Primitive Archer
Main Discussion Area => Bows => Topic started by: David Long on November 01, 2008, 01:36:14 pm
-
I would think they might be more like eastern Indian bows- long with good accuracy. Were the western bows used in canoes, blinds, mainly for war, or what? They were not used from horseback much, correct? (At least not like Plains Indian bows) Any thoughts on this? Suppose they were used much for big game hunting?
Dave
-
West Coast Indian Bows are just another example of superior technology from a primitive society..... Pit River.... Hupa.....Modoc to name a few used wide limbs and a slightly working (bending) handle to make a powerful bow.....which could be made much shorter ....and are ideal for hunting in thick brush and from ground cover...these are my Favorite styles of Bows.......
-
I hear what you are saying El Destructo, but still, why wouldn't Eastern tribes use these short sinewed bows as opposed to the generally longer ones they preferred? They too had opportunities to hunt in brush at close range I would imagine. Too wet for sinew backs maybe? Dave
-
What's wetter than the coast of N. California, Oregon, and Washington? I wonder how much hunting these people actually did . I think their main source of food was the ocean and rivers and streams. I'm sure they did some hunting and it was probably ambush type hunting at water holes and salt licks.
-
easier to shoot from a boat?
-
If you tried to navigate your way through some of our coastal rain forests (more like jungles) you might appreciate why a shorter bow would be advantageous.
-
Westies were short and sinewed and mainly used to stalk Game in dense areas where a longer Bow wood be useless...where as the East Coast Bows were longer....unbacked and mainly used for Hunting in the Forests and Warfare where hunted and fought on foot..it's really hard to determine since there are so few Bows from the Eastcoast tribes to look at ....except for the Southeast Tribes....the Tribes fro the North and Central East Coast were either wiped out or pushed out so that there aren't any Relics to look at....I know that the Indians from Upper Michigan didn't use the Long Bows like the Tribes of the Southeast did....their Bows were normally only 50 inches long....and the Pawnee Bows were also very Short and strong Bows....compared to some that were 70 inches in length by other East Coast Tribes...The reasons that these Tribes didn't use Sinew and he Westies did....I haven't a clue...but I suppose that since they didn't use Sinew...that is why the Bows are longer....to get the Poundage from unbacked wood....JMO
-
Probably like it is today. Wood available and hunting conditions. ;) ;D
-
Just so Justin. They had yew and juniper and they really learned how to utilize that combination well. No need for a longer bow then what they used with elastic woods and sinew. 44" of yew and sinew will yiled you a 24-25" draw easily. 40" of sinew will get ya 22-24" draws. Some other self bows are known from these areas and are longer.
The west coast indians were really ingenious people. Looking at other artifacts from these people you could never ever in a million years imagine them shooting straight long self bows. They were just to higly artistic and genious to do anything that simple. They made a lot of complex items aside from bows.
Steve
-
Very interesting you guys. Stalking SMALL game, in pretty thick cover, I find the accuracy of a longer bow preferable. Not so with BIG game in thick cover, where I'm crouched etc. This is one of the reasons I've been thinking about this. Justin's point is a good one for sure. Dave
-
David, A longer bow is not more acurate its just easier to shoot. You can get pretty good with a short bow, it just takes a lot more time and dedication. I have stopped shooting everything except west coast indian bows and plains bows to master the style. Its painfull at first but possiable.
Steve
-
Aside from reasons previously mentioned,It was the best lengths used in a small rock and brush blind.West coast people rarely hunted as people do today.What i mean by that is singularly.They hunted in tribal hunts most often.This was done by drives,that funneled the game to a location,where archers were crouched in small rock blinds.As the game was driven by them,they popped up just high enough to clear these small blinds,to take the shot.A longer bow would be a hinderance in these situations.Shure,they maybe could have made a larger blind,but that wouldnt be so inconspicuos,and a longer bow would intail larger movement,to clear the blind.They also would flag in Pronghorn.My Grandfather showed me this when i was very young,useing an ancient Pit river blind system to do it.You have 1 chance and 1 chance only,to get a shot off.The archer would want all the advantages he could muster,and in this case,the shorter bow is just the ticket.
-
The design of a bow depends on a lot of things. Things that have been mentioned so far are type of prey, style of hunting, ease of use, artistic skill, bowyer skill, and accuracy.
