Composite Manchu-Mongolian bow from the collections of the Ethnographic museum of the peoples of Transbaikalia (Ulan-Ude): on the issue of weapons refit

Kharitonov Roman Mikhailovich ORCID: 0000-0003-1699-046X Research Engineer of Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Novosibirsk, Russia. 630090, Russia, Novosibirsk region, Novosibirsk, Akademika Lavrentieva Ave., 17 tengeri_ashina@list.ru Other publications by this author

Introduction

Military affairs are an important component of human culture. In the context of ancient peoples, the study of material remains is often the only source for understanding the level of development of military affairs and the weapons complex used. To date, there is an extensive literature on weapons studies, considering the complex of weapons, tactics, strategy, military art, etc. of various peoples of the world. Meanwhile, most experts study the device of ancient weapons, having very limited data, weapons items are reconstructed on the basis of attracting a wide range of sources. The question of the specifics of modifying weapons items in the process of their use is often ignored, despite the fact that in some cases specialists have to deal with re-issued products.

Today, a very relevant topic is the study of military art and the complex of weapons of the peoples of Central Asia of the late Middle Ages and Modern times. This period is characterized by a significant source base much more informative than for previous periods of history. An important component of material sources are weapons collections, including antique weapons items that have not undergone the process of archeologization and are still stored in museum and private collections. Their study will allow, through a retrospective analysis, to better understand the features of the design, modification and application of older analogues from archaeological complexes.

One of the most interesting items of weapons, while relatively poorly studied, are complex bows. One of the most popular designs among the peoples of Central Asia is the Manchurian-Mongolian compound bow.

The closest attention to the problems of the Manchurian-Mongolian compound bow is observed in the research of the Dutch amateur antiquarian P. Dekker, who even created a special resource to cover his activities ^[1], and also separately published a number of subjects studied by him ^[2]. Such bows were distinguished by relatively large sizes, wide shoulders and long end zones of rigidity. In his opinion, the genesis of the design is connected with the hunting traditions of the taiga Tungus-speaking population. The hunters tried to make the most effective shot with a heavy arrow after the maximum approach at a short distance. After the formation of the Qing dynasty in the XVII century. such bows became widely used throughout the territory under their control. Meanwhile, the high striking power and long ends create the need for special care for the object. This led to a simplification of the design in some regions — craftsmen made products smaller in size, made them less massive, shortened the ends. Thus, along with the regulated bows of the Manchus, many variants of them appeared, spread over the vast expanses of Central Asia. Such products were used in Mongolia, Tibet, Kazakhstan, got to the population of Southern Siberia, etc. The modern ethnographic Mongolian bow is one of the variants of such a design, which largely contradicts the opinion that these items are "Mongolian-type bows". Meanwhile, the level of knowledge of such products does not allow to associate the identified items with a typical Qing bow or any of its variations. At the same time, the variety of decorative and individual design techniques, as well as the variation in the size of various objects, indicates the variety of sources for the manufacture of such products. It is for this reason that such objects are referred to in the work as Manchurian-Mongolian, thereby reflecting the unity of the fundamental structural elements with some differences. All this makes it necessary to study the entire variety of bows of this design in order to understand their differences and the possibility of identifying certain features for comparison with local and chronological variants.

One of the interesting samples of the Manchurian-Mongolian design is kept in the funds of the Ethnographic Museum of the Peoples of Transbaikalia (Ulan-Ude).

Materials and methods

For the study of fully preserved objects, the most common is a detailed description of their design, since effective approaches have not yet been developed for the analysis of such specimens as mass material. In the case of the application of the classical weapons science method of classification by a set of overlays, the vast majority of design features will remain without attention. The most adequate is the consideration of the bow as a complex system reflecting the totality of specific technological operations and design elements that form the finished mechanism. The morphology of the body (the body of the bow needed to accumulate energy and transfer it to the arrow) is formed by combining all its components (a wooden base, a set of linings, tendons, external pasting and decor). In the context of this, the whole subject reflects the peculiarities of the ideas of the masters of a certain tradition of manufacturing, characterized by continuity and stability, while variability reflects cross-cultural interactions.

The purpose of this study is to characterize the design of the Manchurian-Mongolian compound bow from the collections of the Ethnographic Museum of the Peoples of Transbaikalia (Ulan-Ude) to study the possible variability of the design during its functioning in different peoples.

