ABO techniques, processes and tools.

[Zuma]

Ben, please provide some information that producing
overshot flakes is an intentional Clovis or for that
matter a trait of any knapping culture but modern.
 You post all the other archaeological information but
 you have continually ignored this request for your
thoughts to back up your claim archaeologically.
Perhaps you haven't read my previous requests or the
professional papers that say overshot flakes are in-factally
a mistake. I would be glad to make them available to you
if you desire. 
Thanks Zuma

[nclonghunter]

The antler punches like those found at the Madisonville site would be made from the last few inches of an antler tine or are they made from bigger pieces of antler?

Antler has a soft center in the bigger areas so I would think those pouches can only be made from the antler tine tips. Anyone have any other ideas on how to make them?

[caveman2533]

Punches are better made from the base of an antler. I have been making mine from the bases of smaller deer. Even spikes. The base is used as the bit placed against the edge of the biface. This way dense bits can be made from smaller antlers.

[AncientTech]

Ben, please provide some information that producing
overshot flakes is an intentional Clovis or for that
matter a trait of any knapping culture but modern.
 You post all the other archaeological information but
 you have continually ignored this request for your
thoughts to back up your claim archaeologically.
Perhaps you haven't read my previous requests or the
professional papers that say overshot flakes are in-factally
a mistake. I would be glad to make them available to you
if you desire. 
Thanks Zuma

Zuma, as I have tried to explain in the past, the OPINIONS offered in professional papers, appear to have two flaws:

A.  The so-called professionals use the term overshot in a general sense, and never specify the actual technology.  Overshot is not a technology.  It is the result of a technology.  So, I would need to know which technology that we are talking about, when the overshot results are being discussed.  I previously cited Bradley, to show a blatant example of someone speaking definitively about overshot, while never actually specifying the technology he used to create the overshot.

B.  If the modern experiments being carried out are based upon 1930 era English flintknapping batons, and such batons were not used by ancient American flintknappers (or ancient American knappers used pitching tools), then the results of the experiments, regarding outrepasse, may not be applicable, at all.

That being said, I know of at least three ways to create outrepasse flakes:  A.  Deer tine/indirect percussion, B. hammerstone/direct percussion, and C. English-style baton/direct percussion.

These three technologies do not have identical attributes, nor do they work the same in all materials.  Also, using a deer tine in indirect percussion would qualify as a "pitching tool".

Can you show me a paper that distinguishes the difference between the effects of pitching tools versus English style batons?  If not, then how does one proceed to discuss "outrepasee" in an educated manner?       

[AncientTech]

The antler punches like those found at the Madisonville site would be made from the last few inches of an antler tine or are they made from bigger pieces of antler?

Antler has a soft center in the bigger areas so I would think those pouches can only be made from the antler tine tips. Anyone have any other ideas on how to make them?

Actually, entire racks of antler were reduced, at some Woodland sites.  And, I believe it was Webb, who in the 1940's, outlined the entire reduction process of antler, into various tools, and objects.  For example, projectile points were made from short cut tips.  Longer portions, including the tips, were cut (or broken) and used as "flakers", though no one is sure whether they were hafted or used in some other form.  The sections known as "antler drifts" were cut from straight sections, and were usually about 2-1/4 inches long, by 1 cm thick.  Basal sections were frequently cut, and used as handles, for other tools.

Anyway, to make antler drifts, you only need to cut out straight sections of the tine that are about two inches long.

Ben   

[JoJoDapyro]

James mighta brought some of mine (Va.)

Large billet for core removals



Final go-round kit. Elk billet, punches and small wood billet and a few tines. Hammerstone to set things up and clear stall-outs.

Pete, is that "Club" made out of locust?

[Zuma]

Ben, please provide some information that producing
overshot flakes is an intentional Clovis or for that
matter a trait of any knapping culture but modern.
 
 you have continually ignored this request for your
thoughts to back up your claim.

Thanks Zuma

Zuma, as I have tried to explain in the past, the OPINIONS offered in professional papers, appear to have two flaws: NON APPLICABLE


.


