Primitive Archer
Main Discussion Area => Bows => Topic started by: willie on March 02, 2015, 08:50:47 pm
-
I have been looking at the Steve Alley drawings and dimensions of native american bows and have been wondering why so many traditional bows were tillered the same way? (Bendy in the handle with stiffer limbs.)
Certainly the native americans were not concerned with the same things we are today, but what advantages did they realize with their designs?
-
I have no science just experience. I think the cross section of a lot of NA bows is indicative of a design that encompasses different wood species. The cross section and design will usually come out with a circular tiller. Just my attempt .
-
Were these bows documented in strung form or were speculative drawings made?
-
I've seen plenty of authentic NA bows, but I've never seen one at full draw.
-
You mean that you can't judge tiller by profile and dimensions?
-
Yes, sometimes.
-
I can make a pretty good guess that a bow like this is going to bend too much in the handle.
-
well, when the dimensions given are consistently showing bows with little taper in width or thickness, it is not hard to image what they would tiller out like. A little more than speculation, i think.
slack bunny commented (and I agree with most of his post in the other thread).......
it's foolish to assume that primitive peoples didn't put any thought into it. After all, they were just as intelligent and inquisitive as we are today, and most people are always looking for ways to improve their lot. But neither is it wise to attribute them supreme knowledge.
I guess my question is an inquiry of possible practical reasons, not necessarily looking for "supreme knowledge".
-
when I read about bows the Pope tested,, some seemed to be good quality and some not,, so would think there is a wide range in quality of bows still existing,, and may not be representative of the bows that were used for the most part,, I am just guessing,, but the bows that exist today,, are a very small percentage of how many bows were in existence in the past,, the bend in the handle is a great design,, and will allow for a longer draw with a shorter stave,, makes since it was used alot,, as far as the tiller,,, if it shot well and did not break,, the way it looked was probably secondary,, I am sure there were virtuoso bow makers that could tiller any way they liked as well,, :) if the unbraced profile is good,, you can assume the tiller was pretty good,,
-
Agreed. Short bendy handled bows were likely the norm. How they were tillered is anyone's guess. As long as you could protect your family and feed them, it was a keeper.
-
I am looking at Native American Bows,Arrows , and Quivers,,, from the drawings I see alot of well tillered bend handle bows,, if they were bending too much in the handle the unbraced bow would show set there,,
the drawings may not reflect the taper in the limb with enough detail to see,, yes I agree the bow pictured above might not be tillered that well,, but I am not assuming the Native bows Steve is depicting are like that one,, :)
-
I agree. The bow pictured above is not tillered well at all. It surprises me though, because it's made by someone who I think knows better. I'm not sure what he was thinking.
-
Just to be clear, the opening post mentions a tiller that is bendy in the handle with stiffer limbs. I presume that is exactly what the bowyer intended with the design, as evidenced by the lack of set in the illustrations as bradsmith points out.
I does not surprise me that pope tested bows with a wide variety of performance. Pope might have presumed that the NA bowyers/archers were expecting the same performance as bows built to criteria that pope favored. It's not hard to imagine that any archer could appreciate a good shooter, but was pope commenting on cast only? I can also imagine that not all the bows that made it into the hands of the white man were the best examples of the NA bowyers, either.
adb- posting a photo of Rich's bow into this thread along with the comment that it bends too much, is over the top
-
An example fresh in everyone's mind.
-
well, when the dimensions given are consistently showing bows with little taper in width or thickness, it is not hard to image what they would tiller out like. A little more than speculation, i think.
slack bunny commented (and I agree with most of his post in the other thread).......
it's foolish to assume that primitive peoples didn't put any thought into it. After all, they were just as intelligent and inquisitive as we are today, and most people are always looking for ways to improve their lot. But neither is it wise to attribute them supreme knowledge.
I guess my question is an inquiry of possible practical reasons, not necessarily looking for "supreme knowledge".
You brought a quote over from the 'other' thread. What's the difference.
-
Rich never claimed that it was tillered proper or circular. He specifically stated that he adjusted dimensions from the normal design to showcase the pattern of the skins he was gifted and then tillered the result as well as he could with the skewed dimensions. This bow was not held up as an example to emulate or as an accurate reproduction of any NA bow. He clearly stated that he didn't particularly care for the bell shaped tiller. What little accuracy there was in the majority of the criticism was already pointed out by Rich himself before the two individuals proceeded to make donkeys of themselves.
