Kulak for a copper thumb ring

The kulak applied to the ring covers the whole of the lip. Many rings only have half the lip or less covered. I made this larger kulak to test a theory about what position the leather flap of the kulak occupied in relation to the string. One theory is that the string sat on top of the leather and never rested directly on the string. The other theory is that the kulak opened out and the string rested directly on the ring?s lip while the flap of the kulak protected the flesh of the thumb below the ring.

I have tried both techniques and they worked equally well. It is possible that some types of archery had the kulak positioned differently than others. I will soon do chronograph tests to see if there is any variation in the velocities of the arrows.

Bede, I would think that the Kulak would perform better open and the string on the ring, if the string rests on the Kulak I would think that the string may dig in to the leather and roll as the string is released. it may slow the string down, maybe not enough to notice, but that is what I think. Let us know your test results.
James

Dr Grayson and I have been discussing this subject for several months.

With long term use, the smaller kulaks curl out of the way, but I was shown these larger ones on some old rings and I thought I would find out how they perform.

I am anticipating that the difference in velocity might be more apparent with light arrows than heavy arrows, but experiment will tell.

In the literature, there is some confusion of terms and since I am reading Mustafa Kani in English, translated from German, translated from Turkish and trying to compare it with dictionary-driven translations of Yucel, I am uncertain of what is meant sometimes. I am starting to think that the terms changed over time. This is clear in Kani when he reinterprets Taybugha's descriptions. Taybugha himself rearranged the systems of the three great masters to match his own ideas of physique and technique in archery.

Some areas of interest are:

• What did Kani mean by the term kash?
  Is Yucel's interpretation of it current or archaic?
  Were the Turks drawing the thumb until it touched the lobe of the ear?
  Did they use a different draw length for flight and target shooting?

Something as simple as whether the kulak is up or down might have a lot of significance in this kind of discussion. WhenI first read Klopsteg, I thought that the kash was the protruding part of the kulak. Yucel thinks its the face of the lip of the ring, the part normally called the dimagh. These words have other meanings in Turkish and they could even have more than one meaning in Turkish archery.

Please excuse my eccentric spellings of Turkish words. Not all the computers I use have adequate fonts to represent modern Turkish spelling.

Bede:

In my experience the leather padding on the ring, with string resting on the leather is helpful for better control. It may slow an arrow.

According to Yucel (who examined a large number of arrows at Topkapi), the pishrev arrows were approx. 62.5cm (24.5"). There were also 2cm longer and slightly heavier menzil types.

The target arrows wer generally betw. 63 and 67.5cm. Long versions were 68 to 71cm (27-28"), short versions (hadde) were 57 to 59cm and very short versions were only 52cm (20").

It seems the flight arrows and target arrows differed little in terms of length and weight.

The longest, all-wood war arrows were 73.5cm (without large iron points) - about 29". War arrows of reed were shorter.

This draw lengths were well suited to the short Turkish bows.

Adam

Adam,
Your comments of the on-the-leather and off-the-leather shooting are reminiscent of what the old books say about the superiority of leather rings for target shooting and the better performance of hard rings for flight. A large kulak ring could be used in both ways and confer both benefits.

Yucel's comments are in accord with Klopsteg roughly. You have to keep in mind that the Topkapi has arrows that have been stored there over a 500 year period and may represent everything from children's arrows on up. There was also a great variation in height among the Turks themselves as well as their foreign-born Janissaries. You also have to take into account that Kani, who was the source of Klopsteg's information, was writing about a particular point in time while bolstering his points with quotes from older authorities that he did not always understand.

Last year, I went through the Turkish arrows in the Grayson Collection and there was a similar, though not so great, spread of lengths. I have yet to see a Turkish assembled reed arrow in other than photographs, though I have been discussing them with Edward McEwen who did examine them and spoke in person with Yucel.

As a comment on the ease of using the ring with the kulak in, I shot with the ring for months before I made a kulak. I found it very predictable in its performance. When I added a small kulak, I discovered that the greatest advantage was that it was easier to accurately position the ring on the pad of the thumb rather position the string on the ring. In all cases the ring was slightly loose. I should video shooting with it to find why it doesn't fly off. I think it is has to do with the thinness of the lip, but it is so light that I don't feel it on the thumb so I can't tell by pressure.

