Were primitive wood preferences based on feel and weight?

[David Long]

I often think about primitive man's bow wood preferences and the fact that "modern" primitives have come to the conclusion that many woods make totally serviceable hunting weapons. Yeah, I know, this subject has pretty much been beaten to death! How much of this had to do with the fact that "heavy" (dense) woods like hickory, osage, and to a lesser extent yew, just FEEL strong? Conversely the less dense woods FEEL light and weak. Where hickory was available, weren't there less dense options like maples and elms? Same goes for yew where several maples and other woods might have worked as well. Juniper is an exception to this, although I guess we have to consider that it was backed. Less dense wood work more easily with hand tools also. What are your thoughts on this? Dave

[Auggie]

Id guess that primitive guys were opportunists,and trial and error probably were factors.

[George Tsoukalas]

Some primitive guy decided to make a bow from pine. The bow broke, bopped him in the head and he decided to stick with hickory. However, I often wonder about things like that. For example, in Greek cookery there is a dish called stuffed cabbage in egg and lemon sauce. Hamburg and rice is rolled in cabbage leaves, boiled and then egg and lemon sauce is poured over it. How did this dish develop? Don't worry about me. I'm ok. Just dieting a bit. Jawge

[Eric Garza]

Another aspect of woods for primitive bows beyond their strength and density is their resistance to decay.  Dense heartwoods like osage, black locust, white oak, and hickory are fairly resistant to decay, while many other woods that work well in bows are less decay-resistant. 

So try to put yourself in the moccasins of someone with only stone and wood tools and who needs to get the most he or she can from the bow they're about to make.  Would you rather spend 40 hours making a bow from osage orange that won't break AND will last for years or even decades, or 20 hours making a bow from a less decay-resistant wood that might make a great bow over the short term but will probably break after a few years due to the wood deteriorating?  Remember, native Americans didn't have access to the same fancy finishes we do, so their bows had to stand up to the elements in a way that ours don't. 

Just my thoughts...

-Eric

[sailordad]

Another aspect of woods for primitive bows beyond their strength and density is their resistance to decay.  Dense heartwoods like osage, black locust, white oak, and hickory are fairly resistant to decay, while many other woods that work well in bows are less decay-resistant. 

So try to put yourself in the moccasins of someone with only stone and wood tools and who needs to get the most he or she can from the bow they're about to make.  Would you rather spend 40 hours making a bow from osage orange that won't break AND will last for years or even decades, or 20 hours making a bow from a less decay-resistant wood that might make a great bow over the short term but will probably break after a few years due to the wood deteriorating?  Remember, native Americans didn't have access to the same fancy finishes we do, so their bows had to stand up to the elements in a way that ours don't. 

Just my thoughts...

-Eric

your right,they didnt have access to the same fancy finishes that we do.however i would be willing to be that if you sealed a bow with something like polyurthane,and another bow made out of the exact same wood(sister stave) and sealed that well with bear grease,put them thru the exact same number of shots in the exact same weather for a period of years,i would be wiling to be that the bear grease would hold up just as well,although you may need to reapply occasionally,but what the hell else are going to do at nigh back then,no internet to chat about bowmaking.
just a fire to sit around and shoot the bull,while you and a buddy were applying more grease on your bows.

[Kegan]

You wanna make a stick slinger? It should be springy, right? Walk through the woods pulling on twigs on trees. The fast, whippy ones might make a good bow... and they do!

That's exactly how I chose my first woods to make bows from (and hickory had won). I knew nohting, so I'm sure that's one easy test thy'd try in a new area looking for wood. Later they could experiment with different springy-limbed tree to see what's best. After that, it probabaly becamse tribal knowledge what was best in the area.

[David Long]

I know what you mean Kegan. Your method is basically how I got into Rocky Mtn Maple as my favorite wood. On the "hoof", growing there in our Montana forests, the stuff LOOKS like it would make a good bow, and when you start fiddling with it, and when your Indian friend says his elders used to use it....well...

