Pre-contact Maori whalebone club

[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]

Originally Posted by 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!

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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.

[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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by kronckew

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]

Originally Posted by fearn

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

[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