Mississippian mound builder - bow speculation

[Badly Bent]

Interesting post, so good that now I have to plan a field trip.   Although I spent the first 22 years of my life just a few miles east of the Mississippi River in west/central Illinois and now live in n/e Illinois, I have never been to Cahokia Mounds. Gotta get my butt over there.
Would be real interested to see how the bow you make ends up Swamp Monkey.

[Perkinator]

Would the bows of people who lived in what is modern day Mississippi look similar?

[Jim Davis]

Swamp Monkey,

I think you have a pretty good perspective on your bow project. I studied archaeology last semester at Murray State University under Dr. Anthony Ortmann, who conducts investigations at Poverty Point mound in Louisiana.

From that study, it is clear that you are correct in saying that few artifacts in the form of bows or arrows have been found from the Mississippian culture, and those were rotted fragments.

The Mississippian culture had turned to maize (corn), beans, and fish for the great majority of their sustenance. Hunting and warfare were apparently a small part of their lives.

From other depictions of archery and archery equipment across many cultures, it seems that, as you said,  the artists who recorded the the equipment were not the ones who made it and used it. Greek and Roman art is particularly inaccurate.

I have had a lifelong interest in archaeology, and after taking my class last spring, I conclude that our understanding of prehistoric cultures is based about 10 percent on recovered artifacts and 90 percent on conjecture.

The input way up thread about the stele found in Oklahoma goes beyond conjecture into fanciful fiction. (I would like to know the source of the quoted material.)

So I am certain you are right in your summary: "This will not be a replica, rather it will be a mound building people inspired bow."

A very fascinating culture. I hope to study it more myself.

Jim Davis

[swamp monkey]

Good question perkinator.  I am not the best person to answer that fully.  I will say that many historic tribes can trace their roots back to mound builders.  So it would make sense that bows of the Osage, Quapaw, Fox, Sauk, and Missouri would have similarities with their ancestors. 

What I find interesting as you look at the various mound building sites across the u.s. There is some individuality for each.  I expect many things would have had regional flair like that.  So as I look at bows, I look at several tribes that can trace their lineage back to a mound building region and will make a bow that features the commonality of those tribes. 

I am currently working on stone tools to make this mound builder bow.  Once I have my adze and Celt made I will select my design and begin in spring.  That is the plan anyhow.

[wildman]

I live about 50 miles south of Angel mounds,and only a few miles south of the Slack farm sight (Caborn Welborn sight) I was at Moundsville in Alabama a few years ago. A tattoo that I have on my wrist was taken off pottery from this area, and a Moundsville recreation diorama had the same tat. Where I am heading with this I feel from the art I have seen the lines are art work. My 2cents would be a rectangular cross section bendy handle as it seems that's what most Woodland tribes did. I would feel the design was passed down. I still make them" if it ain't broke don't fix it" my opinion and limited research. Good luck and post pics!!!!

[swamp monkey]

Jim Davis.  Thanks for the kind words and the insight.  Much appreciated. 

Wildman, I have posted some pics of the tool creation process in the caveman section.  I have an igneous Celt and adze in the works.  Not done yet, but I get closer every month.   Rest assured I will be posting this mound builder inspired bow - process and all. 


Thanks for reading, posting comments and for everyone's encouragement. 

Swamp monkey

[Bob Barnes]

Here in Arkansas we have the Toltec mounds...if you google the images there are a couple of arrows pictured...just like some of those earlier in this thread, they appear to be native cane...you could call the museum and see if they have any bows...?
http://aspblog.aristotle.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/toltec-archeological-sp-artifacts_6941.jpg?w=300

[Dharma]

When we're talking about the Mississippian Moundbuilders, we're talking about what was basically an established civilization with cities. As such, they would have rudimentary industry dedicated to making specific products. They would have had a professional army in order to defend what they had since they would have quite a bit of wealth, as well as extensive farmland and the cities themselves, to protect. They would, thus, have had a government and taxes to pay for it. And, to increase wealth and feed their industries, they would have had extensive trade via canoe up and down the Mississippi River and various other rivers and waterways.

What does this mean?

1.) Having a professional army, one usually has a type of "service weapon" that are all copies of a prototype or prototypes that were tested and then found to be the best overall weapon for warfare. In other words, a uniform weapon; an issue weapon. Hunting, one can use whatever bow one wished. But it is known that many of the Southeastern tribes that descended from the Moundbuilders usually had one bow for war and one for hunting. More than likely, this was something learned from the Moundbuilder Civilzation since it is usually agrarian, city-based civilizations that make such distinctions between weapons for hunting and weapons for war. So, one might say with extreme conjecture that a Mississippian bow would be quite similar to one another with only slight variations or improvements over time such as the variances between the AK-47, AKM, and AK-74 families of Kalashnikov rifles. These bows could be "issued" from government "arsenals" (bowyers contracted to build them by the Great Sun or whoever) and paid for with taxes and/or tribute collected.

