Horizontial punches

[Hummingbird Point]

First, since this is my thread I guess I get to say:  Everyone has free reign.  Let's here it all.  All tangents, rabbit trails, crazy ideas, etc. are welcome.  I would very much like to here Ben's thoughts on the subject.

I am currently trying to learn this technique.  On p.193 of William Henry Holmes' 1919 work Handbook of Aboriginal American Antiquities, the Lithic Industries I ran across this tidbit, which I am sure Ben is familiar with:



Here's the info on these tools.  They were found by a Dr. Phillips at the Mill Creek, IL chert quarry.  They are about 1 inch in diameter and 3.5 to 4 inches long (making calculations based on the scale given below the photo).  Here's a really interesting part, at least to me:  Dr. Phillips reported finding many of these in the chip pile, which leads me to the conclusion that these tools are at reject stage.  Also, to my eye (and let me know what you all think) it looks like the working end of the tool is up and wear has occured on the face of the antler to the inside of the curve.  I would love to interpret these as hafted antler hammer (mallet) heads, but when I use antler that way, I find it easier to mount the "head" with the curved side down, which then causes wear on the opposite side as that shown here.  A bigger problem with my hammer theory  is that one can easily use a piece of antler shorter than these, so reject stage would not be reached at these lengths.

I believe they are horizontal punches, but am unable to imagine quit how they were used.  If like Dothager, as in the video below, wear should be on the opposite end (outside of the curve).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5W8KQbPYLfk

If hafted as a shaft punch, as in Marty's video below, wear matches, but I would expect reject stage to be shorter, more like 2.5-3 inches.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaNs7H2ABBw

Any thoughts on this matter would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

Keith

[nclonghunter]

Keith, looking at those antlers I see more wear on the outside curve. In the last several months I have been using the antler punch and have made several punches from the base of whitetail antlers. They are very much like the ones in the picture as far as length and diameter. Each one has a different amount of curve and balance to it. As I use them they will fit on each platform a little different meaning one side seems to fit better than another spot and that can be just a quarter turn. I would like to have about twenty different antler punches and I suspect that is why so many are found in the chips. They were all still useable punches. A knapper just can't have too many punches. When I see a deer I now think "wonder how good of a punch his antler will make"...lol

I had not seen Marty's video but I like the long stick applying pressure. Also a new use for duck tape.

Mike Dothager is someone I am really interested in due to his techniques. If you haven't already try and watch all his videos...his techniques are very basic but great results.

I have also noticed most of the videos and pictures of antler techniques have always used high grade flint or chert. I would like to see some antler use on NC Rhyolite and some of that iron rock you guys use in Virginia....:-)

[AncientTech]

First, since this is my thread I guess I get to say:  Everyone has free reign.  Let's here it all.  All tangents, rabbit trails, crazy ideas, etc. are welcome.  I would very much like to here Ben's thoughts on the subject.

I am currently trying to learn this technique.  On p.193 of William Henry Holmes' 1919 work Handbook of Aboriginal American Antiquities, the Lithic Industries I ran across this tidbit, which I am sure Ben is familiar with:



Here's the info on these tools.  They were found by a Dr. Phillips at the Mill Creek, IL chert quarry.  They are about 1 inch in diameter and 3.5 to 4 inches long (making calculations based on the scale given below the photo).  Here's a really interesting part, at least to me:  Dr. Phillips reported finding many of these in the chip pile, which leads me to the conclusion that these tools are at reject stage.  Also, to my eye (and let me know what you all think) it looks like the working end of the tool is up and wear has occured on the face of the antler to the inside of the curve.  I would love to interpret these as hafted antler hammer (mallet) heads, but when I use antler that way, I find it easier to mount the "head" with the curved side down, which then causes wear on the opposite side as that shown here.  A bigger problem with my hammer theory  is that one can easily use a piece of antler shorter than these, so reject stage would not be reached at these lengths.

I believe they are horizontal punches, but am unable to imagine quit how they were used.  If like Dothager, as in the video below, wear should be on the opposite end (outside of the curve).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5W8KQbPYLfk

If hafted as a shaft punch, as in Marty's video below, wear matches, but I would expect reject stage to be shorter, more like 2.5-3 inches.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaNs7H2ABBw

Any thoughts on this matter would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

Keith

Thanks for bringing attention to this photo. 

First, what is frequently missing - and possibly the most critical point - is the type of stone being worked, and the actual flakes found associated with these tools.  Without that information, we have to do a lot more guesswork.  We really need to know the quality of the stone that was worked, and the types (and size) of the flakes, produced.

"Dr. Phillips reported finding many of these in the chip pile, which leads me to the conclusion that these tools are at reject stage."

I believe that at least one author pointed out that tools were frequently left laying around work sites, in the same way that farmers used to leave there hoes laying in the fields.  In other words, the tools may not have been expended.

"Also, to my eye (and let me know what you all think) it looks like the working end of the tool is up and wear has occured on the face of the antler to the inside of the curve."

The second tool from the left, and the tool on the far right, may have bevels around the bases.  There is a type of flaking tool - of unknown use - that frequently has a flattened end, and a fine bevel right around the shoulder.  This differs from Marty's flaker.  Marty's flaker has a rounded end, much like the end of a modern flintknapping baton.  It would be better to compile photos of similar such artifacts, and compare all such photos.  Shafer, in Belize, also encountered antler flakers, with flattened ends, and a fine bevel around the shoulder.  He originally thought that they were "flintknapping batons".  But, after doing a microscopic study of the ends of the tools, he concluded that they were some sort of tool of indirect percussion, and not direct percussion. 

