Comparing antler drift flakers to basketmaker sheephorn punch points for GRIM REAPER

[BenjaminE]

For those who are interested in bonafide prehistoric flintknapping tools and practices, I spoke at the Society for American Archaeology annual conference about prehistoric flakers.

Here I am speaking about antler punches recovered from Colha.



Here is a prehistoric sheephorn punch showing silicate fragments embedded in the ends.



Here is an electronic scan of a biface that is believed to have been made with the sheephorn punch:



Here is an antler drift punch not unlike those in the collection of "Grim Reaper" that was used to experimentally flake the following biface, with a technology that was cited at least one time during the 19th century:



Notice the width of the flake scar initiations at the edge, and the width of the flake scars five millimeters from the edge. Compare to the preceding flake scars shown on the Basketmaker II biface.

Here is a photo that shows the relative thinness of the biface:



Here is a profile of a Basketmaker II biface with evidence of being made with a sheephorn punch (compare to the previous experimental photo):



The Basketmaker II people created thin bifaces with a tool of indirect percussion that shares basic morphological attributes with the antler drift punches, more commonly found in eastern North America.

If you want to see the best collection of such flakers on the net, be sure to look up Grim Reaper's antler drift collection.

Also, for those who are interested in ancient knapping technology, the tools shown here were in continuous use from the advent of the archaic era through the historic era.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Minelab PRO-FIND 35 Waterproof Pinpointer Metal Detector for Experts with Tone ID & Adjustable Sensitivity - Grab it through Amazon!

[The Grim Reaper]

So people don't have to go look for these, here are a few pictures of my Antler Drifts.

 

[joshuaream]

Interesting stuff!

 

[Toecutter]

When i was young we did reenactments, I got pretty good at making arrow heads, always used antlers for knapping, i would use the base of a big antler to break my piece off then use a antler tip and piece of leather for a pad to shape.... I like your collection very interesting!!

 

[tomclark]

Great post, Ben! I have thought about those little flat pebbles that I wrote to you about that we find at Archaic knapping sites, but lost your email... glad you are on here!

 

[releventchair]

Having never seen knappers using such drift punches , it is interesting to see the punches.
Pressure flaking to finish by using a fine point of an antler tine ,or a heavy copper wire embedded in a tine is a common method here in modern fabrication...

I do see other references to the drifts though.
Pardon me if this one has been posted prior.


[1868 - "A mode of flaking by using a punch is mentioned by some travellers. Catlin thus describes the mode adopted by the Apachees in making flint arrow-heads :


"Like most of the tribes west of and in the Rocky Mountains, they manufacture the blades of their spears and points for their arrows of flints, and also of obsidian, which is scattered over those volcanic regions west of the mountains; and, like the other tribes, they guard as a profound secret the mode by which the flints and obsidian are broken into the shapes they require.

"Every tribe has its factory, in which these arrow-heads are made, and in those, only certain adepts are able or allowed to make them, for the use of the tribe. Erratic boulders of flint are collected (and sometimes brought an immense distance), and broken with a sort of sledge-hammer, made of a rounded pebble of horn-stone, set in a twisted withe, holding the stone, and forming a handle."

"The flint, at the indiscriminate blows of the sledge, is broken into a hundred pieces, and such flakes selected as, from the angles of their fracture and thickness, will answer as the basis of an arrow-head."

"The master workman, seated on the ground, lays one of these flakes on the palm of his left hand, holding it firmly down with two or more fingers of the same hand, and with his right hand, between the thumb and two fore-fingers, places his chisel (or punch) on the point that is to be broken off; and a cooperator (a striker) sitting in front of him, with a mallet of very hard wood, strikes the chisel (or punch) on the upper end, flaking the flint off on the under side, below each projecting point that is struck. The flint is then turned and chipped in the same manner from the opposite side, and so turned and chipped until the required shape and dimensions are obtained, all the fractures being made on the palm of the hand."

