Very Early Arrowheads
I was sent this link by an archaeology magazine. http://archaeology.org/blog/?p=1071
It refers to an analysis of early stone points. Bearing in mind that there is a lot of arguments between spear thrower enthusiasts and primitive bow enthusiasts, the hypothesis that arrows were being made 64,000 years ago is very interesting.
Rarely do primitive arrow shafts exceed 9-10 mm in diameter at the point. Usually they are smaller. It seems logical that points made to fit these smallish shafts were arrowheads rather than spearheads. Later when large arrows were made as they do in New Guinea, you could argue for larger arrowheads. The making of large arrows by primitive archers is mostly confined to tropical jungle areas today. In some cases, such as in Brazil, it could be argued that the arrows were influenced by spear thrower darts since both were used in the same area at the same time.
It refers to an analysis of early stone points. Bearing in mind that there is a lot of arguments between spear thrower enthusiasts and primitive bow enthusiasts, the hypothesis that arrows were being made 64,000 years ago is very interesting.
Rarely do primitive arrow shafts exceed 9-10 mm in diameter at the point. Usually they are smaller. It seems logical that points made to fit these smallish shafts were arrowheads rather than spearheads. Later when large arrows were made as they do in New Guinea, you could argue for larger arrowheads. The making of large arrows by primitive archers is mostly confined to tropical jungle areas today. In some cases, such as in Brazil, it could be argued that the arrows were influenced by spear thrower darts since both were used in the same area at the same time.
It?s the aim of some researchers to prove that Neandertal people and even Erectus would have used Bows and arrows up to 200000 years ago in Africa. But there is not a single proof or serious evidence for that. The size of a projectile point does not allow conclusions to the type of weapon used, every imaginable combination was already used by humans, if it would make sense to a modern researcher or not. There are real ethnological arrowheads that fit into statistical dimensions of dart heads and vice versa.
Besides it has to be proved first that these points were indeed projectile heads, that?s for most of them a conclusion, too. Basically here we have pointed stone tools. The most of them are very thick if you look closely.
There are several artefacts with damages that could be impact damages, and on some there has been reported the presence of blood by researchers, these might probably really have been projectile heads. But all these things cannot be recognized as proof for the very early invention of the bow in Africa. I personally don?t believe in this.
JJ
Besides it has to be proved first that these points were indeed projectile heads, that?s for most of them a conclusion, too. Basically here we have pointed stone tools. The most of them are very thick if you look closely.
There are several artefacts with damages that could be impact damages, and on some there has been reported the presence of blood by researchers, these might probably really have been projectile heads. But all these things cannot be recognized as proof for the very early invention of the bow in Africa. I personally don?t believe in this.
JJ
They are good points. One problem is that very few archaeologists actually know how to shoot a bow or how they were made. It is also likely that early arrows had hardwood points as some New Guinea and South American arrows still do.
One could say that definitive proof requires an arrow to be found complete with indication of a point being fitted and perhaps a nock. In that case the total length could be proof if the arrow had the proportions of later arrows. If it were a long arrow like the Brazilian, it would be harder to differentiate between an arrow and a dart thrown with a spear thrower.
One could say that definitive proof requires an arrow to be found complete with indication of a point being fitted and perhaps a nock. In that case the total length could be proof if the arrow had the proportions of later arrows. If it were a long arrow like the Brazilian, it would be harder to differentiate between an arrow and a dart thrown with a spear thrower.
Yes, the definite proof is a wooden shaft with a notch for the string... The Stellmoor finds of that type are 10000 BC.
But I would accept a more than 60 cm long, no more than 9 mm thick wooden shaft fragment with a point, too;-)
A shorter fragment without notch (up to 40cm perhaps) could also be used as a foreshaft on an atlatl dart.
JJ
But I would accept a more than 60 cm long, no more than 9 mm thick wooden shaft fragment with a point, too;-)
A shorter fragment without notch (up to 40cm perhaps) could also be used as a foreshaft on an atlatl dart.
JJ