Primitive Archer
Main Discussion Area => Flintknapping => Topic started by: Stringman on June 11, 2015, 07:39:34 pm
-
My daddy always said "believe none of whatcha hear and only half of whatcha see." With that in mind I will do my best to present a proper argument.
Recently it has been asserted that someone has found an "ancient technique" that allows them and only them to know the true way to the heart of a stone. Though many of us don't care there are some mystifying remarks made with fancy names and a few pictures floated around with lengthy explanations that say nothing and further muddy the waters so no real information gets passed.
I have poured over these tedious documents in an effort to diagnose the intent of these manuscripts and I am prepared to lay out the solution to the highly sought after, much anticipated outré passé, coast to coast, full wing spread, and goal to goal touchdown (otherwise called overshot.)
(http://i1311.photobucket.com/albums/s670/cotton7611/AC30A3DD-25C2-4B46-AE45-FD506BED96E3_zpssputjw4k.jpg) (http://s1311.photobucket.com/user/cotton7611/media/AC30A3DD-25C2-4B46-AE45-FD506BED96E3_zpssputjw4k.jpg.html)
(http://i1311.photobucket.com/albums/s670/cotton7611/5CCCD018-7ADE-44D0-9990-4E25FE122E46_zpsxopjwxxs.jpg) (http://s1311.photobucket.com/user/cotton7611/media/5CCCD018-7ADE-44D0-9990-4E25FE122E46_zpsxopjwxxs.jpg.html)
(http://i1311.photobucket.com/albums/s670/cotton7611/621C6FCB-C3AD-410D-BC49-09358FE5DF63_zpstk2fngh5.jpg) (http://s1311.photobucket.com/user/cotton7611/media/621C6FCB-C3AD-410D-BC49-09358FE5DF63_zpstk2fngh5.jpg.html)
I will strive to answer all questions but let me first point out a few things.
(http://i1311.photobucket.com/albums/s670/cotton7611/79339B53-3540-451F-BCDD-8AD8F7D872AE_zpsyz4kh3wq.jpg) (http://s1311.photobucket.com/user/cotton7611/media/79339B53-3540-451F-BCDD-8AD8F7D872AE_zpsyz4kh3wq.jpg.html)
Notice my extremely narrow point of entry. Some would suggest that this can only be an indicator of their secretly designed antler punch notching technique and that no other tool can simulate this initiation.
(http://i1311.photobucket.com/albums/s670/cotton7611/6FF5BB8C-17DE-4CB7-9C77-242BE89DB5D4_zpszowiqmfx.jpg) (http://s1311.photobucket.com/user/cotton7611/media/6FF5BB8C-17DE-4CB7-9C77-242BE89DB5D4_zpszowiqmfx.jpg.html)
Another noteworthy fact is the smooth facet of the material along the fracture line between the flake and stone. This feature has also been erroneously associated with hammer stone technique and in fact the claim was made that a baton would create distinct and undesirable ripples.
The truth for all you that want to hear it... This overshot was created with a copper bopper. Call me a cheater if ya want. If you are skilled at thinning there are a number of ways to pull it off. None of them are secret and none are exclusive.
For myself, I rather appreciate the learning environment that we've create around here, and really enjoy seeing the highly diverse way we all approach this thing we love. No need for pot shots or mystery. This just ain't the place for it. Do what you do, show it off, and otherwise be friendly.
Another one of my daddy's saying, "smile an the world'll smile wit ya." ;)
-
Thanks, Scott. I always like learning ancient, Top Secrets. :)
-
Outstanding Scott 👏👏👏
-
Love the looks of that rock! Thanks for explaining your technique in less than 1000 words and 20 of the same picture ;)
Wise words of wisdom from your dad :)
Tracy
-
I do that all the time. I thought it was a rookie mistake. :o
-
Nicely done Scott!
Is the overshot really a good thing to do? Seems to me when I have had an overshot it usually reduces width greatly. I have seen a quarter inch lost on the opposite side plus what you lose on the striking edge. I would rather have a good flake travel across but not create the overshot. If there is value in it, I would like to know....Thanks
-
Kinda been my take on it as well. I would much rather have thinning flakes travel 7/8 the way across than to overshot and blow the whole side off.
-
Finally, worded so I understand it. :o
-
It depends, Properly setup you can reduce the thickness of a blade with just 3-5 strikes, producing 3-5 scrapers, multi use flakes and a biface with a wicked sharp edge.
-
a great video of hammerstone overshot flaking at the 10:45 mark check out the edge on his biface. If you were butchering, man what a knife.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeWWPbMFYYo
-
Nicely done Scott!
Is the overshot really a good thing to do? Seems to me when I have had an overshot it usually reduces width greatly. I have seen a quarter inch lost on the opposite side plus what you lose on the striking edge. I would rather have a good flake travel across but not create the overshot. If there is value in it, I would like to know....Thanks
There are different kinds of overshots, the ideal ones gentle feather out on the opposite edge oppose to taking out a chunk. Of course if you get the latter early on in reduction they aren't so bad to get, especially if they take out a square edge.
They discussed (and named) overshots in detail in the big thread on PP. I think the 'coast to coast' were the name of the ideal ones; would have to look again to be sure. Overshots are mostly associated w/ Clovis technology and are nice to thin a blade while maintaining width if they're done properly and consistently.
*I see 'caveman' posted as I was typing, Lucas is a super abo knapper, great vids and he also summed up the Clovis technology in one sentence opposed to my paragraph..lol
-
a great video of hammerstone overshot flaking at the 10:45 mark check out the edge on his biface. If you were butchering, man what a knife.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeWWPbMFYYo
To bad I can't watch the video. So maybe you could
answer a few questions about it.
What does he start with? A round nodule. What material?
Does he make Clovis points with the same technique?
I have no doubt that if you are adapt enough to create
overshot flakes at will, you are cool.
Although I doubt that less than 10 percent of all
knappers past and present can with any consistancy.
I'd like to see a show of hands here of the folks that can
prepare a platform on a Clovis type core and strike 2out of 20
overshot flakes. I bet Ben can't lol
Obsidian and quality cherts like Strings should be pretty simple.
I still contend that in abo projectile manufacture, overshot was the result
of going for the prize and comming up a little short. (loosing width)
I create overshots all the time. Mosty on large cobble reduction or difficult preforms. Never intentional
Zuma
-
Good thread. As far as creating overshots at will, I can do it when I'm in a self-sabotage mood (not good). But that's freehand.
Firm support methods are a different story. I've found that certain "opposite edge support techniques" favor overshot flakes... and not just with percussion. It works with pressure too. Basically, you firmly seat the opposite edge into hard leather (or something that pinches/clamps the opposite edge) and the flake will dive before reaching the other edge. It is a weird thing to do on purpose, IMO. And it doesn't have anything to do with the tool you are using.
-
I need rock nockin lessons... this is really vamping up my interest.
-
Ditto sleek- I have no idea whats going on with half of what anyone says in this forum, but they make some nice lookin points!
-
Finally some worthwhile conversation on the subject.
-
Here are a few lines about what I think is the start of all this Outrepasse and Solutrean/Clovis nonsense.
With out something to connect Clovis and Solutrean (outrepasse) the connection would be mute. Remember, publish or die.
According to Bruce Bradley "François Bordes spent a whole semester at U of A in spring 1970 and he and I spent most every spare moment knapping in a little room on the ground floor of the Anthro building. François invited me to participate in his middle paleolithic excavations in SW France that summer and I spent several glorious months digging in 50,000 year old sites, knapping incredible flint (mostly Bergerac), don't know why it was, but he and I hit it off extremely well
Flintknapping Hall Of Fame, Flintknapper François Bordes (http://Flintknapping Hall Of Fame, Flintknapper François Bordes)
Zuma
-
To bad I can't watch the video. So maybe you could
answer a few questions about it.
