Tatar / Bashkir

There is a line drawing of the end, including the kasan and tip, of a Bashkir bow in Saracen Archery. Looks very like a solider version of a Crimean Tatar bow.

I have this file marked down as 'Bashkir'. Perhaps Bede can elaborate.

Should we trust old pictures?
I see a Arabian purebreed horse and were the Bashkirs live I would expect more cold blood horses like the Mongol horses or other breed from that area.
Of course some Arabian blood could have some influence.
But if the horses is made up, what more in the picture is made up?
The freedom of the artist.

This painting was made by a Scottish artist who spent a long time in Russia in the Tsarist period. It could be considered part of the early nineteenth century Orientalist painting period. The usual approach was to accumulate original objects and use them for details. Some artists, who went to the areas where they painted and sketched from life, later worked up the paintings in the studio.

The quivers, the length of the arrows and the shape of the bows are all correct for both the Tatars and the Bashkirs. The hats are a Mongol type that was used as far west as the Urals. There is a photograph of a khan wearing one in Russia from the second half of the nineteenth century.

Don't be fooled by the appearance of the horses. Horses were extensively traded from Turkey through the Caucasus and from the east in Turkmenistan. Ordinary tribesmen rode rough horses, but high bred horses were a sign of status. I have read an analysis of Russian remounts at the time of the Crimean War and the supply of cross-bred horses was very large.

There is a nice Tatar bow in the Grayson collection, online. The big red one. -j-

"Crimean War"
That is modern time. I thought we talked about thousand years ago. My fault.

No, redhorse, your objection makes sense, but we know from grave analysis that Arabs were traded in Eastern Europe even back then. (I'm a medievalist)

Arabians has been around very long time. But I don't think that was the common horse for Russian tribes.
In thousand year they will find a picture of a ranch hand driving a Ferrari but that don't mean it was the common workers car.
I saw a painting of a NA riding a spanish horse in high dressage. I can assure that it was not common for the plain Indians :)

Okay, let me put it this way: we have specific knowledge of these horses being traded into the region, and we have specific knowledge of extensive commerce between Eastern Europe and the Arab world, particularly the SE mediterranean.

They can be found were a man can ride. Arabian and Barb are very old and very much involved in most modern breeds.
But many times, in a painting or picture were a horse is involved they put in an arabian. This is done even today.
And that is mostly for the beauty of the arabian horse not because they use that breed. Se what I mean?
Who can tell if a painting is just made up or shows what it really look like?
And what detail is made up?

That's a fight for the art-historians... generally speaking, my wife's dissertation on the topic found that most of the stuff in her area turned out to be significantly more accurate than previously thought... but you're absolutely right, there's no way you can unequivocally say "they just painted an arab there for the heck of it."

What gets me is the "would you look at the length of those arrows" factor. That's a LONG draw off a relatively small bow if the gear's authentic.

Yes I have thought about the length but I don't know enough about arrows. But I know that I will lose the arrows if they jump out of the quiver :)
But if I see one thing that makes me wonder I don't trust the rest without confirm from some one who I trust to know.
Or just if it is possible, I do test it.

The Crimean Tatar arrows in the Grayson Collection are about 34 inches long. They are well made with very strong points. Looking at Tatar arrows in other collections, such as the Askeri Museum and some Polish collections, it is apparent that there are several varieties of nocks. Some nocks are Turkish in form and others look more like Manchu ones.

Practical experience on horseback with short open quivers like the Turkish and Persian shows that there is little chance of the arrows falling out even in extreme circumstances. The quivers must be attached correctly to the belt.

As far back as the nomads buried in the Altai, two types of horses are associated with nomads on the Eurasian steppe. One type is short and stocky and looks like the modern Mongolian pony and the other is taller, more graceful and was used as the preferred riding horse by the wealthy. Hungarian accounts refer to landowners importing Turkish and Tatar horses as well as Arabians during the wars with the Ottoman Turks. The decline in the quality of the horses on the steppe can be directly associated with the spread of the two large empires at either end, the Russian and the Manchu. Large numbers of horses were purchased or stolen, breeding was disrupted and the nomadic state structures were destroyed.

Interesting that you see Arabians. I see typical Russian or Kabardian ponies with their tails slightly lifted off the crupper.

