Islamic bow for I.D. and comment

[Victrix]

Originally Posted by estcrh

Ganzalo, I did not say that the Egyptian Mamluks were defeated by treason, I said that the Mamluks were not defeated in Egypt by the Janassaries, the treason was Ali taking control over Egypt and proclaiming himself as the "Khedive".

Estcrh, you would enjoy reading James Waterson's book. It's a fascinating read and well worth the modest money. It has pride of place in my library. During their heyday the Mamluks were like the Samurai of the Islamic world, and second to none in their fighting skills to which their entire lives were devoted. As Gonzalo G mentioned, their weaknesses were a lack of willingness to adapt to new scientific advances and corruption as a result of power grabs.

[estcrh]

Composite bows at ed-Dur (Umm al-Qaiwain, U.A.E.)

http://faculty.ksu.edu.sa/archaeolog...t%20ed-Dur.pdf

Bows in Arabia and at ed-Dur

According to pre-Islamic Arabic poetry, the bow was a frequently used weapon in Arabia (29). Originally, the Arabs used the simple, asymmetrical bow (upper and lower limbs being of different length). Later, the ‘Arab composite bow’ was intro- duced: a large, segment-shaped bow with long ears bent forwards, a descendant of the above-mentioned ‘composite segment bow’ with bone coverings. When ed-Dur was occupied (late first century BC- first half of the second century AD), this type was widely used by the Arabs (30). Surprisingly, how- ever, ed-Dur is the only site in the Arabian Peninsula where bone nock-plates have been excavated. More- over, no illustrations of the Arab composite bow have been found, perhaps because of the ‘iconoclas- tic tendencies common to Islam and to the pre- Moslem religions of the country’ (31).

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by Gonzalo G

the portrait seems to be Naser al-Din Shah Qajar, though I can be mistaken.

Good guess Gonzalo, so this bow was made in the mid to late 1800s at the earliest, the comparison between the portrait on the bow and his photograph is very similar.

It is not in good condition, maybe someone has an idea of how to preserve it. Persian bows are rather rare.

Naser al-Din Shah Qajar (16 July 1831 – 1 May 1896) (Persian: ناصرالدین شاه قاجار‎‎), also Nassereddin Shah Qajar, was the King of Persia from 5 September 1848 to 1 May 1896 when he was assassinated.

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Originally Posted by estcrh

Composite bows at ed-Dur (Umm al-Qaiwain, U.A.E.)

http://faculty.ksu.edu.sa/archaeolog...t%20ed-Dur.pdf

Bows in Arabia and at ed-Dur

According to pre-Islamic Arabic poetry, the bow was a frequently used weapon in Arabia (29). Originally, the Arabs used the simple, asymmetrical bow (upper and lower limbs being of different length). Later, the ‘Arab composite bow’ was intro- duced: a large, segment-shaped bow with long ears bent forwards, a descendant of the above-mentioned ‘composite segment bow’ with bone coverings. When ed-Dur was occupied (late first century BC- first half of the second century AD), this type was widely used by the Arabs (30). Surprisingly, how- ever, ed-Dur is the only site in the Arabian Peninsula where bone nock-plates have been excavated. More- over, no illustrations of the Arab composite bow have been found, perhaps because of the ‘iconoclas- tic tendencies common to Islam and to the pre- Moslem religions of the country’ (31).

The research paper is quite excellent however, I dont know what context you mean iconoclatic tic... "a contradiction in established beliefs"... I can say however, that I have found a lot of arrow heads around here in the desert...which proves to me someone must have been loosing some arrows off>>> a long time ago.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by Ibrahiim al Balooshi

The research paper is quite excellent however, I dont know what context you mean iconoclatic tic... "a contradiction in established beliefs"... I can say however, that I have found a lot of arrow heads around here in the desert...which proves to me someone must have been loosing some arrows off>>> a long time ago.

Ibrahiim, sorry for the confusion, that is a quote from the research paper, I did not write it and I am not exactly sure what the writer of the quote meant. By the way, do you have any images of the arrow heads you have found? Here is an image of what looks like an ancient composite bow in use.


An archer engaged in combat using a thumb draw on what appears to be a type of Indo-Persian bow. It dates back to the 8th-9th Century AD and was taken from the ancient city of Panjikent located partially in Tajikistan's northwest but mainly in Uzbekistan's southeast according to the locals. For years it was kept in the Hermitage of St. Petersburg, Russia but now resides back in Tajik lands where it rightfully belongs.

