Cloth-Clad Clovis

[Digit]

Given equal propulsive force,

I'm not sure what that means.

The Aussie Blackfellows used atlatls to harvest kangaroos for fifty umpteen thousand years.

http://www.donsmaps.com/atlatl.html

from the above....

the atlatl first made its appearance between 25 000 and 40 000 years ago in the region that today encompasses Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia.

... and the spear predates that.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 163729.htm

Roy.

[E.P. Grondine]

For the differences between spear, atlatl, blowgun, and bow and arrow points Tony is probably the man to talk to over pizza and beer, but he's tough to get a hold of. As I mentioned earlier:

I'd also like to plug Tony DeRegnaucourt's guide to quarries and their usage through time (artifacts). The quarries absolutely located, type artifacts from each shown in full color plates, giving range of use/exchange.
This book is THE best type book I have seen:

http://www.ohiotraveler.com/chert_type_book.htm

$50, but worth it.

But of course, my own book "Man and Impact in the Americas" remains the best eastern Native American history currently available, as all of you know.

[Digit]

Actually, in primates we see pointed stick and rock use simultaneously.

Again EP my point is missed!
Agreed with what you say, but that is today. What came first?
Yes, mired animals would have been killed, or left to die then scavenged, but how would they have been killed? Not by beating them over the head with a club I doubt.
The point in my OP was that weapons must have developed, from hefting a rock onto the Colt Peacemaker. We know they started with a rock and we know about the Colt. What was the route between and how did it effect tactics, community development, and diet?
One man can heft a rock, bringing down a Mammoth doesn't seem to be a one man job to me. Why go after three tons of meat on the hoof? What part in choosing the Mammoth as a prey was dictated by the available weapons?

Roy.

[wxsby]

One man can heft a rock, bringing down a Mammoth doesn't seem to be a one man job to me. Why go after three tons of meat on the hoof? What part in choosing the Mammoth as a prey was dictated by the available weapons?

What about, "Hey! There's three tons of meat on the hoof! What can we build to bring it down? It will feed us, clothe us and we can use those pointy things on it's head for.... something?"

I don't think they were inventing weapons then going to look for something to use them on.

And as to whether the weapons worked to get them the food they were after... natural selection took care of that.

[Digit]

I don't think they were inventing weapons then going to look for something to use them on.

The pre spear thrower spears that we know of are thick and heavy. A spear, light or heavy, is unlikely to be used successfully on small agile prey. Would you agree?
If so, what prey would you use them on?
Firstly, it cannot be fast and agile. Do you agree with that?
If so the answer must be something that is not fast and agile. Do you agree with that?
If so that designs your weapon for you, any weapon has to be suitable for its intended target.
The average HG group is suggested as being some thirty people, including women and children.
If that is so there has to be a good reason to hunt large and dangerous animals. The Columbian Mammoth grossed some ten Tonnes. Why would someone risk life and limb bringing down such a beast? Thirty people are not going to eat all the edible parts of such an animal.
So what are the answers?

Roy.

[wxsby]

Thirty people are not going to eat all the edible parts of such an animal.
So what are the answers?

Jerky?

[uniface]

From another site :

The bow and arrow was present in Europe and Asia long prior to man's journey into the new world. Once in the new world it was lost for 10,000 years and then only developed as the Chinese were developing gun powder. There are lots of thoughts out there as to why the technology was lost. Resource density vs. population density necessary for technology transfer, migration route resource availability, sea-based subsistence . . . It's a similar question to why bifacial points don't appear until Clovis (insert lengthy debate here). Certainly the first immigrants were privy to the technology. Why did fluting fall out of favor heading into lance points only to then later be reemployed by Dalton cultures?

[wxsby]

The bow and arrow was present in Europe and Asia long prior to man's journey into the new world. Once in the new world it was lost for 10,000 years and then only developed as the Chinese were developing gun powder. There are lots of thoughts out there as to why the technology was lost. Resource density vs. population density necessary for technology transfer, migration route resource availability, sea-based subsistence . . . It's a similar question to why bifacial points don't appear until Clovis (insert lengthy debate here). Certainly the first immigrants were privy to the technology. Why did fluting fall out of favor heading into lance points only to then later be reemployed by Dalton cultures?

Ta da! Questions... Thank you.

[uniface]

Clovis having been the first bifacial point here is just wrong. That aside though, it's striking (when you encounter something like this) to realise how much our thinking tends to revolve around what we do know (or assume we do), and the extent to which some basic considerations (like these) that should be obvious are in some kind of mental blind spot. We "see" what promises gratification (understanding) and don't see what's un-promising of it, even though it's arguably of equal or greater significance in the picture overall.

