question for AncientTech

[Ed Brooks]

I have been watching your post like a lot of other people, & I have been very confused by your posts, like a lot of other people. I have seen many pictures of your coast to coast thinning flakes and would like to be able to do that myself (on purpose). I have seen not as many of the pictures of your tools used. However in some of the picture you showed antler punches / drifts. is this your secret. I have attached a link to some notes through the years of white man describing how the Indian was making his tools, it seems that alot of the reports they are using punches. They mention the old ways in kind of the same way I took you to mention them. Ed

http://antlerdrift.blogspot.com/2011/07/antler-drift-indirect-percussion-300.html

[caveman2533]

The link you supplied is to Ben's blog.

[AncientTech]

I have been watching your post like a lot of other people, & I have been very confused by your posts, like a lot of other people. I have seen many pictures of your coast to coast thinning flakes and would like to be able to do that myself (on purpose). I have seen not as many of the pictures of your tools used. However in some of the picture you showed antler punches / drifts. is this your secret. I have attached a link to some notes through the years of white man describing how the Indian was making his tools, it seems that alot of the reports they are using punches. They mention the old ways in kind of the same way I took you to mention them. Ed

http://antlerdrift.blogspot.com/2011/07/antler-drift-indirect-percussion-300.html

Hello Ed,

Thanks for writing.  As Mr. Nissly correctly points out, it is my site. 

Also, if people cannot explain my flaking - even though I show the tools - then how will they explain ancient flaking, especially when the tools cannot be seen?  If people do not understand flaking that is made today, then how will they understand flaking that is over 10,000 years old?

I give myself very little credit.  I saw where someone would have to pick up the slack of others, if progress was to be made.  I knew that I would have to climb up on the shoulders of giants, one inch at a time.  While other people read books on lithic technology, I spent years taking apart the manner in which lithic technology theories were created, going all the way back to the 1870's, when it was proposed that the gunflint knappers offered the answer - if we could only exchange their steel hammers, for rock hammerstones.  Then, I had to go forwards through time, and take into account all of the evidence from the Americas.  The outrepasse flaking, in raw stone, with a deer tine, is child's play.  What is not "child's play" is the understanding that is behind it.     

Most people look at a "tool" and a "tool process".  I look at a break - its initiation, its trajectory, and its termination.  What is not known is whether one can look at a break, and equate it to a tool, or a tool process.  What is not known is whether one can correctly say, "This is a hard hammer flake.  That is a soft hammer flake.  And, the other flake is a pressure flake."

If anyone can do this, then what will they do with my flakes?  People who think that they can do this are caught inside a world that they have created, via experimentation.  In their world, the experimental evidence confirms the archaeological evidence, and the archaeological evidence confirms the experimental evidence.  They are caught inside a world that they cannot get out of.  The key to getting out of that endlessly looping world is to introduce the evidence from the Americas.

As I said, I understand a break in terms of its initiation, its trajectory, and its termination.  But, I do not understand a flake, in terms of "a particular tool creates a particular effect".  In some cases, such straightforward thinking may not apply, to the reality of what was once done.

Regarding antler drift, I did not use them to create any overshot flakes.  The overshot flakes were created with a deer tine.
 

[caveman2533]

  The overshot flakes were created with a deer tine.
 

That is being used as a punch or drift. The manner in which its held or struck  matters not . Its still being punched. Prove me wrong.

[Marc St Louis]

I have to admit that I had never tried using an antler as a punch, using a piece of hardwood as a hammer, for the purpose Ben describes until I read some of his posts.  Then I tried it and it worked some of the times, when it does work it works great.

[caveman2533]

the punches I use are made from an antler base like a billet but I use the end that would attach to the skull as the punch point.

[Zuma]

Also, if people cannot explain my flaking - even though I show the tools - then how will they explain ancient flaking, especially when the tools cannot be seen?  If people do not understand flaking that is made today, then how will they understand flaking that is over 10,000 years old?

I had to go forwards through time, and take into account all of the evidence from the Americas.  The outrepasse flaking, in raw stone, with a deer tine, is child's play.  What is not "child's play" is the understanding that is behind it.      

Outrepasse is not even American in any way it's a French word.
 And it is not child's play even for you.
Why?? Because it took you years to develop your ability to produce an occasional "Overshot"
 Not only that, you have to demonstrate an ability to create several "OVERSHOTS" in a row.  You have not accomplished this.
What is worse, is that you refuse to acknowledge the facts about real documented Clovis overshot.
The TRUE ancient over 10,000 year old flaking technology.
So if you think duplicating Clovis mistakes now and then is child's play, I agree 100 percent.
Zuma

[JoJoDapyro]

I think that the words he chooses to use may not have the intended meaning. Perhaps what he is trying to say is that the understanding of how to do it is what is difficult, and with practice (like anything else) it does become easy.  I am one who has a very hard time putting my thoughts into meaningful words in text. More likely than not I can show you how to do something, but if asked to explain I would only confuse you more. What is really funny to me is this. We have a group of knappers here who outwardly don't believe what Ben is talking about. Yet they are poking and pushing to "See his secret". My personal opinion is that if you don't have any interest in what someone is talking about, then you just pass on by. Putting "All we know" aside is the first step to learning. As humans we tend to fight about what we know, and too little we don't try to learn what we don't. As humans we need to accept that we really have lost more info about these things than any of us understand. This to me is akin to religion or politics, does it matter if you're right, or does it matter if your kind? In the end is anyone being personally hurt by Ben's claims? Especially in his last thread, some of you acted like little bratty kids from the onset. How about we take a step back and grow up a little. He was sharing a story, and we have a mob mentality to attack him and make comments that DO NOT add to the conversation in any way except to be jerks. This is a great community. There are members here who I don't agree with on a lot of issues. But as a community we need to act like the adults we are. Don't like someone? Don't comment on their threads. Don't agree with someones ideas, don't read their threads. Easy Peasy!

[Marc St Louis]

I think that the words he chooses to use may not have the intended meaning. Perhaps what he is trying to say is that the understanding of how to do it is what is difficult, and with practice (like anything else) it does become easy.  I am one who has a very hard time putting my thoughts into meaningful words in text. More likely than not I can show you how to do something, but if asked to explain I would only confuse you more. What is really funny to me is this. We have a group of knappers here who outwardly don't believe what Ben is talking about. Yet they are poking and pushing to "See his secret". My personal opinion is that if you don't have any interest in what someone is talking about, then you just pass on by. Putting "All we know" aside is the first step to learning. As humans we tend to fight about what we know, and too little we don't try to learn what we don't. As humans we need to accept that we really have lost more info about these things than any of us understand. This to me is akin to religion or politics, does it matter if you're right, or does it matter if your kind? In the end is anyone being personally hurt by Ben's claims? Especially in his last thread, some of you acted like little bratty kids from the onset. How about we take a step back and grow up a little. He was sharing a story, and we have a mob mentality to attack him and make comments that DO NOT add to the conversation in any way except to be jerks. This is a great community. There are members here who I don't agree with on a lot of issues. But as a community we need to act like the adults we are. Don't like someone? Don't comment on their threads. Don't agree with someones ideas, don't read their threads. Easy Peasy!

What the heck are you talking about,

a very hard time putting my thoughts into meaningful words in text

.  That was very well said

[JoJoDapyro]

LOL,  Basically, don't be a dick! 

[bubby]

Joe some of the guys on here have been constantly called out by him to the point he's been shutdown on several sites by the mods, all he shows is the same old pics with a antler tine punce in his hands and the same flakes and tells everyone else they are wrong, he says he gives himself little credit and in the next breath bloviates about his discovery of new ancient technology. Remindes me of Don Quixote fighting windmills i agree about not posting in his threads i know I'm done

[JoJoDapyro]

I know Bubby, I have seen it first hand. But arguing about it surely doesn't solve anything. Berating him on other posts that seem innocent enough for sure don't fix any problems. The general rule with "Trolls" is that they are looking for attention. If you ignore them, they go away. As you are a friend of mine on Facebook i'm sure you have seen me be a troll. I know from first hand experience that if people don't respond to my off color, mean and sometimes hurtful comments, I find something else to do. 

I do think that Ben has something to teach, and if he isn't willing, I won't push him for any more information. I am also aware that most, if not all the people posting on the knapping board have far more experience than I do. I know that I am prone to jumping on the wagon to ridicule people who most of the time are simply misunderstood. I find myself being on the wrong side of civility far too often. I don't want to seem like I am taking a side, I just want everyone to either get along, or ignore each other. I like the vast majority of people I have had interactions with here. 

