The Status of Archaeology and Archaeological ...

The Status of Archaeology and Archaeological Practice in Southeast Alaska in Relation to the Larger Northwest Coast Madonna L. Moss

Abstract. Southeast Alaska is bounded by British Columbia and Yukon Territory, and most ofthe region is Tlingit territory. Haida, Tsimshian, and Athapaskans have all played roles in the region's long-term history. Contemporary political boundaries structure current archaeological work because the United States and Canada have different academic traditions, heritage laws, land management practices, research funding agencies, and publication outlets. To what extent do researchers in the U.S. pay attention to archaeological work on the "other" side ofthe border? How has the practice of archaeology in southeast Alaska evolved over time, and how well have we engaged with issues of concern to our Canadian colleagues? Allen McCartney is one ofthe few researchers who has worked extensively in both the U.S. and Canada, and his publications consistently cut across the artifice of national boundaries. In this paper, I explore how we have come to know what we think we know of southeast Alaska's archaeological record. I also survey how we have studied the "big questions" of prehistory in relation to archaeological work within the larger Nortliwest Coast region.

Boundaries Southeast Alaska, representing the northern part of the Northwest Coast, is bounded by two Canadian provinces: British Columhia and Yukon Territory (Fig. 1). Southeast Alaska encompasses the Alexander Archipelago and the adjacent mainland, and extends from Yakutat Bay in the north to Dixon Entrance and the international boundary in the south. British Columhia surrounds roughly 99% of southeast Alaska, but in the far northwest corner in the vicinity ofthe St. Elias Mountains, inland from Yakutat Bay, Alaska shares the international boundary with Yukon Territory. The northern boundary ofthe Northwest Coast has been collectively agreed npon for many years

because it marks both a physiographic and cultural boundary. Unlike the sinuous shoreline to the southeast, the coastline immediately west of Yakutat to Cape Suckling is straight and highly exposed. The cultural boundary occurs between the ethnographic territories ofthe Chugach and the Tlingit. Despite agreement on the boundary, it has segregated the work and literatures ofthese two adjacent regions, perhaps to an unfortunate degree (Moss 1992). In contrast, the southern boundary ofthe Northwest Coast has been defined in different ways (Suttles 1990). Sometimes the definition is based upon ethnographic criteria; e.g., Nuu chah nulth territory in Washington, or even Tolowa, Yurok, and Wiyot territories in California are variously included in the Northwest Coast, The southern

Madonna L. Moss, Department of Anthropology, 1218 University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon 97403-1218 ARCTICANTHROPOLOCYVol, 41, No. 2, pp. 177-196,2004 ISSN 0066-6939 © 2004 by the Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System

Arctic Anthropology 41:2

178

^ '7 ^ ^

c/1 —' LlJ

• —-

3

3

S£ 2

^

V

I-

.i

Moss: Archaeology and Practice

border of the cultnre area has also been defined by geographic features, such as the Strait of Juan de Fuca or the Columbia River. To simplify tilings, I will choose the Oregon-California state line as a convenient, albeit arbitrary, boundary. Some ofthe same problems that plague U.S. and Canadian researchers interested in the northern Northwest Coast also afflict workers from these two nations on the southern Northwest Coast, Since I work at both ends ofthe Northwest Coast, I am particularly aware ofthese parallels, although here I focus on the northern Northwest Coast.

Environment The modern southeast Alaskan environment is characterized hy rugged topography and a cool, rainy maritime climate. Dense coniferous forests cover the coastal lowlands. Economically important trees include Sitka spruce, western hemlock, Alaska yellow cedar, and western redcedar, the latter restricted to the south of Frederick Sound. Major plant foods include varieties of berries, roots (ferns, silverweed, springbank clover, wild carrot, chocolate lily), leaves and shoots (nettles, fireweed, knotweed, wild celery), and seaweeds. The inlertidal zone is a rich source of invertebrates (clams, cockles, mussels, sea urchins, chitons), six species of salmon are found in saltwater and riverine environments, and common marine mammals include harbor seals, sea otters, northern sea lions, and northern fur seals. Common land mammals of economic and cultural importance include Sitka black-tailed deer, mountain goat, moose, brown and black bears, wolf, beaver, land otter, mink, and porcupine. Waterfowl and seabird species are numerous and abundant, while eagles, ravens, and crows have special cultural significance. In reviews such as this, my bias has heen to emphasize coastal over interior environments and resources. This is easily explained because the coastal ecotone is where floral and faunal resources are concentrated, and where the vast majority of known archaeological sites are located. In some areas of the Northwest Coast, the position of ancient shorelines is being documented (e.g., Fedje and Christensen 1999), but most ofthese are reasonably close to modern shorelines at the scale I discuss here. Numerous archaeological surveys have been conducted in the interior of islands in the Alexander Archipelago in the course of USDA Forest Service timber sale planning. However, sites are very difficult to locate in these heavily forested areas, and few have been identified during interior surveys. Compared to the islands, study ofthe mainland interior has been neglected, partly because the region is mountainous. Approximately halfofthe area is above 460 m in elevation, and the alpine

179

ecosystem is less biologically rich than those ofthe lowlands. Much ofthe mainland interior is permanently covered in glacial ice, the largest areas being the Saint Elias Mountains, Clacier Bay National Park, the Juneau ice field, and along the peaks of the Coast Mountains that mark the international boundary. Until recently the interior has not been slated for large-scale development. For all these reasons, the mainland interior has been perceived as unknown and impenetrable, a veritable "no man's land" separating southeast Alaska from its neighboring Canadian provinces. Although much ofthe mainland interior may not have been heavily used in prehistory, certain corridors were of cultural importance in the nineteenth century, and probably earlier. The Alsek, Cbilkat, Wbiting, Taku, and Stikine rivers, and the Portland InletPortland Canal and Portland Inlet-Nass River systems all penetrate into British Columbia. These are places where more serious study of mainland activity and interactions across biogeographic and cultural boundaries could begin.

Ethnographic and Contemporary Groups According to de Laguna (1990:189), the Eyak lived in the Yakutat area for a substantial period prior to Tlingit expansion, as recently as the eighteenth century. Linguistically, the Eyak are more closely related to Athapaskans than they are to Tlingit, and culturally they share traits with the Chugach. South of Yakutat, most of southeast Alaska was occupied by the Tlingit, with as many as 17 tribally distinct named groups \kwaans\. At some time prior to contact, Kaigani Haida from Craham Island in British Columbia settled the southern half of Prince of Wales Island, Dall, Sukkwan, and Long islands in Alaska, displacing the Tlingit (Blackman 1990:24). In 1887 Christianized Tsimshian Indians moved from the Prince Rupert vicinity to establish "New Metlakatla" on Annette Island (Garfield 1951). Today, the Tlingit are the most numerous of the region's Alaskan Native population, followed by Haida and Tsimshian. In the interior along the Canadian boundary are the Athapaskan groups. Following Helm (1981), and starting at tiie north, these include the Southern Tuchone, Tagisb, Inland Tlingit, Tahltan, and Tsetsaut. Of these, all speak Athapaskan languages, except the Inland Tlingit who speak a Tlingit dialect, albeit one that diverges from those spoken on the coast (McClellan 1981:469). The Inland Tlingit are said to represent a nineteenth century expansion of Tlingit from the coast to the interior prompted by the fur trade, although the Inland Tlingit have Athapaskan ancestry as well.

180

Despite their geographic proximity, discussions of comparisons and relationships between the Tlingit and Athapaskans are relatively infrequent and superficial in the archaeological literature. In contrast, the Tlingit are routinely discussed in relation to Northwest Coast groups, especially the Tsimshian and Haida, but also the Heiltsuk, Kwakwaka'wakw, Nuu chah nulth, and Coast Salish. This is just one example of how the culture area houndary between the Subarctic and the Northwest Coast has strongly structured our thinking and writing about southeast Alaska. This culture area boundary is reinforced by the national houndary as well as environmental discontinuities.

Evaluation of Archaeological Work Archaeological research in southeast Alaska has a relatively short history. Frederica de Laguna (1960) conducted extensive survey and some excavation on Admiralty Island starting in 1949, just over 50 years ago.^ She followed this investigation with substantial archaeological and ethnographic work in Yakutat (de Laguna 1972; de Laguna et al. 1964), While de Laguna thought southeast Alaska was uninhabited until late in prehistory, this changed with Ackerman's (Ackerman 1968; Ackerman, Hamilton, and Stuckenrath 1979) work along Icy Strait in Glacier Bay National Park during the 1960s, demonstrating occupation dating to over 9,000 radiocarbon years ago."^ During the 1970s, Sealaska Corporation (1975) sponsored an extensive survey of archaeological sites across southeast Alaska for the purpose of selecting properties under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. Results of archaeological work at the multicomponent Hidden Falls site in 1978-1979 were published in 1989 (Davis 1989). Since 1980, the pace of archeological work bas quickened, especially that driven by resource development on the Tongass National Forest. In 1987, Arndt, Sackett, and Ketz (1987) compiled a highly useful overview ofthe Tongass National Forest, which has served as a baseline document for many years. Much Forest Service work has heen accomplished "in house" by staff archaeologists. While site records are available through the Office of Archaeology and History in Anchorage, survey and excavation reports are not easy to track. They are not disseminated widely, but can usually be obtained by making direct requests of agency personnel. For example, Jane Smith has generously provided me with recent Stikine Area reports (e.g.. Smith 1996, 1999: Smith and McCalluni 1993; Smith, Battino, and McCallum 1993, Smith, McCallum, and Battino 1993). Forest Service contracted reports produced by Washington State University researchers (Ackerman, Reid, and Callison 1987; Ackerman


