Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T03:52:33.625Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Replicas, Fakes, and Art: The Twentieth Century Stone Age and Its Effects on Archaeology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

John C. Whittaker  and
Michael Stafford
John C. Whittaker
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, Grinnell College, P.O. Box 805, Grinnell, IA 50112–0806
Michael Stafford
Affiliation:
Cranbrook Institute of Science, 1221 N. Woodward Ave, P.O. Box 801, Bloomfield Hills, MI 48303–0801
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In addition to archaeologists who make stone tools for experimental purposes, there is a growing number of flintknappers who make lithic artifacts for fun and for profit. The scale of non-academic knapping is little known to archaeologists, and is connected to a flourishing market for antiquities, fakes, replicas, and modern lithic art. Modern stone tools are being produced in vast numbers, and are inevitably muddling the prehistoric record. Modern knappers exploit some material sources heavily, and their debitage creates new sites and contaminates old quarry areas. Modern knapping is, however, a potential source of archaeological insights, and a bridge between the professional community and the interested public. Modern knapping also is creating a “twentieth-century stone age,” and archaeologists working with lithic artifacts need to be aware of the problems and potentials.

Résumé

Résumé

Además de los arqueólogos que tallan implementos de piedra por razones científicas, aquèllos que están haciendo artefactos líticos por diversión y ganancia están aumentando. La popularidad de tallar piedra sin motivos investigativos es poco conocida por arqueólogos, y en parte tiene mucho que ver con el mercado próspero de antiguedades, fraudes, reproducciones, y el arte moderno lítico. Se están produciendo muchos implementos líticos modernos, un proceso que confunde el archivo prehistórico. Talladores modernos explotan mucho algunas fuentes materiales, y su debris crea nuevos sitios y contamina cameras viejas. El tallado moderno, sin embargo, es una fuente potencial de interés arqueológico y un puente entre la comunidad profesional y el interes público. Este también está creando una Edad de Piedra del siglo viente, y arqueólogos líticos necesitan estar concientes de sus problemas y potenciales.

Type
Forum
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 64 , Issue 2 , April 1999 , pp. 203 - 214
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References Cited

