think you are correct. i have tried flint against wood and metal, it breaks. bone tips might work, but i think a club with antler spike might be better than a spear, and you could carry a bow with a club. good work, thank you.
The efficacy of a stone spearhead is really, really dependent on the type of stone you have to work with, and how you attach it to the shaft. Aztec spears work fine because a) obsidian's scary sharpness counters its durability problems to an extent, and b) the weapon used obsidian teeth spaced around a wooden spearhead, so even if an individual tooth broke it didn't wreck the whole weapon. That's not really an available option on the East Coast.
I disagree. The sharpness of obsidian doesn't equate to more durability, the extra sharpness only really affects the cutting edges, not the point. I also don't see why many toothed weapons aren't an option without obsidian.
@@MalcolmPL They're still an option without obsidian; I'm not claiming it's a uniquely great material to work with, just that it's one you can build that type of weapon around. In Polynesia there are very similar swords built around shark teeth, of all things. Whether you could build one around flint, I don't know; I've never seen one but that doesn't mean they aren't out there. And obsidian's cutting edge doesn't make it more durable than flint--far from it, the stuff's really easy to shatter. But it does give it a better chance of piercing the armour before breaking, which we know happened: both Tarascan copper and Spanish steel were penetrated by it during the Aztec Wars (despite claims about easy European victories, Cortes' casualties are horrendous; we have the data and two-thirds of his men are KIA).
Big wooden stick goes boink is a quite an universal trait. I think from the top of my head the first tools we found that had a high chance of being a weapon as opposed to having an equal chance of being a hunting tool where stone head maces. Because big wooden stick goes boink, big wooden stick with big stone goes BOINK. And mass at high speed doesn't care that much about armour because it will transfer it's impact force anyway. Maces and clubs just make a whole lot more sense in native warfare. Also tugging around a spear in dense forest must be an interesting experience.
No clue why this was recommended to me, but I quite enjoyed it actually. Less than 100 views, never seen you before. Honestly, a few more high-quality videos like this and I'd definitely subscribe for good.
Good video, agree with your analysis. Stone tipped spears are simply too fragile. I have read a few 18th century accounts were metal spears were used by Iroquois during ambushes (charging in after the opening volley) even in the confined space of a cabin. Only as thrusting weapons. Never seen an account where a spear was thrown. Definitely not as optimized for confined space as a spike tomahawk or warclub, and not as easy to tote around, but they did see some use.
@@MalcolmPLI attempted to paste the link: books.google.com/books?id=csyFvjMewNQC&pg=PA330&dq=google+books+spear+indian+county+new+yorkhistory+brant&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjq3qKJ7OTwAhXHWc0KHdWrA3YQ6AEwAXoECAoQAw
The bone thing might just be a combination of prior issues & economics. The bone tip might fair better, but the amount of resources required to produce a bone spear tip might have applied economic pressure to push it out when compared with other options. Why go to all the trouble of making a bone spear that no one else is using and ditch your shield when you can have a wooden club & shield for less effort? I think the losing your off hand thing also matters a lot, as one handed spear use is really difficult without shield & mass line tactics to back it, and not having a shield means you have one less thing to protect you or just not having a spare hand for other important actions. The number of bone tips though might be because of the material. If bone is less likely to break and has longer shelf life, plus is a more sought after version for hunting, it is likely more of them survive and are maintained over time by owners, and are therefore easier to acquire through interaction like trade and/or conquest. That's my hypothesis at least.
You’re right about the practicalities of shields and one handed spears. That all makes sense. But you’re not right about economics. A bone spear is quicker to make than a club and uses more readily available material than a shield. For example, a deer only has one skin, but it has two femurs and two antlers. Those bones have limited use while the skin could become clothing. On the subject of surviving examples, the environment in this region is hard on bones and they tend to rot. Generally the only bone tools that survive are those found in fire pits.
@@MalcolmPL hmm, maybe it was like an Old Copper Culture thing, where the economics of bone made it better to make it into other tools or trade it and then environmental factors rotted out a lot of examples? Great video though! I didn't realize how very absent the spear is in the NE but now I can't unsee it lol.
I think you're really on to something with this. Add the fact that Cartier, Champlain and many other mention very early on that they met people with spears as long as a demi pique made out of swords. To me its clear that the first nations pretty much instantly adapted their spears with sword when they could as they knew the avantages of spears but were limited by their paradigm of rocks, bones and antlers. Maybe a phalanx formation isn't a far stretch!
I don't really buy the idea of a phalanx or even formation fighting in the post-contact era. The potential for guns changes everything. European armies only got away with it because of the sheer amount of soldiers they were able to muster.
@@MalcolmPLI'd be very interested to know more about what you think about the prevelance of formation fighting in precolonial and possibly colonial times, just putting that out there.
That does seem to make sense. Maybe they used a phalanx formation before European contact? Perhaps the spears kept being resupplied to the front after they broke, or maybe they were intended as a "first contact" weapon before switching to something else?
We’ve got descriptions of battle lines, precolonial. Aside from that, it’s just human nature to form up. If you look at modern day examples of hand to hand fighting, be they teenage hooligans, hockey rioters, or protesters, they tend to form decent battle line instinctively. It’s only when guns come around that things change.
@@MalcolmPL You are absolutely right that guns changes everything. I said that because it seems to me that the historical understanding of what constituted the thing called phalanx in ancient time is becoming broader. And also, I was considering that not all conflits between first nations were recorded, especially when no europeans were around to see it. So maybe just for a brief moment in time, between trading with Basques in early 1500 for swords and when guns began to be traded and really became prevalent on the battlefields (1650 and on?), it could have happen or develop for a while. So if it could have happened it would have been then and only with sword-spears. Otherwise, yeah it would have been very unlikely to happen.
Armour makes sense for why stone heads wont be as popular, from 1050 onward in europe spears became less common following armour as clubs and blunt weapons increased In prehistory the very most you may find in terms of reliable armour found is hides and possibly dense cloth which with peoples practicing making these weapons most of their life will find the most durable stones and the best way to sharpen them before metal usage took hold
Excellent video thank you. The spear is probably the single best melee weapon of all time and it makes sense that they would have used it if they could have. I think your analysis of why they might not have was excellent. It seems likely to me that spears were once used in warfare. The fact that the armour was effective against them (as you proved) may be what ended their use. The lack of any suitable material for spear points capable of penetrating the armour made spears redundant for warfare but still viable for hunting. I would love to know when the armour 1st appeared. If enough archaeological material was found would we discover that armour starts to appear and then less spears are found.
Well.. Imagine dropping your weapons on the ground (a bit rocky), and losing instantly almost all wounding capability.. I suppose pointed sticks and bone points on sticks were still used in ambushes. But yeah, quality arrows and a short bow = lots of advantages.
@@MalcolmPL Yep. Hey do you have any idea about the trad modes of transportation? Leather bags with some fur inside, leather straps, pieces of wood and straps, etc Also, I've only seen pieces behing glass in museums. Are the big kinda 'thick' pieces heavy?
@@HAYAOLEONE Re weight. Most tool grade stones are about a third the density of iron, and as stone has to be made thicker, a stone blade tends to be about the same weight as an iron blade of equivalent size. Re transporting "spare" points. A stone arrow or javelin head detached from a handle doesn't weigh very much and doesn't land very hard when dropped. As such you could have a leather pouch full of them, and so long as you didn't fall on them, they would probably be fine. A larger head might want something like a knife sheath.
I would reccomend "War Before Civiliazation" by lawrence heeley, not to disagree, but because a common arguement among anthropologists is that warfare is relevely recent in human society because "piercing damage like that of a spear in mass formations" doesn't appear on skeletons until around 10BC or so, suggesting that warfare was less frequent before then... You've illustrated that spears made with "primitive" technology aren't durable weapons of war, except perhaps bone spears. The book specifically mentioned flint and other stone weapons being used. Very interesting points you've made and given me a lot to think about.
Cheers for the recommendation. You got me thinking. I've heard that bit of logic before, cut marks on bones or embedded flints are inarguable evidence for warfare, while other things like blunt force are easy to debate and don't give a clear picture, as a broken bone could be caused by a fall, etc. A bone or wooden point however wouldn't leave cuts on bones and it wouldn't embed itself. It would leave little to no mark on the skeleton. Just a thought.
@@MalcolmPL This book, if my memory serves me, among others don't mention bone or wooden points, they mention flint or other stone points, making these incisions, but you have proven that they would be flimsy weapons of war. Maybe they had some "special" way of doing it, but I think that is unlikely. What about flint arrowheads? Would they work? I suppose being flimsy would be a benefit in that case, as long as it does the initial blow. What do you think?
I’ve tested two flint points against the wooden armor. They broke without penetrating. However, it’s worth noting that I am a terrible flint knapper and Someone else might be able to do better. Stone arrows might be fine even with their delicacy because arrows are essentially disposable anyway.
But what about wooden spears with fire hardened tips? They were common weapons among ancient european tribes. According to romans, the Bagauda, the unfree tennants of celtic society, armed themself with wicker shields and wooden spears. The same with halffree germanic men, who were drafted into armies in times of need. As they were not as wealthy as free men, they could not afford metal spear heads and shield bosses. So they armed themself with wicker shields and wooden spears.
@@MalcolmPL I just thought, as native americans were very much able to make weapons as simple as these, it is strange that they did not used them. I mean, the oldest lances and spears still existing, are between 200,000 and 400,000 years old and made compleatly of wood. It's just strange to me, because they were warrior cultures who formed battle lines and I for one, would not fight with a club, if I can stay away from my foe and stab him with a spear.
@jarlnils435 context perhaps. what use is a two-handed spear of your opponent has a shield, club, or even a bunch of archers when you probably don't have armor.
Do you think the particular methods of Iroquoian warfare contributed to the lack of use of the spear? I don't know a lot about this particular culture, but my understanding is that natives in the northeastern US often lived in fortified villages and fought each other primarily through raids and small-scale skirmishes rather than pitched battles. Spears make sense when fighting in formations but if your goal is to smash, grab and get out, tomahawks and ranged weapons seem like perfectly sensible weapons to me. Your thoughts?
