Ben,
I do believe Ishi is a Representative example of what you consistently see in post-contact observations of Native American knapping: These guys knew the finishing techniques but had lost the quarrying techniques. They could take a late stage form and finish it, but the methods used get to that late stage had been lost. Kroeber notes that Ishi used both a hammer stone and a punch to produce his arrowhead blanks, but notes:
"Both techniques sent slivers of glass flying in all directions. It was a dangerous step, and Ishi was relieved when this part was done. This first blow struck, the rest of the flint or glassworking could be done before an audience, there being no further danger from flying pieces except for to he worker himself."
Certainly that strikes all modern knappers as odd. We know that a knapper of one year's experience, being handed a chunk of obsidian would use a direct percussion soft hammer of his choice to fairly neatly and effectively knock off arrowhead sized blanks, with little danger to anyone around him. There most certainly would not shards of glass flying in all directions. In all likelihood, Ishi and the small population of Yali men that preceded him could consistently fulfill all their arrowhead blank needs simply by picking up waste pieces at the old quarry sites or by raiding the dumps sites for glass bottles. One could legitimately argue that Ishi (et. al.) may very well have learned the indirect percussion idea from watching a white stone mason using a hammer and chisel.
Even going way back, to the first permanent English settlement in North America, the only flint knapping observed by the Jamestown settlers was of pressure flaking a "sliver of stone" using a deer tine. Trade preceded colonization by about 100 years, so by the time any Europeans were living in association with Native Americans, they had been using metal knives and hatchets for several generations. Arrow heads were still being made since they are frequently lost and broken. Add to that the massive depopulation and upheavals of epidemics and wars, and a huge amount of knowledge was lost.
Even prior to 1492 it is likely that most men only knew the finishing and resharpening parts of the process. In Stone Implements of the Potomac-Chesapeake Tidewater Province William Henry Holmes shows a model where work at the quartzite cobble beds served the sole purpose of producing "quarry blanks", which we now more commonly refer to as late stage preforms. These are preforms where all of the primary thinning is done, such that they only need to be finished into whatever tool form is desired. This pattern is seen over and over throughout the world, because it makes good economic sense. It is like going into the forest to cut trees and then milling it into lumber to take back to town to be used for whatever needs to be built.
A while back, using the quarry blank specs given by Holmes I set out to produce 10 quarry blanks from quartzite cobbles. I did it in just under 5 hours. If I took those preforms home, how long would they last before I had to go back to the quarry? A million variables, but let's say a few months. During that time I don't need my "quarry knapping" tools, I only need finishing tools. Now in this case I was using wood at the "quarry", but let's say I was using antler direct percussion tools instead. I don't need them for a few months, so that antler now also becomes a sort of blank, and will be used for finishing tools, or whatever else is needed. Over time it gets smaller and smaller and ends up looking like a peg punch, and probably used as one for resharpening that quartzite, because it can't be done more than a few times by pressure alone.
The experiment above was done with 2.5 years of experience working that material and with direct percussion tools I had started using one year before. Imagine how good the guys that grew up doing it were. So maybe in ten years, with more practice, two days at the quarry allows me to make 50 blanks. Maybe that means 4 other guys didn't need to come along, I can supply their needs for the next few months, they just need to finish and resharpen. This kind of example models the most basic of economies seen in all groups of humans everywhere. Add in trade and ramp up the specialization even a little bit (again, basic human behaviors seen everywhere) and you may very well have had villages where all of the knapping done was finishing work/resharpening.
Is it possible you are trying to use finishing tools to do the quarry work of making the blanks? Is it like finding several carpenter's work shops that each contain a handsaw, hammer and chisel, which are used to built stuff out of wooden boards and then concluding that if you have a log you need make the boards either with the hand saw, or by using the chisel and hammer to split the wood? Those are rhetorical questions, because:
If what you have discovered is true, and is in fact better, then everything I have just said is moot, because your method covers BOTH your line of thought and my line thought. That is, it satisfies both of our main criteria. So let's test it to see if that is, in fact, the case.
Hello Keith,
"I do believe Ishi is a Representative example of what you consistently see in post-contact observations of Native American knapping: These guys knew the finishing techniques but had lost the quarrying techniques."Actually, some of the tribes specialized in the extensive working of lithics, while others tended to get the end products, and simply refurbish them, during use. Some individuals were flintknapping specialists, and some tribes may have even specialized in entire lithic processes, depending on their proximity to large deposits of workable materials. More than likely, Ishi was not a specialist, as was found in some of the nearby tribes. Also, as far as I know, his tribe was not known for specializing in the creation of lithics. I believe that some of the nearby tribes were, though.
Also, the introduction of glass caused a shift in the overall reduction processes. Instead of working chert boulders down to arrowheads, through various reductive processes, the introduction of glass made it possible to start with the equivalent cut slab, and pressure flake a point. This was even seen in Tierra Fuego, of South America, where natives took up the pressure flaking of glass, to sell as trinkets, whereas a generation before, they were working chert with other processes than pressure flaking processes.
Lewis and Clark found natives doing steel repairs, with fire and anvils, in their huts, even though they had never seen a white man before. And, they may have only seen stone being worked, on one occasion, when a woman retouched a stone tool via pressure. So, it would appear that the original practices were lost pretty quickly, via the importation of glass, steel, etc.
But, in some pockets, the practices continued, especially in areas where the geographic isolation persisted. This was true in some areas west of the Rockies (as noted by Catlin), and in the northern Arctic, where Eskimos may have used stone tools until the early 20th century.
For this reason, I posted a photo of Karok knapper who was born around 1863, and who learned historically known tribal technologies, as a teenager (1880's). I believe that he stated that he learned with hammerstones, and pressure flakers first. And, later, he learned the more advanced technologies. I also posted some of his "flakers", that were collected in 1916. This individual was not far from Ishi. And, he did reduce boulders at quarries. But, he also worked as a specialist. And, the products that he made were the same type of products that had been traded to other tribes, during the 19th century. As mentioned before, Ishi was probably not a specialist. And, the Yahi tribe probably did not specialize in lithic reduction either.
"Certainly that strikes all modern knappers as odd. We know that a knapper of one year's experience, being handed a chunk of obsidian would use a direct percussion soft hammer of his choice to fairly neatly and effectively knock off arrowhead sized blanks, with little danger to anyone around him."Generally, "hard hammers" are things like hammerstones, while "soft hammers" are things like wood/antler batons. The deal about traditional cultures is that they tend to stay the same, whereas western culture tends to be super progressive. If I wanted to spall obsidian, I would probably use a "soft hammerstone". I would not use a baton. I would also want to have a well padded support, that yields during impact. I would make up for the hardness of the stone, by the softness of the support. In fact, if the percussor was harder - like quartzite - I would use an even softer support. And, I would make the blow fast, to achieve the break, before the stone has time to move.
In terms of support, I think that many aboriginal flintknapping accounts show a more balanced view between the strike/striker, and the support, whereas the modern knappers tend to be more tool focused. Look at Catlin's explanation of the yielding elasticity of the palm. And, Catlin probably encountered those natives between 1830 and 1840, while publishing the account just before he died, around 1870.
"Even going way back, to the first permanent English settlement in North America, the only flint knapping observed by the Jamestown settlers was of pressure flaking a "sliver of stone" using a deer tine." Right, the individual wore a little flaker on his wrist, by which he quickly worked the point. This individual was probably accustomed to receiving end products via trade. Also, even with the introduction of firearms, many natives did not like the way that the firearms scared quarry. So, they still sometimes hunted with bow and arrow. They also used arrows in sniper attacks on settlers, because a silent arrow could kill a night time sentinel, without anyone realizing that the individual had been shot to death. A gun, on the other hand, would alert the dogs, the people, and everyone, that they were under attack.
The use of the bow and arrow persisted for a number of reasons, especially in making sneak attacks on sleeping animals, and unsuspecting people. Obviously, they could have switched the stone arrowhead to a steel arrowhead, and achieved the same effect. But, the knowledge of working stone would have been of great value, whenever "white man" supplies were cut off, as noted by Grinnell, in 1879.
"Add to that the massive depopulation and upheavals of epidemics and wars, and a huge amount of knowledge was lost."The knowledge was lost in most areas, but not all areas. Beyond that, many of the tools used were consistently used for thousands of years. And, many of those tools appear to be the same tools that were still being used, in the colonial era. The presence of prehistoric-style flintknapping tools, in colonial era indian sites, is the dovetail between the old, and the new. And, the use of some of those flintknapping tools have never been understood.
"Even prior to 1492 it is likely that most men only knew the finishing and resharpening parts of the process. In Stone Implements of the Potomac-Chesapeake Tidewater Province William Henry Holmes shows a model where work at the quartzite cobble beds served the sole purpose of producing "quarry blanks", which we now more commonly refer to as late stage preforms. These are preforms where all of the primary thinning is done, such that they only need to be finished into whatever tool form is desired. This pattern is seen over and over throughout the world, because it makes good economic sense. It is like going into the forest to cut trees and then milling it into lumber to take back to town to be used for whatever needs to be built."I am glad that you quote Holmes. Holmes was probably the second person, after Cushing, who attempted to make a systematic study of Native American flintknapping practices. I have some of Holme's material that was never published. Regarding the tools, and the photo, of the Karok obsidian knapper, that I posted earlier, Holmes said that his work was of "great value" to the scientific world. And, the work of the obsidian knapper PROVES that flintknapping was not a "lost art", as had been alleged by leading European researchers, after fifty years of hammerstone experiments failed to produce the best results. Also, Holmes said that he had never seen the technology that involves the little Karok antler punches, that I showed photos of. Beyond that, Holmes had previously written that Native American knapping was "not well understood". Obviously, the generation gap, between the end of widespread flintknapping, and the age of inquiry, led to this gap in knowledge, in most quarters.
