That's not equivilant. If you practiced with a stick that has a rock or metal rock on it, a stick is a stick. If there was an important person with the thing on it, it's a trophy that would be claimed and replaced after they were disposed of. If you look at old art works there might be some difference between someone using a mace with a direct lever stick, or someone with a flail. Most art was commisioned after the fact. So there might be symbology instead of practical associated with manuscripts people had a sense of humor about it. Art is independent of reality but often mirrors it. I could say right now something non-controversial and a million years later everyone would decide it's amazingly unimportant but be confused trying to interpret it. So if grug from bear clan had a mace of wolf bone, we get a piece of art from panda clan that insists you can't eat meat. You end up with us speculating that there is clearly some evidence that people would act like cunts and cut down what they looted off the dead to make their own art out of. <|endoftext|> 