Before guns came around, warfare was mostly large formations exchanging projectiles until one side chickened out. Or if one side gained a significant advantage, (or had one to begin with) it would fall to hand to hand. After guns it was all guerilla warfare, ambushes and skirmishes, nobody in their right mind is going to stand there in a line and absorb musket fire, this is where the general idea of Native warfare comes from.
@@MalcolmPL "nobody in their right mind is going to stand there in a line and absorb musket fire" English musket warfare is sweating at this very moment.
@@MalcolmPLThat might say it all, really. If everyone in combat was expected to use ranged weapons, carrying a spear in addition isn't practical, whereas carrying a war club is easier.
I think you’re on to something here. Perhaps wooden spears with fire hardened tips were occasionally used but if you’re gonna go that far might as well just make a spear point and only use that for hunting.
A thought mid way through the video: Is it possible that they used wood spears for war? Just a stick sharpened like a pencil at one end & fire hardened. They wouldn't survive archeologically like stone spear points; But they wouldn't shatter like them either. Of course the descriptions you read saying bows & clubs may negate this idea. Still a spear does have the reach advantage. So unless the size is prohibitive I don't see a why they couldn't have been used. Yes the point could break or dull, but maybe not so often as to make them impractical? End of video: Ok watched to the end & I did not consider bone, or antler. But as you said missing from text but the tips exist... My guess is a musket & club replaced spear & club; assuming spears were used in war.
Wooden spears would certainly work. Wooden daggers existed. I've heard of wooden javelins. It stands to reason that spears would work as well. They wouldn't be able to get through armor, but they wouldn't necessarily break on contact either. Setting aside durability, carrying the things might still be an issue. A big spear might conflict with the bow. But nothing that couldn't be overcome with a bit of patience.
@@MalcolmPL I think wooden daggers makes a good clue for the possibility of wooden Spears. I was thinking that if the tip or thin enough it might be able to pass between the slats of certain armors, but even if that's not possible a lesson to be learned from other warrior societies is you try to go where the armor is weak or isn't covering. So the armor may limit your targets but it doesn't necessarily rule out the usage. For tribes that relied heavily on the bow I agree a spear might be a bit of a encumbrance especially compared to war club, but there may be areas where the bow was less prevalent... Although you clearly know more about this than I do LOL And it's true with a bit of practice you could carry a bow and a spear; especially a smaller spear. A smaller spear could also double as a javelin. It's also possible, I suppose, that they could have some people that backed the Warriors up & just carried equipment like spears, extra war clubs and arrows.
@@asa-punkatsouthvinland7145 I'll agree with your logic for most of that. My only further comment is on a wooden spear going through the gaps. The spear being thin enough to slip through the gaps and sturdy enough to withstand direct impacts without immediately blunting is an either/or situation, you can't have it both ways. Even my antler knife could be blunted after only a few blows.
@@MalcolmPL like I said before you're definitely more of an expert on this stuff than I am lol I've never tried it with a wooden/bone/antler spear, so I was only theorizing. But that's why I put my thought out there since you have experimented you can easily fill in the gaps in my logic! So if you feel that it would not work in that sense then I will certainly accept your opinion on that! Thank you
Hunting certainly. Sacrifice, maybe not. Other than the really big nations in central america, most peoples didn't do the sort of violent sacrifice that the word brings to mind.
Welp its a bit of a rabbit hole but actually there is one way I know of. This being heat treating methods with flint knapping. I cant find the video but some tribes heat treatment were so good it was denting conquistadors plate armor. IIRC it was Aztecs if not another tribe they fought. Heat treatment could be as simple as a cookong fire or as complicated as kilns. Some videos may mislead you but obsidian allegedly can also be heat treated. Some think its good enough as it is.
I had not heard that. Something to look into. It could be like tempered glass, in which case it wouldn’t change the equation too much, but would prevent the point from exploding with minimal provocation.
@@MalcolmPL Yeah I still cant find the video. It was years ago so maybe it was taken down? It discussed weapons like the Macuahuitl, Tepoztopilli, Atlatl and bows. Their rock of choice was obsidian. You can temper rocks just like you can temper metal really. Too hot it will become brittle. But if you find the correct balance it will still maintain its sharpness, still have its durability and will be easy to knapp due to treatment. These weapon dented armor. All im finding is videos talking about horse decapitations but not the armor quote. I have fenced with macuahuitl those things hit like a truck and the warriors who used them must have been jacked to use them one handed. even the one handed ones were heavy and they could be up to the size of japanese war oars/kanabos . Flint knapping is within the means of any hunter gatherer. It just required the skill to do it. Fires are hard because of the uneven heat. The center rocks get cooked faster. But they have been discovered at archeological sites with flint heads under them. A kiln is consistent heat but from what I have been told you need to make sure the heat rises and lowers slowly so not stress the flint too much. So sand or something to help with heat dissipation. Perhaps the Aztecs who were a more advanced region had a more complicated heat treatment process? I did find a shit ton of bush craft videos while looking for the video in question. So those were interesting. The tribal cultures in general were ahead of their time in a lot of ways in the Americas. Really regions like the Aztecs were extremely organized. They are still trying to perfect their terra preta recipes, floating cities, cotton body armor that was as tough as old world gambesons called Ichcahuapilli. Any tribe with access to cotton could make that. Also leather armor was real so that was another option. Your laminated leather video was sick by the way.
