Archery: Now a Live Martial Art

[Permalost]

Bows were used for 50,000 years as weapons so they must do something right.

Bows haven't been used for 50,000 years.

[Bneterasedmynam]

Bows haven't been used for 50,000 years.

http://discovermagazine.com/2009/jan/089

[Bneterasedmynam]

Bows haven't been used for 50,000 years.

Other than arrowheads there are also cave drawings that say you're wrong.

[W. Rabbit]

That's actually a really awesome idea. Personally I think archers in that contest would do pretty good, I don't think most people give enough credit to the bow as a weapon. Bows were used for 50,000 years as weapons so they must do something right.

The oldest extant bow is the Homegaard, the oldest known surviving one is about 10,000 years old.

Note that doesn't mean they've only been in use for 10,000 years, but if we assume they are a Mesolithic development...not much beyond 15 - 20,000 years. If there was an older use of archery, it's very hard to find proof (not that it might not be buried in the ice or ground somewhere).

And according to anthropology the Homegaard bows probably weren't invented in Europe, but carried there via migrating tribes in the process of changing from hunter-gathering to agriculture (after the last Ice Age passed around 12,000 BC).

From there you get the wonderful history of European bow development, from the simple selfbow to the mighty crossbow.

Archery Tag with Crossbows would be fun but it would leave a much worse bruise...much worse. In fact I take it back it wouldn't be fun at all. Someone would lose an eye.

[Bneterasedmynam]

The oldest extant bow is the Homegaard, the oldest known surviving one is about 10,000 years old.

Note that doesn't mean they've only been in use for 10,000 years, but if we assume they are a Mesolithic development...not much beyond 15 - 20,000 years. If there was an older use of archery, it's very hard to find proof (not that it might not be buried in the ice or ground somewhere).

And according to anthropology the Homegaard bows probably weren't invented in Europe, but carried there via migrating tribes in the process of changing from hunter-gathering to agriculture (after the last Ice Age passed around 12,000 BC).

From there you get the wonderful history of European bow development, from the simple selfbow to the mighty crossbow.

Archery Tag with Crossbows would be fun but it would leave a much worse bruise...much worse. In fact I take it back it wouldn't be fun at all. Someone would lose an eye.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-11086110
Here's a more in depth article about the find. They date the arrowheads to around 64,000 years old. There is also evidence in cave drawings as well but I can't get the pictures to load on my phone.

[W. Rabbit]

Other than arrowheads there are also cave drawings that say you're wrong.

Source? Have those cave drawings been dated? If there are actually cave drawings older than 20,000BC with bows in them, I'd like to see one.

This part from your source is very important distinction that has to be made.

Their invention didn’t take hold, however. “You would imagine that the technology would continue, but it truly disappears,” Backwell says, and doesn’t reappear for 20,000 years. The bone tools suggest that rather than cropping up and then sticking around, “modern human behavior and innovation can come and go.”

That 60,000 year old arrow head is an anomaly tied just to the Howiesons Poort. It was not something the human race was generally known to use until much later closer to the end of the Ice Age.

We don't know if they used a bow or not, just that this one culture once made stone carved, bone arrow heads for hunting purposes.

[Bneterasedmynam]

Source? Have those cave drawings been dated? If there are actually cave drawings older than 20,000BC with bows in them, I'd like to see one.

This part from your source is very important distinction that has to be made.



That 60,000 year old arrow head is an anomaly tied just to the Howiesons Poort. It was not something the human race was generally known to use until much later closer to the end of the Ice Age.

We don't know if they used a bow or not, just that this one culture once made stone carved, bone arrow heads for hunting purposes.

Actually I have no clue if the drawing was dated. As far as the arrowheads go, we can't even really be sure that's truly what they are, ancient history is all guesses based on relics. But as far as this discussion goes neither of us can be proven wrong in our statements from that article. There's no way to know for sure.

[Permalost]

Other than arrowheads there are also cave drawings that say you're wrong.

Where are these 50,000+ year old cave drawings?

[W. Rabbit]

Actually I have no clue if the drawing was dated. As far as the arrowheads go, we can't even really be sure that's truly what they are, ancient history is all guesses based on relics. But as far as this discussion goes neither of us can be proven wrong in our statements from that article. There's no way to know for sure.

I re-read it and even they're not sure, they're calling them "tips for projectiles", too small to be spear tips.

Pinky-sized is pretty darn small...maybe they were for darts.

