Main Discussion Area > Flintknapping

The other side of the model

<< < (2/2)

aaron:
thanks for the clear and in-depth post. I was wondering when someone else would point out that cushing describes "regular" percussion knapping as well as punch knapping. Ben conveniently ignored this when I pointed it out. T

AncientTech:
I am not ignoring people.  I have been extremely busy.  I have been communicating with archaeologists, some who are now researching all of this practically night, and day.  They do not use the approach that you guys use.  They constantly feed me different types of information and ask for feedback, while they make their own assessments. 

Fortunately, I worked "blind" while developing much of the details, such as platforms.  What I found to optimally work in some Cushing flaking modes appears to be what some really ancient knappers found to be optimal when they were working, especially with regard to platforms - and they are not billet flaking platforms, either.  Another researcher believes that he has already identified the same type of flaking in the Old World, and various instances of it.  Another researcher said that they type of entries that are produced with the tine could not be made by any other method, except the use of a rough flake.  And, the fact that there are no signs of hard hammer impact eliminate the possibility of a rough flake.   

A person should review Ellis before presumptously assuming that Cushing's description was limited exclusively to what he described to the Vice President of the United States in a lecture on flintknapping.  It is surprising that anyone would suggest there is some "one wayness" about this, especially after reviewing Ellis.  I already found an individual who was in Piedras Negras, Mexico, in the 80's.  And, the fellow witnessed the same technique being used by an indian, who was making stone trinkets, and who could not speak Spanish.

Anyway, you guys carry on.  This probably will be my last post, here.  So, if you want, you can all have a party.  I have many things to do.  So, do not let me stop you from doing whatever you want to do.   

Hummingbird Point:
Ellis never mentions Cushing. (See references at the end of his paper, Cushing isn't there.)  He did some rudimentary experiments with a bunch of methods he read about and came to no firm conclusions.  He most certainly did not develop a working model.  Many modern experimental knappers have gone way beyond him.  But no need to take my word for it:
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015017457303;view=1up;seq=1

A couple of things Ellis said that seems to ring true with so much of your work:  "There are so many better methods of accomplishing the same results that continued experimenting on the part of the Indians would undoubtedly have made such work obsolete."

And archaeologists studying your method would be wise to consider what Ellis observes on page 55: "Anyone who would spend so much time making a single arrow-point when there are any number of methods which might have been used to better, or at least as good, advantage would be the exception to any rule."   That is, unless you consider "primitive" to equal "dumb", the slow, tedious way you knap was unlikely the norm.

That said the clamping and support you use to remove large flakes from thin preforms without breaking the biface is very cool stuff.  It would be better if you could do it without blowing up the flakes (making them worthless as tools) and without gouging out the edges of the biface.  Both of those are wrong for Clovis (and I'm shocked you have archaeologist saying otherwise).  I think it has great potential for fluting and would encourage you to pursue that further.  Show why the Solberger jig should never have been invented to begin with!

Sorry if any of that sounds harsh.  Not intended that way. 

Keith

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page