Early Prehistoric Archaeology of the Middle Susitna Valley, Alaska Brian T. Wygal and Ted Goebel

Abstract. The early prehistory of the Susitna River region, near the place where three major rivers, the Susitna, Talkeetna, and the Chulitna, converge, provides important regional information about the movement of small-scale foraging societies in southcentral Alaska as well as specific data concerning lithic use. Since 2004, ongoing research at the Trapper Creek Overlook (TCO) and Susitna River Overlook (SRO) sites has revealed three primarily lithic artifact assemblages from stratigraphically sealed cultural occupations spanning the early to middle Holocene (ca. 10,000–5000 cal B.P.). Radiocarbon, tephrochronology, and optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) dating techniques provide context for interpreting these sites with a focus on geomorphic and stratigraphic contexts, geochronology, and lithic analyses. Results suggest an initial migration from the north and similarities between early and middle Holocene lithic industries in the period prior to the development of riverine salmon economies.

Introduction The early to middle Holocene prehistory of southcentral Alaska remains relatively unknown archeologically, particularly with respect to the area’s initial occupants. In 2004, two stratigraphically sealed sites were located on high esker overlooks near the community of Trapper Creek. These discoveries fill a gaping void in the archaeological record of the Susitna Valley. Strategically positioned, Trapper Creek is midway between late Pleistocene sites of the Nenana Valley in interior Alaska (Powers and Hoffecker 1989), from where much of the culture history is derived, and lesser known early to middle Holocene occupations from Cook Inlet (Reger 1981, 1996). This void continues to contribute to an interior-centric prehistory of Alaska.

If humans dispersed south from the interior to coastal regions during the terminal Pleistocene or early Holocene, as suggested by many researchers (Ackerman 1992; Bacon et al. 1983; Dumond 1998:190; Moss 1998; Reger 1981, 1998; Yesner 1998, 2001:316), then evidence of this should be found in the archaeological record of the Susitna Valley (Wygal 2009; Wygal and Goebel 2006). Testing this premise has been a primary objective of our research, which has focused on the following related queries: 1) When did humans first appear along the shores of the middle Susitna? 2) How did foraging societies use the diverse environments of southcentral Alaska—are there observable behavioral or technological differences between the early and middle Holocene periods?

Brian T. Wygal, Adelphi University, Anthropology Department 1 South Ave, Garden City, New York 11530 Ted Goebel, Center for the Study of the First Americans Department of Anthropology, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843

ARCTIC ANTHROPOLOGY, Vol. 49, No. 1, pp. 45–67, 2012 ISSN 0066-6939 © 2012 by the Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System

46

Arctic Anthropology 49:1

These questions have important implications for understanding the source and economic development of early societies in southern Alaska.

Background Early prehistoric archaeological sites (those predating 8000 cal B.P.) south of the Alaska Range are few in number and nearly all are found in the mountainous interior of southcentral Alaska with only two along the coastal regions of Cook Inlet and the adjacent Alaska Peninsula. Important alpine sites north of Trapper Creek include Phipps

(West, Robinson, and Curran 1996), Whitmore Ridge (West, Robinson, and West 1996), Sparks Point (West, Robinson, and Dixon 1996), Carlo Creek (Bowers and Reuther 2008), Jay Creek Ridge (Dixon 1993, 1999), and Bull River II (Wygal 2010). Further south in the maritime regions of southern Alaska, evidence for early occupations is limited to only two sites, Ugashik Narrows and Beluga Point. The Ugashik site is the most southerly of those classifiable under the broad umbrella of the Paleoarctic tradition of interior Alaska with microblades, large blades, and bifacial artifacts (Dumond 1975, 1998; Henn 1978; Reger 1981). Based on its geographic

Figure 1. Early period archaeology in southcentral and central Alaska (14,500– 8000 cal B.P.). Significant sites include: 1) Swan Point, Broken Mammoth, and Mead; 2) Nenana Valley sites including Dry Creek, Walker Road, and Moose Creek; 3) Bull River II and Carlo Creek; 4) Tangle Lakes District; 5) Jay Creek Ridge; 6) Trapper Creek and Susitna River Overlooks; and 7) Beluga Point. Map data after Wygal (2011:243–250) and references therein.

47

Wygal and Goebel: Early Archaeology of the Middle Susitna Valley

position near the coast, it is a viable ancestral candidate for the Anangula tradition in the Aleutians. Several patterns relevant to middle Susitna archaeology are evident from the sites presented above. First, the upland interior sites are characterized as short-term hunting camps, not residences. Second, given that the few early prehistoric assemblages from coastal regions of southcentral Alaska are most similar to assemblages of the interior Paleoarctic tradition, coupled with the latitudinal age gradient, we can assume a north-tosouth or an inland-to-coast spread of early prehistoric peoples across the region (Fig. 1). Third, the maritime occupations in southcentral Alaska suggest the successful colonization of the coast and an initial shift to maritime economies did not occur until at least 1,000 years after the earliest occupation of coastal sites, ca. 7600 to 7000 cal B.P. (Steffian et al. 2002). The briefly occupied Trapper Creek and Susitna River overlooks, mid-way between interior and coastal Alaska, are classifiable as Denali complex and more broadly as Paleoarctic tradition.

Study Area Southcentral Alaska is heavily vegetated by dense boreal forest, making surface visibility and pedestrian survey difficult and sometimes perilous. The Susitna River and its tributaries, which drain the uplands of the Alaska and Talkeetna mountain ranges, dominate the physiography of the wider region. These rivers flow across the broad alluvial plain of the Susitna Valley, which is nearly 40 km wide in the vicinity of Trapper Creek. The Susitna River Overlook (SRO) and Trapper Creek Overlook (TCO) sites occur in buried and stratigraphically sealed contexts ca. 2 km west of the Susitna River, near its confluence with two major southcentral Alaska rivers, the Chulitna and Talkeetna (SeagerBoss 2004; Wygal and Seager-Boss 2006). TCO can be accessed via a short hike from the George Parks Highway, while SRO is more remote, requiring riverboat access and a lengthy trek west through the forest (Fig. 2). Both TCO and SRO occupy high glacial eskers that overlook the predominantly low-lying

Figure 2. Location and excavation histories of the Trapper Creek Overlook and Susitna River Overlook sites in the middle Susitna River Lowlands. Modified aerial photo includes an image by GeoEye. Grid scale in 1-meter intervals.

48

Arctic Anthropology 49:1

terrain. Such elevated features are relatively infrequent along the first terrace of the middle Susitna River, so that the localities of TCO and SRO were likely to have been favored strategic landforms for prehistoric hunters. A stagnated ice sheet deposited the eskers that contain the sites and the timing of their formation is important for understanding site formation and geological context; however, in the middle Susitna River region, the extent of LGM and Elmendorf ice remains unresolved (Hamilton and Thorson 1983; Wygal and Goebel 2011). There are two probable explanations: either the Trapper Creek eskers formed during the last glacial maximum (LGM), ca. 22,000–20,000 cal B.P., or during the later Elmendorf stadial, dated to 15,000 cal B.P. at Bootlegger’s Cove in northern Cook Inlet (Kopczynski 2008; Reger et al. 2007).

Stratigraphy Aeolian deposits mantling glacial till at SRO and TCO reach more than 1 m in depth and contain three paleosol complexes. TCO has two cultural components, while SRO has one. Since the SRO and TCO sites have similar stratigraphic profiles, with the same stratigraphic units and soil horizons represented, we describe them here together (Figs. 3 and 4) with strata thicknesses, depths, and soil horizons presented in Tables 1 and 2. The basal layer (stratum 1) represents abla-

tion till, a series of poorly sorted round-to-angular rocks and boulders ranging from pebbles to large cobbles. Rock types in this layer include schist, greywacke, mica, and quartzite encased in a matrix of silt and sand. Stratum 2 is manifested differently between the sites. At TCO it appears as a thin (1–2 cm) lens of potentially fluvial coarsegrained sand that caps the till. The same deposit at SRO ranges to more than 10 cm in thickness and is mixed with higher quantities of silt. Stratum 2 is suspected to date to a period of post-glacial outwash. Stratum 3 is a 35- to 45-cm-thick deposit of loess grading from a greenish-gray loamy sand at its base (stratum 3a) to a yellowish-brown sandy loam at its top (stratum 3b). Stratum 4 is a sandy clay loam that represents a second loess deposit, about 15 to 20 cm thick. In its lower part (substratum 4a), it contains discontinuous pockets of gleyed silty clay loam and ash representing a reworked tephra. Solifluction has blurred the contact between sub-strata 4b and 4a, but 4b is clearly visible as a compact bright orange horizon. At TCO this stratum contains high concentrations of wood charcoal, particularly on its upper surface where dense clusters are pervasive. Stratum 5 is a pale greenish-gray band of sandy loam reaching about 5 cm in thickness. It contains a small amount of devitrified glass and shares a sharp contact with stratum 6. The stratum 5 tephra may repre-

Figure 3. Stratigraphy and dating of Trapper Creek Overlook. Age determination, a combination of calibrated radiocarbon from charcoal and OSL results, are presented in bold font. Radiocarbon date on the Hayes tephra in the above profile is after the Schiff et al. (2008:66) Bear Lake core.

49

Wygal and Goebel: Early Archaeology of the Middle Susitna Valley

Figure 4. Stratigraphy and dating at Susitna River Overlook. The ages above are a combination of calibrated radiocarbon from charcoal and OSL (in bold). Radiocarbon date on the Hayes tephra in the above profile is after the Schiff et al. (2008:66) Bear Lake core.