Look at the head of the horse.
There are breeds in Russia that are more high in blood, I just don't remember the names now. By the way, there is a breed called Bashkir horse.

How are the arrows fastened in the quiver?

On the other hand, the tumen is marked on the horse... that's a pretty rare-air observation if the painter was of the "let's throw this stuff together" variety...

The quiver may have had spacers at the mouth or have been unobstructed on the inside. It probably had three supporting straps, two on the leading edge and one on the inside face. This arrangement would have made it very stable. Mounting and dismounting with this sort of quiver is easy: the quiver tilts to vertical when the leg is thrown over the horse's back.

Maybe it is just a legend:-), but: in 1813 okt. 13-16(?), in the battle ol Leipzig were more soldiers from the french royal guard killed and wounded by arrows than by gunshots. There were bashkir and kalm?k mounted archers in the russian army.

Why not, the NA did kill Custer's gang with bows. And that was 1876.

I think you will find most of Custer's men were shot by guns judging from the archeology of the battleground. In East Timor recently, Australian peace keepers were threatened by people with steel arrows propelled by slingshots. Timor still has a living archery culture, but city dwellers obviously don't have access to bow wood.

There are some funny stories about the Napoleonic encounters with Russian auxiliary cavalry. I wonder if they have been carefully selected to appeal to English sensibilities.

I think there is too much of an angle to accurately judge the head, though there does appear to be evidence of some dish face. Having seen the Bashkir horse, I would not be surprised if this painting depicts that type. The Akhal-Teke is another ancient breed of horse from central Asia and this horse is a fairly tall slender animal with a short mane and renowned for its stamina. I would imagine there would be quite some variety of animal if we consider trade, movement, etc.
Judging by the rest of the equipment and the detail, it looks like the artist has studied his subject quite extensively.

Your horse looks also as it has arabian blood. Akhal-Teke if I remeber right is a tall horse. I have notice that it's more difficult to shoot from horses that has much in front of rider.
My 15 hands arabian is much better to shoot from than my 16 hands Hispano.
Maybe a peanut roller, Quaterhorse would be best :)
My point was not what breed they used, but that many times they paint arabinas just because they looks so nobel.

It's around 15.2 HH. Not the best conformation, long backed and a tendency to be cow-hocked but extremely hardy for such a graceful looking animal.

What would a horse archer be without a horse?
Noting else than a simple soldier :)

I'm not so interested in the horses. Also I am trying very hard to get info on Siberian Tatar specificaly. I am trying to avoid the common mistake of assuming that Crimean Tatars are the same as all others. Crimean Tatars may as well be called Crimean Turks. Sib Tatars differ in language greatly and are close to Bashkir Tatars. After Cummunists drew meaningless ethnic geographic lines and shifted people around for work and excile, the Tatars sort of started taking on a common identity.

I am interested in Sib-Tatar pre Communist Era.

I just gut an email from a curator at the Manchester Museum.

She told me that they have a Bashkir bow (Turco-Finnish), at the Pitt Rivers, from the South Urals . It is 4 feet 9.5 inches in length nock to knock and again 1.5 inches wide in the limbs. It was made with a wooden belly but backed with sinew and covered with white birch bark. It was presented to the Museum by H. Balfour in 1903.

Strange to me that there is no horn on the compression side.

Turco-Finnish

I would have to wonder if those were the actual words, if yes it is fairly strange. Recent research does not show any connection.

TLM

Yes that is what she said and I thought it was strange too I cut and pasted it from the email I recieved.

There is an actual connection. Do not think of Finland and Turkey. Think more of The Finno-Ugric language family.

I found this link if you are interested. Remember that if you trace human anscestory, the brances continue to narrow further down as you get closer to the source.

I found a link for you: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/2282/finno.html

People should not be surprised by the Horses, Bows, languages and genetic origins when doing research. Eurasian people did not live in isolation from eachother. They borrowed, adopted and stole everything from eachother. There was a lot of contact between folks there.


We digress.

Still I am curious about the hornless composite recureve of the Bashkir and any archery tackle from the Irtysh region of western Siberia.

Has anyone seen a hornless composite recurve in the Turco-Mongol style w/out horn being used?

I would LOVE to see a picture of the bow but I think I need to go to that museum.

You could approach the museum to take a photo for you. If it was for private research, they might just charge for time and materials.

There are four Korean bows in the Grayson collection with composite construction and wooden bellies. Two have exposed wood, one has damage that shows wood under the lacquer and the other is an exact analogue of the former.

I agree with the theory that they are talking about the Finno-Ugric and Altaic language families. There are a lot of old names for these groups and the museum data cards are often from the time of acquisition.

What about Buriat bows? There are plenty of soviet era photographs on these.

I am current reading a book about the Zungar-Qing wars and it is amazing how much the tribes moved around and interacted.

There is a drawing of a bashkir bow in the WEAPONS-An international Encyclopedia from 5000 BC to AD 2000 (specially focused on british chrone territories:-/) p. 99.

TZH

Buriat bows could be the answr, however. I would like to get a view of something geographicaly closer. I was thinking that since the Tatars I am interested in became muslims, they may have a more Turkish influence but I could also be totaly wrong.

I saw a picture of "mongolian" armor and a bow that looked more Tatar or Turkish than the more modern Mongolian bows. I know that the modern mongolian bows are not tha same that they used in the days of conquest.

http://depts.washington.edu/silkroad/mu ... /qing.html

ps
The more research I do the more I am proven right that people have more in common than they like to admit.

Peace!

There was a quiver and bow case featured in Wenwu which was brought by the Torghut when they returned to the Qing empire in the 1700s. It would have been indistinguishable from Turkish or Crimean Tatar equipment.

I looked at the web page and all the bows and quivers looked Qing inspired. This is not surprising considering how much the Mongol tribes were integrated into the Qing Banner system.

I remember the armour coming up for sale that is shown in the second panels. At the time, it looked as though it might have been pieces of an earlier horse armour that had been inexpertly relaced to built a cuirass. It is hard to tell with objects that have been modified like this whether it took place during its life time as a useful object or was added to increase its sale price later.

From what I have seen, there is a closer relationship between the Crimean Tatar bow and the earlier Yuan Dynasty bow depicted in art than the Qing bows for instance. Stephen has found bows that illustrate the variation that existed in the Mongol Empire. At this stage of research, it is hard to give a strict answer. My guess is that western Tatar bows would be closer to the Crimean model, but that the Torghut would have adopted the Qing equipment when they were absorbed into the Qing military. The Buriat bows have similarity to the late Mongol and Qing bows.

I doubt that I will find anything that is exact. I can't help but think that not only are there different cultural influences througout the empire and different kaganates; I also think there is variation among craftsmen. I have heard and read arguements about thumbring design and there I think it is the same thing. Things were taken in raids and on the battlefield.

There is a "Turkish War Bow" up for auction on ebay right now. Looks pretty good. has a couple holes in the horn. Let me know if someone from here bids on it.

Is there a big difference between bows for war, target shooting and hunting. Do all the traditional Tatar / Mongol bows require a long tillering process for stringing every time?

I think you would find war and hunting bows more similar to each other than target bows. Depending on the period and the wealth of the original owner, decoration and construction would vary. If you are a poor hunter building your own bow, you take what horn you can get (and use wood if you cannot get horn). The decoration would be dependent on wealth and spare time as well.

Target bows were built for stability and repeatability of action. Usually the target archer is shooting more arrows and needs these features. The bows are lighter because the arrows usually are too.

Composite bows were often left strung for extended periods. Flight bows and target bows were probably always unstrung after use, but war bows and hunting bows would be left strung for weeks. I have left a bow by Adam Karpowicz for three weeks without any trouble except a drop in draw weight. This stabilised early on and was not a problem.

That answered a question I have had for a long time. Thank you.

I had wondered how Steppe folks dealt with surprise raids on the encampments if they had to stop and string their bows.

Ok I am quite poor too so I have to ask. How well does a hornless bow respond to the repetitive draw and fire of target shooting?

One of these days I'm gonna figure out what style bow is most appropriate and find a bowyer.

