Primitive Archer
Main Discussion Area => Bows => Topic started by: kiwijim on November 24, 2012, 06:20:45 am
-
Check this out!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11086110
-
I may be mistaken but I think this particular article was discussed a little while back. Although the title of this article is "Oldest evidence of arrows found" there is no evidence that these points were, in fact, arrowheads. They could just as easily be points for light throwing spears or even atlatl darts. The article states that these points were "probably arrowheads" and were "tips of projectiles". Unless stone/bone/wood(?) points are found attached, or near to, arrow shaft(s) or are found in conjunction with ancient art (petroglyphs, etc...) depicting bow and arrow use or even with the conclusivly proven remains of a bow it will be hard to prove any projectile point was in fact an arrowhead.
-
Any kind of points that old are still way cool!!
Tattoo Dave
-
I wish they'd discuss where they get 70,000 from. Do they just pull these numbers out of a hat? Why not 60,000, 50,000, 3,000?
-
I wish they'd discuss where they get 70,000 from. Do they just pull these numbers out of a hat? Why not 60,000, 50,000, 3,000?
They have methods of dating organic matter such as the blood or tissue on the arrow heads. They aren't looking at a piece of rock millions of years old and then telling when it was actually made into the arrowhead.
-
I find it hard to believe that blood and tissue would be still around on rocks after a few thousand years, let alone 70,000ys.
Also they dont look much like arrowheads to me, just rocks. If those guys where bright enough to make the bow the arrow and the string, I'm sure they could make better points than that. I take these archeologist types with a pinch a salt, my self
-
It might not be apparent to the naked eye but tissue and blood stick around for a long time if they are dried and stable.
The early models of anything are going to look pretty crude relative to the more developed editions.
The absolute best stone arrowheads from Eurasia never seemed to develop to the same levels of skill shown in NA.
-
The dating method used is rather crude and inaccurate.
You can carbon date the stone(also crude) but that's all.
If there was organic tissue on the stone it would've needed a preservative covering it aiding in its preservation.
If they are in fact 65,000 years old I highly doubt the organic tissue would still be evident.
They don't look like points to me either.
-
I find anything like this very interesting. I'd like to know that bows and arrows went back farther than 12K to 15K year ago. I'm open to all possibilities. ;)
-
Color me skeptical.
-
You guys need to do some more science reading. There is a lot more technology available when it comes to identifying and dating organic tissue.
While it's nice to imagine everything turning back to "dust" or the basic compounds, it's not quite that simple.
-
Color me skeptical.
Im right there with you friend.
-
everything returns to dust sooner or later.....its that simple....even for scientists!! >:D
-
Are these projectile points arrowheads? Maybe.
Are they 60-70 thousand years old? Absolutely.
Thats the good thing about Science; you don't need to believe it in it for it to be right.
-
Are these projectile points arrowheads? Maybe.
Are they 60-70 thousand years old? Absolutely.
Thats the good thing about Science; you don't need to believe it in it for it to be right.
:P
-
I don't doubt their age. I question whether or not they are arrow or spear points. Could be, but that would make them much older than anything previously found. Could be that they were fragments from stones used for fleshing or cutting. I'm open to the possibility, just skeptical. As far as, "science does not have to be believed to be right". No, it doesn't, but it has to be right, to be right, not just believed.
-
everything returns to dust sooner or later.....its that simple....even for scientists!! >:D
Yes, but apparently "later" is much longer than people think.
If an Egyptian tomb was unearthed 60000 years from now, the objects in it would be closer to dust than they are now but still identifiable for what they are.
We're not talking about an arrowhead left out in the weather to be cleaned but rather the equivalent of a landfill where things can be dug up practically unchanged.
-
With stone like obsidian they date by the coating that forms over the worked edges. They can also tell where it was quarried. Thes dating method is accurate but as far as I know only works on obsidian.
-
even a really dumb guy could manage to get a better point on a piece of flint than these, even a rough flake would work better than these rocks. We can assume any one smart enough to make a bow and twist fibres to make a string, then make arrows and attach points, is smart enough to use a sharp piece of flint. So I doubt these scientists who have probably made nothing at all, not a bow, string, arrow or a point. really know what they are on about.......just my humble opinion
Also, how can you agree with the age if you doubt they are arrowheads??? if they arent arrowheads they are just rocks, then they are millions of years old
-
Either way, those are some of the ugliest points I've ever seen :laugh:
-
I gotta say, I think the story was pretty cool! Imagining a band of hunter gathers crudely smashing rocks together and crudely attaching them to crude bows and arrows is exactly what I would imagine and is probably exactly what I would do if I got dropped off in the wilderness with nothing but my hands and brain to survive.
There are blood and bone remains on the points still...really! There are pictures, the proof , in the story. They can test using radio carbon dating. Which measures the known half life of naturally occurring radio isotopes and get a margin of error of like 50 years. Science has been doing this now for a long time with good results. Even a margin of 200 or 300 years is very close when we are talking this many thousands of years ago.
Yes they are crude but I think people are imaging Neolithic style points which was the pinnacle of arrowhead refinement. The Neolithic age was about 10,000 years ago.... That gives 54,000 years of refinement!!! Honestly they don't look too much different when I tried flint knapping. I quickly said forget it and bought some for $10 bucks a peice. Flint knapping is a very delicate and skilled operation. I had a book and good tools even...this guy had a couple of rocks and a camp fire. I'll give him credit though... Obviously they worked! Proof if is in the puddin' 64,000 years later.
And I'm sure the professor has heard of a bow and arrow before given the focus of her research. This was taken from her universities website:
"Her main research interest is ancient cognition and her experimental archaeology is geared towards understanding the mental architecture required for various behaviours. Her most recent work is on the production and use of compound adhesives and the implications this has for cognition."
-
Are these "points" only portions of points or are they the complete point? It is hard to tell from a single picture. If we could study each one of these artifacts we should be able to see where they were worked by other than natural phenomena.
Until Otzi was found we thought that the Bronze Age happened much later than it did. Why is it not possible that humanoids had "bows and arrows" before we thought it were possible. All of the materials used to make bows and arrows are biodegradable. Stone, being slow to degrade last many times longer than the other components so the stone tools are all we have to go by. We have to theorize the rest. Humans have been using tools since early on in our evolution, many millions of years ago. Why then is it not possible that bows and arrows come about in history long before we thought they did?
-
I agree Pat, I dont have a problem accepting humans had bows and arrows even 100.000 yrs ago, I think they (archeologists etc) actually have some artifacts this old.
Josh,,It took me a day the first time I tried, messing around with flints and hammer stones and I had a few basic sharp pointed arrowheads, its not that hard.
Its still a cool story though, I just dont trust scientists...perhaps thats why I'm on the PA?