ming "kai yuan" bow related to crab bow?

The Turks and Persians had straight eared bows just like the Chinese before the Mongol invasion.

From visual inspection of some of the transitional bows in the pre-Yuan period and looking at pictures from the Yuan, I think there is a chance that, when they adopted the recurved eared bow with a long neck, the Mongols introduced it throughout the areas they invaded. What Adam Karpowicz calls the sal/kasan transition is where some Mongol era bows and some Ming paintings of bows show strong similarities to later crab bows.

Jack Farrell has posted a picture of two bows and some arrows from an exhibition that has one of these bows as the lower one in the illustration. The angle between the bending part of the limb and the neck is between what is seen in later Persian bows and the extreme angles of crab bows.

When you consider the differences in age between the various types of bows we are discussing, there is some doubt about the relationships. There are surviving dated Persian bows going back to the 16th century and extending into the 19th century. Most crab bows postdate the 18th century though there are some ones that might be late 17th century. The latest Mongol bow of the old style we know of is the Omnogrov bow which is not a high quality bow, but does have some archaic features.

There are some interesting constructional similarities between the most crab bow like Mongol bows and crab bows from India. The fact that the crab bows design or a variation of it could have been brought into India by Babur's Chagatai in-laws is balanced by the surviving Mogul bows associated with rulers being so Persian looking. This could be the Timurid influence of Babur's family.

Justin; MY machine will not open the illustration as posted. Since we now know pretty well the constructions of Persian and early Turkic type bows, all we need is some info on a Kaiyuan bow's construction to compare. By the shape only it is impossible to be sure. All one might say is probably.

Didn't someone once post a picture of one of these bow's but labeled as Quanlong's?

If this one doesn't load, let me know.

http://www.lieku8.com/uplode/month_1005 ... .thumb.jpg

This photo from the forum compares the different bow shapes. The bows are (1) what I believe is Grozer's Turkish bow, (2) Lukas Novotny's Indo-Persian Crab bow, (3) Lukas Novotny's Persian bow, (4) Kaiyuan bow illustration, and (5) Lukas Novotny's Yuan bow.

The poster of the photo originally wrote: "
2.开元弓
九阴白骨箭在一个帖中介绍过?其实都源于土尔其蟹腿弓的设计，开元是我国东北蒙元时期的一个地名，在元代有土耳其雇佣军，这些雇佣军在马背上用这种独特的弓梢挑起箭不用下马取箭，明代弓吸收了这种外来设计。
"
... which quotes another source as saying the Kaiyuan bow originated from a "Turkish crab bow" design (I know, I was puzzled that it said "Turkish" and not "Indo-Persian"), and that Kaiyuan was a location in Northeast China where Turkish mercenaries lived during the Yuan dynasty.

Again, I'm not sure how rigorous this interpretation is.

Justin; You realize that you are comparing an illustration of a bow against four reproductions of bows.

I believe it is Gaoxiang who is the Chinese bowyer? Why don't you email him and ask him this question. I think he is the only person who has attempted to build one of these bows.

Considering the fact that the military elite in Safavid Persia was Turkish linguistically and ethnically (the Qizilbash supporters of the Safavid Dynasty were largely drawn from Eastern Anatolia) and the Mogul rulers of Northern India were largely Chagatai Turkish speaking Turko-Mongols, confusing Turkish and Indo-Persian is not a big mistake.

The ideas in the diagrams you showed are fairly old. I remember seeing pictures of various bows compared in an old Archer-Antiquaries Journal showing the ears in order to show the variations in design.

Adam Karpowicz complicated the analysis when he pointed out in his book that the shapes of Persian bows can be attained without thickening the sal/kasan transition. This meant that in art at least it would be hard to tell them apart. The main difference in life could have been the width of the limbs. However, some Persian bows I have examined did show a thickening at the transition though it was not so profound as a crab bow.

