47 replies to this topic

[General_Zhaoyun]

Some pictures of han cross-bows..

[General_Zhaoyun]

[Liang Jieming]

I like this unsual reversed crossbow... but I'm pretty sure it's not Han dynasty.

[HaSY]

Is the Western Han and Qin dynasties crossbow the same?...I mean the shape and characteristics;performance....

[TMPikachu]

I think the Qin may have used a simpler mechanism (people say they didn't even have the best crossbows of the warring states period)

[Liang Jieming]

Something just struck me as I was writing a piece on the history of bows for DSL. Recalling something Thomas said when we were playing with my recurve bow at my place last weekend. He was suggesting I get a Han dynasty crossbow trigger, make a wood stock and mount the trigger with my recurve bow to make a hybrid modern/ancient crossbow. I laughed and said it would look ackward since my recurve is 1.68 metres long, waaaay longer than the typical crossbow stock would be.

The Europeans didn't have crossbows as early as the Chinese for one very important reason. East Asian adopted the recurve/composite bow from the Mesopotamians. The Europeans stayed with the self bow and even until today, traditional English longbows (the height of European bows?) are still made of only one material, the wood from Yew trees ie. non-composite self bows.

To get the drawstrengths of 200-250lbs for a crossbow, you need a very powerful bow that is short enough to fit horizontally. If you tried to get 200-250lbs using a self/non-composite bow as your crossbow, you'll be jabbing people to both sides of you all the time!

Europe only took to the crossbow later in their history, especially when they started using steel bows which could reach the same 200-250lbs or more drawstrength their traditional similar sized self bows couldn't.

[Liang Jieming]

I just noticed it. There's something seriously misleading with this crossbow trigger drawing. The corking lever (A) at the top looks like it's connected monolithically with the trigger lever © at the bottom. This isn't right. Instead, this top corking lever should be connected to the double bowstring hooks (B ). This whole assembly of cork lever and double hooks is known as the Tumbler.

When corking, the crossbowman would pull backward on the corking lever and rotate the whole Tumbler to raise the double hooks to catch and hold the bowstring. This action will also raise the Sear (D) to lock into the Trigger groove ready for firing.

In this drawing, the corking lever when pulled back looks like it will only pull the trigger lever forward but not raise the double hooks or the Sear! This drawing is doesn't look accurate.

[Yun]

Stephen Selby's reconstruction in 1999 of the Qin-Han crossbow:

http://www.atarn.org...99.htm#han_xbow

[Kenneth]

A full sized crossbow mechanism from late Warring States or West Han, plus 2 minature corssbow mechanisms from Han ceramic tomb gaurdians (1/3 size aprox).
The minatures are in the same size range of the mechanisms recovered from the West Han tomb of JingDi, about 6cm in length. Of the 2 one is made to have moving representative parts, while the other has only a moving trigger. I purchased the finer minature one because it is not so precisely cast as a functional battlefield mechanism (see below) and so the parts aren't frozen, and I could remove the pins, this also shows what Jieming was meaning.

[Kenneth]

The ancient Chinese crossbow is a simple design in principle but the fine casting technology was beyond China's direct neighbour. Even the Romans ballistas and scorpions and 'crossbows' were fine weapons as field artillery but used a sheet metal & rivetted mechanism which is much larger.
It has been commented on that the nomadic enemies of China might capture crossbows, but could never produce them. It was an advantage over the other non-Chinese people that would come into conflict with them. A crossbow can have a much higher drawweight and piercing power than most bowman, and can be wielded by less skilled archers. It was not nessecary for the Chinese to grow up hunting and shooting a bow like the Xiongnu, and yet they could field large numbers of powerful missile weapons.
The fine casting here on the functional full sized version can be seen on the underside, and this is why even a little mineral patina buidlup freezes the device. The working parts fit together with great preciseness, and has a 'tolerance' (i.e gap between mating parts) that eluded those that might copy it.
Polish/abrasion marks are clear, from the initial clearign after removla from the mould. The pins securing it in place are modern looking hexagonal ended bolts, with a hole at each end for something liek a split pin. Removing the device from the wooden stock for repair would have been easy.

Behind the full size version in the minature mechanism in the 'fired' position, after the trigger is pulled back and the catch swings down to release the bolt.

(note; click for full size images)

[Kenneth]

Another feature of this crossbow which strikes me is the vivid colours on its patina. Blue (azurite), red (cuprite) & green (malachite). These all form over centuries from the metal alloy.
Also here is shown some of the traces of the original wooden stock, the ood grain is visible as horizontal traces held in the mineral after the rest has decayed.
Also below this are the traces of the artisan polish of the casing out of the mould, vertical lines from abrasion on a grindstone or sandstone block.

[Kenneth]

8 ancient Chinese bronze arrowheads & crossbow bolt heads. I would need to revise my dating I gave for some of these a year ago on the sword forum. http://forums.swordf...&threadid=44476.
They are likely grouped around 700bc, 400bc & 200bc.
The grouping here is into 3 types, with the earliest on the left.
The form of the swallow tail is the earliest, and the centre one (cross section shown on sword forum link) is of a style that existed from late Shang to perhaps early East Zhou. I would still consider it aprox. West Zhou. For sake of illustration the swallow tails could reasonably be given a range of 700bc give or take a few centuries.
The Warring States period saw many changes, as the ZHou had for centuries basically just inherited a military system much like the Shang. The bloody period of East Zhou saw many new developments.
These triangular cross sectioned arrows were one of them, although my main revision woudl be on the dating of the slender 'bodkin-like' arrows (although much finer than the bodkin actually). I can now put the date I gave earlier at more particularily early Warring States, based on articles from the Marquis of Zhengs tomb. The arrows in there, the slender fine type where exactly tis stlye, and it dated from 433bc.
The last two are the more typical late East Zhou-Han stlye, the crossbo bolts having been cast in two pieces, the head and a long shaft..sometimes of iron. There is a variation between these 2 but the form is recognisable as the same as found in both the Qin buried army and the bronze West Han examples that are found alongside iron weapons.
The one on the right has fibre strands on the shaft, and the one at left a small trace of wood near the joint with the bolt head. (see sword forum link for picture of remains of fibre on the 'West Zhou' arrow shaft.)
These maintain the triangular armour piercing/deeper pentrating point of earlier examples, but simplify into a shorter chisel like point.
With the demonstration of the longbow bodkins tendency to buckle on metal armour the reason must be the same as a chisel point arrow on a longbow. It keeps the positives of the earlier fine triangular cross-sections and still has the slight barbs that would inconvinience anyone who had one in their bodies.

[Kenneth]

..on the idea of mounting an original mechanism on a new wooden stock with a bow attached, this is just as Stephen Selby had done.
The mechanism can be sound enough, but the ones with moving parts are move expensive.
Dealers also clean them to find Chinese characters which name the artisans (this was done in Qin to Han).
One good alternative is to get a frozen one in good order and use this, as suggested by Richard Nable;

If you can land some ammonium carbonate and some sulfamic acid you can use them to clean the frozen pieces. The ammonium carbonate in distilled water will remove most surface encrustations of malachite without harming the bronze. The sulfamic acid is fairly mild and will remove some of the other oxidation byproducts. It's easy on the bronze too.

You can also use the carbonate to test authenticity in limited ways as many of the artifical patinas give off an incredible green oxide when exposed.

Edited by Kenneth, 11 August 2005 - 07:33 PM.

[TMPikachu]

Kenneth, do you mean that these 2,000+ year old artefacts can be fixed up to functional youth? Dang, that's cool.

and have there been significant changes in crossbow design throughout Chinese history? I know of stronger bows used requiring belt hooks, and some had foot 'stirrup' to pull from and such.

[Kenneth]

Kenneth, do you mean that these 2,000+ year old artefacts can be fixed up to functional youth?
....and have there been significant changes in crossbow design throughout Chinese history?

A;Yes

B;Yes

here is a site from ATARN with the QIn device, Han, and Warring States Chu device etc. all in one spot with good pictures of each.....answers your thread question basically.
http://www.atarn.org...w/bjng_xbow.htm

The link Yun gave above has another ATARN page with a functional crossbow using a bronze mechanism. Check it out too.

Plus, the diagram here from GZ is a Han mechanism, it has range sightings as increments on the mechanism, and is different again to all the others. That is later than my version here, the range/scale on the sights being remarked on as a Han deveopment, although exactly when I am unsure.
The Qin device is diffirent in that it lacks a seperate bronze casing, and is just pinned in the stock.
The ATARN site goes into more detail, even a safety catch on a Chu device.
Chu state was known for good weapons, but finer weapons alone do not win wars. Cleary Qin's crossbow was functionally just as lethal.

Edited by Kenneth, 07 August 2005 - 10:15 PM.