Primitive Archer
Main Discussion Area => Flintknapping => Topic started by: JackCrafty on June 15, 2015, 11:14:38 pm
-
I posted this in the "Knapping Floor Tile" thread but I want to start a new thread on knappability. I get lots of questions on this, so....
On a scale of 0-10 (with 10 being easiest to knap):
10 High-grade Heat-treated
9 Glass/Obsidian
8 True Flint and Highest-grade Cherts
7 High-grade Chert and Medium-grade Heat-treated
6 Medium-grade Chert
5 High-grade Porcelain and Ceramic (includes high-grade floor tile)
4 Low-grade Heat-treated
3 Low-grade Chert
2 High-grade Quartzite and Rhyolite
1 Low-grade Quartzite and Rhyolite
0 Low-grade Ceramics, Natural Cortex
I usually don't recommend anything lower than a 7 for beginners and for those who want to work on advanced flaking techniques.
-
The low-grade heat treated (HT) category is kind of difficult for me to define. I'm going to place both hard and soft materials in this category.
Low-grade HT includes (but not limited to): Keokuk (it cracks way to easily along edges), stone with small heat cracks, over-cooked stone, and stone that is still hard to run flakes on after heating.
I'm thinking of putting some HT novaculite into this category too but I'm not sure where it comes from. I've got some white novac that almost feels like soapstone and is very brittle. Maybe it's over-cooked?
What do you guys think? I think there are a couple other threads like this and I'll try to link to them...
-
I'm surprised you put high grade Quartzite so low Patrick. The stuff I have worked wasn't to bad to knap and I would put it much higher than 2.
As an aside, there was a Quartz deposit that was found not long ago on a local Ojibwa reserve that clearly shows signs of being used. I've been trying to find out where it is but have so far been unsuccessful.
-
Maybe add some examples of each scale increment. Indiana hornstone and Kentucky blue might fit in the 8-9 scale.
Waldorf has a general scale on ease of knapping in his book on popular stone knappers use.
Good thread!
Tracy
-
Patrick, I need to put toilet tank porcelan at the bottom :o :( Bob
-
I thought NC Rhyolite would have been at least a 7... >:D
Good info and interesting
-
Here are two examples of what I would rate very high as
far as knap ability.
Heat treated novaculite-- like butter. From Roy Miller.
Porcelain tiles !" thick (from Hudson Bay) trade tower clean up.
like butter too.
I had a few large ones that I never photographed.
Zuma
The ones x out are crapperite. I learned how to not lop
it once in a while bob. lol a 6 for me
-
How does it compare to Callahans scale?
https://books.google.com/books?id=Wnn3eVROJP4C&pg=PA102&lpg=PA102&dq=Callahan+lithic+scale&source=bl&ots=1cOoH-qnUY&sig=1HtQptobItotWduG9IjDOp7Wx0U&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDAQ6AEwA2oVChMIsrPasruUxgIViQOsCh09MgBv#v=onepage&q=Callahan%20lithic%20scale&f=false
-
I thought NC Rhyolite would have been at least a 7... >:D
Good info and interesting
Haha, well by Callahan's scale it's around 7!
-
I am glad to see high quality flint/chert rated better than glass and obsidian. Since this matter is affected both by a knapper's tools, experience, techniques and preferences, it is unlikely there will ever be complete agreement on any knappability scale. In my opinion, it's largely a matter of an individual's preferences in difficulties. Though it is an excellent material for learning how to knap to get predictable results, I don't like glass and obsidian's eagerness to pop a flake off. I had rather hit a little harder on a material that is a little more "forgiving". From reading posts by other knappers, it seems that some really like to deal with "tough" materials. Maybe what I am saying is that flakability is not the whole matter, and even "workability" is subject to methods.
WA
-
Chip, the flakability and workability are hard to define, I agree. There is wisdom in your post. The method I'm using is based largely on "frustration level". I know that's almost impossible to define as well but, basically, if the flake run long AND with good predictability, it's high on the scale. So, in the case with high quality quartz, I agree that it can be a pleasure to knap, but the flakes do not run "long".
That said, I going to adjust the scale. I'm downgrading glass and obsidian and upgrading quartzite and high-grade rhyolite.
Caveman, I need to study Callahan's scale tonight. I'm a little short on time right now.
Zuma, I need to find that "butter tile". If it's true, someone is going to make some serious $$ selling that stuff to knappers....
-
Updated Scale:
10 High-grade Heat-treated
9 True Flint and Exceptional-grade Cherts
8 Glass/Obsidian
7 High-grade Chert and Medium-grade Heat-treated
6 Medium-grade Chert
5 High-grade Porcelain and Ceramic
4 High-grade Quartzite and Rhyolite
3 Low-grade Heat-treated
2 Low-grade Chert
1 Low-grade Quartzite and Rhyolite
0 Low-grade Ceramics, Natural Cortex
-
Caveman, I took a look at Callahan's scale really quick and I don't agree with it, especially where he places shale and slate. I'll look at it more closely, along with Waldorf's scale, later...
