Eastern archery in Birka’s Garrison (original) (raw)
Related papers
Mounted Archery and Firearms Late Medieval Muslim Military Technology Reconsidered
David Ayalon's classic and highly influential 1956 study of Gunpowder and Firearms in the Mamluk Kingdom left some surprising questions unexamined. He attributed Ottoman victory primarily to Ottoman firearms, while Mamluks stubbornly clung to the arms of the mounted archer. But despite the technological underpinnings of his thesis, Ayalon discussed the technology of neither the traditional warfare of mounted archery nor the newfangled warfare of gunpowder weapons. Was Mamluk mounted archery actually inferior to Ottoman firearms? This essay addresses the technical basis both for the mounted archery central to Mamluk military prowess and the characteristics of late-fifteenth and early-sixteenth century firearms adopted by the Ottomans, both in the context of the social technology of Muslim military slavery. By opening the black box of Mamluk and Ottoman military technology, this essay seeks to show more precisely in what ways military technology did and did not shape the outcome of the struggle. Keywords Mamluk-Ottoman conflict – mounted archery – gunpowder weapons – military slavery David Ayalon's classic and highly influential 1956 study of Gunpowder and Firearms in the Mamluk Kingdom left some surprising questions unexamined. He attributed Ottoman victory primarily to Mamluk rejection and Ottoman acceptance of gunpowder weapons. But despite the technological underpinnings of his thesis, Ayalon discussed the technology of neither the traditional warfare of
North Germanic archery. The practical approach - results and perspectives
This paper will discuss results from archery experiments, their impact on basic research and the new questions that present themselves in the field of the North Germanic military in the Late Roman Iron Age which was approximately 160–375 AD. The starting point will be a series of experiments carried out in the late 1980s and 1990s. The results from these experiments will be compared with new examinations of the primary material from the southern Scandinavian weapon sacrifices, in order to point out and try to answer some of the questions that the experiments raise about North Germanic armies in particular and the Iron Age society in general.
Acta Militaria Mediaevalia IX (Kraków-Rzeszów-Sanok), 2013
The aim of the paper is to enhance our understanding of bow finds unearthed in burials in Eurasia in the first millennium A.D. General terminological, methodological and source critical problems are concerned in order to define the information value of the two main sources, i.e. rigid bow applications and well-preserved bows. Hence, an attempt is made to find a suitable, unambiguous term for the bows surveyed, through an epistemological analysis of the terminology of bows in general. As the structure of the arms (complex or simple) and the reflex or deflex of the bow cannot be unequivocally ascertained on the base of archaeological data alone – considering our first and abundant group of rigid bow applications, the initiation of the ‘rigid’ term seems appropriate, as it properly describes the main characteristic of the archaeological record. Concerning the terminology of rigid bow applications, Russian, English, German and Hungarian terms of different meanings are unified into a coherent system, emphasizing certain related theoretical problems of function (strengthening versus decoration or structure) and material (bone versus antler). Thus an objective terminology is proposed, which besides the main formal characteristic of the application (plate or rod) also indicates its location (grip or tip) and position (frontal, dorsal or lateral). Dealing with issues of source criticism and research methods, the usage of artistic sources is also challenged here. In order to demonstrate the general unrealism, abstraction and thus inapplicability of the artistic depictions, the finds from Kurgantepe (Uzbekistan) are analyzed, where both pictorial and archaeological evidence were unearthed in the same grave. The types, quality and general ‘worth’ of information (fabrication, structure, function, use-wear traces, etc.) derived from the archeological record (i.e. rigid bow applications) are discussed in greater length. Furthermore, it is noted that rigid bow applications once were part of a complicated & complex mechanical machine, thus the epistemological question arose, whether the applications can be understood and discussed separately or only as parts of the whole entity, i.e. the bow. For it makes real difference, if one classifies and evaluates the applications or only the bow itself. The aim of the prolonged theoretical discussion is to provide a firm methodological basis for further analysis of the archaeological material unearthed throughout Eurasia. At last, to demonstrate the enormous importance of well-preserved bow finds, i.e. the ultimate source of the research, a list of all pre-Mongol period rigid bow finds in Eurasia is compiled and evaluated. Thus the chronological and chorological aspects of well-preserved bows are given, while overall source critical problems (archaeological context, available information, state of preservation, etc.) are also concerned.
