AMERICAN INDIAN WAR CLUB FOR COMMENT

[BANDOOK]

A RECENT ACQUISITION ASSUME ITS A AMERICAN INDIAN WAR CLUB ,SUCH EXAMPLES HAVE BEEN AFFLIATED TO THE CHEROKEE TRIBES.
IT HAS GOOD PATINA BUT UNSURE SO WELCOME COMMENTS FROM MEMBERS
REGARDS RAJESH

[David]

Let me qualify this statement by clearly acknowledging that this is not at all my field of study, however, i have great doubt of the authenticity of this club. It is very crudely put together in a manner that i doubt would hold up to any serious use and it is not at all decorated for ceremonial use. AFAIK Cherokee and other tribes generally used rawhide, not sinew, to bind their stone club and axe heads and generally cut grooves in the stone so that they would hold more tightly in place with the rawhide. It also seem quite small to be very practical. Frankly it looks more like the kind of stuff we used to make as kids either for play or cub scout projects. Again, this not being my field i may be totally off track on this, but that is my feeling from looking at these photos.

[Jim McDougall]

Not my field either, but I was curious so spent several hours with various resources at hand. I very much agree with David, these stone head clubs actually used in various Plains tribes, were secured with rawhide which was wetted then when dried tightly secured the stone head. Sinew would not have been sufficient.

It also seems that these stone clubs became rather obsolete with steel tomahawks and especially firearms. Some later versions were used ceremonially, but with far larger stone heads and notable decoration.

The small size of this piece makes me wonder if it might have been a 'coup stick', many of which did have a small stone head. It sees that 'counting coup' was a distinguished feat of bravery which involved either touching a fallen enemy with the coup stick in the heat of battle or an active enemy without any intent of wounding or killing him, then rushing away.
There seem to be various interpretations of this according to tribes etc. which in some cases called for notching or embellishing the stick, but more complex than can be described at this point.

[Tim Simmons]

It does not look right to me and I hope to show more when I get home.

[BANDOOK]

Originally Posted by David

Let me qualify this statement by clearly acknowledging that this is not at all my field of study, however, i have great doubt of the authenticity of this club. It is very crudely put together in a manner that i doubt would hold up to any serious use and it is not at all decorated for ceremonial use. AFAIK Cherokee and other tribes generally used rawhide, not sinew, to bind their stone club and axe heads and generally cut grooves in the stone so that they would hold more tightly in place with the rawhide. It also seem quite small to be very practical. Frankly it looks more like the kind of stuff we used to make as kids either for play or cub scout projects. Again, this not being my field i may be totally off track on this, but that is my feeling from looking at these photos.

THANKS DAVID FOR YOUR OBSERVATIONS,CHEERS

[BANDOOK]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

Not my field either, but I was curious so spent several hours with various resources at hand. I very much agree with David, these stone head clubs actually used in various Plains tribes, were secured with rawhide which was wetted then when dried tightly secured the stone head. Sinew would not have been sufficient.

It also seems that these stone clubs became rather obsolete with steel tomahawks and especially firearms. Some later versions were used ceremonially, but with far larger stone heads and notable decoration.

The small size of this piece makes me wonder if it might have been a 'coup stick', many of which did have a small stone head. It sees that 'counting coup' was a distinguished feat of bravery which involved either touching a fallen enemy with the coup stick in the heat of battle or an active enemy without any intent of wounding or killing him, then rushing away.
There seem to be various interpretations of this according to tribes etc. which in some cases called for notching or embellishing the stick, but more complex than can be described at this point.

THANKS JIM FOR YOUR VIEWS AND NEVER KNEW ABOUT THE COUNTING COUP,VERY INTRESTING,KIND REGARDS

[Jim McDougall]

Rajesh, I am grateful for the opportunity to learn more about these American Indian weapons, and while I am constantly travelling through these very regions, I have been remiss in not learning more before.

In more research last night, I found the following which although pertaining to the Sioux tribes, certainly may be applied more broadly to Plains tribal situations in general. It is from a paper for the 'Academy of Science'
"War Clubs of the Sioux Indians"
W.H.Over (1920)
and I hope will serve in our archived corpus of material for future research as well as insight into this particular case involving these weapons.

