HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPA4145I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SUSITHA HYDROELECTRIC PiOJECT
DRAFT
SITE SIGNIFICANCE: A FRAMEWORK FOB. EVALUATING
CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSOCIATED WITH THE
CENTRAL INTERIO~ ALASIA
Report by
University of Alaska Museum
Archeology Department
Prepared for
Alaska Power Authority
Draft Report
May 1984
I
DRAFT
'•
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ll
I
1 -INTRODUCTION
1.1 -Scope
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 satisfactorily mitigate the adverse
effect. The eligibility of a site or group of sites, for inclusion in the
National Register, is based on the significance 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 answer research questions. This
report summarizes the assessment of site significance through defining the
concept of significance, identifying pertinent variables, and presenting
research questions relevant to the study area.
Section 2 addresses the determination of site significance from legal and
scientific perspectives. Legislation relating to site significance· is
discussed and professional concerns on the definition of significance are
presented.
Section 3 presents the variables recorded for each site. These data form the
basis for determining the relevance of a site to a particular research topic.
The method of recording data and a explanation of the variables are presented
in the Procedures/Quality Assurance Manual (Revised 1984).
1-1 DRAFT
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!Ill I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
----
Section 4 presents research questions grouped according to five major research
areas. These areas are: 1) Cultural Chronology, 2) Possible Effects of
Tephra Falls on Prehistoric Human Ecology, 3) Subsistence and Settlement,
4) Population Dynamics I Exchange and Diffusion, and 5) Ethnography and
History. Additional research topics may be generated as a result of
evaluating the questions and the collection of additional data through
continuing fieldwork.
1-2 DRAFT
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-
I
-
I
I
I
2 -SITE SIGNIFICANCE
The 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
1983:707). The definition of significant archeological resources is a
controversial and much debated concept in archeological and le~al communities.
The complexity of the concept of significance has been discussed and
evaluated in a number of reports and articles (Anderson 1972; Scovill et al.
1972; House and Schiffer 1975; Moratto 1975; Glassow 1977; King et al. 1977;
Moratto and Kelly 1977; Raab and Klinger 1977; Schiffer and Gumerman 1977;
Schiffer and House 1977; Sharrock and Grayson 1979; Barnes et al. 1980;
Tainter and Lucas 1983). This section will outline the history of
significance from legal and scientific standpoints to explicate how the
concept of significance is implemented with respect for archeological sites
associated with the Susitna Hydroelectric Project.
Effective evaluation of the concept of significance can be accomplished by
dividing it into types.
In principle, the process of assessing significance is relatively
straightforward once there is agreement on the types of significance that
needs to be considered. One first specifies explicit criteria for
judging resources in relation to each type of significance. Then the fit
between the criteria and the resources is evaluated. Finally, it may be
desirable to arrive at an overall judgment based on a weighing of the
types of significance that have been considered (Schiffer and Gumerman
1977:240).
Although several types of significance have been recognized in the literature,
including historical, ethnic, public, legal, and scientific significance
2-1 DRAFT
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(Schiffer & Gummerman 1977:244-245), two are considered most encompassing and
integral to our discussion. As will be shown, legal and scientific concepts
of significance provide two different but interrelated perspectives.
2.1-Legal Significance
The concept of significance has a long history in federal legislation relating
to archeological and historic preservation. In early legislation, such as the
1906 Antiquities Act and the 1935 Historic Sites Act, the concept was equated
with significance on a national level. Private preservation groups working in
the early decades of this century had to come to grips with the significance
concept in order· to evaluate historic buildings on their associative
(association with great persons and e·.-2nts in American History) and artistic
merits. This need to set standards for evaluation in historic preservation
greatly influenced the further deve 1 opment of the concept of significance
(Tainter and Lucas 1983:708).
The first formulation of guidelines to serve as selection standards for
preservation was attempted by the National Park Service Chief Historian and
later released to the National Resources Board in 1934. The determining
factor for selection of a historic or prehistoric site was its possession of
"certain matchless or unique qua·lities" whicl1 represented large patterns of
"the American story,11 were associated with the life of some great American, or
associated with some dramatic event in American history (Schneider 1935, in
Tainter and Lucas 1983). Subsequent guide 1 i nes is sued by a private
organization, the National Council for Historic Pre~ervation, which lobbied
for the congressionally chartered National Trust for Historic Preservation,
2-2 DRAFT
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
were based primarily on the 1934 standards, but stated more explicitly that
preservation was to include sites exemplifying 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
basis for the federal attempts to define significance today (Tainter and Lucas
1983:708).
As a result of two important pieces of legislation an~ a presidential mandate,
standards by which to eva 1 uate the significance of sites have again been
codified by the federal government. The National Historic Preservation Act
(NHPA) of 1966 established the National Register of "districts, sites,
buildings, structures, and objects significant in American history,
architecture, archeology, and culture" (Public Law 89-665; 80 Stat. 915; 16
U.S.C. 470s Section 101). Under the provisions of this law, consideration
must be given to any National Register or National Register eligible site,
structure, or district which is to be adversely affected by projects utilizing
federal funds. Also with the passage of NHPA, resources of regional, state,
and local as well as national significance gained protection under the law.
The importance of the National Register was strengthened by the signing of
Executive Order 11593 in 1971. This directive ordered federal agencies to
1 ocate, inventory, and norni nate to the Secretary of the Interior a 11
properties under their jurisdiction or control that appear to qualify for
listing on the National Register of Historic Places (E.O. 11593). Implicit in
the order is the notion that properties must be significant in order to be
2-3 DRAFT
I• I
II I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
nominated to the National Register, as pointed out by Tainter and Lucas
( 1983: 709}.
