Ancient weapons and killing effectiveness

[Desk Jockey]

I was talking to a friend about ancient weapons - spears, primitive bows - and he mentioned that the weapons themselves did a lot of killing but were just as important at harassment. He basically was saying it was rare for ancient technology to achieve the kind of wounds modern archery tackle creates and resulting quick kills . Essentially ancient hunters would wound preying bows or spears as best they could and then run it down but the kill was from a combination of blood Los from more superficial wombs, shock and exhaustion.

I can't find any research to speak to the point but it doesn't feel crazy to me.

Thoughts?

 

[Superkodiak38]

Well I would think it would depend a lot on the specific weapon and the game. Buffalo where harassed, stampeded and run off cliffs by native Americans on ponies with bows, most of those bows would probably scale in the 35-45 pound range based on available materials and design. Of course an obsidian head is sharper than any metal blade you can find ( they are used in eye surgery because they cause less tissue trauma due to their sharpness) Now an atlatl dart weigh a couple thousand grains would impale a Javelina or deer with no problem at all. So I would agree that there are methods of hunting that involve harassing or driving game and tracking, running down some animals and others where the weaponry was sufficient to make the kill rather quickly.

 

[oldgoat]

I've seen a couple of vertabraes from animals that have stone points stuck in them that penetrated far enough to sever the spinal cord. And I've seen the wall drawings depicting shooting an animal from back to front in a hard quartering away posture presumably where they would enter the pumphouse without hitting a rib. Now, I have no doubt they did do some the way your friend describes probably with the help of a dog or several, they certainly had the ability to cleanly take big game with their bows, people are still humanely harvesting big game with wood bows and arrows tipped with stone points today! Look for Shawn Woods and Clay Hayes videos on YouTube and I also remember Tred Barta killing a grizzly in BC with a stone point and you also have to remember, those guys got danger close to the critters, so they had enough ummph to make the shot!

 

[hodgeman]

Unfortunately for your friend, history doesn't agree with his assessment.

You've got to remember that in N. America bows and horses are relatively new to the scene. Atlatls go back way farther and an atlatl dart is more than sufficient to bring down game. Case in point- most people who find ancient "arrowheads" are actually finding atlatl points. One of those stuck on a 5' dart could be driven pretty deep into a game animal- plenty deep for a quick kill.

Where modern archery gear excels is range, not trauma.

 

[Turkeykiller]

Anatomically we are built for the chase, instruments are our killing aids. Spear, club, atlatl,bow, sling, trap, were all very effective! The skill of ancient man at tracking far exceeds our ability today as a whole. A marginal hit on an animal today is often lost. 150 years ago here in NA, that animal was toast. Their life depended on skills we don't have today, and was honed to a razor edge from an early age! We are more efficient tech wise, but much less in knowledge and physical ability!

 

[IdahoElk]

If your friend was correct everyone would have starved to death because even with all the latest gadgets the success rate is maybe 10% with archery here in Idaho.
What our ancestors might have lacked in gadgets they made up with skill and woodsmanship.

 

[rayporter]

had a book once that was narrated by an old indian that was around the time of the Custer battle. he said his people would shoot buffalo in the soft spot [flank] while on horseback. an arrow or two per animal and then the squaws would track them down and bring the meat back to camp.

i would bet dart kills were not a high percentage thing. can you say 'jump the dart'

my take is that your bud is pretty close

 

[mfolch]

Your friend is probably not wrong in theory, but no ancient source I know of--and I'm a professor of classical Greek and Roman literature, so my knowledge is limited to early Europe and the Near East--mentions use of weapons for harassment and chase. From what I can tell, the goal was to minimize or control the direction of the chase as much as possible (as it is still today--unless you're one of the Benoits).

The earliest sources to discuss hunting (Xenophon's 'On Hunting'; Arrian's 'On Hunting'; and various discussions of Persian hunting in Xenophon and related authors who knew about at the Near East, which had one of the most sophisticated, early hunting cultures) suggest that the basic hunting tool kit consists of six 'weapons': dogs, nets, horses, clubs, spears, a professional hunter (the ancient Greek word for hunter means 'dog-driver'--essentially someone whose sole profession was to raise and train dogs and maintain nets for the rich men who could afford to hunt--horses were, of course, hugely expensive). And the animals they tend to hunt are (in order): rabbits, boar, lions, and deer. The strategy in all cases had to do with herding animals into an enclosed area, often using dogs and nets, to kill them. The point is basically to trap the animal and either club (rabbits) or spear it (boar and lions) to death.

Dear hunting was similar in some ways, but also quite different, and probably offensive to modern sensibilities. Two methods were recommended: either using dogs to herd the deer to an area in which hunters had buried caltrops, which would wound and hobble the deer, making it easier to hunt down; or catch a fawn and wait until its mother returns, and then spear them both. Not very fair, of course, but getting close enough to spear a deer must have been quite difficult.

As for basic ballistics, modern technologies are much, much more powerful and accurate than anything they had in antiquity.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[rayporter]

Your friend is probably not wrong in theory, but no ancient source I know of--and I'm a professor of classical Greek and Roman literature, so my knowledge is limited to early Europe and the Near East--mentions use of weapons for harassment and chase. From what I can tell, the goal was to minimize or control the direction of the chase as much as possible (as it is still today--unless you're one of the Benoits).

The earliest sources to discuss hunting (Xenophon's 'On Hunting'; Arrian's 'On Hunting'; and various discussions of Persian hunting in Xenophon and related authors who knew about at the Near East, which had one of the most sophisticated, early hunting cultures) suggest that the basic hunting tool kit consists of six 'weapons': dogs, nets, horses, clubs, spears, a professional hunter (the ancient Greek word for hunter means 'dog-driver'--essentially someone whose sole profession was to raise and train dogs and maintain nets for the rich men who could afford to hunt--horses were, of course, hugely expensive). And the animals they tend to hunt are (in order): rabbits, boar, lions, and deer. The strategy in all cases had to do with herding animals into an enclosed area, often using dogs and nets, to kill them. The point is basically to trap the animal and either club (rabbits) or spear it (boar and lions) to death.