"...the most formidable war club was the one adopted about 1850 with a stone head and wooden handle Indeed a blow from one of these struck by a strong Indian, would crush the skull of most animals. They were made, however, primarily for warfare. That these stone head clubs were not made, prior to the period mentioned is proven by the fact that practically none are found in the territory occupied by the Sioux. This writer has never found one and has collected extensively along the Minnesota, Blue Earth and Wantonwan rivers of southern Minnesota where the Sioux lived for many years before coming into Dakota territory. A very few have been found in South Dakota, but the small number indicates that they were made only within a short period.

Why was the stone head adopted at this late date? Was it possible that the Sioux had no need of such a weapon of warfare until changes brought about by the readjustment of Indian affairs made it necessary to adopt it? The evidence shows that the period of activity of manufacture of the stone heads was during the 1870s and early part of the 1880s. This was the time of unrest, or rather when the Sioux made the last effort for supremacy over the whites. Nevertheless, historically, war clubs with stone heads are not old; practically all were made between 1850 and 1890. It may be said that they were the work of the last generation.

These stone heads were made from hard material, usually granite or quartzite The type form is double cone, varying to egg shape, but always with a groove around the middle in which the handle was fastened.
The stone head war club averaged about two pounds in weight. It was attached to a wooden handle about 20 inches in length. These handles were small. When they were shaped to the proper size, one end was split and half of it removed , leaving enough of the other half to reach around the groove and extend a few inches down the handle, which was then wrapped with green rawhide, the leather extending around the wood in the groove. When dried, the rawhide shrank and the handle was fastened on securely.

As with most native implements the war clubs were more or less decorated.This was usually done with three or four eagle feathers or a cluster of painted hair from the tail of a horse, fastened at one or both ends. Frequently the handle was decorated with beads or porcupine quills.

The fact should be emphasized that we must not confuse the Sioux war clubs with the grooved stone mauls found so abundantly over the northwest prairie states. The latter will average five or six pounds in weight, are differently shaped, and are a distant implement made by an earlier inhabitant.

Many fake or imitation stone head war clubs have been made since 1890 out of soft material, as pipestone, gypsum and sandstone.

Clubs made in earlier times were mostly for ceremonial or decorative purposes, while those made after 1850 were for warfare. ".


The reason I wanted to add this excerpted material from this important paper here is that it gives a unique overview regarding these very weapons written in an anthropological perspective in key seminal times in these studies.
It must be remembered that in 1920, new interest had been rekindled toward the American Indian, and actually many interviews and studies were accomplished with surviving members of these tribes who had actually been at historic events of earlier times. For the first time even warriors who had been at the Little Big Horn gave their own recollections of the event as recounted in "The Custer Myth".

Returning to the item posted here, while not made in exactly the same method as the stone war clubs described here, it does seem to have enough of the character to suggest it was probably made by a Native American individual following the manner used for actual weapons.

It may likely be 'reservation period' and produced for ceremonial or perhaps dance use, but as noted, certainly has its own ethnographic value as such.

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

Rajesh, I am grateful for the opportunity to learn more about these American Indian weapons, and while I am constantly travelling through these very regions, I have been remiss in not learning more before.

In more research last night, I found the following which although pertaining to the Sioux tribes, certainly may be applied more broadly to Plains tribal situations in general. It is from a paper for the 'Academy of Science'
"War Clubs of the Sioux Indians"
W.H.Over (1920)
and I hope will serve in our archived corpus of material for future research as well as insight into this particular case involving these weapons.

"...the most formidable war club was the one adopted about 1850 with a stone head and wooden handle Indeed a blow from one of these struck by a strong Indian, would crush the skull of most animals. They were made, however, primarily for warfare. That these stone head clubs were not made, prior to the period mentioned is proven by the fact that practically none are found in the territory occupied by the Sioux. This writer has never found one and has collected extensively along the Minnesota, Blue Earth and Wantonwan rivers of southern Minnesota where the Sioux lived for many years before coming into Dakota territory. A very few have been found in South Dakota, but the small number indicates that they were made only within a short period.

