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?
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.
> 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?
"On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 10:36:18 -0700, in article <1186508178.437328.15...@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.
-- ---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
> "On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 10:36:18 -0700, in article > <1186508178.437328.15...@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
> 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".
> "On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 10:36:18 -0700, in article > <1186508178.437328.15...@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.
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.
>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?
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?
"TomS" <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:196509707.0000a3a5.059.0001@drn.newsguy.com... > "On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 10:36:18 -0700, in article > <1186508178.437328.15...@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.
On Aug 7, 10:41 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
(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.
(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.)
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?
On Aug 7, 8:41 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.
> 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?
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.
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 <JosephLay...@gmail.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.
> 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?
How do you find a smoking gun that proves it was not fired?
On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 19:57:11 -0000, "J.LyonLayden"
<JosephLay...@gmail.com> wrote: >(The small hole made by an arrow lacking a head was not lethal enough >to bother using.)
>Blowgun darts have no heads and make small holes.
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.
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."
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.
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?
On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 15:17:49 -0700, Bill <b...@billconner.com> 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.
>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?
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"??
(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. )
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.
In article <1186501283.486122.122...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>,
"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.
> 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?
* Bow-and-arrow dating was followed by the shotgun wedding.
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.
J.LyonLayden wrote: > (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. )
> 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.
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.
> 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.
> 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 -
> 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."
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?
|