The attracted bow (inventory number EMNZ OF-2448) comes from the personal belongings of P. Zh. Gergesov, a resident of S. She is from the Ust-Orda Buryat district, entered the museum in 1976 (see Figures 1, 2) The place and time of manufacture of the object are not known. Based on the data of the museum inventory, the product was used for some time by the Agin Buryats.

Figure 1. Drawings and diagram of the EMNZ OF-2448: 1 – general view; 2 – the outer surface of the rigid end; 3 – the side surface of the rigid end; 4 – the layout of the reinforcing pads on the body.

The external geometry of the object is significantly damaged. Both shoulders are curved towards the abdomen (the inner side facing the shooter during the shot) due to prolonged use and storage with the bowstring on. Now the handle passes into the shoulders without visible angular transitions, the elastic shoulders (elastic, working part of the body) are bent towards the abdomen so that at the beginning of the transition zones the body goes beyond the handle line, at the beginning of the transition zones (the long section necessary to form the angle of the body and change the cross section between elastic shoulders and stiff ends) changes the bending direction, the transition zones are almost straight, followed by relatively short stiff ends (rigid areas morphologically distinguished relative to the transition zones), continuing the line of transition zones and practically not standing out on the general geometry (see Figure 1, 1). The angle of the ends relative to the handle is 140° and 132°. It is problematic to accurately represent the original geometry. Most likely, the handle passed into the shoulders without visible angular transitions, the elastic shoulders were sharply curved in the direction of the back, the transition zones were also curved, most likely more sharply than the elastic shoulders, the ends were straight and most likely longer. The length of the shoulders indicates symmetry. The length of the case at the time of inspection is about 160 cm, but initially the case was longer, most likely about 170-180 cm. The bow is composite, reinforced with a median frontal (?), long shoulder frontal composite linings, also covering the transition zones, shoulder side linings, from the back side is pasted with tendon fibers along the entire length of the kibiti, metal plates with a hook for fixing the bowstring are fixed at the ends on the inside of the body (see Figure 1, 4). The axis on the front-rear surface is not damaged (see Figure 2, 1).

The handle is not clearly expressed, conditionally it can be limited to a 20 cm long section between transverse birch bark strips on the inside of the body in the central part (see Figure 2, 2). Such birch bark strips most often hide the joints of the pads (in this case, shoulder frontal and median frontal), additionally reinforced with transverse tendon windings. Meanwhile, the entire inner surface of the handle in different areas is hidden by birch bark pasting, wrapping with a leather cord or a layer of darkened paint. This does not allow us to unambiguously determine the shape, material and boundaries of the median frontal lining, however, it is present on all similar bows. From one edge, a yellow-gray area is visible, which differs in color from the color of the shoulder plates, but it was not possible to clearly identify the material. If such a plate occupied the entire designated area, then it had a paddle-shaped shape. The central part of the designated handle with a length of 12 cm is hidden by a solid birch bark pasting. On top of this pasting, a 9 cm long section is wrapped with a thick leather cord. This area can be limited to the grip area. In the center, the cross-section of the handle is ellipsoid, the thickness along the winding is 3.5 cm, outside the winding at the junction with the shoulders is 1.8 cm, the width in the central part is 2.6 cm, by the transitions to the shoulders increases to 3.4 cm.

Figure 2. Photos of the details of the EMNZ OF-2448: 1 – general view; 2 – the inner surface of the handle; 3 – the inner surface of the elastic shoulder; 4 –the inner surface of the transition zone and the end; 5 – the outer surface of the rigid end; 6 – the lateral surface of the end zone of rigidity.

In the area of elastic shoulders, the cross section changes to a flattened ellipsoid. From the handle in the direction of the ends on a 20 cm long section, the body expands from 3.4 cm to 4.3 cm (maximum width) and slightly thinns to 1.7 cm, then the next 15 cm width and thickness do not change and further to the transition zones, the width gradually decreases to 3.8 cm, the thickness remains unchanged. Elastic shoulders can be conditionally limited to a length of about 40 cm (from the designated handle to the beginning of a visible change in the cross-section in the transition zones). On the inside of the elastic shoulders, the body is reinforced with long shoulder frontal composite pads, two for each shoulder and also strengthening part of the transition zones (see figures 1, 4; 2, 3, 4). These plates are segmented in cross-section, made of a hollow horn of dark gray-yellow color. The length of the pads on each shoulder is about 52 cm (30 cm and 22 cm). The shoulder plates repeat the shape of the body: the first long pad is sub-trapezoidal, the width at the handle is 3 cm, at the junction with the second pad is about 4 cm, the second plate is also sub-trapezoidal and smoothly narrows from 4 cm to 2.5 cm at the opposite end. The visible thickness of the pads reaches 0.6 cm. The joints of the pads are hidden by transverse tendon windings covered with birch bark strips on top: one joint is completely hidden, the second is clearly readable. The pads also cover a part of the transition zone of about 12 cm, after which they are joined with special ledges cut on a wooden base. On one shoulder, the short pad is partially peeled off, but the wooden base under it is not visible due to a layer of darkened glue.