"In selecting a flake for the arrowhead, a nice judgment must be used, or the attempt will fail: a flake with two opposite parallel, or nearly parallel, planes is found, and of the thickness required for the centre of the arrow-point. The first chipping reaches near to the centre of these planes, but without quite breaking it away, and each chipping is shorter and shorter, until the shape and the edge of the arrow-head are formed."

"The yielding elasticity of the palm of the hand enables the chip to come off without breaking the body of the flint, which would be the case if they were broken on a hard substance. These people have no metallic instruments to work with, and the instrument (punch) which they use, I was told, was a piece of bone ; but on examining it, I found it to be a substance much harder, made of the tooth (incisor) of the sperm-whale, which cetaceans are often stranded on the coast of the Pacific. This punch is about six or seven inches in length, and one inch in diameter, with one rounded side and two plane sides ; therefore presenting one acute and two obtuse angles, to suit the points to be broken.

This operation is very curious, both the holder and the striker singing, and the strokes of the mallet given exactly in time with the music, and with a sharp and rebounding blow, in which, the Indians tell us, is the great medicine (or mystery) of the operation." (Last Rambles among the Indians, Catlin).]

 

[BenjaminE]

So people don't have to go look for these, here are a few pictures of my Antler Drifts.

Steve, you have the best private collection of anyone I know of! Thanks for sharing.

If you ever notice any unusual details on your antler drifts feel free to share.

What I am especially interested in is any incidence of sidewall gloss. I suspect that the prehistoric knappers were not holding these tools with their fingers. I suspect that they may have been held with leather.

The reason I saw this is because when the Lacandon knappers use small punches to create blades, they rest the punches in a crotch made with three fingers, rather than grip the punches with their finger tips. I asked an anthropologist about this. He worked with the Lacandons, but did not know why they used this peculiar holding technique.

I finally realized that the main difference is that by not directly gripping the punch, the Lacandon knapper would not impede either the vibration, or the movement of the punch, when it is struck. And, both factors affect the creation of the break - vibration, and movement.

The other detail that caught my attention is that there was a 19th century researcher who studied aboriginal boat building in Canada, and Alaska. This researcher compiled extensive notes. He also encountered a few people who were past the age of 100, during his studies. In one case, a native related the processes that were used before they encountered white people, and obtained metal. This informant described how the stone tools used to manufacture the boats were made via direct percussion, and indirect percussion. And, the informant mentioned that sometimes the punch tools were held with leather when fashioning the chipped stone tools that would be used in boat building. This also suggests that the tools were not always directly held.

A third note that caught my attention is that early on archaeologists were perplexed by the small size of some of the antler drifts. In other words, if they were held between the fingers, and struck, how soon would it be before the fingers were struck

And, I believe others noticed a high incidence of sidewall gloss, which may be evident on some of your tools.

From all of this, my guess is that maybe the drifts were not held with the fingers at all, but rather held with bands of leather, so when it was struck it could move more freely.

And, following Beckwith, Belcher, Catlin, and others, the stone would have been held in a simple makeshift vice consisting of two pieces of wood, lashed with a thong of leather.

Anyway, the flaking I experimentally produced that looks much like the Basketmaker II flaking was produced while not gripping the punch directly, but rather holding it in a pinched strap of leather, and while clamping the stone in a piece of wood, and striking the punch with a wooden mallet.

Also, I did not deliberately attempt to copy existing flaking. This was a blind test. And, after some time, I realized that the flaking produced looks like the flaking seen in the Basketmaker II flaking.

And, now the question that lingers in my mind is whether such tools show signs of intense sidewall gloss, as I believe would be produced from constant friction with leather? Sidewall gloss can actually be seen on the sheephorn punch tool.

Ben

 

[uniface]

Super stuff !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[BenjaminE]

Interesting stuff!

I am glad that you like it, Joshua.

