Primitive Archer
Main Discussion Area => Bows => Topic started by: willie on July 03, 2020, 12:18:00 pm
-
I have been looking at examples of Native American bows and see many examples from the Great Plains with deflexed tips, both with and without sinew backs. Quite a few have reflex out of the handle in addition to deflexed tips. Many also seem to have quite thick limbs for their length.
Not being able to examine bows in person, or been able to find any dimensional reproductions of the form, I am curious how they might have been tillered. Since the bows are generally short, did they bend thru the handle? and bend thru the entire limb?
How much did they typically draw weight wise? length wise?
What was the purpose of the deflex in the limbs?
The drawings are from The Encyclopedia of Native American Bows, Arrows & Quivers by Steve Allely and Jim Hamm, Volume 2, Plains and Southwest
-
This subject pops up quite regularly. Lots of theories about it. It certainly was the dominant bow style over a vast area at one time. The dimensions of most of these bows work out to mid weight bows, with some exceptions.
-
Pat,
about how much is mid weight?
-
Here is one theory. The bows were straight limbed at the start, and after shooting for a period of time the limbs took set (deflex). The simple fix was heat at the riser ,and bend in reflex. (Gull wing). Don't know if their is any truth to it , but it sounds logical.
-
but it sounds logical.
there is some logic to that idea, but the design seems prevalent in the area, so that gives me the suspicion the deflex is intentional.
I found this bow at the Canadian Museum of History
https://www.historymuseum.ca/collections/artifact/35206/?q=iii-i-1245&page_num=1&item_num=0&media_irn=3098506&mode=artifact (https://www.historymuseum.ca/collections/artifact/35206/?q=iii-i-1245&page_num=1&item_num=0&media_irn=3098506&mode=artifact)
It is reportedly from further east, but seen as a deflex/reflex it does not seem quite right, but if one flips it over and views it as a reflex/deflex, it looks...... hmmmm........well, you make the call
-
It was said that the bows were often seasoned by tying the stave in reflex around a tree trunk so the reflex might be the first step and the mid limb curve due to set.
Bows of this design are easier to string, particularly on horseback. The tendency to stack at a specific point also helps with the draw style they used. As soon as the wall was hit the arrow would be loosed. That's a good anchor when you don't have an anchor point.
The other bow of Eastern origin very likely is a Mohegan style which would be strung the opposite way.
-
Jim Hamm shows unbraced, and braced profile of a northern plains Ash bow with a Gull wing design 48 inches long in his book, but as many, or more were simple D shaped bows. Some even made a reflex deflex style bow. The Souix favored 3 to 4 foot bows with short arrows. The Osage Comanche bow was longer with longer arrows, and they shot different finger style with the string hand , and bow hand. Were the designs came from , and for what reason who really knows for sure.
-
Bows of this design are easier to string, particularly on horseback. The tendency to stack at a specific point also helps with the draw style they used. As soon as the wall was hit the arrow would be loosed. That's a good anchor when you don't have an anchor point.
Those are good points in favor of the design. I know you have studied this some. Some previous discussions I found here at PA, present more questions than answers. If you can point to any similar discussions or articles outside of this site, the references would be appreciated.
I have a hard time agreeing with the "it's just set" being a reasonable observation, unless it is a first hand account by someone who has tried to build and shoot a replica. If the design/build process was such that the deflex was deliberately planned by the bowyer to accomplish purposes like you mention, and the method tocreate that deflex was to make the limb come in at full draw with that much set, then that's something to consider. But that raises the question about whether a limb with dried in or heated in deflex (and tillered without creating set), could be better than deliberately overstraining the limb while tillering.
the bow from the museum is said to be from the Kanien'kehaka culture.
-
I am letting a second course of sinew dry on a bow with the first course, two layers, second layer down middle, on first course,. So, the drying wiped out all deflex I dried into this oak sapling with course one. But tillering it, and wham, deflex came back. 36 # was too light, so second course of 2.5 layers, on the middle mainly, and it shows 29,30# at 10" (58,60#).