All of the above will certainly affect the way a bow is made, but there's one thing that doesn't usually get mentioned in a discussion like this: If you look at the size of the dwellings of the various tribes you might notice that the larger the dwelling, the larger the bow (or vice versa). Maybe I'm looking at this in a way that's too simple...or too obvious....but I think it's mainly a matter of space. Small house, small bow......large house, large bow. ;D
As far as west coast designs being short...I think you will find quite a variety of lengths. And not all west coast bows were "paddle" bows.
I read somewhere that stated that the average bow length, regardless of tribe or geography, was about 50". I agree with this observation. This is pretty "short" by our modern standards.
-
Having hauled 60-inch bows through the woods for years, and now sub-50-inch bows for the past two years in the snowy, messy thickets game animals here hide, I never again wonder why many aboriginal peoples used short bows. A short bow is just as deadly as a longer one when the person doing the shooting is a short bow shooter, having learned to shoot the short bow from early childhood. In short-range hunting, being accurate per se isn't the biggest deal, as long as you are just accurate enough to hit the vitals of a game animal (six-inch groups at 30 feet can be shot with any bow). Being quick and maneuverable often is. There are situations where a long bow cannot be shot at all but a 45" bow has no trouble performing. Yet even some peoples living in wide-open semi-desert or steppe lands opted for sub-four-foot bows.
From the bowyer's point of view, short bows offer nothing but advantages. Finding clean 50" staves is infinitely easier than finding good 70" ones. Cutting, hauling, storing, working small-dimension wood is quicker and less energy-costly than utilizing big, long wood. If people find out they can feed their family with a 50-incher, they have no incentive to start making more ungainly weapons. And vice versa, if a longbow-wielding people have no trouble handling their bows in the local woods, and long bow-wood abounds, they have no incentive to start shortening their bows. As a rule, people stick to what has always worked and don't especially like change. Momentum at work.
Tuukka
-
not sure about the conditions of the woods out west before contact with europeons but the eastern woods were quite open. fields were abundant the hardwoods were regularly burned to keep underbrush controlled . dead trees were constantly gathered for fire wood. the woods of today are much tougher to hunt today compared to pre contact periods. also the long bow of the eastern woodlands to me is sort of a myth. most of the bows ive seen and handled from this area although not as short as the western bows were below 60". we base this 66" 2" wide bow from the sudbury bow and the majority of them were more like short elbs. nothing against the bowyers bibles but the designs we have drilled in our head from these books werent used that much. peace
-
Amen to every point Jamie made. I think he nailed it all the way around.
-
Yes, Jamie good points. I agree about the "eastern woodland bow". I have said that on threds before. If you look at the bows found in what we call the eastern woodlands they varied a lot and there was also a LOT of bows under 60" long some as short as 36" long. Even though there is a TON of documented bows that vary from 36"- 70" long and also vary from Reflex/deflex,risered, recurved, d bow etc......a lot of folks still consider a eastern wood land bow 60+" lon 2" wide and bedn thrugh the handle. If you really study the Easten Woodlan Bows you will find that they are more similar in lenght to the plains bows and west coast bows then they are to what we commonly call "Eastern Woodland bow".
Native American Bows, Arrow & Quivers. Hamm abd Allely. Just a qucik run through some pages:
68", 67" 62", 43", 57", 58", 62", 39", 57", 52", 52", 67", 68", 52", 57", 68", 47", 67", 51", 59", 60", 60", 61", 49", 48", 51", 54", 61", 50", 56", 55", 58", 47", 57", 47", 72", 53", 69", 54", 54". That is all the bows shown is the North East section of that book. You will notice that there is a lot of shortish bows.
Out of 40 Eastern Woodland bows the average lenght is: 56.725" long
Also keep in mind that I chose the North East is the section in the book that has the MOST longer bows. The southe east and medwest have mostly short bows.
Generic term "eastern wood land bow=man height, whitewood, wide, bend through the handle D bow" is very very very generic. That is just something to keep in mind when comparing bows of regions. if we are going to compare them we need to be honest with what they really were, not what people consider them to be. As mentioned above as well. The west coast bows were not all under 40" long sinew backed paddle bows.
