Featured Real or Repro? Bow, quiver & arrows

@komokwa, @all_fakes, et al.

I would like your opinions on this set, coming up at a local auction. I am curious about the fringe, in particular. Thanks.

 

Bows and such are outside my area of expertise; these do look to have some age, but I have no idae as to place of origin.

 

Thanks for looking.

 

Soooooo COOL

 

Saying that though, the detail pieces that have been cut, look pretty clean on the inside

 

That’s very cool indeed and looks well made with same age to it. Been looking at Apache examples. Were the arrow points always or sometimes stone? It also bothers me how bright and ‘new’ the red dyed decoration areas looks. Or is the red synthetic material? (but I really don’t know anything about this)

 

I have seen only the photos so far, not the thing in person. It is a confusing combination of old and new looking pieces. The stone arrowheads are OK, and it is interesting that there is the blunt tipped bird arrow included. But older arrows could have come from anywhere. The pierced leather elements do appear to have some age, as you folks have said. But I would expect the red to be red wool flannel, and it would be unusual to have escaped moth damage over the years. The fringe looks more like commercial leather, too clean, and regular, like it was cut by machine.

I will try to go look at it. I may be able to answer my own questions if I actually see it.

 

i.m no expert in this...

my take away..
the arrows are pre-historic style and don't match the quiver..
the blunt arrow is for bird hunting..., don't match the others..
the quiver ...
too much fringe...not enuf wear to be anything but made for sale..
but that fringe is a Plains style......
and fur....instead of hide???

 

Thanks for your input.

 

Made for tourists

20th century

 

Yeah. I have a tendency to to become overly optimistic with such things, in spite of misgivings. So it is helpful to have other opinions to reinforce what my cautious brain was telling me.

 

I can't point to anything that solidly backs this, but after examining these photos a while, I think this is a repro item. It may come out of the mountain man re-enactor crowd. My main comparison is plains items, so if this is well away from there, I could be wrong. The things that put me off:
If authentic, I think metal points on arrows would be more likely (but less cool),
The soiling doesn't look authentic,
The cutout design isn't common,
The exposed stitching doesn't fit the skill authentic stuff would show,
It's hard to tell for sure from photos, but at least some leather looks like brain tan, but different parts are of really different tan quality, some pretty scabby,
Hair on seems uncommon,
Bow looks pretty rudimentary.
Here's a newly made repro for comparison: http://www.primitivearcher.com/smf/index.php?topic=13593.0

 

The cutout designs are one aspect that seemed odd to me.

 

@smallaxe - Thank you very much for your careful analysis.

 

I agree with the consensus that this set is probably a repro, or at least recent production.

Just for reference, I have found 2 examples of quivers made with hair-on deer hide - one collected in 1937 from the Huichol:

https://americanindian.si.edu/collections-search/objects/NMAI_208636

And one collected in the early 20th century, attributed to the Powhatan/Pamunkey:

https://anthro.amnh.org/anthropology/databases/common/image_dup.cfm?catno=50.1/ 6579