Talk:Knapping

Untitled

I have just added some information to this page that expands its relevance beyond the archaeological. in doing so I have removed the rather dubious reference to prehistoric cultures. Mainly because prehistoric is a time based definition, whereas there are still cultures today that exist using what we would term neolithic technology, and the number of cultures that practised stone working for tools well into the 1900's was considerable. hope you will agree DavidP 00:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I just removed a link to a site that sells ancient stone tools. A link like this does not belong on a reference page. I also feel this is an ETHICAL issue, as an archaeologist I stand against the trade and promotion of antiquities sales. Selling artifacts PROMOTES LOOTING. I left the other link because it shows good examples of modern flintknappers pieces. Please do not put up further links that promote the sale of ancient artifacts. User:ZenTrowel 18:00, 1 June 2006 (EST) .

With respect, thats your opinion and this isn't supposed to be a political web site! And it isn't your personal knapping page either, Whilst commercial links are wrong under wiki rules, links to examples of knapping are acceptable.

Article name

This article is poorly named; the first sentence talks about the person, the rest focuses on the knapping process. Also, flintknapping singles out flint, implicitly excluding obsidian, [[glass], chert, and other materials workable by lithic reduction. I think the article should be renamed knapping, and focus on the methods used in making stone tools. Whether or not the resulting article should be separate from or merged into lithic reduction will probably also come up. scot 21:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. FISH. Obsidian knapping is the most important knapping in the developed countries due to the high demand for scalpels made of obsidian, as they have thinner blades than steel.--67.71.18.40 23:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Technically speaking, those scalpels are not made from obsidian, as obsidian is volcanic glass. Medical scalpels are made from factory produced glass (produced specifically for medical scalpels). But, it's the same principle. Obsidian was used in the past to make medical scalpels, but not in the modern era.--O crandell (talk) 21:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I also agree. The article should be renamed "knapping". As well, the term "flint" is generally misused by archaeologists. "Flint" (as mineralogists and petrologists define it) in fact refers specifically to microcrystaline quartz found in chalk formations. "Common chert" is found in limestone formations. The vast majority of artefacts which most archaeologists categorise as "flint", are in fact "chert". --O crandell (talk) 21:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

you can knap with a broken pop bottle piece. 174.153.179.240 (talk) 06:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Rewind. Are we going to merge Blacksmith with Metalworking? This article has already gone from being called Flintknapper to Knapping (no problem with that) and then had any prominent reference to flint removed (since restored). Now it is proposed to remove knapping and use the highly technical term Lithic Reduction. I would seriously question this - there is a huge gap between the highly specialised manufacture of medical scapels and a bloke whacking stones to build a wall. I'm speculating but it's surely pretty likely the latter is what the Old English term originally meant, co-opted latterly by archaeologists to include stone tool making, an art long forgotten by the 'Old English'. If this is merged please make sure that the words flint and knapping (the original subject of this aricle!) are prominently preserved.

• Knap is an Old English word of long standing. England has a very old and ongoing tradition of knapped flint sensu stricto walls.
• Flint sensu stricto is a very common material across large parts of Britain and much of mainland Europe, both in situ in the chalk (mined extensively eg Grimes Graves), in solution debris (eg clay with flints) and in chalky tills. Flint sensu stricto tools were made here and elsewhere in Europe, in quantity, for perhaps 700,000 years. Pterre (talk) 12:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the distinction here. Blacksmithing and metalworking overlap, but are not congruent, whereas knapping and lithic reduction are two different words for the same thing. The analog to blacksmithing and metalworking would be knapping and stoneworking, where one is a significant superset of the other. The articles do not have much overlap right now, because the lithic reduction article is a "verb" article, concentrating on the process, while knapping is a more of a "noun" article, focusing on the results. They are very complementary, and, terminology issues aside, there is no reason why they could not be put into the same article. As for terminology, "lithic reduction" is a highly technical term, whereas "knapping" is the common one. Both mean the same thing, and both should exist as entries, and both should point to the same article. While flint should be listed, flint is by no means the only material suitable for knapping; for example, the only difference between flint and chert (to a geologist) is whether it was from a chalk or a limestone matrix; once removed from the deposit, there is no way to differentiate the two. The ideal material depends on the desired end result of the knapping; tough flint or chert are needed for flintlocks, while the finer structure of obsidian or manmade glass produces sharper points and blades, and both were used by Ishi. scot (talk) 16:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

We will have to agree to differ - where I studied geology (England) flint is very distinctive compared with other varieties of chert. It is not simply a matter of where it came from, though it is true that proper flint comes only from the chalk of the upper Cretaceous. My concern is only to ensure that the common terms (flint knapping and knapped flint) do not disappear from this article, which was the way things were going until I put 'flint' back. Pterre (talk) 17:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, regarding chert and flint, yes, the definitions differ based on the context. From what I've seen, archaeologists tend to have the view you do, that "flint" is a very high quality cc quartz, typical of the type found in British chalk deposits, while "chert" is a lower quality stone, typical of the stuff found in limestone, as typified by my yard (limestone, probably late Paleozoic based on the large concentration of crinoid fossils, and invariably containing a big chuck of chert right where I want to dig a hole). On the other hand, as mentioned here, the term "flint" is used by anthropologists to generically refer to any material capable of lithic reduction. The nitpicky differences between materials is really beyond the scope of the article, but flint, chert, and obsidian should all be mentioned as they were all widely used by stone age toolmakers.

