There has been a good discussion started by Hunts with Stone's comment about flintknapping ethics in my "Flintknapping Glossary of Terms" thread. I would like to continue this discussion here so that the "Glossary" thread stays focused on definitions.
Hunts with stoneFrom Errett Callahan. Experimental knapping. Ethics in Experimental Archaeology
Along with his work in the technological aspects of the field of experimental archaeology, Callahan has worked tirelessly to promote ethical research and documentation among fellow experimental archaeologists (Callahan 1999). Modern forgeries passed off as prehistoric artifacts have been detrimental to the field. Callahan has spoken out against such practices, encouraging flint knappers around the world to sign and date all of their production. Callahan has also championed authentic and scientific reconstructions, which he defined in his article What is Experimental Archaeology? (1999), as reconstructions which are successful, functional units undertaken with the correct period tools, materials, and procedures and which are scientifically monitored. In this statement, Callahan urges other flint knappers and experimental archaeologists against using modern replica tools such as copper billets to reproduce stone tools instead of the traditional bone and stone hammers used throughout prehistory. Callahan also says in the statement that without proper documentation of the techniques and processes there is no real experiment. With Callahan at the forefront of experimental archaeology, the field of replication studies gained acceptance throughout the academic community.
jackcraftyThanks for the promotional material. It's interesting to see who is re-inventing the wheel these days.
Experimental archaeology is nothing new. And the field of replication studies is not limited to flintknapping. There has been work done for decades in the fields of pottery, rock art/petroglyphs, stone carving, jewelry and ornamentation, and the list goes on. The ethics are well established. I agree that well made replications should be marked. But should we also require markings on the natural pottery that is being made by members of the primitive skills community, for example? Real scientists are not overly concerned with reproductions. This is mainly an issue with collectors and with the people who hate collectors.
This is only my personal belief but claiming to know what the "correct" tools were, in the past, is not only arrogant but is at the root of a mentality that creates tunnel vision among the archaeological community. For example, this type of tunnel vision has lead to countless pieces of debitage being discarded because it was considered "irrelevant" to the current knowledge of how the items were supposedly produced. Only recently has the science of debitage analysis gained serious attention. And if no one is looking for evidence of copper residue, who knows how long it will take for us to discover the "proper" or correct period tools? And how do we know that meteorite iron wasn't used to produce some of the ancient artifacts? We will NEVER know this because any evidence is now decayed beyond recognition.
Edit: One more thing. Copper, as a naturally occurring metal that can be found on the surface, has been collected, shaped, and utilized for thousands of years in prehistory. Only the extent of its use is unknown. The origins of refining copper and copper ore is also another unknown but we know that the technology was around in the time of Otzi: at least a thousand years before archaeologists in Europe "knew" about it's use prior to the discovery of his copper axe.
Notes:
There is considerable debate as to whether or not copper was used by prehistoric flintknappers in the Americas. There is evidence of copper tools being used by the Hopewell culture, like celts, but whether or not tools for flintknapping were also part of their "tool kit" is not clear. It is also not clear
how copper might have been used in flintknapping and in what time periods. It is reasonable to assume that copper (or other metals like iron) may have used to create notches in bifaces, for example, but whether this was confined to true arrow points, like the one's made by Ishi, or earlier points as well, is up for debate.
NewbowRegards "correct tools": "Correct" tools for any given activity in the prehistoric past will be those tools that archeological consensus suggests were probably the tools used. Those tool sets may change over time as more information comes to light through additional archeological discoveries or even from insights gained from experimental archeology but, that "We will NEVER know this..." ("this" being the exact tools used) does not, ipso facto, give someone the freedom to use just whatever tools they may prefer and then call it "replication". The most serious bone of contention in flintknapping concerns the use (or not) of copper. Yes, there is some evidence that copper may have been used occasionally in flintknapping. As Patrick pointed out in "Notes:", how much it was used, or that it was used at all, remains controversial but I have seen modern knappers defend copper as an "Abo" technique because it was available and, therefore, could have been used. To be fair, that defense was used in an effort to stifle some born again Abo knappers who can be quite, uh, narrow minded when it comes to "proper" knapping tools and techniques, but those narrow minded Abo knappers do have a point (no pun intended). Copper, however widespread, was never common enough to be comparable to rocks, bone or antler, and its primary use appears to have been ornamental/ceremonial; more in common with our day to day use of gold (electronics not withstanding) and, while not impossible or even difficult to produce, a person will be hard pressed to locate a set of gold tools at the local hardware store. If you are going to replicate (replicate being defined as producing an identical article from the same material and by the same means) then you have to use the most probable tools that have been identified, and the people who do that Identifying are the archeologists. Of course they're not always right. It is, and always will be, a work in progress, but if you intend to use tools/techniques not identified by archeological consensus, then be prepared with compelling evidence to defend your methods. Hammer stones, bone, antler (in most places, at least in North America), even wood, are defensible. Copper? Currently, not a chance, if you're replicating a particular point type. If you are replicating a particular point and going to use copper, did the original have traces of copper residue? If not, you're out on a limb. As I understand it, those who authenticate original points specifically look for copper traces as a de-authenticating factor, so you're likely to remain on that limb for some time.
