The Mesa Site:

Paleoindians above the Arctic Circle

Michael Kunz, Michael Bever, Constance Adkins

BLM-Alaska Open File Report 86

BLM/AK/ST-03/001+8100+020

April 2003

U. S. Department of the Interior

Bureau of Land Management

Alaska State Office

222 West 7th Avenue

Anchorage Alaska 99513
Cover Photo

View of Mesa from west with Iteriak Creek in foreground. Photo: Dan Gullickson

Disclaimer

The mention of trade names or commercial products in this report does not constitute endorsement or

recommendation for use by the federal government.

Authors

Michael Kunz is an Archaeologist, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Northern Field Office, 1150

University Avenue, Fairbanks, Alaska 99709.

Michael Bever is a project supervisor for Pacific Legacy Inc., 3081 Alhambra Drive, Suite 208,

Cameron Park, CA 95682.

Constance Adkins is an Archaeologist, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Northern Field Office,

1150 University Avenue, Fairbanks, Alaska 99709.

Open File Reports

Open File Reports issued by the Bureau of Land Management-Alaska present the results of inventories or other investigations on a variety of scientific and technical subjects that are made available to

the public outside the formal BLM-Alaska technical publication series. These reports can include

preliminary or incomplete data and are not published and distributed in quantity.

The reports are available while supplies last from BLM External Affairs, 222 West 7th Avenue #13,

Anchorage, Alaska 99513 and from the Juneau Minerals Information Center, 100 Savikko Road,

Mayflower Island, Douglas, AK 99824, (907) 364-1553. Copies are also available for inspection at the

Alaska Resource Library and Information Service (Anchorage), the USDI Resources Library in

Washington, D. C., various libraries of the University of Alaska, the BLM National Business Center

Library (Denver) and other selected locations.

A complete bibliography of all BLM-Alaska scientific reports can be found on the Internet at: http://

www.ak.blm.gov/affairs/sci_rpts.html. Related publications are also listed at http://juneau.ak.blm.gov.

The BLM Mission

The Bureau of Land Management sustains the health, diversity and productivity of the public lands for

the use and enjoyment of present and future generations.
The Mesa Site:

Paleoindians above the Arctic Circle

Michael Kunz

Michael Bever

Constance Adkins

BLM-Alaska Open File Report 86

April 2003

U. S. Department of the Interior

Mammoth and American Lion: A Late Ice Age Scene from the Brooks Range, Arctic Alaska

(Taken from a painting by George "Rinaldino" Teichmann)

CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................. iv-v

ABSTRACT ..........................................................................................................................vi

FORWARD ............................................................................................................................1

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................4

Purpose of the Report ........................................................................................................4

The Culture History of Arctic Alaska ...............................................................................4

The Mesa Paleoindians......................................................................................................7

NATURAL SETTING AND SITE DESCRIPTION.............................................................7

Natural Setting ..................................................................................................................7

Site Description ...............................................................................................................11

Surface and natural stratigraphy ................................................................................11

Localities and cultural stratigraphy ............................................................................12

Cultural features ..........................................................................................................15

EXCAVATION AND COLLECTION METHODOLOGY ..................................................17

CHRONOLOGY ..................................................................................................................19

HISTORY OF FIELD WORK AND EXCAVATION ..........................................................23

MESA COMPLEX LITHIC TYPOLOGY/TECHNOLOGY ...............................................27

Bifacial Tools ....................................................................................................................27

Finished bifaces ............................................................................................................27

projectile points..........................................................................................................27

type A bifaces .............................................................................................................29

type B bifaces .............................................................................................................29

Unfinished bifaces ........................................................................................................30

early stage failures ....................................................................................................30

late stage failures/projectile point preforms.............................................................30

crude biface failures...................................................................................................30

uncategorized bifaces .................................................................................................30

Unifacial Tools .................................................................................................................31

Formal tools...................................................................................................................31

scrapers ......................................................................................................................31

Informal tools ................................................................................................................31

gravers ........................................................................................................................31

flake scrapers .............................................................................................................32

flake burins ................................................................................................................32

retouched/utilized flakes ...........................................................................................32

Flaking Detritus ..............................................................................................................32

Flake fragments ............................................................................................................32

Flakes with platforms...................................................................................................32

Bifacial flakes................................................................................................................33

Non-bifacial flakes ........................................................................................................33

Cortical flakes ...............................................................................................................33

Shatter...........................................................................................................................33

Flake cores ....................................................................................................................33

Other Cultural Material ..................................................................................................33

i
ii

THE MESA SITE MICROBLADE COMPONENT ...........................................................34

LITHIC SOURCES .............................................................................................................39

SITE USE............................................................................................................................40

TOOL USE-WEAR AND RESIDUE ANALYSIS ..............................................................41

PALEOECOLOGY ..............................................................................................................44

Subsistence Resources .....................................................................................................44

Climate and Vegetation ...................................................................................................45

Paleobiology .....................................................................................................................48

IMPLICATIONS OF THE MESA COMPLEX FOR NORTH AMERICAN

ARCHAEOLOGY AND THE PEOPLING OF THE NEW WORLD ................................53

Migrations ........................................................................................................................53

Technology vs. Environment ...........................................................................................54

North American Pleistocene Cultures ............................................................................55

Nenana ..........................................................................................................................55

Paleoindian....................................................................................................................55

Fluted Points in Eastern Beringia ..................................................................................56

Mixing Technologies ........................................................................................................57

Beginnings .......................................................................................................................57

South from the Arctic ......................................................................................................59

SUMMARY .........................................................................................................................61

Life at the Mesa ...............................................................................................................62

GLOSSARY .........................................................................................................................65

REFERENCES CITED.......................................................................................................70
iii

FIGURES

Frontispiece Mammoth and American Lion

Figure 1. Mesa located in arctic Alaska ....................................................................... 1

Figure 2. Helicopter slinging equipment to Mesa campsite ........................................ 1

Figure 3&3a.Parachuting fuel in 55 gallon drums to remote fuel site ............................. 2

Figure 4. Looking north at Mesa Camp and the Mesa ................................................ 2

Figure 5. Mosquitoes on a typical warm day at the Mesa ........................................... 3

Figure 6. Caribou near Iteriak Creek. .......................................................................... 3

Figure 7. Location of the Mesa in the regional landscape........................................... 4

Figure 8. Map of Beringia ............................................................................................. 5

Figure 9. Comparison of Paleoindian projectile points and a Mesa point .................. 8

Figure 10. Topographic schematic of the Mesa .............................................................. 9

Figure 11. Location of the Mesa in relation to glacial limits ........................................ 9

Figure 12. Mesa vegetation zones. ................................................................................ 10

Figure 13. Mesa Site soil profile descriptions .............................................................. 13

Figure 14. Mesa excavation localities........................................................................... 14

Figure 15. Location of hearths on the Mesa................................................................. 16

Figure 16. Appearance of a typical hearth ................................................................... 17

Figure 17. Mesa Radiocarbon Dates .................................................................... 20 & 21

Figure 18. Variability in radiocarbon ages during the Younger Dryas ....................... 22

Figure 19. Complete and reworked Mesa projectile points ......................................... 28

Figure 20. Mesa projectile points showing cross section and variation in basal

treatment ..................................................................................................... 28

Figure 21. Examples of Type B bifaces and gravers .................................................... 29

Figure 22. Examples of scrapers recovered from the Mesa......................................... 31

Figure 23. Artifacts from Mesa microblade component .............................................. 34

Figure 24. Circular stone artifact referred to as the “roller skate wheel” .................. 35

Figure 25. Distribution of microblade component vs. Mesa Complex artifacts and

hearths ......................................................................................................... 36

Figure 26. Location of chert sources in relation to the Mesa ...................................... 39

Figure 27. Example of residue and striations on Mesa biface .................................... 42

Figure 28. Example of residue and hair on Mesa scraper ........................................... 43

Figure 29. Excavation in lake bed sediments at Lake of the Pleistocene .................. 45

Figure 30. Synthesis of environmental changes in the Arctic foothills during the

Pleistocene-Holocene transition.................................................................. 46

Figure 31. Percentage pollen and spore diagram from Lake of the Pleistocene ........ 48

Figure 32. Caribou and bison dates from Ikpikpuk River in relation to Younger

Dryas and Mesa occupation ........................................................................ 50

Figure 33. Location of Mesa Complex sites in Northern Alaska ................................ 52

Figure 34. Extent of glaciation in Beringia about 15,000 BP ..................................... 54

Figure 35. Location of Mesa and Nenana Complex sites in Alaska.......................... 57

Figure 36. Comparison of Nenana and Mesa Complex assemblages ......................... 58

Figure 37. Evidence of fluting on Mesa projectile points ............................................ 60

Figure 38. Nunamiut winter camp, 1910.. ................................................................... 63

Figure 39 Nunamiut Eskimoes moving camp, 1910. .................................................. 64

iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The Bureau of Land Management, Fairbanks District, Arctic District, and Northern Field Office provided the funding for the field work and analysis associated with

the Mesa archaeological project. We thank John Santora, Robert Gal, and Carl Johnson

for their support of our efforts during the early years of the project. More recently a

special thanks to Dixie Swanson for continuous assistance with personnel matters.

We also thank Billy Butts, Dee Ritchie, and Dick Bouts for their efforts on behalf of

the project and Susan Will for her unflagging encouragement for the completion of

this report. Other entities and personnel were also critical to the successful completion of the project and we recognize them here in no particular order.

The excavation of the Mesa Site required 13 field seasons, which were spread over

a period of 22 years. The most necessary element of the work, the excavation crews,

were comprised of paid personnel as well as highly experienced volunteers. Over the

years these crews accounted for a large number of people. Because of this some individuals deserving of recognition have undoubtedly been overlooked. To those people

we express our most sincere apologies and our gratitude.

Crew Members

1978 Michael Kunz, Dale Slaughter, Peter Bowers, Susan Will.

Helicopter pilot — Michael Plantz

1979 Susan Will, Peter Bowers, Tim Smith, Georgeie Reynolds, Michael Kunz.

Helicopter pilot — Rick Griffith

1980 Peter Bowers, Michael Kunz, Richard Reanier.

Helicopter pilot — Bill Murphy

1989 Michael Kunz, Richard Reanier, John Cook.

1991 Valerie Gaston, Charles Adkins, Michael Kunz.

Helicopter pilot — Mike Arleen

1992 Sergei Slobodin, Richard Reanier, Michael Kunz, Susan Reanier, Eric

Dillingham, Annalisa McGlinn, Dan Gullickson.

Helicopter pilot — Jim Scroggins

1993 Charles Adkins, Susan Reanier, Sergei Slobodin, Richard Reanier, Daniel

Mann, Michael Kunz.

Helicopter pilot — Rick Farish

1994 Susan Reanier, Lara Fedor-Ziady, Kellie Cairns, Michael Bever, Eric

Dillingham, Michael Kunz, Richard Reanier, Dennis Stanford, Daniel Mann,

Peggy Jodry.

Helicopter pilot — Garland Dobbins

1995 Kellie Cairns, Leslie Cook, Connie Adkins, Sergei Slobodin, Kristen Wenzel,

Michael Bever, Michael Kunz.

Helicopter pilot — Don Willey

1996 Michael Bever, Robert Godsoe, Kristen Wenzel, Gordon Karg, Robert Watson

Connie Adkins, Michael Kunz, Stephen Durand, Richard Reanier, Daniel

Mann, Dorothy Peteet, David Meltzer, Robert Fox, Tom Reanier

Helicopter pilot — Mark Fleming
v

1997 Connie Adkins, Robert Godsoe, Joshua Reuther, Amber Lincoln, Susan Reanier,

Richard Reanier, Kristen Wenzel, Robert Watson, Susan Will, Stephen Durand,

Daniel Mann, Dorothy Peteet, Angela Wittenberg, Michael Kunz, Lawrence Plug,

Kaarin Tae, Patricia Heiser, Carolyn Parker, Charles Adkins.

Helicopter pilots — Bill Murphy, Ed Bartoli

Helicopter mechanic — Lowell Berentsen

1998 Robert Godsoe, Wynola Possenti, Connie Adkins, Michael Bever, John Dubé,

Joshua Reuther, Paul Matheus, Daniel Mann, Michael Kunz, Pamela Groves,

Julie Chase.

Helicopter pilot — Bill Murphy

Helicopter mechanic — Glenn Hamilton

1999 Angela Wittenberg, John Dubé, Connie Adkins, Catherina Omtzigt, Paul

Matheus, Daniel Mann, Heather McDonald, Michael Kunz, Pamela Groves.

Helicopter pilot — Dave Mason

Helicopter mechanic — Steve Brown

Without the assistance of the Bureau of Land Management's Alaska Fire Service, the

Mesa archaeological project could not have been conducted. We especially wish to thank

the warehouse personnel who filled our equipment and supply orders and helped in numerous other ways as well. The staff of the Alaska Interagency Coordination Center provided us with excellent logistical support, acquired aircraft for us, and provided flight

following, as well as other operational assistance. The Alaska Smokejumpers provided us

with field personnel and paracargo support. We thank the Fire Specialists Section for

detailing personnel to assist us in the field. The Fuel Specialists established excellent

remote aircraft fueling sites for us and the Information Systems and Communications

personnel provided us with a reliable communications network. We also wish to thank all

of the air and ground crews and office personnel for their efforts in our behalf.

There were several fixed-wing pilots who contributed substantially over the years to our

logistical endeavors. We would like to thank Sherpa pilots, Randy Slayton and C. R. Holder;

Caravan pilots, Jay Worley, Mick Van Hatten, and Terrell Bailey; Casa Pilots, Kevin and K.

T. McBride; and Aero Commander pilots, Doug Montgomery and Fritz R. Hansen. We would

also like to extend our profound thanks to our Alaska Fire Service loadmasters, Don Bell

and George Rainey.

Additional support and assistance was provided by ARCO Alaska Inc., the University of

Alaska Fairbanks, the North Slope Borough, Ilisagvik College and the Polar Ice Coring

Office. The authors would especially like to thank Daniel Mann, Paul Matheus, Pamela

Groves, Steve Durand, Gill Mull, Bruce Hardy, Robert Watson, Beth Shapiro, and Richard

Reanier for their assistance and significant contributions to this report. We also thank

George Frison, Vance Haynes, Phil Shelly, Tony Baker, Bruce Bradley, Dennis Stanford,

Peggy Jodry, David Meltzer, Jeff Rasic, Robert Ackerman, Ruthann Knudson, Bruce Huckle,

Julie Morrow, Peter Bostrom, Alan Cooper, Dale Slaughter, and John Cook for their helpful

discussions. Thanks to Lenore Heppler and Stan Bloom for assistance with illustrations.

A special thanks goes to Robin Mills, Howard Smith, Angela Wittenberg, Charles Adkins,

Pricilla Hammon, Alison Boyce and Tony Baker for reviewing the manuscript and providing numerous helpful suggestions. Finally, given the extended amount of time we spent in

the field, we would like to thank all the families of all the crews for their support of our

absences and for welcoming us home warmly when we did return.
ABSTRACT

Between 1978 and 1999, excavations in arctic and western Alaska have revealed the

presence of Paleoindians during terminal Pleistocene/early Holocene times, ca. 12,000 to

9500 years BP (Before Present). The Type Site for this cultural manifestation, the Mesa

Site, is located on the northern flank of the central Brooks Range at N68° 24.72 W155°

48.02, amid rolling foothills that extend northward 40 miles to the Colville River. The site

lies atop a mesa-like ridge that rises 180 feet above the floor of the Iteriak Creek valley,

offering an unobstructed 360° view of the surrounding treeless countryside. Excavation at

the site has produced the remains of more than 450 formal flaked stone tools and over

120,000 pieces of lithic debitage, which comprise an assemblage typical of the “classic”

Paleoindian cultures of the North American High Plains. More than 150 of the artifacts

are the complete or fragmentary remains of lanceolate projectile points, many of which

have been recovered from within the charcoal/soil matrix of discrete hearths which are the

central features of numerous activity areas. The age of the occupation is constrained by 44

uncalibrated AMS radiocarbon dates covering the interval 11,700 to 9700 years BP. The

site lacks evidence of any widespread postdepositional disturbance and, except for a small,

discrete manifestation in Locality A, contains no remains of more recent cultures. The

composition of the Mesa artifact assemblage and its obvious technological relationship

with the Paleoindian cultures of mid-continent North America mark it as distinctly different from other ancient arctic cultures. The presence of the Mesa Complex demonstrates a

previously undocumented cultural diversity in Eastern Beringia at the Pleistocene/ Holocene boundary.

vi


 Vulpes vulpes (fox) watches John Dubé and Angela Wittenberg excavating at the Mesa.

(Photo: M. Kunz)
1

FORWARD

The Mesa archaeological site lies nearly

150 miles above the Arctic Circle in arctic

Alaska. The closest village, Anaktuvuk

Pass, is more than 1001 miles to the eastsoutheast. The nearest road, the Dalton

Highway, is 160 miles to the east, and the

Figure 1. Mesa located in arctic Alaska.

closest town, Barrow, lies 200 miles to the

north on the shore of the Arctic Ocean (Figure 1). The sign at the Ivotuk airstrip, six

miles north of the Mesa states, “When You

Are Here, You’re Still Nowhere.” Even in a

land where just about anywhere is only

reachable by air or water transportation, to

say that the Mesa is isolated and remote is

an understatement.

All primary logistical operations required

fixed-wing aircraft, and the 5000-foot long

Figure 2. Helicopter slinging equipment to Mesa campsite. (Photo: M. Kunz)

1 The English measurement system was used to set up the

original site grid and is used throughout this report.

Artifact dimensions are the exception using the metric

system.

0 70 140 

Miles 

Chukchi Sea 

-

Beai!fort Sea 

Mesa. 

Anaktuvuk Pass ) 

I 

; 

- Arctic Circle --- .,· 

l 

_\ ,, __ - - - -
2

gravel airstrip at Ivotuk. Built for oil and

gas exploration activities in the late 1970s,

the proximity of this airstrip made it possible for us to fly all our personnel, equipment, gear, and supplies to within six miles

of the site, and then use a helicopter for

transport to the Mesa (Figure 2). To establish helicopter fueling sites remote from

Ivotuk we had to parachute 55-gallon

Figure 3 & 3a. Parachuting fuel, three 55-gallon drums to a pallet, to a remote fuel site. (Photos:

C. M. Adkins)

Figure 4. Looking north at Mesa Camp and the Mesa. (Photo: M. Kunz)

drums, usually three to a pallet (Figure 3)

from aircraft. Occasionally, when our helicopter was not available, we received supplies by low-level free-fall air drop. In terms

of any type of communication other than satellite, the Mesa is in a black hole. Prior to

the 1990s, communication with the outside

world was tenuous at best. To be able to

maintain continuous communication with
3

Figure 5. Mosquitoes clustering on the downwind side of an excavator’s shirt on a warm

day at the Mesa. (Photo: C.M. Adkins)

aircraft within our area of operations (a 200

mile radius of the Mesa), we had to set up a

radio repeater system. In emergency situations, response time for any remedial action beyond our own capabilities was a minimum of six hours, if the weather was good.

If the weather was bad, it could be days.

Mesa Camp was a tent camp in the strictest sense of the word (Figure 4). Each crew

member had a small dome tent for sleeping

and personal privacy, while wall tents and

other canvas structures provided storage,

kitchen/dining, and laboratory space. Sanitation was provided by pit and propane-fired

Figure 6. Caribou near Iteriak Creek adjacent to the Mesa. (Photo: P.M. Bowers)

incinerator toilets. Snow excavated from the

remnants of large winter drifts provided our

refrigeration, and water came from a nearby

creek. Bathing was achieved by filling a portable shower unit with water heated on the

stove. All in all, it was fairly comfortable.

Most of our discomforts resulted from the

hordes of mosquitos (Figure 5), occasional

snow storms and other adverse weather.

Our major safety concern was keeping an

eye open for the local grizzly bears so as to

avoid confrontations and to keep them out

of camp. The grizzlies that were determined

to enter camp we were able to chase off with

our helicopter, and as a result never had to

shoot one.

Wildlife abounds in the area. Foxes regularly raised families in dens excavated into

the Mesa’s talus slopes, and the sheer rock

faces of the Mesa provided nesting habitat

for gyrfalcons and rough-legged hawks.

Wolves occasionally passed through camp,

and often we were surrounded by hundreds

or thousands of caribou. (Figure 6) All this,

accompanied by 24-hour daylight, made the

Mesa project much more than just another

archaeological excavation. All of the crew

members and visitors to the site enjoyed

these unique wilderness circumstances and

experiences.
4

INTRODUCTION

Purpose of the Report

This is an interim report. The amount of

data generated by the Mesa project is immense. Although we engaged in some analysis and compilation of data as we progressed

through the field work, we are not in a position to present this information in its totality. Therefore, limits have necessarily been

placed upon the scope of this report so that

it can be completed in a reasonable amount

of time. While some primary analysis has

not been completed, we have enough information to present a report that is more descriptive and introspective than a raw data

monograph. In this report, we will address

the scope of research, order and describe the

data analyzed so far, and interpret and summarize the findings to date. This will be accomplished by discussing the following subjects: the culture history of the region and

the place of the Mesa Complex within that

culture history framework; the natural setting of the site region; the excavation and

data collection methods; the description of

the site including the natural and cultural

stratigraphy, cultural features, localities

and activity areas; the flaked stone industry including artifact typology, tool-stone

variety, and tool use; the regional Pleistocene faunal assemblage; the regional

Pleistocene climate and ecology; and site

use.

The Culture History of Arctic

Alaska

For the purposes of this report, arctic

Alaska is defined as that portion of Alaska

north of the Continental Divide, or that area

north of the 68th degree of latitude (Figure

7). The culture history of arctic Alaska differs significantly from the culture history

of other regions of North America in that

its earliest human residents appear to be

the first people to have set foot in the Western Hemisphere. The physical remains of

at least 12,000 years of human occupation

appear to be present within arctic Alaska,

and it is the only place where the prehistoric culture history of the New World can

be traced from its beginning to the present

day. Given that much of the ancient subcontinent of Beringia2 now comprises the

floor of the Beaufort, Chukchi, and Bering

Seas, the initial chapter of the culture history of the region is somewhat speculative

(Figure 8).

Most archaeologists would probably agree

that the region was initially occupied by immigrants from Asia who crossed the land

bridge from Siberia to Alaska ca. 15,000

years BP (Radiocarbon Years Before

Present), and that some time before 11,500

years BP their descendants moved south

and populated the rest of the Western Hemisphere.

The archaeological record indicates that

the lithic industry of the Asian immigrants

was based on core and blade technology typified by the production of unifacial tools such

as burins and worked blades, although some

bifacial tools were also produced (Dikov

1977, 1979, 1996, 1997).

There is little doubt that the various cultural groups involved in the earliest migrations into the North American Arctic were

deterred from moving south by any route

because of the mass of glacial ice that isolated Eastern Beringia (Alaska) from the

Figure 7. Location of Mesa in the regional

landscape in arctic Alaska. (After Mann et al.

2002)

2 Beringia existed during the glacial episodes of the

Pleistocene when world-wide sea level was as much as 300

feet lower than today. Beringia included most of northeastern

Siberia, Alaska as far south as the Alaska Peninsula, and

the land bridge that connected them. This was a vast, mostly

unglaciated land mass of nearly two million square miles

with an extreme continental climate (see Hopkins 1982).

Chukchi 

Sea 

Beaufort Sea 

~?> 

~f'()-e::; Anchorage 
5

rest of the North American continent (Mann

and Hamilton 1995; Kunz 1996; Mandryk,

et al, 1998, 2001). While contained in

unglaciated but ice-bound Eastern Beringia,

we believe that some of these people developed a lithic technology specific to the procurement of large mammals, most probably

bison and caribou. These tools included

large, bifacial, lanceolate projectile points,

bifacial knives, and distinctive unifacial

tools such as scrapers and gravers. If so, as

defined by technology and culture, these

people would have been the first

Paleoindians. At the same time other immigrant groups retained core and blade

technology, but they appear to have occupied the region south of the Continental

Divide.

Until recently Paleoindians were not recognized in arctic Alaska. They were originally noted in 1926 more than 3000 miles

to the south at Folsom, New Mexico. Since

the middle of the last century, Paleoindians

have been considered by most scholars to

represent the first indigenous, geographically widespread, North American cultural

tradition (Kunz and Reanier 1995).

As the climate and vegetational regime

began to change at the end of the Pleistocene, and the large Ice Age mammals such

as bison disappeared, the Paleoindians vanished from arctic Alaska’s archaeological

record. In fact, from roughly 9700 until 7500

years BP there is no solid evidence for human occupation in arctic Alaska (Kunz et

al. 2000.) So ends the first chapter of arctic

Alaska’s culture history.

The loosely defined, technologically Western Beringian affiliated, Paleo-Arctic tradition, which must be as ancient as the

Paleoindian tradition, is found nearby on

the south side of the Continental Divide

(Anderson 1970). Although some researchers (Anderson 1970; Bowers 1982; Gal 1982)

have suggested that a few sites derived from

the Paleo-Arctic tradition are present north

of the Brooks Range, the tradition’s lack of

diagnostic artifacts and the absence of radiocarbon dates render the reality uncertain

at best. However, given that the boundary

that separates arctic Alaska from the area

to the south is little more than a line we’ve

Figure 8. Map of Beringia. (Map: M. King)

Western Beringa Eastern Beringa

Siberia

Alaska
6

drawn on a map for our convenience, the

Paleo-Arctic tradition may well be part of

arctic Alaska’s culture history. Because of

its ephemeral nature (it is defined and described differently by various researchers)

it is difficult to determine an end date for

this cultural tradition (Anderson 1970;

Dumond, 1987; Goebel et al. 1991). However

the general consensus is that the end came

around 8000 years BP.

The Paleoindian and Paleo-Arctic cultures were followed by the people of the

Northern Archaic tradition (Anderson

1968). This archaeological grouping is

present in arctic Alaska from about 7500

years BP to perhaps as recently as 2000 to

3000 years BP. The hallmarks of the lithic

assemblages of this tradition include large,

bifacial side/corner notched and stemmed

projectile points, bifacial knives, and large

scrapers. Although the mammoth, bison,

and horse of the Ice Age had disappeared,

these people inhabited the region and exploited its resources (e.g., large terrestrial

mammals such as caribou, muskoxen, and

moose) in much the same way as their ancient predecessors.

Roughly 5000 years BP, a new cultural

entity appeared in arctic Alaska — the Eskimo. While the Eskimo were not among the

first residents of arctic Alaska, their more

varied and sophisticated technology allowed

them to more fully exploit the resources of

the region than their Northern Archaic predecessors/neighbors had been able to do.

Soon they were dominant and more numerous than any of the groups that had previously inhabited the area. Their technological sophistication enabled them to exploit

both the coastal and interior ecosystems and

to expand eastward into Canada and

Greenland. There is an unbroken record of

their use of arctic Alaska since they first

appeared in the region (Reanier 1997;

Sheehan 1997). The technological signatures of the Eskimo cultures are a chipped

stone industry of small, often delicate, wellmade bifacial projectile points, ground stone

implements, a variety of well-made, often

decorated, bone, ivory, and antler tools and

items of personal adornment, as well as a

propensity for the manufacture of composite tools. At this time pottery appears as well

as the use of semi-subterranean houses (Irving 1964; Dumond 1987).

The succession of the Eskimo cultures

began with the Denbigh Flint Complex

people (ca. 4500 to 2500 years BP), who were

followed by the Choris (ca. 2800 to 2200

years BP), Norton (ca. 2400 to 1800 years

BP), and Ipiutak (ca. 1900 to 1200 years BP)

cultures (Giddings 1964; Giddings and

Anderson 1986; Dumond 1987). These

closely related, sometimes contemporary,

cultural groups together make up what archaeologists generally refer to as the Arctic

Small Tool tradition (Irving 1964). These

early Eskimos spent as much or more time

living in and exploiting the subsistence resources of the foothills and mountains of the

Brooks Range as they did the Arctic coast

(Kunz 1991; Schoenberg 1995).

About 1,400 years BP, some technological innovations, such as drag floats, caused

a switch in emphasis so that there was a

bit more exploitation of the maritime resources than previously had been the case.

This shift was initiated by the Birnirk

people and allowed them to successfully

exploit maritime resources, particularly

whales, to a greater extent than the earlier

Eskimo cultures (Stanford 1976; Giddings

and Anderson 1986; Sheehan 1997). This

trend continued and reached full flower with

the Thule people (ca. 1100 to 500 BP) and

on into the historic period (Bockstoce 1976,

1986; Sheehan 1997). At the same time, related but less numerous populations, referred to as Late Prehistoric Eskimos, continued to exploit the resources of the interior, primarily subsisting on caribou and

other large terrestrial mammals. They usually overwintered in semi-subterranean

houses on the margins of lakes that contained plentiful fish resources (Gerlach and

Hall 1988). These people may have been the

antecedents of the modern Nunamiut or

Inland Eskimo which seem to appear in the

archaeological record between 400 and 300

years BP (Kunz and Phippen 1988; Sheehan

1997). The primary difference between the

Nunamiut and the preceding Late Prehistoric Eskimos, was that the Nunamiut

adopted a strategy of over-wintering in sod
7

houses or caribou skin tents in river valley

willow patches.

Contact between the Euro-American arctic whaling fleet and arctic Alaskan Natives

first occurred during the mid-19th century.

What followed was more than 50 years of

continuous contact that drastically altered

a traditional culture and set in motion a

massive alteration of Native Alaskan

lifestyle (Brower 1942; Foote 1964;

Bockstoce 1986). In just a few generations,

the indigenous people of arctic Alaska

moved from the Stone Age to the Atomic

Age.

Rarely does a single cultural group hold

sway over a region as large as arctic Alaska

for such an extended period of time. The

modern indigenous population of arctic

Alaska is as successful today, subsisting in

one of the harshest environments on the

planet, as were their ancestors of 5000 years

BP. The hard evidence that supports this

story, the material culture of arctic Alaska,

resides in thousands of prehistoric and historic sites distributed throughout the region.

These sites contain the physical manifestation of the culture history of arctic Alaska.

This nonrenewable resource must be protected and managed wisely for both its scientific and cultural value.

The Mesa Paleoindians

Archaeologists generally identify cultural

entities in the preceramic archaeological

record by type and style of flaked stone tools.

Most cultural complexes have a distinctive

artifact, usually a projectile point, that is

diagnostic of that complex, and related complexes usually share a suite of common artifacts. The classic Paleoindian complexes

of the North American High Plains and

Southwest all share a common suite of tools

and manufacturing techniques (Irwin and

Wormington 1970; Frison 1978). These

Paleoindian complexes are typified by lanceolate shape projectile points which exhibit

heavy edge grinding along much of the basal

half of the point, excellent workmanship,

and stylistic consistency within the individual complexes. Single- and multi-spurred

gravers, end scrapers, and distinctive flaking detritus are also hallmarks of these complexes, as is the practice of resharpening

broken projectile points in the haft (Irwin

and Wormington 1970; Judge 1973; Frison

and Stanford 1974; Frison 1988).

Mesa Complex projectile points are lanceolate forms which exhibit all of the traits

previously described and are manufactured

using the techniques employed by the classic Paleoindian cultures (Figure 9). The suite

of tools and type of lithic detritus common

to these cultures are also present in the

Mesa lithic assemblage in the same ratios

as they are in the classic Paleoindian complexes. In addition, the occurrence of in-haft

resharpened projectile points is high in the

Mesa assemblage (Kunz and Reanier 1995).

The Paleoindian cultures of temperate

North America occupied that region between ca. 11,500 and 8500 years BP, and

their primary subsistence resources were

large Ice Age mammals. In arctic Alaska,

the Mesa people were present during the

same time period and subsisted on the same

types of animals. The weight of these identical technological and cultural elements

rule out independent invention/cultural evolution, and there can be no doubt that the

Mesa Complex is part of the Paleoindian

cultural tradition.

NATURAL SETTING AND SITE

DESCRIPTION

Natural Setting

The Mesa Site lies along the northern

flank of the Endicott Mountains in the central Brooks Range of arctic Alaska on the

east side of the Iteriak Creek valley (Figure 11). The site is surrounded by gently

rolling tundra-covered topography that extends northward 40 miles to the Colville

River. The floor of the Iteriak Valley is about

2000 feet above sea level. The site lies atop

a mesa-like ridge which rises about 180 feet

above the valley floor and provides a 360o

unobstructed view of approximately 40

square miles. The Mesa, an east-west trending ridge approximately 800 feet long by 300

feet wide, is an erosional remnant of medium-grained gabbro and basalt that was

intruded into thinly bedded chert and sili-
8

ceous shale as part of the mountain building event that formed the Brooks Range

about 125 million years ago (C. G. Mull, personal communication 1994) (Figure 10). Local bedrock includes conglomerates, limestones, shales, siltstones, sandstones, cherts

and mafic igneous forms (Chapman et

al.1964; Beikman and Lathram 1976). The

southwestern, western, and northwestern

faces of the Mesa are quite sheer, while the

other faces are steep, but accessible by walking. The Mesa is flanked by a near continuous talus, which in places almost reaches

the summit. The surface of the Mesa is covered by a soil that is the result of aeolian

deposition and in situ decomposition of bedrock. The soil ranges in depth from two to

14 inches and caps a layer of bedrock rubble

that may be up to six feet thick. Isolated

tor-like bedrock projections form topographic high points on the eastern and cenFigure 9. Comparison of classic Paleoindian projectile points and a Mesa projectile point. (After

Kunz and Reanier 1995)

tral portions of the Mesa.

Much of the Arctic Foothills region has

never been glaciated. The last glaciation to

occur in the Iteriak Valley was during the

early Pleistocene. At the last glacial maximum, ca. 22,000 years BP, glaciers in the

region appear to have terminated at the

northern front of the Brooks Range, about

seven miles south of the Mesa (Hamilton

1986; Mann et al. 2002) (Figure 11). As a

result, the Mesa and the Iteriak valley have

probably not been covered with glacial ice

for at least the last two million years. However, the effects of late Pleistocene glaciation are very apparent on the landscape surrounding the Mesa. The character of the

Iteriak valley has been significantly influenced by glacial outwash and other effects

of the nearby melting glaciers as well as the

dynamics of a peri-glacial environment. In

fact, these conditions probably had a lot to

Clovis 

(Wormington 1957) 

Mesa Drawing: Susan Will 

Goshen 

(Frison 1991) 

~ S CII 

Hell Gap 

(Frison 1974) 

Folsom 

(Wormington 1957) 

Scottsbluff 

(Wormington 1957) 

Agate Basin 

Drawing: Susan Will 

~ 

Eden 

(Wormington 1957) 
9

Figure 10. Topographic schematic of the Mesa. (After Durand et al. 1998)

do with the appeal of the Mesa to the late

Pleistocene human inhabitants of the area.

Although slightly warmer and wetter now

than during the late Pleistocene, the climate

along the north flank of the Brooks Range

remains cold and dry with a mean annual

temperature of -9.6oC (Zhang et al. 1997),

and an annual precipitation average of 12.5

inches (Kane et al. 1992). Half of the precipitation is snow, which persists on the

ground for eight months of the year (Mann

et al. 2002). February is the coldest month,

averaging -38.2oC, while July is the warmest, averaging 7.7oC. Rainfall increases during the cyclonic storms of July, August, and

September, and reaches a monthly peak in

August with an average of 1.9 inches

(Reanier 1982; Kane et al. 1992). Most of

these storms originate in the Bering Sea and

cross the Brooks Range in a northeasterly

direction (Moritz 1979). Local surface winds

are usually from the northeast or southwest.

Winds in excess of 45 miles per hour and of

multiple day duration occur occasionally,

and wind-free days are rare. Wind is a blessing in the summer as it keeps the mosquitoes at tolerable levels, but during winter it

can send wind-chill factors plunging to incredible extremes.

While the region is classified as semi-arid

by the Thornthwaite method, during the

summer months the tundra is quite moist

and the soils in many locales are saturated

(Patric and Black 1968; Newman and

Figure 11. The location of the Mesa in

relation to glacial limits of the last 2 million

years. (Illustration: Daniel Mann)

moraines 

~ u] late Wisconsin 

Tertiary StoQe 

ID] 

early 

tomldPlelstocene 
10

Figure 12. Mesa vegetation zones. (After Durand et al. 1998; Watson 1999)

Mag.

Branton 1972). Although actual evapotranspiration exceeds annual runoff and potential evapotranspiration exceeds total annual

precipitation, soils are often saturated and

the surface remains moist because water

tables are perched on frozen, ice-rich substrate (Hinzman et al. 1996; Rovansek et

al. 1996). Evapotranspiration is greatest in

early summer before active layers fully

thaw, and precipitation in late summer recharges soil moisture during a period when

evapotranspiration is low, therefore the situation is annually persistent (Hinzman et al.

1996; Zhang et al. 1997). This was not the

case in the late Pleistocene when precipitation was less and vegetative cover was of a

type that allowed more solar radiation

(available from more cloud-free days than

at present) to keep ice-rich permafrost at a

greater depth below surface (Mann et al.

2002).

There are two primary types of tundra

that cover most of arctic Alaska: moist acidic

tundra which is predominant southward

from the northern face of the Arctic Foothills, and non-acidic tundra ranging northward from the foothills across the Coastal

Plain (Mann et al. 2001). The Mesa lies

within the Arctic Foothills province. Moist

acidic tundra (Sphagno-Eriophoretum) is

dominated by dwarf shrubs (Betula nana,

Ledum palustre, Salix planifoila pluchra),

tussock sedges (Eriophorum vaginatum),

and acidophilous mosses, among which Sphagnum species are prominent (Mann et al.

2002).

Three plant communities are common on

and in the immediate vicinity of the Mesa:

cottongrass tussock meadows around the

base of the Mesa, flood plain communities

adjacent to Mesa and Iteriak creeks, and a

dry upland community atop the site

(Spetzman 1959). These three plant communities were further divided into six zones to

facilitate a vegetation collection and recordation survey, (Watson 1999) (Figure 12).

---Aprox. Survey 13oundary 

- Zone Boundary 

~Ri\'Cr or Creek 

Zones I. Mesa To p N t 2. Mesa Slope 

3. Bench 

4. Cn."'Ck Dank and Drainage 

5. Rip.,rian Arca and 

Flood Plain 

6. Disturbed Camp Area 
11

More specifically, a total of 133 vascular

plant taxa representing 71 genera and 30

families; 35 bryophyte taxa (31 mosses and

4 hepatics) representing 24 genera and 17

families; and 36 lichen taxa, representing

22 genera and 13 families were recorded

during our investigations at the Mesa

(Watson 1999).

Although dominated by cottongrass

(Eriophorum spp.), the tussock meadows

also contain other graminoids, dwarf shrubs,

and herbs. Some edible berries are found in

this community such as blueberry

(Vaccinium uliginosum) and cloudberry

(Rubus chamaemorus). The flood plain community is dominated by willow (Salix spp.),

some reaching more than seven feet in

height and four inches in diameter. This

plant community is the primary source for

firewood and wood suitable for dwelling and

other construction purposes. In early summer, willow leaves can be eaten. Atop the

Mesa the vegetation is dry upland tundra

composed of lichen, moss, grasses, herbs, and

dwarf woody plants and shrubs — cranberry

(Vaccinium vitis-idaea) and Eskimo potato

(Hedysarum alpinum) are most often found

in this community (Kunz 1982).

In late Pleistocene times, all of these species were present and their abundance was

probably similar to that of today, with the

exception of cloudberry which was much less

abundant (Mann et al. 2002). The limited

number and variety of plant species of food

value to humans is reflected in the limited

use of plants by historic native populations

in the region. Hall (1961) states that

ethnohistoric and historic data indicate

native Brooks Range people’s diet consisted

of no more than 3% plant material. All of

the useful regional plant species that are

known to have been utilized by the indigenous human populations of arctic Alaska

are found locally around or on the Mesa

(Watson 1999).

Game animals in the area today include

grizzly bear, caribou, Dall sheep, and moose.

Common furbearers are wolf, fox, wolverine, mink, weasel, marmot, and ground

squirrel. Water fowl and ptarmigan are

present but not numerous. Raptors include

peregrine and gyrfalcons, rough-legged

hawk, golden eagle, and short-eared owl.

During the Pleistocene, mammoth, horse,

caribou and bison were known to inhabit

the area and muskox may have been present

until the recent past (Matheus 1998). Pleistocene predators include those present in

the region today as well as a large cat quite

similar to the African lion (Matheus 2000).

While fish resources are abundant in the

region, as they probably were during the

late Pleistocene, they are not sufficient of

themselves to support a human population

as are the salmon runs of the more southerly regions of Alaska. Arctic grayling can

be found in all the streams. Arctic char, lake

trout, grayling, and burbot can be found in

most lakes with a depth greater than eight

feet.

Site Description

Surface and natural

stratigraphy

The total surface area of the Mesa is approximately 70,000 square feet, of which

nearly one half is suitable for human utilization (Durand et al. 1998). The crest of the

long axis of the Mesa is level, or slopes gently to the south and north, and ranges from

40 to 20 feet wide. On its southern aspect

the surface of the Mesa is thinly vegetated

primarily by dryas and other low woody and

herbaceous plants, but also by grass, lichen,

and moss. Some mineral soil exposures are

also present, probably as a result of the prevailing summer winds, which are out of the

south or southwest. Lithic artifacts and detritus are visible on, and protruding from,

the surface of these exposures. Weathered

bedrock spalls up to two inches in diameter

are present on, and in the surface of, both

the vegetated and unvegetated areas. Along

its northern aspect, the Mesa is more robustly vegetated with few mineral soil exposures, and few occurrences of surface cultural material.

The soil column consists of the same basic units site-wide, although some variation

is present due to differing soil depths

(Reanier 1982). The organic soil horizons

range from thin and discontinuous (< inch)

to a black horizon that may be slightly more
12

than one inch thick. The A1 horizon is well

developed in sandy loam, dark brown in

color, and may be up to six inches thick. In

some parts of the site there is no clearly

developed B horizon, while in others there

is a dark brown B2ir horizon. C horizons

are gravelly and dark yellow in color

(Reanier 1982). Underlying this is a layer

of bedrock rubble exceeding several feet in

thickness and composed of spalls ranging

from two to six inches or greater in diameter (Figure 13).

Soil profiles exposed during excavation

suggest that over most of the site the soil

mantling the bedrock rubble is relatively

stable. Wide lateral continuity of individual

soil horizons and relatively well developed

profiles suggest that disturbance resulting

from seasonal freezing and thawing has

been minimal, probably because of the excellent drainage provided by the coarse,

shattered gabbro substrate. While the generally coarse nature of the soil and lack of

moisture appear to have kept frost churning to a minimum over most of the site, excavation has revealed some remnants of

ancient frost boils which appear to have

developed at some time in the distant past.

Given the site’s unique morphology and

exposure to the elements, the amount of soil

that caps the Mesa is relatively thick when

compared with that of other similar geomorphic features in the region. After experiencing many windy days excavating at the site

and observing the dynamics of the wind, we

suspect that the soil on top of the Mesa is

primarily the result of aeolian deposition of

materials derived from the talus slopes that

ring the site. It appears that aeolian deposition is responsible for the relatively rapid

burial of the cultural remains atop the

Mesa. This accounts for the excellent preservation of hearth charcoal and the fact that

most of the cultural material is buried.

Forty hearths have been exposed by archaeological excavation at the Mesa. In all

cases there is undisturbed profile development above the hearths, and the bottoms of

the hearths lie on or are slightly within the

bedrock rubble. This suggests that the surface upon which the soil developed is older

than the site’s oldest radiocarbon date of

11,660 years BP. This provides a minimum

date for the beginning of soil development/

deposition and a basis for a chronologic

framework for soil profile development. In

profile, the hearth/charcoal deposits suggest

they are the remnants of campfires that

burned in shallow excavations. Since in

most cases hearth excavation extends into

the rubble, this suggests that as recently as

11,660 years BP soil thickness at the site

was minimal, certainly no more than an inch

or so. Although in a few cases the hearth

remnants have been distorted by frostchurning or other types of cryoturbation,

especially hearths in the more silty sediments, the generally undisturbed nature of

the majority of the charcoal deposits testifies to the stability of near-surface stratigraphy over the last 11,660 years. Even in

the cases where some frost-churning is evident, there is undisturbed soil profile development above the hearths, suggesting

the cryoturbation occurred at some time in

the distant past. Additionally, the fact that

artifacts and debitage are concentrated

around the hearths indicates there has been

only minimal lateral disturbance due to

cryoturbation and other natural forces.

Localities and cultural

stratigraphy

Across the site cultural materials are concentrated in areas that are level or have a

gentle slope. Artifacts are generally arranged in distinct clusters, commonly associated with a hearth or hearths. We have

subdivided the site into four localities which

are defined by topographic features as distinct areas that contain abundant cultural

debris (Figure 14). From southwest to northeast, these are Localities “A,” “Saddle,” “B,”

and “East Ridge.” Excavation has shown

that the distribution of surface artifacts,

particularly in Locality A, indicates that

these localities reflect true concentrations

of cultural detritus, and are not simply a

function of excavation exposure. Although

this circumstance cannot be demonstrated

in Locality Saddle, where artifacts are generally not visible on the surface and cultural

deposits are deeper, excavation has revealed
13

Figure 13. After Reanier 1982.

Mesa Site Soil Profile Descriptions

Depth Color

Site Description Horizon cm (Moist) Texture Structure Consistence Roots Boundary

PROFILE 1

CLASSIFICATION: Pergelic Cryorthent

fragmental, mixed, frigid 01 Discontinuous sparse litter of Dryas leaves and grass

ALTITUDE: 700m 02 Discontinuous thin layer of decomposed organic material

PARENT MATERIAL: Colluvium

derived from gabbro A1 0-10 7.5YE 2.5/2 gsl 2fsbk*mcr fr,ss,sp 2vf&f as

VEGETATION: Sparse Dryas

octopetala, grasses, C1 10-35 10YR 3/4 vgl lfcr fr,ss,sp 2vf&f cs

 saxifrage, Cladonia sp. and other lichens C2 35-50+ 10YR 3/4 g –– 1vf&f

SLOPE AND ASPECT: 3° South

TEMPERATURE: Air (+1 meter) 10°C,

 surface 13°C, 25cm 9°C, 50 cm 7°C

July 9, 1980, 1300.

PROFILE 2

CLASSIFICATION: Pergelic

Cryochrept, fragmental, mixed, frigid. 01 0.5-0 Discontinuous layer of Dryas leaves and grass

ALTITUDE: 700m 02 1-0 Discontinuous layer of decomposed organic material

PARENT MATERIAL: Colluvium

derived from gabbro A1 0-7 7.5YR 3/2 sl 2fsbk*fcr fr,ss,sp 2vf&f aw

VEGETATION: Dryas octopetala, B2ir 7-14 7.5YR 4/4 l 1vfcr fr,ss,sp 2vf&f aw

Vaccinium uliginosum, grasses, Cassiope IIC1 14-35+ 10YR 4/3 g –– 1vf

tetragona, sparse lichens. IIIC2 12-35+ 10YR 4/3 gsl 2fsbk fi,ss.sp 1vf

SLOPE AND ASPECT: 4° S20°W (frost heave intrusion)

TEMPERATURES: Air (+ 1meter)

14°C, Surface 14°C, 10 cm 11°C

25 cm 11°C, 35 cm 8°C

July 10, 1980, 1200

NOTE: The bottom surfaces of all stones in these profiles are coated with a reddish black (10YR 2/1, moist) stain. Some of the larger stones also have slight carbonate deposits.

Abbreviations:

Texture: v-very; s-sandy; g-gravel; gravelly; l-loam.

Structure: 1-weak; 2-moderate; vf-very fine; f-fine; m-medium; sbk-subangular blocky; cr-crumb:* -breaking to. Consistence: fr-moist, friable; fi-moist, firm; ss-wet, slighty sticky; sp-wet, slightly plastic. Roots: 1-few; 2-common; vf-very fine; f-fine.

Boundary: a-abrupt; c-clear; s-smooth; w-wavy.
14

Figure 14. Mesa excavation localities and soil profile locations.

Magnetic North

artifact distribution patterns identical to

those in the other localities of the site.

Locality A lies on the most elevated portion of the site and encompasses all of the

reasonably level ground on the south side

of the Mesa’s median crest. Southward from

the level crest area the surface slopes downward with rapidly increasing steepness. In

its western quadrant, the surface of Locality A slopes to the west as well as the south.

At more than 14,000 square feet this is the

largest locality at the site. Thin vegetation

covers a shallow soil that rarely exceeds four

inches in depth. Most of the surface artifacts found at the site were collected from

this locality. However, most of the cultural

material in Locality A was buried and numerous artifacts and thousands of waste

flakes, as well as a number of hearths, have

been revealed through the excavation of

100.5 grid squares in four distinct activity/

use areas. The total excavated area in Locality A is 1608 square feet.

Locality Saddle lies between localities A

and B, and encompasses an area of approximately 8000 square feet. Much of this locality lies in a shallow basin containing soil

up to 14 inches thick. The most deeply buried cultural material at the site occurs in

this locality. Numerous artifacts and flakes

were recovered from the bedrock rubble up

to two feet below surface. Locality Saddle

supports the site’s most robust vegetation

mat. The only area of erosion in this locality occurs in the southeastern portion where

there is some headward encroachment of an

area of aeolian scouring at the break in

slope. Artifacts and waste flakes have been

observed eroding out of the soil/vegetation

mat at the erosional contact. A total of 23.5

grid squares have been excavated in this locality, yielding numerous artifacts, thousands of flakes, and a number of hearths.

The excavated area amounts to 376 square

feet.

Locality B lies in the northeastern porLegend 

Contour lnverval = IO ft 

S squares = 20 ft .A. = Datum 

Locality A Locality Saddle Locality B Locality East Ridge 
15

tion of the site about 20 feet lower and about

100 feet northeast of Locality A. The total

area encompassed by this locality approaches 10,000 square feet. The initial site

excavation conducted in 1979 occurred on a

slight rise in the central portion of this locality. The vegetation cover is generally robust, which is probably the reason for the

low occurrence of surface artifacts. Soil

depth varies, ranging from two to ten inches.

In most cases soil depth appears to reflect

subsurface bedrock topography. A total of

56.5 grid squares, totaling 904 square feet

have been excavated in two distinct activity/use areas, producing numerous artifacts

and thousands of flakes, as well as a large

number of hearths. The oldest date for the

site, 11,660 years BP, comes from a hearth

in this locality.

As its name suggests, the East Ridge Locality is the easternmost excavation area.

Situated in a small saddle between two bedrock outcrops, this locality encompasses an

area of roughly 600 square feet. The locality is moderately vegetated, and displayed

a light scattering of cultural material on the

surface. Soil depth ranges from three to nine

inches, and is deepest along the central eastern boundary. A single block of 21 grid

squares, or 336 square feet, produced numerous artifacts, thousands of waste flakes,

and several hearths. Unlike other Mesa

hearths, one of the East Ridge hearths had

two flat stone slabs associated with it, as

well as several scrapers. Additionally, the

charcoal/soil matrix of this hearth contained

burned bone as well as a variety of flakes

and artifacts.

Thirteen seasons of field work at the Mesa

have demonstrated that the lithic artifacts

and debitage are culturally homogeneous

from the surface to the bedrock rubble, and

that the site can be viewed as possessing a

single cultural component, excepting a

highly localized intrusive element in Locality A, which will be discussed later. Accordingly, the site has been excavated, and flakes

and artifacts collected by recognizable natural units: “surface,” which is the vegetated

or unvegetated surface of the ground; “root

mat,” which includes the subsurface vegetation and organic soil; “subsurface,” which

includes all mineral soil horizons; and

“rubble,” which refers to the zone of shattered bedrock that underlies the soil. Excavation has demonstrated on average, that

less than five percent of a given square's

cultural material will be recovered from the

surface, 10 to 15 per cent will be recovered

from the root mat, 70 to 90 per cent will be

recovered from the subsurface, and less than

five per cent recovered from the rubble. The

sole exception occurs in Locality Saddle,

where a substantial amount of cultural

material was recovered well into the rubble

level. Along with most of the flakes and artifacts, the hearths are found in the subsurface level, usually resting on or in the upper portion of the rubble level. These data

suggest there is probably only one zone of

occupation, the subsurface level, and that

the cultural material recovered from the

levels above and below, is present there as

the result of depositional and post-depositional dynamics, such as trampling, and

seasonal freezing and thawing.

Cultural features

The only cultural features encountered at

the Mesa are hearths (N=40), the remains

of ancient campfires (Figure 15). Compared

with other sites of great antiquity and somewhat similar settings in the region, the degree of hearth preservation at the Mesa is

unusual. As previously mentioned, the

amount of soil, and the well developed soil

profiles overlying the hearths, suggest that

the number of hearths and their excellent

preservation result from relatively rapid

burial following the use events.

In cross section most of the hearths are

roughly lenticular and rarely exceed five

inches in thickness (Figure 16). They are

unlined, and many of the hearths appear to

lie in shallow depressions excavated into the

shattered bedrock rubble. In generalized

plan-view, the hearths are characterized by

an irregular shaped core of very dark charcoal-rich soil, which generally does not exceed eight inches in diameter or linear extent. The charcoal-rich core, which contains

chunks and flecks of charcoal along with

artifacts and waste flakes, is irregularly
16

surrounded by an oxidized reddish soil

which contains charcoal flecks and cultural

material. The oxidized soil extends outward

from the core margin three to six inches.

Because of their small size and ephemeral nature, each hearth probably represents a single episode of use. There is no

evidence to suggest that multiple hearths

(use events) have been superimposed over

each other. With the exception of a few of

the hearths in Locality B, and the

westernmost excavation block in Locality

Saddle (areas of deeper sediment), the

hearths show few signs of disturbance. Some

pieces of charcoal recovered from the

hearths approach one-half inch in diameter,

large enough that a portion of their cross

section is recognizable, permitting diameter

size estimates to be made based on annualring curvature. These data suggest the

woody taxa burned as fuel by the site’s occupants were the same size as most of that

growing in the vicinity of the Mesa today.

Preliminary analysis of the hearth charcoal

suggests that the species used as fuel more

than 10,000 years ago are the same as are

available in the region today: willow, poplar, and alder (Reanier 1997).

All of the hearths excavated at the site

are basically the same in terms of context

Figure 15. Location of hearths on the Mesa.

Legend 

l =Hearths 

= Datum 

20 feet 

-

Locality A 

Locality 

Saddle 

East 

Locality ~ Ridge :·· 

D 

0 
17

Figure 16. Appearance of typical hearth. (Photo: C. E. Adkins)

and associated materials except for one of

the four hearths in the East Ridge Locality.

While its matrix contained cultural material similar to that contained in the fill of

other hearths, it also contained numerous

small pieces of burned bone, most less than

one inch in diameter, and several large

scrapers. In addition, there were two large,

flat slabs of limestone immediately adjacent

to the hearth. All this suggests that food

preparation may have taken place there.

Occasionally the fill of other hearths have

produced a few very small pieces of burned

bone within the matrix, but not enough to

suggest that food preparation had been a

primary activity. Charcoal from this hearth

dated at ca. 10,000 years BP, the same as

most of the other hearths at the site.

EXCAVATION AND COLLECTION

METHODOLOGY

In 1978 and 1979 our BLM crew was involved in the excavation of the Lisburne site,

about five miles down Iteriak Creek from

the Mesa. At the same time, we were also

responsible for examining all of the areas

in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska

(NPR-A) that were slated for possible impact from oil and gas exploration activities.

As a result, we had a very limited amount

of time to work at the Mesa. Late in the

summer of 1978, as a first step in developing a plan for excavating the Mesa, we established a permanent site datum, made a

topographic map of the site surface using a

plane table and alidade, and plotted the location of all the surface artifacts and significant flakes scatters. Most of the surface

cultural material occurred on the south

slope, where the vegetation cover was thin

and some mineral soil exposures were

present. To determine if there was buried

cultural material at the site, we undertook

test excavations over a two-day period late

in the 1979 season. In an area of the site

that displayed little surface cultural material, was heavily vegetated, and had reasonable soil depth (later designated Locality B),

excavation revealed the presence of subsurface artifacts, detritus, and hearth features,

which appeared to be in an undisturbed context. Test excavation in the areas where

there were surface flake scatters demonstrated that even in these shallower soils,

1 

inches 

2 3 4 5 
18

undisturbed, buried cultural deposits were

present. The three original localities, A,

Saddle, and B, were tested, and we chose

areas for excavation based upon the results

of this testing program.

These initial excavations indicated that

the site was considerably larger in area than

we had presumed, and that the in situ cultural deposits had the potential to add a tremendous amount of significant data to the

arctic Alaska archaeological record. Therefore, in 1980 we spent about ten days at the

site engaged in an extensive testing program. This work demonstrated that large

areas of the site contained extensive deposits of buried cultural material, and at the

same time provided initial insights into the

natural and cultural stratigraphy. The testing effort also suggested that there was only

one cultural component at the site.

We established a site grid system based

on magnetic compass bearings. The grid

utilized the English measurement system,

and the standard excavation units were four

feet square. Initially, excavation was done

in arbitrary two inch levels. However, as it

became evident that the site was comprised

of a single cultural component, we began to

excavate according to the naturally occurring stratigraphic units in the geologic profile. Not being constrained to arbitrary levels allowed excavation to more closely reflect the effects of the soil formation process and dynamics on the cultural deposits.

The vertical provenience of all artifacts was

determined by their depth below the surface of the excavation unit, while horizontal provenience was measured by the distance from datum. All excavation units

(squares) were subdivided into four quadrants designated northwest, northeast,

southwest, and southeast.

The squares were hand troweled by level,

with each quadrant in a level being excavated and the recovered cultural material

bagged individually. Each level was mapped

separately. All squares contained a surface,

root mat, and subsurface level, but not all

contained a rubble level. The back-dirt from

each individual quadrant was screened

separately through a one-quarter inch mesh

screen and cultural material was bagged

apart from the in situ material. Beginning

in 1994, we also screened the material that

passed through the one-quarter inch screen

through a one-eighth inch mesh. Material

from the one- quarter inch mesh was bagged

separately from that recovered from the oneeighth inch screen. Formal and incidental

tools, as well as retouched flakes, were

bagged individually, while waste flakes were

bagged as “flake lots.” Thus, each quadrant

(with the possible exception of quadrants

in the surface level) could have artifact and

flake lot envelopes that reflected in situ, as

well as one-quarter inch, and one-eighth

inch screen recovery3.

The excavation of each square was recorded in the field using “Rite in the Rain”

No. 351 Field Notebooks. The surface condition, including topography, amount and

type of vegetation, disturbance, slope, and

aspect of each square was recorded prior to

excavation. A map of each excavation level

was accompanied by a physical description

of the level and its contents, as well as the

observations of the excavator(s). Artifacts

were mapped in with exact provenience

while flake locations were recorded using

the approximating ‘eyeball’ method. Artifact

and flake-lot envelopes were labeled with

the site designation, locality designation,

square provenience, level, quadrant, recovery method, specific provenience (if the material recovered was a tool, other type of formal artifact, or hearth fill), the date, and

the excavator’s name. Upon completing the

excavation of a square, all material collected

from that square was placed in a similarly

labeled container(s) with the additional notation that therein was all the material recovered from that particular square.

With the exception of large chunks of

charcoal encountered while excavating,

most hearth fill was collected as a bulk

sample after the hearth feature was mapped

and troweled. Charcoal, as well as other cultural material, was extracted from the

hearth fill in the laboratory. Hearth fill was

3 We considered anything that was loose on the surface to

be part of the surface level. On well vegetated squares there

was usually a considerable amount of loose organic debris.

This material would often be collected by dragging a trowel

across the surface and subsequently screened.
19

4 All Mesa radiocarbon dates, standard and AMS, are

reported in radiocarbon years before 1950.

passed successively through one-quarter,

one-eighth, and one-sixteenth inch mesh

sieves and the charcoal as well as other cultural material was removed by hand picking under magnification. Artifacts, flakes,

and other collected material were cataloged

in the laboratory after our return from the

field. In most cases, tools and flakes were

not cleaned so that possible cultural residues would not be compromised.

CHRONOLOGY

Fifty-one radiocarbon dates have been

produced by 28 of the 40 hearths excavated

at the Mesa (Figure 17). Forty-four of the

dates are AMS and seven are standard radiometric assays. Dense concentrations of

flakes in and around the hearths, as well as

burned diagnostic artifacts within the

hearth matrix, demonstrate the strong association between dated hearths and related

artifact clusters.

The first Mesa radiocarbon date of 7,620

+ 95 years BP (DIC-1589)4, has been discarded. This decision was based on an AMS

date of 10,060 years BP obtained from an

archived portion of the original sample, as

well as dates from other hearths at the site,

all of which exceeded the original date by

at least 2000 years. The other standard radiometric dates from the site have also been

removed from the general chronology as

they were obtained for a study which compares the variation in results of standard

and AMS radiocarbon dates. This study has

important ramifications in terms of dating

any site of late Pleistocene age. It also points

out the inadvisability of mixing the results

of AMS and standard radiocarbon dates

from this time period. Therefore, standard

radiometric dates are not being used in the

development of the Mesa’s chronology (Kunz

1998).

All but three of the 44 AMS dates cluster

between 10,300 and 9700 years BP. One of

the three outlier dates, 9330 + 40 years BP

(Beta-125996) is believed to have been contaminated when it was collected, and is rejected because a second assay of charcoal

from that hearth returned a date of 9780 +

40 years BP (Beta-130577). The other two

outlier dates, 11,660 + 80 years BP (Beta55286) and 11,190 + 70 years BP (Beta57430), can not be rejected and will be discussed later.

The range of dates from the Mesa fall into

a problematic period for calibration. There

is evidence that the rapid climatic shifts of

the Younger Dryas period, ca 11,000 to

10,000 years BP, caused fluctuations in the

level of atmospheric C-14 (Bjorck et al. 1996;

Hajdas et al. 1998; Kitagawa and van der

Plicht 1998; Goslar et al. 2000). As a result,

a single radiocarbon date from this period

could in fact cover a span of more than 500

years. This has been demonstrated by the

work of Kitagawa and van der Plicht (1998)

at Lake Sigetsu, Japan. The lake’s annual

varves (sediment layers) were radiocarbon

dated, producing a curve where multiple C14 dates can refer to the same point in time

(Figure 18). A corroborative example of this

circumstance comes from the Mesa, where

13 radiocarbon samples from a single hearth

were assayed and returned dates that

ranged from 10,260 + 110 years BP (Beta96070) to 9850 + 150 years BP (Beta-96067),

a range of more than 400 years (Mann et al.

2001). These dates span nearly the full

range of the rest of the dates for Mesa (excepting the outliers), and since the samples

come from one hearth, in all probability, they

reflect a single brief use episode. These circumstances make it not only impossible to

temporally separate phases of occupation,

but also make it impossible to tightly constrain the period of overall occupation.

The remaining two outlier dates, 11,190

+ 70 years BP and 11,660 + 80 years BP,

clearly lie outside of the range of the other

dates. Both of these AMS dates were derived

from multiple distinct pieces of charcoal collected from the same hearth matrix, which

in appearance was no different than any of

the other hearths encountered at Mesa. Numerous flakes and artifacts were associated

with this hearth, and a classic Mesa projectile point was recovered from the hearth fill.

The field notes indicate that the hearth was

excavated and materials collected in the

standard manner, and that no anomalies or
20

Figure 17. (continued next page).

MESA RADIOCARBON DATES

Date Laboratory Location in Type of Conventional

Reported Sample Number Excavation Grid Site Locality Date Radiocarbon Age

1980 DIC-1589 N179-183/E146-150 B Standard 7620 +/- 95 BP

N175-179/E138-142

N175-179/E142-146

7/13/90 Beta-36805 N117-121/E96-100 Saddle AMS 9730 +/- 80 BP

1/22/92 Beta-50429 N103-107/E94-98 Saddle Standard 10980 +/- 280 BP

5/22/92 Beta-50430 N103-107/E94-98 Saddle AMS 9945 +/- 75 BP

5/22/92 Beta-50428 S1-5/E16-20 A AMS 10090 +/- 85 BP

7/1/92 Beta-52606 N179-183/E146-150 B AMS 10060 +/- 70 BP

9/21/92 Beta-55286 N217-219/E180-182 B AMS 11660 +/- 80 BP

9/21/92 Beta-55285 N217-219/E176-178 B AMS 10000 +/- 80 BP

9/21/92 Beta-55284 N213-215/E180-182 B AMS 9930 +/- 80 BP

9/21/92 Beta-55283 N209-211/E184-186 B AMS 10240 +/- 80 BP

9/21/92 Beta-55282 N109-111/E88-90 Saddle AMS 9990 +/- 80 BP

11/25/92 Beta-57430 N217-218/E180-181 B AMS 11190 +/- 70 BP

11/25/92 Beta-57429 N209-211/E176-178 B AMS 9900 +/- 70 BP

2/11/94 Beta-69900 N211-215/E182-186 B AMS 10050 +/- 90 BP

2/11/94 Beta-69899 N211-215/E174-178 B AMS 9900 +/- 80 BP

2/11/94 Beta-69898 N111-115/E98-102 Saddle AMS 10070 +/- 60 BP

9/11/95 Beta-84650 S23-24/W21-22 A AMS 10080 +/- 50 BP

9/11/95 Beta-84649 N230-231/E178-179 B AMS 9980 +/- 60 BP

8/7/96 Beta-95600 N1-N3/E34-36 A AMS 10230 +/- 60 BP

10/9/96 Beta-96070 N1-N3/E34-36 A AMS 10260 +/- 110 BP

10/9/96 Beta-96069 S1-N1/E34-36 A AMS 10150 +/- 130 BP

10/9/96 Beta-96068 S1-N1/E34-36 A AMS 10080 +/- 120 BP

10/9/96 Beta-96067 S1-N1/E34-36 A AMS 9850 +/- 150 BP

10/9/96 Beta-96066 S1-N1/E34-36 A AMS 10090 +/- 110 BP

10/9/96 Beta-96065 S1-N1/E34-36 A AMS 9810 +/- 110 BP

10/14/96 Beta-95914 S31-33/W86-88 A AMS 10130 +/- 60 BP

10/14/96 Beta-95913 S27-29/W56-58 A AMS 10080 +/- 60 BP

7/27/98 Beta-118585 S1-N1/E34-36 A AMS 10130 +/- 50 BP
21

7/27/98 Beta-118584 S1-N1/E34-36 A AMS 10040 +/- 50 BP

7/27/98 Beta-118583 N1-3/E34-36 A AMS 10050 +/- 50 BP

7/27/98 Beta-118582 N1-3/E34-36 A AMS 10100 +/- 50 BP

7/27/98 Beta-118581 N1-N3/E34-36 A AMS 10170 +/- 50 BP

7/16/98 Beta-119100 N1-3/E34-36 A AMS 10000 +/- 50 BP

8/31/98 Beta-120400 N253-255/E268-270 East Ridge AMS 9740 +/- 50 BP

8/31/98 Beta-120399 N125-129/E84-86 Saddle AMS 9860 +/- 50 BP

8/31/98 Beta-120398 N123-125/E82-84 Saddle AMS 9920 +/- 50 BP

9/11/98 Beta-120793 N117-119/E100-102 Saddle AMS 9800 +/- 60 BP

9/16/98 Beta-120397 N251-255/E268-270 East Ridge Standard 8820 +/- 230 BP

2/1/99 Beta-125998 N255-257/E268-271 East Ridge AMS 10030 +/- 40 BP

2/1/99 Beta-125997 N255-257/E266-268 East Ridge AMS 10080 +/- 40 BP

2/1/99 Beta-125996 N253-255/E266-268 East Ridge AMS 9330 +/- 40 BP

2/1/99 Beta-125995 S1-N1/E34-36 A Standard 9160 +/- 140 BP

6/17/99 Beta-130577 N251-253/E266-268 East Ridge AMS 9780 +/- 40 BP

9/18/99 Beta-133354 N121-123/E90-92 Saddle AMS 9950 +/- 60 BP

9/18/99 Beta-133353 N111-113/E86-88 Saddle AMS 10180 +/- 60 BP

2/29/00 GX-26461 N255-257/E266-268 East Ridge Standard 12240 +/- 610 BP

4/19/00 Beta-140199 S31-33/W86-88 A Standard 9500 +/- 190 BP

4/27/00 GX-26567-AMS N255-257/E266-268 East Ridge AMS 9930 +/- 40 BP

4/27/00 Beta-140198 N121-123/E90-92 Saddle Standard 9480 +/- 710 BP

5/18/00 Beta-142262 S29-33/W84-88 A AMS 10120 +/- 50 BP

5/18/00 Beta-142261 N121-123/E90-92 Saddle AMS 10080 +/- 50 BP

All dates are radiocarbon years before 1950

Dates printed in black are AMS

Dates printed in red are Standard Radiometric Dates

MESA RADIOCARBON DATES

Date Laboratory Location in Type of Conventional

Reported Sample Number Excavation Grid Site Locality Date Radiocarbon Age

Figure 17 (continued).
22

Figure 18. Variability in radiocarbon ages during the Younger Dryas. (Illustration: Daniel

Mann)

problems were encountered. No procedural

problems were reported from the radiocarbon laboratory.

Several possibilities could account for

these older dates. The most straightforward

interpretation accepts the dates as accurate.

As such, they would provide evidence of occupation of the Mesa at least a thousand

years earlier than the other site dates indicate. This interpretation has important

ramifications for the position of the Mesa

Complex in the late Pleistocene prehistory

of North America. It suggests that the Mesa

Complex could be as old or older than Clovis,

and that the oldest date for the assemblage

precedes unfluted Paleoindian materials

from the High Plains by at least a thousand

years.

It is also possible these older dates might

be the result of contamination by ancient

carbon. While coal is found across the North

Slope, there is no source of contamination

on or near the site itself, and the other dates

from the site are unaffected.

Another possibility, although unlikely for

the reasons pointed out by Kunz and

Reanier (1995), is that the dates could be

the result of burning old wood. In the terminal Pleistocene as today, there were three

types of wood in the region that were substantial enough to produce an enduring fire:

willow, poplar, and alder. None of these lasts

in useable form for very long on the surface

after it is dead, certainly no longer than 100

years. Yet in the Arctic, it is possible for wood

to be incorporated into a frozen matrix, preserved for many thousands of years, and

then exposed on the surface once again.

However, the circumstances of burial and

subsequent thawing almost always render

the wood unusable and unattractive for use

as fuel. Additionally, the circumstances in

which ancient wood might be buried, and

subsequently exposed and thawed on the

surface, do not occur within close proximity

to the Mesa.

While the two 11,000 year old dates are

separated by more than 400 years, the separation can be explained by the Younger

Dryas effect. The radiocarbon curve of

10,370 
23

Kitagawa and van der Plicht (1998) shows

that radiocarbon dates of 11,600 years BP

and 11,200 years BP could represent a

single date at any point within that time

span, and could well be the same date. As

mentioned previously, this same phenomenon has been noted elsewhere on the site,

where multiple dates from the same hearth

are divergent by several hundred years.

There is also the possibility that the temporal divergence between these two dates

results from the hearth being affected by

natural agents. A portion of the hearth was

strung out along the linear alignment of a

frost crack. In the northeast quadrant of the

square just to the west is another hearth,

dating to 10,000 +/-80 (Beta-55285) years

BP. The field notes indicate that portions of

the two hearths are in close proximity. The

divergence of the two 11,000 BP dates could

reflect the mixing of 10,000 BP charcoal and

the older charcoal as a result of cryoturbation and/or excavation and collection .

Another, possibility for contamination is

by charcoal from a natural fire. This seems

unlikely given the reasons cited by Kunz

and Reanier (1995); namely, there is no surface vegetation on the Mesa capable of sustaining a long-lasting fire, nor is the vegetation growing there of the size (diameter)

indicated by the charcoal recovered from the

hearths. The firewood burned on the Mesa

was probably collected from the riparian

zone along nearby Iteriak Creek, where willow diameters can exceed three inches.

In support of the validity of these older

dates, is the recent work done by Jeff Rasic

at Tuluaq Hill in the Noatak drainage (Rasic

2000). At Tuluaq Hill, bifaces very similar

to some found at the Mesa were recovered

in chronologic contexts of 11,200 years BP.

In any case, these 11,000 BP dates have

not been repeated elsewhere on the Mesa,

and the fact that 41 of the remaining 43

dates cluster between 9,730 + 80 and 10,260

+110 years BP, suggests that an age centered around 10,000 years BP accurately

dates the primary period of Mesa occupation. If the assemblage reflects multiple occupations, based on the cluster of 41 dates,

the primary use of the site lasted for a period of roughly 400-800 years.

HISTORY OF FIELD WORK

AND EXCAVATION

Excavation of the Mesa was conducted

over a period of 22 years. Because of the

length of this research and the events that

occurred during that time period, the following time line is presented so that the

reader can develop a perspective relative to

the flow and progress of the research.

The Mesa site was discovered in 1978 by

Michael Kunz and Dale Slaughter, while

conducting archaeological survey as part of

an environmental compliance program undertaken by the Bureau of Land Management in the NPR-A (Kunz 1982). The discovery was made during a reconnaissance

of a hardrock material source that was proposed for use in the construction of a nearby

well-site and airstrip. The Mesa was one of

the few igneous (hardrock) outcrops in the

area. Examination of the Mesa’s surface,

revealed lithic debitage, a few complete and

fragmentary projectile points, and other

stone tools in surface scatters primarily in

the south central portion of the site. Although the projectile points appeared to

possess classic Paleoindian traits, the total

absence of High Plains Paleoindian assemblages in the Arctic caused the site to initially be evaluated as a multi-component

surface manifestation that included a few

artifacts that were fortuitously Paleoindianlike. Subsequent investigations that summer revealed the site was much larger than

originally estimated, and that there was a

possibility that it contained buried cultural

material. Although we didn’t excavate that

year, we did make a plane table topographic

map of the site, plotted the location of the

surface artifacts, and collected the artifacts

(Kunz 1982).

In 1979 we conducted a limited two-day

test excavation at the site. We designated

three localities based on topography and the

presence of surface debitage, and established a site grid utilizing four-foot square

excavation units. To determine the presence

of subsurface cultural material, we conducted the primary testing effort in Locality B. This area was robustly vegetated, appeared to have reasonable soil depth, and

displayed little surface indication of cultural
24

5 Charcoal collected from another hearth in 1989 returned

a date of 9730 + 80 BP (Beta-36805). This made us

suspect that there might be a problem with the 7620 + 95

BP (DIC-1589) date. In 1992 we had an archived portion

of the original 1979 sample dated by the AMS method and

it returned a date of 10,060 BP (Beta-52606). Based on

these and subsequent dates we believe the original date of

7620 + 95 BP to be incorrect due to laboratory error.

material. A total of 12.5 grid squares were

excavated; 10.5 in Locality B, one in Locality Saddle, and one in Locality A. Due to

time constraints, these excavations were initially conducted using the skim-shovel/

screening method. In Locality B we quickly

encountered significant flake and artifact

concentrations and abandoned the skimshovel technique in favor of the slower, but

more precise hand-troweling method. The

excavations in localities Saddle and A also

produced subsurface cultural material. This

work suggested that most of the cultural

material at the site was buried, that the artifact context appeared to be reasonably

undisturbed by postdepositional activity,

and that some of the stone tools were in direct association with hearths. Thirteen complete and fragmentary projectile points,

some biface fragments, flake tools, and numerous waste flakes were recovered during

the two-day excavation.

In Locality B three hearths, lying within

a four-foot radius of one another, were encountered during excavation, and much of

the cultural material was in direct association with the charcoal/soil matrix of the

hearths. The hearth fill was recovered as

three individual, bulk samples and the charcoal separated from the soil in the laboratory. None of the hearths yielded the minimum amount of charcoal required for a reliable standard (as opposed to AMS) radiometric date, so the charcoal from all three

hearths was combined to produce a sample

of sufficient size. We felt secure in doing this

because all of the hearths had contained the

basal sections of projectile points and all of

the points were of the same style, suggesting contemporaneity of the hearths. The

combined charcoal was submitted for radiocarbon dating by the standard method and

yielded a date of 7620 + 95 years BP (DIC1589)5

. This date led us to believe that the

site was not of Pleistocene age, and therefore not Paleoindian, even though the small

lithic assemblage recovered through excavation and surface collection appeared to be

technologically and morphologically classic

High Plains Paleoindian.

In 1980 we conducted systematic testing

at the Mesa to determine the location and

extent of the cultural deposit, and to identify areas of concentrated human activity.

A total of 503 four-foot square excavation

units were laid out across the site, and a

shovel/screen testing program employed.

Each square was tested by removing a single

scoop of soil from the center of the square

with a #2 round point shovel. The soil was

then passed through a one-quarter inch

mesh screen to see if it contained cultural

material. The results were recorded on the

grid map and the cultural material collected.

The 503 gridded squares covered 23% of the

area that we considered level enough to reasonably assume it might have been utilized

by the ancient occupants of the site. One

hundred thirty-three (26%) of the 503 tested

squares yielded cultural material: three projectile points, a few biface fragments, and

several hundred waste flakes. During the

testing process we were also able to collect

data regarding the natural stratigraphy,

including looking for evidence of post-depositional disturbances in the soil profiles. In

addition, a single square was excavated in

Locality B.

Between 1981 and 1988, little more than

annual monitoring activities were conducted at the site. In 1989 we returned to

the Mesa for two days of limited excavation

to collect more data regarding the geology

and stratigraphy of the site. Excavation was

initiated in three squares, two in Locality B

and one in Locality Saddle, however the excavation of these squares was not completed

until 1991. Excavation of the Saddle square

revealed a small amount of charcoal (subsequent excavation in 1991 revealed this to

be a hearth), which was recovered in association with cultural material. In the years

that had elapsed since 1980, when the original and only radiometric determination at

the site had been made, accelerator mass

spectrometry (AMS) radiocarbon dating, a

more refined dating method that could date

very small samples, had become commer-
25

cially available. We submitted the charcoal

for a radiocarbon age determination utilizing the new AMS method. The charcoal from

the Saddle square produced a date of 9730

+ 80 years BP (Beta-36805), approximately

2000 years older than the original date for

the site. The new date indicated that the

site was Pleistocene in age, and fell within

the temporal range of Paleoindian sites in

mid-continent North America. This was the

first solid evidence to support the possibility that the Mesa might represent a

Paleoindian occupation.

In an effort to corroborate the 9730 BP

radiocarbon date, we returned to the site in

1991 with a small crew. In ten days we completed the excavation of the three squares

started in 1989 and excavated ten additional

squares, three in Locality A, two in Locality

Saddle, and five in Locality B. The excavations revealed two hearths: one, in Locality

A, with a fragmentary, pot-lid fractured projectile point and waste flakes incorporated

in the charcoal matrix; the other in Locality Saddle, with an associated projectile

point, biface fragments, and several thousand waste flakes. The charcoal/soil matrix

of each hearth was collected and the charcoal extracted by hand under a microscope

in the laboratory. Charcoal from these two

hearths produced AMS radiocarbon dates

of 10,090 + 85 years BP (Beta-50428) and

9945 + 75 years BP ( Beta-50430). These

results added more support to the probability that the site was associated with the

Paleoindian tradition.

In 1992 we excavated 16 squares, eight

in Locality A, seven in Locality B, and one

in Locality Saddle. This work produced projectile points, biface fragments, flake tools,

and waste flakes associated with ten

hearths. Nine of the hearths were located

in Locality B and five of them were dated. A

single hearth was located in Locality Saddle

and was dated. All the hearths were dated

by the AMS method, and five returned dates

ranging from 10,240 to 9930 years BP. Charcoal from the sixth hearth produced a date

of 11,660 + 80 years BP (Beta-55286), about

1500 years older than the average date for

the site. A second sample from this hearth

returned a date of 11,190 + 70 years BP

(Beta-57430). For the first time, obsidian

flakes were recovered, presenting the possibility of corroborating the age of the site

by dating it independently, using the obsidian hydration method.

In 1993, 11.75 squares were excavated

during the three-week field season, revealing five hearths with associated projectile

points, flake tools, and waste flakes. Bulk

charcoal/soil samples were recovered from

each hearth and the charcoal later separated out in the laboratory. Four hearths

were located in Locality B, two of which were

dated. A single hearth located in Locality

Saddle was also dated. Charcoal from the

three hearths provided AMS radiocarbon

dates clustering near 10,000 years BP. By

this time we had recovered a fairly extensive lithic assemblage from the site. Based

upon the technological aspects of the assemblage and the site’s radiocarbon chronology,

there was little doubt that the Mesa Complex was a cultural component of the

Paleoindian tradition. We had also determined, as a result of the kinds of artifacts

recovered and the site’s location, that the

primary function of the Mesa had been as a

hunting lookout. Since no camping, cooking,

or refuse build-up from daily living activities had occurred, the site could not provide

a lot of information regarding the climate,

environment, and ecology of the region during the late Pleistocene. As a result, information of this type had to be derived from

data collected at off-site locales. Beginning

with the 1993 field season, an intensive effort to collect this type of information was

begun and continued annually for the next

six years.

The 1994 field season was three weeks in

length, during which time we excavated a

total of 20 squares, ten in Locality A, eight

in Locality B, and two in the newly designated East Ridge Locality. Through this

work we recovered numerous formal and

incidental artifacts, as well as thousands of

waste flakes. Although we encountered no

hearths during this field season, we did note

several small clusters of heat-fractured artifacts. This context suggested that the artifacts had been associated with a hearth,

but that subsequently the charcoal and
26

burned soil had weathered away, leaving

behind only the burned artifacts. Excavation in Locality A also revealed the presence of microblades, artifacts which had

heretofore not been recognized as a component of the site assemblage. Organic material that was collected from several geologic

sections near the Mesa was submitted for

radiocarbon dating, as we initiated work on

the development of a regional chronologic

framework for the climate and ecological

shifts that occurred during the Pleistocene/

Holocene transition.

Beginning in 1995 we increased the

length of our field seasons at the Mesa. The

1995 field season was four weeks long, and

a total of 26.5 squares were excavated during that time; 13.5 in Locality A, 11 in Locality B and two in the East Ridge Locality.

This work produced numerous artifacts and

waste flakes and also revealed two hearths,

one in Locality A, the other in Locality B.

Projectile points, bifaces, incidental tools,

and waste flakes were recovered from the

charcoal/soil matrix of the hearths. Charcoal extracted from the hearth fill returned

dates of ca. 10,000 years BP. Work continued on the paleoecological aspect of the

project, primarily at a locale referred to as

“Lake of the Pleistocene” (LOP) on the

Etivluk River 15 miles west of the Mesa.

LOP is an ancient lake that was drained

about 5000 years ago. Since that time the

lake sediments have remained frozen. Preliminary work at the site indicated the lake

bottom sediments could provide an uninterrupted paleoecological record for the region

as far back as 45,000 years BP.

In 1996 we excavated a total of 32.5

squares during a five-week field season. All

but two of these squares were excavated in

Locality A. One square each was excavated

in Locality Saddle and Locality B. As a result of this work, a large number of formal

and incidental artifacts, as well as thousands of waste flakes were recovered. Much

of the cultural material was in association

with the four hearths that were revealed

through excavation. Three of the hearths

were in Locality A and one in Locality

Saddle. The Locality Saddle hearth was not

dated but the three from Locality A were,

yielding dates of 10,230 + 60 years BP (Beta95600), 10,130 + 60 years BP (Beta-95914),

and 10,080 + 60 years BP (Beta-95913). Paleoecological work continued at Lake of the

Pleistocene and several other geologic sections in the region. A good radiocarbonbased chronologic framework was being developed for LOP, especially the period we

were interested in, ca. 13,500 to 8000 years

BP. Sediment samples were being collected

for pollen studies, loss-on-ignition analysis,

and various physical analyses.

We spent almost ten weeks in the field in

1997, during which time we excavated 28.5

squares, all of which were in Locality A. Although no hearths were encountered, we recovered numerous formal and incidental

artifacts, as well as thousands of waste

flakes. Paleoecological work continued at

LOP and other locales. Data from this work

was starting to produce a picture of what

the regional ecosystem was like at the time

the Mesa Paleoindians were present.

In 1998 we spent nine weeks working at

the Mesa. During that period we excavated

a total of 24.5 squares: five in Locality A,

two in Locality B, six and a half in Locality

Saddle, and 11 in the East Ridge Locality.

As a result of this work, 11 hearths were

revealed. Seven of the hearths were in Locality Saddle. Three were dated, averaging

about 9900 years BP. Four hearths were excavated in the East Ridge Locality and three

of them were dated, returning an average

age of 9900 years BP. Numerous formal and

incidental artifacts, and thousands of waste

flakes were recovered. Much of the cultural

material was directly associated with the

hearths. We continued to gather paleoecological data from Lake of the Pleistocene

and other geologic sections, and expanded

our work to include the collection of Pleistocene megafauna fossils to provide information regarding subsistence resources

available to the Mesa’s inhabitants.

In 1999 we spent three weeks at the Mesa

excavating a total of 15.25 squares. During

this work we encountered two hearths; both

were in Locality Saddle and both were

dated, returning assays of 9950 + 60 years

BP (Beta-133354) and 10,180 + 60 years BP

(Beta-133353). Numerous formal and infor-
27

mal artifacts and thousands of waste flakes

were recovered, some of which were directly

associated with the hearths. We also continued our paleoecological and Pleistocene

megafauna data gathering activities. This

field season marked the end of field work

at the Mesa. A total of 202.5 squares (3240

square feet), have been excavated revealing 40 hearths, 864 formal and incidental

artifacts and 120,602 waste flakes.

MESA COMPLEX LITHIC

TYPOLOGY/TECHNOLOGY

Bifaces and the byproducts of their manufacture make up the majority of the lithic

assemblage at the Mesa. As such, they are

the primary source of information regarding tool organization. Variability in the form

of the bifaces — whether they are finished

tools and where they fit in a technological

sequence — is crucial in identifying different patterns of tool use. In order to compare

the artifacts and pattern of organization at

the site, a typology was developed which

tracks variability in biface production and

transport. This section will describe the typology which has been developed from the

Mesa assemblage.

Bifacial Tools

Bifaces are defined as pieces which are

wider than they are thick and have two

readily recognizable flaked surfaces. Those

pieces which fit the definition of bifaces total 366, and can be divided into two main

categories: finished formal types and manufacture failures. The classification scheme

for discriminating between these categories,

and for identifying different classes within

the category of finished bifaces, is based on

five presence/absence attributes: 1) comedial

flaking, 2) base shaping, 3) tip shaping, 4)

edge grinding, and 5) edge retouch.

