Sold for $482,000 inclusive of Buyer's Premium

fearn · 10th June 2009, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David

If we can count on oral tradition at all (and granted, it can be questionable at times) the "Killer Whale" dagger i posted in post #14 goes back 10 generations. If we count a generation as 20 yrs. that would place it's origins in the very beginning of the 1800's. If we look at the very competent crafting of this blade though, it is clear that the Tlingit did not learn to forge like this over night, so i think we need to look just a bit further back than that date for the introduction of this art form to the tribes.
I agree with Barry that we don't necessarily need to link this to the first European encounters. Chinese or other Asian explorers may well have made the voyage (or trek) across the Bering Strait years before the English or even the Russians arrived, though if the 1741 date for Russian encounters is correct blades like this may well have been made before the end of the 18th century.

Hi David,

While I agree that one does not learn to forge good blades over night, I do think that every good smith learns to forge good blades within his working lifetime, or a decade or two. Given that window, I'm not surprised that the Tlingit were making good blades early on.

As another example, think of the plains Indians. They went from a culture that had never seen a horse to being some of the best horsemen in the world in a generation or two. Change can happen quite rapidly, even in traditional cultures.

F

David · 10th June 2009, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fearn

While I agree that one does not learn to forge good blades over night, I do think that every good smith learns to forge good blades within his working lifetime, or a decade or two. Given that window, I'm not surprised that the Tlingit were making good blades early on.
As another example, think of the plains Indians. They went from a culture that had never seen a horse to being some of the best horsemen in the world in a generation or two. Change can happen quite rapidly, even in traditional cultures.

ummm, yes Fearn, i think we agree. That's why i wrote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by David

we need to look just a bit further back than that date for the introduction of this art form to the tribes.

Tim Simmons · 10th June 2009, 07:48 PM

It is clear reaching the required heat could not of been a problem. To extract "float copper" if it was only this copper, and then melt it into a workable amount, indeed to work the copper as many of the copper artifacts are large.

Smelting was undoubtably known of in parts of South America, the Andes for instance. Bronze is an alloy of copper and tin. Tin is only found as an ore. You can have a copper/lead bronze, lead can be found naturally but is extemely rare so that to would be from an ore. You could have copper/silver but that is billon and different to bronze.

The B, Columbia site has record of an iron knife from 1780?

Could possible smelting and working iron be found in corners like the Andean bronze. The materials are there. Look at these beautiful metal art objects from "Ancient Arts of the Andes" the Museum of Modern Art.

fearn · 10th June 2009, 08:55 PM

Hi David,

You're right. I think it's a case where I read what you wrote in a different way than you intended it.

Hi Tim,

So far as I know (and I have done some reading), the people of the Andes were casting bronze around 1000 AD. They used arsenic-bronze for some weapons, but metal weapons were not apparently widespread.

As for why the Andeans didn't discover iron even though the area was civilized for CA 5000 years before Columbus, that's one of the bigger puzzles of Andean archeology, and yes, they've been looking. Most of the prerequisite steps were already present by 1000 AD. My guess as a non-expert was that it came from a variety of possible reasons. Here's my list (and remember, I'm not an expert, just someone who's read a bit of the literature):

1. There *might* be some weirdness about smelting iron at high altitude. I've never seen anyone talk about this, but if one of our smiths would comment?
2. Metal tools didn't play an significant role in the Andes until around 1000 AD. They did some fairly amazing things with agriculture, animal husbandry, textiles, and the like (and in fact, we're still rediscovering some of their tricks). However, metal was first (and primarily) used for ornaments, then as an adjunct for stoneworking, and then (finally) for weapons. Odd as it may seem to us, metal was less important to them as a working material.
3. The Andes are wracked by these periodic "mega El Ninos" which last for decades and tend to kill off civilizations (to clarify, many of the people survive, but the centralized city states disappear during or after these drought-and-flood episodes). This seems to have imposed a roughly 500 year cycle on the region, where the survivors of the previous mega-Nino regrouped and formed a new civilization that built new cities under a pleasant climate, only to get wiped out again in the next mega-Nino. Similar disasters hit Europe and Asia, but for whatever reason, the Andes were more prone to them. This seems to have delayed the development of metallurgy, just as it seems to have spurred development of terracing, canals, and other technologies designed to keep people fed during these catastrophes. Seems sensible, actually.
4. This may sound weird to us, but their major weapons were stone, not metal. They used things like slings, which everybody had, which could be made to spec in a few hours out of readily available material (or a day or two for a really fancy one), which had ammunition literally lying around, and which out-ranged the local bows. When you've got that kind of weapons technology available to everyone, do you really need metal weapons?
The metal mace-heads I've seen were apparently status symbols as much as improved weapons.

