Thanks for the info
I guess I should clear up I was talking mainly about pressure flaking tool.
The antler doesn't seen to cleanly remove flakes as often as th copper. I just didn't know if I needed
To adjust length width of tip or something. I guess though maybe copper is just more effective.
Aha! We are talking about "pressure flakers"! That narrows it down quite a bit.
JKYarcher, let me tell you a secret. Generally, in flintknapping publications, antler tines have been suggested as pressure flakers, at least over the past fifty years. In reality, if you look at a couple hundred site reports, you won't find the type of tine flakers that have been represented as pressure flakers. Also, if you look at modern knappers attempting to use "tine flakers", you will see that they struggle with the chewing wear on the tips, and with flakes that hinge, and that do not run to completion.
I am not saying that the tine flaker was never used. Only, we do not know that it was used at the same stage, or to the same degree, that modern knappers have tried to use it, in the past. My theory - which is tentative - is that tine flakers may have been used by the "average indian" in retouching edges. The reason that I say this is because 19th century Indians sometimes demonstrated the use of the tine flaker. But, this could have been a common form of retouch on an already thin finished edge, that had become dull. I am not 100% convinced that it was a regular part of reduction. Also, it would seem that sharp tine flakers were more commonly used on brittle materials, such as obsidian. But, maybe they were not so commonly used on hard cherts.
On the other hand, there is probably stronger evidence of the use of composite bit pressure flakers, right alongside tools of indirect percussion, in the chert bearing areas of North America. But, even then, I can show you site reports which show tools of indirect percussion outnumbering the composite bit pressure flakers, by 100 to 1.
So, if you are trying to use antler flakers on hard chert, and you are not getting good results, it may just be that ancient knappers did not use them at the same point in reduction that you are trying to use them. And, if "aboriginal" is taken to mean an authentic part of one's culture, then maybe what people have tried to do with tine flakers is not aboriginal, in most instances.
On the other hand, if "aboriginal" is taken to mean "non-copper", then everyone will have a great deal more leeway to do pretty much anything, regardless of whether or not it was ever done in the past.
Also, between indirect percussion, and pressure flaking, it is possible that the results might look very similar, especially when the contact areas of the tools are of the same shape. But, I think that there are some telltale signs of differences. So, even if you look at ancient flaking that looks like pressure flaking, it may not be pressure flaking at all.
For example, erratic rippling in a flake scar could be a sign of shock. And, shock is produced by percussion and no so much by pressure. Also, in indirect percussion, if an antler upon antler blow is employed, the flakes come off faster, and the flake scars show much more rippling. Also, due to excessive energy, the flakes will run farther, frequently until full termination. And, the initiations will sometimes show diffuse shallow bulbing.
If you keep these details in mind, you can go back and look at artifacts that supposedly were pressure flaked. And, you will be able to see signs of percussive forces that were employed, though probably via indirect percussion, in many cases. Again, these signs are excessive erratic rippling, longer than normal flaking, and diffuse bulbs of percussion showing either in the flake scar, or on the flakes. Once you recognize this in looking at artifacts, you will understand that not everything that is assumed to be pressure flaking really was pressure flaking. Then, you may have to re-evaluate what constitutes "abo"? Were they doing something that we do not yet understand?