@@MalcolmPL Also I may be wrong about the heat treatment. It doesnt technically increase durability. It makes it easy to knap. By making it easy to knap it reduces the risk of creating micro fractures from failed knapping strikes. Also there is a method called "soft knapping" using stuff like antlers to also reduce the risk of incomplete microfractures from failed attempts. Sorry for misinforming you im trying to verify the information I presented to you to make up for it. Check out a youtube channel called "Jack crafty" he is very informative on the subject of knapping.
I used a saw and a chisel. But that was because I needed a big notch as the blade still had a sword hilt attached. What would be done historically is to take the staff and bind a section about six inches from the tip very tightly with cord and hide glue. The tip of the staff would then be split with a knife, and the binding would prevent the split from progressing too far. You could then insert the blade and lash it in place.
I think spears were not weapons of choice for Native Americans because the spear purpose is to keep a charging enemy at bay and colons weren't charging them per se and had muskets and long range weapons, that's probably why the Natives arsenal was either long range weapons or versatile weapon that could be thrown as well as being blunting or slashing device and obviously daggers and that kind of short range weaponry for ambushes, CQC etc... Spears are old world weapons when all warfare were up close and personal and keeping a relative distance was still a necessity. Edit: Spears are obviously also versatile, but it's not as precise as a shorter weapon such as a war club or a tomahawk, and it renders them useless in close combat as it can be easily being parried away and if the enemy got too close they be made totally useless and can cost its bearer's life.
Yeah, versatility, that’s a good way to put it. Guerilla warfare you’re either doing long range skirmishing or else very close fighting. A spear isn’t ideal for either. I remember reading something from one of the early English colonies, telling the governor or someone to stop equipping the militias with pikes, as they were deemed “unsuitable for fighting Indians”.
I noticed when I look at the picture drawn no one uses a horse everybody is on foot different warfare we Navajos we're fought battles on horse back we fought the Spaniards, Utes and the Apaches, Comanches and Kiowa and later the Americans I'm learning alot about Iroquoites thanks alot my native brother
The spear is THE most used weapon in ancient warfare, and the vast majority of them (if not all) were made with wooden shafts. They were never considered to be so brittle that they were ineffective. Also, hunting things as large as wild boar places as much strain on a spear as most battle situations would.
@@manfrommaineAs to the strain of hunting versus battle, not at all. When hunting an animal, it has to hit one layer of skin, break a few bones, and at the very least bleed an animal out. That is just one animal, and nearly all of the time stone points break when they hit an animal. In a battle, you need to go through any armor that might be worn, and you want your weapons durable enough to use them on multiple people. The exception here is arrows, as these can be easily carried in a large quantity, and work in tandem with another, reusable weapon, but a hand-to-hand weapon would have to be repeatedly stressed in much more strenuous situations.
I am surprised we have yet to see copper spear points in the archeological, given the region would have been roughly in a period analogous to the Eurasian Chalcolithic periods, or that rough and fuzzy time when metal tools were being invented by a society by way of copper much like the great lakes first nations were, but stone, bone, and wooden tools were still used heavily by greater society. the fact that copper spearheads didn't influence fighting by what we can see in the historic record (what of it that exists) says a bit, perhaps copper was to weak for the armor? ah well an avenue to be explored if you feel like it.
My hypothesis is that copper is too flexible for spears. You’d need to make it pretty thick to prevent it from bending, and big lumps of native copper are harder to find, so maybe people just figured it would be put to better use elsewhere. If you look at copper arrows, most of them are cone shaped rather than flat. This could be related.
@@MalcolmPL Copper spear points (and copper gear in general) do show up once you hit the Tarascan Empire in Mexico, and again when you reach the Inca in South America, though both are on their way to the conversion to bronze at the time of contact.
think you are correct. i have tried flint against wood and metal, it breaks. bone tips might work, but i think a club with antler spike might be better than a spear, and you could carry a bow with a club. good work, thank you.
Hey thanks. You have no idea what a pain it is trying to find flint where I live.
The efficacy of a stone spearhead is really, really dependent on the type of stone you have to work with, and how you attach it to the shaft. Aztec spears work fine because a) obsidian's scary sharpness counters its durability problems to an extent, and b) the weapon used obsidian teeth spaced around a wooden spearhead, so even if an individual tooth broke it didn't wreck the whole weapon. That's not really an available option on the East Coast.
I disagree. The sharpness of obsidian doesn't equate to more durability, the extra sharpness only really affects the cutting edges, not the point.
I also don't see why many toothed weapons aren't an option without obsidian.
@@MalcolmPL They're still an option without obsidian; I'm not claiming it's a uniquely great material to work with, just that it's one you can build that type of weapon around. In Polynesia there are very similar swords built around shark teeth, of all things. Whether you could build one around flint, I don't know; I've never seen one but that doesn't mean they aren't out there.
