Understanding “Clovis” Fluted Point Variability in the Northeast: A

Transcription

Understanding “Clovis” Fluted Point
Variability in the Northeast: A Perspective
from the Debert Site, Nova Scotia
Christopher Ellis†
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 « apparentés à Clovis » du Midwest et du Nord-Est
américain. Nous mettons l’accent sur la comparaison 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 caractéristiques. 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 collection 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 explications possibles pour ce phénomène.
I
n 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 Mississippi drainage to New England. I compare the Debert points with generally
large (i.e., basal widths > 20 mm), partially 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 examined here to other types such as Enterline, 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)
Articles
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 comparison of continuous variables that previous
research has suggested may be useful in distinguishing 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 explanations for this emphasis are suggested.
206 • ELLIS
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. RummellsMaske is off the map to the west.
(e.g., Curran 1999: 10; Deller and Ellis
1988; Keenlyside 1991: 164; Spiess et al.
1998: 235). In this study, I pay particular 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 differences are provided and discussed.
Underlying the analyses are two
explicit approaches. First, while I have personally 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,
Canadian Journal of Archaeology 28 (2004)
my detailed sample/assemblage comparisons 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 recognized the significance of such factors as
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 Paleolithic (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 western 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 particular types of assemblages—those from
fluted biface caches and those from kill
sites—that provide a significant base-line
and resource for modelling and understanding 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 discuss 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 similar to those at other sites. Data on some
discrete attributes are included where
these have a bearing on the interpretations of the variables. Finally, I discuss the
potential reasons for such variation and
its implications for understanding the
Debert site assemblage.
BACKGROUND
The 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. Subject 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 reporting 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 strategies 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
Journal Canadien d’Archéologie 28 (2004)
208 • ELLIS
of the Debert fluted points was emphasized 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, including 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 adjacent Maine in the late 1970s (Gramly
1982; Gramly and Rutledge 1981) led to
a rethinking of Debert. The Vail projectile 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 contemporaneity 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 similarities between Vail and Debert, especially 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.” Ignoring 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 consistent 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 occupants 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, especially in terms of points, they suggested an
age estimate of 11,000 BP or more years
(Bonnichsen et al. 1991: 25). Paleoenvironmental data were used to argue that
a warming trend at that time provided a
climatic interval most conducive to peopling 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 Keenlyside 1991: 184; Spiess et al. 1998: 236).
While Curran (1996: 6) also notes that
“stylistic similarities would strongly suggest 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 “marshalling sites” for the first colonizers of particular regions. This perspective suggests
that more northern sites, such as Debert,
date later than Vail. This expectation is
logical, given the position of the retreating ice sheets at the time and a presumed
southerly to southwesterly origin for
these populations. Curran (1999: 13)
notes that the Debert site points, specifically 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.
TERMINOLOGY
In 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 designated task(s) (e.g., the post-manufacturing life history). I use the general term
reshaping to describe modifications that
may occur in an artifact’s form over its uselife, from its pristine state at manufacture
through to eventual discard or loss. Three
kinds of reshaping modification are recognized: 1) resharpening; 2) reworking;
and 3) recycling. The differences between
these are significant. In resharpening, the
use edges of the tool are simply rejuvenated 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 SAMPLES
In 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 display. 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 complete one reported by MacDonald (1968),
meaning that the frequency of certain
discrete traits and the range and means of
continuous variables are virtually identical between them.
Table 1. Characteristics of Debert site points.*
Cat. No. Condition Face-angle
*
Length
Width
Thickness
2576
Basal Half
3704
Basal Half
3226
Complete
92
27.2
9
E/1
Base
90
27.7
7.3
E/2
Base
84
30.6
6115
Base
554
Base
89
2397
Base
87.5
641
Base
86.5
120
Base
91.5
1183
Base
93.75
3893
Base
91
25.6
6.4
1516
Base
85
30.7
7.3
4080
Complete
90.5
27
8.5
1419
Complete
85
1302+
Base
91
1883
Complete
3172
Complete
1178
Complete
2737
Base
Basal Width
86
Concavity
Depth
est. 12+
est. 19+
55.5
22.2
24
7.4
30.6
8
7.2
10.1
33.3
32.8
40
10
33.3
13.7
35.5
14.8
32.8
13.9
29.9
11.8
24.9
10
30.7
13.4
8.8
32.2
11
73
26
7
90.5
44
26
6.5
91.75
109.4
35.4
10.3
12.2
10
7
33.3
12.3
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., RummellsMaske, Iowa; Bull Brook, Massachusetts;
Ontario Gainey isolated finds), as well as
Debert/Vail and, more generally, Clovis.
