Kim Akerman makes a Kimberley point

I have mentioned a few times that Kim Akerman is the preeminent scholar when it comes to these points, and that he has been very helpful in my research. He has kept in touch and answered some of my questions on the production process that have been sticking points for me. This post is his response to a couple of my general questions, about the correct order of work, and invasive flaking without losing too much width. To illustrate he produced a point and recorded the process. This post will be lengthy, but informative if this is a subject of interest. This body text is my interpretation, the photos with text are his explanations.

This is the piece of water worn period glass that Kim started with. We had discussed the differing ways of establishing a platform and this was the issue he dealt with first of all.

He used the margin of the convex outer surface as a natural platform and a small hard hammer along one edge, and a pressure flaker along the second to begin invasive flaking. As can be seen both methods achieved similar results.

He then continued to take more invasive flakes and establish in his mind the shape of the point he was aiming for. All this flaking was aimed at flattening the inner concave surface of the glass.

Here we can see that whilst the inner concave face is now heavily worked and being flattened, the outer convex face is as yet un-flaked. Shaping in plan has also begun.

5c. Lateral edge showing unifacial pressure flaking on interior concave faceSame story in that the concave inner surface is now almost completely flaked apart from an intermittent central ridge of original surface. Kim has a problem with this later. The curved outer surface still remains un-flaked and you can see the edge of the original outer glass surface curving up at the forefront of the photo.

And at this point flaking of the easier convex outer surface begins. What follows is a process of flaking and shaping to achieve the approximate form required.

At the above stage the easier to flake curved outer surface is used only to create platforms so that invasive flakes can be removed from (what was) the curved inner surface. The aim here was to remove the intermittent central ridge of original surface that remained on the inner face.

9b. Removal of margin by overshot flake

The aim was to get flakes to penetrate across the centre in order to remove the problematic ridge and it is at this stage that a flake overshoots and takes off too much material.

the central ridge has been removed and the task now is to bring the reduced piece back into shape, and this is done by working both faces.

11a. Final form. Concave face

11b. Final form Convex face.

This is the end result, what Kim calls a rose-leaf shaped point. I commented in the previous post how my points need to be called ‘Manchester’ points. I think this is not the case for Kim’s. He was trained by aboriginals, uses the same bodily methods, materials, tools and reduction sequences. When aboriginal tool making lapsed, Kim carried the process on, and I believe this is why he has gone to the trouble of sharing the process here. He cares about sharing this knowledge with other people who value it. Perhaps the process of sharing a valued knowledge was one part of what Kimberley points were about.

Advertisements

SMART Archaeology glass arrowhead workshop

smart 2

On Sunday I was fortunate enough to run a workshop for the South Manchester Archaeology Research Team using bottle glass to produce an arrowhead. My aim from this session was to get photos and feedback on my teaching and how I am organising the process for the learner.

smart 5

I now have a very structured approach and clear outcomes for the session: use hard hammer, soft hammer and pressure flaker; produce something like a Bronze Age barb and tang arrowhead; recognise that the equipment needed is all accessible and therefore personal practice can be developed (if desired).

 

smart 7All those boxes were ticked. I also added a feedback section that was designed to be useful to me, but also encourage some reflection by the participants on what they had learned. This is following Kolb’s learning cycle model and I think it is a valuable addition.

smart 6

Feedback from a previous participant has encouraged me to use a whiteboard, in particular to explain platform angles. Having a clearly established process allows me to punctuate it with whiteboard explanations before the participants have to do it. This too is really useful.

smart 3

Pressure flaking: it is not easy, and not easy to get people up and running with it in a three or so hour session. Consequently, the later stages involved a little interference by me to get rid of any difficult bits. I have a barb and tang flint arrowhead produced on a flake and made by me. One side of it has a nice row of deep invasive removals. They were produced by John Lord showing me how to pressure flake. The opposite side has an intermittent row of shallow flakes produced by me, not really getting it. I think if John Lord does a bit on his students arrowheads, then it is totally legit.

smart 8

And everyone did go home with something approaching a barb and tang Bronze Age arrowhead. I would like to thank Ellen McInnes for suggesting this and Andrea Grimshaw for the organisation and making it happen. Based upon the feedback I can say that we all got something from the day and I think we all enjoyed each others company, so a result!

On quartering a glass bottle using a stone (again)

I had an enjoyable knapping session with Nick Overton this week and it has been a while since both of us sat down together. I want to organise a Kimberley Point workshop, and so my theme for the evening was to consciously work through the production process. My aim was to grasp what is practical to work through in a three hours session with a potentially new knapper. I started with a green glass bottle base and side panel from the usual source. The first step was to separate the side panel from the base.

To do so I used a length of no.8 wire to attack the inner junction of the basal section and the side of the bottle. It worked pretty well in that it took out three big sections weakening the overall integrity of the bottle. So far so good. There is absolutely an auditory component to this process and that is something I am going to explore in more detail. After the third removal the increasing thickness of the remaining glass meant that the base snapped off, taking with it a section of the side panel. The break followed a path of least resistance (and thickness) and left me with a base and curved side panel.

thumbnail 3

I then flipped the side panel over with the dorsal (convex) surface uppermost in order to produce my blank. I used the hard hammer to produce a line of weakness and this again had aural and visual clues as to how well it was working. When I had the required line I flipped it over to expose the inner (concave) surface and struck the inside of the same line once. As you can see, it worked pretty well.

thumbnail 4

On the close up below it is possible to see the hard hammer impact marks. The no.8 wire tool used to remove the base is in the background.

thumbnail 6

I then proceeded to do the same thing on the other side, but with less success as it split into four pieces.

