Fiji’s hardwood forests have spawned many blessings for centuries.
They provided the necessary raw materials for building some of the fastest environmental-friendly sea crafts that traversed the world’s biggest ocean and accessing the hundreds of islands scattered within its boundary.
Also, forests were fundamentally the indigenous people’s source of food, herbal medicines and cooking fuel, habitat for totemic animals and trees, and timber for building homes and designing traditional artefacts.
But among the forests’ most treasured value, is its use as raw materials for the manufacture of revered war clubs.
People who lived in old Fiji developed and used a variety of weapons.
They fashioned spears ten to fifteen feet long, powerful bows and arrows and slings for throwing stones.
Although each of these had its special use and capabilities, none superseded the club in acclaim.
“Whether his tribe was at war or at peace, he (the warrior) was seldom without it, for until the latter half of last century no Fijian left the precincts of his house unarmed,” said historian, R. A. Derrick, in “Notes on Fijian Clubs”.
“Whenever he left his village, even to work in his garden, he carried his club on his shoulder; and should he meet a man in the path, the club remained in that position, at the alert, until on friendly recognition both men lowered their weapon in greeting.”
While the whale’s tooth reigned as the most valuable traditional item and tanoa as a commodity associated with sacred rituals, the war club, though stained with blood and the horrors of war, had its own peculiar appeal and charm.
Through the war club, kingdoms were forged and strengthened, and power changed hands between the victor and the crushed.
It is said that in peace times, when a man visited another village, he would never go unarmed for fear that villagers would say, “he despises us. He comes without weapons”.
Hence, the warrior always carried a “dress” club out of necessity and courtesy.
When explorers, traders and colonials settlers came to Fiji, they were amazed by the standard of craftsmanship used in the design of war clubs.
Up until the end of British colonial rule, it was deemed the most fascinating souvenir that truly encapsulated the Fijian way of life.
Art collectors and British officials often took these war tools with them when they returned home.
The savagery associated with the club gave it a special character and identity that have continued to captivate foreigners.
Today, many war clubs from the 1800s find themselves inside glass exhibit cases of many of the world’s museums.
For instance, the 150-year-old Metropolitan Museum of Art on New York City’s fabled Fifth Avenue has war clubs and several other artefacts from Fiji.
These items are located in a 40,000 square-foot section called “The Michael C. Rockefeller Wing” which holds a collection of art from Africa, Oceania and the Americas.
According to Wikipedia records, the Africa, Oceania and the Americas collection ranges from 40,000-year-old indigenous Australian rock paintings, to a group of 15-foot-tall (4.6 m) memorial poles carved by the Asmat people of New Guinea and a priceless collection of ceremonial and personal objects from the Nigerian Court of Benin donated by German art dealer Klaus Perls.
Some Fiji wooden artefacts at The Met, including war clubs, are totokia, dave ni waiwai, masi kesa, culacula, sali, vunikau vulibuli vonotabua, iulatavatava and sedre ni waiwai.
The types and styles of Fijian war club come in an exceptionally wide range.
Upon close inspection, one would notice the high degree of skill and patience taken while fashioning these clubs especially, that were to be used by chiefs.
Although certain types appear to have been more in favour than others, there was room for personal choice in the pattern, miner details, decorative and finish.
The most elaborately designed clubs, called culacula, were for priests and chiefs.
They delivered blows with the thin edge of their blades and had the ability to cut or snap through bones rather than simply shattering it.
“The Tongans may have developed them as a shield-club when they first encountered Fijian war arrows in the mid to late 1700s,” noted a Fiji Museum online article.
“Chiefs and priests, who would stand at the front of the war party, were particularly at risk of flying “missiles”.
Anatole von Hugel was famous for amassing a large collection of “Fijian artefacts of unsurpassed quality”.
He took them back with him Britain on his return home.
After being appointed as the inaugural director of the new Cambridge Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, he donated his collection from Fiji to the institution, many of them war clubs.
Sir Arthur Gordon later added to the Fijian collection at the Cambridge Museum.
While nowadays clubs can be spotted only during dances and traditional ceremonies such as funerals of high chiefs, in the early days, as you’d imagine, the wooden artefact was a common sight.
Its familiarity and prevalence never made it unimportant.
In fact, in the eyes of both indigenous Fijians and curious white men, the clubs had a special place in people’s minds and imagination.
Before the arrival of cameras, the white man-made meticulous freehand sketches of them while recording information in the pages of history books.
Among the earliest published sketches of Fijian clubs were those that accompanied the Narrative of Dumont d’Urville’s first voyage to the Pacific (1926-29), and in Fiji and the Fijians by Thomas Williams (London, 1858).
D’Urville was in Fiji waters for only a short while between May and June 1826, and his artist recorded only a few weapons.
Nevertheless, his sketches are believed to be reasonably accurate when compared to William’s drawings.
All sketches and later photos show that ancient Fijians classified their clubs with a good sense of appreciation of their use and design.
One of the well-known writers to classify traditional Fijian clubs was R.A Derrick who was able to categorise them into eight distinctive groups based on their purpose and form.
He classed them as striking clubs, crushing clubs, cutting clubs, piercing clubs, missile or throwing clubs, dress or token clubs, ceremonial clubs and dance clubs.
According to Derrick, “nature and art” both influenced the fashioning of certain types of a war club.
“Some being formed from the butts of uprooted trees, the heads of others being shaped in the growing tree and requiring attention for months and even years,” noted Derrick.
“On the other hand many were carved from slabs of hardwood split from the tree; others again were simple bludgeons, cut from the heartwood of selected trees and balanced with precision.”
Generally, war clubs were neither too heavy nor too light.
This allowed both effective and ease of use during the battle and at the same time, provide an inflicting lethal blow.
Furthermore, each club was suited to its user’s physical built, status and personal taste.
On the other hand, ceremonial clubs were generally weightier than war clubs because they were made for carrying on the shoulders and not for fierce fighting.
Because ceremonial clubs were not used for crushing and striking, they had the luxury of being carved using fine and intricate patterns.
Some were heavily decorated with inlaid bones and other primitive decorative materials.
According to an article on the website www.new-guinea-tribal-arts.com Fiji had “more styles of native weapons than anywhere else in the Pacific”.
This has been attributed to the fact that Fiji was “beset by a long history of warfare and rampant ceremonial cannibalism”.
Another online article on Pitt Rivers Museum website noted that the type of club used in Fiji was “not surprising” given the “nature of Fijian society”.
“Warfare was part of everyday life on the islands whereby the early 1800s chaos reigned with local feuding and increasingly bloody civil wars becoming commonplace,” the article said.
“The different type of club illustrates that demand was great. The highly diversified array of Fijian war clubs reveals that the Fijian had devised a weapon for every type of stroke.”
- History being the subject it is, a group’s version of events may not be the same as that held by another group. When publishing one account, it is not our intention to cause division or to disrespect other oral traditions. Those with a different version can contact us so we can publish your account of history too — Editor.