2.) They would not be limited to local sources of bowmaking wood or limited by "Not Invented Here" syndrome. Through trade, they could learn new bow designs, perhaps even acquire the bows of other tribes to examine and experiment with. Remember, they had extensive trade networks on a very efficient "highway" system, that being the Mississippi River. They could pull whatever bow wood they preferred up via river canoe and use that for their bows. They would have time to do testing and may have even had some type of "proving ground" to establish the best wood and bow design in order to provide the best weapon to their army. These would not have been people interested in hit-and-run raids or ritual warfare, because they obviously had a government that would have been keenly interested in staying in power and expanding that power when possible. Therefore, their bows, aside from those for hunting, would have been weapons dedicated to warfare.

3.) Likewise, arrowmaking would have been an industry in and of itself, as well as knapping the projectile points. Again, they would not have been limited to local sources of shaft material or stone thanks to the Mississippi River. To win wars, they would need sufficient ammunition. So that they made arrows by the droves goes without saying.

4.) An agrarian city-based civilization (or, in other words, a city-state) usually fields a professional army to protect itself and also to expand power. It expands power through warfare to garner more wealth in the form of booty, tribute, and taxable subjects, as well as natural resources of the conquered area, and also more farmland which, in turn, generates larger populations. This, in turn, provides even more taxable persons, over time, as well as more soldiers eventually. Thus, one can expand one's territory even further within another generation. To do this requires something those around you don't have. A better army, better and more advanced weapons, new tactics, and so on. So, more than likely, the Mississippian bow would have been a culmination of several design innovations tested and incorporated to provide a superior weapon that wasn't a "jack of all trades" (for both hunting and war) but tested and developed specifically for combat.

5.) They were not constrained by cost, limited local resources, or manpower. They had plenty of manpower and all were probably paying taxes as well as subjugated/conquered tribes paying tribute. They had extensive trade networks whereby they could get better bow wood from far away and even pay for it with other trade items they acquired from far away. So they would have had a lot of latitude to make bows that perhaps were not of local or even ancestral designs and from wood that wasn't anywhere near there and was never traditionally used before they established cities.

Anyway, just my observations.

[Dharma]

Also, if they have uniformity with bows, as in poundage/draw weight, this solved logistics issues related to "ammunition" (arrows.) If all bows are, say, within a certain poundage and this does not vary wildly, then we know the arrows have to be made thus-and-so (spined) to be accurate from those bows. Thus, each warrior could resupply himself with arrows from fallen warriors or from a supply train in their rear. The English were basically doing this with cottage industries making arrows for their longbowmen. They knew those bows pulled in the 120 to 150 Lbs. draw range so they knew the arrows needed to be such-and-such to work. Thus, they could have an effective logistics to supply their longbowmen without confusion over who gets this bundle and who gets that bundle.

Nothing changes under the sun. During World War Two, the Allies discovered what a logistics nightmare it was for the British to be shooting .303 while the U.S. is shooting .30'06 out of rifles and light machine guns. So NATO said we all need to shoot the same calibre and went with the 7.62mm. Then later the U.S. says, by the way, we're going to the 5.56mm and everyone needs to get onboard with that ASAP. So they had to do it. It stands to reason this was just something dusted off that everyone already knew and forgot until they needed to all work together. So, uniformity with bows and the arrows among the Moundbuilders would stand to reason through trial-and-error or perhaps after a major conflict where it became evident they needed to all be on the same page regarding ordnance.

[Jim Davis]

Dharma, there is one problem with your conjectures: no evidence of specialized crafts work (bows, arrows or projectile points), standing armies, or even wars has yet been found in the archaeological record of the Mississippian culture.

Nice logical thinking, but no evidence at all.

[Dharma]

Yes, that may be so, but it is known that Cahokia had a trade in stone tools of Mill Valley Chert that were exported.

The main point of mine being, a civilization has certain hallmarks that make it a civilization. In particular, an agrarian civilization with cities and massive projects (mounds) that require extensive manpower to build. Those cost money and cannot be done for free, so to speak. Even if you use compulsive or slave labor, it has to be paid for. And once you build these massive structures, they become a beacon (and, thus, a target) for everyone who sees them and realizes that, guess what, you've got wealth to spare to build them in the first place.

Further along, it requires a centralized government. And once you've got a government in an agrarian, urban civilization, you've got to have an army to defend that. Every civilization on Earth from the beginning has had one and there is no reason to suspect that Cahokia was different. A hunter-gatherer tribe can pick up and move when threatened by a rival tribe. An agrarian civilization with cities cannot do that. They have absolutely got to defend their cities and land or they die. To do that, they've got to have an effective military force. It's a constant that any ancient civilization that had cities and farmed also had a professional army and a government (and taxes.) The land and cities must be defended and how do you do that? Someone has to make decisions and plan. That means a government. Now how does that government defend their civilization and remain in power? They need an army and just some ragtag militia isn't effective in the long run. So, a professional army is formed, but now it needs to be paid for. Plus, we want to erect these awesome mounds for our Great Sun and temples. How do we pay for that? We've got to have taxes.

