Pre-contact Maori whalebone club

M ELEY · 13th September 2010, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VANDOO

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

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

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.

fearn · 14th September 2010, 12:26 AM

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

Ron Anderson · 14th September 2010, 04:43 AM

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.

kronckew · 14th September 2010, 11:48 AM

did not the indians of the pacific northwest have hardened copper tools?

fearn · 14th September 2010, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kronckew

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

Atlantia · 14th September 2010, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fearn

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

Ron Anderson · 15th September 2010, 01:36 AM

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.

14th September 2010, 12:26 AM	#2
fearn Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 1,247	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

14th September 2010, 04:43 AM	#3
Ron Anderson Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Sydney Australia Posts: 228	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.

14th September 2010, 11:48 AM	#4
kronckew Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Room 101, Glos. UK Posts: 4,239	did not the indians of the pacific northwest have hardened copper tools?

15th September 2010, 01:36 AM	#7
Ron Anderson Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Sydney Australia Posts: 228	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.