Pre-contact Maori whalebone club

M ELEY · 12th September 2010, 11:17 AM

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 · 12th September 2010, 11:24 AM

Quote:

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 · 12th September 2010, 01:05 PM

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 · 12th September 2010, 01:51 PM

Quote:

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 · 12th September 2010, 02:05 PM

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 · 12th September 2010, 04:09 PM

Quote:

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 · 12th September 2010, 05:01 PM

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 · 12th September 2010, 05:20 PM

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 · 12th September 2010, 05:48 PM

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.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

12th September 2010, 11:17 AM	#1
M ELEY Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: NC, U.S.A. Posts: 2,093	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!

12th September 2010, 01:05 PM	#3
M ELEY Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: NC, U.S.A. Posts: 2,093	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.

12th September 2010, 02:05 PM	#5
Ron Anderson Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Sydney Australia Posts: 228	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

12th September 2010, 05:01 PM	#7
fearn Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 1,247	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

12th September 2010, 05:20 PM	#8
David Keris forum moderator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Nova Scotia Posts: 7,119	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.

12th September 2010, 05:48 PM	#9
Ron Anderson Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Sydney Australia Posts: 228	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.