PETROGLYPHS - INDIRECT VS. DIRECT PERCUSSION REVISITED - REVISITED AGAIN:

On may 14, 2016, I posted a column titled PETROGLYPHS - INDIRECT VS. DIRECT PERCUSSION REVISITED. In this I reported on experimental results published in 1999 by Jim Keyser and Greer Rabiega that addressed the question of indirect vs. direct percussion in the manufacture of petroglyphs. Their experiments proved that the use of a stone chisel between the rock face and the hammer stone allowed finer lines and better control in the finished petroglyph. My original denial of the concept (January 17, 2010, "Petroglyphs - Direct Vs. Indirect Percussion?")  had been based upon commonly seen illustrations that show the artist holding a hammer stone in one hand and a chisel made of a flaked stone point on a wooden or bone shaft in the other, chipping away at the rock face to make a petroglyph. Keyser had rightly recognized that I was not considering the use of a smaller hard rock as a chisel stone between the hammer stone and the rock face, and apprised me of the published results of their experiments.

Figure 1, chisel stone found at

Horsethief Lake State Park,

Washington, by James Keyser, 2007.

A short time later Keyser again contacted me and provided me with a copy of a paper he had published in 2007, about finding just such a chisel stone at Horsethief Lake State Park, Washington. While not directly associated with any particular petroglyph there, he reported that it was in the vicinity of a grouping of petroglyphs. "The chisel stone, a small quartzite river pebble measuring 3.5 x 4 x 1.3 centimeters in maximum length, width, and thickness (Fig. 1), was found by me in the eroded foot trail used to access the main areas of rock art in the park during a visit there in 2007. Although not directly associated with a petroglyph, the tool was within a few meters of two different rock art loci at 45KL58, both of which contain a few petroglyphs, and not far distant from a third that also has petroglyphs." (Keyser 2007)

Figure 2, experimental chisel stone.

Keyser and Rabiega, 1999.

The previously reported experiments (above) conducted by Keyser and his co-investigator had prepared him to recognize something that most of us would probably have overlooked. "As soon as I picked it up I recognized it immediately as a chisel stone exactly like several (Fig. 2) that I and a colleague had produced in an experiment a decade earlier (Keyser and Rubiega 1999: 130-132)." (Keyser 2007)

While experimental archaeology such as the project Keyser reported in 1999 cannot prove that something was definitely done in a particular way, it can prove that something might have been done that way. This finding of the actual artifact, however, seems to seal the deal on it. Indirect percussion was sometimes used in the production of petroglyphs, especially when fine details were the goal.

Keyser closed his paper with the statement "As such, it should put to rest the argument as to whether at least some petroglyphs were, in fact, manufactured by this technique." It does for me Jim, and thanks again.

REFERENCE:

James D. Keyser,

2007, DIRECT EVIDENCE FOR THE USE OF INDIRECT PERCUSSION IN PETROGLYPH MANUFACTURE, p.25-27, INORA International Newsletter On Rock Art, www.bradshawfoundation.com,vol. 49.

Keyser, James D. and Greer Rabiega,

1999,  Petroglyph Manufacture by Indirect Percussion: The Potential Occurrence of Tools and Debitage in Datable Context, Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology, Vol.21, No. 1, pages 124 - 136.

PETROGLYPHS - DIRECT VS. INDIRECT PERCUSSION REVISITED:

Hammerstone below petroglyph

panel, Wild Horse Draw, Canyon

Pintado, CO. Photograph 

Peter Faris.

On January 17, 2010, I posted a column on http://rockartblog.blogspot.com, Petroglyphs - Direct Vs. Indirect Percussion? In this I argued that most, if not all, petroglyphs had to be created by direct percussion and gave the reasons for this belief. I was recently informed by James D. Keyser of a paper that he and co-author Greer Rabiega published in the Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology, 1999, Vol.21, No. 1, pages 124 - 136, entitled Petroglyph Manufacture by Indirect Percussion: The Potential Occurrence of Tools and Debitage in Datable Context. Keyser's comments concerning examples of indirect percussion are well reasoned and quite convincing, and are based on experiments reproducing fine or narrow lines on stone by striking a "chisel stone" with a hammer stone.

Rock art on boulder,

Airport Hill, St. George, UT.

Photograph Peter Faris, 2002.

Hammerstone on boulder,

Airport Hill, St. George, UT.

Photograph Peter Faris, 2002.

In his e-mail to me Keyser stated :

"I just look for the evidence, and where one finds very precise dints repeatedly aligned with one another to form all or part of a design the chances are that that design (or the very precise part of it) was produced by indirect percussion. Very finely made antlers (and other extremities) on small images of deer in Valcamonica rock art are a good example, but there are many others. Most often the examples of this sort of work that I can think of off-hand are small parts of  larger figures (but the entire figure itself is still not very large—say a deer that can be covered with a playing card)." (Keyser 2016)

"When a small part of a glyph occurs routinely (like the aforementioned Valcamonica antlers) without even one misplaced dint it begins to defy statistical probability that these were done freehand—when such a simple solution (indirect pecking) was available and can provide a guarantee that no dint will be miss-hit. If such finely produced antlers were relatively rare—so that there were a few of many that had no miss-hit dints, then one could argue that the very precise ones were simply normal variation, but when one sees dozens of examples of such deer at site after site—all of whom have antlers, legs, hooves, and open mouths—with nary a miss-hit dint in the bunch—a student must begin to look for a way that this was done that essentially “guarantees” accuracy EVERY TIME THE STONE IS STRUCK. Indirect percussion is the only means by which this can be accomplished (with such a guarantee) that I can come up with....I’d be glad to know." (Keyser 2016)

Hammer stone used with chisel

stone in experiments showing

evidence of impact with the chisel

stone on its side. (Keyser , James

D., and Greer Rabiega, 1999).

I am actually more convinced by what he did not find than by what he did. Keyser reports large numbers of fine lines in petroglyphs with no evidence of the mis-strikes that one would expect to find if only direct percussion had been used to produce them. Now this is a telling argument and I take it very seriously as I have to agree with Jim that the lack of missteps is suggestive of an accuracy very difficult (I am sure he would say impossible) to achieve with only direct percussion.
I do feel compelled to note, however, that this paper and communication are both about an experiment, and that he has not yet reported finding such chisel stones. Admittedly, there has probably been little awareness of their possibility so no one has looked for them. Also, Keyser also commented that as they are smaller and lighter than the hammer stones they may have regularly been carried away as useful tools, not dropped in the ground when the petroglyph is done as so many hammer stones were, " that’s the beauty of a chisel stone—you can carry two or three dozen of them with the same weight as a single good-sized hammer stone." (Keyser 2016)

Bird Rattle carving petroglyph,1924,

Writing-on-Stone, Alberta, Canada.

Blackfoot.

I am enclosing this picture of Bird Rattle producing a petroglyph at Writing-on-Stone, Alberta, Canada, in 1924, as it is the only illustration I could find of petroglyph production in an authentic context. It really does not apply to the question here, however, as this petroglyph was produced by incising, not by pecking, so the techniques under discussion were not used by Bird Rattle.

Bird Rattle carving petroglyph,1924,

Writing-on-Stone, Alberta, Canada.

Blackfoot.

Note: until such a chisel stone is reported in context at a petroglyph site this is all conjecture based only upon logic and his reported experiments, but then my original statement was also. Remember, the absence of proof is not proof of absence. So, thank you to Jim Keyser for his information and help. I appreciate that you took the time to help me clarify this question. Correction noted Jim, and thank you. I will temper my opinion accordingly. 
And I also must confess that I have never examined the fine lines in a petroglyph for this phenomena, superimposition yes, mis-strikes no. So in the future I will have another line of evidence to look into. 
Those who would like to dig a little deeper into this example are referred to the 1999 paper by Keyser and Rabiega, cited below.

REFERENCES:

Keyser, James D., personal communication, May 7, 2016.

Keyser , James D. and Greer Rabiega,

1999,  Petroglyph Manufacture by Indirect Percussion: The Potential Occurrence of Tools and Debitage in Datable Context, Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology, Vol.21, No. 1, pages 124 - 136.