Question about the Archaemenid Persian draw and thum-draw.
In his book "Mounted archers of the Steppe BC600~BC1300"(Osprey Publishing, 2004), Antony Karasulas mentions the Persian draw, in which the archer lays his forefinger across the arrow "as if pointing toward". Wikipedia provides a 4th-century AD Sassanian dish showing such technique(See second picture.)
Nonetheless, was this draw used also during the Archaemenid dynasty of Persia? Sveral painting of greek vases and Alexander sarcophagus show Scythians using well-known mediterranean draw, and one Parthian ceramic plaque in British museum show parthian archer who is also using mediterranean draw.(See first picture)
Since these people were in close relationship with Archaemenid Persians, I've conjectured that Archaemenids might also have used such draw. However, I thought I should better ask experts about this matter, rather than giving vague guess by myself.
Another question is about the adoption of thumb draw in Middle-east Asia. From the evidence above and the fact that even Sassanians used two-fingered draw(I read this from Mr. Dwyer's thesis), it seems that thumb draw was adopted quite lately. When did the archers of Middle-east Asian began to use thumb draw?
#Source of the first picture: http://parthia.com/parthia_horses_burris.htm
Source of the second picture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:E3_5 ... sanian.jpg
Nonetheless, was this draw used also during the Archaemenid dynasty of Persia? Sveral painting of greek vases and Alexander sarcophagus show Scythians using well-known mediterranean draw, and one Parthian ceramic plaque in British museum show parthian archer who is also using mediterranean draw.(See first picture)
Since these people were in close relationship with Archaemenid Persians, I've conjectured that Archaemenids might also have used such draw. However, I thought I should better ask experts about this matter, rather than giving vague guess by myself.
Another question is about the adoption of thumb draw in Middle-east Asia. From the evidence above and the fact that even Sassanians used two-fingered draw(I read this from Mr. Dwyer's thesis), it seems that thumb draw was adopted quite lately. When did the archers of Middle-east Asian began to use thumb draw?
#Source of the first picture: http://parthia.com/parthia_horses_burris.htm
Source of the second picture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:E3_5 ... sanian.jpg
I agree with you that the most likely draw for the Achaemenid Persians was the Mediterranean one. It may have been two or three fingered if the Alexander Sarcophagus is accurate.
There is a strong possibility that the Sassanians had started to adopt the thumb draw from the Blue Turks in the last century of their rule. There are some rock reliefs from the time of Khosrow Parviz which look like a thumb draw to me. There was a lot of military interaction with the Turks in the east in the sixth and seventh century.
There is a strong possibility that the Sassanians had started to adopt the thumb draw from the Blue Turks in the last century of their rule. There are some rock reliefs from the time of Khosrow Parviz which look like a thumb draw to me. There was a lot of military interaction with the Turks in the east in the sixth and seventh century.
Andrew Hall has located a text which clearly indicates contemporaries of the dynastic Egyptians burying archers with thumb rings. -j-
Jack,
Do you have any details?
Do you have any details?
Bede, Jack
Sorry to disappoint, but the rings are not quite as early as dynastic Egypt. They are mentioned in a book with the nice short title of "Excavations Between Abu Simbel and the Sudan Frontier: Part 9: Noubadian X-Group Remains from Royal Complexes in Cemeteries Q and 219 and Private Cemeteries Q, R, V, W, B, J, and M at Qustul and Ballana" by Bruce B. Williams and are circa 4th century AD. The remains consist of some unusual composite bows, arrows, numerous quivers and a few stone rings.
The book states that the "archer's loose" from the X-Group period was based on the shape as used the Meroitic period (~300BC-350AD). The illustrated rings are roughly truncated-cone shaped with quite thick walls and made from diorite.
