Game Sanctuary, Northern Bristol Bay, Alaska. Cultural Resource ..... the density of artifacts in the root mat. Thirteen hundred .... Round Island is small, about 3.4 square kilometers (1.3 square miles) in .... cormorant (Phalcrocorax pelagicus), bald eagle (Haliaetus ...... population would probably have been sustainable over a.
National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior
Archaeological Investigations at the Qayassiq Site (XNB-00043) Round Island, Walrus Islands State Game Sanctuary, Northern Bristol Bay, Alaska Cultural Resource Report NPS/AKRO/CRR-2017/002
ON THE COVER Walrus hauled out, east side of Round Island near XNB-00043. Photo by J. Schaaf 2008. Inset: Pecked and ground stone vessel, portion of Figure 66.
Archaeological Investigations at the Qayassiq Site (XNB-00043) Round Island, Walrus Islands State Game Sanctuary, Northern Bristol Bay, Alaska Cultural Resource Report NPS/AKRO/CRR-2017/002 Jeanne M. Schaaf Cultural Resource Program U.S. National Park Service—Alaska Regional Office 240 W 5th Avenue Anchorage, AK 99501
March 2017
The National Park Service, Cultural Resource Program, Alaska Regional Office, publishes a range of reports that address cultural resource topics. These reports are of interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National Park Service, others in cultural resource management, and the public. The Cultural Resource Report Series is a technical report series that disseminates results of National Park Service work in cultural resource disciplines. The CRRS has a broad scope that includes brief, preliminary treatments and presentations of basic data to longer, comprehensive or detailed treatments with extensive analyses. A major goal of the report series is to place on permanent record and provide broad access to the results of National Park Service cultural resource work that is not suitable for publication in typical academic journal formats, primarily due to length restrictions, the preliminary nature of some reports, or a narrow topical focus. All manuscripts in the series receive the appropriate level of peer review to ensure that the information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended audience, and designed and published in a professional manner. This report received formal peer review by subject-matter experts who were not directly involved in the collection, analysis, or reporting of the data, and whose background and expertise put them on par technically and scientifically with the authors of the information. Views, statements, findings, conclusions, recommendations, and data in this report do not necessarily reflect views and policies of the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the U.S. Government. Please cite this publication as: Schaaf, Jeanne M. 2017. Archaeological Investigations at the Qayassiq Site (XNB-00043) Round Island, Walrus Islands State Game Sanctuary, Northern Bristol Bay, Alaska. Cultural Resource Report NPS/AKRO/CRR-2017/002. National Park Service, Anchorage, Alaska.
ii
Contents Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Previous Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Radiocarbon Dating and Chronology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Surface Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Stratigraphy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Locus 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Locus 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Ceramics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Lithics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Component I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Component II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Component III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Component IV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Bone Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Human remains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Fauna . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Discussion: The Walrus in the Room . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
iii
Figures Figure 1. Regional map showing sea ice and the location of Round Island and most places mentioned in the text. . . . . 2 Figure 2. Location of Round Island, XNB-00043 site area, and trails mapped in 2004. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Figure 3. XNB-00043 map showing archaeological features, 2004 and 2008 test locations, and disturbance areas. . . . . . 4 Figure 4. Northern tip (“Dragon’s Spine”) of Round Island from west main beach trail. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Figure 5. Walrus hauled out, east side of Round Island near XNB-00043. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Figure 6. Primary boat landing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Figure 7. Test 8, east wall profile showing the location of tephra sample and underlying sediment sample . . . . . . . . . 13 Figure 8. Two sigma range of XNB-00043 radiocarbon dates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Figure 9. Locus 1, campground outhouse, and Test 4, view to the west . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Figure 10. Locus 1 campground outhouse and Test 5, view to the south. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Figure 11. Locus 2, garden area disturbance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Figure 12. Numbered surface features and test excavation locations at XNB-00043. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Figure 13. Surface features mapped at XNB-00043 and location of tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Figure 14. Burn barrel in Feature 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Figure 15. Walrus tusk in slumping house sediments behind the burn barrel in Feature 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Figure 16. Test 5 east wall profile. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Figure 17. Test 5 east wall profile showing depths and approximate locations of radiocarbon dates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Figure 18. Test 1 east and south wall profiles, showing undisturbed site stratigraphy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Figure 19. Walrus mandible Test 1, Level 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Figure 20. Partial walrus cranium with broken lance point, Test 3, Level 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Figure 21. North and east wall profiles of Test 3 in the garden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Figure 22. Photographs of the north (left) and east walls of Test 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Figure 23. Tests 6, 7, and 8 at the top of Level 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Figure 24. Test 6, base of Level 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Figure 25. Tests 6, 7, and 8, Level 4 plan view. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Figure 26. Tests 6, 7, and 8 Level 5 plan view. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Figure 27. Tests 6, 7, and 8 Level 6 plan view. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Figure 28. Tests 9 and 10 north wall profile showing approximate locations of radiocarbon samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Figure 29. Profiled north walls of Tests 9 and 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Figure 30. Test 10 east wall profile showing garden cut . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Figure 31. Ceramics shown with individual scales. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Figure 32. Miniature ceramic vessels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Figure 33. Debitage raw material distribution by Locus (L1 and L2) and Component (CI, CII, CIII, and CIV). . . . . . . . . . . 37 Figure 34. Raw material distribution for cores, flake tools, and finished tools by Locus and Component . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Figure 35. Component I artifact distribution by raw material for Test 5.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Figure 36. Component I artifacts from Test 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Figure 37. Component I artifact distribution by material type from Test 1.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Figure 38. Component 1 artifact distribution by material type from Test 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Figure 39. Test 3 Component I artifacts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Figure 40. Component 1 artifact distribution by material type from Test 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Figure 41. Component I artifacts from Test 6 Level 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Figure 42. Component I artifact distribution by material type from Tests 7 and 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Figure 43. Component I artifacts from Tests 7 and 8 Level 7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Figure 44. Component I artifact distribution by material type from Tests 9 and 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Figure 45. Component I Tests 9 and 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Figure 46. Component II artifact distribution by material type from Test 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
iv
Figure 47. Test 5 Level 18 canine-shaped polished stone tool/pendant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Figure 48. Component II artifacts from Test 5 Levels 16–17. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Figure 49. Component II artifacts from Test 5, Levels 17–18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Figure 50. Component II artifact distribution by material type from Test 1 Level 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Figure 51. Component II artifact distribution by material type from Test 1 Levels 6 and 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Figure 52. Component II (A and C) artifacts from Test 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Figure 53. Component II artifact distribution by material type from Test 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Figure 54. Test 6 Component II artifacts Levels 4–6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Figure 55. Point from Test 6 Level 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Figure 56. Component II artifact distribution by material type from Tests 7 and 8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Figure 57. Component II artifacts from Tests 7 and 8 Levels 4–6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Figure 58. Component II artifact distribution by material type from Tests 9 and 10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Figure 59. Component II artifacts from Test 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Figure 60. Component II artifacts from Test 10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Figure 61. Component III artifact distribution by material type from Test 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Figure 62. Component III artifacts from Test 5 Levels 7–11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Figure 63. Component III artifacts from Test 5 Levels 7–14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Figure 65. Component III artifact distribution by material type from Test 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Figure 66. Pecked and ground stone vessel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Figure 67. Component III artifacts from Test 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Figure 68. Component III artifact distribution by material type from Tests 7 and 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Figure 69. Stemmed Points from Round Island (A, B), Mink Island (C) and Pedro Bay (D).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Figure 70. Component III artifacts from Tests 7 and 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Figure 71. Component III artifact distribution by material type from Tests 9 and 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Figure 72. Test 9 Component III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Figure 73. Test 10 Component III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Figure 74. Component IV artifact distribution by material type from Test 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Figure 75. Component IV artifacts Test 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Figure 76. Selected artifacts from disturbed contexts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Figure 77. Selected artifacts from Test 3 disturbed sediments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Figure 78. Left, harpoon with open socket. Right, center prong or point . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Figure 79. Human tooth fragments from Test 7 Level 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Tables Table 1. Radiocarbon dates from XNB-00043 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Table 2. Summary of faunal remains from undisturbed contexts at XNB–00043, 2004 and 2008. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66–67 Table 3. Summary of faunal remains (NISP) from all contexts at XNB-00043, 2004 and 2008. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
v
Introduction
3; Schaaf et al. 2007a). Test 1, a half meter square, was excavated adjacent to the garden to examine the undisturbed stratigraphy and what had been destroyed by the garden excavation. Test 1 yielded three radiocarbon dates; 2010 radiocarbon years before present (rcy bp) at the base of the sod, 3350 rcy bp associated with an occupation floor and walrus mandible, and 5030 rcy bp above sterile deposits. Limited testing was conducted in the garden area, the location of a proposed new cabin and outhouse, to determine depth of disturbance. Test 3, one meter square, demonstrated the presence of undisturbed cultural deposits beneath the overturned garden sediments. Several artifacts were recovered in situ, including a broken lance point resting on a partial walrus cranium with wood charcoal dated 4920 rcy bp (see Figure 20; Table 1). Tests 2 and 4 were opened as potential outhouse locations but not excavated due to the density of artifacts in the root mat. Thirteen hundred artifacts were recovered from less than one cubic meter excavated in 2004. This limited testing showed that cultural deposits at XNB-00043 are at least 1.5 meters deep and yielded early occupation dates that were unexpected based on previous research in the region (Schaaf et al. 2007b).
This report describes archaeological investigations at XNB00043, a previously known but unexplored site on Round Island, the southeastern-most island in the Walrus Islands State Game Sanctuary, northern Bristol Bay (Figures 1 and 2). The work was needed to meet immediate operational needs and was conducted from May 28 to June 2, 2004, and June 18 to 28, 2008, in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). Round Island is known as Qayassiq or Qayaciq, “place to go in a kayak” (Fall et al. 1991:4), recorded as Kaiashikh in 1818 by Korsakovskiy (in VanStone 1988:37). It is 11.5 miles offshore, directly south of Right Hand Point and midway between Hagemeister Island to the west and Nushagak Peninsula to the east. The sanctuary was established in 1960 to protect the last remaining terrestrial haulout of the Pacific walrus (Odobenus rosmarus divergens) in North America and is managed by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G; Alaska Statute 16.20.090). It was designated a National Natural Landmark in 1968, a program established under the Historic Sites Act of 1935 and administered by the National Park Service. This added national recognition of the “exceptional natural value to the nation as a whole” of the Walrus Islands for the concentration of Pacific walrus, with Round Island in particular serving as a primary summer haulout for male walrus.
No suitable places for new outhouses were identified. Two rock rings of unknown age with evidence of early twentieth century use were located and mapped in a boulder field at the base of a nearby slope (Figure 2). Isolated artifacts on outlying trails indicated a high probability for finding additional sites on the island. The area of maximum disturbance to XNB-00043 was determined to be 0.2 acres (.075 hectares), or 3.5 percent of the total site area. The absence of disturbance from looting is a direct result of the seasonal ADF&G and Fish and Wildlife Service presence on the island.
In 2004, the state historic preservation officer requested that NPS provide archaeological expertise to ADF&G to (1) accurately map XNB-00043 and its features so that future development could avoid sensitive areas, (2) determine site boundaries, (3) assess current site condition and identify adverse effects of past ADF&G activities, (4) reroute trails to minimize further damage to site features, (5) excavate in advance of any needed ground-disturbing improvements, and (6) evaluate National Register eligibility (DNR-OHA File No. 3130-2R ADF&G). A primary objective was to disturb as little of the site as possible in addressing these needs.
Most of the management recommendations for site protection based on the 2004 field work had been implemented by 2007, but there remained an urgent need for replacing the two existing outhouses (AKDNR-OHA Permit No. 2008-07). ADF&G initiated consultation with Helen Chythlook Aderman (marine mammal coordinator, Bristol Bay Native Association and also the executive director of the Qayassiq Walrus Commission), who secured funding for the training and participation of two interns, Paul Askoak and Chasity Anelon, from the Bristol Bay Summer Youth Stewardship Program. Aderman led consultation with Moses Kritz, president of the Togiak Traditional Council; Walter Kanulie, tribal administrator; and Frank Logusak, Sr., chairman of the Qayassiq Walrus Commission.
The ADF&G facilities, trails, and campground share with archaeological site XNB-00043 the only patch of relatively level, well-drained ground having access to two of the island’s so-called boat landings. In 2004, a 5.7 acre (2.3 hectare) site area was mapped containing over 100 surface depressions representing semisubterranean houses, storage pits, sod borrow areas, and unidentified features (Figures 2,
1
In 2008, six one-meter square test units were excavated by an interagency team: Test 5 in the campground and Tests 6–10 in the disturbed garden area located 100 meters from the campground (Figure 3). Over 9700 artifacts, bone, and samples were recovered. Additional radiocarbon dates complemented the components identified from the 2004 investigations, demonstrated the presence of all identified components in two widely separated areas of the site, and extended the site depth to 2.0 meters and the earliest occupation to 5450 rcy bp (Table 1). The results of this work are integrated with the 2004 data and presented here. The collection size is substantial, but because of previous site disturbance and the deliberate placement of the tests in compromised locations, many artifacts lack secure context and therefore identification of cultural components based on stratigraphy alone is not possible.
The 2004 and 2008 investigations led to the surprising discovery of early, pre-Norton tradition occupations on the island. We have demonstrated that XNB-00043 is a deeply stratified site with cultural occupations associated with Pacific walrus dating from 6310 to 1465 cal bp as well as with undated Thule tradition and historic occupations. It is the oldest radiocarbon-dated coastal site in western Alaska north of the Alaska Peninsula and Kvichak Bay, with enormous research potential because it preserves a dynamic record of human and natural history that spans 6000 years. Marine mammal, seabird, and other faunal remains associated with the cultural occupations provide a unique dataset for climate change, species evolution, and conservation research.
Figure 1. Regional map showing sea ice and the location of Round Island and most places mentioned in the text. Image captured by the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) on NASA’s Aqua satellite on January 15, 2012. Sea ice extents in 2012 were well above normal, reaching a record high in March 2012. Two factors contributed to the extensive sea ice cover: low air temperatures and persistent northerly winds (http://visibleearth.nasa. gov/view.php?id=77832 accessed April 2015).
2
Walrus Islands State Game Sanctuary and National Natural Landmark Observation Point
bo
at
Qayassiq
Alternative Boat Launching Site
v co
e
Surface Artifact
North Boat Cove Overlook Flat Rock Viewpoint
Ar
Round Island Archeological Site (XNB-043)
ch eo
lo
gi
ca
lS
ite
Bo
un
da
Water Tank
ry
B
First Beach
R
IS TO
Rock Ring Features
First Prime Beach
L
BA Y
Second Beach
Second Prime Beach
East Cape
Viewpoint Trail
0
100
200 Meters
Lake Clark Katmai Studies Center U.S. National Park Service January 2005
Figure 2. Location of Round Island, XNB-00043 site area, and trails mapped in 2004. GPS data are considered to have sub-meter horizontal accuracy. Map by B. E. Bundy from Schaaf et al. 2007a: figure 6.
3
Qayassiq Round Island Archeological Site (XNB-043) Modern Infrastructure and Disturbances
Campground Viewpoint Campg ro
ve co at o b
und
Alternative Boat Launch Point
Former Boathouse
N
T5
T4
Reported Garbage Pit and Outhouse Area Burn Barrel
CONTRIBUTING FEATURES Archeological Site Boundary
see inset
Prehistoric Feature Test Unit Location (T) NONCONTRIBUTING FEATURES Subsurface Disturbance
ch
Tie down
Reported Additional Subsurface Disturbance
Tre n
Modern Infrastructure without Subsurface Disturbance
Hot Tub/ Shower
Wind Generator Pole
25
rp he
a nn te An
or
Abandoned Trail
0
Cabin
T2
Currently Used Trail t
T1
at We
F Ga orm rd er en T9 T10 T6 T3 T7 T8 O
50 Meters
Lake Clark Katmai Studies Center U.S. National Park Service January 2005 (Revised 2010) 0
5
Scar from Leveling for Cabin Construction
She d ut Curren ho t Outho us use eP its (Ab 10 Meters andoned)
Figure map 2004 showing archaeological features and 2008(modified test Figure3.7:XNB-00043 Site Map including and 2008 Test Excavations, Modern (green), Buildings, 2004 and Disturbances from Schaaf et al. 2007: Figure locations (blue), and disturbance areas (red). GPS data are7). considered to have sub-meter horizontal accuracy. Modified for the National Register nomination from B. E. Bundy map in Schaaf et al. 2007a:figure 7.
4
Due to the exceptional significance of the site, NPS sought and received funding in 2009 from the National Park Foundation to prepare a National Register nomination with National Historic Landmark designation for the Walrus Islands Sanctuary, in partnership with the ADF&G, the Togiak Traditional Council, and the Qayassiq Walrus Commission (Casperson and Schaaf 2015). In recognition of its exceptional value to the nation, the Walrus Islands Archaeological District was designated a National Historic Landmark January 11, 2017. The collections from XNB00043 are curated at the University of Alaska Museum of the North in Fairbanks (Accessions UA2005-56 and UA2008-78).
bench along the northeast shore, the location of XNB00043. This area has several small creeks (at least two are spring-fed) and supports a mosaic of willow thickets, wet and dry tundra, meadow, and herb communities (Hasselbach and Neitlich 1996). The site area is classified as a bluejoint grass (Calamagrostis canadensis) meadow (ibid:11). The bedrock forming the east side of the island is medium-grained granitic plutonic rock, ranging from quartz monzonite to granodiorite to diorite (Wilson et al. 2013). Except for the northern spit, the island’s shore is characterized by small, high-energy, rocky beaches. Most are tidally influenced and backed by fortress-like bedrock cliffs from 9 to 275 meters (30–900 feet) high (Figures 5, 6). Rounded beach cobbles derive at least in part from Wisconsin glacial drift (Hamilton et al. 1986, Calkin 1988:figure 1). The diurnal tidal range in this part of Bristol Bay, measured at the Black Rock Walrus Island station, rarely exceeds 12 feet. Site elevation at datum A is 40.2 meters (132 feet) above mean sea level (asl) and datum B is 25.3 meters (83 feet) asl, measured by GPS with an estimated error of ± 0.5–1.5 meters (see Figure 12).
Setting Round Island is small, about 3.4 square kilometers (1.3 square miles) in area with a distinctive 2.4 km (1.5 mile) long, tidally submerged spit extending northwest from a jagged spine of Cretaceous volcanic rocks (Figure 4; Wilson et al. 2013). The island’s volcanic west side slopes steeply to the shore from a commanding summit plateau that is about 427 meters (1400 feet) in elevation. Habitable areas along the shore are limited to the north and east sides of the island where the more moderate slopes flatten to a sloping
Round Island is the primary summer haulout for male walrus in Bristol Bay, with as many as 14,000 walrus counted in a single day. Mean annual counts for the island’s east side
Figure 4. Northern tip (“Dragon’s Spine”) of Round Island from west main beach trail. These beaches are seasonally filled with male walrus, hauling out after feeding forays. Photo by J. Alderson 2004.
5
Figure 5. Walrus hauled out, east side of Round Island near XNB-00043. Photo by J. Schaaf 2008.
beaches have varied from 1,700 to 8,700 since 1985 (Weiss and Morrill 2013:figure 4). Three other regularly used haulouts in Bristol Bay were recognized by 1980: Cape Seniavin near Port Moller and Capes Newenham and Peirce (Frost et al. 1983; Fay et al. 1984). Hagemeister Island, Crooked Island, and Twin Islands are occasionally used as summer haulouts (Frost et al. 1983; Garlich-Miller et al. 2011). Prior to 1950, there were several haulouts along the Alaska Peninsula and on the islands in northern Bristol Bay (Fay et al. 1984).
XNB-00043 (Figure 2). The annual mean number of sea lions counted since 1999 ranges from 50 to 200 (Weiss and Morrill 2013:figure 6). Most branded individuals sighted have been from Ugamak Island in the eastern Aleutians, with a few from Sugarloaf Island in the Barren Islands near Kodiak, Marmot Island near Kodiak, and Medny Island in Russia (ibid. p.8). Several other marine mammals frequent the area, including harbor seal (Phoca vitulina), spotted seal (Phoca largha), and fur seal (Callorhinus ursinus). Gray (Eschrichtius robustus), humpback (Megaptera novaeangliae), orca (Orcinus orca), and minke (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) whales pass by, sometimes feeding offshore in the spring on their migration north (ADF&G 2015a). Terrestrial mammal species are a minor component of the island fauna, with the red fox (Vulpes vulpes) the largest and most damaging to the archaeological deposits.
