understanding “clovis” fluted point variability in the...

Ar

tic

le

s

Understanding “Clovis” Fluted Point Variability in the Northeast: A Perspective from the Debert Site, Nova Scotia

Christopher Ellis†

Abstract. This paper compares fluted points from the Debert site, Nova Scotia, with assemblages of “Clovis” or “Clovis-like” fluted points from across the Midwest and Northeast regions. The focus is on compa-rison of continuous variables that previous research has suggested may be useful in dis-tinguishing regional, temporal, and artifact life-history variation. The results indicate that while Debert points are most similar to those from such sites as Vail, Maine, and Lamb, New York, they differ significantly in certain characteristics. It is also concluded that the Debert points represent a very exhausted assemblage in comparison to other reported sites. In particular, the Debert assemblage includes a large number of forms with sub-triangular outlines, which all evidence suggests represent the use and reshaping of snapped tips derived from an initial larger, more parallel-sided form. Possible explana-tions for this emphasis are suggested.

Résumé. Cet article compare les pointes à cannelure provenant du site de Debert en Nouvelle Écosse avec des assemblages de pointes à cannelure « Clovis » ou « appa-rentés à Clovis » du Midwest et du Nord-Est américain. Nous mettons l’accent sur la com-paraison de variables continues qui, selon des études antérieures, aident à distinguer les variations régionales, temporelles, et celles associées aux modifications subies par l’artéfact à travers son histoire. Les résultats indiquent que même si les pointes de Debert ressemblent davantage à celles de sites comme Vail dans l’état du Maine, ou Lamb, dans l’état de New York, elles présentent des

différences importantes pour certaines carac-téristiques. En comparaison avec d’autres sites étudiés, nous concluons également que les pointes de Debert sont dans l’ensemble épuisées. Notons en particulier que la collec-tion de Debert comprend un grand nombre de formes avec des contours subtriangulaires, ce qui suggère l’utilisation et le refaçonnage des extrémités fracturées provenant de formes à l’origine plus grandes et aux bords plus parallèles. Nous proposons des explica-tions possibles pour ce phénomène.

In this paper I explore some similarities and differences between the

fluted points from the Debert site, Nova Scotia (Figure 1), and those from other locations ranging from the upper Missis-sippi drainage to New England. I com-pare the Debert points with generally large (i.e., basal widths > 20 mm), par-tially fluted and relatively parallel-sided points—points that are often referred to as “Clovis” in the broadest sense of the term. Variation beyond these basic characteristics has led some to assign the points from the assemblages exam-ined here to other types such as Enter-line, Bull Brook, or Gainey. Regardless of name, most people suggest these point forms as a whole represent the earliest dating fluted bifaces in the area

† Department of Anthropology, University of Western Ontario, London, ON N6A 5C2 [[email protected]]

Canadian Journal of Archaeology/Journal Canadien d’Archéologie 28: 205–253 (2004)

Canadian Journal of Archaeology 28 (2004)

206 • ELLIS

(e.g., Curran 1999: 10; Deller and Ellis 1988; Keenlyside 1991: 164; Spiess et al. 1998: 235). In this study, I pay particu-lar attention to how Debert compares to its “sister” site—Vail, Maine (Gramly 1982: 30). While not denying that the greatest similarities are to Vail, the data presented herein suggest the Debert points vary considerably from virtually every other site where comparable data are available. Reasons for such differ-ences are provided and discussed.

Underlying the analyses are two explicit approaches. First, while I have per-sonally contributed to the proliferation of named fluted point types (e.g., Deller and Ellis 1984), I eschew trying to force the points into narrow, normative, typological categories—a procedure that eliminates variability. Moreover, I have found that such typological comparisons are often done rather impressionistically and thus can be wrong or misleading. Therefore,

my detailed sample/assemblage com-parisons are made with the explicit aim of identifying and explaining variability, an approach that has considerable potential to enhance our understanding of these Late Pleistocene peoples (e.g., Curran 1999; Deller and Ellis 1992; Ellis 1984; Ellis et al. 2003; Morrow 1996; Morrow and Morrow 2002a; Morris et al. 1999; Wright 1981).

Second, aside from examining the three factors—style, function and raw material properties—that have been used so often to explain variability, I pay special attention to the effects of varying life histories on assemblages. Whether one refers to them as reduction sequences or chaîne opératoires (see Shott 2003), the idea that life histories can significantly affect tool variability is not new. Witthoft (1952: 483) and Roosa (1963, 1965, 1968), for example, long ago recog-nized the significance of such factors as

Figure 1. Location of sites/finds mentioned in the text. 1) Debert; 2) Vail; 3) Bull Brook; 4) Shawnee Minisink; 5) Shoop; 6) Hiscock; 7) Lamb; 8) Gainey Ontario Isolates. Rummells-Maske is off the map to the west.

Journal Canadien d’Archéologie 28 (2004)

UNDERSTANDING “CLOVIS” FLUTED POINT VARIABILITY • 207

resharpening or discard in manufacture on Paleoindian point typologies, as did Goodyear (1974) in his seminal study on Dalton points. Frison (1968) showed how unifaces could change greatly in form and size throughout their use-lives. These ideas underlay many subsequent attempts to understand stone tool form variation in other geographic areas, including the European Middle Paleo-lithic (e.g., Dibble 1987, 1995).

Paleoindian point studies initially tended to see morphological change in terms of simple fore-section edge resharpening—a product of gradual “attrition” rather than “chance” or more catastrophic breakage, to use Shott and Sillitoe’s (2004: 352) terms. However, more recent work, particularly on west-ern Folsom assemblages, has recognized that more major breakage patterns, and subsequent attempts at reworking, can significantly alter point morphology and even affect tool design (Ahler and Geib 2000; Bement 2002). I extend such ideas to the eastern assemblages considered here, and argue that a major source of the variability and distinctiveness of Debert is one not previously considered, namely that the assemblage reflects an extensive degree of reworking. In doing so, I demonstrate many ways in which such life history effects can be measured in assemblages, such as through the use of face-angles (Wright 1981). I also show that, unlike the case of the Middle Paleolithic, we actually have two par-ticular types of assemblages—those from fluted biface caches and those from kill sites—that provide a significant base-line and resource for modelling and under-standing progressive life history effects, although these have been infrequently used in any systematic manner.

I begin this paper with a review of the Debert site and its relation to other fluted

point sites within the larger context of northeastern North America during the late Pleistocene. I next identify and dis-cuss the variables I examined in my study of fluted point variability, with the goal of delineating as precisely as possible how the Debert site points are different or sim-ilar to those at other sites. Data on some discrete attributes are included where these have a bearing on the interpreta-tions of the variables. Finally, I discuss the potential reasons for such variation and its implications for understanding the Debert site assemblage.

BACKGROUNDThe Debert site is located in the uplands of central Nova Scotia and is today about 30 km inland from the nearest coastline, the Bay of Fundy. At the time the site was occupied, when sea level was much lowered, it would have been well inland, with the nearest coast an estimated 50 or more km away. Debert is certainly one of the best-known and most important Paleoindian sites in North America. Sub-ject of the first monograph-length report on an undoubted fluted point site in the East (MacDonald 1968), it remains one of only two radiocarbon-dated fluted point sites in Canada and the largest known in the Maine-Maritimes Region. MacDonald’s (1968) work at the site provided the first comprehensive report-ing and recognition of distinctive artifact forms, including fluted twist drills and pièces esquillées, and the detailed data on Debert’s spatial layout and living floors has provided much fodder in the quest to understand the coping strate-gies of Late Pleistocene foragers in the Northeast (e.g., Dincauze 1993; Ellis and Deller 2000: 245–247; Gramly 1982; Spiess 1984; Spiess et al. 1998: 228–232).

In MacDonald’s (1966: 61, 1968: 77–78) initial reports, the distinctiveness


208 • ELLIS

of the Debert fluted points was empha-sized with particular stress on the deep basal concavities. The large series of dates averaging 10,600 ± 47 BP suggested contemporaneity with western Folsom, as did certain technological aspects, includ-ing the use of both a basal nipple in fluting (a technique Roosa [1963, 1965] had called “Folsom fluting”) and such supposed post-Clovis manufacturing procedures as the “Barnes basal finishing technique” (MacDonald 1968: 78).

The discovery of the Vail site in adja-cent Maine in the late 1970s (Gramly 1982; Gramly and Rutledge 1981) led to a rethinking of Debert. The Vail projec-tile points were referred to as a “striking form” (Gramly 1982: 26) and “startlingly similar” to those from Debert (Gramly and Rutledge 1981: 356), although it was noted that a “few” deeply concave based points were among those found at sites farther afield, including Bull Brook, Massachusetts, and Plenge, New Jersey. The similarity in the range of tool forms to Debert was also noted (Gramly and Rutledge 1981: 356), but nothing at Vail seems to be shared only with Debert: the same kinds of tools occur at virtually every other spatially large site in New England regardless of fluted point-form specifics. Fluted drills may be an exception, but even these occur at other sites such as Whipple, New Hampshire (Curran 1984: Plate 5a), and in association with what most regard as other kinds of fluted points (e.g., with shallower basal concavities).

Two radiocarbon dates were initially obtained on the Vail site. While one of 10,300 ± 90 BP suggested contemporane-ity with the majority of the Debert site dates, the other of 11,200 ± 180 BP was considered a more accurate estimate of the site’s age (due to more thorough humic acid extraction). The implica-

tion was that the Debert dates were wrong (Gramly 1982: 60–61; Gramly and Rutledge 1981: 360). MacDonald (1982: x) was also struck with the simi-larities between Vail and Debert, espe-cially the “range of tool forms” and the points with “their deeply indented bases” and stated that he “could scarcely believe that precise technological patterns expressed at two such widely separated locations could be so similar.” Ignor-ing earlier arguments of similarities to Folsom, MacDonald (1982: x, 1983: 100) suggested the Debert dates were too recent due to contamination and that the 11,000+ BP dates were a better approximation of the site age. Funk (1982: xii–xiii) also noted the Debert similarities, but was less convinced of the earlier radiocarbon age.

Subsequently, other dates were reported from Vail that were more consis-tent with both the original 10,300 BP date and the Debert dates, raising the spectre that either two charcoal populations are present or the differences are “simply statistical,” with the latter age estimates more correct (Haynes et al. 1984: 185). Nonetheless, Gramly (1999) still favours an earlier date for this material. He refers to the “Vail/Debert style of fluted point … as a variant of the more shallowly concave Clovis fluted point,” and argues they represent the earliest and first occu-pants of the area, and that the points from the Lamb site in New York are the same as those from Vail and Debert (Gramly 1999: 36, 94). Others also tend to treat Debert and Vail as if they were the same thing, regardless of the relationship to western Clovis (e.g., Ellis and Deller 1997: 21–22; G. Haynes 2002: 83; Morrow and Morrow 2002a: 156).

Other investigators also suggested an earlier age for Debert and Vail. Bonnichsen and Will (1999), for exam-



ple, argued that the dates from Debert and Vail are suspect, suggesting that what is being dated is charcoal from events such as forest fires. Assuming that Debert and Vail are stylistically the same, espe-cially in terms of points, they suggested an age estimate of 11,000 BP or more years (Bonnichsen et al. 1991: 25). Paleoenvi-ronmental data were used to argue that a warming trend at that time provided a climatic interval most conducive to peo-pling of the region prior to a much colder period equated with the Younger Dryas climatic event (see Bonnichsen et al. 1991: 25; Bonnichsen and Will 1999: 407). As discussed below, however, recent research indicates this estimate of the optimal timing can be questioned.

There are some who disagree with the arguments as to an earlier “real” age for Debert and Vail. Mary Lou Curran (1996: 5–6) favours the interpretation of two charcoal populations at Vail and perhaps also Debert (see also Levine 1990: 53). Curran (1996: 5–6) implies that the later dates at Vail are correct and that these are reinforced by the Debert dates, which she states: “remain the best suite of dates (for the Northeast) with internal, statistically satisfying consistency” (see also Keenly-side 1991: 184; Spiess et al. 1998: 236). While Curran (1996: 6) also notes that “stylistic similarities would strongly sug-gest contemporaneity” between Debert and Vail, more recently she implies there may be temporal differences from south to north, with concavities getting deeper and bases wider as one moves north across the Northeast/Maritimes as a whole (Curran 1999: 10–15). This trend is consistent on certain large sites that Dincauze (1993) suggests were “marshal-ling sites” for the first colonizers of par-ticular regions. This perspective suggests that more northern sites, such as Debert, date later than Vail. This expectation is

logical, given the position of the retreat-ing ice sheets at the time and a presumed southerly to southwesterly origin for these populations. Curran (1999: 13) notes that the Debert site points, spe-cifically basal width and concavity depth that she examined, exhibit a wide range of variation compared to other sites (see also Keenlyside 1985: 80) that may be due to functional differences in point use during the occupation or to use over a long period of time during which there was change in point form.

TERMINOLOGYIn this paper I explicitly consider the effects of differing life histories on point assemblage variability and particularly since the initial use of an item in its desig-nated task(s) (e.g., the post-manufactur-ing life history). I use the general term reshaping to describe modifications that may occur in an artifact’s form over its use-life, from its pristine state at manufacture through to eventual discard or loss. Three kinds of reshaping modification are rec-ognized: 1) resharpening; 2) reworking; and 3) recycling. The differences between these are significant. In resharpening, the use edges of the tool are simply rejuve-nated or reduced over its use-life without major changes in shape and artifact function. With points, resharpening or re-edging of the fore-section/tip working edges would result largely in reduction in length, fore-section width, or thickness; the basal hafting end remains unaltered. In contrast, reworking involves more extensive modifications, but function or use remains much the same. For example, a damaged point may be extensively reshaped at the base to allow rehafting but still continue to be used as a projectile tip. Recycling also includes modifications that go beyond edge modification but subsequently results in a tool with a different function.


210 • ELLIS

THE SAMPLESIn 2001, I collected data on 17 Debert fluted points, or measurable fragments thereof, all at the Canadian Museum of Civilization excluding those on loan or dis-play. In a few instances and for some basic variables, these totals can be expanded using data on a few points provided in other publications (e.g., Keenlyside 1985: Table 2). As with the comparative samples described below, the points examined were considered finished forms because they possessed lateral basal grinding.

Certain specimens that others have included as finished points from Debert were omitted as they lacked such grinding (e.g., MacDonald 1968: Plate Vd). The basic data on the points examined are presented in Table 1. As I have stressed elsewhere (Ellis 2001), this assemblage compares favourably with the more com-plete one reported by MacDonald (1968), meaning that the frequency of certain discrete traits and the range and means of continuous variables are virtually identi-cal between them.

Table 1. Characteristics of Debert site points.*

Cat. No. Condition Face-angle Length Width Thickness Basal WidthConcavity

Depth

2576 Basal Half 86 est. 12+

3704 Basal Half est. 19+

3226 Complete 92 55.5 27.2 9 24 7.4

E/1 Base 90 27.7 7.3

E/2 Base 84 30.6 30.6 8

6115 Base 22.2 7.2

554 Base 89 10.1

2397 Base 87.5 33.3 33.3 13.7

641 Base 86.5 35.5 14.8

120 Base 91.5 32.8 10 32.8 13.9

1183 Base 93.75 29.9 11.8

3893 Base 91 25.6 6.4 24.9 10

1516 Base 85 30.7 7.3 30.7 13.4

4080 Complete 90.5 40 27 8.5

1419 Complete 85 8.8

1302+ Base 91 32.2 11 12.2

1883 Complete 73 26 7 10

3172 Complete 90.5 44 26 6.5 7

1178 Complete 91.75 109.4 35.4 10.3 33.3 12.3

2737 Base 11.7* Includes items directly measured by me and published data. Flute No. refers to number of flutes per face; Flute Width refers to the total width of the fluted surface, which can include more than one flute on some faces. Measurements in mm except face-angle in degrees.



