Primitive Archer
Main Discussion Area => Flintknapping => Topic started by: JackCrafty on April 25, 2013, 08:26:41 pm
-
There has been a good discussion started by Hunts with Stone's comment about flintknapping ethics in my "Flintknapping Glossary of Terms" thread. I would like to continue this discussion here so that the "Glossary" thread stays focused on definitions.
Hunts with stone
From Errett Callahan. Experimental knapping. Ethics in Experimental Archaeology
Along with his work in the technological aspects of the field of experimental archaeology, Callahan has worked tirelessly to promote ethical research and documentation among fellow experimental archaeologists (Callahan 1999). Modern forgeries passed off as prehistoric artifacts have been detrimental to the field. Callahan has spoken out against such practices, encouraging flint knappers around the world to sign and date all of their production. Callahan has also championed authentic and scientific reconstructions, which he defined in his article What is Experimental Archaeology? (1999), as reconstructions which are successful, functional units undertaken with the correct period tools, materials, and procedures and which are scientifically monitored. In this statement, Callahan urges other flint knappers and experimental archaeologists against using modern replica tools such as copper billets to reproduce stone tools instead of the traditional bone and stone hammers used throughout prehistory. Callahan also says in the statement that without proper documentation of the techniques and processes there is no real experiment. With Callahan at the forefront of experimental archaeology, the field of replication studies gained acceptance throughout the academic community.
jackcrafty
Thanks for the promotional material. It's interesting to see who is re-inventing the wheel these days. ::)
Experimental archaeology is nothing new. And the field of replication studies is not limited to flintknapping. There has been work done for decades in the fields of pottery, rock art/petroglyphs, stone carving, jewelry and ornamentation, and the list goes on. The ethics are well established. I agree that well made replications should be marked. But should we also require markings on the natural pottery that is being made by members of the primitive skills community, for example? Real scientists are not overly concerned with reproductions. This is mainly an issue with collectors and with the people who hate collectors.
This is only my personal belief but claiming to know what the "correct" tools were, in the past, is not only arrogant but is at the root of a mentality that creates tunnel vision among the archaeological community. For example, this type of tunnel vision has lead to countless pieces of debitage being discarded because it was considered "irrelevant" to the current knowledge of how the items were supposedly produced. Only recently has the science of debitage analysis gained serious attention. And if no one is looking for evidence of copper residue, who knows how long it will take for us to discover the "proper" or correct period tools? And how do we know that meteorite iron wasn't used to produce some of the ancient artifacts? We will NEVER know this because any evidence is now decayed beyond recognition.
Edit: One more thing. Copper, as a naturally occurring metal that can be found on the surface, has been collected, shaped, and utilized for thousands of years in prehistory. Only the extent of its use is unknown. The origins of refining copper and copper ore is also another unknown but we know that the technology was around in the time of Otzi: at least a thousand years before archaeologists in Europe "knew" about it's use prior to the discovery of his copper axe.
Notes:
There is considerable debate as to whether or not copper was used by prehistoric flintknappers in the Americas. There is evidence of copper tools being used by the Hopewell culture, like celts, but whether or not tools for flintknapping were also part of their "tool kit" is not clear. It is also not clear how copper might have been used in flintknapping and in what time periods. It is reasonable to assume that copper (or other metals like iron) may have used to create notches in bifaces, for example, but whether this was confined to true arrow points, like the one's made by Ishi, or earlier points as well, is up for debate.
Newbow
Regards "correct tools": "Correct" tools for any given activity in the prehistoric past will be those tools that archeological consensus suggests were probably the tools used. Those tool sets may change over time as more information comes to light through additional archeological discoveries or even from insights gained from experimental archeology but, that "We will NEVER know this..." ("this" being the exact tools used) does not, ipso facto, give someone the freedom to use just whatever tools they may prefer and then call it "replication". The most serious bone of contention in flintknapping concerns the use (or not) of copper. Yes, there is some evidence that copper may have been used occasionally in flintknapping. As Patrick pointed out in "Notes:", how much it was used, or that it was used at all, remains controversial but I have seen modern knappers defend copper as an "Abo" technique because it was available and, therefore, could have been used. To be fair, that defense was used in an effort to stifle some born again Abo knappers who can be quite, uh, narrow minded when it comes to "proper" knapping tools and techniques, but those narrow minded Abo knappers do have a point (no pun intended). Copper, however widespread, was never common enough to be comparable to rocks, bone or antler, and its primary use appears to have been ornamental/ceremonial; more in common with our day to day use of gold (electronics not withstanding) and, while not impossible or even difficult to produce, a person will be hard pressed to locate a set of gold tools at the local hardware store. If you are going to replicate (replicate being defined as producing an identical article from the same material and by the same means) then you have to use the most probable tools that have been identified, and the people who do that Identifying are the archeologists. Of course they're not always right. It is, and always will be, a work in progress, but if you intend to use tools/techniques not identified by archeological consensus, then be prepared with compelling evidence to defend your methods. Hammer stones, bone, antler (in most places, at least in North America), even wood, are defensible. Copper? Currently, not a chance, if you're replicating a particular point type. If you are replicating a particular point and going to use copper, did the original have traces of copper residue? If not, you're out on a limb. As I understand it, those who authenticate original points specifically look for copper traces as a de-authenticating factor, so you're likely to remain on that limb for some time.
