Radiocarbon results suggest a single origin and rapid diffusion through cultural transition networks.
See full article...
See full article...
Study pinpoints when bow and arrow came to North America
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
Gotta admit, I'm surprised by how recent that is. When was the bow believed to have appeared in the old world?
I always ass/u/me-d that it was tens, maybe even hundreds, of thousands of years old (so it would have come over when the Americas were first colonized from Asia) but I guess that's not the case.
I always ass/u/me-d that it was tens, maybe even hundreds, of thousands of years old (so it would have come over when the Americas were first colonized from Asia) but I guess that's not the case.
Upvote
55
(55
/
0)
The archaeologists I've spoken to strangely echo William Gibson: "the future is already here — it's just not very evenly distributed". Who knows what basic technology we haven't invented yet relative to 1400 years from now.
Upvote
27
(27
/
0)
Upvote
9
(10
/
-1)
Arrows are the kind of technology that would have just made everyone who encountered it immediately go “I need me some of that good shit.” The leap in effectiveness and risk reduction to the hunter is so obvious and significant that it’d be incredibly desirable.
Upvote
18
(18
/
0)
Independent inventions.
People all over the world use an archimedes screw, even though they have never heard that term.
People all over the world use an archimedes screw, even though they have never heard that term.
Upvote
5
(6
/
-1)
Unless the javelin changes its mass after being thrown, increased kinetic energy follows increased velocity as night follows day. I'm pretty sure this was known before Eren's research!
Upvote
38
(38
/
0)
Given the method by which the Americas were originally colonized, this isn't surprising if one thinks about it. The Arctic regions aren't very conducive to using bows and arrows nearly as much as spears. Bows and arrows are also pretty sophisticated technology that could only arrive from OUTSIDE North America if they didn't arrive with the original inhabitants over their migration routes.
Reading it is a bit of a "say what?" moment. But in thinking about it, it really isn't a mystery why this happened the way it did. The assumption was that everyone had them long, long ago. But we all know what assuming means.
I do love it when science proves the assumptions wrong, but it's immediately clear WHY they were wrong in the first place.
Reading it is a bit of a "say what?" moment. But in thinking about it, it really isn't a mystery why this happened the way it did. The assumption was that everyone had them long, long ago. But we all know what assuming means.
I do love it when science proves the assumptions wrong, but it's immediately clear WHY they were wrong in the first place.
Upvote
8
(11
/
-3)
I had real trouble parsing this section.
* "Eren’s prior work showed that a thrown javelin increases not only in velocity but also in kinetic energy": Yes, objects do move faster when someone throws them.
* "—almost a 200 percent increase in impact energy by 9 meters in height.": Wait, where did height come from? I guess they're throwing it in a high arc? Up and then down again?
* "But the atlatl’s effectiveness decreases as the height increases.": I'm still a little lost, but yeah, it's generally harder to throw objects higher, I guess...
* "So the atlatl has a major cost when firing downward": Wait, downward? Like they're standing on top of a cliff? I just wasn't picturing that at all, especially since the literal picture in the article is on flat ground.
Last edited:
Upvote
55
(55
/
0)
Daaamn, I hadn't considered that. The bow could have been known to people in Siberia and along the Pacific Coast, but once those people migrated to where it wasn't as useful, the tech could be lost within a few generations. By the time their great-n grandkids moved south into the Americas, nobody alive had ever seen a bow.
Upvote
24
(24
/
0)
For anyone wondering, "North" in this case means north of 55 degrees lattitude (the lattitude of present-day Ketchikan, Alaska), and "south" means south of that, with the southernmost sample near Monterrey, Mexico.
Samples were almost all west of the Continental divide, with the exceptions in places like New Mexico where the divide is less obvious. Most of the Northern samples were near the coast.
Also, I don't think there were any single sites showing a change from atlatls to bows over time; it was "atlatls found at site A at time T1", then "bows found at site B at time T2", with site A and site B usually hundreds of miles apart.
So we need to be cautious about tying weapon adoption to a particular types of terrain or biomes or target prey. I don't think the data give us that kind of resolution, though associated finds (eg, bones of prey) might help there.
But this is important work. The switch between atlatl use and bow use shows up starkly in Figure 2. Within the "south", there's hardly any overlap at all (in other words, only a few hundred years) and that's very interesting.
Samples were almost all west of the Continental divide, with the exceptions in places like New Mexico where the divide is less obvious. Most of the Northern samples were near the coast.
