Archaeological AnthropologyHuman Evolution and the Bow

and Arrow

Sydney
Boothroyd
V00807839
November 1st, 2013
Anth 100 A02
1)

The introduction of weapon technology in late prehistoric North

America, specifically the bow and arrow, undoubtedly revolutionized
the society and culture of the communities affected. In the wake
establishing the bow and arrow, social practices including hunting and
conflict were radically transformed. Groups no longer had to gather for
a collective hunt; hunters could go ahead in groups of two or three and
with the extended range of the bow still have a profitable hunting
expedition. Additionally, the bow and arrow also further enabled
conflict, fostering increased mortality when opposing groups met. In
Archaeology| Bow and arrow forever changed ancient cultures, two
differing outlooks are described about the effect the bow and arrow on
the cultures it touched. Paul Bingham and Joanne Souza, authors of the
academic paper Evolutionary Anthropology believe that the weapons
introduced a rise in social complexity, defined by population, division of
labour, customs and laws of a particular society. John Blitz, an
archaeologist at the University of Alabama, argues that there was not a
rise social complexity of the communities that adopted the weapons,
but a subsequent decay of culture. According to Blitz, there was no
longer need to cooperate in large-scale hunting expeditions, which in
turn eliminated large gatherings and disintegrated social complexity of
a culture (Blitz 2013). Ultimately, both the news article Archaeology|
Bow and arrow forever changed ancient cultures and the academic
paper Evolutionary Anthropology, touch on a few fundamental

arguments of the introduction and impact the bow and arrow had on
prehistoric North America.

2)
This article, Archaeology| Bow and arrow forever changed
ancient cultures by Bradley T. Lepper outlines a few points that
significantly correlate with concepts we have covered in class.

Chapter 6 & 7- States and Social Complexity

In Chapter 6, we dealt with the formation of states and what they

are composed of. Along with the composure, we were able to identify
some vital characteristics of states that reflect the findings in the
article of the Hopewell communities. A state, as defined by the
textbook, is a society that has many stratified levels, police who
combat internal disorder, a defined territory and an active government
creating laws (Lavenda and Schultz 164). In this particular article Paul
Bingham and Joanne Souza define their social-coercion hypothesis,
which explains the implications the bow and arrow had on the
communities they were implemented in. To Bingham and Souza, the
implications were more than just technological. They theorized that the
weapons had significant social effects, including a rise in social

complexity (Lepper 2013). A complex society, as we read in Chapter 7,

can otherwise be defined as an established state, one with social
stratification and a defined sense of community. In the case of the
implementation of bows and arrows and the subsequent development
of a complex society, social implications would undoubtedly follow
(Bingham and Souza 197). This quote attests that with the
introduction of this kind of weaponry, it is impossible for a society to
not transform, whether it be positive or negative change. For example,
new and valuable weaponry might have caused a greater stratification
of the individuals within the society. People who were of higher class
were probably more able to get the bow and arrow initially, and after
usage, collected more food. This surplus of food for small amounts of
the population would only further distinguish the stratified society and
even allow some members of society to stop gathering food altogether
and specialize in various occupations (Lavenda and Schultz 198).
These two intertwining concepts help in interpreting the article and this
topic more effectively because they strengthen understanding of
anthropological concepts and how they relate to our boundless history.

Chapter 15- Globalization

While the concept of globalization, the reshaping of culture and

the transmission of values and ideas across cultures (Lavenda and

Schultz 439), doesnt perfectly identify with the topics introduced in

the article, there is some evident correlation that caught my eye. The
article illustrates a collapsing culture in the Ohio Valley most likely due
to their earlier adoption of the bow and arrow. This means that the
collapse of the Hopewell culture in Ohio was due to global forces, in
this case the expansion of weaponry and innovation. In relation to
globalization, which has the power of overriding and consuming
cultures due to global forces, the two are noticeably comparable.
Cultural globalization aids in the understanding of how this Hopewell
culture may have collapsed. With the introduction of new technology
from one culture into another culture, it is inevitable that some of the
morals, identities and conventions not be passed along as well. In
adopting a new set of knowledge and norms from another culture,
slivers of the original principles disappear.

Chapter 5- Composite Tools

In Chapter 5, the knowledge of pre-historic tools and their

relation to the fossil record and human origins is discussed. A bow and
arrow falls under the category of composite tools, which as defined by
the text are tools that consist of several different materials to construct
the final effective implement (Lavenda and Schultz 140). The reason
this concept betters my understanding of the article and its ideas is

because of the seemingly complex nature of the tools. Composite tools

are not simple. With the combined wood, stone, bones and even ivory,
the fabricator of the tool must have had remarkable cognitive
intelligence. This offers a little more insight into the wisdom of the
individuals, and their capability to produce highly effective artillery.

