Keeping a spare string on a bow?
A fellow Society of Archer-Antiquaries member is examining the archery equipment in the illustrations of the "Jami al-tawarikh". He sent me a query about one of the illustrations which shows lines between the siyah base and the ends of the grip which probably indicate that a spare string that has been tied to the bow.
I did a quick experiment with my Omnogov bow and this does work, although there is not a a lot of string length for wrapping round the grip or siyah bases.
Has anyone seen reference to keeping a spare string in this manner before?
I did a quick experiment with my Omnogov bow and this does work, although there is not a a lot of string length for wrapping round the grip or siyah bases.
Has anyone seen reference to keeping a spare string in this manner before?
There is a famous painting from China's Yuan dynasty of Khublai out hunting, in which one of his companions can be seen shooting a bow with a spare string.
http://a.blog.xuite.net/a/a/5/e/1117406 ... 9425/1.jpg
We also have some rather ambiguous evidence of crossbows (e.g. on the Qin bronze model chariot from the teracotta warriors burial) which suggest a spare string on the bow.
http://a.blog.xuite.net/a/a/5/e/1117406 ... 9425/1.jpg
We also have some rather ambiguous evidence of crossbows (e.g. on the Qin bronze model chariot from the teracotta warriors burial) which suggest a spare string on the bow.
Andrew,
I know the "Khublai khan hunt" picture that Stephen mentioned, but could not recall "Jami al-tawarikh" examples. Could you please post these pictures?
My best,
Gleb
I know the "Khublai khan hunt" picture that Stephen mentioned, but could not recall "Jami al-tawarikh" examples. Could you please post these pictures?
My best,
Gleb
There are several illustrations in Chinese encyclopaedias in Korea showing bows with these extra strings. I may have raised the issue of the Jami at-Tawarikh illustration a few years ago in relation the the "Khubilai Khan Hunting" picture. It is not clear from the paintings or the encyclopaedia illustrations that the cord is a bow string.
Stephen's reference to Qin crossbows is interesting. Currently in Sydney I have had the opportunity to look at the museum reproduction of the Qin bronze chariots and the accessory string on the crossbow. I cannot really see what it is for, but it is certainly not an extra string. If it is correctly restored, then it might be a secondary stabilising feature to counteract the rotation of the bow if it should become loose in its mounting. The other reconstructions of crossbows from the main pits are confused by parts of the canvass covers for the bows; two sticks that stiffened the opening of the cover have become confused with parts of the bow itself. At least one Chinese publication notes this.
There are some reasons for thinking the illustration of Rustem shooting his brother show a binding used to hold a bow in balance while it is carried in a bow case when travelling. Having made gut strings, I doubt that you could tie one to a bow and then untie it to use it as a bow string without soaking it to soften the knots. Silk stings used for harsher conditions were often treated with glue to make them stronger and I suspect prevent them from tangling. Others were fully served so that they became so stiff that they required unserved sections to enable them to be folded.
The trials I have tried have shown that modern Dacron strings can be tied to the bow, but they are much more flexible than traditional strings. I have through experiment seen bows that have been strung for weeks gradually develop asymmetric curves. There is a device called a barshak, which can stop this but it is not suited to use in a bow case and it would have to be removed before the bow is drawn. A strip of rawhide could be tied between the base of the siyah and the end of the grip to perform a similar task though not so efficiently. It can also be tensioned transversely from one edge of the bow near the siyah to the opposite edge near the grip. This could be used to correct a predicted twist. My own experiments have been inconclusive, but this device might have been suited to the cross sections and proportions of the bows it was used with.
Stephen's reference to Qin crossbows is interesting. Currently in Sydney I have had the opportunity to look at the museum reproduction of the Qin bronze chariots and the accessory string on the crossbow. I cannot really see what it is for, but it is certainly not an extra string. If it is correctly restored, then it might be a secondary stabilising feature to counteract the rotation of the bow if it should become loose in its mounting. The other reconstructions of crossbows from the main pits are confused by parts of the canvass covers for the bows; two sticks that stiffened the opening of the cover have become confused with parts of the bow itself. At least one Chinese publication notes this.
There are some reasons for thinking the illustration of Rustem shooting his brother show a binding used to hold a bow in balance while it is carried in a bow case when travelling. Having made gut strings, I doubt that you could tie one to a bow and then untie it to use it as a bow string without soaking it to soften the knots. Silk stings used for harsher conditions were often treated with glue to make them stronger and I suspect prevent them from tangling. Others were fully served so that they became so stiff that they required unserved sections to enable them to be folded.