The lateral surface of the elastic shoulders and transition zones is reinforced with segmented lateral shoulder pads in cross section, 60 cm long for each shoulder, up to 0.4 cm wide and 0.1 cm thick, made of thin vegetable material (reed?). It can be seen that these elements are composite and are assembled from several plates (see Figure 2, 6). In some places, individual components are damaged or missing, a thin light gray wooden base is visible under them. Most likely, such pads were not an important reinforcing element, but served as a covering for the side surface of the case, thereby hiding the side surface of the wooden base and the long edges of the long shoulder frontal plates.

In the transitional zones of the body with a length of about 22 cm, the cross—section changes to a flattened sub-triangular - an additional rib appears on the back side (clearly visible), which gradually increases in the direction from the elastic shoulders to the ends, thickening the body from 1.8 cm to 2.2 cm (see Figure 2, 6). The width along the length of these zones gradually decreases in the direction of the endings from 3.8 cm to 2.4 cm . As noted above, now the transition zones are almost straight, most likely initially they were uniformly curved along the entire length, and not in separate short sections. These areas are partially reinforced with the described shoulder pads that dock with ledges on a wooden base. After the ledges, the body was not reinforced with linings.

The stiff ends are roughly shaped and relatively short (see Figure 2, 6), about 8 cm. The cross section of the body in these places changes to an elongated sub-rectangular. The width from the transition zones to the ends of the body decreases from 2.4 cm to 1.4 cm, the thickness increases from 2.2 cm to 2.4 cm. The ends are glued on all sides with a thin layer of birch bark pasting, but it is clearly visible that they were not reinforced with overlays. Metal plates with a hook for fixing the bowstring are fixed at the ends on the inside of the case (see Figure 1, 2, 3; 2, 5, 6). These plates are fixed with two rivets each with wide caps fixed through through holes on the front-back plane. In addition to the marked places for fixing the bowstring, arched cutouts on the back side are also cut.

On the inner side of the bow body, at a distance of 15 cm from the ends in the transition zone area, wooden supports for the bowstring with a concave lenticular pad are fixed with leather straps (see Figure 2, 4).

With the exception of the handle, the outer and partially lateral and inner surface of the body (in thin strips along the edges of the elastic shoulders, the ends and part of the transition zones after the supports are completely pasted with a thin layer of birch bark, the shoulder side pads were not pasted with birch bark. Most of the birch bark pasting was painted, but the paint has darkened, and now it is impossible to restore the decor.

Together with the bow, a one-piece leather bowstring, 158 cm long, has been preserved. To create a loop, a knot described by V. K. Darzha was used on the example of the Tuvan bow ^{[3, p. 34]}.

The wooden base of the bow is hidden.

Discussion

Based on museum data, EMNZ OF-2448 was obtained from the Agin Buryats in the 1970s. An appeal to written sources, the works of ethnographers and Russian travelers showed the existence of two sources of receipt of complex bows to the Buryats - local production and import from China and Mongolia ^{[4, p. 8]}; ^{[5, p. 15]}; ^{[6, p. 171]}.

The given compound bow represents one of the common variants of the "Central Asian type" ^{[7, p. 224]}. Most likely, it was made on the territory of modern Mongolia or China. The dating of the object is difficult, since such products were widely used during the last century, probably earlier, while the fundamental idea of the design can be confidently associated with Qing bows of the XVII century. This design is close to modern Tibetan and Mongolian traditional bows and represents one of the adaptations of the Manchurian-Mongolian bow — relative to the Qing, it is smaller, most likely less curved (however, the geometry is damaged and it is not possible to restore it accurately), has relatively wide shoulders (more than 4.3 cm), long transition zones with a pronounced edge. In addition, the bow has a relatively short grip area and specific ledges for the joint of the long shoulder front pads directly with the wooden base in the transition zones, most likely it was difficult to decorate.

Meanwhile, the proportions of functional sections distinguish this item from other Manchurian-Mongolian bows – morphologically distinguished stiff ends are relatively short (8 cm). Based on the safety and design, shape and size of the stiff ends, it can be concluded that they were shortened, after which metal end hooks were additionally fixed on them, forming an additional cutout for the bowstring.

