Sources of supply of composite bows to the Buryats

Kharitonov Roman Mikhailovich ORCID: 0000-0003-1699-046X Research Engineer, Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences 630090, Russia, Novosibirsk region, Novosibirsk, Akademika Lavrentieva Ave., 17 tengeri_ashina@list.ru Other publications by this author

Mikhienko Valeriya Alekseevna ORCID: 0000-0002-7861-5983 Junior Researcher, Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Novosibirsk, Russia 630090, Russia, Novosibirsk region, Novosibirsk, Akademika Lavrentieva Ave., 17 volnavvv@mail.ru

Introduction

The Baikal region and Transbaikalia, as a traditional territory of settlement of Buryat tribes, is a unique region that has preserved centuries-old traditions of archery and archery. And currently archery is one of the important components of the competitive culture of the Buryat people. The long-term existence of the archer traditions has led to the presence of a large source base, represented by a rich subject complex. The study of fully preserved traditional complex bows of the ethnographic time greatly contributes to understanding the process of designing and using older analogues, from which in the vast majority of cases only individual details are preserved. Domestic specialists have repeatedly addressed the issues of evolution, design and application of complex bows in Buryats ^{[1, p. 298]}; ^{[2, p. 26-27]}; ^{[3, p. 158]}; ^{[4, p. 171]}; ^{[5, p. 39-42]}; ^{[6, p. 52-56]}; ^{[7, pp. 11-16]}; ^{[8, pp. 10-14]}; ^{[9, pp. 74-76]}; ^{[10, pp. 84, 85]}; ^[11], however, most often these processes were considered in an overview, within the framework of a certain topic (traditional crafts, hunting, military affairs, competitive activities, etc.).

To study the design features of complex bows, the most informative source is preserved objects. The complex bows used by Buryat shooters of the XIX–XX centuries are mainly represented by objects from museum and private collections. Based on the specifics of the formation of museum collections (most often only the date and place of collection were recorded), as well as private ownership, most of these items do not have information about the place and time of manufacture, the same applies to earlier analogues from archaeological complexes.

The existing subject base reflects a significant variety of products: they differ in their external morphology, methods of design and decoration of the case, the structural elements used, as well as individual technological techniques. Identifying the sources of receipt of products to the population can contribute to understanding their individual characteristics, as well as identify the main local options, highlight local and imported production and their characteristic features.

In line with classical weapons studies, it seems necessary to refer to written data and visual materials for attribution of the subject complex. This approach was used in the context of studying the complex bows of Kazakh warriors of the Late Middle Ages and Modern Times in the study of L. A. Bobrov ^{[12, pp. 304-310]}.

It is also necessary to take into account published and unpublished interpreted objects from neighboring regions, the specifics of the materials used and the design. In this regard, the aim of the work is to identify the sources of complex bows to the Buryats of the Baikal region and Transbaikalia based on the analysis of the subject complex, written and visual data.

Materials and methods

The earliest written evidence of the use of bows and arrows by the Mongolian-speaking population dates back to the XVII century, however, they do not contain specific data on the sources of production and receipt ^{[3, p. 158]}. Specific evidence appears in the works of travelers of the XVIII century, and is also supported by data on the origin of objects presented in the works of ethnographers and weapons historians ^{[1, p. 298]}; ^{[4, p. 171]}; ^{[5, p. 39-42],[6, p. 52-56]}; ^{[7, p. 11-16]}; ^{[8, pp. 10-14]}; ^{[9, pp. 74-76]}; ^[11]. Methods of historiographical analysis are used to analyze written data. The main methodological basis is the principle of historicism, which allows us to consider the features of specific historical phenomena and the relationship between them in the context of a certain chronological period. The study also involves images with Buryat archers published by specialists in scientific papers or in the public domain ^{[8, Fig. 31, 34, 47]}; ^[13]; ^[14]; ^[15]; ^[16].

