Author Topic: ABO techniques, processes and tools.  (Read 102379 times)

0 Members and 10 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Zuma

  • Member
  • Posts: 4,324
Re: ABO techniques, processes and tools.
« Reply #135 on: October 17, 2015, 12:21:51 pm »
Good stuff Iowa and Pete.


that deer print has an impact mark in the center for sure. My guess is a punch popped it off.

I am glad you see that also. Another thing about that point is I can't find it
on the Casting Lab, Lamb Site web site. The ones that are there are way more finished and look pressure flaked finished.
I don't know if (all you- all) (just found out today you-all just means one person)
have read any of my posts on Clovis cashes.
The Lamb site to me is another dubious site as well as Wenatchee, Anzick, Fenn and others. Most artifacts found by surface hunters, un-trained workman and totally disturbed context. Not to mention some rather controversial players.
Also the unusual recovery of bone artifacts and human remains that for some strange reason seem to endure 9-13,000 years where they are very seldom found
in stratified sites dug by controlled professionals. Just sayin LOL >:D
Please post any info to the contrary or better yet agreement.
Thanks Zuma
If you are a good detective the past is at your feet. The future belongs to Faith.

PeteDavis

  • Guest
Re: ABO techniques, processes and tools.
« Reply #136 on: October 17, 2015, 12:26:09 pm »

Offline Zuma

  • Member
  • Posts: 4,324
Re: ABO techniques, processes and tools.
« Reply #137 on: October 17, 2015, 01:57:54 pm »
I am not sure where Ben's photos are from Pete
but this is the site I referenced. Cut and paste.
My links seldom function.
Zuma

PAGE 1 CLOVIS CACHE LAMB SITE GE - Lithic Casting Lab.Com
lithiccastinglab.com/gallery-pages/2012augustlambsitepage1.htm

Aug 31, 2012 ... Fluted points & Lamb site excavation. ... This location, in western New York, was used as a habitation site and a stone tool manufacturing and ...


« Last Edit: October 17, 2015, 02:01:19 pm by Zuma »
If you are a good detective the past is at your feet. The future belongs to Faith.

Offline caveman2533

  • Member
  • Posts: 640
  • Steve Nissly
Re: ABO techniques, processes and tools.
« Reply #138 on: October 17, 2015, 02:19:36 pm »
Zuma,
Are there any Clovis site that you believe are not the result of some dubious effort by some dubious and unscrupulous people.  You got
Me wondering if there is anything that can be believed about archeology.
Steve

Offline Zuma

  • Member
  • Posts: 4,324
Re: ABO techniques, processes and tools.
« Reply #139 on: October 17, 2015, 03:52:22 pm »
Zuma,
Are there any Clovis site that you believe are not the result of some dubious effort by some dubious and unscrupulous people.  You got
Me wondering if there is anything that can be believed about archeology.
Steve
LOL Steve,
Yes, there are plenty. Bare in mind what I am saying is about hyped up
Clovis cashes. As opposed to Clovis camps and village sites that are
statisfied and dug by Universities etc. and not (book and artifact sellers).
The Vale Site, The Minisink Site, The Gault Site, Blackwater Draw,
Naco to name a few. What do you think about Over Atlantic Ice now?
Did you read Eren et al?
Zuma
If you are a good detective the past is at your feet. The future belongs to Faith.

AncientTech

  • Guest
Re: ABO techniques, processes and tools.
« Reply #140 on: October 17, 2015, 07:17:29 pm »
Good stuff Iowa and Pete.

Ben,
"The problem with looking at this in preform stages is that the paradigm might not apply.  To give an example, the Lamb site Clovis preforms look like ugly hammerstone made preforms.  They would draw no attention in modern knapping circles.  But, the Lamb site points are spectacular.  Yet, they are almost the same size as the preforms."

I would find it hard to make this assumption.
I will explain. Perhaps the reason the preforms are still preforms is because they were rejects and not used for that reason. And they were surface finds??
Also the (spectacular point) may not have been touched up finished.
I think finding used points would give a better example of a finished product.
I do think the fluted point may have been punch flaked. Especially if you notice the deer hoof print like dip in the lower left near the tip. I am pretty sure that was caused by a hinge removal from the center not the edge. Very rare in abo knapping. Also the wide platform removal spaces.
I am not trying to be critical. I just thought it interesting.

