bow from North Korean museum
On another forum, someone posted pictures of their visit to a North Korean museum that featured archery equipment (original thread here: http://chinesearchery.cc/forum.php?mod= ... d&tid=9661 ). It says the museum was located in Panmunjom.
The thing that really struck me was the bow, which is unlike the typical short-siyah Korean design we're used to seeing: http://chinesearchery.cc/data/attachmen ... o7nh51.jpg http://chinesearchery.cc/data/attachmen ... ozsrqv.jpg
This bow has a reflex handle, short sal, and a relatively long kasan. Has anyone heard of this design before, or might anyone know of the history this particular Korean design?
Fwiw, the post also mentions the arrows in the picture are about 1 meter long.
The thing that really struck me was the bow, which is unlike the typical short-siyah Korean design we're used to seeing: http://chinesearchery.cc/data/attachmen ... o7nh51.jpg http://chinesearchery.cc/data/attachmen ... ozsrqv.jpg
This bow has a reflex handle, short sal, and a relatively long kasan. Has anyone heard of this design before, or might anyone know of the history this particular Korean design?
Fwiw, the post also mentions the arrows in the picture are about 1 meter long.
Justin, I would guess that this is a reproduction of an early Baekje period bow, or equivalent, represented in one of their tomb paintings. We call this the Hunn period on ATARN and is a development of unknown exact origin, maybe Mongolia. Note the string does not go to the tips.
The profile is very pleasant. There is no kasan or sayah as this a development of the later Turkic period. These parts are most usually represented by oval and round cross sections.
The arrows look real and from more recent provenience.
A translation of the information cards is in order.
The profile is very pleasant. There is no kasan or sayah as this a development of the later Turkic period. These parts are most usually represented by oval and round cross sections.
The arrows look real and from more recent provenience.
A translation of the information cards is in order.
Wow that must be one of the hardest bows to brace.... ever....
What puzzles me is the string nocks on the bow. It actually kind of looks like the ends of the string are fastened by the red wrapping at the tips. Plus the tips look thick and heavy --- it's not clear whether this was meant to be a usable bow or whether it was made to approximate the shape of the Hun-period bows.
Naive museum display
Sometime I saw funny replica bow, here at south korean museums. :cry:
I think the bow is not Joseon's.
If it is pre-Joseon's (Koryeo dynasty 918-1392), it is amazing discovery.
(bearing strung situation for more 600 years, it is incredible!)
and if it is a replica, it should be come from our ancestor's old tomb painting.
like this.
[external image]
For exact judgement, there is anothor need of detailed pics and the museum's explanations.
I think the bow is not Joseon's.
If it is pre-Joseon's (Koryeo dynasty 918-1392), it is amazing discovery.
(bearing strung situation for more 600 years, it is incredible!)
and if it is a replica, it should be come from our ancestor's old tomb painting.
like this.
[external image]
![[external image]](http://pds22.egloos.com/pds/201106/19/98/a0114898_4dfda3be62e3b.jpg){kind=link}
For exact judgement, there is anothor need of detailed pics and the museum's explanations.
I agree with Jack Farrell here that we are most likely looking at a modern reproduction. The have the profile quite right, but the rest not really. As Justin notices, the string connection doesn't seen right at all without a nock.
Also the bow's surfaces are incredibly smooth. Not even bows made in the 20th century look so good.
The shape is very interesting, and you also see Kublilai Khan shoot a larger bow, but with similar profile, in a 13th century painting, now in the Taipei Palace Museum.
[external image]
It is easy to see how the later bows developed from this one, increasing the angle of the ears for better smoothness, and adding the bridges so it won't slip past the "knees". Koreans and Turkic tribes went for shorter ears, while the Jurchen increased the ear length.
(Still figuring out exactly which Jurchen tribe came up with it. It's hard because they are not well documented between the end of the Jin and the start of the Qing.)
Functionally, backward swept ears make for a very stable bow that needs little or no adjustment because the ears will pull themselves into alignment. I've shot a wonderful replica made by Yokhua. It draws well at first but does stack in the last inches of draw. Forward swept ears make for a bow that feels lighter than it is and thus can store greater power for a given max. draw weight, at the expense of being rather fussy in maintenance.
-Peter
Also the bow's surfaces are incredibly smooth. Not even bows made in the 20th century look so good.
The shape is very interesting, and you also see Kublilai Khan shoot a larger bow, but with similar profile, in a 13th century painting, now in the Taipei Palace Museum.
[external image]
![[external image]](http://assets.nybooks.com/media/photo/2010/12/02/Weinberger-1-122310_jpg_230x696_q85.jpg){kind=link}
It is easy to see how the later bows developed from this one, increasing the angle of the ears for better smoothness, and adding the bridges so it won't slip past the "knees". Koreans and Turkic tribes went for shorter ears, while the Jurchen increased the ear length.
(Still figuring out exactly which Jurchen tribe came up with it. It's hard because they are not well documented between the end of the Jin and the start of the Qing.)
Functionally, backward swept ears make for a very stable bow that needs little or no adjustment because the ears will pull themselves into alignment. I've shot a wonderful replica made by Yokhua. It draws well at first but does stack in the last inches of draw. Forward swept ears make for a bow that feels lighter than it is and thus can store greater power for a given max. draw weight, at the expense of being rather fussy in maintenance.
-Peter
The bow of the Hwarang knight statue apears very similar to this.
That is a fairly modern statue and cannot be used to identify bows.
The bow is almost certainly a modern reproduction of "something" and looks like it might be a reproduction of someone's interpretation of what a bow looks like.
Similarly, regarding statues, Bede is correct; statues are made by artists who often base things on their conception of what something should look like.
Similarly, regarding statues, Bede is correct; statues are made by artists who often base things on their conception of what something should look like.