Table 1. Stratigraphy and dating of the Trapper Creek Overlook site. Strata

BS (cm)1 Horizon

12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5*

0–3 3–8 8–15 15 15–25 25–35 35–37 35–40

O E1 E2 B1c B2 C 1Ab

4b* 4a*

40–50 50–60

1Bb1t 1Bb2g

3b* 3a 2 1

60–80 80–95 95

2Abw 2Bbw 2C

1

>95

Description surface root mat tephra tephra oxidized loess unoxidized loess Hayes tephra paleosol 2 (tephra continuous) paleosol 2 paleosol 2 (tephra discontinuous) paleosol 1 paleosol 1(very weak) coarse sand ablation till

Deposition

Cal B.P.2

forest litter aeolian leeched leeched aeolian aeolian aeolian leeched

leaves, shrubs, etc. organic, roots sandy loam/ash sandy loam/ash, white 830–840 sandy loam/forest brown sandy loam loamy sand/a few glass shards 40304 sandy loam/glass devitrified

aeolian aeolian

sandy clay loam silty clay loam/gleyed

aeolian aeolian fluvial? ice stagnation

sandy loam/moderate clay loamy sand/moderate clay coarse grained sand unconsolidated clastic debris

Generalized depths below surface represent top to bottom of strata. Refer to Table 4 for source data. 3 Refer to Table 5 for source data. 4 Hayes Set H Tephra after Schiff et al. (2008). *Artifact yielding layers. 2

Texture/features

5870–7100 7870–8800

OSL3

2060–2400

8120±620

21310–22470

50

Arctic Anthropology 49:1

Table 2. Stratigraphy and dating of the Susitna River Overlook site. Strata

BS (cm)1 Horizon

12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5

0–3 3–18 18–25 25 25–35 35–50 50 50–55

O E1 E2 B1c B2 C 1Ab

4b 4a*

55–65 65–70

1Bb1t 1Bb2g

3b* 3a 2 1

70–85 85–95 95 >105

2Abw 2Bbw 2C

Description surface root mat tephra tephra oxidized loess unoxidized loess Hayes tephra paleosol 2 (tephra continuous) paleosol 2 paleosol 2 (tephra discontinuous) paleosol 1 paleosol 1(very weak) coarse sand ablation till

Deposition

Texture/features

forest litter aeolian leeched leeched aeolian aeolian aeolian leeched

leaves, shrubs, etc organic, roots sandy loam/ash sandy loam/ash,white sandy loam/forest brown sandy loam loamy sand/few glass shards sandy loam/glass devitrified

aeolian aeolian

sandy clay loam silty clay loam/gleyed

aeolian aeolian fluvial? ice stagnation

sandy loam/moderate clay loamy sand/moderate clay coarse grained sand unconsolidated clastic debris

Cal BP2

OSL3

2310–2865 40304

5880–6050 9140 9985–11185 13990–16280

1

Generalized depths below surface represent top to bottom of strata. Refer to Table 3 for source data. 3 Refer to Table 5 for source data. 4 Hayes Set H Tephra after Schiff et al. (2008). *Artifact yielding layers. 2

sent the Oshetna tephra (Dixon and Smith 1990) dated by Child, Begét, and Werner (1998) to ca. 6000 cal B.P.; however, it was poorly preserved at TCO making mineralogical characterizations unreliable (Wan 2007). Alternatively, stratum 5 may also be related to the stratum 6 tephra, a bright yellow tephra reaching 1–2 cm thick with biotite phenoclasts, linking it to the Hayes set H tephra (Wallace personal communication, 2007). Strata 7 and 8 are sandy loams together reaching 25 cm thick and are capped by strata 9 and 10, two light-gray tephras reaching 1 cm in thickness each. In some places across the sites, the strata 9 and 10 tephras were separated by a thin layer of loess with an undulating upper contact; in other areas the tephras were not separated, sharing a stratigraphic contact. We excavated these as a single stratigraphic unit. Heavily weathered, these tephras could not be chemically linked to other known tephras in the region. Finally, strata 11 and 12 represent the organic-rich modern rootmat and forest litter. The profiles between these two sites are remarkably similar and the stratigraphy described here is typical across the Susitna River floodplain in the Trapper Creek area; however, several subtle differences exist between the TCO and SRO profiles: 1) strata 9 and 10 are not as substantial at SRO as at TCO but did reach a thickness > 5 cm in some parts of the site; 2) stratum 7, unoxidized loess, is rather thin on the north end of SRO where

optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) samples were taken (Fig. 4), but this stratum reaches 15 cm in thickness in the southern units; 3) stratum 5 is less prominent at SRO than TCO; 4) stratum 3b is better developed at SRO; and 5) stratum 2 is more pronounced at SRO where it is mixed with a greater amount of fine silt than at TCO (Table 2). Four soil complexes are represented in the profile. Paleosol 1 consists of very weak A and B horizons that have developed on the basal units of strata 3, 2, and 1. Overall, it has a weak subangular blocky structure and grades from a darkgrayish brown Ab horizon to an olive-brown Bb horizon. The Ab horizon has moderate clay skins covering lower surfaces of clasts, while the Bb horizon has moderate clay skins covering entire clast surfaces. Paleosol 2 masks strata 5 and 4. It is characterized by strong Bbt and Bbg sub-horizons that lie immediately below the Jarvis Creek/Hayes set H tephra (stratum 6). Its features include a weakly developed subangular blocky structure and light clay skins developed on a few pebble-sized clasts. The formation of Paleosol 2 is coeval with a shift in vegetation demarking the early Holocene emergence of a boreal forest regime in the region (Bigelow and Edwards 2001; Hu et al. 1996). Paleosol 3 masks strata 8 and 7 and lies immediately below the stratum 9 tephra. This paleosol is characterized by a brown Ab horizon that grades into a reddish brown Bbw horizon. It is structureless but has occasional small (< 2-cm diameter) mineral

51

Wygal and Goebel: Early Archaeology of the Middle Susitna Valley

concretions that appear to be rich in iron oxide. The modern soil has a strong O-A horizon that has formed upon stratum 11. With respect to the cultural components, at both SRO and TCO, the component I assemblages occur within strata 3b and 4a, while component II at TCO is ascribed to stratum 4b. Contacts between most strata are quite distinct, but some are gradual due to slow depositional rates. At least one of these gradual transitions was blurred from solifluction, most notably the lower layers of TCO component II that contained displaced artifacts. Slight upward drift probably caused by cryoturbation moved some artifacts at TCO and SRO, but these disturbances do not appear to have mixed assemblages between TCO component I and TCO component II in any part of the excavated area.

Site Dating 14

A series of C, and optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) dates were obtained from TCO and SRO, but most significant as regional markers are the tephrochronological analyses. Comparing the elemental composition of a tephra with deposits of known age is the basic premise of tephrochonology (Dugmore et al. 2004). Two of the three tephra layers analyzed from TCO were too heavily weathered for accurate mineralogical characterization, but the presence of biotite phenocrysts in stratum 6 matches characteristics of the Hayes set H tephra (Schiff 2008:63). These elements are the most diagnostic attribute of the Hayes ashfall as they are absent in other known mid-Holocene tephras in the region (Riehle 1994; Riehle, Bowers, and Ager 1990; Schiff et al. 2008:66). The Hayes tephra represents the most extensive tephra deposit across southcentral and central Alaska, but it did not occur as a single eruption. Independently dated to 3650±150 14C B.P. (4000±210 cal B.P.) (Begét et al. 1991; Riehle et al. 1990), it correlates with the Cantwell tephra found at Carlo Creek (Bowers 1979) and the Jarvis Creek ash near Delta Junction (Péwé 1975), and it has been found in cores

from Wonder Lake and Sneaker Pond north of the Alaska Range in Denali National Park where a maximum bracketing age of 3830±60 14C B.P. (4250±100 cal B.P.) was obtained (Child et al. 1998). More recently it was found in cores from Bear Lake along the western shores of Cook Inlet where Schiff et al. (2008:66) obtained an age of 4030±90 cal B.P. from the base of the ash. Dates from the Kenai Peninsula are consistent and demonstrate the widespread nature of these deposits (Schiff et al. 2008). Therefore, stratum 6 at TCO most likely represents the Hayes tephra and dates between ca. 4200 and 3800 cal B.P. Radiocarbon dates on charcoal provide further chronological control over the artifact-bearing strata. At both sites charcoal fragments > 1 cm in size were mapped during excavations. Although very little charcoal was recovered from SRO, the highest frequencies of charcoal at both sites occurred at the top of stratum 4b and declined with increasing depths. TCO contained abundant charcoal dispersed and clustered horizontally across the site with some fragments reaching 3 to 4 cm in diameter. The densest charcoal concentrations at TCO occurred in areas with some of the highest artifact densities. Distinguishing unequivocally between charcoal from forest fires and that from human-controlled fire at TCO has not been feasible. Given the lateral extent of the burned features, forest fire is the most likely cause. These clustered charcoal “features” date to 5870±80 and 5950±40 cal B.P. and occurred on the surface of stratum 4b, providing an accurate age for the surface of paleosol 2 at TCO which is capped with a heavily weathered tephra. These ages also correspond to the Oshetna tephra (Child et al. 1998; Dixon and Smith 1990). An additional five AMS 14C age estimates were obtained for SRO (Table 3). A sample of dispersed wood charcoal from component I in lower stratum 4a overlying the cultural component yielded a date of 9140±90 cal B.P. Four samples of wood charcoal provide an averaged age estimate of 5955±26 cal B.P. for stratum 4b, which also stratigraphically overlie the cultural component. This correlates

Table 3. Radiocarbon data from the Susitna River Overlook site. C BP

δ13C

Cal BP1

Note

AA71144

5147±39

−22.4

5880±80

dispersed

4b

AA71143

5162±39

−26.3

5930±40

dispersed

4b

AA71146

5178±44

−24.9

5950±40

dispersed

4b

AA71145

5254±39

−25.5

6050±80

dispersed

4a

BETA208284

8170±50

−24.3

9140±90

dispersed

Strata

LAB Number

4b

1

14

Calibrated using CalPal05 and the Intcal04 curve at one sigma. All dates are AMS on charcoal.

