Primitive Archer
Main Discussion Area => Flintknapping => ABO => Topic started by: iowabow on October 05, 2015, 08:35:36 am
-
ABO is a shortened version of the word aboriginal. Generally this term refers to an original process and in reference to flint knapping, i.e. without the aid of metal tools. The historical records however contains instances of copper industry during certain periods/regions and in particular the midwest.
I use the term to describe the production of points made with stone, antler, and bone. My personal belief is that if copper was used it would have been in limited supply and trade would not have been predictable. One would need the ABO skills to always make points whether copper was avaliable or not. So ABO was ABO even for the ABO.
After having worked ABO for many years the advantages found with copper become limited as it relates to function. An Arrowhead can be manufactured in about 10 to 15 minutes ABO. The function of such a point would be equal. I see no advantage in making functional points for an arrow with copper. In fact a case could be made that using copper would be a pain with all of the abraiding and more time consuming. So with the case if an Arrowhead why use copper. Two reasons come to mind. There is a point when copper can complete a task in one step and ABO has to do it in three. Platform prep is one example. More attention is needed and one has to pick the right path to ABO a platform with ease. Notching and patterning the surface are unique qualities of copper.
So as the copper vs ABO difference is debated I think beauty becomes a factor. So function vs form may have also determined which tool was picked up from the tool kit if it was there.
I will continue this ....
-
Hold on, I'm getting popcorn!!
-
Good thread, I'll add some thoughts if that's ok. After returning from a long knapping hiatus I had to decide whether to use my copper or abo tools. I was mostly an abo knapper before but used copper some, mostly to notch. While I have nothing against using copper I always felt more at home using hammerstones and antler. I've decided to go all abo indefinitely and put my copper tools aside. Currently I'm using a buffalo horn as an indirect punch thanks to Marty Reuter.
I think most copper knappers have an image that abo means crude or 'clunky', but that is perpetuated by limited experience in using abo tools. While copper and modern techniques such as FOG can produce artsy pieces easier (key word), those can be done w/ abo tools once mastered.
Again, I have nothing against using copper and may use it again someday, but being a 'studen't of abo techniques I want to immerse myself w/o distractions or temptations.
-
I will start with the simple and move to more complex knapping challenges.
Flake points are the easiest to manufacture and take the least amount of time. My first suggestion is to remove all thin parts of the flake and this seems to add strength to the work. I then go after the thick part of the stone first because the outcome in these areas will determine the course you will take with the areas that are already thinned. I would be 98% correct in saying that I never ever hit the flake with antler and only with stone. The reason is the antler tends to snap the point. The stone will not take being hit and I am not entirely sure why but I have my guesses. I do more of the shaping with the ishi stick and then finish work with the ulna bone. Thinning is done by cutting the stone with the ishi and edges retouched by the ulna. The ulna is used for notches.
-
I Knapped this tonight for your questions.
The first picture is the flake
-
Now to remove the edges
-
Thick side become the tip
-
Shaping with the ulna next
-
Hold on, I'm getting popcorn!!
Forget that, I am running to invest in popcorn futures! Remember, he is from Iowa! This could be a marketing scheme by the state of Iowa to run up corn prices!
-
Refine with ulna
-
Adjust base, remove stack, and then notch with smaller ulna. The larger one did all the shaping.
-
Tomorrow I will cover how to use the tools.
-
This process is super easy and I can safely say produces a point equal in function to copper.
-
Thank you for ringing in turbo
-
Thank you for ringing in turbo
My pleasure and thank you for the great thread, hope I didn't hijack. BTW, I'm looking for some deer ulna bones if you have any leads. Look forward to more discussion.
-
Thank you for ringing in turbo
My pleasure and thank you for the great thread, hope I didn't hijack. BTW, I'm looking for some deer ulna bones if you have any leads. Look forward to more discussion.
Two each, per deer.
-
Thank you for ringing in turbo
My pleasure and thank you for the great thread, hope I didn't hijack. BTW, I'm looking for some deer ulna bones if you have any leads. Look forward to more discussion.
Two each, per deer.
Yeah, I don't hunt anymore so am looking for someone that has some deer parts to part w/.
-
Use of the ulna bone...when shaping the ulna is flat to the edge and is pressed inward and down on a small platform. When notching the ulna runs perpendicular to the horizontal stone with the center of the tip on the edge where the notch is to be located. Start by loading pressure inward till a flake pops or you have reached the end of your ability to apply pressure and then rotate to change the direction of force to release the flake. After you hear the flake detach remove debris from pad and pop the corners out before you flip and repeat.
-
Use of the ishi stick...there are three foundational techniques I use most often.
Crunching : this is a process I use to remove the thin sharp edge of a flake before I start making a point. The results of this technique can be seen in an earlier photo in this post. The ishi stick is use to just scrap downward making a crunching noise like stepping on potato chips.
Cutting: a term I use to describe a technique unique to ABO knapping because with copper the platform is a little different. With cutting the platform is above the centerline and the direction of force is straight inward and often diagonal. The effect of this can be seen in flake patterns that often run edge to edge.
Hollow ground...this technique creates a hollow ground effect and is used when you suspect that a flake is going to step before it detaches naturally. This is accomplished in the same manner as cutting but just before the flake detaches you pull toward your left hand with the ishi. This also happens when the stone unwillingly rotates during cutting and can often be seen near the tip of a point. At this location the size of the stone is difficult to vice and will rotate causing the surface to hollow ground. This only happens on one side. It will be the side you see when the tip is pointed at your thumb. The only solution I have is to knap this part left handed rather than right.
-
Tonight we will visit each of these foundation pressure flaking techniques in detail as I make my next point.
-
:-X
-
Here the ulna bone is used to notch.
-
The ishi stick is simply used to cut in the Manor seen in these photos
-
That's it. I'm trying ABO. Starting when I get re-set up in my new place. How'd you make the ishi stick?
-
The ishi is made from osage. I have the tip wrapped with sinew and a hole drilled for the antler tip to sit in. There is a hole drilled in the side that is used to fish out the small lifting stones. These stones raise the antler as it is consumed.
The sinew has been placed in a recessed channel to prevent it from being cut all the time by the point.
-
:-X
:o
-
That's it. I'm trying ABO. Starting when I get re-set up in my new place. How'd you make the ishi stick?
Making ABO points from flakes is really easy with the these two basic tools.
-
I use a small hammer stone to deal with thick areas most of the time.
-
I was going to keep my abo vs copper comments "zipped" but I must say one thing: copper doesn't wear down as fast. That is, less maintenance. MUCH less. That's why I use it. I don't think that property of copper (or metals) gets stressed enough.
I completely agree that natural materials produce excellent results.
-
I was going to keep my abo vs copper comments "zipped" but I must say one thing: copper doesn't wear down as fast. That is, less maintenance. MUCH less. That's why I use it. I don't think that property of copper (or metals) gets stressed enough.
I completely agree that natural materials produce excellent results.
I think if I were working with Texas chert I would agree.
-
Some additional thoughts on the copper vs ABO. This year at the classic I made my ishi stick from osage and the antler bit. I Knapped at the classic with it and all of the points since. There have been 30 plus point made. In the photo below you can see the wear on the bit from this work. The ulna bone has been the same one I have used since I stated knapping abo and has made upwards of 200. I have one antler that has been worn out and one that is just about done.
When I Knapped with copper I remember making many copper tips because they were consumed at a rather high rate. Copper capped lead filled bopper were consumed quickly as well. I spend many hours making bopper and tips for pressure flakers. As I became better at copper knapping the wear decreased.
I don't think I would be a happy ABO Knapper with that tough Texas flint. Here in Iowa the Burlington cuts like butter. The wear is considerably less.
So I hope my data is correct and must admit that I don't remember anymore how many points I got from a 1/2 inch of copper for the ishi stick. I would be surprised if it was considerably greater.
I think the life span of the ulna is remarkable. I am not equally impressed with the bopper and extend the life of the antlers by doing more Hammerstone work. The Hammerstone can't be matched for cost and life span. I would be interested in knowing how many points could be made with a half inch copper tip. I would also like to know how many points can be made with a copper capped bopper. I think however Patrick and I bring a perspectives to the conversation that everyone should understand as respectful and insightful. ABO could be very difficult with some materials and could result in added expense.
One last note. When I worked with copper I spawled with the copper bopper. I do most of that work now with a hammer stone.
-
How is your tip held in place in your ishi stick?
-
I often use a wood shaving. This creates a pressure fit.
-
stone on stone ,bone one stone, metal on stone, wood on stone, I like to do them all. knapp with bone were the humidity is darn near %100 all the time is a challenge,but can be done. my ol' lady's biskits are so hard I do believe they would work in a pinch.
Bone
-
stone on stone ,bone one stone, metal on stone, wood on stone, I like to do them all. knapp with bone were the humidity is darn near %100 all the time is a challenge,but can be done. my ol' lady's biskits are so hard I do believe they would work in a pinch.
Bone
humidity certainly plays a factor. Mark Boswell ..I think I have his name right anyway I was talking to him at the skunk river knapin about the lodge pole home he built on his property here in Iowa. He said that everytime it rained the structure had to be repaired because it leaked. The humidity must have been a factor on knapping tools. I have been knapping every morning before work and the hammer stones are wet and the stone is wet. I keep forgetting to bring everything in. These conditions make life interesting and frustrating in the pit. Also knapping at day break is pretty cool.
Hmmm hard biscuits knappin with Johnstone could be a new challenge at the classic.
-
This morning's preforms before breakfast. In making hundreds of points I feel like I am working as part of a primitive defence department of war. I have decided to punch out the preforms from flakes and then notch and trim in another section.
While knappin this morning just before day break I had a visitor hang out with me and watched me knap a point. I wished I had my camera so you could have seen this funny racoon. It was very large and walked up to about 5 feet away and just watched as I worked. After completing the point we said our goodbyes and he headed down to this 6 foot in diameter old oak with a nice open knot hole where he sleeps during the day and I headed in for another cup of coffee.
-
Cool thread! We need to knap together again. I wana show you how I deep notch with antler.
-
Cool thread! We need to knap together again. I wana show you how I deep notch with antler.
heck yes I might even drive over
-
Haha. Feel free! Just picked a decent load on stone from Southern Illinois.
-
Sanora?
-
Nope. Mill Creek and Kaolin. Some really killer Kaolin this time.
-
Nice
-
Well I Knapped sunrise and then at sunset. The hand is getting sore so I stopped
-
I also Knapped this cool flake knife and gave it to Paul's daughter. They deer hunted tonight.
-
Too cool. How thin do you get your arrowheads? I know a few ABO guys that get them super thin somehow but mine if done ABO end up thicker.
-
I'll try to get the video of you with the antler billit in sd...
-
Track: Once you get the hang of abo and the proper edge prep your points shouldn't end up any thicker. I can take the same pressure flakes with antler as copper, you just have to press a little harder and dress your tools constantly.
-
Well I happen to have a point to show you from the stand this morning. Everyone who does ABO has different techniques in my case I never ever dress my pressure flaking tools now that I use a large and small ulna for notching. The ishi never ever gets touch until I make another one. I just made 40 points never dressed a tool. Zero maintenance other than replacement.
-
The point shown was built from coring not from a flake.
-
Forgot to add my process is not better just different from bowmo. I have seen his work good stuff. The only difference is I have a better PA name. >:D
-
Hahaha! ::)
Yea, I use a much more tapered piece of antler on my Ishi stick. Annoying to maintain but I like the size of flakes it takes better. Rfateally I've just always had trouble with fat pressure flaking tips, even with copper.
-
I hear ya but I don't use the tip the same way as with copper I push in rather than down and the platform is reversed and I am above the center. I will have my son video me doing it for you.
-
Now on the other hand I bet your getting real nice flake patterns with smaller scares
-
I'll take extra butter on my popcorn. I know I'm a copperhead, but I started this addiction abo. I switched because of high tool Matainence with abo. My opinion. With that said I Prefer to spall with hammer stones. I can produce more useable flakes & less debitage with a hammer stone. Again my opinion.
-
Haha......funny you put it that way. I prefer plain air pop any day.
-
All this talk about maintenence there is no need for it. Oh wait you're one of those Texas knappers. Not sure about that Texas flint. I am going to pull out some of that Texas flint and give it a try
-
I'll give you some raw Mill Creek to play with and you can see what hard stone does to antler shape you use. My guess is it would eat the thing up but maybe not. That heated Burlington you use is like the definition of candy rock. ;)
-
It is candy rock for the Palace Elite. I shot that short movie for ya it is talking forever to upload
-
Making my ABO toolkit this week. Figure obsidian will be pretty easy on my tools. My raw texas rock eats even my copper at a scary rate.
-
Raw Burlington will eat antler so I try to work it with hammer stones.
-
I have to say that the maintenance of your tools would change if you worked all raw rock which would be more comparable to the Texas rock. You have done well in the last few years to progress the way you have.
-
Thanks cave man it has been a rocky road for sure. I think soy and I hit raw Burlington for that week at turkey camp and I don't remember retouching any tools. When I first started knapping ABO I always reshaped my tools it was a total mess and headache. I slowly shifted my style to work in a way that I never have to reshape the tip.
Here is the video I made last night.
https://youtu.be/lH1xSAT7zMU (https://youtu.be/lH1xSAT7zMU)
-
"Generally this term refers to an original process and in reference to flint knapping, i.e. without the aid of metal tools."
The idea is good. But, the way that the idea is being used, by flintknappers, is wrong.
How do we know what was an "original process"? Some people *believe* that an original process can be inferred from flakes, and flake scars. Where did this idea come from? It came from the fellow who invented the flintknapping baton, during the 1930's, in England - Professor Alfred Barnes. He *believed* that he could infer the use of a soft hammer baton, from flakes, and flake scars. What he was not able to do is to rule out other possibilities that were not known. The problem is one of causality. Just because A looks like it came from B, does not PROVE that A came from B. People can believe it, just as Barnes did. But, they cannot prove it.
The second problem is that the European researchers speculated that the organic batons, such as wooden batons, would have disappeared from the archaeological record. And, this further reinforced their belief in inference via experimentation. The assumption was that since all of the organic batons must have disappeared, they would have to resort to experimentation to create the same (similar) effects, and then make an inference.
Also, prior to the 1930's experiments, some prior researchers looked at the command-de-baton, of Europe, and speculated that it could have made a good flintknapping tool. But, none of those artifacts exhibits any flintknapping wear patterns, that I have ever seen. And, this should raise another question: How could Barnes have proposed the flintknapping baton, in the 1930's, when by 1900 it was known that the "baton de commandement" of Paleolithic Europe did not show flintknapping wear patterns? And, how could one propose that the batons had "disappeared", when in fact the "baton de commandment" was already known to exist, and was of the Paleolithic era? If all the batons disappeared, then why are there still large antler "baton de commandementes" being recovered from Ice Age contexts? One would have to think that Barnes must have leaned towards wooden billets, and not antler billets, since wood would have disintegrated, more readily than antler. But, he didn't. After he carried out his experiments, which involved wood, antler, brass, and ivory, he settled on antler - not wood. So, Barnes, could you please explain how all of the alleged antler batons, used in Europe, disappeared, while all of the antler "baton de commandements" are still in existence, and even sitting in museums? Or, does your theory - which is now embedded into textbooks everywhere - contain a glaring error, that cannot be resolved, and has not been resolved for the last eighty five years?
But, the problem does not end in Europe. Leakey picked up on Barnes's theory, and developed the use of the wooden baton, in Africa, as a hypothetical means of explaining large early African bifaces, or choppers. Bordes picked up on Leakey's work, while developing thermal alteration, and while admitting that he knew almost nothing about archaeology. And, eventually, Don Crabtree picked up on the work, at which point the baton technique was featured on world wide television, at least by the 1960's. So, does all of this make it true, or relevant? No.
So, why is the problem worse in America, than in Europe? It is simple. The natives of the Americas were living in the stone age, all the way until 1492. And, that meant that they were still making stone tools, after the Pleistocene, after the Holocene, through the archaic era, through the late prehistoric era, and right up until Columbus set foot on American soil, in the Caribbean. And, even after that, stone tool production continued to into the 1500's, the 1600's, the 1700's, the 1800's, the 1900's, and into the 2000's, in some remote corners. So, what does this mean? Take a guess. Let's put on the thinking caps, crank up the amperage, and take a guess - MAKE IT A BIG ONE!! What this means is that - unlike what Barnes thought - there is actually a physical record of FLAKING TOOLS that spans back to the initial colonization of the Americas. So, while European researchers speculated that all of the batons *disappeared*, American researchers have had flaking tools pile up by the THOUSANDS, in museums, and research centers. And, this raises a question: Should we ignore the flaking tools, and then set up experiments that are made up from theoretical ideas, of which there is almost no shred of direct evidence, at all? Of course not. Should we blindly and unquestioningly follow the European's (Barnes/Leakey/Bordes) methodology, and behavior, in trying to understand this subject, while ignoring the evidence from the Americas? No.
The third problem is that none of the early American researchers proposed a baton theory. And, some were very close to actual Native American flintknappers, either directly or indirectly. Also, instead of proposing hard hammer percussion, soft hammer percussion, and pressure, the early American researchers proposed flaking models that were actually more sophisticated then what the Europeans ever produced. So, we should follow in Europe's tracks, believe in a method that the flintknapping community never fully succeeded with, while ignoring all of the evidence from the Americas, and while ignoring the life work of many American researchers. Sorry, I would rather go to the gallows, then give up on the evidence.
So, this is where the brave bold flintknappers come into play. They proclaim that they are not afraid of the evidence. They refuse to back down. They tackle the evidence - the evidence of 10,000 YEARS WORTH OF AMERICAN FLAKERS. And, they use that for the basis of their experiments, until they find the probable answers. Unfortunately, almost no flintknappers have the guts to do this. If they did this, people would be taking an evidential approach to flintknapping, rather than making up theories, while ignoring the known evidence.
By the way, I have yet to communicate with any archaeologist, who takes the flintknapping community seriously. The problem for archaeologists is that billet knapping was so heavily studied, that they can now rule it out, in an untold amount of instances. This was told to me by a Gault researcher who was also a Clovis refit specialist. Also, archaeologists are encountering flaking that displays traits that are not definable by known flintknapping methods. So, if the flintknapping community majors on copper percussion, and copper pressure flaking, and the antler billet is so frequently ruled out, then what explanations do the flintknappers have to offer regarding all of these other kinds of flaking? There is no explanation.
In discussing American aboriginal flintknapping, it would be nigh impossible to have a serious discussion about the subject, without pointing out probable flaking tools that were fashioned, used, refurbished, and discarded, along with ideas regarding their probably use. Simply because someone makes something with a non-metallic/organic tool, that does not necessarily mean that the practice is "aboriginal". Cylindrical antler drift flakers have routinely been found by archaeologists, for over one hundred years, in the chert bearing areas of North America, Central America, and maybe even South America. Yet, since the 1970's, the flintknapping community has never come up with an explanation of their use. Also, other flaker types are routinely found of which no one has ever explained their use. Some of these flaker types appeared with the advent of the archaic era, and were used right into the historic era.
Here is an example of a commonly found flaker that I used to thin a raw biface down to a few millimeters. At this point, I could easily switch to pressure flaking:
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Bent%20finger%20punch/bentfingerpunch003.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Bent%20finger%20punch/bentfingerpunch003.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Bent%20finger%20punch/bentfingerpunch005.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Bent%20finger%20punch/bentfingerpunch005.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Bent%20finger%20punch/bentfingerpunch007.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Bent%20finger%20punch/bentfingerpunch007.jpg.html)
Here is the same archaeologically known flaking tool/ethnographically known flaking process being used on quartz crystal. Final break shows thinness:
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Quartz%20Crystal%20Work/014.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Quartz%20Crystal%20Work/014.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Quartz%20Crystal%20Work/020.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Quartz%20Crystal%20Work/020.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Quartz%20Crystal%20Work/10a.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Quartz%20Crystal%20Work/10a.jpg.html)
Here is another point made with the same tool, and tool process:
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/2011-07-30222907.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/2011-07-30222907.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/2011-07-30222931.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/2011-07-30222931.jpg.html)
The last stone the last point was made from is so hard, that I had to set the biface aside for over a year, before I worked out a process (from anthropological data) that would flake it. The finished point was almost credit card thin. Also, the secret to the whole flaking operation is the type of strike, and vibration that is created. Without the right strike, and vibration, the flaker might not work at all. The process is also good for points down to an inch and a half long, such as "bird points".
-
Just watched your clip, nice job, you should do more videos, we need as many abo channels as we can get.
-
Thanks turbo!
-
I started the conversation from this metaphysical begining. In that way we would not have to debate the term or its use during the post. In this post we are exploring the use of "organic" materials with a process that is commonly referred to as abo
Simply because someone makes something with a non-metallic/organic tool, that does not necessarily mean that the practice is "aboriginal".
"Generally this term refers to an original process and in reference to flint knapping, i.e. without the aid of metal tools.
In this reference I am pointing out how the term is being used.
I think the point you are trying to make is that our approach is clouded with our past. I would tend to agree.
I think it is hard for people to believe I am not sharpening tools, from the responses but maybe I am doing something differently and could advance an idea and help other abo knappers. That is my hope and I enjoyed reading your post ...thank you
-
I can see that your have learned to use a very blunt tip on your Ishi. I too do not sharpen it to a point but use it bluntly like that. This leads to not needing maintenance. But it still needs to be replaced once in a while. I have not used an ulna yet. Are you using it raw or is it cooked to degrease it.
-
I use it raw but season them for about two years by leaving them outside.
-
.....and you are correct that it needs to be replaced
-
Wow! Great conversation! And for the most part, without the snippy side swipes that used to plague ABO threads. This has encouraged me to pick up my tools and try to get back into it. Thanks for doing this John! Josh
-
Thanks Josh, I think it is time for the ABO knappers to communicate with each other about what is working and is "new". I think we are past the traditional controversial topics and ready to move forward making functional and artful objects with a dialogue focused on sharing good techniques and tool development. For example...I can't wait to see Bowmo's idea and tool on punching notches. I like watching that kid's video who is from Michigan, that was some nice abo snider work....now that's cool. I am excited to see the intrest in abo and hope others post their ideas here. I am encouraged by those knappers on pa asking for more ABO videos. This intrest is great to see. I think I will do a couple about the ulna bone.
-
What a bummer I just went and looked at his post. Only two people commented on his post. That was awesome work by that kid. It is worth a second chance so here is a relink to that post.
http://www.primitivearcher.com/smf/index.php/topic,54359.0.html (http://www.primitivearcher.com/smf/index.php/topic,54359.0.html)
His name is Hopewell point
-
[/quote]Thanks Josh, I think it is time for the ABO knappers to communicate with each other about what is working and is "new".
Well said, and that's it in a nutshell. "Modern humans" (people with the same ability to learn as us) go back (depends who you ask) something like 100,000 years. The first use of copper tools was about 3,500 BC. That's a long time and a lot of brains working on what we are now trying to reinvent. The only advantage we have is the ability to quickly and easily disseminate high quality information to many people over huge distances very quickly. An idea you come up with in the morning can be known the world over by afternoon.
I am a big believer in the mantra "lead, follow, or get out of the way." If you are not satisfied with the techniques others are using, then lead by developing your own methods and putting them out there for peer testing and review. If the idea doesn't catch on, consider another great truism, "there are many paths to the top of the mountain." In any event if you are unable to follow and unwilling to lead, common decency demands that you get out of the way.
Keith
-
Ok, ok
I know it's difficult for you all to look at all the unused copper.
I feel for you. It's like a reformed alcoholic seeing his favorite
brand and knowing he can't touch it.
Scrap prices are down.so it is better that you send it all off to
me, so it will never tempt you again.
Thanks Zuma
Oh yeah, you can send any material to tough for you too.
-
(Sigh)...It would seem that I spoke to soon. Here we go with someone getting defensive and self conscious about their choose of knapping tools and posting the snippy side swipes that nearly ruined knapping for me a few years ago. I can only speak for myself here, I don't really care what anyone else is using to Knapp. I don't care if its copper, ABO or Mrs Bonepiles' biscuits(that was a good one) if it works for you and your enjoying the process, more power to you. This exploration into the so called "ABO" techniques is just an exercise in personal enlightenment so to speak. I don't think any particular method is wholly superior to any other method. They all have their plusses and minuses. If you have a preferred method or technique and you're not interested in learning another good for you. But please don't lash out others because we want to try something else. My desire to learn these techniques really has nothing to do with what you prefer so there's no need for you to feel threatened by it. Again, I can only speak for myself on this. Josh
-
Ok, ok
I know it's difficult for you all to look at all the unused copper.
I feel for you. It's like a reformed alcoholic seeing his favorite
brand and knowing he can't touch it. It's kinda like an x.
Scrap prices are down.so it is better that you send it all off to
me, so it will never tempt you again.
Thanks Zuma
Oh yeah, you can send any material to tough for you too.
Hehe now I can handle a little comedy....but really I have Knapped abo so long I really don't remember copper.
-
While I use copper mostly I do like working with antler for my initial reduction. My Ishi stick and my pressure flaker for that matter is always blunt at the tip mainly do to the lack of patience to stop and resharpen it but after awhile I now prefer the blunt edge. I personally would of loved to of been able to see Carey Webers technique for notching andice points using antler/bone tools.
-
If you are referring to my comments doc--
I see nothing snippy in them or lashing. It's pure humor.
I knap with many of the posters and they know
I envy their skills. All in fun.
I'm just an ole dog that hasn't even mastered copper.
Don't let my comments change your mind about a great thread
and going ABO.
Zuma
-
Good information and good bantering on this subject. I wish I had a tenth of the knowledge and skills that you guys have. I worked with copper for a while in hopes of narrowing the learning curve. I think it only lengthened the learning process because I now see that even though they are similar they are really different. One technique I do not ever see me doing, is the sawed and slab points. It does make beautiful points but I am wanting to use the most basic techniques due to a deep interest in prehistoric people and how they survived. Of course making cordage, fire, pottery and other primitive processes are of great interest also.
I also understand the term ABO knapping is a term currently used to refer to natural tools such as antler, stone and wood. Copper is also natural but not included. So, if you work out a technique that uses only natural tools to make useable stone tools then it would be referred to as being made ABO style.
