As to the whole "overshot" thing. I agree it is an unfortunate distraction. I have all kinds of issues and opinions on "overshots" too, but that is entirely beside the point. I think all Ben is doing with "overshots" is using them as "proof of concept". The thought process is, if the tools and technique can generate the power and accuracy needed to accomplish this difficult task, it has merit. In the very least it establishes the point Ben started with many years ago that you don't need an antler billet to make big flakes.
Cushing's model is helpful in that it is the only case (that I am aware of) where a guy both lived with Native Americans and was a knapper, then wrote down the process he used from start to finish. All other accounts from that time period are second hand and/or piecemeal. I have found great value in his overall model, finding that in 11 years of trying everything I could find information on or dream up in my own head, it works better than any other model I have tried. I would encourage anyone interested to look at the link i provided in another post, or simply search "cushing the arrow" and read the entire process for yourself. Having more or less experimentally "discovering" most of what Cushing talks about and using it for a couple of years prior to reading his account, I consider that the happy coincidence of experimentation matching history.
Or not. The 1895 date raises valid concerns. This is centuries after depopulation and the influx of metal tools as trade goods wiped out large pieces of native knowledge. Was what Cushing describes simply the Zuni's reinvention of the process, or does it truly have ancestral roots? I don't know, but it is a valid question.
As to the application of Cushing's model to Clovis knapping: I am of the opinion, and during all my time of experimental knapping have worked from the assumption that all North American knapping followed one, universal, overall model. I reason that by the time humans got here, knapping was already fully advanced. The human brain and human hand has not changed for at least 50,000 years, so however Clovis did it, future people did it, within the framework of a general, overall model. In that regard, I do believe Ben using a "Clovis" type of flaking is a good benchmark test.
I have issues with Ben's interpretation and how useful this specific interpretation of this specific slice of Cushing's model may be. But for now all they are are issues, that is, thoughts in my head. All that matters is what happens when the antler meets the rock. A few months from now, I may have some insight on it. I remain grateful for Ben's hard work, dedication and willingness to share.
Keith
- After going through maybe a hundred or so archaeological reports in 2010, I came to the conclusion that some sort of indirect percussion had been used that had not been identified.
- Between 2010 and 2011, after going through maybe thousands of records, I came to the conclusion that indians were historically using an array of complex indirect percussion practices that had not been recognized.
- A year later, by the end of 2011, I came to the conclusion that the evidence of baton knapping as practiced by Leakey, Bordes, Crabtree, Waldorf, etc, was not supported by any significant archaeological evidence, anywhere in the Americas.
I can show the work of many dozens of scholars which collectively all point to these ideas I arrived at. I did not dream up any "new idea" of my own. I simply grappled with all of the evidence I could find.
Sadly, the flintknapping community spent decades focusing on flakes and flake scars, and maybe even finished points, while the underpinnings of Native American flintknapping technology cannot be understood in this manner. People think that they understand if they see something that seems to accord with their own experiences. Then, someone like myself comes along and shows something that not one single person was able to explain for three straight years, which is why I finally showed a video, and gave an explanation, on Christmas day, 2017. I did not learn by studying flake and flake scars, and especially not by studying finished points. I found a way to get into the heads of ancient people, via some other route, an informational route. And, this is why I spent years advocating studying all lines of information from various fields, before trying to understand flakes, and flake scars.
"As to the whole "overshot" thing. I agree it is an unfortunate distraction. I have all kinds of issues and opinions on "overshots" too, but that is entirely beside the point. I think all Ben is doing with "overshots" is using them as "proof of concept".
Whether anyone likes it or not, overshot is considered a diagnostic trait of paleo culture, on two continents. That being said, I finally demonstrated that overshot could be one of over a dozen different types of flaking styles created from a single technology - A SINGLE TECHNOLOGY.
So, in this case, is overshot a technology? No, it is the fruit of a technology, just as other types of flaking are also fruits of the same technology. I suspected this for years, once I realized that it appeared that Native Americans had been using SOPHISTICATED forms of indirect percussion. Now, I can demonstrate it.
Also, in the three years that I showed the overshot flaking results, no one did better with authentic tools and practices on raw stone. And, even a few of my worse detractors ended up begging for an explanation. If they did not see signs of authenticity, I doubt they would have reacted in this manner, once I showed the overshots.
