Ben,
Sorry if this is an old question, but I was wondering where in the knapping process you think these tools were used. Just for the sake of discussion lets say spalling, early preform, mid stage preform, late state preform, finishing and resharpening as steps in the process. In your model are all those steps done by indirect percussion (or something other than direct percussion), or where in the reduction process do the various tools come in? I ask because with the straight punches I find I can only effectively use then in the later stages, using direct percusion to get to the late preform stage. Also, the curved antler pieces, are those punches or pressure flakers? I ask because I have not had success using curved antler pieces for punches, but that may be due to how I am using them. If punches are they struck from the side, and if so, how do you keep the stone in place while doing that?
Thanks,
Keith
Hummingbird Point,
Your wrote:
"Sorry if this is an old question, but I was wondering where in the knapping process you think these tools were used. Just for the sake of discussion lets say spalling, early preform, mid stage preform, late state preform, finishing and resharpening as steps in the process."
I have spent years thinking about the same question. From the best that I can tell, one would need to track the hammerstone percussion work very carefully, and look at when there is a shift to a subsequent flaking technology. At that point, one would need to see what the hammerstone technology was used to create, up until that shift. Then, one would need to see what the subsequent technology was used to do, based on whatever starting point was there, with the hammerstone made preform. One would need to see what kind of morphology was created, via hammerstone, and then assess how it was worked, with the subsequent technology.
On the experimental side, one would need to see what can be done with the flaker, and see whether the flaker can be used to create the effects that can be seen in secondary flaking, once the hammerstone stage ends.
Since these types of flaker tools tend to be found in association with the hard cherts, one would first need to follow in the tracks of the original hammerstone work, make the same types of preforms, and then make the shift with the subsequent tools, while creating the same type of results.
The problem with looking at this in preform stages is that the paradigm might not apply. To give an example, the Lamb site Clovis preforms look like ugly hammerstone made preforms. They would draw no attention in modern knapping circles. But, the Lamb site points are spectacular. Yet, they are almost the same size as the preforms. Here is an example of a preform:
http://lithiccastinglab.com/gallery-pages/lambpointpreformdoublarge.htmHere is an example of a finished point:
http://lithiccastinglab.com/cast-page/lambclovispoint76and83hand1.jpgIt would appear as thought the Clovis knapper went really far, in creating a hammerstone made preform. Then, it looks like he switched to a finishing technology, and finished it, right at the end. And, I am not even sure that it was even pressure flaked. But, the difference between the preforms (which used to be online), and the slightly smaller finished points, is pretty drastic.
In general records, straight punches that had squared shoulders were used to knock off blades. But, in terms of morphology, blades were made from areas that were elevated above the surface of the core. And, in terms of hammerstone reduction-made morphologies, one can have elevated areas present on preforms. The question is, were such punches used to knock off high spots, off of hammerstone made preforms. The answer should be discernible, in the archaeological record. Also, such technologies could be an indicator of someone attempting to work small lumpy source materials.
I am not convinced that ancient knappers were always trying to become super awesome with hammerstone reduction. I think that they may have been intending to creating a certain sized preform. And, then it was the subsequent technology that was super awesome.
Ishi worked obsidian, and preferred the steel tip over the antler tip, because the antler had to so frequently be re-sharpened. If he was working obsidian, and he wanted a sharp flaker point, then what can we say about hard cherts, found in association with dull, blunted tine tips? And, how come such tine tips are not chewed to pieces, by the hard chert edges? Why dull blunting? If a person goes back to the earliest known American records, there never was an ironclad idea of a "pressure flaker", except in the instance of a composite bit pressure flaker.
From the 1870's on, American researchers knew of the dual use of flakers, in both pressure flaking, and indirect percussion. That is the American view. And, it appears that such views were never accepted, or understood, over in Europe, when all of the textbooks were being written. Beyond that, by the late 19th century American researchers knew that the common flaker could have been used in sophisticated flaking processes that would involve combinations of pressure, indirect percussion, anvil, etc. And, much of the results cannot be accounted for via either a simple pressure flaker view, or a European concocted antler baton theory.
As for the use of the small blunt tine tips, Grinnell (1870's) may have given a probable explanation, since he queried plains Indians on how they made stone points, before they fell into disuse. Since the indians could not always reliably acquire black powder, to fire their rifles, they still maintained the point making practice, until the early 1800's. And, even during the 1870's, some of the old people still remembered the practices.
"When a knife—or an arrowpoint—had been worked down quite thin, but had not yet received a satisfactory cutting edge, the piece was held in the left hand, between the thumb and forefinger, while a small stone punch was held between the fore and middle fingers. The punch was pressed against the edge of the blade, and was struck sharp downward blows with a hammer, each blow taking off a small flake, and this process was continued until the edge was finished. A better cutting edge was finally given by the flaking off of small chips from near the margin. The flint was held in the palm protected by a wad of hair or piece of tanned hide and a small point of antler or bone suddenly applied with force against the stone at the required point. This pressure cracked off a small chip and the operation was repeated as needed." (The Cheyenne Indians: their history and lifeways : edited and illustrated, George Bird Grinnell) If you study all of the evidence, you might see something that everyone missed in the past. And, you might be able to come up with a more probable use of the tool, that is not yet known.
