ATARNarchive

Three new quivers

25 posts2014live thread
Bede
I recently made three new quivers in three different styles. One is in the Safavid Persian style based on a miniature. It is made from vegetable tanned calfskin, hand dyed and sewn with thick linen thread. The metal fixtures were bought off the shelf. In the original painting, the arrow separating studs were white, which suggests either bone or ivory, but metal ones are easier to find. The embossing is a simple flower and diagonal trellis design. Other quivers in paintings have much more complex designs, though not the one this is based on. The embossing was suggested by surviving plain leather quivers which usually have some surface decoration.

The base is a glued and sewn in piece of pine with the grain parallel to the arrow shafts. This is so that arrowheads like broad heads (the arrows at the back) will not blunt their points. It also means the arrowheads do not slide around. The base is covered on the outside with a red leather lining. The mouth of the quiver wants to lie flat so it automatically lines the arrows up in a row.

The straps are of deerskin suede. This is a very strong leather that is suitable where thin flexible straps are needed. There is a balancing strap on the inside face (the surface against the archer's body). It runs through several slots and is tied to a folded piece of leather that goes over the belt. Mostly only the attachment points on the quiver are the only survivors of this strap arrangement, but where the complete strap survives it is designed to be able to slide along the the archer's belt. This makes it easy to adjust the angle of the quiver after mounting a horse without having to shorten straps.

The lower edge of the under panel of the outside face of the quiver is not the full length. I made one once based on a surviving quiver in a Polish collection where the panel only extended just past the outermost half panel. This caused problems with broadheads and any arrowhead that was wider than the shaft because they could catch on the edge of the panel when being withdrawn. In this quiver the panel extends to the upper surface of the wooden base insert. It doesn't snag the arrowheads and it makes the quiver stiffer and a better protection for the arrows.

The small crescent shaped slot is to take an unfletched amaji arrow of the type used for close quarters armour-piercing. The upper part of the shaft to the nock on this type of arrow was usually highly decorated. I have several originals, but haven't made any yet. Aside for qighaj shooting, there is little use for them in the modern world.

The title of the original painting is "Goshtasp slays the dragon of Mount Saqila" and is from the so-called Houghton Shahnama or the Shahnama of Shah Tahmasp. It was commenced about 1522 and finished in the 1530s as a present from the Safavid Shah Ismail to his son and heir Tahmasp. The painting is on 402 recto. It has been published in Stuart Cay Welch's Royal Persian manuscripts, 1976, Thames and Hudson, London. Plate 9 page 51.
Bede
This quiver is in the Turkish style, but has the earlier feature of having the main body made out of a folded piece of leather. This construction can be seen in the earliest of the open quivers in Song and Jin paintings and also the excavated example from Mongolia. The constructional style survived in China until the end of the Qing dynasty.

In Turkey surviving examples are rarer which might be because, while it is less labour intensive to make, it requires larger pieces of unmarked leather. More quivers can be cut out of a given piece of leather if they have the inside and outside pieces cut separately.

The main difference in outside pocket design between Turkish and Persian quivers of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries seems to be the shrinking size of the pocket in relation to the length of the quiver in Turkey as time went on. This may only be an accident of survival. Another feature that changed with time is that the two leading edge suspension points became closer together in later quivers.

Dying leather yellow was very popular in the Middle East and did not have the connotations that it did in late Imperial China. The quiver is sewn with black linen thread and has a glued and sewn in leather covered base. The base is red.

I have no direct evidence of the spacers on the outside of the quiver. Indirectly there is the fact they were used in Safavid Iran and some of the quiver covers had evenly spaced holes suggesting the arrows normally were separated. However, some designs of pocket did not require any separators since the trailing edge of the pocket provide a stop for the arrows. Others had a ring mounted which could stop arrows sliding past it and could hold a special arrow if necessary. I add the spacers to this type of quiver because the short pocket is not so good at keeping the arrows upright.
Bede
This quiver is based on a Crimean Tatar quiver associated with one of the Tatar Khans.

