Primitive Archer
Main Discussion Area => Flintknapping => ABO => Topic started by: AncientTech on December 06, 2015, 08:36:00 am
-
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Russell%20Cave%20flakers/Russell%20Cave%20text.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Russell%20Cave%20flakers/Russell%20Cave%20text.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Russell%20Cave%20flakers/russel%20cave%20flakers%201.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Russell%20Cave%20flakers/russel%20cave%20flakers%201.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Russell%20Cave%20flakers/russel%20cave%20flakers%202.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Russell%20Cave%20flakers/russel%20cave%20flakers%202.jpg.html)
(INVESTIGATIONS IN RUSSELL CAVE, Publications in Archeology 13, By John W. Griffin)
-
Thanks Ben, some great info in those pictures......
Without being able to examine the antlers first hand, the antler tip listed as "L" does not appear to have been used for anything. Many of the antler tips I see in pictures do not look like they have been used for flaking. The antler drifts which are shaped and do show use. The antler tip in "L" makes me think they were going to be used after being shaped. The one pictured looks like it was simply broken off the main beam rather than sawed. I guess I am saying it is an early stage drift punch.
I did a web search and looked at artifacts found at the Russel Cave which they say date from paleo to mississippian. One picture shown had an antler piece very closely matching the one you have been showing. The smaller tine end appeared to be decayed some but very close. They also said all the artifacts in the museum are reproductions of originals so the originals could be preserved. The museum also only has a tiny bit represented of what was found. All artifacts found are in Tallahasee Florida in controlled environment.
It would be amazing to see all of the hidden artifacts in the Smithsonian and other museums. At one time I would have focused on bows,arrows and hide tanning but now I would have to add knapping tools.
-
http://www.google.com/search?q=russell+cave+artifacts&client=safari&hl=en&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjVmdjtxMfJAhXHGx4KHbv8Bp4Q_AUICCgB&biw=1024&bih=672#hl=en&tbm=isch&q=russell+cave+arrowheads&imgrc=YOX2BYD9nyiINM%3A
This may work....
-
Hello NClonghunter,
The link worked, and the individual picture came up.
I have used other tines that look like "l" in very late stage removals, at a finishing level. Thirteen antler tines were classified as flakers. Also, I believe Russell Cave holds some of the earliest records of antler cylinders. My guess is that they are about 7500 years old. I tried to pull the information up in Google Books, but am having trouble accessing the site.
In general, in both North America, and Mesoamerica, when a tine tip shows signs of blunting, along with end striations, nicks, and cuts, it is believed that the tool was used in indirect percussion flaking of flint.
-
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?
-
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?
"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.
-
what if some of those unidentified tips were pins for skin coverings? like blanket pins. just a thought. Tony
-
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.
-
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. :)
-
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. :)
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.
-
"Cultural Predictability" and "Life Cycle" are concepts born from something called the "Chaîne opératoire" or "Operational Chain". This is a concept first formualted in the 1940's as an anthropological idea.
Since that time, many have followed this train of thought and crafted their writings to support this idea. There are at least four problems with this: anti-patterns, intercultural memes, reverse engineering, and independent invention.
(I don't have time to explain this stuff now. You can look up these terms if you like)
Now, sometimes it really doesn't matter how a knapper achieved the end result (stone tool) in the past as long as it was achieved. But the problem lies in assuming that "diffusion" is ALWAYS responsible for lithic technology and that diffusion is ALWAYS beneficial to its use and development. (Again, you can look up the term diffusion).
All we can hope for is "possibilities". Some of those possibilities will be correct but we will never know which ones are.
And the possibilities cannot be floating around above the clouds (clouds = intelectual excercises and discussion). The clouds obscure our view of the ground. And we cannot build structures in the clouds.
-
"Cultural Predictability" and "Life Cycle" are concepts born from something called the "Chaîne opératoire" or "Operational Chain". This is a concept first formualted in the 1940's as an anthropological idea.
Since that time, many have followed this train of thought and crafted their writings to support this idea. There are at least four problems with this: anti-patterns, intercultural memes, reverse engineering, and independent invention.
(I don't have time to explain this stuff now. You can look up these terms if you like)
Now, sometimes it really doesn't matter how a knapper achieved the end result (stone tool) in the past as long as it was achieved. But the problem lies in assuming that "diffusion" is ALWAYS responsible for lithic technology and that diffusion is ALWAYS beneficial to its use and development. (Again, you can look up the term diffusion).
All we can hope for is "possibilities". Some of those possibilities will be correct but we will never know which ones are.
The possibilities cannot be floating around above the clouds (clouds = intelectual excercises and discussion). The clouds obscure our view of the ground. And we cannot build structures in the clouds.
You missed the point. The idea is not about an idea. Nor does the idea exist for the sake of the idea. The idea is about recognizing something that already exists, in concrete form.
By the 1950's American archaeologists were well able to concretely show what tools were used to flake stone. Some of those tools even show microscopic fragments of silicates embedded in them. That is a concrete fact, not the same as idle opinion.
One of the primary tools used, presumably after hammerstone percussion, was the antler drift. Hammerstones were well documented. Antler drifts were well documented by the thousands, if not ten thousands. And, composite bit pressure flakers were well documented. In each case, complete associations of these tools with flintknapping were shown, from "birth until death", of both stone and man.
The people who historically rejected this evidence were the American flintknappers. They rejected this evidence on two counts. First, they became so good with soft hammer batons (invented in Europe), and thoroughly heat treated stone, that they bypassed hammerstone reduction, pretty much entirely.
Then, they bypassed antler drifts, entirely. They ended up with intensely cooked stone, moose batons, elk batons, whitetail batons, and pressure flakers. But, that never worked very well for the best replication. So, they abandoned all of it in favor of copper percussion, which probably "paid really well", too.
Really, the copper percussionists are my BEST FRIENDS, because they are the living second generation proof, that the original theories from Europe never panned out.
