Hypothesis: Reason western Native American bows are so short

[Story Teller]

Folks,

I would like to get the opinions of bowyers and experts with more experience or research than myself regarding what I believe to be a myth about the primitive bows of the western United States.

Every resource I have read about the bows made by Native Americans in the west explains that the reason they are short is because they fought and hunted from horseback.  However, this explanation does not account for the bows of California, New Mexico, Arizona, the mountainous areas of Colorado, or the desert areas of Nevada or Utah where buffalo hunting from horseback was not common, but very short bows were. 
Recently, I have been searching near my home in southern Colorado for materials to build bows and arrows.  Let me tell you... it's tough.  In fact, it leads me to a hypothesis that I would put forth to explain the preference for shorter bows in the western United States.  My hypothesis is this.  Bows were shorter because it is nearly impossible to find materials to make arrows for a draw longer than about 23 to 24 inches.  Materials, here in Colorado anyway, are limited to chokecherry shoots, wild rose, a few, rare varieties of dogwood (excluding those that came across with European landscape artists), cat tails, or shoots of scrub maple.  None of these, in our dry climate have a growing season to produce long, strong, reeds or shoots for long draws, as a general rule.  I suspect that even if a resident of the dry southwest had the wealth to trade for a long, straight piece of locust, hickory, or osage, he would regret a longer bow with a long draw because he couldn't find materials to build arrows to go with it.

What do you say?  Will some of our experts comment on this hypothesis?

Thanks,
Story Teller
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA

[sailordad]

could it be too that the woods may have been much more prevelant and thicker back then
making a shorter bow more useable in such conditions
i realize some areas of az and n.m. probably didnt have much for forest land
i find shorter bows more usable tols in the woods here in mn where i hunt
the under growth here is thick like hair on a gorilla

not that i know anything aboot anything,just spit balling here
as i am not or will ever claim to be an "authority"on any such topic

[Del the cat]

Your theory sounds fine. I'd look at the style of hunting, would a longer bow provide any advantage, or would it just be an encumberance. They had long bows (similar to an ELB on the East coat I believe, what are the environmental/usage differences?
Dunno, but it's a good Q.
We don't see the same style of bows in Europe, although that doesn't necessarilly mean they didn't exist, the archaelogical evidence is pretty sparse for stuff like that which rots down so quickly.
Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence...
Del

[wally]

Good question
       As to the climate and area that storyteller is in, it certainly makes sense that the bowmen would make bows according to what was available to them, so lack of long enough sticks for arrows could be a factor.
   However, you don't really need straight plant shoots to make arrows. There is evidence that some arrows were made by splitting logs, then splitting into shafts and smoothing down into dowels, even in stone age people. Longer arrows could certainly have been made but I don't know the history of the tribes you talk of, and if they didn't make longer arrows that way, for whatever reason then your theory certainly holds up.
       As Del says there doesn't appear to be much history of short bows in Europe, although they would have seen them from the Scythians (apparently the Romans used them in Britain at least) and on the Crusades. As he says because there is little evidence don't mean they didn't exist.
   Shooting in field archery( in woodland) in England I find the shorter bows much easier, so presumably if I was hunting in woodland I would use a smaller bow by choice.

[Alpinbogen]

I live in the Mid-Atlantic, but agree with part that the short "western" bows weren't neccessarily made for horseback for the simple reason that I don't believe horses existed in the West until the Spanish introduced them in the 17th century.  I think there were some smaller native species that were hunted to extiction several thousand years ago, though nothing that was ridden.  If that's the case, it would be interesting to compare bows in that area from the pre- and post-horse eras.  Unless the bows showed a notable shortening, I suspect that short bows just happened to be convenient from horseback.  I think to a large extent, you're assumption on wood availability is the main reason they made short bows, especially in the more arid regions where scrubby trees cover the landscape and straight bow wood/arrow wood is a rarity.  That design may simply have carried into areas that were well wooded.

[walkabout]

the presence of short bows dictated by lack of long staves is definitely a possible reason, as well as the preference for a more maneuverable bow in brush and on horseback. there could really be any number of reasons any given tribe would have for the preference. as for arrows and their part, i think that you would see a trend of longer arrows compared to modern standards because of the spine issue with the thicker handle areas on native bows. the arrows of african tribes and south americans is a good example of such.  longer "warbows" are probably found because the longer bows would be easier to tiller and last longer in the rigors of use in battle compared to the shorter bows, as well as the additional forgiveness when shooting in a stressful situation, and maybe as well their added length would have allowed the tribal bowyer to attain higher draw weights than the shorter bows would have without the need for the time consuming process of sinewing. im no authority by any means but it makes pretty good sense.

[aero86]

i agree with walk about.  in the new PA magazine, they look at some bows and arrows from southern utah i believe?  anyways, they were all pretty short.  the wood in that area is usually limited to shrub like trees.  like mesquite, but thats always been my thought on it.

[SA]

short bow may have been easier to hide in open and rocky areas  for hunting, raids, warfare. where a longbow might be seen alot easier sticking up from behind a rock or bush? used on horseback was an added bonus. just a thought,this is an interesting topic i would like to see more people chime in.

[Story Teller]

Thanks, everyone for chiming in.

I can add a few more points from what research that I have done.

I know from pioneer accounts that the climate was wetter across most of the plains during the time of westward expansion and that the forests came back with a greater proportion of arid varieties of pine and scrub than was here before they were logged off - an after affect of the glacial retreat several thousand years ago, but I don't believe the resources are vastly changed.  Most of the bows that have survived in museums and collections to make it into literature on the subject seem to be made of woods traded from elsewhere.  As for making arrow shafts by splitting and shaving logs instead of shoots, as is done with cedar and hickory, Douglas Fir is the best local candidate though I've not read or heard of it being done by natives.

I have hunted with my own bows for several years in southern Colorado and used bows from 5 to 6 feet in length for all of my hunting.  I have learned to detest an aggressive recurve because the pinch between the string and the limb snags on every leaf and twig when crawling through the scrub oaks and mountain mahogany.  Otherwise, the longer bow is no more trouble here than it would be back east - in fact it is probably easier here because cover is generally less dense.  As for the comment about a shorter bow being easier to hide or disguise in lighter cover - there may be something to that.  There may have been cause for longer-range stability that comes with a longer bow.  I come home from every single archery season commenting, "If I had been using a rifle, we'd have venison on the table;" 50 - 100-yard shots are much easier to come by than 20-yard shots.

Anyway, I can add those observations to the discussion.  Anyone, have others?

Thanks,
Story Teller

[Badger]

   I am not much of a history student but I am facinated with trying to figure out the logic behind the designs and wood choices of different cultures. I like to make some assumptions, such as it must have worked for them because they continued to build them this way. I have spent time in the desert searching for bow woods and finding iron wood or mesquite straight enough to make a bow over 4ft long is not easy. Also the wood is very dense and a 4ft bow drawing only 20" would have had sufficient power to kill medium size game at 20 yards with no problem. I also tend to believe a lot of their hunting may have been just walking till game popped up and shooting, this is done at very short ranges and short draws have some advantage here.  5 and 10 yard shots are typical on a lot of small game. Steve

[Grunt]

Another part of the mix is the fact that most NA folks were smaller people than the people of the Clorox tribe of today. The NA folks used a lot of biomorphic measurements like a bows length should be based on the height of a mans chin from the ground or the spread of his outstretched arms.

[half eye]

Story Teller,
      Most interesting topic. First I for sure am no expert but in the course of what I've managed to dig up on "short bows" here are a few ideas that have been kicked around by the "experts". Mason had this to say in 1893: "As a rule, however, the savage mind had as its problem, not that of the modern of ransacking the earth for materials and transferring them to artificial centers of consumption, but the developement of the resources of each culture area, to make the bow and the arrow that each region would best help him create. His was an epoch of differentiation."
      The Odawa (Ottawa) bows of the great lakes region varied from 36" to 48" and they had the choice to make them as long as they wished, but chose to make them short to be readily transportable, easily to hand, and capable of being fired from their 30 man war canoes as well.
      My recent readings of Atran Discussions, as well as some from "The Society of Archer-Antiquaries", #51, 2008, pp. 89-98 and some exerpts from "The Visible Chinese Bow" by Stephan Selby - 1999 in discussions of later period short horn bows. As part of the discussion early bows (pre hunnic influenced) were also mentioned. The summary of that was that the early wooden, sinew wraped, bows were common in the arid regions such as the Miran Depression (where the caucasian mummies were discovered) and later the horn, wood, sinew, bows. But they did go on to mention that in the southern regions and eastern regions where the weather was more humid that longer, heavier bows were common. This was believed to be because the sinew and hide glue would not fair so well in wet/humid conditions. They also differentiated between Infantry and Artillery bows from the shorter bows commonly accepted as the "horse-bow".

So my idea is that foremost, people made the most of the materials they had at hand, and learned to make the most efficient bows they could. Secondly, I believe they made bows that were "Purpose built". That could be to accomodate a fighting/hunting style.....or the style of fighting and hunting was adapted to the strong points of the bow. Third, I dont believe that any of the Native Americans had a use for formal infantry/artillery bows (long/strong self wood bows of extra heavy weight). Lastly, The use of sinew backing  and transverse wrapping are not as effective on longer types of bows so much as they are on shorter models. So the complicated sinewing patterns used on bows seems to be nearly universal amoungst natives in Airid regions....from the Americas to Eurpoe, to Asia and on to the Arctic.....I guess to me it seems that man is pretty intelligent when it comes to "inventing" a solution to his problems and so maybe all the reasons above are part of the answer.

Just one olds guys two cents worth.
rich

[Traxx]

Alot of the lengths were designed for the Style of hunting used by Non horseback cultures.Haveing been told how hunts were conducted by Elders,when i was young and then visiting severall of the sites themselves,you can see how and why such short bows were popular and how longer bows would be a hinderance.Most early native people,didnt hunt,as people do today.Hunts were usually communal hunts lead by a hunt captain who was an elder,very experienced person in the ways and habbits of the game being hunted.they were usually drives of some sort,with Dropoffs,corralls and hunters along side the drives in small blinds.These hunts were conducted at certain times of the year and in certain ways as to put the least amount of pressure on the game,to keep them from moveing on to different countryand subsequently causeing the band to have to move too often.One particular Pronghorn hunting setup,had tribesman driveing the Pronghorn,along well used pronghorn trails.Various forks in the trails were blocked by live humans or Stone Dummies to keep the prey on certain trails.This trail led to a flat,that had a Sheer Dropoff of about 60 ft at its end.If the animals chose not to jump or were not otherwise forced to go over the dropoff,they had to run back through a guantlet of archers hidden in small rock blinds.These archers would then pop up and pick them off as they ran back through.the distance of the shot was about 15 to 20 ft at the most.These Archers would not have been able to lay low and as inconspicuos,in these small rock blinds with a bow of much length.The short bow was also handy in that it could be drawn in these small blinds as the shooters came up from within to make a quick snap shot as they cleared the blind,rather than stand up then draw and shoot,which would have gave the animal more time to dodge the shot.

[Story Teller]

Everyone,

Thanks for the great replies so far.  I knew that there had to be more insights out there and that this forum would be a place to find some.  I have often wondered about cause and effect and whether the tools (bows and arrows) should be designed to meet the tactics, or the tactics developed to make use of the best tools at hand.  Naturally, some of each is probably true.  I appreciate the insights provided by Traxx and Badger.  As a hunter in the area, I have often supposed that the Native Americans did not hunt as I do... the success rate would be too poor for successful survival. I guessed that drives or even persistence hunting might have been used - certainly hunting in groups.  I had not thought of the common thread of longer bows in more temperate and humid regions and short bows in arid regions around the world.  Also, the point that some eastern, woodland tribes with the means to make and use long bows, still preferred shorter bows is significant.  Thanks half eye. 

It makes sense to me, and seems to be supported by many of the bows I have seen in museums or literature, that since a well made bow can last for years, one could reasonably trade for staves of choice woods from other regions.  One would not have to be limited always to the woods regionally available for bows.  However, arrows need to be replaced frequently.  I still wonder if the reason bows in arid regions are short is because the short bow favors arid climates, or if it's because of the arrow materials that could be found in those regions.  Based on the discussion so far, I want to believe that short arrow materials may still be a factor, but that successful hunting tactics and methods developed in these regions also favored, or at least made best use of, short bows.  In everything I've read, archery hunters, recent and from ages past, rarely shot at game more than 30 yards distance.  Based on that, there is little hunting advantage produced by longer bows and I like the suggestions that climate conditions' affects on bow reliability was probably a bigger driver for bow length and design.  It seems reasonable that where the climate allows for a short bow to be highly effective, a shorter bow would be both most economical and most convenient.  Does anyone have any other insights to add?

Thanks,
Story Teller

[loefflerchuck]

 I have lived in Colorado, Utah and California out west and have found great shoot shafts that with a little straitening yield 30+" arrows. I cut them down to around 24" cuz I too like short bows. Not because  they are better. They are harder to shoot and under perform long bows, but I have gotten used to a 23 to 25" draw. I would also like to point out a lot of the tribes in  California, the southwest and the great basin used arrows 30+ inches long(for easier aiming) and bows of 3 feet or so. Most of these tribes were not on horseback. Most, not all short arrows were used from horseback.
 So my point is everyone was using short bows so thats how you learned to shoot. The other one is, if you carried your bow everywhere, wouldn't tou want a sidearm instead of a rifle?