Arrow weight in the Tang Dynasty
A recent discussion with someone revealed an error on page 196 of my book "Chinese Archery" which discusses draw-weights and arrow weights used in the Tang Dynasty official examinations. Evidently I have made an error calculating the weights of the arrows used:
I've reviewed page 196. I can see that the figure in my book may be incorrect by a factor of ten for the arrow weight (not the bow).
The source for the original data was the 'New History of the Tang' - the official history that would have been compiled late in the Dynasty or in the following dynasty. While it is always hard to judge whether the records were accurate, it is usually fair to say that they should have been internally consistent.
The problem seems to be with the arrow weights. (Note that Chinese source never discuss spine: only weight.) For all the units, I use the same historical conversion table published in the Great China Dictionary. I may have used these directly without re-checking the maths behind them.
The relationship between the 'stones' and 'ounces' is purely mathematical. There are 120 catties in a 'stone' and 16 'ounces' in a catty: so the ratio of the ounce to the stone is 0.00052:1. If we ignore the historical change in the absolute value of the draw-weight of the bow (which incidentally was traditionally measured by hanging it on a hook by the string and then adding water to a bucket attached to the grip), the rule still holds that the six-ounce arrow weighed 6 * 0.00052 = 0.00312 of the bow's draw-weight.
So take any modern bow - say a 50# (22.7Kg) bow - the Tang Chinese would appear to have matched it with a 70.8g arrow. In Tang arrows, most of this weight is in a heavy, iron arrowhead.
Please look over this and see whether the logic holds. Comments welcome.
I've reviewed page 196. I can see that the figure in my book may be incorrect by a factor of ten for the arrow weight (not the bow).
The source for the original data was the 'New History of the Tang' - the official history that would have been compiled late in the Dynasty or in the following dynasty. While it is always hard to judge whether the records were accurate, it is usually fair to say that they should have been internally consistent.
The problem seems to be with the arrow weights. (Note that Chinese source never discuss spine: only weight.) For all the units, I use the same historical conversion table published in the Great China Dictionary. I may have used these directly without re-checking the maths behind them.
The relationship between the 'stones' and 'ounces' is purely mathematical. There are 120 catties in a 'stone' and 16 'ounces' in a catty: so the ratio of the ounce to the stone is 0.00052:1. If we ignore the historical change in the absolute value of the draw-weight of the bow (which incidentally was traditionally measured by hanging it on a hook by the string and then adding water to a bucket attached to the grip), the rule still holds that the six-ounce arrow weighed 6 * 0.00052 = 0.00312 of the bow's draw-weight.
So take any modern bow - say a 50# (22.7Kg) bow - the Tang Chinese would appear to have matched it with a 70.8g arrow. In Tang arrows, most of this weight is in a heavy, iron arrowhead.
Please look over this and see whether the logic holds. Comments welcome.
On the face of it, that would seem a very heavy arrow to use with a 50lb bow - particlularly if the weight was mostly in the head. Performance would be pretty miserable. However, it is likely that Tang Chinese archers would have used considerably heavier bows than 50lb. (The example you give works out at 120lb - if my maths is up to it!).
For an 80lb bow - that would give a 4oz / 112gr arrow. A big arrow by anyones standards. In English archery, a 1/4lb arrow is regarded as big, and would generally be used from bows of 100lb+. Was the Tang Chinese bow better/more efficient at pushing out heavy arrows than the English warbow (longbow) and the modern bow?
For an 80lb bow - that would give a 4oz / 112gr arrow. A big arrow by anyones standards. In English archery, a 1/4lb arrow is regarded as big, and would generally be used from bows of 100lb+. Was the Tang Chinese bow better/more efficient at pushing out heavy arrows than the English warbow (longbow) and the modern bow?
That's right. The actual weight of Tang infantry bows was probably double that or more. But then the arrows were proportionally heavier.
Perhaps these arrows were exceptionally long? Long draw helps to gain efficiency.
