Main Discussion Area > ABO
Improving ABO tools
nclonghunter:
If you are asking if ABO tools can be made to perform just like copper tools then I am going to say "No". You can get to the same results which is a finished point but the use and results are going to be different. If you are asking if ABO tools can be shaped to make them work better then I am going to say "Yes". Antler tips and antler bases can be shaped to work for different purposes. Rounding the ends, squaring the ends, attaching to sticks and so on. Even different stone hammers will perform differently. I first figured a couple antler pieces would be all I needed but with time my ABO knapping kit has grown into a large collection of varying pieces which some are for certain uses.
Everything written above has years of expierence attached to their replys. We are lucky they are willing to share and teach. Thanks guys!
AncientTech:
--- Quote from: jkyarcher on December 21, 2015, 07:02:58 pm ---Thanks for the info
I guess I should clear up I was talking mainly about pressure flaking tool.
The antler doesn't seen to cleanly remove flakes as often as th copper. I just didn't know if I needed
To adjust length width of tip or something. I guess though maybe copper is just more effective.
--- End quote ---
Aha! We are talking about "pressure flakers"! That narrows it down quite a bit.
JKYarcher, let me tell you a secret. Generally, in flintknapping publications, antler tines have been suggested as pressure flakers, at least over the past fifty years. In reality, if you look at a couple hundred site reports, you won't find the type of tine flakers that have been represented as pressure flakers. Also, if you look at modern knappers attempting to use "tine flakers", you will see that they struggle with the chewing wear on the tips, and with flakes that hinge, and that do not run to completion.
I am not saying that the tine flaker was never used. Only, we do not know that it was used at the same stage, or to the same degree, that modern knappers have tried to use it, in the past. My theory - which is tentative - is that tine flakers may have been used by the "average indian" in retouching edges. The reason that I say this is because 19th century Indians sometimes demonstrated the use of the tine flaker. But, this could have been a common form of retouch on an already thin finished edge, that had become dull. I am not 100% convinced that it was a regular part of reduction. Also, it would seem that sharp tine flakers were more commonly used on brittle materials, such as obsidian. But, maybe they were not so commonly used on hard cherts.
On the other hand, there is probably stronger evidence of the use of composite bit pressure flakers, right alongside tools of indirect percussion, in the chert bearing areas of North America. But, even then, I can show you site reports which show tools of indirect percussion outnumbering the composite bit pressure flakers, by 100 to 1.
So, if you are trying to use antler flakers on hard chert, and you are not getting good results, it may just be that ancient knappers did not use them at the same point in reduction that you are trying to use them. And, if "aboriginal" is taken to mean an authentic part of one's culture, then maybe what people have tried to do with tine flakers is not aboriginal, in most instances.
On the other hand, if "aboriginal" is taken to mean "non-copper", then everyone will have a great deal more leeway to do pretty much anything, regardless of whether or not it was ever done in the past.
Also, between indirect percussion, and pressure flaking, it is possible that the results might look very similar, especially when the contact areas of the tools are of the same shape. But, I think that there are some telltale signs of differences. So, even if you look at ancient flaking that looks like pressure flaking, it may not be pressure flaking at all.
For example, erratic rippling in a flake scar could be a sign of shock. And, shock is produced by percussion and no so much by pressure. Also, in indirect percussion, if an antler upon antler blow is employed, the flakes come off faster, and the flake scars show much more rippling. Also, due to excessive energy, the flakes will run farther, frequently until full termination. And, the initiations will sometimes show diffuse shallow bulbing.
If you keep these details in mind, you can go back and look at artifacts that supposedly were pressure flaked. And, you will be able to see signs of percussive forces that were employed, though probably via indirect percussion, in many cases. Again, these signs are excessive erratic rippling, longer than normal flaking, and diffuse bulbs of percussion showing either in the flake scar, or on the flakes. Once you recognize this in looking at artifacts, you will understand that not everything that is assumed to be pressure flaking really was pressure flaking. Then, you may have to re-evaluate what constitutes "abo"? Were they doing something that we do not yet understand?
jayman448:
Ah hell. Im sure the same way none of us shoot the same in this modetn age, not all knappers knapoed the same way back then. And its probably very region specific. Chip and smash and make a killer. Whatever works
AncientTech:
PHOTO FOR VISUAL LEARNERS:
Hello JKYarcher,
The flaking on each side of this point was made with a deer tine flaking tool.
Look at the four large flakes on the right, versus the small series of flakes on the left.
One set of flakes was made via pressure. The other set of flakes was made via indirect percussion - with the same tool.
Same tool - small antler tine - two completely different processes. Here are the indirect flakes highlighted:
Look how different they appear, compared to the hingy little flakes, seen on the margin, on the left - same tool, different process.
Here are the pressure flakes:
If any person saw the deer tine tool used to create the indirect flakes, he would surely say that it is a "pressure flaker". He will say this because he was "taught" about pressure flakers. What he was not taught was that even in the early 20th century, people still remembered that a flaker could be used either as a pressure flaker, or as a tool of indirect percussion.
So, if you are struggling with pressure flaking your stone, you may want to try to come up with forms of indirect percussion, to see whether it is more efficient, or more effective, than pressure.
By the way, I think I made this in 2012. It is not "ideal" for many reasons. The indirect process would not work for outrepasse - maybe coast to coast at the most. Still, I think the piece illustrates the difference in flaking, made with the same tool - deer tine.
JoJoDapyro:
My beginners 2 cents. I started with a very short antler for a flaker. It works, but is very hard on my wrist, as all of the leverage comes from my wrist. I can run longer flakes with a 40 inch copper tipped flaker, but that is a matter of leverage. Also, Copper is going to be smaller than Antler most of the time. Smaller point, smaller area to put pressure on. I try to use the very tip of my antler flaker to pressure flake. I slowly moved from copper boppers to hammer stones. From copper tipped flakers to antler tines. I have gone through a lot of stone.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version