I think you would agree that the finished Lamb points were not made with long rounds of hammerstone percussion, until they were finished.  You said so yourself.  And, that is the point that I was trying to make to the other poster.  It would be difficult to understand how the flaker tools were used, without some context.  And, the context may involve recognizing the shift from cruder hammerstone percussion, to finer flaking.  I used the Lamb points as a possible example of preforms that are rather crude, but small.  And, the finished points are not much smaller.  In contrast, today's knapper may try to become "really good" with hammerstones, while never realizing that maybe the ancient knappers looked for morphology, and left the finish for another technology.  If that is the case, then they WOULD NOT have tried to become "really good" with hammerstones, since the subsequent technology would be apt for finishing.  Also, this is all relative to the material being worked. 

Also, even if one thought that the Lamb site preforms were not really preforms, the same thing can be seen in cache finds of semi-worked materials, oftentimes all made of one material.  Frequently, such caches do not really look spectacular, and the flaking look rather random, and less than glorious.  So, what transpired between those cache type preforms, and the fine finished points?  Again, I was trying to answer the other person's question by saying that understanding how the flaker tools were used would probably require understanding where they went with the hammerstone technology, prior to introducing the tools, and shifting from technology A to technology B.  Without context, it is much harder to follow what ancient people did.       

AncientTech

  • Guest
Re: ABO techniques, processes and tools.
« Reply #141 on: October 17, 2015, 07:19:15 pm »
Fort Loudoun flakers:





Enlarged photo of presumed flint flakers:

Offline Zuma

  • Member
  • Posts: 4,324
Re: ABO techniques, processes and tools.
« Reply #142 on: October 17, 2015, 07:46:16 pm »
Ben,
Not trying to dodge your explaination but--

Do you agree that the fluted point you featured from the Lamb site
 was not finished completely? Also I did not see it in the Lamb site link
I posted? What do you think about the center punched flake?
Also do you agree that in the Lamb and Fort Loudoun assemblages
there are antler parts big enough for billets?
Thanks Zuma
If you are a good detective the past is at your feet. The future belongs to Faith.

Offline Hummingbird Point

  • Member
  • Posts: 147
Re: ABO techniques, processes and tools.
« Reply #143 on: October 17, 2015, 07:50:43 pm »
Ben,

Here's what I'm trying to get at:  Imagine you are at the quarry.  Not actually in the quarry because you are one of the good knappers so you are at some comfortable spot near the quarry while the young guys are down in the mud getting the stone.  One of them brings you a spall of raw but decent chert.  You know, a typical spall, part too thick, part too thin, probably flat on one side, domed/ ridged on the other, bigger than your palm, smaller than your whole hand.  All of your current, known tool needs have been meet, but it is a long hike to get here, so you are looking to make a late stage preform, or a quarry blank, or whatever you want to call it to take home for future tool needs.  What tools and techniques are you going to use to accomplish that?

[I would start with a soft hammer stone to remove any areas of large mass but would quickly switch to direct antler percussion.  I spent two year taking every spall to a mid to late stage preform by hammer stone, and even with that amount of practice, I went back  to antler because it works faster, and wastes less rock.]

Now it's a week later and you are back home.  One of the guys comes in and reports a herd of fat elk down in the valley.  You are in the mood for some good BBQ so you plan on joining the hunting party tommorrow morning.  You look over your gear and find that you are two dart points short.  You take out the quarry blanks from the week before and pick out the two smallest ones to make into dart points.  What tools and techniques do you use to accomplish that?

[I would start with a small peg punch, using my pressure flaker only for setting up the small, isolated platforms I like for punching.  I would use an antler tine pressure flaker to finialize the shape of the base, and probaly make a pass or too along the blade edge.]

