NcLonghunter,
I am really impressed. It seems that you have a genuine interest in how Native American people of the Americas made their chipped stone tools, these last 13,000+ years.
A picture is worth a thousand words. So, without going into all of the background technical information, that pertains to lithics, culture, ethnology, history, artifacts, New World lithics, etc, here are two pictures that illustrate what I was describing:
According to written accounts, these tools were probably used in conjunction with a pestle-like hammerstone. Also, the tools probably housed antler bits. I actually have separate photos of the antler bits that the knapper used. And, I have the full written description of how the process was carried out. IT IS UNLIKE ANYTHING KNOWN IN MODERN FLINTKNAPPINGDOM. And, the process was learned and employed when the surrounding tribes still possessed common knowledge of both the tools, and the process.
Anyway, based on written accounts, I believe that the tool was held "straight with the edge" and then struck with a hammerstone. Great care had to be taken to make sure that the blade did not move "sideways" when the flaker was struck. Key words, "straight with the edge", and "move sideways".
If you look carefully, you can see that the tools have a flare at the end. Based on written evidence that I was able to track down, during my highly banned study of flintknapping, I believe that the flared end housed the bit, AND the flared end was struck on the broadside.
If we are too overly modern-flintknapping-centric, we might be temtped to think that they used "horizontal punches". But, this is not how it was understood. This is actually a highly inaccurate idea. What was understood is that FLAKING WITH A FLAKER covered a RANGE OF FLAKING. I wish to God that the American researchers had beaten this point into the heads of European academics, when they had the chance. If they had done so, European academics would not have been so prone to set up misleading classification systems. They hash out pine needles, but fail to see the forest. And, it is continuing to this very day, because people fail to understand Native American flintknapping.
Anyway, based on written evidence, I believe that these tools reflect what was on the far end of the flaker spectrum. And, what is on the other far end of the flaker spectrum? Composite bit pressure flakers. IT IS A SINGLE SPECTRUM. And, the spectrum covers the smallest composite bit pressure flaker, to the largest flaker like this, that might be as long as one's forearm. The spectrum covers a single type of process, carried out with different tools, administered with two different forms of energy - pressure, percussion.
So, the idea that Native American flintknappers used "horizontal punches" is erected on a false premise. The false premise is that flintknapping is understood via "tools". It is not understood via tools. It was not understood via tools a hundred years ago, two hundred years ago, etc. This is a carry over from our culture, and the influence of the Industrial Revolution. And, that is not how Native American flintknapping was ever understood, not even 100 years ago. Tools are part of the picture. But, one cannot understand the picture through tools. It is understood through processes. And, tools can reflect different types of processes, that fit within a larger procedural understanding. In this case, composite bit pressure flakers, and what we call "horizontal punches" are actually PART OF THE SAME PROCESS, that spans a spectrum of flaking, and flaking reduction. Get this, native knappers were so BRILLIANT that they could follow the same process, after roughing out a preform, by working along the spectrum, right down to fine pressure flaking, with a composite bit pressure flaker.
This is part of the highly banned history of Native American flintknapping that people do not want to have to face, but that will never go away, and that will outlive all of us.
By the way, there is no evidence that the person who used these tools ever used "billets". And, there is no evidence that Ishi used "billets". But, Ishi did describe the use of a tool unknown to modern flintknapping, on one or two occasions. And, at another juncture, Ishi described another type of flaker, that probably no one ever saw. And, if a person takes both lines of evidence into consideration, along with external evidence, it is no longer that difficult to see what was being spoken of.
Also, the person who used these tools I am showing came from the same area that Ishi came from, and learned to knap during the 1870's, at a time when many people in the area where just beginning to become modernized. And, based on written descriptions of the process, it is certain that his individual used a sophisticated form of indirect percussion, as his intermediate form of flaking, while following all the way through to composite bit pressure flaking. Yet, there is no evidence that he used batons, as proposed by the English, during the 1930's.
Fortunately for me, I predicted that this evidence should exist. Then, I spent six months tracking it down. And, it exists. And, it exists in far better detail than anyone could have imagined. Also, the fact that this fellow made so many points, and that no one could have successfully made the points, shows that modern lithic analysis can easily flop. And, the reason why lithic analysis can easily flop is because it is largely based on the work of baton users, and not Native American flintknapping, and flintknapping processes.
