Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [SCA-Archery] Back Quiver revisited

Expand Messages
  • blkknighti@aol.com
    Thank you Nest. It seems, if I have found the correct Psalm 10 of David, that the passage it may illustrate is actually Psalm 11:2 ... For look, the wicked
    Message 1 of 10 , Dec 6, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Thank you Nest. It seems, if I have found the correct Psalm 10 of David, that
      the passage it may illustrate is actually Psalm 11:2 ... "For look, the
      wicked bend their bows; they set their arrows against the strings to shoot from the
      shadows at the upright in heart." Nothing in the previous Psalm refers
      directly to bows or arrows or such but is of the same tone simply continued in 10.
      Now while the document itself was produced in period it is highly unlikely
      that it can be considered evidentiary of back quivers being use in period in
      that geographical location. The illustration it seems depicts a biblical passage
      and I would suspect the artist to his license to capture the passage in
      biblical period form, including the dress, especially the bow, arrows and of course
      the quiver in "mixed metaphor" if you will. Much like a previous discussion of
      the Queens portrait depicting her as Diana.
      I think we can hardly consider this a period reference for the back quiver.
      Thanks again for posting those pictures. After reading Psalms envolved I'd
      actually like to see the whole of the first from the original Utrecht Psalter.
      Another time maybe.

      Richard

      In a message dated 12/6/04 10:38:20 PM, eastarch@... writes:


      > Richard,
      >
      > These came from a book. The Utrecht Pslater in Medieval art: Picturing the
      > Psalms of David.  The 2 pictures are representations of the 10th Psalm.
      > Beyond that I am not sure of what the illustration depicts. I am not up on
      > my Psalms. The first picture is from the Utrecht psalter, the second
      > picture is from the Paris psalter. It is probably drawn after the artist
      > saw the Utrecht. The date of the Paris Psalter is estimated at 1180-1200.
      > Therefore it is considered to be a copy of the first. The book goes on the
      > list the Harley Psalter and the Eadwine Psalter as other English copies of
      > the original Utrecht Psalter.
      >
      > Nest
      >



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • blkknighti@aol.com
      Eadric while I highly regard your opinion I beg to differ... One definately appears to be a back quiver, the second may be a copy of the first and the third
      Message 2 of 10 , Dec 6, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Eadric while I highly regard your opinion I beg to differ...
        One definately appears to be a back quiver, the second may be a copy of the
        first and the third could be a hip quiver on a baldric type support and in all
        three the participants seem to be wearing Roman period attire along with bows
        illustrated in classical Roman style. As I said in my reply to Nest, I think
        we can hardly consider this an excellent period reference for the back quiver.

        In a message dated 12/6/04 11:06:59 PM, smills@... writes:

        >>Nest, thanks for digging up the extra pictures.  Those definately appear
        to be back quivers.  Just the excellent period refrence I am been
        looking for.<<

        Is it possible to get this illustration scanned and available to us on this
        list? I would like to see this for myself and I am wondering what makes you
        determine that it is clearly a back quiver. When was the Portrait actually
        produced?

        > >>7.  p127  Portrait of Willliam le May who was captain of 120 archers of
        > the King of France  Louis XI (1461 - 1483)  and Govenor of the city of
        > Paris.  He is holding  a Longbow and at his feet is what to me is
        > clearly a back quiver.<<
        >

        I am very familiar with Bayeux Tapestry and the debate contained with the
        back/hip quiver concept. While they *could* be back quivers I still maintain it
        is more likely that they are hip quivers as others are depicted in the same
        tapestry simply slung over the shoulder perhaps in haste. I have done this myself
        on several occasions.
        > >>6.  p89  The Bayeaux tapestry.  I still maintain that there are back
        > quivers depicted there.<<
        >
        Respectfully,
        Richard


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Nest verch Tangwistel
        Well, I am not sure what else you are going to find from that period. The only pictures out there would be representations of religious texts or occasional
        Message 3 of 10 , Dec 7, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          Well, I am not sure what else you are going to find from that period. The
          only pictures out there would be representations of religious texts or
          occasional pictures of wars (and those are much rarer). There is just very
          little art which survives from the 9th century. At least this implies that
          it is not an unthinkable idea to put your quiver over your back. It is
          interesting that is looks very similar to the Bayeux tapestry's depiction
          of the back quiver. A single thin belt-like strap going around the
          shoulder.

