Photo Essay: Rebasing fluted point with parallel flutes

[AncientTech]

Raw chert with high tensile strength.  Technology is not unlike that which is used to create outrepasse flakes, and coast to coast flakes, in other posts.   

[nclonghunter]

Would make a fine crowfield...

I have read all the recent posts and all about your knapping technique. Perhaps several on here also followed the Paleplanet posts and all about your discovery of an ancient knapping technique. I for one did not follow all the prior posts and subsequent disagreements of said posts. I for one would like to hear about your technique if it would be on an open forum or a private message. I like to make decisions and judgements based on what I see and not on old riddle.
I have searched archives trying to understand what it is but have had no luck. It's like a guy posting how he can shoot 6 arrows into a one inch group at 100 yards and shows pictures of the group in a target. Then says he learned how the first bow hunters could do it every time but won't talk about it because someone didn't believe him...just doesn't make sense to me.

[AncientTech]

Hello NClonghunter

There should be open discussion about all of this.  No one should have to feel threatened simply for presenting evidence.  Unfortunately, it does not appear that the flintknapping community, and its informal leaders, are ready to deal with such evidence.  So, until the community is willing to engage in open dialogue about Native American flintknapping evidence, it does not look like there is going to be much of a discussion.

By the way, I just added another set of dual to channel flakes to the back side of the point, and ground the base a bit:



















Four flutes in raw chert

[AncientTech]

Also, NClonghunter,

You have probably noticed that some people talk about whether overshot was intentional, or unintentional.  Unfortunately, these discussions are never qualified. 

Here is an example.  These are all unintentional overshots that destroyed the work:














These four overshots (and many others) were bad, bad, bad, because they destroyed the work.  In fact, the stones frequently end up in the junk heap.

But, the following overshots were good, good, good, because they substantially aided the reduction process:









Okay, so do you know what is different between the good overshots, and the bad overshots?  I will give away a big trade secret, here!  They were made with two completely different technologies, that have different signatures.

So, how can a person talk about whether or not "overshot" was "intentional", when they are never able to qualify the potential technological differences, between one type of overshot, and another type of overshot?  In order to make these distinctions at even a hypothetical level, a person would need to have some knowledge of technologies that were formerly used.  And, in order to find out about technologies that Native Americans used, one would need to study the entire gamut of evidence - not just experimental flakes, flake scars, and finished points.

In this case, one type of overshot was made with a hammerstone, while the other type of overshot was made with a deer tine.  Can you tell which is which?  Can you guess as to why one overshot process would tend to produce failures, while the other overshot process would tend to be useful?  Could you match either of the flake scars to the archaeological record?   

If both flake scars can be matched to the archaeological record, then probably the answer to many other people's questions can be found here.

[caveman2533]

Quote from Ben:
"There should be open discussion about all of this.  No one should have to feel threatened simply for presenting evidence.  Unfortunately, it does not appear that the flintknapping community, and its informal leaders, are ready to deal with such evidence.  So, until the community is willing to engage in open dialogue about Native American flintknapping evidence, it does not look like there is going to be much of a discussion."

Ben, you have an open forum right here,  proceed.

[JoJoDapyro]

Once again you are playing the victim card. I amore than willing to learn from you, but this far you have refused to teach. Stop talking in riddles. If you have something to teach, please do, if not, stop telling everyone that you want to teach, and no one will listen. I would love to learn all I can.

[soy]

I as well would love to learn...please stop the poor me and bring forth the learning

[mullet]

Starting to sound like "Ground Hog Day" again.

[Ghost Knapper]

Overshots are alot like other knapping processes, understanding your tools and the material you are working on is paramount. Proper platform preparation is key as well as reading the convexity of the piece. Below 3 flakes were removed all of which went the whole way across the piece. The material is tough and definitely not altered by heat. But studying the biface, understanding the predictability of how the material fractures and making a proper platform for the material and tool allowed this to happen. Notice how the first and second flake removal set up a proper ridge to allow the removal of the third flake.





I did not knap this piece another member from the forum here did. If I would have attempted the same reduction with the material and tools he used I would not of had the same outcome, because I have not knapped this material enough to become proficient at it. That is not to say though that just because I cannot reduce this material with the tools he used does not mean the process will not work and is inherently bad at creating the desired result. Weather its notching or large thinning flakes understanding the material and the tools required is paramount to being successful.

If I sign my name and hand you my pen does not mean that you can take that pen and create the same signature, but if you hand me a marker, crayon, pencil, or piece of chalk I can create my signature because I have practiced enough and understand the process it takes to create it. Now it will look different because of the tool used but I can still do it. Same with any knapping process understand your tools and the material, share your experiences with others because we all can benefit one another. The above flakes were removed with direct percussion the tool was either a wooden billet or antler billet, I cant remember which, the material is some kind of leaverite.

