Would it not be more logical to direct the production team towards somebody who has lots of experience making exactly this style of bow, and has worked with the Otzi museum? I can think of quite a few people who fit that bill who I'm sure would be more than happy to do it, and the end result would no doubt be a very accurate representation of the actual bow, as compared to something made of the wrong type of wood by an amateur?
I'm not trying to be deliberately negative (apologies if it came across that way), but Otzi's bow is still the subject of MANY heated debates between bow making experts worldwide, and it's only just starting to get pinned down to a specific layout, cross section etc. There are experienced bow makers who still won't attempt to make an Otzi replica because it's so unusual and specific.
Just a thought.
On the other hand, if you do wanna give it a go it's dimensionally similar to the MR bows, and the cross section is backwards to what one would expect - flat belly and highly crowned back if you're to believe that school of thought, or the conflicting belief is that it's a classic D-cross section with rounded belly, but made from the inside of the tree, so essentially inside-out to what we think of normally. Yew coated in blood was the original bow, but you could replicate it at a low poundage with something else for sure.
No nocks cut into the bow itself, just sinew wraps on each end coated in thick hide glue or similar which the string loops sit against.
If you're really not too bothered about accuracy, any narrow, deep longbow design would work - in fact for production purposes something like beech would probably be fine, as it will take lots of set using that design which would make it easier for a non-archer to use.
