Winged Bannerstones and the Bi-Lobed Arrow Motif

[JackCrafty]

You're an ecologist?  I didn't know that.  That's fantastic.

I have to ask you something:  I understand that weather and environment affect culture.  Steady climates give rise to agriculture, for example.  But do you think there is also a gender influence?  I mean, who were the farmers?  The men? The women?  Both?

In my opinion, the females developed agriculture, pottery, and "pit ovens" for cooking.  They also developed the shelters.  They may also be the ones who migrated to new camps on a regular basis with the men in tow--not the other way around.   The men continued with the hunting and warrior traditions in an unbroken line and did not concern themselves with the "female" things for the most part.  I believe the "male" things changed less over time and were less affected by climate.  What do you think?  (I believe that bannerstones are a male thing).

[swamp monkey]

I would say you are spot on.  Gathering by North America natives was often done by females.  They collected seeds and likely noticed the impact fire had on seed production.  Fires increase blooming and seed production.  Fire is often seen as a precursor to agriculture.  Please don't misunderstand me, fire was also used to manage hunting grounds and as a means of warfare. so fire isn't agriculture.  Fire simply set the stage for noticing the impacts that led to ag. 

The big switch in my mind wasn't so much the notion of growing plants from seed; but putting them where they wanted rather than just going where they grow.  Then it was a matter of seed selection and the whole process of domestication.   

It seems like I came across some anthropological comments from some historic tribes where men were involved with some aspects of agriculture (like planting) but largely their jobs were hunting and war as you said.  Boys were in charge of critter patrol around the fields and the storage buildings. 

[JackCrafty]

This is where I'm going with the male-female roles thing:  I agree with you on the climate changes in the Early Archaic and the cultural changes that may have given rise to the use of bannerstones.  But I think the weather changed slowly in human terms.  I don't think these relatively slow changes affecedt hunters in a big way.  Especially when you consider that deer are the primary food (as seen from bone evidence) in almost all cases and in all areas and time periods.  Even in areas where bison and/or fish were common, deer bones are plentiful, and often the greatest in terms of shear volume, in camps that have preserved faunal remains.

I read in one of the sources that the bi-lobed arrow motif may represent lungs and windpipe and/or esophagus.  My opinion is that it  may represent an arrow piercing the lungs.  I'm leaning toward the lobed-arrow being a hunting symbol.  And it follows that the bannerstones might also be a hunting symbol representing the lungs of an animal.


(I typed this while you were answering above and just now read your comment)

[swamp monkey]

I read in one of the sources that the bi-lobed arrow motif may represent lungs and windpipe and/or esophagus.  My opinion is that it  may represent an arrow piercing the lungs.  I'm leaning toward the lobed-arrow being a hunting symbol.  And it follows that the bannerstones might also be a hunting symbol representing the lungs of an animal.


(I typed this while you were answering above and just now read your comment)

The lung thing makes a lot of sense.  I recall reading how the last breath of a prey animal was important to some Native American hunters.  The lungs being pierced by an arrow makes a lot of sense as a hunter or warrior symbol.   I respectfully, still don't consider the bannerstone connection likely considering the lack of their occurrence in the Mississippian period.  Personal bias I suppose.  That is unless the bannerstones continued as a concept.  Kind of like the way we use shields and swords on family crests today.

[JackCrafty]

Eddie, I've read that some of the arrows were made from lightweight reed while others were made from heavier cane or native bamboo.  Maybe you're using arrows that are too heavy?  And yes, private collections have the best stuff, that's for sure!

[JackCrafty]

   I respectfully, still don't consider the bannerstone connection likely considering the lack of their occurrence in the Mississippian period.  Personal bias I suppose.  That is unless the bannerstones continued as a concept.

Yeah, being able to tie the bi-lobed thing to an actual bannerstone artifact would remove all doubt.  What would you consider to be a situation where the connection would be clear?

[Zuma]

Glad to see the interest in these amazing artifacts.
 Just for the record and I am sure you all know that I favor winged bannerstones as drilling aides.
 Having at least proven to myself their effectiveness in that capacity.
 Nevertheless I have been unable to do much good in the research of archaeological
records to substantiate this belief.
I can contribute to the mix, the fact that atatls as well as thrusting spears were still in vogue in Central America when the Spanish arrived there. No mention of rocks or weights on the atatls. The same can be said about atatls in Alaska where many have been recovered.
One of my big questions about the subject is-----
"Did all or most heavy stone drilling end at or near the beginning of the Woodland Era ??"
  Since  atatls were still in use in some of  the most advanced societies in the Americas,
it would make sense, if they were also in use in the boondocks of N. America at time of contact.
Many more questions than answers. LOL
I really appreciate all that attempt to straighten out the crooked path of the past.
Jack, Swampy. Pat,  your steadfast and interesting input on this subject is above and beyond.
Thanks Zuma

[Zuma]

Glad to see the interest in these amazing artifacts.
double post 
Thanks Zuma

[JackCrafty]

Here's another little comment for the mix: 

Bannerstones are VERY rare.  Focus on them is very common.  When this situation occurs, we often get a warped sense of reality. If atlatls were very common, which they probably were, then 95% of them were made with a configuration that DID NOT include a bannerstone.  We must not lose sight of that fact.

[swamp monkey]

 

 What would you consider to be a situation where the connection would be clear?

I thought about that question all morning.  Good question by the way.   

Well first things first I have to say your bannerstone/bilobed arrow motif notion has one thing going for it.  As fancy atlatl weights (a tool for mighty warriors and hunters) , I could see most any self respecting warrior or hunter proud to have a bannerstone effigy item on his regalia.  Assuming bannerstones are associated with hunting, then men would indeed covet the symbol.  Now if the items are net spacers, spindle whorls or drilling counterweights, I get less enamored by the whole thing.  People being people no matter their culture, and men being men no matter the culture; I just don't see a warrior or hunter wanting a cordage making tool or a drill weight on their head.  I am not saying it would be shameful, I just think symbols have power.  Our modern team mascots are fierce, strong and worthy of respect.  Not to be trifled with.  Bannerstones have to mean something powerful or aggressive; or they have to go as an effigy on defenders and hunters. 

What would it take for me to accept it?   A bannerstone found in a Mississippian era mound would open my mind.   I might even go with a late Woodland mound.  That would show me bannerstones continued long enough to serve as a symbol that was relevant. 

Another option would be an artistic rendition that shows a bannerstone without the bilobed arrow from the Woodland or Mississippian era.  In this way it would show a progression of the concept.  To me your suggestion that the bilobed arrow thing is a symbol of an arrow going through lungs.  That makes perfect sense for a hunter/warrior.

Right now I think that bannerstones and bar weights were a thing of the Archaic period.  For what ever reason they stopped being used at the end of the Archaic period.   If they were indeed net spacers or drill weights or spindle whorls, then my question is why stop using them?  If anything, the need for such tools increased with the advent of the Woodland and Mississippian culture.  The arts exploded.  Shell craft was in high demand.  I am sure the wealthy or high status folks had shell gorgets and beads.  But I also think wood was used for these objects as well.  Wood needs drilling same as shell and metal.   Anything the people did in the Woodland period was pushed to its limit in the Mississippian period.  Bigger, better, fancier.  Shell, copper and stone craft were taken to extremities of what could be done.  Nets and woven cloth would have been in huge demand.  Commercial fishing at a city like Cahokia for example would certainly need a fishing fleet armed with nets aplenty.  Populations rose at Cahokia and other Mississippian sites.  If anything there was higher demand for drilling and fiber production than ever before. Clothing was largely woven - not leather.   If bannerstones had other use then why didn't they persist past the Archaic?

My argument is simple, they are replaced as archery arrived.  How that took place is still sloppy and has missing puzzle pieces.  the timing is right - especially if as you argue archery is older than we think.  It just makes the most sense to me.  atlatls declined but didn't disappear.  Bannertones were however, not needed to give an edge.  The bow compensated by giving the edge needed thus making the bannerstone unnecessary.     Feel free to disagree.  That is just conjecture on my part.  without a time machine . . . well you said it.

By the way, your thought about bannerstones being rare is a good one.  If we get stark raving mad about they have to function for something, well, the fact is not everyone had one.  Food for thought.


fun fun fun.

[JackCrafty]

I've been reading so much lately that I forget where I'm seeing things.

But I read that bannerstones seem to be replaced by two-hole gorgets in burials as time went on (from late Archaic to Late Woodland period).  I wonder if the gorgets exist in a Mississippian context?  And if these two forms (bannerstones and gorgets) are representations of the same thing?

[JacksonCash]

I love these banner stone discussions. I've not done much research myself, only reading the sources I've seen you guys provide thus far, but I find it fascinating. I really like the point about them being rare - not really something I'd considered before. I can't wait to read more.

[JackCrafty]

This will give you an idea of how rare bannerstones are:

Throughout the 1940's, William S. Webb continued publishing reports on his findings in Kentucky and Alabama. In them, Webb further refined and expanded his theory that bannerstones were atlatl weights placed between an antler or bone hook and a handle. His research was so convincing that nearly all professionals accept his work as gospel. However, in her excellent and objective look into Webb's research, Mary L. Kwas has made some interesting observations. In looking at Webb's work at Indian Knoll she found that out of the total of 880 burials only 43 contained any kind of atlatl object. Of these 43 burials, only 2 contained a bannerstone, hook and handle. One burial contained a bar weight, hook and handle. Kwas also noted a very conspicuous lack of points found in the burials with atlatl objects. Perhaps, she pointed out, this was due to the usage of organic materials which did not survive. However, she noted that of the 45 burials with atlatl objects, only 5 had associated projectile points.

So, 2 bannerstones within a total of 880 burials at Indian Knoll.  That's about 1/10th of 1%  (.11%).  And 2 bannerstones out of 43 burials that had atlatl objects.  That's about 5%  (4.65%).

So, 95% of the "hunter/warrior" burials at the famous Indian Knoll had atlatls without the fancy bannerstones.

source:  ---http://www.arrowheads.com/index.php/bannerstones/326-bannerstones-what-are-they

[JackCrafty]

Now, just because 95% of the atlatls didn't have bannerstones doesn't mean that the bannerstones were not atlatl weights.  It only shows that most atlatls were made in some other way.  It also tends to to support the idea that the stones might have been some sort of "special" grave offering.  And we are not even talking about the winged bannerstone type, which were not found at Indian Knoll as far as I know.

[swamp monkey]

I wonder if Kwas looked at the museum finds or how she determined that.  I ask because Webb's report states: 

•   There were 101 stone atlatl weights found at this site. 
•   26 stone bannerstones found in burials
•   75 stone bannerstones found in general excavation
•   76 antler atlatl hooks were found
•   42 atlatl handles made of antler found
•   6 segmented shell atlatl weights found

•   Of the stone weights 44 were limestone, 1 marble, 6 sandstone, 9 igneous, 7 slate and 9 quartzite.
•   31 of the stones were found along with antler atlatl hooks.


I am not being argumentative,  the numbers don't mesh.  I am just looking for clarity.