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.....
