Idealized descriptions of distinctive bows carried by the king, feudal lords, lesser nobles, and ordinary warriors suggest that several types existed in the Western Chou and perhaps earlier. According to Hsün-tzu, a late Warring States writer, “That the son of Heaven has an engraved bow, the feudal lords have cinnabar bows, and the high officials have black bows (accords) with the forms of propriety (
li
).”
46
In describing the duties of an official bow maker, the
K’ao-kung Chi
states: “In making a bow for the son of Heaven, the criteria is for nine layers to be combined; in making bows for the feudal lords, the criteria call for seven layers to be combined; in making bows for the high officials, the criteria call for five layers to be combined; and in making bows for the
shih
[lower members of the nobility or warriors], the criteria call for three layers to be combined.”
Statements such as these reflect an emerging Warring States, Confucian-derived insistence that gradation that should characterize all social and political relationships, projected back onto the early Chou. (More than substance, sumptuary regulations normally constrained the embellishments and quality of materials such as jade and gold that might be chosen for ceremonial or ostentatious manifestation.) If they ever existed, these distinctions must have been limited to ceremonial bows rather than actual field weapons, because it would be unthinkable for the officers and masses to fight with only three or five layers if nine provided superior power.
47
Furthermore, an engraved or otherwise embellished bow that might have been an effective weapon would probably prove useless in real combat when structurally modified to suit the criteria of display.
A far more realistic approach is seen in the
K’ao-kung Chi’s
grouping of warriors into three classes based simply on the bow’s length, doubtless on the assumption that stronger warriors are able to handle a more powerful pull. “Bows of 6 feet 6 inches should be wielded by superior warriors; bows of 6 feet 3 inches by middle ranking warriors; and bows of 6 feet by the lowest ranking warriors.”
48
However, the late Ming dynasty
Wu-pei Chih
concluded that a fully pulled, strong bow is totally inappropriate for real military use because bows need to be fired quickly
in order to realize the crucial objective of unexpectedly striking the enemy. Since only the very strongest warriors can pull and hold a powerful bow while awaiting the perfect psychological moment emphasized in ritual competitions (but irrelevant to the battlefield), “softer” bows defined as being well within the capability of the individual archer were deemed essential. Only they could be shot numerous times in the intensity of combat without exhausting the archer, yet also be held fully drawn and poised to fire when necessary to keep an enemy at bay.
49
Despite ongoing trade and the surprisingly rapid circulation of many technological developments, considerable local variation in bow types existed among the relatively isolated tribes and proto-states of ancient China, some of which even persisted into the Ch’ing dynasty. For example, the
Wu-pei Chih
characterized the unique bows fabricated for employment in the hot, moist south as generally suitable for naval warfare but lacking elasticity and incapable of shooting over a hundred paces. Studies of bows recovered from Warring States sites, especially in the southern state of Ch’u, confirm the existence of strong regional bow-making traditions, and the state of Han was particularly known for the excellence of its bows.
50
According to the
K’ao-kung Chi
, six basic materials were employed to fabricate effective bows—wood, horn, sinew, glue, thread (or fiber), and lacquer—each of which was believed to furnish a specific attribute. The core or body (
kan
), thought to provide the propellant strength and determine the bow’s maximum range, might be constructed from seven different types of wood: silkwood thorn, some sort of privet, wild mulberry, orange wood, quince, thorn, and bamboo.
51
Whatever species might be chosen, in selecting the wood for the body of the bow (or the core in the case of a composite bow) certain irreversible wood characteristics had to be recognized and exploited: heartwood is stiff and can withstand compression but not extension (by being pulled); sapwood is comparatively elastic and can be pulled but not compressed.
Insofar as the
K’ao-kung Chi
reflects Northern Plains and Shandong practices, it is not surprising that bamboo was regarded as the least desirable material for bows, yet (laminated) bamboo bows were common throughout Chinese history in the south where it proliferates, as well as in peripheral areas whose inhabitants could not afford the lengthy
fabrication time required to produce a northern style compound weapon.
52
As attested by numerous laminated examples recently recovered from Warring States tombs, Ch’u’s skilled archers were probably using bamboo bows.
Although bamboo apparently formed the core or provided one of the laminates for many bows, a single culm could not be used for more than a small child’s bow. However, other self-bows—bows generally fashioned from a single piece of wood—have been recovered from numerous places, including Ch’u, again contrary to recorded practices and the expectations that prevailed just a few decades ago. In addition, simple laminate bows made from layers of the same wood or dissimilar woods but not recurved are also known, but played only a minor military role except in peripheral regions and as weapons for training and children.
The tremendous compressive properties of natural horn (
chiao
) made it valuable for the interior of composite recurved bows. Horn has traditionally been said to furnish the arrow’s velocity, consigning the bow’s wooden core to merely providing a basic structure for laminating. Various types of bovine horns were considered usable, especially water buffalo horns or those from the so-called long-horned cattle found on the western borders.
Sinew or tendon (
chin
), traditionally thought to account for the arrow’s ability to penetrate its target, was used to fabricate the exterior or front side of the strung bow because of its relative elasticity and contractive power when stretched. It thus worked in tandem with horn’s compressive strength, effectively augmenting the latter by pulling the bow’s arms forward just as the horn’s power was pushing them outward. Care had to be employed when preparing and gluing it to prevent it from being either too contracted or too stretched and thereby proving useless. The preliminary preparation of sinew was undertaken in the summer, but the actual gluing up—bonding the horn and sinew to the wooden core, which itself would have been composed of strips attached to the central portion—was completed in autumn.
Glue (
chiao
), which provided adhesion, had to thoroughly penetrate the sinew in order to prepare it for bonding to the body of the bow and thus functioned as a plasticizer as well as an adhesive.