Blowguns are also really old Stone Age weapons and could use tipped projectiles. It sucks we don't know more about the Howiesons Poort technology. From what I read about them they had other technology advanced for their age, including evidence of clothmaking and traps.

[Permalost]

I was wondering blowgun, too, and why they weren't speculating that. Probably because the heads represent composite technology so they're jumping to the assumption of a composite launcher as well, or because anthropologists are fame and grant seeking creatures.

[W. Rabbit]

I think you can make that claim.
Certainly they are going to be better at hitting a moving target that is threating them having done this sport than had they not done it.
They will probably be better snap shooters when it comes to hunting as well.

OK I can see your point, but where I have difficulty is that hitting things with arrows is truly one of the greatest precision sports. Archery Tag is wild chaotic happy time fun, half of them are kids. It seems like "spray and pray" archery to me. Maybe I'm being a jerk about it but..

Very few people are holding or firing the bows the way they would if they actually wanted to hit someone or better, avoid an arrow in their throat. They're taking a lot of risks etc no one in their right mind would take in a real combat encounter with arrows flying.

Bnet, you brought up Lars Anderson possibly the best run and shoot archer on the planet alive today.

The huge gap between what Lars can do, and what they do at Archery Tag, should stick out to people.

Lars could probably take out both Archery Tag teams with fewer arrows than players... but he doesn't do Archery Tag. He does "the real" Martial Archery, imho.

[Bneterasedmynam]

I re-read it and even they're not sure, they're calling them "tips for projectiles", too small to be spear tips.

Pinky-sized is pretty darn small...maybe they were for darts.

Blowguns are also really old Stone Age weapons and could use tipped projectiles. It sucks we don't know more about the Howiesons Poort technology. From what I read about them they had other technology advanced for their age, including evidence of clothmaking and traps.

It's possible that's what they are we have no way of knowing. Either way it's not an argument worth arguing from my point of view so I will opt out.

[Bneterasedmynam]

OK I can see your point, but where I have difficulty is that hitting things with arrows is truly one of the greatest precision sports. Archery Tag is wild chaotic happy time fun, half of them are kids. It seems like "spray and pray" archery to me. Maybe I'm being a jerk about it but..

Very few people are holding or firing the bows the way they would if they actually wanted to hit someone or better, avoid an arrow in their throat. They're taking a lot of risks etc no one in their right mind would take in a real combat encounter with arrows flying.

Bnet, you brought up Lars Anderson possibly the best run and shoot archer on the planet alive today.

The huge gap between what Lars can do, and what they do at Archery Tag, should stick out to people.

Lars could probably take out both Archery Tag teams, but he doesn't do Archery Tag. He does "the real" Martial Archery.

There was actually a pretty good argument going between Lars and some hunter that mimicked this one. Basically the hunter said Lars was a fake.

[W. Rabbit]

There was actually a pretty good argument going between Lars and some hunter that mimicked this one. Basically the hunter said Lars was a fake.

Yeah people still tell me the Moon Landing, 9/11, and Sandy Hook were fake too, with complex diagrams and logical sounding arguments, like her (the hunter's) arguments on Facebook. I've read that breakdown and quite a few other people claiming he is a "Fake". People on Youtube have even claimed digital editing.

Others have authored blog articles about how he was "debunked". Only I have yet to see any actual debunking of what appears to be on film, a very agile archer with unique skills, having only trained for 10 years, training in ways that are not currently popular among target shooters or hunters, but clearly were used once upon a time.

Obviously it's a demo video he set up to showcase trick shots. So, people point to the setups as fakery, or claim that multiple shots are required....no shit. Nobody's perfect..

But that doesn't make him fake, and Snopes ruled out digital editing.

I think the traditional archers are just butthurt they can't do what he clearly shows on film he can.

Anna didn't seem to question his skill, just actually some of the narration claims.

This is Anna's actual response to Lars. It's been misused to call him "fake" but clearly she's not claiming that. This is just typical "Classical" vs "New Wave" pedantry. Lars is probably off on some of his historical claims...but the skill in the videos is clear (and is claim that the techniques are at least as old as the Assyrian Empire seems accurate. She takes issue with his methods (reviewing old art), but doesn't outright claim he's wrong, because he could be right just using an unreliable process (her argument is ancient artists may not have known a thing about archery either)).

[Mr. Machette]

I think the point of the game is to have fun.
They are not hunting or fighting or reenacting anything.
Bitching that it wouldn't work in the street is kind of like drinking orange juice and yelling "this coffee sucks".