Steve
-
not to forget the types of wood that were available. Most east cost bows were made from whitewoods, that are not as good in compression than juniper or yew for example.
Then there is the climate factour. The California region is much dryer than the east coast. This might not matter to us living in moisture controlled houses, but it sure made a big deal to people living in huts etc. dry have held bows that were shorter than the bows of not so dry areas. Think about the amazon and the plains. The Amazon tribes use long bows and the plains Indians used short bows, though the amazon area is very thick brush and the plains had almost no trees.
The English longbow is quite long, and the Turkish or the Mongolian bow is quite short.
There is no proof that sinew backed bows would have been popular in any moist regions in the world. This is because the sinew backed bow performs it's best when kept in dry conditions. When one backs a bow with sinew (like most of the west cost bows were done) one can use a shorter piece of wood to get the efficiency needed.
And as Tuukka said the accuracy factour mattered none to people that had shot a short bow for their whole life. This can be proved when one reads the notes of U.S officers
that have observed the accuracy of the plains Indians during the 19'th century.
-
the northwest coast is known for its rainfall and they used sinew bows. a sinewed bow can be used in very humid conditions. abos relied on fire for everything , therefor a fire was always burning at home. ive sat in a wigwam on a nasty humid day with a fire going and its nicer in the wigwam because the fire pushes out the humidity making it more comfortable. to make a long story short they lived in hot boxes. after a day of hunting go back to the hut hang the bow in the rafters and bingo its ready to go again. i think there are other determining factors as to why sinew was used in some locations and not in others. unfortunately i dont have the answer and to be honest im not looking for it. ;D
-
uhhhh......because the didn't need 'em long......and.....they didn't need 'em long? ::)
-
Actually the NW bows from Western WA were all Yew seflbows with short draw lengths. Most of the sinew short bows came from the Eastern side of the Cascade region where it is drier.
-
There you have it...the Island Man came up with a Good one there....east side of the Cascades....means that most of the Rain fell trying to go over the Mountains....hence a Drier Climate.....good one David...... ;)
-
I was told that the plains tribes had short bows for one very important reason.... so they could sneak them out of the TiPi. easier without the wife seeing them. ;D ;D ;)
-
..........................Very Cute Michael.....does your Wife know your so funny................. >:D........... ;D......................................
-
Yep! I live on the wet side. :-[
-
another factor in the short bows was the shooting style. if you look at Ishi's shooting style you notice he didnt have a long draw. he only drew to his chin, with the bow more horizontal, minimizing movement in the draw. if you look at the hunting blinds constructed they left little room for bow limbs. but yet you look at some of the arrows and they were long, although many had foreshafts, some over 30". ???
-
I've been shooting some long shafts and it sure seems to reduce the archers paradox a lot!
-
I find it easier to shoot short bows with long arrows. the longer arrows "seems" to compensate some for the short bows un stabalsied nature.
Steve
-
Steve's (YewArcher) observation from "Native American Bows, Arrow & Quivers" (Hamm and Allely) that the NE bows were on average 57 inches is interesting. I think Allely suggests that is longer than the average Western Indian bow. From TBBI he says Western Indian sinew backed bows could be as short as 30 inches, averaging between 36 and 44, while unbacked bows could be "50 inches or more". I suppose we all agree there are long bows, and there are short bows :). It is interesting to think about how form follows function. I hunted elk this fall with two long bows, 67 inches and 65 inches. These bows were prefect for small game, to the point that I realized for the first time that I could actually feed myself with these primitive weapons. That was a revelation. At the same time, in thick cover these long bows were difficult when it came to the elk (never did loose an arrow). I'd be all ready by the wallow or water hole, do a little calling etc., wait, then it happened a few times where THEY ambushed ME because the dang bow and willows and branches were tangled just enough to prevent a good setup, draw, and shot. I nearly got run over twice while I fiddled frantically with my big bent stick. Had a NA skilled in the art witnessed any of this they would have busted a gut! Sure, I'm pretty new at this, but I can tell you for certain this is a fun way to learn. :D It got me thinking- were the Western bows primarily ambush bows, as Traxx suggests? Great info you guys. Dave
