"Once upon a time, I, Chuang Chou, dreamt I was a butterfly, fluttering hither and thither, to all intents and purposes a butterfly. I was conscious only of my happiness as a butterfly, unaware that I was Chou. Soon I awaked, and there I was, veritably myself again. Now I do not know whether I was then a man dreaming I was a butterfly, or whether I am now a butterfly, dreaming I am a man." -- Zhuangzi
Saturday, September 17, 2011
knapping: a big job
obsidian flow
Have you ever cut yourself on glass? Glass is extremely sharp; broken edges can be only a molecule wide, this is "sharper" than a surgical scalpel. Volcanic glass, obsidian, occurs naturally. However, obsidian flows feature large fragments which are not particularly useful, especially for precision tasks. Turning a large hunk of obsidian into a useful tool using only rocks and sticks is a daunting task. This art is knapping.Its preservation is an excellent example of how we can find a connection to ancient peoples.
Glass knapping developed independently in places with obsidian flows and ancient populations, it probably emerged in conjunction with flint and other stone knapping. It has been well documented in North America, Europe, and Africa. The earliest evidence of knapping indicates is from eastern Africa, near Gona Ethiopia, and dates to between 2 and 3 mililion years ago. Or click here for a shorter more general history. Obviously, this was before the advent of written communication so the knowledge was transmitted person to person by demonstration. This kind of interaction would indicate knapping as a folk knowledge skill. As more durable and efficiently produced tools and weapons became common place they replaced the knapped versions and the art was lost and was not rediscovered until the 80's, creditied to Errett Callahan. click here to learn about people who tried to replicate it and got close. With out instruction it took this doctor or archaeology more than 20 years studying the knapped pieces from Clovis digs to work out how our ancestors did it. Once he did, he started passing on his knowledge.
The video at the right is not Errett Callahan, it is another knapping artist demonstrating how to form a rough arrow head.
Over the summer I took a stained glass class and learned the rudimentary techniques of how to break glass. I wasn't very good at it but having an instructor to show me how to do it helped me learn it better. As I worked on my little glass window i felt more connected to the workers who made the giant rose windows in cathedrals. I think that by trying to do what they did I could understand them better.
Learning about knapping it struck me that the original knappers had a relatively low life expectancy; they couldn't spend twenty plus years learning how to make tools and weapons. It was critical that they learn form someone else and then shrae their skill. Knowing the techniques to make more effective tools was a matter of survival. Now, rather symbolically since their craft lives on, they have survived in a transcendental way. Their ideas are alive and thriving. We benefit from knowing, really deeply knowing, a part of what allowed humans to rise to where we are today. As we maintain skills like knapping we maintain a connection to our heritage.
So, do people who practice knapping today do so merely as a hobby, or do they use the tools they create? It's not that I don't think it is a legitimate knowledge or technique if it isn't necessarily useful, because it is really cool to remember traditions of the past by learning them. But I always feel like they aren't really kept alive unless they are still being made useful. So I'm not sure about knapping, but I hope that these guys do use the things they make.
It is interesting how with this media (folk knowledge) a knowledge can die or mostly die out. This is an important difference from writing or print because other medias are permanent. I think that is why we are so attached to books. They seem permanent while other more primitive knowledge systems seem to us very ephemeral.
Lauren, it depends on the artisan. Obviously, the most economic approach is to sell what they make as a nice knick knack. But in some places like living history sites or Native American tribes that have rediscovered knapping the tools really are used.
Michael, I might point out that it could be argued that our little blog posts are more fleeting. While the skill of knapping or pottery may be lost, there is still evidence that attests to what they did and can be used to reconstruct their life style. We on the other hand, will leave nothing but empty boxes of electronics no real evidence of our ideas and what we did.
The transitional state of folk knowledge is so interesting to me, and Misa demonstrated it rather well. The art of knapping was considered lost for centuries, until someone put in the extreme effort to relearn it. I think as we continue to discuss the different knowledge systems we should remember that folk knowledge was the first, but it also still exists and underlies all the others. But what is contained within a society's reservoir of folk knowledge varies, based on the society's growing and changing values. So knapping was lost because the arts of blacksmithing and iron-working replaced it, and now its back in our age when we are worried about losing any knowledge, and we have enough time to practice random hobbies like it.
I also thought a good point was brought up about the importance of using it for its intended purposes. Here is a theoretical question for you'all: If the use is completely different but the process of construction is the same, is it the same skill, same knowledge? To what extent is the end goal tied to the actual craft?
So, do people who practice knapping today do so merely as a hobby, or do they use the tools they create? It's not that I don't think it is a legitimate knowledge or technique if it isn't necessarily useful, because it is really cool to remember traditions of the past by learning them. But I always feel like they aren't really kept alive unless they are still being made useful. So I'm not sure about knapping, but I hope that these guys do use the things they make.
ReplyDeleteI thing knapping doesn't necessarily have to be just for survival. It can also be a way of just expressing creativity and art, much like music.
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting how with this media (folk knowledge) a knowledge can die or mostly die out. This is an important difference from writing or print because other medias are permanent. I think that is why we are so attached to books. They seem permanent while other more primitive knowledge systems seem to us very ephemeral.
ReplyDeleteLauren, it depends on the artisan. Obviously, the most economic approach is to sell what they make as a nice knick knack. But in some places like living history sites or Native American tribes that have rediscovered knapping the tools really are used.
ReplyDeleteMichael, I might point out that it could be argued that our little blog posts are more fleeting. While the skill of knapping or pottery may be lost, there is still evidence that attests to what they did and can be used to reconstruct their life style. We on the other hand, will leave nothing but empty boxes of electronics no real evidence of our ideas and what we did.
ReplyDeleteThe transitional state of folk knowledge is so interesting to me, and Misa demonstrated it rather well. The art of knapping was considered lost for centuries, until someone put in the extreme effort to relearn it. I think as we continue to discuss the different knowledge systems we should remember that folk knowledge was the first, but it also still exists and underlies all the others. But what is contained within a society's reservoir of folk knowledge varies, based on the society's growing and changing values. So knapping was lost because the arts of blacksmithing and iron-working replaced it, and now its back in our age when we are worried about losing any knowledge, and we have enough time to practice random hobbies like it.
ReplyDeleteI also thought a good point was brought up about the importance of using it for its intended purposes. Here is a theoretical question for you'all: If the use is completely different but the process of construction is the same, is it the same skill, same knowledge? To what extent is the end goal tied to the actual craft?
ReplyDelete