What does he start with? A round nodule. What material?
Does he make Clovis points with the same technique?
I have no doubt that if you are adapt enough to create
overshot flakes at will, you are cool.
Although I doubt that less than 10 percent of all
knappers past and present can with any consistancy.
I'd like to see a show of hands here of the folks that can
prepare a platform on a Clovis type core and strike 2out of 20
overshot flakes. I bet Ben can't lol
Obsidian and quality cherts like Strings should be pretty simple.
I still contend that in abo projectile manufacture, overshot was the result
of going for the prize and comming up a little short. (loosing width)
I create overshots all the time. Mosty on large cobble reduction or difficult preforms. Never intentional
Zuma
He starts w/ a variety of materials; mostly raw uncooked Texas material and he does make Clovis points using just overshots and a hammerstone. One of his goals in this project was to explain why a lot of Clovis points had 'nubs' left and why that may be. The nubs are basically isolated platforms which are not unlike fluting nipples. He surmises these nubs or isolated platforms would be used in the future to knock off tool flakes. As far as getting consistent overshots, they can be done if the platform is isolated correctly and the force/support is right. Lucas admitted he had lots of failures early in the project but learned from them.
As 'caveman' said the blade was more like a core producing tool flakes and the overshots create a sharp butchering edge. They did not necessarily sit down to knock out a Clovis point in one sitting like modern knappers but did it in stages.
-
:) :)
Thanks turbo
Great explanation. I sure want to see that vid now.
I totally believe in isolated platform ever since I started hand fluting.
What would be really cool to find out is--
What the overshot flake ratio is in Clovis quarry debris and compare it to
say broad spear debitage?
I am not sure I follow this correctly.
"One of his goals in this project was to explain why a lot of Clovis points had 'nubs' left and why that may be. The nubs are basically isolated platforms which are not unlike fluting nipples. He surmises these nubs or isolated platforms would be used in the future to knock off tool flakes."
Does this mean they would make tool flakes from finished Clovis points?
Thanks Zuma
-
:) :)
Thanks turbo
Great explanation. I sure want to see that vid now.
I totally believe in isolated platform ever since I started hand fluting.
What would be really cool to find out is--
What the overshot flake ratio is in Clovis quarry debris and compare it to
say broad spear debitage?
I am not sure I follow this correctly.
"One of his goals in this project was to explain why a lot of Clovis points had 'nubs' left and why that may be. The nubs are basically isolated platforms which are not unlike fluting nipples. He surmises these nubs or isolated platforms would be used in the future to knock off tool flakes."
Does this mean they would make tool flakes from finished Clovis points?
Thanks Zuma
No problem, it's a four part video series but well worth watching. Marty Reuter also has some great Clovis videos using punches and hammerstones ('flintknappingtips' on Youtube). I really appreciate the work knappers like them are doing and hope the professional community is watching too. I know the archaeologist in me is.
As for your question, yes, he surmises they would continue to knock off flakes throughout the life of the blade.
-
Technically they are not finished points as you and I think of them. What he is referring to is the large wenatchee types that have the nubs and as the life of the biface continues there are flakes taken as the biface is reduced to a finished point, but not all in one sitting. meaning the bifaces was almost like a large preform that was curated as a tool supply when needed and when its tool supply was finally finished into a typical clovis point.
Zuma,
Maybe I missed it, but why can't you view the video.
-
Hey Steve, Thanks for the explanation.
I can't watch videos because I must be the only
guy in America with out broadband the POTUS
promised. I live in rural Page Co. VA. No cable
just an out dated underground phone line that I get
about 3kb a minuet on.
Anywho The Nub is interesting stuff. Kinda weird though.
Check your pm box. Questions about Bald Eagle.