That being said, I know of at least three ways to create outrepasse flakes:  A.  Deer tine/indirect percussion, B. hammerstone/direct percussion, and C. English-style baton/direct percussion.  Non Applicable



 how does one proceed to discuss "outrepasee" in an educated manner?   
God knows, I think I have tried.
You could start by posting your data proving overshot is an intentional
aboriginal trait and refrain from mentioning ANYTHING modern.   

[AncientTech]

Zuma,

I cannot speak for the intent of the original Clovis knappers.  I was not there.  Nor do I know what they intended.

That being said, other academics have raised a point that I partially disagree with, and partially agree with.  Bradley discusses how difficult it is to "master" controlled overshot.  I previously posted the information, but then may have been asked to pull the information from the forum.

That being said.  I do not know what thoughts ran through Clovis knapper's minds.  So, I cannot speak about ancient knapping, in a manner that PROVES intent.  I was not in their heads, thirteen thousand years ago.

Here is the Eren et all paper:

https://www.smu.edu/~/media/Site/Dedman/Departments/Anthropology/MeltzerPDFs/Eren%20et%20al%20%202014%20Lithic%20Technology.ashx?la=en

On page two, the author makes three claims.  And, prior to making these claims, the author states:

"WE USED EXPERIMENTAL ARCHAEOLOGY TO TEST..."

Do you see those words?  They are basing their arguments on EXPERIMENTAL ARCHAEOLOGY.  And, you can also see that an experimental archaeologist (Patten) is being cited.

So, I am telling you that the premises, and arguments, of this paper could be FLAWED, if they are basing everything on the work of experimenters, such as Bradley and Patten.  I am also introducing the same type of evidence, that these academics are basing their arguments upon.  Only, my evidence is more expansive because I cover actual technologies, and they do not.  Do you see that?  Do you see that I touch upon hammerstone tech, billet tech, and deer tine tech?  What technologies do they cover?  Is it even explained.

That being said, if we are discussing hammerstone tech, I believe that most all overshots are accidental.  If we are discussing billet tech, I think that overshots is difficult to achieve - AS NOTED BY BRADLEY.  If we are discussing tine-based "pitching tool" tech, I think that regular flaking, coast to coast flaking, and overshot, is all fairly easy to achieve.  If you don't want modern experimental evidence introduced, you need to go back and look at the paper, because they are citing the results of modern experimental evidence. 

Bradley's argument is that controlled overshot is a sign of super knappers, and it is recognized in Solutrean knapping, as well as Clovis.  As a matter of causality, they link A to B.  Eren's claim is that A could not possibly B linked to B, and there are holes in these theories about Solutrean overshot, and Clovis overshot.

My argument is that the discussion does not begin, until one ascertains how the overshot was created.  My argument is that they are starting out with a flawed premise.  And, if push comes to shove, I can introduce the very same type of data that they are relying upon - EXPERIMENTAL ARCHAEOLOGY.  Aside from that, no one can PROVE the intentions of the original knappers, because we were not there.   

In nine pages, not a single word is devoted to explaining HOW they believe that the ancient overshots were made.  So, as far as I am concerned, they never made it to the starting line.

[Zuma]

Thanks for the reply Ben.
Let me point out some things you are overlooking.
Eren's papers include this--- I para phrase--
The debitage from defined stratified Cloves camps
such as Gault contain less than 12 percent overshot
flakes total.
This is the biggest smoking gun imo,
I like Eren contribute that number to Mistake.
Certainly not intentional. Do you see how inconsequential
method is when you have the physical flakes to tell the
Clovis story??
Zuma

[Hummingbird Point]

 
Suddenly, I saw the answer.  It was like seeing through time, as if I had X-ray eyesight through time and space.  I actually saw the break happening from inside the break, if it makes any sense.  It was amazing.

That part I get.  I call it the "click" point, like you are wandering around a dark room bumping into furniture and then "click", the light goes on and the room makes sense.  I have been knapping almost 8 years, but so far I have never spent more than 2 with the same tool kit, so I guess I am a perpetual amateur. 

But I have to poke you a bit and say that the only way to really test an idea is to put it out there and see what happens.  Look at Marty Reuter.  On the one hand, a great innovator, but also a knapper with extraordinary natural talent.  How much of his innovations are the tools and methods and how much his raw talent?  (No joke, I think you could give the guy half a brick and a tire iron and could knap fairly well with them.)