Going to let it dry a lot more. But I bet I see the tips deflecting, once again.
-
Oh, and I have read that the deflex might help with avoiding set during a period keeping the bow strung a long time.
-
i'm slowly working on a bow of this style and while i'm not anywhere near to stringing it yet my untested guess is that the deflex will help with stability, pretty much the same way a more typical reflex deflex does they just put it at a different part of the bow.
-
In the last two of your of your pictures the first way is correct. It would make a lovely shooting short bow.
The 2nd option would be.....a dog :) A reflexed handle on an already short bow will lead to very low energy storage, over straining the wood mid to outer limb and the stack would be awful.
In my mind there is no question which way round at least that bow was made :)
Anyway just look for which side of the bow has one growth ring....;)
-
Or if you can see the arc on the end grain. I am thinking that bow also took some degree of deflex over time. To me it is almost inevitable. JMO
-
The arc of the growth rings would definitely be more of an indicator. Native bows didn't really follow the one growth ring idea rigidly.
-
To add to the reasons already discussed a softer early draw weight,is beneficial to hold a partial draw especially when using a hold,such as an augmented pinch as most did..When using on horseback at a high rate of speed more often over uneven ground,a partial draw would be beneficial to a quick snap shot when the opportunity for the shot presented itself..Often,there was a very small window of opportunity for effective shot placement.. Even on most of the sinew backed bows,the backing was light and i believe was more for prevention of breakage than for performance enhancement..They still had qualities of the selfbows with deflexed outer limbs...These bows were not long range target bows and were not for flight shooting..If one utilizes them in the context they were designed to be used in,they may start to really understand and appreciate the benefits to the design that was so prevalent to the culture..
-
There could be more reasons, I'm thinking particular at the stability on release. When you have to make a sinew backed short bow from a wood that hasn't great compression flexibility you maybe want a low brace height. If you still want a tad of overall reflex, the best shape în terms of release smoothness and to avoid The unbracing of the bow at release (that could happen with clasic rd or recurve shape, overall reflex and really low brace) is reflex in handle and deflexed tips. Such a bow could still lose the string at release because of string slippering, only if pin nocks used.
-
Traxx, thanks for the insights about the horse bow and the sinew also.
It's been a while since I rode a horse, and I doubt I will take up shooting from horseback should I ride again.
wishing to make functional replica of a traditional bow, I must reconsider the deflexed bow from further east that may be more suitable for shooting off my own two legs.
In the last two of your of your pictures the first way is correct. It would make a lovely shooting short bow.
Mike, other than the extra draw length that the deflexing allows, what can you see in this design that might make it a lovely shooter? would you be tempted to tweak the design any? One of the unknowns with looking at pics of musuem bows, is the fact that time and set may mean we are not always looking at what the bowyer had in mind.
(http://www.primitivearcher.com/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=68434.0;attach=155073)
-
Im not sure about other northern plains tribes but can vouch for the Lakota (Sioux) methods for this type of design. Almost all bows were reflexed off the handle. Time and set will undoubtably deflexed the tips. I’ve spent countless hours in museums and also examining my great great grandfathers bow.
-
Hello,
I have been making a few of these short plainsbows. My research has brought up that most Lakota bows had been made from whitewood.
Praerieash was one of the favourites.
I have never been there but what I`ve seen on TV or in books is, that on these wide Areas only small trees are growing. The choice of bowwood was and is not to be compared with those in the Woodlands. There the bows could be longer, but the game was different.
A horse was not the best choice to go hunting in the woods. The shooting distance was bigger as on the plains, where the hunter was riding next to the buffalo.
But even in the woods the distance was not as wide as some may expect. If you ask bowhunters of today 10 up to 20 is the maximum.
