"Generally this term refers to an original process and in reference to flint knapping, i.e. without the aid of metal tools."
The idea is good. But, the way that the idea is being used, by flintknappers, is wrong.
How do we know what was an "original process"? Some people *believe* that an original process can be inferred from flakes, and flake scars. Where did this idea come from? It came from the fellow who invented the flintknapping baton, during the 1930's, in England - Professor Alfred Barnes. He *believed* that he could infer the use of a soft hammer baton, from flakes, and flake scars. What he was not able to do is to rule out other possibilities that were not known. The problem is one of causality. Just because A looks like it came from B, does not PROVE that A came from B. People can believe it, just as Barnes did. But, they cannot prove it.
The second problem is that the European researchers speculated that the organic batons, such as wooden batons, would have disappeared from the archaeological record. And, this further reinforced their belief in inference via experimentation. The assumption was that since all of the organic batons must have disappeared, they would have to resort to experimentation to create the same (similar) effects, and then make an inference.
Also, prior to the 1930's experiments, some prior researchers looked at the command-de-baton, of Europe, and speculated that it could have made a good flintknapping tool. But, none of those artifacts exhibits any flintknapping wear patterns, that I have ever seen. And, this should raise another question: How could Barnes have proposed the flintknapping baton, in the 1930's, when by 1900 it was known that the "baton de commandement" of Paleolithic Europe did not show flintknapping wear patterns? And, how could one propose that the batons had "disappeared", when in fact the "baton de commandment" was already known to exist, and was of the Paleolithic era? If all the batons disappeared, then why are there still large antler "baton de commandementes" being recovered from Ice Age contexts? One would have to think that Barnes must have leaned towards wooden billets, and not antler billets, since wood would have disintegrated, more readily than antler. But, he didn't. After he carried out his experiments, which involved wood, antler, brass, and ivory, he settled on antler - not wood. So, Barnes, could you please explain how all of the alleged antler batons, used in Europe, disappeared, while all of the antler "baton de commandements" are still in existence, and even sitting in museums? Or, does your theory - which is now embedded into textbooks everywhere - contain a glaring error, that cannot be resolved, and has not been resolved for the last eighty five years?
But, the problem does not end in Europe. Leakey picked up on Barnes's theory, and developed the use of the wooden baton, in Africa, as a hypothetical means of explaining large early African bifaces, or choppers. Bordes picked up on Leakey's work, while developing thermal alteration, and while admitting that he knew almost nothing about archaeology. And, eventually, Don Crabtree picked up on the work, at which point the baton technique was featured on world wide television, at least by the 1960's. So, does all of this make it true, or relevant? No.
So, why is the problem worse in America, than in Europe? It is simple. The natives of the Americas were living in the stone age, all the way until 1492. And, that meant that they were still making stone tools, after the Pleistocene, after the Holocene, through the archaic era, through the late prehistoric era, and right up until Columbus set foot on American soil, in the Caribbean. And, even after that, stone tool production continued to into the 1500's, the 1600's, the 1700's, the 1800's, the 1900's, and into the 2000's, in some remote corners. So, what does this mean? Take a guess. Let's put on the thinking caps, crank up the amperage, and take a guess - MAKE IT A BIG ONE!! What this means is that - unlike what Barnes thought - there is actually a physical record of FLAKING TOOLS that spans back to the initial colonization of the Americas. So, while European researchers speculated that all of the batons *disappeared*, American researchers have had flaking tools pile up by the THOUSANDS, in museums, and research centers. And, this raises a question: Should we ignore the flaking tools, and then set up experiments that are made up from theoretical ideas, of which there is almost no shred of direct evidence, at all? Of course not. Should we blindly and unquestioningly follow the European's (Barnes/Leakey/Bordes) methodology, and behavior, in trying to understand this subject, while ignoring the evidence from the Americas? No.
The third problem is that none of the early American researchers proposed a baton theory. And, some were very close to actual Native American flintknappers, either directly or indirectly. Also, instead of proposing hard hammer percussion, soft hammer percussion, and pressure, the early American researchers proposed flaking models that were actually more sophisticated then what the Europeans ever produced. So, we should follow in Europe's tracks, believe in a method that the flintknapping community never fully succeeded with, while ignoring all of the evidence from the Americas, and while ignoring the life work of many American researchers. Sorry, I would rather go to the gallows, then give up on the evidence.
So, this is where the brave bold flintknappers come into play. They proclaim that they are not afraid of the evidence. They refuse to back down. They tackle the evidence - the evidence of 10,000 YEARS WORTH OF AMERICAN FLAKERS. And, they use that for the basis of their experiments, until they find the probable answers. Unfortunately, almost no flintknappers have the guts to do this. If they did this, people would be taking an evidential approach to flintknapping, rather than making up theories, while ignoring the known evidence.
By the way, I have yet to communicate with any archaeologist, who takes the flintknapping community seriously. The problem for archaeologists is that billet knapping was so heavily studied, that they can now rule it out, in an untold amount of instances. This was told to me by a Gault researcher who was also a Clovis refit specialist. Also, archaeologists are encountering flaking that displays traits that are not definable by known flintknapping methods. So, if the flintknapping community majors on copper percussion, and copper pressure flaking, and the antler billet is so frequently ruled out, then what explanations do the flintknappers have to offer regarding all of these other kinds of flaking? There is no explanation.
In discussing American aboriginal flintknapping, it would be nigh impossible to have a serious discussion about the subject, without pointing out probable flaking tools that were fashioned, used, refurbished, and discarded, along with ideas regarding their probably use. Simply because someone makes something with a non-metallic/organic tool, that does not necessarily mean that the practice is "aboriginal". Cylindrical antler drift flakers have routinely been found by archaeologists, for over one hundred years, in the chert bearing areas of North America, Central America, and maybe even South America. Yet, since the 1970's, the flintknapping community has never come up with an explanation of their use. Also, other flaker types are routinely found of which no one has ever explained their use. Some of these flaker types appeared with the advent of the archaic era, and were used right into the historic era.
Here is an example of a commonly found flaker that I used to thin a raw biface down to a few millimeters. At this point, I could easily switch to pressure flaking:
Here is the same archaeologically known flaking tool/ethnographically known flaking process being used on quartz crystal. Final break shows thinness:
Here is another point made with the same tool, and tool process:
The last stone the last point was made from is so hard, that I had to set the biface aside for over a year, before I worked out a process (from anthropological data) that would flake it. The finished point was almost credit card thin. Also, the secret to the whole flaking operation is the type of strike, and vibration that is created. Without the right strike, and vibration, the flaker might not work at all. The process is also good for points down to an inch and a half long, such as "bird points".
