copper/ stone

[iowabow]

Met Larry at the devil hole knappin. 3000 trees cut no sharpening the stone. Not sure I could do that with iron.

[JackCrafty]

Where exactly is the info on flinknappers.com?

[Wolf Watcher]

When the Eastern Cherokees made dugout canoes from large trees they use fire to bring them down.  They would use wet plant material wrapped around the tree above the fire to fell the tree.  They used fire and stone axes to hollow out the canoe.  They also used blow guns to hunt with.  In the mountains here there are always lots of blow downs, especially lodge pole pines.  The sheep eaters made tepee shaped lodges out of the blow downs.  I can tell you this I would hate to trade my chain saw for a copper axe!  Joe

[Patches]

Jackcrafty, it is website by Larry K. , and scroll about 2/3 the way down the page under the heading 'Axe me no questions' on the left side of the page.

[Mike_H]

There was no smelting technology that the Mississippian cultures had that we know of and I think that's why no large amount copper axes in the record.  And the ones we do see are rather thin compared to Otzi's.  Even if it is work hardened, there would be a chance that it would either snap or greatly bend in use.  A stone axe wouldn't do that.  The durability of ground stone axes is, in my humble opinion, why there were so many more compared to the copper axes.

Now, as to which I would take, ground stone axe all the way.  It may take a bit longer to make but it is more durable when in the long run.

[iowabow]

I think a copper axe is better if you follow logic in the following manner.

If I want to communicate very fast over a long distance my cell phone is clearly better than a man on a horse carrying a note. If you owned a cell phone 200 years ago it would be of little value  for communication. So an advanced technology without other key factors is just a curiosity. In order for a culture to  adopt a technology in exchange for the old there are a few things that need to be factored in to the equation. So just because you can make a celt from copper is not really the issue.  See copper is better but only with other parts of the supporting equation.
Here are a couple thoughts about why we see stone tools when cooper is being mined
1. Cost for people that live great distances from source of material would be high
2. Lack of good transportation networks for materials or products
3. Regular availability and predictable value
4. Time required to mine, process, produce, and maintain the tool doesn't provide enough of an efficiency to cause you to discard your stone tools
5. Once the issues of economy are addressed then a culture adopts copper over stone.
A modern mind set is locked in the concept of disposable as a form of efficiency. Take for example a Bic lighter great tool and very useful as a means to creating a fire. When the tool stops working you buy another. The problem is when it is no longer available then what? If the system connected to production is disrupted the tool is no longer a good idea. If    "supplying" is difficult the eficiency, economy, and predictability will remain with the stone tool even though the copper has superior technical advantages.

[Mike_H]

Even by that logic, stone still would be better than Copper because of availability and thus used more regularly as we see in the archaeological record. If that were not the case, then we would see copper axes much more than we do and other metal industries as well (Bronze if tin as available, iron and so on) as had happened in Europe and Asia.  But we do not see that.

Smelting makes copper more available due to not having to find just raw nuggets of the stuff, other minerals that are derivatives of copper can be used as we see in Europe earlier in time.  With out that bit of technology, copper is relegated as a source of fascination and value to the native people of North America.  Also, with smelting, casting becomes a technique used to make far more robust tools as we see in Otzi's copper axe and others from the Chalcolithic of Europe.

[iowabow]

Well I think we agree. Stone would have be considered more useful based on my logic.  I believe I'm agreeing with you in my last sentence.  I do agree with your points. My point was like yours about the transportation and availability issue.

[Mike_H]

I think so.

[caveman2533]

Meet Larry Kinsella. 

---www.flintknapper.com

(I disabled the direct link - JackCrafty)

[Mike_H]

Here as well https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCGpvWtBOzEj0Qhle2eQsNlw

[iowabow]

Ok looks totally easy for making a bow from ash with stone tools. A short time to chop, simple bark peel then split into staves and shape into bows. I see that 4 bows or more from one log. So 4-5 people working on a log for staves makes light work that other wise seems like a daunting task. No wonder copper had a hard time competing. 

[Mike_H]

Yep.