-
Since,this topic was directed toward Western NDN bows and their lengths,that is what i will direct my comments toward.We must not forget,that Most all the Native Tribes that used these bows,had a system to measure these bows,to match the archer.Part of these measurements,were concluded to match the style of useing these bows as well.IE drawlength and shooting style.These were not full drawn bows used with a med release or variation of.Hence the shorter lengths.To get the most from a bow,with a shorter draw,the maker must tax the bow to its near limits to acheive best performance.I have personally examined Pit River Stave treese,that show,that a longer stave could just as easiliy have been taken,but were not.Most of the wood from a vast majority of North eastern Ca and the great basin area,was marginal wood for bows,without the aid of sinew.Many of these bows also had a thin backing of sinew,which leads me to believe,that it was more a protective backing than a performance inhancer.As was mentioned earlier also,there were severall styles of bows in this region.I have seen em wide and more narrow,and these being from the same region and people.I was raised in a region,that was a converging area for severall different nations.Maidu,Washoe,Pit River,and Piaute Shoshone people.There are varying length and width ratios of the bows from these people.Some looking like the aptly named Paddle bows to bows that would be referred to as sapling bows.I wonder,if alot of times,it wasnt a personal style preference,just as it is with many today.Or,it could also involve makeing the bow,to the best,that the particular piece of bow wood at hand,would allow.Regardless of these possibilities,i still believe it had to do with the best possible combined performance issues.The old people,didnt have all these new formulas and modern sources of measurements to go by.They developed what they did,because it worked,and worked well.No theories but actuall experience dictated their choices and styles.I hafta trust their Judgement,because they made their living with it.
-
Oh,
Another point,that i forgot to bring up,that falls into my previous points,and helps to make better sense of it all is this.The early Native people from this region,were by most cases a small people compared to people nowdays.Average height was 5 ft for women and about 5"4" for the men.Even with blood of other nations and non Native blood,you still see evidence of this today.Factor that into the equation,and the shorter bows make even more sense.
-
This is turning into a pretty cool thread. Thanks for the ideas Todd. It has me thinking about using Eastern Red cedar for shorter draw bows. I've run into a lot of problems breaking ERC bows trying to make traditional draw-length Eastern woodland bows. I think unbacked and made for less stressfulll draw lengths they would make for some fast, short bows. It's not much different than Yew or Juniper.
-
Todd, I enjoy your input. one other question is that "was there trading going on between tribesmen which would have dictated the type of bow based on the "expense" of the bow from the bowyer? just as there were arrowmakers whithin the tribe, I believe there were certain individuals that specialized in the manufacture of bows and some commanded very high prices for them, these bows would have to be earned and not just anybody could posess such a fine weapon. this would also be a statement of their wealth and prestige in the tribe. these fine weapons would be sought after by any hunter. David T. I agree that the longer shaft helped a lot in the paradox, but the phragmites reed that was used mostly by klamath and other basin tribes is somewhat weak, maybe they could use larger cane if they left it longer? just some thoughts.
-
And maybe the resources for arrows dictated how strong the bows could be?
-
Great thread and good thoughts. Our complicated lives often bleed over into complicated thoughts in every area and that being said I would give more weight to easy and convenience. Making a long yew bow or juniper bow just wasn't practical or probable. Hard enough when you have power tools but when considering stone tool bows knots and splitting become bigger factors. Splitting yew is not the same as splitting Osage or other woods. Splitters tend to travel more and knots can blow out a split in half a heart beat.
Hunting condition and brushy conditions are probably the other biggest factor.
-
Hey Dave!!
