Primitive Archer
Main Discussion Area => Around the Campfire => Topic started by: JackCrafty on January 02, 2015, 04:42:15 pm
-
While researching arrowhead types for a different thread (http://www.primitivearcher.com/smf/index.php/topic,49309.msg683946.html#msg683946)
I noticed something. :)
I'm going to go out on a limb and make a connection. It appears that winged bannerstones were part of a headdress that is called a "Bi-Lobed Arrow Motif" in the "Southeastern Ceremonial Complex".
I found this motif while doing research on Etowah Mounds, Georgia. It's not hard to see that the winged bannerstone could have been placed on an arrow shaft and worn in the hair.
As far as I'm concerned, I will consider all winged bannerstones to be part of this Bi-Lobed Arrow headdress.
From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southeastern_Ceremonial_Complex
The Bi-Lobed Arrow Motif is often seen in the headdresses of the warriors/birdmen/chunkey players. A complex symbol, it is a graphic representation of a bow and arrow, an atlatl, or possibly a calumet. In the Red Horn Cycle, Red Horn is also called "He who gets hit with deer lungs", which may be a euphemism or an allusion to the fact that deer lungs with the trachea attached, resemble the graphic depiction of the Bi-Lobed Arrow. It may symbolize kinship and adoption rituals related to social hierarchies. Examples in the form of Mississippian copper plates have been found in many Mississippian culture sites.
Source for picture of copper bi-lobed headdress (last picture). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southeastern_Ceremonial_Complex#mediaviewer/File:Etowah_copper_pieces_HRoe_2007.jpg
-
Patrick, I have to confess I didn't know if you were tongue in cheek on that one or not. Just in case you were serious, I want to point out another part of the puzzle. I don't mean to be Johnny rain cloud, but use of winged bannerstones stops well before the Mississippian era. - By several centuries.
Bannerstones were created and used from 7,000 years ago until about 2,600 years ago. The Mississippian culture where those copper plates and engravings originated was from between 1400 to 600 years ago*. (Dates can vary 50-75 years across the Eastern US depending on occupancy and adoption of traits identified to a particular culture. Places Like Etowah GA say the site was occupied with a culture until 1550 AD. so that really bucks the trend). There was roughly over a thousand years between the final creation and use of drilled bannerstones and the depiction of bilobed arrow motifs. bannerstones are an Archaic period item. I am not aware of any bannerstones appearing in the Woodland period or the Mississippian.
The puzzle of bannerstones is a real head scratcher to be sure. :) i love the discussion.
-
Good points, and yeah, I'm serious. Sorry it's hard to tell when I'm kidding. I never confuse people on purpose, though... (yeah right). >:D
I realize that the winged bannerstones are much older than the Mississippian era but that doesn't mean that the culture or certain practices don't go back thousands of years. I'll do more research but I don't think the bilobed arrow "thing" existed only during the Mississippian era. Just because we can see artifacts like shell and copper items that have been well preserved, because they are relatively young, doesn't mean that they existed only in that time frame.
One of the weaknesses of archaeology is that it assumes something exists only in the time frame that it has been found. It corrects itself when the next item is found. And so on...
-
OK, that response confused even me. Let me give an example of what I'm talking about with regard the "weakness" of archaeology.
Examples of writing have been found that describe worship of the sun. Does that mean that the sun was worshiped only during the time of that particular writing? No. It can be logically assumed that sun worship might be much older that the writings.
With the discovery of copper and shell items depicting bi-lobed arrow headdresses, it has been assumed that these items represent a culture that ONLY existed during the time the copper and shell items were made. That would be like assuming that sun worship only existed during the time of the writings in the previous example.
OK, I think I made my point. :)
-
Patrick, I get what you are saying. I have heard a convincing presentation that flint and igneous maces that had hourglass constrictions were crafted to emulate bannerstones. The sketch below was of a mace found on a grave in SE Missouri at a Mississippian site. The maces were from the mound building eras (Woodland & Mississippian) and the bannerstones from the earlier Archaic period. Although atlatl and bannerstone use was diminished by introduction and subsequent use of the bow, one of two things happened. The use of bannerstones went on longer than we can observe, OR the concept associated with them traveled on when the use of the object did not.
All of that is valid stuff that has to be considered.
I have to admit I am puzzled by the bilobed arrow thing. Those items look odd and impractical to my 21st century eyes. But they obviously had some importance to be crafted and depicted numerous times. that copper example you shared is ornate to be sure. Making that was time consuming. They hammered the copper out, annealed, hammered some more, annealed again, and so on. Eventually, they scored and broke off the parts that needed to be removed to make their shapes. Labor intensive and precise work. I have done enough to convince myself they were artisans in their own right.
Cultural context is what really impedes our understanding on these objects that lack obvious modern counterparts. Fascinating.
Nice thread.
-
The maces are definitely an interesting part of the "costume". It's hard to know what they represent because they don't really look like anything. Maybe they were made to look like "nothing" on purpose? In any case, they look a lot more like a plant (flower or bud) than an atlatl or bannerstone or both together.
The bow and arrow in the Americas was developed somewhere in the range of 100 to 700 AD according to most accounts. The winged bannerstones stopped being made by around 1000 BC..?. This subject has been beaten to death, but I still don't see how the bow and arrow has anything to do with the loss of winged bannerstones. I might be missing something but 1000 years is REALLY far for the winged bannerstone people to see into the future and stop making winged bannerstones for atlatls because of the "new" technology. There has to be some other explanation... or maybe I'm missing something.
I think the winged bannerstones declined in use as copper became more important and more available as a material for the manufacture of ceremonial objects.
Other types of drilled bannerstones are also an interesting topic. They are weird, in my opinion, but look a lot more durable and non-ceremonial that the winged variety. I could spend more time researching all this but I'm getting overwhelmed. I'm getting old. So, I'm going to wait for someone to criticize me before I do more research. :P
(oh yeah, and thanks for being such a good person to argue with) ;)
-
I'm in the process of reading some books by Michael and Kathleen Gear that are telling about the time de Soto came into Florida, between, 1539 - 1543. The local Natives wore copper hair pieces and one carried a copper mace that seemed to be fashioned like what you posted above, Patrick. Very interesting stuff.
-
Sounds interesting. Any descriptions of the hair pieces? :)
-
Here is a photo of a copper bannerstone that I got off of arrowheadology. I need to track down the source and also need to see of there are other items like this.
---http://www.arrowheadology.com/forums/arrowheads-indian-artifacts/14150-show-me-your-copper.html
-
Here's another picture of a copper bannerstone (the same one?) but I still don't know where it was found....
---http://arrowheads.com/index.php/forums/what-did-i-find/57809-copper-arrowhead-or-spearhead
-
They actually called the hair pieces "turkey tails". There was mention of the copper being hammered out and the design cut out but no description of their methods.
-
That copper bannerstone is super cool. I had no idea they made those!
I did some digging in my resources. Although archery is cited to arrive roughly 2,000 years ago here in Missouri, some more specific sources estimate it at 600 -800 a.d. And another put it around 300-450 a.d. What was interesting was the attempts to weigh and measure known arrow points and known atlatl dart points then use the matrix to determine what early woodland points were. What they found was the statistics were able to sort some of the points but not all. ;)
I admit that I favor the "archery supplanted atlatls" concept. I also am convinced that bannerstones were used with atlalts. however, I must concede that there are some holes that puzzle me. If archery was introduced slightly after the beginning of the woodland period, then why didn't bannerstone production continue into the woodland period and decline gradually? I am certain that some native Americans continued using atlatls even after bows were introduced. One of De Soto's men (after De Soto died) made reference to being attacked by a native with a spear and described it as as something launched by an atlatl. This took place on the lower Mississippi River. It is the only historic reference to use of the atlatl in eastern North America. Patrick if you hadn't brought up this topic I would never had dug around to find that. Thanks for that.
It is not a huge stretch to me for archery to slowly supplant atlatls. So why aren't any bannerstones found in the woodland period? I assert that having scoured my sources for any reference to bannerstones in the woodland or Mississippian periods is lacking. I certainly concede that just because we don't find something doesn't mean it was not there. However, mound building culture has been a long standing fascination with archeologists. I think we have a pretty good idea of the sorts of things they procured and produced. Bannerstones were not among them.
So why? If they were so important for atlatl use then why stop making them? Bar weights were used with atlatls too. Their use stopped into the woodland period as well.
Why why why.
I have found more gorget examples with bilobed arrow designs for the Mississippian period but none for the woodland period. . . As of yet. I have also found clear examples of marine shells being made into cups and beads in the archaic period but no engraved shell gorgets in the archaic. Also no copper plates earlier than the woodland period. This has given me new excuses to dig into old books and articles. It has been a rainy day here with nothing I would rather do. Thanks for the motivation and friendly discussion.
Ajh
To quote the mad hatter, "curiouser and curiouser."
