Another Look at the Bannerstone
Author(s): Robert N Schmidt
J. Whittaker: Early crude forms not likely ceremonial objects (Knoblock).
Webb atlatl theory flawed because "no drilled stones actually found on an identifiable spearthrower assembly," some antler hooks "quite fragile...do not seem suited for atlatl service."
Battering and breakage of hole ends not from atlatl use.
New hypothesis: sliding hammerstone for flintknapping.
Indirect percussion easiest to learn, better yet if hammer and punch linked - hammer slides down shaft to strike shoulder of punch at end of shaft ca 85 cm long.
Some bannerstones wouldn't work; simpler ones would.
Polish in hole on experimental stone - but might be "erased by time" on archaeological specimens [how, without damage to exterior polish?] Damage to ends similar to experimental [but also mentions alternative sources, i.e. manufacture].
Photos of 18 points made, experimental bannerstone, device in use.
[Hard to tell how effective this really is, but I am highly skeptical that it is effective knapping tool. Most bannerstones lack hammer wear, and evidence of atlatl association is good.]
Cite this Record
Another Look at the Bannerstone. Robert N Schmidt. The Wisconsin Archeologist. 65 (1): 83-95. 1984 ( tDAR id: 423397)
This Resource is Part of the Following Collections
min long: -129.199; min lat: 24.495 ; max long: -66.973; max lat: 49.359 ;
Individual & Institutional Roles
ExArc Id(s): 10209
Rights & Attribution: The information in this record was originally compiled by Dr. Roeland Paardekooper, EXARC Director.