Some notes on preserved closed quiver from Serbian monastery Hilandar - draft
Here's one post written in the form of article as it is kind of drafts for future ATARN articles on FB page Tularia, sister page of ATARN FB group.
Some notes on preserved closed quiver from Serbian monastery Hilandar - draft
The Balkans is not the only place with a rich history and, accordingly, an archery tradition. As in most of the world, where adequate equipment of the late Middle Ages, as an adopted Central Asian cultural heritage was in use, there was a noticeable paradox. At almost every step there are indications of the use of composite bows and oriental type of quivers, especially in pictorial evidences as a kind of testimony despite the turbulent centuries that followed the great changes brought by the Ottoman conquests and expansion of the Ottoman Turkish state and the disappearance of statehoods in the Balkans. However, there is no material remains except arrowheads for various purposes and some remnants of the application of the quiver, as is the case with the one from Smederevo, the center of the Serbian despotate that emerged from the famous Moravian Serbia after the collapse of the Serbian Empire, or from Veliki Trnovo as one of the centers of medieval Bulgarian state and even on the territory of today's Republic of (*North) Macedonia. All this does not give an even clearer picture of the quivers used in the armies of the Balkan rulers and feudal lords. Of course, in fresco painting, which, in addition to its religious character, abounds in objects from everyday life, there is an abundance of representations of archery equipment, mostly very faithfully presented, unless it is rather schematic representation on miniatures. It should not be mentioned that this is only a part of what the huge demographic, cultural and religious changes brought to the Balkans, and especially the disappearance of testimonies, especially when it comes to churches and monastery complexes that perished in the whirlwinds of wars. Add to that the impossibility but also the non-existence of the custom of keeping the weapons.
The only exception to the above is the treasury of the Hilandar monastery, which keeps a nomadic type quiver present in the late medieval Serbian and Bulgarian state and what is known in science as Byzantium and in the Balkans and Carpatian Basin in general until the early 15th century. Despite the fact that since the transfer of the center of a young unstoppable superpower in the announcement, the Ottoman Empire in the Balkans in 1365 and the first defeats of the Balkan armies and especially the fatal defeat of the Serbian army in the battle of Maritsa in 1371, the Ottoman Turkish impact has been increasingly replacing previous quiver type that came through Hungary via Cumans employed in the armies of Serbian, Bulgarian and Byzantine rulers as mercenary cavalry archers, but also the Golden Horde. This type of open quiver will appear in art in the last 2 quarters of the 14th century, especially in the paintings of Moravian Serbia (later known as the Serbian despotate) of the Lazarević and Branković dynasties. in areas that had not yet completely fallen under Ottoman rule. Gligor Božinoski first noticed in his work the oldest representation of the Turkish type of bow (arco alla turca) on the territory of Northern Macedonia (Ohrid), an area that became a vassal of the Turkish sultan after the collapse of the Serbian Empire. This phenomenon is also noticeable in the area under the control of the Serbian feudal Branković family (Kosovo) in the center of the Serbian Orthodox Church, the Patriarchate of Peć and in the lands of Lazarević family.
