Main Discussion Area > Flintknapping

Deer Tine Flaking - Clovis preform work

<< < (2/4) > >>

AncientTech:
From Belize.  Mostly raw.  Here is a link:  https://youtu.be/EFts9tQfDrI

Hummingbird Point:
Ben,

So glad you are still around!  I had feared you hit a big treasure metal detecting and forgot about us.  I greatly appreciate you doing the video to show that technique.  I am a fan of Cushing's model, after kind of discovering it on my own by experimentation prior to reading about it in one of Holmes' books.  For anyone interested, the link below will take yo to "The Arrow".  About 10 or 11 pages in, under the heading "The Making of Arrows" Cushing lays out the knapping model he used.

Personally, I have found much more value in his step prior to the one you describe , when the spalls "were with almost incredible rapidity trimmed to the leaf-shaped basis of all primitive chipped tools by knapping them with a horn, bone, or very soft, tough, granular stone hammer mounted in a light handle."  I have found doing it that way to be extraordinarily fast and effective, and the indirect percussion work seems to me to work much better on a percussion preform than a spall.   It seems to me having a somewhat regular cross section makes the "punching" go much more efficiently. 

But, I have issues.  When I first read Cushing's indirect percussion technique I also thought it could describe a horizontal punch type movement as you propose, however, the drawing accompanying his description (see below) appears to show a vertical punch technique.  At the same time, when I try it as the picture shows, it really does not work well at all.  (It is like a hundred things I have tried, seems like a great idea in theory, but doesn't end up working well.) So, in that sense, I like your method much better.

I know antler is much harder to get down there than up here, but if you can get a hold of some elk antler, try that with your technique and see if it doesn't work better.  I have found with the hafted hammer, it is tops for most "flint" type materials.  It also does a better job of keeping the flakes from breaking, so it (maybe) better mimics those cases when the old timers were using the bifaces as flake blanks while on the way to becoming bifacial tools ("points").

If this discussion ends up jumping the track, you and I should stay in touch.  I was getting ready to email you about this kind of stuff any way.





http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1525/aa.1895.8.4.02a00010/epdf


Thanks again,

Keith

AncientTech:
Hummingbird Point,

The illustration does show that pose.  But, if you follow Cushing's actual words he says that the punch is held

"with one hand holding the point of the pitching-tool very lightly and slantingly and at a wide angle"

Slantlingly and at a wide angle - not a vertical angle.

The illustration you are showing - made by an illustrator - shows the knapper kneeling on an arrowhead.  But, if you look at Holmes (1919), he plainly clears it up.

Actually, a second time Cushing's own words prove that the illustration is wrong:  "usually by clamping it in a folded pad of buckskin UNDER the knee against a hammerstone"

Cushing never said that the knapper knelt on the arrowhead, as shown in the photo.  The illustrator imagined it.

The picture is wrong.  It is hogwash.  It is baloney.  But, flintknappers failed to pay heed to Cushing's actual words, or they would have figure this out a long time ago. 

Also, seeing is believing unless a person is indoctrinated.  I showed the results for three years.  Now, I showed that I followed Cushing's literal, precise, and exact, words.  And, I can show why over a century of theory was hugely misguided.  I lay it square at the feet of flintknappers and...  Ha ha ha!  You know the story.  But, archaeologists are so interested, because I built on evidence.  And, when the winds and the storms come, the evidence is not going to go anywhere.  Now, we are down to fighting indoctrination.  Also, I left this under wraps for three straight years for a number of reasons.  So far, not one person has said, "We already knew..."  As they could have said in January of 2015.  My prediction is that they will try to pretend that it simply does not exist. 

But, I just had four archaeologists come to my house and look at everything, and hear a bit, and they were amazed.  I have already been invited to go to a research project in Guatemala this summer.  I am also getting queries from archaeologists in Europe.  And, this was all done with evidence that was shown to flintknappers multiple times, and was soundly rejected.  So, you know what that means.  Lol!!  The good thing is that Native American knappers really get interested when they see my cultural evidence.  That causes them to go into overdrive.  Are you on Facebook?  I have found it to be extremely effective.  I now have close to 800 friends, or contacts - all people who asked to be my friend.  And, I am friends with collectors, and alot of different people.  I was quite reluctant to use Facebook.  It is hard to learn.  But, it has opened many doors that would not have been opened otherwise.  Anyway, if you go there, look up "Knap Yucatan"       

Hummingbird Point:
Ben,

Yes, I think the picture is wrong.  I can easily picture him sending his typed manuscript to an editor across the country who then had a staff artist add drawings.  Regardless, the proof is in the testing, and the way it is pictured does not work well.

I appreciate the advice on Facebook.  I will admit I have been actively avoiding it and am a bit...I don't know, scared?  of it.

Rather than "banned" flintknapping, perhaps "heretical" flintknapping.  Let me know if you get T shirts made up, I may want one.

Keith

AncientTech:
Hello Keith,

There are over 12,000 members on the flintknapping Facebook page.  It has taken me time to learn to use it a little bit, because it is very nebulous and non-linear.  I know that there are thousands of whippersnapper kids who have an easier time.  Lol!  That being said, it is a great tool for making contact with archaeologists, and knappers around the world. 

I have never had a problem dealing with archaeologists all of these years.  They have been great.  They always seem to be opened to evidence based theories, so long as one shows the evidence.  So, Facebook is a great way to connect to massive amounts of similarly minded people, who otherwise we would never know about.  I have already been contacted by a number of archaeologists.  They even post my work on their pages.  If it were not for Facebook, American flintknappers would have buried my work.  Now, because of Facebook, there is worldwide interest.

I suspect that the reason why Cushing's description never got traction was on account of an erroneous illustration.  If you want to use Facebook as a "lurker" you can look me up as "Knap Yucatan."  I have uploaded videos and galleries that would otherwise be hard to access.

Take care,

Ben





 

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page