timeline of Persian/Scythian draw-hand technique?
Can anyone give me a quick outline of what periods of history Persians used particular draw-hand techniques (where applicable: thumb draw, pinch draw, 3-finger draw)? And can anyone provide a similar timeline of the Scythian/Saka technique?
One time I introduced a Persian friend to Asian archery, and I said "Persians used the thumb draw" as if it was the only technique Persians used. I wanted to check whether I was correct or wrong.
One time I introduced a Persian friend to Asian archery, and I said "Persians used the thumb draw" as if it was the only technique Persians used. I wanted to check whether I was correct or wrong.
It is pretty hard to specify what draw the Achaemanids used. It is most likely to be a three finger Mediterranean since that draw was common in the area. The Scythians from all detailed pictures used a two fingered Mediterranean draw. There are some Greek vases that may show another release, but the drawing is haphazard.
The Parthian ivories from Shami show a standard Mediterranean draw with the arrow between the index and middle fingers. The earliest Sasanian draw is with two fingers below the arrow (middle and ring). The Takht-i Bustan hunting reliefs showed what I thought to be a thumb draw, but I have had access to some better photographs and it is clear that it was two or three finger-under the arrow draw. In all these forms of draw, the index finger is extended to point along the arrow. Sometimes in earlier representations the little finger is extended too. I have found with heavy bows this is difficult to maintain and the finger tends to close though not around the string.
There was one fragmentary late thumb ring found at Dura Europus. The main part of the nearby excavation was from the fall of the city in the third century. Simon James wrote a paper about it, but I doubt that the ring was contemporary.
The thumb ring was probably introduced into Iran by the Turks, either directly or by their influence on the Khorasani cavalry employed by the Umayyad Caliphate. A Soghdian plate of the seventh/eighth century shows a thumb draw. This has been published several times as Sasanian plate, but it is definitely Soghdian. The rider has stirrups and his drawing hand has a curled index finger.
Three items seem to have accompanied the thumb ring into the Middle East: the stirrup, the backward slanted open quiver and the two strap slanted sword suspension. The closed quiver also started to appear at the same time, but in places like Hungary it wasn't associated with the thumb draw so it seems to have had a wider distribution at first. There is a good argument that it entered Iran before the thumb ring.
Despite the fact that the Shahnama contains many early legends, much of the weaponry described is either contemporary with Firdausi or only a century out of date. This can lead to some misconceptions particularly since there is so much detail.
The Parthian ivories from Shami show a standard Mediterranean draw with the arrow between the index and middle fingers. The earliest Sasanian draw is with two fingers below the arrow (middle and ring). The Takht-i Bustan hunting reliefs showed what I thought to be a thumb draw, but I have had access to some better photographs and it is clear that it was two or three finger-under the arrow draw. In all these forms of draw, the index finger is extended to point along the arrow. Sometimes in earlier representations the little finger is extended too. I have found with heavy bows this is difficult to maintain and the finger tends to close though not around the string.
There was one fragmentary late thumb ring found at Dura Europus. The main part of the nearby excavation was from the fall of the city in the third century. Simon James wrote a paper about it, but I doubt that the ring was contemporary.
The thumb ring was probably introduced into Iran by the Turks, either directly or by their influence on the Khorasani cavalry employed by the Umayyad Caliphate. A Soghdian plate of the seventh/eighth century shows a thumb draw. This has been published several times as Sasanian plate, but it is definitely Soghdian. The rider has stirrups and his drawing hand has a curled index finger.
Three items seem to have accompanied the thumb ring into the Middle East: the stirrup, the backward slanted open quiver and the two strap slanted sword suspension. The closed quiver also started to appear at the same time, but in places like Hungary it wasn't associated with the thumb draw so it seems to have had a wider distribution at first. There is a good argument that it entered Iran before the thumb ring.
Despite the fact that the Shahnama contains many early legends, much of the weaponry described is either contemporary with Firdausi or only a century out of date. This can lead to some misconceptions particularly since there is so much detail.
Follow-up question: What did a "Persian bow" look like through the ages, and did it correspond with the changes in draw technique?
For example, did Achaemanid bows resemble Scythian bows? Did Persian bows become shorter (a la Turkish dimensions) with the coming of the Umayyad Caliphate? When did the Indo-Persian Crab Bow come into vogue? Were there significant regional variations?
