Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-dfsvx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T07:33:42.633Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Adoption of the Bow and Arrow in Eastern North America: A View from Central Arkansas

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Michael S. Nassaney  and
Kendra Pyle
Michael S. Nassaney
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, MI 49008-5032. E-mail: nassaney@wmich.edu
Kendra Pyle
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104. E-mail: kpyle@sas.penn.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

North American archaeologists have long been interested in distinguishing between dart and arrow points in order to establish when bow-and-arrow technology was adopted in the Eastern Woodlands. A quantitative analysis of point form and qualitative reconstructions of bifacial reduction trajectories from Plum Bayou culture sites in central Arkansas indicate that arrow points were abruptly adopted and became widespread about A.D. 600. Moreover, arrow points are metrically discrete entities that were not developed through gradual modification of dart points in this region as appears to be the case elsewhere. Comparisons with patterns observed in other regions of the East show significant variation in the timing, rate, and direction of the adoption of the bow and arrow, as well as the role of this technological change in Native American economies and sociopolitics. These observations suggest that the bow and arrow were: (1) introduced significantly earlier than some researchers have posited; (2) independently invented by some groups and diffused to others; and (3) relinquished and later readopted in some areas of the Eastern Woodlands in response to changing social, historical, and environmental conditions. Our data also call into question simple unilinear or diffusionary models that claim to explain the development and spread of this technological innovation.

Résumé

Résumé

Desde hace mucho, los arqueólogos norteamericanos se han interesado por distinguir entre las puntas de dardo y de flecha para establecer en qué momento la tecnología de arco y flecha fue adoptada en zonas de bosque del este de los Estados Unidos. Un análisis cuantitativo de la forma de punta y uno qualitativo de las etapas de producción en yacimientos culturales de Plum Bayou, Arkansas central, indican que las puntas de flecha fueron súbitamente adoptadas y su uso generalizado alrededor del año 600 a.d.. Es más, a diferencia de lo que parece ser en otros casos conocidos, en esta región las puntas de flecha son entidades metricamente diferenciadas, que no fueron desarrolladas a través de la modificatión gradual de puntas de dardo. Comparaciones con patrones observados en otras regiones del este demuestran una variatión significativa en el ritmo, velocidad y dirección de la adoptión del arco y flecha, así como del rol de este cambio tecnológico en las economías y formaciones sociopolíticas de sociedades indígenas norteamericanos. Estas observaciones sugieren que el arco y flecha fueron (1) introducidos significativamente antes de lo que algunos investigadores han propuesto; (2) inventados independientemente por algunos grupos y difundidos a otros; y (3) desechados y más tarde readoptados en algunas áreas de la región de bosque del este como respuesta a condiciones sociales, históricas y ambientales dinámicas. Nuestros datos también cuestionan modelos simplistas unilineares o de difusión que intentan explicar el desarrollo y la difusión de esta innovatión tecnológica.

Type
Articles
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 64 , Issue 2 , April 1999 , pp. 243 - 263
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References Cited

Amick, D. S. 1994 Technological Organization and the Structure of Inference in Lithic Analysis: An Examination of Folsom Hunting Behavior in the American Southwest. In The Organization of North American Prehistoric Chipped Stone Tool Technologies, edited by Carr, P. J., pp. 9–34. Archaeological Series 7. International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Bachechi, L., Fabbri, P-F., and Mallegni, F. 1997 An Arrow-Caused Lesion in a Late Upper Paleolithic Human Pelvis. Current Anthropology 38: 135–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, R. E. 1958 Guide to the Identification of Certain American Indian Projectile Points. Special Bulletin No. 1. Oklahoma Anthropology Society, Norman.Google Scholar