What ever you use or process you choose I hope that you have fun, share, enjoy and achive the goal you are after. Good Luck
-
Well I worked an 9 hour day bent over ripping up tile and sub floor so what else to do when you get home but knap. ::) This is actually some super lazy work, but it still shows my basic method. I didn't feel like looking around for a biface so I just grabbed a flake. The punch is what I use for wide notches and edge work, I have a narrower one for skinny notching. The main thing this is missing (due to the thinness of the flake) is how every couple punches I switch from a downward blow to a slightly more inward one so that it thins it out more and keeps the notch from wanting to stall. I was going to dog leg them but then I realized 5 mins had somehow already warped by.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQdXV_HylBQ&feature=youtu.be
-
Nice 'bowmo', again, nice to see abo videos, keep 'em coming. I need to get some notching punches made.
I mentioned earlier that I was using a buffalo horn as an indirect punch. I've been using it a few months thanks to Marty and learn something new every time I sit down w/ it. Here are a few pics showing flake potential. It's my first real attempt using indirect and minus some mistakes along the way, I'm really liking it. It has bailed me out more than once.
-
NC keep in mind on that saw and slab that I often pull tablature stone from the quarry that looks like it is a sawn slab. Some times the stone freezes and break it into sheets. Those slab techniques work very well with that type of facture. I will run out to the garage a photo one for you if I still have it.
-
Here is a one minute video on the basics of ulna bone. I will go into detail in future videos. Bowmo I will watch your video at work in the morning on the big screen.
https://youtu.be/36RFMnbl5dc (https://youtu.be/36RFMnbl5dc)
-
Nice 'bowmo', again, nice to see abo videos, keep 'em coming. I need to get some notching punches made.
I mentioned earlier that I was using a buffalo horn as an indirect punch. I've been using it a few months thanks to Marty and learn something new every time I sit down w/ it. Here are a few pics showing flake potential. It's my first real attempt using indirect and minus some mistakes along the way, I'm really liking it. It has bailed me out more than once.
Ok explain in more detail
-
Nice 'bowmo', again, nice to see abo videos, keep 'em coming. I need to get some notching punches made.
I mentioned earlier that I was using a buffalo horn as an indirect punch. I've been using it a few months thanks to Marty and learn something new every time I sit down w/ it. Here are a few pics showing flake potential. It's my first real attempt using indirect and minus some mistakes along the way, I'm really liking it. It has bailed me out more than once.
Ok explain in more detail
The horn is held in between the legs and struck w/ a billet to detach flakes. Here's a video by Marty showing it in action:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7378PK1WV8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7378PK1WV8)
-
Iowabow, I really do not mind anyone knapping slabs. I suppose if I had some made naturaly I would be more incline to try it. I have also seen silitified shale that is close to slabs and would love to work some of it. I have watched a guy using small punches do amazing work on that shale. Would like to see a pic of the natural slabs you mentioned...Thanks
Turbo, cool video on using the buffalo horn. May have to try it also.
-
If you are referring to my comments doc--
I see nothing snippy in them or lashing. It's pure humor.
I knap with many of the posters and they know
I envy their skills. All in fun.
I'm just an ole dog that hasn't even mastered copper.
Don't let my comments change your mind about a great thread
and going ABO.
Zuma
In that case, my apologies Sir. Perhaps I am a bit over sensitive on the matter and read more into your post than was intended. Josh
-
Not a problem Josh,
It is interesting though. I remember when it was Abo only at
Oregon Ridge. (Baltimore MD). It didn't work out to well.
But interestingly enough copper was eventually allowed.
More interesting is that since then more knappers have
gravitated to what are thought to be abo techniques.
(big time)
It's all good. water seeking it's own level and all.
The best thing about knapping is the great folks that are
willing to share their rock, tools, methods, material, food
and support.
Joining a tribe is good medicine. :)
Zuma
LOL Iowa, I saw where you snuck in ( even an X)
-
Hey I never deleted that x wonder what happened there lol
-
I heard Marty say "water" buffalo horn, how does it compare to using native bison horn and will it work to use a pronghorn antelope.
-
I heard Marty say "water" buffalo horn, how does it compare to using native bison horn and will it work to use a pronghorn antelope.
Water buffalo horn is what you get at the pet store, it's hard to find the right shape though. According to Marty, American buffalo is smaller/more solid but the effect and feel is the same. I also got a bunch of cow horn to try. It seems very similar to the water buffalo horn. Marty said Swoose use to use cow horn almost exclusively. As for pronghorn antelope, I almost bought some to try. I imagine it would if one could get the right shape.
Horns make very natural punches. I'm enjoying the study.
-
Bowmo good video thanks for the punch notch video
-
If I have time tonight I will make a ulna notching video
-
Did not do the notching video because a friend dropped off a pile of apples. My wife when out of town so her surprise when she gets home is this apple pie I made! This is the first apple pie I ever made.
So what's better than apple pie? A flute on a clovis point sitting on an apple pie of course. This morning's point is titled ABO Pie.
-
I Would like to see a pic of the natural slabs you mentioned...Thanks
Here is an example of what I was alluding to...
-
ABO pie!? ??? You're killing me man! ::) ;D. I have to admit the pie looks good enough to eat! Especially served up ala mode with a dollop of home made vanilla ice cream. Now I'm hungry! >:( Oh ... nice flute on the clovis! Josh
-
I know I would be surprised with an apple pie or a flute like that....nice work on both.
I see your point on the likeness of a slab. Would be interesting to work those. Thanks for the pic.
-
I like my pie Texas style....REMEMBER THE A' LA MODE!
-
This mornings technique is stitching a square side. I start by pushing a flake off and then flipped the stone and push another flake in the direction of the angle seen on the stone and illustrated in the photograph. After removing a flake I flip the stone and repeat the process until the square is gone. After creating a bifaced preform I then continue the process with the ishi stick as demonstrated in the video I posted the other day.
-
Here is the point ready for notching.
-
Prehistoric flintknapping tool kit recovered from Lower Pecos River area, with closeup of flakers and possible pressure flaking stone. Enjoy.
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/flintknappers%20tool%20kit%20lower%20pecos%20river/flintknappers%20tool%20kit%20lower%20pecos.jpeg_1.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/flintknappers%20tool%20kit%20lower%20pecos%20river/flintknappers%20tool%20kit%20lower%20pecos.jpeg_1.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/flintknappers%20tool%20kit%20lower%20pecos%20river/flintknappers%20tool%20kit%20lower%20pecos%202.jpeg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/flintknappers%20tool%20kit%20lower%20pecos%20river/flintknappers%20tool%20kit%20lower%20pecos%202.jpeg.html)
-
Man, that tool kit is so cool.
And nice point John, I was starting to think that Bybee flint only came in pure white. ;)
-
Artifact interpreted to be a "flintknapping punch" from the Sand Dune cave site. Note the embedded chert fragment, and wear. Enjoy.
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Grand%20Gulf%20Punch/grand%20gulch%20punch%20a.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Grand%20Gulf%20Punch/grand%20gulch%20punch%20a.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Grand%20Gulf%20Punch/grand%20gulch%20punch%20b.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Grand%20Gulf%20Punch/grand%20gulch%20punch%20b.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Grand%20Gulf%20Punch/grand%20gulch%20punch%20c.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Grand%20Gulf%20Punch/grand%20gulch%20punch%20c.jpg.html)
-
I think first picture is pretty cool. I like the turtle shell, must have been a little bugger and the rodent jaws. Wonder what they were doing with them. The possible hammerstone is interesting. I wish the picture had a scale in it.
-
Here is part of a flintknapping tool kit collected in 1916 from a half Native American obsidian worker, who was born during the Civil War era. His father was white, and his mother Native American. These particular tools were used prior to pressure flaking, and subsequent to hammerstone flaking. Also, one can see the native tool user holding one of his "finished points". Enjoy.
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/California%20obsidian%20flaking%20chisels/obsidian%20flaking%20chisels.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/California%20obsidian%20flaking%20chisels/obsidian%20flaking%20chisels.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/California%20obsidian%20flaking%20chisels/TED%20ORCUTT.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/California%20obsidian%20flaking%20chisels/TED%20ORCUTT.jpg.html)
-
Wow, great stuff all and 'ancient', very cool pics, thanks for sharing.
-
Yes, those pics are very interesting...I see some familiar tools in there. Thanks for posting.
-
Well while talking with Josh Barnes tonight I had an idea. Maybe this is a new idea maybe not but here was the idea. After shooting a flute I made a set of flakes and it looked like stones on a doorway. I tried to flute the other side but failed with only a half flute. Anyway in am naming this point style the Barnes Arch point. This is done with non-metallic knapping formally known as ABO and in this case was not an intended replication.
-
Prehistoric flintknapping tool kit recovered from Lower Pecos River area, with closeup of flakers and possible pressure flaking stone. Enjoy.
Do you have any idea of the date on the kit Ben?
thanks,
Zuma
-
Nope...nope that won't do. That point looks more like a war bonnet to me. I think "Bybee war bonnet" is a more fitting name for that point. It does look really cool though! Josh
-
Various flakers recovered from the world renowned Colha quarries, of Belize, Central America:
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/colha%20flakers/colha%20034%201.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/colha%20flakers/colha%20034%201.jpg.html)
-
Prehistoric flintknapping tool kit recovered from Lower Pecos River area, with closeup of flakers and possible pressure flaking stone. Enjoy.
Do you have any idea of the date on the kit Ben?
thanks,
Zuma
I don't know, Zuma. Dr. H. J. Shafer would know. It is one of the things which he shared with me. He has authored over a hundred publications, and is past the age of eighty. He is pretty knowledgeable about flakers from both North America, and Central America.
-
Dual use Thompson indian flaker (Teit, 1900), with partial description of use:
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Thompson%20Indian%20flaker/the%20thompson%20indians%20of%20british%20columbia%20flaker.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Thompson%20Indian%20flaker/the%20thompson%20indians%20of%20british%20columbia%20flaker.jpg.html)
-
This morning's point is a fluted point. This is a great way to thin those bases. Below is the stone I started with. The flake was taken with antler. As you have seen in earlier post I have made I am waiting to do all the notching at one time.
-
A.T. thanks for the info it has given me a couple new ides
-
Russell Cave - early Archaic through Woodland occupation
Antler Flakers and antler drifts:
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Russell%20Cave%20flakers/Russell%20Cave%20text.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Russell%20Cave%20flakers/Russell%20Cave%20text.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Russell%20Cave%20flakers/russel%20cave%20flakers%201.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Russell%20Cave%20flakers/russel%20cave%20flakers%201.jpg.html)
Closeup of Flakers and Drifts (flintknapping punches)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Russell%20Cave%20flakers/russel%20cave%20flakers%202.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Russell%20Cave%20flakers/russel%20cave%20flakers%202.jpg.html)
Associated Projectile points - Early Archaic through Woodland Era
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Russell%20Cave%20flakers/Russel%20Cave%20Projectile%20points%201.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Russell%20Cave%20flakers/Russel%20Cave%20Projectile%20points%201.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Russell%20Cave%20flakers/Russel%20Cave%20Projectile%20points%202.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Russell%20Cave%20flakers/Russel%20Cave%20Projectile%20points%202.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Russell%20Cave%20flakers/Russel%20Cave%20Projectile%20points%203.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Russell%20Cave%20flakers/Russel%20Cave%20Projectile%20points%203.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Russell%20Cave%20flakers/Russel%20Cave%20Projectile%20points%204.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Russell%20Cave%20flakers/Russel%20Cave%20Projectile%20points%204.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Russell%20Cave%20flakers/Russel%20Cave%20Projectile%20points%205.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Russell%20Cave%20flakers/Russel%20Cave%20Projectile%20points%205.jpg.html)
Bifacial tools:
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Russell%20Cave%20flakers/Russell%20Cave%20Bifacial%20tools.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Russell%20Cave%20flakers/Russell%20Cave%20Bifacial%20tools.jpg.html)
Unifacial Tools:
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Russell%20Cave%20flakers/Russell%20Cave%20Unifacial%20tools.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Russell%20Cave%20flakers/Russell%20Cave%20Unifacial%20tools.jpg.html)
One cave
One long history
Two identifiable flaker types - "flakers", and "drifts"
Many point types
-
Ben,
Sorry if this is an old question, but I was wondering where in the knapping process you think these tools were used. Just for the sake of discussion lets say spalling, early preform, mid stage preform, late state preform, finishing and resharpening as steps in the process. In your model are all those steps done by indirect percussion (or something other than direct percussion), or where in the reduction process do the various tools come in? I ask because with the straight punches I find I can only effectively use then in the later stages, using direct percusion to get to the late preform stage. Also, the curved antler pieces, are those punches or pressure flakers? I ask because I have not had success using curved antler pieces for punches, but that may be due to how I am using them. If punches are they struck from the side, and if so, how do you keep the stone in place while doing that?
Thanks,
Keith
-
Ben,
Sorry if this is an old question, but I was wondering where in the knapping process you think these tools were used. Just for the sake of discussion lets say spalling, early preform, mid stage preform, late state preform, finishing and resharpening as steps in the process. In your model are all those steps done by indirect percussion (or something other than direct percussion), or where in the reduction process do the various tools come in? I ask because with the straight punches I find I can only effectively use then in the later stages, using direct percusion to get to the late preform stage. Also, the curved antler pieces, are those punches or pressure flakers? I ask because I have not had success using curved antler pieces for punches, but that may be due to how I am using them. If punches are they struck from the side, and if so, how do you keep the stone in place while doing that?
Thanks,
Keith
Go back a few hundred years and realize that shoes weren't all that common most of the time.
-
Ben,
Sorry if this is an old question, but I was wondering where in the knapping process you think these tools were used. Just for the sake of discussion lets say spalling, early preform, mid stage preform, late state preform, finishing and resharpening as steps in the process. In your model are all those steps done by indirect percussion (or something other than direct percussion), or where in the reduction process do the various tools come in? I ask because with the straight punches I find I can only effectively use then in the later stages, using direct percusion to get to the late preform stage. Also, the curved antler pieces, are those punches or pressure flakers? I ask because I have not had success using curved antler pieces for punches, but that may be due to how I am using them. If punches are they struck from the side, and if so, how do you keep the stone in place while doing that?
Thanks,
Keith
Hummingbird Point,
Your wrote:
"Sorry if this is an old question, but I was wondering where in the knapping process you think these tools were used. Just for the sake of discussion lets say spalling, early preform, mid stage preform, late state preform, finishing and resharpening as steps in the process."
I have spent years thinking about the same question. From the best that I can tell, one would need to track the hammerstone percussion work very carefully, and look at when there is a shift to a subsequent flaking technology. At that point, one would need to see what the hammerstone technology was used to create, up until that shift. Then, one would need to see what the subsequent technology was used to do, based on whatever starting point was there, with the hammerstone made preform. One would need to see what kind of morphology was created, via hammerstone, and then assess how it was worked, with the subsequent technology.
On the experimental side, one would need to see what can be done with the flaker, and see whether the flaker can be used to create the effects that can be seen in secondary flaking, once the hammerstone stage ends.
Since these types of flaker tools tend to be found in association with the hard cherts, one would first need to follow in the tracks of the original hammerstone work, make the same types of preforms, and then make the shift with the subsequent tools, while creating the same type of results.
The problem with looking at this in preform stages is that the paradigm might not apply. To give an example, the Lamb site Clovis preforms look like ugly hammerstone made preforms. They would draw no attention in modern knapping circles. But, the Lamb site points are spectacular. Yet, they are almost the same size as the preforms. Here is an example of a preform:
http://lithiccastinglab.com/gallery-pages/lambpointpreformdoublarge.htm (http://lithiccastinglab.com/gallery-pages/lambpointpreformdoublarge.htm)
Here is an example of a finished point:
http://lithiccastinglab.com/cast-page/lambclovispoint76and83hand1.jpg (http://lithiccastinglab.com/cast-page/lambclovispoint76and83hand1.jpg)
It would appear as thought the Clovis knapper went really far, in creating a hammerstone made preform. Then, it looks like he switched to a finishing technology, and finished it, right at the end. And, I am not even sure that it was even pressure flaked. But, the difference between the preforms (which used to be online), and the slightly smaller finished points, is pretty drastic.
In general records, straight punches that had squared shoulders were used to knock off blades. But, in terms of morphology, blades were made from areas that were elevated above the surface of the core. And, in terms of hammerstone reduction-made morphologies, one can have elevated areas present on preforms. The question is, were such punches used to knock off high spots, off of hammerstone made preforms. The answer should be discernible, in the archaeological record. Also, such technologies could be an indicator of someone attempting to work small lumpy source materials.
I am not convinced that ancient knappers were always trying to become super awesome with hammerstone reduction. I think that they may have been intending to creating a certain sized preform. And, then it was the subsequent technology that was super awesome.
Ishi worked obsidian, and preferred the steel tip over the antler tip, because the antler had to so frequently be re-sharpened. If he was working obsidian, and he wanted a sharp flaker point, then what can we say about hard cherts, found in association with dull, blunted tine tips? And, how come such tine tips are not chewed to pieces, by the hard chert edges? Why dull blunting? If a person goes back to the earliest known American records, there never was an ironclad idea of a "pressure flaker", except in the instance of a composite bit pressure flaker.
From the 1870's on, American researchers knew of the dual use of flakers, in both pressure flaking, and indirect percussion. That is the American view. And, it appears that such views were never accepted, or understood, over in Europe, when all of the textbooks were being written. Beyond that, by the late 19th century American researchers knew that the common flaker could have been used in sophisticated flaking processes that would involve combinations of pressure, indirect percussion, anvil, etc. And, much of the results cannot be accounted for via either a simple pressure flaker view, or a European concocted antler baton theory.
As for the use of the small blunt tine tips, Grinnell (1870's) may have given a probable explanation, since he queried plains Indians on how they made stone points, before they fell into disuse. Since the indians could not always reliably acquire black powder, to fire their rifles, they still maintained the point making practice, until the early 1800's. And, even during the 1870's, some of the old people still remembered the practices.
"When a knife—or an arrowpoint—had been worked down quite thin, but had not yet received a satisfactory cutting edge, the piece was held in the left hand, between the thumb and forefinger, while a small stone punch was held between the fore and middle fingers. The punch was pressed against the edge of the blade, and was struck sharp downward blows with a hammer, each blow taking off a small flake, and this process was continued until the edge was finished. A better cutting edge was finally given by the flaking off of small chips from near the margin. The flint was held in the palm protected by a wad of hair or piece of tanned hide and a small point of antler or bone suddenly applied with force against the stone at the required point. This pressure cracked off a small chip and the operation was repeated as needed." (The Cheyenne Indians: their history and lifeways : edited and illustrated, George Bird Grinnell)
If you study all of the evidence, you might see something that everyone missed in the past. And, you might be able to come up with a more probable use of the tool, that is not yet known.
-
Tonights technique is a simple platform prep and resulting flake taken with antler and prepared with stone to make break flakes and release flakes
-
a hard quartzite removal-wood initiation
(http://www.fototime.com/A1F5916AEB60D81/standard.jpg)
-
further along intermediate form
(http://www.fototime.com/1A61DF6F63E742A/standard.jpg)
finished form
(http://www.fototime.com/F646224B55EE091/standard.jpg)
PD
-
Marking this one. I've gotta give knapping a go!
Patrick
-
further along intermediate form
(http://www.fototime.com/1A61DF6F63E742A/standard.jpg)
finished form
(http://www.fototime.com/F646224B55EE091/standard.jpg)
PD
Pete that is awesome. ..can you post a picture of the wood tool.
-
That looks just like the crap James Parker had Will and I beating on at the classic this year. No joke, that gritty stuff will make a man out of ya!
Pete you did good with it!
-
James mighta brought some of mine (Va.)
Large billet for core removals
(http://www.fototime.com/472C47A1C1D691C/standard.jpg)
Final go-round kit. Elk billet, punches and small wood billet and a few tines. Hammerstone to set things up and clear stall-outs.
(http://www.fototime.com/A3BC6E3C09E776B/standard.jpg)
-
Thanks! Kinda nice to see other peoples tool kits.
-
Now we need a video of you swinging that thing.
-
I thought ryholite was the true beast until I tried that Virginia Iron Rock. Pete and them men are amazing with it. It's a different technique with some different rules to setting up platforms and breaking them. I brought some back from the House Mountain and haven't gotten the nerve to have another go of it yet...lol
That's another great point Pete!
-
Good stuff Iowa and Pete.
Ben,
"The problem with looking at this in preform stages is that the paradigm might not apply. To give an example, the Lamb site Clovis preforms look like ugly hammerstone made preforms. They would draw no attention in modern knapping circles. But, the Lamb site points are spectacular. Yet, they are almost the same size as the preforms."
I would find it hard to make this assumption.
I will explain. Perhaps the reason the preforms are still preforms is because they were rejects and not used for that reason. And they were surface finds??
Also the (spectacular point) may not have been touched up finished.
I think finding used points would give a better example of a finished product.
I do think the fluted point may have been punch flaked. Especially if you notice the deer hoof print like dip in the lower left near the tip. I am pretty sure that was caused by a hinge removal from the center not the edge. Very rare in abo knapping. Also the wide platform removal spaces.
I am not trying to be critical. I just thought it interesting.
-
Good stuff Iowa and Pete.
Ben,
"The problem with looking at this in preform stages is that the paradigm might not apply. To give an example, the Lamb site Clovis preforms look like ugly hammerstone made preforms. They would draw no attention in modern knapping circles. But, the Lamb site points are spectacular. Yet, they are almost the same size as the preforms."
I would find it hard to make this assumption.
I will explain. Perhaps the reason the preforms are still preforms is because they were rejects and not used for that reason. And they were surface finds??
Also the (spectacular point) may not have been touched up finished.
I think finding used points would give a better example of a finished product.
I do think the fluted point may have been punch flaked. Especially if you notice the deer hoof print like dip in the lower left near the tip. I am pretty sure that was caused by a hinge removal from the center not the edge. Very rare in abo knapping. Also the wide platform removal spaces.
I am not trying to be critical. I just thought it interesting.
that deer print has an impact mark in the center for sure. My guess is a punch popped it off.
-
The flute looks likes it was impacted 4 times. At first I thought 3 but then realized the two center flutes are merged.
-
Here is a preview of the last 7 days work. I have knocked out about 20 small preforms. I broke maybe 10 more for various reasons. Don't you just love it when your hands get tired and you drop points and they break. All you can do laugh about it.
-
Just a couple thoughts here about tool use. My Dad would always bust on me as a child about tool abuse. He said things like use the right tool for the right job or match the tool to the project. That mode of thinking must be pretty old. I remember bending screw drivers to pry on things and using a wood saw on metal (that made him real mad lol) ...kids. anyway I got all jazzed up by Bowmo's punch video and had this bright idea to use my ulna bone to punch a stack. This was tool abuse. It knocked a good flake off the bone and not the stone.
-
^^ ouch!
-
Good stuff Iowa and Pete.
that deer print has an impact mark in the center for sure. My guess is a punch popped it off.
I am glad you see that also. Another thing about that point is I can't find it
on the Casting Lab, Lamb Site web site. The ones that are there are way more finished and look pressure flaked finished.
I don't know if (all you- all) (just found out today you-all just means one person)
have read any of my posts on Clovis cashes.
The Lamb site to me is another dubious site as well as Wenatchee, Anzick, Fenn and others. Most artifacts found by surface hunters, un-trained workman and totally disturbed context. Not to mention some rather controversial players.
Also the unusual recovery of bone artifacts and human remains that for some strange reason seem to endure 9-13,000 years where they are very seldom found
in stratified sites dug by controlled professionals. Just sayin LOL >:D
Please post any info to the contrary or better yet agreement.
Thanks Zuma
-
This site?
http://www.proprints.com/Stonehenge/index.htm (http://www.proprints.com/Stonehenge/index.htm)
-
I am not sure where Ben's photos are from Pete
but this is the site I referenced. Cut and paste.
My links seldom function.
Zuma
PAGE 1 CLOVIS CACHE LAMB SITE GE - Lithic Casting Lab.Com
lithiccastinglab.com/gallery-pages/2012augustlambsitepage1.htm (http://lithiccastinglab.com/gallery-pages/2012augustlambsitepage1.htm)
Aug 31, 2012 ... Fluted points & Lamb site excavation. ... This location, in western New York, was used as a habitation site and a stone tool manufacturing and ...
-
Zuma,
Are there any Clovis site that you believe are not the result of some dubious effort by some dubious and unscrupulous people. You got
Me wondering if there is anything that can be believed about archeology.
Steve
-
Zuma,
Are there any Clovis site that you believe are not the result of some dubious effort by some dubious and unscrupulous people. You got
Me wondering if there is anything that can be believed about archeology.
Steve
LOL Steve,
Yes, there are plenty. Bare in mind what I am saying is about hyped up
Clovis cashes. As opposed to Clovis camps and village sites that are
statisfied and dug by Universities etc. and not (book and artifact sellers).
The Vale Site, The Minisink Site, The Gault Site, Blackwater Draw,
Naco to name a few. What do you think about Over Atlantic Ice now?
Did you read Eren et al?
Zuma
-
Good stuff Iowa and Pete.
Ben,
"The problem with looking at this in preform stages is that the paradigm might not apply. To give an example, the Lamb site Clovis preforms look like ugly hammerstone made preforms. They would draw no attention in modern knapping circles. But, the Lamb site points are spectacular. Yet, they are almost the same size as the preforms."
I would find it hard to make this assumption.
I will explain. Perhaps the reason the preforms are still preforms is because they were rejects and not used for that reason. And they were surface finds??
Also the (spectacular point) may not have been touched up finished.
I think finding used points would give a better example of a finished product.
I do think the fluted point may have been punch flaked. Especially if you notice the deer hoof print like dip in the lower left near the tip. I am pretty sure that was caused by a hinge removal from the center not the edge. Very rare in abo knapping. Also the wide platform removal spaces.
I am not trying to be critical. I just thought it interesting.
I think you would agree that the finished Lamb points were not made with long rounds of hammerstone percussion, until they were finished. You said so yourself. And, that is the point that I was trying to make to the other poster. It would be difficult to understand how the flaker tools were used, without some context. And, the context may involve recognizing the shift from cruder hammerstone percussion, to finer flaking. I used the Lamb points as a possible example of preforms that are rather crude, but small. And, the finished points are not much smaller. In contrast, today's knapper may try to become "really good" with hammerstones, while never realizing that maybe the ancient knappers looked for morphology, and left the finish for another technology. If that is the case, then they WOULD NOT have tried to become "really good" with hammerstones, since the subsequent technology would be apt for finishing. Also, this is all relative to the material being worked.
