There are two basic points of contention concerning the Cinmar biface. One is whether its association with the mastodon remains is meaningful, and the other relates to the statement by Stanford and Bradley that the biface is pre-Late Glacial Maximum (LGM) and could not be Late Prehistoric, stating that they rejected that possibility "through an extensive evaluation of collections from the eastern seaboard in which no similar bifaces were identified from any post-LGM context". A report in the January 2015 issue of "American Antiquity" reviewed the literature and concluded "that the dual claims that such point forms are both rare and do not date to post-LGM contexts cannot be sustained". The same report also examined the 13 artifacts claimed to be older than 22,000 BP, finding they were "indistinguishable from visually identical bipoints from Holocene contexts across the eastern seaboard", and concluding, "The widespread distribution of these points, their well-established chronological and culture-historical associations, and the reported association with marine/deep-sea exploitation leads us to conclude that there is no reason to consider bi-points from the Delmarva Peninsula, New England, the Continental Shelf—or indeed anywhere in eastern North America—as necessarily derived from Solutrean culture or as necessarily being 'older than Clovis' much less a distinct pre-Clovis 'cultural pattern'."