use a bow and arrows of some type? Seems like it.

Nope. They never made it to Australia, and so I’d expect not to NZ, either.

Interesting discussion on archery and ancient Australia.

https://austhrutime.com/weapons.htm

Lots of historic information, but of course it only aligns with written history. Cave dwellings and paintings show different types of weapons from clubs, to spears to bows and arrows, and likely that is how it evolved. Anthropolists are still discovering things that they didn't think existed in certain eras, so it's still unknown pretty much how old the bow and arrow really is. Oetzi had one and he is aged to around 5000 years. Continental separation may have held it back in some areas.

What GF said.

Interestingly, Bill’s article suggests that they had access to the technology but never really adopted it. That seems possible, for any number of reasons. Could’ve come down to just one influential individual who thought they weren't “Traditional” enough!

And I’m being only partially tongue-in-cheek about that - at one point the Pope declared rifled barrels to be The Work Of The Devil. If Luther hadn’t started the whole Reformation thing before rifled barrels came along, it’s conceivable that obedience to the Pope and the Fear Of God would have held off that technology for quite some time...

The article, of course, assumed that the primary reason was that the bows that they knew about weren’t up to slaying a large ‘Roo. Which might show a lack of imagination as to how powerful a bow could be, or maybe they just didn’t have stone points that were up to the task, since they used small flakes glued into a wooden spear point like small teeth, rather than a single piece of stone as was used pretty much everywhere else.

This is an interesting thread ! Thanks for starting it.

GF I never knew that about the Pope. Which one said that? Do you know the year? I wonder if that could've effected the crusades...

I'm not sure where I heard the "info" from? Maybe one of the Archers in OZ? It SEEMS that there was a lack of suitable bow-wood in MOST of Australia? Don't etch that in Stone. Somebody with better resources can check things out and correct me? STAY SAFE / WELL / COOL / COMFORTABLE & BLESSED BE! BATMAN

Australia is one of the DisneyLands, right? I've never been there so can't be sure it exists. But...didn't Potus claim to own it?

Agree with GF.

There were others doubtless that expired before the bow was part of their kit.

Neanderthals and other pre or concurrent non-sapiens.

Ummm... Nope. Not scientifically, anyway. The Neanderthals were Homo, but not sapiens... Though the fact that they were able to cross-breed with sapiens and produce fertile offspring DOES throw a seriously big MONKEY wrench into the works, doesn’t it??? LOL

Thanks for the set-up, Pat!

Sapient . . . but not [I]sapiens[/i].

Using the Linneaus taxonomy, anyway.

(Who said I'd never use my anthropology courses?)

Thanks for the interesting information. Seems there is more to the matter than we thought. Most everything is different in Australia. - lbg

A couple of points regarding previous posts. A friend of mine has made bows from over one hundred species of Australian timber, and rates at least sixty percent as superior to osage orange. Aborigines made some beautiful stone spear points- equal to anything the Native Americans made, so quality of work had nothing to do with not using arrows. Kangaroo hide is very thin and their ribs are very light compared to the size of the animal. An arrow from a heavy bow passes through with ease. I've never understood why the Aborigines didn't use a bow. For one thing it would have kept the older, most experienced hunters in the game long after they could no longer throw a heavy spear. JayInOz

I listed each of my separate points as a separate paragraph, so I don't know why it appeared as just one. JayInOz

The only Navajo bowyer I know told me it would be stupid to carry just one bow...bows/strings fail in the field...so they carried two in a sheath. Bows/bow-strings are more trouble than atlatls.

None of us were there to witness it, but I have always been told and read that the American Indians "were not good archers". I don't know what a "good archer" is...but I am pretty sure I ain't one either!! I was also always told and read that the eastern Indians "only used bows for war and didn't hunt with them".

Actual data on U.S. and Australian wood in an easy to compare format.

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/paleoplanet69529/australian-wood-for-bows-not-just-eucalytps-t47632.html

Msinc I think it was George Catlin- famous American artist- who recounted the tale about the time he was riding with a group of US cavalry and a party of Native Americans- I forget which nation but I do have the book somewhere- when a small flock of geese flew overhead heading down the ridge. The Chief took off after them on his horse and at full gallop strung his bow, knocked an arrow and shot a goose out of the air. I'd call that being a good archer:) JayInOz

Actually, after the horse became available, and the first rifles were also in the hands of NDN's, the bow was the best tool for killing buffalo. Rifle was one shot, stop and reload, bow was arrow after arrow at full run. Surpassed buffalo jumps for production. The bow was used in tribal war before European's invaded, also was the hunting tool for most woodland tribes. Not so important for prairie tribes before the horse. Of course the People had to learn to shoot well. They weren't ignorant.

I live on the Chesapeake Bay and was always told/read that the local Indians subsisted mostly on food they took from the bay and it's tributaries. Fish and blue crabs in the warm months, oysters and clams when it got cold and the fish went to deeper water and blue crabs hibernated. When the bay's shorelines and tributaries froze during a cold snap they hunted with bamboo blow guns and poison tipped darts. They mostly killed raccoons and opossum, and muskrats and beaver. There weren't a lot of deer around when the pilgrims arrived. Every place is different, I have no doubt that when your live depends on it you will get a lot better at doing something than when you do not have the need. Ishi was not a very good archer. The idea that every native American that could walk could put Byron Ferguson to shame is a little hard to go along with. What we really know about the natural, untouched and unchanged native Americans was either documented by the first settlers or from Ishi. The fact that they weren't shooting aspirins out of the air wasn't just because the pills weren't invented yet......

I'm not real sure how the rumor got started that native Americans weren't good archers. Particularly if you read the diaries and written accounts of people who faced them. Most all of them were pretty impressed from the Spaniards and the French to the early Texas Rangers. Of course folks who lived un coastal areas and on major tributaries depended on the available food supply from those sources Why would they not? The Europeans that came here dud the same thing.

I read an account once about a first encounter with one of the tribes from the great lakes area. The writer stated that the men of the tribe were at least six feet tall and that none of his party could draw any of their bows. I also read of another tiny tribe living in semi desert who lived on roots, lizards and insects and were so poor that the other tribes refused to make war on them as there was no honour in it. Anyway I'm sure as with any armed group of people, there are some who excel no matter what the weapon. There's more to feeding a family with a bow than being extremely accurate. I've always overcome that hurdle by being able to get real close. If you can't be good, be sneaky:) JayInOz

Very interesting discussion.

Jay, did your friend mention the species of Australian woods he was using for his bows. It might be fun to give one or two a try.

G'day Phil. I think he tried just about everything he could get his hands on. He's about twelve hours north of me so the timbers in his area are different to mine. The most incredibly tough, springy timber I've ever seen is from a species of Acacia that I used to have growing in dense scrub on my previous farm- and I've never seen that particular tree anywhere else. I'm sure there are still a lot of species that haven't been tested for bow woods. We have about seven hundred species of eucalypt, close to twelve hundred species of Acacia, plus all the melaleuca, grevilleas, casuarinas and other native she oaks, native conifers and heaps of others. It'd be nice to live long enough to make a bow from all of them:) JayInOz

".....and shot a goose out of the air. I'd call that being a good archer:) JayInOz"

".....thought he was safe at 200 yards from a Comanche bowman .. nope shot through the heart"

Nope, Id call it being a lucky archer, both times. Unless of course they could repeat it more than once, then I still wouldn't call it "good", I'd call it fantastic. I'm not saying it didn't happen, but LOL all you want, a heart shot at 200 yards from the sticks they had for bows and arrows??? Couldn't be done today with our best, fastest most powerful crossbow. I doubt they had bows that would even get an arrow that far. Truth known he was shot by one of his own men that was sick and tired of his BS. The rest of them were probably so coked up on peyote they didn't know any better either....

Pay me $200 per shot and I will let you do it all day long. I have zero doubt that you will run out of money before I ever get the first scratch. Probably could say the same thing at $2.00 per shot.

The difference is that the guy in England didn't make the challenge with you. You seem to know a lot about me sir, how is that??? Again, no helmet, no vest, $200 per shot....you will run out of money before I get the first scratch. We will never get to the part about the panic and flee. I am not saying Indians couldn't shoot, but come on guys lets get real for a minute...200 yard {not feet} heart shots???? All of them, red skinned Howard Hills running around the wilds??? I think not, and so do you. If they really were that good they wouldn't have called the Gatling gun "big medicine"

"they wouldn't have called the Gatling gun big medicine" that has nothing to do with the accuracy or lack there of related to the bows of indigenous peoples. They were guerrilla fighters. They had no need to shoot at anybody, or anything from 200 yards. That is a comparison of English military archery to a completely different type of warfare.

Might surprise some people that NDN's did not bring the bow and arrow with them into N. America. One of the earliest areas to use it was Iowa, a region that had already been populated for around 11,500 years by the time the bow and arrow came into use. Prior to that, the spear was the primary weapon. They made backed bows also, not just simple self bows, but also composites, including the use of horn. Might have started late, but they progressed rapidly in making better bows and arrows.

There was an American Indian tribe that reportedly never really used bows. South west rockies. Maybe Utes? I'll try and look it up. Seems like a desert people without much big game, maybe that's why. They were known to be beasts with a war club.

You did a great job of making my point for me, thank you sir!!! I wasn't the one who came up with the claim that the Indians were such good archers that they could and did hit a man in the heart at 200 yards. When it comes to stick and string self bows there really isn't much you can do to make one any more appreciably accurate over another...do you really think primitive peoples tillered their bows, balanced and straightened their arrows?? Good god yall.......

If you guys really feel this bad for the native Americans why don't you try giving them back some of their land!!!! They would probably like that a whole lot more than sticking up for their inability to shoot a tree limb and the straightest small stick they could find at the time.

msinc, you obviously are pretty clueless about both NDN's and the bows they made. NDN's aren't/weren't mindless, brainless, cavemen grubbing about without thought. A bow WAS NOT some random tree limb. Pretty damn insulting, to say the least.

Apparently between 30,000 and 20,000 years ago archery technology became all the rage.There is physical evidence that maybe 60,000 years ago archery was occasionally used .There is quite a difference between some ingenious individuals devising a bow and large groups regularly using the bow for hunting and warfare.///The Neanderthals weren't dummies.Remember intelligence varies.Some of the leatherwallers are really smart and then there are a few like me only funnier.///OK how many of you guys& gals hunt flying geese and ducks with your bows.Some of us could take birds on the wing and some can't make 240 on the 20 yd 300 round.//// In less sophisticated cultures craftsmen quickly come to be appreciated.We've heard about them placing staves in streams to work on the wood.They sure knew how to carve.They had gatherers who could find straight sticks and they used fire for a variety of techniques.So of course some bows were well made and some guys could knock a monkey out of a tree and others could hit a running deer.I don't have a clue as to how bows and arrows were introduced to North America but the land bridge from Asia was still available after archery came on the scene.( Of course you couldn't carry bows in a canoe or the ability to build your own in your head.

If you have already registered, please

sign in now

For new registrations

Click Here