Authentic Quartz Effigy?

[OntarioArch]

I'm skeptical to say the least. No peck marks. No patina, at all. How do you peck and grind those nostril holes? Opinions welcomed.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

DR.ÖTEK Metal Detector, Waterproof Gold Detector, Pinpoint & Terrain Modes, Professional Metal Detector - Grab it through Amazon!

[Treasure_Hunter]

Paul Frey settled this on another discussion board, at least for me:
"…This was recently the subject on a FB post in an artifact forum. I don't know who owns it for sure, but the author of the post is convinced this is ancient, and anything I might add, would probably lead to an argument, or at least a negative debate. The piece actually looks like marble, a lithic not used in making these. ( but could be quartz ). I am very skeptical this is ancient due to the typology. The features are just out of form. The flaring nose with nostrils, the high relief mouth, no distinct undercuts for the eyes, etc. Although there are exceptions, I would have to handle this piece, but I don't think it's ancient or Native made.


I read the entire FB post, and folks are mistaken on a lot of what is being said. One, there's a matter of pecking marks. Some see them, some don't. These were not pecked to shape from the beginning. The reason I know is I have several stages of preforms. They are cut to a rough shape, ground, and then polished. The features are incised, not pecked. Two, these did not lead to the False Face Society masks, and this piece doesn't exhibit any features of a False Face. . That's a complete different entity of a different time, and cultural meaning. Three, the person who found it said it has GREAT patina! However, other people have examined it, and said it has very little to no patina! Now which is it?! So much controversy. So much being said, everyone is just trying to justify this piece is ancient, even by comparing the surface treatment to quartz birdstones. Even if the one person did physically find it, we don't know the circumstances. Was it made to be found? Is it actually a much later replica, and someone tossed it or lost it? I saw no where that is was mentioned it was actually found in context with other artifacts on a known historic site. In my opinion, I am very skeptical, but I would reserve a conclusive opinion until I might have a chance to examine it. The tool marks, patination, everything has to be correct.

And…

My opinion would be this. If this piece has any antiquity to it, it wouldn't be older than about 1675. More likely 1700s. It is not a style made by the NY Indians, Seneca, Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga, Delaware, etc. It has nothing to do with the False Face masks, In the FB post, there are three pottery heads. Those are Mexican and those are old. They have more resemblance to this piece than any of the actual maskettes made by NY Indians. If it's quartz, an enlargement shows that it's sugar quartz. A very crystalline type quartz, that would shatter if pecked. And should have a lot of spider webbing frost fractures on the surface. Not 100%, but about 95% it's not extremely old or Native"

Very well put, quartz does not do well with pecking, it crumbles and fractures.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

How to Research for Treasure Hunting and Metal Detecting From Lead Generation to Vetting - Grab it through Amazon!