Walrus begin arriving at Round island in mid-April and leave in late fall. In winter, males congregate on the ice pack with females and young near polynyas and other areas with access to open water during the January to March breeding season (Fay 1982). The nearest polynya to Round Island is on the south side of Nunivak Island (Stringer and Groves 1991).
The small freshwater sources on Round Island do not support fish but the surrounding marine waters are one of Bristol Bay’s principal spawning areas of Pacific herring (Clupea pallasii) and yellowfin sole (Limanda aspera;
There is a Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus) haulout at East Cape on Round Island about 0.62 miles south of
6
Figure 6. Primary boat landing at snow patch, photo center. XNB-00043 is above the boat landing. Photo by J. Schaaf 2004.
S innott 1992). All five species of Pacific salmon (Orcorhynchus spp.) are found here as well (ibid.). Surveys in the nearshore waters of Togiak Bay and Nushagak Bay have documented a complex and rich array of fish and invertebrate species and highlight the importance of the area for fish nurseries (Limpinsel and McConnaughey 2013).
(Coulter et al. 1965; Kaufman et al. 1995). The Walrus Islands were high ground, overlooking part of the vast southern Bering Land Bridge plain, exposed when sea level was 120 meters lower than it is today. By 6000 years ago, Round Island was an island configured much like it is today, although sea level was still four to six meters below present (Manley 2002; NOAA Bathymetry Map 2015). Barclay et al. recently summarized all proxy data for glacier fluctuations in Alaska and concluded that Neoglaciation, a period of alternating warm and cool periods, each period lasting a few hundred to a thousand years, was underway by 4500 to 4000 years ago in some areas (2009:2037). Its onset in the northern Bristol Bay region may be indicated by an increase in glacier activity at ca. 3100 years ago, as interpreted from the Waskey Lake core in the Ahklun Mountains (ibid.; Levy et al. 2004). During cold periods of the Neoglacial, sea ice may have been thicker, persisting in Bristol Bay longer than today and altering sea mammal migrations and human adaptations (Crockford and Frederick 2007; Knecht and Davis 2008).
Over 105 species of birds have been documented on Round Island and nearly 250,000 nesting seabirds are reported (ADF&G 2015b). Among 24 nesting species are the pelagic cormorant (Phalcrocorax pelagicus), bald eagle (Haliaetus leucocephalus), black-legged kittiwake (Rissa tridactyla), common murre (Uria aalge), pigeon guillemot (Cepphus columba), parakeet auklet (Cyclorrhynchus psittacula), tufted puffin (Fratercula cirrhata), and horned puffin (F. corniculata; ibid.). During the late Wisconsin glacial maximum 20,000 years ago, ice was confined in this area to the Ahklun Mountains north of the Walrus Islands and to the Alaska Peninsula
7
Previous Research
consistent with those on Summit Island and have not yet been reported. Shaw alerted sanctuary management to the widespread vandalism observed and urged protection and further investigation of the sites.
XNB-00043 was first reported to the Alaska Department of Natural Resources Office of History and Archaeology by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game when cultural material was encountered during facility construction in 1976 (Alaska Heritage Resources Survey file [AHRS]). The site was observed on an aerial survey of the Walrus Islands in 1982 (Klingler 1983), briefly visited by the state archaeologist Robert Shaw in 1986 (pers. comm. 2004; Bailey 1991:25), and otherwise had remained unexplored until the 2004 and 2008 investigations. No testing was done in 1986, but check and linear stamped pottery was noted in the sediments disturbed by the ADF&G cabin and garden disturbances. Artifacts were collected from the surface and fit with Norton tradition assemblages found on Crooked and Summit Islands (Shaw 1998:238). It is possible that the artifacts collected from XNB-00043, which were not described, are with the Summit Island collection which is housed at the Museum of the North in Fairbanks (accession numbers UA82-124, UA82-125, UA82-126, UA85-87, and UA85-88). Bailey predicted, “. . . it was clear that deposits were likely multi-component and could eventually produce a clearer picture as to the cultural manifestations of the region” (1991:25).
The northern half of nearby Hagemeister Island was briefly surveyed in 1979 (Shaw 1979) and again with testing in 1986 (Bailey 1991). Of nine sites recorded, two large settlements were mapped and intensively tested: XHI00016 (Qikertarpak) with at least 211 house and cache features representing two major occupations affiliated with the Norton tradition (1210 ± 80 rcy bp and 870 ± 80 to 780 ± 70 rcy bp, ibid:56, 78) and XHI-00061 with 220 house and cache features (780 ± 70 rcy bp, ibid:101). Based on the artifact assemblages, Bailey concluded that the younger occupations represented a persistence of a Norton affiliated culture, after the appearance in the region of the unrelated Thule tradition people who had settled at Old Togiak by 1000 years ago (ibid.:101; Kowta 1963). Archaeological research in the greater Bristol Bay area has been summarized by Ackerman (1998, 2004) and Shaw (1986, 1998), and by Dumond for the northern Alaska Peninsula (1981, 1998, 2011). A growing body of data has been collected by Bureau of Indian Affairs archeologists from research on Native-owned parcels in the Bristol Bay region (cf. Biddle 2001, DePew and Biddle 2006, Slaughter and Biddle 2002) and by others for projects requiring compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (cf. McMahan et al. 2000).
Summit Island, located just off the mainland coast about 19 miles north of Round Island, was surveyed and tested in 1982 and 1985 (Shaw 1986). Five prehistoric sites (XHI00042–00045 and XHI-00057) were documented in the central portion of Summit Island with radiocarbon dates ranging from 2460 to 610 rcy bp (ibid:5). XHI-00042 and XHI-00043 are large village sites with stratified midden deposits up to 1.5 meters in depth between house depressions and with excellent antler and bone preservation. The island was occupied intermittently beginning 2500 years ago, during a time when large village sites affiliated with the Norton tradition became widespread along the coast of western Alaska (ibid:3). Later and smaller settlements on Summit Island were found to be affiliated with the Thule tradition and other late prehistoric occupations.
The earliest recorded coastal sites in Bristol Bay north and west of Kvichak Bay are dated to the Norton tradition, beginning about 2500 years ago. Ackerman surveyed the Cape Newenham coast along Hagemeister Strait from Asigyukpak Spit to Osviak Bay and identified sites spanning the last 2000 years (in Shaw 1998:238). A late Norton hunting camp is recorded on the middle Togiak River and dated 1290 ± 50 rcy bp (Biddle 2001), and many later sites spanning the last 2000 years are recorded along the mainland coast in Bristol Bay north of the Alaska Peninsula (AHRS; Shaw 1998:39).
Eight sites were identified from aerial survey on Crooked Island west of Round Island (XHI-00036 and XHI00046–00052; Shaw 1986). Village sites, XHI-00046 and XHI-00051, and a lithic scatter, XHI-0008, were tested in 1982 (AHRS; Shaw 1986; accession numbers UA82-127, UA82-128, and UA82-129). The results of this testing were
On the north side of Cape Newenham in Kuskokwim Bay, 70 miles west of Round Island, the earliest site with a coastal nexus is a surface scatter containing side-notched points, located a kilometer from shore in Security Cove. The site is thought to date from 6000 to 4500 years ago based on typological comparisons with dated Northern Archaic
8
assemblages from the Onion Portage site (Ackerman 1964, 2004, 2008). The Security Cove site was thought to be a base camp of land-based hunters using side-notched points mounted as spear heads to intercept caribou moving to the coast in summer or late fall. The artifact assemblage includes meat, hide, and antler processing tools as well as three net weights indicative of netting fish (Ackerman 2004). Ackerman suggests that caribou may have been driven into the bay here and speared from open boats (2008:163). Another Northern Archaic tradition site near the coast was recorded near Goodnews Bay, where surface artifacts included side-notched and stemmed points and a net sinker (Ackerman 2004).
houses with central hearths and a two-meter-long entryway with a cold trap and cache pits for storing late season salmon. A later Norton seasonal camp, dated 1350 ± 100 to 1260 ± 70 rcy bp, is characterized by the addition of ground knives and scrapers to the earlier tool kit. This occupation was followed by a Thule tradition seasonal camp, dated 720 ± 70 to 250 ± 50 rcy bp, with ground knives and endblades, gravel-tempered pottery and abundant fire-cracked rock (ibid:table 30). It is thought that these people were practicing a mixed subsistence economy, seasonally balancing terrestrial (caribou and fish) and marine (seal) resource use. After 2500 years ago, with a roughly 600-year hiatus between dated ASTt sites, villages of the Norton tradition were established along the coast, on the Bristol Bay islands, and up major river drainages. In addition to the sites mentioned above, the Norton tradition for this region has been defined by research in Chagvan Bay just northeast of Security Cove (Ackerman 1964; Larsen 1950), on Nunivak Island (Griffin 1999, 2002, 2004; Nowak 1970, 1982), and the northern Alaska Peninsula (Dumond 1981, 1982; Hoffman 2009). At least 14 sites have been documented around the coast of Nunivak Island; none predate the Norton tradition (AHRS; Griffin 2002). Sometime after 1000 ad, the Norton culture was replaced or absorbed by the Thule tradition, a northern maritime-based culture directly ancestral to the historic Yup’ik-speaking people inhabiting the area at the time of contact, including the Tuyuryarmiut (or Togiakamiut, VanStone 1984:233) of Togiak Bay.
Upriver in the Ahklun Mountains near Goodnews Lake and Kagati Lake, there are surface artifact scatters containing side-notched points, some occurring with oblanceolate to lanceolate points and with prismatic blades and blade cores from much earlier occupations (Gallison 1983). The Pond site is the only radiocarbon-dated subsurface site at Kagati Lake and is attributed to the Northern Archaic tradition, where hunters constructed stone cairn drive lines to channel caribou into Pond Lake 4200 years ago (Ackerman 2004:161). These Northern Archaic sites are taken together to represent a subsistence base that included coastal and interior hunting (Ackerman 2004:156). Following the Northern Archaic tradition, the Arctic Small Tool tradition (ASTt) is represented by a few scattered interior sites in the region (Dumond 2005, O’Leary 2005; Slaughter 2005). There are no coastal or island ASTt sites recorded south of Cape Denbigh in Norton Sound and north of the Alaska Peninsula.
The late prehistory of this immediate area is best known from 1960 excavations at Old Togiak (Kowta 1963). Kowta’s analysis of the occupations and artifacts dating from 1000 ad to 1700 ad defined seasonal activities, with emphasis on hunting and fishing inland and at sea, and with shellfish collecting becoming increasingly important through time (ibid:453–455). Current research is being conducted at Old Togiak by Anna Prentiss (University of Montana Missoula) who has initiated long-term research emphasizing paleoecology, Yup’ik village history, demography, subsistence, technology, and social change during the past 1000 years.
ASTt presence is securely identified and dated at only one site in the Bristol Bay area, DIL-00153, at the outlet of Lake Beverly in the Wood River chain of lakes draining into Nushagak Bay (DePew and Biddle 2006). DIL-00153 has 25 rectangular or subrectangular features, 12 of which are four by four meters or larger, the rest smaller than two meters square. Four features at this site revealed five cultural components. The oldest, 3540 ± 90 to 3220 ± 80 rcy bp, has small, finely chipped endblades and scrapers, microblades, a whetstone, and shelters with slab-lined hearths which are interpreted as ASTt camps (ibid.). Subsequent occupations represent an early Norton village, 2380 ± 100 to 1990 ± 70 rcy bp, with chipped endblades and sideblades, planing adzes, flake knives, cobble cores, fiber-tempered pottery, and
Fall et al. report that within the span of oral history, Round Island was “used only for hunting, ‘out of respect for the animals (walrus)’” (1991:10). Seasonal use of Round Island primarily to hunt walrus at the haulouts was interrupted in 1960 when it became illegal and was resumed in 1994. When travelling by kayak, hunters preferred Qayassiq as the
9
most reliable walrus haulout (ibid.:10). Fall et al. describe traditional walrus hunting methods summarized from oral histories:
beach armed with sharp spears (kapuutaq). They beached their watercraft at either end of the group of walrus where the animals were most widely dispersed. According to Togiak elder Tom Chythlook, older and more sickly walrus with tougher hides and meat hauled out closest to the water. The hunters passed these by, approaching from below the younger, healthier animals on the higher rocks and cliffs. Using spears, certain hunters separated the choice animals from the old and the sick. They also herded the preferred animals to a convenient kill location. The walrus was shot at the tunucukviggun, the back of the head just above the neck. If the walrus was facing the hunter, it could be shot just below the jaw where the bullet could penetrate (T. Chythlook 1984). The number of walrus killed during each trip was limited by the capacity of the watercraft. Depending upon their size, up to five kayaks were needed to transport one walrus back to the village.
At Round Island, hunting for walrus occurred in a sheltered cove with a good rocky beach that was not covered during high tides. Places with sandy beaches were avoided, because sand is difficult to remove from walrus hide and portions of the kill might become unusable. The preferred times for taking walrus were the spring and fall. Late fall after the first frost was an excellent time because of the absence of flies (Westcoast 1984). October was especially good because walrus had gained fat content by then. According to elders, subsistence walrus hunting never occurred in the summer. During the early and mid twentieth century, walrus hunting at Togiak was a highly organized activity done exclusively by men. Each man in the hunting party had an assigned task. Only the best marksmen (nukalpiaq, “good hunter”) were permitted to harpoon or shoot the walrus. This was true both before and after guns became available, because there are only limited places where a walrus can be harpooned or shot and killed quickly. Other men were only allowed to handle spears (see below); others were butchers and packers. Younger men served as “trainees” or apprentice hunters before they were acknowledged to possess the necessary skills to lead a hunt. They were primarily observers, carriers, and loaders.
Next, the animals were butchered at the kill site. All the usable parts were stored in the boats for transport back to the village for further processing. It was essential that the walrus be treated in a proper manner called “cakarpeknaki,” “with respect and not in a wasteful manner” (T. Chythlook 1984). Unusable parts were properly discarded so as to leave the butchering site as clean as possible. (Fall et al. 1991:9–12)
Radiocarbon Dating and Chronology Twenty radiocarbon dates have been obtained from XNB00043: 17 from wood charcoal, two from bone collagen, and one from organic sediments (Table 1).
One method of hunting walrus was from skin boats in open water using harpoons (cavegneq) with two attached floats made of sealskin pokes (qerruinaq). Only the experienced and fast harpooners were permitted attempt to strike the walrus. As the walrus made a motion called “qakcilak,” suddenly diving and lifting their flippers, the harpooner struck the animal in the armpit where the skin is thinnest (T. Chythlook 1984).
The wood charcoal was not identified prior to the radiocarbon analyses, a decision based on the availability of a variety of shrubs on the island and the scarcity of driftwood. Hasselback and Neitlich (1996) found shrub birch (Betula glandulosa), dwarf birch (B. nana ssp. exilis), and several species of shrub willow (feltleaf willow [Salix alaxensis ssp. alaxensis], Barclay willow [S. barclayi], Alaska bog willow (S. fuscescens], and diamondleaf willow [S. pulchra]). While driftwood is a very rare occurrence on Round Island (E. Weiss and D. Okonek pers. comm. 2015), it is available
When hunting on Round Island and other walrus haul outs, each skin boat approached the
10
Table 1: Radiocarbon dates from XNB-00043. Beta Number
Catalog No. Field No.
Material
c13_DAT (o/oo)
Conventional Age BP
2sigmaCal
Provenience
Beta386202
UA2008-078-765 XNB043TU5L8
wood charcoal
–26.0
1680 ± 30
Cal bp 1690 to 1530
Test 5, Level 8, 73 cmbd, 57N/21W from SE corner of SWQ
Beta195221
ROUNDISL0-1
wood charcoal
–23.9
1960 ± 40
Cal bp 1995 to 1825
House wall exposed by installation of burn barrel 80 cmbs
Beta195222
ROUNDISL1-1
wood charcoal
–25.2
2010 ± 40
Cal bp 2055 to 1880
Test 1 Level 1 16–18 cmbd
Beta278185
XNB043T5L14A
wood charcoal
–27.5
2200 ± 40
Cal bp 2330 to 2120
Beta278184
XNB043T5L14
wood charcoal
–27.4
2230 ± 40
Cal bp 2345 to 2140
Beta252072
UA2008-078-806 XNB0430985
wood charcoal
–23.6
2250 ±40
Cal bp 2345 to 2145
Test 5 L14 94 cmbd 30N/35W from SE corner in SEQ, under decomposed bone in an artifact concentration Test 5 L14 95 cmbd 30N/35W from SE corner in SEQ, under decomposed bone in an artifact concentration Test 9 base of hearth basin 85–88
Beta320787
UA2008-078-454 XNB043-TU6L5
bone collagen extraction with alkali
–19.6 15N/14 N = +18.1
2260 ± 30
Cal bp 2345 to 2160
Test 6 Level 5 59 cmbd 34S/76W loose fragments from inside open socket bone harpoon
Beta252073
XNB043-T1041
wood charcoal
–25.4
2330 ±40
Cal bp 2365 to 2310
Test 10 NEQ E30 N 95 41 cmbd between large sea mammal ribs
Beta323145
UA2008-078-342 XNB043TU7
bone collagen extraction with alkali
–14.415N/14 N = +20.0
2560 ± 30 2320 ± 58*
Cal bp 2750 to 2545 Cal bp 2090 to 1810*
Test 7 Level 6 78.5–84 cmbd, probable human bone fragment
Beta406789
UA2008-78-778 XNB043T5L18
wood charcoal
–24.1
3070 ± 30
Cal bp 3370 to 3210
Test 5 Level 18S 122.5 cmbd, 10 cm N 12 cm W in SE quadrant
Beta248506
XNB043-TU6L4
wood charcoal
–23.4
3280 ± 40
Cal bp 3590 to 3405
Test 6, Level 4 NWQ 40S/85W 50 cmbd, collected next to point (UA2008-78-317)
Beta248504
XNB043-T8-51
organic sediment
–25.4
3280 ± 40
Cal bp 3590 to 3405
Test 8 51 cmbd, sediment sample from immediately below possible Aniakchak II tephra
Beta195223
ROUNDISL1-5
wood charcoal
–25.7
3350 ± 40
Cal bp 3690 to 3480
Test 1 Level 5 43 cmbd
Beta278187
UA2008-078-797 XNB043T8L7
wood charcoal
–25.5
4330 ± 40
Cal bp 5030 to 4840
Test 8 Level 7 84 cmbd 192S/76E
Beta278186
XNB043T5L20N
wood charcoal
–25.9
4520 ± 40
Cal bp 5315 to 5040
Test 5 Level 20N 51N/36W in NEQ
Beta248507
XNB043-TU7L7
wood charcoal
–24.3
4610 ± 40
Cal bp 5455 to 5145
Test 7, Level 7, top of level 7 199S/18W 82 cmbd
Beta248505
XNB043-T10
wood charcoal
–25.7
4620 ± 40
Cal bp 5465 to 5295
Test10, Level 10, 8N/60–68E 108–109 cmbd from basin in sterile with flakes in association
Beta195225
ROUNDISL3-5
wood charcoal
–20.7
4920 ± 40
Cal bp 5730 to 5590
Test 3 Level 5 53 cmbd
Beta195224
ROUNDISL1-8
wood charcoal
–20.6
5030 ± 40
Cal bp 5905 to 5655
Test 1 Level 8 85 cmbd
Beta248503
XNB043-T5L23
wood charcoal
–24.9
5450 ± 50
Cal bp 6310 to 6185
Test 5 Level 23s 11N/75W from SE LL, 170–180 cmbd
cmbd
* Adjusted for local reservoir correction using ∆R = 240± 50 (Pavlov Harbor):Glob res =–200 to 500: lab. mult = 1. Method for all dates: AMS Standard Delivery. Acid/alkali/acid pretreatment for all wood charcoal. All dates calibrated by Beta Analytic, Inc., using INTCAL13. References for mathematics used for calibration scenario: A Simplified Approach to Calibrating C14 Dates, Talma, A. S., Vogel, J. C., 1993, Radiocarbon 35(2):317–322. References to INTCAL13 database: Reimer, P.J. et al. 2013, IntCal13 and Marine13 radiocarbon age calibration curves 0–50,000 years cal bp. Radiocarbon 55(4):1869–1887.