-
Newbow, in response to your post, I would argue that consensus is difficult to find. Of course, as you said, this does not mean that we can just throw caution to the wind and use any old tool or technique when it comes to replicating.
I was going to write a definition on replicating but I have not read enough on the subject to create a "generic" definition. I have seen the term in one or two of my sources but not much attention was given to it. This leads me to believe that replicating is really just a fancy word for "interpreting the methods used in prehistoric lithic technology".
In the archaeological context, replicating is currently being performed by flintknappers of all skill levels. I would argue that replicating requires the skills of expert flintknappers only, and then only those who are familiar with the particular technology and data in question with the results recorded in video, text, and photographic formats and the results made open to the public and subject to review. In my opinion, replicating done in any other fashion is more accurately described as "learning" or "attempting" prehistoric flintknapping.
-
Well put jack. I have read a large Discussion on the use of knapping tools. The general theory is they used what they had available at the time period Hey global location. There are still much to be learned and being learned. Even point types and styles are debated largely and renamed. This all came about for me as i'm learning Quartzsite working with wood. I would agree to that replicating say from casts would take an expert.
-
I am starting to believe copper was not important to an expert knapper back in the day. Scott and I found that it is just as fast. So speed is not an issue. The more I learn the less important copper becomes for me in the discussion.
As far as producing points and ethics go well good luck with that issue. I have lost numerous points hunting and out at the quarry so I guess I am part of the record and it is their job to know. Everyone wants to do the right thing but when your at the creek and want to know if that rock is good you give it a wack. That flake is an artifact ...am I going to sign it ...no. I know we all have backyards full of material that is going to confuse the record but it will not be stopped. Signing the end product is only a very small part of the record that you create when you knap. It is like only recycling the cap of a soda bottle.
I do however want to get a diamond point and sign the work
-
Patrick, I don't disagree with your definition of replicating, as expressed in your 5:49 post. It's essentially what I suggested. I would add, or amend, that while only experts should be publishing the results of their replication efforts one need not be an expert to join in the exercise. Obviously, no one is born an expert so practice is required and although they are exposed to lithics in school these days relatively few will follow up on it and very few will become experts. But, replication isn't so much about making a point as it is about learning the skills involved, using the tools presumed to have been available to whatever period and place that is being investigated. From that exercise, more informed opinions can be made about how much labor went into lithic production in a particular group in addition to familiarizing the student with what debitage looks like which will help in identifying possible archaeological sites in the future. There will likely never be agreement on the subject, but I define replication as above; a point made as best the maker can using tools believed to have been used when the original was made. Anything else, no mater how true to the original, is a replica, but was not replicated. The reasons a person would want to replicate as opposed to make replicas aren't terribly important to the (my) definition, but they generally fall into either academic pursuits or attempts to, as best they can, identify with the peoples of the past. Finally, I understand and appreciate your cynicism about archaeological consensus. These days, with so much upheaval in the field, consensus on many things is, indeed, hard to come by. That upheaval, however, does not extend to the what tools were used to make lithic implements which was the subject that prompted my original post.
-
Great input here. It's all Quite fascinating for the modern knapper to be in a timeline set back so long ago and work in those Parameters. All the Lithic reduction done by modern knappers from beginner to expert Is attempts at replication. While signing completed projects only authenticates the maker and help set apart Distinctions Among them. IMHO there are few modern knappers working in paleo qurries and stream banks Leaving a significant mark. Although I have walked a half mile stretch of stream and saw literally hundreds of rocks that were struck. For typology there still a great amount of unrest in that field.
