FOSSILS AND ARTIFACTS FROM
PALEO ENTERPRISES

RESEARCH

back to Research Index

A Unique  Atlatl Weight from Florida

by Jim Tatum Ph.D. High Springs, FL and Carlos Tatum Lutz, Florida

This article will describe a unique atlatl weight[i] recently found in Florida, which is very unusual because of its large size and mass and because it is apparently manufactured from a segment of mastodon or mammoth jaw.  Additionally, a new theory as to the method of attachment to the atlatl shaft will be offered, based on evidence found in several Florida bone and antler atlatl weights.

Few artifacts have generated as much controversy as the one variously called  bannerstone, atlatl weight, birdstone, loafstone or boatstone.  Although the atlatl has been around for thousands of years and is found world wide, for reasons unknown, it seems that the use of weights associated with its function is unique to North America.  A considerable amount of research has been done on the bannerstone, most commonly found in eastern United States. One of the earliest descriptions is by Rau (pp. 23-24) in 1876, who did not know what they were but suspected a functional purpose as weapons attached to shafts.  The atlatl, including weights, was described in the works of C.B. Moore (1916) and more extensively as atlatls and weights by William Webb in 1939 and again in 1946.  The first major study of bannerstones by themselves was done in 1939 by Byron W. Knoblock, Bannerstones of the North American Indian.  This exhaustive (1,650 photographs, nearly 600 pages) study remained the final word on bannerstones (regarding variation of form but not function) for more than 60 years.  The principal contribution of this work was to categorize the types and develop terminology to distinguish among them.  It does not develop a chronology nor delve into the function of the artifact.  The second major work is that of David R. Lutz, The Archaic Bannerstone, its Chronological History and Purpose from 6000 B.C. to 1000 B.C. (2000), and it, too, is monumental in size and scope, rivaling that of Knoblock.  However, contrary to the earlier work, Lutz carefully develops a chronology and evolution of the different types,  but still gives nothing new on function.  

Both Knoblock and Lutz believe the bannerstone/atlatl weight had no utilitarian function:  “Because the construction of banner-stones in general is so fragile we fail to find any reason even to consider the possibility of their possessing any utility. (Knoblock, p.31).  Lutz believes the same, but adds that since many different forms proved to be contemporaneous, they were “…serving as ceremonial clan or tribal symbols rather than as components for functional atlatls as many writers have proposed.  After all, the composite atlatl device has always appeared entirely too flimsy to remain together under the stress required to launch a missile and would most likely fall apart in the hands of the user.” (p. 17) We believe that the more stylized bannerstones may, indeed, sometimes represent tribal symbols, but it impossible to ignore the many examples we have of bannerstones/atlatl weights found in situ in position where the wooden shaft disintegrated such as in Illinois and Kentucky or indeed still tied on the atlatl shaft, as in the multiple examples found in caves in Arizona and Utah.[ii]  This evidence was available to both Knoblock and Lutz, and has been known since 1919 (Kidder and Guernsey, pp.180-181).   

 For the greater part of the 20^th century, interest in the bannerstone was mostly as an esthetically beautiful artifact, as they are often made in artistic shapes out of banded slate, colorful porphyry, quartz or other attractive stone.  Since the last few decades, however, there has been a tremendous interest in the atlatl as a functional sporting weapon with clubs, competitions, and even legal hunting seasons in some states, similar to the interest in bow hunting.  With this renaissance of the atlatl has come an accompanying interest in the weight, which has indirectly benefited archaeology.  The many sport atlatlists know that their weapons do not fall apart when they tie weights on them.. Raymond’s research indicates that a weighted atlatl will not cast a spear farther than an unweighted one, but that it will cast it more accurately. (p. 153).   Peets agrees (p. 108) adding that it improves balance, which would have the effect of better accuracy.  William R. Perkins has done research on the effects that the mass and shape of the bannerstone have on the sound produced when used, and has found that the elaborately shaped banners, such as the crescents and butterflies, produce a lower pitched sound of less volume than the simple weights, and thus may have had a practical advantage over the noisier ones.  We must keep in mind that the people whose lives depended on their weapons had thousands of years to experiment with the minor variations and likely discovered things that even the most broadminded and innovative of our present scholars have not yet even suspected. 

The weight referred to here measures 148 mm long by 49 mm wide, with a thickness of 30 mm.  It is elliptical in shape with pointed ends and has a hole which is 14 mm across drilled in the center through the edge side. It is carefully made and the symmetry is near perfect.  The weight is massive and weighs 166 grams.  The material is bone and there is a foramen running the length of the object, which exhibits some gouging and modification.  It intersects the large central hole on one side in such a manner that a pin or rod inserted in the foramen would protrude about 2 ½ to 3 millimeters into the main hole. (see fig. 2)  The bone, although ground on many surfaces, is completely solid and possesses no trabecular nor cancellous areas.  The size, mass and solidarity of the bone would quickly eliminate most animals in a quest to determine the origin.  What seems to be left is only proboscidean or giant sloth.  The creases in the surface are very similar to many mastodon jaw sections that the authors have prepared as fossils, and the longitudinal perforation approaches that of a mandibular foramen in this animal.  This, plus the fact that mastodon remains are roughly twice as common as mammoth in Florida, would cause us to speculate that the chances are greater that the bone is mastodon.

