Hunnic Bows

[Ron Andrea]

Excellent point, Alan.

In fact, isn't that one of the primary difficulties of archeology in general? We're trying to decipher the past through remains which were not placed as messages to us. We shift through graves and garbage piles, then draw conclusions about the people who left them. If we're lucky we have written documents to help our interpretations, but even there we find that ancient writers had agendas and paradigms which his readers may have understood, but modern readers may not. (Or we read our agendas and paradigms into their writing.)

The diagram which accompanied the text I referred to above showed the bow, case and quivers in such proximity that I took it to be an archeologist's sketch of a find, made before excavating the goods. Unfortunately, access to the China National Silk Museum in Hangzhou is a bit difficult.

By the way, the bow in that diagram is definitely asymmetric in design as well as dimensions. The longer, upper portion is spirally bound with a "silk wrapping" while the lower portion has two tight, tubular bindings which look like leather. The cylindrical quivers are said to be of doeskin.

I'd scan and send the diagram, but I hesitate to copy someone's published work without permission.

I certainly agree that modern reproductions--of almost anything historical--should be approached with skepticism.

[Tormodo]

Very interesting!
The first post bit: I am a student of archaeology and keenly interested in archery (or "traditional archery", as some call it). Romans i like too.

Quadratus:
- Czaba Grozer states that the avar and hungarian bows are faithful reproductions based on finds, here is the link: http://www.atarn.org/letters/ltr_oct02.htm
What is your basis when you state that they are only impressions?

-I found an archaeology book in the library the other day. It was about the huns and had lots of scetches of bows and bone plates as found, usually in graves. Also a reconstruction-suggestion of a hun bow, it did look a bit quite different from the Grozer/Kassai ones. I think the book was in the "Geschichte der Hunnen" series, and should be just your cup of tea! If you read german, that is. Will verify the title shortly.

Tormod Osen

[Richomeres]

Folks,

I do not want to be a spoilsport, but as far as I know, the Huns were a mix of several people, partly conquered during their expansion to the west. This would mean, that there could have been several slightly different designs for bows at the same time, depending on their origin. Certainly the Huns invading the Near East were exposed to different influences then those in Europe.

I doubt that there was THE Hunnish bow. Even nowadays, in the age of the global village and a fairly good logistical situation in most of the members state, the NATO has no agreed on one rifle for all members. There are different rifles but one bore, well, more or less. In my opinion this was the same for the Huns.

Cheers,

Helge

[Robert Vermaat]

Are these from composite bows?

Bone tips from eastern reflex bows from Caerleon, 5th c.
http://www.fectio.org.uk/articles/hwb/fig42.htm

[aitor iriarte]

Yes, Robert, they are bone ears from reflex composite bows. 8)

Aitor

[Quadratus]

Tormod - the basis for saying that many of Grozers bows are impressions is twofold. First the article you pointed me to, Grozer himself says so. Secondly, I do not believe we know enough about many of the 'extinct' bows to do anything other than make an impression.

I return to the so-called Magyar bow. I can find no archaeological evidence for anything other than its general unstrung shape. In its basic form and construction it is a typical Sino-Mongolian bow, and yet modern versions are always strung in a manner that is virtually unknown for surviving S-M bows, based, as far as I can tell, on unsupported assumptions from a single find in the 1930's.

I have no problem with these 'traditional' bows as such and have just come back from a session shooting a Grozer Mongol and a Kassai Hun - great fun and very different from my modern compound. I will be delighted to be proved wrong, but until then, I am very skeptical about the authenticity of many of the designs especially the Magyar.

[Robert Vermaat]

Yes, Robert, they are bone ears from reflex composite bows. 8)

Oops, wrong thread.

Thanks Aitor...

[Iosephus]

A complete and intact (it was even strung!!!) assymmetric composite bow was found near Minfeng in China in a grave in 1959. It originates from the late period of the Han dynasty and it's bone parts are identical to those that were found elsewhere in Asia and Europe and which can be treated as Hunnic assymetric bows (in Bóna István: A hunok és nagykirályaik - which translates to the Huns and their Great Kings).

Alan, I'm not sure I can understand your problem regarding magyar bows.
Do you say that the modern reconstructions made by bowmakers are not accurate or do you say that there's too few archeological evidence for making an accurate reproduction at all?

I think the latter case is not valid. Although this is not my main field of interest but I do know that there were hundreds of ancient magyar warrior graves found in Hungary (and a lot more in Ukraine as well) and almost all of them contained remains of symmetrical composite bows and bow quivers which, I think, are more than enough to make proper reproductions.

[Quadratus]

József - I am now much happier about the assymetrical Hunnic (and Sassanian and early Han) bows as I have just got sight of Jon Coulston's article in BAR, which covers the ground quite thoroughly.

My doubts about Magyar bows are purely about the way the modern versions are strung. We know their basic form very well from several examples where more than just the laths have been preserved. As I said earlier, they are typical, symmetrical Sino-Mongolian bows. However, if here is any evidence for the string running from nock to nock without touching the siyah I have yet to see it and it would make the Magyar bow the only known Eurasian stiff-eared bow type where this was the case. Not impossible, but what is the evidence?

[Tormodo]

Quadratus:
Quote from the link in my last entry: "Some of his bows (Assyirian and Scythian) he admits are little more than 'fantasy bows' with little or no archaeological or scientific background. Others among his repertoire are faithful reproductions of historic bows (for example his Hungarian range of bows and his Turkish and Crimean Tartar bows.) "

So he does in fact not admit to have made the hungarian bow up. But if you are sceptical towards the study that he bases it on, fair enough. I don't know it. I guess his first priority is to make a working bow.
From what I have read the archaeological identification of these different namadic groups is flimsy, but in spite of this I have several times seen the assumption that a certain group has been associated with a certain bow, found somewhere around their teritory.

The books that József and I mention are the same, only I had the german version.
Das Hunnenreich
Author: Istvan Bona
Language: German
Format: Book (Illustrated), 294 pages
Publication Date: January 1991
ISBN: 9631333566

Tormod Osen

[jonwr]

Hi
I'm new here but thought I would jump in on this thread.
Ron check out www.atarn.org .
Lots of knowledgeable people over there.
jonwr.

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Jonwr,

Feel free to jump in, but you must enter your real into your signature. Forum rules.

[jonwr]

Whoops, sorry. :oops:
________
Jon Ractliffe.

[Treveri Gaul]

hello.

In 2 decemberI had my 40. birthday. My wife surprised me. She gave me a Hungaryan Kassai reflex bow /39 #/ Very good and hard.

[Robert Vermaat]

Congratulations István! And what a great present!