Survival Archery

[Sir Galahad]

Actually, a recent archaeological exploration of the Little Big Horn battle site revealed there were more bows used than previously thought. A brush fire revealed the grounds laid bare and many iron "trade point" arrowheads were found. Also, a trooper's vertabrae was found at one time with an embedded trade point. One other thing revealed was that the hostiles had repeating weapons (Winchesters.) The 7th had problems with their Springfield trapdoor .45-70s, as evidenced by knife marks on spent cases. The trapdoor, when hot, had problems with extraction. According to AmerIndian warriors who were there, they rode down and killed many of the troopers with "Indian CQB" weapons: stone maces, clubs, and hawks. It would make sense, since the honors for counting coup and killing an enemy with one's hand are greater, and with such honors come prestige in the tribe.

The advantage a lot of AmerIndians took of the bow was that the trajectory of the arrows could "rain" them on top of soldiers hiding behind rocks and cover. Something bullets could not do. Many AmerIndian firearms up until the Winchester became readily available were smoothbore "trade guns". So, bows remained in use well up and beyond even the appearance of the Winchester. For one other reason, was that it was easier to shoot buffalo with to avoid spooking the whole herd (so it was said.)

 

[Byron Quick]

I haven't researched this so please take it with a very large grain of salt: but I was under the impression that the Indians archery technique left much to be desired-drawing to the center of the chest rather than to the ear, etc.

 

[Sir Galahad]

Depends on what Indians you're talking about and what period in time. Indians in wooded regions built longbows that they did pull back to the corner of the mouth (the "to the ear" is an English longbowman thing many other archers did not practice.) Indians on horseback built shortbows better suited for mounted warfare. However, these were composite bows made of horn, sinew, and wood and were actually pretty powerful. Indians without horses were generally better archers than those with horses. However, what might be lacking in precision was made up in rate of fire. In Plains Indian warfare, the more preferred method of killing was by lance, club, hawk, or knife. This is because, as noted earler, this brought greater honor and, therefore, more prestige to a warrior. So this would be a warrior more able to lead war and raiding parties of his own and able to capture more plunder, horses, scalps, and captives. The prestige, plus the horses and plunder, could be used to garner a better bride, in tribes that do so to pay bride price and in other tribes, the prestige and scalps to impress the father enough to win the bride. Plus, the more successful warriors stood better chances at becoming chiefs. The bow was first a hunting tool, then a tool of war. Often, the bow was used to get the enemy to come out of cover and fight, whereupon the weapons of choice were the CQB weapons of lance, hawk, and so forth. For if an enemy died by one's hand at one's hand, the scalp could be immediately claimed and there was no question as to whom the enemy fell. The scalps proved the prowess of the warrior (and, no, "white" people did not teach them scalping; the Mississippian cultures well prior to the Europeans used to take the whole head and unearthed sculptures shows this practice.) An Indian was good with a bow simply because if he was not, he did not eat. A warrior had to prove not only that he could defend his family, but feed them as well.

 

[Sunray]

"An Indian was good with a bow simply because if he was not, he did not eat." They were actually much better at stalking than shooting their bows. Came from being a part of nature rather than becoming part of it during hunting season.
"...Indians without horses..." Didn't hunt buffalo by riding to them them. Guided them over a cliff and shot arrows to claim carcasses. See Buffalo Jumps.
By 1876, the Indians had had firearms of all kinds of types for several hundred years. The Hudson's Bay Co. had been trading in central NA for almost 200 years by then.

 

[Sir Galahad]

Sunray, running buffalo off cliffs was done predominantly by Paleo-Indians. The arrival of the horse made that unneccessary, as tribes could ride up and cull what they needed. The method involved in running an entire herd off of a cliff was a dangerous undertaking, even if done on horseback. The reason the Paleo-Indians did this was to secure enough meat and, importantly, fat, for the winter since they'd be locked in for the heavy snows. However, there is evidence that in some cases, they did this in other seasons and only took the portions they sought as delicacies. Regardless, the horse gave them the ability to cull what they needed from the fringes of the herd at less risk, follow the herds, and also carry the meat back to camp. This made running herds off cliffs obsolete to most tribes. Not saying the practice was abandoned, just saying it was not as widespread as some books make out. There are not cliffs all over the Western Plains.

Stalking is fine, but you still must have skill with a bow to hit center mass even at 20 feet. People who think there is no skill involved in shooting a bow at a target 20 feet away have never shot a self bow with primitive arrows. Using a modern recurve with aluminum arrows would have many people screaming obscenities if you just handed it to them off the street and said, "Here. Now feed your family. Shoot that deer tied twenty feet away.

Yes, Hudson's Bay traded guns to Indians. Again, flintlock smoothbores. They were cut-down Brown Besses in some cases, French-pattern fusils in others. They had a serpent on the rifle stock, opposite side of the lock. Leman made rifles for the Indian trade, but most Indian trade guns were flintlock smoothbores.