Bow Evolution

Is it fair to say you're specifically referring to horn bows? Asian longbows and wood composites would likely have a different evolutionary path.

That said, I imagine it's hard to expect smooth transitions. Conquests can change things abruptly by creating knowledge voids or altering economic incentives. In China: long-siyah, non-contact recurve bows were the norm from the first millennia through the end of the Yuan dynasty (1271--1368 AD). During the Yuan dynasty, the Mongolian rulers dismantled the Chinese long-siyah bow industry. The influence of Turkish craftsmen filled the knowledge void with shorter, Turkish-style bows in the succeeding Ming dynasty (1368--1644 AD). Then when the Manchus took charge in the Qing dynasty (1644--1911 AD), they made their bow the standard for military examinations --- thus eliminating incentives to construct Ming-style bows.

The common thread I've noticed for almost all post-Mongolian empire Asiatic horn bows is that they became contact recurves --- siyahs angled forward of the string at rest. These include Ottoman, Crim-Tatar, Persian, Indo-Persian Crab, Manchu, Ming, and Korean designs, which together occupy all parts of the limb-length and siyah-length spectrum.

There are 5 major steps in the development of hornbow technology to be observed (apart from minor regional/ethnic differences/varieties).

1. Angular composite bow type (I like to call it mesopotamian type)-Deflexed handle, symmetric limbs, only very slightly recurved ends

2. Scythian type - Reflexed handle, asymmetric limbs, strongly recurved tips

3. Hunnic type - Reflexed handle, C-shape reflex, asymmetric limbs, long, slightly recurved non contact siyahs. Same type more or less in Mongol era, but with symmetric limbs

4. Turkic type - Slightly reflexed handle, strongly recurved long contact (?) "crab-type" siyahs. Introduction of the V-splice, which made higher siyah angles possible

5. Modern composite (Turkish, Indo-Persian, Krimtatar,Korean, Manchu etc.) - slighly reflexed or straight handle, sometimes heavily reflexed limbs, long or short strongly reflexed contact siyahs

I think one of the reasons of the abandonment of the long eared "hunnic-type" siyahs could be a stability issue.

JJ

I must disagree with JJ, but not with his chronology. Generally speaking the non-contact siyah bows are more stable, not less stable than recurved siyah bows.

I am also not sure of the contention that Turkish bowyers introduced the shorter recurved siyah bow into the Mongol empire. The latest illustrations of bows in the Turkish influenced West before the Mongol invasions in the Warqa wa Gulshah manuscript shows non-contact siyah bows. Most of the Turkish tribes migrating west brought non-contact siyah bows with them. It is more likely that the recurved tips were a gradual development of non-contact siyah bows. They could have first appeared as non-contact siyah bows with slight kinks in the final third of the siyahs, which were later exaggerated.

Another point is how the design of one bow superseded another. Considering how long each successive bow type dominated its users, there is little or no chance they were aware of previous bow types by the time the next innovation took over. So the fact that the Scythians had recurves would have meant nothing to people a thousand years later. In many places, people did not know what people over the hill were doing. This might have been one of the advantages nomads had, but it might be unwise to neglect their cultural conservatism too.

In Byzantium, extremely conservative art traditions preserved the shape of Scythian bows in art long after the bows had stopped being made. However, the Byzantines were adopters rather than innovators. They successfully copied the new technologies of their enemies and tried to improve their inherited technologies, but they were a rare civilisation.

I think JJ has made a succinct and accurate chronology. I would also agree with his statement that Hunnic type bows have a stability problem. Of the all wood prototypes I have made, some of the knees could easily be swung from side to side. A wider upper limb would be an advantage.

Let us not forget Rausing's reference to antler lath bows from Siberia and Bede's excellent material on those bows. There is little at all on the period from the late Neolithic 2500 BCE till the Scythian, 800BCE in Asia that is.