I started on this in 2010. And, in 2019, I saw several lines of evidence that helped me resolve the use, with a subsequent archaeological match.

So, the hard work was worth it. Fortunately, I stayed with it.

Today, archaeologists from all over the world are really interested in all facets of my research.

 

[BenjaminE]

Great post, Ben! I have thought about those little flat pebbles that I wrote to you about that we find at Archaic knapping sites, but lost your email... glad you are on here!View attachment 1706723

I looked for your email, as well. I never forgot about the pebbles, and the descriptions. My email is [email protected].

I actually was just telling someone about your pebbles, and the associations with chipped stone tools, in southeastern contexts.

Holmes said that sometimes a pebble was used as a "set" or a punch. In the past, I could not picture how this might have been carried out. But, at this point, I think it is easier to understand. And, your flattish pebbles look like prime candidates for a process that I have in mind.

The bigger issue has to do with support. But, this is not just true in indirect percussion. It is probably true with regard to all percussive reductive processes.

If I were to guess I would guess that maybe the chipped stone tools you find these battered pebbles associated with are made of a hard, raw stone. And, the flakes - however small - might actually resemble small hard hammer flakes.

I guess the real story will be seen in the flakes, themselves.

Please send me your email. I lost yours as well.

Thanks,

Ben

 

[The Grim Reaper]

Ben, I'll take a closer look at these as soon as possible but for now here is a close that shows I believe is side wall polish. There are a few in this group that are very highly polished.

 

[benjamineble]

Ben, I'll take a closer look at these as soon as possible but for now here is a close that shows I believe is side wall polish. There are a few in this group that are very highly polished.

Wow!!! That is really important Steve! It is also something that I believe could be reproduced via experimentation - bare hand friction polish, versus leather friction polish.

We might actually be seeing leather polish, which would relate to how the tools were being used.

 

[Quartzite Keith]

Ben,

Glad to see you are still at it. I just looked over several of the "peg punches" I have used for knapping and all show very clear polish all the way around the sides. I never used leather to hold them, just my fingers. I think mostly the polish is from skin oils? Any way, it doesn't photograph well, you have to sort tip the antler back and forth under a light to to see the "flash", but when I then compare to an unused piece of antler, the punches are have much more shine.

My own experience with the small straight punches: I spent two years where I used them on every piece I finished, so maybe a few hundred "points". They work, but I found them so slow and tedious I stopped using them. Adding in special holding techniques like clamps to compensate for "the third hand problem" that plagues indirect percussion only added to the frustration. Now I use direct percussion as far as I can and finish with a shaft punch, which I have found to be much faster and gives more "oomph" than vertical.

BUT: That isn't the issue. Modern knappers are kind of upside down on things. As much time as the old timers spent making bifaces, I bet they spent an equal, if not more time modifying and re-sharpening bifaces. So, modern knappers are missing a significant part of the picture. If you gave me a pile of bifaces to carry along and live off of for as long as I could without having to go back to a quarry source and said I could only have one tool to work the stone with, one of those punches like Steve shows would be it. I certainly don't need to be dragging that shaft punch everywhere I go, or trying to recreate it every time I need to touch up my quartzite knife. As you pointed out many years ago, you can always find something to hit it with, so you are only burdened with the space and weight of that one little piece of antler. The other thing that is crazy about them is that (for reasons I don't understand) they wear very slowly. I swear I could burn through 100 tine pressure flakers and still be using the same punch!

I would be very interested in reading anything you know of (or find in the future) about studies of wear analysis on antler tools. Certainly if you have written anything (or decide to), please track me down so I can get a copy of it. I am most interested in wear patterns on curved pieces of antler that are believed to have been used for knapping. Ideally, it would be nice if it is known whether they came from a quarry type site, or a village/camp type site. Currently I am mostly using curved pieces of antler either hafted to a "T" shaped stick and swung like a hammer, or hafted to a long shaft and struck with an antler hammer as a horizontal punch. Each use produces very distinct wear patterns.