et al. 1985), Charles Mobley & Associates (Mobley 1984, 1989, 1992, 1994, 1995, 1996, 2003; Mobley and Betts 1997), Northern Land Use Research (Bowers, Higgs, and Williams 1998; Bowers et al. 1996), and others (Minor, Barner, and Greenspan 1986; Ream and Saleeby 1987) have been disseminated more widely. Study of the early and middle Holocene Chuck Lake sites resulted from a timber sale survey of Heceta Island (Ackerman et al. 1985), Follow-up excavations at Heceta Island sites were conducted by a Hokkaido University team, but these have not been completely reported (Okada et al. 1989,1992). A number of survey contracts have resulted in newly identified and some radiocarbon-dated sites, but little excavation data (Davis and Lobdell 1992; Greiser, Putnam, and Lee 1993; Greiser et al. 1994; Wessen, Flint, and Kelly 1993; Wessenetal. 1994). Three Ph.D. dissertations on southeast Alaskan archaeology have been completed: my study (Moss 1989) of 11 sites on southwest Admiralty Island, Herb Maschner's (1992) study of sites in Tebenkof Bay on Kuiu Island, and Stan Davis's (1996) excavations at two Yakutat sites. Otber excavations ofthe late 1980s through 1990s include Holmes' ( Holmes, Dale, and McMahan 1989) work at Thorne River and the 1995 evaluation by Reger et al, (1995) evaluation of Coffman Cove, both sites on Prince of Wales Island. Bowers et al. (1996) reported work at the North Point site in Port Houghton on the mainland. In 1996, a paper on the Irish Creek site, Kupreanof Island, excavated by tho Forest Service in 1981 and 1984 was published (Moss et al. 1996). Water-saturated (wet) sites were first investigated in southeast Alaska by Langdon, Reger, and Wooley (1986) and Moss (1989), While most efforts have focused on the wood stakes from fishing weirs and traps (e.g., Langdon, Reger, and Campbell 1995; Mobley and McCallum 2001; Moss et al. 1990: Moss and Erlandson 1998; Putnam and Greiser 1993), the late prehistoric Montana Creek fish trap (Betts 1998), 6,000 year old Silverhole basket (Croes 1997), and perishable artifacts from the Lanaak site (Bernick 1999) have been described. The centralized repository for archaeological information from the region is the State of Alaska's Office of Archaeology and History in Anchorage. In my attempts to gather data for regional syntheses, I have obtained site records from the State and made special requests to Forest Service offices in Sitka, Juneau, Petersburg, Ketchikan, and Craig for survey reports, radiocarbon dates, and excavation reports. Agency archaeologists have provided invaluable data for regional studies of fort sites (Moss and Erlandson 1992), fishing weirs and traps (Moss et al, 1990, Moss and Erlandson 1998), and horticultural sites (Moss in press). Studies of Wolf's Lair, Baker Island (Moss aiid Erlandson 2000),


181

Obsidian Cove, Suemez Island (Moss and Erlandson 2001), and Cape Addington Rockshelter, Noyes Island (Lepofsky, Moss, and Lyons 2001; Moss 2004) have appeared. Some of Dixon's work at 49-PET-408 on Prince of Wales Island has been described (Dixon 1999). Overall, a great deal of archaeological survey is accomplished annually in southeast Alaska, and many sites are radiocarbon-dated. Over the 50-year history of archaeological research, few large excavations have been conducted. While survey reports and radiocarbon dates are presented predominantly in gray literature, the results of substantial excavations are more easily available. Articlelength syntheses have appeared, integrating data from numerous sources (Ackerman 1996a; Davis 1990; Moss 1998; Moss and Erlandson 1995). As is the case in many regions, there is frequently (and understandably) a long gap between excavation and publication, except in the case of contracted reports. The relative dearth of excavation data, however, has limited our ability to analyze the region's culture history.

A Skeletal Outline of Regional Prehistory Artifact assemblages from most excavated sites in southeast Alaska are too small to be very useful for constructing culture history, because artifact densities are generally low. At Cape Addington Rockshelter, for example, only 35 artifacts were recovered from the site, with an artifact density of 0.91 artifact/m'' (Moss 2004:122). Most small excavations have been conducted to evaluate the National Register eligihility of sites, but these have not yielded many artifacts. Consequently, there have been no quantitative studies ofthe variability

between artifact assemblages originating from different sites. Changes over time have been described qualitatively without much insight as to how environmental or seasonal context may have affected assemblage composition, site use or function. The oldest sites and site components have seen more intensive work and wider publication (components at Ground Hog Bay 2, Hidden Falls, Chuck Lake, Thorne River, 49-PET-408) than those dating to later time periods, partly because the "search for origins" (Moss and Erlandson 1995) is popular among researchers and granting agencies. Not unexpectedly, sites that contain quantities of chipped stone (e.g.. Hidden Falls, n=1747; Thorne River, n=2048; North Point, n=868) generally have yielded larger artifact assemblages than those that do not (e.g., Coffman Cove, n=116; Daax Haat Kanadaa, n=237; Grouse Fort, n=504; Old Town, n3.987). Note that the numbers of artifacts presented above for the Hidden Falls and Thorne River sites include lithic debitage. At Hidden Falls, for example, the total of 1747 items includes 902 pieces of lithic debitage. Also of interest is that the numbers for Grouse Fort include 121 historic artifacts of European manufacture. Despite these limited data, three culture historical sequences have been proposed for the region over the last 15 years (Table 1). These derive from the work of Davis (1990), Moss (1998), and Ames and Masc:hner (1999).'' I will only briefly review these, since they are based on very broad patterns. Davis's Paleomarine tradition, Ames and Maschner's Archaic, and my Early period are roughly coterminous, covering the earliest 5,000-6,000 years of southeast Alaskan prehistory. Sites with components dating to the earliest part of

Tahle 1. Regional chronological sequences for Southeast Alaska. Time ^''C Years A.D. 2000 1000 B.P. 2000 B.P 3000 B.P, 4000 B.P, 5000 B.P, 6000 B.P 7000 B.R 8000 B.P 9000 B.P. 10,000 B.P. 11,000 B.P.

Davis (1990)

Ames & Maschner (1999)

Late Developmental

Moss (1998) Late

Late Pacific Middle Developmental Middle Pacific

Middle

Early Developmental Early Pacific Transitional Archaic Paleomarine

Early

182

this period have been well-documented, including Groundhog Bay 2, Hidden Falls, Chuck Lake (Locality 1), and Thorne River. The oldest of early sites appears to be 49-PET-408, where a bone flakor has been radiocarbon dated to 10,300 ± 50 B.P. (Dixon 1999:180-181), From this site come the oldest human skeletal remains from the region, dated to 9730 ± 60 and 9880 ± 50 B.P. (Dixon 1999:117-119). Chipped stone assemblages predominate during this early period; best known are the microblade industries termed Paleoarctic (Dumond 1977), emphasizing their relationships to the north and ultimately to northeast Asia. Canadian researchers have classified these assemblages within the North Coast Microblade tradition (Fladmark 1982; Matson and Coupland 1995), reflecting their more southerly perspective from the B.C, coast. For the middle Holocene, Davis identified a Transitional stage between his Paleomarine and Developmental Northwest Coas^ stage. The latter derives from Fladmark's (1982) sequence. In Davis's usage, the Developmental Northwest Coast stage is characterized by a predominance of shell midden deposits, ground stone and bone technology, and a near absence of chipped stone. The Transitional stage co-occurs with the beginning of the Early Pacific defined by Ames and Maschner. Ames and Maschner adopted Joseph and Kerry Chartkoff's (1984) Early-Middle-Late Pacific sequence which represents a generalized chronology for California. Notably, few California archaeologists have adopted the Early-Middle-Late Pacific sequence, preferring to rely on more easily recognizable geologically defined units: early, middle, and late Holocene. Archaeologists generally believe that after 5000 B.P., the number of sites across the Northwest Coast increased, their average size was larger, and that shell middens became common, preserving bone and antler technologies as well as abundant faunal remains. Traditionally, 5000 B.P. has been viewed as a major turning point in the region's prehistory (Fladmark 1975), and many have attributed what have been perceived as dramatic cultural changes to environmental changes such as stabilization of sea levels, shellfish beds, and salmon runs. Recently we reviewed the evidence from the middle Holocene (Moss, Peteet, and Whitlock in press), however, and found that sites with components of this age are not common, nor are they well-documented, Availahle data from mirlclle Holocene sites show cultural continuity with both earlier and later periods. On the Northwest Coast more generally, clearer evidence of cultural change occurs after about 4300 B.P, indicated by an increase in the number and size of sites, signaling increasing sedentism or better preservation. This finding relies on data from the larger Northwest


Coast regional site record and is supported by a few cases from southeast Alaska, Davis's Developmental Northwest Coast stage is roughly parallel to Ames and Maschner's Pacific period and each is broken into three subunits. The onset dates ofthese periods differ, with the Early Pacific at 4400 B.C. and the Early Developmental at 3000 B.C, The duration of tbe three subunits of each period also varies, but not because of any mutually agreed upon culture historical milestones. As described earlier, because the number of excavated sites is so small, artifact densities so low, and no comparative quantitative studies have been ac:complished, I will not dwell on these temporal distinctions. The onset of my Middle period follows in the tradition of others, but is admittedly arbitrary. Analyses of Irish Creek (Moss et al. 1996) and North Point (Bowers et al. 1996) indicate that chipped stone assemblages, including microblades, were in use until at least 2,000 years ago, at least in some sites in southeast Alaska (see below). The date of 1500 B.P. between my Middle and Late periods is another arbitrary division intended for convenience, not hecause of a clear culture historical break in the sequence (Moss 1998:101), Maschner's (1997:78, 'i'i) Late Pacific period is marked by "abundant" house depression villages, but after A.D. 1400, he claims that many areas of southeast Alaska were "abandoned for several hundred years." This inference relates to the numbers of radiocarbon dates for the region, although these data have not been fully published. Because ofthe way many of us have sampled sites during survey, often extracting radiocarbon samples from the bottom t)f deposits (and assuming continuity to historic period), the apparent gap in the distribution of dates may be an artifact of archaeological practice. It may not signal an actual cultural change, let alone regional abandonment. Nevertheless, I think most would agree that the archaeological record of southeast Alaska during the Late period has clear linkages to the ethnographic societies of the region. Tbe simplified outline presented here might suggest general agreement on major trends. These generalized sequences, however, mask a great deal of unt;ertainty and a surprising lack of consensus on many issues, especially when the scarcity of data is acknowledged. Because the southeast Alaskan database is so limited, most workers have relied on information from the larger Northwest Coast region. We have looked to the south almost exclusively, and rarely lo the east across the mountains. Regional sequences developed in British Columbia (and California) have been adopted, in the absence of local sequences comparable to those developed for subregions of British Columbia such as the Queen Charlotte Islands, Prince Rupert vicinity, or tho lower Fraser River—Gulf of Georgia


area. Major interpretive, theoretical, and methodological problems in regional prehistory relating to the Northwest Coast culture area will be discussed in subsequent sections.

