Bows and Arrows in the New World

[Bushwick]

Tribes of the great lakes were using metal spears knifes etc. before european contact. Also has a type of writing they used to make birch bark scrolls

[arbarnhart]

As an occasional amateur maker of bows (bowyer), I have experience with making them following traditional instructions from European and Native American cultures. There is an interesting difference or two. The European bow tends to be longer, thicker, capable of shooting further, more durable and *much* harder to make correctly. The Europeans made bows that might be passed down a generation or more and could fire an arrow a couple of hundred yards. Before you pass judgement, about the only thing a bow is good for past 80 yards or so is warfare; indiscriminately firing into groups hoping to kill or main is only something we do to our fellow man. The Native bow sometimes lasted a long time, but generally did not. However, it is hard to overstate the simplicity of building one; it was a trade-off that was not unreasonable at all. The were/are flat and can be split out and shaped quite quickly.

[scout1067]

That is very interesting.  I am only really familiar with European bows.  I did not know there was such a large difference between the bows of Europe and the Bows of North America.

[arbarnhart]

It occurred to me that I should have said "mostly" with respect to being flat; some tribes did use more of a D shape in cross section. Also, as seems to be true in many crafts, uniformity did not seem to be a goal. The oral traditions say that many of the bowyers "listened" to the wood for instructions. They were "green" before their time also. They sometimes cut into a tree and split out a short section without cutting the tree down and the tree would usually survive. I have a chart in one of my books that describes some found artifacts; I will try to remember to get some info from it and a few European (mostly English) bows and put together a comparison. Stated roughly, most of the N.A. bows were in the 40# - 60# draw range, which is very suitable for hunting most game and were around 3' or less. European bows tend to be 4' or longer and 80# + bows are not uncommon. A few N.A. bows were made with high draw weights and low lengths that would make most bowyers cringe; there is no way they would get more than a few hunts out of one. But bringing down a buffalo would probably make the effort to build a disposable weapon worthwhile.

[arbarnhart]

A couple of Wiki articles indicate that I am right to call myself an amateur:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatbow
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longbow

The long bow was primarily European and the flat bow primarily NA, but there were some of each both places. The Wiki article also says that long bows were preferable because they are easier to make, but I don't agree. It may be because of the yew wood available to long bow builders in England. Given hickory and oak for raw material, I can make a working flat bow without a lot of effort and don't have to be nearly as selective about what pieces of wood will work. My experience with long bows has been that not nearly all staves are suitable and tillering (getting it shaped so that it bends in a proper curve that stresses the wood fairly evenly) is much trickier.

I did think of one other thing I think is a difference - NA bows were often sinew backed. In other words, they used sinew, usually deer, on the "back" (what most people would consider the front, but "belly" and "back" are the terms bowyers use) to strengthen the wood and help prevent splintering. It would not be too much of a stretch to compare that to fiberglass.

[Citizen John]

Now that I am retiring perhaps I'll get around to making a bow. 
I do not agree that bows and arrows came along about 500 AD in the new world.  I used to walk the corn fields as a lad picking up the occasional arrowhead and didn't realize until many years later that the different shapes were not only different tribal people but also from different time periods.  The oldest arrowhead that I found was about 4' deep in the bottom of a creek and according to the book was 6000 years old.  I am not a historian but logic tells me that there must have been some communication across the world.  Bow and Arrows are not the only thing that we notice is similar between "Old and New".  The land bridge to Asia might explain the bow, but what about the pyramids?
We know that ancient civilizations had sea worthy craft.  I believe that there was more contact than we know of in recorded history.

[skiguy]

but what about the pyramids?
We know that ancient civilizations had sea worthy craft.  I believe that there was more contact than we know of in recorded history.

Since the Egyptians or Greeks were good record keepers, if there was contact don't you think they would have recorded it?

[DonaldBaker]

I think the pyramid was geometrically the easiest structure to build and it is likely that the Incas, Mayas, and Aztecs came to that realization in the same manner that the Sumerians and Egyptians did.

[skiguy]

Agreed

[Phidippides]

I agree as well.  Whereas similarities in items between worlds can potentially be explained because they were portable (i.e. crossing the land bridge), large structures were far and few between.  I suppose that some oral descriptions could have been transmitted this way, but I doubt it.  I am more inclined to think of such pyramids as some of the simplest monumental structures one could build.