Author Topic: Indirect Pressure Percussion  (Read 26927 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline JackCrafty

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • Posts: 5,628
  • Sorry Officer, I was just gathering "materials".
Re: Indirect Pressure Percussion
« Reply #15 on: December 31, 2015, 12:48:45 am »
That's pressure-assisted percusion, with a composite punch, on a braced workpiece.  The punch doesn't look "supported" unless you are able to get "rapid fire" strikes one after another (but maybe you are... I can't tell for sure).  The striking technique appears to be a "hybrid" that is very similar to using pressure-assisted percussion with a vertical punch.  The entire setup probably acts very similar to Mike Dothager's technique.  Marty's technique uses the "pressure-assistence" sometimes but his shaft punch is a lot more flexible and acts a little differently.

I've tried the pressure-assisted stuff and my main complaint is an increase in mis-strikes caused by the slipping off of the punch just before I strike it.  That often leads to me breaking the workpiece in some annoying way.  In other words, I'm not coordinated. :o

My technique with a horizontal punch leans very strongly to the "supported" side with a freehand hold and very little pressure assistence, if any.  The forces I use are completely different from your setup.  But I'm not saying that I don't like your technique.  It looks awesome! 

Also, I think if you try your technique on something less cooperative than Sonora, you will get a better idea of how the forces are working.  Sonora likes ANY type of tool.  Try it on some Quartzite, Rhyolite, or raw Bull Gravel.   >:D
« Last Edit: December 31, 2015, 01:11:18 am by JackCrafty »
Any critter tastes good with enough butter on it.

Patrick Blank
Midland, Texas
Youtube: JackCrafty, Allergic Hobbit, Patrick Blank

Where's Rock? Public Waterways, Road Cuts, Landscape Supply, Knap-Ins.
How to Cook It?  200° for 24hrs then 275° to 500° for 4hrs (depending on type), Cool for 12hr

Offline nclonghunter

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,779
Re: Indirect Pressure Percussion
« Reply #16 on: December 31, 2015, 08:24:51 am »
Thanks Patrick, I think you are spot on with your assessment. It is extremely similar to others composite antler pressure punch techniques. I just set it up a little different by sitting down and putting the shaft under my leg and then using a log for supporting the end while sitting in a chair. Not a lot of variation. To me it keeps it more horizontal than vertical, but no question there is an angle to it. My left hand holds the stone anvil wrapped in leather and I can roll it forward or back and change angles for setting up the strike on my leg which is the support. Once I place the antler on the platform by applying pressure with the opposite leg it seems to lock it there for the strike. Sometimes it will slip but not often. I can not do a rapid fire on the rock, it is all a deliberate placing and striking act for me. Maybe someone else could.

I openly admit I have taken what I have seen from others, including yourself and just changed it some. I encourage anyone to give it a try and if it is not for you then try something different.

 To me it is the knowledge and technique of flake removal that is most important. Put a great technique in someones hands that has no knowledge of rock reduction and they will fail. A knapper that is experienced in rock reduction can use many tools and techniques to accomplish the goal.
There are no bad knappers, only bad flakes

Offline bubby

  • Member
  • Posts: 11,054
Re: Indirect Pressure Percussion
« Reply #17 on: January 03, 2016, 11:09:48 am »
I'll have to try this, i have tried jackcrafty's method but having had both knees replaced i just can't seem to lock the ishi in good enough, gonna try this and see
failure is an option, everyone fails, it's how you handle it that matters.
The few the proud the 27🏹

AncientTech

  • Guest
Re: Indirect Pressure Percussion
« Reply #18 on: January 03, 2016, 09:58:15 pm »
NcLonghunter,

The experimentation is impressive.  I see that you have found that you can mount the antler directly into the shaft.  The reason that it does not need to be lashed is because the antler is highly plastic, and will compress when hammered down into the hole.  Then, antler is under tension, and will want to expand.  But, since it cannot expand it creates pressure outwards against the wood.  And, this pressure creates static friction, so that it will not slip.  Thus, lashing is not needed, which actually leads to a second benefit.

Before Philip Churchill passed away, we were looking at a potential case of this sort of tool, from the early 20th century.  At the time, he did not think that the antler bits were fitted in the ends of the flakers.  He thought that they would fall out, during use.  After he died, I carried out an experiment and found that just the opposite was true.  Once the antler bits are pounded in, they are nigh impossible to remove - apart from breaking the flaker in pieces. 

Also, seeing that you understand all of this, I will explain something else.  You can use an enlarged wooden head, with a smaller shaft handle.  If you do this, the tool will not feel so bulky.  And, the heavier end will pivot around the lighter end, when struck. 

