Yuku free message boards

Bob,

Thanks for posting that link.  And, in all seriousness, I have a question about the second photo, which shows one of the antler sections up close.  Here is the photo:

http://www.texasbeyondhistory.net/horn/images/burials-billet-smith.html

And, here is my question:  On the right side, are you able to tell whether or not the end of the antler is perforated?  To me, it appears that it may be perforated.  But, I do not know for sure.  Would you happen to have any further information regarding the artifact?  Here is another blow up view of the artifacts, which again shows the said antler section:

http://www.texasbeyondhistory.net/horn/images/burial-redder-325.html

The reason I am asking about the possible perforation, which seems to be more noticeable in the second photo, is because many basal sections of antler were similarly cut, and perforated, and used as knife handles.  And, oftentimes, they are the same dimensions as this antler section appears to be be - six or seven inches long - which would provide room for hafting, as well as for holding with the hand.  Anyway, this is why I ask about what appears to be a perforation, on the non-basal end of the antler.

The other question I have is in regard to what appears to be the presence of antler coronet on the left end.  Do you feel that the presence of this coronet would be consistent with use as a knapping billet?  Since I used to use non-ground antler billets, with coronets, I have found that they can be used for some percussion chipping.  But, they also can become chipped fairly quickly, while striking sharp edges.  For this reason, alot of people probably grind them off, so as to not inadvertently snag the edge of the stone. In my case, for lack of tools, I used to try to "beat" the coronets off.  Anyway, on this section of antler, the coronet is noticeable on one side, but not so much on the other.  Also, the end appears to be extremely flat.  Do you feel this overall scheme is consistent with an antler billet. 

Personally, I do not think that the artifact is a punch.  If I had to guess, assuming that the other end is perforated, I would guess that it is a knife handle, not unlike many of other similar knife handles that have been unearthed, during excavations, in various parts of North America.  Also, near the cut end that appears to be perforated, there is a slight split in the antler.  This might also indicate knife hafting, since hafting could lead to a split in the end.  So, I wonder what your opinion is regarding the coronet, and the apparent peforation?

Also, if I wrote, in the past, that the antler looks like a punch, I must have written in haste.  There are scores of basally cut sections of antler, not unlike these, that were set aside, and later employed as perforated knife handles.  

Thanks for your comments, in advance.

Ben          

Hello Bob,

Would you happen to know which end that they speculate was used? Was it the end with the coronet? Or, was it the end with the apparent perforation?

Ben

Hello Lee,

Thanks for adding the analysis to the conversation.  It brings a few things to light.  I want to make a comment on what BLM wrote, while emphasizing a particular phrase. 

"In addition, based on the debitage IT IS SUSPECTED that batons of wood, antler, bone, or ivory were used for percussion flaking."

Since I basically have zero training in lithics, I feel that I can say something, here, with a minimal amount of institutionally engendered bias.  In showing a box of flakes to two professional lithic analysts, who apparently spend all of their time sorting through chips, I was told that I am producing flakes that range from a "screaming" antler billet, to a definite "soft hammerstone".  In fact, I was assured that if the very same flakes had been unearthed in an excavation, it would have been a very routine matter, for the "professionals", to classify all of my flakes, within the two said parameters.  And, this is something that really stumped these two professional lithic analysts.  In fact, after mulling it over, one of them asked me how it would be possible to determine that these are actually punch flakes, produced by indirect percussion, rather than percussion flakes, made by other means?  I saw that they were stumped.  So, I gave them the answer.  Basically, you can tell on the refit.  You can initiate alot of detachments with a one centimeter punch that are not necessarily reachable with anything wider than one centimeter.  I even do this with a really hard eight millimeter punch when working in recessed areas. 

So, it seems to me that looking at everything through the "antler billet lens" has produced some inherent limitations.  First of all, if a person zeros in on the flake, and identifies it as an "antler billet flake", then he may not look at the refit to see whether the actual process of reduction was entirely compatible with an antler billet.  The issue with the punches - especially the palm punches - is that the whole issue of working in a three dimensional plane, while alternating punch sizes, comes into play.  Anyone who looks at the diagrams given in any billet based flintknapping tutorial can see that the edges, and the angles are within certain ranges.  In order to use punches effectively, I have found that I have had to move past the mental barrier of only understanding those known ranges, in order to learn how to alternate the tools, while working within a greater variety of ranges, in order to produce a "sculpting" effect as I work.  That being said, the idea that a particular flake is a "screaming" billet flake, in my opinion, is not necessarily a diagnostic determiner, since seemingly identical flakes can be produced by other means.  So, whatever information is gained from the refit, should be of much greater value than just the flakes, themselves, because - if punches were employed - the refit would demonstrate a much greater variability, in terms of angles and dimensions, than what is commonly known in antler billet reduction.  

"Have you or are you thinking about doing any obsidian work with your punching?"

I am a little bit afraid to.  I am sure that it would work great, for palm punching.  But, I would not want to make any mistakes, since I am using my hand as a support.  Oh, the good thing is that it has been months since I have driven a flake into my finger.  But, I did do it twice, in the same spot, in two days.  I guess I just need to get up the nerve to work with it.  I need a little bit more of the Mexican's sense of "macho-ness", which involves things like no seat belts, no safety harnesses, etc.  I can say that I have already looked through literature, in Spanish, relating to punzones, and cinceles (punches and chisels).  It does appear that a range of punches were used, and are still being used today. 

You know, this is the odd thing, we are in the same predicament that Holmes was in a hundred years ago, when he went out on the frontier, in order to document how people were actually flintknapping.  Academics in the universities were calling it a "lost art".  Even during the eighteen hundreds, people were mystified by arrowheads.  Oftentimes, it was said that the "white man" with all his steel tools, could not produce the indian's arrowhead.  Apparently, people must have tried.  And, no one really understood how it actually was done, except for people who took the time to go out west, and document what remained of the process.  (By the way, the appearance of "glass", and "iron nails" probably greatly "expedited" the overall process, as it was being carried out by a number of tribes.) 

Anyway, today, indians in Mexico are still knapping with the same tools that were known in prehistoric times.  Those tools were found at places like Colha, and other Mayan sites.  And, as far as I can tell, those cylindrical tools are no different than tools that have commonly been found in North America, for at least the last hundred years.  So, should a person start connecting the dots?  Yeah, I think so.  In fact, many archaeologists, like Seaman (1984), already have done so.

"And, has John Whittaker's book 'American Flintknappers' been brought up yet on other threads or forums?"

I read the book years ago - I think around 1995.  His book is what set me off to get rock and start heat treating it, to make arrowheads since, up to that point, I was only familiar with obsidian, and glass.  Also, speaking of Whitaker, he made a very interesting observation:

"As antler billets or batons are favored by modern knappers for the thinning process, Whittaker (1994:180) found the ABSENCE PUZZLING. His WORKING HYPOTHESIS was that WOOD had REPLACED or been substituted for antler, and had been removed..."  

Apparently, they analyzed thirty eastern woodland village sites, but could not find any antler billets, when there should have been some.  Whitaker is not the first to take note of this, nor is he the last.  But, what I find puzzling is that prior to Bordes, I have yet to find anyone that was even LOOKING for antler billets.  Anyway, where else has this occurred?  All over meso-America.

"Nothing resembling the large and heavy bone and antler billets used in Europe is known from Tikal. Small bone and antler artifacts that SUGGEST flaking and edge-retouching tools are..." - no billets, same story all over meso-America, with very few exceptions.

From La Libertad ruins of Chiapas - "They are similar in form to the Lacandon Maya ANTLER PUNCHES described above by Bruce (Fig. 70d)\ importantly, they have the SAME WEAR PATTERN common to Lacandon antler punches. All are RODLIKE with BATTERED and ROUNDED ENDS."

"Rodlike", "battered", and with "rounded ends".  Does that decription sound familiar?  While people like Whitaker unwittingly remain puzzled over the "absence" of antler billets, the same flintknapping tools which were common to meso-America, have been routinely unearthed, in North America, for the last hundred years, only here we call them "antler drift".  What is more, people are still using them TODAY, as we speak.  

Anyway, I think that it is time to start looking at the whole picture.  In my opinion, one cannot only rely upon the appearance of the flake.  Other factors, such as the refit, are equally important.  This is especially true when it comes to differentiating between two flakes that look identical, and two processes that are fundamentally different. 

That is my two cents.  If it sounds simplistic, it is because it is.  The academic description of antler drift in North America is no different than the academic description of antler punches, in meso-America.  And, in both places, scholars have continued to note the overall absence of antler billets, the only difference being that in North America, no one knew how the drift tools were used whereas, in meso-america, we still having people using the very same punch tools, today.  

Ben

Disclaimer:  These views are solely my own, and are not intended to hurt, or harm, others, in any way. 
                     

Hello Bob,

Going back to what was said previously, regarding the Afton Springs antler artifacts, I would like to point out that Holmes wrote that while the smaller ends were rounded off, the basal ends, still retained their "natural form".  So far, I have not seen anyone use an antler billet, for flintknapping, and afterwards the basal end still has it's "natural form".  Most people, today, are using power tools to eliminate the "natural form" of the basal ends of antlers.  

Also, it is clear that, aside from the points, several knives were found in the spring.  So, if the basal ends of the antler artifacts were still in their "natural form", then who is to say that they were not intended to be used as knife handles?  For instance, what would be easier, to transport a couple of blades, and a couple of handles?  Or to transport "finished knives"?  I think that there would be great safety in transporting the "goods" unassembled.  For instance, there could have been a "pack" of blades, neatly stacked on top of each other, and bound with string.  And, the pack of blades, along with a variety of handles, could be carried about in a small satchel, and bartered as a trade item.  But, if the knives, and handles, were assembled, then there would be the danger of damaging them, during transport, as they bang against, each other.  Even if the were individually bagged, and the blades did not get damages, the hafting could still easily be weakened, etc.  So, my view is that the antler sections could have been fashioned to be used as handles, to go with the knives.  In fact, this is even suggested for two of the other antler splints, which could have been lashed together as a compound handle.       

On the other hand, if Holmes had said that the larger basal ends showed signs of (a) wear, (b) abrading, (c) embeded slivers of chert, (d) deliberate removal of corona, etc, then I would be less doubtful.  But, the statement that the basal ends still retain their natural form, while the smaller ends were rounded, raises a question in my mind, where these not actually have been intended to be used as handles, to go with the knives that were also present in the spring?

Ben