Spear-thrower and dart

The definition of a spear thrower (Fig. 2), also called “Atlatl” (Aztec name) or

“Woomera” (Australian name) has been provided by Pierre Cattelain (1997, 214). The spear-thrower is a projectile weapons used for hunting, fishing, or warfare. It is made up of a rod or a plank with a hook or a gutter, to which is inserted a fletched or unfletched dart. Simply speaking, the atlatl is a stick with a hook or socket to engage the projectile referred to as a spear or dart (Whittaker 2005). The atlatl allows the dart to be thrown considerably with greater force and over a considerably longer distance than only by hand. Ethnographic evidence of spear-thrower use is found mainly in societies living in the Artic, North America and Oceania (Cattelain 1997, 217). These societies can be further divided into two groups: The first group used throwing spears exclusively from a seated position in kayaks in marine environments (Artic); the second group used them for both terrestrial and aquatic hunting (the New World and Oceania). This paper focuses predominantly on the latter of these two groups.

Fig. 2. Spear thrower and dart in use (after Handwerk 2006).

The projectiles launched using the atlatl may be referred to as a spears or darts (Fig. 3) (Raymond 1986, 153). In this paper I will use the term dart in order to distinguish them from hand projected spears. Similarly to arrows, atlatl darts are composite weapons. Most of dart consists of a mainshaft made of soft wood with a nock at one end to connect it to the spear-thrower; and a foreshaft made of hard wood to which the projectile point is hafted, although darts only with shaft from one piece of

18 wood were used also. Fletching may also be added to increase accuracy. It has been recorded in Australia that stone points hafted into foreshafts of spears and darts provided a further advantage (Allchin 1966, 160). Stone tips attached to foreshafts can be easily kept apart and use as multiple use knives for tasks such as butchering, cutting, sawing or others activities. This brings a considerable advantage in case of mobile populations of hunter-gatherers, and in hunting situations when it is necessary to carry as little weight as possible.

Therefore, the most notable difference between darts and arrows is in the length and weight. The length of a dart spans between 140 and 300 cm, with an average mass of 110.9 g and an average speed of 23.6 m*sec ^-1. Known examples of darts from Australia with weight ranging between 150 and 250 g with an average weight of 195 g, which have been documented by Cattelain (1997, 216). The calculations for the kinetic energy and velocity data have been done by Hughes (1998, Tab. 1).

Fig. 3. Spear-thrower dart with Australian macroblade dart point (modified after Raymond 1986, fig 1; Newman and Moore 2013, fig 1.3).

The main purpose of the spear-thrower is to increase the initial velocity of the projectile (Tab. 1), while simultaneously boosting its efficiency and range (Raymond 1986, 155; Cattelain 1997, 214). As we can see, it enables the user to inquire greater velocity to a projectile with reduced mass in comparison to hand projected spears however greater than mass of the arrow. Since increased velocity results in greater throwing distance, the spear-thrower has a much bigger range compared to a hand^-projected throwing spear.

The effective range of the spear-thrower has been conducted by Churchill (1993, tab 1.4) based on ethnographic records. Research by Churchill (1993) shows that the range of an average spear-thrower is around 38.4 m, which makes it the first true ranged weapon in history. It should be noted that this number is obtained by taking the mean range from 5 ethnographic reports, which is rather few compared to ethnographic

19 reports of others weapons. On the other hand, Cattalain (1997, 219) states that when a spear-thrower is used, the average distance between hunter and prey is about 15 – 20 m, although more skilful hunters are able to hit game at distances exceeding 20 m.

According to Churchill (1993, 18) the atlatl is usually associated with small to medium game and ambush and approach hunting technique, often on an open ground, such as deserts or plains. Frison’s (1989) experiments with Clovis points hafted onto darts used on dying elephants in Zimbabwe point out that this weapon is also suitable for hunting large prey. Most of groups of Indigenous Australians use the spear-thrower to kill wallabies and kangaroos, which could also be categorized as medium and big game, respectively (Jackson and Vermes 2010, 24). A similar pattern of use of these weapons for is found on parietal artwork from Chile dating back to 1400 - 500 BC where camel hunters wielding atlatl spears, which could be rather characterized as big game (Fig. 4) (Ibáñez 2004). Furthermore Indian Mesolithic parietal artworks from Bhimbetka depict hunting of big game such as Rhino with spear-thrower and hand projected spears (Fig. 5) (Kennedy 2004, 130). Moreover in close association with this rock art have been found stone projectile points, bone and horn tools, and the faunal remains of large and small game, including Bos indicus, Bubulus spp, Capriherous, Ovis sp, Sus scrofa, Gazelle Gazella, Equus sp, and Rhinoceros sp.

Fig. 4. Hunting scene with spear-thrower and dart from Chile (after Ibáñez 2004).

20 Fig. 5. Parietal artwork from Bhimbetka in India and others Mesolithic sites illustrating

use of hand projected spear and atlatl (after Kennedy 2004 130).

It is quite clear for scientific community what is main advantage of atlatl and dart over the hand projected spears (Van Buren 1974). This advantage is based in increase of velocity, accuracy and finally distance. Maybe the only disadvantage of the atlatl versus hand-projected spears could be seen in necessity for training. As Raymond (1986, 173) mentioned before it taken a lot of time to acquire skills needed to effectively hunt with atlatl.

However if we compare advantage of atlatl versus bow, evaluation gets more complicated. Although the technology of bow and arrow has been from early works (Browne 1940), regarded as superior over spear-thrower what is mostly true, in some areas bow and arrow did not replace rapidly atlatl, but was instead used concurrently for considerable time (Raymond 1986, 171; Shott 1997, 86; Rasic and Slobodina 2008, 83).

Therefore at least in some distinct geographical regions atlatl seem to have held some advantages but in this moment it is not safely to say whether added mass or other factor

21 as for example specialization for particular prey or event took role. As Churchill (1993, 18) point out there are only 5 poor records of recent hunters using this weapon, therefore is difficult to access to some safe assumption concerning preference of the use of atlatl over the bow.

On the other hand drawback of the atlatl in comparison to bow could be seen quite more clearly. As one of the major limitations of this technology is required upright stance for shooting what limits hunter ability to target prey unnoticed seen (Raymond 1986, 171; Cattelain 1997, 229-231; Rasic and Slobodina 2008, 83). Required upright stance, and fact that user aiming in dynamic motion make this weapons less accurate comparably to bow with which archer on the moment when string is pulled have time for bigger concentration for precise aiming of shot. As Cattelain (1997, 230) point out, experienced, competitive atlatl thrower were only 65% as accurate as archer at targets 8-26 meters away. Finally rate of fire in case of atlatl is slower.