CI[)l1:721 - Memorial University of Newfoundland DAI

85
occupation of Turner Farm. Alternatively, the later Moorehead Phase dates from
Goddard were contaminated and are erroneous.
An examination of another site in Blue Hill Bay does little to support either
01 the above hypotheses. The Nevin site (Byers 1979) has yielded a Moorehead
Phase-associated dale of 3010±80 B.P. The sample used for dating, however,
was bone which may not provide results comparable to those using wood
charcoal. Because of this factor I it is difficult to provide definite comment on this
problem. Further research in the Blue Hill Bay region may do more to clarify the
situation.
A second question emerges regarding the difference in assemblage
compositions between the late Archaic and Early Ceramic Periods. By 2500
B.P., the ground stone wood working tools and ground slate points and
bayonets have disappeared from tool assemblages (Sanger 1979: 111).
Further, Ceramic Period assemblages include an increasing number of formed
unifacial scrapers, a trail not frequently exhibited during the Archaic Period.
Given population continuity, what caused this alteration in assemblagecomposl­
tion?
Some speculation on this problem allows a possible explanation. This may
have occurred due to technological change within the societies involved. The
heavy ground stone tools, for example, may not have been required within the
cultural inventory. It has been suggested that dugout canoes may have been
used during the Archaic Period in the Maine-Maritimes region. These, however,
would have been difficult to portage in interior river systems (Sanger 191': 08)