I think the simple answer would at this point be no?
But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, so the antler tine technique as well as every other technique that does not rely on modern tools or conveniences are also valid and need to be kept in consideration. So having the idea and stating that any method is not correct and it is wrong should not be made.
Sorry, I took a long route on some other information pertaining to the types of tools that NClonghunter had mentioned.
"Ben, I have been looking at a lot of pictures of found/dug original knapping antler tools and it seems that most antler is either the small peg drift punch or a larger antler that looks slightly squared on both ends and about the same diameter on both ends." Both tools that you are mentioning are probably some type of cylinder flaker, known as "antler drift". Generally, the ends tend to be flattened with a fine bevel around the shoulder. This is also true of the antler drifts found down in Belize, at the Colha quarries. But, this is not true in every single case. Some antler drift ends are rounded, a few others are pointed, and still others look like screw driver ends. Generally, the drifts are fashioned up to about 2.5 inches long, and then worn down to about 1.5 to inches.
"Your antler that you show is large at one end and narrows down to a rounded tip."This is true. But, it is because it is an entire deer tine, with a broader base. My tool is not a cylindrical section cut from a straight portion of antler. It is not meant to be a cylinder.
As for the rounded tip, the wear causes the end to become flattened. I sometimes have to bevel the shoulder, and then re-round the tip. My view is that flatter ends were probably used on thinner stone, while more rounded ends were probably used on thicker stone, depending on the stage of reduction. Also, a more worn antler drift could be flatter, and lest rounded, on the end.
If you look at the antler flaking tools found in archaeological contexts, that are frequently called "billets" by flintknappers, you will see that the thinner ends of the tool generally shows signs of being used for flaking. In such cases, the thinner end will have an appearance as though it was "cut off", along with a slight bevel around the shoulder.
This directly contradicts the modern billet/baton theory that was created in England, during the 1930's. According to the modern baton theory, invented by Alfred S. Barnes, the baton relies upon swinging mass of the billet, that makes a direct impact. For this reason, the bulk of the mass is located in the heavier part of the head - the base - which is also denser, due to close proximity to the skull. My flaker follows the same pattern. It is the smaller end being used, not the larger end.
"Given the different appearance do you think you are still knapping in the same technique or method as the Clovis knappers...Is there a photo that looks like your antler tool that you know of."I am not sure that there is a difference in appearance. Difference from what? My tool is not meant to be an antler cylinder. Also, I am using the same area of the tool to flake, as would be used, if I were to cut a cylinder and use the cylinder to flake. Actually, I think that there could be some advantage to the antler cylinder flaker, over this tool.
That being said, there are plenty of people who seem to be knowledgeable at reading flakes, and flake scars. So, those people should be able to say whether or not my outrepasse/coast-to-coast/fluting/regular flaking resembles Clovis flaking. There are actually four types of flaking coming from a single process. So, if none of it looks like Clovis technology, fine. Here is one such example, that may or may not look Clovis:
That example is related to all the other examples of overshot, coast to coast, and regular tine-flaking that I have shown.
Also, when the flake scar gurus look at all of this, they may be able to see how such flaking represents a fusion of different flaking technologies, into a single processes. And, if the flake scar gurus are really astute, they will be able to also make a connection to historical records.
So, these are the people who are probably in a better position than myself, to say whether the flaking looks "Clovis", or paleoindian.
Also, I have a theory that I will be able to achieve very similar effects - or even better effect - with the antler cylinder, once I have the right equipment.
"Mike Dothager makes replica antler and then uses those on his videos. Just something I noticed and was wondering?"The tool that would be worth making a replica of, and using, is an actual antler drift, or antler cyilnder. The reason why is because this tool was fairly standardized. In the case of other antler tools, they are not so standardized, and vary greatly in appearance. This is partly because there are many different types of deer horns. What can be seen with greater regularity are certain types of wear patterns.
My next project will be to use an antler drift, and see if I can successfully replicate a fairly sophisticated process - more sophisticated than simple "indirect percussion".
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I think the simple answer would at this point be no?" Not at all. There are blunt tine tools, in the archaeological record. But, they do not all look the same. They are not standardized. They do not all possess the same shape. They do not all conform to some ideal image. So, if a person is looking for an ideal image, he will not find it. What the person will find is common similarities in wear patterns, usually found on some form of a tine tool, that shows signs of blunting, and end striations.
The cylindrical antler flakers that NClonghunter is referencing are well documented tools, that are of a specific class. But, not all flakers that involve the use of the tine conform to this pattern. So, I am not saying that one cannot find blunted tine flakers, in the archaeological record. I am only saying that the flakers that are found show a very broad array of appearances, with the common denominator being the actual signs of use wear patterns, such as blunting, battering, cuts, and striations, and the use of a tine.