By the way, if you look carefully through all of Holme's documentation, you will not see an antler baton. The closest idea that he has to baton use, is an unhafted antler hammer, that is gripped in the center, and used in conjunction with a padded anvil, and a downwards blow, to trim the edge of a stone, as an antler mallet was believed to have been used. But, even this idea is offered as a speculative idea. Also, he offers a diagram of an elongated object swung at an edge, to detach flakes. The diagram looks similar to a baton. But, the text reveals that he explains direct percussion, in terms of hammerstone use.
Holmes also covers technologies that were never covered by European academics, such as combinations of technologies. And, when a person considers that the technology that initiates a break might be different than the technology that makes the break run long, and the technology that makes the break run long might be different than the technology that causes the break to turn, then the idea of combined technologies makes perfect sense. But, if a person sees flintknapping, and flintknapping tools, in the same way that we view modern tools, then the proper understanding is never achieved, which is needed to create stuff like tine-based outrepasse. At a certain level, Holmes probably did not fully understand the ramifications of some of his own information that he documented. But, he did not claim to be a "flintknapper", either.
The people who only knew of sharpening processes, were probably accustomed to using lithic "end products", received by trade. Also, I think it is fair to say that between 1897 and 1920, Holmes expanded his own views, a bit. And, for that, he should be applauded.
"The experiment above was done with 2.5 years of experience working that material and with direct percussion tools I had started using one year before. Imagine how good the guys that grew up doing it were. So maybe in ten years, with more practice, two days at the quarry allows me to make 50 blanks. Maybe that means 4 other guys didn't need to come along, I can supply their needs for the next few months, they just need to finish and resharpen. This kind of example models the most basic of economies seen in all groups of humans everywhere. Add in trade and ramp up the specialization even a little bit (again, basic human behaviors seen everywhere) and you may very well have had villages where all of the knapping done was finishing work/resharpening."In some areas, there are signs of blanks being worked in specialty shops, as they are traded out away from the quarry. Every few miles, a different specialty workshop illustrates a different stage of reduction, as the blank is further worked. In reality, if people focused on the flaking tools found at those sites, and studied the debitage, flakes, flake scars, and platforms, then it might be possible to reconstruct the same stage of reduction, with the same stage of tools that were used. In my opinion, this would be much better than inventing start to finish processes, out of thin air, with no regard for actual stages (idea only applies to "abo" knapping).
"Is it possible you are trying to use finishing tools to do the quarry work of making the blanks? Is it like finding several carpenter's work shops that each contain a handsaw, hammer and chisel, which are used to built stuff out of wooden boards and then concluding that if you have a log you need make the boards either with the hand saw, or by using the chisel and hammer to split the wood? Those are rhetorical questions, because:"Cushing was the first person to make a systematic study of Native American flintknapping. I believe he died in 1901 or 1902. He also lived with the Zuni for five years, and became a tribal arrowmaker. He recorded over a half a dozen flintknapping practices used by Native American knappers. Cushing stated that much of the difference between tools, and technologies, has to do with the materials being worked. I believe he even offered the example of arctic cherts being harder to work than other types of materials. I think that Cushing was right. And, I think that there is even an observable difference in tool kits used to work obsidian, and tool kits used to work chert.
That being said, I think that the starting point is the material being worked - not the tool being used to work the material. Also, it seems clear that ancient tool users selected rock or knapped rock, with tensile strength in mind. For this reason, the use of thermal alteration would have been fairly minimal, except in the cases of creating ceremonial objects. Also, at Colha, I believe it was recorded that super high grade spalls were set aside, and used for making very thin end products.
So, the processes used at the quarry could be based upon the nature of the stone being worked. Some processes involve unusual amounts of force, but low amounts of shock. Such processes could have been used to create polyhedral cores, massive spalls, etc. Some flintknapping processes allow the flintknapper to separate the quality of the flaker, from the mass being used to drive off the flake. Other processes, can be used on rougher grained stone without injury to the stone.
Anyway, I cannot subscribe to a linear model of quarry work, or any other kind of work, for that matter, because the nature of lithic materials can be quite diverse, and require very different technological approaches, unless the knapper happens to cook the stone to an almost glass-like state, which basically destroys inherent tensile strength.
"If what you have discovered is true, and is in fact better, then everything I have just said is moot, because your method covers BOTH your line of thought and my line thought. That is, it satisfies both of our main criteria. So let's test it to see if that is, in fact, the case."Yes, I want my work to be tested via the same criteria that is used to analyze other flaking, such as Clovis flaking - flake attributes, flake scars, and materials. Actually, I can provide more data than what Clovis materials offers, because I can show the flaker, and I can even say that the process is derived from historical records. Plus, I can show that the process is not exclusive to overshot flaking, since it is also good for fluting, coast to coast flaking, and regular flaking. So, there are four types of flaking that my work can be judged on - overshot, coast to coast, fluting, and regular flaking. If the consensus is that none of it looks like paleo technology, then I will send it to archaeologists, to get a second opinion.
Here is an example of regular flaking being used to connect to a fluted basal area:
Regular flake from tip reaches fluted area:
Flake removal:
Both the flute, and the long flake, were made with the same technology. This might be chalcedony, or agatized coral. It is really tough. If I had applied thermal alteration, I probably could have made it thinner.
Ben
