Pre-contact Maori whalebone club

Ron Anderson · 12th September 2010, 02:05 PM

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 · 12th September 2010, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron Anderson

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 · 12th September 2010, 05:01 PM

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 · 12th September 2010, 05:20 PM

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 · 12th September 2010, 05:48 PM

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 · 12th September 2010, 07:15 PM

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

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

Tim Simmons · 12th September 2010, 07:45 PM

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

.

Gavin Nugent · 12th September 2010, 09:31 PM

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

David · 13th September 2010, 01:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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

.

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.

M ELEY · 13th September 2010, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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

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

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 · 14th September 2010, 12:26 AM

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

12th September 2010, 02:05 PM	#1
Ron Anderson Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Sydney Australia Posts: 228	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

12th September 2010, 05:01 PM	#3
fearn Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 1,247	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

12th September 2010, 05:20 PM	#4
David Keris forum moderator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Nova Scotia Posts: 7,231	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.

12th September 2010, 05:48 PM	#5
Ron Anderson Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Sydney Australia Posts: 228	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.

12th September 2010, 07:15 PM	#6
VANDOO (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: OKLAHOMA, USA Posts: 3,138	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 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

12th September 2010, 07:45 PM	#7
Tim Simmons Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: What is still UK Posts: 5,879	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 .

12th September 2010, 09:31 PM	#8
Gavin Nugent Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 2,818	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

14th September 2010, 12:26 AM	#11
fearn Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 1,247	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