Archaeologica.org

Minimalist wrote:

With a longbow a trained archer can hit a target at 100 meters plus (over 330 feet).

Absolutely. But it took years to attain that degree of proficiency. Militarily, archers used to fire in volleys just like musketeers.

And it took a lot longer to make a single arrow than it did to cast a lead bullet.

Indeed. Which makes the bow and arrow, as a precision weapon, more a hunting weapon than a weapon of war. You can recover your arrow from a prey. And if you miss the prey, you can also fairly easily recover your arrow from the undergrowth by looking for the brightly colored feathering at the arrow's base. That is what that is for. A recovery aid.

People did not use smoothbore muskets for hunting, though. They were strictly military weapons. The British Brown Bess does not even have sights.

Rifles, however, were a different story. That soft lead ball would flatten out and make a hell of a wound and the rifle ball's trajectory would be less impacted by wind. In the hands of an expert archer, the wind problem can be overcome but again, you're talking years of practice.

My son, whose eyesight is somewhat better than mine, once put eleven consecutive .50 caliber balls into a bullseye using a flintlock rifle. You can have experts in every field.

I once saw an illustration, RS, of a NA Indian hunting arrow with a white feather attached at the front end. It was claimed that the point was detachable so that the shaft would drop away and the white feather made it easy to locate the shaft.
I recall at the time wondering what effect the feather would have on the flight.
Can't recall which tribe was credited. Anyone know anything?

Digit wrote:I once saw an illustration, RS, of a NA Indian hunting arrow with a white feather attached at the front end. It was claimed that the point was detachable so that the shaft would drop away and the white feather made it easy to locate the shaft.
I recall at the time wondering what effect the feather would have on the flight.
Can't recall which tribe was credited. Anyone know anything?

The feathering at the base of the arrow – the 'fletching' – has been very carefully arranged so as not to adversely affect the arrow's flight.

Given that level of care I can't see the logic in attaching a feather at the front/tip of the arrow. It would ruin the arrow's accuracy, imo.
A feather at the front/tip of an arrow sounds like that arrow is meant for rituals, or something like that.

Going back to the whole fire and bows thing, I can't get rid of this image in my head of Homer Simpson in a loincloth trying to make fire with a bow, having the drill ping off into the undergrowth, skewering a squirrel, and then the lightbulb (or oil lamp) popping from thin air above his head.

Talking of things popping into your head, everytime I see Bush on TV (as in George) the phrase "God is the immemorial refuge of the incompetent, the helpless, the miserable. They find not only sanctuary in His arms, but also a kind of superiority, soothing to their macerated egos; He will set them above their betters." comes to mind.

Not sure if that's what you intended, Min?
-- H. L. Mencken

Exactly my reaction RS.

Actually. the fletching on an arrow is curved for a reason. In flight, it spins the arrow gyroscopically like the rifling does a bullet improving accuracy. Still believe ifol Ben had some platoons of longbowmen, and lots of arrows, the war would not have taken so long. We like to make fun of the inaptness of the frogs in battle, but without about 7000 French in the pivotal battle of Yorktown, we would have a bloody accent today and drive on the wrong side of the road.

gunny wrote:Actually. the fletching on an arrow is curved for a reason. In flight, it spins the arrow gyroscopically like the rifling does a bullet improving accuracy. Still believe ifol Ben had some platoons of longbowmen, and lots of arrows, the war would not have taken so long. We like to make fun of the inaptness of the frogs in battle, but without about 7000 French in the pivotal battle of Yorktown, we would have a bloody accent today and drive on the wrong side of the road.

You might have had a functioning constitutional democracy too.

Oh, and I think you mean the "Siege of Yorktown" (1781; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Yorktown).
The "Battle of YorkTown" was 81 years later, in 1862. No French there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_ ... %281862%29

The 'right' side of the road damn it!

The "Battle of Yorktown" was no battle. Confederates had a few earthworks, but pulled out when the yankees pushed 5.6 million troops against them-----However, at this point a little known general named Rommel---No that was another war---R>L>Lee came on board and kicked their ass.

Not sure if that's what you intended, Min?

Works for me, W/A.

BTW, this site – http://donsmaps.com/lioncamp.html – states (scroll about halfway down) the bow and arrow were introduced between 30,000 and 25,000 BP on the Don river in paleolithic Ukraine.
So, IF the hunting bow and arrow was derived from the firestarting bow (a big IF, imo; in fact I don't think they are related), it had taken a whole million years before that dime dropped (HE controlled fire over 1 million BP)!

Did it take another 24,000 years before that same dime finally dropped with the American Indians? Doesn't seem very smart, does it?

Where in the Americas was the bow and arrow first documented. Dr. Hester of UT Austin, from a lifetime of research, said no bow and arrow in Texas before 1000AD. Did it come from Asia through Canada, or through Mexico/Cental America by nautical means?

gunny wrote:Where in the Americas was the bow and arrow first documented. Dr. Hester of UT Austin, from a lifetime of research, said no bow and arrow in Texas before 1000AD. Did it come from Asia through Canada, or through Mexico/Cental America by nautical means?

Off topic a bit, but does Hester still think Clovis was first? Seems after the Gault site he may have changed his mind.

As far as I can find out the argument against bows in NA is based on nobody finding a bow.
It's a good argument but not proof. Some of the smaller Clovis points could well have been arrow points, if not why have large and small spear points?