Primitive Archer
Main Discussion Area => Flintknapping => Topic started by: Ed Brooks on August 13, 2015, 06:51:51 pm
-
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
-
The link you supplied is to Ben's blog.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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!
-
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
-
LOL, >:( Basically, don't be a dick! :laugh:
-
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
-
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. >:D
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.
-
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
-
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".
-
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-...
(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
-
And that is my point Zuma. If a person comes to me and claims that he knows more than I do about lets say traffic control, I'm gonna shut it down. If they keep trying to push their knowledge over mine, i'm just gonna have to quit fighting it. Like playing chess with a pigeon. He doesn't know he is losing, nor care, nor has the ability to understand. I know what I know. Traffic control is my game. I understand it. I started from the bottom, and learned over years and years. I have studied to MUTCD at great length. If someone comes in and makes a claim as to how to do something I will hear them out, and even allow them to prove their work. After so long I just won't listen anymore. We need to get to a point where we just let it go. Knapping is an art form that is mostly lost to time. We will never know all that has been forgotten. My only point of this discussion is to either be nice, or be quiet. There is no reason to throw out little barbs all the time at someone. If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. If Ben posts and no one responds, then eventually he wont have anyone with who he can discuss his method, and will move along.
-
And then we have the small problem of using so much space on this site with a ton of pictures and pages of whatever, that a few people are trying to follow that tells everybody nothing more then the other dozens of post that were identical, with the same pictures of flakes that, I guess we are too stupid to be able to find the clues to learn the "secret". But, then the keeper of the "secret" refuses to answer questions because he, what, deems everybody too stupid to understand?
-
Well Ed, I wonder if you had your question answered?
I was finally able to download the site you referenced.
That's a cool site but does not really deal with anything very
ancient as you know. One thing I was surprised to read is that
some of the knappers really took a long time to make
a small arrowhead??
Thanks Zuma
-
One thing I was surprised to read is that
some of the knappers really took a long time to make
a small arrowhead??
Thanks Zuma
Pfft! I can already do that! :laugh:
Kinda like my typing, I may not be fast, but I can make a lot of mistakes in a hurry.
-
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
Hello Zuma, You may have misunderstood what I tried to communicate. I did not develop the process. I presented records to hundreds - or thousands - of flintknappers, between 2010 and 2011, when I became convinced that Native American flintknapping had never been properly understood, and there appeared to be some unknown form of indirect percussion that was used. Then, in January of 2015, I had an epiphany - actually two epiphanies back to back. One epiphany pertained to what the Clovis knappers did. And, the other epiphany pertained to what flintknappers were still doing during the 19th century.
Then, with the same information that had been presented to the flintknapping community (before they said that I was "wasting my time", the idea would never work, and they kicked me off the biggest forum), I produced a coast to coast finishing flake, and a full blown outrepasse thinning flake, with a common deer time. Basically, it took me four years to finally understand the information that I had tried to get hundreds of people in the flintknapping community to look at, between 2010, and 2011. And, when I finally understood it myself, I was able to produce coast to coast flakes, and outrepasse flakes, in under twenty minutes, with a deer tine - the pointed tip of a deer tine.
Also, I never said that overshot flaking can be produced any place, any time, and anywhere. In some cases, I have to alternate between overshot, and coast to coast flaking, depending on the morphology of the surface of the stone. Still, to finally understand the information that I tried to get the flintknapping community to look at, and then create overshot flaking within fifteen minutes, means that I did not sit around and "develop" the method. I sifted out the method by looking at dozens of clues found admist hundreds of records. And, this is information that the flintknapping community did not want to take a serious look at, or the few people who did privately admitted their fears of getting "targeted" by certain individuals, who seem to be informal guru leaders.
To be clear, I did not "develop" the method, nor could have I developed the method in a hundred years.
-
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".
"angle of platform"? - Between January of 2015, and today, I do not ever remember saying that there is a standard angle of platform. This is not billet knapping.
"I have been asking him to do that for years and he can't or won't." - I have only understood the tine based outrepasse/coast to coast technology, since January of 2015. But, I did tell you about the evidence on an open forum, between 2010 and 2011. Four years has passed, and I figured it out.
"so the onus is on him to "prove it". - I can prove it by providing the same data that is found in Clovis outrepasse flaking.
"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". - Could you please cite any instance in which I have claimed that someone's flaking is "wrong"? I only pointed out what appears to be culturally relevant evidence. So, please retract your statement.
You were already shown the evidence, between 2010 and 2011. Now, it sounds like you are going to try to make another case for censorship, as you did on the Paleoplanet website. If I show the evidence, no one listens. And, if I ask what it means, no one can answer. But, after four years, I finally figured it out.
-
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-...
(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
Hello Zuma,
In the studies that you quote, is the type of overshot discussed, being specified? Or, is it being generalized? Are the speaking of billet overshot, hard hammer overshot, or some other overshot? If the researchers are relying on the experimental work of "flintknappers", and the flintknappers are using let's say "copper percussion", are the results still relative to Clovis overshot? To me, the answer is self evident. And, this brings me back to Bruce Bradley's long statement about the difficulty of controlled overshot. In his statement, he never specifies the context. And, the context is found in the technology used.
In laymen's terms, if I told a person how difficult it is to remove lug nuts from wheels, and how I almost never succeeded, would my experience by the measure by which to measure all other lugnut removals? What if I was trying to remove the lug nuts with my barehands?
-
And then we have the small problem of using so much space on this site with a ton of pictures and pages of whatever, that a few people are trying to follow that tells everybody nothing more then the other dozens of post that were identical, with the same pictures of flakes that, I guess we are too stupid to be able to find the clues to learn the "secret". But, then the keeper of the "secret" refuses to answer questions because he, what, deems everybody too stupid to understand?
