African Or Tlingit Copper Dagger

[tomahawk]

Hello, great site! I recently picked this copper dagger up and was told by the seller that it was American Westcoast Tlinget copper dagger. One of my friends indicated they thought it was more likely an African dagger. It measures approx. 16" long and has a wooden carved figure with tack nails through the nose which fastens to the copper handle. Also has mother of pearl inlay eyes. Hope the photos come up. Would really appreciate any info. Thanks!

[Ian]

Hi tomahawk:

Welcome to the EEWRS Forum. This one does not strike me as being especially African, so a Tlingit origin appears possible. I have little experience with North American pieces so I'll leave further comments to those who do.

Ian.

[fearn]

Hi Tomahawk,

Welcome to the Forum!

The seller's right: it's definitely in the style of Northwest Coast Indians, and they did indeed make copper daggers.

Now, for the nasty question: is it a "genuine Indian Dagger?"

Dunno.

Here is a pdf containing images of "genuine" PNW metal daggers, and this one doesn't look the same, either in styling, blade shape, or patina on the blade. If yours is genuine, it's missing a good chunk of its handle.

Trouble is, it could have been made relatively recently by a Tlingit artist, which would, indeed, make it a genuine Native American copper dagger, although not an antique. If you're asking about whether it was made in the 19th Century or before, my guess is not, but I could be wrong.

It could also have been made by a white artist imitating the distinctive PNW style. Without further provenance information, it's quite hard to tell.

F

[tomahawk]

Thanks for the Info fearn. The seller had the written provenance but I forgot to get it from him. Anyway he indicated it was from the 1860's or 70's. He also had the name of the gentleman who acqired it. I will definately get that from him. He also had a fancy carved serving Tlingit laddle made from mountain goat or mountain sheep horn. thanks again for the information I really appreciate it.

tomahawk

[fearn]

Hi Tomahawk,

I do hope it's the genuine article. The lack of a patina is bothering me, and it makes me wonder if some "genius" (read this sarcastically) decided to clean the blade with acid. Either that or it's fairly new.

In either case, I hope you have good luck getting the provenance documents. In this case, I would suggest some skepticism with this piece and the documentation that comes with it. If it really is 150 years old, that age doesn't particularly show. This could be a result of good storage (if so, where's the grip?) or someone's overly thorough cleaning (perhaps the handle and blade got wet, rotted and corroded, and were cleaned off). Or it's a more recent piece and someone is lying about its history. More detective work is needed.

Fearn

[Andrew]

Welcome to the forum, Tomahawk.

Fascinating knife. I, also, wonder about the age of this thing. There appears to be some oxidation present, particularly in recesses on the blade. If truly as old as the seller claimed, this must have been cleaned.

I understand Native American artifacts, particularly weapons, often command staggering prices. If you got a really good deal, it might just be too good to be true.

I think Tom Hyle has some experience with NA weapons, hopefully he will spot this and comment.

Andrew

[tomahawk]

Thanks again fearn. I am a collector of Native American weapons and you are right there are some clever folks out there trying to make a quick buck selling reproduction pieces. I have made my share of mistakes, and hopefully I did not make one on this piece but it is possible. I would say you are right it has been cleaned in my opinion. If you look at the copper handle on the back side of the wood figure it appears to have not been cleaned and does appear to have the patina that would indicate an older piece.

The reason I mentioned the Tlinget laddle is the seller indicated that the laddle and a fancy Tlinget neck piece also came from the same individual who had the dagger. Not sure if that is any indication of authenticity or not. Anyway I will check out the provenance tomorrow.

What is your take on the carved headpiece at the end of the handle?

Thanks again fearn
Tomahawk

[fearn]

Hi Tomahawk,

To be honest, that mask bugs me. It's the one part that looks old, although as Andrew mentioned, there's a bit of corrosion in the blade itself.

The thing that's bugging me is that the web pictures of genuine knives tend to show the faces in profile to the blade--in other words, they're spun 90 degrees from the mask here. I seem to recall the same feature in the weapons in the old ethnographies.

Since the PNW people had a strong tradition of mask making, I've been playing with the idea that the handle may have been an independent mask (basically a piece of costumery on clothing) with a button-like loop in the back. The "mini-mask"--which may be 150 years old, from the darkness of the wood--was then secured to a blade that's much younger. If so, there may never have been an entire handle. This is wild speculation, of course, but it does get at the central oddities of this knife: young-looking blade and old-looking pommel, attached at an odd angle.

Neat knife, and neat puzzle. I'll be interested to find out the rest of the story.

F

[Mark]

Check your PM. I sent the e-mail of a museum curator who I think could help you on this.

