Can you guys take a look at this?

[-=METAL=-]

Hello everyone,

I found this at an old Native American camp site back in the summer time and never figured out what it was. Yesterday I posted it in the "What is it?" forum, and I was told it could be a sheet brass or copper arrowhead. Is there anyone here that could put in their two cents?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

How to Research for Treasure Hunting and Metal Detecting From Lead Generation to Vetting - Grab it through Amazon!

[theviking]

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Diving for Pleasure and Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[Charl]

Yeah, thanks, that's what I was looking for, but there are actual photos as well, if I can find.
I just found that, and here's the source:

Jefferson Patterson Park and Museum - State Museum of Archaeology

 

[11KBP]

These are no-brainer metal projectile points, in use in the 17th and 18th century here in the Northeast. It really isn't open to debate at all.

I agree Charl and see no point in trying to convince single individuals whose opinions are based solely by their limited experiences/finds/observations in one small corner of the U.S.A.

 

[GatorBoy]

I'm on board with that no problem here it's a projectile. Then just take a look at the hole placement on what you just posted can you see where I'm coming from?

 

[GatorBoy]

It doesn't seem all that unreasonable to me to think that an adult would look at this and think there's a good possibility it was used for decoration



Even rolled copper was used

 

[Charl]

What's a conversation without two sides?
Of course I appreciate having a good conversation over something I completely agree with everything you've posted but I still stand behind my observation of your peice particularly.
Every example I've seen and to me logically so the hole placement was further back on the point.. I've not really seen any where the hole is much past the midway point.
It just seems logical to me that the hole being created by impact would have to be wider than the shaft before the time the shaft reaches the opening cordage would also have to be run through that hole and around a shaft looking at yours I don't see how it would be possible to have it hafted and actually be usable as a weapon or hunting implement.
That's where I came to my conclusion that it would appear to me to be more for decoration.
I'm not looking to question your friends and the archaeologists or yourself or looking to defer to anyone I've seen so many completely incorrect archaeological so-called facts up to this point that in many instances I make my own judgements in fact I believe that's how things progress closer to reality in a lot of cases... If everyone bought into things stated by archaeologists as if it was gospel as soon as the statement was made or as soon as one started agreeing with the other imagine how many things we would never have learned.
Why is it when Tom had a difference of opinion there wasn't a gigantic post about it as you seem to do every time I don't agree with something you say? Is my opinion really that important?

Gigantic post? Actually, here's how I looked at it. You made statements that were incorrect. I could just shut up, but this thread goes into the archives. Since what I posted was 100% accurate, regarding perforations in the triangles, and the second one is clearly a triangle projectile point and you don't have a leg to stand on saying it isn't, they are often just as thin as that particular one, then for the record, I'm going to take whatever amount of writing required to demonstrate your observations are really just off the top of your head, and are in fact creating misinformation. In other words, if you said the triangles were actually ancient petrified toenails, most likely I'd come back to correct you. You are making misstatements about both triangles that I posted. Of course you're entitled to say you think I am mistaken. However, since I know you really don't know what you're talking about, with both of your observations, well, heck yeah, I'm going to clarify what I know so that the other folks reading this thread, not yourself, will have a factual account upon which to make their own judgements. I mean, if you're wrong, you're wrong, gator. That isn't my fault, for heaven's sake. I'm clarifying this so the facts don't get lost because of your mistaken observations.

You know, I thought we had buried the hatchet as well, gator. But, no matter how polite you might broach your disagreements, telling me one point is an ornament and the other a piece of conveniently shaped scrap, when you have no experience whatsoever with Northeastern brass/copper triangles just strikes me as so pointless. There is no evidence for either opinion, IMO. I'm sorry, but it isn't my fault you're mistaken. As far as your opinion's importance, no more nor less then anyone else's. But, I guess you're right. I could just let your opinions be water off a duck's backside.....

Now, c'mon, gator, I did correct Tom's observation. He thought such points would not be that thin, and the fact is, they are that thin. You, on the other hand decided the points I posted were not points at all. I had to correct that mistaken observation directly. There's a big difference. After all, your observations could easily make me feel as if you were making a fool out of me, gator. "I'm so stupid, I don't know contact period triangles when I see them". Now, gator, of course you didn't say I was stupid. You never said that. But, you basically just said my observations are those of someone who does not know what he is talking about calling those two pieces metal projectile points. And, like it or not, right or wrong, that 's how I interpret your observations. There's a diplomatic way of disagreeing, and there are not do diplomatic ways.

I have no idea why you raised the disagreements you raised without first researching what is known about these points in the Northeast. They are off the top of your head, and easily refuted. Making your own judgements is great, trust in your own intelligence. I get it. That's how it should be. In the case of the two triangles, your judgement was off, but that's not a crime, and you're right, your opinion should not be as important as I am sadly making it.....

 

[Charl]

It doesn't seem all that unreasonable to me to think that an adult would look at this and think there's a good possibility it was used for decoration

View attachment 1121855

Even rolled copper was used

Not at all unreasonable. Just remember all the archaeological evidence indicates they were used as projectile points. If you can demonstrate that this is an error, and this needs to be corrected, so we understand these small triangles are not projectiles at all, you would be doing Contact Period archaeology in the Northeast a big favor. Science is self correcting. If we have been mistaken with these, even though some have been found still hafted as points, then we need to correct that mistake. Not unreasonable. But when you see them hafted, it does demonstrate they were used as points at times. It has been argued that perforating them would allow them to be strung on strands. Which also makes sense, I can see both things happening. That said, all the evidence says projectile with these things, rather then decorations.

