Thinking Small: Global Perspectives on

Microlithization
Robert G. Elston and Steven L. Kuhn, Editors

Contributions by

Stanley H. Ambrose
Anna Belfer-Cohen
Peter Bleed
P. Jeffrey Brantingham
Angela E. Close
Robert G. Elston
Ted Goebel
Nigel Goring-Morris
Peter Hiscock
Steven L. Kuhn
Michael P. Neeley
Georges Pearson
Lawrence Guy Straus
Robin Torrence
David R. Yesner

2002
Archeological Papers of the
American Anthropological Association Number 12
 10
Microblades and Migrations: Ethnic and
Economic Models in the Peopling
of the Americas
David R. Yesner
University of Alaska, Anchorage
and
Georges Pearson
University of Kansas, Lawrence

ABSTRACT
Early microblade assemblages in greater Beringia have been the focus of intense scrutiny because of their
relevance to the problem of the peopling of the Americas. Although microblades have been produced in
northeast Asia for more than 20,000 years, their manufacture is intensified in the terminal Pleistocene, coin-
cident with the earliest definitive peopling of Beringia. In Alaska, where their manufacture was concentrated
in the earliest Holocene period, microblades have often been viewed as diagnostic tools left by discrete ethnic
groups (Na-Dene?) who followed the original (proto-Paleoindian?) migration. Alternatively, they have been
viewed as a technology adapted for hunting in cold, northern environments, where lithics were relatively
scarce, particularly in winter. A compromise view would suggest that such technologies were utilized in low
frequencies by earlier populations, but became more prevalent as mammalian megafaunal extinctions took
place, when caribou became of prime importance. The absence of such taxa to the south of the ice sheets
might offer an alternative to ethnic arguments as an explanation of the limitations of expansion of microblade
technologies into continental North America.

