Small Batch Science Episode 10: Other Clovis Stone Tool Forms
Вставка
- Опубліковано 16 лис 2024
- A short overview of Clovis bladecores, blades, blade tools, overshot flake tools, other kinds of flake tools, and a few of the rarer Clovis items made from stone. Naturally I put out 2 pieces of red ochre and forgot to mention them. What seems rare in Clovis sites to us may have as much to do with lack of recognition and lack of publication as anything else.
Awesome and informative content , one of my favorite cultures
Their intelligence had to be at a very high level to be able to make these blades their dexterity had to be very precise. If you have ever tried to make a long blade you understand to shoot a blade the entire length of that core is unbelievable I've tried you have to hit it very hard and at the precise point to get it to run the full length of the core.
I appreciate the diversion into overshot. Clovis overshot has entered the collective consciousness of the knapping community, likely due to Sanford's Solutrean hypothesizing - it was a pillar in his arguments. However there are several studies that show few overshot flakes in Clovis lithic production that are also thrown around as counter arguments to Sanford. A few of the Fenn Cache (also embedded n the knapping community's conscious) obsidian bifaces have overshot scars, but most bifaces in the collection just have large feathered scars. So the discussion is always had, when knappers get together, whether overshot is an intentional reduction strategy for Clovis, or just occasionally incidental or accidental. Guess we may never know...
Hi Chuck, The commentary on overshot flaking is a mess. And way too much as been made pro and con about how related lithic technologies are based on its presence as a reduction tool
That said the first thing I would bring up is that you have to look at assemblage level patterns of manufacturing behavior- Like Gault, or Pavo Real, in TX, or any of the other really big Clovis sites with LOTS of manufacturing debris. You really need to look at early bifaces through even mid to late stage preforms to see the VERY patterned behavior and repeated intentional use of the flaking technique. Fenn is a good example because it has great range of stages from really early big bifaces through used, nearly used up points. Sort the Fenn pieces by material type and you will see that range (an attritional profile really) of forms from early to late and used in all but 1 material I think (and that only because there are too few quartz bifaces).
Using the manufacturing sites you can also flip this around and look at the debitage as well. Often you need to look at both flakes and bifaces to figure out the terminations of those flakes that actually are all the way across. Even then it could be impossible to say a flake it truly overshot if it lacks a recognizable portion of the far side, unless you can refit it.
The notion that the full on overshot flakes that take a bit of the far side are accidental or at best unintentional is completely idiotic. At Gault there is a complete overshot that is 17cm long from platform to the far end. Meaning it was struck from a biface that was 17cm+ Wide! If is not possible to do that without a tremendous amount of preparation and incredible skill. You can see scars of removals nearly that big in the Anzick Cache too. Admittedly an extravagant example but it makes my point (haha) regarding intentionality (which is a shared characteristic of Solutrean whether they are related or not).
I'll end with one last observation related to the blades removed from a number of both conical and wedge cores- namely, essentially the same reduction strategy is being employed with regularity. I showed a number of Bruce's attempts to re-create things we were seeing at Gault and other manufacturing sites. Specifically the different types of terminations on blades- feather, hooking (or maybe reversed hinges- that took the end of the core off), and of course the misses that hinge or step out and do not go the full length of the core face. Whether off blade cores or bifaces/preforms the intentional removal of flakes that go down or across the entire length of the piece is a hallmark of Clovis reduction technology. Clearly most visible in the earlier stages of production for points. The overshot evidence is regularly removed or obliterated by later flaking- finishing, resharpening or what have you and in point of fact will rarely be visible on finished and used points because the edges are retouched. Why professional archaeologists can't figure that out, or see it when they are shown examples, boggles the mind some times.
@@paleotopioneer7779 That is the most well reasoned argument I've heard made on the topic. You should make a video about just that topic!
I certainly agree with needing to view it in terms of an entire assemblage. Also there's no doubt they worked in large stone.
Speaking of assemblages, have there ever been hints, besides hammerstones, of other knapping tools that have survived from Clovis assemblages? I'm koping if bone needles have survived, maybe an antler punch tool, or horn pressure flaker, or something with some silica embedded in it has made it.
Thanks for taking the time to make these videos and answer questions. I appreciate it.
@@chucklearnslithics3751 Thank you for your kind words. I think it gets through that I pretty much live and breathe the archaeology and history stuff so getting it right is really all that matters to me. I think you are right that a post on Overshooting might be in order. What I may do is put together a companion article for the blog so I can use images of real artifacts to show what I am talking about better.
Re knapping tools. In Clovis the best example is the mammoth ivory billet from Blackwater Draw. There is a similar kind of thing from Trull (I think) in TN? might have a Pre-Clovis date and it's not as clearly an artifact so a bit iffy. At Sloth Hole in the Aucilla we have a battereed cortex limestone cobble that weighs about 10lbs- maybe an anvil rather than a hammerstone. Also at Sloth Hole we found an incredibly well made antler pressure flaker but it is undated and not from a good context. I would say I don't believe for a second it is any younger than about 11,000 years old or here Early Archaic Bolen in age. It is worth directly dating now, when we found it in the 90s it would have been pretty harsh to cut it up. Not a lot of other Clovis or potential Clovis age knapping tools that I can think of... If anyone knows of more I'd love to hear about them.
Wow! Did you use any of those blades to shape your mohawk?! Cheers brother!