Akin, M. 1996 Passionate Possession: The Formation of Private Collections. In Learning from Things: Method and Theory in Material Culture Studies, edited by Kingery, W. D., pp. 102–128. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
Amick, D. S. 1994 Folsom Diet Breadth and Land Use in the American Southwest. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
Amick, D. S. 1995 Patterns of Technological Variation among Folsom and Midland Projectile Points in the American Southwest. Plains Anthropologist 40: 23–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berner, J. F. 1984 Artifact or Artifake? Central States Archaeological Journal 31(4): 186–188.Google Scholar
Berner, J. F. 1997a The Authenticators. Prehistoric American 31 (4): 10–11.Google Scholar
Berner, J. F. 1997b Is it a Reproduction or a Fake? Prehistoric American 31(3): 21.Google Scholar
Blacking, J. 1953 Edward Simpson, alias ‘ Flint Jack': A Victorian Craftsman. Antiquity 27: 207–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackwell, W. 1996 The Golden Age is Here. Chips 8(3): 4–5.Google Scholar
Bonnichsen, R., and Callahan, E. 1978 Craftsman: Rob Bonnichsen. Flintknappers’ Exchange 1(2): 16–24.Google Scholar
Brennan, L. A. (editor) 1982 A Compilation ofFluted Points of Eastern North America by Count and Distribution: An AENA Project. Archaeology of Eastern North America 10: 27–46.Google Scholar
Callahan, E. 1979 The Basics of Biface Knapping in the Eastern Fluted Point Tradition: A Manual for Flintknappers and Lithic Analysts. Archaeology of Eastern North America 7(1): 1–180.Google Scholar
Callahan, E. 1990 Piltdown Productions Catalog #4. Piltdown Productions, Lynchburg, Virginia.Google Scholar
Callahan, E. 1992 Flintknapping, Elitism, and Fracture Geometry: A Cautionary Note. Bulletin of Primitive Technology 4: 16–19.Google Scholar
Callahan, E. 1996 State of the Society—The First Five Years, 1990-1995. Bulletin of Primitive Technology 11: 8–9.Google Scholar
Clements, F. E., and Reed, A. 1939 “Eccentric” Hints of Oklahoma. American Antiquity 5: 27–30.Google Scholar
Crabtree, D. 1966 A Stoneworker's Approach to Analyzing and Replicating the Lindenmeier Folsom. Tewiba 9(l): 3–39.Google Scholar
Crabtree, D. 1972 An Introduction to Flintworking. Occasional Papers No. 28. Idaho State University Museum, Pocatello.Google Scholar
Crabtree, D., and Callahan, E. 1979 Craftsman: Don Crabtree. Flintknappers’ Exchange 2(l): 27-34; 2(2): 8-13; 2(3): 22–26.Google Scholar
Cushing, F. H. 1895 The Arrow. American Anthropologist 8: 307–349.Google Scholar
Dickson, D. 1996 The Production of Modern Lithic Scatters and Related Problems. Lithic Technology 21: 155–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickson, J. 1992 Stone Age Knives Today. In Gun Digest Book of Knives, by Lewis, Jack P.. 4th edition. DBI Books, Northbrook, Illinois.Google Scholar
Dorwin, J. T. 1966 Fluted Points and Late-Pleistocene Geochronology in Indiana. Indiana Historical Society, Indianapolis.Google Scholar
Dunbar, J. S. 1991 Resource Orientation of Clovis and Suwannee Age Paleoindian Sites in Florida. In Clovis: Origins and Adaptations, edited by Bonnichsen, R. and Turnmire, K., pp. 185–213. Center for the Study of the First Americans, Corvallis.Google Scholar
Ellis, H. H. 1940 A Study of the Oklahoma Eccentric Flints. Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Quarterly 49(2): 120–127.Google Scholar
Farnsworth, K. B. 1973 An Archaeological Survey of the Macoupin Valley. Reports of Investigations No. 26. Illinois State Museum, Springfield.Google Scholar
Faulkner, C. H. 1961 An Archaeological Survey of Marshall County. Indiana Historical Bureau, Indianapolis.Google Scholar
Holmes, W. H. 1891 Manufacture of Stone Arrow-points. American Anthropologist o.s. 4: 49–58.Google Scholar
Holmes, W. H. 1919 Handbook of Aboriginal American Antiquities. Part 1: Introductory and the Lithic Industries. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 60. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
Hothem, L. 1992 Fake Chipped Artifacts: Some Considerations. Hothem House, Lancaster.Google Scholar
Jenks, A. E. 1900 A Remarkable Counterfeiter. American Anthropologist 2: 292–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, L. L. 1978 A History of Flint-Knapping Experimentation, 1838-1976. Current Anthropology 19: 337–372.Google Scholar
Knudson, R. 1982 Obituary: DonE. Crabtree, 1912-1980. American Antiquity 47: 336–343.Google Scholar
Lepper, B. T, and Meltzer, D. J. 1991 Late Pleistocene Human Occupation of the Eastern United States. In Clovis: Origins and Adaptations, edited by Bonnichsen, R. and Turnmire, K., pp. 175–184. Center for the Study of the First Americans, Corvallis.Google Scholar
