Bow and Arrow Dating
J.LyonLayden
10000 years ago. This seems strange to me, seeing as how so many stone
age populations around the world have invented the device
independently of one another, and because it is such a simple tool
compared to other artificial devices (tools, weapons, art) in use
before 15,000 years ago.
How do they date the bow and arrow? Is it only through the stone tips?
Why would archeologists have any evidence of bow use before 13,000 BC,
if at that remote time they had simply sharpened the end of the wooden
shaft of an arrow instead of attaching a sharpened stone?
VoiceOfReason
> Most books say that the bow and arrow were invented some 15000 to
> 10000 years ago. This seems strange to me, seeing as how so many stone
> age populations around the world have invented the device
> independently of one another, and because it is such a simple tool
> compared to other artificial devices (tools, weapons, art) in use
> before 15,000 years ago.
Have you ever tried making a bow and arrow by hand out of natural
materials? It's not a simple matter. Trying to find a material (or
*combination* of materials) that will bend but not break after
repeated use takes a lot of trial and error.
> How do they date the bow and arrow? Is it only through the stone tips?
> Why would archeologists have any evidence of bow use before 13,000 BC,
> if at that remote time they had simply sharpened the end of the wooden
> shaft of an arrow instead of attaching a sharpened stone?
The wood in a bow or arrow can be carbon dated.
TomS
<1186508178....@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, VoiceOfReason stated..."
>
>On Aug 7, 11:41 am, "J.LyonLayden" <JosephLay...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Most books say that the bow and arrow were invented some 15000 to
>> 10000 years ago. This seems strange to me, seeing as how so many stone
>> age populations around the world have invented the device
>> independently of one another, and because it is such a simple tool
>> compared to other artificial devices (tools, weapons, art) in use
>> before 15,000 years ago.
>
>Have you ever tried making a bow and arrow by hand out of natural
>materials? It's not a simple matter. Trying to find a material (or
>*combination* of materials) that will bend but not break after
>repeated use takes a lot of trial and error.
I don't know anything about this, but what I don't understand at
all is how one can make a *straight* arrow.
I can understand a process of trial and error in getting an ever
better bow. Even a not very strong bow will work a little bit. But
an arrow, if it is not very straight, seems to be totally useless.
--
---Tom S.
"... to call in a special or miraculous act of creation reduces every
conceivable world to accident."
Jacob Bronowski, in "American Scholar" v.43 (1974) page 400
Dana Tweedy
"TomS" <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:196509707.000...@drn.newsguy.com...
> "On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 10:36:18 -0700, in article
> <1186508178....@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, VoiceOfReason
> stated..."
>>
>>On Aug 7, 11:41 am, "J.LyonLayden" <JosephLay...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Most books say that the bow and arrow were invented some 15000 to
>>> 10000 years ago. This seems strange to me, seeing as how so many stone
>>> age populations around the world have invented the device
>>> independently of one another, and because it is such a simple tool
>>> compared to other artificial devices (tools, weapons, art) in use
>>> before 15,000 years ago.
>>
>>Have you ever tried making a bow and arrow by hand out of natural
>>materials? It's not a simple matter. Trying to find a material (or
>>*combination* of materials) that will bend but not break after
>>repeated use takes a lot of trial and error.
> [...snip...]
>
> I don't know anything about this, but what I don't understand at
> all is how one can make a *straight* arrow.
>
> I can understand a process of trial and error in getting an ever
> better bow. Even a not very strong bow will work a little bit. But
> an arrow, if it is not very straight, seems to be totally useless.
There's a series of books that covers this, it's called "The Traditional
Bowyer's Bible", vol 1, 2 and 3. Primitive arrows were usually made of
river cane, or similar materials that naturally grew fairly straight. Any
crookedness would be straightened using wood, stone, or bone straighteners.
See:
http://www.primitiveways.com/arrow_straightening.html
DJT
dali_70
> all is how one can make a *straight* arrow.
>
> I can understand a process of trial and error in getting an ever
> better bow. Even a not very strong bow will work a little bit. But
> an arrow, if it is not very straight, seems to be totally useless.
An arrow hardly flies "straight". If you've ever seen high speed
camera footage of an arrow flying through the air, you can see the
arrow actually bending up and down. It kind of wobbles. Arrows don't
need to be perfectly straight, but the straighter the better. I've
shot some warped arrows & handmade arrows, accuracy is shit, but they
still "work".
VoiceOfReason
> "On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 10:36:18 -0700, in article
>
> >On Aug 7, 11:41 am, "J.LyonLayden" <JosephLay...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Most books say that the bow and arrow were invented some 15000 to
> >> 10000 years ago. This seems strange to me, seeing as how so many stone
> >> age populations around the world have invented the device
> >> independently of one another, and because it is such a simple tool
> >> compared to other artificial devices (tools, weapons, art) in use
> >> before 15,000 years ago.
>
> >Have you ever tried making a bow and arrow by hand out of natural
> >materials? It's not a simple matter. Trying to find a material (or
> >*combination* of materials) that will bend but not break after
> >repeated use takes a lot of trial and error.
>
> [...snip...]
>
> I don't know anything about this, but what I don't understand at
> all is how one can make a *straight* arrow.
>
> I can understand a process of trial and error in getting an ever
> better bow. Even a not very strong bow will work a little bit. But
> an arrow, if it is not very straight, seems to be totally useless.
I saw part of the process of making arrows on TV once by a Native
American specialist. It starts with a relatively straight stick and a
LOT of scraping and trimming to get a decent arrow. It's specialized
and labor-intensive. Interestingly enough, IIRC Native Americans were
one of the last civilizations to adopt the bow & arrow.
J.LyonLayden
>materials? It's not a simple matter. Trying to find a material (or
>*combination* of materials) that will bend but not break after
>repeated use takes a lot of trial and error.
Well homo sapien sapient had 170,000 years to do it before 13000 bc,
and homo sapien had at least 300,000 additional years before that.
That's plenty of trial and error.
And then they expect us to believe that hundreds of different
populations discovered the technology independently, all within 5000
years of each other?
In this 170,000 years they invented painting, stone tipped spears,
atlatls, bolas, perfectly represented sculptures, hafted axes, the
flute, the domestication of animals, seafairing vessels and long
distance navigation, weaved clothing, and possibly even the
cultivation of rice and the firing of pottery, but they couldn't
figure out the bow?
Alot of prehistoric art with unknown date has pictures of men wielding
bows.
Could it be that the reason we don't find them before 13,000 BC is
because they weren't used as extensively due to their inneffectiveness
vs megafauna and because before that date man had not yet learned to
fit arrow heads on them?
Or is there some other smoking gun that proves they were not in use
before 13000?
Perplexed in Peoria
> <1186508178....@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, VoiceOfReason stated..."
> >
> >On Aug 7, 11:41 am, "J.LyonLayden" <JosephLay...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Most books say that the bow and arrow were invented some 15000 to
> >> 10000 years ago. This seems strange to me, seeing as how so many stone
> >> age populations around the world have invented the device
> >> independently of one another, and because it is such a simple tool
> >> compared to other artificial devices (tools, weapons, art) in use
> >> before 15,000 years ago.
> >
> >Have you ever tried making a bow and arrow by hand out of natural
> >materials? It's not a simple matter. Trying to find a material (or
> >*combination* of materials) that will bend but not break after
> >repeated use takes a lot of trial and error.
> [...snip...]
>
> I don't know anything about this, but what I don't understand at
> all is how one can make a *straight* arrow.
>
> I can understand a process of trial and error in getting an ever
> better bow. Even a not very strong bow will work a little bit. But
> an arrow, if it is not very straight, seems to be totally useless.
My guess would be that the first bows were actually more like slingshots
and were used to throw rocks rather than small spears. Then someone
decided it would be neat to build one that could throw spears, instead.
Quite a lot of technology involved in making a good bowstring as well.
Of course, string and thread making became a high art once we had
agriculture and manufactured tools for cottage industry. But making
good string and rope must have been more difficult for itinerant
hunters and gatherers who had to get their fibers from wild plants.
loua...@yahoo.com
> Most books say that the bow and arrow were invented some 15000 to
> 10000 years ago. This seems strange to me, seeing as how so many stone
> age populations around the world have invented the device
> independently of one another, and because it is such a simple tool
(Setting aside that straight line with VERY great difficulty)
I think you're wildly clueless about the difference between having
someone else (who has already done the hard work) describe a concept
to you, versus creating a new idea for the first time.
J.LyonLayden
someone else (who has already done the hard work) describe a concept
Oooh bringing out dogs to sick on me just because I ask a question.
Nice.
I don't think I'm clueless about such things at all.
I think you're wildly clueless about just how long 170,000 years is,
about just how low of a percentage of our prehistoric cousins' actual
technology remains in artifact form, and about just how much of the
most densely populated habitats of prehistoric homo sapien is now
under water.
You are probably also clueless about how long a population can keep a
technology secret before the secret gets out and spreads far enough to
actually produce artifacts for men to discover in later eras.
But let's talk facts and not philosophy.
I repeat, 'What is the EVIDENCE that they use to claim that there were
no bows or arrows before 15,000 bc, seeing as how bows and arrows are
made of totally and completely perishable substances?
Dr.GH
As they say, necessity is the mother of invention. Bow and arrow was
not a particularly good tool for hunting large game prior to the
development of metals. Stone points on large hardwood shafts were the
tools of choice for big game. In the Americas, spears were replaced
by atlatas or throwing sticks, and only very late were the bow and
arrow used. These were well developed in many cultures by the
European conquest. The prefered warfare weapon was still either the
club or the spear. The Eurpean use of guns (IMHO) lead to arrow
inovation of metal points and bow improvements- but only when guns
were not available. And not ling after the European invasion, most
Native Americans had some access to guns. For examples, the French
supplied NA groups to counter the British (and vice versa). The
British armed the Yucatec Maya aginst the Spanish and later Mexican
armies.
The small hole made by an arrow lacking a head was not lethal enough
to bother using. Consequently, the discovery of small projectile
points is a good and reliable indication of bow and arrow technology.
VoiceOfReason
J.LyonLayden wrote:
> >Have you ever tried making a bow and arrow by hand out of natural
> >materials? It's not a simple matter. Trying to find a material (or
> >*combination* of materials) that will bend but not break after
> >repeated use takes a lot of trial and error.
>
>
> Well homo sapien sapient had 170,000 years to do it before 13000 bc,
> and homo sapien had at least 300,000 additional years before that.
> That's plenty of trial and error.
>
> And then they expect us to believe that hundreds of different
> populations discovered the technology independently, all within 5000
> years of each other?
More likely the technology moved along trade routes.
> In this 170,000 years they invented painting, stone tipped spears,
> atlatls, bolas, perfectly represented sculptures, hafted axes, the
> flute, the domestication of animals, seafairing vessels and long
> distance navigation, weaved clothing, and possibly even the
> cultivation of rice and the firing of pottery, but they couldn't
> figure out the bow?
