Abstract
This study provides a multi-disciplinary framework operationalizing the study of weaponry through experimental archaeology. In this scenario, I focus on war clubs, a type of Indigenous weapon commonly found across North America. The goal of this study is to understand how these weapons were engineered for violent conflict. My methodology utilizes archival research, museum study, and experimental archaeology analyses to elaborate on features of design, manufacture, use, and tactics of war club technologies. To operationalize this framework, I focus on a case study of conflict technology in the Lower Colorado River Basin from 1540–1857. Despite war clubs being prolific and an integral part of the technological systems of conflict in this region, this is the initial in-depth material analysis of this weapon type. From this study we can begin to infer how and why weapons systems were chosen, designed, created, and used through the experiential and embodied process of making.
Introduction
Previous studies on trauma make assumptions of what weapon types were used. Skeletal trauma is often erroneously associated with weapons that are not actually present in the region or are outside of the local chronology (Lambert, 2014; Walker, 1989). These assumptions are often made due to the lack of data on weaponry (Curran and Raymond, 2021 for further critique; Dyer and Fibiger, 2017; Gordon and Bosio, 2011 for notable exceptions). Using ethnohistoric, experimental, and archival frameworks, this study examines how we can operationalize study of weaponry through experimental archaeology connecting ethnohistoric documentation to artifacts.
In this study, I focus on how a type of Indigenous weapon commonly found across North America, the war club, was engineered for violence. My methodology utilizes experimental archaeology, museum research and archival analyses to elaborate on features of design, manufacture, use, and tactics of war club technologies (Curran and Raymond, 2021). To operationalize this framework, I focus on a case study of conflict technology in the Lower Colorado River Basin from 1540–1857 (Figure 1). The war club is especially prevalent during this time among the Quechan, Mohave, Maricopa, Cocopah, and Akimel O'odham, Indigenous peoples of the Lower Colorado River Basin. War clubs here followed a consistent regional design known as the mallet or “potato masher” (Forbes, 1965; Kroeber, 1976; Kroeber and Fontana, 1993). These weapons have a long history of use extensively recorded in the ethnohistoric record, making this weapon ideal for a case study. Despite war clubs being prolific and an integral part of the sociotechnical system of conflict in this region, this is the initial in-depth material analysis of this style of war club.
Contemporary reservations and Tribal lands in the region of study (by Joseph Curran 2021).
Ethnohistory of war clubs
The war club is a ubiquitous primary weapon type Indigenous societies used across the world in close quarter, hand-to-hand combat (Keeley, 1996; Kelly, 2016; Otterbein, 2004). War clubs are a type of shock weapon, or weapon used in hand-to-hand combat, that inflicts blunt force trauma. According to Keeley (1996) shock weapons, “require contact between warriors and injure by blows or cuts” (49). An issue with defining war clubs in this manner is that shock weapons themselves have a multitude of operational ranges. These ranges can be from very close, close, to mid, and a variety of techniques for use from cutting, thrusting, slicing, to crushing. As these weapon types are varied it is also useful to differentiate from weapons that cause sharp force trauma, such as swords or axes, from those that cause blunt force trauma, such as maces or clubs (Galloway and Wedel, 2014; Kimmerle and Baraybar, 2019b; 2019a). While associating warfare with Indigenous peoples is a notorious stereotype (Merrell, 2012), the term “war club” is used here to denote clubs solely used in interpersonal violent conflict between humans to differentiate from clubs used in other ways, such as fish clubs in Alaska and Northern California. Thus, for this study war clubs are shock weapons that cause blunt force trauma at a very close range.
The regions of interest are those that include the case study and adjacent areas. These regions include California, the Great Basin, and the Southwest The Southwest can further be divided into Athabaskan-speakers, Puebloans, and peoples who reside in the Mohave and Sonoran deserts. Athabaskan-speakers primarily used the stone-headed clubs wrapped in rawhide (NMAI Image 151954). Puebloan wooden clubs where either ball shaped like those made by people from Nambe Pueblo (NMAI Image 159291) or those seen at Jemez Pueblo (NMAI Image 136939). In the Southwest desert region, mallet shaped clubs, such as those manufactured by the Tohono O’odham (NMAI Image 089773), were dominant. Paiute clubs found in the great basin follow a similar pattern as those of the Puebloan ball clubs (NMAI Image 141794).
