I hope we can go on more serious.
As I stated yesterday I really found hornbows overestimated. Why should hornbowery be an art and selfbowery nothing but a primitive craft? This is almost like an affront for all those great selfbowyers whose bows we can admire here in the forum. I guess serious tillering a selfbow is at least as delicous as tillering a hornbow.
If one takes into account availability of the raw materials, the making of and usability of a hornbow, you end up with a very ineffective kind of bow.
Nevertheless it is a very delicious and challenging job to do. Every type of bow made of natural materials is a kind of marvel to me.
I guess hornbowery is almost something like a historical error.
Hornbows came up in great quantities when former nomads(Scythians, Mongolians, Osmanians...) tried to built empires. For to boost their military power they decided to standardize their military strategies and so their weapons. The multitude of the nomadic life was gone.
This was the first historical trial to standardize the bow and error- system, the second trial was much more successful( glass, wheel.....). Finally the Scythians, Mongolians, Osmanians,...................had been defeated heavily. It is very interesting and sad to see nomads fail, when they tried to built empires. Hornbows had been almost gone forever.
To me a selfbow and its making of is a kind of nomadic technique, nomadic craft which offers and charged a living variety of possibilities. You never know exactly how you' ll end up with a stave. That's what I will never miss.
Hornbowery is to much bureaucratic.
So to me the horn- vs. selfbowery- thing is much more a question of lifestyle but performance: bureaucrat vs. nomad, fences vs. open range, standstill vs. moving, uniformity vs. multitude....................
Michael