A poke in the eye with a sharp stick

[Ron Anderson]

Hi Tim

I've not seen that before, but it does strike me as aboriginal in its style. All I can really tell from your stick is that it seems to be certainly early 20th century or earlier.

There is such a variety of fighting sticks here. And you're right, there's not enough in terms of solid reference material on aboriginal implements.

Is that mulga wood, do you know? This would be a significant clue as to its origins.

[Lew]

Ron

It does not look like mulga wood to me maybe some other type of wood. The only thing that bothers me is the lack of hand carved designs on the wood. Older examples usually show carved lines plus the older sticks are sleeker and more streamlined. This stick seems crudely made so I would place in around 1930 or so?

[Tim Simmons]

With luck I might have this tomorrow. I am very excited about this piece. The plain functional form does not detract from purpuse or age for me, indeed it does look like an old piece to me. I would not like to say Australia as the definate origin. The record I have of such stick weapon is this plate of early Micronesian artefacts. If one thinks of the hundreds of islands besides Australia using wood weapons, we could be looking at a vast area. If one googles "Micronesian or Polynesian double daggers" or just daggers it is clear that this form is far from an isolated creation. The fancy one in the pictures is 70cm long and 3.25 cm thick the new one according to the seller is 68.5cm long and 4cm thick. I will be able to make a better appraisal when I have it. As regards to undecorated Autralian weapons there are many example is "The Art of Eastern Australia" I think copies are still available from Amazon.

[Tim Simmons]

I am not stating anything but this picture of a wood dagger from the "Bishop Museum, Honolulu" is not a million miles away in all aspects from the double pointed stick.

[Ron Anderson]

Hi Tim

And don't forget Africa.

That last carved stick could so easily come from South Africa too.

Regards
Ron

[Tim Simmons]

I can understand if you are not into this kind of thing it is realy difficult to enthuse about it. I get the same non plus feeling about much of the heralded poor silver items we see. Fortunately I rather like this sort of thing. In my limited knowledge it does look Australian. The fact that the bark is only partly removed seems to suggest this. What may appear to be crude might in fact be a sophistication we do not fully understand. The bark and wood itself do make a good grip in absence of a carved grip as seen in the palm wood example. I like the fire hardened points which show that the wood is not as naturally hard like palm wood. The simple nature of this example might be determind by the enviroment such as a desert with a shortage of suitable wood? The bark is a thin paper cover type of bark. As to the age who knows? It is far from recent however one views recent. There is a good patina which I try to show next to an old Fijian club. I do believe there is a patina scale? I think it is great, and couple of points.

1 There is a tradition.
2 With or without fancy, these example show the same form.
3 It does seem to us a strange piece of wood to select for further working.
4 People actually fought with these weapons.

[fearn]

Thanks for the size comparison. Now all you need to do is learn the combat applications, and you'll be good to go.

I'm looking forward to the double watermelon skewer. That will be fun to watch.

Best,

F