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?

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

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.

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.

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 :rolleyes:

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 :D

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 :shrug: .

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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 :shrug:

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.

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 .

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.

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

Hi Fearn

2 things spring to mind: Yes, these are so much easier to make then greenstone. I've heard reports of maori taking years to carve a patu from greenstone.

Bearing this in mind, the alternative is wood. And whalebone probably compares quite well to most woods in terms of strength.

Also, I wonder if being so porous ensures the bone is less likely to break. I wonder if it provides a certain springiness or flexibility, and hence a certain structural strength. I suspect it might.

Unfortunately, due to CITES, I can't easily make a new whalebone club to test its properties.

Not that I'm objecting to CITES, mind you. But I put this in the category with rhino-hide and turtle-shell shields, something to contemplate, but not to replicate.

Still, I'm not sure that porous bone is quite the same as fibrous wood. I've been contemplating the way whales move, and I haven't come to any good conclusions about the stresses their ribs face. If anything, I would expect rib bone to be stronger through the flat than along the edge, simply because whales inhale and exhale fast, and the ribs would bear the most strain against the curving flat of the rib. However, I know just enough physiology to know that explaining whale bodies tends to turn biomechanicists into gibbering idiots. So that's my guess.

Best,

F