Pre-contact Maori whalebone club

fearn · 10th September 2010, 08:02 PM

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 · 11th September 2010, 03:06 AM

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 · 11th September 2010, 03:14 AM

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 · 11th September 2010, 03:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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

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 · 11th September 2010, 06:47 AM

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 · 11th September 2010, 07:08 AM

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 · 11th September 2010, 07:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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 · 11th September 2010, 07:43 AM

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 · 11th September 2010, 07:55 AM

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?

fearn · 11th September 2010, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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

11th September 2010, 06:47 AM	#5
VANDOO (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: OKLAHOMA, USA Posts: 3,138	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. Last edited by VANDOO; 11th September 2010 at 07:00 AM.

10th September 2010, 08:02 PM	#1
fearn Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 1,247	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

11th September 2010, 03:06 AM	#2
Ron Anderson Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Sydney Australia Posts: 228	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

11th September 2010, 03:14 AM	#3
Ron Anderson Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Sydney Australia Posts: 228	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

11th September 2010, 07:08 AM	#6
Ron Anderson Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Sydney Australia Posts: 228	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.

11th September 2010, 07:43 AM	#8
Ron Anderson Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Sydney Australia Posts: 228	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.

11th September 2010, 07:55 AM	#9
Ron Anderson Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Sydney Australia Posts: 228	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?