I am making a photo comparison of these two pieces. I could argue that we accept derivations of a standard form of weapons from every culture weapons come from, so why not Native American? I am adding a lot of links about trade pigments and the use of laundry blue to paint artifacts. It is clear that some bluing pigments would have been available from the earliest trade contacts on the northern plains and latter from the mid 19th century synthetic blue and latter other synthetic pigments. I think these pictures show some differences in age and conception. One appears to me as ridged and over done. I feel the one a have shows a more free form. The brass tacks spiral around the wood haft. The whole design is more thoughtful and considered. On close inspection the the two pieces are quite different.

https://www.cac-accr.ca/files/pdf/Vol22_doc4.pdf

http://cool.conservation-us.org/byfo...1999/1328.html

http://www.womenofthefurtrade.com/wst_page18.html

http://www.oldandinteresting.com/laundry-blue.aspx

Just to show that not all old brass knobs have to be scummy. The museum might keep the item clean to some degree?

Removed from ebay.

Another flint tomahawk of questionably age. Was offered at a more reasonable price though. The wood looks painted. Again aged brass, and white stiff looking leather. Is somebody making these in a craft workshop? We know ethnographic weapons most often follow a traditional form? Neither of the two show the same quality of knapping as on the rhyolite stone.

Tim:

The answer to your question is very complex. I live in Minnesota, which has a long history of interactions between whites and Native Americans (mainly Lakota Sioux and Ojibwe). Old attitudes die hard but there has been much progress here over the last 50+ years. It is a long and complicated story, and not one that can be told adequately here. There have been many books written on the subject, and each part of the US has its own history of how whites came to displace Native Americans, and the legacies of those interactions that persist today.

You make a good case for collectors of the weapons from Plains tribes to consider those developed after contact with whites as being meaningful variants of more traditional weapons.

I agree that the notion of a "Reservation Period," to describe the confinement of tribes to relatively small areas, is not particularly helpful. There have been several "Reservation Periods" beginning with the initial containment of Native Americans who had been free to roam widely in their customary manner, to periods of abject poverty and starvation with erosion of their traditional cultures, to the modern Casino-fueled economies of many tribes. [The latter refers to the presence of gambling casinos that are owned by the tribe. Since each reservation is a sovereign territory, state gambling laws do not apply and casinos can be operated--hence enormous income for often a small number of local tribes people.]

Your example of the Zulu and other South African weapons being viewed differently from modern Native American examples overlooks the fact that collectors are from outside the region in which these are produced. In the U.S. we have many collectors for whom these are locally produced goods and for whom there may be a long and personal family history of contact with Native Americans. For example, I know several families who lost relatives to raids during the so-called Sioux Uprising of 1862. Even after 150 years there are still lingering feelings and prejudices in this part of the country. You might like to read online about the Dakota War of 1862 to get some of the details.

It's complicated.

Just want to add this as it is fun to read.