Regards
Andrew
Sorry to disappoint, but the rings are not quite as early as dynastic Egypt. They are mentioned in a book with the nice short title of "Excavations Between Abu Simbel and the Sudan Frontier: Part 9: Noubadian X-Group Remains from Royal Complexes in Cemeteries Q and 219 and Private Cemeteries Q, R, V, W, B, J, and M at Qustul and Ballana" by Bruce B. Williams and are circa 4th century AD. The remains consist of some unusual composite bows, arrows, numerous quivers and a few stone rings.
The book states that the "archer's loose" from the X-Group period was based on the shape as used the Meroitic period (~300BC-350AD). The illustrated rings are roughly truncated-cone shaped with quite thick walls and made from diorite.
Regards
Andrew
Mea culpa -j-
Truly, I was mistaken when I wrote about the adoption of thumb-draw into the Middle-east Asia. Recalling now, the ancient Assyrians also seem to have used thumb-draw, judging from the ancient reliefs.
But if so, why would other people of adjacent region would use mediterranean draw for centuries, if much useful thumb-draw was alredy known to them?
Sometime I just can't help myself from thinking bizarre questions.(-_-;)
But if so, why would other people of adjacent region would use mediterranean draw for centuries, if much useful thumb-draw was alredy known to them?
Sometime I just can't help myself from thinking bizarre questions.(-_-;)
The Assyrians used possibly two different styles of shooting if you believe the accuracy of the bas reliefs. When shooting left to right, they used a tertiary release according to Morse's classification. The irregular position of the bow string sometimes falsely gives the impression of a thumb draw. However when shooting from right to left, they nearly always used the three or four fingered Mediterranean release.
The tertiary release can also be identified because, in some reliefs of Assyrian kings, they hold spare arrows with the thumb of the drawing hand.
In the tertiary release you hold the arrow on the string, pinched between the thumb and fore finger, but the bow is drawn by the other three fingers on the string. Because of the unusual level of inconsistency in the position of the string in surviving reliefs, I feel that the Assyrians were probably using an archaic method of depiction rather than a literal one showing what they were doing. In which case the tertiary release was probably an attribute of ancient culture rather than a contemporary feature of archery.
The Tertiary Release is used in New Guinea to this day and is very effective. It may have died out from changes in culture rather than improvements of technique.
The tertiary release can also be identified because, in some reliefs of Assyrian kings, they hold spare arrows with the thumb of the drawing hand.
In the tertiary release you hold the arrow on the string, pinched between the thumb and fore finger, but the bow is drawn by the other three fingers on the string. Because of the unusual level of inconsistency in the position of the string in surviving reliefs, I feel that the Assyrians were probably using an archaic method of depiction rather than a literal one showing what they were doing. In which case the tertiary release was probably an attribute of ancient culture rather than a contemporary feature of archery.
The Tertiary Release is used in New Guinea to this day and is very effective. It may have died out from changes in culture rather than improvements of technique.
I was taught to use the tertiary release, and have found that the degree to which my smallest finger was either involved, or else hanging out like shown in some of this artwork, was simply in how I drew (I usually draw to the chest, but occasionally draw up to the mouth). With only two fingers on the release, I find the release to be very crisp: maybe not as crisp as the thumb draw, but MUCH crisper than the mediterranean, which I abandoned wholesale the minute I learned the tertiary. (Thanks, Bede, now I know what to call it!)
Some of the modern string materials in the serving can really tear up your fingers this way... if your string has a really rough serving on it, gloves are a real life-saver.
Some of the modern string materials in the serving can really tear up your fingers this way... if your string has a really rough serving on it, gloves are a real life-saver.
Russ,
Have you considered making thumb stalls like the Bhutanese use. Instead of putting them on the first three fingers, you could put them on the last three. Your thumb and index finger would be free for complicated tasks like knot tying.
Have you considered making thumb stalls like the Bhutanese use. Instead of putting them on the first three fingers, you could put them on the last three. Your thumb and index finger would be free for complicated tasks like knot tying.
Never really thought about it, since even a light pair of gloves was more than sufficient... but you're right, that would leave my hands more free. Interestingly, it's almost without exception the top side of the middle finger that gets torn up. The ring finger a little bit, but to a trivial level compared to the middle finger on any bow over 60 lbs. or so.
