Primitive Archer
Main Discussion Area => Flintknapping => Topic started by: AncientTech on December 26, 2017, 07:05:12 pm
-
https://youtu.be/bUYtsCV-AdU
-
Ben I would like to watch but my web connections are to slow.
I hope it shows tons of authentic Clovis points found in archaeological digs.
All with conclusive evidence of overshot on them. I have spent as much if
not more time studying Clovis flaking as you have been attempting over shots.
If your video shows you smacking out six or seven Clovis points with over shots
contributing the lions share of thinning--- in a row with no breakage then I will
gladly tip my hat to your ability. But you will have to still prove that, that is what
Clovis knappers did. I have always considered you a excellent knapper and more
dedicated to your cause than most.
Zuma
-
Zuma- vid is of ben demonstrating the "cushing technique". After 5 min , he achieves an overshot that clips nearly the entire opposite edge of a5 inch biface of tough-looking chert. I have been (silently) following the hubbub surrounding this technique for what seems like more than a decade, mostly on Paleoplanet. I'm glad we have finally gotten to the part where he shows us the technique and sources. I hope we can put put aside or at least separate out the debate over weather this technique was used by clovis people, and perhaps concentrate on how this can be put into the tool kit of any modern knapper. It seems to be a great way to get percussion flakes off tough material with small pieces of antler. Personally, I'm a moose billet guy, but I would like to give this a try. I wonder how it would do on large bifaces in the 10 inch range- typically what I like to work on. Wonder how it works on obsidian (which is 99% of what I work). One thing I note about ben's flaking is that the bulbs of percussion seem rather deep. Perhaps its just lighting. Ben can you show os a more finished biface or an edge with the deltas trimmed off? I try to avoid overshot unless the opposite edge is square, thick, or otherwise problematic. It can be hard to avoid on large late-stage bifaces.
-
Hello Aaron,
Bulbing or lack of bulbing can run all over the spectrum, depending on where the flaker tip is placed.
Here is the technology used in fluting. Bulbing is diffuse.
By the way, the chert is hard but even grained.
-
Zuma- vid is of ben demonstrating the "cushing technique". After 5 min , he achieves an overshot that clips nearly the entire opposite edge of a5 inch biface of tough-looking chert. I have been (silently) following the hubbub surrounding this technique for what seems like more than a decade, mostly on Paleoplanet. I'm glad we have finally gotten to the part where he shows us the technique and sources. I hope we can put put aside or at least separate out the debate over weather this technique was used by clovis people, and perhaps concentrate on how this can be put into the tool kit of any modern knapper. It seems to be a great way to get percussion flakes off tough material with small pieces of antler. Personally, I'm a moose billet guy, but I would like to give this a try. I wonder how it would do on large bifaces in the 10 inch range- typically what I like to work on. Wonder how it works on obsidian (which is 99% of what I work). One thing I note about ben's flaking is that the bulbs of percussion seem rather deep. Perhaps its just lighting. Ben can you show os a more finished biface or an edge with the deltas trimmed off? I try to avoid overshot unless the opposite edge is square, thick, or otherwise problematic. It can be hard to avoid on large late-stage bifaces.
Well said aaron. My only contention is like what you said. Separate the Clovis aspect from this technique.
Something that should never have happened IMO. Why? you may ask (not you 1442 cause you get it)
Because it was (WAS) a myth propagated by unscrupulous people for financial gain many year ago.
And an also comical attempt to link Clovis with Solutrean cultures.
Thanks a lot for the vid description and your thoughts.
If I may I'd like to ask you (since Ben never answers my questions or address my statements directly)- -- Does Cushing resrtict this method exclusively to Clovis?
Also does the five min time frame show any previous work on the blade prior to the removal of the overshot spall? In other words If I were wanting to show a fantastic overshot square edge removal with my moose antler billet. Couldn't I just film all my reduction until that one spall happens? Like they eventually always do.
Would you agree that most authentic Clovis points are in the 3" range and required no such technology?
That is not to say antler tine techniques were not employed by Clovis knappers but I see them best used
after hammer stone and or billet reduction.
