Main Discussion Area > ABO
ABO techniques, processes and tools.
AncientTech:
--- Quote from: Zuma on October 16, 2015, 11:26:44 pm ---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.
--- End quote ---
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.
AncientTech:
Fort Loudoun flakers:
Enlarged photo of presumed flint flakers:
Zuma:
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
Hummingbird Point:
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
AncientTech:
--- Quote from: Zuma on October 17, 2015, 07:46:16 pm ---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:
Here are unfinished bifaces, from a Clovis cache, at the Lamb Clovis site:
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.
--- End quote ---
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version