Search this Topic:
Feb 6 17 9:28 AM
Feb 6 17 9:57 AM
freeze cracked wrote:you see, kids? THIS is why i keep telling you to never play with new friends you meet when you're crossing bridges.repeat after me - "daringly flake these things"...
No one ever said no one, it was already granted "a few have mastered" in the literature. So repeating half a truism isn't evidence for a whole truism "easy to control". Repeat after me...darling....half truths are not whole truths. You have demonstrated absolutely nothing about "easy". Why are you avoiding that issue? If it were as easy as you claimed, there wouldn't be all those failures out there, both ancient and modern. So that is proof of the claim only a "few"... thus difficult. Thanks again for proving your claim of "easy" is false. Sorry, but that point is no E. Wenatchee or Fenn. It is assumed that the objective is the best of the best, not middle of the road work. It would seem, by the Clovis evidence so far found, overshot was difficult for most of them also, because most are not Fenn or East Wenatchee quality.
Almost ten years ago Marty and Cole were making points as well or better than the one you just posted...and again, I don't remember either saying it was easy. The failure rate alone disproves easy. Keep trying though, I'm learning a lot from your lack of data to prove "easy". Or still smiling I guess one would say.
Feb 6 17 10:06 AM
Feb 6 17 10:36 AM
Feb 6 17 11:19 AM
NewbowPA wrote:Lee, you are absolutely correct in that this particular forum is dedicated to scientific discussion. It got off track and into a subject, albeit related, that would be more useful if placed in the General forum. For what I may have contributed to the off-topic exchanges that resulted, I apologize. The opinions I offered and the Tony Baker Web page links I posted were, I believe, on-topic. To be succinct, I don't believe that current evidence (based on the give and take in the papers I have read) supports the Solutrean/Clovis connection and I don't believe that any similarities in flaking practices will be a deciding factor in any case. The opinions expressed in this thread suggest that those giving them don't think Clovis style flaking is a big deal. Those are their opinions and they have stated and even demonstrated why they hold them. Speaking for myself, I am not submitting a scientific dissertation and, beyond what I've already stated, I have no requirement to meet some burden of proof. Finally, "Science is not a science if it's not reproducible." That's a partial truth. Science is not science if it is not testable, is a more complete statement. Only the result of experiment need be reproducible.
Feb 6 17 12:04 PM
Rpiercestl wrote: But since Clovis spans centuries/millennia and has a wide geographical distribution, this new debitage could close the debate on "was overshot ever" if the answer is "yes" but if there is no evidence of overshot in this sample, perhaps it wasn't needed or efficient or perhaps it was used elsewhere and at other times. I certainly agree that it is hard to reproduce data from another lab unless the effect of changing variable x on the measured outcome is quite large. Marginal effects are hard to substantiate and reproduce. Used to tell my students, "if you're not getting at least a 3-fold change, you might want to pursue a differing project".
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Feb 6 17 12:25 PM
jflint wrote: Any Basalt Clovis points been found?
Feb 8 17 6:10 AM
Lee Olsen wrote:freeze cracked wrote:you see, kids? THIS is why i keep telling you to never play with new friends you meet when you're crossing bridges.repeat after me - "daringly flake these things"... "Lohse, Collins, and Bradley state, “becausefinished points are most commonly foundretouched, resharpened, and reworked, whichleaves most overshot scars unidentifiable, a volunteersurvey of largely surface-collected points isperhaps the least appropriate source of informationto use for recognizing systematic, controlledovershot flaking (Eren et al. 2014;60).” This means that the point above may or may not have had any overshot scars used during it's manufacture, since the edges have been reworked. It is not even a demonstrated overshot point, so whether or not the scars were easy to control is a moot issue. Also, even if one grants without clear evidence those are overshot scars, since the only scale is a person's hand, we don't know how large that hand is and thus do not know the width of that point. To my eye it appears that is a very narrow point though, and the narrower a point, I would admit, the easier it is to run flakes across it, overshot or not. Given the small size compared to #326, the flake scars in the above photo, depending on the actual size may only be one third to one half as long as the East Wenatchee overshot flakes. If it were "easy to control" overshots, by anyone with a little practice, I would think someone would be able to post a photo of 2" overshots on something that resembles a Clovis point (as per the criteria given in Eren et al. 2013). Eren et al. 2013 did just exactly that and they did not claim it was easy. It seems F-C remains very much alone in his opinion that overshots are easy to control...all without one iota of factual evidence to support his claim.