Perfecting the technology such that it would be superior to existing
weapons is no simple matter. Spear and atlatls are much simpler to
make than a bow and arrow.
> Alot of prehistoric art with unknown date has pictures of men wielding
> bows.
>
> Could it be that the reason we don't find them before 13,000 BC is
> because they weren't used as extensively due to their inneffectiveness
> vs megafauna and because before that date man had not yet learned to
> fit arrow heads on them?
I would think that a heavy spear would be a superior weapon against
megafauna. But fitting a stone tip on an arrow is not very different
from doing it on a spear -- just on a smaller scale.
Bow and arrow would be far superior in one respect -- weight.
Especially for nomads, that's a lot more "killing power" per pound
than spear/atlatl.
> Or is there some other smoking gun that proves they were not in use
> before 13000?
There's no way to prove they *weren't* in use before a given date,
just a lack of evidence that they *were.*
J.LyonLayden
to bother using.)
Blowgun darts have no heads and make small holes.
J. J. Lodder
How do you find a smoking gun that proves it was not fired?
Chez Watt?
Jan
r norman
The hole is big enough to get the poison in. Otherwise they would not
be too useful.
Consider hunting with high power powerful rifles using steel jacketed
ammunition. The bullet can pass through the victim (prey) but still
allow it to continue to run/fight.
My impression is that the arrow head is mostly useful for not allowing
the arrow to simply get pulled out, leaving a small hole that can
easily heal. But certainly there are hunters here with experience
killing large and small game who know the facts far better.
Von R. Smith
> "On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 10:36:18 -0700, in article
>
> I don't know anything about this, but what I don't understand at
> all is how one can make a *straight* arrow.
The arrow just has to meet the right woman. :p
J.LyonLayden
Ok that helps, thank you; you allowed me to see it from a different
perspective.
I have seen a discovery channel program where they had small bow-like
weapons for hunting fish, and was thinking about the possibilities of
that instrument as a poisoned weapon for hunting other animals or for
tribal guerrilla warfare.
What I'm thinking is that the "dawn of the bow" is dated where it was
dated because of arrow heads. It's from more of a historical
perspective than from an absolute. When arrow heads started showing
up, soon after the concept spread around the world because it was
revolutionizing the way people lived, faught, and hunted. This is
probably due to the introduction not only of the bow, but of the arrow
head, which gave it far more power and use.
If the bow existed before the arrowhead, it isn't that important to
historians because it would have been highly specialized and would
have been limited to only a small population of homos.
Like someone said before, there is no evidence of bows before
arrowheads, but then there wouldn't be because they were made of wood
and fiber.
So what am I getting at?
Well, I'm really just trying to ascertain whether I can have an
isolated island tribe in southeast asia hunting with small poisoned
bows, or slingshots if you will, in my prehistoric fiction
story....without getting labeled "fantasy."
Bill
>
> In this 170,000 years they invented painting, stone tipped spears,
> atlatls, bolas, perfectly represented sculptures, hafted axes, the
> flute, the domestication of animals, seafairing vessels and long
> distance navigation, weaved clothing, and possibly even the
> cultivation of rice and the firing of pottery, but they couldn't
> figure out the bow?
>
Wow! 170000 years is a -long- time. Seems like more than enough to
perfect even the most primitive tools and crafts when you consider
that NASA went from non-existent to landing men on the moon is just 10
years or so. Either humans had difficulty discovering their own
intelligence or, having discovered it, couldn't figure out what to do
with it. Even when people did discover some really useful tool or
technique they rarely thought to improve it, preferring to simply use
it in the form they received it. Either the methods employed to bring
down game were wholly sufficient to their needs or early man was not
nearly as bright as we give them credit for.
In fact when we consider that the Industrial Revolution which began in
in the 18th century came about 3000 years after the beginning of the
Iron Age, it would seem that people in general aren't nearly as clever
as they believe they are. It seems that every once in a while someone
will have a novel idea, something truly original, that is copied
endlessly with very little modification. Judging by the pace of
technological progress, such genius occurs only rarely.
It may be that the changes apparent in the last two hundred years are
due less to any intrinsic species-wide intelligence than to some
critical mass of the human population. In the 18th century that
critical mass was finally sufficient to ensure that all subsequent
generations would have several geniuses living at the same time. Now
instead of there being one instance of one genius, one genuinely
original thinker, scattered haphazardly over many generations, there
now several in each generation. Everyone else can only enhance,
improve and fine tune what those few geniuses originate. We can ask,
"Why did someone invent the bow" but can't seem to understand why it
took so long and then, why did they stop there?
Bill
r norman
Perhaps the development of speech, of writing, and of cohesive social
organization that produces sufficient wealth to enable education and
the dissemination of acquired knowledge has just a little to do with
the pace of "progress"??
J.LyonLayden
in
in the 18th century came about 3000 years after the beginning of the
Iron Age, it would seem that people in general aren't nearly as
clever
as they believe they are. It seems that every once in a while someone
will have a novel idea, something truly original, that is copied
endlessly with very little modification. Judging by the pace of
Yes!
Most of what makes our world modern happened in the last two hundred
years not because it all got invented in the last two hundred years
but because global communication has enabled us to put isolated
technologies together. Every once in a while there is a Nikola Tesla
or a Thomas Keeley, but my suspicion is that more of them were burned
at the stake for wizardy than we will ever know. There were probably
thousands of "false starts" of civilization before the one we are
currently riding on made it past the beginning hurdles. How much
ancient technology was kept secret until its people were killed and
their technology forgotten? Greek fire comes to mind.
(Perhaps the development of speech, of writing, and of cohesive
social
organization that produces sufficient wealth to enable education and
the dissemination of acquired knowledge has just a little to do with
the pace of "progress"??)
All of these things we've had since at least 30,000 BC....and
civilization didn't start until 6000 BC?
I don't buy it.
Could the extinction of 70% of the earth's wildlife and all hominids
besides homo sapien, together with the rising of sea levels 150 feet,
the disappearance of entire continental coast lines, and the
submergence of country sized land masses around 9000 BC have had
something to do with the "pause" in progress? Could the fact that all
desireable real estate before 9000 BC is now underwater have something
to do with the fact that most of the artifacts associated with
civilization are dated from after that date?
Basically, pretty much any artifact we have from before 11,600 BC was
owned first by a country bumpkin: the successful hominids lived on the
coast or in the fertile lowlands, which are all now submerged and
their technologies washed away.
Earle Jones
"J.LyonLayden" <Joseph...@gmail.com> wrote:
*
Bow-and-arrow dating was followed by the shotgun wedding.
earle
*
VoiceOfReason
Bill wrote:
> On Aug 7, 12:32 pm, "J.LyonLayden" <JosephLay...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > In this 170,000 years they invented painting, stone tipped spears,
> > atlatls, bolas, perfectly represented sculptures, hafted axes, the
> > flute, the domestication of animals, seafairing vessels and long
> > distance navigation, weaved clothing, and possibly even the
> > cultivation of rice and the firing of pottery, but they couldn't
> > figure out the bow?
> >
>
> Wow! 170000 years is a -long- time. Seems like more than enough to
> perfect even the most primitive tools and crafts when you consider
> that NASA went from non-existent to landing men on the moon is just 10
> years or so. Either humans had difficulty discovering their own
> intelligence or, having discovered it, couldn't figure out what to do
> with it. Even when people did discover some really useful tool or
> technique they rarely thought to improve it, preferring to simply use
> it in the form they received it. Either the methods employed to bring
> down game were wholly sufficient to their needs or early man was not
> nearly as bright as we give them credit for.
There has to be a reason to improve the technology, and the
opportunity for doing so. I think that for most small hunter-gatherer
groups, there wasn't a lot of spare time to do research into improved
weapon technology, especially if the existing weapons did the job well
enough. There was an example of Native Americans using a convenient
outcrop of (more or less) pure copper to make arrowheads; but when the
convenient source was exhausted, they didn't have the spare time to
experiment with smelting their own copper from ore. Why bother, if
flint points were good enough, and much easier to make?
Still, some "primitive" societies did have notable technologies based
on their own priorities, such as Central Americans who developed
fairly sophisticated chemical processes for making jewelry.
> In fact when we consider that the Industrial Revolution which began in
> in the 18th century came about 3000 years after the beginning of the
> Iron Age, it would seem that people in general aren't nearly as clever
> as they believe they are. It seems that every once in a while someone
> will have a novel idea, something truly original, that is copied
> endlessly with very little modification. Judging by the pace of
> technological progress, such genius occurs only rarely.
If Albert Einstein had been born in a village during the Iron Age,
would he have made one whit of difference? I'm reminded of a show on
the History Channel, "Man, Moment, Machine," that shows that at
certain critical moments in history, the right person is in the right
place with the right toolset to make a big difference.
> It may be that the changes apparent in the last two hundred years are
> due less to any intrinsic species-wide intelligence than to some
> critical mass of the human population. In the 18th century that
> critical mass was finally sufficient to ensure that all subsequent
> generations would have several geniuses living at the same time. Now
> instead of there being one instance of one genius, one genuinely
> original thinker, scattered haphazardly over many generations, there
> now several in each generation. Everyone else can only enhance,
> improve and fine tune what those few geniuses originate. We can ask,
> "Why did someone invent the bow" but can't seem to understand why it
> took so long and then, why did they stop there?
A book I read a while back ("The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers"?)
said that it was the growth of competing nation-states in Europe
(along with rising population) that fueled technological advancement
due to frequent wars. So in a sense I suppose it was a critical mass
of population, and sufficient *reason* to improve technology, that
provided the impetus to devote more resources to research.
Tom McDonald
Well, we haven't had writing for thirty millennia; and nor have
we had the kind of social organization that leads to valuing
wealth for that time.
That stuff happened when it made sense to humans to make it
happen. This appears to have required the kind of increase in
population that forced the adoption of agriculture. Even then, it
took several thousand years for agricultural cultures to grow to
the point that writing became useful, although the valuing of
wealth appears to have occurred very early, possibly concurrent
with sedentism.
In fact, some cultures, such as those of the northwest coast of
the US and Canada, and places such as Catal Hoyuk in Turkey,
became effectively sedentary before agriculture, based on
reliable and plentiful natural food sources.
So whether you buy it or not, settled life for humans only began
ca. 8-10,000 ybp; and what archaeologists would consider
'civilizations' (meaning the culture typical of cities and their
hinterland) is nowhere found before ca. 5500 ybp. (Not 5500 BC.)
> Could the extinction of 70% of the earth's wildlife and all hominids
> besides homo sapien, together with the rising of sea levels 150 feet,
> the disappearance of entire continental coast lines, and the
> submergence of country sized land masses around 9000 BC have had
> something to do with the "pause" in progress? Could the fact that all
> desireable real estate before 9000 BC is now underwater have something
> to do with the fact that most of the artifacts associated with
> civilization are dated from after that date?
>
> Basically, pretty much any artifact we have from before 11,600 BC was
> owned first by a country bumpkin: the successful hominids lived on the
> coast or in the fertile lowlands, which are all now submerged and
> their technologies washed away.