As for reading the flakes, I don't seem to have an eye for it. I've used so many different tools and techniques over the years, and can't really see it in my own work. I finally got to a point 5-6 years ago where I started marking all the finished pieces with a month and year so I can at least somewhat try to keep my stuff straight!

 

[BenjaminE]

Ben,

Glad to see you are still at it. I just looked over several of the "peg punches" I have used for knapping and all show very clear polish all the way around the sides. I never used leather to hold them, just my fingers. I think mostly the polish is from skin oils? Any way, it doesn't photograph well, you have to sort tip the antler back and forth under a light to to see the "flash", but when I then compare to an unused piece of antler, the punches are have much more shine.

My own experience with the small straight punches: I spent two years where I used them on every piece I finished, so maybe a few hundred "points". They work, but I found them so slow and tedious I stopped using them. Adding in special holding techniques like clamps to compensate for "the third hand problem" that plagues indirect percussion only added to the frustration. Now I use direct percussion as far as I can and finish with a shaft punch, which I have found to be much faster and gives more "oomph" than vertical.

BUT: That isn't the issue. Modern knappers are kind of upside down on things. As much time as the old timers spent making bifaces, I bet they spent an equal, if not more time modifying and re-sharpening bifaces. So, modern knappers are missing a significant part of the picture. If you gave me a pile of bifaces to carry along and live off of for as long as I could without having to go back to a quarry source and said I could only have one tool to work the stone with, one of those punches like Steve shows would be it. I certainly don't need to be dragging that shaft punch everywhere I go, or trying to recreate it every time I need to touch up my quartzite knife. As you pointed out many years ago, you can always find something to hit it with, so you are only burdened with the space and weight of that one little piece of antler. The other thing that is crazy about them is that (for reasons I don't understand) they wear very slowly. I swear I could burn through 100 tine pressure flakers and still be using the same punch!

I would be very interested in reading anything you know of (or find in the future) about studies of wear analysis on antler tools. Certainly if you have written anything (or decide to), please track me down so I can get a copy of it. I am most interested in wear patterns on curved pieces of antler that are believed to have been used for knapping. Ideally, it would be nice if it is known whether they came from a quarry type site, or a village/camp type site. Currently I am mostly using curved pieces of antler either hafted to a "T" shaped stick and swung like a hammer, or hafted to a long shaft and struck with an antler hammer as a horizontal punch. Each use produces very distinct wear patterns.

As for reading the flakes, I don't seem to have an eye for it. I've used so many different tools and techniques over the years, and can't really see it in my own work. I finally got to a point 5-6 years ago where I started marking all the finished pieces with a month and year so I can at least somewhat try to keep my stuff straight!

Keith,

I do not read flakes either. I also do not remember visuals. The best knappers tend to be very visually oriented. Woody Blackwell is a sculpture, and an artist. A few other top notch knappers are graphics art designers. Marty Rueter is a stone mason.

Those people have an eye, and a mind, for visual stuff which I think really comes into play when remembering and analyzing reduction sequences. I am guessing that some of them have true photographic memory. My visual memory is akin to tunnel vision underwater. I am pretty sure that some of the best knappers can make top notch stuff from almost any process, because they are visually sorting out reduction strategies, and sequences.

That being said, while I am not visual, I have a strong semantic memory. So, I probably have hundreds of conceptual notes stored away in my head. And, when I am knapping, I start "flipping through notes" like a roladex file.

Because of this, I figured out early on that what modern knappers thought about prehistoric knapping could not actually be squared with the evidence of prehistoric knapping. I also figured out that what I was told about antler drifts back in 2010 and 2011 was largely opinions based on lack of experience. I also realized that much of knapping was not going to be figured out from beating rocks. Rather, it would be inferred from many lines of evidence. Also, I figured out that almost everyone is unconsciously approaching knapping with an Industrial Revolution tool focus, the way people learn mechanics, etc. After enough study I finally figured out that prehistoric knapping was process-based more than tool-based.

