Native american d bows?

[Dictionary]

Do you guys think for the Eastern Woodland's bows that have been found, most of them were really "dbows" that worked in the handle or were actually flat and unbending in the handle and just simply lacked built up handles, a.k.a buchanan's dip? Besides that one sudbury bow which was definitely a handle bow of course. Im talking about the modern consensus regarding the bows that "have their widest portion at the handle and parallel limbs for the most part" such as the cherokee longbow. I want to know if really, this was the standard for most eastern tribes or if this is just our general conception of the bow on the east coast.


This may seem like a silly question but it is relevant for me right now! 

[Josh B]

When you look at the museum inventory "eastern woodland d-bows" or even the illustrated d-bows in the "encyclopedias" by Jim Hamm and Steve Allely, you will notice several definite similarities in the bows.  One key point to note to answer your question is the set most of them have taken.  If you look at them the set is visible in the handle area.  It may not be as pronounced as the mid limb set, but it is plain to see nonetheless.  The handle can't take set if its not working (bending).  You are correct in pointing out that there are and were some stiff handle styles, but every example I have seen of the d-bow showed evidence of a working handle.  I hope that helps.  Josh

[JW_Halverson]

...One key point to note to answer your question is the set most of them have taken.  If you look at them the set is visible in the handle area... 

 Josh

[JonW]

It just seems logical to me that if you didn't have any preconceived ideas of how a bow should bend it would bend through it's length.

[George Tsoukalas]

Yes, most of the ones I've seen at Harvard's Peabody Museum were bend in the handle bows. At some point the transition to rigid handle bows, as typified by the Sudbury bow, was begun but that was interrupted by the ultimate switch to guns. Interestingly, some of those bows at the museum seemed to be made from boards they somehow obtained. Jawge

[jamie]

i think a lot of it had to do with tools available also. ive made one sudbury style bow with stone tools. it sucked to build. with steel its much easier to cut into the grain. stone follows the grain.  that and conservation of material. a dbow allows for a shorter , narrower piece of wood to be used because there is more working area. wide flat limbs require bigger trees, tough to cut and split. thin limbs with no dips can be made from a sapling.

[Dictionary]

Thanks guys, that really helps 

I need to get my hands on one of those encyclopedias. I have a lot of questions regarding their bows but little information is to be had so far.

From the short sections in ttbb vol especially western indians bows, the drawing of the cross section typically has the back being slightly oval(crowned). I didnt too much like Al herrin's section on eastern woodlands bows as it seemed one dimensional but those few bows there also had rounded backs. So most of their bows were made from saplings then i must assume.....