Could be. Isn't. No matter how much Graham Hancock would like us
to believe his propaganda in that regard.
So far, nothing has been found via underwater archaeology that
suggests a high civilization (or even a straight civilization)
from before the Holocene. Every bit of evidence that has been
brought forward to suggest such a civilization has failed the
test of archaeological science.
As for projectile projectors, atlatls are very, very good tools
for killing mid- to large-size animals. Although they are
excellent tools, and evolved into quite sophisticated forms, they
are a lot easier to make than a good bow. And a bad bow is worse
than no bow at all.
As for points, the range of sizes of atlatl points overlaps that
of arrows by quite a bit. IOW, the technology for making atlatl
darts is easily transfered to making arrows. In most cases I am
aware of, atlatl darts and arrows are mounted in short
foreshafts, which are then mounted to the long, feathered shafts
of the dart or arrow. In this way, losing an arrowhead and
foreshaft in an animal does not result in a loss of the entire
complex feathered shaft.
Also, a hunter could carry perhaps three or four darts or arrow
shafts, and a dozen or more points mounted on foreshafts. This is
far easier than carrying a dozen or more darts/arrows, and makes
it a lot easier for a hunting party to make new points/foreshafts
from easily carried prepared materials.
Our ancestors were as bright as we are. They adopted the
technology that fit their needs, but mostly they were so
successful that they saw little need to change the way they did
things.
Although some people cannot understand it, our ancestors were as
happy as we are (perhaps moreso); they were not hanging around
waiting for someone to invent malls.
J.LyonLayden
> we had the kind of social organization that leads to valuing
> wealth for that time.
I've seen some pretty impressive cro-magnon symbols, sculptures, cave
art, and jewelry from that era, all of which could be indicative of
valueing wealth and social organization.
>
> In fact, some cultures, such as those of the northwest coast of
> the US and Canada, and places such as Catal Hoyuk in Turkey,
> became effectively sedentary before agriculture, based on
> reliable and plentiful natural food sources.
Also the Jomon became sedentary (presumably) before agriculture.
>
> So whether you buy it or not, settled life for humans only began
> ca. 8-10,000 ybp; and what archaeologists would consider
> 'civilizations' (meaning the culture typical of cities and their
> hinterland) is nowhere found before ca. 5500 ybp. (Not 5500 BC.)
Jericho's walls go back to 10,000 before present. The natufian culture
of that time seemed to have been made up of city states to me.
> Basically, pretty much any artifact we have from before 11,600 BC was
> owned first by a country bumpkin: the successful hominids lived on the
> coast or in the fertile lowlands, which are all now submerged and
> their technologies washed away.
> Could be. Isn't. No matter how much Graham Hancock would like us
> to believe his propaganda in that regard.
Couldn't be what? I'm not making wild claims like Graham Hancock.
It's simply a fact that the most heavilly populated areas of the ice
age are now under water. That is absolute fact. Look up "Sundaland"
and "Quaternary Extinctions" and "Ice Age Sea Levels."
> So far, nothing has been found via underwater archaeology that
> suggests a high civilization (or even a straight civilization)
> from before the Holocene. Every bit of evidence that has been
> brought forward to suggest such a civilization has failed the
> test of archaeological science.
Why would anything be found? It's been underwater for 11,000 years.
But speaking of hancock, those structures off the coast of Okinawa are
pretty much the only thing he's brought forth that has impressed me.
Some skeptics proved that all those structures "could" form naturally
under rare circumstances, but all in the same place, and perfectly
complimentary to one another?
Even the skeptics said that one of the menhirs had to either be placed
or fall from a great height when the land was above water, and there
are no cliffs around. And even the skeptics admitted that it could be
partially man-made.
> Our ancestors were as bright as we are. They adopted the
> technology that fit their needs, but mostly they were so
> successful that they saw little need to change the way they did
> things.
I agree whole heartedly.
>
> Although some people cannot understand it, our ancestors were as
> happy as we are (perhaps moreso); they were not hanging around
> waiting for someone to invent malls.- Hide quoted text -
Again I agree again. Probably ALOT more so.
> - Show quoted text -
Bill Hudson
IIRC, I think that flint-knapping spearheads was well established by
that time. So the 'arrowhead' technology (in the form of a down-sized
spearhead) already existed. Thus it appears reasonable to me to date
'the dawn of the bow' to the appearance of arrowheads, which are
useless for spears, but useful for the tips of arrows.
Also, isn't the atlatl and dart considered an intermediate form
between the spear and the bow and arrow technologies?
JTEM
> Well homo sapien sapient had 170,000 years to
> do it before 13000 bc, and homo sapien had at
> least 300,000 additional years before that. That's
> plenty of trial and error.
A bow & arrow relies heavily on other inventions.
before you can invent the bow you must invent the
bow string, for example.
"Application" is another issue. It could very well be
a case where the "Technology" was invented before
the application to hunting & defense. Hunting &
defense could mean a great deal more use than
a previous application of the technology, leaving
far more for us to potentially find & date.
I mean, for all we know it started as a musical
instrument...
Secondly, dating of this sort isn't precise, and nobody
ever pretended it was. When we say "The Bronze
Age," for example, it is accepted that this is a period
when the making of bronze achieved some level of
distribution, and that it was not necessarily invented
at the start of the age.
Anomalous finds are just that: Anomalous. This is
how we can dig up "pre-ceramic" pottery without
anyone losing bowel control.
JTEM
> Perfecting the technology such that it would be superior
> to existing weapons is no simple matter. Spear and
> atlatls are much simpler to make than a bow and arrow.
And simpler to use, especially the spear.
A bow IS NOT a weapon that just anyone can pick up
and use effectively. There's quite a range in level of
proficiency in gun use, but a gun is a lot easier to use
than a bow. It's one of the reason why projectile weapons
didn't take the forefront of military action until the
introduction of gunpoweder.
> I would think that a heavy spear would be a superior
> weapon against megafauna.
What is considered "Lethal Velocity" for a Mammoth
anyway?
> Bow and arrow would be far superior in one respect -- weight.
> Especially for nomads, that's a lot more "killing power" per
> pound than spear/atlatl.
Distance. Even a deer -- not normally considered a vicious
animal -- could do a number on you if corned & stabbed to
death.
Then again, it's damn hard to kill a deer with a rifle, if you
don't have a good aim...
J. J. Lodder
> VoiceOfReason <papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote:
>
> > Perfecting the technology such that it would be superior
> > to existing weapons is no simple matter. Spear and
> > atlatls are much simpler to make than a bow and arrow.
>
> And simpler to use, especially the spear.
>
> A bow IS NOT a weapon that just anyone can pick up
> and use effectively. There's quite a range in level of
> proficiency in gun use, but a gun is a lot easier to use
> than a bow.
That's why the English longbowman
practised on sundays after church.
> It's one of the reason why projectile weapons
> didn't take the forefront of military action until the
> introduction of gunpoweder.
You wouldn't have wanted to be with the French at Azincourt,
Jan
JTEM
> JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > VoiceOfReason <papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote:
>
> > > Perfecting the technology such that it would be superior
> > > to existing weapons is no simple matter. Spear and
> > > atlatls are much simpler to make than a bow and arrow.
>
> > And simpler to use, especially the spear.
>
> > A bow IS NOT a weapon that just anyone can pick up
> > and use effectively. There's quite a range in level of
> > proficiency in gun use, but a gun is a lot easier to use
> > than a bow.
>
> That's why the English longbowman
> practised on sundays after church.
Bow skills take practice, and practice takes a lot of free
time...
> > It's one of the reason why projectile weapons
> > didn't take the forefront of military action until the
> > introduction of gunpoweder.
>
> You wouldn't have wanted to be with the French at Azincourt,
And you wouldn't want to bet your life on an exception.
Vend
Yes, I agree.
With millions or billions of people thinking about the same problems,
it generally doesn't take too much for someone to come with a really
good innovative idea, which is then quickly spread and improved.
In the past, the number of thinkers was far more limited, and new
ideas spread more slowly.
Other factors may be:
- The few people didn't have much free-time to think and experiment
with new things.
- Innovations often appear during though times. Possibly for much of
prehistory, most people were pretty satisfied by their life-styles,
and thus they didn't have much incentive to spend time and resources
to improve it.
J. J. Lodder
> nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
>
> > JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > VoiceOfReason <papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > Perfecting the technology such that it would be superior
> > > > to existing weapons is no simple matter. Spear and
> > > > atlatls are much simpler to make than a bow and arrow.
> >
> > > And simpler to use, especially the spear.
> >
> > > A bow IS NOT a weapon that just anyone can pick up
> > > and use effectively. There's quite a range in level of
> > > proficiency in gun use, but a gun is a lot easier to use
> > > than a bow.
> >
> > That's why the English longbowman
> > practised on sundays after church.
>
> Bow skills take practice, and practice takes a lot of free
> time...
Indeed, and that's precisely what hunter-gatherers have plenty of.
It's neolithic farmers who are short on time,
and hence need on professional soldiers
for their 'protection'.
The neolitic revolution was primarily a way
to exploit humans more effectively.
> > > It's one of the reason why projectile weapons
> > > didn't take the forefront of military action until the
> > > introduction of gunpoweder.
> >
> > You wouldn't have wanted to be with the French at Azincourt,
>
> And you wouldn't want to bet your life on an exception.
Come on, it isn't an exception.
The long- and crossbowmen were an essential part
of all medieval armies.
The longbow was the medieval equivalent of the anti-tank weapon,
the crossbow the medieval eq. of the area interdiction weapon.
A company of longbowman could stop a cavalry charge,
(by killing the horses mostly)
and even in full armour you couldn't come too close
to a castle wall with crossbowmen on it.
Best,
Jan
tgde...@earthlink.net
This last has been mentioned a couple of times, but for hunting birds
or rabbit-sized critters a blunt arrow is perfectly useful and
probably preferable. The bow might well have been used for such a
purpose pre-13000 bp, by women and children for example, while the
spear/thrower tech was employed for bigger game.
-tg
JTEM
> Come on, it isn't an exception.
> The long- and crossbowmen were an essential part
> of all medieval armies.
They were really only effective against large targets
(such as groups) at great distances, or from inside
(or outside) fortifications. They were not a weapon
of surprise or maneuver, and neither were they a
weapon that could be employed for prolonged
periods.
Another way of putting it: They were best when
used as a defensive weapon in a pitched battle.
As an offensive weapon, it was not nearly as effective.
Kent Paul Dolan
> So what am I getting at?
> Well, I'm really just trying to ascertain whether I can have an
> isolated island tribe in southeast asia hunting with small poisoned
> bows, or slingshots if you will, in my prehistoric fiction
> story....without getting labeled "fantasy."
Bows with sharp pointed headed arrows aren't the only kind that
were used in hunting. There were also arrows whose "head" was
a small sack filled with fiber, useful for knocking birds out of the
air or off a branch, without penetrating. They may have been used
for other small game as well, but I've only read about use against
birds.
