Wood - Secondary Thinning

[BenjaminEble]

Can anyone give me some assessment on the flakes, and such. Does anything here resemble what is known from the archaeological record. The flakes were taken with a two inch wooden palm punch.

Thanks

[BenjaminEble]

More Photos:

[BenjaminEble]

Last Photos:

[drdave514]

I think it's pretty difficult to determine how a flake was taken except for the hardness the impacting object and intensity of impact. Hopefully Knife River can chime in on the matter. Having said that, the flakes look just like the loads of stuff I flip over and would not look remotely out of place in the field debitage I find.

[BenjaminEble]

Hello Dr. Dave,

The thing is that the wooden cylindrical punch seems to be very finicky, and tends to work within certain parameters. When I first started, sometimes I could strike a platform ten times, and not get a detachment. Finally, I learned that the platforms are critical in making a detachment. It seems that the platforms have to be designed to allow for the creation of tremendous bending force. I believe that this is why the flakes tend to be so heavily lipped. Also, the lipping looks different than the lipping which comes from antler indirect percussion. I think that if these flakes should be very easy to identify in archaeological contexts. Thanks for the input.

Ben

[Palmwood]

What types of wood have you used for a punch, and which work the best?

[knife river]

Ben, I can't recall ever seeing flakes that lipped as much as those. You're getting big bulbs, too. Once the edge gets thin (IF you can get it thin with that technique), you need to change your technique a LOT or you're going to court disaster with every flake -- think perverse fractures.

You might try smaller or more isolated platforms. Also try relieving them on the backside of the platform, too.

[rokdok]

Benjamin, the flake removals you achieve do not look dissimilar to the "Dome and Plane" flake removals from the Little River Clovis Complex" pieces in Carl Yahnigs collection, as far as i remember. I don't remember any flakes being depicted, but based on the removal scars, they may be similar. The LRCC Clovis people used the "D&P" technique in initial biface thinning and Tony Baker attributed the technique to "off-margin striking", the same technique used in Levallois technique. If i remember correctly, about 1/3 of the bifaces he studied were broken due to perverse fracture, which knife River mentions could be a problem with your technique when the biface gets thin. I may be off-base here, but you should be able to google "Tony baker Dome and Plane" or go to his website, where he has examples of the LRCC bifaces in early production stages. mark

[uniface]

They raise a lot of questions on this end, Benjamin. The proportionately large striking platforms "make sense" for a wooden punch.

But the rippled-out terminations (maybe from my own inexperience) don't. (Maybe due to the exceptionally hard material ?)

Also, I'd (perhaps naively) expect to see bigger, fatter bulbs than those have.

And the hook-like beginnings (= "lips" ??) throw me.

[BenjaminEble]

What types of wood have you used for a punch, and which work the best?"

For a punch I am using chechem. It is probably twice as hard as white oak, and rates 2300 lbs on the Janka scale.

"Ben, I can't recall ever seeing flakes that lipped as much as those. You're getting big bulbs, too. Once the edge gets thin (IF you can get it thin with that technique), you need to change your technique a LOT or you're going to court disaster with every flake -- think perverse fractures.

You might try smaller or more isolated platforms. Also try relieving them on the backside of the platform, too."

Yes, today I snapped three bifaces, right in my hands. They snapped like carrots, under impact. But, the interesting thing is that I do not believe that I have ever snapped bifaces, in my hands, before. And, these bifaces were pretty thick - maybe a quarter of an inch. So, the bending stresses must be enormous. And, when not properly channeled, it gets bad. On the other hand, even with the bulbing, when it works, it leaves almost razor sharp edges, with wide, flat flake scars.

"Benjamin, the flake removals you achieve do not look dissimilar to the "Dome and Plane" flake removals from the Little River Clovis Complex" pieces in Carl Yahnigs collection, as far as i remember. I don't remember any flakes being depicted, but based on the removal scars, they may be similar. The LRCC Clovis people used the "D&P" technique in initial biface thinning and Tony Baker attributed the technique to "off-margin striking", the same technique used in Levallois technique. If i remember correctly, about 1/3 of the bifaces he studied were broken due to perverse fracture, which knife River mentions could be a problem with your technique when the biface gets thin. I may be off-base here, but you should be able to google "Tony baker Dome and Plane" or go to his website, where he has examples of the LRCC bifaces in early production stages. mark "

I am not familiar with Yahnig's collection. Can it be seen online? Also, I snapped three bifaces, today. But, the problem does not seem to be tied to the thinness of the biface. It seems to be that in trying to flake the thicker bifaces, I strike harder, and harder, until it breaks. Still, in many cases, re-designing the platform oftentimes makes it rather easy to get a detachment. Also, I have been looking at Baker's Folsom material, in order to sort out some ideas. It seems to me that this technique could be reserved for the very end, as a means of removing the fluting flake, in high grade stone. So, I am trying to see, on Baker's site, what the earlier stages look like, to see if they look similar, or different. Technically, I could dome and plane, while using hammerstones, in conjunction with anvils. But, this particular type of flake, made with the wooden punch is very unique, and frequently leaves a thin sharp edge.

"They raise a lot of questions on this end, Benjamin. The proportionately large striking platforms "make sense" for a wooden punch.

But the rippled-out terminations (maybe from my own inexperience) don't. (Maybe due to the exceptionally hard material ?)

Also, I'd (perhaps naively) expect to see bigger, fatter bulbs than those have.

And the hook-like beginnings (= "lips" ??) throw me."

Yeah, they throw me, too. But, Steve Nissly wrote on Paleoplanet that the flakes look just like the lipped flakes he finds in the Northeast. And, he had previously thought that the must have been made with wooden billets. But, the wooden palm punch offers another possibility. Also, the way the flakes carry, you could actually lower the center of the point, which leaves the deltas elevated above the surface. It can quickly create a hollowing effect. It is very peculiar. If I had a better handle on the platforms, I could probably create better examples. So, it is taking some time.