Those are my guesses. I suspect that, had the Andeans survived uncontacted for another 1000 years, they would have figured out iron metallurgy. Still, there's no evidence they worked iron.

F

Emanuel · 10th June 2009, 10:51 PM

I'm no smith yet (trying though) but as I understand it, high altitude is only a problem when you're dealing with athmospheric/venturi gas burners which require a certain athmospheric pressure to ensure an adequate fuel mix.

The rareified athmosphere could perhaps pose a problem to combustion, but only at very high altitudes. Assuming a simple forge with hide bellows, I don't think people would have problem smelting at high altitudes. Material availability is of greater concern I think. Mining ore in a low-oxygen environment sounds particualrly difficult.

Then again, why talk of high altitudes? How many urban/production centres were high up in the mountains (Machu Pichu, yes, but others?). Very many cities were far lower down, despite being in the Andes.

Thoughts...
Emanuel

fearn · 10th June 2009, 10:58 PM

Hi Manolo,

Most of the good land (and most of the population) in the central Andes is between 10,000 and 50,000 ft (crudely, 3300 and 5000 m). Most of the modern, low elevation cities were founded by Spaniards, in part because they couldn't tolerate the high elevations, especially women trying to have children. At low elevations on the Pacific coast, there isn't a lot of water outside the tropics, so arable land and townsites are fairly limited.

That's why I was asking about high altitude smithing. It's one of those things no one talks about, and I don't know whether it's because it's a non-issue, or because so few blacksmiths work at high elevation that it's not really thought about. Otherwise, iron ore is fairly plentiful in the Andes, so raw material wasn't an issue.

F

Tim Simmons · 11th June 2009, 06:03 PM

I am just fascinated by the hole thing of metalwork in the Americas. Relics are there to show that it was pan American. Could the PNW have been the first to produce iron? Archeaologists suggest that the ancient British bronze age and iron ages were not seperate events. It seems obvious that a merging would occur. Stone, bronze and iron being used for a period of time while wealth, location, materials and trade made certian materials obsolete. A lot may have depended on the job and size of the tool.

fearn · 11th June 2009, 08:10 PM

Hi Tim,

The only archeologically supported iron working in the Americas prior to 1491 (and ignoring the Norse!) was the iron used by the Greenland eskimos from the Cape York meteorite, going back ~1000 years. That was essentially modified stone-working, not forging. I suspect the material was traded fairly widely in the Arctic, simply because they traded chert and other tool stones as well. Otherwise, blacksmithing was brought in by the Europeans.

I don't know of any evidence for any North American bronze smithing, either. Most of the metal work seems to have been confined to the Andes, with gold working reaching up into Mexico (the Aztecs).

Best,

F

10th June 2009, 07:48 PM	#3
Tim Simmons Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: What is still UK Posts: 5,855	It is clear reaching the required heat could not of been a problem. To extract "float copper" if it was only this copper, and then melt it into a workable amount, indeed to work the copper as many of the copper artifacts are large. Smelting was undoubtably known of in parts of South America, the Andes for instance. Bronze is an alloy of copper and tin. Tin is only found as an ore. You can have a copper/lead bronze, lead can be found naturally but is extemely rare so that to would be from an ore. You could have copper/silver but that is billon and different to bronze. The B, Columbia site has record of an iron knife from 1780? Could possible smelting and working iron be found in corners like the Andean bronze. The materials are there. Look at these beautiful metal art objects from "Ancient Arts of the Andes" the Museum of Modern Art. Attached Images

