Author Topic: Psuedo Outrepasse followed by Clovis outrepasse  (Read 16613 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline nclonghunter

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,779
Re: Psuedo Outrepasse followed by Clovis outrepasse
« Reply #15 on: December 02, 2015, 09:25:45 am »
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.... :(
There are no bad knappers, only bad flakes

Offline Hummingbird Point

  • Member
  • Posts: 147
Re: Psuedo Outrepasse followed by Clovis outrepasse
« Reply #16 on: December 02, 2015, 03:22:38 pm »
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

Offline GlisGlis

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,489
Re: Psuedo Outrepasse followed by Clovis outrepasse
« Reply #17 on: December 02, 2015, 05:21:29 pm »
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...

Offline Zuma

  • Member
  • Posts: 4,324
Re: Psuedo Outrepasse followed by Clovis outrepasse
« Reply #18 on: December 02, 2015, 07:30:19 pm »
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.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-...

If you are a good detective the past is at your feet. The future belongs to Faith.

Offline mullet

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • Posts: 22,884
  • Eddie Parker
Re: Psuedo Outrepasse followed by Clovis outrepasse
« Reply #19 on: December 02, 2015, 09:19:22 pm »
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.
Lakeland, Florida
 If you have to pull the trigger, is it really archery?

Offline Zuma

  • Member
  • Posts: 4,324
Re: Psuedo Outrepasse followed by Clovis outrepasse
« Reply #20 on: December 02, 2015, 09:50:44 pm »
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
If you are a good detective the past is at your feet. The future belongs to Faith.

AncientTech

  • Guest
Re: Psuedo Outrepasse followed by Clovis outrepasse
« Reply #21 on: December 06, 2015, 08:54:56 pm »
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?

AncientTech

  • Guest
Re: Psuedo Outrepasse followed by Clovis outrepasse
« Reply #22 on: December 06, 2015, 08:59:40 pm »
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.   

AncientTech

  • Guest
Re: Psuedo Outrepasse followed by Clovis outrepasse
« Reply #23 on: December 06, 2015, 09:03:25 pm »
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. 

AncientTech

  • Guest
Re: Psuedo Outrepasse followed by Clovis outrepasse
« Reply #24 on: December 06, 2015, 09:06:32 pm »
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.

AncientTech

  • Guest
Re: Psuedo Outrepasse followed by Clovis outrepasse
« Reply #25 on: December 06, 2015, 09:12:58 pm »
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. 

Offline caveman2533

  • Member
  • Posts: 640
  • Steve Nissly
Re: Psuedo Outrepasse followed by Clovis outrepasse
« Reply #26 on: December 06, 2015, 09:59:45 pm »
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.


Offline Zuma

  • Member
  • Posts: 4,324
Re: Psuedo Outrepasse followed by Clovis outrepasse
« Reply #27 on: December 06, 2015, 10:48:02 pm »
,
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
If you are a good detective the past is at your feet. The future belongs to Faith.

Offline Zuma

  • Member
  • Posts: 4,324
Re: Psuedo Outrepasse followed by Clovis outrepasse
« Reply #28 on: December 06, 2015, 10:55:48 pm »
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
If you are a good detective the past is at your feet. The future belongs to Faith.

Offline Zuma

  • Member
  • Posts: 4,324
Re: Psuedo Outrepasse followed by Clovis outrepasse
« Reply #29 on: December 06, 2015, 11:13:50 pm »
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
« Last Edit: December 06, 2015, 11:18:00 pm by Zuma »
If you are a good detective the past is at your feet. The future belongs to Faith.