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.