For example, did Achaemanid bows resemble Scythian bows? Did Persian bows become shorter (a la Turkish dimensions) with the coming of the Umayyad Caliphate? When did the Indo-Persian Crab Bow come into vogue? Were there significant regional variations?
It's a great subject a really need to follow it.
Justin, according to my knowledge the Achaemanid bows didn?t look like the Western Scythian bows.
Some years ago I was ordered to do a replica of an Achaemanid hornbow, arrows, and case for the bow and the arrows according to the reliefs found in Susa.
The Achaemanid hornbowyers did very simple hornbows, almost straight with sharp, short recurves. No delicious curvature like the Scythian bowyers did.
Search in hardware: Persian hornbow, arrows, case and shield
Michael
Some years ago I was ordered to do a replica of an Achaemanid hornbow, arrows, and case for the bow and the arrows according to the reliefs found in Susa.
The Achaemanid hornbowyers did very simple hornbows, almost straight with sharp, short recurves. No delicious curvature like the Scythian bowyers did.
Search in hardware: Persian hornbow, arrows, case and shield
Michael
Justin; You will find that the answer is very complex, a miniature of the history of bowbuilding itself.
First, what is a Persian? Does this include non Farsi speakers who were conquered by the Persians? What of Farsi speakers who considered themselves distinct yet found themselves to be client states of Persia? And what of the late Indo-Persians who incorporated archery styles as diverse as indigenous tribal styles to Chinese trade items, steel bows, Afghan, Tibetan etc.?
First, what is a Persian? Does this include non Farsi speakers who were conquered by the Persians? What of Farsi speakers who considered themselves distinct yet found themselves to be client states of Persia? And what of the late Indo-Persians who incorporated archery styles as diverse as indigenous tribal styles to Chinese trade items, steel bows, Afghan, Tibetan etc.?
The Susa coloured tile images show a long composite bow with recurves, but this may be artistic licence. The recurves are much less pronounced in the reliefs at Persepolis. In the great victory relief of Darius the First , the recurve is not obvious.
This is the infantry bow of the ancient Persians. The Elamite infantry are almost always shown with this bow which was used with a shoulder quiver and no bow case. Troops with knee length tunics and the akinakes sword are always shown with a gorytos if they have archery equipment at Persepolis. The gorytos and bow are larger than the ones shown in Western Scythian art. These soldiers are cavalry, wear trousers and are only differentiated from the Scythians by having different shaped hats. They are often called Medes, but the real separtion is between infantry in long robes with spears and shoulder quivers and trouser and tunic wearing horse archers with gorytoi and short swords.
When the Parthians first invaded their bows and gorytoi are depicted somewhat like the ones found in Xinjiang. Later, they and their neighbours are shown using straight ended bows, probably with bone reinforced siyahs. The gorytos changed into the two tube quiver worn on the right hand side instead of the left.
When the Sasanians overthrew the Parthians they already had straight-ended bows and had adopted the belt mounted vertical quiver worn on the right.
When the Sasanians fell to the Arabs, Khorasani horse archers were employed bringing the latest bows from Central Asia with them. They also had stirrups and different quivers.
The Turks were the next major force to appear. Early Turkish bows do not appear to be any different than the early Khorasani and Soghdian bows, but there may have been a greater angle at the transition from siyah to the bending part of the limb. I suggest this because it is about this time that half bow cases for strung bows started to become popular. This might be because the more reflexed bows were harder to string in battle conditions and were therefore carried strung and ready for use. Clumsier bow cases for strung bows were used earlier with the two tube quivers, but they were worn on the right side with the quivers and may have been awkward to use. The Sasanians dropped bow case altogether.
It is during and after the Mongol invasion that you start to see the tips of bows in art start to show recurvature. By the late 1300s, recurvature of some degree becomes common in art from Iran.
It is probably then that bows started to be made smaller because the recurvature allowed a slightly longer draw than the same length straight tip bow. The Persians made their bows longer than the Ottoman Turks and used a longer draw. This is documented from surviving bows and arrows as well as by manuals of archery of the time. There are surviving Safavid and Qajar bows.