Comparative samples were derived from numerous sources (Table 2; Figure 1). However, for sites in the area with Clovis-like points, including such major ones as Gainey, Michigan (Simons 1997; Simons et al. 1984) and Udora, Ontario (Storck and Spiess 1994), the point data remain unpublished. The samples used do provide both broad spatial coverage and a cross-section of the range of variation amongst these large point forms by including points that have been assigned to a variety of types such

as Enterline (i.e., Shoop, Pennsylvania), Gainey/Bull Brook (i.e., Rummells-Maske, Iowa; Bull Brook, Massachusetts; Ontario Gainey isolated finds), as well as Debert/Vail and, more generally, Clovis. In addition to normal, exhausted, dis-carded assemblages from domestic con-texts, two samples—Rummells-Maske in Iowa (Morrow and Morrow 2002b) and Lamb in New York (Gramly 1999)—con-sist of “caches” of what are presumably little used and reshaped artifacts. As more pristine items, these are useful for measur-

Table 1 continued.

Grinding Length Flute No. Flute Length Flute Width Fish-tailed?Barnes Basal Finishing?

Yes Yes, One Face

Yes

1–1 25; 16.3 10.2; 9.1 No Yes, Both Faces

1–1 16.4; 19.0 14.2; 16.4 Yes, One Face

24.9 2–0 14.7; 11.9 11.2 Yes Yes, One Face

0–0 9.2; 7.9 0 Yes, Both Faces

Yes, One Face

No Yes, One Face

Yes

1–1 33.1; 29.8 12.2; 13.0 Slight Yes, Both Faces

9.0 Yes Yes, Both Faces

25.1; 23.1 2–1 16.2 9.9; 18.1 No Yes, One Face

39.7; 31.0 1–0 32.2; 12.6 15.7 Slight Yes, Both Faces

Slight

27.0 1–0 0.0 11.5 Slight Yes, One Face

32.7 1–1 25.5; 24.1 14.8; 15.0 Slight Yes, One Face

38.5 1–0 33.6; 0.0 No Yes, One Face

Yes?


212 • ELLIS

ing the subsequent effects of reshaping on site assemblages. Lamb also includes some domestic occupation debris, but I relied here solely on the data on the cache points from Cluster C and excluded two large, apparently fluted knives.

The Vail site includes not only a large camp area, but a small kill area. There-fore, in addition to using the overall combined assemblage in comparisons, I have treated the two areas as separate sites. The kill site assemblage includes several intact, presumably lost items, as well as complete points reconstructed by matching tips from the kill site with bases recovered at the nearby campsite. In addition to longer, apparently unre-shaped, more pristine points, the kill site points include previously used and reju-venated specimens closer to a “normal” discarded state. The kill assemblage should reflect what a functioning, “in system” assemblage of points would look like, versus a discarded/output (domes-tic/occupation) or pristine/input (cache) assemblage, and thus exhibit a comparatively high degree of variability. Again, this assemblage provides a con-trol for targeting differences that might result from factors such as reshaping and how these factors progressively affect assemblages. The same could be argued

for the Gainey “Isolated Finds” from Ontario, which include simple isolated, and often more pristine lost points, as well as several examples of exhausted finds from small occupation sites. They may represent more of a cross-section of a functioning assemblage, although not to the degree that the Vail kill site does.

Excluding data on the Hiscock site points and isolated larger, parallel-sided “Gainey” points in Ontario that I collected directly, I relied on published data for most other assemblages. One exception was data on face-angle (see below), which is never reported, but was easy to obtain from photographs and drawings. The degree of reporting of other characteris-tics, especially continuous variables, also varies. For some sites, such as Bull Brook, only basal width and basal concavity depth were available (Spiess et al. 1998: Table 2), while at Lamb (Gramly 1999: Table 1) point thickness was not provided.

VARIABLESFor this study, data were collected prima-rily on continuous variables considered useful in measuring temporal and spatial relationships as well as life history effects. These were face-angle, length, flute length, maximum width, basal width, thickness, and basal concavity depth.

Table 2. Point samples.

Site/Sample Sources

Hiscock, New York Ellis et al. 2003

Shoop, Pennsylvania Cox 1986: Appendix 2; Witthoft 1952

Gainey Isolates (Ontario) Deller and Ellis 1992: Appendix C

Bull Brook, Massachusetts Byers 1954; Grimes 1979; Spiess et al. 1998: Table 2

Rummells-Maske, Iowa Morrow and Morrow 2002b: Table 1

Vail, Maine Gramly 1982: Tables 2 & 3

Lamb, New York Gramly 1999: Table 1

Debert, Nova Scotia this study



Basal variables are especially useful as temporal-spatial measures because they are less prone to be modified by reshap-ing. Attributes such as basal width and face-angle tend to vary the least in most assemblages (cf. Judge 1973; Roosa and Ellis 2000: 67–76) presumably because they are more tightly constrained by haft-ing considerations. However, even these basal characteristics can be affected, especially by reworking, but in a more subtle manner, as will be shown below. The remaining variables such as flute length are potentially more affected by reshaping and so are more useful in measuring life history affects.

Face-angle This variable provides a measure of the orientation of the lateral edges from the base of the point (Wright 1981). Face-angle is measured in degrees and is the angle between the lateral edge and a line drawn at right angles to the point’s cen-tral longitudinal axis ignoring, if present, flaring of the ears or fish-tails (Figure 2a). This measurement is taken at both cor-ners and averaged per point. If only one

corner is preserved, that single measure-ment alone is used. Parallel-sided points have 90° face-angles whereas points that expand are > 90° and those that contract (“sub-triangular” forms) are < 90°.

The point samples as a whole are relatively parallel-sided; not surprisingly, most samples on average are only slightly expanding from the base (e.g., < 92°) or contract (Table 3). This lateral-edge

Figure 2. Measurement of face-angle (a) and basal concavity depth (b). For illustrative purposes, a face-angle of 93° is shown, For basal concavity, differences in ear size are used to show such asymmetry will result in a shallower concavity depth measurement.

Table 3. Face-angle.*

Site N Range Mean Std. dev. C.V.

Hiscock, New York 4 90–93.75 92.13 1.808 1.96

Shoop, Pennsylvania 17 88–96 91.06 2.487 2.73

Gainey Isolates, Ontario 14 88–92.75 90.50 1.743 1.93

Bull Brook, Massachusetts 19 85–94 91.17 2.366 2.6

Rummells-Maske, Iowa 14 91.5–94 92.73 0.907 0.97

Vail, Maine (Total Sample) 35 87.5–97 92.06 2.235 2.42

Vail, Maine (Camp Site) 28 88–97 92.04 2.071 2.25

Vail, Maine (Kill Site) 7 87.5–96.5 92.14 2.996 3.25

Lamb, New York 7 90–94 92.61 1.513 1.63

Debert, Nova Scotia 16 77–93.75 88.25 4.236 4.80* Measured in degrees; Lamb sample includes only those items from cache” in Cluster C and excludes the two apparent knives.


214 • ELLIS

Figure 3. Confidence limits of the mean (95%) for samples examined: A) Face-angle; B) Point length; C) Flute length; D) Maximum width; E) Basal width; F) Maximum thickness; G) Basal concavity depth.



shape serves to distinguish them from other fluted point types, such as the Barnes and Crowfield type points found in the Great Lakes area, that more markedly expand, averaging over 95° (e.g., Deller and Ellis 1992). The Debert examples have lower face-angles than any of the other assemblages examined here (Figure 3a; Table 3) and are the only ones to average < 90°, indicating a tendency to contract from the base or produce a sub-triangular shape (see Figure 4a, b, h, i). Indeed, the face-angles for Debert are statistically different in this regard from Vail, the Vail campsite speci-

mens alone, and the Rummells-Maske and Lamb caches. Debert differs most from the last-named caches (Figure 3a). MacDonald (1968: Table 6) noted sub-triangular forms predominated (53.8%) and a comparable percentage occurred in my sample (53.3%). This high frequency contrasts both with Vail where, based on photographs, only 5 of 44 (11.4%) are sub-triangular, and with Rummells-Maske and Lamb where none are of this form. The Debert items are also more variable than all other sites in terms of face-angle, as measured by the coefficient of variation (Table 3).

One explanation for the dominance of sub-triangular forms at Debert would be differences in the amount of point reshaping reflected in the assemblages. The cache sites, Rummells-Maske and Lamb, are the least variable and are sta-tistically different from Debert, having no overlap in the 95% confidence limits of the mean (Figure 3a). These specific differences from the more pristine assemblages suggest that the frequency of contracting lateral edges and, in turn, sub-triangular items, is related to the degree of reshaping of the assem-blages. Logically, any point that contracts from the base would have to be rather short and shorter points would also be expected from reworking; MacDonald (1968: 72) himself noted that the four complete sub-triangular forms at Debert are “all below the arithmetic mean.” At Vail, the three sub-triangular forms with length data are about 5 mm on average shorter than the more parallel-sided to expanding points (55.03 mm vs. 60.79 mm), although the difference is not significant.

Assuming length is a measure of degree of exhaustion, a regression of length by face-angle might reveal a cor-relation with shorter points being more

Figure 4. Fluted points from the Debert site. Reproduced from MacDonald (1968: Plate V). Used with permission of the Canadian Museum of Civilization.


216 • ELLIS

contracting. Such correlations cannot be examined for Shoop and Bull Brook as the two measures are not available for the same individual points, while the Debert sample I examined is not large enough. In the other assemblages, there was no significant relationship at the .05 level for any sample except the total Vail assemblage (r = 0.441; df = 19; p = .045; see Figure 5a). The Vail result may be impor-tant. Aside from the Gainey Isolates, all of the other samples examined have restricted length ranges. They consist either of occupation site assemblages biased towards the short end of the scale where most would be contracting from the base or alternatively, are caches biased towards the long end where most would be expected to be expanding. Evidence from the combined Vail camp and kill site assemblage, which has the broadest range of use-life states (from pristine to exhausted), should be more representative and reveal the changing

relationship between length and face-angle. This result seems to be a classic example, well-known in regression stud-ies (see Blalock 1972: 281, Fig. 17.10), where a lack of the full range of varia-tion is masking relationships in the all the individual assemblages other than the most representative combined Vail kill/camp assemblage.

There are other possible explana-tions for the lack of a linear relationship between length and face-angle. One is simply that the two are not related to reshaping and changes in form during the artifacts’ use-life. An alternative, more subtle explanation is that changes in length and face-angle during reshaping do not represent a continuous synchro-nous relationship. Assuming reshaping, many of the sub-triangular forms may actually represent not items shortened by tip resharpening but shorter snapped-tip segments with naturally contracting edge outlines that had been simply rebased (as

Figure 5. Select linear regressions plots: a) length by face-angle (Vail total sample); b) length by width (Lamb); c) length by width (Rummells-Maske); d) length by basal concavity depth (Debert).



illustrated on Figure 6b). The use of tips to produce shorter points through rebas-ing occurs at other sites (Ellis et al. 2003: 224; Gramly 1982: 28; Morrow 1995: 181; Wilmsen and Roberts 1984: 171–172). If the short sub-triangular points are produced mainly in this way rather than through gradual reduction in length, one should expect an abrupt shift from longer points with larger face-angles to short ones with much smaller or “contracting” face-angles and not a gradually changing linear relationship (e.g., use-life changes are not due to gradual attrition but to chance failure and reworking).

It is difficult to envision how a shorter point with contracting lateral edges (e.g., < 90° face-angle) could be produced “naturally” by gradual length reduction. If simple reduction by tip resharpening to produce these forms was involved, there is really no need to taper the points all the way from the basal

apex. It also seems logical that simple tip resharpening would often occur while the base was still bound in a haft or foreshaft where it would be impossible to contract the item right from the base. Instead, one might see an abrupt break in outline between the more parallel-sided bound base and narrower fore-section (as illustrated in Figure 6c) on even shorter points. With five exceptions (Gramly 1982: Plate 6b, 12b, d, 13b, e), the other short points at Vail (N = 17) have lateral basal edges that are more parallel-sided with a 90° or greater face-angle. There is often an abrupt break in outline between the basal area and the short, roughly triangular, fore-section segment that reflects the juncture of the hafted and unhafted area (Gramly 1982: Plate 6c–e, 6g–h, 7a–h, 8i, 11e, 12e–f, 13h). However, only one or two possible examples were observed in the Debert assemblage (Figure 4c–d), suggesting the use of snapped tips would be more likely and predominantly responsible for reducing length.

In sum, if reshaping is involved in the production of sub-triangular forms, it must be due to snapped tip use rather than gradual length reduction, other-wise the basal part of the lateral edges would not taper towards the tip. In turn, and because of the heavy use of snapped tips, there will be a wider range of, and greater variability in, face-angles, with a higher frequency under 90°. This line of argument may explain why the Debert points are significantly more variable in terms of this characteristic than other occupation assemblages. Several other potential explanations for the sub-trian-gular variants are considered below.

LengthPoint damage through use can range from simple ear breakage to snapping

Figure 6. Potential effects of reworking on point morphology: a) point snapped near base, narrowed and then rebased; b) point snapped near tip and simply rebased; and c) reduction in length by tip resharpening. Note that bound area can not be resharp-ened, resulting in abrupt break in outline on resulting short point on c.


218 • ELLIS

of the point across the base or tip. This invariably reduces their length. One would thus expect longer items to be dominant in cache assemblages as opposed to normal occupation derived assemblages that could have been rebased or re-tipped. This pattern is evi-dent in Figure 3b, which compares the Rummells-Maske and Lamb caches to sites where points were discarded after some degree of use. It is also notable that certain assemblages, such as the Ontario Gainey sample of “isolated finds,” tend to be intermediate in length between the cache samples and particular exhausted site assemblages. This intermediate position is to be expected because while the sample of points probably includes hunting losses of longer, more pris-tine forms, others are actually shorter, more exhausted and discarded forms from small occupation sites. Similarly, the overall Vail sample’s intermediate position is likely due to the fact that it includes both an exhausted campsite assemblage and a kill site assemblage consisting of complete points or point

fore-sections reattached to matching bases from the campsite. As expected, the kill site points are longer on average than the campsite specimens (69.4 mm vs. 57.1 mm), but the difference is not significant (Figure 3b).

There are few complete points from Debert (N = 5) in the sample I amassed. MacDonald (1968: Table 6) provides length data on the complete sample (see Table 4). He included in the sample a very small and unique point only 32 mm long and 13 mm wide (MacDonald 1968: Plate VIg) that is similar to the “miniature points” found at other sites, variously interpreted as toys or amulets (e.g., Ellis 1994; Moeller 1980; Storck 1991). MacDonald (1968: 70) noted that Debert had the “greatest observed range for a fluted point locality.” My data, which do not include the miniature, support this conclusion because Debert has significantly more length variation than the other samples examined, as I document later. The Debert sample is nonetheless small and biased by a single major outlier—an almost pristine point

Table 4. Point length.*

Site N Range Mean Std. Dev. C.V.

Hiscock, New York 2 43–44.5 43.75 1.061 –


Gainey Isolates, Ontario 9 33.6–94.5 59.42 17.703 29.79

Rummells-Maske, Iowa 12 68–119.8 94.28 15.774 16.73

Vail, Maine (Total Sample) 26 46.6–108.5 60.68 14.359 23.66

Vail, Maine (Camp Site) 19 46.6–80.6 57.47 9.898 17.22


Lamb, New York 4 92.0–140.0 118.20 17.239 14.59

Debert, Nova Scotia (this study & Keenlyside 1985: Table 2) 5 40–109.4 64.38 28.239 43.86

Debert, Nova Scotia (MacDonald 1968: Table 6) ? 32–109 63 24.9 39.52

* Bull Brook omitted for lack of published data; C.V.: coefficient of variation; measurements in mm.



109.4 mm long (Figure 7d). This point may be one of the two found with a large number of unifaces in Feature 9B, Section C that MacDonald (1968: 36) says are “complete and well-finished” and argues represents a cache. This example is the only one over 71 mm long in the whole Debert assemblage. In fact, only two of seven seem to be over around 60–65 mm. Excluding the longest and miniature points, the mean length is between 55 and 60 mm, which is comparable for occupation/camp site assemblages, such as Vail.

Ignoring Debert, the most variable samples are the Vail kill site and the Gainey Isolated finds. Such variation is to be expected if those assemblages more fully represent ones ranging from pristine little used points to exhausted/almost exhausted ones. Not surprisingly, the least variable samples examined here are the Rummells-Maske and Lamb caches. Nonetheless, even the Shoop points seem to vary little, being uniformly short (Table 2). One might interpret this to mean Shoop is a more exhausted assemblage where all points

were efficiently reduced to short forms prior to discard.

Flute LengthI was able to measure flute length on sev-eral examples. For comparative purposes I based measurements only on the long-est flute or thinning flake on a face and did not include examples of “pseudo-flutes” where the finished point retains a flat interior of the original thin flake blank mimicking a flat flute surface. Pseudo-flutes were noted on four points in the total assemblage by MacDonald (1966: 61) and occur on two of the points I examined (e.g., Figure 7d).

On average, the Debert points have the shortest flutes although the differ-ences are not statistically significant in comparison to most other assemblages (Figure 3c). There are probably several reasons for short flutes. For one thing, the very deep basal concavities at Debert (see below) were undoubtedly created after the flutes were removed. By default, the flute scar would be shortened from the subsequent basal alteration. More-over, as noted by MacDonald (1968: 72),

Figure 7. Fluted preforms, channel flake and fluted point. Reproduced from MacDonald (1968: Figure 20), used with permission of the Canadian Museum of Civilization. Length of D is 109.4 mm. Illustration by D. Lavarie.


220 • ELLIS

overall length reduction from the tip end by, for example, resharpening, will also result in reduction in flute length. It is not surprising then that longer flutes occur on the cache assemblages, such as Lamb and Rummells-Maske, com-pared to other kinds of sites (Figure 3c; Table 5). In general, longer flutes also distinguish other caches with different styles of points, such as Thedford II and Crowfield (Deller and Ellis 1984, 1992), from their occupation site counterparts (Ellis et al. 2003: Fig. 5G).

While one might argue that the Debert points have short flutes in comparison to caches due to resharpening differences, the overall situation seems more complex. According to MacDonald (1968: 72), 20% of the Debert points lacked flutes entirely, and no other site reviewed here has any completely unfluted examples, whether they are caches or not, suggesting quite a difference between Debert and the other sites. In my examination of the Debert collection, and counting the removal of any basal flakes as fluting, I found no examples of unfluted points. This difference may be due to the fact that MacDonald (1968) included some items lacking flutes that he considers finished

points (see Figure 4d) whereas I did not because they lacked lateral grinding. Of greater significance, MacDonald (1968: 72) states that he considered some items at Debert as being only basally thinned, not fluted, something that deserves more discussion.

MacDonald (1968: 78) originally argued the Debert points had a high per-centage of what Roosa (1965: 97) called the “Barnes basal finishing technique,” which he believed was post-Clovis. The technique involves the removal of a short flake over the base of a previously removed main flute(s) that removed all evidence of the basal preparation for fluting. This procedure seemingly is an alternative means of finishing the base compared to procedures such as, for example, the fine continuous concavity retouch seen in Folsom in the west. This removal of short flakes occurs on one or both faces of every point I examined at Debert. On several examples (4 of 10 or 40%), it is the only “fluting” on one (N = 3) or both (N = 1) faces.

One can question whether these removals are actually “flutes.” They differ from what most people consider flutes in two respects beyond simply

Table 5. Flute length.*


Hiscock, New York 13 15.6–29.5 20.28 4.151 20.47

Shoop, Pennsylvania 51 13–35.0 21.01 5.567 26.50

Gainey Isolates, Ontario 24 0.0–47.5 25.90 10.483 40.48

Rummells-Maske, Iowa 34 10.7–54.3 30.56 9.686 31.70

Vail, Maine (Total Sample) 46 0.0–50.0 23.93 10.235 42.77

Vail, Maine (Camp Site) 34 0.0–41.8 22.83 9.524 41.71


Lamb, New York 12 24–53 41.00 9.303 22.69

Debert, Nova Scotia 19 0.0–33.6 17.71 10.404 59.00

* Based on longest flute on a face.



being short (i.e., 7.6–16.6 mm). First, they are relatively broad, with the scar width actually exceeding the length on 13 of 15 points. Second, they have an oval outline with convex lateral edges and a convex, feathered, distal end. This second characteristic contrasts with the straight, parallel-to-slightly expanding lateral edges and straight hinge or step-terminated distal end on most flutes. As such, they can be recognized very objectively and I suspect MacDonald (1968) did not count them as flutes. If we consider them not to be flutes, then 10% (1 of 10) of my sample would lack flutes entirely. Notably, if we also exclude “pseudo-flutes” and consider that two points in the Debert sample have no thinning at all on one face, then fully 6 of 10 (60%) lack flutes on one (N = 5) or both (N = 1) faces. MacDonald (1968: 72) reported that of a sample of 25 points, 40% lacked flutes on one or both faces.

The Gainey Isolates (3 of 14, or 21.4%) and Vail samples are the only other samples examined where one face can lack a flute, although for such assem-blages as Shoop and Vail, and Debert, the lack of flutes may be a matter of defini-tion. At Vail, however, one might assume that any “flute” under the 16.6 mm maxi-mum length of such oval basal thinning flake removals at Debert may actually be unfluted. In fact, examination of photo-graphs in Gramly (1982) confirms that the short flutes are more oval in most cases (although not all), suggesting most might be better regarded as basal thin-ning. On this basis, 6 of 23 (26.1%) are unfluted on one (N = 3) or both faces at Vail vs. 6 of 10 (60%) at Debert. A Fish-er’s Exact test with p = 0.072 suggests no significant difference, but this possibility should be explored through a detailed examination of the Vail material.

If the Debert points are more poorly fluted as suggested here, this might indicate that they are not simply more resharpened, but are more reworked at the base due to the use of snapped tips. After furnishing a new base, the original flutes on one or both faces would be shortened or even removed completely (e.g., Figure 6a, b). Certainly, given the often hinge-terminated original flutes, it would be very difficult to reflute and lengthen existing flute scars during reshaping. The “new” flutes would tend to hinge out at the old termination.

Maximum WidthIn terms of maximum width, Figure 3d shows the caches at Rummells-Maske and Lamb are widest on average and are significantly wider than those at most other sites excepting the Vail kill site assemblage and Debert (Table 6). Some of this variation could be related to reshaping: as the point forms expand slightly from the base, less reduced and longer items will be wider. As Table 7 shows, length and width correlate sig-nificantly at the .05 level for almost every sample examined here where sample sizes are sufficient to examine this rela-tionship. The exceptions are Debert and the Vail camp and kill assemblages. The lack of a correlation when the Vail kill and camp assemblages are treated sepa-rately, contrasts with the situation where the two are combined and do exhibit a significant correlation. The reason may be that the discarded camp assemblage tends to have short examples while the kill site tends to have larger examples. This may be another example of how a partial sample can be misleading when doing regressions (Blalock 1972: 281). The complete sample from Vail, which runs the gamut from more pristine forms found predominantly in the kill site to


222 • ELLIS

exhausted forms discarded at the camp, probably provides a better test of the changing relationship between length and width as reshaping proceeds.

The correlations of length and width at Lamb and Rummells-Maske are not due to reshaping since these are cache assemblages. With Lamb, the correla-tion might be fortuitous since four of the points are about the same length and width and there is only one shorter extreme outlier (Figure 5b), a situation that will result in a fortuitous auto-cor-relation (Blalock 1972: 381–382). This factor would not account for Rummells-

Maske (Figure 5c). Those points always seem to have been initially made such that the point of maximum width is at or above mid-point. Given that the points in the sample have relatively equal basal widths and degrees of expansion from the base, this outline forces shorter item to be narrower. In contrast, the illustrations of fluted points from Vail and Lamb (and apparently Debert1) indicates they have maximum width at or below mid-point, and even apparent pristine examples can have the greatest width below (albeit just below) mid-point (Gramly 1982: Plate 12a, c). They would

Table 6. Maximum width.


Hiscock, New York 5 22.5–27.4 24.96 2.288 9.17


Gainey Isolates, Ontario 13 23.2–30 26 1.859 7.15


Vail, Maine 26 23.5–35.5 28.82 2.586 8.97

Vail, Maine (Camp site) 19 23.5–31.2 28.10 2.393 8.52

Vail, Maine (Kill site) 7 29.5–35.5 30.79 2.129 6.92

Lamb, New York 8 30–36 33.25 2.252 6.77Debert, Nova Scotia (this study and Keenlyside 1985: Table 2) 13 22.2–35.4 28.98 3.811 13.15

Debert, Nova Scotia (MacDonald 1968: Table 6) ? 13–36.0 27.4 5.8 21.17

Table 7. Correlations of length and width.

Site N df r p

Shoop, Pennsylvania 16 14 0.584 0.018

Gainey Isolates, Ontario 9 7 0.695 0.038

Rummells-Maske, Iowa 12 10 0.918 0.000

Vail, Maine 26 24 0.537 0.005

Vail, Maine (Camp site) 19 17 0.333 0.164

Vail, Maine (Kill site) 7 5 0.719 0.069

Lamb, New York 5 3 0.878 0.050

Debert, Nova Scotia 5 3 0.851 0.062



thus have to be reduced more in length before width would start to decline. At Debert, there is a relationship between length and width (p = .062), although this is not significant at the chosen .05 level. Moreover, many of the Debert points are sub-triangular, more so than at any other site included here. By definition sub-triangular points are widest at base. If these shorter sub-triangular forms result from the reuse and rebasing of snapped tips, the point of maximum width will equal their basal width. Such an abrupt shift in width from much longer forms expanding from the base to substantially shorter rebased items with narrower widths would obviate any correlation. So taking into account differences in shape and specifically, position of maxi-mum width, width seems logically to be affected by degree of rejuvenation. As a result, the greater maximum width of sites such as the Rummells-Maske, Lamb and Vail kill site assemblages should not be surprising as they do include more pristine forms.

Clearly, the Debert points seem to be wider than many of the other samples. They are most comparable to caches and kill site assemblages elsewhere rather

than to other more exhausted camp-site assemblages. Also, if the sample is dominated by heavily exhausted points (e.g., sub-triangular forms), one would suspect a severe bias in the Debert sample towards narrower points. If we were to find a cache or kill site assemblage of Debert points, I suggest they would be significantly wider than all other reported forms and probably those from Vail.

Basal WidthBy definition, all of the samples here have relatively wide bases over 20 mm, but there is quite a range of variation (Figure 3e). Within normal discarded occupation assemblages, basal width often varies less than other characteristics probably due to setting in a haft. Thus, they are more standardized and less subject to reshaping than length and per-haps width. If so, the differences between certain assemblages are due to more fun-damental reasons than simply reshaping. As shown on Table 8, some assemblages actually vary little in basal width as meas-ured simply by the coefficient of variation. The Rummells-Maske and Lamb caches are more highly standardized. This is expected as those caches could represent

Table 8. Basal width.


Hiscock, New York 2 – 22.45 0.495 –


Gainey Isolates, Ontario 14 22–28 25.25 1.811 7.17

Bull Brook, Massachusetts 32 17–32 25.88 3.16 12.21

Rummells-Maske, Iowa 19 23–30.9 26.53 1.918 7.23

Vail, Maine 35 23.8–34.1 28.60 2.679 9.36



Lamb, New York 7 27–29 28.43 0.976 3.43

Debert, Nova Scotia 9 24–35.5 30.58 3.891 12.72


224 • ELLIS

the handiwork of a single individual and may be designed to fit a restricted range of shaft/foreshaft diameters owned by the same individual. Moreover, caches represent short-term events as opposed to site assemblages that can represent longer period of time during which sty-listic change can occur—and changes in basal width over time seem to be a long term trend amongst fluted points in many areas (e.g., Clovis to Folsom in the west [Judge 1973]; Gainey to Barnes in the Great Lakes [Deller and Ellis 1992]). Time changes are also suggested by the small Vail kill site assemblage. In contrast to the large extensive camp site, this assemblage exhibits little basal width variation (see later discussions). The kill is also much more likely to represent a rather short-term use, albeit probably by several individuals, as opposed to the larger campsite.

All of this assumes basal width is not affected by reworking. As with maxi-mum width, one could test this idea by comparing length and basal width to see if the two vary in concert, with shorter items also being narrower. Debert is omitted here for lack of data, but most occupation sites show no significant correlations (Table 9). However, Rum-mells-Maske, Lamb, and the Vail kill site show significant correlations at the .05 level. These sites include all or some

long points with little or no evidence of reworking or resharpening. Therefore, such an association cannot be due to that factor. Perhaps the point makers at those sites wanted to initially produce a very symmetrical point with attention to maintaining exact proportional relation-ships. Shoop also has a significant corre-lation of length and basal width but the meaning of that correlation is obscure.

The Debert points are on average generally wider at the base than those at any other site, including sites consid-ered to be closely related (e.g., Vail and Lamb). However, the differences are not significant. The Debert points also vary more in basal width than most other sites but the differences seem minimal excepting with the Lamb and Vail kill site assemblages (see below).

ThicknessAlthough there are no significant dif-ferences between the assemblages (Figure 3f), the Debert points are thickest on average whether one uses MacDonald’s (1968) data or those I col-lected (Table 10). MacDonald (1968) seems to have included what others would regard as a miniature point, so his sample is biased to the thinner end of the scale. If not simply a statistical anomaly, the somewhat greater thick-ness of Debert could be due to several

Table 9. Correlations of length and basal width.

Site N df r p




Vail, Maine 19 17 0.077 0.755



Lamb, New York 5 3 0.982 0.018



factors, one being raw material. The raw materials used seem to be of lower quality, which might make it difficult to adequately thin a biface. In addition, fewer of the Debert points are thinned by long fluting. The coefficients of vari-ation suggest Debert is the most variable in terms of thickness. It does compare favourably with Vail and, as discussed below, the differences in degree of varia-tion with Vail are not statistically signifi-cant (Table 10).

Using length once again as a proxy measure of degree of resharpening, there is not a significant relationship with thickness in most assemblages

(Table 11). Only the Rummells-Maske, total Vail, and Vail kill sites having rela-tionships significant at the .05 level. One suspects that the Vail sample as a whole is influenced by the inclusion of the kill site examples, since the Vail camp site assemblage relationship by itself is not significant.