Willie...as to your original question, I can't imagine that excessive bend in the handle was something that was purposely done. They may not have had the internet like we do today, but they did have generation after generation of experience behind them. I had the opportunity to handle an original Delaware bow that was a family heirloom. When the lady brought it out to show me, she started to string it up. It hadn't bent very far and I could clearly see it hinging at the handle and stopped her. My first thought was why would it be tillered so poorly? Upon closer inspection, I could clearly see that it was worn that way over long hard use. The bow had a depression worn in the handle area that you could clearly see and feel. I have to wonder if some of the surviving examples were worn the same way? It could be a possible explanation for why some appear to bend too much in the handle. Just speculation of course. Josh
-
Rich never claimed that it was tillered proper or circular. He specifically stated that he adjusted dimensions from the normal design to showcase the pattern of the skins he was gifted and then tillered the result as well as he could with the skewed dimensions. This bow was not held up as an example to emulate or as an accurate reproduction of any NA bow. He clearly stated that he didn't particularly care for the bell shaped tiller. What little accuracy there was in the majority of the criticism was already pointed out by Rich himself before the two individuals proceeded to make donkeys of themselves.
Isn't Rich able to speak for himself?
-
josh
I cannot imagine that early bowyers wanted excessive bend in the center on purpose either. But it does seem that a circular tiller can also be had without having so much weight in the outer limb tips. I do not think that the advantages of narrow outer limbs were undiscovered, I think that there must have been better reasons to keep them almost the same width as the handle. I just don't know what that might of been. Most NA bows were narrowed in width some... just not very much. I do not know how heavy most of the arrows that were shot were. perhaps at the typical ggp, it just didn't make much of a difference.
maybe someone who shoots these type of bows can offer an observation or two.
willie
-
I do hunt with these bows. My dogwood arrows are about 550 gr with a stone point. The wide tips seem a lot heavier than they actually are if the bow bends all the way to the tip. I've seen really narrow tips with overlays that were just as heavy as the wide and thin tips on the bows in question. That being said, the tips on my eastern woodland style bows are a little narrower than most originals. I've made them both ways and the difference is negligible. As far as those bows you see that have stiffer outer limbs and more bend through the middle, it could be a case of trying for more draw length from a short stave with less string angle(stack). Just another possible explanation. I haven't tried that approach. I know there are a few on here that have though. Josh
-
Rich never claimed that it was tillered proper or circular. He specifically stated that he adjusted dimensions from the normal design to showcase the pattern of the skins he was gifted and then tillered the result as well as he could with the skewed dimensions. This bow was not held up as an example to emulate or as an accurate reproduction of any NA bow. He clearly stated that he didn't particularly care for the bell shaped tiller. What little accuracy there was in the majority of the criticism was already pointed out by Rich himself before the two individuals proceeded to make donkeys of themselves.
Isn't Rich able to speak for himself?
Yes he is and he did in the other thread. Which is where the information came from. However since you chose to drag the picture of his bow to this thread to use it as your bad example, I thought it only fair to give the rest of the story as Paul Harvey used to say. Otherwise, I wouldn't have mentioned it. Josh
-
Id didn't read any other posts but the first post made by willie. My reply willie, tiller shape isn't up for debate. It is 100% dictated by the bows pre-braced shape, period. The era, the people or the wood species doesn't change anything and cant change anything. If I see an unbraced straight limbed bow with flat limbs at draw, its not evenly tillered. I dont care what the old pictures/books show.
-
I don't have a lot of bows under my belt but I plan to remedy that. What I do have is a lot of information at my fingertips, and a little bit of common sense. It would stand to reason (and possibly debate) that the native peoples would make bows for the purpose of hunting food and killing things. Since the native peoples would not have had as much time as we do to sit around and surf the internet, and being that I don't believe there were many grocery stores on the prairies next to the large buffalo herds, the native folk probably spent a LOT of time afield hunting and gathering. In my very humble opinion, I don't think that the native folks were as concerned about perfect tiller and aesthetics of what their tools/weapons looked like as much as they were concerned about "can this stick shoot this other stick into that critter over there so me and mine can eat it". I'd wager that they were more intent on getting a functional weapon in their hand to use for a particular purpose. While I will agree that early bowyers probably didn't want a sub-par weapon to take afield, I would also argue that early bowyers had a different perception of what was a sub-par weapon. I also highly doubt that the Native Americans spent much time arguing over the finer details of stuff that we have the luxury of time and technology to argue over today.
