Hard Hammer percussion showing hard hammer flake scars - quartzite hammerstone
One should not be afraid of hard hammerstone reduction on obsidian. It is a matter of sifting through historical records, and sorting out the methods. Actual hammerstone methods are probably precursors to "hard hammer versus soft hammer".
Hard hammer reduction followed by tine removal:
Comparing hard hammer reduction, on obsidian, to tine removal on obsidian:
Hard hammer flake is heavily rippled. Tine based flake is smooth, but shows radial cracking. Some claim to be able to make any type of flake, with any type of tool. But, the attributes of this process are quite specific to the process.
Subsequent tine removals:
Pen shows flake termination:
Finger shows flake termination:
Further thinning:
Long flake removal is now followed by short flake removal, which actually composes a duality:
Susbequent to short flake removal:
The point is not yet finished. But, this shows a few things.
- No outrepasse shots were taken, here. Yet, in one stage of work, the same technology that is used to create outrepasse was used to create non-outrepasse, over-reaching thinning flakes.
So, I can show that tine-based outrepasse flaking is ONE FACET of a more comprehensive flaking technology. And, that means that even if outrepasse ceases to exist, it does not mean that the outrepasse technology does not exist. Nor, does it mean that the culture that brought the outrepasse flaking technology does not exist. It simply means that outrepasse was not created, just as I did not create it in this instance.
- No one can positively say that the flaking that the Clovis people used to create outrepasse, during the initial colonization of the Americas, did not continue into the historic era.
I have shown that a single technology, recorded during the historic era, is useful for generating several types of flakes, including outré passé, and coast to coast, flaking. This is why a person has to understand the technology behind the effect. Otherwise, the blindness will continue. Trying to positively identify the attributes of the flaking, while failing to recognize the technologies behind the flaking, is a matter of blindness. To get past the blindness one has to get to the technologies that were used to make the flaking, and let the technologies be the starting point - not flakes, flake scars, and finished points.
- In the medium of obsidian, the tine removals consistently show different attributes than hammerstone removals, and different than hypothetical "baton" removals.
So, as far as the attributes of the tine removals goes, there should be no mystery in looking at debitage, and stages, in prehistoric reduction. If the choice is between hammerstone, tine removal, baton, pressure, and cylinder removal, the tine removals should be self evident. The baton removals will probably be ruled out, especially since baton flaking appears to have been created around 1930, in England. Pressure removals are predictably small. And, hammerstone removals appear to be hammerstone removals, especially in obsidian. This medium - obsidian - is good for such a test, regarding this subject. And, it is a good medium in which one can look specifically for evidence of tine removals, whether they be outrepasse, coast to coast, or just ordinary flaking.
I hope that someone has enjoyed this flintknapping display that has been banned, or almost banned, on at least three other forums. If the point does not break, photos of the finished point will ensue. Have a nice day.