Here is an early spear point made from our really tough local quartzite, I doubt the notches could have been
installed with out the use of a punch.
Zuma
-
Zuma,
"My only contention is like what you said. Separate the Clovis aspect from this technique."
Flintknappers make "Clovis" points. And, I am showing a "Clovis" flaking process. I am using their lingo. But, I am using practices that were believed to have been used.
"And an also comical attempt to link Clovis with Solutrean cultures."
I agree. I do not think that their technologies can be linked via "billet flaking theory". If you switch to a different technology like "pressure aided by blow over fulcrum", then all of the effects seen in Clovis are very very easy to create, as I show in the video. Not so with billet knapping. When a modern knapper cites how great he is with his antler baton, I say, "Exactly. You have become that great through years of practice." But, if you go to a historically known technology like the one shown in the video, then Clovis knapping becomes easy. But, since flintknappers were super presumptuous, and highly jaded by their own experiences, they thought that there was nothing of value in historical knapping records.
"Also does the five min time frame show any previous work on the blade prior to the removal of the overshot spall? In other words If I were wanting to show a fantastic overshot square edge removal with my moose antler billet. Couldn't I just film all my reduction until that one spall happens? Like they eventually always do."
In bifacial flaking the Clovis overshot is best in late stages. But, I picked up a preform, and did the same thing randomly to show it on video.
"Would you agree that most authentic Clovis points are in the 3" range and required no such technology?"
It is not "a technology". If you scale down from heavy hammer and heavy tine to heavy tine and small tine flaker, you can create very fine, organized finishing, on a very small scale, with initiations that could be as small as pressure flaking initiations. It is a multi-faceted technology with many diverse applications. It may work in blade core reduction as well.
"That is not to say antler tine techniques were not employed by Clovis knappers but I see them best used
after hammer stone and or billet reduction."
If you are referring to antler tine use in pressure flaking, then this is similar, only the flake could expand much larger than a normal pressure flake.
"Here is an early spear point made from our really tough local quartzite, I doubt the notches could have been
installed with out the use of a punch."
There were two basic forms of indirect percussion recorded by early American observers - pressure aided by blow, and the punch technique. One is a flaking style operation assisted by lateral blow. The other is a blade core technique with a rear driven blow. Many varieties of both techniques can be used in various situations.
-
I didn't see anything in there that would make me think there was a clovis flaking process being used to create the one dang flake that was the entirety of the video.
If clovis people knapped like that they never would have finished anything.
Zuma,
You aint missing nothing I promise.
There is what looks to me like a flake thick on one edge tapering to nothing on the other. I caught a quick glimpse of the other side and could see what appeared to be very short flakes taken to get rid of the sharp edge along the thin edge. The thick edge was THICK with a steep angle all the way down it that you could hit anywhere and likely get an overshot just because of the angle. a flake had been taken across each end and left a nice ridge across the point about midways and had a low spot where the ridge met the thick edge of the point for a platform. The platform was lower than it needed to be to get a overshot anyways, but I swear! anybody could have hit that with almost anything and got an overshot flake that spread out and took off most of the edge off the far side like Ben did.
As usual, there was very little detail shown of anything but how the flake went all the way across and took off more of the far edge than anyone would really want to.
That's my quick review of it for you.
-
Guess what. This is the extreme end of the use of the process. It is at one end of the spectrum. This shows what can be done with control. It is not monkey see monkey do. It shows just one outcome that can be created using controls that are in the process.
-
It is not about the flake that was made. It is about the process. You guys have it backwards. Technology precedes results. And, this is just one of many types of results that can be created with control. And, this is not "by hook or crook" knapping. This was an authentically used process. Kind of like the difference between real money, and made up Monopoly money.