In 1974 another key piece of legislation deal·ing with significant properties,
the Archeological and Historic Preservation Act, was passed. It amends the
Reservoir Sa 1 vage Act of 1960 which provided for the preservation of
historical a~nd archeological data that might be lost as a result of dam
construction (74 Stat. 220; 16 U.S.C. 469}. According to an amended section
of the 1974 law,
Whenever any Feder a 1 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 federally licensed
project, activity, or program may cause irreparable loss or destruction
of significant scientific, prehistorical, historical, or archeological.
data, such agency shall notify the Secretary (Secretary of the Interior);
in writing, and shall provide the Secretary with appropriate 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.
Criteria by which to assess significance in compliance with the federal laws
and Executive Order 11593 appear in the Federal Register in 1976 and have been
worded to provide for the inclusion of a diversity of cultural resources on
the National Register of Historic Places. According to the National Register
criteria of evaluation, the quality of significance is present in historic and
archeological propertJes that
2-4 DRAFT
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
possess integrity of location, design, setting, material, workmanship,
feeling, and association, and
(a) That are associated with events that have made a significant
contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or
(b) That are associated with the lives of persons significant in
our past; or
(c) That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, 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
important in prehistory or history (CFR 36:60.6).
Criterion (d) is generally used in nominating archeological sites to the
register.
Tainter and Lucas ( 1983) observed that the hi story of the concept of
significance is rooted in legislation passed in the early decades of this
century in response to concerns of arch i tectura 1 preservati ani s ts. The
criteria stated above are very broad with regard to assessing the scientific
or research value of archeological sites. Some aid in detei"mining
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 NHPA 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 fort~. One of their major pri nci p 1 es states that properties draw
their archeological value (significance) from the "assumption that they can be
used fruitfully for research 11 (Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Jl 1980:6). One of the stated intents of the National Historic Preservation Act
I
I
I
is "to insure future generations a genuine opportunity to appreciate and enjoy
the rich heritage of our (Pub1i~ Law 89-665, Preamble). Archeological
research which addresses significant questions about the past is viewed by the
council as being in the public interest, and thus fulfills this intent.
2-5 DRAFT
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The crucial role of research potential in assessing archeological significance
is also docume·nted in the Federal Register among the regulations to be
employed in complying with the Archeological and Historic Act of 1974.
Significant .... cata, as used by the Act, are data that can be used to
answer research questions, including questions of present importance to
scholars and questions that may be posed in the future (36 CFR 66.1).
These additional guidelines, set within a scientific framework, allow
archeologists to more effectively gauge whether or not a site or sites have
"yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or
history" (CFR 36 60.6).
2.2 -Scientific Significance
Scientific significance is an outgrowth of legal significance as stated in
federal antiquities legislation over the past century and more specifically
s i nee 1976 when the Fed era 1 Register set forth criteria for s i gni fi cance
pursuant to the Historic Site Preservation Act of 1966, National Environmental
I Policy Act of 1969 and Executive Order 11593. This legislation is very open
. I
I
I
I
I
Jl
II
ended and subject to a wide r~ange of interpretations (Raab and Klinger 1977) .
A general consensus in the ar·cheological discipline has been reached in
interpreting· the legislation. House and Schiffer (1977) state that
significance of archeological sites is best a~sessed by scientific
significance. They further argLie that scientific significance is best
evaluated by research potential. This position is also supported by Raab and
Klinger who ". • • fee ·1 that the best approach to assessing a rchaeo 1 ogi ca 1
significance is in relation to explicit, problem-oriented research designs 11
(1977:632). This same position was subsequently adopted by other
2-6 DRAFT
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
archeologists (Grady 1977; Lynott 1980). The assessment of archeological
significance in general and scientific significance in particular might best
be taken from Schiffer and Gumerman:
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 significance is defined as research potential
(1977:241).
The nature of research potential with regard to scientific significance is
both diversified and dynamic. Basic archeological issues such as regional
classification and chronology are included along with broader theoretical
goals such as general anthropological principles and social scientific
methods. Dixon (1977) presents an argument which suggests a broadening of
archeological significance base to other areas of science such as
paleoecology, marine mammals science, weather and climate, and the fishing -
industry. These are all within the realm of scientific significance.
One other outstanding characteristic of scientific significance is its dynamic
nature. If scientific significance is tied closely with research potential,
then as research designs change and methodological techniques develop, the
status of significance will also change. Lynott (1980) illustrates this case .
with an exa.mple 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's, research
had come to emphasize questions of subsistence and settlement and the site was
consequently considered significant. This same kind of issue of "future
potential" is recognized by other archeologists (Glassow 1977; Dixon, in
press). For instance, Glassow suggests;
2-7 DRAFT
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
... the history of archaeology over the last two decades demonstrates that
our conception of what is important to observe in the archaeological
record is subject of radical change or at least significant expansion.
Before the advent of concern for studying settlement patterns, for
example, only "type sites" or sites with deep, large deposits might have
been considered "significant", whereas today we would consider even
small, ephemeral sites to be important (1977:414).
The same kind of issue can be found in the archeological literature outside of
a management context. For instance, Dixon evaluates the significance of
artifacts from sites along the Porcupine River, Alaska, based upon context.
The question of context is of paramount importance because it provides
all things with meaning. Context provides parameters in which any object
or phenomena may be interpreted and through interpretation becomes
knowledge. Context is not limited to the depositional setting and
recorded data associated with a specimen. The historic period in which
the investigator functions also provides context which limits the
parameters of analysis. For example, archeological material discovered.
in the early 1900's is regarded differently in~the 1980's because of the
advancement in analytical techniques, such as scanning electron
microscopy and radiometric dating, which have expanded the contextua 1
limits of recovered material.
Context must be understood as being characterized by
confidence rather than as an absolute state of being.
confidence is dependent upon the amount and quality of
context provides (Dixon, in press).
a degree of
The degree of
the information
Tainter and Lucas (1983:707-718) attempt to sum the problem up by suggesting
that because the theoretical and methodological basis of research in
archeology changes, as with all empirical disciplines, we must make our own
assessments with very careful detai 1 ~nd rigor~ In recapitu1ation, the
significance of archeologica7 resources is best assessed within a framework of
research potential given the diversified and dynamic character of the science.
2-8 DRAFT
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2.3 -Summary
Although the development of legal and scientific concepts of significance have
been discussed separately, it is clear that the two are closely interrelated
and cannot be separated in actual practice. The crucial element that defines
significance is research potential. This is best measured by the ability of
the site data to answer current research questions. The process of
constructing a framework for assessing the potentia 1 of specific sites to
answer significant research questions within the Susitna River Canyon area is
a complex task which involves three major steps: 1) identifying the range of
variables present at the sites, 2) formulating the research questions, and
3) matching sites having the appropriate variables to specific questions. A.
discussion of the first two is presented below. The third will be addressed
after completion of reconnaissance level survey and systematic testing.
2-9 DRAFT
t
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3 -VARIABLES
3.1 -Introduction
The procedures implemented during Cultural Resburces Investigation associated
with the Susitna Hydroelectric Project are designed to retrieve information on
three mcjor attributes of sites: location, $tratigraphic context, and
artifact assemblage. A host of variabl~s by which sites can be evaluated for
significance are subsumed under each cat~~gory. These variables, rangir1g from
geographic and environmental context of a site to raw materials used in the
manufacture of artifacts found at a site, are discussed below.
3.2 -Locational Data
The site form completed for each site includes locational information telating
to map coordinates, elevation, site size, terrain, vegetatio~-proximity to
topographic features, and view. Map location is recorded by: 1) map
quadrangle, e.g., Talkeetna Mountains; 2) the designation of the particular
section of the quad, e.g., D-5; 3) the township, range, section, and quarter
section description; 4) the UTM coordinates to the nearest 50 m; and 5) the
latitude and longitude coordinates to within 5 seconds. The elevation of the
site is recorded according to the position of the site on U.S.G.S. 1:63,360
series maps. Altimeter readings are also taken on direct impact sites within
the proposed impoundments~
Two estimates of site size are recorded. The first is the observed size of
the site as determined by surface artifacts and subsurface testing. The
3-1
!
I
I
I
I
I
I• I ~.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
, ___ -----------------------------
testing procedure for determining site size is presented in the
Procedures/Quality Assurance Manual (revised 1984). An estimated size of the
site based upon the probable site limits as constrained by the terrain feature
is also recorded. This latter value is important given the discontinuous
nature of the artifact distribution at some sites, and the chancP that testing
mav not reveal the limits of the entire site. .J
Additional information relevant to the location of the site is provided by the
terrain unit and vegetation regime present at the site. Geological terrain
units as defined by R & M Consultants for the Susitna Hydroelectric Project,
are used. Descriptions of the vegetation regime at the site follow the
designations on the vegetation maps prepared for the Susitna Hydroelectric
Project by the Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Alaska, Palmer.
Sites not appearing on the above maps are assessed following the definitions
of the terrain or vegetation units.
3.3 -Stratigraphic Context
Sixteen stratigraphic units have been identified in the project area (Dixon et
al. 1982a:5-19). No individual tests or sites have been found to contain all
16 stratigraphic units, however several archeological sites exhibit at least
ten. Within any given site or site locus, subunits can be arranged in
stratigraphic order. The stratigraphic units are composed of the surface
organics and associated pedogenic units, four tephra units, glacial drift,
bedrock, and the intervening contacts. By regarding the contact units as
separate stratigraphic units, it is possible to accurately define the
intervals between deposition of soil/sediment units. The four tephra units
3-2 DRAFT
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
testing procedure for determining site size is presented in the
Procedures/Quality Assurance Manual (revised 1984). An estimated size of the
site based upon the probable site limits as constrained by the terrain ft3ture
is also recorded. This latter value is important given the discontinuous
nature of the artifact distribution at some sites, and the chance that testing
may not reveal the limits of the entire site.
Additional information relevant to the location of the site is provided by the
terrain unit and vegetation regime present at the site. Geological terrain
units as defined by R & M Consultants for the Susitna Hydroelectric Project,
are used. Descriptions of the vegetation regime at the site follow the
designations on the vegetation maps prepared for the 5usitna Hydroelectric
Project by the Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Alaska, Palmer.
Sites not appearing on the above maps are assessed following the definitions
of the terrain or vegetation units.
3.3 -Stratigraphic Context
Sixteen stratigraphic units have been identified in the project area (Dixon et
al. 1982a:5-19). No individual tests or sites have been found to contain all
16 stratigraphic units, however several archeological sites exhibit at least
ten. Within any given site or site locus, subunits can be arranged in
stratigraphic order. The stratigraphic units are composed of the surface
organics and associated pedogenic units, four tephra units, glacial drift,
bedrock, and the intervening contacts. By regarding the contact units as
separate stratigraphic units, it is possible to accurately define the
intervals between deposition of soil/sediment units. The four tephra units
3-2 DRAFT
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------------,_,_ ___ i.Wm--~---·-•-••,.,..,-._,.:t-.t __ _, __ U_II ---~---llil!ilMmiiiiEFillll'iiliii'!FIIJ': .. \IIIIi --·
are identified by local, project specific names. From the earliest to most
recent they are: Oshetna, Lower Watanar Upper Watana, and Devil. The tephra
units are identifiable in the field on the basis of color and texture. The
region-wide occurrence of the tephra deposits make them excellent temporal
horizon markers.
Nine cultural horizons have been identified which can be correlated throughout
the region based on stratigraphy. These zones consist of the upper level of
organics, organic silts, and the contact between them, the surfaces of the
four tephras, and the surface of the glacial drift or bedrock (Dixon et al.
1982a:5-19). In some cases paleqsols are present between the tephra. Dating
of these paleosols asrists in establishing limiting dates for the tephra
falls.
The chro~ological documentation of sites and components within the project
area is based upon four methods: 1) the direct historic approach, 2)
radiocarbon determinations, 3) relative stratigraphic placement, and 4)
typological comparisor of artifact assemblages with similar assemblages from
dated sites. The nine cultural horizons can be dated within limits·, although
the time span repv·esented by specific cu l tura 1 horizons may vary from a few
hundred year~ to as much as 7,000-8,000 years for cultural horizon 9. Five
major cultural traditions, each characterized by a unique artifact assemblage
have been documented within the study area. These are: 1) Euro-American
tradition (0-100 B.P.) (cultural horizon 1), 2) the Athapaskan tradition
(100 • ca~ 1500 B.P.) (cultural horizons 2, 3, 4, 5)~ 3) Late Denali complex
(ca. 1500-3400 B.P.) (cultural horizons 5?, 6, 7) 4) Northern Archaic
traditcn {ca. 3400-5000 B.P.) (cultural horizon 8), and 5) American
3-3 DRAFT
ag
I
_ --------~--~----~-,-------------------.. -----••••-ma··---711'8,_•••
I
I 1'-, .
I
I
I
Paleoarctic tradition (ca. 5000-10,500 (?) B.P.) (cultural horizon 9).
Although the olde~t dated sites in the study area do not exceed ca. 7,000
radiocarbon years it is possible that human occupation in this portion of
Alaska may span the last ca. 10,500 years.
Due to the unlikelihood of dating all strata at every site, an emphasis is
I placed upon the relative dating potential of the tephra units. The widespread
I
I
I
I
I
distr·ibution of the tephra deposits allows correlations to be made between all
parts of the study area. The association of cultural horizons with
stratigraphic units enables the construction of ~ultural components based upon
the artifact assemblages of a nu~ber of sites sharing the same stratigraphic
position.
3.4 -Artifacts
An artifact can be considered as any object which owes one or more attributes
to human activity. It can be faunal and floral material brought onto the
site, structures and features, and items modified from stone, bone, wood, or
•
I
I other raw material. The major categories of artifacts are lithic remains
I which can be sorted according to materia 1 type and function, fauna 1 remains ll
I
I
I
I
I
flora, non-lithic artifacts, and features.
Various types of lithic artifacts have been defined for the study area. These
include: modified flakes, scrapers, blddes, microbladest burins, burin
spalls, bifaces, bifacial preforms, notched points, stemmed points, leaf
shaped points, lanceolate points, triangular points, microblade cores,
microblade core tablets, blade cores, rejuvenation flakes, flake cores,
3-4
I .
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
hammerstones, abraders, and notched pebbles. The definitions of each of the
tool types may be found in the Procedures/Quality Assurance Manual (Revised
May 1984). Information is also recorded on the occurrence of the non-tool
categories of unmodified lithic flakes, thermally altered rock, ochre, and
cobbles and fragments.
Eight commonly occurring types of raw material used in the production of
lithic artifacts have been identified in the study area. These raw materials
are argillite, basalt, chalcedony, chert, obsidian, quartz, quartzite, and
rhyolite. The ... number and type of tool according to raw material are recorded
·for the artifact assemblage of each component of a site or locus.
Provisions have been made for recording the occurrence of faunal remains for
the variety of animals present in the Middle Susitna River Valley. Fauna
include the subsistence species such as: caribou, moose, sheep, and bear; the
furbearing species of wolf, fox, wolverine, and hares; and the rodents, birds,
fish, and insects 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 of specific skeletal elements, patterns of
subsistence activities may be elucidated.
The presence and absence of floral remains are recorded for their possible
role in the subsistence round, paleoecological interpretations, and for their
dating potential. Floral remains can also contribute to a better
understanding of past climatic and vegetation regimes. The information
3-5 DRAFT
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
--~-------~---------
recorded for flora consists of the presence of seeds and macrofossils 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.
3.5 -Summary
Contextual information on the geggraphic and environmental setting,
stratigraphic and cultural components, and the artifact assemblages
represented by each component are major variables by which the research
potential of sites in the Susitna Hydroelectric Project area is assessed.
·Additional variables will be added as required to address new avenues of
research.
3-6 DRAFT
~~~~~---~----------------.-...-----------------------1!112!-
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4 -RESEARCH QUESTIONS
4.1 -Introduction
One aspect of the Cultural Resources Survey of the Susitna Hydroelectric
Project is designed to address major issues relating to the research
potential, and thereby the significance, of sites within the study area~ The
position of the project at the proposed linguistic juncture of the Tanaina and
Ahtna (Krauss 1982) and geographir.ally located adjacent to the southern flanks
of the Alaska Range, the Copper River Basin, and the lower Susitna River
region allow for the study of archeology and history between groups of south
central Alaska and those of the Alaskan Interior. The identification of
readily distinguishable tephra units in the stratigraphy provides a unique
opportunity in Alaskan archeology for the establishment of an area-wide
corre 1 ati on of sites. These factors have be·en considered in the co 11 ecti on
and management of data for assessing the significance of sites in the region.
Five major research areas have been identified: 1) Cultural Chronology, 2)
Possible Effects of Tephra Falls on Prehistoric Human Ecology, 3) Subsistence
and Settlement, 4) P'opulation Dynamics I Exchange and Diffusion, ahd
5) Ethnography and History.
Each major research area is discussed briefly with the major topics of
interest followed by a list of questions pertinent to the topics. In order to
determine which sites are appropriate for contributing to the analysis of each
question, a series of required contextual variables is presented. These
variables were introduced in the previous section and are available for every
site which has been investigated. In addition, ancillary variables which may
4-1
I
J
'
I .,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~\ I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1 I
I I
~-...--~-· ..,~ .... ,
-----~---------------------------------------
have a bearing on the interpretation of the research or may lead to other
fruitful avenues of research are listed. Criteria affecting the ability of a
site to address a particular research question are also presented as a means
of establishing the non-significance of a site.
4.2 -Criteria of Non-Significance
Factors 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 of every site.
Criteria for non-significance are discussed in this section rather than
repeated after each question. When additional mitigating circumstances are
present, they will be noted for that particular question.
A site is constdered not relevant, and therefore non-significant, to the
research potential of a particular question when it does not possess the
required suite of variables necessary to address the topic. Sites which do
possess the required variables may be geemed unsuitable due to the poor state
of preservation, e.g., bone present but in the form of bone meal, o~ when the
integrity of relevant stratigraphy is lacking as a result of erosion,
cryoturbation, or adverse human impact.
4.3 -Chronology
The chronological documentation of sites and components was reviewed in
section 3.3. To date, five major cultural traditions and complexes, each
characterized by specific configurations of associated cultural traits which
4-2 DRAFT
I
'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~a I ~
persist over a long period of time have been documented within the study area.
These are: 1) Euro-American tradition (0-100 B.P.) (cultural horizon 1),
2) the Athapaskan tradition (100-ca. 1500 B.P.) (cultural horizons 2, 3, 4,
5), 3) Late Denali complex (ca. 1500 -3400 B.P.) (cultural horizons 5 (?),
6, 7, 9), 4) Northern Archaic tradition (ca. 3400-5000 B.P.) (cultural
horizon 8), and 5) American Paleoarctic tradition (cae 5000-? 10,500 B.P.).
Issues related to how and why cultural traditions have changed are central to
understanding the culture history of the region. The following questions
address these issues.
a) The temporal boundaries for each tradition are poorly understood with
the exception of the Euro-American and the late phase of the Athapaskan
traditions. Additional research is required at individual sites which
fall on cultural horizons that s~ggest they hold th~ potential to
document temporal limits of each tradition.
i) Required variables:
cultural horizons 4, 5, 8, or 9 AND
datable material
ii) Ancillary variables:
artifact type
artifact raw material
4-3 DRAFT
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11
I ,.
'!
iii) Criteria for non-significance
see section 4.2
b) The nature and form of transitions between traditions are poorly
understood in the Susitna Canyon area. Are the observed changes in
artifact assemblages the result of population replacement, diffusion of
artifact types, in situ development, or some combination of the above?
i) Variables required:
cultural horizons 2 and 5 OR
cultural horizons 5 and 7 OR
cultural horizons 7 and 8 OR
cultural horizons 8 and 9 AND
· artifact.types other than unmodified flakes
ii) Ancillary variables:
radiocarbon dates
artifact raw material
iii) Criteria for non-significance:
see section 4.2
4.4 -Possible Effects of Tephra Fall~ on Prehistoric Human Ecology
Evidence for four prehistoric tephra falls, occurring during an interval of at
least 3,000 years from about 5,000 years B.P. to roughly the beginning of the
4-4 DRAFT
t
I
I Christian Era, is widespread in both cultu~al and non-cultural contexts
Jl throughout the Susitna Canyon area. The Susitna tephras may correlate roughly
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I :
l I
~~ l
in time with tephra deposits at other central Alaskan locales~ indicating a
fairly extensive distribution for these ash deposits.
Often overlooked in the archeological literature is the fact that emplacment
of tephra on the landscape undoubtedly had some effect (positive or negative)
on the prehistoric population inhabiting an area. Whether the effect was
long-term and resulted in a large-scale emigration of people as suggested by
Workman (1974, 1979) for the Yukon Basin, or only short-term as suggested by
Dumond (1979) and Black (1981) fQr the Alaska Peninsula and the Aleutians,
respectively, has yet to be resolved for the Susitna Canyon area.
Environmental data, specifically data on plant and animal recovery in regions
affected by historic volcanic activity and contemporary wildlife studies, can
provide useful infarmation for the formulation of models with which to assess
the possible impact on people occupying or utilizing the Susitna area at the
time of the tephra falls.
If the effects were only short-term in extent, major changes in artifact
assemblages or major hiatuses in ~ite occupation would not be expected to
occur in the archeological record. On the other hand, what might be expected
is evidence of shifts in ~ettlement pattern or fluctuations in population
density that may have resulted due 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.
4-5 DRAFT
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
:~I '1 :t ,,~
a) 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 fa 11 events?
i) Variables required:
Gultural horizons 5, 6, 7, 8, or 9 OR
stratigraphic units 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, or 13
ii) Ancillary variables:
site size
land form
view
proximity to other sites
iii) Criteria of non-significance:
see section 4.2
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 possibly increase) their distribution or migration patterns
to shift. Is there any archeological evidence for a change in caribou
availability or distribution before and after ash fall events?
4-6 DRAFT
.
I ..
I.
i'
I
I
I
I
I
~ '
I , '
I
I
I
I
I
I
j
I
I
I
I
I
I
I .
·~ I '• 1 'i',
' ·i
l
I l
l l 1 r < '
i) Variables required
cultural horizons 5, 6, 7, 8, or 9 OR
stratigraphic units 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, or 13 AND
caribou bones
ii) Ancillary variables:
landform
view
proximity to other sites
iii) Criteria of non-significance:
see section 4.2
poor faunal preservation
c) The impact of tephra fa11s 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 over time?
i) Variables required:
cultural horizons 5, 6, 7, 8, or 9 OR
stratigraphic units 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 or 13 AND
caribou skeletal elements that can be used as seasonal
4-7 DRAFT
J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
1 I ~
] I l
1
.
I
indicators, e.g., teeth, antlers, and elements displaying
attributes indicative of the seasonal birth cycle (size,
epiphyseal closure, etc.)
ii) Ancillary variables:
floral remains
iii) Criteria of non-significance:
see section 4.2
poor faunal preservation
d) According to Workman's (1974, 2979) hypothesis, catastrophic ash
falls in Interior Alaska may have caused emigration of one group of
people and re-occupation at a 1ater date by another population. This may
be confirmed with distinct changes in artifact assemblages. Is such a
pattern evident in the project area?
i) Required variables:
cultural horizons 5, 6, 7, 8, or 9 OR
stratigraphic units 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, or 13 AND
diagnostic artifacts associated with the five major cultural
traditions documented, e.g., microblades, microblade cores, or
microblade tablets, side notched projectile points, etc.
ii) Ancillary variables:
none
4-8 DRAFT
I
I
I
II ,.
