Main Discussion Area > ABO
ABO techniques, processes and tools.
nclonghunter:
Ben and others, have any of you had the oppurtunity to examine and handle Clovis flakes that are overshot flakes? I have been told by more than one knapper that they can tell you what "tool" removed the flake. That being wood, copper, antler, etc.......
Bens' statement that he does not know what Clovis people were thinking is understood but the desire to know what "tool" and what "technique" they were using is what we are wanting to answer. Me personally can not tell you what tool or technique was used just by looking at a flake rather it be overshot or a short flake.
Are there pictures of those Clovis flake bulbs to examine for "tool and technique" examination. I feel it would be a positive move forward in learning, rather than trying to disprove men of the past. They were also trying to learn and shared what they believed at that time to be correct or hoped they were correct just as we are doing now.
Thanks for the info on the antler drifts. I must say to make them from the larger section of antler with only flint tools or by shattering the bone and using the best pieces must have been a job in itself. Modern saws and sanders certainly make it easier.
AncientTech:
--- Quote from: Zuma on October 19, 2015, 01:00:46 pm ---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
--- End quote ---
Hello Zuma,
You wrote:
"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,"
Do you see that as a smoking gun? I disagree. Did you realize that ancient knappers used diverse processes from start to finish? Did you realize that early stage Clovis hammerstone preforms exhibit one type of flaking, while finer surface flaking may represent another type of flaking, and edge work may represent pressure flaking?
In other words, ancient knappers worked in stages, as is exhibited in scores of lithic reduction sites. Also, the term "overshot flakes" is left unqualified. If the authors are referring to hard hammer percussion, I think that the majority of them may well be mistakes. If the author is talking about late stage reduction, I think that it could have been intentional, or the knappers could have been ranging around something like a coast to coast flake, but carried it a bit too far.
Still, in both modes of flaking, not every flake is going to be an "overshot", because surface morphology does not allow. In some cases, with some tools and practices, certain surface morphologies can allow for easy overshot removals, or coast to coast removals.
"I like Eren contribute that number to Mistake."
How can you equate a number to a mistake? Preforms constantly change shape during reduction. Wouldn't you have to know when, where, and how, the overshots were removed, before concluding that they are mistakes? I do think that Bradley is wrong, since his views are based on billet use. But, I cannot agree that the percentage of overshots indicates whether or not they were mistakes. At a certain point in reduction, they may have been optimal removals. Context is the key to understanding this subject - not numbers.
"Do you see how inconsequential method is when you have the physical flakes to tell the Clovis story??
You are equating a low overshot flake count, to inconsequentiality. In order for this view to hold water, one would need to show that a single process was used from start to finish. And, the 12% of the time that overshot was created, the scenario was no different than the other 88% of the time, that overshot was not produced.
The actual reality, which was commonly known prior to the emphasis on billet knapping, is that each stage is specific to thickness, morphology, and certain flaking practices that can actually be quite diverse from one to another.
I think that Bradley is wrong in building a theory based on the assumption that baton knapping applies. And, I think that the others are wrong, in their assessments of Clovis flakes, and their attempt at applying "experimental data", which is probably derived from Patten's experience with billet knapping.
AncientTech:
--- Quote from: Hummingbird Point on October 19, 2015, 04:58:49 pm ---
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
--- End quote ---
If I can get someone to hold a camera for me, and the rain clears up, I will try to post a technique that no one has seen.
AncientTech:
--- Quote from: nclonghunter on October 19, 2015, 06:16:37 pm ---Ben and others, have any of you had the oppurtunity to examine and handle Clovis flakes that are overshot flakes? I have been told by more than one knapper that they can tell you what "tool" removed the flake. That being wood, copper, antler, etc.......
Bens' statement that he does not know what Clovis people were thinking is understood but the desire to know what "tool" and what "technique" they were using is what we are wanting to answer. Me personally can not tell you what tool or technique was used just by looking at a flake rather it be overshot or a short flake.
Are there pictures of those Clovis flake bulbs to examine for "tool and technique" examination. I feel it would be a positive move forward in learning, rather than trying to disprove men of the past. They were also trying to learn and shared what they believed at that time to be correct or hoped they were correct just as we are doing now.
Thanks for the info on the antler drifts. I must say to make them from the larger section of antler with only flint tools or by shattering the bone and using the best pieces must have been a job in itself. Modern saws and sanders certainly make it easier.
--- End quote ---
Hello NClonhunter,
I think that you are on the right track. We have to have some criteria to use, when looking at flakes, and flake scars. The more criteria we have, the more chance we have to understand what we are looking at. For example, if we only had criteria pertaining to hammerstones, then pressure flakes might be hard to understand.
Anyway, I have faith in your ability to guess. So, here is a photo. If you found three tools in a site, with this point, which tool would you guess was used to remove the channel flake? A two pound softball sized hammerstone? A large moose club? Or a deer tine with a blunt, battered tip?
Also, of the three tools that are found, one tool has a width, in the presumed contact area, that matches the width of the flake initiation. And, that tool is the deer tine. So, if you had to analyze this projectile point, then which tool would you think was used to detach the channel flake, in raw stone? Softball sized hammerstone? Moose antler club? Or, blunted, battered deer tine?
Zuma:
--- Quote from: nclonghunter on October 19, 2015, 06:16:37 pm ---Ben and others, have any of you had the oppurtunity to examine and handle Clovis flakes that are overshot flakes? I have been told by more than one knapper that they can tell you what "tool" removed the flake. That being wood, copper, antler, etc.......
Bens' statement that he does not know what Clovis people were thinking is understood but the desire to know what "tool" and what "technique" they were using is what we are wanting to answer. .
Are there pictures of those Clovis flake bulbs to examine for "tool and technique" examination. I feel it would be a positive move forward in learning, rather than trying to disprove men of the past. They were also trying to learn and shared what they believed at that time to be correct or hoped they were correct just as we are doing now.
--- End quote ---
Hey NC .
Sure archies and others have been saving flakes for years and studing them.
They can tell a lot about the flake initiation. Hard hammer and soft hammer etc
They for sure can tell the difference between overshot flakes because they turn the edge of the work opposite the platform (bulb), Very distinct compared to edge to edge or just short flakes.
This is how we know that aboriginal overshot was not intentional. If it were
the numbers of these flakes would many times larger.
They only occur in percentages that would comfortably fit into the mistake category. Any one that reduces large material looking for thin bifaces knows this.
And you can count these flakes and it don't make a hoot one way or the other
how they were created by who, with what, or why.
That is what Archaeology once was but no longer is IMO. Eren et al and a few others may be the exception.
I have the report done by Dr Whyte from the JMU dig he did in my front yard.
I will see if I can find it and post the lithic descriptions for you.
I am sure you could search the net and find other reports that contain like info.
Overshot never was important until modern knappers after a bunch of HYPE
found that they could make overshots on a fairly predictable frequency.
But in my honest opinion--- Who cares about that, reproducing abo mistakes.
Zuma
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version