MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
The Bow and Arrow in the Americas: Why So Late? (NEW CONCEPTS)
Reply to topic Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Buck Trawicky



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Greetings.
1)
I have long been bemused by the apparently late appearance of the bow-and-arrow in the Americas.

I've read no book devoted to this, or on the origins of the bow-and-arrow; nor is there much in our excellent public library. (I intend to go graze in our University's open stacks, and consult an index of the serial literature, and then guff with some Old Stone Age mavins.) Surprisingly, there seems to have been little at all published on this topic, especially on its Paleolithic origins.

However, searching on-line sources, and my set of the Britannica, I've gathered these statements: (*) In Europe, it appears to have been invented c.25,000 BP, even 30,000 BP -- this is way back, in the Gravettian period (Chauvet Cave times). And the Solutreans (c.21,000--17,000 BP) certainly had it, as well as lots of other neat and beautiful stuff.

Tho' we've only the arrowheads to judge by, in most Paleolithic cases -- no wooden remains until much later, in Germany etc. But the bow-and-arrow also appears in some cave paintings or other rock art.
A notable example is in the 'Caves of the Spider', Cuevas de la Arana in Bicorp, Valencia, Spain, in the far s.e. of the country. This has pictures of hunters with bows. (And a totally charming picture of a honey-snatcher, high in a tree supported by lianas, with bees buzzing around but not stinging him. Beekeepers love this one.) This site is termed 'epipaleolithic' -- on the cusp with Mesolithic; the age cited is all over the map -- 8000 BP, 15,000 BP, 4000 BP, 6000-10,000 BP! Jeepers! I've gotta find a site report.

(And announcements have been made in the last few years by archaeologists of Africa that arrowhead-like projectile points have been found datable to c.60,000 BP.)

No one's found the bow-and-arrow in Siberia earlier than c.4000 BC, apparently.
Send private message Send e-mail
Buck Trawicky



View user's profile
Reply with quote

2)
But in the Americas, it appears surprisingly late. In North America, c.600 BC in the Mississippi Basin (and about a hundred years earlier in the Great Plains -- which surprises me, a bit) (Other sources date it at even later, at c.100 AD.) It's associated with the introduction of maize agriculture. I've not yet found any satisfactory dates for its appearance in Meso-America (which is the gene-center of maize), or further south.

Now, the bow-and-arrow is such a dandy invention that I'd expect it to have been part of the essential tool kit for the First Folk here. (Though the atlatl has definite advantages for hunting herbivorous mega fauna.)

So, why does the bow-and-arrow apparently appear so late, here in the Americas?

One explanation could be that the technology was forgotten on the long stroll across treeless Beringia. (Assuming the Beringia story works.)

(But the Inuit/Eskimos have bows, quite refined ones too, I suspect -- they're compound bows; but these folk are relative latecomers (we think), and I've never come across info on how long they've had the bow-and-arrow.) (By the way, I recommend a dandy study of traditional Eskimo techniques for thriving in the Arctic, 'Hunters of the Northern Ice', Richard K. Nelson, 1969.) And the Siberians, as noted, seem to have gotten it only about 4000 BC.
Send private message Send e-mail
Buck Trawicky



View user's profile
Reply with quote

3)
So, I suspect that this may be (part of) the story: The first Amerindians came to America before the bow-and-arrow was invented.
(Which I like, because I think most of them got here WAY before the standard date, which is just in time to become Clovis, and then do a blitzkrieg kill-off of the mega fauna.)

But, there are other possibilities: (*) The 'no trees in Beringia' explanation may be truth, though I'm dubious -- smart people who wanted the bow-and-arrow could have contrived some expedient. (*) The bow-and-arrow was invented in Europe, but nobody out East got the word for ever so long, and the future Amerindians had already left by then. (I'm really dubious about this one.) (*) The Dene/Na-Dene people brought it, but no-one earlier; (also dubious, I think). (*) It was independently re-invented here in the Americas, perhaps in Meso-America (possible, I'll grant. But why did it take so long?) (*) It was present here long before the times for which we've discovered evidence. (Possible.)

Still, since I'm in the 'world-wide contacts way long before Columbus' camp, AND I am fond of the Solutrean--Clovis hypothesis, AND, even if the Amerinds didn't have it already, you'd think someone among the many visitors would have told the poor benighted aborigines about this marvelous invention (if only to show off), I am bemused that it apparently took so long for the bow-and-arrow to show up here.

Any thoughts?
Send private message Send e-mail
nemesis8


In: byrhfunt
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Hello Buck (great name)

Your instinct is telling you something interesting.... the orthodox chronology is telling you the opposite.

Thererfore if it was me(its not), I would start off by assuming that the orthodox chronology for bow and arrow, might be wrong........before building up all sort of ingenious theories based on accepting what is probably a false chronology.

The answers are all in your posts so far.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

The timing of this post is interesting: I had only just been considering a similar matter last week.

A thesis of Mick's that is a favorite in this group is that large carnivorous animals, such as the cheetah, lion and tiger, are not true wild animals but are, instead, former domesticates gone feral. The idea is that these animals were bred for hunting.