It occurs to you that your trusty old raw chert knife may also come in handy, but you don't have it because you loaned it to Zuma.  You find Zuma and by some miracle he didn't lose it or break it.  He did, however, cut a bunch of cane with it and didn't bother to resharpen it. (You conclude this is just as well because he probably would have screwed it up anyway.)  So now you need to resharpen your badly dulled raw chert knife. What tools and technuques do you use to accomplish that?

[If I could get away with it, I would just pressure flake it.  If the edge is too thick, or the material is too tough for me to push pressure flakes deeply in enough to maintain proper edge thickness and cutting angle, I would use the peg punch.  I would start by taking a few pressure flakes from the tip down, because if I start punching right at the tip it might snap off.  From there I generally punch a serries of flakes off a contionus platform beveled off to one side of the blade.]

Keith

AncientTech

  • Guest
Re: ABO techniques, processes and tools.
« Reply #144 on: October 17, 2015, 08:19:40 pm »
Ben,
Not trying to dodge your explaination but--

"Do you agree that the fluted point you featured from the Lamb site
 was not finished completely?"

I do not know.  But, if you compare them to some of the others, then maybe it wasn't.  I guess it would depend on whether the edges needed further re-chipping.

"What do you think about the center punched flake?"

The flute?  I think that it could have been removed via indirect percussion, or a more sophisticated form of flaking.

"Also do you agree that in the Lamb and Fort Loudoun assemblages there are antler parts big enough for billets?"

What type of parts?  Edges?  Platforms?  I suppose that any point is good enough for a billet, provided that the knapper is good enough, and the stone is brittle enough, and/or the percussor is heavy enough.

Here are finished Lamb cache Clovis points:



Here are unfinished bifaces, from a Clovis cache, at the Lamb Clovis site:



How big is the biggest finished point? 

"The longest point in the cache, at bottom row right side, measures 5 1/2 inches (14 cm) long. The widest point at top center measures 5 1/4 inches (13.4 cm) long and 1 3/4 inches (4.5 cm) wide."


The widest finished point is only 1-3/4 wide.

What are the sizes of the preforms?

"The longest biface measures 4 1/4 inches (10.7 cm) long. Two of the widest bifaces both measure 1 3/4 inches (4.4 cm) wide."


ANSWER:  The biggest PREFORM is SMALLER than the biggest finished point.  That means that the knappers used a really inglorious flaking technology in order to get the point down to about finished point size.  And, at that point, there was a transition to some other technology. 

By the way, I do not know whether or not that the Lamb site preforms were made via hammerstone.  The flake scars look quite smooth, with gentle rolls.  And, the edges do not show signs of hard impact.  It is possible that the preforms were made from lumpier pieces of stone, with another type of flaking technology, possibly indirect percussion, but not necessarily the technology(s) used to achieve the finish.




« Last Edit: October 17, 2015, 08:36:53 pm by AncientTech »

Offline Zuma

  • Member
  • Posts: 4,324
Re: ABO techniques, processes and tools.
« Reply #145 on: October 17, 2015, 08:20:54 pm »
"He did, however, cut a bunch of cane with it and didn't bother to resharpen it. (You conclude this is just as well because he probably would have screwed it up anyway.) "

Squaw work you say! You know I was skinnin Griz and couldn't re sharpen until the Griz stopped struggling.
Huumph Zuma
If you are a good detective the past is at your feet. The future belongs to Faith.

Offline iowabow

  • member
  • Member
  • Posts: 4,722
Re: ABO techniques, processes and tools.
« Reply #146 on: October 17, 2015, 08:43:35 pm »
Good questions and thoughts
(:::.) The ABO path is a new frontier to the past!

AncientTech

  • Guest
Re: ABO techniques, processes and tools.
« Reply #147 on: October 17, 2015, 08:50:41 pm »
Ben,

Here's what I'm trying to get at:  Imagine you are at the quarry.  Not actually in the quarry because you are one of the good knappers so you are at some comfortable spot near the quarry while the young guys are down in the mud getting the stone.  One of them brings you a spall of raw but decent chert.  You know, a typical spall, part too thick, part too thin, probably flat on one side, domed/ ridged on the other, bigger than your palm, smaller than your whole hand.  All of your current, known tool needs have been meet, but it is a long hike to get here, so you are looking to make a late stage preform, or a quarry blank, or whatever you want to call it to take home for future tool needs.  What tools and techniques are you going to use to accomplish that?

