Atlatl Weapon System - Part IV – A High Plains Atlatl Weight

Figure One - the 3.2-inch long atlatl weight surface found on February 27, 2023.   

Atlatl weights are a rare artifact to find along the high plains. Most of the suspected atlatl weights that I have found or what others claim are atlatl weights are actually quite crude and indistinguishable. In fact, if I hadn’t picked up my alleged atlatl weights on known prehistoric campsites, I probably wouldn’t have given them a second glance. The gap in the workmanship between most high plains atlatl weights and the beautiful bannerstones and boatstones of the eastern United States is Mississippi-wide. Whether or not bannerstones and boatstones were used as atlatl weights might still be up for debate but that usage seems likely to me. Figure two is a drawing of the various components of an atlatl weapon system, showing in red the atlatl weight itself.

Figure Two - The various components within a typical atlatl weapon system
with atlatl weight circled in red. Courtesy of donsmap.com.  

One theory for prehistoric people's use of atlatl weights was as charms and totemic pieces for their atlatl handles, but if you look at some of the so-called atlatl weights from the high plains, they are little more than polished river pebbles and they aren’t too “charming” at all. Figure three is a photograph of three alleged high plains atlatl weights surface found on prehistoric campsites. Those alleged atlatl weights are not pretty although they do exhibit wear and polish. I am pretty sure they were prehistoric stone tools used in some capacity, but I will never be completely convinced prehistoric people used them as atlatl weights. To be completely convinced, I would need to find them attached to the original atlatl handle.

Figure Three - Three alleged atlatl weights
from my collection. 

My luck with finding a true atlatl weight changed on February 27, 2023. I no longer needed to insert the adjectives alleged or so-called on that one. I recovered an undeniable atlatl weight from a dry stream bed while hunting artifacts and fossils on a private ranch in northeastern Colorado. The first artifact I found that day was an Alberta dart point made from Knife River Chalcedony from the ten-thousand-plus-year-old Cody Complex. I would have been more than happy to find just that artifact, but I kept meandering up that dry stream bed. About a hundred yards upstream from the Alberta dart point I spotted what appeared to be an old ballpoint pen lying in the sand. Over the decades that dry stream bed accumulated a lot of farm and ranch refuse. I have seen empty feed sacks, plastic water bottles, used cow ear tags, tractor parts, old oil filters, beat-up cattle feed buckets, and used tires. I picked up that old ballpoint pen and it was like 110 volts A.C. ran through me. That ballpoint pen was made of stone! A shock wave coursed through my old bones. Instead of a modern-day writing utensil, I held in my hand a beautiful, well-made atlatl weight (figures one, four, and eight).

I have been hunting artifacts for a heck of a long time. Over the course of my life, I have found some amazing and outstanding artifacts, but I have never found anything quite like that beautiful atlatl weight. It is a high plains rarity. I think my exact words were “HOLY CR_P!” when I realized it wasn’t an old ballpoint pen in my hand.       

I stood there in the middle of the sandy stream bed glaring at the artifact reconciling with my mind what I just found. It appeared the material was either a gabbro or a diorite. It was an atlatl weight in the shape of a small boatstone. The artifact was meticulously made, shaped, and polished by human hands that obviously took pride in what they were making. I hunt artifacts at least fifty times a year and I find a lot of prehistoric artifacts on an annual basis. If I am lucky I might find a really exceptional artifact once or twice a year. I found that really exceptional atlatl weight early in the year. That gave me hope for the rest of the year! 

Figure Four - 3.2-inch long atlatl weight showing slightly concave planar surface.   

Using Neuman’s (1967:48) atlatl weight classification I determined my atlatl weight was a Class I atlatl weight. Of sixty atlatl weights from thirty-nine locations in North America, Neuman classified thirty-seven of them as Class I. Neuman described Class I atlatl weights:

“This is the most popular class under consideration. All are of stone. In side view these appear loaf shaped with blunt to rounded to vaguely point ends. They are plano-convex in cross section usually with slight concavity to the planar surface. They may have one or more grooves on their convex surface, or they may be plain.”

                       Length mm             Height mm              Width mm                 Weight gm

Range               41-94                       12-27                      14-33                      11.3-79.2

My atlatl weight is 81 millimeters long, 14 millimeters high, 11 millimeters wide, and weighs 12.6 grams. It is in the upper range of Neuman’s Class I for length and in the lower range for height and weight. It falls outside the range for width.

Figure Five - Examples of Class 1 atlatl 
weights from Stevenson and Meyer (2020). 

I always assumed that prehistoric hunters used atlatl weights to add mass to their atlatl handles to increase the momentum of the throwing motion. The higher momentum then translated into faster velocity and farther distance for the projectile or atlatl dart. I thought my assumption was pretty cut and dry until I researched the topic.  

