Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Dawnno, post: 585631, member: 10171&quot;]So, I&#039;m only one step ahead of Bronwen, in that I have handled a &#039;couple&#039; of real pre-Columbian artifacts, e.g., Mogollon (Arizona/Tx), Narino (Peru), and Caddo (Mississippian) cultures, and a few sherds, etc.&nbsp;&nbsp; But, in so doing, I can tell you it is MEGA-difficult to tell from pics whether something is authentic.&nbsp; Fakes abound.&nbsp; Having said that, my first reaction was &quot;hmmm!&quot; in a good way, and then reminded myself to proceed with caution. </p><p><br /></p><p>Here are the things that bother me, first:</p><p><br /></p><p>The firing looks &#039;eh&#039; and not &#039;deep&#039; enough, i.e., the surface should be pretty sturdy and not flaky.&nbsp;&nbsp; The Narino pot was crafted using a lost wax process that glazed the heck out of it, with designs and beautiful lining, that&#039;s lasted a 1000 years.&nbsp; Plain utility pots were obviously a necessity during any period, but if you want to &#039;fake&#039; you may want to keep it plain and not put too much work into it too.</p><p><br /></p><p>If it was obtained 40 years ago, 1980, that&#039;s right after the laws changed to prevent import of grave goods, pilfered etc and thus lessens the chances your friend obtained a &#039;real&#039; pot.&nbsp; Not that it can&#039;t happen, but it&#039;s a &#039;why risk it&#039; situation.&nbsp; If he bought it with authentication, he&#039;s a GREAT friend for giving it to you.&nbsp; I saw that you put the &quot;(?)&quot; after it, so that makes me think it&#039;s just a guess, and not a gallery purchase. </p><p><br /></p><p>Next, Bronwen noted the handles being small.&nbsp; Yes, even SMALLER alot of the time. and often incorporating effigy-designs.&nbsp; But, if utility, plain is possible.&nbsp;&nbsp; The style/shape/design of the pot is both good and bad.&nbsp; It&#039;s only &#039;somewhat&#039; off, and so I can&#039;t rule it in or out with my knowledge and more &#039;instant expert Googling&#039;.&nbsp; Just like the fact it&#039;s whole.&nbsp; Could have been &#039;dug&#039; and found, since Central and South American cultures buried offerings with the dead relatives beneath the floor boards of the houses, and centuries later, a bulldozer comes in and digs up great-great 7x granny with a pot, still whole.&nbsp; But, broken pots were the norm for ancient civilizations as they were broken to free the spirits (keeping that simple).&nbsp; So maybe, maybe not. </p><p><br /></p><p>Other things that bother me are the lack of manganese spots, that sometimes form on old buried items, basically &#039;ooze&#039; from the natural elements in the clay.&nbsp; Fakers love to put those on fakes, but there are none here... so that&#039;s good. Unless it was buried a long time ... then it&#039;s bad.&nbsp;&nbsp; So it&#039;s neutral.&nbsp;&nbsp; The surfaces are often &quot;pebble rubbed&quot; to get a fired surface that&#039;s smooth, don&#039;t see that here, especially given it flakes.&nbsp;&nbsp; So, all I can say is &#039;not that type of pot.&#039;</p><p><br /></p><p>The good things are that it&#039;s crafted well, and the symmetry is on.&nbsp; all the old stuff has amazing symmetry in my opinion... you&#039;d think hand made meant &#039;crooked&#039; but to me, quite the opposite.&nbsp;&nbsp; Pics don&#039;t tell the whole story... feeling it helps.</p><p><br /></p><p>Check inside.&nbsp; Is the surface smooth, like somebody spent time with it?&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>My antiquer side wants to say &quot;what a find&quot; but I&#039;m leaning toward &quot;pottery from Mexico, maybe from 100-150 years ago, and utilitarian&quot; that somebody later &#039;repurposed&#039; to an unsuspecting buyer as pre-Columbian.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>I just don&#039;t have enough superpowers yet.&nbsp;&nbsp; Need more spinach.&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>And after all that, I quote what I should have seen right off the bat in the discussion above: </p><p><br /></p><p>&quot;No reason to rule out the possibility it is authentic. An expert would have to examine it, unless one could unequivocally say it is fake based on visual cues alone.&quot;&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>What they said.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in