Several conclusions can be drawn from this limited study. Prehistoric habitation occurred sporadically within the Jamestown Rediscovery project area for at least 6000 years. The intensity of occupation appears to have gradually increased over time, peaking during the Middle and Late Woodland periods (AD 500-1600). Although many of the triangular hafted bifaces probably were deposited on the site after 1607, not all of them were. The precise proportion that dates to the fort period will probably never be known. The numerous triangular points of locally available quartzite and quartz are the most difficult to associate with the fort period. They commonly occur on late-dating native sites across the region, and could well have been deposited prior to 1607.

The anomalous number of relatively undamaged points made of non-local materials is significant. The jasper and dark chert examples especially may be associated with the post-1607 fort. Mottled jasper of this kind is common only in pebbles in the outer Coastal Plain, closer to coastal areas such as the Eastern Shore and Virginia Beach. Dark chert typically comes from extensive formations in the Appalachians. In terms of post-Contact cultural associations, the jasper would be found in areas held by the Accomack, Chesapeake, and Nansemond groups, whereas the dark chert would be more typical in the territories of Siouan speaking groups well to the west. The less-fragmented condition of these points suggests that they were handled carefully and did not function in the fort area as projectiles. They were likely introduced into fort contexts for other purposes, perhaps as gifts or as trophies. Period accounts refer to the presentation of gift arrows to the English and also to the recovery of arrows from natives (Barbour 1986 I:231, II:106).

To resolve the aforementioned questions of hafted biface age and association, this analysis proposes four additional studies. First, establish the context of hafted bifaces relative to other Native American artifacts such as ceramics, debitage, etc. to define patterns of distribution within the excavation area. Second, determine the same associations with early colonial material. Third, analyze data from nearby comparable Protohistoric and Contact-Period sites regarding raw material type, form, and breakage patterns. And fourth, review early colonial records for incidents of native gift-giving and English trophy-taking.