[quote]Composite bows were often left strung for extended periods. Flight bows and target bows were probably always unstrung after use, but war bows and hunting bows would be left strung for weeks. I have left a bow by Adam Karpowicz for three weeks without any trouble except a drop in draw weight. This stabilised early on and was not a problem.[/quote]

Bows for hunting and battle might be as resilient as the other bows. Then, what charactoristics would make war/hunting bows endure strong compression of the composite bows for several weeks?

Two things must be considered. Why would you unstring a bow immediately after use? What are the requirements of the war/hunting bow?

Unstringing composite bows is done to prevent warping in narrow limbed bows and to retain as much of their speed of recovery as possible. In flight and target shooting you would have colleagues and specialists to help you string bows and plenty of time to do it.

A war or hunting bow usually requires hitting power as well as accuracy. It requires stability as well. You could not afford to have your bow unstring itself in the middle of a battle. Hitting power is related to efficiency and increased draw weight. Stability usually comes at the cost of arrow speed.

There is always a trade off to make the best bow for the job at hand.

Can you post a pic from the book?
Library dos not have it.

WEAPONS-An international Encyclopedia from 5000 BC to AD 2000 (specially focused on british chrone territories:-/) p. 99.

Do you mean the Wenwu article?

On leaving hunting bows strung, I must say that most of the depctions I see of Turkic people with bows from the Tang period show them with their bows unstrung in a soft case, even when they're mounted. Here is an example.

Stephen,
You are right. Strung bow cases did not become popular again until the Song. They started to appear early and predominate by the 11th century.

I speculate that the bowyers were achieving a greater residual reflex which made it harder to brace the bows. However, there are Tang murals showing very reflexed bows in unstrung-bow cases.

can any one show the picture of tang dynasty bows? what form of hornbows in the china tang dynasty?

can any one show the picture of tang dynasty bows? what form of hornbows in the china tang dynasty?

I think there are some wall paintings such as those at Dunhuang which give an indication. This one is just after the Tang period.

This is a kitay type bow, isn't it?

TZH

For Tamr: the "baskir" bow from the Weapon Enc.:

Reconstr. of hungarian strung bow cases, 9-10. Cent.

An other:

3.

Middle and upper boneplates of a soft bow case :

And: this is the MB-bow?

TZH

Tamr The Nomad wrote:

Does anyone have any pictures of Sib-Tatar bows or equipment.
Adam K. recomended I look for Bashkir bows.
Any pics anyone?????

Here are the drawings from Saracene Archery, of which one was supposedly drawn from a Bashkir bow (the Siyah).
[external image]
The other one (not Bashkir)
[external image]

Thank you so much!!!!!!!!

Remember, the second picture is not of a Bashkir bow. It is based on the reconstruction of Taybugha's bow and is there to show the technical Arabic names for parts of the bow in Syrian in the 14th century.

lets make alive this topic
TZH, could you send the same picture from Weapon Enc. but in better resolution?

some old ilustr.

[external image]

[external image]

[external image]

[external image]

[external image]

[external image]

[external image]

[external image]

[external image]

[external image]

Wow!! it is unbelievable
some of pics I've never seen before!
Could you image that one of that man could be my grand-grand-grand-grand father who was in 15th cavalry regiment at war against Napoleon (between 1812-1814) ??!!
(totally there were 26 or 29 cavalry regiments from Bashqorts, about 500 cavalrymen in each)

I'm looking for some information on crimean tatar arrows. I'm waiting for a new tatar bow right now and decided to make a couple of matching arrows. I found the tatar arrows in the Grayson Collection and at other sites but still have questions. Were tatar arrows barrelled? If so, how much? What kind of wood was used? What did those arrows weight? What about nocks - did they come always with self nocks?

I think that Dusan has posted pictures of Tatar arrows from the Kremlin museum. A friend was there and showed me well displayed images of those arrows. They were uncrested, long, stout, baralled shafts; reminded me of Mongol arrows, Tartars were one of the five Turkic tribes of the Mongols.

When I see an old museum arrow which is straight, I am reminded of wood split from log sections. Alternately, arrows made from shoots are difficult to make permanently straight, but are stronger for their weight than split out arrows. Shoot arrows would, presumably, be more difficult to procure in military quantities.