-
Newbow, the main reason I made the distinction that only experts should be involved in "replicating" is because there has to be a distinction made between abo knapping, reproducing, and replicating. Replicating is the most restrictive and controlled form of knapping under the "experimental archaeology" umbrella. It follows that only an expert can conform those standards. Replicating is to abo knapping as surgery is to removing a splinter. If we do not make that distinction then the word "replicating" is on equal footing with scientifically observed abo knapping. Replicating implies that the process is understood fully by the knapper, can be duplicated consistently (like other scientific experiments), can be explained by the knapper, and can be tweaked if needed to obtain the desired results.
To put it simply, can new people be expected to contribute knowledge to the replication of a folsum point, for example? Of course not. And how about creating an Eden point with noting but a hammerstone and a piece of buffalo horn? Has there been any other tools associated with Eden poins? Sometimes there are NO tools found in context with projectile points. Can a beginner know what tools were probably used to make such a point? Obviously, no. I could go on and on.
-
Oh yeah, how many points have I replicated personally? Zero (0) Zip. Nada.
How many techniques can I replicate? One (1), maybe two. I can replicate the levallois technique and maybe first stage or preliminary biface flaking.
Am I an expert? Hell no.
But I'm working on it. :o
-
I just like making those wonderful works of art we call arrowheads. Beautiful & functional for those who hunt with them. I would also like to add that I would have marshmallows in my tool kit if they worked. Even though experimental archaeology is interesting, I don't practice it. Ally points have the surface scared with a fine stone. Doing that helps keep them from being passed off as archaic artifacts . Just my 2 cents, I'm enjoying the thread.
-
other things to think about:
Some of the materials are gone i.e. mammoth
Also some thoughts need to focus on form vs function and function vs form which as not been discussed (craft vs art?).
Process or technique can be linked to function or form.
Patrick I hear ya on replication, it took me a good year to figure out paleo flaking and I cant do it right because the tools are not the same. I have just made a smaller flaker and that may shed some light but not sure yet.
-
I abraid the surface of all my points too. But not to identify them as modern. I do it because it makes me happy. :)
Even though experimental archaeology is interesting, I don't practice it.
I try to practice it, then I have to get out the nice, soft seat cushion, the coffee, the space heater (in winter), the pastries, the duct tape gloves, and then the copper. Good to see SOMEONE out there has the guts to admit that. I'm in denial. ;D
-
Patrick I hear ya on replication, it took me a good year to figure out paleo flaking and I cant do it right because the tools are not the same. I have just made a smaller flaker and that may shed some light but not sure yet.
Looking forward to seeing your technique!
-
But, replication isn't so much about making a point
as it is about learning the skills involved, using the tools presumed to have been available to whatever period and place that is being investigated.
I cant seperate theses two above.... tools and skills may be specific to the point.
-
John, in your mind, what's the difference between replicating and abo knapping?
-
you cant (unless randomly) replicate a skill/technique if you don't know the goal.
The point is the goal and the process is a means to an end. The goal is to make a specific point that will preform in a particular way to achieve a particular goal and it has specific skills/tools utilized for its production.
-
John, in your mind, what's the difference between replicating and abo knapping?
I have an answer but not the time to write I have to teach ...I will write it out tonight.........I love this kind of stuff......
-
Cool!
-
Cool!
Short answer is "intent"
long answer still to come.
-
I think of ABO as a term that defines an aspect of knapping that came before modern forms of knapping which tend to produce lithics with metal type tools. ABO lithics are produced with materials available to the knapper based on location and contact and tend to produce lithics with organic and natural materials i.e. antler, bone, wood, ivory, stone, etc...and to a lesser degree copper.
ABO to me represents a set of tools predating wide spread copper industry (different times different places). So as I work my ABO tools I do so with a particular intent. Maybe I want to produce a point for my arrow for fishing and I want it to be small and have two hooks on it. This design in my head is mine. I now have no intention of replicating an others design. I then develop a set of skills particular to the design.
Replication is a process of learning how to influence the stone in a manor that produces another persons design. Both of these processes could use ABO tools and produce different ABO effects.
-
Where is the scientific analysis? Doesn't replicating also imply a formal recording of the process?
I would argue that someone who is "replicating" in isolation is not replicating but simply abo knapping. The whole point of replication, at least in the archeological journals, is to produce a record of the process for review and possibly a basis for future work.
