Interesting article about native americans

[XD40SC]

www.hunting-supply.org/huntingsupply09.php

Indian Archery [/t][/t][/t][/t][/t] [/t]

[/td][/tr][/table]

[Brett]

Interesting article. I enjoyed reading it, thanks.

[myronman3]

another self professed expert.....i threw the bs flag very early on....

Many tribes knew agriculture but, except for the dog, they had not domesticated animals

  what about the horse?  yeah..... people read stuff and for some reason they believe it because they read it. 

[XD40SC]

another self professed expert.....i threw the bs flag very early on....

Many tribes knew agriculture but, except for the dog, they had not domesticated animals

  what about the horse?  yeah..... people read stuff and for some reason they believe it because they read it.

Do you know how Native Americans came to have horses?

[bilmac]

I have a little bone to pick with the article too. They describe the Folsom point as if it were an arrow point. I believe that the Folsom was made in much earlier times as an atal-atal spear point, they are much too big to put on an arrow. 

[Brett]

If my memory serves me horses were not native to the Americas, they were brought here by early European explorers.  Some of these horses got loose or were let loose and established wild herds.  Until there were a significant number of wild horses the Native Americans would not have the opportunity to domesticate them. 

[XD40SC]

If my memory serves me horses were not native to the Americas, they were brought here by early European explorers.  Some of these horses got loose or were let loose and established wild herds.  Until there were a significant number of wild horses the Native Americans would not have the opportunity to domesticate them.

That's what I was taught
 
 

[myronman3]

Do you know how Native Americans came to have horses?

i dont care at all.   they had horses.   i have seen many times in westerns.  saw it myself. 

[Spirithawk]

That article has just enough truth in it to be harmful in that it camoflages the other falsehoods. As to Folsom points, yes they were Atlatl points but also knives with some small ones used as arrowheads. Just use common sense, you don't tie a large piece of stone to an arrow shaft and expect it to go far. What you have to understand though  is that Folsom, Clovis, Dalton, Adena, Hopewell, Ect. are just lables given by modern man to a culture. None of them strictly made just make one kind of point nor flint tool though the charecteristics of what each period of people made usualy stayed true to the form of manufacture for that period of culture. Keep in mind though, that just like man today, you had those trying new ideas all the time. Some caught on to become newer styles while others not so much. A good 90% of pieces shown me, that are refered to as arrowheads, are realy knives.
 
These are a couple frames out of my collection;

None of these are arrowheads though I couldn't begin to count how many I've showed them too and got the response, " Wow, cool arrowheads!"  All are actualy knives and four are hide scrapers. The grey piece on the right, above the triangular piece, is a combination knife/scraper. The small fluted grey piece to the left is a reworked broken Clovis made into a hide scraper or specialized knife. Most pieces often had multiple uses and broken pieces were reworked into knives, drills, awls, gravers and scrapers. The center pink knife is 5 3/4" long.

 
Most are knives and a couple drills. The only arrowheads are the 5 small ones in the middle. The few smaller ones along the edges are dart points, ie Atlatl points, and the small pink one middle right is a broken knife that was reworked into a flint fire starter. To give you an idea of size, the pink drill is 4" long.

[bilmac]

Hawk.  At the time I was doing my reading, a long time ago, no one knew how they were able to take the long flute out of the folsom or clovis points. Has anyone figured that out?

[XD40SC]

That article has just enough truth in it to be harmful in that it camoflages the other falsehoods. As to Folsom points, yes they were Atlatl points but also knives with some small ones used as arrowheads. Just use common sense, you don't tie a large piece of stone to an arrow shaft and expect it to go far. What you have to understand though  is that Folsom, Clovis, Dalton, Adena, Hopewell, Ect. are just lables given by modern man to a culture. None of them strictly made just make one kind of point nor flint tool though the charecteristics of what each period of people made usualy stayed true to the form of manufacture for that period of culture. Keep in mind though, that just like man today, you had those trying new ideas all the time. Some caught on to become newer styles while others not so much. A good 90% of pieces shown me, that are refered to as arrowheads, are realy knives.
 
These are a couple frames out of my collection;

None of these are arrowheads though I couldn't begin to count how many I've showed them too and got the response, " Wow, cool arrowheads!"  All are actualy knives and four are hide scrapers. The grey piece on the right, above the triangular piece, is a combination knife/scraper. The small fluted grey piece to the left is a reworked broken Clovis made into a hide scraper or specialized knife. Most pieces often had multiple uses and broken pieces were reworked into knives, drills, awls, gravers and scrapers. The center pink knife is 5 3/4" long.

 
Most are knives and a couple drills. The only arrowheads are the 5 small ones in the middle. The few smaller ones along the edges are dart points, ie Atlatl points, and the small pink one middle right is a broken knife that was reworked into a flint fire starter. To give you an idea of size, the pink drill is 4" long.

any truth to the poundage pull on the bows?
 

[Spirithawk]

As to fluting, yep it's tricky to do but not as dificlt to do as you might think if ya know how. In fact true points are so valuable, and fakes are made so well, that  unless you know what to look for, (size, weight, material, chipping pattern, thickness, patina, ect.), they're impossible to tell from the real McCoy. Even "So called" experts can be fooled. That's why I refuse to buy a piece. All mine are personal finds by me or my son. Just one fake found in a collection will cause the whole collection to be suspect. I collect for personal  reasons as my father was full blood Cherokee, not for monetery value, but I still keep the integrity of my collection pure.
 
