Primitive Archer
Main Discussion Area => Bows => Topic started by: swamp monkey on November 14, 2010, 10:14:59 pm
-
The Mississippian mound builders of the eastern U.S. have always fascinated me. I replicate much of their art and technology as a personal challenge and for enjoyment. I would LOVE to make a mound builder inspired bow & arrow replica, and make some arrows to go with it. The Mound builders were active up until the 1300's AD. The problem with making this replica has a lot to do with climate. It rains a lot in their former territory and it is humid. Not much of the wooden artifacts survive in good shape. So to follow closely in there footsteps will take some imagination, some inspiration and a little detective work. We have a great idea of what raw materials were available in any given mound builder area, and we can perhaps take a cue from the historic natives. Tribes such as the Quapaw and Natchez are thought to be close descendants of mound building culture. In addition, I plan to use art depictions for a clue, make informed guesses on material choice (many wood types were likely used- much like historic natives and we modern bowyers), and ask for any insight any of you have on museum specimens, professional reports, or archery lore about natives thought to be descended from the Mississippians. Much of this is obscure and may be sitting there waiting to be used! I can only hope. I have mined the information I can for the past three years and would love to take the next step.
Arrow shaft, fletching, bow and string are all items I want to make some educated guesses on to make a replica. I have found some clues in Mississippian shell and gorget art. Posted below are some sketches from those items that seem to depict a bow and some arrows in what looks like a buffalo fish. I also did a sketch with my interpretation of what this bow and archer would look like based on the pictures. The bow depicted looks really deflexed like the bows of the Apache. That may be a stretch of interpretation considering this is my opinion based on two artistic depictions. It could also be artistic style so i may ignore defelxing the bow. The other reason for this is the Apache deflexed to make use of wood that was not super strong in tension. The Mississippians had some great bow woods available and were great craftsmen in many other areas. I feel safe in giving them benefit of the doubt when saying they were knowledgeable bowyers. I note the bands on the bows depicted. Painted bands perhaps? What about sinew bands like the Meare Heath bow in Europe? My bow will have some kind of bands. So what style, D bow? Pyramidal like the Osage tribe used? I am open to suggestions. More weight will be given if ideas are supported by some archeology or anthropology. logic works too. :)
I like the buffalo fish picture below, as it shows the fletching style very clearly. Cahokia style points were historically used in my area so that much is easy enough to figure. I will use cane for the shaft because many of the historic natives did this. While wood was likely used as well, I feel comfortable with surmising Mississippians used cane for shafts. Historic tribes with cane at their disposal used it plenty. This leaves me with sinew binding, hide glue/ pine pitch where there is not much need for interpretation. Cresting bands were likely individual, family or status expressions sot here was likely variety. If anyone has constructive suggestions or insight on any of this I welcome that.
I look forward to your comments!
-
Looks like a longbow with deflex tips. Its really cool that you are doing this, I was wondering about the missisipians myself about 3 weeks ago. Im sure you watched all the youtube films like myself but came short handed. I look forward to seeing your results goodluck!
-
i've never seen much on the mound builders but the Creek and Seminole in my area are said to be descendants of these people . the museum of native americans had these pics . halfeye found these for me and replicated the first pic out of ash. great shooting bow by the way
kolomoki mounds state park has several mounds and one big temple mound . and is about a mile up the creek from me. great artifacts in this area
-
http://moundville.ua.edu/
This isn't far from where I am now. I plan on making a trip there soon. I will see what I can find out for you. Nice to see someone following history to pursue our passion.
There is a man there named Butch Fuller who is Creek and may be helpful. I'll let him have a look at Ken and Rich's photo too.
Jeff.
-
great stuff. i realy like decorated bows,gives a person a chance to put more of his self into his work,not to mention indivision.
-
Ken, What were the handles like on those bows? bending or non-bending? I love the decoration. Is that an historic design or mound builder in that area?
-
you just do feel them bend.design is creek indian from national museum of native americans
-
Dang Swamp monkey...
More GOOD research.
It makes a fine read...And just put me in fact finding mode...There goes the honey-dos for the day ;D
Ron
-
Weapons
Bows and arrows were widely used in Indian warfare beginning in the Late Woodland or Early Mississippian Period.
Natchez Indian Warrior
Warriors used a thick D-shaped simple bow made from hickory, ash, or black locust that was fifty to sixty inches in length and had a pull weight of about fifty pounds. These bows could send arrows long distances and were typically used to shoot at enemy villages or units of warriors at a distance.
War clubs also came into significant use during the Mississippian Period. They were carved from a hardwood such as hickory and were usually about one-and-a-half to two feet long, although some may have reached three feet in length. There were several types, the most common form being the atassa, which was actually a wooden sword shaped like a pirate's cutlass.
Indian War Clubs
Other common types were the globe-headed club, which had a three-inch spherical knob at the end of a slightly curved handle, and the tomahawk, a stone axe head attached to a wooden handle.
Swamp Monkey
Found a little more info.
Ron
-
Good stuff! Jawge
-
Great post. Like your imagination. Many Apache bows were quite reflexed, not deflexed. They had quite good woods when combined with sinew. Mesquite, juniper and oak. As well as osage in the eastern range. The deflexed bows were further to the west. Seri, Mohave and Yuma. Where they made use of the weaker woods in the area, like willow and cottonwood
-
Swamp Monkey, is there any specific area or group of mound builders you are interested in? Although there isn't any way of knowing for sure, the Cahokia site being located in Illinois, probably would be more associated with the illiniwek speaking tribes to the east and north.
-
Last night I did some reading and found the mound building images of bows I was referencing were from Spiro Oklahoma. Then i began to wonder if bows were different between regions of mound builders. The pottery certainly had regional indicators and so did the gorgets. So I realized I might get slightly different bow designs from various mound building centers. hmmm. not really sure what to do with that one. I live in the Mississippi Valley so the Cahokian theme appeals to me but if i had good enough intel on other sites like in Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Ohio, or Oklahoma, that would all interest me as well. Making more than one bow does not bother me. ;D
I read a chapter in "Native American Bows" by T.M. Hamilton and he mentioned two things that got me to thinking. First he mentioned that all of the precontact bows in the eastern woodlands (I am including my portion of MO in that) average around 5 feet. That matches well with Ron's information and i concur. So I think I have bow length established to roughly chin height which for me is 63 inches. Second, Hamilton also references an unpublished find of a partial bow from Mounds Plantation Site in Caddo Parrish LA. The bow was dated to 1050-1070 AD. I know in MO that is consistent with Mississippian time period. The bow was reported to be Osage orange 66 inches long end to end, with a handle grip of 1 1/4" diameter. Hamilton reports one limb was decayed but the other showed it was circular in cross section at center limb and although the bow was distorted by preservation it looked like a simple D bow with recurved tips. Not sure what to do with the cross section report. But if the handle is 1 1/4" wide and the bow is a D bow then I have some handle info to work with. I wonder how many other obscure reports of bows are out there, that if they were all pooled we would have a glimpse! That gets me fired up.
Lastly, there is on display at Cahokia Mounds Archeological park in IL the remains of a bow found along a burial in Mound 72. The bow is in pieces and badly decayed. However, from what I could gather peering through Plexiglas the bow was ring backed. I wonder if I could find a detailed report on it like what Hamilton provided. . . hmmm.
Oh and thanks for the Apache clarification. Good information folks!
-
hey fellas
Nothin to do with bows...but found this interesting. Googled "oklahoma mound builders" and found this....
OKLAHOMA: Still another amazing discovery was made in Oklahoma, where another stele was found which contained references to the gods Baal and Ra, with an
inscription which was “an extract from the Hymn to the Aton by Pharaoh Akhnaton.� Although the dating of Akhnation is
purported to be in the 13th century B.C., new Egyptian dynastic dating methods indicate he was much closer to 800 B.C. It is believed that Akhnaton was Solomon.
This Oklahoma stele is written in Iberian-Punic, a language descended from Phoenician-Hebrew, and Barry Fell declares that it is “scarcely older than 800 B.C.â
€� (see Collins, p.212, Fell, America B.C., p.159).
Evidence suggests mound builders of North American placed Temples at locations that form an interlocking grid matrix producing geometric patterns in the shape of
five pointed stars. These Mound Builders were the unknown or I should say now forgotten forces that influenced the development of the Native Americans. The later
Indian burial mounds of North America could have been built over pre-existing remnants of a long lost knowledge.
This has been the case of most conquering cultures throughout the ages. Ancient North American mounds stand unarguably before humanity challenging all to
accept the simplicity of their achievements. Accurately mapping the Americas, the mound builders placed Temples at locations that form interlocking grids. By
connecting the dots of these ancient Indian burial mound sites, the map begins to reveal an organized grid. The mounds produce geometric patterns in the shape of
five pointed stars. Uncovering the great mysteries of the Mounds and the site grids may be the the greatest discovery of the millennia .
The belief of a vanished raced dominated popular and scientific discussions of the origins of the mounds. Although scholars were trying to push the theories of
American Indians as the builders of the mounds, many people refused to believe this 'new' theory and it wasn't until
our recent time of in the mid-nineteenth century did the 'new' theory become accepted. Today only a few even know of this past belief. It was Albert Gallatin, founder
of the American Ethnological Society of New York and Wisconsin naturalist that pushed this unpopular position.
However, Caleb Atwater published Description of the Antiquities in the State of Ohio and other Western States (1820) and advanced the idea that the mounds were
built by a culture much more advanced than the American Indians. Josiah Priest, 'Antiquities and Discoveries of the West',
argued that the mounds were built by the Lost Tribes of Israel, wandering Egyptians, Greeks and other groups unassociated with the American Indian. William
Pidgeon's ' Tradition of De-Coo-Dah' (1858) , states that the De-Coo-Dah told him of an ancient race of mound building people who were much more numerous
than the present Indians.
Maybe there were a few mollies a little further down. Anyway thought you might like the read
Ron
-
Good info!
Russ
-
I flew over this thread. I`ll read it completely next!
Very interesting what I saw for the moment!
Thanks
Uwe
-
Has anyone worked with a Sudbury design? I made one that I eventually traded for a bow gig (same investment of time so it was an equal trade). The tips bent on it more than the mid limbs. Look at those Spiro engravings and tell me what you think about those being Sudbury. Keep in mind the art style is very representational and proportions are not exact. I am trying to reconcile the bow profile with deflexed tips. There was no need to do that with the woods available to OK region natives. Speculation can creep in here but the bottom line is either they did it or it is just artistic license. The "canvas" was a whelk shell and space was important. An idea for a bow was all you needed. I have actually seen the artifact with the warrior and there was a mirror image warrior on the flip side so space was an issue.
Also I have been pondering that round cross section from the Mississippian bow from LA. Why would a D bow have a rounded cross section on the mid limb? Could some rot have set in on that limb obscuring the real shape? Any thoughts?
-
I dont claim to be an expert, but those pictures look an awfull lot like some whip tillered bows ive seen.
-
I've had some time in the woods over the past week and that gives a man time to think. I believe I am going to go out on a limb and make a bow inspired loosely by the Spiro shell engravings. That way when more information comes to light on some other areas I will look into those. Likely the artists who drew the bows did not make the bows. So the amount of information will be limited. Here is what I feel comfortable with. The bow is clearly a long bow so I will make the bow roughly 5 feet long (63" ENE). The image shows a bow with pointed limbs, so the bow tapered as it moved away from the grip. The taper in both shell images is gentle so flare outs are graceful and perhaps not worth documenting with further detail. I may make the handle thicker so it barely bends if any. If you look at a Sudbury design it really could be interpreted in its simplest form like these drawings depict. That is my interpretation in light of little other evidence. I cannot see accomplished artisans making a sapling bow. It does not fit considering the effort Woodland and Mississippian era natives put into their crafts. Not trying to read too much into it - I simply want to make a bow inspired by the mound builders. I also see bands around the limb which could either be sinew bands or paint. I will go with sinew for no other reason than preference. I intend fully to use my artistic license when decorating the bow with appropriate mound builder images. ;) If anyone has reason to make other suggestions I am open to them. I am trying to make a bow that loosely fits those images.
This will not be a replica, rather it will be a mound building people inspired bow. If other information comes to light from other history minded bowyers I will gladly take that into consideration and make another bow using that information. ;D I appreciate the input.
-
Well put Swamp monkey...
Keep that fire burning inside.
What ever you come up with replica or not, I'm sure it will be something you will, and us as well, be proud of!
God Bless
Ron
-
Are you going to use ash, osage orange, hickory or black locust?
-
Swamp Monkey, I don't know if it would be any help, but the anthropology/history dept. on the M.U. campus is supposed to have a very good collection of many older native bows. I've only seen a few pics and read about them--would love to stop in view them myself sometime if possible.
-
I have been pondering wood choice as well.
An Osage D bow like the one referenced in LA sounds appropriate. I just don't know what to do with that report of a round cross section. That does not make sense to me unless he was saying the back was rounded. That would make sense with Bois'Darc. D bows can be round in cross section but a bow that size out of hedge is more like an English long bow not a Aboriginal flat bow -wrong mechanics unless they were still working out the "rules of bowyering" so to speak. I kind of doubt that considering how well Mississippians made so many other items found in the archeological record. These people were artisans capable of great function and appearance. Using the wrong design for North American woods does not feel right or seem logical. I like a challenge but hate to waste a good piece of hedge on misinterpreting someone else's observations.
For the Spiro inspired bow I was thinking about a white wood even though Osage was clearly on the menu for that area at that time. Perhaps Hickory - I do have stave begging to be brought into service. I like the idea of white wood bow that has Mississippian drawings on the back - kind of like a canvas.
Other woods can be used if other designs crop up.
BTW. Allely and Hamm's Encyclopedia of NA Bows, Arrows and Quivers has a Pre-columbian D bow from somewhere in Texas. Nearly 76 inches long (wow!). It was found in a cave near Packsaddle Mountain. Gotta Google map that one. It would be really cool if that turned out to be near the Oklahoma area and thus was a mound building culture that made it.
I plan to keep digging.
-
Swamp Monkey, I don't know if it would be any help, but the anthropology/history dept. on the M.U. campus is supposed to have a very good collection of many older native bows. I've only seen a few pics and read about them--would love to stop in view them myself sometime if possible.
If you could find anything Pre-Columbian that is in the Mound builder territory I would appreciate ANY information that you can glean. That would be like being handed an immaculate stave of Bois D'arc! However, I suspect reports on badly decomposed bows to be the best source of info. Call me a reluctant enthusiast. Regardless, I really appreciate your interest and any help you can dig up. Thanks in advance. I look forward to what you uncover.
-
BTW. Allely and Hamm's Encyclopedia of NA Bows, Arrows and Quivers has a Pre-columbian D bow from somewhere in Texas. Nearly 76 inches long (wow!). It was found in a cave near Packsaddle Mountain. Gotta Google map that one. It would be really cool if that turned out to be near the Oklahoma area and thus was a mound building culture that made it.
Google map shows this to be near the Big Bend NP and the closer to the Rio Grande than Oklahoma. Not exactly mound builder stomping ground, but it is still a cool bow! Another great project and I love the idea of using Pecan (see the reference). So many bows - so little time!
-
Good luck with the project. Keep us updated on it. The bows look like the bows of the Mojave indians. They had that "backwards" style. ;)
Wayne
-
Swamp Monkey, I don't know if it would be any help, but the anthropology/history dept. on the M.U. campus is supposed to have a very good collection of many older native bows. I've only seen a few pics and read about them--would love to stop in view them myself sometime if possible.
Last summer I visited the Grayson Collection at MU. It is a marvelous collection. I saw and measured a wide variety of North American Indian bows, arrows and quivers. Unfortunately pre-Columbian/ mound builder bows are nonexistent.
Since that time I found another whelk incised image of an archer. This one came form the Spiro area too. I know some time has passed since I last posted on this, but I was reading through Jackcrafty's double curve bow thread ( http://www.primitivearcher.com/smf/index.php/topic,9076.0.html ) in the how to and build along section. In there he had images of his bows and some historic bows. Some were Blackfeet and one was Apache. I am not saying the mound builders passed their knowledge along to the Blackfeet and Apache but the bows look like what was inscribed on the whelk shells.
Each one looks deflexed on the tips, and that still puzzles me as to why do that to a bow. Was that their way of reducing mass?
I am also reluctant to read too much into those shell engravings. Perspective and size relationships were not something the artists were overly burdened with. That said, I see a pattern and it is what I have to operate with. More food for thought. Gimme your thoughts.
Well it just so happens I have a piece of Osage that is BEGGING me pick this notion back up. SO . . . I will. I am going to think about an Osage double curve with sinew bands. No promises on when I can post more but hey, I waited three years to get back on this . . . ;) :P
cheers.
-
Swamp Monkey, I've been pondering what would be the practical reason to have deflexed tip? From the stored energy aspect I see none. But, what of the practical, value I wondered. This is what I came up with: The bow would never have to be unstrung because there would be little to no pressure on the wood. If you were attacked in the middle of the night, you wouldn't have to string your bow before you could engage the enemy.
I know next to nothing of this culture. It just my ponderings.
-
Maybe its not deflexed but rather whip tillered.
Grady
-
Hedge, someone suggested that on Jackcrafty's thread. It might have been you, I don't recall. Any how it makes sense to me. I attended an archeology conference recently (nerdy hobby type thing to do) and they mentioned that the lightning whelk shell cups were associated with warriors drinking the black drink before and after war. now if the cups are associated with war rituals, then maybe those are warriors with their "ever ready" bows on the cup, and your suggestion would be plausible.
Autologus, Good thought! Let's say that is the case; so what would be the benefit to whip tillering? I am asking because I don't know.
-
Interesting post, so good that now I have to plan a field trip. :) Although I spent the first 22 years of my life just a few miles east of the Mississippi River in west/central Illinois and now live in n/e Illinois, I have never been to Cahokia Mounds. Gotta get my butt over there.
Would be real interested to see how the bow you make ends up Swamp Monkey.
-
Would the bows of people who lived in what is modern day Mississippi look similar?
-
Swamp Monkey,
I think you have a pretty good perspective on your bow project. I studied archaeology last semester at Murray State University under Dr. Anthony Ortmann, who conducts investigations at Poverty Point mound in Louisiana.
From that study, it is clear that you are correct in saying that few artifacts in the form of bows or arrows have been found from the Mississippian culture, and those were rotted fragments.
The Mississippian culture had turned to maize (corn), beans, and fish for the great majority of their sustenance. Hunting and warfare were apparently a small part of their lives.
From other depictions of archery and archery equipment across many cultures, it seems that, as you said, the artists who recorded the the equipment were not the ones who made it and used it. Greek and Roman art is particularly inaccurate.
I have had a lifelong interest in archaeology, and after taking my class last spring, I conclude that our understanding of prehistoric cultures is based about 10 percent on recovered artifacts and 90 percent on conjecture.
The input way up thread about the stele found in Oklahoma goes beyond conjecture into fanciful fiction. (I would like to know the source of the quoted material.)
So I am certain you are right in your summary: "This will not be a replica, rather it will be a mound building people inspired bow."
A very fascinating culture. I hope to study it more myself.
Jim Davis
-
Good question perkinator. I am not the best person to answer that fully. I will say that many historic tribes can trace their roots back to mound builders. So it would make sense that bows of the Osage, Quapaw, Fox, Sauk, and Missouri would have similarities with their ancestors.
What I find interesting as you look at the various mound building sites across the u.s. There is some individuality for each. I expect many things would have had regional flair like that. So as I look at bows, I look at several tribes that can trace their lineage back to a mound building region and will make a bow that features the commonality of those tribes.
I am currently working on stone tools to make this mound builder bow. Once I have my adze and Celt made I will select my design and begin in spring. That is the plan anyhow.
-
I live about 50 miles south of Angel mounds,and only a few miles south of the Slack farm sight (Caborn Welborn sight) I was at Moundsville in Alabama a few years ago. A tattoo that I have on my wrist was taken off pottery from this area, and a Moundsville recreation diorama had the same tat. Where I am heading with this I feel from the art I have seen the lines are art work. My 2cents would be a rectangular cross section bendy handle as it seems that's what most Woodland tribes did. I would feel the design was passed down. I still make them" if it ain't broke don't fix it" ;) my opinion and limited research. Good luck and post pics!!!!
-
Jim Davis. Thanks for the kind words and the insight. Much appreciated.
Wildman, I have posted some pics of the tool creation process in the caveman section. I have an igneous Celt and adze in the works. Not done yet, but I get closer every month. Rest assured I will be posting this mound builder inspired bow - process and all.
Thanks for reading, posting comments and for everyone's encouragement.
