Whittaker, J. C. (1994). Flintknapping: Basic principles. Chapter 2 of
Flintknapping: Making and Understanding Stone Tools (pp. 11-21). Austin:
Univ. of Texas Press.
Whittaker, J. C. (1994). A Brief History of Flintknapping. In
Flintknapping: Making and Understanding Stone Tools (pp. 23-63). Austin:
Univ. of Texas Press.
My first question concerns the Atlatl actually works. I've seen it before (because I had a class in one of the Anthropology rooms) and was interested in its mechanism. It looks like a spear/arrow and it "extends the arm" somehow but how does it actually work?
In the reading, it was mentioned that the control of sources and trading of obsidian may have been a major factor in the rise and collapse of cities, like Teotihuacan. If that is so, how big of a role did it actually play, more specifically to the site mentioned?
The article “Flintknappinig” from time to time explains that tools left behind by our ancestors explain a lot about them; such as their mental capacity and what they ate. Is it possible to tell from these tools the level of strength of our ancestors had?
As well, Whittaker on page 51 makes the point that stone tools carry some symbolic value. I was wondering how can archeologists decipher when a stone tool carries symbolic meaning or not?
Whitaker discusses how certain kinds of stones are better for flaking than others. Are certain stones better for different purposes besides obsidian being good to sharpen other stones?
What is a window shot with BB
? (page 12, paragraph 2)
Which are the waste products produced by the stone tools referred as debitage??
I do not quite understand the illustration 2.1 on page 13. Is it showing what a flat stone surface looks like when it is fractured with a stone tool?
Why were those hominids who were found in Africa called AUSTRALOpithecines? Is the root "austral" not related to continent Australia, but means something else?
When Whittaker differentiates between "hard stone hammers"(p.14) and "soft-hammer percussion."(p.33)What are the material differences between the two? This seems like an important aspect of the flintknapping process, and one which Whittaker does not really clarify.
On page 25 in the last full paragraph, Whittaker says that stone tools were used for cracking open bones, yet on page 15 he says that bones were used as soft hammers to make stone tools, so how can they crack bone as well?
Since ground stone tools were stronger, were they used as weapons, or were they still just used to cut food and things?
Were stone tools used more for stabbing, slashing/hacking, or for sawing/cutting?
It seem like it would be a very difficult task to find a stone that has the correct combination of both brittleness and elasticity and is homogeneous as well. Is there any way to identify stones that have these qualities by just looking at them? Or, is it necessary to experiment with them?
Whittaker talks extensively about all of the practical uses for stone tools (killing, skinning, cutting down trees, etc.). However, have there ever been any stone tools for non-essential tasks found? (children's toys or something along those lines)
From whom is the term 'Hertzian Cone' derived? Why?
Whittaker states (on page 50) that the nineteenth century 'was...about the last chance to actually see a complete stone tool technology in use...', but there remain a number of aborigine-type tribes that still depend on the use of handcrafted stone tools to manufacture other tools. For example, a number of Amazon societies use stone tools to carve boats out of trees. Why doesn't he acknowledge these societies as 'dependent' upon their flintknapping tools?
On p. 33, Whittaker describes burins as "stone tools made by striking off a retouch flake that runs along the edge of the flake and removes the edge, leaving a steep or even right-angled edge." Could he explain what he means here (the pictures weren't helpful)?
What is the significance of ground platform edges (referenced in figure description 3.8 on p. 36)?
Whittaker distinguishes between flintknapping and replication (page 12). I was wondering how long it would take someone to replicate something like the sickle in figure 3.12 a?
The reading does not seem to reference very many findings from east Asia. Is this because there just aren't very many finds? or is it for some other reason?
How does shooting a window with a BB gun make a conical shape? Is this assuming it doesn't go all the way through the glass?
So did the author conclude that the crude tools discovered in the "New World" supported the fact that the very first peoples in the "New World" weren't around until later in history or earlier in history? I was confused by that part of the passage. I thought they were sure of the time period because of carbon dating, not because of discovered artifacts.
I've never been very clear on this, but is the designation of the humanoid subgroup (homo erectus etc...) dependent on demonstrated culture and technological level? The chart on page 24 of Whittaker would seem to suggest a connection, but it could be a coincidence.
In the section about the debate whether the clovis culture was the first humans in North America, why does it matter if artifacts are shaped by natural forces rather than man made, if man used them? Is there a distinction between the ancestors of humans and humans for this sort of thing?
Whittaker says stone tools are "technology that developed along with humans and influenced their evolution." How did stone tools influence human evolution? How might modern technology influence human evolution?
How do anthropologists and archeologists learn about ancient people from the technologies that get left behind? What can we learn from these artifacts, and what can we not?
On page 19 Whittaker sites that certain archeologists have suggested the use of "obsidian blades for medical uses." How does the failure of these types of tools to take hold help us to better understand the decisions regarding the use of technology within the frame work of our prior readings (Pool’s in particular)?
Last readings we discussed about what it is to have new and/or improve technology to solve social problems and shape a whole generation into a different direction. Whittaker teaches us about stone tools by talking about its use and the history and even the history behind the name of the tools and toolmakers. How can we use all this information to see stone tools in a different perspective other than simple tools that humans used millions of years ago?
How can we see these stone tools are "improved technology"? Can we think as being progressive technology even in today’s world? Or does our stereotypes of stone tools as an indicator of "uncivilized" or "undeveloped" nations prevents us from noticing the importance of their roles and necessity in the world today?
On page 51 Whittaker claims that stone tools "like all artifacts, are part of complex symbol systems. Their users assign values and meanings to them that may have little to do with their functions or material properties, and some tools or materials are important because theya re associated with the spritual power of the ancestors or with qualities like "maleness"". How does this idea relate to the concept of social constructionism?
In the case of Lacondon stone tools (page 54) can we really call this technology, if their sole purpose is to gather revenue from tourists who will collect the tools rather than use them (i.e. is it technology, if it never is used or even intended to be used)?
On page 51 Whittaker claims that stone tools "like all artifacts, are part of complex symbol systems. Their users assign values and meanings to them that may have little to do with their functions or material properties, and some tools or materials are important because theya re associated with the spritual power of te ancestors or with qualities like "maleness"". How does this idea relate to the concept of social constructionism?
In the case of Lacondon stone tools (page 54) can we really call this technology, if their sole purpose is to gather revenue from tourists who will collect the tools rather than use them (i.e. is it technology, if it never is used or even intended to be used)?
Whittaker says stone tools are "technology that developed along with humans and influenced their evolution." How did stone tools influence human evolution? How might modern technology influence human evolution?
Whitaker also discusses how these tools impacted civilizations.
How did these tools impact the mortality? Did the ability to raise
crops increase nutrition?
On page 33, Whittaker discusses the "laurel leaf" points. He describes them as "more art, ceremonial, or prestige pieces than working tools." Is this, perhaps, why Grinnell chose the laurel leaf as one of its logos? A liberal arts education from Grinnell is more art, ceremonial, and prestigious than it is useful as an actual tool. (This was sarcastic, of course.)
How do anthropologists and archeologists learn about ancient people from the technologies that get left behind? What can we learn from these artifacts, and what can we not?
;