Adam
Adam
The only original Tang bows and arrows that I have seen in Turfan did not have strikingly long arrows. But they may have not been standard or military bows. What the bows do have is strikingly broad limbs. Less than the Khotan bow; but generally broader (given the overall length) than a Manchu bow.
What was the length of these bows? Were they long composites with long siyahs? Tang dynasty...was that 8th - 9th century - our time?
The discussion arose from a question about the arrow weight given for a Tang dynasty bow of 167lb draw weight which was cited in a test of accuracy at 100 yards.
The comparison of current war bow practice with Tang dynasty standards by myself led to some of the figures in Mr.Selby's book being generally called into question by certain heavy bow practitioners and Mr. Selby was kind enough to respond.
I guess that the shaft length would be in the region of 32" given the draw length and anchor point in that style of shooting.
The corrected arrow weight is a little heavier than a comparable English livery shaft, but not vastly so.
The heavier heads are however more comparable with a large type 15 "swallowtail" hunting head than with a typical English war head, but some of these very large heads, such as the chisel head appear to have been made with close range shooting in mind.
Rod.
The comparison of current war bow practice with Tang dynasty standards by myself led to some of the figures in Mr.Selby's book being generally called into question by certain heavy bow practitioners and Mr. Selby was kind enough to respond.
I guess that the shaft length would be in the region of 32" given the draw length and anchor point in that style of shooting.
The corrected arrow weight is a little heavier than a comparable English livery shaft, but not vastly so.
The heavier heads are however more comparable with a large type 15 "swallowtail" hunting head than with a typical English war head, but some of these very large heads, such as the chisel head appear to have been made with close range shooting in mind.
Rod.
Tang pottery figures of horsemen with bows in cases show the bow in a case, unstrung. The proportions suggest to me that the strung bow would have been the length from a man's hip to his ankle. For me, that's about 90cm.Nick wrote:
What was the length of these bows? Were they long composites with long siyahs? Tang dynasty...was that 8th - 9th century - our time?
Stephen,
Some of the Tang wall paintings show bows of about the length you calculate. However the orthostats from the tomb of the second Tang emperor show a longer bow. The quivers in the paintings and the bas relief would hold arrows from 28 to 31 inches long. The shorter arrows could be shot from a bow with a 90 cm string if it was efficiently made.
Some of the Tang wall paintings show bows of about the length you calculate. However the orthostats from the tomb of the second Tang emperor show a longer bow. The quivers in the paintings and the bas relief would hold arrows from 28 to 31 inches long. The shorter arrows could be shot from a bow with a 90 cm string if it was efficiently made.
Right. The only original Tang bow I have seen was in Turfan. It was also longer than 90cm. But what with bows for different purposes and geographical variations (that series of pottery horseman figures always depict Central Asians), there could certainly not have been a single answer to the question.
I agree. The images I have seen from tombs, wall paintings and bas-reliefs suggest that there were several types of bow in use. I suppose that there could have even been model bows worn at court as they did in the Yi dynasty in Korea.
how many "same" the tang bows and turk bows? the turkey is turk form china go today turkey, what differ the turk bows and turkey bows?is tang bows has no same to the han bows?
or all the time , north china hornbow base huns style bows? we can see the bows style form huns , turk, Mongolia, Mongolia---manchu,at last time , is manchu use Mongolia bow or Mongolia use manchu bow? who invent qing bows? also , i not know what style manchu bows at jin dynasty
or all the time , north china hornbow base huns style bows? we can see the bows style form huns , turk, Mongolia, Mongolia---manchu,at last time , is manchu use Mongolia bow or Mongolia use manchu bow? who invent qing bows? also , i not know what style manchu bows at jin dynasty
Jiao, I think that all the Tang period bows we see in illustrations, plus the good ones preserved in Turpan, are descended from the long-siyah 'Hun bows'. Compared with Han period Hun bows, the Tang bows have narrower limbs and heavier siyahs.
And you are right - there were many Turks in China in the Tang Dynsaty, so other forms of bows must have been present, too.
S
And you are right - there were many Turks in China in the Tang Dynsaty, so other forms of bows must have been present, too.
S