@ oglalla bowyer: Could you please tell me something more detailled About your great great grandfathers bow like dimensions, Wood, backing. I`m very interested about this. Is the bow still in your Family or as so many items of native culture a museums object? Can you date this bow?
Thank you very, very much for your answer!
Regards from North Germany Uwe
-
Uwe, the bow is from the late 1800s. It is from a white wood tree of small diameter and is backed. Vague information I know, but I will not say anymore about It as many items from my people have been culturally appropriated for profit. I am not accusing you of anything but am only safe guarding my grandfathers bow and ceremonial items. My family still uses his crest in our beadwork today
-
Could you just confirm that it fits what is considered the general profile of a Plains bow and perhaps the length?
-
"Not being able to examine bows in person, or been able to find any dimensional reproductions of the form, I am curious how they might have been tillered. Since the bows are generally short, did they bend thru the handle? and bend thru the entire limb?"
Yes and no. Most bend through the handle. Most bend through he entire limb. The tiller was never exact or the same, even with bows made by the same person. Sometimes the handle was stiff, sometimes flexible. Sometimes the tips were stiff, sometimes flexible. Sometimes the bows were shot green (the wood not completely dry) and sometimes the wood was seasoned for a year or more. Some bow makers made bows that would break easily, some made bows that would last for years. After many years of study and making reproductions, I've come to the conclusion that bow making was not a highly advanced skill in most areas. Most bows were tillered simply by "shooting them in" or shooting arrows out of them and scraping the belly until they "felt right".
One thing that's not mentioned is the quality of the wood.
"How much did they typically draw weight wise? length wise?"
Typical draw weight was 40lbs at 20" for all areas. There is no typical length for bows unless you narrow down the geographical area. Even then, it's hard to say. Bows were typically made in proportion to a man's height but it also depended on the animal you were shooting. This includes shooting at other people for self defense or war. Bows for shooting at people and small game at short ranges were short. Shooting at large animals was usually done with long bows and long arrows. Shooting bison from horseback was an exception, of course, but the evidence suggests that it took several arrows to take down a bison with a short bow. There are many examples of old bison remains with several arrowheads within the body cavity.
"What was the purpose of the deflex in the limbs?"
The purpose of the deflex in the limbs was to help prevent breakage. That's it. Pretty simple.
I would love to give you a list of the thousands of short descriptions from the many sources on the internet and elsewhere, but time does not allow. There are dozens of replica bows and their properties here on the forum. I would start there.
-
As for the quality of the wood for bows, this has been a puzzle for me for many years. But I have come to realize that very good quality wood will yield a very nice shooting bow even though it might not look like it shoots well. I think the choice of wood was very important back in the day.
These days, we have the knowledge to make excellent bows from any type of wood. However, this knowledge was not always available back in the day. Even with thousands of years of trial and error, bow technology didn't seem to advance in the same way as other technologies. The traditional shape of the bow seemed to matter more than the shape that produced the best arrow flight. By using the best wood you could find, it was easy to preserve the traditional shape.
-
I've had the suspicion that the deflex in the limbs was largely to make the bows more easily "stringable" by having the limbs trained as to how they were going to bend. That makes a bow not likely to squirm away while you try to string it in a stressful situation.
You might have to compare the performance of three short bows with those three profiles ( straight, reflexed, and gullwinged) The gullwing might be the happy medium between the first two.
-
the deflexed bow might be less effected by long string time,,?
-
PatM PM sent
-
Pat you are right, I have found making the bows,, and shooting them through the chronograph and be quite revealing,,
the reflexed bow would probably turn into a gull wing,, if not sinew backed,,
-
JackCrafty,
thanks for your observations. I know there are about as many different varieties in bows and styles as there are bowyers and shooters. Looking thru the book again, I see the longest bow from the plains is about 4 1/2 feet. The horse bow style is well represented, typically shorter. Considering the different uses, Its hard to assume much about what lengths were typical from what was chosen to be included in the book.
