Author Topic: theory of hunting w\ stone in response to the thread by blacktail  (Read 2613 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ryan_Gill_HuntPrimitive

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,676
I have made hunting with stone points and understanding paleo man's tools and big part of my life. although i havent been successful with stone on big game, I have collected a lot of info and theory on the subject. So many things come into consideration. No one has all of the answers and the "answers" differ from place to place. So I just wanted to share some of my thoughts with you.
     depending on terrain, materials, and game species- we know people in every region had success with stone tools and weaponry, but the techniques and style vary a great amount depending on location. So with that in mind, i dont think there is any particular style of point that is vastly superior. one thing to keep in mind is the size of the point. Certainly most of us all know the difference in atlatl points and true arrow points. its important that we dont mix those. By modern legal measures the game commissions, by definition require us to use atlatl sized points on our arrows. Reasons for that is mainly ignorance regarding stone points and their effectiveness, and being primitive, we cannot expect the game commissions to understand or adjust laws for us, so that being said, throw modern game laws out the window in this discussion.
     Local aboriginals in my new area (MT) had much different  techniques and opinions about hunting than the aboriginals where i lived back in FL. when the modern bow and arrow hunters found larger atlatl points from their ancestors and very large preserved bones (mammoths, even dinosaur bones) the natives had no idea how old any of that stuff was and figured that those points were from a "Giant" race of man.  Which makes sense if you looked at it from their prospective. larger points, evidence of larger animals, why not figure the people were larger too. 
     The way we think today is - larger animal= large points needed to kill....wrong.  use the little bird points on deer and buffalo to get the penetration and puncture vital organs, use the larger clunky points on rabbits and birds. large clunky point = blunt force trauma and less meat loss and easier arrow retrieval.
     Out here in the west with very large open areas, the idea of killing was much different than those of the wooded east.  Out here we have found that a gut shot was a good shot back then. think about it, no fences or private property to worry about. paleo man was patient. shoot a mule deer in the guts, easy penetration, no bone. Watch gut shot deer run 300 yards to a patch of hawthorn, she feels sick and beds down.  Man sits on hill and watched the patch of brush where the deer entered, to pass the time he knaps and sharpens his tools, a few hours pass and its safe to go looking for his deer. no need to even bloods trail out here if you shot the deer\ buffalo  on the plains and hawthorn coulees.  or worse case scenario he gets a few of his buddies and they surround the brush and start slinging arrows when it comes out.  mule deer are so predictable, they bed down quick unlike eastern whitetails that will run 3 miles
     now that technique would probably not serve you well in wooded tenn.  perhaps faster kill shots were needed, so neck shots and close range  lung and heart shots would have been more reasonable.
     My theories on what the points should be are very basic. small fingernail sized points. sharp edges, very very light serrations and made from flakes. the more surface area of the point would mean more drag and also more chance of hitting bone. after hitting a rib with a stone point that arrow loses so much energy unlike steel. take a very short and narrow triangle point and haft it to a tapered shaft with a very smooth point-shaft transition and that would decrease the range b\c of the lack of arrow mass. I'd say keep it 12 yards and under and put it where it counts. neck\throat, heart lungs broadside, or quarting away and sneak it in behind the last rib up through the liver into lungs. I would try my best to take advantage of any organ or artery not protection by bone.
   but lets face it, food was a priority then. if they wounded one and it got away there werent scolded for making an in-humane shot, true he may have been scolded for losing the bacon, but hunting ethics were not in effect like they are today.  but that also opens the door for larger traps and snares not legal for use today. if i had to get a deer for food i would snare it first then shoot it. make a strong rope of cordage and string it over a well used trail and sit and wait for the deer to come by, perhaps even have drivers to push the deer down the trail at a fast pace. the deer runs through the rope and cinches around its neck or body, while temporarily held and struggling put an arrow in it, then drop your bow, grab your club, break its legs then break its head.

   ok so, i explained theory that may not seem very relevant to " how to kill a deer with a stone point"  but i think it shows, there are no set rules with hunting (as we know). find something that works for you an go with it. But we are playing on a whole new ball field than our ancestors.  so its hard to compare ourselves to how they hunted. its very "majestic" for us to kill a deer with stone all by ourselves, but i figure to them it was like us going to the grocery store. no-one thought they were extra cool for "going the to grocery store" any more than your or I. so it didnt matter if you trapped it first or had 2 or 3 guys shoot it. In the end they probably took more game via traps and multiple people ambush and buffalo jumps than the single hunter loosing a well placed arrow.....although majestic by our standards, not very efficient by their standards.
    So in conclusion, we are taking a hard method of hunting already (archery) and making it more difficult by using selfbows and stone points. WHY? because we love it, we dont know why. Perhaps that primeval quest inside some of us.  So take my theories and speculation for what it is. Add to it, correct it, just my take on the whole situation.  Am I going to still try to kill deer with stone?....You betcha!  but I'm going to try keeping it simple and basic.  heavy bow, small sharp points, well made arrow, and most of all, patients.
Formerly "twistedlimbs"
Gill's Primitive Archery and HuntPrimitive