Benn, D. W. 1990 Modified Stone and Bone. In Woodland Cultures on the Western Prairies: The Rainbow Site Investigations, edited by Benn, D., pp. 71–86. Office of the State Archaeologist, Report 18. University of Iowa, Iowa City.Google Scholar
Bergman, C. A., McEwen, E., and Miller, R. 1988 Experimental Archery: Projectile Velocities and Comparison of Bow Performances. Antiquity 62: 658–670.Google Scholar
Blitz, J. H. 1988 Adoption of the Bow in Prehistoric North America. North American Archaeologist 9: 123–145.Google Scholar
Bradbury, A. P. 1997 The Bow and Arrow in the Eastern Woodlands: Evidence for an Archaic Origin. North American Archaeologist 18: 207–233.Google Scholar
Brashler, J. G., Garland, E. B., Holman, M. B., Lovis, W. A., Martin, S.R. 1997 Adaptive Strategies and Socioeconomic Systems in Northern Great Lakes Riverine Environments: The Late Woodland of Michigan. Paper presented at the Urbana Late Woodland Conference, Urbana, Illinois.Google Scholar
Browne, J. 1938 Antiquity of the Bow. American Antiquity 3: 358–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chard, C. S. 1969 Man in Prehistory. McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
Chatters, J. C, Campbell, S.K., Smith, G.D., and Minthorn, P.E. Jr. 1995 Bison Procurement in the Far West: A 2,100-year-old Kill Site on the Columbia Plateau. American Antiquity 60: 751–763.Google Scholar
Christenson, A. L. 1986 Projectile Point Size and Projectile Aerodynamics: An Exploratory Study. Plains Anthropologist 31: 109–128.Google Scholar
Cobb, C. R., and Nassaney, M. S. 1995 Interaction and Integration in the Late Woodland Southeast. In Native American Interactions: Multiscalar Analyses and Interpretations in the Eastern Woodlands, edited by Nassaney, M. S. and Sassaman, K.E. pp. 205–226. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.Google Scholar
Cole, F. C, and Deuel, T. 1937 Rediscovering Illinois: Archaeological Explorations in and around Fulton County. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Corliss, D. W. 1972 Neck Width of Projectile Points: An Index of Culture Continuity and Change. Occasional Papers Number 29. Idaho State University Museum, Pocatello.Google Scholar
Fagan, B. M. 1995 AncientNorth America: TheArchaeologyofaContinent. Second Edition. Thames and Hudson, London.Google Scholar
Fawcett, W. B. 1998 Chronology and Projectile Point Neck-Width: An Idaho Example. North American Archaeologist 19: 59–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fawcett, W. B., and Kornfeld, M. 1980 Projectile Point Neck-Width Variability and Chronology of the Plains. Wyoming Contributions to Anthropology 2: 66–79.Google Scholar
Fenenga, F. 1953 The Weights of Chipped Stone Tools: A Clue to Their Functions. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 9: 309–323.Google Scholar
Fritz, G. J. 1988 Adding the Plant Remains to Assessments of Late Woodland/ Early Mississippi Period Plant Husbandry. Paper presented at the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Phoenix.Google Scholar
Goodyear, A. C. 1974 The Brand Site: A Techno-Functional Study of a Dalton Site in Northeast Arkansas. Research Series 7. Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville.Google Scholar
Gramly, R. M. 1977 Deerskins and Hunting Territories: Competition for a Scarce Resource of the Northeastern Woodlands. American Antiquity 42: 601–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, R. L. 1980 An Interpretation of the Two-Climax Model of Illinois Prehistory. In Early Native Americans: Prehistoric Demography, Economy, and Technology, edited by Browman, D., pp. 401–467. Mouton, The Hague.Google Scholar
Hamilton, T. M. 1972 Native American Bows. George Shumway, York, Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Hemmings, E. T. 1985 Analysis of Materials. In The Alexander Site, edited by Hemmings, E. T. and House, J.H. pp. 21–22. Research Series 24. Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville.Google Scholar
Hoard, R. 1997 Late Woodland in Central Missouri: The Boone Phase. Manuscript on file, Missouri Department of Transportation, Columbia.Google Scholar