The real problem in this kind of analysis is to find early bows to compare. Bows that have gone through another few hundred years of development have also gone through another few hundred years of interaction. Another problem is how much does the outline shape of a bow reflect its construction or intent. If a craftsman in area A copies a bow form area B, but uses his own construction methods, he might have an area B bow or he might have a new type of bow altogether when he is finished. Making artefacts with different influences is not like breeding cows. You cannot be sure you will get something like the parents.

jack farrell wrote:

Justin; You realize that you are comparing an illustration of a bow against four reproductions of bows.

I believe it is Gaoxiang who is the Chinese bowyer? Why don't you email him and ask him this question. I think he is the only person who has attempted to build one of these bows.

I remember the thread containing Gao Xiang's Kaiyuan bow:

http://atarn.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t ... n&start=15

But Gao Xiang's reproduction has straight siyahs as opposed to angular siyahs. However, Mr. Gao does live in Northeast China, so maybe he has access to source material outside of the illustration.

Hi
It's interesting what Bede wrote about copiing bows from area A to area B. It made me thinking... Bow technology migration probably had several ways. First-craftmen migration-he brings all knowlege and methods, and maybe just have to switch to some new materials. Second-bow migration-foreign bow is presented to local craftsman who can copy construction and shape, but with his methods and materials. Also he can make hibrid between foreign and local bow. Third-information migration-bowyer sees foreign bow, or his customer sees foreign bow or he just hear a rumor about foreign bow, so he tries to make some changes on local design.

That woodblock print of the Kaiyuan bow appears on the same age as an illustration of a 'short siyah bow' in Mao Yuanyi's Military Encyclopedia . There is not much reason to believe that the image is inaccurate, so you need to pay attention to how the string is attached. I don't think that corresponds to any bow we know of at present.

'Kaiyuan' is the name of reign period in the Tang Dynasty. I don't know of any other usage of that word.

Stephen Selby wrote:

That woodblock print of the Kaiyuan bow appears on the same age as an illustration of a 'short siyah bow' in ao Yuanyi's Military Encyclopedia . There is not much reason to believe that the image is inaccurate, so you need to pay attention to how the string is attached. I don't think that corresponds to any bow we know of at present.

'Kaiyuan' is the name of reign period in the Tang Dynasty. I don't know of any other usage of that word.

I was wondering the same. Alternatively it could mean "Start of the Yuan (dynasty)"-bow but such a classification is very atypical for old Chinese texts. One would rather expect them to use a more degenerate term such as "Barbarian bow". (As they do in their description of Japanese styled saber called "Bandit's lair saber" from "Dwarf Bandit", a name for Japanese pirates.)

I agree that these renditions are, although sometimes cartoonish, are usually correct. Comparisons between artwork and actual weapons so far reveals there was little fantasy involved. A painting showing a Ming imperial procession in 1550 also shows the emperor with a so-called Kaiyuan gong. His men carry the traditional style bow.

The Kaiyuan era was also one of the most prosperous eras China had seen from antiquity to the compilation of the Wubeizhi. Perhaps it referred to a lavishly made bow, or a very special design that harked back to those prosperous times. Just like how now we can classify things as Victorian in style, even though they don't necessarily need to originate in that era.

As for its workings: In the painting -published in the Metropolitan Museum's SPENDORS OF IMPERIAL CHINA- it shows the long ears are parallel to the string and having a Korean-like ear where the string rolls off. Its workings would indeed be much like a crab bow, with the difference of having a more sudden "snap" when the string hits the flats. But I don't know whether they are related, or just two crystallizations of generally the same idea.

-Peter

Mao Yuanyi. Wu Bei Zhi Ch. 102. Bows.

The bow is the primary among all weapons, so those who write of military affairs write first about bows and arrows.

When I look at the bows in the military classics, it seems that on the one hand there are many names applied to bows which look the same, and on the other hand, some types are omitted. Given my doubts, I have asked my friend Wang Minghe. He told me: according to the 'Rites of Zhou', there were six styles of bow: Wang, Hu, Jia, Geng, Tang and [one name omitted]. These referred to their fine qualities. As to the bows called 'Wuhao' and 'Fanruo', there nothing known of their construction now.