Really interested in more overshot thoughts. There was a knapper on UA-cam that did some knapping videos on overshot theory for Clovis. They were excellent videos, but I believe he was ridiculed to the point of taking his videos down, very sad they were extremely good videos
If you know who made those I'd sure be interested in trying to find them. Maybe someone downloaded a copy if I don't know the person?? thanks, Andy
Look up Lucas Nicholson on UA-cam, he was amazing at utilizing overshots to make some amazing preforms. I felt that he really proved that with enough skill, intentional overshots were a useful strategy for Clovis manufacture
@@humperdink46 Thanks!
I’d like to send you some pics of some prismatic blades I’ve found for your input on wether or not they might be apart of this Clovis technology..
Hiya, Happy to take a look, email is best ahemmings@paleotopioneer.com
Let’s talk about some Facestones! Found an incredible site full of these weird artifacts and they’re kind of freaking everybody out! You know how some people say they can see your face in the cloud… Well these are Polaroid photographs painted on white pieces of quartz. You’ll see the portrait on my avatar, that’s from a stone… I have several of them and there’s thousands more that I’m trying to save. Thanks for your uploads and information. I’ve got some catching up to do! I subscribed.
Lol
Let's not!
I may have missed it, but don't see contact information for you. Do you have an email address I can send a picture to? I found a blade this year I'd like for you to look at.
Hi Jim, ahemmings@paleotopioneer.com
Just because something is a common occurance, doesn't mean it's intentional. This is an "appeal to common occurance" fallacy. Aggressive thinning leads to overshots in the same way that playing an aggressive sport leads to injuries. Neither is intentional.
You would really need to spend time looking at Clovis manufacturing debitage- LOTS of it, like at Gault, or the Little River, KY sites to see the amount of set up that went into intentionoally producing some of these massive overshots- Really I would prefer to not worry about overshots per se as much as the pattern of Beyond Midline flaking to thin and shape.
If you have ever looked at unfinished Simpson points or the few recognizable preforms you see a different approach with broad thin flakes that often hinge at the midline- creating the thinnest spot at the widest spot out in front of the haft.
The debitage piles show the patterned behavior- overshots do not just happen time after time after.... you might look at my reply upthread about essentially this same issue.
@paleotopioneer7779 Debitage is incidental, not intentional.
KJC, you don't believe that for one second. By that logic all Levallois points, Clovis blades, Paloeoindian point Flutes, Waller knives, and any other "flakes" that come off in or near their final form are "incidental, not intentionoal". Do you actually mean to say you just set up a platform and hope for the best with no idea what the outcome will be like? Your reductio ad absurdum clearly flies directly in the face of your skill as a knapper.
I don't mean for a second to say every debitage flake shape is some calculated thing but Some certainly are- and Clovis outre passe flakes sure seem to be if you look at enough of the archaeological record. The care in platform preparation, force and performance needed to remove them, are not accidents. There are a couple overshot batwing termination (took off a wide swath of the far biface edge) flakes from Gault that were actually Flute Termination Removal Flakes. Everything about them was intentionally selected and set up before removal.
@paleotopioneer7779 As a knapper, yes, I hope for the best and make do with the results. In flintknapping and in logical analysis, the result does not reliably indicate the intent. I never benefit from an overshot (or any other flake) except when the results are within my tolerance, by coincidence, or by luck. Additionally, overshots are wasteful, and I always take measures to avoid them. Furthermore, to intentionally pursue overshot flakes is to flirt with the most unpredictable portion of the flake: the termination. Unpredictability reduces success. This is basic knowledge and is fundamental to the proper understanding of lithic reduction. Unfortunately, this lack of understanding is common.
It's a shame trying to have a discussion through messages and I think we have reached the point where we are going to talk past eachother. Perhaps if you really want to talk about Marcus Aurelius we could switch to that.
Correct me if I am wrong but you do not knap with traditional instruments right? I only watched a handful of your videos but focused on your recent Clovis point. What you are able to do with metal tools, particularly with mid-grade stone materials, is influencing your understanding of the past in ways that do not bear on the actual archaeological record- something that you seem very reluctant to address. Again I would say look at some of the sites around you in Texas- the manufacturing information preserved at Pavo Real, Kincaid Rockshelter, and of course especially Gault tells you exactly what they were doing and how. But you need to look at debitage, early bifaces, preforms, late unfinished points, and especially the failures.
A lot of what I've said in this and the Clovis Biface video comes out of the Clovis Technology book and really things that Mike Collins, Bruce Bradley, and Dennis Stanford beat into my head over a number of years. All of it based on looking at the Clovis archaeological record as thoroughly as you can. Everything I am saying here has been published a number of times by all of them, and me as well.
You got one thing right though- Intentional overshot flaking is very wasteful of material. And when unconstrained by material quality and package size- Clovis people did NOT care- they maximized performance of their weaponry over any other considerations that we know of. If you are making 'clovis points' and avoiding overhsot and/or regular beyond midline flaking you are not really making Clovis points. You might get close morphologically but technologically you are doing something else entirely.
If you are interested in stone fracture mechanics more than the prehistoric aspects (well those too but he got off into other stuff a lot) you might like Tony Baker's work. After he passed his website was archived for a long time- ele.net I'll see if I can find a link for it... gotta run, some idiot is shooting out by my cows at 11pm....