overshot flaking made in china

Abstract Lohse, Collins, and Bradley ignore or misrepresent the arguments we have made concerning “controlled” overshot flaking and the purported Ice-Age Atlantic Crossing. Here, we summarize our previous work and explain again how it directly tests the explicit claims of Stanford and Bradley (2012; Bradley and Stanford 2004, 2006). We also correct the inaccuracies and false accusations of Lohse, Collins, and Bradley, and refute their belief that arguments should be rejected or accepted on the…Expand

Among the cores flaked using a freehand percussion and organized exploitation, three flaking methods have been identified:unifacial unidirectional (n = 17). Core blanks are mainly ovoid bi-convex and plano-convex pebbles, rarely subcircular bi-convex. The flaked surface usually corresponds to the longest natural face of the pebble, exploited to produce one to two series of three to seven elongated flakes from a striking platform rectified by one or two removals to create a suitable angle between 62° and 89° (Fig. 3: 1–3).

bifacial partial alternating (n = 12). Cores exhibit removals on two adjacent surfaces, and each negative scar is used alternatively as a striking platform to flake the adjacent plane. The blanks are bi-convex ovoid pebbles, systematically exploited on the transversal axis (Fig. 3: 7,8). Only one core shows a semi-peripheral exploitation (Fig. 3: 6). Angles between the two flaking surfaces vary from 45° to 70°.

multifacial multidirectional orthogonal (n = 10). These cores are overexploited (five to seven flakes on three to four surfaces) and smaller than the previous ones (Fig. 4a). Core surfaces were alternatively flaked through multidirectional removals respecting the orthogonal angles among flaking surfaces. No specific platform rectification was conducted insofar as each negative served as a striking platform for the following removal on a secant and orthogonal face (Fig. 3: 9,10).

Dimensional distribution of flint cores and flakes. (a) Length (L), width (W), and thickness (T) distribution (mm) of the cores that belong to flint flaking, grouped by flaking method; (b) length (L), width (W), and thickness (T) distribution (mm) of the whole flakes; (c) length (L), and width (W) distribution (mm) of the whole flake butts; (d) log flake length to width ratio; (e) log flake width to thickness ratio. BLE: bipolar-on-anvil longitudinal exploitation. BPE: bipolar-on-anvil semi-peripheral exploitation.

Flint cores belonging to bipolar-on-anvil flaking. 1,2: BLE cores showing two negative scars generated along the longitudinal axis from the pebble extremity in contact with the anvil. The opposite cortical extremity displays marks of percussion (n.1). 3–7: BPE cores showing a split surface along the transversal axis of the pebble and elongated peripheral negative scars. Percussion marks on the opposite cortical side are visible in core n. 3. Core n. 5 shows a split fracture along the longitudinal axis (photos and drawings by R. Gallotti). BLE: bipolar-on-anvil longitudinal exploitation. BPE: bipolar-on-anvil semi-peripheral exploitation.

Bladelet-like flake production has been identified mainly thanks to the analysis of 32 flint cores showing a specific process, the bipolar-on-anvil semi-peripheral exploitation (BPE), independent from the other flint flaking methods and absent in the quartzite flaking (Fig. 6a). These cores show one horizontal or slightly oblique split surface along the transversal axis of the pebble and percussion marks on the opposite side (Fig. 5: 3,4). The battered area could be associated to one small negative scar which seems due to the percussion rather than to an intentional rectification of the striking platform (Fig. 5: 4). The semi-peripheral flaking surface displays several negatives of bladelet-like flakes, most of them with a rippled surface, whose impact point generated from the split surface. In some cases (n = 6), cores exhibit small negative scars with an opposite direction (Fig. 5: 3,6,7). The edge of the split surface shows micro-fractures and micro-detachments which overlap one to each other. These cores are overexploited as documented by the high number of the negative scars varying from five to 10 distributed in one to three series. They document attention to the semi-peripheral longitudinal convexity during flaking, which allows the detachment of a high number of bladelet-like flakes (always relative to the small dimensions of the blank).When the blank morphology can be recognized after the residual cortical part, we observe that the convexity management is favoured by the choice of ovoid biconvex and thick pebbles as core blanks. The choice of the blank morphology is fundamental in the convexity management, because it is maintained mainly through core rotation. Flake negatives are visible on the cores: they are related to the first phase of the flaking and/or they are due to a failed attempt of convexity maintenance.