Any way, I am here to learn and want to try any "abo" method any one is willing to offer up. As I said before, I think there are all kinds of holes in our current thinking.

I've really enjoyed the discussion.

Keith

[nclonghunter]

Ben and others, have any of you had the oppurtunity to examine and handle Clovis flakes that are overshot flakes? I have been told by more than one knapper that they can tell you what "tool" removed the flake. That being wood, copper, antler, etc.......

Bens' statement that he does not know what Clovis people were thinking is understood but the desire to know what "tool" and what "technique" they were using is what we are wanting to answer. Me personally can not tell you what tool or technique was used just by looking at a flake rather it be overshot or a short flake.

Are there pictures of those Clovis flake bulbs to examine for "tool and technique" examination. I feel it would be a positive move forward in learning, rather than trying to disprove men of the past. They were also trying to learn and shared what they believed at that time to be correct or hoped they were correct just as we are doing now.

Thanks for the info on the antler drifts. I must say to make them from the larger section of antler with only flint tools or by shattering the bone and using the best pieces must have been a job in itself. Modern saws and sanders certainly make it easier.

[AncientTech]

Thanks for the reply Ben.
Let me point out some things you are overlooking.
Eren's papers include this--- I para phrase--
The debitage from defined stratified Cloves camps
such as Gault contain less than 12 percent overshot
flakes total.
This is the biggest smoking gun imo,
I like Eren contribute that number to Mistake.
Certainly not intentional. Do you see how inconsequential
method is when you have the physical flakes to tell the
Clovis story??
Zuma

Hello Zuma,

You wrote:

"The debitage from defined stratified Cloves camps such as Gault contain less than 12 percent overshot flakes total.  This is the biggest smoking gun imo,"

Do you see that as a smoking gun?  I disagree.  Did you realize that ancient knappers used diverse processes from start to finish?  Did you realize that early stage Clovis hammerstone preforms exhibit one type of flaking, while finer surface flaking may represent another type of flaking, and edge work may represent pressure flaking?

In other words, ancient knappers worked in stages, as is exhibited in scores of lithic reduction sites.  Also, the term "overshot flakes" is left unqualified.  If the authors are referring to hard hammer percussion, I think that the majority of them may well be mistakes.  If the author is talking about late stage reduction, I think that it could have been intentional, or the knappers could have been ranging around something like a coast to coast flake, but carried it a bit too far. 

Still, in both modes of flaking, not every flake is going to be an "overshot", because surface morphology does not allow.  In some cases, with some tools and practices, certain surface morphologies can allow for easy overshot removals, or coast to coast removals.

"I like Eren contribute that number to Mistake."

How can you equate a number to a mistake?  Preforms constantly change shape during reduction.  Wouldn't you have to know when, where, and how, the overshots were removed, before concluding that they are mistakes?  I do think that Bradley is wrong, since his views are based on billet use.  But, I cannot agree that the percentage of overshots indicates whether or not they were mistakes.  At a certain point in reduction, they may have been optimal removals.  Context is the key to understanding this subject - not numbers.

"Do you see how inconsequential method is when you have the physical flakes to tell the Clovis story??

You are equating a low overshot flake count, to inconsequentiality.  In order for this view to hold water, one would need to show that a single process was used from start to finish.  And, the 12% of the time that overshot was created, the scenario was no different than the other 88% of the time, that overshot was not produced. 

The actual reality, which was commonly known prior to the emphasis on billet knapping, is that each stage is specific to thickness, morphology, and certain flaking practices that can actually be quite diverse from one to another. 

I think that Bradley is wrong in building a theory based on the assumption that baton knapping applies.  And, I think that the others are wrong, in their assessments of Clovis flakes, and their attempt at applying "experimental data", which is probably derived from Patten's experience with billet knapping. 

[AncientTech]

Suddenly, I saw the answer.  It was like seeing through time, as if I had X-ray eyesight through time and space.  I actually saw the break happening from inside the break, if it makes any sense.  It was amazing.

That part I get.  I call it the "click" point, like you are wandering around a dark room bumping into furniture and then "click", the light goes on and the room makes sense.  I have been knapping almost 8 years, but so far I have never spent more than 2 with the same tool kit, so I guess I am a perpetual amateur. 

