For Zuma - Uncontrolled overshot versus controlled overshot

[AncientTech]

(Disclaimer:  For those who think that this thread should actually be in the Overshot/Atlantic thread, I apologize.  In this instance, I was asked to put the information in a separate thread.)

Hello Zuma,

In the other thread, I believe that you wrote something to the effect that you do not believe that there is evidence that Clovis knappers employed "controlled overshot". 

Also, I believe that you stated that you do make overshots on a regular basis, but they tend to be accidents, which is something that I can perfectly relate to. 

And, I believe that you offered the opinion that "how the overshots were made" is "not important". 

Well, just like yourself, I also make a load of uncontrolled overshots that are accidents, and that completely destroy the work.  Here is one example of an uncontrolled overshot that broke the stone into three pieces, and that completely ruined what would have been a nice preform.

PHOTOS:  Unintended overshot made via hammerstone percussion that destroyed the preform









Basically, when this happens, I have reached a point in hammerstone thinning, when the stone fits well in my hand.  Then, while striking against the platform with the hammerstone, I inadvertently over torque the stone against the blow.  Torqueing the stone is not necessarily bad, because it is a way to gain flake length.  But, too much torqueing can lead to a horrible, heart rending overshot, that destroys a nice preform.  So, in this instance, I would have to admit, and agree, that all of my early stage hammerstone overshots tend to be very destructive mistakes. 

On the other hand, here is another overshot that I made, in a very small piece of quartz crystal.  And, you can judge for yourself whether or not it was a controlled overshot. 

First, in order to acquire quartz crystal, to carry out the overshot process, I had to drive 140 miles round trip, in order to have quartz to work with. 

After I made the trip, and acquired the quartz, I set about testing my non-direct percussion technology, to see how the quartz crystal reacted to the basic process.  Though I only had maybe three pieces of quartz, it seemed to me that the piece I flaked, responded better than expected.

Non-overshot test flakes:

 

So, I set up a platform.  Then, I proceeded to analyze how the process would work itself out, during impact.  In some areas I had some concerns, because the piece of quartz was so small.  But, I felt like if I was careful to control maybe two or three variables, and I did not understrike, then I had a chance of creating a full blown overshot. 

As I set everything up, I began to feel the suspense, the fear, the doubt, and the excitement, all fusing together.  My hands shook.  I felt faint.  And, I realized that if this experiment worked especially on the first try, it would be like seeing through time for thousands of years.  At the same time, a few nagging concerns left me almost paralyzed. 

As my hands shook, I knew that I had to go forwards, and not allow myself to lose control of the strike, or to allow myself to understrike.  I knew that I had to make sure that the strike contained certain properties in order to guarantee an outrepasse flake removal.  CRAAAACK!  The sensation felt strangely different, not like the feeling of chert, or obsidian, or even glass.  It seemed to feel like "plexi glass", or like the cracking of a really hard plastic.  When I "opened my eyes", I was greeted with the sight of an outrepasse flake.

Controlled Overshot Flake - made with a variation of the same technology that the non-Overshot test flakes were made from:











So, Zuma, given that I drove 140 miles to obtain the quartz crystal for my experiment, and given that I prepared every aspect of the process for an outrepasse flake, and given that none of my thin, scaly test flakes were ever close to being an outrepasse flake, and given that my hands were shaking at the prospects of creating a full blown outrepasse flake, on the first attempt, do you think that what I did was intentional?  Given everything that I went through to create the flake, it was premeditated, wasn't it?

Okay, if I did intentionally create an outrepasse flake, in 2015, and I did it by a knowledge of flaking that was still remotely extant, during the 19th century, then is it possible that the Clovis knappers could have done the same thing?  Or, should I think that I am "better" than a Clovis knapper?  Well, I do not think that I am better than a Clovis knapper.  I think that they could have done it intentionally - especially in late stages - just as well.