There's no particular reason such a technology couldn't have
preceded stone tipped arrows.
xanthian.
Tom McDonald
>> Well, we haven't had writing for thirty millennia; and nor have
>> we had the kind of social organization that leads to valuing
>> wealth for that time.
>
> I've seen some pretty impressive cro-magnon symbols, sculptures, cave
> art, and jewelry from that era, all of which could be indicative of
> valueing wealth and social organization.
The issue was writing (which is more than impressive art,
symbolic or otherwise), and social organization *above the band
or tribal level*. If I was not clear on that point, I apologize.
Additionally, when I talk about 'wealth', I mean it as an
archaeologist would--stuff that is valued by the culture under
discussion, and whose accumulation is related to social and
economic status. H/G's did have pretty things that appear to have
been valued across their respective cultures.
But until sedentism, there was a pretty strict limit to how much
could be accumulated. If you have to walk from one place to
another on a regular basis, upping-sticks and carrying all that
you need to make a go of it in the next location on the annual
round, the amount of wealth you could carry would be no more than
you and your family and close buddies could carry in addition to
the necessary.
Wealth, as I'm using the term, doesn't have meaning and function
such as to drive increasing social organization until folks could
easily build places to store it.
<snip>
>> So whether you buy it or not, settled life for humans only began
>> ca. 8-10,000 ybp; and what archaeologists would consider
>> 'civilizations' (meaning the culture typical of cities and their
>> hinterland) is nowhere found before ca. 5500 ybp. (Not 5500 BC.)
>
> Jericho's walls go back to 10,000 before present. The natufian culture
> of that time seemed to have been made up of city states to me.
I don't think that's clear. But I won't argue the point just now.
>> Basically, pretty much any artifact we have from before 11,600 BC was
>> owned first by a country bumpkin: the successful hominids lived on the
>> coast or in the fertile lowlands, which are all now submerged and
>> their technologies washed away.
>
>> Could be. Isn't. No matter how much Graham Hancock would like us
>> to believe his propaganda in that regard.
>
> Couldn't be what?
Couldn't be that all of the supposedly advanced (for some
meaningful value of 'advanced') pre-Holocene technologies would
be lost. For one thing, few if any of the inundations you
intimate were so sudden as to preclude the advanced civilized
folks you postulate from moving uphill. Unless you think that
they could build cities and advanced technologies, but couldn't
notice that the water was rising; and couldn't build on higher
ground.
And this would have had to have been universal. Not one single,
solitary advanced Pleistocene civilization managed to move uphill.
> I'm not making wild claims like Graham Hancock.
Well, it seemed to be quacking like a duck to me.
> It's simply a fact that the most heavilly populated areas of the ice
> age are now under water. That is absolute fact. Look up "Sundaland"
> and "Quaternary Extinctions" and "Ice Age Sea Levels."
Yup. And all were submerged at a rate that would have allowed
cities to have been moved uphill as the water rose. Yet, we don't
see that.
And more damningly, we don't see the sort of hinterland
infrastructure that is nearly always found with civilization.
Let's assume for argument's sake that the coastal city dwellers
were incapable of dealing with the rising water. (A risible idea,
but for argument's sake...)
Given that sort of late Pleistocene ennui, why don't we find the
sort of extractive or agricultural infrastructure in what would
have been high lands near the coastal cities from that time?
Where are the mines, the cultivated fields, the quarries?
We do not find this sort of thing from the late Pleistocene
anywhere in the world. Yet coastal civilizations could hardly
have survived around the world without this hinterland
infrastructure.
>> So far, nothing has been found via underwater archaeology that
>> suggests a high civilization (or even a straight civilization)
>> from before the Holocene. Every bit of evidence that has been
>> brought forward to suggest such a civilization has failed the
>> test of archaeological science.
>
> Why would anything be found? It's been underwater for 11,000 years.
I thought we were discussing cities worldwide. It is pretty hard
to disappear cities, even under water, even after 11,000 years.
In this case absence of evidence, especially coupled with the
lack of hinterland infrastructure or any indication that anyone
from these cultures had the sense of self preservation of your
average Usenet denizen, is in fact evidence of absence.
> But speaking of hancock,
OK, but then you are leaving any claim to science or objectivity
in the dust.
> those structures off the coast of Okinawa are
> pretty much the only thing he's brought forth that has impressed me.
> Some skeptics proved that all those structures "could" form naturally
> under rare circumstances, but all in the same place, and perfectly
> complimentary to one another?
There was a TV show about this, which included a shot along the
coastal highway that Schoch was taking to get to the 'Yonaguni
monument'. It showed precisely the same sort of formation
on-shore, the same flatness, straight lines, apparent right
angles, everything, that is found in the 'monument'. All formed
quite naturally, and available for modern humans to run around on
and make graffiti all over.
> Even the skeptics said that one of the menhirs had to either be placed
> or fall from a great height when the land was above water, and there
> are no cliffs around.
Cite? And are you using 'menhir' to mean 'intentionally made or
used by folks', as it is used by archaeologists? Or are you using
it in some other, as yet unspecified, way?
> And even the skeptics admitted that it could be
> partially man-made.
Well, not so much 'man-made' as 'man-altered'. AFAIR, there
appear to be some markings that could have been made by humans
while the 'monument' was above water. Nothing more, again AFAIR.
And even geologist Robert Schoch, who famously thought that the
Sphinx was far older than the pyramids, considers the 'monument'
to be a natural formation with some indications that it might
have been used, and perhaps minimally altered, by folks at the
end of the Pleistocene.
<snip>
VoiceOfReason
> "J.LyonLayden" <JosephLay...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Well homo sapien sapient had 170,000 years to
> > do it before 13000 bc, and homo sapien had at
> > least 300,000 additional years before that. That's
> > plenty of trial and error.
>
> A bow & arrow relies heavily on other inventions.
>
> before you can invent the bow you must invent the
> bow string, for example.
>
> "Application" is another issue. It could very well be
> a case where the "Technology" was invented before
> the application to hunting & defense. Hunting &
> defense could mean a great deal more use than
> a previous application of the technology, leaving
> far more for us to potentially find & date.
>
> I mean, for all we know it started as a musical
> instrument...
More likely the arrow bow was derived from the fire bow. A fire bow
is very easy to make (a lot of us learned as Boy Scouts).
<...>
VoiceOfReason
JTEM wrote:
> VoiceOfReason <papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote:
>
> > Perfecting the technology such that it would be superior
> > to existing weapons is no simple matter. Spear and
> > atlatls are much simpler to make than a bow and arrow.
>
> And simpler to use, especially the spear.
>
> A bow IS NOT a weapon that just anyone can pick up
> and use effectively. There's quite a range in level of
> proficiency in gun use, but a gun is a lot easier to use
> than a bow. It's one of the reason why projectile weapons
> didn't take the forefront of military action until the
> introduction of gunpoweder.
>
> > I would think that a heavy spear would be a superior
> > weapon against megafauna.
>
> What is considered "Lethal Velocity" for a Mammoth
> anyway?
Anything that penetrates deep enough to do major damage, such as
puncturing a lung or major blood vessel. For that I would think an
atlatl/spear (dart) would be a better weapon that a lighter arrow. You
only need one good hit to mortally wound an animal, then just follow
him 'til he drops. Even rifle-wielding deer hunters today often have
to follow a wounded deer.
LloydBrown
> So what am I getting at?
> Well, I'm really just trying to ascertain whether I can have an
> isolated island tribe in southeast asia hunting with small poisoned
> bows, or slingshots if you will, in my prehistoric fiction
> story....without getting labeled "fantasy."
Well, if that's all, then yes, you can. Artifacts only provide an
oldest known date. It's still entirely possible that older artifacts
are undiscovered. New discoveries can only push dates back; they
can't advance them.
And yes, I am a writer.
Walter Bushell
VoiceOfReason <papa...@cybertown.com> wrote:
> Have you ever tried making a bow and arrow by hand out of natural
> materials? It's not a simple matter. Trying to find a material (or
> *combination* of materials) that will bend but not break after
> repeated use takes a lot of trial and error.
It's a technology sure.
Walter Bushell
Bill <b...@billconner.com> wrote:
> Wow! 170000 years is a -long- time. Seems like more than enough to
> perfect even the most primitive tools and crafts when you consider
> that NASA went from non-existent to landing men on the moon is just 10
> years or so.
Consider that NASA had behind it. Many people who could devote their
life to the mission. Perhaps more than humans on Eurasia in the earlier
time frame not many with talent, inclination, or ability for research.
Anyway no one could devote full time to R&D. And they lived in
conservative societies, do it the way your father did, because we know
that works.
Walter Bushell
> It may be that the changes apparent in the last two hundred years are
> due less to any intrinsic species-wide intelligence than to some
> critical mass of the human population. In the 18th century that
> critical mass was finally sufficient to ensure that all subsequent
> generations would have several geniuses living at the same time. Now
> instead of there being one instance of one genius, one genuinely
> original thinker, scattered haphazardly over many generations, there
> now several in each generation. Everyone else can only enhance,
> improve and fine tune what those few geniuses originate. We can ask,
> "Why did someone invent the bow" but can't seem to understand why it
> took so long and then, why did they stop there?
It takes a mass of population to keep any level of technology. People
talk about building their own computer, but they don't dig and refine
the sand and copper and iron and build from there. Diamond talks about
islands so small (Tasmania?) that the people lost fishing.
Of course, increase population increases pressure to find ways to feed
them and people above that level trying to maintain their status. Then
there is the factor that traditionally you had ten people farming for
everyone who could do anything else. So most people never had a shot at
intellectual work. Down on the farm working from dawn to dark 30,
without the ability to read, you could be Einstein and Newton rolled
into one and no one would ever hear about you. How many potential
Chinese geniuses are stuck in assembly line jobs or still back on the
farm? From what we know about what happens when they come over here, a
lot of talent is wasted in China.
snex
> J.LyonLayden wrote:
<snip>
>
> > Or is there some other smoking gun that proves they were not in use
> > before 13000?
>
> There's no way to prove they *weren't* in use before a given date,
> just a lack of evidence that they *were.*
gee this sounds familiar. why dont you apply the same reasoning to the
resurrection?
Dr.GH
And cows might fly. You must have a positive case, not merely a
plausable case. Now you have introduced a unattested technology, and
an elaborate social model of food procurement (one that lacks
ethnographic or archaeological support BTW).
Bill
> In article <1186525069.376509.246...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
My reference to a critical mass of population was not entirely
serious. Recall that people have been building enormous edifices for
thousands of years. Giant walled cities, aquaducts, pyramins,
megalithic calendars, paved roads, enormous temples define every
civilization all the way back to Sumer. These required a large
fraction of a population to construct which meant they were not also
involved in agriculture. These civilizations also typically had
standing armies, maybe navies, probably mercenaries from time to time.
All of this would require large bureaucracies of people who made
little material contribution to much of anything. Even the earliest
civilizations were supporting a very large fraction of their
populations in comfort and security with the much smaller fraction of
those practicing agriculture. There was sufficient population in every
civilization to ponder the existing technologies and devise
improvements yet innovation was a rare phenomenon.
