Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Cinmar Blade

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • painshill
    replied
    Sorry… I should have made it clearer. I didn’t intend that picture as a demonstration of outre-passé flaking. It was more intended as an example of the way that greater insight is being obtained about Solutrean (and other) technologies from the “refitting” technique rather than just looking at the finished blade. Here’s a refit (from Maitreaux) that demonstrates systematic use of overshot flaking:

    And here’s an illustration of error correction (also from Miatreaux) using burinant flaking (a) and a schematic for overshot flaking (b) as an error correction technique:

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill
    replied
    Pain, I have given your post and the re-fit of the spalls to "the original blank from a discarded blade and the spalls that came off it." Like this one, refitting an asymmetric reduction from the Maitreaux site" a lot of thought and it looks to me like it demonstrates either some knapper was had a bad day or represents Outré Passé in its infancy.
    The cross section of the blade the knapper was working on seems to have been flaked to a centerline ridge.
    Tomorrow I'll post some pictures of Clovis preforms from the Flint River in lower Georgia to show you the result of classic Over Shot flake removals and how this resulted in blades that are flat in cross section. Most South Eastern and Eastern Clovises are almost completely flat in cross section (like the Clovis Platter I posted).

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill
    replied
    Hi Pain, thank you for going to the trouble to post this. I really appreciate it.
    I learned from my reading yesterday, the Maitreaux site is a Solutrean site, I think. Thank you for posting the information.

    Leave a comment:


  • painshill
    replied
    Bill wrote:

    Pain, I have been able to find some site reports from the Middle East and I haven't seen any Outré Passé yet. 
    I really would like to see what the authors of the paper you mentioned are calling Outré Passé so I’ll keep looking. I would really like to see their artifacts. I'll probably have to go to the University library and look up the journal and paper.
      As far as I can establish, that paper was only published in French. I can’t access it from any of the on-line libraries. The company I work for has corporate subscriptions to many of the science libraries and I can sometimes access things via automatic log-ins on my work PC that I can’t access from home… but no joy there either.
    If it is only available in French, maybe that’s why the paper is invariably overlooked or maybe it’s not as definitive as the title suggests. Bradley et al. nevertheless regarded it with sufficient validity to reference it and I didn’t challenge it any further.
    It’s also worth bearing in mind that some of the conclusions that have been drawn in the past arise from “refitting” items… painstakingly reconstructing the original blank from a discarded blade and the spalls that came off it. Like this one, refitting an asymmetric reduction from the Maitreaux site.

    It looks like a nightmarish 3D jigsaw, but this kind of work can yield valuable information about what techniques the original knapper was using that the finished blade itself may not show.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill
    replied
    cgode, your definition of what outré Passé Bifacial thinning, AKA overshot flaking is spot on.
    Unless you were collecting an early Clovis workshop site what you called overshot flake removals may or may not have been actual overshot flake removals. They may simply have been random. For example, I saw the picture of a lanceolate type of point here last week that was very narrow that looked like it had been overshot flaked. The blade had been percussion flaked and the narrowness of the blade caused flake removals to look like overshot flake removals but clearly they weren’t.
    For me, and I believe it is for others as well, this is a confusing and complicated concept to get a handle on. Until I am convinced otherwise deliberate overshot flaking will remain confined to Clovis in the USA.
    I believe because of their size and flat cross sections the so called Clovis platters could only have been made by knappers using classic Outré Passé (overshot flake removals) bifacial thinning. Clovis platters are exactly that and were made by master Clovis knappers.
    If you look at the Clovis performs and Solutrean perform and bifaces that I recently posted you can see classic Outré Passé bifacial thinning and the results.
    You are correct that there have been accidental overshot flakes found on early and later sites. Dr. Stanford has remarked there were some found at the Sluiceway sites in Alaska and he dug many of them. It remains his firm belief they were accidental or random but not deliberate.
    Personally I would not expect to see correct overshot flakes on any sites older than Paleoindian and would be suspicious of any in the absence of Clovis points or a Clovis workshop. I believe that overshot flaking should be limited to Clovis alone.

    http//i1048.photobucket.com/albums/s365/wmcamis/ClovisPlatter.jpg not found

    Leave a comment:


  • cgode
    replied
    OK, someone shed some light on a question I have please.....in regards to outre'passe flaking. It is my understanding, correct or not, that outre'passe is the removal of a flake from one margin all the way across to the opposing margin, where the opposing margin is actually partially removed. I've seen, and found, outre'passe flakes which are pretty easy to identify with those characteristics, how can you determine if a blank/platter has had outre'passe flaking preformed on it?.....is it just the full width removal of a flake as evidenced by the scar, you certainly can't tell if it removed part of that distal margin, or can you?
    I do understand it's a Clovis characteristic but not completely diagnostic in and of itself. There are other factors to take into account (known Clovis site, context, etc.) Certainly there have been artifacts not from that time period that were overshot, either mistakenly or purposely, not sure if anyone can prove that theory or not.
    Just wondering and trying to gain a little knowledge here.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill
    replied
    Pain, I have been able to find some site reports from the Middle East and I haven't seen any Outré Passé yet. 
    I really would like to see what the authors of the paper you mentioned are calling Outré Passé so I’ll keep looking. I would really like to see their artifacts. I'll probably have to go to the University library and look up the journal and paper.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill
    replied
    Thanks for the reference update Pain and I fixed the upload.
    As a matter of fact if you would please post pictures of the site reports by the Inizan and Tixier, Quatar sites that that contained Solutrean styled flat bifaces. I would be very appreciative and would like to see them..

    Leave a comment:


  • painshill
    replied
    Bill wrote:

    http//i1048.photobucket.com/albums/s365/wmcamis/bil2073.jpg not found

    Pain, good post and we are all one big family here, however I am confused because I just read, Neolithic biface production from Quatar (Inizan and Tixier 1978, and saw no overshot flaking visible on any of the drawn performs from the site. I have included drawings of those to show what I saw.
    Neither is there any mention of any performs from the site featuring outré passé, overshot, or any other biface reduction sequence that resembled that used by Soulutrean knappers.
    Bill
    Inizan and Tixier published a number of papers in 1978, so we may not be talking about the same info. The exact reference for this is “Outrepassage intentionnel sur pieces bifaciales neolithiques du Qatar (Golfe arabo-persique)”. Quaternaria 20: 29-39. Inizan M.-L. and Tixier J.
    I can’t access it (can you?), but since Bradley et al. acknowledged it and quoted it in their paper, I didn’t interrogate the source further.
    [PS: [strike]your attached Word document didn't upload for some reason... maybe because of the .docx extension[/strike]. OK it now appears as a picture.]

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill
    replied
    http//i1048.photobucket.com/albums/s365/wmcamis/bil2073.jpg not found

    Pain, good post and we are all one big family here, however I am confused because I just read, Neolithic biface production from Quatar (Inizan and Tixier 1978, and saw no overshot flaking visible on any of the drawn performs from the site. I see percussion flaked blades and preforms that were flaked to a centerline ridge. The Solutrean Outré Passé reduction method or overshot flaking removes a flake all of the way across the preform and eill produce a flat biface (no centerline ridge).
    I have included drawings of those to show what was found at the site and what I see concerning the knapping.
    There no mention of in the site report of any performs from the site that featured flaking that resembled anything Solutrean. Perhaps I missed something.

    Leave a comment:


  • painshill
    replied
    I like to think we’re all friends here, even when we disagree and even when it gets heated. We all have a common interest and for those not interested in this particular topic, I guess there’s still a choice about whether or not to read it. I recently re-read the 2008 paper “Solutrean Laurel Leaf Production at Maîtreaux” (Aubry; Bradley; Almeida; Walter; JoãoNeves; Pelegrin; Lenoir; Tiffagom) and – for those that are interested – picked out some interesting snippets.
    In early Solutrean studies, outre-passé flaking was interpreted exclusively as a knapping “error” - hence the alternative term “overshot flaking” and then later as an error-correction technique. Almeida identified this, plus other correction and specific shaping techniques in 2005 in Solutrean assemblages at Maîtreaux in France. Here, the use of the technique occurs at such low frequency that it cannot be said (agreed by the authors) to represent a systematic thinning technique, but rather an alternative technical option in addition to its use for error correction.
    Bradley and others judged it to be an intentional technique controlled by the knapper, based on further assemblages found at other sites. It was previously known from New World Palaeoindian contexts. But it’s incorrect to say it has never been seen before or since – it’s also known in Neolithic biface production from Quatar (Inizan and Tixier 1978).
    One thing that everyone agrees on is that it is a skill-demanding technique that is difficult to control when used intentionally and can be mastered only through long experience. Platforms have to be carefully prepared to remove controlled overshot flakes and any mistake in preparation or striking is likely to result in failure. It’s a very efficient way of removing square edges on the opposing edge of the blank and dealing with other “unrecoverable” mistakes, such as stacking. Once a knapper has mastered the technique, it can certainly also then be included in pre-planning to solve a volumetric deficiency in an otherwise suitable piece of raw material.
    The authors do no necessarily postulate that its use as a deliberate technique is directly associated with a desire to produce ultra-thin blades, but agree that it is a rapid method of reduction (where “rapid” relates to efficiency of knapping motions). The authors also agreed that “… the value of such techniques (like overshot and apical burinant flaking) as relevant cultural markers… demands a detailed revision of other bifacial industries from within and from outside the Solutrean geographic and chronological frames”.
    Anyone who is interested might also like to read Tony Baker’s theory here:
    http://www.ele.net/art_folsom/preclvis.htm
    with an update here:
    http://www.ele.net/art_folsom/pre-cl...clovis2004.htm
    I offer this for interest only with no comment on my support or otherwise. Baker’s opinions are interspersed with counter-comments from Bruce Bradley and exchanged in a very gentlemanly manner. All credit to them both for that.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill
    replied
    Good post CMD and this is a good board. At the same time I will never understand why a strong defense of Clovis from Solutrean will soon have folks reaching for their blood pressure medicines. I don’t believe their problem is me. I believe instead those who are offended have created their own problems.
    I am the new guy here and will reserve the right to be as right and as wrong as everybody else. If I discover that I am wrong I will be the first to acknowledge that fact.
    This discussion thread has drawn almost 1,100 visits.

    Leave a comment:


  • CMD
    replied
    [QUOTE]gregszybala wrote:

    Originally posted by cgode post=49402
    I think this horse has been beaten to death several times over at this point. I can understand having a debate, even a passionate one such as this. What I don't like seeing, is one person telling another that he doesn't understand this and that and is just wrong.....especially when it comes to theories that haven't been proven one way or another....making them theories. Remember, the world was flat at one time after all, wasn't it?
    Now let's let the poor horse RIP, unless someone has something constructive to add without any degrading remarks.
      You are absolutely right Chris, because what I would like to say, should not be said even though it deserves or should I say would be justified to be said.
      Yes, I agree with Chris as well. I do hope I haven't crossed over any boundaries too far myself. When I wrote the intro to this thread, I went out of my way to do so in as neutral a tone as I could muster. I was determined not to sound partisan to either side of the debate ongoing in American archaeology on this subject. Bill, everybody here is my friend as far as I'm concerned. I wasn't trying to defend anybody, I was trying to defend civility. I guess I could have done a better job. But now it's time to follow Chris's suggestion. There have been many Solutrean-Clovis threads on this forum. This is the first to discuss the hot button nature of the subject as well. It's good we recognize and acknowledge how deep the passions can run so we can try harder to set a more even keel in the future.
    And Chris, I never sail too far from land for fear of sailing off the edge :laugh:  :laugh:

    Leave a comment:


  • gregszybala
    replied
    cgode wrote:

    I think this horse has been beaten to death several times over at this point. I can understand having a debate, even a passionate one such as this. What I don't like seeing, is one person telling another that he doesn't understand this and that and is just wrong.....especially when it comes to theories that haven't been proven one way or another....making them theories. Remember, the world was flat at one time after all, wasn't it?
    Now let's let the poor horse RIP, unless someone has something constructive to add without any degrading remarks.
      You are absolutely right Chris, because what I would like to say, should not be said even though it deserves or should I say would be justified to be said.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill
    replied
    CMD, I find it interesting and understand why you feel this way because your friends went in that direction several times during the course of this discussion.
    It is only natural that you would attempt to rehabilitate them and displace blame.  However this discussion has been far from boring and has been interesting to most because it has generated 993 views so far.
    This is a topic that is very popular with people no matter where it is discussed. I always attempt to remain dispassionate during these discussions because they do tend to get heated and I simply state the strong evidence on the side of the Clovis from Solutrean hypothesis. I have noticed that when they are confronted with facts contrary to their beliefs, those who are most virulently anti-Clovis from Solutrean quickly become the fastest to lose their cool and become personal in their comments.
    I have read all of the posts because I refer to them as I write my response so I have a clear understanding as I answer what folks said.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X