Islamic bow for I.D. and comment

[Gonzalo G]

[QUOTE=Ibrahiim al Balooshi]"From medieval times through the nineteenth century, archers of the Islamic crescent, stretching from Turkey eastward to India, were renowned for both their exceptional skills and superior weapons. As a necessary means of advancing the spread of Islam, weapons traditionally held a religious association in Muslim cultures. The bow and arrow, which are extolled in many sayings of the Prophet Muhammad, held a special place above all others. Training in archery was seen as a religious duty and a sign of status, and the craftmanship of archery equipment was highly esteemed. The legacy of Islamic archery is exemplified by the archery traditions and equipment of Ottoman Turkey (1453–1922), of Iran during the Safavid–Qajar periods (1502–1925), and of the Indian subcontinent throughout the Mughal era (1526–1857), which blended Islamic and Hindu cultural elements"

Just for precison, Ibrahim, though I don't disagree with the cultural and religious importance of archery in the Muslim culture, the role of archery, its cultural importance and even the type of bow from the Persians, Ottomans, Mughal and Mamluke dynasties in India, does not derive from their religion, but from their Central Asian cultural and military heritage. It was there before the islamization of the Persians and Turks and is the same of that of the Mongols, and before them the Partians and Scythians, Hsiung-nu and many others. Remember that the Ottomans and Seljuks were only part of an inmense confederation of the Oghuz Turks, who roamed in the Eurasian steppe and just latter some of them converted to Islam. The same apply to the Mongols and Turks integrated in a Central Asian Empire which is the origin of the Mughals of India. Maybe Islam reinforced this cultural current, or maybe it was the other way around, that this pre-existing culture of archery among those peoples reinforced that of the already had by the Islamic conquerors who spread their religion to Persia and part of Central Asia.

Regards

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

[QUOTE=Gonzalo G]

Originally Posted by Ibrahiim al Balooshi

"From medieval times through the nineteenth century, archers of the Islamic crescent, stretching from Turkey eastward to India, were renowned for both their exceptional skills and superior weapons. As a necessary means of advancing the spread of Islam, weapons traditionally held a religious association in Muslim cultures. The bow and arrow, which are extolled in many sayings of the Prophet Muhammad, held a special place above all others. Training in archery was seen as a religious duty and a sign of status, and the craftmanship of archery equipment was highly esteemed. The legacy of Islamic archery is exemplified by the archery traditions and equipment of Ottoman Turkey (1453–1922), of Iran during the Safavid–Qajar periods (1502–1925), and of the Indian subcontinent throughout the Mughal era (1526–1857), which blended Islamic and Hindu cultural elements"

Just for precison, Ibrahim, though I don't disagree with the cultural and religious importance of archery in the Muslim culture, the role of archery, its cultural importance and even the type of bow from the Persians, Ottomans, Mughal and Mamluke dynasties in India, does not derive from their religion, but from their Central Asian cultural and military heritage. It was there before the islamization of the Persians and Turks and is the same of that of the Mongols, and before them the Partians and Scythians, Hsiung-nu and many others. Remember that the Ottomans and Seljuks were only part of an inmense confederation of the Oghuz Turks, who roamed in the Eurasian steppe and just latter some of them converted to Islam. The same apply to the Mongols and Turks integrated in a Central Asian Empire which is the origin of the Mughals of India. Maybe Islam reinforced this cultural current, or maybe it was the other way around, that this pre-existing culture of archery among those peoples reinforced that of the already had by the Islamic conquerors who spread their religion to Persia and part of Central Asia.

Regards

Salaams Gonzalo G, Firstly many thanks for posting on this great subject which for too long has gone un-examined by Forum. I had a reasonable go at introducing the subject at the European and it is nice to see this thread gathering pace on Ethnographic. By chance it seems that the Turkish Foot Bow and the Welsh Long never came into deadly combat with each other. The extraordinary greater range of the Turkish Bow would certainly have sent the opposition back to the drawing board I suspect.
Regarding the religious context I think it has been viewed out of context... It was a quote from https://anthromuseum.missouri.edu/g...icarchery.shtml which I consider not inaccurate neither does it say the bow was derived from religion ...in fact it goes on to say ~

Quote" The legacy of Islamic archery is exemplified by the archery traditions and equipment of Ottoman Turkey (1453–1922), of Iran during the Safavid–Qajar periods (1502–1925), and of the Indian subcontinent throughout the Mughal era (1526–1857), which blended Islamic and Hindu cultural elements"Unquote. What perhaps it did not underline was where the earlier concept derived from, however, I think it was inferred that people understood the origin..for which the Mongolian Archer is clearly the pointer.

I think emphasis on Blended. Certainly as I read it there was no inference on ownership of style belonging to the religion...but that surely they observed a formidable weapon and adapted and adopted the system and built a military structure around its training in the case of the Turks with their Janissaries and the Mamluke with their recruits taken often as young as 6 years old from the Steppes.