"In the [Song Dynasty] 'Wu Jing Zong Yao', they mention Yellow Birch bow, Black Lacquer bow, White Birch Bow and Hemp Backed Bow. These were different finishes on bows that were substantially constructed the same way.

"The modern Kaiyuan bow is solid in construction and is durable. It is used by the upper ranks on duty at all points of the compass. It is the most advanced of all weapons and is welcome to have in your holster.
"In Beijing, they have grooved-siyah and grooved [bridge?] bows, large siyah bows, small siyah bows, and they are all comparable to each-other. They have very short strings, deep fistmiele and strongly-recurved limbs, making them easy to draw fully. They won't slap your fore-arm on release even if you're not a great archer.

"South of the River they have the Chenzhou bow. In Nanjing, they have the short-siyah bow from Yangzhou. Both are narrow-limbed and short. If it gets a bit hot they're liable to come unstrung, so they not equally stable in both slow and emergency use.

"There are also bows of composite bamboo construction finished with black lacquer. They don't come unglued in the rain and don't fail in hot conditions, so they are good for naval engagements in the south of the country. On the other hand they can't recurve strongly and won't shoot an arrow out to beyond one hundred paces. In Guangdong and Guangxi they have bows finished with urushi which are resistant to wind and rain and don't come unstrung much. They are small and rounded, but stack badly [?] and don't shoot far. So as regards the quality of such weapons, it depends on your location and season. There's no single answer.

"When you're in the battlefield, you can't do without a softer bow. As the old saying goes: "Go for a soft bow and long arrows, a faster horse and lighter draw". Unless it's away from the battlefield you can't get away from that. As to those who boast of their prowess with a heavy bow, that's just bullshit from the officer classes. When you face the enemy, you won't be able to hit unless you draw fully. Without a full draw held steadily over a period of time, you can't hit; the heavier the bow, the greater the challenge of holding steady at full draw. How can one master the skill in doing that? Of course, if you're really strong enough to do that, that's fine!

"You might say: since the arrow hits through application of the mind, then if you can shoot quickly enough then the enemy has no chance to respond. So what's the point of being able to hold a full draw for a long time?

"Wang Minghe's response to that is: that only applies when shooting unexpectedly a some lone enemy far off, or shooting a flying bird or fleeing beast. But you have to concentrate fully and then allow the flight of your arrow to be controlled by your mind. What they call 'You hand doing what your mind tells it to'. When you're faced with a major confrontation with the and enemy numbering in the thousands, you've got to be able to hold at full draw and wait and not use your strength wastefully. It should be like having the string latched on a heavy crossbow. The essence is to maximize the potential energy and hold on to the last second [quote from Sunzi's Art of War.] That inhibits the enemy's advance, so archery places value on holding the full draw over time, and that calls for a softer bow. What I mean by 'softer' is that the bow is completely dominated by the archer: not the archer dominated by the bow...."

Thanks for the wonderful translation! There is some really interesting stuff in there.

It then makes sense that the emperor is seen carrying the height of Ming bow development. I can imagine how such a long-eared, setback design would require quite some skill to make and thus was technology for the elite and not the rank and file.

Also interesting to note the words get men to realize higher draw-weights are not better per definition. Considering the amount of text devoted to the subject, over ambitious bow-pullers must have been quite a problem at his time!

It reminds of the situation under the Yongzheng emperor where he also discouraged the men to go to excessive poundages. Still the weights used were considerably higher than we use today, "soft bow" must be seen in perspective.

-Peter

I remember reading that passage a while ago, but before it didn't resonate with me. Now that I have more historical context, the passage makes much more sense. It's too bad that it seems extremely difficult to excavate any Ming-era bows. It must be because of hostile climate, politics or a combination of both.