 

[Charl]

I agree Charl and see no point in trying to convince single individuals whose opinions are based solely by their limited experiences/finds/observations in one small corner of the U.S.A.

There they are. Thanks, 11KBP, appreciate you finding those.....

 

[GatorBoy]

Do you still believe the original post was that of a copper projectile?
Has there ever been archaeological evidence of stone projectile points being used as decoration?
Have Native Americans ever strung together many copper pieces to make noise? Or for decoration? Where items that looked like arrowheads ever used for decoration?
Is there any possibility your triangle shaped piece could have been one of those?
Those are all legitimate questions that don't belittle anyone on either side.. Please don't take them personal.

 

[Charl]

Here are some slate pendants shaped as arrowheads. From Ma. I'm not aware of actual points used decoratively, but then I've never seen any. I know the larger, banged up thin brass triangle I posted is typical in every way with brass triangles, and would be identified as such by any experienced New England hunter or archaeologist. It really is a no brainer projectile point of the Levanna variety, the most common type in existence. Plus it came from the Dann site, where more brass and copper triangles of similar thickness have been recovered then any other 17th century Iroquois site.

The smaller of the two frames I posted above has some tinklers, noisemakers, in the frame. Brass and copper was frequently used to make decorative objects.

i can't tell what the object that is the subject of the thread is. I assume the base is a little funky, incomplete. I would save it as a possibility and take it to the Robbins Museum some time. Ask for Curtiss Hoffman to look at it.

http://www.nativetech.org/metal/index.html

Above link is informative.....

 

[Charl]

Brass/Copper trade goods from 17th century Wampanoag burial ground at Burr's Hill, RI. The natives utilized European metals both directly and by salvaging kettles as they saw fit. Seldom, if ever, were the women given brass kettles to cook in. The men salvaged the kettles. Depending on what part of the kettle was used would determine the thickness of any points made from the kettles. The velocity of the arrow was more then enough to overcome shortcomings due to thinness. They're just not as delicate or as instantly bendable as one might assume by just looking at them. Even thin, they are strong enough.

 

[Charl]

I agree Charl and see no point in trying to convince single individuals whose opinions are based solely by their limited experiences/finds/observations in one small corner of the U.S.A.

You were absolutely correct, 11KBP. It was foolish trying to convince single individuals that their opinions are that out of whack with the reality of the situation. There was no point to that at all. Under the circumstances, experience should have taught me it would be a complete waste of time. Regardless of opinions to the contrary, these have long been recognize quite clearly for what they are, brass/copper triangles made from trade kettles.

 

[Charl]

I'm on board with that no problem here it's a projectile. Then just take a look at the hole placement on what you just posted can you see where I'm coming from?

i missed this comment, gator. Yes, I can see the hole is higher, but it's still a trade point. It's not a decoration. It's a projectile point. Your thought process in this case isn't going to alter what it is. Again, science is self correcting. If you can develop the proof to demonstrate little triangles with holes placed high are not projectile points at all, then do so and advance our understanding of such artifacts. Your observation is not going to change the interpretation of what it is, no matter how many times you might suggest it. I don't know what to tell you other then you'll not convince anyone here in my region that it's not a point. Of course it's a metal projectile point. Believe what you wish, you couldn't be more mistaken if you tried hard.

 

[GatorBoy]

On a serious note with no profanities involved with such little mass of an object like that I wonder how enough weight was added to the end of the shaft for it to actually fly correctly and have enough impact and velocity

 

[Fletch88]

It doesn't seem all that unreasonable to me to think that an adult would look at this and think there's a good possibility it was used for decoration

View attachment 1121855

Even rolled copper was used

I am definitely not any kind of expert but, from what I know about archery and metal working combined, the hole is too far forward and the material is too thin to be a projectile.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Gator, not sure how you think attacking mods on TN by accusing us of being bias towards mods of other sites is going to help your argument but it is not. Jeff deleted the offending post and instead of dropping it you go right back at it and now attack mods by accusing us of being bias..

Your violating several rules... Attacking how we moderate and as mods...

 

[GatorBoy]

I handle a lot of sheet copper down here. Enough for me to be inquisitive anyway.
Yes I know nothing about the Northeast copper artifacts

 

[GatorBoy]

Gator, not sure how you think attacking mods on TN by accusing us of being bias towards mods of other sites is going to help your argument but it is not. Jeff deleted the offending post and instead of dropping it you go right back at it and now attack mods by accusing us of being bias..

My apologies but I've been verbally attacked so many times by that individual here it led me to that question.

 

[jeff of pa]

My apologies but I've been verbally attacked so many times by that individual here it led me to that question.

I really hate to ruin this thread with off topic posts, But I deleted the offending post.
I thought that would be enough of a point made.
I would have done the same had it been you. or anyone else.
Not sure What you expected but if you have Problems with how I do things
PM Me

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Drop it and move on...