Master Flintknapper?

I see the term "Master Flintknapper" being thrown about to describe many flintknappers nowadays. The thing is, i seldom see from the person making such claims, as to what it takes for a knapper to be a master.

So what constitutes a person as a Master Flintknapper?

Everett Callahan wrote an article on this topic in 2000, which is the best i have found to describe the qualifications of being considered a master flintknapper. This article can be found at http://errett-callahan.blogstream.com/ I like Mr. Callahan's qualifications and i believe it is interesting that he list the capability of making the Solutrean laurel leaves as a skill needed to be considered a master, since the Volgu laurel leaf scores the second highest on our scoring system. Mr. Callahan states there are only two living flintknappers he would consider as masters, Gene Titmus and Jacques Pelegrin.

I can not find much about these two gentleman online as far as examples of their work. Have they actually made laurel leaves comparable to the thinnest Volgu? If so, someone please let me know where i can view such work. I am not saying that they haven't, i just haven't found it and i would love to see it if they have.

I think Mr. Callahan has covered it pretty well concerning the mastery of replicating actual artifact pieces.

But what i want to concentrate on here in this article is what constitutes a master of modern flintknapping. I do not have a concrete standard at this time, but i am thinking if someone can make a percussion or FOG piece with a W/T of 12/1 or higher along with a Modern Flintknapping Grading System score of around 3000+ for percussion or 4500+ for FOG then they are a Master. If they can do either a FOG or percussion piece with a W/T of 14/1 then they are a Super Master.

If someone could fit Mr.Callahan standards to be Master as well as being a Modern Flintknapping Master, that would be totally amazing! I guess at that point they would be an Elite Super Master?

My main point is I think flintknappers should think about this topic and not be so quick to throw the term "Master Flintknapper" around so freely and without making qualifications to what that actually means.

Visit www.modern-flintknapping.com  and www.modern-flintknappers.com

Got Convex?

Must a biconvex exist in every piece of flintknapping work?

John Whittaker, in his book American Flintknappers, says that they must. I respectfully disagree, contrary to what Mr. Whittaker states, not all of the old artifacts have a biconvex. Although, i agree certainly most of them did.

One that i know of is the Sweetwater biface. It is actually thinner at some points in the middle of the blade then within 1 inch from the edge. So it would actually have a "reverse convex" so to speak.I have been told(never seen a cast of it) that the Walnut Creek blade actually has points where descending flake removal makes it have a reverse convex as well.

If a knapper strictly wants to replicate an artifact that has a convex in it, that is fine and great, I DO NOT condemn them. But what modern knapper wouldn't be proud if they could duplicate the Sweetwater, Walnut Creek or Volgu blades?

If we agree that making a thinner piece takes more skill, then why not push the envelope as far as we can go with it. If you are capable of making a piece with no biconvex, i say more power to you. Otherwise, we are putting constraints on the art of flintknapping, by "allowing" knappers to go only so far with their abilities.

I would compare this to the art of painting pictures. Sure, the Mona Lisa is a great piece of art work. But today are the modern artist still only painting the same style of paintings as they did in the past? Of course not, we have modern art. Since flintknapping is another form of art, why not progress it into new techniques in modern day flintknapping. Of course, at this time, with percussion work, i know of no knapper who can match the Sweetwater, Walnut Creek or Volgu.

FOG pieces is another matter, i have pieces in my possession that although do no sink in the middle like the Sweetwater and Walnut Creek. They are completely flat across each side, with no biconvex existing.

Gotta have a convex? I think not, lets match some of these thinnest artifacts mentioned earlier. From there, where does it go, who knows? But that is the interesting part of modern flintknapping, it is a never ending process of development.

Visit www.modern-flintknapping.com and www.modern-flintknappers.com