11
in limited quantities on other islands and on the mainland shore of northern Bristol Bay. Togiak residents report finding spruce (Picea glauca or P. mariana) driftwood from the Kuskokwim River on the mainland coast to the west of Togiak, “about 30 to 40 km down the coast or on islands such as Hagemeister, Walrus or the Crooked Islands . . .” (Wheeler and Alix 2004:21). They also report having infrequently found Alaska yellow cedar (Chamaecyparis nootkatensis), Western red cedar (cf. Thuja plicata, ibid.) and hemlock (Tsuga sp.) carried into northern Bristol Bay by the Alaska Coastal Current through Unimak Pass (ibid. p.23; Stabeno and Schumacher 1999:figure 2). Driftwood, other than that carried to the coast by the Togiak River, was historically a rare resource in northern Bristol Bay, although its availability must have varied in the past along with changing environmental parameters. Driftwood may have accumulated in greater quantities on the island or on nearby shores prior to the first human occupation and during subsequent periods of abandonment. The wood charcoal dates from both widely separated site loci are stratigraphically consistent within test units and between the two site loci. Yet it is entirely possible that old wood found its way into the cultural deposits at XNB-00043. Ample wood charcoal samples remain in the XNB-00043 collection (UA2005-056 and UA2008-078-794 to 809) and could be used to identify any old wood influence in these preliminary radiocarbon dates.
values (+18.1) are high, comparable to values from terrestrial carnivores with a marine-influenced diet (e.g., dog bone from Iyatayet, A. Tremayne pers. comm. 2015). Recent studies report the same stable carbon and nitrogen isotope values from northern fur seals (Zeppelin et al. 2015) and ringed seals (Matley et al. 2015) and suggest the possibility that the bone used to make the harpoon was from a marine mammal. Applying the Pavlov Harbor marine offset provides an adjusted minimum radiocarbon age of 2020 ± 50 (1715 to 1465 cal bp). Black sediments at the base of an as-yet unidentified tephra were collected from the east wall profile of Test 8 and dated 3280 ± 40 rcy bp (Beta-248504; Figure 7). This tephra is younger than the fallout from the Aniakchak II caldera-forming eruption dated 3400 rcy bp (VanderHoek 2009:201). The geochemical similarity coefficient of the site tephra with the Aniakchak II proximal fallout is only 0.93, and there are currently no known candidate eruptions that match this tephra (Wallace 2015). The graphed two sigma ranges of the radiocarbon dates suggest three periods of site occupation, each represented at both site loci tested (Figure 8). Component I, 6310 to 4840 cal bp (N = 7), spans 1470 years and is separated from Component II by a gap of 1150 years. Component II, 3690 to 3210 cal bp (N = 4), is separated by 845 years from Component III which is from 2365 to 1530 bp (applying ∆R to one date; N = 9). Occupations postdating these components have not been dated.
Bone collagen dates were obtained from a bone harpoon (Figure 78 left; UA2008-078-342) and a possible human cranium fragment (UA2008-078-454; see Human Remains section), both found in disturbed sediments. The high ratios of 15N/14N (+20) and 13C/12C (–14.4) for the possible human bone indicate a strong marine influence (Table 1, Beta-323145; cf. Ambrose 1993, Coltrain 2010, Schoeinger et al. 1983) and the age is likely to be younger by an unknown number of centuries. Table 1 shows the application of ∆±R = 240 ± 50 for Pavlov Harbor applied before calibration of the date, assuming 100% marine influence. Dumond and Griffin (2002) estimated a marine carbon offset for Nunivak Island of 771 ± 29 years, based on the mean of five pairs of sea mammal residue and charcoal dates. Applying the Nunivak Island offset, the adjusted date is 1789 ± 42 (1773 to 1628 cal bp) for the bone.
No charcoal samples were recovered from Levels 1–7 of Test 5 postdating 1530 bp (Beta-386202) in the campground (Locus 1). There are no dated strata postdating 1825 bp in the administrative area (Locus 2) and there were no ground exposures, from testing or otherwise, in the central site area with Thule-like house depressions, so these additional occupations are as yet undated. The historic components of the site, likely represented by many small, short-term activity areas, have not been documented. Historic activity on Round Island is currently represented by two rock rings, sets of wooden and walrus tusk tent stakes in the qasgik (Feature 17, Figure 12), and a wealth of oral historical information (cf. Fall et al. 1991). Some portions of Test 5 reached bedrock between 200 and 210 cm below the surface, but frozen sediments and time constraints prohibited completion of the Test 5 excavation into completely sterile deposits. Further research will undoubtedly identify additional occupations.
The 13C/12C ratio for the harpoon (–19.6, Table 1, Beta320787) does not suggest a significant marine component, so the marine offset was not applied. However, the nitrogen
12
Figure 7. Test 8, east wall profile showing the location of tephra sample and underlying sediment sample dated 3280 ± 40 rcy bp. Photo by R. VanderHoek 2008.
13
Figure 8. Two sigma range of XNB-00043 radiocarbon dates (OxCal v4.2.4 Bronk Ramsey 2013: r:5 IntCal 13 atmospheric curve (Reimer et al. 2013 IntCal13 and Marine13 radiocarbon age calibration curves 0–50,000 years cal bp. Radiocarbon 55[4]). Beta-323145* as plotted is corrected for marine reservoir effect using ∆R=240.
14
Methods
Test 1 (0.5 m square) in Locus 2 was located adjacent to the garden to expose undisturbed site stratigraphy no longer intact in the garden (Figure 11). It was excavated by hand troweling in arbitrary levels and natural levels to sterile deposits about 0.9 m below the ground surface. Depths were measured from a line level set at 8 cm above the ground surface at the northeast test corner.
In 2004, XNB-00043 features, facilities, and trails were mapped using a Trimble Pathfinder ProXR GPS mapping grade beacon receiver with a TSC-1 datalogger and Asset Surveyor 5.27 software. All data were post-processed, differentially corrected using the Cold Bay Continual Operated Reference Station (CORS) located approximately 322 kilometers (200 miles) south. These data were provided to ADF&G for future site management. Horizontal accuracy of the mapping data is considered to be sub-meter (Schaaf et al. 2007a).
The disturbed sediments in the garden were removed by shovel from Test 3 (1.0 m square) and artifacts were collected by volunteers combing the unscreened backdirt. The undisturbed sediments below the garden were trowelled and artifacts were collected in situ. Locus 2 is an active fox denning area and the collapsed, filled former burrows or krotovinas were obvious in the sediments. Collection from them was avoided in Test 1 while none were noted in Test 3. The administrative area is where ground disturbance is concentrated, providing exposures and scatters of cultural material around the cabin foundation, the burn barrel placed in house Feature 6, and the bath house/tub trench in an unnumbered house feature (Figure 12). Selected artifacts exposed in these areas were collected for future interpretive use.
Two permanent site datums (18 inch rebar with two inch aluminum caps marked XNB-00043A and XNB-00043B) were set in 2004 for future reference (Figure 3). An additional datum XNB-00043C was set five meters northwest of Tests 9 and 10 (not shown on Figure 3). Testing was kept to a minimum to meet critical administrative needs and to document site chronology and stratigraphy in the most disturbed areas, while causing the least new disturbance to the site. The imperative for outhouse replacements defined two areas of subsurface investigation after survey efforts to locate off-site locations for these utilities failed due to accessibility and fresh water proximity constraints.
Three tests (6, 7, and 8) were placed along the west and south sides of Test 3, leaving a 0.2 m baulk in order to remove cultural deposits adjacent to and downslope of the outhouse placed above Test 3 in 2007. Test 6 measured 1.2 by 0.8 meters to accommodate the baulk and Tests 7 and 8 were 1.0 m square. The upper disturbed sediments were removed by shovel and screened through ¼ inch mesh. Undisturbed deposits were hand trowelled in arbitrary 5 cm levels, exposing artifacts in situ. The sediments were then screened through ¼ inch mesh. The test datum for measuring unit depths with a line level in 2008 was same as used for Test 3 in 2004, the northwest corner of Test 3. Placement of the outhouse above Test 3 could have compressed the ground surface, changing somewhat the relative height of the line level between the 2004 and 2008 measurements.
The two areas tested are designated Locus 1, the campground (2004 Test 4 [unexcavated]; 2008 Test 5), and Locus 2, the cabin, garden, and administrative area (2004 Tests 1 and 3 [Test 2 unexcavated]; 2008 Tests 6–11). These two site loci are separated by about 100 m (Figures 3, 12). In all, about 2.0 m3 were excavated in Locus 1 and 2.3 m3 of undisturbed deposits were excavated in Locus 2. In Locus 1, Test 5 (1.0 m square) was placed adjacent to the existing campground outhouse because it was in a natural hollow on the downslope side of a large rock outcrop, there were no surface features apparent, and it was thought it would primarily be a toss zone from the settlement above the outcrop (Figures 9, 10). Test 5 was excavated by trowel and by skim shoveling starting at Level 16. The waterlogged sediments were screened through ¼ inch mesh. The sediments were frozen and trowelled when thawed, a centimeter or two at a time. Excavators noted the possibility that artifacts may have been knocked from the wall when excavating the lower strata with a shovel. Depths were measured from a line level set at the ground surface of the southeast corner of the test.
Tests 9 and 10 formed a 2.0 m long trench along the garden’s cut edge, which was excavated to further expose a profile of undisturbed stratigraphy and identify any tephra deposits. Excavated by trowel, artifacts were recovered in situ and by using a ¼ inch mesh screen. Depths were measured from a line level set at the ground surface at the northeast corner of Test 9. Tests 9 and 10 were found to be at the back wall of a Norton house, all evidence of which
15
had been removed by the garden. The house itself had removed most but not all of the earlier stratigraphic deposits. Therefore, Test 11, a 0.45 m square test, was an attempt to locate and reopen 2004 Test 1 to gain additional information about the stratigraphy and possible ASTt component. Test 11 appeared to be mostly disturbed by fox burrows and was excavated to a depth of 59 cm below surface before it was abandoned due to lack of time.
outhouse, at least three former outhouses, the former water trough, current burn barrel, cold food barrel, rutted trails, and the cabin foundation excavation. At least one house depression was destroyed by the garden and another was noted after mapping, when the shed (see Figure 3) was moved to an off-site location. There are at least six remaining single-roomed houses measuring from 3.0 by 4.0 m to 4.6 by 7.5 m and several smaller depressions up to 1.7 m across. Part of a single-roomed house (Feature 6) is exposed by a 1.5 by 1.5 m, 0.9 m deep hole excavated for the burn barrel (Figure 14). A partial walrus skull with an intact tusk is visible in the west wall of this house about 0.8 m below the ground surface (Figure 15). A core edge rejuvenation flake (UA2005-056-0001) and charcoal sample dated 1960 ± 40 rcy bp (Beta-195221) were collected from the exposure near the walrus skull.
Surface Features The 105 mapped surface depressions form four spatial groupings with some overlap (Figure 13). Most of the larger features are clearly the remains of dwellings, the smaller features are likely cache pits, and the irregular and poorly defined shallow depressions are possibly sod borrow areas. Feature dimensions are provided in Schaaf et al. 2007a:table 2. Temporal associations of the features are unknown for the most part.
An additional house (the unnumbered feature immediately west of Feature 4; Figure 12) has been extensively disturbed by a trench (13.4 m long, 1.1 m wide, and 0.4 m deep) excavated the length of its floor for the former water trough or hot tub installed in the late 1970s or early 1980s. Sod blocks were stacked along the west side of the trench as a
The southern group of features (Features 1–16) includes the area of maximum disturbance from ADF&G operations and fox denning. This area contains the garden, current
Figure 9. Locus 1, campground outhouse, and Test 4 (opened but not excavated in 2004) view to the west. J. Schaaf photo 2004.
16
Figure 10. Locus 1 campground outhouse and Test 5, view to the south. J. Schaaf photo 2008.
Figure 11. Locus 2, garden area disturbance extends from foreground to the cabin outhouse in the background. Tests 9 and 10 are to the left of the standing figure (R. VanderHoek) at the edge of the garden. Tests 3 and 6–8 are to the right of the outhouse. Test 1 from 2004 was located on the high ground bordering the garden cut, photo left. Photo view to the east. J. Schaaf photo 2008.
17
Qayassiq Round Island Archeological Site (XNB-043) Prehistoric Features and Archeological Tests
87
88 89
86 84 81 80 79
85 92
82
93
83
90 98
91 94
96
95
100 99
101
97
102
103
105
104
B
68
58
69 66 57
56 55 54
71
70
61
N
78
59 63 62
65
64 75 72 60 74 73 53 51 76 48 77 38 T5 50 T4 47 41 37 49 46 42 34 31 30 45 40 44 43 29 39 26 36 32 33 28 27 52
21 22
24 25
19 18
23
8 9
7
A 17
6
10
20
12
13 14
16 15
1
11
5
2 3 4 T2
To Rock Rings from Datum A: Small: 192 , 255 m Large: 197 , 235 m
T1 T9 T6 T10 T7 T3 T8
Prehistoric Feature 49
Feature Number Datum
Archeological Site Boundary
Test Unit Location (T)
Currently Used Trail
0
Rerouted/Abandoned Trail
Lake Clark Katmai Studies Center U.S. National Park Service January 2005 (Revised 2010)
Surface Artifact(s)
25
50 Meters
Figure 8:surface XNB-043features Surface Features and Excavations (modified from Schaaf et al. 2007: Figure 9). 35, an Figure 12. Numbered and test excavation locations at XNB-00043. Feature irregular, indistinct depression, was not mapped. Feature shapes as mapped appear to be sharply angular because they are drawn directly from the GPS data and are defined by straight lines between the data collection points. GPS data are considered to have sub-meter horizontal accuracy. Modified from B. E. Bundy map in Schaaf et al. 2007a:figure 9.
18
Figure 13. Surface features mapped at XNB-00043 and location of tests. Modified from Schaaf et al. 2007a:figure 8.
windbreak. This house was identified after the mapping when ADF&G staff began to construct an elevated shower stall above the former disturbance. A notched pebble or net weight was collected from the east wall at 28 cm below the surface (UA2005-056-0004). A fiber tempered (with pebble inclusions), plain body sherd (UA2005-056-0003) and an ivory scraper (UA2005-056-0002) were collected from the trench floor. A large basalt blade-like flake and grey chalcedony flakes and charcoal were noted but not collected. The tub had rusted through so there are many metal fragments in the floor of the trench which will become incorporated in the site sediments over time. For this group of house depressions, the house form, radiocarbon date, pottery, and notched pebble are consistent with a Norton tradition settlement.
some sod borrow areas (e.g., Feature 26), and possibly four rectangular single-roomed houses. Site Datum A was placed 2.5 meters west of the center of the west wall of Feature 17. Feature forms suggest a Thule tradition occupation possibly overlapping an earlier settlement area represented by the single-roomed rectangular house depressions. The west central site group is a concentration of features (37–78) bisected by the main camp trail and located south of Datum B. Most of these features are on a southwest trending slope. There are eight round or subrectangular houses measuring at least 4.0 m across and over 30 smaller depressions that could represent houses or large caches. Disturbance in this area is a large undefined area identified as having been a former garbage burial and outhouse area (see Figure 3; M. Cody pers. comm. 2004).
The central site group (Features 17–36) occupies the highest elevation within the site area and has large deep house depressions measuring from 4.0 by 5.9 m to 5.3 by 8.2 m. At least three have entry rooms or long entryways and Feature 17, a large rectangular depression, is probably a community house or qasgik. It measures 7.9 by 11.9 m and is 0.72 m deep with a prominent berm around its perimeter. There are several cache-pit-sized depressions,
The campground area north of Datum B is on a small northward projecting point adjacent to sea cliffs, and of the site areas, it is the most exposed to weather. It has at least eight round, square, or rectangular houses with no visible entries ranging in size from 2.8 by 5.6 m to 5.5 by 7.9 m. Twenty mapped smaller depressions measure from 1.0 to 2.0 m across (Features 79–105). This area has minimal
19
Figure 14. Burn barrel in Feature 6, green grass outlines the house depression. Photo by J. Schaaf 2004.
disturbance and the trails that had crossed cultural features have been rerouted. This area of the site is subject to erosion along the cliff edges due to down-slope movement of the sediments. The age of the features and cultural deposits in this area are unknown.
Stratigraphy
Two rock rings are located on the rock scree slope near the spring-fed water tank, about 250 meters south/southwest of Datum A. They measure 2.1 by 4.6 m and 1.15 m deep and 1.5 by 3.3 m and 1.3 m deep respectively (inside dimensions). The age of the features is unknown but a rusted coffee can in one indicates 20th century use.
Locus 1
Cultural deposits at XNB-00043 are 2.0 m deep at Locus 1 and 1.5 m deep at Locus 2. Concentrations of artifacts begin at the base of the vegetation mat in both site areas.
Test 5 Test 5 in Locus 1 is in a naturally formed hollow on the downslope side of a large rock outcrop. Backdirt from the adjacent ADF&G outhouse excavation forms a wedge on top of the original vegetation mat. Layers of clay, fine sand, and coarse-grained sediments incorporate angular fragments of varying sizes from disintegration of the outcrop. These sediments, frozen below the original vegetation mat, slope between 20° and 40° toward the base of the rock (Figures 16 and 17). There are at least four discrete dark
No surface depressions were mapped in the west central area of the site. The site boundary there was estimated based on topography and drawn to provide a margin of protection for the site.
20
Figure 15. Walrus tusk in slumping house sediments behind the burn barrel in Feature 6. Photo by J. Schaaf 2004.
Locus 2
organic layers associated with radiocarbon-dated wood charcoal: 2200 ± 40 and 2230 ± 40 rcy bp from Level 14 (Beta 278185 and 278184), 3070 ± 30 rcy bp from Level 18 Beta 406789), 4520 ± 40 rcy bp from Level 20 (Beta 278186) and 5450 ± 50 rcy bp from Level 23 (Beta 248503). A sixth date is from above these layers and is 1680 ± 30 rcy bp from Level 8 (Beta 386202). The excavation levels crosscut the sloping dated layers, which were used to define the components described below, mixing part of Components II and III and to a lesser extent, Components II and I. Cultural material was recovered from all excavation levels to a depth of 190 centimeters below unit datum (cmbd). Sea mammal bone fragments and small pieces of burned or calcined bone were scattered in every level to a depth of 113 cmbd. Much of the bone was soft and not recoverable. A dense concentration of sea mammal bone occurred between 65 and 113 cmbd. The deposits and vertically oriented artifacts indicate that this was, at least in part, a discard zone.
Test 1, excavated 0.8 m north of the garden cut, provides the only record of undisturbed stratigraphy in Locus 2 (Figure 18). Because of the extent of disturbed deposits and the lack of distinct stratigraphic markers in the undisturbed deposits, it is not possible to correlate the stratigraphy among the Locus 2 tests except from the base (sterile deposits) up to the point of human disturbance. A number of radiocarbon dates were obtained in order to correlate site stratigraphy within and between the two site loci. Tests 3 and 6–8 are located in the garden, and undisturbed deposits in these tests correspond approximately with the lower 30 to 40 cm of deposits above sterile in Test 1, assuming that contact with sterile is a constant. Lithic flakes were encountered immediately below the dense grass mat in Test 1. Fox burrow disturbance was located along the south and west walls of Test 1, just beneath the sod, affecting about
21
Figure 16. Test 5 east wall profile. Bone deposit is below the large rock in the profile. Photo by R. VanderHoek 2008.
22
Figure 17. Test 5 east wall profile showing depths and approximate locations of radiocarbon dates (◊) and the excavation levels grouped as components (red dashed lines). Note that the excavation levels cut across sloping deposits resulting in some mixing of Component II with Component I and substantial mixing of Components II and III. A thick bone deposit is visible in the upper portion of the photograph to the right. Base profile modified by author.
23
mottled and less densely packed sediments shown by the dashed line between 30 and 40 cmbd in the profile (Figure 18). The burrow disturbance continued along the west and south walls and collection from it was avoided. Levels 3 and 4 divide the mottled and sandy sediments above a well-defined living surface shown as a thick black line in the profile. The top of Level 5 was defined by a compact surface with a concentration of micro-debitage pressed into it. Wood charcoal collected from this surface has a radiocarbon age of 3350 ± 40 rcy bp (Beta-195223). Bone decomposition and possibly ocher use contribute to the
5 cm of the floor along the south wall and 15 cm along the west wall. Level 1 was an arbitrary 5 cm level (13–18 cmbd) and was characterized by densely packed rootlets in black moist and clayey sediments. There are scattered white quartz crystals from decomposing bedrock in the sediment. A composite wood charcoal sample collected from 16–18 cmbd in this level provided a radiocarbon age of 2010 ± 40 rcy bp (Beta-195222). Level 2 of Test 1 consisted of the same sediments as Level 1 and was stopped at an indistinct sediment change to more
Figure 18. Test 1 east (left) and south wall profiles, showing undisturbed site stratigraphy adjacent to north side of garden. From Schaaf et al. 2007a.
24
patches of dark orange and very dusky red sediments occurring in this level and below. Sediments in Levels 5 and 6 are mottled dark brown and dark reddish brown, loosely packed and contain coarse to fine sand particles. A well-preserved walrus mandible was left in situ in the northwest corner of Level 6 (Figure 19). A color change and increased clay content characterize Level 7, with an occupation surface at 63 cmbd. Level 8 sediments were increasingly mottled with pockets of light brown claysized particles, coarse sand, and red-clayey/fine sand. Some of the red-brown staining is attributed to decomposing sea mammal bone. A date from one large piece of wood charcoal collected from 85 cmbd is 5030 ± 40 rcy bp (Beta-195224). The contact with sterile coarse red sand and
decomposing granodiorite is abrupt at the base of Level 8. A soil probe to about 105 cmbd showed well-sorted sands grading finer with depth.
Test 3 The intact sediments in Test 3 below the garden disturbance are described in Figure 21 and illustrated in Figures 20 and 22. The sediments are as described for Test 1, Levels 6–8. In places there are at least 35 cm of undisturbed deposits containing multiple occupation surfaces with some bone preservation. Cultural material was found at the base of Level 6 directly on top of the sterile sediments composed of coarse sand with decomposing bedrock and lenses of clay.
Figure 19. Walrus mandible in northwest corner of Test 1, Level 6, 53–63
25
cmbd.
Photo by J. Schaaf 2004.
shell (Figures 24, 26). A large circular disturbance in Test 8 appeared as a depression in Level 4 and formed a basin down to sterile deposits (Figures 23, 26, 27). It contained lithic flakes along with pink foam and a white lime-like substance and is probably a former privy. Other than this, no cultural features were identified in these units. Pockets of an orange/brown tephra appear most prominently in the north and east walls of Test 8 at about 49 cmbd (Figure 7). Three wood charcoal dates from these tests represent the occupations in the intact sediments below the garden. Nonfeature wood charcoal next to an unusual point type (Figures 24, 25, and 55) yielded a date of 3280 ± 40 rcy bp (Test 6 Level 4). Two additional wood charcoal dates were associated with flakes at the lowest cultural deposit above sterile sediments: 4334 rcy bp (Test 8 Level 7) and 4610 rcy bp (Test 7 level 7).
Tests 6, 7, and 8 Disturbed garden sediments comprise the upper 25 cm of Tests 6, 7, and 8 above a ca. 10 cm thick transition zone of slightly more compact yellow/brown sediment, containing more burned or calcined bone and wood charcoal that attach to the upper surface of the intact sediments below. These transition zone sediments are not overturned and blended as are the upper garden sediments. The surface of the undisturbed deposits is very irregular, reflecting various depths of the garden activity. Intact sediments are a mottled yellow/brown and orange/brown with black lenses and fine to medium sand-sized particles as described for Test 3 (Figure 23). Decomposing bone and possibly ochre contribute to the yellow and red-orange lenses. Krotovinas appear as channels of less-compact darker sediments and contain pockets of well-preserved bird bone and crushed mussel
Figure 20. Partial walrus cranium with broken lance point (UA2005-056-0292, Figure 39A), Test 3, Level 5 southwest quadrant, 57 cmbd. Tip of arrow scale is the location of the wood charcoal dated 4920 ±40 (Beta-195225). Scale is in 5 cm sections. Photo by J. Schaaf 2004.
26
Figure 21. North (left) and east wall profiles of Test 3 in the garden. From Schaaf et al. 2007a:figure 18.
Figure 22. Photographs of the north (left) and east walls of Test 3 showing the distinct disturbance zone above the lighter brown intact sediments bearing cultural deposits. From Schaaf et al. 2007a:figure 19.
27
Figure 23. (Left) Tests 6, 7, and 8 (counterclockwise) at the top of Level 4, arrow oriented magnetic north. Note intrusive pit in Test 8 below the string, lower right. Test 3 excavated in 2004 is in the upper right corner. Photo by J. Schaaf 2008.
the house floor, sediments are yellow/brown with coarse sand and clay-sized particles from 80 to 95 cmbd. A basin excavated into sterile sediments from 105–120 cmbd in Test 10, is filled with sandy clay, mottled with dark organic loess (Figure 30). Wood charcoal associated with flakes provided a date of 4620 ± 40 rcy bp (Beta-248505). Cultural material occurred in the vegetation mat and continued to the sterile substrate between 105 and 125 cmbd. Burrow activity was confined to Test 10 above 40 cmbd. The deposits in Tests 9 and 10 from the base of the vegetation mat to a depth of 75–80 cm correlate roughly to the upper 38 cm of Test 1 (based on the occurrence of ceramics).
Tests 9 and 10 The dark, organic-rich, silty sediments in Tests 9 and 10 are primarily house feature fill with several thin organic lenses above a solid house floor at 75–80 cmbd (Figures 28, 29). The floor is a thick, charcoal-rich layer with a basin hearth in Test 9. Two radiocarbon dates from the house are reversed: 2330 ± 40 rcy bp (Beta-252073) from house fill at 41 cmbd and 2250 ± 50 rcy bp (Beta-252072) from the base of the hearth 85–88 cmbd. The latter is from a distinct feature and is the more secure date. A piece of window glass was found in Test 10 from 60–65 cmbd and indicates disturbance probably from slump along the cut edge of the garden. Below
28
Figure 24. Test 6, base of Level 4 with point base (UA2008-78-317) pedestaled 7 cm above above a krotovina (dark band of sediments) in Level 5, to the left of the arrow tip. Photo by J. Schaaf 2008.
29
Figure 25. Tests 6, 7, and 8, Level 4 plan view. The point illustrated in Figure 55 and the wood charcoal sample dated 3280 ± 40 rcy bp (Beta-248506) are labeled “point base 50 cm” and “C14 sample” in the NW quadrant of Test 6. The ground slopes grid south toward a wet area and the excavations levels follow this natural slope. Therefore, the depths at the south edge of Test 6 and Tests 7 and 8 are ca. 10 cm lower than the north edge of Test 6.
30
Figure 26. Tests 6, 7, and 8 Level 5 plan view. The bone harpoon (Figure 78 left) is mapped in the krotovina, NW quadrant of Test 6. The ground slopes grid south and the levels follow this slope. Therefore, the depths at the south edge of Test 6 and Tests 7 and 8 are ca. 10 cm lower than the north edge of Test 6.
31
Figure 27. Tests 6, 7, and 8 Level 6 plan view. The ground slopes grid south and the levels follow this slope. Therefore, the depths at the south edge of Test 6 and Tests 7 and 8 are ca. 10 cm lower than the north edge of Test 6.
32
Figure 28. Tests 9 and 10 north wall profile showing approximate locations of radiocarbon samples.
Figure 29. Photograph of profiled north walls of Tests 9 (left) and 10. Note large sea mammal ribs, possibly part of the house structure, that were cut by the garden excavation. Photograph by R. VanderHoek 2008.
33
Figure 30. Test 10 east wall profile showing garden cut, note sea mammal ribs in left foreground and lower dark cultural lenses at base of the profile exposure. Photograph by R. VanderHoek 2008.
Ceramics Ceramics recovered from Locus 1 (N = 66 including 3 rims) represent a friable ware with smooth surface treatment (plain ware), plant (grass) fiber temper with pebble inclusions (4–9 mm), with walls ranging from 0.78–1.3 cm thick. One sherd has a lashing hole. A small rim suggests a large, straight-walled (or slightly rounded) vessel with a mouth diameter of about 26 cm (Figure 31C). These sherds occur at the base of the sod in Test 4 and in Test 5 from Levels 4–16 to a depth of 110 cm below surface. Associated dates are 1680 ± 30 rcy bp (Beta-386202) and 2200 ± 40 rcy bp (Beta-278185) from Test 5 levels 4 and 14 respectively.
The small collection of 216 ceramic fragments represents a variety of vessels that are predominantly flat-based, plain ware with bucket-shaped (walls flaring outward from base) and globular forms (Figure 31 A, B). Rims are not thickened, lips are undecorated, flat to slightly thinned and rounded, and sometimes angled (Figure 31 B–F, H, J). A large proportion of sherds (46%) are tempered with coarse plant fiber with scattered rounded or subangular pebbles from 1 mm to 9 mm (Figure 31 B inset and 31 K). A very few are check stamped, fiber/hair and sand tempered, and too small to indicate vessel form (4%; Figure 31 H). A large number are indeterminate (N = 46, split sherds, crumbs measuring less than 1.0 cm, and residue encrusted).
Most of the ceramics were recovered from Locus 2 near the ADF&G cabin where previous disturbance was concentrated at the south end of XNB-00043, about 100 meters southeast of Tests 4 and 5. Of the 150 sherds collected from this area, 61 (41%) are from disturbed contexts. Five sherds representing thin (0.6–.0.8 cm), plain ware with coarse plant fiber and rounded pebble inclusions or fiber and fine
Small and miniature vessels are represented at Locus 2, having flat bases and outward flaring walls (Figure 32). These vessels have plant fiber temper with pebble inclusions, with walls 0.38 cm to 0.5 cm thick and bases 0.5 cm to 0.54 cm thick. 34
sand temper are bracketed in Test 1 by two radiocarbon dates: 2010 ± 40 rcy bp (Beta-195222, 16–18 cmbs) and 3350 ± 40 rcy bp, a date from 5 cm below the lowest sherd (Beta-195223, Figure 31H). Ceramics recovered from undisturbed deposits in Tests 6 through 10 indicate that both thick and thin plain ware (N = 70) with coarse plant fiber temper containing rounded pebble inclusions and the less frequent check stamped ware (N = 9) with hair/feather/fine sand temper co-occur sometime before 2330 ± 40 rcy bp (Beta-252073).
by 8 mm). Temper is plant fiber with rounded sand or with rare pebble inclusions (up to 3 mm) and thickness is from 0.7–1.46 cm thick. A tiny slightly rounded rim sherd with fiber and hair/feather temper has faint rectangular stamping on both surfaces (Figure 31 E). An unusual sherd with plant fiber temper with pebble inclusions has three shallow rectangular impressions (0.8 x 0.4 cm with 0.42 cm spacing) on the sherd’s concave surface (Figure 31 G). Although no linear stamped pottery was identified in this collection, it was observed in the disturbed garden sediments on a 1986 site visit (Bailey 1991:25). A linear stamped sherd was reported in Schaaf et al. 2007a; however, this
Check stamped pottery impressions range from shallow, nearly square (3 mm by 4 mm) to linear rectangles (2 mm
Figure 31. Ceramics shown with individual scales beside the images. (A) basal sherd profile (UA2008-078-234 from surface behind cabin), (B) rim sherd of large globular vessel with inset showing rounded pebble in temper (UA2008078-714, Test 10, 71 cmbd), (C) rim sherd with profile and top views (UA2008-078-043, Test 5, Level 4), (D) rim sherd profile, top and interior views (UA2008-078-702, Test 10, 63 cmbd), (E) rim interior, profile and exterior views (UA2008078-744, Test 10, 60–65 cmbd), (F) split rim, both profiles and exterior view (UA2008-078-642, Test 9, 30–35 cmbd), (G) sherd with shallow rectangular impressions (UA2008-078-363 Test 7, disturbed sediments), (H) rim exterior, profile and interior (UA2005-056-0029 from Test 1 Level 4), (I) rectangular check stamp (UA2008-078-538, Test 8 Level 5), (J) rim profile and exterior view (UA2008-078-671, Test 10, wall sluff), and (K) example of coarse plant fiber temper with pebble inclusions (UA2008-078-052, Test 5, Level 12).
35
sherd, reexamined, has rectilinear stamps (Figure 31 I). All of the pottery found at XNB-00043 is similar to collections reported from Norton culture occupations in western Alaska: Norton Sound (Griffin and Wilmeth 1964), Chagvan and Nanvak Bays on the north side of Cape Newenham (Ackerman 1964, 1988; Larsen 1950; Ross 1971), Nunivak Island (Nowak 1982), Summit Island and Yukon- Kuskokwim Delta (Shaw 1982, 1983), Alaska Peninsula (Dumond 1969, 1981; Hoffman 2009). However, these reports, with the exception of Griffen and Wilmeth for Norton plain ware (with “sand” up to 4.0 mm), do not describe the pebble inclusions in descriptions of the plant fiber temper. All ceramics found are in Component III contexts except for 22 sherds (thick and thin plain ware) recovered from undated Levels 4, 5, and 6 in Test 5 and four sherds beneath the vegetation mat in Test 4 (2004). The description of this collection, which is composed mostly of small sherds, is very limited in its application to understanding cultural change within the 2365 to 1530 cal bp span of Component III.
Figure 32. Miniature ceramic vessels. Top, all views of body sherd (top) and basal sherd (bottom) from Test 6 transition zone. Bottom, all views of two basal sherds from one vessel, Test 6 Level 3.
36
Lithics Lithic artifacts are discussed by component and by test unit at each locality. Selected artifacts from among the 1633 items recovered from disturbed contexts are discussed last. Artifacts collected in 2004 were not re-examined with the 2008 collection. Raw material types are grouped as general categories: basalt/metatuff, chert/chalcedony, and slate
and require further analysis. The basalt/metatuff category includes dark gray to brown/tan material that lacks luster and transparency. Silicified slate and other infrequent raw material types were included in this category. Scans of debitage samples are provided in the artifact figures to illustrate the variety of raw material types. Pumice, quartz, quartzite,
Figure 33. Debitage raw material distribution by Locus (L1 and L2) and Component (CI, CII, CIII, and CIV). Slate appearing in low numbers in Component I is not apparent on this graph: there are two slate flakes in Locus 1 and two slate flakes and one modified slate flake in Locus 2.
Figure 34. Raw material distribution for cores, flake tools, and finished tools by Locus (L1 and L2) and Component (CI, CII, CIII, and CIV).
37
shale and granite occur rarely as debitage. Three obsidian flakes have been sourced to the Okmok Caldera on Umnak Island located roughly 762 km (473 miles) southwest of Round Island (Rasic 2015 and pers. comm. Sept. 16, 2015). The appearance of this obsidian varies from dull to glossy and it is likely that other specimens are present in the collection. Figures 33 and 34 show the overall distribution of raw material types by locus and component for debitage, cores and finished tools.
pared flakes and pebbles) suggest some use of a blade technology which appears to be most similar to Alaska’s North Pacific coastal assemblages (cf. Steffian et al. 2002). This technology is not found in the contemporaneous Northern Archaic sites in Security Cove and near Kagati Lake; however, it is found with side-notched points in the Ugashik Knoll phase (5055 ± 70 to 4810 ± 85 rcy bp) at Ugashik Narrows on the Alaska Peninsula (Henn 1978:12, 78–80). Blade technology occurs with large-stemmed endblades, bipointed bifaces (or lances), and rare ground slate fragments from 6281 to 4445 cal bp (Levels 4 and 5) at Margaret Bay (Knecht et al. 2001).
A full catalog with artifact measurement data is filed with the collection at the University of Alaska Museum of the North under accession UA2008-078.
Selected artifacts and debitage are described and illustrated by locus and test below. One possible feature identified in Locus 2 is a small basin containing flakes and scattered wood charcoal that was excavated into sterile site sediments at the very base of the cultural deposits. A variety of raw material is represented, with a preference for basalt and metatuff that was used for on-site, expedient tool manufacture (Figures 35, 37, 38, 40, 42, and 44). Some of this material was probably available on the island’s cobble beaches, derived from glacial till; however, chert/chalcedony cortical flakes are few and this material may have been brought to the island. The tool diversity suggests camps of some duration. Wood and bone-fired hearths and possibly pecked stone oil lamps were used during this time. There is no pottery associated with Component I. Walrus and common murre bone are identified from Locus 2 and no faunal remains were recovered from Locus 1 (Table 2). These camps are well preserved immediately above the sterile site substrate, with no disturbance of the sediments noted outside of the burrows and recent human activity in Tests 6, 7, and 8.
Component I The earliest occupations at XNB-00043 are defined by seven radiocarbon dates ranging from 6310 to 4840 cal bp (2 sigma range). The small collection has 15 formal chipped stone tools, eight modified and/or utilized flakes and 1225 pieces of debitage including five flake cores. Although small, the tool assortment includes chipped adzes, a pumice abrader (in fragments), hammerstones, large lanceolate endblade fragments, knives, and scrapers. The large endblade fragments have been compared to those found on the Pacific side of the Alaska Peninsula (Takli Island in Amalik Bay and Kodiak Island) and in the Eastern Aleutians at Margaret Bay and are interpreted as a local manifestation of an early northern maritime tradition (Maschner 2008:179). Of note are a medially grooved stone that is possibly a net sinker, a miniature contracting stemmed point, and a single slate flake polished on one side. Two blade fragments and imperfect microblades (possibly struck from unpre-
Figure 35. Component I artifact distribution by raw material for Test 5.
38
Figure 36. Component I artifacts from Test 5, showing both faces and with individual scales. (A) tiny contracting stemmed point, Level 20 (UA2008-078-225), (B) microblade (-like flake), Level 20 (UA2008-078-230), (C) debitage sample, Level 22 (UA2008-078-238), (D) cobble spall tool with bifacial edge retouch (UA2008-078-228), (E) knife fragment (UA2008-078-229), and (F) adze (UA2008-078-231).
cal bp, Knecht et al. 2001:62:figure 2.15B) and at Onion Portage (Classic Denbigh, 4000–2600 bp, Anderson 1988:figure 33-3). At this depth in Test 5, there may be admixture with the sloping dated organic layer defining Component II and with material dislodged from the test walls.
Component 1: Locus 1 Component I in Test 5 is defined by two radiocarbon dates, 4520 ± 40 rcy bp from Level 20 (Beta-278187) and 5450 ± 50 rcy bp Level 23 (Beta-248503), a span of over 900 radiocarbon years. Artifacts from Levels 19–24 are included in this component and are from 130 to 180+ cmbd. Undated Level 19 contains 62 flakes, one biface midsection, and a possible microblade and is arbitrarily assigned to Component I. The radiocarbon date from Level 23 is the oldest from the site by 400 radiocarbon years. This level and the partially excavated Level 24 may represent an earlier component. They are combined here because only seven lithic flakes were found in these levels. This possible earlier component has not been identified elsewhere at XNB-00043.
Other tools are a cobble spall with bifacial edge retouch (Figure 36 D), knife fragment (Figure 36 E), flaked adze (Figure 36 F), a large biface/preform midsection, and a burin spall. Three basalt/metatuff cobble flake cores most likely originate from till deposits on the local beaches. Four
This assemblage has six formal tools including a tiny contracting stem point 1.74 cm long, 0.70 cm wide, 0.3 cm thick (Figure 36 A). Similar forms appear later in ASTt contexts at Brooks River (Gravels Phase, 3750–3050 bp, Dumond 1981:plate V:A-m), at Margaret Bay (Level 2, 3827–3002
Figure 37. Component I artifact distribution by material type from Test 1.
39
chalcedony microblades or blade-like flakes, from 0.71 to 1.16 cm wide, are less than 2 cm long when entire (Figure 36 B). There is a preference for what is assumed to be local raw material, basalt/metatuff (Figure 35). Cortical flakes and the debitage size range (45% are from > 1 cm to 12 cm across, the remainder are less than 1 cm) indicate on-site tool manufacture.
shaped shallow basin is encrusted with black residue 2 mm thick and is possibly a piece of an oil lamp. Local cobbles and rocks were being reduced on site for expedient use. Two possible blade fragments may indicate use of core and blade technology. The large lanceolate endblade fragment shown in Figure 39 A was found resting on a partial walrus cranium along with the wood charcoal providing the date for this component (Figure 20). Other faunal remains identified were a walrus molar, two cranial fragments and a vertebra fragment, and a common murre humerus.
Component 1: Locus 2 Test 1 Level 8 has one date within Component I, 5030 ± 40 rcy bp (Beta-195224) from a lens containing 172 tiny reduction flakes of grey chalcedony (Figure 37). Other flakes from this level are basalt/metatuff including dark basalt with phenocrysts (staria basalt). No other artifacts were found in this level, which is directly above sterile sediments. Test 3 has one date within the Component I range: 4920 ± 40 rcy bp (Beta-195225) from Level 5. Artifacts from all intact deposits from Levels 5 and 6 are included here, including 51 flakes from a small area of intact sediments above Level 5. The assemblage collected includes two hammerstones, a small ovoid and partially medially grooved stone that is possibly a net sinker, a fragment of a mortar with a concave ground surface, bifaces and point fragments (N = 8, Figure 38), five flake tools, and 342 pieces of debitage. A fragment of a flat slab of granite with a roughly
Figure 38. Component 1 artifact distribution by material type from Test 3, all intact sediments.
Figure 39. Test 3 Component I artifacts (A) lanceolate point fragment (edges are not ground) shown in situ in Figure 12, from Level 5 (UA2005-056-0292), (B) point midsection with ground edges, 42 cmbd, (UA2005-056-0289), (C) biface fragment, Level 5 (UA2005-056-0280) and (D) point tip (oriented with tip down), Level 5 (UA2005-056-0281), from Schaaf et al. 2007a.
40
Test 6 Level 6 is undated and included in Component I because it is directly on top of sterile sediments, equivalent to the position of Level 7, dated in Tests 7 and 8. Test 6 is discussed separately because its stratigraphy is comparable to adjacent Test 3, whereas Tests 7 and 8 are downslope and have more disturbance. Artifacts from Level 6 include fragments of pumice, the proximal end of a microblade (1.86 x 0.8 x 0.17 cm, Figure 41 A) and one utilized flake. A basalt/ metatuff flake core, cortical flakes, and debitage size (64% are from > 1 cm to 8 cm) indicate on-site tool manufacture from local material (Figure 40). Three unidentified bird bones and 17 burned or calcined bone fragments occur in this level.
Figure 40. Component 1 artifact distribution by material type from Test 6.
Figure 41. Component I artifacts from Test 6 Level 6. (A) possible microblade (UA2008-078-352) and (B) debitage sample (UA2008-078-355).
41
The small collection from Level 7 in Tests 7 and 8 is dated 4610 ± 40 rcy bp (Beta-248507, Test 7) and 4330 ± 40 rcy bp (Beta-278187, Test 8). The square base or stem of a large endblade has a snap break, flat base, and unground edges and measures 2.2 x 1.94 x 0.48 cm (Figure 43 A, cf. Knecht et al. 2001:figure 2.20D). A basalt/metatuff flake core fragment and debitage size (64% from >1 cm to 9 cm) are consistent with on-site tool manufacture from local material (Figure 42). Figure 42. Component I artifact distribution by material type from Tests 7 and 8.
Figure 43. Component I artifacts from Tests 7 and 8 Level 7, both faces shown with individual scales. (A) point base or stem, Test 7 (UA2008-078-451), (B) debitage sample, Test 7 (UA2008-078-450), (C) shale flake, Test 8 (UA2008-078-553), and (D) debitage sample, Test 8 (UA2008-078-554).
42
Tests 9 and 10 from 105–125 cmbd are dated 4620 ± 40 rcy bp (Beta-248505) from a basin-shaped feature excavated into sterile sediments at the base of the Test 10 profile. This collection is small, with one flake scraper with unifacial, unilateral edge retouch (Figure 45 B) and a flake tool with a haft notch on one edge (Figure 45 D). Debitage is dominated by basalt/metatuff (43% are > 1cm to 5 cm across; Figure 44). One polished slate flake is the only indication of ground slate use in Component 1. Three fragments of unidentified mammal bone were found in Test 9. Figure 44. Component I artifact distribution by material type from Tests 9 and 10.
Figure 45. Component I Tests 9 and 10, 105–125 cmbd, both faces shown with individual scales. (A) debitage sample, Test 9 105–110 cmbd (UA2008-078-622), (B) flake scraper, Test 10 105–110 cmbd (UA2008-078-732), (C) debitage sample, Test 10 105–110 cmbd ( UA2008-078-731), (D) large retouched and utilized flake or core fragment, Test 10 105–110 cmbd (UA2008-078-734), (E) debitage sample, Test 10 107–110 cmbd (UA2008-078-735).
43
Component II 47:16). An identical point base fragment was found in deposits assigned to Component III (Figure 67 C).
Component II is defined by four radiocarbon dates with 2 sigma ranges from 3690 to 3210 cal bp. A period of 1150 years separates this component from Component I, a gap at least partly due to the sample limitations. A tephra deposited sometime between 3590–3405 cal bp (2 sigma probability range of dated sediments immediately below the ash) has not yet been matched with any known eruption (K. Wallace pers. comm. 2015). The ecological and cultural implications of this volcanic event are potentially significant and further investigation of this tephra deposit in situ is required. Possible tephra correlates underlie the Norton occupation at Qikertarpak (XHI-00161) on Hagemeister Island (Units 4 and 20, Bailey 1991:61–62, figures 19–21).
A cache of tightly associated chipped stone tools found in Test 5 immediately above an organic-rich layer dated 3070 rcy bp includes a large biface stem (Figure 48 E), a sideblade (Figure 48 F) and the following artifacts: 1. A large, slightly shouldered and blunt-based bipoint (Figure 49 A) is somewhat similar to Gravels phase bipoints (3750–3050 bp, Dumond 1981:Plate IIIC-j), Margaret Bay bipoints (Level 2, 3827–3002 cal bp, Knecht et al. 2001:figure 2.15B), and Sanak Island lanceolate points (Sandy Dunes site 3800–4400 bp, Reedy-Maschner and Maschner 2012:122).
Grouped in Component II are 64 chipped stone tools including modified flakes (Locus 1 N = 27, Locus 2 N = 37) and 2014 pieces of debitage (Locus 1 N = 269 and Locus 2 N = 1745). Component II is mixed with Component III and to a lesser extent mixed with Component 1 in Locus 1. This component marks the first appearance of ground slate tools, with one artifact fragment at each site locus. Ceramics and ground burins are absent. Microblade production is possibly represented by a few, imperfect examples at both loci. A tool made on a large blade fragment was recovered from Test 1 in 2004.
2. A triangular point with a slightly indented base (Figure 49 B) is similar to Iyatayet Norton forms (Giddings 1964:162 and plate 47:16). 3. A single-shouldered, square based point or knife with ground stem edges (Figure 49C) is also similar to an Iyatayet Norton form (Giddings 1964:plate 49–20). 4. A biface that is a possibly shouldered knife (Figure 49 G) is comparable to forms reported from ASTt sites in Cook Inlet (Beluga Point North Component II, ca. 4000–3000 bp, Reger 1981:figure 25f), Kachemak Bay (Chugachik Island SEL-00033 ca. 4000 bp, Workman 1998; Workman and Zollars 2002) and at Brooks River on the Alaska Peninsula (Gravels phase, Dumond 1981 Plate VIIB-m).
A variety of chipped stone tools have counterparts in ASTt-affiliated sites in the nearby mainland interior, north to Norton Sound, east/northeast to upper Cook Inlet, south to the Alaska Peninsula, and southwest to Cold Bay and the eastern Aleutians. There are also artifacts in this grouping that are described from Norton assemblages. The limitations of the excavation, the definition of the component based on absence of ceramics, and the mixing of later material with earlier deposits in Test 5 (Locus 1) are problematic here. For example, ceramics are absent from the Norton site, Qikertarpak, excavated on Hagemeister Island (1210 rcy bp, Bailey 1991) and absent in one Norton house excavated at Chagvan Bay (2700–1800 bp, Ackerman 1988:170).
5. A slightly shouldered point (Figure 49H) with a broad straight stem and a broken but probably square based is similar to an artifact illustrated from Chagvan Beach (Phase 1 ca. 2750–2500 Ackerman 1964:figure 9:8) and to square stemmed points from Margaret Bay (Level 2, 3000 bp and after, Knecht et al. 2001:figure 2.15F). A tiny bipoint (Figure 57 G) from Locus 2 is comparable to artifacts found at Margaret Bay (Level 2, Knecht et al. 2001:figure 2.15A, B), Brooks River (Gravels phase bipoint, Dumond 1981:plate V:A-h), and Magnetic Island on Cook Inlet (3800–3400 cal bp, Rogers et al. 2013:17 and figure 10).
Component II includes a distinctive point type with a flat base, slightly indented stem, and serrated leaf-shaped blade that has no close correlates reported elsewhere (Figure 55; cf. Henn 1978, Ugashik Knoll phase side-notched Type 2 variety 5, with large, shallow notches that “approach being a stem” and with a straight base). A similar but smaller form is reported from Iyatayet Norton (Giddings 1964:plate
Small endblades with long tapering stems (Figure 60 D) are reported from several locations, including Lake Beverley (DIL-00086 Component 7, undated, DePew and Biddle 2006:figure 14-k, contracting stemmed endblade), Ugashik Lakes (Hilltop phase, 4508–3515 cal bp, Henn 1978:plate VIIe, f), Brooks River (Gravels phase, Dumond 1981:plate
44
VI:De), Sapsuk River (4400 bp, Maschner et al. 2010), Margaret Bay (Level 3 4254–3638 cal bp, Knecht et al. 2001:figure 2.17E), and Russell Creek in Cold Bay (3260–3744 cal bp, Maschner and Jordan 2001:figure 7.7). These endblades indicate bow and arrow use (Workman 1998:151; cf. Maschner and Mason 2013), loosely dated at XNB-00043 between 3690 and 3210 cal bp. Other tools, very few in number, include a finely polished slate blade tip lacking facets (Figure 49 I), pumice abraders, small and large sideblades (some sectioned by snap breaks or burin blows), and burins. Unique to the collection is an incised canine-shaped tool/pendant of meta-dunite or soapstone (Figure 47).
Figure 46. Component II artifact distribution by material type from Test 5.
Walrus and unidentified large sea mammal remains and fragments of what may be large spear points may indicate land-based walrus hunting and possibly sea lion hunting
Figure 47. Test 5 Level 18 canine-shaped polished stone tool/pendant (UA2008-078-220, 4.6 cm long, 1.0 cm wide, 0.54 cm thick).
45
at the haulout. Immature unidentified seal vertebrae and bird bone also occur here (Table 2). Associated with these remains are abundant scatters of local basalt/metatuff cores, flakes, and roughly shaped bifaces in addition to an increased diversity in raw materials (obsidian and brightly colored cherts and chalcedony; Figures 46, 50, 51, 53, and 56). These materials, such as black/clear banded chalcedony, are very much like those used at the Wood River-Tikchik Lakes area ASTt sites (DePew and Biddle 2006) and may possibly have been obtained locally from glacial deposits although cortical flakes are few. Two obsidian flakes from Locus 2 (Test 6 Level 4 and Test 8 Level 5) have been sourced to the Okmok Caldera on Unimak Island (Rasic 2015 and pers. comm. Sept. 16, 2015). There is also mention of a “quarry site for high grade chert” (not described) located in the vicinity of Tikchik Lakes attributed to Shaw (Bailey 1991:17).
Component II: Locus 1 Test 5 Levels 16–18 (104.5 to 130 cmbd) are assigned to Component II by one radiocarbon date from Level 18, 3070 ± 30 rcy bp (Beta-406789). Levels 16 and 17 are undated, and the absence of pottery (one crumb from Level 16) led to the arbitrary assignment of these levels to Component II. Thirty-five flakes from two exploratory probes from the base of Level 15 to depths of about 45 cm below Level 15 are also included here. Deposits from Component II occupations are partially mixed with Component III material due to excavation methods that crosscut the sloping dated organic layers used to define the components. The chipped stone tool assemblage includes 19 items: one scraper, nine endblades and fragments (Figures 48 D and 49 H), one burin (Figure 48 C), two sideblades (Figure 49 D), a burinated flake tool (Figure 49 F), a possible shouldered knife (Figure 49 G), and four bifaces. The endblades include a slightly shouldered bipoint (6.2 x 1.7 x 0.67 cm, Figure 49 A), a triangular point with a concave base (4.58 x 1.8 x 0.41 cm, Figure 49 B,) and square-stemmed endblades or knives
Athough as yet unidentified, it is very possible that some of the surface depressions at XNB-00043 are affiliated with this component.
Figure 48. Component II artifacts from Test 5 Levels 16–17, showing both faces and with individual scales. (A) flake with unilateral bifacial retouch, Level 16 (UA2008-078-185), (B) debitage sample, Level 16 (UA2008-078-188), (C) burin, Level 16 (UA2008-078-192), (D) point fragment, Level 17 (UA2008-078-197), (E) biface stem, Level 17 (UA2008-078-198), (F) sideblade, Level 17 (UA2008-078-199).
46
(Figure 49 C and E). A large square stem may be from a large biface or point (4.75 x 3.13 x 0.7 cm, Figure 48 E). Lithic waste includes basalt/metatuff cortical flakes indicating use of local resources to manufacture tools on-site (49% are from >1 cm to 5 cm across). A large proportion of retouch flakes are chert/chalcedony (Figure 46).
meta-dunite or soapstone (C. Hults pers. comm. 2015). The artifact has microscopic longitudinal striations that appear to be from manufacture but that could also be from use as a sharpener (cf. Giddings 1964:76). Similar sized and grooved pendants made from seal, bearded seal, or dog teeth are reported from the Nukleet site at Cape Denbigh (Giddings 1964:76, plates 29–11, 31–31).
A thin finely ground slate endblade from Level 18 has polished flat faces; the base is broken off (1.22 cm wide, 0.24 cm thick, and 4.18 cm long). A canine-shaped polished stone tool and/or pendant was also found in Level 18 (Figure 47). A thin, dark incised line encircles one end which shows use polish and has a tiny pecked divot. The opposite end is broken off, possibly from use. The material is a
Faunal material was recovered only from Level 16 and includes a large sea mammal bone fractured into several pieces and three immature seal vertebra fragments. These remains suggest a link with the deposits from Level 17 that are included in Component III.
Figure 49. Component II artifacts from Test 5, Levels 17–18, showing both faces and with individual scales. (A) slightly shouldered bipoint, Level 17 (UA2008-078-200), (B) triangular point, concave base, Level 17 (UA2008-078-201), (C) point or knife, square stem, Level 17 (UA2008-078-202), (D) sideblade section burinated on one edge, Level 17 (UA2008-078206), (E) square stemmed point, resharpened, Level 17 (UA2008-078-208), (F) burinated flake tool, Level 17 (UA2008078-210), (G) shouldered knife (?), Level 17 (UA2008-078-214), (H) point with snapped (possibly square base), Level 17 (UA2008-078-213), and (I) ground slate point, Level18 (UA2008-078-219).
47
Component II: Locus 2 The top of Test 1 Level 5 was defined by a compact surface impressed with a concentration of micro-debitage. This greasy compact layer has the character of a well-used, prepared floor rather than an isolated short-term activity area. A wood charcoal date of 3350 ± 40 rcy bp (Beta-195223), a sideblade (Figure 52 C) and 32 waste flakes were recovered from this floor. One grey chert flake and six large flakes of an unidentified material were collected from Level 6 below the floor. A color change and increased clay content characterized Level 7, with an occupation surface at 63 cmbd. A blade fragment (Figure 52 A), utilized flake, and 30 lithic reduction flakes were collected from Level 7. No ceramics recovered. A walrus lower mandible was recorded in Level 6 and six burned/calcined bone fragments from Level 5.
Figure 51. Component II artifact distribution by material type from Test 1 Levels 6 and 7.
Test 6 Levels 4 and 5 are included in Component II based on a date of 3280 ± 40 rcy bp (Beta-248506) from Level 4. This date was collected from wood charcoal adjacent to an unusual point type (Figure 55), although the proximity does not securely date the artifact. The point has a flat base, 1.87 cm wide, thinned with fine perpendicular retouch. The stem is 1.6 cm long, slightly flaring to the 2.25 cm wide blade. The point measures 3.9 cm to a mid-blade snap break and is 0.6 cm thick. A nearly identical point base was found in Test 6 Level 3 (Figure 67 C).
Figure 52. Component II (A and C) artifacts from Test 1. (A) Proximal end of a blade, Level 7 (UA2005-056-0065), (B) Component III, small biface 0.28 cm thick, 1.1 cm of the tip (at top) is polished on all facets from use, Level 3 (UA2005-056-0026), (C) Component II sideblade, 0.28 cm thick, Level 5 (UA2005-056-0056). From Schaaf et al. 2007a.
Figure 50. Component II artifact distribution by material type from Test 1 Level 5.
Figure 53. Component II artifact distribution by material type from Test 6.
48
cobble cores and cortical flakes suggest on-site manufacture from a local source. An obsidian flake sourced to Okmok was recovered from Level 4. Debitage size range is from 0.25 cm to 10 cm, with 90% between 1.0 and 4.0 cm.
Five other chipped stone tools include three fragments from small, finely flaked points (Figure 54 B, C), a short stemmed, flat based point with slightly serrate edges (Figure 54 D), and a very thin (0.17 cm thick) point made on flake (Figure 54 F). It is flaked on the dorsal side, with retouch on the ventral side along one edge only. One pumice abrader (Figure 54 E) and two retouched flake tools are present. No blade-like flakes were noted. Seven basalt/metatuff
Unidentified sea mammal bone fragments (N = 4), one cf. walrus, unidentified bird bone (N = 3), and 34 burned/calcined bone fragments were recovered from Levels 4 and 5.
Figure 54. Test 6 Component II artifacts Levels 4–6, showing both faces and with individual scales. (A) debitage sample, Level 4 (UA2008-078-321), (B) point tip, Level 4 (UA2008-078-322), (C) point tip, Level 5 (UA2008-078-331), (D) point, Level 5 (UA2008-078-336), (E) pumice abrader fragment, Level 5 (UA2008-078-329), (F) flake point, Level 5 (UA2008078-341), and (G) debitage sample, Level 5 (UA2008-078-337).
Figure 55. Point from Test 6 Level 4 (UA2008-078-317).
49
Tests 7 and 8 Levels 4–6 are assigned to Component II based on a date, 3280 ± 40 rcy bp from organic sediments below an as-yet unidentified tephra.
Test 6) indicates the expedient production of tools. Faunal remains, consistent with the use of these cutting tools, are large sea mammal bone (cf. walrus and sea lion).
Chipped stone tools number 14 and include a miniature point with ground edges on its contracting stem (Figure 57 G), a weathered point fragment, and a large rounded biface or point base. A flake knife (Figure 57 H), sideblade fragment (Figure 57 B), two roughly shaped preforms (Figure 57 D), fragments of several bifaces, and five flake tools are present. Ground slate use is evidenced by one flake from a polished tool. Only one microblade-like flake and a possible microblade core fragment (Figure 57 F) were identified. There is a greater diversity of raw material types with one piece of Okmok obsidian and a fine-grained greenstone. A large number of basalt/metatuff flake cores (N = 5) (as in
Figure 56. Component II artifact distribution by material type from Tests 7 and 8.
Figure 57. Component II artifacts from Tests 7 and 8 Levels 4–6 showing both faces and with individual scales. (A) debitage sample, Test 7 Level 5 (UA2008-078-430), (B) sideblade fragment Test 7 Level 4 (UA2008-078-425), (C) unifacially retouched flake, Test 7 Level 6 (UA2008-078-446), (D) preform, Test 7 Level 6 (UA2008-078-436), (E) biface, Test 8 Level 5 (krotovina) (UA2008-078-539, (F) microblade core fragment, Test 8 Level 5 (UA2008-078-536), (G) miniature bipoint, Test 8 Level 4 (UA2008-078-505), and (H) flake knife, Test 8 Level 4 (UA2008-078-510).
50
Tests 9 and 10 deposits from 75–105 cmbd have not been dated and are assigned to Component II based on the absence of ceramics and strata comparable to Tests 6, 7, and 8 Levels 4–6. Eight chipped stone artifacts include a finely made triangular point fragment (Figure 59 C), a
small stemmed point fragment (Figure 60 D), a point base fragment and five rough bifaces and preforms (Figure 59 B, D and 60 B). Two microblade-like flakes were noted. Fragments of a pumice abrader are present. There is an increased diversity in the raw material with the addition of brown agate, milky, high-gloss chert, red and green chaldedony, and quartzite. Basalt/metatuff cortical flakes and large shatter are among the 669 pieces of debitage (Figure 58). An unidentified mammal bone fragment and five burned/calcined bone fragments were associated.
Figure 58. Component II artifact distribution by material type from Tests 9 and 10.
Figure 59. Component II artifacts from Test 9, both faces shown with individual scales. (A) debitage sample, 75–80 cmbd (UA2008-078-607), (B) biface, 77 cmbd (UA2008-708-610), (C) triangular point base, oriented with base at top, 85 cmbd (UA2008078-614), (D) biface or preform, 91 cmbd (UA2008-078-615), and (E) debitage sample, 100–105 cmbd (UA2008-078-621).
51
Figure 60. Component II artifacts from Test 10, both faces shown with individual scales. (A) debitage sample, 75–80 cmbd (UA2008-078-718), (B) preform or biface, 91 cmbd (UA2008-078-726), (C) debitage sample, 95–100 cmbd (UA2008078-728), and (D) point stem, 100–105 cmbd (UA2008-078-730).
52
Component III
no correlates have been identified. A similar looking flake knife, unifacially flaked, is illustrated from the late Denbigh beaches at Cape Krusenstern (Giddings and Anderson 1986:278, plate 160-a).
Nine radiocarbon dates define Component III, spanning 2365 to 1530 years bp (2 sigma range, applying ∆R=240 to one date from bone). This component covers 900 years as defined by the available radiocarbon dates and is separated from Component II by about as many years. Component III is poorly represented in Tests 3, 6, 7, and 8 because it was largely destroyed by garden activities. Its stratigraphic position is secured there by a small remnant of intact deposits above Component II.
The bases of two ground slate lance blades (Figure 67 F and Figure 72 L) are similar to the bulbous base and converging base lance types described from the early component at Pedro Bay (ca. 4400 bp) with ties to the Ocean Bay II period (Reger and Townsend 2004:15–16). A more complete bulbous base lance blade of greenish slate and a straight-sided rounded lance base were found in the area disturbed by the cabin and garden excavation (Figure 76 D, Figure 77 A). These lances and the large stemmed/shouldered points discussed below suggest earlier influence from the east, possibly via the Kvichak drainage.
This component represents Norton tradition occupations and is probably associated with three distinct groups of house depressions mapped, each with six or more subrectangular houses, with no apparent entryways. Larger features within these house groups are possibly qasgiit, smaller depressions may be caches. Large sea mammal ribs exposed above a house floor in Test 10 are probably structural members possibly used in lieu of rare driftwood. This is the first indication of winter settlement on the island.
An open socket, blunt-tipped toggling harpoon and what may be a center prong of a fishing spear were recovered from deposits within this component and are discussed in the section on bone tools below. Walrus, bird, and seal (cf. ringed or harbor) are represented in the faunal assemblage. The nesting seabirds must have been an important resource and it is probable that the net weights played a role in their procurement.
Pottery, notched pebbles, a small stone vessel, a variety of chipped stone end- and sideblades, drills, knives, flake scrapers, a toggling harpoon, and a few ground slate tools characterize the collection from Component III, which compares with aspects of several Norton tradition assemblages reported from Western Alaska. The Norton presence at XNB-00043 spans 900 years and is represented by two bone artifacts, 216 ceramic sherds, four ground slate tool fragments, 146 lithic artifacts (including modified flakes), and 3780 pieces of debitage (including cores). One Okmok obsidian flake has been identified from Locus 2 (Test 6 Level 3; Rasic pers. comm. Sept. 16, 2015).
Human remains, the enamel from a molar and two premolars, were found in the garden disturbance area associated with a possible cranium fragment. The pieces of this bone were so thin and fragile that no DNA could be recovered, however a radiocarbon date was obtained (see Human Remains section below).
Component III: Locus 1 In Test 5, Component III extends from Level 7 to 15. Three dates are 2230 ± 40 rcy bp (Beta-278184) from Level 14, 2200 ± 40 rcy bp (Beta-278185) also from Level 14 (from 1.0 cm above Beta-278184, providing some assurance of control), and 1680 ± 30 rcy bp (Beta-386202) from Level 8. Level 7 is not dated and its inclusion in this group is arbitrary. Level 15 is included because the fauna in Levels 14 and 15 seem to be from the same deposit and ceramics (one sherd) appear here and increase in number in upper levels to Level 4. These levels represent a substantial depth of deposits, from 43 to 104.5 cmbd. Deposits from Component III occupations may be partially mixed with Component II material due to excavation methods that may have crosscut the dated organic-rich layers.
Small contracting stemmed and bipointed endblades, small finely made triangular points, and large contracting base endblades with flat or slightly rounded bases are reported from local and distant Norton tradition sites. Notable exceptions are very large straight-stemmed and shouldered points discussed below (Figure 69). A plano-convex scraper made on a blade or blade-like flake (Figure 70 C) is described from Iyatayet Norton (Giddings 1964:167–168, plate 55), Chagvan Bay (Ross 1971:figure 46), and Lake Beverley (DIL-00086 and -00153, DePew and Biddle 2006). A finely made ovate knife with a retouched notch at the tip giving it the appearance of a mitten-shaped burin, (Figure 72 M) is an unusual specialized tool and
53
There are 48 chipped stone tools; 56% are chert/chalcedony and two ground slate tool fragments. These tools include one drill (Figure 62 F), two sideblades (Figure 62 I), three scrapers and three other unifaces, one discoid graver (Figure 63 E), a blade tool fragment (Figure 62 G), a notched discoid biface (Figure 63 F), 14 bifaces (mostly fragments, Figure 62 D, H and 63 K), and one finely flaked tiny bifacial tool (Figure 62 E). There are ten entire or mostly entire points: a possible drill (Figure 63 A), a unifacial stemmed point (Figure 62 B), a large point or knife with a slight shoulder and rounded base (Figure 63 J), a triangular point with a retouched break at the tip (Figure 63 D), points with a long contracting stem and wide, rounded blades (N = 2, Figure 63 H), a contracting base point snapped at the haft and resharpened, and a
Figure 61. Component III artifact distribution by material type from Test 5.
Figure 62. Component III artifacts from Test 5 Levels 7–11, both faces shown with individual scales. (A) point base, Level 8 (UA2008-078-098), (B) unifacial point with bifacial edge retouch, Level 9 (UA2008-078-102), (C) notched pebble, Level 9 (UA2008-078-103), (D) biface fragment, Level 9 (UA2008-078-100), (E) microlith, Level 9 (UA2008-078-110), (F) drill, Level 10 (UA2008-078-112), (G) unifacially retouched blade, Level 10 (UA2008-078-120), (H) biface midsection, Level 11 (UA2008-078-121), (I) sideblade, Level 11 (UA2008-078-122), and (J) point base, Level 7 (UA2008-078-126).
54
miniature contracting stem point (Figure 63 I). There are 10 point fragments, tips (cf. Figure 63 G), a long straight stem (Figure 63 B), bases (cf. Figure 62 A), a bipoint end with ground edges (Figure 63 C), and a large stem, edge-ground for hafting.
spall, two microblades, and two microblade-like flakes were identified. Thirty-nine ceramic sherds are from these levels (discussed above) and fauna collected include burned/calcined mammal bone, one unidentified bird bone, the long bone epiphysis of cf. walrus, a small mandibular fragment with tooth tentatively identified as ringed or harbor seal, seal vertebra, and 58 fragments of unidentified sea mammal bone.
Other stone tools and items include two cobble choppers, a whetstone, hammerstone, three quartz crystals (Levels 8 and 11), one pumice abrader, a stone vessel fragment, and two notched pebbles/net sinkers (Figure 62 C). One burin
Figure 63. Component III artifacts from Test 5 Levels 7–14, both faces shown with individual scales. (A) point (drill?), Level 7 (UA2008-078-127), (B) point stem, Level 7 (UA2008-078-128), (C) point base, Level 7 (UA2008-078-130), (D) repurposed triangular point (?), Level 7 (UA2008-078-136), (E) graver, Level 12( UA2008-078-140), (F) bilaterally notched biface, Level 12 (UA2008-078-142), (G) point fragment, Level 13 (UA2008-078-150), (H) contracting stemmed point, Level 14 (UA2008-078-155), (I) miniature point, Level 14 (2008-078-166), (J) point, Level 14 (UA2008-078-156), (K) large biface, Level 13 (UA2008-078-151), and (L) debitage, Level 12 (UA2008-078-144).
55
Component III: Locus 2 Test 1 Levels1–4 are included in Component III with a date of 2010 ± 40 rcy bp (Beta-195222) from Level 1. Only one chipped stone tool, a small biface possibly made on a blade (Figure 52 B), a microblade core rejuvenation flake, and 111 pieces of debitage are noted here (Figure 64). Four pottery sherds were found in these levels and there were no faunal remains. Figure 64. Component III artifact distribution by material type from Test 1.
Test 6 Levels 1–3 are undated and assigned to Component III based on the presence of ceramics (six sherds). Chipped stone tools (N = 14) include two points, one with a flat, base (5.9 x 1.93 x 0.64 cm) with a curved longitudinal cross section (Figure 67 B), and a small finely made point with narrow sloping shoulders (3.24 x 1.17 x 0.37 cm, Figure 67 E). Four point fragments include a point base (1.14 cm wide, 0.45 cm thick, Figure 67 C) that is identical to the unusual point from Component II pictured in Figure 55.
Figure 65. Component III artifact distribution by material type from Test 6.
Figure 66. Pecked and ground stone vessel, dense scoria. Test 6 Level 2 (top piece UA2008-078-268) refit with piece from Test 6 transition zone (UA2008-078-253).
56
Other tools include a uniface, three bifaces, and a large unifacial lance or knife with a truncated base, possibly made on a blade (7.67 x 2.55 x 0.57, Figure 67 D).There are three fragments of ground slate tools including a ground slate lance base with an excurvate base and one arris (Figure 67 F).
exterior at the narrow end of oval and two ridges on the opposite end. Seven pottery sherds, one spirally fractured cf. walrus bone, six burned/calcined mammal bone fragments, and one unidentified shell fragment are from these levels. Levels 1–3 in Tests 7 and 8 are undated and are included in Component III because they contain ceramics. There are only two formal chipped stone tools from these levels. A scraper, discussed above, is carefully retouched unifacially along both edges (Figure 70 C).
A ground and pecked small vessel, with no evidence of use as a lamp, measures 4.85 x 3.9 x 0.58 cm and has a thin rim about 0.5 cm deep (Figure 66). It has one small ridge on the
Figure 67. Component III artifacts from Test 6, both faces shown with individual scales. (A) biface, Level 2, 8.27 x 4.65 x 0.79 cm (UA2008-078-272), (B) point, Level 2 (UA2008-078-283), (C) point base Level 3, See Figure 44 (UA2008-078-289), (D) biface with truncated base, Level 3 (UA2008-078-292), (E) point with stem snapped off, Level 3 (UA2008-078-293), (F) ground slate lance base, Level 3 (UA2008-078-295), and (G) debitage sample, Level 3 (UA2008-078-298).
57
A large stemmed point has a long straight, edge-ground stem (2.95 cm long, 1.98 cm wide) with a flat base, pronounced shoulders and reddish stain or residue (Figure 69 A). It is 8.46 cm long (tip missing), 3.68 cm wide at shoulder and 0.84 cm thick. It was recovered from a krotovina in Level 3. A similar point was found in 2007 by ADF&G staff in an area excavated for the original cabin construction (Figure 69 B). It measures 8.6 cm long, 3.4 cm at the shoulders and is 0.7 cm thick. The stem is edge ground and is 1.75 wide and 2.65 cm long. It also has a reddish stain/residue.
comm. 2014). They are distinct from Ocean Bay tradition stemmed points in that the latter are much more finely flaked with rounded sloping shoulders and have excurvate blades (Figure 69 C and D).
These are distinct from the points with well-defined stems and distinct shoulders that are common in Norton sites (cf. Workman 1982). Instead, they are more similar to large, roughly flaked, stemmed (some slightly contracting) and shouldered point fragments from Agattu Island (ATU 00030/00038, dating uncertain, Cooper 2003:38). A similar point type was found in an 800 bp Norton tradition qasgiq at DIL-00088 on the lower Kvichak River (M. Farrell pers.
Figure 68. Component III artifact distribution by material type from Tests 7 and 8.
A
B Figure 69. (A) point from Locus 1 Test 7 Level 3, burrow disturbance (UA2008-078-401), (B) point found by ADF&G personnel under the cabin deck, Locus 1 (UA2008-078-875), (C) stemmed point (with residue) from Mink Island, XMK-00030, 5780 rcy bp (KATM-28138668), and (D) stemmed point from early component of the Pedro Bay site (ILI-00001) dated ca. 4400 bp (scale is same as A-C; Reger and Townsend 2004:plate 5).
C
D
58
Tests 7 and 8 also yielded 11 modified flakes, two flake core fragments, and one microblade midsection; raw material is dominated by basalt/metatuff (Figure 68).
proximal epiphysis, and another large bone fragment, an unidentified sea mammal phalanx with epiphysis missing, a seal rib and unidentified bird humeri, sternum, and phalanx and other elements. Several well-preserved bird bones including a beak were in krotovinas. One whelk shell and two mussel shell fragments are also probably from disturbed deposits.
One pottery sherd was recovered from Test 7 and four from Test 8. Faunal material collected includes 14 calcined mammal bone fragments, walrus bone represented by one
Figure 70. Component III artifacts from Tests 7 and 8, with individual scales. (A) debitage sample, Test 7 Level 3 (UA2008-078-396), (B) debitage sample, Test 7 Level 3 (UA2008-078-407), (C) plano-convex scraper, Test 8 Level (UA2008-078-474), and (D) debitage sample, Test 8 Level 1 (UA2008-078-488).
59
Deposits in Tests 9 and 10 from 0–75 cmbd are assigned to Component III, including a hearth basin excavated in the house floor (85–88 cmbd). Wood charcoal from the base of the hearth provided a date of 2250 ± 40 rcy bp (Beta 252072), and a date from 41 cmbd, from between the two sea mammal ribs in Test 10, is 2330 ± 40 rcy bp (Beta 252073). There are 32 chipped stone tools which include 13 point fragments; tips (Figures 72 I, J, K, and Figure 73 B, D) and bases (Figures 72 B and 73 E, F) and two nearly entire specimens (Figure 72 C and 73 G). Fourteen bifaces include two sideblades (Figure 72 G, H), two knives (Figure 72 M, 73 H), two discoids (Figure 72 D), fragments (Figure 72 F), Figure 71. Component III artifact distribution by material type from Tests 9 and 10.
Figure 72. Test 9 Component III 0–75 cmbd, both faces shown with individual scales. (A) debitage sample 35–40 cmbd (UA2008-078-562), (B) point base 35–40 cmbd (base is at top) square base very slightly concave giving prominent corners (UA2008-078-563), (C) point, 35–40 cmbd, entire, minutely serrated edges (UA2008-078-565), (D) discoid biface 35–40 cmbd (UA2008-078-564), (E) scraper fragment 40–45 cmbd (UA2008-078-567), (F) biface 45–50 cmbd (UA2008-078-572), (G) sideblade 45–50 cmbd UA2008-078-573), (H) biface/sideblade 50–55 cmbd (UA2008-078-582), (I) point end 45–50 cmbd (UA2008-078-574), (J) point tip 45–50 cmbd (UA2008-078-575), (K) point tip 58 cmbd (UA2008-078-589), (L) ground slate lance base 59 cmbd (UA2008-078-590), and (M) knife with retouched notch, 75 cmbd (UA2008-078-605).
60
and a large stem (Figure 73 C). There are two unifaces, one with a concave notch from use and a scraper (Figure 72 E). Chert/chalcedony is the favored raw material category for the tools (Figure 71). Blade technology is minimally indicated by the proximal section of a blade (2.5 cm wide, 2.32 cm long, and 0.3 cm thick) and a microblade core fragment.
four pumice abrader fragments comprise the remainder of the stone artifacts. Seventy ceramic sherds occurred in these deposits. Faunal material recovered includes fragments of the sea mammal ribs that were possibly structural support, unidentified cut sea mammal bone and vertebra, two unidentified bird bones, two whelk shells, and 31 burned/calcined mammal bone fragments. Partially excavated Test 11 yielded three net weights, one triangular point base, a biface fragment, one utilized flake, and two waste flakes from 20–54 cmbd.
Two ground slate tools are a knife or point tip with deep oblique striations and a medial groove and a lance base (Figure 72 L). Three notched pebbles or net sinkers and
Figure 73. Test 10 Component III 0–75 cmbd. (A) debitage sample 30–35 cmbd (UA2008-078-683), (B) point tip 35–40 cmbd (UA2008-078-687), (C) biface stem, 35–40 cmbd, (UA2008-078-689), (D) point tip 39 cmbd (UA2008-078-690, (E) point midsection 60–65 cmbd (UA2008-078-701), (F) point base 70–75 cmbd (UA2008-078-713), (G) stemmed point broken along material impurity at midsection, 66 cmbd (UA2008-078-709), and (H) biface/knife 68 cmbd (UA2008-078-710).
61
Component IV Component IV postdates 1530 bp and is represented only at Locus 1 in Test 5 Levels 1–6 and in the materials recovered at the base of the vegetation mat in the unexcavated 2004 Test 4. Component IV, a likely continuation of Component III, is not represented at Locus 2. Three microblades/blade-like flakes and a blade core rejuvenation flake (Figure 75 C, I) indicate some use of blade technology, among 426 lithic flakes and three flake cores. No points are represented except for the rounded base of a large point, with heavily ground edges (Figure 75 E).
Figure 74. Component IV artifact distribution by material type from Test 5.
Figure 75. Component IV artifacts Test 5 with individual scales and both faces shown. (A) weathered biface section, Level 2 (UA2008-078-062), (B) modified flake with use wear along curved edge (expedient sideblade?), Level 4 (UA2008-078-068), (C) microblade-like flake, Level 4 (UA2008-078-069), (D) graver/scraper, Level 5 (UA2008-078-074), (E) point base heavily ground edges, Level 6 (UA2008-078-080), (F) biface fragment possibly burinated, Level 6(UA2008078-082), (G) biface, Level 6 (UA2008-078-085), (H) biface midsection, Level 6 (UA2008-078-087), and (I) debitage sample, note blade core rejuvenation flake, Level 5 (UA2008-078-073).
62
Raw material distribution is summarized in Figure 74 and representative artifacts are shown in Figure 75. Notched pebbles and ground slate are absent. These levels contained 27 pottery sherds, six walrus bone, 93 fragments of unidentified sea mammal bone, 12 unidentified bird bone, and 21 burned/calcined bone fragments.
The base of the vegetation mat in Test 4 contained a fragment of a miniature unifacial point, a point base, two utilized flakes, and 45 waste flakes. Plain ware ceramics were represented here with one rim and three body sherds. Four burned/calcined mammal bone fragments were also collected.
Figure 76. Selected artifacts from disturbed contexts. A, B and F collected by ADF&G staff from cabin disturbance. (A) lanceolate point, snapped at midsection (UA2008-078-877), (B) point base, large square stem (UA2008-078-876), (C) tiny stemmed point, Test 7 transition zone (UA2008-078-383), (D) ground slate lance, cabin disturbance (UA2008078-237), (E) sideblade, cabin disturbance (UA2008-078-241), (F) sideblades (UA2008-078-878 and -879), (G) tiny armed scraper, Test 10 sluff (UA2008-078-662), (H) point, Test 10 sluff (UA2008-078-667), (I) ground slate tool fragment, Test 7 transition zone (UA2008-078-370), and (J) biface, Test 10 sluff (UA2008-078-669).
63
26 and 78 left). It is 6.48 cm long and 1.37 cm wide, oval in cross section, with a shallow shoulder for holding the lashing in place. The open socket is 2.45 cm long. Bone fragments exposed in the socket of the harpoon yielded a date of 2260 ± 30 rcy bp (Table 1, Beta 320787).
Disturbed Areas Total of 1633 lithic artifacts were collected from disturbed contexts: 82 from outhouse backdirt above Test 5, 255 from Test 5 profile cleaning at Locus 1, and the remainder from Locus 2 (Test 3 N = 364, Test 6 N = 290, Test 7 N = 352, Test 8 N = 159, Test 9 N = 51, and Test 10 N = 80). Selected artifacts from Locus 2 are illustrated in Figures 76 and 77.
This harpoon is similar to the harpoons (N = 7) reported from the Chagvan Beach site (Phase II dated 2500–1800 bp), in that their line holes are identical and they all have blunt-pointed tips (Ross 1971:124–125). Differences are: the spurs on the Chagven Beach harpoons have a small notch at the base, all but one are made of ivory, and all but one have closed sockets. The harpoon from XNB-00043 is somewhat similar to harpoon heads illustrated from Yukon Island I and III except for the line hole type and placement (De Laguna 1975 Plate 38:9,14). De Laguna compares open socket toggling harpoon heads with cut line holes rather than drilled and with a single medial spur to pre-Dorset types (ibid:xi; 1946:114 figure 10 “Kachemak Bay I”). A similar toggling harpoon is illustrated from the Yukon Island Fox Farm (SEL-00041, Workman 1982:figure 1-i). The Qayassiq harpoon head is also generally similar to specimens from Iyatayet Norton (Giddings 1964:Plate 36:20) and from Nunivak Island except that the latter lack line holes (Nowak 1970:24). A center prong or bilaterally barbed point made on dense long bone was found in a krotovina in Test 8 Level 3 (Figure 78 right). It measures 17 cm long, 1.76 cm wide and 0.44 cm thick, has three bilateral barbs, and is scored for hafting.
Elements from Components I–III are represented here. There are no identified Thule artifacts. The base of a lanceolate blade (cf. Component I, Figure 76 A, and the stemmed bases of large endblades (Figures 76 B, Figure 77 B, E) indicate hunting with hand-thrust spears. A variety of sideblades (Figure 76 E, F, H and J?), a small contracting stem arrow point (Figure 76 C), a contracting base endblade (Figure 77 D), and a small armed scraper (Figure 76 G) represent ASTt and Norton tradition components. As discussed above, the ground slate lance (Figure 76 D), lance base (Figure 77 A), and possibly the laterally notched ground slate tool fragment (Figure 77 I) are similar to the bulbous base and serrated lances described from the 4400 bp component at the Pedro Bay site on Lake Iliamna (Reger and Townsend 2004).
Bone Tools Two bone artifacts were recovered from XNB-00043, both from disturbed deposits in Locus 2. An open socket toggling harpoon with a blunt point and cut rectangular line hole was found in a krotovina in Test 6 Level 5 (Figure
Figure 77. Selected artifacts from Test 3 (2004) disturbed sediments. (A) midsection of ground slate lance (UA2005056-0139), (B) point stem (UA2005-056-0140), (C) point fragment with finely serrated edges (UA2005-056-0095), (D) contracting stemmed point (UA2005-056-0098), (E) large square stemmed point base, ground edges (UA2005-0560142), (F) biface fragment (UA2005-056-0096), and (G) stemmed point (UA2005-0560099), from Schaaf et al. 2007a.
64
Figure 78. Left, harpoon with open socket, rectangular line hole (UA2008-078-342). Right, center prong or point (UA2008078-503).
Human Remains
DNA extraction and repeated amplification attempts failed, and it was concluded that the thin bone did not contain any useable DNA (Malhi 2013). Despite being unable to confirm that the bone is human through DNA extraction, its close association with the two premolars suggests that it is likely human. The location of the teeth and possible cranium fragment near some severe disturbance in the sediments and the absence of any other human remains in the excavation area indicate that if these remains had been part of a primary burial, it was elsewhere and dispersed probably by animals before the ADF&G occupation. ADF&G staff who reported the site and who excavated the large garden made no mention of human remains. Important is the fact that there are human remains present at XNB-00043 and probably elsewhere on the island. The burial practices of the island’s prehistoric occupants are not known and any future ground disturbance should be carefully considered.
The enamel portion of a heavily worn adult mandibular molar and two small pieces of another tooth (UA2008078-411) were found in Test 7 Level 4 (63–67 cmbd; Figure 26). Two adult mandibular permanent first and second premolars (UA2008-078-433), enamel shells only, associated with a probable cranium fragment were found more than 11 cm below the molar, in Level 6 of Test 7 (78.5– 84 cmbd; Figure 79). These were adjacent to a prominent disturbance in Test 8 (Figure 26). Moses Critz, former president of the Togiak Traditional Council, requested genetic and radiocarbon analysis of the possible cranium fragment to determine chronological age, to verify that it was human, and to provide information about genetic heritage. The bone has a radiocarbon age of 2350 ± 50 (applying ∆R = 240 ± 50 (Pavlov Harbor; Table 1 Beta-323145). The high ratios of 15N to 14N (+20) and 13C to 12C (14.4) indicate a marine influenced diet (cf. Ambrose 1993; Coltrain 2010; Schoienger et al. 1983).
Mr. Critz requested that the teeth and cranium fragments remain with the collection as part of that history and that they should be sent with the collection to the University of Alaska Museum of the North, Fairbanks.
Figure 79. Left, all surfaces of mandibular molar and tooth fragment from Test 7 Level 4. Middle and right, all surfaces of mandibular first and second premolars. Teeth identified by Dr. Charles Michaels and Dr. Ryan Ersland, Anchorage Dental Associates.
65
Fauna
refuse there as well, so the fauna from these disturbed deposits probably includes modern specimens. Table 3 presents all fauna by species and component and includes fauna from disturbed contexts. The combined faunal assemblage from undisturbed deposits totals 458 specimens, including 10 shells ( cf. Nucella sp. and Mytilus sp.) and 178 (40% of the total) unidentified burned/calcined mammal bone fragments.
The faunal remains from XNB-00043 that were recovered from Test 1, 3, and 4 in 2004 were identified by Becky Saleeby (Appendix D in Schaaf et al. 2007a). The collection from 2008 Tests 5–8 received only preliminary examination and the fauna from Tests 9 and 10 were not examined (Saleeby 2012). The preliminary reports are summarized in Table 2, which reports fauna from undisturbed deposits only. ADF&G staff reportedly buried a variety of specimens for collection in the garden and composted their own food
Where sea mammal bone are identified, they are generally walrus, which occurs with bird bone in all components
Table 2: Summary of faunal remains from undisturbed contexts at XNB–00043, 2004 and 2008. Component
Provenance
NISP
Taxon
I 6310–4840 cal bp
Test 3 45–55 cmbd NW1/4 Undisturbed UA2005-056-297 Test 3 50–60 cmbd (L5) SW1/4 Undisturbed UA2005-056-296
1
Bird, species unknown
1
Large sea mammal
2
Odobenus rosmarus
2
O. rosmarus
Test 3 64 cmbd (L6) SW1/4 Undisturbed UA2005-056-298, 299 Test 6 Level 6 UA2008-078-348–349, 353–354, 356, 360
1
Uria aalge
1
Bird, species unknown
3
Bird, species unknown
17
Taxon unidentified
Test 9 105-110 cmbd UA2008-078-640 Test 1 Level 5 UA2005-056-295
3
Unidentified mammal
6
Taxon unidentified
Test 1 Level 6 53–63 cmbd (not collected) Test 5 Level 16 UA2008-078-042
1
O. rosmarus
3
cf. seal, species unknown
3 immature vert. fragments
1
Unidentified sea mammal
Large bone fractured into several pieces
Test 6 Levels 4 and 5 UA2008-078-313, 315, 316, 330, 332–334, 340, 343
1
cf. O. rosmarus
3
Bird, species unknown
4
Unidentified sea mammal
34 6
Taxon Unidentified Bird, species unknown
Burned/calcined fragments Krotovina disturbance Level 4
13
Unidentified sea mammal
Large, sea lion to walrus size
1
Unidentified small mammal
29
Taxon unidentified
II 3690–3210 cal bp
Test 7 Levels 4–6 UA2008-078-417–418, 420–422, 426, 432, 435, 448, 753, 754
Comments Humerus head Cancellous chunk Molar and vert. fragments Cranial fragments Humerus Humerus shaft fragment
Burned/calcined fragments
Burned/calcined fragments
Lower mandible, midsection visible in test wall
Burned/calcined fragments
(continued)
66
Table 2 (continued) Component
Provenance
NISP
Taxon
II 3690–3210 cal bp
Test 8 Levels 4–5 UA2008-078-514, 515, 517, 522, 523, 527
4
Nucella sp.
3
Unidentified sea mammal
1 5
Unidentified mammal Taxon unidentified
1 2
Unidentified mammal bone cf. ringed or harbor seal
58
Unidentified sea mammal
1
cf. O. rosmarus
1
Bird, species unknown
15 1
Taxon unidentified cf. O. rosmarus
Burned/calcined fragments spirally fractured with cut marks
6
Taxon unidentified
Burned/calcined fragments
1 12
Unidentified shell cf. O. rosmarus
Tiny fragment large, dense bone w/ fragments, 1 prox. epiphysis
11
Bird, species unknown
3
Unidentified sea mammal
9 1
Taxon unidentified Unidentified seal
1
Unidentified sea mammal
8
Bird, species unknown
1
Nucella sp.
2
Mytilus sp.
5 2
Taxon unidentified Unidentified sea mammal
2
Nucella sp.
19 2
Taxon unidentified Large sea mammal (small whale?)
2
Unidentified sea mammal bone
2
Bird, species unknown
12
Taxon unidentified
Burned/calcined fragments
4
Taxon unidentified
Burned/calcined fragments
17
Taxon unidentified
Burned/calcined fragments
6
O. rosmarus
12
Bird, species unknown
93
Unidentified sea mammal
III 2365–1530 cal bp
Test 9 75–98 cmbd UA2008-078-636–639 Test 5 Levels 7–15 UA2008-078-026–041, 148
Test 6 Levels 2–3 UA2008-078-267, 269, 282, 285, 288 Test 7 Levels 1–3 UA2008-078-385, 387, 388, 392, 393, 395, 398, 400, 402
Test 8 Levels 1–3 UA2008-078-476, 477, 483–485, 487, 489, 495497, 501, 502, 824
Test 9 0–75 cmbd UA2008-078-596, 626635, 660 Test 10 0–75 cmbd UA2008-078-596, 672, 746–752
IV Post 1530 bp
Test 4 Sod layer to 20 cmbs UA2005-056-300 Test 5 Levels 1–6 UA2008-078-003–025
67
Comments
vert. epiphysis sea lion or walrus-size
Burned/calcined fragments
small left mandibular frag. with tooth; vert, epiphysis pieces fractured from larger bones epiphysis of long bone
identifiable including beak, humerus, carpometacarpus Burned/calcined fragments rib Sternum (2), humerus, phalanx (2), long bone epiphysis
fragments Burned/calcined fragments Vertebra
Burned/calcined fragments Rib fragments (house structure) Shaped with rounded end, cut marks (some from shovel)
1 rib with articular surface heavily weathered cf. walrus, 1 proximal epiphysis of phalanx-young walrus or sea lion, 2 teeth Small to large chunks,1 distal fragment of phalanx of small to med. mammal; 1 very large cranial fragment, 2 are post cranial, 2 are smallmed. mammal
Discussion: The Walrus in the Room
investigated. Most of the bird bone has not been identified, with the exception of common murre (Uria aalge) identified in Test 3, Component 1. A parietal cranial fragment from tufted puffin (Fratercula cirrhata) was recovered from disturbed garden deposits. Several fragments of seal bone, cf. ringed or harbor seal, were recovered from Component III in Test 5. The seal vertebral fragments are immature and with the mandible and molar are probably identifiable to species with further analysis. In the disturbed deposits (Test 3) the only species that could be positively identified were walrus and tufted puffin (Fratercula cirrhata). Two large sea mammal ribs, possibly small whale, were exposed in Test 10 and were likely part of the house structure (Figures 18 and 19).
Around 6000 years ago during the waning stages of the Hypsithermal warm interval, people were hunting walrus that were hauled out on the beaches of Round Island during ice-free months. They were using large lanceolate points mounted on hand-thrust spears much like those used around the same time by people with a maritime focus in the eastern Aleutians and on the Pacific side of the Alaska Peninsula. Access to the island at this time was by boat or restricted to crossing on the ice during winter. Landed walrus would have been a species of interest to cultures with dual inland/coastal focus and to fully maritime adapted cultures, providing ivory, skin, meat, blubber, and bone in significant quantities. Harvesting from an all-male
Table 3: Summary of faunal remains (NISP) from all contexts at XNB-00043, 2004 and 2008. Taxon
Component 1
Component II
Mytilis sp. Nucella sp.
4
Unidentified shell Uria aalge
Total
Disturbed contexts
2
2
5
3
7
6
1
1
Component III
Component IV
1
1
Fratercula cirrhata
1
Unidentified bird
5
9
22
12
48
22
Odobenus rosmarus
4
2
14
6
26
10
3
3
6
1
Unidentified sea mammal
1
21
68
93
183
5
Unidentified mammal
3
3
6
39
Unidentified bone (calcined)
17
74
178
15
Unidentified seal
66
21
Unidentified bone (not calcined) Total
7 31
116
179
population would probably have been sustainable over a long period of time.
132
458
111
Aleutian Islands (e.g., 0.2 % NISP of the mammalian fauna at Margaret Bay, Davis 2001) and on the Gulf of Alaska side of the lower Alaska Peninsula (1.14% of identified fauna from all Sanak Island sites, Reedy-Maschner and Maschner 2012). Yet the large lanceloate endblades, the small quantity and characteristics of the blade technology, possible ochre use, and the preference for using basalt suggest a closer tie with these contemporary maritime cultures.
The sample we currently have is too small to understand the interactions that certainly took place among the early Qayassiq hunters from 6310 to 4840 cal bp and contemporary Northern Archaic groups, for example at nearby Security Cove, or the early maritime cultures to the east and south. Walrus doesn’t appear to have been a primary interest at other known sites, as suggested by the faunal assemblages reported from the early maritime sites on the Bering Sea side of the Alaska Peninsula and eastern
A second period of occupation at Qayassiq appears over a thousand years after the first and dates from 3690 to 68
to 3210 cal bp, coincident with the Aniakchak caldera- forming eruption. This is a time when interior sites with ASTt affinities in the nearby Wood-Tikchik Lakes area and elsewhere indicate an inland focus on salmon and caribou with seasonal forays to the coast for seal. ASTt affiliated sites are established by 4000 bp in Kachemak Bay and a few centuries later on the Alaska Peninsula and in the eastern Aleutians (Davis and Knecht 2005), and are thought to reflect an initial movement of people from the north (Dumond 2008; Workman and Zollars 2002). Early ASTt affiliated camps could possibly be present on Round Island with significant potential to shed light on the relationship between the very distinctive Denbigh Flint Complex to the north and the ASTt manifestations to the south. For now, the dates defining a later ASTt presence on Round Island may conservatively reflect influence from the northeast via Kvichak Bay and the Kvichak River drainage.
There are cultural deposits on the island that postdate the last available radiocarbon dates and are probably a continuation of Norton-affiliated occupations until the establishment of a Thule settlement at an unknown time. Seasonal historic use is evident, and walrus hunting on the island today attests to the continued cultural significance of the island to the people of Togiak. The archaeological record so far suggests long-term island fidelity for both humans and walrus. Neighboring islands Summit, Crooked, and Hagemeister have received more archaeological attention, yet no sites predating the Norton tradition have been found. With relatively equal access to other marine resources, this may be more than a sampling issue. Round Island with its summer walrus haulout may have been a preferred destination as it was later according to oral history. Walrus haulout fidelity is difficult to verify even now, but research shows that Round Island “… has been the only haul-out consistently used during periods of dramatic population-wide declines during past commercial harvests” (Jay and Hills 2005:198). Round Island is currently the most preferred haulout for male walrus in Bristol Bay, providing conditions more favorable to walrus than haul-outs along the mainland coastline (ibid). In addition to walrus, Round Island provides a rich variety of other important subsistence resources: sea lions, seals, seabirds, and saltwater fish, with dependable and critical resources like the early spring seabird rookeries and freshwater springs.
If the current gap between the earlier occupations (Component I) on Round Island and the ASTt-like presence is real, it may have something to do with the Neoglacial cold period, depending on when its effects became manifest in thicker and longer lasting sea ice. At the maximum extent and duration of ice during the Neoglacial, Round Island would have been icebound for most of the year and unavailable as a walrus haulout until at least late summer. People and walrus are clearly associated in the deposits at XNB-00043 during this time, and it may have been during a shortened open water season. This could also have been a time when sea mammal hunting on ice grew in importance (cf. Crockford and Frederick 2007; cf. Maxwell 1985) and people may have wintered on sea ice and on the island. Some of the surface depressions at the site may be winter houses that attach to this time, but evidence for this awaits further investigation. The presence of Okmok obsidian indicates continued connections with the eastern Aleutian Islands.
During hostile times, the island would not have been a bad place to take refuge, with its difficult access, natural fortification, and abundant resources. The site has much to say about complex interregional relationships over the past 6000 years and is conspicuous in revealing the reliability of walrus at summer haulouts as a factor in the cultural dynamics. Finally, it is possible that there are earlier occupations at Qayassiq, when the island stood at the edge of the exposed Bering Land Bridge plain as the sea rose to cover it, concentrating resources along its margin.
A 750-year gap in the radiocarbon record separates the ASTt affiliated component from the appearance of Norton tradition settlements, dated here from 2365 to 1530 cal bp and manifest by several winter settlements and a continued relationship with walrus. The assemblage contains elements described from Norton tradition sites north to Cape Krusenstern and south to the Alaska Peninsula, with the addition of large, stemmed spear points, probably used to procure walrus on land. These points, ground slate lance forms, and Okmok obsidian suggest ties with people to the east/northeast (Kvichak River and Bay) and south.
Qayassiq is the oldest radiocarbon-dated coastal site and the only reported island occupation predating the Norton culture in western Alaska north of the Alaska Peninsula. Occupied before, during, and after the Neoglacial and with demonstrated faunal preservation, this site compels further research. The identified remains of marine mammals and seabirds associated with the cultural occupations at this deeply stratified site offer a unique dataset for climate change, species evolution, and conservation research.
69
The Walrus Islands Game Sanctuary has been listed on the National Register of Historic Places as a National Historic Landmark District. The seasonal presence of staff on the island since 1976 has protected the site from heavy vandalism reported at sites elsewhere in the sanctuary. Continued Alaska Department of Fish and Game staff presence is critically needed for the preservation of this important site. It is hoped that this initial work will inspire collaborative long-term research at Round Island.
2004 The Northern Archaic Tradition in Southwestern Alaska. Arctic Anthropology, 41(2):153–162. 2008 Security Cove and the Northern Archaic Tradition Revisited. Arctic Anthropology 45(2):146–168. Alaska Department of Fish and Game 2015a Walrus Islands—State Game Sanctuary: Round Island Mammal Checklist. http://www.adfg. alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=walrusislands. mammals [2/19/2015 4:59:48 PM], accessed April 2015.