The American flintknappers have used the same approach as their European predecessors who invented the antler baton. It is all driven by "the end justifies the means". The most extreme form of this sort of thinking is in throwing everything away, and going full blown copper. This is why archaeologists have virtually no interest in modern flintknappers, and modern flintknapping. We are actually laughed at, and viewed as people tripping on another planet.
The starting point is the artifacts - flaking tool artifacts - that have been routinely dug up, in archaeological sites, for over a century. That is the starting point. That is where past flintknappers went wrong. The only way to get on the right track is to admit that the known flaking tools - whether understood or not - come before flakes, flake scars, and finished points. Sitting around and inventing a hundred new tools and tool processes will never take the place of acknowledging physical evidence was already collected, and well documented, by about a century's worth of archaeologists.
If I am wrong, then let me ask rhetorically,
Why did researchers take antler drifts, and go to American flintknappers for an opinion, in the first place? If such a tool did not exist, or was not positively identified with flintknapping work, deceased flintknappers, cached flintknapping toolkits, etc, then why would this question have ever been presented to flintknappers, in the first place? Sixty years of identifying a flaking tool thousands and thousands of times is not good enough evidence? Finding silicate fragments embedded in the ends of antler drifts is not good enough evidence? Showing a continuous ten thousand year old tool trail going back to the advent of the archaic is not good enough evidence? Showing the enduring use of such a tool, right into the 16th century colonial historical era is not good enough evidence?
The error is not on the part of archaeologists. The error is on the part of flintknappers who form opinions without first making an exhaustive search of all evidence.
-
Sort of off topic from the original post but still inline with what the OP is discussing. Why the term antler drift punch? Could it be inferred that archeologists upon finding such objects took what they knew from more modern times and placed that idea (a punch) on these small sections of antler? They did not seem to have the evidence to effectively state that they were used in the manner of a punch by needing to go to modern flintknappers to determine how they could have been used. Im not trying to say that they were not used because overwhelming evidence points to them being used in lithic reduction. But when faced with a new discovery we tend to use knowledge we already have to make sense on things. So when faced with a tool that is small and round and is used in the manufacture of something else; steel punches are used in the manufacture of lots of more modern tools. So someone could of said this small section of antler looks like kinda like a punch, and his buddy told his buddy that "Tom might of found a punch..." and that buddy says to someone else "hey did you hear about Tom finding a antler punch" and the next person says "Tom says these small antler sections were definitely punches". Now this is completely made up but you can see how one thought could have influenced a much larger group especially when the actual use of the item was uncertain.
So what we do know is that these antler sections are carefully shaped before use, and show evidence of being used in stone tool manufacture. And from the pictures that show the actual size they tend to be between the thickness of a No2 pencil and a Sharpie and shorter than a pinky finger. Why take so much care into creating a uniformly shaped antler tool? To me it makes sense that a greater likely hood is that they were used in a handle. A uniformly shaped section of antler would haft into a handler better than a section that is not uniform. Look at modern day pressure flakers and "ishi sticks" they work great, even when the copper rod is replaced with a uniform shaped antler section.
Hammerstones of varying sizes and densities are more than proficient at reduction than trying to obtain the dexterity of a guitar player in trying to hold a punch, a section of antler tine in the hand is not very comfortable when attempting to pressure flake. So put a refined section of antler "drift punch" in a handle of wood, bone etc that is also more uniform and it seems that we might have something.
I dont know how to place a quote into this post so, In the most recent post you stated that copper percussionists are your BEST FRIENDS because they are living second generation proof that the original theories from Europe never panned out. While I disagree with what that statement implied I think the same thing can be said about yourself. From your most recent work you see to have abandoned the small sections of antler for a much larger piece of antler tine to create the intended outcome. So you also seem to be second generation proof that the original theory of these small sections of antler being used as a punch does not pan out. Because why shy away from them? Why not stick with what the overwhelming evidence by archeologists as you state seems to show that they were used in the manner of a punch. The tool you are now using does not seem to have such a providence in the archeological record. If the small antler punch is so ubiquitous why not stick with it?
One last thought, in the last line you stated that flintknappers who form opinions without first making an exhaustive search of all evidence are erroring. By forming an opinion and adimitly defending the use of small antler sections as punches without indepth conclusive evidence that they were used in such a manner could it not be said than that that is an error on your part? While I first learned how to flintknap via a coper bopper Im always interested in learning how else it can and could of been done and will keep on open mind.
-
So what we do know is that these antler sections are carefully shaped before use, and show evidence of being used in stone tool manufacture. And from the pictures that show the actual size they tend to be between the thickness of a No2 pencil and a Sharpie and shorter than a pinky finger. Why take so much care into creating a uniformly shaped antler tool? To me it makes sense that a greater likely hood is that they were used in a handle. A uniformly shaped section of antler would haft into a handler better than a section that is not uniform. Look at modern day pressure flakers and "ishi sticks" they work great, even when the copper rod is replaced with a uniform shaped antler section.
Ghost Knapper,
A bit of a tangent, but I have recently been thinking the same thing. The only way I can make sense of the uniformly thick antler pieces is if they were hafted in a hole drilled in wood (or whatever). I looked over all my vertical punches and of the three I use the most, one is more or less uniform and the other two have a thick end and a thin end. I have done verical punch work on at least a thousand pieces over the years and am confident in saying uniform thickness or not makes no difference. But, if the antler is shoved in a socket and it is not of uniform thickness, one of two problems arises. Either the fat end goes in, in which case much of the antler is not making contact with the socket walls and the haft is weaker, or the thin end goes in, creating a wedge which wants to split the socket open. Also a uniform thickness would make it easier to flip the antler piece over as it gets worn and knap while the sun shines, then refurbish the ends at night around the fire, because there's nothing good on TV.
Also, for what it's worth I did once try hafting an antler cylinder like those described in a wood handle and used it as a vertical punch. I immediately didn't like the feel of it. The tool had a very "dead" feel. I think the wood was sapping too much of the energy of the blow. However, I only tried it briefly, so maybe I didn't give it a fair test. Perhaps I didn't use a hard enough piece of wood? There may be an idea there for further testing.