Maybe this example feature in a previous ATARNet thread (http://atarn.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t ... ow+kaiyuan) is as close as we'll get:

http://i41.tinypic.com/jv6mop.jpg

Hey that's a detail of the painting I mentioned. Around him are men with regular Ming bows with short ears, just like Korean bows.

I've also wondered why no Ming bows have turned up. One would think the Ming tombs must have contained quite a few.

Contrary to popular belief, the great ring hunts were not an exclusive Manchu / Mongolian / Turk thing and were also practiced by the courts of the Tang, Song and Ming. Although far less emphasis was placed on it during the Ming, the practice at least went on for the first part of the dynasty and Ming rulers like Yongle were avid hunters.

Perhaps little attention is given to Ming bows found so far by Chinese scholars because the bow is regarded a barbarian thing in the typical sino-centric view that still prevails over much Chinese scholarship.

-Peter

Could you post a picture from that painting showing the other bows too please? :)

daryush wrote:

Could you post a picture from that painting showing the other bows too please? :)

From the painting (and re-linked from that previous thread), here's the part depicting a small-siyah bow: http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/83bcc54714.jpg

And here's another part depicting a bow of some style I can't determine: http://i44.tinypic.com/2myonjk.jpg

Peter Dekker wrote:

Perhaps little attention is given to Ming bows found so far by Chinese scholars because the bow is regarded a barbarian thing in the typical sino-centric view that still prevails over much Chinese scholarship.

Yeah... Regarding the bow as barbaric would be ironic since the bow had more prestige in ancient times. I can't say much about the scholarly climate, but the modern practice of Chinese martial arts focuses exclusively on melee techniques. It's as if the bow didn't exist --- this boggles my mind to no end.

The lack of the bows in Ming-Qing burials just reflects, I think, the transition in burial practices after the Yuan Dynasty. Burial goods in the Ming heavily featured ceramics. In the Qing, little was buried with the deceased other than a decent set of clothing and personal accessories. This may have been the result of the increased dominance of Buddhism in death cults in China.

Recently some archaeologists have alerted me to collections of Ming and Qing arms and armour as 'protective offerings' in remote temples and monasteries in Tibet. Swords and lamellar iron armour are well-known from such locations. I have asked them to check for Ming bows for me.

Stephen Selby wrote:

The lack of the bows in Ming-Qing burials just reflects, I think, the transition in burial practices after the Yuan Dynasty. Burial goods in the Ming heavily featured ceramics. In the Qing, little was buried with the deceased other than a decent set of clothing and personal accessories. This may have been the result of the increased dominance of Buddhism in death cults in China.

Thanks, that makes a lot of sense. Qianlong's tomb for example is covered top to bottom in sanskrit, not a word of Manchu or Chinese.

Stephen Selby wrote:

Recently some archaeologists have alerted me to collections of Ming and Qing arms and armour as 'protective offerings' in remote temples and monasteries in Tibet. Swords and lamellar iron armour are well-known from such locations. I have asked them to check for Ming bows for me.

Warriors of the Himalayas (by Donald J. Larocca) in an excellent source on this. It contains some pictures of these temple armories as well. Apart from Ming and Qing equipment we also see Indian arms in there. Bows other than Tibetan ones seem to be less common in these collections, but who knows they might turn up somewhere. Many of the items were so well-preserved in the Tibetan climate that leather thought to date of the 19th century was carbon dated to be 15th century instead.

-Peter

I saw in an old Wenwu or Kaogu a picture of a quiver said to come from the tomb of the Wanli Emperor. Unfortunately the printing of the time and the paper quality did not help in identifying its form.

While we're on the subject of Freer Gallery paintings, I thought I'd share a link showing a Ming dynasty painting of a "Tatar horseman" holstering what looks like a Kaiyuan bow. The similarity of this bow with the bow used by the Ming emperor earlier in this thread is quite striking.

http://www.asia.si.edu/collections/zoom ... ectId=6612

It would be nice if there was some article tying together the lineages of the various Turkish-influenced bow designs that appeared after the collapse of the Mongolian Empire (Ming, Ottoman, Crimean Tatar, Crab, Persian).