"so the antler tine technique as well as every other technique that does not rely on modern tools or conveniences are also valid and need to be kept in consideration."Among the approaches of study that have been taken, some have employed a "shoot-in-the-dark", "make-it-up-as-we-go-along" approach.
For example, during the 1930's when Professor Alfred Barnes studied the subject, he looked at flakes and flake scars, and then attempted to reproduce the same, with his baton experiments. As a result of these experiments, he felt that the wooden batons, and the antler batons, most closely approximate ancient flakes, and flake scars, known to Europe. Barnes used the evidence of flakes and flake scars, to make some inferences regarding prehistoric flintknapping, in Europe.
In my opinion, with regard to American archaeology, and American prehistory, flakes and flake scars alone should not be counted as primary evidence. We also have about 8,000 years worth of flaking tools that have been piling up in museums, and university basements, for over a hundred years. These tools point to deeply ingrained technologies, that I do not believe were ever addressed by the individual who came up with the antler baton theory.
In my view, the flaker precedes the flake. And, the flake precedes the finished product. To look at the flakes, and flake scars alone, while not taking into account the record of flakers that we have, is a very unbalanced way of looking at things, that could lead to bias.
A second approach involves actually looking at the flakers, in the archaeological record, and then trying to use the same type of flakers to recreate the same type of flintknapping effects seen. For example, archaeologists found antler drifts by the thousands for many decades. Eventually, the unanimous consent was that such flakers were used in the indirect percussion reduction of flint. Wherever you find these tools, you will not find antler "batons" as hypothesized by the English researcher, in the 1930's. Nor, will one find the entire process of baton manufacture, baton use, and baton disposal, in the archaeological record, as one finds with regard to antler drifts. Unfortunately, modern flintknappers were never able to resolve the use of the antler drift, in flintknapping, though they succeeded with the baton method, to some degree. So, a second approach is to try to understand flintknapping through known flakers, along with flakes flake scars, and finished points.
A third more difficult approach involves using historical records, and archaeological records, of every sort, to look at the flaking practices that continued into the historic era, and then linking such practices, to prehistorically known tools. Once the link between historical practices and prehistoric tools has been made, then the flaking practices can hypothetically be reconstituted, in order to reproduce the flakes, and flake scars. The third approach involves reconciling three lines of evidence: historical evidence, flaker evidence, and flakes and flake scar evidence.
Each approach to studying the subject becomes increasingly difficult, because one must maintain a certain degree of discipline, in order to adhere to evidence, and not simply making things up willy nilly as one goes along.
In my case, I figured out that not only had the archaeological records never been understood, but neither had the historical records. So, what I did is that I linked historical evidence of flintknapping, with prehistoric evidence of flintknapping, and then worked on putting the flaking practices back together, until I could make flakes and flake scars, such as outrepasse, coast to coast, and fluting. And, that is how I came to understand how to create outrepasse with a deer tine. Of course, that came after probably fifty other discoveries...
So, this is not a matter of "right" or "wrong" flintknapping. It is a matter of how one approaches the evidence. In other words, is it right to exclude evidence, simply based upon one's own personal experience? I do not think so. I think that such an approach is wrong. But, that does not make the flintknapping "wrong". There is no morally wrong flintknapping.
Also, if a person says, "Well, my experience supercedes 8,000 years of flaker evidence, and all of the Native American cultures that ever existed", I think that it is equally wrong. But, that does not make the flintknapping wrong. It makes the approach to understanding Native American flintknapping wrong.
Similarly, if someone says, "Well, we are now
better than prehistoric Native American flintknappers. Look how much better our work is, than ancient work", I think it is equally wrong, with regard to understanding Native American lithics, and culture. But, that does not make the flintknapping wrong. There is no wrong flintknapping, because there is no immoral way to fracture a stone. But, that does not mean that every approach to trying to understand lithics, is right. For example, is it right to ignore evidence, simply because it is not understood? No.
Believe me, in five years, I have heard it all, and more, from other people....
Years ago, archaeologists sought out Don Crabtree for answers, about lithics. Today, there is a reason why the flintknapping community is being ignored. Just ask a few professional archaeologists... So, while people are busy trying to keep my views censored, and out of sight, I am busy working to make sure that one day the flintknapping community will be taken seriously, again.
In essence, the history of the world has been interpreted through the work of flintknappers. And, if that work was based on ignorance, and misunderstandings, then what will happen to our understanding of history, and culture? It will be malformed.
Here is a tine flaker from the Madisonville site:
