HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPA3528SUSITMA HYDROTLECTRIC PROJECT
CULTURAL RESOURCES - SIGN1 FI CBNf E
Repor
University of
Becky Me Sal*
E, James Di
George S. Sr
Prepared for
Alaska Power A:
TABLE OF CONTENTS
2 . Significance ....................... 2-1
2.9 . begal Significance .................. 2-2
2.2 . Scientific Significance .............. 2-5
22 . Heritage Significance ............... 2-3
2.4.Uniqueness. .................... 2-8
3 . Significance Evaluation Framework ............. 3-1
3ml-WescarchQuestisns .. .. ..........a.e 3-1
(a) Cultural Chronology .............. 3-1
(b) Subsistence and Settlement ........... 3-2
(c) Human Ecology ................. 33 ..
... (d) Population DynamicslExchange and Diffusion 4-6
(e) Athapaskan Lifeways .............. 3-7
(5) Culture Process ................ 3-9
3.2 . Variables Applied to Evaluation of Significa~ce . 3-50
(a) Environmental Setting ............. 3-10
(b) Stratigraphic Context ............. 3-10
.............. (c) ArtifactAssemblage 3-13
(d) Criteria of Non-significance .......... 3-14
4 .. Research Questions Matched with Sites ........... 4-1
................... .. . 5 B%bliography .. 5-1
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure I. General ired Teriestrial Stratigraphic Profi lc,
Middle Susistna River Area , , . . , . . 3 -. 1 j,
Figure 2. Frequencies of Sites with the Potential to
Address Specific Research Questicrrs . .. . . . . . dl% a- :? 6
LIST _ OF TABLES
-%. ;able 1, ignificance Questions Listed by Site . . . . . . . 4-30
iii
14'1 the reqiiest of the Aias'ka Poib~ep. Authority, the evaluation of
s";i?ifjcai?ce has been prepared by the University sf Alaska Museurn as a
separate report from the Cultural Resources lnvestlgation 1979-1985
document (Dixon et 31. 1985). This reporl is des igned to be used in
conjunction with two additional reports requested by APA: Susitna
Hydroel eetri c Project, Cul turaT Resources - Impact Assessment (Smi th a13d
Dixon 1985) and Susi tna Hydroelectric Project, Cul tural Resources -
Fii tiga6ti3n Recommendations (Smi *th and Dixon 1985).
federal agencies are required to assess the effects of projects, such as
the Susitna Hydroelectric Project, on properties on or eligible For
nomination to the National Register of Historic Places. When such
properties will be adversely affected, the agency must determine whether
there are feasible and prudent alternatives which would avoid or satis,-
factorily mitigate the adverse effect. The eligibility of a site or
group of sites, for inclusion in the National Register, is based on the
sjyvrificance of the site(s). Therefore, it is first necessary to
determine site significance. The significance of a site is directly
related to its potential to address research questions. This report
sumnarizes the tssessment of site significance through defining the
concept of significance, identifying pertinent variables, presenting
research qvestrons relevant to the sbdy area, and iderltifying the sStes
which will address these questions.
Chapter 2 addresses the determination of site significance from legal,
scientific, and heritage perspectives. Legislation relating to site
significance is discussed and professional concerns on the definition of
significance are presented. Chapter 3 presents the significance eval-
vation framework. The hierarchy of research questions and the variables
whish sites must possess in order to address the auestions are both
discussed. Chapter 4 presents research questions grouped according to
six major research areas. . These areas are: 1) Cu'i tvral Chronology,
2) ~ubsistence and Settlement, 3) Human Ecology, 4) Population
Dynamics1 Exchange sx? Diffusion, and 5) Athapaskan 1 i feways, and
6) Culture processes. Sites that have the potential for addressing E
research questions $re l isted under the appropriate quesetian, site
specific evaluation of significance is also presented in the fourth
chaptej- of this dscnmesst,
*- ~he Federal mandate to manage and protect archeological and historical
resources has historically divided cultural properties into two classes:
those which are "significant" and those which are not (Tainter and Lucas
1983:701). The def ini t~r n of 3ignificant archeological resources is a
controve~sial dnd muck debzted concept in archeological and legal
,- ..~n~lnlrni;ties. -s r The crmplexi ty of the concept of signi7icance has been
discussed and evaiuated in a number of reports and articles (Anderson
1972; Seovill et a%, 1972; House and Fchifkr 1975; Maratto 1995;
Glassow 1937; King et a1 . 1977; Woratto and Kelly 1977; Raab and Ki inger
1977; Zckiffer and Gumerman 1977; Schiffer and House 1917; Sharrock and
Grayson 1979; Barnes et al, 1980; Painter and Lucas 1983). This section
will outline "Ee hhistory of significance from 'legal and scientific
stzindi2oints to expl icati! how the concept of signi r'icance i s implenwnted
with respect to archeological sites associated with the Susitna Hydro-
electric Project. I4cri tage significance and significance as measured by
unique site characteristics will also be discussed in this section.
Effective evaluation of the concept of significance can be acromplished
by divs'ding i"e.intcr types,
In principle, the process of assessing significance is relatively
straightforward once there is agreement on the types of' significance *that
weeds to be csnsidered, One first specifies explicit criteria Psr
judging resources in relation to each type of significance. Then the fit
between the criteria and the yesources is evdudted, Finally, it may be
desirabk tLo arvive at an ouerall judgment based on a weighing of th(;,
types of significance that have been considered (Schiffer and Gumerman
1977: 240).
, . Although several types of significance have been recogcized in the
literature, including historical, ethnic, public, legal, and scientific
. significance (Schiffer & Gumerman 1977: 244-2451, two are considered most
encompassing and integral to our discussio~, As will be shown, legal
and scientific concepts of significance provide two different but
1 interrelated pe ,ecti ves.
h, r:i?ncepVt of significance h;; a long history irl federal legislation
c? l ~tjng to archeological and historic preservation. Ia early legis-
I~t'sr~. such as the 1906 Antiquities Act and the 5935 Historic Sites
!Actc the concept was equated with significance bn a national level.
. u
: ,-?ubie preservation groups working in the early decades of this century
pIppl co . come to grips with the significance concept in order to evaluate
h5storjc bui 1 dings on their associative (association with great persons
and events in American History) and artistic merits. This need to set
sidndards for evaluation in historic preservation greatly influenced the
further development of the concept of significance (Tainter and Lucas
~982: 708).
'TIa. i'i ixsi v'orrriulaf ion of guide1 ines to serve as selection standards for
pjnQk3" ,J~i~~ttion a? was attempted by the National Park Service Chief Historian
and 75te;- released to the National Resources Board ir~ 1934, The deter*
mirling factor for selection of a historic or prehistoric site airas its
possession of "certain matchless or unique qualities" which represented
large patterns sf "the.P.merican story," were associated with the life of
some gPeat American, or associated with some dramatic event in American
history (Sckneider 1935, in Tainter and Lucas 1383). Subsequent guide-
lines jssued by a private organization, the National Council for His-
toric Preservation, w&$eh lobbied for the congressionally ckaktered
National Trust for Hislsr$c Preservat6isn, were ba%ed primarily an the
1934 standards, but stated more explicitly that preservation was to
incl vde sites exempl ifyfying the achievements of aboriginal man in America
or sites of outstanding scientific importance for the light they shed on
this subject (Finley 1965, in Tainter and Lucas 1983). These criteria
were revised and expanded by the National Trust in 1956 and are the
bas45 for the federal attempts to define significance today (Tainter and
Lucas 1983 : 708).
As a result sf two important pieces of legislation and a presidential
mandate, standards by whjch to evsluate the significance of sites have
again been codified by the federal government. The National Historic
"f : ,
tt i>t?icts, sites, hui ]dings, structures, and objects ignrsFicanqi; in
RQU~T~CFIYI l~i~t~i*~, archited.ture, arc;-eology, and cultirre" (l3jh'l ic law
99-665; 80 Stat. 915; 16 U.S.C. 470, Section 101). Under the provisions
of this law, consideration must be given to any National Regjster or
National Register eligible site, structure, or district which is to be
"3dversely affected by projects utilizing federal funds, Also with the
passage of' NHPA, resources of regional, state, and local as we71 as
tiational significance gained protection under the law.
C
'- m jhe importance of the National Register was strengthened by the signing
02' Executive Order 11593 in 1971, This directive ordered federal
zgencies to locate, inventory, and nominate to the Secretary sf the
Interior a1 l properties under thei r Jurisdiction or control that appear
to qualify for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (E.Q.
11593). Implicit in the order is the notion that properties must bc
significant in order to be nominated to the National Register, as
painted ou"cy Tai nter and iucas (1983: 709).
In 1974 another key ~iece of legislation dealing with significant
properties, the Archeological and Historic Preservation Act, was passed.
It atnends the Resc?rvoir Salvage Act of 1960 wh.ich provided for "Lhe
preservation of historical and archeological data that might be lost as
3 result of dam construction (74 Stat. 220; 16 U.S.C. 469). According
to an amended section of the 1974 law,
idhenever any Federal agency Finds, or is notified, in writing, by an
appropriate historical or archeological authority, that -its activities in
connection with any Federal construction project of federal ly 1 icensed
project, activity, or program may cause irreparable loss o~ destruction
of significant scientific, prehistorical, historical, or arbcheological
data, such agency shall notify the Secretary (Secretary of the Illterior),
.in writing, and shall provide the Secretary with appropriare information
concerning the project, program or activity. (Public Law 93-291; Stat.
174)
The law further states that recovery, protection, and preservation of
the data must subsequently take place.
C- by which ?ssess significance in compi aiancc b~i th the f'~cic;-al
'1~:rs and Executive Order 11593 appear in *,he Fede~al Register lii i976
awl have been worded to provide for "re jinclusjon of a diversity o*?
c~ti tural resources on the National Regi stcr of Historic Places. Accord-
icg to the National Register criteria of evaluaation, the quality of
significance is present in historic and archeolbgical properties that
'possess integrity 05 ln~ation, design, setting, material, workmansllip,
feeling, and asscciat~on, and
(a) That are associated wif-vents "cat have made a significant coilti^< -
bution to the broad pbtrernns of our histolay; or
fb) That are associared with the lives of persons significant in our
past; OP"
(c) That embody the distinctive charactei-isf:ics of a Qype, period, or
method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or
that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose
components may lack individual distinction; or
(d) That have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information impartant
in prehistory or history (CFR 36:60.6).
Criterion (d) is generally used in nominating archeological sites to the
regi s ter.
Tainter and ~uca; (1983) observed that the history af the concept of
significance ;s rooted in legislation passed in the early decades of
this centu~y fin response to concerns of architectural preservationists.
The criteria stated above are very broad with regard to assessing the
scientific or research value of archeological sites. Some aid in
detewnining significance is, however, provided in a handbook, Treatment
of Archeological Properties, published in 1980 by the Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation, The council was established by the NHPR to
act in an advisory capacity in reviewing proposals for archeological
data recovery projects. In their handbook principles guiding the
Council's staff in their review process are set forth. One of their
lnajar princip.les states tha~rrpeerties draw thei r archeological value
(significance) from the "assumption thet they can be used fruitfully for
research" (Advisory Counci 1 on Historic Preservation 1980:6). One of
the stated intents sf the National Historic Preservation Act is "to
insure future generations a genuine opportunity to appreciate and enjoy
the rich heritage of our Nation" (Pub1 ic Law 89-665, Preamble).
P,rc+cOif~gl ca: resfzf-rh which addresses sigriificant quesrions about the
.-?. i:. viewed by ?he coiinci? 8s Seing in the public irterest, slid thus
*-ii ; i l i s t!i i s i W~ER~.
* -. ?he crucial role of research potential in assessing archeological
:rg:~iFicanee is als~ documented in the Federal Register among the
i-ciguiat-ions to be employed in complying with the Archeological and
Significant.,.,daet, as used by the Act, are data that can be used to
t2 -s t7 c at,~r t..4 a researchc questions , including quest4 ons of present importance to
scholars and questions that may be posed in the future (36 CFR 66.1).
These additional guide1 ines, set tvithin a scientific *framework, a1 Tow
archeologists to more effectively gauge whether or not 2 site or sites
i-!a\:? "yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in
1;rehistor-y or histot-y" (CFR 36 60.6).
