Main Discussion Area > Flintknapping
Knappability Scale?
Zuma:
--- Quote from: jackcrafty on June 16, 2015, 05:33:50 pm --- It states that there should be a mathematical basis for the comparisons. I don't see how that's possible.
--- End quote ---
Maybe this---
Most archies are not knappers but have computers :D
Computational archaeology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It incorporates a large part of the methods and theories developed in quantitative archaeology since the 1960s but goes beyond former attempts at quantifying archaeology by exploring ways to represent general archaeological information and problem structures as computer algorithms and data structures.
JackCrafty:
Computational BS-ology. >:D
Choosing what stone tool to make (and use) is like choosing a car. Are there mathematical models for car choice? And are these models tailored to each culture and subculture? Do the models show how cars affect culture and how culture affects cars? If there are, maybe we should follow those "computations". If the wheels have already been invented, let's install them. I'd like 4 please, if they exist. (tried searching... but I encountered more BS).
I used cars only as an example. I'd like to see a logical/mathematical system for describing/analyzing another type of material culture. I'd look myself but there's only so many hours in a day... :(
Zuma:
--- Quote from: jackcrafty on June 17, 2015, 12:52:12 am ---Computational BS-ology. >:D
I'd look myself but there's only so many hours in a day... :(
--- End quote ---
Hard to explain but I'll give it a try as I am just hiding out
in the air conditioning these past few days.
"exploring ways to represent general archaeological information and problem structures as computer algorithms and data structures."
So it's not the actual analysis but more like medical coding where #s are assigned to procedures etc.
Perhaps Callahan's scale was ok but just not compatibly algorithmic??
I have encountered this stuff before when it comes to point typology. Not to belabor this but it is a big new part of modern archaeology.
Zuma
JackCrafty:
Yeah, I know what they want. They want to see a certain applied force + direction (vector) detaching a certain mass of removed material of certain dimensions that conform to desired shape(s) of the flakes and the workpiece. To them, small vectors combined with high flake mass in comparison to the mass of the workpiece will tell them that certain materials are "soft to knap", for example.
They don't understand the skill required in preparing the edge/surface according to material, the skill required in recognizing and adapting to variations in the properties of the material being knapped, and the need, or lack of need, of maintaining tools to a high degree in order to produce good results.
But that's only a small part of what they don't understand.
They perceive that knapping is like hitting a baseball, for example: with batters (or knappers) assigned batting averages. And if you have a team with batters with good averages, they always win more games (produce more finished pieces of higher quality). Not only that, they think that a batting average (knapping skill) can tell you a lot about a player's personal life (the knapper's culture)!
Ridiculous !! And nothing but BS-ology.
And don't get me started on their lack of understanding of the need for a knapper to be in a good state of mind in order to produce good work. (I'll get upset and knap like crap... can't do that... I've got a vid I need to shoot today ;)).
AncientTech:
Edit: Grain and brittleness are not the same thing.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version