Swamp monkey
-
Here in Arkansas we have the Toltec mounds...if you google the images there are a couple of arrows pictured...just like some of those earlier in this thread, they appear to be native cane...you could call the museum and see if they have any bows...?
http://aspblog.aristotle.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/toltec-archeological-sp-artifacts_6941.jpg?w=300
-
When we're talking about the Mississippian Moundbuilders, we're talking about what was basically an established civilization with cities. As such, they would have rudimentary industry dedicated to making specific products. They would have had a professional army in order to defend what they had since they would have quite a bit of wealth, as well as extensive farmland and the cities themselves, to protect. They would, thus, have had a government and taxes to pay for it. And, to increase wealth and feed their industries, they would have had extensive trade via canoe up and down the Mississippi River and various other rivers and waterways.
What does this mean?
1.) Having a professional army, one usually has a type of "service weapon" that are all copies of a prototype or prototypes that were tested and then found to be the best overall weapon for warfare. In other words, a uniform weapon; an issue weapon. Hunting, one can use whatever bow one wished. But it is known that many of the Southeastern tribes that descended from the Moundbuilders usually had one bow for war and one for hunting. More than likely, this was something learned from the Moundbuilder Civilzation since it is usually agrarian, city-based civilizations that make such distinctions between weapons for hunting and weapons for war. So, one might say with extreme conjecture that a Mississippian bow would be quite similar to one another with only slight variations or improvements over time such as the variances between the AK-47, AKM, and AK-74 families of Kalashnikov rifles. These bows could be "issued" from government "arsenals" (bowyers contracted to build them by the Great Sun or whoever) and paid for with taxes and/or tribute collected.
2.) They would not be limited to local sources of bowmaking wood or limited by "Not Invented Here" syndrome. Through trade, they could learn new bow designs, perhaps even acquire the bows of other tribes to examine and experiment with. Remember, they had extensive trade networks on a very efficient "highway" system, that being the Mississippi River. They could pull whatever bow wood they preferred up via river canoe and use that for their bows. They would have time to do testing and may have even had some type of "proving ground" to establish the best wood and bow design in order to provide the best weapon to their army. These would not have been people interested in hit-and-run raids or ritual warfare, because they obviously had a government that would have been keenly interested in staying in power and expanding that power when possible. Therefore, their bows, aside from those for hunting, would have been weapons dedicated to warfare.
3.) Likewise, arrowmaking would have been an industry in and of itself, as well as knapping the projectile points. Again, they would not have been limited to local sources of shaft material or stone thanks to the Mississippi River. To win wars, they would need sufficient ammunition. So that they made arrows by the droves goes without saying.
4.) An agrarian city-based civilization (or, in other words, a city-state) usually fields a professional army to protect itself and also to expand power. It expands power through warfare to garner more wealth in the form of booty, tribute, and taxable subjects, as well as natural resources of the conquered area, and also more farmland which, in turn, generates larger populations. This, in turn, provides even more taxable persons, over time, as well as more soldiers eventually. Thus, one can expand one's territory even further within another generation. To do this requires something those around you don't have. A better army, better and more advanced weapons, new tactics, and so on. So, more than likely, the Mississippian bow would have been a culmination of several design innovations tested and incorporated to provide a superior weapon that wasn't a "jack of all trades" (for both hunting and war) but tested and developed specifically for combat.
5.) They were not constrained by cost, limited local resources, or manpower. They had plenty of manpower and all were probably paying taxes as well as subjugated/conquered tribes paying tribute. They had extensive trade networks whereby they could get better bow wood from far away and even pay for it with other trade items they acquired from far away. So they would have had a lot of latitude to make bows that perhaps were not of local or even ancestral designs and from wood that wasn't anywhere near there and was never traditionally used before they established cities.
Anyway, just my observations.
-
Also, if they have uniformity with bows, as in poundage/draw weight, this solved logistics issues related to "ammunition" (arrows.) If all bows are, say, within a certain poundage and this does not vary wildly, then we know the arrows have to be made thus-and-so (spined) to be accurate from those bows. Thus, each warrior could resupply himself with arrows from fallen warriors or from a supply train in their rear. The English were basically doing this with cottage industries making arrows for their longbowmen. They knew those bows pulled in the 120 to 150 Lbs. draw range so they knew the arrows needed to be such-and-such to work. Thus, they could have an effective logistics to supply their longbowmen without confusion over who gets this bundle and who gets that bundle.