T he peopling of the Americas remains as conten-

tious a problem today as it has been at any time in
the past 75 years since the discovery of our Paleoindian
past. The timing, route, and mechanisms of colonization,
as well as the source population(s), have been chal-
lenged from every corner. Even the Bering Land Bridge,
the basic outlines of whose existence have been acknowl-
edged for more than 40 years (Hopkins 1959, 1967), has
come under attack as the most likely route for human
colonization of the Americas (cf. Straus 2000). Yet al-
though the actors have changed, many of the basic argu-
ments have remained remarkably similar since the 1960s.
Those who have favored relatively early (i.e., pre-12,000
yr B.P .) human entry into the Americas have tended to
show less skepticism toward a small handful of earlier
radiocarbon dates with sometimes problematical strati-
graphic associations and have tended to favor a “pre–
projectile point stage” concept in which early human
colonists entered as small bands of hunters with rela-
tively little knowledge of lithic resources (Bryan 1965,
1977; Krieger 1964; MacNeish 1976). In contrast, those
who have favored later human entry into the Americas
have treated such dates and stratigraphic associations
with a great deal of skepticism and have viewed the ini-
tial colonists as proficient hunters equipped with highly
sophisticated weapons systems.
Those who have favored a heavy human hand in the
extinction of Pleistocene New World megafauna have
tended to favor a late-entry scenario (e.g., Martin 1964;
Mosimann and Martin 1975), but conversely those who
134
favor such a late scenario have sometimes still viewed
climatic change as the major precipitator of such extinc-
tion (e.g., Grayson 1984, 1991; Guthrie 1984). Accord-
ing to some who hold the early-entry view, there has
been a shift from a “big game hunting” paradigm to one
in which initial colonists are seen as generalized forag-
ers. This is particularly true of South America, where a
smaller contrast is seen with later Paleoindian and Ar-
chaic hunter-gatherers than for those occupying more
northerly grassland environments (Dillehay 1989, 2000).
However, later-entry enthusiasts of the “Clovis first”
mold have also tended to move away from the large-game-
hunting specialization model toward one emphasizing
greater subsistence diversity, even in the grassland envi-
ronments (Yesner 1996a).
One recent wrinkle on the fold is the so-called
“coastal migration hypothesis,” according to which early
colonists possessed sufficiently sophisticated oceango-
ing boat technology and maritime subsistence patterns
to move continually down several thousand kilometers
of previously unexplored coastline (Dixon 1999). This
implies that semisedentary coastal settlement patterns,
allowing central-based foraging for sea mammals, sea
birds, fish, and shellfish, may have begun as early as
15,000 yr B.P ., coalescing somewhere in northeast Asia
or Beringia. The problems with this hypothesis are sev-
eral: (1) no antecedent sites in the Russian Far East show
a maritime pattern preceding 6,500 yr B.P., with the clos-
est such sites being those of the Early JomÇn culture of
northern Japan; (2) the earliest evidence for maritime
lifeways in Alaska, even in isostatically or tectonically
uplifted environments, does not exceed the earliest
Holocene (10,000 yr B.P.); (3) early crossings of the west-
ern Gulf of Alaska would have been extremely hazard-
ous for small boats, and subsistence resources would have
probably been limited to ringed seal, walrus, and polar
bear most effectively hunted with a complex technology
and social organization; (4) early coastal sites (dating to
11,000 yr B.P .) in California and Peru reflect primarily
strandloopers, hunting sea birds and collecting shellfish
in nearshore environments, rather than users of sophisti-
cated oceangoing vessels; and (5) no genetic connection
has been demonstrated between coastal groups from
Alaska to southern Chile, on the basis of either human
skeletal remains or artifacts, in part because both of the
latter tend to be exceedingly rare in these early sites.
Alaskan archaeologists, and northern archaeologists
more generally, tend to view the requirements for the
earliest colonization of the Americas as particularly rig-
orous, perhaps on the basis of their own experiences with
survival in the far north. In their view, early migrants
David R. Yesner and Georges Pearson
must have possessed at a minimum a sophisticated tool-
kit, capable of dealing with extremely cold conditions, as
well as excellent tailored skin clothing, capabilities for
extensive winter travel, and perhaps even an elaborate
system of signaling. A variety of alternative hunting strat-
egies would have been required that included seeking
out a wide diversity of taxa, utilizing solitary and group
hunting, as well as carcass scavenging. Use of a variety
of armature and propulsion systems would also have been
required, as well as an ability to maximize use of locally
available materials for technological requirements.
Yet another contentious issue revolves around the
ethnicity of the earliest colonists of North America, in-
spired by arguments concerning the biological affilia-
tion of early Holocene human remains from northwest
North America (cf. Thomas 2000). We have known
for a half century that Paleoindian skeletal remains from
various parts of North America tend to be somewhat
biologically distinct from later populations, possessing
in particular longer, narrower crania. Whether by con-
vergence or descent from a common ancestor, there are
similarities to Ainu and other Paleo-Asiatic peoples of
northeast Asia. This phenomenon has been attributed both
to microevolutionary processes and to injections of new
genetic input during the Holocene. If the latter, one of
the prime candidates has been an incursion of round-
headed “Classic Mongoloid” genes, reflected by an
