Main Discussion Area > ABO
ABO techniques, processes and tools.
AncientTech:
ABO KNAPPING:
AncientTech:
1870's Kaikavit Paiute Arrowmaker in front of his home in Northern Arizona
AncientTech:
HUPA ARROWMAKING KIT - COLLECTED BY P.H. RAY, 1880'S IN NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
KIT WAS SHOWN AT THE COLUMBIAN EXHIBITION, IN MADRID, IN THE 1890'S
KIT WAS STORED AT THE US NATIONAL MUSEUM
DESRCIPTION OF ITEMS IN KIT:
PITCHING TOOL:
PITCHING TOOL was a long column of antler, or "hard bone" (ivory), used to detach FLAKES, BLADES, AND SPALLS. Why did early researchers adopt the term "pitching tools"? The answer to that question explains how they thought the tools were used, based on eye witness information, and on common knowledge.
Here is a revolutionary idea: Why not study HOW the Indians made their chipped stone tools, according to the evidence that was previously documented!
AncientTech:
--- Quote from: caveman2533 on October 20, 2015, 09:29:51 am ---
--- Quote from: AncientTech on October 20, 2015, 12:51:32 am ---
The fact that a person can demonstrate drastic overshot flaking, and everything less, with a simple deer tine, is pretty telling. But, it does not mean that every variable is necessarily exactly the same, in the lesser flaking, even if the process is essentially the same.
--- End quote ---
I have never seen anyone demonstrate the ability to do that.
--- End quote ---
Well, then did the Clovis people demonstrate it? If you say, "yes", then I shall ask when you "saw" it. And, if you say "no", then I shall ask why people say that Clovis made overshot?
I already showed Clovis overshot flakes, made with a deer tine. Would you to see it again? I have shown as much proof as the Clovis people have shown.
The missing crescent on the right is where the edge of the stone detached. That means that the opposite edge was removed. That means that it was an overshot:
Also, you think that my initiations look bulbous? Here is a flute:
Here is the initiation:
In archaeology that is called a "diffuse bulb of percussion". I can show Clovis flaking that has far stronger bulbs of percussion, than that.
Of course, if you had an objective discussion with Philip, before he died, I think he would have told you that the initiation is, to some degree, tied to the shape of the flaker.
dem·on·strate
/ˈdemənˌstrāt/
verb: demonstrate; 3rd person present: demonstrates; past tense: demonstrated; past participle: demonstrated; gerund or present participle: demonstrating
1.
clearly show the existence or truth of (something) by giving proof or evidence.
"their shameful silence demonstrates their ineptitude"
synonyms: reveal, bespeak, indicate, signify, signal, denote, show, display, exhibit; More
caveman2533:
I have not seen a Clovis hunter do it nor have I seen you do it. You have shown pictures of an overshot and a flaker, not you doing it. Not the same. I would ask you the same, Have you seen a Clovis hunter do it. The answer is no. So you have no more credibility than any one else. You are only inferring which is what we are all doing. It is the foundation of Archaeology and Anthropology, since none of us were there we can only infer from the evidence and the results of Experimental archaeology.
I have been using wooden batons(billets ) since 1999. Others have been doing it much longer, when you and I(Ben) were still in diapers.
The problem I see with Ben's theory is he is trying to apply his short peg punch hold it between your fingers, in his palm to everything. It does not and will not produce the results we see in the materials used in the Northeast Archaic broadspear traditions. Wooden billets do this very well where nothing else produces the same results. There is a finite list of material available to the Native Knappers. It had to be bone, stone , antler or wood. Technique is a different matter, multiple combinations of. The Archaic in the Midwest and West and South was different than in the Northeast. Same techniques will not apply. Different source material, different end product.
Pete Davis made no claim to have stumbled onto something and if you go back and read it Keith did not make the claim that Pete discovered anything. Pete merely brought it to the front and it has caught on from his efforts to promote it. He and others are standing on the shoulders of others (Cresson, Callahan,Silsby, and others) who went years before on a quest to determine the methods used to work this gnarly rock found in the Northeast. As was said nothing new to some of us. The difference I see is the ability to discuss techniques, methods etc. within that group, sharing ideas, respecting one anothers talent and opinions, and an interest in finding the answers and producing results, that match the record.
The most recent round of pictures and archaeological remains I believe actually bolster Keith's theory that Ben is missing an entire tool set. All these pictures and remains are not suitable to produce the first stages of quarry production. Show me some tools from the quarry not a burial. Ben keeps asking, "Why can't you guys figure out how I am using the punch I keep showing you?" Well there are only two ways it can be used, You are either hitting it on the end like a typical punch or you are hitting it on the side like a typical rocker punch. Can't see it being done any other way. How its being held does not really change the direction of force. Neither are new or unique.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version