Keith
-
Sort of off topic from the original post but still inline with what the OP is discussing. They did not seem to have the evidence to effectively state that they were used in the manner of a punch by needing to go to modern flintknappers to determine how they could have been used. Im not trying to say that they were not used because overwhelming evidence points to them being used in lithic reduction. But when faced with a new discovery we tend to use knowledge we already have to make sense on things. So when faced with a tool that is small and round and is used in the manufacture Why the term antler drift punch? Could it be inferred that archeologists upon finding such objects took what they knew from more modern times and placed that idea (a punch) on these small sections of antler?of something else; steel punches are used in the manufacture of lots of more modern tools. So someone could of said this small section of antler looks like kinda like a punch, and his buddy told his buddy that "Tom might of found a punch..." and that buddy says to someone else "hey did you hear about Tom finding a antler punch" and the next person says "Tom says these small antler sections were definitely punches". Now this is completely made up but you can see how one thought could have influenced a much larger group especially when the actual use of the item was uncertain.
So what we do know is that these antler sections are carefully shaped before use, and show evidence of being used in stone tool manufacture. And from the pictures that show the actual size they tend to be between the thickness of a No2 pencil and a Sharpie and shorter than a pinky finger. Why take so much care into creating a uniformly shaped antler tool? To me it makes sense that a greater likely hood is that they were used in a handle. A uniformly shaped section of antler would haft into a handler better than a section that is not uniform. Look at modern day pressure flakers and "ishi sticks" they work great, even when the copper rod is replaced with a uniform shaped antler section.
Hammerstones of varying sizes and densities are more than proficient at reduction than trying to obtain the dexterity of a guitar player in trying to hold a punch, a section of antler tine in the hand is not very comfortable when attempting to pressure flake. So put a refined section of antler "drift punch" in a handle of wood, bone etc that is also more uniform and it seems that we might have something.
I dont know how to place a quote into this post so, In the most recent post you stated that copper percussionists are your BEST FRIENDS because they are living second generation proof that the original theories from Europe never panned out. While I disagree with what that statement implied I think the same thing can be said about yourself. From your most recent work you see to have abandoned the small sections of antler for a much larger piece of antler tine to create the intended outcome. So you also seem to be second generation proof that the original theory of these small sections of antler being used as a punch does not pan out. Because why shy away from them? Why not stick with what the overwhelming evidence by archeologists as you state seems to show that they were used in the manner of a punch. The tool you are now using does not seem to have such a providence in the archeological record. If the small antler punch is so ubiquitous why not stick with it?
One last thought, in the last line you stated that flintknappers who form opinions without first making an exhaustive search of all evidence are erroring. By forming an opinion and adimitly defending the use of small antler sections as punches without indepth conclusive evidence that they were used in such a manner could it not be said than that that is an error on your part? While I first learned how to flintknap via a coper bopper Im always interested in learning how else it can and could of been done and will keep on open mind.
Hello Ghostknapper, this is a good question that you asked:
"Why the term antler drift punch? Could it be inferred that archeologists upon finding such objects took what they knew from more modern times and placed that idea (a punch) on these small sections of antler?of something else; steel punches are used in the manufacture of lots of more modern tools. So someone could of said this small section of antler looks like kinda like a punch, and his buddy told his buddy that "Tom might of found a punch..." and that buddy says to someone else "hey did you hear about Tom finding a antler punch" and the next person says "Tom says these small antler sections were definitely punches". Now this is completely made up but you can see how one thought could have influenced a much larger group especially when the actual use of the item was uncertain."
Actually, what happened is quite different then what you imagine. Picture this:
Archaeological digs were taking place all over Eastern North America, since around 1900. So, you had people in New York, in Maine, in Pennsylvania, in Ohio, in Tennessee, in Iowa, IN EVERY STATE AND IN CANADA, digging stuff up.
Everything that was dug up was collected, sorted, and recorded. And, the millions of artifacts that were collected spanned through the archaic era, right into the historic era.
Now, the people doing the digging were all sorts of different people, with all sorts of different ideas, and all sorts of different theories. But, in spite of all of this, they actually dug up the same types of artifacts, over and over again, by the thousands, if not ten thousands.
And, if you traveled around the country and asked all of these people what they dug up, one of the most common antler items would have been a small antler cylinder, about two inches long, by one centimeter thick.
Did everyone initially agree as to what the cylinder actually was? No. Most people could not figure out what it was. Some people thought it was a peg from a game. Other people though that it was a hair roller. Other people thought that it was a flintknapping tool, etc.
As a result, initially, there was probably two dozen different names applied to the same artifact. And, many theories abounded, such as the hair roller theory.
Fortunately, since these little antler pegs were found by the THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS it became possible to carry out further studies of the tool. And, these studies were carried out by many different investigators, over time.
So, what people who made further studies realized is that the tools were generally seen associated with flintknapping workshops, along with fractured stone. Also, in rubbish heaps, in layers were knife manufacturing is predominantly found, the cylinder tools are also found. On the flip side, when flintworking is missing, the tools are also missing And, various investigators discovered that the tools were fashioned by cutting a straight segment of a tine, and forming it into something like a cylinder. It was found that single specimens of such tools were usually found with the burials of presumed deceased flintknappers, right along with spalls, finished points, etc. Also, while new tools may have looked like common cylinders, the discarded tools were frequently shorter, and showed signs of battering, cellular compaction, and wear and tear. These types of findings were made by numerous independent archaeologists, who were mostly not "flintknappers".
Now, when these patterns are found over and over again - until it becomes predictable - then one can say that it is a "culturally predictable trait", and that the tools are associated with flintknapping. This conclusion is not drawn from a single case. It is drawn from all of the cases, studied collectively.
The problem regarding terminology is that, initially, so many different names were used that archaeologists could not intelligently communicate with each other, because everyone was using different terminology. Imagine twenty different names for a "rose". How could anyone intelligently speak on the subject, if no one used the same terminology?