Apart from overshot being at the end of the spectrum with this technology, it also requires the removal of alot of other more normal flakes, in order to reach the point where well controlled planing overshots can be achieved. But, I know that most knappers would be more interested in overshot flaking than in regular flaking.
So, to get people intrigued, I emphasized the overshot flaking. This hooked people, whereas if I had shown regular flaking, they would not have been interested. But, by trying to make overshot, the people will need to work through regular flaking to reach the late stages where overshot is more feasible.
"In the very least it establishes the point Ben started with many years ago that you don't need an antler billet to make big flakes."
Actually, my original view was that the people of the Americas were using forms of indirect percussion that have never been recognized. My goal was to connect a bonafide classic hallmark signature of flaking with a known flaker, and maybe even flaking practice. I was not planning on it being diagnostic Clovis flaking with simple deer tines, according to knowledge that was recorded during the 19th century. By the way, for those who are not impressed with overshot, the Cumberland style fluting is even better - same technology, too. Same technology.
"Cushing's model is helpful in that it is the only case (that I am aware of) where a guy both lived with Native Americans and was a knapper, then wrote down the process he used from start to finish. All other accounts from that time period are second hand and/or piecemeal."
What about Ray and Grinnell?
Information can be found scattered throughout many different fields - history, linguistics, ethnography, archaeology, mythology, geology, etc. All fields contain some pieces that potentially were at one time part of a greater picture. I endeavored to collect all the pieces, parse them, and see whether it was possible to synthesize new ideas that actually work. I believe I had done that in a number of areas. For other people, imperfect information is a stumbling stone. In my case, I made it a stepping stone. But, you are right. In Cushing's accounts, we get full blown information.
"The 1895 date raises valid concerns. This is centuries after depopulation and the influx of metal tools as trade goods wiped out large pieces of native knowledge. Was what Cushing describes simply the Zuni's reinvention of the process, or does it truly have ancestral roots? I don't know, but it is a valid question."
The 1895 date is when he gave his speech on flintknapping to the Vice President of the United States. That was a full fifteen years after he gave a similar lecture on the flaking arts, where he explained that the flaker has two roles - pressure flaking, and indirect percussion. The previous lecture was published in 1879.
So, it is important to do some comparative research. What about soldiers Grinnell, and Ray? I think all students of Native American flintknapping should be familiar with these cases, as well as others. Grinnell lived with the Cheyenne, and published a book about the life of the Cheyenne around 1870. And, Ray lived with the Hupa, and documented every aspect of the cultural lives of the Hupa, including material culture, around 1880.
What did Grinnell's aged friend Black Moccassin say about the reduction arts? He said that in the early 1800's they were still in use as a fallback for when supplies were not available. Then, he outlined entire reduction processes which Grinnell recorded. Since we know that boys were taught flintknapping, it stands to reason that some of the people like Black Moccassin literally watched their fathers knap when they were small boys, during the early part of the 19th century.
In 1880, Ray states that the Hupa who are over 40 years old still know how to make arrowpoints. Those would have been people born in 1840, or before. If Cushing met a hundred year old indian in the west in 1880, the indian would have been born in 1780. If the indian came in from west of the Rockies, the odds are that during the first twenty years of life 1780 to 1800, he knew nothing but stone.
This is actually clarified in Catlins, account which was published in 1868, but was based on his travels from 1830 to 1840. In speaking of a tribe west of the Rockies, Catlin says that they have "no metallic tools". So, if the indian had been born in 1780, then by 1830 the person would already be fifty years old, and maybe still using stone tools.
So, this begs the question, would an indian living in New Mexico in 1880 have been able to remember how stone tools were made? What about a hundred year old indian, born in 1780? I think the answer is self evident. If Cushing encountered fifty elderly indian men, probably more than a few of them could have explained how the processes were carried out, if they had watched their fathers and grandfathers carry them out, during boyhood. So, I am not concerned about the 1880's time frame, in New Mexico.
It is going to be a long, long time before the technology I have shown will be well understood, because it is a technology that can be used to create multifaceted results. And, even after three years, I cannot say that I know everything about all of those different flaking results.
Last night, a fellow wrote saying that he is the fourth person to achieve the overshot flaking with the method. I am waiting for the photos, now.
