Also, NClonghunter,
You have probably noticed that some people talk about whether overshot was intentional, or unintentional. Unfortunately, these discussions are never qualified.
Here is an example. These are all unintentional overshots that destroyed the work:
These four overshots (and many others) were bad, bad, bad, because they destroyed the work. In fact, the stones frequently end up in the junk heap.
But, the following overshots were good, good, good, because they substantially aided the reduction process:
Okay, so do you know what is different between the good overshots, and the bad overshots? I will give away a big trade secret, here! They were made with two completely different technologies, that have different signatures.
So, how can a person talk about whether or not "overshot" was "intentional", when they are never able to qualify the potential technological differences, between one type of overshot, and another type of overshot? In order to make these distinctions at even a hypothetical level, a person would need to have some knowledge of technologies that were formerly used. And, in order to find out about technologies that Native Americans used, one would need to study the entire gamut of evidence - not just experimental flakes, flake scars, and finished points.
In this case, one type of overshot was made with a hammerstone, while the other type of overshot was made with a deer tine. Can you tell which is which? Can you guess as to why one overshot process would tend to produce failures, while the other overshot process would tend to be useful? Could you match either of the flake scars to the archaeological record?
If both flake scars can be matched to the archaeological record, then probably the answer to many other people's questions can be found here.