The trials I have tried have shown that modern Dacron strings can be tied to the bow, but they are much more flexible than traditional strings. I have through experiment seen bows that have been strung for weeks gradually develop asymmetric curves. There is a device called a barshak, which can stop this but it is not suited to use in a bow case and it would have to be removed before the bow is drawn. A strip of rawhide could be tied between the base of the siyah and the end of the grip to perform a similar task though not so efficiently. It can also be tensioned transversely from one edge of the bow near the siyah to the opposite edge near the grip. This could be used to correct a predicted twist. My own experiments have been inconclusive, but this device might have been suited to the cross sections and proportions of the bows it was used with.
Thanks for the posts, sorry for my long delayed response.
Gleb, I have a bad scan from a book of the illustration of Rustum shooting his brother, but I cannot post due to copyright issues.
Bede, I had not considered the issues of the different bowstring materials. My experiments were with Dacron. I can see that a gut string or one with heavily served loops would be difficult to attach to the bow in this manner, so it is unlikely that the string in the illustration is a second bowstring.
I would not have thought that a chord typed between grip and siyah base would be able to apply enough force to have affected the balance of the bow much. And why tie to both limbs? Would it not be simpler to put the weaker limb into the bowcase (possibly with some padding) to keep the bow in balance?
Trying rawhide diagonally to counter limb twist seems the most likely explanation. My Omnogov bow suffers from a bit of twist, so would be a good candidate for an experiment.
Andrew
Gleb, I have a bad scan from a book of the illustration of Rustum shooting his brother, but I cannot post due to copyright issues.
Bede, I had not considered the issues of the different bowstring materials. My experiments were with Dacron. I can see that a gut string or one with heavily served loops would be difficult to attach to the bow in this manner, so it is unlikely that the string in the illustration is a second bowstring.
I would not have thought that a chord typed between grip and siyah base would be able to apply enough force to have affected the balance of the bow much. And why tie to both limbs? Would it not be simpler to put the weaker limb into the bowcase (possibly with some padding) to keep the bow in balance?
Trying rawhide diagonally to counter limb twist seems the most likely explanation. My Omnogov bow suffers from a bit of twist, so would be a good candidate for an experiment.
Andrew
Andrew,
I am not sure what purpose binding both limbs would have unless it was to stop a predicted rather than an actual twist. There is a picture of a similar bow reinforcement in a Korean copy of a Chinese manual of archery. The bow is a small tipped long necked style with a minor setback in the handle. Personally I think this is the mature form of the Mongol bow of the 13-14th centuries. If the Korean document is based on Ming illustrations, it would conform to the rough dating of the Rashid ed-Din (1313) and the Qubilai Qan Hunting painting. If all were done within a century of each other, perhaps the problem that this binding was to correct was peculiar to these bows. Later forms with similar geometry in profile had much wider limbs.
I have tried your suggestion of putting the weaker limb in the bow case and it does give temporary relief, but the best solution would be to correct the problem with knee pressure immediately on bracing the bow. However, if you were in the field and could not take the time to dismount and restring the bow, then putting it in the bow case weak limb first could be a life saver.
In another post I commented that non-contact siyah bows were more stable than bows that had recurves in the tips. Several people contradicted this from their own experience. Perhaps I could clarify what I meant by this. A twist in a non contact siyah bow rarely leads to the bow unstringing itself. However, I have had this happen to me several times with bows that have recurved tips. Eventually it leads to damage to the structure of the bow. I believe that twists in bow limbs that end in recurves have more serious consequences so it is possible archers tried to compensate for this by putting on ties that pulled against the prevailing direction of twist. Once bow design produced more stable structures, this was no longer needed. It might be that archers learned better ways to maintain their bows.
Modern Korean target bows are still subject to this problem, but the Koreans do not need to tie their limbs up to stop the twist. Maybe this is because they are no longer kept strung in bow cases for days. This might also have a bearing on why, for such a long part of their history, non contact siyah bows were carried unstrung. Perhaps originally they were made with narrow bending sections on the limbs and this was unstable for long periods of bracing. It is clear from some surviving bows that bowyers were experimenting with wider limbs, despite the advantages of using a narrow limb which is both faster and lighter.
Another possibility was that the binding was not very effective and was fashionable for a while and then died out. So many archery gizmos appear and disappear to be forgotten forever.
I am not sure what purpose binding both limbs would have unless it was to stop a predicted rather than an actual twist. There is a picture of a similar bow reinforcement in a Korean copy of a Chinese manual of archery. The bow is a small tipped long necked style with a minor setback in the handle. Personally I think this is the mature form of the Mongol bow of the 13-14th centuries. If the Korean document is based on Ming illustrations, it would conform to the rough dating of the Rashid ed-Din (1313) and the Qubilai Qan Hunting painting. If all were done within a century of each other, perhaps the problem that this binding was to correct was peculiar to these bows. Later forms with similar geometry in profile had much wider limbs.
I have tried your suggestion of putting the weaker limb in the bow case and it does give temporary relief, but the best solution would be to correct the problem with knee pressure immediately on bracing the bow. However, if you were in the field and could not take the time to dismount and restring the bow, then putting it in the bow case weak limb first could be a life saver.
