Not trying to hi jack the post or discredit the bow in any way I believe these sights have tried to maintain a high level of historical accuracy when ever possible. The north american indians did have quite a few ceremonial type bows that were not actually used for everyday hunting or warfare that were built a variety of ways more for looks than actual use. I do have a naturally scalloped bow due to branches growing off the sides that could have concievably been made from saplings as mine was. Other than ceremonial or aesthetic reasons their would have been no reason to scallop a bow as survival was the main objective of bows. Steve
No prob, Badger, whether intended or not, this thread was highjacked (maybe that's too strong, more like distracted from its intent) long ago.
I've tried and tried to keep the focus here on the bow and not the label but since you brought this related point up, let me propose a reasonable idea.
On page 61 of TBB Vol 2, which I have not to this point seen anyone attempt to discredit or argue against in any fashion, a clear-as-day
Seneca bow with scallops down one side is pictured and discussed, including various "unnecessary for survival" decorations. That info is brought to us by the work of Steve Allely based on the history contained in the National Museum of the American Indian. I have to believe that all of those sources have worked toward the goal of historical accuracy as well as can be expected. Now, based on the history in the Historia-Dominion (The Canadian Encyclopedia) and I'm sure a few other legit sources, both the Seneca of the Iroquois people and the Algonquian Ottawa had dealings with one another, probably much in the way of warfare with the Ojibwa's expanding into former Seneca lands. Much like Christian crusaders in the middle eastern lands did about borrowing, adapting, and stealing Muslim tech (and their are plenty of other examples but this was fresh on my mind), it is very possible and even probable that within the last four hundred years, these scalloped bows of various designs were exchanged, stolen, adapted, etc. and not just for religious purposes. To continue the theory, it is possible and probable that at one time or another, most of the Eastern Woodlands groups came into contact with one another and therefore cultural diffusion did indeed run rampant, and with the way history goes, it could very well be that this "Seneca bow" from the TBB was originally an Ojibwa design the Seneca adapted and used for their own in warfare, hunting, whatever, and that the evidence we have today suggests that scallops are with the Iroquois only. But I don't know any of this. I can only speculate based on very reasonable hypotheses that this is possibly an Ottawa but extremely likely at least an Eastern Woodlands style bow, that Marc is looking out for the best interest of the group by being critical of what goes on the web site, and that Rich has what he believes is adequate substantiation of his claims so that I do not have any business discrediting him because I have not visited any museums, reservations, or archaeological sites that can collaborate nor disprove those claims. And I'll leave it at that.
It's situations like these were I wish to goodness I was a research professor at a major university with access to funds... but I'm not. I'm just a small fry teaching prof at a community college. However, I'm putting this on my top five possible research topics for publication if my future allows me to go this route. In the mean time, I'm going to keep making scalloped bows and enjoying life.
Ok, lecture over. I'll expect an essay on this on my desk by Monday and test will be conducted next Friday. Class dismissed. (sorry, relapse)
Finally, can I ask that if anyone else would like to discuss historical authenticity, may they humbly start their own thread, entitle it something like "Debate over Ottawa bow authenticity" or whatever, and have a good time doing that if you so choose.
Now I've got a stave that is begging to be whittled upon, so I'm outta here. Have a great evening.
-Prof