The representations of nomadic archery equipment coincide with the so-called "Palaiologian Renaissance" and the expansion of the Serbian state of the Nemanjic dynasty at the expense of neighboring Byzantium, primarily the area of today's part of Northern Macedonia. From that moment on, at the end of the 13th and the beginning of the 14th century, the culture of the rich medieval Serbian state was completely tied to the Byzantine one. The representations of the quivers show a common characteristic of the so-called closed tubular quivers, most likely of the Kuman type. Although great diversity in designs is very noticeable. The keen eye will not miss the fact that the so called closed quiver types with lids and arrows placed with the tips upwards were shown in contrast to how they were naturally worn, as in a mirror. The reason is very simple, the painters took care to show the purpose of the object because the back of quiver would say nothing. In contrast, in most cases, we see richly decorated front side of quivers, mostly with elliptical bases, as can be concluded, but sometimes in the shape of a square or hexagon. They narrow all the way to the mouth of the quiver where the door is usually located on the right side. The painters managed to express the material with different shades of colors, and in a good part of the cases also almost detailed decorations. The proportions are astonishing so that the average quiver length, if we use certain parameters is +/- 80 cm and is adequate to the average length of the arrow placed in it. In such cases, they are quivers that were most likely part of the royal or feudal arsenal of the church's founders. In smaller churches they are often pretty schematic but indicate a particular type. The term that was in use for tubular, closed quiver was tul, and the makers of such quivers were called tulari. Certain villages with obligations of production and supply of local fortifications were named after them. Such are, for example, the villages of Tulari and Tulare in Serbia, but also on the territory of Northern Macedonia and Bulgaria. The term is also noted in Dubrovnik documents. The archaic word has remained in the Bulgarian language and today it means tube, something tubular as in the Czech and Slovak languages it is still used for quiver, while in the Serbian language in certain dialects. The term tobolac, which was less frequently used, most likely comes from the Greek language τοξοβολία / toxovolia – archery.
For a very long time, the only quiver preserved in the Balkans, which we mentioned at the very beginning, is a great mystery. It is part of the rich treasury of the Serbian monastery Hilandar on Athos, whose founders and patrons were members of the Nemanjic dynasty and which contains a great treasure of the cultural history of the medieval Serbian state. There is very little information about the quiver itself, which is quite well preserved together with 5 arrows. Full expertise has never been done. Only Đurđica Petrović and Marija Šercer inform us in their works about certain details. The quiver itself is dated to the 14th century. According to the description of Marija Šercer, the preserved part of the quiver is 60 cm long. The photographs give the impression that its base is almost circular, which is not common if we compare modern finds from the territory of Mongolia. From the base, it is funnel-shaped and it is pretty evident that the body is composed of two parts, having a wooden base. At the base of the quiver covered by leather, spiral grooves are noticeable as remnants of the strips with which the leather was more than likely sewn. The quiver is covered with leather and appears to have a metal part resembling a tied wire in the part towards the mouth. The arrows preserved in it are 65 cm long, so that one gets the impression that the tul itself was a little over 70 cm, which is not usual for quivers painted on frescoes, both in terms of their length and in terms of arrows. Without expertise, we cannot see if there was any ornamentation, and one gets the impression that it is an ordinary warrior's quiver and not the one that could have been part of the royal arsenal. Even with regard to the arrows, we cannot clearly determine whether it is their true length, considering that the arrow nocks are not noticeable in the photos. The arrowheads appear to be for different purposes, from those with tangs that are found in the territory covered by the medieval Serbian, Bulgarian and Byzantine states (in particular Greece) to the common spike, and these archaeological findings are quite rare or not present in pictorial evidences. The arrowshafts are slightly barelled based on the photographs. It is questionable were arrows from the same quiver. We are not prone to populist claims that it strictly belonged to Serbian Emperor Dušan or someone from his guard, or that it came from the Battle of Kosovo, because we have no evidence for that. Nevertheless, we could roughly place it in the period of the first half of the 14th century and statehood of Serbian Nemanjić dynasty.
Several scenarios could be set about the origin itself:
1. Part of the armament of the monastery squad
2. War booty after e.g. the simultaneous siege of the Catalan company and the renegade Tatar mercenaries on Athos, during which Hilandar was defended by its squad.
3. quiver of the Turkopol mercenary which is less possible
It is certainly from the period of medieval Serbian statehood and according to its characteristics it corresponds to the hourglass quiver type painted in e.g. endowment of King Stefan Uroš II Milutin, the Church of the Mother of God of Ljeviska and some other paintings. Let's name cavalry archer in Serbische psalter too.
We expect an expertise soon, which will be done with the approval by our team led by a well-known connoisseur of medieval crafts, as well as fresco painter Aleksandar Stanojević and Zoran Pavlović. After that, reconstructions and studies would follow.