Nothing changes under the sun. During World War Two, the Allies discovered what a logistics nightmare it was for the British to be shooting .303 while the U.S. is shooting .30'06 out of rifles and light machine guns. So NATO said we all need to shoot the same calibre and went with the 7.62mm. Then later the U.S. says, by the way, we're going to the 5.56mm and everyone needs to get onboard with that ASAP. So they had to do it. It stands to reason this was just something dusted off that everyone already knew and forgot until they needed to all work together. So, uniformity with bows and the arrows among the Moundbuilders would stand to reason through trial-and-error or perhaps after a major conflict where it became evident they needed to all be on the same page regarding ordnance.
-
Dharma, there is one problem with your conjectures: no evidence of specialized crafts work (bows, arrows or projectile points), standing armies, or even wars has yet been found in the archaeological record of the Mississippian culture.
Nice logical thinking, but no evidence at all.
-
Yes, that may be so, but it is known that Cahokia had a trade in stone tools of Mill Valley Chert that were exported.
The main point of mine being, a civilization has certain hallmarks that make it a civilization. In particular, an agrarian civilization with cities and massive projects (mounds) that require extensive manpower to build. Those cost money and cannot be done for free, so to speak. Even if you use compulsive or slave labor, it has to be paid for. And once you build these massive structures, they become a beacon (and, thus, a target) for everyone who sees them and realizes that, guess what, you've got wealth to spare to build them in the first place.
Further along, it requires a centralized government. And once you've got a government in an agrarian, urban civilization, you've got to have an army to defend that. Every civilization on Earth from the beginning has had one and there is no reason to suspect that Cahokia was different. A hunter-gatherer tribe can pick up and move when threatened by a rival tribe. An agrarian civilization with cities cannot do that. They have absolutely got to defend their cities and land or they die. To do that, they've got to have an effective military force. It's a constant that any ancient civilization that had cities and farmed also had a professional army and a government (and taxes.) The land and cities must be defended and how do you do that? Someone has to make decisions and plan. That means a government. Now how does that government defend their civilization and remain in power? They need an army and just some ragtag militia isn't effective in the long run. So, a professional army is formed, but now it needs to be paid for. Plus, we want to erect these awesome mounds for our Great Sun and temples. How do we pay for that? We've got to have taxes.
As far as evidence of wars, since they left no written records, we can't prove they didn't. For all we know, some field where arrowheads turn up every rainstorm could have been a battle site. Do we know every site where ancient battles took place in Eurasia when the Indo-Europeans tribes were vying with each other for power? No, we don't. But we know they eventually had some people that conquered certain areas and then they probably re-wrote that history in their own oral legends and myths so that by the time it was written down, what they said wasn't what actually happened. But once they established civilizations, they all created professional armies.
My other point is, a lot of the common traits of civilizations tend to be discounted in regards to Native American civilizations. The trend tends to be towards what the Plains tribes did and that tends to color the way other tribes are looked at. If you have a urban civilization, you have to have a government, taxes, and an army to survive be you an ancient Egyptian, a Hittite, a Greek, a Roman, or a Native American. If you're surrounded by hostiles, you can't have something worth taking and expect to keep it without an army, a way to pay for the army, and a government to administer it. Certainly not for a few hundred years. Nothing changes in humanity, only the technology and kill ratio of the weapons. Even today, look around. Certain countries are surrounded by hostile nations and they're all scrambling to find weapons and beef up their armies. This isn't a modern phenomena. It's ancient and is the price paid for having a civilization full of stuff that the "have-nots" desire and figure they can take with enough warriors.
It's like the pyramids in Egypt. Everyone wants to find these fantastic reasons those were built. Aliens from outer space must have done it. How could people have done this thousands of years ago? Quite simply, actually. They had a very rich agricultural system that gave them a bounty of food and, ergo, a surplus population. They had the manpower to do it. They had the money to pay for it. And they had the government to decide, hey, we need these pyramids built over here, so send out officials to tell all the men to show up here and get to work. But why? Well, why did we build the Washington Monument, the Lincoln Memorial, and so on? What purpose do those serve save for self-aggrandizement and monuments to the "Hey, look at us! We're a great civilization, see these things we built to prove it?" Governments do that kind of thing. They always have. It demonstrates power. So, when you have a culture called the Moundbuilders, you can see they were doing this to testify to the greatness of their civilization. To be honest, most of those mounds weren't mounds at all, but pyramids. So, there we have it.
