Sayas, who invented them?

Don't expect a simple answer to this.

'Scythian' bows (i.e. the Saka of Chinese culture from around 800-700bce) did not have 'siyahs; but they had a fixed 'roller' mechanism which partially performed the finctions of the wheels on a modern compound. So mechanically-assisted draw may have preceded 'siyahs'.

The first obvious siyahs in the East were those of the tribes that arose in Northern China at the time that the Xiongnu are reported to have become active (Qin to Han). I'm not sure whether there were bows with siyahs in the West that pre-dated that.

S

This sounds very interesting. I have never heard of this "fixed 'roller' mechanism" on any bows (accept for the modern compound), is there any pics of this kind of bow?

If we put the question like this; did the hun people use siyahs? If not, what did their bows then look like?

/Rigel

Rigel wrote:

This sounds very interesting. I have never heard of this "fixed 'roller' mechanism" on any bows (accept for the modern compound), is there any pics of this kind of bow?

If we put the question like this; did the hun people use siyahs? If not, what did their bows then look like?

/Rigel

Think of the coiled Spring mechanism inside old watches and you get some idea how the Saka limb tips worked.
The term 'Hunnic' would probably be a better choice. The Huns were very much a mixed bag and should not be looked on as a race so much as a confederacy of peoples. Among Hunnic finds are people of Indo Iranian and Mongoloid origin and various mixtures of the two. The evidence suggests their bows did incorporate siyahs, the Niya M3 (95MN1M3) and the River Gogops bow (reproduced by Andrew Hall) are two good examples of Hunnic bows.

I think I get it, but what was the "coils" made from, some kind of hardened steel? I have never seen those kinds of bows, would be were interesting to see some pictures.
Was this bow very common among the Saka people?

Thanks for the answers

I think the first "western" example of bows with siyahs is the bow(pieces) of Yrzi. (and siyah boneplates from roman fortess camps from f.e. Hungary, UK and germany)

The bow from Gogops looks almost the same like the one of Moschevaja Balka. The upper arm is 3-8 cm longer than the lower, but is it really a hunnic type bow??

I don't think it was meant that they were actually springs. Scytians had recurved bows, and any recurve that has a significant contact between the string and the bow provides a similar functionality to that of a modern compound, though to a much lesser extent. Essentially, it becomes easier to pull as the string is lifted away from contact with the bow, because this provides a longer arm, and thus more leverage.

I agree, the Yrzi bow is the earliest example in the west that I have read about.

Evan Painter

Not any sort of spring mechanism. Actually, I believe that my avatar (look to the left) shows a Western Han period Saka shooting with one of these bows. I attach an illustration provided some years back by Bede Dwyer.

Well that was an illustration I could understand, it makes more sense then some "coiled watch springs".

Thanks again

Basically, I suppose you could call it a rigid. coiled siyah. 8)

Here's another illustration by Bede:

I am kind of lost with the dimensions on that drawing! Is it a toy?

TM

Or a modell? Or 1cm= 1 inch? That would be a nice west scythian bow:-)

Those measurements were on the original drawing and were used to relate it to the archaeological object it was based on. I came to the conclusion that the Eastern bows were scaled up versions of the western ones. There are images on pottery from the Mediterranean cultures showing larger Scythian style bows too so the larger bows were probably common at both ends of the Scythian bow's distribution.

Thank you, Bede!

I found arround one year ago a page with greek pottery showing amazons, and I saved 15-20 pics with large/small bows:-).

But really: Is the Gogops bow from hunnic age, typ ??

The River Gogops bow was found in the northern Caucasus in the late 19th century, and lost a few decades later (all that remains is a full-size drawing). It was therefore never dating using modern techniques. The archaeological report on it describes it loosely as medieval.
It is smaller than the original Hunnic bows, and shows other feature differences in the large distance between the tip and nock and siyah construction. I would put it before the 8th century Moshcheveya Balka bows, possibly 6-7th C.
It is just one of a multitude of variants of the Hunnic bow developed by the Ancient Turk tribes, one of which lead to the Magyar bow.

Andrew

Still I wonder:

Those measurements were on the original drawing and were used to relate it to the archaeological object it was based on.

Those measurements are set out to 1/100 mm accuracy, that is not practically possible to measure. So I still have assume they are calculated values. From what?

It is 26cm long (less than a foot) so the original must be a model or toy.

It does show the ends well though.

TLM

These measurements makes wonder: this has to be a grave good!

How is this bow related to the Subeixi-bow?

I?ve made some bow- limbs in the dimensions of the Subeixi- bow: absolutely no bend!!

I really would like to know, if the reconstruction of David Betterridge is done with the measurements of the Subeixi- bow- findings and if it is a shootable bow.

