Why are Hungarian bows like this?

[Quadratus]

Hi Folks

Whenever I have seen a reconstruction of a Hungarian/Magyar bow. the string comes straight down from the nocks without touching the 'ears' (siyahs, szarvs - the stiff bits at each end, whatever you like to call them). In every other type of stiff-eared bow I am aware of, the string touches the ear, either on a string pad like the Mongolian or Tartar bows, or on the ear itself like traditional Korean bows.

Does anyone know if there is any justification for this? Unlike some other so-called 'horse bows' the Hungarian bow is a modern reconstruction, not a survival, and its form is based on surprisingly little archaeological evidence, mostly just bone/horn reinforcing plates. When I finally found a translation of the original 1930's work by Sebestyen Karoly, on which all later reconstructions are based, it clearly states that he assumed that the string only touched the bow at the nocks, but doesn't say why this assumption was made. Pictures? Writings? Archaeological evidence I'm not aware of?

Can anyone cast some light on this, because I am very sceptical.

Thanks

[Greenman]

I assume you have read the Magyar Stuff on ATARN, I assumed they worked out the plan of the bow from the horn/bone plates on the siyahs and the angle of the nock groves, since they seem to have had little else to go on. Another point of interest in regard to Hungarian Archery is ,did they use a thumb ring or a Mediterranean release, geographically they would have received both influences, again no thumb rings survive, but they could have been made of biodegradable wood or leather. What do you think?

[Quadratus]

Hi Greenman - Yes I've seen the ATARN stuff and I've also got hold of some (fairly) useful material from the Archer-Antiquaries, but everything I've seen so far comes back to the assumption that the string didn't touch the siyah, with no explanation. If it didn't, then the Magyars were missing a trick and losing a lot of power that they could have had for free, and I find that hard to believe without evidence.

As to the thumb or fingers debate, I would be very interested if anyone has any information on that. As far as I know no thumb rings have been found in Magyar contexts, but if the rings were made of horn or leather they wouldn't be found except with the greatest of luck. And incidentally, there is evidence that many Turkish, Arab and Chinese thumb rings were leather, especially those made for military use. On the other hand there is no evidence of arm guards either, and although you can't be sure, arm guards usually suggest a finger loose. Similarly no arrows, so no guide from the fletching angles.

My own guess is that there would have been a mixture of both thumb and finger shooting. We moderns always like to assume consistency, but it doesn't seem to have bothered our forebears anywhere near as much, and perhaps that gives a clue to the string question as well - did it touch the siyah? Maybe some did and some didn't....