Thanks Zuma
Oh btw did you catch Jack C's talk on the Macungie finds
at OR.
-
Now this is nice and informative and a lot simpler to follow. Thanks guys.
-
Its amazing what you can achieve by explaining things
-
Well at least I just found someone in agreement with my thinking. :) ;) :D
There is supposed to be some rebuttal but I just found this and will persue
more if possible.
the role of experimental archaeology in the Solutrean-Clovis ... (http://the role of experimental archaeology in the Solutrean-Clovis ...)
Eren et al’s results suggest that overshot flakes are by products of a general biface thinning technique and in and of themselves are not very reliable or optimal at thinning bifaces. This conclusion seems to suggest that Solutrean and Clovis bifaces were produced using similar, simple, biface thinning techniques that resulted in occasional, accidental, overshot flakes. The article also contains a discussion of the existing archaeological evidence for overshot flaking in Clovis assemblages, not much, and the lack of comparable data in Solutrean assemblages.
-
I found the rebuttal papers this morning and started a new thread.
Hope you all check them out.
Zuma
-
The role of Experimental archeology
https://experimentalarchaeology.wordpress.com/2014/03/03/overshooting-the-ice-the-role-of-experimental-archaeology-in-the-solutrean-clovis-ice-age-atlantic-crossing-hypothesis/
-
Remember, publish or die.
Zuma
Nice way to say "put up or shut up". And if you never put up, who can prove your fulla fertilizer?
-
Not exactly sure how to take that JW? :-\
Lol My last post on the other overshot thread
may help explain the comment. :)
Zuma
-
Most likely a supportive reference to the load of crap we were being fed in some of the former overshot threads.
-
The heart of the matter is that before there were finished points, there was flakes and flake scars. And, before there were flakes and flakes scars, there was flaking technologies.
The heart of the matter is found in the flaking technologies, themselves - not in flakes and flake scars, and not in finished points. The heart of the matter is found in the actual flaking technologies, that were used by people in the past.
Those who reject the study of flaking technologies reject the source of historic/prehistoric flakes, flake scars, and finished points. That is the heart of the matter.
As far as "notched flakers" are concerned, 99.99% of antler flakers found in the New World archaeological record, appear to be unnotched. There is probably a less than 1% exception, though, because at least one of the tribes, in the Northwest, appears to have used a notched tine flaker, at some point, during the historical era.
Also, in working obsidian, Ishi's explanation for his preference of a steel tine flaker, over an antler flaker, may just shed some light on why not many full sized tine pressure flakers are seen, in the archaeological record, in spite of the fact that there photos of historical Indians demonstrating pressure "re-touch", with said flakers. For those who think this through, the question that out to be raised is whether "retouch" and "manufacture" are really the same thing. And, if not, then were other types of pressure flakers used during manufacture? Obviously, there is strong evidence of composite bit pressure flakers, being used throughout the historical era, and prehistoric era, across the continent.
Regarding your example of a copper bobber outré passé flake, in presumably heat treated chert, I can make almost the identical flake, in raw chert, with a hammerstone:
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Hard%20Hammer%20Overshot%20Quartzite%20Hammerstone/Example%20A/001.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Hard%20Hammer%20Overshot%20Quartzite%20Hammerstone/Example%20A/001.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Hard%20Hammer%20Overshot%20Quartzite%20Hammerstone/Example%20A/001a.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Hard%20Hammer%20Overshot%20Quartzite%20Hammerstone/Example%20A/001a.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Hard%20Hammer%20Overshot%20Quartzite%20Hammerstone/Example%20A/002.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Hard%20Hammer%20Overshot%20Quartzite%20Hammerstone/Example%20A/002.jpg.html)
Plus small initiation:
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Hard%20Hammer%20Overshot%20Quartzite%20Hammerstone/Example%20A/003.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Hard%20Hammer%20Overshot%20Quartzite%20Hammerstone/Example%20A/003.jpg.html)
If a person knows the right hammerstone technique, then he can make these types of hard hammer outrepasse flakes, all day long.