[Gonzalo G]

Originally Posted by Ibrahiim al Balooshi

The research paper is quite excellent however, I dont know what context you mean iconoclatic tic... "a contradiction in established beliefs"... I can say however, that I have found a lot of arrow heads around here in the desert...which proves to me someone must have been loosing some arrows off>>> a long time ago.

It is very clear. The iconoclasts was a famous Bizantine religious current among the chrstian church. They were opposed to the representation of human beigns (oikonos=image in Greek). Their foes were those who supported the use of images of saints, etc., as a media to propagate the faith and teach the christian church's beliefs. Those last won, after a true civil war. The Jews, Muslims and Christisn Iconoclasts are against the use of human images. So, no illustrations of arab bows are usually found, because of this (no images of archers), acording with the quote from that article. Protestantism in Europe raised again this iconoclastic belief, and they refused to use images in their churches, as opposed to the catholics. In their churches you only find symbols, as the cross.

Regards

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by Gonzalo G

It is very clear. The iconoclasts was a famous Bizantine religious current among the chrstian church. They were opposed to the representation of human beigns (oikonos=image in Greek). Their foes were those who supported the use of images of saints, etc., as a media to propagate the faith and teach the christian church's beliefs. Those last won, after a true civil war. The Jews, Muslims and Christisn Iconoclasts are against the use of human images. So, no illustrations of arab bows are usually found, because of this (no images of archers), acording with the quote from that article. Protestantism in Europe raised again this iconoclastic belief, and they refused to use images in their churches, as opposed to the catholics. In their churches you only find symbols, as the cross.

Regards

Good explanation, thanks.

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Originally Posted by estcrh

Ibrahiim, sorry for the confusion, that is a quote from the research paper, I did not write it and I am not exactly sure what the writer of the quote meant. By the way, do you have any images of the arrow heads you have found? Here is an image of what looks like an ancient composite bow in use.


An archer engaged in combat using a thumb draw on what appears to be a type of Indo-Persian bow. It dates back to the 8th-9th Century AD and was taken from the ancient city of Panjikent located partially in Tajikistan's northwest but mainly in Uzbekistan's southeast according to the locals. For years it was kept in the Hermitage of St. Petersburg, Russia but now resides back in Tajik lands where it rightfully belongs.

I think I have a few left ... will check the store ...and take a picture.

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Originally Posted by Ibrahiim al Balooshi

I think I have a few left ... will check the store ...and take a picture.

I still need to take some pictures... however, looking at a report on the UAEi ~ Quote"Broadheads were used for war and are still used for hunting. Information on regional Arabic arrowheads found from the period 100BC-150AD in the United Arab Emirates show the use of three-bladed broadheads, or trilobate arrowhead. "A trilobate arrowhead can be defined as an arrowhead that has three wings or blades that are usually placed at equal angles (i.e. c. 120°) around the imaginary longitudinal axis extending from the centre of the socket or tang. Since this type of arrowhead is rare in southeastern Arabia, we must investigate its origin and the reasons behind its presence at ed-Dur. UAE" ''Unquote.

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

RESEARCHERS FIND ANCIENT OFFERINGS TO A DEITY OF WAR
Archaeologists led by Guilluame Gernez of Pantheon-Sorbonne University in Paris discovered two groups of 'remarkable' objects during excavations at Mudhmar East.
The site in the Arabian Peninsula, near Adam, Oman.
Researchers found two small quivers made entirely of bronze, each including six arrows.
At just 35 cm, these quivers are small-scale replicas of real objects and are non-functional – and they're the first of this kind ever to be discovered in the Arabian Peninsula.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...#ixzz4nJL0lRhl

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by Ibrahiim al Balooshi

RESEARCHERS FIND ANCIENT OFFERINGS TO A DEITY OF WAR
Archaeologists led by Guilluame Gernez of Pantheon-Sorbonne University in Paris discovered two groups of 'remarkable' objects during excavations at Mudhmar East.
The site in the Arabian Peninsula, near Adam, Oman.
Researchers found two small quivers made entirely of bronze, each including six arrows.
At just 35 cm, these quivers are small-scale replicas of real objects and are non-functional – and they're the first of this kind ever to be discovered in the Arabian Peninsula.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...#ixzz4nJL0lRhl

Good find!!!!

http://www2.cnrs.fr/en/2725.htm

Paris, 10 March 2016
First non-utilitarian weapons found in the Arabian Peninsula

An exceptional collection of bronze weapons dating from the Iron Age II (900-600 BC) has been uncovered near Adam, in the Sultanate of Oman. The remains were discovered scattered on the ground in a building belonging to what is thought to be a religious complex, during excavations carried out by the French archaeological mission in central Oman. In particular, they include two complete quivers and weapons made of metal, including two bows, objects that are for the most part non-functional and hitherto unknown in the Arabian Peninsula. Additional archaeological research, which began in 2011 in the region, will be needed to elucidate the political system, social practices and rituals existing in the Arabian Peninsula at the time.

