reflex deflex on Native American plains bows

[JackCrafty]

"In your experience from reviewing examples of longer bows, did you find many bows of greater length attributed to the plains areas? And did the longer examples keep the reflex/deflex form?"

To answer your question directly, I think that the vast majority of bows from the plains were quite long (over 5ft), but they do not preserve well. Also, the older bows (before the latest wave of migration from Asia) probably did not have the pronounced reflex-deflex shape.

After the pronounced reflex-deflex shape was introduced, I do think long bows (over 5ft) were made in this shape but they were rare. They were rare because very tall/ large men are rare. But, yes, the longer examples would have kept the exact reflex-deflex form.

[PatM]

That seems to make sense that bows were longer before the horse was introduced but you have to remember that many of the Plains tribes were not actually  long term residents of the plains.  A large number of them were from the woodland margins and were either forced onto the plains or capitalized on the horse to make life there much more  appealing.

So while extant pre-horse examples may be non existent we only have to look at the bows of Eastern counterparts of Plains tribes to get an idea of what they used previously.

[willie]

Willie, I'm sure you saw the bows on page 185 of Volume 2.  The one on the left is 75-1/2" long and I think it's the longest one in the book. It looks very similar to eastern styles bows, yet it was found in the plains (Texas high plains). The reflex-deflex shape is very, very slight.

Yes,  I have seen the bows on page 185, and have looked at them many times. Being precolumbian puts them in an era that one has a lot fewer examples to learn from. I am not sure if those bows should be thought of as being from more of a southwest culture, but either way,  I cannot look at the bow with the belly groove without trying to imagine what the groove once held. Horn or bone? An inset of some small diameter iron bark or some Ipe like shrub? It certainly seems to suggest an unusual composite technology. And if the bow is hickory, a decent wood in its own right, it must have been quite an improvement to justify the additional fitting. At that length perhaps a warbow  application? Or for long range hunting?

Pats point about the plains cultures being a more recent development is generally accepted, but there is no reason to assume they could not have learned from those they displaced or assimilated, or might have failed to improve the long bow as they moved west, if there were improvements to be had.

Now, the question might be, "Why do the shorter bows have more pronounced reflex-deflex?". I've heard many explanations but the best one, in my opinion, is the idea that bows from the latest migration from Asia had the pronounced reflex-deflex shape and were all sinew-backed bows initially.

The suggestion that the later migration to the americas about 5500 years ago brought the bow seems commonly accepted by the current researchers from what I have been able to find.  Was the reflex/deflex and possibly sinew backed bow historically used in Asia at that time?  Examining the origins and development of primitive bows can get interesting.

 

[PatM]

The Scythians may take credit for being among the first if not the first to truly capitalize on the horse and bow combination.  Their early bows before they fully developed composites of their own unique style were also basically the same as Plains bows thousands of years later.  Very short bows of  similar shape and materials.

 Convergent re-evolution at work no doubt.  I don't believe the design made it over the land bridge in uninterrupted fashion.   Saddles from both areas appear very similar too.  Human minds think fairly alike in the same scenarios.

[JackCrafty]

The latest pre-Columbian migration from Asia is relatively recent. We're talking 1300 years ago, or so.  Here is the abstract from a study from 2013. The main theme is the evidence for the use of archery in warfare, but it contains other interesting details.

There were at least four waves of bow and arrow use in northern North America. These occurred at 12000, 4500, 2400, and after about 1300 years ago. But to understand the role of the bow and arrow in the north, one must begin in the eighteenth century, when the Russians first arrived in the Aleutian Islands. At that time, the Aleut were using both the atlatl and dart and the bow and arrow1 (Fig. 1). This is significant for two particular and important reasons. First, there are few historic cases in which both technologies were used concurrently; second, the bow and arrow in the Aleutian Islands were used almost exclusively in warfare. The atlatl was a critical technology because the bow and arrow are useless for hunting sea mammals. One cannot launch an arrow from a kayak because it is too unstable and requires that both hands remain on a paddle. To use an atlatl, it is necessary only to stabilize the kayak with a paddle on one side and launch the atlatl dart with the opposite hand. The Aleut on the Alaska Peninsula did indeed use the bow and arrow to hunt caribou there. However, in the 1,400 km of the Aleutian Islands, there are no terrestrial mammals except humans and the bow was reserved almost exclusively for conflicts among them. The most significant event in the history of the bow and arrow is not its early introduction, but rather the Asian War Complex 1300 years ago, when the recurve and backed bows first entered the region, altering regional and hemispheric political dynamics forever.

Source:  The Bow and Arrow in Northern North America
HERBERT MASCHNER AND OWEN K. MASON

[JackCrafty]

And when I say "migration", this may or may not include the actual movement of people. We assume it's people but it may only be a technology.

[PatM]

I am extremely skeptical that a bow can't be shot from a kayak. Especially an Aleutian type one.  The main disadvantage would be remaining connected to the prey.   

[PatM]

And when I say "migration", this may or may not include the actual movement of people. We assume it's people but it may only be a technology.

  Yes. It wasn't until  Communist Russia shut down the Strait that people stopped routinely crossing like we would take a ferry today.

[JackCrafty]

Yeah, the "cannot" probably should be a "shouldn't" but what can you do? Lot's of these studies have statements like that.

[willie]

 The excerpt Jackcrafty posted above is the opening paragraph and abstract to the six page article. I can not attach a pdf to my post but would be willing to email anyone a copy if you pm with your email address.  One good reason PatM might be "extremely skeptical that a bow can't (or shouldn't)  be shot from a kayak" is that the Alutiiq, who also inhabited parts of the Alaska peninsula along side the Aleut (and were known to exchange arrows pointy end first), were accomplished sea mammal hunters who hunted almost exclusively with the bow and arrow in the Russian sea otter trade.
The arrows of the Alutiiq along with the spear throwers and darts of the Aleuts and Pacific Eskimo, also active in the sea otter trade, is well documented in "The Alutiit/Sugpiat: A Catalog of the Collections of the Kunstkamera" ISBN-13: 978-1602231771  Quite a nice collection with some excellent photos in the book.

I am also a bit dubious about some of Maschner's and Mason's other assertions in the article, but am going to read the article in full to see if their basic conclusions seem unfounded before commenting more.

I did find this interesting photo of Koryak archers that don't seem dressed for hunting otters. Koryaks, being from Kamchatka are said by Chaussonnet to have migrated back to Russia from the new world.