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.