Also, even if one thought that the Lamb site preforms were not really preforms, the same thing can be seen in cache finds of semi-worked materials, oftentimes all made of one material. Frequently, such caches do not really look spectacular, and the flaking look rather random, and less than glorious. So, what transpired between those cache type preforms, and the fine finished points? Again, I was trying to answer the other person's question by saying that understanding how the flaker tools were used would probably require understanding where they went with the hammerstone technology, prior to introducing the tools, and shifting from technology A to technology B. Without context, it is much harder to follow what ancient people did.
-
Fort Loudoun flakers:
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Fort%20Loudoun%20Flakers/fort%20loudoun%203.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Fort%20Loudoun%20Flakers/fort%20loudoun%203.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Fort%20Loudoun%20Flakers/fort%20houghton%201.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Fort%20Loudoun%20Flakers/fort%20houghton%201.jpg.html)
Enlarged photo of presumed flint flakers:
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Fort%20Loudoun%20Flakers/fort%20houghton%202.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Fort%20Loudoun%20Flakers/fort%20houghton%202.jpg.html)
-
Ben,
Not trying to dodge your explaination but--
Do you agree that the fluted point you featured from the Lamb site
was not finished completely? Also I did not see it in the Lamb site link
I posted? What do you think about the center punched flake?
Also do you agree that in the Lamb and Fort Loudoun assemblages
there are antler parts big enough for billets?
Thanks Zuma
-
Ben,
Here's what I'm trying to get at: Imagine you are at the quarry. Not actually in the quarry because you are one of the good knappers so you are at some comfortable spot near the quarry while the young guys are down in the mud getting the stone. One of them brings you a spall of raw but decent chert. You know, a typical spall, part too thick, part too thin, probably flat on one side, domed/ ridged on the other, bigger than your palm, smaller than your whole hand. All of your current, known tool needs have been meet, but it is a long hike to get here, so you are looking to make a late stage preform, or a quarry blank, or whatever you want to call it to take home for future tool needs. What tools and techniques are you going to use to accomplish that?
[I would start with a soft hammer stone to remove any areas of large mass but would quickly switch to direct antler percussion. I spent two year taking every spall to a mid to late stage preform by hammer stone, and even with that amount of practice, I went back to antler because it works faster, and wastes less rock.]
Now it's a week later and you are back home. One of the guys comes in and reports a herd of fat elk down in the valley. You are in the mood for some good BBQ so you plan on joining the hunting party tommorrow morning. You look over your gear and find that you are two dart points short. You take out the quarry blanks from the week before and pick out the two smallest ones to make into dart points. What tools and techniques do you use to accomplish that?
[I would start with a small peg punch, using my pressure flaker only for setting up the small, isolated platforms I like for punching. I would use an antler tine pressure flaker to finialize the shape of the base, and probaly make a pass or too along the blade edge.]
It occurs to you that your trusty old raw chert knife may also come in handy, but you don't have it because you loaned it to Zuma. You find Zuma and by some miracle he didn't lose it or break it. He did, however, cut a bunch of cane with it and didn't bother to resharpen it. (You conclude this is just as well because he probably would have screwed it up anyway.) So now you need to resharpen your badly dulled raw chert knife. What tools and technuques do you use to accomplish that?
[If I could get away with it, I would just pressure flake it. If the edge is too thick, or the material is too tough for me to push pressure flakes deeply in enough to maintain proper edge thickness and cutting angle, I would use the peg punch. I would start by taking a few pressure flakes from the tip down, because if I start punching right at the tip it might snap off. From there I generally punch a serries of flakes off a contionus platform beveled off to one side of the blade.]
Keith
-
Ben,
Not trying to dodge your explaination but--
"Do you agree that the fluted point you featured from the Lamb site
was not finished completely?"
I do not know. But, if you compare them to some of the others, then maybe it wasn't. I guess it would depend on whether the edges needed further re-chipping.
"What do you think about the center punched flake?"
The flute? I think that it could have been removed via indirect percussion, or a more sophisticated form of flaking.
"Also do you agree that in the Lamb and Fort Loudoun assemblages there are antler parts big enough for billets?"
What type of parts? Edges? Platforms? I suppose that any point is good enough for a billet, provided that the knapper is good enough, and the stone is brittle enough, and/or the percussor is heavy enough.
Here are finished Lamb cache Clovis points:
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/lambpointsgroup10large.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/lambpointsgroup10large.jpg.html)
Here are unfinished bifaces, from a Clovis cache, at the Lamb Clovis site:
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/lambbifacesgroup10large.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/lambbifacesgroup10large.jpg.html)
How big is the biggest finished point?
"The longest point in the cache, at bottom row right side, measures 5 1/2 inches (14 cm) long. The widest point at top center measures 5 1/4 inches (13.4 cm) long and 1 3/4 inches (4.5 cm) wide."
The widest finished point is only 1-3/4 wide.
What are the sizes of the preforms?
"The longest biface measures 4 1/4 inches (10.7 cm) long. Two of the widest bifaces both measure 1 3/4 inches (4.4 cm) wide."
ANSWER: The biggest PREFORM is SMALLER than the biggest finished point. That means that the knappers used a really inglorious flaking technology in order to get the point down to about finished point size. And, at that point, there was a transition to some other technology.
By the way, I do not know whether or not that the Lamb site preforms were made via hammerstone. The flake scars look quite smooth, with gentle rolls. And, the edges do not show signs of hard impact. It is possible that the preforms were made from lumpier pieces of stone, with another type of flaking technology, possibly indirect percussion, but not necessarily the technology(s) used to achieve the finish.
-
"He did, however, cut a bunch of cane with it and didn't bother to resharpen it. (You conclude this is just as well because he probably would have screwed it up anyway.) "
Squaw work you say! You know I was skinnin Griz and couldn't re sharpen until the Griz stopped struggling.
Huumph Zuma
-
Good questions and thoughts
-
Ben,
Here's what I'm trying to get at: Imagine you are at the quarry. Not actually in the quarry because you are one of the good knappers so you are at some comfortable spot near the quarry while the young guys are down in the mud getting the stone. One of them brings you a spall of raw but decent chert. You know, a typical spall, part too thick, part too thin, probably flat on one side, domed/ ridged on the other, bigger than your palm, smaller than your whole hand. All of your current, known tool needs have been meet, but it is a long hike to get here, so you are looking to make a late stage preform, or a quarry blank, or whatever you want to call it to take home for future tool needs. What tools and techniques are you going to use to accomplish that?
[I would start with a soft hammer stone to remove any areas of large mass but would quickly switch to direct antler percussion. I spent two year taking every spall to a mid to late stage preform by hammer stone, and even with that amount of practice, I went back to antler because it works faster, and wastes less rock.]
Now it's a week later and you are back home. One of the guys comes in and reports a herd of fat elk down in the valley. You are in the mood for some good BBQ so you plan on joining the hunting party tommorrow morning. You look over your gear and find that you are two dart points short. You take out the quarry blanks from the week before and pick out the two smallest ones to make into dart points. What tools and techniques do you use to accomplish that?
[I would start with a small peg punch, using my pressure flaker only for setting up the small, isolated platforms I like for punching. I would use an antler tine pressure flaker to finialize the shape of the base, and probaly make a pass or too along the blade edge.]
It occurs to you that your trusty old raw chert knife may also come in handy, but you don't have it because you loaned it to Zuma. You find Zuma and by some miracle he didn't lose it or break it. He did, however, cut a bunch of cane with it and didn't bother to resharpen it. (You conclude this is just as well because he probably would have screwed it up anyway.) So now you need to resharpen your badly dulled raw chert knife. What tools and technuques do you use to accomplish that?
[If I could get away with it, I would just pressure flake it. If the edge is too thick, or the material is too tough for me to push pressure flakes deeply in enough to maintain proper edge thickness and cutting angle, I would use the peg punch. I would start by taking a few pressure flakes from the tip down, because if I start punching right at the tip it might snap off. From there I generally punch a serries of flakes off a contionus platform beveled off to one side of the blade.]
Keith
"Here's what I'm trying to get at: Imagine you are at the quarry. Not actually in the quarry because you are one of the good knappers so you are at some comfortable spot near the quarry while the young guys are down in the mud getting the stone. One of them brings you a spall of raw but decent chert. You know, a typical spall, part too thick, part too thin, probably flat on one side, domed/ ridged on the other, bigger than your palm, smaller than your whole hand. All of your current, known tool needs have been meet, but it is a long hike to get here, so you are looking to make a late stage preform, or a quarry blank, or whatever you want to call it to take home for future tool needs. What tools and techniques are you going to use to accomplish that?"
That would depend on the material. For me, the shift from hard hammer percussion to indirect percussion, is frequently determined by the grade of the stone (grade not hardness). If the stone is really high grade, hard hammer might not work at all, without producing internal shatter in the edges. On the other hand, most stone is not that high of a grade.
With regard to ancient Americans, my theory is that they used both. But, the mobile lifestyle that the paleoindians lived allowed them to collect really high grade materials. And, so the indirect percussion technologies would have been preserved, after they came to the New World. But, once the advent of the archaic era led to settled life, in various regions, they would have used local materials. And, in such cases, hard hammer percussion would have been more fitting, assuming that the stone was of a lower grade, in many area. At that point (the advent of the archaic), I believe that the lithic technologies were tailored somewhat, for respective regions.
Also, my thought is that if there is greater emphasis on cutting (think butchering), than penetration (think killing), the paleo butcherers would have wanted sharper cutting tools, with sharper edges. And, this could have led to a preference for high grade materials. And, this in turn would have led to the choice of using indirect percussion flaking technologies, or even sophisticated hybrid flaking technologies.
That being said, I also think that there may be some difference in flaking technologies, between obsidian work, and regular chert work. And, I think that this can be seen, in terms of tools, at regional levels. For example, "peg punches", also called "antler drift" in archaeological texts, seem to be most prominent in the chert bearing areas of the eastern half of the US. And, the use of such tools spans about eight thousand years, right into the historic era. But, in areas were obsidian is worked, it seems really difficult to find such tools. The closest might be the larger antler plugs, which were shown with the previous photo of the Karok obsidian knapper.
To put it in simple terms, I think that the creation of the preform at the quarry was partially dictated by the type of stone being worked - low grade chert, high grade chert, obsidian, etc.
[I would start with a soft hammer stone to remove any areas of large mass but would quickly switch to direct antler percussion. I spent two year taking every spall to a mid to late stage preform by hammer stone, and even with that amount of practice, I went back to antler because it works faster, and wastes less rock.]
Is the rock raw? You can thin it with an antler billet? Is your billet white tail? The light stuff? I know that the early experimentalists used wood clubs, moose antler clubs, and elk antler clubs, to work stone down. They used the big percussors, due to the greater mass. If you use white tail antler, it frequently is really light.
Anyway, using hammerstones to thin bifaces involves some technique. Marty Rueter helped me to learn bifacial reduction, with soft hammerstones, about ten years ago, on the KRU forum. It takes a lot of practice to develop good skill, though. Now, I can use hammerstones, until I split the preform with an overshot. I think that the key to good hammerstone use, in bifacial reduction, is in learning to torque the preform against the blow, during impact. This produces long over the face removals, and sometimes even overshots, when there is too much torque.
"Now it's a week later and you are back home. One of the guys comes in and reports a herd of fat elk down in the valley. You are in the mood for some good BBQ so you plan on joining the hunting party tommorrow morning. You look over your gear and find that you are two dart points short. You take out the quarry blanks from the week before and pick out the two smallest ones to make into dart points. What tools and techniques do you use to accomplish that?"
If they are really small, I would probably use a broken tip of a tine, about two inches long, with a slight curve. I could probably chip in the platform, and take the removals, with such a tool, via indirect percussion. I would follow Grinnell, (1879). I showed a few such points, here.
"It occurs to you that your trusty old raw chert knife may also come in handy, but you don't have it because you loaned it to Zuma. You find Zuma and by some miracle he didn't lose it or break it. He did, however, cut a bunch of cane with it and didn't bother to resharpen it. (You conclude this is just as well because he probably would have screwed it up anyway.) So now you need to resharpen your badly dulled raw chert knife. What tools and technuques do you use to accomplish that?"
Hand held pressure flaker - common deer tine, or composite bit pressure flaker.
[If I could get away with it, I would just pressure flake it. If the edge is too thick, or the material is too tough for me to push pressure flakes deeply in enough to maintain proper edge thickness and cutting angle, I would use the peg punch. I would start by taking a few pressure flakes from the tip down, because if I start punching right at the tip it might snap off. From there I generally punch a serries of flakes off a contionus platform beveled off to one side of the blade.]
I am on the fence on this one. One thing that no one has discussed is the role of peg punches (antler drift) in creating scrapers. Unlike a biface, a scraper has a very 3-dimensional nature to it. My friend Bill Wagoner pointed out that many scrapers look like they were made from overshot failures (hard hammer percussion). I could see fashioning a 3-dimensional scraper with a peg punch. It would be like sculpting a piece of stone.
But, bifaces are frequently more 2-dimensional, than 3-dimensional. Many bifaces are really flat. The direct blow of a peg punch produces a bulb, just as direct percussion produces a bulb. And, when a person is trying to create a thin, straight edge, the bulb of a direct punch blow could mar the edge. So, this is where I would lean towards a thin broken end of a tine, that can be held between the fingers, and struck on the broadside. In this case, the blow would not drive into the stone. Instead the blow would pull perpendicular, away from the face of the stone. The latter process "pulls" the flakes off. The former process "pushes" the flakes off. To avoid creating bulbous scars, I would probably opt for a process that pulls the flakes off.
On the other hand, if the edge was really thick, and beveled, I might just use the peg punch. The other flakers that I have shown seem to be going almost un-identified, everywhere. Usually, the description reads something like, "small flaker that may have been hafted", and "end is blunt", or "end shows signs of battering". Yet, there is never any sign of bitumen, or anything else on the flaker, even when they are found in dry cave sites. Based on some other evidence, I think that they are probable finger flakers (indirect percussion).
Hummingbird, I enjoyed the thoughtful questions.
-
This is the point you posted. Look at the divot (dip) lower left towards the tip.
Unusual for abo knapping? Not the multiple hinged flutes.
point looks unfinished compared to the others.
http://lithiccastinglab.com/cast-page/lambclovispoint76and83hand1.jpg (http://lithiccastinglab.com/cast-page/lambclovispoint76and83hand1.jpg)
Also, almost every example of bone antler you have posted contains what I would
consider at least one antler part worthy of being used as a billet. Agree/not?
My point about the points being bigger than the preforms is---
They may be the bottom of the basket and thought unfit for the needed points.
Nothing to do with the method to make them.
Also here is another supposed Clovis cash from the surface and disturbed plow zone. The chert was mostly imported Hornstone. Not so suprising as I do believe
the migration was from west to east. Must have been a pioneering outpost with big butt mega fauna.
I think every point was supposedly broken by farm equipment and restored.
Also like most reported Clovis cashes the Lamb points are 2" longer than average.
Strange imo.
Zuma
PS I hope Iowa can handle us hijacking his thread.
perhaps we should continue on another?
-
This is the point you posted. Look at the divot (dip) lower left towards the tip.
Unusual for abo knapping? Not the multiple hinged flutes.
point looks unfinished compared to the others.
http://lithiccastinglab.com/cast-page/lambclovispoint76and83hand1.jpg (http://lithiccastinglab.com/cast-page/lambclovispoint76and83hand1.jpg)
Also, almost every example of bone antler you have posted contains what I would
consider at least one antler part worthy of being used as a billet. Agree/not?
My point about the points being bigger than the preforms is---
They may be the bottom of the basket and thought unfit for the needed points.
Nothing to do with the method to make them.
Also here is another supposed Clovis cash from the surface and disturbed plow zone. The chert was mostly imported Hornstone. Not so suprising as I do believe
the migration was from west to east. Must have a pioneering outpost with big butt mega fauna.
I think every point was supposedly broken by farm equipment and restored.
Also like most reported Clovis cashes the Lamb points are 2" longer than average.
Strange imo.
Zuma
PS I hope Iowa can handle us hijacking his thread.
perhaps we should continue on another?
I did not notice that divot. It almost looks like hard hammer percussion, right in the middle. I wonder if they had a high spot, after the opposite removal, and they used stone indirect percussion to bust off the high spot. That was a good catch.
The other possibility is that the opposite edge removal broke loose, and struck the higher part of the edge, thus knocking out the divot. I would lean towards the second theory. And, that is something that might happen in my own tine-based process from time to time.
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/lamb%20clovis%20divot.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/lamb%20clovis%20divot.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/divot.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/divot.jpg.html)
(The title of the thread is "ABO techniques, processes, and tools". That is pretty broad. Also, the author did not preface the title with "My". So, I do not think that we have hijacked anything, at all.)
I think that there is a possibility that the point is finished, but finished differently than the other points. If one does not employ pressure flaking, then one may be able to take removals out of very thin edges, while living thin deltas. On the other hand, if the edge is reworked via pressure, it can come out extremely even.
"Also, almost every example of bone antler you have posted contains what I would
consider at least one antler part worthy of being used as a billet. Agree/not?"
I think it is possible. But, exactly how do you differentiate a billet from a "pitching tool". Pitching tools were frequently described as being six to seven inches long, and maybe one inch thick. They were used to remove spalls, flakes, and blades, according to Ray (1880's), and Mason (1890's). So, how would you differentiate the two? The billets effectively used be recent experimenters, such as Bordes, and Crabtree, were quite large, oftentimes almost like clubs. The pitching tools used by Indians, even during the historic era, were far smaller. So, how do you differentiate the two?
-
Ben,
Actually after taking a better look at the divot point I am
pretty sure it was destroyed by the last flute impact.
Check the perpendicular crack at the end of the longest flute.
It also seems to run at a 180 right up to the divot??
That is why it is not finished,
Zuma
-
The divot in the end of the point could easily have been made by placing the flake back in the scar and striking it again. I have done this many times. Also a note of interest, it is not difficult to find whitetail antler that is quite dense and hard. I have one that approximates the size of several of the "drift"punches pictured. It works quite well for late stage thinning.
-
This is great and no I really don't feel hijacked at all. I think this post has a great mix of history demonstration and respectful debate going on and I am enjoying the dialogue. Please continue everyone.
-
Madisonville "punches" (punches outnumbered flakers 1000 to 1 at the Madisonville site):
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/madisonville/madisonvillepunches.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/madisonville/madisonvillepunches.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/madisonville/conoverbipoint1.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/madisonville/conoverbipoint1.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/madisonville/madisonvillesuperthin.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/madisonville/madisonvillesuperthin.jpg.html)
The wear patterns on these flaking tools, and the wear patterns on similar flaking tools from Belize, make me suspect that the tools may not have been struck on the ends. There is no reason to think that a process analogous to a composite bit pressure flaker could have been used, only with a stronger form of energy delivery. Another parallel may be seen in Catlin's 3-man indirect percussion flaking staff, used in quarries.
-
Elderly Apache knapper encountered by Professor Bonney, in Arizona, around the beginning of the 20th century:
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Scientific%20American%201918%20-%20Apache%20makes%20arrowheads/1918-06-01supppage340.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Scientific%20American%201918%20-%20Apache%20makes%20arrowheads/1918-06-01supppage340.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Scientific%20American%201918%20-%20Apache%20makes%20arrowheads/1918-06-01supppage341.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Scientific%20American%201918%20-%20Apache%20makes%20arrowheads/1918-06-01supppage341.jpg.html)
Read online, starting page 340, Hathitrust, Scientific American Supplement No. 2213:
http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015006964954;view=1up;seq=344 (http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015006964954;view=1up;seq=344)
-
The sun rises over the knapping pit with a clear sky. I hope to have a marathon knapping day. Yesterday I gave the hands a break. After 3 weeks now of knapping almost everyday (i managed about 50 during this time) I feel in shape to really knock out some points. The "ABO"point count is approaching ~83 total. I have been focusing on small points for the most part to build up my strength, skill and to reduce my flake collection. A new bit was placed in the ishi about 19 points ago. I should get another 10 from it. This new bit is grayish in color compared to the old one. I once thought the color difference was related to hardness so we will see if this is true not by the point count. The ulna that has made many hundred points is coming to the end of its use. It has been a great tool and is smooth and polished from our working together in making so many points. This bone is hollow toward the end and I expect to hit that section soon during knapping and then will know it's time to set my old companion aside and start with a new one.
-
The sun rises over the knapping pit with a clear sky. I hope to have a marathon knapping day. Yesterday I gave the hands a break. After 3 weeks now of knapping almost everyday (i managed about 50 during this time) I feel in shape to really knock out some points. The "ABO"point count is approaching ~83 total. I have been focusing on small points for the most part to build up my strength, skill and to reduce my flake collection. A new bit was placed in the ishi about 19 points ago. I should get another 10 from it. This new bit is grayish in color compared to the old one. I once thought the color difference was related to hardness so we will see if this is true not by the point count. The ulna that has made many hundred points is coming to the end of its use. It has been a great tool and is smooth and polished from our working together in making so many points. This bone is hollow toward the end and I expect to hit that section soon during knapping and then will know it's time to set my old companion aside and start with a new one.
You should post a photo of your tools, to show the wear patterns.
In archaeology, in order to demonstrate that an item is a culturally predictable trait (as opposed to a once in million fluke), one must show the creation of the tool, the use of the tool, the wear of the tool, the refurbishment of the tool, and the final expenditure of the tool, in archaeological contexts.
Because the original Americans so strongly believed in the afterlife, they typically included items, such as flintknapping toolkits, in the graves of deceased flintknappers. And, these toolkits reflect the tools that the knapper would have used, during his own lifetime. Many flintknapping toolkits were disposed of, with the deceased. These toolkits were also fairly standardized, but varied in different regions of North America. This is how we know what tools were being used. What is not always known is how the tools were used. Use wear patterns are probably an important key in unraveling the use of the tools, especially the small tools that both archaeologists, and flintknappers, have struggled to understand, over the last century.
Also, with regard to wooden tools, there are plenty of dry sites, in the west, that have yielded wood, and plant, artifacts that are many thousands of years old. So, we do have some record of such artifacts, in the west. And, in other places, such artifacts have been recovered from peat bogs. So, it cannot be assumed that all such artifacts disappeared from the archaeological record, as was first believed when early European archaeologists, speculated that wooden billets were used, but then disappeared from the archaeological record.
-
Arrowmakers toolkit documented from the Madisonville site:
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/madisonvillearrowmakertoolkit.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/madisonvillearrowmakertoolkit.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/page49madisonvilleflintknappingtools.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/page49madisonvilleflintknappingtools.jpg.html)
-
Here is a picture of the pit. The flint, antler and hammer stone lift out over night still have frost on them. First point completed.
-
John, good thing you didn't leave your tools out here Nw. Penna :( :o Bob
-
Bob looks like you have a beautiful piece of land there. That looks cold for sure.
-
Zuma,
No, no, I was referring to you cutting cane for dart shafts. I assure you you looked very manly doing it and several of the ladies in the village took notice.
Ben,
I have been doing direct percussion by antler for the past year like this:
http://paleoplanet69529.yuku.com/topic/60533/Antler-hammers
My approach to figuring things out is differnet than yours. I don't put much stock in either the archaeology or the post contact (often very post contact) accounts because I think way too much information is missing. I think it is like trying to understand the forest from too few trees.
Rather my approach is this: We are talking about "fully modern" humans here, people with equal intelligence to us, that had tens of thousands of years to figure out the most economical way to accomplish a technology, that while fairly complex, is not nearly as complex as many other things stone age peoples also figured out. Let me draw an analogy: There is a discussion here about the Spanish Diggings, a quarry where quartzite was dug out of pits in Wyoming. Similar pits have been found around D.C where quartzite cobbles where extracted, and stone age people in England were digging something like 12 feet down to get at the the "floor stone", the highest quality flint. Without ever seeing any of the tools from a dig, and without any eyewitness accounts, I can tell you the primary tool used and what it was made of with a high level of confidence. They used a pick. Why? Because a pick is a really good tool for digging and prying rocks out of dirt, and these were all groups of smart humans, so they would figure that out. The picks were made of elk antler at the two American sites and Red Deer antler in England. I can reasonably surmise this because antler of those types was available to the respective groups, and the material is the most economical choice because it has the right strength and durability, comes in big enough pieces, and is naturally pick shaped.
Here's how I apply that thinking to percussion knapping tools, hammer stones first: They make sense early on, being very efficient for large mass reduction, and save wear and tear on valuable antler tools. But they very quickly loose that efficiency. As you note, they are very hard to learn to master for use in later stage work. As you note, you have to compensate for the tool, such as by "torquing" the preform. That is backwards from how humans use tools. We don't compensate for the tool, we built the tool to compensate for us. I can't stress this point highly enough. Very few modern knappers take the time to master doing later stages of bifacial reduction with hammer stones not because they are lazy, but because they are just as smart as their stone age ancestors. Or consider it another way: Billions of human brains over tens of thousands of years of bifacial knapping didn't get past doing the lion's share of the work by banging one rock against another? (That is meant a bit tongue-in-cheek.)
As to direct percussion by antler: It works. Really, really well. It is very efficient. There is something nearly magical about how antler will grab the fine edge of a piece of "flint" and peel off long flakes. There are many species of deer, inhabiting many habitat types. In what is either intelligent design, or some really good luck, these deer drop their antler on the ground and grow new ones every year. Any smart human can very easily connect the dots and see that if you hit flint with antler, good things happen. Your objection to the antler billet is that you don't see it in the archaeological collections. My (halfway) objection is that, like hammer stones, it is too primitive, and still involves too much of the user compensating for the tool, instead of the other way around. So I would say that if you know antler making rapid contact with flint produces the results you want, then it is just a matter of building the tool around the antler. In a sense, it is like the copper bopper. There is just one thin layer of copper on the end, with the rest of tool built so a human hand can efficiently deliver the copper to the flint.
But I must stress I am not trying to convert anyone to my radical methods. I have been trying to avoid mentioning them at all so as not to side track the discussion. Rather, I am trying to explain my thought process in trying to work out an "abo" toolkit. I am very interested in alternate methods. I would very much like to try the method you kind of described, with striking from the side, and pulling off the flake. I think you are on to something there and I think it may fill in some of the holes I have found in my own process. If you would be willing describe the process in more detail, perhaps with pictures or (if I can dream big), video, whether that be here, at another site or privately, I would deeply appreciate it.
Thanks,
Keith
-
Zuma,
Are there any Clovis site that you believe are not the result of some dubious effort by some dubious and unscrupulous people. You got
Me wondering if there is anything that can be believed about archeology.
Steve
LOL Steve,
Yes, there are plenty. Bare in mind what I am saying is about hyped up
Clovis cashes. As opposed to Clovis camps and village sites that are
statisfied and dug by Universities etc. and not (book and artifact sellers).
The Vale Site, The Minisink Site, The Gault Site, Blackwater Draw,
Naco to name a few. What do you think about Over Atlantic Ice now?
Did you read Eren et al?
Zuma
Steve did you some how overlook these answers and questions? :-\
Zuma
-
No I got it. still mulling a response. Not enough free time. :)
-
Zuma,
No, no, I was referring to you cutting cane for dart shafts. I assure you you looked very manly doing it and several of the ladies in the village took notice.
Ben,
I have been doing direct percussion by antler for the past year like this:
http://paleoplanet69529.yuku.com/topic/60533/Antler-hammers
My approach to figuring things out is differnet than yours. I don't put much stock in either the archaeology or the post contact (often very post contact) accounts because I think way too much information is missing. I think it is like trying to understand the forest from too few trees.
Rather my approach is this: We are talking about "fully modern" humans here, people with equal intelligence to us, that had tens of thousands of years to figure out the most economical way to accomplish a technology, that while fairly complex, is not nearly as complex as many other things stone age peoples also figured out. Let me draw an analogy: There is a discussion here about the Spanish Diggings, a quarry where quartzite was dug out of pits in Wyoming. Similar pits have been found around D.C where quartzite cobbles where extracted, and stone age people in England were digging something like 12 feet down to get at the the "floor stone", the highest quality flint. Without ever seeing any of the tools from a dig, and without any eyewitness accounts, I can tell you the primary tool used and what it was made of with a high level of confidence. They used a pick. Why? Because a pick is a really good tool for digging and prying rocks out of dirt, and these were all groups of smart humans, so they would figure that out. The picks were made of elk antler at the two American sites and Red Deer antler in England. I can reasonably surmise this because antler of those types was available to the respective groups, and the material is the most economical choice because it has the right strength and durability, comes in big enough pieces, and is naturally pick shaped.
Here's how I apply that thinking to percussion knapping tools, hammer stones first: They make sense early on, being very efficient for large mass reduction, and save wear and tear on valuable antler tools. But they very quickly loose that efficiency. As you note, they are very hard to learn to master for use in later stage work. Very few modern knappers take the time to master doing later stages of bifacial reduction As you note, you have to compensate for the tool, such as by "torquing" the preform. That is backwards from how humans use tools. We don't compensate for the tool, we built the tool to compensate for us. I can't stress this point highly enough. with hammer stones not because they are lazy, but because they are just as smart as their stone age ancestors. Or consider it another way: Billions of human brains over tens of thousands of years of bifacial knapping didn't get past doing the lion's share of the work by banging one rock against another? (That is meant a bit tongue-in-cheek.)
As to direct percussion by antler: It works. Really, really well. It is very efficient. There is something nearly magical about how antler will grab the fine edge of a piece of "flint" and peel off long flakes. There are many species of deer, inhabiting many habitat types. In what is either intelligent design, or some really good luck, these deer drop their antler on the ground and grow new ones every year. Any smart human can very easily connect the dots and see that if you hit flint with antler, good things happen. Your objection to the antler billet is that you don't see it in the archaeological collections. My (halfway) objection is that, like hammer stones, it is too primitive, and still involves too much of the user compensating for the tool, instead of the other way around. So I would say that if you know antler making rapid contact with flint produces the results you want, then it is just a matter of building the tool around the antler. In a sense, it is like the copper bopper. There is just one thin layer of copper on the end, with the rest of tool built so a human hand can efficiently deliver the copper to the flint.
But I must stress I am not trying to convert anyone to my radical methods. I have been trying to avoid mentioning them at all so as not to side track the discussion. Rather, I am trying to explain my thought process in trying to work out an "abo" toolkit. I am very interested in alternate methods. I would very much like to try the method you kind of described, with striking from the side, and pulling off the flake. I think you are on to something there and I think it may fill in some of the holes I have found in my own process. If you would be willing describe the process in more detail, perhaps with pictures or (if I can dream big), video, whether that be here, at another site or privately, I would deeply appreciate it.
Thanks,
Keith
Hello Keith,
Your approach is probably comparable to the use of the antler mallet, which was frequently hafted. I also see value in any form of experimentation, because it helps a person learn about various attributes of flaking processes. Also, when something does not work - or partially works - a person has to figure out why.
Here is some of my own experimental work, that does not necessarily have any tie to ancient knapping - maybe, maybe not.
Wooden direct percussion hand hammer:
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Wooden%20Pike%20Thinning/batch37097.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Wooden%20Pike%20Thinning/batch37097.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Wooden%20Pike%20Thinning/batch37098.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Wooden%20Pike%20Thinning/batch37098.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Wooden%20Pike%20Thinning/batch37099.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Wooden%20Pike%20Thinning/batch37099.jpg.html)
Wooden indirect percussion coast to coast flake:
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/coasttocoast7_zps63ea354a.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/coasttocoast7_zps63ea354a.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/coasttocoast8_zpsa210b33b.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/coasttocoast8_zpsa210b33b.jpg.html)
Clovis-like flaking made on anvil, but probably not Clovis, due to lack of outrépasse potential (2012):
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Good%20Data%20Bad%20Interpretation/batch47nemcoonioncutter016.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Good%20Data%20Bad%20Interpretation/batch47nemcoonioncutter016.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Good%20Data%20Bad%20Interpretation/batch47nemcoonioncutter015.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Good%20Data%20Bad%20Interpretation/batch47nemcoonioncutter015.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Good%20Data%20Bad%20Interpretation/batch47nemcoonioncutter014.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Good%20Data%20Bad%20Interpretation/batch47nemcoonioncutter014.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Good%20Data%20Bad%20Interpretation/batch47nemcoonioncutter012.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Good%20Data%20Bad%20Interpretation/batch47nemcoonioncutter012.jpg.html)
I posted photos of the last round of flaking on Paleoplanet, asked if it looked Clovis, and got banned. LOL! Actually, it is not even Clovis. Not a single one of the flakes could ever produce outrepasse traits. You need something far more sophisticated to throw outrepasse with a flaker process like this.
So, I stuck it out two and a half more years. One day, I had an epiphany. I was thinking about the characteristics of bipolar, in terms of signatures. And, I was mentally comparing that to hard hammer overshot, in terms of signatures - since both produce long flakes. And, I could not figure out what caused the break to turn, prior to reaching the opposite edge, as is found in true late stage Clovis outrepasse.
Suddenly, I saw the answer. It was like seeing through time, as if I had X-ray eyesight through time and space. I actually saw the break happening from inside the break, if it makes any sense. It was amazing. And, it had nothing to do with either hard hammer overshot, or coast to coast bipolar. It was something else. So, I am certain that my experiment of 2012 was not accurate. By the way, ever wonder why some bifacial flake scars are curved, and others are flat, when both are made via indirect percussion? That is something that became apparent, in the midst of one failed experiment - jewels can come out of failure. Lol!
Here is an update, that the experiments of 2012 could not produce:
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Holy%20Grail%20Outre%20Passe/Test%2022/048.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Holy%20Grail%20Outre%20Passe/Test%2022/048.jpg.html)
Here is the far edge:
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Holy%20Grail%20Outre%20Passe/Test%2022/043.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Holy%20Grail%20Outre%20Passe/Test%2022/043.jpg.html)
Removal:
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Holy%20Grail%20Outre%20Passe/Test%2022/062.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Holy%20Grail%20Outre%20Passe/Test%2022/062.jpg.html)
That bad boy did not come from an experiment. It came from an epiphany I had, based in all of the information that I have amassed in my head. And, it ties in to ethnographic data, too.
"I don't put much stock in either the archaeology or the post contact (often very post contact) accounts because I think way too much information is missing."
The problem is not that we have information missing. The problem is that we do not understand what we got. The theories of flintknapping were mostly created before the evidence from the Americas was ever known, much less understood. And, once people finally started looking at the evidence, through all of the theories, it never made any sense. In a nutshell, the theories concocted in Europe are not necessarily applicable, in the Americas. I know that people will hang on to them, until the death. But, they will never be able to take simple tools - like a deer tine - and show the awesome flaking that I just showed, with Europe's theories.
"I think it is like trying to understand the forest from too few trees."
Museums, and universities, are chock full of evidence that is going unrecognized. The known evidence does not conform to well circulated theories, like the antler baton theory. Since the time of Crabtree, it looks like people stopped trying to tackle the evidence, for the most part.
"Rather my approach is this: We are talking about "fully modern" humans here, people with equal intelligence to us, that had tens of thousands of years to figure out the most economical way to accomplish a technology, that while fairly complex, is not nearly as complex as many other things stone age peoples also figured out."
It does not look like people "figured it out", here. It looks like the First Americans arrived here with lithic traditions intact. And, it looks like they were passed down, from father to son, for millennia. The pattern is so deeply ingrained, it can be seen on both continents. The fluted fishtail points of South America, encompass a coastal distance of about 22,000 miles, or maybe more. And, the fluted Clovis, and Clovis-like points of North America span all lower 48 states, parts of Canada, and are even found at a relatively late date in Alaska. Similarly, it has been reported that the paleoindian blade/core traditions of South America appear to be the same as the Clovis blade/core traditions of North America.
Since the languages of both continents contain common peculiar linguistic features, known as "pan-Americanisms", and both continents displayed fluting technology, and Clovis type blade core technology, at a very early date, it could be argued that the impact of the arrival of the First Americans was in the dispersion of common lithic knowledge, and language(s).
Also, if you track the spread of the Western Uto-Aztecan dialect, from central Mexico, throughout the west, and up into the Great Basin, what can be seen is that this spread approximates the spread of early paleoindian point types, in the west. Yet, after the advent of the archaic, these people were hardly moving, at all. Again, one can see a common source for language, and a common lithic technology - Clovis, at the roots of western Uto-Aztecan history.
The idea that people made up flintknapping, in the Americas, over thousand of years, is probably a mistaken idea (one that I used to believe, myself). I appears to be the result of an inherited culture, along with the presumed use of the atlatl, and the presumed companionship of hunting dogs. The reason that lithic end products would have looked different in the archaic era, would have to do with different end goals, and major restrictions on access to high grade materials, due to a lack of mobility. But, just because end types change, does not necessarily mean that technology changed. A change in end types does not necessarily mean a change in technology, as some may assume.
"As you note, you have to compensate for the tool, such as by "torquing" the preform. That is backwards from how humans use tools. We don't compensate for the tool, we built the tool to compensate for us. I can't stress this point highly enough."
Right. For example, we do not make the screw adapt to the screwdriver. The screwdriver is optimally designed to remove screws. The same is also true of bolts, and wrenches. We do not adapt the bolt to the wrench, to make the wrench work.
But, do you know what the flaw is with this perspective? The modern person is looking at "tools" the way we look at tools of the modern Industrial Revolution. Flintknapping is a DYNAMIC process, with many elements - not just the tool. This is where most all knappers take a wrong turn, and fail to recognize the evidence, even when it is under their noses.
How many other people can make outrepasse with a common deer tine? I can, and have done so many times. Yet, the actual process involves the integration of three flaking processes, into a single process, as was recorded over a hundred years ago. Yet, if I handed a hundred knappers the very same "tool", I do not believe that one of them could use it to create outrepasse, unless they had specialized knowledge. And, that knowledge pertains to a fairly dynamic process.
The "tool A creates effect B" line of thinking works wonderful in factories, automotive assembly lines, machine shops, etc. But, harboring this outlook makes it far harder to understand the dynamic processes of Native American flintknapping. The only cure for this is immersion in the right type of evidence.
"As to direct percussion by antler: It works. Really, really well. It is very efficient. There is something nearly magical about how antler will grab the fine edge of a piece of "flint" and peel off long flakes."
The late Philip Churchill - who was one of the best replicators in the world - told me that the reason that modern knappers do not use antler is because they cannot get the flake scars to look authentic enough. For this reason, the best replicators use copper, not antler. I think that Woody Blackwell is living proof that there must be something wrong with the antler baton theory. On top of that, the early replicators, like Bordes, and Crabtree, used massive clubs, while also developing heat treating. In South America, there is no heavy antler. The largest cervid, in South America, is a deer similar to a white tail deer. They do not have elk, or moose, in South America, except those which have been imported. Meanwhile, the lithic traditions continued unabated, in South America, from the moment of colonization.
Actually, the description you give of antler being used to flake flint is also true of antler that is used in indirect percussion. In fact, with regard to "pitching tools", where the flaker is used in conjunction with a stone hammer, the mass of the percussor is SEPARATE from the flaking tool. In other words, if the flaking tool weighs four ounces, but the percussor weighs a pound, then which process should generate greater force? The one in which a four ounce flaker is used to strike the stone, directly? Or, the one in which a one pound stone percussor is used to strike the biface indirectly, via the four ounce flaker? The latter process should be roughly for times more powerful, since the hammerstone weight is four times heavier than the flaker weight. But, if a person factors in the possibility of increasing the force, while reducing shock (effect of intermediate object), then one might be able to apply ten times more force, while employing an indirect strike.
Some of the baton users can expound upon contact time, as being a contributor to flake length. Is it possible that indirect percussion might actually involve longer contact times, thus producing longer flakes? Look at the length of the last tine-made flake I showed. It is a monster. And, it is raw stone - the real deal. I bet the contact time was fairly long, between when the flaker was struck, and the flake detached.
As far as I can tell, the flintknapping community has never made a fair study of Native American pitching tools, while theories born in England seem to almost get a free pass. The loss is no one else's but ours.
"Your objection to the antler billet is that you don't see it in the archaeological collections. My (halfway) objection is that, like hammer stones, it is too primitive, and still involves too much of the user compensating for the tool, instead of the other way around. So I would say that if you know antler making rapid contact with flint produces the results you want, then it is just a matter of building the tool around the antler."
So, we might actually agree. Ha ha. Are you advocating the antler hammer over the antler flintknapping baton? Well, it looks like the weight of history is on your side, at least regarding the use of antler hammers. I believe that the Eskimo used heavy reindeer hammers to spall stone. Also, there are scores of examples of hafted antler hammers, that had holes drilled in the middle. I have long speculated about such hammers. In early ethnographic literature, they are called "flintknapping hammers", or "antler mallets". Also, I believe that they were used as trimmers. The large preform would be laid on a buckskin pad, on an anvil. And, the knapper would strike around the edges of the preform. I have myself used hammers before, in knapping. What I ran into is that the inside tends to wear off much faster than the rest of the antler. For this reason, I have wondered whether the hammers were actually used in indirect percussion - antler on antler. If so, the tools would probably never wear out.
I think that your experiments could be really helpful, in better understanding this subject. Don't worry about what other people think. In a hundred years, we will all be gone. But, a real development might help someone in the future.
Ben
-
Ben, please provide some information that producing
overshot flakes is an intentional Clovis or for that
matter a trait of any knapping culture but modern.
You post all the other archaeological information but
you have continually ignored this request for your
thoughts to back up your claim archaeologically.
Perhaps you haven't read my previous requests or the
professional papers that say overshot flakes are in-factally
a mistake. I would be glad to make them available to you
if you desire. :)
Thanks Zuma
-
The antler punches like those found at the Madisonville site would be made from the last few inches of an antler tine or are they made from bigger pieces of antler?
Antler has a soft center in the bigger areas so I would think those pouches can only be made from the antler tine tips. Anyone have any other ideas on how to make them?
-
Punches are better made from the base of an antler. I have been making mine from the bases of smaller deer. Even spikes. The base is used as the bit placed against the edge of the biface. This way dense bits can be made from smaller antlers.
-
Ben, please provide some information that producing
overshot flakes is an intentional Clovis or for that
matter a trait of any knapping culture but modern.
You post all the other archaeological information but
you have continually ignored this request for your
thoughts to back up your claim archaeologically.
Perhaps you haven't read my previous requests or the
professional papers that say overshot flakes are in-factally
a mistake. I would be glad to make them available to you
if you desire. :)
Thanks Zuma
Zuma, as I have tried to explain in the past, the OPINIONS offered in professional papers, appear to have two flaws:
A. The so-called professionals use the term overshot in a general sense, and never specify the actual technology. Overshot is not a technology. It is the result of a technology. So, I would need to know which technology that we are talking about, when the overshot results are being discussed. I previously cited Bradley, to show a blatant example of someone speaking definitively about overshot, while never actually specifying the technology he used to create the overshot.
B. If the modern experiments being carried out are based upon 1930 era English flintknapping batons, and such batons were not used by ancient American flintknappers (or ancient American knappers used pitching tools), then the results of the experiments, regarding outrepasse, may not be applicable, at all.
That being said, I know of at least three ways to create outrepasse flakes: A. Deer tine/indirect percussion, B. hammerstone/direct percussion, and C. English-style baton/direct percussion.
These three technologies do not have identical attributes, nor do they work the same in all materials. Also, using a deer tine in indirect percussion would qualify as a "pitching tool".
Can you show me a paper that distinguishes the difference between the effects of pitching tools versus English style batons? If not, then how does one proceed to discuss "outrepasee" in an educated manner?
-
The antler punches like those found at the Madisonville site would be made from the last few inches of an antler tine or are they made from bigger pieces of antler?
Antler has a soft center in the bigger areas so I would think those pouches can only be made from the antler tine tips. Anyone have any other ideas on how to make them?
Actually, entire racks of antler were reduced, at some Woodland sites. And, I believe it was Webb, who in the 1940's, outlined the entire reduction process of antler, into various tools, and objects. For example, projectile points were made from short cut tips. Longer portions, including the tips, were cut (or broken) and used as "flakers", though no one is sure whether they were hafted or used in some other form. The sections known as "antler drifts" were cut from straight sections, and were usually about 2-1/4 inches long, by 1 cm thick. Basal sections were frequently cut, and used as handles, for other tools.
Anyway, to make antler drifts, you only need to cut out straight sections of the tine that are about two inches long.
Ben
-
James mighta brought some of mine (Va.)
Large billet for core removals
(http://www.fototime.com/472C47A1C1D691C/standard.jpg)
Final go-round kit. Elk billet, punches and small wood billet and a few tines. Hammerstone to set things up and clear stall-outs.
(http://www.fototime.com/A3BC6E3C09E776B/standard.jpg)
Pete, is that "Club" made out of locust?
-
Ben, please provide some information that producing
overshot flakes is an intentional Clovis or for that
matter a trait of any knapping culture but modern.
you have continually ignored this request for your
thoughts to back up your claim.
Thanks Zuma
Zuma, as I have tried to explain in the past, the OPINIONS offered in professional papers, appear to have two flaws: NON APPLICABLE
.
That being said, I know of at least three ways to create outrepasse flakes: A. Deer tine/indirect percussion, B. hammerstone/direct percussion, and C. English-style baton/direct percussion. Non Applicable
how does one proceed to discuss "outrepasee" in an educated manner?
God knows, I think I have tried.
You could start by posting your data proving overshot is an intentional
aboriginal trait and refrain from mentioning ANYTHING modern.
-
Zuma,
I cannot speak for the intent of the original Clovis knappers. I was not there. Nor do I know what they intended.
That being said, other academics have raised a point that I partially disagree with, and partially agree with. Bradley discusses how difficult it is to "master" controlled overshot. I previously posted the information, but then may have been asked to pull the information from the forum.
That being said. I do not know what thoughts ran through Clovis knapper's minds. So, I cannot speak about ancient knapping, in a manner that PROVES intent. I was not in their heads, thirteen thousand years ago.
Here is the Eren et all paper:
https://www.smu.edu/~/media/Site/Dedman/Departments/Anthropology/MeltzerPDFs/Eren%20et%20al%20%202014%20Lithic%20Technology.ashx?la=en (https://www.smu.edu/~/media/Site/Dedman/Departments/Anthropology/MeltzerPDFs/Eren%20et%20al%20%202014%20Lithic%20Technology.ashx?la=en)
On page two, the author makes three claims. And, prior to making these claims, the author states:
"WE USED EXPERIMENTAL ARCHAEOLOGY TO TEST..."
Do you see those words? They are basing their arguments on EXPERIMENTAL ARCHAEOLOGY. And, you can also see that an experimental archaeologist (Patten) is being cited.
So, I am telling you that the premises, and arguments, of this paper could be FLAWED, if they are basing everything on the work of experimenters, such as Bradley and Patten. I am also introducing the same type of evidence, that these academics are basing their arguments upon. Only, my evidence is more expansive because I cover actual technologies, and they do not. Do you see that? Do you see that I touch upon hammerstone tech, billet tech, and deer tine tech? What technologies do they cover? Is it even explained.
That being said, if we are discussing hammerstone tech, I believe that most all overshots are accidental. If we are discussing billet tech, I think that overshots is difficult to achieve - AS NOTED BY BRADLEY. If we are discussing tine-based "pitching tool" tech, I think that regular flaking, coast to coast flaking, and overshot, is all fairly easy to achieve. If you don't want modern experimental evidence introduced, you need to go back and look at the paper, because they are citing the results of modern experimental evidence.
Bradley's argument is that controlled overshot is a sign of super knappers, and it is recognized in Solutrean knapping, as well as Clovis. As a matter of causality, they link A to B. Eren's claim is that A could not possibly B linked to B, and there are holes in these theories about Solutrean overshot, and Clovis overshot.
My argument is that the discussion does not begin, until one ascertains how the overshot was created. My argument is that they are starting out with a flawed premise. And, if push comes to shove, I can introduce the very same type of data that they are relying upon - EXPERIMENTAL ARCHAEOLOGY. Aside from that, no one can PROVE the intentions of the original knappers, because we were not there.
In nine pages, not a single word is devoted to explaining HOW they believe that the ancient overshots were made. So, as far as I am concerned, they never made it to the starting line.
-
Thanks for the reply Ben. :)
Let me point out some things you are overlooking.
Eren's papers include this--- I para phrase--
The debitage from defined stratified Cloves camps
such as Gault contain less than 12 percent overshot
flakes total.
This is the biggest smoking gun imo,
I like Eren contribute that number to Mistake.
Certainly not intentional. Do you see how inconsequential
method is when you have the physical flakes to tell the
Clovis story??
Zuma
-
Suddenly, I saw the answer. It was like seeing through time, as if I had X-ray eyesight through time and space. I actually saw the break happening from inside the break, if it makes any sense. It was amazing.
That part I get. I call it the "click" point, like you are wandering around a dark room bumping into furniture and then "click", the light goes on and the room makes sense. I have been knapping almost 8 years, but so far I have never spent more than 2 with the same tool kit, so I guess I am a perpetual amateur.
But I have to poke you a bit and say that the only way to really test an idea is to put it out there and see what happens. Look at Marty Reuter. On the one hand, a great innovator, but also a knapper with extraordinary natural talent. How much of his innovations are the tools and methods and how much his raw talent? (No joke, I think you could give the guy half a brick and a tire iron and could knap fairly well with them.)
Any way, I am here to learn and want to try any "abo" method any one is willing to offer up. As I said before, I think there are all kinds of holes in our current thinking.
I've really enjoyed the discussion.
Keith
-
Ben and others, have any of you had the oppurtunity to examine and handle Clovis flakes that are overshot flakes? I have been told by more than one knapper that they can tell you what "tool" removed the flake. That being wood, copper, antler, etc.......
Bens' statement that he does not know what Clovis people were thinking is understood but the desire to know what "tool" and what "technique" they were using is what we are wanting to answer. Me personally can not tell you what tool or technique was used just by looking at a flake rather it be overshot or a short flake.
Are there pictures of those Clovis flake bulbs to examine for "tool and technique" examination. I feel it would be a positive move forward in learning, rather than trying to disprove men of the past. They were also trying to learn and shared what they believed at that time to be correct or hoped they were correct just as we are doing now.
Thanks for the info on the antler drifts. I must say to make them from the larger section of antler with only flint tools or by shattering the bone and using the best pieces must have been a job in itself. Modern saws and sanders certainly make it easier.
-
Thanks for the reply Ben. :)
Let me point out some things you are overlooking.
Eren's papers include this--- I para phrase--
The debitage from defined stratified Cloves camps
such as Gault contain less than 12 percent overshot
flakes total.
This is the biggest smoking gun imo,
I like Eren contribute that number to Mistake.
Certainly not intentional. Do you see how inconsequential
method is when you have the physical flakes to tell the
Clovis story??
Zuma
Hello Zuma,
You wrote:
"The debitage from defined stratified Cloves camps such as Gault contain less than 12 percent overshot flakes total. This is the biggest smoking gun imo,"
Do you see that as a smoking gun? I disagree. Did you realize that ancient knappers used diverse processes from start to finish? Did you realize that early stage Clovis hammerstone preforms exhibit one type of flaking, while finer surface flaking may represent another type of flaking, and edge work may represent pressure flaking?
In other words, ancient knappers worked in stages, as is exhibited in scores of lithic reduction sites. Also, the term "overshot flakes" is left unqualified. If the authors are referring to hard hammer percussion, I think that the majority of them may well be mistakes. If the author is talking about late stage reduction, I think that it could have been intentional, or the knappers could have been ranging around something like a coast to coast flake, but carried it a bit too far.
Still, in both modes of flaking, not every flake is going to be an "overshot", because surface morphology does not allow. In some cases, with some tools and practices, certain surface morphologies can allow for easy overshot removals, or coast to coast removals.
"I like Eren contribute that number to Mistake."
How can you equate a number to a mistake? Preforms constantly change shape during reduction. Wouldn't you have to know when, where, and how, the overshots were removed, before concluding that they are mistakes? I do think that Bradley is wrong, since his views are based on billet use. But, I cannot agree that the percentage of overshots indicates whether or not they were mistakes. At a certain point in reduction, they may have been optimal removals. Context is the key to understanding this subject - not numbers.
"Do you see how inconsequential method is when you have the physical flakes to tell the Clovis story??
You are equating a low overshot flake count, to inconsequentiality. In order for this view to hold water, one would need to show that a single process was used from start to finish. And, the 12% of the time that overshot was created, the scenario was no different than the other 88% of the time, that overshot was not produced.
The actual reality, which was commonly known prior to the emphasis on billet knapping, is that each stage is specific to thickness, morphology, and certain flaking practices that can actually be quite diverse from one to another.
I think that Bradley is wrong in building a theory based on the assumption that baton knapping applies. And, I think that the others are wrong, in their assessments of Clovis flakes, and their attempt at applying "experimental data", which is probably derived from Patten's experience with billet knapping.