At the Rummells-Maske and the Vail kill sites, there is a significant relation-ship between length and thickness. The Rummells-Maske correlation seems due to the fact that knappers initially created or attempted to achieve a symmetrical point with certain proportions, which was thicker at or beyond mid-point. The

Table 10. Maximum thickness.*


Hiscock, New York 5 6.8–7.5 6.96 0.305 4.38

Shoop, Pennsylvania 26 6–9.5 7.38 1.009 13.67

Gainey Isolates, Ontario 13 6–8.5 7.01 0.832 11.87


Vail, Maine 27 5.4–9.2 7.31 1.118 15.29


Vail, Maine (Kill site) 8 6–9 7.60 1.154 15.18

Debert, Nova Scotia (this study & Keenlyside 1985: Table 2) 11 6.4–11.0 8.23 1.625 19.75

Debert, Nova Scotia (MacDonald 1968: Table 6) ? 4–11 8.1 1.9 23.46

* The Lamb site omitted because no thickness data provided by Gramly (1999).

Table 11. Correlations of length and thickness.

Site N df r p




Vail, Maine 26 24 0.633 0.001





226 • ELLIS

Vail kill site assemblage differs in that it has more of a cross-section of items rang-ing from longer, more pristine forms to shorter reshaped finds. Nonetheless, in both cases there is a good range of lengths including a greater percentage of more pristine points. If there is a rela-tionship between length and thickness in simple tip resharpening/repointing, I suspect it would only occur in assem-blages having more pristine points. Max-imum thickness would tend to occur at mid-point or beyond, especially beyond the thinned fluted surfaces on these par-tially fluted points. Thickness will thus be reduced in a systematic manner as the point is initially resharpened or reduced at the tip. Eventually, one reaches the fluted area where the point has a more uniform and thinner longitudinal sec-tion. In other words, thickness stabilizes at a certain point and the relationship of length to thickness changes or no longer exists. That being the case, if the Debert assemblage does include more snapped tips that were rebased, as sug-gested above, or even just lacked flutes initially, we might expect the points to be somewhat thicker on average.

Basal Concavity DepthMost investigators, including me, meas-ure concavity depth as the distance from a line linking the apexes of the basal ears (e.g., Gramly 1982: Fig. 7b; Keenlyside 1985: Fig. 10). If the two ears are of equal lengths, the depth measurement paral-lels the longitudinal axis of the point; if they are not, the result is a bias to shal-lower concavity depth measurements (Figure 2b). Unlike other investigators, MacDonald (1968: Table 6) provided depth measurements for Debert based on the length of the longest ear and the shortest ear on a point. In this method, the measurements will always be parallel

to the longitudinal axis and thus empha-size depth. Why this method was used is not clear. As Debert has a much higher frequency of items with asymmetrical ear lengths, MacDonald (1968) may have thought reliance on that method would be a more accurate depth measure. He may also have viewed, as I do, the shorter ear as a product of breakage and rework-ing and thus believed the longest ear a better approximation of the concavity depth knappers were trying to achieve. Because MacDonald reported estimates based on both longest and shortest ear, I presume that only specimens with both ears intact were measured. I believe this characteristic could only be measured accurately if both ears were intact and therefore omitted concavity depth data on one item examined and reported by Keenlyside (1985: Table 2: FC # 4080, Fig. 3, second from left) because it lacks one ear. The Debert points have always been considered to have deep concavi-ties and indeed they are the deepest on average (Table 12). MacDonald’s (1968) measurements average less than mine, but he used a different method to calcu-late concavity depth. He also included the miniature point (with only 1- and 2-mm-long ears) in his totals and also seems to have included one biface with a shallow concavity (4.8 mm based on my measurement) that lacks lateral grind-ing. This would bias his totals to the shallower end of the scale.

Plotting the 95% confidence limits of the mean (Figure 3g) shows that the Debert site sample I examined is statisti-cally different from every other site, save Lamb and the Vail kill site assemblages. The bases are certainly deeper than those at the Vail site as a whole. Indeed, in the nine examples I measured with intact ears, the concavity depth on 4 of 15 items (26.7%) was greater (13.4–



14.8 mm) than any of the 42 points at Vail. Moreover, Curran’s (1999: Fig. 1.1) plotting of concavity depths, presumably based on photographs, includes seven Debert items over 13 mm or greater than any concavity depth reported at Vail (Gramly 1982: Tables 2 and 3). Amongst the items I examined was a lateral basal half with one ear that could not be included in the sample. If both ears were of the same length, the point had at least an 18–19 mm deep concavity—the most deeply concave one I have ever seen. Such information independently suggests the differences reported here are real2.

Although basal concavity depth has been treated as if it is free from the effects of reworking, this may be an over-simplification. The Vail total site assem-blage and camp site are shallower on average than the Lamb cache to which Vail has been compared (e.g., Gramly 1999: 36). Although the differences are not significant at the .05 level, this con-trast at least suggests this feature may

be affected by reworking. As discussed above, when face-angle, length, and flute length were considered, a point could be simply snapped across the base so that it lacks its ears and concavity altogether. It is easy to envision reflaking a basal concavity from scratch. Aside from producing shorter, often sub-triangular, points, these reworked items would also tend to have shallower concavities than pristine points because basal breakage would reduce the original point length. Reflaking a new, deeper concavity might not be possible without a significant reduction in overall point length if made on a shorter snapped fore-section, especially if one rechipped a new deep concavity—an apparent preference of the Debert knappers. If the fore-section were reduced, it would not project sig-nificantly beyond the area bound in the haft, impeding the usefulness of the tool (Figure 8a and 8b). In sum, maintain-ing overall length/fore-section beyond the concavity becomes more important during reworking than maintaining

Table 12. Basal concavity depth.


Hiscock, New York 4 2.7–4.6 3.75 0.81 21.6

Shoop, Pennsylvania 26 2.0–6.0 4.10 1.03 25.12

Gainey Isolates, Ontario 14 2.5–8 5.30 1.464 27.62

Bull Brook, Massachusetts 32 3.0–10 5.53 1.481 26.78


Vail, Maine 42 5.5–12.6 9.06 1.795 19.81



Lamb, New York 8 9.0–11.0 10.13 0.641 6.32

Debert, Nova Scotia (this study) 15 7.0–14.8 11.01 2.475 22.48

Debert, Nova Scotia (longer ear; MacDonald 1968: Table 6) ? 2–15 9.4 – –

Debert, Nova Scotia (shorter ear; MacDonald 1968: Table 6) ? 1–11 7.5 – –


228 • ELLIS

a very deep concavity. This, in turn, implies that a deep concavity is a more stylistic or neutral trait. Such reasoning would also apply even if only the apex of one or both ears is broken off. The ear(s) could be fixed to make them sym-metrical; if the original basal concavity is not deepened to maintain fore-section length, the result would be shallower concavities.

If one assumes maximizing fore-section length is more important than maintaining a very deep basal concavity, the apparent desire for deeper con-cavities could affect basal morphology in other ways. If only one ear was damaged, one might minimize through reworking the retouch or amount of reduction of ear remnants left by breakage. In these instances, we would expect to see examples of ear asymmetry in size and shape; that is, if a point was broken at one ear, the knappers would simply re-

edge the single broken ear rather than reflake both. This procedure would mean there would be more examples of asymmetrical ear size and shape at Debert than at other sites where main-taining the deepest basal concavities is not as critical. Indeed, what seems to stand out about Debert is the relatively high frequency of points3 with asym-metrical ears. At Debert, 4 of 12 (33%) had asymmetrical ears whereas none of the larger sample illustrated from Vail with intact ears (N = 24) were of this nature. Although more subjective, one can examine simply differences in the shape or width of ears on the same point. Regardless of whether ear lengths are equal, there are several points at Debert with several clear, very asymmetrical ears, whereas only one possible example occurs at Vail (Figure 4c, f, h; see also MacDonald 1968: Plate VIc–e; Gramly 1982: Plate 12a). As implied above, I suspect MacDonald (1968: Table 2) felt compelled to report two basal concavity depth measures based on the shortest and longest ear because of this variation. No one else has seen a need to do so since the ears are so uniform in size at most sites4.

If reduction in length would result in shallower concavities in order to maximize fore-section length beyond the haft, then as length decreases, so too would basal concavity depth. This trend should be most evident at Debert because the concavities are so much deeper to begin with and thus require shortening as fore-section length gets reduced. Correlation of these two vari-ables for the various samples examined largely meets this expectation. There are no significant relationships between these two variables with two excep-tions: the Gainey Isolates and Debert (Table 13). The Gainey sample, how-

Figure 8. Effects of concavity depth and shape on ear morphology and fore-section length of sub-triangular points. A) deep concavity in haft; B) shallow concavity in haft; C) U-shaped concavity (arrows show narrowed ear/body juncture and hence, point of weakness); D) V-shaped concavity.



ever, presents a negative correlation. Concavities are deepest on the shortest specimens, a result that is difficult to explain; Debert stands alone. Although the Debert sample of measurable points is small (N = 4), the four items are well distributed and not clustered (see Figure 5d) obviating the possibility of a fortuitous auto-correlation.

Finally, there is some variation in basal concavity shape from Debert. While several points have a U-shaped concavity with a broad apex, many have a more V-shaped concavity with a narrow apex. These V-shaped concavities are very rare at other sites; in fact, none seem to occur at Vail (Gramly 1982). MacDonald (1968: 72) makes the inter-esting observation that “Parallel- and convex-sided points” have U-shapes, “while straight-sided tapered points” have the V-shapes at Debert. Assuming the shorter and more tapered forms are due to reworking of longer and expand-ing forms, one would not only try and minimize concavity depth to maintain a longer and more projecting fore-section, but try to produce a stronger base less susceptible to use breakage. Producing a deep concavity in combination with the triangular outline would narrow the juncture of the ears with the body of the point and create a major point of

weakness (Figure 8a and 8b). Likewise, making a U-shaped concavity would narrow and weaken the same juncture (Figure 8c), while a V-shaped concav-ity with a centered maximum concavity depth in the mid-line would allow for a thicker juncture and stronger base (Figure 8d). This scenario explains why shorter, triangular, points have different shaped concavities. If one accepts that reworking has resulting in shallower concavity depths, the fact that Debert concavity depth only statistically overlaps with Lamb and the Vail kill is important. The latter two sites consist partially or totally of pristine points; Debert does not. The conclusion is that if one had a cache of unused points like those from Debert, one would undoubtedly see a concavity depth that was much deeper on average, and deeper than those at Lamb and the Vail kill site assemblage too. In sum, in terms of degree of basal concavity depth, Debert would probably not overlap statistically with any other sample examined.

EXPLAINING FORMAL VARIABILITY

Is the Debert assemblage more vari-able than those from other sites, as some researchers have suggested? At face value, the coefficients of variation

Table 13. Correlations of length and basal concavity depth.

Site N df r p


Gainey Isolates, Ontario 9 7 −0.753 0.019


Vail, Maine 26 24 0.131 0.524

Vail, Maine (Camp site) 19 17 −0.013 0.957

Vail, Maine (Kill site) 7 5 −0.503 0.250

Lamb, New York 5 3 0.850 0.068



230 • ELLIS

certainly would bear out this inference. It is possible though to evaluate the degree of variability statistically using the D’AD statistic discussed by Eerkens and Bettinger (2001: 499). For the sake of brevity, I focus here on comparing Debert to mainly other occupation sites including Shoop, Bull Brook, and, of course, Vail. Unlike caches, one can assume these sites are more variable due to life histories, and perhaps to dura-tion of occupation and number of point makers. Nonetheless, I also include the Lamb cache and Vail kill site because these points are closest to Debert points in size and morphology and potentially best represent what they would have been like prior to any use and reshaping. These samples thus provide a means to assess potential artifact life history effects on Debert assemblage variability. The results of pair-wise comparisons between

Debert and these samples are shown on Table 14.

Not surprisingly, Debert contrasts most with Lamb, exhibiting significantly more variation in all characteristics except width. In fact, width does not vary significantly between any of the assemblages here. I suggest this is due to the fact that width variation is severely constrained. Pristine points may expand slightly more from the base, but as fore-sections are reduced in reshaping the position of maximum width would get closer to the base. If reduced far enough, fore-section width would become equiva-lent to basal width. In sum, overall width variation is restricted to the minimal differences between maximum width and basal width. Face-angle, length, flute length, and concavity depth at Debert—variables expected to be most affected by artifact life histories—exhibit

Table 14. D’ AD tests of variation.*

VariableDebert/

Vail CampDebert/ Vail Kill Debert/Lamb Debert/Shoop

Debert/ Bull Brook

Face-Angle 11.9832(p < .005)

1.0724(p < .5)

5.2143(p < .025)

4.5068(p < .05)

6.0579(p < .025)

Length 7.9351(p < .005)

0.5707(p < .5)

2.0235(p < .05)

7.9597(p < .005)

–

Flute Length 1.9604(p < .5)

0.6422(p < .5)

5.7223(p < .025)

17.4045(p < .005)

–

Width 2.6923(p < .5)

2.3112(p < .5)

2.7993(p < .1)

0.2487(p < .9)

–

Basal Width 0.9129(p < .5)

5.8537(p < .025)

4.2225(p < .05)

0.2418(p < .9)

0.0701(p < .9)

Thickness 0.7833(p < .5)

1.0854(p < .5)

– 2.0484(p < .5)

–

Basal Concavity Depth

0.2364(p < .9)

0.2672(p < .9)

7.1887(p < .01)

0.2270(p < .9)

0.5034(p < .5)

* Results show D’ AD values, calculated after Eerkins and Bettinger (2001: 499), with probabilities in all cases calculated for df = 1. Significant differences in variability are italicized and bolded.



much more variation than at Lamb. As discussed earlier, we would expect basal width, constrained by hafting param-eters, to be less effected by reshaping. However, since the Debert basal width is significantly more variable than Lamb, the possibility that basal width can be affected by use and reshaping will need to be considered more below.

At the opposite extreme, Debert is most similar to the Vail kill site, being only significantly more variable in terms of basal width. As discussed earlier, I would expect the Vail kill site to be more variable than almost all other sites. It includes a number of larger, more pristine tools (i.e., complete lost points and reconstructed ones broken early in their use-lives). However, the kill site also includes used, shorter, and almost exhausted points, including a pair of sub-triangular forms. In sum, the Vail kill appears to have the whole range of points from pristine to almost exhausted forms. That the Debert discarded assem-blage is as variable is thus surprising.

With the notable exception of basal concavity depth, Debert differs signifi-cantly in the same way from the other occupation sites as it does from Lamb (Table 14). The most significant con-trasts are that the Debert face-angle and length measurements consistently vary more than those at other occupation sites. The length variation contrasts may be accentuated by the small size of the Debert sample and the fact that one item, probably from a cache, is much longer than the others. Hence, the main consistent real difference with all other occupation assemblages is in face-angle. The face-angle differences are surprising since this variable is a basal characteristic that one would not expect to be heav-ily affected by rejuvenation. Such basal characteristics as width and face-angle

actually vary the least in other assem-blages (Judge 1973; Roosa and Ellis 2000: Table 69).

Curran (1999: 13) suggests Debert point basal characteristics are more variable than those at other sites. This appears to be the case for basal width, but not concavity depth. In fact, although the differences between individual assemblages and Debert are not always statistically significant, the Debert sample is always either the most or second-most variable sample (Table 15), based on the rank ordering of coefficients of variation alone—with the notable exception of basal concavity depth. Since variation in basal charac-teristics must be more restricted to meet hafting constraints and since overall width is constrained by its very nature, this consistent ordering convinces me that Debert is more variable overall. A major reason for this, and certainly for why face-angle varies significantly, is the high percentage (ca. 50%) of short sub-triangular forms that Keenlyside (1985: 80) singled out as noteworthy. These forms not only tend to be shorter, but have shorter flutes and are narrower (both overall and at the base) than the larger, more “normal” form recovered.