-
Zuma- I don't think Cushing linked this technology to clovis culture- his work was published in 1895, and the clovis culture was named by archaeologists in 1929. Cushing worked with the Zuni- so I think that we could say that this technology was used to make the type of points the zuni were making in 1895 or earlier. It seems like a stretch to me to say this (or any technique) was definitely used by clovis people. I'd say it's one of many techniques that COULD have been used. Ben seems to be stating that because overshot is easy with this technique, that it must be how clovis overshots were made. I'd say that what makes overshots easy is a combination of the geometry of the preform and the ability to hold the piece very steady while applying the blow. Cushings technique is an excellent way to achieve this steady hold on smaller and tougher bifaces. For me, this is accomplished with the common precussion technique prevalent with most modern knappers. Note also that Woody Blackwell produced his expert-fooling clovis replicas with the more common flaking technique.many Other well known knappers have produced authentic-looking clovis using the commom technique.
So what I am saying is that either technique could have been used, or both, or a technique not yet discovered.
-
Zuma- I don't think Cushing linked this technology to clovis culture- his work was published in 1895, and the clovis culture was named by archaeologists in 1929. Cushing worked with the Zuni- so I think that we could say that this technology was used to make the type of points the zuni were making in 1895 or earlier. It seems like a stretch to me to say this (or any technique) was definitely used by clovis people. I'd say it's one of many techniques that COULD have been used. Ben seems to be stating that because overshot is easy with this technique, that it must be how clovis overshots were made. I'd say that what makes overshots easy is a combination of the geometry of the preform and the ability to hold the piece very steady while applying the blow. Cushings technique is an excellent way to achieve this steady hold on smaller and tougher bifaces. For me, this is accomplished with the common precussion technique prevalent with most modern knappers. Note also that Woody Blackwell produced his expert-fooling clovis replicas with the more common flaking
technique.many Other well known knappers have produced authentic-looking clovis using the commom technique.
So what I am saying is that either technique could have been used, or both, or a technique not yet discovered.
:) :) ;D 8) :KN :KN )P( )P(
Zuma
-
As to the whole "overshot" thing. I agree it is an unfortunate distraction. I have all kinds of issues and opinions on "overshots" too, but that is entirely beside the point. I think all Ben is doing with "overshots" is using them as "proof of concept". The thought process is, if the tools and technique can generate the power and accuracy needed to accomplish this difficult task, it has merit. In the very least it establishes the point Ben started with many years ago that you don't need an antler billet to make big flakes.
Cushing's model is helpful in that it is the only case (that I am aware of) where a guy both lived with Native Americans and was a knapper, then wrote down the process he used from start to finish. All other accounts from that time period are second hand and/or piecemeal. I have found great value in his overall model, finding that in 11 years of trying everything I could find information on or dream up in my own head, it works better than any other model I have tried. I would encourage anyone interested to look at the link i provided in another post, or simply search "cushing the arrow" and read the entire process for yourself. Having more or less experimentally "discovering" most of what Cushing talks about and using it for a couple of years prior to reading his account, I consider that the happy coincidence of experimentation matching history.
Or not. The 1895 date raises valid concerns. This is centuries after depopulation and the influx of metal tools as trade goods wiped out large pieces of native knowledge. Was what Cushing describes simply the Zuni's reinvention of the process, or does it truly have ancestral roots? I don't know, but it is a valid question.
As to the application of Cushing's model to Clovis knapping: I am of the opinion, and during all my time of experimental knapping have worked from the assumption that all North American knapping followed one, universal, overall model. I reason that by the time humans got here, knapping was already fully advanced. The human brain and human hand has not changed for at least 50,000 years, so however Clovis did it, future people did it, within the framework of a general, overall model. In that regard, I do believe Ben using a "Clovis" type of flaking is a good benchmark test.
I have issues with Ben's interpretation and how useful this specific interpretation of this specific slice of Cushing's model may be. But for now all they are are issues, that is, thoughts in my head. All that matters is what happens when the antler meets the rock. A few months from now, I may have some insight on it. I remain grateful for Ben's hard work, dedication and willingness to share.
Keith
-
Well said Keith. Keeping your eyes and all other senses tuned
for what may come your way is totally admirable. :) It is good to see
this type discussion going along without the previous type of miss
understood thoughts and words. ;D This is a great hobby, a great web site
with so many talented and sincere members. 8) 8) I only hope you don't make
your self scarce after the termination of these recent threads.
Come back and share your tools and projects. :KN :KN )P(
Zuma
-
Anybody who has used indirect percussion much knows it is an easier way to make long flakes of desired width and depth than direct percussion. One of the advantages of indirect is that accuracy of the strike can be near perfect every time. That takes out the most difficult variable. Indirect can be done about as many ways as there are knappers. My opinion, and that's what it is, is that the holding and support etc. are smaller factors than the method of indirect. Indirect by numerous means and tools can produce beautiful and predictable results. My hat is off to all who STUDY knapping, and I think that all really good knappers have done that.
WA
-
As to the whole "overshot" thing. I agree it is an unfortunate distraction. I have all kinds of issues and opinions on "overshots" too, but that is entirely beside the point. I think all Ben is doing with "overshots" is using them as "proof of concept". The thought process is, if the tools and technique can generate the power and accuracy needed to accomplish this difficult task, it has merit. In the very least it establishes the point Ben started with many years ago that you don't need an antler billet to make big flakes.
Cushing's model is helpful in that it is the only case (that I am aware of) where a guy both lived with Native Americans and was a knapper, then wrote down the process he used from start to finish. All other accounts from that time period are second hand and/or piecemeal. I have found great value in his overall model, finding that in 11 years of trying everything I could find information on or dream up in my own head, it works better than any other model I have tried. I would encourage anyone interested to look at the link i provided in another post, or simply search "cushing the arrow" and read the entire process for yourself. Having more or less experimentally "discovering" most of what Cushing talks about and using it for a couple of years prior to reading his account, I consider that the happy coincidence of experimentation matching history.
Or not. The 1895 date raises valid concerns. This is centuries after depopulation and the influx of metal tools as trade goods wiped out large pieces of native knowledge. Was what Cushing describes simply the Zuni's reinvention of the process, or does it truly have ancestral roots? I don't know, but it is a valid question.
As to the application of Cushing's model to Clovis knapping: I am of the opinion, and during all my time of experimental knapping have worked from the assumption that all North American knapping followed one, universal, overall model. I reason that by the time humans got here, knapping was already fully advanced. The human brain and human hand has not changed for at least 50,000 years, so however Clovis did it, future people did it, within the framework of a general, overall model. In that regard, I do believe Ben using a "Clovis" type of flaking is a good benchmark test.
I have issues with Ben's interpretation and how useful this specific interpretation of this specific slice of Cushing's model may be. But for now all they are are issues, that is, thoughts in my head. All that matters is what happens when the antler meets the rock. A few months from now, I may have some insight on it. I remain grateful for Ben's hard work, dedication and willingness to share.
Keith
- After going through maybe a hundred or so archaeological reports in 2010, I came to the conclusion that some sort of indirect percussion had been used that had not been identified.
- Between 2010 and 2011, after going through maybe thousands of records, I came to the conclusion that indians were historically using an array of complex indirect percussion practices that had not been recognized.
- A year later, by the end of 2011, I came to the conclusion that the evidence of baton knapping as practiced by Leakey, Bordes, Crabtree, Waldorf, etc, was not supported by any significant archaeological evidence, anywhere in the Americas.
I can show the work of many dozens of scholars which collectively all point to these ideas I arrived at. I did not dream up any "new idea" of my own. I simply grappled with all of the evidence I could find.
Sadly, the flintknapping community spent decades focusing on flakes and flake scars, and maybe even finished points, while the underpinnings of Native American flintknapping technology cannot be understood in this manner. People think that they understand if they see something that seems to accord with their own experiences. Then, someone like myself comes along and shows something that not one single person was able to explain for three straight years, which is why I finally showed a video, and gave an explanation, on Christmas day, 2017. I did not learn by studying flake and flake scars, and especially not by studying finished points. I found a way to get into the heads of ancient people, via some other route, an informational route. And, this is why I spent years advocating studying all lines of information from various fields, before trying to understand flakes, and flake scars.
"As to the whole "overshot" thing. I agree it is an unfortunate distraction. I have all kinds of issues and opinions on "overshots" too, but that is entirely beside the point. I think all Ben is doing with "overshots" is using them as "proof of concept".
Whether anyone likes it or not, overshot is considered a diagnostic trait of paleo culture, on two continents. That being said, I finally demonstrated that overshot could be one of over a dozen different types of flaking styles created from a single technology - A SINGLE TECHNOLOGY.
So, in this case, is overshot a technology? No, it is the fruit of a technology, just as other types of flaking are also fruits of the same technology. I suspected this for years, once I realized that it appeared that Native Americans had been using SOPHISTICATED forms of indirect percussion. Now, I can demonstrate it.
Also, in the three years that I showed the overshot flaking results, no one did better with authentic tools and practices on raw stone. And, even a few of my worse detractors ended up begging for an explanation. If they did not see signs of authenticity, I doubt they would have reacted in this manner, once I showed the overshots.
Apart from overshot being at the end of the spectrum with this technology, it also requires the removal of alot of other more normal flakes, in order to reach the point where well controlled planing overshots can be achieved. But, I know that most knappers would be more interested in overshot flaking than in regular flaking.
So, to get people intrigued, I emphasized the overshot flaking. This hooked people, whereas if I had shown regular flaking, they would not have been interested. But, by trying to make overshot, the people will need to work through regular flaking to reach the late stages where overshot is more feasible.
"In the very least it establishes the point Ben started with many years ago that you don't need an antler billet to make big flakes."
Actually, my original view was that the people of the Americas were using forms of indirect percussion that have never been recognized. My goal was to connect a bonafide classic hallmark signature of flaking with a known flaker, and maybe even flaking practice. I was not planning on it being diagnostic Clovis flaking with simple deer tines, according to knowledge that was recorded during the 19th century. By the way, for those who are not impressed with overshot, the Cumberland style fluting is even better - same technology, too. Same technology.
"Cushing's model is helpful in that it is the only case (that I am aware of) where a guy both lived with Native Americans and was a knapper, then wrote down the process he used from start to finish. All other accounts from that time period are second hand and/or piecemeal."
What about Ray and Grinnell?
Information can be found scattered throughout many different fields - history, linguistics, ethnography, archaeology, mythology, geology, etc. All fields contain some pieces that potentially were at one time part of a greater picture. I endeavored to collect all the pieces, parse them, and see whether it was possible to synthesize new ideas that actually work. I believe I had done that in a number of areas. For other people, imperfect information is a stumbling stone. In my case, I made it a stepping stone. But, you are right. In Cushing's accounts, we get full blown information.
"The 1895 date raises valid concerns. This is centuries after depopulation and the influx of metal tools as trade goods wiped out large pieces of native knowledge. Was what Cushing describes simply the Zuni's reinvention of the process, or does it truly have ancestral roots? I don't know, but it is a valid question."
The 1895 date is when he gave his speech on flintknapping to the Vice President of the United States. That was a full fifteen years after he gave a similar lecture on the flaking arts, where he explained that the flaker has two roles - pressure flaking, and indirect percussion. The previous lecture was published in 1879.
So, it is important to do some comparative research. What about soldiers Grinnell, and Ray? I think all students of Native American flintknapping should be familiar with these cases, as well as others. Grinnell lived with the Cheyenne, and published a book about the life of the Cheyenne around 1870. And, Ray lived with the Hupa, and documented every aspect of the cultural lives of the Hupa, including material culture, around 1880.
What did Grinnell's aged friend Black Moccassin say about the reduction arts? He said that in the early 1800's they were still in use as a fallback for when supplies were not available. Then, he outlined entire reduction processes which Grinnell recorded. Since we know that boys were taught flintknapping, it stands to reason that some of the people like Black Moccassin literally watched their fathers knap when they were small boys, during the early part of the 19th century.
In 1880, Ray states that the Hupa who are over 40 years old still know how to make arrowpoints. Those would have been people born in 1840, or before. If Cushing met a hundred year old indian in the west in 1880, the indian would have been born in 1780. If the indian came in from west of the Rockies, the odds are that during the first twenty years of life 1780 to 1800, he knew nothing but stone.
This is actually clarified in Catlins, account which was published in 1868, but was based on his travels from 1830 to 1840. In speaking of a tribe west of the Rockies, Catlin says that they have "no metallic tools". So, if the indian had been born in 1780, then by 1830 the person would already be fifty years old, and maybe still using stone tools.
So, this begs the question, would an indian living in New Mexico in 1880 have been able to remember how stone tools were made? What about a hundred year old indian, born in 1780? I think the answer is self evident. If Cushing encountered fifty elderly indian men, probably more than a few of them could have explained how the processes were carried out, if they had watched their fathers and grandfathers carry them out, during boyhood. So, I am not concerned about the 1880's time frame, in New Mexico.
It is going to be a long, long time before the technology I have shown will be well understood, because it is a technology that can be used to create multifaceted results. And, even after three years, I cannot say that I know everything about all of those different flaking results.
Last night, a fellow wrote saying that he is the fourth person to achieve the overshot flaking with the method. I am waiting for the photos, now.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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
-
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.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/fbCa0GCee0mbXBom_HuNJ1gh_z0hZG9i7lB8UGVF1Zkh4z1qnS3-h3sB0JfZeKyj_zJJ3LYLs-PdOV84VZ4IRLhnEWYAZ0Hi6CcU66EOz8TLi7DHxSzmzAQ60WUADzxQP3oEFEac9rlEo-ljYlZRIU08_qZzcIFzC0v2jZ_MsiUAgwc1AO5iuQFpKMlrfBeBpruPddSzXw9Cuh9rhDHrykOxZfqyvkoPc7L1Bhmlu5jMRJSxe-Suj80NlSjwYjfPTE6YYKz-b4LbtDHoE8tq-uRSkqIk5UNNm0zFrkrld4Vq5_Jpd1FDATOrAvqoByNboKAkSKhwiNoLpU-HBqWMJtpyUyDKV7s-_QYQEKfAvZcvaibOcdLtHvBNPLtqZ4mVmMiYEfy1SI4KQVvhzYleV8pHakG6U-_JtG4c0WZUIc7DFzGaZAR83EHXWH6YT2s0LwZoZsVsLa19o02n-m-3XgW6e2fn-AkEaua4yo2yQooii6At6JuwCtf3wPgZujcjhhIE0O3WdpHjznMsIODLWCJJWfMwbM1yaVhSZ31Ouc0wbQbS-knDM5H4UW8xUQ5Txs92JUqjEp1qoflLTm4eEfOlAKLDT1Ak55Y5g7A=s1019-no)
-
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
-
The bottom line here Ben is that many have deceived others and perpetuated a
sad myth about the ancient phenomena of OVERSHOT. :'( :'(
While you and others attempt to exploit the Clovis name there are folks like me around
doing the real fact checking. O:)
The major fact in my opinion and the opinion of many that you assume are your
detractors is OVERSHOT is nothing more than a natural part of lithic reduction. ??? ???
That part being recorded in flake count and interpretation by folks that shut down the
Clovis/ Solutrean connection by exposing it's fallacies. :-K :-K
Not to mention there stead fast opinions that OVERSHOT is nothing more than a
normal MISTAKE through out knapping history. Not a method of dire importance.
Thank you for admitting to the fact that you contrived the Clovis connection with your
work to attract attention to yourself. I hope you soon make a similar admission on
your facebook page and other writings. Cushing's work just does not make a convincing
stretch back to ancient knapping practices. That story is yet untold.
Zuma
-
You are mistaken. The technology can be used to create many different kinds of flaking. But, I know that knappers will look into it more quickly if they see the overshot aspect.
Hyperbole - Modern knappers say they make "Clovis" points, right? So, I am saying that we are making "Clovis" flaking. Are we the Clovis people? Obviously not. So, we are not saying anything different than what modern knappers say everday. And, it is actually a nice form of hyperbole. Everytime an overshot is made, we can call it "Clovis", just as they call copper percussion points Clovis.
Fact Checking - You can do all the fact checking you want. But, people who spent years in archaeological field work have stated up front that the tools being used are the closest thing to the real McCoy ever seen, when modified deer tines are used. I heard this from three people with archaeological backgrounds in a week. I also heard it from collectors.
Solutrean - I do not believe in a Soutrean-Clovis connection. I have never said that A came from B, as others have done. You are talking to the wrong person. I also study genetics, as a hobby. I am well acquainted with New World haplotypes, and do not think that "boating from Europe" is a viable explanation.
Also, I do not need "attention". I already experienced my successes in life. I do not need the approval from anyone, so long as I know that I am sticking to facts. Actually, I do not even like interacting with flintknappers, after all the grief that was dished out in 2010, 2011, 2012, and on. But, it looks like competent people are taking this seriously. And, they always tell me, "Who gives a s--t about flintknappers?!" And, my answer is that the world needs them because they have the best shot - but not when it is based on ignorance, and stubborn denial of evidence. Now, I have ten trained guys.
Whatever you say about Cushing is a matter or presumption. I did my homework. And, others did not.
Have a great day!! :)
-
Oh well :-\
Have a Happy New Year!
-
this thread is going downhill fast- too much arguing and anger. Besides the unanswered questions above, one more:
What is it about "cushng overshots" that is differet from regular baton overshots/ coast-to-coast.THey look the same to me. I do them with a baton all the time.see below- billet flake in Danish flint. obsidian preform- about 8:1 width to thickness ratio, shown with a drawing of a Fenn Cache preform.
-
this thread is going downhill fast- too much arguing and anger. Besides the unanswered questions above, one more:
What is it about "cushng overshots" that is differet from regular baton overshots/ coast-to-coast.THey look the same to me. I do them with a baton all the time.see below- billet flake in Danish flint. obsidian preform- about 8:1 width to thickness ratio, shown with a drawing of a Fenn Cache preform.
It is not about visuals. Visuals can be like smoke and mirrors. Finished points can lie. Last stages can hide what was shown in previous stages.
In terms of authentic processes, what I am showing is an authentic process that has been on the books since the late 19th century. And, it covers all forms of flaking, not just overshot. The antler baton method was invented in England around 1940. The first experiments ever carried out were documented by Knowles in a paper called "Stoneworker's Progress". Cushing did not invent a new flintknapping method in a laboratory. He was an anthropologist and made an exact record of processes used by Native Americans, in the western US. So, in terms of authenticity, there is a big difference. And, that is what people in Europe, and people in South America, and people in China, and people outside of the US knapping circles instantly recognize. By the way, I am going to have to assume that moose antler billets are not going to fit inside half inch wide recessed platforms.
-
darn it, you had me excited. I thought you were going to answer my questions from Dec. 29. All I got from this response was that the difference between these cushing flakes and regular baton flakes is that they are instantly recognizable if you are not from USA.
-
darn it, you had me excited. I thought you were going to answer my questions from Dec. 29. All I got from this response was that the difference between these cushing flakes and regular baton flakes is that they are instantly recognizable if you are not from USA.
Nothing new here. ??? What would be novel is Ben showing his adoring audience photographs of Paleo through historic flakes that exhibit Cushing's ear marked techniques. O:) Since he is so close to so many archies he should have easy access to this info. Not likely in my opinion. )-w(
Zuma
-
Good God, this Ben guy made it into this group too !?!
Let me know when he gets kicked out of here like he has the rest. Knap on !
-
I can’t figure out why he keeps talking to himself.....
-
Shouldn't he be posting this stuff on the Abo board
-
Nobody post on the ABO board )P(
Zuma
-
I can’t figure out why he keeps talking to himself.....
Must be because he doesn't talk to anyone else. He never took the time to reply to anyone else's post.
Zuma you are so right. Hasn't been anything on there for along time. Thought we were going to get the point of the month going again but it seems to have hit the wall to.
Bjrogg
-
I keep watching this every time it starts and it’s always one big circle. I really hope Ben is copying and pasting all of this and he really has more of a life then to be able to sit down and keep retyping this stuff over and over. I know I’ve seen the same pictures time and again.
-
I only jumped in now that I see he is a "guest". I don't think in the 9 years that I have been active here that there has been a more serious pain in anyone's sitting muscles than this guy, and no I am not ignoring that squirrel kid.
-
BJ, yeah a POM--- a Cushing hinge fluted triangle. A Madison or Levanna