[fearn]

Hi All,

Obviously, I agree with some of the skepticism expressed about the "authenticity" of this piece.

However...

I was reading a book about the Cahuilla Indians of California. Over the last 50 years, they have taken to making rattles to accompany their traditional songs. These rattles used to be made out of old cans. Now they use gourds, heavily painted with acrylic paint and made using modern tools.

Some collectors have criticized these rattles, saying they weren't genuine. Their response was something we should all remember:

We're Cahuilla, and we made these rattles. Therefore, they are genuine Cahuilla rattles. The fact that they don't look like the ones in the museums from a century ago does not mean that they are not genuine. It simply means that collectors are imposing a false standard on our art. (this is a paraphrase).

I'm personally skeptical about the purported age of this piece, but unless it was made by a non-Tlingit, it's a genuine Tlingit knife. Until we know who made it, we might want to be more, ahem, nuanced in our use of genuine vs. reproduction.

F

[Jens Nordlunde]

Thank you Fearn,

Jens

[Tim Simmons]

Yes a modern manufacture is indeed genuine, we all know what we are hoping for here.? Tim

[fearn]

You got that right Tim! If it were one of the better Tlingit knives it would be in my "if-I-win-the-lottery" category of knives.

Still, it's an interesting philosophical question: for instance, if an anglo makes an accurate Medieval English sword, it's a copy, whereas if an Tlingit makes a copper knife, it's genuine. I'm not saying it all makes sense, but it does make life more interesting than it would be otherwise

F

[Jim McDougall]

Very well placed comments Fearn!
While as collectors of antique ethnographic weapons we of course seek evidence of age with patination and such standard indicators, but we do need to remember that in many cultural spheres, the weapons still remain key in ceremonial, ritual and traditional costume. Weapons that are authentically established for such purposes in those cultures remain fascinating examples regardless if relatively recently manufactured.

Best regards,
Jim

[Tim Simmons]

Hello tomahawk,
The reply does not surprise me as we are disscusing items although not very old are quite poorly documented. It does sound as if the museum people are hedging their bets. They may be comparing your piece against a known bank of better quallity items from a time when the manufacturing culture was stronger and more vibrant. That could mean your knife may be genuine but from the very earliy 20th century. The people on the NW were selling good quallity art pieces to sailors and the like in the 19th century but I would have thought that a large piece of copper like that would still of had some cultural value. Without Mr Museum saying yes it is an open verdict, but it could very well be what we all want it to be, just not worth a small fortune. Tim

[fearn]

Hi Tomahawk,

Actually, the museum people have another point we've been ignoring: how is that pommel fastened? It looks like it was nailed (or riveted) through the nostrils to two holes drilled in the blade? And the rivets are iron? (and rusty?)

Looking at the blade, the top was pretty clearly shaped for the pommel: there's a shelf where the blade was narrowed to accomodate the "mask."

Whatever the "rivets" are, the blade behind the pommel seems to show more of a patina than the rest of the blade. My new question is, can we believe that we're looking at 150 years of patina there?

Personally, I don't think so. I'm getting pretty skeptical about the purported age of this piece.

F

[Mark]

Well, you are comparing the patina on two different metals. Copper tends to stabilize more quickly than iron. The copper behind the pommel would not have been subject to as much contact as the handle and blade, so wouldn't the patina there naturally become deeper? The handle and blade were probably regularly cleaned and worn with use, even, preventing the building up of a patina at all until the item went from working tool to historical artifact. There are also a few explanations for the presence of such "new-looking" rust on the rivets, such as again the fact that rust might have been kept off while it was in actual use, then took hold after it was collected put in a drawer somewhere (they might even be replacements for old ones that rusted away).

I'm just saying that we shouldn't reach any firm conclusions based on the rust on the rivets and differences in the copper patina.

Somthing Jose wrote a while back surprised me and I meant to comment on it. Mother-of-pearl was not available in the Pacific NW until the turn of the century? I would have thought that bits of mussel shells would have been a staple embellishment for a long time, and even abolone is found along the California coast somewhere (good trade item, there). Shell decoration was pretty common among other No. Am. tribes, I believe even pre-Columbian. An intriguing anthropological quirk.

[fearn]

Hi Mark,

I think you're right, insofar as two metals make it more complicated. I'm still skeptical about the age of the piece.

So far as the mother-of-pearl goes, I was trying to avoid that. So far as I know, the shell decoration in the PNW was abalone, while mother-of-pearl technically comes from the pearl oyster. Yes, we're talking about something that occurs in more than these two molluscs, but the basic point is that abalone tends to be a bit bluer than mother-of-pearl, I think. As to whether those eyes are MOP or abalone, I haven't a good guess.


