Why aren't we on the same page?

[JackCrafty]

When you think about primitive archery, if you are a hunter, you think about the performance of your equipment.  If you are an artifact collector, you think about how rare and wonderful the items are.  If you are an archeologist, you think about the technology and how it evolved.

If you try to be all of the above, you will see that people in the different "camps" are not working with the same set of ideas.  This is obvious, of course, but I want to throw out some concepts and see what you guys think.

When I talk to collectors, for example, they will tell me that when projectile points were made, the user had to make sure that it didn't affect the flight of the projectile.  So, the smaller the projectile, the smaller the point. A hunter will tell me that the point size/weight is part of the "system" and doesn't have to be minimized.  On the contrary, sometimes a heavier or bigger point is necessary.  An archeologist will tell me that the point size is determined by a what he considers the maker's intent was.  The intent can be any number of a thousand different things...or sometimes only by one thing... and has to be supported by evidence.

So, what determines the size of a projectile point?

-  Ishi used smaller arrowheads to kill bears than he used to kill deer.  Why?
-  Small "bird points" (the size of a dime) have been found with the remains of buffalo here in west Texas.  Why?
-  Some of the very first true arrowheads in Texas were quite large in comparisson to later arrowheads.  Why?
-  Large, bulky points have been made in areas with very limited rock resources, and tiny points have been made in areas with almost endless supplies of good rock.  Why?
-  A typical "primitive" hunting arrow (and arrowhead) today is much more robust than those made in pre-historic times.   Why?


And there are other areas where people get all funny:

I've heard some people claim that:

-  Warfare was almost unknown in America before the Europeans came.
-  Reproducing ancient technology leads to fraud and counterfeiting that hurts collectors.
-  Collectors are encouraging the trade in "grave goods" and are destroying important archeologic sites.
-  One cannot be truely "primitive" in a modern world and that goes for his equipment as well.

[thomas h]

because in today's society  we have been conditioned to think --( bigger is better )-----

[mullet]

 Patrick;

 I've been to Artifact shows and listened to people use their sells pitch for whichever point they were selling. When they made up some BS elaborate story to justify something that didn't fit, you knew they didn't know what they were talking about.

 Most Collectors don't hunt, or Knapp. Most of the high dollar collectors don't even look for points in the field, they buy them from people that do.

I have very good friends that are Anthropologist or Archaeologist. It seems that when they find artifacts, even flakes, they want to give it a label. Most of them do not hunt or skin animals and seem to romanticize what a piece of rock could have been used for.

There s also an overlap period when the bow was starting to be used or the larger animals were disappearing and you have to wonder if they were mounted on Atlatl or arrows

[Timo]

Well... in reality no one really knows? It's all speculation. Look at our society today, some would never hunt deer with anything other than a 3006 while others think that a 204 is plenty. One can cut a piece of pie with a butter knife while the next person wouldn't dream of using anything other than a their sharpest knife.

I think that ancient man used whatever they needed  to get the job done.

I think mullet summed it up perty well.

[Parnell]

Patrick,

-  Warfare was almost unknown in America before the Europeans came.
-  Reproducing ancient technology leads to fraud and counterfeiting that hurts collectors.
-  Collectors are encouraging the trade in "grave goods" and are destroying important archeologic sites.
-  One cannot be truely "primitive" in a modern world and that goes for his equipment as well.


I'd argue "Europeans" were in North America before "Asians".
Screw Collectors.
Again, Screw Collectors.
To borrow from Gump, Primitive is as Primitive does.

Don't let this come across as snippy or something - Rich says it pretty well, I'd figure - Make what you like.  The rest is law and modern stuff. 
Archery Craft is one of the last things that defines man's, or woman's,  nature. 

[Bevan R.]

-  Warfare was almost unknown in America before the Europeans came.

Not sure I agree with this. Didn't the 'Native' Americans conflict. I mean seriously conflict. I have been told that places like 'Pipestone MN' were neutral so that all could come and get stone for pipes. Doesn't that infer that other places were not neutral?

As as far as point size goes, just look at the points produced by the skilled knappers on this site. some make what I would call 'jewelry' points that are used for hunting. Another example, look at the length and draw weight of bows here. Some makers/shooters want really strong bows while others go for the lighter bows. Both are used successfully for hunting.

I do not think that we (moderns) should try to pigeonhole all the ancients because of the relative few artifacts found or by someone's interpretation of those artifacts.

[crooketarrow]

     None of us is really primitive. Or we would'nt be punching these keys would we. Socitey wo'nt let us. Once lived in a cabin when I was younger with out water or electic a whole year trapping. Along with a few LONG camping trips SOMETIMES 2 MONTHS AS WELL AS LOTS OF SHORT SURVIVLE TRIPS. Thank god for fishing poles. That was along time ago when I was young and dumb. Thats as primitive as I WISH TO BE. I knew the truck was a few miles away.
   We tip back in time when we want but were pulled back in.
  As far as arrow heads most used what they could get at the time. Sure certin tribes had certin styles at certin times. And I'm sure tribes waged war on other tribes. Just not on the scale were use to seening on TV.