-
Suddenly, I saw the answer. It was like seeing through time, as if I had X-ray eyesight through time and space. I actually saw the break happening from inside the break, if it makes any sense. It was amazing.
That part I get. I call it the "click" point, like you are wandering around a dark room bumping into furniture and then "click", the light goes on and the room makes sense. I have been knapping almost 8 years, but so far I have never spent more than 2 with the same tool kit, so I guess I am a perpetual amateur.
But I have to poke you a bit and say that the only way to really test an idea is to put it out there and see what happens. Look at Marty Reuter. On the one hand, a great innovator, but also a knapper with extraordinary natural talent. How much of his innovations are the tools and methods and how much his raw talent? (No joke, I think you could give the guy half a brick and a tire iron and could knap fairly well with them.)
Any way, I am here to learn and want to try any "abo" method any one is willing to offer up. As I said before, I think there are all kinds of holes in our current thinking.
I've really enjoyed the discussion.
Keith
If I can get someone to hold a camera for me, and the rain clears up, I will try to post a technique that no one has seen.
-
Ben and others, have any of you had the oppurtunity to examine and handle Clovis flakes that are overshot flakes? I have been told by more than one knapper that they can tell you what "tool" removed the flake. That being wood, copper, antler, etc.......
Bens' statement that he does not know what Clovis people were thinking is understood but the desire to know what "tool" and what "technique" they were using is what we are wanting to answer. Me personally can not tell you what tool or technique was used just by looking at a flake rather it be overshot or a short flake.
Are there pictures of those Clovis flake bulbs to examine for "tool and technique" examination. I feel it would be a positive move forward in learning, rather than trying to disprove men of the past. They were also trying to learn and shared what they believed at that time to be correct or hoped they were correct just as we are doing now.
Thanks for the info on the antler drifts. I must say to make them from the larger section of antler with only flint tools or by shattering the bone and using the best pieces must have been a job in itself. Modern saws and sanders certainly make it easier.
Hello NClonhunter,
I think that you are on the right track. We have to have some criteria to use, when looking at flakes, and flake scars. The more criteria we have, the more chance we have to understand what we are looking at. For example, if we only had criteria pertaining to hammerstones, then pressure flakes might be hard to understand.
Anyway, I have faith in your ability to guess. So, here is a photo. If you found three tools in a site, with this point, which tool would you guess was used to remove the channel flake? A two pound softball sized hammerstone? A large moose club? Or a deer tine with a blunt, battered tip?
Also, of the three tools that are found, one tool has a width, in the presumed contact area, that matches the width of the flake initiation. And, that tool is the deer tine. So, if you had to analyze this projectile point, then which tool would you think was used to detach the channel flake, in raw stone? Softball sized hammerstone? Moose antler club? Or, blunted, battered deer tine?
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Holy%20Grail%20Outre%20Passe/test%207/003.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Holy%20Grail%20Outre%20Passe/test%207/003.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Holy%20Grail%20Outre%20Passe/test%207/002.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Holy%20Grail%20Outre%20Passe/test%207/002.jpg.html)
-
Ben and others, have any of you had the oppurtunity to examine and handle Clovis flakes that are overshot flakes? I have been told by more than one knapper that they can tell you what "tool" removed the flake. That being wood, copper, antler, etc.......
Bens' statement that he does not know what Clovis people were thinking is understood but the desire to know what "tool" and what "technique" they were using is what we are wanting to answer. .
Are there pictures of those Clovis flake bulbs to examine for "tool and technique" examination. I feel it would be a positive move forward in learning, rather than trying to disprove men of the past. They were also trying to learn and shared what they believed at that time to be correct or hoped they were correct just as we are doing now.
Hey NC .
Sure archies and others have been saving flakes for years and studing them.
They can tell a lot about the flake initiation. Hard hammer and soft hammer etc
They for sure can tell the difference between overshot flakes because they turn the edge of the work opposite the platform (bulb), Very distinct compared to edge to edge or just short flakes.
This is how we know that aboriginal overshot was not intentional. If it were
the numbers of these flakes would many times larger.
They only occur in percentages that would comfortably fit into the mistake category. Any one that reduces large material looking for thin bifaces knows this.
And you can count these flakes and it don't make a hoot one way or the other
how they were created by who, with what, or why.
That is what Archaeology once was but no longer is IMO. Eren et al and a few others may be the exception.
I have the report done by Dr Whyte from the JMU dig he did in my front yard.
I will see if I can find it and post the lithic descriptions for you.
I am sure you could search the net and find other reports that contain like info.
Overshot never was important until modern knappers after a bunch of HYPE
found that they could make overshots on a fairly predictable frequency.
But in my honest opinion--- Who cares about that, reproducing abo mistakes.
Zuma
-
Round and round we go......
-
LOL....Steve, I agree. There is a clear difference of opinions on the overshot flake.
I will say I can not yet do it when I want to, but I have done it many times. I do not consider it a mistake when it happens but feel like I did something right to get a flake that travels across the face and thins the point. I wish I could do it when I wanted to but I do not knap for a living and did not grow up around knapping. People that "lived by stone tools" had to have a knowledge or skill set that far surpasses most of us.
I'm going to make some popcorn now...... 8)
-
[
If I can get someone to hold a camera for me, and the rain clears up, I will try to post a technique that no one has seen.
[/quote]
I would deeply appreciate that and look forward to whatever information you can provide.
Thanks,
Keith
-
Well the only evidence posted so far is that overshot IS a mistake. 8)
No one posted even one Clovis point from a stratified site that
showed overshot flaking. :embarrassed:
No one posted flake counts from any stratified Clovis sites that
contained a large enough number of overshot flakes to even give
a hint that they were produced intentionally. :-[
So there you have it. >:D
Zuma
-
Man, this thread has exploded. I see we're back on the overshot topic again ;)
Let me reiterate (some of) what I've said in the past; there are different types of overshots. The one's I would call a 'mistake' would be the plunging/taking a big bite off the opposite edge (key word being big). The coast to coast flakes are desirable as they feather out just to the opposite edge. (I think I have the terminology correct from the huge PP thread on this topic. I've been meaning to revisit that thread). Then there are blending flakes from the opposite edge toward the center, and if blended well look like overshots.
I think even Zuma would agree that a lot of Clovis bifaces, etc. exhibit long/bold percussion (whether indirect or not) scars. Some other/more recent cultures did too but not in the same way. Yes, I did work in a lithics lab during college and no, that does not make me an expert.
"That being said, if we are discussing hammerstone tech, I believe that most all overshots are accidental. If we are discussing billet tech, I think that overshots is difficult to achieve - AS NOTED BY BRADLEY. If we are discussing tine-based "pitching tool" tech, I think that regular flaking, coast to coast flaking, and overshot, is all fairly easy to achieve."
I have to agree w/ most of this. I've been studying bison horn/indirect for a few months and have been getting fairly consistent coast to coast flakes. I'm finding, as Marty told me, the correct inward and support, not to mention platform prep, will achieve longer flakes.
-
Man, this thread has exploded. I see we're back on the overshot topic again ;)
Let me reiterate (some of) what I've said in the past; there are different types of overshots. The one's I would call a 'mistake' would be the plunging/taking a big bite off the opposite edge (key word being big). The coast to coast flakes are desirable as they feather out just to the opposite edge. (I think I have the terminology correct from the huge PP thread on this topic. I've been meaning to revisit that thread). Then there are blending flakes from the opposite edge toward the center, and if blended well look like overshots.
I think even Zuma would agree that a lot of Clovis bifaces, etc. exhibit long/bold percussion (whether indirect or not) scars. Some other/more recent cultures did too but not in the same way. Yes, I did work in a lithics lab during college and no, that does not make me an expert.
"That being said, if we are discussing hammerstone tech, I believe that most all overshots are accidental. If we are discussing billet tech, I think that overshots is difficult to achieve - AS NOTED BY BRADLEY. If we are discussing tine-based "pitching tool" tech, I think that regular flaking, coast to coast flaking, and overshot, is all fairly easy to achieve."
I have to agree w/ most of this. I've been studying bison horn/indirect for a few months and have been getting fairly consistent coast to coast flakes. I'm finding, as Marty told me, the correct inward and support, not to mention platform prep, will achieve longer flakes.
Turbo,
Between regular flaking, coast to coast flaking, and overshot flaking, I realized that there are actually two types of flaking, that result in opposite edge removals.
One kind of flaking happens when the break exits the opposite edge, and removes the upper portion of the stone. This flake probably qualifies as overshot, at least to most people. I happen to think of it as a really low coast to coast flake, that looks like an overshot.
On the other hand, there is another kind of overshot flake that involves a ninety degree turn in the break, prior to reaching the opposite edge. This type of break lops off the far edge.
In my case, in January of 2015, I had an epiphany as to what caused the break to turn ninety degrees, prior to reaching the opposite edge. In my opinion, this is what a true overshot is.
I asked one of the posters why he thought that some breaks run flat, while others curve over the face of the stone. I am not sure that he noticed my question. But, I could take it one step farther. Why would a break run straight, but then curve at the last minute, while creating an overshot with a right angle turn? The second question is harder to answer than the first. Sometime, when my work is unbanned, and other people are allowed to see it, and discuss it, I might share more.
Anyway, here is an example of a straight run, followed by a hard right turn, prior to reaching the other side:
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Holy%20Grail%20Outre%20Passe/test%205%20crudstone/6.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Holy%20Grail%20Outre%20Passe/test%205%20crudstone/6.jpg.html)
Here is the entire flake, by itself:
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Holy%20Grail%20Outre%20Passe/test%205%20crudstone/4.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Holy%20Grail%20Outre%20Passe/test%205%20crudstone/4.jpg.html)
Now, if a person follows a really old description of the effects of pressure, and the pressure flaking process - in terms of force - what can be seen is that my work does not actually conform to the description, though my work is not actually entirely the result of pressure. So, why did the break turn at the end of its trajectory? Why did it turn, and cut off the opposite edge? Why didn't it run straight like a coast to coast flake? Does my deer tine contain some special magic? No. So, what is the answer?
By the way, I believe that Marty mentioned years ago that the initiations from his notched punch flakers are not quite like the initiations seen on ancient material. I believe he saw some difference. Well, my tine punch initiations probably do not look quite like his notched basal punch initiations. There are really two different types of flakers. And, that just leaves one question...
-
Support against the back edge of the biface
-
Support against the back edge of the biface
Opposite edge support, plus manual torque, works great in hammerstone direct percussion, to achieve overshot.
Not so with opposite edge support, in more sophisticated forms of flaking. If one cannot torque the stone against the blow, during an indirect percussion blow, then achieving the ninety degree turn in the break must be made in some other manner than manual torque. Otherwise, mere back edge support would only lead to a straight break, which is more consistent with coast to coast flaking, and not true overshot flaking.
The fact that a person can demonstrate drastic overshot flaking, and everything less, with a simple deer tine, is pretty telling. But, it does not mean that every variable is necessarily exactly the same, in the lesser flaking, even if the process is essentially the same.
-
Ben,
Since you claim to have such miraculous control.
When will you post a video that shows you making
10 overshot flakes in a row.
I'll buy the popcorn for everyone.
BTW How many is it you claim you can do in a row off camera?
Zuma :o
-
Im rebuilding my abo kit since I got rid of everything a few years ago. No copper just stone and bone.
-
I would like to see pictures of the antler tine used for the overshot flaking.......
-
I would like to see pictures of the antler tine used for the overshot flaking.......
When making small points the ishi stick with antler bit creates overshot almost everytime. This is power that has to be controled. I control by lightly knapping a bevel on other side.
-
Zuma if AncientTech posts any video showing even 1 overshot flake or attempt at it using the technique he is so passionate about I would be impressed.
-
This morning's technique is how to unsquare an edge. The photos should explain.
-
Preform
-
Forgot to say don't grind edge or it will overshoot the side as you remover the square.
-
The fact that a person can demonstrate drastic overshot flaking, and everything less, with a simple deer tine, is pretty telling. But, it does not mean that every variable is necessarily exactly the same, in the lesser flaking, even if the process is essentially the same.
I have never seen anyone demonstrate the ability to do that.
-
I control by lightly knapping a bevel on other side.
Bingo!! it has as much to do with the bevel on the edge as anything.
-
Ben,
Since you claim to have such miraculous control.
When will you post a video that shows you making
10 overshot flakes in a row.
I'll buy the popcorn for everyone.
BTW How many is it you claim you can do in a row off camera?
Zuma :o
Actually, around the time that I reach a point where overshot is possible, I am usually just past the point where coast to coast is possible.
For example, here are multiple coast to coast removals, followed by an overshot removal:
Three coast to coast removals:
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Holy%20Grail%20Outre%20Passe/test%209/001.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Holy%20Grail%20Outre%20Passe/test%209/001.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Holy%20Grail%20Outre%20Passe/test%209/002.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Holy%20Grail%20Outre%20Passe/test%209/002.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Holy%20Grail%20Outre%20Passe/test%209/003.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Holy%20Grail%20Outre%20Passe/test%209/003.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Holy%20Grail%20Outre%20Passe/test%209/005.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Holy%20Grail%20Outre%20Passe/test%209/005.jpg.html)
Followed by overshot removal:
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Holy%20Grail%20Outre%20Passe/test%209/006.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Holy%20Grail%20Outre%20Passe/test%209/006.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Holy%20Grail%20Outre%20Passe/test%209/007.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Holy%20Grail%20Outre%20Passe/test%209/007.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Holy%20Grail%20Outre%20Passe/test%209/009.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Holy%20Grail%20Outre%20Passe/test%209/009.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Holy%20Grail%20Outre%20Passe/test%209/011.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Holy%20Grail%20Outre%20Passe/test%209/011.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Holy%20Grail%20Outre%20Passe/test%209/017.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Holy%20Grail%20Outre%20Passe/test%209/017.jpg.html)
Showing distinct signatures of tine-made initiations:
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Holy%20Grail%20Outre%20Passe/test%209/018.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Holy%20Grail%20Outre%20Passe/test%209/018.jpg.html)
By the way, Zuma, this is Colha chert that knappers recommend cooking for 12-15 hours. When Don Crabtree visited Belize, he was awestruck by its hardness. It is super dense. And, I am working it raw.
Anyway, I never said that I can make an overshot flake, any place, any time, and anywhere. I use two overshot technologies. And, both of them are stage specific. Early stage hard hammer overshots tend to be failures, while late stage overshot made with tine, tends to run in the same vain as coast to coast flaking, with some slight differences in flaking modifications. The prep work for an overshot might be slightly different than the prep work for a coast to coast flake. Since I know about these differences in prep work, I can spot them.
I think that we should write Congress, and ask them to create a "Respect Native American Flintknapping Day", as a way to show respect for a +13,000 year old tradition.
-
The flake widening (this is when it is not prepared) across a flat surface is equal to a large mass. The increase in total mass to energy becomes directed down or up relative to energy. The fact that it is near the edge really only clouds the issue. (The following assumes you know how to hold the chert and swing the antler or stone) The mass that the propagated wave and energy encounter are the variables. Therefore changing the energy or the mass produces a given result. This is simple to understand. What you do with this information is the smart guy stuff.
-
that overshot would not have happened if you would have removed the mass on the other side. That delta on the right lower, second flute needed to be address before the platform was hit. there was too much mass for the flake and it dived
-
notice you have extra mass on the terminal end?
-
This is way it takes years for people to learn knapping. We focus on the problem and not on the solution.
-
The flake widening (this is when it is not prepared) across a flat surface is equal to a large mass. The increase in total mass to energy becomes directed down or up relative to energy. The fact that it is near the edge really only clouds the issue. (The following assumes you know how to hold the chert and swing the antler or stone) The mass that the propagated wave and energy encounter are the variables. Therefore changing the energy or the mass produces a given result. This is simple to understand. What you do with this information is the smart guy stuff.
There are five physical components involved in the flaking process. It is the interplay of the components that produces a shift in variables, while the break is forming. By the time the turn is achieved, some of the variables are no longer the same as when the break was initiated.
Also, the zone in which the turn occurs is subject to a different set of variables than where the break is initiated from. The interplay of said components leads to the creation of a final variable, as the flake break reaches the zone where the turn will occur.
The idea that mass causes a change in energy which leads to a change in direction, is true in some other instances. But, that is not how I create a controlled overshot with this technology, especially the outrepasse flakes with a large mass on the opposite edge.
Also, due to the nature of the process, it works far better with evenly grained stone, even if the stone is raw. It does not always work in the case of stone containing granular concretions, because the granular concretions cause the energy to "scatter", whereas an evenly grained stone is more prone to an even delivery of energy.
In the case of granular concretions, the energy will scatter, and the break will frequently stop, producing a massive hinge. So, with this technology, hardness is not so much of an issue as the evenness of the grain.
-
Hey guys, I have bit my tongue as long as I can. I was really enjoying this post up to the point it got hi-jacked. Iowabow, I compliment you on a post that goes beyond the copper-ABO debate. It WAS and is a very good demonstration of ABO techniques. That is the good. The bad is that the overshoot, impasse or what ever the heck it is called is really muddying the water. I personally would appreciate it if the main two who just cannot leave that bone alone take your back and forth debate to another thread. Call it the Great Impass Debate and have at it. I'm asking pretty please, with a smile and leave this post alone. Thanks.
-
I second that motion. Please move on let the overshot debate rest.
-
Hey guys, I have bit my tongue as long as I can. I was really enjoying this post up to the point it got hi-jacked. Iowabow, I compliment you on a post that goes beyond the copper-ABO debate. It WAS and is a very good demonstration of ABO techniques. That is the good. The bad is that the overshoot, impasse or what ever the heck it is called is really muddying the water. I personally would appreciate it if the main two who just cannot leave that bone alone take your back and forth debate to another thread. Call it the Great Impass Debate and have at it. I'm asking pretty please, with a smile and leave this post alone. Thanks.
Thank you for the complement. I started this thread because someone ask me to explain some antler bone and stone techniques. The thread was an attempt to demonstrate some basic concepts so new kanpper could have a resource for information on best practices. I guess some of the resulting debate clouds the attempt. I will set up a new post to consolidate some of my basic concepts.
-
It's your post. If you move, it would be the wrong one moving.
-
It's your post. If you move, it would be the wrong one moving.
I agree but maybe......they could stay here for a while
-
I agree with Steve. I was enjoying it too until "ground hog day" started again. But, those post are easy to move if it gets real muddy.
-
Sorry guys, I got pulled into the rabbit hole again myself. Iowabow, I agree you should stay here. There has been some great info posted on this thread already. I would like to see some more knapping tools that are being used. I must admit this thread got me to knapping for a few hours this morning and knocked out some arrowhead sized performs. All ABO of course.. :laugh:
-
I'll get down in a muddy creek fighting skeeters and thorns to bust up cobbles of mostly junk to find a few good pieces of rock, so sifting through a bunch of long posts doesn't bother me any.
I want to learn. Whatever crazy methods any of you are using, if you do it for long enough to see it works and feel it is an improvement, I want to try it. If you find that standing on your head makes your pressure flakes go further or doing the hokey-pokey increases fluting success, I will try it. (I would pay money to see a video of Zuma doing the hokey-pokey while knapping.) ;D
Ultimately, the scientific method demands that the idea be tested by others and be shown to produce the same results. No one is impressed when a PGA golfer shows up at the country club and beats everyone. People are very impressed when twenty other guys use his techniques and improve their games.
Keith
-
This is the point you posted. Look at the divot (dip) lower left towards the tip.
Unusual for abo knapping? Not the multiple hinged flutes.
point looks unfinished compared to the others.
http://lithiccastinglab.com/cast-page/lambclovispoint76and83hand1.jpg (http://lithiccastinglab.com/cast-page/lambclovispoint76and83hand1.jpg)
Also, almost every example of bone antler you have posted contains what I would
consider at least one antler part worthy of being used as a billet. Agree/not?
My point about the points being bigger than the preforms is---
They may be the bottom of the basket and thought unfit for the needed points.
Nothing to do with the method to make them.
Also here is another supposed Clovis cash from the surface and disturbed plow zone. The chert was mostly imported Hornstone. Not so suprising as I do believe
the migration was from west to east. Must have been a pioneering outpost with big butt mega fauna.
I think every point was supposedly broken by farm equipment and restored.
Also like most reported Clovis cashes the Lamb points are 2" longer than average.
Strange imo.
Zuma
PS I hope Iowa can handle us hijacking his thread.
perhaps we should continue on another?
perhaps all you all should read the info here in red
-
This is great and no I really don't feel hijacked at all. I think this post has a great mix of history demonstration and respectful debate going on and I am enjoying the dialogue. Please continue everyone.
Oh yeah there is this. It is supprising to me that anyone would take issue with the original posters wishes.
I guess it takes all kinds.
Thanks for your understanding Iowa.
Zuma
-
Well, I guess we are about to wade through 2 pages of pictures of broken flakes. Have fun, guys.
-
(I would pay money to see a video of Zuma doing the hokey-pokey while knapping.)
Keith
I'm not that easy Keith. You would have to insert GOOD between pay and money.
I'd like to see your thorn collection and a few skeeter bites. >:D
Zuma
-
CRITICAL THINKING MOMENT:
What is the definition of "aboriginal"?
"being the first or earliest known of its kind present in a region"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/aboriginal (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/aboriginal)
In standard English, the term "aboriginal" refers to something that is intrinsically native to a culture, environment, etc.
From an anthropological standpoint, the term "aboriginal" could be used to described certain things, such as point types, flaker types, flaking practices, etc.
For example, we could say that the "Clovis" point type is an "aboriginal" point type, because the First Americans made Clovis points.
Similarly, we could say that composite bit pressure flakers, are aboriginal flaking tools, because Native Americans used composite bit pressure flakers. Many have been found in dry rockshelters, and such, and some even date to the prehistoric era.
Also, the act of pressure flaking with a pressure flaker could be called an "aboriginal" practice, because both prehistoric, and historic, Native Americans used pressure flakers.
Now, there is some gray area in this, because it is quite possible that a person might have knowledge of an aboriginal flaker, as a culturally predictable trait, yet not know how the flaker was used, by aboriginal people. In this case, the flaker could be considered an "aboriginal" tool, yet the "aboriginal" mode of use may just be a matter of speculation. This is not a "bad" thing. It is simply a matter of honesty - intellectual honesty.
On the other hand, let's say that a hundred years ago, a European academic came up with a theory that ancient people used animal skin trampolines (like the Eskimo). And, they also came up with wooden clubs. So, according to the theory (emphasis on "theory"), the ancient people were tossed in the air, on the animal skin trampoline, and did back flips, while striking a weighted biface that was simultaneously tossed up into the air. Would this constitute an "aboriginal" flaking practice?
Well, if we used the term really loosely, one might argue that animal skins are aboriginal, because they are not nylon. And, wooden billets are aboriginal, because they are not fiberglass. In fact, if we used the word "aboriginal" as some use it today, then it could be argued that the flip-on-the-trampoline-wooden-club-flintknapping-practice is "aboriginal", in spite of the fact that there is zero evidence that anyone saw such a practice carried out, or that such a practice was ever carried out. At most, one might have a "theory", or even on par with a fantasy.
So, if person wants to understand "aboriginal flintknapping", in American contexts, then one has to have some sort of evidence of "aboriginal flintknapping". A very weak type of evidence would be looking at flakes, and flake scars, and trying to infer a practice. The problem with this approach is that a person cannot discount flintknapping practices that are unknown.
A stronger type of evidence would involve looking at the life cycles of presumed aboriginal flaking tools, and looking at the contexts in which those tools are found, such as in burials of flintknappers, etc. In this case, while the tools are known, the actual flaking processes, may not be known. But, it does open the possibility of recreating the same types of flakes, with the same types of tools, as I have done with outrepasse.
A third approach is to find records of how tools were used, and re-create flaking with known tools, and tool processes. Such evidence might be found in ancient murals, artwork, or even writing systems.
Also, since the aboriginal people of the Americas were using stone tools far beyond 1492, the possibility exists of linking aboriginal flintknapping tools known from the historic era, to aboriginal flintknapping tools known from the prehistoric era, while also linking aboriginal tool practices from the historic era, to aboriginal tool practices possibly employed in the prehistoric era.
If a person follows these routes, then some instances of "aboriginal" tools and tool use are fairly clear cut, while other instances are probably a matter of probability, with the idea being strengthened, or weakened, via experimentation.
But, what the idea of "aboriginal" does not allow for is the manufacturing of ideas out of thin air. Simply because a practice involves wood/bone, as opposed to copper/fiberglass, does not make the practice intrinsically "aboriginal". Even trying to call a practice aboriginal, based on flakes and flake scars, is an extremely weak position to take, because one cannot rule out other practices that are not known, while making assessments based on flakes, and flake scars. This is especially true when there are no known instances of the experimenter's flaker, found in archaeological contexts.
In order for a practice to be called "aboriginal", one must be able to demonstrate some sort of link to Native American flintknapping practices. And, such evidence is found in archaeological, historical, ethnographic, linguistic, and mythological, data. And, this is actually why serious archaeologists used to talk to flintknappers, like Don Crabtree. People like Crabtree had the intellectual fortitude needed to tackle the problem of reconciling evidence, with experimental results, head on.
END OF CRITICAL THINKING MOMENT:
-
1933 - CALIFORNIA GEMOLOGIST - FRED S. YOUNG
Indian Relics - Oregon Obsidian Arrowpoints
"While large quantities of obsidian, or volcanic glass, are found in many parts of Oregon, the best in quality suitable for- arrow and spear points is found at several localities in Lake county, Oregon. Lake county situated in the south central part of the states is region larger than many eastern states, but very sparsely populated.
For many years prior to the coming of the white man, the Indians obtained their finest arrow and spear point material from this region. The rough stone was also used for trade and barter with other tribes. Much of Lake county is arid, sage covered hills and treeless, which rendered it unsuited as a permanent camp for the early Indians, but it was an excellent hunting ground for game. Many of the fine points found today in this locality are a type of point used in hunting and not in battle. In many of the eastern parts of the United States flint was widely used by the early Indians, for weapons and tools, but obsidian and agate was the material most generally used in the western states.
The fashioning of arrow and spear points and other blades was an art with the early Indian, confined to a few expert members of the tribe. Squaws were never permitted to do this work. It is sometimes thought that heat and water were used in the chipping of the obsidian and agate but this method was not used. The tools used by the early Indian for working obsidian and agate into points, were, bone, hardwood tools. Beavery and porcupine teeth were often used as tools for the purpose of working the very small bird points. A piece of bone about five inches in length and thicker than a pencil was the common tool for working obsidian. The work was held between the knees, padded with buckskin, the smaller points were worked by holding with the hands, padded with buckskin.