But, hammerstone percussion is not necessarily the same thing as late stage thinning, in raw materials.
Also, the same unnotched deer tine that is used to create outrepasse flaking/coast to coast flaking is the very same unnotched deer tine that can create other types of flaking, such as the central rippling seen on the Sweetwater biface. Here is the proof:
Central Rippling in Raw chert:
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Tine%20based%20rippled%20flake%20scar%20overlap/007.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Tine%20based%20rippled%20flake%20scar%20overlap/007.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Tine%20based%20rippled%20flake%20scar%20overlap/008A.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Tine%20based%20rippled%20flake%20scar%20overlap/008A.jpg.html)
Here is a shot showing central rippling being produced:
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Tine%20based%20rippled%20flake%20scar%20overlap/005.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Tine%20based%20rippled%20flake%20scar%20overlap/005.jpg.html)
Here is from the back edge:
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Tine%20based%20rippled%20flake%20scar%20overlap/003.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Tine%20based%20rippled%20flake%20scar%20overlap/003.jpg.html)
Here is after removal:
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Tine%20based%20rippled%20flake%20scar%20overlap/006.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Tine%20based%20rippled%20flake%20scar%20overlap/006.jpg.html)
and,
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Tine%20based%20rippled%20flake%20scar%20overlap/007.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Tine%20based%20rippled%20flake%20scar%20overlap/007.jpg.html)
Here are the central ripples on the Sweetwater Biface:
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Tine%20based%20rippled%20flake%20scar%20overlap/sweetwaterbifacelargetriple2.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Tine%20based%20rippled%20flake%20scar%20overlap/sweetwaterbifacelargetriple2.jpg.html)
Still, the same technology that produced central rippling in raw chert, also produced the following overshot flaking, in raw materials:
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Holy%20Grail%20Outre%20Passe/holygrailtest5and6006.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Holy%20Grail%20Outre%20Passe/holygrailtest5and6006.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Holy%20Grail%20Outre%20Passe/holygrailtest5and6005.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Holy%20Grail%20Outre%20Passe/holygrailtest5and6005.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Holy%20Grail%20Outre%20Passe/holygrailtest5and6002.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Holy%20Grail%20Outre%20Passe/holygrailtest5and6002.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Holy%20Grail%20Outre%20Passe/holygrailtest5and6007.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Holy%20Grail%20Outre%20Passe/holygrailtest5and6007.jpg.html)
Same process - Totally different outcomes. One process - different results.
So, I can show that a single process can create a range of mid-late stage flaking effects, in raw materials. And, I can carry out the process in areas where other tools will not reach.
So, why would Clovis knappers, and paleoindian knappers, "reinvent" flintknapping, if a single technology can produce an array of effects? Outrepasse, coast to coast, fluting, central rippling, trimming, flaking, etc?
Also, there is no mystery to this. The evidence was presented to many hundreds of people in the flintknapping community, in the fall of 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014. Steve Nissly and his protégés can attest to this.
So, for all of the dozens of people who demanded to see "proof", you can see the tool - a simple unnotched flaker. You can see the materials - a full range of uncooked stone. And, you can see the results - outrepasse, centralized rippling, coast to coast, fluting, plus the more generic forms of flaking.
Now, there is no more mystery.
-
"Now, there is no more mystery. "
There never was any. The Gault debitage contains at best 12 percent
overshot. A mistake percentage imo.
Please post your confirmed statistics.
thanks Zuma
-
More pictures of rocks an flakes ::)
This is kinda like the movie the "Shining", He's back! ???
-
Yeah I am getting a little bit tired of being called out. I have never professed to being some kind of expert. far from it, but you still have shown us nothing new. I can do everything you described as using the same process with an antler billet, a hammerstone, a wooden billet or a copper billet. so I still don't get your point.