almost certainly later migration of Eskimo-Aleut ances-
tral populations across the Bering Land Bridge. In addi-
tion, a third migration of Na-Dene peoples has been
posited, based on genetic markers, dentoskeletal char-
acteristics, and linguistic features (cf. Greenberg et al.
1986). Na-Dene peoples include the Tlingit, Haida, and
Northern Athapaskans of Alaska and western Canada,
the Southern Athapaskans (Apacheans) of the southwest-
ern United States, and outlier groups on the Pacific coast
of Oregon and northwest California.
How do microblade technologies play into this sce-
nario of early peopling of Alaska and the Americas as a
whole? The intensive use of microblade technologies
during the late Pleistocene and early Holocene was a fea-
ture of early peoples from central Siberia and northeast
China to the Gulf of Georgia–Puget Sound region in
northwest North America. The continuous nature of this
distribution across varying coastal and interior environ-
ments suggests either a “genetic” linkage between
these industries or the widespread adoption of a techno-
complex effective at addressing some common problem
in the far north.
Alan Bryan (1968, 1969) was one of the first to sug-
gest that the microblade industries of Alaska and west-
Ethnic and Economic Models in the Peopling of the Americas
ern Canada stand in stark contrast to Paleoindian and
possibly earlier tool assemblages found south of the ice
sheets. In his view, and that of others, the microblade
makers were descendants of later migrants than those
who produced the Clovis (and pre-Clovis?) tool assem-
blages to the south. The predecessors of the latter were
represented by many “pre–projectile point” assemblages
in the north, ranging from the British Mountain Com-
plex and Sedna Creek “artifacts” to the osteodontokeratic
industries from Trail Creek, Old Crow, and, more re-
cently, the earlier materials from Lime Hills caves
(Ackerman 1996a). Early human remains in the north
were scarce, with the Taber child from Alberta and later
a mandible from Old Crow in the Yukon representing
the best candidates for Pleistocene human occupation.
Nearly all of these sites have now been discredited, leav-
ing a certainty of 12,000, and a possibility of 14,000,
years of antiquity in the region based on a large number
of accepted sites. On the basis of our current data, then,
what is the position of the microblade technologies today,
and how does it relate to the larger question of peopling of
the Americas?
Microblade Industries in Northeast Asia
Dating of Upper Paleolithic tool industries in north-
east Asia (Russia, Mongolia, China, Korea, Japan) has
been plagued by a host of problems at both cave and
open-air sites, but the predominant patterning has been
obvious for some time (Kuzmin and Orlova 1998).
Macroblade industries marking the transition to the early
Upper Paleolithic are as early in western Siberia and
the Altai as in Europe, with dates at least as early as
40,000–44,000 yr B.P. (Goebel 1993). Central Siberian
dates (e.g., in the Yenisei River region) are slightly
younger, with the oldest around 32,000 yr B.P . (Kuzmin
and Orlova 1998). Farther east, in the Transbaikal re-
gion and Lena River basin of eastern Siberia, the dates
are still younger. Although there are a few macroblade
sites (e.g., at Tolbaga and Varvarina Gora) that are in
the 35,000 yr B.P. time range, most cluster between 28,000
and around 20,000 yr B.P., just before the last glacial
maximum (LGM). (The relatively few dates in the time
frame from 20,000 to 18,000 yr B.P. may suggest aban-
donment or depopulation of eastern Siberia during the
cold of the LGM; cf. Goebel 1993.) To the south, macro-
blade industries are also present in early Pleistocene
assemblages from Mongolia and northern China—par-
ticularly in the Ordos plateau region—although these
sites are not well dated. However, they are well repre-
sented in northern Japan and Korea, as well as at sites
135
like Ustinovka south of the Amur River mouth in the
Russian Far East, where they tend to date to just after the
LGM, appearing no earlier than 20,000 yr B.P. The over-
all patterning of macroblade sites does suggest a west-
to-east migration or diffusion, the timing of which is still
not well defined.
Microblade industries, often considered markers of
the “late Upper Paleolithic” of northeast Asia, tend to be
later in date and appear in significant numbers only after
the LGM. Although the patterning is not completely clear,
there appears to be a smaller basis here for accepting a
similar west-to-east patterning in the dates associated
with microblade assemblages. In fact, the earliest dates
for microblade assemblages cluster in the Transbaikal
region and in northwest China, just after the LGM
(around 18,000–16,000 yr B.P .; cf. Goebel et al. 2000).
Microblades are somewhat later both to the west (in cen-
tral Siberia), appearing between 16,000 and 14,000 yr
B . P., and to the east (in eastern Siberia, the Russian Far
East, northeastern China, and Japan), appearing between
15,000 and 13,000 yr B.P . (Aikens and Akazawa 1996;
Goebel et al. 2000). In the maritime provinces of the
Russian Far East and in Japan, there is clear stratigraphic
evidence of the precedence of macroblade industries over
microblade industries, with the latter appearing around
15,000 yr B.P . In the Russian Far East, from the Amur
River basin southward, microblades continue in use into
early Holocene Mesolithic sites and are found in some
numbers in Early Neolithic sites as well, where they are
associated with ceramics. Similarly, in Japan microblades
continue in use into early JomÇn Mesolithic industries,
where they are also associated with early ceramics. It is
also worth noting that different technologies were uti-
lized for manufacturing these microblades, including both
conical and wedge-shaped cores (the latter formerly be-
ing termed Gobi or Campus cores). Although both forms