How the heck ya been?As you know,I preferr to talk about such things in person,than over one a these dang contraptions.LOL
-
Uhm! Which Dave you referring to? There are a lot of us out there. ;D
-
Well,
It was directed to Dave Cheney,but what the heck!You can respond as well if you like.The message still counts.LOL
-
I was thinking the same thing D. Tiller! Daves are like..well...everywhere. Back to the short bows. A hunter probably made several styles of bow, according to his immediate needs. With the location, season, and relative ease of gathering other foods and game archery tackle would have changed. When elk were the best bet (least effort for the greatest return) a fella would carry an elk bow. But some areas were better ambush/blind areas, just like today, and others were more spot and stalk in more open country. So even within the category of big game, one guy might have chosen between design options. When that time passed and small game was best, a fella would carry a bow designed for this style of hunting. And then there were wars too. Where I live, one can find yew in certain areas and not others. You might have to walk 100 miles to get yourself a good piece of yew, but right there on the hillside might be a great piece of juniper or maple. Here again exact location fed into the easy/hard equation that Keenan and others mentioned. So one hunter made several styles of bows perhaps. I think by the time big game wasn't so good and another option was coming on, the big game weapon might be shot out and a little long in tooth anyway. Dave
-
If you look at a modern recurve bow, you will see how short they are compared to longbows. I love longbows and simple bows but if you look at a Haida bow (I have seen a collection in the anthropoligy musem in Vancouver bc, go there if you get a chance) you will see that they had the best yew on the planet, they used sinews, they recurved the tips, there bows are highly refined works of art like everything they made. A price tag of $10 000 in today terms would not be silly.
They made the bow as short as they could, they made it as light draw weight as they could for its use. The reason for this is because as a people with LOTS of artistic value to their culture and ones with some of the most impressive art, homes, ... on the planet, they of course found the best design they could. It is also safe to say their arrows, in todays terms would be worth say $100 each if you imagine the time involved
They had a bow that lasted a lifetime so, like all their belongings it was a very valuable thing that had a very specialized person working on it for a very long time from harvest to finish. Not everyone had or needed a bow, as they had not effort needed to collect fish and shell fish, they only needed to hunt for extra food. Food on the Haidia Gwai (up by alaska) was overflowing up until it became a resource to be extracted in huge amounts for sale to city folks, they it was gone in a flash.
Compare these bows to English bows, and as far as war goes these are some of the best, the design is great for getting lots of bows from a tree, they were easy to make. But for the Haida these would be crude, ugly, primitive weapons made without the effort it takes to make one of beauty, made in a way that someone would have to spend their lives in service of it to the king, the Haidia were free people and did not really have people of authority above them to force them to shot all day, haida did many other things with their time, and when the picked up a bow they did not need to strain their bodies, they were looking for something automatic like a gun, that bow design came from thousands of years of finding the perfect balance.
But, I did see a slightly longer bow, thin, yew wood, very narrow, without recurve, this was a bow found in british columbia of unknown tribe. I was very beautiful too, but without he art work.
The west coast peoples were many diverse and they can not be talked about in the same sentence as some sort of group any more than the whole of Europe could be, but it seems the Haidia wanted there bows to be very easy to pull back, easy to carry and store and of course beautiful to the eye. They did not want to shot far or hard, they wanted to shot perfect and natural and instinctive.
If you imagine pulling back a light bow with the perfect balance, with a perfect arrow, so smooth and so nice to shot, with no hand shock and very little noise, and how fast and slick that arrow would go, it would be a very prized bow, compared to the english war bow.
I wouldn't imagine there was to many highly skilled archers compared to the peak time in English warbow history, but you have to remember a english archer shots bows eats and sleeps, goes along with his despirate life in service to his masters, he gets good at this on thing. Haida were free people, they had no rent, no royal duties, archery was one of many of their things they might do, and they were 1st and foremost artists looking for the most pleasing lines in everything they did, functional of course but funtion without form was crude and primitive to them.
I am sure they would find our ways of life today rather primitive too.
check out - to see some bows from he haida
http://www.civilization.ca/cmc/exhibitions/aborig/haida/
-
Link dont work........all I get is......
Directory Listing Denied
This Virtual Directory does not allow contents to be listed.
-
Oh sorry try that, you will have to click around to find some archery stuff, there is a picture of a guy with a longer wider war bow there, thats not haida.
Ps the haida did not have one design for their bows either, they had one "ideal" design and the most important part of the bow was the artwork on the back, of course the bow would have to work perfect but the art on the bow WAS the bow.
http://www.civilization.ca/cmc/exhibitions/aborig/haida/havwa01e.shtml
-
Nah, it was because a shorter bow took less time to make, and they could get out of the hut sooner, and have some peace and quiet! When are you going to be done with that?!! Soon little whining otter. You better clean up all those shavings! Yes little whining otter. I thought you were done with that, you put a string on it! Yeah, it done, me go hunt. Bring you big Grizzly bear. ......not dead though!
Wayne