Interestingly Californian war club forms can be divided by those in Northern and Coastal California that follow similar patterns as those of the Northwest Coast and those of inland Southern California that follow patterns from the Southwest (Kroeber, 1976). For example, Hupa (NMAI Image 042648) clubs are generally paddle shapes formed from abraded stone like those found in the Northwest Coast (NMAI Image 018138). In inland Southern California, closer to our region of interest, clubs made by Kumeyaay (NMAI Image 084099) peoples are ball shaped and made of wood like those of the Southwest Cahuilla (Bean and Saubel, 1972, 129) and Gabrieleño clubs are similar to those of Southwestern desert peoples and are mallet shaped (McCawley, 1996, 106–7; Reid and Heizer, 1968, 104).
Mallet clubs in the Lower Colorado River Basin
To further examine the cultural context of war clubs, I will focus on the mallet club illustrating how it was made and how it was used (Figure 2). As mentioned, this club is found in the Southwest and Southern California but is especially prevalent among the peoples in the Lower Colorado River Basin (Heizer and Whipple, 1971; James and Graziani, 1975; Kroeber, 1976). Spanish archival records point to a long history of mallet war club use in the region that likely extends before the sixteenth century when it was first noted by the Alarcon expedition in the 1540s. Members of the expedition wrote that the inhabitants of the Colorado River delta wielded “…two or three kinds of maces of charred wood” (Elasser, 1979, 15). After-action reports from Spanish survivors of their expulsion from the Colorado River in 1781 describe the Quechan warriors clubbing soldiers, settlers and priests to death with war clubs (Roberts, 1920; Santiago, 2010). In his deposition, Juan Joseph Miranda, a carpenter and settler of San Pedro and San Pablo del Vicuner, stated, “…they had killed the fathers, soldiers, and settlers with clubs, treacherously surprising them unarmed” (Roberts, 1920, 161). Use of mallet war clubs was also attested in archival manuscripts by Anglo American soldiers and settlers. In his 1848–1853 journal, Thomas W. Sweeney gives another relatively vivid account of Quechan war clubs: The war club is a favorite weapon with them; it is about two feet long, very large and thick at one end and small at the other, to which is attached a leathern thong to retain the implement in the hand. It is made of mesquet or leña-verda, an evergreen, with a verdant bark, without leaf, perfectly smooth and hard as lignum vitae (Sweeney and Woodward, 1956, 71).
Examples of war clubs curated in the NMNH and PAHMA. A) Cocopah mallet club; B) Akimel O'odham mallet club; C) Quechan mallet club, D) Mohave mallet club. A), B), C): E76163, E21800, and E325203 Department of Anthropology, Smithsonian Institution. D) Courtesy of © Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology and the Regents of the University of California. Photograph: Joseph Curran (Catalog No. 1-1743).
Indigenous Elders from the Lower Colorado River Basin describe materials used for constructing war clubs appear to be mesquite, screwbean, or ironwood (Table 1). Mohave Elders narrate how these weapons were used by warriors during a battle: The club was grasped near the cylinder rather than at the end of the handle, and it was usually smashed into the chin or face with an upward stroke. Occasionally the warrior struck downward at the enemy’s temple. (Stewart, 1947, 262).
Indigenous Elders consulted by ethnographers.
Cocopah Elders (Gifford, 1933, 274) reported that the manufacture processes consist of carving a wooden log in one piece using stone adzes, and presumably steel knives after contact. However, other accounts from Mohave and Quechan Elders note that these groups burnt the wood instead, as adzes are not known to have been present among these groups (Forde, 1931, 123; Kroeber, 1976, 78:739). Cocopah Elders also note that fitting and finishing of clubs consisted of abrading/sanding with rough stones and attaching a cloth or leather thong to the end of the handle, by either wrapping it around the wood or running the material through a drilled hole (Gifford, 1933, 274). In addition, Cocopah and Mohave elders describe the wood of clubs as being stained, painted, or pigmented red or black (Gifford, 1933, 274; Stewart, 1947, 257–78).