It is difficult to say unequivocally what prompted the owner of this bow to change the size of the stiff ends, however, this re-registration is an important example of a modification of a functioning object.

As mentioned above, according to P. Dekker, Qing bows had relatively long stiff ends and were adapted for maximum effective shooting with heavy arrows ^[1]. Meanwhile, the considerable size of the ends created additional difficulties in use, required a high degree of "straightness", since it was prone to twisting towards the back. According to the researcher, correcting the displacements of the stiff ends was one of the main skills of the Manchurian archer. This suggests that the stiff ends of the EMNZ OF-2448 could have been shortened as a result of correcting improper care or to simplify its further maintenance.

Certain data can be given by referring to locally produced products. A series of such items that can be considered reference was published earlier. For the pre–Baikal Buryats of the XIX - early XX centuries, the most characteristic items are similar to MICNS OF 4256 ^[8], for Selenga Buryats MIB OF 17848 ^[9]. Later bows of the Agin Buryats of the XX century differ in the way of design of transition zones and a number of technological techniques ^{[10, Fig. 2, 3]}. Meanwhile, all Buryat bows, despite the different methods of design of functional areas and the difference in the set of overlays, had similar proportions of functional zones. Generically , such similarities for local products of the XIX – beginning . XX century. can be formulated as long transition zones with short stiff ends, and, in some cases, the transition zones were longer than the ends more than twice. Thus, MICNS OF 4256 has a length of transition zones of 15 cm with a length of 7.5 cm at the ends (body length approx. 143 cm), MIB OF 17848 has 20 cm and 8 cm, respectively (body length 150 cm). Agin products of the XX century. genetically related to the earlier described locally produced bows have some differences in the design of the transition zones, but the length of the ends, with rare exceptions, is also not significant. In the context of these products, it becomes clear that due to the shortening of the stiff ends, the dimensions of the functional zones of the EMNZ OF-2448 have become as close as possible to the products of local craftsmen.

Most likely, the described products of local production of the XIX century were universal for their time and were used mainly during collective round-up hunts and competitive activities. The Agin bows of the XX century represent a purely competitive adaptation of locally produced products. Most likely, they were adapted to use lighter arrows than Manchu-Mongol bows. Most likely, it is precisely because of this specificity that the presented EMNZ OF-2448 was redesigned — adapted for stable shooting with lighter arrows.  

It is important to note the addition of end hooks to the structure. Such elements, however, made of deer horn, are characteristic of the bows of the pre-Baikal Buryats, and are also marked on the South Siberian bow from the funds of the Museum of History, Archeology and Ethnography of Siberia named after V.M. Florinsky Tomsk State University (Tomsk). with the inventory number of the MAES TSU 5962-93, published in the context of the description of Kazakh bows by L. A. Bobrov ^{[11, Fig. 1, 12]}. This kind of hooks created an additional place for fixing the bowstring. In the Agin constructions, double attachment points (on the side of the backrest and on the end of the body ends) were made by gluing end inserts with two arched cutouts. Most likely, such elements made it possible to change the place of attachment of the bowstring, thereby to some extent regulating the functional parameters of the bow under various climatic conditions. Meanwhile, it can be confidently stated that these hooks were not originally intended by the design and were added after shortening the stiff ends.

In addition, most likely, the supports for the bowstring were redesigned, which were initially stationary and fixed in a strictly designated place for them.

It is possible that the re-registration of the subject is due not to any one of the noted reasons, but to their complexity. Thus, we can confidently say that the EMNZ OF-2448 is an original product of the Manchurian-Mongolian design, redesigned by Buryat archers under the usual traditional parameters of local products. As a result, the functional characteristics of the object have changed to a certain extent. Thus, the Manchu-Mongol bow, adapted for shooting massive arrows, became adapted for the use of lighter arrows, probably in competitive activities.

Conclusion

The studied complex bow of the Manchurian-Mongolian design is a typical example of the re-registration of a hand-held throwing weapon during its use. Local Buryat archers modified the imported design based on their own ideas about the metric and the necessary structural elements. In theory, this directly affected both the characteristics of the object itself and the projectiles intended for it.

 Such examples indicate the need for a detailed analysis of weapons items in connection with the possibility of traces of heterogeneous methods of re-registration. Their analysis is fundamentally important, since the final result obtained as a result of modification reflects the peculiarities of the use of products in a particular population, allows you to get an idea of the whole variety of designs, as well as to attribute them most correctly.