53
In the Shang it was probably derived from animals and eventually fish, but the worldwide
use of vegetable glues for wood products and their relative ease of preparation suggest they may have been employed in the earlier stages of fabrication despite their greater sensitivity to moisture.
Bindings of silk or bamboo fibers, both of which have great tensile strength (particularly when glued and lacquered), were employed to ensure the adhesion of the individual components. No ancient bow strings have yet been recovered, but depending on the relative availability of indigenous materials, bowstrings were probably made from silk, thin strips of leather, and various plant fibers, especially bamboo, that could be plaited and woven. The
T’ien-kung K’ai-wu
speaks about using a fiber core and a fiber wrap, both twisted, a method consistent with Western practices.
Finally, from the late Shang onward lacquer was applied to protect the finished bow against moisture. Producing and handling naturally derived lacquers must have entailed considerable hardship, and appropriate techniques for applying this difficult material had to be perfected. Because a single heavy coat would result in cracking and crazing the first time the bow was bent for stringing, multiple fine layers and adequate drying time were required for the lacquer to render the bow impervious to moisture, particular care being taken in areas of maximum flex.
Seasonal limitations came to be imposed on sourcing and preparing the component materials during the Chou in order to take maximum advantage of desirable characteristics that predominate in, or may be limited to, different parts of the year due to growth and dormancy cycles.
54
Trees were felled in winter and the wood initially cut and dimensioned when moisture levels were lowest but the wood could still be split without cracking, splintering, or shattering. Horn was soaked and glued in the spring, presumably having been harvested just when it would have been softest and showing new growth. Sinew was prepared in summer. Even then the different strengths and degrees of elasticity inherent to the component materials, essential to the bow’s dynamic strength, created forces that constantly tried to delaminate and tear it asunder, and imbalances in any aspects had to be corrected.
55
In the West the bow’s upper limb was usually slightly stronger than the lower so that the arrow would be lifted up upon release, but otherwise the bow’s components had to be symmetrical.
56
Successfully fabricating compound reflex bows that would transcend the limitations of a single flexible piece of wood thus came to require a lengthy, meticulous process.
57
A fairly extensive study of traditional techniques still being practiced in the early 1940s found that some three years were required for the wood to be properly seasoned, the other materials prepared, and each stage of the bow’s assembly allowed to set and cure correctly in order to avoid inducing fatal stresses or faults.
58
Bowyers therefore had to have numerous bows constantly in process to fulfill even the most basic demand.
Although apparently not a limiting factor in Hsia and Shang warrior culture, the lengthiness of the fabrication time could adversely impact military activities. Even if a multitude of ancient craftsmen could be employed and bows somehow produced in just a year, a shortage of weapons might preclude rashly embarking on expeditionary activities, even render the realm relatively defenseless. When the scope of warfare expanded over subsequent centuries, bows and arrows had to be manufactured rather than built in a craftlike mode, gathered, and stored away in government arsenals well in advance of martial action, just as in medieval England prior to invasions of continental Europe, and officials such as the
Ssu Ping
(described in the
Chou Li
), responsible for their disbursement, had to be appointed.
Because a warrior’s fate heavily depended on his bow, this manufacturing complexity and the ensuing variation in individual characteristics caused familiar weapons to be highly prized. The
Tso Chuan
recounts several calamitous incidents caused by strings breaking, but disaster could also result if rain or cold affected the bow’s structure, even if with less frequency than in Europe due to the imperviousness of the lacquer. Archaeological and textual evidence suggests that spare bows were sometimes carried, an obvious but cumbersome solution for archers racing across a field with two or three quivers of ten arrows each.
THE ARROW
Although the bow and arrow are inextricably linked, they seem to have advanced in spurts, often jointly but sometimes marked by significant
changes in just one or the other. No doubt the dynamic nature of their interrelationship was understood early on, but theoretical contemplation remains scant, primarily preserved within more general discussions of how the bow and archer must be suited to each other. (The late
T’ien-kung K’ai-wu
notes that for a given distance strong archers using powerful bows will be able to penetrate armor, while weaker archers using lower pull bows rely on accuracy for their effect.) Observing that arrows created for the bows of one region invariably fail with bows from another, just a few centuries ago the
Wu-pei Chih
still found it necessary to emphasize that the bow and arrows must be closely matched.
59
As evidence, the compilers noted that large northern arrows used in small southern bows failed to travel more than thirty paces and that southern arrows fitted to northern bows simply snapped.
Recovered artifacts, names passed down in various texts, and discussions in later theoretical manuals indicate that different types of arrows were produced for the divergent purposes of practice, hunting, and warfare as early as the Shang. However, no shafts datable prior to the Spring and Autumn period have survived; therefore, recourse must again be had to the
K’ao-kung Chi
, which, though no doubt somewhat idealized and based on Warring States practices, probably preserves the core of a craft tradition that developed centuries earlier. Fortunately these insights can be supplemented by brief observations preserved in the
T’ien-kung K’ai-wu
, the previously cited report on traditional Chinese bow and arrow making, and knowledge derived from contemporary replication efforts.
The
K’ao-kung Chi
dissects the arrow into four key components: the head (discussed separately below), shaft, feathers, and binding. Shafts might be fashioned from any fairly rigid yet resilient, straight-growing material such as cane, reed, and the smaller bamboos, but the various tree woods, though theoretically possible and found in other cultures and in later eras, generally required too much work to become common. Traditional stories praise administrators who astutely ordered the inhabitants to plant cane because the resulting hedges not only acted as windbreaks, but also furnished materials for crude arrows in times of crisis. Rapidly growing and fairly straight, the hedges thus constituted a latent arsenal.
60