[I would start with a soft hammer stone to remove any areas of large mass but would quickly switch to direct antler percussion.  I spent two year taking every spall to a mid to late stage preform by hammer stone, and even with that amount of practice, I went back  to antler because it works faster, and wastes less rock.]

Now it's a week later and you are back home.  One of the guys comes in and reports a herd of fat elk down in the valley.  You are in the mood for some good BBQ so you plan on joining the hunting party tommorrow morning.  You look over your gear and find that you are two dart points short.  You take out the quarry blanks from the week before and pick out the two smallest ones to make into dart points.  What tools and techniques do you use to accomplish that?

[I would start with a small peg punch, using my pressure flaker only for setting up the small, isolated platforms I like for punching.  I would use an antler tine pressure flaker to finialize the shape of the base, and probaly make a pass or too along the blade edge.]

It occurs to you that your trusty old raw chert knife may also come in handy, but you don't have it because you loaned it to Zuma.  You find Zuma and by some miracle he didn't lose it or break it.  He did, however, cut a bunch of cane with it and didn't bother to resharpen it. (You conclude this is just as well because he probably would have screwed it up anyway.)  So now you need to resharpen your badly dulled raw chert knife. What tools and technuques do you use to accomplish that?

[If I could get away with it, I would just pressure flake it.  If the edge is too thick, or the material is too tough for me to push pressure flakes deeply in enough to maintain proper edge thickness and cutting angle, I would use the peg punch.  I would start by taking a few pressure flakes from the tip down, because if I start punching right at the tip it might snap off.  From there I generally punch a serries of flakes off a contionus platform beveled off to one side of the blade.]

Keith

"Here's what I'm trying to get at:  Imagine you are at the quarry.  Not actually in the quarry because you are one of the good knappers so you are at some comfortable spot near the quarry while the young guys are down in the mud getting the stone.  One of them brings you a spall of raw but decent chert.  You know, a typical spall, part too thick, part too thin, probably flat on one side, domed/ ridged on the other, bigger than your palm, smaller than your whole hand.  All of your current, known tool needs have been meet, but it is a long hike to get here, so you are looking to make a late stage preform, or a quarry blank, or whatever you want to call it to take home for future tool needs.  What tools and techniques are you going to use to accomplish that?"

That would depend on the material.  For me, the shift from hard hammer percussion to indirect percussion, is frequently determined by the grade of the stone (grade not hardness).  If the stone is really high grade, hard hammer might not work at all, without producing internal shatter in the edges.  On the other hand, most stone is not that high of a grade. 

With regard to ancient Americans, my theory is that they used both.  But, the mobile lifestyle that the paleoindians lived allowed them to collect really high grade materials.  And, so the indirect percussion technologies would have been preserved, after they came to the New World.  But, once the advent of the archaic era led to settled life, in various regions, they would have used local materials.  And, in such cases, hard hammer percussion would have been more fitting, assuming that the stone was of a lower grade, in many area.  At that point (the advent of the archaic), I believe that the lithic technologies were tailored somewhat, for respective regions. 

Also, my thought is that if there is greater emphasis on cutting (think butchering), than penetration (think killing), the paleo butcherers would have wanted sharper cutting tools, with sharper edges.  And, this could have led to a preference for high grade materials.  And, this in turn would have led to the choice of using indirect percussion flaking technologies, or even sophisticated hybrid flaking technologies.   

That being said, I also think that there may be some difference in flaking technologies, between obsidian work, and regular chert work.  And, I think that this can be seen, in terms of tools, at regional levels.  For example, "peg punches", also called "antler drift" in archaeological texts, seem to be most prominent in the chert bearing areas of the eastern half of the US.  And, the use of such tools spans about eight thousand years, right into the historic era.  But, in areas were obsidian is worked, it seems really difficult to find such tools.  The closest might be the larger antler plugs, which were shown with the previous photo of the Karok obsidian knapper.

