Main Discussion Area > ABO
Photos: Russell Cave Flaker photos - FREE RESEARCH INFORMATION for flintknapper
AncientTech:
--- Quote from: nclonghunter on December 06, 2015, 03:27:31 pm ---Hey Ben,
end striations, nicks, and cuts, it is believed that the tool was used in indirect percussion flaking of flint.
I would have to think that tine tips were used as pressure flakers rather than indirect percussion but there's a lot I dont know. I am talking about the very tip ends, back up an inch and start getting into indirect percussion strength....basing this on what I have been able to do. Had better results with small pointed antler for pressure and heavier larger for indirect. Just my opinion.
Is there a book or website that shows a lot of the finds in the Russel Cave?
--- End quote ---
"I would have to think that tine tips were used as pressure flakers rather than indirect percussion but there's a lot I dont know. I am talking about the very tip ends, back up an inch and start getting into indirect percussion strength....basing this on what I have been able to do."
In this case, I think that the subject matter has to be looked at from two directions - the flaker direction, and the flake/flake scar direction.
In looking at prehistoric late stage finishing flake scars, there are a few things that can be looked at. A. How small is the initiation versus the size of the flake? B. Does the flake stop abruptly and hinge, or does the flake scar expand and carry to completion. C. In terms of the flake scars surface, is it rippled, or smooth?
In the case of indirect percussion, with tines, what is produced is a small initiation that is contrasted by a much larger flaring flake scar. Also, the indirect percussion flake scars are more prone to running to completion, even on raw chert. Besides that, the percussive nature of the blow can produce a type of rippling in the flake scars, that will not be seen with pressure flaking.
So, when a person is looking at a tine flaking tool, he can also compare to the flakes and flake scars, to gain some idea as to whether one process was used over the other. In the case of hard "unworkable" cherts, indirect percussion could be a more likely candidate.
Had better results with small pointed antler for pressure and heavier larger for indirect. Just my opinion.
If you use heavy indirect percussion on an already thin edge, you might also run into problems. But, if you try to pressure flake an already thin edge of raw chert, you might run into a different set of problems. The finer tine based indirect percussion produces greater power than pressure, but on a smaller scale then heavy indirect percussion.
Is there a book or website that shows a lot of the finds in the Russel Cave?
I would suggest sifting through Google Books, and hacking Jstor. I hacked into Jstor a few years ago, and pulled probably hundreds of archaeological reports. The older reports tend to be better because they do a better job at photo documenting all sorts of artifacts. More recent reports tend to offer a "graph", or a "chart", and maybe a single word description, such as "flaker".
If you look at a couple hundred reports - both prehistoric, and proto-historic - you will be able to create a mental cross section of flaker types that were used over a span of several thousand years. When I was going through the Jstor archives, I was primarily looking for cylinder information. But, at this point, I need broader data, because my understanding has more recently been expanded, by other studies that pertain to the evidence of flakers.
riverrat:
what if some of those unidentified tips were pins for skin coverings? like blanket pins. just a thought. Tony
AncientTech:
Hello RiverRat,
Generally, all of the bone and antler artifacts were documented, and lumped into a particular classification, in older site reports.
Also, in older reports, it seems that researchers oftentimes did a better job at documenting the items that were found. For this reason, I have found many older site reports to be extremely helpful, whereas many post-1980's era site reports seem to lack much needed information, and photos, that would be required for studying authentic flintknapping practices, there were once used during the prehistoric era.
It is also worth pointing out that archaeologists give an interpretation as to what they believe an artifact is, or how it was used. The study of many different types of clues goes into making the interpretation. In some cases, there is a general consensus among archaeologists as to what an artifact is. In other rarer cases, no such consensus exists. Either way, it is an interpretation.
It is possible that the pins were "blanket pins". I think it is safe to say that they are not flaking tools. But, if they are made of bone, and antler, they are going to end up in the same section as other bone and antler object, such as flaking tools.
JackCrafty:
Thanks Ben. Digging up these references is good stuff.
For my 2 cents, it always frustrates me that we are seeing only part of the assemblage in most cases. Sometimes the criteria for selecting the "flakers" is given and sometimes it's not. But in almost all cases, the judgement and interpretation is made by someone who has no advanced experience in using ANY of the tools. But they present the findings in a way that implies experience and knowledge. Neither is true.
First, not all flakers will have use wear. Apparently no one has told these researchers that flaker tips are smoothed or sharpened from time to time as part of tool maintenance. They haven't figured this out on their own, apparently. This makes my confidence level in their "choices" next to nil. Zero in most cases.
Second, none have ever made a comprehensive list of possible alternatives. So, whenever I see a group of flakers, I'm tempted to say, "Those are personal adornments. All of them. Skin piercings, hair pins, clothing pins, etc.". Sometimes I give in to the temptation but most of the time I let it go. Too many deaf ears. Certainly, personal adornments were much more common that knapping tools, but that doesn't seem to matter.
Lastly, only very recently has sanity crept into the research field. The internet has really opened up this arena to review and many are starting to get burned from the heat. Hopefully soon the creatures that are killed by sunlight will turn to ash (blood sucking ones) and leave the living standing.
And we will live happily ever after. The end. :)
AncientTech:
--- Quote from: JackCrafty on December 20, 2015, 11:47:51 am ---Thanks Ben. Digging up these references is good stuff.