Bede:

My comments on the arows were intended to clarify the mystery with the length of draw.

Most target arrows were only 1" longer than the flight arrows. These, I would think, were perhaps shot with a siper too. The siper would add 3" to the draw, so the full draw would be 28". This is also the length of the longest target arrows - these would probably be shot without the siper. As I mentioned, the longest war arrow was 29".

It is possible to reach the ear with the base of thumb at these draw lengths. I doubt the Turks were much shorter than us, there are different theories about it. During the times of expansion, they were rather well fed! Anyway, draw lengths are related to the type and length of bow rather, than to the stature of archers. Long draw was used elsewhere at the same time.

The short versions of arrows could indeed be for children or dwarfs at the Palace. This needs clarification.

Adam

Adam,
I completely agree with your comments. The comments in Klopsteg are also in agreement with your way of dividing up arrows. He quotes Kani as saying that flight arrows were drawn until the tip was in the centre of the siper and target arrows (which he says are slightly longer) were drawn less far.

As to the height of Turks, there probably was as great a variation as today, but maybe the numbers in each group are different.

I find it acceptable to use a squarer stance when shooting a shorter arrow so that I can draw to the same spot on my face. Of course the squarer the stance, the weaker the bow you can draw because you cannot get the full mechanical advantage from lining up your shoulders. Even Arab Archery makes the comment that square stances are better for trick shooting with weak bows. As Korean archers know, you can twist at the waist so your shoulders line up, but this is not what I am talking about here.

Incidentally, for people unaware of what the English words mean when they translate Arabic archery terms:

Square means standing so that you are facing the target (it might also mean standing at 45 degrees to the target).

Oblique means standing so you have your left shoulder facing the target so that a straight line drawn through both shoulders would intersect the target at right angles.

Hello Gents,

The arrow lengths given by Dr Y?cel (as mentioned by Adam) indicate either a shorter draw length or the use of siper for puta (target) shooting. I have two photographs of Necmettin Okyay, the last bowyer and kemankes (pron. Cam-un-cash, the educated and registered archer). The pics show him in two shooting positions: 1- standing, bow arm arised with a 45 degree angle, obviously the right position for flight shooting 2- Kneeling position, bow arm pointed in a horizontal direction as if the arrow was shot to a target. His anchor is the corner of the mouth and the arrow is not drawn up to the point. What surprising is that he uses siper in both positions although he uses a longer arrow that exceeds the grip.

So, Adam’s theory is probably correct and siper was proably used in target shooting too and may be not only as an over-draw but also as an arrow guide (as it’s called by Dr. Klopsteg).

These pics do not clarify the shorter arrows in the museums. How tirkes (pron. teer-cash) or war arrows with broadheads could have fired with siper is another mystery. Their total lengths were between 65,5-78 cm, and their lengths without the broadheads were measured 63,5-73.5 (25,4’’-29,4’’). The longer arrows must have been shot without any shooting aid like siper.

Another explanation may be a floating anchor point that is inherited from horseback archery techniques. A shorter version of non-solid anchor where the archer draws until he feels the end of the arrow point and do not reach to the face, may be an answer.

Let me remind you that siper was developed after 17th century. There are many flight records that had been shot earlier. Y?cel claims that siper is a result of degeneration rather than a development in flight archery. It allowed to shoot shorter and lighter arrows to compansate the lack of better archers. We know that cane arrows have not been used after the 16th century anymore (because of the incresaing prices). But there are so many cane arrows in Topkapı Palace Museum (and other museums) that are not longer than the wooden arrows. If siper is an axplanation of short puta (target) arrows someone has to tell me why the older arrows are not longer.

I have things to say about thumbrings too. Dr. Y?cel refers to old scripts about crafting the zihgir (pron. Zeh-geer) or sast (pron. Shust). He says “if the zihgir is not manufactured properly and if it’s too tight it may hurt the thumb. If it’s too loose the string may stuck between the thumb and the ring”. It seems that the leather flap does not provide any protection of the thumb joint and the kulak was placed well on the kas and the string was sliding on it. The all-leather zihgirs that were popular in the Ottoman army is something that must be kept in mind. Their exact shape is unknown but most prpbably the string was sliding on a leather tongue.

