Hooty Hoot
Gone but not forgotten
May sound dumb....................but why doesn't anyone ever find 3 or 4 hundred year old arrowheads?
Welcome Guest!
Question for arrowhead experts
- Thread starter Hooty Hoot
- Start date
Grub Master
Senior Member
Good question
Katalee
Senior Member
Had gone to smoke poles by then . Or used metal points that have now rusted.
Forest Grump
Senior Member
We do. Mississippian arrow heads & knives were produced up until & shortly after first contact with European explorers & the subsequent settlement of the Americas. Out West, a little longer.
But they rapidly adopted both trade points (metal) and firearms, due to easier portability & longer range weapons capability.
And, of course, once the aboriginal people were either driven from an area (or killed), there was nobody to keep making more...
http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/articles/history-archaeology/mississippian-period-overview
.
Last edited:
Because once the Native People came in contact with the Europeans, and established trade, they abandoned the use of stone and bone tools for the most part. They really liked those iron and steel tools and weapons. I suspect that the art of flintknapping was lost within one generation.
Keep in mind that Europeans have had a heavy presence in the Southeast for 500 years. Trading with the Indians was one of their first activities, as deer hides were the most in-demand goods in Europe at the time, and the early European traders shipped them out by the millions. Metal knives, axes, pots, and arrowheads were some of the first trade goods that the Indians created a heavy demand for, and demanded for their deer hides. Within a couple generations, by the mid-1600s, most arrowheads were either trade points or cut from brass kettles, iron and steel tools, and such. John Lawson wrote in 1700 that it was a curiosity that some remote tribes still chipped arrowheads from stone. By the mid-1700s, most of the Indians had guns, and mostly abandoned the bow and arrow.
Mathematics is another factor. People have been living here and making stone tools for at least 15,000 years. The early prehistoric-historic period is a tiny fraction of that, so it stands to reason that there are more older points found than newer ones.
Another factor: Mississippian-era points were typically very small, thin and fragile compared to earlier ones. They are harder to find, and were much more likely to break into fragments on impact.
Also, most Mississippian settlements were in flood plains. Many of those tiny points were washed away or buried deep by water.
With all that, there are spots where I have found quite a few late-age points. They show up on here pretty regularly, too.
Mathematics is another factor. People have been living here and making stone tools for at least 15,000 years. The early prehistoric-historic period is a tiny fraction of that, so it stands to reason that there are more older points found than newer ones.
Another factor: Mississippian-era points were typically very small, thin and fragile compared to earlier ones. They are harder to find, and were much more likely to break into fragments on impact.
Also, most Mississippian settlements were in flood plains. Many of those tiny points were washed away or buried deep by water.
With all that, there are spots where I have found quite a few late-age points. They show up on here pretty regularly, too.
Kawaliga
Gone but not forgotten
One thing that is strange to me is that by the 1700's, the bow had been replaced by the gun, but during the Creek Indian War in many battles, no more than 65% of warriors had muskets or rifles. It is a matter of record that at the Battle of Horseshoe Bend, this was especially true. It would seem to me at this late date, any warrior worth his salt would have at least a trade gun.
Clifton Hicks
Senior Member
We do find lots and lots of 300-400 year old points. These are the small, sometimes tiny, arrow points that many collectors call "bird points." By about 900 AD (during our "Dark Ages" back in Europe) bow-and-arrow technology in the Americas had risen to the point where hunters and warriors only needed a tiny triangle of flint or quartz to tip an arrow capable of killing.
Also, about that time, Native populations were really growing and starting to crowd in on one-another. One theory explaining the often plumb TINY size of later arrow points is that competing groups made quality flint, chert and quartz harder and harder to get ahold of. Hence they started shrinking the size of the points in order to create more ammunition with less material.
Look up "Mississippian," "Late Woodland" and "Contact Period" arrow points to learn more about this subject.
Also, about that time, Native populations were really growing and starting to crowd in on one-another. One theory explaining the often plumb TINY size of later arrow points is that competing groups made quality flint, chert and quartz harder and harder to get ahold of. Hence they started shrinking the size of the points in order to create more ammunition with less material.
Look up "Mississippian," "Late Woodland" and "Contact Period" arrow points to learn more about this subject.
Clifton Hicks
Senior Member
My understanding is that a lot of the "Red Stick" warriors (who were basically surrounded and massacred at Horseshoe Bend) were young, inexperienced warriors who zealously opposed white technology and culture.
This might account for the paucity of modern weapons in their ranks.