Fortunately, archaeologists held annual conferences, and such. And, by the 1960's and 1970's it was realized that people were actually calling the same tool by all sorts of names, even names like "hair roller". So, after over a half a century of digging the cylinder flaking tool up, there was a general consensus to refer to the tool as an "antler drift". This was done to cut down all of the confusion, over the terminology. Fifty years ago, a drift was understood to be a small nail-like tool, used in indirect percussion, in a machine shop. So, when people used the term "drift" it was understood that they were speaking of a nail like tool used in indirect percussion.
The history of the antler drift is not one man's theory or opinion. It is the result of the work of probably hundreds of researchers over many decades, that shed light on a single highly common tool, that the American flintknapping community never endorsed, properly recognized, much less understood.
To answer your question, the adoption of the term "drift" was done to cut down on the widespread confusion over terminology. Also, if a person is familiar with archaeological research, he will probably use the term drift, and not "peg punch". The problem with employing a second term - "peg punch" - is that it is a departure from well established language that is used in textbooks, and in archaeological research. In other words, if a person searches for literature on "peg punches", he may never find any, at all, because the term "peg punch" was never adopted, much less used. There is nothing wrong with the term. Only, two employ a second term could create confusion. And, the original term "drift" has probably been used for close to a century, with a more concerted effort to stick to the term, since the 1960's.
"Why take so much care into creating a uniformly shaped antler tool? To me it makes sense that a greater likely hood is that they were used in a handle. A uniformly shaped section of antler would haft into a handler better than a section that is not uniform. Look at modern day pressure flakers and "ishi sticks" they work great, even when the copper rod is replaced with a uniform shaped antler section."
I think that you are right. And, I have uncovered evidence of at least one world class 19th century knapper using a tool much like what you describe, and in indirect percussion flaking. Only, I would rather see other people arrive at the conclusion that you arrived at. Otherwise, people will interpret what you suggested to be "my idea", which it isn't. You looked at the evidence, and arrived at the same type of conclusion, that I think that there is evidence of.
"Hammerstones of varying sizes and densities are more than proficient at reduction than trying to obtain the dexterity of a guitar player in trying to hold a punch, a section of antler tine in the hand is not very comfortable when attempting to pressure flake. So put a refined section of antler "drift punch" in a handle of wood, bone etc that is also more uniform and it seems that we might have something."
So, what you are saying is that a hafted version might actually be viable? I think that there may just be 19th and early 20th century evidence, of what you are suggesting. Also, in older literature, many Native American flintknappers are described as working in a kneeling position, while kneeling on a soft pad of skins. Maybe the type of tool that you are suggesting, could have been used in conjunction with the same type of holding position.
"While I disagree with what that statement implied I think the same thing can be said about yourself. From your most recent work you see to have abandoned the small sections of antler for a much larger piece of antler tine to create the intended outcome. So you also seem to be second generation proof that the original theory of these small sections of antler being used as a punch does not pan out. Because why shy away from them?"
No. I actually think that the small pieces of antler may have worked better, in some respects, than the whole tine tools that I am using. I am not sure whether anyone in the flintknapping community can understand this, but the difference between my theories and the theories that came from Europe, is that I do not try to invent some sort of unknown flaking tool, like the flintknapping baton. I try to use the thousands of instances of evidence that were recovered by archaeologists, and that are still largely being ignored by the flintknapping community, in order to form my theory. My theories are evidence based, with regard to the evidence of known flakers. I do not look at flakes, and flake scars, and try to make up some new flaker or flaking process, while ignoring longstanding evidence that has been on the books for one hundred years, or so. In trying to form my theory, the previous problem that I had is that I had incomplete evidence. And, it took several years of study to figure out which pieces of the puzzle were missing. Now, I am not even sure that I have incomplete evidence, any more. My approach is the polar opposite of either disregarding, or throwing out, what people do not understand.
On the other hand, the copper percussionists are my best friends, because if they could have gotten the match that they wanted with antler, there would be no copper percussion. So, why should I argue against the antler baton? It is always easier to point to all of the copper percussionists. Their actions speak more than I can say about the facts.
"One last thought, in the last line you stated that flintknappers who form opinions without first making an exhaustive search of all evidence are erroring. By forming an opinion and adimitly defending the use of small antler sections as punches without indepth conclusive evidence that they were used in such a manner could it not be said than that that is an error on your part?"
Error? I acknowledged the evidence, and I did my best to find a theory that best fits the evidence. What others have done is simply to refuse to acknowledge the evidence. In any other arena of life, we would condemn such behavior as being "wrong". As far as I can tell, it is only among flintknappers were one can show 100% disregard for known evidence, and get away with it. It doesn't happen in court. It doesn't happen in classrooms. No one accepts such behavior as the right path to take. Imagine, I first started trying to get flintknappers to look at the evidence of the most commonly found flaking tool, from North America, back in 2010. Today, we are in 2015, and I have probably made a 3% dent in what needs to be done. Just imagine if one had to spend twenty years convincing people that the earth is round, that we experienced the Civil War, and that matter is made of atoms. Imagine if no evidence of any of this was enough to persuade a person. What does it say about the individual. I need not answer.
Prior to 2010, for all practical purposes, I was ignorant, and maybe even brainwashed. What cured me of my past state was one solid year of looking at thousands of antler artifacts found in archaeological reports. After about a year, the lightbulb came on and I realized what other people had already figured out, and that was that antler batons are about as common as UFO sightings. The second thing that I figured out is that no one in the flintknapping community had ever given a satisfactory explanation of all of the drift records, found in the archaeological record, that span all cultures, and show their presence back to the advent of the archaic era.
