African Or Tlingit Copper Dagger

tomahawk · 25th August 2005, 04:25 AM

Thanks again fearn. I am a collector of Native American weapons and you are right there are some clever folks out there trying to make a quick buck selling reproduction pieces. I have made my share of mistakes, and hopefully I did not make one on this piece but it is possible. I would say you are right it has been cleaned in my opinion. If you look at the copper handle on the back side of the wood figure it appears to have not been cleaned and does appear to have the patina that would indicate an older piece.

The reason I mentioned the Tlinget laddle is the seller indicated that the laddle and a fancy Tlinget neck piece also came from the same individual who had the dagger. Not sure if that is any indication of authenticity or not. Anyway I will check out the provenance tomorrow.

What is your take on the carved headpiece at the end of the handle?

Thanks again fearn

Tomahawk

fearn · 25th August 2005, 05:21 AM

Hi Tomahawk,

To be honest, that mask bugs me. It's the one part that looks old, although as Andrew mentioned, there's a bit of corrosion in the blade itself.

The thing that's bugging me is that the web pictures of genuine knives tend to show the faces in profile to the blade--in other words, they're spun 90 degrees from the mask here. I seem to recall the same feature in the weapons in the old ethnographies.

Since the PNW people had a strong tradition of mask making, I've been playing with the idea that the handle may have been an independent mask (basically a piece of costumery on clothing) with a button-like loop in the back. The "mini-mask"--which may be 150 years old, from the darkness of the wood--was then secured to a blade that's much younger. If so, there may never have been an entire handle. This is wild speculation, of course, but it does get at the central oddities of this knife: young-looking blade and old-looking pommel, attached at an odd angle.

Neat knife, and neat puzzle. I'll be interested to find out the rest of the story.

F

Battara · 25th August 2005, 06:41 AM

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but in my opinion it is a reproduction. First of all, Mother-of-Pearl was not available to the population until much later at the turn of the century, coming from the area of the Philippines, and that is why abalone shell was used so much. Secondly, from what I have seen of actual researched pieces, the blade seems a little cruder than it should be and the stem should not be beaten like this. Third, I am not sure that the blade work is correct, it should be more hollowed out more, though some blades may not fit this profile perfectly.

I would suggest going to the Antiques Roadshow website and look up those experts that deal in Native American things. I emailed pics of an Apache bag brought back by one of my great-grandfathers and they id' it with pricing. They would be able to tell you for sure if it is genuine or repo and more. If you do, let us know the results. I too dable in NA things (having Cherokee, Filipino, and Scots-Irish blood myself

).

Tim Simmons · 25th August 2005, 09:22 AM

Hello Tomahawk,
I think it super if we were all looking at the real thing, somehow I doubt that but do not take my word as gospel. You could send pictures to one of your great museums. When you bare in mind the prestige nature of copper objects in the pacific NW, I think your knife lacks the quality of the real thing. I know not every knife is made by the highest of artist/craftsman but knives of this type be it iron or copper are generally of excellent execution. I also have some doubts about the carving of the mask. If you send pictures to a museum please let us all know the results. Here are some pictures of the wonderful metal work from the N.W. Tim

25th August 2005, 04:25 AM	#1
tomahawk Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 14	Thanks again fearn. I am a collector of Native American weapons and you are right there are some clever folks out there trying to make a quick buck selling reproduction pieces. I have made my share of mistakes, and hopefully I did not make one on this piece but it is possible. I would say you are right it has been cleaned in my opinion. If you look at the copper handle on the back side of the wood figure it appears to have not been cleaned and does appear to have the patina that would indicate an older piece. The reason I mentioned the Tlinget laddle is the seller indicated that the laddle and a fancy Tlinget neck piece also came from the same individual who had the dagger. Not sure if that is any indication of authenticity or not. Anyway I will check out the provenance tomorrow. What is your take on the carved headpiece at the end of the handle? Thanks again fearn Tomahawk Last edited by tomahawk; 25th August 2005 at 04:45 AM.

25th August 2005, 09:22 AM	#4
Tim Simmons Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: What is still UK Posts: 5,843	Hello Tomahawk, I think it super if we were all looking at the real thing, somehow I doubt that but do not take my word as gospel. You could send pictures to one of your great museums. When you bare in mind the prestige nature of copper objects in the pacific NW, I think your knife lacks the quality of the real thing. I know not every knife is made by the highest of artist/craftsman but knives of this type be it iron or copper are generally of excellent execution. I also have some doubts about the carving of the mask. If you send pictures to a museum please let us all know the results. Here are some pictures of the wonderful metal work from the N.W. Tim Attached Images

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

25th August 2005, 05:21 AM	#2
fearn Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 1,247	Hi Tomahawk, To be honest, that mask bugs me. It's the one part that looks old, although as Andrew mentioned, there's a bit of corrosion in the blade itself. The thing that's bugging me is that the web pictures of genuine knives tend to show the faces in profile to the blade--in other words, they're spun 90 degrees from the mask here. I seem to recall the same feature in the weapons in the old ethnographies. Since the PNW people had a strong tradition of mask making, I've been playing with the idea that the handle may have been an independent mask (basically a piece of costumery on clothing) with a button-like loop in the back. The "mini-mask"--which may be 150 years old, from the darkness of the wood--was then secured to a blade that's much younger. If so, there may never have been an entire handle. This is wild speculation, of course, but it does get at the central oddities of this knife: young-looking blade and old-looking pommel, attached at an odd angle. Neat knife, and neat puzzle. I'll be interested to find out the rest of the story. F

25th August 2005, 06:41 AM	#3
Battara EAAF Staff Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Louisville, KY Posts: 7,272	I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but in my opinion it is a reproduction. First of all, Mother-of-Pearl was not available to the population until much later at the turn of the century, coming from the area of the Philippines, and that is why abalone shell was used so much. Secondly, from what I have seen of actual researched pieces, the blade seems a little cruder than it should be and the stem should not be beaten like this. Third, I am not sure that the blade work is correct, it should be more hollowed out more, though some blades may not fit this profile perfectly. I would suggest going to the Antiques Roadshow website and look up those experts that deal in Native American things. I emailed pics of an Apache bag brought back by one of my great-grandfathers and they id' it with pricing. They would be able to tell you for sure if it is genuine or repo and more. If you do, let us know the results. I too dable in NA things (having Cherokee, Filipino, and Scots-Irish blood myself ).