Study pinpoints when bow and arrow came to North America

Radiocarbon results suggest a single origin and rapid diffusion through cultural transition networks.

See full article...

 

[Snark218]

In this context, darts are what you throw with an atlatl, not what you throw while drinking in a pub.

I read that as axolotl not atlatl, and for a moment I had a mental image of cute little pink amphibians playing darts in a pub, quaffing tiny pints of beer, and man my brain is a weird place to live sometimes

 

[nartreb]

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)?

It's not how the energy gets into the device, it's how the device releases the energy. The bow is basically storing energy and releasing it suddenly - suddenly enough to reach higher speeds than you can reach with your arm, even if you extend your arm with an atlatl.
But for the record, you're not really getting any advantage by "using two arms". Each arm independently has to be strong enough to hold the full force of the bow, or you won't be able to draw it.

Historically there have been several schools of thought about the best way to draw a bow, but for many of them, notably the English [Welsh] longbow, one of the more powerful (and certainly among the hardest to draw) bows of history, you'd keep your left elbow and wrist locked straight, basically not using the muscles of your left arm at all, just as you hardly use your leg muscles while standing still with your knees locked. You'd then do a funny-looking thing with your back and hips to get your shoulder, back, and hips involved in helping your right arm pull the bow and hold it.

It is worthwhile to remember that holding a taut bow is tiring, in a way that holding a loaded atlatl is not. I can't really think of a situation where that's a major issue, but it's good to be alert to those kinds of trade-offs, lest we assume a newer technology is universally better.

 

[Chuckstar]

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)?

It’s not that simple. You draw a bow slowly, storing energy in it that then gets quickly transferred upon release. For throwing a spear you have to impart all the energy directly, at speed.

Also, there’s a question of range. Even if you could impart the same energy with either weapon, the lighter arrow is imparted greater speed, so will have greater range.

Having said all of that, there’s really no question that you get much greater penetration power with an atlatl, compared to either an arrow or thrown spear. The question becomes how much you need penetration. An arrow is plenty deadly for hunting most animals, with stalking and aim being more important than how much better an atlatl dart would penetrate.

 

[SomewhereAroundBarstow]

It is worthwhile to remember that holding a taut bow is tiring, in a way that holding a loaded atlatl is not. I can't really think of a situation where that's a major issue, but it's good to be alert to those kinds of trade-offs, lest we assume a newer technology is universally better.

Certainly didn't seem to be a problem at Agincourt where the slower to load but easier to keep loaded until sighted on a target crossbows underperformed the rapid fire longbows.

 

[nartreb]

Certainly didn't seem to be a problem at Agincourt where the slower to load but easier to keep loaded until sighted on a target crossbows underperformed the rapid fire longbows.

The crossbows on the French side didn't get much use at Agincourt. You're probably thinking of Crecy, which was an unfair matchup because the (Genoese mercenary) crossbowmen were ordered to advance without their pavises, and to fight in the rain (which ruins bowstrings). When they finally turned back, the French cavalry mowed them down.
But yeah, infantry battle is a scenario where there's defintiely no point to holding onto a taut bow. Just loose and reload.

 

[Chuckstar]

I read that as axolotl not atlatl, and for a moment I had a mental image of cute little pink amphibians playing darts in a pub, quaffing tiny pints of beer, and man my brain is a weird place to live sometimes

I like your version better!

 

[Chuckstar]

The crossbows on the French side didn't get much use at Agincourt. You're probably thinking of Crecy, which was an unfair matchup because the (Genoese mercenary) crossbowmen were ordered to advance without their pavises, and to fight in the rain (which ruins bowstrings). When they finally turned back, the French cavalry mowed them down.
But yeah, infantry battle is a scenario where there's defintiely no point to holding onto a taut bow. Just loose and reload.

I’ve never been convinced the rain was more of a factor for the French-side’s crossbows. It’s not clear exactly what bows the Genoese were using, but those types of high-tensile crossbows often used rope bowstring, which is much less susceptible to stretching when wet, compared to gut/rawhide. Regardless, (1) crossbow strings were heavily waxed to avoid getting wet and (2) they could have easily used covers to keep rain off the bow before fighting started, leaving them in a similar position to archers keeping the bowstrings under their hats until the fighting started. Not waiting for the pavices was probably the key issue, given how vulnerable crossbow men were while re-drawing those heavy bows.

 

[Andre K]

I've always assumed that the damper arctic environment was probably the main reason that atlatls weren't entirely supplanted by bows & arrows in the north. Most of the materials available to make bows and bow strings would have been affected by moisture. Woodworkers soak wood to make it pliable, not a desirable property in a bow, except perhaps in the initial manufacturing process. If you're out in your kayak, an atlatl probably has an advantage sometimes.
I also recall the heated debates over "small bullet going fast vs. big bullet going slower" I used to see in various hunting and/or shooting magazines. An arrow traveling at (relative to an atlatl dart) higher velocity will have a "flatter" trajectory, which should make consistent accuracy easier to achieve. And while not exactly analogous, once you have the technology to get a small projectile (arrow) going fast enough to have the equivalent "on target" energy of a big projectile (atlatl dart), the ability to easily carry more projectiles around is also advantageous.
I imagine a Far Side cartoon scenario of cavemen heatedly debating the pros and cons of trusty reliable atlatls vs. those new-fangled bows & arrows the kids are always going on about.

 

[numerobis]

I've always assumed that the damper arctic environment was probably the main reason that atlatls weren't entirely supplanted by bows & arrows in the north. Most of the materials available to make bows and bow strings would have been affected by moisture. Woodworkers soak wood to make it pliable, not a desirable property in a bow, except perhaps in the initial manufacturing process. If you're out in your kayak, an atlatl probably has an advantage sometimes.
I also recall the heated debates over "small bullet going fast vs. big bullet going slower" I used to see in various hunting and/or shooting magazines. An arrow traveling at (relative to an atlatl dart) higher velocity will have a "flatter" trajectory, which should make consistent accuracy easier to achieve. And while not exactly analogous, once you have the technology to get a small projectile (arrow) going fast enough to have the equivalent "on target" energy of a big projectile (atlatl dart), the ability to easily carry more projectiles around is also advantageous.
I imagine a Far Side cartoon scenario of cavemen heatedly debating the pros and cons of trusty reliable atlatls vs. those new-fangled bows & arrows the kids are always going on about.

The Arctic is generally pretty dry. It’s cold. Cold air doesn’t hold much moisture.