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 👍

Upgraded Night Vision Monocular Digital Infrared Monocular Telescope for 100% Darkness with 8X Zoom - Grab it through Amazon!

[-=METAL=-]

Well, I've been here long enough to know that a lack of replies usually means I don't have an artifact.

 

[tomclark]

It really could be a lot of things but it sure can't be a projectile. Wouldn't work, too thin and bendable. They did use metal of that thinness to make tinklers and such.

 

[-=METAL=-]

Hey Tom, now there is someone in the "What is it?" forum claiming that the thickness matches up with sheet brass points from the trade period that he has seen first hand. It is bendable with enough force, but it definitely is not flimsy. I would go so far as to say it is surprisingly rigid given the thickness. I could easily use it as a knife to cut things. So you're of the opinion that it cannot be any kind of a point from the trade period? That's a let down.

EDIT: What's a tinkler?

 

[Rocsteddie]

There are 4 cuts made on the right side of this copper plate that was made with a type of metal cutting shear that was not used during the fur trade. No hammering marks are visible. JMO. Don't get much for 2 cents these days.

 

[-=METAL=-]

There are 4 cuts made on the right side of this copper plate that was made with a type of metal cutting shear that was not used during the fur trade. No hammering marks are visible. JMO. Don't get much for 2 cents these days.

I was wondering about that myself, good info, thank you.

 

[MarkDz]

There are 4 cuts made on the right side of this copper plate that was made with a type of metal cutting shear that was not used during the fur trade. No hammering marks are visible. JMO. Don't get much for 2 cents these days.

"The technology for reworking copper remained fairly simple during the first half of the seventeenth century. Sheet metal was reduced to the desired size by either scoring and folding or by cutting. The increased availability of iron knives and, by the second quarter of the century, scissors, made this a fairly easy process." - James W. Bradley, "Evolution of the Onondaga Iroquois: Accommodating Change, 1500-1655."

 

[-=METAL=-]

There are 4 cuts made on the right side of this copper plate that was made with a type of metal cutting shear that was not used during the fur trade. No hammering marks are visible. JMO. Don't get much for 2 cents these days.

Hey Rocsteddie, I appreciate the reply. I passed that info on to my thread in the "What is it?" forum and I received the following response. Please don't take this as me trying to argue or undermine your opinion as I do not think of this as proof that I have a metal point. I just thought I should post it here to see what you think:

"The technology for reworking copper remained fairly simple during the first half of the seventeenth century. Sheet metal was reduced to the desired size by either scoring and folding or by cutting. The increased availability of iron knives and, by the second quarter of the century, scissors, made this a fairly easy process." - James W. Bradley, "Evolution of the Onondaga Iroquois: Accommodating Change, 1500-1655."

I have a feeling that you're aware of this though. Are the cuts too small or precise to be made by something available in that time period? The site where this was found would have been occupied by natives up until the early 18th century. I'm basically just trying to get all the information I can.

EDIT: I didn't see that this had already been posted, I tried to delete it. Sorry guys.

 

[Charl]

I don't think it's too thin. I have quite a few from Iroquois sites in NY and they are extremely thin at that. Here's one from a 17th century NY site that's comparatively thin. It also depended on what part of the copper/brass kettle was cut for the point, so thickness varies. Other photo shows 2 different thicknesses, one is very thin. Those 2 from RI. Don't know about this one, but I'd keep it.

 

[Charl]

Here's a thin one from NY, thin enough to be the worse for it perhaps? Still a point....

Maybe you've got one with damage on the base. It should look hand cut around the margins. Looks possible to me, hang onto it as part of that site.

 

[-=METAL=-]

Charl, you're awesome, and your collection never ceases to amaze me.

 

[GatorBoy]

Not being argumentative at all just wanted to offer a different opinion.
The last two posted.. it appears to me the hole in the first one wouldn't be right for hafting and would make me think it was more of a decoration.. The second looks an awful lot like a scrap piece cut off of a of sheet brass when you need to bend it into a corner.. I just couldn't see either of them working personally... Like Tom said They would bend right over as soon as they hit anything
I'm used to seeing ones more like this down south.
Metal.. I think unfortunately you just have a scrap piece of copper

 

[GatorBoy]

 

[GatorBoy]

These are from Maryland

 

[Get-the-point]

A rolled copper conical point. That is a fine example of the type...........