I’m a beginner in this field and trying to find my way by “translating” and reading Kani’s text (it’s old turkish written with absolutely different alphabet. I went to a course to learn “Ottoman turkish” and the Old Alphabet but had to ask for help from an academician) other than Y?cel’s amazing book and the English texts. I made zihgirs from orthodontic acrylic and used the thumbring that Adam has sent to Cem (Thanks Adam) as model. I also examined the rings in the museums and modified my zihgir. Without gluing a kulak my zihgir was still functional but the string was escaped from my lock unwillingly several times. The bow was not on the “too heavy side” (it was a 50 pounder, a Grozer TRH laminated Turkish bow), so I added a kulak. It never happened again. Additionally, as Bede said, the placement of the string was more accurate. How it effects the arrow speed I do not have any idea. Please acknowledge us if any of you’ll measure it.

Kas(h) means “eyebrown”, kulak means “ear” in both Ottoman and modern Turkish. The antropomorphological naming was common in Turkish archery. They also named arrow shafts like this (foot, calf, belly, chest, throat, head) and bow’s components were symbolically compared to that of human body. The edge where the string rests was called esik (pron. Ashick) according to Y?cel. It means threshold. They all make sense.

Appearently there are a lot of things to be researched. I hope that it will be an advantage to be able to read the turkish texts.

Murat said:

Let me remind you that siper was developed after 17th century.

Is that correct? They are mentioned in Chinese works from the Ming Dynasty (1368-1644). I did not think that the siper was a Chinese invention: I had guessed that they were brought into China by Turkish mercenaries working for the Mongols in the Yuan Dynasty.

S.[/quote]

Stephen,
Are you sure they were talking about sipers and not arrow guides, majra or navak?

McEwen believes that the navak-i-qabza or siper bound to the grip was developed earlier, possibly in the fifteenth century. He is currently working on some old texts in Persian.

Murat's comments are interesting too. I know one of the pictures of Necmettin Okyay he mentions, the kneeling horizontal shot, and I believe the arrows are short drawn simply because of the difficulty of staying too long at full draw with a siper. I shoot regularly with a siper and even a little shake is disturbing to the archer at full draw.

A phototgraph of me in Utah shows the same problem. In a dynamic draw, it is hard for the photographer to get that brief moment at full draw. Some authors even talk of the snatched release where you draw partially, aim and then rapidly complete the draw. My draw is slightly more complete than Necmettin Bey's, but that is because the photograph took place later in the process.

I learnt some important ideas from Necmettin's photograph. Books are very useful, but pictures are a huge help.

Murat, thanks for the comments.

I believe now the Turkish draw was always generally short, in the range of 26 to 29". However, arrows shorter than 28" were shot with the overdraw up to 29", if a longer range was needed in combat. This overdraw would be accomplished not with the siper (as a later invention), but with a leather band on the drawing hand (this is from Yucel). The band later developed with an arrow stop added etc. The band would not interfere, as the siper would, and could serve as a permanent piece of equipment.

I shot a while back overdrawing arrows on the bare hand. This is quite workable, but somewhat dangerous (one arrow got stuck in the grip of bow!). I do not think more than about 1.5" of overdraw could be accomplished this way, this would be about 2.5-3" total counting the thickness of grip.

Of course the shorter arrows would be shot at a shorter range without overdrawing, a quick method in close combat situations. In the 17th c. this methods developed into the sport of target and flight shooting with short arrows, with or without the siper.

As to the rings. It is best to start with a thumb ring that is too tight, rather than too loose. It really should feel tight on the thumb. When it becomes painful, than the ring can be enlarged in small increments. The tight ring gives a more secure hold. The esik angles can be adjusted for the string. Another thing with this type of rings: do not flex the thumb too much, it means the index finger will cover the tip of thum, with the nail visible.

Once you learn shooting with the ring and are comfortable, you will find you have enough control to shoot with all rings, tight or loose with little problems. But still, the tight-fitting ring will be best. I wrote an rticle for ATARN about fitting rings, but I have no idea where it is now.

Adam

Stephen,
I really did not know that it was used in China in 14th century. Are majra and navak accesorries attached directly to the grip (as its name indicated: navak-i qabza; qabza, Arabic word for grip, still used in modern Turkish for pistol grips)? Siper must be something different unless Y?cel is wrong. The Chinese or other Asian influence would be acceptable in the early phases of Turkish archery, like the Mongolian influence on Seldjuk bow designs.

Y?cel says that only leather armguards were in use before the siper was invented. They were called "yalancı yen" or "kolchak" and provided only protection for forearm against the string. It has also been a symbolic object used in ceremonies for declaring and celebrating a new coming kemankes.

Adam,
This is the first time I hear a leather band used for shooting shorter arrows? It's not mentioned in his book "T?rk Ok?uluğu". Where did you find it?

Thanks for the info about the thumbring. Do you add a kulak or hold the strig with the nacked surface of the ring? As far as I know that you hunt with traditional Turkish bows. I'd like to ask some questions about that later if you don't mind.

The lack of detailed information about the technique (draw length, using siper etc) is based on the support of older Arabic scripts used by Turkish authors. In Kitab fi ilm ann?şşab (14th century Kiptchak text in Arabic letters, available in modern Turkish with a chapter of English translation) and Telhis-i Resail?' rumat the authrs mention in Foreword they read and used books about Arabic archery. Drawing till the draw hand reaches the ear is the format given in both books. However, a precise reading of Telhis and/or other scripts may help solving the problem.

Murat:

Thanks for the details about the yen. My friend in Istanbul translated the yen as the leather sleeve used before siper to serve a similar function. Perhaps he was wrong. But it makes sense to me, because the conventional armguards are not needed for Turkish bows and for the thumb draw. Is it possible that Ucel, who knew about the armguards, assumed the guard to be a protection from the string?

The early form of siper was a simple plate, then a "stop" (ibik) was added to prevent the arrow to slide off to one side. After that Badehu Kircesmeli invented the siper as a groove, later lengthened.

One can now wonder if the archers had no protection before siper, then the short arrows could not be used, unless shot over a bare hand. I doubt it.

Adam

Adam,

The translation about the development of siper is correct. The purpose of "yen" was not correctly understood and translated. Yen, more exactly "yalancı yen" means "pseudo-sleeve" and was thought to be an armguard by Y?cel. As its name dictates it's something that covered the forearm (like the sleeve). It was an object that was given from the master archer to his student while celebrating the student's first 900 gez shot. In this ceremonie, giving this archery-related object to the student's hands was symbolising the tranfer of archery tradition and knowledge to the next generation. Later, a bow has become this particular object, that's why this ceremonie was called "kabza alma t?reni" (kabza or qabza is the bowgrip). Yalancı yen might have been an additional object of the ceremonie and been given in addition to a bow.

As you said, it's not necessary to wear an armguard when using a turkish bow and thumb release. In my opinion this pseudo-sleeve could have helped to remove the sleeve and other parts of clothing from the way of string. It makes sense especially when I think of loose clothing of old times.

Murat:

Thanks for the explanation. I have also heard Ucel was not entirely consistent and correct in his interpretation. It would be a great asset for all. if a practising archer translates the book into Enlish with the help of a bowyer perhaps.

Is there any idication when exactly the early forms of siper appeared? Was it also in the 17th c.? I have not seen a translation of the chapter about mushamba - is it also a later invention?

Adam

:D Murat,
Please listen to Adam. If you have the time and the interest, you could really help those of us who need a dicitionary to read through Yucel's work.

Establishing the sources of some of Yucel's material and whether we are looking at finished texts is very important too. I know that Yucel died before finishing the book and it was published postumously. This means that there might have been revisions and changes that have not taken place. A good scholar might even be able to help with refining the text, both for Turkish and English readers.

Adam, Bede,

I'm aware of the need of the English transaltion of the book. The problem is that traditional turkish archery is not known by my generation except by some romantic intellectuals. Y?cel's book is the most complete book written in new letters and as stated (even by himself in his Foreword) it might be corrected and further researched.

As Adam might know we "translated" Telhis to new letters. A professor helped me in doing that but because of the lack of his interest in archery the process has become a nightmare (especially because we (Cem and I)have promissed Adam the translation of particular chapters of the book). The text is full of old words and phrases and must be examined and worked further. My skills in old language and letters is unfortunately insufficient to read the text fluently and understand easily. Another problem is that there are other versions of Telhis that include more drawings and may be a slightly different text! My copy is the published one (1847), there is at least one hand written copy. A perfect research on this book can only be done as an academic dissertation.

We (a few friends of mine and I) have completed a web site (www.kemankes.com)and are contacting people who are interested in this topic. Intellectuals who have been researching, writing, making TV programmes are rare and we are in touch with them too. We need time to become a group of people with all the specifications needed to make research in this multi-branch field.

Meanwhile I'm working on a book that'll include both modern and traditional archery, equipment and skills; something that my generation needs. I'm writing an article for this issue of a popular history magazin too.

Translating Y?cel's book to English will be something I would have interest and list to do. It's my dream to share the knowledge and make archery a bridge between people and cultures. I need either more time or people who give me hand. I was planning to support our web site with the English version, but I couldn't. Until I manage to find time to start such a long-term project please do not hesitate to ask anything about this book. I'll be pleased if I can help. And, if you don't have Kitab fi ilm ann?şşab (Engish translation is available as a chapter) and want to have it, I can send the book to you.

Adam,

About the incosistency of Y?cel I can say that I'm not very sure if he was an archer or knew the research/conclusions modern archery has achieved. He was no doubt an amazing researcher, but the influences of a "field work" that must have supported the book can not be felt. You are in the know at this point, with your skills and experience both in trad. shooting and bowyery. There are many things to learn from you.

About mushamma Y?cel says: "...the grips were formed flat and thicker in earlier times (time not exactly mentioned) so mushamma was not in use. When necessary, a piece of leather with a height of 4 finger was wrapped and glued over the grip..." He adds that there is a single sample in Topkapı collection: a 15 cm grip cover with a thickness of 1 mm, dated 1664 (or 1665). because there is no other similar grip, he conludes this type of permanent wrapping was not very common. "...The rounding and thinning in form that begun in 18th century and become wide spread in 19th century, made the use of mushamma a must..."

(If you need more details I can translate it. It's a small one-page chapter. Now I got to finish and work to live like any of us).

Best regards.

M.

Murat:

I am very grateful to you and others for your efforts. Although the Telhis was already translated into German (and partly in English), I already found important new information in the chapters you translated for me. I can only imagine the difficulty of such work. A friend in England who knows Persian and Ottoman has told me about the problems and the time it takes. I would think you are in a much better position to undertake this task.

Thanks for the info about the mushamma. It seems the later round shape was used only with the siper. The glued-on wraps are interesting, I have always assumed the wrapping would be rather loose, if any at all, since one would not want to damage the decoration. On most surviving bows the grip decoration does not appear worn or damaged which would be inevitable with longer use of bow.

Adam

Adam,

I think you're talking about "Bogenhandwerke und Bogensport bei Osmanen" by Joachim Hein. Many authors claim that Hein as a philologist was not capable to translate all archery related parts correct and they have been correctd by Dr. Klopsteg, as an expert archer. I have not seen Hein's book, so I cannot personally evaluate this. But Klopsteg's book is not an exact translation and includes only parts of Telhis.

If we will be able to make tard turkish archery popular, Telhis and other scripts will be translated and resarched as a result of the natural flow of the process. You already know the difficulities of reading Ottoman texts, even for us, speaking somehow the same language.

Dear all

at the moment I am reading and comparing "Der Islam" written by J. Heim
(see link: http://web.uni-frankfurt.de/fb13/igaiw/ ... ences.html, (Vol. IV. 465 pp. 2002 (Natural Sciences in Islam. 79). ISBN 3-8298-7085-X)) and "Turkish "Archery" by Dr. Klopsteg. What I noticed their are sligth differences in the descriptions "how-to-make". Sometimes I am missing small comments, parts or hints in one or the other script. My conclusion is, both were not experts in archery (nor am I) and because of changes in terminolgy and time, small details got lost by translation(s).

R

Reto,
Thnks for the info. There is something wrong w the link. Can u check it?

Murat,

sorry for that inconvenience, at the top end I put the comma.
Here comes the correct link: http://web.uni-frankfurt.de/fb13/igaiw/ ... ences.html go for (Vol. IV. 465 pp. 2002 (Natural Sciences in Islam. 79). ISBN 3-8298-7085-X))

R

If the translation goes ahead, will it be published? It would be very valuable if it was!

Dave