Publication Outlets and Data Accessibility From my own geographical position in Oregon, it may be somewhat easier for me to gain access to Northwest Coast data originating in British Columbia than that from Alaska. British Columbia archaeologists are concentrated in Vancouver and Victoria, and the Archaeological Society of British Columbia's quarterly publication. The Midden, is extremely useful because its articles highlight current research in the province. The Midden also lists all archaeologists who have recently received government permits to conduct surveys and excavations. None ofthe counterpart publications in Alaska, Washington, or Oregon provide tbis periodic listing of current work. The Canadian Archaeological Association's Newsletter Bulletin also publicizes some current research in British Columbia. Because ofthese publications, I suspect it is easier for Americans to gain access to data generated about British Columbia than for Canadians to gain access to data about Alaska, Washington, and Oregon. Archaeological news of popular interest, particularly about early Holocene "discoveries" with implications for the initial peopling of North America, does circulate widely: in the popular press, in newsletters, on listservs, etc. This is especially true of Heaton's studies of Pleistocene mammals found in southeast Alaskan caves, of Dixon's and Fifield's work at 49-PET-408, and of studies by Fedje et al. of Haida Gwaii sites. Current Research in the Pleistocene is a forum for brief reports that focus on these topics. This research also finds its way to wider publication relatively quickly (e.g., Dixon 1999; Dixon et al. 1997; Fed'je et al. 1996, 2001; Fedje and Christensen 1999; Heaton, Talbot, and Shields 1996), so there is a high degree of cross-citation by these researchers. Major publication outlets for archaeologists working in southeast Alaska include edited volumes organized by conference participants, Arctic Anthropology, and Canadian Journal of Archaeology. We in the profession are fortunate that Arctic Anthropology publishes papers from the Northwest Coast that lie outside the arctic or subarctic, and that Canadian Journal of Archaeology publishes papers on work outside Canada, Since 1992, Anthropological Papers ofthe University of Alaska has appeared only once, however. Northwest Anthropological Research Notes, now the Journal of Northwest Anthropology, is also

183

a suitable venue, and has recently caught up with its publication schedule. Occasionally, southeast Alaskan archaeological research has been published in journals with larger circulation, including American Antiquity and Antiquity. There are few outlets for the publication of monographs. Of contracted research, Washington State University's Center for Northwest Anthropology reports usually can be found in libraries. Northern Land Use Research reports can be ordered through their website, but other contracted work is harder to acquire. Some contract reports can be acquired through interlibrary loan via Alaska Resources Library and Information Services (http://www.arlis.org/). The Hidden Falls monograph was published by the Alaska Anthropological Association in the Aurora series, and the Cape Addington Rockshelter monograph has recently been published as a University of Oregon Anthropological Paper. While Canadian researchers publish monographs through the Canadian Museum of Civilization or Mercury Series ofthe Archaeological Survey of Canada, as well as the Archaeology Press of Simon Fraser University, there are relatively few counterparts in the United States. Two books synthesizing Northwest Coast prehistory have been published by prestigious presses (see Matson and Coupland 1995 and Ames and Maschner 1999), Both incorporate data from southeast Alaska, These books demonstrate that many of the major problems in southeast Alaskan prehistory have successfully heen related to "big questions" of prehistory of interest to those working in adjacent regions and beyond. Even though our database is sorely limited, we have not been working in a backwater focused on problems of nothing more than local importance. In fact, it is possible that we have been preoccupied with the big questions to the extent that we have neglected fundamental aspects ofthe archaeological research process. The limited number of publication outlets, particularly for monographs, has exacerbated this problem. Even though we are discussing some big questions, we do so with less than an ideal amount of empirical support.

The Big Questions Ultimate Origins When did the first occupants settle southeast Alaska or the Northwest Coast, and where did they come from? The oldest evidence dates to about 10,000 radiocarbon years ago. Carlson (1996) sees the ultimate origins in Asia, with the earliest settlers moving south along the Alaskan coast. Such movements could have been entirely coastal, or by way of interior Alaska. Matson contends that the

184

first Northwest Coast residents are descended from Paleoindians migrating south along the ice-free corridor. Subsequently, they moved westward along the receding limits of the ice sheet to settle southern coastal British Columbia first. Later, descendant groups expanded northward. These two influential workers call artifact assemblages that are essentially the same by two different names: Matson's Old Cordilleran (Matson and Goupland 1995:68) is equivalent to Carlson's Pebble Tool tradition. These generalized assemblages contain leaf-shaped bifaces, pebble choppers, and a variety of flake tools. Dumond (1998:175) has pointed out that Carlson's usage of the name "Pebble Tool" is unfortunate because "the real heyday of pebble choppers occurred well after the area was first occupied by bumans." In spite of conflicting terms, however, these oldest assemblages provide little evidence to ascertain the geographic origins ofthe region's earliest occupants. In southeast Alaska, only a handful of items from Ground Hog Bay 2 represent this period. Nevertheless, the possihility ofa coastal migration into the Americas has received more attention from archaeologists considering the broader archaeological record (Dixon 1999; Erlandson 1994, 2002; Erlandson and Moss 1996). In cultural components dated ca, 9000 B.P, and in association with microblade technologies, we find clues indicating significant mobility among southeast Alaska's earliest residents. At Ground Hog Bay 2 and Hidden Falls, artifacts made from obsidian originating from both Ihe Suemez Island and Mt. Edziza vicinities have been identified (Carlson 1994; Erlandson, Moss, and Hughes 1992; but see below). These two sources are more than 350 km apart, the former on the outer islands, and the latter at high elevation, deep in the interior mountains. This suggests that early people ranged across the region, had knowledge of lithic sources, and/or traded widely. Whether they originated on the coast or in the interior is not clear, but they had knowledge of both. Little work has been done to seriously consider Tlingit oral traditions as a viable source of information on the region's earliest inhabitants. A number of Tlingit clans in southeast Alaska have origin stories that describe "coming down from the interior,'" even traveling underneath glacial ice. Emmons (1991:26), Swanton (1908:409), and de Laguna (1960:204-205) believed that Tlingit stories indicated interior origins, with early migrations down the Skeena and/or Nass rivers, followed by later migrations down the Stikine and Taku rivers. These ethnographers viewed Tlingit settlement of southeast Alaska as recent, perhaps within the last 500 years. Heather Harris (1997) has argued that Gitksan oral traditions can be pushed back in time to the late Pleistocene, based on corroboration with


paleoenvironmental and archaeological evidence. Pursuit of Tlingit origins—in whatever time period—cannot be addressed in geographic isolation. Place name and archaeological research would have to transcend national boundaries and occur in Alaska, east across the moimtains into British Columbia, and perhaps into the Yukon, to address this question.

The Meaning of Microblades Microblade industries are widespread across northwestern North America, both on the coast and in the interior. At Naniu, microblade-bearing components overlie the Pebble Tool tradition assemblage (Carlson 1996). Microblade industries on the Northwest Coast are part of Dumond's (1977) Siberian-American Paleoarctic tradition and West's (1981, 1996) Beringian tradition, and thought ultimately to relate in some way to Dyuktai cultures, although reduction sequences apparently differed (Clark 1992:19). Microblade and core technologies were thought to be diagnostic ofthe early period in southeast Alaska. Yet microblade produclion peaks at Namu between 6000 and 5000 radiocarbon years ago, and mid-Holocene and later microhlades are known from interior Alaska (Bowers 1999a, 1999b; Holmes, Vanderhoek, and Dilley 1996; Mobley 1991), Irish Creek in southeast Alaska (Moss et al. 1996), and Kitselas Canyon up tbe Skeena River (Coupland 1996). At North Point on the southeast Alaskan mainland, Bowers et al. (1996) found microblades dating to 2800-2590 radiocarbon years ago, consistent with recent studies in interior Alaska. These later microblades are contemporary with microblades from Locarno Beach assemblages in southern coastal British Columbia. From interior British Columbia, microblade cores from the Mt. Edziza vicinity have been dated 4000-2000 B.C, (Smith 1971:Fig, 2) and the Ice Mountain type (associated with large bifaces) to 4900-3000 B.P. (Fladmark 1985:195). Even though microblade technologies have ancient roots in northeast Asia, they are clearly not limited to the early Holocene. This conforms with what researchers in interior Alaska and the Yukon have found where microblade technologies have been in use over 9,000 years (Bowers 1999b; Clark 1992; Holmes, Vanderhoek, and Dilley 1996; Mobley 1991; Workman 1978). Microblade technologies display mor[)hological variability (Ackerman 1992; Clark 1992: Magne 1996) which may be time-sensitive, but is also dependent on material type. Although the origins ofthese industries are known generally, these assemblages have not revealed clear patterning. We do not even know precisely how microblades were used. Some workers have suggested they were inset longitudinally into bone blades used as piercing


implements. Ackerman (1996b, personal communication 2000) proposed that microblades from Lime Hills (Kuskokwim drainage, southwestern Alaska) were used to arm side-slotted antler arrowheads. Hutchings (1996) argued that the obsidian microblades from Namu were end-hafted, and could have been used to work hide or wood, but not as butchering tools. End-hafted and side-hafted microliths and microblades were recovered in their wood handles at Hoko River (Croes 1995:180-191). Replicated examples of these tools were found to be effective in filleting fish and for other fine cutting tasks. Certainly, microblades were versatile tools, but their uneven temporal and geographic distributions are not yet understood.

Mid-Holocene Transitions As discussed elsewhere (Moss 1993, 1998), across the Northwest Coast, archaeologists believe that after 5000 B.P. the number of sites increased, their average size was larger, and that shell middens became common, preserving bone and antler artifacts as well as abundant faunal remains. The date of 5000 B.P. has been viewed as a major turning point in the prehistory ofthe region (Fladmark 1975), and many have attributed what have been perceived as dramatic cultural changes to environmental changes includiug stabilization of sea levels, shellfish beds, and salmon runs, Maschnor (1997:92) claims tbat his Early Pacific is characterized by a "nearly overnight emphasis on shellfish," Over the 2400 km length of the entire Northwest Coast, I was able to identify only 37 archaeological components dated between 6000 and 4400 B.P. (Moss, Peteet, and Whitlock in press). Ofthese, 11 contained lithic artifacts only and 19 have shell midden components. Three sites (two wet sites and one sea cave) have produced wood or basketry artifacts. Four sites do not fall unambiguously within these categories. Nine sites had evidence of microblade technologies, while a few others contained artifacts attributed to Carlson's Pebble Tool tradition (Matson's Old Cordilleran). The lithic assemblages in both shell-bearing and lithics-only sites demonstrate cultural continuity with the early Holocene. Ofthe shell-bearing sites, the amounts of shell vary considerably, due to combinations of cultural and non-cultural factors. The range in intensity of shellfish use does not appear to represent a significant change in economic adaptation, and certainly not an "overnight emphasis on shellfish." Evident:e for sea level stabilization and the presumed newly productive mid-Holocene salmon populations at 5000 B.P. is scarce (Moss, Peteet, and Whitlock in press). The Glenrose fishing trap, presumably used for salmon, dates to 4590-3950 B.P./5300-4420 cal B.P, (Eldridge and Acheson 1992; Stevenson 1998:225-227). Six weir sites in

185

southeast Alaska have produced dates older than 3000 radiocarbon years. If looking for evidence of geographically extensive reliance on salmon, however, then the numbers of dated weirs in southeast Alaska indicate that such reliance occurred sometime after 2500 B.P. (Moss and Erlandson 1998:189). Byram (2002) argues that fishing weirs and traps in Oregon (most post-dating 3000 B.P.) were used to acquire a wide range of fish, not just salmon. One mid-Holocene environmental trend that Hebda and Mathewes (1984) proposed stimulated Northwest Goast cultural development was the establishment of Western redcedar. Redcedar increased in abundance between 6800-5700 cal B.P. and 4000 cal B.P, but in a time-transgressive pattern, first around Puget Sound and later north to British Columbia. Based on the ethnographic importance of cedar to build houses, canoes, furnishings, implements, and art, redcedar might be viewed as a prerequisite of Northwest Coast material culture. This hypothesized relationship between redcedar and culture change has received surprisingly little attention by archaeologists, but should be more carefully considered (Moss, Peteet, and Whitlock in press). The available data from middle Holocene sites show cultural continuity with both earlier and later periods. Cultural transitions during the middle Holocene in southeast Alaska and in the larger Northwest Coast region are obviously deserving of future research.

Long Distance Connections— Volcanic Glass Provenance Studies Analysis ofthe trace element geochemistry of volcanic glass permits the identification of chemical types or geochemical varieties (Hughes 1998:104) of obsidian. With a sufficient level of knowledge about the distrihution of naturally occurring chemical types across the landscape, "source" locations for artifacts found in archaeological sites can be identified (Hughes 1998; Hughes and Smith 1993). John Cook (1995) has worked to compile a database on Alaskan obsidian sources for many years. His data derive from instrumental neutron activation analysis (INAA), but specific data on tested samples have not been fully published. For British Columbia, lames. Bailey, and D'Auria (1996) presented the Simon Fraser University reference library of source characterizations. An earlier work by Carlson (1994) presented interpretations of trade and exchange in British Columbia, largely based on the data of James, Bailey, and D'Auria (1996), From Alaskan source and archaeological samples, Richard Hughes and Craig Skinner have been conducting non-destructive energy dispersive

186

x-ray fluorescence spec:trometry (XRF) to identify distinctive trace element profiles (e.g., Erlandson, Moss, and Hughes 1992). Major problems afflicting workers throughout northwestern North America are that 1) not all of these geochemical data are published, 2) published data from different laboratories are not directly comparable, and 3) the distribution of distinct chemical types across the landscape is not fully documented. That Cook's database is not easily available is unfortunate since it may be the most geographically comprehensive of Alaskan sources. With regard to the second problem, workers have used and are using different techniques and instruments and presenting their results in different units. Hughes reports trace element data in parts per million (ppm), and his instruments are calibrated against internationally recognized standards; this is the most widely recognized procedure for guaranteeing precision in measurement (Hughes 1998:108). Although James, Bailey, and D'Auria (1996) also use XRF, their characterizations are hased on a "semi-quantitative" procedure, generating "peak determinations" of trace elements using an interactive software program. They use these data and other transformed data to derive "relative intensity measures" based on ratios of specific elements' intensities relative to the peak for Zirconium, These data transformations make it impossible to compare these "semi-quantitative" values to the ppm values generated by Hughes. This is a serious methodological obstacle that is not free of competing proprietary interests. Nevertheless, James, Bailey and D'Auria (1996:118) recognize this problem and hope to "translate our relative data into a fully quantitative form, presented in partsper-miilion measurements for each analyzed trace element." Re-testing specimens to make direct measurements in ppm may be preferable. The third problem is incomplete knowledge of parent sources. Although James, Bailey, and D'Auria (1996:94) state "we believe that the majority of prehistorically-important quarry sources of volcanic glass from northwestern North America have been identified," many would argue with this assertion. James, Bailey, and D'Auria (1996) present data from only two Alaskan sources: Indian Mountain (located east of Copper River) and Cape Felix (Suemez Island), Southeast Alaska (let alone all of Alaska) has a number of obsidian sources within its boundaries, but the only source area that has seen some level of investigation is Suemez Island (Erlandson, Moss, and Hughes 1992). We now know that Suemez Island contains multiple locations where obsidian is available in different forms (Moss and Erlandson 2001), Geologists and geochemists have long realized that significant variability occurs among obsidian sources within volcanic fields and flows (Hughes 1998:106). While


"young" obsidians may be fairly localized on the landscape, "older" obsidians may have been redeposited hundreds of kilometers from their place of origin (Hughes 1998:104). On Suemez Island, we still have not accomplished sufficient work to determine whether or not various source locations hold geochemicaliy distinct sources. Many other undocumented obsidian sources in southeast Alaska may exist (T. Fifield, personal communication 2000), although their economic importance is unknown. Study of volcanic glass sources is, by necessity, a topic that crosses geographic and national boundaries. If we hope to examine how toolstone acquisition took place within larger patterns of seasonal shifts in settlement,'* we must work together across national and institutional boundaries to make these databases fully comparable; this means sharing and re-testing samples and calibrating equipment to internationally recognized standards. Substantial financial investments have already been made into competing techniques, however, and additional investments, as well as cooperation, will be required to correct these problems. Only then will we be able to actualize the full interpretive potential of volcanic glass provenance studies.

The Transition from Chipped Stone to Ground Slate According to Carlson (1994:318), "obsidian is found everywhere along the coast" of British Columbia between 6000-4000 B.P, indicating extensive trade. This is also the period when ground slate technologies emerge across the Northwest Coast. After 1500 B.P. in coastal B.C., the use of chipped stone declines (Carlson 1994). The same can be said for southeast Alaska in general, although our data are limited. Ground slate, however, does not possess the cutting qualities of obsidian. Other toolstone materials (andesite, basalt, cryptocrystalline silicates, quartzite) are not commonly found in southeast Alaska. Ground slate tool-making may require more effort than chipping stone, but ground slate tool edges are more durable than those of c:hipped stone.^ Although most archaeologists have not speculated on this problem, I suggest that the main advantage of ground slate (over chipped stone) is the availability ofthe raw material. Slate cobbles are readily available throughout much of southeast Alaska and, while not all types might be suitable for tool-making, it seems likely that over time people developed modes of reduction and finishing in order to take advantage of this local abundance. Over time, as the regional landscape filled with people, there may have been more competition between social groups for resources. With increased levels of territoriality and resource ownership, we might

Moss: Archueology and Practice

expect less travel to obsidian quarries or other locales where knappable stone was available. Possibly, mussel shell cutting implements also replaced some ofthe functional roles played by chipped stone.

Suhsistence Change Subsistence change cannot be understood by studying sites in isolation from others nearby, and environmental variation across space and time must also be documented. While these two caveats may be broadly recognized, in my opinion, subsistence data have been misused in attempts to identify broad cultural evolutionary t:hanges across southeast Alaska. Sweeping statements like the Early Pacific began with "the nearly overnight emphasis on shellfish" and "for most ofthe regional prehistory, herring, cod, and sea mammals played a more important role than the legendary salmon" (Maschner 1997:92—93) are problematic. Understanding subsistence change will continue to require labor-intensive study; archaeological deposits need to he screened and bulk samples taken, but local environmental data also must be analyzed. Increased energy must be directed to the systematic recovery and analysis of faunal and archaeobotanical remains and contextual data, especially those that provide evidence of site seasonality. We must study how contemporaneous sites within settlement systems functioned in relation to local resource variability. Local climatic and environmental change should be documented before developing grand theories of how subsistence changed across southeast Alaska or the larger Northwest Coast over time.

Cultural Chronologies— Radiocarbon Dating and Calibration Another obstacle to understanding regional prehistory involves the availability and format of radiocarbon dates. Canada is far ahead ofthe U.S., since Richard Morlan's database of radiocarbon dates is availahle online (http://www. canadianarchaeology.ca/). For the Northwest Coast, Ames and Maschner (e.g., 1999:54) make reference to a radiocarbon date database they have compiled; graphs showing the distribution ofthese dates have appeared, but the dates themselves have not been published. An online list of radiocarbon dates by site number, with laboratory number and reference to publications and reports, would be extremely useful to all researchers.

Cultural Complexity and Related Topics There are many other probiems in regional prehistory. In this review, I have not even touched upon

187

some ofthe issues that bave received the most attention in the regional literature. P'oremost among these is the development of so-called cultural complexity, a topic which encompasses the development and organization of multifamily houses, the origins of social inequality, the development of ethnographic patterns including craft specialization, slavery, warfare, art, and the ethnogenesis of historically known societies. A great deal ofthe regional literature revolves around these topics (e.g., Ames and Maschner 1999; Matson and Coupland 1995). For later periods of prehistory, archaeologists rely heavily on ethnographic data for interpretations, I have discussed both the problems and potentials of this approach elsewhere (Moss 1993, 1996,1999; Moss and Erlandson 1995), but will discuss one more conceptual problem linked to a specific archaeological example here. Many times we archaeologists have trouble distinguishing an archaeological or sampling phenomenon from a meaningful cultural pattern, one thought to hold cultural evolutionary significance. Living in large houses is thought to be a diagnostic feature of Matson and Coupland's Developed Northwest Coast patievn, and Maschner's (1997) Middle Pacific period, Ames and Maschner (1999) see houses as indicative of sedentism, extensive storage, and major changes in social organization. Many of us have repeated to ourselves, each other, and our students, that the earliest houses on the Northwest Coast occur at the Paul Mason site up Skeena River, and are dated to ca, 3000 B.P. (e.g., Coupland 1988; Matson and Coupland 1995:187). One irony here is that these "earliest Northwest Coast houses" are located approximately 100 km from saltwater. Ten house floors have been recognized at the Paul Mason site, averaging 10 m x 5 m in size. What did Northwest Coast people live in prior to 3000 B.P? Certainly many of them lived in some kind of house. People have been living in houses of various sizes around the world for tens of thousands of years; why should we expect that Northwest Coast groups only started building houses after 3000 B.P? The Northwest Coast climate is not one in which people could comfortably survive without shelter, and while caves and rock shelters are present, people certainly used available materials to build houses. Yet houses are difficult to identify archaeologically, and structural remains probably decayed quickly in the typical Northwest Coast environment. As a practical matter, it is difficult to identify the remains of houses in site areas that have been repeatedly occupied, and an area that may once have been used as a house can be obscured by later fill from shell middens. Older houses are unlikely to be identified from surface features, and may be impossible to


188

recognize if excavations remain small. This is just one example where I suggest that a purported cultural evolutionary threshold tells us more ahout archaeological practice than it does about prehistory. Recent research on late pre-contact and early historic houses (Mackie and Williamson 2003; Matson 2003) is an important place to start in reevaluating ethnographic assumptions projected onto the deeper past. I suggest that our discussions ofthese issues related to cultural complexity have overwhelmed the archaeological record itself. These related issues are deserving of attention, but they have taken precedence over straightforward and complete descriptions of data. I understand how this has happened; to acquire grant funding, projects claiming to address these issues, and other big questions, have to be dramatized and "sold." To publish journal articles, one has to play up the larger significance ofthe data in order to avoid tbe charge that a piece of work is only of "local" or "regional" significance. For these reasons, I suggest that our interpretations have gone heyond the bounds of our evidence in many cases. This is especially true for topics revolving around the "cultural complexity" trope. The "catch-22" is that without playing up the big questions, work is less likely to get published, limiting its availability to others.

Concluding Assessment Archaeologists working in southeast Alaska routinely look to the south along the British Columbia coast as it is the geographic center of Ihe Northwest Coast culture area. Many of us rarely look to the interior. When we do, we literally see forested mountains with extensive ice fields in the distance.** Here, perceived environmental obstacles coincide with the national boundary that separates southeast Alaska from Yukon Territory and northwestern British Columbia. The conceptual divide between the coast and the interior is reinforced by the national boundary, and has inhibited interchange between archaeologists working in these two regions. To help overcome this, perhaps we should shift our gaze to the corridors ofthe Alsek, Chilkat, Whiting, Taku and Stikine rivers, and up the Portland Inlet-Nass River system. Granted these are highly dynamic riverine environments where sites may be rarely preserved. Canadian archaeologists have already reached across this interior-coast divide in the southern half of British Columbia, at least in some of their publications (e.g., Carlson and Dala Bona 1996; The Midden]. As shown earlier, the regional chronological sequence for southeast Alaska relies heavily on others from the Northwest Coast culture area. The "big questions" of prehistory have been prominent

in tbe Northwest Coast literature. In previous sections, I discussed where some significant data gaps lie in our understanding of key issues, some of which are methodological. Our discourse involving the big questions, particularly regarding cultural complexity, often outstrips the empirical data. We have tended to leave out climate change and environmental variability in our interpretations of site activities (except where it has affected our ability to locate early sites). The impacts of long- and short-term climate changes, sea level fluctuations, and shifts in flora and fauna, generally have not been documented for specific locales. The size of excavations has resulted in the recovery of small artifact assemblages, precluding documentation of stylistic and functional variation and comparative, quantitative analysis of assemblages from different sites. Yet large excavations are costly, research money is tight, and development and looting continue to take their tolls on the archaeological record. I finish this paper with some concrete recommendations for what we can do to improve data sharing and dialog across boundaries, whether they be national, culture area, institutional, or structural. Over a decade ago, Allen McCartney (1992) compiled a much more far-reaching set of proposals to promote integrated regional research, h'ew of his programmatic directions have been pursued, although they are still timely. Although I strongly support the larger initiatives he has articulated, my list is more modest. Some of tbe initiatives listed below require collective action, while in other cases, individuals can exercise their own agency.

Specific Recommendations • Follow the lead of The Midden, and publish a list of archaeological permits recently issued by the Alaska State Historic Preservation Office. The list would include Principal Investigator's name, project name, geographic location, and type of project (survey, excavation). This list could be available on the Office of History and Archaeology website, or could be furnished to the Alaska Anthropological Association Newsletter ior publication. Such a list would publicize current research and allow researchers to contact one another to share data and reports. • Publish an on-line bibliography of gray literature and publications, organized in a way comparable to Fladmark's (1997) bibliography for British Columbia. Such an inventory would include a full citation, page length of report, type of project (survey, excavation, etc.), and geographic location. Many of us could contrihute to this effort by submitting bibliographies we have already compiled. It

Moss: Archaeology an d Practice

•

•

• •

•

•

•

would be useful to have a webmaster in control of submissions to standardize format; perhaps this could be done on the Alaska Anthropologi[:al Association webpage. Encourage U.S. and Canadian researchers to submit obsidian samples to laboratories reporting quantitative results in ppm, using equipment calibrated to international standards. Encourage the Simon Fraser University XRF facility to report quantitative results in ppm, using equipment calibrated to international standards. Establish an on-line database of radiocarbon dates compatible with and linked to Richard Morlan's datahase developed for Canada. Encourage federal and state agencies to broaden distrihution of in-house reports to university and research facility libraries, and to financially support wider dissemination of the results of contracted research. Urge the leadership ofthe Alaska Anthropological Association journal to encourage the submission and publication of descriptive reports. Subscribe to Arctic Anthropology and the Canadian Journal of Archaeology as an expression of support for their efforts to publish substantive contributions to regional archaeology, In symposia and roundtahle discussions, include participants from government agencies, CRM firms, and academic archaeologists In the dialog.

Acknowledgments. This paper is a revision of one prepared for the National Traditions in the Archaeology of Ear Northwestern North America symposium held at the 27th annual meeting ofthe Alaska Anthropological Association in 2000.1 offer my sincere thanks to Bill Workman and Jeff Huntston for organizing the symposium and inviting me to participate. I thank discussants Don Dumond and Bob McChee for their comments after my talk in Anchorage, I am grateful to Jon Erlandson for reading this paper, sharing his knowledge, and for making it possible for me to attend the meetings. I thank Bob Ackerman, Pete Bowers, Terry Fifield, Richard Hughes, and Dick Morlan for providing helpful data and citations, and for sharing their insights via email, I am grateful to Erik Steiner, Infographics Laboratory, Department of Geography, and Rob Norton and Scott Carver ofthe Faculty Instructional Technology Training Center, University of Oregon, for their expertise in helping produce the map. Substantive comments from Susan Kaplan and the insightful and incisive review of an anonymous reviewer have greatly improved this paper. The

189

paper's flaws remain mine. Finally, I am grateful to Allen McCartney for being a superb model of how to think beyond one's parochial interests, and for cultivating a spirit of cooperation amongst the international community of scholars working in the north.

End Notes 1. In contrast, archaeological research in coastal British Columbia has been going on for over 100 years. 2. I will systematically distinguish hetween conventional radiocarbon years as expressed with "B.P." and calibrated years as expressed as "cal B.P." When making reference to general trends over time, I will specify "radiocarbon years ago" or "years ago." The latter will be in calibrated years, since these most closely approach calendar years. All dates in this paper will not be presented in a single format, however, hecause different investigators report dates differently. If the author I cite refers to dates as A.D. or B.C., I will retain their format in lieu of transforming their data. 3. The Ames and Maschner (1999) sequence appeared after Maschner (1997), but the differences are relatively slight. In suhsequent discussion, I use both sources. 4. Hughes (1998:111-112) has also wisely pointed out that we cannot distinguish between trade, exchange, direct procurement, and mobility using geochemical characterizations alone. He urges archaeologists to carefully justify our inferences regarding such human behavior. 5. Little has been published on ground slate tool manufacture in southeast Alaska. From his replication experiments, Jon Erlandson (personal communication, 2000) suggests that the effort involved depends on the hardness ofthe slate and the availability of grinding materials. Large points and lance heads require considerable manufacturing effort. Some advantages of ground slate over chipped stone include fewer failures during manufacture and reduced fragility ofthe final product. A chipped stone biface is more apt to shatter if dropped on a hard surface, while a ground slate point may chip, but can easily be re-sharpened through grinding. 6. The discovery of the frozen remains of an aboriginal person at 1800 m elevation near a melting glacier in Tatshenshini-Alsek Park in northwestern British Columbia has sparked greater interest in this region (Beattie et al. 2000). The person died ca. 550 years ago and was found with items and tools of normally perishable materials. His broad-

190


brimmed basketry hat would appear to reveal strong affiliations with the coast.

References Cited Ackerman, Robert E. 1968 Thn Archaeology of the Glacier Bay Region, Southeastern Alaska: Finai Report ofthe Archaeological Survey of Glacier Bay National MonuiiK'nt, Washington State University Laboratory of Antbropulugy Report of Investigations, 44. Pullman. 1992

Earliest Stone Industries on the North Pacific Goast t)f North America, Arctic Anthropology 29(2):18-27.

1996a Early Maritime Gulture Gomplexes of the Northern Northwest Goast. In Early Human Occupation in British Golumbia, R, L. Garlsun and L, Dalla Bona, eds. Pp. 123-132, Vancouver: University of British Golumbia Press, 19961) Lime Hills. Gave 1, In American Beginnings: The Prehistory and Palaeoecology of Beringia. Frederick Hadlnigh West. ed. Pp. 470-477. Ghicago: University of Ghicago Press, Ackerman, Robert E.. T. D, Hamilton, and R. Stuckenrath 1979 Early Culture Gompicxcs of the Northern Northwest Goast, Ganadian Journal of Archaeology 3:195-209. Ackerman, Robert E.. K. G, Reid, and J, D, Gallison 1987 Archaeology of Thorne Bay: A Survey of 22 Timber Harvest Units on Prince of Wales Island, Southeaslorn Alaska. Washington State University Genter for Northwest Anthropology Project Report, 6. Pullman. Ackerman. Robert E.. K. G. Reid. J, D, Gallison. and E, R. Ghesmore Jr. 1987 Archaeology of GoffmanGove: a Survey of Fifteen Timber Harvest Units on Prince of Wales Island, Southeastern Alaska, Washington Statn University Genter for Northwest Anthropology Project Report, 5. Pullman, Ackerman, Robert E., K, G. Reid, J. D. Gallison. and M. E. Roe 1985 Archaeology ol Heceta Island: A Survey of Sixteen Timber Units in the Tongass National Forest. Southeastern Alaska. Washington State University Genter for Northwest Anthropology Project Report, 3. Pullman. Ames. Kenneth M. and Herbert D, G, Maschner 1999 Peoples of the Northwest Goast: Their Archaeology and Prehistory. London: Thames and Hudson. Arndt, Katherine, R. H, Sacketl, and J. A. Kotz 1987 A Gultural Resource Overview of the Tongass National Forest, Alaska. Part 1. Overview.

GDM Inc., Fairbanks, Submitted under Gontract No. 53-0109-6-00203 to USDA Forest Service, Tongass National Forest, Juneau, Alaska. Beattie. O.. B. Apland, E. W, Blake, J, A, Cosgrove, S. Gaunt, S, Greer. A, P Mackio, K. E, Mackie, D. Straathof, V. Thorp, and P M. Troffe 2000 The Kwaday Dan Ts'inchi Discovery from a Glacier in British Golumhia, Ganadian Journal of Archaeology 24:129-147. Bernick, Kathryn 1999 Lanaak (49XPA78): A Wet Site on Baranof Island. Southeastern Alaska. Suhmitted to the Kiks.adi Glan, Sitka Tribe of Alaska, Sitka, AK, and Alaska Office of History and Archaeology, Anchorage, Alaska. Betts. Robert G. 1998 The Montana Greek Fish Trap I: Archaeological Investigations in Southeast Alaska. In Hidden Dimensions: The Gultural Significance of Wetland Archaeology. K, Bernick, ed. Pp. 239-251. University of British Golumhia Occasional Paper, 11. Vancouver: University of British Golumbia Press. Blarkman. Margaret 1990 Haida: Traditional Gulture. In Handbook of North American tndians, vol. 7. Northwest Goast. Wayne Suttles, ed. Pp, 240-266, Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press. Bowers, Peter M, 1999a AMS Dating ofthe Area 22 American Paleoarctic Tradition Microbiade Gomponent at the Lisburne Site, Arctic Alaska. Gurrent Research in the Pleistocene 16:12-15. 1999h Recent Developments in the Archaeology of the American Paleoarctic Tradition, Brooks Range, Arctic Alaska. Paper presented at the 26th annnal meeting ofthe Alaska Anthropological Association, Fairbanks. Alaska. Bowers. P M., C, M. Williams, R. G. Betts. O. K. Mason, R. T, Gould, and M. L. Moss 1996 The North Point Site: Archaeological Investigations of a Prehistoric Wet Site at Port Houghton, Alaska. Prepared for USDA Forest Service. Tongass National Forest. Ghatham Area. Sitka, and Alaska, and Parametrix. Inc., Kirklaud. Washington, Fairhanks: North(»rn Land Use Research. Bowers, P. M,. A. S. Higgs. and G. M. Williams 1998 Gultural Rosourc:e Survey ofthe Haines Fuel Terminal, Haines, Alaska: Final Report on the Etbnoarchaeology of Tanani Point, Report prepared for the U,S, Army Corps of Engineers and

Moss: Archaeology and Practice Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. Northern Land Use Research Technical Report, 65, Fairbanks, Alaska. Byram, R. Scott 2002 Brush Fences and Basket Traps: The Archaeology and Fthnohistory of Tidewater Weir Fishing on the Oregon Goast. Ph.D, dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Oregon, Eugene. Garlson, Roy L. 1994 Trade and Exchange in Prehistoric British Golumhia, In Prehistoric Exchange Systems in North America. T. G. Baugh and |, E, Ericson. eds. Pp. 307-361, New York: Plenum Press. 1996

Early Namu. In Early Human Occupation in British Columbia, R, L, Garlson and L. Dalla Bona, eds. Pp, 83-102. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press,

Garlson. R, L, and L. Dalla Bona (eds.) 1996 Early Human Occupation in British Columbia. Vancouver: University of British Golumbia Press, Ghartkoff, J, L, and K, K, Ghartkoff 1984 The Archaeology of California. Stanford; Stanford University Press. Clark, Donald W. 1992 A Microblade Production Station (KbTx-2) in the South Gentral Yukon. Ganadian Journal of Archaeology 16:3-23. Go(jk. John P, 1995 Characterization and Distribution of Obsidian in Alaska, Arctic Anthropology 32(l):92-100, Goupland. Cary 1988 Prehistoric Gultural Ghange at Kitselas Canyon. Mercury Series, Archaeological Survey of Canada Paper, 138. Hull: National Museum of C^ivilizatictn, 1996

The Early Prehistoric Occupation of Kitselas Canyon. In Early Human Occupation in British Columbia. R. L. Garlson and L. Dalla Buna, eds. Pp. 159-160, Vancouver: University of British Golumbia Press.

Groes, Dale 1995 The Hoko River Archaeological Site Gomplex. Pullman: Washington State University Press. 1997

The North-Central Cultural Dichotomy on the Northwest Coast of North America: Its Evolution as Suggested by Wet-Site Basketry and Wooden Fish-hooks, Antiquity 71:594-615,

Davis, Stanley D, (ed,) 1989 The Hidden Falls Site, Baranof Island, Alaska, Aurora Alaska Anthropological Association Monograph Series, 5, Anchorage: Alaska Anthropological Association,

191

Davis, Stanley D, 1990 Prehistory of Southeastern Alaska. In Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 7. Northwest Goast. Wayne P, Suttles, ed. Pp, 197-202, Washington. D.G.: Smithsonian Institution Press. 1996

The Archaeology of the Yakutat Foreland: A Socioecological View, Ph.D. dissertation. Department of Anthropology, Texas A&M University. University Microfilms. Ann Arbor.

Davis, Stanley D, and [ohn E. Lobdell 1992 Gultural Resources Baseline Study: Polk Inlet Environmental Impact Statement. Report prepared for Ebasco Environmental. Submitted tu Tongass National Forest. Ketchikan Area, Ketchikan, Alaska. Dixun, E. James 1999 Bones, Buats, and Bison. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Dixon, E, J,. T H. Heaton. T. E. Fifield, T D. Hamilton. D, E. Putnam, and F. Crady 1997 Late Quaternary Regional Ceoarchaeology uf Southeast Alaska Karst: A Progress Report. Geoarchaeology 12(6}:689-712. Dumond, D, E. 1977 The Eskimos and the Aleuts. Londcm: Thames and Hudsun, 1998

Book Bfiview of Early Human Occupation in British Columbia. Roy L. Garlson and Luke Dalla Bona. eds. North American Archaeologist 19(2):173-184,

Eldridge, Morley and Steven Acheson 1992 The Antiquity uf Fish Weirs on the Southern Goast: A Response tu Moss. Erlandson, and Stuckonrath. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 16:112-116. Emmuns, George T. 1991 The Tlingit Indians, Fredericka de Laguna, ed. Seattle: University of Washington Press, Erlandson. Jon M. 1994 Early Hunter-Gatherers of the Galifornia Goast, New York: Plenum, 2002

Anatomically Modern Humans, Maritime Voyaging, and tho Pleistocene Golonization of the Americas. In The First Americans: The Pleistocene Golonizatiun uf the New World, N. Jablonski, ed. Pp. 59-92. San Francisco: Memoirs ofthe Galifornia Academy of Sciences,

Erlandson, Jon M, and Madonna L, Moss 1996 The Pleistocene-Holocene Transiticm along the Pacific Goast of North America. In Humans at the End ofthe Ice Age: The Archaeulogy ofthe Pleistocene-Hulucene Transition, L. C. Straus,

192

Arctic Anthropology 41:2 B. V. Eriksen,), M. Erlandson. and D, R, Yesner, eds. Pp. 277-301. New York: Plenum.

Erlandson, Jon M., Madunna L. Moss, and Richard E. Hughes 1992 Archaeological Distribution and Trace Element Geochemistry of Volcanic Glass from Obsidian Gove, Suemez Island, Southeast Alaska. Ganadian Journal of Archaeology 16: 89-95, Fedje, Daryl and Tina Ghristensen 1999 Modelling Paieoshorelines and Locating Early Hoiocene Coastal Sites in Haida Cwaii, American Antiquity 64(4):635-652, Fedje, D, W,, A, P. Mackie, J. B, McSporran, and B. Wilson 1996 Early Period Archaeology in Cwaii Haanas: Results ofthe 1993 Field Programme. In Early Human Occupation in British Columbia. R, L. Carlsun and L. Dalla Bona, eds. Pp. 133-150. Vancouver: University of British Golumbia Press, Fedje, D, W,, R, Wigen, Q. Mackie, C. R, Lake, I, D. Sumpter 2001 Preliminary Results frum Investigations at Kilgii Gwaay: An Early Holocene Archaeological Site un Ellen Island, Haida Cwaii, British Golumhia. Ganadian Journal of Archaeulugy 25:98-120. Fladmark, K. R, 1975 A Paleoecological Model for Northwest Coast Prehistory, Mercury Series. Archaeological Survey of Canada Paper, 43. Ottawa: National Museums of Ganada. 1982

An Introduction to the Prehistory of British Golumbia, Ganadian Journal of Archaeology 3:131-144.

