2009
DOI: 10.14430/arctic49
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Exploratory Models of Intersite Variability in Mid to Late Holocene Central Alaska

Abstract: ABSTRACT. Interrelated aspects of technology, site structure, and subsistence patterns in central Alaska are synthesized using a comprehensive database of radiocarbon-dated components. Microblade technology is examined with respect to broad patterns of technology, settlement, and subsistence. Striking changes in the archaeological record during the Late Holocene (~1000 cal BP), including the loss of microblades, are explored through three general models: technological and economic change within existing popula… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

4
24
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(30 citation statements)
references
References 45 publications
(33 reference statements)
4
24
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Component 1 fauna are well-preserved, but no fish have been identified. The fauna are dominated by waterfowl and mammals (44). The very low SIAR mixing model estimates of the proportional contribution of salmon to these hearths (4-11%, with 95% CI overlapping with 0%) are consistent with the faunal data suggesting little or no salmon presence in this earliest occupation.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 66%
“…Component 1 fauna are well-preserved, but no fish have been identified. The fauna are dominated by waterfowl and mammals (44). The very low SIAR mixing model estimates of the proportional contribution of salmon to these hearths (4-11%, with 95% CI overlapping with 0%) are consistent with the faunal data suggesting little or no salmon presence in this earliest occupation.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 66%
“…These sites are typically found on elevated features and people focused on a broad spectrum of subsistence resources such as bison and elk (Wapiti) (Yesner, 2007;Graf and Bigelow, 2011;Potter, 2011;Blong, 2016). Caribou, sheep, waterfowl and fish were also used, albeit in low quantities (Potter, 2008b).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…; Coffman & Potter, ; Holmes, Reuther, Adams, Bowers, & Little, ; Wygal, ), and there is comparatively little evidence for sustained human use of the central Alaska Range until the early‐mid Holocene (Potter, ). At this time, there is evidence for a shift to a logistically mobile settlement system including increased use of seasonally available upland resources like caribou ( Rangifer tarandus ) and fish, possibly driven by spreading lowland boreal forest (Esdale, ; Mason & Bigelow, ; Potter, , ). The ethnographic and ethnohistoric record indicates that late prehistoric Athabascan groups in the region had a seasonal subsistence round consisting of summer/fall hunting and gathering in the central Alaska Range and more permanent winter camps in lowland valleys (de Laguna & McClellan, ; Hosley, ; McKennan, ; Reckord, ; Townsend, ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The low frequency and ephemeral nature of LP/EH archaeological sites in the Alaska Range has been argued to represent a residentially mobile LP/EH land-use system primarily focused in the lowlands of the Tanana River basin and foothills of the Nenana River basin (Potter, 2008a(Potter, , 2008bPotter, Holmes, & Yesner, 2013). However, despite low archaeological visibility, there is evidence that huntergatherers procured upland resources in the Alaska Range as highly mobile, logistically oriented groups spread through the Alaska Range and into southern Alaska during the Younger Dryas (YD) and EH (Blong, 2018;Graf & Bigelow, 2011;Guthrie, 2017;Mason, Bowers, & Hopkins, 2001;Potter et al, 2013;Wygal, 2018).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%