The Use of Wooden Clubs and Throwing Sticks among Recent Foragers : Cross-Cultural Survey and Implications for Research on Prehistoric Weaponry - PubMed
The Use of Wooden Clubs and Throwing Sticks among Recent Foragers : Cross-Cultural Survey and Implications for Research on Prehistoric Weaponry
Václav Hrnčíř. Hum Nat. 2023 Mar.
Abstract
There is a popular idea that archaic humans commonly used wooden clubs as their weapons. This is not based on archaeological finds, which are minimal from the Pleistocene, but rather on a few ethnographic analogies and the association of these weapons with simple technology. This article presents the first quantitative cross-cultural analysis of the use of wooden clubs and throwing sticks for hunting and violence among foragers. Using a sample of 57 recent hunting-gathering societies from the Standard Cross-Cultural Sample, it is shown that the majority used clubs for violence (86%) and/or hunting (74%). Whereas in hunting and fishing the club usually served only as a secondary tool, 33% of societies used the club as one of their main fighting weapons. The use of throwing sticks was less frequent among the societies surveyed (12% for violence, 14% for hunting). Based on these results and other evidence, it is argued that the use of clubs by early humans was highly probable, at least in the simplest form of a crude stick. The great variation in the forms and use of clubs and throwing sticks among recent hunter-gatherers, however, indicates that they are not standardized weapons and that similar variation may have existed in the past. Many such prehistoric weapons may therefore have been quite sophisticated, multifunctional, and carried strong symbolic meaning.
Keywords: Comparative ethnology; Hunter-gatherers; Pleistocene archaeology; Throwing sticks; Weapons; Wooden clubs.
© 2023. The Author(s).
Conflict of interest statement
The author has no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.
Figures
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/7784c/7784cd024d80292c281280ba6b17e535984c2276" alt="Fig. 1"
Global distribution of 57 foraging societies in the sample. Symbols indicate the documented use of clubs and throwing sticks (including non-wooden and composite weapons) for hunting and violence
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ba58d/ba58d2efdb0008d969cc94130e10c5272576c0b6" alt="Fig. 2"
Five main activities for which wooden clubs (contact) and throwing sticks (projectile) were reported to have been used as a primary or secondary weapon (n = 57 societies)
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/29e25/29e2545adfd2f0d21def6b5dfba7820f3449cec3" alt="Fig. 3"
The proportion of societies in which wooden clubs (contact) and throwing sticks (projectile) were reported to have been used for hunting (i.e., catching and killing) or only for finishing off prey caught by other means. Divided by four main activities (n = 57 societies)
Similar articles
-
The wooden artifacts from Schöningen's Spear Horizon and their place in human evolution.
Leder D, Lehmann J, Milks A, Koddenberg T, Sietz M, Vogel M, Böhner U, Terberger T. Leder D, et al. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2024 Apr 9;121(15):e2320484121. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2320484121. Epub 2024 Apr 1. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2024. PMID: 38557183 Free PMC article.
-
Conard NJ, Serangeli J, Bigga G, Rots V. Conard NJ, et al. Nat Ecol Evol. 2020 May;4(5):690-693. doi: 10.1038/s41559-020-1139-0. Epub 2020 Apr 20. Nat Ecol Evol. 2020. PMID: 32313174
-
Throwing in the Middle and Upper Paleolithic: inferences from an analysis of humeral retroversion.
Rhodes JA, Churchill SE. Rhodes JA, et al. J Hum Evol. 2009 Jan;56(1):1-10. doi: 10.1016/j.jhevol.2008.08.022. Epub 2008 Nov 11. J Hum Evol. 2009. PMID: 19004469
-
The empirical case against the 'demographic turn' in Palaeolithic archaeology.
Collard M, Vaesen K, Cosgrove R, Roebroeks W. Collard M, et al. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2016 Jul 5;371(1698):20150242. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2015.0242. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2016. PMID: 27298472 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Romano V, Lozano S, Fernández-López de Pablo J. Romano V, et al. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2020 Aug;95(4):1020-1035. doi: 10.1111/brv.12599. Epub 2020 Apr 1. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2020. PMID: 32237025 Free PMC article. Review.
Cited by
-
Aboriginal Australian weapons and human efficiency.
Diamond LE, Langley MC, Cornish B, Pizzolato C, Saxby DJ. Diamond LE, et al. Sci Rep. 2024 Oct 26;14(1):25497. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-76317-w. Sci Rep. 2024. PMID: 39462002 Free PMC article.
-
Milks A, Lehmann J, Leder D, Sietz M, Koddenberg T, Böhner U, Wachtendorf V, Terberger T. Milks A, et al. PLoS One. 2023 Jul 19;18(7):e0287719. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0287719. eCollection 2023. PLoS One. 2023. PMID: 37467169 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Abbink JG. Violence, ritual, and reproduction: Culture and context in Surma dueling. Ethnology. 1999;38(3):227–242. doi: 10.2307/3773815. - DOI
-
- Ahlström T, Molnar P. The placement of the feathers: Violence among sub-boreal hunter-gatherers from Gotland, Central Baltic Sea. In: Schulting R, Fibiger L, editors. Sticks, stones, and broken bones: Neolithic violence in a European perspective. Oxford University Press; 2012. pp. 17–33.
-
- Allington-Jones L. The Clacton spear: The last one hundred years. Archaeological Journal. 2015;172(2):273–296. doi: 10.1080/00665983.2015.1008839. - DOI
-
- Asch M. Slavey. In: Helm J, editor. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 6: Subarctic. Smithsonian Institution; 1981. pp. 338–349.
-
- Asch, T., & Chagnon, N. A. (1975). Theaxfight [video]. Watertown, MA, Documentary Educational Resources. Retrieved from https://video.alexanderstreet.com/watch/the-ax-fight
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Miscellaneous