[bubby]

For 99% of the time the entire pa forum is positive and we all like to keep it that way i didn't assume you were taking sides no problemo here

[caveman2533]

   Ben's efforts can no more be substantiated than anyone else's can by archeological means, experimental means  or any other method. If his method of flaking is right then it should be able to be identified  by comparing his results with results in the archeological record. Angle of platform, etc. all have to be considered and carefully matched to existing data. I have been asking him to do that for years and he can't or won't. That is all I have ever asked him to do is "prove it". I have never made any claims about any type of flaking  which is right or wrong, but he has, so the onus is on him to "prove it". If he isn't willing to teach then he should quit calling out people and posting this drivel. He is just  just puffing up himself and adding nothing to anyone or anything here.  Since he has arrived here there has been lots of turmoil. Just simply look at why. Go back to any other thread where someone asks how or why and see if it has been answered, by the good generous people of this forum.    How many questions has Ben been asked and how many has he answered? If Ben wants to be taken seriously then he needs to act like an adult and put forth a theory and then supporting evidence and explain it and have a conversation like an adult.  Remember thru all of this that "absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence".

[Zuma]

This is the flintknapping forum. Not psychology 101. Although I agree that others have opinions and should voice them. perhaps in the Campfire forum.
 The situation here is not a PC issue but a nuts and bolts knapping issue.
Folks that don't have a long time invested in the hobby most likely don't understand.
And if they chose to ignore others that's fine. But what I am hearing is folks want others to ignore someone else. Humm What a tangled web.
No matter here are the nuts. Ben thinks creating OVERSHOT flakes is somehow a revelation in knapping in general. It is not. New archaeological information and common sense say that OVERSHOT in Clovis knapping is nothing more than MISTAKE.
He provides nothing tangible to refute this.
So for Ben to miss represent this concept to new knappers and folks that are interested in this subject is miss-leading. Should we expect our grown children to still believe the Easter Bunny will be there for them on Easter morning??
To ignore this would not be educational and lazy.
And here are the bolts--

The Bottom Line: The Rumor of “Intentional Overshot Flaking”ChooseTop of pageAbstractThe Ice-Age Atlantic Cros...Correcting The Inaccuraci...The Bottom Line: The Rumo... <<ReferencesCITING ARTICLESLohse, Collins, and Bradley ask, “in light of the near-consensus agreement that Clovis and perhaps Solutrean biface thinning were both characterized by intentional overshot flaking, we ask: Do Eren and his co-authors truly perceive it to be accidental?”

We answer unequivocally yes because empirical, quantitative experimental and archaeological data robustly and parsimoniously lead us to that conclusion, not because we assume it a priori or possess some sort of “agenda,” as Lohse, Collins, and Bradley presume. However, in the end, Lohse, Collins, and Bradley's question is the wrong one to ask. The correct question is, do our experimental and archaeological data support the intuitive assertions about the presence of “controlled” or “intentional overshot flaking” that have been made recently and over the past 30 years, as well as the subsequent use of those assertions as a cornerstone for a Solutrean–Clovis trans-Atlantic connection? Based on our empirical results (Eren et al. 2013), the answer to this question is unequivocally no, especially when those results are evaluated in conjunction with other multidisciplinary evidence and our arguments above.

As noted by Lohse, Collins, and Bradley, our conclusions about overshot flakes “seemingly run counter to a generation of focused analyses on Clovis and Solutrean lithic technology.” Perhaps this is because many of these studies were not true, formal analyses (Lycett and Chauhan 2010; O'Brien 2010; Surovell 2009) but rather mere descriptions based on intuition, cherry-picking, and the “flintknapper's fundamental conceit” (Thomas 1986: 623). In this sense, we see the Ice-Age Atlantic Crossing Hypothesis as merely the most extreme case to date of a chronic inclination in studies of lithic technology to depend more on assumption, authority, and experience than on hypothesis testing, quantification, and analysis. Maybe this is why Lohse, Collins, and Bradley find it so odd that we can readily change our minds about our previous conclusions about overshot flaking. A true commitment to evidence gives a person the capacity, when needed, to readily change direction in the pursuit of scientific reality rather than drown in the rumors, assertions, and egos of one's peers or advisors.

Overshooting the ice: the role of experimental archaeology in ...
https://experimentalarchaeology.wordpress.com/.../overshooting-the-ice-the-...

Mar 3, 2014 ... Lohse, J.C., Collins, M.B., Bradley, B., 2014. Controlled overshot flaking: a response to Eren, Patten, O'Brien, and Meltzer. Lithic Technology 39 ...

In other words Ben is promoting his methods as ancient technology and they are nothing more than ancient mistakes according to some power-house professionals. They address Bradley and Sanford but the the message I am sure you would agree applies to Ben as well.
Zuma