cutting up an elephant

They say the ax would take more time to make than the flake knives.

Maybe the hunters were really hungry. Fast food waits for no ax.
 
A flint axe takes little time to make actually and would be the better choice. A bloody flake is hard to hold and could actually add your blood to the mess.... :eek:
Whoever wrote the article has never cut anything with a flint knife or been sliced by a flake. Moron reporters.
 
Whoa, Dann! Only a chainsaw with blood grooves to control the spray of bodily fluids.
 
Whoa, Dann! Only a chainsaw with blood grooves to control the spray of bodily fluids.
Click to expand...

LMAO!!

Stop Esav! Ya killin' me here! :D :D


Merek, if the blades they made were similar in design to an ulu, that would greatly reduce their risk of accidental cuts. Plus, wouldn't the texture on the flint serve to enhance the grip? The obsidian knife I have has significant texture from the flaking action.

BTW, I'm really impressed with the insane level of sharpness that can be obtained with obsidian/flint knives. Makes the sharpest of steel knives pale in comparison. If only they could be differentially tempered. Sigh...
 
People DO cut up large animals like bison with chain saws, just lube the chain with vegetable oil.It has been demonstrated many times in modern days that flint and obsidion knives are very efficient without the necessity to differentially temper ! Was the reporter surprised that they cut it up before they ate it ??
 
"Butchering an elephant with a flake knife would be comparable to trying to cut into a juicy steak with a rock. If diners could use sleeker, sharper axes, why wouldn't they?"

Except of course the flake is sharper than a scalpel... hmmm.... makes you wonder what else they got totally wrong.
 
DRider said:
"Butchering an elephant with a flake knife would be comparable to trying to cut into a juicy steak with a rock. If diners could use sleeker, sharper axes, why wouldn't they?"

Except of course the flake is sharper than a scalpel... hmmm.... makes you wonder what else they got totally wrong.
Click to expand...

You beat me to it. I don't know who told the reporter that buisness about flake tools, but they need to do some research. Erret Callahan (sp?) who is famous for his flaking and knapping techniques butchered an elephant with stoneage tools for his doctoral thesis is Anthropology. The paper is still out there. I spoke to him about it shortly at the Blade Show one year and he said it was no more difficult than using a steel knife.

As far as flakes cutting the user. "Primitive" man was easily as smart as we are now, probably smarter in a lot of ways. They had the sense to break off the sharp edges on the least efficient side if they were going to use it for more than a few seconds.
 
I have a huge arrowhead collection picked up over 40 years. Among all the 'pretties' are many utilized 'as-is' flakes, modified flakes and actual 'made for the purpose' tools. I have done a bit of knapping and know that flint can be unreasonably and unexpectedly sharp. I have a few deep scars from moments of clear stupidity. It does'nt take much of an edge or tiny point of flint to do enough damage to remind you to make a mental note: 'Don't do that.'
These primitive ignorant savages were very smart about the materials they used and the toolkits they developed over many thousands of years. They originated the serrated blade. The flaked edge (multiple chips along the edge) is very effective and is stronger than the simple sharp flake and does not leave tiny chips broken off during use in your food.
Being able to find knap-able flint most places in Texas I don't worry overly about what knife to carry on backwoods treks. I can also, if necessary, find an Indian site with little effort and save some work.
The reporter as usual was formulating his next question while getting the answer to the last one and filled in with his own ignorant ideas, Not what I would expect from Discovery Channel. :grumpy:
 
I read somewhere that Callahan made the obsidian blades that were used in his own eye surgery. :eek:
 
Making tools of wood and bone and stone is a relatively simple and ancient art, but since these, especially stone tools, tend to outlast other cultural artifacts, and behavior itself does not fossilize, it is ironic that we are left with a few bits of edged toolcraft to define whole prehistoric cultures.

To hypothesize a different species because of a minor technological difference is journalism, not science. Did anyone check the wear patterns on the knapped flakes to see if they might have had ulu style handles attached? That would make them more sophisticated than the axes, rather than less.
 
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/tools1.gif
Actually the simple hand axe struck on a rounded flint cobble is quite comfy and powerful. I have one here on my desk where the original cobble was about the size of a somewhat flattened grapefruit. The 'back' end, the part you would wrap your hand around, still has the cortex of limestone. This cortex is comparable to the rind of the grapfruit in thickness and has no sharp places. The other half is the inner exposed flint and is worked into a tapering beveled bit. If you hold your hand flat, palm up it can be imagined with the palm as the handle and the fingers as the bit. This tool would be ideal for separating and splitting large bones for the early stage gross butchering work. Then the smaller tools, hafted or not, come into play for the paring and boning.
Here is more than most of you will want to know about wear analysis.
http://www.hf.uio.no/iakk/roger/lithic/bar/bar1.html#anchor1342601
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top