new article on arab archery technique

Good work. It is worthwhile to look at these old books and see what we can use.

I am having some problems with your citations from Al-Sarraf where his 1984 work seems to be cited to refer to re-identification of the two manuscripts related to the one translated as Arab Archery. I have misplaced my copy so my memory is probably wrong. I do remember the discussions in this forum about the identification some years ago. I forget what was determined about the Maghribi references in the Faris and Elmer text and the earlier versions in Istanbul. There are some interesting discussions of furusiyya literature in Scanlon too, though it is a little outdated now.

Thanks you Bede. Regard your question, Al Sarraf proves in his thesis that the so called XV cent. Anonymous of Faris/Elmer Arab Archery, was Ibn al-Maymun lived in XIII. According with him, proves are: 1) the Garret Colelction manuscript used by Faris and ELmer lake of the first page, where the real title and author were indicated, while thes one are indicated in the other two mss. know, which faris-elmer don't have consulted 2) in the work ther is a point where the author quote another of his text that Al-Sarraf identifies as a Maymun's text (al Sarraf, Archerie Mameluk, pp. 80-90).

So this means that the Maghrebi references are the interpolations of the writer who was largely quoting the earlier Mamluk work?

This is the record of MS in Garret catalogue: http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=m ... up;seq=283
Al-Sarraf states that this signed, not is realy the title, but a note by a subsequent copyst, maybe of XV cemtury, while the original title was different and is laking in this MS togheter with real author name. The other work quoted in the record (and i f you see in the first pages of Arab Arhcery) it is surely by the author named Al -Maymun, since Al-Sarraf know the MS of this other work. The one thing that now I don't remember is if this Al-Maymun is from Maghrib too or Syrian, I will chek it later.

confirmed: Ibn Al-Maymun was Marocain, so referneces to Maghreb in the work are justified. Just he lived in 13th century and not, as Faris-Elmer thought of Anoymous Marocain, in 15th.

further infos: the previous work cited in Garret Catalogue, and also in the our MS (Kifayat al Muqtasid .... etc.), which Al Sarraf say to be the first book by Al-Maymun, doesn't it come to us. The notice of this book can be found only in a work by Ibn Al-Mangli, where he quote it and the name of author in extensiv manner (ABu Muhammad .... ibn Al- Maymun). So, I don't was excat when affirmed that "Al Sarraf know the other manuscript", but in effect the other MS doens't exist, we have just the notic by Ibn Al-Mangli.

Grazie mille per le informazioni supplementari. I appreciate your help. Faris and Elmer were limited by the manuscript they were working from and the earlier date explains many of the archaic references. I will have to get a copy of al-Sarraf's work for my library. I had read about it in Scanlon's analysis of furusiyya manuscripts, but never tracked it down.

I have since read al-Sarraf's more recent article, "Mamluk Furūsīyah Literature and Its Antecedents", in the Mamluk Studies Review, 2004. He identifies the author as Abū Muḥammad Jamāl al-Dīn ?Abd Allāh Ibn Maymūn al-Murrākishī and the correct title as Al-Ifādah wa-al-Tabṣīr li-Kull Rāmin Mubtadi? aw Māhir Naḥrīr bi-al-Sahm al-Ṭawīl wa-al-Qaṣīr.

Al Sarraf writes:

Sometime in the second half of the seventh/thirteenth century or early eighth/fourteenth century, two important archery treatises, greatly appreciated by Mamluk authors and archers, appeared in the Maghrib.

He also comments:

Ibn Maymūn drew on al-Ṭabarī's works, specially "Kitāb al-Shāmil," and on many other Abbasid treatises, some of which are lost.

My understanding of this is that the treatise was written in the West (Maghrib) based on eastern Islamic sources (al-Ṭabarī). This makes perfect sense since there are references to the locality of the author throughout the book plus extensive use of Eastern authors. The other important point he makes is that the book was well known to the Mamluks in a period when they were not themselves writing much on archery. It may have had an influence on how they composed their own works though they probably also had access to Ibn Maymūn's primary sources.

He also identifies the Jamshīd that Taybugha mentions in Saracen Archery, p. 123, "For Jamshīd says in his book(note 6) that, as regards the grip, there are three positions... " Latham and Paterson could not identify him at that time. However, al-Sarraf names him as a ninth century Abbasid author, Rukn al-Dīn Jamshīd al-Khwārazmī, who commented on at-Ṭabarī and was a major source on the Great Masters. Details are given on page 165 (al-Sarraf) and on the one survicving manuscript in note 74 on that page.

important info indeed. thank you :D

this recent article by Al-Sarraf is important, because he shows as archery arab literature flourished in the Abassids times, long before Mameluk era. And, in my opinion, it was in turn based on Persian archery text. I would need a loto of work to do to retrace steps that led from Persian to Arab texts.