"Lohse, Collins, and Bradley state, “becausefinished points are most commonly foundretouched, resharpened, and reworked, whichleaves most overshot scars unidentifiable, a volunteersurvey of largely surface-collected points isperhaps the least appropriate source of informationto use for recognizing systematic, controlledovershot flaking (Eren et al. 2014;60).”
This means that the point above may or may not have had any overshot scars used during it's manufacture, since the edges have been reworked. It is not even a demonstrated overshot point, so whether or not the scars were easy to control is a moot issue.
Also, even if one grants without clear evidence those are overshot scars, since the only scale is a person's hand, we don't know how large that hand is and thus do not know the width of that point. To my eye it appears that is a very narrow point though, and the narrower a point, I would admit, the easier it is to run flakes across it, overshot or not. Given the small size compared to #326, the flake scars in the above photo, depending on the actual size may only be one third to one half as long as the East Wenatchee overshot flakes. If it were "easy to control" overshots, by anyone with a little practice, I would think someone would be able to post a photo of 2" overshots on something that resembles a Clovis point (as per the criteria given in Eren et al. 2013). Eren et al. 2013 did just exactly that and they did not claim it was easy. It seems F-C remains very much alone in his opinion that overshots are easy to control...all without one iota of factual evidence to support his claim.
Feb 8 17 6:28 AM
Rpiercestl wrote:Exciting that someone has discovered and is analyzing Clovis debitage.
A tiny fraction of what's been found. I hope this will give the number crunchers something to chew on for a while.
Feb 10 17 7:39 PM
Feb 11 17 8:31 AM
paleolithictech22 wrote:You know it's going to be really hard for most anyone to say whether or not someone intentionally overshot a biface and remain totally credible.
P22 says: "Now when I say over shot I mean a flake that damages the outline of the biface."
RE: Who says what Clovis considered "damages" or if "outline" mattered at all in every case? "say" is opinion, there is enough data to prove Clovis people were using "damaged" bifaces as tools through use wear and blood residue studies, so we know they didn't care in every case, even if someone today does. And even modern times the Rutz point set a new dollar record for the sale of that type of artifact, so we know that edge damaged outline isn't the only criteria to be using because there is certainly lots of edge damage on that point, both ancient and modern. Who cares? The new owner can still use the Rutz for a cutting tool if he wants to if that was his intent for buying it. Silly yes, but logically true.
P22: "Maybe if we find some Clovis knapping areas undisturbed or something like that it will be hard to prove that you know what they really wanted to do..."
RE: Good point. That is exactly what has happened, again:
In this case one photo isn't worth a thousand words. So I can see a few words of explanation are necessary. There are 8 overshot flakes (by definition...*OVER*-shot) in that photo, a couple are obvious, but most are not. It is simply one isolated patch, of many, we have found so far in a very large area. Unlike other areas we have looked at that contain contamination of other industries (notched, stemmed, etc.), this area does not have that problem. And even if it is determined later other groups used the area, who cares? The volume of overshots is saying something (see Bradley below) about intent, just as F-C's obsidian photo shows overshots, and he can correct me if I've misread him, but he seems to be claiming deliberate intent and equals are equal. Just because those that don't personally use overshots that often are only speaking only for themselves, not Clovis and the mass of overshots they have generated, even though it is only a small portion of all flakes as Eren et al. have correctly claimed.
"However, if these circumstances occurred too frequently, it is unlikely that knappers would continue to use the method, at least for reasons of effectiveness or efficiency (Bradley 2016:Introduction)."
Eren et al. (2013) countered previously with: We count only 8 lateral overshot scars on 58 bifaces (13.7%) from Adams, a Clovis lithic workshop in Kentucky (Sanders, 1990..." and gives multiple more examples to cement his case.
Plus he goes on to say: "The incidence of overshot frequency
would be far lower if overshot scars were counted as a
percentage of all flake scars, as Smallwood (2010) correctly does."
Eren et al. is pretty convincing, right? The believers might want to read this: https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/7054172.John_Bradford_Branney/blog
Please scroll down to his comments on Bradley's Fig. 3.10. There is a horrible error in Eren's thinking. I wonder if anyone on this list can figure out what that might be? Bradley gave a subtle clue quoted above, but did not elaborate. So did I above in another post, but blind tests are more fun.