Several factors could potentially account for the Debert differences, especially the clear differences in degree of face-angle variation. Curran (1999: 13) has suggested two possibilities: 1) a longer period of occupation provided enough time for point forms to change and thus expand the range of variability; and 2) there was greater degree of func-tional and, in turn, morphological varia-tion in the assemblage of points than seen at other sites. I suggest that there are least two other possibilities: 3) the influence of raw material variables, and 4) the degree and manner of reshaping


232 • ELLIS

of an assemblage. I discuss all four pos-sibilities below.

Temporal Variation The longer a site is occupied, the greater the opportunity for variation to develop in the artifact assemblage. No one factor need be responsible. Variability could be due to simple style drift or “neutral variation” or to changing use or use con-texts of points over time. That temporal change is a plausible factor is suggested by examining those assemblages that exhibit the least variability (Table 15). The least variable are almost always the caches (e.g., Lamb, Rummells-Maske), each of which were probably produced by a limited number of knappers over too short a time span for changes in style or use context to occur.

In terms of basal width, which would be more constrained by hafting considerations, the Vail kill assemblage

is actually significantly less variable than the campsite one (D’AD = 4.6277; df = 1; p < .05), but does not differ from the Lamb cache. As suggested earlier, a plausible reason for this could be longer use of the Vail camp by more people, compared to the short-term use of both the Vail kill and Lamb sites by a more restricted range of individuals. Also, there is a great deal of variation overall in basal width range amongst all the assemblages examined here (Table 8). As these assemblages must represent a considerable overall amount of time, I would not be surprised by long-term changes in basal width. This renders plausible the idea that the greater varia-tion at Debert is due to some extent to temporal change in this characteristic. However, there is a major problem of equifinality: one can get the same result from factors other than temporal change during a longer term occupation. For

Table 15. Rank ordering of assemblages by degree of variability.*

Characteristic Most Variable Least Variable

Face-Angle 1) Debert2) Vail Kill site

1) Rummels-Maske2) Lamb

Length 1) Debert2) Vail Kill/Gainey Isolates

1) Lamb2) Rummels-Maske

Flute Length 1) Debert2) Vail Kill/Gainey Isolates

1) Hiscock2) Lamb

Width 1) Shoop2) Debert

1) Lamb2) Vail Kill site

Basal Width 1) Debert2) Bull Brook

1) Vail Kill site2) Lamb

Thickness 1) Debert2) Vail Camp site

1) Hiscock2) Rummels-Maske

Basal Concavity Depth 1) Gainey Isolates2) Bull Brook

1) Lamb2) Rummels-Maske

* Variability measured by coefficient of variation.



example, we might expect more varia-tion as points are rejuvenated and dis-carded in various states even on a briefly occupied site. Furthermore, not all types of reshaping are alike, as I noted above, and some types may actually result in more variability than others.

It is also possible that the greater amount of face-angle variation at Debert indicates a longer term use of that site. This interpretation might be consistent with Keenlyside’s (1985) observation that the sub-triangular points from Debert do resemble small, more tri-angular, unfluted or basally thinned Late Paleoindian points from Labrador (e.g., McGhee and Tuck 1975; Renouf 1977), Prince Edward Island (Keenlyside 1985), and even, coastal areas of the northeastern United States (e.g., Cavallo 1981). In short, there could have been an early occupation at Debert repre-sented by larger, more expanding forms, and a later one represented by the sub-triangular forms. However, the Late Paleoindian sub-triangular points are dated or estimated to date from only as early as ca. 9500 BP and to last until after 8000 BP. The majority of the Debert dates are too early; the two late dates from Debert that deviate somewhat from the norm were rejected by MacDonald (1968: Table 4). One could argue that the oldest of these dates (7865 ± 92 BP), from Feature 3 in Section A, matches the dates from Turkey Swamp, New Jersey, on small triangular points (7660 ± 325 to 8739 ± 165 BP [Cavallo 1981]). However, there are no points associated with this Debert feature. In fact, the only points from Section A at Debert are associated with Feature 4, dated at 10,466 ± 128 BP (MacDonald 1968). There is really noth-ing in the radiocarbon dates to suggest the sub-triangular points date later. Even if we were to accept that temporal span

is partially to account for the degree of variation compared to the other sites examined here, one would have to explain why Debert would have been used longer than those other sites. There is no simple answer to such a question although one could develop some ad hoc arguments for such a possibility.

In any case, I am not convinced that a longer occupation span is the answer to the Debert variability, but freely admit the possibility cannot be ruled out. For one thing, although Debert is more variable than the Vail kill site and Lamb cache in terms of basal width (Table 14), it is not any more so than any other occupation sites. Such sites as Bull Brook and the Vail camp, with their patterned overall activity area layouts and evidence of refits between different areas, are sug-gestive of minimal occupation histories (Dincauze 1993; Spiess 1984). Their comparable variability in basal width suggests Debert also was used relatively briefly. In short, the contrast between Debert and the Lamb cache/Vail kill site probably do relate to a very brief period of use of the latter two sites. However, the similar variation to other occupation sites does not suggest Debert was used for an extended period of time.

Second, MacDonald (1968: 72) him-self believed that the variation seen at Debert was largely contemporaneous and due to something other than tem-poral change. He was certainly aware of the variability between the sub-trian-gular and other forms at the site and did consider the possibility of temporal variation. However, he rejected that notion as those forms were in “direct association” on several living floors (MacDonald 1968: 72). The four com-plete sub-triangular finds from Debert were all from different areas at the site. The co-occurrence with the other forms


234 • ELLIS

at several spatially discrete and relatively widespread areas seems much more likely to be a product of contemporane-ous use rather than multiple use of the same areas during markedly different time periods.

Finally, sites like Vail also have sub-triangular forms, albeit in smaller quantities than Debert. Two of the few definitive sub-triangular forms at Vail were actually recovered in association with the other normal forms at the Vail kill site (Gramly 1982: Plate 12c, d). The kill site probably represents, as already discussed, a relatively short-term event. Thus, it is very unlikely that the co-occur-rence of the sub-triangular and larger points at that area is due to major shifts in point morphology over time.

Functional Variation A second possible explanation for the Debert variation is contemporary functional differences within the point sample. There are several possible func-tional causes of variation. For example, one might argue that the size of points relates to the size of the game. Differ-ences in such characteristics as thickness and width could be due to the design and use of different kinds of projectiles for different game species. MacDonald (1966: 62) noted this possibility while cautioning against its facile nature. In sum, and in contrast to all other sites or assemblages examined, one would have to argue the points at Debert represent several different functions in this sense. However, such suggestions have not met with any degree of acceptance and actu-ally seem to be contradicted by available evidence (e.g., Haury et al. 1953: 71; Wormington 1957: 31, 34). Again, both larger more expanding edge and the smaller sub-triangular forms occur even among the Vail kill site points (Gramly

1982: Plates 12, 13), which one presumes represents hunting of a single type of game (e.g., caribou). Also, these ideas do not seem to have any ethnographic grounding in terms of stone projectile tip variation (Ellis 1997). In fact, ethno-graphic data relates variation in points to different kinds of weapons or hunting methods (e.g., spear, dart, arrow, har-poon, stalking, intercept) or to different tools entirely (e.g., projectile tip versus knife)—and not to different species of game (Ellis 1997: 45–46).

It is possible, of course, that some variation within the Debert assemblage may relate to these basic functional distinctions in weapons and hunting methods. Keenlyside (1985: 80–84, 1991: 170–172), for instance, hinted at functional interpretations of the Debert variation in noting similarities between certain Debert finds and the distinctive Late Paleoindian sub-triangular forms characteristic of the Maritimes, such as those from the Jones site, Prince Edward Island. One could also note that the Debert points, which often have one ear longer than the other, seem similar to the later point forms in this respect. Keenlyside (1985: 83–84) sug-gests the short, unilaterally barbed Late Paleoindian points could have been end blades mounted on harpoons and used in sealing. One could go a step further and argue the shorter Debert forms, with such long and asymmetrical ears, could represent a functional variant used for a similar purpose. This idea may seem a far-fetched interpretation, but no more unreasonable than the sug-gestion that Folsom points were used as arrows (e.g., Amick 1994). Besides, this harpoon idea has been raised before (e.g., Roosa 1962: 265). More recently, Dixon (1991: 251) has argued Clovis fluted points and related hafting systems



may be derived from coastally adapted forebears who modified the weapon to use on land mammals. If one can argue that a fluted point was derived in a sense from an “end-blade,” why couldn’t the reverse be true? While one can raise this possibility, the location of the Debert site as an interior encampment suggests the idea the shorter points were used as sealing harpoon tips is not really viable. Nor do ethnographic data support the possibility that stone points were used on harpoons to take fish (Ellis 1997: 45–46). Finally, the presence of both “normal” and sub-triangular forms at the Vail kill site argues against the use of the Debert points as harpoons.

The often sub-triangular nature of the Debert points does have more gen-eral functional implications, even if all points were used for the same purpose. Any point that has parallel to contracting sides from the base must have had bind-ing that projected beyond the lateral margins of the tool. Extensive ethno-graphic and experimental evidence has consistently shown this leads to a weapon that is less effective in the sense the tip end can not cut a hole wide enough to allow the shaft and binding to enter, prohibiting deep penetration (see espe-cially Frison 1989: 771, 1991: 293; Frison and Todd 1986: 128; Guthrie 1983: 29; Huckell 1982; Pope 1974: 56). Since the Debert points contract from the base more than any other assemblage exam-ined here, they would not be as efficient as any of the other forms in this regard. One might thus argue that the sub-trian-gular forms represent a functional vari-ant—they may not be weapon tips at all, for example, but hafted knives. However, given their short fore-sections with little exposed cutting edge and tip, this expla-nation seems very unlikely. Rejecting that notion then, one could argue they

were used in situations where projectile penetration was not as important. These might include intercept hunting where game movement was constrained such that the points could be used as thrust-ing spears and the animals repeatedly stabbed both by an individual or in com-munal hunting with multiple hunters (see Ellis and Deller 1997: 18–20). This could explain why sub-triangular points occur amongst the Vail kill site assem-blage (e.g., they represent a communal hunting situation where such a form is less of a liability).

In the absence of use-wear studies, it is difficult to state categorically that the variation we see at Debert is functional. The presence of sub-triangular forms at the Vail kill site, however, does not favour such an explanation. There is, moreover, definitive evidence, summarized below, that the sub-triangular forms are simply reshaped versions of the other points, notably snapped tips. In short, even if there was functional variation, this would have been due to serial use of points for different uses (e.g., recycling) rather than deliberate initial production of functional variants. Stated another way, functional variation alone does not work very well in explaining the variation in the Debert assemblage or the degree to which it contrasts with other sites.

Raw Material VariationRaw material differences might be another al ternat ive explanation, although it is difficult to use this factor to explain some differences, such as the asymmetrical ears or deeper concavities. One could contemplate that the high frequency of unfluted points may be due to the poor quality of the material used at Debert, particularly the brecci-ated chalcedony, which prohibited flut-ing some examples. Also, MacDonald


236 • ELLIS

reported only two channel flakes from Debert (1968: Table 6). This seems abnormally low given the number of preforms reported. This low frequency might represent, just as it apparently does in western Clovis (Frison 1982: 153), the relatively poor and short flut-ing that makes channel flakes difficult to identify.

Similarly, MacDonald (1968: 72) noted that three of the four complete examples of sub-triangular points in the Debert sample were made on “siltstone or other exotic material,” and concluded that the overall outline was “the result of technological limitations.” These remarks imply that raw material size, or some characteristic of the flaking quality of siltstone, allowed only sub-triangular forms and the associated V-shaped con-cavities to be produced. However, it is hard to see how either raw material type (i.e., siltstone) could limit production to sub-triangular forms. Nor is there any reason for a point to be triangular (even if shorter) due to raw material constraints5. More importantly, if one examines other clear examples of sub-tri-angular points in the Debert assemblage, which are represented solely by bases, these are on other raw materials includ-ing even the brecciated chalcedony upon which the largest points in the assem-blage were made (Figure 4h, i). I note as well that sub-triangular points are not restricted to Debert and do occur, albeit in smaller frequencies, at other sites with very different raw materials, such as Vail (Gramly 1982). Even if all the complete and measurable sub-triangular forms at Debert were made on more “exotic” materials, one could easily argue that the reason they appear more as sub-tri-angular forms is because those materials had been in the tool production and use system longer and were more reshaped.

ReshapingI think that much of the variation in the Debert points is primarily due to reshap-ing, particularly reworking or recycling, rather than due to change over time in point forms or initial variations in point morphology prior to use. As explained above, more heavily used (and thus more extensively reshaped) assemblages of fluted points, especially ones that originally had deep basal concavities, would be expected to include: shorter points; narrower points; shallower, often differently shaped basal concavities; shorter flutes, as well as more faces lack-ing flutes completely; and decreasing face-angles (and derivatively, more of the sub-triangular forms). Increased rework-ing/recycling would also be reflected by greater face-angle variability, increasing frequencies of ear asymmetry, a correla-tion of length and basal concavity depth, and a lack of correlation of point length with thickness. In sum, this scenario explains virtually every differentiating characteristic of the Debert assemblage. It is simple and yet comprehensive as an explanation, compared to alternatives that only explain limited characteristics or are more piecemeal in their applica-bility and fall short of understanding the overall pattern of variation.

Rather than rely on this explana-tion simply on the basis of consistency and parsimony, it can be tested. First, the clear final stage preforms from the Debert site that I examined, or that are illustrated in MacDonald (1968: Fig. 20, Plate IIIa), are of the same shape as the longest complete finished point in the assemblage (Figure 7a–b). All expand from the base to a point of maximum width at or just below mid-point, which indicates they were initially made with that outline rather than as the shorter and more triangular points.



Second, the large complete point from Debert (Figure 7d) is virtually the only example, save for the long isolated find from Quaco Head, New Brunswick (MacDonald 1968: Fig. 24a), for which there is absolutely no suggestion the tips of the items were resharpened. Both of these points lack the differences in flaking style, more irregular edges, and abrupt changes in plan outline shape associated with resharpening (see Deller and Ellis 1984: 44; Frison 1974: 71). This is definitely not the case with any of the shorter specimens I examined from Debert. All of these, whether sub-triangular or not, seem to have coarser, unpatterned flaking and the other char-acteristics suggestive of reduction by resharpening or even reworking of the fore-section edges to create a different tool type. Some of the points even have asymmetrical fore-sections where part of one lateral edge adjacent to the tip was reworked and reduced in comparison to the other edge (MacDonald 1968: Plate VIc, d); similar examples occur at Vail (Gramly 1982: Plate 7i). One sus-pects these asymmetrical items are ones that initially had more damage along one margin than the other.

Third, supporting the evidence for reworking of broken fore-sections is the presence of roughly flaked, often steeply chipped and abrupt basal concavities on several short items at Debert (e.g., Fig-ure 4a, e, h). That some are almost simply basally notched (Figure 4e, h), as opposed to concave, also suggests they are reworked or recyled versions of the more pristine forms. Such thick, abrupt concavities are reported on examples from other sites where reworking occurs (Ellis et al. 2003: 218; Roosa and Ellis 2000: 87).