(a) Operational scheme of the BPE exploitation (drawing R. Gallotti); (b) experimental BPE exploitation (1: core; 2,3: flakes belonging to the first flaking phase; 4–5: bladelet-like flakes) (photo by A. Mohib). BPE: bipolar-on-anvil semi-peripheral exploitation.

In order to understand the role of the pebble split surface and the core positioning on the anvil, we performed experimentation to reproduce this type of core reduction. Our experimental replication demonstrates that these bipolar cores derive from an indirect fracture technique that follows the pebble splitting along the transversal axis. When a pebble is split, the fragments can be hemispheric or plano-convex. The flat surface is appropriate to stabilize the half-pebble on the anvil (proximal portion) and strike the convex opposite surface (distal portion) with the hammerstone. According to the archaeological core exploitation patterns, the position of the striking surface (distal portion) and the split surface resting on the anvil stabilizing the core (proximal portion) remains stable during pebble exploitation (Fig. 6). Core is rotated according to the longitudinal axis to exploit its periphery and no orthogonal rotation of the core is operated. Detachments usually occur one at a time, rarely in multiples. Micro-fractures and micro-flake scars are generated by the proximal rebound force along the edge of the split surface in contact with the anvil. A large quartzite hammerstone has been used to split the pebble along the transversal axis, while a smaller hammerstone on flint or quartzite has been used for flaking so that an excessive force does not split the plano-convex core in half. Nevertheless, it cannot be excluded that a split fracture along the longitudinal axis can intervene when the core is overexploited, as demonstrated by two archaeological cores (Fig. 5: 5).

A total of 259 flakes (175 whole, 35 bladelet-like, 46 broken, and three retouched) belong to the flaking of flint pebbles (Table 1). Thirteen whole flakes <2 cm with a plain butt display a dorsal face created by a large negative scar whose direction is impossible to recognize. Accordingly, these flakes are counted in waste category including the flake fragments that cannot be situated in the chaîne opératoire

Fifteen flakes are completely cortical with a plain butt (7.1% of the whole flakes). The flaking angle (interior platform angle) is comprised between 90° and 121°. No indisputable traits of the bipolar-on-anvil technique have been recognized. Their dimensions are very similar to those of the entame flakes (Fig. 4b).

Flakes with a unidirectional negative scar pattern on the dorsal face, parallel to the flaking axis, with frequent cortical edge(s) constitute a large set (n= 91; 43.3% of the whole flakes). Thirty-five of them show two to six negative scars and bear traits of the bipolar-on-anvil percussion and notably:hackles on the ventral face and on the negative scars on the dorsal face (a fracture mark, which develops perpendicular to a fracture front, and therefore spreads radially from the impact point; Fig. 7: 1,3);

crushed (n= 8) or plain (n= 27) butts. Plain butts are slightly narrower and thinner than those of freehand flakes with the same dorsal pattern (Fig. 4c). The flaking angles varies between 92° and 116° and match the angles between the flat split surface of the core laid on the anvil and the flaking surface. Bipolar flakes are more elongated than the freehand unidirectional flakes and other whole flakes with a multidirectional flake scar system (Fig. 4b). The mean ratio of length to width is 1.94, a value that points to a bladelet-like flake production (Fig. 4d). Besides, bipolar flakes have slightly thinner cross-sections (average W:T ratio = 2.02) than freehand flakes do (average W:T ratio = 1.85; Fig. 4e).

The remaining 56 flakes bearing unidirectional scar pattern on the dorsal face (one to four removals) belong to the freehand percussion. They are smaller than the bipolar ones (Fig. 4b) and less elongated (average L:W ratio = 1.23; Fig. 4d). 78% of them retain cortex on the distal-lateral portion. The high percentage of flakes with residual cortex is probably due to the limited exploitation of the unifacial unidirectional and bifacial partial cores from which they could derive. Plain butts are present on 38 flakes, with flaking angles between 95° and 126°. Usually, plain butts are present on elongated flakes, according to the unifacial unidirectional exploitation (Fig. 3:4,5). The smaller flakes, generally with sub-quadrangular or sub-circular shapes, present mainly cortical or cortical/flat butts with obtuse flaking angles (114° to 127°), probably because they belong to the bifacial partial exploitation.

Flakes with a multidirectional scar pattern on the dorsal face (n= 25; 11.9% of the whole flakes) do not show technical traits of the bipolar-on-anvil technique. Moreover, no rotation of the core in the bipolar-on-anvil exploitation has been identified. They are frequently subquadrangular and smaller than the flakes previously described (Fig. 4b). Eleven of them retain cortex on the distal and/or lateral portions and core edge flakes, implying core rotation. Negative scars, mainly orthogonal both with each other and with the flaking axis, range between two and eight and confirm the overexploited aspect of the multifacial multidirectional cores. Twelve flakes and most of the negative scars on the dorsal face are hinged removals (Fig. 3: 11). They have thicker and asymmetrical cross-sections (Fig. 4b) and longer and wider plain butts (Fig. 4c) with obtuse flaking angles (91°–105°).

3. The notion of overshot flaking technique as evidence of a link between Clovis and Solutrean has been challenged by many archaeologists, who think it far more plausible that the two cultures arrived at the same technology independently. As Strauss (2000) puts it, “One or two technical attributes are insufficient to establish a cultural link or long-distance interconnection.”

If you have to travel far from home to get rock, you probably do not want to carry back useless material. Archaeologist Charlotte Beck and colleagues researched the costs of transporting rock from quarries to places of habitation and found that ancient toolmakers minimized their transportation costs by reducing raw nodules of rock into blanks suited to further reduction.[5] The greater the distance between source and home, they found, the greater the effort to remove rocky mass of limited value. Minimally, this involved removing the cortex or exterior layerof the rock, which is not terribly conducive to flaking, as well as protuberances and other irregularities.

The contingencies of core reduction become even more critical as you approach the final shape of the intended product. Like many flaked stone knives and projectiles, Clovis points are thin in cross-section; they have to be not only because an acute edge is needed to cut and pierce animal tissue, but also because a thin cross-section is conducive to edge maintenance, resharpening the edge to enable its ongoing use and to increase the longevity of the tool. Clovis flintknappers often used an “overshot” technique to drive flakes across the entire face of a core, a decidedly tricky move. Ultimately, however, they had to leave an elevated ridge along the midline of each face of the tool in order to accommodate the bottom flutes yet to come. To do this they had to terminate flakes at the midline, halfway across the surface, an outcome best achieved by applying pressure to the edge of the tool with an antler tip or some such implement to remove thin, narrow flakes.

Now the edges have to be finalized by removing small flakes along the margins from either side. This too is done with pressure, or what is known as “pressure flaking.” Holding the tool in the palm of one’s hand, an antler tine or tip is applied to the edge to remove flakes in succession, from base to tip, or tip to base. The result is an incredibly sharp edge, serrated if the tool maker desires. This same technique will be used to resharpen the tool as its edges become dull through use.

Before we can attach our finished product to a handle or shaft, the basal or bottom edges of the Clovis point must be ground. This will prevent the edges from tearing into the materials used to bind the tool to its handle. An abrasive stone is good for this task, perhaps the same one used to prepare edges for flaking.

As we move on to the planned reduction of raw material into cores, the social acts involved cross-generations of toolmakers in networks of learning. Flintknapping is a nuanced skill, one that is not readily assimilated without apprenticeship and mentoring. So too is knowledge of the locations of raw materials, what anthropologists call landscape learning. The operational sequence of flaking and the final form of the Clovis point were matters of longstanding tradition, taught and maintained from generation to generation. Innovations arose that led to regional variations in how fluted points were made and used, and over time, as Clovis disappeared as a tradition and was replaced by descendent traditions, ancient knowledge was lost to change. The upshot is that technical know-how in cultures without Google and other literary forms of information sharing was transmitted socially, from expert to novice. The process of learning was situated in the relationships people had to one another; change those relationships and you impact the content and process of learning and vice versa.

It summarizes like this: The Solutrean Culture of the area that is now France and Spain, (22,000-17,000 BP) used overshot flaking to shape their flint tools, and as of the proposal date, were the first culture to do so. Clovis points (13,200 BP) of the Americas also used overshot flaking. Lots of Clovis points are found in the Eastern U.S., therefore, the Solutreans must have travelled across the Atlantic, and settled there 3800 years later with the same technology. In support, it is argued that the oldest settlement sites in the Americas are in the Eastern U.S.

Cactus Hill dates positively to at least 15,000 BP, possibly 16,000-20,000, but that is not confirmed. It contains two overshot-flaked partial (broken) points that may be proto-Clovis. This is the primary basis for the claims of the Solutrean Hypothesis. Two broken pieces of points that are admitted to not be Solutrean, not Clovis, but possibly similar in some ways to both. Best case. Worst case, they"re flaked points that bear no similarity to Solutrean Points at all.

So, accepted as fact: There were peoples in the Americas for at least 5,000 years before Clovis, probably 11,000, and Clovis were not the first ones we know of to overshot flake.

And now, an archaeological discovery in 2010 in Blombos Cave, South Africa, "places the use of pressure flaking by early humans to make stone tools back to 73,000 BCE, 55,000 years earlier than previously accepted." Now, pressure flaking is a root to overshot flaking, but it arose independently in Africa before it did in Europe and the Americas.

The Solutrean technique also seems to have gone out of fashion in Europe, and was replaced by careful pressure flaking, then by polishing, before bronze appears. In the Americas, various flaking technologies continued to evolve to a fine art due to isolation. There are similarities of technique weaving in and out, but all evidence is that the technologies were shared with nearby groups and dispersed, also depending on the type of material being worked.

A true overshot - unlike coast to coast - will turn 90 degrees and exit the opposite side of the stone, before reaching the other side. A coast to coast flake will cut through the other side, but not turn.

Also, as was expected, some of the people who are learning and who are creating stellar flaking, and stellar overshots, have only been knapping for a few months. They are new. They might not understand the implications of what they are making. And, the old "gurus" - the same people who always want my work banned - will not even speak to many of these new knappers who have done fantastic overshot work, with just brief training.

So, I have to focus on making sure that these guys are okay. To give an example, a five year knapper who does stellar work was the second guy to learn the process. He immediately threw incredible overshots that look exactly like Hogeye cache overshots, with my brief training. An old guru got on his thread and said, "You are just "wasting" rock." And, my guy fired back.

That being said, people are looking at coming back full force, with their flintknapping, because it no longer seems possible that people will even be able to say that "copper is better". I have new knappers pulling stuff in raw rock that it is doubtful could be done with copper. And, the actual flaking effects are stellar. I already have collectors writing and saying that they believe I found the way certain paleo-flaking was actually done. And, we are not just talking about "visuals". Visuals are superficial, and finished points can lie. The way a finished point can lie is that the maker can hide the marks of what he did previously. So, we are openly achieving affects in raw stone, and other materials, that have not been seen before.