The Kirk Project: The Nipper Creek Cache

2/5/2016

Don't worry -- I'm not planning on writing about every Kirk point I look at. I've gained some new readers with the whole "Roman sword" debacle, and I hope to not lose all of them as I transition back into writing more about real archaeology and anthropology. Neither the real science nor the stupid ever stops, but I'll try to mix it up somewhat.

I wanted to write a quick post about a small (n = 6) assemblage of Kirk points from the Nipper Creek site (38-RD-18) in Richland County, South Carolina. The six points were part of a cache that was exposed during a 1986 archaeological field school directed by Albert Goodyear and Ruth Wetmore. (For those unfamiliar with the archaeological use of the term, a "cache" is a group of objects that were hidden or stored for future use.) The six points were found within a small horizontal area (about 264 square cm, a little over a quarter of a square foot) and within about 5-10 cm vertically. It is likely that the points were originally placed in a pit (no outline of a pit was discerned) or on a common surface.

Goodyear et al. described the Nipper Creek cache in a short 2004 paper in Current Research in the Pleistocene (see reference below). I took the opportunity to take a quick color photo of the points as I was scanning them so I could have a visual record cross-referencing the alphabetic designations used in the Goodyear et al. paper with the numeric designations on the bags and the unique ID numbers assigned to the points in my database.

Kirk points in the Nipper Creek cache. All except E were made from metavolcanic stone from North Carolina. Point E was made from Ridge and Valley chert, probably obtained in eastern Tennessee.

One really useful thing about an assemblage like the Nipper Creek cache is that it gives us a "snapshot" view of tools from a narrow window of time. Because these six tools all entered the archaeological record together, transferred from a "dynamic" human behavioral context to a "static" archaeological context in a single act, they can potentially tell us something about synchronic variability in Kirk Points that "broad time" surface assemblages cannot. At least some of the variability in Kirk has to be related to change through time -- how do we pin that down? With the aid of stratified deposits and discrete features that provide context. "Narrow time" deposits like the Nipper Creek cache are potentially of great utility in interpreting the variability that will be present in a "broad time" assemblage of Kirks from across the Eastern Woodlands.

Goodyear, Albert C., William Radisch, Ruth Wetmore, and V. Ann Tippitt. 2004. A Kirk Corner-Notched Point Cache from the Nipper Creek Site (38RD18), South Carolina. Current Research in the Pleistocene 21:42-44.

Update (2/11/2016): 3D model of Biface 3 (5965) completed.
Update (2/12/2016): 3D model of Biface 2 (5966) completed.
Update (2/15/2016): 3D model of Biface 5 (5964) completed.
Update (2/16/2016): 3D model of Biface 4 (5963) completed.
Update (2/18/2016): 3D model of Biface 1 (5967) completed.
Update (2/19/2016): 3D model of Biface 6 (5968) completed.

Bob Jase

2/5/2016 09:23:23 am

For all the time I was growing up I had heard about how easy it was to find native American artifacts while hiking. According to the buzz, Will Warren's Den and the surrounding area were piled high with old arrowheads & such. After decades of tromping around the woods I have exactly zero. I did find one large stone grinding mill back in the '70's but it was too heavy to haul home.

Uncle Ron

2/5/2016 06:30:56 pm

Forty years ago there were fields around Washington Boro, Pa. where, after the first rain following the spring plowing, you couldn't walk without stepping on an arrow point or Native American pottery shard. Now they are all residential developments.

Eric

2/5/2016 09:49:55 am

So these points are a ritually buried, votive assemblage?

Andy White

2/5/2016 09:58:24 am

Ritual deposition of lithics is not unheard of among Late Pleistocene/Early Holocene hunter-gatherers in the east (see this link about Crowfield, for example: http://anthropology.uwo.ca/cje/crowfield.htm) but Nipper Creek is probably functional. Here's a paper that discusses some of the reasons why mobile hunter-gatherers might cache tools:

https://www.academia.edu/5240687/AN_ANALYSIS_OF_VARIATION_IN_CACHING_BEHAVIOR_Author_s_Stance_Hurst_Source_Lithic

Eric

2/5/2016 11:09:02 am

Yes, you said the Kirk points were part of a larger cache, so I'm assuming the rest of the finds support a functional context. Are you weighing the points as well, and extrapolating the probable original dimensions and weight of the points? Ballistically, the weight of various points is as important as shape in determining performance and hence function and use. Weight is going to affect accuracy and velocity and the killing range of the projectile.

Andy White

2/5/2016 11:16:16 am

Projectile weight is an important aspect of functional variability, but you have to keep in mind that the stone point itself accounts for a pretty low percentage of the total weight of the projectile. If you want to wade into my dissertation there's a brief discussion of projectile ballistics there (starting on page 218):

https://www.academia.edu/1930795/The_Social_Networks_of_Early_Hunter-Gatherers_in_Midcontinental_North_America_2012_

Eric

2/5/2016 12:22:59 pm

I'm a former artilleryman, that was right in my zone! Ballistics is the same whether it's hand thrown darts or 155mm howitzers.

Andy White

2/5/2016 12:24:49 pm

Yeah, I would sum up the size equation as "no bigger than needed to do the job."

Eric

2/5/2016 03:53:04 pm

So your total projectile weight can be modified by the shaft material and length for different targets (deer, birds, or even people) and terrain, ie a heavier dart for woodland, where ambush opportunities allow for short range targets. Versatility and lethality has to be a step up to offset the extra effort in creating the point as opposed to the older, less complex points, right? Is Kirk a response to the forestation in the East?-its a Woodland point, so it must have an advantage in deciduous forests over points intended for open steppe or taiga forest.

Andy White

2/6/2016 04:02:53 am

Like almost everything in archaeology, it isn't that simple. But, yes, the stone point itself is part of a compound weapon system that is "designed" to do a set of tasks. The functional considerations imposed by game/environment surely exert some influence on size (e.g., if you're hunting an animal like a deer you don't want a super heavy projectile that makes you throw a Hail Mary to reach the target; for an elephant, however, you may need the extra oomph of a heavy projectile to penetrate the hide, etc.).

But that's not the whole story. Stone tools, like any tools, have "style" incorporated into their design. "Style" can be defined as parts of the design that don't have much affect on function. It doesn't matter what color the hammer is, for example, it still works the same.

To further complicate things, formal stone tools like projectile points were often multi-functional. In the case of Kirk and other Early Archaic technologies, the points were often used as saws, knives, scrapers, etc., in addition to serving as the tips of projectile weapons.

All of this makes it difficult to figure out what variability means. But before you do that, you have to have a sample large enough to understand the structure of variability in the first place. Hence the Kirk Project.

James MacNaughton

2/6/2016 05:50:19 pm

And I'm sure Andy covered this somewhere in here, but some regions the point itself was the time/materiel investment, it was the shafts of the projectiles.

Awesome stuff, Andy. I'm now a follower!

James MacNaughton

2/6/2016 05:51:31 pm

*the point WASN'T the valuable resource.

Sorry, rented fingers.

J m hume

2/5/2016 05:04:12 pm

A very interesting subject and great comments with it. I feel like im in the first row of the classroom and i enjoy it. Great stuff!

Bill Wagner

2/11/2016 03:11:10 pm

That Early Archaic points such as Kirk were projectile points is not axiomatic. Their re-sharpening strategies suggest they were hafted knives. And very few of them (in my limited experience) show impact fractures. FWIW (assuming anything).

Comments are closed.

The Kirk Project: The Nipper Creek Cache

Archives

Categories