To the moderator, my photo images do not use "space". They are linked to codes. And, the only thing that is posted on the webpage is the code, which is negligible.
Actually, if there is any concern about space, then I would recommend asking all other users to not upload images to Primitive Archer, and only use code - which is less than a sentence long. They can do this by uploading to Photobucket, or some other storage area, and then copy pasting only the code to Primitive Archer. This would actually save virtually all of your space, and the images would look much better.
-
Maybe I should have worded it different; like taking up empty space with the same pictures of the same flakes and same rocks over and over on every thread you post.
-
The method matters not. The proof is in the numbers
of Clovis and Solutrean overshot flakes.
A mistake by any other method is still a mistake.
Your methods cannot be proved to be Clovis
and are merely egotistical conjecture. You latched on
to a hoax and struggled to produce a method to accompany it.
And that's admirable but it's time to let it go.
There are so many other things you could do with your
talent and tenacity. Let it go Ben.
Zuma
-
OMG GIVE IT A REST
-
Maybe I should have worded it different; like taking up empty space with the same pictures of the same flakes and same rocks over and over on every thread you post.
The reason that I showed some of the same flaking more than once is to give certain individuals here a chance to acknowledge what they are seeing. But, before Philip Churchill (possibly world's greatest Danish dagger replicator) died last year, he told me that nothing I ever do will be good enough, for some of these people, who are here now. So, Philip's words have proven to be prophetic even after his death, as can now be seen.
Philip jumped off their "anti-Ben" bandwagon, back in 2011. He looked at the historical/archaeological evidence that I had tried to get the flintknapping community to LOOK AT, and concluded that they are wrong. He told them that they are wrong, on a public forum, and in a public manner. After that, he apologized to me publicly, and he followed it up with TWO sincere letters of apology, which have since been deleted, along with my account on another forum. Meanwhile, he said that the historical, and archaeological, evidence that I had produced was the biggest "boatload" of evidence, regarding unknown flaking practices, that he had ever seen, in fifteen years of study.
So, why would one of the world's greatest professional replicators say that I am right, and the rest of the crowd is wrong, when he used to be one of my "detractors"? Why did he do this BEFORE he ever saw this outrepasse flaking, made in a raw stone with a deer tine? And how is it that he accurately predicted the outcome of their behavior? Some of these people demanded to see proof. And, I have showed them what is akin to "walking on water", because I have produced full blown outrepasse with a deer tine tip, in raw stone. So, is it good enough for them? Or, are they still behaving exactly the way Philip Churchill told me they would behave, before he died?
Also, nine months has passed since I first showed this. So, if I am a "know nothing", and they are "know somethings", then why don't they produce the same thing with the same tool? I mean, they have had nine months to figure it out. And, they previously decided that the evidence is not worth looking at. So, where are all the gurus now?
The truth is that many other people could have figured this out before I did, IF they had diligently studied the evidence that I presented between 2010, and 2011. But, as it stands, no one is even close. Look at the poster who calls it "indirect percussion". Indirect percussion is just a small piece of the pie. If a person looks at the knowledge that was collected, regarding Native American flintknapping, prior to the 1920's, it would be easy to see that the European method of defining flaking methods is an over-simplification, that DOES NOT accurately reflect flaking dynamics. Of course, instead of looking at why American researchers knew this, a hundred years ago, they will simply call the knowledge "old science". Well, Ishi was part of "old science" (1916). So, should we throw out Ishi, too?
Anyway, the reason why I posted some of the photos more than once is so that some of the flake scar gurus would have a second chance of acknowledging what they are looking at. But, in this case, Philip's words are proving to be prophetic, though he is already deceased.
-
OMG GIVE IT A REST
If you had listened to Philip Churchil, before he died, none of this would be happening. And, the flintknapping community would be far better off.
-
Well, here's one of your posts, Ancient Tech, that you are likely referring to. You describe at least one of your techniques here. It's about the 13th one down dated November 30th, 2010 at 10:32 PM. Not all your posts are deleted and you were being nice in this one, as was everyone else and it is interesting overall:
http://paleoplanet69529.yuku.com/reply/348635/What-can-we-learn-from-flakes#reply-348635 (http://paleoplanet69529.yuku.com/reply/348635/What-can-we-learn-from-flakes#reply-348635)
-
Ben,
I've been knapping almost 8 years. I have followed your posts previously on Knappers R Us (if I am remembering the name correctly) and Paleo Planet. I have no interst in wading into any controversy, arguments or other such venom. I am very interested in exploring alternative abo knapping techniques. I have my own unusual tools and techniques, which I have explained at length over on Paleo Planet, using this same user name, under the Old-Tool/Aboriginal Knapping forum. In the past 10 weeks, knapping about 10 hours a week I have made 151 points, mostly medium sized, and nother great by modern knapping standards. Of those, 76 are quartzite, 47 quartz, 11 raw chert, 7 heat treated chert, 3 rhyolite, 5 argillite, 1 glass and 1 Rainy Buttes. A "billet" was not used on any of them.
You and I are alike in thinking there is much yet to be learned concerning possible ways the old timers worked stone. I suspect we differ considerably on actual techniques and some of our respective underlying assumptions. Still, a day spent sifting through a ton of gravel to find a few gold nuggets is a worthwhile day, and it is possible we could both benefit from some collaboration. When you have some spare time please look into what I have put out there the past few years. If interested in discussing further, please private message me. This community appears to be of the majority opinion that the topic has run its course. The desire to "give it a rest" should be honored.
Keith