Has anyone seen information on Angular bows in Asia? or others of the Bronze age?

jbl wrote:

I have been wondering about the evolution of the Asian bow.

Evolution? What Evolution?? It was Intelligent Design wasn't it? 8)

More seriously, I have written about the 'development' of Asian bows along the lines set out in this thread; but I really want to caution everyone that the data is very limited. We tend to see Design X from Period I in location A, and then Design Y from Period II (this is just a fanciful period name) from location B.

But there is no data to show that Design X wasn't current in another location at another age. "No data" means "don't know". Tribe A might have used Design X in daily life, but preferred to be buried with bow Design Y. I have extensively studied Asian Bronze Age weapons (which are common and well-preserved). It is pretty clear that the weapons found in burials are derived from weapons in daily use but specially modified for afterlife use. There is in particular a tendency to place weapons of archaic design and decoration in burials. If your prospective enemies are likely to have been dead for some time, that has a sort of logic.

S

the Scythian bow very like chinese hieroglyphical "bow" on the bone,
huns in first chinese dynasty ,they are marriage chinese by peace way and war way,that time chinese not add dog or bow to his nation name (barbarian/heathen)
in han dynasty war and after the war , some huns go , some huns in china as chinese friend, the atarn logo picture is a ture style bow on a han tomb
after ham dynasty, we can see some north china bow like huns bow,till to yuan dynasty, we can find the bow long ear and short ear on each dynasty,

only the crossbow can call the invent of chinese, the hornbow we can not know who copy who, that time has no copyright :)

Thank you for the info it makes sense that the bows in the graves were not "working" bows. It would also make sense that these bows were used side by side-kind of like Homo Sapiens and Neaderthals:)

I am not sure that you can characterise all burial goods as archaic or specifically burial goods. It is clear from the Xinjiang burials that many of the grave goods were everyday items. The best preserved graves were the shallowest and not those of the richest inhabitants. It is unlikely that they were in a position to have specially made goods for their funerals.

In other contexts this is not true. There are objects in many Chinese tombs that are clearly models, which is either shown by their small size or their construction. Likewise there are things done to objects which show some kind of ritual was performed to render them fit for the afterlife or reduce their power to harm the living. One burial in the Tsaidam Basin had the bow broken and strung backwards as well as the arrows upside down in the quiver.

Stephen's comment about the isolation of the surviving specimens should be a warning to us all. If I was buried with my car and dug up in a thousand years, what could you tell about the ownership of cars in the 21st century or their frequency or their origin? Since I might be the only person buried with a car in Australia, what could you tell about burial customs? There are only a few hundred bows in archaeological contexts scattered all over the whole world so we may have to wait a while before we have a comprehensive study of the development of composite bows.

Regarding ancient angular bows, all the surviving examples are from Egypt though in the past some were thought to have originated outside the Kingdom. However, they are extensively reported in the art of the Hittites and Assyrians and lists of components have been preserved in at least one inscription.

This is a good thread, and no doubt one that needs a lot of examination.
Personally, doesn't location and available materials play a role in all of this? Also, how about manufacturing techniques?

And, to a lesser degree, how about genetics? Does the fairly large manchu, or mongol bow come to existence due to the physical characteristics of those people. You take a bow so different, yet just as capapble like the korean, it has to be more than just differences in design theory that such a dynamic little creature comes to existence.

Great post

Introduction of a new bow design is, I suppose, a disruptive technology. What can bring it about is a very wide range of factors. On the other hand, the data we have is very limited. Even in the case of such a recent example as the development of the first SONY Mavica digital camera, there is already confusion about who the inventor was.

I think there is less of a link between the physical make up of the archer than there is to the environment and history. The Manchu developed their bows in a forest hunting environment where there were large predators as well as active prey. You need a bow that would shoot accurately over short ranges and would have the knock down power to take out prey that was relatively close to you. It would not be good to have a tiger discussing the merits of your shooting after you had hit him with an arrow.

