Talk:Lithic reduction

message: There seems to be a little controversy over due to their preternatural sharpness. vs due to their extreme sharpness.
For my 2 cents, neither is quite there. These glass's sharpness is not preternatural, it's just that they are much harder than surgical stainless steel - and can support a thinner edge. They are also much more brittle than steels - hence their lack of general use.
I would like to see some evidence of surgical use. Modern ceramics (such as stabilised zirconium or silicon nitride) are capable of holding even finer edges than natural glasses (such as obsidian) or crystals (such as quartz). I doubt many institutes that would require a better edge than 440 Stainless steel (standard surgical) would use obsidian over a synthetic ceramic. There is also the question of mounting the blade in a sterile manner.
:See this abstract for a study done on steel vs. obsidian scalpel blades.  As for mounting in a sterile manner, you could use a screw-down clamp and replaceable obsidian flake inserts, or you could just injection mold thermoplastic handles around the base of a flake.  Not sure how they do it in practice, maybe I can find a manufacturer/retailer who has a picture.  scot 21:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bingo:  these are made with the obsideian set into a maple handle, which is then coated in epoxy, allowing it to be autoclaved.  And since re-sharpening is not practical, they'd be disposable anyway...  scot 21:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is a surgeon who uses them numerous times before discarding them.  scot 22:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: 1982 article on first modern consideration of obsidian blades for surgery; this article claims "infinitely sharper" than steel, I'm looking for a source with real numbers, since I see everything from 5x to 500x "sharper than steel".  This gives a 3 Angstrom size for the obsidian edge, but nothing for steel.  scot 22:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: That should be "molecules thick".  scot 21:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I completed the merger of the material from pressure flaking to this page.  I also took some material from flintknapper as well, and will work on fleshing out this article.  The merger tag has been removed, as well  -- Oaxaca dan 14:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger

message: Back in the 1960s one of the teachers in my high school (Kamloops, BC) was an amateur archaeologist and had done some work he was proud of on flint technique. Heat the stone then touch it with a wet brush or reed; the sudden cooling causes contraction and removes a flake. He claimed this gives much better control than percussion or pressure.
Also, in many cases it works better than grinding the stone so it calls the whole paleolithic/neolithic distinction based on chipping vs grinding into question, in particular the notion that some tribes are "more advanced" than others based on this. He thought he had proved something interesting about some tribes using this. Unfortunately, it was a long time ago & I do not recall which tribes, but he was mainly interested in Western tribes — Northwest coast, interior BC, Alaska, Navaho, Hopi, ... — not prairie or eastern Indians or Inuit.
Is this method a known option? Is there anything to his theories? Pashley (talk) 17:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heat-based knapping 

message: When I follow the link in the 1st paragraph to "lithic core," I learn that it's the rock portion left after the tool/s have been removed from the original stone. But this article implies that the core is equivalent to a lump of unworked tool stone. 
The articles need to be brought into conformity, but I don't have the expertise to do so. Thanks to whomever else can take this on.  KC 20:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lithic core