If you do this, you may have to upgrade your striker.  That antler striker looks really light.  So far, my experience has been that antler on antler is good, for removing finer flakes that come off at high speeds.  But, if you upgrade your flaker size, then you will need to upgrade your striker size.  It is kind of like a hammer and a nail.  No one would want to use a sledgehammer on a one inch finished nail.  And, no one would want to use the smallest hammer on the largest nail - or railroad spike.  If you use the larger heavier flaker, with the punch bit, you may want to use a wooden mallet, for a flaker.  If you do, then you probably could get away with a hard bump.  It would be like a really heavy car bumping something.  The speed may not be the fastest.  But, the sheer weight can also contribute to the damage.

If you follow this path, then there is a third issue of mass.  If you strike a heavy flake with a heavy percussor, a smaller point is liable to move.  So, how do you increase the point's mass, as it gets smaller and smaller?  You can increase the points mass - at least in terms of behavior - by lashing it to your anvil, so that it behaves as a single object.  This is how you can understand the three masses.  They are like three kings that should be proportionate to one another.  Probably, many experiments failed because people did not understand how to reckon with these three masses.

Lashing a flaker bit is probably good on something like an Ishi stick.  But, the way you are mounting the antler, on the heavy flaker, is probably the way to go if you want to get into really heavy flaking.  Only, you may need an enlarged flaker head, and a narrower handle.  You also should consider the length of the handle, itself.  It is important, because when you striker the flaker head, and the bit bites into the stone, a lighter flaker may want to rebound off the stone.  If the handle is longer, then there is more mass that must be moved if the flaker should bounce away from the stone being flaked. 

If you understand this, then many mythical accounts of flakers, will make sense, in terms of what type of object they were speaking of, especially when they were not speaking of composite bit pressure flakers.  Also, Mrs. Kroeber's words will make sense, if you understand this.  And, what is known of one world renowned knapper, who used unknown tools, will make sense, though he is long gone.  I think that he may still hold the world record for one of his blades.  Also, if you understand all of this, then you will see that there is probably something that we should be looking for in the iconographic work of both the woodlands cultures, and Mesoamerica.   

Also, if we pull back the curtains of modern jargon, and terminology, what can be seen is that many earlier American observers knew about what is finally being done now.  Only, they used different terms.  For example, according to the most knowledgeable student of Native American lithics, a flaker had TWO roles.  A#  A flaker could be used to remove flakes, via pressure.  And, B# a flaker and hammerstone could be used to remove flakes via indirect percussion.  If a flaker is used in this dual manner, then pressure flakes are generated by manually generated pressure, and indirect percussion flakes are generated by the percussive blow of a hammer. 

The logic runs like this:  A person can only generate a limited amount of force, via hand pressure.  Once a person reaches the upper limits of hand generated force, the same process must be carried out, but with a much stronger percussive blow from a hammerstone, instead of hand generated pressure.  It is the same process, only two different types of force are applied - pressure, and percussion (in the form of indirect percussion). 

This was understood by American researchers, in the 1870's, 1880's, 1890's, 1900's, 1910's, and 1920's.  The trail was lost during and after the 1930's, when European academics began to push the soft hammer baton theory, conceived by Barnes, in an English laboratory.  By the way, the Europeans almost never ever listened to the American researchers who had contact with Native American knappers.  If they had listened, they could have revolutionized their own theories, instead of inventing soft hammer baton knapping. 

Anyway, this is a few thoughts from flintknappingdom's most banned flintknapper, still hanging on here, at "Primitive Archer".  Lol.  Also, it is January.  And, it is the one year anniversary of reconciling a historical account with outrepasse flaking, fluting, regular flaking, etc.  One wonderful year has passed.  Maybe I will run an anniversary clip showing all of the tine based outrepasse flakes made since January of 2015.

Have a great year!   
     
« Last Edit: January 03, 2016, 10:07:18 pm by AncientTech »

Offline nclonghunter

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,779
Re: Indirect Pressure Percussion
« Reply #19 on: January 03, 2016, 11:09:48 pm »
Ben,  I appreciate your comments and direction you have offered. I will narrow the mass on the large wood composite stick. That sounds like a reasonable and valuable move to remove bulk. You also mentioned lashing the point to the anvil. I have been pondering a way of securing the point to prevent movement away from the strike. I can hold it rather solid but I know it is moving more than I like. Several accounts I have read speak of "clamping" the point and unfortunately I do not know how it was done. I have a few ideas but those are based on what my 2016 brain tells me. I have read that the points or preforms were put into splits in a log which satisfied the same purpose as clamping.