[Timo Nieminen]

Originally Posted by Gonzalo G

Thank you for your reply, Timo. The Ottoman bows I have seen does not have the siyah-ears big and so rigid (so it seems) like the Manchu. But I have only seen some Ottoman and Manchu bows in pictures, never seen one personally, and they look different. The Manchu bow seem more "Hunnish", but symmetrical. I have only elemental knowledge of the historic composite bow from the Orient, that's why I asked for the specific influences, like beign more robust, bigger than the originals, siyah bigger or more rigid, different profiles-curvatures-proportions, etc.

A couple of examples:

First, some Manchu bows:
http://mandarinmansion.com/antique-manchu-composite-bow
http://www.hermann-historica.de/en/k..._jhdt/l/138178
https://anthromuseum.missouri.edu/gr...-0162bow.shtml
These are big bows (170cm to 180cm long), very reflexed, long ears, prominent string bridges. The Mongolian version is similar: often a bit smaller, but still a big bows, often with shorter (but still long) ears, usually less reflexed. A couple of examples:
http://www.hermann-historica.de/en/k..._jhdt/l/138189
http://www.hermann-historica.de/en/k..._jhdt/l/138192
http://mandarinmansion.com/tigers-ta...-composite-bow

The typical Ottoman bow is very different. Much, much smaller (about 1m long), short ears, no string bridges:
https://anthromuseum.missouri.edu/gr...7turkbow.shtml
https://anthromuseum.missouri.edu/gr...7turkbow.shtml

Now the in-between bow, the "Crimean" bow. AFAIK, these are Turkish Ottoman, rather than Crimean as such - the actual Crimean bow was close to the Mongolian/Manchu bow (more prominent string bridges).
150cm long, so very large: https://anthromuseum.missouri.edu/gr...artarbow.shtml
125cm long, so about halfway between the above example and a typical Ottoman bow: https://anthromuseum.missouri.edu/gr...artarbow.shtml

Originally Posted by Gonzalo G

I also wonder if those Timurid warriors should carry their swords edge up.

All of the scabbards I've seen have mounts such that the sword would be hung from the belt, edge down. Most examples I've seen in art are worn that way (I can remember seeing a sketch of a miniature with the sword worn through a waist belt, but still edge down).

[Timo Nieminen]

Another online publication of interest:

Bernard A. Boit, "The Fruits of Adversity: Technical Refinements of the
Turkish Composite Bow During the Crusading Era", MA thesis, The Ohio State University, 1991.
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a243362.pdf

[kronckew]

Originally Posted by Timo Nieminen

Another online publication of interest:

Bernard A. Boit, "The Fruits of Adversity: Technical Refinements of the
Turkish Composite Bow During the Crusading Era", MA thesis, The Ohio State University, 1991.
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a243362.pdf

it ignores the use of metal lammelar armour and mail used by byzantine cataphracti and the sassanids, and turks, all of which used recurved horsebows, only mentioning the light leather lamella used by some other muslim light cavalry. they also armoured their horses.

[Gonzalo G]

Originally Posted by Timo Nieminen

These are big bows (170cm to 180cm long), very reflexed, long ears, prominent string bridges. The Mongolian version is similar: often a bit smaller, but still a big bows, often with shorter (but still long) ears, usually less reflexed.

From the representation of Mongol and Manchu mounted warriors, I believed these bows were smaller to facilitate shooting from horseback. 1.70-1.80 mt is about the size of a English longbow, isn't it? I can´t imagine carrying those long bows from a quiver suspended from the waist.

Originally Posted by Timo Nieminen

All of the scabbards I've seen have mounts such that the sword would be hung from the belt, edge down. Most examples I've seen in art are worn that way (I can remember seeing a sketch of a miniature with the sword worn through a waist belt, but still edge down).

Do you mean, among the Timurids?

Thank you for the link, I´m downloading.

Regards

[Timo Nieminen]

Originally Posted by Gonzalo G

From the representation of Mongol and Manchu mounted warriors, I believed these bows were smaller to facilitate shooting from horseback. 1.70-1.80 mt is about the size of a English longbow, isn't it? I can´t imagine carrying those long bows from a quiver suspended from the waist.

Some photos of large bows being worn on horseback at http://www.manchuarchery.org/photogr...golian-archers (and when you combine it with the long heavy arrows you want for these bow, a musket, a sword, and a lance, you have a lot of stuff to carry).

Smaller is easier on horseback, but note that the bow survived for so long in the Qing army as a cavalry weapon. After pike and musket became the dominant infantry weapons, the bow remained in use by the cavalry for another 200 years. If they'd adopted the pistol as a standard cavalry weapon, the bow might have been abandoned.

The Japanese managed with an even longer bow! (Modern yumi usually vary from 2.2m to 2.5m.)

Originally Posted by Gonzalo G

Do you mean, among the Timurids?

Timurids, and also others nearby in space and time. I double-checked Timurids specifically, but it reflects much broader usage. The Central Asian standard sword suspension was edge down, hung from the belt, two hangers on the spine-side of the scabbard.

[Gonzalo G]

Thank you, Timo.

At what moment and where began those sabers be carried edge-up? In the Golden Horde they were carried edge-up, as I understand. The Russians adopted this sytsem, as also the oriental style of sabers. The Japanese carried the nihonto edge-up in the sash, but edge-down with armour.

Regards

[Timo Nieminen]

The oldest Central Asian scabbards for curved sabres I've seen that look designed for wear through a waist sash (and therefore at least potentially edge-up) are 18th century. However, scabbards don't survive as well as swords, and the practice might be older. I've seen older Tibetan scabbards (for straight swords) that look like they're made for wear through a waist sash, edge up (maybe 17th century?).

The oldest scabbards I've seen for wear edge-up hung-from-belt are 19th century (shashka scabbards, all of them).

AFAIK, uchigatana mounts (Japanese sword mounts for edge-up waist-sash wear) appear in the 15th century, and become common in the 16th century. This was driven by the growth of infantry as armies got larger. The uchigatana/katana is an infantry sword, and the tachi is a cavalry sword.

Can you point to any art showing Golden Horde swords being worn edge-up?

[Gonzalo G]

Hi Timo,

It seems that I´m wrong. I have been checking Tatar sabres with scabbards, and all them seem to be carried edge-down.

I thought the tachi was not used anymore in the 16th Century, except for few exceptions.

Regards

[Timo Nieminen]

The tachi was still in use as a cavalry sword. For example, in this picture of the Siege of Osaka Castle, 1615:

the cavalry wear tachi, while most infantry wear a katana (some armoured infantry wear tachi, too, like the musketeer near the gate at the bottom left, and the archer at the bottom extreme right).

As late as the Satsuma Rebellion, art still shows traditionally-equipped armoured cavalry wearing tachi (and modernised cavalry with Western sabres, modernised infantry with katana worn in baldrics, unarmoured samurai women fighting on horseback with katana - lots of variety).

[Gonzalo G]

Thank you, Timo. Very instructive.

Regards

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by Timo Nieminen

The tachi was still in use as a cavalry sword. For example, in this picture of the Siege of Osaka Castle, 1615:

As late as the Satsuma Rebellion, art still shows traditionally-equipped armoured cavalry wearing tachi .

Just because a sword was worn in the manner of a tachi does not necessarily make the sword a true "tachi".

There were true tachi, which are swords made during a certain period of time and with certain identifiable traits.

There were swords that were not true tachi which were mounted in a tachi koshirae.

There were swords that were not true tachi and were not mounted in a tachi koshirae but were still worn in the manner of a tachi.

There were swords made at a later date than true tachi which were made to look like true tachi.

[Timo Nieminen]

Originally Posted by kronckew

it ignores the use of metal lammelar armour and mail used by byzantine cataphracti and the sassanids, and turks, all of which used recurved horsebows, only mentioning the light leather lamella used by some other muslim light cavalry. they also armoured their horses.

Light leather lamellar is a myth, anyway. The lamella need to be thick enough to be effective - about 3mm rawhide or more. All of it is overlapped to give you at least double thickness everywhere (side-by-side overlap), so rows are 6mm thick. If you again double the thickness by vertical overlap of the rows, you have 12mm, for about the same weight as 2mm iron/steel plate (without even considering the weight of the lacing).

Take that 3mm rawhide lamellar, and wear it on top of a mail shirt (as was common), and it isn't light armour at all.