Russ,
are you putting much pressure on with the thumb and index finger through the arrow?
are you putting much pressure on with the thumb and index finger through the arrow?
Sorry for the slow reply: had to grade final exams.
Not much at all, Bede, just enough to get it in the nock. The Middle finger acts as a kind of trigger, and the ring finger as support for the middle. The little finger is only used if I'm really tired and don't have much grip strength that day.
Now, my hand position on the shaft will sometimes have to vary depending on how much clearance I've got on the nock before I'm mashing the fletching, in which case my hand winds up tilted slightly, and would look almost like Japanese shooting if you didn't know what you were looking at.
Not much at all, Bede, just enough to get it in the nock. The Middle finger acts as a kind of trigger, and the ring finger as support for the middle. The little finger is only used if I'm really tired and don't have much grip strength that day.
Now, my hand position on the shaft will sometimes have to vary depending on how much clearance I've got on the nock before I'm mashing the fletching, in which case my hand winds up tilted slightly, and would look almost like Japanese shooting if you didn't know what you were looking at.
Thanks Russ.
I have a feeling that that the degree of participation of the thumb and forefinger in the drawing of the arrow may have varied between archers. Personally, I get little strength out of that part of the draw. Most of the pressure is taken by the middle and ring fingers for me too.
I first thought of the theory after seeing footage of new Guinea archers shooting. Someone demonstrated the technique for me, but at full draw from a distance it did look like a thumb draw in the open handed way that some archers use today.
I have a feeling that that the degree of participation of the thumb and forefinger in the drawing of the arrow may have varied between archers. Personally, I get little strength out of that part of the draw. Most of the pressure is taken by the middle and ring fingers for me too.
I first thought of the theory after seeing footage of new Guinea archers shooting. Someone demonstrated the technique for me, but at full draw from a distance it did look like a thumb draw in the open handed way that some archers use today.
I have a colleague back in Hungary who thinks, based on conversations with some associates in Ryazan, that this was the standard draw for the western steppe and turkic tribes before the Mongols arrived. I have absolutely nothing to back something like that up, though, and don't know what he's got in terms of visual sources that would, either.
An interesting theory, but there is too much evidence of the Sassanian and Mediterranean releases in art. You might be able to get away with a secondary release on a small Scythian bow, but I think a two fingered Mediterranean is more likely.
And I don't really comprehend the difference between the tertiary and Sassanid releases well enough to discuss it meaningfully, sorry... :oops:
The Sassanian release draws the string with the two middle fingers below the arrow. The index and small fingers point straight ahead. Sometimes it appears that the little finger was curved, but it is unclear whether it was on the string or curved into the palm.
Selams to friends.
Among one of the mosaic floor coverings discovered very recently in Turkiye is one panel depicting -as the experts so claimed- an Amazon queen warrior named Penthesileia in a game party. That was an ordinary digging for a recreation park facility until these findings from the 4th century showed up. Now the whole project is due to change completely for an open archaeology park. Until then the mosaics are said to be covered again with a special protective material called jeoteks.
Anyway here is the picture of that queen warrior just prior to the release. She is on horseback and shooting backwards. Unluckily the part of mosaic panel where the bow should have been is missing.
Best shoots!
Among one of the mosaic floor coverings discovered very recently in Turkiye is one panel depicting -as the experts so claimed- an Amazon queen warrior named Penthesileia in a game party. That was an ordinary digging for a recreation park facility until these findings from the 4th century showed up. Now the whole project is due to change completely for an open archaeology park. Until then the mosaics are said to be covered again with a special protective material called jeoteks.
Anyway here is the picture of that queen warrior just prior to the release. She is on horseback and shooting backwards. Unluckily the part of mosaic panel where the bow should have been is missing.
Best shoots!
Has the mosaic been dated?
as much as its being of 4th century if it means anything as it might be simply a suggestion by the researchers.
notice the way she draws the string.
notice the way she draws the string.
It looks like the Sassanian release but with only one finger drawing the string?
Seems to me allfingers are drawing the string. That might make it difficult to get a clean release.
Are we sure the artist could observe and reproduce accurately?
Are we sure the artist could observe and reproduce accurately?
Artists are notorious for innacurate representations, today and in the past! Maybe there's some truth in the fingers position on the mosaic, maybe not. Artistic license...
J.
J.
Why not she be locking the thumb with the middle finger instead of the index one, and as depicted in the mosaic, letting the other fingers pointing somewhat to the target. Also index finger may support the arrow well like in Sassanid?s.
I today gave that draw a chance and it worked anyway. But I am more comfortable with my own pretty much. So artist might well have tried to draw down what he really had seen. If this was a common way in that region why should he have invented and drawn an unreal thing to weaken his piece of art instead of drawing what is real.
e
I today gave that draw a chance and it worked anyway. But I am more comfortable with my own pretty much. So artist might well have tried to draw down what he really had seen. If this was a common way in that region why should he have invented and drawn an unreal thing to weaken his piece of art instead of drawing what is real.
e
I think the artist has made little effort to adjust the standard template they used for drawing a hand. There is some shading suggesting that the index and middle finger may be bent more than the other two. This might mean a Flemish release (one finger over and one finger under the arrow).
However, I agree with the general skepticism of the artist's serious attempt to show how the string was held. We are too used to photography and forget that every brush stroke in a painting and tile in a mosaic is put there by a person who is interpreting the world, not recording it.
However, I agree with the general skepticism of the artist's serious attempt to show how the string was held. We are too used to photography and forget that every brush stroke in a painting and tile in a mosaic is put there by a person who is interpreting the world, not recording it.
Imagine someone paying a classicly trained artist to do an expensive piece of permanent artwork in their home. Imagine that the theme was military in nature. Would that patron be satisfied by a grossly erronious rendering of that theme?
When hunters have photos of themselves made do they hold the gun upsidedown? Do they pull the trigger with their ring finger? What would their contemporaries say if they were to see such a gross violation of established norms? Most of the prestiege would drain out of the rendering immediately. -j-
When hunters have photos of themselves made do they hold the gun upsidedown? Do they pull the trigger with their ring finger? What would their contemporaries say if they were to see such a gross violation of established norms? Most of the prestiege would drain out of the rendering immediately. -j-
I am with Bede on this one. The chance such way of drawing had anything to do with reality at the time is very small.
"Would that patron be satisfied by a grossly erronious rendering of that theme?"
This is assuming the patron actually new, or cared, how to use a bow. The figure is most likely a mythological one and the method of drawing was unimportant or irrelevant in this picture.
Adam
"Would that patron be satisfied by a grossly erronious rendering of that theme?"
This is assuming the patron actually new, or cared, how to use a bow. The figure is most likely a mythological one and the method of drawing was unimportant or irrelevant in this picture.
Adam
This is not a responce to anyone:)
That mosaic panel is a huge work indeed. For me it would not make any difference whether the subject was of the time or of the mythology.The artist might have spent a very long time to produce such a work and possibly was paid well too. What is more, most of the architectural buildings of the old days were actually some great and prestigious projects of their times. Only best people were in charge of building and decorating them.
Today we may find quite a few people who could naturally know and say a thumb release from the mediterranean one as so called modern life has already changed everything forever. But the artist and the patron whoever they were for sure lived when the archery was of great importance for the daily life. And of course we are somehow speaking of one of those ?woman warriors? as the main character depicted on the scene.
The artists had many different ways of expressions through the art history. The experts can provide a wider information on that indeed. But only perhaps in the last century they introduced some surrealist, unnatural or more expressionist paintings which in many cases we hardly understand what the theme was on those canvases or other art pieces. Yet if we go back we find most of the old art pieces as giving more information in detail as documentaries of their time no matter to which degree they had been exaggerated by the artists.