Not that this is going to change anyone's mind, but it's the same story writ large in the neverending conjecture centering on monkeys "becoming human" through trial and error. It's such an attractive notion that basic principles (freely acknowledged in other contexts) calling it into serious question are cast to the wind.

One such would be the noteworthy absence of the crocoduck (and "missing links" in general) from the fossil record, forcing the grudging admission that, while circumstances can elicit adaptions up to an extent, new species appear suddenly. And do so with monotonous regularity.

Why humans should be the stellar exception to this is never explained. Possibly, because acknowledging it would open yet a bigger can of worms (?) But damage control isn't science, IMHO.

Credo quia absurdum isn't only operative in the field of formal religion. If you want man to have evolved from apes with sufficient intensity, well, then, he did.

[Digit]

If you want man to have evolved from apes with sufficient intensity, well, then, he did.

You know Uni, that question comes up with monotonous regularity, but no one ever tells me who made such a claim!
The answer by the way was a church man!
Missing link? Try Tiktaalik for a kick off, failing that, your explanation for evolution.

Roy.

[Sam Salmon]

Agreed with what you say, but that is today. What came first?....Yes, mired animals would have been killed, or left to die then scavenged, but how would they have been killed?

It just struck me that you may never have killed anything in your whole life.

Killing anything is easy enough, nick an artery and it bleeds to death in little time, plus fresh blood is vitamin rich.

Ancient hominids,having butchered countless other mammals would of course understand where the arteries were and gone for same when possible with whatever was to hand it's not rocket science.

[Minimalist]

The trick is to bring it down and then finish it with a knife thrust to the throat. Once it is down, that is the easy part. Getting it down from a safe distance so your group does not sustain casualties is the hard part. Also, who wants to follow a wounded animal for a day or so waiting for it to bleed out? That means you have to retrace your steps to get back to where you were.

Again, one must try to avoid the idea of a single answer to the question. Terrain had to play a major role. In heavily treed areas an ambush could be set along a game trail. How hard is it to hide downwind and stab an animal in the hamstring as it lumbers by? In open terrain that tactic would not work. Our ancestors were not like giant pandas who, if they can't find bamboo shoots, will apparently starve. We were a tad more willing to adapt.

[E.P. Grondine]

From another site :

The bow and arrow was present in Europe and Asia long prior to man's journey into the new world.

I wonder what dates they are using for man's arrival in the Americas. Hint:

Once in the new world it was lost for 10,000 years and then only developed as the Chinese were developing gun powder.

The questions generated by this premise disappear.

[Digit]

it just struck me that you may never have killed anything in your whole life.

Regretfully Sam, that is not so.
But as Min says, first you have to bring it down, and I remain curious as to why stone age hunters went after such large game, and to what extent their spear may, or may not, have played in that decision. Some time ago I red an article by Kennedy and Churchill arguing as to whether HSN stabbed their prey over arm or under arm.
It reminded me of the clerical argument as to how many Angels could dance on the head of a pin!
Some years ago the ruling body changed to design of the Javelin as competitors were by then casting it so far it was becoming dangerous.
About the same time a cache of ancient spears was recovered, and a lot was made of the fact that they were to same size, in length and diameter, weight and balance as the then Olympic Javelin.
The record for the Javelin is currently over 100 metres!
Who in their right mind is going to develope such a weapon then walk up to a Mammoth and ram it up its Butt?

Roy.

[E.P. Grondine]

Actually, in primates we see pointed stick and rock use simultaneously.

Again EP my point is missed! Agreed with what you say, but that is today.

Glad to hear that. My heads a little fat this afternoon, but I will try.

What came first?

Hominids living in symbiosis with elephantidae, who provided protection against large cats, while hunting other smaller browsers using the elephant's pastures.

Yes, mired animals would have been killed, or left to die then scavenged, but how would they have been killed? Not by beating them over the head with a club I doubt.
The point in my OP was that weapons must have developed, from hefting a rock onto the Colt Peacemaker. We know they started with a rock and we know about the Colt. What was the route between and how did it effect tactics, community development, and diet?
One man can heft a rock, bringing down a Mammoth doesn't seem to be a one man job to me. Why go after three tons of meat on the hoof? What part in choosing the Mammoth as a prey was dictated by the available weapons?

Roy.

Well, Roy, looking at timing of the spread of man along elephantidae routes, I'd have to say Homo Erectus's spear.