Information about the place of manufacture of some items was obtained during the study of the subject complex and its comparative analysis with published and unpublished complex bows of the population of neighboring regions. To date, more than 50 complex bows have been identified, which existed among Buryat shooters or were obtained from the territory of Baikal Siberia, in museum collections (funds of the National Museum of the Republic of Buryatia, (Ulan–Ude), the Ethnographic Museum of the Peoples of Transbaikalia (Ulan–Ude), the Irkutsk Regional Museum of Local Lore (Irkutsk), the Russian Ethnographic Museum (St. Petersburg), etc.) and private collections. Some of these items with a detailed description of the design features were published earlier ^[17]; ^[18]; ^[19]; ^[20]; ^[21], This allows us not to dwell on this issue in the framework of this study, but to limit ourselves to the method of analogies for comparing characteristic differences. In the work, it also seems superfluous to provide a complete description of the structures, a description of the identified statistical patterns in the dimensional characteristics of the bow bodies, an analysis of the wooden base and the construction of a classification scheme for sets of overlays. However, a brief description of the main features is necessary to understand the place of manufacture and identify a particular tradition.

Results

The analysis of written evidence made it possible to identify two main sources of receipt of complex bows to the Buryats: import and local production.

In the descriptions of G. F. Miller, it is mentioned that the best bows are those "... that are used by the Nerchinsk and Yakut Tunguses, as well as the Selenga Mongols and the Bratsk ones." The following is a description of these products: "... on the inside, instead of larch or whalebone, they consist of bull horns. Such bows are not made in Siberia, but they are obtained from China...", "these bows shoot the furthest, because they stretch the tightest and are characterized by great elasticity" ^{[1, p. 298]}. In his opinion, "the Krasnoyarsk Tatars ... praise the Bratsk and Mongolian bows" [Ibid.].

In the surviving evidence of the Buryat ethnographer M. N. Khangalov, there is also information that the Buryats had bows of "two varieties". The first one was "flat and wide, he could be very elastic and throw an arrow far, such a bow was called manza nomo by the Buryats. The Buryats got such bows from Mongolia; in fairy tales and legends these bows are called Bukharan nomo..." ^{[4, p. 171]}. According to A. A. Badmaev (oral communication), the pronunciation of "manza", given by M. N. Khangalov, is characteristic of the Western dialects of the Buryat language. In the eastern pronunciation, the word would sound like "manzha" and can be translated as "Manchurian". The phrase "Bukhara shara nomo", mentioned by M. N. Khangalov and often appearing in the Buryat folk epic, is traditionally translated as "Bukhara yellow onion". This interpretation was criticized by V. A. Mikhailov. In his opinion, it is difficult to agree that the Buryats received bows from Central Asia, and he associated the word "Bukhaar" with "bugaar" (from bug — maral). Thus, the "Bukhar shara nomo" from epic works, in his opinion, corresponds to the "maral–yellow onion", that is, made using maral horns, which in no way reflects the place of its manufacture ^{[7, p. 14]}.

According to Yu. Shishelov, who described archery in 1927 in the Troitskosavsky aimag (near the city of Kyakhta in the Republic of Buryatia), "in addition to bows of Buryat work, bows imported from Mongolia, mostly of Chinese production, are also used." Such "Chinese-made bows" are "somewhat smaller" and "elaborately ornamented in their decoration, more beautiful than Buryat bows, more primitive in their workmanship, retaining their ancient, simple and rough appearance." In his opinion, the most common motifs on the "Mongolian bows" are "khas, swastika and the so—called "ulzui stasun" - a happy thread" ^{[22, l. 3-5]}. F. Lushan's references also say that the Buryats received their complex bows from the Mongols, however, according to B. F. Adler, we are talking about prehistoric times, and not about the imported nature of the products ^{[23, p. 188]}. Thus, the evidence given indicates that Chinese and Mongolian products could form the basis of imports of the XVIII—XX centuries.

The analysis of the subject complex confirms the widespread use of imported products. Thus, a series of objects interpreted as "Manchurian–Mongolian", based on a comparative analysis with published products from China and Mongolia, was identified in the collections of the National Museum of the Republic of Buryatia (Ulan–Ude) ^[19], among the "Buryat bows" such products are found in the Russian Ethnographic Museum (St. Petersburg), the Irkutsk Regional Museum of Local Lore (Irkutsk) and the Ethnographic Museum of the Peoples of Transbaikalia (Ulan–Ude), as well as in private collections.

All identified imported bows have similar morphological and dimensional characteristics (seven items from museum and private collections). From the outside, the surface of the body was reinforced with tendon fibers, the body was reinforced with various sets of pads, but at the same time, the horn frontal pads located on the inside (long shoulder frontal and median frontal) were an obligatory element. In the position without a bowstring, they had a straight, rounded handle in cross-section, flattened elastic shoulders curved towards the shot, long curved transition zones with the sharpest bend in the second third (which created a visible angularity in this part of the body), highlighted by a sub-triangular section with a pronounced edge on the back side and straight sub-rectangular or elliptical ends in cross-section. Relative to local products, they were longer (160-180 cm, median sample value = 163), the maximum width of the elastic shoulder reached from 3.5 cm to 4.5 cm, the highlighted ends (both) occupied from 16% to 30% (median value of the identified sample = 20%), which is a relatively large indicator. The length of the transition zones was 11-20% of the body length (both, the median sample value was 14%) and the proportions were not stable.

The analysis of decorative features confirms the evidence of experts. The vast majority of imported products were brightly decorated with the use of paints of different colors, cut-out birch bark elements, pasting from the skin of a stingray and a snake. Various tamgas and drawings were marked on the surfaces of the bow cases; separate functional zones were separated by different colors and decorative elements. There are images of dragon heads, symbols with swastikas and "ram's horn", floral ornaments, rosettes, inlaid with the skin of the stingray "crescent moon", "sun" and "bat".

Among other things, an important technological technique widely used on the bows of the Manchurian–Mongolian tradition are special ledges in the area of transition zones on a wooden base. Such elements were necessary for the joint of the reinforcing plates directly with the wooden base. The kibit, most often, was assembled from several plates connected by wedge-shaped joints.

It is important to note that imported products are not found in images with Buryat archers of the XX – beginning. However, such items were collected both on the territory of the Baikal region and Transbaikalia, which indicates the importance of imports for Buryat archers. Meanwhile, a similar geometry (with long ends and visible angularity in the transition zones) is found in images of the XX century, when complex bows were used purely in competitive activities (see Figure 1) ^{[8, Fig. 34]}.

Figure 1. "An eighty-year-old archer from Zakamna Dondok

Tserempilov" with a complex Manchurian–Mongolian bow (a picture from the archive of R.M. Kharitonov).

Much more information is available about complex bows made by Buryat craftsmen. M. Tatarinov, who visited the Buryats in 1765, noted "Men make bows and arrows" ^{[7, p. 15]}, F. I. Langans has similar mentions ^{[7, p. 15]}. A. P. Vasiliev, describing the life of the Trans-Baikal Cossacks He notes that "The Buryats did everything for themselves: saddles, horse ornaments with a silver notch and a walrus, spears, bows and arrows" ^{[24, p. 8]}. M. N. Khangalov also mentioned the production of bows by Buryat craftsmen after describing imported items: "The Buryats made bows of a different kind themselves; they were almost round, birch bark on the outside, glued with veins on the inside" ^{[4, p. 171]}.

V. A. Mikhailov considered the mention of a bow without a bowstring in the epic given in his work (the Ekhirite version of Abai Gesar–hubun) to be confirmation of local production ^{[7, pp. 14-15]}. Since the care of weapons is an important part of the military and hunting culture of the Buryats, the absence of such an important element as a bowstring indicates, in his opinion, a bow in the production process. The process of making Buryat onions, according to the master from the village of Khargan of the Ivolginsky aimag (modern village of Khargan of the Selenginsky district of the Republic of Buryatia), was recorded by I. E. Tugutov. According to his data, "the Buryat onion differs from the Mongolian onion in a relatively small size. The Mongols have a more massive bow; the width of the horn reaches an incomplete quarter (mukhar toon), and the entire thickness of the bow (horn, birch and tendons) of other Mongolian bows is four fingers (duruu)" ^{[5, p. 42]}. S. G. Zhambalova noted that during field work she "identified a number of complex bows made by Buryat craftsmen" ^{[6, p. 53]}. She also presented the main technological operations in the production of complex bows, however, based on the text of the work, the manufacturing process is described based on the analysis of the subject complex and published data, including materials by I. E. Tugutov, and not on the basis of information received directly from the masters. Based on their own field materials, the process of making onions in the Agin Buryats was recorded by A. A. Badmaev and A. G. Gombozhapov ^{[9, pp. 74-75]}; ^[11].

Thus, according to experts, the bows of Buryat production, relative to imported products, had narrower and thicker shoulders, were "less massive" and devoid of bright decor.

In general, Buryat bows do not differ in their basic design principles from most bows of the Central Asian circle, which were the result of a long evolutionary process. The basic principles of strengthening and strengthening the wooden base were reduced to fixing on the inner surface (eber tala) and the ends of plates made of deer horn or horn-horned animals, as well as gluing tendon fibers onto the outer surface (ara tala) ^{[5, pp. 39-40]}; ^{[6, pp. 53-55]}; ^{[7, p. 12]}; ^{[8, p. 18]}; ^{[9, p. 74]}.

The production of complex bows by Buryat craftsmen was recorded by ethnographers on the materials of the XX century, however, the process itself was described generically, with characteristics of the main operations carried out.

Since such products are one of the variants of the "Central Asian type", in which the basic principles of design improvement were similar, it becomes possible to generalize the main stages of local production without focusing on small technological operations, using data on other "Central Asian" designs. L. A. Bobrov formulated such stages most succinctly in the context of studying Kazakh bows ^{[12, pp. 305-307]}.

Meanwhile, the designs of different peoples using bows of the "Central Asian type" differ significantly (in terms of the geometry of finished products and the proportion of functional zones, the number and method of connecting wooden parts, decoration features, a set of overlays, etc.). The objects of Buryat craftsmen are no exception. Despite the fact that, according to A. A. Badmaev, the design and materials were the same for all Buryat bows, the difference in which was due to the purpose ^{[9, p. 75]}, there are some inconsistencies in the descriptions of individual elements from different researchers, which confirms certain differences in the designs of different craftsmen. According to the published data, experts have recorded the processes of making bows at Selenginsky (description by I. E. Tugutov) and Aginsky craftsmen (descriptions by A. A. Badmaev and A. G. Gombozhapov). This makes it possible not only to describe the process of making complex onions by Buryats, summarizing the data of their predecessors, but to focus on the main differences in the descriptions, which can provide certain information about local production features.

"Craftsmen who made bows" were called by the Buryats – nomon hedeg darkhanuud ^{[9, p. 61]}. A complex bow was an individual product, for the manufacture of the master, information was collected about the future owner (height, arm length and "physical capabilities in general") ^{[11, p. 124]}.

Data on the production time varies from different specialists – from five to six months to two years, old masters say that "the bow is created casually" ^{[5, p. 40]}; ^{[6, p. 55]}; ^{[9, p. 74]}; ^{[11, p. 124]}.

As mentioned earlier, the main technological steps in the manufacture of "Central Asian bows" are similar. The first stage according to L. A. Bobrov is preparatory ^{[12, p. 305]}. It is associated with the procurement and selection of necessary materials. For kibiti, Buryat craftsmen most often used birch — hukhan ^{[4, p. 171]}; ^{[5, p. 40]}; ^{[6, p. 55]}; ^{[8, p. 12]}; ^{[9, p. 74]}; ^{[11, p. 124]}. The Agin Buryats harvested wood in winter ^{[9, p. 74;] [11, p. 124]}.

Hollow horn and deer horn were harvested for the manufacture of reinforcing and reinforcing linings. Experts mention the horns of an elk (khandagai), a raisin (bug), the long horns of a Mongolian yak (hainak) or a mountain goat (yangir), and the horns of domestic cows could also be used ^{[5, p. 40]}; ^{[6, p. 54]}; ^{[8, p. 12]}; ^{[9, p. 74]}; ^{[11, p. 125]}. According to I. E. Tugutov, preference was given to elk horns, since they are less branched than those of raisins; yak horns are used in the absence of elk and raisin horns ^{[5, p. 40]}. It is important to note that the hollow horn and the deer horn differ significantly in strength and rigidity and therefore should be located in different functional zones (the hollow elastic horn strengthened the working part of the shoulders, the hard deer horn strengthened the places exposed to the greatest load, as well as the stiff parts). Thus, both presented materials could be combined, in particular, A. G. Gombozhapov wrote about it ^{[11, p. 124]}.

To strengthen the back of the bow, animal tendons were prepared (w y rme h en). Buryat craftsmen used veins of elk, raisins, roe deer, horse and domestic cow ^{[5, p. 40]}; ^{[6, p. 55]}; ^{[9, p. 75]}.

Tendons were also used for cooking glue. Thus, according to A. G. Gombozhapov, "cleaned tendons of the animal's hind legs" were used for this purpose ^{[11, p. 124]}. But the most preferred for Buryat craftsmen was sturgeon glue ^{[5, p. 40]}; ^{[9, p. 74]}; ^{[11, p. 124]}. S. G. Zhambalova mentions adhesives made from "the skin of a skinny cow, or from scraps of skin and deer horns" ^{[6, p. 55]}.

The second stage, according to L.A. Bobrov, is associated with the "manufacture of bow elements" ^{[12, p. 305]}. After drying, a wooden base was cut out of the wood — modonshi ^{[9, p. 74]}. According to I. E. Tugutov, the Selenga Buryats have "the skeleton of an onion consists of a whole birch tree", which can be interpreted as the solid wood base of the onion body ^{[5, p. 40]}. According to A. G. Gombozhapov, the wooden base of the body of the Agin Buryats consisted of five separate parts — a handle, two elastic shoulders and two ends ^{[11, p. 124]}. The parts were fixed with a wedge-shaped joint.

After gluing all the parts, the wooden base is given the necessary bend. To do this, the base is clamped in a special vise for prolonged drying ^{[11, p. 124]}.

In the published data, except for the evidence given by A. G. Gombozhapov, there is no information about giving a bend to the kibiti at this stage. The shape of complex bows, including those of the Selenga and Baikal Buryats, indicates that some bending operations were still carried out, but it is not possible to characterize them. It is possible that shaping the wooden base could be done by soaking it, followed by heating and fixing it in a rigid position ^{[12, p. 305]}.

To make the linings, the horns were boiled, sawn lengthwise and cleaned of the "inner bone" and spongy substance ^{[5, p. 40]}; ^{[9, p. 74]}. In the descriptions of A. G. Gombozhapov, data are given that the material was first sawn, and only then boiled, since cooking was carried out to give the necessary shape ^{[11, p. 125]}. According to I. E. Tugutov, "the technique of preparing hainak horns... the same as with the horns of an elk" ^{[5, p. 40]}.

The tendons on the back of the bow also needed to be pre-prepared. The craftsmen tried to use the longest possible veins. They were dried, beaten with a hammer and then divided into thin threads ^{[6, p. 55]}; ^{[9, p. 75]}; ^{[11, p. 125]}.

The third stage, according to L. A. Bobrov, represents the assembly of all parts of the body ^{[12, p. 305]}. First of all, horn pads were glued to the wooden base and securely fixed until the glue dried. According to A. G. Gombozhapov, the median frontal plate made of raisin horn was glued first, followed by shoulder plates extending it ^{[11, p. 124]}. S. G. Zhambalova and A. A. Badmaev mention "the mosaic base of kibiti made of horn of two colors" ^{[6, p. 54]} and bows with "alternating bone, ordinary horn and shaped horn plates" ^{[9, p. 75]}. Thus, pads made of different materials alternated with respect to specific functional zones: the handle was reinforced with plates made of reindeer horn, the elastic shoulders of the plate were made of hollow horn, the end zones of stiffness were made of reindeer horn. In the transition zones, there could be pads made of both hollow horn and deer horn or a combination of them. The joints of the plates were closed with a transverse tendon winding or a "leather jacket" – udoori ^{[5, p. 40]}.

After fixing the horn plates, tendon fibers were glued to the back of the bow body ^{[4, p. 171]}; ^{[5, p. 40]}; ^{[6, p. 55]}; ^{[8, p. 12-13]}; ^{[9, p. 75]}; ^{[11, p. 125]}. A. A. Badmaev mentioned that the first the layer was fixed on sturgeon glue, and the subsequent layers on rawhide ^{[9, p. 75]}. The thickness of the tendon pasting of the finished product, according to I. E. Tugutov, reached the thickness of a man's thumb ^{[5, p. 40]}, and, according to B. D. Sandanov, the minimum thickness of the pasted tendons was 6-8 mm ^{[8, p. 12]}.

After the tendon pasting and horn plates were fixed, a thin reed covering was glued from the side surface of the kibiti ^{[8, p. 14]}.

The fourth stage, according to L. A. Bobrov, is associated with prolonged drying of the product ^{[12, p. 306]}. S. G. Zhambalova mentions a special frame in which the onion was kept in a dry room at room temperature for a year ^{[6, p. 55]}. Eastern European craftsmen also dried products for about a year ^{[12, p. 306]}.