Luchterhand, K. 1970 Early Archaic Projectile Points and Hunting Patterns in the Lower Illinois Valley. Report of Investigations No. 19. Illinois State Museum, Springfield.Google Scholar
Marsden, B. M. 1983 Pioneers of Prehistory: Leaders and Landmarks in English Archaeology (1500-1900). G.W. and A. Hesketh, Ormskirk.Google Scholar
Martin, D. 1996 The Three R's. Chips 8Q): 4. Google Scholar
Maus, J. 1997 The Blacklight, A Useful Collector's Tool. Prehistoric American 31(3): 7–8.Google Scholar
Merlie, G. 1989 More on Marking Points. Chips 1(3): 1.Google Scholar
Miller, F. 1997 Facts on Fakes: Archaic Bevels. Indian Artifact Magazine 16(2): 58.Google Scholar
Muensterberger, W. 1994 Collecting, An Unruly Passion: Psychological Perspectives. Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
Overstreet, R. M. 1995 The Overstreet Indian Arrowheads Identification and Price Guide. 4th ed. Avon Books, New York.Google Scholar
Overstreet, R. M., and Peake, H. 1991 The Official Overstreet Identification and Price Guide to Indian Arrowheads. 2nd ed. The House of Collectibles, New York.Google Scholar
Patterson, L. W. 1988 Sollberger J.B., Archaeologist and Flintknapper. Bulletin of the Texas Archaeological Society 59: 19–21.Google Scholar
Perino, G. 1996 Points and Barbs. Central States Archaeological Journal 43(4): 211.Google Scholar
Pond, A. W. 1930 Primitive Methods of Working Stone: Based on Experiments of Halvor L. Skavlem. Logan Museum Bulletin 2(1): 1–143.Google Scholar
Rieth, A. 1970 Archaeological Fakes. Praeger Publishers, New York.Google Scholar
Rolingson, M. A. 1964 Paleo-Indian Culture in Kentucky: A Study Based on Projectile Points. Studies in Anthropology No. 2. University of Kentucky, Lexington.Google Scholar
Russell, V.Y. 1957 Indian Artifacts. Privately published and sold, V. Russell, Casper, Wyoming.Google Scholar
Scheiber, L. B. 1992 The Other Side of the Story. The FlintKnapper's Exchange 2(2): 9–11.Google Scholar
Selbert, P. 1996 Prehistoric Connection. Lapidary Journal 50(6): 57–64.Google Scholar
Sollberger, J. B. 1968 A Partial Report on Research Work Concerning Lithic Typology and Technology. Bulletin of the Texas Archaeological Society 39: 95–109.Google Scholar
Sollberger, J. B., and Callahan, E. 1978 Craftsman: J.B. Sollberger. Flintknappers’ Exchange 1(1): 12–17.Google Scholar
Sollberger, J.B., and Patterson, L.W. 1976 Prismatic Blade Replication. American Antiquity 41: 518–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stafford, M. 1998 In Search of Hindsgavl: Experiments in the Production of Neolithic Danish Flint Daggers. Antiquity 72: 338–349.Google Scholar
Tankersley, K. B. 1989 A Close Look at the Big Picture: Eastern Paleoindian Lithic Resource Procurement in the Midwestern United States. In Eastern Paleoindian Lithic Resource Use, edited by Ellis, C.J. and Lothrop, J.C., pp. 259–292. Westview Press, Boulder.Google Scholar
Titmus, G. L. 1985 Some Aspects of Stone Tool Notching. In Stone Tool Analysis: Essays in Honor of Don E. Crabtree, edited by Plew, M., Woods, J., and Pavesic, M., pp. 243–264. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
Titmus, G., and Callahan, E. 1980 Craftsman: Gene Titmus. Flintknappers’ Exchange 3(l): 19–25.Google Scholar
Tunnell, C. 1979 Don't Be a Knapping Vandal. Lithic Technology 8: i, also reprinted as untitled letter, Flintknappers’ Exchange 2(2): 2, and in Bulletin of Primitive Technology 5: 71.Google Scholar
Waldorf, D. C. 1980 Untitled letter. Flintknappers’ Exchange 3(2): 1–2.Google Scholar
Waldorf, D. C. 1989 An Interview with Jim Spears. Chips 1(1): 3–5.Google Scholar
Waldorf, D. C. 1990 From the President. Chips 2(l): 2–6.Google Scholar
Waldorf, D. C. 1993 The Art of Flint Knapping. 4th edition. Mound Builder Books, Branson, Missouri.Google Scholar
Waldorf, D. C. 1996 Current News. Chips 8(4): 1–2.Google Scholar
Waldorf, D. C. 1997 Grey Ghosts and Old Timers. Chips 9(1): 9–11.Google Scholar
Warner, K. 1986 A Return to a Sharper Time. In Knives ‘86, edited by Warner, K., pp. 32–35. DBI Books, Northbrook, Illinois.Google Scholar
Warren, R. 1978 Untitled letter. Flintknappers’ Exchange 1(3): 4.Google Scholar
Whittaker, J. C. 1996a Primitive Technology Experiments: Further Comments. Primitive Technology Newsletter 2: 5–6.Google Scholar
Whittaker, J. C. 1996b Reproducing a Bronze Age Dagger from the Thames: Statements and Questions. London Archaeologist 8(2): 51–54.Google Scholar
Whittaker, J. C, and Hedman, M. 1996 Fort Osage Knappers: Survey Results. Chips 8(2): 5.Google Scholar
Whittaker, J. C, and Hedman, M. 1997 How Knappers Learn: Survey Results. Chips 9(3): 10.Google Scholar
Wilson, T. 1888 Fraudulent Spear or Arrowheads of Curious Forms. American Naturalist 22: 554—555.Google Scholar