|
|
|
|||||||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
|
How much evidence do we have for clubs as common Paleolithic/Neolithic weapons?
In another thread we're tearing down the 'cave' part of the cave man, so let's skip lightly by the stylish pelt and focus on the other aspect:
I know wooden clubs don't preserve well in most climates. However, bashed skulls and other evidence of blunt trauma to game animal bones should preserve as well as anything we have. Also, we seem pretty sure about fire-hardened spears and atlatls and other things that leave limited remains behind, right? Finally, I know clubs were used at various points in the past by various cultures. I'm interested in whether the archetype fails spectacularly or merely very badly.
__________________
"Ridicule is the only weapon that can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them." If you don't stop to analyze the snot spray, you are missing that which is best in life. - Miller I'm not sure why this is, but I actually find this idea grosser than cannibalism. - Excalibre, after reading one of my surefire million-seller business plans. |
| Advertisements | |
|
|
|
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
I used to hunt bears with nothing but a club.
Mind you, there were 30 other people in the club. ![]() (Who is Marilyn Manning? )
Last edited by njtt; 04-10-2012 at 10:36 PM. |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
the use of clubs by recent HGs is ubiquitous, so we can fairly safely assume that humans have always used clubs.
Evidence of animals with their heads based in isn't going to be common, because large animals weren't killed that way. The skulls of small animals that are killd with clubs aren't going to yield evidence because the skulls were always smashed open to get at the brains. Fat was the most highly prized food of HGs and brains are something like 3/4 fat in a convenient package. Where your picture differs from reality is in the size of the club. The gigantic cavemen club (GCC) is a fiction. Real clubs are basically batons, handy little one-handed things about a foot and a half long. These are ideal for killing small game or for fighting other humans. For situations where more force was required, people tied a rock to the end of their baton to make a mace or axe. That provided as much force as a GCC without nothing like the weight, meaning it was also much faster and more practical to use and carry. Some HGs have used what were essentially wooden swords or axes, but once again these are radically different to the the GCC being flattened, carefully carved and balanced and quite delicate. So no, at no stage in history would you have seen someone with a gigantic club slung over his shoulder. People with handy little clubs slung in their belts, OTOH, would have been the norm right through to the bronze age. as would people with wooden swords. |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
As per spears and atlatls, we have direct evidence of those, although rare. However, stone, bone and antler tools interpreted as projectile points (on solid evidence such as points found stuck in animal and human bones, and microscopic use-wear consistent with uni-directional, high-velocity impacts) are extremely common in most regions and time periods from the Late Palaeolithic onwards. Quote:
|
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
So the archetype only fails very badly. Interesting.
|
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
Where did the idea of giant clubs themselves come from? Did anyone at any point in history actually make and use a wooden club as long as a baseball bat and six inches thick at the head, or is it basically a cartoon exaggeration?
|
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bonk, Bonk, on the head!
Once again, we really should start these types of threads by defining what we mean by "human". Blake implicitly assumes H. sapiens in his post ("...humans have always used clubs"), but the classic cave man is a Neanderthal. Frankly, I suspect the use of clubs goes back very far in human ancestry since chimps sling club-like branches during displays and acts of aggression. It doesn't take much of a leap from that to, well, "Bonk, bonk, on the head!" |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
According to the documentary, "2001", the club was invented at the Dawn of Man.
|
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
Probably came from the same place that picturing poverty by a naked man wearing a barrel came from. Symbolic representations don't need real life antecedents.
|
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
This picture, and some others like it, from the early 1900s were probably the inspiration for the club wielding cave man. They were largely fantasies, based on preconceived ideas of what a primitive human ancestor would look like. They had some skulls and a few skeletons, but not the kind of expertise and objectiveness we can bring to the science of reconstruction today.
|
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
With paleolithic technology, what other weapon options do you really have available? A stone spear head by definition puts you in neolithic. You could make a spear by sharpening the wood itself, but most of the ways of doing so are also neolithic at least.
|
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
In Classical times Herakles / Hercules was often depicted wearing only a lionskin and carrying a large club. These images would have been very familiar to anyone with a classical education (i.e. the majority of academics and popular writers from the Victorian era right up through the late 20th century).
|
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Stone tipped spears, axes and maces are a middle Paleolithic invention, and almost certainly predate H. sapiens. By the end of the Paleolithic humans were making stone-tipped arrows, wooden swords faced with microlith cutting edges, stone bolas and any number of other weapons that would be infinitely superior to a club. Even leaving that aside, the aforementioned batons and wooden swords are far more effective weapons than a gigantic caveman club. |
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
which while not quite the bulbous cartoon club do suggest that Hercules anticipated Sheriff Buford Pusser (of Walking Tall fame) by several centuries in the "carry a big-ass whomping stick" department. Last edited by Lumpy; 04-13-2012 at 07:53 AM. |
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
I thought that the definition of paleolithic vs. neolithic was the absence or presence of worked stone.
|
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
|
No, paleolithic (literally "old stone") covers chipped or flaked stone tools from the earliest pebble tools through fairly sophisticated blades up to 10,000 BCE. Neolithic refers to polished stone tools typical of post-glacial times.
|
![]() |
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|