-
This is getting off the subject slightly but I think we should explore the "archery supplanted atlatls" concept. I have my own ideas on this. A rare occurrence, I admit. (yeah right) :)
Anyway, it is assumed that the bow and arrow became the favored technology after 100 AD and the atlatl was used less and less after that point. And no one would argue that bows were used next to atlatls for a long time until atlatls eventually disappeared in most areas. I agree with these assumptions... but not in the way you may think.
I agree that atlatls disappeared over time but NOT because of the invention of the bow. Atlatls became less favored because of changes to the ARROWS. It is my opinion that arrows became smaller over time and, therefore, more suited to being fired by bows. In addition, I believe that the bow is MUCH older than 2000 years in the new world! This is were I disagree with archaeologists.
But if we look to the Amazon Indians, we see that they use HUGE arrows that are fired by bows. Some are 75" long! What does this tell us? Does it contract the idea that bows were invented for shooting small arrows? No. I believe it tells us that bows are more versatile than atlatls and were probably used further back in time than most people assume.
We all know that atlatls cannot fire small arrows as effectively as bows. When the arrow size decreases, the use of atlatls decreases. That's the point I'm trying to make.
In conclusion, I believe that weights were used with atlatls... just not the "fancy" drilled bannerstones. And why are bannerstones not found in the woodland period in the East? Easy. They were using bows. Just like the Amazon Indians. Or the bannerstones were not used for atlatls at all... and were replaced by other materials like copper.
(feel free to argue) ;D
-
The more I mess with those bows, I have two originals, I cannot understand why they shot those long arrows unless they were used primarily for fishing. They do not shoot very far with those large arrows. And there have been several copper ornaments found in the Mounds in Florida. I've seen some pretty ornate pieces in private collections that are better then what the Museum has. Try researching artifacts that Ripley Bullen found, like Crystal River Mound site, Weeki Wachee, Marco Island, Maximo Point for a few.
-
Patrick, your point is well made about bows being older. I agree that our modern understanding of bows and where the technology ended up is not necessarily where it started in terms of size and function. That is a new thought to me. It makes sense though. Most of what archeologists are basing their theories on is stone points. That is their limitation. They have to have material to study. it makes sense in terms of atlatl function too. Atlatls aren't exclusively the same all across the continent or the world. for example, some flex and some don't. Woomera in Australia are painfully long and stiff due to their dual use a club for dispatching game. But you wouldn't really think of a basket maker atlatl from the desert southwest in the same way.
In terms of drilled bannerstones and bar weights, sites like Indian Knoll and Chiggerville Kentucky clearly show antler atlatl hooks in direct association with bar weights and drilled bannerstones. The soil conditions permitted a rare preservation of the antler materiel which gives us precious insight. 31 of the bannerstone were found along with antler atlatl hooks at Indian Knoll alone. Archeology has its limits, but context is invaluable in terms of understanding what they were indeed associated. In the cases where the bannerstone was not broken on purpose. The hooks are very close to the bannerstone with only a few centimeters of distance between.
Just for the record i am not an archeologist. I am however an ecologist.
That is another part of the puzzle. The climate and ecosystem responses may be a factor too. We have to consider physics and physical practicality (what could they be used for?) in what culture (what did they mean to those people?) and in what environment (was the use impacted by the surroundings or the prey?)
Consider this. Bannerstone use started in the early Archaic, then grew toward the late Archaic where they started to decline until the start of the Woodland Period. Here in Missouri the Archaic period was warming up from the Ice Age. Oak/hickory forest invaded. As the Archaic progressed the climate got hotter and much drier. as a result Missouri and surround area saw a huge uptick in prairie. As the Archaic period turned into the Woodland things cooled a bit and got wetter. Oak hickory became more common again. In fact things began to look a lot like they do today.
I am just asking questions here: I assume bannerstones served some purpose to the hunter. Would a prairie be a harsher environment to make a living in? Was hunting harder? Game scarcer? Was an edge needed? If so then perhaps climate is a factor. But maybe not. These are thought exercises. I could be way off.
One last thing that I will throw in here is the cultural shift that took place between the Archaic and Woodland periods. The Archaic period was characterized by semi-nomadism (or at least a seasonal camp rotation) where a permanent settlement seldom existed. Basketry was common, they cooked with clay stones called poverty point objects to heat water, hunted, fished and gathered their food. Winters were the harshest part of the year that had to be survived. Personal belonging were limited due to travel.
