[Bruce Smithhammer]

in reply to: Facebook Fued #39429

Facebook will truly rot your brain.

[Bruce Smithhammer]

in reply to: What ya got goin? #39255

Just got back from a quick trip down south for turkeys which opened a few days ago. Had lots of good action on the first day, including a really fired-up gobbler that we called in, but he hung up in the cover on the edge of the clearing, not 15 yards from me, and wouldn’t come out. Still, it was a really fun hunt.

And I finally got to put my Seek Outside stove to good use. Worked great for cold nights/mornings:

Our season is just getting started – more to come…

[Bruce Smithhammer]

in reply to: Short recurves…suggestions? #39240

I have to say, reading the interview with Dick Mauch in the new TBM really makes me want to get a Super Mag…

[Bruce Smithhammer]

in reply to: Books on Bows #35446

I think ancient peoples were a lot more mobile than we’ve generally given credit for.

There are some sites in South America that also call the theory that the Bering land bridge was the only avenue for migration into question.

[Bruce Smithhammer]

in reply to: Books on Bows #34814

ausjim wrote: Hey Bruce, was there much variety across North America in terms of bow styles, building techniques etc? Or was it a fairly consistent thing across most tribes?

Jim –

There was actually a fair bit of variation, from long, d-shaped bows, to short “double curve” bows, selfbows and composites made of horn and bone. Depended quite a bit on the tribe and the region.

[Bruce Smithhammer]

in reply to: Books on Bows #34764

Another fine recent book I read:

American Indian Archery

by Reginald and Gladys Laubin

I really wasn’t sure how good this was going to be, and I was pleasantly surprised. The Laubins had extensive experience living with Native Americans for much of their lives, and Charles was an avid builder of various Native American bow designs. As a result, this book is not just well-researched histoy, but a true hands-on, first-hard experience point of view. I would highly recommend it to anyone interested this aspect of bow history.

[Bruce Smithhammer]

in reply to: Books on Bows #34688

colmike wrote: But I have to tell you that the name “Smithhammer” has become a curse around here:D

Your house too?

[Bruce Smithhammer]

in reply to: June July TBM #34685

ausjim wrote:

There was a nice letter to the editor from some bloke called Forgehammer or Smithanvil or something. I have it on good authority it’s a pseudonym of Frank Zappa’s, who is apparently a closet bowhunter and outdoorsman.

Those are actually some of the kinder variations I’ve heard. 8)

Dave –

My print version of the JJ issue just arrived yesterday, but the digital version has been available for download a little longer than that. I bet yours will arrive shortly.

[Bruce Smithhammer]

in reply to: Short recurves…suggestions? #34683

ausjim wrote: So I’ve been thinking about getting a short bow for a little while now. I had a brief, jealousy inspired desire for a Thunderchild, thanks to the jerks here who own them and post salacious photos of them in the field.

I know. Those guys are soooo annoying. They should really just have their own sub-forum and quit taunting the rest of us…

ausjim wrote: I really want something shorter than 52″, to fit a space I have in mind…

Climbing down a dingo hole?

On a more serious note….the shortest recurve I’ve shot was 52″ (an old K-Mag). But I’ve heard lots of good things about the Mag 48s, and how cool would it be to have a bow that small?!? It also seems to me that Bear has stepped it up again in the QC dept.

Of course, I do feel compelled to add that I have it on good authority that the Thunderchild is quite stable in hand…

[Bruce Smithhammer]

in reply to: Books on Bows #34257

Steve Graf wrote: It is a mean joke the universe has played on me. What I mean is that the thing I love most (besides family of course) is so closely connected to the thing I hate most (war).

I shy away from books that glorify the role bows played in war. I know it is historically important to understanding ourselves, and I know the connection is there and can’t be denied. Nevertheless, I wish it was not so.

I depend on my wife, and you guys, to build my reading list. For that I am grateful. With that said, I think I’ll give myself an (undeserved) existential break, and skip the war books.

But keep the reviews coming! For the first time in recent memory, the lamp is taller than the stack of books on my side table…

I hear ya, Steve, and I’m not exactly a fan of war either. But I am a huge history buff, and whether we like it or not, war plays a huge role in history, and has ripple effect impacts that spread far beyond war itself.

But enough about that, for the history of the bow is obviously much more rich than solely what happened on the battlefield…. let’s hear about some more archery-related books!

