Primitive Archer
Main Discussion Area => Bows => Topic started by: half eye on December 22, 2013, 12:28:00 pm
-
It's funny how ya can read something several times and then all of a sudden a light comes on. I was going through the Smithsonian Report of 1893 [by Mason] and something struck me as odd. So much so that I needed to re-read it and make a bow to answer some questions.
quote: ".....Since the substances used in making bows are of the region, techno-geography finds an excellent illustration in the bows of North America, which may be on the basis thus divided."
"(1) The hard-wood, self-bow area. It embraced all of North America east of the Rocky Mountains and South of Hudson Bay." ....."Indeed, in those regions where more highly differentiated forms prevail, it constantly occurs as the fundamental pattern."
"(2) The compound-bow area. By the compound bow is meant one in which the grip and two wings are separate pieces, or one in which the cupid's bow is made up of as many bits of horn as are necessary." "All the examples examined by the writer are wrapped in flannel or buckskin so as to conceal every trace of the joints made by the union of the different parts." "The compound bows of the Sioux are the most beautiful in shape of any among savage tribes........" In both types the compound bow arose from a dearth of wood for making a self bow."
(3)The sinew lined bow area ......"The occurrence of hard wood in the Great Interior Basin and of Yew and other soft woods on the western slopes give rise to wide, thin bow in the latter and the long ovate sectioned bow in the Basin" [ it goes on to explain the wide "California types" the sinew is laid on in glue where the narrow types of the Shoshonean type are sinew lined and wrapped at intervals to keep it adhered because of the small gluing area.
The rest of the area bow types are discussing the The far Northern "sinew-corded" areas
Upon examining the drawings he furnished of the various bows I was struck by how widespread these narrow, rectangular section, double curve bows were. The vast majority of the bows given up as examples were rectangular in section (some nearly square), made of osage, ash or hickory, and double curved without tips turned back.The big surprise was the Tribes involved, or rather the area involved. There are examples of Cheyenne, Western Chippewa, Kiowa, Dakota (hickory), Dakota (unknown hardwood), Tonkawa (hickory). Apache bows of Mountain mulberry are mentioned.
The last thing was a quote from Bourke specifically referring to Apache bow making. "The curvature of the bow was determined almost entirely by individual strength or caprice."
Sorry for the long intro. After reading this I wanted to know how-come this type was widespread, preferred, so universally accepted as "THE" form. So I made me one. It was carved out, rough finished and then checked for weight (draw) and physical weight and oh-baby is this thing hard shootin. Anyways I've drawn and shot it a bunch "in the white" and right now it's getting it's pitch and grease bath so I'll put up pics when that part's done, as well as these right now. Hope ya like the pics . I have to believe that this type of bow is the easiest to make with hand tools, easiest to shape, and takes the least amount of wood. Did I mention these things draw a lot of weight >:D
I'll get you the dimensions in an additional post.
rich
-
Thanks Rich, this is very interesting. I've not read the articles you mentioned but that is one fine looking bow.
-
Not sure I'm understanding whats said in the text, is your example a self bow Rich or sinew backed? Did you do any heat or steam shaping prior to tillering? Love the purely simple shape and form of your example bow.
-
Fred, thanks but it's all based on the line drawings and the fact that this was written at a time when people with first hand knowledge were still available.
B2, yes the bow is a self bow and I steamed in 1" of reflex in the center and turned the tips back about 1" also the total steam time was 4 minuets at @ location and bent by hand. If you carve out the bow as a straight stick and then steam in the center (sharp) reflex that's how the bows were made (they idi not for the most part have recurved tips, those appear on the west slope sinew lined bows and hardly ever on these rectangle sectioned self bows. Almost forgot, a double curve bow is defined by Mason as a bow having two demi-circles, located on either side of the central grip. Adtionally he will specify if the "horns" are turned back or not.
Here's the dimensions fellas. I measured this after the bow was made( with calipers)....it wasn't made with any dimensions in mind except that these bows were described as "....barely an inch wide." So I started there and tapered the rectangle till I could ALMOST pull the bow ???
rich
-
Thanks Rich
It is always a pleasure to see what you have been up to
Wonderful post and excellent bow
I need to do more reading from the Smithsonian archives
Thanks again
Guy
-
Very nice looking bow.
-
Thanks for the explanation and sketch of dimensions Rich, you know I'll be copying that bow soon. ;)
The bend on your bow is perfect to my eyes and I just like the whole shape and form of that one.
-
Yes, that bend looks absolutely perfect. I know there was quite a bit of variation, but weren't a majority of the square cross-section "eastern woodland bows" fairly long?
-
How you get the draw lengths out of those puppies is beyond me. Great job on yet another.
-
Brilliant Rich as usual. Just the kind of info I need to spur me onto NA bows.
