Primitive bow culture mythology

[Allyn T]

I know a lot of people go on about how the primitive people of the past had it all figured out but I'm of a mind that humans are human which means we are flawed. There are also great variances in skill level among people regardless of how long they have practiced a skill. I know folks think the Holmegaard was the bees knees and maybe it was or maybe it was just average or even subpar, we can't really be sure. My point is, just because you lived by the bow doesn't mean people needed or mad great bows. I think modern bowyers make far better weapons now than people ever dreamed of back in prehistory. As an example I'm posting a pic of a tribesman from Africa. They hunt for food everyday and I think all can agree this isn't a stellar bow and isn't the pinnacle bow design they came to after thousands of years making bows.

[Yooper Bowyer]

In general, with enough time, a people will figure out the optimum way to solve a problem given their surroundings.  The ALB works very well for us because we have the tools, time and materials to build them well, and we don't live off what we hunt.  There are different constraints and priorities in other places.  I'm quite sure that bow was made by a competent bowyer, and that man is a better hunter than most people here.  People get really good at what they do for a living.   This adaptability is why we have thrived on the whole.

[Allyn T]

That's my point, you don't need a perfect bow to hunt or to be a hunter. There is no way a bow with cracks that big down the side is going to be a great bow, but it works and that's all that matters. I'm sure if that bow was found a couple hundred years from now someone like Tim baker would declare it the perfect bow and say the cracks would have to have happened after the life of the bowyer because no one would allow their main weapon to be in disrepair like that. Though we can clearly see it is indeed in use

[RyanY]

Seems like a misinterpretation of what certain cultures bows represent. Similar to evolution not being survival of the fittest but survival of the fit enough. Archery cultures came up with the most effective and consistent designs capable of meeting their needs based on their technology, resources, and demands. It may have been pointless to waste time, energy, and resources to push for performance when the only objective measure would be “can it kill game and last as long as I need it to?”

[PatM]

Correct, and we make better coats and hats too.

[willie]

but it works and that's all that matters.

One thing that is often overlooked is that it is the arrow that makes the kill. ethnological reports of traditional archery in north america often comment how much more focus and work was placed on arrow making.  One benefit north american ethonographers had was a scientific approach to reporting and access to primitive cultures at the same time. We are limited to making a lot of assumptions about archery as a whole with older cultures like the holemguaard people.

Something else to consider is alternative hunting methods preferred by primitive people, where the bow may have only been required to deliver a crippling gut shot.

[bownarra]

What material is that string made out of?
He hasn't made a sub par bow on purpose he has made the best bow that he can.....
Can you make a better bow with access to any tool you desire and great wood......yes and so could he.
Nothing different about ancient peoples.....just the same basic human as you and I but in a different circumstance.

[Del the cat]

What material is that string made out of?
He hasn't made a sub par bow on purpose he has made the best bow that he can.....
Can you make a better bow with access to any tool you desire and great wood......yes and so could he.
Nothing different about ancient peoples.....just the same basic human as you and I but in a different circumstance.

+1
Del

[BowEd]

The thing is necessity is the mother of all inventions the way I see it.The get the job done scenario.
Tim just did'nt assume about anything when it came to design.He tested it to prove it with many dead end road attempts.His need was not for survival.A different need.He did not make a bow to show but to perform.
I for one am grateful of his work.
It's always good to make your best.Some want to and some don't.It's up to the individual back then and now.
We are afforded nowadays with the means to make these natural material bows just as good or better as man made synthetic productions and the love of archery still abides.Barring the compound versions.Which to me still is not a stick and string weapon.It's a contraption with sights.The law just sees it a different way which serves them well for money making reasons on a massive scale.
There's just something about a beautiful self replenishable resource at our disposal that is cool and a gift, and to those who abandon the skill to make them they've given up and taken the easy road.

[AndrewS]

In the case of the Hadza, they hunt with poisoned arrowheads. Hit the animal somewhere and maybe cause only a scratch is enough that the animal will die. The quality of endurance distinguishes humans from animals - this means that the Hadza, after even a small scratch in their game, only have to follow it (sometimes it can take the whole day) to collect the game.

For such a hunt, I don't need a fast bow, a bow with a very high draw weight, a bow shot from horseback, or heavy arrows with tips that can penetrate steel armor in case of doubt.

Just as we only partially know the details and requirements of the Hadza's living conditions, we do not know the living conditions of our ancestors who lived thousands of years ago. We can only guess and speculate based on individual finds that we discover today from that time.

From then until today, the most diverse forms of bows have developed worldwide - only with the introduction and spread of writing are we able to preserve knowledge. The sciences have developed and produced new knowledge. About archery there are myths and legends (Odysseus for example) and since the Middle Ages writings like "Toxophilus" or the original of "Arab Archery". So you can find different types of bows and different shooting styles, some of which have been preserved until today.
With the physics behind the bow, scientists have dealt more closely only in the 20th century and the results are physical (force-distance (draw), speed, energy storage,....).
The human being tends, whether the too big contemporary knowledge, to follow only one strand of infinitely many...... 

[Allyn T]

I don't think people understand why I started this thread. I'm not putting down primitive cultures or bowyers. I do understand that they make the best they can with what they have and no I couldn't do any better using the same tools and I would prolly do much worse. My whole point was that people like oldman who got ripped apart for making a holmegaard that wasn't prefect, maybe his was actually perfect, but people act like that 9000 year old bow is a step above everything else when maybe it isn't. Maybe the fragments are because one of the bows blew up and the maker pitched it into the bog : )

[RyanY]

The language you use in your original post doesn’t really align well with your point. I also think it’s an assumption to think people believe the holmegaard was such a great bow. It’s more that it led to great bows. If it did indeed have stiff outer limbs it had way too much outer limb mass to make it efficient.

[Allyn T]

It's hard to articulate my thoughts well enough to get my point across perfectly

[Don W]

Looking at the guys belt, I wonder how primitive he really is.

[PatM]

They have axes and knives now.  Sometimes technology just stalls at the good enough phase.   Someone took a Chris Boyton  bow to that tribe and they were blown away by the performance.