Also, I don't think there were any single sites showing a change from atlatls to bows over time; it was "atlatls found at site A at time T1", then "bows found at site B at time T2", with site A and site B usually hundreds of miles apart.
So we need to be cautious about tying weapon adoption to a particular types of terrain or biomes or target prey. I don't think the data give us that kind of resolution, though associated finds (eg, bones of prey) might help there.
But this is important work. The switch between atlatl use and bow use shows up starkly in Figure 2. Within the "south", there's hardly any overlap at all (in other words, only a few hundred years) and that's very interesting.
Upvote
41
(41
/
0)
I had similar difficulty. But from the statement that Neanderthals "often hunted in hilly areas and would have gained more advantage from a thrown javelin," I gather that "height" here refers to an elevation difference between the thrower and the target. As opposed to just throwing the weapon on a higher-arc trajectory.
Upvote
20
(20
/
0)
I saw someone demonstrate an Atlatl back in the late 80s when I was in boy scouts. The speed and distance is insane, similar to a modern day javelin, but with an extra 3ft moment arm. More comparable to the "Feet bow fire method" than from a single arm drawn bow. I would think Atlatl fired in groups would be much more effective in bringing down bison than a bow and arrow, particularly when bison are grouped up. Similar to a "buffalo jump" for group dynamic hunting.
Against a deer or smaller animal, bow if far superior.
Against a deer or smaller animal, bow if far superior.
Upvote
12
(12
/
0)
I did understand that in the end, but it was a rough road to get there.
Upvote
10
(10
/
0)
Upvote
21
(21
/
0)
Made rougher by my brain repeating ad nauseum "but an increase in velocity always means an increase in kinetic energy!"
Upvote
7
(7
/
0)
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
I'm lousy with a bow and I've never used an atlatl seriously. Which one is easier to get reasonably competent at?
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
They are both "fine motor skills" weapons. Both will require extensive training to reach a decent level of proficiency. Source, me, I hunted archery for elk when I was young and played with atlatl's at an indigenous/first peoples cultural village in Australia.
Upvote
12
(12
/
0)
Regarding the hill thing:
They weren't throwing the javelin and atlatl while standing on the angled part of a hill. They were throwing from the top of a scissor lift, which more closely replicates throwing over the edge of a drop-off, which could be a good place from which to ambush prey.
What they found was that you can throw a javelin about as hard at a downward angle as you can straight, such that you get much great terminal velocity compared to throwing at a target at the same level as the thrower.
With an atlatl, however, they found that they didn't get any greater terminal velocity compared to throwing at a target at the same level as the thrower. Because they do not think this represents a previously unknown modification of gravity
, this must mean that the release speed of the atlatl was lower when throwing downward compared to throwing level. They account for this as being the result of relatively poor biomechanics of throwing downward using an atlatl.
I would note that it's possible that the biomechanical inefficiency experienced when throwing downward using an atlatl might be a result of the disconnect between the angle on which one is standing and the angle one is trying to throw. Basically, they tested the case where you stand on a horizontal surface trying to throw over an edge at X° downward. They did not test the case of standing on a surface angled X° downward and throwing at that same X° downward, as if standing on a hillside throwing at a target further down the hill.
Here's the write-up from phys.org (I think there's a link to the paper in there somewhere, but I didn't have time to go about reading the whole paper):
https://phys.org/news/2024-10-paleolithic-hunters-benefited-high.html
EDIT: IIUC, they didn't expect quite how inefficient throwing an atlatl downwards would be. Even if the atlatl could be thrown as efficiently downward as level, there would be an advantage to the heavier javelin in that situation. They were using a 4x heavier javelin compared to the atlatl dart. While the speed gain from gravity will be the same in both cases, the energy gained from gravity is proportional to mass, so when hunting from a height like that you can get a lot of penetration power from using a heavier weapon. So even if the biomechanical disadvantage of the atlatl disappears when throwing from the angled hillside, the javelin still gains more energy from the gravity assist.
They weren't throwing the javelin and atlatl while standing on the angled part of a hill. They were throwing from the top of a scissor lift, which more closely replicates throwing over the edge of a drop-off, which could be a good place from which to ambush prey.
What they found was that you can throw a javelin about as hard at a downward angle as you can straight, such that you get much great terminal velocity compared to throwing at a target at the same level as the thrower.
