native american bow tiller

[Sidmand]

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.

[PEARL DRUMS]

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.

[Sidmand]

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.

[half eye]

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

[willie]

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

[PEARL DRUMS]

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.

[Parnell]

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.

[willie]

 

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.

[PatM]

Tiller is part of design. the two are not separate. "I meant to do that" does not make bad tiller not count.

[Comancheria]

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

[PEARL DRUMS]

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.

[half eye]

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

[PEARL DRUMS]

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.

[PatM]

 1 Southwest, 2 West Coast and one Northern/Midwest would be my guesses.

[half eye]

some more