BAnnerstone & the $100 gamble

[WhiteCountyPaleo]

The story goes the guy is selling it cheap because his grandson dropped it and he is needing the money. Found in Clarks Hill Indiana. Some things look good and others not so much. The material is a biggie too, I just don't know what the heck this stuff is. Was the material naturally dissolving, or was it put on a bench grinder brush wheel? There are very very fine scratches, but not heavy scratches, like I've seen on the banded slate banners I've found. It looks like there are flint like inclusions that are too flat with the softer material around them? If this is pudding stone, I've heard a long time ago that pudding stone artifacts are fakes. Not sure what is going on in this artifact. The hole does have rings and is drilled from both ends.

I took pictures of the piece, gave it back to him, and then told the guy I'd like a second opinion. The price went down. Then about a half an hour later I said what the heck and got the piece. I'd like your guys opinion. If it's an obvious fake, take it easy on me.

Thanks everyone,
Chad

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A Handbook of Civil War Bullets and Cartridges - Grab it through Amazon!

[IllinoisDug]

It looks like there are fossils/shells in the stone. Kinda looks similar to rocks I've picked up on Lake Michigan beaches near northern indiana.

 

[GatorBoy]

Except for the one photo with the "inclusions" everything about that looks like bone. If not then most likely quartzite.the drilling looks correct. Looking closely at the break the patina seems consistant with age.

 

[GatorBoy]

These are quartz from Ohio.

 

[GaRebel1861]

I sure ain't an authority on banner stones as I only have one that is complete that I found in the River and about eight broken ones that came from fields. In my opinion, the artifact looks good to me.

 

[GatorBoy]

I agree as much as I can from a photo.

 

[GatorBoy]

I was looking on a cell phone earlier... on puter now.for sure not bone sorry.pretty sure its quartz

 

[WhiteCountyPaleo]

Thanks for the input guys. I have looked through the whole Lutz bannerstone book and can't find any like this, except in the banded slate material. As it being quartz... when I look at the fresh breaks it seems to be awful flaky and like a sedimentary rock, I'm leaning to claystone (though I've only seen black & white pictures. I think some time in the kiln and you could get that patina look pretty easily. If it turns out to be fake, it was worth the money for the knowledge. But, then again hoping it's the real deal, but man I've got my doubts.

 

[GatorBoy]

Sounds like your getting it figured out.. its real hard with a photo.for your sake I hope its genuine.let us know if you get more info.

 

[pointdlr]

White,
Based upon material alone, I would run away from it. Nothing else about it would make me turn around and run back.
It sounds like your study of it has concluded the same thing. Usually these stories cost much more to learn a lesson. Probably worth close to $100 as a repro.
Regards,
Jon Dickinson.

 

[WhiteCountyPaleo]

Thanks Jon. It's one of those deals where you hate to see it go then never know. It looks so odd, to have been made to look spot on, that it seemed right to know either way. I'm kind of a fanatic about bannerstones. This is the first time I have ever, ever, paid a 100 bucks for anything artifact related... and I will figure this one out one way or the other. By the way, those "Looking over the fence" birds are pretty cool Jon.
Chad

 

[Twitch]

This is going to be a fairly useless reply, but I don't see anything clearly problematic in the photo. The story makes a guy a bit nervous but the piece itself isn't alarming, to me at least. I'm sure this is the wrong answer but the material almost looks like a low grade Marble (are those bivalves fossils?) or a limestone variant? This could also account for the surface dissolution in select areas while remaining ground flat in others. Based on your risk/reward analysis, I think you made a good decision.

 

[WhiteCountyPaleo]

Here is a post from another forum...

Archfan...
"Someone put quite a bit of work into this one to make it look genuine, and the broken center is probably what has added the most interesting flare/potential to the piece. Despite all of those efforts the bannerstone is a reproduction based on the material. Im not sure exactly what it is called or where it derives, but it comes in greens to reds with some intermixing with yellows and is some form of mud or silt stone with strange inclusions. Its pretty stuff but always drab unless an intentional polish is put on it. I used to have a discoidal (reproduction) made from the stuff and I will have to look and see whether I still have it. As far as I know, this material was not used in prehistory and I have yet to see an authentic artifact made from it. Also, there was an individual a few years back who churned out massive amounts of bannerstones, birdstones, and spuds out of this stuff; I always wondered if they would pop up as "old" pieces later on."