The Woodland period saw the introduction of agriculture and permanent settlements. Seasonal camps existed but with a nucleus to a central settlement. A non-nomadic lifestyle permitted accumulation of goods and heavier, less sturdy items like pottery. The arts expanded and so on. Less importance was placed on hunting and gathering although they clearly continued. Winter was easier to endure due to the food surplus agriculture provides. It just meant more work than hunting and gathering. Culturally this was a huge shift in how things work. What impact did this have on hunting tools or tools of any type. There was a lot of fallout from this shift. What made the cut and what didn't? We may never fully understand.
All I know is there are too many puzzle pieces missing form me to get too dogmatic. If i come across as though I am right and everyone else i wrong, that is not my position at all. I simply want to state the picture as I see it, be open to the ideas of others and enjoy the study and discussion.
Very few people where I live would ever discuss this topic at the level we are right now. Ya'll are awesome. 8) 8) 8)
-
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).
-
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.
-
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)
-
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.
-
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!
-
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?
-
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
-
Glad to see the interest in these amazing artifacts.
double post >:D
Thanks Zuma
-
Here's another little comment for the mix: >:D
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.
-
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.
-
I've been reading so much lately that I forget where I'm seeing things. :o
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?
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
Yeah, I noticed that there are different numbers on the Wikipedia article as well. I don't know who's numbers are correct or what they are looking at.
How many total burials did Webb report? With and without atlatl components? And how many projectile points?
-
I am glad to see numbers and locations being posted.
I am not surprised about the nature of the tally and the pure pandemonium
created by the folks in this dubious profession.
In the Bannerstone Discussion thread I posted my personal finds of drilled stone.
In my opinion, from my 6.000 plus piece artifact collection, rare is-- one bola stone, one bell pestle, two Paleo points, three large cylindrical pestles, four gorgets, five axes, six celts, and at least, eight bannerstones. My friends personal found bannerstones are many. All found in village sites or rockshelters in western NJ and eastern PA. Rare needs to be quantified somehow.
No matter, the master of these stones were the dudes that drilled them.. This aspect can not be ignored.
Zuma :D
-
Yeah, I noticed that there are different numbers on the Wikipedia article as well. I don't know who's numbers are correct or what they are looking at.
How many total burials did Webb report? With and without atlatl components? And how many projectile points?
From the book Atlatls and Bannerstones: Excavations at Indian Knoll by William Webb, 1946. It looks like he had 880 burials. I have attached a page that has some break down of the burials.
Stats
• 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.
In the burials less than 4% of them have a stone or shell atlatl weight. So they didn't go into the grave with everyone.
I will have to do some reading to see about bar weights. he may or may not have tabulated that information. Work and family life is cranking back up so i may be a little while before I can run that down.
Side note: I also uncovered something that makes me rethink things a bit. Antler atlatl hooks, antler handles, stone bannerstones, and atlatl hooks associated with shell weights are associated with both male and female burials. That is not what I would have expected. Pondering required.
-
If the atlatl items are associated with male AND female burials, it would be interesting to see how many are associated ONLY with females. And it looks like some of them were buried together in the same grave. The percentages for each gender (and together) would be useful info.
It's also very interesting to see a 3 to 1 ratio in favor of bannerstones NOT being buried with people.
Do you know how many were "winged" type bannerstones, if any?
-
:) ;) :D ;D 8) Good stuff guys. I like this approach.
I wish I could find something to contribute.
Zuma
-
I'm going to paste this report title here so I don't loose it. I'll try to find a copy.
University of Kentucky Reports in Anthropology and Archaeology Vol. IV, No. 3, part 1.
Link to amazon books by William S. Webb:
---http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=dp_byline_sr_book_1?ie=UTF8&field-author=William+S.+Webb&search-alias=books&text=William+S.+Webb&sort=relevancerank
-
My wife might have an in to get some of these papers - she's working on her masters now, looking at neolithic beads, but she may be able to access some of these, or perhaps have some contacts to put you guys on the right trail. I'll ask her when I get home tonight and let you know.
-
If the atlatl items are associated with male AND female burials, it would be interesting to see how many are associated ONLY with females. And it looks like some of them were buried together in the same grave. The percentages for each gender (and together) would be useful info.
It's also very interesting to see a 3 to 1 ratio in favor of bannerstones NOT being buried with people.
Do you know how many were "winged" type bannerstones, if any?
C.B. Moore 1915 Indian Knoll Excavation: Moore examined 298 graves and found 32 of them had atlatl parts in them. He didn’t however, call them atlatl parts. He called them “net spacers” or "sizers" and “needles”. One of them was a segmented shell “spacer”. Webb produced a table with these grave/ atlatl finds and I have provided it below. Webb included this table on page 321 of his report entitled Atlatls and Bannerstones: Excavations at Indian Knoll Kentucky, 1946 as part of his report.