Grease and wax are better than almost all other finishes for keeping RH from messing things up, so no problem there.

I'll bet you guys that if we all had to spend day in and day out- every day- walking and hunting with our bows we'd understand better why these woods were used. The other woods are perfectly adequate for guys with band saws, fluorescent lights, coffee makers, etc.

Jawge don't know what to tell you about the cabbage thing. Maybe to take your mind off that you could think about other greek dishes. Imagine carefully. Wonder why you like those?  Dave

[JackCrafty]

George...that's funny.

Good topic.  I've spent a good deal of time thinking about this as well.

I've spent some time outdoors living in a primitive way and I can tell you that after a while, you just get used to the idea that everything you do is going to require a lot of effort: (e.g., in the rain, with tools that get dull real quick, when it's windy, with fleas biting your private areas, listening to your stomach growl, keeping the fire going, and with your dependents (dog, children, wife, in-laws, etc) putting the screws to your brain and wishing you could hurry up with your funny looking sticks and bring home the venison.....)

Seriously, as far the the "feel" and "weight" thing, yes, that's part of it.  So is the smell, color, toxicity, straightness, etc.  If you've ever had to gather lots of firewood over a long period of time, you get to know your wood pretty good:  how well it cuts, splits, breaks, dries out, responds to coppicing, etc.  Using this knowledge, it's easy to select bow wood.

The actual experience I have working with primitive tools and living in a primitive way (by myself....thank goodness) has revealed that in order to make anything of lasting value, you've got to do a lot of tedious, back aching, finger cramping, callous creating, repetitious movements.  But you tend to forget the pain if the wood is a pleasure to work with.  The way it looks and performs in its final state is also critical....maybe even more so than it's workability.  I think primitive man spent a lot of time choosing materials based on many more aspects than we do in modern times.

[David Long]

"I think primitive man spent a lot of time choosing materials based on many more aspects than we do in modern times."

That right there sums it up very nicely I think. All those mysterious aspects are interesting to think about and maybe even discover. Dave

[richpierce]

To save work with primitive tools I'd want to use a sapling and be able to make a self bow without having to remove sapwood.  So trees that often grow straight and often have few branches, and are easily stripped of bark, and have the right properties would have the most appeal.  Then it would also be helpful to be able to split it.  Hickory has these characteristics among eastern hardwoods, but so do maples and ash and perhaps a few others, like cherry.  Hickory, on the other hand is highly forgiving and tougher than the other woods.  Elm is a good bow wood for modern tools but hard to split well using primitive tools.  Black locust and osage orange require removal of sapwood but offer the advantage of rot resistance.

[JackCrafty]

Hmmm....which hickory has bark that's easy to remove?  I need to get me some of that stuff.  All the hickory I've ever got (even when dripping wet green) has bark that is a bugger to get off.  Birch...easy.  Hornbeam, mulberry, some oaks...easy.  Hickory....

[Kegan]

Hmmm....which hickory has bark that's easy to remove?  I need to get me some of that stuff.  All the hickory I've ever got (even when dripping wet green) has bark that is a bugger to get off.  Birch...easy.  Hornbeam, mulberry, some oaks...easy.  Hickory....

Beat it with a stick .

But I'm serious. When the sap goes down, or I'm having toruble getting the bark off a certain wood, I just beat the daylights out of it with a wooden mallet. Doesn't hurt the back, but helps peel (or when dry, fall) right off. But yeah, hickory is just a pain.

[Ryano]

You have to cut hickory in the spring when the buds first come out if you want the bark to peel right off. The same with most other tree's.

[son of massey]

   to get hickory bark off i have had good luck-almost whenever it was collected-using a knife and making smallish cuts at the end cutting at about the cambium layer, so cutting the bark off.   do that across the width of the back so that you have gotten a wide bit of bark loose, that will peel a lot more easily.   it tapers so you pull off a triangle of bark, which is why starting from a thin strip doesnt ever get me anywhere-the width is the ticket.   i have used this to good effect with shellbark and shagbark hickories, at least. SOM