*Many thanks to Tsvetan Georgiev and Eques Cumanicus for constructive discussion on subject
Photos:
1. Bishop Siluan holding Hilandar quiver during his visit to monastery Hilandar on july the 17th 2021, courtesy of Metropolitanate of Australia and New Zealand Serbian Orthodox Church
2. courtesy of Gligor Božinovski, after Marija Šercer
3. courtesy of Vladimir Rodić and Eques Cumanicus
4. after Predrag Milošević, published in Sveti ratnici - borilačke veštine u Srba, Dečije novine, Beograd, 1989.
For further reading:
Božinoski, G., (2013). Ръчно метателно оръжие от XIII и XIV век на територията на Република Македония, Академично издателство ''Проф.Марин Дринов''. София.
Dwyer, B., (1998). The closed quiver. Journal of Society of Archer Antiquaries, vol. 41.
Vasiljević. D., (2014.) Konjanici strelci/Mounted archers, Pešić i sinovi , Belgrade
Pavlović, Z.,(2013.) Serbian Composite bows up to the third quarter of the 14th century-Some views on their origin, structure and design, The Journal of the Society of Archer-Antiquaries vol. 56,
Petrović, Đ, (1976), Dubrovačko oružje u XIV veku. Vojni Muzej-Beograd.
Petrović, Đ., (1977) 'Oružje', Istorija primenjene umetnosti
kod Srba, Beograd,
Pribaković, D. (1954) ’Oružje na zidnom slikarstvu Srbije I Makedonije', Vesnik vojnog muzeja 1,
Beograd,
Steppenkrieger,(2012) Reiternomaden des 7-14 Jahrhunderts aus der Mongolei.
Hg. Jan BEMMANN. Katalogbuch, Rhein., Landesmuseum Bonn
Šercer. M.,(1980). Oružje u prošlosti. Ur. M. Šercer. Povijesni Muzej Hrvatske, Zagreb
Skrivanić, G., (1957) 'Oružje u srednjovekovnoj Srbiji,
Bosni i Dubrovniku’, SANU, 1.izdanje, Beograd,
Some notes on preserved closed quiver from Serbian monastery Hilandar - draft
The Balkans is not the only place with a rich history and, accordingly, an archery tradition. As in most of the world, where adequate equipment of the late Middle Ages, as an adopted Central Asian cultural heritage was in use, there was a noticeable paradox. At almost every step there are indications of the use of composite bows and oriental type of quivers, especially in pictorial evidences as a kind of testimony despite the turbulent centuries that followed the great changes brought by the Ottoman conquests and expansion of the Ottoman Turkish state and the disappearance of statehoods in the Balkans. However, there is no material remains except arrowheads for various purposes and some remnants of the application of the quiver, as is the case with the one from Smederevo, the center of the Serbian despotate that emerged from the famous Moravian Serbia after the collapse of the Serbian Empire, or from Veliki Trnovo as one of the centers of medieval Bulgarian state and even on the territory of today's Republic of (*North) Macedonia. All this does not give an even clearer picture of the quivers used in the armies of the Balkan rulers and feudal lords. Of course, in fresco painting, which, in addition to its religious character, abounds in objects from everyday life, there is an abundance of representations of archery equipment, mostly very faithfully presented, unless it is rather schematic representation on miniatures. It should not be mentioned that this is only a part of what the huge demographic, cultural and religious changes brought to the Balkans, and especially the disappearance of testimonies, especially when it comes to churches and monastery complexes that perished in the whirlwinds of wars. Add to that the impossibility but also the non-existence of the custom of keeping the weapons.
