Meursault wrote on Dec 2
nd, 2013 at 9:50pm:
OK, I've been busy but hopefully you're still thinking of this and willing to discuss a bit more.
I wasn't really thinking about it any more, but sure
Meursault wrote on Dec 2
nd, 2013 at 9:50pm:
I bow hunt (poorly) and I have to go to great lengths to minimize the outline of the human form. A big stick? No problem, the woods is full of them. Every broken dead sapling is a big stick. The outline of a man standing is a big problem, though.
And saying the people of one area wouldn't have found an adaptation advantageous because people in other areas didn't find it advantageous isn't convincing to me either. Are they hunting similar game on similar terrains with similar vegetation? Because hunting in mature hardwood forests requires a different approach (pun intended) than hunting on open farmland or abandoned hay fields.
You raise good points. My argument was presented semi-facetiously and I may have diluted it inadvertently as a result...
On the terrain front, well, we're looking at roughly the same mix and I should have mentioned that. Mature forest in some places, mountainous scrub in others, open grassland, riverine valleys. Both places go up and down a lot, is what I mean to say
The main environmental difference is climate, which affects the viable construction methods of wooden weapons rather than the shape of same.
I freely concede, however, that I was more considering warfare in open terrain rather than guerrilla tactics in woodland when I made that remark. Nice catch
However, I'd also remark that it was just a small pillar of the argument. Remember, I was responding to a chain of reasoning: small people preferring large bows
to be intimidating, having to kneel
for hunting and thus wanting an off-centered grip.
The big question is; if warriors (psychological warfare, big bows) and hunters (shooting from crouch, short lower bow limb) had differing requirements for bows - and I'm quite prepared to concede that they did - then why didn't they use different bows? The Chinese recurved bows (which did see use in court for a time) would have been infinitely "better" for hunting, having similar power and range but in a much more compact format.
The thrust of my argument, which I confess may well have been lost, was that the technical argument for "why" only works - at all - if you consider that the people using the bows were thinking from a technical perspective. If they were thinking that way, how could they have been so dumb for so long in not choosing to use more appropriate weapons that they knew about? We can't posit that they didn't know how to make them, because they went right ahead and borrowed the same construction techniques to make their own shape of bow. To me, that implies a dedication to the form which transcends the merely practical... but it was only ever my own conclusion.
Returning for a moment to your own observations on terrain and appropriate hunting-craft... Japan has very varied environments, but I can't find sources (which doesn't mean they don't exist, just that I can't find them) citing the use of regional types of bows for hunting, such as existed pretty much everywhere else.
Meursault wrote on Dec 2
nd, 2013 at 9:50pm:
So, what I'm asking is, what conditions were they hunting or fighting under? What strategies did they use? Do we know or is that lost?
Yikes. That could easily occupy a wall of text bigger than the previous two
Much is known, in both instances.
Meursault wrote on Dec 2
nd, 2013 at 9:50pm:
I'm totally convinced by your arguments on Shinto, Horses, Materials, and Technology, but the Hunting argument still rests uneasily in my mind.
That's okay, perhaps I'm wrong. The question really is; do you still find the argument
for the bow being that shape due to the users shooting from a crouching position to be a satisfying one? In the context of at least 1500 years of use, in every situation a bow would be called for?
Apologies if this all sounds a bit rushed and poorly-thought-out; that's 'cos it is! I have a CV to write and this is displacement activity.