Main Discussion Area > Flintknapping
Stop Settling (pic heavy)
Tower:
I understand what Nathaniel saying. I know we all marvel at the way some of our ancient man mastered the con cordial fracture. I was always trying to thin them out as much as possible. I've put hours & hours & hours of thought into thinning points to their max. Some of them points make me look like an amateur. I think 2 things are needed to manufacture points that thin. #1 is the drive( the want to). The perfectionist.
#2 an abundance of high quality material just lying around for the taking.
As for the functionality of thin points. They may not be salvageable after a hit or miss but it's just a stone point. They will make another.
My hunting points are about 1.5 long 1" wide & average 60 to 70 grains. Many have chipped up after a shot, but most are still salvageable.
I tend to retire them. & if you miss & bust it, remember, it's just a rock.
My thoughts on the subject.
mullet:
I agree, Don. Most of my points using the material in Florida are simple triangle points. 5/8- 1" wide, 1"-1 1/4", long , around 90- 100 grains.
And Nathaniel, i agree except, I don't like hunting with points that light and breakable. I want them sharp. But when I get one that thin it goes in the case.
AncientTech:
I will have to look for the reference. But, I believe there is evidence that at the Colha quarries the prehistoric knappers set aside the highest grade materials to make the thinnest stuff. And, I believe that thermal alteration was employed maybe 28% of the times, at least in one site.
Also, few people probably know this, but I believe that there is ethnographic evidence which suggests that sometimes stone tipped arrows were used as skinning knives, in skinning small game, when the hunter did not have a knife on hand.
Generally, what the majority of people in flintknapping appear to strive for is a certain visual effect. For many, the visual effect is the bottom line. But, the complexities of the reality of prehistoric life must have made the subject very different for prehistoric peoples.
For example, if both a stout clunky point, and a thin sharp point can kill equally, but the stout clunky points are more durable than the thin sharp points, then which points are better? To some prehistoric people, the stouter points may have been better. But, if the bottom line is a certain visual appearance, then the thin sharp point is better - even if it breaks more frequently.
vinemaplebows:
I prefer a point that has a bit of backbone on a arrow. I usually define a hunting point on whether it will go in my collection , or not. I is pretty simple for me. Sure you can take a Porche to the woods, it will get you there, but I prefer a 4x4...just a opinion. :)
Tower:
--- Quote from: vinemaplebows on May 08, 2016, 12:42:11 pm ---Sure you can take a Porche to the woods, it will get you there, but I prefer a 4x4...just a opinion. :)
--- End quote ---
I like that
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version