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

[Battara]

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but in my opinion it is a reproduction. First of all, Mother-of-Pearl was not available to the population until much later at the turn of the century, coming from the area of the Philippines, and that is why abalone shell was used so much. Secondly, from what I have seen of actual researched pieces, the blade seems a little cruder than it should be and the stem should not be beaten like this. Third, I am not sure that the blade work is correct, it should be more hollowed out more, though some blades may not fit this profile perfectly.

I would suggest going to the Antiques Roadshow website and look up those experts that deal in Native American things. I emailed pics of an Apache bag brought back by one of my great-grandfathers and they id' it with pricing. They would be able to tell you for sure if it is genuine or repo and more. If you do, let us know the results. I too dable in NA things (having Cherokee, Filipino, and Scots-Irish blood myself ).

[Tim Simmons]

Hello Tomahawk,
I think it super if we were all looking at the real thing, somehow I doubt that but do not take my word as gospel. You could send pictures to one of your great museums. When you bare in mind the prestige nature of copper objects in the pacific NW, I think your knife lacks the quality of the real thing. I know not every knife is made by the highest of artist/craftsman but knives of this type be it iron or copper are generally of excellent execution. I also have some doubts about the carving of the mask. If you send pictures to a museum please let us all know the results. Here are some pictures of the wonderful metal work from the N.W. Tim

[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

[tomahawk]

Thanks everyone for your comments. I have sent photos to a museum curator per Mark's request. I received an email from the museum and unfortunately will not hear from them until after Sept. 11. Will update as soon as I hear something.

thanks again
Tomahawk

[tomahawk]

One of the appraisers with the Antique Roadshow program, who is familiar with Tlingit artifacts, provided the following info about my copper Tlinget dagger:

The pommel of your dagger appears to be "in the style" of NWC art. It is
possible that it is native manufactured but by an unskilled artisan. The
construction (how the pommel is fixed to the blade) is also atypical.


The appraiser did not comment about the age. I have emailed him again in hopes he will give me his opinion about the age of this piece. Will keep those interested updated. thanks Tomahawk

[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.

[Jim McDougall]

I have been watching this thread with great interest as I find the Pacific Northwest especially fascinating, and the more I look at this unusual dagger, which indeed appears Tlingit, I feel more that it may possibly be a more votive item. While I cannot claim any special knowledge on artifacts from these regions, I wonder if this may have any association with the well established 'potlatch' ceremonies common to these tribes. The potlatch was a ceremony which eventually replaced actual warfare, in which prominant tribal figures sought to gain distinction and favor in various situations by competing to see who could give up the most wealth in lavish giveaway ceremonies (discussed in "Keepers of the Totem", Time-Life, 1993, p.151).

The dagger itself, while in Tlingit form, seems 'decorative' rather than for actual use in the way the totem figure is attached to the tang of the knife, especially as it is simply a facade and open in back. The blade, being of copper, however crudely made, may have been significant because of the copper alone.

The apparant high regard for copper, and its use particularly in potlatch ceremony, is discussed in "Crossroads of Continents" Ed. Wm.Fitzhugh & A.Crowell, Smithsonian, 1988), in the following article paragraph:

"...objects of particular wealth, which were often decorated with crest designs, were the shield shaped sheets of copper. 'Coppers' were appropriate as marraige or potlatch gifts or as the purchase price for land. All Northwest coppers that have been tested are made of European copper, intended for or used as sheathing for ships bottoms. Although some copper may have been scavenged by the Indians from wrecked ships, most copper was obtained from European traders".
from "Tlingit: People of the Wolf and Raven"
Frederick de Laguna, Fitzhugh,op.cit. p.62

While the typical form for these objects is described as 'shields', perhaps more innovative and traditional objects such as this dagger representing a clans warrior heritage may be considered as possible potlatch offerings?

I think that many of these items of not necessarily great age from distinct ethnographic groups maintain considerable integrity and interest for the symbolic purpose for which they were intended. This example certainly seems to have such potential, as always, more research !!!

Best regards,
JIm

[tomahawk]

Hello Everyone! I have been surfing the web and found this Northwest Coast dagger that sold in one of Sotheby's auctions in May of 2000. Please excuse the bad photo. As you can see on this particual dagger the mask is not presented in profile as someone earlier had mentioned but is shown in full view - same as my dagger. This particular dagger meaured 21 1/2" and is decribed as follows: Northwest Coast dagger, probably Tlingit, that is 21 1/2 inches high, and has a finely carve horn veneer handle in the form of a "voracious sea creature. with thick lips, jagged teeth, flaring nostrils and hollowed eye frames with classic ovoid eye rims, holding a shaman figure in its caping mouth. This one is a ceremonial dagger. I would assume mine is ceremonial also?

tomahawk

[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