of technology occur throughout northeast Asia, includ-
ing two or three different forms of wedge-shaped
microblade production, conical cores tend to be more
frequent to the west and wedge-shaped cores more fre-
quent to the east (from Hokkaido to the northwest Pa-
cific coast of North America).
How can these data best be interpreted? If we as-
sume, for the sake of argument, that these technologies
do, in fact, reflect ethnicity on some level, then one pos-
sible interpretation is that macroblade industries reflect
European variants of anatomically modern people push-
ing eastward into the Baikal region and eventually the
Russian Far East, while microblade industries reflect
distinct, basically northern Asian variants of anatomi-
cally modern people, coming to occupy much of the
136
same country and eventually dominating northeast
China, Japan, Korea, and the Russian Far East. The al-
ternative is to view microblade technology as some-
thing invented by essentially Asian people that was then
adopted by essentially European people and carried by
them eastward, and possibly into the New World. This is
an alternative that may be politically appealing to
some, but it carries little basis in archaeological or bio-
logical fact.
What, then, about extreme northeastern Siberia
(Chukotka and Kamchatka), long held as the point of
origin for populations emigrating into Alaska and North
America? Only the Berelekh site, in the far northwestern
part of the region, and the Ushki site, in the far south-
eastern part of the region, have late Pleistocene dates.
At Berelekh, associations of artifacts with the late Pleis-
tocene mammoth remains are problematic, but radiocar-
bon dates range from 11,800 to 13,400 yr B .P . A few
“blade-like flakes” were found in situ, but the only
microblade core from the site was not (Mochanov and
Fedoseeva 1996). At Ushki, a microblade horizon (Fig-
ure 10.1) dated to around 10,800 yr B.P. is well estab-
lished. Below this was an occupation level containing
stemmed points without clear linkages elsewhere in
northeast Asia, as well as some macroblades and burins,
but reportedly no microblades (Dikov 1993). However,
Powers (1996) notes that a few microblades, but no
microblade cores, came from this older level, which dates
to around 14,300 yr B.P .
Finally, it is worth noting that, throughout northeast
Asia, large bifaces are associated with both macroblade
and microblade industries and offer little in the way of
diagnostic associations. Many of these probably repre-
sent blanks or preforms, while others are knives or other
bifacial tools that would poorly reflect either ethnicity
or environment (i.e., the hunting of specific taxa with
such tools).
Microblade Assemblages in Alaska:
Timing and Associations
Late Pleistocene Microblades in Alaska?
There is no question that some microblades have
been found in association with some of the earliest sites
in Alaska and the Yukon Territory (Figure 10.2). A few
microblades are associated with Bluefish Cave 2, in the
northern Yukon (Figure 10.3), but no microblade cores
were found, and their association with the Pleistocene
megafauna at the site dated to more than 13,000 yr B.P. is
David R. Yesner and Georges Pearson
at best problematical. Nearly 100 microblades as well as
wedge-shaped microblade cores were retrieved from the
lowest levels of the Healy Lake site in the Tanana River
valley of interior Alaska (Cook 1996). These levels pro-
duced two dates of 11,100 and 11,400 yr B.P.; most dates
fall in a range between 8,000 and 10,500 yr B.P., and a
specter of stratigraphic mixing has been raised here. A
number of microblades have also been found in the low-
est levels of the Swan Point site (Figure 10.4), also in
the Tanana valley, with dates around 11,700 yr B . P .
(Holmes et al. 1996; Holmes, personal communication,
2002), but these are associated with only a couple of
amorphous (non-wedge-shaped) microcores. At the Mesa
site in northern Alaska, a few microblades have also been
found, although a lack of stratigraphy at the site makes
association with Paleoindian materials difficult. Further-
more, only two dates at the site out of a dozen have pro-
duced late Pleistocene ages, and the hearths containing
microblades have not as yet been directly dated.
Thus, the early (i.e., Pleistocene) microblades re-
covered from Alaskan and Yukon sites tend to be found
in relatively small numbers, have problematical strati-
graphic associations and/or dates, and few associated
microblade cores. Many of the microblades, from the
Swan Point site, for example, might best be labeled
“blade-like flakes,” as have a few such items from the
lowest levels of the nearby Broken Mammoth site. Like
the lithics from the lowest levels of these sites more
generally, they are made from relatively poor materi-
als probably derived from river cobbles. This contrasts
strongly with later (early Holocene) assemblages that
contain not only abundant, systematic, and well-made
microblades, but significant numbers of wedge-shaped
microcores as well.
Goebel, Hoffecker, and Powers (Goebel et al. 1992;
Hoffecker et al. 1993) have labeled the earliest industries
of interior Alaska the Nenana Complex, based on the fact
that the first well-defined stratigraphic evidence for these
industries was recovered at the base of thick loess mantles
at the Dry Creek, Moose Creek, Walker Road, and other
sites in the Nenana River valley. Although the defining
features of this technocomplex are numerous, includ-
ing, for example, large planoconvex scraper-planes and
other diagnostic tools, two of its defining features are
the presence of macroblades and absence of microblades.
On that basis, its construction is similar to that of the
late Pleistocene Ustinovka industries of the Russian Far
East. However, for many it is difficult to accept an as-
semblage definition based even in part on the lack of a
diagnostic tool type.
Ethnic and Economic Models in the Peopling of the Americas 137