Finally, there are some Debert exam-ples that have what I call a “peg-like”

ear. This feature seems to be explain-able only in terms of basal reworking or recycling, resulting from a deliberate narrowing of the base during reshaping. One artifact with this feature, Specimen 1482 (Figure 4d), is the clearest single example of basal reworking at Debert. Narrowing the base would be necessary during basal reworking, depending upon where the point tip snapped off and when this occurred in the use-life of an item. Where the tip snaps off at any point wider than the original basal width, such as below the point of maximum width (see Figure 6a), the basal lateral edges can still expand from the basal extremity. If the break were at or above the maximum width, even with narrowing the reworked tip shape would be more sub-triangular. In either case, the location of transverse breakage would be wider than that needed to fit in the haft and it would be necessary to narrow the base at the break. Specimen 1482 has a distinct break in outline from lateral narrowing along one basal corner (Figure 4d, right lateral edge), and it is this narrowing that caused one more markedly narrow or “peg-like” ear on that same side of the base. Very similar narrowing, and with resulting peg-like ears, occur at other sites where this reworking is clearly documented (see Morris et al. 1999: Fig. 10; Roosa and Ellis 2000: Fig. 5.6f, 5.6g). In addition to asymmetrical ears, this biface has many other features expected of basal rework-ing. It has a concavity apex that is very thick and abrupt with unifacial retouch applied presumably to create the new concavity on a thick broken end. It has a very shallow concavity (4.8 mm) for this site. It also lacks flutes and lateral grinding, so I did not count it among the finished points at the site. One suspects the lack of grinding here means that the


238 • ELLIS

knapper was unsuccessful in reworking the item so it was simply discarded in process (Roosa and Ellis 2000: 87)6. Of course, evidence of both fluting and lateral grinding would be lost if that part of the base is snapped off. Moreover, if reworking the base involved not only flaking a new shallower concavity, but also some lateral alterations, it could also remove traces of the original lateral grinding.

If the primary source of variation was simply reshaping, and especially rework-ing or recycling, one has to conclude that Debert stands out because it is a more exhausted assemblage than many of the other assemblages considered here. Of course, some have argued that other assemblages also have been intensively used (e.g., Shoop [Cox 1986; Witthoft 1952; Wright 2003: 307]). It is plausible that some of the similarities between Shoop and Debert, such as a higher degree of variability in width and a lower average face-angle, are due to similar, and extensive, amounts/kinds of reshaping.

Based on the foregoing, the bulk of the evidence indicates that the Debert site is a highly variable assemblage because it is extensively reshaped in comparison to the other sites. Moreover, the nature of that reshaping seems to differ from that reported at other sites, with extensive reworking and/or recycling of the points rather than simply tip resharpening. It is really not possible to conclusively deter-mine if the reshaping was predominantly to allow simple rehafting or recycling to serve other uses. The presence of the sub-triangular points at the Vail kill site seems inconsistent with recycling. If there were functional changes, Debert would be even more unusual as there is no evidence for the functional flexibility of points in a similar manner at the other

sites. If it was simply reworking (i.e., to continue using the points as projectile tips in the same contexts), then the fact that sub-triangular forms have draw-backs as weapon tips (e.g., the binding projects from the lateral edges inhibit-ing penetration) suggests a sacrificing of efficiency in use in order to maximize raw material availability.

An obvious question concerns why the Debert assemblage is more reshaped. The simplest explanation is that in con-trast to other sites, raw material was in shorter supply than at other sites. How-ever, the major materials at Debert are chalcedonies that were sourced only to 80 km to the west of the site (MacDonald 1968), whereas the most common materials found in many of the other assemblages came from 200 to >320 km away (Spiess et al. 1998; Witthoft 1952). Of course, straight-line distances are not necessarily a direct or good measure of raw material accessibility. For example, the intensive use of raw materials at a site may be a product of an “anticipated” use, meaning the inhabitants would consider future raw materials needs when they were even farther away from the sources (Ellis 1984: 13–14). Similarly, raw mate-rial quality may be an issue. Based on my examination of various assemblages, the chalcedonies used at Debert seem rela-tively flawed vs. the more homogenous materials used elsewhere. Such flaws would increase the likelihood of break-age in use, making efficient use difficult and forcing a greater degree of reliance on reshaping.

Finally, one might consider that the emphasis on reshaping is related to the degree of predictability of resource acquisition, both in terms of raw mate-rials and food sources. That is, if food resource locations are unpredictable, it becomes difficult to accurately predict



when one will be able to get to a lithic source no matter what the distance. Situa-tions where one could get “caught short” would increase. In such situations, recy-cling and reworking represent alternative ways to meet lithic demands, although they can come at a loss in tool efficiency during use. For example, sub-triangular points with their projecting lateral bind-ing would impede penetration of weap-ons and shorter fore-sections would have less use-edge available if they were used as knives or in other non-projectile tasks. If predictability of scheduling resource exploitation, lithic and otherwise, is the cause, one would have to marshal evi-dence that the general Debert area might be different from other locations used by fluted point users. I do think it is possible to argue this was the case, and return to this question in a later section.

EXTERNAL RELATIONSHIPSWhat assemblages are closest to Debert or most dissimilar and what is the source of those differences? The point assemblages examined here have often been subdivided into at least two major groups (e.g., Curran 1996: 8; Keenlyside 1991: 171; Spiess et al. 1998: 235). The first includes assemblages at the smaller end of the scale, that have shallow basal concavities and are often referred to as a Bull Brook/Gainey in New England. The second group includes larger points with deeper concavities that are referred to as Debert/Vail. In terms of the char-acteristics least affected by resharpening, namely basal width and basal concav-ity depth, the detailed comparisons reported here confirm this two-fold distinction: Hiscock, Shoop, the Gainey Isolates, Bull Brook and Rummells-Maske are statistically different from the second group that includes Vail, Lamb, and Debert (see Figures 3e, 3g).

The Bull Brook-Shoop group is quite variable internally and has often been argued to include more than one type of point. For example, the relatively shallow concavities and narrow bases of Hiscock and Shoop points have led some to suggest that they differ from the other assemblages in terms of temporal placement, spatial relationships, degree of exhaustion, or combinations thereof (e.g., Dincauze 2003: 305; Ellis et al. 2003: 232–233; Wright 2003: 307). How-ever, Debert contrasts significantly with all assemblages in this group in terms of maximum width, basal width, concavity depth and probably, grinding length. On average, Debert points are also thicker with shorter flutes and more contracting lateral edges. The differences are not statistically significant in the case of these last three variables (except for face-angle and flute length in comparison to Rum-mells-Maske), but the fact that Debert is consistently at the extreme opposite end of the scale even in these terms may be important. The members of this group represent a range of assemblage types. Some are campsite/occupation assem-blages such as Shoop and Bull Brook. Any similarities Debert has with those specific sites, such as in terms of face-angle, may relate to the fact the assemblages all represent more exhausted ones. This may also explain why they all differ from the cache site, Rummells-Maske. Furthermore, Debert may be similar in maximum width to an assemblage like the Rummells-Maske cache, but if width is reduced by reshaping, this similarity becomes more apparent than real. This again suggests the points at these sites are fundamentally different, with greater width exhibited at Debert.

It is plausible to suggest the contrasts between the Bull Brook-Shoop group as a whole and the other assemblages,


240 • ELLIS

including Debert, are monitoring tem-poral change. Bull Brook-Shoop group sites are often seen to date earlier than Debert and Vail or closer to 11,000 BP because of their greater similarity to western Clovis (Curran 1996: 8). How-ever, dates on assemblages with compa-rable points such as Hiscock, New York, Whipple, New Hampshire, and Shawnee Minisink, Pennsylvania, have not been of much help in evaluating this sugges-tion as they range widely from > 11,000 to < 10,000 BP at each site and often, as at Shawnee Minisink, have wide sigma ranges (Curran 1996; Laub 2003: 20). Recently, however, Dent (1999), has reported two AMS dates from better con-texts at Shawnee Minisink. These dates, on charred hawthorne plum seeds recov-ered from hearths are consistent and have small one sigma ranges: 10,940 ± 90 and 10,900 ± 40 BP. If more accurate, these suggest an age older than either the Debert and Vail radiocarbon dates. Moreover, despite the wide range of dates from Hiscock, the zone containing the Paleoindian artifacts has yielded only Zone 1 (spruce zone) pollen with little evidence of the subsequent Zone 2 (pine zone) (McAndrews 2003). Based on pollen core dates from several sites from adjacent southern Ontario and northern Ohio to the west, Karrow et al. (1975: 53) estimated that this transition occurred in that area around 10,600 BP. Although Morgan et al. (2000: 16–28) question that estimate, at face value it does sug-gest that Hiscock is early. I agree with this earlier estimate because plotting of pollen isopolls across the Northeast sug-gest that the rise in pine pollen would have been earlier in western New York (where Hiscock is located) than in areas farther to the west in Ontario and Ohio (e.g., Webb et al. 1981: Fig. 2; Webb and Bartlein 1988: Fig. 2).

In terms of fluted point assemblages with the greatest similarities, Debert has often been compared to Lamb and Vail. The artifacts are indeed similar in terms of continuous measures, particularly basal width, which is much more homo-geneous within these sites than among the Bull Brook-Shoop group7. Having said that, Debert does differ significantly from Lamb and Vail. There are notable differences in characteristics such as basal concavity depth and face-angle, as well as the frequency of unfluted faces and asymmetrical ears.

I have already noted that the Debert points are most parsimoniously inter-preted as being more reshaped than Vail/Lamb so the differences in certain discrete characteristics and face-angle are emphasized by Debert’s more reshaped nature. Reshaping however, could also make these same assemblages appear more similar to one another and create more homogeneity where none exists. The fact that the points from Debert, an occupation site with more reshaped bases, are statistically similar in concavity depth to only the less reshaped Vail kill site and Lamb cache does sug-gest it is fundamentally different in that variable from all other sites. Similarly, that Debert is comparable in width and thickness to Vail and Debert could be fortuitous. The evidence suggests that the Debert points were much wider and thicker than those at the other sites prior to the effects of reshaping. For example, on average only more pristine, less-used assemblages (i.e., Lamb and the Vail kill sites) exceed Debert in terms of width. If those other samples were more like normal discarded assemblages, Debert might be the most extreme in width as well. Moreover, width is one of the few characteristics that clearly correlates with length, regardless of assemblage,



with almost all assemblages showing significant correlations at the .05 level. Because the points initially expand from the base, any reduction in length that exceeds the point of maximum width will result in width reduction. Except with regards to width, where reworking is probably interfering or actually creating samples that appear more alike, Debert is somewhat distinct.

Vail, Debert, and Lamb are often seen as dating later than the other sam-ples examined. As noted earlier, Curran (1999: 10–15) suggests that there is increasing basal width and concavity depth on increasingly more northern sites assumed to have been left by the ear-liest colonists (large “marshalling sites” as defined by Dincauze [1993]). These sites would have included Shoop, Bull Brook, Vail, and Debert. Arguing that the new areas were first examined by small scouting parties, Dincauze (1993: 52–54) suggests these scouts selected productive locales to which larger migrating groups would then move in a warm-season colonizing event. These marshalling sites were then used to intensively examine and divvy up the surrounding landscape for smaller family groups to disperse into during the following cold season. The implication is that these large sites repre-sent single or a minimal number of occu-pations. This perspective would argue that these sites, as a whole, date later than Bull Brook and the other sites, and that Debert itself is latest in that group as it is the most extreme with regard to these characteristics. Compared to sites such as Bull Brook and Shoop, the esti-mated later date for Debert also would be consistent with its extreme northern peripheral location.

This construct seems a reasonable one and it would be consistent with some other arguments I have made

elsewhere. For example, unlike immedi-ately adjacent Maine, there is little vari-ability in fluted points in the Canadian Maritimes—all have the relatively large, parallel-sided Clovis-like forms that are the focus of this paper. There are none of the smaller, thinner points resembling the Barnes or Crowfield points found in other areas of the Northeast/Great Lakes. Hence, I have suggested that these larger forms of points may have persisted longer in that area (e.g., Ellis 1993: 605–607). Moreover, Keenlyside (1985: 83) suggested that the more trian-guloid Debert points indicate continuity with the trianguloid Late Paleoindian forms in the region and one could use this to argue that the Debert forms are later and closer in time to the Late Paleoindian points.

Nonetheless, there are problems with these arguments. Even if some of the other sites like Vail and Bull Brook were marshalling sites, Debert itself seems to be different. It does not, for example, have the highly patterned layout suggest-ing an extremely minimal occupation history such as found at Bull Brook and Vail (Ellis and Deller 2000: 243–247). Neither does Debert have artifact cross-mends between the various domestic occu-pation loci, something that can also be used to argue for exact contemporane-ity. It is also possible, as I discuss below, to explain the absence of anything other than larger, parallel-sided fluted points in the Maritimes in other ways. Finally, as noted above, the more triangular nature of the Debert points appears to be due to reworking whereas that is not the case with the Late Paleoindian forms, which seem to have been initially designed as such. Rather than temporal continuity, the similarities between the two could be fortuitous. In fact, since the age estimates for the Late Paleoindian vari-


242 • ELLIS

eties suggest those occupations much post-date 10,000 BP (e.g., Cavallo 1981; McGhee and Tuck 1975), and given that the radiocarbon years compress time such that many more solar calendar years are represented in this interval, continuity from the earlier Debert forms seems increasingly unlikely.

If we accept such counter-arguments, then the Debert variation (compared to more similar site assemblages like Vail) may be more spatial rather than temporal in nature. Indeed, since points with exceptionally deep concavities are only known from the Maritimes, I think a spatial contrast may be more viable. At the very least, if it is temporal, then the degree of contrast between Debert and the Vail/Lamb sites suggests only minor time differences between these point forms and those of the apparently earlier Bull Brook-Shoop forms.

The bulk of the radiocarbon dates from Debert (and Vail) indicate an age around the middle of the 11th millenni-um BP. The dates from Debert average 10,600 ± 47 BP, which suggests the site dates even at two standard deviations from ca. 10,700 to 10,500 BP. One of the dates from Debert of 11,026 ± 225 BP seems significantly older than the rest and Levine (1990: 49) used it to argue for a possibly earlier occupation epi-sode at Debert. However, as discussed by Fiedel (1999: 101), there are indi-cations of radiocarbon dates actually reversing from about 10,700 BP back to 11,000+ BP as the Younger Dryas event is approached. There is then an abrupt drop from 11,000 back to ca. 10,600–10,400 BP with the onset of the Younger Dryas. In other words, this seemingly anomalous early date from Debert may not be anomalous at all but simply a product of fluctuating amounts of radio-carbon in the atmosphere.

T h e d a t e s f r o m Va i l a v e r a g e 10,500 ± 300 BP, which seem consistent with the Debert age. Again, one of the dates of 11,200 ± 180 BP is somewhat earlier than the rest and this had led some to suggest two charcoal popula-tions were dated (Curran 1996: 5–6), but this anomalous reading could be due to simple date reversals as noted above for Debert. In sum, taking into account what we are beginning to learn about fluctua-tions in atmospheric carbon in the late Pleistocene, the dates from sites like Debert and Vail may be even more con-sistent than previously realized, regard-less of the single 11,000+ BP dates from each site. The high degree of consistency makes me agree with Curran (1996: 5–6) that the Debert and Vail dates are real and cannot be dismissed as a result of factors such as forest fires as argued by others such as Bonnichsen and Will (1999: 407). Moreover, if the suggestion as to an earlier age for Bull Brook-Shoop group points is correct, it makes some sense that the Debert and Vail sites are later. This is especially true if we exam-ine newer evidence for the nature of the environments of the time.