-
Very cool! Did you leave the back "natural" or did you decrown it?
-
Very interesting and can't wait to see finished pics. Rich, so I'm not confused here, you reflexed the handle and reflexed the tips also?
-
Good lookin bow and great lookin tiller Rich! Looks like a hard hitter. BTW, it looks miserable cold up there too!
-
Great looking bow Rich,appreciate the explanation and dimensions. I definetly need to make one of those.
-
I'll bet it's fast. Maple can be superior wood. That design/tiller is Superb!
-
Thanks for the nice comments, I'll try to answer the questions:
DonC: I don't really know that it makes a difference. What I mean by that is there are bows of both types mentioned ("made flat across the back" and also ".....the back appears natural with very little work") At an inch wide I filed my pretty flat but it had really no crown to begin with.
D.B.: The straight tipped "double curves" are sharply reflexed in the center and when the limbs take their about 1" of set the double curves are formed. Mason is very clear that the "turned back" horns (meaning recurved tips) appears in the sinew lined bows and horn bows, but not these. Some of the Eastern woodland though, did have the recurved tips on a single curved bow.
Carson: there were indeed a few long bows among the Iroquois and middle and southeastern tribes. There were also some that exceeded six feet in the south California region. But as Mason said this type is the more common and widespread of all the types of bows. They were rectangular in section, straight tapered slightly and either single curved or more commonly double curved.
But I believe that the vast majority were from 42" to about 52" in length.
My quandary was that it appears that the majority of the "preferred" bows were hardwood self bows and not the sinew lined like you might think. A different way to look at it is that with suitable hardwood this was what they wanted, and the sinew lined area appears where the wood needed strengthening. I wanted to know if the self bow was/could be, as strong as the sinew lined bows and yes they can.
Thanks again for the nice comments, and by the way these things are very easy to tiller by having a slow even taper and keeping it the same on both limbs. It was very easy with files and a knife scraper.
rich
-
Im a little confused by this post.Maybe my comprehension is off today ???
Originally,i thought your experiment was to see what properties of the common style of double curve self bow,made it so popular.Then you added the reflexed tips as was often used in the more complex composite construction.I have never seen the added reflexed tips on a self double curved bow,from the region specified in the earlier study.Did i interpret your experiment wrong or was there something i missed?
Bring me up to speed if you would please.
I have some personal theories on what made the double curve bow so popular in many cases.It flies in the face of what most consider a good bow today,but im not exactly sure if that is what you are after in your experiments,in this case,so i will refrain from expressing those at this time,until i know for sure.
No slight toward anything said or done here,in any way,its just like i said,im trying to get on board here and am having comprehention issues it seems.LOL
Either way,its a cool lookin bow,and im looking foreward to future developments and findings.
-
OK,
In reading your last post,i think i got it figured out now.LOL
Are you trying to see if you can make a self bow,work at the same level as a lined or composite in your own way and not specifically in a historical sense?
Or am i still confused here?LOL
-
Very interesting. Very nice bow! Thanks for sharing!
-
Traxx, you are not wrong. I was trying to see if these double curve self bows were of the same caliber as the sinew lined or composite types. The recurved tips are account that I'm not wrapped to tight ::). I really did not think that the shallow working recurves would add any weight to the draw. I believe that to be true although now that you mention it might give it a little more speed. In any case I'm satisfied that a self hardwood double curve is as powerful as any, assuming good wood and tiller.
Also, my take on the double curve thing is that a bow of this section that can be worked as a straight stick right down to an even bend, and then deflexed in the middle (more in the regular version and less in the "slightly double curved") makes a lot of strain (draw weight) possible where the single curve does not. So everything being equal the double curve will have a stronger draw. The other thing is that by leaving the tips "straight" and allowing more travel you can get more draw length. I believe these guys knew they could get the heavy weight from these rectangle section bows and believe that the sinew lined bows were necessary to bring the other woods up to that level. Basically, the simpler bow was the standard and the others were made to equal them.
Boy that's gonna get things going,eh?
rich
-
I agree completely.
Of the double curved sinewed bows,i have seen,the sinew was rather thin{Lined}Leading me to believe,that it was used for durability and not for performance enhancement.
-
OH!!!
And thanxx for the clarification.
-
I have heard this style denegrated by many,even the so called Experts.One guy,who was supposed to be a Native archery expert bowyer labeled them as poor shooters with flabby cast,but none of these people,used these bows in the nature they were developed to be used.So,its no wonder,if they could not appreciate the designed features.