Beautiful painting, if you look carefully there is one arrow present in the raider's bowcase.

Paintings of that period sometimes show the arrow just used and covered in blood temporarily put in the bow case.

McEwen wrote a study of the development of bow forms that might be a good start.

McEwen, E., "Nomad Archery; Some Observations on Composite Bow Design and Construction.", Arts of the Eurasian Steppelands, Ed. P. Denwood, 1977, p. 188

I've just noted a comment in the 'Wu Bei Zhi" of Mao Yuanyi:
" 'Kaiyuan' is what we now call 'big siyah'."

The word 'Kai Yuan' (开元) is the name of a reign period in the Tang Dynasty. It's also the name of a place in North China. But 'yuan' also means 'head', so it might have meant 'open head' or 'open at the head' referring to a bow.

I'm thinking out loud, so please take my analogies with a grain of salt. I kind of think of Ming China as being this big playground for the various bow styles that emerged post-Mongolian empire. If we try to pair each bow from the aforementioned Ming painting with the closest bow it resembles from West or South Asia, then one possible matching is this:

Crimean Tatar <---> Ming short-siyah bow (long limb, short siyah): http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/83bcc54714.jpg
Ottoman <---> Ming "grooved-siyah bow" or some other style (short bow, no set-back handle): http://i44.tinypic.com/2myonjk.jpg
Crab/Persian <---> Ming Kaiyuan bow (because of the long Kasan, although the similarities are not as clear as the previous two): http://i41.tinypic.com/jv6mop.jpg

Random aside: I'm trying to look for a version of Wu Bei Zhi that I can peruse online. Is there such a site? In particular, I'm looking for the original Chinese text for the sentence "In Beijing, they have grooved-siyah and grooved [bridge?] bows, large siyah bows, small siyah bows, and they are all comparable to each-other" from Stephen's translation, as well as a few other sentences.

[i]It would be nice if there was some article tying together the lineages of the various Turkish-influenced bow designs that appeared after the collapse of the Mongolian Empire (Ming, Ottoman, Crimean Tatar, Crab, Persian)[/i]

Justin,
Sorry if i interrupt but if you try to find some connection maybe you or anyone else should even pay attention to Serbian medieval painting. Almost every depicted bow from XIII to XV century in Serbian medieval monasteries (most of them,although built by Serbian rulers and landlords are out of present days Serbia) has some equivalent in earlier (Avar) or later period seen in Indo-Persian,Turkish or even Chinese depictions.
We should bear in mind that nomad archery had important influence in Balkans, in Serbia,Bulgaria,Wallachia/Romania and Byzantium there were present owing to Kipchacs,Tatars,Turcopoli as mercenaries (i am talking about post Genghis Khan era). So, local craftsmen adopted it very soon.We were discussed some altered crab bows or four curved bows but there's a number of other depictions, such as bows where painters was very accurate to represent extra sinew layer along the middle of the limbs (one bow depicted in several frescoes in Decani monastery or one in Lesnovo).
I hope picture i'll insert will show some amazing similarities to the bows you inserted bearing in mind turkic influence on Serbian bows.
I've never seen original pattern that Gao Xiang used for his Kaiyuan bow replica but serbian bow from Staro Nagoricane (present day R.Macedonia-FYROM) from XIVth century can give you some answers (see Golden Horde) where, how, why.It looks exaggerated long-eared bow (i do not want to go to hypothesis that this ''dragon claw'' bow have some relations to later Order of Dragon whom most of serbian knights belonged), if you see it in real you can measure it till the knees of warrior saint (seems like bow is assymetric but i am sure it is painter's exaggeration). Same bow appears in the composition at one frescoe from same monastery-see thread about Serbian bows here at ATARN. What painter has never exposed is any ridge in the rigid portion of the limb.
So, i think that turkic (Turco-Tatar) influence was present even in some Chinese bows. MuPko's post in this topic is good opinion how influences have been spreaded.
Best regards,[/quote]

Good hypothesis, Justin.

