Otzi the "Ice Man" and a bow and arrow????

[chong2]

k, so i saw this show on tv last night, on a science channel. I didnt catch the beginning but a little after it started. it was about Otzi, the iceman. i really enjoyed it, and i finally got to see the type of projectile that was embedded in him, i have been searching all over the net in the past to see what it actually was.

ok, so here is my question. they were stringing up a long bow to apx 50 lbs to determine the distance Otzi was shot from, it ended up being a very long shot. what gets me is i was under the impression that the bow was not into use much later. Otzi is around 5000 years old, putting him in the Archaic range. I was under the impression that it was all just atlatl and spear use back then, or is this just a North America rule? I know vikings and egyptians used bows, but that much later, no?

If someone would caRE to explain this, i would enjoy the history lesson, because at this moment i am puzzled.......

[chong2]

k, well i guess i just figured the answer to my own question.
Europe introduced the bow n arrow at the end of thier epi-paleolithic age, end of the ice age? from what im reading thats correct, but id love to hear more.

[Twitch]

The bow and arrow was present in europe and asia long prior to man's journey into the new world. Once in the new world it was lost for 10,000 years and then only developed as the Chinese were developing gun powder. There are lots of thoughts out there as to why the technology was lost. Resource density vs. population density necessary for technology transfer, migration route resource availability, sea-based subsistance.... It's a similar question to why bifacial points don't appear until Clovis (insert lengthy debate here). Certainly the first immigrants were privy to the technology. Why did fluting fall out of favor heading into lance points only to then later be reemployed by Dalton cultures?

[Tnmountains]

[quote=Twitch ]
The bow and arrow was present in europe and asia long prior to man's journey into the new world. Once in the new world it was lost for 10,000 years and then only developed as the Chinese were developing gun powder. There are lots of thoughts out there as to why the technology was lost. Resource density vs. population density necessary for technology transfer, migration route resource availability, sea-based subsistance.... It's a similar question to why bifacial points don't appear until Clovis (insert lengthy debate here). Certainly the first immigrants were privy to the technology. Why did fluting fall out of favor heading into lance points only to then later be reemployed by Dalton cultures?
[/quote

I think that fluting was risky business. Just setting up to do the flute was tough and it went so wrong many times with that almost perfect blow in imperfect material. Climate was changing and the next meal had to be fast as it was still on the hoof so to speak. Dalton man came away with a little more technology and possible time thru adaptation and more settling. Not the traveling man Clovis was. Its easier to find a Dalton site than a Clovis site here so they obviously had to occupy sites for a longer period of time and time ...time permitted thought and creativity.
My humble opinion

[lostcauses]

The questions of technology and usage seems to come down to the population size of the groups.

Strangely enough there is a grouping that allows an easy working, and under that the group has more difficulty. The larger becomes a problem also to have to provide for.

Think of it this way. On or two folks, and the needs are a bit time consuming. Take a bit larger group of say ten, and the work load is easily split up. Now take fifty or so, and the work load increases to the need of supplies.

Take our modern world and how many it takes to just keep up the infrastructure ( water sewer,fuel supply, food, transportation, etc.. ).

The folsom was the best of the art, including the fluted tech. The next is a loss of the flute, showing the lack of willingness or the loss of time; creating the need for less risk.