David, thank you again for the elucidation on this. It is very important that the material and observations we provide be accurate, and while the article I provided was intended to be informational, clearly it could be construed differently than I intended.
As noted, this was a great opportunity to bring this field of study more into the fold, and though as I noted, I have little knowledge in it, it was exciting to learn from what I researched, and I added it hoping to promote more interest. That was I am sure Ibrahiim's objective in looking at 'war clubs' collectively as suggested in the title of the thread, as the 'gunstock form' was indeed of the group despite not specific to the one in the OP.
It seems Miguel understood and appreciated the notes on the gunstock club as well as the manner of its inclusion here. You are right though, these clubs would well warrant their own thread and I would include the extensive research I completed on them years ago, very interesting examples. Actually I do believe they would fall into the war club category, but I enjoyed the bazooka analogy
!
The article I posted was keyed to the Sioux versions of these war clubs and it is noted that the one in the OP was probably Cherokee. I thought I had emphasized the tribal distinction so as to show this as comparative information that readers could use to consider possibilities.
Actually I did not disagree that this was a modern reproduction, and was actually in agreement with you and Charles, but should have not included the notion that traditional process might be included in its making. I understand that was your concern, and you are quite right that might mislead Rajesh, so again thank you for your vigilance in correcting this.
Rajesh, please accept my apology, and my exuberant optimism. If I may say so however, your example is still an attractive item despite the more direct analysis which reveals it is modern and not authentic.
All best regards
Jim