"Atlatl: Old World?" Topic

I know we discussed this weapon considerably (the spear thrower) in a previous thread:
TMP link

BBC's book, "Prehistoric America" seems to indicate the the atlatl originated in Europe around 25,000 BCE.

If the immigrants to the New World found it so useful, why did it fall out of use among inhabitants in the Old World?

Any guesses or actual info?

Thanks.

CC

This other link says that it was 30,000:

hollowtop.com/atlatlbob.htm

CC

Some fool invented the bent stick & string that threw a tiny spear – then called it the bow & arrow ;-)

IN environments where the Atl-atl (or Woomera) users had a clean field hunt at Megafauna (the Americas & Australia) the spear thrower technology survived until contact with gunpowder using Europeans ocurred.

In America the wildlife eventually became human-shy enough for the bow to have an advantage in most areas over the Atl-atl, so the bow spread. In Australia the wildlife did not get that shy & the bow, which was recorded as in use in northern parts of Australia in the 16th Century, did not spread – by the 19th/20th century it was used as a ceremonial item in some far northern groups (in contact with New Guinea) but they still hunted with the Woomera & spear.

BSRLEE,

Thanks for providing one of the Old World names (Woomera). This is what I was able to find with a quick search:

link
donsmaps.com/atlatl.html

Aborigine to Native American, "That is not a dart, THIS is a dart" . . .
link

CC

Good topic,

a few points to add:

1) The developement of civilization in the New World lagged greatly behind that of the Old World. The reasons for this are varied and beyond the scope of this posting. For a good synopsis of this I'll refer you to Jared Diamonds Pulitzer prize winning "Guns, Germs and Steel"

2) I'll concede Brslee's point that the atlatl helped eradicate the mega-fauna of North and South America, and the smaller, human-shy game would be more efficiently hunted by the bow and arrow. However, well before European contact, the bow and arrow was ubiquitous in the New World, yet this still did not supplant the use of the atlatl in many areas.

3) As weapons of war, both the bow and arrow and the atlatl were used extensively in Meso-America. The preference of use of these weapons depended on the cultural background of the combatants, more so than any inherent qualities of the weapons themselves. For example, the Aztecs used the atlatl almost exclusively as the missle firing weapon of choice. Bow and arrows were also used but mostly by smaller skirmishing novice warriors and the Aztec's allies. The Tlaxcallans (Aztecs arch enemies) on the other hand, fielded large contingents of bow troops. In wargaming terms the Tlaxcallans were a "shooty army" while the Aztecs could be thought of as a "melee army"

4)One can assume that there were positive and negative attributes to each weapon system, otherwise why use them? Maybe the greater range benefit of a bow and arrow was offset by the use of shields and quilted body armour. Maybe the shorter range of the atlatl was balanced by it's greater armour penetration capability.

Ralph

Hi

Err. Not as simple as this.

The atlatl is just easier to make than a bow and arrow.

To outrange a atlatl you need a decent boyer who understands 'spineing the arrow". If you want, i can re-tell this story. Suffice it to say that there is a lot of workmanship into a bow that is more effective than a spear thrower.

Rocky

If the bow supplanted the atlatl in the Old World around 10,000 BCE, as some encyclopedias claim . . .

1) Did the bow develop independently in the New World or is that an indication of later migrations?

2) Was the atlatl in continous use in the Old World from 30,000 to 10,000 BCE by anatomically modern humans?

CC

wikipedia has some interesting material on atlatl vs bows with respect to weight tolerances of the ammunition (apparantly arrows could be manufactured with greater variation in weight than atlatl suitable darts) – en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlatl

They also make the point that bows are easier to use. This is a recurring trend in weapons, early guns weren't better than bows in all respects but were easier to use…

To guess at answers to your questions:
1. Bows developed about 10,000 years ago didn't they? The Bering land bridge last vanished about 6000 years ago, so either migration or independent invention are possible. Maybe both. America is a big place and technology could both be invented in one place and enter from Asia.

2. Probably. But the archaeology is sketchy enough to support both continuous use and several periods of disuse followed by reinvention or reintroduction from another region.

There were several waves of migration into North America – for instance I believe the ancestors of the Inuit/Eskimo people were last in and only arrived about 3000 or 4000 years ago. So bows could have been invented in the Americas, or brought in by late arrivals, or both.

Rocky is dead right about there being a lot more work in bows – especially once you are into making recurved compound bows and the like. There's a nice little book called the Archaeology of Archery by Alf someone that describes various bow making techniques of indigenous peoples, and they vary from the simple bow of the !Kung bushmen (which can't be held drawn for any length of time or it'll break) to beautiful native american compound bows made of layers of wood and mountain goat horn.

Also, there are different techniques for using atlatls. Aztec skeletons with repetitive strain injuries show that they weren't throwing overarm, but kind of flicking the dart forward while keeping the elbow about waist height. So the Aztecs may have kept the atlatl because this was a good technique for their type of warfare, even if it was no use for hunting wildfowl or all the other small game that bows are great for clobbering. Plus the aim of a lot of Aztec warfare was to get as many live prisoners as possible!

Stronty Girl states:

"Aztec skeletons with repetitive strain injuries show that they weren't throwing overarm, but kind of flicking the dart forward while keeping the elbow about waist height. So the Aztecs may have kept the atlatl because this was a good technique for their type of warfare"

This is interesting and new to me. Do you know the source? My understanding is that the atlatl was a short range weapon used just before contact in hand to hand combat, similar to Roman Legionnaires who threw their pilum and then initiated combat with the gladius. The Aztecs would discard the atlatl and reach for the maquahuitl (obsidian sword). How would the anthropologists know that the repetitive strain injuries were not caused by swinging the maquahuitl?