-
Case 1. If I spent a lifetime learning how to do x and x was a paleo technique and I wrote about but did not publish for review and then died was I replicating. I dont believe I need to be part of current dialogue to be replicating. The writings could be published at a later date by family and contribute volumes to the then current base of knowledge.
Case 2. If I spent a lifetime learning how to do x and x was a paleo technique and I did not write about it but upon my death left my tools/points to my family and the family donated them to a school for review was I replicating? In this case the dialoque is presented in the form of tools to contribute to the current body of knowledge.
Case 3. If I spent a lifetime learning how to do x and x was a paleo technique and never shared the knowledge but had both points and tool buried with me and 100 years from now I was dug up would an archaeologist say I was replicating a paleo technique that could have contributed to the then body of knowledge. Archeology now has been further advance by this new development.
-
The question is intent
To publish
Or just to learn
You do not have to have others to learn therefore you could be a student of your own work. Lets say publish at home reflect then produce the reflect and produce again.
Publishing is an elitist pursuit and they write the definition but it doesn't make the term correct
The same thing happens in art...if an artist is not recognized by museums and galleries how can they be part of the dialogue. Keith Haring is a good example.
-
The individual may not have the desire to publish but could be replicating just the same as someone with a desire to publish so both can have the intent to replicate.
-
So I return to the beginning and state that ABO a term that defines a tool set....(see below)
Replicating is a term that defines an intent to duplicate a previous process, design or style (can add additional descriptors here) with a particular goal.
Publishing is an act that could follow and is not always in print form.
A person knapping with the intent of publishing is a knapper with two goals.
-
Just for fun
By your definition.....
Replication....is an act of forgery by academics of prehistoric peoples
This is just tongue and cheek humor...it made me laugh.
-
In response to replies #20 through #23:
Huh? ???
And in answer to this statement in particular:
Publishing is an elitist pursuit and they write the definition but it doesn't make the term correct.
Uh, what? :o Splain pleeze.
(Edit: On second thought, don't explain. Your explanation will be published in this forum and we'll become elites if we acknowledge it. O:))
And the definition:
Replication....is an act of forgery by academics of prehistoric peoples.
I dunno John, I don't think forgeries are commonly recorded on tape or with someone observing the published data on how it was done. But yes, it is funny to think of an academic attempting a forgery in the area of lithic technology. >:D I've seen some attempts. They ain't pretty!
-
I will talk with at the classic lol
-
And yes we are writing about it so yep we become the "elitist"
I am sure everyone gets a kick out of reading this post.
Remember guys this is just for fun and we are only playing with words.
-
John, I'm sure glad you were not my teacher in school. ;D I'm confused :o So I'm going to go an get my copper tools an have some fun knapping and enjoying the sun shine. See ya all thursday morning bright an early. Bob
-
;D ;D
-
Lol outbackbob.... Cu later >:D
-
Glad I'm just an old fart that likes to make pointy rocks with whatever I can get my hands on.So if i'm wearing my glasses can I abo :o
-
I think the question is can you while "replicating"....I can't see well with my bifocals on so I take them off :laugh:
-
Has anyone here ever asked the question "where are the antler billets?" I know that was purposefully vague, but seriously, if antler billets were widely used in flint knapping and used in the way we use them today (or at least similar), showing correct size and the type of wear like we see on a used billet, where are they represented sufficiently in the archeological record to be presumed as the common percussion tool? I have seen plenty of antler pressure flakers show up in museums, literature and on site related websites, but very, very few of the tools that most knappers today would recognize as a billet. And of those, many have quite square ends with little rounding and are pretty darn short (punches?). I wish I knew more, but I only know enough to raise this question. There are a boatload of hammer stones of all sorts, but what about billets in the archeological record?
-
Very good question.
The answer lies not in the remains of the tool themselves, but in the analysis of the debitage. Tools are rarely found, and hammerstones are no exception. For example, the Gault site in Texas (one of the largest, undisturbed, clovis workshops ever found) contains only ONE hard hammerstone. No pressure flakers, no billets, no soft hammerstones, nothing but the one hard hammerstone.
The evidence of what the workers used for tools lies in the debitage: "Although not found, osseous billets were likely used, because much of the debitage exhibits platform lipping and bulbs of force are diffuse." Clovis Lithic Technology, Investigation of a Stratified Workshop at the Gault Site, Texas: Waters, Pevney, and Carlson, 2011, page 36.
(osseous means bone and/or antler)
So, aided by the process of "replication", archaeologists are able to look at the actual debitage, then compare that to debitage made by modern knappers under observation, and surmise that billets were used.