Numerous atlatl weight theories and experimentation sprouted after the discovery of atlatl handles with small stones attached to them in the southwest United States. Stevenson and Meyer (2020:4) reported that based on archaeological evidence, atlatl weighting, and fletching were probably North American innovations. However, I am not so sure about that. I reviewed Usacheva’s (2013:59) article on Eurasian artifacts with transverse grooves (ATG) and concluded that a few of the artifacts bore an uncanny resemblance to the grooved, loaf-shaped atlatl weights found on the Great Plains of North America (figure six). In my opinion, there was a possibility that a few of the Eurasian artifacts with transverse grooves were used as atlatl weights, and not shaft straighteners as prescribed in her article. I reached out to the author to pass along my thoughts, but as of today, I have received no feedback.  

What purpose did those small weights play in the performance of the atlatl weapon system? When evaluating a prehistoric weapon system, there are several parameters that define a system’s performance. Those parameters include ease of use, killing power, velocity, projectile distance, and accuracy to the target. I have discussed ease of use and killing power associated with the atlatl weapon system in previous articles (Branney 2018; 2018a; 2013). In this article, I will explore the effects of an atlatl weight on velocity, distance, and accuracy.       

Webb (1957) theorized that the atlatl weight transferred momentum from the atlatl handle to the projectile or dart and that resulted in increased force and distance. In physics, force is defined as the push or pull on an object (the atlatl dart) with a mass (the atlatl handle) causing a change in velocity. Hill (1948) experimented with different combinations of atlatl handles, weights, and spears and concluded that adding weight to the atlatl handle did not increase velocity or distance (Whittaker 2010:207). Hill’s experiment highlighted that the best-performing combination came from a weighted atlatl handle with a lightweight dart. Mau (1963) experienced a fifteen to twenty-five percent improvement in distance using a moderately weighted atlatl handle while Howard (1974) experienced an eighteen percent drop in the distance with a weighted atlatl handle. In his testing with different sizes of atlatl handles, Van Buren (1974) saw no improvement in the distance by adding more weight to the atlatl handle.

Figure Six - Look familiar?
Examples of Eurasian artifacts
with transverse grooves. 
Usacheva (2016).    

Palter (1976) approached the atlatl weight theory from a slightly different angle, noting that adding a moderate weight produced flexing in the atlatl handle. The flexing was supposed to add springlike energy to the existing lever action of the atlatl weapon system. However, Palter concluded that adding weight to the atlatl handle was not always good for the performance of the system and that the heavier the atlatl weight, the less distance the dart flew. Perkins (1993) agreed that atlatl weights increased the flexure and stored energy within the atlatl handle, but that the flexing did not significantly influence the velocity of the dart. Whittaker, Maginniss, and Hilton (2005) agreed that flexure within the atlatl handle did not significantly improve dart velocity. Whittaker (2010) stated that adding weight slowed the atlatl handle down during the throwing motion. The velocity was particularly impacted toward the distal end of the atlatl handle where maximum velocity was most critical for throwing performance.

The above citations and results are only a partial list of experiments done to determine the performance and purpose of atlatl weights. The inconsistencies between experiments and conclusions are clear. After my research, I concluded that no one really knew what the purpose of atlatl weights was. Raymond (1986) blamed the contradictory results on too many variables within and between the various experiments. Some of the variations he noted were the types of wood used, the dimension of the atlatl handles and darts, and the ability to reproduce and measure each atlatl toss with minimal variation between each toss. After reviewing the work of others, Raymond did his own testing and determined that with a weighted atlatl handle, he could throw two to seven meters farther (5-11%) and increase the dart’s velocity up to 8.2%.

Raymond downplayed the importance of his results. He made the profound observation that incremental improvements in velocity and distance with an atlatl weight were irrelevant within the world of hunting. The goal of hunting was to bring down prey as quickly and efficiently as possible. To achieve that goal, atlatl hunters needed to be relatively close to their prey. Raymond believed that close-range accuracy was more critical to successful hunting than incremental improvements in velocity and distance. That was especially relevant to the atlatl weapon system which was not known for its accuracy over long distances.  

Stevenson and Meyer (2020) summarized the possible benefits of atlatl weights such as charms or totemic symbols, improving the velocity and distance of the dart, acting as an “at rest” balance between the atlatl handle and the dart, adding spring energy through the handle and dart flexing, and steadying the inertia to improve accuracy. After their summary of past experiments, the authors agreed that the real purpose for atlatl weights was still undetermined. The authors agreed with Raymond that when hunting, the atlatl weapon system required the hunter to be as close to the target as possible. That notion negated any benefit to small improvements in velocity and distance. It appeared that close-range accuracy might be the name of the game and might be the prehistoric reason for atlatl weights. 