Michael

Thanks, Andrew!
But I think it is a bit developed than the avar bows of the 6-7th Centuries.
(f.e. C shape, no curved lower siyah ends)

TZH

TZH

The reasons for my 6-7th century date for the Gogops bow: It appears to be one of the numerous Ancient Turk derivations of the Hunnic bow (short grip, overall length shorter than Hunnic, the large distance between tip and nock is late feature). In the number of bone plates, it is most similar to Khudyakov's Ancient Turk type 3 bow, a few examples of which were found in the Altai, dating from 6th to 10th century ("Armaments the Medieval Nomads of South Siberia and Central Asia". Novosibirsk, 1986). According to "Armament and Military Science of the Khazar Khanate", A.V. Komar, O.V. Sukhobokov, the Magyar form of siyah plate was introduced in the 8th C, replacing the earlier form in the northern Caucasus.

The Magyar bows were probably developed in the 8th C in Khazar empire and surrounding territories (Northern Caucasus and Russia west of the Urals), and carried into Hungary by the Magyars the following century. I suspect the Avar bow may have had a similar origin, so the Avar design may be older than the Hungarian finds. Anyone have any find information to support or refute this?

Andrew

Andrew,
Do you think the Avars picked up bows on their way through the steppe between the Urals and the Caucasus rather than brought their own from Central Asia?

The Avars seem to have moved through several centuries ahead of the Hungarians and brought their complete military apparatus including stirrups and armoured cavalry. I noted in one Hungarian book that at the time of the appearance of the Avars west of the Carpathians that the size and weight of arrowheads in the graves increased.

Was it the Avars who invented the stirrups?

Bede

Perhaps my use of "suspect" was a little strong. I assume that the Avars started out with a variant of the Hunnic bow, which evolved as they travelled. It may have started out as one of the symmetrical Hunnic variants such as the model bows from Kokel. (Some of they siyah plates from Kokel are the closest in shape to the Avar ones, straight with a bent end, but lack the deep section at the nock and the four-plate boxed-in design). I do not know of any finds of Avar plates east of the Urals, so assume the bow to have developed to the west.

I don't know much about the travels of the Avars. If, like the Magyars, they spent some time in southern Russia before entering Hungary, the bow could have evolved during this time. It could also have developed once they had formed their empire in Hungary, in which case there should hopefully be some intermediate type finds.

Any information on Avar bone plate finds would be gratefully received.

Andrew

Andrew,
Judging by the histories, the Avars arrived with two tumens still organised as they would have been in their original homeland. If they moved quickly, they may not have left intermediate remains. Finding an Avar tomb in Mongolia would answer these questions. It's a shame we can't just find these things when we need them.
The Avars are believed to have brought stirrups to Europe.

Bede, I have had a look at Sebastyen Karoly's work on the Avar finds (the German summary), and there are a range of shapes of siyah side plates shown. I have done a quick drawing showing (from the left), two general Hunnic siyah plates, one of the more angled Kokel variants of the Hunnic bow (some of the Kokel siyahs were completely straight), and four shapes of Avar siyah on the right. (Hunnic siyahs from Khudyakov, Avar from Karoly - not to scale). If the Avar forms developed so that the ones of the right are the later, then there is some evidence of evolution taking place in Hungary (so ignore my previous thoughts).

It appears that the four-plate boxed-in siyah was not found in all the graves. Many had the belly and back siyah plates missing. Karoly has an example illustration showing the siyah construction with belly and back plates which is of the right-hand form. There is not enough information to determine if these extra plates were a late addition.

With the left-hand siyah form and without the siyah back and belly plates, the Avar bow remains do not differ that much from some of the Hunnic bows.

Andrew

Thanks, Andrew!

I've found some pics of early and late avar bownplates, I'll post them soon (and severals of hunnic bp-s).

Most of the hunic bp-s in the west (Europe) are a little bit angled.

And there is a very good work from G?bor Szőllősy, compearing the avar and hungarian bows. I'll write a short summary.

Am enjoying this thread comparing Avar and Hunnic bow siyah bone plates.

As to the evidence for other recurved bows I draw attention to the book "The Anzaf Fortress and the Gods of Urartu", by Oktay Delli, 1999. A ninth century BC bronze shield fragment was found on the border of Turkey and Iran showing the dieties of Urartu with their armaments. The main god, Haldi holds an angular composite bow with recurved tips. This is noted in the drawn artwork as well as the text. The bow would be shoulder heigth, held in the left hand with the thumb pressing against the upper limb.

There are many other such representations from the bronze age. I am thinking that there are such as early as the 15th c BC. These not only appear on angular bows but on D-shaped bows contemporary to angular bows.

These would precede both Hunnic finds of Central Asia and Scythian bows. both east and west.