Also, since it can be shown that overshot can be a heart rending error via one technology, but a well controlled outcome of another technology, then does the idea that "how the overshot was made is not important" still stand?  What if two distinct technological processes lead to two distinct outcomes, at two different points in the reduction process?

Respectfully,

Ancient Tech   

   



   

[caveman2533]

"Also, since it can be shown that overshot can be a heart rending error via one technology, but a well controlled outcome of another technology, then does the idea that "how the overshot was made is not important" still stand?  What if two distinct technological processes lead to two distinct outcomes, at two different points in the reduction process?"

Ben, what you seem to be suggesting here is that one process will lead to error and the other will not.  Is that what you are trying to say.

 I think what Zuma was trying to say by saying "how it was made was unimportant",  Is that was not his question in the first place. His question was "Did they do it intentionally or not?  Not How did they do it?  You're trying to answer how it was done, and he wants to know "IF" it was done intentionally. And no you don't need to know how it was done to answer that.   Is there evidence of overshot enough to say it was done intentionally? as compared to other industries.

[StevenT]

I don't mean to sound critical, but I don't get it with these long post on "overshots". Maybe I am missing the point, but it's like watching a dog with a bone that just doesn't want to let go. Color me "tupid", but I'm just not learning anything from it. Sorry.

[caveman2533]

Ben is trying to prove that with his mystery technique that he discovered in a late 1800's picture, he has total control over what he can do with overshots, that we are all doin it wrong cause we are not using his technique, etc. And he is trying to link that with what Clovis did 12,000 years earlier.  Mostly his argument is with himself. When I argue with myself I do it quietly that no one can hear me. It is getting tiresome, lets move on already.

[Dalton Knapper]

I fail to understand why quartz would be important to whether or not a person can intentionally produce an overshot flake? Why would it be more necessary to use quartz than other lithic materials?

[Ghost Knapper]

This post as well as another the arguement that Ancienttech is making the below statement he made...

"Also, since it can be shown that overshot can be a heart rending error via one technology, but a well controlled outcome of another technology..."

All that can be deduced by the his experiment is that the knapper (himself) is not proficient using the one technology versus the other in creating his desired outcome.



So what I am learning from all of these long posts is that when I decide to use a different tool during my knapping process I should make sure that my platforms, strike force and angle etc. is appropriate for the material and the tool I am using. Not that if I have a undesired outcome I write the tool/technology off as being inappropriate for creating the desired outcome. I have also created photos like the one posted where the biface gets broken in half due to the force going through the middle. It wasn't the tools/technologies fault, it was mine.

[JoJoDapyro]

Only one way to prove the technique. Video. One shot. No editing. So how accurately you can run full width flakes. I'll do the same with direct percussion, with a giant copper bopper. Post the video in a thread, I'll respond with mine. My thought is this. You say that one can't be as accurate with direct percussion as indirect. I say tell that to a carpenter who's hammer is an extension of his arm. It can be done. Let's do this!

[JW_Halverson]

How many times do you have to be called out?  Outrageous claims require outrageous proofs. You have claimed other sites have censored you and robbed you of a platform (pun intended) for your teaching, and yet here you have been allowed freedom and yet have steadfastly refused that liberty.  Frankly, you leave people with but one possible conclusion.

[Tower]

Am I wrong I saying that we should just shut up & knap? That's what we are here for.   Good gravy. PA is like family.   Let's see the points.  .

[Zuma]

Ben you are  broken record.  The only way  left for you is to is to get a count of
Clovis overshots  to prove they are intentional. You would have to have at least
51 percent. You can't do it. You can't demonstrate a 20 percent rate.
It's all just fantasy HYPE!!!! Find another grail (non holy even).
Zuma called out or the last time
 

[AncientTech]

"Also, since it can be shown that overshot can be a heart rending error via one technology, but a well controlled outcome of another technology, then does the idea that "how the overshot was made is not important" still stand?  What if two distinct technological processes lead to two distinct outcomes, at two different points in the reduction process?"

Ben, what you seem to be suggesting here is that one process will lead to error and the other will not.  Is that what you are trying to say.

 I think what Zuma was trying to say by saying "how it was made was unimportant",  Is that was not his question in the first place.

His question was "Did they do it intentionally or not?  Not How did they do it?  You're trying to answer how it was done, and he wants to know "IF" it was done intentionally. And no you don't need to know how it was done to answer that.   Is there evidence of overshot enough to say it was done intentionally? as compared to other industries.


Hello Mr. Nissly,

You wrote:

"His question was "Did they do it intentionally or not?  Not How did they do it?  You're trying to answer how it was done, and he wants to know "IF" it was done intentionally. And no you don't need to know how it was done to answer that.   Is there evidence of overshot enough to say it was done intentionally? as compared to other industries."

Regarding your question (or rephrase of Zuma), "Is there evidence of overshot enough to say it was done intentionally?"

Let me ask, if there is more than one way to create an overshot, each with its own set of characteristics, and possibly even at different stages, then is it possible that there is no singular answer to this question???  This question is prefaced on the supposition that there is a such of thing as "overshot", not completely different types of overshots. 

So, why do I point out two clearly different forms of overshot?  Is it to explain how overshot could be "done"?  Or, is it to show that one type of overshot might lead to heavily failed preforms, while another type of overshot thinning might actually be useful, even in late stage thinning?

So, if there was two or more technological processes that produced overshot, then one would need to different the technologies, and the effects, in order to determine whether or not overshot could be intentionally produced. 

Zuma seems to think that it was not intentionally produced, as he stated.  My view is that it could have been intentionally produced with tine-based flaking technologies, while it also might have occurred as an error, in earlier hammerstone phase reduction. 

If overshots are only counted numerically, and all of the hammerstone overshots are bad, and all of the tine overshots are good, and there is an equal amount of each type of overshot, then it would look like a 50/50 scenario.  But, this conclusion would actually be wrong - or at least misleading - because it would actually be 100% failure for early stage hammerstone overshot, but maybe near 100% success for tine based overshot.  (Obviously, I have left out hammerstone based overshot, on anvils, to keep things simple.)

In order to accurately answer the questions that Zuma proposed one would have to try to answer "how" the overshots were made, in terms of technological application.  Then, one would have to look at the incidence of success - or failure - FOR EACH technology.  If hammerstone direct percussion overshots are 100% failures, while tine-based overshots are 80-100% successes, then the answer is relative to technology.  And, so, having insight into the technology becomes highly relative, and critical, to answering the original question:  Does any evidence show that overshot was "intentional".  Which kind of overshot are we talking about?  Hammerstone percussion?  Tine based? 

What I can show is that there are at least two clear ways to create overshot.  One is intentional, but the other is not intentional.  Both tend to occur at different stages of reduction.  Both are made with different tools.  Both are made with different processes.  Both, reveal different attributes.  One type of overshot technology seems to be useful in thinning, while the other leads to preform destruction. 

A person cannot answer a question like "was overshot intentional", without further information.         

[AncientTech]

I don't mean to sound critical, but I don't get it with these long post on "overshots". Maybe I am missing the point, but it's like watching a dog with a bone that just doesn't want to let go. Color me "tupid", but I'm just not learning anything from it. Sorry.

Hello Mr. StevenT,

Don't feel bad.  There are probably many people who do not know what overshot flaking, coast to coast flaking, etc, actually is. 

In the big picture, people use an understanding of stone tools to interpret history - even remote history.  And, sometimes, a misunderstanding of stone tools could lead to a misunderstanding of history - even remote history.

As Dr. Bruce Bradley put it, overshot flaking is something that is very, very difficult to produce, even for many expert flintknappers.  So, if you ever do produce it, you should hang on to it, like a dog hangs on to a bone.



