Knappability Scale?

[caveman2533]

It appears also that the two scales are reversed, in Callahans has the hardest at 10 and yours is at 1. If basing it on ease of knapping I would not place true flints as high as you did and High grade rhyolite and quartzite  would be a bit better than you have it.  Its gonna always be somewhat subjective as each of us will have a different experience.

[JackCrafty]

Something I also consider is the platforms (should have mentioned that earlier)  : the ease of creating and using the platforms.  I placed glass below the flints because of the platforms.  Platforms on the glasses are laborious to create, are "slippery", and crush easily if not hit properly.  In contrast, the true flints are much more forgiving.  Hope that makes sense.

[JackCrafty]

The paper includes a criticism of Callahan's scale.  It states that there should be a mathematical basis for the comparisons.  I don't see how that's possible.

[JackCrafty]

I'm also thinking of getting even more restrictive with the material I recommend for beginners.  I think Level 7 is the best:  not higher and not lower.

I've seen a lot of new people struggle just as much with the high grade stuff (maybe even more so).

I'm going to start placing scale numbers on specific materials (like Pedernales chert, Dover chert, Fine-grained basalt, Citronel gravel, etc...) and post results soon.

[mullet]

I have to agree with Marc on the quartz. Good Tallahatta and Hixton pressure flake like butter.

[Zuma]

  It states that there should be a mathematical basis for the comparisons.  I don't see how that's possible.

Maybe this---
Most archies are not knappers but have computers

Computational archaeology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 It incorporates a large part of the methods and theories developed in quantitative archaeology since the 1960s but goes beyond former attempts at quantifying archaeology by exploring ways to represent general archaeological information and problem structures as computer algorithms and data structures.

[JackCrafty]

Computational BS-ology.   

Choosing what stone tool to make (and use) is like choosing a car.  Are there mathematical models for car choice?  And are these models tailored to each culture and subculture?  Do the models show how cars affect culture and how culture affects cars?   If there are, maybe we should follow those "computations".  If the wheels have already been invented, let's install them.  I'd like 4 please, if they exist.  (tried searching... but I encountered more BS).

I used cars only as an example.  I'd like to see a logical/mathematical system for describing/analyzing another type of material culture.  I'd look myself but there's only so many hours in a day... 

[Zuma]

Computational BS-ology.   

 I'd look myself but there's only so many hours in a day... 

Hard to explain but I'll give it a try as I am just hiding out
in the air conditioning these  past few days.

"exploring ways to represent general archaeological information and problem structures as computer algorithms and data structures."

So it's not the actual analysis but more like medical coding where #s are assigned to procedures etc.
Perhaps Callahan's scale was ok but just not compatibly algorithmic??
I have encountered this stuff before when it comes to point typology. Not to belabor this but it is a big new part of modern archaeology.
Zuma

[JackCrafty]

Yeah, I know what they want.  They want to see a certain applied force + direction (vector) detaching a certain mass of removed material of certain dimensions that conform to desired shape(s) of the flakes and the workpiece.  To them, small vectors combined with high flake mass in comparison to the mass of the workpiece will tell them that certain materials are "soft to knap", for example.

They don't understand the skill required in preparing the edge/surface according to material, the skill required in recognizing and adapting to variations in the properties of the material being knapped, and the need, or lack of need, of maintaining tools to a high degree in order to produce good results.

But that's only a small part of what they don't understand.

They perceive that knapping is like hitting a baseball, for example:  with batters (or knappers) assigned batting averages.  And if you have a team with batters with good averages, they always win more games (produce more finished pieces of higher quality).  Not only that, they think that a batting average (knapping skill) can tell you a lot about a player's personal life (the knapper's culture)!

Ridiculous !!  And nothing but BS-ology.

And don't get me started on their lack of understanding of the need for a knapper to be in a good state of mind in order to produce good work.  (I'll get upset and knap like crap... can't do that... I've got a vid I need to shoot today   ).

[AncientTech]

Edit:  Grain and brittleness are not the same thing.

[mullet]

Well,,,, now you have made a connection, Patrick, what is the true answer?

[AncientTech]

Edit:  The effects of grain can be quite different than the effects of brittleness.

[JoJoDapyro]

You had me till the end. I am not an archeologist. I am a knapper, not even a year into the game. Not even 200 pounds into the game. Having an idea of what stone I will be more likely to work at my level is a great help. From experience I know that I have a harder time reducing obsidian than I do the raw chert and raw Keokuk I traded from Cowboy. I can however pressure flake obsidian better.

[JackCrafty]

My knappability scale is by a modern flintknapper (me) for modern flintknappers.  That should settle that issue.

Understanding ancient knapping is a spurious pursuit.  (I didn't know what "spurious" meant until that term was used on me by Dr. Hester in another forum when I brought up the importance of hafting strategies... but that's another story).  Anyway, the best we can do is to try to copy the ancient artifacts with what little knowledge we have.  But even then, the benefits of such knowledge will be used primarily by counterfeiters.  Most people simply want to enjoy the experience and maybe learn something about the way our ancestors' minds worked.  That's fine with me.

[JackCrafty]

If I were to construct a mathematical formula on how to solve for knappability, it would look something like this:

K=L/(M+C²) with a high "K" value being more favorable (knappable) than a low value.

K is Knappability
L is Length of workpiece in millimeters
M is Mass in grams
C is side-view Curvature of workpiece in millimeters.

The curvature is measured by placing the workpiece on a flat surface and then measuring the greatest "height" from that flat surface to whichever face of the workpiece ends up being furthest away.

It has nothing to do with the properties of the material (well, maybe that's too strong.  I should say, "It is not directly related to any specific property").  It has to do with a flintknappers ability to produce a long, flat, biface/flake/workpiece with the least amount of mass.  And this has to be an average value of as many flintknapped items of that material as possible.

I realize that this formula doesn't follow proper mathematical rules (you can't add grams to millimeters) but this is not a physical property.  It's a measure of what can be done with a certain material from a knapper's perspective.