Figure 10.1. Cultural assemblage of Level VI at Ushki 1 (Dikov 1996; used by permission).
138
Figure 10.2. Microblade sites in Alaska and the Yukon Territory.
The Paleoarctic and Beringian Traditions:
The Nenana and Denali Complexes
Microblade industries from interior Alaska were
among the earliest evidence used to suggest a direct link-
age with early Siberian archaeology (Nelson 1935). The
Campus site, on the grounds of the University of Alaska
Fairbanks campus, also in the Tanana valley, had pro-
duced wedge-shaped cores and microblades reminiscent
of those from northeastern Asia (Figure 10.5). There were
significant problems of disturbance and mixing at the
site, but a few early dates, and the eventual discovery of
more such artifacts at other sites in the Tanana valley,
including Healy Lake, seemed to argue for a late Pleis-
tocene/early Holocene date. During the 1950s and early
1960s, however, the stage shifted to northwestern Alaska,
with the detailed work of Louis Giddings and his stu-
dent Douglas Anderson in the Kobuk and Noatak river
valleys. At the site of Onion Portage (Anderson 1988),
they found evidence for microblade and biface indus-
tries dated to around 8,000 yr B.P . (Figure 10.6), pre-
David R. Yesner and Georges Pearson
ceded by an earlier industry with macroblades but no
microblades that was labeled “Akmak.” Although there
were no firm dates on these earlier industries, Anderson
argued that they represented the descendants of caribou-
hunting populations occupying the interior of the Bering
Land Bridge as early as 15,000 yr B.P. These were parts
of an American Paleoarctic culture with ultimate Sibe-
rian roots, related to blade and biface industries farther
west. At the same time, microblade industries were be-
ing located throughout the North Slope region of Alaska,
most as surface finds without radiocarbon dates or good
stratigraphic associations.
With the work of Fred Hadleigh West, the stage once
again shifted back to the Tangle Lakes region of interior
Alaska, nestled in the Alaska Range to the southwest of
the Tanana valley. There, in a region that was glaciated
in the late Pleistocene, early industries are found in near-
surface contexts with thin soil development, with little
datable material and poor stratigraphic associations.
Originally thought to be late Pleistocene, the earliest
occupation of the region now appears to postdate 10,500
Ethnic and Economic Models in the Peopling of the Americas 139