And obsidian's cutting edge doesn't make it more durable than flint--far from it, the stuff's really easy to shatter. But it does give it a better chance of piercing the armour before breaking, which we know happened: both Tarascan copper and Spanish steel were penetrated by it during the Aztec Wars (despite claims about easy European victories, Cortes' casualties are horrendous; we have the data and two-thirds of his men are KIA).
Big wooden stick goes boink is a quite an universal trait. I think from the top of my head the first tools we found that had a high chance of being a weapon as opposed to having an equal chance of being a hunting tool where stone head maces. Because big wooden stick goes boink, big wooden stick with big stone goes BOINK. And mass at high speed doesn't care that much about armour because it will transfer it's impact force anyway. Maces and clubs just make a whole lot more sense in native warfare. Also tugging around a spear in dense forest must be an interesting experience.
No clue why this was recommended to me, but I quite enjoyed it actually. Less than 100 views, never seen you before.
Honestly, a few more high-quality videos like this and I'd definitely subscribe for good.
Have a look through my backlog. The test videos are rancid garbage along with the occasional gag video, but the others are pretty good.
3.2k views now.
Thanks so much for your work, learning a great deal from your channel.
Cheers. That’s why I’m here.
Good video, agree with your analysis. Stone tipped spears are simply too fragile. I have read a few 18th century accounts were metal spears were used by Iroquois during ambushes (charging in after the opening volley) even in the confined space of a cabin. Only as thrusting weapons. Never seen an account where a spear was thrown. Definitely not as optimized for confined space as a spike tomahawk or warclub, and not as easy to tote around, but they did see some use.
Interesting.
@@MalcolmPLI attempted to paste the link: books.google.com/books?id=csyFvjMewNQC&pg=PA330&dq=google+books+spear+indian+county+new+yorkhistory+brant&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjq3qKJ7OTwAhXHWc0KHdWrA3YQ6AEwAXoECAoQAw
Much obliged.
Very informative thank you. You are highly valued and I hope you have a great day.
Cheers.
The bone thing might just be a combination of prior issues & economics. The bone tip might fair better, but the amount of resources required to produce a bone spear tip might have applied economic pressure to push it out when compared with other options. Why go to all the trouble of making a bone spear that no one else is using and ditch your shield when you can have a wooden club & shield for less effort? I think the losing your off hand thing also matters a lot, as one handed spear use is really difficult without shield & mass line tactics to back it, and not having a shield means you have one less thing to protect you or just not having a spare hand for other important actions.
The number of bone tips though might be because of the material. If bone is less likely to break and has longer shelf life, plus is a more sought after version for hunting, it is likely more of them survive and are maintained over time by owners, and are therefore easier to acquire through interaction like trade and/or conquest.
That's my hypothesis at least.
You’re right about the practicalities of shields and one handed spears. That all makes sense.
But you’re not right about economics. A bone spear is quicker to make than a club and uses more readily available material than a shield.
For example, a deer only has one skin, but it has two femurs and two antlers. Those bones have limited use while the skin could become clothing.
On the subject of surviving examples, the environment in this region is hard on bones and they tend to rot. Generally the only bone tools that survive are those found in fire pits.
@@MalcolmPL hmm, maybe it was like an Old Copper Culture thing, where the economics of bone made it better to make it into other tools or trade it and then environmental factors rotted out a lot of examples?
Great video though! I didn't realize how very absent the spear is in the NE but now I can't unsee it lol.
I think you're really on to something with this. Add the fact that Cartier, Champlain and many other mention very early on that they met people with spears as long as a demi pique made out of swords. To me its clear that the first nations pretty much instantly adapted their spears with sword when they could as they knew the avantages of spears but were limited by their paradigm of rocks, bones and antlers. Maybe a phalanx formation isn't a far stretch!
I don't really buy the idea of a phalanx or even formation fighting in the post-contact era. The potential for guns changes everything. European armies only got away with it because of the sheer amount of soldiers they were able to muster.
@@MalcolmPLI'd be very interested to know more about what you think about the prevelance of formation fighting in precolonial and possibly colonial times, just putting that out there.
That does seem to make sense. Maybe they used a phalanx formation before European contact? Perhaps the spears kept being resupplied to the front after they broke, or maybe they were intended as a "first contact" weapon before switching to something else?
We’ve got descriptions of battle lines, precolonial. Aside from that, it’s just human nature to form up. If you look at modern day examples of hand to hand fighting, be they teenage hooligans, hockey rioters, or protesters, they tend to form decent battle line instinctively.
It’s only when guns come around that things change.
@@MalcolmPL You are absolutely right that guns changes everything.
I said that because it seems to me that the historical understanding of what constituted the thing called phalanx in ancient time is becoming broader. And also, I was considering that not all conflits between first nations were recorded, especially when no europeans were around to see it. So maybe just for a brief moment in time, between trading with Basques in early 1500 for swords and when guns began to be traded and really became prevalent on the battlefields (1650 and on?), it could have happen or develop for a while. So if it could have happened it would have been then and only with sword-spears. Otherwise, yeah it would have been very unlikely to happen.