"if a single technology can produce an array of effects? Outrepasse, coast to coast, fluting, central rippling, trimming, flaking, etc?"
All this can be done with one of any different tools on the same biface. I think most of your argument is with yourself.
-
Why would they reinvent as you say, the same reason some culture's made d bows with self back wood and some made highly complex composite bows, because thats how they did it
Why bring up something like ishi as a referance just in passing and not post a quote of his reasons to explain the connection
-
You contest that a single process cam create all of those scar patterns, overshoots, etc. But for all I know you are using whatever technique/tool you wish so that you can end up with a staged photo to support your argument.
While in a photo it many be hard to show a knapping process no attempt has been shown to connect the photos posted so far to the process you contest is the method used by native knappers.
I have seen central rippling in a biface that was so thin you could read through it (ok well maybe not) but still super thin and it was all done with a short solid copper billet. Just as there are many styles of points/blades/knives etc. there were probably many techniques/process's used to create stone tools throughout all of history.
P.S. Auto correct kept changing "knapping" to "snapping", don't think I am going to try either today. :)
-
Ghost Snapper, I hate auto-correct, too.
-
Ghost Snapper, I hate auto-correct, too.
:) LOL
-
Okay, I've been trying to follow all of this, with very little knowledge of knapping at all. My wife has done a fair share of knapping, and thought the discussion may interest her, but I've been unable to relay to her what is actually going on. So, let us take a moment and try to clear a few things up.
- AncientTech has proposed that he(and others?) has discovered a method to produce certain desired results for a given flake
- The above method relys on only one tool (Unnotched antler tine?)
- This idea has some interest, though people want to see the process, not just the results
There has been a discussion of many tools, and many flake types. I guess I'm just trying to understand what the argument is - is it that prehistoric peoples used only antler tines and everything else has been invented? Is it that Tech can create any given flake type at will with any given tool?
Or is the answer, as was once said, blowin' in the wind?
-
I'd go with Blowing somewhere? The Dude has a serious problem with getting to the point.
-
Not only problems getting to the point, but the few finished points he posted are less than impressive, iowabow is all abo all the time and i have some of his work and it is impressive
-
Not only problems getting to the point, but the few finished points he posted are less than impressive, iowabow is all abo all the time and i have some of his work and it is impressive
Yeah, but he has a cherished copper turkey call!
-
With respect to John and his remarkable ABO talents. This has nothing to do with ABO vs modern. This is about one guy stirring the pot and claiming we're all doin it wrong.
Bottom line is: I don't much care. Admittedly, I still have a lot to learn, but clearly he ain't the teachin kind, so I'll get my lessons elsewhere. I enjoy hittin rock to make a variety of point styles FOR FUN!! Some days I play with abo tools. Other days I use copper. The rest of this academia is on the left side of useless to me. In the beginning I was interested in what he had to say. No longer..
-
Since Ben seems to be unable to state his contention clearly, I will attempt to lay it out. He has been riding this wagon for a few years but manages to stay in a fog so that it is hard to know what to rebut. I have been seeing his posts on some other forums for a few years, and they are all just alike. Ben seems to have a need to "prove" that he is the only person ever to figure out how the Native Americans made stone tools. He claims that all modern American knappers have followed the lead of a few experimental knappers who were using the wrong tools the wrong way and getting results unlike what the Native Americans made. He contends that all of us unauthentic knappers should surrender our practice and deem him king of the knapping business. It is a position of pure arrogance. He claims that in archaeological finds there are no tools like the ones modern knappers use, and the ones that have been found are short (perhaps 2-3 inch) sections of antler, and in studying the oldest records about how the Native Americans knapped, they never used methods like the ones modern American knappers use. He has made a huge discovery of their method and needs to proclaim the knapping truth to the world and scorn all of us modern hobbyists. Did I nail it Ben?
WA