For my 2 cents, it always frustrates me that we are seeing only part of the assemblage in most cases. Sometimes the criteria for selecting the "flakers" is given and sometimes it's not. But in almost all cases, the judgement and interpretation is made by someone who has no advanced experience in using ANY of the tools. But they present the findings in a way that implies experience and knowledge. Neither is true.
First, not all flakers will have use wear. Apparently no one has told these researchers that flaker tips are smoothed or sharpened from time to time as part of tool maintenance. They haven't figured this out on their own, apparently. This makes my confidence level in their "choices" next to nil. Zero in most cases.
Second, none have ever made a comprehensive list of possible alternatives. So, whenever I see a group of flakers, I'm tempted to say, "Those are personal adornments. All of them. Skin piercings, hair pins, clothing pins, etc.". Sometimes I give in to the temptation but most of the time I let it go. Too many deaf ears. Certainly, personal adornments were much more common that knapping tools, but that doesn't seem to matter.
Lastly, only very recently has sanity crept into the research field. The internet has really opened up this arena to review and many are starting to get burned from the heat. Hopefully soon the creatures that are killed by sunlight will turn to ash (blood sucking ones) and leave the living standing.
And we will live happily ever after. The end. :)
--- End quote ---
Thanks for sharing your views, Patrick.
In reality, the myths that are still being perpetuated by the American flintknapping community, are partly based on misunderstanding of archaeology, and what archaeologists do.
First, what responsible archaeologists do not do is to pick up an artifact, and take a guess as to how it was or wasn't used. It simply is not that simple.
What responsible archaeologists do first is look for evidence of a trait's "cultural predictability". The first step in determining cultural predictability of material culture involves identifying the full lifespan of a particular item. Thus, one has to identify the items initial manufacture, signs of its subsequent use in terms of possible wear, its secondary refurbishment, and finally the disposal of the item, once it is expended.
If the full lifecycle of an item can be demonstrated, in archaeological contexts, then the second step to determining cultural predictability is in showing that these processes occurred over and over again, throughout a culture.
If all of this can be demonstrated - a full lifecycle of a particular item, plus the recurrence of the entire lifecycle of the item, throughout a culture, then the next question is this:
Can it predicted when and where signs of this process will appear, along with the said item? Is the item actually "predictable", in terms of its entire lifecycle?
With regard to certain types of antler flaking tools, found in Eastern North America, researchers did an excellent job at identifying the tools, and even documenting the entire lifespan of such tools. For example, I believe that Webb documented, in the 1940's, the full reduction process of antler racks, in Eastern Woodland sites. Bases were used for handles, and tips of tines were used for points, while other parts of antler were used for other purposes. Also, for at least fifty years, archaeologists regularly noted the associations of certain antler tools, with chipped flint, in flintknapping stations - spots that were dedicated solely to the reduction of stone, via chipping. Piles of chips were frequently found right alongside the antler tools that were used to chip the stone. This pattern was discovered hundreds of times, if not thousands of times. Also, burials of interred flintknappers showed the "tools of the trade". And, the same antler tools that were found at flintknapping worksites, were also found in the graves of presumed flintknappers. Also, in ever stage of the tools life - from fabrication to expenditure - traces of wear were usually noted. Besides all of this, flintknapping tool kits have even been found intact, in dry sites.
So, what a responsible archaeologist does is to take into account all known data, look at the associations, and then come up with a theory, such as "antler tool A was used to chip conchoidally fracturable stone B". And, behind this theory there might be thousands of instances of evidence.
But, what an archaeologist will not do is to look at a single artifact out of context, and take a shot in the dark guess, while proposing a "theory". Archaeologists actually use a very wide spread of evidence.
So, what happens if scores of independent archaeologists conclude that an items was actually a tools such as a "flint flaker"? Well, they could go to people who are "flintknappers" and ask how the tool might have been used. And, this is where the breakdown has historically occurred between American flintknappers and American archaeologists. American flintknappers were simply never able to understand the tools, and the tool processes, that were used by Native American flintknappers, in both the historic era, and the prehistoric era. In fact, the majority of American flintknappers practice a type of flintknapping that was developed in Europe - baton knapping with a soft hammer baton.
Also, American flintknappers do not seem to be able to grasp why archaeologists have historically arrived at much the same conclusions, over and over again, for the last century. This has happened because the type of evidence that has been found, actually transcends individual cultures, and transcends regions of the continent. What can be seen is that Native Americans came out of the paleoindian era, with fairly sophisticated flintknapping technologies, that are seen reflected in tools found in various archaic horizons, when settled life was first adopted, in different regions. As a result, different archaeologists, in different parts of the country, studied and documented very similar data, that involved the same types of tools, regardless of whether or not they knew others were making the same findings.
The flintknappers approach of looking at individual artifacts, on a case by case basis, is not a reliable approach, when it comes to studying 10,000 year old tool traditions, that have never been understood by modern flintknappers, and that might span continents. Such an approach creates massive "tunnel vision", probably akin to blindness. It would be like trying to understand the birds of the world, while looking at a single feather.
At some point in time, someone will have to confront the flintknapping community with real evidence, if real progress is to be made. In the same manner, people were confronted with a round earth, with boiling water that kills germs, etc. The solution is in the evidence - all the evidence, as archaeologists have known for decades.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version