DOCSLIB.ORG

Sedentism, Social Change, Warfare, and the Bow in the Ancient Pueblo Southwest Paul F

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Sedentism, Social Change, Warfare, and the Bow in the Ancient Pueblo Southwest Paul F View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by UNL | Libraries University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Anthropology Faculty Publications Anthropology, Department of 2013 Sedentism, Social Change, Warfare, and the Bow in the Ancient Pueblo Southwest Paul F. Reed Archaeology Southwest, [email protected] Phil R. Geib University of Nebraska - Lincoln, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/anthropologyfacpub Part of the Archaeological Anthropology Commons, and the Social and Cultural Anthropology Commons Reed, Paul F. and Geib, Phil R., "Sedentism, Social Change, Warfare, and the Bow in the Ancient Pueblo Southwest" (2013). Anthropology Faculty Publications. 148. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/anthropologyfacpub/148 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Anthropology, Department of at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Anthropology Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Published in Evolutionary Anthropology 22 (2013), pp. 103–110. DOI: 10.1002/evan.21356 PMID: 23776046 Copyright © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Used by permission. digitalcommons.unl.edu Sedentism, Social Change, Warfare, and the Bow in the Ancient Pueblo Southwest Paul F. Reed and Phil R. Geib Abstract In the ancient American Southwest, use of the bow developed relatively rapidly among Pueblo people by the fifth century AD. This new technology replaced the millennia-old atlatl and dart weaponry system. Roughly 150 years later in the AD 600s, Pueblo socioeconomic organization began to evolve rapidly, as many groups adopted a much more sedentary life. Multiple factors converged to allow this sedentary pattern to emerge, but the role of the bow in this process has not been fully explored. In this paper, we trace the development of the bow and discuss its role as sedentism emerged and social changes occurred in ancient Puebloan society from the fifth through seventh centuries AD. Keywords: bow, Basketmakers, Ancestral Pueblo, maize he development and spread of bow technology across chronological framework and assumed a progression T North America has spawned considerable archeolog- from the distant past to ethnographic Puebloan groups.11 ical debate for more than 100 years.1–7 Various schemes The sequence consists of three Basketmaker periods (I- have been proposed for the spread of bow technology III) at the early end and five Puebloan stages (I-V). Bas- from Asia between 4000 and 2000 BP. Despite the debate ketmaker I was later abandoned, as it corresponded to over the exact timing, bow technology was present across late Archaic, pre-Puebloan developments. The Pecos the North American continent by AD 400–800. In the an- framework is still commonly used, although the notion cient American Southwest, the earliest indications of bow of “progressive” development has been dropped and re- use occur in the AD 100–400 interval.8 In this paper, we placed by simple chronological intervals. In the many de- focus on the timing of the adoption of bow technology in cades since its formulation, archeologists have fleshed the northern Puebloan Southwest and its relationship to out the details of cultural change throughout most of the sedentism, warfare, and social complexity. We also dis- Southwest, There currently exist a plethora of regional cuss various locales with early bow use in the northern sequences and phase names. Southwest (Fig. 1). We evaluate the evidence with regard Central to cultural developments throughout the en- to the social coercion and warfare theories discussed by tire Southwest is the use of cultigens, particularly maize. Bingham and his colleagues in this issue.9,10 Whether adopted in situ by foragers or introduced by mi- grant farmer-foragers,12 maize was present in the South- A Brief Sketch of Early Puebloan History west by about 2100 BC.13 Maize, or the use of domesticates more generally, was a critical defining characteristic of the To assess how the introduction of bow technology to the Basketmaker II period as originally conceived, which was Southwest potentially affected cultural developments in designated as the prepottery, atlatl-using, initial farming the region, we need to briefly outline early Pueblo cul- stage (Fig. 2). This interval is very lengthy (ca. 2100 BC– tural history, with particular attention to the roughly AD 400) and the earliest portion of it, before 400 BC, is 500-year interval during the first millennium AD. The still poorly known. Nonetheless, by at least 400 BC and original framework for discussing Puebloan history in perhaps