I
I
I :
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~ u
1i
!
\
iii) Criteria of non-significance:
see section 4.2
e) The intensity of land use can be measured by the number, size, and
artifact density of sites. Is there evidence to suggest that the
intensity of land use in the Susitna Canyon area increased through time
or fluctuated as the result of the ecological impact of tephra falls?
i) Required variables~
cultural horizons 5, 6, 7, 8, or 9 OR
stratigraphic units 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, or 13 AND
number of sites
site size
artifact density
ii) Ancillary variables:
none
iii) Criteria of non-significance:
see section 4.2
4.5 -Subsistence and Settlement
The general topic of subsistence and settlement may best be viewed from the
examination of a number of lesser topics which deal with, but are not limited
to: 1) the present and past landscape, 2) present and past food resources,
4-9 DRAFT
I
r---------~----~~----~~-~------------------------------------------~ -1
I
I
f I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
, I
\> '~
1 r! ~ ~
,j ~
~~
1
3) site location, 4) site size, 5) site density. Because of poor organic
preservation at some levels it may not be possible to address some topics in
more than a speculative manner.
Prehistoric settlement information is probably the most abundant Kind of data
obtained which relates to issues of subsistence and settlement. The most
direct approach for gaining subsistence information fran, sites is the
identification of floral and faunal remains in past contexts. Unfortunately,
acidic soils and post-depositional transformations preserve only the most
durable kinds of materials (i.e., lithir5). As a result, the amount of
preserved organic remains is minimal and tnis situation escalates with
progressively older occupations. Fortunately some depositional environments
in the project area have allowed organic preservation. For instance, bone
fragments of small mammals, birds, and caribou have been recovered at various
sites. These remain~ do not allow for a reliable assessment of minimum
numbers of individuals or percentage of the diet. Nor can reliable statements
be made about the most preferred subsistence resource at sites. In addition
to 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 paleosol are very
important.
a) Is there a change in subsistence practices between the American
Paleoarctic and Northern Archaic periods, and what evidence is there to
support or refute this change?
4-10 DRAFT
I
t.l
I•
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l
, a
. g
i
Jg
f
i) Required variables:
cultural horizons 8 or 9 OR
stratigraphic units 11, 12, or 13 AND
microblades or
notched points
ii) Ancillary variables:
floral remains
faunal remains
iii) Criteria of non-significance:
see section 4.2
b) The Late Denali Complex in the Alaska~ Interior may have been a~ in
situ development from previous occupations or represent an immigration of
people from outside the area. Evidence associated with the intensity of
occupation and artifact composition may help clarify this settlement
problem. What evidence exists for either of these propositions?
i) Required variables:
cultural horizons 6, 7, or 8
artifact types other ,than unmodified flakes
site size
ii) Ancillary variables:
artifact raw material
4-11 DRAFT
·i
j
I
iii) Criteria of non-significance:
see section 4.2
c) Among the Ahtna, the p 1 acename for Jay Creek is Nac 'e 1 cunt Na • ("food
is stored agdin 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
a distinctive artifact assemblage which may be related to sheep
predation?
i) Variables required:.
mineral licks in close proximity
ii) Ancillary variables:
artifact type
artifact material type
iii) Criteria of non-significance
see section 4.2
d) ~1~ny of ·~he sma 11 sites within the project area tend to be 1 oca ted on
small, glacially formed knolls (kames) which provide a panoramic view of
surrounding lower land features. Thes& sites are commonly characterized
as. overlook~ ur hunting stations. Is there a diagnostic artifact
assemblage at these sites which might explain their s1ze and location?
4-12 DRAFT
I
I
I
I
I
I
a
a
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
c
~
~
i) Required variables:
landform of kame, hill, or esker
at least 270 degree view
ii) Ancillary variables
artifact type
artifact raw material
site size
iii) Criteria of non-significance
see section 4.2
e) During the Northern Archaic period salmon were exploited in areas
adjacent to the Susit~3 Canyon. Is it possible that Northern Archaic
sites within the Susitna Canyon area participated in a larger settlement
and subsistence cycle which included salmon procurement sites outside of
the area?
i) Variables required:
cultural horizon 8 AND
notched pebbles or fish remains
ii) Ancillary variables:
artifact type
site size
iii) Criteria of non-significance:
4-13 DRAFT
I
I
;
a
I
a
= a
a
a
I
=
I
=
~
~
~ j(
J
l
see section 4.2
4.6 -Population Dynamics 1 Exchange and Diffusion
A major humanistic and archeological question is the identity of the people
whose cultural remains are being uncovered in the Susitna Canyon area. How
far back can the use of the the region by the current groups of Ahtna and
Tanaina be documented? The association of archeological assemblages with that
of neighboring regions may aid in identifying the former inhabitants of the
project area.
The ability to segregate sites on the basis of common stratigraphy allows for~
the study of site density through time. The currently large, and expanding,
data set from the project may reveal temporal trends in the occupation of the
Susitna Canyon area. These trends may then be correlated with climatic change
and effects of the tephra falls which may have affected 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 oc~upation of the project and adjacent areas.
ln addition to the intensit) and duration of occupations, the introduction and
transmission of items into and through the project area can he studied.
Material sourcing of raw material and technological similarities with adjacent
regions can provide information on the relationship of the study area to the
remainder of Alaskan archeology. Archeology conducted along the Alyeska oil
pipeline and natural gas pipeline corridors, in the Copper River basin, and
the sites of Healy ·rake, Dry Creek, Car 1 o Creek, and the Nenana R1 ver Gorge
4-14 DRAFT
. ), ..