The only exception to the above is the treasury of the Hilandar monastery, which keeps a nomadic type quiver present in the late medieval Serbian and Bulgarian state and what is known in science as Byzantium and in the Balkans and Carpatian Basin in general until the early 15th century. Despite the fact that since the transfer of the center of a young unstoppable superpower in the announcement, the Ottoman Empire in the Balkans in 1365 and the first defeats of the Balkan armies and especially the fatal defeat of the Serbian army in the battle of Maritsa in 1371, the Ottoman Turkish impact has been increasingly replacing previous quiver type that came through Hungary via Cumans employed in the armies of Serbian, Bulgarian and Byzantine rulers as mercenary cavalry archers, but also the Golden Horde. This type of open quiver will appear in art in the last 2 quarters of the 14th century, especially in the paintings of Moravian Serbia (later known as the Serbian despotate) of the Lazarević and Branković dynasties. in areas that had not yet completely fallen under Ottoman rule. Gligor Božinoski first noticed in his work the oldest representation of the Turkish type of bow (arco alla turca) on the territory of Northern Macedonia (Ohrid), an area that became a vassal of the Turkish sultan after the collapse of the Serbian Empire. This phenomenon is also noticeable in the area under the control of the Serbian feudal Branković family (Kosovo) in the center of the Serbian Orthodox Church, the Patriarchate of Peć and in the lands of Lazarević family.
The representations of nomadic archery equipment coincide with the so-called "Palaiologian Renaissance" and the expansion of the Serbian state of the Nemanjic dynasty at the expense of neighboring Byzantium, primarily the area of today's part of Northern Macedonia. From that moment on, at the end of the 13th and the beginning of the 14th century, the culture of the rich medieval Serbian state was completely tied to the Byzantine one. The representations of the quivers show a common characteristic of the so-called closed tubular quivers, most likely of the Kuman type. Although great diversity in designs is very noticeable. The keen eye will not miss the fact that the so called closed quiver types with lids and arrows placed with the tips upwards were shown in contrast to how they were naturally worn, as in a mirror. The reason is very simple, the painters took care to show the purpose of the object because the back of quiver would say nothing. In contrast, in most cases, we see richly decorated front side of quivers, mostly with elliptical bases, as can be concluded, but sometimes in the shape of a square or hexagon. They narrow all the way to the mouth of the quiver where the door is usually located on the right side. The painters managed to express the material with different shades of colors, and in a good part of the cases also almost detailed decorations. The proportions are astonishing so that the average quiver length, if we use certain parameters is +/- 80 cm and is adequate to the average length of the arrow placed in it. In such cases, they are quivers that were most likely part of the royal or feudal arsenal of the church's founders. In smaller churches they are often pretty schematic but indicate a particular type. The term that was in use for tubular, closed quiver was tul, and the makers of such quivers were called tulari. Certain villages with obligations of production and supply of local fortifications were named after them. Such are, for example, the villages of Tulari and Tulare in Serbia, but also on the territory of Northern Macedonia and Bulgaria. The term is also noted in Dubrovnik documents. The archaic word has remained in the Bulgarian language and today it means tube, something tubular as in the Czech and Slovak languages it is still used for quiver, while in the Serbian language in certain dialects. The term tobolac, which was less frequently used, most likely comes from the Greek language τοξοβολία / toxovolia – archery.
For a very long time, the only quiver preserved in the Balkans, which we mentioned at the very beginning, is a great mystery. It is part of the rich treasury of the Serbian monastery Hilandar on Athos, whose founders and patrons were members of the Nemanjic dynasty and which contains a great treasure of the cultural history of the medieval Serbian state. There is very little information about the quiver itself, which is quite well preserved together with 5 arrows. Full expertise has never been done. Only Đurđica Petrović and Marija Šercer inform us in their works about certain details. The quiver itself is dated to the 14th century. According to the description of Marija Šercer, the preserved part of the quiver is 60 cm long. The photographs give the impression that its base is almost circular, which is not common if we compare modern finds from the territory of Mongolia. From the base, it is funnel-shaped and it is pretty evident that the body is composed of two parts, having a wooden base. At the base of the quiver covered by leather, spiral grooves are noticeable as remnants of the strips with which the leather was more than likely sewn. The quiver is covered with leather and appears to have a metal part resembling a tied wire in the part towards the mouth. The arrows preserved in it are 65 cm long, so that one gets the impression that the tul itself was a little over 70 cm, which is not usual for quivers painted on frescoes, both in terms of their length and in terms of arrows. Without expertise, we cannot see if there was any ornamentation, and one gets the impression that it is an ordinary warrior's quiver and not the one that could have been part of the royal arsenal. Even with regard to the arrows, we cannot clearly determine whether it is their true length, considering that the arrow nocks are not noticeable in the photos. The arrowheads appear to be for different purposes, from those with tangs that are found in the territory covered by the medieval Serbian, Bulgarian and Byzantine states (in particular Greece) to the common spike, and these archaeological findings are quite rare or not present in pictorial evidences. The arrowshafts are slightly barelled based on the photographs. It is questionable were arrows from the same quiver. We are not prone to populist claims that it strictly belonged to Serbian Emperor Dušan or someone from his guard, or that it came from the Battle of Kosovo, because we have no evidence for that. Nevertheless, we could roughly place it in the period of the first half of the 14th century and statehood of Serbian Nemanjić dynasty.
