The Yrzi bow and bow technology

Dear Members,

First, may I say that my discovery of ATARN figures as the best ilustration in years for the value of the WWW; it's a veritable mine of information. Of course, when one finds a mine of anything, one tends also to find the exploitation of the resources iresistable, so here come the inevitable questions, along with my apologies if I post in the wrong section of the forum...

I've been cooling my heels for over 10 months now, awaiting an inter-library loan article (the Seminarium Kondakovianum study of the bow found in the Yrzi necropolis) and I'm becoming a tad impatient, as currently I'm aware only of its approximate length. Is there anyone here who could characterise the nature of this weapon? By which I mean its general appearance, design/method of construction, or offer any informed speculation as to its likely peformance. You know, the basic (and therefore complex) details...

On a more general point; I appreciate that art history and archaeology provide evidence of change/evolution in bow design, but it's noticeable that academics tend to fall into line with written sources when addressing the performance of bows. Examples of this would be the frequently encountered assertion that the bow used by the Parthians was more powerful than any hitherto encountered by the Romans, or that the Hun bow outperformed any other of its time. I suppose that what I'm asking here is this: would members be willing to advance an opinion that the changing appearance of the composite bow was accompanied by a continuous improvement in its performance? Or does one see the bow reach a stable plateau of technical excellence at an early date and thereafter encounter what are essentially cosmetic changes in outward appearance?
Building upon this premise - that sources originating from various settled, literate cultures throughout history identify assaults from central Asia as being marked by outstanding excellence in archery, and often attribute this to some steppe innovation in bow design - can I ask for opinions on an alternative model? This would be one in which the 'settled cultures' sought to rationalise their military failures by attributing better hardware to their opponents, when in fact there was little qualitative difference between the archery equipment on both sides. In such a model one would see the nomadic groups as being merely better, more practised archers than their more sedentary opponents, rather than the bearers of revolutionary new weapons. I should add that I'm not predisposed to either of these interpretations, but they niggle at me, and I've become exasperated at seeing the eyes of my colleagues glaze over whenever I muse on the matter (academics speculate only on those topics which they enjoy, and my interest in archery places me in a minority of one, locally.)

Finally a little anecdote. I spent the first 5 months of this year in the vicinity of Ashkhabad, and was delighted to discover that some local Turkmen carried bows as a matter of course. I had the opportunity to ride with them on numerous occasions and to use the bow on horseback (oh, the additional thrill of riding an Akhal-tekke whenever I wished!) On one occasion, a group of 6 encountered a small flock of some 20-30 goats (or sheep; odd-looking ovicaprids of some description) and decided to obtain some dinner. The day was fairly still and a light rain was falling as we moved into a canter, then to a hand gallop in order to circle downwind of the grazing animals; I have no idea wheteher this was good parctice ot otherwise, and can observe only that something spooked the flock as we arrived slightly upslope of them and some 100 metres distant, at which point my companions responded by loosing the arrows they had already nocked during the approach; two loosed a second arrow, but most appeared confident that this was unnecessary. The result? Two dinners, one killed outright and the other despatched where it had fallen. Perhaps the most impressive aspect of the episode was the manner in which the horsemen reacted to the movement of the target; those at the front of the group loosed immediately, those behind delayed only for an instant, sending their arrows in a markedly higher arc over the heads of the leading riders. As to how they had performed: all recovered their arrows after a swift search of the area around the fallen animals; the sheep which had been killed outright had been struck by an arrow that had fallen at a steep angle and thus had been the victim of an archer who was shooting over the heads of intervening riders.
Afterward, I learnt that it had been their intention to gallop to some 30 metres before releasing, and that at this distance each individual expected to strike an animal; they were (predictably?) dismissive of their skills. Perhaps it was freakishly good result but I must admit that I felt a tiny frisson of excitement at having witnessed steppe horse-archers accomplish two kills with what appeared to be almost languid ease. The locals made no effort to undermine my admiration, then or later, and I wonder if their success is to be regarded as representative of archery standards. Anyone have any opinions on the matter?

Yours (still slightly dazed at the memory of the incident)

Vindafarna