With an atlatl, however, they found that they didn't get any greater terminal velocity compared to throwing at a target at the same level as the thrower. Because they do not think this represents a previously unknown modification of gravity
, this must mean that the release speed of the atlatl was lower when throwing downward compared to throwing level. They account for this as being the result of relatively poor biomechanics of throwing downward using an atlatl.I would note that it's possible that the biomechanical inefficiency experienced when throwing downward using an atlatl might be a result of the disconnect between the angle on which one is standing and the angle one is trying to throw. Basically, they tested the case where you stand on a horizontal surface trying to throw over an edge at X° downward. They did not test the case of standing on a surface angled X° downward and throwing at that same X° downward, as if standing on a hillside throwing at a target further down the hill.
Here's the write-up from phys.org (I think there's a link to the paper in there somewhere, but I didn't have time to go about reading the whole paper):
https://phys.org/news/2024-10-paleolithic-hunters-benefited-high.html
EDIT: IIUC, they didn't expect quite how inefficient throwing an atlatl downwards would be. Even if the atlatl could be thrown as efficiently downward as level, there would be an advantage to the heavier javelin in that situation. They were using a 4x heavier javelin compared to the atlatl dart. While the speed gain from gravity will be the same in both cases, the energy gained from gravity is proportional to mass, so when hunting from a height like that you can get a lot of penetration power from using a heavier weapon. So even if the biomechanical disadvantage of the atlatl disappears when throwing from the angled hillside, the javelin still gains more energy from the gravity assist.
Last edited:
Upvote
26
(26
/
0)
A least 15,000 years of dart points never became arrow points? Why would there be so many dart points, it seems less than an ideal weapon. I mean ok they could exist, but so many? And none associated with bone injuries likely arrow not dart?
Upvote
-2
(0
/
-2)
This is making me think about how the Makah on the far northwestern tip of Washington State have no tradition of using the bow and arrow but in the excavations of Ozette village, a Makah settlement that was catastrophically buried in a landslide in the 18th Century, at least one bow and arrow set was found. So apparently for them it's a technology that had been adopted and then later abandoned. I wonder how common that might be over time and geography.
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
In this context, darts are what you throw with an atlatl, not what you throw while drinking in a pub.
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
I thought the Dart was the car put in the ditch after drinking at the pub...Pierce, though? Dude could hold his liquor. Not once did his Arrow end up in the ditch...
Upvote
2
(3
/
-1)
That’s… the opposite of what the article says, though? At least in the north?
Reading this, I initially assumed “they” were ancient hunters, and got very confused when I hit “scissor lift”.
Upvote
7
(7
/
0)
I imagine prey type is a significant determinant. Can it be taken down by a single hit with a heavier, but slower weapon? Or is rapid fire from a lighter weapon more effective?
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
The Norse (Vikings) are known to have reached Greenland about 1,100 years ago (900 C.E.) They were known to have built buildings in Newfoundland 1,000 years ago. The Norse sagas hint at earlier explorations. Natives of Iceland have genetic material that must have originated from one or more Native Americans. There is a gap in the known contact history of 300 or 400 years, but it would seem possible that there was earlier contact between the Norse and Native Americans. The bow was a prominent weapon of the Norse.
It would be interesting to compare the characteristics of the earliest North American bows with those of Norse bows of the same age. If they are similar in design, it would be suggestive that Native Americans got the design from contact with Vikings.
It would be interesting to compare the characteristics of the earliest North American bows with those of Norse bows of the same age. If they are similar in design, it would be suggestive that Native Americans got the design from contact with Vikings.
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
SuinusLatinus
Ars Tribunus Militum
Yes, it would be interesting to know if it was rediscovered independently in the Americas or, if not, who / how was it brought there.
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
Archery peeve: There's no fire involved in using a bow, so it's not "rate of fire" it's "rate of shot".
Other than that, really interesting article, but I was confused over the idea that introduction simultaneously over a large area corresponds to a single source.
Other than that, really interesting article, but I was confused over the idea that introduction simultaneously over a large area corresponds to a single source.
Upvote
1
(3
/
-2)
As far as the terminology goes, the article is written for a layperson's understanding and so "RoF" seems fine as that is what the audience is most likely to have heard before. I understand the technical frustration but in this specific instance it's a distinction without a difference insofar as the understanding of meaning goes (unlike "speed" and "velocity").
