Main Discussion Area > Flintknapping
For Zuma - Uncontrolled overshot versus controlled overshot
AncientTech:
--- Quote from: caveman2533 on July 14, 2015, 07:57:07 am ---"Also, since it can be shown that overshot can be a heart rending error via one technology, but a well controlled outcome of another technology, then does the idea that "how the overshot was made is not important" still stand? What if two distinct technological processes lead to two distinct outcomes, at two different points in the reduction process?"
Ben, what you seem to be suggesting here is that one process will lead to error and the other will not. Is that what you are trying to say.
I think what Zuma was trying to say by saying "how it was made was unimportant", Is that was not his question in the first place.
--- End quote ---
His question was "Did they do it intentionally or not? Not How did they do it? You're trying to answer how it was done, and he wants to know "IF" it was done intentionally. And no you don't need to know how it was done to answer that. Is there evidence of overshot enough to say it was done intentionally? as compared to other industries.
Hello Mr. Nissly,
You wrote:
"His question was "Did they do it intentionally or not? Not How did they do it? You're trying to answer how it was done, and he wants to know "IF" it was done intentionally. And no you don't need to know how it was done to answer that. Is there evidence of overshot enough to say it was done intentionally? as compared to other industries."
Regarding your question (or rephrase of Zuma), "Is there evidence of overshot enough to say it was done intentionally?"
Let me ask, if there is more than one way to create an overshot, each with its own set of characteristics, and possibly even at different stages, then is it possible that there is no singular answer to this question??? This question is prefaced on the supposition that there is a such of thing as "overshot", not completely different types of overshots.
So, why do I point out two clearly different forms of overshot? Is it to explain how overshot could be "done"? Or, is it to show that one type of overshot might lead to heavily failed preforms, while another type of overshot thinning might actually be useful, even in late stage thinning?
So, if there was two or more technological processes that produced overshot, then one would need to different the technologies, and the effects, in order to determine whether or not overshot could be intentionally produced.
Zuma seems to think that it was not intentionally produced, as he stated. My view is that it could have been intentionally produced with tine-based flaking technologies, while it also might have occurred as an error, in earlier hammerstone phase reduction.
If overshots are only counted numerically, and all of the hammerstone overshots are bad, and all of the tine overshots are good, and there is an equal amount of each type of overshot, then it would look like a 50/50 scenario. But, this conclusion would actually be wrong - or at least misleading - because it would actually be 100% failure for early stage hammerstone overshot, but maybe near 100% success for tine based overshot. (Obviously, I have left out hammerstone based overshot, on anvils, to keep things simple.)
In order to accurately answer the questions that Zuma proposed one would have to try to answer "how" the overshots were made, in terms of technological application. Then, one would have to look at the incidence of success - or failure - FOR EACH technology. If hammerstone direct percussion overshots are 100% failures, while tine-based overshots are 80-100% successes, then the answer is relative to technology. And, so, having insight into the technology becomes highly relative, and critical, to answering the original question: Does any evidence show that overshot was "intentional". Which kind of overshot are we talking about? Hammerstone percussion? Tine based?
What I can show is that there are at least two clear ways to create overshot. One is intentional, but the other is not intentional. Both tend to occur at different stages of reduction. Both are made with different tools. Both are made with different processes. Both, reveal different attributes. One type of overshot technology seems to be useful in thinning, while the other leads to preform destruction.
A person cannot answer a question like "was overshot intentional", without further information.
AncientTech:
--- Quote from: StevenT on July 14, 2015, 09:59:36 am ---I don't mean to sound critical, but I don't get it with these long post on "overshots". Maybe I am missing the point, but it's like watching a dog with a bone that just doesn't want to let go. Color me "tupid", but I'm just not learning anything from it. Sorry.
--- End quote ---
Hello Mr. StevenT,
Don't feel bad. There are probably many people who do not know what overshot flaking, coast to coast flaking, etc, actually is.
In the big picture, people use an understanding of stone tools to interpret history - even remote history. And, sometimes, a misunderstanding of stone tools could lead to a misunderstanding of history - even remote history.
As Dr. Bruce Bradley put it, overshot flaking is something that is very, very difficult to produce, even for many expert flintknappers. So, if you ever do produce it, you should hang on to it, like a dog hangs on to a bone.
AncientTech:
--- Quote from: caveman2533 on July 14, 2015, 01:04:47 pm ---Ben is trying to prove that with his mystery technique that he discovered in a late 1800's picture, he has total control over what he can do with overshots, that we are all doin it wrong cause we are not using his technique, etc. And he is trying to link that with what Clovis did 12,000 years earlier. Mostly his argument is with himself. When I argue with myself I do it quietly that no one can hear me. It is getting tiresome, lets move on already.
--- End quote ---
Mr Nissly,
Please keep the discourse honest. I did not find overshot technology in an 1800's "picture". Also, I never said that other people are doing it "wrong". In fact, I just point out that virtually all of my hammerstone overshots lead to failure during the late stages of hammerstone reduction. So, how can I say that anyone is doing it "wrong", when my own hammerstone overshots are failures? Also, I did not say that I am "trying to link to Clovis". I show the simple deer tine that I use, and I can show a host of attributes. I never saw the flaker that the Clovis people's used. What remains in doubt is whether the traits of overshot, and fluting, ever showed that it could be done with a deer tine? Also, I am not having any sort of argument with myself. I already can produce controlled overshot, and controlled coast to coast, with a deer tine. No one can argue with real results. If you are tired of overshot technology, and Clovis technology, then feel free to move on. I am not going to try to stop you.
(Moderator: You can see that I addressed Mr. Nissly with respect beyond what is due. There is no moral failing on my part in my response to Mr. Nissly. I also have read through the rules, and I do not believe that I am in violation of any rules of Primitive Archer.)
AncientTech:
--- Quote from: Dalton Knapper on July 14, 2015, 01:48:44 pm ---I fail to understand why quartz would be important to whether or not a person can intentionally produce an overshot flake? Why would it be more necessary to use quartz than other lithic materials?
--- End quote ---
Hello Dalton Knapper,
That is a perfectly good question.
One of the troubles that I had, before getting back into knapping, in 2010, is that I could not reconcile the range of materials used by ancient knappers, with my own baton/heat treating experience, from the 1990's. With the internet, this became a big eye-opener for me.
So, when I began to carry out technological experiments, I vowed to use raw stones - and all ranges of raw stones - especially, in testing indirect percussion technologies.
As a result, I made multiple outrepasse flakes, in raw chert, then in obsidian. Ironically, I had no prior background in working quartz crystal. I was under the impression that it was difficult to flake, due to stepping issues. Also, my impression is that the people who had these problems were employing copper percussion. This is an impression, but not something that I know for a fact.
Anyway, after carrying out other tests, I figured if my technology was viable in crystal, then I might dedicate myself to knapping crystal, via sophisticated forms of indirect percussion. So, obtaining quartz crystal, and carrying out the process was part of my goal in covering a wide range of materials. By the way, could you imagine a purple amethyst quartz Clovis spearhead, with overshots?
Also, to be completely clear, I have not used the technology on heat treated chert, except in the instance that some of my chert collected in Belize may have been burnt in a previous forestfire. The reason that I say this is because in a certain area, the stone is exceptionally colorful, but also waxy, as though it was cooked in a fire.
By the way, in the mid-1990's, I collected arrowheads on a bluff overlooking Spunky Creek, in Catoosa, Oklahoma. I also found many tiny shards of debitage. And, the flakes were pink, and waxy, as though they had been heat treated. So, I am not for or against heat treatment. My concern has always been that much of what is seen in the paleo record appears to have been done in stone that modern knappers would consider to be "unknappable". (In my past knapping life, I would have thought the same thing.) And, that is why I focused on all sorts of raw cherts, as well as obsidian, and quartz crystal.
From these experiences, one of the things that I have noticed is that my technologies are maybe more affected by grain, then by "hardness".
I hope this makes sense.
Zuma:
Ben you Fail to produce evidence of any sort of intentional Clovis overshot.
You seem to be stuck in the fantasy of modern knappers, book and you-tube sellers.
Where's the beef bud?
Zuma
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page
Go to full version