The crab bow has some morphological features in common with bows of the Mongol conquest period but its internal construction suggests considerable changes.
This is the infantry bow of the ancient Persians. The Elamite infantry are almost always shown with this bow which was used with a shoulder quiver and no bow case. Troops with knee length tunics and the akinakes sword are always shown with a gorytos if they have archery equipment at Persepolis. The gorytos and bow are larger than the ones shown in Western Scythian art. These soldiers are cavalry, wear trousers and are only differentiated from the Scythians by having different shaped hats. They are often called Medes, but the real separtion is between infantry in long robes with spears and shoulder quivers and trouser and tunic wearing horse archers with gorytoi and short swords.
When the Parthians first invaded their bows and gorytoi are depicted somewhat like the ones found in Xinjiang. Later, they and their neighbours are shown using straight ended bows, probably with bone reinforced siyahs. The gorytos changed into the two tube quiver worn on the right hand side instead of the left.
When the Sasanians overthrew the Parthians they already had straight-ended bows and had adopted the belt mounted vertical quiver worn on the right.
When the Sasanians fell to the Arabs, Khorasani horse archers were employed bringing the latest bows from Central Asia with them. They also had stirrups and different quivers.
The Turks were the next major force to appear. Early Turkish bows do not appear to be any different than the early Khorasani and Soghdian bows, but there may have been a greater angle at the transition from siyah to the bending part of the limb. I suggest this because it is about this time that half bow cases for strung bows started to become popular. This might be because the more reflexed bows were harder to string in battle conditions and were therefore carried strung and ready for use. Clumsier bow cases for strung bows were used earlier with the two tube quivers, but they were worn on the right side with the quivers and may have been awkward to use. The Sasanians dropped bow case altogether.
It is during and after the Mongol invasion that you start to see the tips of bows in art start to show recurvature. By the late 1300s, recurvature of some degree becomes common in art from Iran.
It is probably then that bows started to be made smaller because the recurvature allowed a slightly longer draw than the same length straight tip bow. The Persians made their bows longer than the Ottoman Turks and used a longer draw. This is documented from surviving bows and arrows as well as by manuals of archery of the time. There are surviving Safavid and Qajar bows.
The crab bow has some morphological features in common with bows of the Mongol conquest period but its internal construction suggests considerable changes.
I'm sure Bede is right in describing the style of draw shown in various historical illustrations. But the thumb draw is not an intuitive approach seen from the point of view of artists (unless the artists were archers). I fear that in many cases artists draw what they would intuitively do themselves rather than following slavishly the technique of the archers they were depicting.
Another thing: I've never observed a contemporary culture (other than Modern European longbow shooters) who follow a consistent form.
For hcspng: apart from recent history, I think it would be difficult to know what really happened.
Another thing: I've never observed a contemporary culture (other than Modern European longbow shooters) who follow a consistent form.
For hcspng: apart from recent history, I think it would be difficult to know what really happened.
Stephen is right on two counts. There is a definite lag between the appearance of something in a culture and the depiction of the same thing in art. Secondly, there is rarely a consistent technique in any culture and Iran has always had several distinct groups operating at the same time.
One must add to this the conservatism in art in Sasanian Iran, which makes it even harder to see changes. However, when you look at assemblies of objects, it is possible to draw some conclusions. Unfortunately literature has similar problems. Styles of quiver and bow case often arrive with other parts of archery technology and they are much more visible in the art of the time.
The Emperor Maurice writes of the Persian Release and the Roman Release, but does not describe what made them different. Most modern translators assume he means the thumb lock and the Mediterranean draw, but it is more likely he means the two finger below and the three finger draw. At the time the Byzantines were probably more adventurous in adopting new techniques than the Persians because of their distant friendly relations the the Blue Turks and their close unfriendly relations with the Avars.
But, getting back to what Stephen wrote, it would be foolish to expect a universal take up of a new technique, especially when you first find out about it when your neighbour is shot down in battle next to you. Paintings from the Mogao caves in east Central Asia show the late survival of the Sasanian release far to the east of where Sasanian armies ever marched. Techniques and equipment were very fluid in their distribution.