Why was the stone head adopted at this late date? Was it possible that the Sioux had no need of such a weapon of warfare until changes brought about by the readjustment of Indian affairs made it necessary to adopt it? The evidence shows that the period of activity of manufacture of the stone heads was during the 1870s and early part of the 1880s. This was the time of unrest, or rather when the Sioux made the last effort for supremacy over the whites. Nevertheless, historically, war clubs with stone heads are not old; practically all were made between 1850 and 1890. It may be said that they were the work of the last generation.

These stone heads were made from hard material, usually granite or quartzite The type form is double cone, varying to egg shape, but always with a groove around the middle in which the handle was fastened.
The stone head war club averaged about two pounds in weight. It was attached to a wooden handle about 20 inches in length. These handles were small. When they were shaped to the proper size, one end was split and half of it removed , leaving enough of the other half to reach around the groove and extend a few inches down the handle, which was then wrapped with green rawhide, the leather extending around the wood in the groove. When dried, the rawhide shrank and the handle was fastened on securely.

As with most native implements the war clubs were more or less decorated.This was usually done with three or four eagle feathers or a cluster of painted hair from the tail of a horse, fastened at one or both ends. Frequently the handle was decorated with beads or porcupine quills.

The fact should be emphasized that we must not confuse the Sioux war clubs with the grooved stone mauls found so abundantly over the northwest prairie states. The latter will average five or six pounds in weight, are differently shaped, and are a distant implement made by an earlier inhabitant.

Many fake or imitation stone head war clubs have been made since 1890 out of soft material, as pipestone, gypsum and sandstone.

Clubs made in earlier times were mostly for ceremonial or decorative purposes, while those made after 1850 were for warfare. ".


The reason I wanted to add this excerpted material from this important paper here is that it gives a unique overview regarding these very weapons written in an anthropological perspective in key seminal times in these studies.
It must be remembered that in 1920, new interest had been rekindled toward the American Indian, and actually many interviews and studies were accomplished with surviving members of these tribes who had actually been at historic events of earlier times. For the first time even warriors who had been at the Little Big Horn gave their own recollections of the event as recounted in "The Custer Myth".

Returning to the item posted here, while not made in exactly the same method as the stone war clubs described here, it does seem to have enough of the character to suggest it was probably made by a Native American individual following the manner used for actual weapons.

It may likely be 'reservation period' and produced for ceremonial or perhaps dance use, but as noted, certainly has its own ethnographic value as such.

Salaams Jim, That is a very excellent ethnographic gem to add to Library where it will sit well for future researchers and enthusiasts.
I was interested to learn that a sort of rifle butt concoction was fashioned by warriors copied it seems from a European rifle but some discussion arises as to its origin; ..The Gunstock Club, it is argued, may even have developed from the tribes admiration for the power of the rifle and thus developed a weapon from an obviously admired powerful item ..It appears that steel blades were inserted into handmade stock and butt arrangements ...and another school of thought considers that warriors may have seen the firearm swung by the barrel and the net effect it had as a club weapon.. and copied the concept in shortened form.
Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

[David]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

It may likely be 'reservation period' and produced for ceremonial or perhaps dance use, but as noted, certainly has its own ethnographic value as such.

I am sure that Rajesh appreciates your optimism here Jim, but i am afraid that i don't even see evidence that this is at all native made. I have found no examples of native made clubs for either war or ceremony that use sinew to attach heads. Even if such a practice were to be used for a club made purely for dance, would such a club, given its purpose, not then be ornately decorated? I'd hate for us to be giving Rajesh false hope here to any claims of authenticity.

[CharlesS]

The dead give away that the piece in question is later, or a reproduction, is the "sinew" used to attach the head. Based on the pics it is pretty clearly waxed fibers that are commonly used today in place of real animal sinew. The piece is really wrong from 'head to toe', but it is that factor alone that shines as evidence that it is a very recently made piece.

