Main Discussion Area > Flintknapping
Overshot Technology
AncientTech:
Thanks for the clarification, Dalton Knapper.
As a general experiment, it is actually impressive.
Regarding the use of a cue ball, I believe that the old time cue balls were made of ivory, while the newer balls might be synthetic.
That being said, it might be possible to track down an old ivory pool ball, and use it directly as an ivory flaker, or have it machined into a cylinder.
I am not sure how the density of ivory compares to the density of antler. Obviously, in direct percussion, really light antler can have its drawbacks.
Regarding the Clovis ivory object, it could be a tool used in direct percussion. It also conforms to the shape of tools which were historically known to have been used to create blanks, via indirect percussion, for subsequent point production. I believe that Redding's account, of Consulu, covers a punch with a square cut end used to detach an obsidian blade/blank then used to make an arrowhead. The purpose of a square edge - in blade/blank creation - appears to be to catch the platform, during impact. Again, I would not dismiss the idea of direct percussion, either. Without further data on similar Clovis cylinders - if more can be found - it will be hard to tell.
Regarding billet-like objects and the American archaeological record, no one has ever demonstrated that such tools were not used as "pitching tools". I believe that Ray describes pitching tools as being about six inches in length, and one inch in diameter. He actually sent one to the National Museum, while stationed with the Hupa, during the 1880's. Mason follows, with similar information, along with others. I have out of print information, from a California gemologist who wrote during the 1930's, who knew of the native Californian obsidian workers. Either he describes the "pitching tools", or their use, or both.
Regarding the use of hammerstones, I think it is worth comparing the evidence related to hammerstone use, along with the evidence relating to hard hammer bi-polar technology. The traits of both are different. Distinguishing the attributes of the two, as seen in archaeological contexts, could make it easier to get a clearer idea as to how each technology(s) was employed. With regard to hammerstone use, there were probably entire sets of technologies. I probably use around a half a dozen technologies, always on raw stone.
Zuma:
Here is a good fluting billet. I am not sure if it is white tail or mulie.
Found it as a shed in ND.
It works just fine for free hand flutes.
Clovis points nipples weren't in a concavity to start.
They were prominent with a square base especially in western types.
A slight concavity is developed preping for a second nipple.
Most of the concavity is done by pressure, cleaning up the haft
area when the fluting is done and the base is very thin.
Zuma
AncientTech:
--- Quote from: Zuma on August 01, 2015, 11:14:16 pm ---Here is a good fluting billet. I am not sure if it is white tail or mulie.
Found it as a shed in ND.
It works just fine for free hand flutes.
Clovis points nipples weren't in a concavity to start.
They were prominent with a square base especially in western types.
A slight concavity is developed preping for a second nipple.
Most of the concavity is done by pressure, cleaning up the haft
area when the fluting is done and the base is very thin.
Zuma
--- End quote ---
Thanks for posting that, Zuma. That is an excellent example of a modern flintknapping "baton", as devised during the 1930's, in England.
Also, prior to that, there was some academic speculation, in Europe, that the "baton de commandement" could have been used to flake chert. That probably would have been around 1900, about 30 years before the first baton flaking experiments were carried out, at Pitts River Museum, by Professor Alfred S. Barnes. As far as I know, none of the "baton de commandements" have ever been shown to show signs of use wear, consistent with the flaking of flint. But, don't quote me on that. I could be wrong. If anyone can show a "baton de commandement", showing some sort of flintknapping use wear, then please post it.
In order to demonstrate that an item such as a flaker is a culturally predictable trait, one must document the entire lifespan of the said flaker, as known from archaeological contexts. For example, from archaeological contexts, one would need to show the fabrication of the flakers, use of the flakers, refurbishment of the flakers, wear of the flakers, and the eventual discarding of the flakers, once they have been fully expended. Then, with this information, it becomes possible to show cultural predictability, which makes for a good case that the alleged tool was used for a specific purpose, and in a particular culture.
So, in the case of a flaker like the one you are showing, it is a rather simple matter. From archaeological contexts, one must show how ancient people fabricated the billet, used the billet, refurbished the billet, and eventually discarded the billet. Once all of this has been established, then you will be able to predict where billets should be found - such as in the graves of deceased flintknappers. If you can peg all of this to a single culture, then you can start looking to find all of this in a second culture, and a third culture, and so on.
Also, since there is significant evidence that Native American knappers used similar billet-like tools, but in different flaking processes, one must be able to fully differentiate such a tool, from the modern "antler billet', as was invented in England, during the 1930's. In other words, one would need full criteria on the "pitching tools" known to Native American cultures, far and wide, in order to ascertain that a billet-like tool was not actually a pitching tool. And, this requires more advanced knowledge.
Anyway, if anyone thinks that he can demonstrate the full lifestyle of "antler billets" in prehistoric contexts, then please post the information, and tie it to a culture. Show how the antler flintknapping baton is a culturally predictable trait.
JoJoDapyro:
How many cultures made bone or antler beads? In a culture where nothing was wasted it is hard to believe that you would assume that once a chunk of bone or antler wasn't useful for one thing, that it wasn't repurposed as something else. Kind of a thought I've had on why son many "bird points" are found. An arrowhead is made, each time it is resharpened it progressively gets smaller and smaller. Until it is too small to be of much use anymore. Then it is discarded. Just a thought from an overactive brain.
turbo:
Concerning the short Blackwater billet, I always felt it could have been used like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZdWda99zrI
I have a couple short billets like his in my kit. As you can see in the video he uses it much like a hammerstone, it's a very natural transition.
Indirect was surely used. Marty Reuter has experimented a lot w/ indirect. His shaft/composite punch is basically a billet on a stick and works well. He has also used rocker style punches. I'm about to try out his water buffalo punch as well.
While I don't disagree w/ (some) of 'ancient tech's thoughts on billets, I feel that we can't rule them out either. Use wear and other analysis should help determine, to some degree, their intended use(s). While I see your point on proving billet use through their 'lifespan', this would be difficult to prove for bone/antler artifacts. Bone doesn't survive as well, especially since Paleo times. Can you prove this w/ your mystery tool?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page
Go to full version