It seems that the nomadic influence on Ming warrior culture was profound. Not only with bows, but central Asian sabers were also praised and copied during the Ming. You can see quite some Ming artwork depicting men with central Asian style sabers with crossguards in artwork, and a few remaining examples exist with raised backedges (yelman) commonly found on Turkic sabers. According to Philip Tom, the whole idea of a curved sword was introduced into China by steppe nomads and replaced the native zhibeidao. The round guard, in turn, was probably a Japanese innovation that the Chinese started to copy from somewhere during the Ming. During this time, Ottoman firearms were also taken as examples to base new Chinese muskets on. In summary, they were much more open for foreign influences during this period than is often assumed.

-Peter

BTW I can help you get the full Wubeizhi if you like, or just the archery section for starters. PM me for details!

For an essay on Ming appreciation of foreign swords, see: Military Culture in Imperial China. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009.

Stephen Selby wrote:

I've just noted a comment in the 'Wu Bei Zhi" of Mao Yuanyi:
" 'Kaiyuan' is what we now call 'big siyah'."

I had a chance to look at the bow illustrations in a scanned copy of Wu Bei Yao Lue (&#27494;&#20633;&#35201;&#30053;) by the Ming dynasty author Cheng Ziyi. One illustration depicts a "Taiping Village Bow" (&#22826;&#24179;&#23528;&#24339;) which the text describes as distinct from the Small-Siyah Bow (&#23567;&#31245;&#24339;), as bearing a resemblance to the Goryeo (&#39640;&#20029;) bow, and as being of a high-quality construction that can be used in both northern and southern climates.

Another illustration depicts the "General Purpose Bow" (&#36890;&#29992;&#24339;), which was also discussed in Stephen's "Bows of China" article in JCMS. I have a little trouble interpreting the sentence: "&#26041;&#20854;&#24368;&#65292;&#38263;&#20854;&#38536;&#65292;&#39640;&#20854;&#24355;&#65292;&#34180;&#20854;&#25949;&#12290;"

Finally, Wu Bei Yao Lue depicts the "Big-Siyah Bow" (&#22823;&#24368;&#24339;), which is supposed to be a long, wide and sturdy bow used both for horseback and infantry archery. The outline of the bow resembles the Southern Qing Bow in Ming style from the JCMS "Bows of China" article. Needham describes the big-siyah bow as being preferred for military use.

So, after seeing Wu Bei Yao Lue, I'm confused for a couple reasons. (1) Wu Bei Zhi claims that the Kaiyuan bow is presently called Big-Siyah bow, but I see very little resemblance between the Kaiyuan bow and the Big-Siyah bow based on the illustrations. (2) There is virtually no overlap between the types of bows discussed in Wu Bei Zhi (Kaiyuan, Small-Siyah, Xifan Yong Wood bow, etc) and Wu Bei Yao Lue (Taiping Village bow, Big-Siyah, General Purpose) --- is this due to the difference in time or geography of the authors who wrote them? I hope there's yet another illustrated Ming dynasty military reference that can shed some light on this discrepancy.

Justin Ma wrote:

I had a chance to look at the bow illustrations in a scanned copy of Wu Bei Yao Lue (&#27494;&#20633;&#35201;&#30053;) by the Ming dynasty author Cheng Ziyi. One illustration depicts a "Taiping Village Bow" (&#22826;&#24179;&#23528;&#24339;) which the text describes as distinct from the Small-Siyah Bow (&#23567;&#31245;&#24339;), as bearing a resemblance to the Goryeo (&#39640;&#20029;) bow, and as being of a high-quality construction that can be used in both northern and southern climates.