[mullet]

And now you are denying us information about the secret Billet he used. We'll never learn how to do it.

[caveman2533]

There are no photos in the record of a Indian from the 1800's using the kind of billet I used. We can only surmise that from the kind of flake scars and platform remnants that wood was used. There is some evidence of a few possible wooden billets  found in a few archeological digs.  It was wood and the most under rated lithic material Joel called "some kind of leaverite"  is argillite.

The secret is "There is no Secret".

[Ghost Knapper]

I knew I didnt quite get the name right. 

[mullet]

Damn, James Parker and I was trying to remember the name of that rock,(argillite), last weekend. We're getting old.

[AncientTech]

Quote from Ben:
"There should be open discussion about all of this.  No one should have to feel threatened simply for presenting evidence.  Unfortunately, it does not appear that the flintknapping community, and its informal leaders, are ready to deal with such evidence.  So, until the community is willing to engage in open dialogue about Native American flintknapping evidence, it does not look like there is going to be much of a discussion."

Ben, you have an open forum right here,  proceed.

There should be open discussion within the flintknapping community, of the following:

A.  The tools that ANCIENT American knappers actually used, as known from archaeological contexts.
B.  The possible ways in which those tools could have been used.
C.  The effects of technological carryover from the prehistoric era, into the historic era, as a +13,000 year old tradition affected the
     500 years.
D.  The UNKNOWN flintknapping practices of RECENT HISTORIC INDIANS
E.  The possible technological parallels between the UNKNOWN practices of RECENT HISTORIC INDIANS, and PREHISTORIC INDIANS
F.  Why the development of flintknapping THEORIES from Europe, may be a complete mismatch with regard to flintknapping in the
     Americas.
G.  Flaking tool traditions 

If all of this is reckoned with, then a person might be in a good position to talk about "flintknapping" in a way that is relevant to flintknapping in the Americas.   

There is a reason why scores of modern archaeologists hardly have interest in modern flintknapping.  They do not see it as reconcilable with evidence.  Meanwhile, there is still a great deal that modern flintknappers cannot replicate, while using non-authentic practices.  So, my philosophy is why settle for fools gold?  Why not go for the real gold?  That is why I have studied what I have studied, and why - as of January of 2015 - I can produce a flaking that I could not produce for the last five years.

So, if there is going to be open discussion about this, in the flintknapping community, let me know.  I will make substantial contributions regarding the evidences of flintknapping technologies, in the New World, on every forum - Paleoplanet, Primitive Archer, etc.     

[AncientTech]

Overshots are alot like other knapping processes, understanding your tools and the material you are working on is paramount. Proper platform preparation is key as well as reading the convexity of the piece. Below 3 flakes were removed all of which went the whole way across the piece. The material is tough and definitely not altered by heat. But studying the biface, understanding the predictability of how the material fractures and making a proper platform for the material and tool allowed this to happen. Notice how the first and second flake removal set up a proper ridge to allow the removal of the third flake.





I did not knap this piece another member from the forum here did. If I would have attempted the same reduction with the material and tools he used I would not of had the same outcome, because I have not knapped this material enough to become proficient at it. That is not to say though that just because I cannot reduce this material with the tools he used does not mean the process will not work and is inherently bad at creating the desired result. Weather its notching or large thinning flakes understanding the material and the tools required is paramount to being successful.

If I sign my name and hand you my pen does not mean that you can take that pen and create the same signature, but if you hand me a marker, crayon, pencil, or piece of chalk I can create my signature because I have practiced enough and understand the process it takes to create it. Now it will look different because of the tool used but I can still do it. Same with any knapping process understand your tools and the material, share your experiences with others because we all can benefit one another. The above flakes were removed with direct percussion the tool was either a wooden billet or antler billet, I cant remember which, the material is some kind of leaverite.

Did you see that your break - even though it went through the other side - is essentially straight?  Did you see that some of my breaks are straight, or mostly straight, while others do a ninety degree turn, before reaching the other side.  Do you think that that is an accident?  Or, do you think that I create that effect, like a man who casts a spell on a bullet, so that it turns ninety degrees, before reaching its mark? 

Look again:



That "chunky thing" in the middle, is the end of the flake.  See the ninety degree turn, in the flake?

Here is another overshot.  Part of the opposite edge is missing.  But, there is not turn:





Do you see that?  So I am not just concerned about "overshot".  I am concerned about the trajectory of the break - whether it merely passes through the opposite edge, or whether it does a ninety degree turn, prior to reaching the opposite edge.  Can you explain these variations of effect, in terms of a tool?