The fashioning of arrow and spear points is an art requiring considerable skill, practice and patience, especially in the manufacture of the larger points and blades.
A few white men have by long practice become expert at this work and can equal the best work of the early Indian. The tools used by the white man are bone, a knife blade, a horseshoe nail, small chisels, a piece of stone, wood and a number of others. In the making of the large blades some white men have found it advantageous to use a clamp or vise to hold the work. The fashioning of a blade from obsidian of even twenty to thirty inches in length was a very difficult task for a number of reasons. Naturally a large blade can be fractured much more readily than a smaller size, especially in the final finishing stages of the work. It was a matter of considerable pride and honor to the Indian exhibiting the largest and best made blade, and he was signally honored with the rare privilege of dancing last, at the ceremonial.
In the the manufacture of these large blades, special tools were used, the blank was roughed out by the judicious use of a stone or metal chisel, the final finishing chipping was done with a bone, knot of wood or sharpened elk horn. Obsidian in long or thin sections will fracture nearly as readily as glass, or the presence of even minute flaws will prove ruinous. Few modern makers of blades can produce them in good quality longer than twenty inches. The Indian would often spend many days in the manufacture of the finer large blades; at least three full days work is necessary to produce a blade up to fifteen or twenty inches. The skill of a point maker was generally judged by his ability at at producing fine long blades. The largest blade of obsidian of which the writer has any authentic record, was made by an aged Indian with some fifty years experience. This blade was made from a block of Lake county, Oregon obsidian, which would weigh approximately 900 pounds in the rough. The finished blade measured 42 inches in length, 9 inches wide and nearly 2 inches thick, and was of very excellent workmanship. It was sold to a collector for a rather substantial sum. Skinning knives were also made of Oregon obsidian by by the early Indians, these were usually around eight inches in length and were double edged. They were made as thin as possible, consistent with strength.
The skill of an Indian with bow and arrow, was often judged by the number of arrows kept in the air simultaneously. Special points and shafts were used in these contests, starting with a heavy point and shaft and ending with a very small point. Incredible as it may seem, some braves had skill enough to keep as many as seven arrows in flight at one time. These sets of graduated points and shafts were highly prized and used only at ceremonials. The arrow points used in hunting and and in warfare were different in character and in shape. Special barbs and curved points were often used in the war points.
In the making of a point or blade, the Indian would immediately discard any point which was fractured in the making. The modern makers will often skillfully cement them together. At many localities in Lake county where the work of the early Indian was done, these broken fragments are quite common. Lake county has some very fine and unusual red colored red colored obsidian which was especially prized by the Indian, and was widely used as barter material with distant tribes. Evidently the fine red color had some significance to the Indian. While some of the work done by the skilled white man is equal to that of the Indian, the more recent work can be readily identified by its bright unweathered surface. Practically all the old points found in the field are dull and plainly show surface indications of long exposure to the elements. Some unscrupulous dealers have attempted to imitate weathering by placing their recently made material in corrosive solutions or by keeping them in the ground for a time and then disposing of same as early Indian work. As a rule these can be very easily detected with a little experience. Naturally authentic early Indian points command a better market and price than the imitations.
The largest and finest collection of Lake county obsidian points, consists of some 10,000 pieces, including some quite large blades. About half of this collection was picked up in the field over a period of years. In this collection are some very fine and rare points. The collection is in the possession of P. F. Forbes, mayor and postmaster at Stauffer, Oregon, located in the northern part of Lake county. Due to the fact that in the early days, Lake county had abundant game of all kinds it was a favorite hunting ground for the Indian and as a result a great many points were used and lost in this region. A great many of the old camps used by the Indians have been located in this region but very little good material can be found at these places, other than tools used and other utensils. The best points have been found more or less at random. The shores of some of the old shallow lakes have yielded excellent points. The entire region of Lake county can be looked upon as a Mecca for not only the collector of points and blades but of other Indian relics as well."
-
Ishi demonstrating hammerstone spalling of obsidian nodule:
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/ISHI/Ishi%20breaking%20obsidian.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/ISHI/Ishi%20breaking%20obsidian.jpg.html)
-
Ishi - published 1919:
"But if a large spearpoint or knife-blade is ultimately desired, an INTERMEDIATE TOOL is needed. This is apparently (Ishi never made one for me to see) a short, stout, blunt-pointed piece of bone or wood serving as a sort of PUNCH and sometimes as a LEVER. As a matter of fact, what is wanted in the case of producing a large implement is not the division of the obsidian mass but the TRIMMING DOWN of this mass by the detachment from it of all unnecessary portions."
(Handbook of aboriginal American antiquities, W.H. Holmes)
Critical thining moment:
If the process was used in the "trimming down" of the mass, then could this mean that the process was not geared towards primary thinning? If so, then does that one would have to have a knowledge of the primary thinning stage, in order to recognize when the second state was introduced? Is it possible that the primary thinning stage would have achieved desired thickness, thus by removing the need to carry out further thinning, with the second stage? If so, then is it possible that such points would show signs of original hardhammer thinning, followed by secondary trimming, and then followed by pressure flaking? Is it possible that the tool Ishi referenced is comparable to the short stubby antler tools known to have been used by at least one Karok knapper, from a nearby tribe? Is it possible that there is also some precedent, in the prehistoric cave finds of the same region? Is it possible that Ishi actually knew of aboriginal practices, that were culturally embedded????
-
Ben,
I do believe Ishi is a Representative example of what you consistently see in post-contact observations of Native American knapping: These guys knew the finishing techniques but had lost the quarrying techniques. They could take a late stage form and finish it, but the methods used get to that late stage had been lost. Kroeber notes that Ishi used both a hammer stone and a punch to produce his arrowhead blanks, but notes:
"Both techniques sent slivers of glass flying in all directions. It was a dangerous step, and Ishi was relieved when this part was done. This first blow struck, the rest of the flint or glassworking could be done before an audience, there being no further danger from flying pieces except for to he worker himself."
Certainly that strikes all modern knappers as odd. We know that a knapper of one year's experience, being handed a chunk of obsidian would use a direct percussion soft hammer of his choice to fairly neatly and effectively knock off arrowhead sized blanks, with little danger to anyone around him. There most certainly would not shards of glass flying in all directions. In all likelihood, Ishi and the small population of Yali men that preceded him could consistently fulfill all their arrowhead blank needs simply by picking up waste pieces at the old quarry sites or by raiding the dumps sites for glass bottles. One could legitimately argue that Ishi (et. al.) may very well have learned the indirect percussion idea from watching a white stone mason using a hammer and chisel.
Even going way back, to the first permanent English settlement in North America, the only flint knapping observed by the Jamestown settlers was of pressure flaking a "sliver of stone" using a deer tine. Trade preceded colonization by about 100 years, so by the time any Europeans were living in association with Native Americans, they had been using metal knives and hatchets for several generations. Arrow heads were still being made since they are frequently lost and broken. Add to that the massive depopulation and upheavals of epidemics and wars, and a huge amount of knowledge was lost.
Even prior to 1492 it is likely that most men only knew the finishing and resharpening parts of the process. In Stone Implements of the Potomac-Chesapeake Tidewater Province William Henry Holmes shows a model where work at the quartzite cobble beds served the sole purpose of producing "quarry blanks", which we now more commonly refer to as late stage preforms. These are preforms where all of the primary thinning is done, such that they only need to be finished into whatever tool form is desired. This pattern is seen over and over throughout the world, because it makes good economic sense. It is like going into the forest to cut trees and then milling it into lumber to take back to town to be used for whatever needs to be built.
A while back, using the quarry blank specs given by Holmes I set out to produce 10 quarry blanks from quartzite cobbles. I did it in just under 5 hours. If I took those preforms home, how long would they last before I had to go back to the quarry? A million variables, but let's say a few months. During that time I don't need my "quarry knapping" tools, I only need finishing tools. Now in this case I was using wood at the "quarry", but let's say I was using antler direct percussion tools instead. I don't need them for a few months, so that antler now also becomes a sort of blank, and will be used for finishing tools, or whatever else is needed. Over time it gets smaller and smaller and ends up looking like a peg punch, and probably used as one for resharpening that quartzite, because it can't be done more than a few times by pressure alone.
The experiment above was done with 2.5 years of experience working that material and with direct percussion tools I had started using one year before. Imagine how good the guys that grew up doing it were. So maybe in ten years, with more practice, two days at the quarry allows me to make 50 blanks. Maybe that means 4 other guys didn't need to come along, I can supply their needs for the next few months, they just need to finish and resharpen. This kind of example models the most basic of economies seen in all groups of humans everywhere. Add in trade and ramp up the specialization even a little bit (again, basic human behaviors seen everywhere) and you may very well have had villages where all of the knapping done was finishing work/resharpening.
Is it possible you are trying to use finishing tools to do the quarry work of making the blanks? Is it like finding several carpenter's work shops that each contain a handsaw, hammer and chisel, which are used to built stuff out of wooden boards and then concluding that if you have a log you need make the boards either with the hand saw, or by using the chisel and hammer to split the wood? Those are rhetorical questions, because:
If what you have discovered is true, and is in fact better, then everything I have just said is moot, because your method covers BOTH your line of thought and my line thought. That is, it satisfies both of our main criteria. So let's test it to see if that is, in fact, the case.
-
KC I agree. Lots of final pass flakes on the jobsite where I just finished the chimney.
(http://www.fototime.com/230AEE9894F53F6/standard.jpg)
Artifacts too!
PD
-
Keith, that's the best explanation I have heard yet for Bens point of view. I would guess it is very accurate also.
-
Ben,
I do believe Ishi is a Representative example of what you consistently see in post-contact observations of Native American knapping: These guys knew the finishing techniques but had lost the quarrying techniques. They could take a late stage form and finish it, but the methods used get to that late stage had been lost. Kroeber notes that Ishi used both a hammer stone and a punch to produce his arrowhead blanks, but notes:
"Both techniques sent slivers of glass flying in all directions. It was a dangerous step, and Ishi was relieved when this part was done. This first blow struck, the rest of the flint or glassworking could be done before an audience, there being no further danger from flying pieces except for to he worker himself."
Certainly that strikes all modern knappers as odd. We know that a knapper of one year's experience, being handed a chunk of obsidian would use a direct percussion soft hammer of his choice to fairly neatly and effectively knock off arrowhead sized blanks, with little danger to anyone around him. There most certainly would not shards of glass flying in all directions. In all likelihood, Ishi and the small population of Yali men that preceded him could consistently fulfill all their arrowhead blank needs simply by picking up waste pieces at the old quarry sites or by raiding the dumps sites for glass bottles. One could legitimately argue that Ishi (et. al.) may very well have learned the indirect percussion idea from watching a white stone mason using a hammer and chisel.
Even going way back, to the first permanent English settlement in North America, the only flint knapping observed by the Jamestown settlers was of pressure flaking a "sliver of stone" using a deer tine. Trade preceded colonization by about 100 years, so by the time any Europeans were living in association with Native Americans, they had been using metal knives and hatchets for several generations. Arrow heads were still being made since they are frequently lost and broken. Add to that the massive depopulation and upheavals of epidemics and wars, and a huge amount of knowledge was lost.
Even prior to 1492 it is likely that most men only knew the finishing and resharpening parts of the process. In Stone Implements of the Potomac-Chesapeake Tidewater Province William Henry Holmes shows a model where work at the quartzite cobble beds served the sole purpose of producing "quarry blanks", which we now more commonly refer to as late stage preforms. These are preforms where all of the primary thinning is done, such that they only need to be finished into whatever tool form is desired. This pattern is seen over and over throughout the world, because it makes good economic sense. It is like going into the forest to cut trees and then milling it into lumber to take back to town to be used for whatever needs to be built.
A while back, using the quarry blank specs given by Holmes I set out to produce 10 quarry blanks from quartzite cobbles. I did it in just under 5 hours. If I took those preforms home, how long would they last before I had to go back to the quarry? A million variables, but let's say a few months. During that time I don't need my "quarry knapping" tools, I only need finishing tools. Now in this case I was using wood at the "quarry", but let's say I was using antler direct percussion tools instead. I don't need them for a few months, so that antler now also becomes a sort of blank, and will be used for finishing tools, or whatever else is needed. Over time it gets smaller and smaller and ends up looking like a peg punch, and probably used as one for resharpening that quartzite, because it can't be done more than a few times by pressure alone.
The experiment above was done with 2.5 years of experience working that material and with direct percussion tools I had started using one year before. Imagine how good the guys that grew up doing it were. So maybe in ten years, with more practice, two days at the quarry allows me to make 50 blanks. Maybe that means 4 other guys didn't need to come along, I can supply their needs for the next few months, they just need to finish and resharpen. This kind of example models the most basic of economies seen in all groups of humans everywhere. Add in trade and ramp up the specialization even a little bit (again, basic human behaviors seen everywhere) and you may very well have had villages where all of the knapping done was finishing work/resharpening.
Is it possible you are trying to use finishing tools to do the quarry work of making the blanks? Is it like finding several carpenter's work shops that each contain a handsaw, hammer and chisel, which are used to built stuff out of wooden boards and then concluding that if you have a log you need make the boards either with the hand saw, or by using the chisel and hammer to split the wood? Those are rhetorical questions, because:
If what you have discovered is true, and is in fact better, then everything I have just said is moot, because your method covers BOTH your line of thought and my line thought. That is, it satisfies both of our main criteria. So let's test it to see if that is, in fact, the case.
Hello Keith,
"I do believe Ishi is a Representative example of what you consistently see in post-contact observations of Native American knapping: These guys knew the finishing techniques but had lost the quarrying techniques."
Actually, some of the tribes specialized in the extensive working of lithics, while others tended to get the end products, and simply refurbish them, during use. Some individuals were flintknapping specialists, and some tribes may have even specialized in entire lithic processes, depending on their proximity to large deposits of workable materials. More than likely, Ishi was not a specialist, as was found in some of the nearby tribes. Also, as far as I know, his tribe was not known for specializing in the creation of lithics. I believe that some of the nearby tribes were, though.
Also, the introduction of glass caused a shift in the overall reduction processes. Instead of working chert boulders down to arrowheads, through various reductive processes, the introduction of glass made it possible to start with the equivalent cut slab, and pressure flake a point. This was even seen in Tierra Fuego, of South America, where natives took up the pressure flaking of glass, to sell as trinkets, whereas a generation before, they were working chert with other processes than pressure flaking processes.
Lewis and Clark found natives doing steel repairs, with fire and anvils, in their huts, even though they had never seen a white man before. And, they may have only seen stone being worked, on one occasion, when a woman retouched a stone tool via pressure. So, it would appear that the original practices were lost pretty quickly, via the importation of glass, steel, etc.
But, in some pockets, the practices continued, especially in areas where the geographic isolation persisted. This was true in some areas west of the Rockies (as noted by Catlin), and in the northern Arctic, where Eskimos may have used stone tools until the early 20th century.
For this reason, I posted a photo of Karok knapper who was born around 1863, and who learned historically known tribal technologies, as a teenager (1880's). I believe that he stated that he learned with hammerstones, and pressure flakers first. And, later, he learned the more advanced technologies. I also posted some of his "flakers", that were collected in 1916. This individual was not far from Ishi. And, he did reduce boulders at quarries. But, he also worked as a specialist. And, the products that he made were the same type of products that had been traded to other tribes, during the 19th century. As mentioned before, Ishi was probably not a specialist. And, the Yahi tribe probably did not specialize in lithic reduction either.
"Certainly that strikes all modern knappers as odd. We know that a knapper of one year's experience, being handed a chunk of obsidian would use a direct percussion soft hammer of his choice to fairly neatly and effectively knock off arrowhead sized blanks, with little danger to anyone around him."
Generally, "hard hammers" are things like hammerstones, while "soft hammers" are things like wood/antler batons. The deal about traditional cultures is that they tend to stay the same, whereas western culture tends to be super progressive. If I wanted to spall obsidian, I would probably use a "soft hammerstone". I would not use a baton. I would also want to have a well padded support, that yields during impact. I would make up for the hardness of the stone, by the softness of the support. In fact, if the percussor was harder - like quartzite - I would use an even softer support. And, I would make the blow fast, to achieve the break, before the stone has time to move.
In terms of support, I think that many aboriginal flintknapping accounts show a more balanced view between the strike/striker, and the support, whereas the modern knappers tend to be more tool focused. Look at Catlin's explanation of the yielding elasticity of the palm. And, Catlin probably encountered those natives between 1830 and 1840, while publishing the account just before he died, around 1870.
"Even going way back, to the first permanent English settlement in North America, the only flint knapping observed by the Jamestown settlers was of pressure flaking a "sliver of stone" using a deer tine."
Right, the individual wore a little flaker on his wrist, by which he quickly worked the point. This individual was probably accustomed to receiving end products via trade. Also, even with the introduction of firearms, many natives did not like the way that the firearms scared quarry. So, they still sometimes hunted with bow and arrow. They also used arrows in sniper attacks on settlers, because a silent arrow could kill a night time sentinel, without anyone realizing that the individual had been shot to death. A gun, on the other hand, would alert the dogs, the people, and everyone, that they were under attack.
The use of the bow and arrow persisted for a number of reasons, especially in making sneak attacks on sleeping animals, and unsuspecting people. Obviously, they could have switched the stone arrowhead to a steel arrowhead, and achieved the same effect. But, the knowledge of working stone would have been of great value, whenever "white man" supplies were cut off, as noted by Grinnell, in 1879.
"Add to that the massive depopulation and upheavals of epidemics and wars, and a huge amount of knowledge was lost."
The knowledge was lost in most areas, but not all areas. Beyond that, many of the tools used were consistently used for thousands of years. And, many of those tools appear to be the same tools that were still being used, in the colonial era. The presence of prehistoric-style flintknapping tools, in colonial era indian sites, is the dovetail between the old, and the new. And, the use of some of those flintknapping tools have never been understood.
"Even prior to 1492 it is likely that most men only knew the finishing and resharpening parts of the process. In Stone Implements of the Potomac-Chesapeake Tidewater Province William Henry Holmes shows a model where work at the quartzite cobble beds served the sole purpose of producing "quarry blanks", which we now more commonly refer to as late stage preforms. These are preforms where all of the primary thinning is done, such that they only need to be finished into whatever tool form is desired. This pattern is seen over and over throughout the world, because it makes good economic sense. It is like going into the forest to cut trees and then milling it into lumber to take back to town to be used for whatever needs to be built."
I am glad that you quote Holmes. Holmes was probably the second person, after Cushing, who attempted to make a systematic study of Native American flintknapping practices. I have some of Holme's material that was never published. Regarding the tools, and the photo, of the Karok obsidian knapper, that I posted earlier, Holmes said that his work was of "great value" to the scientific world. And, the work of the obsidian knapper PROVES that flintknapping was not a "lost art", as had been alleged by leading European researchers, after fifty years of hammerstone experiments failed to produce the best results. Also, Holmes said that he had never seen the technology that involves the little Karok antler punches, that I showed photos of. Beyond that, Holmes had previously written that Native American knapping was "not well understood". Obviously, the generation gap, between the end of widespread flintknapping, and the age of inquiry, led to this gap in knowledge, in most quarters.
By the way, if you look carefully through all of Holme's documentation, you will not see an antler baton. The closest idea that he has to baton use, is an unhafted antler hammer, that is gripped in the center, and used in conjunction with a padded anvil, and a downwards blow, to trim the edge of a stone, as an antler mallet was believed to have been used. But, even this idea is offered as a speculative idea. Also, he offers a diagram of an elongated object swung at an edge, to detach flakes. The diagram looks similar to a baton. But, the text reveals that he explains direct percussion, in terms of hammerstone use.
Holmes also covers technologies that were never covered by European academics, such as combinations of technologies. And, when a person considers that the technology that initiates a break might be different than the technology that makes the break run long, and the technology that makes the break run long might be different than the technology that causes the break to turn, then the idea of combined technologies makes perfect sense. But, if a person sees flintknapping, and flintknapping tools, in the same way that we view modern tools, then the proper understanding is never achieved, which is needed to create stuff like tine-based outrepasse. At a certain level, Holmes probably did not fully understand the ramifications of some of his own information that he documented. But, he did not claim to be a "flintknapper", either.
The people who only knew of sharpening processes, were probably accustomed to using lithic "end products", received by trade. Also, I think it is fair to say that between 1897 and 1920, Holmes expanded his own views, a bit. And, for that, he should be applauded.
"The experiment above was done with 2.5 years of experience working that material and with direct percussion tools I had started using one year before. Imagine how good the guys that grew up doing it were. So maybe in ten years, with more practice, two days at the quarry allows me to make 50 blanks. Maybe that means 4 other guys didn't need to come along, I can supply their needs for the next few months, they just need to finish and resharpen. This kind of example models the most basic of economies seen in all groups of humans everywhere. Add in trade and ramp up the specialization even a little bit (again, basic human behaviors seen everywhere) and you may very well have had villages where all of the knapping done was finishing work/resharpening."
In some areas, there are signs of blanks being worked in specialty shops, as they are traded out away from the quarry. Every few miles, a different specialty workshop illustrates a different stage of reduction, as the blank is further worked. In reality, if people focused on the flaking tools found at those sites, and studied the debitage, flakes, flake scars, and platforms, then it might be possible to reconstruct the same stage of reduction, with the same stage of tools that were used. In my opinion, this would be much better than inventing start to finish processes, out of thin air, with no regard for actual stages (idea only applies to "abo" knapping).
"Is it possible you are trying to use finishing tools to do the quarry work of making the blanks? Is it like finding several carpenter's work shops that each contain a handsaw, hammer and chisel, which are used to built stuff out of wooden boards and then concluding that if you have a log you need make the boards either with the hand saw, or by using the chisel and hammer to split the wood? Those are rhetorical questions, because:"
Cushing was the first person to make a systematic study of Native American flintknapping. I believe he died in 1901 or 1902. He also lived with the Zuni for five years, and became a tribal arrowmaker. He recorded over a half a dozen flintknapping practices used by Native American knappers. Cushing stated that much of the difference between tools, and technologies, has to do with the materials being worked. I believe he even offered the example of arctic cherts being harder to work than other types of materials. I think that Cushing was right. And, I think that there is even an observable difference in tool kits used to work obsidian, and tool kits used to work chert.
That being said, I think that the starting point is the material being worked - not the tool being used to work the material. Also, it seems clear that ancient tool users selected rock or knapped rock, with tensile strength in mind. For this reason, the use of thermal alteration would have been fairly minimal, except in the cases of creating ceremonial objects. Also, at Colha, I believe it was recorded that super high grade spalls were set aside, and used for making very thin end products.
So, the processes used at the quarry could be based upon the nature of the stone being worked. Some processes involve unusual amounts of force, but low amounts of shock. Such processes could have been used to create polyhedral cores, massive spalls, etc. Some flintknapping processes allow the flintknapper to separate the quality of the flaker, from the mass being used to drive off the flake. Other processes, can be used on rougher grained stone without injury to the stone.
Anyway, I cannot subscribe to a linear model of quarry work, or any other kind of work, for that matter, because the nature of lithic materials can be quite diverse, and require very different technological approaches, unless the knapper happens to cook the stone to an almost glass-like state, which basically destroys inherent tensile strength.
"If what you have discovered is true, and is in fact better, then everything I have just said is moot, because your method covers BOTH your line of thought and my line thought. That is, it satisfies both of our main criteria. So let's test it to see if that is, in fact, the case."
Yes, I want my work to be tested via the same criteria that is used to analyze other flaking, such as Clovis flaking - flake attributes, flake scars, and materials. Actually, I can provide more data than what Clovis materials offers, because I can show the flaker, and I can even say that the process is derived from historical records. Plus, I can show that the process is not exclusive to overshot flaking, since it is also good for fluting, coast to coast flaking, and regular flaking. So, there are four types of flaking that my work can be judged on - overshot, coast to coast, fluting, and regular flaking. If the consensus is that none of it looks like paleo technology, then I will send it to archaeologists, to get a second opinion.
Here is an example of regular flaking being used to connect to a fluted basal area:
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Holy%20Grail%20Outre%20Passe/test%2017/a.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Holy%20Grail%20Outre%20Passe/test%2017/a.jpg.html)
Regular flake from tip reaches fluted area:
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Holy%20Grail%20Outre%20Passe/test%2017/f.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Holy%20Grail%20Outre%20Passe/test%2017/f.jpg.html)
Flake removal:
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Holy%20Grail%20Outre%20Passe/test%2017/g.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Holy%20Grail%20Outre%20Passe/test%2017/g.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Holy%20Grail%20Outre%20Passe/test%2017/o.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Holy%20Grail%20Outre%20Passe/test%2017/o.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Holy%20Grail%20Outre%20Passe/test%2017/l.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Holy%20Grail%20Outre%20Passe/test%2017/l.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Holy%20Grail%20Outre%20Passe/test%2017/h.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Holy%20Grail%20Outre%20Passe/test%2017/h.jpg.html)
Both the flute, and the long flake, were made with the same technology. This might be chalcedony, or agatized coral. It is really tough. If I had applied thermal alteration, I probably could have made it thinner.
Ben
-
Ben, I'm curious to know what technique you use to get to put 6 pictures up when everyone else is stuck a 4 :o Bob
-
Ben, I'm curious to know what technique you use to get to put 6 pictures up when everyone else is stuck a 4 :o Bob
me too
-
^^ he has a photobucket account.
click on one of his images and you'll see how easy it is. once the photobucket page loads, click on the "IMG" text area on the right. it will copy the code to your clipboard. now "paste" it into your reply area on PA where you want the photo to be.
it will put the code in your reply area that looks like this:
[URL=http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Holy%20Grail%20Outre%20Passe/test%2017/h.jpg.html][IMG]http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Holy%20Grail%20Outre%20Passe/test%2017/h.jpg[/IMG][/URL]
do as many as you want.
of course you'll have to set up an account on photobucket to upload your own images to ;)
-
Leon, when I hit attachments it says Restictions 4 per post, what difference would it be wether I have photo bucket or someother acct. I am not real computer savy but 4 seems to me to mean 4. Just saying :o Bob
-
^^ the forum application that PA uses doesn't consider it an attachment; because it's not.
it is very smart for there to be a limitation on the amount of "attachments" you can use in a single post because these "attachments" tax the web server and can slow down the PA forum. to compensate for this, the website owner would have to pay for more drive storage and more bandwidth too keep up with the storage and bandwidth demands.
now if you use Photobucket, it's merely a link to a different file server outside of PA. therefore it is not stored on PA's server space nor does it use PA's bandwidth to display the images. it's actually easier on the PA server because all of the work to display the images will be done by Photobucket and your browser. so you can use as many as you'd like.
some forums don't allow "attachments" and force you to use services like, Photobucket, TinyPic, Google+, etc.
on the flip side, some sites don't allow you to 'link' to images located on their server because it can cost them additional money.
oops, didn't mean for that explanation to be that lengthy.