The fifth stage, according to L. A. Bobrov, included putting on the bowstring and giving the bow the necessary bend ^{[12, p. 306]}. Specialists in the ethnography of Buryat culture did not reflect the peculiarities of this stage in their works. It is important to note that it was very difficult to immediately get an even, symmetrically working bow (whose shoulders would have the same bend), based only on the same proportions of the body. This is due to the fact that the natural materials used in the manufacture are unique (for example, two identical horns, even in one animal, may have different characteristics). In addition, it was necessary to avoid shoulder twisting. To align and form the desired bend, the bow was clamped into a special shape (along the bend of the shoulders), a bowstring was put on and carefully heated, after which the desired bend was formed. This technique is observed among the masters of ethnographic modernity from Turkey to Korea, among whom the manufacturing process was passed down from generation to generation. It is highly likely that Buryat craftsmen also practiced techniques for shaping the bending of the hull, but they remained unlit.

The bowstrings of Buryat bows were made from the skin of a "skinny cow", horse or camel ^{[5, p. 40]}; ^{[6, p. 55-56]}; ^{[9, p. 75]}, and could also be made from horsehair ^{[11, p. 125]}.

The final operations were pasting the hull with boiled birch bark (uiheng) to protect against moisture and heat ^{[4, p. 171; [6, p. 54]}; ^{[8, p. 14]}; ^{[9, p. 75]}; ^{[11, p. 125]}. Birch bark covered the back and handle, in some cases the side surface, the long edges of the horny shoulder plates and the ends. The side shoulder pads and end pads made of deer horn were usually not glued. The finished product was sometimes additionally painted or varnished to protect it from moisture ^{[9, p. 75]}.

This is how you can imagine the process of making bows by Buryat craftsmen. Despite the fact that the descriptions of specialists in the field of traditional Buryat culture are based on their own materials obtained in the 20th century, it is highly likely that the main stages and technological operations have been preserved in a primary form since at least the Middle Ages.

The completely preserved products of local production by their design can be divided into two groups, which clearly correlate with the chronological periods: XIX — beginning. XX centuries and 1930s —2000s. It is important to note that at the first request, the described differences in the manufacturing process are compared with a specific design.

For the earliest products, the bows of MIB OF 17848 ^[17], produced by Selenga Buryats, and MICNS OF 4256 ^[21], obtained from Bokhan Buryats in the Baikal region, can be considered reference. The series of items similar to the reference products is the most numerous — a total of 22 whole complex bows were identified.

According to the reinforcing elements, they fully correspond to the descriptions given by ethnographers (tendons from the outside, various sets of overlays with the obligatory presence of median and shoulder frontal ones). In the position without a bowstring, they had a straight handle, rounded in cross-section, narrow elastic shoulders slightly bent to the sides of the shot, long uniformly curved or sharply curved transition zones at the beginning and end, reinforced with a specific hollow horn overlay and highlighted by a slight thickening by means of a rounded rib on the side of the back, straight sub-rectangular ends in cross-section. Despite the difference in the design of the transition zones, the final geometry was close.

The length of the products ranged from 135 cm to 160 cm (median sample value = 153.5), shoulder width was 2.6–3.5 cm, structurally and morphologically rigid ends occupied from 10% to 16% of the body length (median value of the identified sample = 11%) with long transition zones (from 12% to 27% of the body length, with a median value of 23% — that is, in the presence of individual emissions, the length remained significant).

All marked items were covered with birch bark and were not originally decorated. As experts noted, we can talk about "alternating plates", but we are talking mainly about the functional features of various parts of the body, reinforced with overlays from different horns, and not about the decor. In some cases, deer antler linings were covered with cut-out "parallel lines" and elements of a circular ornament. Some items were painted and decorated, but we can confidently say that these operations were performed by the owners themselves after some time after use. In some cases, imitation of the decor of imported products is observed, however, without the use of specific materials (the body was painted in different colors, functional zones were divided, tamgas and patterns were painted).

For all products with a visible wooden base, it is defined as solid, without additional plates and reinforcements.

The given data on the design of bows allow us to conclude that the manufacturing process of such a design was described by I. E. Tugutov, which indicates that such bows were made up to ser. XX century. In addition, products with similar geometries are fixed on the vast majority of pre-revolutionary images with Buryat archers ^[13], and also appear on published images of the Soviet period ^{[8, Fig. 31, 34, 47]}; ^[15]. It should be noted that products with these morphometric characteristics and manufacturing features were collected both in the Baikal region and in Transbaikalia, which most likely indicates that this tradition was widespread throughout the territory of Buryat residence.