To put it in simple terms, I think that the creation of the preform at the quarry was partially dictated by the type of stone being worked - low grade chert, high grade chert, obsidian, etc.

[I would start with a soft hammer stone to remove any areas of large mass but would quickly switch to direct antler percussion.  I spent two year taking every spall to a mid to late stage preform by hammer stone, and even with that amount of practice, I went back  to antler because it works faster, and wastes less rock.]

Is the rock raw?  You can thin it with an antler billet?  Is your billet white tail?  The light stuff?  I know that the early experimentalists used wood clubs, moose antler clubs, and elk antler clubs, to work stone down.  They used the big percussors, due to the greater mass.  If you use white tail antler, it frequently is really light. 

Anyway, using hammerstones to thin bifaces involves some technique.  Marty Rueter helped me to learn bifacial reduction, with soft hammerstones, about ten years ago, on the KRU forum.  It takes a lot of practice to develop good skill, though.  Now, I can use hammerstones, until I split the preform with an overshot.  I think that the key to good hammerstone use, in bifacial reduction, is in learning to torque the preform against the blow, during impact.  This produces long over the face removals, and sometimes even overshots, when there is too much torque. 

"Now it's a week later and you are back home.  One of the guys comes in and reports a herd of fat elk down in the valley.  You are in the mood for some good BBQ so you plan on joining the hunting party tommorrow morning.  You look over your gear and find that you are two dart points short.  You take out the quarry blanks from the week before and pick out the two smallest ones to make into dart points.  What tools and techniques do you use to accomplish that?"

If they are really small, I would probably use a broken tip of a tine, about two inches long, with a slight curve.  I could probably chip in the platform, and take the removals, with such a tool, via indirect percussion.  I would follow Grinnell, (1879).  I showed a few such points, here.

"It occurs to you that your trusty old raw chert knife may also come in handy, but you don't have it because you loaned it to Zuma.  You find Zuma and by some miracle he didn't lose it or break it.  He did, however, cut a bunch of cane with it and didn't bother to resharpen it. (You conclude this is just as well because he probably would have screwed it up anyway.)  So now you need to resharpen your badly dulled raw chert knife. What tools and technuques do you use to accomplish that?"

Hand held pressure flaker - common deer tine, or composite bit pressure flaker.

[If I could get away with it, I would just pressure flake it.  If the edge is too thick, or the material is too tough for me to push pressure flakes deeply in enough to maintain proper edge thickness and cutting angle, I would use the peg punch.  I would start by taking a few pressure flakes from the tip down, because if I start punching right at the tip it might snap off.  From there I generally punch a serries of flakes off a contionus platform beveled off to one side of the blade.]

I am on the fence on this one.  One thing that no one has discussed is the role of peg punches (antler drift) in creating scrapers.  Unlike a biface, a scraper has a very 3-dimensional nature to it.  My friend Bill Wagoner pointed out that many scrapers look like they were made from overshot failures (hard hammer percussion).  I could see fashioning a 3-dimensional scraper with a peg punch.  It would be like sculpting a piece of stone.

But, bifaces are frequently more 2-dimensional, than 3-dimensional.  Many bifaces are really flat.  The direct blow of a peg punch produces a bulb, just as direct percussion produces a bulb.  And, when a person is trying to create a thin, straight edge, the bulb of a direct punch blow could mar the edge.  So, this is where I would lean towards a thin broken end of a tine, that can be held between the fingers, and struck on the broadside.  In this case, the blow would not drive into the stone.  Instead the blow would pull perpendicular, away from the face of the stone.  The latter process "pulls" the flakes off.  The former process "pushes" the flakes off.  To avoid creating bulbous scars, I would probably opt for a process that pulls the flakes off. 

On the other hand, if the edge was really thick, and beveled, I might just use the peg punch.  The other flakers that I have shown seem to be going almost un-identified, everywhere.  Usually, the description reads something like, "small flaker that may have been hafted", and "end is blunt", or "end shows signs of battering".  Yet, there is never any sign of bitumen, or anything else on the flaker, even when they are found in dry cave sites.  Based on some other evidence, I think that they are probable finger flakers (indirect percussion).