Armour makes sense for why stone heads wont be as popular, from 1050 onward in europe spears became less common following armour as clubs and blunt weapons increased
In prehistory the very most you may find in terms of reliable armour found is hides and possibly dense cloth which with peoples practicing making these weapons most of their life will find the most durable stones and the best way to sharpen them before metal usage took hold
Excellent video thank you. The spear is probably the single best melee weapon of all time and it makes sense that they would have used it if they could have. I think your analysis of why they might not have was excellent. It seems likely to me that spears were once used in warfare. The fact that the armour was effective against them (as you proved) may be what ended their use. The lack of any suitable material for spear points capable of penetrating the armour made spears redundant for warfare but still viable for hunting. I would love to know when the armour 1st appeared. If enough archaeological material was found would we discover that armour starts to appear and then less spears are found.
Well..
Imagine dropping your weapons on the ground (a bit rocky), and losing instantly almost all wounding capability..
I suppose pointed sticks and bone points on sticks were still used in ambushes.
But yeah, quality arrows and a short bow = lots of advantages.
Imagine spending twenty hours grinding a beautiful spearhead only to break it doing something stupid.
@@MalcolmPL Yep.
Hey do you have any idea about the trad modes of transportation? Leather bags with some fur inside, leather straps, pieces of wood and straps, etc
Also, I've only seen pieces behing glass in museums. Are the big kinda 'thick' pieces heavy?
@@HAYAOLEONE I'm not sure I understand the question. Can you clarify?
@@MalcolmPL How do 'spare' points were carried?
Most of the time / on normal days.
@@HAYAOLEONE Re weight.
Most tool grade stones are about a third the density of iron, and as stone has to be made thicker, a stone blade tends to be about the same weight as an iron blade of equivalent size.
Re transporting "spare" points.
A stone arrow or javelin head detached from a handle doesn't weigh very much and doesn't land very hard when dropped. As such you could have a leather pouch full of them, and so long as you didn't fall on them, they would probably be fine.
A larger head might want something like a knife sheath.
I would reccomend "War Before Civiliazation" by lawrence heeley, not to disagree, but because a common arguement among anthropologists is that warfare is relevely recent in human society because "piercing damage like that of a spear in mass formations" doesn't appear on skeletons until around 10BC or so, suggesting that warfare was less frequent before then... You've illustrated that spears made with "primitive" technology aren't durable weapons of war, except perhaps bone spears. The book specifically mentioned flint and other stone weapons being used. Very interesting points you've made and given me a lot to think about.
Cheers for the recommendation.
You got me thinking.
I've heard that bit of logic before, cut marks on bones or embedded flints are inarguable evidence for warfare, while other things like blunt force are easy to debate and don't give a clear picture, as a broken bone could be caused by a fall, etc.
A bone or wooden point however wouldn't leave cuts on bones and it wouldn't embed itself. It would leave little to no mark on the skeleton.
Just a thought.
@@MalcolmPL This book, if my memory serves me, among others don't mention bone or wooden points, they mention flint or other stone points, making these incisions, but you have proven that they would be flimsy weapons of war. Maybe they had some "special" way of doing it, but I think that is unlikely. What about flint arrowheads? Would they work? I suppose being flimsy would be a benefit in that case, as long as it does the initial blow. What do you think?
I’ve tested two flint points against the wooden armor. They broke without penetrating. However, it’s worth noting that I am a terrible flint knapper and Someone else might be able to do better.
Stone arrows might be fine even with their delicacy because arrows are essentially disposable anyway.
But what about wooden spears with fire hardened tips? They were common weapons among ancient european tribes. According to romans, the Bagauda, the unfree tennants of celtic society, armed themself with wicker shields and wooden spears. The same with halffree germanic men, who were drafted into armies in times of need. As they were not as wealthy as free men, they could not afford metal spear heads and shield bosses. So they armed themself with wicker shields and wooden spears.
I'm not well enough versed in that period to offer any useful comment.
@@MalcolmPL I just thought, as native americans were very much able to make weapons as simple as these, it is strange that they did not used them.
I mean, the oldest lances and spears still existing, are between 200,000 and 400,000 years old and made compleatly of wood.
It's just strange to me, because they were warrior cultures who formed battle lines and I for one, would not fight with a club, if I can stay away from my foe and stab him with a spear.
The context of the period matters a great deal. Armour changes things for both offence and defence. @@jarlnils435
@jarlnils435 context perhaps. what use is a two-handed spear of your opponent has a shield, club, or even a bunch of archers when you probably don't have armor.
@@Ose-here why two handed? nine foot long spears can be used perfectly well with one hand and a big shield
Do you think the particular methods of Iroquoian warfare contributed to the lack of use of the spear? I don't know a lot about this particular culture, but my understanding is that natives in the northeastern US often lived in fortified villages and fought each other primarily through raids and small-scale skirmishes rather than pitched battles. Spears make sense when fighting in formations but if your goal is to smash, grab and get out, tomahawks and ranged weapons seem like perfectly sensible weapons to me. Your thoughts?
Before guns came around, warfare was mostly large formations exchanging projectiles until one side chickened out. Or if one side gained a significant advantage, (or had one to begin with) it would fall to hand to hand.
After guns it was all guerilla warfare, ambushes and skirmishes, nobody in their right mind is going to stand there in a line and absorb musket fire, this is where the general idea of Native warfare comes from.
@@MalcolmPL "nobody in their right mind is going to stand there in a line and absorb musket fire" English musket warfare is sweating at this very moment.
@@MalcolmPLThat might say it all, really. If everyone in combat was expected to use ranged weapons, carrying a spear in addition isn't practical, whereas carrying a war club is easier.
I think you’re on to something here. Perhaps wooden spears with fire hardened tips were occasionally used but if you’re gonna go that far might as well just make a spear point and only use that for hunting.
You could make it work. It would blunt after a handful of impacts with armor or shields, but a handful of impacts is a lot better than one.
A thought mid way through the video:
Is it possible that they used wood spears for war?
Just a stick sharpened like a pencil at one end & fire hardened.
They wouldn't survive archeologically like stone spear points; But they wouldn't shatter like them either.
Of course the descriptions you read saying bows & clubs may negate this idea.
Still a spear does have the reach advantage. So unless the size is prohibitive I don't see a why they couldn't have been used. Yes the point could break or dull, but maybe not so often as to make them impractical?
End of video:
Ok watched to the end & I did not consider bone, or antler. But as you said missing from text but the tips exist...
My guess is a musket & club replaced spear & club; assuming spears were used in war.
Wooden spears would certainly work. Wooden daggers existed. I've heard of wooden javelins. It stands to reason that spears would work as well. They wouldn't be able to get through armor, but they wouldn't necessarily break on contact either.
Setting aside durability, carrying the things might still be an issue. A big spear might conflict with the bow. But nothing that couldn't be overcome with a bit of patience.
@@MalcolmPL I think wooden daggers makes a good clue for the possibility of wooden Spears.
I was thinking that if the tip or thin enough it might be able to pass between the slats of certain armors, but even if that's not possible a lesson to be learned from other warrior societies is you try to go where the armor is weak or isn't covering. So the armor may limit your targets but it doesn't necessarily rule out the usage.
For tribes that relied heavily on the bow I agree a spear might be a bit of a encumbrance especially compared to war club, but there may be areas where the bow was less prevalent... Although you clearly know more about this than I do LOL
And it's true with a bit of practice you could carry a bow and a spear; especially a smaller spear. A smaller spear could also double as a javelin.
It's also possible, I suppose, that they could have some people that backed the Warriors up & just carried equipment like spears, extra war clubs and arrows.
@@asa-punkatsouthvinland7145 I'll agree with your logic for most of that. My only further comment is on a wooden spear going through the gaps.
The spear being thin enough to slip through the gaps and sturdy enough to withstand direct impacts without immediately blunting is an either/or situation, you can't have it both ways. Even my antler knife could be blunted after only a few blows.
@@MalcolmPL like I said before you're definitely more of an expert on this stuff than I am lol
I've never tried it with a wooden/bone/antler spear, so I was only theorizing.
But that's why I put my thought out there since you have experimented you can easily fill in the gaps in my logic!
So if you feel that it would not work in that sense then I will certainly accept your opinion on that!
Thank you
I had the same thought. More for hunting and maybe sacrifices for spirits/gods.
Hunting certainly. Sacrifice, maybe not. Other than the really big nations in central america, most peoples didn't do the sort of violent sacrifice that the word brings to mind.
Welp its a bit of a rabbit hole but actually there is one way I know of. This being heat treating methods with flint knapping. I cant find the video but some tribes heat treatment were so good it was denting conquistadors plate armor. IIRC it was Aztecs if not another tribe they fought. Heat treatment could be as simple as a cookong fire or as complicated as kilns.
Some videos may mislead you but obsidian allegedly can also be heat treated. Some think its good enough as it is.
I had not heard that. Something to look into.
It could be like tempered glass, in which case it wouldn’t change the equation too much, but would prevent the point from exploding with minimal provocation.
@@MalcolmPL Yeah I still cant find the video. It was years ago so maybe it was taken down? It discussed weapons like the Macuahuitl, Tepoztopilli, Atlatl and bows. Their rock of choice was obsidian. You can temper rocks just like you can temper metal really. Too hot it will become brittle. But if you find the correct balance it will still maintain its sharpness, still have its durability and will be easy to knapp due to treatment. These weapon dented armor. All im finding is videos talking about horse decapitations but not the armor quote. I have fenced with macuahuitl those things hit like a truck and the warriors who used them must have been jacked to use them one handed. even the one handed ones were heavy and they could be up to the size of japanese war oars/kanabos .
Flint knapping is within the means of any hunter gatherer. It just required the skill to do it. Fires are hard because of the uneven heat. The center rocks get cooked faster. But they have been discovered at archeological sites with flint heads under them. A kiln is consistent heat but from what I have been told you need to make sure the heat rises and lowers slowly so not stress the flint too much. So sand or something to help with heat dissipation. Perhaps the Aztecs who were a more advanced region had a more complicated heat treatment process?