 

[GatorBoy]

That one was found by GaRebel just recently ... I agree it is a fine example hope you don't mind GA

 

[-=METAL=-]

Good info. Thanks to everyone who posted.

 

[Charl]

Not being argumentative at all just wanted to offer a different opinion.
The last two posted.. it appears to me the hole in the first one wouldn't be right for hafting and would make me think it was more of a decoration.. The second looks an awful lot like a scrap piece cut off of a of sheet brass when you need to bend it into a corner.. I just couldn't see either of them working personally... Like Tom said They would bend right over as soon as they hit anything
I'm used to seeing ones more like this down south.
Metal.. I think unfortunately you just have a scrap piece of copper

And not to be argumentative, but examples like the first one i posted have been found hafted. That's exactly how they were used. I've seen photos, and will post them if as find them. It has also been suggested that the holes were for stringing the points to carry that way. But the photos of such points preserved hafted are very telling. The second point I showed is also definitely a point. It was actually found as part of a cache of 35 brass triangles of identical form and thinness at the Dann Site, c. 1650-80, Livngston Co., NY, so there's really no doubt about that second example being a projectile point. It's a no brainer even had it not been found in cache. They are actually found by the hundreds on some NY Iroquois sites. Here are several. They are all very thin, but strong. Yet, it's sheet metal from copper/brass kettles, so you can only expect so much....

Schematic shows how the kettles were salvaged. Most of the triangles were actually produced from the thinnest areas, but some will be thicker. 90%+ of triangles were actually cut from the much thinner body sheet metal. Hit a rock, of course it will bend or break. I think they had the same problem with stone points too, judging by all the tip dings. But, the velocity allows something this thin to penetrate just fine, if the aim is true. These thin metal points completely supplanted stone for several decades in 17th century New England. If they didn't work, they would not have been made and used!

gator, have seen photos of the tiny perforated triangles with the hafting preserved for clear use as projectile points. May take some time to find those photos, no,luck so far.....

 

[Charl]

Not being argumentative at all just wanted to offer a different opinion.
The last two posted.. it appears to me the hole in the first one wouldn't be right for hafting and would make me think it was more of a decoration.. The second looks an awful lot like a scrap piece cut off of a of sheet brass when you need to bend it into a corner.. I just couldn't see either of them working personally... Like Tom said They would bend right over as soon as they hit anything
I'm used to seeing ones more like this down south.
Metal.. I think unfortunately you just have a scrap piece of copper

Just to be clear, I really, really appreciate your opinion. Here are those points along with other points and trade goods found with them. 17th century Iroquois. While I note your opinion, I also must keep in mind that every collector and archaeologist in the Northeast does recognize these metal points as being just that, points. And the perforated type have been found with cordage through hole and hafting element preserved. Thus proving they were used as projectile points. And again, what you interpret as scrap is clearly a triangular projectile point, seen beneath the fish hook in the photo. They are strong enough. If you actually handle them, it's very obvious that they are quite strong enough, despite the thinness. I have handled them. I can't bend them pressing on the tip. It's the velocity that allows something this thin to work. And, again, those found with hafting preserved clearly demonstrates that my good friend Tom is mistaken in his thinness observation. And the point is, every single collector and archaeologist working in the Northeast understand this.
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. But I appreciate your opinion and your right to believe these are not projectile points. You will not find a single Northeastern archaeologist who will agree with that opinion. I appreciate Tom's observation. But he does not collect in the Northeast, likely has no experience with 17th century Northeastern trade points, and, in a word, he's quite mistaken. And being a good friend, and knowing my knowledge of the Northeast, I know for a fact that Tom would absolutely defer to my opinion on this subject. He made an observation that was not based on experience with Northeastern trade points. I corrected him. He's fine with it, because he'll admit when he's mistaken. This I know from experience with Tom. I would defer to Tom on Florida, and he always defers to me on New England.

The triangles in these two frames are 17th century brass/copper projectile points. No debate on that in this region of North America.

 

[GatorBoy]

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?