[Bruce Smithhammer]

in reply to: Books on Bows #34252

ausjim wrote: Isn’t it funny that so many tribal bowhunting societies (I can only think of two right now… but I’m sticking with “so many”) used to have a big quiver that carried their arrows and their bow, now so many of us have a little tiny quiver that we put on our bow to carry our arrows.

The Mongol riders would supposedly carry as many as 60 to a few hundred arrows at a time, but being on horseback probably made that easier in some ways.

On that note, I think it’s also fascinating to think of the support crews that were required to keep a large army of archers supplied on a distant campaign – in addition to bowyers, there would be knappers, shaft-makers, fletchers, string makers…a huge team of people continually producing these products, while on the move, no less.

ausjim wrote: Anyway, an interesting discussion Bruce. You piqued my interest with your dismissal of the ELB. I bought a book last year on the history of the longbow, which skipped forward rather rapidly through what I thought was the interesting stuff, to English slaughtering French and gave it the mythical Robin Hood kind of spin. I remember thinking “Settle down pal, it’s an area of effect weapon system that took advantage of an entrenched and inflexible set of tactics…Not some mythical confirmation of the superiority of English craftsmanship and manhood (you’d only have to look at Jaguar cars and English football players to see how ridiculous a notion that is)”. I couldn’t handle his romantic prattle and didn’t get more than half way through.

Haha…To be fair, I’m not exactly dismissing the ELB entirely, but I do think that its prominence has been blown out of proportion in relation to the reality of its actual accomplishments on the world stage, and that much of that has to do with our cultural bias. Not in any deliberate way, but just by nature of the fact that many of us are descended from Anglo Saxon and/or Western European stock, and we tend to favor, and mythologize, our own histories. But it becomes pretty clear that when the English foot archer is placed in a broader, comparative context with the accomplishments of bow warriors elsewhere throughout history, carrying more sophisticated and effective bows, along with far more evolved tactics than the English ever conceived of, that the story of the ELB has been somewhat romanticized.

Which isn’t to say that it didn’t have a period of real prominence on the battlefield (though the true successes were relatively short-lived), nor that the English approach to having all citizenry be proficient with a bow wasn’t a remarkable endeavor. And there were advantages to the simple longbow over the composite in terms of weather-proofness, among other things. The ELB had the potential to be a much more effective and devastating weapon, if it hadn’t been severely hampered by narrow notions of class hierarchy on the battlefield, and the parade-like glamour of the heavily-armoured, mounted cavalry being the focal point of action on the field.

But many other bow cultures around the world and throughout history would have soundly trounced the English foot archers of Crecy and Agincourt in short order. Of course, if they’d been allowed to drive Jaguars and shoot from them, it might have been a whole different story, assuming there was a steady supply of spare parts…8)

[Bruce Smithhammer]

in reply to: Caroline & David Petersen #33780

David Petersen wrote:

… and I found an arrowhead! Nature heals.

I find that to be more than coincidence, my friend.

[Bruce Smithhammer]

in reply to: Books on Bows #33495

E –

I think you did post about that book a while back, but I’m glad you did again, because it dropped off my radar and I need to put it on my reading list. It looks like a really interesting book.

This one is up next on my shelf:

[Bruce Smithhammer]

in reply to: What ya got goin? #32228

Yup – I remember that article. Pretty impressive.

When I worked in Southeast AK we would fish for halibut from kayaks with a handline. They are incredibly strong fish, and I went for a few “Nantucket sleigh rides” before the jerk at one end or the other cut the line. We would use inflated paddle floats tied to a several feet of floating line and a gaff, and when you would get one to the surface, you’d sink a gaff into the fish, and then let it fight against that for a while till it was tired enough.

A buddy of mine still holds our informal record for landing one from a kayak – 125lbs. It took a team effort with four inflated paddle floats gaffed to this fish, and over an hour, to finally drag it to shore where he killed it. He said that even with four floats attached to it, it would still dive and pull them all under.

Good times….8)

[Bruce Smithhammer]

in reply to: What ya got goin? #32034

ausjim wrote:

PS

Is that a big float bladder on the back deck on a line to the spear? That is awesome.

Yup – typically it was made from an inflated seal’s stomach, and sealed with fat. It would then be attached to a long line and the harpoon. I can imagine that things could get ‘interesting’ real fast when you stuck a walrus…

[Author]

Posts