In addition to normal, exhausted, discarded assemblages from domestic contexts, two samples—Rummells-Maske in
Iowa (Morrow and Morrow 2002b) and
Lamb in New York (Gramly 1999)—consist 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?
Yes
Barnes Basal
Finishing?
Yes, One Face
Yes
24.9
1–1
25; 16.3
10.2; 9.1
1–1
16.4; 19.0
14.2; 16.4
2–0
14.7; 11.9
11.2
0–0
9.2; 7.9
0
No
Yes, Both Faces
Yes, One Face
Yes
Yes, One Face
Yes, Both Faces
Yes, One Face
No
Yes, One Face
Yes
1–1
33.1; 29.8
12.2; 13.0
25.1; 23.1
2–1
16.2
9.9; 18.1
39.7; 31.0
1–0
32.2; 12.6
15.7
9.0
Slight
Yes, Both Faces
Yes
Yes, Both Faces
No
Yes, One Face
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
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
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. Therefore, 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 unreshaped, more pristine points, the kill site
points include previously used and rejuvenated 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 (domestic/occupation) or pristine/input
(cache) assemblage, and thus exhibit a
comparatively high degree of variability.
Again, this assemblage provides a control 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 characteristics, 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.
VARIABLES
For this study, data were collected primarily 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.
Basal variables are especially useful as
temporal-spatial measures because they
are less prone to be modified by reshaping. 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 hafting 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). Faceangle is measured in degrees and is the
angle between the lateral edge and a line
drawn at right angles to the point’s central longitudinal axis ignoring, if present,
flaring of the ears or fish-tails (Figure 2a).
This measurement is taken at both corners and averaged per point. If only one
corner is preserved, that single measurement 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
Hiscock, New York
Range
Mean
Std. dev.
C.V.
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
19
85–94
91.17
2.366
2.6
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
16
77–93.75
88.25
4.236
4.80
Debert, Nova Scotia
*
N
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-
Figure 4. Fluted points from the Debert
site. Reproduced from MacDonald (1968:
Plate V). Used with permission of the
Canadian Museum of Civilization.
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 statistically 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 assemblages. 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 correlation with shorter points being more
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 important. 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 faceangle. This result seems to be a classic
example, well-known in regression studies (see Blalock 1972: 281, Fig. 17.10),
where a lack of the full range of variation is masking relationships in the all
the individual assemblages other than
the most representative combined Vail
kill/camp assemblage.
There are other possible explanations 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 synchronous 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 rebasing 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
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 resharpened, resulting in abrupt break in outline
on resulting short point on c.
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 parallelsided bound base and narrower foresection (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 faceangle. 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, otherwise 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-triangular variants are considered below.
Length
Point damage through use can range
from simple ear breakage to snapping
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 evident 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 pristine 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.
2
43–44.5
43.75
1.061
–
17
33–59
44.00
7.579
17.23
9
33.6–94.5
59.42
17.703
29.79
12
68–119.8
94.28
15.774
16.73
26
46.6–108.5
60.68
14.359
23.66
19
46.6–80.6
57.47
9.898
17.22
7
47.3–108.5
69.37
21.083
30.39
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
24.9
39.52
Hiscock, New York
Shoop, Pennsylvania
*
63
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 Length
I was able to measure flute length on several examples. For comparative purposes
I based measurements only on the longest flute or thinning flake on a face and
did not include examples of “pseudoflutes” 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 differences 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. Moreover, 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, compared 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 percentage 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.*
Site
N
Range
Mean
Std. dev.
C.V.