F

[tomahawk]

Hello Everyone! I misstated when I said mother of pearl, the seller said it was
Abalone. But I am not well enough versed to say if it is or not?
I am looking forward hearing from the museum curator Sept. 11. Thanks again for your help! Tomahawk

[Battara]

In my original comment, I stated that mother-of-pearl was not available. Abalone was and was used especially in NW Coast carvings. Trade did not stop there, however. Abalone shell can also be found in some Mississippian cultural pieces and in the SW, though more turquoise was traded and more abalone seen in the NW coast. Mother-of-pearl is found in the region of Indonesia-Philippines. Although it is possible that it could have been traded by Spanish galleon, it was not much used until the turn of the 20c.

[Tim Simmons]

You can see the simple but exquisite aesthticism of these magical pieces. Tim

[Mark]

It would not surprise me if it were ceremonial in nature, if for no other reason than a little mask on the handle wouldn't be very practical (or long-lasting) on a working knife.

If I am not mistaken, the Tlingit use specific iconography in their mask and totem carving to represent particular spirits. One would expect that these mini-masks conform to this, so I wonder which spirit is depicted in yours and the one from Sotheby's? Each spirit watches over a different aspect of life (or death), and the identities of these particular ones might give some insight as to the ceremonial function of the knives.

[Tim Simmons]

Here is another picture which according to the source has a mythical bear looking to the side. The rather bright file marks on tomahawks knife are not what you would want to see I have to add. Tim

[tomahawk]

Hello everyone! I finally received the provenance (verbally) of this knife/dagger and goes something like this: Haida Knife circa 1860-1870 collected near Sitka Alaska at small group of islands south of Alaska. Collected 1905 by Dr. Albert Jackson of Juneau Alaska (historian and anthropologist). Purchased by Lillian Jasper (Seattle Wa.) from Mr. Jackson for private collection in 1958.

The individual who I purchased this indicated that the person he acquired from had purchased from Lillian Jasper's relative.

I did some reaserch and the only Dr. Jackson that I can find for that period in Alaska is Dr. Sheldon Jackson rather than Dr. Albert Jackson. Not sure if the provenance is suppose to read Sheldon rather than Albert?

Anyway this is it. Hopefully this provenance can be proven or disproven.

tomahawk

[Tim Simmons]

Hi tomahawk,
I had a suspicion it was of the early 20th century. This might coincide with Edward Curtis and the revival of native culture in the NW. So we are still waiting for 'official' conformation. It would be really nice to know if it had origins in the 'old ways' I hope that makes sense. Tim

[tomahawk]

Hello Tim, I am suppose to hear something from a museum curator next week. Will let keep everyone udated.

tomahawk

[Jeff D]

Hi Tomahawk,

I have been lurking on this thread, as I am very interested in these Tlinget daggers. I have been able to examine these two in person ( http://www.cullodenantiques.com/atha...it_knifes.html ), and have found photos of many more.
These daggers are highly regarded by the Natives of the Pacific Northwest. I have had the oportunity to discuss these with a couple of elders from the Bella Coola and Interior plateau regions. Most immediately recognized them but only knew that they were associated with the "Northern tribes".
As has been discussed the blades were of copper even prior to contact with the Europeans. Eventually iron was used. The metals were obtained from beachcombing (wrecks, barrels etc), as well as trade. I have seen a couple from Sheffield trade blades as well as a converted russian bayonet. The workmanship is always spectacular. The form often has a central ridge, the cross section often is crecent shaped. I have not seen any with grooves as seen on yours.
The hilts are usually intricately carved mythological creatures usually of whale bone and occasionally of wood. The grip is usually wrapped sinew. I have never seen one attached in the manner that yours is.
These weapons are revered, and are handed down through the klan leaders. that is why the workmanship is always spectacular as you can see from the examples shown.
I think your dagger may represent an attempt to revive an old art form, but I would have serious reservations about the provenance that you were given.
All in all I think you have a neat object and if the price was acceptable it certainly deserves to be in a collection.

All the Best
Jeff

[ashleyverplank]

I know these comments were made quite some time ago, but I just wanted to let you know for sure, without any doubt that this is NOT a Tlingit dagger, nor was it meant to represent one. I am writing my Master's Thesis on Tlingit daggers and am currently a Smithsonian Fellow, studying their entire collection. I have seen fakes and forgeries, but this is not even a close copy and it is definitely not one of the Skagway daggers. Specifically, the haft is all wrong, there is no formline or hint of formline and the shell inlay would be abalone, not mother of pearl. I could add many other things, so please let me know if you want more information. I just had to add my two cents.