-
Bob,
He is not using the attachments. He is just copying and pasting the IMG address into the text.
-
Ben,
So I'll tell you the brief history of eastern quartzite knapping, as i know it. A few decades ago some academic knappers/archaeologists who were good flint knappers were trying to figure out quartzite knapping based on what they were seeing in the artifacts and work sites in Virginia and New Jersey. They could see that the overall model was the same as with other lithic resources, where fairly large, fairly thin, flat bifaces were being produced at the rock sources, but they couldn't consistently match the results. Hammer stones were fine for spalling and some early work but absolutely sucked beyond that. Antler worked somewhat, some of the time, but that elevator clearly wasn't going all the way to the top. Probably based on the earlier work in Europe with boxwood billets, someone decided to try hitting the quartzite with wood. It worked. For reasons I don't understand, wood it able to consistently drive the long thinning flakes across a piece of average eastern quartzite in a way that other materials can't, to produce flat, relatively thin bifaces.
Now if I am understanding your thought process correctly, you would say that since no white men ever saw any Native Americans using wood percussion knapping tools, and since no such tools have been found by archaeologists, that method of knapping quartzite is invalid, wasn't used, isn't "abo". Is that correct?
So fast forward to a few years ago and a knapper in the Blue Ridge Mountains was looking at quartzite artifacts and work sites and trying to figure out how the hell they worked this stuff. He finds the old research, because it was made public, and tries it. It works. He puts the idea on Paleo Planet and the thread explodes, going to over 20 pages, with at least another 20 on side topics relating to quartzite knapping. So a few years later and guys up and down the east coast are working quartzite with wood and getting the same results. But no white guys ever wrote down that that is the Indian way, and where are the tools, so sorry guys, wrong, not "abo"?
So the knapper mentioned above is Pete Davis. I feel I owe a real debt to Pete. I mean if he called me up right now and said he needed help hiding a body I would actually give serious consideration to saying yes, and I'm a real Boy Scout (literally). See the thing is, I got into knapping after a neighbor showed me an "arrow head" he found. It was made of quartzite and I was determined to figure out how it could of been made. I got pretty far at figuring out knapping in general, but quartzite knapping still evaded me. So Pete putting that information out there and getting the dialogue going helped me find that "holy grail" of knapping I was looking for.
So you mentioned fluting with your method. As soon as I saw the results you were getting, I was already thinking about it's application to fluting. When you mentioned that the technique involves pulling instead of pushing the flake off, it immediately struck a chord with me because I have been thinking along the same lines but can't figure out how to do it. I'm stumbling around a dark room bumping into stuff. Can you help with the light switch?
Keith
-
Thanks leOn and Steve for the simple explanation. Computer stuff is like looking into a deep black hole,there is just nothing that I can see, no sides no bottom just nothing :( :( :o Bob
-
Keith, I missed the post about "pulling instead of pushing a flake off". If you got post a link to that post I would appreciate it.
If I ever see Pete and You looking at me funny I will be scared..lol
Thanks
-
Keith,
I think the most important aspect of all the wood billet swinging is the fact that the results we are getting perfectly match the results they were getting, I.E platform and flake morphology. Nothing will consistently make those platform remnants like wood will. Yes you will occasionally get a lipped flake using other means but not on a consistent basis like with wood.
This is the point I have been trying to make to Ben for a long time now. If you take a look at the very rounded and bulbous flake scars/platform initiations he is producing, it is very unique, and it must be matched to the archaeological record to be able to say this is likely what they were doing. I have not seen him able to do that. That is all I have been meaning when I say "prove it". If this method was so prevalent then the flakes/bulbs he is making should be every where.
-
Caveman, that's why I posted a long time ago to go back and look at some of James Parker's post. He has been doing the same thing with wood billets since the first time I met him.
-
Ben,
So I'll tell you the brief history of eastern quartzite knapping, as i know it. A few decades ago some academic knappers/archaeologists who were good flint knappers were trying to figure out quartzite knapping based on what they were seeing in the artifacts and work sites in Virginia and New Jersey. They could see that the overall model was the same as with other lithic resources, where fairly large, fairly thin, flat bifaces were being produced at the rock sources, but they couldn't consistently match the results. Hammer stones were fine for spalling and some early work but absolutely sucked beyond that. Antler worked somewhat, some of the time, but that elevator clearly wasn't going all the way to the top. Probably based on the earlier work in Europe with boxwood billets, someone decided to try hitting the quartzite with wood. It worked. For reasons I don't understand, wood it able to consistently drive the long thinning flakes across a piece of average eastern quartzite in a way that other materials can't, to produce flat, relatively thin bifaces.
Now if I am understanding your thought process correctly, you would say that since no white men ever saw any Native Americans using wood percussion knapping tools, and since no such tools have been found by archaeologists, that method of knapping quartzite is invalid, wasn't used, isn't "abo". Is that correct?
So fast forward to a few years ago and a knapper in the Blue Ridge Mountains was looking at quartzite artifacts and work sites and trying to figure out how the hell they worked this stuff. He finds the old research, because it was made public, and tries it. It works. He puts the idea on Paleo Planet and the thread explodes, going to over 20 pages, with at least another 20 on side topics relating to quartzite knapping. So a few years later and guys up and down the east coast are working quartzite with wood and getting the same results. But no white guys ever wrote down that that is the Indian way, and where are the tools, so sorry guys, wrong, not "abo"?
So the knapper mentioned above is Pete Davis. I feel I owe a real debt to Pete. I mean if he called me up right now and said he needed help hiding a body I would actually give serious consideration to saying yes, and I'm a real Boy Scout (literally). See the thing is, I got into knapping after a neighbor showed me an "arrow head" he found. It was made of quartzite and I was determined to figure out how it could of been made. I got pretty far at figuring out knapping in general, but quartzite knapping still evaded me. So Pete putting that information out there and getting the dialogue going helped me find that "holy grail" of knapping I was looking for.
So you mentioned fluting with your method. As soon as I saw the results you were getting, I was already thinking about it's application to fluting. When you mentioned that the technique involves pulling instead of pushing the flake off, it immediately struck a chord with me because I have been thinking along the same lines but can't figure out how to do it. I'm stumbling around a dark room bumping into stuff. Can you help with the light switch?
Keith
What ever happened to "Shut-up and knapp" ;)
-
Ben,
So I'll tell you the brief history of eastern quartzite knapping, as i know it. A few decades ago some academic knappers/archaeologists who were good flint knappers were trying to figure out quartzite knapping based on what they were seeing in the artifacts and work sites in Virginia and New Jersey. They could see that the overall model was the same as with other lithic resources, where fairly large, fairly thin, flat bifaces were being produced at the rock sources, but they couldn't consistently match the results. Hammer stones were fine for spalling and some early work but absolutely sucked beyond that. Antler worked somewhat, some of the time, but that elevator clearly wasn't going all the way to the top. Probably based on the earlier work in Europe with boxwood billets, someone decided to try hitting the quartzite with wood. It worked. For reasons I don't understand, wood it able to consistently drive the long thinning flakes across a piece of average eastern quartzite in a way that other materials can't, to produce flat, relatively thin bifaces.
Now if I am understanding your thought process correctly, you would say that since no white men ever saw any Native Americans using wood percussion knapping tools, and since no such tools have been found by archaeologists, that method of knapping quartzite is invalid, wasn't used, isn't "abo". Is that correct?
So fast forward to a few years ago and a knapper in the Blue Ridge Mountains was looking at quartzite artifacts and work sites and trying to figure out how the hell they worked this stuff. He finds the old research, because it was made public, and tries it. It works. He puts the idea on Paleo Planet and the thread explodes, going to over 20 pages, with at least another 20 on side topics relating to quartzite knapping. So a few years later and guys up and down the east coast are working quartzite with wood and getting the same results. But no white guys ever wrote down that that is the Indian way, and where are the tools, so sorry guys, wrong, not "abo"?
So the knapper mentioned above is Pete Davis. I feel I owe a real debt to Pete. I mean if he called me up right now and said he needed help hiding a body I would actually give serious consideration to saying yes, and I'm a real Boy Scout (literally). See the thing is, I got into knapping after a neighbor showed me an "arrow head" he found. It was made of quartzite and I was determined to figure out how it could of been made. I got pretty far at figuring out knapping in general, but quartzite knapping still evaded me. So Pete putting that information out there and getting the dialogue going helped me find that "holy grail" of knapping I was looking for.
So you mentioned fluting with your method. As soon as I saw the results you were getting, I was already thinking about it's application to fluting. When you mentioned that the technique involves pulling instead of pushing the flake off, it immediately struck a chord with me because I have been thinking along the same lines but can't figure out how to do it. I'm stumbling around a dark room bumping into stuff. Can you help with the light switch?
Keith
What ever happened to "Shut-up and knapp" ;)
I am not ok with this kind of exchange on PA. As a long time members I have always been impressed by the respect for others that this community has insisted upon. I just want to caution everyone to consider the image we project. I guess what I am trying to say to everyone is look to the older folks on this site and follow their lead with a goal of helping and sharing. lord knows I have learned a lot from them ...
-
Let's be clear Iowa,
Not that I disagree with you.
Are you talking about someone that posts a thread
"Shut up and knap' or someone that responds to it?
It seems like I am getting a lot of flack lately.
From folks that comment when they don't read
the threads/just cherry pick partial parts of it
to make their rather brash comments about.
I have been respectful and aware of the rules.
I get what you mean so I don't think it is to much
to ask for clarification.
Also --Do you think your threads are general knapping
or more like tutorials?
Thanks Zuma
-
Hey Zuma thanks you for the way you replied. I am really speaking in general terms in hopes that thing don't spin out of control. I am addressing the greater context that brought us to "this". I myself have been guilty of "this" in the past and learned a lot from some of the long time members here. I tried to be careful to address my comments to the community by not focusing on you or any others individually. My post was to ask everyone to think about the positive in our PA community and use that as a compass that guides the way we treat each other.
Do you think your post are general knapping or tutorials?
The answer is yes in that that are sometimes instructive and at times are more like a general thread.
-
And thank you.
I agree 100 percent. Sometimes we forget that our
passions are not shared by all. I had hoped to avoid
this way back as you know. I think respectful clarification
is a good tool.
You all may not know this but Keith and I have great discussions
when ever we get together. I think of him as a friend and was
just bustin him a bit. I think twice from now on, for the common
good. If you remember he posted about me doing the Hokey Pokey
while knapping. I thought it was funny.
Zuma
-
Great thank you Zuma
-
iowabow,
Not sure if your comments are directed toward Zuma or toward me, since you quoted both posts. If to Zuma, he and I know one another well enough to take little pokes at each other. He is as fine a knapper as I have met and in talking with him it if apparent he has done a lot of research and put a lot of thought into archaeology knapping, and other primitive skills.
If the comments are directed at me, I do not understand. I laid out an example of how another group of knappers used the Scientific Method to come up with a solution. The last part of that method is to "publish" so others can review and test the idea. I am trying to convince Ben to do that, because:
I think he's on to something. I understand (and deeply respect the opinion) that Caveman has about the flakes not matching, but that may just be a matter of tweeking the system, which is another reason to share the information.
In any event, I'm going to be tied up for a few days any way, and have asked Ben for assistence in as many was I I know how, so I will shut up and knap.
Keith
-
ok guys if there is no issue then I am relieved.
-
I by no means want to butt in , but I am amazed at all the thinking and science to knap. I am reading and watching everything I can.
I took a Burlington flake and some abo tools earlier today and made since of it. Got one point in. Not a beautiful one , but will work.
Trying to discern platforms and abraiding and such is a bit confusing but you all help.
Thank you,
Dog
-
I took a Burlington flake and some abo tools earlier today and made since of it. Got one point in. Not a beautiful one , but will work.
congratulations :)
start a thread with photos of your tool set and your first point.
i'll look out for it ;)
-
DONE !! :laugh:
-
Matching the debitage from local workshops with our own gives me fair confidence that the wood methods are in fact a technological hardstone reduction strategy of the late archaic. Old news to many of us.
Keith, I need some help....oh, never mind.
PD
-
Ben,
So I'll tell you the brief history of eastern quartzite knapping, as i know it. A few decades ago some academic knappers/archaeologists who were good flint knappers were trying to figure out quartzite knapping based on what they were seeing in the artifacts and work sites in Virginia and New Jersey. They could see that the overall model was the same as with other lithic resources, where fairly large, fairly thin, flat bifaces were being produced at the rock sources, but they couldn't consistently match the results. Hammer stones were fine for spalling and some early work but absolutely sucked beyond that. Antler worked somewhat, some of the time, but that elevator clearly wasn't going all the way to the top. Probably based on the earlier work in Europe with boxwood billets, someone decided to try hitting the quartzite with wood. It worked. For reasons I don't understand, wood it able to consistently drive the long thinning flakes across a piece of average eastern quartzite in a way that other materials can't, to produce flat, relatively thin bifaces.
Now if I am understanding your thought process correctly, you would say that since no white men ever saw any Native Americans using wood percussion knapping tools, and since no such tools have been found by archaeologists, that method of knapping quartzite is invalid, wasn't used, isn't "abo". Is that correct?
So fast forward to a few years ago and a knapper in the Blue Ridge Mountains was looking at quartzite artifacts and work sites and trying to figure out how the hell they worked this stuff. He finds the old research, because it was made public, and tries it. It works. He puts the idea on Paleo Planet and the thread explodes, going to over 20 pages, with at least another 20 on side topics relating to quartzite knapping. So a few years later and guys up and down the east coast are working quartzite with wood and getting the same results. But no white guys ever wrote down that that is the Indian way, and where are the tools, so sorry guys, wrong, not "abo"?
So the knapper mentioned above is Pete Davis. I feel I owe a real debt to Pete. I mean if he called me up right now and said he needed help hiding a body I would actually give serious consideration to saying yes, and I'm a real Boy Scout (literally). See the thing is, I got into knapping after a neighbor showed me an "arrow head" he found. It was made of quartzite and I was determined to figure out how it could of been made. I got pretty far at figuring out knapping in general, but quartzite knapping still evaded me. So Pete putting that information out there and getting the dialogue going helped me find that "holy grail" of knapping I was looking for.
So you mentioned fluting with your method. As soon as I saw the results you were getting, I was already thinking about it's application to fluting. When you mentioned that the technique involves pulling instead of pushing the flake off, it immediately struck a chord with me because I have been thinking along the same lines but can't figure out how to do it. I'm stumbling around a dark room bumping into stuff. Can you help with the light switch?
Keith
So, do you think that Pete Davis stumbled on to something? Here is some of my wooden baton work, from around 2006 (almost 10 years prior to today, 2015):
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Wooden%20baton/first20detachment201.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Wooden%20baton/first20detachment201.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Wooden%20baton/first20detachment204.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Wooden%20baton/first20detachment204.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Wooden%20baton/first20detachment203.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Wooden%20baton/first20detachment203.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Wooden%20baton/first20detachment202.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Wooden%20baton/first20detachment202.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Wooden%20baton/core205.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Wooden%20baton/core205.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Wooden%20baton/core203.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Wooden%20baton/core203.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Wooden%20baton/blade203.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Wooden%20baton/blade203.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Wooden%20baton/core201.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Wooden%20baton/core201.jpg.html)
I actually made an entire website devoted to the subject of wooden baton knapping, back around 2006. That was around ten years ago. Also, there was this fellow named "Marty" who was quite against the idea. Eventually he came around, though.
The irony is that I also came around, because I discovered that my whole approach to flintknapping had been made in almost complete ignorance of critical evidence. My ignorance was a blindness. And, looking at the overwhelming evidence of a +10,000 year tradition is the cure.
Here is five years later. I am detaching a blade with a wooden punch:
https://youtu.be/jNpTqGfHWRk?list=UU-w49Lxzg-ee24ms6LBJdQQ (https://youtu.be/jNpTqGfHWRk?list=UU-w49Lxzg-ee24ms6LBJdQQ)
So, this means that I know something about wooden batons, and about wooden punches.
Beyond that, here is probably a more aboriginally accurate use of a flaking process, involving a wooden punch:
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Good%20Data%20Bad%20Interpretation/platterexperiment1.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Good%20Data%20Bad%20Interpretation/platterexperiment1.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Good%20Data%20Bad%20Interpretation/platterexperiment2.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Good%20Data%20Bad%20Interpretation/platterexperiment2.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Good%20Data%20Bad%20Interpretation/platterexperiment3.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Good%20Data%20Bad%20Interpretation/platterexperiment3.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Good%20Data%20Bad%20Interpretation/platterexperiment4.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Good%20Data%20Bad%20Interpretation/platterexperiment4.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Good%20Data%20Bad%20Interpretation/platterexperiment5.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Good%20Data%20Bad%20Interpretation/platterexperiment5.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Good%20Data%20Bad%20Interpretation/platterexperiment10.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Good%20Data%20Bad%20Interpretation/platterexperiment10.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Good%20Data%20Bad%20Interpretation/platterexperiment11.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Good%20Data%20Bad%20Interpretation/platterexperiment11.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Good%20Data%20Bad%20Interpretation/CoasttoCoast1-1.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Good%20Data%20Bad%20Interpretation/CoasttoCoast1-1.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Good%20Data%20Bad%20Interpretation/CoasttoCoast2-1.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Good%20Data%20Bad%20Interpretation/CoasttoCoast2-1.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Good%20Data%20Bad%20Interpretation/coasttocoast4-1.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Good%20Data%20Bad%20Interpretation/coasttocoast4-1.jpg.html)
This proves that I was experimenting with wooden batons about ten years ago, and I have been experimenting with wooden punches, over the last five years. So, no one can say that I do not have experience with batons.
So, why would I reject baton use? I don't "reject" it, even though I know that indirect percussion technology is infinitely better.
But, with regard to "aboriginal American" flintknapping, virtually all knowledgeable observers, informants, scientists, ethnographers, soldiers, etc, pointed to the use of various forms of indirect percussion, as a known stage in Native American lithic reduction.
The ORIGINAL understanding was that aboriginal American knappers frequently started out with direct hammerstone percussion, followed by finer indirect percussion, then followed by pressure flaking. Obviously, not all reduction followed this pattern. But, a great deal of it was believed to have followed this pattern. This was the predominant view in American archaeology, until probably the 1920's or 1930's. And, people did not hold this belief because of the work of Flint Jack, or some other European experimenter. There was simply too much evidence, going back to Catlin's account, published in the late 1860's - but probably witnessed between 1830 and 1840 - that pointed to sophisticated indirect percussion.
Also, the signs of battering, and other peculiarities, were noted by many dozens of independent archaeologists, working in different parts of the country, for maybe over one hundred years. Archaeological study did not do away with the idea. The study of archaeologists actually strengthened the idea.
The baton knapping idea was an alien idea imported from Europe. The more a person focuses on baton technology, the less they are focusing on aboriginal American technology. What the flintknapping community has engaged in is a matter of shunning known evidence. People give all of these reasons why they are not interested in actual evidence, and then they promote a view of which there never was any evidence. If two wrongs do not make something right, thousands of wrongs certainly do not make something right.
You wrote:
"Now if I am understanding your thought process correctly, you would say that since no white men ever saw any Native Americans using wood percussion knapping tools, and since no such tools have been found by archaeologists, that method of knapping quartzite is invalid, wasn't used, isn't "abo". Is that correct?"
That is not the point. The point is that there is evidence of BETTER flaking technologies, than baton knapping. So, look at it this way, you could go from an alien European method, to a BETTER METHOD, if you can narrow down what that method might have been, based on the known evidence from the Americas. Then, at that point, you can hammer out all of the fine differences between the results of each method, and make a FAIR JUDGMENT. But, there is no fair judgment when forty years of promotion is given to an alien European idea, and forty years of zip goes to the evidence of Native American flintknapping. Once again, I am probably in a better position to give a fair judgment than anyone else, because I have worked with both technologies.
The reason that I know what I know is because I spent the last five years constantly studying every shred of evidence, pertaining to lithic technologies, used in both the historic era, and the prehistoric era. I also was very fortunate in that I got input from a world class professional Danish dagger replicator, before he died. Think about it. One of the best flintknappers on planet earth, changed his position, and concluded that I was on the right track, before he died, last year. He could have replicated anything. But, he chose Danish daggers because the pay was really high. Still, his real interest was paleo. And, he died before he was able to see most of the stuff that I can now produce. Still, he thought that I was on the right track, based on the overwhelming evidence that I presented. And, the evidence really represents the life works of other people who lived, and died, before I was ever born. Unfortunately, Philip Churchill is not longer with us, today.
The problem with people today is that they want to take an anti-evidential approach, and then make it up as they go along. That approach has never worked. And, the evidence from the Americas is so sophisticated that it will never work. That is why no one can figure out my outrepasse flaking, EVEN THOUGH I SHOW THE DEER TINE TOOL.
The longer this continues the greater my appreciation grows for Cushing, Holmes, and others, who made a very concerted effort at recovering the nearly lost flintknapping practices of the Native Americans. Decades of researchers were not content with sitting at home, and making it up as they went along.
Also, when I say that I give myself very little credit it is because I am conscious of the fact that I am standing on the shoulders of giants. I actually have a better understanding of some of the things that they documented, then maybe what they understood themselves. Still, they are the ones who collected the evidence. I am just the "lucky boy" who got to play with it, and unravel some of the meaning behind the evidence.
Anyway, I do not think that the term "abo" should be used loosely. It creates the impression that the use of any sort of stone, or organic material makes something "aboriginal". And, this is not true. The term "aboriginal" does not mean natural/organic material.
When flintknappers say "aboriginal" they are usually talking about "natural based" flintknapping, with regard to materials. To call the antler baton method an "aboriginal method" would be akin to calling it part of someone's culture. And, no scientist has ever demonstrated that flintknapping batons are a culturally predictable trait.
What flintknappers will say is that it can be "inferred" by flakes, and flake scars. This thinking is fallacious at heart, because you can not rule out unknown technology B, simply by demonstrating known technology A. It is possible that unknown technology B might do a better job than known technology A.
I can tell people how fast my ten speed goes, all day long. But, just because I am ignorant about combustion engines, and Nascar race cars, does not mean that my ten speed is the fastest vehicle on the planet. If I think so, it might just reflect my ignorance, especially if I have no way to know any better (or don't want to know any better).
If people want to make up flintknapping as they go along, I do not care. But, if they want to make up flintknapping, and then call it "aboriginal", that would be akin to me making up point types, and then calling them "aboriginal", when there might not be any evidence that the point type ever existed.
I hope that this makes my views clearer. I do not care how people flintknap. I do care when people start making claims about other people's culture, when those claims cannot be substantiated.
Also, I happen to think that it is in the best interest of the flintknapping community to man up to the evidence, grow a backbone, and tackle the evidence head on. The reason that really experienced archaeologists do not talk to flintknappers is because they already know that baton knapping, hammerstone flaking, and pressure flaking, cannot account for a lot of what they see. So, what is the point in talking to a "flintknapper"? And, who in his right mind is going to consult a copper percussion knapper? It is not happening.
My solution to all of this is simple: FOCUS ON THE EVIDENCE, in whatever shape or form it might exist in. This is what everyone else did, before people started claiming that they could "divine" the practice from flakes, and flake scars, alone. People have already completely lost sight of well documented evidence, that has been on the books for decades, if not longer.
My bid is to make flintknapping relevant again.
Ben
-
Forget about ancient flaking. This is a Pomo obsidian blade/knife. And, people who have done their homework should know about the few early 20th century Pomo knappers, that were still around.
Look at the thinness, as well as the flatness, of the flake scars. How about the thinness to width ratio?
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/POMO%20BLADE/pomo.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/POMO%20BLADE/pomo.jpg.html)
There is a reason why some individuals were obtaining obsidian products, from a few Pomo knappers, in the beginning of the 20th century.
-
KING SITE - 16TH CENTURY FLINTKNAPPING KITS
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/king%20site/king%20site%201.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/king%20site/king%20site%201.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/king%20site/king%20site%202.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/king%20site/king%20site%202.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/king%20site/king%20site%203.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/king%20site/king%20site%203.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/king%20site/king%20site%204.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/king%20site/king%20site%204.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/king%20site/king%20site%205.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/king%20site/king%20site%205.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/king%20site/king%20site%206.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/king%20site/king%20site%206.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/king%20site/king%20site%207.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/king%20site/king%20site%207.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/king%20site/king%20site%208.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/king%20site/king%20site%208.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/king%20site/king%20site%209.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/king%20site/king%20site%209.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/king%20site/king%20site%2010.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/king%20site/king%20site%2010.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/king%20site/king%20site%2011.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/king%20site/king%20site%2011.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/king%20site/king%20site%2012.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/king%20site/king%20site%2012.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/king%20site/king%20site%2013.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/king%20site/king%20site%2013.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/king%20site/king%20site%2014.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/king%20site/king%20site%2014.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/king%20site/king%20site%2015.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/king%20site/king%20site%2015.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/king%20site/king%20site%2016.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/king%20site/king%20site%2016.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/king%20site/king%20site%2017.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/king%20site/king%20site%2017.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/king%20site/king%20site%2018.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/king%20site/king%20site%2018.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/king%20site/king%20site%2019.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/king%20site/king%20site%2019.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/king%20site/king%20site%2020.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/king%20site/king%20site%2020.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/king%20site/king%20site%2021.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/king%20site/king%20site%2021.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/king%20site/king%20site%2022.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/king%20site/king%20site%2022.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/king%20site/king%20site%2023.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/king%20site/king%20site%2023.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/king%20site/king%20site%2024.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/king%20site/king%20site%2024.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/king%20site/king%20site%2025.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/king%20site/king%20site%2025.jpg.html)
Guess what flintknapping tool was not found with the flintknapping kits, or in the burials, of deceased 16th century flintknappers? It was not hammerstones. It was not antler cylinders. It was not tine flakers. I will give a hint, the tool that was not found - as noted in a separate report on the flintknapping toolkits - is a tool that was invented in England, in the mid-1930's, that hypothetically could resolve what hammerstones could not resolve, with regard to intermediate flaking, or post-hammerstone finer flaking.