Hoffman, T. M. 1982a Chipped Stone Tool Manufacturing Processes in Mound D at the Toltec Mounds site (3LN42). Unpublished M. A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville.Google Scholar
Hoffman, T. M. 1982b Lithic Technology at Toltec: Preliminary Results From Mound D. In Emerging Patterns of Plum Bayou Culture, edited by Rolingson, M. A., pp. 54–59. Research Series 18. Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville.Google Scholar
Holley, G. 1997 Late Woodland on the Edge of Looking Glass Prairie: A Scott Joint-Use Archaeological Project Perspective. Paper presented at the Urbana Late Woodland Conference, Urbana, Illinois.Google Scholar
House, J. H. 1982 Powell Canal. Research Series 19. Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville.Google Scholar
House, J. H. 1985 Summary and Conclusions. In The Alexander Site, edited by Hemmings, E. T. and House, J.H. pp. 99–110. Research Series 24. Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville.Google Scholar
Hudson, C. 1976 The Southeasternlndians. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.Google Scholar
Hughes, S. S. 1997 Getting to the Point: Evolutionary Change in Prehistoric Weaponry. Manuscript on file, Department of Anthropology, University of Washington, Seattle.Google Scholar
Jeter, M. D., and Williams, G. I. Jr. 1989 Ceramic-Using Cultures, 600 B.C.-A.D. 1000. In Archaeology and Bioarchaeology of the Lower Mississippi Valley and Trans-Mississippi South in Arkansas and Louisiana, by Jeter, M., Rose, J., Williams, G. Jr., and Harmon, A., pp. 111–70. Research Series 37. Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville.Google Scholar
Johnson, J. K. 1989 The Utility of Production Trajectory Modeling as a Framework for Regional Analysis. In Alternative Approaches to Lithic Analysis, edited by Henry, D. O. and Odell, G.H. pp. 119–138. Archaeological Papers No. 1. American Anthropological Association, Arlington, Virginia.Google Scholar
Johnson, J. K. 1993 North American Biface Production Trajectory Modeling in Historic Perspective. Plains Anthropologist 38: 151–162.Google Scholar
Justice, N. D. 1987 Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of the Midcontinen tal and Eastern United States: A Modern Survey and Reference. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.Google Scholar
Kellar, J. H. 1955 The Atlatl in North America. Prehistory Research Series 3(3). Indiana Historical Society, Indianapolis.Google Scholar
Knight, G. C, and Keyser, J. D. 1983 A Mathematical Technique for Dating Projectile Points Common to the Northwest Plains. Plains Anthropologist 28: 199–207.Google Scholar
Kroeber, A. 1939 Cultural and Natural Areas of Native North America. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, Volume 38. Berkeley.Google Scholar
Larson, L. H. 1972 Functional Considerations of Warfare in the Southeast during the Mississippi Period. American Antiquity 37: 383–392.Google Scholar
Lynott, M. J. 1991 Identification of Attribute Variability in Emergent Mississippian and Mississippian Arrow Points from Southeast Missouri. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 16: 189–211.Google Scholar
Massey, W. C. 1961 The Survival of the Dart-Thrower on the Peninsula of Baja California. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 17: 81–93.Google Scholar
Morse, D. E, and Morse, P. A. 1983 Archaeology of the Central Mississippi Valley. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Morse, P. A, and Morse, D. F. 1990 The Zebree Site: An Emerged Early Mississippian Expression in Northeast Arkansas. In The Mississippian Emergence, edited by Smith, B., pp. 51–66. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D. C. Google Scholar
Nassaney, M. S. 1991 Spatial-Temporal Dimensions of Social Integration during the Coles Creek Period in Central Arkansas. In Stability, Transformation, and Variation: The Late Woodland Southeast, edited by Nassaney, M. S. and Cobb, C.R. pp. 177'-220. Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
Nassaney, M. S. 1992 Experiments in Social Ranking in Prehistoric Central Arkansas. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Nassaney, M. S. 1994 The Historical and Archaeological Context of Plum Bayou Culture in Central Arkansas. Southeastern Archaeology 13(l): 36–55.Google Scholar