"I would love to interpret these as hafted antler hammer (mallet) heads, but when I use antler that way, I find it easier to mount the "head" with the curved side down, which then causes wear on the opposite side as that shown here."

In my own experiments with both wood, and antler hammers, the inside shoulder of the mallet head quickly begins to where away, when being struck upon hard flint.  In looking at many specimens, known from archaeological contexts, I do not see this wear.  So, my guess is that the grooved hammerstone, and the stone maul, were used for direct percussion flaking, while the antler and wood hammers were used in indirect percussion flaking.  Thus, there never would be any wear showing on the hammers that were used in indirect percussion.  Again, this is just a guess.  But, so far, I do not recall seeing a single hammer with the type of inside shoulder wear that all of my hammers exhibit, from direct percussion.

Again, we do not know that these tools are actually "rejects".  They could have left such tools laying around work sites, for the sake of convenience.  If the tools were damp, they could warm them up in a fire, and dry them out. 

Between Dothagers technique, and Marty's technique, there is a big difference in flaker MASS.  That is really critical.  The harder that stone is, the harder the blow may need to be to flake the stone.  The lighter the flaker's mass, the more susceptible it will be to movement, and visa versa.  Between Dothager, and Marty, the latter should be able to deliver stronger blows, with greater force, while not losing control of the process.  In Dothager's case, I bet that the stone is heat treated.  If not, and he needed to swing much harder, while striking the tiny antler punch, he could easily lose control, and smash his foot, fingers, etc. 

My view is that the case for hafted tools could be based on the need to create greater flaker mass, which would parallel the mass of the percussor.  To give an example, would a person strike a really small nail, with a really large hammer?  No, because it could lead to a loss of control, upon impact. 

Similarly, when heavy blows are needed, in indirect percussion, can the knapper really afford to use a light weight flaking tool?  Beyond that, what causes the break to initiate?  The flaker's movement, or the vibrations that are carried through the tool?  If the vibrations are enough to cause full detachment, then is it possible that by using a heavier tool, the knapper could deliver harder blows, but with less movement, that still detach flakes?  Also, could the haft affect - or alter - the type of vibrations that are transmitted?  Antler on antler blows tend to create "fast" vibrations, a lot of ripples, and fast detachments.  But, if the antler is hafted in wood, and the blow is wood hammer on wood haft, or stone on wood haft, is it possible that the actual flakes, and flake scars, might look different than say antler on antler flake scars?

These tools might also be similar to the hafted flaking punch, referenced by early observers.  The punch was a staff fitted with a bit, and it had a crook, made from a cut branch.  On man threw his weight on the staff, while another struck the crook, with a stone hammer.  The process was used to detach large blades, at quarries.  These tools may have had a similar use, although one might expect bits to be straighter than these tools.

I will post more on this, a bit later.

Ben

   



 

[Hummingbird Point]

Thanks for bringing attention to this photo. 

First, what is frequently missing - and possibly the most critical point - is the type of stone being worked, and the actual flakes found associated with these tools.  Without that information, we have to do a lot more guesswork.  We really need to know the quality of the stone that was worked, and the types (and size) of the flakes, produced.

Ben,

I don't know if this helps, but from Holmes, ""There is but slight traces on the quarry-shop sites of the getting out of smaller blades, but on the Hale place in the valley this work appears to have been a leading feature.  Here also all other classes of implements were trimmed and specialized, and heavy beds of chips and other wastage of implement making, including the chipping of implements, are found.  It is probable also that much selected raw material from the quarries was carried to this place to be worked up.  There are the hammerstones of the usual type, as well as numerous chipping tools of deer antler (fig. 74).  Many of the latter were discovered by Dr. Phillips in an excavation made through an accumulation of shop refuse near the bank of the creek back of the Hale residence.  These implements were probably used rather in the secondary trimming of the blades than in the roughing out work."

For those wondering, "blades" are bifaces in the context of this quote, not prismic blades struck from a core.  Doing some research the Mill Creek quarry was Mississippian and used mainly for making hoes.  The chert is rather tough.  It appears these antler tools were from a secondary site where selected material was made into smaller bifaces such as for knives and projectile points, rahter than for larger bifaces like hoes.  Also, research indicates Mill Creek chert can be heat treated, so if being used during Mississippian times and being used in a shop specializing in making finer bifaces, one could assume the material was cooked, or in the least "high graded" and probably not real tough stuff.

Again, not sure it makes a difference.

Keith

[AncientTech]

I just looked up the Mill Creek chert.  The stuff looks pretty tough grained.

From the antler tools that you posted, my guess is that if they were used as flakers, then they could have probably produced fairly large, wide flakes.  If the tools are about one inch wide, and they were used as flakers, then the initiations could have started out fairly wide.

I guess we need to see what they mean by "smaller"?  Do they mean smaller than hoes, and Ramey knives?  If so, the bifaces still could have had wide flake scar initiations.

Here is an example of Mill Creek chert products, from Lithicscastingslab:



By the way, Keith, I am glad that you brought this up, because I had not made the connection to the types of end products that were being made, from Mill Creek chert.