I am sure this has been covered before, I searched but didn't find it, but what makes a primitive a primitive? I am sure there are different answers depending on the individual, and most of them are probably correct, but is it design, materials, methods, or maybe some of each?
For instance is a self yew ELB with horn nocks a primitive? What if it was cut on a band saw and shaped using electrical tools? Horn nocks glued on with epoxy? Finished with polyurethane? Is it just the things that affect the bows performance that move it from primitive to modern? I mean does the bow perform differently if cut with an axe, hand saw, or band saw? Is a stone age design only authentic if made with stone tools? Is a modern string on a period bow still primitive?
Would you consider a Asiatic horn bow primitive? Seems fairly sophisticated in design and execution to me. Is it that it only uses materials available before a certain time period? Natural as opposed to man made materials?
For myself I am trying to replicate items from roughly the 1840-1910 time period so I am trying to restrict myself to materials that were available and used in that period. Oil finishes, shellac, period varnishes, yet I use Titebond III which I don't think was period. I don't really use electric tools at all, except maybe a drill for the nocks, but I'm not opposed to them.
I am having some parts made to use in my miniature arrows via lost wax casting, a technique thought to be at least 3,000 years old. Is that primitive? Yet the wax model itself is printed on a 3D printer. Does that change it? I doubt the mold made from the wax knows the difference.
Again I don't think there is a correct answer just I assume there are different approaches and was wondering if anyone wanted to discuss them? I can see the challenge of trying to build using only stone tools just as I can understand using a band saw as long as the end result is close to the period design. I gues I can see the challenges and correctness of both approaches