 Of the materials used to manufacture bannerstones/atlatl weights, overall by far the most common material is stone.  Of the hundreds and hundreds illustrated in Knoblock’s book, none is of bone or antler.  Lutz  does show two bannerstones which he calls “bone” from Saline County, IL (p. 45, fig. 32); however they look suspiciously like antler instead of bone.  Three antler banners from Todd Co. Kentucky are illustrated in fig.296 (p.356) and these appear similar to the ones commonly found in Florida.  At any rate, in Florida bannerstones are very rare, and in the authors’ experience, antler weights are much more common than those made of stone.[iii]  The authors have examined a weight found in Suwannee Co. FL which is made of a manatee rib[iv] and another made of manatee rib has been reported from the Windover site in Brevard Co. Florida.[v]

 Just as there is much controversy as to the purpose of the atlatl weight or bannerstone, we also find many theories as to the mounting on the atlatl shaft.  Some think those with holes in the center may have been movable, spinning or sliding on the shaft or both.  Some theorize that a sliding weight gives an additional impetus to the missile as it is launched.  We know for certain, however, that some were fixed, such as those from the western caves and those of bar or elliptical type, which must have been tied.  The authors have never seen an antler weight which exhibits any type of wear in the hole, which surely would occur if there were constant movement on a shaft.  Every weight examined had a perfectly round hole, totally contrary to the so called “shaft wrenches” which nearly all show wear in the hole and often considerable elongation.  Our logical conclusion then, since there is no evidence to the contrary, is that at least with the Florida antler and bone weights, they were affixed to the shaft. 

The question might arise as to how they were they affixed to the atlatl shaft.  Likely with cordage or sinew as were those found in caves, yet these were all of the bar type which had no other option of which we are aware.  The recent discovery with which we are concerned here may suggest another option, at least for the Florida ones made of antler and bone.  As mentioned before, the modified foramen intersects the main hole in precisely the right place so that a pin driven into the foramen would press tightly against the shaft, effectively binding it with enough pressure so that it would remain immobile under stress.  One might ask, what are the chances that by pure coincidence the hole for the main shaft would be drilled so that the foramen intersected this hole in such a fashion  that a pin in the foramen would project precisely 2 millimeters into the main hole?  This, coupled with the fact that the foramen exhibits evidence of gouging, as if an object had been driven into it with force, makes it seem unlikely that this was purely accidental. 

It is also interesting to note that many of the antler weights in Florida are found with at least one lateral portion of the weight, i.e. the part extending laterally from the central shaft hole, exhibiting a hole extending from the end into the main hole.  Some of these holes are obviously gouged, and some of the complete weights have holes in both sides.  Thus it could be possible that a bone or wooden pin could be driven into the antler so that it pressed tightly against the shaft, or even into a groove in the shaft, as with a key on a pulley, to effect the immobility of the weight.  Further evidence of this might be suggested by the fact that a few of the antler weights have been found with bone plugs in the ends.  If plugging were common, it seems likely that most would be made of wood, due to ease of manufacture, in which case they would not be found today, of course.  But we have found a few with bone plugs.  As of now there has not been a good explanation as to the function of these, but there must have been one, such as the possibility of inserting wedges against the atlatl shaft.  One of the antler atlatl weights found at the Windover site was plugged with what appears to be a tooth.  The idea if using pins to affix tools has been proven.  Lutz documents atlatl hooks being pinned onto shafts (p. 49), and the authors have examined an antler handle (which is probably an atlatl handle) with a pin through it[vi]. 

There seems to be no good way of dating this artifact.  We had considered submitting it for testing of the mineral fraction of bioapatite, but decided against it since it would considerably deface the artifact, and perhaps would prove nothing except the approximate year the animal died.  We have no way of assuring that the artifact was made near the time of death of the animal.  Nevertheless, an early age for this weight seems likely for the following reasons.  First of all, native Americans did not usually manufacture items out of fossilized material.  As near as we can determine, in Florida the only fossils made into artifacts are some drilled megaladon teeth and some tools chipped from fossilized dugong bone.  Of course it is possible that an Indian found a chunk of mastodon bone and decided to fashion a tool out of it, but is generally accepted that prehistoric man preferred to work green bone to fashion his tools, the main reason likely being that it was much more durable than old bone.  Hemmings et. al lists documented  artifacts in Florida made from extinct mammoth, mastodon, llama, horse and wolf, and lists cut or otherwise modified bones from extinct bison, sloth, tapir and giant land tortoise. (p.90)  Hemmings and co-authors believe that the modification of the bones of these extinct animals was done when the bone was fresh, pointing out that information from the Aucilla River Prehistory Project[vii] tends to confirm this. 