That being said, in the fall of 2010, I proposed on a very popular flintknapping forum that it appears that Native American flintknappers used some sort of indirect percussion flaking processes that had never been identified. One prominent author responded by saying that there is "no proof", and that the idea is a "pipe dream". After that, people launched all sorts of attacks, both public and private, saying that I have to "prove it". Really, though, it was the flintknapping community who never proved how antler drifts were used, going back to the 1960's. And, the onus is on these people to demonstrate that they actually understand something, by showing how the tools were used. This is the right and honest path to take.
Anyway, there is no "error" in trying to come up with a theory that fits the facts.
-
The difficulty with flintknappers embracing "antler drifts" is that to date no modern experimental knapper has come up with a good explanation of how they are better than what is already being done and how they fit into the knapping process. This is probably the only forum where I would need to point this out, but we can only have a meaningful discussion on, and most certainly can only experiment on, known methods. Looking at the possible uses of these antler cylinders I have come up with four known, testable methods to use them: direct percussion, vertical punching, horizontal punching and pressure flaking. If anyone has other testable methods for their use, let me know and I will try them. It may be helpful at this point to rank each of those methods on power and accuracy. On power, from highest to lowest: direct percussion, horizontal punching, vertical punching, pressure. On accuracy, highest to lowest: pressure, horizontal punching, vertical punching, direct percussion.
Here is what my personal experience has been using "antler drifts" in each of the above methods:
Pressure: They work fine. I prefer a sharper tip. I see no reason for the uniform shape, I just haft an antler tine as is and start clicking away.
Direct percussion: Hafted to a T shaped handle and swung like a hammer provides lots of power with more accuracy than a billet. However, since the weight and leverage of the tool is built into the handle, and the antler is simply there to act on the stone, any random, solid piece of antler can be used. No advantage is gained by the cylinder shape, per se. Also, the smallest antler hammer I use is a tine three-fourths of and inch in diameter. I have found no advantage, and some loss in power with no gain in accuracy, in going smaller than that.
Horizontal punching: They work fine, but: Again, I use a composite system, so any random piece of solid antler can be made to work. No advantage seems to come from a cylinder shape. Once I get more comfortable with the method, I will try a socketed hafting system with a drift type antler end and see if it makes any sense. I question whether or not the wear pattern on the antler jives with the tools found. This is still a new method to me, so ...
Vertical punches: They most certainly work. I have found no reason for the uniform shape though, with most of my vertical punches being less uniform but working just fine. My attempts to date using composite vertical punches have been limited, but were so bad as to to discourage further testing. Still, there may be an idea there. Of the four methods I have tested, vertical punches make the most sense, but the problem is, vertical punching is a very limited technique. Cushing puts it in the process toward the end, just before pressure flaking. My testing concurs. It makes sense for late stage work, on a percussion preform that is at or very close to finished thickness. It is very valuable for finishing tough rock like quartzite and is used extensively by knappers on stone like that, especially for doing the bases. (Thanks to Pete Davis for turning me on to that idea, it really works!) However, as I get deeper into horizontal punching I may end up completely phasing out vertical punching since horizontal punching allows for more power with slightly more accuracy (although on accuracy they are very close).
So to summarize, I feel like every way I have tried to use these things is like an arrow that is in the paper, but still missing the bullseye.
There are two observations that Ben made early on about the use of antler drifts as vertical punches which I have found to be absolutely true, and may have factored in in the stone age environment. The first is that (assuming a striker can picked up anywhere) they provide the most knapping for the least amount of antler. That is, they are the epitome of travelling light. Second, they are easily the most economic use of antler. I don't know why, but the wear on a vertical punch is very little. These things last insanely long. I still have one I made 5 years ago. You will wear out a hundred pressure flakers before you wear out one vertical punch.
So the failure (to the extent it actually exists) to embrace "antler drifts" by the knapping community is twofold. First, modern experimental knappers have yet to show how the tools fit into the process and how that is an improvement. The second is that most modern knappers are "quarry knappers" who follow Cushing's model, starting with large pieces of stone and using direct percussion to make the preform. Over time, they naturally become increasingly better at this process and do not see the value of an intermediary step like indirect percussion. The value of indirect may be more along the lines of shortening the learning curve and more economic use of stone, especially when away from a good rock source. These would have been big advantages to stone age people, but are much less of a concern to modern knappers.
Keith
-
At this point, after five years of study. I have reason to believe that they were used as bits in larger tools, as pointed out on another thread.
Also, there is quite a difference between embracing a tool, and refusing to look at the boatloads of evidence, which indicates that the tool was used, by past flintknappers, for many thousands of years.
Fortunately for me, I never let the naysayers dissuade me, not even through banning. If I had ever stopped following the evidence, I would have lost the trail. Now, I know far more than I ever thought that I would be able to learn - even tine based fluting, and tine-based outrepasse. Antler drift is the tip of the iceberg, and something more visible, and easy to trace. And, it is all done with the exact same evidence that flintknappers tried to have banned from forums, between 2010 and 2014.
I have been short good stone for quite some time. That is going to change, though. So, we will see how things play out, once I get the stone that I need, for better experiments, with other technologies.
Also, the subject of "horizontal punching" was understood, and recorded, by past observers. But, it was not called "horizontal punching". What is happening today is that modern flintknappers are making the same exact mistake that the Europeans did, back in the 1930's. They bypass the known evidence, and then invent a process which coincides with a known process. But, since they are not familiar with the evidence (or ban people who try to put the evidence on the table), they do not realize that their "invention" actually coincides with processes that were already known, even just a mere century ago.
