Overshot Debitage Found

[Ahnlaashock]

Not only is it an overshot flake, but it appears to be the second time the nipple was struck, since there is an overshot type scar on the flake itself.  Unknown material.  Not sure of origin.  I have been reading the various Clovis papers, and the shape kept nagging at me, until I remembered why.  This was picked up locally in the past, many years ago, but precisely where, I do not remember.  I picked it up because I was going to see if I could make a rifle flint out of it, a long time ago.  Lots of pictures. 











Interesting after my previous find.  I don't know the material. 

[Zuma]

Hi Ahnaashock,
Not trying to be critical just expressive. Most folks stay out of this area.
It is really hard to tell from the photos whether you have an over shot flake or just a large thinning flake.
I think there is to much tadoo about Clovis and overshot.
What you think is a twice struck nipple may be just a sturdy platform for getting rid of massive flakes.
Nipples are usually crafted for fluting and may exhibit much grinding on the nipple and some down the ridge.
In some archie camps overshot and outre passe are used to draw some connection between Solutrean and Clovis.
I do not agree with this thinking. I see overshot results where ever I see large cobbles reduced.
It is natural to accidentally drive a large spall just a little further than you intend. They should show up in Solutrean and Clovis campsites as both technologies employed wide thin blades but the styles are
thousands of years apart and look nothing similar. Great reading and study info though.
The best Zuma

[Ahnlaashock]

Thanks for the response!
I don't think the nipple was struck twice. 
It was formed and struck after patina had formed on the original flake scar, shattering the patina off the nipple portion itself.  The nipple itself was likely new, formed just to get this flake, which is confusing in itself. 
The nipple was formed in the bottom of that previous flake scar, which is as confusing to me, as the previous flake scar having a patina on it before it was removed with this flake.  The piece of the patina from the other edge is still there to be seen, and it ends at the edge of the flake. 
I would agree that it was a thick thinning flake, if not for the other edge being present proving it to be an overshot.  It might have been an accidental overshot, because the part that reached the other edge is along one of the previous ridges, and there was what appears to be an old crack in the rock at that point.  You could make the argument that the other end was the platform, except it shows no sign of ever having been struck, and there is a clearly struck nipple on the other end.  It would make more sense that way, as a flake taken down a ridge that just got out of control because of an unseen crack, but the nipple and the patina shattered off of it, tell a different story.
The nipple placed in the bottom of a deep scar confuses me.  I would have formed it at the end of one of the ridges formed by the previous scar.  Especially if thinning was the goal.  This flake is thicker than many points all by itself. 
I am confused by a tool having been made, using wide arching flakes with parallel sides that appear to be overshot scars, being old enough to have patina formed on those scars, and then someone taking this kind of flake off it, all those years later. 
It may be something worked off of an older artifact, by a much younger people much later in time.  Why is a big question. 
The way the flake came off, the center of the flake is actually lower than either end of the flake, which means if it was a biface, it was literally almost cut in half. 
If you say the patina formed later, after the flake was taken, then the nipple should have patina too.  It doesn't, and you can still clearly see the edges where the patina shattered when it was struck.  The patina was clearly there, before the flake was taken.  On the other edge, the patina is solid until it hooks under the flake, and then is changes to what appears to be an old crack near the end away from the nipple, which might be why the flake became an overshot to begin with. 
The only thing that makes sense is an older tool, old enough have formed a significant direct exposure type patina, then had someone make a nipple in the bottom of a previous scar, and the flake went all the way across the piece, at least that I can figure. 
I would be very willing to allow anyone to see it that is actually interested in such things.  Most simply ignore my questions I think. 
I have tried to find ways around that conclusion, but they all run into contrary conditions until you use that one.  Did you ever set a nipple in the bottom of a flake scar? 

I am beginning to agree with you on overshot not really meaning all that much.  I just posed such a question on PaleoPlanet, because several of the Adena artifacts I am examining show the remains of overshot or very close to overshot flakes.  I am starting to think it is only an important detail in context with style. 

[Zuma]

Well, it is for sure that you are interested in tool development.
I am very much also. Being a collector for years before becoming a knapper.
I periodically check pre forms and brokes from different sites in my collection.
I always pick up interesting debitage from each site I hunt.
It helps me guess what finished pieces I might find by looking at the flakes.
Most brokes and preforms tell the story as to why they are as they are.
It's sort of detective work and I like it as you seem to.
I think there are many knappers that have never collected abo stuff.
And if they don't I would guess that they are not to much interested in ancient material.
Collecting these days will land you in jail or some type of hot water.
I also think PC and big names has a lot to do with it.
Trying to get a handle on the description of your flake is difficult without having it in hand.
And I am sure you took into account that a piece of chert can be patinaed on just one side.
Or more patained on the UP side usually.
Just to make sure we are on the same page---
I think all overshots are mistakes. The damage they do when initially thinning a cobble is minimal.
But if it occurs when finishing a point it is major.
Edge to edge reduction is what works best and in doing so you approach the threshold of overshot.
Just my opinions and I am no expert. Now flute flakes with nipples are a totally different animal. lol
Zuma

[Ahnlaashock]

If this one did not curve as it does, that is what you would believe it was.  A nipple set up in the bottom of a flute channel, where they tried to re-flute it, and took way too much by hitting too high.  That is just about the only regular use of a nipple set up at the bottom of a flake scar channel like that that I can think of. 
Yes, patina can form if exposed, and in some cases it will look like this one does.  What it doesn't do, is form, and then crack off just the nipple, leaving a fractured edge that is obvious from visual and tactile examination, where the patina was flaked off. 
There is absolutely no doubt the patina was there before the nipple was struck.  That is beyond arguing if you examine the piece. 
That is why it doesn't make sense, beyond the obvious damage a flake like this would have created unless it was coming off an old core.  Then you have the question of why they were driving less than 2 inch flakes all the way across the face of an old core, by carefully preparing a nipple platform, much like you would see in a fluting attempt. 
While I don't have a camera that will do close macro photography, I have absolutely no problem dropping it in an envelope and sending to anyone that wants to examine it. 
I believe it has to represent a group much closer to our time period, reworking or attempting to rework old tools.  Then we are back to how long it takes to form a patina on a tool after it is manufactured the first time. 
The patina on this one best matches some of the patinas I have seen on forest floor rocks that are exposed, see full sunlight directly on them, and some of them show evidence of past fires that may have contributed also.  Does heated stone develop a patina layer faster?