An unusual shark tooth sword

fearn · 12th August 2006, 05:42 AM

They certainly were (and are) real weapons.

Interesting side-light about the armor. If you read Arthur Grimble's book on the Gilberts, he mentions not only the armor woven out of coconut fiber (what we see here), but also a ray skin (i.e. rawhide/shagreen) "cuirass" that was tied to the front to protect the belly.

I've always wondered why the Kiribatian armor was tied in front with that vulnerable little cord, but I've never seen the ray skin piece that Grimble says went over it.

Question: has anyone ever seen the alleged ray-skin part of this armor? Did it exist? The fact that they're willing to use a puffer fish skin as a helmet suggests that the ray skin story could be real.

F

katana · 17th August 2006, 02:48 PM

Another shark tooth 'sword' recently finished on eBay....seems alittle expensive?

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.d...MEWA:IT&ih=018

VANDOO · 18th August 2006, 05:50 PM

FROM WHAT LITTLE I HAVE BEEN ABLE TO FIND TO READ AND WHAT I HAVE SEEN OVER THE YEARS I HAVE COME TO A FEW CONCLUSIONS.
THESE WEAPONS WOULD BE DANGEROUS IF THE WARRIORS WERE NAKED BUT WITH THE ALMOST COMPLETE COVERAGE OF THE ARMOR A FATALITY WOULD BE VERY UNLIKELY.
SOME EXAMPLES HAVE THE ANGLE OF THE SHARK TEETH POINTED FOREWARD AND OTHERS HAVE THEM POINTED BACK ,THAT WOULD INDICATE A LUNGING ATTACK FOR THE BEST SLICEING ACTION OR A PULLING BACK FOR BEST RESULTS ON THE OTHER STYLE.
THE SWORD POINTS ARE NOT LONG ENOUGH BEFORE THE TEETH START AND WOULD STOP DEEP PENETRATION SO RUNNING SOMEONE THRU WAS PROBABLY NOT THE MAIN OFFENSIVE FUNCTION OF THE WEAPON.
THE WEAPONS ARE RELATIVY LIGHT WEIGHT SO KNOCKING YOUR OPPONENT OUT WOULD NOT BE LIKELY ESPECIALLY WITH THE PORQUIEPINE FISH HELMUTS WHICH WOULD BE FRAGILE AND EASILY DESTROYED BUT HAVE FIBER PROTECTION UNDERNEATH. PERHAPS THE OBJECT WAS TO KNOCK OFF THE OTHER GUYS HAT

THE DESCRIPTIONS I HAVE READ STATED THAT THE WOMEN AND OTHER VILLAGERS WERE PRESENT AND STOOD CLOSE ENOUGH BEHIND THEIR WARRIOR TO THROW ROCKS AND STUFF AT HIS OPPONENT. THE RAISED PART OF THE ARMOR BEHIND HIS HEAD WAS TO KEEP HIM FROM GETTING HIT IN THE BACK OF THE HEAD BY HIS OWN SUPPORTERS. THEY DID NOT THROW SPEARS OR USE SLINGS SO WERE NOT TRYING TO KILL THE OTHER WARRIOR JUST DISTRACT HIM.
I HAVE SEEN A FEW OF THE BIG SWORDS WITH THE GUARDS THAT WERE OVER 9 FEET LONG.

ALL THIS INFORMATION LEADS ME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THESE WERE MOSTLY USED IN SOME KIND OF FORMAL FIGHTING CONTEST WHERE THERE WERE RULES AND JUDGES. THE NON COMBATANTS WERE NOT IN DANGER IF THEIR WARRIORS LOST OR THEY WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN THERE.
THE WEAPONS USED WERE NOT VERY EFFECTIVE AGAINST THE ARMOR USED, THE FACE BEING THE ONLY EXPOSED AREA AND PROBABLY AGAINST THE RULES TO STAB WITH THE POINT BUT POSSIBLY OK TO SLASH.
THE FIGHTING STYLE WOULD BE LIKE FENCING WITH LUNGES AND SWINGS BEING KEPT IN CLOSE.
A GOOD HEAVY WOOD WAR CLUB WOULD HAVE BEEN MORE EFFECTIVE AGAINST THIS ARMOR THAN THE SHARKTOOTH WEAPONS SO KILLING WAS NOT THE PURPOSE OF THE CONTEST.
THE FIGHTS MAY HAVE DETERMINED THE WARRIORS COURAGE AND PRESTIGE OR MAY HAVE DETERMINED WHICH VILLAGE HAD THE BEST WARRIORS? IT COULD ALSO HAVE BEEN A WAY TO SETTLE DISPUTES AMONG TRIBES SUCH AS WHO GOT TO FISH OR PICK COCONUTS IN CERTIAN AREAS.
THEY COULD ALSO HAVE HAD SOME RELIGIOUS OR RITUAL PURPOSE AND PERHAPS THE LOSER WAS SACRIFICED AFTERWARDS.