It has a single piece wooden frame on three sides. The leather is glued to the frame and then stitched to the red leather covering the edges of the frame. Sometimes in this type of quiver the leather is riveted or nailed to the frame as well. There are two straps running longitudinally from leading edge to trailing edge inside the mouth of the quiver. There are three transverse straps running through the other two from inside face to outside face of the quiver inside the mouth. This creates three rows of four compartments to separate the arrows internally.

I have made an extra ring to take a balancing strap on the inside face of the quiver similar to those on Manchu quivers. In reality these quivers may have had sewn on leather strap retainers like Tibetan quivers and very early Ottoman quivers.
Bede
This is the front side of the quiver. The stitching is artificial sinew. If I had that much real sinew thread, I would be making bowstrings from it.
KenH
Beautiful work, Bede! Nicely done.

I've got to try my hand at a gorytos to go with my Scythian style bow.
Zack
Beautiful work as always.
Bede
Hand sewing can take a long time. The Crimean Tatar quiver took almost 8 hours. However, I am pleased with the result. I am sure I can do better next time. Thanks for the compliments. I learned quite a lot from these quivers since each had a different construction. The thicker thread was harder to use because of the bigger needles, but the effect is much better.
Bede
Here are some more details on the Tatar quiver from the book Stara bron w polskich zbiorach,by Zdzislaw Zygulski. The translation is mine and may be inaccurate.
b. A quiver of arrows (inv. 24267x).

Purchased in 1917 from Anthony J. Strzałeckiego. The brown goat skin, the wooden frame, sewn with linen thread.

Bevelled grille opening secured leather quiver with two longitudinal and three transverse straps; grid was used to hold the arrows.

With the quiver, there was a leather belt with an iron hook at one end and with holes at the other end.

I had no suitable brown dye and my goatskin was too thin for quiver construction so I made it from calfskin and dyed it black since that colour is popular in earlier and later Tatar quivers. I did once examine a Manchu quiver of the Qianlong Emperor which was made from de-haired leopard skin that was naturally black. The folded body type quivers are particularly suited to be cut from a goat or antelope skin since the middle of the back can form the fold making it much stronger.

My quiver is shorter since I build quivers to match the arrows they are intended for so that I can maintain the correct proportions. Usually I use 73 cm arrows, while the general Tatar arrows are in the range of 82 to 85 cm.
Markus
I guess it's OK. :wink: :wink:
Markus
Bede, how about posting the pictures on the SAA forum also, sure could use some action over there. Outstanding work. Markus.
Bj?rn Sofeit
I was hoping that you'd post your new quivers soon. Incidentally, I collected some images from Shah Tahmasp's Shahnama in the metmuseum a week ago for bows and quivers

[external image]


[external image]


[external image]


[external image]

Great quivers. Did you harden them with wax like you recommended to me?

Btw Markus, what's SAA?
Bj?rn Sofeit
Ow, I didn't make the connection >_<
Bede
I was using 3-4mm leather so after it was dyed it was quite stiff by itself. On the Turkish and Persian quivers, the areas that had three layers of leather are very stiff. The Tatar quiver can be made with thinner leather because if the wooden frame, but I had some of the thicker stuff left over and did not want to waste it.

The Houghton Shahnama pages in the MMA are wonderful sources of equipment design. However, some artists had less interest in the proportions of their objects and some odd shapes result.