The Early Mongol bows were more suited to the treeless steppe where you could see your prey a long way off. When the Manchus absorbed the Mongols into their banner system, they issued them with Manchu bows and expected them to shoot in the Manchu manner. In this way, history triumphed over environment. Mongol archers in the Manchu armies were used in the same way as Manchu archers so there was no incentive for them to use their original bows which were optimised for a different tactical system.

bede:
The Manchu developed their bows in a forest hunting environment

my hometown in heilongjiang province north area and i stay there for 27 years ,300 year ago manchu also live there
the forest is:
1 you can not see anythings out 10M
2 many big and small tree, you can not run fast,no road
3 before you find animal the animal find you first and run away fast than you
4 in forest many people has a gun but killed by bear, i know some hunter use army's gun
5 avoid sheep come in forest, they will lost in forest, some city people said his ancestor depasture sheep in the forest :lol:
6 if more snow and more green , don't come in the forest

in china northeast has forest and grassland and small hill, not only forest



you can see here is two link of forest lot pics
http://image.baidu.com/i?ct=201326592&c ... sp=0#pn=18

http://image.baidu.com/i?ct=201326592&c ... =rs9#pn=54

hunt?:D
[external image]

Thanks Jiao for the pictures.

The ancestors of the Manchu extended even further north beyond the Amur river.

I would not consider 4 and 5 different types at all. Just different styles within same type. (like with and without bone etc...)

V-splice is probably a remarkable invention, however it more like "how to make" than "what kind of"- invention, but it might be reasonable to call distinct type, since I have understood that pre-splice bows had only a little reflex and post-splice a lot more.

To twist things one could mix the North european 2-wood bow into the equation.

Maybe its very long article - and - mostly to Russian threade , but its exactly about this thema -composite bow evolution. I think some of you interesting about it.Enjoy (or delete...)

:wink:

/ its google trans. not verx acurate- word "onion" in text mean BOW-because russian word luk (bow) - was same for onion ./
[Ed. Stephen Selby: I have edited your text so that people won't laugh!]

DG Savinov
New materials on the history of a composite bow and some problems of its evolution in southern Siberia.
/ / Military of ancient tribes of Siberia and Central Asia. Novosibirsk: 1981. S. 146-162.



History of the complex issues of bows, the main ranged weapon for the peoples of the Eurasian steppes, is dedicated to great literature. [1] Later, his form - the bow, reinforced with bone (or horn) pads - has become commonplace since the AD. According to researchers, home to a complex bow with bone plates are Central Asia and southern areas of eastern Siberia. This is where the AP Okladnikov were found most
(146/147)
earliest of all known horn caps bow at the funeral VIII-IV cc. BC by p. Tsepan. [2] The beginning of our era finds date back to the Hun bow type in Mongolia, Transbaikalia, and Tuva. [3] The further history of a complex bows in southern Siberia is considered in AA Gavrilova, on four successive stages in its development, synchronous, according to his [or her] periodization, Berel, kudyrginskomu, katandinsko-Srostki and chasovennogorskomu types of tombs. [4] This paper is devoted to new materials on the history of a complex bows in southern Siberia, obtained as a result of excavation sites at different times in the North and the Republic of Altai and Tuva, as well as some issues of its evolution. Findings remains difficult bows in the graves are generally pretty rare, so each of them is a significant contribution to the further study of this complex and very important for the cultural history of the problem.

By the earliest in this series include bone lining of the Inlet burial mound Scythian burial Urbyun III in the Central Tuva (barrow 1, grave 2), in subjects covering inventory dates back to the II. BC - I in. BC [5] Hence, there are fragments of two long terminal pads with cutouts for the bowstring of various shapes - rectangular and round end caps on the sideon the front . To increase the flexibility needed for shooting kibiti, its outer side further enhanced by more than half of bony plates. The effectiveness of shooting a bow uzuntalskogo ensured, thus contrasting elastic force of the middle part of kibiti, rigidly large lateral plates, and its first segment, the reinforced flexible linings.