But I have to poke you a bit and say that the only way to really test an idea is to put it out there and see what happens.  Look at Marty Reuter.  On the one hand, a great innovator, but also a knapper with extraordinary natural talent.  How much of his innovations are the tools and methods and how much his raw talent?  (No joke, I think you could give the guy half a brick and a tire iron and could knap fairly well with them.)

Any way, I am here to learn and want to try any "abo" method any one is willing to offer up. As I said before, I think there are all kinds of holes in our current thinking.

I've really enjoyed the discussion.

Keith

If I can get someone to hold a camera for me, and the rain clears up, I will try to post a technique that no one has seen.

[AncientTech]

Ben and others, have any of you had the oppurtunity to examine and handle Clovis flakes that are overshot flakes? I have been told by more than one knapper that they can tell you what "tool" removed the flake. That being wood, copper, antler, etc.......

Bens' statement that he does not know what Clovis people were thinking is understood but the desire to know what "tool" and what "technique" they were using is what we are wanting to answer. Me personally can not tell you what tool or technique was used just by looking at a flake rather it be overshot or a short flake.

Are there pictures of those Clovis flake bulbs to examine for "tool and technique" examination. I feel it would be a positive move forward in learning, rather than trying to disprove men of the past. They were also trying to learn and shared what they believed at that time to be correct or hoped they were correct just as we are doing now.

Thanks for the info on the antler drifts. I must say to make them from the larger section of antler with only flint tools or by shattering the bone and using the best pieces must have been a job in itself. Modern saws and sanders certainly make it easier.

Hello NClonhunter,

I think that you are on the right track.  We have to have some criteria to use, when looking at flakes, and flake scars.  The more criteria we have, the more chance we have to understand what we are looking at.  For example, if we only had criteria pertaining to hammerstones, then pressure flakes might be hard to understand.

Anyway, I have faith in your ability to guess.  So, here is a photo.  If you found three tools in a site, with this point, which tool would you guess was used to remove the channel flake?  A two pound softball sized hammerstone?  A large moose club?  Or a deer tine with a blunt, battered tip? 

Also, of the three tools that are found, one tool has a width, in the presumed contact area, that matches the width of the flake initiation.  And, that tool is the deer tine.  So, if you had to analyze this projectile point, then which tool would you think was used to detach the channel flake, in raw stone?  Softball sized hammerstone?  Moose antler club?  Or, blunted, battered deer tine? 

 

[Zuma]

Ben and others, have any of you had the oppurtunity to examine and handle Clovis flakes that are overshot flakes? I have been told by more than one knapper that they can tell you what "tool" removed the flake. That being wood, copper, antler, etc.......

Bens' statement that he does not know what Clovis people were thinking is understood but the desire to know what "tool" and what "technique" they were using is what we are wanting to answer. .

Are there pictures of those Clovis flake bulbs to examine for "tool and technique" examination. I feel it would be a positive move forward in learning, rather than trying to disprove men of the past. They were also trying to learn and shared what they believed at that time to be correct or hoped they were correct just as we are doing now.

Hey NC .
Sure archies and others have been saving flakes for years and studing them.
They can tell a lot about the flake initiation. Hard hammer and soft hammer etc
They for sure can tell the difference between overshot flakes because they turn the edge of the work opposite the platform (bulb), Very distinct compared to edge to edge or just short flakes.
This is how we know that aboriginal overshot was not intentional. If it were
the numbers of these flakes would many times larger.
They only occur in percentages that would comfortably fit into the mistake category. Any one that reduces large material looking for thin bifaces knows this.
And you can count these flakes and it don't make a hoot one way or the other
how they were created by who, with what, or why.
That is what Archaeology once was but no longer is IMO. Eren et al  and a few others may be the exception.
I have the report done by Dr Whyte from the JMU dig he did in my front yard.
I will see if I can find it and post the lithic descriptions for you.
I am sure you could search the net and find other reports that contain like info.
Overshot never was important until modern knappers after a bunch of HYPE
found that they could make overshots on a fairly predictable frequency.
But in my honest opinion--- Who cares about that, reproducing abo mistakes.
Zuma