Author Topic: sudbury bow question  (Read 7247 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline sleek

  • Member
  • Posts: 6,764
sudbury bow question
« on: November 17, 2014, 01:34:25 pm »
I know the bow was hickory and some folks think it was left strung to cause the deflex at the tips. But seeing thats where it took set, it must have been whip tillered for the outer third to be th only place it took set, right? Also, I never heard of a whip tillered bendy handle though I have heard it was a bendy handle bow, though I heard also some folks made exact reproductions and it didnt bend in the handle. Thoughts? I read somewhere it was a trapped back, can anyone verify that? Last question is, being a flat bow, was it decrowned or just a very flat stave?
Tread softly and carry a bent stick.

Dont seek your happiness through the approval of others

Offline bradsmith2010

  • Member
  • Posts: 5,187
Re: sudbury bow question
« Reply #1 on: November 17, 2014, 02:24:56 pm »
probably a flat stave,, you could make several versions and see what you like best,, at that length,, stiff handle is more likely, but you could make it bend in the handle if thats what you like,, probably whip tillered cause of the length and shorter draw,,

Offline Jim Davis

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,352
  • Reparrows
    • Reparrows
Re: sudbury bow question
« Reply #2 on: November 17, 2014, 02:37:37 pm »
The strain on the limbs of a braced bow is very different from that  of a drawn bow. A bow left braced for years may well set back at the tips without changing the rest of the limbs noticeably.

Jim Davis
Jim Davis

Kentucky--formerly Maine

Offline sleek

  • Member
  • Posts: 6,764
Re: sudbury bow question
« Reply #3 on: November 17, 2014, 03:08:04 pm »
I can see that happening.  What with the tips being pulled down ward and the center being pushed out, yeah, at brace I guess the stresses are different.

Brad, thanks for the reply but I am hoping to find out exactly what the original bow is. Is it a decrowned stave or a flat one?
Tread softly and carry a bent stick.

Dont seek your happiness through the approval of others

Offline PatM

  • Member
  • Posts: 6,737
Re: sudbury bow question
« Reply #4 on: November 17, 2014, 03:29:19 pm »
The pics I have seen show that the back looks smoothed but not decrowned in the modern sense where it is flattened as well.
 To me the bow looks like it would have been more outer mid-limb bend than truly whip tillered.
 

BobbyO

  • Guest
Re: sudbury bow question
« Reply #5 on: November 17, 2014, 04:07:51 pm »
Here's all the info I've put together on the Sudbury bow. It incudes info from two emails I received from the Peabody museum when I asked them for measurements. BobbyO.

SUDBURY BOW
Accession # 95-20-10/49340

The following dimensions are taken from two emails from the Peabody Museum, 9/26/2012.

Email # 1
Overall: 168 x 4.6 x 3 cm.  (66+1/8" x 1+3/16" x 1+3/16")
Distance (Bowed length): 167.6397 cm.  (66")
Distance (Total Length): 169.5447 cm.  (66+3/4")
Distance (Hand grip: 10.16 cm.  (4")
Distance (Widest bevel): 12.065 cm.  (4+3/4")

Email # 1 [elucidated but still at variance with email # 2]
Overall: 66+1/8" x 1+3/16" x 1+3/16"
Bowed length: (Chord): 66"
Total Length: 66+3/4"
Hand grip: 4"
? ? Distance (Widest bevel): 4+3/4"

Email # 2
LENGTH: nock to nock: chord 64+1/2", actual 65"
OVERALL LENGTH: chord 65+3/4", actual 67+1/8"
GRIP: shooting axis 1+3/16", Transverse axis 15/16", circumference 3+7/8"
MIDWAY between grip and nock: shooting axes both 9/16",
transverse axis-upper 1+7/8", lower 1+3/4"; circumference upper 4+7/16", lower 4"
NOCKS: transverse axis upper and lower 3/4", shooting axis upper 3/8", lower 5/16".
Circumference upper and lower 2" (measurements taken at lower edge of nocks, toward grip)

Notes:
Shooting axis = thickness
Transverse axis = width
Overall length = as measured along back of bow from tip to tip
Chord = as measured in a straight line from point to point

Upper limb nock to tip = 1+13/32"
Lower limb nock to tip = 23/32"

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

Sudbury bow

Length nock to nock 65"
Length overall 67+1/8"
Grip 1+3/16" thick x 15/16" wide

Midway from grip to nock
Upper limb 9/16" thick x 1+7/8" wide
Lower limb 9/16" thick x 1+3/4" wide

Below nocks
Upper limb 3/8" x 3/4" wide
Lower limb 5/16" x 3/4" wide

Upper limb nock to tip = 1+13/32" {my estimate}
Lower limb nock to tip = 23/32" {my estimate}


&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

If you are interested in primitive archery you have probably heard of the Sudbury bow found in Peabody, MA. during the 17th century. This bow has been mentioned in many publications and has fueled the curiosity of many bowyers who often try to replicate it.