I did find a shit ton of bush craft videos while looking for the video in question. So those were interesting.
The tribal cultures in general were ahead of their time in a lot of ways in the Americas. Really regions like the Aztecs were extremely organized. They are still trying to perfect their terra preta recipes, floating cities, cotton body armor that was as tough as old world gambesons called Ichcahuapilli. Any tribe with access to cotton could make that. Also leather armor was real so that was another option. Your laminated leather video was sick by the way.
@@MalcolmPL Also I may be wrong about the heat treatment. It doesnt technically increase durability. It makes it easy to knap. By making it easy to knap it reduces the risk of creating micro fractures from failed knapping strikes. Also there is a method called "soft knapping" using stuff like antlers to also reduce the risk of incomplete microfractures from failed attempts. Sorry for misinforming you im trying to verify the information I presented to you to make up for it. Check out a youtube channel called "Jack crafty" he is very informative on the subject of knapping.
I appreciate your honesty.
It still sounds like a useful technique. The flint in my region is very poor and hard to work.
What tool did you use to carve the notch in the staff for the spear.
I used a saw and a chisel. But that was because I needed a big notch as the blade still had a sword hilt attached.
What would be done historically is to take the staff and bind a section about six inches from the tip very tightly with cord and hide glue. The tip of the staff would then be split with a knife, and the binding would prevent the split from progressing too far. You could then insert the blade and lash it in place.
@@MalcolmPL I'm only asking because I'm doing the same thing.
@@ethanstang9941 I might have known.
@@MalcolmPL So far it is coming along good. I plan on atttmpting to pin the spear head to the staff with brass, then follow with sinew.
@@ethanstang9941 That should work very well.
I think spears were not weapons of choice for Native Americans because the spear purpose is to keep a charging enemy at bay and colons weren't charging them per se and had muskets and long range weapons, that's probably why the Natives arsenal was either long range weapons or versatile weapon that could be thrown as well as being blunting or slashing device and obviously daggers and that kind of short range weaponry for ambushes, CQC etc...
Spears are old world weapons when all warfare were up close and personal and keeping a relative distance was still a necessity.
Edit: Spears are obviously also versatile, but it's not as precise as a shorter weapon such as a war club or a tomahawk, and it renders them useless in close combat as it can be easily being parried away and if the enemy got too close they be made totally useless and can cost its bearer's life.
Yeah, versatility, that’s a good way to put it.
Guerilla warfare you’re either doing long range skirmishing or else very close fighting. A spear isn’t ideal for either.
I remember reading something from one of the early English colonies, telling the governor or someone to stop equipping the militias with pikes, as they were deemed “unsuitable for fighting Indians”.
I noticed when I look at the picture drawn no one uses a horse everybody is on foot different warfare we Navajos we're fought battles on horse back we fought the Spaniards, Utes and the Apaches, Comanches and Kiowa and later the Americans I'm learning alot about Iroquoites thanks alot my native brother
Cheers. No horses up here back in the day.
The feral horses that were turned loose on the Great Plains didn't make it to the East Coast.
@@KartarNighthawk yeah later on he made another video explaining why they didn't have horses but thank you
It makes sense that you wouldn't rely on a brittle weapon for self defense. Hunting and bluffing wild beasts is a different story.
The spear is THE most used weapon in ancient warfare, and the vast majority of them (if not all) were made with wooden shafts. They were never considered to be so brittle that they were ineffective. Also, hunting things as large as wild boar places as much strain on a spear as most battle situations would.
@@manfrommaineAs to the strain of hunting versus battle, not at all. When hunting an animal, it has to hit one layer of skin, break a few bones, and at the very least bleed an animal out. That is just one animal, and nearly all of the time stone points break when they hit an animal. In a battle, you need to go through any armor that might be worn, and you want your weapons durable enough to use them on multiple people. The exception here is arrows, as these can be easily carried in a large quantity, and work in tandem with another, reusable weapon, but a hand-to-hand weapon would have to be repeatedly stressed in much more strenuous situations.
I am surprised we have yet to see copper spear points in the archeological, given the region would have been roughly in a period analogous to the Eurasian Chalcolithic periods, or that rough and fuzzy time when metal tools were being invented by a society by way of copper much like the great lakes first nations were, but stone, bone, and wooden tools were still used heavily by greater society.
the fact that copper spearheads didn't influence fighting by what we can see in the historic record (what of it that exists) says a bit, perhaps copper was to weak for the armor? ah well an avenue to be explored if you feel like it.
My hypothesis is that copper is too flexible for spears. You’d need to make it pretty thick to prevent it from bending, and big lumps of native copper are harder to find, so maybe people just figured it would be put to better use elsewhere.
If you look at copper arrows, most of them are cone shaped rather than flat. This could be related.
@@MalcolmPL Copper spear points (and copper gear in general) do show up once you hit the Tarascan Empire in Mexico, and again when you reach the Inca in South America, though both are on their way to the conversion to bronze at the time of contact.