snake or frigate bird

josh stout · 12th May 2009, 06:07 PM

Thanks Nick, that is the sort of thing I was thinking of, but the spectacled cobra and the monocled cobra are not quite the same as what is on the stick, they just make me think that there may be a cobra with the right pattern. I also wonder what the pattern would look like when the hood is down. Perhaps it would be more like the stick pattern.

I have heard many stories of native peoples who cannot identify a bird from picture, or in some cases even dead, but they can recognize it high in the trees from the rustle. I suspect that many times animals are difficult for us to ID from ethnographc depictions because what is emphasized is different from what we see in pictures. For example, there may not have been enough wood for the hood of a cobra, so the carver put the cobra mark on, but depicted the mark as it would be when the hood is down. Something obvious to any local can be mystifying to us.
Josh

Tim Simmons · 12th May 2009, 06:24 PM

Very interesting. I had hoped to have it today, perhaps tomorrow. From these pictures it is difficult to see what has made the mark on the back of the head. I feel if you are trying to show other people a cobra, it cannot be achieved with showing the hood. Perhaps it is the narrow neck ?mark cobra

but that is just being silly. I feel pretty sure it is not Asian or African. I cannot wait to get my hands on it, if only to see what material makes the eyes. If it all turns out to be rubbish well all I lost is about two double burgers and ordinary fries.

fearn · 12th May 2009, 06:53 PM

Just to get this conversation going in an extremely biological direction, I'd like to note that the cobra family (elapidae) is extremely common in the Australasian region, and includes such fun snakes as death adders and taipans.

Some of them look like cobras, some do not. Bottom line is that the elapids are widespread through Africa, Asia, Australia, and the central islands of Melanesia, so a cobra-like mark on a snake cane doesn't preclude it from coming from Melanesia.

My 0.00002 kina,

F

David · 12th May 2009, 07:54 PM

Tim, i think it is clear to see that regardless of what the eyes are made of or the origin of this staff, it isn't really possible that it is "rubbish". It's a fine folk art staff no matter how you look at it.
I also think that with folk art we can't get too fussy over anatomical correctness. Part of what makes it folk art. I think that in all probability it was intended to be a snake, but nailing it down to the exact species from the carved features is not very likely. No real snake looks like this.

Tim Simmons · 13th May 2009, 01:59 PM

Its here but I do not know what to make of it. I fear it is a tourist thing. Thats three duds in a row

I just keep the Fiji staff in mind and keep trying.

David · 13th May 2009, 10:00 PM

Tim, what about this staff gives you the feeling that it is a tourist thing? Looks like good folk art to me. what were you expecting or hoping for that isn't there when the staff is in hand?

Tim Simmons · 14th May 2009, 06:33 PM

David thank you for your encouraging words, perhaps tourist may have been a bit harsh and hasty. "Tribal" for want of a better word, culture, art production and materials are not preserved in aspic. However there could be a fine line between "folk art" and "Tourist". Looking again at the copper base to the staff and how carefully it has been set into the wood I might be prepared to think there is pride in the manufacture. The plastic eyes may have been thought as rather cool by the maker. The ? mark looks like a stain and quite lightly applied. The actual wood is a natual twisty root or vine strong but bendy. There is minimal shaping to the twist. Perhaps "fern" might suggest possible names and origin. The wood is pale in colour the dark colour you see in the pictures is from a lacquer. I cannot tell if it is a natural one or industrially produced. I can say that for the money it is starting to grow on me. I have a large Thai darb knife put together with salvaged aluminium and chewing gum or an epoxy resin. Just because you are poor in the 20th century does not mean artists stop making artifacts for cultural use? Anyway here are some more pictures. I could still think it not Indian?

12th May 2009, 06:24 PM	#2
Tim Simmons Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: What is still UK Posts: 5,967	Very interesting. I had hoped to have it today, perhaps tomorrow. From these pictures it is difficult to see what has made the mark on the back of the head. I feel if you are trying to show other people a cobra, it cannot be achieved with showing the hood. Perhaps it is the narrow neck ?mark cobra but that is just being silly. I feel pretty sure it is not Asian or African. I cannot wait to get my hands on it, if only to see what material makes the eyes. If it all turns out to be rubbish well all I lost is about two double burgers and ordinary fries. Attached Images

14th May 2009, 06:33 PM	#7
Tim Simmons Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: What is still UK Posts: 5,967	David thank you for your encouraging words, perhaps tourist may have been a bit harsh and hasty. "Tribal" for want of a better word, culture, art production and materials are not preserved in aspic. However there could be a fine line between "folk art" and "Tourist". Looking again at the copper base to the staff and how carefully it has been set into the wood I might be prepared to think there is pride in the manufacture. The plastic eyes may have been thought as rather cool by the maker. The ? mark looks like a stain and quite lightly applied. The actual wood is a natual twisty root or vine strong but bendy. There is minimal shaping to the twist. Perhaps "fern" might suggest possible names and origin. The wood is pale in colour the dark colour you see in the pictures is from a lacquer. I cannot tell if it is a natural one or industrially produced. I can say that for the money it is starting to grow on me. I have a large Thai darb knife put together with salvaged aluminium and chewing gum or an epoxy resin. Just because you are poor in the 20th century does not mean artists stop making artifacts for cultural use? Anyway here are some more pictures. I could still think it not Indian? Attached Images

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 May 2009, 06:07 PM	#1
josh stout Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 407	Thanks Nick, that is the sort of thing I was thinking of, but the spectacled cobra and the monocled cobra are not quite the same as what is on the stick, they just make me think that there may be a cobra with the right pattern. I also wonder what the pattern would look like when the hood is down. Perhaps it would be more like the stick pattern. I have heard many stories of native peoples who cannot identify a bird from picture, or in some cases even dead, but they can recognize it high in the trees from the rustle. I suspect that many times animals are difficult for us to ID from ethnographc depictions because what is emphasized is different from what we see in pictures. For example, there may not have been enough wood for the hood of a cobra, so the carver put the cobra mark on, but depicted the mark as it would be when the hood is down. Something obvious to any local can be mystifying to us. Josh

12th May 2009, 06:53 PM	#3
fearn Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 1,247	Just to get this conversation going in an extremely biological direction, I'd like to note that the cobra family (elapidae) is extremely common in the Australasian region, and includes such fun snakes as death adders and taipans. Some of them look like cobras, some do not. Bottom line is that the elapids are widespread through Africa, Asia, Australia, and the central islands of Melanesia, so a cobra-like mark on a snake cane doesn't preclude it from coming from Melanesia. My 0.00002 kina, F

12th May 2009, 07:54 PM	#4
David Keris forum moderator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Nova Scotia Posts: 7,281	Tim, i think it is clear to see that regardless of what the eyes are made of or the origin of this staff, it isn't really possible that it is "rubbish". It's a fine folk art staff no matter how you look at it. I also think that with folk art we can't get too fussy over anatomical correctness. Part of what makes it folk art. I think that in all probability it was intended to be a snake, but nailing it down to the exact species from the carved features is not very likely. No real snake looks like this.

13th May 2009, 01:59 PM	#5
Tim Simmons Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: What is still UK Posts: 5,967	Its here but I do not know what to make of it. I fear it is a tourist thing. Thats three duds in a row I just keep the Fiji staff in mind and keep trying.

13th May 2009, 10:00 PM	#6
David Keris forum moderator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Nova Scotia Posts: 7,281	Tim, what about this staff gives you the feeling that it is a tourist thing? Looks like good folk art to me. what were you expecting or hoping for that isn't there when the staff is in hand?