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
24
0.0–47.5
25.90
10.483
40.48
34
10.7–54.3
30.56
9.686
31.70
46
0.0–50.0
23.93
10.235
42.77
34
0.0–41.8
22.83
9.524
41.71
12
10.6–50.0
27.03
11.924
44.11
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 stepterminated 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 assemblages as Shoop and Vail, and Debert, the
lack of flutes may be a matter of definition. At Vail, however, one might assume
that any “flute” under the 16.6 mm maximum length of such oval basal thinning
flake removals at Debert may actually be
unfluted. In fact, examination of photographs 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 thinning. 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 Fisher’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 Width
In 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 significantly at the .05 level for almost every
sample examined here where sample
sizes are sufficient to examine this relationship. 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 separately, 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
Table 6. Maximum width.
Site
Hiscock, New York
N
Range
Mean
Std. dev.
C.V.
5
22.5–27.4
24.96
2.288
9.17
Shoop, Pennsylvania
28
18–32
24.23
3.584
14.79
13
23.2–30
26
1.859
7.15
21
25.7–35.9
32.42
2.803
8.65
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
Debert, Nova Scotia
(this study and Keenlyside 1985: Table 2)
8
30–36
33.25
2.252
6.77
13
22.2–35.4
28.98
3.811
13.15
13–36.0
27.4
5.8
21.17
Debert, Nova Scotia
?
Table 7. Correlations of length and width.
Site
N
df
r
p
Shoop, Pennsylvania
16
14
0.584
0.018
9
7
0.695
0.038
12
10
0.918
0.000
Vail, Maine
26
24
0.537
0.005
19
17
0.333
0.164
7
5
0.719
0.069
Lamb, New York
5
3
0.878
0.050
Debert, Nova Scotia
5
3
0.851
0.062
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 correlation 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-correlation (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 Debert 1 )
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
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 subtriangular 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 maximum 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 campsite 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 Width
By 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 perhaps width. If so, the differences between
certain assemblages are due to more fundamental reasons than simply reshaping.
As shown on Table 8, some assemblages
actually vary little in basal width as measured 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.
Site
Range
Mean
Std. dev.
C.V.
2
–
22.45
0.495
–
Shoop, Pennsylvania
23
18–28
23.17
2.601
11.23
14
22–28
25.25
1.811
7.17
32
17–32
25.88
3.16
12.21
19
23–30.9
26.53
1.918
7.23
Vail, Maine
35
23.8–34.1
28.60
2.679
9.36
29
23.8–34.1
28.40
2.883
10.15
6
28.8–30.5
29.57
0.948
3.21
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
Hiscock, New York
N
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 stylistic 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 maximum 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, Rummells-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 relationships. Shoop also has a significant correlation 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 considered 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).
Thickness
Although there are no significant differences between the assemblages
(Figure 3f), the Debert points are
thickest on average whether one uses
MacDonald’s (1968) data or those I collected (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 thickness of Debert could be due to several
Table 9. Correlations of length and basal width.
Site
N
df
r
p
Shoop, Pennsylvania
14
12
0.571
0.033
9
7
0.466
0.206
12
10
0.606
0.037
Vail, Maine
19
17
0.077
0.755
14
12
0.079
0.787
5
3
0.885
0.046
Lamb, New York
5
3
0.982
0.018
Table 10. Maximum thickness.*
Site
N
Range
Mean
Std. dev.
C.V.
5
6.8–7.5
6.96
0.305
4.38
Shoop, Pennsylvania
26
6–9.5
7.38
1.009
13.67
13
6–8.5
7.01
0.832
11.87
21
5.9–8.2
7.04
0.721
10.24
Vail, Maine
27
5.4–9.2
7.31
1.118
15.29
19
5.4–9.2
7.18
1.110
15.46
8
6–9
7.60
1.154
15.18
11
6.4–11.0
8.23
1.625
19.75
4–11
8.1
1.9
23.46
Hiscock, New York
Debert, Nova Scotia
(this study & Keenlyside 1985: Table 2)
Debert, Nova Scotia
*
?
The Lamb site omitted because no thickness data provided by Gramly (1999).
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 variation 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 variation with Vail are not statistically significant (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 relationships 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 relationship 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 11. Correlations of length and thickness.
Site
N
df
r
p
Shoop, Pennsylvania
17
15
0.466
0.059
9
7
0.616
0.077
12
10
0.757
0.004
Vail, Maine
26
24
0.633
0.001
19
17
0.545
0.016
7
5
0.915
0.004
Debert, Nova Scotia
5
3
0.601
0.283
226 • ELLIS
Vail kill site assemblage differs in that it
has more of a cross-section of items ranging 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 relationship between length and thickness
in simple tip resharpening/repointing,
I suspect it would only occur in assemblages having more pristine points. Maximum thickness would tend to occur at
mid-point or beyond, especially beyond
the thinned fluted surfaces on these partially 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 section. 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 suggested above, or even just lacked flutes
initially, we might expect the points to be
somewhat thicker on average.
Basal Concavity Depth
Most investigators, including me, measure 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 parallels the longitudinal axis of the point; if
they are not, the result is a bias to shallower 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 emphasize 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 reworking 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 concavities 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 calculate 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 grinding. 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 statistically 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–
Table 12. Basal concavity depth.
Site
N
Range
Mean
Hiscock, New York
Std. dev.
C.V.
4
2.7–4.6
3.75
0.81
21.6
Shoop, Pennsylvania
26
2.0–6.0
4.10
1.03
25.12
14
2.5–8
5.30
1.464
27.62
32
3.0–10
5.53
1.481
26.78
20
5.3–9.5
7.30
1.32
18.08
Vail, Maine
42
5.5–12.6
9.06
1.795
19.81
34
5.5–12.5
9.04
1.830
20.24
8
6.5–12.6
9.14
1.755
19.20
8
9.0–11.0
10.13
0.641
6.32
15
7.0–14.8
11.01
2.475
22.48
Lamb, New York
Debert, Nova Scotia (this study)
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
–
–
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 oversimplification. The Vail total site assemblage 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 contrast 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 significantly beyond the area bound in the
haft, impeding the usefulness of the tool
(Figure 8a and 8b). In sum, maintaining overall length/fore-section beyond
the concavity becomes more important
during reworking than maintaining
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 symmetrical; if the original basal concavity is
not deepened to maintain fore-section
length, the result would be shallower
concavities.
If one assumes maximizing foresection length is more important than
maintaining a very deep basal concavity,
the apparent desire for deeper concavities 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-
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.
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 maintaining the deepest basal concavities is
not as critical. Indeed, what seems to
stand out about Debert is the relatively
high frequency of points 3 with asymmetrical 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 variables for the various samples examined
largely meets this expectation. There
are no significant relationships between
these two variables with two exceptions: the Gainey Isolates and Debert
(Table 13). The Gainey sample, how-
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 interesting 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 expanding 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 concavity 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 variable 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
Shoop, Pennsylvania
15
13
0.312
0.258
9
7
−0.753
0.019
12
10
0.517
0.085
Vail, Maine
26
24
0.131
0.524
19
17
−0.013
0.957
7
5
−0.503
0.250
Lamb, New York
5
3
0.850
0.068
Debert, Nova Scotia
4
2
0.982
0.018
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 duration 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 foresections are reduced in reshaping the
position of maximum width would get
closer to the base. If reduced far enough,
fore-section width would become equivalent 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.*
Debert/
Vail Camp
Debert/
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)
Variable
*
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 parameters, 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 assemblage is as variable is thus surprising.
With the notable exception of basal
concavity depth, Debert differs significantly in the same way from the other
occupation sites as it does from Lamb
(Table 14). The most significant contrasts 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 heavily affected by rejuvenation. Such basal
characteristics as width and face-angle
actually vary the least in other assemblages (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 characteristics 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 subtriangular 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 functional and, in turn, morphological variation 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
Table 15. Rank ordering of assemblages by degree of variability.*
Characteristic
Most Variable
Least Variable
Face-Angle
1) Debert
2) Vail Kill site
1) Rummels-Maske
2) Lamb
Length
1) Debert
2) Vail Kill/Gainey Isolates
1) Lamb
2) Rummels-Maske
Flute Length
1) Debert
2) Vail Kill/Gainey Isolates
1) Hiscock
2) Lamb
Width
1) Shoop
2) Debert
1) Lamb
2) Vail Kill site
Basal Width
1) Debert
2) Bull Brook
1) Vail Kill site
2) Lamb
Thickness
1) Debert
2) Vail Camp site
1) Hiscock
2) Rummels-Maske
Basal Concavity Depth
1) Gainey Isolates
2) Bull Brook
1) Lamb
2) Rummels-Maske
*
Variability measured by coefficient of variation.
of an assemblage. I discuss all four possibilities 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 contexts 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 variation 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
example, we might expect more variation as points are rejuvenated and discarded 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 triangular, 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 represented by larger, more expanding forms,
and a later one represented by the subtriangular 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 nothing 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 suggestive 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) himself believed that the variation seen at
Debert was largely contemporaneous
and due to something other than temporal change. He was certainly aware
of the variability between the sub-triangular 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 complete 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 contemporaneous 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-occurrence 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 functional causes of variation. For example,
one might argue that the size of points
relates to the size of the game. Differences 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 actually 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, ethnographic data relates variation in points
to different kinds of weapons or hunting
methods (e.g., spear, dart, arrow, harpoon, 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) suggests 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 suggestion 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 general 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 binding that projected beyond the lateral
margins of the tool. Extensive ethnographic 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 especially 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 examined here, they would not be as efficient
as any of the other forms in this regard.
One might thus argue that the sub-triangular forms represent a functional variant—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 explanation 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 thrusting spears and the animals repeatedly
stabbed both by an individual or in communal hunting with multiple hunters
(see Ellis and Deller 1997: 18–20). This
could explain why sub-triangular points
occur amongst the Vail kill site assemblage (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 Variation
Raw material differences might be
another alternative 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 brecciated chalcedony, which prohibited fluting 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 fluting 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 concavities 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-triangular points in the Debert assemblage,
which are represented solely by bases,
these are on other raw materials including even the brecciated chalcedony upon
which the largest points in the assemblage 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-triangular forms is because those materials
had been in the tool production and use
system longer and were more reshaped.
Reshaping
I think that much of the variation in the
Debert points is primarily due to reshaping, 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 lacking flutes completely; and decreasing
face-angles (and derivatively, more of the
sub-triangular forms). Increased reworking/recycling would also be reflected by
greater face-angle variability, increasing
frequencies of ear asymmetry, a correlation 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 applicability and fall short of understanding the
overall pattern of variation.
Rather than rely on this explanation 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 subtriangular or not, seem to have coarser,
unpatterned flaking and the other characteristics 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 suspects 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., Figure 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 examples that have what I call a “peg-like”
ear. This feature seems to be explainable 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 reworking. 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 reworking 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 determine 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 drawbacks as weapon tips (e.g., the binding
projects from the lateral edges inhibiting 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 contrast to other sites, raw material was in
shorter supply than at other sites. However, 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 material quality may be an issue. Based on my
examination of various assemblages, the
chalcedonies used at Debert seem relatively flawed vs. the more homogenous
materials used elsewhere. Such flaws
would increase the likelihood of breakage 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 materials 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. Situations where one could get “caught short”
would increase. In such situations, recycling 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 binding would impede penetration of weapons 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 evidence 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 RELATIONSHIPS
What 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 characteristics least affected by resharpening,
namely basal width and basal concavity depth, the detailed comparisons
reported here confirm this two-fold
distinction: Hiscock, Shoop, the Gainey
Isolates, Bull Brook and RummellsMaske 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). However, 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 Rummells-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 assemblages 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 temporal 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). However, dates on assemblages with comparable points such as Hiscock, New York,
Whipple, New Hampshire, and Shawnee
Minisink, Pennsylvania, have not been
of much help in evaluating this suggestion 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 contexts at Shawnee Minisink. These dates,
on charred hawthorne plum seeds recovered 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 suggest that Hiscock is early. I agree with
this earlier estimate because plotting of
pollen isopolls across the Northeast suggest 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 homogeneous 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 interpreted 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 suggest 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 samples 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 earliest 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 represent single or a minimal number of occupations. 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 estimated 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 immediately adjacent Maine, there is little variability 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 trianguloid 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 suggesting an extremely minimal occupation
history such as found at Bull Brook and
Vail (Ellis and Deller 2000: 243–247).
Neither does Debert have artifact crossmends between the various domestic occupation loci, something that can also be
used to argue for exact contemporaneity. 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 millennium 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 episode at Debert. However, as discussed
by Fiedel (1999: 101), there are indications 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 radiocarbon 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 populations 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 fluctuations in atmospheric carbon in the late
Pleistocene, the dates from sites like
Debert and Vail may be even more consistent than previously realized, regardless 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 examine 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 suggested 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 beginning later than Bonnichsen and Will
(1999) envisioned. It is also significant
that recent evidence from high-resolution 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 pre11,200 BP spruce or poplar woodland
to a shrub tundra at that time, accompanied 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.
SYNTHESIS
Based on data and discussion presented
above, it is possible to examine some
broader implications for our knowledge
of the Maritimes Paleoindian occupation. 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 shallow concavity) reported from Kingsclear,
New Brunswick (Turnbull 1974). The
recovery of only one point suggests that
this occupation may not have been a substantial 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 rapidly 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 unpredictability of resource locales and also have
244 • ELLIS
had sweeping effects on environmental
productivity. In short, if Debert was occupied during the time the Younger Dryas
event began, it could explain why Debert
has more evidence of tool reshaping. As
discussed earlier, increased unpredictability 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 evidence 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 difficulties 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 implication is that the ground changes in the
Maritimes would have been much more
pronounced than in immediately adjacent 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 reworking 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 parallel-sided forms and lack the apparently
later smaller, thinner, fish-tailed fluted
points and other later Paleoindian lanceolate 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
14
C record of the late Pleistocene simplistically 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 14 C date fluctuations and environments 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 CONCLUSIONS
By 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 generally, 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 assemblages 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 different in terms of such characteristics as
basal concavity depth, and it may be inaccurate 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 reshaping 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 characteristics 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 relationships (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. However, none of these individuals is responsible
if I have misused their aid or ideas.
NOTES
1. This is 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 approximate the initial Debert form prior
to reworking (MacDonald 1968:
Fig. 24a).
2. Parenthetically, the deep basal concavities 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 reporting 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 (compare Figure 8a and 8b).
3. For consistency, this frequency was
calculated using copies of point photographs 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 concavity 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) illustrates 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 concavities, 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 subtriangular form provides definitive
evidence for the attempted reuse of
short snapped tips.
7. The exceptions are the variables difficult 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 outliers in what are more typical Debertlike assemblages. Until an actual site
with occupational features is found,
this initial penetration must be seen
as a very tentative scenario.
REFERENCES CITED
Ahler S. A., and P. Geib
2000 Why Flute? Folsom Point Design
and Adaptation. Journal of Archaeological 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 Technologies, edited by P. Carr, pp. 9–34. International Monographs in Prehistory,
Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Bement, L.
2002 Picking Up the Pieces: Folsom
Projectile Point Re-Sharpening Technology. 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. Council of Maritime Premiers, Fredericton,
New Brunswick.
Bonnichsen R., and R. T. Will
1999 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 Paleoindian 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 Paleoindian 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. Levesque
1994 Chiromoid Evidence for LateGlacial Climatic Reversals in Maine.
Quaternary Research 43: 405–413.
Davis S. A.
1991 Two Concentrations of PalaeoIndian Occupation in the Far Northeast. 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 Paleoecology 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 Southwestern 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 Northeast. 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
Dincauze, D. F., and V. Jacobsen
2001 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. Bettinger
2001 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 PaleoIndians: A View from Southern Ontario. 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 PleistoceneHolocene 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 Paleoecology and Archaeology of Western New
York State, edited by R. Laub, pp. 221–
237. Bulletin of the Buffalo Society of
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
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. Todd
1986 The Colby Mammoth Site: Taphonomy 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.
Remains, Naco, Arizona. American
Haynes, C. V., D. J. Donahue, A. Zull,
and T. Zabel
1984 Application of Accelerator Dating 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.
Goodyear, A. C.
1974 The Brand Site: A Techno-functional Study of a Dalton Site in Northeast
Arkansas. Arkansas Archaeological
Survey, Research Series No. 7.
Huckell, B. B.
1982 The Denver Elephant Project:
A Report on Experimentation with
Thrusting Spears. Plains Anthropologist
27: 217–224.
Gramly, R. M.
1982 The Vail Site: A Palaeo-Indian
Encampment in Maine. Bulletin of the
Buffalo Society of Natural Sciences 30.
Judge W. J.
1973 Paleo-Indian Occupation of the
Central Rio Grande Valley in New Mexico.
University of New Mexico Press,
Albuquerque.
1999 The Lamb Site: A Pioneering
Clovis Encampment. Persimmon Press
Monographs in Archaeology, Buffalo,
New York.
Gramly, R. M., and K. Rutledge
1981 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: Biological Considerations Affecting Raw
Material Selection and Design Among
Paleolithic and Paleoindian Peoples.
In Animals and Archaeology I: Hunters
and Their Prey, edited by J. CluttonBrock and C. Grigson, pp. 273–294.
British Archaeological Reports International Series 163.
Haury, E. W., E. Antevs, and J. Lance
1953 Artifacts with Mammoth
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. Lawrence. 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 Western 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: Radiocarbon Results and Fluted Point Sites in
Northeastern North America. Archaeology 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 Publications, 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
McGhee, R., and J. A. Tuck
1975 An Archaic Sequence form the
Straight of Belle Isle, Labrador. Archaeological Survey of Canada Mercury Series
34. National Museum of Man, Ottawa,
Ontario, Canada.
Meltzer, D. J.
1984 Late Pleistocene Human Adaptations in Eastern North America. Ph.D.
Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Washington,
Seattle, Washington. University Microfilms, 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 Paleoenvironment. In An Early Paleo-Indian
Site near Parkhill, Ontario, by C. J. Ellis
and D. B. Deller, pp. 9–30. Canadian
Museum of Civilization, Archaeological 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 Manufacture: A Perspective from the Ready/
Lincoln Hills Site, 11JY46, Jersey
County, Illinois. Midcontinental Journal
of Archaeology 20: 167–191.
1996 The Organization of Early Paleoindian Lithic Technology in the Confluence
Region of the Mississippi, Illinois and
Missouri Rivers. Ph.D. Dissertation,
Department of Anthropology, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri.
University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.
Morrow, J. E., and T. A. Morrow
2002a Exploring the Clovis-GaineyFolsom 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 Labrador. 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. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology,
University of Michigan. University
Microfilms, Ann Arbor.
Roosa, W. B., and C. J. Ellis
2000 Fluted Points and Other Bifacial 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. Sillitoe
2004 Modeling Use-Life Distributions
in Archaeology Using New Guinea
Wola Ethnographic Data. American
Simons, D. L.
1997 The Gainey and Butler Sites
as Focal Points for Caribou and
People. In Caribou and Reindeer Hunters 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 England Paleo-Indians: The Single Occupation 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. Mott
1998 Deglaciation of Nova Scotia:
Stratigraphy and Chronology of Lake
Sediment Cores and Buried Organic
Sediments. Géographie Physique et Quarternaire 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. Bonnichsen 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 Vegetational Change in Eastern North
America. Bioscience 31: 501–507.
Webb, T., and P. J. Bartlein
1988 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. Concluding Report on Investigations. Smithsonian
Contributions to Anthropology No. 24.
Witthoft, J. H.
1952 A Paleo-Indian Site in Eastern
Pennsylvania: An Early Hunting Culture. Proceedings of the American Philosophical 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: Studying Hiscock. In The Hiscock Site: Late
Pleistocene and Holocene Paleoecology and
Archaeology of Western New York State,
edited by R. Laub, pp. 306–308. Bulletin of the Buffalo Society of Natural
Sciences 37.
Young, D. E., and R. Bonnichsen
1984 Understanding Stone Tools: A Cognitive 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 Northeast: A

Transcription

Similar documents

SOAR! Refresh 2015 Refresh 2015 Debert Hospitality Center

See Full Flyer - Vail Lacrosse Shootout

Vail, Colorado - Wyndham Vacation Rentals

Maps - Red Sky Ranch and Golf Club

Vail, Colorado, December 5, 2009

Best of 11-20.indd - Vail - Vail Gourmet Cookie Company

Local development company uses recent economic downturn to grow

Ski Trade-In Program for Junior Participants