중국 샹동지방에서 발견된 석궁의 사진과 원리
글, 사진: Stephen Selby, 2001
내가 직접 발견한 유물을 중심으로 중국의 청동석궁에 대해 설명하겠습니다.
중국에서 석궁이 만들어진 배경
중국의 역사기록('챠오 예': 'Wu 와 Yue의 사랑') 에 따르면 중국에서 석궁이 발견된 시기와 장소는 춘추전국시대의 혼란기로 거슬러간다.(Selby: 'Chinese Archery'. Hong Kong University Press, 2000. p. 158), 기원전 2세기까지는 중국에 석궁이 알려져 있지 않았다. 양홍(양홍;고대 중국의 무기)의 저서같은 현대 저서에서는
-
제작과 사용은 소수민족에 의해 이루어 졌다.
-
뼈, 조개껍질, 돌 등이 현재의 방아쇠기능을 하도록 사용되었고,
-
석궁의 특징과 연관성에 대해 설명할 수 있는 가능성이 제시되었다.
-
현대의 역사가들은 석기에서 동기 청동기로 넘어가는 시기인 기원전 2000경까지 석궁의 역사를 끌어 올렸다.
만약 그렇다면 고고학자들은 아직 춘추전국시대인 기원전 600년경 까지의 유물밖에 발굴하지 못한셈이 된다.
상왕조인 기원전 약 1300년 경 무렵에 정교한 금속의 주조기술이 있었다는 증거가 확실해 졌기 때문에, 정교한 청동기술이 뒤늦게 석궁의 제작에 활용되었다는 점은 놀라운 일이다.
석궁 메카니즘의 대체
그림에서 보는 바와 같이 초기의 석궁엔 격발장치가 전혀 필요없다. 시위는 석궁의 홈까지 끌어 당겨서 걸어놓은 다음 엄지손가락으로 밀어올려 홈에서 빠져나가게 하여 화살을 발사한다.
첫번째 형태는 격발하는데 장치가 필요없으나 밀어올려 격발하는 자체가 매우 힘들고 불편하였기 때문에 간단한 장지(두번재 그림)으로 대체되었다. 두번째 그림의 장치는 손가락으로 밀어 올리는 높이까지 간단한 격발기구를 검지로 당기면 현을 밀어올리게 되어있다. 이러한 방식은 현재까지도 중국의 남서지방 소수민족이 그대로 사용하고 있는 방식이다.
cock(공이치기)를 잡아당기면 아주 가볍게 만든 화살을 활몸의 제일 뒤에 위치시키고 현이 아주 빠른 속도로 quarrel을 치게 되어있다. 이 장치의 단점은 발사를 하기전엔 화살 과 현이 떨어져 있다는 점이다.
세번째가 훨씬 복잡하게 고안된 장치로 현이 두개의 이빨에 걸려 있고 화살이 두개의 이빨 사이에서 현에 끼워져 있어서 시위와 화살이 항상 수직으로 만나고 훨씬 안정적으로 화살이 날아간다.
그것은 이제까지 발견된 고고학적 자료에 근거한 유일한 3번째 형태이다. 밍왕조에 마오유와니가 말하길 그 시대 석궁은 사슴뿔로 만들었다고 하는데, 이 사실은 몽골의 유안왕조 때 청동기 기술이 오히려 퇴보했다고 볼 수 있다.
고대 중국의 석궁제작의 청동기술원리
석궁의 청동기술과 의 접목은 기원전600년경의 고고학적 자료부터 일반적으로 나타난다. 고대의 문자기록에도 그 무렵의 석궁사용이 빈번했음을 나타내고 있다. 예를들어 '순 우"의 작품에도 석궁에 관한 기록이 나타나는데 연도는 기원전 5세기 경이다. 기원전 4세기경에는 석궁의 사용이 군사전략적으로 중요했음이 나타나고 있다.
한 왕조때인 기원전 206년에는 명백히 한 왕조의 가장 중요한 무기로 선택되었다.
앞에서 언급된 A타입~C타입은 순차적으로 발전해 왔고 퀸왕조(기원전 206년) 때 B타입은 도태되었다.
Type A mechanism (axles missing). Qin.Type A: 청동으로 만들어진 3가지 움직이는부품 (tumbler, sear and trigger), 과 수동 축으로 나무로 된 원형막대로 석궁의 몸체에 고정됨
Type B: 세개의 움직이는 청동부품과 두 개의 수동축을 나무몸체의 홈에 들어가는 청동케이스가 지지한다.