Secondly, at 166 grams, this weight is much heavier than the average atlatl weight known from Florida.[viii]  It seems logical that if people were using the large paleo points such as Simpsons and Suwannees, they would have a generally heftier atlatl system with larger darts, thicker shafts and thus use a heavier weight, than if they were launching darts tipped with Bolens or Newnans.  We have endeavored to ascertain if there might be a correlation between the mass of the atlatl weight and the mass of the dart point.  For this we must go to the atlatlists currently experimenting with this weapon system, as there are no known records of weights associated with atlatls used during Paleoindian times.  Although we could find no studies which treat this subject, Dr. John Whittaker, archaeologist, author and atlatlist, who has experimented with this weapon system, believes that a heavier weight would help balance a heavier dart point.[ix]  William “Atlatl Bob” Perkins, prefers a dart point of about 9 grams, much lighter than the average point used during the mammoth/mastodon era in Florida.  A quick survey indicates that of 25 Florida paleo points randomly picked, the average points weighs 22.08 grams.[x] This is more that twice the weight favored by modern atlatlists as most efficient for their systems. 

In conclusion, we can only speculate.  It might be true that only small points were used as dart tips during paleo times, while the large Suwannees and Simpsons were used only as knives, yet if heavier points were used, a heavier weight might be required.  It might be true that a Woodland Indian found a mastodon fossil and decided to use it as material for a tool, but evidence would indicate that the Indians preferred to work fresh bone for their tools.  We have no proof that pins were used to affix the weights to the atlatl shaft, but we have evidence that they used pins on the hooks and likely the handles. Finally, we do not understand the reason for the plugs in the holes.  We can only offer possibilities and hope that someday we will have the answers.
 

References Cited 

Callahan, Kevin L.  “Atlatls or Spearthrowers in Prehistoric Minnesota.”  URL www.tcinternet.net/users/cbailey/atl.html accessed  6-30-09. 

Doran, Glen H. (ed.).  Windover,  Multidisciplinary Investigations of an Early Archaic Florida Cemetery.  University of Florida Press, Gainesville, 2002. 

Dunbar, James S. and S. David Webb.  “Bone and Ivory Tools from Submerged Paleoindian Sites in Florida,” in The Paleoindian and Early Archaic Southeast.  David G. Anderson and Kenneth E. Sassaman (eds.) University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, 1996, pp. 331-353. 

Hemmings, C. Andrew,  James S. Dunbar, and S. David Webb. “Florida’s Early-Paleoindian Bone and Ivory Tools.” in New Perspectives on the First Americans, Bradley T. Lepper and Robson Bonnichsen (eds.), Center for the Study of the First Americans, Texas A&M University Press, College Station, 2004, pp. 87-92.

 Justice,  Noel D.  Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of the Southwestern United States:  A Modern Survey and Reference, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, 1995, p. 35. 

Kidder, Alfred Vincent, and Samuel J. Guernsey.  Archaeological Explorations in Northeastern Arizona.  Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 65, Government Printing Office, Washington, 1919.

Knoblock, Byron W.  Banner-Stones of the North American Indian.  LaGrange, IL, 1939.  Third Binding, Quincy, IL, 1965.

Lutz, David R.  The archaic bannerstone:  its chronological History and Purpose  from 6000 B.C. to 1000 B.C.  Hynek Printing, Richland Center, WI, 2000. 

Moore, Clarence B.  “Some Aboriginal Sites on Green River, Kentucky,” Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia.  16:  431-509. 

Peets, Orville H.  “Experiments in the Use of Atlatl Weights.”  American Antiquity, Vol. 26, No. 1 (Jul., 1960), pp. 108-110. 

Perkins, William R.  “Atlatl Weights:  Function and Classification.” URL www.primitive.org/atlatlweights.htm.  Accessed 6-30-09. 

Rau, Charles.  The Archaeological Collection of the United States National Museum.  in Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, 1876, pp. 23-24. 

Raymond, Aman.  “Experiments in the Function and Performance of the Weighted Atlatl.”  World Archaeology,  Vol. 18 No. 2, Oct., 1986, pp. 153-177. 

Tuohy, Donald R.  “Another Great Basin Atlatl with Dart Foreshafts and other Artifacts:  Implications and Ramifications.”  Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology, Vol. 40 No. 2.  1982, pp.80-106. 

Webb, S. David. (ed.)  First Floridians and Last Mastodons:  The Page Ladson Site in the Aucilla River.  Springer, The Netherlands, 2006. 

Webb, William S.  “Indian Knoll, Site Oh 2, Ohio County, Kentucky.”  Reports in Anthropology and Archaeology 4(3) Part 1. University of Kentucky, Lexington, 1946. 

_____. “The Chiggerville Site in Ohio County, Kentucky.” Reports in Anthropology.”  The University of Kentucky, Lexington, Vol. IV, No. 1, 1939. 

End Notes

Figure 1.  The weight is made of solid bone and is massive at 166 grams

Figure 2.  A plastic soda straw inserted in the foramen shows how a pin could possibly have been
used as a wedge to immobilize the weight on the atlatl shaft.