In each of these epochs there were people who were -capable- of
initiating something like an Industrial Revolution but they never did.
People were content with whatever technology the preceding generation
left them and apparently never gave much thought to invention and
certainly not "progress". We could've had people colonizing Mars 10
thousand years ago but it just never occurred to anyone to innovate.
People seem to just settle what had always worked before with no
serious thought on how to make things work better. A very odd state of
mind to us in the 21st century, almost incomprehensible. It's
especially destructive to the conceit that intelligence is a defining
characteristic of humankind.
Bill
J.LyonLayden
with new things. )
This is an outdated arguement. They may have had MUCH more time than
we have now. There are several stone age tribes living today who have
8 hour work weeks. Primitive tribes living today seem to have a lot
more free time than us civilized folks.
Civilization, for the most part, creates work; it doesn't lessen it.
There are brilliant, massive cave art frescoes and intricate, detailed
carvings and rock sculptures from over 30,000 years ago.
J.LyonLayden
symbolic or otherwise), and social organization *above the band
or tribal level*. If I was not clear on that point, I apologize.
The cro-magnon symbols of which I speak were not just artwork and
could have been a very early form of writing. The celts have a form of
writing in which gnots are tied on a string rather than with the use
of quill and ink.
And we have no way of knowing whether cro-magnons had social
organization above and beyond the tribal level. At least semi-
sedentary tribes of erectus build permanent housing 500,000 years ago
in China. Who is to say that each of these settlements wasn't ruled
over by a daimyo from the most powerful tribe?
J. J. Lodder
> nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
>
> > Come on, it isn't an exception.
> > The long- and crossbowmen were an essential part
> > of all medieval armies.
>
> They were really only effective against large targets
> (such as groups) at great distances, or from inside
> (or outside) fortifications.
A trained longbowman should have been able to hit a bedcloth
laid out on the ground at a hundred yards.
(Arrowsplitting Hood style is Hollywood nonsense of course)
So hitting a horse should not have been a problem.
> They were not a weapon
> of surprise or maneuver, and neither were they a
> weapon that could be employed for prolonged
> periods.
You want to stop the same cavalry charge twice?
The devastating effect of a company of longbowmen
was due to its very high rate of fire.
They could easily deliver a thousand arrows a minute.
The same held even in the American Indian wars.
Guns were no match for bow and arrow
until revolvers and repeating rifles became available.
Hence the need for the familiar defensive wagon circle.
Best,
Jan
J.LyonLayden
(Wealth, as I'm using the term, doesn't have meaning and function
such as to drive increasing social organization until folks could
easily build places to store it. )
I'm not convinced that the "Sistine Chapels" of the prehistoric world,
in which rocks were carved and walls were painted, were not permanent
settlements. Especially those in the equatorial regions.
I don't think that's clear. But I won't argue the point just now.
(Couldn't be that all of the supposedly advanced (for some
meaningful value of 'advanced') pre-Holocene technologies would
be lost. For one thing, few if any of the inundations you
intimate were so sudden as to preclude the advanced civilized
folks you postulate from moving uphill.)
According to theory. Whether the rise in sea levels was gradual or
resulting from several more sudden occurences is still a matter of
debate. Mainstreamers just flock to one extreme and ridicule the
other, despite ongoing contention.
Greek fire was lost, despite any sea level rise whatever.
And all of the evidence of an advanced civilization has not been lost,
just the vast majority of it.
(Unless you think that
they could build cities and advanced technologies, but couldn't
notice that the water was rising; and couldn't build on higher
ground.)
Sure they could, but would the higher ground have the same natural
resources as the low ground they came from?
Did it indeed happen gradually enough that they could perceive it? Or
were tsunamis involved, at least occasionally?
You know a tsunami just hit Indonesia and seems to hit it on a regular
basis through the eons. And Indonesia during the Ice Age was about the
best place a human could desire to be, considering the tropical
climate, fertile land, and plentiful hunting and fishing.
(And this would have had to have been universal. Not one single,
solitary advanced Pleistocene civilization managed to move uphill. )
I'm not sure I follow what you're saying there.
(Well, it seemed to be quacking like a duck to me. )
Hmmm...a bow and arrow invented before 13,000 is just as quacky as
claims of alien visitations, genetic engineering, and Atlanteans?
You'd think my bow and arrow was as hard to build as Hancock's solar
powered generators. Please explain.
(Yup. And all were submerged at a rate that would have allowed
cities to have been moved uphill as the water rose. Yet, we don't
see that. )
According to one theory. All this rising of water, and no storms or
tsunamis happened while it rose? What kept Indonesia from having
Tsunamis before 11,600 BC...because it sure as hell has been struck by
them repeatedly after 11600 BC?
(Given that sort of late Pleistocene ennui, why don't we find the
sort of extractive or agricultural infrastructure in what would
have been high lands near the coastal cities from that time?
Where are the mines, the cultivated fields, the quarries?)
Who said anything about mines, agriculture, and quarries?
You can tell that prehistoric man didn't have much agriculture not
only because of the lack of evidence for it in geological/
archeological records, but because prehistoric people were healthier,
taller, and had less tooth decay than their civilized descendents,
resulting from their more varied diets.
The Jomon people were sedentary pot makers before they had
agriculture. Perhaps the sea was the only resource that Sundalanders
really needed.
(We do not find this sort of thing from the late Pleistocene
anywhere in the world. Yet coastal civilizations could hardly
have survived around the world without this hinterland
infrastructure.)
You're defining civilzation differently than I am.
(I thought we were discussing cities worldwide. It is pretty hard
to disappear cities, even under water, even after 11,000 years. )
You mean to tell me if I build a city of long houses out of logs and
elephant skin in Holland, then open up a dyche so that it floods, that
11,600 years from now scuba divers will still be able to take pictures
of it?
(In this case absence of evidence, especially coupled with the
lack of hinterland infrastructure or any indication that anyone
from these cultures had the sense of self preservation of your
average Usenet denizen, is in fact evidence of absence.)
I guess all those millions of Indonesians who died last year in the
Tsunami did not have the sense of preservation of an average Usenet
denizen.
There was a TV show about this, which included a shot along the
coastal highway that Schoch was taking to get to the 'Yonaguni
monument'. It showed precisely the same sort of formation
on-shore, the same flatness, straight lines, apparent right
angles, everything, that is found in the 'monument'. All formed
quite naturally, and available for modern humans to run around on
and make graffiti all over.
> Even the skeptics said that one of the menhirs had to either be placed
> or fall from a great height when the land was above water, and there
> are no cliffs around.
Cite? And are you using 'menhir' to mean 'intentionally made or
used by folks', as it is used by archaeologists? Or are you using
it in some other, as yet unspecified, way?
I erred. It's just a rock, but it's of a different type than the rest,
and I saw a cross-examination of one of Hancock's biggest critics on
the matter who said it had to have fallen from a great height before
the area was submerged.
> And even the skeptics admitted that it could be
> partially man-made.
Well, not so much 'man-made' as 'man-altered'. AFAIR, there
appear to be some markings that could have been made by humans
while the 'monument' was above water. Nothing more, again AFAIR.
I don't know what AFAIR means. But humans living in a place that looks
like a man-made megalithic structure is just as good as humans living
in an artificed megalithic structure for my particular purposes.
I don't think Tolkien even mentions how Minus Tirith was built.
(And even geologist Robert Schoch, who famously thought that the
Sphinx was far older than the pyramids, considers the 'monument'
to be a natural formation with some indications that it might
have been used, and perhaps minimally altered, by folks at the
end of the Pleistocene. )
Good enough for me. Throw the ancestors of the Jomon in there making
pottery and fishing in the sea with skin boats and you've got a
civilization as far as I'm concerned. If they could have little fire
bows to go along with it, that would be even cooler!
J. J. Lodder
> On Aug 7, 2:56 pm, "J.LyonLayden" <JosephLay...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > So what am I getting at?
> > Well, I'm really just trying to ascertain whether I can have an
> > isolated island tribe in southeast asia hunting with small poisoned
> > bows, or slingshots if you will, in my prehistoric fiction
> > story....without getting labeled "fantasy."
>
> Bows with sharp pointed headed arrows aren't the only kind that
> were used in hunting. There were also arrows whose "head" was
> a small sack filled with fiber, useful for knocking birds out of the
> air or off a branch, without penetrating. They may have been used
> for other small game as well, but I've only read about use against
> birds.
I remember having seen something like it on medieval paintings,
for hunting rabbits or hares.
Jan
J.LyonLayden
(And cows might fly. You must have a positive case, not merely a
plausable case. Now you have introduced a unattested technology, and
an elaborate social model of food procurement (one that lacks
ethnographic or archaeological support BTW).
I know you're not responding to me, but I'm going to answer anyway.
It depends on your perspective.
I'm not writing a non-fiction book about prehistory.
I'm writing a fiction book about prehistory.
Aule got away with having her neandertals engage in psychic
rituals...so I should be able to put a glorified slingshot in the
hands of a pre-13000 homo sapient.
J.LyonLayden
everything plausable and only allow possible, you will be left with a
very innacurate view of what prehistoric life was like. Some invention
is necessary just in order to avoid making those people much less
sophisticated than they logically could have been. After all, more orf
their technology has deteriorated than has been preserved.
For instance, we know that Mungo man got to Australia by boat....but
we have no surviving seaworthy boats of that age. It is certainly
plausible that they made reed or skin boats. Dug-out canoes would have
been too cumbersome to be much good at sea. Unfortunately, we have no
positive evidence of skin boats....but, again, they are perfectly
plausible, and Mungo had to get there somehow.
So the prehistoric fiction writer has to choose which boat he's gonna
use, and hope that he guessed right so that his work doesn't become
"dated" like Doyle's "Lost World" or Verne's "Journey to the Center."
In the 50s, those books didn't seem nearly as far fetched as they do
today.
Gerry Murphy
"J. J. Lodder" <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote in message
news:1i2jdpp.1ay...@de-ster.xs4all.nl...
> JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> >
> > > Come on, it isn't an exception.
> > > The long- and crossbowmen were an essential part
> > > of all medieval armies.
> >
> > They were really only effective against large targets
> > (such as groups) at great distances, or from inside
> > (or outside) fortifications.
>
> A trained longbowman should have been able to hit a bedcloth
> laid out on the ground at a hundred yards.
> (Arrowsplitting Hood style is Hollywood nonsense of course)
Nope, I've seen it done, not by accident but by design. And Howard Hill,
who made the shot in Errol Flynn's "The Adventures of Robin Hood", is
supposed to have done it in a single take. ( Though it's claimed the split
arrow was bamboo.)
But I agree with the rest of what you say.
<snip>
VoiceOfReason
I remember seeing similar modern arrows for sale for bird hunting.
tgde...@earthlink.net
Well no, the OP is trying to write fiction and my plausible suggestion
might lead to an interesting story line.
