Primitive Archer
Main Discussion Area => Bows => Topic started by: Dictionary on February 09, 2013, 10:26:53 am
-
This has been a question ive wanted to here some answers to. I read a thread here a while back asking why western indian bows were so short. In reality compared to the rest of the world's bows, all of the natives bows were relatively short. Averaging a number of indian bows gave an average length of 56 inches in length which is relatively short in comparasin to the world. South American bows are easily 7 feet tall with very large arrows. English bows were easily 7 feet long. African bows ive seen depend on the tribe. Some were very short being only 3 feet and others 7 feet long. Andaman bows were very long. Im wondering wha you guys think determine how bow length evolved with certain groups of people. The eastern woodlands are pretty open yet many still opted for a very short bow. The jungles of South America and New Guinea are very dense yet they opted for very long bows. Yet both people's had access to very dense wood suitable for making various styles of bows. Europe has a very similar temperate environment to North America yet Europeans used longer bows for hunting and warfare with very long draw lengths while natives are on the opposite side of the spectrum with short bows and short draw lengths.
What do you guys determined bow length in different parts of the world then?
-
I think Native American bows were short because they primarily used them on horseback. I think they were also limited by material size in some areas.
-
But what about before the Spaniards introduced horses to North America?
-
I would think that numerous reasons added together depicts average bow lengths. Height of people using them,available material, climate, particular use of the bow, terrain, as well as cultural traditions.
-
TBB III has a chapter by Tim Baker on Bows of the World, that looks into this question. The environment in which the peoples lived shaped the styles and designs. It determined the woods available, the climate in which they were used, what game was being pursued etc, etc. Good read. Quite a few others as well.
-
Not all natives had access or even when they did have access did they use horses. I dont see how climate or environment affects it since Andaman, New Guinea's, and South American bows were in excess of 7 feet and they live in some of the densest environments in the world. While the plains indians did use short bows on horses, other groups in NA living in open woodlands not using horses, still used short bows. I dont understand it.
-
If not the environment, then what?
-
It does seem to me off hand that the areas with the longest bows also were the most humid ( the jungles ), and the shortest were in the drier areas ( the Plains Indians ) Perhaps this has to do with amount of set a short bow takes in high humidity?
-
I think that the type of wood available had a big impact on how long a bow could be, as we all know different woods prefer certain types of designs, not to mention you cant make a long bow out of a short stave so if there were no trees that grew to suitable size you would make do with what you had, and some woods perform very differently at different temperature and humidity.
Now someone is going to say well if you know what you are doing then you can build any type of bow out of any kind of wood. My answer is yes you are more or less right, however you have to keep in mind that subsistence hunter and gathers are going to want to make a quick easy bow that will make meat and be durable so they will be looking for the path of least resistance. If that means making their tropical hardwood bow 7 feet (do to poor tension strength) even though they are in the jungle that's what they will do.
Just my two cents
-
Touché Darwin. Also keep in mind that culture played a huge role as well. I know historically for the lakotas that the birth of our bows was thru vision.
-
It does seem to me off hand that the areas with the longest bows also were the most humid ( the jungles ), and the shortest were in the drier areas ( the Plains Indians ) Perhaps this has to do with amount of set a short bow takes in high humidity?
I dont think primitive peoples gave set near as much emphasis that we do here on primitivearcher.
Touché Darwin. Also keep in mind that culture played a huge role as well. I know historically for the lakotas that the birth of our bows was thru vision.
I dont know what you inserted Darwin for in the discussion as this has nothing to do with survival of the fittest nor the misconception that one bow design was "better" than the other. but culture is a very vague reasoning for this. Culture is impacted by everything including environment,climate, population of the group,etc...
-
I asked a PNW coast native why they made bows so short. He told me its bc there practical. Why have a bow that 7' when your only shooting 20yards. Plus long limbs get caught in the thick brush and isn't easy to carry through the forest or get in position for a shot. And a short bow can easily be slid into a quiver to get it out of a down pour. It was also a regional style that had a deep and profound meaning.
environment and climate is key. It's foolish to argue otherwise.
-
Now someone is going to say well if you know what you are doing then you can build any type of bow out of any kind of wood. My answer is yes you are more or less right, however you have to keep in mind that subsistence hunter and gathers are going to want to make a quick easy bow that will make meat and be durable so they will be looking for the path of least resistance. If that means making their tropical hardwood bow 7 feet (do to poor tension strength) even though they are in the jungle that's what they will do.
Just my two cents
Dictionary, I think Oglala was referring to username Darwin, not darwinian evolution :)
Darwin, from what I understand, peoples of the tropics used palm rather than the tropical hardwoods we modern bowyers like to make use of in laminated bows. I don't know the properties of palm, but I tend think it is tension strong like bamboo.
I don't think quick and easy and durable were the operating standards of most subsistence hunters. Look at the composite bows of western North America, or the cable backed bows of the Inuit. Certainly not the path of least resistance. I think the bow was also important culturally as a means of showing ones skill. A means of showing off.
-
I've read how some of the Yuman tribes in southern California (the Diegueno and maybe others) made 6 to 8 foot long bows out of willow and mesquite.
Gabe
-
Dictionary, I think Oglala was referring to username Darwin, not darwinian evolution :)
Oops. I figured someone here would throw out the idea that one group of people simply chose a specific design because they were more superior to another group of people.
Bryce, why do you think that the South Americans nor the Europeans thought the same way? And once again, sure a short bow is easier in brush yet there were and still are many groups who use 6-7 foot long bows in jungles and rain forests......I guess the answer really is unattainable.
-
I'm gonna guess that it was an energy savings technique. Somebody previously stated that the more humid, more densely forested areas typically produced bows of longer length. I would think that in those densely vegetated areas, wildlife is also more densely distributed. The people in these areas would have had to travel less distance in search of prey.
In comparison, the more sparse areas could require a great deal of travel in order to effectively hunt. I would guess that these people were probably also more nomadic in general than the people living in the more densely vegetated areas. So the less weight they had to carry along with them, the less energy they expended in their survival efforts making them more apt to survive longer. Smaller bows are lighter and easier to carry to than long bows, and that's probably why they were preferred.
I'm by no means an expert, but I think most questions about primitive people's behaviors can be answered from an energy conservation perspective. It might seem insignificant, but a calorie saved is a calorie earned, and small things make big differences over time especially to primitive peoples who often survived just above starvation levels.
-
Since"West coast" people were mentioned in the OP,ill stick with them,since they are more my area and most studied group.The bow lengths of these people were disigned for their hunting method and style.If someone ever had a chance to examine ancient hunting sites and have elders that used them,educate you on how they hunted them,it makes perfect sense.I have examined stave trees,where a longer stave could have been extracted,but were not.That,combined with availiable wood species and climate,dictated,that a sinew backed short bow was the ticket.There were longer self bows used by people,in more humid climates,further north and south,as was mentioned allready,but in the Great basin and surounding areas,the short sinewed bow was the norm.
Especially,in the great basin area,hunting was done communally.Most often at certain times of year and by drives,that brought the larger animals into traps or cliffs,that had smaller rock blinds at the entrance and possible exits.The archers,were concealed in small non conspicious blinds that would not have accomadated a very long bow.To shoot from these small blinds,the archer just barely cleared the top of it,for the shot,to avoid flagging the game,any more than necessary.Most often,the large game,of this region,was pronghorn,and we know how jumpy they are.A heart attack waitin to happen.Contrary to popular belief,Mule Deer,were not as common in this region as they are today.Most of the old skins,were of Pronghorn and Mountain Sheep.
-
In all cases, bow length was determined by the height of the archer or a certain measurement taken from the archer's body. This measurement was dictated by tradition. Of course, you could deviate from this tradition but you would be singled out as "different" if you made an unusual bow. For example, there was a Kiowa Indian named "Big Bow". I'm sure there were others with similar names.
Today, we use formulas. But we still tend to make bows based on looks rather than logic.
-
Honestly, I wouldnt doubt that they were concerned about set one bit. I would argue they would be concerned. It is, after all, a way to measure bow performance. And if you ever made a bow with minimal tools, you will know you want it to perform well at the risk of having to make another. Not to mention that a bow with large set is a slow arrow caster. And we all know moisture makes a bow take set. So, the longer it is, the less strain, the less set.
Also, notice again how Traxx mentioned, sinewed bows. I cant recall anybody making long sinewed bows, only short ones. And nobody hunts with sinew in the jungle, or other wet damp places. Only in dry areas like the plains, or large portions of the west coast.
Actually, I bet you wont find a short bow in ANY of the humid areas, like jungles, any place near the equator, or tropical islands. And I bet you wont find any long bows in any drier areas either. I really think its all about performance vs climate.
-
Dictionary, I think Oglala was referring to username Darwin, not darwinian evolution :)
Oops. I figured someone here would throw out the idea that one group of people simply chose a specific design because they were more superior to another group of people.
Bryce, why do you think that the South Americans nor the Europeans thought the same way? And once again, sure a short bow is easier in brush yet there were and still are many groups who use 6-7 foot long bows in jungles and rain forests......I guess the answer really is unattainable.
Very true, but there are alot of factors. Wood species and so on. It could also be a cultural thing. And we all know there's a give and take with each design.