The question occurred to me then why the "technology" of the hunting domesticate had been abandoned. Surely this was a technology that would have continued to be of use -- so I thought.

Then it occurred to me that the technology that replaced it might be obvious: The Bow and Arrow.

If humans (or our immediate ancestors) had harnessed the "trick" of domestication, it appears we used it for multiple applications -- including the breeding of animals for the purpose of hunting. The keeping of such beasts, however, would surely have required an enormous amount of effort: Not to mention the loss of the food the animal required for simple maintenance.

All that could be done away with with the invention of the bow.

So it occurred to me then that the first bows must have been quite good, to be competitive with the existing alternative. They had to be capable of bringing down large game without an inordinate amount of effort. (They had of course the advantage of not requiring care and feeding.)

Perhaps the first bows were in fact comparable to the composite bows of the Mongols.

If that's where the technology started, then what of the bows of native Americans and other indigenous peoples?

Well I got the notion that maybe these were poor quality copies made with inferior materials by a people who had seen demonstrated the superior technology.
Send private message
Buck Trawicky



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Greetings, you AEL chappies, particularly Nemesis8 and Ishmael, from Buck: How nice to have responses to a Query. It warms my heart.

Nemesis8: So, what is a 'better chronology' for North America, regarding the bow-and-arrow? Do you think I've already answered my own question? Please, explain.

Ishmael: You drop even more provocative tidbits into my bowl of thought:
(*) the larger predators are actually domesticated killers, bred for the pleasure of hunting, but long since gone feral?! Explain, sir, please. (Or refer me to key-words in Mick's curra (as even his guff).) ('Curra' is serious disquisition; 'guff' is conversation talk, with allowable sloppiness.)

(*) The very first bows were not self bows (= a single piece of shaped wood, bent), but composite bows?

(*) And the Mongols invented these?

You know, surely, that I'll not swallow all this without at least several paragraphs of taut argument. I suspect that I may end up disagreeing.

Even though, or because, I know a modest amount (but more than most of our fellows) about the Mongols; and if I ever do Peace Corps again, I'll insist on serving in Mongolia, preferably in the boonies. (I was PC/Nepal, with farmers in the eastern Terai, and loved it greatly.) -- I have an affinity with Mongols, I suspect. (Tho' in a perfect world they, like Nepal as well, would have a seacoast, to fully engage their abilities.)
Send private message Send e-mail
nemesis8


In: byrhfunt
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Buck Trawicky wrote:
it warms my heart.


Thats dandy Buck. As I said "The answers are all in your posts so far." Great name.
Send private message
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Interesting question.

Any thoughts?

Maybe not very helpful, but thoughts {drafted before I saw these other replies} are
a) when/did they get the bow and arrow in Australia? Are there several hold-outs where they preferred or "preferred" spears-n-throwing-sticks?
b) don't think it's a level playing field of people-in-a-state-of-nature with equal abilities to invent and use "primitive" technologies for their own use. All technologies are rolled out in a city-network, innovation/economics kind of way. (See the New Concepts > Jacobs Crackers? thread.)
c) One thing to ponder is what's military and what's for hunting... Is the bow-n-arrow an anti-personnel weapon, adapted to hunting small game? Saw a Hungarian guy on telly/YouTube shoot 12 arrows in 17 seconds. No one tries to get dinner that way.
Send private message
Buck Trawicky



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Greetings to both Nemesis8, and DPCrisp, from Buck, re. the Bow-and-Arrow ('b/a'), (and hoping I don't have to express a judgment on Mr. Fomenko right away):

Nemesis8: So, BE Delphic: if you'll not overtly help me, AND if you're quietly right, perhaps the truth in my opening statements will bubble upwards, and I'll perceive it. And then thank you.

DPCrisp:
(1) Re. the bow-and-arrow in Australia: I've chanced on references to signs of the b/a in Australia. Which is sorta-weird.. And quite disturbing to the Aussies' paradigms, no doubt, but I don't live there (and I'm not conversant with the local stories), so I'm not all that upset.

By my reckoning/story, Homo sap. sap. ('H.s.s') got to SE Asia before the Toba Eruption (c.74kya), and then went by water-craft across the less wide than now but still substantial salt water to Australia. By 60kya, at least.

Now, if the bow-and-arrow indeed does show up in the Australian archaeological record, I'd really really like to know how early this is.

I'm willing to accept, indeed I'd expect, ongoing contact between Australia and SE Asia, esp. the Papua New Guinea (PNG) area. -- If H.s.s. could get there once, the journey would surely be repeated, with nifty inventions traded.

BUT, if the b/a shows up very early, I am quite bemused -- Did the Abos bring it? Did they invent it independently? Did a SE Asian tell them about it? I've gotta talk to some archaeologists dealing with this field. (I bet they are thin on the ground here in Wisconsin, but I do have contacts: typically, I've found, it takes no more than 5 connections to get where one wants to be.) Not that this is on the top of my to-do list, you understand; (no more than I expect it to be on yours).

(2) ALL technologies come from cities? In which past do you live?