52

Arctic Anthropology 49:1

Table 4. Radiocarbon data from the Trapper Creek Overlook site. Strata

LAB Number

14

C BP

δ13C

Cal BP1

Note

8

AA67363

884±38

−23.8

830±70

dispersed

8

AA67362

892±37

−23.8

840±60

4b

BETA208282

5140±40

−24.6

5870±80

cluster

4b

AA72199

5186±42

−23.8

5950±40

cluster

4b

BETA199720

6200±40

−23.8

7100±70

dispersed

4a

AA67360

7035±49

−25.6

7870±50

dispersed

4a

AA67361

7068±49

−24.9

7900±50

dispersed

dispersed

4a

BETA199718

7110±40

−25.0

7930±50

dispersed

4a

BETA199719

7550±40

−24.4

8370±30

dispersed

4a

BETA208283

7930±40

−23.0

8800±120

cluster

1

Calibrated using CalPal05 and the Intcal04 curve at one sigma. All dates are AMS on charcoal.

stratigraphically with the independently derived age estimate for stratum 6, the Hayes tephra. Together, these 14C dates indicate that component I at SRO certainly pre-dates ca. 5000 cal B.P. and may date older than 9100 cal B.P. AMS 14C dates (N =10) obtained on wood charcoal help define the ages of TCO’s sediments and cultural components (Table 4). Assay midpoints from five stratum 4a radiocarbon dates range from ca. 8800–7900 cal B.P. The oldest of these (8800±120 cal B.P.) was derived from a small charcoal cluster recovered in a pocket of ash within stratum 4a. Although not a hearth feature, the date is an accurate estimate for the first recognizable ashfall event. Dense concentrations of charcoal on the surface of stratum 4b suggest an age range between ca. 7100–5900 cal B.P. Thus, the 14C ages suggest stratum 4a at TCO dates between 9000–7800 cal B.P., while stratum 4b is between 7200–5800 cal B.P. Because charcoal was not found below stratum 4a at either site, sediment samples were collected for OSL dating. OSL is a relatively new and untested technique in Alaska intended to supplement the suite of radiocarbon and tephrochronological information provided by the Trapper Creek sites. OSL dates numbered 16 total, five from SRO and 11 from TCO (Table 5). Unique laboratory numbers were assigned to sediment tubes with a two-digit code at the end of the number to indicate the excitation method employed on individual sediment grains within various tubes. In 2006, two tubes were placed within stratum 3a at TCO and three dates were obtained on the lowest of these, sample UIC1865 (32,540±2,480 / 27,610±2,125 / 24,710±1,510 ya). Also from stratum 3a, sample UIC1935 yielded two aberrant dates greater than 42,000 ya from

14 cm above basal till. UIC1866 from stratum 3b was analyzed twice, each with infrared and greenlight excitation methods resulting in four ages in excess of 15,000 ya. Clearly, some ages from the 2006 samples were unusually old and some did not conform to stratigraphic superposition. Based on recommendations from the laboratory and our own skepticism, the 2006 samples were initially considered aberrant and dismissed. In 2007, 10 additional OSL samples were collected with 2-inch black PVC from both TCO and SRO. At TCO, samples were collected from the same stratigraphic column as in 2006, and when possible, from the same depth below surface. In 2007, greater attention ensured samples were recovered from pure aeolian sediments with little evidence of oxidation or pedogenesis. Laboratory analysis provided at least two optical ages from most of the samples; infrared excitation was employed on components dominated by feldspar, and subsequent tests used blue excitation on quartz particles. Both methods included a multiple aliquot regenerative dosing process (Jain et al. 2003; Murray and Wintle 2003). Because both light emissions produced ages that were statistically identical with overlapping margins of error at one standard deviation, the feldspar and quartz components of these sediments appear to be consistent geochronometers (Forman 2007). The 2007 OSL dating results from TCO supported a relatively early age for post-glacial loess deposition at the site. The blue-excitation method was used for UIC2000 from the contact of stratum 2 and 3a with an age of 31,780±2410 ya. These results were similar to the 2006 dates taken from 8 cm to the left of the 2007 sample. This date is tentatively considered too old for the base of stratum 3a but was not discarded (as

2.2±0.1 2.2±0.1 2.2±0.1

<6.86±0.18 7.76±0.42

UIC2001IR

UIC2001IRs4

90

90

90

3a

3a

UIC1866GRs

59.02±0.34

3.1±0.1

UIC1992IR

UIC1993IR

UIC1990BL

UIC1990IR

UIC1994BL

UIC1992BL

35.06±0.19

34.01±0.18

28.18±0.12

28.55±0.20

23.35±0.20

1.7±0.1

1.6±0.1

1.6±0.1

2.0±0.1

1.9±0.1

1.9±0.1

2.0±0.1

<8.52±0.15 20.66±0.13

2.0±0.1

<8.95±0.27

UIC1991IR

UIC1991BL

2.0±0.1

6.94±0.40

UIC1991IRs4

2.8±0.1

3.1±0.1

3.1±0.1

3.1±0.1

2.8±0.1

2.8±0.1

2.8±0.1

2.8±0.1

3.1±0.1

3.1±0.1

114.06±0.75

109.32±0.33

90.28±1.02

90.28± 1.02

166.86±1.91

142.38±0.57

77.11±0.88

70.12±0.48

59.02±0.34

51.21±0.25

2.8±0.1 3.1±0.1

UIC2000BL

UIC1865GR

UIC1865IR

UIC1865IRs

UIC1935IR

UIC1935BL

UIC2002BL

UIC2002IR

UIC1866GR

UIC1866IR

22.91±0.20 51.21±0.25

1.70±0.02

1.72±0.01

1.72±0.01

1.72±0.01

1.80±0.01

1.80±0.01

1.66±0.02

1.66±0.02

1.28±0.01

1.28±0.01

1.28±0.01

1.28±0.01

1.28±0.01

1.43±0.02

1.43±0.01

1.73±0.02

1.73±0.02

K20 (%)

4.3±0.1

3.8±0.1

3.8±0.1

4.9±0.1

4.9±0.1

4.9±0.1

5.4±0.1

5.4±0.1

5.4±0.1

1.15±0.01

1.14±0.01

1.14±0.01

0.93±0.01

0.97±0.01

0.97±0.01

1.58±0.02

1.58±0.02

1.58±0.02

Susitna River Overlook

7.6±0.1

6.8±0.1

6.8±0.1

6.8±0.1

6.7±0.1

6.7±0.1

8.6±0.1

8.6±0.1

5.5±0.1

5.5±0.1

5.5±0.1

5.5±0.1

6.5±0.1

5.8±0.1

5.8±0.1

5.9±0.1

5.9±0.1

Th (ppm)

0.20±0.02 0.09±0.01 0.06±0.01

0.19±0.02

0.19±0.02

0.19±0.02

0.13±0.01 0.05±0.01

0.20±0.02

0.20±0.02

0.21±0.02

0.21±0.02

0.21±0.02

0.19±0.02

0.19±0.02

0.19±0.02

0.19±0.02

0.19±0.02

0.19±0.02

0.19±0.02

0.19±0.02

0.20±0.02

0.20±0.02

0.20±0.02

0.20±0.02

0.20±0.02

0.20±0.02

0.20±0.02

0.21±0.02

0.21±0.02

Cosmic dose (Grays/ka)3

0.07±0.01

0.05±0.01

0.07±0.01

0.11±0.01

0.07±0.01

0.09±0.01

0.06±0.01

0.05±0.01

0.05±0.01

0.08±0.01

0.06±0.01

0.06±0.01

0.05±0.01

0.08±0.01

0.07±0.01

0.08± 0.01

0.07±0.01

0.05±0.01

0.10±0.01

0.10±0.01

0.08±0.01

0.08±0.01

Alpha Efficiency2

2.15±0.10

2.21±0.10

2.01±0.10

2.55±0.12

2.19±0.10

2.07±0.10

3.00±0.15

3.22±0.15

3.00±0.15

3.59±0.16

3.36±0.14

3.27±0.13

3.80±0.14

3.55±0.14

3.67±0.14

3.43±0.16

3.62±0.16

3.02±0.13

2.90±0.12

3.38±0.13

1.82±0.09

2.82±0.16

3.14±0.15

3.14±0.15

3.32±0.16

3.32±0.16

Dose rate (Grays/ka)

16280±1240

15410±1175

13990±1070

11185±865

10675±815

9985±765

<2865±190

<2780±190

2310±185

31780±2410

32540±2480*

27610±2125*

24710±1510*

47800±3650*

42860±3260*

22470±1720

21310±1630

19530±1500*

17685±1360*

17450±1050*

15580±940*

8120±620

2400±195

<2370±160

2335±195

<2060±135

OSL age (yr)4

Note: Analyses preformed by Luminescence Dating Research Laboratory, Dept. of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois, Chicago (Forman 2007). 1 Multiple aliquot regenerative dose methods were used for determining equivalent dose (Murray and Wintle 2003). Lab numbers indicate whether the sample was run under infrared (IR), green (GR), or blue (BL) excitation (Jain et al. 2003; Murray and Wintle 2003). 2 Alpha particle efficiency after Aitken and Bowman (1975). 3 Cosmic dose rate calculated from Prescott and Hutton (1994). 4 Standard deviations are at one sigma and numbers of years are from A.D. 2000. For all samples, moisture content was assumed to be 15 ± 5% with the exception of samples UIC1991, UIC2001, and UIC2004 which had water contents of 10 ± 3%. *Samples collected in 2006.

70

40

7

3a

40

7

3b

40

7

70

95

3a

70

95

3a

3b

95

3a

3b

86

95

3a

3a

86

86

86

3a

3a

60

3b

3a

60

60

3b

3b

UIC1866IRs

UIC2003IR

59

32

7

60

32

7

4a

7.10±0.28

UIC2004IRs4

30

3b

<7.43±0.27

UIC2004IR

30

2.2±0.1

U (ppm)

Equivalent dose (Grays)

Lab Number1

7

cm BS

7

Layer

Trapper Creek Overlook

Table 5. Optically stimulated luminescence ages from Trapper Creek Overlook and Susitna River Overlook. Wygal and Goebel: Early Archaeology of the Middle Susitna Valley

53

54 were the 2006 ages). Additional dates from the middle of stratum 3a yielded ages that are probably more accurate estimates (22,470±1720 and 21,310±1630 ya). Despite the relatively old determinations, the OSL date (UIC2003) on an ash pocket in stratum 4a (8120±620 cal B.P.) was consistent with 14C dates on charcoal from the same deposit, suggesting the 2007 OSL calibration was accurate. Samples UIC2001 and UIC2004 from stratum 7 yielded ages of ca. 2400 ya, respectively. Based on these results, three interpretations for the age of the sediments at TCO can be made. First, and perhaps least confidently, the OSL ages from stratum 3a suggest that the lower loess deposits at TCO accumulated immediately after the LGM (22,000–20,000 ya), and there is some evidence to suggest an even earlier age for postglacial sediments at the site. We emphasize that these ages do not date the cultural components, but are instead on post-glacial sediments. Second, the 8120-ya OSL age from stratum 4a conforms well with AMS 14C ages on charcoal from this layer (8800–7800 cal B.P.). Third, stratum 7 dated to less than 2400 cal B.P., an age estimate that conforms to its stratigraphic position in relation to the Hayes tephra (ca.4000 cal B.P.) in lower-lying stratum 6. OSL ages from SRO correlate stratigraphically with the 14C and tephrochronology from TCO. Five OSL samples from SRO were extracted from the loess deposits of strata 3a, 3b, and 7. The results conformed to their superposition in the stratigraphic profile. The two lowest samples (UIC1990 and UIC1993) from the upper margin of stratum 3a yielded ages between 16,280±1240 and 13,990±1070 ya, respectively. Two samples (UIC1992 and UIC1994) from stratum 3b, immediately below the archaeological component, yielded ages between 11,185±865 and 9985±765 ya, respectively. The OSL dates from the lower loess of stratum 3a suggest that loess deposition on the knoll at SRO began before the Elmendorf stade. The lowermost layers of 3a, near its contact with stratum 2, have yet to be dated at SRO; although, based on consistent ages from overlying strata, these are assumed to be of similar age as those at TCO. The 14C, OSL, and tephrochronological results described above offer chronological control over the geological deposits and cultural components preserved at SRO and TCO. With the exception of several of the 2006 OSL ages, all dates correlate by depth below the surface suggesting cryoturbation and other post-depositional deformation processes have been limited throughout most of the sediments. In the lowest post-glacial loess deposits, the OSL data suggest deposition may have begun earlier in the late Pleistocene than initially anticipated. Upper stratum 3a at SRO, well above post-glacial deposits, may

Arctic Anthropology 49:1

date to 16,000 ya, and at TCO where it is thicker, lower stratum 3a may date to as early as 22,000 to 20,000 ya. Given these OSL ages, we tentatively conclude that the tri-river area of southcentral Alaska was ice-free early in the late glacial, perhaps prior to the LGM (Wygal and Goebel 2011), but replication of these results is necessary. The ages of strata 3b and 4 at both sites are most pertinent to the cultural chronology of the site since cultural remains were encountered in these layers. Based on these analyses, the loess in stratum 3b accumulated between 11,000 and 9100 cal B.P., stratum 4a dates to ca. 9100 cal B.P., and stratum 4b dates between 7200 and 5800 cal B.P. Therefore, the age of the SRO occupation is minimally 9100 cal B.P. because artifacts were recovered in situ at the top of stratum 3b. The age of TCO component I is slightly older than SRO based on the deeper position of in situ artifacts recovered from 5 cm below the top of stratum 3b. Based on artifact provenience and sediment age, we estimate the TCO component I occupation persisted until ca. 7800 cal B.P. and component II dates between ca. 7100 and 5800 cal B.P. A 5-to-7-cm thick horizon void of artifacts separated the components at TCO. Dense charcoal clusters underlying a dense silty-ash deposit at the top of stratum 4b are coincident with the arrival of black spruce and a consequential increase in natural boreal forest fires across southcentral Alaska (Lynch et al. 2002). It is also coeval with the Oshetna tephra (Child, Begét, and Werner 1998). These events likely proved difficult for human communities living along the middle Susitna River during the middle Holocene and may help explain why no artifacts have been found above stratum 4b at either site. Alternatively, this pattern could be explained by a shift in subsistence and land use strategies from large animal hunting at overlook locations to salmon harvesting along major river channels. During the 2004 survey, many Athapaskan house and cache pit sites were discovered but none are older than 800 cal B.P.; however, these sites have not been fully evaluated (Seager-Boss 2004).

Artifact Assemblages Below we describe the assemblages from TCO components I and II as well as SRO, focusing on raw material, debitage, tool types, and attributes. Analyzing the frequency of raw material types indicates the preference for specific toolstones (Table 6), and separating frequencies of lithic types between flaked debris (Table 7) and tools (Table 8) reveals the character and degree of on-site tool production and maintenance. Debitage analyses provide important information about tool production and maintenance activities at the sites. Tool- and debitage-size attributes (Table 9) help

N

75 2 129 4 4 28 6 4 —

252

Raw Material

Basalt Chalcedony Chert Obsidian Sandstone Schist Siltstone Slate Quartzite

Total

100

29.8 0.8 51.2 1.6 1.6 11.1 2.4 1.6 —

%

Debitage

15

5 1 7 2 — — — — —

N

100

33.3 6.7 46.7 13.3 — — — — —

%

Tools

267

100

30.0 1.1 50.9 2.2 1.5 10.5 2.2 1.5 —

%

Total

80 3 136 6 4 28 6 4 —

N

TCO Component I

Table 6. Raw material from the Trapper Creek sites.

308

125 5 87 45 5 22 14 5 —

N

100

40.6 1.6 28.2 14.6 1.6 7.1 4.5 1.6 —

%

Debitage

32

10 1 9 3 2 — 6 1 —

N

100

31.3 3.1 28.1 9.4 6.3 — 18.8 3.1 —

%

Tools

340

100

39.7 1.8 28.2 14.1 2.1 6.5 5.9 1.8 —

%

Total

135 6 96 48 7 22 20 6 —

N

TCO Component II

404

295 — 18 — 65 — 26 — —

N

100

73.0 — 4.5 — 16.1 — 6.4 — —

%

Debitage

58.3 — 8.3 — 19.4 — 11.1 — 2.8

%

36 100

21 — 3 — 7 — 4 — 1

N

Tools

440

316 — 21 — 72 — 30 — 1

N

100

71.8 — 4.8 — 16.4 — 6.8 — 0.2

%

Total

Susitna River Overlook

Wygal and Goebel: Early Archaeology of the Middle Susitna Valley

55

56

Arctic Anthropology 49:1

Table 7. Flaked debris from the Trapper Creek sites. TCO CI

TCO CII

SRO

Debitage Class

N

%

N

%

N

%

Flake fragment Complete flake Bipolar flake Blade-like-flake Microblade Primary cortical spall Secondary cortical spall Retouch chip fragment. Retouch chip Bifacial thinning flake Burin spall Angular shatter Cobble fragment Split cobble Worked chert cobble Core fragment Microblade core Multidirectional flake core Core rejuvenation flake

68 25 1 2 10 6 4 5 42 52 3 25 — 2 1 2 2 — 2

27.0 9.9 0.4 0.8 4.0 2.4 1.6 2.0 16.7 20.6 1.2 9.9 — 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.8 — 0.8

62 40 2 2 13 11 14 17 66 56 2 13 4 2 1 — — 3 —

20.1 13.0 0.6 0.6 4.2 3.6 4.5 5.5 21.4 18.2 0.6 4.2 1.3 0.6 0.3 — — 1.0 —

118 127 — 1 — 11 21 8 30 62 — 25 1 — — — — — —

29.2 31.4 — 0.2 — 2.7 5.2 2.0 7.4 15.3 — 6.2 0.2 — — — — — —

Total

252

100

308

100

404

Table 8. Tools from the Trapper Creek sites. TCO CI

TCO CII

SRO

Tool Class

N

%

N

%

N

%

Bifacial point Biface unhafted Flake tool Retouched flake Utilized blade Burin End scraper Side Scraper Tci-thos Cobble tool Notch Chopper (biface) Chopper (uniface)

1 1 5 — 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 — —

6.7 6. 33.3 — 6.7 6.7 6.7 13.3 6.7 6.7 6.7 — —

— 3 4 8 — — 1 4 6 6 — — —

— 9.4 12.5 25.0 — — 3.1 12.5 18.8 18.8 — — —

— 2 10 4 1 — — 2 2 6 — 5 4

— 5.6 27.8 11.1 2.8 — — 5.6 5.6 16.7 — 13.9 11.1

Total

15

100

32

100

36

100

100

72 142 27 10 1 — — — — — — — — — —

252

<1 1–3 3–5 5–7 7–9 9–11 11–13 13–15 15–17 19–21 21–23 23–25 25–27 27–29 29–31

Total

100

28.6 56.3 10.7 4.0 0.4 — — — — — — — — — —

%

15

1 2 5 3 1 2 1 — — — — — — — —

N

%

100

6.7% 13.3% 33.3% 20.0% 6.7% 13.3% 6.7% — — — — — — — —

Tools

308

104 160 33 9 1 — — 1 — — — — — — —

N

100

33.8 51.9 10.7 2.9 0.3 — — 0.3 — — — — — — —

%

Debitage

36

— 3 9 7 6 4 1 2 — — — — — — —

N — 9.4 28.1 21.9 18.8 12.5 3.1 6.3 — — — — — — —

%

100

Tools

TCO Component II

404

44 157 96 57 28 17 4 1 — — — — — — —

N

100

10.9 38.9 23.8 14.1 6.9 4.2 1.0 0.2 — — — — — — —

%

Debitage

36

— 3 1 6 3 5 7 2 3 3 — 2 — — 1

N

— 8.3 2.8 16.7 8.3 13.9 19.4 5.6 8.3 8.3 — 5.6 — — 2.8

%

100

Tools

Susitna River Overlook

Note: Artifact size classes were categorized in 3 cm intervals ranging from less than 1 cm to 29–31 cm using a template of concentric circles.

N

Size (cm)

Debitage

TCO Component I

Table 9. Artifact size classes from the Trapper Creek sites.

Wygal and Goebel: Early Archaeology of the Middle Susitna Valley

57

58

Arctic Anthropology 49:1

distinguish between degrees of raw material use. Overall, these analyses provide information about technology and site activities. Our attribute analysis followed previous studies by Goebel (1993, 2007), Graf (2008), and Wygal (2009, 2010) and included degree of dorsal cortex, platform preparation, metrics, weight, and raw material type for all artifacts. Tools were further analyzed according to edge angle, condition, and retouch attributes that included degree of invasiveness, retouch form, retouch location, and number of retouched margins. Tool assemblages were distinguished by formal and informal varieties. Formal tools were curated as opposed to informal or expedient tools. Refitted tools were combined and analyzed as single artifacts.

Trapper Creek Overlook, Component I For TCO component I, a variety of chert types were common, followed by basalt and obsidian. The latter was sourced by X-ray fluorescence to the Batza Téna obsidian source located along the Koyukuk River in northwest Alaska, 420 km northwest of Trapper Creek (Clark 1995; Clark and Clark 1993; Cook 1995). There is a small amount

of locally available schist and slate in the Trapper Creek component I assemblage (Table 6). The main difference between the tool and debitage assemblages is a high proportion of obsidian tools, significant because of its exotic origin and potential social connections to groups from the north. The debitage assemblage for TCO component I contains elements of primary and secondary reduction. Cores include three simple flake cores and two microblade cores. Additional objective pieces include two split cobbles and three preliminarily worked cobbles. The microblade cores include an end-style microblade core and a conicalshaped core (Fig. 5). The end core was fashioned from a recycled thumbnail endscraper. Its striking platform was prepared with light retouch and by grinding the back lateral margins of its flat, non-beveled surface. No core tablet was removed. Three full and one partial microblade facets occurred on the core front. This end core is similar to a style described from Upper Paleolithic Siberia (Powers 1973) and occasionally reported in Denali complex sites of interior Alaska (West 1981). The other microblade core is conical in shape with six blade facets encircling the entire core except one cortical face. Platform preparation on this speci-

Figure 5. Lithic artifacts from Trapper Creek Overlook component I: (a) end-style microblade core; (b) conical microblade core; (c) burin; and (d) microblades recovered from at least 5 cm below the surface of stratum 3b in undisturbed contexts.

Wygal and Goebel: Early Archaeology of the Middle Susitna Valley

men is nondescript with simple light retouching and no evidence of tabular rejuvenation. In addition to the cores, two microblade-core rejuvenation flakes occur in the assemblage. Together these cores, cobbles, microblades, and technical spalls comprise 5% of the entire assemblage. Other signs of primary reduction include complete flakes and angular shatter (20% of the debitage assemblage), while cortical spalls, blade-like flakes, and bipolar flakes are uncommon. Debitage pieces related to secondary reduction occur in higher frequencies. These include biface thinning flakes, tiny retouch chips and their fragments, and burin spalls. Thus, not considering inexpressive flake fragments, elements of secondary reduction clearly dominate over elements of primary reduction. This pattern is further expressed in the amount of cortex present on the debitage and tools. Only 7% of the debitage assemblage bears dorsal cortex, while no tools possess more than 50% dorsal cortex and most lack cortex entirely. Flaked debris is also relatively small with the vast majority less than 3 cm in maximum dimension. The overall small size of the debitage complements the results of the debitage typological analysis—that secondary reduction dominated technological activities at TCO during the component I occupation. Platform preparation on flaked debris is variable and includes unidentifiable, simple, complex, cortical, and to a lesser extent, crushed platforms. Formal tools are characterized by two sidescrapers on brown chert and chalcedony, the tip of a clear obsidian biface, one unhafted biface on basalt, and one endscraper on tan chert. Informal tools included six flake tools, a burinated flake on black chert, a notched flake, one tci-thos [boulderspall scraper or knife], and one cobble tool, each from basalt. Most tools at TCO component I are complete and constructed on flakes. Tool retouch generally occurs on just one edge and one-third have two worked edges. Retouch is primarily in the form of use wear, followed by scalar, stepped, and marginal-grinding forms. Only one tool is larger than 11 cm in size and three are less than 3 cm. Forty percent of the tools lack preserved platforms, but when present most are complex and a few simple; none are crushed or cortical. The character of the TCO component I assemblage suggests the initial occupants engaged in discrete refurbishing activities with tool types including microblades, microblade cores, a burin, and multiple small flake tools. Several clusters in TCO component I parallel Binford’s (1983:152) description of individual tool-maintenance tasks in which small distributions of items are dropped and tossed around the worker in an arc formation (Krasinski and Yesner 2008:30). Anderson (1988) noted similar clusters at Onion Portage that were generally restricted to 2 m diameter areas for sin-

59

Figure 6. Distribution of point-provenienced tools and flaked debris at Trapper Creek Overlook component I.

gle activities. Although no formal spatial analysis has been undertaken, discrete artifact clusters in component I are visibly discernable (Fig. 6).

Trapper Creek Overlook, Component II The TCO component II assemblage is the most diverse of the three assemblages with basalt, chert, and two varieties of obsidian most commonly represented. Many tools were constructed on basalt and chert followed by siltstone and obsidian, respectively. Flaked debris consists primarily of basalt, followed by chert, and obsidian, with small percentages of schist, siltstone, sandstone, slate, and chalcedony (Table 6). Microblade fragments occur on a minimum of seven different varieties of raw material as compared to only five from TCO component I (Table 10). The TCO component II debitage assemblage comprises smaller proportions of primary than secondary reduction elements. Primary reduction is represented by three simply prepared flake cores, four split cobbles, three initially worked cobbles, and some angular shatter. Excluding non-

60

Arctic Anthropology 49:1

Table 10. Microblade raw material at Trapper Creek Overlook. TCO CI Material/color

TCO CII

Totals

N

%

N

%

N

%

Chert/tan Chert/red Chert/white Chert/grey Chert/green Chert/black Chalcedony/tan Obsidian/black

5 1 2 1 — — 1 —

50.0 10.0 20.0 10.0 — — 10.0 —

4 2 2 2 1 1 — 1

30.8 15.4 15.4 15.4 7.7 7.7 — 7.7

9 3 4 3 1 1 1 1

39.1 13.0 17.4 13.0 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3

Total

10

100

diagnostic flake fragments, cortical spalls constitute 8% of the debitage assemblage, and noncortical debitage pieces include complete flakes, microblades, blade-like flakes, and bipolar flakes. Elements of secondary reduction in the debitage assemblage include biface thinning flakes, retouch chips and fragments, and a few burin spalls. Among the flaked debris, a high percentage lack cortex. Only a few flakes have dorsal cortex and, of these, only fifteen have greater than 90% dorsal cortex. Flaked debris is also relatively small in size-class with a majority less than 3 cm. These variables again indicate a preponderance of secondary reduction in the TCO component II assemblage. Platform preparation on flaked debris includes simple, complex, and small proportions of cortical and crushed varieties. Highly fragmented, nearly a third endscraper lack platforms entirely. Formal tools at TCO component II include three unhafted bifaces, two on basalt and one on tan chert, an endscraper on basalt, and four sidescrapers, three on chert and one on slate. Informal tools include retouched flakes, flake tools, tci-thos, and cobble tools. The majority of tools in TCO component II are complete, and more than half were constructed on flakes. Many tools lack dorsal cortex. Where cortex was present on tools, six have more than 90% dorsal surface coverage, two have 10 to 50% surface coverage, and one had less than 10% dorsal cortex. Tool retouch was primarily limited to one edge or two worked edges but a few have three or more retouched edges. Retouch is primarily scalar, followed by use wear, pitting, marginal-grinding, and stepped forms. No tools are smaller than 1 cm in diameter but some are in the 1 to 3 cm size-class. The majority are between 3 and 7 cm but a few are as large as 13 cm. Many tools lack preserved platforms, but when present, they are generally cortical, followed in proportion by simple, complex, or crushed styles. The middle Holocene occupation at TCO

13

100

23

100

Figure 7. Distribution of point-provenienced tools and flaked debris at Trapper Creek Overlook component II. Lines represent conjoined artifacts.

component II is more diffuse than component I (Fig. 7), perhaps the result of specific activities or more frequent visits to the site. Diffuse patterns were described by Binford (1983) as the result of extensive rather than discrete activities. During butchering and hide processing, the worker(s)

Wygal and Goebel: Early Archaeology of the Middle Susitna Valley

61

moves around the task area, discarding lithics and shuffling debris, resulting in wider and strewn patterns. In these circumstances, discarded material spans larger areas and is less densely clustered than debris generated during discrete activities. Further indications of extensive activity areas are “blank areas” within scatters, a potential consequence of the event focus. For example, areas void of artifacts within diffuse lithic scatters may occur where hides or carcasses were on the ground (Binford 1983:165–172). These descriptions characterize the spatial distribution of the TCO component II assemblage.

Susitna River Overlook Raw material at SRO is primarily basalt followed by sandstone, siltstone, and chert (Table 6). There are five different raw materials found in the tool assemblage and four among the flaked debris. Flaked debris consists of complete flakes, fragmented flakes, and one blade-like flake produced on-site primarily from silt and sandstone cores that were subsequently used as heavy choppers. Evidence for initial core reduction includes angular shatter, as well as primary and secondary cortical spalls, and a cobble fragment. Biface thinning flakes, retouch chips, and chip fragments indicate that secondary reduction activities (i.e., tool resharpening) also occurred. No evidence of microblade production or composite-tool repair (i.e., microblade cores, core-rejuvenation flakes, burins, burin spalls, or microblade segments) was identified in the flaked debris at SRO (Table 7). The bulk of flaked debris lacks dorsal cortex, and much of the assemblage is relatively large (>3 cm). Platform preparation is primarily unidentifiable given the heavily fragmented and weathered nature of the SRO assemblage. In cases where platforms are present on flaked debris, most are simple. The preponderance of tools at SRO are informal, primarily consisting of large utilized flakes produced during the construction of expedient heavy bifacial and unifacial chopping implements. Other informal tools include cobble tools, retouched flakes, tci-thos, and a utilized blade. Retouched flakes tend to be unifacially worked with marginal retouch that did not significantly alter the flake. Formal tools fractured and abandoned at the site include unhafted biface fragments made on siltstone and two sidescrapers on a fine-grained volcanic material, classified as basalt but similar in texture to obsidian (Fig. 8). Heavy chopping tools were characteristic of the SRO assemblage, some with significant battering along their edges (Fig. 9). Other tools included a tci-tho manufactured using the same bread-loafing technique as those from TCO. Of the sidescrapers, one is a double-straight sidescraper constructed on a blade-like flake. It has unifacial

Figure 8. Refitted fragments of a biface from Susitna River Overlook.

Figure 9. Stone chipping tools from Susitna River Overlook.

retouch on one end and both lateral margins, with a relatively acute (40°) edge angle. The second sidescraper is unifacially retouched on an end and one lateral margin, and has a steep edge angle (70°). Retouched flakes tend to be unifacially worked with marginal retouch that did not significantly alter the shape of the worked edge. The majority of tools at SRO are complete or unbroken. Tools were often constructed on flakes and cobbles and there is a relatively high percentage of tools with more than 50% dorsal cortex. Tools were frequently retouched on just one edge primarily in the form of use wear only followed by stepped, scalar, and pitted forms. Significantly, half of the tools are larger than 11 cm in size, and a relatively small number are less than 3 cm. A

62

Arctic Anthropology 49:1

Figure 10. Spatial distribution of artifacts from Susitna River Overlook (left), and close-up of central area of excavation, showing lithic artifacts (a–e) insitu (right).

third of the tools do not have platforms but, when present, most are cortical or simple in style. Artifacts at SRO were recovered in strata 3b and 4a, but because all of the artifacts >700 g were found in situ on the surface of stratum 3b, it is assumed this was the original occupation surface and the assemblage was later covered by stratum 4a. Artifacts recovered from 4a were few in number, within 5 cm of stratum 3b, and tended to be vertically aligned suggesting upward transport from below. The potential for palimpsest occupations has been eliminated based on refitting fragments between artifacts, including segments of a finished biface recovered between the two strata (Fig. 10).

Discussion Classifying the Trapper Creek assemblages into known Alaskan archaeological technocomplexes is difficult because of ongoing disagreement and uncertainty pertaining to assemblage variability in the early prehistory of central Alaska (Goebel and Buvit [eds.], 2011). The two assemblages from TCO contain a variety of raw materials dominated by chert and basalt; however, relative proportions

of these are different. Trapper Creek component I includes more chert, while component II has more basalt. SRO comprises even more basalt artifacts and comparatively few chert pieces. One prominent indicator of raw material reduction is the degree of dorsal cortex on flaked debris. A Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare the degree of dorsal cortex on debitage between all three archaeological components indicating the proportions represented (Table 11) are not statistically different between the assemblages (χ2= 4.753, 2 df, P = 0.093). Because some of the assemblages contain relatively low numbers of flaked debris with cortex, we collapsed the variables to reflect only the presence or absence of cortex on flaked debris and repeated the Kruskal Wallis test with similar results (χ2 = 4.619, 2 df, P = 0.099). None of the assemblages comprise more than 5% of flaked debris with > 90% dorsal cortex and less than 2% of the combined assemblage frequencies have 50–90% dorsal cortex. This pattern indicates early-stage reduction was not frequently undertaken at these sites. This was expected for the two TCO assemblages where more refined toolkit-refurbishing activities occurred, but at the SRO site, the lack of dorsal cortex is not as

63

Wygal and Goebel: Early Archaeology of the Middle Susitna Valley

Table 11. Intersite crosstabulation of flaked debris by degree of dorsal cortex. Dorsal Cortex Component TCO CI

0%

1–10%

10–50%

Count % of Row TCO CII Count % of Row SRO Count % of Row

234 92.9 269 87.3 363 89.9

7 2.8 11 3.6 8 2.0

2 0.8 7 2.3 14 3.5

Total

866 89.8%

26 2.7%

23 2.4%

Count % of Row

easily explained given the expedient nature of the assemblage and abundance of cortical platforms on tools. Perhaps the lack of cortex on debitage at SRO is an indication that initial core reduction occurred along the river channel where large boulders were likely procured. All of the obsidian in the TCO assemblages was exotic to the region, originating more than 400 km to the northwest of the site. To us, this is an indication that both the early and middle Holocene occupants of TCO had either directly migrated from the northwest or had cultural ties, including trade relations, with people who frequented the Koyukuk River valley. To better understand if the remaining lithic types found in the Trapper Creek sites were local or non-local in origin, we initiated systematic surveys for locally available raw materials from streams and gravel bars in the vicinity of Trapper Creek. Coffman (2006) and students of the University of Nevada, Reno archaeological field schools conducted this research under our direction. Random identification of river cobbles in gravel bars along the major rivers was undertaken both upstream and downstream of their confluence east of the TCO site. Smaller tributaries and gravel pits were also studied across the project area. These studies indicated that all of the raw material types found in the SRO and TCO assemblages, except the obsidians, were reminiscent of locally available lithic types within a few kilometers of the sites. Some of the chert artifacts at TCO, however, appear to have been transported greater distances because they arrived at the site in complete or exhausted forms. Sometimes tools were resharpened on site and several were clearly recycled into other tool types and discarded only when exhausted or fractured. In these respects, the SRO assemblage has a decidedly local character, while the TCO assemblages have both local and exotic components. The difference in behaviors pertinent to raw material use between the occupations suggests two

50–90% 3 1.2 6 1.9 8 2.0 17 1.8%

>90%

Total

6 2.4 15 4.9 11 2.7

252 100 308 100 404 100

32 3.3%

964 100

possibilities: either the chert tools found at TCO were transported great distances, as was the obsidian, or locally procured chert resources were being heavily conserved. Given the diversity of tool stones available in the area, including highly flakeable, fine-grained cherts, why was it necessary to conserve tool stone over multiple occupations in the Susitna lowlands? Perhaps tool stone conservation was necessary during the winter season when snow and ice cover made procurement difficult; or, alternatively, perhaps the occupants who used TCO were unfamiliar with the region’s abundant lithic resources, an indication the area was only marginally used throughout the early and middle Holocene. Debitage attributes are also seemingly different between the assemblages. Assemblages from the components at TCO have evidence of core preparation, flake manufacture, microblade technology, tool resharpening, and recycling. Moreover, the TCO assemblages seem more heavily weighted in secondary reduction than primary reduction activities. On the other hand, at SRO, there is no evidence of microblade technology. Instead, technological activities seem oriented toward earlier reduction stages based on average flake weight and size, even though dorsal cortex is not common in the debitage assemblage. Platform preparation of flaked debris is dominated by simple, complex, and, to a lesser extent, cortical forms occurring in similar proportions among the TCO component I and II assemblages (χ2 = 2.910, 2 df, P = 0.293). Tools displayed higher frequencies of complex platforms, a further indication that tool stone flaking was undertaken more carefully at TCO. All three assemblages contain biface-thinning flakes in relatively similar frequencies; however, many of the biface flakes at SRO are noticeably larger in size—the result of heavy chopper production. Tools at SRO also tended to be larger than those in the TCO assemblages. Most tools in TCO component I and a third

64 of the tools in component II were less than 5 cm in size. The pattern of flaked debris is similar with most debitage less than 3 cm in the components at TCO, while at SRO flaked debris tends to be larger. The relatively small amount of cortex and small size classes of the tools in the TCO assemblages are further indications of extensive retouch, tool refurbishing, and raw material conservation. Based on artifact tool types and other similarities, the two archaeological components at TCO are most similar to the Denali complex commonly found in the central Alaska Range (Bowers 1980; Powers and Hoffecker 1989; West 1975, 1981; West, Robinson, and Curran 1996). The large pearshaped chopping implements and macroblade scrapers from SRO are reminiscent of the dubiously defined Amphitheater Mountain complex (West 1974, 1996) found along the southern slopes of the central Alaska Range near the Tangle Lakes, and it is probably no coincidence that a significant portion of the Susitna River headwaters form in this region. However, the Amphitheater Mountain complex has yet to be widely accepted as a viable cultural entity, and it is more likely a subset of a wider technological system (Mobley 1982). Because similar assemblages occur at Carlo Creek and within component II of Dry Creek, both Denali complex occupations (Bowers 1980; Bowers and Reuther 2008; Powers and Hoffecker 1989), these enigmatic heavy butchering assemblages are also probably related to the Denali complex. By linking the Trapper Creek assemblages with technologies most commonly found to the north, and the presence of obsidian transported south of the Alaska Range divide from the Batza Téna source, it can be inferred that the original colonization of the middle Susitna River region resulted from a north-tosouth migration. Moreover, given the similarities between the two components at TCO, it appears prehistoric lithic use and overlook hunting strategies changed little from the early to middle Holocene periods. If terminal Pleistocene or early Holocene foragers based in the broad valleys north of the central Alaska Range engaged in seasonal exploitation of alpine resources (Wygal 2010), then it is reasonable to assume some of these groups ventured south of the divide permanently where economies eventually shifted to the broad riverine settings of the Susitna Valley. However, many questions surround the migrations as well as social and economic evolution of highly mobile big game hunters in central and southcentral Alaska. Understanding the archaeology of southcentral Alaska can contribute to interior versus coastal migration hypotheses for the peopling of the New World (Dixon 1999, in press). These pursuits provide a significant initial assessment for the early prehistoric period of a key migratory region and provide a solid foundation for future research.

Arctic Anthropology 49:1

Conclusions Large sections of southcentral Alaska have remained relatively unknown archaeologically, primarily because the dense forest canopy restricts aerial and pedestrian survey across the region. Recent discoveries of the Trapper Creek and Susitna River Overlook sites reverse this trend in the middle Susitna Valley. Geoarchaeological and lithic investigations suggest subarctic foragers with ties to the north colonized the Susitna River lowlands by following major rivers south out of prominent mountain passes. The presence of Batza Téna obsidian sourced to the Koyukuk Valley north of the Alaska Range supports a north to south migration hypothesis. Radiocarbon, OSL, and tephrochronological data suggest these events occurred in the vicinity of Trapper Creek sometime between 11,000 and 9,000 cal B.P., with the potential for even earlier occupations. Lithic assemblages are most similar to the Denali complex with microblades, burins, and large chopping implements represented among the assemblages. Based on the evidence presented here, the first known human groups to arrive in the Susitna River lowlands were small, occupied south-facing overlook positions, and engaged primarily in specialized hunting and game-processing activities, lifeways that appear to have remained little changed until the middle Holocene Oshetna and Hayes volcanic eruptions. Acknowledgments. We particularly thank Rodney “Norwood” Marsh, Rick Ernst, and the community of Trapper Creek, Alaska for their hospitality and sharing extensive local knowledge. This research was made possible by the National Science Foundation, Office of Polar Programs Grant # 0520559. Additional funding was provided by the Alaska Humanities Forum, University of Nevada, Reno, and the Center for the Study of the First Americans at Texas A&M University. Fran Seager-Boss and the Matanuska-Susitna Borough provided considerable funding and logistical support. We acknowledge the field school students and volunteers for their enthusiastic efforts. Kathryn Krasinski, Sam Coffman, Richie Bednarski, and Dan Stone supervised many aspects of the field and laboratory work. Evan Pellegrini provided artifact illustrations and Kelly Graf made useful observations on the sedimentology of the sites. We also thank Randy Tedor for assistance in work on regional tephra markers. Elmira Wan at the USGS laboratory in Menlo Park, California and Kristi Wallace with the Alaska Volcano Observatory, Anchorage characterized tephra samples. Steve Forman at the Luminescence Dating Research Laboratory, University of Illinois, Chicago dated sediment samples. Beta Analytic and University of Arizona radiocarbon laboratories dated charcoal

65

Wygal and Goebel: Early Archaeology of the Middle Susitna Valley

samples. Finally, we also thank Gary Haynes for reviewing previous drafts of this article.

Endnotes Throughout this paper, radiocarbon (14C) ages were calibrated into calendar years (cal B.P.) using the May 2006 version of CalPal calibration software (Weninger et al. 2005) and the Intcal04 curve (Reimer et al. 2004). OSL ages are reported as calendar years before A.D. 2000 (ya).

References Cited Ackerman, Robert E. 1992 Earliest Stone Industries of the North Pacific Coast of North America. Arctic Anthropology 29(2):18–27. Anderson, Douglas D. 1988 Onion Portage: The Archaeology of a Stratified Site from the Kobuk River, Northwest Alaska. Anthropological Papers of the University of Alaska 22(1–2):1–163. Bacon, Glenn H., James M. Kari, and T. M. Cole 1983 Cultural Resources Assessment: TalkeetnaLower Susitna River Basin, Southcentral Alaska Report. Anchorage: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Alaskarctic. Begét, James E., Richard D. Reger, DeAnne Pinney, Tom Gillispie, and Kathy Campbell 1991 Correlation of the Holocene Jarvis Creek, Tangle Lakes, Cantwell, and Hayes Tephras in Southcentral and Central Alaska. Quaternary Research 35:174–189. Bigelow, Nancy and Mary E. Edwards 2001 A 14000-yr Paleoenvironmental Record from Windmill Lake, Central Alaska: Lateglacial and Holocene Vegetation in the Alaska Range. Quaternary Science Reviews 20:203–215. Binford, Lewis R. 1983 In Pursuit of the Past: Decoding the Archaeological Record. New York: Thames and Hudson. Bowers, Peter M. 1979 The Cantwell Ash Bed, A Holocene Tephra in the Central Alaska Range. Report, 61. Fairbanks: Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys. 1980

The Carlo Creek Site: Geology and Archaeology of an Early Holocene Site in the Central Alaska Range. Anthropology and Historic Preservation, Cooperative Park Studies Unit. Occasional Paper, 27. Fairbanks: University of Alaska.

Bowers, Peter M. and Joshua D. Reuther 2008 AMS Re-Dating of the Carlo Creek Site, Nenana Valley, Central Alaska. Current Research in the Pleistocene 25:58–60.

Child, Jonathan, K. James E. Begét, and Al Werner 1998 Three Holocene Tephras Identified in Lacustrine Sediment Cores from the Wonder Lake Area, Denali National Park and Preserve, Alaska, U.S.A. Arctic and Alpine Research 30(1):89–95. Clark, Donald W. 1995 Batza Téna: The Trail to Obsidian. Arctic Anthropology 32(1):82–91. Clark, Donald W. and A. McFadyen Clark 1993 Batza Téna: Trail to Obsidian: Archaeology at an Alaskan Obsidian Source. Canadian Museum of Civilization. Mercury Series, 147. Archaeological Survey of Canada Publication. Coffman, Samuel C. 2006 Tool Stone Procurement in Southcentral Alaska. Paper presented at the 14th Annual Meeting of the Arctic Conference. Eugene, Oregon. October 20, 2006. On file with the authors. Cook, John P. 1995 Characterization and Distribution of Obsidian in Alaska. Arctic Anthropology (32)1:92–100. Dixon, E. James 1993 Quest for the Origins of the First Americans. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. 1999

Bones, Boats, and Bison: Archaeology and the First Colonization of Western North America. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

In Press

Late Pleistocene Colonization of North America from Northeast Asia: New Insights from LargeScale Paleogrographic Reconstructions. Quaternary International.

Dixon, E. James and George S. Smith 1990 A Regional Application of Tephrochronology in Alaska. In Archaeological Geology, Centennial Special Volume 4. Norman P. Lasca and Jack Donahue, eds. Pp. 383–398. Boulder: Geological Society of America. Dugmore, Andrew, Guðrún Larson, and Anthony Newton 2004 Tephrochronology and Its Application to Late Quaternary Environmental Reconstruction, with Special Reference to the North Atlantic Islands. In Tools for Constructing Chronologies: Crossing Disciplinary Boundaries. Caitlin E. Buck and Andrew R. Millard, eds. Pp. 173–187. London: Springer-Verlag. Dumond, Don E. 1975 Archaeological Research on the Alaska Peninsula. Report submitted to the Smithsonian Institution under permits 75-AK-48 and 75-AK051. Department of Anthropology, University of Oregon, Eugene. December 15, 1975. On file, National Park Service, Alaska Regional Office, Anchorage. 1998

Maritime Adaptation on the Northern Alaska Peninsula. Arctic Anthropology 35(1)187–203.

66

Arctic Anthropology 49:1

Forman, Steve 2007 Optically Stimulated Luminescence (OSL) Ages and Associated Chronologic Data for FineGrained Sediments (4–11 µm) from near Talkeetna, Alaska. Luminescence Dating Research Laboratory Report. Chicago: Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois. Goebel, Ted 1993 The Middle to Upper Paleolithic Transition in Siberia. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Alaska, Fairbanks. 2007

Pre-Archaic and Early Archaic Technological Activities at Bonneville Estates Rockshelter: A First Look at the Lithic Artifact Record. In Paleoindian or Paleoarchaic? Great Basin Human Ecology at the Pleistocene-Holocene Transition. Kelly E. Graf and David Schmitt, eds. Pp. 156–184. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.

Goebel, Ted and Ian Buvit (eds.) 2011 Explaining Lithic Assemblage Variability Across Beringia. College Station: Texas A&M University Press. Graf, Kelly E. 2008 Uncharted Territory: Late Pleistocene HunterGatherer Dispersals in the Siberian Mammoth Steppe. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Nevada, Reno. Hamilton, Thomas D. and Robert M. Thorson 1983 The Cordilleran Ice Sheet in Alaska. In LateQuaternary Environments of the United States. The Late Pleistocene 1:38–52. Henn, Winfield 1978 Archaeology on the Alaska Peninsula: The Ugashik Drainage, 1973–1975. Anthropological Papers, 14. Eugene: University of Oregon. Hu, Feng Sheng, Linda B. Brubaker, and Patricia M. Anderson 1996 Boreal Ecosystem Development in the Northwestern Alaska Range since 11,000 yr B.P. Quaternary Research 45:188–201.