and at least 21 wedge-shaped cores

(Figure 10.8). A 10,700 yr B.P . date has
been assigned to this assemblage
(Hoffecker et al. 1996), making it one
of the earliest Denali Complex dates,
and only 500 years younger than the
date from the Nenana Complex at the
same site. Indeed, there are some prob-
lems at the Dry Creek site with dating
reversals, possible mixing, and con-
tamination by fossil carbonates from
coal in the vicinity (Robert Thorson,
personal communication, 1999). How-
ever, the nearby Moose Creek site pro-
duced two microblade components, the
older of which dated to 10,500 yr B.P.
and the younger to 5,700 yr B.P . (Pear-
son 2000b). In addition, the newly
discovered microblade assemblage at
Gerstle River Quarry in the lower Tanana
valley is associated with hearth dates of
around 10,500 yr B.P. (Charles Holmes,
personal communication, 2000).
The site of Panguingue Creek in
the Nenana valley also produced an as-
semblage of Denali Complex materi-
als (Figure 10.9), containing 150
microblades and 10 cores, dated from
7,000 to 8,000 yr B.P. An earlier com-
plex at the site, dating from 9,800 to
10,200 yr B.P ., has not been assigned
Figure 10.3. Microblade cores, microblades, and angle burins from Bluefish Cave to a particular cultural tradition, but we
2, Yukon Territory (Ackerman 1996a; used by permission). believe that it represents a late mani-
festation of the Nenana Complex, with
yr B.P. The Amphitheater Mountain Complex, with its dates and technologies similar to those from Component
large bifaces, probably represents preforms/blanks re- 3 at the Broken Mammoth site (Holmes 1996; Yesner
lated to the localized quarrying of an important chert 1996b). Similarly, at the Chugwater site in the Tanana
source. The Denali Complex, more widely distributed, valley immediately south of Fairbanks, excavated in the
was defined by West (1967, 1981) as including large early 1980s, about 30 microblades were recovered and
bifaces, microblades, and wedge-shaped microblade “tentatively” associated with two radiocarbon dates of
cores (Figure 10.7). Many have sought to link these 9,000 and 9,500 yr B.P. (Lively 1996).
microblade industries with the American Paleoarctic cul-
ture defined by Anderson. “Persistent” and Derivative Microblade Industries:
Subsequent work in the Nenana and Tanana valleys Interior Alaska and Beyond
has greatly clarified the Denali Complex, but has cre-
ated additional problems in understanding both its spa- At the same time that early microblade assemblages
tiotemporal distribution and its adaptive milieu. In the were being cataloged from sites in the Tanana valley,
Nenana valley, sites such as Dry Creek produced a much such as Chugwater, Healy Lake, and various sites on the
larger sample of Denali Complex materials (Dry Creek tributary Delta River, it was becoming clear that, in the
II) than earlier Nenana Complex materials. At Dry Creek, same area, microblade assemblages had persisted well
Denali Complex materials include abundant microblades into the late Holocene. In order to clarify what was be-
140
Figure 10.4. Swan Point artifacts, including “microblade preparation flakes” from the lower component (Holmes et al. 1996).
coming known as the Late Denali Complex, Charles
Mobley undertook a reanalysis of the Campus site, which
had produced over 600 microblades and at least 40 micro-
blade cores, but with enigmatic dates. Mobley (1991,
1996) produced three dates ranging from 2,725 to 3,500
yr B.P. that he believed were validly associated with the
microblade material. Recent reexcavation of the site by
Pearson and Powers (2001) has produced corroborating
dates, but at least one early Holocene date as well.
To some degree, these issues involving the Late
Denali Complex have been clarified by more recent ex-
cavations in the middle Tanana valley to the south. Be-
ginning in 1989, work in the Shaw Creek area of the
David R. Yesner and Georges Pearson
middle Tanana River valley began to produce a large
amount of late Pleistocene and early Holocene archaeo-
logical data from deeply stratified sites. These sites are
embedded in large loess caps, largely free of problems
of cryoturbation, located on bedrock knobs at the junc-
tion of the Tanana valley and the Yukon-Tanana uplands.
At the Broken Mammoth site, two distinct lower hori-
zons were found at the base of a 2-m-thick loess cap,
one dated from 11,800 to 11,000 yr B.P . and the other
from 10,500 to 10,000 yr B.P . The assemblages contained
within both of these horizons can be related to the Nenana
Complex, including large planoconvex scraper-planes,
macroblades, and a number of unifacial and bifacial tool
Ethnic and Economic Models in the Peopling of the Americas 141