1985

Class and Ice: The Archaeology uf Mt. Edziza. Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University Puhlication. 14. Archaeology Press, Burnaby, B.G.

1997

Names and Dates: A Bibliography of British Golumbia Archaeology, Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University Publicatiim, Burnaby: Archaeulogy Press.

Carfield, ViulaE. 1951 The Tsimshian and Their Neighbors. In The Tsimshian: Their Arts and Music. V, E, Garfield, P. S. Wingert, and M. Barbeau. Publications uf the American Ethnological Society. Pp. 1-70. New York: J. J. Augustin. Greiser, T. W,. D. E, Putnam, and M, G, Lee 1993 Lah Bay EIS Gulttiral Resource Survey. Report submitted to Tongass National Forest, Ketchikan Area, Ketchikan. Alaska, by Historical Research Associates ofMissoula, Montana, furHarza Northwest, Bellevue, Washington.

Greiser, T. W,. D, E, Putnam. S, Moorhead. and C. A. Walter 1994 Culttiral Resources Specialist Report, Control Lake Environmental impact Statement, Prince of Wales Island, Alaska. Report suhmitted under Forest Service Contract 53-0109-3-00369. Tongass National Forest. Ketchikan, Alaska, by Historical Research Associates ofMissoula. Montana. Harris, Heather 1997 Remembering 10.000 Years uf History: The CDrigins and Migrations of the Gitksan. In At a Crossroads: Archaeology and First Peoples in Canada, George P, Nicholas and Thomas D. Andrews, eds. Pp. 190-196. Burnaby: Simon Fraser University Archaeology Press, Heaton, T H., S. L. Talbot. and G. F Shields 1996 An Ice Age Refugium for Large Mammals in the Alexander Archipelago. Southeastern Alaska. Quaternary Research 46:186-192. Hebda, R. J. and R. W. Mathewes 1984 Hulocene Histury of Cedar and Native Indian Cultures ofthe North American Pacific Guast. Science 225(4663). 711-713, Helm. Jime (ed.) 1981 Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 6, Subarctic. Washington. D.C: Smithsonian Institution Press. Holmes, G. E.. R. ]. Dale, and ]. D. McMahan 1989 Archaeological Mitigation ofthe Thorne River Site (GRG-177). Prince of Wales Island, Alaska. Office of History and Archaeulogy Report, 15, Division of Park and Outdoor Recreation, Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Anchorage, Holmes, G. E,. R. VanderHoek. and T. E. Dilley 1996 Swan Point, In American Beginnings: The Prehistory and Palaeuecolugy uf Beringia. Frederick Hadleigh West, ed. Pp. 319323, Ghicago: University of Ghicago Press, Hughes, Richard E, 1998 On Reliability, Validity, and Scale in Obsidian Sourcing Research. In Unit Issues in Archaeology, Measuring Time. Space, and Material, A. F. Ramenofsky and A, Steffen, eds. Pp, 103-114. Salt Lake Gity: University of Utah. Hughes. Richard E, and Rubert L, Smith 1993 Archaeology. Geology, and Geochemistry in Obsidian Provenance Studies, In Effects of Scale on Archaeological and Geoscientific Perspectives. J, K. Stein and A. R. Linse. eds, Pp, 79-91. Geological Society uf America Special Paper. 283. Boulder,

Moss: Archaeology and Practice Hutchings. W.Karl 1996 The Namu Obsidian Industry. In Early Human Occupatiun in British Gulumbia, R. L. Garlson and L. Dalla Bona, eds. Pp. 167-176. Vancouver: University of British Gulumbia Press. James, M. A,. ]. Bailey, and J. M, D'Auria 1996 A Volcanic Glass Library fur the Pacific Northwest: Prublems and Prospects, Canadian Journal uf Archaeology 20:93-122. Laguna, Frederica de 1960 The Story uf a Tlingit Gummunity: A Problem in the Relationship between Archeological, Ethnological, and Historical Methods, Smithsonian Institution Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin. 172. Washington D.G,: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972

tinder Mount Saint Elias: The Fiistory and Gulture of thfi Yakutat Tlingit, Smithsonian Gontributions tu Anthrupulugy, vol, 7, Washington D.G,: Smithsonian Institution Press,

1990

Eyak. In Handbuuk of North American Indians. vol, 7. Northwest Coast, Wayne P. Suttles, ed. Pp. 189-196. Washington, D.G,: Smithsonian Institutiun Press,

Laguna, Frederica de , F, A. Riddell. D. F. McGeein, K, S. Lane.), A. Freed, and G, Osborne 1964 Archaeology of the Yakutat Bay Area, Alaska, Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin, 192, Washingtun D.G,: t!.S. Guveniment Printing Office, Langdim. S. J.. D. R, Reger. and C, Wuoley 1986 Using Aerial Photographs to Locate Intertidal Stone Fishing Structures in the Prince of Wales Archipelago, Southeast Alaska, Alaska State Department of Natural Resources. Puhlic-data File 86-89, Anchorage, Alaska. Langdun, S, J., D. R. Reger, and N. Camphell 1995 Pavements, Pounds, Pairs, Piles, and Puzzles: Research on the Little Salt Lake Weir Gomplex. Paper presented at Hidden Dimensions: The Significance of Wetland Archaeulogy, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C.. April 27-30.1995. Lepufsky. Dana, Madunna L, Moss, and Natasha Lyons 2001 The Unrealized Potential of Paleoethnobotany in the Archaeology of Northwestern Nurth America: Perspectives from Gape Addingtun Rockshelter, Southeast Alaska. Arctic Anthrupulugy 38(1)48-59.

193

Pp. 469-480, Washingtun, D.G.: Smithsonian Institution Press. Mackie, Alexander P. and Laurie Williamson 2003 Nuu-chah-nulth Houses: Structural Remains and Gultural Depressions on Southwest Vancouver Island, In Emerging frum the Mist: Studies in Northwest Goast Gulture History. R, G, Matson, Cary Goupland, and Quentin Mackie. eds. Pp, 105-151. Vancouver: University of British Golumbia Press, Magne, Martin 1996 Comparative Analysis uf Microblade Gores from Haida Gwaii. In Early Human Occupation in British Gulumbia, R. L. Garlsun and L, Dalla Bona, eds. Pp. 151-158. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press. Maschner, Herbert D, G. 1992 The Origins of Hunter-Gatherer Sedentism and Political Cumplexity: A Gase Study from the Northern Northwest Goast, Ph.D. dissertation. Department uf Anthrupohjgy. University of California, Santa Barbara, 1997

Matson, R. C. 2003 The Coast Salish House: Lessons from Shingle Point, Valdes Island, British Gulumbia. In Emerging from the Mist: Studies in Northwest Goast Gulture History, R. C, Matsun. Gary Goupland. and Quentin Mackie, eds. Pp. 76104. Vancouver: University of British Gulumbia Press. Matsun. R. G. and Cary Coupland 1995 The Prehistury uf the Northwest Coast. San Diego: Academic Press. Minor, R., D, G. Barner, and R. L. Greenspan 1986 The Leask Site: A Late Prehistoric Gampsite un Annette Island. Southeast Alaska. Heritage Research Associates Report. 50. Eugene. Mobley. Charles M, 1984 An Archaeulugical Survey of 15 Timber Harvest Units at Naukati Bay on Prince uf Wales Island, Tungass National Forest, Alaska. Report to Tongass National Forest. Ketchikan Area, under contract #53-109-3-00152. Ketchikan, Alaska, 1989

An Archaeological Survey on the Cleveland Peninsula, Southeastern Alaska, Including Six Timber Harvest Units. Report submitted tu Tongass Natiunal Furest, Ketchikan Area. Ketchikan. Alaska.

1991

The Campus Site, A Prehistoric Camp at Fairbanks, Alaska, Fairbanks: University uf Alaska. Press.

McGartney, Allen P. 1992 Along the Goast: Regional Archaeulogy in Suuthern Alaska. Arctic Anthropology 29(2}:192-204, McGlellan. Gatherine 1981 Inland Tlingit. In Handbook of Nurth American Indians, vol. 6, Subarctic. June Helm, ed.

Settlement and Subsistence in the Later Prehistory of Tebenkof Bay, Kuiu Island, Southeast Alaska. Arctic Anthrupulogy 34(2)74-99,

Arctic Anthropology^ 41:2

194

1992

An Archaeological Reconnaissance at Indian Point near Auke Bay. Juneau. Alaska. Charles Mohley & Associates, Anchorage, Alaska.

1994

A Cultural Resource Management Plan fur Admiralty Island National Monument. Charles Mohley & Associates. Anchorage. Alaska.

1995

Cultural Resource Survey ofthe South Lindenherg Peninsula Timber Sale, Kupreanuf Island. Alaska. Charles Mobley & Associates, Anchorage, Alaska.

1996

Cultural Resource Investigations at Auke Bay, Juneau, Alaska, fur National Marine Fisheries Service. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Charles Mohley & Associates, Anchorage, Alaska.

2003

Sawmill Creek Road Upgrade. Sitka. Baranof Island. Alaska: Cultural Resource Investigations. Report prepared under contract to IJSKH, Inc., Juneau. for Alaska Department of Transportation and Puhlic Facilities, Juneau, Alaska,

Mohley, Charles M, and Rohert C. Betts 1997 Archaeological Investigations at Auke Cape. Juneau. Alaska. Report prepared under contract to Livingston Slone, Inc.. Anchorage, for National Marine Fisheries Service. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Juneau, Alaska, Mobley, Charles M. and W. Mark McCallum 2001 Prehistoric Intertidal Fish Traps from Central Southeast Alaska. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 25(l-2):28-52. Moss, Madonna L, 1989 Archaeology and Cultural Ecology of the Prehistoric Angoon Tlingit. Ph.D. dissertation. Department of Anthropology, University of California. Santa Barhara. University Microfilms, Ann Arhor, 1992

1993

1996

Relationships between Maritime Cultures of Southern Alaska: Rethinking Culture Area Boundaries. Arctic Anthropology 29(2);5-17, Shellfish, Cender. and Status on the Northwest Coast of North America: Reconciling Archnological. Ethn(}graphic and Ethnohistoriual Records ofthe Tlingit, American Anthropologist 95(3):631-652. Cender. Social Inequality, and Cultural Complexity: Northwest Coast Women in Prehistory, In Dehating Complexity, Proceedings of the 26th Annual Conference ofthe Archaeological Association of tho University of Calgary, D, A. Meyer, P. C. Dawson. and D,'T. Hanna, eds. Pp. 81-88. Calgary:

University of Calgary Archaeological Association, 1998

Northern Northwest Coast Regional Overview. Arctic Anthropology 35(1):88-111.

1999

George Catlin among the Nayas: Understanding the Practice of Labret Wearing on the Northwest Coast, Ethnohistory 46(l):31-65.

2004

Archaeological Investigation of Cape Addington Rockshelter: Human Occupation of the Rugged Seacoast on the Outer Prince of Wales Archipelago, Alaska. University of Oregon Anthropological Paper, 63. Eugene: Department of Anthropology and the Museum of Natural History, University of Oregon,

in press

Tlingit Horticulture: an Indigenuus or Introducod Dovnlcjpment? In Keeping it Alive: Traditional Plant Tending and Cultivation on the Northwest Coast, Douglas Deur and Nanny J, Turner, eds. Seattle: University of Washington Press.

Moss. M. L. and ). M. Erlandson 1992 Forts. Refuge Rocks, and Defensive Sites: The Antiquity of Warfare along the North Pacific Coast of North America. Arctic Anthropology 29(2):73-90. 1995

Reflections on North American Pacific: Coast Prehistory. Journal of World Prehistory

1998

A Comparative Chronology of Northwest Coast Fishing Features. In Hidden Dimensions. The Cultural Significance of Wetland Archaeology. K, Bernick, ed. Pp, 180-198, Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.

2000

Wolf's Lair: Middle and Late Holocene Wooden Artifacts from a Sea Cave on Baker Island, Alaska, Canadian Journal of Archaeology 24:107-128.

2001

The Archaeology of Obsidian Cove, Suemez Island, Southeast Alaska. Arctic Anthropology 38(l):27-47.

Moss, M, L.. J. M. Erlandson, and R, Stuckenrath 1990 Wood Stake Weirs and Salmon Fishing on the Northwest Coast: Evidence from Southeast Alaska, Canadian Journal of Archaeology 14:143-158. Moss. M, L,. J. M. Erlandsnn, R, S, Byrain. and R. E. Hughes 1996 The Irish Creek Site: Evidence ff>r a MidHolonene Microblade Component on the Northern Northwest Coast. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 20:75-92,

Moss: Archaeology and Practice Moss, Madonna L.. Dorothy M. Peteet, and Cathy Whitluck in Mid-Holncene Culture and Climate on th(( press Northwest Coast of North America. In Climatic Change and Cultural Dynamics: A Clobal Perspective on Hoiocene Transitions. Dan Sandweiss and Kirk Maasch, eds. San Diego: Academic Press. Okada. H., A. Okada. Y. Kntani, K. Yajima. W. M. Olson. T. Nishimoto, and S. Okino 1989 Heceta Island. Southnastern Alaska: Anthropological Survey in 1987. Department of Behavioral Science. Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Okada. H., A. Okada, K. Yajima. W. Olson. M. Sugita. N. Shionosaki. S. Okino. K. Yoshida. and H. Kaneko 1992 Heceta Island. Southeastern Alaska: Anthropological Survey in 1989 and 1990. Department of Behavioral Science. Hokkaido University, Sapporo. Putnam. D. E. and T. W. Creiser 1993 The Inter-relationship of Prnhistoric Wooden Stake Fish Traps and Estuarine Sedimentological Processes: An Example from Northern Prince of Wales Island. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Alaska Anthropological Association. Fairbanks. Alaska. Ream. B.A. and B. M. Saleeby 1987 The Archaeology of Nortbern Prince of Wales Island: A Survey of Nineteen Timber Harvest Units in the Tongass National Forest. Southeast Alaska. University of Alaska Museum. Fairbanks. Stibmitted under contract #53-01096-00214 to tJSDA Forest Service, Tnngass National Forest, Ketcbikan Area. Reger, Douglas R. 1995 1993 Investigations at the Coffman Cove Arcbaeological Sito, PET-067: A Preliminary Review. Office of History and Arcbaeology Report. 53. Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation, Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Anchorage. Sealaska Corporation 1975 Native Cemetery and Historic Sites of Southeast Alaska. Sealaska Corporation. Juneau. Smith Jane L. 1996 Cultural Resource Survey and Test Excavations. South Kuproanof Lsland, Alaska. Project 93-0212-A. USDA Forest Service. Tongass National Forest, Stikine Area. Petersburg Ranger District. Petersburg, Alaska. 1999

Cultural Resource Investigations in tbe East Kuiu and Tbreemiie Project Areas. Kuiu Island, Alaska. Project 96-10-02-08. USDA Forest Service. Tongass Naticmal Forest, Petersburg Ranger District, Petersburg, Alaska.

195

Smitb, Jane L. and Mark McCallum 1993 Cultural Resource Survijy and Test Excavations for the Starfi.sb Timber Sale. Anita Bay. Etolin Island, Alaska. Project 93-02-01-A. USDA Forest Service. Tongass National Forest, Stikine Area. Wrangell Ranger District. Petersburg, Alaska. Smith, Jane L.. Wendy Battino. and Mark McCallum 1993 Cultural Resource Survey of tbe Campbell Timber Sale Study Area. Bradfield Canal, Alaska. Project 92-02-24-A. USDA Forest Service. Tongass National Forest. Stikine Area. Wrangel! Ranger District. Petersburg, Alaska. Smitb, Jane L., Mark McCalbnn. and Wendy Battino 1993 Ctiltural Resource Survey and Test Excavation for the Campbell Timber Sale. Bradfield Canal. Alaska. Project 93-02-15-A. USDA Forest Service. Tongass National Forest. Stikine Area. Wrangell Ranger District, Petersburg. Alaska. Smith, Jason W. 1971 Tbe Ice Mountain Microblade and Core Industry', Cassiar District. Northern British Columbia. Canada. Arctic and Alpine Research 3(3):199-213. Stevenson. Ann 1998 Wet Site Contributions to Developmental Models of Fraser River Fisbing Technology. In Hidden Dimensions: Tbe Cultural Significance of Wetland Archaeology. K. Bernick. ed. Pp. 220-238. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, Suttles. Wayne (ed.) 1990 Handbook of Nortb American Indians, vol, 7. Nortbwest Coast. Washington. D.C: Smithsonian Institution Press. Swanton, John R. 1908 Social Conditions. Beliefs, and Linguistic Relationship of the Tlingit Indians. Bureau of American Ethnology 26th Annual Report. Pp. 391-485.Wasbington, D.C: U.S. Government Printing Office. Wessen. G., S. Flint, and M. Kelly 1993 Usbk Bay Project Cultural Resource Inventory Report. Prepared for Tongass National Forest. Cbatham Area. Sitka. Alaska by Dames & Moore. Seattle. Washington. Wessen, Cary. E. Nilsson, S. Flint, and A. Huberland 1994 Resource Inventory Report, Eigbt Fatbom Project. Ctiltural Resources. Prepared for Tongass National Forest Cbatham Area, Sitka, Alaska, by Dames & Moore. Seattle. Washington.

196


West. Frederick Hadleigb 1981 Tbe Arcbaeology of Beringia. New York: Columbia University Press. ,,, . „ , , , T. n • 1 1 1 I West. Frederick Hadlejgb (ed.) .

Tl

•

•

Tl

T, I •

Workman. W. B. 1978 Prehistory of tbe Aishihik-Kluane Area, Southwest Yukon Territory. Mercury Series. Archaeological Survey of Canada Paper. 74. ^,, .,".. i »* rrJ

^^^^

,

1996

American Beginnings: Tbe Prehistory and Palaeoecology of Beringia. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

1

O t t a w a : N a t i o n a l M u s e u m s of C a n a d a .

The Status of Archaeology and Archaeological ...

The Status of Archaeology and Archaeological ...

Suggest Documents

Archaeology, Photography, Archaeological Ethnography

Archaeological parks - Archaeology International

Heritage, Conservation, and Archaeology - Archaeological Institute of

Archaeology and Storytelling - Lorn Archaeological and Historical ...

cornish archaeology - Cornwall Archaeological Society

Conservation, community archaeology, and archaeological mediation ...

"ARCHAEOLOGICAL SCIENCE : SCIENCE AND ARCHAEOLOGY OR ...

Archaeology 101 - Archaeological Institute of America

GIS, Archaeological Survey and Landscape Archaeology on the ...

gm3420 graphic - archaeology - Australian Archaeological Association

Exploring Archaeological Identity with George Horsfield - Archaeology ...

Remote Sensing in Archaeology - Mississippi Archaeological ...

SAA Archaeological Record - Society for American Archaeology

SAA Archaeological Record - Society for American Archaeology

SAA Archaeological Record - Society for American Archaeology

SAA Archaeological Record - Society for American Archaeology

gm3420 graphic - archaeology - Australian Archaeological Association

cornish archaeology hendhyscans kernow - Cornwall Archaeological ...

SAA Archaeological Record - Society for American Archaeology

SAA Archaeological Record - Society for American Archaeology

SAA Archaeological Record - Society for American Archaeology

Utah Archaeology 1990 - Utah Professional Archaeological Council

Historical Archaeology Bibliography - Arizona Archaeological Society

SAA Archaeological Record - Society for American Archaeology