What's my point? My point is that to me, seems like there are a couple schools of thought on the subject of tiller. Lots of folks fall into the school of "it has to be perfect, and if it's not perfect then it's a fail because your not getting everything you can out of your bow". And, that's true in a lot of ways it seems, because your obviously not going to get all the performance you can out of your bow if it's not perfectly tillered and timed. But, there is another school of thought it seems as well, which I find myself leaning towards. This school states that "if the bow shoots well for YOU, and you are happy with it within your own abilities to shoot it accurately, and you feel that it will allow you to safely and effectively shoot your targets or kill your chosen game animal, then it is perfectly tillered for YOU". Many of the bows that Pope tested possibly fall into that latter school of thought - perhaps they were tillered out and built for a guy who liked the bow to bend a lot through the handle, or perhaps they were done in a hurry a day or too prior to a big hunt just to get food on the table. Perhaps those "poorly made and tillered bows" weren't made with the expectation that someone would come along later and critique them against the better made ones, or perhaps the owner had a totally different expectation and perception of what was perfect for them. We have no real way of knowing.
-
Good points Sidman. If my life and families life depended on my bow? It would have a perfectly working tiller that had the least chance of letting me down or breaking at the wrong time, which is every minute of every day. Not to mention as hard as it was to carve a bow out for them, why not add some longevity to it by equalizing the bend?
Wrinkled siding still keeps the water off your house, but its ugly from the road.
-
If you want to see native bows drawn ( not particularly Cherokee) then look at Ishi or Eskimos, every bow I've seen so far even the 500 year old Mary Rose Warbow, had a very acceptable Tiller.
Of course they would not build stiff handled osage static recurve D/R, but I guess they wanted to get a decent shooting bow which was fairly save to hunt with and which would live a long time.
If you add that and the hand tools, plus the hard work of getting a decent stave, plus the knowledge of glues etc. together, you will pretty much get a bent trough the handle D-bow with fairly wide noks and a good tiller.
On nearly every place on this planet where there is enough wood to make a log bow, there's pretty much the same design, wheter it's the amazon, afrika, medieval europe,north amerika, asia....... stiff handles on longbows only occur on areas where the right wood and a lower density ( more range of motion) can be found, like Germany ( stellmoor)
so this shows us only one thing in particular we are all pretty much equal. ;)
-
Pearl Drums: agreed, I understand your point completely. That's why I would put you squarely in the "first" school of thought mentioned above, and I really mean no offense by that, it's just a way to show a difference. If I had to guess I would say that folks in that first school of thought come from an engineering or maybe a mathematics background where things are expected and required to be "right or wrong". That's a great thing, we need that sort of thinking.
Now, to counter your argument though, I would suggest that I don't think it was all that difficult to carve out a bow for native folk. Mainly because I don't think they concerned themselves with making one to last forever and not fail. If it were me and I had to feed my family with a bow, I'd make 3 or 4 bows, and take them all with me, and also be on the lookout for a gun. And, I would be in the know on how to make a new bow, in the field, with minimal equipment, as fast as I could, that would get the job done. This would lead me to believe that there was a "right enough, although not perfect" school of thought, which I fall squarely in the middle of myself. I'm of the opinion that an "early bowyer" (to use the term created earlier) could probably throw together a functional weapon in a day or so if they really had to. And I suspect they really had to, cause things happen and bows get broke and you'd have to be able to replace one on the fly so that you could catch back up with the herd. I would surmise that the differences in design that we see today in our history books were born out of necessity or lack of time back then - not because the person didn't know any better, but because they DID know what the bow could do, and they choose specifically to do the least amount of work to create a working weapon that did the job. That would lead to my assumption that the did the most practical thing at the time, and worried about the other stuff when they had time or reason to worry about it - say for ceremonial purposes or in the making of a weapon for a higher ranking warrior or chief.
