Plains stone axe for ?ing

fearn · 24th July 2014, 06:42 AM

I'm a bit troubled by this one. Hatchets and tomahawks were a trade item from very early on (like 16th Century, IIRC), so I'm trying to get my head around how you get a stone head with brass tacks that aren't massively tarnished. Unfortunately, the simplest way to do it is to find an unattached stone head and work from there.

My 0.0002 cents,

F

Tim Simmons · 24th July 2014, 09:06 AM

Very good point. That thought has also been in my mind. There is a chance that besides looking like a weapon it could be ceremonial or dance piece. Clearly some of the artifacts out there are genuine as in this link.

http://cdm15330.contentdm.oclc.org/c...id/2144/rec/13

I keep my fingers crossed that I may have been a lucky so and so who was silly enough to have a go. In the time being I will search for more interesting stuff.

Tim Simmons · 24th July 2014, 06:30 PM

Food for thought. Say this item presents an old axe? It may been used later as a dance or status piece? Is it possible that we assume that the original culture was not capable of appreciating there own antiques, unable to bringing them forward in new forms?

Ian · 25th July 2014, 01:29 AM

Tim,

Those brass tacks don't look quite right to me. There appear to be none missing, which would be unusual for an otherwise older looking piece. Fearn has also commented on the "pristine" condition of those studs. I would have expected at least an occasional ding on at least one stud over the lifetime of an old axe.

Similarly, the haft and leather work look to be complete--nothing obviously missing. This just raises some red flags for me.

I sincerely hope you have lucked out here!

Cheers,

Ian.

jwkiernan · 25th July 2014, 02:14 AM

Tim,

I have been on this form for many years, but have become more active since my retirement from the military. I have collected stone tools since I was a child (grew up in Eastern Colorado on a ranch), have done extensive archaeological work, and have even lectured once (as a guest) on the production of stone tools at the University of Maryland. My replication (stone tools are my forte) work can be seen online by typing in my name and flint knapping in a Google search...just to give you some background on me and artifacts.

I have been fortunate to handle some of the finest collections of stone tools, as well as perishables in the country. I have never seen anything like this outside a tourist stop. It just looks wrong from so many levels. HOWEVER, I'd love to see better/clearer photos of the stone head, there is a small possibility that it could be an older piece married into its current wardrobe.

The head reminds me of a typically bi-facially worked preform for a larger knife form. There are bi-facially worked chert/flint axes found here in the States however most are bowtie shaped and some from the south can be shaped a bit like yours. This doesn't even take in to account prestige items that were made for status not utilization (although could have been). Most all true ax or celt forms are normally made of a different type of lithic material (metabasalts ect.) and instead of being left in a flaked stage are smoothed and shaped by a process of pecking and polishing. Not too unlike the process for polished bit flint celts from the UK and the square sectioned axes of the upper Baltic and Scandinavia.

The true "war clubs" whether ball type or the bi-pointed type, along with hafted mauls found on the plains are normally made by pecking and polishing as well and normally have a prominent central groove in the head to facilitate hafting.

I could bore you with hours of drivel on stone tools...I found my first one when I was 8 years old and they continue to be a passion 41 years later (and always will)...I love sharp, pointy things! Hope this helps and is not too disappointing, but again, just my opinion. Feel free to PM me if you have further questions...just my 2 cents. Take care.

All my best,

John

trenchwarfare · 25th July 2014, 03:32 AM

As a casual student of Native American weapons, I agree with John. Most weapons being as he described. My thoughts are, that this is an early 20th century, "tourista" piece. If that's the case, it is still very desirable, and valuable. Items from that era, can sell for thousands.

Tim Simmons · 25th July 2014, 07:45 AM

Thanks for the most interesting replies. Fortunately the cost was bearable. My only riposte will be that I can provide pictures of examples from books of collections that differ. Also examples of artifacts with no missing beads or decorative elements. We all have perfect pieces in our collections? I do appreciate your input.

John, I would like opinions on this stone club?