I, obviously, have to read thru' the 'Jacob's Crackers' discussion. But if you guys think the Cro-Magnon chappies were city-dwellers, you are far weirder (and more appealing) than I've yet noticed. (Tho', I'd wager, wrong, which is not all that good a state, yes?)
(
3) Re. the rapid fire that the b/a offers being primarily attractive for military use: Sure, that's certainly arguable, sorta.

Settegast's 'Plato Prehistorian' argues that that's what the b/a was used for (besides hunting supper) during the Magdalenian (and she'd probably agree with you about sorta-cities; so would Stan Gooch, tho' he'd be talking about Neanderthal cities, particularly Alesia, France). (And there, here I am, accepting the notion of cities-of-a-sort in the Upper (and even earlier) Paleolithic.)

But I myself think the bow-and-arrow was always, and originally, about getting supper, before its use for anything else.

(4) Re. the atlatl: I've only used one once, but that sufficed to convince me that, were I skilled enough, and had I the proper implement, this would be just the ticket for hurling a serious spear into the spinal cord of a mammoth or mastodon. But for top predators with me in their baleful eyes, I'd prefer a rapid-fire bow, with lots of oomph. Ditto for hunting rabbits or deer.
Send private message Send e-mail
nemesis8


In: byrhfunt
View user's profile
Reply with quote

The atlatl is shorter range but has much more penetration, for example it could pierce the armour of the advancing conquistadors.

The bow has longer range less penetration. Even the mongol bows apparently did not kill elephants, they could however turn and panic them.
Send private message
berniegreen



View user's profile
Reply with quote

The bow and arrow was never used in Australia, I am almost sure. An alternative weapons technology was developed at a very early date - the woomera and the boomerang.
Send private message Send e-mail
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Go on, Bernie, use this individual-to-you piece of knowledge in order to take the argument further.
Send private message
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

ALL technologies come from cities? In which past do you live?

Which past? The 1969 one, where Jane Jacobs' The Economy of Cities showed plainly that the Agriculture First paradigm is backwards.

if you guys think the Cro-Magnon chappies were city-dwellers, you are far weirder (and more appealing) than I've yet noticed.

For "city" do not read "built environment". Cities are a way people behave.

Settegast's 'Plato Prehistorian' argues that that [military use] is what the b/a was used for

So, what's the argument?

here I am, accepting the notion of cities-of-a-sort in the Upper (and even earlier) Paleolithic.

Cities are a way people behave.

But I myself think the bow-and-arrow was always, and originally, about getting supper, before its use for anything else.

Why?
Send private message
berniegreen



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
Go on, Bernie, use this individual-to-you piece of knowledge in order to take the argument further.

All right young Michael, here we go.

The bow-and-arrow technology depends on appropriate sap-filled wood that combines great flexibility with light weight and strength. There is not too much of that in OZ. Maybe in some of the wet tropical areas in the north but not throughout the rest of the country.

Eucalypts produce very hard, straight grained woods ideal for boomerangs, spears and throwing sticks.

So maybe the conclusion is that mankind is successful primarily because of his adaptation skills. He invents the technology that is adapted from and is adaptable to his environment.

Maybe Buck's question really ought to be not why did the b-and-a arrive so late in America but why, having managed perfectly well without it for so long, did they bother at all so late in the day?
Send private message Send e-mail
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

All right young Michael, here we go.

All right, Bernie, here we go.

The bow-and-arrow technology depends on appropriate sap-filled wood that combines great flexibility with light weight and strength.

No it doesn't. All wood is sap-filled, has great flexibilty, light weight and strength. You can make bows and arrows out of any wood, but of course further development shows some wood is better than other wood.

There is not too much of that in OZ. Maybe in some of the wet tropical areas in the north but not throughout the rest of the country.

So, there was 'appropriate bow and arrow wood' available right where humans entered Aussie. Couldn't be better! Thanks for that priceless gobbet, Bernie. Now we know they couldn't have arrived with the technology.

Eucalypts produce very hard, straight grained woods ideal for boomerangs, spears and throwing sticks.

So the natives were fully cognisant of everything that leads to bows-and-arrows including wood selection and woodworking skills...but didn't. Clearly, since boomerangs, (non-ferrous) spears and throwing sticks are markedly inferior to bows-and-arrows, we are now confirmed that native Australians never came into contact with bows-and-arrows.

So maybe the conclusion is that mankind is successful primarily because of his adaptation skills. He invents the technology that is adapted from and is adaptable to his environment.

Possibly but this would apply to Aborigines even though he had all the technical and environmental wherewithal. So we should make the preliminary assumption that "mankind is not successful primarily because of his adaptation skills" but what he is exposed to.

Maybe Buck's question really ought to be not why did the b-and-a arrive so late in America but why, having managed perfectly well without it for so long, did they bother at all so late in the day?

Clearly it doesn't apply to Australia if your arguments are correct since you say it was for quite different reasons. However if you now concentrate on your own area-of-knowledge and ask "Why did the b-and-a never arrive in Australia" you may be of help.
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next

Jump to:  
Page 1 of 3

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group