-
Hey willie,
I have some pics of my NA replicas, both full draw and braced. If you would like I can post some. Most museum examples only give the width and length and lack the complete limb dimensions to replicate the bow for approximate tiller shape. I tiller my NA styled bows to a tipt to tip even bend (circle) dont know if thats right or not.
My bad bow poster child is not a NA bow and neither is it's tiller. Like I said, be happy to post up some pics for your consideration.
I hunt with mine and have no problems at all with accuracy, power, or leathality. Something else to consider is the expected results; by that I mean Native hunters did not want complete pass through shots (either animals or people) in the former the head cuts a lot more if it's still inside and they could track really well, in the latter case a turtle claw or splinter head stays in so that the arrows leaves pieces in the wound upon withdrawl, to cause septicimia and were too dull to push through. The mindset was completely different so bear in mind while speculating that modern bowyers have not got the same perspective at all.
please let me know about the pics....and I'm sorry that I could not discuss the matter on the other thread.
rich
-
No math or engineering here man. Im just a German guy that doesn't approve of less than "perfect". Its just a mind set I grew up around within my family and it carries on today strong as ever. I cant count how many times my dad has said, "Do it right this time, or don't do it at all." And in my mind a used up bow limb is doing it right.
-
I see your point but I have to say, A good bow in a day with hand or stonetools is very hard to accomplish if it is not made from a sapling.
I thing the overall bow design is dominated by the wood ad materials at hand.
I mean Ötzi choosed yew for his bows ( plenty of other good woods around), he could have build an yew recurve, but he did not, the cherokee could have build shooter bows the same drawlenght or add recurves (easily with osage or locust) but they did not and I think they didn't because they had to rely on their equipment, for it to be precise and durable.
As for building the bows, If you listen to saxton pope:" Ishi loved his bow more than anything else in his possession. " and the decoration and rumors, sayings, paintings and historical evidences point out that they did like their bows and I also think they did their best to fit them to their needs, which includes a good tiller.
So I think they would have taken their time, they liked their bows and they would have done it over a longer period not in a day or two.
-
Half-Eye, you know vastly more about native bows than I ever will but I am skeptical about one statement you made: that NAs didn't want pass through shots. I've bowhunted for 40 years and I'd take a pass through any day for lethality and recovery. Just one white guy's experience . . .
-
Me too. I'd rather have 2 holes leaking than one.
-
adams89: I agree here as well - my argument is not that the native folks didn't like or appreciate their bows, on the contrary, I totally agree with the thought that their bows were cherished and necessary tools. My argument is that I personally believe that an individual warrior/hunter would have his personal favorite bow, and he would have had several other 'worker' bows. On the day that you are going to go fight a big battle or try to impress the chief, you get your favorite fancy perfectly tillered sinew backed flipped tipped recurve of awesomeness and you get to steppin proud. On the day your hitching up your drawers to go shoot a couple of squirrels and a deer or so, and it's been raining and its muddy and damp, and the critters are bedded down in the thick stuff that you are going to have to belly crawl through and get nasty in, you take your worker bow. That's what I do - I have a bow that I LOVE, that wasn't made by me, that is beautiful and shoot hard and clean and fast. I don't take that bow hunting though cause I'm scared of scratching it up. I take my old beater red oak selfbow that is a board with a string and has been rubbed down with boiled linseed oil. I don't give a rat's hindparts if it gets scratched up or dirty, cause it's a hunting weapon and I have no intention of showing it off cause it's ugly. But, it will throw an arrow clean through an Alabama white tail or a rabbit, and one day I'm going to stick a squirrel with it to, if the friggin things would sit still long enough.
-
Rich is probably right, mindsets have changed the last few hundred years. Although I still hear about fella's who like that head to dig around in there. Not me, the damage is already done once the arrow penetrates. More cutting, is just more cutting.