Mammoth Site, Interior Alaska. Alaska Journal of Anthropology 6(1/2):27–41. Lynch, Jason A., James S. Clark, Nancy H. Bigelow, and Mary E. Edwards 2002 Geographic and Temporal Variations in Fire History in Boreal Forest Ecosystems of Alaska. Journal of Geophysical Research 108(8152):1–17. Mobley, Charles M. 1982 The Landmark Gap Trail Site, Tangle Lakes, Alaska: Another Perspective on the Amphitheater Mountain Complex. Arctic Anthropology 19(1):81–102. Moss, Madonna 1998 Northern Northwest Coast Regional Overview. Arctic Anthropology 35(1):88–111. Murray, A. S. and A. G. Wintle 2003 The Single Aliquot Regenerative Dose Protocol: Potential for Improvements in Reliability. Radiation Measurements 37:377–381. Péwé, Troy L. 1975 Quaternary Geology of Alaska. Professional Paper, 835. Washington D.C.: U.S. Geological Survey. Powers, William R. 1973 Paleolithic Man in Northeast Asia. Arctic Anthropology 10(2):1–106. Powers, William R. and John F. Hoffecker 1989 Late Pleistocene Settlement in the Nenana Valley, Central Alaska. American Antiquity 54(2):263–287. Prescott, J. R. and J. T. Hutton 1994 Cosmic Ray Contributions to Dose Rates for Luminescence and ESR Dating: Large Depths and Long-Term Time Variations. Radiation Measurements 23:497–500. Reger, Douglas R. 1981 A Model for Culture History in Upper Cook Inlet, Alaska. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman. 1996

Jain, M., L. Bøtter-Jensen, and A. K. Singhvi 2003 Dose Evaluation Using Multiple-Aliquot Quartz OSL: Test of Methods and a New Protocol for Improved Accuracy and Precision. Radiation Measurements 37:67–80.

Beluga Point. In American Beginnings: The Prehistory and Paleoecology of Beringia. Fredrick H. West, ed. Pp. 433–436. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

1998

Archaeology of the Northern Kenai Peninsula and Upper Cook Inlet. Arctic Anthropology 35(1):160–171.

Kopczynski, Sarah 2008 Satellite Predictions of Subglacial Hydrology and Final Collapse of Twinned TerrestrialTidewater Glaciers, Anchorage Lowland, Alaska. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Lehigh University, Bethlehem.

Reger, Richard D., A. G. Sturmann, E. E. Berg, and P. A. C. Burns 2007 A Guide to the Late Quaternary History of Northern and Western Kenai Peninsula, Alaska. Guidebook 8. Anchorage: State of Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys.

Krasinski, Kathryn E. and David R. Yesner 2008 Late Pleistocene/Early Holocene Site Structure in Beringia: A Case Study from the Broken

Riehle, James R. 1994 Heterogeneity, Correlatives, and Proposed Stratigraphic Nomenclature of Hayes Tephra Set H, Alaska. Quaternary Research 41:285–288.

Wygal and Goebel: Early Archaeology of the Middle Susitna Valley Riehle, James R., Peter M. Bowers, and Thomas A. Ager 1990 The Hayes Tephra Deposits, an Upper Holocene Marker Horizon in Southcentral Alaska. Quaternary Research 33:276–290. Reimer, P. J., M. G. L. Baillie, E. Bard, A. Bayliss, J. W. Beck, C. J. H. Bertrand, P. G. Blackwell, C. E. Buck, G. S. Burr, K. B. Cutler, P. E. Damon, R. L. Edwards, R. G. Fairbanks, M. Friedrich, T. P. Guilderson, A. G. Hogg, K. A. Hughen, B. Kromer, G. McCormac, S. Manning, C. B. Ramsey, R. W. Reimer, S. Remmele, J. R. Southon, M. Stuiver, S. Talamo, F. W. Taylor, J. van der Plicht, and C. E. Weyhenmeyer 2004 IntCal04 Terrestrial Radiocarbon Age Calibration, 0–26 Cal Kyr B.P. Radiocarbon 46(3): 1029–1059. Seager-Boss, Fran 2004 Coastal Zone Management: Middle Susitna Archaeological Survey and Inventory. Cultural Resources Report to SHPO. Palmer: MatanuskaSusitna Borough. Schiff, Caleb J., Darrell S. Kaufman, Kristi L. Wallace, Al Werner, Teh-Lung Ku, and Thomas A. Brown 2008 Modeled Tephra Ages from Lake Sediments, Base of Redoubt Volcano, Alaska. Quaternary Geochronology 3:56–67. Steffian, Amy F., E. Pontti Eufemio, and Patrick G. Saltonstall 2002 Early Sites and Microblade Technologies from the Kodiak Archipelago. Anthropological Papers of the University of Alaska New Series 2(1):1–38. Wan, Elmira 2007 Lab Report SU05-TAL092-U10L4. Report on file. Menlo Park: U.S. Geological Survey, Tephrochronology Laboratory. Weninger, Bernhard, Olaf Jöris, and Uwe Danzeglocke 2005 The Cologne Radiocarbon Calibration and Paleoclimate Research Package (CALPAL). University of Cologne. West, Fredrick H. 1974 The Significance of Typologically Early Site Collections in the Tangle Lakes, Central Alaska: A Preliminary Consideration. In International Conference on the Prehistory and Paleoecology of Western North American Arctic and Subarctic. S. Raymond, and P. Schlederman, eds. Pp. 21–238. Calgary: University of Calgary Archaeological Association. 1975

Dating the Denali Complex. Arctic Anthropology 12(1):76–81.

1981

The Archaeology of Beringia. New York: Columbia University Press.

1996

Amphitheater Mountain Sites. In American Beginnings: The Prehistory and Paleoecology of Beringia. Fredrick H. West, ed. Pp. 405–408. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

67

West, Fredrick H., Brian S. Robinson, and Mary Lou Curran 1996 Phipps Site. In American Beginnings: The Prehistory and Paleoecology of Beringia. Fredrick H. West, ed. Pp. 381–386. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. West, Fredrick H., Brian S. Robinson, and R. Greg Dixon 1996 Sparks Point. In American Beginnings: The Prehistory and Paleoecology of Beringia. Fredrick H. West, ed. Pp. 394–398. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. West, Fredrick H., Brian S. Robinson, and Constance F. West 1996 Whitmore Ridge. In American Beginnings: The Prehistory and Paleoecology of Beringia. Fredrick H. West, ed. Pp. 386–394. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Wygal, Brian T. 2009 Prehistoric Colonization of Southcentral Alaska: Human Adaptations in a Post Glacial World. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Nevada, Reno. 2010

Prehistoric Upland Tool Production in the Central Alaska Range. Alaska Journal of Anthropology 8(1):107–120.

2011

The Microblade/Non-Microblade Dichotomy: Climatic Implications, Toolkit Variability and the Role of Tiny Tools in Eastern Beringia. In From the Yenisei to the Yukon: Interpreting Lithic Assemblage Variability in Late Pleistocene/Early Holocene Beringia. Ted Goebel and Ian Buvit, eds. Pp. 234–254. College Station: Texas A&M University Press.

Wygal, Brian T. and Ted Goebel 2006 The Early Holocene Colonization of Southcentral Alaska. Presentation at the Alaska Anthropological Association, Kodiak. March 2006. On file with the authors. 2011

Deglaciation and the Archaeology of Trapper Creek, Southcentral Alaska. Current Research in the Pleistocene, 28:136–139.

Wygal, Brian T. and Fran Seager-Boss 2006 The Holocene Peopling of Southcentral Alaska: New Evidence from Trapper Creek. Paper presented at the 32nd Annual Meetings of the Alaska Anthropological Association, Anchorage. March 2005. On file with the author. Yesner, David R. 1998 Origins and Development of Maritime Adaptations in the Northwest Pacific Region of North America: A Zooarchaeological Perspective. Arctic Anthropology 35(1):204–222. 2001

Human Dispersal into Interior Alaska: Antecedent Conditions, Mode of Colonization, and Adaptations. Quaternary Science Reviews 20:315–327.

Early Prehistoric Archaeology of the Middle Susitna ...

Abstract. The early prehistory of the Susitna River region, near the place where three major rivers, the Susitna, Talkeetna, and the Chulitna, converge, provides important regional infor- mation about the movement of small-scale foraging societies in southcentral Alaska as well as specific data concerning lithic use.

5MB Sizes 0 Downloads 114 Views

Recommend Documents

2ºESO 001 Early middle ages.pdf
There was a problem previewing this document. Retrying... Download. Connect more apps... Try one of the apps below to open or edit this item. 2ºESO 001 Early ...

2ºESO 001 Early middle ages.pdf
There was a problem previewing this document. Retrying... Download. Connect more apps... Try one of the apps below to open or edit this item. 2ºESO 001 Early ...

Lower and Early Middle Pleistocene Acheulian in the ...
Sep 11, 2009 - regarding Elsevier's archiving and manuscript policies are ... Large cutting tools have been known for a long time in South Asia and have ...

pdf-1450\the-oxford-illustrated-history-of-prehistoric-europe-oxford ...
... the apps below to open or edit this item. pdf-1450\the-oxford-illustrated-history-of-prehistoric-e ... es-reissue-edition-2001-from-oxford-university-press.pdf.

Prehistoric Implications of the Dravidian element in ... -
basic vocabulary contains the following words of unknown or uncertain origin: 8. s~l 'bark', 20. t. d. por(g~/gi) 'child', 20. mul 'child', 21. hag 'cloud', 30. kutr~ ...

MSc ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE NORTH - BCAPA
Page 1 ... University of Aberdeen. Fraser Noble Building. Kings College. Aberdeen. AB24 3UE. Tel: +44 (0)1224 ... www.facebook.com/groups/150170328419801/

MSc ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE NORTH - BCAPA
Further Information. Graduate School Admission Unit. College of Physical Sciences. University of Aberdeen. Fraser Noble Building. Kings College. Aberdeen.

O'Neill Middle School Early Bird Routes.pdf
There was a problem previewing this document. Retrying... Download. Connect more apps... Try one of the apps below to open or edit this item. O'Neill Middle School Early Bird Routes.pdf. O'Neill Middle School Early Bird Routes.pdf. Open. Extract. Ope

O'Neill Middle School Early Bird Routes.pdf
O'Neill Middle School Early Bird Routes.pdf. O'Neill Middle School Early Bird Routes.pdf. Open. Extract. Open with. Sign In. Main menu. Displaying O'Neill ...