Figure 10.5. Artifacts from the Campus site, Tanana valley (Mobley 1996; used by permission).
142 David R. Yesner and Georges Pearson

Figure 10.6. Artifacts of the Akmak and Kobuk components from Onion Portage (West 1996a; used by permission).
Ethnic and Economic Models in the Peopling of the Americas 143

Figure 10.7. Denali Complex artifacts from the Phipps site, Tangle Lakes region (West et al. 1996; used by permission).
144 David R. Yesner and Georges Pearson

Figure 10.8. Denali Complex artifacts from Component II of the Dry Creek site (Hoffecker et al. 1996; used by permission).
Ethnic and Economic Models in the Peopling of the Americas
Figure 10.9. Panguingue Creek artifacts, including microblades and microcores (Goebel and Bigelow 1996; used by permission).
types. The Denali Complex is present at the site, but is
separated by at least 80 cm of sterile loess from the lower
Nenana Complex materials. A similar phenomenon is
found at the nearby Mead site, about 2 km to the north-
east. At both sites (and at the Swan Point site) there is an
enigmatic horizon dating to around 7,500 yr B.P . At Bro-
ken Mammoth, this horizon was associated with a large
hearth at the rear of the site terrace, with few directly
145
associated artifacts. For a time, it was assumed that the
microblade materials at Broken Mammoth might be as-
sociated with this date, which seemed to fit with the early
Holocene dates known elsewhere. However, it is now
clear that these materials are universally associated with
dates ranging from 2,000 to 4,500 yr B.P., thus confirm-
ing the reality of the Late Denali Complex. This leads to
the inference that microblade technologies persisted in
146
east-central Alaska for several thousand years after they
were abandoned in other areas of Alaska.
There is, furthermore, another wrinkle on the fold.
Since the time of Giddings’s early work in northwestern
Alaska, we have known that notched point industries
appeared in the mid-Holocene period of interior Alaska,
between around 6,500 and 4,000 yr B.P . These notched
point assemblages have been labeled the Northern Ar-
chaic, on the basis of similarities to notched point–domi-
nated assemblages from Canada and North America south
of the ice sheets, variously labeled the Shield Archaic,
Laurentian Archaic, and so on. The assumption was made
from the beginning that these reflected forested environ-
ments reclaimed from late Pleistocene tundra or tundra-
steppe. Recent data, however, have suggested that spruce
invaded the North Slope of Alaska by at least 8,000 yr
B . P., and the correlation between forested environments
and notched points is not what it was. Perhaps more in-
teresting is the fact that the larger sample of Northern
Archaic sites now known demonstrates that fully 50 per-
cent of such sites also contain microblade industries (Ben
Potter, personal communication, 1999). This pattern was
Figure 10.10. Artifacts from Layer III and below at Trail Creek Cave 2, Seward Peninsula (C. West 1996; used by permission).
David R. Yesner and Georges Pearson
first demonstrated at Minchumina Lake in interior
Alaska, where Holmes (1986) showed the co-existence
of these industries at later notched point sites. It is in
evidence at the Mead site in the middle Tanana valley,
with dates around 4,000 yr B.P ., and suggests that the
persistence of microblade technologies in interior Alaska
is a highly complex phenomenon.
Microblade assemblages also continue on the west
coast of Alaska in a number of locales. In the Bering Sea
area, slotted bone points for inset microblades (Figure
10.10) are found at Trail Creek caves (Larsen 1968).
Microblade and burin technologies are also common in
the Alaskan variant of the Arctic Small Tool tradition,
the Denbigh Complex originally identified by Giddings
(1964) from a group of sites from the Norton Sound re-
gion (Figure 10.11). The Denbigh Complex, dating to
about 4,000 B.P ., is often identified as an immigrant cul-
ture from eastern Siberia, related to Neolithic Chukotkan
cultures, and is often characterized as an early Eskimo
or proto-Eskimo culture. These microblade technologies
then disappear in the presumably descendant cultures of
the so-called Norton tradition.
Ethnic and Economic Models in the Peopling of the Americas
Farther south, in the Pacific coast region, there are
dates on microblade industries as early as 9,000 yr B.P.
at Ugashik Narrows and Graveyard Point on the north-
ern Alaska Peninsula. Similar microblade sites are known
farther to the northeast on the Kenai Peninsula (at Round
Mountain), in northern Cook Inlet (at Beluga Point), and
in the Matanuska valley (at Ravine Lake), but none have
been directly dated. On Kodiak Island and the eastern
Alaska Peninsula, macroblade industries dating to greater
than 8,000 yr B.P . give way to microblade technologies
that appear in the earliest variants of the Ocean Bay tra-
dition, again generally considered as ancestral to Alutiiq
or Pacific Eskimo. As farther north, these microblade
technologies disappear in later Ocean Bay sites. In both
regions, although more so in the southern Eskimo area,
ground slate technologies take precedence after micro-
blade technologies disappear; in the northern region,
other chipped-stone technologies also continue. In the
Aleutian Islands, the sequence begins with macroblade
sites dating again to greater than 8,000 yr B.P., including
Figure 10.11. Microblades in Denbigh (Arctic Small Tool tradition) materials from Cape Iyatayet, Alaska (Giddings 1964).
147
Anangula (Aigner 1977, 1978) and the Hog Island site
excavated recently by Knecht and Dumond. In a recent
analysis of the latter site, Dumond and Knecht (2000)
have suggested that there is a distinct bimodal distribu-
tion of the size of blade tools found there and that nearly
50 percent of these artifacts should best be labeled
microblades. Blades and blade-like flakes continue in the
mid-Holocene Transition culture of Unalaska Island, ex-
hibited at the sites of Margaret Bay and Amaknak Bridge
(Yesner and Mack 1989), disappearing in later phases of
Aleut culture (i.e., by 2,000 yr B.P .).
Finally, microblade cultures are very well repre-
sented on the early Holocene coast of south-central and
southeastern Alaska and coastal British Columbia
(Ackerman 1980). For a number of years, the age pat-
tern of these sites has been clear. In southeastern Alaska,
the sites date as early as 10,500 yr B.P ., for example, at
Ground Hog Bay (Figure 10.12), Hidden Falls (Figure
10.13), Chuck Lake, and On-Your-Knees Cave; on the
northern British Columbia coast they date to 9,500 yr
148
Figure 10.12. Lower component artifacts from Ground Hog Bay Site 2 (Ackerman 1996b; used by permission).
B . P.,
for example, at the Namu site; and on the Queen
Charlotte Islands they date to 9,000 yr B.P ., for example,
at the Lawn Point site. Although this distribution of dates
may be explained in part as a result of differential pat-
terns of coastal uplift and subsidence resulting from a
combination of isostatic and tectonic factors, the overall
trend raises at least the possibility of a north-to-south
migration of microblade-using peoples.
David R. Yesner and Georges Pearson
Binford and Bordes in the Tanana Valley:
Do Microblades Reflect Ethnicity or Ecology?
One possible interpretation of both the timing of the
appearance of microblade assemblages in Alaska and
their persistence in parts of interior Alaska is related to
ethnicity. In that view, for example, the Denali Complex
might represent a distinct ethnic group, replacing the
Ethnic and Economic Models in the Peopling of the Americas 149