What this means is that the assessments that modern knappers give to assess prehistoric tools are frequently flawed. They are flawed by misunderstanding, and personal bias.

So, to crack the code, I knew that I would have to reconstruct conceptual ideas that simply are not known. This is how I was able to create - or recreate - things like tine based overshot.





I did not figure this out by beating rocks. I figured this out by studying records until I was finally able to see how to combine known technologies in such a way that they create additional forces during the break process that cannot be directly created. Rather, it is the combination of forces that are arrayed or combined to create additional forces, that are needed to create the classic 90 degree Clovis/paleoindian overshot.

I never could have figured this out by beating rocks. It took a concerted study that lasted five years, before this became clear. And, it worked on the first try, and has always worked quite well, even in raw stone.

All of the arguments about whether late stage Clovis overshot was intentional or not are largely based on studies carried out by knappers using European styled direct percussion baton knapping. This technology basically ends the argument. Lol!

Anyway, I am convinced that modern knappers never understood how to use cylinders or deer tines for the best flaking, because they never understood prehistoric processes.

 

[BenjaminE]

Tom Clark,

It is good to see you again on a forum.

I believe when we left off, in the fall of 2014, I was asking a particular flintknapper whether he knew how a 19th century Karok knapper (born 1863 Civil War era) knapped his big obsidian bifaces.

I was never quite able to finish the rest of the story, on that forum, though many academics have been quite excited by what came to light.

After years of research, I tracked down an original tool kit, used by the aged knapper.

The tool kit was sent to the U.S. National Museum, to Dr. Holmes himself, around 1916. And, the tool kit, as well as a set of photographic plates of the reduction process, where almost included in his anniversary edition, by the US National Museum.

Tragically, the photographic plates, the reduction notes, and the tools arrived to late to be published. If they had been published, we would have been given a very picture of flintknapping, back in 1916.

Anyway, here are the tools used by the 80+ year old flintknapper, who was alive and well in Northern California in the latter half of the 19th century, when most men over 40 years of age could still knap.



















If Holmes had printed this in 1916 - as he was quite impressed with Orcutt's work - it would have headed off decades of Europe-based dogma. Still, it is what it is.

Also these papers and tools had been lost in the Smithsonian since maybe the 1980's. I impressed upon them how urgent it was that the donation be found, because I was predicting that we would find some form of punches. And, I told them that this will prove once and for all what Orcutt's contemporaries should have known.

Two months later, the Smithsonian officials wrote and said that they finally found the box of goods, minus the plates. And, just as I had anticipated, they found a set of punches, collected by Grace Nicholsen, around 1916. This goes to show that Ray, Mason, and others, knew what they were talking about.

By the way, I knew to look in the Smithsonian, because the US National Museum suffered a devastating fire. And, many items were transferred to the Smithsonian Museum.

So, this is the rest of the story...

 

[BenjaminE]

Interesting stuff!

So which part do you find interesting Joshua? The Basketmaker II flake scar replications made with the cylinders? Or, the tine-based overshot? Or, the Orcutt flintknapping kit that was commonly reported as being used at the end of the 19th century?

 

[BenjaminE]

Fuert site chipping implements

 

[The Grim Reaper]

These are Feurt Site Drifts and other Antler artifacts. All personal finds.

 

[catherine1]

If those antler drifts were used for taking off large flakes, and the scars that you guys are discussing, where do the tine points come into this big picture? I only found a couple of antler drifts at my farm midden, but over a dozen of tine points. plus the antlers they were cut from. And they never made a drift, from the leftover piece of antler, that they cut the tine point from. Steve has some of my antler finds......

 

[gilmerman]

Thanks for such devoted attention to little known knowledge about possible methods of construction of the artifacts we place in such high regards.