The quivers with no outside-face pockets are interesting since they are easier to cut out and sew, but they make up for that by having elaborately decorated surfaces. It you were making one, covering it in brocade or embroidered cloth would be a good idea. They are doing some beautiful work in Turkey that way.
Jake Levi
Beautiful craftsmanship, thanks for sharing.
mongolianarcher
The bows pictured in the illustrations are beautiful. What period are they depicting?
Bede
Here is a link to the parts of the manuscript in the Metropolitan Museum of Art.
http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/shnm/hd_shnm.htm. The manuscript was painted in Tabriz in the 1520s and represents Safavid Persian fashions in weapons and armour. Swords and pieces of armour survive from this period as do some signed and dated bows in Iranian collections. The quiver styles influenced Ottoman Turkish quivers and some have that unique leading edge shape. I don't know of any that have survived with the scalloped top of the outside pocket with the bud shaped cut out. In another painting of about 1547, quivers are shown with the cut out curving left or right. Even in the Shahnameh of Shah Tahmasp, the top profile of the outside pocket varies: in some cases representing different shapes and in others just an artistic distortion of the basic shape.
mongolianarcher
Would this be an example, Bede, of how the Persians started to adopt longer draws in the Safavid and Qajar periods?
Bede
From what I have seen, in different parts of Iran you can find long and short draws. Long draws have a history in Iran going back before the Sasanians. However, it might be well to consider what is meant by a long draw. To me, at 166 cm tall, a 28 to 31 inch arrow is a long draw to the lobe of the ear or just beyond. At 32 to 33 inches, I am drawing as far as a Manchu archer. On the other hand taller people would find 32 inches a draw to the lobe of the ear. It is possible that while the relative draw length stayed roughly the same, as people increased in height, the physical length of arrows increased.

In the Safavid and later Qajar periods, increasing numbers of ghulams were recruited from Georgia in the Caucasus and they started to replace the Turkmen Qizilbash soldiers in the army. It is possible that arrow length increased because archers were taller in the later periods. This is excluding cases where shorter draws would have been normal. Wearing certain types of helmets would have constrained how far you could safely draw your arrow and still have a rear anchor point. I think this is one of the reasons for shorter draws. Drawing to the front edge of the earpiece of your helmet might have been one solution. When earpieces were discarded, I more natural draw would have been easier.
mongolianarcher
You're so right Bede. I am over 6'2" and to draw to just 28" to me is torture since it is barely at my lip, and 32" draw is just at the corner of my jaw "where the beard ends" (in Saracen archery terms). So I can understand what you mean when it comes to body structure.

So the ghulams from Georgia and Caucasus mountains(so by this I guess you mean Georgians and Armenians?) were taller than your average Turk? Is there ancestry different because I thought both are "Turkic"? Besides, I believed that the older, "Aryan"-descended Persians of Iran and Afghanistan who look Caucasian are from the same descent as the Georgians and Armenians (or the Armenians at least since Armenians speak an Indo-European language)...would Turks just be a descendant of the Caucasian peoples and the Georgians and Armenians more of their cousins?
geoarcher
There's actually been ample genetic studies done over the years focusing on autosomal components of one's 23 chromosomes. I've actually had my DNA done recently and one's autosomal dna can be broken down into several components.

Regarding 'Turkic' vs. Caucus DNA, the way to think of modern day Anatolian Turks is that they have a very similar genetic structure to Caucus folk like Armenians except that they have a very real 'Altaic' component to them at 8-15%. Most Turkic people who invaded 'West Asia' (aka n. Middle East/Anatolia-Caucuses) have a genetic structure similar to this since they admixed with local populations. Naturally, its different among Turkic people like Yakuts who lack 'West Asian' genes, but have a genetic structure that's almost strictly 'Altaic'. Here's a spreadsheet from one of the DNA calculators that does this type of analysis for further clarification:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc ... i=1#gid=24

Most people of 'West Asia' have strong West Asian genes in general, but the Turkic ethnicities of the area will have a slightly different genetic structure but not entirely. These links may help as well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_hi ... er_Studies

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_people#Genetics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkificat ... nd_Balkans
Bede
Historic accounts mention the Georgians and Circassians as being noticeably tall. The Turks and Turkmen of the 15th and 16th century were probably not as integrated into the Middle Eastern genetic strains as they are today. Once nomadism was suppressed and the great population boom of the late nineteenth century and twentieth century took its course, things changed.