In another post I commented that non-contact siyah bows were more stable than bows that had recurves in the tips. Several people contradicted this from their own experience. Perhaps I could clarify what I meant by this. A twist in a non contact siyah bow rarely leads to the bow unstringing itself. However, I have had this happen to me several times with bows that have recurved tips. Eventually it leads to damage to the structure of the bow. I believe that twists in bow limbs that end in recurves have more serious consequences so it is possible archers tried to compensate for this by putting on ties that pulled against the prevailing direction of twist. Once bow design produced more stable structures, this was no longer needed. It might be that archers learned better ways to maintain their bows.
Modern Korean target bows are still subject to this problem, but the Koreans do not need to tie their limbs up to stop the twist. Maybe this is because they are no longer kept strung in bow cases for days. This might also have a bearing on why, for such a long part of their history, non contact siyah bows were carried unstrung. Perhaps originally they were made with narrow bending sections on the limbs and this was unstable for long periods of bracing. It is clear from some surviving bows that bowyers were experimenting with wider limbs, despite the advantages of using a narrow limb which is both faster and lighter.
Another possibility was that the binding was not very effective and was fashionable for a while and then died out. So many archery gizmos appear and disappear to be forgotten forever.
A string attached to limbs as in Khubilai painting may have a different function. It could stop the limbs from vibrating once the limbs come to brace after the release. This is only speculation on my part, but perhaps worth investigating. The tension experience by the string would be enormous however.
Adam
Adam
Adam,
I suppose I could test it. Bearing in mind that an ordinary bow string has to take 3-4 times the draw weight of the bow, then it is possible to build a string to take some more and mount it the way shown on the pictures. In the paintings, which are not a lot to go on, it is not much thicker than the bow string if at all.
I suppose I could test it. Bearing in mind that an ordinary bow string has to take 3-4 times the draw weight of the bow, then it is possible to build a string to take some more and mount it the way shown on the pictures. In the paintings, which are not a lot to go on, it is not much thicker than the bow string if at all.
Sorry if i interrupt this topic,
On Khublai khan's hunt picture:
What always made my understanding of bows in ancient paintings tricky is the fact that they were often depicted so that the limbs begin to be narrow almost from the mid portion of the working limb (similar as in some wooden selfbows), differently what we can see in e.g. turkish or persian bows.
I do not want to comment the bow in Khublai khan's hunt picture, only the fact we discussed in earlier topics about Serbian bows:white bow belly. In the case of KK bow i follow Jack's opinion about ibex horn.Also it can be evident that Khublai khan's bow has bone stiffeners and ridge section of the ears(?).
But, why these narrow limbs as it is the case with Yrzi bow???? Is this the place where ears begin?
Also, what is disadvantage of lack of ''kassan'' ridge at the ear portion, can this affect efficiency of the bow compared with turkish bows?
topic about spare string in Serbian painting from XIVth century discussed:
http://atarn.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t ... an+archery
Best regards,
On Khublai khan's hunt picture:
What always made my understanding of bows in ancient paintings tricky is the fact that they were often depicted so that the limbs begin to be narrow almost from the mid portion of the working limb (similar as in some wooden selfbows), differently what we can see in e.g. turkish or persian bows.
I do not want to comment the bow in Khublai khan's hunt picture, only the fact we discussed in earlier topics about Serbian bows:white bow belly. In the case of KK bow i follow Jack's opinion about ibex horn.Also it can be evident that Khublai khan's bow has bone stiffeners and ridge section of the ears(?).
But, why these narrow limbs as it is the case with Yrzi bow???? Is this the place where ears begin?
Also, what is disadvantage of lack of ''kassan'' ridge at the ear portion, can this affect efficiency of the bow compared with turkish bows?
topic about spare string in Serbian painting from XIVth century discussed:
http://atarn.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t ... an+archery
Best regards,
Judging from the bows that Jack and I and several others have seen in the Silk Road Museum, the original transition from the bending section of the limb to the rigid section was rectangular. So the question is not what is the advantage of not having a ridge, but what advantage does a ridge offer?
A triangular section with the tension concentrated in the sinew ridge and the compression taken by the broader wooden base would produce a strong structure with less weight than the previous rectangular one. The stiff end of the bow is not meant to bend so the structure only needs to be rigid without being flexible. Some bows have the horn carried up the belly side of the rigid section, but is much thinner than on the bending section of the limb.
A triangular section with the tension concentrated in the sinew ridge and the compression taken by the broader wooden base would produce a strong structure with less weight than the previous rectangular one. The stiff end of the bow is not meant to bend so the structure only needs to be rigid without being flexible. Some bows have the horn carried up the belly side of the rigid section, but is much thinner than on the bending section of the limb.