Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T15:07:48.080Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Atlatls, Bows and Arrows, Pictographs, and the Pecos River Focus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2017

J. Charles Kelley
J. Charles Kelley*
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, The University of Texas
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Facts and Comments
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 16 , Issue 1 , July 1950 , pp. 71 - 74
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 1950

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Taylor, Herbert C., Jr., “A Tentative Cultural Sequence for the Area about the Mouth of the Pecos,” Bulletin of the Texas Archaeological and Paleontological Society, Vol. 20, pp. 73–88, Abilene, 1949.Google Scholar

2 Thus, E. B. Sayles proposed the recognition of a Pecos River Cave Dweller, a Big Bend Cave Dweller, and a Hueco Cave Dweller; E. B. Sayles, “An Archaeological Survey of Texas,” Medallion Papers, No. XVII, Globe, 1935, pp. 63–72.

3 Charles Kelley, J., Campbell, T. N., and Lehmer, Donald J., “The Association of Archaeological Materials with Geological Deposits in the Big Bend Region of Texas,” West Texas Historical and Scientific Society Publication, No. 10, Alpine, 1940 Google Scholar. In the opinion of the present writer Sayles’ Hueco Focus represents Chisos Focus (Big Bend Cave Dweller) components with a relatively high percentage of trade items obtained from the Jornado branch of the Mogollon.

4 Ibid. For a discussion of the Jornada branch see Lehmer, Donald J., “The Jornada Branch of the Mogollon,” University of Arizona Bulletin, Vol. 19, No. 2, Tucson, 1948.Google Scholar

5 See Charles Kelley, J., “The Cultural Affiliations and Chronological Position of the Clear Fork Focus,” American Antiquity, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 97–109, 1947 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, for a discussion of the probable age of these cultures.

6 J. E. Pearce and A. T. Jackson, “A Prehistoric Rock Shelter in Val Verde County, Texas,” The Universliy of Texas Bulletin, No. 3327; Anthropological Papers, Vol. 1, No. 3; Austin, 1933.

7 Holden, W. C., “Excavation of Murrah Cave,” Bulletin of the Texas Archaeological and Palaeontological Society, Vol. 9, pp. 48–73, Abilene, 1937.Google Scholar

8 Martin, George C., “Archaeological Exploration of the Shumla Caves,” Big Bend Basket Maker Papers, No. 3, San Antonio, 1933.Google Scholar

9 Setzler, Frank M., “A Prehistoric Cave Culture in Southwestern Texas,” American Anthropologist, Vol. 37, No. 1-1, pp. 104–10, Menasha, 1935 Google Scholar.

10 Pearce and Jackson, 1933, op. cit., p. 31.

11 Holden, op. cit., 1937, pp. 54 and 69, and PI. 8, A, 13–16. Kelley and Campbell (op. cit., 1940, p. 146, Note 217) point out that use of a different type of stratigraphic control might have revealed stratigraphic difference within the deposits in Murrah Cave.

12 Martin, op. cit., 1933. See pp. 26, 27, 55, 85, 86, 91, and Pls. X and XIX. Martin tries to explain the appearance of the arrows together with the atlatl by postulating that the nocked arrows were used with light atlatls. But other excavators, such as Setzler, have found bows as well as arrows.

13 Taylor, op. cit., 1949, p. 78.

14 Indeed, carefully prepared bars and balls of the pigments used in the pictographs occur in the refuse attributable to the focus.

15 Forrest Kirkland, “A Study of Indian Pictures in Texas,” Bulletin of Texas Archaeological and Paleontological Society, Vol. 9, Abilene, 1937, pp. 89–119; “A Description of Texas Pictographs,” Idem, Vol. 10, 1938, pp. 11–40; “Indian Pictures in the Dry Shelters of Val Verde County Texas,” Idem, Vol. 11, 1939, pp. 47-76; “A Comparison of Texas Indian Pictographs with Paleolithic Paintings in Europe,” Central Texas Archaeologist, No. 3, Waco, 1937, pp. 9–26.

15 Forrest Kirkland, “A Study of Indian Pictures in Texas,” Bulletin of Texas Archaeological and Paleontological Society, Vol. 9, Abilene, 1937, pp. 89–119; “A Description of Texas Pictographs,” Idem, Vol. 10, 1938, pp. 11–40; “Indian Pictures in the Dry Shelters of Val Verde County Texas,” Idem, Vol. 11, 1939, pp. 47–76; “A Comparison of Texas Indian Pictographs with Paleolithic Paintings in Europe,” Central Texas Archaeologist, No. 3, Waco, 1937, pp. 9–26.

16 Jackson, A. T., “Picture Writing of Texas Indians,” The University of Texas Publication, No. 3809; Anthropological Papers, Vol. 11; Austin 1938 Google Scholar. Also see Pearce and Jackson, op. cit., 1933.

17 A Prehistoric Hunting Cult of the Pecos River Focus, MS, 1949.

18 Kirkland calls the atlatl and dart in these depictions a “broken flowering plant.” That the darts shown in place with the instrument are actually darts cannot be doubted, however, since they are repeatedly shown piercing animals. The atlatl is just as obviously that, therefore.