A split out arrow shows grain but an arrow made from a shoot hides its grain. From what one can see in a museum display, it is difficult to differentiate the two in hardwood versions. It is very easy to identify in a coniferous version, even down to the species.

To tell the exact species of wood would require some microscopic distructive test, or else a knowledge of local ethnigraphic arrow making techniques. See my posts on Genghis Khan Exhibit Houston under general discussion. -j-

I don't necessarily need to know the exact species of the wood used. I couldn't get that particular wood aniway if the species is Pseudotatarica Obscura or something like that :) But do I need a hardwood to make such a long arrow? Most arrows today are made of softwoods but the average draw weights and draw lengths are less than a tipical tatar archer would have used. My new bow isn't going to be heavy (45#) but my draw length is 34".

Arrows made of shoots are better once you can make them uniform enough. The problem is that the material is just too difficult to obtain. In old times when people had time instead of watches it was easier. They may have had grown their own arrows by trimming the right kind of trees or bushes much like basket makers do.

The barrelling of the shafts is a problem to solve too. For a start I don't know how much material should I remove. You can buy barreld arrows around here but those are tapered by 1/32" (from 11/32" to 5/16", that's 8.7mm to 7.9mm in metric). I don't think that this makes a significant effect. Turkish arrows I've seen (mostly on the net) are more dramatically tapered but those are for flight shooting.

I would say to make just one arrow and see how it does. Modify it to improve it or remake it till it is ideal, It would be hard to believe that Tartars made just one kind of arrow.

Barreling is more pronounced than 1/32". Remember that the nock is large, like the middle of the arrow. You can also place the bulge (I think in Turkic this is the pot belly) in the center or forward of center.

I saw arrows in Central Asia and in Austrian museums that were equal to what we call "Fir" wood. The Mongol arrows in the HMNS appear to be hardwood.

Do you have access to a table saw? Rip a square strip, make to a hex and shape with a thumb plane, a simple tool. Make sure the grain is perfectly aligned to the strip.

There are several different qualities of Crimean Tatar arrows just as there are of bows. Some bows were undoubtedly made in the Crimea and the surrounding areas up into the Caucasus Mountains. However, high grade Crimean Tatar bows were made in Istanbul for Tatar clients. The arrows in the Grayson Collection were probably made in Ottoman Turkey for Tatar clients though they could have been made in one of the Crimean towns. The arrows are barrelled in the same proportion as Ottoman war arrows. They are more barrelled than the Tatar arrows in the Karlsruhe Landesmuseum. They probably have bakkam nocks under the painting. I have examined closely several times and they have retained their straightness. The Karlsruhe arrows have self nocks and are described as Kieferholz (pine). They are 85 cm long.

The nocks have larger openings on the Karlsruhe arrows suggesting thicker strings. The Grayson arrows were for a slightly smaller string diameter.

Incidentally, Dr Grayson told me the fletching on the Grayson arrows are replacements. The fletcher told me that they were based on a description in Arab Archery, but he believes now that this is incorrect. Arrows shown in Stara Bron w polskich zbiorach by Zdzislaw Zygulski appear to have their original feathers. In illustration 228 on page 222, these arrows are described as being 66-78 cm. Obviously the shorter ones are probably Turkish arrows mixed up in the Tatar quiver. The fletching is long and low in the larger arrows. The arrows are shown in the quiver so they may be broken or missing their heads so I would not rely on the lengths.

Bede

You say "high grade Tatar bows were made in Istanbul". Do you have references to that other than the 1709 Janissary shop? If you base this opinion on the findings from the Janissary estate, we actually do not even know exactly what kind of bows were made there (although described as Tatar) and what was the quality of manufacture. I am not arguing this is impossible, and surely such bows were made in Turkey too, but I would be happier with a reference.

There are reports of Tatars importing bows made in Crimea for the Ottoman army, together with the slaves. So, the traffic in bows was perhaps (mainly) in the opposite direction. It again does not mean the bows were typical Crim-Tatar.

As to the arrow length. I have measured a good number of bows in the Polish collections and generally the bows, of the typical Tatar shape, were shorter than one would find elsewhere. Perhaps the arrows were also shorter to match the bows.

Adam

Where can I find dimensions for turkish war arrows?