hundreds of years earlier, there is good evidence the Southwest is designated as the Pecos Classifica- that Basketmaker groups in various areas were largely de- tion. It was intended as a developmental rather than pendent on maize agriculture.14–18 Paul F. Reed is a Preservation Archaeologist with Archaeology Southwest (formerly the Center for Desert Archaeology) currently assigned as Chaco Scholar at Salmon Ruins Museum, New Mexico. Reed’s research interests include ancient Puebloan community organization and social development and Chacoan economic and ritual organization. Email: [email protected] Phil Geib has worked as an archaeologist for 30 years, mostly on the Colorado Plateau in Utah and Arizona. His main research concerns preceramic foragers and farmers and various prehistoric technologies. Geib’s dissertation research concerns conflict and warfare during the interval when domesticates were initially used in the North American Southwest. Email: [email protected] 103 104 Reed & Geib in Evolutionary Anthropology 22 (2013), Figure 1. Map of the Four Corners region of the North American Southwest showing the locations of sites discussed in this article. Despite the reliance on maize, Basketmaker II popula- deep pithouses, and a commitment to a much more sed- tions seem to have maintained considerable residential entary way of life. mobility; certainly the degree of sedentism increased in the centuries after AD 400. It also seems true that the Earliest Evidence of Bow Use in the Southwest Neolithic demographic transition did not occur until af- ter the addition of ceramics, bean cultivation, and use Because of A.V. Kidder’s original Pecos classification and of improved maize varieties.16,18 Basketmaker II settle- division between Basketmaker II and III, most archeol- ments were primarily small in scale, housing residential ogists have assumed that bow technology was not part groups comprising extended or larger nuclear families. of the Basketmaker II adaptation. In fact, most continue According to the original formulation, the Basketmaker to list the bow as a differentiating trait for the succeed- III period saw the addition of two new technologies ing Basketmaker III period. However, there is evidence with important economic consequences: pottery and the across the Southwest of bow use before AD 500 and per- bow and arrow. Significant, too, was the addition of do- haps as early as AD 100. mesticated beans and turkey husbandry if not outright Kidder and other archeologists of his time certainly domestication. had good reason to believe that bow and arrow technol- The key interval during the long Basketmaker era was ogy was absent during Basketmaker II but present during the Basketmaker II to III transition, or roughly AD 400– Basketmaker III. They had the good fortune of recover- 525. As the senior author noted more than a decade ago,19 ing the perishable components: the actual atlatls, darts, key aspects of the ancient Pueblo way of life were em- bows, and arrows. In all cases where they excavated in braced during this period, establishing the primary pat- preceramic contexts, bow technology was absent but at- tern followed for more than a millennium of subsequent latl technology was present. In contrast, from ceramic development. Important aspects of this adaptation in- contexts, Kidder and his colleagues recovered bow tech- cluded a commitment to maize agriculture, cultivation of nology and, in the earliest of these, such as Broken Flute beans, use of ceramics,20 construction and use of large, Cave of the Prayer Rock district in northeast Arizona,21 Sedentism and the Bow in the Ancient Pueblo Southwest 105 Figure 2. Chronological bar graph showing ancient Pueblo periods of interest and timing of critical events, including earliest bow use. the last traces of atlatl technology (Fig. 2). When these layers or features also yield datable tree-ring With the advent of AMS dating, we now know that samples, this more than compensates for the lack of di- many of the Basketmaker II contexts excavated by Kid- rect dating on bow or arrow remains, since the chron- der and his contemporaries were relatively early, of- ological resolution of dendrochronology allows precise ten before the BC/ AD boundary. As a result of largeand dating for the emergence of a given technology, provided small-scale contract archeology projects and research the contextual associations are accurately recorded. For conducted with old collections over the last 30 years, example, when Earl Morris excavated sites in the Prayer considerably more is known about the temporal pattern Rock District of northeast Arizona, he uncovered bow of these technologies. The current evidence suggests that and arrow fragments from pithouses that were tree-ring introduction of the bow and arrow had a complicated dated to AD 470–520 (early Basketmaker III).21,25 temporal and spatial pattern. In a general sense, the old Differentiating arrow from dart points when the or- framework is correct: By about AD 500, the bow and ar- ganic components, such as shafts, are missing, as they row was in general use and was the preferred projectile almost always are at open sites, is often problematic. weapon for hunting or war. But before its ubiquitous use, Point size is a critical variable, with dart tips gener- bow technology made a spotty appearance in the north- ally being much larger than arrow tips.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • ARROWS SUPREME, by American
    CROSSBOWS FOR VIETNAM! VOLCANOLAND HUNTING PROFESSIONAL PERFORMANCE GUARANTEED OR YOUR MONEY BACK! the atomic bow The bold techniques of nuclear impregnated with a plastic mon­ chemistry have created the first omer and then atomically hard­ major chang,e in bowmaking ma­ ened. Wing's PRESENTATION II terials since the introduction of is a good example of the startling fiberglas. For years, archery results! The Lockwood riser in people have been looking for this bow is five times stronger improved woods. We've wanted than ordinary wood. It has 60% more beautiful types. Stronger more mass weight to keep you 1 woods. Woods with more mass on target. It has greater resist­ weight. We've searched for ways ance to abrasion and moisture. to protect wood against mois~ And the natural grain beauty of ture. What we were really after the wood is brought out to the turned out to be something bet­ fullest extent by the Lockwood COMING APRIL 1 &2 ter than the real thing. Wing found process. The PRESENTATION II 9th Annual International it in new Lockwood. An out­ PRESENTATION II. .. ......... •• $150.00 is one of several atomic bows Fair enough! I'm Interested In PROFESSIONAL PERFORMANCE growth of studies conducted by PRESENTATION I . ••• . •.• . •• •• $115.00 Indoor Archery Tournament waiting for you at your Wing the Atomic Energy Commission, WHITE WING • . • • • • • • . • . • • . • • $89.95 dealer. Ask him to show you our World's Largest SWIFT WING ..• ••••. ••••• •• $59.95 Lockwood is ordinary fine wood FALCON ••.••• •••• • . ••••. •• $29.95 new designs for 1967. Participating Sports Event Cobo Hall, Detroit Sponsored by Ben Pearson, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Mechanics of the Bow and Arrow 1
    On the Mechanics of the Bow and Arrow 1 B.W. Kooi Groningen, The Netherlands 1983 1B.W. Kooi, On the Mechanics of the Bow and Arrow PhD-thesis, Mathematisch Instituut, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, The Netherlands (1983), Supported by ”Netherlands organization for the advancement of pure research” (Z.W.O.), project (63-57) 2 Contents 1 Introduction 5 1.1 Prefaceandsummary.............................. 5 1.2 Definitionsandclassifications . .. 7 1.3 Constructionofbowsandarrows . .. 11 1.4 Mathematicalmodelling . 14 1.5 Formermathematicalmodels . 17 1.6 Ourmathematicalmodel. 20 1.7 Unitsofmeasurement.............................. 22 1.8 Varietyinarchery................................ 23 1.9 Qualitycoefficients ............................... 25 1.10 Comparison of different mathematical models . ...... 26 1.11 Comparison of the mechanical performance . ....... 28 2 Static deformation of the bow 33 2.1 Summary .................................... 33 2.2 Introduction................................... 33 2.3 Formulationoftheproblem . 34 2.4 Numerical solution of the equation of equilibrium . ......... 37 2.5 Somenumericalresults . 40 2.6 A model of a bow with 100% shooting efficiency . .. 50 2.7 Acknowledgement................................ 52 3 Mechanics of the bow and arrow 55 3.1 Summary .................................... 55 3.2 Introduction................................... 55 3.3 Equationsofmotion .............................. 57 3.4 Finitedifferenceequations . .. 62 3.5 Somenumericalresults . 68 3.6 On the behaviour of the normal force
    [Show full text]
  • The Bow and Arrow in the Book of Mormon
    The Bow and Arrow in the Book of Mormon William J. Hamblin The distinctive characteristic of missile weapons used in combat is that a warrior throws or propels them to injure enemies at a distance.1 The great variety of missiles invented during the thousands of years of recorded warfare can be divided into four major technological categories, according to the means of propulsion. The simplest, including javelins and stones, is propelled by unaided human muscles. The second technological category — which uses mechanical devices to multiply, store, and transfer limited human energy, giving missiles greater range and power — includes bows and slings. Beginning in China in the late twelfth century and reaching Western Europe by the fourteenth century, the development of gunpowder as a missile propellant created the third category. In the twentieth century, liquid fuels and engines have led to the development of aircraft and modern ballistic missiles, the fourth category. Before gunpowder weapons, all missiles had fundamental limitations on range and effectiveness due to the lack of energy sources other than human muscles and simple mechanical power. The Book of Mormon mentions only early forms of pregunpowder missile weapons. The major military advantage of missile weapons is that they allow a soldier to injure his enemy from a distance, thereby leaving the soldier relatively safe from counterattacks with melee weapons. But missile weapons also have some signicant disadvantages. First, a missile weapon can be used only once: when a javelin or arrow has been cast, it generally cannot be used again. (Of course, a soldier may carry more than one javelin or arrow.) Second, control over a missile weapon tends to be limited; once a soldier casts a missile, he has no further control over the direction it will take.
    [Show full text]
  • Student Worksheet (Grades 6–8)
    Name ______________________ Pueblo Indian History for Kids Student Worksheet (Grades 6–8) Overview Pueblo Indian History for Kids is an online timeline that tells the history of the Pueblo Indian people of the American Southwest. The timeline covers more than 15,000 years of history! Use this worksheet to guide your exploration of the timeline. As you move through the timeline, answer the questions below. Keep a list of questions you have as you explore. Go to: www.crowcanyon.org/pueblohistorykids Introduction 1. Who are the Pueblo Indians? 2. What other names are used to describe this group of people? 3. Where is the Mesa Verde region? 4. What does “Mesa Verde” mean, and what is the region’s environment like? 5. How is the environment of the Mesa Verde region similar to the environment where you live? How is it different? 6. What are two ways we can learn about Pueblo history? Can you think of others? 1 Pueblo Indian History for Kids―Student Worksheet (6–8) Paleoindian 1. What does the term “hunter-gatherer” mean? 2. How would you describe how people in your culture acquire food? Where do you get your food? 3. Identify two similarities and two differences between your life and that of Paleoindian people. Archaic 1. There were several major differences between the Paleoindian and Archaic periods. What were they and what is the evidence for these differences? 2. What important tools were used during the Archaic period? How did they change ways of life for people in the Mesa Verde region? 3. Why do you think there is not as much evidence for how people lived during the Paleoindian and Archaic periods as there is for later time periods? 2 Pueblo Indian History for Kids―Student Worksheet (6–8) Basketmaker 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Of Physalis Longifolia in the U.S
    The Ethnobotany and Ethnopharmacology of Wild Tomatillos, Physalis longifolia Nutt., and Related Physalis Species: A Review1 ,2 3 2 2 KELLY KINDSCHER* ,QUINN LONG ,STEVE CORBETT ,KIRSTEN BOSNAK , 2 4 5 HILLARY LORING ,MARK COHEN , AND BARBARA N. TIMMERMANN 2Kansas Biological Survey, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA 3Missouri Botanical Garden, St. Louis, MO, USA 4Department of Surgery, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, USA 5Department of Medicinal Chemistry, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA *Corresponding author; e-mail: [email protected] The Ethnobotany and Ethnopharmacology of Wild Tomatillos, Physalis longifolia Nutt., and Related Physalis Species: A Review. The wild tomatillo, Physalis longifolia Nutt., and related species have been important wild-harvested foods and medicinal plants. This paper reviews their traditional use as food and medicine; it also discusses taxonomic difficulties and provides information on recent medicinal chemistry discoveries within this and related species. Subtle morphological differences recognized by taxonomists to distinguish this species from closely related taxa can be confusing to botanists and ethnobotanists, and many of these differences are not considered to be important by indigenous people. Therefore, the food and medicinal uses reported here include information for P. longifolia, as well as uses for several related taxa found north of Mexico. The importance of wild Physalis species as food is reported by many tribes, and its long history of use is evidenced by frequent discovery in archaeological sites. These plants may have been cultivated, or “tended,” by Pueblo farmers and other tribes. The importance of this plant as medicine is made evident through its historical ethnobotanical use, information in recent literature on Physalis species pharmacology, and our Native Medicinal Plant Research Program’s recent discovery of 14 new natural products, some of which have potent anti-cancer activity.
    [Show full text]
  • Morphology of Modern Arrowhead Tips on Human Skin Analog*
    J Forensic Sci, January 2018, Vol. 63, No. 1 doi: 10.1111/1556-4029.13502 PAPER Available online at: onlinelibrary.wiley.com PATHOLOGY/BIOLOGY LokMan Sung,1,2 M.D.; Kilak Kesha,3 M.D.; Jeffrey Hudson,4,5 M.D.; Kelly Root,1 and Leigh Hlavaty,1,2 M.D. Morphology of Modern Arrowhead Tips on Human Skin Analog* ABSTRACT: Archery has experienced a recent resurgence in participation and has seen increases in archery range attendance and in chil- dren and young adults seeking archery lessons. Popular literature and movies prominently feature protagonists well versed in this form of weap- onry. Periodic homicide cases in the United States involving bows are reported, and despite this and the current interest in the field, there are no manuscripts published on a large series of arrow wounds. This experiment utilizes a broad selection of modern arrowheads to create wounds for comparison. While general appearances mimicked the arrowhead shape, details such as the presence of abrasions were greatly influenced by the design of the arrowhead tip. Additionally, in the absence of projectiles or available history, arrowhead injuries can mimic other instruments causing penetrating wounds. A published resource on arrowhead injuries would allow differentiation of causes of injury by forensic scientists. KEYWORDS: forensic science, forensic pathology, compound bow, arrow, broadhead, morphology Archery, defined as the art, practice, and skill of shooting arrows While investigations into the penetrating ability of arrows with a bow, is indelibly entwined in human history. Accounts of have been published (5), this article is the first large-scale study the bow and arrow can be chronicled throughout human civiliza- evaluating the cutaneous morphology of modern broadhead tion from its origins as a primary hunting tool, migration to utiliza- arrow tip injuries in a controlled environment.
    [Show full text]
  • Social Complexity at Cahokia
    Social Complexity at Cahokia Peter N. Peregrine Scott Ortman Eric Rupley SFI WORKING PAPER: 2014-03-004 SFI Working Papers contain accounts of scientiic work of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of the Santa Fe Institute. We accept papers intended for publication in peer-reviewed journals or proceedings volumes, but not papers that have already appeared in print. Except for papers by our external faculty, papers must be based on work done at SFI, inspired by an invited visit to or collaboration at SFI, or funded by an SFI grant. ©NOTICE: This working paper is included by permission of the contributing author(s) as a means to ensure timely distribution of the scholarly and technical work on a non-commercial basis. Copyright and all rights therein are maintained by the author(s). It is understood that all persons copying this information will adhere to the terms and constraints invoked by each author's copyright. These works may be reposted only with the explicit permission of the copyright holder. www.santafe.edu SANTA FE INSTITUTE Social Complexity at Cahokia Summary of a Working Group Held at the Santa Fe Institute, May 28-30, 2013. organized by Peter N. Peregrine, Lawrence University and Santa Fe Institute Scott Ortman, University of Colorado, Boulder and Santa Fe Institute. Eric Rupley, Santa Fe Institute Abstract A working group held at the Santa Fe Institute May 28-30, 2013, produced a set of consensus answers to questions about Cahokia, an urban place dating to the 12 th and 13 th centuries and located in what is today the greater Saint Louis region of Missouri and Illinois.
    [Show full text]
  • Regulations Digest
    2 NORTH CAROLINA 005-2006 Inland Fishing, Hunting and Trapping Regulations Digest Effective July 1, 2005 to June 30, 2006 This publication is furnished free through the courtesy of the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission. It is available online at www.ncwildlife.org. WILDLIFE ENDOWMENT FUND—THE BUY OF A LIFETIME MLIFE4 This application may be used to purchase a lifetime subscription to Wildlife in North Carolina magazine, to make a tax-deductible contribution to the Wildlife Endowment Fund, or to purchase a lifetime inland fishing and hunting license. To charge magazine subscriptions and adult lifetime licenses by phone (VISA or MasterCard only), call 1-888-248-6834. All proceeds for items sold or contributed on this application will be deposited in the Wildlife Endowment Fund. MAGAZINE SUBSCRIPTIONS AND TAX-DEDUCTIBLE CONTRIBUTIONS ■ Lifetime Magazine Subscription to Wildlife in North Carolina (Please allow 4-6 weeks for your subscription to begin.) . .$150 ■ I wish to make a tax-deductible contribution to the Wildlife Endowment Fund. Enclosed is my check for $ ___________. Make checks payable to Wildlife Endowment Fund. Credit card payments cannot be accepted for tax-deductible contributions. Name _________________________________________________________________ Daytime Phone ________________________________ Mailing Address_________________________________________________ City ______________________ State __________ Zip ___________ Method of Payment: ■ Check ■ VISA ■ MasterCard Acct. # ____________________________________ Expires ________________
    [Show full text]
  • Pueblo Indian History for Kids Student Worksheet (Grades 4–6)
    Name ______________________ Pueblo Indian History for Kids Student Worksheet (Grades 4–6) Overview Pueblo Indian History for Kids is an online timeline that tells the history of the Pueblo Indian people of the American Southwest. The timeline covers more than 15,000 years of history! Use this worksheet to guide your exploration of the timeline. As you move through the timeline, answer the questions below. Keep a list of questions you have as you explore. Go to: www.crowcanyon.org/pueblohistorykids Introduction 1. Who are the Pueblo Indians? 2. What other names are used to describe this group of people? 3. Where is the Mesa Verde region? What is the environment like there? 4. How is the environment of the Mesa Verde region similar to the environment where you live? How is it different? 5. What are some of the different ways we can learn about the Pueblo past? 1 Pueblo Indian History for Kids―Student Worksheet (4–6) Paleoindian 1. What does the term “hunter-gatherer” mean? 2. How do you get your food? Where does it come from? Archaic 1. How is the Archaic period different than the Paleoindian period? 2. What two important tools were used during the Archaic time period? How were they used? Basketmaker 1. What made the Basketmaker time period different than the Archaic period? 2. Describe the diet of the Pueblo people during the Basketmaker time period. 3. What important structures were used during the Basketmaker period? How were they used? What structures do people use today with similar purposes? 2 Pueblo Indian History for Kids―Student Worksheet (4–6) Pueblo I 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Climate Change and Cultural Response in the Prehistoric American Southwest
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln USGS Staff -- Published Research US Geological Survey Fall 2009 Climate Change and Cultural Response In The Prehistoric American Southwest Larry Benson U.S. Geological Survey, [email protected] Michael S. Berry Bureau of Reclamation Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usgsstaffpub Benson, Larry and Berry, Michael S., "Climate Change and Cultural Response In The Prehistoric American Southwest" (2009). USGS Staff -- Published Research. 725. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usgsstaffpub/725 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the US Geological Survey at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in USGS Staff -- Published Research by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. CLIMATE CHANGE AND CULTURAL RESPONSE IN THE PREHISTORIC AMERICAN SOUTHWEST Larry V. Benson and Michael S. Berry ABSTRACT Comparison of regional tree-ring cutting-date distributions from the southern Col- orado Plateau and the Rio Grande region with tree-ring-based reconstructions of the Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI) and with the timing of archaeological stage transitions indicates that Southwestern Native American cultures were peri- odically impacted by major climatic oscillations between A.D. 860 and 1600. Site- specifi c information indicates that aggregation, abandonment, and out-migration from many archaeological regions occurred during several widespread mega- droughts, including the well-documented middle-twelfth- and late-thirteenth- century droughts. We suggest that the demographic response of southwestern Native Americans to climate variability primarily refl ects their dependence on an inordinately maize-based subsistence regimen within a region in which agricul- ture was highly sensitive to climate change.
    [Show full text]
  • The Weapons of American Indians
    New Mexico Historical Review Volume 20 Number 3 Article 4 7-1-1945 The Weapons of American Indians D. E. Worcester Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/nmhr Recommended Citation Worcester, D. E.. "The Weapons of American Indians." New Mexico Historical Review 20, 3 (1945). https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/nmhr/vol20/iss3/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by UNM Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in New Mexico Historical Review by an authorized editor of UNM Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]. THE WEAPONS OF AMERICAN INDIANS By D. E. WORCESTER* The weapons used by the American Indians were much the same among all the tribes and regions. Most common were the bow and arrow, the war club, and' the spear. These arms differed in type and quality an:iong various tribes, partiy because of the materials used, and partly because of the lack of uniformity in native workmanship. Bows were made of various woods as well as strips of ra:m and buffalo horn, and ranged in length from about five to three feet. Arrows also were varied, some being of reed, and others of highly polished wood. Points were of bone, flint, or fire-hardened wood. The coming ·of Europeans to North America eventually caused a modification of native arms. In some regions European weapons were adopted and used almost exclu~ sively. Elsewhere they were used to a varying degree, -depending on their availability and effectiveness under local conditions.
    [Show full text]
  • THE Mckern “TAXONOMIC” SYSTEM and ARCHAEOLOGICAL CULTURE CLASSIFICATION in the MIDWESTERN UNITED STATES: a HISTORY and EVALUATION
    Published in Bulletin of the History of Archaeology, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 3-9 (1996). Excepting some very minor revisions and McKern's quote describing the structure and detail of his classification this was the paper read at the IInd Indianapolis Archaeological Conference, Sheraton Meridian Hotel, November 15, 1986, organized by Neal L. Trubowitz. Since the reader of this article does not have the contributions of the other participants that describe the system it was thought advisable that it be included. The proceedings of this event were to be published as a commemorative volume of the first conference, but this never occurred. THE McKERN “TAXONOMIC” SYSTEM AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL CULTURE CLASSIFICATION IN THE MIDWESTERN UNITED STATES: A HISTORY AND EVALUATION By B. K. Swartz, Jr. from Selected Writings ABSTRACT In the first half of the 20th century three major archaeological culture unit classifications were formulated in the United States. The most curious one was the Midwestern "Taxonomic" System, a scheme that ignored time and space. Alton K. Fisher suggested to W. C. McKern in the late 1920's that the Linnean model of morphological classification, which was employed in biology at a time of pre-evolutionary thinking, might be adapted to archaeological culture classification (Fisher 1986). On the basis of this idea McKern conceived the Midwestern Taxonomic System and planned to present his concept in a paper at the Central Section of the American Anthropological Association at Ann Arbor, Michigan, in April 1932. Illness prevented him from making the presentation. The first public statement was before a small group of archaeologists at the time of an archaeological symposium, Illinois Academy of Science, May 1932 (Griffin 1943:327).
    [Show full text]