That's very interesting! I wonder where this village was. Contemporary China seems to have several places with this name, the two near Beijing are probably the most likely places.

Justin Ma wrote:

I have a little trouble interpreting the sentence: "&#26041;&#20854;&#24368;&#65292;&#38263;&#20854;&#38536;&#65292;&#39640;&#20854;&#24355;&#65292;&#34180;&#20854;&#25949;&#12290;"

The main problem in this sentence seems to be the character &#25949;.

For the rest, I get: "Angular ears, long limbs, a high handle, thin bi."

Matthew's describes &#25949; as "Poor, unworthy, vile, worn out. It is also a modest term for "my" and "our".

Could he be describing the factors he thinks make a bad bow? Bulky ears, long limbs, and a high brace height and thin working limbs all make the bow less efficient when looking at it from a poundage / arrow velocity standpoint.

Justin Ma wrote:

Finally, Wu Bei Yao Lue depicts the "Big-Siyah Bow" (&#22823;&#24368;&#24339;), which is supposed to be a long, wide and sturdy bow used both for horseback and infantry archery. The outline of the bow resembles the Southern Qing Bow in Ming style from the JCMS "Bows of China" article. Needham describes the big-siyah bow as being preferred for military use.

Makes sense. The bigger the ear, the heavier the arrow it can effectively propel. Such bows have all the "poor" qualities described above in order to be able to deliver larger arrows.

Justin Ma wrote:

So, after seeing Wu Bei Yao Lue, I'm confused for a couple reasons. (1) Wu Bei Zhi claims that the Kaiyuan bow is presently called Big-Siyah bow, but I see very little resemblance between the Kaiyuan bow and the Big-Siyah bow based on the illustrations.

I have a hunch that the Wubeizhi might mean that the Kaiyuan and the Big Ear Bow are similar, rather than identical. They both have great lever action from their long rigid ears. Similarly, a Ming text on fighting calls Japanese swords and maces the same, probably indicating they both strike with great force and should be treated in a similar way, not implying that they are the same object. At least, that would make the statement in the Wubeizhi make a lot more sense.

Justin Ma wrote:

(2) There is virtually no overlap between the types of bows discussed in Wu Bei Zhi (Kaiyuan, Small-Siyah, Xifan Yong Wood bow, etc) and Wu Bei Yao Lue (Taiping Village bow, Big-Siyah, General Purpose) --- is this due to the difference in time or geography of the authors who wrote them? I hope there's yet another illustrated Ming dynasty military reference that can shed some light on this discrepancy.

I think all factors might play a part. Also, objects might have different names in different "scenes". Drawing a parallel to edged weapons, the official term for a waist-worn saber in the Qing was a peidao but the term used in more operational literature was yaodao (identical meaning, different character). The probable reason to call them peidao at court: peidao was a more classy term that harks back to old literature like the Book of Songs, that every Han official was very familiar with. Peidao therefore was a favorable for the Manchus to use, because it made a link to old rulers who also carried dao, instead of jian. The Manchus, and Qianlong in particular, was very concerned with legitimizing Manchu rule and had a strong focus on making connections with the past to legitimize his, and Manchu rule in general. There may have been similarly obscure reasons to give bows different names as well.. depending on the agendas of the authors. It would be interesting to learn more about them and their lives, perhaps that might give more insight in what they wrote and why they wrote it.

It could also well be that there were a myriad of different bows and that both authors had been exposed to different main types. They sure keep us busy with all these indiscrepancies!

-Peter

For those who were curious about the Wu Bei Zhi (WBZ) and Wu Bei Yao Lue (WBYL) illustrations we're talking about, here's a quick lineup: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25634276/MingBows.png

From left to right: General Purpose bow (WBYL), Big-Siyah bow (WBYL), Taiping Village bow (WBYL), Xifan wood bow (WBZ), Small-Siyah bow (WBZ), Kaiyuan bow (WBZ).