Turkish arrows from about the time of the siege of Vienna or earlier. The wood is easily identified as coniferous "lumber" split from log sections. They are then shaped into a straight shape therefore not requiring straightening. Arrows of this technique stay straighter in museum settings, generally. -j-

Adam,
There is an indisputably Crimean Tatar bow in the Grayson collection signed by an Ottoman bowyer (Hajji Mustafa Kavsi). There are many reports of trade other than slaves going between the Crimean Tatar state and the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman archives are very extensive and are now starting to be translated. There are Polish lithographs showing one of the Girei Khans and his attendants wearing Ottoman style quivers.

It would be surprising if the Crimean Tatar upper classes did not import luxury goods from the workshops in Istanbul. As well, there would be the diplomatic gifts of the Sultans. There is documentation currently available showing that even Christian princes subject to the Sultans bought quivers and archery equipment from the same workshops that supplied the palace.

I would be interested if the majority of arrows in Polish collections believed to be Tatar had parallel sided nocks. These I would guess are the native style. As to length, what is a long arrow for me might not be long to you. I have seen the other Tatar bow in the Grayson collection and it was much shorter than the Kavsi one. After your observations, I wonder which was the dominant form. Perhaps the large ones were for another style of shooting or for bigger individuals. If one considers that the majority of the Crim Tatars were the descendants of the Kipchaks, it is possible that there were two styles of bows in use. However it is just as likely that bow design was evolving and diversifying.

There is information from European sources that the average Tatar soldier of the 17th century was quite poor. Perhaps the Ottomans supported their allies with war materiel.

Bede wrote:

Adam,
It would be surprising if the Crimean Tatar upper classes did not import luxury goods from the workshops in Istanbul.

name of bow made from sinew and horn in bashkirian (language) is etherne.
it sounds like Ottoman's city Edirne (where famouse bow makers were from).
I have met some info on internet that among kazakhs than name was also used. (needs to be verified)

so it might be that ottoman's bows spreaded as far as bashkir and kazakhs.

One way to check is look up the word in the dictionary of pre-thirteenth century Turkish. If it is there, then it doesn't refer to Edirne because at that date the Turks had not conquered it. If it is not there, then there is a chance that the word is from the place which would be very interesting.

Well, the byzantine name of the city is Adrianopolis. There are many examples of older christian ( either byzantine, bulgarian, serbian, etc. ) toponimes, which are not translated but kind of transliterated in to turkish after the conquest of the Balkans. Edirne is one such example.

So there is no possibility that the city is named after the word for hornbow. And I believe, there is little bossibility of the oposite, since in the late 14th c. the turkish langage is long since developed.

The only possibility of some connection between the two names I see is the following:
Some kind of import in bashkir region from Ottoman empire, and particularly from Edirne, which gave the name of the city to the hornbow of that particular type and later - to all hornbows.
That is something common in the Balkans at least, but is possible only if one of the two is fullfiled:
a) there were no bashkir hornbows before that particular import.
or
b) The bashkir hornbows were too different in overal shape or details from the ottoman.
If neither of this is fulfiled then the new word would not be used at all.

Well, that's my oppinion at least.

Lord Ruthven wrote:

So there is no possibility that the city is named after the word for hornbow.

of course :lol:

Some kind of import in bashkir region from Ottoman empire, and particularly from Edirne, which gave the name of the city to the hornbow of that particular type and later - to all hornbows.

yes, but we cannot say that this name is general for all kind of hornbows.
We use also bow names as YEYE (the same with YAY in turkish) and YAN.
(yan might sound like Zhan in some bashkirian dialects

a) there were no bashkir hornbows before that particular import.
or
b) The bashkir hornbows were too different in overal shape or details from the ottoman.

bashkirs lived in contact with other turkic tribes and must have horn bow.
so (b) should be more correct.

A word of caution about the word 'Tatar'. It had two meanings.

One was derived from the Mongolic word for the confederation (what we now usually regard as the origin of the word 'Tartar'.) The other was a derogatory Turkic word referring to Muslims who abandoned their religion in the Crimean region because the Greek administrators gave tax concessions to Christians. The word that appears in Ottoman documents may mean 'tax-dodging apostates' rather than 'Mongolic Tartars'. :wink:

Stephen Selby wrote:

A word of caution about the word 'Tatar'. It had two meanings.

word tatar as tribe was known much earlier time....

5. Yogci sigitci ?ng re k?n togsikdaki B?kli c?l[l]?g il
Tabgac T?p?t Apar Purum Kirkiz ?c Kurikan Otuz Tatar
Kitany Tatabi bunca budun kelipen sigtamis, yoglamis.
Antag k?l?g kagan er[mis. Anda kisre inisi kagan bolmis
eri]nc. Ogliti kagan bolmis erinc. Anda [kisre inisi ecisin
teg]

I think I posted earlier in another topic that I sent a friend to the state museum in Kazakhstan. They have a number of Chinese made Qing style bows that they believe are Kazakh and Bashkir. This is how they are labeled. He also bought a book on the arms and armaments of the Kazakhs. The author seems to think that these Chinese bows are KZ and Bashkir. Evidently the local production of bows died so early in the country that none exists. But Chinese import bows continued for 100-200 years after this time. One or more bows has Chinese decorations/symbols on it. Jack

jack farrell wrote:

One or more bows has Chinese decorations/symbols on it. Jack

do you have pictures?
i have one and could post it later today.
from russian sources we know that bashkir made their own bows in 19 centure, they looked clumsy but bashkirs used them very well and had good shot. Also they export their bows to kazakhs.

As I know, materials in National Museum of Almaty came from old Karavansaray museum of Orenburg. (They were moved there after 1917 revolution). That chinese bows might be from Kalmyks.,
Bashkirs fought with Kalmyks a lot, and also we have muslim kalmyks among bashkirs, assimilated and became bashkir.

bashkir bow from almaty national museum (...)
[external image]

Sorry , but this is chinese bow. Good example what Jack talking about Kazachstan and another stan too. I posted some pics from this muzeums too , an everyvhere is same situation.(Except this Jacs found tatar bow ...)

Yes, and note the Chinese made quiver, bow case and arrow. There is a Kazakh quiver and elsewhere some local made arrows. I also found an illustration of a Qing bow in an Indian museum in Pant's book Indian Archery. This all may show that Chinese bows were available or less expensive or performed better or more reliably than locally made products. -j-

This question of how Chinese (Manchu) bows permeated surrounding cultures could be very interesting. Apart from the descriptions in Central Asian museums and as far away as Poland and Topkapi, even Korean museums have labelled obvious 18-19 Century Chinese products as local.

I think much of the confusion will be recent. We all know how confused many but the most experienced museum staff are about bows and arrows. At the time the bows entered those countries, people were probably well-aware of their origin. Some could be gifts in return for foreign tributes to Beijing, some could be booty taken in wars between the Qing and the Dzungars in the 18-19th Century. Some might have been commercial products; but up to the 1880s the Qing court went to a lot of effort to prevent bows going into the course of commerce.

If they were commercial, they would probably have been relatively inexpensive. Chinese-made bows were made in a production line process with different specialists adding different components. So in terms of price and quality they would compare with the best products of indicidual artizan bowyers. In the 1950s, Mongolian archers went to Beijing for their bows rather than making them locally.

S

Of course by 1880 there was little use for a bow. This commerce probably preceded that time. For instance in India the Brits put an end to bow making in 1857 and before.

There is another underlying issue. Why, say in Kazakhstan, a place with thousands of years of nomad history, did the Kazakhs stop their own bow making while there was still a market for hornbows?

jack farrell wrote:

Why, say in Kazakhstan, a place with thousands of years of nomad history, did the Kazakhs stop their own bow making while there was still a market for hornbows?

due to economic and political situation in steppes may be??
for instance, among bashkirs smithy was forbidden by russian goverment on 11 February 1735, about 800 smiths were taken away out of Bashkortostan, at that war russian commanders complained that among bashkirs a lot of well equipent warriors with armour (cuirass) and chain armor, but on war 1772-1774 a very few bashkirs had armor and sabres, mostly they were equipped with bows only...

another bow from the same display
[external image]
it was said that this is mongol bow

Please, explain what time these bows could be made?

