I agree that the example does not show a late stage reduction (was not ment to), but it does not look as though your images show that either. Maybe mid stage but a late stage reduction to me would include a biface that is 80% or more "shaped" into its final form. Looking back at both examples it would appear as though the one that I posted may be closer to its final form than that of the one you show. If the initial reduction as you stated could be made via a hammerstone why not continue with that technology when is appears perfectly adequate for the task.
"I agree that the example does not show a late stage reduction (was not ment to), but it does not look as though your images show that either. Maybe mid stage but a late stage reduction to me would include a biface that is 80% or more "shaped" into its final form."What you "discovered" as you said mostly by book study may be something that is pertinent to the greater understanding of lithic reduction in North America. But what if those authors never had written about their own experiences. What if what they had discovered they deemed to important to share? You never would of learned from their efforts. Your discovery never would of happened. So instead of continuing the sharing of acquired knowledge you have decided to waterdown the information you share in order to keep it a secret?Actually, once I understood how to use the deer tine to create outrepasse, I carried out all initial experiments on generic bifaces that had previously been made via hammerstones.
So, the examples of flaking are only that - examples of sophisticated outrepasse flaking made upon very generic preforms. I sent photos to a moderator of Arrowheadology, and he replied by saying that the flake scars looked Clovis, but not the preforms. Exactly! Bingo! That shows how much distinction is there, between the two technologies.
"Looking back at both examples it would appear as though the one that I posted may be closer to its final form than that of the one you show."The original point that I made was that my flaking - as shown in the photos - is a late stage type of flaking. Why is it a late stage type of flaking? First, if one sees the reduction process, what can be seen is that the flaking follows general flaking, and then follows coast to coast flaking, made with the same process. In other words, there are really three types of flaking (not counting fluting) that are all rolled up into a single process. You can see how thin my flakes are. That is not early stage flaking. You could not swap it out for hammerstone flaking, because the flakes are too thin. Plus, as explained before, the actual outrepasse effect follows coast to coast flaking. And, coast to coast flaking follows regular flaking. That means that there are two stages of flaking, that could precede it. But, there is nothing after the outrepasse flaking (at this stage), except maybe pressure flaking.
So, if one starts with a hammerstone, and then switches to tine based flaking, the original flaking may look like general flaking. Eventually, that could give way to coast to coast flaking. Coast to coast flaking could give way to outrepasse flaking. And, outrepasse flaking could give way to pressure flaking. In all, that would constitute five stages of flaking, with outrepasse flaking being the fourth stage of flaking. So, that is why I referred to it as "late stage". But, in other contexts, the same process carried out with a tool different than a "tine" may generate the same effect, on a much larger scale. If so, this could be used much earlier, in the reduction process.
"If the initial reduction as you stated could be made via a hammerstone why not continue with that technology when is appears perfectly adequate for the task."My hard hammer overshots tend to destroy my preforms, early on. But, my tine based overshots do not usually destroy the preform, at all.
Also, flintknapping is relative to the stone being worked. I regularly work stone that other people kiln cook for 12-15 hours. There are four types of rock - brittle/high grade, brittle/low grade, hard/high grade, hard/low grade. Many people take the hard/high grade rock and cook it until it is almost in a brittle, glass-like state. At that point it is easy to use certain technologies on it, to fracture it.
Anyway, if a stone is hard/high grade, then at a certain point hammerstone percussion can do a lot of damage to the stone. Imagine hitting a stone really hard. It does not break - but it "bends". And, every time it bends, the impact causes internal fractures. Most people avoid all of this, by cooking the stone in a kiln.
So, if you wanted to flake hard/high grade stone, and you did not want to destroy inherent tensile strength, by kiln cooking the rock, then how would you do it? Here is my answer (borrowed from past people): Creating a flaking process that separates the amount of force applied, from the shock that is generated. So, how would you do this? How can you separate the force applied, from the shock that is generated? The simple answer is via indirect percussion. The indirect percussion tool is used to buffer out the shock. But, at the same time, the force can be deliberately increased. In effect, the indirect percussion tool becomes a sort of "shock absorber". And, this makes it possible to use much greater amounts of force, while not having to suffer the consequences of all the shock. And, this is what is needed, when working hard/high grade stone which happens to have wonderful tensile strength. Or, you could just buy a rock kiln, and skip all of this - turn it all to glass. Ha ha ha.
That being said, you asked why one would not continue with the same process? Well, when the hammerstone becomes more prone to damaging the edge, than improving the edge, a simple switch to an indirect flaking process can produce better results. So, in a world when the average lifespan may have been 29 years of age, instead of spending 45 years at becoming super good with a hammerstone, a person might simply have learned more easily mastered processes, that may have done a better job.
"What you "discovered" as you said mostly by book study may be something that is pertinent to the greater understanding of lithic reduction in North America. But what if those authors never had written about their own experiences. What if what they had discovered they deemed to important to share? You never would of learned from their efforts. Your discovery never would of happened. So instead of continuing the sharing of acquired knowledge you have decided to waterdown the information you share in order to keep it a secret?"It shouldn't be a secret. The moderator of another forum told me that people had lodged some complaints about me. So, they were getting rid of me. Actually, I only posted on that forum, because when I tried to post on a flintknapping forum, the responses were a mix of ridicule, attacks, never ending straw man arguments, etc.
From 2010, until today, there has not been one single time in which the informal leaders of the flintknapping community have been willing to openly discuss the known flaking tools, of which we have at least an 8,000 year record. I was told that no one is interested in this subject, while being kicked off of forums. I was also told to go make some super secret private forum somewhere, where people would be laughed at, if they offered input, or where no one would know about it. It was all treated as a big joke, while I compiled hundreds of instances of flaking tools, and flaking practices, that pointed either to indirect percussion, or to sophisticated flaking processes that are not well understood.
Over the years, a few people wrote to me privately, and said that they really were interested in this subject. But, they did not want to become subject to ridicule, or become a "lightning rod", as they saw me become. But, I will say that I actually used all of this to my advantage though, because I knew that if the informal leaders of the flintknapping community did not want people to know about this subject, they would still find out about the subject matter through endless conflicts. So, if public debate was derailed and turned into a conflict - as happened EVERY SINGLE SOLID TIME - then I used the conflict to get the information out.
What I did not know was how hard it would be to actually understand. If a simple tool, and a simple tool process, should produce an effect seen in ancient knapping, then why couldn't I produce it after four years of non-stop experiments?? It seemed to me that I should have at least
accidentally struck the target, in four years of experiments. But, I didn't.
So, by the end of 2014, I was finally narrowing down my thinking. And, eventually the light came on, in January of 2015, regarding some information that I had in my head, but that I had never understood. Fifteen minutes later, I produced one coast to coast flake, followed by one overshot, on the first two tries - WITH A DEER TINE. It was so exciting, and nerve wracking, that I had difficulty breathing. I also hit an overshot in quartz crystal, on the first attempt. (By the way, my hammerstones are horrible for flaking quartz. But the tine flaking works great.)
My number one intention was to get the flintknapping community to look at the evidence of Native American flintknapping, since it clearly was never understood. The methods that I used to get the information across were less than ideal. But, when you have eight to ten people trying to dog you from every side, it is not the ideal situation in which to have an "objective discussion".
From 2010 until today, there never was one single objective discussion about the flaking tools that we have a solid record of. In five years, there never was an objective discussion about all the evidence of historical flintknapping, that still has never been understood.
So, do you think it is fair that I divulge on one forum very hard earned knowledge, while on other forums, I am "banned" because I tried to get people to look at the very same information? What if it is the same people who wanted me banned on one forum, who now want the secrets from me, on another forum? Do you think that is fair?
The reality is that in civilized societies, people are not banned for trying to present evidence. And, that is what this amounts to. They did not want to face up to something that they did not understand. Instead of saying, "We don't know what it all means", it was much easier to get rid of the person who brought forth the evidence. Fortunately, I stayed with the evidence, and refused to "follow the crowd", or get into the finished point competition. Today, the secrets have been opened. And, if they want to keep me "banned", then so be it. But, it is not like I am not prepared for the long haul.