I still find that strange release something deserving to be considered. Otherwise why do we bother examining so many other apparently weaker clues on the objects of different materials and art pieces to explore the truths of the old days?
e
That mosaic panel is a huge work indeed. For me it would not make any difference whether the subject was of the time or of the mythology.The artist might have spent a very long time to produce such a work and possibly was paid well too. What is more, most of the architectural buildings of the old days were actually some great and prestigious projects of their times. Only best people were in charge of building and decorating them.
Today we may find quite a few people who could naturally know and say a thumb release from the mediterranean one as so called modern life has already changed everything forever. But the artist and the patron whoever they were for sure lived when the archery was of great importance for the daily life. And of course we are somehow speaking of one of those ?woman warriors? as the main character depicted on the scene.
The artists had many different ways of expressions through the art history. The experts can provide a wider information on that indeed. But only perhaps in the last century they introduced some surrealist, unnatural or more expressionist paintings which in many cases we hardly understand what the theme was on those canvases or other art pieces. Yet if we go back we find most of the old art pieces as giving more information in detail as documentaries of their time no matter to which degree they had been exaggerated by the artists.
I still find that strange release something deserving to be considered. Otherwise why do we bother examining so many other apparently weaker clues on the objects of different materials and art pieces to explore the truths of the old days?
e
I think there is a valid point to be made as to why we would choose one piece of art over another. However, when we evaluate art as being representational, we must be aware of the traditions involved and whether there were accepted ways of depicting certain figures.
It is almost certain that the artist had never seen a female archer. What he was depicting was a mythological scene which had a tradition of its own going back to the 6th century BC in painted pottery. Instead of illustrating what he saw, he was interpreting a tradition. His patrons were not looking for an exact representation. They were looking for a well executed example of a genre work.
It is easy to be misled because we are focussed on details to think people of the time shared our obsession. I would be more convinced of a new style created by artist to please an elite interested in archery as a source of information than a time-worn tradition created for a culture that rarely prized archers. Persian artists working for the Ilkhans in Iran produced interesting and information-rich paintings, but they are still not a documentary source of the objects depicted. It is only when there is an object to confirm their accuracy that you should attempt to draw conclusions. Late Roman and Byzantine artists often combined various Classical styles in new ways that reflected their current preoccupations rather than the reality around them. Armour modeling the muscles of the body appears in Byzantine art long after the actual objects had ceased to be used.
This does not diminish the interest or importance of this mosaic. It just means we should not try to read too much into it.
It is almost certain that the artist had never seen a female archer. What he was depicting was a mythological scene which had a tradition of its own going back to the 6th century BC in painted pottery. Instead of illustrating what he saw, he was interpreting a tradition. His patrons were not looking for an exact representation. They were looking for a well executed example of a genre work.
It is easy to be misled because we are focussed on details to think people of the time shared our obsession. I would be more convinced of a new style created by artist to please an elite interested in archery as a source of information than a time-worn tradition created for a culture that rarely prized archers. Persian artists working for the Ilkhans in Iran produced interesting and information-rich paintings, but they are still not a documentary source of the objects depicted. It is only when there is an object to confirm their accuracy that you should attempt to draw conclusions. Late Roman and Byzantine artists often combined various Classical styles in new ways that reflected their current preoccupations rather than the reality around them. Armour modeling the muscles of the body appears in Byzantine art long after the actual objects had ceased to be used.
This does not diminish the interest or importance of this mosaic. It just means we should not try to read too much into it.
Dear Bede, being an artist myself :) I want to defend whoever made this mosaic and say a couple of words about the reliability of the old pictures.
How can we be so sure that the artist should never have seen a female archer?
Do we see any ?female archers? nowadays anywhere then?
The ottoman miniatures are still considered among the most reliable sources of the time they were painted in. They are strange pictures as they do not really match the drawing rules that we were taught at schools. Unusual colors, weird proportions, with the objects spread out of perspective orders etc. But they mean a lot with enough detail that were painted as close to the truth as possible.
It is true that people are well misled by the paintings of the old days but not generally because of the mistakes made in the paintings. Some experts are so romantic in reading what was depicted on a piece of art that they are totally misunderstanding and so misleading the others.
I do not want to carry on this discussion here any more but I still want to point out that the people in the past may well have been more realistic than we think they were. Please keep reading the lines below.
Even the scientists may fail in commenting on what they have found in the excavations. I have an example of this strange fact. It is again about an antique drawing on a wall that was explored years ago in T?rkiye and has been commented on by many scientists from all over the world since then. There are many articles of hundreds of pages written and published about it now. The general conceptions of all these researchers about that particular painting was it?s being a DEER which was painted there as part of a pagan religion. Its legs, body, head, and antlers everything was there. Although the picture was not that promising to be a deer who would dare to say a word against a well-known archaeologist?
The truth was discovered recently by a friend of mine who is far far away from the subject. With a fresh eye he could see an antique volcano explosion in the mentioned painting and that was an even bigger explosion though. He wrote an article about it adding many other supporting materials and proved that it had nothing to do with an animal figure or a pagan belief at all, but rather that was an important document of a gigantic explosion in today?s Hasan Dagi (Hassan Mountain) thousands years ago that might have affected everybody in the area.
So weren't the experts more pagans than the man who had painted it there  :)
In one of the very famous miniatures that show the gesture of an archer there is another big misunderstanding too which I will explain later. That may be the next scandal who knows? :)
e
How can we be so sure that the artist should never have seen a female archer?
Do we see any ?female archers? nowadays anywhere then?
The ottoman miniatures are still considered among the most reliable sources of the time they were painted in. They are strange pictures as they do not really match the drawing rules that we were taught at schools. Unusual colors, weird proportions, with the objects spread out of perspective orders etc. But they mean a lot with enough detail that were painted as close to the truth as possible.
It is true that people are well misled by the paintings of the old days but not generally because of the mistakes made in the paintings. Some experts are so romantic in reading what was depicted on a piece of art that they are totally misunderstanding and so misleading the others.
I do not want to carry on this discussion here any more but I still want to point out that the people in the past may well have been more realistic than we think they were. Please keep reading the lines below.
Even the scientists may fail in commenting on what they have found in the excavations. I have an example of this strange fact. It is again about an antique drawing on a wall that was explored years ago in T?rkiye and has been commented on by many scientists from all over the world since then. There are many articles of hundreds of pages written and published about it now. The general conceptions of all these researchers about that particular painting was it?s being a DEER which was painted there as part of a pagan religion. Its legs, body, head, and antlers everything was there. Although the picture was not that promising to be a deer who would dare to say a word against a well-known archaeologist?
The truth was discovered recently by a friend of mine who is far far away from the subject. With a fresh eye he could see an antique volcano explosion in the mentioned painting and that was an even bigger explosion though. He wrote an article about it adding many other supporting materials and proved that it had nothing to do with an animal figure or a pagan belief at all, but rather that was an important document of a gigantic explosion in today?s Hasan Dagi (Hassan Mountain) thousands years ago that might have affected everybody in the area.
So weren't the experts more pagans than the man who had painted it there  :)
In one of the very famous miniatures that show the gesture of an archer there is another big misunderstanding too which I will explain later. That may be the next scandal who knows? :)
e
I am not attempting to denigrate the artist of the mosaic or artists in general. I agree with you that there are many important observations in works of art that show an object or an action that has been forgotten or lost.
I think you are right to want to put a limit on this discussion. This is an archery forum and not an art criticism forum. We sometimes get a little carried away. Your example is a very good demonstration of how people often only see what they expect to see.
I think you are right to want to put a limit on this discussion. This is an archery forum and not an art criticism forum. We sometimes get a little carried away. Your example is a very good demonstration of how people often only see what they expect to see.