In your experience from reviewing examples of longer bows, did you find many bows of greater length attributed to the plains areas? And did the longer examples keep the reflex/deflex form?
Oglala Bowyer,
thanks for sharing
-
It seems more likely that what was chosen for the book really represents what was actually used. I doubt they cherry picked from examples to fit the notion that Plains bows tend to be very similar.
-
Willie, I'm sure you saw the bows on page 185 of Volume 2. The one on the left is 75-1/2" long and I think it's the longest one in the book. It looks very similar to eastern styles bows, yet it was found in the plains (Texas high plains). The reflex-deflex shape is very, very slight.
After a quick look though Volume 1, there is a Shawnee bow on page 65 that has deflexed tips and it 69-3/4" long, so the style did carry over to long bows and was not unknown in the east.
Now, the question might be, "Why do the shorter bows have more pronounced reflex-deflex?". I've heard many explanations but the best one, in my opinion, is the idea that bows from the latest migration from Asia had the pronounced reflex-deflex shape and were all sinew-backed bows initially. The sinew backing seems to have gotten thinner and sometimes absent altogether as the bow design spread further south and into the plains, but the basic traditional shape remained popular.
Sinew-backed styles from Asia were short and highly dependent on the sinew for bow performance -- with the majority of the bending occurring very close to the handle. As the technology spread and became diluted, it seems that the bending became less localized and was spread to the rest of the bow and even into the handle, with the longer bows barely showing any reflex-deflex.
-
"In your experience from reviewing examples of longer bows, did you find many bows of greater length attributed to the plains areas? And did the longer examples keep the reflex/deflex form?"
To answer your question directly, I think that the vast majority of bows from the plains were quite long (over 5ft), but they do not preserve well. Also, the older bows (before the latest wave of migration from Asia) probably did not have the pronounced reflex-deflex shape.
After the pronounced reflex-deflex shape was introduced, I do think long bows (over 5ft) were made in this shape but they were rare. They were rare because very tall/ large men are rare. But, yes, the longer examples would have kept the exact reflex-deflex form.
-
That seems to make sense that bows were longer before the horse was introduced but you have to remember that many of the Plains tribes were not actually long term residents of the plains. A large number of them were from the woodland margins and were either forced onto the plains or capitalized on the horse to make life there much more appealing.
So while extant pre-horse examples may be non existent we only have to look at the bows of Eastern counterparts of Plains tribes to get an idea of what they used previously.
-
Willie, I'm sure you saw the bows on page 185 of Volume 2. The one on the left is 75-1/2" long and I think it's the longest one in the book. It looks very similar to eastern styles bows, yet it was found in the plains (Texas high plains). The reflex-deflex shape is very, very slight.
Yes, I have seen the bows on page 185, and have looked at them many times. Being precolumbian puts them in an era that one has a lot fewer examples to learn from. I am not sure if those bows should be thought of as being from more of a southwest culture, but either way, I cannot look at the bow with the belly groove without trying to imagine what the groove once held. Horn or bone? An inset of some small diameter iron bark or some Ipe like shrub? It certainly seems to suggest an unusual composite technology. And if the bow is hickory, a decent wood in its own right, it must have been quite an improvement to justify the additional fitting. At that length perhaps a warbow application? Or for long range hunting?
Pats point about the plains cultures being a more recent development is generally accepted, but there is no reason to assume they could not have learned from those they displaced or assimilated, or might have failed to improve the long bow as they moved west, if there were improvements to be had.
Now, the question might be, "Why do the shorter bows have more pronounced reflex-deflex?". I've heard many explanations but the best one, in my opinion, is the idea that bows from the latest migration from Asia had the pronounced reflex-deflex shape and were all sinew-backed bows initially.