Acknowledgments This project was sponsored by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) at the request of Joe Meehan, statewide program coordinator, Lands and Refuge Program. It was supported by Moses Critz, Togiak Traditional Council; Joel Hard, superintendent of Lake Clark National Park and Preserve; Jennifer Pederson Weinberger, program manager, Cultural Resources, Alaska Region, National Park Service and the National Natural Landmarks Program (NNL), administered for Alaska at the time by Judy Alderson of the National Park Service, Alaska Regional Office. Field support and funding for radiocarbon dates were provided by Ken Pratt, Greg Biddle, and Matt O’Leary, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Anchorage Office, and Dave McMahan and Richard VanderHoek, State of Alaska Office of History and Archaeology. O’Leary, VanderHoek, and Molly Casperson comprised the 2008 field crew. Sanctuary managers Diane Okonek (ADF&G), Wildlife Technician Mary Cody (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) and Brian Okonek (ADF&G volunteer) provided invaluable on-site information, assistance, and support. Rhea Hood provided the artifact scans and Erica Hill’s review greatly improved the fauna section.
2015b Walrus Islands—State Game Sanctuary: Round Island Bird Checklist. http://www.adfg.alaska. gov/index.cfm?adfg=walrusislands.birds [2/19/2015 5:00:37 PM], accessed April 2015. Ambrose, S. H. 1993 Isotopic Analysis of Palaeodiets: Methodological and Interpretive Considerations. In Investigations of Ancient Human Tissue: Chemical Analysis in Anthropology, edited by M. K. Sandford. Boca Raton: CRC Press, pp. 59–130. Anderson, D. 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). Bailey, B. B. 1991 The Archaeology of Hagemeister Island, Southwestern Alaska, with Special Emphasis on the Qikertarpak Site [XHI-016]. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Alaska Fairbanks.
References
Barclay, D. J., G. C. Wies and P. E. Calkin 2009 Holocene glacier fluctuations in Alaska. Quaternary Science Reviews 28:2034–2048.
Ackerman, R. E. 1964 Prehistory in the Kuskokwim-Bristol Bay Region, Southwestern Alaska. Laboratory of Anthropology, Washington State University, Report of Investigations No. 26.
Biddle, K. G. 2001 Excavations at 49GDN-00233: Archaeology on the Middle Togiak River, Southwest Alaska, USDOI. Bureau of Indian Affairs, Anchorage, Alaska.
1988 Late Prehistoric Settlement in Chagvan Bay, Southwestern Alaska. In Late Prehistoric Development of Alaska’s Native People., edited by R. D. Shaw, R. K. Harritt, and D. E. Dumond. Aurora, 4:169–188. Anchorage: Alaska Anthropological Association Monographs.
Calkin, P. E. 1988 Holocene Glaciation of Alaska (and Adjoining Yukon Territory Canada). Quaternary Science Reviews 7:159–184.
1998 Early Maritime Traditions in the Bering, Chukchi, and East Siberia Seas. Arctic Anthropology, 35(1):247–262.
70
Casperson, M. R., and J. M. Schaaf 2015 Walrus Islands Archeological District, National Historic Landmark nomination, on file National Park Service, Alaska Regional Office, Anchorage.
DePew, A. D., and K. G. Biddle 2006 Preliminary Excavation and Artifact Collection Data from 48DIL-00086 and 49DIL-00153, Dillingham Quadrangle, USDOI Bureau of Indian Affairs, Anchorage, Alaska.
Chythlook, T. 1984 Taped interview, conducted and translated by Molly Chythlook regarding subsistence activities at Togiak. Taped at Aleknagik. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence. Dillingham.
Dumond, D. E. 1969 The Prehistoric Pottery of Southwestern Alaska. Anthropological Papers of the University of Alaska 14(2)19–42. 1981 Archaeology on the Alaska Peninsula: the Naknek Region 1960–1975. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers No. 21.
Coltrain, J. B. 2010 Temporal and Dietary Reconstruction of Past Aleut Populations: Stable- and Radio-Isotope Evidence Revisited. Arctic 63(4):391–399.
1982 Trends and Traditions in Alaska Prehistory: The Place of Norton Culture. Arctic Anthropology 19(2):39–51.
Cooper, D. R. 2003 Lithic Resource Abundance and Expedient Technology on Agattu Island. Alaska Journal of Anthropology 1(2):34–43.
1998 Maritime Adaptation on the Northern Alaska Peninsula. Arctic Anthropology 35(1):187–203. 2005 The Arctic Small Tool Tradition in Southern Alaska. Alaska Journal of Anthropology 3(2):67–78.
Coulter, H. W., D. M. Hopkins, T. N. V. Karlstrom, T. L. Pewe, C. Wahrhaftig, and J. R. Williams 1965 Map Showing Extent of Glaciation in Alaska. U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Geologic Investigations Map I-415.
2008 Tales of the North Pacific. Alaska Journal of Anthropology 6(1 & 2):151–162. 2011 Archaeology on the Alaska Peninsula: The Northern Region, Fifty Years Onward. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers 70.
Crockford, S. J., and S. G. Frederick 2007 Sea-ice expansion in the Bering Sea during the Neoglacial: Evidence from Archaeozoology. The Holocene 17:699–706.
Dumond D. E., and D. G. Griffin 2002 Measurements of the Marine Reservoir Effect on Radiocarbon Ages in the Eastern Bering Sea. Arctic 55(1):77–86.
Davis, B. 2001 Sea Mammal Hunting and the Neoglacial: Environmental Change and Subsistence Technology at Margaret Bay. In Archaeology in the Aleut Zone of Alaska: Some Recent Research, edited by D. E. Dumond. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers No. 58:71–85.
Fall, J. A., M. Chythlook, J. Schichnes, and R. Sinnott 1991 Walrus Hunting at Togiak, Bristol Bay, Southwest Alaska. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Technical Paper No. 212, Juneau. Fay, F. H. 1982 Ecology and biology of the Pacific walrus, Odobenus rosmarus divergens Illiger. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, North American Fauna, No. 74 Washington, D. C.
Davis, R. S., and R. A. Knecht 2005 Evidence for the Arctic Small Tool Tradition in the Eastern Aleutians. Alaska Journal of Anthropology 3(3):51–65. De Laguna F. 1946 The Importance of the Eskimo in Northeastern Archaeology. In Man in Northeastern North America, edited by F. Johnson. Papers of the Robert S. Peabody Foundation for Archaeology, Vol.3:107–142.
Fay, F. H., B. P. Kelly, P. H. Gehnrich, J. L. Sease, and A. A. Hoover 1984 Modern populations, migrations, demography, trophics, and historical status of the Pacific walrus. Outer Continental Shelf Environmental Assessment Program (OCSEAP) Final Report 37:231–376. Washington, D.C.: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
1975 The Archaeology of Cook Inlet, Alaska. 2nd ed. Alaska Historical Society, Anchorage.
71
Frost, K. J., L .F. Lowry, and J. J. Burns 1983 Distribution of marine mammals in the coastal zone of the Bering Sea during summer and autumn. Final report. Research Unit 613. Juneau, Alaska: NOAA Outer Continental Shelf Environmental Assessment Program.
Hasselbach, L., and P. Neitlich 1996 A Description of the Vegetation of Round Island, Walrus Islands State Game Sanctuary, Alaska. Report to the National Natural Landmark Program of the Alaska National Park Service and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, on file at the Alaska Regional Office, Anchorage.
Gallison, J. D. 1983 An Archaeological Investigation and Technological Analysis of an Early to Mid Holocene Core and Blade Assemblage (GDN 093) Kagati Lake, Southwest Alaska. M.A. Thesis, Washington State University.
Henn, W. 1978 Archaeology on the Alaska Peninsula: The Ugashik Drainage, 1973–1975. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers No. 14. Hoffman, B. W. 2009 2000 Years on the King Salmon River: An Archaeological Report for UGA-052, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Alaska Region, Branch of Regional Archeology, Anchorage.
Garlich-Miller, J., J. MacCracken, J. Snyder, R. Meehan, M. Myers, J. Wilder, E. Lance and A. Matz 2011 Status Review of the Pacific Walrus (Odobenus rosmarus divergens). USFWS Endangered Species Act review. January.
Jay, C. V. and S. Hills 2005 Movements of Walruses Radio-tagged in Bristol Bay, Alaska. Arctic 58(2):192–202.
Giddings, J. L. 1964 The Archaeology of Cape Denbigh. Brown University Press, Providence, RI.
Kaufman, D. F., S. L. Forman, P. D. Lea, and C. W. Wobus 1995 Age of Pre-late Wisconsin Glacial-Estuarine Sedimentation, Bristol Bay, Alaska. Quaternary Research 45:59–72.
Giddings, J. L., and D. D. Anderson 1986 Beach Ridge Archeology of Cape Krusenstern: Eskimo and Pre-Eskimo Settlements around Kotzebue Sound, Alaska. Publications in Archeology 20 National Park Service, Washington, D.C.
Klingler, S. 1983 Walrus Island Sites, a report on file at the Department of Natural Resources, Office of History and Archaeology, Anchorage.
Griffin, D. 1999 Portrait of Nash Harbor: Prehistory, History, and Lifeways of an Alaska Community. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Oregon. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms International.
Knecht, R. A. and R. S. Davis 2008 The Amaknak Bridge Site: Cultural Change in the Neoglacial in the Eastern Aleutians. Arctic Anthropology 45(1)61–78.
2002 A History of Human Settlement on Nunivak Island, Alaska: Insights from Recent Investigations at Nash Harbor Village. Arctic Anthropology 39(1 & 2):51–68
Knecht, R. A., R. S. Davis, and G. A. Carver 2001 The Margaret Bay Site and Eastern Aleutian Prehistory. In Archaeology in the Aleut Zone of Alaska: Some Recent Research, edited by Don E. Dumond, pp. 35–69. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers No. 58.
2004 Ellikarrmiut: Changing Lifeways in an Alaskan Community. Aurora, Vol. VII, Alaska Anthropological Association Series.
Kowta, M. 1963 Old Togiak in Prehistory. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.
Griffin J. B., and R. H. Wilmeth, Jr. 1964 The Ceramic Complexes at Iyatayet. In The Archaeology of Cape Denbigh, edited by J. L. Giddings. Brown University Press, Providence, RI, Appendix I:271–303.
Larsen, H. E. 1950 Archaeological Investigations in Southwestern Alaska. American Antiquity 15(3):177–186.
Hamilton, T. D., K. M. Reed and R. M. Thorson 1986 Introduction and overview. In Glaciation in Alaska: The Geologic Record, edited by T. D. Hamilton, K. M. Reed, and R. M. Thorson. Alaska Geological Society, Anchorage, Alaska, pp. 1–8.
Levy, L. B., D. S. Kaufman, and A. Werner 2004 Holocene glacier fluctuations, Waskey Lake, northeastern Ahklun Mountains, southwestern Alaska. The Holocene 14:185–193.
72
Limpinsel, D., and R. McConnaughey 2013 Biological Characterization: An Overview of Bristol, Nushagak, and Kvichak Bays; Essential Fish Habitat, Processes, and Species Assemblages. NOAA NMFS, Alaska Region December.
McMahan, D. J., J. C. Breiby, M. Grover, and D. Thompson 2000 Data Recovery at XNB-055, Norton Tradition Site at Clarks Point, Alaska (Project No. 51352). Office of History and Archaeology Report Number 78, Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Anchorage.
Malhi, R. S. 2013 DNA Analysis of bone from Round Island. Report to Jeanne Schaaf on file at the University of Alaska Fairbanks Museum of the North, UA2008-078 accession.
NOAA 2015 Bristol Bay: Togiak Bay and Walrus Islands Bathymetry Map, Preliminary Chart 16315, U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Washington, D.C.
Manley, W. F. 2002 Postglacial Flooding of the Bering Land Bridge: A Geospatial Animation: INSTAAR, University of Colorado, v1, http://instaar.colorado.edu/ QGISL/bering_land_bridge.
Nowak, M. 1970 A Preliminary Report on the Archaeology of Nunivak Island, Alaska. Anthropological Papers of the University of Alaska 15(1):18–31. 1982 The Norton Period of Nunivak Island: Internal Change and External Influence. Arctic Anthropology 19(2):75–91.
Maschner, H. D. G. 2008 Fishtails, Ancestors, and Old Islanders: Chirikof Island, the Alaska Peninsula, and the Dynamics of Western Alaska Prehistory. Alaska Journal of Anthropology 6(1 & 2):171–183.
O’Leary, M. 2005 A Roster of BIA ANCSA Radiocarbon Dates. Alaska Journal of Anthropology 5(1):123–145.
Maschner, H. D. G., B. Benson, G. L. Knudsen, and N. Misarti 2010 The Archaeology of the Sapsuk River, Alaska. Occasional Papers in Alaskan Field Archeology. Bureau of Indian Affairs, Branch of Regional Archeology, Anchorage, Alaska.
Rasic, J. 2015 Results of recent geochemical analysis of obsidian artifact (UA2008-078-0866) from XNB-00043 on Round Island. Letter report on file with UAF Accession 2008–078, Museum of the North, Fairbanks.
Maschner, H. D. G., and J. W. Jordan 2001 The Russell Creek Manifestation of the Arctic Small Tool Tradition on the Western Alaska Peninsula. In Archaeology in the Aleut Zone of Alaska: Some Recent Research, edited by D. E. Dumond, pp. 151–171. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers No. 58.
Reedy-Maschner, K. L., and H. D. G. Maschner (eds.) 2012 Sanak Island, Alaska: A Natural and Cultural History. Idaho Museum of Natural History, Pocatello. Reger, D. 1981 A Model for Culture History in Upper Cook Inlet, Alaska. PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman.
Maschner, H. D. G., and O. K. Mason 2013 The Bow and Arrow in Northern North America. Evolutionary Anthropology 22:133–138.
Reger, D. R., and J. B. Townsend 2004 Prehistory at the Pedro Bay Site (ILI-001), Alaska. Report to the Pedro Bay Village Council and the National Park Service, Program of Historic Preservation Grants. File copy at NPS, Anchorage.
Matley, J. K., A. T. Fisk, and T. A. Dick 2015 Foraging ecology of ringed seals (Pusa hispida), beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas) and narwhals (Monodon nonoceros) in the Canadian High Arctic determined by stomach content and stable isotope analysis. Polar Research 2015, 34, 24295, http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/ polar.v34.24295
Rogers, J. S., D. R. Reger, J.D. Reuther, R. C. Bowman, and J. Baxter-McIntosh 2013 The Arctic Small Tool Tradition on Cook Inlet: The Magnetic Island Site, Tuxedni Bay, Alaska. Alaska Journal of Anthropology 11 (1):5–23.
Maxwell, M. S. 1985 Prehistory of the Eastern Arctic. Academic Press, Inc. Orlando, Florida.
73
Ross, R. E. 1971 The Cultural Sequence at Chagvan Bay Alaska: A Matrix Analysis. Ph. D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology. Washington State University.
1998 An Archeology of the Central Yupik: A Regional Overview for the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, Northern Bristol Bay, and Nunivak Island. Arctic Anthropology 35(1):234–246. Sinnott, R. 1992 Walrus Islands State Game Sanctuary: Information for a Management Plan. Division of Wildlife Conservation, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Anchorage.
Saleeby, B. 2012 Preliminary identification of a small faunal assemblage from the Walrus Island site, retested in 2008. Report to Jeanne Schaaf on file at the University of Alaska Fairbanks Museum of the North, UA2008-078 accession.
Slaughter, D. C. 2005 Radiocarbon Dating the Arctic Small Tool Tradition in Alaska. Alaska Journal of Anthropology 3(2):117–133.
Schaaf, J., J. Alderson, and J. Cusick 2007a The Archeology of Qayassiq “Place to Go in a Kayak” Round Island Site XNB-00043, Bristol Bay, Alaska. Unpublished report on file at Alaska Department of Fish and Game and Alaska Department of Natural Resources Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation Office of History and Archaeology, Anchorage, Alaska.
Slaughter, D. C., and K. G. Biddle 2002 Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the Interior of Bristol Bay: Preliminary Findings. Paper presented at the Alaska Anthropological Society Annual Meeting, 2002. Stabeno, P. J. and J. D. Schumacher 1999 The Physical Oceanography of the Bering Sea. In Dynamics of the Bering Sea: A Summary of Physical, Chemical, and Biological Characteristics, and a Synopsis of Research on the Bering Sea, edited by Loughlin, T. R., and K. Ohtani, Alaska Sea Grant College Program Report, No. 99-03), pp. 1–28.
Schaaf, J., J. Alderson, J. Meehan, and J. Cusick 2007b Archeology, National Natural Landmarks, and State Game Sanctuaries: Combining Efforts for Science and Management, The George Wright Forum, 24(3):54–69. Schoeninger, M. J., M. J. DeNiro, and H. Tauber 1983 Stable nitrogen isotope ratios of bone collagen reflect marine and terrestrial components of prehistoric human diet. Science June 24:220 (4604):1381–3.
Steffian, A. F., E. P. Eufemio, and P. G. Saltonstall 2002 Early Sites and Microblade Technologies from the Kodiak Archipelago. Anthropological Papers of the University of Alaska 2(1):1–38.
Shaw, R. D. 1979 Archaeological Reconnaissance in the Vicinity of Hagemeister Island, Goodnews Bay and Kagati Lake, Southwestern Alaska. Archaeological Reports of Clarence Rhode NWR, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage.
Stringer, W. J., and J. E. Groves 1991 Location and Areal Extent of Polynyas in the Bering and Chukchi Seas. Arctic Vol. 44, Supp.1. VanderHoek, R. 2009 The Role of Ecological Barriers in the Development of Cultural Boundaries During and the later Holocene of the Central Alaska Peninsula. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
1982 The Expansion and Survival of the Norton Tradition on the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta. Arctic Anthropology 19(2):59–74.
VanStone, J. W. 1984 Mainland Southwest Alaska Eskimo. In Arctic, edited by D. Damas, pp. 224–242. Handbook of North American Indians Vol. 5, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
1983 Archaeology of the Manokinak Site: A Study of the Cultural Transition between Late Norton Tradition and Historic Eskimo. Ph.D dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington.
1988 (Ed.) Russian Exploration in Southwest Alaska: The Travel Journals of Petr Korsakovskiey (1818) and Ivan Ya. Vasilev (1829). University of Alaska Press, Fairbanks.
1986 Cultural Resources Survey of the Togiak District Herring Fishery Management Base Camp, Summit Island, Alaska. Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys, Public Data File 86–12.
74
Wallace, K. 2015 Preliminary report on XNB-043 tephra geochemistry. Report to Jeanne Schaaf, on file with UAF Accession 2008-078, Museum of the North, Fairbanks. Weiss, E. W., and R. P. Morrill 2013 Walrus Islands State Game Sanctuary Annual Management Report 2013, Special Areas Management Report, ADF&G/DWC/ SAMR-2014-2, Anchorage, Alaska. Westcoast, P. 1984 Taped interview, conducted and translated by Molly Chythlook regarding traditional uses of the Kukukak area. Taped in Aleknagik. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Dillingham. Wheeler, R., and C. Alix 2004 Economic and cultural significance of driftwood in coastal communities, available at: http://www.uaf.edu/files/aqc/Wheeler%20 and%20Alix.pdf, accessed April 2015. Wilson, F. H., C. P. Hults, S. Mohadjer, and W. L. Coonrad, compilers 2013 Reconnaissance geologic map of the Kuskokwim Bay region, southwest Alaska: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Map 3100, pamphlet 46 p., 1 sheet, scales 1:500,000, 1:300,000, 1:250,000, http://pubs.usgs.gov/ sim/3100/. Workman, W. B. 1982 Beyond the Southern Frontier: The Norton Culture and the Western Kenai Peninsula. Arctic Anthropology 19(2):101–122. 1998 Archaeology of the Southern Kenai Peninsula. Arctic Anthropology 35(1)146–159. Workman, W. B., and P. Zollars 2002 The Dispersal of the Arctic Small Tool Tradition into Southern Alaska: Dates and Data from the Kenai Peninsula, Southcentral Alaska. Anthropological Papers of the University of Alaska 2(1):39–49. Zeppelin, T. K., D. S. Johnson, C. E. Kuhn, S. J. Iverson, and R. R. Ream 2015 Stable Isotope Models Predict Foraging Habitat of Northern Fur Seals (Callorhinus ursinus) in Alaska. PLoS ONE 10(6): e01276.15.doi:10.137/ journal.pone.0127615.
75
National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior
Cultural Resource Program U.S. National Park Service—Alaska Regional Office 240 W 5th Avenue Anchorage, AK 99501 www.nature.nps.gov
E X P E R I E N C E Y O U R A M E R I C A™
