Stone Projectile Point Replications:

Research on Fakes and Authentics

By Daniel Dybowski

12/15/02

Table of Contents

Introduction………………....……………………………………….…………1

Safeguard Suggestions………………………………….…………….………...5-8

Scientific Analysis…………………………………………………………..….8-10

Summary/Buyer Beware List…………………………………………………..10, 11

Conclusion…………………………………………………………..………….12, 13

Daniel Dybowski

AN 384

Prof. Stamps

Stone Projectile Point Replications:

Research on Fakes and Authentics

Introduction

“As many people know, prehistoric Indian artifacts have increased greatly in value over the last few years. There has also been a corresponding rise in the number of reproduction artifacts, modern pieces, and these have created major problems. When the new artifacts are passed as old and authentic, they become fakes.” (Hothem, Lar, 2001:354)

These major “problems” mentioned are problems for our current understanding of the archaeological record. However, I believe there are safeguards against this modern manipulation of our understanding of the past. The purpose to this paper is to explore these issues in detail. I intend to point out the many circumstances that have lead to the main motive for projectile point replication, and I will suggest possibilities for future protection against fakes and the potential for clouding the archaeological record.

If one was interested in doing research on fakes, they might find it to be quite challenging. There just isn’t enough information out there for the average person to be aware of the potential hazards that accompany the phenomenon of identifying fakes from authentic. It is quite possible the reasons people have been reproducing antiquities, are direct results of our fascination with past, ancient cultures, and for potentially duping people by providing evidence for justification of certain beliefs. (Stamps, Richard B. 2001:234) So if those were indeed true statements, archaeologists, museum curators, and scientists alike, have to continually fight for the preservation and analyses of authentic antiquities, to protect their disciplines from sabotage. With the advancements in technology in the last Century, the likelihood of deception is decreasing. New technology integrated into archaeology may lead to our better understanding of the people who created and utilized these tools; and finally, authenticate them. (Keeley, Lawrence H., 1978:163)

Suppose for a moment, you are an average middle class citizen living in the United States, where economic establishment is not easy. You have a family to look after, and you are trying to eke out a living as a professional flint knapper, buying the necessary stone and selling the handcrafted results made from your specialized artisanship, all the while, participating in something you love to do. Unfortunately, this turned out to be a recipe for disaster for one man. (Preston, Douglas, 1999:83,84.) This is the story of Woody Blackwell, an otherwise honest individual, who was driven by the necessity of our modern day economic motivations, keeping in mind the fact that these motivations could have also been the factors for replications in the past.

The Woody Blackwell phenomenon has direct significance in my research. This clearly shows the potential for monetary motivations and exploitations involved in the replication of lithics technology. At one point it states in the article, “I was really pissed about it, but at the same time I respected his ability, and I actually congratulated him,” said Taylor. “How was Blackwell able to achieve something that so many experts had said was impossible?” (Preston, Douglas, 1999:87)

Well, I had the opportunity to meet Woody Blackwell at this year’s Knap-In held at Flint Ridge, on Labor Day weekend. At this point, I did not know about his past, and was fortunate enough to be able to get a picture of him producing one of his famous Dalton Points, with an extremely complex contraption he has made specifically for fluting. (Photo 1 Woody Blackwell, Flint Ridge Flint Knap-In.) This of course, was all after the aftermath of accusations and controversy surrounding his ethical judgment in replicating Clovis points. He was favorably glorified however, for having found out the ability to replicate these points, when everyone said it couldn’t be done. It turns out he was producing the point in the photo provided, in order to donate to the knap-in auction. (Photo 2 Flint Ridge Flint Knap-In t-shirt.) These points sell on average up to $250.00 a piece, and in fact, that is the minimum of what these donated points sold for at the auction. This raises issues involved with the ethics of selling replications. Some will say that replicating stone tools can eventually “muddle” collections held by museums and possible interrupt our understanding of them over time. Some argue that selling replications will decrease the necessity for raiding artifacts from known sites. The idea supporting the latter, is if someone can purchase a projectile point that is made even better than the initial artisans, than why not buy the newer one over the authentic one? I realize older points retain higher values, but it is in the best interest of the academic world to profess the value in reproductions as well. I personally see no problem with this approach; I would stress the need however, to engrave the reproductions with the makers name, date, and material or tools used; this topic will be explained later in Safeguard Suggestions.

I also witnessed a man during the auction (Photo 3 Flint Ridge Flint Knap-In auction), race in to the auction area and openly challenge anyone to even try to bid higher than he would, for a video explaining about how to make Dalton Points. It was obvious that money did not matter to him, and he was fully prepared to spend as much as it took to obtain it. He ended up purchasing it for around $50.00 for this single video. That man’s urge initially bothered me somewhat, because I was skeptical as to what he might actually apply the knowledge toward. Perhaps the desire to reproduce these points, which only few can do, is still an overwhelming desire amongst this group of people.

I was also able to find information online for supporting my issue (EBAY handout). Here I was able to take a single days hit on 12/01/02, under keyword ‘arrowheads’, only to find 17 pages worth of data of hand crafted arrowheads for purchase. Again, I was very skeptical as to the authenticity of most of the point considering the fact that only 2 out of 200 had Certificates of Authenticity (C.O.A.). Of course, I am assuming that some of these arrowheads are in fact, fakes, but I think it may be a reasonable assumption. Allow me to explain: take for instance the case of Woody Blackwell (assuming you have read it), it was further stated by Douglas Preston in his article, “And why had he sold the points directly to the country’s premier collectors and experts, instead of seeking out rubes and suckers in the hinterlands? He could have made penny-ante thousand-dollar points,” said Mullins, “and sold them to many people who wouldn’t have gone to the trouble to get them authenticated, circulated, and examined.” This statement has left the door wide open for the deliberate market for smaller, non-essential authentic reproductions = “fakes,” which could easily be sold on our world’s largest black market, “EBAY.” There are other instances as well, (refer to Arrowheads.com and Arrowhead Consignment Sales packets).

Safeguard Suggestions

I have grown to believe that the only way one can really verify whether or not the projectile point in question is fake or not, is to work on archaeological excavations under trained supervisors, and actually become accustomed to “the feel of the genuine article” over time. (Waldorf, D.C., 1993:6,7) This experience I have had with projectile points leads me to believe that stone projectile points do have the ability of being authenticated. This concept is not unique, and it opens the door to the various authentication businesses that there are. These businesses can be found in the back of virtually every Antiquities Identification and Value Guide. For example, The American Antiquities, Inc. of Roswell, Georgia, has a facility that will authenticate your artifact with a very specific “Certificate of Authenticity.” However, it is in the best interest of archaeology, for the sake of clarity in cultural interpretation, to provide knowledge to the beginner collector or student. This would ultimately make them better adept to related information regarding stone projectile points. Being both a flint knapper and a student to archaeology, I have certainly recognized the potential for fraudulent activities that must exist somewhere in the market for lithics.

Some issues that I have experienced can be the question of artifacts being deliberately placed on a known site, before or during the process of excavation. This is otherwise known as “salting” in the academic world. First of all, I cannot fully understand what would drive someone to go out of his or her way to deliberately conduct this act of placing fakes on a known site, but we must not overlook the potential for this being a possibility. Ultimately, it is the archaeologist who will be left to determine the spatial context in which something was found. If I was to be able to determine that money was the main motive driving people to recreate projectile points, which I believe I have started to touch on, then deliberate site tampering may not be the most relevant issue at hand. Not to mention the landowner of a site most likely being aware of its location, which would in most cases, lead to their preservation and further protection of it, by their imposing of strict property trespassing violations. But then again, there are people who may also collect money from people to have them come out to dig at their property for a day to look for antiquities, which are most likely rare occasions. There is also the concern for people to deliberately “salt” property, so that construction companies wouldn’t be able to erect buildings or homes on it.

Secondly, another part of my concern is the trust involved on an archaeological excavation. I could understand why some people may be concerned about trusting scientific evidence, and if it has the potential of being manipulated as well. I can answer this one from experience, on every archaeology crew, there is installed a system of checks and balances which keeps people honest, and truthful. This phenomenon is similar to honesty and truth in presentation for museum staff, to present knowledge to people with the highest degree of accuracy. Such is the case for the archaeology crew in the field. All supervisors tend to be well aware of what is happening at all times in the field. So the potential for onsite manipulation is rare. Not saying that the possibility for tampering isn’t there, but the likelihood for something like that to happen is very low. This assertion places a great deal of pressure of responsibility on the practitioners of archaeology.

There are some measures one can take in order to avoid the hazards associated with this contemporary dilemma, one of which was mentioned earlier. Flintknappers are encouraged to sign their pieces upon completion, so that it may not be mistaken for an actual authentic. This is done with either, black felt permanent marker (fine tipped), India ink with a clear coat of nail polish over it, diamond tipped engraver, or even a carbide tipped engraver, usually at the base. However, the base can be chipped away further by retouch. I have seen Dr. Michael Stafford engrave his pieces with a diamond tipped engraver in the very middle portion, which is logically the most inaccessible area, and still proves to be aesthetically pleasing. Unfortunately, as much as we encourage people to take part in this practice, doesn’t necessarily mean they will do it. It merely acts as an extra method of reinforcement against future fraudulent activity, and ends up being another burden of responsibility placed on the shoulders of previous law abiders. The following statement sums up this issue: “We can offer no real cure for the problems. The market for antiquities, fakes, modern knapping, replicas, and art lithics are all strong and growing. The number of knappers also is increasing. As knappers who also participate in knap-ins, we try to encourage others to mark their points and present them proudly as modern work, conserve material, properly dispose of debitage, and avoid damage to prehistoric sites.” (Whittaker, John C., 1999:212)

What would happen if the record gets “muddled” over time with fakes, as indicated in Whitakker/Stafford’s article? Well, this malicious intent, whether deliberate or not, should be safeguarded against through education, and outreach programs. These aim to teach people the significance in respecting these irreplaceable commodities. Another point may be the non-acceptance by museums or institutions, of artifacts without provenience information, which is currently the case with several institutions. It is types of artifacts like these that should raise red flags anyway, because it is usually an indication that the object was looted from an archaeological site or made by a modern knapper.

Imagine for a moment, a collection in a museum does in fact, get “muddled” with artifacts with bogus provenience data, it would be a good exercise in judgment for the institutions to participate in letting qualified local students of archaeology and museum studies to sort out the mess, or a least do projects on a regular basis that might reduce the risk of collections getting muddled.

The fact of the matter is, is that there is a sense of discomfort with modern day flintknapping amongst the academic world. These full-time, 21st Century stone-age tool artisans are nevertheless looked upon with a sense of ignominy from some academics, for participating in a practice that has inherent attributes of maliciousness. (Preston, Douglas, 1999:84) Quite the contrary, these people are a growing minority of practitioners who have been able to master an ancient art form, and deserve credit for inspiring the archaeologists of the future. Flintknapping is fast becoming a major proponent of knowledge base in both the natural sciences and the social sciences. When one ventures to learn more about it, “not only will you learn about anthropology and archaeology, which promotes a deeper respect for other cultures and traditional technological methods, but one will also be inspired to go on a journey through geology, and learn about the mineralogical composition of the earth.” (Robert Love, Cranbrook Institute of Science’ Fall Festival, 2002.)

Scientific Analysis

After conducting the research, I have found that there are several scientific processes that can be done to authenticate stone projectile points:

1. Patination: Authentic projectile points tend to leave a trace of their prior existence. “Many cherts and flints will patinate, developing a weathered surface as water and sometimes chemical stains work their way into the flint and as silica and other materials are leached out, producing a thin patina or rind of a different color.” (Whittaker, John C., 1994:70.) This is of a measurable quality and certainly is a useful tool for the authenticator. However, even patina can be replicated to the point of slipping by the untrained eye.

2. Micro-wear Analysis: Science has intervened with micro spectrometry for wear patterns associated with cutting, drilling, or abrading. With an electron microscope at 60X to 100X, one can visibly see the scars associated with certain types of wear patterns, which may be helpful in identification for their practical uses. (Keeley, L.H., 1974:5:323-36.)

The science of micro-wear studies is indebted to earlier accomplishments in lithics use analysis. Most notably is the reference material of Brian Hayden, which was a compilation of works from the Conference on Lithic Use-Wear (CLUW), held at the Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, on March 16 through March 20, 1977. This guide validates the necessity of technologies use in proving scientific theories. “These studies can tell us much more about our own nature and our cultures than the earlier pioneers of the field ever imagined. The prospect is genuinely exciting.” (Hayden, Brian, 1979:2) For further support lending credence to edge wear analysis, review Mark Plew. (Plew, Mark G. et al. 1985:211)

3. Ultra violet light tests: Ultra violet light tests can also be performed on stone tools, referring to the case of Woody Blackwell once again: “Howard examined the points using visual, optical, microscopic, and ultraviolet tests. Howard said that although there was no foolproof way to verify the points’ authenticity he was nevertheless willing to declare them authentic – to paper them, in the jargon of the trade. In this field, authentication often hinges on subjective judgment.” Apparently, this wasn’t convincing proof for Mr. Fenn. (Preston, Douglas, 1999:82)

4. Chemical analysis (Neutron Activation Analysis): Chemical analysis was the ultimate break through in the investigation of the Blackwell case. Extensive chemical tests, along with ultra violet tests, proved to be the back breaker for Mr. Blackwell. (Preston, Douglas, 1999:83)