I
I
I
m
I
a
I
I
a
a
a
a
I
I
=
~
\)
Site provide 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 prehistory can be tested for their presence in the Susitna
Canyon region and thus expand the understanding of the dynamics of
distribution, timing, and variability of the phaseso
a) West (1981:224-227) has recently postulated a cultural hiatus between
the Denali Complex at 7,000 B.P. and the appearance of the Northern
Archaic at 4,000 B.P. in the Tangle Lakes region northeast of the project
area. Do early sites in the Susitna Canyon show an affiliation with the
Denali Complex between 7,000 B.P. and 4,000 B.P. and thus refute the
existence of a hiatus in occupation?
i) Required variables:
cultural horizon 9 OR
cultural horizon unknown with microblade technology
ii) Ancillary variables:
artifact types
iii) Criteria of non-significance
see section 4.2
b) A number of obsidian sources have been identified in Alaska and the
Yukon Territory. Can obsidian from the project area be traced to
specific sources and thus yield information en past interaction or
exchange networks?
4-15 DRAFT
I
I
I
m
I
a
a
a
a
=
~
i) Required variables:
obsidian
ii) Ancillary Variables:
artifact types
iii) Criteria of non-significance:
see section 4.2
c) Few prehistoric structures or more permanent camps are known from
within the confines of the Qroject area. Are there environmental
settings which typify these rare sites?
i) Required variables:
cultural depressions OR
hearths OR
ii)
i i i )
rock features
Ancillary variables:
vegetation
elevation
terrain unit
site size
Criteria of non-significance:
see section 4.2
4 .. 16
'
DRAFT
~~
~I
~~
1a
~~
, ta
!
r i;
D
a
a
I
a
a
c
c
c
0
Q
~
d) The paleosol between the Oshetna and Watana tephras may also be
present at 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 archeological unit IV
at Dry Creek 100 km to the northwest of the project and the upper
component at Gerstle River Quarry 150 km to the northeast of the project
enable regional variation within the Northern Archaic to be studied with
the possible delineation of exchange and diffusion networks.
i) Required variables:
cultural horizon 8 ~ND
artifact types
ii) Ancillary variables:
artifact raw materials
iii) Criteria of non-significance:
see section 4.2
e) 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 B.P.?
i) Required variables:
cultural components with upper limiting dates between
4300 -3300 years B.P. OR
4-17 DRAFT
[I
m
m
m
m
~
D
~
~
~
a
a
= c
c
c
0
0
~
cultural components with upper limiting dates between
3300 -2300 years B.P.
ii) Ancillary variables:
number of sites
site size
artifact density
. iii) Criteria of non-significance:
see section 4.2
4.7 -Ethnography and History~
At the time of historic contact, the upper Susitna drainage was occupied by
the Western Ahtna, one of several groups of Athapaskan speakers inhabiting
Interior Alaska. Through implementation of the direct historical approach,
the Athapaskan Tradition can be traced back to approximately A.D. 500 in the
study area. Although ethnohistoric data have provided archeologists with
useful information for interpreting sites falling within this time period,
much remains to be learned about the origin, population dynamics, settlement
and subsistence of these prehistoric people.
Indirect impact of Euro-American culture on the Ahtna was experienc~d as early
as the late 1700's, at which time iron and glass beads imported by Russian
traders became available to peoples with whom the Ahtna had established trade
connections (Workman 1977). The first actual population expansion by
non-natives into the upper Susitna occurred shortly after 1895 when gold was
4-18 DRAFT
m
;
m
m
m
~
~
~
~
I
;
a
a
c
c
c
c
discovered in the Cook Inlet region. Following the goldrush, fur trappers
began to move into the Susitna River area. The economic use of the area for
fur trapping during the 1920 1 s to 1940's is documented by abandoned cabins
from this period. The effects of both indirect and direct white contact on
the Ahtna are the subject of the questions in this section.
a) The Mountain Band of Ahtna Athapaskans no longer occupy the Susitna
Canyon area. When did depopulation occur and what were the factors
contributing to it?
i) Required variables:
cultural horizons 3, 4, or 5 OR
stratigraphic units 3, 4, or 5 OR
radiocarbon dates between A.D. 1700 and A.D. 1900
ii) Ancillary variables:
landform
faunal remains
floral remains
iii) Criteria of non-significance:
see section 4.2
b) Seasonal variation in subsistence strategies are known for
Athapaskans in Interior Alaska. Was the seasonal exploitation of
resources durin~ the Athapaskan Tradition (100-ca. 1500 B.P.) similar
to the pattern known for modern Athapaskans?
4-19 DRAFT
~
m
m
m
m
m
~
~
~
~
I
a
a
D
c
c
0
Q
Q
i) Required variables:
cultural horizons 3~ 4, or 5 OR
stratigraphic units 3, 4, or 5 OR
radiocarbon dates between A.D. 500 and A.D. 1900 AND
faunal remains
ii) Ancillary variables:
floral remains
iii) Criteria of non-sigoificance:
see section 4.2 .
poor faunal preservation
c) Salmon are an important portion of the Athapaskan diet and major
sites are located to utilize this resource. Although very f~w 3almon
migrate past Devil Canyon there is a major salmon run into Stephan Lake.
Has this resource been used in periods that precede the Athapaskan
period?
i) Required variables:
cultural horizons 6, 7, 8, or 9, OR
stratigraphic units 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, or 13 OR
radiocarbon dates before A.D. 500 AND
salmon bones or notched peb;les
4-20 DRAFT
m
~
m
rn
w
~
~
~
~
D
~
~
~
c
c
c
0
0
u
ii) Ancillary variables:
faunal remains
landforms
iii) Criteria of non-significance:
see section 4.2
poor faunal preservation
d) Minor variations in the climate can affect both plants and animals.
