Main Discussion Area > Flintknapping

Zuma, I got a massive overshot video for you.

<< < (4/7) > >>

aaron:
is there anyone except cushing who describes something like this?
What makes you say cumberlands were fluted this way?
Thanks for all the info, Ben.

aaron:
more questons after reading cushing's "the arrow".
cushing describes several techniques for various stages of reduction which I have summarized below:
spalling quarry rock- driect percussion on an anvil.
trimming spalls to a preform- direct percussion on the leg.
thinning- indirect percussion on an anvil (this is the technique Ben demonstrates as being done with biface clamped in a bent leg)
finishing- ishi stick on an anvil or in the hand (he doesn't ise the term ishi stick, of course)

So cushing describes a suite of techniques, one of which is the way you are promoting. In your posts, you seem to say that this "cushing technique" was the mainway things were made throughout North American stone age. Have I misunderstood you? Do you agree that cushing is describing several techniques later used by "crabtree style" knappers (baton on the leg, hammer and anvil, ishi stick)?

You say that there is no evidence of baton knapping in the style of crabtree, etc... but how about the drawing on page 317 of a fellow who has a preform on top of his leg, holding it down with his hand while striking directly with a hammer? This seems to show that "crabtree style" knapping was used.

cushing shows a drawing of a punch technique (discussed on another thread here) where the guy is kneeling on the biface, which is atop a large boulder. You stated previously that you think this is a incorrect illustration and that the knapping was done with the biface and anvil held between the upper and lower leg- sandwiched in flesh, if you will. Why do you think this is so? Wouldn't he have at least consulted on the drawings for the book? Do we have info on the illustrator?

Hummingbird Point:
Ben,

Ray I don't know.  Grinnel, is there anything more to it than what you have here?:  http://antlerdrift.blogspot.com/
If yes, I would be very interested in reading more and would greatly appreciate any help you can give on finding the source.  Also for Ray.

Aaron,

Yeah.  I think from the written description I would have drawn it in a similar way.  He says "against a hammer stone (anvil stone)".  Why add the "anvil stone" part unless you mean a bigger rock?  Then he mentions alternately using a "block or log".  I could see a small "block" fitting under your knee and on top of the calf muscle, but "log" makes me think, same as "anvil stone" something bigger.  If he meant a smaller, round hammer stone between the calf and thigh, I wish he would have just said so!  Then we have the whole thing about a notch in the block or a pit in the stone which seems missing from what Ben is doing.

Not that it matters too much.  We have a good, solid, testable idea and room for anyone else to make other interpretations and similarly test.  I do think the overshot thing needs to be tossed. Cushing is talking about what you do with a fairly late stage percussion preform to get that little bit more thinning that is so hard to learn by direct percussion.  Also, since this is happening away from the quarry, we can reasonable say it should be a safer method to get a bit more thinning and shaping, since breaking a biface at the quarry is a small problem, while breaking one away from the quarry is a big problem.   Also, Cushing notes of the percussion preforms, in moving to this method "the smallest of them only were chosen", so it needs to work consistently on small preforms, not take big flakes off spalls or big preforms.  So, that gives us the first round of testing:  Can you do it this way and get consistent, safe, reliable bifacial thinning on small preforms?  If yes, step two is to ask if you can get those same results by some other method that is "better".  You can also take the approach of stripping the system for its parts.  What happens when you take out the round rock?  What happens when you clamp between your legs, under your foot, kneeling on top, held in hand?  What happens when you substitute the application of force with another punch method, pressure or direct percussion?   

On a philosophical note:  I have found that what vastly shortens the learning curve in  --well, everything--  is being wrong, then having someone kind enough to point that out to me and (best case) explain why.  Six months ago if you asked me about heat treating quartzite, I would have said I have thoroughly tested it and found it to be more trouble than it is worth.  A few months ago I expressed that view in the presence of someone who knew otherwise and thankfully he was willing to set me straight.  Having since tested his method, it certainly isn't magic, but works better than I would have thought and it has helped me move the ball a few more yards down the field.  More importantly, I would have never come up with it on my own.

Keith   

turbo:
Hey all, I'm late to the party but have been lurking a while. Ben, thanks for the videos. I have experimented with Jim Winn's 'sandwich' method with good results, which is similar in concept. He adds the hammerstone/weight on top vs the bottom. I think the key to adding the stone is that it adds mass to the piece and facilitates big percussion in later stages. Concerning overshots; I have offered a lot in the past to this discussion and will not rehash for the moment, but the support on the opposite edge is the biggest factor I have found. If you 'jam' the edge firmly into the support it will lend to big overshots, back off and it will feather out.

Another observation; for those of us chasing the methods of the past, I think we need to get off chairs and get down on the ground. Although much remains the same vs sitting in a chair, it does influence methodology some.

AncientTech:
We got two more guys in. 

A true overshot - unlike coast to coast - will turn 90 degrees and exit the opposite side of the stone, before reaching the other side.  A coast to coast flake will cut through the other side, but not turn.

This process creates the bend that makes the turn via fulcrum forces.  Jamming against the backside is a small part of the equation.  But, there are bigger parts, with regard to the pressure systems.

All of the people with archaeological backgrounds are immediately eyeing the tools and saying that these are the tools that they find.  Only, they never knew before that such tools could be used in such a manner.

I am currently teaching a Navajo knapper through Facebook.  So, I am actually doing some finished point work, so he can learn.  That being said, I have been very busy everyday communicating with many people.  And, more people are wanting to learn. 

Also, as was expected, some of the people who are learning and who are creating stellar flaking, and stellar overshots, have only been knapping for a few months.  They are new.  They might not understand the implications of what they are making.  And, the old "gurus" - the same people who always want my work banned - will not even speak to many of these new knappers who have done fantastic overshot work, with just brief training. 

So, I have to focus on making sure that these guys are okay.  To give an example, a five year knapper who does stellar work was the second guy to learn the process.  He immediately threw incredible overshots that look exactly like Hogeye cache overshots, with my brief training.  An old guru got on his thread and said, "You are just "wasting" rock."  And, my guy fired back. 

The following day, another old guru told his buddy on a thread that everyone should just try to "ignore" it all.  So, here you have new knappers producing stuff that no one has ever seen IN MODERN HISTORY.  And, maybe they do not even understand it, because they are new.  And, you have old gurus giving them the cold shoulder for it, and refusing to speak to them.  It is sickening.  All of these people to some extent are being put through the stuff I was put through, and by the same people. 

That being said, people are looking at coming back full force, with their flintknapping, because it no longer seems possible that people will even be able to say that "copper is better".  I have new knappers pulling stuff in raw rock that it is doubtful could be done with copper.  And, the actual flaking effects are stellar.  I already have collectors writing and saying that they believe I found the way certain paleo-flaking was actually done.  And, we are not just talking about "visuals".  Visuals are superficial, and finished points can lie.  The way a finished point can lie is that the maker can hide the marks of what he did previously.  So, we are openly achieving affects in raw stone, and other materials, that have not been seen before.

As for the "sandwich" method, the associates of Cushing's wrote "clamped under the knee".  So, it was there all along, as recorded by someone who studied the indians, back in the 19th century.

More people are contacting me.  Gotta go....

Best of luck,

Look up KnapYucatan on Facebook.   

Ben

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page