Nassaney, M. S. 1996a The Role of Chipped Stone in the Political Economy of Social Ranking. In Stone Tools: Theoretical Insights into Human Prehistory, edited by Odell, G., pp. 181–224. Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
Nassaney, M. S. 1996b The Contributions of the Plum Bayou Survey Project, 1988-94, to the Native Settlement History of Central Arkansas. The Arkansas Archeologist 35: 1–49.Google Scholar
Nassaney, M. S., and Pyle, K. 1996 The Significance of Formal Variation in Projectile Points for Understanding the Adoption of the Bow and Arrow in Eastern North America. Paper presented at the 61 st Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, New Orleans.Google Scholar
Odell, G. 1988 Addressing Prehistoric Hunting Practices through Stone Tool Analysis. American Anthropologist 90: 335–356.Google Scholar
Odell, G. 1996 Innovation and Style in Projectile Points. In Stone Tools: Theoretical Insights into Human Prehistory, edited by Odell, G., pp. 225–228. Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
Odell, G., and Cowan, F. 1986 Experiments with Spears and Arrows on Animal Targets. Journal of Field Archaeology 13: 195–212.Google Scholar
Oliver, B. L. 1985 Tradition and Typology: Basic Elements of the Carolina Projectile Point Sequence. In Structure and Process in Southeastern Archaeology, edited by Dickens, R.S. Jr. and Ward, H.T., pp. 195–211. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.Google Scholar
Parry, W. J., and Kelly, R. L. 1987 Expedient Core Technology and Sedentism. In The Organization of Core Technology, edited by Johnson, J. K. and Morrow, C.A. pp. 285–304. Westview Press, Boulder.Google Scholar
Patterson, L. W. 1982 Initial Employment of the Bow and Arrow in Southern North America. La Tierra 9(2): 18–26.Google Scholar
Patterson, L. W. 1985 Distinguishing Between Arrows and Spear Points on the Upper Texas Coast. Lithic Technology 14: 81–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, L. W. 1992 Current Data on the Early Use of the Bow and Arrow in Southern North America. La Tierra 19(4): 6–15.Google Scholar
Patterson, L. W. 1994 Identification of Unifacial Arrow Points. Houston Archaeological Society Journal 108: 19–24.Google Scholar
Peebles, C. S., and Kus, S. M. 1977 Some Archaeological Correlates of Ranked Societies. American Antiquity 42: 421–448.Google Scholar
Perino, G. 1968 Guide to the Identification of Certain American Indian Projectile Points. Special Bulletin No. 3. Oklahoma Anthropological Society, Norman.Google Scholar
Phillips, P. 1970 Archaeological Survey in the Lower Yazoo Basin, Mississippi, 1949-1955. 2 vols. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology 60. Harvard University, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Price, J. E., and Griffin, J. B. 1979 The Snodgrass Site of the Powers Phase of Southwest Missouri. Anthropological Papers No. 66. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Pyle, K. 1995 Getting to the Point: The Dart-Arrow Transition in Plum Bayou Culture. Unpublished Lee Honors College thesis, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo.Google Scholar
Raymond, A. 1986 Experiments in the Function and Performance of the Weighted Atlatl. World Archaeology 18: 153–177.Google Scholar
Ritchie, W A. 1969a The Archaeology of Martha's Vineyard. Natural History Press, Garden City, New York.Google Scholar
Ritchie, W A. 1969b The Archaeology of New York State. Revised Edition. Natural History Press, Garden City, New York.Google Scholar
Ritchie, W A. 1971 A Typology and Nomenclature for New York Projectile Points. New York State Museum and Science Service Bulletin No. 384. Revised Edition.Google Scholar
Rolingson, M. A. 1982 The Concept of Plum Bayou Culture. In Emerging Patterns of Plum Bayou Culture, edited by Rolingson, M. A., pp. 87–93. Research Series 18. Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville.Google Scholar
Rolingson, M. A. 1990 The Toltec Mounds Site: A Ceremonial Center in the Arkansas River Lowland. In The Mississippian Emergence, edited by Smith, B., pp. 27^19. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
Sabo, G. III, and Early, A. 1988 Prehistoric Culture History. In Human Adaptation in the Ozark and Ouachita Mountains, by Sabo, G. III, Early, A.M., Rose, J.C., Burnett, B.A., Vogele, L. Jr., and Harcourt, J.P., pp. 34–120. Final Report Study Unit 1, Ozark-Arkansas- Ouachita Archeological Research, Synthesis, and Overview Report. Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville.Google Scholar
