That would be 13cm (9-17 cm).
Limb maximal thickness was 2,8% of bow lenght, what would be 3,5 cm if lenght determination is correct. One extream had thickness of 4,9cm, while all others was in 3-3,9 cm range.

What would be expected draw weights for thesee bow thicknesses? Thanks

300 lbs at minimum :D
while shape is consistent the thickness in the graphics cannot be trusted

wow you guys did a good job ! (guess it's time to write an article)

Thanks. I assumed that. I am trying to understand artists way of perception and creation, how and why they change object of their art. Picture is never photography. This bow thickening can be a good example. Maybe artists simply painted them thicker to be more visible. Or understanding matter they painted, they tried to give mighty saint warrior proper weapon for their strength. Or not understanding matter they painted, mentally mixed its width and thickness...
Examining works from different cultures and also work of modern artist who have never seen bow can be useful I think.