 

[AncientTech]

Ben is trying to prove that with his mystery technique that he discovered in a late 1800's picture, he has total control over what he can do with overshots, that we are all doin it wrong cause we are not using his technique, etc. And he is trying to link that with what Clovis did 12,000 years earlier.  Mostly his argument is with himself. When I argue with myself I do it quietly that no one can hear me. It is getting tiresome, lets move on already.

Mr Nissly,

Please keep the discourse honest.  I did not find overshot technology in an 1800's "picture".  Also, I never said that other people are doing it "wrong".  In fact, I just point out that virtually all of my hammerstone overshots lead to failure during the late stages of hammerstone reduction.  So, how can I say that anyone is doing it "wrong", when my own hammerstone overshots are failures?  Also, I did not say that I am "trying to link to Clovis".  I show the simple deer tine that I use, and I can show a host of attributes.  I never saw the flaker that the Clovis people's used.  What remains in doubt is whether the traits of overshot, and fluting, ever showed that it could be done with a deer tine?  Also, I am not having any sort of argument with myself.  I already can produce controlled overshot, and controlled coast to coast, with a deer tine.  No one can argue with real results.  If you are tired of overshot technology, and Clovis technology, then feel free to move on.  I am not going to try to stop you. 

(Moderator:  You can see that I addressed Mr. Nissly with respect beyond what is due.  There is no moral failing on my part in my response to Mr. Nissly.  I also have read through the rules, and I do not believe that I am in violation of any rules of Primitive Archer.)

[AncientTech]

I fail to understand why quartz would be important to whether or not a person can intentionally produce an overshot flake? Why would it be more necessary to use quartz than other lithic materials?

Hello Dalton Knapper,

That is a perfectly good question.

One of the troubles that I had, before getting back into knapping, in 2010, is that I could not reconcile the range of materials used by ancient knappers, with my own baton/heat treating experience, from the 1990's.  With the internet, this became a big eye-opener for me.

So, when I began to carry out technological experiments, I vowed to use raw stones - and all ranges of raw stones - especially, in testing indirect percussion technologies. 

As a result, I made multiple outrepasse flakes, in raw chert, then in obsidian.  Ironically, I had no prior background in working quartz crystal.  I was under the impression that it was difficult to flake, due to stepping issues.  Also, my impression is that the people who had these problems were employing copper percussion.  This is an impression, but not something that I know for a fact.

Anyway, after carrying out other tests, I figured if my technology was viable in crystal, then I might dedicate myself to knapping crystal, via sophisticated forms of indirect percussion.  So, obtaining quartz crystal, and carrying out the process was part of my goal in covering a wide range of materials.  By the way, could you imagine a purple amethyst quartz Clovis spearhead, with overshots?   

Also, to be completely clear, I have not used the technology on heat treated chert, except in the instance that some of my chert collected in Belize may have been burnt in a previous forestfire.  The reason that I say this is because in a certain area, the stone is exceptionally colorful, but also waxy, as though it was cooked in a fire.

By the way, in the mid-1990's, I collected arrowheads on a bluff overlooking Spunky Creek, in Catoosa, Oklahoma.  I also found many tiny shards of debitage.  And, the flakes were pink, and waxy, as though they had been heat treated.  So, I am not for or against heat treatment.  My concern has always been that much of what is seen in the paleo record appears to have been done in stone that modern knappers would consider to be "unknappable".  (In my past knapping life, I would have thought the same thing.)  And, that is why I focused on all sorts of raw cherts, as well as obsidian, and quartz crystal.

From these experiences, one of the things that I have noticed is that my technologies are maybe more affected by grain, then by "hardness". 

I hope this makes sense. 

[Zuma]

Ben you Fail to produce evidence of any sort of intentional Clovis overshot.
You seem to be stuck in the fantasy of modern knappers,  book and you-tube sellers.
Where's the beef bud?
Zuma