As to the bows, there was a lot more involved in making one than the article states. Particularly in how the wood for the bow was treated and cured. I made my first, with help of course, at 8 years old from Hickory. You can't find a better wood than Osage Orange though. As to poundage, the numbers the article states, is ballpark figures at best. There might have been an average weight draw but I doubt very much there was anything close to any set weight. Remember, you didn't have a factory kicking them out. Each was made by the owner.
 
As to horses, it's commonly acepted that the Spanish brought horse to Tutle Island. I tend to be a bit more practical in my beliefs. In otherwords I, nor anyone else, was there so who's to say?

[hillbill]

As to fluting, yep it's tricky to do but not as dificlt to do as you might think if ya know how. In fact true points are so valuable, and fakes are made so well, that  unless you know what to look for, (size, weight, material, chipping pattern, thickness, patina, ect.), they're impossible to tell from the real McCoy. Even "So called" experts can be fooled. That's why I refuse to buy a piece. All mine are personal finds by me or my son. Just one fake found in a collection will cause the whole collection to be suspect. I collect for personal  reasons as my father was full blood Cherokee, not for monetery value, but I still keep the integrity of my collection pure.
 
As to the bows, there was a lot more involved in making one than the article states. Particularly in how the wood for the bow was treated and cured. I made my first, with help of course, at 8 years old from Hickory. You can't find a better wood than Osage Orange though. As to poundage, the numbers the article states, is ballpark figures at best. There might have been an average weight draw but I doubt very much there was anything close to any set weight. Remember, you didn't have a factory kicking them out. Each was made by the owner.

it would not of surprised me if a full grown american indian male of large stature could of easily used a bow of possibly 100 to 150 lbs of pull. remember he had been shooting a bow since he was prob about 4 yrs old.every muscle involved in pulling a bow had been used almost every day since he was 4 or 5 yrs old.that would give quite a advantage id think.also the fact that they were capable of pinpoint accuracy would of helped. i really dont think they wasted quite as many arrows as you see in westren movies.

[Spirithawk]

As to fluting, yep it's tricky to do but not as dificlt to do as you might think if ya know how. In fact true points are so valuable, and fakes are made so well, that  unless you know what to look for, (size, weight, material, chipping pattern, thickness, patina, ect.), they're impossible to tell from the real McCoy. Even "So called" experts can be fooled. That's why I refuse to buy a piece. All mine are personal finds by me or my son. Just one fake found in a collection will cause the whole collection to be suspect. I collect for personal  reasons as my father was full blood Cherokee, not for monetery value, but I still keep the integrity of my collection pure.
 
As to the bows, there was a lot more involved in making one than the article states. Particularly in how the wood for the bow was treated and cured. I made my first, with help of course, at 8 years old from Hickory. You can't find a better wood than Osage Orange though. As to poundage, the numbers the article states, is ballpark figures at best. There might have been an average weight draw but I doubt very much there was anything close to any set weight. Remember, you didn't have a factory kicking them out. Each was made by the owner.

it would not of surprised me if a full grown american indian male of large stature could of easily used a bow of possibly 100 to 150 lbs of pull. remember he had been shooting a bow since he was prob about 4 yrs old.every muscle involved in pulling a bow had been used almost every day since he was 4 or 5 yrs old.that would give quite a advantage id think.also the fact that they were capable of pinpoint accuracy would of helped. i really dont think they wasted quite as many arrows as you see in westren movies.

I know that as a kid of 10 years old I was easily drawing my home made bow while many grown men struggled to do so. You are correct in that certain muscles are used and they require conditioning. More recently I had a nephew try to draw one of my compounds. Drove him nuts, as he was obviously much younger than me, is much healthier and over all stronger, yet he could only draw it about a third of the way. I'd take it from him, easily draw it, laugh and say, "See ya do it like this!" 

[hillbill]

spirithawk, that reminds me of a funny story. my son who is 16, 2 inches taller than me and about the same weight, except not chubby lol.wanted to arm wrestle.his arms are twice as big as mine but i slammed him like a little girl.he just rubbed his arm and and said, jeez i guess 20 yrs of shoveling asphalt mite of dun something for ya.

[bilmac]

They say that archeologists can spot skeletons of English bowmen because years of practice actually affected their bones.

As to accuracy, how could anyone shooting arrows made from straight shoots and rocks for points have anywhere near the accuracy of modern arrows of matched spline, weight, and whatever else. Every arrow the indian shot was an individual, and I doubt he could practice with them much, or they would break. He just had to get closer that's all.

[Spirithawk]

Not necesarily the case. They were very accurate and shot quite often. The bows were very well taken care of and the arrows very well made. The flint broadhead is actually better than any steel one made. No, the bows didn't have the range of modern compounds but they sure got the job done and done well. I'll give you a perfect example. I had an uncle, by marriage, that shot a recurve in competion. He fancied himself very good. First time he saw my home made Cherokee bow he teased me endlessly. I was about 11 or 12 at the time. Finaly I had enough and challenged him to a shoot with him picking the targets. Guess who won? He was so upset he broke a very expensive recurve. I just smiled and kept on putting rabbits and squirrels on the table with my bow.    I'll tell you honestly what I think made the differance. I grew up with my bow in my hand every day of my life. He just practiced when he felt the need. I shot at targets both stationary and moving, he at just targets with bullseyes printed on them. It makes a world of differance not just what you shoot but how you shoot. The Indian's accuracy with bows was no differant than the settlers acuracy with firearms. Both used them every day and thus knew how.