Type C: 세 개의 청동으로 된 움직이는 부품이 나무에 파 놓은 구멍에다 끼워놓은 청동케이스에 두 개의 축에의해 고정된다.
Type A exhibits a clear disadvantage in that only the outer ends of the two axles are in contact with the stock. This means that the surface area over which the string뭩 tension on the tumbler is transmitted to the stock is very small. Typically, the axles have a diameter of 0.75cm, the forward half of which transmits the tension of the string to the stock, with about 0.75cm seated in a hole drilled on each side of a trough gouged in the stock. Only the forward axle bears the load of the string (through the tumbler), while the rear axle simply permits the sear to drop. The whole surface area transmitting the string tension to the stock therefore might not be more than 1.8 cm? (Two forward-facing surface segments (i.e. half), each 0.75cm long, of a cylinder of 0.75cm ?
π * 0.375 * 0.75 * 2 = 1.767cm? Being a cylinder, the pressure would not be transmitted evenly over the whole surface area, either.) A heavier draw-weight would easily put more strain on the wood than it could take, especially as it would tend to split the grain.Type B
attempts to overcome this problem by seating the ends of the axles in a hard bronze casing fitting over the outside of the stock adjacent to the lock. The surface area of contact is much smaller, but the material is strong enough to withstand a higher string tension.Type C contains the whole of the mechanism in a bronze housing within the stock. It generally provides the advantages of type B. But in type C, the bronze housing is compact and no moving parts are in contact with surrounding wood. The load-bearing surfaces of contact are maximized. The elements were also probably heavily-greased and highly resistant to moisture.
This article examines an example of the type B mechanism.
A Type B Mechanism from Shandong, China
The crossbow mechanism under discussion was found in Zibo, Shandong province. It is in a good state of preservation, with light patination. Within the rear of the mechanism is a piece of the original wood from the stock. The wood has not shrunk or deformed, suggesting that the whole assembly had largely remained dry throughout the time it has been interred. The whole assembly consists of the mechanism itself in its bronze casing, a bronze trigger-guard, two bronze spikes and two bronze arrowheads with iron tangs. The iron tangs have almost completely corroded, and corroded iron has become attached to various parts of the other surrounding bronze items.
Inner parts of the mechanism. A: tumbler, B: sear, C: trigger, D1,2: axles, E: bronze catch.
The tumbler (A) comprises two side elements connected by a bar, all cast in one piece and filed or ground into shape, with the hole either drilled or cast and finished. One side element extends upward and the top of the extension is decorated with a dragon's head. (This feature variously served as a counter-weight, to catch the string as it was drawn back to cock the crossbow, as well as an aid to aiming. As far as I know, these mechanisms were not counter-sprung.) No other decoration or writing are discernable on the tumbler. Compared to other bronze tumblers I have examined, the design is more angular.
|
|
|
The sear (B) is cast in one piece with the hole drilled through it or cast and finished. Again, the design is chunky and angular compared to other bronze sears I have examined. Careful examination revealed a single mark (possibly a Chinese character) within the jaw of the sear.
|
|
|
The trigger (C) is cast in one piece with the hole drilled or cast and finished. It has a distinctive, dog-leg design. The front face of the trigger (left in the illustration, above the 'knee') shows clear signs of repeated impact against the bar of the tumbler. I take this as evidence that the mechanism has been repeatedly fired before burial. This, then, is a used, working weapon: not a ritual item for burial.
The axles (D1,2) are each 0.7cm in diameter. The left one (D1: 3.3cm) is the sear axle. It has flattening in two places on one face, preventing it from revolving in the housing. The the right one (D2: 3.5cm) is the tumbler/trigger axle and has no flattening.
The bronze catch (E) comprises a bronze tube, 1.2cm in diameter at one end and 1.3cm in diameter at the other. The wall of the narrower end is slightly thicker. The tube seems to have been hammered into shape. A bronze stanchion stands out 1.5 cm from the wider end. Its purpose is discussed below.
Bronze casing viewed from the front
The bronze outer casing appears to have been cast in one piece. The channel at the top (left side in the picture) has no profile for the nock and fletching (such as is sometimes found on the tops of similar bronze casings), and there is evidence that a fillet of wood was stuck to it. The whole assembly is hollow. The handle is very short and evidently could not have accommodated the users whole palm. At the bottom (right side), a aperture is left into which the rear of the bronze trigger guard fits.
There is no decoration of any sort on the casing; but the rear is elegantly profiled and fluted. The forward-facing part of the handle is flattened. At the top of the handle is a space into which the trigger will recess snugly when pulled back.
Within the bronze casing, there remains a block of wood corresponding to the rear end of the stock. The species of the wood is unknown.
Rear end of the wooden stock.
Trigger guard
The trigger guard is an unadorned bronze band approximately 7cm in length, bent upwards at the front, with a lug projecting a further 2.8cm at the front, incurved at the extremity. The rear end has a lug 0.6cm long that fits snugly into the bottom-front of the handle. The front of the main part of the guard is is 2.5cm wide and the rear is 3cm wide. The thickness is 3mm throughout.
The overall assembly of the lock and casing is illustrated below -
Crossbow lock assembly with casing and trigger guard
The whole assembly allows us to discern the purpose of the bronze tube 'E'. It fits loosely over the trigger, but tightly if it is pulled up to the knee. Thus the protruding part, if rotated toward the back, prevents the trigger from being pulled, as the following images illustrate.
 cocked and locked |
 cocked and unlocked |
 released |
As far as I know, this safety locking feature has not been found on a Chinese crossbow before.
The lock assembly apart, a pair of bronze spikes were found together with the lock. In terms of style, construction, material and preservation, they are consistent with being part of the crossbow.
Bronze spikes
There is no fitting to hold these spikes at the rear of the stock, so they probably belonged at the front. I have previously examined a Warring States wooden crossbow with vertical wooden posts of unequal length at the front of the stock. In fact, the lower extremities with the up-turned base show signs of contact with wood. The narrow channel running along the top of the left-hand (taller) spike is matched on its obverse side. There is no similar feature on the right-hand spike. The flanges on both spikes are on one side only.
Obverse of the left-hand spike showing channel with adhering wood
It is hard to speculate what this object did for the crossbow. If it was located at the front of the stock facing forward it would have been in a vulnerable position. Could the channels on both sides of the taller spike have accepted a hollow tube of bamboo split along one side to clip over the channels to form a sight? This would have been a delicate device to place in such a vulnerable spot; but it would not have been hard to replace of lost or broken. As to the other spike, I have no suggestion
Bronze/iron arrowheads 3.3cm
The two bronze arrowheads accompanying the crossbow have a triangular cross-section. They are typical of crossbow bolts of the period. The corrosion on the left-hand point bears the impression left by a cylinder of about 3.5mm diameter. This might have been the shaft of another bolt.
Overall assessment
The dog-leg design of the trigger of this mechanism is very close to that of one of the triggers excavated from the ancient Lu capital at Qufu, Shandong (Yang Hong: 멌ollected Essays on Ancient Chinese Weapons? page 206, Ill. 126.) That excavation was dated to the early Warring States period, around 600 - 500 BCE. I would judge the design of this crossbow to be in the same tradition, although perhaps slightly later, as the Qufu lock had no bronze casing.
The skill in the construction of this weapon is in the utilitarian detail rather than in decoration. Indeed, other than the dragon-head sighting bead on the tumbler and the fluting on the case, there is no decoration at all. I would reconstruct the crossbow as follows:
Reconstruction of the crossbow
The specimen I have described adds something to our knowledge of early Chinese crossbows. The tactics at the Battle of Maling involved an ambush at night with crossbows. The literary record (Sima Qian: 'Historical Records' (Shi Ji), 'Biography of Sunzi and Wu Qi') mentioned specifically that marksmen were selected for the ambush, and that the troops were to wait (presumably in silence and with crossbows cocked.) We can see the value of the safety catch in such a situation, and this specimen clearly demonstrates that this was an issue specifically considered in the design.
The Qin kingdom of the Warring States period was to the west of Lu. At least until the demise of Qin Shi Huangdi, the first Qin Emperor, Qin stayed with the more primitive design lacking a bronze casing. (See various reports of the excavations of the Terracotta Warriors at Qinling.) The crossbows of Qin would have been inferior weapons. Given the Qin's preoccupation with military affairs, this is surprising.
I have not examined any other early crossbow mechanism in which the aiming element on the tumbler was anything more than utilitarian (barring some patterning with chased sliver or gold). By the Tang Dynasty, it had become fashionable to shape the rear sight in the form of a lion or even a kneeling man. However, a dragon head is something I have not see described before.
Last up-dated February 16, 2001