25th July 2014, 07:45 AM	#7
Tim Simmons Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: What is still UK Posts: 5,742	Thanks for the most interesting replies. Fortunately the cost was bearable. My only riposte will be that I can provide pictures of examples from books of collections that differ. Also examples of artifacts with no missing beads or decorative elements. We all have perfect pieces in our collections? I do appreciate your input. John, I would like opinions on this stone club? Attached Images

24th July 2014, 06:42 AM	#1
fearn Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 1,247	I'm a bit troubled by this one. Hatchets and tomahawks were a trade item from very early on (like 16th Century, IIRC), so I'm trying to get my head around how you get a stone head with brass tacks that aren't massively tarnished. Unfortunately, the simplest way to do it is to find an unattached stone head and work from there. My 0.0002 cents, F

24th July 2014, 09:06 AM	#2
Tim Simmons Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: What is still UK Posts: 5,742	Very good point. That thought has also been in my mind. There is a chance that besides looking like a weapon it could be ceremonial or dance piece. Clearly some of the artifacts out there are genuine as in this link. http://cdm15330.contentdm.oclc.org/c...id/2144/rec/13 I keep my fingers crossed that I may have been a lucky so and so who was silly enough to have a go. In the time being I will search for more interesting stuff.

24th July 2014, 06:30 PM	#3
Tim Simmons Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: What is still UK Posts: 5,742	Food for thought. Say this item presents an old axe? It may been used later as a dance or status piece? Is it possible that we assume that the original culture was not capable of appreciating there own antiques, unable to bringing them forward in new forms?

25th July 2014, 01:29 AM	#4
Ian Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: The Aussie Bush Posts: 4,044	Tim, Those brass tacks don't look quite right to me. There appear to be none missing, which would be unusual for an otherwise older looking piece. Fearn has also commented on the "pristine" condition of those studs. I would have expected at least an occasional ding on at least one stud over the lifetime of an old axe. Similarly, the haft and leather work look to be complete--nothing obviously missing. This just raises some red flags for me. I sincerely hope you have lucked out here! Cheers, Ian.

25th July 2014, 02:14 AM	#5
jwkiernan Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 37	Tim, I have been on this form for many years, but have become more active since my retirement from the military. I have collected stone tools since I was a child (grew up in Eastern Colorado on a ranch), have done extensive archaeological work, and have even lectured once (as a guest) on the production of stone tools at the University of Maryland. My replication (stone tools are my forte) work can be seen online by typing in my name and flint knapping in a Google search...just to give you some background on me and artifacts. I have been fortunate to handle some of the finest collections of stone tools, as well as perishables in the country. I have never seen anything like this outside a tourist stop. It just looks wrong from so many levels. HOWEVER, I'd love to see better/clearer photos of the stone head, there is a small possibility that it could be an older piece married into its current wardrobe. The head reminds me of a typically bi-facially worked preform for a larger knife form. There are bi-facially worked chert/flint axes found here in the States however most are bowtie shaped and some from the south can be shaped a bit like yours. This doesn't even take in to account prestige items that were made for status not utilization (although could have been). Most all true ax or celt forms are normally made of a different type of lithic material (metabasalts ect.) and instead of being left in a flaked stage are smoothed and shaped by a process of pecking and polishing. Not too unlike the process for polished bit flint celts from the UK and the square sectioned axes of the upper Baltic and Scandinavia. The true "war clubs" whether ball type or the bi-pointed type, along with hafted mauls found on the plains are normally made by pecking and polishing as well and normally have a prominent central groove in the head to facilitate hafting. I could bore you with hours of drivel on stone tools...I found my first one when I was 8 years old and they continue to be a passion 41 years later (and always will)...I love sharp, pointy things! Hope this helps and is not too disappointing, but again, just my opinion. Feel free to PM me if you have further questions...just my 2 cents. Take care. All my best, John

25th July 2014, 03:32 AM	#6
trenchwarfare Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 385	As a casual student of Native American weapons, I agree with John. Most weapons being as he described. My thoughts are, that this is an early 20th century, "tourista" piece. If that's the case, it is still very desirable, and valuable. Items from that era, can sell for thousands.