https://www.realorrepro.com/article/...dian-Artifacts

THE STONE PARTS OF NATIVE AMERICAN ARTIFACTS ARE BY NO MEANS RARE IN NORTH AND SOUTH AMERICA. WHEN YOU CONSIDER THE THOUSANDS OF YEARS AND THE UNTOLD MILLIONS OF TRIBESMEN IT IS NOT SURPRISING.
THERE ARE QUITE A FEW INTACT WAR CLUBS, SPEARS, SHIELDS, ROBES AND OTHER ARTIFACTS MOSTLY IN MUSEUMS OR PRIVATE COLLECTIONS. BUT THERE ARE MUCH LARGER NUMBERS OF THOSE WITH NO PROVENANCE THAT ARE MADE TO LOOK OLD TO SELL TO COLLECTORS OR FOR WESTERN DECOR. THIS HAS BEING GOING ON FOR A VERY LONG TIME AND IS STILL DONE TODAY. I KNOW QUITE A FEW WHO DO THIS LOCALLY AND IN TEXAS. THERE IS NO SHORTAGE OF EXCELLENT FLINT NAPPERS THAT CAN REPLICATE JUST ABOUT ANYTHING AS WELL AS MANY MORE WHO CAN TURN OUT DECENT POINTS BUT NO MASTERPIECES. WE JUST HAD OUR YEARLY POINT AND FOSSIL SHOW HERE IN TULSA YESTERDAY AND THERE WERE THOUSANDS OF ARTIFACTS FOR SALE. MOST AT THIS SHOW ARE AUTHENTIC OR IF RECENT WORK SOLD AS SUCH. WE HAVE MANY EXPERTS ON HAND SO IT WOULD NOT BE EASY TO GET AWAY WITH BRINGING FAKES TO SELL. AT FLEA MARKETS AND GUN SHOWS THAT IS NOT THE CASE SO LOTS OF THIS TYPE OF ITEM CAN BE FOUND FOR SALE ALONG WITH THE OCCASIONAL REAL ITEMS. WE COULD SEPARATE THESE COMPLETELY INTACT ITEMS INTO SEVERAL CATEGORY'S.
#1. AUTHENTIC ARTIFACTS INTACT AND WITH GOOD PROVENIENCE
#2. AUTHENTIC ARTIFACTS INTACT ,DOUBTFUL OR NO PROVENIENCE
#3. AUTHENTIC STONE BLADE OR POINTS WITH A RESTORED HANDLE ALL
DONE USING THE PROPER OLD TECHNIQUES AND MATERIALS.
#4. AUTHENTIC STONE BUT MODERN TECHNIQUES AND MATERIALS USED
FOR THE RESTORATION.
#5. ITEMS MADE USING TRADITIONAL MATERIALS AND TECHNIQUES MADE
BY NATIVE AMERICANS FOR PERSONAL OR CEREMONIAL USE WITHIN THE
TRIBE IN RECENT TIMES.
#6.WELL MADE REPLICAS BY NATIVE AMERICANS IN THE PAST FOR WILD
WEST SHOWS OR FOR SALE TO THOSE WHO TRAVEL.
THESE FIRST SIX ARE GOOD COLLECTIBLES IN A ETHNOGRAPHIC SENSE WITH AT LEAST SOME ORIGINAL PARTS OR TRIBAL CONNECTIONS.
#7. POORLY MADE REPLICAS, MADE IN THE PAST BY NATIVE AMERICANS
FOR SALE IN SOUVENIR SHOPS.
#8. REPLICAS WITH ALL NEW MATERIALS SOLD PRIMARILY FOR
DECORATIONS.
#9. ITEMS MADE AND ANTIQUED TO FOOL COLLECTORS INTO THINKING
THEY ARE AUTHENTIC THESE ARE MADE BY NATIVE AMERICAN AS
WELL AS OTHERS AND ARE INTENTIONAL FRAUDS AT LEAST BY THE
MAKERS. AT TIMES THE RE SELLERS DO NOT KNOW OR PERHAPS DON'T
CARE.
ONE FELLOW I KNOW LOOKS NATIVE AMERICAN BUT IS NOT AND SPECIALIZES IN BUYING CHEAP OLD LONG GUNS, ADDING SOME RAWHIDE, PAINT BEADS AND FEATHERS AND A FEW ANTIQUES BRASS TACKS. HIS WORK LOOKS VERY GOOD AND HE HAS NO TROUBLE FINDING BUYERS WHO ARE MOSTLY DEALERS IN SUCH ITEMS. HE ALSO MAKES UP A GOOD STORY TO GO WITH EACH ITEM.
MY PERSONAL WAY OF DEALING WITH THIS IS ALL STONE POINTS ARE DOUBTFUL UNLESS I FIND THEM MYSELF OR A TRUSTED FRIEND FINDS THEM. THOSE WITH PAPERS BY AN EXPERT I KNOW PERSONALLY ARE LIKELY GOOD. EVERYTHING ELSE IS SUSPECT BUT IF I SEE SOMETHING I LIKE AT A FAIR PRICE I WILL BUY IT ANYWAY. :D EVEN EXPERIENCED COLLECTORS ARE NEVER PERFECT ALL THE TIME, BUT THAT IS PART OF THE ADVENTURE OF COLLECTING. :cool:

Tim, looks like you have it bad. Welcome to the wonderful world of artifact collecting. I am on this forum occasionally, yes I am one of the collectors you mentioned in your first post. Here is a link to another forum that specializes in your new obsession.

http://www.arrowheadology.com/

Thank you for that link. Provides a great deal of food for thought. Yes faking and reproductions add to collecting problems. The foul cry fake is a way to end any real investigation. I often think especially where an object does not clearly fit in " fake " category who really has the authority and ultimate knowledge. Those who have been in the scene for a long time and gain a kind of following and often dealership never seem to have fakes . Only you as a newbie or potential customer wanting to perhaps make a trade. I came across a very interesting Web page about ancient Peru ceramics. The jist of it was some experts are actually gaining their knowledge and expertise on fakes. I will add it when I find it again.

If you want to get really crazy here is progression for your consideration.
1)Total fake modern made.
2)Real broken artifact made into something new;
a) Made into something new in modern times
b) Made into something "new" in ancient times.
3)Real artifact made into something new
a) Modified by modern man
b) Modified by ancient man - if you want to see a artifact collector cry show him a clovis point made into something else.
4)Real artifact "enhanced"
a) Enhanced by modern man -this could be anything from resharpening to fixing a base to augmenting serrations.
b) Enhanced by ancient man -see above.
So where do you draw the line? If you think any of these things are easy to detect I refer you to "Authenticating Ancient Indian Artifacts, How to recognize reproduction and altered artifacts" by Jim Bennett

Well there is just as equal chance that by luck or judgment or long observation and museum pounding that you just got it right :shrug: '

Another potential fake. Better pictures when I have it.

I should really start a new thread with this piece as it is very unlikely to be from the northern plains.

I have it now 31 inches top to end of haft. Hide covered whipy flex stick. Coarse horse hair tassle, sewn hide with fine multi strand horse hair. It has a "fake"? collection number 17P on the stone. Is it a fake just because it is made of simple natural materials? Is it a fake because it looks aged? Is it a fake because people still knap stone? As a sculptor used to making "art work" I would be most impressed by somebody could get the inside spaces to look the way they do but that is just my opinion. It is not a big heavy weapon. All I can say is that if a warrior can running at me or at speed on horse back, and struck me with it. I would probably not be standing up again.

It may not be from the Northern Plains but saying that the plains are huge and there is no law that says all clubs are this or that form.

Anyway here it is. You can pay more for an obvious fantasy piece to hang with your dream catcher.

Tim,

I know very little about these axes, but perhaps a few comments on the condition of it. I'm not seeing any wear or tear to the leather. The edges are straight, with no tears or losses, and no holes or scuffing of the flat surfaces. I would expect to see such damage with a piece that had been used. It may never have been used, of course, but an old piece should still show some wear or minor damage, I think, just from the ravages of time.

Rather like the piece in the last link.

Except that one had been in collectors' hands since 1925, and probably carefully preserved.