Indigenous consultants provide further evidence that while mallet clubs are a consistent regional blueprint, there are notable stylistic differences in design between groups on the Colorado River and Gila River (Forbes, 1965; Kroeber and Fontana, 1993). Reflecting archival descriptions, the general mallet club design is a cylindrical head roughly as wide as it was long with a thinner handle and an inset leather thong to loop around the wrist (Tables 2 and 3 for measurements; Spier, 1955, fig. 2; 1933, fig. 13; Forde 1931, 161; Whipple et al., 1855, fig. 38). Quechan, Cocopah, and Akimel O'odham Elders note that their clubs were sharply pointed on the handle end, which was reportedly used to thrust into the opponent’s midsection to initiate combat (Forde, 1931; Gifford, 1933; Kelly, 1977; Russell, 1975). Mohave and Quechan consultants also relate that their clubs had a hollow burned into the top of the club head to sharpen the edges, causing more trauma to the face (Stewart, 1947, 262). In addition, Maricopa and Cocopah warriors reportedly carried a shield with clubs into battle while the Mohave and Quechan disdained the use of shields (Forde, 1931; Kelly, 1977; Kroeber and Fontana, 1993; Spier, 1933; Williams, 1974).
Mallet club names, materials, measurements, and features from ethnographic descriptions.
Measurements recorded from mallet clubs located in museum collections using ImageJ. Collections include those at the Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology (PAHMA), National Museum of the American Indian (NMAI), and National Museum of Natural History (NMNH).
Shown here, mallet clubs were central to battle doctrines of face-to-face combat throughout the Lower Colorado River Basin. However, questions remain regarding the manufacture of clubs, including how they were made and why they were designed in this manner.
Study methods and materials
This framework is designed to address the following three research objectives to provide a material investigation of weapons technology:
Analyze ethnohistoric archival materials to understand the historicity and cultural context of war clubs. Evaluate ways in which clubs were manufactured through an embodied replicative experiment. Explore how club form reflects design tactics and strategies behind weapons technologies used for conflict.
To operationalize these objectives, I created an interdisciplinary framework to understand the context for manufacture and use of mallet war clubs in a case study of peoples in the Lower Colorado River Basin. Analyses were conducted in three stages: The first stage of this study was the examination of archival sources and ethnographic reports to integrate data on techniques, materials and tools involved in mallet war club manufacture. The second stage measured and analyzed mallet war club specimens from museum collections via digital non-invasive analysis. The third stage culminated in the replication of five mallet clubs using observations and data from previous analyses.
Stage 1: archival and ethnographic analysis
Archival and ethnographic sources were investigated from the mid-16th to the early 20th centuries for descriptions of clubs and their use. For archival investigations, I examined Spanish- and Anglo-American primary sources from the Edward E. Ayer Collection and the Everett D. Graff Collection of Western Americana at the Newberry Library, Chicago. These collections include journals and correspondences from colonial military expeditions and settlers. Spanish sources were from entradas and an attempted establishment of settlements in the study area between 1774–1781 (de Alarcón, 1540; Elasser, 1979; Fages, 1913; Mange and del Castillo, 1954; McCarty and Maria, 1975; Roberts, 1920; Santiago, 2010). Anglo-American records include accounts of soldiers and settlers from 1847–1857 (Hill and Stearns, 1903; Ives, 1861; Schaefer and Laylander, 2014; Sitgreaves, 1962; Stratton, 1857; Sweeney and Woodward, 1956; Whipple et al., 1855). Spanish sources do mention the use of wooden war clubs, but only sporadically do they offer any descriptions of the artifacts themselves. Anglo-American documents describe mallet clubs in more detail including lithographs and paintings of the tools. However, there are few to no descriptions of how these clubs are made in these accounts.
