Main Discussion Area > ABO
ABO techniques, processes and tools.
JoJoDapyro:
--- Quote from: PeteDavis on October 16, 2015, 10:02:43 pm ---
James mighta brought some of mine (Va.)
Large billet for core removals
Final go-round kit. Elk billet, punches and small wood billet and a few tines. Hammerstone to set things up and clear stall-outs.
--- End quote ---
Pete, is that "Club" made out of locust?
Zuma:
--- Quote from: AncientTech on October 19, 2015, 09:50:43 am ---
--- Quote from: Zuma on October 18, 2015, 10:00:49 pm ---Ben, please provide some information that producing
overshot flakes is an intentional Clovis or for that
matter a trait of any knapping culture but modern.
you have continually ignored this request for your
thoughts to back up your claim.
Thanks Zuma
--- End quote ---
Zuma, as I have tried to explain in the past, the OPINIONS offered in professional papers, appear to have two flaws: NON APPLICABLE
.
That being said, I know of at least three ways to create outrepasse flakes: A. Deer tine/indirect percussion, B. hammerstone/direct percussion, and C. English-style baton/direct percussion. Non Applicable
how does one proceed to discuss "outrepasee" in an educated manner?
God knows, I think I have tried.
You could start by posting your data proving overshot is an intentional
aboriginal trait and refrain from mentioning ANYTHING modern.
--- End quote ---
AncientTech:
Zuma,
I cannot speak for the intent of the original Clovis knappers. I was not there. Nor do I know what they intended.
That being said, other academics have raised a point that I partially disagree with, and partially agree with. Bradley discusses how difficult it is to "master" controlled overshot. I previously posted the information, but then may have been asked to pull the information from the forum.
That being said. I do not know what thoughts ran through Clovis knapper's minds. So, I cannot speak about ancient knapping, in a manner that PROVES intent. I was not in their heads, thirteen thousand years ago.
Here is the Eren et all paper:
https://www.smu.edu/~/media/Site/Dedman/Departments/Anthropology/MeltzerPDFs/Eren%20et%20al%20%202014%20Lithic%20Technology.ashx?la=en
On page two, the author makes three claims. And, prior to making these claims, the author states:
"WE USED EXPERIMENTAL ARCHAEOLOGY TO TEST..."
Do you see those words? They are basing their arguments on EXPERIMENTAL ARCHAEOLOGY. And, you can also see that an experimental archaeologist (Patten) is being cited.
So, I am telling you that the premises, and arguments, of this paper could be FLAWED, if they are basing everything on the work of experimenters, such as Bradley and Patten. I am also introducing the same type of evidence, that these academics are basing their arguments upon. Only, my evidence is more expansive because I cover actual technologies, and they do not. Do you see that? Do you see that I touch upon hammerstone tech, billet tech, and deer tine tech? What technologies do they cover? Is it even explained.
That being said, if we are discussing hammerstone tech, I believe that most all overshots are accidental. If we are discussing billet tech, I think that overshots is difficult to achieve - AS NOTED BY BRADLEY. If we are discussing tine-based "pitching tool" tech, I think that regular flaking, coast to coast flaking, and overshot, is all fairly easy to achieve. If you don't want modern experimental evidence introduced, you need to go back and look at the paper, because they are citing the results of modern experimental evidence.
Bradley's argument is that controlled overshot is a sign of super knappers, and it is recognized in Solutrean knapping, as well as Clovis. As a matter of causality, they link A to B. Eren's claim is that A could not possibly B linked to B, and there are holes in these theories about Solutrean overshot, and Clovis overshot.
My argument is that the discussion does not begin, until one ascertains how the overshot was created. My argument is that they are starting out with a flawed premise. And, if push comes to shove, I can introduce the very same type of data that they are relying upon - EXPERIMENTAL ARCHAEOLOGY. Aside from that, no one can PROVE the intentions of the original knappers, because we were not there.
In nine pages, not a single word is devoted to explaining HOW they believe that the ancient overshots were made. So, as far as I am concerned, they never made it to the starting line.
Zuma:
Thanks for the reply Ben. :)
Let me point out some things you are overlooking.
Eren's papers include this--- I para phrase--
The debitage from defined stratified Cloves camps
such as Gault contain less than 12 percent overshot
flakes total.
This is the biggest smoking gun imo,
I like Eren contribute that number to Mistake.
Certainly not intentional. Do you see how inconsequential
method is when you have the physical flakes to tell the
Clovis story??
Zuma
Hummingbird Point:
Suddenly, I saw the answer. It was like seeing through time, as if I had X-ray eyesight through time and space. I actually saw the break happening from inside the break, if it makes any sense. It was amazing.
That part I get. I call it the "click" point, like you are wandering around a dark room bumping into furniture and then "click", the light goes on and the room makes sense. I have been knapping almost 8 years, but so far I have never spent more than 2 with the same tool kit, so I guess I am a perpetual amateur.
But I have to poke you a bit and say that the only way to really test an idea is to put it out there and see what happens. Look at Marty Reuter. On the one hand, a great innovator, but also a knapper with extraordinary natural talent. How much of his innovations are the tools and methods and how much his raw talent? (No joke, I think you could give the guy half a brick and a tire iron and could knap fairly well with them.)
Any way, I am here to learn and want to try any "abo" method any one is willing to offer up. As I said before, I think there are all kinds of holes in our current thinking.
I've really enjoyed the discussion.
Keith
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version