Meanwhile, they come up with new terminology that only obscures the fact that the processes already have names. Somehow, even when it comes to terminology, the flintknappers depart from long used archaeological terms. And, NEW FLINTKNAPPERS, end up getting INDOCTRINATED into stuff that puts them at absolute odds with well documented evidence. This is the worst possible recipe for perpetuating ignorance. Weirdly, the flintknappers can shout about authentic "point types" all day long, but then turn around and say that no one wants to known how the points were made. What the heck? EVERYBODY WANTED TO KNOW how flint tools were made. Pioneers wanted to know. Missionaries wanted to know. Farmers wanted to know. City slickers wanted to know. Even scientists wanted to know! Everybody wanted to know. The flintknappers are the first people in history who have proposed that no one wants to know how stone tools were made, in ancient times. And, they are also the first people who propose taking the evidence of the processes out of public sight. Then, they get offended when they find out that archaeologists do not take them seriously. But, there is a reason why archaeologists do not take them seriously. It is because of the total disregard for longstanding evidence, that has been around a lot longer than the modern flintknapping movement. All of the evidence that I cite is going to outlive myself, and every flintknapper alive. When we are all dead, it is still going to be on the books. It is not going to go anywhere. We are the ones who will die, and be forgotten, or maybe even laughed at, one day. The evidence that I cite will endure.
Here is one example of the "horizontal punch" technique being described by an author over a half a century ago:
"In the flaking of arrowheads of jasper or obsidian, the Hupa used a PEBBLE HAMMER-STONE and a species of COLD CHISEL of hard, HEAVY ANTLER. For the shaping of points the antler was lashed to a handle of wood in a manner almost identical to that of the Eskimo of Northern Alaska. In chipping arrowheads the flint was held in the palm which was protected by a pad of buckskin. The flakes were chipped off by pressing on the edge of the flint with the tool held in the right hand, the ball of the handle resting in the palm. The Apache WORKED IN A SIMILAR MANNER save that two men were employed on the task, one striking the flint with a mallet and a bone punch while the other cradled the flint in his palm. The natural elasticity of the hand enabled the chips to flake off where on a solid support the flint would have broken. Such work, exacting, skilful and requiring like genius, infinite pains, is all but lost today. One North American anthropologist noted twenty three varieties of arrowheads made in this way."
It is a bird! It is a plane! It is a "horizontal punch"! No, it is not. It is the description of a common flaker being used in two modes - pressure and indirect percussion. What is the same? The use of a flaker. Holding the point in the palm of the hand. Holding the flaker in line with the edge, etc. What is different? Mainly, one mode involves force being applied via pressure, while the other mode involves force being applied via a blow. Wow. Big deal. What we call "horizontal punching" is actually the other side of the coin. Pressure flakig is on one side, and horizontal punching is on the other side. This was penned in 1959. But, Cushing explained the same thing, back in 1879. Somehow, all of the theories that came out of Europe involved pressure flakers. But, where is the other side of the coin? Oh, it was ignored, and the "soft hammer baton" was invented in it's place, around 1930 by Barnes, touted by Leakey in 1940's, further developed by Bordes during the 1950's, and demonstrated by Crabtree in the 1960's, which by the way is what appears to have triggered the modern baton movement. Again I ask, where is the other side of the coin, when it comes to pressure flaking? It seems to be gone. And, today, we invent "horizontal punching"? One would have to be oblivious to what was known fifty and one hundred years ago, to think that this is how it works.
How about Ishi? Where are all of the Ishi batons? Ha ha ha. There are none. Weirdly, all flintknappers seem to know about Ishi. Yet, they fail to miss the most obvious mystery of Ishi's work. He switched from an antler point, to a steel point, in pressure flaking, because he said that steel remained sharper, whereas antler needed to be resharpened more frequently. As a result, his pressure flaked points almost look as though they were pressure flaked with a needle tip. There is no mistaking an Ishi point.
So, while Ishi worked on one extreme end of flaking - pressure flaking with an extremely pointy flaker - what did he say about making large instruments, and spearheads? He spoke of something THE EXACT OPPOSITE of what he did. He said that a small, stout, blunt piece of hard wood, or bone, was needed. In other words, Ishi spoke of blunt flakers - not pointy flakers. And, he said that sometimes they would be used like a lever, and sometimes like a punch.
There was another fellow close to Ishi, who learned to knap during the 1870's. This fellow was older than Ishi. He used both point tools, and he used blunt tools. I have a 21 point step by step description of how he used the tools. And, it appears that the blunt tools were used in a mode that we call "horizontal punching". But, actually, the tools are mode in a form analogous to the pressure flaking tools. Only, when the flaker is enlarged, and a blow is substituted for manual pressure, some other details need to be altered. Beyond that, it is the same type of process overall, not unlike pressure flaking. Here are the tools, minus the step by step written description, which I might post when I am unbanned, and other people self-correct their error.
Here is a "finished point", the type made with the tools:
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Orcutt/1.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Orcutt/1.jpg.html)
Here are the sixteen flaking tools, with one of the flaking tools still hafted:
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Orcutt/E305941_ant-3of3-01-201306.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Orcutt/E305941_ant-3of3-01-201306.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Orcutt/E305941_ant-2of3-01-201306.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Orcutt/E305941_ant-2of3-01-201306.jpg.html)
Flaking tool still hafted:
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Orcutt/E305941_ant-1of3-04-201306.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Orcutt/E305941_ant-1of3-04-201306.jpg.html)
And, here are some other items that were shown in a display along with the points:
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Orcutt/TED20ORCUTTS20DISPLAY20AT20STATES20FAIR2020CIRCA201913.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Orcutt/TED20ORCUTTS20DISPLAY20AT20STATES20FAIR2020CIRCA201913.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Orcutt/10tool%20ends%20second%20closeup.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Orcutt/10tool%20ends%20second%20closeup.jpg.html)
Since I have the private correspondences that outline how the tools were used, in 21 steps, I can say with fair certainty that the blunted tools were used as "horizontal punches". But, it was not understood that way. It was understood as the heavier end of a flaking process, with the lighter end of the process being pressure flaking. And, the heavier end of the flaking process, was driven by a direct blow to the flaker.
Also, while this fellow, and Ishi, and others, knew of the original flaking processes, right in to the early 20th century, what they did not appear to know about was "baton knapping". And, really, why would they need "baton knapping", when they already had something that looked analogous to a pressure flaking process, only on steroids? As Holmes put it, this fellow's work proved that flintknapping was not a lost art. It was only lost to those who did not know how it was done.