For example, Bonnichsen et al. (1991: 27–28) and Bonnichsen and Will (1999: 407) have argued against the validity of the Debert dates and for an earlier placement back to 11,000+ BP based on climatic considerations. They sug-gested the climate was more conducive to peopling of the area at that time prior to the onset of the much colder period equivalent to the Younger Dryas climatic event. However, there is some evidence from certain Greenland ice cores, as well as Maritime local evidence, to suggest that the onset of the Younger Dryas may be as late as 10,800 to 10,600 BP (see Fiedel 1999; Stea and Mott 1998: 13). In addition, MacDonald (1968: 14–15) even



cites evidence that suggests at least some of the Debert site occupation occurred during, or overlapped a time, when permafrost was found in the region. Fiedel (1999: 105) notes the Debert average date corresponds exactly “to the very cold period at the beginning of the Younger Dryas” climatic event that came on very rapidly at around that time—but of course there could be occupation at Debert prior to that rapid event, albeit late in the warmer interval. In sum, one can interpret the colder period as begin-ning later than Bonnichsen and Will (1999) envisioned. It is also significant that recent evidence from high-resolu-tion pollen analyses and midge remains suggests a short, intense pre-Younger Dryas cold period from around 11,200 to 10,900 BP in the Maritimes called the “Killarney Oscillation” (Cwynar and Levesque 1994; Levesque et al. 1993, 1994). Data indicate a shift from a pre-11,200 BP spruce or poplar woodland to a shrub tundra at that time, accom-panied by an estimated quite significant drop of 4.5° C in average summer lake temperatures. Climatic amelioration, as evident in increasing amounts of spruce and birch and decreases in herb pollen (e.g., return of a woodland), occurred after 10,900 RCYP and lasted until about 10,600 BP at the latest. At that time, the Younger Dryas climatic event again led to significant cooling and a shift back to more tundra conditions. In other words, if there is a better time for peopling the region using the logic of Bonnichsen and Will (1991), it seems to have been from around 10,900 BP to some time prior to the Younger Dryas event. There is some suggestion of an abrupt jump in radiocarbon dates between 10,900 and 10,600 BP (see Curran 1996: 5), which suggests the warming trend may have been quite short-lived, but it was at least

long enough for pollen frequencies to change significantly.

SYNTHESISBased on data and discussion presented above, it is possible to examine some broader implications for our knowledge of the Maritimes Paleoindian occupa-tion. I believe it is possible to propose a parsimonious and internally consistent model of when the Canadian Maritimes were peopled by fluted-point users and how Debert specifically fits into that model. It is plausible to suggest that people first penetrated the area during the warming period after the Killarney Oscillation as early as 10,900 BP. These initial explorations may be represented by the single Bull Brook-Shoop group point (e.g., with a narrow base and shal-low concavity) reported from Kingsclear, New Brunswick (Turnbull 1974). The recovery of only one point suggests that this occupation may not have been a sub-stantial one, perhaps representing only scouting parties or brief seasonal forays by small groups8.

More substantial occupation of the Maritimes may have only begun later in the warming period, as represented by such sites as Debert and nearby Belmont (Davis 1991) that contain wider and more concave based points. This occupation could have continued into the beginning of the Younger Dryas around 10,600 BP, as indicated by the radiocarbon dates and permafrost data from Debert. The Younger Dryas event came on very rap-idly and resulted in a major shift in the vegetation of the Maritimes from an earlier spruce/poplar woodland back to a shrub tundra also seen earlier prior to ca. 10,900 BP (Mott et al. 1986; Stea and Mott 1998). This rapid change must have increased greatly the unpredict-ability of resource locales and also have


244 • ELLIS

had sweeping effects on environmental productivity. In short, if Debert was occu-pied during the time the Younger Dryas event began, it could explain why Debert has more evidence of tool reshaping. As discussed earlier, increased unpredict-ability of resource locales would have an adverse effect on the ability to easily and predictably schedule lithic resource procurement events.

I think it is even possible to suggest that the onset of the Younger Dryas may have eventually forced Paleoindians to abandon the region. Such a scenario is implied by the arguments put forth by Bonnichsen et al. (1991) that the best time to people the region was prior to the Younger Dryas. If that period was not conducive to the peopling of the area, one would think it also would not be conducive to living there. It may be significant that there is little or no evi-dence of occupation in more tundra-like areas close to the ice sheets in such areas as easternmost Ontario and southern Quebec. This suggests that Paleoindians avoided those regions and had difficul-ties making a living in them (Dincauze 1993: 48; Ellis 2003: 10). In this context, it is worth stressing that the Younger Dryas’ effects on vegetation were major in the Canadian Maritimes, as reflected by the shift from the poplar/spruce woodland of the 10,900 to 10,600 BP optimum to the shrub tundra around 10,600 BP. In adjacent Maine, however, the effects of this climatic shift could have been much more muted such that it has been difficult to even detect the Younger Dryas event in pollen diagrams in that area (Cwynar and Levesque 1994). The lack of detection could be a sampling problem, but Cwynar and Levesque suggest it may also be due to the fact that: “Any cooling that affected Maine may not have crossed survival

thresholds for the plants there, whereas the vegetation in New Brunswick was closer to these thresholds and therefore showed a large response when cooling occurred” (1994: 410; my emphasis). The implica-tion is that the ground changes in the Maritimes would have been much more pronounced than in immediately adja-cent areas to the south, the result being major shifts in resource distributions and greater unpredictability (especially given the rapidity of the onset of the Younger Dryas) than in Maine.

This scenario would explain why there was a greater degree of rework-ing and recycling at Debert than at the most comparable sites in Maine, namely Vail, which seems closest in age. It might also explain why all fluted points from the Maritimes are of larger more paral-lel-sided forms and lack the apparently later smaller, thinner, fish-tailed fluted points and other later Paleoindian lan-ceolate forms seen in adjacent Maine (e.g., Spiess et al. 1998). Perhaps the area was abandoned because of the major effects of the Younger Dryas on resources in the Canadian Maritimes, and not occupied again until some time after 10,000 BP. Or possibly the interior areas were abandoned in these time periods for the more favourable coastal plain—a setting now under the Atlantic and inaccessible. Certainly, more recent investigators are willing to consider the possibility of an hiatus in the Maritimes between the fluted point occupations and later times, although they may not agree with the reasons suggested here for such an hiatus (e.g., Dincauze and Jacobsen 2001: 124).

This explanation treats the complex 14C record of the late Pleistocene sim-plistically and it should be regarded as no more than a plausible scenario or explanatory sketch at this point. None-



theless, it explains much of what most think we know about these occupations and especially that at Debert. It does not force us to explain away certain data that may not meet our preconceptions such as the 14C dates from the site, and fits better with our latest understanding of 14C date fluctuations and environ-ments in the area. Finally, it explains two characteristic that have puzzled me for a long time: 1) why the Debert points are a dominant and almost sole fluted point form in the Maritimes and why this contrasts with immediately adjacent Maine; and 2) why the Debert points are more variable than those of other assemblages.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONSBy comparing specific attributes in “Clovis-like” assemblages across the midwestern and northeastern regions of North America, it has been possible to more precisely determine the degree to which the points from the Debert, Nova Scotia, compare to those of other Paleoindian assemblages. The results indicate that the Debert points are most like those at Vail and Lamb. More gener-ally, it appears that there are two broad categories of more parallel-sided fluted points in the region: a) an internally variable Bull Brook-Shoop group with somewhat narrower bases and relatively shallow basal concavities; and b) a Debert-Vail group with wider bases and very deep concavities.

Debert stands out from other assem-blages in two ways. First, it is unique in that its points exhibit a much greater degree of variation than those seen at other sites. Second, its assemblage may be characterized as “extreme.” By this, I mean that no matter what continuous variable one considers, the assemblage is at the extremes of the distributions—it

exhibits the most minimal face-angles, the widest bases, the thickest cross-sections, the shortest flutes, and the deepest basal concavities (see Tables). In fact, although the points are most similar to those at Vail, they are actually statistically differ-ent in terms of such characteristics as basal concavity depth, and it may be inac-curate to simply lump the Debert points in with those other assemblages. We have tended to address questions of variability primarily through fluted point types or even impressionistic statements about site relationships. However, as I noted in the introduction, this perspective tends to read variability out of existence. That is, it forces points into certain categories. Over time I have grown disillusioned with such an approach and personally think that certain type designations are more useful today solely as categories in which to place isolated finds. Where one has larger samples, detailed comparisons, such as are reported on here, not only provide more precise characterizations, but also force one to confront directly variation and begin contemplating why it exists.

Some of the Debert assemblage’s uniqueness, such as its variability, can be explained by a greater degree of reshap-ing than found at other sites. Perhaps this higher frequency of reshaping was a response to climatic deterioration and to the increasing unpredictability of resource locations associated with the onset of the Younger Dryas climatic event. Why Debert is extreme in such character-istics as concavity depth remains unclear, however. I am prone to suggest that this difference is more “stylistic” in nature in the sense it is not due to raw material, overtly functional reasons, or reshaping. I am hard-pressed to suggest any other explanations and several investigators have argued that basal concavity depth


246 • ELLIS

is a good indicator of such stylistic rela-tionships (Gramly 1982: 70–71; Meltzer 1984: 286–287). However, this still does not tell us whether these style differences are due to change over time or indicate spatial variation.

Acknowledgements. I am especially grateful to Richard Morlan and David Keenlyside for facilitating my research on the Debert points at the Canadian Museum of Civilization and to Richard Laub for allowing me to examine the Hiscock assemblage. Figures 4 and 5 are reproduced from MacDonald (1968) with permission of the Canadian Museum of Civilization. I also gratefully acknowledge the assistance of: Michael Deal who provided up to date information on raw material sources in Nova Scotia; Katherine McMillan who assisted in matters statistical; Valérie Prat and Jeff Tennant who provided the French abstract; and Henry Wright and the late Bill Roosa who instilled in me an appreciation of the effects of reshaping on assemblages. The comments of Mary Lou Curran, David Keenlyside, George Nicholas, Michael Shott, and Arthur Spiess were of immense aid in revising the manuscript. Of course, this paper would not have been possible without the fine work of George MacDonald. How-ever, none of these individuals is responsible if I have misused their aid or ideas.

NOTES1. This i s based on the preforms

(e.g., Figure 7a, b) and one complete point (Figure 7d) at this site, and a similar point from Quaco Head, New Brunswick, which, as I suggest later in this paper, seem to best approxi-mate the initial Debert form prior to reworking (MacDonald 1968: Fig. 24a).

2. Parenthetically, the deep basal con-cavities at Debert seem to be mirrored by lateral grinding, which extends

considerably up the lateral edges from the base (0 = 31.6 mm). This supports MacDonald’s (1968: 73) statement that grinding extends for “one-third to one-half the total point length.” No other assemblages I have examined comes anywhere near this length. However, the lack of report-ing of this characteristic makes it hard to test for differences with other assemblages except to note this length is significantly longer than the two other samples for which I have exact data—Shoop and the Ontario Gainey Isolates, which average less than 21.5 mm. More extensive grinding would be expected at Debert because the deep concavities imply the shaft (and binding) would have extended farther up the face of a point (com-pare Figure 8a and 8b).

3. For consistency, this frequency was calculated using copies of point pho-tographs or drawings. A line was drawn across the basal ear extremities and an intersecting line was inscribed along the mid-line of the point. If the mid-point line was at 90° ± 5° vs. the basal line, the ears were considered symmetrical and if it exceeded 5°, asymmetrical.

4. Using the method employed here to measure basal concavity depth, whenever one ear is shorter than the other the result is a shallower con-cavity measurement. Given the high frequency of such asymmetrical ears at Debert, this technique would also minimize concavity depth estimates.

5. MacDonald (1968: 70) also argues elsewhere that the shortest points actually tend to be on materials other than siltstone.

6. Gramly (1982: Plate 9d, 9f, 9h) illus-trates two relatively short (ca. 42–62 mm), sub-triangular Vail bifaces,



and a short but not sub-triangular example “abandoned in the process of manufacture.” As with the Debert example, these seem to have an abrupt, thick apex to the basal con-cavities, lack lateral grinding, and have what appears to be very short remnants of the hinge terminated ends of flutes on the pictured faces (one is referred to as unfluted on both faces). These seem to be tips that were not completely rejuvenated and reused. In fact, Gramly (1982: 28, Plate 9h) argues the shortest sub-triangular form provides definitive evidence for the attempted reuse of short snapped tips.

7. The exceptions are the variables dif-ficult to estimate (e.g., flute length) and those influenced by reworking (e.g., flute length) and/or small sample size (e.g., overall length).

8. It is difficult to type isolated finds like Kingsclear as they could be simply out-liers in what are more typical Debert-like assemblages. Until an actual site with occupational features is found, this initial penetration must be seen as a very tentative scenario.

REFERENCES CITEDAhler S. A., and P. Geib

2000 Why Flute? Folsom Point Design and Adaptation. Journal of Archaeologi-cal Science 27: 799–820.

Amick, D. S.1994 Technological Organization and the Structure of Inference in Lithic Analysis: An Examination of Folsom Hunting Behaviour in the American Southwest. In The Organization of North American Chipped Stone Tool Technolo-gies, edited by P. Carr, pp. 9–34. Inter-national Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Bement, L.2002 Picking Up the Pieces: Folsom Projectile Point Re-Sharpening Tech-nology. In Folsom Technology and Lifeways, edited by J. A. Clark and M. B. Collins, pp. 135–140. Lithic Technology, Special Publication No. 4.

Blalock, H. M., Jr.1972 Social Statistics. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York.

Bonnichsen, R., D. L. Keenlyside, and K. L. Turnmire

1991 Paleoindian Patterns in Maine and the Maritimes. In Prehistoric Archaeology in the Maritime Provinces: Past and Present Research, edited by M. Deal and S. Blair, pp. 1–36. Reports in Archaeology No. 8. Coun-cil of Maritime Premiers, Fredericton, New Brunswick.

Bonnichsen R., and R. T. Will1999 Radiocarbon Chronology of Northeastern Paleo-American Sites: Discriminating Natural and Human Burn Features. In Ice-Age People of North America: Environments, Origins and Adaptations, edited by R. Bonnichsen and K. L. Turnmire, pp. 395–415. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon.

Byers, D. S. 1954 Bull Brook: A Fluted Point Site in Ipswich, Massachusetts. American Antiquity 19: 343–351.

Cavallo, J.1981 Turkey Swamp: A Late Paleo-indian Site in New Jersey’s Coastal Plain. Archaeology of Eastern North America 9: 1–18.

Cox, S. 1986 A Re-analysis of the Shoop Site. Archaeology of Eastern North America 14:101–170.


248 • ELLIS

Curran, M. L.1984 The Whipple Site and Paleo-indian Tool Assemblage Variation: A Comparison of Intrasite Structuring. Archaeology of Eastern North America 12: 5–40.

1996 Paleoindians in the Northeast: The Problem of Dating Fluted Point Sites. Review of Archaeology 17(1): 2–5.

1999 Exploration, Colonization, and Settling In: The Bull Brook Phase, Antecedents, and Descendants. In The Archaeological Northeast, edited by M. A. Levine, K. E. Sassaman, and M. S. Nassaney, pp. 3–24. Bergin and Garvey, Westport, Connecticut.

Cwynar, L. C., and A. J. Levesque1994 Chiromoid Evidence for Late-Glacial Climatic Reversals in Maine. Quaternary Research 43: 405–413.

Davis S. A.1991 Two Concentrations of Palaeo-Indian Occupation in the Far North-east. Revista de Arqueologia Americana 3: 31–56.

Deller, D. B., and C. J. Ellis 1984 Crowfield: A Preliminary Report on a Probable Paleo-Indian Cremation in Southwestern Ontario. Archaeology of Eastern North America 12: 41–71.

1988 Early Palaeo-Indian Complexes in Southwestern Ontario. In Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene Paleo-ecology and Archaeology of the Eastern Great Lakes Region, edited by R. Laub, N. Miller, and D. Steadman, pp. 251–263. Bulletin of the Buffalo Society of Natural Sciences 33.

1992 Thedford II: A Paleo-Indian Site in the Ausable River Watershed of Southwest-ern Ontario. Memoir of the Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Number 24.