Comedial flaking describes the final flaking pattern, where flakes are generally parallel and terminate at the centerline, producing a ridge down the length of the piece.

Base and tip shaping describe the formation of bifaces into projectile points with a

distinct base/tip orientation. Other bifaces

may be pointed, but they do not have a flaking pattern designed to produce a tip. The

pointed end results from the convergence

of two straight sides. Edge grinding and

edge retouch describe different methods of

tool finishing. Edge grinding is a characteristic of projectile points, where the lower

portion of the lateral edges are ground

smooth, presumably to aid in hafting. Edge

retouch describes the removal of small pressure flakes around the perimeter of a piece

which serve to straighten and even the edge

and provide final shaping (Bever 2000).

Finished bifaces

Different combinations of these attributes

identify three distinct types. These are: projectile points, type A bifaces and type B

bifaces. Each represents a unique combination of presence/absence attributes, and a

distinct shape. Although these formal types

are defined on the basis of attributes which

do not reflect shape and size, they are quite

distinctive in form. In general, projectile

points are smaller and narrower than type

A and B bifaces. Type A bifaces are relatively thick, and they cluster more tightly

than projectile points along the ratio of

width:thickness. This is simply a reflection

of the robust comedial flaking in type A

bifaces which produces a pronounced diamond-shaped cross-section. In contrast, type

B bifaces are the thinnest relative to width,

although they tend to be larger and sometimes thinner than projectile points. While

there is certainly overlap, when combined

with the attributes of flaking, shaping and

edge retouch, it becomes clear that these are

distinct types (Bever 2000).

projectile points

The bifacial inventory of the Mesa is dominated by projectile points of which there are

154 complete and fragmentary examples.

Typical points are recognized by the presence of comedial flaking, the formation of a

distinct base and tip, and edge grinding. Of

course, all four of these attributes are not

always present on all of the pieces. In fact,

most of the points are broken fragments,

predominantly bases. A point base, for example, lacks data on tip shaping. Most of
28

Figure 19. Complete and reworked Mesa

projectile points. (Photo: R. Reanier)

Figure 20. Mesa projectile points showing

both faces, cross section, and variation in

basal treatment. (After Bever 2000)

the pieces are large enough that they retain evidence of either base or tip formation, or edge grinding, and the combination

of only a few of the attributes identifies

pieces as points.

In general, projectile points are lanceolate

in outline, with parallel flakes perpendicular to the long axis of the point, which results in a ridge down the centerline of the

point (Figure 19 & 20), creating a lenticular to diamond-shaped cross-section. Most

bases show evidence of thinning leading to

a concave shape, though bases range from

deeply concave with distinct ears, to convex,

rounded forms. A few of the points exhibit

the removal of longitudinal flakes from the

base, which could be construed as fluting or

an attempt to flute. However, most “fluting”

appears to be more incidental than purposeful. In the points with concave and straight

bases, numerous minute hinge-fractures are

present along the basal margin. These fractures may result from movement of the

point within the haft. This could indicate

that a different style of hafting was used

for convex based points, which do not display as much basal hinge fracturing. While

there may be meaningful variability in base

form, for this report all points will be treated

as one type. All of the points are similar in

outline, cross-section, and flaking pattern,

and heavy edge grinding is present on all

but a few. More than 75 percent of the points

with the relevant portion present, show evidence of extensive reworking, which creates

a distinct shoulder. Most of the points show

signs of impact damage, and presumably

were broken in use as projectile points

(Bever 2000).

In addition to the typical points, there are

seven points that do not have edge grinding. Although a lack of edge grinding may

indicate that the pieces broke before they

were finished, there are a few points in the

assemblage which lack edge grinding but

have impact fractures and evidence of use.

An additional four pieces have edge grinding and the general outline of a Mesa projectile point, but they lack comedial flaking.

Because they do not differ in overall shape,

and presumably serve the same function as

points, they are also included in the projectile point category.

Finally, 21 point tips are recognized that

lack evidence of comedial flaking. While

definitely projectile points, it is not clear if

they are finished specimens or pieces broken in a late stage of manufacture. If finished, the pieces may have broken too close

to the end of the point to recognize flaking

pattern, or they are reworked tips, which

tend to have more uneven flaking. On the

other hand, they may be late stage manufacture breaks. Given the large amount of

point production that occurred on-site, it

would be surprising if there were not a few

5cm 

3 cm 

·~ ;; • 
29

Figure 21. Top row type B bifaces; bottom

row; gravers. (After Bever 2000)

points that broke during the final stages of

manufacture.

Based upon metric data from complete

and reconstructed specimens, finished projectile points appear to have ranged in

length from 50 to 100mm, in width from 16

to 28mm, and in thickness from 5 to 10mm

(25mm = 1 inch). Although we have no hard

evidence, the size and robust character of

the projectile points suggest they were used

to tip atlatl darts. Most of the points appear

to be too large or heavy to be used as arrowheads, and at the same time are smaller

than points usually attributed to lances or

spears. Mesa projectile points are purposefully robust and are probably designed that

way to facilitate reworking. More than

twenty specimens recovered from the site

have been resharpened in the haft at least

once, an activity that seems to have been a

common field expedient. Given the uneven,

often frozen surface of the landscape, missed

casts may often have resulted in broken and

damaged points. The robust points apparently had a reasonably good survival rate.

Some of the reworked points may also have

been used as hafted knives (Bever 2000).

The style and shape of the Mesa projectile points are similar to the points of the

Agate Basin Complex of the High Plains

(Kunz and Reanier 1995). The practice of

reworking broken and damaged points is as

common in Agate Basin and other

Paleoindian Complexes, as it is in Mesa. The

technological relationship between the two

complexes is easily recognized because they

are both Paleoindian. The possibility of a

stronger relationship has been discussed

elsewhere (see Kunz and Reanier 1995) and

will not be addressed here.

type A bifaces

What we have classified as the non-projectile point bifaces recovered from the site

have been divided into two types, A and B.

There are 14 type A bifaces. Like the projectile points, they have comedial flaking,

but are not edge ground; they lack evidence

of base and tip shaping, and most have edge

retouch. Though most are broken, all of the

pieces are long, narrow and pointed, with

straight sides. Like the projectile points, the

flaking pattern consists of robust parallelopposed flakes terminating at the

centerline, creating a strong diamondshaped cross-section and a distinct ridge

running the full length of the piece. Their

large size and tapering sides, however, rule

out the possibility that they are projectile

point preforms, of which there are many

examples in the Mesa assemblage. One complete example and one partially reconstructed from several fragments suggest

that the pieces were pointed on both ends.

Based upon metric data from the one complete and one reconstructed specimen, these

artifacts range in length from 85 to 130mm,

in width from 19 to 36mm, and in thickness

8 to 15mm. At present the function of these

tools is unknown, although use-wear, residue, and other types of analyses are expected to provide additional information.

type B bifaces

There are 20 type B bifaces, all have edge

retouch and lack comedial flaking (Figure

21). In general, these bifaces are larger,

wider, somewhat thinner, and manufactured

in a different manner, than the other finished bifaces. They are quite well made, and

reduction was accomplished through the

removal of large percussion flakes, often

extending across most or all of the face.

Their method of manufacture differs from

0 . 

. 

-

________ _::::5:cm:::::, -
30

projectile points and type A bifaces, which

were generally finished with robust pressure flakes terminating at the centerline.

The intent for type B bifaces seems to have

been to thin the pieces, rather than create

a thick, robust biface as exemplified by the

points. Though most are broken, in outline

these bifaces tend to be wide and pointed

with fairly straight sides. They are interpreted as finished, because they have fine

pressure retouch along the edges, forming

a straight, even edge. It is also worth noting that some are manufactured on non-local material. Two complete examples show

that these tools may have been bipointed

and leaf- or lance-shaped in outline. Based

upon metric data from complete and fragmentary specimens, finished examples appear to have ranged in length from 130 to

165mm, in width from 38 to 50mm, and in

thickness from 4 to 8mm.

Our analysis concerning these tools is incomplete and their function remains unknown. Their size and shape suggest they

may have been used as knives, but use as

lance points is also a possiblity (Bever 2000).

It is also interesting that almost all of the

primary and secondary flaking (with the

exception of fine edge retouch) was achieved

by percussion flaking. This is especially notable because of the large size and thinness

of the tools. This technique is much like that

employed by Clovis tool makers (Bradley

1993; Boldurian and Cotter 1999; Collins

1999). Some of these bifaces are simular to

those recovered from the Tuluaq Hill Site

(Rasic 2000).

Unfinished bifaces

The preceding discussion pertains to a category of bifaces which are considered to be

finished, or formal bifaces. A second category

of bifaces includes those which were broken

or rejected during manufacture. While ultimately they might have become formal

bifaces, they did not progress to that point,

and as such, they comprise a second category of bifacial artifacts. These biface failures occur in frequencies second only to projectile points. Since they lack the attributes

of finished tools, they are not formal tools

and are considered separately from the previously described forms. These biface failures are quite variable in shape, size and

flaking pattern, due in part to breakage, but

also to variation in technology and the degree of reduction. Because they form a large

portion of the bifacial inventory, and because

they reflect a large segment of on-site activities, they have been subdivided based on

reduction stage (Bever 2000). Early and late

stage examples form the largest percentage

of the manufacture failures, and describe a

rather arbitrary division along the continuum between recognizable stages of reduction.

early stage failures

There are 30 bifaces in the early stage

failure class. These artifacts have few and

large flake scars, but show that a purposeful reduction process had been initiated.

Assuming that they were discarded before

completion, with further reduction they

could have become either of the late stage

pieces, and hence, potentially different finished types.

late stage failures/projectile

point preforms

There are 83 examples of late stage failures. These artifacts can be described as

projectile point preforms, but also include

examples that are finely flaked and symmetrical. Because of their high width:thickness ratio, and the fact that they are in a

later stage of reduction but are not

comedially flaked, they are most similar to

unfinished type B bifaces.

crude biface failures

Crude biface failures number 20 and are

large and thick and have only a few large

flakes removed from either surface. They

were broken or discarded at a stage of

manufacture where it is impossible to determine what the final product might have

been (Bever 2000).

uncategorized bifaces

There are 45 uncategorized bifaces which

are pieces too burned or weathered to provide sorting attributes, and edge fragments
31

which are pieces, probably biface failures,

that are too fragmentary to provide categorizing information.

Unifacial Tools

Unifacial tools display flake removal scars

on only one surface and fall into two general categories: a single type of formal

scraper, and informal flake tools. Generally

speaking, flake tools are informal. This

means there is no patterning in blank form

and the retouch is not standardized, but

simply creates a working edge or bit. Blanks

for flake tools are typically waste flakes

which show no specific preparation for a

particular type of tool, although certain

types of flakes were more likely to be chosen for certain types of tools by the user.

Flake tools were categorized based on the

type of flake which forms the blank, as well

as the form of the retouch (Bever 2000).

Formal tools

scrapers

The category of formal unifacial tools is

comprised solely of scrapers. These differ

from other flake tools in that most are quite

large and were produced on thick flakes

with flat ventral surfaces (Figure 22). The

blanks they were made from are not waste

flakes, but seem to have been purposefully

produced for use as scrapers. In contrast to

the rather expedient flake tools, formal

scrapers tend to be well made, with a flaking pattern as coordinated as that seen on

finished bifaces. Indeed, some of the pieces

were bifacially worked prior to the formation of a steep scraping edge. Though some

are broken fragments, most appear to have

been symmetrical and ovate in shape, with

a steep scraping edge around the entire perimeter of the piece. Given their large size

and the fact that some are broken into fragments, they may also have been used for

tasks other than scraping. Formal scrapers

and suitably sized flake blanks occur primarily in Locality East Ridge. A total of six

scrapers were recovered from the site.

Informal tools

gravers

Gravers are flakes with delicate, retouched spurs (Figure 21). These tools usually have one spur, but examples with multiple spurs are not uncommon. Most of the

gravers are also retouched along a portion

of the flake edge. Gravers were probably

used for incising, scribing, drilling/boring,

perforating, and as mini marlinspikes, and

are generally thought to be associated with

preparation and repair of hunting equipment (Boast 1983). There are a total of 70

gravers in the Mesa assemblage. Although

in this report gravers are classified as informal tools, perhaps semi-formal would be

a more accurate designation. While no preordained blank was made to produce gravers it is obvious that the flakes utilized to

make this tool generally possess certain attributes. Although flakes with the required

attributes could be found among the

debitage, the selection process went well

beyond that of simply grabbing any handy

waste flake as would be the case with retouched or utilized flakes. The purposes for

which they were used required gravers to

be delicate but at the same time withstand

extreme pressure. As a result, in use they

often snapped and most of the gravers recovered from the Mesa are broken. The few

that are not broken or have been reconstructed from fragments, suggest that they

were usually made on flakes which provided

a natural tang or handle to facilitate their

use. In fact some gravers may have been Figure 22. Examples of scrapers recovered

from the Mesa. (Photo: M. Kunz)

I 

D 

1 cm 
32

hafted, a circumstance that would definitely

remove them from the informal tool category.

flake scrapers

Also present are larger, thicker flakes

which display relatively robust retouch

flake removal, producing a steeply angled

edge, similar to scraper retouch. We call

these flake scrapers. Although flake scrapers are not a formal type because they are

quite variable in shape, the larger retouch

scars are distinctive and separate them from

simple retouched flakes. Thirteen of these

tools were recovered from the Mesa.

flake burins

Flakes which have burinated edges are referred to as flake burins. Unlike many other

Alaskan sites that contain formal or stylized burins, the burinated flakes at the

Mesa are very few in number, and show no

distinctive patterning in either the method

of burination or in blank form. Although the

burination seems intentional, they are probably tools of opportunity and are not considered a formal type. Six of these artifacts

occur in the Mesa assemblage (Bever 2000).

retouched/utilized flakes

The retouched or utilized flake category

includes all of those pieces that have continuous retouch (five or more retouch scars)

along a portion or portions of the flake edge.

The differences between those pieces that

show signs of definite retouch versus flaking caused by use are often not obvious, and

both of these tools have been grouped into

one type. A total of 237 retouched/utilized

flakes are found in the Mesa assemblage.

Flaking Detritus

Excavation at the Mesa produced 120,602

pieces of flaking detritus. Because the

amount is so large only a representative

sample of 17,272 flakes (14%) has been analyzed. Although a variety of metric and categorical attributes were recorded for flaking debris, each flake was also assigned to

a discrete type, in a manner similar to that

for the formal bifaces.

Though the largest flakes are clearly the

product of percussion flaking, and the smallest bifacial flakes the result of pressure flaking, there is much variability in between.

These different techniques of flake reduction were not explored in detail for this report, nor was data on flaking mode, such as

soft versus hard hammer.

Flake fragments

Flakes large enough to have a recognizable dorsal/ventral surface were categorized

based on the presence or absence of a striking platform or platform remnant. Since

most attributes which identify flake technology stem from platform morphology,

those flakes which lack platforms are assigned to a group called flake fragments.

These are typically medial or distal fragments that could not be assigned to a particular technological category. There are

12,594 examples of this flake type in the

sample accounting for 72.9% of the total.

Flakes with platforms

Flakes with platforms (i.e. complete and

proximal specimens) were assigned to different classes based on several attributes

found to be useful in a number of experimental studies (see Amick and Mauldin

1989). Platforms were divided into the following types: 1) bifacial, 2) non-bifacial, and

3) cortical.

Not surprisingly, a substantially higher

frequency of bifacial flakes exhibit some

form of preparation; this is typical in bifacial technologies that produce well-made,

standardized tools like Mesa projectile

points. With the exception of primary flakes,

most flakes in the assemblage are very

small, whether broken or complete. While

many flakes are broken, a fairly large percentage of the flakes comprise complete or

proximal fragments. For all flake types,

slightly more than 87% are smaller than 1.5

cm in maximum dimension. Among these

flakes, 31.6% retain platforms. For flakes

larger than 1.5 cm, complete or proximal

fragments form a substantial portion. This

suggests that the small size of the flakes —

regardless of whether they retain a platform
33

— reflects patterns of reduction rather than

post-depositional breakage (Bever 2000).

Bifacial flakes

The vast majority of the flakes in the assemblage are the product of bifacial reduction. Bifacial flakes are characterized by

acute, faceted platforms formed from the

edge of a biface and numbered 4,063 or

23.5% of the sample. Flake scars tend to be

multidirectional, with diffuse, feathered

scar edges and indistinct arrises. The flakes

are relatively thin and gently curved in

cross-section.

Non-bifacial flakes

In contrast, single facet and particularly

multifacet flakes are few in number, and

neither class exhibits patterning in morphology indicative of different types of core

reduction. In this analysis, both have been

combined into a single type, termed non-bifacial flakes which total 416 or 2.4%of the

sample. Though these flakes lack bifacial

platforms, they are not necessarily indicative of a non-bifacial technology. As a group

they are rather amorphous, but many may

actually be the product of bifacial reduction.

Cortical flakes

Flakes with cortical platforms are generally larger, and very often, most of the dorsal surface retains cortex. These are referred

to as primary flakes. Because they derive

from the earliest stages of nodule shaping,

these flakes could be considered either bifacial or non-bifacial. Thirty-one examples

of this flake type make up 0.2% of the

sample (Bever 2000).

Shatter

Small angular fragments, so small that

the dorsal/ventral surfaces cannot be determined are termed shatter, and were assigned to a separate group. There are 168

examples in this category which is 1% of the

sample.

Flake Cores

Relative to the number of flakes, flake

cores are extremely rare in the assemblage,

with only two pieces which clearly functioned as flake cores. Both are informal, with

no evidence of a particular orientation,

method of preparation, or regularity in products. Because flake cores are so few in number, they are clearly not a regular part of

the technology of the Mesa Complex as

viewed at the Mesa site. Sixty-five other

items which might presumably have been

intended to be cores are simply chunks or

tabular nodules with only a few flake removals. Most of these occur on poor quality

raw material nodules which were either

quickly discarded, or shattered upon flaking, producing neither a functional core nor

useable blanks. In most cases, it seems these

pieces were intended to be bifaces. They simply shattered before reaching an advanced

stage of reduction.

Other Cultural Material

In addition to the flaked-stone material

discussed in the preceding section there are

several other categories of cultural material that bear mentioning. Fifty-nine

manuports — items that do not naturally

occur on the Mesa and could have gotten

there only by human transport — were recovered from the site. Almost all of these

(N=51) are unaltered stream cobbles some

of which display signs that they were used

as hammer stones, although several appear

to be heat fractured. There are also several

large, flat pieces of stone. Some appear to

have been used as anvils, while others are

simply exotic material. Eleven quartz crystals and flakes of quartz are present in the

assemblage. While the gabbro bedrock of the

Mesa contains some quartz inclusions, we

have not seen any that are greater than

10mm in diameter. It is our assumption that

these 11 examples were brought to the Mesa

by people utilizing the site. Five pieces of

orange hematite were also recovered. There

is some indication of abrasion on several of

the pieces, which may indicate they had

been used in some manner for coloring. All

of this material appears to be associated

with the Paleoindian occupation of the

Mesa.

In the following section another lithic assemblage, a microblade component, will be
34

Figure 23. Artifacts from Mesa microblade component: (a) fluted biface, (b) core fragments, (c)

wedge-shaped microblade core, and (d) microblades. (Photo: M. Kunz)

discussed. This component is not part of the

Mesa Complex, but is part of the site assemblage. Also not part of the Mesa Complex is a .44-40 W.C.F. brass cartridge case,

which was recovered on the surface in Locality A. This artifact suggests use of the

site, probably as a vantage point, around

1880 by Nunamiut Eskimos (Adkins 1994).

Other similar artifacts and features in the

region are associated with Nunamiut activity prior to 1950. In addition, 142 gastroliths — stones from bird crops — were found

at the site. This may indicate that the human inhabitants of the Mesa had a taste

for ptarmigan but we suspect most of the

stones are due to the activity of non-human

predators or the result of other types of

natural bird mortality.

THE MESA SITE MICROBLADE

COMPONENT

The Mesa assemblage contains a relatively narrow range of artifact types, which

are found across the site, and co-occur

within each locality. These consist primarily of projectile points, bifaces, waste flakes,

and informal flake tools, and have been assigned to the Mesa Paleoindian Complex as

described in the previous section. The artifacts are assumed to represent one cultural

component and their function exemplifies

site use.

However, there is evidence of another cultural component at the site, which is unrelated to the Paleoindian occupation, and is

more recent in age. This component is identified most readily by microblades,

microblade core fragments, and a wedgea 

C 

I I I I 

d 

b 11 I I 

d 
35

Figure 24. Circular stone artifact referred to

as the “roller skate wheel”. (Photo: R.E.

Reanier)

shaped microblade core (Figure 23). It also

contains at least four bifaces, a number of

possible microblade core preparation elements, and several hundred non-diagnostic

waste flakes. One of these bifaces is unequivocally fluted. Described and illustrated

in Kunz and Reanier (1995), this piece has

been fluted on both faces, and from both

ends. Though fluting is generally viewed as

a Paleoindian trait, this fluted piece is not

typical of the bifacial artifacts in the Mesa

Complex. For reasons discussed below, it is

probably associated with the microblade occupation of the Mesa, and as such, is not

related to the Mesa Paleoindian Complex

(Bever 2000).

Another unique artifact was found associated with the site’s microblade component

in Sublocality A3. This lithic artifact is

round and relatively flat with a hole passing through its center. It is ca. 12.5mm thick

and 38mm in diameter. We refer to it as the

“roller skate wheel” (Figure 24). The artifact shows little evidence of human alteration, and may have been brought to the

site as a natural curiosity. Although we have

no direct evidence for its use, we speculate

that it could have served as a pendant or

perhaps as an atlatl weight.

The delineation of the microblade component from the rest of the Mesa assemblage

was necessary in order to ensure that the

artifacts from this occupation would not be

confused with those of the Paleoindian component. While the microblade component

certainly provides information relevant to

the prehistory of the North Slope, it is not

the purpose of this report to explore the

details of the microblade occupation, but

simply to identify the artifacts associated

with that occupation and distinguish them

from the Mesa Paleoindian component.

Microblades and other artifacts associated with the microblade occupation are

only present in Locality A, and occur primarily in the southern portion of Sublocality

A1/2. All but eight of the 130 microblade

fragments come from this area, as well as

most of the waste flakes associated with the

microblade component. The fluted biface

was also found within the cluster of

microblades in Sublocality A1/2. A smaller

number of artifacts that relate to the

microblade component, also occur in the

northwestern portion of Sublocality A4, and

fewer still in Sublocalities A-5 and A-3.

While the diagnostic artifacts of the

microblade component (microblades,

microblade core fragments, and microblade

core preparation flakes) are readily recognizable, the non-diagnostic pieces associated

with the occupation (waste flakes and

bifaces) are more difficult to identify. Both

the spatial distribution, and raw material

characteristics of the artifacts were used to

distinguish them from the Paleoindian

Mesa Assemblage (Bever 2000).

Figure 25 shows the distribution of artifacts in the sublocalities of Locality A. The

microblades occupy a relatively small area.

Based simply on this distribution, there is

clear separation between the area containing the microblades, and the main concentration of debris related to the Paleoindian

occupation. Aside from artifacts indicative

of the microblade occupation, tools related

1 cm 
36

Figure 25. Distribution of microblade component artifacts in relation to location of Mesa Complex artifacts and hearths.

LEGEND 

0 =4FT 

A = DATUM 

A . 

.. 

0 = HEARTH • ·

. 

. 

"'P"' . 

- = MICROBLADE ARTIFACT Presumed Hearth 

. 

. 

. • 

9 = MESA COMPLEX ARTIFACT • I ·. I .. ·. 

• 

. ' . 

•.' 

. . 

... t

• .... ,: .. • . · .

•''. = PRESUMED HEARTH . . . . .. . , . 

•• .. t;>:. 1~4 · ~-. . 

. :: . .. . · .. .. . . 

. . .,. : . . • fr: . .. 

.. :· .. · . 1.0 · .. . . . .. • • . . I. . .1 . . . . . . ,; . . . . ... . ·.:• . •. Sublo

.. IJ. . . . . _ .. . . . . . 

~ . . . . 

. . 

. . 

. ' - . . . 

. .. 

. . . . .. Sublocality A4 . . . . . ._ 

. 

.. 

. Sublocality A3 

Sublocality A5 
37

to the Paleoindian occupation (e.g. points

and gravers) also occur within the

microblade scatter, indicating that there is

spatial overlap between the two components. Additionally, there were several

burned flakes and a burned biface found

clustered together in square (S9-13/E16-20),

suggesting that a hearth may have existed

there at one time. No microblades occur in

this presumed hearth. The center of the

microblade concentration lies about seven

feet to the south of the presumed hearth artifact cluster. Without question, the tool and

debitage concentration in this hearth relates

to the Paleoindian occupation as it mirrors

the pattern of Paleoindian debitage in

hearth-fill seen repeatedly across the rest

of the site.

To investigate this overlap between the

microblade and Paleoindian components in

more detail, we examined the raw material

characteristics of both the microblades and

waste flakes in this area. In the site assemblage, microblades occur on seven different

raw materials. About a third of the

microblades are made from two local materials, black and tan chert. These materials,

particularly the black chert, are common in

both the Paleoindian and microblade components of the site assemblage. The local

black chert is the primary lithic material

used at the site, and accounts for the majority of the Paleoindian artifacts found scattered across the site. Core preparation

flakes are also made from this chert. Excluding these two local materials, the majority of the microblades are made from raw

materials that do not show up elsewhere in

the site assemblage on diagnostic

Paleoindian artifacts. Two of these exotic

materials are represented by only three

microblades. Since these materials do not

occur anywhere else in the site assemblage,

they provide little utility in defining the distribution of the microblade occupation

(Bever 2000).

In combination, the remaining two exotic

materials, a maroon chert and a translucent

gray chert, account for more than half of the

microblades in the assemblage. Both of

these materials are also found on flaking

debris in all the sublocalities of Locality A.

Both these cherts are rare in the site assemblage, which suggest they are not locally

available (Gil Mull, personal communication

1997). The source of the gray chert is unknown, but the maroon chert likely derives

from the DeLong Mountains. The nearest

known quality outcrop is 60 miles west

along the Kuna River. Importantly, neither

of these materials shows up in the assemblage as diagnostic Mesa Complex artifacts,

and nowhere are they clearly associated

with a dated Mesa Complex hearth. These

cherts do not seem to have been used by the

Paleoindian occupants of the Mesa, and

probably provide a clear indication of the

distribution of the microblade component.

The translucent gray chert only occurs in

Sublocality A1/2, found as microblades and

spatially associated waste flakes. As such,

the microblades and flakes of this material

clearly relate to the same episode of site use.

The translucent gray flakes are either very

small chips or small bifacial pressure flakes.

This suggests that in addition to microblade

production, there was also some bifacial reduction occuring during the microblade occupation.

Other artifacts are also made of the maroon chert. In addition to the microblades

and flaking debris, the fluted biface is made

from maroon chert. Because the material is

non-local, occurs spatially associated with

microblades of the same material, and does

not occur on any typical diagnostic Mesa

Complex artifacts, it seems reasonable to

conclude that this fluted biface is a product

of the microblade occupation. In fact, the

maroon flakes in Sublocality A1/2 are small

chips and pressure flakes, and while no direct refits could be found, it seems likely that

they relate to the manufacture of the fluted

biface. They are of the correct size, morphology, and color patterning. This analysis indicates that the fluted biface is not associated with the Paleoindian occupation, as

originally believed (Kunz and Reanier

1995), but instead with the microblade occupation (Bever 2000).

The non-local maroon chert from the

microblade component shows up elsewhere

at the site as well. Nowhere, however, is it

spatially associated with any Paleoindian
38

materials or a dated hearth, and nowhere

does it show up as a point, biface, graver, or

in any other form indicating an affiliation

with the Paleoindian occupation. In

Sublocality A5, in fact, there are numerous

waste flakes and two possible fragments of

microblade cores made from this material.

Sublocality A5 also contains one microblade

(two fragments which refit) on a dark gray

chert with a distinctive cortex. A biface fragment and several waste flakes also display

this distinctive cortex, and presumably relate to the microblades. The size and wellcontrolled parallel flaking pattern of the

biface are quite similar to the fluted piece

in Sublocality A1/2. The distribution of the

maroon flakes and these diagnostic artifacts

is peripheral to the main concentration of

Mesa Complex debris. Therefore this seems

to be another manifestation of the microblade component. By virtue of the fact that

both are dominated by the same rare, nonlocal maroon chert, they are probably related. Therefore the flakes, core fragments,

microblades, and biface in Sublocality A5

are included in the microblade component.

Additional evidence of a microblade occupation is present in Sublocalities A4 and

A3. Sublocality A4 contains a large concentration of typical Mesa Component debris,

as well as a small, exhausted wedge-shaped

core and six microblades on black chert.

While these materials overlap spatially with

the Paleoindian artifacts, the evidence suggests that the microblade-related pieces are

a later, unrelated occupation, probably associated with the rest of the microblade component from the site. The evidence concerns

one well-made biface half. The biface appears to be a typical Mesa Complex type B

biface. Such bifaces are found across the site

and are clearly related to the Paleoindian

component. However, this biface has been

altered to produce a striking platform on

the fracture face. From this face several

spalls (microblades) were driven off one of

the lateral margins in a manner similar to

a microblade core. There is no evidence of

this type of activity anywhere else on the

site, so its occurrence is not typical of the

assemblage as a whole. It seems reasonable

to suppose that this broken Mesa Complex

biface was picked up by a later occupant

with the intent of turning it into a

microblade core (or possibly a multifaceted

burin), unsuccessfully due to a flaw in the

material. While the microblade component

is undated, if this biface does indicate scavenging of Mesa Complex material by the

microblade occupation, then the microblade

component must postdate the Paleoindian

occupation, though the exact age is, of

course, unknown.

A small basal fragment of a notched projectile point made from black chert was also

found in this area. This piece is clearly intrusive in the Mesa Complex assemblage,

and presumably is associated with the

microblade occupation (Bever 2000). Similar materials — wedge-shaped microblade

cores, microblades, and notched points —

have been dated at the Lisburne site, five

miles north of the Mesa, at ca. 3500 years

BP (Bowers 1999). It seems reasonable to

assume that the microblade component at

the Mesa is related culturally and temporally to the occupation at Lisburne.

Based on the patterns previously described, at least 707 artifacts and detrital

pieces can be assigned to the microblade

component. These include both diagnostic

artifacts, and waste flakes on the distinctive materials discussed above. Undoubtedly, local materials found in the rest of the

assemblage were used by the microblade occupation as well, minimally including the

black and tan chert seen on the microblades.

Presumably, some of the non-diagnostic

waste flakes made from these materials

belong to the microblade component as well.

However, there is no way to identify them.

Although microblade component material

was found associated with Mesa Complex

artifacts and detritus in Locality A, none

was found associated with any of the

hearths or included within the charcoal/soil

matrix of any hearth. This coupled with

other factors previously discussed indicates

that microblade technology is not part of the

Mesa Complex lithic industry and represents only brief and sporadic use of the Mesa

by a more recent group.
39

Figure 26. Location of chert sources in relation to the Mesa. (Blue dot indicates location of

Anaktuvuk Pass, and heavy dark line traces the continental divide.) (After Mull 1994)

LITHIC SOURCES

Most of the information that we have

gleaned through excavation of the Mesa is

based upon the stone tools found there.

Much of that data is directly linked to the

types of stone selected for the manufacture

of the tools, as well as its availability. In addition, the physical properties or litho-mechanical characteristics of the different

types of stone also provide insights into the

activities of the Mesa occupants, and warrants a brief discussion.

Chert is a hard, dense rock that is primarily silicon dioxide, and has a vitreous or

glassy luster. When struck, it displays the

property of conchoidal fracture. Occasionally, silicified mudstone and limestone are

confused with, or identified as chert, and

Banded gray to black chert 

Jet black chert 

Red and turquoise-green chert 

Light tan to black mottled chert 

Greenish-gray to very dark gray chert 

E 

. 

\ 

--

E 

. 

\ 

-- . 

E. 

.. J - -

~-... 
40

fine grained basalt can often display similar properties. All of these materials are

present in the Brooks Range, and were used

to make the stone tools found at the Mesa.

However, 99% of the tools and manufacturing detritus at the site is chert. The reason

is that high quality chert is abundant in the

sedimentary rocks along most of the northern flank of the Brooks Range. This is particularly true in the foothills of the western

and central Brooks Range, as is demonstrated by the ubiquitous occurrence of chert

cobbles in every major and minor drainage

flowing out of the mountains (Mull 1994).

Although it has long been assumed that

prehistoric peoples of the region were obtaining their tool stone primarily from the

chert cobbles found in these streams, our

research at the Mesa does not support that

assumption. Most of the stone flakes at the

site that display cortex, show a cortex of the

type associated with primary deposits such

as nodules, lenses, or beds. While stream

cobbles were used, they do not appear to

have been used as frequently as material

from primary sources. The work of Shelley

(1994) and John Dubé (personal communication 2001) has demonstrated that due to

the harsh arctic in-stream environment, the

litho-mechanical properties/quality of most

stream cobbles have been substantially degraded. Therefore, at least for the

Paleoindians at the Mesa, the majority of

lithic procurement seems to have been carried out at primary sources, which are numerous, nearby, and readily accessible.

It is interesting to note, as pointed out by

Mull (1994), that many varieties and colors

of chert are confined to specific formations

for which the geographic distribution is

fairly well known. In some cases, such information can provide insights into the tool

stone preferences and movements of prehistoric peoples of the region. However, there

is probably no location along the northern

flank of the Brooks Range where usable

chert is not readily available. Although as

Mull (1994) points out, even though the location of the Mesa is within ten miles of potential sources of most of the known Brooks

Range chert types, the vast majority of the

tools made by the Mesa Paleoindians are

made of local chert from sources no more

than a mile or two distant (Figure 26).

One tool, a graver, and 61 flakes of obsidian were recovered from the Mesa. Most of

the flakes are small retouch flakes, although

there are a few larger ones indicative of the

bifacial reduction process. Obsidian was

found in all the localities of the site, most

commonly directly associated with hearths.

The only obsidian source north of the Yukon

River, Batza Téna, lies 200 miles to the south

of the site in the Koyukuk drainage. Neutron activation and other types of trace element analysis indicate that the Mesa obsidian is from the Batza Téna source (Cook

1999; Kunz et al. 2001). The small flakes

indicate that most of the obsidian (only

.0005% of the total number of flakes recovered from the site) probably arrived at the

Mesa in the form of finished tools. The presence of obsidian at the site suggests that

the Mesa Paleoindians had a wide range of

geographic knowledge of Alaska north of the

Yukon River, and/or that an extensive trading network existed in the region prior to

and during their occupation of the site.

SITE USE

We believe that the majority of the area

of the Mesa that was used by its prehistoric

occupants has been excavated. The kinds of

features and artifacts found across the site

(except as previously noted) are consistent.

Therefore, we feel confident that the material we have gathered through excavation

is, without question, representative of the

primary activities that were carried out

there. As previously mentioned, excavation

has demonstrated that the site is comprised

of a large number of relatively small activity areas, usually with a hearth or hearths

as the focal point of the activity. The small

activity areas cluster into larger use areas,

which in general correspond to our locality

and/or sublocality designations, and in turn

reflect the local surface topography atop the

Mesa.

The site’s lithic assemblage is made up of

more than 121,000 pieces, and while extensive, it lacks variety. Formal tools, which

number 442 (excluding artifacts attributed

to the microblade component), represent
41

6 More than 85% of the projectile points recovered from the

Mesa are the snapped basal portions of points, or points

that were resharpened while in the haft, presumably a field

expedient.

only four types: projectile points (N=154),

other bifaces (N=212), gravers (N=70), and

scrapers (N=6). The vast majority of the

more than 120,000 waste flakes result from

the process of bifacial reduction, and there

is no doubt that the primary activity taking place on the Mesa was biface reduction/

projectile point manufacture.

Gravers are tools considered by most archaeologists to be the prehistoric equivalent

of the Swiss Army Knife, and are most often associated with the repair and retooling of hunting equipment (Judge 1973;

Boast 1983).

All but two of the scrapers are associated

with the only one of 40 hearths and that

hearth appears to have food preparation activities associated with it. Scrapers are usually associated with hide working, and

therefore are ancillary tools in relation to

the primary activity occurring at the Mesa.

This would account for their low numbers.

Finally, the Mesa’s morphology and location provide a wonderful vantage point from

which to view a large expanse of the surrounding countryside. Taken in total, this

data suggests that the Mesa was utilized

as a hunting lookout.

Although we lack hard evidence, we believe the hunters who periodically occupied

the Mesa likely set up a base camp along

nearby Iteriak Creek, where the riparian

zone provided good water, construction materials, fuel, and other comforts. Probably

on a daily basis, hunters from the base camp

would spend much of their time atop the

Mesa scanning the surrounding landscape

for game animals. Three of the four use areas (excavation localities) are situated so

that an unobstructed 360o view is available.

The exception occurrs at Locality Saddle,

which offers a limited view northwest

through northeast. This locality may have

been occupied because it is somewhat sheltered from the strong winds and storms of

summer, which are predominately from the

south. While keeping a lookout for game, the

hunters worked on their equipment, removing and discarding broken and reworked

projectile points and hafting new ones.6This

activity almost always was conducted adjacent to a small fire, which may have been

necessary to the hafting process (ie. heating mastic), for personal warmth, for a

smudge against mosquitos, or all of these

purposes. There is very little evidence suggesting the fires were used for cooking; we

assume that activity was usually conducted

at the base camp. Regardless of their purpose, the fires were an integral part of the

activities at the Mesa, as indicated by the

high artifact and waste flake densities surrounding them.

TOOL USE-WEAR AND

RESIDUE ANALYSIS

Most functional studies of Paleoindian

artifacts have concentrated on projectile

points and their role as tools used in hunting and butchering animals (Kay 1996; Loy

and Dixon 1998). Microscopic use-wear

analysis can provide data concerning tool

use not readily discernable by other means

of examination, and residue analysis can

often reveal evidence for exploitation of

materials that does not otherwise survive

in the archaeological record (Hardy and

Garufi 1998; Hardy and Kay 1998). Preliminary analysis of a representative sample of

the Mesa Complex lithic assemblage has

been microscopically examined to obtain

data that could provide additional information regarding the activities that took place

on the Mesa.

The artifacts were examined using reflected light microscopy at magnifications

ranging from 50 to 500 diameters using

Olympus BX-60 and Olympus BX-30 microscopes (Hardy 2000, 2001). All residues and

wear patterns were photographed and compared with experimental and published

material for identification (AndersonGerfaud 1990; Hardy 1994; Hardy and

Garufi 1998). Potentially recognizable residues include animal (hair, feather, skin,

bone, antler, and blood) and plant (starch

grains, cellular tissue, wood fragments, and

phytoliths) material (Hardy 1994; Hardy

and Garufi 1998; Hardy and Kay 1998). Usewear identification is concentrated on stria-
42

Figure 27. Example of residue with drying

cracks (a) and use-wear striations (b) on Mesa

biface. (Photo: B. Hardy)

tions, polish, and edge-rounding to help

identify the area of an artifact that was used

and the use-action. Use-wear was not used

to identify specific use-materials beyond the

level of hard/high silica vs. soft material

(Fullagar 1991).

Thirty-eight of the forty-one artifacts examined exhibit some evidence of wear, and/

or residues relating to hafting or use. The

resulting range of residues includes plant

tissue, hair and skin fragments, possible

bone or antler, possible blood residues, and

unknown films of additive residue with drying cracks (suggesting that the residue was

in liquid form when applied). Use-wear includes polish, edge rounding and damage,

and striations with multiple orientations

related to both cutting and hafting (Hardy

2000, 2001).

Hafting residues are confined to the proximal third to half portion of the artifact, and

are characterized as various colored additive residues, possibly mastic, with and

without drying cracks, plant fibers, skin

fragments, and wood fragments. Hafting

wear likewise is confined to the proximal

third to half of the artifact, and is described

as parallel, perpendicular or oblique striae,

abraded ridges, polish and light polish. Useresidues are confined to the distal portion

of the artifact near or on the working edge,

and include hair fragments, skin fragments,

possible bone/antler fragments, various colored residues with drying cracks, and plant

fragments. Use-wear is confined to the distal portion of the artifact near or on the

working edge, and is described as parallel,

oblique, and perpendicular striae, polish,

and edge damage (Hardy 2000, 2001).

Although this analysis is on-going, there

are some preliminary results. Twenty projectile points have been examined: one complete point, one resharpened point, one

nearly complete distal section, one midsection and 16 bases of varying lengths. The

complete projectile point displays additive

hafting residue. The resharpened point

shows hafting wear in the form of perpendicular striae, oblique striae resulting from

use possibly as a knife, and a residual skin

fragment. The distal section displays usewear polish while the midsection exhibits

no identifiable wear or residues. Eleven of

the projectile point bases examined reveal

wear or residue that is functionally informative. The remaining five bases have some

form of light polish, but its patterning and

location does not provide conclusive functional evidence. Seventeen of the projectile

points show evidence of hafting. This is indicated by the presence of striations or polish resulting from the hafting material and

binding material residues (Hardy 2000,

2001).

The examination of seven complete and

fragmentary bifaces revealed that all exhibit evidence of use. Six of them display

additive residue films with drying cracks,

while one does not. Plant fragments and a

dark residue on one of the tools is interpreted as evidence of hafting, while two others display use-wear striations (Figure 27).

The presence of hair fragments has been

noted on two of the implements. One of these

displays a residue, oblique striae, and a hair
43

Figure 28. Mesa scraper fragment with hair

(a), and hair embedded in residue (b). (Photo:

B. Hardy)

with visible scales, suggesting it was used

for cutting animal tissue. The use-wear on

these artifacts is consistent with the assumed uses of this form of tool, that of a

cutting implement. However it is impossible

to determine if the tool was created as a

knife, or if it was meant to be a lance point

or other tool that was used for cutting.

Four gravers have been examined and

three of them display evidence of use. One

of these tools has some polish along one edge

suggesting use as a whittling tool with the

ventral surface in contact with the material being whittled or cut. Another graver

has plant fragments adhering to the proximal end suggesting hafting, however, no

use-residues or use-wear has been observed.

A third graver has striations with multiple

orientations suggesting utilization in complex cutting motions/activities, although the

material it was used on is unknown (Hardy

2000, 2001). All of this evidence is consistent with graver use in the implement’s assumed role as a multi-purpose tool.

Four retouched flakes have been examined and all display evidence of use. Microscopic examination of one of the flakes reveals that numerous fragments of a material that morphologically resembles bone or

antler adhere along the edges of the flake

and are associated with polish and striations, suggesting that the residue is related

to use (Hardy 1994, 2000). Another flake exhibits a highly reflective residue with drying cracks associated with striations, edge

damage, and polish. It appears to have been

used on a hard or high silica content material. A third flake with two snap fractures

displays multiple oblique striae suggesting

that it broke while being used. The remaining flake exhibits an additive residue, parallel and oblique striae, polish and edgerounding, suggesting use as a slicing or

whittling tool (Hardy 2000, 2001). This type

of use-wear is common on flakes more or

less randomly selected, used as incidental

tools (tools of the moment) and then discarded, and is consistent with assemblages

from hunting-oriented sites (Judge 1973;

Binford 1980).

The microscopic examination of four

scrapers reveals that all of these tools retain evidence of use. One of these tools exhibits polish so heavy along one of the working edges that it is visible macroscopically.

This type of polish suggests that the tool

was used to cut a hard or high silica material. Another scraper displays extensive

heavy polish along the working edges and

an imbedded hair fragment, suggesting a

hide scraping action. A third specimen exhibits a black residue with drying cracks on

the ventral surface and hair fragments imbedded in that residue, suggesting use as a

hide scraper (Figure 28). The fourth scraper

displays a reddish brown residue on the ventral surface and some striae perpendicular

to the working edge. In an attempt to gain

more information relating to the residue,

this latter artifact was submitted to

Microspec Analytical Group, Ltd., Holland,

Michigan, for chemical analysis. A sample

of the residue was examined using infrared

spectroscopy. The results of this analysis

were compared to known samples includ-
44

ing two types of resin (pine and birch) and

two modern flint flakes that were used to

cut animal tissue, one on a Thompson’s Gazelle and the other on a Wallaroo. The results did not yield a definitive identification,

but the residue on the scraper more closely

resembles the animal tissue residues than

it does the resins (Hardy 2000, 2001). Further evaluation through chemical characterization of the residues might provide

more information. With the exception of the

first scraper described, the use-wear on all

of the scrapers is consistent with the assumed hide-working function of scrapers.

Three of these scrapers are associated with

a hearth in the East Ridge Locality at which

food preparation activities appear to have

taken place. This was the only use area at

the site where such activity occurred. The

scraper with the use-wear, inferring work

on a high silica or hard material, came from

Locality Saddle.

During excavation in the East Ridge Locality, two large flat rocks (slabs) were found

lying horizontally, adjacent to and protruding into the above-mentioned hearth feature. The rocks are manuports, and we assume that they were related to food preparation activities, perhaps functioning as a

counter top does in a modern kitchen. Both

rocks exhibit the same pattern of residues

and wear. The superior (upper) surfaces are

clean and flat. No use-residue or use-wear

is present. The inferior (under) surfaces of

the slabs are covered almost entirely by a

brown-black stain, which under magnification exhibits drying cracks, and an occasional plant fiber (Hardy 2000, 2001). The

rocks are limestone and the residue may be

the result of the action of humic acids in

the soil.

In general, the results of artifact use-wear

and residue analysis are consistent with the

activities the types of artifacts and their condition suggest took place atop the Mesa.

Although use-wear and residue analysis of

Mesa artifacts is on-going, there is no indication that additional work will provide

evidence that will alter our view of the activities that were occurring at the Mesa

between 11,700 and 9700 years BP.

PALEOECOLOGY

Subsistence Resources

The most compelling question raised by

our research is why the Mesa was used as a

hunting lookout. It is well established that

caribou have been the primary human subsistence resource in arctic Alaska for millennia. Since the early 1900s, researchers

have recognized that without caribou (which

provide food, shelter, and material for tools

and construction), or an animal of similar

size, numbers, and habits, arctic Alaska

would not be habitable by humans

(Campbell 1968). Most recently this was

demonstrated by a drastic crash in the arctic Alaska caribou population (Western Arctic Caribou Herd), beginning ca. 1890 and

continuing through the 1920s. As a result,

between 1900 and 1930 the Brooks Range,

and all but the coastal region of the North

Slope, were abandoned by the native population. It was not until the early 1930s, as

caribou numbers began to increase, that

people began living in the region once more

(Gubser 1965; Simon Paneak, personal communication 1975).

Due to their numbers, gregarious nature

and migratory habits, caribou can be successfully hunted without the aid of a vantage point of the Mesa’s proportions. This is

demonstrated by the rather nondescript location of numerous caribou hunting/kill

sites throughout arctic Alaska (Gubser

1965; Binford 1978, 1980). Along the fivemile section of Iteriak Creek immediately

north of the Mesa, there is a series of

creekside archaeological sites. These sites

represent use of the area from roughly 8000

years BP through the historic period. A

number of these sites were used for caribou

hunting activities, suggesting that the use

of a vantage point of the Mesa’s stature is

not important in hunting caribou. This reality is further reinforced by the fact that

none of the more recent cultural entities in

the Iteriak Valley used the Mesa in any significant way. It is also worth noting that all

of the other five known Mesa Complex sites

are located on promontories commanding a

field of view comparable to that of the type

site, and at all of them there is little or no

evidence of use by more recent cultures
45

(Reanier 1995; Ackerman 2001; Bever 2000).

These data suggest several possibilities:

1) the Mesa people were hunting caribou,

but the population was extremely low, and

a vantage point like the Mesa was needed

to maximize procurement opportunities; 2)

the Mesa people’s primary prey species were

not caribou, but animals whose habits required the use of a vantage point like the

Mesa to conduct successful hunting operations; 3) all prey species in the region were

low in numbers and no opportunity to obtain game animals could be overlooked. The

common thread is that all these scenarios

require hunting from a vantage point to

make the best use of available game resources. The fact that the people that inhabited the region after ca. 7500 years BP did

not utilize Mesa Complex site locales as

hunting lookouts, suggests that the need to

do so was a condition that was particular to

the Pleistocene/Holocene transition period.

Climate and Vegetation

As previously mentioned, although the

excavation of the Mesa has provided a tremendous amount of data regarding the

lithic industry of its ancient occupants, and

insights into their utilization of the site, it

is not the kind of site that can provide much

information concerning the past climate and

ecology of the region. Any discussion concerning human history in arctic Alaska between ca. 12,000 and 10,000 years BP becomes one of how the environment affected

prey species. Without that type of information it is impossible to begin to understand

why the site was used as it was, or to gain

insights into the life-ways of these early

Alaskan residents. As a result we had to go

afield to collect the paleoecological data that

would help us develop a more complete picture of the terminal Pleistocene environment, and how it may have been exploited

by the Paleoindians of the North Slope.7

Daniel Mann conducted this aspect of research, and the following is a compilation

of his results.

Figure 29. Excavation in lake bed sediments at Lake of the Pleistocene. (Photo: M. Kunz)

7 We attempted DNA analysis of the bone fragments that

were recovered from an East Ridge Locality hearth, hoping

to identify the animal that had been the source of dinner.

Due to the age of the bones and their burned condition, the

extraction of a suitable DNA sample proved to be very

difficult. The results of this work were tenuous at best, and

suggested that the bones might be those of muskox (Pamela

Groves, personal communication 2000). An effort to

corroborate these findings at another laboratory proved

unsuccessful (Elizabeth Shapiro, personal communication

2001).
46

Figure 30. Synthesis of environmental changes in the Arctic Foothills during the PleistoceneHolocene transition. Time scale in calendar years to allow comparison with Greenland δ18O

record from Grootes and Stuiver (1997). Lake levels inferred from stratigraphy at Lake of

Pleistocene (LOP). A similar history for Populus emerges from LOP pollen data. Histograms

depict numbers of 14C dates whose calibrated 1 sigma age range falls within a given decade

(YD= Younger Dryas). Dates on stabilization of the Ikpikpuk Dunes from Carter, 1993. (After

Mann et al. 2002))

It would be difficult to find a time period

containing more radical shifts in climate,

vegetation, and biota than the several millennia spanning the Pleistocene to Holocene

transition. Most intense was the period ca.

11,000 to 10,000 years BP, referred to as the

Younger Dryas, a time when global climate

jumped from interglacial conditions to glacial conditions, then back to interglacial conditions with decadal rapidity (Alley et al.

1993; Mayewski et al. 1993; Isarin and

Bohncke 1999; Alley 2000). Widespread extinctions affected the world’s megafauna

during this interval (Martin and Klein 1984;

Guthrie 1990). The flooding of Alaska’s continental shelves, particulary after ca. 10,000

years BP, had significant impacts on climate,

and vegetation changes repeatedly swept

through arctic Alaska.

We used the stratigraphic archives in exposed geologic sections to infer how area

soils, permafrost, and vegetation responded

to these rapid climatic changes. Our primary

resource are the deposits of the Lake of the

Pleistocene (LOP), a drained lake that lies

about 15 miles west of the Mesa (Figure 29).

The lake bottom sediments, which contain

a record of lake level and vegetation changes

through time, are exposed in a cutbank of

the Etivluk River. These sediments extend

back to the last interstadial, ca. 45,000 years

BP, and their stratigraphic profiles were

used to determine lake level fluctuations,

as well as providing pollen and spores to

reconstruct vegetation history (Figure 30).

The evolution of paludification (development of peat) was determined by dating

basal peats recovered through core augering

the tundra. Floodplain dynamics were described by studying the chronology of terrace aggradation and erosion of area

streams, and the history of solifluction was

documented in exposed stratigraphic sections in the region (Mann et al. 2001, 2002).

Our research, and that of others, indicates that during full glacial times the exposed area of the land bridge (continental

shelves), plus the permanently frozen Arctic ocean, produced an extreme continental

climate over the Beringian land mass. The

atmosphere was very dry, clouds were rare,

and there was little precipitation during

co 8 Cl) 

co 

CO ~ 6 

-0 -CO ._ 0 4 

Q) - .0 co 

E a, 2 :J Q. 

z 0 

8 

A 

10 12 14 

Time (cal ka B.P. ) 

Streams 

16 8 10 12 14 

B Time ( cal ka B. P.) 

16 
47

winter or summer. Until about 13,500 years

BP, a full glacial landscape was present in

the region surrounding the Mesa (Mann et

al. 2001, 2002). That landscape has been referred to as steppe-tundra or mammothsteppe (Guthrie 1990). There is no modern

analog for this ecosystem, but it can best be

described as a mosaic grassland, a sort of

arctic prairie that supported a variety of

grazing animals including mammoth, horse,

and bison. The winters in the region were a

few degrees colder and probably a bit

windier than they are today, but with little

cloud cover and much less snowfall. Compared to today, the summers were sunnier,

warmer, a little windier, and much drier. All

the conditions for grass to flourish were

present. Most of the summer precipitation

occurred during the late spring/early summer when it was most needed by the emerging vegetation. Solar radiation rapidly

warmed a surface poorly insulated by grass.

This quickly thawed an extensive active

layer, which caused the permafrost level to

remain fairly deep, and soil temperature to

be warmer than it is today. Annually, the

surface was kept in a disturbed state due to

the aeolian deposition of loess and animal

trampling. These factors, coupled with a

high rate of evapotranspiration, promoted

good surface drainage, and limited the

amount of standing water (Kunz 1996).

Our data indicates that fluctuating moisture is the common theme in the

paleoenvironmental records of the region.

Water level changes in LOP coincide with

changes in key landscape processes involving vegetation, organic-matter accumulation, flood plain dynamics, solifluction, and

coastal plain sand dune activity. Some time

in the millennia prior to 12,500 years BP,

during the Bolling Chronozone — a period

when the annual temperature was a few

degrees warmer than today — more frequent rains accompanying a warmer climate were likely the cause for the initiation of paludification (peat development and

buildup). Very rapid alluviation of valleys

from at least 12,200 to 11,000 years BP, suggests a marked increase in hillslope erosion.

This would have entailed increased summer

rainfall, and/or increased thermokarst activity — the slumping caused by the melting of ice-rich permafrost. Coastal plain

dunes were stabilized between 12,500 and

11,000 years BP probably as the result of

increased soil moisture (Kunz et al. 1999a).

During the Younger Dryas and the return

of a full glacial climate, decreased precipitation caused lake levels to fall, sand dunes

to reactivate, and paludification to slow8

.

Streams downcut, probably because channel erosion by snow-melt floods continued,

while the input of slope sediments from

summer rains and/or thermokarst declined.

Regional disappearance of scattered poplar

refugiums may have been partly due to

shrinkage of their flood plain habitat as

streams entrenched (Kunz et al. 1999a).

The close of the Younger Dryas, some time

between 10,000 and 9700 years BP,

reinitiated the global warming trend, and

once again annual temperatures climbed a

few degrees higher than today. Water level

in LOP rose, and poplars again expanded

north of present latitudinal treeline. A brief

episode of widespread solifluction probably

occurred when thickening active layers released water stored in ice lenses below the

thin active layers established during the

Younger Dryas. After 10,000 years BP, denudation of slopes caused by increased summer rains, widespread solifluction, and probably increased thermokarst activity, again

triggered rapid alluviation in valleys.

Paludification was stimulated by increasing effective moisture by about 10,000 years

BP. The spread of organic horizons would

have caused active layers to thin and soil

erosion to decline, initiating a long-term

trend of entrenchment by the streams. As

flood plains narrowed, loess deposition in

downwind areas declined, probably enhancing soil acidification and further

paludification (Kunz et al. 1999a).

This change is most graphically represented by the pollen recovered from the LOP

sediments (Figure 31). Before 10,000 years

BP, the species indicative of steppe-tundra

8 Although the annual temperature decreased to the full

glacial level during the Younger Dryas, there was open water

at least seasonally in the Arctic Ocean, and therefore more

atmospheric moisture available (resulting in more

precipitation) than in full glacial times.
48

are much more prevalent, and the species

indicative of tussock-tundra are essentially

absent. After 10,000 years BP, steppe-tundra species decrease, and tussock tundra

species increase rapidly.

By 15,000 years BP, at least a portion of

the Arctic Ocean was seasonally ice-free,

and water from the Bering Sea was encroaching from the south. Over the next several thousand years, the geographical integrity of the Beringian subcontinent was compromised, and the severe continental climate moderated. More atmospheric moisture produced increasing cloud cover and

precipitation. The winters became slightly

warmer with more snow. The ground was

covered with snow earlier in the year, and

the annual spring breakup occurred later

and produced more water. This caused the

summers to be shorter in duration (fewer

snow-free days and later green-up) and

cooler with more precipitation. The cloudier

summer skies reduced solar radiation and

soil temperatures dropped, causing the active layer to shrink and the permafrost level

to rise. This, coupled with a decreased rate

of evapotranspiration, dramatically added

to the amount of surface water, providing

for an increase in the mosquito population.

More water meant fewer river bars were

exposed and less loess available to be deposited over the landscape. This resulted in

a more stable surface, reducing the available grass habitat. The cooler, wetter conditions favored the proliferation of tussocktundra plant communities, and the build up

of peat at the expense of grass (Kunz et al.

1999a).

Paleobiology

The fact that there was a lot of grass on

Alaska’s North Slope during the last glacial episode, is corroborated by the variety

of grazers that inhabited the region during

the late Pleistocene. The fossil remains of

these animals have been preserved in the

frozen loess and peat of the region. Annual

high water events, such as spring breakup

and river erosion, often expose their remains. As a result, the banks and gravel

bars of the meandering rivers of the region

have provided us with a collection of nearly

Figure 31. Percentage pollen and spore diagram from Lake of the Pleistocene. White curves

show taxa associated with paludification. (After Mann et al. 2002)

853), 70 

8870~60 

10.240..SO 

10,950..SO 

12,320±60 

12,450,60 . 
49

9 Our muskox research is not yet complete. However, because

of their non-migratory nature, social habits, and numbers

(as well as negative archaeological evidence for their use as

a prey animal) they are not generally considered to have

been a primary subsistence resource in arctic Alaska; rather

like moose, they appear to have been more a target of

opportunity.

3000 fossil specimens — valuable data regarding species variety and density for the

region during the late Pleistocene. The collection and analysis of this material by Paul

Matheus has provided some unexpected

results.

Early in the project, preliminary radiocarbon assays of bone collagen from these

specimens indicated that horse and mammoth, although extremely numerous prior

to and immediately following the last glacial maximum, were either absent from the

region during the period of Mesa occupation, or that their numbers were so low they

did not show up in the fossil record for that

time period. Therefore, they could not have

been a reliable subsistence resource for the

human inhabitants of the region (Kunz

1996). As a result, we confined our research

efforts to the large Pleistocene mammal

species, bison, muskox9, and caribou, that

were represented in the fossil record as

present in the region between ca. 12,000 and

10,000 years BP, and could have served as

subsistence resources for the early inhabitants of arctic Alaska. However, the fact that

horse and mammoth decline shortly after

the last glacial maximum, and bison,

muskox, and caribou do not, sheds some

light on the ecosystem changes that were

occurring at that time.

There were basically two types of grazers inhabiting arctic Alaska during the late

Pleistocene: ruminants, such as bison,

muskox, and caribou, and monogastrics

such as mammoth and horse. These two

grazer types have different foraging strategies that result from differences in their

digestive anatomy, and as Guthrie (1982)

has pointed out, because of this they are

excellent paleoenvironmental indicators.

Ruminants have evolved to thrive on diets

of moderate-quality, low-fiber plant material. They have a slow gut-transit time

which allows the animal to extract and absorb the maximum amount of energy and

nutrition from a given forage. However, in

order to gain enough protein and energy to

successfully reproduce, ruminants require

seasonal spikes in forage quality, e.g. a

green-up season. Monogastrics on the other

hand, have evolved to make the most of lowquality, high-fiber forage through a combination of rapid gut-transit time and a selective fermentation chamber called the caecum. However, forage passes so quickly

through the gut of a monogastric, that protein and micro nutrients often are not efficiently extracted. Therefore, monogastrics

must have a diet more diverse than ruminants (Matheus 1998, 2000; Kunz et al.

1999b). Because monogastric populations

appear to have been affected long before ruminant populations in arctic Alaska, it may

indicate that plant diversity in the region

began decreasing following the last glacial

maximum, and that the initial change was

a decrease in grasses.

Our research indicates that caribou,

which are by far the most numerous large

mammal species through Holocene and recent times, appear to have been less abundant during the late Pleistocene, although

they appear to be relatively common prior

to and immediately following the last glacial maximum (Figure 32). While their reduced numbers may have been the result of

competition with other species in a situation of rapidly changing habitat, their historically documented tendency for extreme

(and unexplained) population fluctuations

was probably an important factor as well.

As a component of the late Pleistocene large

herbivore community in arctic Alaska, caribou appear to have accounted for about 15%

of individuals, while in recent times they

account for more than 90%. It is well documented that from a subsistence point of

view, biomass is a more meaningful measure than number of individuals, and our

data indicate that during the late Pleistocene caribou accounted for only about 3%

of the regional biomass. In recent times,

their regional biomass level has been

around 90% (Matheus 2000). A survey of archaeological sites in the region which have

produced radiocarbon dates on culturally

altered caribou bone, suggest that caribou
50

Figure 32.. Caribou and bison dates from the Ikpikpuk River, arctic Alaska, illustrating a relative absence of caribou du

Younger Dryas episode and period of Mesa occupation. (Graph: C.M. Adkins)

CARIBOU and BISON dates from the lkpikpuk River, northern Alaska 

6 

5 

4 

"' Q) -

Ill 

J 

3 I I I II I 

I I I I 

1• • ·-

.. • • • • • • • 

2 

0 1• • • • .. , 

3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 

TIME 

(Uncalibrated radiocarbon dates in thousands of years BP [Before Present]) 
51

numbers were not high enough for them to

be a reliable subsistence resource much before 7500 years BP, by which time the regional landscape had become dominated by

tussock-tundra (Kunz et al. 1999a).

By comparison, the percent of individuals for bison and muskox in the region during the late Pleistocene is 21% and 25% respectively. In terms of biomass, bison remains around 21%, while muskox drops to

9%, suggesting that muskox could not have

served as a primary subsistence species. At

present there are no bison in the region, and

muskox are represented by an introduced

population that represents less than 1% of

the individual and biomass total for the current regional large herbivore population.

Bison became extinct in arctic Alaska at

the end of the Pleistocene, and although

muskox successfully made the transition

into the Holocene and recent times, their

remains are practically non-existent in the

North Slope archaeological record. This evidence would seem to indicate that throughout the history of human presence on the

North Slope, muskox have never been a significant subsistence resource. As a result,

although we have no archaeological evidence demonstrating an association between terminal Pleistocene humans and

bison, we believe that bison were the most

likely prey species of the Mesa Paleoindians.

Among other evidence, we base this conclusion on the data from 50 AMS radiocarbon

assays of fossil bison bones recovered from

the Ikpikpuk River, 60 miles north of the

Mesa, which show that bison were present

in the region while the Mesa was occupied

(Matheus 1998, 2000). It is worth noting

that at the same time, caribou numbers appear to be so low that they are absent from

the fossil record, and probably are not a reliable subsistence resource (Figure 32). We

suspect that by 10,500 years BP, the bison

population was greatly reduced — although

they were probably more numerous than

other large herbivore species such as caribou and muskox — and by themselves may

not have been able to sustain the human

population. This suggests that the less numerous species may have been a more important resource than previously realized.

As a result of these circumstances, arctic

Paleoindians may have been even more dependent upon bison than their southern

relatives on the North American High

Plains. While the Mesa Paleoindians possessed a lithic technology that appears to

be based upon a bison economy identical to

that of the southern Paleoindians, the arctic bison and ecosystem were significantly

different from that of the High Plains. These

differences provide valuable insights into

the life-ways of the Mesa Paleoindians.

Bison priscus was the only bison present

in Alaska until the terminal Pleistocene.

About 400,000 years ago B. priscus entered

North America from Asia, passing through

Alaska on its way to the North American

plains. On the plains it appears to have

evolved into the famous long-horned B.

latifrons, which in turn is believed to have

given rise to B. antiquus (Guthrie 1990). In

Alaska, B. priscus remained unchanged.

Around 12,000 years BP, a smaller shorthorned bison, B. occidentalis, appears in

Alaska and shortly thereafter is present on

the High Plains (Guthrie 1990). It appears

that B. occidentalis is the progenitor of modern bison. Our data do not tell us if B. priscus

and B. occidentalis are contemporaries in

Alaska, or if B. occidentalis is nothing more

than a diminution of B. priscus, the result

of ecological stress generated by the terminal Pleistocene environmental changes. Our

faunal collection contains hundreds of bones

of mature bison, and the range of size for

any given bone is extreme. However, there

is no temporal constraint associated with

the size variations, so they could reflect either sexual dimorphism or speciation. The

bottom line is that there is no way to determine if the bison on the North Slope, at the

time the Mesa was occupied, were the huge

B. priscus or the smaller, yet large by modern standards, B. occidentalis.

Since almost all data concerning interaction between humans and bison in North

America comes from the Great Plains, these

data may not be universally applicable to

the North Slope. Although the dentition of

B. priscus, as well as plant fragments found

in the teeth of frozen fossil specimens indicate that B. priscus was a grazing special-
52

ist, there is also data (Guthrie 1990) that

suggest that browsing could account for up

to 50% of foraging activity if the range was

grass-poor. As discussed previously, the terminal Pleistocene range on the North Slope

appears to have been grass-poor, and therefore foraging and other bison behavior,

whether B. priscus or B. occidentalis, may

have been somewhat atypical when compared to their southern relatives.

In the temperate latitudes, bison migrate

primarily as a response to the seasonal

south to north greenup of their range. In

arctic Alaska the timing and pattern of

greenup is not south to north, but is more

influenced by topography, primarily slope

and slope aspect. This is because the exposure of the surface to solar radiation is so

critical to the emergence and growth of vegetation. South facing slopes green up first,

while slopes with northern exposures green

up last. This suggests that bison in the vicinity of the Mesa would have had access to

nutritious forage nearly all spring and summer by just going around to the other side

of the hill, rather than having to migrate

any real distance (Kunz et al. 1999b).

In general, nonmigratory herbivores are

larger than those that migrate, and B.

priscus was large. Another reason that B.

priscus may have retained its large size in

the Arctic, is that large ruminants are far

more efficient at digesting poor quality forage than are small ruminants (Guthrie

1990). Also worthy of note is that limited

sexual dimorphism is usually found in species that are seasonally migratory, because

they live most of the year in a mixed herd,

and competitiveness would be a negative

strategy. As a species, B. priscus is very sexually dimorphic, the males being considerably

larger than the females. This suggests that

most of the year the males and females lived

in separate bands in order to reduce agonistic behavior (Guthrie 1990). These data

suggest that in arctic Alaska, B. priscus (and

probably B. occidentalis) likely congregated

in small bands scattered across the landscape, in predictable locales, and were not

migratory in the true sense. Because their

group size was small, and their behavior

rather sedentary, the methods the Mesa

Paleoindians used to hunt them were probably somewhat different than the methods

employed by hunters on the High Plains

(Kunz et al. 1999a). Nonetheless, if the residents of the Mesa were hunting Bison

priscus, it must have been quite an adventure.

Figure 33. Location of Mesa Complex sites in arctic Alaska.

0 70 140 Beaufort Sea 

Miles 

Chukchi Sea 

Arctic Circle --- --- --- - - - - -
53

IMPLICATIONS OF THE MESA

COMPLEX FOR NORTH

AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGY AND

THE PEOPLING OF THE NEW

WORLD

Research at the Mesa, Hilltop, Bedwell,

and Kuna Bluff Mesa Complex sites (Figure 33) in arctic Alaska, as well as recent

work in Siberia and South America, demonstrates a need to reexamine both the traditional model of migration into the New

World, and the notion of a Beringian origin

for Paleoindian culture/technology, (Kunz

and Reanier 1994, 1995; Reanier 1995;

Slobodin and King 1996; Dillehay 1997;

Kunz 2001a). Some interesting points bear

on this need. Core and blade technology is

a primary aspect of late Pleistocene Western Beringian (Siberian) archaeological assemblages. Eastern Beringian (Alaskan)

blade and microblade complexes are quite

similar, and seem firmly grounded in Siberian traditions. In contrast, there is a contemporaneous classic Paleoindian presence

in Eastern Beringia that is completely New

World in character, and directly related to

the High Plains Paleoindian cultures. These

circumstances suggest that the Pleistocene

cultural landscape of the North American

Arctic may be much more complex than

originally thought, and that the region could

well be the birthplace of the Paleoindian tradition.

Migrations

The key to successful settlement of a region by any mammalian species including

human, is being able to maintain a biologically viable population. This can be accomplished by having a birth and growth-tomaturity rate that is greater than the death

rate, and/or a regular or periodic recharge

of the immigrant population from their

home territory. The bottom line is one of

numbers. It is unlikely that with late Pleistocene technology it would be possible for a

group of people to cross open ocean and arrive together on the shores of North or South

America in numbers sufficient for successful settlement (Straus 2000; Kunz 2001a).

However there is little doubt that watercraft

were important, probably even critical, to

the initial colonization and subsequent expansion of humans throughout the New

World. While open ocean travel over great

distances probably was not within the capabilities of late Pleistocene humans,

coastal and near-shore travel was. This suggests that the progenitors of the

Paleoindians were from northern and eastern Asia, and that the route they followed

was essentially terrestrial.

The fact that the dry-land connection between Asia and North America was useable,

is evidenced by the fact that the Ice Age faunal assemblages of Siberia and Alaska are

of almost identical composition (Guthrie

1982). If groups of animals could successfully cross, re-cross, get their populations

recharged, establish viable populations, and

achieve successful settlement via the land

bridge, then so could humans. All things

considered, it seems to be the only way that

the indigenous human population of the

New World could have become that which

is reflected in the archaeological record of

11,500 years BP.

Around 15,000 years BP, the land bridge

and Eastern Beringia were probably witnessing the arrival of culturally distinct

groups from across northern and eastern

Asia. Given the positions of the continental

glaciers at that time, it is unlikely that

people could have moved south out of Alaska

by land or water (Mandryk et al. 1998) (Figure 34). These groups may have been contained in Beringia for a millennia or so, some

probably blending and developing new cultural identities and technologies in response

to the changing environmental conditions.

At the same time, some groups may have

remained generally unchanged in terms of

the cultural and technological orientation

they had brought with them from Western

Beringia.

Although currently some credence is

given to the possibility of human migrations

from Pleistocene Europe to North America

along or via North Atlantic sea ice margins,

it remains generally accepted that the primary source of New World human population were the indigenees of Western

Beringia/Northern Asia (Straus 2000). How-
54

ever the when, how, and cultural composition of the migration(s) may be considerably

different than the long-accepted model. Evidence suggests that a coastal migration

route out of the Arctic after 14,000 years

BP model, is at least as viable as an ice-free

corridor model (Mann and Hamilton 1995).

The key however, whether by land or by sea,

is the Arctic itself and the ability of humans

to survive there.

The technology that allowed humans to

live in the Arctic also provided the wherewith-all for the manufacture of reliable, seaworthy watercraft. Under reasonable conditions, people utilizing watercraft can

transport more goods and cover distances

faster, than can people engaged in pedestrian travel. If both modes of travel were

used by groups migrating out of the Arctic

across the Western Hemisphere, it is not

surprising that there would be a differential rate of expansion. It is quite likely that

this occurred, and that different cultural

groups with different environmental orientations were involved.

Technology vs. Environment

While the large, cold-adapted fauna of

northern North America and Siberia

roamed across the land bridge throughout

the Pleistocene, the subarctic and Arctic

served as a filter, screening out humans

until their technology was sufficient to allow them to live in such climes. The technical breakthrough that allowed humans to

live in the Arctic/subarctic was the invention of the eyed needle, and the subsequent

development of a sophisticated sewing technology (Kunz 1997). The earliest indications

of the existence of eyed needles occur in the

archaeological records of the trans-Baikal

and northern Mongolia around 30,000 years

BP (Troeng 1993; Sergey Vasil’ev, personal

communication 2002). By contrast, the oldest archaeological sites on the Siberian margin of the land bridge appear to date around

15,000 years BP. If so, this evidence suggests

that it took roughly 15,000 years for humans

to disperse to the limits of western Beringia

while developing a sewing technology sophisticated enough to produce tailored,

Figure 34. Extent of glaciation in Beringia about 15,000 BP. (Map: M. King)
55

weather-tight — and in some cases watertight — clothing and shelter sufficient to

allow year-round occupation of sub-Arctic

and Arctic environments. Based on this evidence it seems reasonable to assume that

no viable human populations were present

in the Western Hemisphere prior to ca.

15,000 years BP.

North American Pleistocene

Cultures

Nenana

It is worth noting that almost as soon as

the Pleistocene presence of humans in the

North American plains was proven (Figgins

1927), researchers began looking to the Arctic for older evidence (Nelson 1935, 1937;

de Laguna 1936). What they found was not

the lanceolate projectile point/bifacial reduction industry of the classic Paleoindian assemblages of the High Plains, but core and

blade complexes typical of Siberian Upper

Paleolithic cultures. While isolated finds of

projectile points morphologically similar to

the distinctive lanceolate Paleoindian points

of the North American High Plains and

Southwest were encountered and/or reported (Collins 1937; Rainey 1939, 1940), no

sites in which these supposed Paleoindian

artifacts made up a legitimate assemblage

component were located.

Until recently all of the known terminal

Pleistocene-age lithic industries of Eastern

Beringia included core and blade reduction

in their assemblages, as do all of the Western Beringian lithic industries of the upper

Paleolithic (Dumond 1980; West 1981;

Anderson 1988). An important aspect of

these assemblages is the reduction of a

cobble or chunk of stone to a core, which is

designed to repetitively produce spalls/

blades of regularized dimensions. Often formal tools are made on or from blades, as

are the incidental tools, since much of the

debitage consists of failed blades.

Based on manufacturing techniques, tool

types and forms, the Nenana Complex of

Interior Alaska exhibits a strong Siberian

flavor. Projectile points, manufactured

through bifacial reduction of cobbles or

flakes, occur in Nenana assemblages as they

do in late Pleistocene Siberian industries

(Dikov 1996). However, there is no morphological or stylistic consistency among the

lanceolate forms. The artifact form that is

diagnostic of the Nenana Complex is a

small, triangular or teardrop-shaped biface,

usually made on a thin flake, and often

poorly and incompletely flaked (Goebel et

al. 1991; Hoffecker 2001). As with the Siberian sites of the late Pleistocene, microblade

technology also appears to be part of the

Nenana assemblage, and is a major component of its cultural derivative, the Denali

Complex (Holmes 2001). The Siberian influence in interior Alaska is demonstrated

by the continuous presence of microblade

technology from the earliest times, ca.

11,800 years BP, until less than 1200 years

BP (Mobley 1991; Bever 2000). Evidence for

the geographic extent of this influence is essentially unbroken as far south as British

Columbia, appearing there shortly before

mid-Holocene times (Clark 2001).

Paleoindian

The Paleoindian tradition was defined in

the decades immediately following the 1926

Folsom discovery and the 1932 Clovis discovery at Blackwater Draw in New Mexico.

During those years the term Paleoindian

came to be associated with a specific cultural tradition, rather than just a time period, because it was recognized that most

North American terminal Pleistocene-age

sites shared common attributes. The stone

tools and other cultural materials in these

sites were often found in association with

the remains of Pleistocene megafauna. The

artifact assemblage from these sites displayed a uniformity in manufacturing technology, so that the type, style, and morphology of the tools, especially the projectile

points, were similar from site to site10.

The cornerstone of Paleoindian lithic tech10 The original excavations at Blackwater Draw

demonstrated that Clovis was found in the lowest cultural

strata of the site associated with mammoth and bison

remains and that Folsom lay directly above Clovis and was

associated only with bison. These circumstances

demonstrated that Clovis was older than Folsom and that

Clovis and Folsom were the two oldest cultures of the

emerging Paleoindian tradition. Fluting is a distinctive way

of thinning the base of a projectile point and is characteristic

of both Clovis and Folsom projectile points. Fluting is not a

characteristic of projectile points of the more recent

Paleoindian cultures. As a result, fluting (fluted projectile

points) has become an indicator of great antiquity.
56

nology is bifacial reduction, which the

Paleoindians took to one of its highest technological levels. Bifacial stone tools, such as

projectile points or knives, are manufactured through the reduction of a cobble,

chunk, or large flake down to the finished

implement. The other tools in Paleoindian

assemblages, primarily the incidental tools,

such as spokeshaves, drills and gravers are

made from/on amorphous flakes, the detrital by-products of the reduction process. It

was by these criteria that the Paleoindian

tradition was described and defined. For

those who have worked with these classic

Paleoindian materials, the term Paleoindian

evokes a mental picture of large, uniformly

well made lanceolate points associated with

a specific assemblage of tools and debitage.

Over the years the term Paleoindian became synonymous with the first inhabitants

or oldest cultures in the New World. It must

be remembered that this perception developed as the Paleoindian tradition was being defined, a time when no other serious

contenders for the position of earliest New

World inhabitants had been recognized.

Generally speaking that perception continues today, except that now there may be a

serious contender or two to consider. Nonetheless, the lanceolate projectile points of

the classic North American Paleoindian cultures remain the hallmark for the earliest

geographically extensive, technologically

distinct, cultural tradition in the Western

Hemisphere.

The original criteria used to define the

Paleoindian tradition have stood the test of

time, and have proven to be culturally valid

(Irwin and Wormington 1970; Judge 1973;

Frison 1978, 1988; Lynch 1991). Any archaeological assemblage which can meet

those criteria can be termed Paleoindian.

By the same measure, the term Paleoindian

cannot be applied to terminal Pleistocene

assemblages that meet the age criteria but

not the techno/cultural criteria. To do so is

to ignore the basic constructs of archaeology.

Alaska’s Mesa Complex fulfills all of the

Paleoindian criteria, whereas none of the

other terminal Pleistocene Alaskan complexes do (Powers and Hoffecker 1989;

Goebel et al. 1991; Holmes 1996; Hoffecker

2001; Holmes 2001). This distinction is not

made to detract from the importance of the

non-Paleoindian assemblages; in fact, just

the opposite. It is done from the perspective of being able to compare different archaeological cultures.

Fluted Points in Eastern

Beringia

In the late 1960s, investigations at the

Batza Téna obsidian source in interior

Alaska revealed several sites that contained

fluted lanceolate points in sufficient numbers to consider them a possible assemblage

component (Clark and Clark 1975, 1983,

1993; Clark 1991). Unfortunately, no dateable material was associated with the excavated artifacts, and obsidian hydration

dates on the points ranged over thousands

of years, rendering age determinations inconclusive.

Research indicates that Alaskan fluted

projectile points are technologically distinct

from Clovis and Folsom points (Clark 1991;

Reanier 1995). In general, Alaskan fluted

point technology most closely resembles that

of Folsom, yet remains distinct due to its

technological inconsistency and stylistic

variability. At some Alaskan sites there appears to be a strong association between

fluted points and microblade technology

(Bowers 1982; Clark and Clark 1983;

Reanier 1995; Bever 2000). This is not surprising, as the techniques used to set up and

strike blades/microblades from a core are

closely allied to the techniques employed in

fluting.

These circumstances suggest (except as

discussed later) that in general, Alaskan

fluted points are not part of the lineage of

Paleoindian technological evolution that is

evident in temperate North America. If, as

we suspect, most Alaskan fluted points are

the result of isolated independent invention,

there is no cultural link between them and

the classic Paleoindian cultures. While less

probable, it is possible that the Alaskan

fluted points represent a cultural backwash

from the High Plains — perhaps resulting

from Folsom people following a disappear-
57

ing ecosystem northward. In that case there

is a cultural relationship, but not one of

Alaskan primogeniture. Finally, we still do

not know the age of most Alaskan fluted

points; are they Pleistocene or Holocene or

both? For now the genesis and temporal

placement of most Alaskan fluted points remains unknown.

Mixing Technologies

In the other direction, while cores and

blades do occur in some Paleoindian assemblages (primarily Clovis), their presence

appears to be more site specific than tradition-wide (Bradley 1993). Most often when

blades occur in Paleoindian assemblages,

they seem to occur at quarry locations (Tony

Baker, personal communication 2001). In

non-quarry sites, the occurrence of blades

is probably indicative of independent invention, rather than representing a link to Old

World cultures (Sanger 1970). By the same

measure, burins, which are a common tool

in core and blade industries, are generally

uncommon and stylistically different when

they are present in Paleoindian and other

bifacial systems (Bever 2000).

Typically, in the assemblages of the Western Beringian terminal Pleistocene cultures,

there is a degree of melding between the

two reduction systems (Dikov 1979;

Slobodin and King 1996;). Blades and

microblades are the primary or major components with tools such as incidental cutting, incising, scraping, and boring implements often made on or from them. Other

tools, such as projectile points and knives,

may be produced through bifacial reduction.

Despite the infusion of bifacial elements,

these complexes remain core and blade oriented. It is not surprising that the same circumstances prevail in the technologically

related cultures of adjacent Eastern

Beringia (Cook 1969; Powers and Hoffecker

1989; Holmes 1996).

Beginnings

In Eastern Beringia two distinct cultural

Figure 35. Location of Mesa and Nenana Complex sites in Alaska.
58

entities appear to be as old or older than

Clovis: The Nenana Complex of interior

Alaska and the Mesa Complex of arctic and

western Alaska. (Figure 35). These complexes are not cultural isolates like other

proposed “earliest” entities. The stone tool

assemblages of Nenana and Mesa are replicated at a number of sites that are chronologically consistent across a large geographic area ((Powers and Hoffecker 1989;

Goebel et al. 1991; Bever 2000; Hoffecker

2001). The Nenana Complex is Siberian in

flavor, while the Mesa Complex is classic

Paleoindian (Figure 36).

So how did this happen? Why are there

two very different yet contemporaneous

Pleistocene cultural complexes in arctic

Alaska, and why are there classic

Paleoindians in Alaska, more than 3000

miles from the North American High Plains,

the heartland of Paleoindian activity? To

shed light on this question requires a review of what is known about the oldest culture of the Paleoindian tradition, the Clovis

Complex.

The archaeological discovery at Folsom,

New Mexico in 1926 demonstrated that

humans were present in the Western Hemisphere at the close of the Pleistocene (Cook

1927; Figgins 1927). Six years later at Blackwater Draw, the discovery of a lithic tool

assemblage that lay stratigraphically below

the Folsom level, suggested that humans

had been present on the North American

High Plains prior to the Folsom bison hunters (Howard 1936)

Over the next 50 years, as more discoveries were made, excavations undertaken, and

radiocarbon age determinations became the

dating standard, it was evident that Clovis

was not only the most ancient of the

Paleoindian complexes, but also the most

geographically widespread. Clovis appears

to radiate outward from a High Plains/

Southwest concentration of “classic Clovis”

morphology, to more loosely defined derivative forms found coast to coast from southern Canada to northern Mexico and beyond

(Morrow and Morrow 1999).

While radiocarbon data from Clovis sites

suggest that those sites in the Plains and

Southwest may be slightly older than those

found elsewhere, possibly because reliable

dates from sites outside the High Plains are

lacking, there is no clear indication as to

where the complex originated. More importantly, there is no recognizable Clovis progenitor. This seems somewhat odd because

the geographic extent, almost instantaneous

geographic proliferation, and density of

Clovis sites, suggest a progenitor should be

visible in the archaeological record, represented by at least a few technologically similar sites.

Given the current archaeological data, it

almost seems as though the Clovis culture

spontaneously appeared in the High Plains

and Southwest, and then spread rapidly in

the form of regional derivatives throughout

the rest of temperate North America (Anderson and Gillam 2000). However, aside from

a good science fiction read, the creation of a

cultural complex through spontaneous generation, is a difficult concept to grasp. As a

Figure 36. Comparison of Nenana and Mesa Complex assemblages respectively. (Photos: M.

Bever, M. Kunz)
59

result, archaeologists have been searching

for Clovis antecedents with crusader-like

zeal and intensity, ever since there was

enough data to suggest that there was no

obvious precursor. Since cultural identity in

the late Pleistocene archaeological record is

based almost entirely on components of the

lithic artifact assemblage, a degree of technological similarity would seem appropriate as a yardstick in the search for a Clovis

progenitor.

While there have been a number of olderthan-Clovis sites brought forward, few survive the scrutiny they receive. Nonetheless,

there are a few sites that may indeed be

older than Clovis, such as Monte Verde,

Meadowcroft, and a few others (Adovasio

and Carlisle 1982; Dillihay 1997). At present

however, sites such as these appear to be

one-of-a-kind occurrences which produce

unique, and often meager artifact assemblages that are found nowhere else, and display no apparent technological relationship

to Clovis. For those reasons alone, they seem

unlikely candidates as a source for Clovis.

Ultimately the Clovis progenitor must stem

from an Old World population, because that

is where modern humans evolved. How and

where that population arrived in the Western Hemisphere obviously determines the

rest of the story.

South from the Arctic

The presence of the Mesa Complex, a classic High Plains Paleoindian Complex in

Eastern Beringia, more than 3000 miles

from the Paleoindian heartland, must be either the result of a northward migration of

High Plains Paleoindians, or a Paleoindian

evolution that occurred in Beringia. What

follows is somewhat speculative, but it is

speculation resulting from converging data

solidly derived from a variety of independent sources.

While it seems logical for people to migrate south from the Arctic toward a more

temperate environment and ecosystems

that are more easily exploited and provide

a wider range of subsistence resources, the

reverse, a journey from south to north, moving into progressively deteriorating conditions of climate, ecosystem diversity, and

mobility, seems illogical. Therefore, we think

it is reasonable to view the Mesa Complex

as the result of in-place cultural evolution

and adaptation.

At 14,500 years BP, the Ushki 1 site on

the Kamchatka Peninsula provides the earliest known date for human occupation of

the Western Beringian margin of the land

bridge11 (Dikov 1996). On the Eastern

Beringian margin, the Mesa at 11,700 years

BP provides the earliest known date12 (Kunz

and Reanier 1994). With as little as 56 miles

of land bridge lying between the two continental margins, it seems odd that the chronologies of Western and Eastern Beringian

human occupation are divergent by almost

3000 years. The reason for this may have

been that the land bridge proper was a good

place to make a living. The area was extensive, about 320,000 square miles. The human population was probably quite small

and scattered, so there was no real competition for resources and no pressure to move,

other than for seasonal rounds. However, as

has been pointed out by many other researchers, since it’s all under water now,

we’ve not yet discovered any direct evidence

to support this assumption (Fladmark 1979;

Easton 1992; Mann and Hamilton 1995).

While all prehistoric hunter/gatherer

groups were opportunistic when it came to

exploiting their environment, most had a

basic economic orientation which was reflected in their tool kit. The High Plains

Paleoindians were primarily bison hunters,

and that is why the basic tool kit of the various High Plains Paleoindian cultures are

so similar (Frison 1991; Sellet 1999, 2001).

11 It should be noted that recent excavations at Ushki 5

located across a bay from Ushki 1, suggest that the oldest

levels at Ushki 1 may be no older than ca. 11,500 BP.

Nonetheless, given the information from other Western

Beringian Sites, for the present it seems reasonable to

assume that the 14,500 BP date from Ushki 1 represents

the earliest occupation of the area (Sergei Slobodin,

personal communication 2002).

12 As previously discussed in the Chronology section, the

authors can find no definitive evidence to discount the 11,700

BP date or the 11,200 BP date. Both of these dates are from

the same hearth and are probably the same age but appear

divergent due to the Younger Dryas effect. Data from the

Tuluaq Hill site where AMS radiocarbon dates associated

with Mesa Complex artifacts are dated at 11,200 BP, support

our position.(Rasic 2000, personal communication 2001)
60

Along these lines, it is worth noting that

an association between Mesa and Clovis

may be seen in a comparison of the two lithic

assemblages. This is most graphically demonstrated in the type B Mesa bifaces (see

the typology/technology section) which are

manufactured to the “finished” stage by the

direct percussion technique. The removal of

large flakes, often running across most or

all of the face of the artifact, a biface thinning technique typical of Clovis, is relatively

common. Some delicate pressure retouch

along the edges completes the process. The

Mesa projectile point manufacturing process also utilizes percussion flaking to perform much of the thinning and shaping

work. The final stage shaping is achieved

through very robust pressure flaking. This

obliterates most of the evidence for the work

that created the point’s distinctive diamond,

or lenticular, cross section. Additionally, a

small percentage of Mesa Complex projectile points are fluted (Figure 37). In about

half the examples, the fluting appears more

incidental than purposeful, but some bases

were undoubtedly thinned by intentional

fluting. Given these similarities, it seems

reasonable to entertain the idea that the

Mesa and Clovis complexes may stem from

a common Beringian ancestor.

In terms of subsistence resources, the terrestrial arctic ecosystem allows little latitude in exploitation (Hall 1961). It has been

demonstrated that without the presence of

a large, gregarious, migratory herd animal,

humans cannot survive in the region

(Campbell 1968). During the late Pleistocene, the two large herd mammals present

in arctic Alaska were caribou and bison. It

is possible that the rudiments of the

Paleoindian culture and tool kit may have

developed on the Bering land bridge between 15,000 and 14,000 years BP, as the

result of a bison and caribou based economy.

By about 15,000 years BP, water was beginning to encroach upon the land bridge

(Mann and Hamilton 1995). At the same

time, increased precipitation was changing

the vegetational composition of the region

(Mann et al. 2002). As the land bridge was

gradually inundated, both humans and animals were forced to the continental margins,

providing the human population with two

basic choices: survive on the failing resources of the mosaic habitat bordering the

land bridge termini, or leave the region. In

our scenario, exodus was the generally preferred choice, and groups probably started

moving south via a coastal route by 14,000

years BP. Some time between 12,000 and

11,000 years BP, as the water continued to

rise, the small population of Paleoindians

that remained in the Arctic began to occupy

the area that is today’s coastal plain and

foothills of arctic Alaska. This is the only

region in Alaska where classic Paleoindian

assemblages are found (Bever 2000).

During the last glacial maximum, ca.

22,000 years BP, the ice of the Alaska Peninsula Glacier Complex formed the southeast border of Beringia (Mann and Hamilton

1995). It separated the unglaciated coast

stretching westward toward Siberia from

the northwest coast of North America. At

its maximum extent, the Alaska Peninsula

Glacier Complex would have precluded

coastal migration because the ice extended

beyond the continental shelf (Mann and

Hamilton 1995). However, by 14,500 years

BP, the ice had retreated to the extent that

all but a few very small, scattered areas of

the continental shelf along the Alaska coast,

Figure 37. Evidence of fluting on Mesa

projectile points. (Photo: M. Kunz)

r 

,.-- Ill 

I I I 2 cl1l 
61

were exposed and ice-free. Along the British Columbia coast, by 15,000 years BP the

ice had retreated, exposing the Queen Charlotte Islands, and all but a few isolated locales along the continental shelf. On the

southwest British Columbia and Washington coasts, the Cordilleran Glacier Complex

had retreated to expose Vancouver Island

and the continental shelf by 14,000 years

BP (Mann and Hamilton 1995).

To live in the Arctic, people must possess

an extremely sophisticated sewing technology. This means, among other things, they

have the ability to manufacture skin boats

capable of traversing coastal waters. Given

the circumstances at 14,500 years BP it is

reasonable to assume that arctic residents

were accomplished boat builders and users.

Since by that time most of the land and

water along the southeast coast of Alaska

as well as the coasts of British Columbia

and Washington were ice-free, the route and

subsistence resources required to sustain a

southward migration were available. It is

worth remembering that at ca. 14,000 years

BP, the geologic evidence suggests there was

no ice-free corridor along the east flank of

the Rocky Mountains (Mandryk et al. 1998;

2000).

Therefore, as early as 14,500 years BP,

arctic immigrants, bearing big-game oriented economy and technology, could have

worked their way south along the coast to a

point in temperate North America where

the coastal mountain ranges did not contain glacial barriers to the interior. Although

supporting archaeological evidence from

along the route is meager at best, the lack

of evidence can, to a large extent, be explained by the substantial rise in sea level,

which has flooded the coastal lands that

were used by the late Pleistocene immigrants (Fladmark 1979; Easton 1992; Mann

and Hamilton 1995). Since travel by boat is

much more efficient and faster than travel

by pedestrian means, southward migration

by watercraft could get the arctic immigrants into temperate North America and

into South America quickly and almost simultaneously (Kunz and Slaughter 2001).

SUMMARY

Most aspects of the Mesa research are

relatively straightforward. The site was easy

to excavate and document because in all of

its localities except one, there is but a single

cultural component. In other words, from

the surface to the bottom of the soil column

it is all one cultural unit. This allowed us to

excavate without being too concerned about

postdepositional mechanics within the active layer, which is always a problem in the

shallow arctic Alaskan sites. The Mesa Complex artifact assemblage is uniform across

the site. It is composed of just a few types of

formal artifacts and is uncomplicated. The

cultural features are all hearths, physically

discrete and easily identifiable. The radiocarbon chronology is extensive and consistent across the site with few outliers, none

of which are inexplicable. The technological attributes, manufacturing processes, tool

types and morphology are unequivocally

Paleoindian, and identify the Mesa lithic

assemblage as a component of the

Paleoindian tradition. Lastly, the lithic tool

assemblage, as well as the geomorphology

of the site demonstrates without question,

that the site was used as a hunting lookout.

While all these data provide us with a lot of

answers, more questions are posed that require answers if we are to paint a complete

picture of the Mesa and the people who used

it.

Dan Mann’s extensive and intensive work

has provided an excellent look at the dynamics of climate and environment in the

region from the last millennia of the Pleistocene through the onset of the Holocene

(Kunz and Mann 1997, Kunz et al. 1999b;

Mann et al. 2001; Mann et al. 2002). This

work includes the examination and analysis of numerous geologic sections, including

lake bottom sediments, which provide a

chronology based on more than 60 radiocarbon assays of terrestrial plant remains. His

work also examines pollen profiles, lake productivity data, and information concerning

fluvial and near-surface soil dynamics.

Among the other important results of this

work, the existence of the Younger Dryas

event in arctic Alaska was documented and
62

confirmed. It is the Younger Dryas event

that is most critical to the utilization of the

area by Paleoindians.

In preceding sections of this report it has

been demonstrated that shortly after the

Last Glacial Maximum, global climate began to alter. As the climate in the region

became warmer and wetter the habitat began to change, moving in the direction of

moist tussock-tundra. As this change occurred it had two primary effects: relatively

good forage was replaced with vegetation

of considerably different nutritional value,

and at the same time a soft, wet and tussocky surface was replacing a firm, dry, and

relatively even surface on the landscape.

This surface change made it increasingly

difficult for the large herbivores to maintain the degree of mobility they required for

viability. The first casualties appear to have

been mammoth and horse, probably because

they were the most grass-dependent species.

During most of this period, the annual temperature was several degrees warmer than

today, and the rate of change rapidly gained

momentum. By 11,000 years BP, although

a fair amount of the Pleistocene steppe-tundra probably remained, it was broken into

relatively small chunks separated by large

expanses of tussock-tundra. As a result, the

carrying capacity of the region was greatly

reduced, even for the more adaptable and

versatile bison, and their numbers also went

into decline. Fortunately for the human

population of the area, the Younger Dryas

event occurred, resulting in a climatic reversal to full glacial conditions, which maintained the remaining full glacial habitat

along with its reduced bison population for

the next millennium or so.

Paul Matheus’ in-depth examination of

the late Pleistocene faunal assemblage of

the region provides a considerable body of

data including species variety, stable isotope

analysis, and species density chronology

(Matheus 1998, 2000; Kunz et al. 1999b).

This work shows that when the Mesa was

occupied, game animal populations were

lower than they had been in many millennia. From a subsistence standpoint, bison

were probably the most reliable resource for

the human inhabitants of arctic Alaska at

that time, but they were by no means numerous. The people living in that region

during that time had to take advantage of

every opportunity to acquire game animals,

and the best way to do that was to operate

from a position that permitted surveillance

of a large area, and at the same time rapid

access to any location within the field of

view. Locations like the Mesa were perfect

for this type of hunting, as is demonstrated

by other Mesa Complex sites in the region

such as Hilltop (Reanier 1995), Putu/

Bedwell (Reanier 1995), Spein Mountain

(Ackerman 2001), and Kuna Bluff (Kunz

2001b). The fact that these types of sites

were a critical aspect of the hunting process during terminal Pleistocene times, is

demonstrated by their near total lack of use

by groups that subsequently inhabited the

region. Further evidence of the marginal

nature of these circumstances, is the abandonment of the region by the Paleoindians

ca. 9700 years BP, shortly after bison disappear from the fossil record. Additionally,

the regional archaeological record indicates

that people did not return to the region until ca. 7500 years BP, by which time, according to our data, caribou had once again become numerous in the Brooks Range and

on the North Slope.

Life at the Mesa

Without getting ourselves bogged down in

further examination of the research data,

the following sketch is how we think the

people using the Mesa were conducting their

daily lives 12,000 to 10,000 radiocarbon

years (14,000 to 12,000 calendar years) ago.

The Mesa people probably utilized the site

most frequently from May through September. If they used it during the winter, it

wasn’t very often, and certainly not during

the heart of the winter. This surmise is

partly based on our own experience, having

spent long periods in the region of the Mesa

during all seasons of the year. The frequent

high wind events of summer (see page 9)

also occur during winter and would, in addition to other factors, have made use of the

Mesa unattractive much of the time. Try to

imagine what it would be like during the
63

Figure 38. Nunamiut winter camp, 1910. (Photo: Leffingwell, U.S.G.S. Photographic Library.)

depths of the winter, occupying an exposed

location like the Mesa. Day after day, you

would have to cope with 24-hour darkness

and temperatures well below zero. Often the

wind would be in excess of 40 miles per hour,

with blowing snow obscuring what little

could otherwise be seen. Our best guess is

that during the winter (October through

April), most of the time the residents of the

region were hunkered down in the more

sheltered valleys of the Brooks Range.

Our research has shown that the Mesa

was not a habitation site. However, we believe that when the Mesa was in use, there

was a base camp established along nearby

Iteriak Creek. The riparian habitat along

the creek provided all the resources (wood

for fuel and construction, tool stone, good

water, small game, fowl, and fish) necessary

to sustain a fully functional camp. The size

of the camp, as well as its location on the

creek, probably varied, but the camp was

always located so that the Mesa was easily

accessible. We doubt that the camp population ever exceeded more than one or two

dozen individuals, probably representing

several generations of people related

through blood and marriage.

Although we have no hard data to support this, we assume that the Mesa people’s

summer dwellings were dome-shaped tents

comprised of a willow framework, over

which animal hides were stretched. Rocks

or blocks of sod, as well as stakes, were probably placed around the base of the structure to hold the skins in place. The dwellings were probably between eight and

twelve feet in diameter, the floors lined with

willow boughs, moss, and lichen. People

probably slept on animal skins laid directly

on the flooring. Dry willow provided the fuel

for fires both inside and outside the shelter,

although animal fat/oil lamps may also have

been used.

It is likely that all adults could successfully perform any task. Given the self-sufficiency required to survive in the Arctic, men

were probably as accomplished at sewing,

as women were at making and using stone

tools and hunting equipment. However,

based on ethnohistoric and historic information regarding arctic aboriginal peoples,

we assume that usually men and older boys

were the hunters, and climbed the Mesa on

a daily basis to keep a lookout for game. We

think this was done because game animal
64

Figure 39. Nunamiut Eskimoes moving camp, 1910. (Photo: Leffingwell, U.S.G.S.

Photographic Library.)

populations were low at that time, and a

vantage point such as the Mesa was the

most efficient way to locate game. While

looking for game from the top of the Mesa,

the hunters worked on their equipment,

repairing and refurbishing it. This work

produced the numerous hearth-centered

activity areas that our excavations revealed.

Most of the stone these people utilized in

their tool-making activities came from the

Iteriak Creek gravels and other chert

sources/outcrops within a few miles of the

Mesa, so obtaining raw material was quick

and easy. When game was spotted, the hunters would probably discuss the situation. If

it was determined there was a reasonable

chance to conduct a successful hunt, then

they would plan the attack strategy. The

Mesa was used prior to the time that tussock tundra completely covered the landscape. The surface of the land was more

suited for walking in those days, and a

hunter’s effective range was probably

greater than it is today. When a hunt was

successful, the meat and hide would be

taken to the camp for processing. Only on

extremely rare occasions was meat cooked

atop the Mesa.

Our research suggests that between

12,000 and 10,000 years BP, bison were the

most numerous game animals, and most

likely the primary target of the Mesa hunters. Although low in numbers, caribou,

muskox, and moose were present as well. It

is also probable that a few horses were still

around, although mammoths appear to be

absent from the North Slope by this time.

We also think that the Mesa hunters used

dogs to help them in their hunts, primarily

for packing, but also for harassing game. In

fact, dogs were probably quite important to

the nomadic Mesa people because they were

the only domesticated beast of burden (pack

animal) of that time. As far as we know, sleds

had not yet been invented, so dogs were not

being used in that fashion. Dogs were also

the camp alarm system, and the initial responders to the approach of large predators,

such as lions and bears, which were native

to the region.

Although the climate and surface vegetation of the region at the end of the Pleistocene was somewhat different than it has

been since that time, the resources available to the Mesa people were pretty much

the same as those available today. Therefore, we think that the way the prehistoric/

historic Nunamiut (inland) Eskimo conducted their daily and seasonal lives is generally a good analog for the Mesa peoples’

lifestyle (Figure 38 & 39). For more information about the Nunamiut Eskimo see

Helge Ingstad’s, “Nunamiut: Among

Alaska’s Inland Eskimos” (1954) and Nicholas Gubser’s, “The Nunamiut Eskimo: Hunters of Caribou” (1965).
65

GLOSSARY

AEOLIAN. A term referring to the

transportation and deposition of fine

grained soil, sand, or silt (such as loess) by

wind. This process is responsible for the

morphology of much of the landscape in

northern and arctic Alaska.

ALLUVIATION. A process of depositing

sand, silt, gravel and other watertransportable materials on the banks of, or

in the bed of a stream or river—an alluvial

deposit—an alluvial fan.

AMS RADIOCARBON DATING. The

most precise method of determining the age

of organic material recovered from

archaeological or paleontological deposits.

AMS stands for Accelerator Mass

Spectrometry. This procedure, which

operates at the atomic level to determine

the amount of C-14 present in a sample,

allows the analysis of a sample up to 1000

times smaller than the amount required for

radiocarbon assays by the conventional

method. (See Conventional Radiocarbon

(C-14) Dating).

ASSAYED. A term meaning tested or

analyzed.

ATLATL. Often referred to as a throwingstick. This usually wooden tool is about two

feet in length and not much more than an

inch in width. The forward end is gripped

by the hand, while the other end has a

small, raised protrusion, nub, or hook

which fits into a depression in the end of a

dart or spear shaft. The hand-held atlatl

actually launches the dart or spear. In

essence, the atlatl increases the length of

the user’s arm, giving the arm more

leverage (increasing its mechanical

advantage), which in turn adds velocity,

force, distance, and accuracy to the throw.

ATMOSPHERIC C-14. A radioactive

isotope of carbon present in the atmosphere,

and subsequently present in all living

things. When an organism dies it ceases to

absorb C-14 and, like any radioactive

element, the C-14 within the organism

begins to decay. The rate of decay is known

and can be measured. For example, the

amount of C-14 that is present in a

mammoth bone today, when measured

against the original amount, indicates how

long ago the animal died, and therefore how

old the bone is.

BIOTA. Plants and animals populating a

geographic region.

BLADE. A blade is a specific type of stone

flake. By definition, it has parallel sides

and is at least twice as long as it is wide.

Most often, a blade is derived from a core

that has been prepared so that it will

repetitively produce blades (flakes) of

uniform size and shape. A blade is detached

from the core by the force of either a

percussion blow or pressure (also see Flake

Core). The term blade can also refer to the

body of a knife, biface, or projectile point.

BP. An abbreviation that means ‘Before

Present’, but in reality means before 1950,

which is the base year from which all

radiocarbon measurements are made.

BURIN. A chisel-like stone tool. It is most

commonly made by removing a slender

flake (burin spall) along the length of the

margin of one or more intersecting edges of

a large flake. The edge(s) and sharp point

formed by this process makes a tool ideal for

scraping, shaping or engraving bone,

antler, or wood.

CHANNEL MIGRATION. This refers to

the side-to-side (meandering) movement of

a stream channel within its flood plain over

time.
66

COMEDIAL FLAKING. One of a variety

of flake removal techniques utilized in the

production of stone tools. Comedial flaking

is most commonly employed in the

manufacture of projectile points. It is the

controlled removal of horizontal, parallel

flakes from the surface of a stone tool,

through the application of either percussion

or pressure. Flakes removed from one edge

meet the flakes removed from the other

edge at the midline of the blade. This leaves

a distinctive flake scar pattern and a

medial ridge. If this type of flake removal is

utilized on both surfaces it will produce a

projectile point with a diamond or

lenticular cross section. This method is also

known as collateral flaking.

CONCHOIDAL FRACTURE. The

predictable manner in which fine-grained

stone such as flint, chert or obsidian

fractures when struck. This physical

property is basic to the controlled removal

of flakes from a piece of stone, and is

necessary for the manufacture of many

types of stone tools. The name is derived

from the physical appearance of the flake,

which is often rippled on the surface and

convex in cross section, somewhat

resembling a clam shell.

CONVENTIONAL RADIOCARBON (C14) DATING. A method of arriving at the

age of organic material by determining the

amount of C-14 remaining in that material

(See Atmospheric C-14). The age is

determined by actually counting the

number of decay events that occur in the

sample over a measured period of time. It is

the original process for determining C-14

ages. This method requires a much larger

sample and is less precise than the AMS

procedure.

CORTEX. The outside surface or ‘skin’ of a

nodule, cobble, or chunk of tool stone. The

cortex is commonly worn, oxidized or

weathered to a rough texture and often is a

different color than the stone beneath it.

The initial stage of most stone tool

manufacture is the removal of cortex.

CRYOTURBATION. This term refers to

disturbance or movement of objects within

the soil column that results from freezing

and thawing of the soil. This is generally

attributed to seasonal freezing and thawing

events, and is often referred to as ‘frost

heaving’.

CULTURAL MATERIAL. This term

usually refers to physical material—such

as stone tools and flakes, organic trash,

campfire remnants, or structural remains—

associated with, or the byproduct of, the

occupation or use of a locale by humans.

CULTURAL STRATIGRAPHY. A

description of how cultural material is

arranged or layered within the soil

(geological stratigraphy) of an archaeological

site.

DEBITAGE. The waste material (flakes,

chips, chunks) resulting from stone tool

manufacture.

DETRITUS. The loose material or

fragments that result from disintegration

of the parent material. Detritus is often

used interchangeably with the term

debitage.

DRAG FLOAT. Typically a flotation

device (in prehistoric times an inflated

animal bladder or skin) attached to a

harpoon line. Its function is to tire the

harpooned animal, and to keep it from

diving when alive, or sinking after death.

EVAPOTRANSPIRATION. A term

referring to the loss of water from the soil

that results from direct evaporation, as

well as the water vapor given off by plants

through their leaves.

FAUNAL ASSEMBLAGE. Usually refers

to a suite of animal remains (most

commonly bones) representing the variety

of animals found within an archaeological

or paleontological site, or a geographical

area.
67

FLAKE CORE. Piece of tool stone which

served as the source (core) for the

production of large amorphous flakes. Tools

were usually made from the flakes.

FORMAL ARTIFACT. A tool or tool fragment recognized as being purposely made

to perform a specific task. Examples would

be a projectile point, a knife, or a

microblade core. A retouched flake, which

is an incidental tool or tool of the moment,

would not be included in this class of

artifacts.

FROST CRACK. A crack in the soil caused

by the expansion of water freezing within

the soil column. Such a crack is usually

identifiable on the surface of the ground as

an indentation and/or marked by a concentration of vegetation somewhat different

than that which surrounds it. The crack

descends below the surface and may

contain ice or soil if the ice has melted.

Often the soil that has migrated into a frost

crack will carry other material (such as

artifacts) with it and be of a different

character than the soil surrounding the

crack.

GABBRO SUBSTRATE. The gabbro base

on which the active soil zone at the Mesa is

perched. Gabbro is a type of igneous rock.

The substrate at the Mesa is composed of

fractured gabbro bedrock ranging from

granular to boulder-sized chunks.

GENERA. Plural form of genus, a

biological classification marked by common

characteristics. Genus falls between Family

and Species in the classification hierarchy.

HAFT. A tool handle. It can also refer to

attaching a handle to a tool (hafting), or a

tool with a handle (hafted).

HAFTING. A process whereby a tool is

secured to a handle or shaft. For example,

by wrapping with sinew, gluing, or placing

in a slot or groove.

HEARTH. The remains of an ancient

campfire.

HEARTH FILL. Material found within

the boundaries of an ancient campfire. This

can include anything that fell or was

thrown into the fire such as artifacts and

food debris as well as charcoal and ash.

HINGE FRACTURE. This occurs during

stone tool manufacture and is one of the

ways a flake can terminate as it detaches

from its core. Rather than feathering out

(becoming thinner along its length until it

detaches) the flake hinges out, the fracture

turning sharply upward at its point of

detachment creating a rounded ‘hinge’ at

the distal end of the flake.

HOLOCENE. A geologic time period

encompassing about the last 10,000 years.

HUMIC ACID. An acid formed in peaty

soils. Humic acid breaks up clay and

compacted soils, and helps to transfer

micronutrients from soil to the plant. It can

cause a brownish residue to be deposited in

the soil, on rocks, and in water.

IN SITU. Refers to an object being in its

natural or original position or place. This

term is usually used in reference to the

cultural material in an archaeological site

in the sense that the material has been

undisturbed since the site was abandoned

(since the material was incorporated into

the site’s stratigraphy).

INFRARED SPECTROSCOPY.A method

of mapping the components of a substance

using infrared light in order to determine

its chemical composition.

LENTICULAR. Refers to something

having the shape of a double convex lens.

This is a descriptive term usually applied to

the cross sectional profile of a stone

projectile point.

LITHIC. Relating to, or being of, stone.

This term often refers to stone tools and the

chips and flakes resulting from their

manufacture.
68

LOESS. A very fine-grained silt-like

material—often referred to as rock-flour—

resulting from rock grinding during glacial

activity. This material is usually carried

away from a glacier by meltwater streams

and deposited along the banks, or in fans or

bars. Once dry it is often picked up by the

wind and redeposited (aeolian deposition)

miles beyond the limits of the stream. Loess

deposits can be hundreds of feet thick.

MEGAFAUNA. Generally a collectively

descriptive term for large animals. In an

archaeological context it often refers to

large mammals that lived during the

Pleistocene, but became extinct when the

ice age ended.

MORPHOLOGY. Form and/or structure.

Herein, it is used in reference to the shape

or appearance of a stone tool or artifact.

OBSIDIAN. Volcanic glass. Obsidian was

often used as a tool stone. Tools that are

made from obsidian are sharper, but more

brittle, than tools made of flint or chert.

OBSIDIAN HYDRATION DATING. A

method of determining the age of obsidian,

usually an obsidian artifact. Like all glass,

obsidian absorbs moisture from its

environment. Because the moisture is

absorbed at a known rate, measuring the

amount of water that has been absorbed by

an obsidian tool since it was made will

establish the tool’s age. There are a number

of locally variable factors that influence the

rate of moisture absorption. These must be

known and factored into the equation, if the

resulting date is to be considered reliable.

PALEOECOLOGY. The study of the

characteristics of ancient environments

and their relationships with the animals

and plants that occupied them.

PERMAFROST. A permanently frozen

layer of soil and/or rock of varying

thickness occurring primarily in the Arctic

and Antarctic.

PHYTOLITHS. Microscopic forms of

silicates found in plant matter. Phytoliths

can be found as deposits on the teeth of

animals that eat plants or on tools that are

used to cut the plants. Because phytoliths

are plant specific, the type of phytoliths

found on teeth or tools identify the types of

plants being eaten or utilized.

PLEISTOCENE. A geologic time period

beginning about 1.6 million years ago, and

ending about 10,000 years ago, commonly

referred to as the ice age.

PLEISTOCENE / HOLOCENE TRANSITION. A period of several thousand

years that spans the changing of the

climate at the end of the ice age to

conditions more like the present.

PROVENIENCE. The location of a site, or

object within a site, determined by

geographic coordinates or directional/

distance measurement from a known point.

RADIO REPEATER SYSTEM. A system

in which two or more stationary radio

receiver and transmitter pairs are arrayed

in order to facilitate long distance radio

communication.

RADIOCARBON DATING. A method for

determining the age of organic material.

Because of its presence in the atmosphere,

a small amount of C-14, the radioactive

isotope of carbon, is found in all living

things. On the death of an organism, C-14

decays at a known rate (its half-life is 5730

years). When the amount of C-14 in dead

organic material is measured, it indicates

the length of time that has passed since the

organism died. For example, a bison bone is

found in an archaeological site with an

stone arrow head imbedded in it. In the

laboratory, a C-14 assay is done on the

bison bone and returns an age of 4850 +/- 90

yrs. BP. As a result the archaeologist can

infer that the prehistoric hunting camp was

occupied at the same time the bison was

killed—4850 radiocarbon years BP.
69

RADIOCARBON YEARS. A descriptive

term of radiocarbon age. Radiocarbon years

are based on the decay rate of C-14, and are

not the same as calendar years. Generally

speaking, the older the radiocarbon age is,

the greater the disparity between it and

calendar years. For example, there would

only be a slight disparity between

radiocarbon and calendar years if the

radiocarbon age is 1500 yrs. BP—the

calendar year age would be about 1580

years ago. If the radiocarbon age was

10,000 years BP, the calendar age would be

about 12,150 years ago. Conversion/

calibration curves addressing the difference

between these two systems have been

developed using tree-ring, Greenland icecore, and other data. Most archaeological

and paleontological dates are reported in

radiocarbon years. There are limits to

radiocarbon dating, and the accuracy of age

determinations in excess of 50,000 years

BP is highly questionable.

RETOUCH. A rather general term that

can cover most types of modification to a

stone tool beyond its initial stages of

manufacture. Most often the term refers to

the removal of small flakes from the edges

or surfaces of a stone tool to aid in final

shaping and/or sharpening. Retouch may

be unifacial—occurring on only one surface

of the tool, or bifacial—occurring on both

surfaces of the tool.

RIPARIAN. An ecological zone occurring

adjacent to stream courses. Usually this

zone is contained within the limits of the

active and inactive flood plains of the

stream. However, with large watercourses

this zone may extend beyond those limits.

SEMI-SUBTERRANEAN HOUSE. An

archaeological term describing a dwelling

of which at least the lower one-third has

been excavated into the ground. This type

of dwelling is often referred to as a “pit

house”.

SEXUAL DIMORPHISM. Differences

usually referring to color or size between

the males and females of a species. For

instance, in many species, males are larger

than females.

SOLIFLUCTION. A term referring to the

slow downslope movement of thawed,

moisture laden soil sliding on a buried

surface of frozen material. This usually

occurs at the contact point of the active

(thawed) soil zone and permafrost. Often

the soil and surface vegetation are bound

together, and much like a carpet, move

downslope as a single unit.

TAXA. The plural form of the term taxon,

which is a group of plants or animals

designated in a formal system of

nomenclature.

TOOL STONE. A stone that has a very fine

crystal structure (crypto crystalline), and

possesses the property of conchoidal

fracture. Such material is ideal for making

flaked stone tools. Flint, chert, obsidian,

and basalt are examples of this type of

stone.

TUSSOCK TUNDRA.A treeless landscape

that is found in arctic and subarctic

regions. It is populated by dwarf shrubs,

mosses, lichens, and herbs, and dominated

by compact tussocks or tufts of grass or

sedges. This type of tundra is often moist or

wet during the summer, and underlain by a

dark, mucky soil perched on permafrost.

TYPOLOGY. As used herein, a method of

arranging artifacts according to classes or

types.

UPPER PALEOLITHIC. Generally

speaking, the last 40,000 years of the Old

Stone Age— approximately 50,000–10,000

years BP.

USE-WEAR. Evidence of wear on stone

tools that occurs as the result of the use of

the tool.

YOUNGER DRYAS.Time period spanning

roughly 1000 years, between 11,000 and

10,000 radiocarbon years ago.
70

REFERENCES CITED

Ackerman, R.E.

2001 Spein Mountian: A Mesa Complex Site in Southwestern Alaska.

Arctic Anthropology 38(2).

Adkins, C.E.

1994 Mesa 44-40 W.C.F. Manuscript on file with the Bureau of Land

Management, Northern Field Office, Fairbanks, Alaska.

Adovasio, J.M. and R.C. Carlisle, eds

1982 Meadowcroft: Collected Papers on the Archaeology of Meadowcroft

Rockshelter and the Cross Creek Drainage. Prepared for the 47th Annual

Meeting of the Society of American Archaeology, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Alley, R.B.

2000 The Younger Dryas cold interval as viewed from central Greenland.

Quaternary Science Reviews 19: 213-226.

Alley, R.B. and 10 others

1993 Abrupt increase in Greenland snow accumulation at the end of

the Younger Dryas event. Nature 362: 527-529.

Amick, D. S. and R. P. Mauldin, eds

1989 Experiments in Lithic technology. BAR International Series 528.

Anderson, D. D.

1968 A stone age campsite at the gateway to America. Scientific American

218(6):24-33.

1970 Akmak: an early archaeological assemblage from Onion Portage,

Nortwest Alaska. Acta Arctica Fasc. 16. Danish Arctic Institute, Copenhagen.

1988 Onion Portage: the archaeology of a stratified site from the Kobuk River

in northwest Alaska. Anthropological Papers of the University of Alaska

22(1-2). University of Alaska Press, Fairbanks.

Anderson-Gerfaud, P.

1990 Aspects of Behavior in the Middle Paleolithic: Functional Analysis of

Stone Tools from Southwest France. In Paul Mellars (ed) The Emergence of

Modern Humans, 389-418. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.

Anderson, D.G. and J.C. Gillam

2000 Paleoindian Colonization of the Americas: Implications from an

Examination of Physiography, Demography, and Artifact Distribution.

American Antiquity, 65 (1):43-66.

Beikman, H.M. and E.H. Lathram

1976 Preliminary Geologic Map of Northern Alaska. Miscellaneous Field

Studies Map MF-789, U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.

Bever, M.R.

2000 Paleoindian Lithic Technology and Landscape Use in Late Pleistocene

Alaska: A Study of the Mesa Complex. PhD. Dissertation, Department of

Anthropology, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas.
71

Binford, L.R.

1978 Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology. Academic Press, New York.

1980 Willow Smoke and Dog’s Tails: Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Systems

and Archaeological Site Formation. American Antiquity 45(1):4-20.

Björck, S., B. Kromer, S. Johnsen, O. Bennike, D. Hammarlund, G. Lendahl,

G. Possnert, T.L. Rasmussen, B. Wohlfarth, C.U. Hammer, , and M. Spurk.

1996 Synchronized terrestrial-atmospheric deglacial records around the

North Atlantic: Science 274, 1155-1160.

Boast, R.B.

1983 The Folsom Gravers: A Functional Determination Through Microwear

Analysis. Masters thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of

Colorado, Boulder, Colorado.

Bockstoce, J.R.

1976 On the Development of Whaling in the Western Thule Culture.

Folk 18:41-46.

1986 Whales, Ice, and Men: The History of Steam Whaling in the Western

Arctic. University of Washington Press. Seattle.

Boldurian, A.T. and J.L. Cotter

1999 Clovis Revisited: New Perspectives on Paleoindian Adaptations from

Blackwater Draw, New Mexico. The University Museum, University of

Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Bowers, P.M.

1982 The Lisburne Site: analysis and culture history of a multi-component

lithic workshop in the Iteriak Valley, Arctic foothills, Northern Alaska.

Anthropological Papers of the University of Alaska 20(1):79-112.

1999 AMS dating of the Area 22 American PaleoArctic tradition microblade

component at the Lisburne site, Arctic Alaska. Current Research in the

Pleistocene 16.

Bradley, B.A.

1993 Paleo-Indian Flaked Stone Technology in the North American High

Plains. In From Kostenki to Clovis: Upper Paleolithic – Paleo-Indian

Adaptations. Edited by O. Soffer and N. Praslov, pp. 251-262. Plenum Press,

New York.

Brower, C.D.

1942 Fifty Years Below Zero: A Lifetime of Adventure in the Far North.

Dodd, Mead and Company, New York.

Campbell, J.M.

1968 Territoriality Among Ancient Hunters: Interpretations from

Ethnography and Nature. In Archaeology of the Americas. Anthropological

Society of Washington, pp. 1-21.

Carter, L.D.

1993 Late Pleistocene stabilization and reactivation of eolian sand in

northern Alaska: implications for the effects of future climatic warming on

an aeolian landscape in continuous permafrost. In Proceedings, Sixth

International Conference on Permafrost, Beijing, China. South China University

Technology Press, Wushan, Guangzhou, China volume 1, pp. 78-83.
72

Chapman, R.M., R.L. Detterman, and M.D. Mangus

1964 Geology of the Killik-Etivluk Rivers Region, Alaska. Geological Survey

Professional Paper 303-F. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington D.C.

Clark, D.W.

1991 The northern (Alaska-Yukon) fluted points. In Clovis: origins and

adaptations, edited by R. Bonnichsen and K.L. Turnmire, pp. 35-48. Center

for the Study of the First Americans, Corvallis 38(2).

2001 Microblade-culture Systematics in the Far Interior Northwest.

Arctic Anthropology 38(2).

Clark, D.W. and A.M. Clark

1975 Fluted points from the Batza Téna obsidian source of the Koyukuk

River region Alaska. Anthropological Papers of the University of Alaska

17(2):31-38.

1983 Paleo-Indians and fluted points: Subarctic alternatives. Plains

Anthropologist 28:283-292.

1993 Batza Téna: Trail to obsidian. Canadian Museum of Civilization,

Quebec.

Collins, H. B.

1937 Notes and news: Arctic area. American Antiquity 3:188.

Collins, M.B

1999 Clovis Blade Technology: A Comparative Study of the Keven Davis

Cache, Texas. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Cook, H. J.

1927 New geological and palaeontological evidence bearing on the antiquity

of mankind in America. Natural History 27:240-247.

Cook, J.P.

1969 The early prehistory of Healy Lake, Alaska. Ph.D. dissertation.

University of Wisconsin, Madison. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.

1999 Blade and Core Technology in Alaska. Paper presented at the 64th

Annual Meeting of the Society For American Archaeology, Chicago, Illinois.

De Laguna, Frederica

1936 An archaeological reconnaissance of the middle and lower Yukon

Valley, Alaska. American Antiquity 2:6-12.

Dikov, N.N.

1977 Archaeological monuments of Kamchatka, Chukotka, and the Upper

Kolyma. Nauka, Moscow

1979 Ancient Cultures of Northeast Asia. Nauka, Moscow.

1996 The Ushki sites, Kamchatka Peninsula. In American beginnings: the

prehistory and paleoecology of Beringia, edited by F.H. West, pp. 244-250.

The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
73

1997 Asia at the Juncture with America in antiquity: The stone age of the

Chukchi Peninsula. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service,

Beringia Program, Anchorage, Alaska. Translated from the Russian (1993) by

Richard L. Bland.

Dillehay, T.D.

1997 Monte Verde: A Late Pleistocene Settlement in Chile Volume 2: The

Archaeological Context and Interpretation. Smithsonian Institution Press,

Washington, D.C.

Dumond, D.E

1980 The archaeology of Alaska and the peopling of America. Science

209:984-991.

1987 The Eskimos and Aleuts. Thames and Hudson Ltd., London.

Durand, S.R., R.E. Reanier, and D.H.Mann

1998 Archaeological and Geological Mapping on the North Slope. Manuscript

and maps on file at the Bureau of Land Management, Northern Field Office,

Fairbanks, Alaska.

Easton, N.A.

1992 Mal de mer above Terra Incognita, or, what ails the coastal migration

theory? Arctic Anthropology 29(2):28-41.

Figgins, J.D.

1927 The Antiquity of Man in America. Natural History 27(3): 240-247.

Fladmark, K. R.

1979 Routes: alternate migration corridors for early man in North America.

American Antiquity 44:55-69.

Foote, D.C.

1964 American Whalemen in Northwestern Arctic Alaska. Arctic

Anthropology 2(2):16-20.

Frison, G.C.

1978 Prehistoric Hunters of the High Plains. Academic Press, New York.

.

1988 Paleoindian Subsistence and Settlement During Post-Clovis Times on

the Northwestern Plains, the Adjacent Mountain Ranges, and Intermontane

Basins. In: Americans Before Columbus: Ice-Age Origins, edited by Ronald C.

Carlisle. Ethnology Monographs No. 12, Department of Anthropology,

University of Pittsburg.

1991 Prehistoric hunters of the High Plains. Academic Press, New York.

Frison, G.C. and D.J. Stanford

1974 The Agate Basin Site: A Record of Paleoindian Occupation of the

Northwestern High Plains. Academic Press, New York.

Fullagar, R.L.K.

1991 The Role of Silica in Polish Formation. Journal of Archaeological

Science 18:1-24.
74

Gal, R.

1982 Excavations at the Tunalik Site, Northwestern National Petroleum

Reserve in Alaska. Anthropological Papers of the University of Alaska

20(1):61-78.

Gerlach, S.C. and E.S. Hall Jr.

1988 The Later Prehistory of Northern Alaska: The View From Tukuto

Lake. In: The Late Prehistoric Development of Alaska’s Native People, edited

by R.D. Shaw, R.K. Harritt, and D.E. Dumond, pp. 107-135. Aurora, Alaska

Anthropological Association Monograph Series No. 4.

Giddings, J.L. Jr.

1964 The Archaeology of Cape Denbigh. Brown University Press,

Providence.

Giddings, J.L. and D.D. Anderson

1986 Beach Ridge Archaeology of Cape Krusenstern: Eskimo and PreEskimo Settlements Around Kotzebue Sound, Alaska. Publication in

Archaeology 20, National Park Service, U.S Department of the Interior,

Washington, D.C.

Goebel, T., W.R. Powers, and N. Bigelow

1991 The Nenana Complex of Alaska and Clovis Origins. In Clovis: Origins

and Adaptations. Robson Bonnichsen and Karen L. Turnmire eds. Center for

the Study of the First Americans, Oregon State University, Corvallis.

Goebel, T., M. Waters, M. Dikova

2002 The Ushki Sites, Kamchatka and Pleistocene Peopling of the Americas.

Paper presented at the 67th Annual Meeting of The Society for American

Archaeology, Denver, Colorado.

Goslar, T., M. Arnold, N. Tisnerat-Laborde, J. Czernik, and K. Wieckowski

2000 Variations of Younger Dryas atmospheric radiocarbon without ocean

circulation changes. Nature 403: 877-880.

Grootes, P.M. and Stuiver, M.

1997 Oxygen 18/16 variability in Greenland snow and ice with 103

 to 105-

year time resolution. Journal of Geophysical Research 102: 26,455 - 26,470.

Gubser, N.J.

1965 The Nunamiut Eskimo: Hunters of Caribou. Yale University Press,

New Haven.

Guthrie, R.D.

1982 Mammals of the Mammoth Steppe as Paleoenvironmental Indicators.

In D.M. Hopkins et al. eds., Paleoecology of Beringia 307-329. New York,

Academic Press.

1990 Frozen Fauna of the Mammoth Steppe. Chicago, Illinois, University of

Chicago Press.

Hajdas, I., G. Bonani, P. Bodén, D.M. Peteet, and D.H. Mann

1998 Cold reversal on Kodiak Island, Alaska, correlated with the European

Younger Dryas using variations of atmospheric 14C content. Geology 26: 1047-

1050.
75

Hall, E.S. Jr.

1961 Eskimo-Aleut Ethnobotany. MS on file, Department of Anthropology,

Yale University, New Haven.

Hamilton, T.D.

1986 Late Cenozoic glaciation of the central Brooks Range, in:

Glaciation in Alaska (T.D. Hamilton, K.M. Reed, and R.M. Thorson, Eds.),

pp. 9-50. Alaska Geological Society, Anchorage, Alaska.

Hardy, B.L.

1994 Investigation of Stone Tools Function through Use-wear, Residue, and

DNA Analysis at the Middle Paleolithic Site of La Quina, France. PhD.

Dissertation, Indiana University.

2000 Residue and Use-wear Analysis of Lithic Artifacts from the Mesa Site

(KIR-102). Manuscript on file with the Bureau of Land Management,

Northern Field Office, Fairbanks, Alaska.

2001 Residue and Use-wear Analysis of Lithic Artifacts from the Mesa Site

(KIR-102) sample #2. Manuscript on file with the Bureau of Land

Management, Northern Field Office, Fairbanks, Alaska.

Hardy, B.L. and G.T. Garufi

1998 Identification of Woodworking on Stone Tools through Residue and

Use-wear Analysis: experimental results. Journal of Archaeological Science

25:84-177.

Hardy, B.L. and M. Kay

1998 Stone Tool Function at Starosele: combining Use-Wear and Residue

Results. In V. Chabai and K. Monigal (eds), The Middle Paleolithic of the

Western Crimea, Vol. 2. Liege:ERAUL, pp. 197-209.

Hinzman, L.D., D.L.Kane, C.S. Benson, and K.R. Everett

1996 Energy balance and hydrological processes in an arctic watershed. In

Landscape Function and Disturbance in Arctic Tundra (J.F. Reynolds and

J.D. Tenhunen, Eds.) pp. 131-152. Springer Verlag, New York.

Hoffecker J.F.

2001 Late Pleistocene and Holocene Sites in the Nenana Valley, Alaska.

Arctic Anthropology 38(2).

Holmes, C. E.

1996 Broken Mammoth. In American beginnings: the prehistory and

paleoecology of Beringia, edited by F.H. West, pp. 312-318. The University of

Chicago Press, Chicago.

2001 Tanana Valley Archaeology Circa 12,000 to 8500 Yrs. BP.

Arctic Anthropology 38(2).

Hopkins, D.M.

1982 Aspects of the paleogeography of Beringia during the late

Pleistocene. In Paleoecology of Beringia (D.M. Hopkins, J.V. Mathews, C.E.

Schweger, and S.B. Young, Eds.), pp. 3-28. New York, Academic Press.

Howard, E. B.

1936 The antiquity of man in America. Scientific Monthly 43:367-371.
76

Ingstad, H. M.

1954 Nunamiut: Among Alaska’s Inland Eskimoes. Translated by F. H. Lyon. Allen

Unwin, London.

Irving, W.N.

1964 Punyik Point and the Arctic Small Tool Tradition. PhD. Dissertation,

University of Wisconsin, Madison. University Microfilms no. 64-10247.

Irwin, H.T. and H.M. Wormington

1970 Paleo-Indian Tool Types in the Great Plains. American Antiquity

35(1):24-34.

Isarin, R.F.B. and S.J.P. Bohncke

1999 Mean July temperatures during the Younger Dryas in northwestern

and central Europe as inferred from climate indicator plant species.

Quaternary Research 51: 158-173.

Judge, W.J.

1973 Paleoindian Occupation of the Central Rio Grande in New Mexico.

University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Kane, D.L., L.D. Hinzman, M-K. Woo, and K.R. Everett

1992 Arctic Hydrology and Climate Change. in Arctic Ecosystems in a

Changing Climate, an Ecophysiological Perspective (F.S. Chapin, R.L. Jeffries,

J.F. Reynolds, G.R. Shaver, and J. Svoboda, Eds.), pp. 35-57. Academic Press,

New York.

Kay, M.

1996 Microwear Analysis of some Clovis and Experimental Chipped

Stone Tools. In G. Odell (ed), Stone Tools: Theoretical Insights into Human

Behavior. New York: Plenum, pp. 315-344.

Kitigawa, H. and J. van der Plicht

1998 Atmospheric radiocarbon calibrations to 45,000 yr B.P.: Late Glacial

fluctuations and cosmogenic isotope production. Science 279: 1187-1190.

Kunz, M.L.

1982 The Mesa Site: An Early Holocene Hunting Stand in the Iteriak Valley,

Northern Alaska. Anthropological papers of the University of Alaska 20 (1-2):

113-122.

1991 Cultural Resource Survey and Inventory: Gates of the Arctic National

Park and Preserve, Alaska. National Park Service, Alaska Region,

Anchorage. Research/Resources Management Report AR-18.

1996 From the Arctic to the High Plains: Climate and Environmental

Factors Influencing the Southward Movement of the Earliest North

Americans. Paper presented at the 54th Annual Plains Anthropological

Conference, Iowa City, Iowa.

1997 Passing Through Beringia: Speculation Concerning the Reasons

Behind the Apparent Rapid Spread of Humans Throughout the Western

Hemisphere. Paper presented at the 24th Annual Meeting of the Alaska

Anthropological Association, Fairbanks, Alaska.
77

1998 The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly — Ancient Radiocarbon Dates,

` Chronologies, Mysteries, and Applications: a Paleoindian Example from Arctic

Alaska. Paper presented at the 56th Annual Meeting of the Plains

Anthropological Conference, Bismark, North Dakota.

2001a Late Pleistocene Cultural Complexes in Eastern Beringia: The Best

Bet for Clovis Progenitors. Paper presented at the 66th Annual Meeting of the

Society For American Archaeology, New Orleans.

2001b Kuna Bluff Site field notes. On file with the Bureau of Land

Management, Northern Field Office, Fairbanks, Alaska.

Kunz, M.L. and D.H. Mann

1997 The Mesa Project: Interactions Between Early Prehistoric Humans

and Environmental Change in Alaska. Arctic Research of the United States,

11:55-62.

Kunz, M.L. and P.G. Phippen

1988 An Early Nunamiut Campsite on Confusion Creek: Gates of the Arctic

National Park, Alaska. Manuscript on file with Gate of the Arctic National

Park, Fairbanks.

Kunz, M.L. and R.E. Reanier

1994 Paleoindians in Beringia: evidence from Arctic Alaska. Science

263:660-662.

1995 The Mesa site: a Paleoindian hunting lookout in Arctic Alaska. Arctic

Anthropology 32:5-30.

Kunz, M.L., P.E. Matheus, D.H. Mann, and P. Groves

1999a The Life and Times of Paleoindians in Arctic Alaska. Arctic Research

of the United States 13: 33-39.

Kunz, M.L., P.E. Matheus, and D.H. Mann

1999b Paleoindians and Bison in the Arctic: A High Plains Analog or a

Different Story? Paper presented at the 57th Annual Meeting of the Plains

Anthropological Conference, Sioux Falls, South Dakota.

2000 Environmental Determinism and Paleoindians in Arctic Alaska.

Paper presented at the 65th Annual Meeting of the Society For American

Archaeology, Philadelphia, Pennsyvania.

Kunz, M.L. and D.C. Slaughter

2001 Clovis and the Denbigh Flint Complex: Paleoindian Insights from

Paleoeskimo Dynamics. Paper presented at the at the 59th Annual Meeting

of the Plains Anthropological Conference, Lincoln, Nebraska.

Kunz, M.L., C.M. Adkins, and R.E. Reanier

2001 The Batza Téna Obsidian Source: Physical Description and Resource

Availability. Paper presented at the 28th Annual Meeting of the Alaska

Anthropological Association, Fairbanks, Alaska.

Loy, T.H. and E.J. Dixon

1998 Blood Residues on Fluted Points from Eastern Beringia. American

Antiquity 63:24-35.
78

Lynch, T.F.

1991 Paleoindians in South America: A Discrete and Identifiable Cultural

Stage? In Clovis Origins and Adaptations, edited by Robson Bonnichsen and

Karen L. Turnmire, pp.255-260. Peopling of the Americas, Oregon State

University, Corvallis.

Mann, Daniel H. and Thomas D. Hamilton

1995 Late Pleistocene and Holocene paleoenvironments of the North Pacific

coast. Quaternary Science Reviews 14:449-471.

Mann, D.H., R.E. Reanier, D.M. Peteet, M.L. Kunz, and M. Johnson

2001 Environmental Change and Paleoindians in Northern Alaska.

Arctic Anthropology 38(2).

Mann, D.H., D.M. Peteet, R.E. Reanier, and M.L. Kunz

2002 Responses of an Arctic Landscape to Late Glacial and Early

Holocene Climate Changes: the Importance of Moisture. Quaternary Science

Reviews.

Mandryk, C.A.S., H. Josenhans, D.W. Fedje, and R.W. Mathewes

1998 Evaluating Paleoenvironmental Constraints on Interior and Coastal

Entry Routes into North America. Paper presented at the 64th Annual

Meeting of the Society For American Archaeology, Seattle Washington.

2001 Late Quaternary Paleoenvironments of Northwestern North

America: Implications for Inland vs. Coastal Migration Routes. Quaternary

Science Reviews. (20) 1-3:301-314.

Martin, P.S. and R.G. Klein

1984 Quaternary Extinctions, a Prehistoric Revolution. University of

Arizona Press, Tucson, 892 pp.

Matheus, P.E.

1998 Late Quaternary Mammal Fossils of the Ikpikpuk River, National

Petroleum Reserve - Alaska. Draft manuscript on file with the Bureau of

Land Management, Northern Field Office, Fairbanks, Alaska.

2000 Late Quaternary Mammal Fossils of the Greater Ikpikpuk River Area,

National Petroleum Reserve - Alaska. Draft manuscript on file with the

Bureau of Land Management, Northern Field Office, Fairbanks, Alaska.

Mayewski, P.A., L.D. Meeker, S. Whitlow, M.S. Twickler, M.C. Morrison, R.B. Alley, and

K. Taylor

1993 The atmosphere during the Younger Dryas. Science 261: 195-197.

Mobley, Charles M.

1991 The Campus site: a prehistoric camp at Fairbanks, Alaska. University

of Alaska Press, Fairbanks.

Moritz, R.E.

1979 Synoptic climatology of the Beaufort Sea coast of Alaska.

Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research Occasional Paper Number 30, 176 pp.

Morrow, J.E. and T.A. Morrow

1999 Geographic Variation in Fluted Projectile Points. American Antiquity,

64 (2):215-230.
79

Mull, C.G.

1994 The Geological Distribution of Chert in the Brooks Range. Paper

presented at the 21st Alaska Anthropological Association Conference, Juneau,

Alaska.

Nelson, N.C.

1935 Early migration of man to America. Natural History 35:356.

1937 Notes on cultural relationships between Asia and America. American

Antiquity 2:267-272.

Newman, J.E. and C.I. Branton

1972 Annual water balance and agricultural development in Alaska. Ecology

53: 513 519.

Patric, J.H. and Black, P.E.

1968 Potential Evaporation and Climate in Alaska by Thornthwaite’s

Classification. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Research

Paper PNW-71. Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experimental Station,

Institute of Northern Forestry, Juneau, Alaska.

Powers, W R.and J. F. Hoffecker

1989 Late Pleistocene settlement in the Nenana Valley, Central Alaska.

American Antiquity 54:263-287.

Powers, W R.and R.H. Jordan

1990 Human Biogeography and Climate Change in Siberia and Arctic

North America in the Fourth and Fifth Millennia BP. Phil. Trans. R. Soc,

Lond A 330, 665-670.

Rainey, Froelich

1939 Archaeology in Central Alaska. Anthropological Papers of the

American Museum of Natural History 36:351-405.

1940 Archaeological investigation in central Alaska. American Antiquity

4:299-308.

Rasic, J.T.

2000 Prehistoric Lithic Technology At The Tuluaq Hill Site, Northwest

Alaska. Masters thesis, Department of Anthropology, Washington State

University, Pullman, Washington.

Reanier, R.E.

1982 An Application of Pedological and Palynological Techniques at the

Mesa Site. Northern Brooks Range, Alaska. Anthropological Papers of the

University of Alaska 20(1-2):123-139.

1995 The antiquity of Paleoindian Materials in Northern Alaska. Arctic

 Anthropology 32: 31-50.

1996 Analysis of Hearth Charcoal from the Mesa Archaeological Site. Draft

manuscript on File with the Bureau of Land Management, Fairbanks, Alaska.

1997 Regional Culture History and Prehistoric Sites 10,000 B.C. to 1,500

A.D. In: NPR-A Symposium Proceedings: Science, Traditional Knowledge, and

the Resources of the Northeast Planning Area of the National Petroleum

Reserve Alaska. Minerals Management Service, OCS Study MMS 97-0013.

Anchorage, Alaska.
80

Roberts, F.H.H. Jr.

1940 Developments in the Problem of the North American Paleo-Indian.

Smithsonian Miscellaneous, Vol. 100. Washington, D.C.

Rovansek, R.J., L.D. Hinzman, and D.L. Kane

1996 Hydrology of a tundra wetland complex on the Alaska Arctic Coastal

Plain, USA. Arctic and Alpine Research 28, 311-317.

Sanger, D.

1970 Mid-Latitude Core and Blade Traditions. Arctic Anthropology

(7) 2:106-114.

Schoenberg, K. M.

1995 The Post-Paleoarctic Interval in the Central Brooks Range. Arctic

Anthropology 32(1):51-62.

Sellet, F.

1999 A dynamic view of Paleoindian assemblages at the Hell Gap site,

Wyoming: reconstructing lithic technological systems. Unpublished Ph.D.

dissertation. Department of Anthropology, Southern Methodist University,

Dallas Texas.

2001 A Changing Perspective on Paleoindian Chronology and Typology:

A View From the Northwestern Plains. Arctic Anthropology 38(2).

Sheehan, G.W.

1997 The Most Successful Hunters: Northern Economy A.D. 400 to Present.

In: NPR-A Symposium Proceedings: Science, Traditional Knowledge, and the

Resources of the Northeast Planning Area of the National Petroleum Reserve

Alaska. Minerals Management Service, OCS Study MMS 97-0013.

Anchorage, Alaska.

Shelley, P.H.

1994 Views on the Mesa Site Lithic Resource Availability and Lithic

Technology. Manuscript on file with the Bureau of Land Management,

Northern Field Office, Fairbanks, Alaska.

Slobodin, S.B. and M.L. King

1996 Uptar and Kheta: Upper Paleolithic sites of the upper Kolyma Region.

In American beginnings: the prehistory and paleoecology of Beringia, edited by

F.H. West, pp. 236-244. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Spetzman, L.A.

1959 Vegetation of the Arctic Slope of Alaska. Professional Paper 302-B.

U.S. Geological Survey, Washington D.C.

Stanford, D.J.

1976 The Walakpa site, Alaska: Its Place in the Birnirk and Thule cultures.

Contributions to Anthropology no. 20. Smithsonian Institution Press,

Washington D.C..

Straus, G.L.

2000 Solutrean Settlement of North America? A Review of Reality.

American Antiquity 65 (2):219-226.
81

Troeng, J.

1993 Worldwide Chronology of Fifty-three Prehistoric Inovations. Acta

Archaeologica Lundensia, Series in 8o . No 21.

Watson, R.

1999 A Vegetation Study at the Mesa Site in Northern Alaska. Manuscript

on file at the Bureau of Land Management, Northern Field Office, Fairbanks,

Alaska.

West, F.H.

1981 The archaeology of Beringia. Columbia University Press, New York.

Wormington, H.M.

1957 Ancient man in North America. Denver Museum of Natural

History, Denver.

Zhang, T., T.E. Osterkamp, and K. Stamnes

1997 Effects of climate on the active layer and permafrost on the North

Slope of Alaska, U.S.A. Permafrost and Periglacial Processes 8, 45-67.
82