On the second point: my presumption is that if a technology spreads via trade patterns/migration that it takes relatively short periods of time on anthropological scales (and so it will appear "decisively" after a particular point in time). The correlating reverse assumption would be that it is unlikely for codevelopment to occur at the exact same pace across multiple regions, and so we'd expect to see more distinct weapon examples at different dates rather than a cluster thereof.
Upvote
7
(7
/
0)
With an atlatl, however, they found that they didn't get any greater terminal velocity compared to throwing at a target at the same level as the thrower. Because they do not think this represents a previously unknown modification of gravity
I do question how much of the relatively poor biomechanics is due to the downward direction of the throw, versus due to the guard rails on the scissorlift getting in the way.
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)
It's interesting that in the last photo the thrower is wearing a safety harness that appears to be anchored to someone sitting on the lift platform. In my 20s I used scissor lifts quite a bit and never really trusted the railings, despite my rational brain knowing they are very secure. Depending on how much slack that harness is allowing it could affect the throw.I do question how much of the relatively poor biomechanics is due to the downward direction of the throw, versus due to the guard rails on the scissorlift getting in the way.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Yeah that was another technology they abandoned, didn't you know?
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
I went to the article, and it does have a link to the paper. The harness is attached to the guard rail, and only for the 9 meter height. They don't mention anything either way about whether the harness affects the thrower, but at least the lower heights wouldn't have the issue.
They do talk about the guard rails and the potential for it influencing their results. I'll just quote the relevant paragraph and its footnote, which I think addresses it well:
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
LOL… that’s one of those situations where I knew what I meant so didn’t notice I was being unclear.
Upvote
0
(1
/
-1)
Prey type is definitely a factor, but it's hard to predict how that plays out in practice.
Hunting scenarios rarely allow for "rapid fire". You generally get one shot (per hunter), then the prey bolts. Warfare, though, might be a different story.
My guess is that a larger, heavier weapon is likely to make a larger wound and result in more damage. That means more "stopping power", which would be important if there is a risk of a large animal charging at you. A really heavy spear can also be used hand-held to fend off an attack, and won't bend or break. (There's a reason why spears were the traditional weapon for boar-hunting in Europe.)
In theory an arrow can compensate for lower mass with increased velocity. A simple bow would get you two to four times the projectile velocity of an atlatl, depending on size, with maybe a quarter of the projectile weight. So in terms of kinetic energy (mass times the square of velocity) a bow could easily be advantageous. How that works in practice with flint tips, flexible shafts, and thick animal hides is not entirely clear, but from watching Tod's Workshop on Youtube ("arrows versus armor") I can say that a lot of the projectile's mass is in the shaft, which, being flexible and fragile, won't transfer energy well. A bigger stone point should make a big a difference, and there's a limit to how big an arrowhead can be without completely unbalancing the arrow.
A smaller projectile that travels faster should give you more range, which is an important safety factor. It's also probably easier to fire a bow without breaking concealment than it would be to use an atlatl. You might even have a chance of taking multiple shots before the prey moves out of sight or out of range (or before it can close the distance to stomp you).
My understanding is that hunting large game (deer-sized and up) with a bow often means "wound it with an arrow, then follow its trail for hours while it slowly bleeds to death." If the prey is large enough compared to your arrowhead, it may stop bleeding before you can catch up to it. Smaller game, though, wouldn't have that problem. So for something like rabbits, a bow looks like a much better choice than an atlatl.
So... which game are you hunting? Are you hunting the same game all the time? What's your hunting style - how much risk are you taking? Are you hunting alone or in groups? Is your prey alone or in a herd? How much concealment do you / the prey have? Is your prey cornered, or are you sneaking up on it? Is your weapon choice flexible enough to handle all the likely variations?
And what about the risk that your hunting party runs into a hostile band of humans? If you're carrying only one type of ranged weapon, it better be a good one. Maybe the bow's ability to carry more ammo would be an important factor here. Range too, depending on the environment. (Range doesn't matter too much in thick forests.)
Last edited:
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
It was clear as soon as my train of thought finished jumping tracksLOL… that’s one of those situations where I knew what I meant so didn’t notice I was being unclear.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
I would’ve assumed, as a first approximation, that the main determinant of kinetic energy would be how much could be transferred from the muscles, rather than the properties of the projectile? Does a bow being powered by both arms do better or worse than a spear using one arm but also at least some of the torso? And does a spear gain advantage from being a single motion rather than draw-hold-loose (these obviously not being compound bows)?
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)