VOLUME 48 | 41 A Preliminary Analysis of Haft Variability in South Carolina Kirk Points Andrew A. White Introduction The Kirk Corner-Notched cluster, as defined by Justice (1987:71-82), contains a variety of technologically and stylistically similar point forms dating to the Early Archaic period of the Eastern Woodlands. Generally, these points have trianguloid blades with haft regions formed by corner-notching (see Justice 1987; Stafford and Cantin 2009). Ground basal edges, blade serration, and alternate beveling of the blade occur in varying frequency. Named varieties such as Kirk Corner- Notched, Stilwell, Palmer, Charleston, Decatur, and Pine Tree are generally distinguished from one another based on criteria related to haft and blade morphology, basal finishing techniques, and blade resharpening (see discussions in Brookes 1985; Cable 1996; DeRegnaucourt 1992; Justice 1987; Nolan and Fishel 2009; Stafford and Cantin 2009). For the purposes of this paper, the simple term “Kirk” will be applied to all the varieties in this larger family of point forms. Kirk points are geographically widespread, occurring across an immense area extending north-south from the southern Great Lakes to the Florida Peninsula and east- west from the Mississippi Corridor to the Atlantic Coast. While there is certainly enough similarity in these points across their wide geographic distribution to recognize general inter-relationships (e.g., Ellis et al. 1998:162), there is also significant variability in size, shape, and attributes related to patterns of use and rejuvenation. Radiocarbon dates indicate that the Kirk phenomenon is focused in the period ca. 9500-8800 radiocarbon years before present (RCYBP) (see Cantin 2000; Chapman 1976; Nolan and Fishel 2009; Stafford and Cantin 2009). The widespread occurrence of Kirk points during that period is often referred to as the “Kirk Horizon” (see Tuck 1974; see also Coe 1964:122). The emergence of the Kirk Horizon remains unexplained, and what it actually represents remains largely unexplored. Relationships among the different varieties of Kirk points and between Kirk and the varieties of side-notched points that appear to immediately pre-date Kirk (e.g., Big Sandy/Taylor/ Bolen in the Southeast and Thebes cluster points in the Midcontinent) are not well understood. Even in areas with stratified sequences, the “ancestor- descendent” relationships between various Early Archaic point technologies are not clear. Tuck (1974:77), for example, identifies Big Sandy as the ancestor of Kirk (see also Stothers et al. 2001), while other researchers have speculated on links between Thebes and Kirk (e.g., Kimball 1996:158), and Dalton and Kirk (Cantin 2000:100). Brookes (1985) places Decatur points outside the Kirk cluster altogether and recognizes a Plains affinity for Lost Lake, which some researchers group with Kirk and others (e.g., Justice 1987:58-59) place within the Thebes cluster. While Kirk is clearly a pan-eastern phenomenon, regional chronologies and technological relationships appear inconsistent and are not easy to reconcile. The characteristics of Kirk societies, likewise, remain poorly understood. Generally, Early Archaic societies are thought to have been organized into small, highly mobile bands that practiced a forest foraging economy. It is apparent that Kirk points were often lost/discarded across the interior of the Eastern Woodlands in a wide variety of topographic settings, suggesting these groups were making regular use of almost all parts of the landscape (e.g., Cantin 2000; Munson 1986; Stafford 1994). The transport distances of lithic raw materials in the Midcontinent are consistent with the idea that Kirk groups were making annual movements of several hundred kilometers (Adovasio and Carr 2009; Cantin 2000; White 2014). Scales of mobility may have been somewhat smaller in the Southeast (Ellis et al. 1998:162), but lithic raw materials were still being transported significant distances through mechanisms of mobility and/or exchange (Anderson and Hanson 1988:280; Meredith 2011). Various models of Kirk mobility and subsistence have been proposed for the Carolinas (e.g., Anderson and Hanson 1988; Daniel 2001; Gillam 2015). Increases in population during the Early Archaic period are inferred from increases in the number of sites, as well as lost/discarded hafted bifaces dating to the Early Archaic period relative to the Paleoindian period. Because Kirk sites with intact cultural deposits are so rare, the points themselves are one of our main sources of information about these Early Archaic groups. Understanding variability in Kirk points is key to unlocking the potential of these points to tell us something about how those societies were structured and what mechanisms were used to knit those highly mobile, highly dispersed groups into an apparently continuous social fabric that extended across such an immense and diverse geographic area. Different facets of variability in projectile points are potentially linked to different aspects of how the tools were created and used, however, and