There are other cases of flintknapping processes that appear analogous to pressure flaking processes, only that are driven by a blow, instead of pressure. It is not difficult to see why some might have thought of the processes as "pressure aided by blow", since the process could have involved the same type of flaker, and the same type of setup. But, to create a similar process in modern times, and call it "horizontal punching" completely misses the point. The point is that the process was previously known as part of a larger process that ranged through pressure and indirect percussion - one overall process with different forms. And, unless a person understands this, he will not be able to understand either the nature of flakes, or the nature of flake scars. He might even mistake the "pressure aided by blow" flakes and flake scars as being "baton flakes", or "soft hammer flakes", when they are not. In fact, if modern flintknappers cannot understand technologies that were used just a century ago, then how will they understand technologies that were used over ten thousand years ago?
-
In that picture with the obvious obsidian ponts (or whatever that material is) I see many antler/bone projectile points as well. The are called "blunts" in much of the literature.
-
Very interesting, I have tools similar to the antler in the second picture. I initially used them as antler 'hammerstones' but find myself using them as indirect strikers lately. Mine are short pieces of moose antler, one small and one large w/ a lot of mass.
Are they the tools you refer to w/ this quote: "And, it appears that the blunt tools were used in a mode that we call "horizontal punching."
-
I may have missed it in the long post but the pictures showing tools and obsidian blades are linked to Ted Orcutt. Doing a quick search of his name online will reveal some more info about the guy. Too bad that those 21 steps were left out. Looks like the self censoring continues.
-
What is wrong with the term "horizontal punch"? Those of us constrained to discussing and experimenting on known methods have to have some way to describe how the tool is used. As I already said, if you would like to propose another way of using the tool, go ahead, name it whatever you want and let us test it.
Here is one example of the "horizontal punch" technique being described by an author over a half a century ago:
"In the flaking of arrowheads of jasper or obsidian, the Hupa used a PEBBLE HAMMER-STONE and a species of COLD CHISEL of hard, HEAVY ANTLER. For the shaping of points the antler was lashed to a handle of wood in a manner almost identical to that of the Eskimo of Northern Alaska. In chipping arrowheads the flint was held in the palm which was protected by a pad of buckskin. The flakes were chipped off by pressing on the edge of the flint with the tool held in the right hand, the ball of the handle resting in the palm. The Apache WORKED IN A SIMILAR MANNER save that two men were employed on the task, one striking the flint with a mallet and a bone punch while the other cradled the flint in his palm. The natural elasticity of the hand enabled the chips to flake off where on a solid support the flint would have broken. Such work, exacting, skilful and requiring like genius, infinite pains, is all but lost today. One North American anthropologist noted twenty three varieties of arrowheads made in this way."
The above is a very good example of the problems associated with a research based approach to the problem. I haven't read through as many of these types of descriptions as you have, but I've been through at least a hundred and the one above is very typical. It is about as plain as mud. It comes nowhere close to providing sufficient information to test the idea. I have no idea how you get anything close to a horizontal punch technique from that description. The tools are not well described. How the tools are used is not described in detail (Holmes interpreted the Apache method as a vertical punch technique). No information is given where in the reduction process these methods fit in or the size of the stone tool being made. Given the late date of this quote, it appears to be be recycled information. The Hupa description appears to be lifted from Holmes who lifted it from Mason, who lifted it from Ray, the author of the above quote then takes that information and marries it to the Apache flaking method originally reported by Catlin, as if the two describe the same method.
I am unaware of of any clear descriptions of Native American use of anything like a horizontal punch technique. Please cite any you are aware of. You say Cushing mentions the method. Where? The indirect method he describes and illustrates in The Arrow seems to clearly be a vertical punch technique. If you see it otherwise, please explain. Without applying a vast amount of "interpretation" how do you see anything described in these old accounts that is indirect percussion other than vertical punching? If you can reinterpret and reinterpret and reinterpret the research, why can't every else?
What straightens everything out is testing. That is what allows you to quickly sort out what works and what doesn't. The reason horizontal punching makes sense is because it works. It does a better job of any other known, published, testable technique of spanning the gap between direct percussion (which may not go any further than taking a spall with a hammer stone) and pressure flaking, which are the two, known, starting and ending processes. If you have a better bridge across that gap, let's see it. I don't think you have it, and you know your method won't stand up to testing. I suspect your method, while it certainly works, is most likely overly complex, convoluted and is based on trying to get a certain kind of flake which doesn't show up on 99.999% of North American artifacts anyway, but, honestly, I would love to be PROVEN wrong on that. Another thing that makes the various, known, published, testable, horizontal punch techniques work is that they "flow" well, allowing the worker to quickly and smoothly move through the process. You know, just sort of click along just like you can with direct percussion and pressure flaking.
As to the secret mystery method of making the Ted Orcut type over sized obsidian blades. First, it's obsidian, you give it a hard look and it flakes, so does the method translate to tougher rock? More importantly the Orcut stuff is over sized for ceremonial use. His blades run over an inch thick, which is to say they are basically large, mid-stage preforms. Most knappers don't have any trouble making thick, mid-stage preforms. Figure out how the old guys where flattening out these raw cherts, rhyolites and quartzites down to the 8-12 mm range, and then we have something worth talking about.
But not to be all negative about things. The Barrow Point Eskimo tool mentioned above is well described in on of Holmes' books. In a really rare case, actual measurements are even given! The description of use is as a pressure flaker, but those of you that have used horizontal punches: Can you see it? The spatula end on the ground under the heel or leg. Look at that wear pattern. Looks familiar, yes? (Of course, it can be used as a pressure flaker too just like an axe can be a hatchet, wedge, hammer, knife, etc.) There's a testable idea. If anyone gets to it before I do, please report back.
(http://i556.photobucket.com/albums/ss2/squirrelacre/1092016first_zpshjxfpho7.jpg) (http://s556.photobucket.com/user/squirrelacre/media/1092016first_zpshjxfpho7.jpg.html)
-
Well said. I'm curious as to how many Eskimo "pressure" flakers have a spatula end. I've seen Eskimo flaking tools but that's the only one I've seen with the flattend part. Seems likely that it is a multi-tool much like many of the hammerstones I've seen that also doubled as manos, for example.