2016
This thesis has taken an archaeological approach to understanding how the design of bows and crossbows developed over the course of the Later Middle Ages. The primary evidence used in this work was surviving medieval weapons. The dimensions of these artefacts were compared with those from similar weapons across and within centuries. This showed both the variety of weapons that existed within a given century, and how these weapons changed over time. For the bow, this thesis was focused on showing how the longbow developed from a relatively weak prehistoric weapon to the powerful bows of the Mary Rose, and emphasised that length was a flawed metric for determining weapon power. In comparison, the crossbow was shown to be a weapon of significant variety – so much so that it does the weapon a disservice to be referred to simplistically with a single name – and one in need of further investigation. To supplement the archaeological analysis, this thesis included: a discussion of the mechanics of archery and their relationship to weapon design, details of the problems with using medieval art as a substitute for archaeological evidence, an overview of crossbow spanning devices, and a comparison of the roles filled by the bow and crossbow in medieval warfare.
Journal of Neolithic Archaeology, 2019
The alpine ice-patch sites of Tisenjoch (I), Schnidejoch and Loetschenpass (CH) brought to light the most complete archery equipment known from European Prehistory. From the end of the last glaciation until the Middle Ages, bows and arrows were the most important weapons for hunting and warfare. The first verified artefacts of archery equipment are the arrows from Stellmoor, Northern Germany, which date to 10,000 BC, while the oldest bows found so far are still the two elm bows from Holmegard in Southern Denmark, dated to ca. 8000 – 6500 BC (Junkmanns 2013). During the Neolithic, bows were made almost exclusively from yew wood (Taxus baccata). Despite their different shapes, all prehistoric bows found in Europe are simple man-tall bows made from a single piece of wood with a more or less D-shaped cross-section and a flat belly side. Arrows were made from split wood or thin saplings and equipped with different types of points made from stone, bone/antler material or the wood itself, according to their specific intended purpose. The manufacturing process can be described from several finds of unfinished bow blanks, as in the case of the Tisenjoch finds. Neolithic arrows were made from shoots of hazel (Corylus avellana), guelder rose (Viburnum sp.) or other hardwoods. They were straightened by heat and are generally longer and thicker than modern sporting arrows for increased weight and penetration power. Their fletching with three split feathers is practically the same as fletching used today. Bowstrings are extremely rare in European archaeological sites. Only two assured samples, stemming from the Tisenjoch and the Schnidejoch ice-patches, are known to date. They were made from animal sinew fibres, which are not preserved in non-frozen sites. Although there was almost certainly a need for a cover to protect a bow against bad weather, there is only one example of a Neolithic bow case known to date. The cover, made from water resistant birch bark measuring a little longer than the bow carried inside it, was found on Schnidejoch. It incorporates a carrying system of leather straps, which enabled the user to wear it over the shoulder, keeping the hands free for other tasks. It is supposed that other bow cases, which very probably existed in the Neolithic, were made from animal hide or leather which did not survive in waterlogged sites. That there were protective carrying devices for archery gear is also generally testified by the leather arrow quiver found on Tisenjoch and by numerous other ethnographic and historic examples.
THE SINTASHTA BOW OF THE BRONZE AGE OF THE SOUTH TRANS-URALS, RUSSIA
Archaeopress and the individual authors. Oxford. England, 2011
The Sintashta culture of the South Urals (20th-18th centuries cal BC) stands out from the other Bronze Age cultures of Northern Eurasia due to substantial evidences for advanced war technologies. The category of distance weaponry is the most prominent among the finds from a military sphere of life. This work analyses artefacts which are the parts of bow made from horn. The authors propose different variants of reconstructions for strengthening the bow.