Feb 11 17 10:49 AM
Feb 11 17 11:44 AM
Feb 11 17 12:54 PM
Hummingbird Point wrote:Lee,Sorry to be the dumb kid in the back of the room, but I'm lost. You seem to be arguing both sides. Do you believe Clovis knappers intentionally used overshot flaking?Keith
I most certainly am arguing both sides where both sides have made statements from unequivocal evidence. So you are correct in questioning what I've said, nothing dumb about asking. Trouble is both sides have fallen off the wagon in places. This is not like a court of law where if a person's testimony contains just one lie, the jury can then dismiss all of that person's testimony if they want. Where both sides in this debate have made statements that are proven true, that evidence has to remain. You just can't toss it out. The problem is..."Do you swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you?
"Do you believe Clovis knappers intentionally used overshot flaking?" Back to how long is a string? Of course some overshot use was deliberate as Bradley claims, but on the other hand Eren is also correct...it's not the most efficient way to do thinning, like if one wanted to make a Sweetwater or someone would have done it my now using mostly overshots. Hinge fracture rules in that case for the very thinnest of thinning. If not, let's see someone make one using mostly overshot tech.
I'm not disagreeing with Bradley 1982 at all (except for his site example may or may not be Clovis), but rather agree with the principle of his argument for alternate flaking. Later on (2010) Eren et al. did catch Bradley and Stanford in statements trying to grease the pot for the Solutrean connection by exaggerating the importance of overshot to argue their case.
I'm not disputing Eren's or Smallwood's evidence at all, the data is the data. Junk flakes outnumber overshot flakes period. Even in my (and F-C's) photo junk flakes outnumber overshot flakes by a large margin. But deliberate intent is not falsified. So I agree with Eren and Smallwood as far as it went and they said they were only dwelling on that one item. But to conclude from the thinning aspect alone all overshot flaking was simply knapper error can be disproven with just one paragraph.
Feb 11 17 1:12 PM
Rpiercestl wrote:Their definition of overshot flakes as ones that damage the opposite side confuses this discussion.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Feb 11 17 1:52 PM
Feb 11 17 3:50 PM
Rpiercestl wrote:Another factor to consider is that debitage consists only of flakes that were discarded; not flakes reshaped or used as is for another purpose. Spalling and overshot flakes which are larger and have more sharp perimeter are and perhaps were often purposed. If overshot or "coast to coast" flakes were repurposed sometimes they would be under- represented in debitage.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Like this one? Page 19: Figure 13. "Miscellaneous Tools from the Adams Site: a, scraper on flake with distal end thinning overshot fracture;...(Sanders 1988)"
Now a skeptic could claim a knapper made an overshot mistake and his wife came along, picked the mistake up and made an end scraper out of it. But at least objects like this could be tested for signs of use.
Also, while the East Wenatchee cache doesn't have any overshot flakes per se used as tools, there are a number of prismatic blade tools that are very, very similar in size and shape of overshot flakes. I can't see why it would made any difference in actual use.
Feb 11 17 7:27 PM
Feb 12 17 8:17 AM
Rpiercestl wrote:Reading some more lately and wondering when the controversy on overshot flaking arose or heated up.
A relatively new book "Projectile Point Types in Missouri and Portions of Adjacent States by Jack H. Ray has a section on "Gainey" points which are described as upper Midwest successors of Clovis and predecessors of Dalton points. On pg 142 he says, "Middle-state percussion and thinning of Gainey performs involved outre passé or overshot flaking that often spanned the width of the preform."
"outre passe" sounds fancy!
Also the Carlisle cache of Clovis preforms shows strong evidence of coast to coast flaking.
Is this considered up to date?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
As far as Bradley and Stanford, it depends on how informal one wants to get I think. https://books.google.com/books?id=RI32r548fUwCPage 261 "overshot flaking". Next Newbow's reference above to Baker and the 1999 Santa Fe Conference also. A former colleague (online) stated Stanford was talking about it back in the 1980s and Bradley 1982. I haven't been able to find who actually used the term "overshot" first in the published literature yet. Maybe someone else here knows that. A start:
Feb 12 17 9:38 AM
© 2017 Yuku. All rights reserved.