Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2010 18:26:14 GMT
There's a clear consensus among archaeologists that Paleolithic hunters in Europe, Asia, and the New World, used stone-point spears and the atlatl to hunt mega-fauna such as the mammoth. A good example of this would be the Clovis cultures of North America. Archaeologists have determined that these hunters travelled in fairly small groups. Because of this, a theory has been put forth that hunters would use stone points attached to a short shaft of 18 to 24 inches which was then socketed into a heavier spear shaft. Once hurled at a target, the long shaft would drop off where it could be picked up and "reloaded" with a new point as the hunt continued. The alternative to this scenario is Paleolithic hunters chasing after megafauna with armloads of heavy individual-point spears. But here's a further theory: When attacked by a rival group of hunters, assembling the point to the shaft and then loading the weapon onto an atlatl would be slow and clumsy. A more likely scenario is that Paleolithic hunters would do battle with the short-shafted stone points. A two-foot long weapon with a cutting and thrusting point is, by definition, a sword. I'm adding one of these to my collection to see if it handles like a sword. Any thoughts? The Kopesh, a tool turned into a weapon, is normally thought to be the earliest sword. Maybe we're missing it by about 8000 years.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2010 20:18:46 GMT
Here's a website by a reputable archaeologist describing the principle: www.oregon-archaeology.com/archa ... tocene.php And here's an attached pic of this type of paleolithic technology: If you're looking for some more academic reading, try: Atlatls or Spearthrowers in Prehistoric Minnesota, K.L. Callahan Ice Age Hunters of the Rockies, University Press of Colorado Prehistoric Hunters of the High Plains, G. C. Frison
|
|
Luka
Senior Forumite
Posts: 2,848
|
Post by Luka on Oct 19, 2010 20:56:29 GMT
|
|
|
Post by MEversbergII on Oct 20, 2010 9:28:33 GMT
The Khopesh is believed to have evolved from fighting axe, not an agricultural tool.
M.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2010 22:25:18 GMT
Hi MEversbergII I guess that just goes to show how precise we need to be with our terminology on this forum. I didn't actually use the term "agricultural tool." I just said "tool." It's an acceptable theory that the kopesh came from the epsilon or fenestrated war axe which in turn was likely developed from an axe-like tool. It's interesting that Otzi the Iceman was found with human blood on his arrows, two different types of human blood on his knife, but none on his magnificent and deadly copper axe. It just goes to show that many neolithic cultures may have viewed the axe first and foremost as a tool But we always need to remember that the tool-axe-kopesh hypothesis is not the only theory out there. In the Enuma Elis dating from the 7th century BCE, Marduk cuts Tiamat in half to create the two domes of the sky and earth. The instrument that's used as a weapon is a sickle, even though a battle axe also appears in the story. It's possible that in the very earliest references to weapons, the sickle and the axe were undergoing parallel development. The last word on the morphosis of the kopesh is still out, but it's not unreasonable to theorize that it may have come from a sickle that simply had the outer edge set with flint. I don't personally favour the theory, but I don't want to close the door on it either. Anyhow, nice eye for detail. With folks like you on this form, we'll all have to watch our facts.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2010 15:04:36 GMT
Definitely a good article and a theory that's at least plausible, thank you...
|
|