Rehash on a touchey subject

[Bone2stone]

If a replica point is reproduced by an honest to goodness Native "Indian",
would that constitute it as being authentic? :huh:
It would definately be classed as modern but it's the "authentic" tag that bothers me. :unsure: :dry:
Even if it were a replica, could be classed as authentic indian artifact?
Any thoughts on this subject?
Jessy B.

[chase]

That's a good question!
My two cents worth is no not a authentic "artifact". If I was a decedent of well say Rembrandt, and painted a picture that looked like his painting, I am sure the art community would not call it a authentic Rembrandt.

[11KBP]

Bone2stone wrote:

If a replica point is reproduced by an honest to goodness Native "Indian",
would that constitute it as being authentic? :huh:
It would definately be classed as modern but it's the "authentic" tag that bothers me. :unsure:  :dry:
Even if it were a replica, could be classed as authentic indian artifact?
Any thoughts on this subject?
Jessy B.

  Tricky question Jessy
It’s all in the wording, anything recently made by an NA can be called an authentic NA made item.
If the NA replicated point is being sold, then misrepresentation comes into play when it is implied that the point is prehistoric in age.
Using the term "artifact" generally implies "old".

[painshill]

Yes, it is an interesting question. My personal view is that I don’t have a problem with modernity as such. If an item is made in a traditional way, using authentic materials (no modern tools, epoxy glue, imported string, wood or whatever) and by craftsmen or women with a relevant tribal affiliation then it’s still authentic, even if it is modern. Its description should however at the very least include a reference to its time-frame.
What potentially undermines that view in a BIG way is whether the item was actually made with the intention of being used in the context of a traditional way of life. I have no problem with points, pots, baskets or whatever being produced on a reservation in the 1900’s as long as they were intended to be used by the people concerned and their antiquity (or lack of it) is part of their description.
Where I do have a problem is when those items were mass-produced solely for sale to tourists – either directly, or via the numerous trading posts that sprung up across the States in the early railroad era. The problem is further exacerbated by “short-cuts” in production methods, lower quality standards and the use of foreign materials or methods. For me, that is absolutely not authentic.

[CliffJ]

Authentic-

a: worthy of acceptance or belief as conforming to or based on fact
b: conforming to an original so as to reproduce essential features 
c: made or done the same way as an original 
Artifact-
a: something created by humans usually for a practical purpose; especially: an object remaining from a particular period 
b: something characteristic of or resulting from a particular human institution, period, trend, or individual
(definitions from Merriam-Webster)
As far as your question was worded- yes, a point made yesterday by an Indian is an authentic artifact. Add into the question "ancient" and then , no, the point is not an authentic ancient artifact.

[Hoss]

I am with Cliff on this one.

[Adena]

I guess it could be considered an Indian (made) artifact, but I would hate to see one made that way passed off to someone as an ancient one.

[Bookhammer]

I think Cliff hit the nail on the head.

[G10+]

DANG CLIFF !!! you hammered that lid closed!!!
Jesse , that quistion made me scratch my melon for a min.....
but I think cliff cleared that up for me ... thanks Cliff, and thanks Jesse for an interesting topic

[Bone2stone]

Thanks guys. I once watched a competition that had restrictions that
limited entrants to being native American.
The question was brought up because of this competition
where the entrant must make his own atlatl from natural materials nearby.
Point must be made on site of competition.
Entire set up must be ready within a certain time frame and the judge was accuracy of hit/throw.
After the opening ceremonies they paired off for a real hunt.
We could not stick around for the finally.
Just decided to ask what you guys thought being collectors and all.
To be honest Cliff's input is just as accurate a point of view as it gets. 
I still think about this subject from time to time.
Jess B.

[clovisoid]

So, would the mini-Taj Mahal statue I bought in India be an authentic artifact in this case?  (Sorry just a play on words.)
Actually, there is a law that regulates all post 1930 Indian Art -and- Crafts, including prehistoric cultural items that can be attributed to an existing group.  I think most of the claims are from tribes in the Southwest and Alaskan groups vs someone making Caddoan arrowheads, but they take it pretty seriously.  A Hopi can't make and sell a Navajo rug, someone from another Pueblo can't make Acoma designs, etc.  You can't make and sell silver -and- turquoise squash flower necklaces if you aren't registered in a tribe.
I don't think it has ever been applied to modern knapping passed as ancient, but I think modern retailers than have imported wood carvings have fallen on the wrong side of the law by copying cultural designs from existing tribes.
The Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1990

[JoshinMO]

Authentic Artifact Replica  :rolf:
In my opinion an attempt at knapping a clovis point in modern times cant be called a flat out clovis (clovis replica/much better description!) as they have not been made in thousands of years, but a lot of knappers can make a point that looks just like the old ones. Same as any point after the original makers stopped making them long ago.
When people start putting words like authentic or artifact in description of a modern point things get confusing!
Call them what you will, reproductions,replicas, or fake. OR make a new style of point!

[turkeytail]

Key word....Ancient.

[OnewiththewilD]

i'd call it a modern,native made reproduction.unless it was made by the people who really used said tool,in the correct time frame,for the purpose its meant for,its a repro. people still make japanese swords exactly the same way as in the warring states period of japan,some of the makers are even descendents of the original smiths, but would i call their creations authentic samurai katanas? no, i'd call them authentic modern katanas, they were never made for a real warrior to carry and use in real life.

[JoshinMO]

Not that I dont like knapping/modern points, its a great art/survival skill and one of the first that goes way back. Just if Someone says they have an authentic madison arrowhead, I am naturally going to take his word its also Ancient. Some People use words different, to each His own.