As for merging, how about this. The content of the current lithic reduction article could go into a section covering the process. This is equally valid to any material that exhibits conchoidal fracture, and should be left generic as to material. The content of the current knapping article has a section on the hobby, which should be retained. From what I've seen, most knappers prefer flint or chert, preferably from a stone that exhibits good color and figure, as that produces the most aesthetically pleasing results. They also tend to call themselves "flintknappers", and that can be pointed out and supported by references to 'net "How-To" links. There should also be a section on historic knapping, starting with ancient toolmakers, all the way up to a brief description of knapping for flintlocks, as well as any other applications, such as architectural stone facing. This should list all the types of stone used for the various tasks--obsidian was obviously highly prized for point work, as can be shown by the unusually wide distribution of obsidian points, but generally toolmakers used what was available locally. This applies even now, where a prime piece of flint or natural obsidian can sell for lots of money at a knap-in, and many knappers use plate glass, ceramics, and beer bottle bottoms for practice. Both articles are right now poor in references, having few overall and none in the text.

What do you think? Separate or together, both articles could certainly use improvement. I'd be willing to work on a rewrite and/or merge. I don't have any practical experience, but I have looked into the subject before, and one of these days I plan to try the beer bottle to arrowhead process. scot (talk) 18:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I also have no experience. Traditionally I'm pretty sure the term knapping mainly referred to the fairly crude process of stone breaking - for example my 1970s Concise OED only mentions breaking stones for roads or walls. Presumably there must also have been a more or less continuous tradition of making flints for tinderboxes (and later flintlocks), but whether the word knapping was used here I can't say. The term has been adopted for toolmaking by hobbyists. Not sure about its use by archaeologists -for example I have a small book called Flint Implements published by the British Museum (Watson & Sieveking, 3rd ed 1968, ISBN 0-7141-1306-9) which goes into some detail about materials and techniques (not restricted to flint), but does not use either of the terms 'knapping' or 'lithic reduction'. I'm not really bothered one way or the other as long as the end result is not the disappearance of the term knapping or removal of the word flint. Flint in the narrow sense was extremely important in the European 'stone age', and I've not personally come across a knapped wall made of other stone. Pterre (talk) 16:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm an archaeologist, work for a government regulator of archaeology, and have knapped a small pile of chert, obsidian and other materials for the past decade or so. I think it's correct to separate the technique of lithic reduction from the idea of knapping. The latter can include some of the history of the art and craft and explore modern uses and the hobby. Lithic reduction can talk about the technique and objectives and physics of the process from a more technial viewpoint. The issue mentioned at the top, of the legitimacy of selling cultural artifacts, should probably be explored in a separate article (I thought I'd read it here already at one time?) on artifact ownership and repatriation issues.ASchoenhofer 25 December 2008

pressure angle understanding

Much of knapping is involved in knowing the pressure angle, that is, the angle the rock will flake off in, depending on the angle in which you hit the rock.

When you pulse energy through a flat piece of material, the angle of the stress wave that travels out is fairly consistent despite a change in material.

So I can talk about a stress wave going through glass as being very much like the stress waves going through flints.

So I can say that the pressure wave that breaks the flint in knapping is the same as the cone seen in a BB hole in glass. All the BB hole cones you've ever seen in glass windows are at the same angle, and they are the same in the flint. The flint breaks at that stress cone.

bb hole in glass

bb hole in glass

So draw a line where the BB flew, and a line on the cone of the BB hole, and you have that "optimum" knapping angle. I put optimum in quotes because in the artform that is knapping, small changes alter results, but basically that's the angle. 174.146.172.210 (talk) 02:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

My sources are a course in fracture mechanics I took in college (BSME), and a long-term interest in stone projectile points. Can someone help? 174.146.172.210 (talk) 02:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

French version of page

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pression_(technique_de_taille)

This is the French version of Knapping. I am honestly surprised this hasn't been linked properly yet. Please verify and correct, merge the two pages as the same topic or something. I do not know how to use the interface. 76.64.108.178 (talk) 21:46, 20 April 2016 (UTC) Hirobian

Intrinsic qualities of stone needed for good knapping and/or preferred for particular style...

WOuld be nice if there are structural qualities of the stone itself that make for intinsically desirable knapping. As in Mohs Hardness range for specific tools or styles. Whether crystalline structure characteristics of the rock molecules are of any concern: like Crystal Class, Space Group, Cleavage plane, Lattice System (ie: Monoclinic, Triclinic) have any bearing on types of stone used/chosen for use in sculpture? Or even if particular Categories of Rock are preferred more than others? 81.102.111.206 (talk) 10:36, 1 January 2017 (UTC)