As Stephen has stated, when the Manchurians came to power in China, they brought their bow making type with them. Their dynasty is called Qing (1644-1912). One bow shop continued making bows in this style till about 1952? Mongolians still use this general style.

jack farrell wrote:

As Stephen has stated, when the Manchurians came to power in China, they brought their bow making type with them. Their dynasty is called Qing (1644-1912). One bow shop continued making bows in this style till about 1952? Mongolians still use this general style.

thanks!
i will send other pics of bashkir bows.
i found info (letter dated 1755) were stated that bows of northern tribes of bashkir were better than south tribes'.
it is strange a little bit, because among northern tribes we have tribes with finn ugor and bulgar origin - and might be that their bows were mostly finn ugor type (two wooden plates without horn)..
or nomadic life of southern tribes effected negatively bow making ability (it is hard to keep the same condition when making bows)
(northern tribes were semi nomadic or settled)

I have seen a similar shaped quiver in another collection. It shows relationship in shape to a late 18th century to early nineteenth century Middle Eastern types that also occur in Tibet. Generally these are thought to be steppe varieties of the military quivers of the Turkish and Mongol states of the period. Perhaps they date back to the Dzungars. No one has adequately mapped the appearance of military quivers of the period. There are surviving ones but not many are published.

I have seen evidence that quiver types migrated up the Caucasus and through the Crimea. There is less evidence that they also were passed through the Central Asian states in the 17th to 19th centuries. Moser collected some in the nineteenth century.

other bashkirian bows
http://img150.imageshack.us/gal.php?g=16112007157.jpg

Bashqort; Please tell us about these bows. Provenience. -j-

Bashqort wrote:

other bashkirian bows
http://img150.imageshack.us/gal.php?g=16112007157.jpg

Those bows are clearly not of Chinese origin. They seem similar to early Mongol bows, and resemble 18-19C western depictions of Mongol-Siberian bows. So I think they have a good chance to have been made in the homeland of the Bashkirs.

One possible test is to establish what wood was used for the siyahs or core (a microscopic examination of a small sample from the original is all that is required.) You can compare it to native woods. Central Asian bowyers tend to resort to native woods for their bows but may still use birch-bark, horn and sinew imported ed from far away.

jack farrell wrote:

Bashqort; Please tell us about these bows. Provenience. -j-

bow on left is from museum in Bashkortostan (as I remember)
picture on the center is also from museum in Bashkortostan,
the rigth one I found on the internet, where were said that this bow belong to bashkir rebels. (it is from one of central museums of Russia)

i guess the left one made from horn, central without, the right one i have no idea.
the left's siyahs looks like one mentioned on Saracene Archery.

by the way, bashkirs known to live at their current homeland from VI-IXc.
(between Ural(Yayik) and Volga(Idil) rivers)
at that time there wasnt any mongols, but hungars, bulgars, pecheneks, kypchaks, and we have not any relations to early mongols and late mongols also (except few tribes that came during invation)
Do you have any picture of western kypchaks-kumans, bulgars bows?

These bows look a lot like Crim-Tatar bows, with less or without the grip reflex. It makes sense since Bashkiria is far to the west and south of the Urals and the bow styles could easily mix. I have seen a very similar bow covered with painted cloth, but can not remember where that was (could be in the War Museum in Warsaw).

Adam

Adam Karpowicz wrote:

could be in the War Museum in Warsaw).
Adam

bashkirs were also within russian forces during Russia Poland wars. May be there some information left in Poland history or pictures about that time?

Here is an interesting link; http://www.everyculture.com/Russia-Eura ... ation.html

and some pics from the Kremlin. I believe it was said they were Tatar.

Another;

jack farrell wrote:

Here is an interesting link; http://www.everyculture.com/Russia-Eura ... ation.html

and some pics from the Kremlin. I believe it was said they were Tatar.

thanks, here also about bashkir
http://www.everyculture.com/Russia-Eura ... hkirs.html

I remembered seeing a painting of bashkirs by a Scottish painter and it has taken me some time to find it, Here is the link.http://www.hermitagemuseum.org/fcgi-bin ... From=quick

The painting is by Sir William Allan, 1782-1850, and it is in the Hermitage in St Petersberg. It is dated 1814. It shows bow cases, quivers, bows and arrows.

Wow, back in the beginning of my initiation to this hobby.