The so-called 11 Little Ice Age'1 occurred in the 1600's. Did this have an
effect on the native populations living in the Susitna Canyon area?
i) Required variables:
radiocarbon dates between A.D. 1600 and A.D. 1700
ii) Ancillary variablt:s
location
faunal remains
floral remains
iii) Criteria of non-significance:
see section 4.2
poor faunal preservation
4-21. DR.AFT
I
~·
w
rn
~
[Q
~
~
~
~
~
~
D
e) Indirect trade of Russian and European products occurred in Alaska
prior to the first recorded contact by Vitus BeriHg in 1728. Did
indirect trade occur in the Susitna Canyon area, and, if so, can anything
be learned about trade routes?
i) Required variables:
cultural horizons 3, 4, or 5 OR
stratigraphic units 3, 4, or 5 OR
radiocarbon dates between A.D. 1700 and A.D. 1900 AND
glass or metal
ii) Ancillary 'tariables:
site location
iii) Criteria of nom-significance:
see section 4.2
f} The influence of non-natives on native populations often produces
changs in various aspects of tradition life, including, but not limited
to, subsistence~ material culture, social $tructure, trade, and religion.
This influence may have been felt in the Susitna River area as a resu1t
of gold mining and fur trapping by non-natives during the early decades
of the 1900's. What effectj if any, did these activities have on native
populations living in or in close proximity to the Susitna Canyon area?
4-22 DRAFT
~
~
m
m
m
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
D
f1 w
0
D
i) Required variables:
cultural horizons 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 OR
stratigraphic units 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 OR
radiocarbon dates between A.D. 1900 and A~D· 1949 AND
log structures OR
metal or glass
ii) Ancillary variables:
site location
iii) Criteria of non-significance:
see section 4.2
4.8 -Future Research
The research questions subsumed under the above five research topics are not
exhaustive. Additional topically oriented research may be generated through
the analysis of the above questions and as a result of additional fieldwork.
DRAFT
4-23
m
m dJ
rn lU
[0
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
D
D
~
D
D
D
-----------.------------~-------------
5 -REFERENCES
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. 1980. Treatment of archeological
properties: a handbook. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Anderson, B.A. 1974. An archaeological assessment of Amisted Recreation
Area. Division of Archaeology, Southwest Region, U.S. National Park
Service, Santa Fe, New Mexico.
Barnes, M.R., A.K. Briggs, and J.J. Neilsen. 1980. A response to Raab and
Klinger on archaeological site significance. American Antiquity
45:551-553.
Black, L. 1981. Volcanism as a factor in human ecology: the Aleutian case.
Ethnohistory 28(4):313-340.
Dixon, E.J. In press. Context and environment in taphonomic analysis:
examples from Alaska's Porcupine River caves. Quaternq£l Research
Special Volume -Taphonomic Analysis and Interpretation ~n Pleistocene
Archeology. E. James Dixon and Rober M. Thorson (eds).
Dixon, E.J., G.S. Smith, R.M. Thorson, and R.C. Betts. 1980. Annual report,
subtask 7.06 cultural resources investigations for the Susitna
Hydroelectric Project. University of Alaska Museum, Fairbanks.
DRAFT
5-1
~-~----~ ----------·---~---·-----~----·--·--·~-~--. ...... _________ ,._..,_,,·=·Hz>.---·"-"'' ,-~-:IISColl-'1--*-'-----• --=,-~-..:lll.ll-filiii!TW:ZO._._~--ISI1--A
t
I
rrn
I
rn
rn
LU
u
0
D
Dixon, E.~., G.S. Smith, R.C. Betts~ and R.M. Thorson. 1982a Final report
subtask 7.06 cultural resources investigations for the Susitna
Hydroelectric Project: a preliminary cultural resource s~rvey in the
Upper Susitna River Valley. University of Alaska Museum, Fairbanks.
Dixon, E.J., G.S. Smith, M.L. King, and J.D. Romick. 1982b. Final report
1982 field season subtask 7.06 cultural resources investigation for the
Susitna Hydroelec_tric Project: cultural resource survey in the Middle
Susitna River Valley. University of Alaska Museum, Fairbanks.
Dixon, E.J., G.S. Smith, W. Andr~fsky, Jr., B .• M. Saleeby, C.J. Utermohle, and
M.L. King. 1984. 1983 field season cultJral resources investigations,
Susitna Hydroel~ctric Project. University of Alaska Museum, Fairbanks.
Dixon, K.A. 1977. Applications of archaeological resources; broadening the
basis of significance. IN Con'~~r'vation Archaeology, ed. M.B. Schiffer,
and G.J. Gummerman. Academic Press, New York.
Dumond, D.E. 1979. People and pumice on the Alaska Peninsula. IN'Volcanic
Activity and Human Ecologx, ed. P. Sheets, and O.K. Grayson. Academic
Press, New York.
Finley, D.E. 1965. History of the National Trust for Historic Preservation,
1~47-1963. National Trust for Historic Preservation, Washington, D.C.
Glassow, M.A. 1977. Issues in evaluating the significance of archaeological
resources. American Antiquity 42:413-420.
5-2 DRAFT
:::r
UJ
!]1 ' ' ! '
L!!!!
·?"\:
'l' JJ
]
~
~
~
~
D
D
D
D
D .,,
. I
' l ~
D
Grady, M.A. 1977. Significance evaluation and the Orme Reservoir Project.
IN Conservation Archaeology, ed. M.B. Schiffer, and G.J. Gumerman.
Academic Press, New York.
Kari, J. 1983. Ahtna place names lists. Copper River Native Association and
Alaska Native Language Center.
Kling, T.F., P.P. Hickman, and G. Berg. 1977. Anthropology in Historic
Preservation: Caring for Culture•s Clutter. Academic Pre~s, Ne~ York.
Kotani, Y.~ J.P. Cook, and T. Nishimoto. 1984. Walker Fork and Gerstle River
Quarry sites: a preliminary report of the 1983 excavations. Paper
presented at the 11th annual meeting of the Alaska Anthropological
Association, Fairbanks.
Krauss, M.E. 1982. Native peoples and languages of Alaska (map). Alaska
Native Language Center. University of Alaska, Fairbanks~
Lynott, M.J. 1980. The dynamics of significance: an example from· central,
Texas. American Antigui~ 45:117-120.
Moratto, M.J. 1975. On the concept of archaeological significance. Paper
presented at the annual northern California meeting of the Society for
California Archaeology, Fresno.
DRAFT
5-3