1 22 - Scientific Significance
Sclen-ti f ic signi fieance is an outgrowth of legal signi ficanre as stated
in federal antiquities legislation over the past century and more
specffically since 5176 when the Federal Register set forth criteria For
significance pursuant to the Historic Site Preservation Act of 1966,
Naational Environment21 Policy Act of 1969 and Executive Order 11593,
This legislation is very open ended and subject to a wide range of
inteppretations (Raab and Kl inger 1977).
A general consensus in the archeological discipline has been reached in
interpreting the legislation. House and Schiffer (1977) state that
significance of archeological sites is best assessed by scientific
I ' significance. They further argue that scientific significance is best
evaluated by research potential. This position is also supported by
I Raab and Klinger who "... feel that the best approach to assessing
archaeological significance is in relation to expl icit , problem-oriented
research designs" (1977: 632). This same position was subsequently
adopted by other archeologists (Grady 1477; Lynott 1980). The
3ssessment of archeological significance in general and scientific
bignificance in particular might best be taken From Schiffer and
Gu ISE r~na n :
A site or resource is said to be scientifically significant when its
*further study may be expected to help answer current research questions.
That is, scientific signfficance is defined as research potential
(1971: 241 1.
Tile nature of research potential with regard to scientific significance
is-both diversified and dynamic. Basic archeological issues such as
".- regional m - classification arid chronology are included along with broader
theoretical goals such as general anthropological principles and social
scientific methods. Dixon (1977) presents an argument kdhich suggests s
broadening of the archeological significance base to other areas of
science sa~ch as paleoecology, marine mamals science, weather and
* * t ilmate, a'nd the efishing industry. These are all within the realm of
scientific significance.
One other outstanding characteristic of scientific significance is its
dynamais naturee If scientifjc signi f a'eance .is thd closely with
research potenti81, then as research designs change and methodological
techniques develop, the status of significance will also change. Lynott
(1980) illustrates this case with an example from central Texas. The
initial assessment of Bear Creek Shelter after limited testing in 1947
was essentially negative. This assessment was based upon the site's
research potential to contribute to chronology building, Upon
reevaluation of the site in the 1970'5, research had come to emphasize
questions of subsistence and settlement and the site was consequently
considered significant. This same kind of F :sue of 'future potential"
is recognized by other archeologists (Glassow 1977; Dixon, in press).
For instance, Glassow suggests: . . .the his tory of archaeology over the la:t two decades den~onstrates that
our conception of whamt is important to obi+rve in the archaealogical
record is subject of radical change or at least significant expansion.
Befare the advent of coneern for studying settlement patterns, .For
example, only "type sites" or sites with deep, large deposits might have
been considered "sign% ficant" , whereas today ia:e would consider even
small , ephemeral sites to be important (1977: 414).
._,~RI? i,hJ sf isskae can be faurrd in the ar~he0logicaf i.i%er"af~i"e
5jgi-i tic;ilce of artifacts 'from sites along the Porcupine Rivei*, lil3ska,
ths question of centext is of paramount importance because it provides
; i'l things with meaning. Context provides para rieters iv v~hich any clbjpct
:,r phek?omena may be interpreted and through interpretation becomes
ic:iowIedge. Context is not limited to the depositicnel setting ~nd
rccordqd data associated with a specimzn. The historic period in which
tkc investigaator functions also prcvides context which limits the parame-
ters of analysis. For example, archeological material discovered in the
early '1900's is, regarded differently in the 1980's because of the ad-
lfancement in analytical techniques - such as scanning electron microscopy
wcl radiometric dating , which hare expanded the contextual 1 imi ts of
j-zcove~-ed materi a9 ,
Cantext must be understood as being characterized by a degree of confi-
dence rather than as an absolute state of being. The degree of confi-
dence is dependent upon -the amcunt and quality of the ina;ormation context
provides (Dixon, in press),
*h iainier and iucas (1983:107-718) attempt to sum the problem up by
sugges*ti ng that because the theoretical and rrethodol ogical basis of
!acsearcl~ in archeology changes, as with all empi pica1 discipl incs, we
must make our own assessments with very careful detail and rigor. 11-7
recapitulation, :he significance of archeolegieal resources is test
assessed within a framework of research potential given the diversified
and dynamic character of the science,
23 - Heritage Summary
Heritage significance is a concept which broadly encompasses the non-
scientific aspects of site significance, including historical and ethnic
signif icznce, Criteria used to determine historical sign? f icance have
been discussed previously in section 2.1 of this report. Ethnic
significance pertains to the religious, mythological or social impor-
. tance that an archeological site may have for a discrete population
(Moratto 1975, cited by Schiffer and Gumerman 1977: 244).
The role of ethnic significance has also been considered by tho Advjsory
Council on Historic Preservation (1980), who discuss the task of
balancing reseapcb viiues and other public values, such as ethnic values
*that may be fnherc~t iK a site, in determining the appropriate treatment
of archeological projerties. They state that "if the property is
psrceived by a local sccial group to have religious eulturai value, for
exanip'le, this vzlue ~ust be taken into account" (Advisory Council an
Ni storic Preservati or, 1980:8). They further stite that "a data recovery ~ 9rogram sfrould relate positively to nan-archeological concerns
. . . (if~cluding) re1 igious and other cultural concerns of Native Wmerlcens
ani!/or other descendtnts of the historSc and prehistoric people af the
study area.. ." (Advisory Counci 1 on Historic Preservation 1980:30),
~ 2,4 - Uniqueness
During early federal efforts to establish selection standards to use in
preserving historic end prehistoric sites, the quality nf uniqueness was
highlighted as an essential characteristic for a site to possess. This
fact is well illustrzted by the following passage from a 1934 Rational
Resources Board pub1 ication:
The deetermining factor in the preservation of an historic site by
"khe National Government, as in the ease of any area of great scenic
or scientific qualities, is that it possess certain matchless or
unique qualities which entitle it to a position of first rank among
historic sites (Schneider 1935:3-4, cited by Tainter and Lucas
1983: 708).
In the present context, the quality of uniqueness is important primarily
as it relates ts either the scientific or heritage signa^#Ficance of a
site. For example, if a site is unique because it is the earliest in
the area, it is significant mainly because of its potential to address
region-specific resetrch questions dealing with early culture
chronology, setglenent and subsistence, etc. An historic site, deemed
to be unique because it is the only example of a particular style of
cabin or it wss onca irhebited by an important figure in local hristory,
is valued for its heritage significance in preserving important aspects
of the culture of the erea. Specific examples of unique sites within
the project are2 ETE included in a cnmpanion volume to this report,
i .e, , Susitna Hydr~egeetric Project, Cultural &sources Mi tigation
Recom~~endat i ons (Syi th and Oi xon 1985).
~ 3 - -----% Significance Evaluation ----- Framework
"7-*. i he signi flcanee evaluatidn framework is comprised aF two major
coisyonents : I) research questions grouped according to major themes of"
concerns to archeol ogi sts , i .e., eul tural chronology , svhsi slence and
setstlement , human ecology, population dynamics/exchange and di ffusian,
Athapaskan lifeways, and culture process; and 2) variables which a site
rnt~st possess in order to address specific questions. Each of these
c3riiponents. i s discussed be1 ow,
r
~ (a) Culture Chronology - (Research Category I)
'Ipr io date, five major cultural traditions and complexes, each charac-
terized by specific configurations of associated cultural traits which
persiscLs over a long period of time have been documented within the
study area. These are: 1) Euro-American tradition (3 - 100 B.P.)
(cultural horizon 11, 2) the Athapaskan tradition (123 - ca. 1508 B.P.)
(cultural horizons 2, 3, 4, 5), 3) Late Denali complex (ea. 1500 - 3400
B.P.) (cultural horizons 5 (?), 6, 7, 91, 4) Northern Archaic tradition
(ca. 3400 - 5000 B.P.) (cultural horizon 81, and 5) American Paleo-
ajffictic tradition (ca. 5000 - ? 10,500 B.P.) (Cultural horizon 9).
~ Research Questions - Culture Chronology:
a. The temporal boundaries for each tradition are poor1 y
understood, with the exception of the Euro-Bmerican and the
late phase of the Athapaskan tradition. Additional research
is required at individual sites which fall on cultural
horizons that suggest they hold the potential to document
temporal limits of each tradition.
id iutsls~encs and Settlement - (Research Category 11;
-r- t
I ne .enera i -topic of subsistence and settlement may best: be viewed frani
the exaniination oi a number of lesser topics bqhick deal with, but arc
qat 1 imited to: 1) the present and past landscape, 2) present and past
"QQ~ ~e~s~u~~~s, 3) site location, 4) site size, 5) site density.
8e;au:e of poor organic prese~vation at some stratigraphic levels it may
iho6 be possible to address some topies in more 'than a speculative
manner,
Prei~is*toric settlement information is probably the most abundant kind of
data sbtalned which re9 ates to issues sf subsistence and set tlemew+tm
Lt?w !he most direct approach for gaining subsistence inQorrnaPion from sites
Is the identification of floral and faunal remains in past contexts,
Unfortunately, acjdic soils and post-depositional tra~lsformatlons
preserve only the most durable kinds of materials (3 .e., lithics). As a
result, the amount of preserved organic remains is minimal and thls
situation escalates with progressively older occupations. Fortunately
some depositional environments in the project area have a1 lowed organic
presrrva~tion. Foi- instance, bone fragments of smai l mammals, birds , and
caribou have been recovered at various sites, These remains do not
alloh! for a reliable assessment of minimum numbers of individuals or
percentage of the diet. Nor can reliable statements be made about the
n2ot;t preferred subsistence resource at sites. In addition Lo faunal
remains, macrofossils of floral specimens have been recovered from some
paleosols at various sites. Given the poor organic preservation, sites
which do preserve organic material within and outside of the paleosel
are very important,
Research westions - Subsistence and Settlement:
a, Js there a change in subsistence practices between the Ameri-
eagl Paleoaxt5c and Northern Archaic periods, and what evi-
dence is there to support or refute this change?
b. Jininng the Ah-tna, the placename for Jay Creek is k~~ac'elrunr. F48"
("food is stored again creek") (Kari $583). A number of
nrinerai liclts otcur along Jay Creek and in *Lhe hills to the
west upon which locsl sheep populations depend. Do sites
which are adjacent to mineral licks possess a distinctive
arti Fact assemblage which may be related to sheep predation?
c. Many af the small sites within the project area tend to be
located on small, glacially formed knolls (kaiiles) which
provideca panoramic view of surrounding 1 ower land features,
These sites are corcullonly characterized as over1 oaks or hunting
stations. Is there a diagnostic artifact assemblage at t.hese
sites which might explain their size and location?
d. During the Northern Archaic period salmon were exploited in
areas adjacent to the Susitna Canyon. Is it possible that
Northern Archaic sites within the Susi tna Canyon area partici-
pated in a larger settlement and subsistence cycle which
i ncluded salmon procurement sites outside of t5e area?
e. Do attrSi!,utes of sites located in the vicinity of natural
topographic constrictions, known to funnel herds of migrating
caribou, suggest that *the killing and processing of these game
animals were the principal site activities?
f. The confluences of streams and rivers (also streams and
streams) are known to be rich in terms of subsistence
resources. Are there specific artifact and faunal assemblages
which characterize sites found at csnfluences and do these
assemblages reflect particular site activities?
(c) Human Ecology - (Research Category 11 I)
Evidence for Sour prehistoric tephra falis, occurring during an interval
cf ~t least 3,000 years From about 5,000 years B. P. to roughly the
beginning of the Christian Era, is widespread in both cultural and
.;iii;-c:!l *t:~ra'i contexts ti~roughout the Sus i tna Caslyac area. Tiie Susi Cna
i::r:Ri=~s iilay correlate roughly in time with "cphr ddeposfGts at sther
central Alaskan locales, indicating a fairly extensive distribution for
~hese ash deposits,
3fC217 ?;overlooked in the archeological 'iiteraturk is the Face that
c:~ii,lace~nent of tephra on the landscape undoubtedly had some effect
(11c:sit.jve or negatiile) on the prehistoric population inhabiting an ai*ea,
iihe-ii-rer the effect was long-term and resulted in a large-scale emi-
gration of people as suggested by Workman (1974, 1979) for the Yukon
r3 onbin, - or only short-term as suggested by Dumond (1979) and Black (1981)
for tile Alaska Peninsula and the Aleutians, respectively, has yet to be
resolj~ed for the Susi tna Canyon area. Environmental data, specif ical ly
da"-. La on plant and animal recovery in regions affected by historic
ro'icanic activi"cy and conternporqry wildlife studies, can provide useful
jnfarmatisn for the formulation of models wftk wh"jiCh to assess the
possible impact on people occupying or utilizing the Susitna area at the
time of the tepkra Palls.
IF the effects were only short-term in extent, major changes in artifact
assemblages or major hiatuses ill site occupation would not be expected
to occur in the archeological record. On the other hand, what might be
expected is evidence of shifts in settlement pattern or fluctuations in
population density that may have resulted duC to impact on the floral
and faunal resources of the area. The following questions seek to
address the above hypotheses on the impact of tephra falls.
Research Questions - Human Ecology:
a. According to Workman's (1974, 1979) hypothesis, catastraphic
ash Falls in Interior Alaska may have caused emigration of one
group of people and re-occupation at a later date by another
population. This may be confirmed with distinct changes in
artifact assemblages, Is such a pattern evident in the
project areaP
-~ * : i rie impact of tephra Fa1 1s on past vegetational reg-imes -in th?
projec-i area may have affected caribou by causing their
numbers to decrease (or possibly incre2se) their distribution
or migration patterns to shift. Is there any archeological
evidence for a change in caribou availability or distributjon
before and after ask fall events?
c. - 'rhe impact of tephra T'alts on caribou herds and in turn on
human populations dependent on them would be quite different
if caribou were only a seasonally important resource as
opposed to the primary resource on a year-round basis. Is
'there any evidence to suggest that caribou were only important
seasonally and, if so, did this change evep time?
d. The intensity of land use can be measured by the number, size,
and artifact density of sf tes. Is there evidence to s~ygest
that the intetiiity of land use in the Susitna Canyon area
increased through time or fluctuated as the result of the
ecological impact sf tephra falls?
e One effect of prehistoric tephra falls on human populations
occupying the Susitna Canyon area may have been a shift in
settlement. Is there any evidence for a marked change in
settlement pattern before and after ash fall events?
f. Is there any evidence to suggest that the intensity of land
use in the Susitna Canyon area decreased at the onset of
Neoglacial times at approximately 3300 E.P.?
g. Hinor variations in the climate can affect both plants and
animals. The so-called "Little Ice Age" occurred in the
1600's. Did this have an effect on the native populations
living in the Susitna Canyon area?
(dj Papulation BynamScs/Exchange and Diffusion - (Research
Category IV)
k siaJor humanistic and archeological question is the identity of the
pesp'ie l~hose cultural remains are being uncovered in 'the Susitna Cariyoil
2rea, Hasv far back can the use of the *the regibn by the current groups
'if Ah-tna and Tanaina be documented? The association of archeological
assemblages wii:h that of neighboring regions may aid in identify-ing 'the
former inhabitants of the project area,
Tile ability to oqrrga* esiees zpl the basis of common stratigraphy
all~kvs for the study of site density througii time. The currentlv large,
and expanding, daia set from the project may reveal temporal trends 'in
the occupation of the Susitna Canyon area. These trends may then be
carrelated with climatic change and effects of the tephra falls which
may have afiected the subsistence resources of the region and thereby
the degree and frequency of occupation. The magnitude of tephra falls
themselves may have had a demonstrable effect upon occupation of the
project and adjacent areas,
In addition to ti-e intensity and duration of occupations, the introduc
tion and transmission of items into and through the project area can be
studied. Material sourcing of raw material and technological simi -
larities with adjacent regions can provide information on the relatian-
ship of the study area to the remainder of Alaskan archeology. Archeol-
ogy conducted along the Al;~~rka oil pipeline and natural gas pipeline
corridors, in the Copper River basin, and the sites of Nealy lake, Dry
Creek, Carlo Creek, and the Menana River Gorge Site prov?de information
which can be used to place the Susitna Canyon within a broader regional
framework. On a broader scale, the major technological phases in
Alaskan prehi.sto~y cca be tested for their preserlce in the Susitna
Canyon region and thus expand the understanding of the dynamics of
distribution, timing, and variability of the phases.
~ ''.?scat"c:h Questjoris Popu ktjon Dynamics/Exchange and Diffusion:
uest ( 1981: 224-227) has recently pestul ated a cul turzi biiatus
b2tween the Denali Complex at 7,000 B.P. and the appearance a-?
the Piorthern Archaic at 4,000 B.P. in the Tangle Lakes region
northeast of the project area. Do early sites in the Susitna
Can>*on show an affiliation with the Denali Complex between
9,008 B,P, and 4,000 B,P, and thus ~efute the existence of a
hi atus in occupation?
C
b A number sf obsidian sources have been identifled in Alaska
and the Yukon Territory, Can obsidian from eRe project area
be traced to specific sources and thus yield information on
past interaction or exchange netbiorks?
c. Few prehistoric structures or permanent camps are known from
within the confines of the project area. Are there environ-
mental settings which typify these rare sites?
The paleosol between the Oshetna and Watana tephras may also
be present ae the sites of Dry Creek (Thorson and Hamilton
1977) and at Gerstle River Quarry (Kotani, Cook, and Nishimoto
1984). Comparisons of cultural horizon 8 of the Susitna
project with the a~cheological unit IV at Dry Creek, 100 km to
the northwest of the proje&%, and the upper component at
Gerstle Wiver Quarry, 150 km to the northeast of the project
enable regional #ariation within the Northern Archaic to be
studied and possible exchange and diffusion networks to be
del inealed,
(e) Athapaskan Lifeways - (Research Category VV)
At the time of historic contact, the upper Susitna drainage was occupied
by the Nestern Ahtna, on several groups of Athapaskan speakers
inhabiting Interior Alaska. Through irnplementali~~? of the direct
historical approach, the Athapaskan Tradition can be traced back to
-a.l~~-oi: i~l;;te I y 4. C. 530 in the study area. Alth~uoh ethnohi sboric tir!:a
i)"Or !dzd hr 1:!1~;31ogi~t~ w-i th useful information for interpretifig
c 1 >.n +all.iijg iditk~in this tcime period, much remains to bg learned abouht
in, L~apulation djtnamics, settlement and subsistence of thzse
I " grr!n; it~ric people.
1nri.i rect in3paz"soC Euro-Ameri can cul ture on the Ahtna was experienced as
gat-ly (3s th2 late 1700's, at which t~me iron and glass beads imported by
Russian traders became available to peoples with whom the Ahtna had
establ i shod trade connections (Uorkman 1977), The f i rse actual popu-
lation expansion by non-natives into the upper Susitna occurred shortly
after 1895 when gold was discovered in the Cook Inlet regicn. F~91owing
the goidrush, fur trappers began to move into the Susitna River area,
The economic use of the area for fur trapping during the 1920's to
9940" "is documented by abandoned cabins Prom this period. The effects
of hot!? indileect and direct white contact on the Ahtna are the suQject
cf tile questions in this section,
@ ,- g: a m' 1j-6 ch Questions - Athapaskan Lifeways:
a, What were the settlement and subsistence patterns associated
ctfith the Athapasltan Tradition in the Susitna Canyon area? Can
the seasonal subsistence strategies documented in the ethno-
historic literature for the Western Ahtna be verified archae-
ological ly?
B, Indirect trade of Russian and European products occurred in
Alaska prior to the first recorded contact by Vitus Bering in
1728. Did indirect trade occur in the Susitna Canyon area,
and, if so, can anything be learned about trade routes?
c. The influence of nnn-natives on native populations often
produces change in various aspects of tredi tion l ife, includ-
ing, but not 1 imi ted to, subsistence, material culture, social
structure, trade, and religion. This influence may have been
felt in the SusJtna River area as a result of gold mining and
fur trapping by non-natives duPing the early decades of +tPse
9900's. Vhat effect, if any, did these activities haije on
native populatidns living in or in close proxipity to the
Susi tna Canyen area?
(f) Culture Process - (Research Castegory VI)
The study of culture process has often been stated as being the ultimate
goal in archeology. Explanations of culture change and the study of the
relatS~nships Pctween humdn societies are the concerns of those who
study culture process. Once the specifics of chronology and lifeway are
expl icated, the icheologist can begin to search for processes behind
evolving cultural systems.
Research Question - Cultures Process:
a, The nature and fsm of transftians between traditiaws are
poorley understood in the Susitna Canyon area. Are the ab-
served changes in artifact assemblages the result of popu-
lation replacement, diffusion of artifact types, in situ
development, or some combination of the above?
b. The Late Denal i Complex in the Alaskan Interior may have been
an in situ development from previous occupations or represent
an immigration of pesple Prom owatside the sreii. Evtdenee
associated with the intensity of occupation and artifact
composition may help clar3fy this settlement problem. What
evidence exists for either of these propositions?
(c) White, Native contact in~~aeased in interior Alaska as a result
of gold mining, trapping, and building of the Alaska Railroad.
What effect did this have on Native material culture, subsis-
tence, ecocomy, and lifeways? lrlhat effect did this have on
land use, population growth, and development?
32 - Site Vat*iables
The procedures implemented during Cultural Resources Investigation
associated with the Susitna Hydroelectric Project were designed to
rstrieve information on several major attributes of sites, including
environmental setting, stratigraphic cantext, ahd artifact assemblage,
'A host af variables by which sites can be evaluated COP significance are
subsumed under each category. These variables, ranging from location af
a site in relation to geographic features to raw materials used in the
manufacture of artifacts found at a site, are dtscussed below.
(a) Environmental Setting
The common charactrristic which is important For human use and rp~hich is
s!?ared by these types of landforms is that they are camparatively flat,
we? 9 -drained surf,tces. The most meaningful criteria for ciaosif.icatjon
of site setting are those which directly relate to the potential of an
area for human occupation, lee., access to water, a good vantage point,
access to g8me, etc.
The presence or absence of major environmental features was recorded Par
each site by project personnel through the course of the field research.
These data, coupled with map and air photo interpretation, were used in
the construction of an environmentally relevant site classification,
Nine types of settings were defined in which sites occur throughout the
project area: 1) overlooks, 2) lake margins, 3) stream margins,
4) river margins, 5 confluences of a stream with a river, 6) confluence
oq a stream with a stream, 7) natural topogrdphic constrictions,
8) mineral licks, and 9) quarries.
(b) Stratigraphic Context
Sixteen stratigraphic units have been identified in the project area
[Dixon et al. 1985:8-91), and are depicted in Figure 1. No individual
tests or sites have been found to contain all 16 stratigraphic units,
however several archeological sites exhibit at least ten. Within any
CHARCOAL
EOLl$aN SBLT
Figure 1. Generalized Terrestrial Stratigraphic Prof i le, Middle
Susitne River Area,
jl~e;~ sltz or site locus, subunits can be arranged in stratigraphic
order. ihe stratigraphic units are composed of the surface organics and
2ssociated pedogenit units, four tephra units, glacial drift, bedrock,
and the in'tervenjng contacts. By regarding the contact units 6s
separate stratigr3phic units, lt is possible to accurately define tho
i iitorval s between deposi ti on of soi l /sediment uhi ts . f he four tephra
-units are identified by local, project specific names. From the
earliest to most recent they are: Oshetna, unoxidiaed Watana, oxidized
~aiana, and Devil. The tephra units are identifiable in the field on
A k, FS basis of COIOY~ texture. and stratigraphic position, The
i-egion-wi de occurrence of the tephra deposicts make them excel I ent
-t,ernparal hori zon markers,
Nine cullu~a? horizons have been identified which can be cs~*re%ated
.". ~l4roughau.t I-? ar the region based ail stratigraphy. These zones consist 04 "ce
upper level of org3nics, organic silts, and the contact between them,
%he surfaces oq che Four tephras, and the surface of the glacial drift
ar bedrock (Dixon et al. 1985:8-11). In some cases paleosols are
present between the tephra, Dating of these paleosols assists in
establishing limiting dates for the tephra falls.
The chronological document3 tion of sites and components wi thin the
project area is based upon four method?: 1) the direct historic
approach, 2) radiocarbon determi nations, 3) re1 alive s tratl'graphi c
piacemefit, and 4) typological comparison of art1 fact assemblages with
similar assemblages from dated sites. The nine cultural horizons can be
dated within limits, although the time span represented by specific
cultural horizons may vary from a few hundred years to as much as 7,000
- 8,000 years for cultural horizon 9. Four major cultural traditions
and 1 culture conplex, each characterized by a unique artifact
assemblage.have been documented within the study area. These are: 1)
Eura-American tr2di t' ,n (0 - 100 B.P. ) (cultural horizon 11, 2) the
Athapaskan tradition ;;6(! - ca. 1500 B.P.) (c ,urai horizons 2, 3, 4,
5), 3) Late Ben2li complex (ca. 1500 - 3500 B.P. ) (cultural horizons
5?, 6, 11, 4) Northern Archaic tradition (ca. 3500 - 5200 E.P.)
(cultural horizon 81, and 5) Amet.ica~ Paleoarctic tradition (ea. 5200 -
10,500 (?) Be?,) (cultural horizon 9). Although ibe o!dcs% dared s"r,s
"in the study area do not exceed ca, 7,000 radiocarbon yeass it
psssible t&.~at human occupdet*icn in this portjon of :Tlaska may span
iasr ca. 90,500 hJears.
DUE to thc unlikelihood of dating all strata at every site, an emphasis
is placed upon the relative dating potential of the tephra units. The
iqidesprsad distribution of the tepkra deposlets a1 lotqs csrrelatians Po be
made betbveen all parts of the study area. The association of cultural
horizons with stratigraphic units enables the construction of cultural
components based upon the artifact assemblages of a number of smites
sharing the same stratigraphic position,
(c) Artifact Assemblages
An artiafact can be considered a+ any object which owes one or more
attributes ta human activity. It can be faunal and floral material
b~ought onto the site, structures and features, and items modified f~em
stone, bone, wood3 01' other raw material. The major categories of
artifacts are lithic remains which can be sorted according to material
type and function, faunal remains, flora, non-lithic artifacts, and
features,
Various types of l ithic artifacts have been defined for the study area,
These include: modified flakes, scrapers, blades, microblades, burins,
burin spalls, bifaces, bifacial preforms, notched points, stemmed
points, leaf shaped points, lanceolate poirlts, triingular points,
mlcroblade cores, microblade care tablets, blade cores, rejuvenation
flakes, flake cores, hammers tones, abraders, and notched pebbles . The
definitions of each of the tool types may be found in Appendix A (glos-
sary) of Dixon et. al. (1985). Information is also recorded on the
occurrence of th~ non-tool categories of unmodified lithic flakes,
thermal ly a1 tered rock, ochre, and cobbles and fraoments.
Tight ct~niiiioniy occurring types of raw material used in the pi-oduction of
: .ith4c ar"cr'4acts habe beer? jdentjfied ia the study ayes, These raw
ii~atericils are argi ll ite, bas~lt, chalcedony, chel-t, obsidian, quartz,
q:iar.tzi te, ai.d rhyolite. The number and type of tool according to raw
ii:tcriai are recorded for the artifact assemblage of each component sf a
j3rovisions have been made for recording the occurrence 05 faunal remains
fa;. the variety of animals present in the Middle Susitna River Vall@ly.
Fauna include the subststence species such as: caribou, moose, sheep,
aiid bear; the furbearing species of wolf, fox, wolverine, and hares; and
the rodents, birds, and fish which may be incorporated into the site
either intentionally or as a result of non-cultural deposition. Special
emphasis is placed upon caribou due to the probable importance of this
species in the subsistence regime. By recording the presence af spe-
cific skeletal elements, patterns of subsistence activi tie5 may be
elucidated,
The presence and absence sf floral remains are recorded for their
posoi ble role in ih~ subsistence round, pal eoecological inlerpretati on$,
and for their dating potential. Floral remains can also contribute to a
better understanding of past climatic and vegetation regimes. The
infsi-niation recorded for flora consists of the presence of seeds and
[nacrsfsssils and whether the material has been charred,
Other artifacts made of bone/antler, metal, glass, and wood have been
recovered in the study area. Features which are recorded include
cultural depressions, hearths, historic structures of cabins, caches,
etc., and stone constructions such as cairns or hunting blinds.
(d) Criteria of Non-Significance
F6;tors affecting the research potential of a site are predominantly
those of preservation and condition of deposits (Schiffer and Gumerman
1977:242). These factors are common to the assessment of the value sf'
every site* A s4te is considered not relevant, and therefare nen-
F 1
J a, to the researci~ potential of a part-icular qu~l;*t-ion ahen
does r;;~t possess the required suite of variables neccssrry to addr~ss
tile topic, Sites wh?eh el6 possess the required variables may be doemeG
~nsui~~able due to the poor state of preservation, e.g., bane present but
in the form of bone meal, or when the integrity of relevant stratigraphy
/j - 3s lackitlg as a ies~lt of erosion, cryofurbation, or advevse human
-i n~zaac-: .
bi
c a
v-'
&2
3
Q-4
7 a
a3
%-
h a
-a
m
*r--
P
0 B a
cdB
*P
Cu
$$ c
r;21
LJ
"P
%--
"P
c m
a-
m
+
0
c
0
s-
.b a
3
@--
a
3 a
@J - u-
kg-
" r-
tLJ
@
CL
In
ii
0;
.$A
-<-
Lfl
c<
c td
gU 8 .r-
&= -9- s
"@a3
'k
rg-=aW amw
L 43
CZ + -r
0 &A
"P" c
4-J me-
a3
ClJG-33
0 ma x -8"
Uda> x 's" C%,@rn
Z<R . 'F-
+a ssw w Fgg .-
~kp:! 9979.- AT, LB, Af"
i'Lnfl 123"; AT, A/J
%!-*!91 138" AT, bp
il idr 136 LU
".%> !ri*a .142 hD
'^ll'i 143"ir A"$ LiP9,
"[i $1 144 NA
pim5iij 149
?"b,V 159 bD
$[ 14 164 LD E
"kg ],fjCJ7k bD
2%CM%7% AT, bD
TLM 19398) ATp kD
RLM 180 AP
1-bM 18% tQ
TLM 184 AT, LD
TLMf98 bD
TL%4 202 LD
TLM 207* AT, AP
TbN 293 LD
TLN 214* AT
RhM %%6* LLB
TLIY ZUS. p it, a? LD
Sb!! 218(B) hD
"i"M 220 AT, LD
TLM 222(C) AT, LD
"TkR 225 AT, bD
TLM 226(N,C) AT, LD
TLM 228 tD
"H"M 229 bB
TLM 238 AT, LD
TbM 246 AT, hB
HEA 18% LB
%Ie Subsistence and Settlement
a. Is there B change in settlement patteru between the ArnerCi~dt~
Paleoarcti c and Nor"ihern Archaic tradi tions, avid what evidericc?
is there to support or refute this change?
Criteria for selecting sites: Sites ascribed tb American
aPaieoaretic (AP) or Northern Archaic (HA) periods.
~ Priority: * Presence of diagnostic artifacts.
TLi4 019 NA
PLM 027* AP
XLM 029 NA
TkM 036* NA
TLM 039* AP
TLM 040* AP
TLM 061* AP
TtM 097" NA
TLM 128* AP
TLM 143% NA
TLM 144 NA
TbM $80* AP
"fbM 207""" AP
b. Among the Ahtna, the place name for Jay Creek is Naci@lcun4:
Ma' ("food is stored again creek") (Kari 1983). A number of
mineral licks occur along Jay Creek and in the hills to the
west upon which local sheep populations depend. Do sites
which are adjacent to mineral licks possess certain attributes
which suggest that sheep predation was an important site
activity?
Criteria for selecting sites: All sites in the vicinity of mineral
1 icks. (American Paleoarctic, AP; Northern Archaic, NA; Late
Denal i, LD; Athapaskan, AT; Unknown, - ).
Cpujarjey: * 1) Presence of bone, or 2) diversity of arti*f3ct asssolh'iiges
(4 or more artifact types).
YLM 128* AT, AP YLM I$%$< LB "i"ht4 %49* HD
=r&q 134 .-. TLM 143* AT, LD, NA "B"M 150* AT
-* iLb1 135 - TkM 144+* NNA YLM 151* AT
TLN 9363* e~ TLM 145* - TLM 28% -
TLY~ 138 *--. "$14 146 - HEA 183 --
TtM IR39* AT TLM 147 -. HEA 184 *
TbM 140 AT C TL.R 148 AT HEA 185 .-
TLp1 %$I AT
c. Idany of the small sites within the project area tend to be
located on small, glacially Cormea knol Is (kames) which
provide a panoramic view of surrounding lower land features.
These sites are common1 y characterized as over1 ooks or hunting
stations. Is there s diagnostic artifact assemblage at these
sites which might explain their size and location?
Crf teria for selecting sites: All sites on overlooks (American
Paleoarctic; AP; Northern Archaic, NA; Late Denali, LD; Athapaskan, AT;
E~ro American, EA; Unknown, - ). Letters in parantheses indicate
specific site loci.
! \+ -i t- Li ):J! : * Sites with any diagnostic 1 ithic artifacts (urcnodi'Fied
Flakes, modified flakes, cobbles, thermally as!$:ered rock,
and ochre are not considered diagnostic in priorictizin?
si"&;e%),
*+ Five or more artifact types at site (all type.; Sncluded).
'TL"N015 -.
$LM ole""* .-
'r~fis%7 HA
7"LM 018$t* Aq
-8- l C 023" AT(B)
RI,M 624 .-
T&I&( 025*9:
TbM 026" AT
TLP4 027*%k AT, LD, AP
"TL!+l 028 -.
T!-k"+i 029* WA
TLFij 0303t3~ AT,
%"&M 63% -.
032.. -.
TLr4 833 .-
TLI4 0034 LD
Tbf4 0335 .-
TLbI 036* -.
Thl4 037 -
Ti,M 0038 LD
ThM Q39** AT, AP
TbM 040** AT, LD, AP
TtN 041 ..-
TLM 042** -
TLM 044* Y
TLM 045* -
"$LM 046* -
TL$4 047* -
PLM 048** AT
' XLK 049 -.
R&M051 .-.
TLM 052** AT(A)
"B"R 853 -.
"PM 054 AT
TLM 055* AT
TLM 057* -.
TLM 058 AT
"$PI 859 AT
TLM 068" -.
"%"M 061"" AT
XLM 062*"k AT
"$"NO63 LD
TLM 064" AT(B)
"FLM065 AT
TLM 06Q* -
TtM gB$'$*""c -
TLM 068* --
TLM 069" AT
TLM 070*
TLM 074 LD
TLM 075* A1'(A)
fLM 07Q*
TLM osa* au, LD
BLM 078 AT, LD
TLM 081 -
"T"LM 082 -
TLM 083 --
TLhM 084 AT
TLM 085 -
TbM 086 -
PLl4 087 Al"
TLM 088 AT
Th!4 089* AT
'TkM 090 -
TLM 09$* -
TLM 092 -.
RLM 093 AT
TLN 894% AT
TLM 095 -
TLM 096 AT
TLM 097** AT, RD, NA
RLM 098 -
TLN 899 -
"$"MI00 AT
TbM 101 -
"i"ME02 AT
TLM 103* -
"$MI04 AT
TLM105 AT
TLM 905* .-
TbM 107* -
TLM 508 -
TLM 109 -
TLtM %lo* -
TLM311 AT
TLM 112 -
TLM 113""; .-.
TLM $14 .-
TLM 115""" -
TLN 11%; .-
* - ILM 113 -
"9"!,_iY 1.18" -
=rhE pJ* -.
"a"L.H128 .-
TLM 123. .-
TkM 122 -
4; 123
1245k . -
BLM 125 -
TkP4126 .- P
TkM127 AT
TkM %28** AT, AP
TLn 129 AT(A, B)
TLH l36* AT9 hB
7LM 931 .-.
Tkb! 132 -.
TLM %33* -
TLM 134 -
PLM 135% -
TLM 136* eD
TLM 137 -
fhR 138 -
TLM 139 AT'
TLM AT
"TLM 141'" AT
VLM 142 LB
TLM 244** AT, LD, NA
TIbM 144* NA
TLM 145 -
TLM 144 -.
TLM 147 -
TLM 148 AT
"$MI49 LD
YLK $56 AT
TLH%51 AT
PLM 152 -.
TLM 953 AT "T"&M j5rp" -.
TbFvZ 154* AT TL.M 198 -
TLK 155 -.
a33 rLb9 199 A-1"
TLM %%9*4r LA$ TLPf 260 -
TLM 160 -. PLM 201 AS
RLMl64 LD "$PI 202 hB
TKF4 965* AT "%bM 263 AT
"$lq %66* - "P"F 204 EA
RtM 167 - "$'I %05* -
RM 168 - TtM 206 AT
TLM %69* h8 TbM 208""" -
TLM 170* -. "$Pi 209 AT
PLM %91* AT, LD TLM2%0 83'
"8M 172 .- TLM211 AT
TLM 133** AT(R), LD(B) TLM 213 bD
TLM 174* - TLM 214 AT(B)
TLM 175"""" AT "TLM 215 AT
TLM 176 -. TLM 216 bD
TLM 177 TLM 214** AT, bD
"$hM 179 .- TLM 218* bD(B)
TLM $80** AP "Y"M 219" -
~~~181 LEI TLM 220~ AT, eo
VLM 182 -- YLM 221 AT
XBM 183 - TLM 222 AT(A,B,D,E)
TLM 284** AT, LD TLM 223* AT'
RLM 185* - TLM 224 AT
"TLM 184* AT YLM 225 AT, LD
"I"M 187 8'T TLM 226* AT(A,B,D,E)
"I'M188 AT TLM227 AT
"$M 189 AT RtM228 kB
ThM196 kD TLM 229 LD
ThM $91 - PLM 230"" AT, bD
TbM 192 - TL-%"I 231 AT
"O".M 193 - TLM 234 AT(A,B]
"$PI 194 -. TLM 235" AI(C)
TLM 195 - TLM 236 AT
". '-* ^ !i~ ~4; b\T9 l-D(C)
=
ri,zq! 238 A?-
-, 11°K 239 -
-I r t~s4 241 -
" " i 1 7," ic~i 242 AT, ID(A,C)
7 j,P*j 243
* '"pL$j 244 AT
,- * 245 qtr
TL$I 246 AT, bD
TbH 247* AT(A,B,C)
WEA 007-
HE;\ 012 -
WEA 033 --
HEA 03% -
COEd 038 -
HEA 137 -
I+EA 174*' -
HEA -.
HEA 176 -
HEA %77* --
WEB 178* -
I4EW 17'9 -
HEA 180"" .-
WEA 181
FiEA 982"
!-SEA 483
HEA 184
FIEA 185"&
k/EA ],BG?'t
HEA 210
IfEW 2 1 B
FA1 213
FA1 214
1'VO 014
d. During the Northern Archaic period salmon were exploited in .
areas adja[:?nt to the Susitna Canyon. Is it possible that
Northern Ai-chaic sites within the Susitna Callyon area partic-
ipated in a larger settlement and subsistence cycle which
included salmon procurement sites outside of the area?
~ Gri'kerfa Pear selecting sites: A41 Northern Archaic sites,
~ Priority: * Presence of diagnostic artifacts and C14 dates.
TLM 017 . TLM 029 TLM 830* TLM 697* PLM 843* T%K 144
62 o 20 alctb*ibutes sf sites laceted in the vie*inj,ty ot? n8.tur.d
-topographic canstrictians , known to funnel he~ds OF ril'rratlng
carlbou, suggest that the killing and processing of these game
animals were the principal site activities?
Criteria for seiectjng sites: All sites at natural topographic con-
st~ictions (Northern Archaic, MA; Late Benal i , LD; Athapaskan, AT; Euro
;2gik?rjc8ng EA; Unkno~n -1. betters in parentheses indicate specific site
! crci ,
C
-~LM 0552 8-$"
TLM 056 EA
$LPI 878* AT, LD
'rI.!4 08 R .-
TLM 083 -
i'LM 08' AT
"TLP4 08085 -.
"LM "I6 -
TLM 887 AT
TLPI 088 AT
TLH "%9* AT
TLM 090 -.
RLM 691 -.
TLM 892 -.
TLM 093 AT
"$M 094 AT
RBM 095 -
TLM 896 AT
TLM 097* AT, LD, NA
TLM 098 .-
ftM 099 *
TLM 117 -.
TL8 15155 .-
PbB 168 -
"%Pi 176 -
TLM 282 LD
TLM 203 AT
"$LM 209 AT
TLM 210 AT'
nbM 211 AT
TLM 213 LD
TLM 214 AS(B)
f, The confluences of streams and ri;ves"s (also streams and
streams) are known to be rich in terns of subsistence
. . resources. Are there specific artlfact and faunal assemblages
wh%ch characterize sites found at confluences and do these
assemblages reflect particular site activities?
Criteria for selecting sites: A1 1 sites at confluences (American
Paleoarctic, .AP; Northern Archaic, NF; Late Denal i , LD; Athapaskan, AT;
Unknotrln, -1. Letters in parentheses indicate specific site loci.
"u presence o0f bone (unless bone 'is oil sgcwFilce tAi~d
possibly not assocjetsd with site).
** Presence of idantified bone (caribou, moose, sheep) - or
50 the absence of bone, fjve or more artifact types,
7 h $1 g : 0 7 CI TLM 043 - TLM 203 AT
r,-.?i 020 E A
:im;bj O%:(Bj* A:
- rkttf 0227\r%k AT
r !,I4 023 E A
-* &pq cz~nsa A"$ LDr, AP
"[!*I4 029"--" NA
~bq 030*k:g~ AT, NA
-a kM 033
'%m
04~:y.dy. AT
TBM Q50e;q'kz' Af
TLf-7 05454 AT
=~LE 055s; AT
RPI 058 AT
Ti14 - 86%9c9k AT, AQ
TLM 071 E
"J"M 076" -
TLM 079 EA
9LM 080 EA
nhM 085 -
TLM 097* AT, &D, NA
TL!41090% -
"%"M 198 -
TLM 114 -
TLFI a59** LD
RLM 176 -.
TbM I"% -
"I"hM186 AT
T%M 187 A"%"
f%M 199 AT
TLM 200 -
RtM202 kD
TLM 201*** AT, AP
Tbi4 218 LB(B)
TLM 230** AT, LD
TLM 232** AT
"$eM 233 AT
ItM 236 AT
TLM 239' -
THM 240** AT
TLM 246* AT, kD
TLM 247** AT(A,B,C)
TLM 249** AT(A,B)
TLM 250"" AT
TLM 257 AT
RtM 258 AT
HEA 182 -.
HEA211 --
~ ill. Human Ecoiogy
a. According to Woit:man ' s ( 1974, 1979) i.!ypoehes i i . cb tase;;rrrlihi'i i:
ash Falls in Interior Alaska may have caused emigration oi one
group of people and re-occupation at a latev dare by anotller
population. This may be confirmed wi'r.h distincet ckinnyes in
artifact assemblages. Is such a pattern evident in the
- project area?
Criteria for selecting sites: All s* tes ascribed to a eradiction (except
Ewro-American). betters in parentheses indicate sgeci fic site 1sc-i.
Priority: * Sites with 1 ithic artifacts in addistion to unmodified
flakes, -thermal ty a1 tered rock and cobbles.
TLi4 017 N A "I"LM 062* AT
TLP4 0018* AT TLM 063 bD
TLM 02l(B) AT TLM 064(8)* AS
TLIY 0022 AT TLM 065 AT
"$LM 026 AT RLM 069 AT
TLM 82%* AT, 9, AP TLM 872 AT
IbM 0202 NA TLM 074 LD
PLM 030* AT, RA TLM 075(A)* AT
"$B 034 hD RM 077* AT, LD
TLM 038 tD XLM 078 AT, tD
PLM039* AT, AP RM 084 AT
VhM 640* AT, &8, AP TLMQ87 AT
XLM 043* AT "$M 088 A T
TLM 048* AT "9$H 089 AT
TLM 050""" AT TLM 093* AT
TLM 052 AT TtMQ94* AT
' "BkM 054 AT TLM 096 AT
"$MI05 AT
"S'tM ala AT
TLM 123 AT
TLE 127 AT
YLM 128* AT, AB
"$MI29 AT
TLM $%0* AT, LD
TLM 136 LD
XLM 139 AT
TBM 33404 AT
TLP 114'4b* AT
TtM 142 kD
'TLM V3* AT, LD, NA
YLM 144* NA
"$HI48 AT
'PLY 149 LD
TLM 150 AT
TbF 055* AT TLM037* AT, LO, NW TLH 159 AT
TLM Q58* AT ."BM 100 AT T'kM 153 AT
TLM 059+ AT TLM 102* AT TLMB54 AT
TLM061* AT, AP R1M 104 AT T1M 159* LB
TLK 164 LD
- ~Lbj 1659~ AT
78bl 169 bD
7 AT, kB
TiM 173jR) AT, bD
TLM I"%* AT
"TbM 180" AP
Tl,i4 1181 LB
-"a i p ) LI~I %843k AT, LD
TLM %86* AT
ISLE 187' AT
"a"Lt4 188 AT
TLPI 189 AT
TLM 190 eD
TLM 211 AT
PLM 213 LD
TLnaa4rs) AT
TLM 215* AT
RLM 216* hD
$hM 21%" AT, LD '
Ibbl 218(8)" bB
TLM 226* AT, LB
TLM 22% AT
T%,M 222 AT, LQ
(all loci)
TLM 223 AT
RLM 224 AT
TbM 225 AT, LD
TLM ~J~(A)*,(B)"
RM 233 R '$
ILM 234(A,B) 8%
'R,M 235(1]* AT
RbM 236 AT
T1,K 237 AT
TLM 238 AT
TLM 240 AT
TbR 242 AT
*TLM 244 A "$
Rk,M 246 AT, bB
TLI4 247(Bje,(A) AT
TbM 249(A)*,(B) AT
TLH 2250 AS
Y&M%99 AT TLM 226 A$, tD TLM 252"& AT
TLE4 201 AT (all loci) ThM 253 AT
TLM 2262 BD TLM 227 AT TLM 256 AT
"RM 20203 AT RLM 228 LD TLM 259 AT
TLN 202 AT "$bM 229 LD TLM 258 AT
BLF~ ~QT* AT, AP . TLM 230~ AT, eo TLM 259* AT
TbM 209 AT "$M 231 AT HEA 181 LD
f%M 218 AT
b. The impact of tephra falls on past vegetational regimes in the
project area may have affected caribou by causing their
numbers to decrease (or possible increase) their distribution
or mig~ation patterns to shift. Is there any archeological
evidence for a change in caribou availability or distribution
before and after ash fa11 events?
Criteria for selecting sites: All sites with bone except if on surface
and probably not associated with site. (American Paleoarctic, AP;
Yoi.tii-.v-n Archaic, NA; Late Denal i , LU; Atlrapa~i:~: , AT; iilri:tlown, -),
Lect~rs <in p&t*entheses indicate speciSfic %ite loci,
~ ppj0p.j ty: * A1 1 sjd-,es with can-ibou bone,
Ttv9f OIC*
TLM [j0%%k
"L.14 6% 1
TLM ozz%+
"TLM 825
TLf4 0029
BL,M 630*
Thkl 038*
TLR 04.0
TLM 042*
TLM 04043
TLfj ~44
T],q 045fv
TLP4 046*
PtM 048*
TLM 049
lLF4 050%
"%LM 654
TLM 055
TLM 659*
TLM $460
TLM 0613+
TtM 042*
TLH 063*
nLM O65*
AT
AS( 1
AT
AT C
N A
AL NA
LD
AT, LD, AP
-
AT, AP
AT
BD
AT
PhN Q6gak
R%M 072
"$tM 076
TLN 0773k
TBF4 8892k
TLM 097"""
TbM 104
TLM 12%
TBM 123*
"ri"H 930*
TLM 136""
RhM 139
RLM 14%*
TkM 143*
TLM 1.44
"LM 145
TLM 149*
ftM 150
TLM 151
"$L$"i 169
nLM 173
RLM 184*
TkM 207
TLM 2B5*
"T"N 216*
47 TtPl 217*
AT PLM 2203~
PIB PLM 2%1'**
AT9 LB TLM 222*
AT TLM 223
AT, LD, MA ThP4 225
AT TbP4 226%*
em ThH 227*
AT SLM 229*
AT, LD P&M 23$*
kD "TLM 232*
AT YLN 234*
bD TLM 239
AT, LD, NA Tbr4 2404
N A Tt!4 242*
- TLM 246
LD TkM 247*
AT TLM 24gYk
AT "e"lM 250
LB RLM 251
AT(B), LD(B) TLM 252%
&"I" LD TLM 253*
AT, AP TLM 256*
AT HEA H95*
LD
A'i", LB
AT, LB
AT
AT(M,B,D,E), ~.D(G)
AT
AT, LD
AT(A,B,D,E), ID(W,C)
AT
kD
AT
AT(,B)
AS(W,S)
r3 The f:;pect of tephra fal'ls on s,arjbou herds ~nd in <xnri-a orf
l~urnar~ ps~u3atjons dependent on <them wcul d be quite di fFert?wP
if cz~ibou were only a seasonally important resource as
opposed to =the primary resouyce on a year-r~ound basis. is
there any evidence to suggest that caribou were only importan-t
se2sonally and, if' so, did this changk over time?
1-' ,raitw-ia for seiecting sites: All sites with caribou bone. (American
Pb ;PO~TC~~C, AP; Fio~thern Archaic, MA; Late Denal i , LD; Athaparkan, AT;
Unknown, -). Letters in parentheses indicate specific site loci.
prj or.ity: * PI1 sites with teeth (thin-sectioning) or immature bones
that can be used to indicate seasonality.
TL1.i 815
* s. rLt4 018 AT
Iy&8\1 022 AT
TLM 030 AT, NA
TbM 038 bD
TjJq 043%*
?kid 045 a-
TkhF4 04846 -
TL,N 040 AT
1"1-M 050 AT
'Tl,~4 059 AT
TLB 06% AT, AP
7LIdl 062 A-t
SLM 063 &,D
XhM O65* AT
TLr4 "49 A7
YLM 677 AT, LO
RLM 089 AT
TLM 091 AT, LD, NA
"PM 223 AT
TLM 930 AT, LD
TLM 136 eD
"BEM 142* LD
PkM 943 AT, LD, NA
"P"-M 149 LD
TCM 184" AT, hD
RLM 215 AT
Tb-M 216 bD
TLM 217 AT, ID
TtM 226 AT, tD
TLM 221% AT
TLM 222* AT(A,B,D,E), LB(C)
TLM 226" AI(A,B,D,E), LD(A,C)
"$tM 227 AT
R%M 229 bD
TLM 231 AT
TLM 232" AT(A,B)
TLM 234" AT(A,B)
TLM 240 AT
PLM 242 AS
TLM 247 WI(A,B,C)
TbM 249 AT(A,B)
TLM 252" AT
TLM 253 AT
TLk4 256 AT
WEA 175 -.
.-
U, iile illtensimty of land use can be measured by the number, siztr:
ar-4 artifact density of sites. Is there evidence to suggest
that the in%ensf7ty of land use in the Susitna Canyors area
increased through time or fluctuated as the result oaf" the
ecological impact of tephra falls?
Ci-iteriafor selectingsites: SitesascribedtotheAmerican
~~zlf:oarc%ir (AP), Northern Archaic (NA), Late Denal i (LD], and
Athapaskan (AT). Letters in parentheses indicate specific site loci.
pjq ok94i ty: $r Sites with C14 da'os clearly associated with =tephra.
$r* Mu 1 ti component s i tes ,
TLP~ 017 NA TLM 064 (8) AT r.in a~~=h(**) AT WP
* IL14 3018 AT RLM 665 AT TLM 129 A"%"
TL~! 021(~) AT SLM 069 AT TLM $30** AT, LD
TLi0822 AT VLM 072 AT TLM 136 bD
"i'Li4 026 A% TLM 074 LB Pkk4 139 AT
TLM 027%(**) AT, LD, AP TLM 075(A) AT RkM 146 A4
Tgi4 0829 N A TLM 877* AT, tD RE 141 AT
TLM 030& AT, f4A TLM 078* AS, kg "PM 142 Em D
"TLH 634 LD "r"M 084 AT TLM 143*(**) AT, LD, NA
TtPI 038 LD "$M 887 AT TLM 144 ftA
TbP4 039a2k9r AT* AP VLM 088 AT TLM 148 AT
T%H 840** AT, LD, AP TLM 089 AT "I"R 149 LD
'fhM 043 AT TLM 093 AT YLM 150 AT
"RM 048 AT TLM 094 AT "1'M 151 AT
TLM 0%0* AT TtM 896* AT TLN 153 AT
"S"-M 052 AT TLM 097*(**) AT, LD, NA TLM 154 AT
"FM 054 AT TLM 100 AT TtM 159 1D
7164 055 AT TkM 102 AT TLM 164 LD
"$LM 858 AT "PLM 104% AT TLM 1.65 AT
Thbj 059** AT TLM 105 AT "8M 169* hD
TLM oosn*.- AT, AP .TLM IIP AT TLM UP* AT, LB
TLF"? 062 AT "I"M 123 AT TLM 193(8)** AT, LD
"F"LM 063 LD TLR 127 AT TLIq 175 AT
;t bl 180;- AP
I LD
- 184*(**) AT, I.D
*r~i ! 1 86 AT
I ti 1 137 AT
"ri ~4 $88 AT
Tbibf 189 AT
nm.
3 190 AT
TL~? 193 AT
?"kM 2201 AT
TI-K 202 %D
an- i l,F"s283 AT
T1-M 286 AT
7ip.q 207*(**) AT, ~p
TL~ 203 AT
7~34 210 AT
T!.M 211 AT
""BQ 213 L,II I, D
%rin aslalu) AT
TlM 255 AT
TL!""r 21 6* kD TbM 234(A,B) !AT
r~n 2179r(**) AT, LD TLM 235(c) AT
TLM 218(8) LD "FLM 236 AT
TLM 220ek* AT, LD TLM 237 A "T
TLM 221 AT TkM 238 AT
TbM 22%** AT, bD " TEN 240 AT
(all loci) TLM 242 AT
TLM 223 AT 244 AT
TLM 224 AT TLM 246""";" A"$ LD
TLM 225'** AT, LB TLM 247(A,B,C) AT
TLM 226** AT, LB TLM 249(A, B) AT
(all loci) TLM 250 AS
"%PI 227 AT TLM 252 AT"
ThM 228 LD TLM 253 AT"
RbM 229 LD TLM 256 AT
TBM 230** AT", bD TLM 257 AT
TLM 231 AT TLF4 258 AT
ILM 232(A,B) AT TLM 259 AT
TLM 233 AT HEA 18% LD
One ef'feet or" prehistoric i.eghra Pa71 s or! humar: pspkiIast-ione
occupying the Susitna Canyon area may have been a shidft in
seta&'femen"r. 11s athere any ev-idewc for a marked change -in
settlement pattern before and after ask fall events?
iri%laria for selecting sites: Sites ascribed to the American
Pal eoarctic (WP) , Northern Archaic (NA) , Late Denal i (LD) and Athapaskan
(A?-) periods. Letters in parentheses indi eate specific site loci,
Prjority: * Sites with C14 dates clearly associated with tephra,
** Nul ti camponent s i tes ,
TLM 6117 !4 A TLM 064(B) AT TLM 128*(**) AT, AP
"- 1LM 618 AT TLM 065 AT "$"M 129 AT
'TLR 02E(B) AT "F"PI 069 AT TLM $38** AT, LD
TLB4 022 AT ILM 072 AT TLBU 136 KD
TLl4 026 AT TbM 074 hD %kSi"l 139 AT
PLM 027*(**) AT, LD, AP TLM 075(A) AT TI-M 140 AT
lhF9 029 fi A TLM 0775.2" A"$ LD ELM 141 AT
'1' L;:: 3 cJ * AT, ijA XLM 878* AT9 Ihd TO-M 142 hD
if Q:;--- AL ,!A TLM 084 AT ILM 143"(**) ATg $DB !$A
"$14 $38 BD TLM 087 AT "rM 144 N A
9"bM 039** LB TLM 088 AT XHM 148 AT
TLM 046** AT, LD, AP fLM 089 AT "O"M 149 LB
rLM 0043 AT "I"M 093 AT Vi,M 150 AT
TLM 048 AT TbM 894 AT TI,M 151 AT
TLM 050" AT "I"M 096* AT "I'M 1153 AT
TLK 852 AT TLM 097*(**) AT, LD, NA SLM 154 AT
TBM 054 AS" ThM 100 AT 7'k-M 159 LB
TLK 055 AT TLM 102 AT "PM 164 LD
TLM 058 AT TLM l04* AT "reril 16s AT
' RE 059* AT "$M 105 AT" TLM 1C9* LD
T1M 061** ACT, WP "TLM 121 AT "TLM 371** AT, LD
062 AT ."$M 123 AT TLM 173(8)** AT, LD
PLE 063 LD TLM 127 AT TL.14 175 AT
"Tb& 18fJ"t /lp
"ILM 181 LB .
'TLM 184*(9f4) AT, LEI
Rh!4 186 AT
TLM 188 AT
fk,M 189 AT
'YL.M $40 LD
mrn lhbf !Ti39 AT
TLI~ 20% AT
TLM 202 kD
fk!4 203 AT
*%= iI,N 206 AT
TLfd 2207"(4") AT, WP
"B"LP4 209 AT
TLbM 216 AT
"6"M 211 AT
TL!sv1 213 ED
T!.N 2%4(13) AT
TLM 21% AT
TkM 2:6* kD 4 AT
TLM 217+($~") AT, LD TLM 235jC) A4
TLM 218(B) bD SLM 236 AT
IkM 220** AT, LD TLH 237 AT
TLR 221 AT "S"&,M 238 A$
TLM 22%** AT, hB * BhF7 248 A'$"
(all loci) il.M 242 AT
TLLM 223 AT TLM 244 AT
"%%M 224 AT TLM 2$6*% AT, LO
TLM 225** AT, ED TLM 247(W,B,C) Ai
TLM 226** AL LD TLM 249 (a, s) AT
(all loci) TLM 250 AT
TbP"I223 AT TIM 252 A?
TLM 228 LB YLM 253 A 7-
TLM 229 LD RhM 256 AT
TLM230** AT, LD TLM 257 AT
KLM 231 AT TLM 258 AT
TLM 232(A,B) AT TLM 259 AT
TLM 233 AT HEA 189 LO
f, Is there any evidence to suggest <that the intensi-cy of land
use in the Susitna Canyon area decreased at the onset of
!Yeoglacial times at approximately 3300 B.P.?
cri terj a foj- selecting sites: Sites with C-14 dates in the ca. 3,000
year time range (American Paleodrctic, AP; Northern Archaic, NA, Late
Denali , LD; A4thapaskan, AT; and Unknown, -),
e
Priority: * (C-14 date must bracket cultural occupation at site).
C
~~14 0163~ .- BBM 030mk Am!*, IdW TLM l69* LD
R!4 06%79r AT, LD, AQ TLM 096* AT
g. Minor variations in the climate can affect both plants and
anlaals. The so-called "Little ice Age" occurred in the
1600's. Did thjs have an effect on the native populations
livinp in the Susitna Canyon area?
Criteria for selecting sites: C-14 dates in appropriate time range
(Athapaskan, AT).
~ Priority: * Presence of faunal remains.
~ TLM 022 (300 2 70)" AT TLM 250 (370 2 CO)* AT TLM 253 (430 t 130)" AT
IV, Population Dyn$mics
a. West (1581 : 224-227) has recenely postu-lated d cul tural !liactus
bestween the Uenali Complex at 7,000 B.P. and the appearonce of
the Northern Archaic at 4,000 B.P. in the Tangle Lakes region
northeast of the project area. Do eahly sites in the Susitna
Canyon show an affiliation with the Denaf i Complex between
7,000 B,P, and 49008 B,P, and thus refute the existence af a
hi atus i n occupation?
Criteria for selecting sites: Sites dating from 9,000 - 4,000 years
B.P. (based Jn C-14 and stratigraphic position, lee,, Oshetna tephtaa or
below). (American Paleoarctic, AP; Northern Archaic, NA; Late Denal Z ,
LD; Athapaskan, AT; and Unknown, -1.
Priority: Sites that combine good C-14 date, appropriate stratigrapti'ic
position and a diagnostic artifact assemblage.
TLW 016 .- 4LM 039 AT, AP TLM 143* AT, LD, NW
TLM 017 %tA . SLM 840 AT, LB, AP "i'F,,M I44 NA
TLM 027 AT, LD, AP TLH 061 AT, AP fLH 180 AP
TLM 029 NA TLM 897* AT, LD, NW "rLM 207"'" AT* AAP
fLM 030* AT, NA TLM 18" AT, AQ
o, number of obsidian sources Rave been ider!$ified ic% A'lzi~k~?
and the Yukon "$rlaitory, Can obsidian -from the project &\-it,.;
be "a-, ~bdced *to sp6c.i fit SOU~"C~$ and thus yield inP0rmabt"in oui
past i nleshac"e-iou? or exchange rtetb~si-ks?
Ciaiterie3 -Cdr selecting sites: Presecce of obsidian (American
Palsoarctic, AP; Northern Archaic, NA; Late Denali, LB; Alkapaskan, AT;
arid blnknov~r~~ -1.
Priority: More thaw 16 obsidian specimens
ILM 018 AT
Tl,M 0625 -
fl.M 027 AT, LD, AP
TLI4 030+% AT, NA
?L..M 039 AT, AP
TLM 040" AT, LD, AP
fH?4 042 -
"Lr: 044 ..
T~M 045 -
ILM 6346 -
"$M Q69* AT
7I.M 076 -.
PbM 637 Aa, Lo, NA
TLM 128 AT, AP
TLl4 %43* AT, LD, NW
TLM 169 LD
RM 179. AT, LD
TLM 180 AP
TLM 183 -
TLP4 %84* AT, LB
"rLM 186 AT
"T"Pv"1 208 -
TLM 220 AT, LO
TIM 225% AT, kD
T1,M 239
bkEA 175
: Few preh i stoi-ic siructbires or perlmanciit camps ~I~C? kri~!dil froii!
~ii thin ti;& confines of the i~rcjject area. /$re Chers envirciii-.
mefltal settings which typify these rare siekes?
Criteria -for selecting sites: Presence of feai~res (beak-ths , cultural
C-pr -k2t tA"'3 issions, and rock features). (American Palkoarctic, AP; Mcrtheri?
Archaic, MA; Late D~nai i , LD; AThapaskan, AT; and Unknown, -1. LeQtters
in parentheses indicate specific site loci.
Friori ty: * Sites with mu1 tiple features.
"VLM PO4 AT TLM 252 AT(A,B)
BLE-if 123""" AT TLk4 234* AT(A,B)
TLFq 184 AS, kD VLb4 2240 PT
TLM 215 AT 5 ,PI 242 87"
Ten 2205* AT, kD TLM 247 AT(A,B,C)
TLb4 222' AP(A,B,B,E), LD(C) TLr. 249 AT(A
TkN 231 AT
d, The paieosel between the iishetwa and Watanix t~pl~rzs may als::
be present at the sites of Dry Creek jlhorson and Han.i:ten
1977) and at Geistle River Quarry (Kotani, Cook, and Nishinatn
1984). Coi~parisons of sites from this paleo;cl (cuS"tvra1
koriso~i 8) of the Susitna project with the archeological iln*it
1V 3% Dry Creek, 100 krn to the ncrthwest: of the project, and
tire upper component at Gerstle River Quarry, 150 km to the
northeast of "ce ppr7ject enablo regional variation within the
Northern Archaic to be studied and possible exchange and
djffusion networks &a be delineated,
Cri terFa for selec-ting sites: Presence of art? facts between the Oshetna
and L~iatana Cephras (sul tural horizon 8). Northern Archaic, MA; Late
Denal i , LD; Athapaskan, AT).
pi..i eye fi Presence of diagnostic artifacts.
YLM 030" AT, RA TLM 143" AT, LD, WA
ICM 097* AT, LD, NW TLM 144 NA
a. What were -the settlemeat and subsi steilce patl-erns a~5at:4~3t~cd
with the Athapaskan Tradition in ehe Susi-tna Canyon area'? Cdn
the seasonal subsistence ztrategies documented in the ethno-
$tistor.iz literature for the Westerr; ARtna be iierified arehe-
oiogical ly?
Critsria for selecting site: Athapaskan tradition. Letters in
parentheses indicate specific site loci.
Priority: * Presence of identified faunal remains, *Features, or
artifacts other than unmodified flakes (at least two of
the three categories) .
fhb! 018
T!.M 021(R)
ThP4 0225k
ThM 026
Pbbl $327
RLM 830
TLM 039
TLM 040
TLM 043*
TLM 048*
RLM 050*
TLM 052(A)
"%M 054
"FLF4 "rl5
Ttl,M 858
nL,M 059*
TtM 06%.
TLM 062*
TLM 064(8)
TLM 065*
RLM 069 .
TLM 869
TLM 072"
TLM 075(6\)
. "E"M 077
"S"%M 078
fhM 084
TtM 087
TLM 888
"HLM 089
"P"H 093
TLM 894
4kl4 096
TLM 037*
"TkM 100
"$M a02
PLM 1C4
"I"M 405
"P"M Ill
TLM 123*
RLM 127
"TM 128
4-23
TLM 129(A,B)
TLM 130
l*k,M 139
"TtM 140
TEM 141
TLM 143
"$b$"l 148
RLM $50
TLM 15%
YLM 153
TLM 159
TLM 165
TLM 17%
TLM 173(R)
TLM 175
TtM 984
"4"H 186
TLM 187
TLM 188
f&K 189
TLM 199
-> , rS1 "I
-m
i~,ii am{ I If-PI 224 TLI*J! 24Q9r
-~L~VI 203 TLM 225 *m. I z-s'"i 242
"UP ELM 206 'TLM 226(A), jB)*, (B,E) TLH 244
"iLP4 my "I"k4 227 TLM 246
TLM 209 TLM 230 TCM 24?(~j~~,(~)*,(C)
TU@i 210 "F"M 231* SLM ~~~(A)Y>,(B)Q
TLM 211 TLM 232(A]*, (B)* "$"-PI 2509(
YLM 294(B) VLM 233 "b"b7 252*
TbH TLM 234(A)*, (B)* TLM 253
"%LM 217 XM 235C TLM 256
TLIq 22Qy2 %LM 236 TLM 251
TLp&/ %2B* "6"bf 237 f L.14 258
*TLM 222(A)5tr, (6ji (D,E) TLM 238 T%,M 259
T-%,b7 223
be I!~direct trade of Russian and E[~~~~pean produces occurrgd iii
Alaska prior to the first recorded contact by Vi tus Bering in
%57?8, Ds'd indirect trade occur 1*n tile Sedsaitna Canyon ar.ea,
and, if so, can anything be learned about trade routes*?
Criteria for selecting sites: Athapaskan sites with trade goods.
Priority: * Site with mu1 tiple trade items (beads, i ran, copper,
cerami cs ) .
TLM 065* VLM 221 PLM 222* TLM 226 TLM 238" TLM 234 TLM 24Q*
s-
i i he $ nsf-1 ueelce odf" nsw-nati ves on native popul ad i ows of'tz13
produces thangr in various aspects 05 irdditionsl 1 icfo,
including subsistence, material cul iure, soc-ial sstructure,
trade, and religion. This influence may hzve been felt in the
Susitna River area as a result of gold mining and fur trapping
by nonenatives during the early decades of the !900's. What
effect, is any, did these activities have on native popu-
lations living in or in close proximity to the Susitna Canyon
Cpiteria for selecting sites: Athapaskan sites with moder~ dates
(standard deviation within last I00 years)
Priority: Presence of trade goods i denti f ied, faunal materi a1 , or
S\~~UC~UP~S,
P *% 1 LPl 022%* TLM 027 "F..M 83B* TLM lO4* TLM 22%* TLM 242" "?"I4 249*
-- f Re natk~re and -form sf transit%"on between t~*~adi ciofis iwe
poorly understsod in the %usietna Canyon area, Are the ob-
served changes in artifact assemblages the i-esui i of popiJ-
aakisn replacement,, diffusion of artifact types, in srlu
development, or same combination of the above?
Criteria of selecting sites: Sites whish Rave been ascribed to a
iridl tion (excepts Euro-American). Letters in parrn~hesrs indica%c
spceiP?c site loci,
Priority: "" S.I%e% wi tR lithie: artifacts i~r addition to rll~raaodif iield
.Flak( ;, thermal ly a1 tered rock and cobi:jles.
Ttf"! 817 NA
9: - AT
'ILM i)2a(a) AT
"R.M 622 AT
"[8,&4 026 AT
fhf4 027& AT, b3, AP
TLM 02gBk HA
TLM 036* AT, HA
TbM 034 AT, MA
"%"t,P4kii838 LD
TL% 839* tD
"F*bf r16t4Q4 AL LD, AP
""$"-!4043* AT
"$eM 048" AT
ftM 050* A"&"
TLb? 05% AT
RLM 054 A"
RaUM 05Sgk AT
TI.M 058* AT
TLH 059* AT
TLM 064 Ah AP
VLI~ O~Z* KBT TI"~~";E aos ~-x
TF,M 663 1,. 8 "l-LM %I1 AT
ILM 064(8)* AT TLH 123 ~"4
TLM 065 AT TLPT *B 27 A']
TLM 069 AT nt,~ I;fr-* /B::"T, [{is.)
RLM 872 AT RIM 3ij AaT
"$LM 0'74 LD TLM %30* AT, tD
TLW 075(A)* Ai Tt,M 1.36 &,D
Tl,M 077" AT, 1.C) S1,M 139 A?"
"P"M 078 AT, LD TLM i140VAT
TLM 084 AT $ri4t vu* ~A"F"
TLM 087 AT Xt,b"i14% LD
S'lM 088 $4 'T TI.M 543* FT, LD, bid
"t"l_M 089 Al' TLM 944* TdA
TLM 093"": AT TLM 148 AT
Sl,M 094* AT 'TLM 149 kD
*FLM 096 AT Tt,M 150 AT
T&lbf 097* AT, l.,D, HA 7'LPI 151 81'
.TLM 100 A 'S" T\,M 353 AT
ThFI %02* AT TI!< 154 AT
TLM 104 n~ TLM 159"""" LD
ii."r1:)4 LD
*! [-/vy 9 GdT' fy!- a*/"
"1.114 I59 hG
:i *", i'"71 1 A"i' ,D
fL?? 173(6) AT, B-D
l"\,ivq 175")~ A "i"
TePl 180*c AP
% i- 1.8 '$ I "'
%"! iatq 'a843k b , bD
"1 1186" PT I,! I
I-!,@ 187 AT
-. - rl-H"i188 AT
"IbFJi 189 T
\ f
TLH $90 LD
"r"%Pd '$99 A"$
71,M 20% AT
TLFI zC2g?2 kB
TLl4 m266 AT
TLPf ""I6 AT
TBM 207% AT, AP
TLiM 209 AT
ILM218 AT
"fb? 211 AT ~lp? 232gk)*v2 (BJ~ A 7
TLka? 213 LD TLK 233 AT
"T.3 2143 AT TLM 234(P,B) /y"r
TLM 215* A l ItP4 235jC) A
RM 215* LD TLM 236 AT
TbM 267* AT, L,D " TLM 237 A "I"
ILM 218(R)* LD T1.M 238 A *r
TLBM 223
TLM 224
VLM 225
TI-M 226
TLM 227
TLM 228
XhM 229
TIM 230
TLM 231
A"$ LED TLM 240 AT
AT 7"bM 242 AT
AT3 LD ";I% 244 AT
(all loci) Ti!{ 246 AL leD
AT TLn ?Y~(A), (B)* AT
AT TCM 249(A)*,(B) AT
AT, u, "TkM 250 AT
AT, LB "fM 252* AT
(all loci) TLM 253 Al
A "T TBM 255 AT
bD YLM 257 A "e""
bD XLM 258 AT
AT, LD TLM 259 AT
AT HEA 181 AT
iri a "ne /.ate Ba?nali comp^iex ipi ti.2~ A7arkaz i!i..;~~7iijs pdS: S-~~I~JC beei;--
an in si tu development from previoui occupatiof): or i eprrserr:
an iiilliiigration dP people from nutside xh~. area, Fvjdance
associated with rhe &intensity of occupation and 2rtifac:
composition may help clarify this settlement problem. What
evidence exfist soor either of these propositioris?
Li-iateria ofor selecting sites: All Late Denal i complex sites. Letters
in parentheses indicat~ specific sie loci.
r
~~-.i (-.)!--i %-y: * On presence of artifacts other than unmodified flakes,
thermally altered rock, ochre, and cobbles (within the Late
Dena l i cornpor2en t on i y ) .
~~-~~ 027" TLLM 077* TLbI l43* IkM 173B TLM %I&& iiM ZiE(Aj*,(Cj
vm- i ilj 034 TLM 078 TLM 149 TLM 18% VLP 217 TLbl
=[LM 038 %bM Q97* $&PI 1%9* TLM 184* TLM 2388* TLM 229
"RF4 639 "TeM %3Q* TLM 164 TLM 190 TLbI 229* To! "10"
"rL%t+ 040* TLM 136 TLM 169 "%LM 202 "$aM 222C T'LM 246
1"EM 063 "$M 14.2 XLM 171 TLM 213 TLM 225 HEA 184
TLM 074
sa-
c>
-rCd
P-- x
as
L a
2 *,
43 1;=
P- 4-J
*2
6) ..iG
^P"
@- U
a - 4)
L. ki
aJ CkJ
4-J %-
Pa kt,
E
a<-
Beiuq z x- id-
HUMAN
ECOLOGY
' i$q of,:: (S?]
T!h"ilb.C u,., (SYj
'1?4 'a&+
'::" 03.'
T hl 06;;
069 (5~)
iL& 070
&7l is)
T L f+: (3 7 2
?if*< 073 (SY j
Qid
TlY 075
TlF 076
Ti. 077 (SY)
:!P 076
?if! i.375 (MI
;kw QiE (H!
Ib.P p61
?LM 06.7
1111 oei
7L.F QE.:
PLM 085
TLW 086
TLM 081'
ilk 068
TDH 089
TLH 090
iDPq9 1
PLM 092
T1.P 094
i!M 044
ILM 095
:1k? OQ6
ikY C91 (SY)
TL" 056
ILM 099
rllif IG~
'LM 101
TI8 102 (SY)
7L.E 153
rk.& 164 (5~)
lip 9Q5
'!LH !C)6
TLR "i7
Tit4 108
'ik.n 109
7 L. 11 1 1 0 .
r~n 1:~
Tip 112
YLF 1-i- a A)
!!?I 114
"ljS &I15 is?')
*:in 116
ILn 117
lie; las
TLtt 199 (3)
stw .(?Po
PVii 221
StF: 122
jL% 123
TLY l24
TIM 125
ILK 226 (SY)
TbW 121
rbn 828 (SYI
TLP 129
TLH $30 {sr)
TLM 131
TLf4 132
IbH 113.3
lip 1194
reH 145
YtY 136
5~n 137
5lP 138
ik?4 138
TtP 149
flH l,41
2.~4 142
'TLP 143 (Sk'j
TL1$ IS4
rlr 145
TLV 446
Tip 147
- ain 14i
Ttlr 349
SLP: 150
iiH 1151
!if4 152
5k.H 153
T1.W I54
YLPS 155
"iL# 159
"hM 153
SLH 164
7i.M 165
7i-M 166
JL* 167
-~-'-.-----Y.".. -m-F.."-,-*-"I '%" ,-.*---- I ---" ---*----%".,--%-" --.-" - ., ..------.- - --""T ------.- I.III.I-lrtaYIIU--a, - ->.-% - ---,.
i I
1
S,ESIST[piCE CHRO- 1 WiiWWh r.[y:..~-: :+, i ,;; ,, c~:-!I:&! 1 1
fqO!. 1 8 ELOLBGY ;;i f,; u - . : !+.;-T\ i ;. .>ii: 5s - '
I OGi I 5cT,E?ENT j I
I
1
*I*--.---.---- ---. -.-" --.-- - ------- -+ --., "-",-"~"~ " -.------
I
517 2 1 1 il il ,I li i: :i ?I 11 I 1 I !. :: , . 1 . .: $1 ,I 1 707~:
djd b c G e r b r d e f sii t c c- ,- U b , X/%J""
i 1 ,c 1 . . . P-." --*.- "" --.-- *---"-*"-,"-ur.lu,l
:i84 IEY (SY 3
lib? 170
TIM 14: (SY)
1!P 172
YLh 173 (SY)
rbn 114 (SY~
scr 17";:~~
7k.W 176
]?i (57)
TLM :7R (H)
TLK 199 (SY)
riw 200 ISY)
~ + TLM 205
YLM 1Cg
TLH 209
iLpl 710
TLH 2i1
Ti.# 2ii (k')
TLP' 2 : 3 Y
i?P 214 dr
*
TLM 217 (ST] a
TLM 218. i( -
"' - --.-Y---.7-- - .-.i--,-----p-e----. -----7-----"--. -.- ---.-"---~--"--.------
SUESISTEBGE
j
HLJiYAN .-- ,, , - . ** : i I i NOI / ti ECOLOGY I - ..,;,..>.c< . .- it OGY j SETTLETENT i
I I ! I I
?*:{ 2;CJ
"5 \,* ZiC li. (5Y)
Ti'.$. i'il (SY!
"..d 222
::?";723
1 i.F3 3 2.4
?i"W 225 jsy!
TkP 225 [ SY )
PLY227
;iri 228
"3 22s [SU')
Ttn 230 (SY 1
ris a;;
232
'i!" 233
TLR 23&
TLFd 235
XP 236
"F4 237
ThE 226
7Lj-t 239
?LH 240
T!.Y 2% 1
TLM 242
TLR 2'42.
TLH 244
Tbf4 245
TLC peti
Ti!+ 241
nn 248 IN)
4k.H 249
TLP 255
rbn 251 isr)
TLY 252
'!if 2E-j
7iU i5E
+iY 251
.L& 258
TLW 259
-iA CG?
&EA Ci2
1-EA C33
r*FA C35
vf4 1132
, tA Lci (Hf
4.4 CC31 (~f
+!PI 137
PEA 174
-EA 115 [Sv)
PEA 176
+.:A 177
X
eta
I:"..E 1. {Continued?
nEA 178
WE:. 1195;
hCA 180
&;En Ir3 1
t+Ed 132
9-CR iP3
%A 184
%IF+ 185
HCA 186
PEA 2!0
HEA %I!
FA, 348 (H)
FA1 082 (8)
FA1 090 (ME
FA1 159 (HI
FA: 213
r"AI 214
no BI*:
X Potential to address terearch questions
" Wigt, p~tentia 1 to address resebrch questions
** Very high potrnhiai Pa address research'questdsns
BJ Wi%toric
SY Syttemunbtictesting
H %I
a a b c,d e f a bc d ef gab c d a bc a bc
Advf sory Counci l on Hi stori c Preservation, 1980, 'reatmen't of al-cheo;
ndbook, Government Printing OPPfce, Washington, B,C, --
Anderson, B,A, i974. An ar a? assessment of A~<sted Recrea ti~
Area. Division of Archaeology, Southwest Region, U, S, National Park --
Service, Santa Fe, New Mexico.
Barnes, M.W,, A,K. Briggs, and 5,3, Neilsen, 1980, A respawse to Waab and
Kl inget- on archaeol agical site significance, --- American
$5: 551-553,
Slack, t. 1981. Volcanism as a factor in human ecology: the Aleutian case.
Dixan, E.9, In press, Context and environment in taphsnomic analysis:
examples from Alaska 's P~rcupS ne River caves. -- Research
Special Volume - Tapkonomic Analysis and Interpretation in Pleistocene
Archeolegy, E, James Dixan and Rober M. Thorsun (eds).
Bixon, E,J,, G.S. Smith, W,M. Yhorsen, and W.C, Beets. 1980, Annual
p-m
subtas
Hydroelectric Project. Univeroi ty of Alaska Museum, Fairbanks,
Dixon, E.J,, G,S, Smith, R.C, Betts, and W.M. Thorson. 19822 - F"
subtask ?,06 cultural resources investigati~ns for the Susitna
Hydroelect~ic Project: a
Upper Swsitna River Val ley, University of Alaska Museum, Fairbanks, -
Dixon, E.J., G,S. SrnftA, M,L, King, and J.D. Rornick. 1982b. Firla1
1982 field season subtask 7.06 cultu
source survey in the Middle
University of Alaska Museum, Fairba~ks.
Dixon, E.J., 6.S. Smith, ki. Andrefsky, Jr., i3.M. Saleebgs, C.3, hiteicmahle, and
M.b, King. 1984, 1383 field season cultural resources investisations,
Susitna Hydroelectric Pfoject, University of Alaska Vuseum, Fairbanks,
Dixon, %.Jay G.S. Smith, B.M. Saleeby, W. Andrefsky, Jr,, and C.3. Ut~rmohle
1985* Susitna H;tdroelectric Project cultural .- -- a'tions --
1399-1985. University of Alaksa Museum, Fairbanks.
Dixan, K,A, 1979. Applications of archaeslogica% resources; broadening the
basis of significance. IN Conservation Archzeola. ed. F1.B. Schiffer,
and G.J, Gkammer~nan. Academic Press, New Vork.
Bumand, D, E, 1999. People and pumice on the Alaska Peninsula. IN Volcanic
ed. P. Sheets, and B,K, Grayson. Academic
Press, New York,
Finley, D.E, 1965. n, --
1947-1963, National Trust for Wistorjc Preservation, Washington, D,C,
GI assow, M.A, 1977, Issues in evaluating the siyni fieance of archaeological
resources. American 3 42: 413-420.
Grady, M.A, 1977, Significance evaluation and the Orme Reservoir Project,
IN Conservation ed, M.B, Schiffer, and G,J, Gumer.mar.;1,
Academi~ Press, New York.
Kari, 3. 3983. Ahtna place names lists. Copper Ri wer Native Association and
Alaska Native Language Center.
. . Kling, I.F., POP, Wickman, and G. Berg. 1977.
Preservation: Academic Press, New Ysrk.
Kstani, Y., 3.P. Goak, and T, Nishimota, 1984. Walker Fork and Gerstle River
Paper
presented at the 11th annual meeting of the Alaska Anthropological
Association, Fairbanks,
Krzuss, M,E, 1982. --- ka (mad. Alaska
Native kaaguage C@nter, University sf Alaska, Fairbanks,
Lynott, M. J. 1980. She dynamics of significance: an exzmpie from central
Texas. American 45:117-120,
Moba%to, M.3, 1975. On the concept sf archaealogical significance, Paper
presented at the annual northern California meeting af the Sceiety for
Cai ifornia Archaeology, Fresno.
Noratto, kri.J,, and R,E, Kelly, 19; 8, Optimizing strategies for evaluatei~g
arehaeo3sgical signif icanee, IN Advances in - A
voi, 1, ed. M,B, Sckiffer, Academic Press, New Ysrk,
Raab, L.M., and T.C. Klinger, 1977. A critical appraisal of "significance"
in contract archaeslsgy, American 42 : 629-634,
Sckneider, J,T, 1935. Repart to the Secretary af the Interior an the
Preservation of Xis%o~"ic Sites and Buildings, U,$, Department of the
Interior, Washington, B,C,
Schiffer, M,B,, and 6.9, Gumerman, 1973. --- Conservation - A
Press, New Ysrk.
Schiffer, M.B,, and J,H, House, 1377, An approach to assessing scientific
significance. IN Conservation ed. M.B, Schiffer, and G,,3,
Gumerman. Academic Press, New Ysrk.
Sfovill, D,H., G.J. h;~rdc>n, and K,M. Andercsn, 1972, ---- Gericliel.ines for the
ronmenta? imp~~: on archaeol
resources, Arizona Archaeclogical Center, National Park Service, Tucson6
Sharrock, F.W,, and D, K. Grayson, 1979. "'Significance" 18 contract
archaeology, American 44: 321-328.
5~it.h~ G,S,, and E.3. Dixo~. 1985, Susitna Hydroelectric -- --- Project cul tu22-
Report submitled to the Alaska Power
Atd"chority, i?rrckorage, ATas ka.
Smith, G.S., and E.J. Dixon. 1985. Susitna F&rcel~clric Project sppp cultural
resources - mitigation recommendations. Report submitted to the Alaska
Power Authority, Anchorage, Alaska.
rainter, J,A, and 6,3, hucas, 1983. Epictemslsgy of the significance
concept, Amrri can --- 48:707-719,
Tho~s~n, R.M., and P,D, Hamilton, 1971. Geology of the Dry Creek site: a
stratified early man site in interior Alaska. Quatern= Research -- ->
7(2): $49-176,
University of Alaska Museum. 1984. Procedures/qual - ,-a* i t~3nce manual
cultural resources investiq~~lion Susi tna Hydroelectric Project,
v---- ------
University OF Alaska Museum, Fairbanks,
Rest, F.Hs 1989, ColumbSa University Press,
New York.
Workman, W,B. 1974, The cultural significance of a volcanic ash whieh Pel 1
in the upper Yukon basin about 1400 years ago, IN International
Arctic and Subavctic, ed. S, Raymond and P, Schledermiiinn. klrtiversity of
Calgary Archaeological Association, Calgary.
Workman, k.B. 1977, Ahtna archaeology: a pre? iminary statement, IN Tbe -- . Archaeological Association of the University ot
Calgary,
Workman, W.B. 1979. The significance of volcanism in the prehistory of
subarctic northwest North America, IN
ed. P. Sheets, and D,K, Grayson, Academic Press, t4ew York,