          Nest
          --- blkknighti@... wrote:

          >
          > Thank you Nest. It seems, if I have found the correct Psalm 10 of David,
          > that
          > the passage it may illustrate is actually Psalm 11:2 ... "For look, the
          > wicked bend their bows; they set their arrows against the strings to
          > shoot from the
          > shadows at the upright in heart." Nothing in the previous Psalm refers
          > directly to bows or arrows or such but is of the same tone simply
          > continued in 10.
          > Now while the document itself was produced in period it is highly
          > unlikely
          > that it can be considered evidentiary of back quivers being use in
          > period in
          > that geographical location. The illustration it seems depicts a biblical
          > passage
          > and I would suspect the artist to his license to capture the passage in
          > biblical period form, including the dress, especially the bow, arrows
          > and of course
          > the quiver in "mixed metaphor" if you will. Much like a previous
          > discussion of
          > the Queens portrait depicting her as Diana.
          > I think we can hardly consider this a period reference for the back
          > quiver.
          > Thanks again for posting those pictures. After reading Psalms envolved
          > I'd
          > actually like to see the whole of the first from the original Utrecht
          > Psalter.
          > Another time maybe.
          >
          > Richard
          >
          > In a message dated 12/6/04 10:38:20 PM, eastarch@... writes:
          >
          >
          > > Richard,
          > >
          > > These came from a book. The Utrecht Pslater in Medieval art: Picturing
          > the
          > > Psalms of David.� The 2 pictures are representations of the 10th
          > Psalm.
          > > Beyond that I am not sure of what the illustration depicts. I am not
          > up on
          > > my Psalms. The first picture is from the Utrecht psalter, the second
          > > picture is from the Paris psalter. It is probably drawn after the
          > artist
          > > saw the Utrecht. The date of the Paris Psalter is estimated at
          > 1180-1200.
          > > Therefore it is considered to be a copy of the first. The book goes on
          > the
          > > list the Harley Psalter and the Eadwine Psalter as other English
          > copies of
          > > the original Utrecht Psalter.
          > >
          > > Nest
          > >
          >
          >
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >
          >
          >
          > ---8<---------------------------------------------
          > Brought to you YahooGroups Ad Free in 2003 by Medieval Mart
          > Get Medieval at Mad Macsen's http://www.medievalmart.com/
          >
          > [Email to SCA-Archery-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com to leave this list]
          >
          > Yahoo! Groups Links
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >




          __________________________________
          Do you Yahoo!?
          Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
          http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo
        • J. Hughes
          Actually the safest assumption is that the artist had no idea of what the Romans actually had by way of equipment (unless he had a Roman image in front of
          Message 4 of 10 , Dec 7, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            Actually the safest assumption is that the artist had
            no idea of what the Romans actually had by way of
            equipment (unless he had a Roman image in front of
            him). The artist would therefore use contemporary
            equipment as his model. This is standard practice
            through most of the Middle Ages. If you want to know
            what the armor of a period was look at the soldiers at
            the foot of the cross. They will either be wearing
            clearly fantasy armor or the latest fashion.

            I love the pictures that show an old testament siege
            of Jerusalem with the attackers using crossbows. It is
            not that the artists knew there was a form of crossbow
            in ancient times and there is even clear evidence that
            there were hunting crossbows in Palestine during the
            Roman period. What the artists show is rather the
            crossbow of the Middle Ages rather than any of the
            ancient crossbows.