The atlatl parts were reported as 5 with adult males, 3 with adult females, 4 with adults (gender ?) 7 with children and 13 with adults where age and gender was undetermined.
5 of the bannerstones and antler hooks were directly aligned.
I saw a note in Webb’s publication that said Moore sent 66 skeletons and associated grave goods to the National Museum. He didn’t send the whole dig or all that he found. I wonder if this was the source of the differing numbers of bannerstones? It will take some more obscure reading to get to the bottom of that one.
W.S. Webb 1940s Indian Knoll Excavation: Later in the 1940s as part of the WPA program Webb provided a report on 880 additional burials on the Indian Knoll site. He reported 44 burials with associated atlatl parts. Webb summarized Moore’s’ findings in a table I have scanned and provided below. He included this table on page 325 & 326 of his report entitled Atlatls and Bannerstones: Excavations at Indian Knoll Kentucky, which is where I got the numbers previously.
I have scanned two pages from that report that summarizes information associated with those 44 burials.
So for the Indian Knoll site: if you include Moore’s 1915 report and Webb’s 1946 report there were 1178 graves examined, and a total of 76 graves with atlatls buried with them. That is roughly 6% of the burials had atlatls in some form or fashion.
I also found it interesting that 275 of the 880 burials documented in Webb’s work, had any non-decomposed grave goods (shell, copper, bone, antler, stone). I am certain that less decay resistant materials (wood, fabric, cordage, etc.) were also placed in the graves and just succumb to the elements.
On Webb’s work roughly ¼ of the graves with atlatls were with females. The rest were male.
For Moore’s work only 8 of the 32 had gender determination. 3 female and 5 male.
Other fun facts:
Webb found lots of projectile points. Most were in general excavation with smaller amounts found in burials.
• Stemmed points (736 general exc./ 23 in burial)
• Corner notched 1917/28
• Side notched 2913/4
• Short stemmed 27/3
• Broken points 1777/7
Another fun fact, I saw a few whelk shell gorgets listed in the finds. That was a surprise too. Sad part is I read this publication several years back but didn’t pick up on that. This whole general discussion has caused me to read more closely and it was been immensely rewarding.
-
Very interesting to see that some of the atlatl weights were intentionally broken. I wonder how they determined that.
-
Very interesting to see that some of the atlatl weights were intentionally broken. I wonder how they determined that.
I wondered that too. I wondered if the stones were too deep for freeze/ thaw effects. i could see water freezing in the drilled section, expanding and bursting the stone apart. But if they were too deep to freeze what else would cause the damage?
-
They may be too deep now, but when they were first buried, some graves were very shallow. I think I read that some bodies were placed on the ground and then covered with burned stones and midden debris.
-
I found an atlatl hunting "chart" that lists the responses from various states on hunting with an atlatl. There's no "Atlatl" section so I'll post it here. Don't know the year this was made, though.
---http://www.thudscave.com/petroglyphs/atlatlstatelaws.htm
-
What was the population estimate for the Indian Knoll site and for how long? This would give some insight as to how common they were among the population.
-
The average age of excavated materials is 5302 years (BP, I assume) according to The reassessment of the age and sex of the Indian Knoll skeletal population: Demographic and methodological aspects by Johnston & Snow.
I'll look for the total population estimate and duration of occupation pertaining to the burials.
---http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.1330190304/abstract;jsessionid=EF601BC2B7F3DAC913FDBF0D05737535.f01t03
-
OK, I skimmed though a copy of Mortuary Behavior and Social Organization at Indian Knoll and Dickson Mounds by Nan. A. Rothschild. (I opened an account at JSTOR)
Basically, the entire population number is considered a "missing" component of the research. But it is assumed that Indian Knoll contains enough burials to provide the correct percentages of the population as a whole. In other words, the percentages of males, females, and children are the same for the buried people as they were for the entire population. And that includes average ages also, which was about 18 or 19 years old by one account (can't remember).
-
18 or 19 years??? Kind of takes the romance out of primitive living, doesn't it? :( :(
-
Very strange reports >:D
Out of coureosity do they mention anything about drills, or who drilled all those objects?
Any workshops etc.?
Thanks, Zuma
-
Zuma, I looked through the data in the Rothschild report and didn't find a single mention of a drill in the many artifacts found. They may have been classified under "projectile points" assuming they used stone drills.
Weren't these bannerstones drilled with rivercane and sand anyway? The rivercane wouldn't show up in the burials because of decomposition, I assume.
-
Showed this thread to my wife, she's got more questions than answers right now. She's looking through some of the links you guys have provided in this thread and the other over in Primitive Skills that Zuma started. Is there a good accounting for what was found in each grave?
Do any of you know the range in which banner stones- particularly the winged variety were found?
For my part- I'm not convinced that WINGED banner stones were used on atlatls yet, but I haven't read nearly as much of this stuff as you guys. I definitely think that the accountings and pictures that swampy has provided show that different shapes of banner stones were used as weights on shafts of atlatls. My question would be why do this instead of tying them on or mounting some other way.
Additionally- what constitutes a bannerstone? It looks to me (again not well read on the subject) that the term is used to describe many different objects.
Still trying to convince my wife to start an account so she can throw her two cents in with out my mental filters getting in the way.
-
Carlston Annis Shell Mound - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(http://Carlston Annis Shell Mound - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
Beside 390 human bodies, the site produced the skeletons of 28 dogs that showed evidence of having been buried.[3]:272 Many of the bones at the site were substantially decomposed, so the painstaking osteological research undertaken at the comparable Indian Knoll site (15 OH 2) could not be repeated at Carlson Annis.[3]:274 Nevertheless, some information could be determined from certain bodies: ages ranged from infancy well into adulthood,[3]:284 more than half of the bodies (215) were accompanied by artifacts — of which 73% were matters of personal clothing, such as shell gorgets, beads, or hairpain. Studies of other sites in the region suggest that some resources were plentiful enough to permit populations to double approximately every thirty years; s[ Of the 4,000+ flint pieces found at the site, nearly half (1,997) were projectile points of various sorts, with corner-notched and long-shallow-notched shapes being the most common. Other types of flint stone tools included approximately 500 knives, 23 lithic cores, more than 500 drills, and approximately 1,000 scrapers.[3]:298 Artifacts of ground stone included almost fifty axes, seventy atlatl weights, more than one hundred mauls, more than one hundred sandstone discs, more than two hundred hammerstones, and nearly three hundred pestles.[3]:2Most of the antler pieces were projectile points or pieces of unknown purpose, while nearly all of the shells were discs that were being used as
Radiocarbon dating has suggested that some artifacts at Carlston Annis date back to 5424 BC, although most artifacts dated between 3200 and 1400 BC.[5]:4 Most of its projectile points clearly dated from the Archaic periodbeads.The numbers and types of non-human bones at the mound were typical of Archaic shell middens in the region,[3]:318 as was the number of antler pieces,[3]:318 although tools made of human bone were unusually numerous.[ No direct evidence of specific techniques was apparent from this excavation, but substantial circumstantial evidence was present.[3]:342 Because very few burials were accompanied by stone atlatls, it is believed that many individuals were also buried with wooden atlatls (comparable to modern Eskimo technology) that have not survived to the present.[3]:346 Comparison with Indian Knoll suggests that early inhabitants at Annis used all-wooden atlatls more commonly than the Indian Knoll people.
-
DC, the infant mortality rate and the mortality rate of children 1 - 4yrs was high. That sways the average to the young side.
Jackson, the term "bannerstone" includes all sorts of shapes, as you guessed. I have found few references for the pictures of the artifacts at Indian Knoll but they are in books that I have not purchased. If I can't find free sources for the pictures, I'll buy a couple books.... soon.
-
Weren't these bannerstones drilled with rivercane and sand anyway? The rivercane wouldn't show up in the burials because of decomposition, I assume.
River cane drilling experiments result in cores that look exactly like those found in archeological sites.
Credit where credit is due: I based these drawings off of photos taken by Larry Kinsella in his bannerstone drilling project. Look at Larry's informational Megalithics website for more details. http://flintknapper.com/GENICULATE.htm Thanks to Larry for his permission to use his images.
-
Do any of you know the range in which banner stones- particularly the winged variety were found?
below is a general distribution map of bannerstones. I ginned this map up in photoshop based on one in the book Bannerstones of the North American Indian. by Byron Knoblock. This book breaks down the myriad fo bannerstones into styles and maps them. Certain styles might be found exclusively in the upper Ohio River valley while another style would be over the Carolinas. But suffice it to say that a winged bannerstone occurred over almost every part of the range of drilled bannerstones.
-
DC, the infant mortality rate and the mortality rate of children 1 - 4yrs was high. That sways the average to the young side.
Jackson, the term "bannerstone" includes all sorts of shapes, as you guessed. I have found few references for the pictures of the artifacts at Indian Knoll but they are in books that I have not purchased. If I can't find free sources for the pictures, I'll buy a couple books.... soon.