However, the reason this is such a good question is the fact that archaeologists together with modern knappers make a guess as to what tools were used and then, when they are able to produce similar results as the ancient knappers, they conclude that they have discovered the method, when all they have succeeded in doing is finding a possible method. And many times the knappers are inexperienced, exposed to only one or two methods, and are often the archaeologists themselves. Not good!
That's why I make such a big deal about why I think only expert knappers should be involved in replication. The best knappers are familiar with MANY techniques, tools, and debitage types and are, hopefully, less likely to fudge the results to make it seem like their time replicating has been productive!
OK, that's my spiel for the day.
-
With all that said, however, there is evidence of billets being used for flintknapping, especially in the Southwest where conditions have preserved many of the knapping tools. One example is Grasshopper Pueblo. Within the pueblo and in an area called "Room 246" the following was found:
76 hammerstones, of which 45 were probably for flintknapping, all in room 246. They are made from either quartzite cobbles or battered chert cores.
43 antler hammers or billets, 26 from room 246. These are short sections of the base of antlers with wear facets, nicks, and abrasions on the base resulting from knapping.
3 unmodified antler tine flakers in room 246.
58 total tine flakers in the pueblo showing various stages of wear,.
149 total pieces of antler beams cut unto short strips or cylinders, 18 of which were found in room 246 all with signs of use wear on one or both ends.
3 antler pieces with signs of being grooved or cut in preparation for the making of short strips.
The cut antler pieces are considered to be parts of compound pressure flakers similar to those found and/or historically documented in California and other sites in the Southwest.
Lithic Debitage, Context Form and Meaning: William Andrefsky Jr, 2001, pages 38-41.
There are also some references posted in this paleoplanet thread: http://paleoplanet69529.yuku.com/reply/382379/Re-Archeological-reports-of-baton-use#.UX7XjILrkZ0
-
Ok on post 35 I agree with ya.
-
You mean post #35 supports your position. ;) I'd be afraid if you agreed with me. :o
-
Jackcrafty - good points there. Lithic analysis is probably a pretty good indicator for the reasons you stated.
I wonder what Harrington found relating to knapping tools during his Ozark Bluffdweller digs? There was certainly excellent preservation in some of those sites, but maybe he didn't even keep everything.
-
I agree DL. Good points made. This does open ones eyes to the overall process. Thanks for all the input Gentlemen. We all learn from these discussions.
-
You mean post #35 supports your position. ;) I'd be afraid if you agreed with me. :o
Gee I have just so much fight in me and can argue just one post at a time. Lol
-
Thanks for the post I enjoyed it. Cu later
-
I am probably going out on a limb here and its always good that conversations and topics are brought up seamingly again and again. For my purpose I like to say I re-create "art" from the people before us. Each and every one of us, native american or not, has a personal connection to stone tools and litic reduction. I hear from people and family are u indian or somethng...really? Well getting back on topic, I know that here in NY there are several major Clovis workshops that play a significant role in "trying" to understand the past and there techniques used. As in most of these sites hammerstone are alway abundant, sometimes antler tine and billets found but rarely are. Its not hard to figure out that unless in a dry environment or a cave etc.. that over time antler and wood even if they used copper... in several years it would break down and decay, let alone several thousand years. I personally do not think that anyone ever used copper for knapping as by the time the copper and bronze age came about the transistion from stone to metal tools were fading. PLEASE do not quote me Im not a anthropologist but I think that digging into that informtion would help settle the theory which some may have about the use of copper. My final opinion would be this... hammerstones are the all purpose all around tool,readily available just about anywhere water runs, if you pulled up on a flint quarrie and had no tools and needed food and tools I woud be looking for a hammer stone. They abrade and can make a wide variety of points and tools from start to finish including a Clovis!...Then After I speared my Mastadon or Elk..etc...I would have the bones and antler to add to my tool kit. I would be evolving my kit as I go. Hunter gatheres are opportunists I try to imagine if they had a walmart back then... Hammerstones would be in the dollar isle a dime a dozen, nice antler and bones a little harder to get..would cost more.. LOL i dont know what the heck I am talking about right now..LOL...Final thought about these so called experts who "replicate" points ... there are so many factors that come into play that most beginner and some inermediate knappers dont even realize, size, shape, flaking, scar pattern, type of stone, bevel, thickness to with ratio, tip, edge and basal preperation, down to the right type of serration..there are a crap load of steps to replicating a "modern" style point. This all goes on theory and study of artifacts and their interpritations on how each point was made. Western Clovis points rarely had pressure flaking compared to Eastern Clovis points. Like us today I think it goes by choice of the knapper, we dont all choose to use only copper or hammerstone, I know we havent unearthed all the sites and artifacts out there that would continue to write and rewrite history.. I hope my random rambling hasnt went too far off topic. I like the debate about theory in our addictive and interesting world we all love. I would love to sit and talk about it anytime with any one of you..I like to say I recreate my inerpritation as modern art, Kudos to those guys who are the elite and sell their works for top $ as real replicas... the flake over grind paper thin, perfect flakes, jigs, saws,and arbors, almost production line like. DC Waldorf said he cant stand the use of copper tools. I use both, depending on stone and if its rare or expensive I dont want to risk making a mistake I use copper, I definatley get more praise when I use all ABO tools. All I know is if native tribe were around today like back then and chose to use stone as their main tool source would they use copper ??? I am working diligently to one day becoming an elite :o I will before you know it have my rock saw, kiln, and dump truck full of rocks...I have everything else. So what is ethical or unethical about any of this? Who started using plumbing equipment, how did the consept happen? So many questions..Im going now..I am thinking way too much about this..Good day!