Dear hunting was similar in some ways, but also quite different, and probably offensive to modern sensibilities. Two methods were recommended: either using dogs to herd the deer to an area in which hunters had buried caltrops, which would wound and hobble the deer, making it easier to hunt down; or catch a fawn and wait until its mother returns, and then spear them both. Not very fair, of course, but getting close enough to spear a deer must have been quite difficult.

As for basic ballistics, modern technologies are much, much more powerful and accurate than anything they had in antiquity.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

'maintain nets for the rich men who could afford to hunt-'

i have a problem with this rich man thing. before the white man brought horses what was the rich ruling class in North America?

 

[woodmoose]

'maintain nets for the rich men who could afford to hunt-'

i have a problem with this rich man thing. before the white man brought horses what was the rich ruling class in North America?

he was referring to ancient Europe/middle east,,,,,,,

 

[theleo91386]

I believe your friend is disregarding how effective ancient people were that had to rely on hunting to live. If you started shooting a bow at 4-5 years old, had generations of world class archers in your family, and rely on that bow to put food in your mouth, I'd bet you'd be better than todays weekend warriors. Case in point would be the Huns who were known for hitting targets the size of tea cups from a galloping horse at 20 yards. Also the game animals here weren't the same as they are today. Lewis and Clark noted in their journals how docile elk were on their journey. The biggest thing for a person to wrap their head around is how effective a person/civilization can be at hunting, when it is the biggest key to survival.

 

[fort fireman]

Interesting discussion. I think to discuss the effective killing capability of "ancient"weapons it needs to be narrowed down a bit. it would need to be narrowed down to time period,weapon, and game. A atlatal against a mammoth would probably be more of a group attack with a lot of spears over a long period of time and tracking to kill the game. Which is how it is believed it was done and very effectively . However it wasn't a quick humane death but the job got done.however that same atlatal against a deer,rabbit,smaller game probably would have been very quick and effective. Now take the plains Indians before horses and most of the bison hunts involved driving buffalo to a clif and stampeding them over the edge. Then going through and bashing their skulls in with a rook. Effective? One such jump is Ulm Pishkin outside of Great falls Mt. They found artifacts from as far away as the pacific at that jump which means a lot of trading and travel by those people. All pre Colombian to. Then there is a lot of evidence that suggests traps and snares also played a large roll in game getting. They weren't conibears or leg hold steel traps but they killed and captured game well to. Just some thoughts.

 

[elkyinzer]

The more amazing aspect of it to me, rather than thinking about it in these absolute terms, is to think of the relativity involved and how rapidly that could advance technology.

Your clan raids some clan across the river and discovers that their atlatls have a little bit sharper point than yours. You figure out how to steal their technology and that becomes the new paradigm.

Obviously their technology was "good enough" for their day and time, but these advancements not only changed society but influenced our evolution as our brains sorted through all this stuff, we grew alongside these advancements.

 

[Beendare]

Seemed appropriate to this discussion- grin

 

[Jauwater]

My great grandfather spoke of herd driving. Herding animals into ambushes. He was a tribe Indian as a young man. Herding animals on foot that is!

Sent from my SM-S975L using Tapatalk

 

[bud]

I have been obsessed with bowhunting since a kid, been at it awhile. Went thru I guess what you would call a primitive stage. Hunted with nothing but self bows and gear I made myself for a few years. Made several self bows but could never get the flint napping down. Friend who was an expert napper made me some nice hunting points. Killed young buck with ash arrow and flint head, I was not impressed, same bow (osage English style longbow 57lb pull) using zwickey 2 blades would pass thru and stick in the ground on same shot I got little over halfway thru deer with flint.

 

[Desk Jockey]

Piling into my own thread, I bought a cold steel spear on Amazon. One trip to the back yard confirmed my effective range was about 2.5 yards.

To the extent I have read about ancient hunters or even more contemporary accounts, I am always intrigued to learn about there techniques. I finished a book not long ago about a guy that hunted central Pennsylvania in the 1700s when that was considered the "west". He talk about live capturing elk and deer for market sales. Used dogs to run them down and also ropes.

 

[rayporter]

Killed young buck with ash arrow and flint head, I was not impressed, same bow (osage English style longbow 57lb pull) using zwickey 2 blades would pass thru and stick in the ground on same shot I got little over halfway thru deer with flint.

and after the shot the real woodsman ship =tracking.

one of the things that always bothered me about an atlatl was how you could hold it and throw a dart with your hand sideways. it is awkward to say the least.
there is an atlatl in the museum at Mesa Verde and one look at how it was laced to the forefinger and middle finger and you know it will work. they were able to throw it like a baseball that way.

 

[robtattoo]

Alls I know is, I ain't seen too many mammoths round my neck o' the woods

"Use enough rock"

 

[Beendare]

I think Hollywood gives us a skewed view of reality regarding ancient weapons. We think of effectiveness at 30,40 yards when in ancient days it was probably closer to arms reach. An interesting look at this is the Pope and Young books on Ishi, "Hunting with the bow and arrow"...that guy could stalk in close.

We watch Robin Hood and think archers back in the day were amazing shots...when in reality the bow and arrow was an artillery weapon with minute of castle accuracy. I'm sure some became pretty decent shots...but my guess is they would have to be real close to consistently kill game. You know they were close with spears....or they just flock chucked herds of animals.

I think in the really ancient days before civilization the OP's premise is not far off.