Offline Ryan_Gill_HuntPrimitive

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,676
Re: theory of hunting w\ stone in response to the thread by blacktail
« Reply #1 on: March 09, 2010, 03:14:11 pm »
in reflection of reading what i just wrote, lol, i think its comical that we try to put ourselves in a position that primitive man would have probably tried to avoid. they most likely probably didnt want to try to kill a deer all by themselves with 1 arrow, but instead taking the easy way of getting meat, via traps and gang hunts. which is the one things that we try to avoid..lol
Formerly "twistedlimbs"
Gill's Primitive Archery and HuntPrimitive

Offline billy

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,233
Re: theory of hunting w\ stone in response to the thread by blacktail
« Reply #2 on: March 09, 2010, 09:43:17 pm »
I gotta say ryan, that was very well said.  I agree with you on all points, especially the one about trapping.  I Think many kinds of traps were used to help them get game.  I know some of the western Indians used corrals and large timber traps where animals were driven in and then hunters shot all they could.  I'd write more but my bro is whining at me needing me to help with dinner. 
Marietta, Georgia

Offline Ryan_Gill_HuntPrimitive

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,676
Re: theory of hunting w\ stone in response to the thread by blacktail
« Reply #3 on: March 09, 2010, 11:55:33 pm »
Thanks Billy, i would be interested in what others opinions on the subject would be.
Formerly "twistedlimbs"
Gill's Primitive Archery and HuntPrimitive

Offline recurve shooter

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,325
Re: theory of hunting w\ stone in response to the thread by blacktail
« Reply #4 on: March 10, 2010, 10:38:40 am »
wow. well said. i know what your talkin about from the size of the arrow heads. when i was younger i had a slightly insane uncle show me that. he showed me a two inch long, inch wide point and asked me what it was. when i said arrowhead, he told me what it really was and showed my the fingernail sized arrowhead. thought that was really cool

i agree with everything you said. well put togeather lecture.  ;D
lets just shoot it

Offline Blacktail

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,432
Re: theory of hunting w\ stone in response to the thread by blacktail
« Reply #5 on: March 10, 2010, 10:57:29 am »
that is some sweet info ryan...like you and billy said..there is places out here in central oregon that indians would funnel deer into and probley have shooter on both sides of the rim rocks in rock blinds...there is one place where there is a human decoy(made from rock)that is still here that pushes deer into the right funnel..john

Offline recurve shooter

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,325
Re: theory of hunting w\ stone in response to the thread by blacktail
« Reply #6 on: March 10, 2010, 10:58:32 am »
wow. id like to see that blacktail
lets just shoot it

Offline Pappy

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • Posts: 32,116
  • if you have to ask you wouldn't understand ,Tenn.
Re: theory of hunting w\ stone in response to the thread by blacktail
« Reply #7 on: March 10, 2010, 12:57:29 pm »
Well thought out,I don't know wh we do it either,just do is all I know. :)
   Pappy
Clarksville,Tennessee
TwinOaks Bowhunters
Life is Good

Offline jamie

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,387
  • born again pagan ,dirt worshipping heathen
Re: theory of hunting w\ stone in response to the thread by blacktail
« Reply #8 on: March 11, 2010, 02:46:31 pm »
great info. one thing to prove that small points work is the "bird point" was often used on the end of a dart too. most of the artifacts found here in ct are dated back to before the bow, and very few are anything more than bird points. the large stuff is usually a knife, spear head, cache blades ,or ceremonial.
"Man is a tool-using animal. Without tools he is nothing, with tools he is all."

waterbury, ct

Offline Parnell

  • Member
  • Posts: 5,556
Re: theory of hunting w\ stone in response to the thread by blacktail
« Reply #9 on: March 11, 2010, 03:12:50 pm »
There is a lot of really important information in this thread.  I've spent the last three weekends learning knapping skills with Claude Van Order and he has been showing me much of the same idea about the effectiveness of small points for larger game hunting.  I have a question for you Twistedlimbs, knowing you lived down here in Florida, do you feel that the bird points - like the picture of the one you posted, is ideal for boar hunting to take a close organ shot?  More importantly, I know that it's 7/8 inch for hunting heads, but do you know if that measurement is required for the feral pigs here, or is it lax because there is no season?

  
1’—>1’

Offline Ryan_Gill_HuntPrimitive

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,676
Re: theory of hunting w\ stone in response to the thread by blacktail
« Reply #10 on: March 11, 2010, 03:21:02 pm »
if i had to take a guess i'd say the 7\8 rule is lax for pigs but i dont really know. when it comes to hunting with stone i have to evaluate the situation. break the law and use dedalier points or obey the lay and increase chance of wounding with no recovery. laws to me are to enforce ethics to those that have non. its more ethical to me to use smaller points, so i will use small points and just not get caught. 
    i think they will work best on hogs too, but i would avoid the shield at all cost.  stick with smaller pigs and quartering away shots or behind the ear shots.  but ask mullet i think he has some more experience with pigs and stone. i never actually shot  hog with stone, we didnt have many in the area i lived
Formerly "twistedlimbs"
Gill's Primitive Archery and HuntPrimitive