The search for the PLACE of the invention of the recurve on a bow may be just as nebulous as the search for the first bows themselves. -j-

Jack makes a good point. I think that recurves have probably been invented more than once in more than one place.

Andrew,
As you display them there appears a development in siyah plate form. The fact that the proximal tip of curves more in the Avar bows suggests that the curvature between the siyah and the limb is more acute than the Hunnic bows or that the joint needed more support. The latter could mean that the bows were stronger or simply under mores stress at a greater curve.

TZH, I look forward to your information.

Jack, the earliest recurve I know about is a bronze age yew self-bow from Lake Ledro in Italy. It is surprisingly similar in general form to a modern target bow. I would not be surprised if recurves were developed independently several times.

Bede, unfortunately I do not know if the dating of the Avar plates is the same as the order they are drawn in (though it does seem to match the early/middle/late Avar bow types that Grozer makes).
I am not sure why the Avar bows needed the extra back/belly siyah plates. The siyahs are shorter than the Hunnic bows, so I would have thought that they were under less stress. The Hunnic bows (or at least some of them) seem to have had the horn strip running partially up the siyahs. Perhaps the bone belly strip was an alternative reinforcement to allow for shorter horn strips. This does not explain the bone back strips though. Perhaps their limb/siyah core construction was as scary as the grip joint in the River Gogops bow and needed lots of reinforcement.

Does anyone know anything about using bone under tension on the back of a siyah? It seems a strange material choice to me.

Andrew

Tapio,
I missed your questions related to my drawing. The measurements relate to a photograph and drawings taken by Stephen of an original bow. He supplied me with the real length and I used a drawing program to create the sketch. The program provided the dimensions by a perimeter measuring function. Once I had the measurements of the drawing, I could calculate a ratio from the measurements so that I could calculate the draw length and other variables.
In a way, this is an unfortunate drawing to use. However, it was not designed to be used for a reconstruction of the bow, only to work out the cross sections.
I will check back through the original drawings and see if I can upload a more useful set.

Bede, I think there must be something wrong with the program you?ve used to calculate the cross- section measurements. Otherwise this bow is a grave- good.
A bow-limb with such a cross- section does not bend as it should in a useful bow made of a single wooden stave and not at all as a lamination.

This "Scythian design" has usually been made as a lamination of several slats of wood(and sinew?) or wood/horn and sinew.
The glue-line of such a lamination amplifies the drawweight.

Andrew, I guess that the bone-plates are used for to keep the siyahs in line and to reinforce " weak spots" of a bow?s design.
The bending- capablities of bone could be reinforced by cooking it in a solution of vinegar.

I think siyahs/recurves had been invented at several places, it is somehow within the evolution of bows. I mean every bowyer comes to the point thinking over how could I "pimp my bow".

Michael

Michael,
The measurements were checked against Stephen's original measurements. The bow was very unusual, but more have been excavated. It seems that there was little bending possible in the middle third of the bow and the tips must have uncoiled to some extent. Modern Korean bows appear to be a much better design to get a long draw with a short bow.

There is a tradition in early composite bows to have thick rather than flat limbs. This was why the deflex was necessary in angular bows. David Betteridge's original calculations showed that Scythian bows had draw length to bow length ratios closer to self bows than composites. The setback handle made the design even less efficient.

However, they were popular for at least five hundred years. They must have had some advantages. perhaps they were pleasant to shoot or kept their cast longer.

When we originally looked at the archaeology, there had not been so many bows and sections of bows excavated, but with more evidence it seems that these bows were thick and stiff in the middle as we anticipated. The cross sections I have seen were a complete surprise.

Bede, I?m going on in the resarch of the "Scythian bow design".

I know the cross- sections you?re talking about.
A cross- section of a well working bowlimb for a drawweight in the 45- 65lbs range can?t be bigger than 3-4 squarecentimeter due to the materials been used.

Last year I was ordered to make a reconstruction of a very asymetrical scythian hornbow based on an Antique Greek drawing. We?ve checked that this asymetrical design provoques a bow with bowlength/drawlength ratio very close to Turkish hornbows.
Even the force- deflexion graph is much close to other horn- composites.

Michael

Michael,
There are unfortunately many variables in the draw length calculations when you are basing your reconstructions on a few literary references and artists' representations. Betteridge came to the conclusion that Scythian bows were not very reflexed in construction and in other ways did not behave like efficient composite bows. However, he was convinced that they performed well within their capacities.

Incidentally, I meant "you" generally when I used it above. If I make a Scythian bow, I may say 'we". I am not criticizing your ideas. With Turkish bows and others where there is a lot of knowledge and artifacts, it is easier to be sure what to expect. However, the work you are doing with Scythian bows is pioneering so you may find out things that no one has known for the last 2,000 years.