Oldest evidence of arrows found

bbc ^ | 26 August 2010 | Victoria Gill

[JoeProBono]

Researchers in South Africa have revealed the earliest direct evidence of human-made arrows.

The scientists unearthed 64,000 year-old "stone points", which they say were probably arrow heads.

Closer inspection of the ancient weapons revealed remnants of blood and bone that provided clues about how they were used.

The team reports its findings in the journal Antiquity.

The arrow heads were excavated from layers of ancient sediment in Sibudu Cave in South Africa. During the excavation, led by Professor Lyn Wadley from the University of the Witwatersrand, the team dug through layers deposited up to 100,000 years ago.

[JoeProBono]

The stone points are approximately 64,000 years old

Closer inspection revealed remnants of blood (left) and bone fragments (right) The arrow heads also contained traces of glue - plant-based resin that the scientists think was used to fasten them on to a wooden shaft.

The bow and arrow revolutionized warfare by enabling one to launch attacks from a distance with far less risk to the attacker. Although the crossbow often superseded hand bows in medieval armies since it took less training to use and could have greater penetrating power, in the right hands the longbow could achieve a faster shooting rate for devastating effect, as the battles of Crecy in 1346 and Agincourt in 1415 revealed.

[JoeProBono]

Hunting Crossbow

[JoeProBono]

Arrowhead ping

[SunkenCiv]

· join list or digest · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post a topic · subscribe ·
	Gods Graves Glyphs	Thanks JoeProBono. I've seen the picture before, and I'm sure some related topic has been posted on FR in recent months, but I'm going to risk the torches and pitchforks one more time and ping it. :') To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list. GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother, and Ernest_at_the_Beach
·Dogpile · Archaeologica · Mirabilis.ca · LiveScience · Biblical Archaeology Society · · Discover · Bronze Age Forum · Science Daily · Science News · Eurekalert · PhysOrg · · Nat Geographic · Texas AM Anthro News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · Google · · Archaeology · The Archaeology Channel · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists · · History topic · history keyword · archaeology keyword · paleontology keyword · · Science topic · science keyword · Books/Literature topic · pages keyword · ·

[JoeProBono]

“I’m going to risk the torches and pitchforks”

Or slings and arrows?

[wendy1946]

Energy is measured in foot-pounds; crossbows have the pounds but not the feet and generally cannot even shoot as hard as a well made longbow or recurve, much less as rapidly or accurately. The ultimate weapon of war in the middle ages was the Turko-Mongol composite bow.

[JoeProBono]

[wildbill]

Y’all seem to have some good knowledge of cross-bows. I’ve been thinking about buying one for hunting, but I keep reading that their range is very short.

Was this true of the war crossbows of the middle Ages?

Any comments or suggestions on a purchase. 150Lb. Ok?

[wendy1946]

No question that a modern crossbow can kill deer, but...

The most common game animal in North America is the white-tailed deer and he is mainly hunted from tree stands. You need to get human scent ten or twelve feet off the ground.

The problem is that there is no totally reasonable way to draw and cock a crossbow from most tree stands. There's no totally good solution. You can haul a cocked crossbow into the treestand with a rope but you only ever have one shot.

[Renfield]

I’ve killed dozens of deer, and most of them from ground level. Those pop-up blinds work quite well, and are safer and more convenient than tree-stands. Deer walk right up to them. As a plus, they offer total concealment, so the hunter can stretch, scratch an itch, etc, without spooking game. Most of them offer enough room for a crossbow.

I don’t use crossbows, but sometimes bowhunt out of pop-up blinds. Works like a charm.

[wolfman23601]

To me, they look like any ordinary rock that can be found in my backyard. A bit of a stretch to say they are arrows. At 64,000 years old, they are more likely to be spear heads if they are weapons at all.

[wolfman23601]

The crossbows in war in the middle ages had decent range and good power, but were slow to load. They were relatively ineffective compared to the English Longbow. The English Longbow, however, required incredible strength and skill to master, taking 10+ years of training (they started as soon as they could walk), which is why the English opponents could not simply switch to neutralize.

[CholeraJoe]

Agincourt in 1415 revealed.

Hogwash. The bodkin points couldn't penetrate the French armor. The French knights in heavy armor, bogged down in the muck and mud, were slaughtered by the English in hand-to-hand fighting with little gems like this.

[wildbill]

well, since I want to do some bow hunting, I guess I could haul a longbow into a tree stand too, I’ve done some target shooting with a long bow and decided that drawing it in a tree blind would be more of a problem than with the crossbow.

I have no illusions that I am Robin Hood, or have the stalking skills of an Amerind or frontiersman.

Just want to try something different than the old reliable .270.

[wolfcreek]

Where there is a will, there’s a way.

http://www.huntersfriend.com/products/archery/crossbows/cocking.html

In a perfect world, you only need ONE shot.

[colorado tanker]

We want SunkenCiv!

[SunkenCiv]

This is an automated reply. SunkenCiv will be out of the forum until the smell of torch smoke and sounds of angry shouting is gone. Okay, the second one will never be gone, so just the torch smoke part.

[wendy1946]

Get a normal compound bow for tree-stand use.

[Pollster1]

To me, they look like any ordinary rock that can be found in my backyard. A bit of a stretch to say they are arrows. At 64,000 years old, they are more likely to be spear heads if they are weapons at all.

Actually, they are probably arrow heads (archeology is one field in which scientists are mostly still professionals), and an expert can tell them apart from spear points, dart points, knives, or random rocks. These points are both too thin and too variable for atlatls, which require much more uniform points for useful accuracy. The hafting area on an arrow point is much narrower than on a hand-held or thrown projectile such as a spear or a dart (Why would any hunter/fighter use a hand or thrown weapon with a shaft as flimsy as that of an arrow? Someone so weak should be gathering roots and berries or working as a community organizer). Similarly, even the largest arrow points are thinner, lighter, and shorter than at least most of the smallest spear/dart tips. Finally, related articles describe impact damage to these points, and that is absolutely decisive. The types of impact cracks you get at stabbing/throwing velocities is different from that obtained through archery. These struck their targets at too high a speed to be spear points.

Also, there is a difference between a random rock and a tool that has been worked. More advanced weapon tips generally have both percussion flaking and pressure flaking on both sides to form the sharp edge, and this work forms a distinctive pattern. For the points in the picture, I see no sign of pressure flaking, but several show inexpert percussion flaking (comparable to my own workmanship when I have tried to duplicate the process). Random rocks don't show signs of having been hammered on the edge to chip a sharp edge. These points are not at an advanced level of skill, and I can't tell from this picture whether they were worked uniformly on both sides, but they have some of the same traits that you see on a Clovis point: