Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Original Design and Allometric Variation in Kirk Points of the Central Ohio Archaeological Digitization Survey

  • Research
  • Published:
Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The Central Ohio Archaeological Digitization Survey (COADS) documented large samples of prehistoric artifacts, notably points, held by private collectors in south-central Ohio, USA. COADS captured two-dimensional images of over 10,000 points and several hundred three-dimensional images. Many were processed for landmark-based geometric morphometric (LGM) analysis using two standard protocols, for entire points and for stems only. This case study tests for resharpening allometry—the possibility that preferential resharpening of blades caused change in shape with change in size of points—and related LGM concepts of modularity and integration. It justifies allometric tests as logical preconditions to typological and other studies of original design. To date, most LGM studies of this nature in North America involve Paleoindian fluted points. We test for allometry in COADS Kirk points, an Archaic type, using LGM and complementary reduction measures. MorphoJ and limited gmshiny analysis suggest a strong allometric signal with fairly high modularity; blade shape much more than stem shape varies with size, corroborated by independent measures. Separate analysis of stems alone indicates no allometry, as expected since stems vary little in resharpening. Allometry must be considered before attributing variation in whole-object shape to adaptation, drift, or other mechanisms.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

Digital models are available via the link in Shott et al. (2017). Remaining data are available via links in Olson et al. (2021).

References

  • Ahler, S., & Koldehoff, B. (2009). Dated projectile point sequences from Modoc rock shelter and applications of assemblage-based analysis. In T. Emerson, D. McElrath, & A. Fortier (Eds.), Archaic Societies: Diversity and Complexity across the Midcontinent (pp. 199–227). State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baken, E., Collyer, M., Kaliontzopoulou, A., & Adams, D. (2021). geomorph v4.0 and gmShiny: Enhanced analytics and a new graphical interface for a comprehensive morphometric experience. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 12, 2355–2363. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.13723.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barker, G., & Broster, J. (1996). The Johnson Site (40Dv400): A dated Paleoindian and Early Archaic occupation in Tennessee’s Central Basin. Journal of Alabama Archaeology, 42, 97–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barlow, R., & Miller, D. S. (2021). Clovis through Big Sandy Technological Response to the Younger Dryas in Northern Alabama. Paleoamerica. https://doi.org/10.1080/20555563.2021.1999067.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benítez, H., Püschel, T., & Suazo, M. (2022). Drosophila wing integration and modularity: A multi-level approach to understand the history of morphological structures. Biology, 11, 567. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology11040567.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bissett, T., & Miller, D. S. (2017). Refining the ages of Paleoindian through terminal Late Archaic types in the Lower Midsouth using Bayesian statistical modeling. Nashville: Poster presented at the Current Research in Tennessee Archaeology Annual Meeting.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brookes, S. (1985). The Kirk point that ate the Eastern United States. Mississippi Archaeology, 20(2), 24–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Broyles, B. (1971). Second Preliminary Report: The St. Albans Site, Kanawha County, West Virginia. Report of Archaeological Investigations No. 3. West Virginia Geological and Economic Survey, Morgantown, West Virginia

  • Buchanan, B., O’Brien, M., Kilby, J., Huckell, B., & Collard, C. (2012). An assessment of the impact of hafting on Paleoindian point variability. PLoS One, 7(5), e36364. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0036364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bursey, J. (2008). Early archaic/early holocene lithic technology in Southcentral Ontario, Canada. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Toronto.

  • Cantin, M. (2009). Projectile point technology of a Kirk cluster assemblage from the James Farnsley Site (12Hr520). In: Stafford, CR, Cantin M (eds) Early Archaic Occupations at the James Farnsley Site (12Hr520), Caesars Archaeological Project, Harrison County, Indiana. Caesars Archaeological Project Report Volume 4. Indiana State University Archaeology & Quaternary Research Laboratory Technical Report 39, Terra Haute, pp. 142–189.

  • Carbonera, M., & Loponte, D. (2021). Raw materials and functional designs of Fishtail projectile points from southern Brazil. Journal of Lithic Studies, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.2218/jls.4423.

  • Cardillo, M., Borrazzo, K., & Charlin, J. (2016). Environment, space, and morphological variation of projectile points in Patagonia (Southern South America). Quaternary International, 422, 44–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cardini, A. (2019). Integration and modularity in Procrustes shape data: is there a risk of spurious results? Evolutionary Biology, 46, 90–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charlin, J., & Cardillo, M. (2018). Reduction constraints and shape convergence along tool ontogenetic trajectories: An example from Late Holocene Projectile Points of Southern Patagonia. In B. Buchanan, M. Eren, & M. O’Brien (Eds.), Convergent Evolution and Stone-Tool Technology (pp. 109–129). MIT Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Claggett, S., & Cable, J. (1982). The Haw River sites: archaeological investigations at two stratified sites in the North Carolina Piedmont. Report R-2386, Commonwealth Associates, Jackson, MI

  • Coe, J. (1964). The formative cultures of the Carolina Piedmont. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, M. (1979). Excavations at four archaic sites in the Lower Ohio Valley, Jefferson County, Kentucky, Vol. I. University of Kentucky Department of Anthropology, Occasional Papers in Anthropology No. 1, Lexington, KY.

  • Conolly, J. (2018). Revisiting the Laurentian concept: Evaluating the contribution of isolation by distance and biogeography on the morphological and geospatial variation in Laurentian archaic biface forms. Archaeology of Eastern North America, 46, 69–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daniel, I. R. (2021). Time, typology and point traditions in North Carolina archaeology: Formative cultures reconsidered. University of Alabama.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daniel, IR. (2002). Early archaic tool assemblage. In: Sassaman K (ed) G.S. Lewis-East: Early and Late Archaic Occupations along the Savannah River, Aiken County, South Carolina. Savannah River Archaeological Research Papers 12, South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, p 45–71.

  • Davidson, I. (2002). The finished artefact fallacy: Acheulean hand-axes and language origins. In Wray A. (ed.), The Transition to Language. Oxford University.

  • Ellis, C., Wortner, S., & Fox, W. (1991). Nettling: An overview of an early archaic ‘Kirk corner-notched cluster’ site in Southwestern Ontario. Canadian Journal of Archaeology, 15, 1–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flenniken, J. J., & Raymond, A. (1986). Morphological projectile point typology: Replication experimentation and technological analysis. American Antiquity, 51, 603–614.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • González-José, R., & Charlin, J. (2012). Relative importance of modularity and other morphological attributes on different types of lithic point weapons: assessing functional variations. PLoS One, 7(10), e48009. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0048009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodyear, A., White, A., & Wilkinson, J. (2019). Early archaic projectile point typologies in South Carolina: Are side and corner notched points contemporary? South Carolina Antiquities, 51, 107–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, C. M. (1985). Projectile point maintenance and typology: assessment with factor analysis and canonical correlation. In C. Carr (Ed.), Concordance in Archaeological Analysis: Bridging Data Structure, Quantitative Technique, and Theory (pp. 566–611). Kansas City: Westport.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iovita, R. (2010). Comparing stone tool resharpening trajectories with the aid of elliptical Fourier methods. In S. Lycett & C. Chauhan (Eds.), New Perspectives on Old Stones: Analytical Approaches to Paleolithic Technologies (pp. 235–253). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Iovita, R. (2011). Shape variation in Aterian tanged tools and the origins of projectile technology: A morphometric perspective on stone tool function. PLoS One, 6(12), e29029.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iriarte, J. (1995). Afinando la Puntería: Tamaño, Forma y Rejuvenecimiento en las Puntas de Proyectil Pedunculadas de Uruguay. In: Arqueología en el Uruguay: 120 Años Despues, edited by. M.Consens, J. López Mazz and M. Del Carmen Curbela. Editorial SURCOS, Montevideo, p 27–45

  • Jeffries, R. W., Thompson, V. T., & Milner, G. A. (2005). Archaic hunter-gatherer landscape use in West-Central Kentucky. Journal of Field Archaeology, 30, 3–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jennings, Thomas A., Ashley M. Smallwood, Jacob Ray, Vanessa Hanvey, Shaylee Scott, Heather L. Smith, Don Miller, & Devin Stephens. (2023). Early archaic landscape use, cultural transmission, and aggregation in the Lower Ohio River Valley. Southeastern Archaeology 42. 10.1080/ 0734578X.2022.2163121.

  • Kaňáková, L., Šmerda, J., & Nosek, V. (2016). Analýza Kamenných Projektilů z Pohřebiště Starší Doby Bronzové Hroznová Lhota: Traseologie a balistika (Analysis of Lithic Arrowheads from the Early Bronze Age Cemetery at Hroznová Lhota: Use-wear and Ballistic Analysis). Archeologické Rozhledy, 68, 163–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kimball, L. (1996). Early archaic settlement and technology: Lessons from Tellico. In K. Sassaman (Ed.), Anderson D (pp. 149–186). The Paleoindian and Early Archaic Southeast.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klingenberg, C. (2008). Morphological integration and developmental modularity. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 39, 115–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klingenberg, C. (2009). Morphometric integration and modularity in configurations of landmarks: Tools for evaluating a priori hypotheses. Evolution and Development, 11, 405–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klingenberg, C. (2011). MorphoJ: An integrated software package for geometric morphometrics. Molecular Ecology Resources, 11, 353–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knell, E. (2022). Allometry of unifacial flake tools from Mojave Desert terminal Pleistocene/Early Holocene sites: Implications for landscape knowledge, Tool Design, and Land Use. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 41, 103314.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koldehoff, B. (2013). Paleoindian and archaic settlement and lithic procurement in the Illinois Uplands. Illinois State Archaeological Survey, Technical Report 148. Urbana, IL

  • Leffler, J. (2012). Typology and the concept of curation a study of transverse arrowheads of the Late Scandinavian Mesolithic. Lund Archaeological Review, 18, 7–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leffler, J. (2020). Curation and reuse an experimental study of transverse arrowheads of the Late Scandinavian Mesolithic. Lund Archaeological Review, 24–25, 53–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, H. (2014). Dynamic variables and the use-related reduction of Huron projectile points. In: Shott M (ed), Works in Stone: Contemporary Perspectives on Lithic Analysis, University of Utah, pp. 143–161.

  • Lin, S., & Premo, L. (2021). Forager mobility and lithic discard probability similarly affect the distance of raw material discard from source. American Antiquity, 86, 845–863.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lundstrom, F. (2019). Secrets of the spearhead developing continuum mechanical simulations and organic residue analysis for the study of Scandinavian flint spearhead functionality. Unpublished MA thesis, Department of Archaeology and Classical Studies, Stockholm University.

  • Lutz, B, Nolan, K. (2020). Generalized chert sources of Ohio, version 1.0. For Central Ohio Archaeological Digitization Survey (COADS), Shott, M and Nolan, K, BCS 1723879 and BCS 1723877. Applied Anthropology Laboratories, Ball State University, Muncie, IN.

  • McNutt, C., Broster, J., & Norton, M. (2008). A surface collection from the Kirk point site (40HS174), Humphreys County, Tennessee. Tennessee Archaeology, 3(1), 25–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meredith, S. M. (2022). Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene Archaeology in Alabama. In D. S. Miller, A. Smallwood, & J. Tune (Eds.), The American Southeast at the End of the Ice Age (pp. 21–40). University of Alabama.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D. S. (2018). From colonization to domestication: Population, environment, and the origins of agriculture in Eastern North America. University of Utah.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D. S., Smallwood, A. (2012). Beyond stages: modeling Clovis biface production at the Topper site, South Carolina. In: Carr P, Bradbury A, Price S (eds) Contemporary Lithic Analysis in the Southeast: Problems, Solutions, and Interpretations, University of Alabama, p 28–41.

  • Miller, D. S., Anderson. D., Strawn. J., Carmody, S. (2023). The curious case of stemmed jude points in the Upper Tombigbee River Valley, Mississippi. Paper presented at the 88th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Portland OR. 1 April.

  • Morales, J. (2016). Distribution patterns of stone-tool reduction: Establishing frames of reference to approximate occupational features and formation processes in Paleolithic Societies. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 41, 231–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nolan, K., Shott, M., Olson, E. (2022). The Central Ohio Archaeological Digitization Survey: a demonstration of amplified public good from collaboration with private collectors. Advances in Archaeological Practice Vol. 10.

  • Okumura, M., & Araujo, A. (2019). Archaeology, biology, and borrowing: A critical examination of geometric morphometrics in archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Science, 101, 149–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olson, Eric, Kevin C. Nolan, & Michael J. Shott. (2021). Central Ohio Archaeological Digitization Project: Preliminary Report. Current Research in Ohio Archaeology. Ohio Archaeological Council. Electronic document, https://ohioarchaeology.org/articles-and-abstracts-2021/601-central-ohio-archaeological-digitization-survey-preliminary-report, accessed April 20, 2021.

  • Outomuro, D., & Johannson, F. (2017). A potential pitfall in studies of biological shape: Does size matter? Journal of Animal Ecology, 86, 1447–1457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oxnard, C. (1978). One biologist’s view of morphometrics. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 9, 219–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perreault, C. (2019). The quality of the archaeological record. University of Chicago.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Prentiss, A., Walsh, M., Skelton, R., & Mattes, M. (2016). Mosaic evolution in cultural frameworks: Skateboard decks and projectile points. In L. Straffon (Ed.), Cultural Phylogenetics: Concepts and Applications in Archaeology (pp. 113–130). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rohlf, F. J. (2017). tpsDig, Digitize Landmarks and Outlines, Version 2.31. Department of Ecology and Evolution, State University of New York, Stony Brook.

  • Shott, M. (1996). An exegesis of the curation concept. Journal of Anthropological Research, 52, 259–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shott, M. (2020). Allometry and resharpening in experimental Folsom-point replicas: Analysis using inter-landmark distances. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 27, 360–380. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-019-09437-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shott, M. (2020). Toward a theory of the point. In H. Groucutt (Ed.), Culture History and Convergent Evolution: Can We Detect Populations in Prehistory? (pp. 245–259). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Shott, M. (2022). Inferring use-life mean and distribution: A pottery ethnoarchaeological case study from Michoacán. American Antiquity, 87, 794–815. https://doi.org/10.1017/aaq.2022.57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shott, M., & Otárola-Castillo, E. (2022). Parts and wholes: Reduction allometry and modularity in experimental Folsom points. American Antiquity, 87, 80–99. https://doi.org/10.1017/aaq.2021.62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shott, M., & Pitblado, B. (2015). Introduction to the theme “pros and cons of consulting collectors. The SAA Archaeological Record, 15(5), 11-13,39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shott, M., & Seeman, M. (2017). Use and multifactorial reconciliation of uniface reduction measures: A pilot study at the Nobles Pond Paleoindian site. American Antiquity, 82, 723–741. https://doi.org/10.1017/aaq.2017.40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shott, M., Hunzicker, D., & Patten, B. (2007). Pattern and allometric measurement of reduction in experimental Folsom bifaces. Lithic Technology, 32, 203–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shott, M., Williams, J., & Slade, A. (2021). Measuring allometry in dimensions of Western North American Clovis points. Journal of Archaeological Science, 131, 105359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2021.105359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shott, M., Nolan, K., Olson, E., Weiland, A., Wathen, K., Clark, A., Travis, S., Ritter, G. (2017). Central Ohio Archaeological Digitization Survey 3D Model Collection. Department of Anthropology, University of Akron and Applied Anthropology Laboratories, Ball State University. https://sketchfab.com/bse_aal/collections/coads.

  • Smith, E. (1995). The Swan’s Landing Site (12HR304): An early archaic (Kirk Horizon) site in Harrison County, South-Central Indiana. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology, 20, 192–238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stafford, C. R. (2021). Early archaic dating, chert use, and settlement mobility in the Falls Region. In D. Pollack, A. Bader, & J. Carlson (Eds.), Falls of the Ohio River: Archaeology of Native American Settlement (pp. 21–43). University of Florida.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Stafford, C. R., Cantin, M. (2009). Early archaic occupations at the James Farnsley Site, Caesars Archaeological Project, Harrison County, Indiana. Indiana State. University Archaeology & Quaternary Research Laboratory Technical Report 39, Terre Haute, IN

  • Suárez, R., & Cardillo, M. (2019). Life history or stylistic variation? A geometric morphometric method for evaluation of Fishtail point variability. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 27, 101997.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thulman, D. (2022). Southeastern Late Paleoindian through Early Archaic chronologies. In D. S. Miller, A. Smallwood, & J. Tune (Eds.), The American Southeast at the End of the Ice Age (pp. 306–334). University of Alabama.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thulman D, Shott M, Slade A, Williams, J. (n.d.). Clovis point allometry: exploring shape variation with landmark-based geometric morphometrics. Ms. on file, Dept. of Anthropology, George Washington University, Washington, D.C.

  • Tuck, J. (1974). Early Archaic horizons in Eastern North America. Archaeol Eastern North Am, 2, 72–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, A. (2016). A preliminary analysis of haft variability in South Carolina Kirk points. South Carolina Antiquities, 48, 41–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, A. (2021). Lithic transport patterns, tool curation behavior, and group range estimates: A model-based exploration. Journal of Computer Applications in Archaeology, 4, 254–273. https://doi.org/10.5334/jcaa.82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, A. (2016a). The Kirk Project. https://www.andywhiteanthropology.com/kirk-project-datasets.html, accessed 12 April 2021.

  • Wilkinson, J. (2019). Evaluating Kirk corner-notched resharpening trajectories through experimental archaeology. South Carolina Antiquities, 51, 61–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodward, H., Tremaine, K., Williams, S., Zanno, L., Horner, J., & Myhrvold, N. (2020). Growing Up Tyrannosaurus rex: osteohistology refutes the pygmy “Nanotyrannus” and supports ontogenetic niche partitioning in juvenile Tyrannosaurus. Science Advances, 6, eaax6250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

COADS benefited from advice and support of Dr. Jonathan E. Bowen, Gary Argabright, Richard and Harriet McClish, the Chert Ridge, Mound City, Six River Valley, and Standing Stone chapters of the Archaeological Society of Ohio. Gary Argabright, Don Balthaser, John Barnhart, Fayette County Historical Society, Licking Valley Heritage Society, Richard McClish, John Mears, Moundview Farm, Quiverfull Farm, Tom Schroeder, Robert Wraley, and two collectors who chose to remain anonymous, permitted documentation of their collections. C.R. Stafford kindly provided measurements of Farnsley Kirk points. David Thulman advised on radiocarbon dating. Erica Baken assisted in use of gmshiny. Three reviewers made suggestions, some of which were incorporated. The editors greatly assisted during the review process.

Funding

Funding was from the United States National Science Foundation (BCS 1723879 and BCS 1723877).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dept. of Anthropology, University of Akron, Akron, OH, 44325, USA

    Michael J. Shott

  2. Applied Anthropology Laboratories, Ball State University, Burkhardt Building, Rm 313, Muncie, IN, 47306, USA

    Kevin C. Nolan

  3. Cuyahoga Community College, 11000 West Pleasant Valley Road, Parma, OH, 44130, USA

    Eric Olson

Authors
  1. Michael J. Shott
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kevin C. Nolan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Eric Olson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

The authors contributed equally to analysis and writing of this paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael J. Shott.

Ethics declarations

Competing Interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (RDATA 951 KB)

Supplementary file2 (R 1 KB)

Supplementary file3 (R 88 KB)

Supplementary file4 (RDATA 872 KB)

Supplementary file5 (R 88 KB)

Supplementary file6 (RDATA 872 KB)

Supplementary file7 (R 1 KB)

Supplementary file8 (R 88 KB)

Supplementary file9 (RDATA 22305 KB)

Supplementary file10 (R 88 KB)

Supplementary file11 (RDATA 960 KB)

Supplementary file12 (R 88 KB)

Supplementary file13 (RDATA 1431 KB)

Supplementary file14 (R 88 KB)

Supplementary file15 (RDATA 22156 KB)

Supplementary file16 (R 88 KB)

Supplementary file17 (RDATA 960 KB)

Supplementary file18 (R 88 KB)

Supplementary file19 (RDATA 960 KB)

Supplementary file20 (R 88 KB)

Supplementary file21 (RDATA 951 KB)

Supplementary file22 (R 88 KB)

Supplementary file23 (CSV 0 KB)

Supplementary file24 (PDF 440 KB)

Supplementary file25 (PDF 4 KB)

Supplementary file26 (PDF 8 KB)

Supplementary file27 (PDF 8 KB)

Supplementary file28 (PDF 5 KB)

Supplementary file29 (PDF 12 KB)

Supplementary file30 (PDF 13 KB)

Supplementary file31 (TPS 72 KB)

Supplementary file32 (XLSX 32 KB)

Supplementary file33 (MORPHOJ 1559 KB)

Supplementary file34 (MORPHOJ 1917 KB)

Supplementary file35 (CSV 36 KB)

Supplementary file36 (MORPHOJ 578 KB)

Supplementary file37 (R 2 KB)

Supplementary file38 (R 6 KB)

Supplementary file39 (R 8 KB)

Supplementary file40 (R 0 KB)

Supplementary file41 (R 2 KB)

Supplementary file42 (R 5 KB)

Supplementary file43 (R 1 KB)

Supplementary file44 (R 3 KB)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Shott, M.J., Nolan, K.C. & Olson, E. Original Design and Allometric Variation in Kirk Points of the Central Ohio Archaeological Digitization Survey. J Archaeol Method Theory 31, 593–618 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-023-09612-x

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-023-09612-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation