Pre-contact Maori whalebone club

[Ron Anderson]

This is a club from a very esteemed collection that went up for auction. Hopefully this means its a good piece. It certainly has providence.

It is unlike any other Maori clubs I know of. Does not conform to the standard types I know. But then I have come across references of clubs that don't.

It is whalebone, and it is old. Very old. I think it is pre-contact.

But I'm anxious to hear what other people think.

This sort of thing is extremely unusual.

It owes me a fair bit of money.

The collection it came from included some of the rarest artefacts I have ever seen – human heads from Borneo, exquisite two metre Benin ivory walking sticks, African ivory war horns, and carved ivory pieces from China that went for tens of thousands of dollars.

[Gavin Nugent]

Hi Ron,

I too would be interested in hearing more about this from learned members.
Personally, I do not think this is pre-contact Maori though, my opinion only based on the manner of carving and only seeing an image, I would look to other Islands. Carving aside, the whale bone however does seem to have a lot of age to it and whale bone doesn't come cheap in any form.

PM me if you like as I know a bit more about a number of the items from GES.

Gav

[Tim Simmons]

That is very nice indeed. The head is beautifully carved, look at the fine work around the nose. Ron in my opinion this is not Maori or pre contact, as the circle design elements are made with a pair of steel dividers. I think what you have may well be a genuine North American NW Coast piece. You are a very lucky man!!!!! :cool:

[VANDOO]

I AGREE THAT THIS CLUB MORE CLOSELY RESEMBLES THE WHALEBONE CLUBS FOUND IN THE NORTH WEST COAST OF NORTH AMERICA. THEY ARE GENERALLY A LITTLE LONGER THAN THE MAORI SHORT CLUBS AND YOU SEE VERY FEW OF THEM COMPARED TO THE MAORI CLUBS. WHAT ARE ITS MEASUREMENTS?. SEE THE THREE POSTS ON MAORI SHORT CLUBS FOR PICTURES AND INFO ON MAORI CLUBS. IF THE PROVENANCE IS ACCURATE IT IS POSSIBLE TO BE MAORI BUT FROM LOOKING AT IT AND ITS APPARENT LENGTH I WOULD GO WITH N.W. COAST.
I INCLUDE THREE PICTURES OF TWO WHALEBONE WAR CLUBS N.W. COAST AND A PICTURE OF SEVERAL SNOW KNIVES USED FOR CONSTRUCTION WAY UP NORTH.
EITHER WAY YOU HAVE A VERY RARE AND DESIRABLE CLUB, I HAVE NEVER HAD THE PLEASURE OF HANDELING SUCH A CLUB SO CONGRADULATIONS ON ACTUALLY OWNING ONE, I AM ENVIOUS. :)

[fearn]

I'm also skeptical about a pre-contact age on that club. However, I think it came from the south Pacific, not the Pacific Northwest.

Here's my reasoning:

1. Pre-Contact vs. Post-Contact: The carving looks like it was done with metal tools. Granted, I haven't done any carving on whale bone (for the obvious reason of not having any), but Pre-Contact lines would have been ground and chipped in with stone tools. This tends to make for round bottoms and smooth edges. If you can imagine free-handing those circular incisions using (perhaps) a stick and some sand, or an awl made from something, then you'll see what the issue is. With a metal drill, it's a trivial figure to make. Ditto with the edges around the mouth. Now, if you can see work marks that makes you think someone laboriously incised all that stuff, then Pre-Contact looks more likely.

2. South Pacific vs. North Pacific: to me, it looks like Polynesian work. My thought is that in the early days, a number of Polynesians, including Maori, served on the whaling boats. I could see such a sailor making this club on-board or afterward, using some bone from one of their catches.

That's my 0.0002 pence,

F

[Tim Simmons]

Hmmm, back on the made by saliors. From your pictures I cannot see much smoothness from handling. That does not have to mean much. I can see the carving of the face fitting many NW pacific masks. I could see melanesian style carving but the form of the whole thing and the overall shape of the handle part do seem so very similar to many NW Pacific pieces. I think you sould send pics to museums in London and Washington DC.

P.S. I have to say that the quality of the carving suggests a specialist or an artist, at the very least somebody accomplished and used to balancing design.

[Spunjer]

It reminds me of Ku or Kukailimoku, Hawaiian war god...

[Tim Simmons]

Ku has a fierce mouth?

This really is something to get stuck into. These pictures which are very helpful in showing Hawaiian sculpture outside of the really flashy museum pieces in so many standard publications. The pictures are from "Old Hawai'i. an ethnography of Hawai'i in the 1880s - ethnologisches museum Staatliche Museen zu Berlin 2007" Cleary the whale bone club is not Hawaiian work. Do not see it as other polynesian work either. An exception is Fiji which is equally melanesia. I could add more pictures of decorative sculpture all strongly hawaiian and far away from the work on the club.

The figure standing on the ring like object is an armband.

[Ron Anderson]

Thanks for your responses, everyone.

Sorry to get back so late, but the time difference means I sleep while you work, and vice versa.

I'll take measurements of the item and post them, hopefully today.

I agree it isn't likely to be Maori but I really don't want to infuse the debate with my quite uninformed conjectures. I was surprised by the NW America connection but the form of the club is quite strikingly similar to those examples. All I can say is my club is better artwork than those shown here. However, I wouldn't be at all surprised if you are right Tim.

The collection it came from included a lot of stuff from NW America, predominantly innuit. Some amazing fossik, walrus ivory sculpture and implements. Same truly outstanding stuff.

So that is entirely possible.

For me, this thing resembles the Easter Island heads, which may mean nothing.

It's worth noting when handing this club that it feels well balanced. It is weighty and substantial.

The collection it came from really was an exceptional collection of ethnographic artefacts. It came from an American - Lillian Hoffman who lived in Australia. Famously eccentric collector with a philanthropic bent who was planning on setting up a museum at one point to house her collection> It seems she collected from around the world.

I don't think this came from a sailor because she was in the habit of buying artefacts, sometimes at high prices, with the intention of preserving the cultures she was buying from, and supporting the arts in those cultures. She was conspicuously wealthy.

The auctioneer didn't know much about the club and called it Maori. I'm fairly certain he was unsure about the item. The age of it of course was indisputable. It kind of looked Maori. And it was one of hundreds of items he had to identify after her death.

We had a chat. He didn't know what the club was. But I think it's an exceptional one, whatever it is. I think this is an authentic piece of something.

[VANDOO]

I HAD MISPLACED SOME PICTURES OF THESE CLUBS BUT FOUND THEM IN A OLD POST BY RUEL 7/21/2004 "ETHNO WEAPONS IN SCOTLAND PART 2" THE CLUB UNDER GLASS IN THE DISPLAY TABLE IS FROM THE HUNTERIAN MUSEUM GLASGOW UNIVERSITY CAMPUS, TAKEN BY RUEL. THE OTHERS ARE ONES FROM AN OLD BOOK AND SOME WERE COLLECTED BY CAPTIAN COOK SO THEY DO GO BACK BEFORE RECORDED HISTORY ON THE N.W. COAST OF NORTH AMERICA.

[Ron Anderson]

Hi Vandoo

Thanks, that's extremely helpful.

I am strongly convinced of the case that this is a North West American, Nootka Sounds or somesuch, piece. Very old.

Look at the second club in the second picture you're just sent. Note the concentric circles that mirror the ones on my club.

I must say, it's a surprise. But I can't say I'm unhappy with that outcome. Though I'm still looking for some good Maori clubs.

I have to say, I had doubts all along about this being Maori.

The other thing strongly indicating its origins is the fact that there were so many other NW American items on auction. There were no Maori items, and the only other clubs were 3 Fijian wooden clubs. And I bought those too. :)

I'd like to ask this question: are you sure these were cut by metal tools? I have marine ivory tools, innuit, from this region (bought at the same auction incidentally) that I'm pretty sure could do this job just as precisely as metal tools. These are strong, hardy, precise instruments. In fact, in that part of the world marine ivory frequently replaced metal in kitchen utensils and the like. And I think still does to some extent. The tools I have include bow drills and other such tools, entirely made out of walrus ivory, and they are very, very strong indeed.

Will post pictures of these tools soon.

Regards
Ron

[VANDOO]

I SEE NO REASON IRON TOOLS WOULD BE REQUIRED TO CARVE THESE WHALE BONE CLUBS. THE N.W. COAST AND IN NEW ZEALAND BOTH HAVE PLENTY OF GOOD STONE AVAILABLE FOR CARVING AND THERE ARE MANY VERY WELL CARVED PICES OF ART THAT ARE ALL PRECONTACT. THE ONES BROUGHT BACK BY CAPTIAN COOK WERE ALL PRECONTACT EXAMPLES. UNFORTUNATELY I DON'T HAVE THE BOOK AND ONLY THE PICTURES SO CAN'T POINT OUT WHICH EXAMPLES WERE COOK'S. THEY MAKE SOME REMARKABLE IVORY CARVINGS AND TOOLS USING STONE TOOLS AND IVORY IS MUCH MORE DIFFICULT TO WORK THAN BONE. THE CLUB YOU HAVE MAY HAVE LAIN BURRIED AT AN OLD CAMP JUDGING FROM THE PICTURES OF THE PATINA.
THE LOW ISLANDS WHERE GOOD MATERIALS ESPECIALLY GOOD HARD STONE WERE LIMITED TO SHELL, BONE, TEETH, WOOD AND SHARKSKIN. THEIR ART WAS LIMITED BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF MATERIALS AND GOOD TOOLS. OFTEN THEIR ART CHANGED AND BECAME BETTER AND MORE COMMON AFTER THE ARRIVAL OF STEEL TOOLS. MANY LIMITATIONS WERE REMOVED, AS THEIR TOOLS HAD BEEN SO POOR AND LABOR INTENSIVE. NEW TECKNIQUES DEVELOPED AS A RESULT OF THE BETTER TOOLS AND THE COMPARATIVE EASE OF CARVING AS WELL AS THE ABILITY TO DO THINGS THE OLD TOOLS WERE NOT CAPABLE OF. BUT DESPITE IT ALL THEY DID DO SOME REMARKABLE WORKS OF ART BEFORE STEEL. :)

[Norman McCormick]

Hi,
Some better photos of the piece in Glasgow University's Hunterian Museum, it is labeled as originating in British Columbia. www.huntsearch.gla.ac.uk/ to search through the collection although not all items have been photographed.
Regards,
Norman.

[fearn]

Since I am a bit of a fan of PNW art, can I point out how many details are MISSING in Ron's club?

In PNW art, the shape of the parts--eyes particularly, also noses, mouths, ears, etc--are all highly meaningful. For example, the example Norman just posted may well represent an anthropomorphic hawk.

Ron's club has none of these details.

Additionally, that round eye that Ron's club show is alien to what I know of Pacific Northwest traditions. Look at all the beautiful examples already posted, and you will see what I mean.

Best,

F

[Ron Anderson]

Hi Fearn

Yes, this doesn't look too anthromorphic, it is clearly a human head. But there's a fine line, isn't there? It's not far from being the kind of head that could be an anthropomorphic eagle or somesuch.

I don't know what to say about that. I don't know enough that region. Of course, if you look at photo 6 in the last picture poster by Vandoo, I'd argue that's pretty much the same thing - a human head. I have doubt that's an animal or anthropomorphic head.

As for they eye, I don't know, I'll keep looking. Some of those eyes in those picures don't look too far off, though admittedly they're not the same.

Best

Ron

[Ron Anderson]

Hi Fearn

Also, look at club 2 on that last picture posted by Vandoo. That is a greater simplicity of form than the other clubs, and far less detail. Much like my club.

There appears to be a fair bit of variation here, as there is in most forms within any cultural style.

All in all, I still think it's strongly likely that the club has been correctly identified as belonging to this region.

Ron

[Gavin Nugent]

Since I am a bit of a fan of PNW art, can I point out how many details are MISSING in Ron's club?

In PNW art, the shape of the parts--eyes particularly, also noses, mouths, ears, etc--are all highly meaningful. For example, the example Norman just posted may well represent an anthropomorphic hawk.

Ron's club has none of these details.

Additionally, that round eye that Ron's club show is alien to what I know of Pacific Northwest traditions. Look at all the beautiful examples already posted, and you will see what I mean.

Best,

F


Well noted Fearn, at face value I'd tend to agree when viewed side by side with the clear images from elsewhere that are provided but only to a degree based on comparison to the black and white line drawings, they look simpler but you wouldn't find an arguement from me based on your interest in the regions art, I just find these beauties very interesting and not studied myself.

Ron, perhaps if you can provide more detailed, closer and more focused images, parallels in age, stylings and idiosyncrasies of these regions may be more readily identified rather than a broad region approach in ID.

Gav

[VANDOO]

WITH ANY FORM OF CLUB THERE IS A WIDE RANGE IN CRAFTSMANSHIP ESPECIALLY IF EACH WARRIOR IS EXPECTED TO MAKE HIS OWN WEAPONS. STATUS AS WELL AS PERSONEL PREFRENCE ALSO PLAYS A PART SOME PREFER A ORNATE ITEM AND SOME A PLAIN ONE REQUIRING LESS TIME AND WORK TO MAKE. PERHAPS YOUR RANK DETERMINED HOW YOU WERE ALLOWED TO DECORATE YOUR PERSONAL BELONGINGS AS IN MANY OCEANIC SOCIETYS.
THE MAORI OF NEW ZEALAND AND THE TRIBES OF THE NORTH WEST COAST OF AMERICA HAVE MANY SIMULARITYS ONE OF WHICH IS THE USE OF ABALONE AS INLAY IN CARVINGS AND WAR CLUBS. THEIR LIFE STYLE HAS MANY SIMULARITYS ALSO EXCEPT THE MAORI DIDN'T HAVE WAR ARMOR OR TOTUM POLES ALTHOUGH SOME OF THEIR CARVINGS ARE LARGE AND CONTAIN SEVERAL FIGURES.
NORMAN THANKS FOR POSTING BETTER PICTURES OF THAT CLUB AS IT IS AN OUTSTANDING EXAMPLE. :)

[Ron Anderson]

Certainly, I will endeavour to do that.

It is in storage, along with most of my collection. I am going through there to pick something else up.

However, I think the similarity between the figure on my club and that of club 6 in the last picture provided by Vandoo is signiicant. It can hardly be ignored simply because it's a line drawing and not a photo. Line drawings are all that are preserved of clubs that are long gone.

I will say the photo reflects the poor liht in the storage area so I'm not sure any other photos I post will be much better, but let's see. Certainly, the colour of the patina in the photo is not the same when viewed directly.

[Gavin Nugent]

Certainly, I will endeavour to do that.

It is in storage, along with most of my collection. I am going through there to pick something else up.

However, I think the similarity between the figure on my club and that of club 6 in the last picture provided by Vandoo is signiicant. It can hardly be ignored simply because it's a line drawing and not a photo. Line drawings are all that are preserved of clubs that are long gone.

I will say the photo reflects the poor liht in the storage area so I'm not sure any other photos I post will be much better, but let's see. Certainly, the colour of the patina in the photo is not the same when viewed directly.

Yes I agree and as Vandoo has noted there is much to keep in mind too. Great to hear I look forward to the images. There are plenty of people here who can offer a hand with photography help and or suggestions.

Gav

[Ron Anderson]

I also wonder if the concentric circles in my club once held moth of pearl inlays that are now gone.

I've googled pictures of early clubs with magnificent mother of pearl inlays up the frame of the club exactly where the concentric of my club line up. (Two examples on exhibit in Edinburgh spring to mind) These inlays were square, but that again is easy to understand in terms of the natural differences in personal artistic styles etc. Is it therefore also possible that there were mother of pearl inlays in the eyes at some point?

Just a thought.

Perhaps close ups will help provide some answers.

[Ron Anderson]

One last note from me before I post the pictures.

Most of these clubs seem to have an eagle or hawk imagine, anthropomorphic, on the hilt. If you look at both the line drawings and the photos they all seem to conform to a head with the shape of an eagle/hawk/bird of prey. There don't seem to be other kinds of animals shown. This I have also read online from other people investigating these clubs. They are predominantly eagle-like heads, with human characteristics.

However, looking at them all you'll see that there are vastly different artistic representations of these bird heads. It seems to me that all these clubs essentially have the same idea to them in depicting a hawk or eagle, but some are more humanlike than others, some are overtly birdlike.

I can certainly see eagle-like characteristics in the head on my club too. Note the pointed nose, very bird like. The eyes too are round and bird like. I would go so far as to say that mine may simply be on the extreme of the more humanoid end of the spectrum of these clubs, while other clubs are on the more birdlike end. Others are in between.

Am I making sense?

[Tim Simmons]

Yes Ron clear as a bell. When I get home I will post masks with the same style of facial features.

[fearn]

I also wonder if the concentric circles in my club once held moth of pearl inlays that are now gone.

I've googled pictures of early clubs with magnificent mother of pearl inlays up the frame of the club exactly where the concentric of my club line up. (Two examples on exhibit in Edinburgh spring to mind) These inlays were square, but that again is easy to understand in terms of the natural differences in personal artistic styles etc. Is it therefore also possible that there were mother of pearl inlays in the eyes at some point?

Just a thought.

Perhaps close ups will help provide some answers.

One thing I don't recall seeing is a perfectly round eye, centered in a circle.

The PNW artisans prefer a rounded lozenge. I don't have the book with me that covers the details, but each pupil shape was supposed to define a particular species. One didn't mix a wolf eye with an eagle nose, for instance. I suspect the tradition arose because they used chisels to make the holes, but regardless, it now is part of the style.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but it's really difficult to make perfect circles by hand, and to me, these look like they were made with a compass and/or a drill bit. Neither technology is Pre-Contact for either the Pacific Northwest or Polynesia. The fact that you've got three such circles that appear to be the same diameter really makes me think that European technology was involved.

Best,

F

[David]

Fearn makes an excellent point. If you examine this closely all the circles appear extremely regular and perfect. It is hard to imagine that these were each done by hand in a pre-contact environment wit stone or ivory tools. To my eye this is obviously an authentic piece, but made after European contact. I would place it amongst the NW clubs though. It shows more similarities than differences to me.

[Robert]

Hello, Though I know absolutely nothing about these clubs I do know that making true circles is a very easy task (something I learned in the Boy Scout years ago) by simply attaching a piece of flint to the side of a round pointed stick, making a small indent to place the point in and and rotating it by rubbing it between your hands just like you're trying to star a fire. The size of the circle just depends on the diameter of the stick you use. If you are real industrious, you can use a bow to turn the stick. :D


Robert

PS
I forgot to mention, you carve a flat spot on the side of the pointed stick where you are going to mount the piece of flint or what ever sharp item you are going to use.

[Tim Simmons]

Mask same as the handle.

[fearn]

Just for clarification, Robert, are you talking about drilling a hole or drilling a concentric circle?

I agree that drilling a circular hole is easy. Drilling a concentric circle is trickier, because you've got to have a tough, yet hollow bit, and then (most importantly for this piece) you've got to do it three times in a row the same way, and then center a hole in each circle. As I said, this is all tricky. It's even more tricky if it's not part of one's normal artistic repertoire.

What makes me suspicious is that there are three of those concentric circles. If all three are the same size, that's really suspicious, because exactly duplicating the size of such features is a real chore if you're doing it freehand, and there's no particular reason to do it in this design. Conversely, if you have a drill bit with a groove on the outside or anything similar, that's the design you'll get.

F

[Robert]

Hello Fearn, I'm talking about making a concentric circle not drilling a hole. The center hole comes first, then the circle. One way it is done is the way described above and another way is the use of a spool on a shaft with a sharp cutting bit inserted in the spool. Both ways use a center shaft with a point and can be rotated by hand or the use of a bow. Here is a link that might interest you http://www.jstor.org/pss/282168 I just wish that there were pictures to show what I am having a problem describing.

Robert

[VANDOO]

I SUPPOSE THIS DRILL WOULD WORK LIKE A COMPASS WITH A CENTER SPIKE TO MAINTAIN THE CENTER AND THE OTHER POINT (A PENCIL) OR A FLINT BLADE WHICH WILL ROTATE AT THE SAME DISTANCE AROUND THE CENTER POINT. A HOLE SAW WORKS ON THE SAME PRINCIPLE WITH THE CENTER DRILL BUT HAS A ROUND BLADE. JUDGEING FROM THE SKILL OF THEIR CARVINGS IT WOULD NOT SUPRIZE ME IF THEY HAD THESE TOOLS CRUDE THOUGH THEY MAY BE. MANY TRIBES SEEM TO HAVE HAD LITTLE PROBLEM MAKEING PERFECT CIRCLES IN CARVING, SAND ART, POTTERY AND ELSEWHERE AS THE MOON AND SUN WERE OFTEN WELL DRAWN CIRCLES.
PERHAPS A SIMPLE CORD WITH A CENTER PIN WAS USED TO MARK THEM OUT. THE NATIVE AMERICANS BOTH NORTH AND SOUTH WERE CERTIANLY ADVANCED ENOUGH TO HAVE FOUND THESE CONCEPTS ON THEIR OWN.
I WOULD NOT BE SURPRIZED TO FIND OTHER ANIMALS CARVED ON THESE CLUBS AS DIFFERENT TRIBES AND GROUPS HAD DIFFERENT TOTUMS. BEAR CLAN, EAGLE CLAN, KILLER WHALE CLAN, ECT. IF MOST OF THE LINE DRAWN CLUBS WERE COLLECTED BY CAPTIAN COOK FROM THE SAME CLAN THAT COULD ACCOUNT FOR THE PREVALANCE OF THE EAGLE FORMS. NOTABLE WARRIORS OFTEN HAD A HELMET IN THE FORM OF THEIR TOTUM THIS IS FOUND IN SOUTH AMERICA AS WELL THE JAGUAR AND EAGLE BEING WELL REPRESENTED.
I AM OFTEN SUPRIZED TO LEARN SOMETHING NEW OR AT LEAST DISCOVER NEW POSSIBILITYS. TODAY AT THE ARTEFACT SHOW I SAW AN OLD ARTEFACT RECENTLY FOUND HERE IN OKLAHOMA THAT RESEMBLES A SNOW KNIFE. WHICH BRINGS UP THE POSSIBILITY THAT NATIVES THIS FAR SOUTH MAY HAVE BUILT IGLOOS DURING THE ICE AGE. THAT IS SOMETHING THAT HAS NEVER CROSSED MY MIND BUT IS IN THE REALM OF POSSIBILITY. OF COURSE IT MAY HAVE SERVED AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT PURPOSE AND MAY NOT BE 10 THOUSAND YEARS OLD??

[Ron Anderson]

everyone, this is a fantastic discussion and i do appreciate your contribution. I will post photos of the NW American (Innuit?) bow and drill I purchased at the auction. This is a simple set but there were larger and more capable ones, beautiful marine ivory pieces with fine carvings. I suspect such tools would be capable of completing that task as well as any metal tool. I don't believe these tools were European inspired. i think the design is essentially local and probably very old. anyone feel free to correct me if you know better.

I'll post the pictures soon.

[Ron Anderson]

I am increasingly of the opinion that it is incorrect to assume that concentric circles are outside the capability of pre-contact indians on the West Coast. Or that the craft evident in creating this club must come with the help of European tools.

This flies in the face of everything I know about ancient artefacts. And it flies in the face of the facts I've been able to glean on the tools used by NW American people.

In fact, today I was lucky enough to come across a great reference book – Indian & Eskimo Artifacts of North America. I will scan some of the tools highlighted in it when I can. These include prehistoric "drill flywheels" located in central California.

There are an endless array of Indian and Eskimo pre-contact tools pictured that boggle the mind with their innovation and sophistication, including bow drills, which would have been an incredibly effective and accurate instrument in the hands of any skilled artisan. Certainly, I do not see simple concentric circles as much of a challenge.

More than that, as a collector of middle eastern antiquities, I keep thinking of the incredibly artwork I've encountered in pre-industrial societies, including the Sumerians of circa 2500 BC. Particularly, the unbelievable artwork of cylinder seals, where the images were drilled into the much more difficult medium of rock and stone. These images were initially composed of –what else – circles, and then became more intricate and detailed during the second millennium BC. The drills they used weren't much different from the tools available to native Americans. Largely stone tools

These guys didn't have a Black & Decker.

In fact, I'd suggest we couldn't achieve the same result with our modern tools.

Please remember that whale bone is a much more benign material to work with than steatite, marble or lapis lazuli!

The more you investigate the notion, the more absurd it seems that we can't credit "pre-contact" cultures with that level of artistry. On top of this, we have the evidence of those line drawings, which show concentric circles all the way up the body of some of the clubs. Those line drawings almost certainly hail from early contacts with the culture concerned. I would not be surprised if they from the Captain Cook era, or shortly afterwards. At the very least, they were created before the invention of the camera, by someone who paid close attention to detail.

That said, I think the discussion has been valuable, so thanks everyone for your opinions.

Additional photos of the item will follow this post. I hope they are better, but I'm not much of a photographer.

I will publish scans and photos of tools as soon as I can.


Regards
Ron

[Ron Anderson]

More pictures, better light.

[Ron Anderson]

Last picture.

[Ron Anderson]

Regarding length, I'm afraid I forgot to bring along my tape measure, but estimation is that is about 45/50 cm long.

Roughly.

Regarding handling, I do perceive evidence of handling in the fact that the darkness of the patina fades quite a lot at the handle. This does appear to be because of handling. You'll see it gets much darker towards the end of the club.

[M ELEY]

I used to have a book on Native Americans in which there was a VERY old Tlingit club with concentric circles on it. (Actually, come to think of it, the book you list might just be the one?) The circles appeared perfectly round and I was intrigued that they could produce such a pattern. Perhaps we need to consider the material (porous whalebone) first. I mean, it's not like carving into granite. The whalers were able to make amazing shapes/scrimshaw with the most rudimentory of tools, so I imagine its possible. In any case, a very beautiful and amazing find, Ron!

[Gavin Nugent]

I used to have a book on Native Americans in which there was a VERY old Tlingit club with concentric circles on it. (Actually, come to think of it, the book you list might just be the one?) The circles appeared perfectly round and I was intrigued that they could produce such a pattern. Perhaps we need to consider the material (porous whalebone) first. I mean, it's not like carving into granite. The whalers were able to make amazing shapes/scrimshaw with the most rudimentory of tools, so I imagine its possible. In any case, a very beautiful and amazing find, Ron!

Circles are a easy to make, no question about that, millions of weapons all over the world have these displayed in wood, bone, steel, ivory etc.
What the real trick is looking at these points when the piece is in hand or under macro, this alone can often tell the subtle tell tale signs/clues ;) .

Gav

[M ELEY]

Gotcha, Gav. That does make sense. In other words, more research is needed. Still like the piece, though. I've always been fascinated with whalebone clubs.

[Gavin Nugent]

Gotcha, Gav. That does make sense. In other words, more research is needed. Still like the piece, though. I've always been fascinated with whalebone clubs.

I like it too Mark. I just want to know and understand it better, warts and all, for better or for worse. One thing, IMHO, it is a native made piece from the region but for me, without these details, much is left unsaid.
Not that I have the skill to do so but it makes me wonder, if I had the cash spare and the skills, would I travel a 100klms south to buy a pair of sperm whale jaw bones a dealer has and make myself some good ole clubs...oh to be as talented as someone I know in Hawaii...

Gav

[Ron Anderson]

There are some encouraging signs close up.

I am pretty confident about the authenticity of the piece, personally. I guess precise identification is still uncertain, and exact age.

The patina definitely extends to the surface within the circles. Which tells me the circles haven't been made recently. In other words, this is not an old bone that someone's found then carved. It was carved a long time ago. Judging by the patina, unless it was buried, and the condition suggests not, it is very old.

This more than anything is why I suggested pre-contact. Pre-contact is not that long ago. 1780s/1790s perhaps. Perhaps later, depending on the precise area.

That's a little over 200 years ago. A flash in the pan, really, and quite conceivable with this.

But then perhaps not. It's conjecture, of course.

However, how to tell whether it was carved by relatively modern or more primitive tools is not within my skill set.

I think that requires some hands-on experience. So if there are any archeologists here, some tips will be welcome.

There is of course the easy way - simple carbon dating. Does anybody know if this is an affordable option?

Also, with an organic material like bone, I guess it's possible to do DNA testing on this. Could that tell who has handled this? Probably not, I guess. But could it tell what kind of whale it was? This could help locate it too.

PS: I just remembered that the tool used by the ancient Sumerians/Acadians to create cylinger seal images was in fact a type of bow drill. The same kind of tool in use in NW America.

Just food for thought.

Regards
Ron

[David]

There is of course the easy way - simple carbon dating. Does anybody know if this is an affordable option?

Also, with an organic material like bone, I guess it's possible to do DNA testing on this. Could that tell who has handled this? Probably not, I guess. But could it tell what kind of whale it was? This could help locate it too.

Carbon dating is neither easy, nor necessarily accurate and it does require that you actually damage what you are testing as part of the artifact must be destroyed in the process. It is also not a cheap procedure.
DNA might help determine the whale species, but as for who handled the piece you may find your DNA on it and that of the seller and the seller before him, but i don't think you will be able to determine the people from whence this item came. That's a bit beyond the technology. It is also very expensive.

As for the patina on the handle, or lack of it, it does seem that the majority of these clubs had there handles wrapped. Is there any indication that yours was at one time as well?

[fearn]

I'll point out you don't even need a bow drill. A simple piece of Equisetum and sand, twirled in one's hands, will make a round hole in jade. Any effort to make fire by twirling a stick in wood will make a round hole.

All I can say to that is DUH!

Circles, especially concentric circles, are harder.

Three of them, the same size, are harder still. I don't think I ever said impossible.

Or are they the same size? In all this frenzy of "evidence," I'm not seeing numbers, nor am I seeing close-ups of those features or any other.

Remember, hard is not impossible.

However, the argument that Ron and others are putting forward is that, for reasons unknown, a Stone Age artist meticulously produced a piece that looks exactly as if it was made with steel tools.

What's fascinating is how we've gotten to the point where people are casting around for bits of evidence to prove their preconceptions, rather than objectively looking at the piece and asking what the evidence says.

Yes, a lot of money is involved, and perhaps that's the problem. If you want to objectively analyze a piece, I'd suggest looking at it as if one bought it for a song at a garage sale, and ignore the fact that a well-known collector owned it before you.

It might also be good to ask the well-known collectors here how often the picked up a mysterious piece of unknown provenance and held onto it, simply in the hope that, one day, it would all make sense. That is another type of evidence that no one on this thread is looking for.

F

[David]

Well Fearn, even if the circle (and these are not concentric circles as everyone keeps referring to them as, but a circle with a center point) were done with a european influenced tool i am not sure that we need to go completely in the opposite direction and discount this as an authentic item. Perhaps it isn't pre-contact, but are there reasons you doubt it's authenticity all together?
I still think that the circles look a bit too clean, deep and regular not to have been cut with metal, but i would love to see other examples of similar clubs with "stone age" provenance that have circles cut as well and uniformly as this item does.

[Ron Anderson]

Fearn

You need to brush up on your manners, mate. And your logic too.

You simply fail to convince. That's why you're being disregarded.

Not because we're all desperate to ensure the theory on the NW American origins of this piece is correct against the evidence.

I for one am quite happy to look at other explanations, but none are forthcoming. And frankly, you haven't convinced me of your expertise on NW American art to have me suddenly abandon reason and declare you are right.

Your theory that it was carved by a Polynesian sailor whiling his time away on a whale boat is hardly compelling, frankly. It really was 0.00000000 cents worth of contribution, as you yourself acknowledge.

[VANDOO]

WITHOUT PERSONALLY HANDELING THE ITEM ITS REALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO MAKE ACCURATE OBSERVATIONS FOR ANY OF US. IS IT POSSIBLE IT IS A MORE RECENT REPLICA AFTER CONTACT AND AQUIRING STEEL TOOLS THE ANSWER WITHOUT FURTHER PROOF IS YES. IS IT POSSIBLE IT IS AN AUTHENTIC PRE CONTACT EXAMPLE ITS THE SAME WITHOUT FURTHER PROOF YES. IT CAN'T BE BOTH BUT UNTIL MORE INFORMATION BECOMES AVAILABLE THERE IS NOTHING TO GET EXCITED OR ANGRY ABOUT :rolleyes:

I WOULD SUGGEST YOU LOOK ABOUT FOR AN ARTEFACT SHOW IN YOUR AREA OR CONTACT A MUSEUM. THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO MAKE A LIVING AUTHENDICATING ARTEFCTS I KNOW SEVERAL. THEY DO THIS THRU MANY YEARS OF EXPERIENCE AND CAN TELL MUCH LOOKING THRU A MICROSCOPE AND WITH OTHER SIMPLE NON DESTRUCTIVE TESTS. THEY USUALLY AUTHENDICATE STONE TOOLS, POTS AND SUCH BUT SHOULD EASILY BE ABLE TO TELL YOU IF STEEL TOOLS WERE USED. TO GET PAPER AUTHENDICATING A STONE POINT USUALLY RUNS AROUND $25.00 AND WILL MORE THAN PAY FOR THE TEST IF IT PASSES AND YOU PLAN TO TRY AND SELL THE POINT. THAT COULD ALSO GIVE A DEFINITE ANSWER AS TO HOW AND LIKELY WHEN IT WAS MADE. GOOD LUCK :D

[Tim Simmons]

Even post contact traditional weapons would have been used, as it would have taken many years for trade to make them outdated, and so what if the the circles were made by stone tools or a trade pair of steel dividers :shrug: .

[Gavin Nugent]

Easy Ron,

Funny thing them manners, thus far 3 emails and 2 PMs have been ignored. Everyone here is helping this info and choices that I have seen thus far...

Gav

[Ron Anderson]

Gav, I think that comment's a wee bit oversensitive. I have thanked everyone profusely for their involvement collectively more than once. You were included in that. I haven't responded to your email because I don't know what GES means.

As for assertions that I'm angry or excited, nothing could be further from the truth.

It's time to end this thread. Vandoo is correct. There's only so much you can tell through photographs. And the arguments have become polemical.

But it has been very illuminating.

So thank you AGAIN everyone. It's been good. We've all grown stronger and wiser. :)

If I discover anything more about this club, I'll let you know.

Regards
Ron

[David]

Even post contact traditional weapons would have been used, as it would have taken many years for trade to make them outdated, and so what if the the circles were made by stone tools or a trade pair of steel dividers :shrug: .
Thank you Tim. This is precisely what i've been saying . It seems that people are either saying it's pre-contact or it's a replica. I see no reason why it couldn't be post-contact and just as authentic in nature.
Hell, i would find it an interesting and valuable artifact even if it was carved by some salior aboard a and old whaler, though i am quite awate of the increased interest in NW Indian culture. :)
And everyone should chill on the taking offense front.

[Ron Anderson]

I'd like to just point out one thing.

I am completely ignorant of NW American culture. There has never been much awareness from my side of the desirability of such artefacts. I come from the other side of the world. I am a South African-born New Zealander of British/Swedish heritage who lives in Australia. I have never been to America. I have spent most of my life in the southern hemisphere.

I was of the opinion this was Maori or, at least, Polynesian. But then I'm no expert in that area either.

So the fact that I've embraced the idea that this is from the NW coast of America has been based exclusively on the evidence and indications presented here.

I have never had a clue as to the monetary worth of such artefacts and was actually of the impression that Maori artefacts are worth much more. Which may or may not still be the case, for all I know.

So that's hardly been a factor at all in my estimation. The things I have noted are:

1) the form of the club is a paddle club remarkable similar to those shown from NW America.
2) The figure of the club is strikingly similar to some shown in black and white line drawings from the year dot.
3) The circles in my club also mirror circles in line drawings kindly provided by Vandoo.

These have been immensely useful bits of information, so thanks to all, including Fearn.

Sorry if my response to you Fearn was pointed. We are all entitled to opinions, or course. But I'm afraid that is all that is possible here with the level of information on offer.

My feeling is this is a good club. And as I have said earlier, I acknowledge that currently the exact age and background are still uncertain.

Regards
Ron

[M ELEY]

WITHOUT PERSONALLY HANDELING THE ITEM ITS REALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO MAKE ACCURATE OBSERVATIONS FOR ANY OF US. IS IT POSSIBLE IT IS A MORE RECENT REPLICA AFTER CONTACT AND AQUIRING STEEL TOOLS THE ANSWER WITHOUT FURTHER PROOF IS YES. IS IT POSSIBLE IT IS AN AUTHENTIC PRE CONTACT EXAMPLE ITS THE SAME WITHOUT FURTHER PROOF YES. IT CAN'T BE BOTH BUT UNTIL MORE INFORMATION BECOMES AVAILABLE THERE IS NOTHING TO GET EXCITED OR ANGRY ABOUT :rolleyes:

I WOULD SUGGEST YOU LOOK ABOUT FOR AN ARTEFACT SHOW IN YOUR AREA OR CONTACT A MUSEUM. THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO MAKE A LIVING AUTHENDICATING ARTEFCTS I KNOW SEVERAL. THEY DO THIS THRU MANY YEARS OF EXPERIENCE AND CAN TELL MUCH LOOKING THRU A MICROSCOPE AND WITH OTHER SIMPLE NON DESTRUCTIVE TESTS. THEY USUALLY AUTHENDICATE STONE TOOLS, POTS AND SUCH BUT SHOULD EASILY BE ABLE TO TELL YOU IF STEEL TOOLS WERE USED. TO GET PAPER AUTHENDICATING A STONE POINT USUALLY RUNS AROUND $25.00 AND WILL MORE THAN PAY FOR THE TEST IF IT PASSES AND YOU PLAN TO TRY AND SELL THE POINT. THAT COULD ALSO GIVE A DEFINITE ANSWER AS TO HOW AND LIKELY WHEN IT WAS MADE. GOOD LUCK :D



Amen, Barry, on taking it to the experts. I've sent off pics and even an artifact once to the Smithsonian for a more definitive opinion. Being that they had handled hundreds of similar artifacts, I fent comfortable with their assessment even if it was something I didn't want to hear. Please do keep us posted, Ron. This artifact, despite causing a bit of a stir, is amazing and worth following up on.

[fearn]

I'm all for chilling, and I do apologize if my comments annoyed people. My vote is post-contact but old, not that it matters.

A technical point about manufacturing the circles: if it's made by stone friction (and I'm including the sand and equisetum trick), you're almost certainly going to see a round bottom on the circle grooves, and I suspect it will be uneven. Get a good, bright light and a good magnifying glass, and examine the bottoms of the grooves.

If it's cut by steel or iron, the lines tend to be much sharper, because sharp metal cuts much more cleanly. If you see squared, even bottoms on the circles, they're almost certainly cut by metal.

Also, take a good ruler (micrometer if you have one) to the circles and measure their diameters. If they're all the same size (say within <1 mm) that argues again for a metal tool such as a drill bit. The reason is that something like an equisetum stem will wear down, and they'll probably have to use a bunch of stems. This will lead to different-sized circles.

Obviously, if someone scribed this with a divider, it will be harder to see, because the lines will be worked with dull steel and a variable diameter tool. However, steel generally cuts more cleanly than stone or bone tools, so clean cuts are evidence of steel tools.

Finally, for typing, DNA, and carbon-dating: you can take it to a natural history museum, and probably get a guess as to which whale it came from (along the lines of sperm whale, one of the roquals, or a dolphin). They'll do that by comparing bone specimens. It probably came from either a rib or lower jaw. As others noted, DNA genotyping would be difficult, because there's human DNA and who knows what else on the surface. They would have to drill deep inside the club to get the sample. Ditto with carbon dating, because there's modern carbon all over the surface. Only you can answer whether it's worth those tests.

Best,

F

[Ron Anderson]

Thanks for that, Fearn.

That's useful. I'll take a good look.

From what I can see, the surface of the circle is of varying depth. But I need to double check that.

[kronckew]

did not the indians of the pacific northwest have hardened copper tools?

[fearn]

did not the indians of the pacific northwest have hardened copper tools?

Hardened copper isn't in the same league as steel. It will cut, but there's a reason why the European copper age was called the "chalcolithic" (=copper stone). As far as I remember, the PNW people used stone and antler tools for woodworking. I have no idea what they would use for whalebone, but if it's as soft as Ron reports, I'd guess the same.

F

[Atlantia]

Hardened copper isn't in the same league as steel. It will cut, but there's a reason why the European copper age was called the "chalcolithic" (=copper stone). As far as I remember, the PNW people used stone and antler tools for woodworking. I have no idea what they would use for whalebone, but if it's as soft as Ron reports, I'd guess the same.

F

You can knap flint with antler, and flint tools would carve bone or even marine ivory fairly easily.....
Don't know if thats relevant here :shrug:

[Ron Anderson]

Hi

I haven't encountered that much whale bone but my experience is that it's relatively light compared to other forms of bone. I have encountered very light whalebone from Alaska before.

I would think its easier to carve too.

This whalebone is very porous, as you can see from photos posted here.

The club has a fair bit of weight, because it's pretty substantial. But it's not heavy for its size. It's light actually.

An interesting choice of material for a club, when you think about it. I think it's strong enough to pack a punch but light enough to ensure a good velocity in the swing.

It may be age, but it may also be plain evolutionary factors, that makes this bone lighter. It may have as much to do with the fact that whales require a lighter mass bone to compensate for their huge size. Or perhaps spending so much time in water also affects this.

[Rick]

Whalebone is indeed very porous stuff; quite oily and smelly .

Not that hard a material; but we're not talking about hitting rocks with these things .

We find the bones around here quite often .

[Ron Anderson]

It is an interesting point.

Whale bone is of course a popular material for old New Zealand clubs too. And it has some symbolic significance there I think, though I'm sure they were more than symbolic - I believe they were actually used as clubs. But stone clubs, greenstone clubs certainly, are harder and more damaging, without question. Nonetheless, there is a high value placed on whalebone clubs.

Mostly, it's only the old clubs that are made of whale bone. For obvious reasons. Unless you find a dead whale on the beach these days, you ain't going to find whale bone. Whales are no longer hunted in most parts of the world.

[fearn]

I have been wondering about the efficacy of whalebone in a club. It appears that someone with a whalebone club would use a different set of targets than, say, someone using a jade mere. Meres got used on really hard targets, like the skull and hinge of the jaw.

I guess the advantage is that it's easier to make them, and if you get a whale, you get a lot of material in one spot.

Best,

F

[Ron Anderson]

Hi Fearn

2 things spring to mind: Yes, these are so much easier to make then greenstone. I've heard reports of maori taking years to carve a patu from greenstone.

Bearing this in mind, the alternative is wood. And whalebone probably compares quite well to most woods in terms of strength.

Also, I wonder if being so porous ensures the bone is less likely to break. I wonder if it provides a certain springiness or flexibility, and hence a certain structural strength. I suspect it might.

[fearn]

Unfortunately, due to CITES, I can't easily make a new whalebone club to test its properties.

Not that I'm objecting to CITES, mind you. But I put this in the category with rhino-hide and turtle-shell shields, something to contemplate, but not to replicate.

Still, I'm not sure that porous bone is quite the same as fibrous wood. I've been contemplating the way whales move, and I haven't come to any good conclusions about the stresses their ribs face. If anything, I would expect rib bone to be stronger through the flat than along the edge, simply because whales inhale and exhale fast, and the ribs would bear the most strain against the curving flat of the rib. However, I know just enough physiology to know that explaining whale bodies tends to turn biomechanicists into gibbering idiots. So that's my guess.

Best,

F