Dent, R. J.1999 Shawnee Minisink: New Dates on the Paleoindian Component. http://www.american.edu/cas/anthro/shawnee_minisink_2.html.

Dibble, H. L.1987 The Interpretation of Middle Paleolithic Scraper Morphology. American Antiquity 52: 109–117.

1995 Middle Paleolithic Scraper Reduction: Background, Clarification, and Review of the Evidence to Date. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 2: 299–368.

Dincauze, D. F.1993 Pioneering in the Pleistocene: Large Paleoindian Sites in the North-east. In Archaeology of Eastern North America, Papers in Honor of Stephen Williams, edited by J. B. Stoltman, pp. 43–60. Mississippi Department of Archives and History, Archaeological Report No. 25.

2003 Discussion: Geoarchaeological and Stratigraphic Aspects of the Hiscock Site. In The Hiscock Site: Late Pleistocene and Holocene Paleoecology and Archaeology of Western New York State, edited by R. Laub, pp. 304–305. Bulletin of the Buffalo Society of Natural Sciences 37.

Dincauze, D. F., and V. Jacobsen2001 The Birds of Summer: Lakeside Routes into Late Pleistocene New England. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 25: 121–126.

Dixon, E. J.1999 Bones, Boats and Bison, Archaeology of the First Colonization of Western North America. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Eerkens, J. W., and R. L. Bettinger2001 Techniques for Assessing Stan-



dardization in Artifact Assemblages: Can We Scale Material Variability? American Antiquity 66: 493–504.

Ellis, C. J. 1984 Paleo-Indian Lithic Technological Structure and Organization in the Lower Great Lakes Area: A First Approximation. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C.

1993 Premières Industries Lithiques Paléo-indiennes de la Région N-E de l’amérique du Nord Dans Leurs Principaux Contextes (Temps, Espace, Paléo-environnement, Sites, Culture). L’Anthropologie 97: 586–622.

1994 Miniature Early Paleo-Indian Stone Artifacts from the Parkhill, Ontario, Site. North American Archaeologist 15: 253–267.

1997 Factors Influencing the Use of Stone Projectile Tips: An Ethnographic Perspective. In Projectile Technology, edited by H. Knecht, pp. 37–74. Plenum Press, N.Y.

2001 Some Sites and Artifacts I Have Known: The Debert Site, Nova Scotia. Kewa 01(6–7): 2–9.

2003 Les Assemblages Archéologiques du Paléoindien du Sud de l’Ontario. Recherches Amérindiennes au Québec 32(3): 7–26.

Ellis, C. J., and D. B. Deller 1997 Variability in the Archaeological Record of Northeastern Early Paleo-Indians: A View from Southern Ontar-io. Archaeology of Eastern North America 25: 1–30.

2000 An Early Paleo-Indian site Near Parkhill, Ontario. Canadian Museum of Civilization, Archaeological Survey of Canada, Mercury Series 159.

Ellis, C. J., A. C. Goodyear, D. F. Morse, and K. B. Tankersley

1998 Archaeology of the Pleistocene-Holocene Transition in Eastern North America. Quaternary International 49/50: 151–166.

Ellis, C. J., J. H. Tomenchuk, and J. D. Holland

2003 Typology, Use and Sourcing of the Late Pleistocene Lithic Artifacts from the Hiscock Site. In The Hiscock Site: Late Pleistocene and Holocene Paleo-ecology and Archaeology of Western New York State, edited by R. Laub, pp. 221–237. Bulletin of the Buffalo Society of Natural Sciences 37.

Fiedel, S. J.1999 Older Than We Thought: Implications of Corrected Dates for Paleoindians. American Antiquity 64: 95–115.

Frison, G. C.1968 A Functional Analysis of Certain Chipped Stone Tools. American Antiquity 33: 149–155.

1974 Archaeology of the Casper Site. In The Casper Site: A Hell Gap Bison Kill on the High Plains, edited by G. C. Frison, pp. 1–111. Academic Press, New York.

1982 The Sheaman Site: A Clovis Component. In The Agate Basin Site: A Record of the Paleo-Indian Occupation of the Northwestern High Plains, edited by G. C. Frison and D. Stanford, pp. 143–157. Academic Press, New York.

1989 Experimental Use of Clovis Weaponry and Tools on African Elephants. American Antiquity 54: 766–784.

1991 Prehistoric Hunters of the High Plains, 2nd ed. Academic Press, San Diego.


250 • ELLIS

Frison, G. G., and L. Todd1986 The Colby Mammoth Site: Tapho-nomy and Archaeology of a Clovis Kill Site in Northern Wyoming. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Funk, R. E.1982 Introduction. In The Vail Site: A Palaeo-Indian Encampment in Maine, by R. M. Gramly, pp. xii–xiv. Bulletin of the Buffalo Society of Natural Sciences 30.

Goodyear, A. C.1974 The Brand Site: A Techno-func-tional Study of a Dalton Site in Northeast Arkansas. Arkansas Archaeological Survey, Research Series No. 7.

Gramly, R. M.1982 The Vail Site: A Palaeo-Indian Encampment in Maine. Bulletin of the Buffalo Society of Natural Sciences 30.

1999 The Lamb Site: A Pioneering Clovis Encampment. Persimmon Press Monographs in Archaeology, Buffalo, New York.

Gramly, R. M., and K. Rutledge1981 A New Palaeo-Indian Site in the State of Maine. American Antiquity 46: 354–360.

Grimes, J. R. 1979 A New Look at Bull Brook. Anthropology 3: 109–130.

Guthrie, R. D.1983 Osseous Projectile Points: Bio-logical Considerations Affecting Raw Material Selection and Design Among Paleolithic and Paleoindian Peoples. In Animals and Archaeology I: Hunters and Their Prey, edited by J. Clutton-Brock and C. Grigson, pp. 273–294. British Archaeological Reports Interna-tional Series 163.

Haury, E. W., E. Antevs, and J. Lance1953 Artifacts with Mammoth

Remains, Naco, Arizona. American Antiquity 19: 1–24.

Haynes, C. V., D. J. Donahue, A. Zull, and T. Zabel

1984 Application of Accelerator Dat-ing of Fluted Point Sites. Archaeology of Eastern North America 12: 184–191.

Haynes, G.2002 The Early Settlement of North America: The Clovis Era. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Huckell, B. B.1982 The Denver Elephant Project: A Report on Experimentation with Thrusting Spears. Plains Anthropologist 27: 217–224.

Judge W. J.1973 Paleo-Indian Occupation of the Central Rio Grande Valley in New Mexico. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Karrow, P. F., T. W. Anderson, A. H. Clarke, L. D. Delorme, and M. R. Sreenivasa

1975 Stratigraphy, Paleontology and Age of Lake Algonquin Sediments in Southwestern Ontario. Quaternary Research 5: 49–87.

Keenlyside, D. 1985 Late Palaeo-Indian Evidence from the Southern Gulf of St. Law-rence. Archaeology of Eastern North America 13: 79–92.

1991 Paleoindian Occupations of the Maritimes Region of Canada. In Clovis Origins and Adaptations, edited by R. Bonnichesen and K. Turnmire, pp. 163–173. Center for the Study of the First Americans, Orono, Maine.

Laub, R. S.2003 The Hiscock Site: Structure, Stratigraphy and Chronology. In The Hiscock Site: Late Pleistocene and Holo-



cene Paleoecology and Archaeology of West-ern New York State, edited by R. Laub, pp. 18–38. Bulletin of the Buffalo Society of Natural Sciences 37.

Levesque, A. J., F. E. Mayle, I. R. Walker, and L. C. Cwynar

1993 A Previously Unrecognized Late-Glacial Cold Event in Eastern North America. Nature 361: 623–626.

Levine, M. A.1990 Accommodating Age: Radiocar-bon Results and Fluted Point Sites in Northeastern North America. Archaeol-ogy of Eastern North America 18: 33–63.

MacDonald, G. F. 1966 The Technology and Settlement Pattern of a Paleo-Indian Site at Debert, Nova Scotia. Quaternaria 8: 59–74.

1968 Debert: A Palaeo-Indian Site in Central Nova Scotia. National Museum of Man, Anthropology Papers No. 16.

1982 Foreword. In The Vail Site: A Palaeo-Indian Encampment in Maine, by R. M. Gramly, pp. x–xi. Bulletin of the Buffalo Society of Natural Sciences 30.

1983 Eastern North America. In Early Man in the New World, edited by R. Shutler, Jr., pp. 97–108. Sage Publi-cations, Beverly Hills, California.

McAndrews, J. A.2003 Postglacial Ecology of the Hiscock Site. In The Hiscock Site: Late Pleistocene and Holocene Paleoecology and Archaeology of Western New York State, edited by R. Laub, pp. 190–198. Bulletin of the Buffalo Society of Natural Sciences 37.

McGhee, R., and J. A. Tuck1975 An Archaic Sequence form the Straight of Belle Isle, Labrador. Archaeo-logical Survey of Canada Mercury Series 34. National Museum of Man, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Meltzer, D. J.1984 Late Pleistocene Human Adapta-tions in Eastern North America. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthro-pology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. University Micro-films, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Moeller, R.1980 6LF21: A Paleo-Indian Site in Western Connecticut. American Indian Archaeological Institute, Washington, Connecticut.

Morgan, A. V., J. H. McAndrews, and C. J. Ellis

2000 Geological History and Paleoen-vironment. In An Early Paleo-Indian Site near Parkhill, Ontario, by C. J. Ellis and D. B. Deller, pp. 9–30. Canadian Museum of Civilization, Archaeologi-cal Survey of Canada, Mercury Series 159. Ottawa.

Morris, L. L., M. F. Seeman, G. L. Summer, E. Dowd, C. Szafranski, P. J. Barans, and N. E. Nilsson

1999 Fluted Points and Bifaces from the Nobles Pond Site: 33ST357. Ohio Archaeologist 49(2): 4–12.

Morrow, J. E. 1995 Clovis Projectile Point Manufac-ture: A Perspective from the Ready/Lincoln Hills Site, 11JY46, Jersey County, Illinois. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 20: 167–191.

1996 The Organization of Early Paleoin-dian Lithic Technology in the Confluence Region of the Mississippi, Illinois and Missouri Rivers. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Wash-ington University, St. Louis, Missouri. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.

Morrow, J. E., and T. A. Morrow2002a Exploring the Clovis-Gainey-Folsom Continuum: Technological


252 • ELLIS

and Morphological Variation in Midwestern Fluted Points. In Folsom Technology and Lifeways, edited by J. E. Clark and M. B. Collins, pp. 141–157. Lithic Technology, Special Publication No. 4.

2002b Rummells-Maske Revisited: A Fluted Point Cache from East Central Iowa. Plains Anthropologist 47: 307–321.

Mott, R. J., D. R. Grant, R. Stea, and S. Occhietti

1986 Late Glacial Climatic Oscillation in Atlantic Canada Equivalent to the Allerod/Younger Dryas Event. Nature 323: 247–250.

Pope, S. T.1974 Bows and Arrows. University of California Press. Berkeley.

Renouf, M. A. P.1977 Late Paleo-Indian and Early Archaic Sequence in Southern Labra-dor. Man in the Northeast 13: 35–44.

Roosa, W. B.1962 Comment on “The Paleoindian Tradition in Eastern North America” by R. J Mason. Current Anthropology 3: 263–265.

1963 Some Michigan Fluted Point Types and Sites. Michigan Archaeologist 9(3): 44–47.

1965 Some Great Lakes Fluted Point Types. Michigan Archaeologist 11(3–4): 89–102.

1968 Data on Early Sites in Central New Mexico and Michigan. Ph.D. Disserta-tion, Department of Anthropology, University of Michigan. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.

Roosa, W. B., and C. J. Ellis2000 Fluted Points and Other Bifa-cial Tools. In An Early Paleo-Indian Site near Parkhill, Ontario by C. J. Ellis and D. B. Deller, pp. 67–96. Canadian

Museum of Civilization, Archaeological Survey of Canada, Mercury Series 159.

Shott, M. B.2003 Chaîne Opératoire and Reduction Sequence. Lithic Technology 28: 95–105.

Shott, M. B., and P. Sillitoe2004 Modeling Use-Life Distributions in Archaeology Using New Guinea Wola Ethnographic Data. American Antiquity 69: 339–355.

Simons, D. L. 1997 The Gainey and Butler Sites as Focal Points for Caribou and People. In Caribou and Reindeer Hunt-ers of the Northern Hemisphere, edited by L. J. Jackson and P. T. Thacker, pp. 105–131. Avebury Press, Glasgow, Scotland.

Simons, D. L., M. J. Shott, and H. T. Wright

1984 The Gainey Site: Variability in a Great Lakes Paleo-Indian Assemblage. Archaeology of Eastern North America 12: 266–279.

Spiess, A. E.1984 Arctic Garbage and New Eng-land Paleo-Indians: The Single Occu-pation Option. Archaeology of Eastern North America 12: 280–285.

Spiess, A. E., D. Wilson, and J. Bradley 1998 Paleoindian Occupation in the New England-Maritimes Region: Beyond Cultural Ecology. Archaeology of Eastern North America 26: 201–264.

Stea, R. R., and R. J. Mott1998 Deglaciation of Nova Scotia: Stratigraphy and Chronology of Lake Sediment Cores and Buried Organic Sediments. Géographie Physique et Quar-ternaire 52: 1–19.

Storck, P. L.1991 Imperialists Without a State: The Cultural Dynamics of Early Paleo-



indian Colonization as Seen from the Great Lakes Region, In Clovis Origins and Adaptations, edited by R. Bonnich-sen and K. L Turnmire, pp. 153–162. Centre for the Study of the First Americans, Peopling of the Americas Publications, Corvallis, Oregon.

Storck, P. L., and A. E. Spiess 1994 The Significance of New Faunal Identifications Attributed to an Early Paleoindian (Gainey Complex) Occupation at the Udora Site, Ontario. American Antiquity 59: 121–142.

Turnbull, C. J.1974 The Second Fluted Point from New Brunswick. Man in the Northeast 7: 109–110.

Webb, T.1981 The Past 11,000 Years of Veg-etational Change in Eastern North America. Bioscience 31: 501–507.

Webb, T., and P. J. Bartlein1988 Late Quaternary Climatic Change in Eastern North America: The Role of Modelling Experiments and Empirical Studies. In Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene Paleoecology and Archaeology of the Eastern Great Lakes Region, edited by R. Laub, N. Miller, and D. Steadman, pp. 3–13. Bulletin of the Buffalo Society of Natural Sciences 33.

Wilmsen, E., and F. H. H. Roberts, Jr.1984 Lindenmeier, 1934–1974. Conclud-ing Report on Investigations. Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology No. 24.

Witthoft, J. H. 1952 A Paleo-Indian Site in Eastern Pennsylvania: An Early Hunting Cul-ture. Proceedings of the American Philo-sophical Society 96: 464–495.

Wormington, H. M.1957 Ancient Man in North America. Denver Museum of Natural History, Popular Series No. 4.

Wright, H. T.1981 Technology and Economy: Recent Research on Early Hunters of the Central Great Lakes. Paper presented at the 46th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, San Diego.

2003 Discussion. Frozen Plain: Study-ing Hiscock. In The Hiscock Site: Late Pleistocene and Holocene Paleoecology and Archaeology of Western New York State, edited by R. Laub, pp. 306–308. Bul-letin of the Buffalo Society of Natural Sciences 37.

Young, D. E., and R. Bonnichsen1984 Understanding Stone Tools: A Cog-nitive Approach. Centre for the Study of Early Man, Orono, Maine.

Manuscript received May 26, 2004. Final revisions October 18, 2004.

understanding “clovis” fluted point variability in the...

Documents