-
ABO KNAPPING:
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Paiute%20arrowheadmaker/Harringtonpaiuteknapper.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Paiute%20arrowheadmaker/Harringtonpaiuteknapper.jpg.html)
-
1870's Kaikavit Paiute Arrowmaker in front of his home in Northern Arizona
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Paiute%20flintknapper/kaivavit%20paiute.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Paiute%20flintknapper/kaivavit%20paiute.jpg.html)
-
HUPA ARROWMAKING KIT - COLLECTED BY P.H. RAY, 1880'S IN NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
KIT WAS SHOWN AT THE COLUMBIAN EXHIBITION, IN MADRID, IN THE 1890'S
KIT WAS STORED AT THE US NATIONAL MUSEUM
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/HUPA%20ARROWMAKING%20KIT/2.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/HUPA%20ARROWMAKING%20KIT/2.jpg.html)
DESRCIPTION OF ITEMS IN KIT:
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/HUPA%20ARROWMAKING%20KIT/3.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/HUPA%20ARROWMAKING%20KIT/3.jpg.html)
PITCHING TOOL:
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/HUPA%20ARROWMAKING%20KIT/4.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/HUPA%20ARROWMAKING%20KIT/4.jpg.html)
PITCHING TOOL was a long column of antler, or "hard bone" (ivory), used to detach FLAKES, BLADES, AND SPALLS. Why did early researchers adopt the term "pitching tools"? The answer to that question explains how they thought the tools were used, based on eye witness information, and on common knowledge.
Here is a revolutionary idea: Why not study HOW the Indians made their chipped stone tools, according to the evidence that was previously documented!
-
The fact that a person can demonstrate drastic overshot flaking, and everything less, with a simple deer tine, is pretty telling. But, it does not mean that every variable is necessarily exactly the same, in the lesser flaking, even if the process is essentially the same.
I have never seen anyone demonstrate the ability to do that.
Well, then did the Clovis people demonstrate it? If you say, "yes", then I shall ask when you "saw" it. And, if you say "no", then I shall ask why people say that Clovis made overshot?
I already showed Clovis overshot flakes, made with a deer tine. Would you to see it again? I have shown as much proof as the Clovis people have shown.
The missing crescent on the right is where the edge of the stone detached. That means that the opposite edge was removed. That means that it was an overshot:
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Holy%20Grail%20Outre%20Passe/test%2014/011.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Holy%20Grail%20Outre%20Passe/test%2014/011.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Holy%20Grail%20Outre%20Passe/test%2014/012.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Holy%20Grail%20Outre%20Passe/test%2014/012.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Holy%20Grail%20Outre%20Passe/test%2014/007.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Holy%20Grail%20Outre%20Passe/test%2014/007.jpg.html)
Also, you think that my initiations look bulbous? Here is a flute:
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Holy%20Grail%20Outre%20Passe/test%2014/029.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Holy%20Grail%20Outre%20Passe/test%2014/029.jpg.html)
Here is the initiation:
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Holy%20Grail%20Outre%20Passe/test%2014/028.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Holy%20Grail%20Outre%20Passe/test%2014/028.jpg.html)
In archaeology that is called a "diffuse bulb of percussion". I can show Clovis flaking that has far stronger bulbs of percussion, than that.
Of course, if you had an objective discussion with Philip, before he died, I think he would have told you that the initiation is, to some degree, tied to the shape of the flaker.
dem·on·strate
/ˈdemənˌstrāt/
verb: demonstrate; 3rd person present: demonstrates; past tense: demonstrated; past participle: demonstrated; gerund or present participle: demonstrating
1.
clearly show the existence or truth of (something) by giving proof or evidence.
"their shameful silence demonstrates their ineptitude"
synonyms: reveal, bespeak, indicate, signify, signal, denote, show, display, exhibit; More
-
I have not seen a Clovis hunter do it nor have I seen you do it. You have shown pictures of an overshot and a flaker, not you doing it. Not the same. I would ask you the same, Have you seen a Clovis hunter do it. The answer is no. So you have no more credibility than any one else. You are only inferring which is what we are all doing. It is the foundation of Archaeology and Anthropology, since none of us were there we can only infer from the evidence and the results of Experimental archaeology.
I have been using wooden batons(billets ) since 1999. Others have been doing it much longer, when you and I(Ben) were still in diapers.
The problem I see with Ben's theory is he is trying to apply his short peg punch hold it between your fingers, in his palm to everything. It does not and will not produce the results we see in the materials used in the Northeast Archaic broadspear traditions. Wooden billets do this very well where nothing else produces the same results. There is a finite list of material available to the Native Knappers. It had to be bone, stone , antler or wood. Technique is a different matter, multiple combinations of. The Archaic in the Midwest and West and South was different than in the Northeast. Same techniques will not apply. Different source material, different end product.
Pete Davis made no claim to have stumbled onto something and if you go back and read it Keith did not make the claim that Pete discovered anything. Pete merely brought it to the front and it has caught on from his efforts to promote it. He and others are standing on the shoulders of others (Cresson, Callahan,Silsby, and others) who went years before on a quest to determine the methods used to work this gnarly rock found in the Northeast. As was said nothing new to some of us. The difference I see is the ability to discuss techniques, methods etc. within that group, sharing ideas, respecting one anothers talent and opinions, and an interest in finding the answers and producing results, that match the record.
The most recent round of pictures and archaeological remains I believe actually bolster Keith's theory that Ben is missing an entire tool set. All these pictures and remains are not suitable to produce the first stages of quarry production. Show me some tools from the quarry not a burial. Ben keeps asking, "Why can't you guys figure out how I am using the punch I keep showing you?" Well there are only two ways it can be used, You are either hitting it on the end like a typical punch or you are hitting it on the side like a typical rocker punch. Can't see it being done any other way. How its being held does not really change the direction of force. Neither are new or unique.
-
Ben,
So I'll tell you the brief history of eastern quartzite knapping, as i know it. A few decades ago some academic knappers/archaeologists who were good flint knappers were trying to figure out quartzite knapping based on what they were seeing in the artifacts and work sites in Virginia and New Jersey. They could see that the overall model was the same as with other lithic resources, where fairly large, fairly thin, flat bifaces were being produced at the rock sources, but they couldn't consistently match the results. Hammer stones were fine for spalling and some early work but absolutely sucked beyond that. Antler worked somewhat, some of the time, but that elevator clearly wasn't going all the way to the top. Probably based on the earlier work in Europe with boxwood billets, someone decided to try hitting the quartzite with wood. It worked. For reasons I don't understand, wood it able to consistently drive the long thinning flakes across a piece of average eastern quartzite in a way that other materials can't, to produce flat, relatively thin bifaces.
Now if I am understanding your thought process correctly, you would say that since no white men ever saw any Native Americans using wood percussion knapping tools, and since no such tools have been found by archaeologists, that method of knapping quartzite is invalid, wasn't used, isn't "abo". Is that correct?
So fast forward to a few years ago and a knapper in the Blue Ridge Mountains was looking at quartzite artifacts and work sites and trying to figure out how the hell they worked this stuff. He finds the old research, because it was made public, and tries it. It works. He puts the idea on Paleo Planet and the thread explodes, going to over 20 pages, with at least another 20 on side topics relating to quartzite knapping. So a few years later and guys up and down the east coast are working quartzite with wood and getting the same results. But no white guys ever wrote down that that is the Indian way, and where are the tools, so sorry guys, wrong, not "abo"?
So the knapper mentioned above is Pete Davis. I feel I owe a real debt to Pete. I mean if he called me up right now and said he needed help hiding a body I would actually give serious consideration to saying yes, and I'm a real Boy Scout (literally). See the thing is, I got into knapping after a neighbor showed me an "arrow head" he found. It was made of quartzite and I was determined to figure out how it could of been made. I got pretty far at figuring out knapping in general, but quartzite knapping still evaded me. So Pete putting that information out there and getting the dialogue going helped me find that "holy grail" of knapping I was looking for.
So you mentioned fluting with your method. As soon as I saw the results you were getting, I was already thinking about it's application to fluting. When you mentioned that the technique involves pulling instead of pushing the flake off, it immediately struck a chord with me because I have been thinking along the same lines but can't figure out how to do it. I'm stumbling around a dark room bumping into stuff. Can you help with the light switch?
Keith
So, do you think that Pete Davis stumbled on to something? Here is some of my wooden baton work, from around 2006 (almost 10 years prior to today, 2015):
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Wooden%20baton/first20detachment201.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Wooden%20baton/first20detachment201.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Wooden%20baton/first20detachment204.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Wooden%20baton/first20detachment204.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Wooden%20baton/first20detachment203.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Wooden%20baton/first20detachment203.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Wooden%20baton/first20detachment202.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Wooden%20baton/first20detachment202.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Wooden%20baton/core205.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Wooden%20baton/core205.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Wooden%20baton/core203.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Wooden%20baton/core203.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Wooden%20baton/blade203.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Wooden%20baton/blade203.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Wooden%20baton/core201.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Wooden%20baton/core201.jpg.html)
I actually made an entire website devoted to the subject of wooden baton knapping, back around 2006. That was around ten years ago. Also, there was this fellow named "Marty" who was quite against the idea. Eventually he came around, though.
The irony is that I also came around, because I discovered that my whole approach to flintknapping had been made in almost complete ignorance of critical evidence. My ignorance was a blindness. And, looking at the overwhelming evidence of a +10,000 year tradition is the cure.
Here is five years later. I am detaching a blade with a wooden punch:
https://youtu.be/jNpTqGfHWRk?list=UU-w49Lxzg-ee24ms6LBJdQQ (https://youtu.be/jNpTqGfHWRk?list=UU-w49Lxzg-ee24ms6LBJdQQ)
So, this means that I know something about wooden batons, and about wooden punches.
Beyond that, here is probably a more aboriginally accurate use of a flaking process, involving a wooden punch:
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Good%20Data%20Bad%20Interpretation/platterexperiment1.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Good%20Data%20Bad%20Interpretation/platterexperiment1.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Good%20Data%20Bad%20Interpretation/platterexperiment2.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Good%20Data%20Bad%20Interpretation/platterexperiment2.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Good%20Data%20Bad%20Interpretation/platterexperiment3.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Good%20Data%20Bad%20Interpretation/platterexperiment3.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Good%20Data%20Bad%20Interpretation/platterexperiment4.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Good%20Data%20Bad%20Interpretation/platterexperiment4.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Good%20Data%20Bad%20Interpretation/platterexperiment5.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Good%20Data%20Bad%20Interpretation/platterexperiment5.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Good%20Data%20Bad%20Interpretation/platterexperiment10.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Good%20Data%20Bad%20Interpretation/platterexperiment10.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Good%20Data%20Bad%20Interpretation/platterexperiment11.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Good%20Data%20Bad%20Interpretation/platterexperiment11.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Good%20Data%20Bad%20Interpretation/CoasttoCoast1-1.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Good%20Data%20Bad%20Interpretation/CoasttoCoast1-1.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Good%20Data%20Bad%20Interpretation/CoasttoCoast2-1.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Good%20Data%20Bad%20Interpretation/CoasttoCoast2-1.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Good%20Data%20Bad%20Interpretation/coasttocoast4-1.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Good%20Data%20Bad%20Interpretation/coasttocoast4-1.jpg.html)
This proves that I was experimenting with wooden batons about ten years ago, and I have been experimenting with wooden punches, over the last five years. So, no one can say that I do not have experience with batons.
So, why would I reject baton use? I don't "reject" it, even though I know that indirect percussion technology is infinitely better.
But, with regard to "aboriginal American" flintknapping, virtually all knowledgeable observers, informants, scientists, ethnographers, soldiers, etc, pointed to the use of various forms of indirect percussion, as a known stage in Native American lithic reduction.
The ORIGINAL understanding was that aboriginal American knappers frequently started out with direct hammerstone percussion, followed by finer indirect percussion, then followed by pressure flaking. Obviously, not all reduction followed this pattern. But, a great deal of it was believed to have followed this pattern. This was the predominant view in American archaeology, until probably the 1920's or 1930's. And, people did not hold this belief because of the work of Flint Jack, or some other European experimenter. There was simply too much evidence, going back to Catlin's account, published in the late 1860's - but probably witnessed between 1830 and 1840 - that pointed to sophisticated indirect percussion.
Also, the signs of battering, and other peculiarities, were noted by many dozens of independent archaeologists, working in different parts of the country, for maybe over one hundred years. Archaeological study did not do away with the idea. The study of archaeologists actually strengthened the idea.
The baton knapping idea was an alien idea imported from Europe. The more a person focuses on baton technology, the less they are focusing on aboriginal American technology. What the flintknapping community has engaged in is a matter of shunning known evidence. People give all of these reasons why they are not interested in actual evidence, and then they promote a view of which there never was any evidence. If two wrongs do not make something right, thousands of wrongs certainly do not make something right.
You wrote:
"Now if I am understanding your thought process correctly, you would say that since no white men ever saw any Native Americans using wood percussion knapping tools, and since no such tools have been found by archaeologists, that method of knapping quartzite is invalid, wasn't used, isn't "abo". Is that correct?"
That is not the point. The point is that there is evidence of BETTER flaking technologies, than baton knapping. So, look at it this way, you could go from an alien European method, to a BETTER METHOD, if you can narrow down what that method might have been, based on the known evidence from the Americas. Then, at that point, you can hammer out all of the fine differences between the results of each method, and make a FAIR JUDGMENT. But, there is no fair judgment when forty years of promotion is given to an alien European idea, and forty years of zip goes to the evidence of Native American flintknapping. Once again, I am probably in a better position to give a fair judgment than anyone else, because I have worked with both technologies.
The reason that I know what I know is because I spent the last five years constantly studying every shred of evidence, pertaining to lithic technologies, used in both the historic era, and the prehistoric era. I also was very fortunate in that I got input from a world class professional Danish dagger replicator, before he died. Think about it. One of the best flintknappers on planet earth, changed his position, and concluded that I was on the right track, before he died, last year. He could have replicated anything. But, he chose Danish daggers because the pay was really high. Still, his real interest was paleo. And, he died before he was able to see most of the stuff that I can now produce. Still, he thought that I was on the right track, based on the overwhelming evidence that I presented. And, the evidence really represents the life works of other people who lived, and died, before I was ever born. Unfortunately, Philip Churchill is not longer with us, today.
The problem with people today is that they want to take an anti-evidential approach, and then make it up as they go along. That approach has never worked. And, the evidence from the Americas is so sophisticated that it will never work. That is why no one can figure out my outrepasse flaking, EVEN THOUGH I SHOW THE DEER TINE TOOL.
The longer this continues the greater my appreciation grows for Cushing, Holmes, and others, who made a very concerted effort at recovering the nearly lost flintknapping practices of the Native Americans. Decades of researchers were not content with sitting at home, and making it up as they went along.
Also, when I say that I give myself very little credit it is because I am conscious of the fact that I am standing on the shoulders of giants. I actually have a better understanding of some of the things that they documented, then maybe what they understood themselves. Still, they are the ones who collected the evidence. I am just the "lucky boy" who got to play with it, and unravel some of the meaning behind the evidence.
Anyway, I do not think that the term "abo" should be used loosely. It creates the impression that the use of any sort of stone, or organic material makes something "aboriginal". And, this is not true. The term "aboriginal" does not mean natural/organic material.
When flintknappers say "aboriginal" they are usually talking about "natural based" flintknapping, with regard to materials. To call the antler baton method an "aboriginal method" would be akin to calling it part of someone's culture. And, no scientist has ever demonstrated that flintknapping batons are a culturally predictable trait.
What flintknappers will say is that it can be "inferred" by flakes, and flake scars. This thinking is fallacious at heart, because you can not rule out unknown technology B, simply by demonstrating known technology A. It is possible that unknown technology B might do a better job than known technology A.
I can tell people how fast my ten speed goes, all day long. But, just because I am ignorant about combustion engines, and Nascar race cars, does not mean that my ten speed is the fastest vehicle on the planet. If I think so, it might just reflect my ignorance, especially if I have no way to know any better (or don't want to know any better).
If people want to make up flintknapping as they go along, I do not care. But, if they want to make up flintknapping, and then call it "aboriginal", that would be akin to me making up point types, and then calling them "aboriginal", when there might not be any evidence that the point type ever existed.
I hope that this makes my views clearer. I do not care how people flintknap. I do care when people start making claims about other people's culture, when those claims cannot be substantiated.
Also, I happen to think that it is in the best interest of the flintknapping community to man up to the evidence, grow a backbone, and tackle the evidence head on. The reason that really experienced archaeologists do not talk to flintknappers is because they already know that baton knapping, hammerstone flaking, and pressure flaking, cannot account for a lot of what they see. So, what is the point in talking to a "flintknapper"? And, who in his right mind is going to consult a copper percussion knapper? It is not happening.
My solution to all of this is simple: FOCUS ON THE EVIDENCE, in whatever shape or form it might exist in. This is what everyone else did, before people started claiming that they could "divine" the practice from flakes, and flake scars, alone. People have already completely lost sight of well documented evidence, that has been on the books for decades, if not longer.
My bid is to make flintknapping relevant again.
Ben
It is refreshing to see that you did not mention flakes curling
around the opposite edge. I guess the bogus Solutrean connection had not yet been published.
Zuma
-
I have been using wooden batons(billets ) since 1999. Others have been doing it much longer, when you and I(Ben) were still in diapers.I have not seen a Clovis hunter do it nor have I seen you do it. You have shown pictures of an overshot and a flaker, not you doing it. Not the same. I would ask you the same, Have you seen a Clovis hunter do it. The answer is no. So you have no more credibility than any one else. You are only inferring which is what we are all doing. It is the foundation of Archaeology and Anthropology, since none of us were there we can only infer from the evidence and the results of Experimental archaeology.
The problem I see with Ben's theory is he is trying to apply his short peg punch hold it between your fingers, in his palm to everything. It does not and will not produce the results we see in the materials used in the Northeast Archaic broadspear traditions. Wooden billets do this very well where nothing else produces the same results. There is a finite list of material available to the Native Knappers. It had to be bone, stone , antler or wood. Technique is a different matter, multiple combinations of. The Archaic in the Midwest and West and South was different than in the Northeast. Same techniques will not apply. Different source material, different end product.
Pete Davis made no claim to have stumbled onto something and if you go back and read it Keith did not make the claim that Pete discovered anything. Pete merely brought it to the front and it has caught on from his efforts to promote it. He and others are standing on the shoulders of others (Cresson, Callahan,Silsby, and others) who went years before on a quest to determine the methods used to work this gnarly rock found in the Northeast. As was said nothing new to some of us. The difference I see is the ability to discuss techniques, methods etc. within that group, sharing ideas, respecting one anothers talent and opinions, and an interest in finding the answers and producing results, that match the record.
All these pictures and remains are not suitable to produce the first stages of quarry production. Show me some tools from the The most recent round of pictures and archaeological remains I believe actually bolster Keith's theory that Ben is missing an entire tool set.quarry not a burial. Ben keeps asking, "Why can't you guys figure out how I am using the punch I keep showing you?" Well there are only two ways it can be used, You are either hitting it on the end like a typical punch or you are hitting it on the side like a typical rocker punch. Can't see it being done any other way. How its being held does not really change the direction of force. Neither are new or unique.
"I have not seen a Clovis hunter do it nor have I seen you do it. You have shown pictures of an overshot and a flaker, not you doing it. Not the same. I would ask you the same, Have you seen a Clovis hunter do it. The answer is no. So you have no more credibility than any one else. You are only inferring which is what we are all doing. It is the foundation of Archaeology and Anthropology, since none of us were there we can only infer from the evidence and the results of Experimental archaeology."
Since people here see fit to call technologies - of which we have zero evidence - "abo", I should fit right in calling the technology that I discovered tine-based Clovis overshot. My tine base Clovis overshot is awesome. It works on the first try, on many different materials. And, it only requires a common deer tine.
"So you have no more credibility than any one else. You are only inferring which is what we are all doing. It is the foundation of Archaeology and Anthropology, since none of us were there we can only infer from the evidence and the results of Experimental archaeology."
Not true. There is a difference between using a method that was known to have been used by Native American knappers, versus using a method that is cooked up in someone's garage. I recognized the tine based overshot method in the very same records that I tried to get flintknappers to look at between 2010 and 2011. It is unfortunate that people did not take the time to study those records. But, it is their loss not mine.
"The problem I see with Ben's theory is he is trying to apply his short peg punch hold it between your fingers, in his palm to everything. It does not and will not produce the results we see in the materials used in the Northeast Archaic broadspear traditions."
That is not an interpretation that I currently adhere to. Still, a misguided view is better than no view at all.
"Wooden billets do this very well where nothing else produces the same results."
You don't know that "nothing else" produces the same results. You would have to know every flintknapping possibility before you can make that claim. And, no one on earth knows every possibility.
"Pete Davis made no claim to have stumbled onto something and if you go back and read it Keith did not make the claim that Pete discovered anything."
Well, I did discover something. The very same records that no one wanted to look at, between 2010 and 2011, and onward actually contain the blueprint of sophisticated tine-based overshot flaking. So, maybe Pete did not discover anything, but I have. And, the profound part is that I endured years of continual naysaying, while the actual answer was within records that I was showing the naysayers. Ha ha ha. I found it.
"The difference I see is the ability to discuss techniques, methods etc. within that group, sharing ideas, respecting one anothers talent and opinions, and an interest in finding the answers and producing results, that match the record."
Match the record - yes, like tine-based Clovis overshot. Well, where was the discussion, and the sharing of ideas, in 2010, 2011, 2012, and onwards? It makes a great story, though. When certain people ask whether anyone knows about this stuff, I tell them that I spent years trying to get people to look at the evidence. And, I was subject to ridicule, insults, name calling, straw man attacks, switch and bait tactics, I was told that I was wasting my time, the idea is a pipe dream, the list goes on. And, five years later, I realized that tine based Clovis overshot was actually contained within the VERY RECORDS that I had tried to get "more knowledgeable" people to look at. Fifteen minutes later, I pull a coast to coast flake, on a crudely made spearhead. And, I immediately over ran the coast to coast flake, with a full blown outrepasse. And, I did it with the very same information that all of you rejected over and over, these last five years. Woo hoo! I won! It is not like you didn't see the info. It was presented multiple times. I found Clovis tine-based outrepasse in the very same records that everyone else openly rejected, and publicly repudiated. Amazing!
"All these pictures and remains are not suitable to produce the first stages of quarry production. Show me some tools from the The most recent round of pictures and archaeological remains I believe actually bolster Keith's theory that Ben is missing an entire tool set.quarry not a burial."
Quarry reduction? Ha ha ha. You must be joking. I never said that late stage overshot has anything to do with quarry reduction. Ever hear of "hammerstones"? Would you like photos of all my hammerstone overshot FAILURES? Is this another switch and bait tactic? I am missing a tool set, for quarries? Ha ha ha. Buckets of hammerstones are not enough? Ha ha ha. I cannot stop laughing. I have bucket loads of hammerstones, and I am missing quarry tools? Ha ha ha. Is this for real?
"Ben keeps asking, "Why can't you guys figure out how I am using the punch I keep showing you?" Well there are only two ways it can be used, You are either hitting it on the end like a typical punch or you are hitting it on the side like a typical rocker punch. Can't see it being done any other way. How its being held does not really change the direction of force. Neither are new or unique."
No, that is not how the overshot is made. And, if it was, you would have done it, by now. Remember the photos that you had censored from the Paleoplanet forum? They did not contain overshot, either. Here I will refresh your memory. There is not a single overshot on this piece:
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Good%20Data%20Bad%20Interpretation/batch47nemcoonioncutter015.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Good%20Data%20Bad%20Interpretation/batch47nemcoonioncutter015.jpg.html)
I figured out the first 50% of the process, in 2012. And, I figured out that last 50% of the process, in January of 2015. And, I did it with information that was provided to possibly hundreds of flintknappers, between 2010, and 2011, and on. It is clear that the loss is not mine. The worst mistake that the flintknappers made was putting up all the resistance against well documented factual evidence. It is not like I only know one thing. I found out a lot of other stuff, on the way. But, the tine based overshot, coast to coast flaking, and fluting, is a hallmark trait. And, no one is going to recreate it with hammerstones, or batons.
You can come up with any narrative that you want. But, when the time is right, I am going to show other people things that no one has provided answers to, until now.
-
What evidence do you have of a Clovis tine based tool kit
-
At the risk of incurring all kinds of ribbing from Zuma next time I see him:
Ben said"
My bid is to make flintknapping relevant again.
Ben,
I'm ready too, let's go. What's holding you back? How does keeping the method secret accomplish that? Doesn't it do the opposite? You reference your previous work, and specifically mention the time frame 2010-2011. If I am remembering correctly at the time you advocated the use of the short antler "drifts" as straight punches. You may not realize it, but that method prior to you talking about it wasn't in common usage, and now 5 years later it is used, to one degree or another, by most "abo" knappers. So for every guy that gave you sh*t about it, 10 others were in the background listening and learning. (I was one of them, so thank you.)
So is this like some kind of "bad blood" or "rubbing your nose in it type of thing"? Is this a matter of "Ha, ha, ha, I'm so smart, you're so dumb"? If so, as I said many times before I'm here to learn, so stop the train, I'm getting off. No disrespect intended, but I don't have time for that nonsense.
There are certain aspects of knapping, especially related to the paleo stuff, that I have been trying to figure out. I have been in a dark room looking for a black cat only to come up at the end, time after time, with the conclusion that the cat was never in that room to begin with. I think in the least you have found the right room. I think it is possible you have found a "holy grail" of knapping that many great experimental knappers past and present have been looking for, but missed. There's only one way to find that out. What's holding you back? What are you looking for from the knapping community that would cause you to deem us worthy? How do you make flintknapping relevant again by working in isolation? If you do, in fact, want to work in isolation, and the flintknapping community is not worthy of your brilliance, why mention your discovery at all?
Daniel Boone is famous not so much for finding the Cumberland Gap -- no doubt any number of good looking white boys had found it before him -- but because he went back and told people about it, leading them into Kentucky and giving us the fastest Thoroughbreds, smoothest bourbon and tastiest fried chicken in the world. To use your words, "man up", this is you Daniel Boone moment.
Keith
Keith
-
But, it's not the time, Grasshopper, the string he has everybody on is still long and nobody is smart enough to understand.