Fig. 1. Bone lining the Hun bow type of burial Urbyun III, barrow 1, grave 2.

[external image]

lopatkoobraznye ends being expressed more clearly, there are additional rectangular inserts.
In the middle of I millennium BC in southern Siberia there are bows with front, ie mounted on the outside kibiti, end-plates. These pads with a total length of 30 cm recorded at yakonurskom bows from the Altai Mountains, but here they are combined with two lateral end plates with notches for the string. [21] New South Siberia for the type of bow was found in one of the mounds rannetyurkskogo time Uzuntal mound in the Altai Mountains (Uzuntal I, mound 1). On subjects covering inventory (direct horny psalm with two holes and buckle with a rounded top edge), the burial can be dated no later than the VI-VII centuries. [22] In total there found six bony plates - two large median and two pairs of slightly curved plates of different lengths, on average, 12 and 24 cm (Fig. 3)

Lateral end plates of the usual form with cutouts for the stringer on this bow was not - they replaced the short plate is mounted front and had the ends of specially carved cross rests with traces of erased under them by tightening the string. Long plate, curved to form the shoulder, fastened in the same way between the median side and front end plates. The total length of bony plates on the outside of the bow is about 70 cm length of median plates of 20 cm If we assume that the length of the bows of Turkic-time on average was equal to 120-130 cm, the wooden part kibiti without pads on uzuntalskom bow did not exceed 30-40 cm along its entire length. The effectiveness of shooting this bow was achieved, apparently, does not decrease the total number of bony plates, which is typical for bows Turkic time compared with the Hun, and carried forwardend caps on the sideon the front . To increase the flexibility needed for shooting kibiti, its outer side further enhanced by more than half of bony plates. The effectiveness of shooting a bow uzuntalskogo ensured, thus contrasting elastic force of the middle part of kibiti, rigidly large lateral plates, and its first segment, the reinforced flexible linings.

Fig. 2. Lateral medial lining:
1 - Uzuntal V, Barrow 2, 2, 3 - Uzuntal I, mound 2.


[external image]

Genesis bows with front end plates have not yet been considered in our literature, so it Make sure to stay more. Probably, such bows date back to Neolithic times from the bow Serovsky burials Baikal (III millennium BC), where they found the long bony plates, one-sided convex in section, mounted on a wooden rod - kibit. [23] This is an ancient tradition - to fix the shoulder of the bow extra thin plates - can be traced from the Huns, whose culture was formed to the south, but within the same historical and ethnographic region. Luke with front end plates are stored in the Trans-Baikal region and in the early Middle Ages. Monuments to the end I millennium BC are not yet identified. However, the number of attributes to them can be attributed burial 2 ("grave under a stone") and 11 Sayantuyskogo burial ground, from whence are decorated with a four outlets trehperye arrowheads with "whistle", tending to the bow plate, T-shaped silver escutcheon, and Some other items of similar monuments in Southern Siberia, the ancient time. In these tombs were also found remnants of the bows of two types: one represented by the terminal plate, shaped somewhat like a lining Uighur bows, and a narrow median, and for other characteristic of long (30 cm), narrow, flared at the ends of the front pads, crepe, obviously, both kibiti shoulders and at the ends of the bow.
The same long front lining with flared ends exist in western Transbaikalia until the time of the Mongol (elm Pad [25], etc.). Probably because of the Baikal region bows with front plates to penetrate Yenisei Kyrgyz. It is known that the eastern boundary of the Yenisei Kyrgyz government held in the Lake. Kosogol and culture of the tribes who lived in the western Baikal region and the eastern limits of fixed, obviously, on the shoulders kibiti and at the ends of the bow.

Fig. 3. Side and front lining of burial Uzuntal I, mound 1.

[external image]

resettlement of the Yenisei Kyrgyz, could have common features, particularly in the complex device of bows. In the monuments of Yenisei Kyrgyz, which recorded many cases of cremation, bone lining the bows, as a rule, no. There are only two finds of this kind in Tuva: calcified remnants of mid-lateral lining burial Khemchik-DB II [26] and the front pads on the shoulder of the bow at the burial mound 4 Tora-Tal-Arta. [27] The latest discovery brings the Kyrgyz bows with Pribaikal: for those and other equally characteristic of the front shoulder pads. YS Khudyakov, notes that "the use of front pads mean fundamental technological improvements in the application of bone parts of bow- the use of flexibility and elasticity of bone as a material.

On this basis of the four selected J.S Khudyakov types of bows Yenisei Kyrgyz: 1) to the terminal and the medial side plates, and 2) with median lateral plates, and 3) with median side and front plates, and 4) with the front shoulder straps, property of the Kyrgyz at the present stage of the study can be considered only bows types 3 and 4, with front plates. In the middle of I millennium BC, according to uzuntalskoy discovery, bows to the front end plates to penetrate the Altai, and in the second half, seems to coexist with the bows and the Turkic Uighur types in the future become one of the most common variants of bow in the culture of pre-Mongolian and Mongolian time. At the beginning of II millennium BC in device complexity bow significant changes occurred.

Fig. 4. Terminal and middle lining of the bows Osinkinskogo repository:
1, 7 - Grave 64, 2 - a random discovery, 3, 5 - Grave 38; 4 - Grave 47; 6 - Grave 9.

[external image]

Commonplace bows with one, at best, with two plates, one of which (large middle, with distinct lopatkoobraznymi ends) is located inside the kibiti and the other (terminal, podtreugolnaya in section, with an opening for a bowstring) is fixed on the outer her side, gradually narrowing to the point of bending the upper arm. By periodization AA Gavrilova, they belong to the fourth (final) stage of the bow "to the massive liner: one medial, embedded in kibit and in rare cases, a terminal inserted into the split end kibiti (chasovennogorskie and Trans-Baikal). [29] The general opinion of researchers, that's when there are bows Mongolian type, structurally different from the Ancient. New materials allow to specify the process of transition from one important stage in the evolution of a complex bow to another, and to present it not as a discrete and typologically related line of development, where almost all the elements of a bow of the Mongolian type find their analogy in the culture of the ancient and pre-Mongolian period.


Fig. 5. Medial frontal lining:
1 - Biryusinsk caves, GMM count. 42557, 2, 3, 16 - Minusinsk Basin, GMM count. 95336 4 - Kokoreva, ET, col. 1550, 5, 6 - Chasovennaya mountain, ET, col. 1931; 7, 9 - Ust-Talkin, by EF Sedyakin, 8, 10 - Taphar by EA Khamzin 11 - Yakonur, kurgan 2, MP Gryaznov, 12 - Middle Elbany by MP Gryaznov, 13, 18 - Osinkinsky burial, excavation of the author (1970) 14 - p. Thea, excavation, AN Lipsky (1946), 15 - Hyzyl-Aly, excavation, AN Lipsky (1946): 17 - Chaa-tas for Tasheboy, excavation AD [B.] Andrianov (1889), GMM count. 59, 19 - Tes, excavation SV Kiselyov, col. 1663.


[external image]

During excavation Osinkinskogo burial in the North Altai in the group burial XII-XIII centuries. were found the remains of four bows: the first preserved the median side and the trailing front pads (Fig. 4, 3, 5); the rest are front: from the second - terminal (4), the third - middle (6) and the fourth - the median and long terminal (1, 7). [30] By itself, the case detection within a single repository of four bows with different shape and location of bony plates indicates the incompletion of the process of forming a bow during this period and much of its variability. Since the median and end caps in materials pre-Mongolian times occur mostly separately and at different bows, they are also useful to consider separately.

Median lining with lopatkoobraznymi ends, mounted on the inner side of kibiti, found in the Baikal region and Transbaikalia, in the Altai mountains and steppes, the Krasnoyarsk Territory, Minusinsk Basin in the monuments of the beginning of II millennium BC Outwardly, they are quite monotonous, and differ only in size and shape lopatkoobraznyh endings (Fig. 5). Typologically, as noted by LR Kyzlasov, [31], they go back to the narrow central pad on the Uighur bows and through them - to the bows Hun type. Intermediate position between the median plates pre-Mongolian time and take the Uighur Srostki median lining that can be used independently, ie without broad lateral plates (Fig. 6). At the same time, the widespread mid-caps with lopatkoobraznymi endings in the monuments of pre-Mongolian time does not mean the complete disappearance of broad lateral plates - they have been preserved, for example, in one of osinkinskih bows with front end grip. Sustainable mix of mid-caps - two lateral and one lopatkoobraznoy - typical of Eastern European materials beginning of II millennium BC These are the remains of the famous Novgorod bows, dating to the second half of the XII century., [32], some nomadic bows [33], etc. At this time, says AA Gavrilova, a Monument to the Sayan-Altai different plates with flared ends, and not shovel as the Sayan-Altai.
(157/158), dating to the second
These differences seem to breed. "[34] From the above it follows that the front pads with flared ends on the Trans-Baikal bows are probably not an option with chasovennogorskih lopatkoobraznymi ends, and reflect the local tradition of design long flat plates with no cutout for a bowstring, known here even during ancient times (sayantuysky bow ).
Limit the front pads with cutouts for the bowstring found in the monuments of the beginning of II millennium BC significantly less than the median. Several of these linings, not sticky side and upper ends of bows, from the Eastern European burials published AF Medvedev. [35] On the Upper Ob such linings found MP Gryaznov on settlement and a burial mound Nearby Elbany IX. [36] In Osinkinskom burial discovered three such plates (length 14, 17 and 32 cm), which obviously cut into kibit with its outer side at one end of the bow. Emphasis is placed on different ways of fastening a bowstring on osinkinskih bows with end plates: with a single cut, which is typical for most of the bows I millennium BC, two cuts - the only known we analogie available materials repository Ust-Talkin in the Baikal region (grave 70) [37] and with transverse groove and focus instead cut to the bowstring. This type of attachment seems to have been fairly widespread, since Osinkinskom burial ground found and the workpiece from the horn for such plates (Fig. 4, 2). Finding early uzuntalskogo bow indicates that the tradition of not using the side and front plates appeared in Altai in the middle of I millennium BC In this regard, it is not a random fact: the manner of attaching the string (using the cross-groove or stop) at uzuntalskom bows and a osinkinskih bows are the same. Probably, in southern Siberia in the second half of I millennium BC there was a mixture of two technological traditions in the manufacture of end caps - flat front (no cut) and side with the notch for the string. The most acceptable, apparently, was a form of front pads, no cutout for the bowstring on the outside. This naturally led to the need to make end-caps are not flat, as before, but podtreugolnymi in cross section, ie precisely in the design, they are presented in the materials Osinkinskogo burial and other discoveries beginning of II millennium BC


Fig. 6. Scheme of development of the middle frontal linings based on monuments VIII-XIV centuries.
1 - Uighur bow on LR Kyzlasov 2 - Srostki bows, based on excavations MD Kopytova in aggregates, 3 - Novgorod, bows, on AF Medvedev, 4 - middle lining of the Mongolian bow of time, MP Gryaznov.

[external image]

Special mention should be on the bow of the graves of 64 Osinkinskogo burial ground, where the median plate with lopatkoob-
(159/160)
different endpoints and long (32 cm), slightly curved front terminal cover plate were found in situ in close proximity to each other (see Fig. 4, 1, 7). The reflex force of one half bow, reinforced elastic bone plate, should have been balanced by another force here, the longer its half, and a whole bow this certainly was asymmetric. BA Litvinskaya collected extensive material on the asymmetrical bows in Central Asia, East Turkestan, Parthian and Sassanian Iran. "Here, - the author wrote about images kulagyshskogo dishes - shows two parts: on one end of the string kept out of the loop, attached to the inner surface of the bow. On the opposite side on the outer surface of the straight line shows the tip of the bow strap. [38] It may be so designed and had osinkinskie bows with one long terminal strip. Siberian and Central Asian bows, perhaps, not so much related to each other genetically, as are the single source of origin - Asymmetrical Hun bow type design features which persist up to the Mongol time.
It should be noted one more detail Compound Siberian bow, namely rectangular inserts. In Kokorevs (Krasnoyarsk Territory), together found a large piece of lopatkoobraznoy lining and massive liner size 3x7, 5 cm [39] Obviously, the development of rectangular inserts from the shallowest (Bobrovsky) to the largest (Kokorevsky) went in parallel with an increase in the size and allocation of the median lopatkoobraznoy front pads.
Thus, the evolution of bow in southern Siberia in the early Middle Ages was a complex and multi where different traditions are closely intertwined - the technological, social and ethnic. To clarify the key development stages of this process must take into account not only technological, but also the ethnic factors that contribute to features of the formation of bows in a given period. In the I millennium BC in South Siberia coexisted different types of bows, which is proved not only by the difference in location and number of bony plates, but their simultaneous discoveries in the graves (East Kazakhstan). They are all alike in its genesis goes back to the bows Hun-type device in which the outlines are already separate.
typological variations. It is considerable variability, characteristic of the Hun bow type, became defining of their development and during ancient times. In the future, perhaps, these options became isolated in a number of independent technological traditions which spread to a certain ethnic environment, established as the leading element of the culture of ethnic group within the larger medieval ethno-social groups and adopted by the armed troops. Thus, one can speak of the existence in the period under the bows of Turkic, Uighur, kimak types in a wide ethnic and cultural values of each of these items. Constant, the military, trade and cultural contacts between different groups of South Siberia (even apart from their occurrence in any political union) caused appearance of mixed, composite options, as the search for optimal solutions design bows always paid great attention. At the beginning of II millennium BC is a certain unification of bows, bound, apparently, with a predominance of kimaki-Kypchak cultural tradition, submissions Srostki archaeological culture IX-X centuries.

It has already met almost all the structural elements characteristic of the pre-Mongolian bows of time - developed form of the central plates with sufficiently distinct lopatkoobraznymi ends rounded (in contrast to the Turkic Uighur and bows), the form side of middle plates, a combination of them at the same bows, the use of additional square liners, etc. Yet materials Osinkinskogo burial ground, giving the most complete picture of the bows pre-Mongolian time, indicate that at the beginning of II millennium BC continued the search for optimal design of a bow, taking into account the different ethnic traditions.
Bows generic type, commonly referred to as Mongolian, at that time was not yet. Of particular note Hunnish basically a tradition of manufacturing the bows with the end and the middle side plates, preserved in the Uighur and then Srostki (kimak), bows, and a tradition of front end plates, which appeared in the Baikal region as early as dohunnskoe time (Serov bows) and later gradually penetrated to the west by the Huns, the Yenisei Kyrgyz (?) and some local (tele) Altaic tribes. The combination of these two traditions are mainly caused by structural features South Siberian bow at the beginning of II millennium BC Probably kypchaki, separated at the end of X century. Kimaks from the state, more than anyone contributed to the wide spread of South Siberian forms bows pre-Mongolian time in western Eurasia steppes. Only in this way the bow of the Mongolian type could appear in Novgorod (!) in the second half of the XII century.

At the time of the Mongol greatest fame get bows with one massive front grip and extra wood inserts on the ends kibiti. [40] According to the history of a complex bow in southern Siberia in the new era of factual material collected is not enough. Of the later discoveries of complex bows can note the medial pad with markedly isolated from the ends of the excavation of graves telengitskih in Gorny Altai (Fig. 7), [41] is entirely preserved bows from late burial at Kyrgyz with. Ust-ect in Khakassia, studied, AN Lipsky, [42] and some others. They show that in the recent past in different population groups of South Siberia, along with new forms of ethnographic bows [43] continued to exist bows with bone plates, typologically similar bows pre-Mongolian time.

Bede wrote:

Thanks Jiao for the pictures.

The ancestors of the Manchu extended even further north beyond the Amur river.

yes, thank you for good thread i search lots divertive history

the manchu typical hunt method is use a whistle imitate female deer sound, so deer come there, the wolf bear tiger also follow the sound and dear, when the hunt need lots hourse back teams they are hunt in hundred-thousand km ,the diffter team need sound for info of differ job and the contact, the besiege circle form big compress to small then some archery shoot as two or there line on open area(has no tall tree and tall glass) , the small and female not be killed and not kill them all, if they got enough food the hunt end

you can use google translate
http://dict.folkw.com/Old_dict.asp?id=5300
http://www.mzb.com.cn/html/report/159942-1.htm

the manchu is quite differ in wiki english and chinese, read wiki english i sure it is ture and the democratic/free/human rights country think better way is china need ban the marriage of manchu with other china people and collect all manchu peoples in differ china province send them to area near Siberian ,never lost one and never mind other province quite fine than northeast, the cool snow winter and the forest can rebuild their strong physique and nation's Psyche and pure manchu ancestry like the Aryans
:lol:

Though I have had the books themselves for about 15 years I recently found that both volumes of "The Armies of Bactria" by Valerii P Nikonorov are available online here: https://www.scribd.com/doc/24274587/The ... D-volume-2. I'd always been put off reading them because of the naff colour plates but now notice that Figure 27 in Vol. 2 of B+W drawings purports to show Yeuh-Chih mounted archers circa 1stC BC to 1stC AD and is taken from an article in Russian by Litvinskii et alia. The description says "Yeuh-Chih mounted archers . . .engraved on ivory casket panels from the Oxus Temple of Takht-i-Sangin" A photo also appears of the panel in an issue of JRAS.

The text goes on to comment on the long ears of the bows depicted and continues "note also that . . . .the bows are obviously asymmetrical, with the upper arms longer than the lower ones . . ." This is all on page 11 of Volume 2 with the drawing itself on page 59 and can be read online as above.

In my ignorance I had always though it was the Huns who introduced asymmetrical bows somewhat later. Can someone better informed that me please clarify?

it depends on what you define as "hun".
the european huns were not the first as they appeared later than the central asian "huns"

+ the scythian bow is asymmetric, too (and older)

Discovering only the bone plates of bows can be misleading about the degree to which the asymmetry of the tips is reflected in the finished bows. For instance, the bows associated with the Steppenkrieger exhibition show a dynamic relationship between the length of the ears (or the non-bending extremities of the bow limbs) and the bending sections. Here are some examples of bows where most of the bow survived, but there were no bone plates.

Zargalant
Lower Ear 270 mm
Lower Arm 360 mm
Total Lower Limb 630mm
Grip 100 mm
Upper Arm 360 mm
Upper Ear 289 mm
Total Upper Limb 649 mm

Chonot Uul
Lower Ear 332 mm
Lower Arm 330 mm
Total Lower Limb 662 mm
Grip 95 mm
Upper Arm 370 mm
Upper Ear 290 mm
Total Upper Limb 660 mm

Cagaan Chad
Lower Ear 326 mm
Lower Arm 324 mm
Total Lower Limb 650 mm
Grip 98 mm
Upper Arm 365 mm
Upper Ear 301 mm
Total Upper Limb 666 mm

These measurements show there is variation in limbs where in some cases they are very close in overall measurement. Looking at some of the measurements suggests the identification of upper and lower limbs may not be accurate.