Hopefully we can all learn more and break a bunch of rock for 2016.
There are no bad knappers, only bad flakes

AncientTech

  • Guest
Re: Indirect Pressure Percussion
« Reply #20 on: January 04, 2016, 11:10:17 am »
NcLonghunter,

I am really impressed.  It seems that you have a genuine interest in how Native American people of the Americas made their chipped stone tools, these last 13,000+ years.

A picture is worth a thousand words.  So, without going into all of the background technical information, that pertains to lithics, culture, ethnology, history, artifacts, New World lithics, etc, here are two pictures that illustrate what I was describing:





According to written accounts, these tools were probably used in conjunction with a pestle-like hammerstone.  Also, the tools probably housed antler bits.  I actually have separate photos of the antler bits that the knapper used.  And, I have the full written description of how the process was carried out.  IT IS UNLIKE ANYTHING KNOWN IN MODERN FLINTKNAPPINGDOM.  And, the process was learned and employed when the surrounding tribes still possessed common knowledge of both the tools, and the process.

Anyway, based on written accounts, I believe that the tool was held "straight with the edge" and then struck with a hammerstone.  Great care had to be taken to make sure that the blade did not move "sideways" when the flaker was struck.  Key words, "straight with the edge", and "move sideways". 

If you look carefully, you can see that the tools have a flare at the end.  Based on written evidence that I was able to track down, during my highly banned study of flintknapping, I believe that the flared end housed the bit, AND the flared end was struck on the broadside.

If we are too overly modern-flintknapping-centric, we might be temtped to think that they used "horizontal punches".  But, this is not how it was understood.  This is actually a highly inaccurate idea.  What was understood is that FLAKING WITH A FLAKER covered a RANGE OF FLAKING.  I wish to God that the American researchers had beaten this point into the heads of European academics, when they had the chance.  If they had done so, European academics would not have been so prone to set up misleading classification systems.  They hash out pine needles, but fail to see the forest.  And, it is continuing to this very day, because people fail to understand Native American flintknapping. 

Anyway, based on written evidence, I believe that these tools reflect what was on the far end of the flaker spectrum.  And, what is on the other far end of the flaker spectrum?  Composite bit pressure flakers.  IT IS A SINGLE SPECTRUM.  And, the spectrum covers the smallest composite bit pressure flaker, to the largest flaker like this, that might be as long as one's forearm.  The spectrum covers a single type of process, carried out with different tools, administered with two different forms of energy - pressure, percussion. 

So, the idea that Native American flintknappers used "horizontal punches" is erected on a false premise.  The false premise is that flintknapping is understood via "tools".  It is not understood via tools.  It was not understood via tools a hundred years ago, two hundred years ago, etc.  This is a carry over from our culture, and the influence of the Industrial Revolution.  And, that is not how Native American flintknapping was ever understood, not even 100 years ago.  Tools are part of the picture.  But, one cannot understand the picture through tools.  It is understood through processes.  And, tools can reflect different types of processes, that fit within a larger procedural understanding.  In this case, composite bit pressure flakers, and what we call "horizontal punches" are actually PART OF THE SAME PROCESS, that spans a spectrum of flaking, and flaking reduction.  Get this, native knappers were so BRILLIANT that they could follow the same process, after roughing out a preform, by working along the spectrum, right down to fine pressure flaking, with a composite bit pressure flaker.   

This is part of the highly banned history of Native American flintknapping that people do not want to have to face, but that will never go away, and that will outlive all of us.

By the way, there is no evidence that the person who used these tools ever used "billets".  And, there is no evidence that Ishi used "billets".  But, Ishi did describe the use of a tool unknown to modern flintknapping, on one or two occasions.  And, at another juncture, Ishi described another type of flaker, that probably no one ever saw.  And, if a person takes both lines of evidence into consideration, along with external evidence, it is no longer that difficult to see what was being spoken of. 

Also, the person who used these tools I am showing came from the same area that Ishi came from, and learned to knap during the 1870's, at a time when many people in the area where just beginning to become modernized.  And, based on written descriptions of the process, it is certain that his individual used a sophisticated form of indirect percussion, as his intermediate form of flaking, while following all the way through to composite bit pressure flaking.  Yet, there is no evidence that he used batons, as proposed by the English, during the 1930's.