3)
b. From the differing points of view in this particular article, I
agree with Paul Bingham and Joanne Souza. Their social-coercion
hypothesis, the idea that the bow and arrow brought a rise in social
complexity to its users cultures, makes the most sense to me. Although
John Blitz argues otherwise, and has a time frame to prove that the
Hopewell culture collapsed after the introduction of the weapons across
their borders, I think the most probable theory is that of Bingham and
Souza. I agree with their conclusion because it is obvious that with the
introduction of a more effective weapon system, social groups would
be affected by a rise in complexity within their society. Whether that
complexity is social stratification, new traditions, or even just the
upward movement for innovative technology, it is clear that there
would be an unavoidable change to their community.

c. While reading this particular article Archaeology| Bow and arrow

forever changed ancient cultures, a few questions resonated with me
and left me thinking even after I finished reading. Initially, I wondered
why this particular weapon revolutionized the pre-historic world to the
extent it did? With so many scholars pursuing this topic, it seems as
though the bow and arrow had a significant affect on the future of the
populations that used it. Could it have been the sheer influence
effective weaponry had on the growing communities? Or even the
simple fact that anything revolutionary resonates for centuries to
come? Whatever it is, I wonder why this humbly complex innovation
forever changes ancient cultures and even cultures around the world
today.

d. For future research of this topic, I think it is especially important to

include investigation of other tools in different cultures and compare
them to those affected by the bow and arrow. For instance, maybe a
similar type of composite tool was adopted by communities in Mexico.
How would communities adopting this tool transform in comparison to
those who adopted the bow and arrow? I think that this is important to
research because there were most likely other factors that
revolutionized bow and arrow societies and Hopewell culture, and
studying other civilizations in comparison could lend insight into what
these could be. Furthermore, I think it would be pertinent to study the

use of the weaponry. Were the bow and arrow being used for mostly
food collecting purposes, or for military defense? This research could
expose a great deal of understanding whether there was conflict
between civilizations, who those civilizations could have been, and the
mindset of the people of the time. It would be very telling from our
standpoint, to discover if they lived in constant fear of being attacked
by their neighbors, or lead a peaceful life with surpluses of food.

4)
a. There are many noticeable differences between this news
article and academic paper. Before all else is the apparent difference in
the appearance of the two pieces. The article is shorter, broken down
into easy to conceptualize paragraphs, and full of quotes. Adversely,
the academic paper is extensive, in depth and long.
Additionally, there are key differences in the content of the two
compositions. The news article contains mostly quoted research, none
actually done by the author, proving to be more of a summary piece.
The academic paper is rich with first hand studies from Bingham,
Souza and Blitz and with formal cited footnotes and bibliography.
Furthermore, the target audiences and purposes of the two
pieces are completely unalike. The news article is probably targeted
towards a very general audience, one that may be interested in the
topic, but most likely found it scrolling through The Columbus Dispatch

instead. The purpose of the article is to just provide general

information, nothing that gets too in depth in which the readers might
lose interest. On the other hand, the target audience of the academic
paper is towards scholars and students, obviously pursuing the topic.
The purpose of this paper is to communicate results of original
research or experimentation and to provide in depth analysis of a
proposed topic.
The final difference I was able to infer was the existing distinction
between the authors of the two pieces. Bradley Lepper, author of the
news article is a curator of the Ohio Historical Society. While he may
have a minute background in this particular topic, his job is more to
report studies than to research. The authors of the academic paper,
contrastingly, are scholars in this field of study.

b. I believe that the news article does fairly represent the conclusions
in the academic paper. Although it may be much shorter, and
significantly less in depth, the overall content was relayed honestly.
There is a tendency with some news representations of academic
studies to sensationalize findings, but I find that this one is well
represented. For example, Bradley Lepper introduces and explains
justifiably the opinions and arguments of Bingham, Souza and Blitz and
keeps an objective tone throughout.

c. I think that the primary purpose of this news article is to inform

readers. It is a brief summary of the most important points, arguments
and research conducted by scholars.

Works Cited
Bingham, P. M., Souza, J. and Blitz, J. H.

2013 Introduction: Social Complexity and the Bow in the Prehistoric

North American Record. Evolutionary Anthropology 22(3): 81-88.
Lavenda, Robert H. and Emily A. Schultz
2012 Chapter 5: What can the fossil record tell us about human
origins? 2nd edition. Pp. 111-151. New York: Oxford University Press.
Lavenda, Robert H. and Emily A. Schultz
2012 Chapter 6: How do we know about the human past? 2nd edition.
Pp. 153-177. New York: Oxford University Press.
Lavenda, Robert H. and Emily A. Schultz
2012 Chapter 7: Why did humans settle down, build cities, and
establish states? 2nd edition. Pp. 179-211. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Lavenda, Robert H. and Emily A. Schultz
2012 Chapter 15: What can anthropology tell us about globalization?
2nd edition.
Pp. 437-467. New York: Oxford University Press.
Lepper, Bradley T.
2013 Archaeology| Bow and arrow forever changed ancient cultures.
The Columbus Dispatch, August 4.
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/science/2013/08/04/1-bowand-arrow-forever-changed-ancient-cultures.html (last accessed
October 31, 2013)

10