Primitive Archer
Main Discussion Area => Flintknapping => ABO => Topic started by: AncientTech on November 29, 2015, 06:46:24 pm
-
This could be mistaken for outrepasse:
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Holy%20Grail%20Outre%20Passe/Test%2025/005.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Holy%20Grail%20Outre%20Passe/Test%2025/005.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Holy%20Grail%20Outre%20Passe/Test%2025/006.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Holy%20Grail%20Outre%20Passe/Test%2025/006.jpg.html)
Heading for a real outrepasse:
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Holy%20Grail%20Outre%20Passe/Test%2025/008.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Holy%20Grail%20Outre%20Passe/Test%2025/008.jpg.html)
Bam!
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Holy%20Grail%20Outre%20Passe/Test%2025/009.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Holy%20Grail%20Outre%20Passe/Test%2025/009.jpg.html)
Far side termination is shown detached - nice curve around the edge:
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Holy%20Grail%20Outre%20Passe/Test%2025/011.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Holy%20Grail%20Outre%20Passe/Test%2025/011.jpg.html)
The thick area was the edge of the stone - ran thin, and terminated thick. That is what I love about tine based flaking technology.
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Holy%20Grail%20Outre%20Passe/Test%2025/012.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Holy%20Grail%20Outre%20Passe/Test%2025/012.jpg.html)
Refit:
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Holy%20Grail%20Outre%20Passe/Test%2025/013.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Holy%20Grail%20Outre%20Passe/Test%2025/013.jpg.html)
Wrapped up for a friend who is interested in paleoindian stuff - note the right angle turn, at the end of trajectory:
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Holy%20Grail%20Outre%20Passe/Test%2025/015.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Holy%20Grail%20Outre%20Passe/Test%2025/015.jpg.html)
Full late stage outrepasse flake scar:
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Holy%20Grail%20Outre%20Passe/Test%2025/018.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Holy%20Grail%20Outre%20Passe/Test%2025/018.jpg.html)
All done with a simple deer tine.
-
I would like to have a couple truck loads of that rock....what type of rock is it?
-
How could the first two pictures be mistaken as "outrepasse"? Are you stating that the first picture is one single flake removal? Because the second photo clearly shows 2 separate flake scars, 2 separate bulbs of percussion, and a central ridge where the second flake terminated.
-
How could the first two pictures be mistaken as "outrepasse"? Are you stating that the first picture is one single flake removal? Because the second photo clearly shows 2 separate flake scars, 2 separate bulbs of percussion, and a central ridge where the second flake terminated.
The two flake scars in the first photo are two separate flakes. They are so well blended together that no distinct line shows where one scar intrudes upon the other. So, if a person is not a flintknapper, and the flakes are not present, and the edges were well trimmed (bulbs not visible), the flake scar could be mistaken for an outrepasse flake scar, since there is no sign of two distinct flakes "converging". There is somewhat of a smooth ridge/high area present. But, there are also outrepasse flakes that arc over surfaces.
Anyway, these photos cover both regular flaking, and outrepasse flaking, with the same process. It still is not clear to me how one can affirm that late stage outrepasse flaking is a "distinct technology", when what is not known is whether it could actually be part of a more complex multi-faceted flaking technology.
-
Both flake scars show rippling before termination so that along with the medial ridge clearly shows that it is not outrepasse, but yes I do agree that someone who does not know how flaked stone tools were made could mistake that as something it is not.
The photos do a good job of showing flakes traveling across the piece being worked but other methods of knapping can show the same results.
-
Both flake scars show rippling before termination so that along with the medial ridge clearly shows that it is not outrepasse, but yes I do agree that someone who does not know how flaked stone tools were made could mistake that as something it is not.
The photos do a good job of showing flakes traveling across the piece being worked but other methods of knapping can show the same results.
You are right. I think that the same effect can be achieved via hammerstone flaking, from time to time.
In some cases, this technology could be confused with hammerstone technology. In other cases, it could be confused with pressure flaking technology. And, in other cases, it clearly does what hammerstones, billets, and pressure flakers cannot do.
Also, since it is not purely indirect percussion, there are signs of other technologies taking effect, such as a percussive blow, and pressure.
-
Ouch! This overshot went wrong...
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Holy%20Grail%20Outre%20Passe/Test%2025/003.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Holy%20Grail%20Outre%20Passe/Test%2025/003.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Holy%20Grail%20Outre%20Passe/Test%2025/004.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Holy%20Grail%20Outre%20Passe/Test%2025/004.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Holy%20Grail%20Outre%20Passe/Test%2025/006_1.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Holy%20Grail%20Outre%20Passe/Test%2025/006_1.jpg.html)
-
One thing I have been noticing with your attempt at reproducing Clovis style overshots is that your attempts tend to just make it to the other side while ancient examples show predominant flaring and a wide removing of the opposing edge. Also the ancient examples show predominant platforms or nipples that would negate the need for a punch in areas that a hammerstone or antler bopper could not reach on there own.
-
Example:
(http://i1294.photobucket.com/albums/b604/joelbookhammer/overshot_zpso0qzlxzy.jpg) (http://s1294.photobucket.com/user/joelbookhammer/media/overshot_zpso0qzlxzy.jpg.html)
-
Example:
(http://i1294.photobucket.com/albums/b604/joelbookhammer/overshot_zpso0qzlxzy.jpg) (http://s1294.photobucket.com/user/joelbookhammer/media/overshot_zpso0qzlxzy.jpg.html)
Right. But, I am not convinced that late stage overshot is as big as the early stage overshot which seems more frequently seen, in high grade materials.
My biggest similarly related flake is this coast to coast flake:
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Good%20Data%20Bad%20Interpretation/coasttocoast7-1.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Good%20Data%20Bad%20Interpretation/coasttocoast7-1.jpg.html)
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Good%20Data%20Bad%20Interpretation/coasttocoast9-1.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Good%20Data%20Bad%20Interpretation/coasttocoast9-1.jpg.html)
But, this technology would not produce an overshot flake - only a coast to coast flake.
Anyway, if I can get the right tools, I think that I might have a chance at producing overshot, on a much larger scale, as can be seen in some of the early stage Clovis.
Also, even though my early stage hammerstone overshot looks a lot like early stage controlled Clovis overshot, I am not convinced that it is the same thing, for a number of reasons. So, if I can get the right tools, I hope to see whether I can create something similar to early stage hammerstone overshot, only with a much more sophisticated technology that will involve a very different sets of attributes.
Regarding the width of the edges of the overshot, some of it is determined by factors other than the technology, itself. Even in my own work a great array of widths can be seen. Look at the width of this termination:
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Holy%20Grail%20Outre%20Passe/test%205%20crudstone/0.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Holy%20Grail%20Outre%20Passe/test%205%20crudstone/0.jpg.html)
Look at the thinness of the flake midway:
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Holy%20Grail%20Outre%20Passe/test%205%20crudstone/11.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Holy%20Grail%20Outre%20Passe/test%205%20crudstone/11.jpg.html)
That is probably only a few millimeters.
Look at the width, and thickness of the end piece:
(http://i677.photobucket.com/albums/vv135/benjamineble/Holy%20Grail%20Outre%20Passe/test%205%20crudstone/3.jpg) (http://s677.photobucket.com/user/benjamineble/media/Holy%20Grail%20Outre%20Passe/test%205%20crudstone/3.jpg.html)
I do not think that the obsidian overshot you posted is a good example of "late stage" Clovis overshot, (though maybe you did not intend it to be). To me, it looks like it might be fairly early, in reduction. The piece would almost appear to be a large preform. If I can acquire some other tools, I will see if I can do the same thing.
-
One thing I have been noticing with your attempt at reproducing Clovis style overshots is that your attempts tend to just make it to the other side while ancient examples show predominant flaring and a wide removing of the opposing edge. Also the ancient examples show predominant platforms or nipples that would negate the need for a punch in areas that a hammerstone or antler bopper could not reach on there own.
"Also the ancient examples show predominant platforms or nipples that would negate the need for a punch in areas that a hammerstone or antler bopper could not reach on there own."
It is not an either/or between hammerstone, billet, and "punch". In fact, I am not sure that a person could achieve this with a "punch". What I discovered - mostly by book study - is that more advanced results can be achieved by blending multiple technologies. But, to call such technologies either "punch" or "indirect percussion" would be a misnomer.
Archaeologists have been digging up flaking tools, going back to the advent of the archaic era, and the appearance of settled indigenous life, for the last hundred years. Once a person attempts to survey all of the known flaking tools, used throughout all documentable millennia, in all parts of the Americas, things will become much clearer, with regard to longstanding tool traditions, that under-lie finished points. As Philip Churchill said, before he died, most flintknappers are simply not acquainted with the evidence.
-
I agree that the example does not show a late stage reduction (was not ment to), but it does not look as though your images show that either. Maybe mid stage but a late stage reduction to me would include a biface that is 80% or more "shaped" into its final form. Looking back at both examples it would appear as though the one that I posted may be closer to its final form than that of the one you show. If the initial reduction as you stated could be made via a hammerstone why not continue with that technology when is appears perfectly adequate for the task.
What you "discovered" as you said mostly by book study may be something that is pertinent to the greater understanding of lithic reduction in North America. But what if those authors never had written about their own experiences. What if what they had discovered they deemed to important to share? You never would of learned from their efforts. Your discovery never would of happened. So instead of continuing the sharing of acquired knowledge you have decided to waterdown the information you share in order to keep it a secret?
-
I agree that the example does not show a late stage reduction (was not ment to), but it does not look as though your images show that either. Maybe mid stage but a late stage reduction to me would include a biface that is 80% or more "shaped" into its final form. Looking back at both examples it would appear as though the one that I posted may be closer to its final form than that of the one you show. If the initial reduction as you stated could be made via a hammerstone why not continue with that technology when is appears perfectly adequate for the task.
"I agree that the example does not show a late stage reduction (was not ment to), but it does not look as though your images show that either. Maybe mid stage but a late stage reduction to me would include a biface that is 80% or more "shaped" into its final form."What you "discovered" as you said mostly by book study may be something that is pertinent to the greater understanding of lithic reduction in North America. But what if those authors never had written about their own experiences. What if what they had discovered they deemed to important to share? You never would of learned from their efforts. Your discovery never would of happened. So instead of continuing the sharing of acquired knowledge you have decided to waterdown the information you share in order to keep it a secret?
Actually, once I understood how to use the deer tine to create outrepasse, I carried out all initial experiments on generic bifaces that had previously been made via hammerstones.
So, the examples of flaking are only that - examples of sophisticated outrepasse flaking made upon very generic preforms. I sent photos to a moderator of Arrowheadology, and he replied by saying that the flake scars looked Clovis, but not the preforms. Exactly! Bingo! That shows how much distinction is there, between the two technologies.
"Looking back at both examples it would appear as though the one that I posted may be closer to its final form than that of the one you show."
The original point that I made was that my flaking - as shown in the photos - is a late stage type of flaking. Why is it a late stage type of flaking? First, if one sees the reduction process, what can be seen is that the flaking follows general flaking, and then follows coast to coast flaking, made with the same process. In other words, there are really three types of flaking (not counting fluting) that are all rolled up into a single process. You can see how thin my flakes are. That is not early stage flaking. You could not swap it out for hammerstone flaking, because the flakes are too thin. Plus, as explained before, the actual outrepasse effect follows coast to coast flaking. And, coast to coast flaking follows regular flaking. That means that there are two stages of flaking, that could precede it. But, there is nothing after the outrepasse flaking (at this stage), except maybe pressure flaking.
So, if one starts with a hammerstone, and then switches to tine based flaking, the original flaking may look like general flaking. Eventually, that could give way to coast to coast flaking. Coast to coast flaking could give way to outrepasse flaking. And, outrepasse flaking could give way to pressure flaking. In all, that would constitute five stages of flaking, with outrepasse flaking being the fourth stage of flaking. So, that is why I referred to it as "late stage". But, in other contexts, the same process carried out with a tool different than a "tine" may generate the same effect, on a much larger scale. If so, this could be used much earlier, in the reduction process.
"If the initial reduction as you stated could be made via a hammerstone why not continue with that technology when is appears perfectly adequate for the task."
My hard hammer overshots tend to destroy my preforms, early on. But, my tine based overshots do not usually destroy the preform, at all.
Also, flintknapping is relative to the stone being worked. I regularly work stone that other people kiln cook for 12-15 hours. There are four types of rock - brittle/high grade, brittle/low grade, hard/high grade, hard/low grade. Many people take the hard/high grade rock and cook it until it is almost in a brittle, glass-like state. At that point it is easy to use certain technologies on it, to fracture it.
Anyway, if a stone is hard/high grade, then at a certain point hammerstone percussion can do a lot of damage to the stone. Imagine hitting a stone really hard. It does not break - but it "bends". And, every time it bends, the impact causes internal fractures. Most people avoid all of this, by cooking the stone in a kiln.
So, if you wanted to flake hard/high grade stone, and you did not want to destroy inherent tensile strength, by kiln cooking the rock, then how would you do it? Here is my answer (borrowed from past people): Creating a flaking process that separates the amount of force applied, from the shock that is generated. So, how would you do this? How can you separate the force applied, from the shock that is generated? The simple answer is via indirect percussion. The indirect percussion tool is used to buffer out the shock. But, at the same time, the force can be deliberately increased. In effect, the indirect percussion tool becomes a sort of "shock absorber". And, this makes it possible to use much greater amounts of force, while not having to suffer the consequences of all the shock. And, this is what is needed, when working hard/high grade stone which happens to have wonderful tensile strength. Or, you could just buy a rock kiln, and skip all of this - turn it all to glass. Ha ha ha.
That being said, you asked why one would not continue with the same process? Well, when the hammerstone becomes more prone to damaging the edge, than improving the edge, a simple switch to an indirect flaking process can produce better results. So, in a world when the average lifespan may have been 29 years of age, instead of spending 45 years at becoming super good with a hammerstone, a person might simply have learned more easily mastered processes, that may have done a better job.
"What you "discovered" as you said mostly by book study may be something that is pertinent to the greater understanding of lithic reduction in North America. But what if those authors never had written about their own experiences. What if what they had discovered they deemed to important to share? You never would of learned from their efforts. Your discovery never would of happened. So instead of continuing the sharing of acquired knowledge you have decided to waterdown the information you share in order to keep it a secret?"
It shouldn't be a secret. The moderator of another forum told me that people had lodged some complaints about me. So, they were getting rid of me. Actually, I only posted on that forum, because when I tried to post on a flintknapping forum, the responses were a mix of ridicule, attacks, never ending straw man arguments, etc.
From 2010, until today, there has not been one single time in which the informal leaders of the flintknapping community have been willing to openly discuss the known flaking tools, of which we have at least an 8,000 year record. I was told that no one is interested in this subject, while being kicked off of forums. I was also told to go make some super secret private forum somewhere, where people would be laughed at, if they offered input, or where no one would know about it. It was all treated as a big joke, while I compiled hundreds of instances of flaking tools, and flaking practices, that pointed either to indirect percussion, or to sophisticated flaking processes that are not well understood.
Over the years, a few people wrote to me privately, and said that they really were interested in this subject. But, they did not want to become subject to ridicule, or become a "lightning rod", as they saw me become. But, I will say that I actually used all of this to my advantage though, because I knew that if the informal leaders of the flintknapping community did not want people to know about this subject, they would still find out about the subject matter through endless conflicts. So, if public debate was derailed and turned into a conflict - as happened EVERY SINGLE SOLID TIME - then I used the conflict to get the information out.
What I did not know was how hard it would be to actually understand. If a simple tool, and a simple tool process, should produce an effect seen in ancient knapping, then why couldn't I produce it after four years of non-stop experiments?? It seemed to me that I should have at least accidentally struck the target, in four years of experiments. But, I didn't.
So, by the end of 2014, I was finally narrowing down my thinking. And, eventually the light came on, in January of 2015, regarding some information that I had in my head, but that I had never understood. Fifteen minutes later, I produced one coast to coast flake, followed by one overshot, on the first two tries - WITH A DEER TINE. It was so exciting, and nerve wracking, that I had difficulty breathing. I also hit an overshot in quartz crystal, on the first attempt. (By the way, my hammerstones are horrible for flaking quartz. But the tine flaking works great.)
My number one intention was to get the flintknapping community to look at the evidence of Native American flintknapping, since it clearly was never understood. The methods that I used to get the information across were less than ideal. But, when you have eight to ten people trying to dog you from every side, it is not the ideal situation in which to have an "objective discussion".
From 2010 until today, there never was one single objective discussion about the flaking tools that we have a solid record of. In five years, there never was an objective discussion about all the evidence of historical flintknapping, that still has never been understood.
So, do you think it is fair that I divulge on one forum very hard earned knowledge, while on other forums, I am "banned" because I tried to get people to look at the very same information? What if it is the same people who wanted me banned on one forum, who now want the secrets from me, on another forum? Do you think that is fair?
The reality is that in civilized societies, people are not banned for trying to present evidence. And, that is what this amounts to. They did not want to face up to something that they did not understand. Instead of saying, "We don't know what it all means", it was much easier to get rid of the person who brought forth the evidence. Fortunately, I stayed with the evidence, and refused to "follow the crowd", or get into the finished point competition. Today, the secrets have been opened. And, if they want to keep me "banned", then so be it. But, it is not like I am not prepared for the long haul.
-
Ben,
you are not banned, you are still here. The other roads have been closed, so take a detour and still get where you want to go. Primitive archer is your detour. will you ever get where you want to go? You are not producing overshots with just a deer tine. Plain and simple.
-
Show me a civilized society that has not tried to ban something. There are no formal or informal leaders in the knapping community. Pioneers, innovators, authors, devotees, newbs there are lots of those, but leaders who take control of information being presented nope not one. Privately operated forums have leaders, moderators, rules. The flintknapping community has no such thing. Become an author write a book on the subject, create a flintknapping instructional DVD sell your idea. But don't expect to go before the high counsel to discuss and explain your findings because there is no such thing.
-
This is something similar to a chess game, are we to "checkmate" yet???
I just hate I have a lot more interest in knapping than chess.... :(
-
Ben,
I really am trying to understand, but this makes no sense. By your own admission, your previous work was "85-90% wrong" and you spent 4 years of relentless experimentation only to find your previous thinking was largely wrong. That is what you are saying, isn't it? So basically your earlier critics were mostly right? Back a few years ago you were adamant that everyone was knapping the wrong way and needed to use small antler cylinders as straight punches, but now you are saying that is wrong? I'm not asking in a sarcastic, or snippy way, I honestly don't follow.
Regardless though, if all that happened back then, and by your own admission this is a new idea from less than a year ago, what does one have to do with the other? You seem upset that people ignore the historical evidence, but perhaps that is partly because guys like you come along and misinterpret the historical evidence, lead a bunch of us down the wrong path and then, knowing you were "85-90% wrong", refusing to correct the interpretation. You said in a previous exchange you wanted to make flint knapping "relevant again" but how does one person working in isolation accomplish that? Again, serious questions, not at all meant to be snippy.
Lyman says this is like a chess game. Not so. Chess is played in the open where both the players and spectators can clearly watch every move. This is a poker game where one guy claims to have the winning hand but refuses to put his cards on the table.
I fold.
Keith
-
every time I read posts of this kind i think about a good conference held by writer Michael Crichton on "speculation " topic
Some part of it can be found in the prologue of "state of fear" book. Very good reading.
Roosters fight apart I really like to read AncientTech theorys (even if I dont have the knowledge to say if they're good or not).
Wish I had a small part of his technique and like alot the pictures documentation.
If only the debate could stay a little colder...
-
If only the debate could stay a little colder...
LOL can't get cooler than this 8)
I don't even need an opinion >:D
Overshooting the ice: the role of experimental archaeology in ...
https://experimentalarchaeology.wordOvershooting the ice: the role of experimental archaeology in ... (https://experimentalarchaeology.wordOvershooting the ice: the role of experimental archaeology in ...)
https://experimentalarchaeology.wordpress.com/.../overshooting-the-ice-the-... (https://experimentalarchaeology.wordpress.com/.../overshooting-the-ice-the-...)
Mar 3, 2014 ... An example of an experimental overshot flake removal produced by MetinEren ( image from Eren et al. 2013). Over the Ice map. In recent years ...
Eren et al’s results suggest that overshot flakes are by products of a general biface thinning technique and in and of themselves are not very reliable or optimal at thinning bifaces. This conclusion seems to suggest that Solutrean and Clovis bifaces were produced using similar, simple, biface thinning techniques that resulted in occasional,accidental, overshot flakes. The article also contains a discussion of the existing archaeological evidence for overshot flaking in Clovis assemblages, not much, and the lack of comparable data in Solutrean assemblages.
press.com/.../overshooting-the-ice-the-...
-
I'd just like to see some pictures of different flakes and rocks. And didn't have to read through this crap to make sure everybody was playing nicely.
-
I'd just like to see some pictures of different flakes and rocks. And didn't have to read through this crap to make sure everybody was playing nicely.
Check out the original board.
Some eye candy there.
I'd like to see some of yours again. :)
If you ever get the time. ;)
Seriously, Zuma
-
Ben,
you are not banned, you are still here. The other roads have been closed, so take a detour and still get where you want to go. Primitive archer is your detour. will you ever get where you want to go? You are not producing overshots with just a deer tine. Plain and simple.
Aside from the wooden punch coast to coast flake, I have only made overshots with hammerstones, and deer tines. Those tools serve as the actual flaking agents.
You posit that "I am not producing overshots with just a deer tine". Do you think that I am using some other flaker? What I intend to say is that those are the flaking agents - either deer tines, or hammerstones. But, I soon plan to re-duplicate the same process with cylinders, assuming that all goes well.
Also, I am not sure what else you would think that I produce overshots from? Since I do not believe that billets were ever a culturally identifiable trait, in the Americas, I do not use them anymore, although I did in the past, starting in 1996, after I met Cherokee Indian Noel Grayson, of Talequah, Oklahoma.
If you do not think that the flakers used to create all of the non-hammerstone overshots are deer tines, then what tool do you think that I am using? And, why would you think that I would use some other tool, and then lie and say that it was made with a deer tine?
-
Ben,
you are not banned, you are still here. The other roads have been closed, so take a detour and still get where you want to go. Primitive archer is your detour. will you ever get where you want to go? You are not producing overshots with just a deer tine. Plain and simple.
Here is where I am going to go. Other people are going to have to admit that anthropological evidence of Native American flintknapping should never be banned, censored, or in any way shape of form removed from the discussion about flintknapping. There is no moral failing in bringing evidence to the table. The moral failing is in depriving other people a change to learn. And, that is what is done through censorship. It deprives people of a change to learn.
-
Show me a civilized society that has not tried to ban something. There are no formal or informal leaders in the knapping community. Pioneers, innovators, authors, devotees, newbs there are lots of those, but leaders who take control of information being presented nope not one. Privately operated forums have leaders, moderators, rules. The flintknapping community has no such thing. Become an author write a book on the subject, create a flintknapping instructional DVD sell your idea. But don't expect to go before the high counsel to discuss and explain your findings because there is no such thing.
There are informal leaders in the flintknapping community. What they have done, in some cases, is that they have used their influence to pressure moderators to stop or hinder people from bringing evidence-based views to the table.
Also, these forums are public, because anyone in the public is able to read them. They are not private forums. Only, the membership is private. The actual contents, and information, under discussion are given in a public online setting, that anyone from here to the Space Station can read about.
-
This is something similar to a chess game, are we to "checkmate" yet???
I just hate I have a lot more interest in knapping than chess.... :(
We should have been having an open discussion about evidence-based flintknapping since 2010, if not prior. Unfortunately, other people chose the censorship route. Actually, if I had been completely censored 100% no one would even see anything that I have posted here. The real harm is not being done by me. It is being done by those who have chosen to deprive other people of their chance to learn about authentic Native American flintknapping practices.
-
Ben,
I really am trying to understand, but this makes no sense. By your own admission, your previous work was "85-90% wrong" and you spent 4 years of relentless experimentation only to find your previous thinking was largely wrong. That is what you are saying, isn't it? So basically your earlier critics were mostly right? Back a few years ago you were adamant that everyone was knapping the wrong way and needed to use small antler cylinders as straight punches, but now you are saying that is wrong? I'm not asking in a sarcastic, or snippy way, I honestly don't follow.
Regardless though, if all that happened back then, and by your own admission this is a new idea from less than a year ago, what does one have to do with the other? You seem upset that people ignore the historical evidence, but perhaps that is partly because guys like you come along and misinterpret the historical evidence, lead a bunch of us down the wrong path and then, knowing you were "85-90% wrong", refusing to correct the interpretation. You said in a previous exchange you wanted to make flint knapping "relevant again" but how does one person working in isolation accomplish that? Again, serious questions, not at all meant to be snippy.
Lyman says this is like a chess game. Not so. Chess is played in the open where both the players and spectators can clearly watch every move. This is a poker game where one guy claims to have the winning hand but refuses to put his cards on the table.
I fold.
Keith
Yes and No. I was right about the evidence. The flintknapping community has been historically wrong about the evidence, probably going back to the 1960's or 1970's.
But, my interpretation was misguided, whereas the hundreds of people in the flintknapping community did not even bother with making a theory. It seems that virtually all of them just dismissed the evidence.
Actually, the little antler cylinders probably were the predominant post-hammerstone flaking tool, used in many or most parts of North America, from the advent of the archaic, and onwards. Obviously, the longstanding question in archaeology relates to how the tools might have been used. In the 1979 edition of Flintknappers Exchange, one author offered the view that they are worthless, and good for nothing but making gravel, and bloody hands. I happen to think that he was wrong, which means that while the flintknapping community is great at talking about point types all say long, they are not so great at admitting what types of flakers are found right alongside most of those point types.
It is not quite like a chess game. I was forced into a corner. Then, I discovered what my evidence contained. And, I turned the tables on the people who tried to force me into the corner. Now, they are in the corner, because they have no explanation, and they should admit that I never should have been banned, in the first place, for trying to get people to look at actual evidence.
-
You are not producing overshots with just a deer tine. Plain and simple.
If you are using the tine you are showing and not swinging it like a billet, then you are striking it with something, and is not JUST a deer tine.
-
,
Ben you are not banned, you are still here. The other roads have been closed, so take a detour and still get where you want to go. Primitive archer is your detour. will you ever get where you want to go? You are not producing overshots with just a deer tine. Plain and simple.
Here is where I am going to go. Other people are going to have to admit that anthropological evidence of Native American flintknapping should never be banned, censored, or in any way shape of form removed from the discussion about flintknapping. There is no moral failing in bringing evidence to the table. The moral failing is in depriving other people a change to learn. And, that is what is done through censorship. It deprives people of a change to learn.
LOL this is as funny as John Candy.
Any thread I have posted concerning the mis led instruction of overshot
has been totally censored. Count yourself very lucky here Ben
-
I'd just like to see some pictures of different flakes and rocks. And didn't have to read through this crap to make sure everybody was playing nicely.
Eddie,
I posted them on another thread but you removed them. What makes you guys happy or so sensitive?
Why did you do that? Peer pressure?
Zuma
-
This is something similar to a chess game, are we to "checkmate" yet???
I just hate I have a lot more interest in knapping than chess.... :(
NC I can remember the day when I was in Albermarl NC and you
were gracious enough to be a solid guide in my Rhyolite experience.
I have also watched you flourish in the knapping skills and was very
happy to meet you at Pete's.
These boards were on the up and up until recently. LOL
the rest is just recent history. Chess game?, oh no EGO.
Zuma
PS just chart the posts on this forum after the division of a
Knapping forum that did very well.
Zuma