Fortunately for me, I predicted that this evidence should exist.  Then, I spent six months tracking it down.  And, it exists.  And, it exists in far better detail than anyone could have imagined.  Also, the fact that this fellow made so many points, and that no one could have successfully made the points, shows that modern lithic analysis can easily flop.  And, the reason why lithic analysis can easily flop is because it is largely based on the work of baton users, and not Native American flintknapping, and flintknapping processes. 

 
« Last Edit: January 04, 2016, 11:23:22 am by AncientTech »

Offline nclonghunter

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,779
Re: Indirect Pressure Percussion
« Reply #21 on: January 04, 2016, 12:36:39 pm »
Ben, Thank you for those pictures, you are correct they are worth a thousand words. That is what I had pictured, which is how a wood Louisville Slugger base ball bat would look. At present I have three Ishi or composite sticks in different sizes, which I use for different needs or difficulty of work. You have made mention of some other intents that I plan to experiment with. I wish I had more time to read and research all the information out there.
There are no bad knappers, only bad flakes

Offline Hummingbird Point

  • Member
  • Posts: 147
Re: Indirect Pressure Percussion
« Reply #22 on: January 04, 2016, 04:56:21 pm »
Lyman,

Okay I made one like yours.  I used an antler tine piece and a piece of hickory.  I started out with just the antler shoved in the socket, but the wood started to split so I added the rawhide wrap.  I like the way the antler tip can be rotated around as you work to get a clean area on the antler without having to dress up the tool.  I don't like how much wear I am getting on the antler with any of these various horizontal punch type techniques.  I hope it will calm down a bit as I learn the tool.  When I was learning hammer stones I used to shred them and likewise with wood percussion when I started on that, so part of it is likely user error.  I've used it both the way you show and by putting the end on the ground more like Marty's way and they seem about the same, just a matter of adjusting angles.  The "strike zone" is smaller than with my other method, where the antler is lashed on, so I have had to go from using a hickory baton striker to using one of my antler hammers.   I am thinking about making another hickory striker that is more paddle shaped and hitting with the edge of the paddle.  Any way, the tool:


This is the kind of flaking it makes:



Thanks for sharing the idea,

Keith   

Offline nclonghunter

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,779
Re: Indirect Pressure Percussion
« Reply #23 on: January 04, 2016, 10:29:30 pm »
Keith, glad you are giving it a try. I need to look at Marty's video again, I just didn't see him pressing the antler into the preform when it was struck. I have laid the antler against the preform and struck it and then did it with the pressure and it makes a difference. Having said that it is just working it out that best suits you. I agree with you that your composite stick needs more meat on the end. As Ben said, I plan on tapering my shaft in a baseball ball design. Get enough meat on the end and I think the rawhide/cordage wraps can be skipped. I then plan on making a wood billet to strike the wood rather than the antler. I have also let my antler start "rounding" to much and I need to flatten the end again. I think the sharp edges work better. May put the energy into a precise spot which would be the platform.

The point you posted looks great to me. Long wide flake scars in a nice row. That is what I have been experiencing also. I wanted to work some of the Rhyolite I got yesterday but my forearms and wrists are sore from spalling so I am taking a break...LOL   
There are no bad knappers, only bad flakes

Offline turbo

  • Member
  • Posts: 130
Re: Indirect Pressure Percussion
« Reply #24 on: January 05, 2016, 12:09:54 am »
Thanks for reporting on your results guys, I remember Marty mentioning cushioning the non working end and also butting it against a corner I believe? With the buffalo horn punches I put a considerable amount of pressure inward w/ my legs/thigh. It seems similar in concept as what you're talking about. I still need to find some whitetail billets suitable for some stick punches and then I'll take a whack on some Georgetown I have saved. Until then keep your results coming!

AncientTech

  • Guest
Re: Indirect Pressure Percussion
« Reply #25 on: January 05, 2016, 01:14:39 am »
SPLITTING - The issues of the wood splitting probably relate to the wood being too thin around the antler bit.  The wood can be much thicker.  Also, soft lashings are going to absorb the energy of impact.  The photos I showed are believed to be flaking tools used over a century ago, by a native knapper, in Northern California.  It looks like the native method resolves two issues, encountered by modern knappers - splitting, and soft lashings.

PRESSURE AIDED BY BLOW - To the onlooker, it probably looked as though native knappers were carrying out pressure flaking processes, only with a blow rather than pressure.  The flakers that I showed above, when fitted with bits, and combined with a hammerstone blow, did on a large scale what pressure flakers did on a much smaller scale.  The tools are analogous with each other.  The processes are analogous with each other.  What differs is the way energy is delivered, and force is created.  In one case, it is done with pressure.  In the other case, it is done with a blow.  So, there is some variation in the tools, though the processes - flaker angle, flaker movement, etc - are essentially the same.