Figure Seven - CLICK for SHADOWS on the TRAIL Pentalogy 

Brown (1967) applied mechanical physics in his argument that atlatl weights stabilized the throwing motion. When launching an atlatl dart, the atlatl handle rotates around a fulcrum. A fulcrum is a point on which the lever rests. The inertia for that throw can be expressed as:

I = ⅓ML²

Where I = moment of inertia

M = mass

L = length of the atlatl handle from the distal to the proximal end

 

The moment of inertia is the quantity expressing a body's tendency to resist angular or rotational acceleration. The greater the inertia, the more resistance there is to the body achieving maximum velocity. For anyone who has played baseball or softball, a baseball bat is a good example of the inertia concept. A person swings a lighter baseball bat with more velocity than a heavier bat because it is more difficult to accelerate a heavier bat. Heavy bats and atlatl handles have higher inertia than light bats and light atlatl handles!

When adding weight to an atlatl handle, the inertia increased, but so did angular or rotational momentum, which is expressed as:

 L = MVR

L = angular momentum

M = mass

V = velocity

R = radius

 

By adding an atlatl weight, the combination of higher inertia and higher angular momentum stabilized the throwing arc of the atlatl handle resulting in an improvement in close-range accuracy. 

Figure Eight - Photograph taken on February 27th, 2023, just moments
after picking up what I believed was an old ballpoint pen.  

I end this article with the same opinion that I started out with; the reason(s) behind why prehistoric people added weight to atlatl handles is still undetermined. We remain in the theory and experimental stage. Prehistoric people might have used atlatl weights as charms or totemic symbols, to improve velocity and distance, to enhance close-range accuracy, or all of the above. I doubt we ever find a conclusive answer. 

I must give credit where credit is due. Kudos to the prehistoric people who came up with the innovation of the atlatl weight. Prehistoric people were pretty savvy and smart individuals. Those people knew why they used atlatl weights several millennia before Sir Isaac Newton or books on physics. If close-range accuracy was prehistoric people’s primary goal (which is what I personally believe), they came to that conclusion from the good ole scientific method called trial and error. If we could take a time machine back in time, I think we would be amazed at the innovations that prehistoric people came up with while surviving in a very tough and unforgiving world.    

See you next time!

 

References Cited.

Branney, John Bradford. 2018. The Atlatl Weapon System and the SHADOWS on the TRAIL – Part Three. Academia.

 

2018a. The Atlatl Weapon System and the SHADOWS on the TRAIL – Part Two. Academia.

 

2013. The Atlatl Weapon System and the SHADOWS on the TRAIL – Part One. Academia.    

Brown, Jeffrey L. 1967. The Use of Atlatl Weights: a Suggestion. Southwestern Lore. 32(4): 84-85.     

Hill, Malcolm. 1948. The Atlatl, or Throwing Stick, A Recent Study of Atlatls in Use with Darts of Various Sizes. Tennessee Archaeologist. 4:37-44. 

Howard, Calvin D. The Atlatl: Function and Performance. American Antiquity. 39(1): 102-104.   

Mau, Clayton. 1963. Experiments with the Spear Thrower. The New York State Archaeological Association Bulletin 29:1-13.

Neuman, Robert W. 1967. Atlatl Weights from Certain Sites on the Northern and Central Great Plains. American Antiquity. Vol. 32, No. 1 (Jan. 1967).    

Palter, John L. 1976. A New Approach to the Significance of the "Weighted" Spear Thrower. American Antiquity. 41(4): 500-510.

Perkins, W.R. 1993. Atlatl Weights: Function and Classification. Bulletin of Primitive Technology, 1(5): 58-61.     

Raymond, Anan. 1986. Experiments in the Function and Performance of the Weighed Atlatl in World Archaeology. Volume 18, No. 2, October 1986.  

Stevenson, Thomas W., and David Meyer. 2020. The Atlatl Weights of Saskatchewan in Archaeological Survey of Alberta Occasional Paper No. 40.

Usacheva, I.V. 2013. On the Function of “Grooved Stones” in Archaeology, Ethnology, and Anthropology of Eurasia, 41 (4). 

Usacheva, I.V. 2016. Transverse Grooved Artefacts from Southwestern Asia and Northern Eurasia: Common Traits and Reconstruction of Function. Journal of Lithic Study.    

Van Buren, G.E. 1974. Arrowheads and Projectile Points. Garden Grove. Arrowhead Publishing Co.

Webb, William S. 1957. The Development of the Spearthrower. University of Kentucky Occasional Papers in Anthropology No. 2.  

Whittaker, John C. 2010. Weapon Trials: The Atlatl and Experiments in Hunting Technology. Experimental Archaeology, edited by Jeff Ferguson.

Whittaker, John C., Andrew Maginniss, and Charles Hilton. 2005. Physical Principles and the Atlatl: Throwing Motion and Atlatl Flex. Manuscript on file, Department of Anthropology, Grinnell College, Grinnell, Iowa.      

 

About the Author.  

John Bradford Branney is an author, geologist, and prehistorian. Since retiring from a thirty-four-year career in the oil and gas industry, Branney has written eleven books and over ninety articles and papers, mostly focused on geology, paleoclimatology, and archaeology. Branney received a BS degree in geology from the University of Wyoming and an MBA in finance from the University of Colorado. He currently lives in the Colorado Mountains with his family.