Primitive Archer
Main Discussion Area => Bows => Topic started by: John32r on October 27, 2015, 08:30:07 pm
-
I have noticed that the real Plains Indian bows tend to have a very low brace height. Please tell me the cause of low brace height and its advantages and disadvantages, and why they did this (when it seems to be so out of style today). Thank you.
(https://41.media.tumblr.com/4bd639f64c58886c17c58267c113d534/tumblr_np00j3vvCd1qlmfbyo1_400.jpg)
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/c0/b0/8f/c0b08f3317157a8d652d4fac28735fbe.jpg)
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-y9oJiMMIxow/UcNoWhgs1ZI/AAAAAAAAMuo/4BsAA5XuN04/s1600/Native+American-Indian-Bow-Arrow.jpg)
(http://imageenvision.com/450/7193-stock-image-sioux-indian-man-chief-lone-bear-by-jvpd.jpg)
I could post many more images, but you get the idea.
-
John, I don't have the answer to your question, but I can definitely confirm your observations. I have wondered if it might lessen the stress on the wood of the bow. It might also keep some stress off the string. As I said,,,,,, I don't really know. I can tell you that those old-time horsemen would often string a bow while they were still on their pony. It is easy to do this if you aren't carrying an 80# bow, and easier still if your string is closer to the nock (longer string). Curtis
-
John, I don't have the answer to your question, but I can definitely confirm your observations. I have wondered if it might lessen the stress on the wood of the bow. It might also keep some stress off the string. As I said,,,,,, I don't really know. I can tell you that those old-time horsemen would often string a bow while they were still on their pony. It is easy to do this if you aren't carrying an 80# bow, and easier still if your string is closer to the nock (longer string). Curtis
Thanks for the information which was new to me. I have no idea how these men managed to string their bows on horseback. I find it very difficult to string my bows without standing, and yet I saw video of an Inuit man stringing his while sitting down, apparently just pulling the string by thumb. Guess I just don't know what I'm doing.
Lessening the stress on the bow would certainly be advantageous. Seems to me that it might save the string as well, and we all know how much sinew it takes to make a new bowstring. Or should I say, how little sinew an animal actually provides.
-
Longer effective power stroke as well.
-
Most of the bows had significantly shorter draws than we're used to as well, could be the short brace is for longer string travel.
Pat beat me to it.
-
Interesting. Every time I make a bow, it comes out like one of these, very low brace height. I'm partial to short bows because the only reliable bow wood in my area, various types or juniper, is so difficult to make long bows out of.
-
I'd say the power stroke is important. If you had a 7" brace versus a 4" brace and had the same 28" draw and a 40lb pull, you would go from 35 ft-lbs to 40 ft-lbs of available work to impart to the arrow. Thats almost a 15% increase. The slightly longer string would also result in a larger radius of curvature of the limb and resultant reduced strain.
On the downside, I suspect arrow cleaance around the handle and fletching clearance could be problematic.
Ken
-
Yes, I second KS5. The arrow gets more energy.
Michael
-
1 less strain on the bow at a given draw
2 less strain on the bow when braced
3 possible increase in cast for a given bow
4 the low brace probably increased the life of the bow by reducing set
for example Tim Baker stated that if you increase the brace on your bow 1 inche, it will but the same strain as drawing your bow 2 more inches,, I am quoting from memory but you get the idea,,
a higher brace is just more strain on the bow,, if you can get the arrow to shoot well at the lower brace,, it is to the bows advantage,, more cast with less strain,,
5, for those of you that are worried about the feather making a noise at low brace,, cut that feather shorter :) or slightly draw the bow past the feather as game approaches,, :)
-
Advantage of longer power stroke, but disadvantage of more paradox as the nock gets closer to the bow before it leaves the string.
Also it might whack you on the wrist.
Del
-
I figure they needed all the power stroke they could get as their bows were subject to humidity, rain and other things that aren't good for a bow, they were probably not very highly performing weapons from our point of view due to being stored in the open air and absorbing water from the atmosphere. Making them sluggish with a lot of set most likely.
They still got the job done though and that's all that matters. :)
-
I dont think they were stored in open air,, I have read quite a bit about Ishi testing bows for distance,, I am sure some performed very well,, Ishi did not like to take his bow out in moist conditions,,, I am guessing there was a wide range in quality of bow,, just like today,, and that the gifted bow makers made a bow that would hold up to any "modern standard" :)
-
Many of the shorter bows were from the western regions where the R/H was dryer. In the east the bows were normally longer making less strain on the bow where the R/H is higher. I know nothing about why the brace height was low on the western bows.