R. Hill
-
Lets not forget that for not the study and work of the experts where would we be in our understanding of Lithic reduction. For the big names like crabtree , DCW to name a few there would be a lot less Enthusiasm for hobbyist. As for copper I only know of two references in prehistory where it's been used or found. Copper is very hard to ARequire. For those reasons I believe it is not Included in the ABO toolkit. I use both tool kits to. Along with wood. I am by no means very good yet but i plan to learn As much as possible to become the best Knapper I can be Either ABO or modern. So before I get rambling off I'll stop here.
-
No Way HUNTSWITHSTONE!!! Its all your fault!!! I know for you I see you use both tool kits, and its yor choice. Whos to say if you reduced with a hammerstone and pressure flaked with copper that it is unethical or is it a hybrid point?? What blows my mind is those guys who lab and shape their preforms then run some flakes with an antler tine and call themselves ABO rockstars!!!..I think I will stop here as well!
Russ
-
Hehehe, ya it all like rubbing three Pennies together to get A nickel. We need to add 2 cents. Gee I wonder how cool it be to knapp mirco points with a penny. Ah just some copper funin. The more I look into it the more find on the subject. 😋
-
Hear's your other 2 cents scientists use to know the world was flat regardless of the evidence before them. Finely with hard physical evidence before them and a lot of time some came around. With lithics its (in my opinion) a whole nother story many tools have or could have deteriorated into oblivion and others well there is an awful lot of dirt out there to check and easy to miss something by only inches. Copper most likely wasn't used widely due to the fact it isn't found every where but who's to say some one some where at some point in history didnt use a piece of copper other metal they found and used it as a hammer stone or even for a pressure flaker? Maybe they didnt like it and tossed it on the ground in search of something better the only way to know would be to ask god the next time you saw him only problem would be coming back to let the rest of us know. Just my two cents im gonna go back to trying to learn with whatever i can get my hands on.
-
If rituals played a part in their life then maybe magic played a role therefore making an object from part of an animal might insure a transference of power. Very little attention is given to the importance of symbolism in knappin. Maybe copper was better but the magic was wrong. You might leave a stone but an object that contains a spirit might have to be managed carefully. Just stuff you can't dig up.
-
Wow! My brain hurts :embarassed: I just like making points.
Knapper
-
Since the term "replication" has been used to describe different approaches to flintknapping in different websites and books, with no distinct definition, I will use the term "reconstruction" to describe a form of experimental archaeology that is performed and recorded under strict scientific conditions and guidelines based upon the latest archaeological evidence.
-
A question for so called abo knappers? Do you use modern tools to cut or grind or sharpen any of the tools you use? Do you gather these tools yourself on foot without the ford 150? I seriously doubt any points are made in a cold cave while hungry wet and cold with the intent of solving the last three problems.
-
A non ( so called abo knapper ) will not be able to repy as he has no computor . Patrick your huge investment in time and effort in research is endless. Kudos!
-
Since the term "replication" has been used to describe different approaches to flintknapping in different websites and books, with no distinct definition, I will use the term "reconstruction" to describe a form of experimental archaeology that is performed and recorded under strict scientific conditions and guidelines based upon the latest archaeological evidence.
Sounds like a good solution and foundation for dialogue on many techniques and processes found in the archaeological record.