The suggestion that the later migration to the americas about 5500 years ago brought the bow seems commonly accepted by the current researchers from what I have been able to find. Was the reflex/deflex and possibly sinew backed bow historically used in Asia at that time? Examining the origins and development of primitive bows can get interesting.
-
The Scythians may take credit for being among the first if not the first to truly capitalize on the horse and bow combination. Their early bows before they fully developed composites of their own unique style were also basically the same as Plains bows thousands of years later. Very short bows of similar shape and materials.
Convergent re-evolution at work no doubt. I don't believe the design made it over the land bridge in uninterrupted fashion. Saddles from both areas appear very similar too. Human minds think fairly alike in the same scenarios.
-
The latest pre-Columbian migration from Asia is relatively recent. We're talking 1300 years ago, or so. Here is the abstract from a study from 2013. The main theme is the evidence for the use of archery in warfare, but it contains other interesting details.
There were at least four waves of bow and arrow use in northern North America. These occurred at 12000, 4500, 2400, and after about 1300 years ago. But to understand the role of the bow and arrow in the north, one must begin in the eighteenth century, when the Russians first arrived in the Aleutian Islands. At that time, the Aleut were using both the atlatl and dart and the bow and arrow1 (Fig. 1). This is significant for two particular and important reasons. First, there are few historic cases in which both technologies were used concurrently; second, the bow and arrow in the Aleutian Islands were used almost exclusively in warfare. The atlatl was a critical technology because the bow and arrow are useless for hunting sea mammals. One cannot launch an arrow from a kayak because it is too unstable and requires that both hands remain on a paddle. To use an atlatl, it is necessary only to stabilize the kayak with a paddle on one side and launch the atlatl dart with the opposite hand. The Aleut on the Alaska Peninsula did indeed use the bow and arrow to hunt caribou there. However, in the 1,400 km of the Aleutian Islands, there are no terrestrial mammals except humans and the bow was reserved almost exclusively for conflicts among them. The most significant event in the history of the bow and arrow is not its early introduction, but rather the Asian War Complex 1300 years ago, when the recurve and backed bows first entered the region, altering regional and hemispheric political dynamics forever.
Source: The Bow and Arrow in Northern North America
HERBERT MASCHNER AND OWEN K. MASON
-
And when I say "migration", this may or may not include the actual movement of people. We assume it's people but it may only be a technology.
-
I am extremely skeptical that a bow can't be shot from a kayak. Especially an Aleutian type one. The main disadvantage would be remaining connected to the prey.
-
And when I say "migration", this may or may not include the actual movement of people. We assume it's people but it may only be a technology.
Yes. It wasn't until Communist Russia shut down the Strait that people stopped routinely crossing like we would take a ferry today.
-
Yeah, the "cannot" probably should be a "shouldn't" but what can you do? Lot's of these studies have statements like that.
-
The excerpt Jackcrafty posted above is the opening paragraph and abstract to the six page article. I can not attach a pdf to my post but would be willing to email anyone a copy if you pm with your email address. One good reason PatM might be "extremely skeptical that a bow can't (or shouldn't) be shot from a kayak" is that the Alutiiq, who also inhabited parts of the Alaska peninsula along side the Aleut (and were known to exchange arrows pointy end first), were accomplished sea mammal hunters who hunted almost exclusively with the bow and arrow in the Russian sea otter trade.
The arrows of the Alutiiq along with the spear throwers and darts of the Aleuts and Pacific Eskimo, also active in the sea otter trade, is well documented in "The Alutiit/Sugpiat: A Catalog of the Collections of the Kunstkamera" ISBN-13: 978-1602231771 Quite a nice collection with some excellent photos in the book.
I am also a bit dubious about some of Maschner's and Mason's other assertions in the article, but am going to read the article in full to see if their basic conclusions seem unfounded before commenting more.
I did find this interesting photo of Koryak archers that don't seem dressed for hunting otters. Koryaks, being from Kamchatka are said by Chaussonnet to have migrated back to Russia from the new world.