And the use of blunt arrows is well attested----google away.
-tg
Tom McDonald
<snip>
<BTW, what is stopping you from quoting like everyone else, to
include retaining the attributions? Your way is both more
difficult to you, and harder to follow.>
> (We do not find this sort of thing from the late Pleistocene
> anywhere in the world. Yet coastal civilizations could hardly
> have survived around the world without this hinterland
> infrastructure.)
>
> You're defining civilzation differently than I am.
<snip>
> Good enough for me. Throw the ancestors of the Jomon in there making
> pottery and fishing in the sea with skin boats and you've got a
> civilization as far as I'm concerned. If they could have little fire
> bows to go along with it, that would be even cooler!
You appear to be correct about defining civilization differently
from me.
I am using the term 'civilization' as the relevant professionals,
viz. archaeologists and anthropologists, use it. It involves
social stratification or hierarchy of at least four levels (IIRC
= If I Recall Correctly; AFAIR = As Far As I Recall; AFAIK = As
Far As I Know) -- e.g.: normal folks, direct leaders, leaders of
those leaders, and paramount leader(s).
It also involves a stratification or hierarchy of settlements,
usually resulting in a settlement pattern that can be described
using mathematical models; with a central, generally large,
settlement, surrounded and supported by smaller centers, which in
turn are surrounded and supported by still smaller centers.
It is a complex society, and therefore requires some sort of
record-keeping (e.g.: food and labor availability; how much of
what sort of stuff went from where to where else; who owns what
and where it is located; etc.) You mentioned using knots for
records (although I never heard of Celts using them this way;
they had access to writing pretty early on). The Inka used kipu
for this purpose. It may be that the kipu was flexible enough to
convey more than just tax roles, etc; and may have been used to
record literature. (This is, admittedly, my own view; I don't
know whether anyone else thinks this. However, the &)@$ Spanish
destroyed so many kipus that we may never know.)
There are some other elements to the definition of
'civilization', but these should be enough to go on with.
I've had folks argue this with me, usually from the POV that
saying some culture was not a civilization (an observational or
definitional issue) was the same as saying that the culture was
uncivilized (a value judgment). I may be wrong, but I don't think
you are taking that position.
Perhaps you could tell me what you mean by 'civilization'. (And
please God, don't tell backspace or UC about this conversation!)
It may be that we are talking past each other. Defining our terms
could help.
Tom McDonald
I'm sure you are aware that Ms. Auel, in the one good book she
wrote anyway (ask if you want to know :-) ), very consciously
used the latest and best archaeological information available to
her. She consulted archaeologists, and listened *and understood*
what they told her.
Her use of the concept that Neandertal kids only had to be told
something once, and their memories (including, apparently, racial
memories) kicked in was based on the identification of the back
of the brain as essential to memory. She took liberties with
this, but what she invented had a pretty solid basis in biology.
As for the scene where whazherface, the Homo sap sap chick, saw
the future in amazingly accurate detail, I think we can write
that off to the hallucinogenics the Homo sap neanders were using
in the other room.
Just my $0.02 USD from one writer to another.
The downward slide began in the second book, in which the Hss
chick domesticated horses and a tiger, and invented scads of
other stuff that really happened later, mostly elsewhere, and in
wholly different circumstances.
But _Clan of the Cave Bear_--ah, that was magical! I read that in
my first year in archaeology grad school, and it was sweet! That
and Toto's song, "Africa", helped put the heart in the science I
was learning.
So if you intend to invoke Auel for permission to stray outside
of what the science supports, you should decide up front whether
you want to follow the Auel who wrote _Clan of the Cave Bear_, or
the Auel who wrote the Pleistocene bodice-ripping soft core porn
of the later books.
Tom McDonald
This was on an episode of the wonderful "Mythbusters" TV show. It
turns out not to be possible to split an arrow with another
arrow, unless, as you note, the split arrow was made of bamboo).
Tom McDonald
Not just birds, but other small game that, if you shot sharp
arrows at, you'd lose the arrows in the trees. There is a lot of
force behind an arrow, perhaps the equivalent of bullets in some
cases. The mass of an arrow being greater than the mass of most
bullets, even though the velocity is much less; it works out to
some pretty hefty stopping power.
J.LyonLayden
> Her use of the concept that Neandertal kids only had to be told
> something once, and their memories (including, apparently, racial
> memories) kicked in was based on the identification of the back
> of the brain as essential to memory. She took liberties with
> this, but what she invented had a pretty solid basis in biology.
Well "racial memories" in and of themselves seem pretty "hippie dippy"
to alot of people, whether Neanderthals had big memory lumps as far as
phrenology goes or no.
;)
> The downward slide began in the second book, in which the Hss
> chick domesticated horses and a tiger, and invented scads of
> other stuff that really happened later, mostly elsewhere, and in
> wholly different circumstances.
I didn't read them past "Clan."
I think the author dwells too much on trying to teach us history
lessons instead of telling a good yarn.
When a cowboy in a western skins a deer, we don't hear about it
incessantly, so why should we in prehistoric fiction?
We have text books for learning how neandertals skinned carcasses.
But in my opinion, if the author had let Hss girl invent one anomalas
thing instead of multiple things, that would have been alright.
I don't think it's too far fetched to speculate that there may have
been a false start of animal domestication before 18000 BC, which is
the date some sources are now giving to the first domesticated dog.
> So if you intend to invoke Auel for permission to stray outside
> of what the science supports, you should decide up front whether
> you want to follow the Auel who wrote _Clan of the Cave Bear_, or
> the Auel who wrote the Pleistocene bodice-ripping soft core porn
> of the later books.
I am writing a book of prehistoric fiction that reads like fantasy
while remaining relatively conservative in my theories. You won't find
alot of Hancock nonsense in it, but you may find a neandertal
surviving for a few thousand years past 28000 (hybrids are found at
24000), or an isolated false start of technology a thousand years or
so before the generally accepted speculation.
It should read like fantasy because of the viewpoint, not because of
wild speculation, because IMHO prehistoric man was alot more
sophisticated than what he's given credit for.
Why do we call indian rulers chiefs and european rulers kings, even
when they rule over the same amount of wealth and people?
What makes megalania prisca anything but a mythological dragon,
besides the demystification incurred by latin words?
How is a goblin more fantastic, hideous, and alien to a homo sapien
than a cannibalistic clan of homo erectus soloensis?
What makes a Hobbit more fantastic than homo flores?
JTEM
> A trained longbowman should have been able to
> hit a bedcloth laid out on the ground at a hundred
> yards.
Which doesn't contradict what I've stated about a moving
target.
Like I said, the longbow was pretty much limited to
pitched battles. If an enemy is formed up at great
distances, a longbow was fantastic. But if you're talking
exposed flanks, maneuver, it's a different story entirely.
There's also the issue with numbers. Masses of longbows
against an enemy formation -- at a distance -- is just
about murder. The fewer you've got though, the less they're
ever going to matter.
Gerry Murphy
"Tom McDonald" <kil...@gspammail.com> wrote in message
news:Otvui.73$oU...@newsfe12.lga...
Haven't seen the show. Do you consider Mythbusters the final authority?
8-}
The fellow I saw split an arrow used a broadhead and pointed out that he
only needed to be precise on the axis at right angles to the edges of the
broadhead. He had about a half inch of leeway on the other axis.
I've seen any number of accidental hits, but since the local archery club
only allows aluminum arrows and they use target points the usual outcome is
a shattered nock, though I did see one that shattered the nock and jammed
itself into the tubular shaft of the arrow already in the target, resulting
in a funny looking sort of double length arrow.
The club has examples of these sorts of mishaps displayed on the walls along
the shooting range.
Noelie S. Alito
<snip>
>
> So if you intend to invoke Auel for permission to stray outside of what
> the science supports, you should decide up front whether you want to
> follow the Auel who wrote _Clan of the Cave Bear_, or the Auel who wrote
> the Pleistocene bodice-ripping soft core porn of the later books.
Hey buddy, that's _best-selling_ Pleistocene bodice-ripping soft core
porn to you!
I couldn't finish the second book, but I know enough about the
mainstream book market to understand why they sold well.
Noelie, who got her pre-teen years' fill of soft porn via SF
J. J. Lodder
A longbow arrow will go through a horse,
unless it meets a heavy bone,
Jan
J. J. Lodder
> nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
>
> > A trained longbowman should have been able to
> > hit a bedcloth laid out on the ground at a hundred
> > yards.
>
> Which doesn't contradict what I've stated about a moving
> target.
That will make no difference.
> Like I said, the longbow was pretty much limited to
> pitched battles. If an enemy is formed up at great
> distances, a longbow was fantastic. But if you're talking
> exposed flanks, maneuver, it's a different story entirely.
>
> There's also the issue with numbers. Masses of longbows
> against an enemy formation -- at a distance -- is just
> about murder. The fewer you've got though, the less they're
> ever going to matter.
Great. Yes indeed, irrelevant forces are irrelevant.
The English however used their longbowmen
as an important part of their armies.
Having them made it possible in the hundred years war
to raid France with relatively small armies.
We started this exchange with you saying:
===
> It's one of the reason why projectile weapons
> didn't take the forefront of military action until the
> introduction of gunpoweder.
===
You seem to have changed your mind a bit,
Jan
J. J. Lodder
If you do a lot of shooting all kind of strange things will happen.
The Robin Hood myth (in Hollywood) has it that Robin was capable
of doing it on demand,
Jan
LloydBrown
> We started this exchange with you saying:
> ===> It's one of the reason why projectile weapons
> > didn't take the forefront of military action until the
> > introduction of gunpoweder.
Ironically, the first battle in which the English longbow became a
primary arm of war was the same as the first appearance of guns--
Crecy, 1346. Poitiers and Agincourt proved that their effectiveness
wasn't a fluke. The guns had no effect on the battle.
Before then, bows were used mostly--I did NOT say exclusively--to
break charges, disrupt formations, cause troops to keep cover, etc.
Any killing of troops was a nice bonus, although they did wreck
cavalry.
gregwrld
And keep in mind that the English warlords were adept at provoking the
French
to attack them head-on, en masse. They understood the psychology of
the French
knights, who fought in this manner as a matter of pride and deeply
resented the
bowman who were after all, commoners.
gregwrld
VoiceOfReason
A few passages seemed a little strange though... "They passed this
plant, then that plant... they passed this bird, then that bird...
they passed this animal, then that animal... so they jumped off their
horses and made mad passionate love and it was the best they'd ever
had ohbabyohbabyohbaby..." :-)
JTEM
> The English however used their longbowmen
> as an important part of their armies.
> Having them made it possible in the hundred
> years war to raid France with relatively small
> armies.
There were a whole lot of other things going on
inside of France, and the French helped a
great deal by trying to fight as if there were no
longbows on the field...
But you've got me stuck. Are you claiming that
England was all of the world? Most of the world?
England made up a large minority of the world?
Because your one example does not show what
you claim it shows...
Tom McDonald
I did think it was rather cool of Auel to have the man dig up some
soap roots so that they could bathe and make sweet, sweet oral love. A
lot.
