The Arrow, the Hunter, and the State

• DOI: 10.1177/106591294900200303
• Published date: 01 September 1949
• Author: Hugh Nibley
• Date: 01 September 1949
• Subject Matter: Articles

328

THE

ARROW,

THE

HUNTER,

AND

THE

STATE

HUGH NIBLEY

Brigham

Young

University

N

THE

study

of

ancient

statecraft

one

is

constantly

running

across

refer-

ences

to

a

gadget

that

seems

so

minor

and

so

mechanical

that

its

great

importance

is

easily

overlooked

as

a

key

to

the

nature

and

origin

of

em-

pire.

It

is

the

contention

of

this

paper

that

the

marked

arrows

supplies

decisive

evidence

for

describing

the

process

by

which

hunters

were

able

to

impose

a

system

of

government

on

the

world.

The

marked

arrow

not

only

supports

the

growing

suspicion

that

the

peasant

societies

of

the

great

river

valleys

became

conquering

empires

by

virtue

of

a

discipline

forced

on

them

from

without,’

but

goes

on

to

show

how

such

a

transformation

could

take

place.

Whereas

only

farmers

possess

the

industry

and

stability

necessary

to

sustain

a

great

state,

the

marked

arrow

indicates

that

it

was

nomad

hunters

of

the

steppe,

with

their

expansive

and

aggressive

ways,

who

first

brought

such

a

state

into

existence.

Both

elements,

expansion

and

stability,

must

be

combined

if

real

empire-not

a

mere

adding

of

fields

to

fields

on

the

one

hand,

or

the

quick

plunder

of

a

continent

on

the

other,

but

a

program

and

technique

of

permanent,

universal

rule-is

to

be

achieved.

The

present

study

undertakes

to

show

how

by

using

marked

arrows

in

a

peculiar

way

prehistoric

hunters

solved

the

problem

of

exercising

dominion

over

vast

and

scattered

areas,

and

then

applied

the

same

solution

to

the

more

difficult

problem

of

welding

peasant

and

nomad

cul-

tures

into

some

sort

of

union,

resulting

in

the

great

centralized

state

of

historic

times.

Three

basic

questions

only

will

be

treated:

what

the

marked

arrow

was,

how

it

worked

in

exercising

its

control

over

the

loosely-knit

and

widely-ranging

tribes

of

the

steppes,

and

how

those

tribes

used

it

to

coerce

the

unwilling

tillers

of

the

soil

to

cooperate

in

bringing

forth

the

great

state.

I

Modern

observers

have

described

how

the

native

hunters

of

the

northwestern

coasts

of

America

secure

their

harpoons

and

arrows

by

putting

marks

of

identification

on

them,

thus

guaranteeing

both

the

return

of

the

weapon

to

its

owner

and

the

right

of

the

latter

to

possess

the

game

it

has

slain.2

2

In

this

as

in

other

things

these

people

have

preserved

the

ways

of

that

Magdalenian

hunting

culture

of

which

their

own

has

long

1

M.

Hoernes,

Natur-

und

Urgeschichte

des

Menschen

(Vienna,

1909),

Vol.

II,

pp.

392-6;

T.

Jacobsen,

"Primitive

Democracy

in

Ancient

Mesopotamia,"

Journal

of

Near

Eastern

Studies,

Vol.

II

(1943),

159-172;

C. H.

Bishop,

"The

Beginnings

of

Civilization

in

Eastern

Asia,"

Smithsonian

Report,

1940,

p.

431,

pp.

433-445.

2

R.

F.

Heizer,

"Poison

Whaling,"

U. S.

Bureau

of

Ethnology

(No.

24,

Bull.

133,

1941)

pp.

421,

429-36,

440,

446;

Ales

Hrdlicka,

The

Aleutian

and

Commander

Islands

(Philadelphia:

Wistar

Inst.,

1945),

pp.

130,

132;

Theodor

Danzel,

Die

Anfänge

der

Schrift

(Leipzig,

1912),

p.

38.

329

been

held

to

be

the

last

direct

survival.3

From

the

same

venerable

source

are

descended

the

marked

arrows

formerly

found

all

along

the

northern

steppe

of

Asia

and

among

those

Scandinavian

bear-and

whale-hunters

who

in

ancient

as

in

modern

times

placed

their

legally

registered

marks

on

hunting

arrows

and

harpoons

(which

they

also

called

&dquo;arrows&dquo;)

to

insure

their

return

to

their

owners

and

lawful

possession

of

the

kill.4

This

practice

of

marking

arrows

was

once

general

among

the

American

In-

dians,5

and

still

survives

among

primitive

hunters

in

various

parts

of

the

world.6

Indeed,

nothing

could

be

more

natural

than

to

put

some

mark

of

identification

on

a

highly

prized

object

designed

to

be

risked

in

the

gamble

of

the

hunt.

But

the

mark

upon

the

hunter’s

arrow

is

more

than

a

mere

identifica.

tion-tag;

it is

a

high

and

holy

object,

sharing

the

&dquo;immortal

power&dquo;

of

the

arrow

itself.

An

arrow

in

flight

is

an

awe-inspiring

thing:

once

released

(so

many

a

proverb

proclaims)

the

arrow

is

beyond

human

control,

and

finds

its

mark

only

by

the

workings

of

imponderable

fate.

Throughout

the

world

the

arrow

is

a

prime

instrument

of

divination,

and

enjoys

first

place

in

primitive

games

of

chance;7

it

is

the

spirit

weapon

that

alone

can

prevail

against

the

demons

or

pass

through

the

absolute

void

between

other

worlds

and

our

own.8

The

incredible

range

and

accuracy

of

the

primitive

arrow

that

so

astound

the

civilized

observer

are

proof

to

the

savage

himself

of

the

operation

of

a

supernatural

power,

as

is

evident

in

the

prayers

that

the

legendary

heroes

of

the

steppe-Finnish,

Norse,

Russian,

Kazakh,

Turkish,

and

Yakut-address

to

their

three

enchanted

arrows

before

releasing

them,9

and

for

instance,

in

the

arrow-prayers

of

3

The

history

of

the

problem

is

given

by

W.

J.

Hoffman,

"Graphic

Art

of

the

Eskimo,"

U.

S.

National

Museum

Papers,

1895,

pp.

763-5,

pp.

934

ff.;

see

F.

M.

Bergounioux

and

A.

Glory,

Les

Premiers

Hommes

(Paris;

Didier,

1945),

pp.

232-9.

4 H.

S.

Falk,

Altnordische

Waffenkunde

(Christiania,

1914),

pp.

69

ff.,

p.

101.

5

W.

J.

Hoffman,

"The Menomini

Indians,"

U.

S.

Bureau

of

Ethnology,

Vol.

XIV

(1892-3),

p.

278;

A.

C.

Fletcher

and

F.

La

Flesche,

"The

Omaha

Tribe,"

ibid.,

Vol. XIII

(1891-2),

p.

287;

Wm.

Bray,

"Observations

on

the

Indian

Method

of

Picture-Writing,"

Archaeologia,

Vol.

IV

(1782),

p.

160;

Hermann

Meyer,

"Bows

and

Arrows

in

Central

Brazil,"

Smithsonian

Report,

1896,

pp.

553,

561,

568,

571,

576

ff.;

Fritz

Krause,

In

den

Wildnissen

Brasiliens

(Leipzig,

1911),

pp.

264,

268-70,

360,

392-4.

6

Danzel,

op.

cit.,

pp.

34-38;

Stewart

Culin,

"Chess

and

Playing

Cards,"

U.

S.

National

Museum

Report,

1896,

p.

881.

7

Hans

Bächtold-Stäubli,

Handwörterbuch

des

deutschen

Aberglaubens

(Leipzig,

1927-37),

Vol.

VI,

pp.

1597-8;

Stith

Thompson,

Motif-Index

of Folk-Literature

(Bloomington,

Ind.,

1932-6),

D 1653,

1314.1.1-5;

Stewart

Culin,

Games

of

the

North

American

Indians

(Washington:

Smithsonian

Inst.,

1907),

pp.

36-43.

8

0n

demon-arrows.

see

Ignatz

Goldzieher,

Abhandlungen

zur

arabischen

Philologie

(Leiden,

1896),

pp.

29-33,

87-89,

117;

Bächtold-Stäubli,

op.

cit.,

Vol.

VI,

p.

1597;

Jacob

Grimm,

Teutonic

Mythology,

ed.

Stallybrass

(London,

1883),

pp.

436,

846,

1761.

On

the

space-travelling

arrow

of

the

wizards,

Herodotus,

Hist.,

IV,

p.

36,

cf.

Erich

Bethe,

in

Pauly-Vlissowa,

Real-Enzyklopadie

der

klass-

ischen

Altertumswissenschaft,

Vol.

I,

pp.

16

ff.;

Jas.

Darmesteter,

The

Zend-Avesta

(Oxford,

1883),

Pt.

2,

p.

153;

Völuspa,

pp.

31-33

(36-37).

9

Kalevala,

trans.

J.

M.

Crawford

(N.

Y.,

1888),

pp.

80-81;

Paul

B.

Du

Chaillu,

The

Viking

North

(N.

Y.,

1889),

Vol.

I,

p.

79;

V.

P.

Avenarius,

Kniga

Bulin

(8th

ed.,

Moscow,

1913),

No.

10,

pp.

108

ff.;

No. 6,

pp.

59

ff.;

No. 3,

pp.

34

ff.;

A.

S.

Orlov,

Kazakhskii

Geroicheskii

Epos

(Academy

of

Sciences:

Moscow,

1945),

p.

41,

n.

2;

p.

83;

N.

K.

Dmitriev,

Turyetskie

Narodnye

Skaski

(Leningrad:

Govt.

Press

"Foreign

Literature,"

1939),

pp.

98-102;

Fr.

Giese,

Türkische

Märchen

(Jena,

1925),

pp.

75-84;

M.

A.

Sergiev,

Yakutskii

Pholklor

(Moscow:

Sovietski

Pisatyel,

1936),

pp.

59

ff.