-
I read somewhere not to long ago that what we consider today to be Native American small game "bird points" where really the typical hunting point for all game in north america. These points would be quite small, like nearly fit on a penny small, but super sharp. I believe this to be true because I believe that it's easier and more economical to make a bunch of small, sharp points using small stones than it is to find a bunch of big stones to make big points. And, being shot from a fairly lightweight bow (40 to 45 pounds or so) on fairly light arrows, maybe they didn't get big internal cuts like today's steel broadheads and heavy(er) arrows. Assuming for a moment that is true, I'd think that you would want an arrow sticking out of one side of a critter, acting as a lever to wiggle and cut more on the internal parts. I also think its safe to assume that the native folks didn't worry as much about how far they had to track that animal, cause I bet they could all track it for as far as they had to. Today, we want that animal down fast cause we don't have as much land to track across - as a matter of fact in Alabama I'm pretty sure that if an animal passes on to another piece of property that you don't own or have access to, you can't go recover that animal. I don't think that was a concern back then, so it stand to reason that the folks back then would go with what was practical to them at that time.
-
Hey smoke, I base that statement on quotes from some Native Americans to Otis Mason where-in they describe a "fine" bow (the best category they described) as shooting an arrow in to the fletching.
It's the mindset like I said, you want ethical, clean as possible kills, native americans want dead critters for food and clothing or shelter. Bow hunting deer for example was just part of deer hunting, there were drive fences, spike filled pits or blind spots where they jump and land, they even had noose snares that got ever tighter till the deer suffocated.... they even used canoes and jack lights......we hobbiests are not even close in mindset. It was also told to Mason that the bows (plains tribes being discussed) were given the same care as fine rifle.
Not starting a fight here, but we dont think about stuff the same way they did, so it's very difficult to speculate about methods or motives is all.
rich
-
Rich-
I most certainly welcome any examples of N A replicas you care to share. I have always enjoyed your work, as it has been the inspiration for me to look more closely at the simplicity of design that we see so much in N A bows. You would be the last person I would expect to offer an apology for anything in that other thread.
All-
"Form follows function" has always dictated design in my book, and I would agree with adams89 assertion that the bend in the handle bow is the universal. Its just that so many N A bows seem very rectangular in profile, at least more so than most bows of the world.
Does anyone have an opinion about durability with regards to maintaining tiller under adverse conditions?
.....we hobbiests are not even close in mindset.
+1
-
Does anyone have an opinion about durability with regards to maintaining tiller under adverse conditions?
.....we hobbiests are not even close in mindset.
+1
Ill jump on it willie. Poorly tillered bows don't last as long, don't shoot as hard and aren't as accurate as properly tillered bows. All that can and will be argued.
-
If I had only stone and bone tools to work with I would definitely be focusing on bend through the handle bows.
Maximum yield from minimum energy spent.
-
And in my mind a used up bow limb is doing it right.
Are you saying that a bow that bends less in the limbs than in the handle is poorly tillered? or poorly designed? I am only asking about designs that may tiller out that way as the bowyer intended, not making speculations about the workmanship on bows that I have never seen braced or drawn.
-
Tiller is part of design. the two are not separate. "I meant to do that" does not make bad tiller not count.
-
I suspect the Indians' mind sets were, like ours, all over the landscape--some were perfectionists, some, just git-er-done--some probably thought about pass-through vs chew-up-the guts vs give him a nick and track him until he goes belly up. But in my opinion, Sedmand probably sums it up best--("it" being in this case, indian motivation vis a vis bow design)--they were under constraints we are not (not having a supermarket nearby), but were free of our concerns--including not having to break off tracking to attend a $&@?& conference call--or worry about crossing Uncle Vern's fence line and having Deputy Dawg haul you in for trespassing!
Best regards,
Russ
-
And in my mind a used up bow limb is doing it right.
Are you saying that a bow that bends less in the limbs than in the handle is poorly tillered? or poorly designed? I am only asking about designs that may tiller out that way as the bowyer intended, not making speculations about the workmanship on bows that I have never seen braced or drawn.
Ill answer that with a question willie. Can you think of one design that should bend in the handle more than the limbs? I cant.
-
Hey willie,
before I post up some of my NA wantabe bows here are some photos taken of the real deal. I'm sure most are posed but the bows are either braced or partially drawn so ya interpret anyway you choose to.
rich
-
They all look from stiff to very stiff in the middle Rich. Are they from different regions? Or all the same area? The last one is cool.
-
1 Southwest, 2 West Coast and one Northern/Midwest would be my guesses.
-
some more
-
Its too bad so much of this is lost and unrecorded.
