G'day all once again.
As for not attacking peoples choices Dennis why then do you make reference to Freeloading on the Traditional Archery bandwagon - a comment I can only take as a poorly veiled dig at my and others choices.
Perry, mine is a general observation because there are many archers people who try to style themselves traditional archers but are trying to backwards import modern post-compound archery inventions into the traditional field and trying pass them off as traditional. They are even subverting existing terminology, for example, to mean something entirely different to its original documented application.One such example is that of the long deflex-reflex design bow which was originally called a semi-recurve when it was invented. The term was coined to differentiate it from the American longbow which was always straight ended even though the lengths were similar, and the existing full recurved bow. These days, people are even inverting the original documented deflex-reflex descriptor to reflex-deflex for no justifiable reason when in the traditional documented usage of the times, references to limb design started from the handle and went outwards toward the tips. It was systematic and generally accepted in archery.
That is where such people are freeloading on the traditional archery bandwagon and helping to undermine the traditional knowledge. If they want to start their own archery genre, do so by all means, but please don't try to pretend it is anything other than what it is . . . and what it is not.
The traditional field covers a very great number of non-natural materials which appeared right up until the advent of the compound bow and all that went with and after it, including modern urea formaldehyde glues and fibreglass for limb laminations, steel and later aluminium alloy arrows. Plastic vanes were not yet invented that I have ever seen in pre-compound catalogues, but I am quite happy to accept them into as traditional if you can provide the documentary evidence that they existed pre-compound.
As a background, the traditional archery movement began for the most part in the US following the advent of the compound bow in the mid-1960s, which so took over almost every aspect of archery that all of the traditional knowledge and skills which went beforehand were seriously in danger of being lost to archery altogether. The movement spread from the US to other parts of the world as you would know. Why I and others are so hidebound in our insistence on what is in and what is out is because we consider that the knowledge of the pre-compound age should be preserved, not only in vocabulary, but also in usage in the forms which existed in those days, because they have an intrinsic value to us which we value above current archery fashion.
To keep introducing post-compound archery equipment into the traditional fold is to do nothing less than destroy it from within. The compound people were never a threat to traditional archery. They were just not interested in it and so ignored it and got on with their business. The danger to traditional archery was from neglect. Now it is from those within our own ranks who for their own preferences want to keep changing the core values of the tradition until it gradually becomes unrecognisable. Either you preserve something or you don't.
The perfect example of this insidious undermining comes from Chase N. Nocks attitude in his own post above where he goes on -
I am all for remembering traditions but not an idiotic cache blanch approach to defending all things traditional...whatever that means. The fact is it means different things to different people. As for teminology I'll have more to say about that in another topic but we don't need self appointed abitors of meaning whose only interest is to defend the status quo. Otherwise we may as well fight to reinstall the six letter alphabet and the cave painting instruction manual to archery as well.
I intend to remain one of those self-appointed 'idiotic carte blanche' arbitors of the tradition against people who trot out his kind of thinking. That is why I became an traditional archer in the first place and became a member of this site. I am not just for remembering them; I am for their continued usage, practice and perpetuation in their original forms. The 'six letter alphabet' and 'cave painting' instruction of Chase N. Nock's illustration, where they occur at archaeological sites are much valued by the archaeological and art world and nobody today would think of introducing new letters into that alphabet and pretending that it was still the original, nor would they try to introduce the techniques of the impressionists onto the Lascaux cave walls and try to pretend that they were original to those times as Chase N. Nocks would clearly prefer. His insistence that traditional archery means different things to different people is the problem. That is saying absolutely nothing and describing nothing. Even he doesn't know what he is talking about because his own statement effectively disqualifies him having the right to have any say in the matter.
If it means different things to different people, what does it mean to anybody at all including him. I find it interesting that he has such a strong opinion on something which has no definition by his own admission and his later proposal to have something to say on the matter.
By extending his same example above, his illustration can be applied to all the ancient cultures of the world to justify the introduction of modern culture into them and still pretend that they are the original. They may still be a culture, but they are no longer the original traditional culture. So, we make a decision . . . do we preserve the original or do we not. I elected years ago to help preserve our original pre-compound archery culture and to defend against its undermining and eventual loss.
By the way, Ozbow already has a traditonal archery vocab listed which we put together after a very exhaustive search for as many pre-compound archery terms in common usage from that period. Do please read it when you get a chance. We are happy to accept additions and alterations which are included with documentary proof of their pre-compound meaning.
Good grief.
Im bringing my wife 