10th June 2009, 08:55 PM	#4
fearn Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 1,247	Hi David, You're right. I think it's a case where I read what you wrote in a different way than you intended it. Hi Tim, So far as I know (and I have done some reading), the people of the Andes were casting bronze around 1000 AD. They used arsenic-bronze for some weapons, but metal weapons were not apparently widespread. As for why the Andeans didn't discover iron even though the area was civilized for CA 5000 years before Columbus, that's one of the bigger puzzles of Andean archeology, and yes, they've been looking. Most of the prerequisite steps were already present by 1000 AD. My guess as a non-expert was that it came from a variety of possible reasons. Here's my list (and remember, I'm not an expert, just someone who's read a bit of the literature): 1. There might be some weirdness about smelting iron at high altitude. I've never seen anyone talk about this, but if one of our smiths would comment? 2. Metal tools didn't play an significant role in the Andes until around 1000 AD. They did some fairly amazing things with agriculture, animal husbandry, textiles, and the like (and in fact, we're still rediscovering some of their tricks). However, metal was first (and primarily) used for ornaments, then as an adjunct for stoneworking, and then (finally) for weapons. Odd as it may seem to us, metal was less important to them as a working material. 3. The Andes are wracked by these periodic "mega El Ninos" which last for decades and tend to kill off civilizations (to clarify, many of the people survive, but the centralized city states disappear during or after these drought-and-flood episodes). This seems to have imposed a roughly 500 year cycle on the region, where the survivors of the previous mega-Nino regrouped and formed a new civilization that built new cities under a pleasant climate, only to get wiped out again in the next mega-Nino. Similar disasters hit Europe and Asia, but for whatever reason, the Andes were more prone to them. This seems to have delayed the development of metallurgy, just as it seems to have spurred development of terracing, canals, and other technologies designed to keep people fed during these catastrophes. Seems sensible, actually. 4. This may sound weird to us, but their major weapons were stone, not metal. They used things like slings, which everybody had, which could be made to spec in a few hours out of readily available material (or a day or two for a really fancy one), which had ammunition literally lying around, and which out-ranged the local bows. When you've got that kind of weapons technology available to everyone, do you really need metal weapons? The metal mace-heads I've seen were apparently status symbols as much as improved weapons. Those are my guesses. I suspect that, had the Andeans survived uncontacted for another 1000 years, they would have figured out iron metallurgy. Still, there's no evidence they worked iron. F

10th June 2009, 10:51 PM	#5
Emanuel Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 1,242	I'm no smith yet (trying though) but as I understand it, high altitude is only a problem when you're dealing with athmospheric/venturi gas burners which require a certain athmospheric pressure to ensure an adequate fuel mix. The rareified athmosphere could perhaps pose a problem to combustion, but only at very high altitudes. Assuming a simple forge with hide bellows, I don't think people would have problem smelting at high altitudes. Material availability is of greater concern I think. Mining ore in a low-oxygen environment sounds particualrly difficult. Then again, why talk of high altitudes? How many urban/production centres were high up in the mountains (Machu Pichu, yes, but others?). Very many cities were far lower down, despite being in the Andes. Thoughts... Emanuel

10th June 2009, 10:58 PM	#6
fearn Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 1,247	Hi Manolo, Most of the good land (and most of the population) in the central Andes is between 10,000 and 50,000 ft (crudely, 3300 and 5000 m). Most of the modern, low elevation cities were founded by Spaniards, in part because they couldn't tolerate the high elevations, especially women trying to have children. At low elevations on the Pacific coast, there isn't a lot of water outside the tropics, so arable land and townsites are fairly limited. That's why I was asking about high altitude smithing. It's one of those things no one talks about, and I don't know whether it's because it's a non-issue, or because so few blacksmiths work at high elevation that it's not really thought about. Otherwise, iron ore is fairly plentiful in the Andes, so raw material wasn't an issue. F

11th June 2009, 06:03 PM	#7
Tim Simmons Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: What is still UK Posts: 5,855	I am just fascinated by the hole thing of metalwork in the Americas. Relics are there to show that it was pan American. Could the PNW have been the first to produce iron? Archeaologists suggest that the ancient British bronze age and iron ages were not seperate events. It seems obvious that a merging would occur. Stone, bronze and iron being used for a period of time while wealth, location, materials and trade made certian materials obsolete. A lot may have depended on the job and size of the tool.

11th June 2009, 08:10 PM	#8
fearn Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 1,247	Hi Tim, The only archeologically supported iron working in the Americas prior to 1491 (and ignoring the Norse!) was the iron used by the Greenland eskimos from the Cape York meteorite, going back ~1000 years. That was essentially modified stone-working, not forging. I suspect the material was traded fairly widely in the Arctic, simply because they traded chert and other tool stones as well. Otherwise, blacksmithing was brought in by the Europeans. I don't know of any evidence for any North American bronze smithing, either. Most of the metal work seems to have been confined to the Andes, with gold working reaching up into Mexico (the Aztecs). Best, F