Sassaman, K. E. 1996 Technological Innovations in Economic and Social Contexts. In Archaeology of the Mid-Holocene Southeast, edited by Sassaman, K. E. and Anderson, D.G. pp. 57–74. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.Google Scholar
Sassaman, K. E., Brooks, M. J., Hanson, G. T., and Anderson, D. G. 1990 Native American Prehistory in the Middle Savannah River Valley: A Synthesis of Archaeological Investigations on the Savannah River Site, Aiken and Barnwell Counties, South Carolina. Savannah River Archaeological Research Papers 1. South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia.Google Scholar
Schambach, F. F. 1970 Pre-Caddoan Cultures in the Trans-Mississippian South: A Beginning Sequence. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Schambach, F. F. 1982 An Outline of Fourche Maline Culture in Southwest Arkansas. In Arkansas Archeology in Review, edited by Trubowitz, N. L. and Jeter, M.D. pp. 132–197. Research Series 15. Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville.Google Scholar
Seeman, M. F. 1992 The Bow and Arrow, the Intrusive Mound Complex, and a Late Woodland Jack's Reef Horizon in the Mid-Ohio Valley. In Cultural Variability in Context: Woodland Settlements of the Mid-Ohio Valley, edited by Seeman, M., pp. 41–51. MCJA Special Paper No. 7. Kent, Ohio.Google Scholar
Shott, M. J. 1993 Spears, Darts, and Arrows: Late Woodland Hunting Techniques in the Upper Ohio Valley. American Antiquity 58: 425–443.Google Scholar
Shott, M. J. 1996 Innovation and Selection in Prehistory: A Case Study from the American Bottom. In Stone Tools: Theoretical Insights into Human Prehistory, edited by Odell, G., pp. 279–313. Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
Shott, M. J. 1997 Stones and Shafts Redux: The Metric Discrimination of Chipped-Stone Dart and Arrow Points. American Antiquity 62: 86–101.Google Scholar
Sollberger, J. B. 1970 Preforms Are Not Projectile Point Types. Oklahoma Anthropological Society 19: 151–154.Google Scholar
Stewart-Abernathy, J. 1982 Ceramic Studies at the Toltec Mounds Site: Basis for a Tentative Cultural Sequence. In Emerging Patterns of Plum Bayou Culture, edited by Rolingson, M. A., pp. 44—53. Research Series 18. Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville.Google Scholar
Swanton, J. 1938 Historic Use of the Spear-Thrower in Southeastern North America. American Antiquity 4: 356–358.Google Scholar
Thomas, C, 1894 Report on the Mound Explorations of the Bureau of Ethnology. Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 1890-1891 12: 17–742.Google Scholar
Thomas, D. H. 1978 Arrowheads and Atlatl Darts: How the Stones Got the Shaft. American Antiquity 43: 461–172.Google Scholar
Tuck, J. A. 1978 Regional Cultural Development, 3000 to 300 B.C. In Handbook of North American Indians: The Northeast, vol. 15, edited by Trigger, B. G., pp. 28^-3. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D. C. Google Scholar
Vehik, S. C. 1984 The Woodland Occupations. Prehistory of Oklahoma, edited by Bell, R. E., pp. 175–197. Academic Press, Orlando.Google Scholar
Weaver, J. N. 1994 Dart Points or Arrow Points?: An Analysis of Projectile Points from the Armintrout-Blackman Site in the Kalamazoo River Valley. Manuscript on file, Department of Anthropology, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo.Google Scholar
Webb, W. S. 1957 The Development of the Spearthrower. Occasional Papers in Anthropology 2. Department of Anthropology, University of Kentucky, Lexington.Google Scholar
Webster, G. S. 1980 Recent Data Bearing on the Question of the Origins of the Bow and Arrow in the Great Basin. American Antiquity 45: 63–66.Google Scholar
Williams, S., and Brain, J. P. 1983 Excavations at the Lake George Site, Yazoo County, Mississippi, 1958-1960. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology 74. Harvard University, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Winters, H. D. 1969 The Riverton Culture. Report of Investigation 13. Illinois State Museum, Springfield.Google Scholar
Wright, J. V. 1994 The Prehistoric Transportation of Goods in the St. Lawrence River Basin. In Prehistoric Exchange Systems in North America, edited by Baugh, T. G. and Ericson, J. E., pp. 47–71. Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar