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

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.

Social Complexity and the Bow in the Eastern Woodlands

“…As in the north, an indigenous dart‐point prototype (Gary type) was reduced in size for use with the bow without radical change to the lithic tradition. However, in contrast to the Midwest and Upland South, the continued presence of larger hafted bifaces in some locales suggests that the atlatl was still in use …”

“…This problem is avoided by a corresponding decrease in arrow‐point weight or thickness, which is the significant metric distinction between early and late arrow points. The desire for lighter, thinner arrow points may also explain a radical change in lithic technology, present in the north, but particularly prevalent in the south, from flake‐tool production to expedient core‐tool production . The shift to expedient core‐tool production, common in late prehistory throughout North America, made use of poor‐grade stone and small gravels, and has been interpreted as a cost‐benefit response to sedentism .…”

The diversity of North American projectile-point types, before and after the bow and arrow

“…Ames, personal communication, September 2008) and in southern Idaho, eastern Oregon, and northern Utah about 2500-3000 14 C BP (Yoh, 1998). The atlatl and dart continued to be used for some time subsequent to that appearance (Blitz, 1988;Bradbury, 1997;Fawcett, 1998;Nassaney and Pyle, 1999;VanPool, 2003). Introduction of the bow and arrow influenced projectile-point shape because of differences in the performance requirements of the weapon systems (Hughes, 1998;VanPool, 2003VanPool, , 2006.…”

Ethnographic and Archaeological Investigations of Alpine Ice Patches in Southwest Yukon, Canada

“…Generally, large stone projectile points are assumed to relate to throwing-dart (and spear) technology, and smaller points to bow-and-arrow technology. These correlations and inferences are occasionally revisited or challenged in the archaeological literature (Thomas, 1978;Shott, 1993Shott, , 1997Knecht, 1997;Bettinger and Eerkens, 1999;Nassaney and Pyle, 1999). The Ice Patch Research Project collections provide a unique opportunity to investigate throwing-dart technologies as a complete system, together with the associated stone points.…”