However, there are other effects than genetics. The diets of the nomads and the mountaineers (like the Georgians and Armenians) may have affected their heights. Also the problem with relying on contemporary accounts is that the unusual stood out and no one was trying for an accurate statistical study. It may have been the slave buyers picked tall children to be soldiers. It might also have been that travellers remembered the most impressive people.

It is without doubt that there was a wide variation in height and built due to normal population variation aided by the complex ethnic map of Anatolia and Iran. That height has an influence of preferred arrow length is also demonstrable. The linguistic map of the Caucasus is really rich and complex. The Georgians, Abkhazians and Circassians spoke related languages, while the Ossetians and Armenians spoke Indo-European languages and the Turks and Turkmen spoke related Altaic languages. It is unfortunate that "Causcasian" is used as a physical description, a linguistic family and a geographical locator since they do not always overlap.
geoarcher
Here's a little more regarding the demographic impacts that Turkic people had on the Near East:


Byzantine authorities routinely conducted large-scale population transfers in an effort to impose religious uniformity and the Greek language. After the subordination of the First Bulgarian Empire in 1018, for instance, much of its army was resettled in Eastern Anatolia. The Byzantines were particularly keen to assimilate the large Armenian population. To that end, in the eleventh century, the Armenian nobility were removed from their lands and resettled throughout western Anatolia. An unintended consequence of this resettlement was the loss of local military leadership along the eastern frontier, opening the path for the inroads of Turkish invaders. Beginning in the eleventh century, war with Turks led to the deaths of many in the native population, while others were enslaved and removed. As areas became depopulated, Turkic nomads moved in with their herds.

Once an area had been conquered, and hostilities had ceased, agricultural villagers may have felt little inconvenience with the arrival of these pastoralists, since they occupied different ecological zones within the same territory. Turkic pastoralists remained only a small minority, however, and the gradual Turkification of Anatolia was due less to in-migration than to the conversion of many Christians to Islam, and their adoption of the Turkish language. The reasons for this conversion were first, the weak hold Greek culture had on much of the population, and second, the desire by the conquered population to "retain its property or else to avoid being at a disadvantage in other ways." One mark of the progress of Turkification was that by the 1330s, place names in Anatolia had changed from Greek to Turkish.

The Turkish nation took shape in the centuries of Seljuk and Ottoman power. The nomadic Turkish conquerors did not displace the original local inhabitants: Hellenized Anatolians (or simply Greeks), Armenians, people of Caucasian origins, Kurds, Assyrians and ? in the Balkans ? Slavs, Albanians and others. They intermarried with them, while many local people converted to Islam and 'turned Turk'. They were joined by Muslims from the lands north of the Black Sea and the Caucasus, by Persian craftsmen and Arab scholars, and by European adventurers and converts, known in the West as renegades. As a result, the Turks today exhibit a wide variety of ethnic types. Some have delicate Far Eastern, others heavy local Anatolian features, some, who are descended from Slavs, Albanians or Circassians, have light complexions, others are dark-skinned, many look Mediterranean, others Central Asian, many appear Persian. A numerically small, but commercially and intellectually important, group is descended from converts from Judaism. One can hear Turks describe some of their fellow countrymen as 'hatchet-nosed Lazes' (a people on the Black Sea coast), 'dark Arabs' (a term which includes descendants of black slaves), or even 'fellahs'. But they are all Turks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkificat ... n_Anatolia
mongolianarcher
It would seem natural that the Turks assimilated into the local populace once they conquered. And the latter part of that second quote about the mixtures of the races made me laugh, "fellas" :D

I can attest to this because I did my autosomal DNA test as well and I found out that among other ethnicities, that I am 23% Western European and 30% Italy/Greece and this would make sense since my mother is descendent of Spain via Puerto Rico. And, as we all know, the Iberian Peninsula was settled by Celts(Western Europeans) and invaded by Visigoths and the Romans and (not last but not least) the Moors.
So naturally, invasions and genetic mixes is a part of world history and also demographics :)
Joomong
Nvm. Wrong post.