-
What I notice about the pics is how narrow they appear! I thought they where more wide. At least that is what I see made today that's supposed to look like the ones of yesteryear. Arvin
-
low brace allows more energy release from the limbs. i dont mind a short bow with a short draw with a low brace. it works. i like my brace on a 53 inch bow so my fist fits loosely between the string and the belly of the bow.its a bend through the handle bow. it draws aprox. 40 + at 26 inches.theres no set.shot the bow a few hundred times since i made it. shoots great.so i like it.Tony
-
The narrow profile is due to choice of wood and sinew backing in many cases. Paradox is not a problem when the arrows are sticking out well beyond the bow hand at full draw and likely underspined to the degree that they shoot just right.
You will also see evidence of more of a wrist guard than an arm guard being used.
-
good point Pat, some of the arrows were over 30 inches long,, for a relatively short draw bow,,
-
Astute observation Del "Also it might whack you on the wrist". You are correct! Here's a photo for you. Low brace height= whack on wrist. CC
-
Given Bradsmith's points 1,2, and 4 as true for all wooden bows, these would be the factors which an Indian bow maker could regulate (lessen) to 'overbuild' his bow. Bowyers today and on this site realize that a theoretically perfectly tillered bow will deliver optimum performance while hopefully preserving the life of the bow for as long as possible.
Most native Americans didn't have the time or tillering tools that we allow ourselves today.
-
Didn't have the time? They had tons of time.
-
I suspect that it was because that these Indian archers had a short draw length while shooting on horse.(some picture shows that they draw their bow at the height near their belly)
maybe low brace is more suitable for that pose.
-
I'd say that on those bows, it's due to the overall length of the bow. Relatively speaking, the brace height to length ratio is probably the same as a 6" brace on a 66" bow.
-
If there is some string follow and low brace height, the bow might be able to be left strung with little pressure to set additionally. Having a bow strung at all times could be handy in a surprise attack. If it was me I'd think about two bows, one strung for defense in a permanent encampment, one unstrung for hunting or raiding. Well, unless the strung bow was good enough for both, which, I suppose it could be, because, while string follow hurts cast, low brace height helps. It might be interesting to see what could be done with a bow optimized for continual stringing. I wouldn't be surprised if it resembled some native forms with similar low brace height preferred..
-
Here are some photos of bows of the Selknam Indians from southern Argentina. They were used to hunt Guanaco. They typically are longer and thicker than plains Indians bows, unbacked, with no reflex or deflex.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a0/Selknam_bow.JPG
http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--0k6tMFuO--/17kzwej4nz5lpjpg.jpg
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/5d/c9/86/5dc986e6981e7da4ad6102836061956f.jpg
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/8a/3e/34/8a3e3480d5cb97ebcff06152121d2100.jpg
https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7297/11688146205_9d38e0abbd.jpg
Eskimo CMC bow and other bows:
http://cache2.asset-cache.net/gc/107876765-eskimo-couple-hunting-photograph-around-1930-gettyimages.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=rrcRWlo7JmDRu%2Bp5F997nZ5ek3UJH5%2B6F%2Bg9vh%2BhFhTlEMkh2J22nPluvzBhTASh
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/12/25/article-2253029-16A53BAB000005DC-321_634x520.jpg
-
If there is some string follow and low brace height, the bow might be able to be left strung with little pressure to set additionally. Having a bow strung at all times could be handy in a surprise attack. If it was me I'd think about two bows, one strung for defense in a permanent encampment, one unstrung for hunting or raiding. Well, unless the strung bow was good enough for both, which, I suppose it could be, because, while string follow hurts cast, low brace height helps. It might be interesting to see what could be done with a bow optimized for continual stringing. I wouldn't be surprised if it resembled some native forms with similar low brace height preferred..
Another good point. They had to keep the strings on their bows constantly.
-
We in the modern age tend to think of efficiency in linear terms -- measurable. Arrow speed for instance.
But efficiency in a wilderness life is measured in terms of survival. Selection and evolution works on tools as well as species. If your bow doesn't efficiently meet the requirements of keeping you and your family alive, you, and it, disappear.
So string follow and low brace height can have a use in terms of survival efficiency. In fact low brace height minimizes the amount of string follow needed to stay strung without deteriorating, in addition to increasing cast. Two positive effects.. Having a bow strung at all times is a similar effect to having a gun with a magazine as opposed to one that must be broken or rammed to load. High speed response is an adaptive advantage and results in the evolution of a tool, like a weapon.