As far as evidence of wars, since they left no written records, we can't prove they didn't. For all we know, some field where arrowheads turn up every rainstorm could have been a battle site. Do we know every site where ancient battles took place in Eurasia when the Indo-Europeans tribes were vying with each other for power? No, we don't. But we know they eventually had some people that conquered certain areas and then they probably re-wrote that history in their own oral legends and myths so that by the time it was written down, what they said wasn't what actually happened. But once they established civilizations, they all created professional armies.

My other point is, a lot of the common traits of civilizations tend to be discounted in regards to Native American civilizations. The trend tends to be towards what the Plains tribes did and that tends to color the way other tribes are looked at. If you have a urban civilization, you have to have a government, taxes, and an army to survive be you an ancient Egyptian, a Hittite, a Greek, a Roman, or a Native American. If you're surrounded by hostiles, you can't have something worth taking and expect to keep it without an army, a way to pay for the army, and a government to administer it. Certainly not for a few hundred years. Nothing changes in humanity, only the technology and kill ratio of the weapons. Even today, look around. Certain countries are surrounded by hostile nations and they're all scrambling to find weapons and beef up their armies. This isn't a modern phenomena. It's ancient and is the price paid for having a civilization full of stuff that the "have-nots" desire and figure they can take with enough warriors.

It's like the pyramids in Egypt. Everyone wants to find these fantastic reasons those were built. Aliens from outer space must have done it. How could people have done this thousands of years ago? Quite simply, actually. They had a very rich agricultural system that gave them a bounty of food and, ergo, a surplus population. They had the manpower to do it. They had the money to pay for it. And they had the government to decide, hey, we need these pyramids built over here, so send out officials to tell all the men to show up here and get to work. But why? Well, why did we build the Washington Monument, the Lincoln Memorial, and so on? What purpose do those serve save for self-aggrandizement and monuments to the "Hey, look at us! We're a great civilization, see these things we built to prove it?" Governments do that kind of thing. They always have. It demonstrates power. So, when you have a culture called the Moundbuilders, you can see they were doing this to testify to the greatness of their civilization. To be honest, most of those mounds weren't mounds at all, but pyramids. So, there we have it.

[Jim Davis]

... If you're surrounded by hostiles, you can't have something worth taking and expect to keep it without an army, a way to pay for the army, and a government to administer it.

You are absolutely right about this. But there is no evidence that the Mississippian cultural settlements  were surrounded by anybody at all. And it's pointless to say that a  lack of evidence doesn't prove they weren't  there.  In fact, it does. No groups of people lived  anywhere without leaving evidence.

The Cahokians and their contemporaries are still a great mystery. Who were they and why did they all disappear at the same time?

[Dharma]

Very few artifacts have turned up from the Huns to point out exactly who they were and where they originated. No one even agrees if they were Asiatic, Turkic, or Caucasoid. But everyone knows they were there. Can anyone say the Mongols didn't do what they did despite the fact they left few traces of those incursions? A threat from nomads is very real but those nomads will leave few traces themselves.

As far as what happened to Cahokia, they probably exceeded their agricultural output to sustain their population. Add a drought and they're gone. If they had developed metallurgy, they could have probably solved their agricultural output problem.

[Jim Davis]

While  the Huns and Mongols were not far removed in time from the Mississippian culture, their doings are part  of  the written historic  record. Not so any of the North Americans of the Cahokian era.

You may well be correct  about the demise of the Cahokians. You may be right in all your conjectures about them.  But we have to recognize that we just  don't have anywhere near the archaeological evidence that would make it comfortable to settle on one line of understanding.

[swamp monkey]

It has been a while since I last found anything of relevance on this topic.  I was perusing The Petroglyphs and Pictographs of Missouri by C. Diaz-Granados and J.R. Duncan 2000  Univ. of Alabama Press.  In it is a photograph of a pictograph from Picture Cave in Missouri.  I have drawn the picture below from that photo. 

The image below is likely from the mound building era.  The longnose mask on the back of the man's head is known to come from Mississippian era archeological finds.  I am comfortable saying this is a Mississippian pictograph.

The image has a warrior holding what appears to be either the head or whole body of a defeated opponent.  In his left hand is a bow and some arrows.   On the far right of the dead elk is another bow.  If you look at the item on the warrior's head you will see some arrows.  Perhaps lodged in a shield?  IDK.

Anyhow, first, what i want to point out is the bow in hand looks like a standard woodland style long bow.  Not much if any defelx in tips like some of the other images I posted on this thread.  Second, I wanted to point out another depiction of a deflexed handle bow on the far right.  maybe even a five curve?  Two styles in the same images.   Not surprising to find that they had variety in their bows. 

Next look at the arrows' fletching.  Recall the whelk shell cup engraving found in Spiro with arrows lodged in the buffalo fish (First page of this thread)?  The fletching on those arrows looked different than these below.  Again it shows some diversity.   

It is nice to have a few more clues as to what the mound builder bows looked like.