>>Wouldn't 8,000 year old stuff be lower down in the dig than the 3,000 year old stuff?
Out in the western US though, deposition is not always "older must be deeper". I've found a broken Folsom point sitting on the ground surface in New Mexico (close to 10,000 years old). I also worked (in the lab) on a site from North Dakota that had been used from Folsom times up till the the time of Christ, pretty much continuously (Knife River Flint quarries, http://www.centerfirstamericans.com/mt.php?a=140). That had a lot more than just one point though.
>>To find a lot of younger stuff then one 8,000 year old point with it gives new meaning to the term recycling.
That is a very good observation. There is a evidence of recycling at many sites (points reworked into new forms), or even procurement of older points because the item was considered sacred. Usually stratigraphy can help you sort such things out, but in a site where you overlapping occupations and little deposition, or periods of deposition and deflation/erosion which mixes layers, it is a difficult challenge.
I didn't think of that is guess "a good point is a beauty forever". Early man never ceases to amaze me.