I am no expert on NA weapons, but you don't have to be to see the problems here.

I hate being the messenger of bad news, but there is no polite way around it here.

[Miguel]

Thank you Ibrahiim for the photos and explanation for the shape of the war club I have often wondered why some N A tribes used such a club, now I know. You are always learning on this forum
Miguel

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by David

I am sure that Rajesh appreciates your optimism here Jim, but i am afraid that i don't even see evidence that this is at all native made. I have found no examples of native made clubs for either war or ceremony that use sinew to attach heads. Even if such a practice were to be used for a club made purely for dance, would such a club, given its purpose, not then be ornately decorated? I'd hate for us to be giving Rajesh false hope here to any claims of authenticity.

Thanks David, and you are right, I was being overly optimistic perhaps, but my main focus was to offer as much history surrounding the 'authentic' examples , 'for the record'. The absence of decoration is clearly a signal as apparently even those used in warfare had at least some decoration if I understood correctly.
What was interesting to me was that the method of construction seemed to follow that in the article I found, but then certainly fabricators of imitations would probably follow that as well.

Thank you for the well reasoned and explained detail which is also important in recognizing the clear instance of non authentic items, key perspective along with the historical data placed here.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Ibrahiim al Balooshi

Salaams Jim, That is a very excellent ethnographic gem to add to Library where it will sit well for future researchers and enthusiasts.
I was interested to learn that a sort of rifle butt concoction was fashioned by warriors copied it seems from a European rifle but some discussion arises as to its origin; ..The Gunstock Club, it is argued, may even have developed from the tribes admiration for the power of the rifle and thus developed a weapon from an obviously admired powerful item ..It appears that steel blades were inserted into handmade stock and butt arrangements ...and another school of thought considers that warriors may have seen the firearm swung by the barrel and the net effect it had as a club weapon.. and copied the concept in shortened form.
Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

Ibrahiim, thank you for adding the detail on these other very well known war clubs, the 'gunstock' form. I recall first noticing these in the movie "Last of the Mohicans" (1992) with Russell Means, and Daniel Day-Lewis. I was curious at whether these were indeed made from old colonial gun stocks, and after my usual foray into contacting many sources, I ended up talking with the guy in Tennessee who actually made the ones used in the movie (there were 5). I then checked with Norm Flayderman, who told me these were never made from old stocks, just shaped like them. I don't recall most of the outcome, but I think your observations are pretty compelling on how this shape was arrived at.

[Battara]

Charles s right ( ) and this is called artificial sinew.

Also the size of the head and the handle are too small to be useful in the old days.

[David]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

What was interesting to me was that the method of construction seemed to follow that in the article I found, but then certainly fabricators of imitations would probably follow that as well.

Jim, i appreciate that you have taken this as an opportunity to delve into this very interesting and perhaps under represented (on these forums) weapons of Native American culture. I also appreciate Ibrahiim's contribution on the so-called gunstock clubs (though it sort of like bringing up bazookas in a discussion on .22 caliber rifles...really apples and oranges). These gunstock clubs are very interesting and probably deserving of a thread of their own if any members actually have legitimate examples to show.
But just for clarification i do have to call your above statement into question just so we don't leave any misconceptions in Rajesh's mind. It seems pretty obvious to me that Rajesh's club is not at all constructed in the traditional manner mentioned in your article which is why we are all calling it out as probably being a modern reproduction. According to your article these clubs used notched stones that were generally double cone of egg shaped and attached these stones to handles with rawhide. These clubs were usually decorated. Rajesh's club does none of this.
"These stone heads were made from hard material, usually granite or quartzite The type form is double cone, varying to egg shape, but always with a groove around the middle in which the handle was fastened.
The stone head war club averaged about two pounds in weight. It was attached to a wooden handle about 20 inches in length. These handles were small. When they were shaped to the proper size, one end was split and half of it removed , leaving enough of the other half to reach around the groove and extend a few inches down the handle, which was then wrapped with green rawhide, the leather extending around the wood in the groove. When dried, the rawhide shrank and the handle was fastened on securely."