In the Traditional Bowyers bible Vol. 2  p.65 is a drawing of the bow and a few measurements: length of 67+1/8"; handle width 15/16". Widest part of upper limb is 1+7/8" for lower limb is 1+3/4". The bow is made from hickory.

In another publication by Patrick M. Malone called "The Skulking Way of War: Technology and Tactics Amongst New England Indians" page 18, Malone mentions that the bow is only 66+3/4" as opposed to the 67+ 1/8" observed in the TBB vol. 2.

These discrepancies lead me to believe that perhaps the bow has not been thoroughly examined. One thing both sources agree on is that the grip is narrow and that the limbs are wide and flat with a convex face (does he mean back of bow?).

To a bowmaker the bow has the characteristics of being made from a branch or perhaps a sapling. The difference between the limb width between both limbs suggests that the stave narrowed. The convex face hints at the use of a small diameter sapling or branch. Even though it is entirely possible to achieve the same results using a larger diameter tree the trouble the maker would have to go through to attain the same shape multiplies so it is very likely the bow was made from a sapling, especially if made with stone tools.

From a picture of the Peabody museum we can reasonably say a few more things about the bow. We can see the handle is the thickest place, however the thickness is relatively the same until the mid-limb. This indicates given the thickness and width that the bow had a whip tiller, meaning that it bent more from the fades or where its starts thinning out, very much like a modern traditional 1950's bow. This type of tiller gives the bowyer a very stable shot and very little hand shock, factors that affect accuracy.

 &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

Wampanoag bows ARE bend-through-the-handle-bows. They don't bend much, but they do bend, and you can feel it.
The bow should be between 67" and 68" long. Slightly under 1" wide in the handle area and 1+3/16" thick. The limbs gradually widen to the center at about 1+3/4" to 1+7/8" then taper to 3/4" wide at nocks; with Pin nocks.
The limbs are trapezoidal in shape, tapered from the back to the belly.
This bow really resembles a narrowed, stretched-out West Coast paddle bow. In fact they tiller out about the same too.

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

Jeff Collier asks:

I would like to know some measurements, etc. for an Eastern Woodlands bow to shoot and to show to my classes (we do a unit on Native Americans to begin the school year.  I have lots of White Ash and Black Locust in the woods out back.

Paul Comstock: Some bow makers want very specific dimensions when "copying" an Indian or aboriginal bow. This approach has some limited research applications for scholars, but I recommend that mainstream bow makers forget about specific dimensions. Among any aboriginal group, the same style of bow will have widely divergent dimensions, based on its intended draw weight, and the size of the person shooting it. If you want to make a 55-pound hunting bow, you could unknowingly copy the dimensions of a bow that was made to pull 30 pounds for  a 13-year-old boy. The resulting bow will disappoint you (or at best, mislead you).

Consider the Sudbury bow, perhaps the best known Eastern Indian bow artifact. Everything about the bow suggests it was designed to pull 40-45 pounds. Yet some modern bowyers copy the length and width precisely, and make a bow that pulls 70 pounds. They end up with an inefficient weapon with lots of string follow. I believe the Indian who made it was smart enough to change the measurements if he wanted something heavier. The typical Eastern bow - if placed with one tip on the ground in front of the archer - would be at least as tall as the archer's chin, usually as tall as the archer, and sometimes taller. Most had a rectangular or semi-rectangular cross-section along the length, and bent along the entire length. If you want 55 pounds, shoot for an average width between 1.25 and 1.5 inches. If lighter, go correspondingly narrower. For stylistic nuances (nock shapes, etc.), check the drawings in Bows and Arrows of the Native Americans by Jim Hamm, or the Traditional Bowyers Bible series.

Offline scp

  • Member
  • Posts: 660
Re: sudbury bow question
« Reply #6 on: November 17, 2014, 05:01:01 pm »
Wonderful posts! Thank you. Now we need some photos of replica bows here. ;)

Offline bradsmith2010

  • Member
  • Posts: 5,187
Re: sudbury bow question
« Reply #7 on: November 17, 2014, 06:21:49 pm »
Sleek, I have read I think everything on that bow,, and never heard if decrowned or not,, most the native bows were not that I have read about,, that being said,, I had read of bows that were scrapped flat with no regard to growth rings etc,, sorry I dont have an answer for you,,nice thread

Offline sleek

  • Member
  • Posts: 6,764
Re: sudbury bow question
« Reply #8 on: November 17, 2014, 06:36:29 pm »
This is definitely turning to a wealth of information on the bow. Thank you very much to everyone who has participated. Perhaps we could turn this thread into a Sudbury library of info, full of links and pictures of reproduction and bows built to similar stats and design?
Tread softly and carry a bent stick.

Dont seek your happiness through the approval of others