-
Take a look at the Moorehouse photograph (2 men by the river) the man called ye-ye has his bow nearly full draw and still tucked up to his body. It looks like it will be circle at full draw. I will resize the other photo from this set and you can see that the other mans bow is stiff tipped and slightly more bendy mid bow. I have no comment on any of these they are just parts of my investigations into trying to replicate the NA bows....or rather the thought processes behind them.
rich
-
Pat is spot on... tiller follows design. Proper final tiller is determined by chosen design. They are intimately connected. Bad tiller is bad tiller, whether you meant to do it or not. All of these ideas are really well discussed in the design and performance chapters of TBB Vols 1&4. I encourage anyone interested to review them.
From what I can see from the pictures, a lot of those bows look very stiff in the handle, and whippy ended if anything to me Rich.
-
here is the other photo. It is clear that the two bows are not the same tiller. One is noticably longer than the other as well.
rich
-
...and the shorter one definitely looks stiff handled to me.
-
thanks for posting the photos, Rich.
I am taking another look at the few bows (with thickness given) in the Steve Alley encyclopedia, NA Bows Arrows and Quivers, volume 1.
Looking forward to seeing some of your replicas.
-
Hey willie,
I'll see about posting. I also have a whole bunch of museum photos of Eastern Woodland bows and not just the north east either. I'll PM you
rich
-
Hey willie,
I'll see about posting. I also have a whole bunch of museum photos of Eastern Woodland bows and not just the north east either. I'll PM you
rich
I'd like to see those pics to Rich, this is the type of bow I'm doing my best to emulate and your posted works on this forum seem to be the closest I've seen to that style.
-
here are some of mine. I cant find braced shots for all of these but did for some.
One reason for a circular tiller instead of whip tillered is that I have to draw more than they did. I can not shoot pinch grip and 20-21 inches of draw. So for a 48" bow (46" inch string) drawing 24 to 25 inches ( my draw length ) you better have it all working 8)
so here's some pics for you. By the way I have tillered them stiff center, stiff tipped, and circular. As I have stated many times before.....In my experience thwe circular tiller produces the best performing bows of the 3 types I tried.
rich
PS: the first one (37" recurve) is based on a bow recovered in Mt. Clemens Mi. but not attributed. the artifact also had very pronounced "hooks" and mine does not. I'll put that bow up at the end.
-
more
-
more
-
Rich-
thanks for posting your bows at full draw. Keeping the bend constant certainly seems like the way to get the most out of such short bows. How heavy are the arrows you prefer to use with the circular tiller? gpp?
After looking back at the encyclopedia, I find only about a half a dozen bows with thickness illustrated. Three definitely seem like the bows would bend more in the handle , while three others have thickened handles, and by presumption, may have been stiffer in the center of the bow. A few others had somewhat thick mid-limbs, but thinner tips probably yielding highly elliptical or possibly whipped tillers. In all, though, more measurements of thickness when illustrating historical bows would be helpful.
willie
-
Rich that black scalloped bow with the red tips looks sort of familiar. That first one is really working overtime!
Willie, I know that you didn't ask for it, but I have a few eastern woodland style bow pics with braced and f/d shots. They aren't halfeye quality but not bad considering the guy that made em. The first is my latest hunting bow. The next is a Seneca replica. On these style I try to get as circular tiller as possible. Josh
-
Very seldom do I deviate from that tiller on this style of bow. Now if I sinew back it I will make the tiller just a smidge flatter in the mid section (elliptical tiller). That seems to squeak a little more performance from the sinew than the circular tiller. In my experience anyway. Josh
-
they sure are not halfeye quality....they a lot better. I seen your bows bud.
rich
-
Gun Doc/half eye: those bows show a level of skill that is inspiring. I'm going to make bows like that, you just watch and see ;)
-
Josh- thank you also, for posting your work. Both you guys are way to modest about what you have been able get out of such short staves, the craftsmanship speaks for itsself.
-
U 2 bendy handle gurus ;)
-
very cool bows! halfeye and gundog.
Gun Dog do the feathers influence the bow?
I gave one of my last ones some fur a the end and was surprised how in quiets the bow, I could imagine these feathers could do something similar.
-
Having somewhat stiff outer limbs does help with string angle on short bows but then they were never meant to be drawn to the ear. Also a lot of the old bows I have examined seemed to have a lot of chrysals in the outer limbs which seems to suggest that keeping the outer limbs fairly stiff is necessary for longevity