Mark Isaak
There is a common motif in North American mythology where someone shoots
an arrow into the firmament, shoots another which sticks into the end of
the first, shoots a third arrow into the second, and continues in this
fashion to create a rope of arrows, which people then use to climb up
into the sky. Let's see Errol Flynn do that!
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
Mark Isaak
> So if you intend to invoke Auel for permission to stray outside
> of what the science supports, you should decide up front whether
> you want to follow the Auel who wrote _Clan of the Cave Bear_, or
> the Auel who wrote the Pleistocene bodice-ripping soft core porn
> of the later books.
I never read past _Clan of the Cave Bear_, but you just explained a part
of that book which seemed gratuitous at the time. Auel had her heroine
invent the bodice in the first book so she could get it ripped later.
jet
Aren't these the primary uses for guns in modern warfare?
J. J. Lodder
> > We started this exchange with you saying:
> > ===> It's one of the reason why projectile weapons
> > > didn't take the forefront of military action until the
> > > introduction of gunpoweder.
>
> Ironically, the first battle in which the English longbow became a
> primary arm of war was the same as the first appearance of guns--
> Crecy, 1346. Poitiers and Agincourt proved that their effectiveness
> wasn't a fluke. The guns had no effect on the battle.
That had to wait for Maurice of Orange, (ca 1600)
and the introduction of systematic gun drill.
Even then an equal number of pikemen were needed
to protect the musketiers from cavalry charges.
> Before then, bows were used mostly--I did NOT say exclusively--to
> break charges, disrupt formations, cause troops to keep cover, etc.
The Persians for example did use them for that,
at Marathon for example.
Unfortunately for them the Athenians were disciplined enough
to halt in a body to let the first flight of arrows
drop in front of them.
When they continued their charge after that the archers panicked.
> Any killing of troops was a nice bonus, although they did wreck
> cavalry.
Especially the longbows with their long arrows.
Shot through horses will fall, and disrupt the charge.
(which used to be in very tight formation)
The only remedy was horse armour,
but this was very expensive and slowed down the horse very much.
The few that were made were mostly parade pieces,
not to be used in charges.
Best,
Jan
PS They also killed more troops that you might expect
(afterwards) due to the 'longbowman's secret weapon'.
Longbowmen had the habit of planting a row of arrows
in the ground before them before the battle, for fast reloading.
(the arrows are long enough for that)
Therefore the tips always carried dirt,
and arrow wounds were usually infected.
Given medieval medicine those infections were often fatal.
J. J. Lodder
I think I remember reading somewhere
that in WW II the ratio was one soldier killed
for every 100,000 bullets fired.
This statistic of course proves that rifles and machine guns
are relatively unimportant in modern warfare,
Jan
Mark VandeWettering
> Most books say that the bow and arrow were invented some 15000 to
> 10000 years ago. This seems strange to me, seeing as how so many stone
> age populations around the world have invented the device
> independently of one another, and because it is such a simple tool
> compared to other artificial devices (tools, weapons, art) in use
> before 15,000 years ago.
>
> How do they date the bow and arrow? Is it only through the stone tips?
> Why would archeologists have any evidence of bow use before 13,000 BC,
> if at that remote time they had simply sharpened the end of the wooden
> shaft of an arrow instead of attaching a sharpened stone?
If you think an effective bow and arrow are simple to make, I suggest
you try to make one. Spears and associated spear throwing devices are
much more straightforward.
Mark
Walter Bushell
JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What is considered "Lethal Velocity" for a Mammoth
> anyway?
What it gets from going over a tall cliff, or falling into a deep pit.
Mark VandeWettering
> > I don't know anything about this, but what I don't understand at
>> all is how one can make a *straight* arrow.
>>
>> I can understand a process of trial and error in getting an ever
>> better bow. Even a not very strong bow will work a little bit. But
>> an arrow, if it is not very straight, seems to be totally useless.
>
> An arrow hardly flies "straight". If you've ever seen high speed
> camera footage of an arrow flying through the air, you can see the
> arrow actually bending up and down. It kind of wobbles. Arrows don't
> need to be perfectly straight, but the straighter the better. I've
> shot some warped arrows & handmade arrows, accuracy is shit, but they
> still "work".
Indeed. Proper fletching is more essential to an arrow's true flight
than absolute straightness.
Mark
>
>
>
J. J. Lodder
Holy Popper!
It does falsify your much too general:
===
> A bow IS NOT a weapon that just anyone can pick up
> and use effectively. There's quite a range in level of
> proficiency in gun use, but a gun is a lot easier to use
> than a bow. It's one of the reason why projectile weapons
> didn't take the forefront of military action until the
> introduction of gunpoweder.
===
I also gave you the Persians at Marathon as another counterexample,
and no doubt many more can be found.
Best,
Jan
John Wilkins
Recalling Haldane's point that if a mouse falls two storeys it bounces,
shakes itself and walks away. A cat is injured, a dog is killed and a
horse splashes...
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Philosophy
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
r norman
Wilkins) wrote:
>Walter Bushell <pr...@oanix.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <1186559120....@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
>> JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > What is considered "Lethal Velocity" for a Mammoth
>> > anyway?
>>
>> What it gets from going over a tall cliff, or falling into a deep pit.
>
>Recalling Haldane's point that if a mouse falls two storeys it bounces,
>shakes itself and walks away. A cat is injured, a dog is killed and a
>horse splashes...
I can attest from personal observation that a mouse falling from a
fourth floor window onto grass bounces, picks itself up, and is
completely unharmed. The source up there was an ecologist in an
adjoining lab with whom I had just had that discussion before walking
downstairs to go outside.
John Wilkins
JTEM
> Holy Popper!
> It does falsify your much too general:
> ===> A bow IS NOT a weapon that just anyone can pick up
> > and use effectively. There's quite a range in level of
> > proficiency in gun use, but a gun is a lot easier to use
> > than a bow. It's one of the reason why projectile weapons
> > didn't take the forefront of military action until the
> > introduction of gunpoweder.
>
> ===
Really? So then why didn't the French & their mercenaries --
who easily outnumbered the English -- slaughter them with
their longbows?
Apparently you think the exception is the rule, while I tend
to think that the exception is merely an exception...
> I also gave you the Persians at Marathon as another
> counterexample,
You're in free-fall rationalizations at this point...
J. J. Lodder
> Walter Bushell <pr...@oanix.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <1186559120....@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> > JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > What is considered "Lethal Velocity" for a Mammoth
> > > anyway?
> >
> > What it gets from going over a tall cliff, or falling into a deep pit.
>
> Recalling Haldane's point that if a mouse falls two storeys it bounces,
> shakes itself and walks away. A cat is injured, a dog is killed and a
> horse splashes...
And how about a spherical cow?
Or 'an elephant whose weight may be neglected'?
Seriously though:
A cat may survive falling from a skyscraper
without suffering injuries,
if it manages to achieve a stable flight position.
Falling from 20 stories or more poses a smaller risk to a cat
than falling from the third.
Best,
Jan
J. J. Lodder
> nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
>
> > Holy Popper!
> > It does falsify your much too general:
>
> > ===> A bow IS NOT a weapon that just anyone can pick up
> > > and use effectively. There's quite a range in level of
> > > proficiency in gun use, but a gun is a lot easier to use
> > > than a bow. It's one of the reason why projectile weapons
> > > didn't take the forefront of military action until the
> > > introduction of gunpoweder.
> >
> > ===
>
> Really? So then why didn't the French & their mercenaries --
> who easily outnumbered the English -- slaughter them with
> their longbows?
They didn't have them.
The why is a complicated social question.
There social structure was different,
with the barons being more powerful
and the peasants being more heavily exploited.
The English had a by comparison prosperous countryside
from which the archers could be recruited.
> Apparently you think the exception is the rule, while I tend
> to think that the exception is merely an exception...
The counterexample falsifies the (far too general) theory.
> > I also gave you the Persians at Marathon as another
> > counterexample,
>
> You're in free-fall rationalizations at this point...
You appear to have no idea of what you are talking about.
It is well known, and generally accepted,
that the bulk of the Persian infantry at Marathon
consisted of archers.
See
<http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Marathon>
for example.
Best,
Jan
r norman
Wilkins) wrote:
>r norman <r_s_norman@_comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 11:57:59 +1000, j.wil...@uq.edu.au (John
>> Wilkins) wrote:
>>
>> >Walter Bushell <pr...@oanix.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article <1186559120....@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > What is considered "Lethal Velocity" for a Mammoth
>> >> > anyway?
>> >>
>> >> What it gets from going over a tall cliff, or falling into a deep pit.
>> >
>> >Recalling Haldane's point that if a mouse falls two storeys it bounces,
>> >shakes itself and walks away. A cat is injured, a dog is killed and a
>> >horse splashes...
>>
>> I can attest from personal observation that a mouse falling from a
>> fourth floor window onto grass bounces, picks itself up, and is
>> completely unharmed. The source up there was an ecologist in an
>> adjoining lab with whom I had just had that discussion before walking
>> downstairs to go outside.
>
>Now go do the horse experiment...
That was back in the days before you had to file a complete
experimental protocol with the Animal Care and Use Committee for
anything you do that might even come close to touching a vertebrate
animal, complete with justification on why you didn't select a
"lesser" species or a computer model, how you plan to acquire the
animal, how you plan to house and feed it until the experiment, how
you plan to dispose of the remains, and finally swearing that the
animal will not undergo any angst during the experiment.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <k2erb350677v4lv8a...@4ax.com>):
Drop the horse on the committee. That solves two problems at once.
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
r norman
Once you reach terminal velocity, it doesn't matter far you fall.
However I believe that an ordinary house cat can adjust its position
in far less time than it takes to fall from the third story. My
impression was that the "danger zone" for a falling cat was only a few
feet.
Walter Bushell
j.wil...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
> r norman <r_s_norman@_comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 11:57:59 +1000, j.wil...@uq.edu.au (John
> > Wilkins) wrote:
> >
> > >Walter Bushell <pr...@oanix.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> In article <1186559120....@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> > >> JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > What is considered "Lethal Velocity" for a Mammoth
> > >> > anyway?
> > >>
> > >> What it gets from going over a tall cliff, or falling into a deep pit.
> > >
> > >Recalling Haldane's point that if a mouse falls two storeys it bounces,
> > >shakes itself and walks away. A cat is injured, a dog is killed and a
> > >horse splashes...
> >
> > I can attest from personal observation that a mouse falling from a
> > fourth floor window onto grass bounces, picks itself up, and is
> > completely unharmed. The source up there was an ecologist in an
> > adjoining lab with whom I had just had that discussion before walking
> > downstairs to go outside.
>
> Now go do the horse experiment...
Now we know horses can't fly. (Mad mad mad mad Professor Bly)
Walter Bushell
nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
>
> I think I remember reading somewhere
> that in WW II the ratio was one soldier killed
> for every 100,000 bullets fired.
