The Magyar Bow

In the 1920s a lot of 10th century graves were found. Among

the stirrups, sabres and other things, archeologists found long
and narrow bone plates. Nobody knew what they were until Cs.
Sebestyen Karoly realized that their function was to reinforce
the grip and siyahs or horns (szarv in Hungarian) of the bow.

After this recognition it became obvious that the Hungarian bow

was an Asian reflex bow. Sebestyen then tried to define the
exact form of the bow, which was especially difficult since at
this period no drawings of the graves were made, therefore the
original position of the plates was not known. So his
reconstruction had to be patterned after Asian bows still in use
in that time. Finally he decided that the unstrung bow's limbs
must have been straight between the horn and the grip. The
angle of the limbs at the grip could be seen on the middle bone
plates, while the angle between the horn and the limb is a
result of a calculation which is based on the assumption that
the string touches the horns only at the notches.

Sebestyen's writings caught the attention of Fabian Gyula, a

teacher of the Godollo Agricultural University. He had been
dealing with archery for a long time then, and he became
especially fascinated with the Magyar bow. Sebestyen's
theoretical reconstruction answered the basic questions; but
Fabian wanted to know more. He thought that only
experimental archeology could answer his questions, so he
decided to build a working replica of the bow.

In the end he built more than a dozen bows. He found that the
best material for the core of the bow was maple. He used deer
sinews for the backing, horn of Hungarian gray cattle for the
belly, and deer antler for the bone plates. Most of his results
supported the reconstruction of Sebestyen. The only difference
between their reconstructions was the form of the unstrung
bow. Fabian built much less reflexed bows, thereby reducing the
risk of limb twist, but also reducing the efficiency of the bow.
For a long time it couldn't be decided which form was correct.
Now, some more recent discoveries show that Sebestyen's
drawings are closer to reality. In Moshchevaya Balka (Northern
Caucasus) two almost intact bows (along with other well
preserved objects) were found in a cemetery that is dated to
the first half of the 8th century. At that time, Hungarian tribes
occupied a nearby area and were part of the Khazar empire
which included the Northern Caucasus. Bone plates of these
two bows and other equipment found in the cemetery are very
closely related to those found in Hungarian cemeteries. The
conclusion that Magyar bows were similar in form is quite
obvious.

In 1987 archeologist Revesz Laszlo excavated three cemeteries

near Karos (North-Eastern Hungary). Among several very
significant finds he found the usual narrow bone plates. He was
able to measure the original position of the plates only in two
graves.

Revesz asked Szollosy Gabor to make a reconstruction of the

bows, which he did. However, no graphical reconstruction has
been published, so I have decided to do it myself. The size and
position of the bone plates were given. I chose a draw length of
76cm (30"). This is a long Asian draw if we consider that the
height of the average Hungarian male in the 10th century was
about 160cm (5'4").