Just for the record, I don't see any horizontal punches in any of the "data" in Ben's last post. And I'm hoping that no one sees horizontal punches in the photo containing the obsidian points.
-
Well said. I'm curious as to how many Eskimo "pressure" flakers have a spatula end. I've seen Eskimo flaking tools but that's the only one I've seen with the flattend part. Seems likely that it is a multi-tool much like many of the hammerstones I've seen that also doubled as manos, for example.
Just for the record, I don't see any horizontal punches in any of the "data" in Ben's last post. And I'm hoping that no one sees horizontal punches in the photo containing the obsidian points.
It is a curious tool, isn't it? Here's the info I have that links it to the Hupa (a California Tribe): The description of the Hupa falker is given as:
"...a chipper composed of a crooked handle to which is lashed a short piece of antler precisely similar to those which I collected at Point Barrow."
He goes on to describe the tool used as a pressure flaker, which is fine, but it begs the question: If all the tool is is a pressure flaker why go to the trouble of making the crooked handle?
-
when applying pressure to a preform or point I would think that flat paddle may feel better against the forearm than a narrow stick. If I had one of those it would be easy to test.
-
when applying pressure to a preform or point I would think that flat paddle may feel better against the forearm than a narrow stick. If I had one of those it would be easy to test.
Lyman,
Fresh out of walrus ivory, eh? Me too. But I found a piece of red osier dogwood yesterday that is just right to replicate the handle, so I cut it but want it to cure awhile before I run any tests. Below is a close up of the tool and I think you can make out the text above and below that describes how the observer saw the tool being used. Note the wear on the bottom of the spatula end. Also, the angled wear with slight cupping in the antler bit looks like the wear I am geting on horizontal punches.
You should tell everyone your idea on how the "baseball bat" tools were used. I think your idea on them is very smart.
(http://i556.photobucket.com/albums/ss2/squirrelacre/1112016first_zpsu5e88uka.jpg) (http://s556.photobucket.com/user/squirrelacre/media/1112016first_zpsu5e88uka.jpg.html)
-
Thanks Keith, the long ball bat sticks that Ted Orcutt used and is pictured with his obsidian blades were likely used as chest cructh flakers. There is a picture of Don Crabtree leaning over a piece of obsidian that he was taking blades off of. The obsidian is clamped and he has a baseball bat designed chest crutch. Ted Orcutt has different lengths for different angles and uses.
I believe Don Crabtree also met and observed Ted Orcutt knapping in California so his use is likely influenced by Orcutt.
Look forward to your test of the Eskimo flaker.
-
Here is Don Crabtree using a crutch.
-
The one with the arrow looks like the one Crabtree is using. If you look close at the bottom of each wooden bat you can see a faint hole. I believe some of these were used as a crutch and some were punches which were struck on top. The flared bases were to allow adding pressure to the punches by hand.
Any other ideas or possibilities I would like to hear them.
-
I think like Patrick said they are blunts used as arrow points, not anything to do with flintknapping. They only look to be 3-5 inches long and maybe a 1/2" -3/4" wide at the wide end.
-
I do not have the measurements on those blades but Orcutt was making large blades and I would believe those wood tools are larger than 3-5 inches. The ones on the upper level between the blades may be close to those measurements.
-
For size reference I am looking at the beads and fish hook. Which are huge if the blades are the big ones. To me the pieces look like antler are we sure they are wood? Wish there was a scale in the picture.
-
i'm u
The flared bases were to allow adding pressure to the punches by hand.
Any other ideas or possibilities I would like to hear them.
i can imagine that the flared ends were there to:
- deter splitting without having to reinforce/wrap
- add mass to the end of the tool, near the punch insert
- provide a rounded impact area that better mates with the rounded striking tool
- provides a impact area with a critical angle in relation to the punch insert
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/p1dhua9UP0h9Eju-U1k8a8sFiVEg4_SDZckfwJQjMlvoX7oS08T90KFGi3c3IW9eNsYqtYHHmKKgMzJohSzSOxAu8jtYboNsBFISAbr7GxlggUOhLpODOdRLnhGwNw760TblLV13BPBbprGYRhwY7bYlx6_4pRUXrocnsWArUmscRpn0PNfdcj8TW6rkeuHdIQfpkgjGEgwje5P2pKKOOkWiEm0MDuhnv41QIJNWNkALJiMYCB5I597_V_EWpNFLrfAUNNWbS_7GvrYRIdgC1yae5lYRsj0Of05YgSbS0dgYFGyKvZzLLJqsRfoohq7g2nsXFL5T3hNhmYu3o1QtzgyyEKeuXhvemekuncm7uEShkdR5m-dRZ5ULwzmMHeoOSafrKuLWDPi9zfhVjois0TMcRWLm0qR1E3fXC9BsQPIrHrdabKWoWZE7Wm0ezZXotUq4ZJRu0AecHAmEpsHQw8pyGwuEYrF0ZHwMr5BWMZdN1IMcSv4ilZe1P0wvo57gNMyxyfWw6lGMH75ZfhWJ1jIBZOFWj0oFE5WwdHD6R7fMrC6ZhNjrZUYOTyocoOPYO32J=w800)
also, for scaling purposes, the fact that these blades are leaning against the backdrop can hint to their size. you wouldn't lean small points for a display, you'd lay them flat in a case. on the same token, you wouldn't lay these artifacts down in a case because the viewer would have to be able to lean too far over the exhibit to view the artifacts.
yeah, that's no creek hook. it's hanging on the back drop.
the grass skirt material can be used as a reference object too.
-
Someone mentioned that the wooden objects may be smoking pipes, and not flakers. I have contacted Karok people in the past. There are still some. And, I have not been able to get much more information about the flaking processes, from modern day Karoks.