-
Something for those "experts". The best bow a Native American could get was described as a "fine" bow by them, fine being the best. To be a fine bow they needed to burry an arrow to the fletch in a buffalo (moose in the area north of Lake Superior). I can tell you from the little I have shot this one it is more than capable of that task. To be honest I really admire anyone who can pull a 60# bow with the primary release you got to have real strong hands and arm to do that.
rich
-
Rich, does the handle bend in the hand with reflex added or would this negate the purpose of reflexing it? Can you feel anything moving in the handle? Thanks
-
DB: yes the bow bends in the handle but nearly at full draw because that's the thickest and it's bent besides. I believe that's why the mid limbs take a little set to form the double curves, because the strain does not get "even" till nearly full draw.
-
Good note rich, and a dandy of a bow!
-
I have seen old photos that have shown,that a 3 fingered draw was also used.Augmented by the thumb as well as finger tipped without the thumb in 3 under as well as split fingered.In Charles Russles Painting he shows Northern Plains hunters shooting with horizontal bow and 3 fingers with the hand turned over,contrary to how most do it today.Since Mr Russle was friends with the models he used in his paintings,i dont doubt the authenticity of which he paints.He seemed to be a stickler for precision and authenticity in his work.
In Kopendrayers article,she describes the shape of the bows as having different cross section shape at mid limb and tip that leads one to believe that they were designed to have grip, mid limb and tips to work independently at first and then to come together to release the power at the end of draw.
I have always thought,that there was a lot of Misconception and Dogma associated with these bows and how they were designed and used by longbow men who had a passing fancy with them and never delved deep enough to divulge the whole truth to them.I think with more people becoming interested and researching them more,we will come to different occlusions and more appreciation of this style bow.
I just cant believe that such a style of bow,would have been so widely used by so many,if it was so inferior,especially when their lives depended on them in so many ways.
-
Sheesh Fellers...
I can see that I'll be Rereading this post Several times to get a Grip on what you're saying.
For now I can say you have my attention fully.
And I have a few pieces of wood that would fit this design perfectly...
Thank You for posting this Thread...
Love the bow too.
:)
-gus
-
Gus, I don't want to over simplify but one of the things that appeals to me is that the bows are reduced to their most simple form. The material is minimal, the tillering process is straight forward, and the weight comes out pretty darned high. I guess to use a visual image.....think about a 1" square piece of wood 4 feet long. Use a table saw to cut low angles (very little taper) from the center to the tips on the edges and belly. Do the other side the same and round up the sharp corners slightly. (test bend and you'll find the tiller is real close so tweek that till your even and the weight is just right for you. Then ya steam in a sharp bend in the center of the bow to form a "V" going away from you. When you draw the bow it will form the double curve, the weight will go up from when it was straight. The more severe the bend, the more weight difference. (the more you bend the center the more strain you put on the bow) that's all there is to it. I believe that you should not exceed 3 inches total.
If you think about it, working with handtools it is far easier to judge taper and evenness sighting down a flat surface so it really is a method that eliminates a lot of guess work. The thing to me that wasn't quite right is the old adage that the whitewood bows had to be wide and thin and these are not that shape at all. The other thing is how the design looks the same no matter if Hickory, Ash, or Osage Orange. I don't know all about that but I'm still workin on it.
rich
PS: the steam thing is quite easy to do even without steam pots and such. The bow can be wrapped in grass matts, big leaves etc. and then covered over with "grey coals". Steams them real nice and even.
-
Rich,
Im sure your technique works just fine,i read an account by an old elder who described another technique used in the old days.He dictated,that the sapling was roughed out green,and it was tied to a cottonwood tree in the relexed shape,and left to dry and cure.
-
Rich I appreciate the research you do on these N.A. bows. I have noticed what you are saying in some of the bows I have been making but I wasn't smart enough to know it! I don't want to hijack your post but I do want to show an example of a bow I just made. It has the square or rectangle cross section you mention. 45" long and I have tillered it DOWN to 53# @ 22 inches. It could have easily made 60#. I just say this to show you what you already know.
-
No highjack at all, sir. But it does confirm my guess that the type is good and not just for one kind of wood either. Notice how profiles come out so similar too. Cool bow by the way. The other thing about the ones Mason picked as examples is only one was decorated all the rest were plain.
rich
-
That is a nice stick, Mr. Rich, Sir. Your expression in that full draw pic looks like you're grunting getting her back. 8)
-
Oh yeah, this is sinking into my brain now. If I go to my bow rack and grab my favorite bow that I've made to date it
fits the description of this in a few ways. Its a 57' osage, very rectangular in cross section, 1 3/16" wide at handle with very gentle tapers in width and thickness. Started with 1" setback in handle and last few inches of tips slightly flipped.
Easiest tillering job I ever did and I've always considered it my best tillered bow. It didn't take the set at midlimb though and came out at 57# at 25". String it all day and she'll return to her original unstrung profile almost immediately after unstringing. Its my go to hunting bow, hardest hitting bow that I've made and got a complete pass thru kill shot on a deer last year with it.