Hummingbird, I enjoyed the thoughtful questions.             





 
« Last Edit: October 17, 2015, 09:40:39 pm by AncientTech »

Offline Zuma

  • Member
  • Posts: 4,324
Re: ABO techniques, processes and tools.
« Reply #148 on: October 17, 2015, 09:24:45 pm »
This is the point you posted. Look at the divot (dip) lower left towards the tip.
Unusual for abo knapping? Not the multiple hinged flutes.
point looks unfinished compared to the others.

http://lithiccastinglab.com/cast-page/lambclovispoint76and83hand1.jpg

Also, almost every example of bone antler you have posted contains what I would
consider at least one antler part worthy of being used as a billet. Agree/not?
My point about the points being bigger than the preforms is---
They may be the bottom of the basket and thought unfit for the needed points.
Nothing to do with the method to make them.
Also here is another supposed Clovis cash from the surface and disturbed plow zone. The chert was mostly imported Hornstone. Not so suprising as I do believe
the migration was from west to east. Must have been a pioneering outpost with big butt mega fauna.
 I think every point was supposedly broken by farm equipment and restored.
Also like most reported Clovis cashes the Lamb points are 2" longer than average.
Strange imo.
Zuma
PS I hope Iowa can handle us hijacking his thread.
perhaps we should continue on another?
« Last Edit: October 17, 2015, 10:04:17 pm by Zuma »
If you are a good detective the past is at your feet. The future belongs to Faith.

AncientTech

  • Guest
Re: ABO techniques, processes and tools.
« Reply #149 on: October 17, 2015, 09:50:53 pm »
This is the point you posted. Look at the divot (dip) lower left towards the tip.
Unusual for abo knapping? Not the multiple hinged flutes.
point looks unfinished compared to the others.

http://lithiccastinglab.com/cast-page/lambclovispoint76and83hand1.jpg

Also, almost every example of bone antler you have posted contains what I would
consider at least one antler part worthy of being used as a billet. Agree/not?
My point about the points being bigger than the preforms is---
They may be the bottom of the basket and thought unfit for the needed points.
Nothing to do with the method to make them.
Also here is another supposed Clovis cash from the surface and disturbed plow zone. The chert was mostly imported Hornstone. Not so suprising as I do believe
the migration was from west to east. Must have a pioneering outpost with big butt mega fauna.
 I think every point was supposedly broken by farm equipment and restored.
Also like most reported Clovis cashes the Lamb points are 2" longer than average.
Strange imo.
Zuma
PS I hope Iowa can handle us hijacking his thread.
perhaps we should continue on another?

I did not notice that divot.  It almost looks like hard hammer percussion, right in the middle.  I wonder if they had a high spot, after the opposite removal, and they used stone indirect percussion to bust off the high spot.  That was a good catch.

The other possibility is that the opposite edge removal broke loose, and struck the higher part of the edge, thus knocking out the divot.  I would lean towards the second theory.  And, that is something that might happen in my own tine-based process from time to time.





(The title of the thread is "ABO techniques, processes, and tools".  That is pretty broad.  Also, the author did not preface the title with "My".  So, I do not think that we have hijacked anything, at all.)

I think that there is a possibility that the point is finished, but finished differently than the other points.  If one does not employ pressure flaking, then one may be able to take removals out of very thin edges, while living thin deltas.  On the other hand, if the edge is reworked via pressure, it can come out extremely even. 

"Also, almost every example of bone antler you have posted contains what I would
consider at least one antler part worthy of being used as a billet. Agree/not?"

I think it is possible.  But, exactly how do you differentiate a billet from a "pitching tool".  Pitching tools were frequently described as being six to seven inches long, and maybe one inch thick.  They were used to remove spalls, flakes, and blades, according to Ray (1880's), and Mason (1890's).  So, how would you differentiate the two?  The billets effectively used be recent experimenters, such as Bordes, and Crabtree, were quite large, oftentimes almost like clubs.  The pitching tools used by Indians, even during the historic era, were far smaller.  So, how do you differentiate the two? 
« Last Edit: October 17, 2015, 10:09:51 pm by AncientTech »