That being said, it actually can get more complex, because in some cases if both flaking methods - pressure and percussion - are combined with a third flaking method, then the combination of all three methods can lead to the creation of an additional force, that cannot be directly made.  And, this is what alters the trajectory of the break.  The creation of an additional force, that cannot be directly made, while combining three flaking processes, will result in effects that maybe cannot be created with only one or two of the three flaking methods, alone. 

Still, to the uninitiated, the process may look like "pressure aided by blow".  But, by combining a third method into the mix, one may be able to create a force that effects the break, as it occurs, or nears the end of its trajectory.  So, beyond combing two flintknapping methods, it is possible to combine three flintknapping methods.  And, this is why anyone that knows anything about Native American flintknapping, will never assume that "a tool" equates to "a certain effect".  Using a tool in a single flintknapping process will not produce the type of results that can be achieved when the same tool is used in a combination of flaking processes.  The end results can be quite different.  And, this is why the "tool based" view is folly.  It does not work, because some tools can be used in combined processes that produce completely different effects, than if they had been used in single processes.  And, the truth is that some Indians, right up until about a hundred years ago, knew this.  But, the actual knowledge probably goes back to Clovis times.

Because of this, I have found it a little easier to look at a flake in three phases, or parts.  A  The initiation.  B.  The trajectory.  C.  The termination.  Early researchers sometimes said that pressure flakes follow the line of force.  But, some types of flakes can show something far more complex than pressure.  The initiation aspects tell of how the break was started.  The trajectory may reveal what forces were playing upon the break, as the break was occurring.  And, the termination may show how all such forces relate to the support.  It is my opinion that combinations of certain flaking technologies can lead to very long running flakes, followed by 90 degree outrepasse terminations.  And, if a person can rule out hard hammer percussion, and the initiations show signs of indirect percussion, then, in my opinion, the rest of the flake - trajectory, plus termination - may reveal the subsequent forces at work, while the break is occurring.  And, these forces can be understood in terms of additional flaking processes that have been combined with the "indirect percussion", or "pressure aided by blow", process.         

Offline nclonghunter

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,779
Re: Indirect Pressure Percussion
« Reply #26 on: January 05, 2016, 09:06:45 am »
Heck, I am still getting my composite stick and percussion technique in good working order and you add a third method... ::)

I have a couple ideas for the third method that I have read from descriptions of past knappers. It is something that I hope to try eventually. I know how I can use modern tools to achieve what I want but need to figure how it was done with old tools.  Life certainly puts enough obstacles in place to slow the learning curves.
There are no bad knappers, only bad flakes

Offline Hummingbird Point

  • Member
  • Posts: 147
Re: Indirect Pressure Percussion
« Reply #27 on: January 05, 2016, 10:06:24 pm »
I've tried striking on the wood but it is not working well.  It feels like the wood is soaking up too much of the energy of the blow.  When I strike on the antler I get more of the energy of the strike to flow into the stone.  It would seem that using a thicker piece of wood would dampen the blow even more.  What am I missing?  Has anyone else tried this?

Keith

Offline nclonghunter

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,779
Re: Indirect Pressure Percussion
« Reply #28 on: January 05, 2016, 11:07:20 pm »
Keith, I also tried using wood to strike the composite stick and got the same results. Just seemed to absorb the energy. I went back to striking the antler tip with antler as you did. Perhaps a hard wood like hickory or dogwood may transfer the energy. Until then I am continuing to strike the antler tip with antler.
There are no bad knappers, only bad flakes

AncientTech

  • Guest
Re: Indirect Pressure Percussion
« Reply #29 on: January 05, 2016, 11:38:22 pm »
I've tried striking on the wood but it is not working well.  It feels like the wood is soaking up too much of the energy of the blow.  When I strike on the antler I get more of the energy of the strike to flow into the stone.  It would seem that using a thicker piece of wood would dampen the blow even more.  What am I missing?  Has anyone else tried this?

Keith

There are many different types of wood.  There is a Janka hardness rating for wood.  Janka hardness is measured by pushing a small steel ball a certain distance into a piece of wood.  In some cases, the ball can be pressed in with just a few hundred pounds of pressure.  But, in other cases, when wood is highly resistant, it can take over a 1000 psi to push in the ball.  You probably need to study carefully the types of wood that you are using.  A highly resistant wood is going to act more like antler than a softer wood.  Some wood is so soft that it dents easily.  This sort of wood could be too soft.  All of this applies to the striker, as well.  Also, you may have to switch to an anvil support, if the blows are really hard.