-
B2, absolutely, I really got to believe that those darned "savages" knew what they were doing. Not just that the bows were strong and reliable, but they got that with the minimum of material and effort. Takes a lot of trial and error to get a design this good and this simple.
Mr Lesken, you bad....ya 60# aint exactly in the old guy's wheel house if ya get my drift >:D
I'm gonna do a little follow up today and see what happens.
rich
-
<snip>PS: the steam thing is quite easy to do even without steam pots and such. The bow can be wrapped in grass matts, big leaves etc. and then covered over with "grey coals". Steams them real nice and even.
Have you been able to re-produce this? I've seen it mentioned before, but when I've tried it, I've had VERY poor results. I charred spots that I certainly did not want to char. ...AND I got no appreciable steaming effect. I was working with hickory and not maple, which may make a difference. ...but the whole steam thru wet leaves with hot coals project was a BIG failure for me.
OneBow
-
onebow, think your problem was that you used the coals that were still "chunky" and hot burning yet. All you need is the fine hot ash (grey coals) put some on the ground lay the wrapped bow on them and cover with some more....just no burning coals. Ya only need 212 degrees (about) to boil water, especially thin water. The other thing is that it wont "steam" like in a pot, more like moist hot and about 200 degrees.
rich
-
Well, that may be it. I made two tries at it and had poor to catastrophic results both times. ...after which I gave myself permission to make steam the modern way! I'm glad you've had success with it, but I've not been so lucky! ...yet. ;)
OneBow
-
Short bows surely feel fast. But they can be rather slow compared to long bows. Is there any way we can get the actual speed and the calculated kinetic energy (I'm too dumb to do it myself), please?
-
Thanks for responding to my question Rich. It is probably a false impression I have because when I look at the bows in Mason or Hamm & Allely I remember the bows I think I would like to build and they end up being the longer bows. I need to open my self up to these shorter bows.
-
Carson, I think everybody remembers their favorite types, not just you. Although I taught myself to shoot shorter draws (24-25 inches) I still cant shoot the 20" very well at all. My only deal here was trying to get my head wrapped around how come this style was so "universal", if you allow that term. Also "short" or "long" is relative to the shooting style, not to an arbitrary number.
SCP: I hear what your saying, but that isn't where I was or am going. I don't really care if these bows are faster or cast better than a "long bow" (which I am sure they are not). I think you will find a whole bunch of folks on here that could provide you those numbers. It is just not my thing. These bows were proven over time to be the type to aspire to, they killed a lot of large animals and maybe just as many men, so the design is "proven". Like I said my interest lies in exploring what makes it tick. Hope you understand.
rich
-
Hope you understand.
Of course. Even though I prefer long bows (64" to 72"), I have no doubt that short bows (42" to 52") work fine for their intended purposes. I just wanted to make sure that they can be used to kill larger game at least at close range. I'm wondering whether you can routinely make them achieve 40 ft. lbs. My long bows usually get only 30 ft. lbs. Thank you. Cf. http://www.eastonarchery.com/store/kinetic_calculator (http://www.eastonarchery.com/store/kinetic_calculator)
-
Sweet looking bow Rich as all of yours are. This one especially so with the interesting topic!
-
Wow another really nice (and short!) maple bow. Perhaps I need to give the wood a second look.
-
Thanks slimbob & bowmo.....The only reason for using the hard maple is that's what I could get to and required the least work. It's been between 20 and 15 below zero for most of the days with a high all the way to nine above and 20 and 30 mph winds......working outdoors in that stuff is not on this old man's agenda >:D Hell my wife wont go out long enough to even take a picture, I'm still hearing about the one she took from inside the door that I posted.
rich
-
Great looking bow, I really appreciate your posts, they're always chalk full of new and exciting techniques from the old ones. There is an art to re-creating the old ways, and you sir have got the touch :)
-
Exactly PC.
-
Thanks for posting this Rich. I always enjoy seeing what you are up to in the cold North. I think that I agree with you for the most part, and I think I have identified one factor that makes these bows so prevalent. I cut all my own bow wood and use a lot of white woods and a lot of osage orange, and regardless of species, it is much easier to find a stave 5' long or a shorter, that is close to perfect (no knots, cracks, imperfections of any kind) than a six foot piece without some type of imperfection to deal with. I have no doubt that the Native Americans found out, as I have, that a perfect stave, 52" long makes a helluva bow - likely much better than a longer stave which has areas that are not so perfect. I am just saying that long perfect staves are much harder to come by in nature than a shorter one. I like my longer bows too, but if you dumped me out in the woods with a hatchet and a knife to root hog or die, I would be looking for a shorter bendy handle bow. Merry Christmas!