DSC_0454

This process is intriguing and I need more practice to get consistent results. Consequently I will probably discuss this process, but start other people off with preforms.

thumbnail 8

Above is the resulting point from the lower section of the side panel, and below is the aboriginal example from the Manchester Museum.

MM twister

The main difference is flatness. Mine is lens shaped whilst the museum example is plano-convex, and a little more refined. The difference is subtle and qualitative, but I think boils down to the length of the removals and resultant edge angle. I am able to systematically produce points and the main areas for my own improvement are: getting longer removals; systematic hard hammer quartering. In relation to the workshop idea, I think if we use preforms then I can probably lead someone through the process in three hours.

Another one headed for the backyard

DSC_0313

It took me a long time to get this wrong. The glass was tough and it wore out one complete nail on my pressure flaker. However the problem was me and my angle management. It is narrow because I persisted but rather than getting flatter deeper flakes they became steeper. I don’t like it and it is headed for the box in the back yard. I am not sure what I have learned from this one, although it is the second on the trot where my thinning has been inadequate. Perhaps I have learned that I need to improve my flat invasive flaking.

Neolithic leaf shaped arrowhead

Whilst away on holiday I paid a visit to the Whitby Museum, well worth it if you should get the chance.

Whitby art gallery.JPG

Inside there is lots of treasure, and this is a photograph of a lovely Neolithic leaf shaped arrowhead found locally.

Neolithic leaf point

This, by contrast, is my point from today (and yesterday) made from a really thick piece of glass given to me by a friend, Stephen Poole.

Neo 2

It started out as an exercise in exploring the differing functions of hard and soft hammer in the process of reduction. In this respect it was successful as I now have some nice flakes for reference purposes.

However, the striking difference between the flakes produced by the different methods was also useful for me in deepening my understanding. Thinning a nodule to produce a handaxe is a process that I have observed (and filmed) a number of times. Karl Lee always emphasises the import of understanding angles. The stark contrast between these flakes is allowing something to fall into place for me (conceptually, not yet practically!) The hard hammer is perhaps more about producing angles to work with. The soft hammer more about exploiting those angles to thin the piece effectively.

I don’t like this arrowhead. It is too thick and lumpy and will probably go into the box in my back yard where my not quite resolved experiments end up. However, I have made it my point for today (made yesterday, finished today) which keeps the process, and therefore learning opportunities, going. What is intriguing for me is how the actual flakes themselves are helping me understand  the process differently. Learning from the materials seems to encourage me to think about something I already know about in a different way. This thinking through objects is obviously something we do a lot within archaeology. It will be interesting to pick apart how the objects have added to my understanding in a way that observation and explanation have not. Perhaps the theme for another post.

A ‘lack of progress’ update

My one point per day is working out at one every couple of days. However, I am getting real value out of this lovely piece of glass.

Toolkit

The third point has just been finished and it is the longest. Having got two small points from the first half I split the second large fragment in two using the glass cutter and hammerstone method. It worked perfectly.

I then got work on the third point. We are on holiday and it was roughed out in a glorious 40 minutes sat in the sand dunes at Lindisfarne (Holy Island) yesterday. I spent about 40 minutes on it this morning and have just finished it this evening in the lovely garden of the youth hostel in Whitby.

DSC_0242

Again not perfect but I was losing width and so contented myself with symmetry in plan. Current state of play: three points and still one preform left. Last day of holiday tomorrow.

The point of Tuesday

Today’s point went surprisingly well. I used the second end-shocked part of the same material. And I had a plan.

Reflecting upon the Concrete Experience of producing the last one I realised that Kim Akerman’s description focuses upon working the side panel of a bottle. This glass was plate and thick and so I couldn’t follow the idealised model described here. I decided to confidently approach this second piece with my plano-convex method described here. As discussed previously, the edge preparation process also works to shape the piece. Here you can see both the change in shape and the angled edge that is ideal for starting the long invasive surface removals.

Once prepared all round I started the invasive flaking. When preparing the platforms I followed the angle of the edge. This meant that my surface flaking occurred on either side rather than on one surface first and then the next as prescribed by Akerman for bottles. This seems to work quite well on plate glass and the maxim seems to be: work with the angles that you are given. As the flaking gets deeper it then becomes possible to prepare the edge and work the second face. In this way both faces get flaked ultimately.

Tuesday 4

The point is nice and it was surprisingly quick (less than an hour). I have obviously been able to formulate a road-map or Abstract Conceptualisation for dealing effectively with plate glass. Following my (approximately!) one point per day approach, tomorrow I can address the larger piece I still have left. In doing so I will be engaging in Kolb’s Active Experimentation process.

Kolb’s categories are useful on a number of levels and they have given me some ideas about how to better structure my workshops. In particular I am thinking about how to integrate the Reflective Observation and Abstract Conceptualisation stages. Tomorrow we go on holiday for five days. I am taking my knapping equipment.