Folks, below is a page out of Knoblock's book Bannerstones As you can see he focuses on the eastern North American area where drilled stones were used. He does not focus on bar weights of the east nor the stones attached to atlalts in the western North America.
The word bannerstone was coined because one of the early thoughts on their function was that they fit on a stick and served as a banner of some importance.
-
Is there a good accounting for what was found in each grave?
Do any of you know the range in which banner stones- particularly the winged variety were found?
My question would be why do this instead of tying them on or mounting some other way.
/quote]
Jackson, as for what is in the graves, Webb's 1946 account does a good job of at least listing and quantifying what was found in each of the 880 graves. it is more than I am wiling type out at length. Is there something in particular I can fish out for you?
Regarding your second question, I think you have struck upon a good one. yeah, why would they! This may rank up there with how many licks it takes to get to the center of a toostsie pop. The world may never know. :o
I wish I could tell you.
-
In regards to the "why would they" question - a running joke among my wife's class mates is anything they can't directly explain was used for ceremonial purposes. This makes reading through a lot of archaeological texts quite amusing as you can mentally replace 'ceremonial purposes' with 'we don't have a clue'. ;D
-
another geographic location with weights and atlatl spurs. http://paleoplanet69529.yuku.com/topic/60954/6000-year-old-Atlatls-from-the-SE#.VLCiBIFOKrU Also in Kentucky
Oh and some petroglyphs from Jeffers Petroglyphs Historic Site, Minnesota, and totally in the range of bannerstone creation and use. See what you think.
site information: http://sites.mnhs.org/historic-sites/jeffers-petroglyphs
-
In regards to the "why would they" question - a running joke among my wife's class mates is anything they can't directly explain was used for ceremonial purposes. This makes reading through a lot of archaeological texts quite amusing as you can mentally replace 'ceremonial purposes' with 'we don't have a clue'. ;D
I've always suspected that :) There is just too much "ceremonial" stuff.
-
This caught my attention in a big way. The image below is an artistic rendition of a broken section of a whelk shell engraving found in a mound at Spiro OK. The date is attributed to 1200 AD. What does that look like to you?
It was depicted in the book Phillips, Philip and Brown, James A. , Pre-Columbian Shell Engravings from the Craig Mound at Spiro, Oklahoma. Vol. I, Peabody Museum Press. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology. Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, 1978. Plate 9, Figure 12. I am going to have to save up my "allowance" to afford this book. I enjoy the shell art stuff anyway; now I have a new reason to get it and learn more.
If that is a two hole atlatl like I think it is, then that would be evidence that the atlatl was indeed a known object well into the Mississippian period. Furthermore, if that is a weight on that atlatl (perhaps is and perhaps it isn't), then atlatl weights were a known item into the Mississippian period too. That looks like a bar weight strapped to a smaller shaft. I wondered how those bar weights would have looked on an atlatl. This may be a clue - if it is indeed an atlatl depiction.
Take a look and make up your own mind. This really makes me think.
-
Wish we could see the whole thing. Definitely looks like an atlatl !
Three possibilities: It's an atlatl with a weight attached, it's a game stick used to throw something other than a dart, or a head scratcher for those hard-to-reach areas under your war bonnet. ;D ;D
-
Why would a parent name their child Phillip Phillips?
-
Why would a parent name their child Phillip Phillips?
i knew a guy named Kelley Scott Kelley. :o Same thought occurs.
I did some reading in The Petroglyphs and Pictographs of Missouri by C. Diaz-granados and J.R. Duncan 2000 Univ. of Alabama Press, and found these two depictions.
One is an atlatlist just for fun. The other may very well be an atlatl with three bannerstones on it. Make up your own mind.
-
Very interesting to see that some of the atlatl weights were intentionally broken. I wonder how they determined that.
I did some reading last night and ran across several instances where the bannerstone was in diverse parts of the grave. In other words, one piece near the head, but the other near the feet. This shows separation that would not be explained by the deterioration process or freeze/thaw. Some one had to break it and then place it in the grave.
-
Very interesting. The questions I would have would be: How was the person buried? In what position? Some were buried upright, if I remember correctly. That is, in a "squatting" position and not lying down. If the body became "squished" over time, then the two parts may have become separated. If the body was originally buried laying down, it would be harder to account for the separation. The other question would be, are there any other artifacts present that were broken and NOT separated? If the bannerstone was the only item that was separated, then yeah, it would appear that the break was intentional.
-
Very interesting. The questions I would have would be: How was the person buried? In what position? Some were buried upright, if I remember correctly. That is, in a "squatting" position and not lying down. If the body became "squished" over time, then the two parts may have become separated. If the body was originally buried laying down, it would be harder to account for the separation. The other question would be, are there any other artifacts present that were broken and NOT separated? If the bannerstone was the only item that was separated, then yeah, it would appear that the break was intentional.
I think I have an answer on your first question. For the graves where broken bannerstones were reported, the bodies were largely laid out like they were "sleeping" (my word for expressing that). I can't answer your second question about other artifacts being broken. I will have to read some more.
-
At first with all the burial descriptions I thought this great mound area was similar to
the earthen mounds intentionally built. But their are just refruse middens, discarded
shells piled up along the river bank. I wonder if the minerals from the shells is what
preserved the bones?
Zuma
-
Let me run another idea by you guys, Do you think that the banner stone could have made the atlatl a multi-tool? Say a heavy club, too?
-
Perhaps. Some could while others could not. Some of the material used is mildly breakable from the get go. Others have painfully low amounts of mass around the drilled hole. Again, breakage would be imminent.
Some would be tough enough, but not enough of them, IMO, to support the notion.
I like the out of the box thinking though.
-
That just came to mind while looking at the illustrations above.
-
Stopped by a museum near my house the other day, snapped a couple of pictures of the two examples of banner stones they had there, as well as a ton of points. Soon as I can get them off my camera I will post them to add to the discussion here.
-
Awesome!
-
Here are the banner stones - sorry the pictures aren't very clear:
(http://i.imgur.com/WKTOc4p.jpg)
And this one:
(http://i.imgur.com/dfuh1BE.jpg)
-
Hmmm.. at first glance, those artifacts look unfinished. At worst, they are modern made. I'm a little suspicious because all the material seems to be similar. Don't mean to be a party pooper. Just my opinion.
-
I don't think I have a picture of the card that was on the display, but I can do some digging on it. I know a lot of what was there was made of Bayport chert, which is a local stone. All else fails I can go back to the museum this weekend. I wanted to get the name of the guy who manufactured the weapon replicas (which i neglected to take a picture of, too excited that I saw banner stones). They had a celt, spear, atlatl(no weight at all) and a dart. I'll post the other pictures I took in another thread, as they don't have relevance here. I am also near the university that set up the displays, so I can inquire as to their provenance.
EDIT: FYI, I thought a lot of the points looked unfinished myself, but I thought at the time that it might be bias from all the magical stuff that gets posted to the primitive skills and cavemen only boards.
-
Cool. :) Let us know what you find out.
Jackson, what area are you from? I could try and find pictures of artifacts for your area.
-
Saginaw/Bay City in Michigan. Right in the crook of the thumb.
-
Just thought I would bump this thread up with a video of a nice collection of bannerstones and such:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLvpR2ExFPw&feature=youtu.be
-
Here is a photo of a copper bannerstone that I got off of arrowheadology. I need to track down the source and also need to see of there are other items like this.
---http://www.arrowheadology.com/forums/arrowheads-indian-artifacts/14150-show-me-your-copper.html
Patrick,
I don't know if you found what you were looking for on this copper banner stone but I found some documentation on it.
In Byron Knoblick's 1939 book Bannerstones of the North American Indian he has two photos of the bannerstone, some back ground and some measurements. Page 323, 334-336 is the reference.
The banner is 5 inches wide and the blades are roughly 5 inches tall. The thickest part is about 5/8" thick with a 3/8 hole drilled. The report says 1/4" but I measured the full scale photo and the hole was 3/8. The rest of the banner is thin. It was discovered in Wisconsin and is thought to be the only example of its kind.
The image you posted looks just like the one pictured here. That right side has the same indentation or damage.
-
Bravo, Swampy,
I know we may have polar opposite ideas about bannerstones
but I always look forward to your informative posts.
What I am impressed by most is the last illustration.
That bannerstone/ bannercopper looks like it was balanced
on a diamond cutters scale.
Zuma
-
Wow, that's awesome! I got sidetracked and stopped pursuing the bannercopper.
-
Follow up on the copper bannerstone, it is housed at the Miluakee Public Museum. Here is an excerpt regarding the bannerstone on their website.
" This type of artifact is quite rare and few have been found throughout the Great Lakes. Because of their resemblance to stone examples, it is believed that these implements would have functioned as an atlatl weight, similar to banner stones of the same size and shape. This example (43402/11996) measures 13 x 12.5 x 1.6 centimeters and was discovered with a cache of 20 other copper artifacts in Fond du Lac, Wisconsin during the construction of a sewer trench in 1916"