Later products of local production in the 1930s-2000s can be confidently associated with the "living" tradition of making complex bows from the Agin Buryats. A total of 9 such items were identified (individual samples were published) ^{[18, Fig. 1, 2, 3]}; ^{[20, Fig. 1, 1]}. They were also reinforced with tendons on the outer surface, reinforced with various sets of pads with the obligatory use of the median frontal and shoulder frontal. In addition, a characteristic feature is the end inserts with two notches for the bowstring (from the end and back). They are similar in morphology to earlier locally produced bows, but have an unevenly curved transition zone, with a sharp bend in the central third, which creates a visible angularity of the body in this place. The body dimensions are also close – they range from 147 cm to 155 cm, the maximum shoulder width is 2.7–3.4 cm, the length of the selected end is from 10% to 19% of the body length (median sample value = 14%), the length of the transition zones was from 10% to 20% of the body length (with a median value = 15%), which indicates the instability of this indicator. However, unlike the earlier described analogues, while maintaining the vast majority of the usual morphometric characteristics (except for the length and design of the transition zones) they differ in some technological and design elements.

Varnishes and paints were widely used in the decoration of objects, but more often they did not have a complex decor; they covered the entire outer surface of the product, sometimes also the inner surface along the overlays. In rare cases, patterns of the national Buryat ornament are observed on the outer surface of the shoulders.

In the construction of these objects, a composite wooden base is fixed, composed of three or five wooden parts sequentially fixed to each other by means of wedge-shaped joints. In addition, ledges are fixed for the joint of the linings with a wooden base, as on imported products. Most likely, it was the process of manufacturing such products that A. A. Badmaev and A. G. Gombozhapov described, since the time and place of their research fully correlates with the territory and chronology of the described objects.

These products appear in images with Buryat archers in the 1930s and remain in use to the present day as sports equipment ^[14]; ^[16].

Discussion

These data indicate the existence of two main sources of complex bows for Buryat shooters: import (from the territories of China and Mongolia) and local production.

Imported products have been recorded by Siberian researchers since the XVIII century. (until that time, certain data is missing). Despite certain differences in the metric and design of imported items, they all belong to one or another variation of the "Manchurian-Mongolian" design. During the spread of the military influence of Manchu art, in particular the reference Qing bows, various variations of them appeared, united, however, by common ideas about the significant length of morphologically distinguished stiff ends, wide shoulders and expressed by means of an additional rib increasing to the ends from the back. In this regard, all such products can be confidently associated with foreign production, but it is often difficult to speak confidently about a specific place.

In addition to the unity of morphometric and technological features, with rare exceptions, a bright decor is noted, which is confirmed by data from written and visual sources, as well as materials of the subject complex.

Local products have passed through two conditional stages in the development of the design, the main differences in the design can be summarized by the device of the wooden base, the method of formation and the length of the transition zones. Local production items of the XIX — beginning. The XX centuries had relatively short ends and narrow shoulders, relatively imported, and were distinguished by smooth geometry. Such products were relatively rarely decorated without the use of rare specific materials. These bows were the most popular among Buryat shooters of their time. This is due to the limited imports or the familiarity of the Buryat construction, it is difficult to say now. In the 2nd floor. The products of the Agin Buryats are becoming the most popular in the XX century. Relative to the previous stage of development of local production, the influence of imported products can be traced in the design: while maintaining the metric, a composite wooden base with ledges for joining the shoulder front plates begins to be used, the external geometry of the transition zones changes, end inserts begin to be used. Most likely, the revealed decorating techniques and coloring are primarily related to the availability of materials and functional purpose — it can be assumed that the additionally varnished case was more moisture-resistant than simply glued with birch bark.

It is important to note that by this time local production is localized in a small area, which is confirmed by the data of museum inventories on the place of collection and manufacture of objects.

Conclusion

The analysis made it possible to identify the main sources of receipt of complex bows to Buryat shooters. Based on the study of specific subjects, it was possible to clearly identify the key constructive and decorative features of both local and foreign productions. This information is necessary for the most correct understanding of the material and contributes to the further development of the problem. In addition, the findings confirm the existence of an original tradition of making complex bows among the Buryats, preserved under the domination of Manchurian-Mongolian products among the peoples of Central Asia. Most likely, it was the independence of Buryat shooters from foreign production that was one of the reasons for preserving traditions and forming a large source base.

Meanwhile, the variety of imported products, their variability in design and design and decorative features determine further research prospects, since for the most correct understanding of the processes of evolution and modification of complex bows, it is necessary to involve all available data.