-
Chip, the flakability and workability are hard to define, I agree. There is wisdom in your post. The method I'm using is based largely on "frustration level". I know that's almost impossible to define as well but, basically, if the flake run long AND with good predictability, it's high on the scale. So, in the case with high quality quartz, I agree that it can be a pleasure to knap, but the flakes do not run "long".
That said, I going to adjust the scale. I'm downgrading glass and obsidian and upgrading quartzite and high-grade rhyolite.
Now that's almost (phenomenological) >:D :)
I like your newer chart.
Zuma
PS
I think the thick porcelain tiles must have been installed like cheap marble.
Perhaps for bathrooms and window sills? Just a guess.
-
Zuma, yes, and quite intersubjectively unstable. ;D
-
It appears also that the two scales are reversed, in Callahans has the hardest at 10 and yours is at 1. If basing it on ease of knapping I would not place true flints as high as you did and High grade rhyolite and quartzite would be a bit better than you have it. Its gonna always be somewhat subjective as each of us will have a different experience.
-
Something I also consider is the platforms (should have mentioned that earlier) : the ease of creating and using the platforms. I placed glass below the flints because of the platforms. Platforms on the glasses are laborious to create, are "slippery", and crush easily if not hit properly. In contrast, the true flints are much more forgiving. Hope that makes sense.
-
The paper includes a criticism of Callahan's scale. It states that there should be a mathematical basis for the comparisons. I don't see how that's possible.
-
I'm also thinking of getting even more restrictive with the material I recommend for beginners. I think Level 7 is the best: not higher and not lower.
I've seen a lot of new people struggle just as much with the high grade stuff (maybe even more so).
I'm going to start placing scale numbers on specific materials (like Pedernales chert, Dover chert, Fine-grained basalt, Citronel gravel, etc...) and post results soon.
-
I have to agree with Marc on the quartz. Good Tallahatta and Hixton pressure flake like butter.
-
It states that there should be a mathematical basis for the comparisons. I don't see how that's possible.
Maybe this---
Most archies are not knappers but have computers :D
Computational archaeology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://Computational archaeology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
It incorporates a large part of the methods and theories developed in quantitative archaeology since the 1960s but goes beyond former attempts at quantifying archaeology by exploring ways to represent general archaeological information and problem structures as computer algorithms and data structures.
-
Computational BS-ology. >:D
Choosing what stone tool to make (and use) is like choosing a car. Are there mathematical models for car choice? And are these models tailored to each culture and subculture? Do the models show how cars affect culture and how culture affects cars? If there are, maybe we should follow those "computations". If the wheels have already been invented, let's install them. I'd like 4 please, if they exist. (tried searching... but I encountered more BS).
I used cars only as an example. I'd like to see a logical/mathematical system for describing/analyzing another type of material culture. I'd look myself but there's only so many hours in a day... :(
-
Computational BS-ology. >:D
I'd look myself but there's only so many hours in a day... :(
Hard to explain but I'll give it a try as I am just hiding out
in the air conditioning these past few days.
"exploring ways to represent general archaeological information and problem structures as computer algorithms and data structures."
So it's not the actual analysis but more like medical coding where #s are assigned to procedures etc.
Perhaps Callahan's scale was ok but just not compatibly algorithmic??
I have encountered this stuff before when it comes to point typology. Not to belabor this but it is a big new part of modern archaeology.
Zuma
-
Yeah, I know what they want. They want to see a certain applied force + direction (vector) detaching a certain mass of removed material of certain dimensions that conform to desired shape(s) of the flakes and the workpiece. To them, small vectors combined with high flake mass in comparison to the mass of the workpiece will tell them that certain materials are "soft to knap", for example.
They don't understand the skill required in preparing the edge/surface according to material, the skill required in recognizing and adapting to variations in the properties of the material being knapped, and the need, or lack of need, of maintaining tools to a high degree in order to produce good results.
But that's only a small part of what they don't understand.
They perceive that knapping is like hitting a baseball, for example: with batters (or knappers) assigned batting averages. And if you have a team with batters with good averages, they always win more games (produce more finished pieces of higher quality). Not only that, they think that a batting average (knapping skill) can tell you a lot about a player's personal life (the knapper's culture)!
Ridiculous !! And nothing but BS-ology.
And don't get me started on their lack of understanding of the need for a knapper to be in a good state of mind in order to produce good work. (I'll get upset and knap like crap... can't do that... I've got a vid I need to shoot today ;)).