-
... If you're surrounded by hostiles, you can't have something worth taking and expect to keep it without an army, a way to pay for the army, and a government to administer it.
You are absolutely right about this. But there is no evidence that the Mississippian cultural settlements were surrounded by anybody at all. And it's pointless to say that a lack of evidence doesn't prove they weren't there. In fact, it does. No groups of people lived anywhere without leaving evidence.
The Cahokians and their contemporaries are still a great mystery. Who were they and why did they all disappear at the same time?
-
Very few artifacts have turned up from the Huns to point out exactly who they were and where they originated. No one even agrees if they were Asiatic, Turkic, or Caucasoid. But everyone knows they were there. Can anyone say the Mongols didn't do what they did despite the fact they left few traces of those incursions? A threat from nomads is very real but those nomads will leave few traces themselves.
As far as what happened to Cahokia, they probably exceeded their agricultural output to sustain their population. Add a drought and they're gone. If they had developed metallurgy, they could have probably solved their agricultural output problem.
-
While the Huns and Mongols were not far removed in time from the Mississippian culture, their doings are part of the written historic record. Not so any of the North Americans of the Cahokian era.
You may well be correct about the demise of the Cahokians. You may be right in all your conjectures about them. But we have to recognize that we just don't have anywhere near the archaeological evidence that would make it comfortable to settle on one line of understanding.
-
It has been a while since I last found anything of relevance on this topic. I was perusing The Petroglyphs and Pictographs of Missouri by C. Diaz-Granados and J.R. Duncan 2000 Univ. of Alabama Press. In it is a photograph of a pictograph from Picture Cave in Missouri. I have drawn the picture below from that photo.
The image below is likely from the mound building era. The longnose mask on the back of the man's head is known to come from Mississippian era archeological finds. I am comfortable saying this is a Mississippian pictograph.
The image has a warrior holding what appears to be either the head or whole body of a defeated opponent. In his left hand is a bow and some arrows. On the far right of the dead elk is another bow. If you look at the item on the warrior's head you will see some arrows. Perhaps lodged in a shield? IDK.
Anyhow, first, what i want to point out is the bow in hand looks like a standard woodland style long bow. Not much if any defelx in tips like some of the other images I posted on this thread. Second, I wanted to point out another depiction of a deflexed handle bow on the far right. maybe even a five curve? Two styles in the same images. Not surprising to find that they had variety in their bows.
Next look at the arrows' fletching. Recall the whelk shell cup engraving found in Spiro with arrows lodged in the buffalo fish (First page of this thread)? The fletching on those arrows looked different than these below. Again it shows some diversity.
It is nice to have a few more clues as to what the mound builder bows looked like.
-
Swamp Monkey--that's an interesting drawing you posted and observations. From what part of the state/park was this found?
The latest issue of National Geographic has an interesting up-dated article about migration and settlement of the Americas, it gets us away from the idea that all first peoples came over via the Bering strait.
-
Gives us a rough idea of when peyote use first started ;D ;D
-
Swamp Monkey--that's an interesting drawing you posted and observations. From what part of the state/park was this found?
I don't know for sure where this is. I will have to do some research to find out where it is. I would bet it is somewhere in the Southern Half of Missouri. that is where most of our Karst is located. Beyond that I am only guessing. I will post if I find something.
The latest issue of National Geographic has an interesting up-dated article about migration of settlement of the Americas, it gets us away from the idea that all first peoples came over via the Bering strait.
I will have to stop by the newstand to get a copy. thanks for the heads up.
-
I found an interesting book on shell engravings that shows some fascinating finds from Spiro Mounds in OK. Eleven cups have depictions of arrows and arrowheads. Flared nocks are often depicted with a few varieties of fletching style. One arrow image depicts what could be interpreted as line wrapping around the shaft to keep the fletching in place. Two cups depict bows only and five depict use of a bow with arrows. In addition there are four gorgets with bows being held by twin warriors.
The bows are one of two bow types - either simple bows or they are reflex/deflex bows.
I am almost done with my mound builder style tools and plan to embark on my mound builder inspired bow journey late spring/summer of 2016.