-
The bow carrying cases seem to indicate the bows were not actually strung at all times. They would be more holster shaped like the Asiatic variations if that were the case. Instead they are just like a bow sock.
-
Were all bows always cased?
-
Not when they were being shot... But if the bows were strung all the time they would have made different shapes of cases. Unstringing must have been done.
-
Bows of the Native Americans were most definitely kept unstrung in most cases. There are many accounts of Native Americans doing just that, including with a reason given (sparing the bow from excessive strain), as well as the fact that the majority of NA bows have strings that have a fixed end and a noose end. Even the one-sided nocks favored in the Plains are so to make unstringing and stringing a bow easier. It works, too.
Low brace heights have already been discussed at length, and good reasons given. More cast, more durability are my reasons to use them. I shoot mostly 50" selfbows these days, with a 20 - 22" draw. My favored brace height with these is around 4 1/2", measured from the bow back. That's less than a palm width between bow belly and string. My short bow arrows are cut to drawlength, so they have no "overhang" at full draw. Also, I mostly use D-style bows, with the full width of the bow at the arrow pass. I have no issues getting perfect arrow flight with these, although I had to test lots of spine and point combos to find the right ones for this setup. You only have to do this once, and any Native American would have had pertinent insider knowhow to start with. Heavy arrowheads, as common on the Plains, help tremendously in getting clean flight and plenty of penetration without much length anywhere in the setup.
There is no bow style that was quicker and easier to make, starting from acquiring the raw materials, through roughing out, tillering and even stringmaking, than a short, narrow, bend-through the handle bow. It is a highly efficient weapon in this regard.
Tuukka
-
If you look at this photo you can see a bow left with the string on to the left
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/5d/c9/86/5dc986e6981e7da4ad6102836061956f.jpg
The Yuma Indians are described as keeping their bows constantly strung:
https://books.google.com/books?id=A9B__cVObh4C&pg=PA35
I think that while Indians probably did unstring their bows, the time for which they were strung was much longer than modern bowyering standards. A hunt may take 8-10 hours during which the bow might be strung the entire time.
-
Based on the original question, I thought we were discussing Plains Indians, or at least the NA of Western North America, not the uttermost reaches of South America, but hey, it's all good!
Photos are always a bit specious, since there is no way to know how much setting up was involved, then as now. Strung bows look much better, or are simply much more identifiable than unstrung ones. When it comes to the Selknam in your first photo, the definitive ethnography by Lucas Bridges (who grew up and lived among the Selknam at the turn of the century) specifies that the bowstring was carried inside a bladder bag and put to the bow at the last moment, to protect it from the wet weather that made it useless. The extremely unpredictable and wet climate of Tierra del Fuego had an effect here.
I have studied a set of Selknam bow, arrows and quiver (fascinating stuff), and the upper end of the sinew bowstring had a running noose, easily separated from the nock, plus clear wear on the string end over some distance, most easily explained by repeated stringing and unstringing of the bow.
Always-strung bows can be found, for instance, in the Amazonas, where extremely low brace heights and extremely long bows are common.
Back to North America, the Yuma are a special case, using intentionally deflexed willow & cottonwood bows that are under no strain when strung. Even then, a Yuman speaking Paipai elder kept his willow bows lightly strung when not in use and tightened the string before using the bow, as described by Paul Campbell (1999).
8 - 10 hours of continuous strung time is no biggie even these days. I'm often out in the woods that long, strung bow in hand, as is every hunting / 3D-shooting archer I know.
Tuukka
-
An intentionally deflexed bow was certainly in line with what I was talking about re. purposeful string follow, and low brace height for native bows. Not all bows.
Just as I don't believe that all bows used cases, and all bows were unstrung all of the time when not actively being used.
Which would lead to the possibility (not certainty) that.
1.) cases do not exist for some styles of bows
2.) bows with cases didn't always spend their lives in cases
3.) bows with or without cases of suitable type (per above) may have spent extended periods strung
I don't pretend to know whether over the past several thousand years some native bow types or individual bows spent extended periods strung, but I do suggest that it is a possibility that bows, of the right form, could pose an advantage if they were. And low brace height would certainly be useful to achieve it.
-
This is a subject i have pondered in the past as well.Other than the reasons previously discussed,there is another aspect to consider.The deflexed tips combined with a low brace height,results in a softer early draw,which is easier to hold and draw with a pinch or augmented pinch type grip,while riding an equine over uneven terrain.Easier to hold at partial draw and quickly come to full weight at a full short draw and a quick snap shot. Try it sometime,youll see what i mean.
-
Oh and Tuukka....
Good to see you posting again.I always enjoyed your input,regarding the short bow.