[nclonghunter]

I think the intent here was to question why everyone is not alike in their thinking or conclusions. Folks can only "guess" what truly happened from what little evidence remains (example; Iceman). A group that witnesses the same event first hand will describe it differently only minutes later. Now take what can only be guessed at and the possible conclusion and scenarios are endless. Look at the number of modern broadheads that have been made in the last ten years. Imagine someone in 50,000 years describing what just two different broadheads were used for in this century.

I think "we" are on the same page, "we" really have no true knowledge of "why", but we entertain ourselves with thinking we are right about our conclusions.

I would be happy to explain all the "whys" but there is just not enough space here for all my theories that I am certain are correct.........

[Jesse]

Experts/specialists can be narrow minded. I think Jack of all trades types can appreciate things from several angles and maybe see the big picture better.

[Dane]

I've found that a collector has a state of mind that is far differnt than non collectors. I think this is true no matter what the person collects - dolls, knives, spoons, spinning wheels, guns, beer bottles, etc. I have a friend who has been a collector of WWII uniforms and insiginia since he was a teenager. That is a world I will never really get. These guy spend an entire lifetime amassing huge collections, sometimes very specialized, and they eventually die, the collections are auctioned off or sold or given away, and whatever legacy they had amassed is tossed to the wind. Fellow collectors snap up what they can of the defunct collections, put them in their own collections, and it continues.

As for being primitive, it is all state of the art. Otzi's bow was state of the art when he was alive, Ishi's equipment was state of the art for him, and the English war bow was as advanced a weapons system in its day as the M4 carbine is today. The primitive bows you see here every day are as advanced as any self bows have ever been. 

Dane

[jamie]

pat i deal with collectors and archeologists all the time. i was asked to come to a meeting and give my "wisdom" on what the pieces were. my answer pissed em off. ....................sharp rocks. group-yes but is it an arrowhead or an atlatlhead. me- could be a small knife too, not sure i wasnt there. 

[Bevan R.]

my answer pissed em off. ....................sharp rocks. group-yes but is it an arrowhead or an atlatlhead. me- could be a small knife too, not sure i wasnt there. 

Jessie, next time really fool them and say it is a point from a broken atlatl that was used as a knife.

Bevan

[JackCrafty]

Thomas, you're right.  We've been taught bigger is better.

Eddie, I've never been to an artifact show but I have listened to collectors tell their stories.  I think some collectors are extremely knowledgeable.  I've never met a "high dollar" collector...maybe that's a good thing.  As far as archeologists go, the guys I've met are very specialized in their research.  They know a lot about certain things, like paleo sites, but not much about the rest.  They also knapp, so I think they are well grounded in reality, but I know what you mean about "romanticizing".

Timo, yep, they used what they felt would get the job done.  However, many tribal cultures are very superstitious and they have all sorts of "rules" and rituals for hunting.  I've heard that some NA's, back in the day, would not re-use an arrowhead that missed the target because it was bad luck.  I don't know how true that is...

Parnell, I've gotten some cold shoulders from collectors that feel that I shouldn't be making reproductions.  I'm with you, though.  We shouldn't spend time arguing with them.

Bevan, I believe warfare and conflict is part of the history of all cultures.  I just thought it was worth mentioning that some people out there don't agree.  Once in a while I'll get a cold response when I suggest that warfare has not been taken into account when determining the possible use of an artifact.

Crooketarrow, good observations.  None of us can be purely primitive in terms of tools and materials.  But our brains haven't really changed in thousands of years...  unless maybe we are getting dumber...or is it dummer?   

Hunter, I like the idea that we are on the same page simply because we don't know the right answer for everything.   I guess I get frustrated too easily. 

Jesse, I'm hoping that more people will begin seeing the big picture.

Dane, collectors are "funny" sometimes.  It amazes me when I hear all the different reasons for collecting artifacts, for instance.  As far as keeping a collection intact when you die, I know one collector who wants to make sure that his collection stays intact.  He is looking for a certain special person to give his collection to.  I mentioned to him that I would never sell his collection if he gave it to me, but he just looked at me for a second and then went back to what he was doing... 

Jamie, it's true that those guys get pissed off easily.  I try not to get them upset... they might not let me look at their collections. 

[Dane]

The ultimate collector that I have come across was George Walter Vincent Smith. He was a wealthy guy in Springfield, MA in the late 1800s and early 1900s. He amassed an amazing collection of stuff, includng some of the finest Japanese arms and armor you can see in the US. He gave his entire collection to the city's museum and library association with the stipulation that it be housed as an entire collection, and when he died, it can never be broken up or even borrowed by other museums. They built him a lovely building, he filled it, and spend each day there in his old age, playing with his stuff, putting on suits of armor, etc.

After his death, he and his also deceased wife were cremeated and they are still in one wall, kind of hidden by a rare tapestry. Behind it is the stone with his and her names, and there he will spend eternity with his collection. When I worked there, I used to make it a point of showing visitors where his urn is located. I found it cool and creepy.

Of course, some may think the place is haunted, but the actual haunted building was across the quandrangle from Smith and his museum. I know, as I saw the ghost once.

Dane