Moreover the subject is a fascinating one and I hope more members can get involved ... Pinterest is bombarding my mail with all things archery and I am certain good photographic evidence will add to the thread in due course.

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

[Gonzalo G]

Originally Posted by Ibrahiim al Balooshi

I think emphasis on Blended. Certainly as I read it there was no inference on ownership of style belonging to the religion...but that surely they observed a formidable weapon and adapted and adopted the system and built a military structure around its training in the case of the Turks with their Janissaries and the Mamluke with their recruits taken often as young as 6 years old from the Steppes.

Salam aleikum, Ibrahim, peace be upon you. I am sorry if I misuderstood the quote, I just tried to extend the scope of Ottoman and Indian Mogol-Mamluke archery to the whole nomadic peoples of Central Asia. I know arab archery is ancient and has its own traditions. And that they were an open and sophisticated people who also incorporated every scientific, cultural and technological valuable asset they found among other peoples.
Regards

P.D. Thank you for the string to the Arab archery book, but I introduced it to my web search window...and noting happened, I mean, it did not open a page with the book. Maybe I did something wrong, please advise me.

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Originally Posted by Gonzalo G

Salam aleikum, Ibrahim, peace be upon you. I am sorry if I misuderstood the quote, I just tried to extend the scope of Ottoman and Indian Mogol-Mamluke archery to the whole nomadic peoples of Central Asia. I know arab archery is ancient and has its own traditions. And that they were an open and sophisticated people who also incorporated every scientific, cultural and technological valuable asset they found among other peoples.
Regards

P.D. Thank you for the string to the Arab archery book, but I introduced it to my web search window...and noting happened, I mean, it did not open a page with the book. Maybe I did something wrong, please advise me.

Ensure you copy the string and put into web search...It works for me....

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Turkic warriors guarding the Doors of Tamerlane. Tamerlane, anglicized form of Timur-i-Lang ('Lame Timur' or 'Timur the Lame') (1336-1404), was a Turkic conqueror, born in Kash near Samarkand. He waged several devastating wars, conquering Persia (1392-96) and northern India (1398), and defeating the Ottomans and the Mamlukes (1402)

[Timo Nieminen]

Originally Posted by Ibrahiim al Balooshi

Turkic warriors guarding the Doors of Tamerlane.

Anachronistic art. They carry the Manchu/Qing bow, which spread west along the steppe after the Manchu conquest of Mongolia (which was post-Timurid). Bows derived from the Manchu bow were used as far west as the Crimea, from where they influence European and Turkish bows. AFAIK, the Turkish and European versions (often about 4' long) weren't as big as the Crimean ones, which were often smaller than the Manchu/Chinese ones (like 5' vs 5.5' to 6').

[Gonzalo G]

Originally Posted by Timo Nieminen

Anachronistic art. They carry the Manchu/Qing bow, which spread west along the steppe after the Manchu conquest of Mongolia (which was post-Timurid). Bows derived from the Manchu bow were used as far west as the Crimea, from where they influence European and Turkish bows. AFAIK, the Turkish and European versions (often about 4' long) weren't as big as the Crimean ones, which were often smaller than the Manchu/Chinese ones (like 5' vs 5.5' to 6').

I agree on the anachronism, but specifically in which way Manchu bows influenced the Turk bows? By Turks you meant the Ottomans? Because there are many Turkic peoples, from nort-west China to south-west Russia, not to mention the Ottomans. Do you mean all of them?

Regards

[Timo Nieminen]

Originally Posted by Gonzalo G

I agree on the anachronism, but specifically in which way Manchu bows influenced the Turk bows? By Turks you meant the Ottomans? Because there are many Turkic peoples, from nort-west China to south-west Russia, not to mention the Ottomans. Do you mean all of them?

By "Turkish" here, I mean the Turkish subjects of the Ottomans. The European bows I refer to are AFAIK European subjects of the Ottomans. (For Turkic peoples outside Turkey, I'll usually use "Turkic" rather than "Turkish".)

AFAIK, the Mongol adoption of the Manchu bow was driven by the Manchu conquest of Mongolia. After the Mongolian Mongols adopted it, then it spread to Moghulistan, and next to Mawarannahr/Transoxiana (under Uzbek rule by then), and then to the Crimean Khanate. By the time the Manchu bow reaches Crimea, it's shrunk a bit (but is still a big bow) - smaller ears, smaller string bridge, and also less reflexed.

The Crimean Khanate being an Ottoman protectorate, the Ottomans are exposed to this bow. At which point, bows appear in the Ottoman Empire which are intermediate in size between the traditional Ottoman bow and the Crimean/Manchu bow. The new bows are about 50"/125cm long, as compared with the traditional 40"/100cm bows, and the 60"/160cm Crimean/Manchu bow (and the 66"-72"/170-180cm Manchu/Qing bow).

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

Regards

[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).

[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).