This was in the same accumulation as the "Sioux War Axe" earlier posting. This 3/4 grooved axe is 7.25" long, 1.75" wide and 3.5" tall. It also had a walnut stand that might have been from the same company that made the large display case for the axe. Again, this stone axe is suspect. It is well made, obviously shows pecking and polished surfaces at the "bit". It appears to have had use, but that is up for conjecture.
What makes this axe interesting is the well printed in white ink dedication on one side. I will repeat this dedication in the event you cannot follow it on the photographs.
"Kaw Battle Axe presented to Judge John Caskey in 1889 by Chief Grintner of the Kaw Indian tribe. This gift was made in appreciation for the settling of the Grintner estate by Caskey who was administrator.
Grintner estate lands lay mainly within the present city limits of Kansas City, Kansas."
The first part of the dedication that stands out is the Kaw Battle Axe. This appears to be a typical prehistoric axe that is found in Kansas and Missouri and would pre-date the historical Kaw Indian Tibe members. The material is something expected from the glacial moraines north of the Missouri River, Kansas and Kaw Rivers in Kansas. There do not appear to be modern grinder marks of manufacturer, but that is just an observation.
This statement could be historically accurate. Maybe there is a mention of the presentation in the Kansas City, Kansas or local paper(s).
Of course, to the layman... any axe becomes a Battle Axe to add to the appeal of presentation. No dignitary would expect to be handed an axe for chopping down trees for firewood. A Battle Axe has more prestige.
Again, I am at the mercy of those of knowledge concerning this piece. It is not so perfect to be discounted immediately from appearances, but someone went through some trouble to add the dedication. The printing is done by someone who had nicer than average penmanship skills! There is a "shine" about the stone axe. From experiences living in Missouri, the majority of axes had a weathered surface and only those of high silica content retained a nice gloss when found in a field. It is not a local geological stone, but a glacial moraine type of not the finest igneous or metamorphic stones to be chosen.
Any and all comments are appreciated. Another example of no background information being available to accompany this artifact or artifake.
What makes this axe interesting is the well printed in white ink dedication on one side. I will repeat this dedication in the event you cannot follow it on the photographs.
"Kaw Battle Axe presented to Judge John Caskey in 1889 by Chief Grintner of the Kaw Indian tribe. This gift was made in appreciation for the settling of the Grintner estate by Caskey who was administrator.
Grintner estate lands lay mainly within the present city limits of Kansas City, Kansas."
The first part of the dedication that stands out is the Kaw Battle Axe. This appears to be a typical prehistoric axe that is found in Kansas and Missouri and would pre-date the historical Kaw Indian Tibe members. The material is something expected from the glacial moraines north of the Missouri River, Kansas and Kaw Rivers in Kansas. There do not appear to be modern grinder marks of manufacturer, but that is just an observation.
This statement could be historically accurate. Maybe there is a mention of the presentation in the Kansas City, Kansas or local paper(s).
Of course, to the layman... any axe becomes a Battle Axe to add to the appeal of presentation. No dignitary would expect to be handed an axe for chopping down trees for firewood. A Battle Axe has more prestige.
Again, I am at the mercy of those of knowledge concerning this piece. It is not so perfect to be discounted immediately from appearances, but someone went through some trouble to add the dedication. The printing is done by someone who had nicer than average penmanship skills! There is a "shine" about the stone axe. From experiences living in Missouri, the majority of axes had a weathered surface and only those of high silica content retained a nice gloss when found in a field. It is not a local geological stone, but a glacial moraine type of not the finest igneous or metamorphic stones to be chosen.
Any and all comments are appreciated. Another example of no background information being available to accompany this artifact or artifake.
Comment