CONJECTURE AND GUESSES BASED ON VERY LITTLE KNOWN FACTS BUT POSSIBLY ACCURATE IN PART.

moose · 23rd August 2006, 07:40 PM

Thought I might mention that there has been evidence of shark tooth swords used by the indigenous peoples of the Midwestern States here in the USA. Cahokia Mounds, IL USA

Here's a link to the Cahokia Site and Museum.
A very cool place that I just visited again with my family a couple of weeks ago.
http://www.cahokiamounds.com/cahokia.html

Here's a link to a good friend of mine. Larry is a avocational flintknapper like myself and student of History. He volunteers at Cahokia alot and has made some beautiful replications of the weapons found at Cahokia.
Clickable link
You can go to his home site and scroll down to shark tooth clubs if need be. http://flintknapper.nstemp.com/index.html

Here's a link to Pete Bostrom's site. This is some of the best reading on these sword clubs. Pete does some of the best Lithic Castings in the world. So he gets to see and handle all the best stuff the world over. I've been to his shop and it is truly fascinating. If Lithics interest you, take the time to view the rest of his site.
http://www.lithiccastinglab.com/gall...teethpage1.htm

moose
Frank Stevens
Great Lakes Lithics

VANDOO · 21st July 2013, 07:14 PM

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=17420
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...RSHALL+ISLANDS
JUST ADDING THESE POSTS HERE TO BUILD A MORE COMPREHENSIVE REFRENCE IN ONE PLACE.

KuKulzA28 · 21st July 2013, 11:56 PM

I'd like to add that the Calusa of Florida were known for their sharktooth swords. But I don't know of any surviving examples.

Also, Hawaiian warriors for their leiomano, varieties of shark tooth swords and knuckle-duster-daggers...

Unlike the kribati warriors, they were not known to have much armor, though the Hawaiians did have capes which could be used to help deflect... and the object often was to kill... Having said that, yes I agree with Vandoo, sharktooth weapons seem to be only good against naked flesh.

kahnjar1 · 22nd July 2013, 06:03 AM

This link may be of interest http://www.jps.auckland.ac.nz/docume...,_p_174-175/p1
Stu

23rd August 2006, 07:40 PM	#4
moose Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portage, Michigan USA Posts: 44	More Shark Tooth Swords Thought I might mention that there has been evidence of shark tooth swords used by the indigenous peoples of the Midwestern States here in the USA. Cahokia Mounds, IL USA Here's a link to the Cahokia Site and Museum. A very cool place that I just visited again with my family a couple of weeks ago. http://www.cahokiamounds.com/cahokia.html Here's a link to a good friend of mine. Larry is a avocational flintknapper like myself and student of History. He volunteers at Cahokia alot and has made some beautiful replications of the weapons found at Cahokia. Clickable link You can go to his home site and scroll down to shark tooth clubs if need be. http://flintknapper.nstemp.com/index.html Here's a link to Pete Bostrom's site. This is some of the best reading on these sword clubs. Pete does some of the best Lithic Castings in the world. So he gets to see and handle all the best stuff the world over. I've been to his shop and it is truly fascinating. If Lithics interest you, take the time to view the rest of his site. http://www.lithiccastinglab.com/gall...teethpage1.htm moose Frank Stevens Great Lakes Lithics Attached Images Last edited by Ian; 23rd August 2006 at 08:29 PM. Reason: Added clickable link

22nd July 2013, 06:03 AM	#7
kahnjar1 Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: CHRISTCHURCH NEW ZEALAND Posts: 2,789	Gilbert Islands (Kiribati) Shark Tooth Weapons This link may be of interest http://www.jps.auckland.ac.nz/docume...,_p_174-175/p1 Stu

12th August 2006, 05:42 AM	#1
fearn Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 1,247	They certainly were (and are) real weapons. Interesting side-light about the armor. If you read Arthur Grimble's book on the Gilberts, he mentions not only the armor woven out of coconut fiber (what we see here), but also a ray skin (i.e. rawhide/shagreen) "cuirass" that was tied to the front to protect the belly. I've always wondered why the Kiribatian armor was tied in front with that vulnerable little cord, but I've never seen the ray skin piece that Grimble says went over it. Question: has anyone ever seen the alleged ray-skin part of this armor? Did it exist? The fact that they're willing to use a puffer fish skin as a helmet suggests that the ray skin story could be real. F

17th August 2006, 02:48 PM	#2
katana Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Kent Posts: 2,658	Another shark tooth 'sword' recently finished on eBay....seems alittle expensive? http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.d...MEWA:IT&ih=018

18th August 2006, 05:50 PM	#3
VANDOO (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: OKLAHOMA, USA Posts: 3,138	FROM WHAT LITTLE I HAVE BEEN ABLE TO FIND TO READ AND WHAT I HAVE SEEN OVER THE YEARS I HAVE COME TO A FEW CONCLUSIONS. THESE WEAPONS WOULD BE DANGEROUS IF THE WARRIORS WERE NAKED BUT WITH THE ALMOST COMPLETE COVERAGE OF THE ARMOR A FATALITY WOULD BE VERY UNLIKELY. SOME EXAMPLES HAVE THE ANGLE OF THE SHARK TEETH POINTED FOREWARD AND OTHERS HAVE THEM POINTED BACK ,THAT WOULD INDICATE A LUNGING ATTACK FOR THE BEST SLICEING ACTION OR A PULLING BACK FOR BEST RESULTS ON THE OTHER STYLE. THE SWORD POINTS ARE NOT LONG ENOUGH BEFORE THE TEETH START AND WOULD STOP DEEP PENETRATION SO RUNNING SOMEONE THRU WAS PROBABLY NOT THE MAIN OFFENSIVE FUNCTION OF THE WEAPON. THE WEAPONS ARE RELATIVY LIGHT WEIGHT SO KNOCKING YOUR OPPONENT OUT WOULD NOT BE LIKELY ESPECIALLY WITH THE PORQUIEPINE FISH HELMUTS WHICH WOULD BE FRAGILE AND EASILY DESTROYED BUT HAVE FIBER PROTECTION UNDERNEATH. PERHAPS THE OBJECT WAS TO KNOCK OFF THE OTHER GUYS HAT THE DESCRIPTIONS I HAVE READ STATED THAT THE WOMEN AND OTHER VILLAGERS WERE PRESENT AND STOOD CLOSE ENOUGH BEHIND THEIR WARRIOR TO THROW ROCKS AND STUFF AT HIS OPPONENT. THE RAISED PART OF THE ARMOR BEHIND HIS HEAD WAS TO KEEP HIM FROM GETTING HIT IN THE BACK OF THE HEAD BY HIS OWN SUPPORTERS. THEY DID NOT THROW SPEARS OR USE SLINGS SO WERE NOT TRYING TO KILL THE OTHER WARRIOR JUST DISTRACT HIM. I HAVE SEEN A FEW OF THE BIG SWORDS WITH THE GUARDS THAT WERE OVER 9 FEET LONG. ALL THIS INFORMATION LEADS ME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THESE WERE MOSTLY USED IN SOME KIND OF FORMAL FIGHTING CONTEST WHERE THERE WERE RULES AND JUDGES. THE NON COMBATANTS WERE NOT IN DANGER IF THEIR WARRIORS LOST OR THEY WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN THERE. THE WEAPONS USED WERE NOT VERY EFFECTIVE AGAINST THE ARMOR USED, THE FACE BEING THE ONLY EXPOSED AREA AND PROBABLY AGAINST THE RULES TO STAB WITH THE POINT BUT POSSIBLY OK TO SLASH. THE FIGHTING STYLE WOULD BE LIKE FENCING WITH LUNGES AND SWINGS BEING KEPT IN CLOSE. A GOOD HEAVY WOOD WAR CLUB WOULD HAVE BEEN MORE EFFECTIVE AGAINST THIS ARMOR THAN THE SHARKTOOTH WEAPONS SO KILLING WAS NOT THE PURPOSE OF THE CONTEST. THE FIGHTS MAY HAVE DETERMINED THE WARRIORS COURAGE AND PRESTIGE OR MAY HAVE DETERMINED WHICH VILLAGE HAD THE BEST WARRIORS? IT COULD ALSO HAVE BEEN A WAY TO SETTLE DISPUTES AMONG TRIBES SUCH AS WHO GOT TO FISH OR PICK COCONUTS IN CERTIAN AREAS. THEY COULD ALSO HAVE HAD SOME RELIGIOUS OR RITUAL PURPOSE AND PERHAPS THE LOSER WAS SACRIFICED AFTERWARDS. CONJECTURE AND GUESSES BASED ON VERY LITTLE KNOWN FACTS BUT POSSIBLY ACCURATE IN PART.

21st July 2013, 07:14 PM	#5
VANDOO (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: OKLAHOMA, USA Posts: 3,138	http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=17420 http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...RSHALL+ISLANDS JUST ADDING THESE POSTS HERE TO BUILD A MORE COMPREHENSIVE REFRENCE IN ONE PLACE.

21st July 2013, 11:56 PM	#6
KuKulzA28 Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: between work and sleep Posts: 731	I'd like to add that the Calusa of Florida were known for their sharktooth swords. But I don't know of any surviving examples. Also, Hawaiian warriors for their leiomano, varieties of shark tooth swords and knuckle-duster-daggers... Unlike the kribati warriors, they were not known to have much armor, though the Hawaiians did have capes which could be used to help deflect... and the object often was to kill... Having said that, yes I agree with Vandoo, sharktooth weapons seem to be only good against naked flesh.