Anyways, good topic.

Ralph

crhkrebs – 'twas in a lecture course on mesoamerican archaeology I did in the 90's. I might still have the course notes kicking about at home somewhere, under a deep layer of dust.

Throwing it in a non-standard way doesn't negate it being an effective short-range weapon.

I don't remember repetitive strain injuries from obsidian swords being mentioned at all, so sorry, can't answer that question. Maybe they forgot to analyse that!

Here is some interesting research:

1) Peets in 1960 found the range of an atlatl thrown dart to be 180 ft or 55 meters.

2) Browne in 1940, Howard 1974 estimated 60% greater thrust than with a thrown javelin. Therefore greater range and power wrt javelins.

3) Browne also determined that the atlatl had greater armour piercing capability than did an arrow shot from the same distance.

4) The Conquistador Bernal Diaz del Castillo , attested to the fact that atlatl darts could puncture any armour and still cause a fatal wound.

5)Meso-american natives only used simple bows. Diaz del Castillo indicated that the most fearsome missle weapon was the maguay fiber sling which could even kill a well armoured conquistador. Unfortunately, he dosen't elaborate how.

All sources from Ross Hassig's "Aztec Warfare" 1988.

Ralph

Hi

Yes. Overwhelmingly the found and surviving bows in the americas are short self simple bows with good shaping and in the 30# draw weight range.

One of the interesting discussions on this was from Saxton Pope describing bow hunting with Ishi. Ishi belonged to a "lost tribe" in north american that had survivied by avoiding white folk in the forests of the pacific northwest. When the tribe was down to the last few members, one of them, Ishi came into contact with the scientists of the area. His hunting was based more on stalking and very close than european style "target shooting".

I was exposed to non-published stories on this about 30 years ago as a friend was the son of one of Popes shooting buddies. Talking about hunting BEAR!

Rocky

crhkrebs – I had a rummage around last night and found some of the old handouts from my mesoamerican course, but not my hand written notes, unfortunately. The only Aztec stuff that seems to have survived is names-and-dates sort of stuff, with no mentions of weapons at all.

I happened to be watching "Survivor Guatemala"ast night, and caught a challenge where the tribe were basically flinging large arrows from what looked like an Atlatl! Pretty neat.

The Atlatl might be making a comeback. link

Don't forget Greeks and the windy strap javelin chucker (don't remember the name now)in recorded history.
And drove past a combined archery/ atlatl target competition in Wyoming a couple years ago.

The Atlatl survived in America because it was more advanced than the old world version, in that it had the innovation of small notches on the side that reduced the wind noise the weapon made when used to through a spear.

The bow and arrow had several advantages over the Atlatl one of these was its relative quietness.

The big advantage the Atlatl had over bow and arrow was its penetrating power. An Atlatl could penetrate the hide of a woolly mammoth whereas the arrow fired from a bow could not.
Which is why giant Kangaroos do not exist in today's Australia but undomesticated Elephants thrive in Africa.
Australian aborigines had the Atlatl sub Saharan Africans did not.

Around 12,000 BC when the land bridge between the Americas and Eurasia still existed Eurasia mega fauna such as the woolly mammoth (or whatever is was called in Eurasia) was near extinction but in America it was still thriving. It took approximately 5000 years for the Indians to wipe out Americas mega fauna and this extended the lifetime of the Atlatl. It also gave human innovation 5000 years to solve the problem of the noise the Atlatl spear thrower made, hence the notches on the side of the more advanced American Indian Atlatl. This innovation allowed the Atlatl to find a niche in the Americas it did not have in Eurasia. Unfortunately for blood thirsty Eurasians the Baring straits flooded and this innovation never made it back to Eurasia.

Woolly mammoth became extinct in Eurasia around 12,000bc (except islands off coast of Russia) and woolly mammoth became extinct in the Americas around 7000 BC. By which time agriculture and pastoral farming developed in both geographic regions. 11,OOO BC Turkey (Asikli huyuk) and 6,OOO BC somewhere in Peru. But not in Australia where they had no bows or arrows or in Africa where the Atlatl never got a foothold.

on a related topic I am looking at the Saunion. I have always been puzzled by this, as its mass must have made it very hard to throw any great distance at all. Obviously it was used in much the same way as a Pilum, but its range would be even less than a Pilum.

I use French Arrows, which is a modern name for the 'Windy String' technique referred to earlier, and these have a very impressive range indeed. I am wondering whether Saunion users were enhancing their range using the same tech, and am sourcing some iron rod to try this for myself.

I have never used an atlatl, but the fundamental principle is the same – leverage – as that used for French Arrows and Slings, my other hobby. It would surprise me to learn the Celtiberians definitely did NOT use power asssistance with a saunion.

The advantages of an atlatl have been touched on already. Are there any references at all to it being used in old-world warfare?

Pat

80 metres is my range with French Arrow by the way. And I am a scrawny office worker. That compares favourably with my normal range of 140 metres with a sling.

Pat

Sane Max says:

"on a related topic I am looking at the Saunion. I have always been puzzled by this, as its mass must have made it very hard to throw any great distance at all. Obviously it was used in much the same way as a Pilum, but its range would be even less than a Pilum."

This is interesting as that is how Aztecs used the Atlatl. As the troops got close the warriors would let loose the atlatl darts. Therefore, they were used at a reasonably short range. It was the armour and shield penetrating power that the Aztecs wanted. Once they fired the dart (or javelin) they threw away the atlatl and closed in with the Maquahuitl. Very similar to Roman Legionaires with the pilum and gladius.

Ralph

Its a good technique, and in some ways the saunion, being thin, would be good for armour penetration.

Pat

Hmmm. Looks like Alex has plans . . .

TMP link

CC