I think the Germans had much better accuracy. We didn't train our
troops to overcome the natural disinclination to kill. In later wars we
have apparently gotten better with that. However, integrating soldiers
back into the civilian population may be a lot harder. Once you are OK
with killing people to accomplish an objective, it becomes easier to use
for other objectives as we found out in the Oklahoma Federal Building
bombing.
JTEM
> JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > So then why didn't the French & their mercenaries --
> > who easily outnumbered the English -- slaughter them
> > with their longbows?
>
> They didn't have them.
That's right. Projectile weapons had not yet taken the
forefront, and would not until after the introduction of
useful guns.... exactly as I stated.
> > Apparently you think the exception is the rule, while I tend
> > to think that the exception is merely an exception...
>
> The counterexample falsifies the (far too general) theory.
It's not a counterexample, it's an example of what I was
talking about. If the French (including foreign mercenaries)
were not 100% geared towards the melee... if the idea of
basing an army on projectile weapons were not so foerign
to them, the British would not have been so successful. It's
likely they would not have been successful at all.
The issues that I raised with the longbow would have been
strongly exploited from the begining.
Anyhow, it's because projectile weapons would not become
the mainstay of military force until proper guns that the
longbow was effective at all.
J. J. Lodder
> nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
>
> > JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > So then why didn't the French & their mercenaries --
> > > who easily outnumbered the English -- slaughter them
> > > with their longbows?
> >
> > They didn't have them.
>
> That's right. Projectile weapons had not yet taken the
> forefront, and would not until after the introduction of
> useful guns.... exactly as I stated.
>
There you go again.
You appear to have an idee fixe
that allows you to overlook or ignore all evidence to the contrary
of large armies equiped with bows and arrows.
There is no point in continuing this way,
Jan
J. J. Lodder
> On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 10:51:42 +0200, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> Lodder) wrote:
>
> >John Wilkins <j.wil...@uq.edu.au> wrote:
> >
> >> Walter Bushell <pr...@oanix.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > In article <1186559120....@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> >> > JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > What is considered "Lethal Velocity" for a Mammoth
> >> > > anyway?
> >> >
> >> > What it gets from going over a tall cliff, or falling into a deep pit.
> >>
> >> Recalling Haldane's point that if a mouse falls two storeys it bounces,
> >> shakes itself and walks away. A cat is injured, a dog is killed and a
> >> horse splashes...
> >
> >And how about a spherical cow?
> >Or 'an elephant whose weight may be neglected'?
> >
> >Seriously though:
> >A cat may survive falling from a skyscraper
> >without suffering injuries,
> >if it manages to achieve a stable flight position.
> >Falling from 20 stories or more poses a smaller risk to a cat
> >than falling from the third.
> >
>
> Once you reach terminal velocity, it doesn't matter far you fall.
A cat will 'fly', with all paws and tail
outstretced as much as possible in the horizontal plane.
It will draw them in again just before landing.
I remember reading somewhere that cats can jump from high trees
to escape from lynxes.
Another million years of evolution (with proper selection)
could have given us gliding cats.
> However I believe that an ordinary house cat can adjust its position
> in far less time than it takes to fall from the third story. My
> impression was that the "danger zone" for a falling cat was only a few
> feet.
Depends on how it fell.
If it just slipped it has a good chance to recover rapidly.
I know of a cat that just rolled off a window ledge.
It landed feet down, and wasn't harmed at all.
Thrown cats are at more risk.
It takes time for them to re-orient themselves,
and to get rid of the spin they may have been given.
Moreover they are likely to start in a panic.
Best,
Jan
J. J. Lodder
> In article <1i2mub4.11y...@de-ster.xs4all.nl>,
> nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
>
> >
> > I think I remember reading somewhere
> > that in WW II the ratio was one soldier killed
> > for every 100,000 bullets fired.
>
> I think the Germans had much better accuracy. We didn't train our
> troops to overcome the natural disinclination to kill. In later wars we
> have apparently gotten better with that. However, integrating soldiers
> back into the civilian population may be a lot harder. Once you are OK
> with killing people to accomplish an objective, it becomes easier to use
> for other objectives as we found out in the Oklahoma Federal Building
> bombing.
Most WW II shooting (German or American) wasn't done to kill someone.
It was for area-denial.
As in the middle ages btw.
A castle expecing a siege would have a huge store of crossbow bolts.
Sources mention about a 100,000 as a typical number.
Anyone coming in range would be shot at.
With little succes of course, usually,
but having a castle to defend you just didn't want
anyone near your walls.
The attackers had to build wheeled shelters to have cover.
Best,
Jan
PS The Oklahoma bombing was just an American nutcase.
I don't think the connection with training to kill is relevant.
The Germans too had their home-grown terrorist movement (the RAF)
It's members had no military training or war experience though.
JTEM
> > That's right. Projectile weapons had not yet taken the
> > forefront, and would not until after the introduction of
> > useful guns.... exactly as I stated.
>
> There you go again.
Really?
> You appear to have an idee fixe
> that allows you to overlook or ignore all evidence to the
> contrary of large armies equiped with bows and arrows.
Huh? are you retarded? It's not about whether some army
used projectile weapons, it's that projectile weapons did
not become a mainstay until the introduction of useful
firearms.
The reason why the English were so successful with their
longbow was because the French -- and all their foreign
mercenaries -- were not equiped the same way, and had
not developed tactics for meeting an opponent equiped in
such a way.
Your very own examples there is pretty strong evidence in
support of my statements, as it establishes (beyond a
doubt) that projectile happens HAD NOT assumed the
forefront in military equipment/tactics.
> There is no point in continuing this way,
No, not if you're going to be this frigging dense...
Kent Paul Dolan
> Your very own examples there is pretty strong
> evidence in support of my statements,
Well, no, you just give evidence of your functional
illiteracy by claiming so. You failed to read for
effect what Jan wrote.
> as it establishes (beyond a doubt) that projectile
> happens HAD NOT assumed the forefront in military
> equipment/tactics.
Perhaps if you could essay to bring a less profound
brand of ignorance to supporting your contentions,
you would not be so widely recognized as an
evidence-inventing, evidence-ignoring fool?
This required all of twenty seconds to think up
and do:
http://www.google.com/search?q=bow.and.arrow+roman.legion
Results ... about 367 for bow.and.arrow roman.legion
Nor is it a unique search response:
Results ... about 569 for bow.and.arrow persian.army
Results ... about 121 for bow.and.arrow alexander.of.macedonia
King Xerxes, for example fought battles in the
500-450 BC era.
"Their principle weapon was the bow and arrow so
they like to fight at a distance."
http://www.herodotuswebsite.co.uk/xerxes.htm
So much for your contention that bows and arrows
were not much employed in warfare until the
invention of gunpower, nearly 2000 years later.
Maybe you should have paid attention to Jan instead
of leaping once more astride your hobby horse (only
to miss your vault and fall flat on your face in the horse
dung of your ignorance)?
Of course, if you'd been paying attention to
anything but your own ego, you'd have risked taking
the chance to learn something that falsified your
agenda.
Horrors!
The French lacked an effective archery contingent in
their battles with the English, not because use of
bows and arrows in warfare were foreign ideas to
French society or unknown to French nobility, or
indeed to the civilized world at large for several
millennia by then, but because the French peasants
were not free enough in their society and persons to
become skilled archers.
You could have spent the same twenty seconds of
research effort learning what was true, _before_
making a public fool of yourself contending on
behalf of flat-out falsehoods.
What a concept.
That's just a thought, which might assist you in
future writing to let yourself look less the public
fool.
Or not, of course.
You give constantly the impression that you _enjoy_
being the subject matter of Edmund Spenser's famous
quote:
God helpe the man so wrapt
in Errours endless Traine
Edmund Spenser
and that being the butt of Usenet ridicule feeds your
severely masochistic attention-starved ego.
xanthian, only a feeble mind needs to use obscenities
to write insults effectively. UC is one such example.
J. J. Lodder
> nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
>
> > > That's right. Projectile weapons had not yet taken the
> > > forefront, and would not until after the introduction of
> > > useful guns.... exactly as I stated.
> >
> > There you go again.
>
> Really?
>
> > You appear to have an idee fixe
> > that allows you to overlook or ignore all evidence to the
> > contrary of large armies equiped with bows and arrows.
>
> Huh? are you retarded? It's not about whether some army
> used projectile weapons, it's that projectile weapons did
> not become a mainstay until the introduction of useful
> firearms.
Ah, I see, you play with motorized goalposts.
What you really said that got this exchange started was:
===
> A bow IS NOT a weapon that just anyone can pick up
> and use effectively. There's quite a range in level of
> proficiency in gun use, but a gun is a lot easier to use
> than a bow. It's one of the reason why projectile weapons
> didn't take the forefront of military action until the
> introduction of gunpoweder.
===
Many armies in the past have had archers in the forefront,
in important numbers, and as an important part of their strength.
After all, shooting a lot of arrows at your opponents
is a great way to begin a battle.
[snip repetitions]
> > There is no point in continuing this way,
>
> No, not if you're going to be this frigging dense...
Fair tactics are a first requirement
for a meaningful discussion,
Jan
Walter Bushell
r norman <r_s_norman@_comcast.net> wrote:
> That was back in the days before you had to file a complete
> experimental protocol with the Animal Care and Use Committee for
> anything you do that might even come close to touching a vertebrate
> animal, complete with justification on why you didn't select a
> "lesser" species or a computer model, how you plan to acquire the
> animal, how you plan to house and feed it until the experiment, how
> you plan to dispose of the remains, and finally swearing that the
> animal will not undergo any angst during the experiment.
Angst is a little much to complicated emotion for a horse to support. We
are renting the horse from the dog food manufacturer and will return
said horse to the manufacturer, promptly after pushing the horse out a
tenth story window (enlarged). We are selecting the horse because it is
the right size and cheap.
r norman
wrote:
If you have never gone through the process, you don't realize what a
pain it is. You can buy "feeder goldfish" intended to be fed as live
prey to carnivorous fish for a few cents each, but bring one into the
lab for an experiment without having gone through the entire approval
process (at least 15 pages of application material) and you can
jeopardize the entire campus' federal research funding.
J. J. Lodder
We are wildly off-topic now, so we may as well continue.
One may of course wonder about the why of this great social difference.
I'm afraid the best explanation is that things are as they are
because they were as they were.
With the peasants very poor and thoroughly oppressed
the were cheap, and hence there was little incentive to modernise,
and hence the peasantry remained dirt poor.
England had more individual freedom to begin with,
and the Norman kings and barons couldn't be to oppressive
after the Conquest because a general uprising was still a possibility.
Moreover, Engeland was an island, hence had lots of ships,
for which never enough crew could be found.
This also put a pressure on the labour market.
Anyway, the English had a non-noble class
of (relatively) rich and independent farmers,
from which trained bowman could be recruited.
After that they could get richer by plundering France.
That's one of the reasons the hundred years war lasted that long:
given their military superiority (based largely on their longbowmen)
the English used France as a gold mine,
to plunder once again when cash ran low.
Best,
Jan