One must add to this the conservatism in art in Sasanian Iran, which makes it even harder to see changes. However, when you look at assemblies of objects, it is possible to draw some conclusions. Unfortunately literature has similar problems. Styles of quiver and bow case often arrive with other parts of archery technology and they are much more visible in the art of the time.
The Emperor Maurice writes of the Persian Release and the Roman Release, but does not describe what made them different. Most modern translators assume he means the thumb lock and the Mediterranean draw, but it is more likely he means the two finger below and the three finger draw. At the time the Byzantines were probably more adventurous in adopting new techniques than the Persians because of their distant friendly relations the the Blue Turks and their close unfriendly relations with the Avars.
But, getting back to what Stephen wrote, it would be foolish to expect a universal take up of a new technique, especially when you first find out about it when your neighbour is shot down in battle next to you. Paintings from the Mogao caves in east Central Asia show the late survival of the Sasanian release far to the east of where Sasanian armies ever marched. Techniques and equipment were very fluid in their distribution.
Yes Stephan it's very complex.
today in Iran painters make miniatures from bow and arrow and none of them know even a bit from archery.maybe they just do it with imaginary or looking at older paintings.
But i think befor of the arab conquest of Iran pictures are more truly painted or carved. because in Islam painting or carving human and animals were prohibited and in about 400 years all of human and animals change to herbal patterns till Safavids.in Achaemenian period as we can see in Perspolis and other places all the carving are real and we can check them wit oter nations just with a little diffrence.
It's very hard for me to explain it in Englis.i hope you got the point!
today in Iran painters make miniatures from bow and arrow and none of them know even a bit from archery.maybe they just do it with imaginary or looking at older paintings.
But i think befor of the arab conquest of Iran pictures are more truly painted or carved. because in Islam painting or carving human and animals were prohibited and in about 400 years all of human and animals change to herbal patterns till Safavids.in Achaemenian period as we can see in Perspolis and other places all the carving are real and we can check them wit oter nations just with a little diffrence.
It's very hard for me to explain it in Englis.i hope you got the point!
There was a strong painting tradition in Iran after the conquest, particularly in the East, which is unfortunately little known and under represented in published works. However, the Varqa va Gulshah manuscript is one of the few that has been studied. There was also many illustrated pottery objects made in places like Kashan. The major flowering in book painting occurred as a result of the Ilkhanid minister, Rashid ed-Din publishing his history in Tabriz. The Jalairids and Timurids and many smaller dynasties followed in the traditions of book illustration.
Since the patrons of this type of art were the military ruling class of Mongol and Turkish descent, their adherence to strict Islamic principles in private may not have been perfect. The artists were usually Iranian, though there were some people of Turkish and Georgian descent over the centuries too. The clients were very familiar with archery and horses. This might explain why there was so much attention to detail. Shahnamas were illustrated showing events of a thousand years before, but the clothes and weapons were all contemporary to the painter. Only a few people like Baysunghur, the Timurid, actually had paintings done in an earlier style rather than dress up the scenes in contemporary dress.
Unfortunately the methods of painting, using stencils for the figures, did lead to unreality when a stencil made by someone's grandfather was used in a contemporary manuscript. Also sometimes the stencils were reversed and right handed people became left-handed just as in a reversed photograph in a book. As I have written in this forum before, you cannot use a painting the same way as you would rely on a photograph. A photograph records what is there and can be seen while a painting reveals what the painter thought should be there.
Since the patrons of this type of art were the military ruling class of Mongol and Turkish descent, their adherence to strict Islamic principles in private may not have been perfect. The artists were usually Iranian, though there were some people of Turkish and Georgian descent over the centuries too. The clients were very familiar with archery and horses. This might explain why there was so much attention to detail. Shahnamas were illustrated showing events of a thousand years before, but the clothes and weapons were all contemporary to the painter. Only a few people like Baysunghur, the Timurid, actually had paintings done in an earlier style rather than dress up the scenes in contemporary dress.
Unfortunately the methods of painting, using stencils for the figures, did lead to unreality when a stencil made by someone's grandfather was used in a contemporary manuscript. Also sometimes the stencils were reversed and right handed people became left-handed just as in a reversed photograph in a book. As I have written in this forum before, you cannot use a painting the same way as you would rely on a photograph. A photograph records what is there and can be seen while a painting reveals what the painter thought should be there.