Early to mid-twentieth century ethnographic interviews with Indigenous consultants were researched from the Edward E. Ayer Collection at the Newberry Library and Special Collections at the UNLV Lied Library. Table 1 has for an accounting of elders who contributed to a local perspective of the use of these mallets. These ethnographies offer more details on form and function of war clubs, with some information on manufacture processes. Yet, it is surprising how brief these indigenous expert accounts are, considering how often they are mentioned in ethnographic accounts.
One problematic issue with secondary sources and archival work in general is that the master narrative of immediate assimilation to colonial technology is reinforced by biases of the colonial authors. As there are few to no direct sources written by Yuman-speaking peoples, the past is largely narrated through the lens of Western academics and colonizing “explorers”. However, by critically analyzing and comparing secondary and primary sources to the archaeological material through experimentation, the veracity of these works can be evaluated, and a more balanced narrative established. Thus, my analyses of these sources provided context, including descriptions of artifacts and their manufacture, for my reproduction of Indigenous Lower Colorado River Basin mallet war clubs.
Stage 2: museum study
For the first stage of this project, I conducted non-invasive analyses to measure artifacts curated in museums. To begin to classify and type mallet clubs, record searches were conducted of the Smithsonian National Museum of the American Indian (NMAI) in Washington D.C., The Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History (NMNH) in Washington D.C., and Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology (PAHMA) at the University of California, Berkely. The collection records were searched thoroughly to identify all mallet warclubs. The criteria for categorizing an object as a mallet warclub follows ethnographic descriptions and includes the material of manufacture, shape, and culture (Table 1 for sources). As mentioned previously, material for this club type is hardwood. Form consists of a cylindrical head roughly as wide as it is long with a flat top and a thinner handle. Specimens were derived from Indigenous groups in the region of study and neighboring groups including the Cocopah, Quechan, Mohave, Maricopa, Akimel O'odham, and Tohono O'odham (Table 3).
In previous experiments (Curran and Raymond, 2021), I was able to take in-person photographs and measurements of specimens at the PAHMA. However, because of COVID-19 related restrictions, for the research described here I employed remote analyses based on detailed collection data available online from the NMAI and NMNH. The Fiji ImageJ image processing package was used to analyze photographic records of known historic war clubs to obtain measurements necessary for replication. This software allows users to collect measurements and analyzes digital images, including adding annotation and providing spatial calibration. Spatial calibration converts image pixels to real world units allowing users to measure artifacts in photographs. For this experiment two-dimensional images of thirteen mallet war clubs from museums were measured using Fiji ImageJ with both Imperial and metric units to maintain uniformity with historic records and original measurements.
Stage 3: preliminary replicative analysis
Following tested experimental archaeology research frameworks (Ferguson, 2010; Frink et al., 2012; Frink et al., 2003), I replicated five mallet clubs using modern materials and tools in a controlled laboratory setting. In this experiment I chose to follow descriptions of manufacture by Cocopah Elders as these techniques were the most detailed utilizing steel knives that can correlate with modern tool systems. This process described by Cocopah Elders consists of carving a mesquite branch in one piece using stone adzes, steel knives, and abrading stones (Campbell, 1999; Gifford, 1933). For greater control of variables, increased safety protocols, and to alleviate time constraints, I used steel adzes and axes instead of ground-stone. Steel knives were used as described in ethnographic accounts (Table 1 for sources). Steel saws, files, sandpaper, and gloves were also used to safely expedite the manufacture process.
Manufacture took place in two different phases. Clubs 1 and 2 were constructed in an earlier phase to be used in biomechanical experiments that measure lethality. Two different biomechanical tests were conducted in this experiment with the first using an anthropomorphic testing device to measure peak impact force and Head Injury Criterion (HIC) of each club strike. The second test used Fujifilm Prescale pressure-sensitive paper to measure club strike psi and contact areas (Curran and Raymond, 2021 for more details on testing). These clubs were constructed while standing, using a bench, and seated on a chair to brace the log between my legs. These initial endeavors were useful to understand how to implement formal protocols for future replicative analysis. The second phase in which clubs 3 to 5 were made was much more extensive with protocols to measure time spent on manufacturing each club and video recording of the entire process. The second phase of this experiment ran over the course of nine non-sequential days. In this phase, these clubs were constructed while standing, kneeling, and seated on the ground. Before replication, each mallet war club was designed based on the minimum, average, and maximum measurements derived from museum specimens and ethnographic accounts (Table 4). Club 3 was manufactured according to the minimum of measurements taken from museum artifacts. Club 4 was made after the average of measurements from these same sample. Club 5 was created following the maximum of these same measurements. Each day before beginning, all tools were sharpened, and the workspace prepared by laying down a canvas to contain the debris from manufacture and organizing the tools to be used. The manufacture process was video recorded using a Samsung 9 phone camera mounted on a tripod. Photographs of finished specimens were taken using a Canon Eos camera mounted on a tripod with a lightbox.
Minimum (MIN), average (AVG), and maximum (MAX) measurements of museum specimens.
Dimensions and weights were recorded for all clubs using metric. Time spent in manufacturing was also recorded. The dimensions recorded were handle length, head length, handle diameter, head diameter, and total length. Measuring tools include measuring tape, folding ruler, osteometric board, and digital scales. Time spent in manufacturing includes time spent in setup, the manufacturing process itself, breaks, and interruptions. Additionally, qualitative descriptions of techniques and effort put into the manufacturing process was made for each club.
Materials for construction
Clubs 2 through 5 were constructed using mesquite, which as mentioned above, is a common material for war clubs universally described by Elders in ethnohistoric records for this region (Table 1). Club 2 was constructed using black oak for comparing density and workability of wood types. The specific gravity of each wood was compared to evaluate density. Two values were used to standardize the measurements: basic specific gravity, based on the botanical standard of oven dry weight and green volume; and specific gravity at 12% moisture content weight and volume. Water weighs 1 g per cm3, so taking the wood’s density (in metric units) and dividing by 1000 yields its specific gravity in woodworking standards. The strength, durability, and workability of the wood was recorded by measuring Janka hardness (Corkhill, 1980) The Janka hardness is the amount of pounds-force or newtons required to embed a 0.444 in (11.28 mm) diameter steel ball into the wood to half the ball’s diameter. It is useful in determining how well wood will withstand wear and how easy it is to work the wood. Higher Janka hardness scores are equated with very resilient word that is tougher to work.
In this case the term mesquite can describe multiple species and similar trees of the Fabaceae family, such as palo verde, honey mesquite, screwbean mesquite and acacia. With this in mind, we need to parse out exactly what is meant by “green mesquite” (Stewart, 1947, 262). One interpretation could be that the Mohave were using green or recently cut wood. However, it can also be a specific species of mesquite or another member of the, Prosipsis genus, such as palo verde. As no other ethnographies mention the use of green wood or green mesquite (Table 2), I decided to use what is colloquially classified as honey mesquite or scientifically Prosopis glandulosa as it is the species most readily available in the area in which these experiments were conducted.
To recreate the war clubs, materials like those mentioned previously were first gathered. For oak, materials were gathered locally to Southern California from State and County parks in Ventura and San Bernardino Counties. I acquired mesquite for the project with assistance from the groundskeepers at the Springs Preserve, in Las Vegas, Nevada. Wood used in this research was worked within one week of being harvested but came from older trees that were in the last stages of their lifespans. This caused some issues as the heartwood in some cases was split due to the age and dryness of the wood. Acquired logs and branches were approximately 1 to 2 m long and 7 to 25 cm in circumference.
Replication and manufacture process
The beginning
Bark and pulp wood of each specimen was initially removed using axe or adze. Removal using an adze was done by bracing the log with my left foot and then swinging the tool in a smooth arc while standing (Figure 3). Dimensions of the handle and head were then marked to determine the line of incision following the minimum, average and maximum measurements from museum specimens (Table 3). Clubs 1 and 2 had an initial incision made using an axe as a wedge, which was then pounded by using a branch as an improvised mallet. Club 3 was demarcated with a pruning saw.
Using a steel adze to remove bark and pulpwood from a log.
Taking shape
Next, clubs were roughly shaped using axe and adze. I shaped the handle of each club first by splitting the log with a hatchet. Then I shaped each head by removing a couple of centimeters of wood with the hatchet. To shape the club using an axe or machete, logs are positioned upright and braced against the ground, followed by chopping into the wood at a 45° angle (Figure 4).
Chopping with a hatchet to roughly shape the form of a club.
Adzes are swung downward into a horizontal log braced with feet on the sides and a bucket weighted with rocks behind the wood to absorb the force of tool impact. While the adze required resharpening with a file before each use, it was extremely effective at shaping once the log was braced against a wall (Figure 5). While replicating Club 3 I realized bracing the log horizontally against a wall allowed for accurate strokes and easier labor.
Swinging an adze into a braced log to further define the shape of a club.
Refining the form
Following initial shaping, each club was refined in shape with a steel machete and knife. For this step, I only utilized an 8 in camp knife for Clubs 1 and 2, but a machete was also used for Club 3. Knives were drawn across the club using a single-handed method to shave small amounts of wood (Figure 6).
Shaving wood with a camp knife to refine a club.
Machetes were drawn across the surface of the logs using a two-handed method where one hand was placed on the back of the blade and the other on the handle to provide better control. Clubs were clamped against my body using feet and muscle pressure. Canvas was placed between my body and clubs for safety (Figure 7). Machetes proved to be immensely useful as I could chop, cut, and shave wood using it. Because of the thinness of the edge, it proved to be more accurate in more precise chopping. Also, knives and machetes proved to be effective for detail work.
Drawing a machete across a club handle for further refinement of shape.
Fit and finish
Finally, in each experiment I abraded clubs using files, rasps, and sandpaper for the finish. Files and rasps were used to define the separation between handle and head, edges, and large imperfections. Then, clubs were sanded with coarse to fine grain sandpaper for a smooth surface finish. Rasps and files are useful for refining edges and further defining the head from the handle. Sandpaper provides an overall smooth textured surface and uniform appearance. Once finished, ending measurements were taken for each club (Figure 8; Table 5).
The replicated clubs resulting from the manufacture process. From left to right: A) Club 1; B) Club 2; C) Club 3.
Ending measurements of replicated club including length, circumference, weight, and total manufacture time.
Results of replicative experiments
Analysis of records and museum collections indicate that mallet club form consists of a cylindrical head roughly two to three times larger than the diameter of the handle (Table 1 for sources). Hard and dense woods are likely to be preferred as they are conducive to taking high amounts of force without cracking. Mesquite is an extraordinarily dense wood with a specific gravity of 0.70/0.82 and an incredibly strong hardwood with a Janka hardness measuring 2340 lbf. For comparison, black oak is much less dense at a specific gravity of 0.51/0.62 and has a Janka hardness value of 1090 lbf. The densities and strength of the wood show that for local materials, mesquite is one of the hardest, strongest, and most durable materials present in California and the Southwest However, these characteristics make this wood more difficult to shape and carve. Yet, harder, and stronger woods appear to be the preferred type for war clubs for their durability for long term use in conflict.
In these experiments, time of completion to make a usable club averaged roughly at least 6–11 h. Standing is useful for adze-work, kneeling is effective for chopping logs braced on the ground, while sitting cross-legged is most effective for shaving during shaping and sanding. Logs were likely braced against large stones or could have been put into troughs dug into the ground. In addition, manufacturing was labor intensive and physical with breaks being needed periodically. In construction, logs and branches that had few protrusions or nodules were likely chosen to create a smooth, straight preform without as much labor investment.
With a log or branch prepared in this fashion, a woodworker can follow the natural grain and remove the pulp wood to easily create the desired form. For example, Club 2 had a knot in the wood of the head that made it difficult to shape, created issues with edge alignment, and was extremely difficult to remove. Any chosen wood would need to be solid with no signs of splitting as splits damage the integrity of the club making it more prone to catastrophic structural failure. Manufacturing with less-aged wood would likely prevent these issues as splitting was not as prevalent in logs that were more recently cut. Throughout the manufacturing process it became apparent that patience during the process of making is a virtue and impatience often led to errors and mistakes
Discussion of design, technique, and tactics
Mallet clubs appear to have been intentionally designed for a more effective striking surface, increased grip and to mitigate effects of shock to the wielder’s arm. In biomechanical testing, it was observed that mallet clubs likely developed to compensate for issues with informal tools, such as tree limbs and rocks (Curran and Raymond, 2021). It also was noted that large weapons weighing over two-and-a-half kilograms might be unwieldy for use in sustained battle. These observations indicate that moderately sized mallet clubs measuring 20 to 30 cm in total length with a head circumference of 18 to 28 cm would be ideal for combat. From these data, it appears mallet clubs were designed and balanced to be held one-handed with the wielder’s hand resting directly under the head of the club.
In tests, thrusting to the face and frontal region rarely led to fracture of the frontal bone while overhand strikes to the parietal almost always led to fractures of the cranium that could be lethal (Curran and Raymond, 2021, Table 4). Patterns of trauma also indicated the pronounced edge of the mallet form could cause more tissue trauma than a rounded head, such as that of a ball club (Curran and Raymond, 2021, 1216). This data indicates and corroborates that these clubs were designed to stun with thrusts to the face and inflict lethal blows to the side of the head. Thus, the form of mallet clubs appears to have been purposefully designed for local Indigenous battle tactics discussed earlier.
From this material study we can make some inferences on design, skill and strategies required for using these war clubs. Design would require an expert who had intimate knowledge of battle and knew tactics for using a club. A craftsperson would have to be familiar with how these clubs would be used and what design features would be most effective in use. Analysis also points to manufacturing processes for a usable club requiring intensive labor over a substantial period. In addition, Indigenous people needed to have immense skill, experience, and patience in making clubs and using clubs. As I will further explore in subsequent works, this experience would likely have been tied into identity and cosmological systems.
Conclusion
This material investigation of mallet clubs in the Lower Colorado River Basin between 1540 and 1857 provides a framework of how to utilize experimental archaeology in operationalizing studies of weaponry. Ethnohistoric archival materials were analyzed to understand the historicity and cultural context of mallet war clubs. Finally, ways in which clubs were manufactured was evaluated through an embodied replicative experiment. From these analyses ethnohistoric descriptions of tactics, manufacturing and design were corroborated by experimental data to further understand how these clubs were used for conflict.
From this study we can begin to infer how and why weapons systems were chosen, designed, created, and used through the experiential and embodied process of making. As clubs are common weapons in Indigenous systems of conflict throughout the world, the method created here can be applied in further studies to understand how technology is embedded in cultural expressions of conflict. By utilizing experimental archaeology, material data on weapons can be provided for other studies to avoid assumptions on what technologies were used in the past to inflict violence. From these first steps, we can begin to counter progressivist narratives that fetishize advanced technology.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
This research could not have been conducted without the support of my advisor and mentor, Dr Liam Frink. In addition, this study would not be possible without the financial and archival support of the Newberry Consortium in American Indian Studies (NCAIS). Many thanks to Dr Karen Harry for foundational advice and assistance for this project. Special thanks to the grounds-keeping crew from the Springs Preserve, Las Vegas for providing mesquite for the project. Special thanks to staff at the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History for their help and assistance. Special thanks also to the anonymous referees for their thoughtful and very helpful comments. Also, to be thanked, are Eric Fries and Samantha Curran for their comments and support.
Availability of data and material
Data is presented in the article and available upon request.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Newberry, (grant number Friends of Anthropology Scholarship, Newberry Consortium in American Indian Studies (NC).