Several scenarios could be set about the origin itself:
1. Part of the armament of the monastery squad
2. War booty after e.g. the simultaneous siege of the Catalan company and the renegade Tatar mercenaries on Athos, during which Hilandar was defended by its squad.
3. quiver of the Turkopol mercenary which is less possible
It is certainly from the period of medieval Serbian statehood and according to its characteristics it corresponds to the hourglass quiver type painted in e.g. endowment of King Stefan Uroš II Milutin, the Church of the Mother of God of Ljeviska and some other paintings. Let's name cavalry archer in Serbische psalter too.
We expect an expertise soon, which will be done with the approval by our team led by a well-known connoisseur of medieval crafts, as well as fresco painter Aleksandar Stanojević and Zoran Pavlović. After that, reconstructions and studies would follow.
*Many thanks to Tsvetan Georgiev and Eques Cumanicus for constructive discussion on subject
Photos:
1. Bishop Siluan holding Hilandar quiver during his visit to monastery Hilandar on july the 17th 2021, courtesy of Metropolitanate of Australia and New Zealand Serbian Orthodox Church
2. courtesy of Gligor Božinovski, after Marija Šercer
3. courtesy of Vladimir Rodić and Eques Cumanicus
4. after Predrag Milošević, published in Sveti ratnici - borilačke veštine u Srba, Dečije novine, Beograd, 1989.
For further reading:
Božinoski, G., (2013). Ръчно метателно оръжие от XIII и XIV век на територията на Република Македония, Академично издателство ''Проф.Марин Дринов''. София.
Dwyer, B., (1998). The closed quiver. Journal of Society of Archer Antiquaries, vol. 41.
Vasiljević. D., (2014.) Konjanici strelci/Mounted archers, Pešić i sinovi , Belgrade
Pavlović, Z.,(2013.) Serbian Composite bows up to the third quarter of the 14th century-Some views on their origin, structure and design, The Journal of the Society of Archer-Antiquaries vol. 56,
Petrović, Đ, (1976), Dubrovačko oružje u XIV veku. Vojni Muzej-Beograd.
Petrović, Đ., (1977) 'Oružje', Istorija primenjene umetnosti
kod Srba, Beograd,
Pribaković, D. (1954) ’Oružje na zidnom slikarstvu Srbije I Makedonije', Vesnik vojnog muzeja 1,
Beograd,
Steppenkrieger,(2012) Reiternomaden des 7-14 Jahrhunderts aus der Mongolei.
Hg. Jan BEMMANN. Katalogbuch, Rhein., Landesmuseum Bonn
Šercer. M.,(1980). Oružje u prošlosti. Ur. M. Šercer. Povijesni Muzej Hrvatske, Zagreb
Skrivanić, G., (1957) 'Oružje u srednjovekovnoj Srbiji,
Bosni i Dubrovniku’, SANU, 1.izdanje, Beograd,
courtesy of Gligor Božinovski, after Marija Šercer
courtesy of Vladimir Rodić and Eques Cumanicus
after Predrag Milošević, published in Sveti ratnici - borilačke veštine u Srba, Dečije novine, Beograd, 1989