[David]

While i can not attest to the authenticity of the following examples all these seem to adhere to the style, method and materials used to create stone clubs by plains and more eastern native tribes.

[Jim McDougall]

David, thank you again for the elucidation on this. It is very important that the material and observations we provide be accurate, and while the article I provided was intended to be informational, clearly it could be construed differently than I intended.

As noted, this was a great opportunity to bring this field of study more into the fold, and though as I noted, I have little knowledge in it, it was exciting to learn from what I researched, and I added it hoping to promote more interest. That was I am sure Ibrahiim's objective in looking at 'war clubs' collectively as suggested in the title of the thread, as the 'gunstock form' was indeed of the group despite not specific to the one in the OP.

It seems Miguel understood and appreciated the notes on the gunstock club as well as the manner of its inclusion here. You are right though, these clubs would well warrant their own thread and I would include the extensive research I completed on them years ago, very interesting examples. Actually I do believe they would fall into the war club category, but I enjoyed the bazooka analogy !

The article I posted was keyed to the Sioux versions of these war clubs and it is noted that the one in the OP was probably Cherokee. I thought I had emphasized the tribal distinction so as to show this as comparative information that readers could use to consider possibilities.

Actually I did not disagree that this was a modern reproduction, and was actually in agreement with you and Charles, but should have not included the notion that traditional process might be included in its making. I understand that was your concern, and you are quite right that might mislead Rajesh, so again thank you for your vigilance in correcting this.

Rajesh, please accept my apology, and my exuberant optimism. If I may say so however, your example is still an attractive item despite the more direct analysis which reveals it is modern and not authentic.

All best regards
Jim

[David]

No worries Jim, and i was not trying to curb the discussion of other clubs here, merely trying to direct the discussion more towards Rajesh's example since that was what he would no doubt most be interested in getting information on.
Like you Jim, i also know very little about Native American weapons from a collectors perspective. I do know that the true examples of any old Native American items, be they weapons or pottery or textiles, are highly valued in the marketplace, making forgeries of such items a lucrative pastime. So we should be very careful when examining such items for appraisal.
From what i do understand, despite Hollywood's focus on the tomahawk and the bow & arrow, clubs seem to be the main weapon of war for many Eastern Woodland and Plains Indian tribes. Another interesting club form we have not mentioned yet is the ball-headed club style which seems to originate with the Eastern Woodland natives though examples of this style seem to stretch to the Eastern Plains and as far as the Western Great Lakes region. I certainly don't recognize stylistic difference, if there are any, to determine where these are found, but i do believe various club forms spread from tribe to tribe. So i'm not convinced we will find all that much difference in the usual construction used for stone-headed clubs between, say, Souix and Cherokee tribes. But maybe someone knows more about that here. Anyway, here are a few examples of the ball-headed club. With the introduction of metal these sometimes got the addition of a steel spike or blade in the head to make them all the more deadly, though bu design these clubs were already fairly efficient head crushers.
(most of these are supposedly origin clubs, though at least one is definitely a very accurate report of an original design)

[Jim McDougall]

One thing I would add, while this seems modern of course, it seems that as we traveled through North Carolina Indian reservations, Cherokee; Oklahoma reservations, Cherokee; Montana and South Dakota, Wounded Knee, Little Big Horn, Utah and I cannot even recall many others offhand, the gift shops sold clubs of this kind.
I wish I could recall more of what these were like, however it does seem they might have been made using sinew. I paid no special notice at the time.

However, I was told on several occasions that objects sold as Native American, had to have been made by those only of such heritage, and that was legally regulated. Again, I cannot recall more detail, it was years ago.
It was in that thinking that I observed that this item was probably made by someone of this ethnicity. That was what I meant by even though modern, made in the traditions of these tribes.

Perhaps we might have some clarification on this?

[Jim McDougall]

David, we crossed posts, and excellent entries with those ball headed clubs.
I came across these as well in my research, and I became so engulfed in these subjects I spent the better part of several nights and piles of index cards and notes putting data together.

As I noted, I just remembered instances encountered in our travels through Indian reservations, and wish I had been more attentive. I am wondering if these legalities are actually observed, and if that might have bearing on Rajesh's example.

Thank you for adding these ball clubs (which were pretty scary, as one source said they were basically 'jaw breakers' used in upward strike).
I think it would be great to expand our knowledge base on these Native American weapons here, and particularly as a kind of memento toward Barry. I wish he were here to add to this.

All best regards
Jim

[David]

If Barry were still with us i am sure he would have some awesome information to add to this mix.

[BANDOOK]

[QUOTE=Jim McDougall]David, thank you again for the elucidation on this. It is very important that the material and observations we provide be accurate, and while the article I provided was intended to be informational, clearly it could be construed differently than I intended.

As noted, this was a great opportunity to bring this field of study more into the fold, and though as I noted, I have little knowledge in it, it was exciting to learn from what I researched, and I added it hoping to promote more interest. That was I am sure Ibrahiim's objective in looking at 'war clubs' collectively as suggested in the title of the thread, as the 'gunstock form' was indeed of the group despite not specific to the one in the OP.

It seems Miguel understood and appreciated the notes on the gunstock club as well as the manner of its inclusion here. You are right though, these clubs would well warrant their own thread and I would include the extensive research I completed on them years ago, very interesting examples. Actually I do believe they would fall into the war club category, but I enjoyed the bazooka analogy !

The article I posted was keyed to the Sioux versions of these war clubs and it is noted that the one in the OP was probably Cherokee. I thought I had emphasized the tribal distinction so as to show this as comparative information that readers could use to consider possibilities.

Actually I did not disagree that this was a modern reproduction, and was actually in agreement with you and Charles, but should have not included the notion that traditional process might be included in its making. I understand that was your concern, and you are quite right that might mislead Rajesh, so again thank you for your vigilance in correcting this.

Rajesh, please accept my apology, and my exuberant optimism. If I may say so however, your example is still an attractive item despite the more direct analysis which reveals it is modern and not authentic.

All best regards
Dear JIM
Thanks a lot for educating me as was this was recently added to my collection and had no idea about this club,as others have mentioned as being a reproduction,atleast now I will know more on these subjects for the future,Kind Regards Rajesh

[Pukka Bundook]

Regarding the late use of clubs amongst the Plains tribes, I had read, (many moons ago!!), that the reason was that a tomahawk (more popular earlier) was not as effective in horseback fighting.
By this I mean that a tomahawk/axe, has to hit sharp -side on to work as it was meant, but hitting an opponent with a stone club had the same effect whether the side, front or back contacted the target.
Yes, we see 'pointy' war -hawks, but the difference between being hit on the head with the point or side of one of these would be completely lost on the victim.
The gunstock club was in favour in an earlier period, and maybe made so, to capture the 'medicine' of firearms?. Normally an iron trade spear point was let into the stock.
The one we saw in "Last Of the Mohicans" was unusually large!..........but again, the longrifle carried by Hawkeye was unusually Long, and much later in style than it should have been. :-)

Best regards,
Richard.

[Jens Nordlunde]

When I was in Canada ten years ago, someone whom we visited showed me the attached, and asked me what it was. She said she found it when she and her husband bought the house where they are living.
I showed it on this forum, and someone told me that it was (after memory) a cermonial war club. They have one in a Canadian museum, which belonged to one of the famous chiefs, Sitting Bull(?) who had to flee to Canada.

[Jim McDougall]

You are very welcome Rajesh, and actually we have all been educated a bit here, so this has become a most useful thread.

Jens and Richard, thank you so much guys for bringing in these details to add to the perspective here. Jens, that is a very attractive example, and gives us a better look at what a ceremonial item in this category might look like.

Richard, good notes on that gunstock club from "Last of the Mohicans". I recall after seeing the movie, being pretty curious on these, as I noted earlier. It does seem a bit of 'license' was used as from what I learned, these gunstock clubs were not actually used by the Mohicans (at least in most references I checked). Naturally there at have been exceptions, just as is the case with most weapons cross diffusing in degree.

Good thought on the idea of 'medicine', as it does seem this kind of symbolic thinking was well in use in these tribal cultures. The case for the unusually long, 'long rifle' for Hawkeye.........well, uh, as they always say 'hooray for Hollywood!'. Everything is larger than real life.

[David]

Originally Posted by Pukka Bundook

The one we saw in "Last Of the Mohicans" was unusually large!..........but again, the longrifle carried by Hawkeye was unusually Long, and much later in style than it should have been. :-)

Well as Jim says, Hurray for Hollywood. EVERYTHING is unusually large. In fact, even the landscape was unusually large. There are no gorges and waterfalls like that in the upstate NY area this film was supposed to have taken place in. They filmed in the Smokey Mountains for a more grandiose scale. Still an interesting film though.

[David]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

Richard, good notes on that gunstock club from "Last of the Mohicans". I recall after seeing the movie, being pretty curious on these, as I noted earlier. It does seem a bit of 'license' was used as from what I learned, these gunstock clubs were not actually used by the Mohicans (at least in most references I checked). Naturally there at have been exceptions, just as is the case with most weapons cross diffusing in degree.

I think that perhaps the ball-headed club was more popular amongst the Mohicans as depicted in this drawing of Chief Etow Oh Koam from the late 18th century. However, the gunstock club was known to be used by numerous tribes across the Eastern Woodlands and Eastern and Northern Plains, so it would not be a weapon that would necessarily be unknown to the Mohicans. And as the story goes at this point this Mohican was operating somewhat separated from his own fading culture so who can blame him for making his weapon of choice the biggest damn gunstock bazooka club he could fashion.

[Pukka Bundook]

Jens,

It is Still hard to believe that ten years have passed!!
I think we would both like them back. :-)

Jim and David,
You are both so very right regarding Hollywood!
The gunstock club was on a par with Morgan Freeman's scimitar in Robin Hood!....and used to very much the same effect!
You can see the mind of the producer;
"I like that bit, we should fit it in this film if we can!".

Can I also say that in this area, (Alberta) there are found at times large stones cut with a groove around the centre. they normally show bruising and breakage on at least one end.
Some say they were made for grinding grain, but that does not account for the groove. Some such stones are the size of a decent loaf of bread.
These stones are rough, not like some of the fine polished objects above.
My thoughts;
Could these have been used for braining buffalo crippled in a buffalo jump?
It would take a fair -sized rock to give such an animal its quietus !

Please pardon the slightly OT.

Richard.

[kronckew]

Originally Posted by David

Well... There are no gorges and waterfalls like that in the upstate NY area this film was supposed to have taken place in. ...

ausable chasm in the adirondacks of NY is pretty awesome. i remembered it from having been there in my pre-teens. i lived not all that far from there on the NJ/NY border, i discovered i had acrophobia there at the chasm. that suspension bridge did me in. scared the stuffing outta me; you could look thru the gaps in the floor boards and the bridge wobbles and sways. looks unchanged from my day.

they are a tad smaller than the ones in the film tho. and i certainly would not want to see what was left of anyone jumping off the waterfalls.

letchworth and watkins glen are also upstate. the geneses river has sme interesting topography too.

[Jim McDougall]

In post #27, David has posted an outstanding image of a Mahican chief, and holding a most impressive ball club, but as I look at the portrait, it just dawned on me that this notable chief, aside from that club, is wearing a European sword!!!
The portrait was painted by a Dutch painter, Jan Verelst, in 1710, when a key figure of Dutch New York, took four (actually five but one died enroute) American Indian chiefs to visit Queen Anne in London on a diplomatic mission.
As portraits of the other chiefs (actually Mohawks) were holding items such as muskets, it seems many were of course props provided by the artists (there were three painting sets of portraits).

I have started a new thread "use of swords by American Indians" in order to avoid detracting from the topic here, and hope it will prove as interesting as this thread has been.

With the large ball club in the portrait, and given that it was painted in England by a Dutch artist, it sets me wondering if these chiefs had brought their own weaponry, perhaps as gifts or tokens in diplomatic gesture, or whether these were items previously collected by either Dutch or English colonials.