            But any picture from period will, at best, only give
            you assumptions. The more evidence assembled the
            greater the probability that the assumption is
            correct.

            Charles O'Connor
            --- blkknighti@... wrote:

            >
            > Thank you Nest. It seems, if I have found the
            > correct Psalm 10 of David, that
            > the passage it may illustrate is actually Psalm 11:2
            > ... "For look, the
            > wicked bend their bows; they set their arrows
            > against the strings to shoot from the
            > shadows at the upright in heart." Nothing in the
            > previous Psalm refers
            > directly to bows or arrows or such but is of the
            > same tone simply continued in 10.
            > Now while the document itself was produced in period
            > it is highly unlikely
            > that it can be considered evidentiary of back
            > quivers being use in period in
            > that geographical location. The illustration it
            > seems depicts a biblical passage
            > and I would suspect the artist to his license to
            > capture the passage in
            > biblical period form, including the dress,
            > especially the bow, arrows and of course
            > the quiver in "mixed metaphor" if you will. Much
            > like a previous discussion of
            > the Queens portrait depicting her as Diana.
            > I think we can hardly consider this a period
            > reference for the back quiver.
            > Thanks again for posting those pictures. After
            > reading Psalms envolved I'd
            > actually like to see the whole of the first from the
            > original Utrecht Psalter.
            > Another time maybe.
            >
            > Richard
            >
            > In a message dated 12/6/04 10:38:20 PM,
            > eastarch@... writes:
            >
            >
            > > Richard,
            > >
            > > These came from a book. The Utrecht Pslater in
            > Medieval art: Picturing the
            > > Psalms of David.� The 2 pictures are
            > representations of the 10th Psalm.
            > > Beyond that I am not sure of what the illustration
            > depicts. I am not up on
            > > my Psalms. The first picture is from the Utrecht
            > psalter, the second
            > > picture is from the Paris psalter. It is probably
            > drawn after the artist
            > > saw the Utrecht. The date of the Paris Psalter is
            > estimated at 1180-1200.
            > > Therefore it is considered to be a copy of the
            > first. The book goes on the
            > > list the Harley Psalter and the Eadwine Psalter as
            > other English copies of
            > > the original Utrecht Psalter.
            > >
            > > Nest



            __________________________________
            Do you Yahoo!?
            Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less.
            http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
          • Carolus von Eulenhorst
            On the other hand, many art works from period use local contemporary dress and fashion to depict biblical themes and so are excellent sources of documentation.
            Message 5 of 10 , Dec 8, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              On the other hand, many art works from period use local contemporary dress
              and fashion to depict biblical themes and so are excellent sources of
              documentation. It was difficult for many period artists to
              conceptualize historical dress as they didn't have the type of knowledge
              base current artists have. It will take much more research, however

              Carolus

              .At 10:43 PM 12/6/2004, you wrote:

              >Thank you Nest. It seems, if I have found the correct Psalm 10 of David, that
              >the passage it may illustrate is actually Psalm 11:2 ... "For look, the
              >wicked bend their bows; they set their arrows against the strings to shoot
              >from the
              >shadows at the upright in heart." Nothing in the previous Psalm refers
              >directly to bows or arrows or such but is of the same tone simply
              >continued in 10.
              >Now while the document itself was produced in period it is highly unlikely
              >that it can be considered evidentiary of back quivers being use in period in
              >that geographical location. The illustration it seems depicts a biblical
              >passage
              >and I would suspect the artist to his license to capture the passage in
              >biblical period form, including the dress, especially the bow, arrows and
              >of course
              >the quiver in "mixed metaphor" if you will. Much like a previous
              >discussion of
              >the Queens portrait depicting her as Diana.
              >I think we can hardly consider this a period reference for the back quiver.
              >Thanks again for posting those pictures. After reading Psalms envolved I'd
              >actually like to see the whole of the first from the original Utrecht
              >Psalter.
              >Another time maybe.
              >
              >Richard
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.