-
Edit: Grain and brittleness are not the same thing.
-
Well,,,, now you have made a connection, Patrick, what is the true answer? ;D ;D ;D >:D :'(
-
Edit: The effects of grain can be quite different than the effects of brittleness.
-
You had me till the end. I am not an archeologist. I am a knapper, not even a year into the game. Not even 200 pounds into the game. Having an idea of what stone I will be more likely to work at my level is a great help. From experience I know that I have a harder time reducing obsidian than I do the raw chert and raw Keokuk I traded from Cowboy. I can however pressure flake obsidian better.
-
My knappability scale is by a modern flintknapper (me) for modern flintknappers. That should settle that issue.
Understanding ancient knapping is a spurious pursuit. (I didn't know what "spurious" meant until that term was used on me by Dr. Hester in another forum when I brought up the importance of hafting strategies... but that's another story). Anyway, the best we can do is to try to copy the ancient artifacts with what little knowledge we have. But even then, the benefits of such knowledge will be used primarily by counterfeiters. Most people simply want to enjoy the experience and maybe learn something about the way our ancestors' minds worked. That's fine with me.
-
If I were to construct a mathematical formula on how to solve for knappability, it would look something like this:
K=L/(M+C2) with a high "K" value being more favorable (knappable) than a low value.
K is Knappability
L is Length of workpiece in millimeters
M is Mass in grams
C is side-view Curvature of workpiece in millimeters.
The curvature is measured by placing the workpiece on a flat surface and then measuring the greatest "height" from that flat surface to whichever face of the workpiece ends up being furthest away.
It has nothing to do with the properties of the material (well, maybe that's too strong. I should say, "It is not directly related to any specific property"). It has to do with a flintknappers ability to produce a long, flat, biface/flake/workpiece with the least amount of mass. And this has to be an average value of as many flintknapped items of that material as possible.
I realize that this formula doesn't follow proper mathematical rules (you can't add grams to millimeters) but this is not a physical property. It's a measure of what can be done with a certain material from a knapper's perspective.
-
The amount of information is astounding to me. I would have never thought that so much was known, or that so much wasn't. Thanks Patrick for the videos. Spalling has become much more consistent since spending some hours watching your videos. I went from tiny, to much larger flakes. Here is the largest I have made so far.
-
Looks good JoJo! What's that material?
-
I don't know for certain. Something river?
-
Edit: Flintknapping processes can be studied in the light of known flintknapping tools.
-
But there is still a lot of assumption of what techniques were used. What we know is just the tip of the iceberg. I will make an assumption that not all ancient people were specialists in all areas of crafting. Like the members of this group. Some are amazing knappers, some are amazing bowyers. Some are even amazing leather workers, carvers, weavers, fletchers... You get the point. How many are amazing at all of these. Not many, if any. Given the time most of the members here can make any amazing product they put their minds to, but they aren't worrying about procuring materials to make their crafts on their own two feet, as well as obtain food, as well as protect their families. I don't know anyone who relies on these hobbies to live. As in protection as well as gathering and processing food. Were ancient knappers chosen to do it because they had a natural ability to do it well, as well as quickly? Let's also not forget that these arts died as soon as they weren't a necessary part of existence any more. Sure, a few people carried on the tradition, but what was lost from one geration to the next in the waning years. It is safe to say more information has been lost to the sands of time than what we have relearned since it was customary to use stone tools. Patrick's scale may not work for everyone, but as long as it helps him, that is all that matters. It seems to make sense to me. Just because it isn't what you know, or doesn't make sense to you, doesn't mean it isn't something that will help someone else.
-
The scale appears to be fashioned towards what us modern knappers consider to be excellent rock or not. I would agree that different knappers and techniques would change the scale but I think this thread is based on current times.
Ancient Tech, I find it interesting by your own words that you are using a technique of reduction that was "rediscovered" twice in the 19th century. It is assumed or believed that those techniques are exactly what Paleo knappers used because of similar or same results. Once the need for knapping knowledge stopped so did the passing of knowledge and skills, so we are in fact trying to rediscover what is lost and it is not vigorously being studied by most of the world.
It is a wonderful journey and I enjoy it....
-
Assuming a technique that was documented twice in the 19th century has anything to do with the methods and techniques that were used thru all cultures and time is taking a huge leap.
-
Lets' say that we fast forward however many years it takes to have a complete understanding of flintknapping from every age and from every culture.
How many years will that take? Well, it's like asking how many licks does it take to get to the center of a toostsi roll pop.
I say three. That's how long it takes for the average person to learn how to knap well.
-
Are you guys really having fun? ??? Do you put this much thought into making a point that is sharp enough to kill an animal? That is really what they are for. ::)
-
Eddie, you shouldn't beat around the bush like that. What's your point? ;)