Figure 10.13. Hidden Falls site artifacts, Baranof Island (Davis 1996; used by permission).
150
Nenana Complex people who had come to occupy that
country only 1,000 to 2,000 years earlier. If so, what eth-
nic group would they represent? In his book on Eskimos
and Aleuts, Dumond (1977) originally attributed micro-
blade industries to those groups. Others, however, have
attributed microblades to ancestral Athapaskan or Na-
Dene populations. Cook (1975), for example, has sug-
gested that at Healy Lake, the continuity of microblade
industries from at least 10,000 yr B . P . suggests that
Athapaskan ancestors can be traced back that far. Others
have not felt nearly so confident in drawing those kinds
of ethnic associations, noting that these microblade tech-
nologies disappear by 2,000 yr B.P ., to be replaced by
the so-called Athapaskan tradition of large, heavy cobble
tools, bone beamers, slate tchithos, and copper tools,
where available—all of which can be more directly linked
to historic Athapaskan populations. If the “proto-Na-
Dene” argument could be sustained, how would micro-
blades in early coastal assemblages be explained? One
way would be to suggest that there was a greater Na-Dene
contribution to early populations in the Aleut and Alutiiq
regions, at least, than is often recognized, a position that
can be supported through the greater “Northwest coast”–
like appearance of early human skeletal remains from
both the Aleutians and Kodiak Island. An alternative
possibility is that both Na-Dene and Eskimo-Aleut popu-
lations were descended, perhaps relatively recently, from
an ancestral group either in Alaska or northeast Asia.
Perhaps the strongest area suggesting an ethnic cor-
relation with microblade technologies is in southeastern
Alaska and the Pacific Northwest. Tlingit and possibly
Haida peoples who currently reside in southeastern
Alaska, while not Athapaskan, are considered part of
the larger Na-Dene linguistic family. It is not unreason-
able to suggest that the distribution of sites in this region
reflects a southern migration of Na-Dene peoples from
interior Alaska after 10,000 yr B. P . What would have
stimulated such a southern migration? One factor could
have been the increasing attractiveness of that region,
where glaciation had fully receded and modern sea mam-
mal, fish, and shellfish populations had probably been
established. Another could have been the increasingly
unattractive aspects of the interior Alaskan environ-
ment, particularly after the invasion of spruce forest by
9,000 yr B.P., linked to a probable regional extinction of
the northern Eurasian bison and wapiti, animals that were
the apparent mainstay of the economy of early interior
Alaskan peoples.
An alternative argument, however, in explaining the
distribution of microblade assemblages is to focus on
David R. Yesner and Georges Pearson
function rather than ethnicity. What, in fact, was the func-
tion of northern microblade industries? On the basis of
numerous recovered specimens, we know that
microblades were largely inset into slotted bone, ivory,
or antler points in northern Eurasia and Siberia (Chard
1974; Derev’anko 1998). In fact, in Alaska, although
microblades inset into slotted bone points have not been
recovered, some examples of early Holocene slotted bone
points themselves have been recovered, for example,
from the Lime Hills caves (Ackerman 1996b) and from
the Trail Creek caves (Larsen 1968). Burins and gravers
recovered from many Alaskan microblade sites may have
been used in the slotting process.
In discussing the function of microblades, both in
interior Alaska and on the Northwest coast, Ames and
Maschner (1999:71) have suggested that
Microblade technology basically is a set of related
methods to produce the maximum number of cutting
edges from small pieces of raw material, such as small
cobbles or pebbles. It is also a method of producing
sharp-edged flakes that can easily be hafted (and re-
moved when dulled) or mounted on organic (wood,
bone, antler) tools.
Thus, they end up agreeing with the likelihood that micro-
blades were “mounted as side-blades on bone and ivory
projectiles” in Beringia (Ames and Maschner 1999:71),
but they also agree that they may have been used in a
different fashion on the Northwest coast, being hafted
into bone and antler handles for use as cutting and pierc-
ing tools, as described by Fladmark (1986). Elston et al.
(1997) also suggest that in Neolithic China, modified,
end-hafted microblades were sometimes used as scrap-
ers, drills, knives, and projectile points. However, they
conclude that this was probably the exception rather than
the rule.
If microblades were, in fact, predominantly used as
hunting weapons, they probably served a similar func-
tion to barbed harpoons, in the sense of increasing the
damage and killing power of bone or ivory weapons, al-
though they might lack the raw killing power or blood-
letting potential of large stone-tipped projectiles. Thus,
it may be that their use was related as much to a lack of
available high-quality stone sources as to their ability to
bring down large game animals. Eventually, their demise
may have been related to increased access to such high-
quality lithic sources, as well as introduction of alterna-
tive technologies, such as the toggling harpoons at sea
or, eventually, the bow and arrow on land.
Like many other northern technologies, microblade
systems are labor intensive to produce, but also create
Ethnic and Economic Models in the Peopling of the Americas
benefits not realizable by alternative systems. Access
to high-quality stone resources may have been one of
the key problems affecting early migrants across
Beringia. The earliest levels at the Broken Mammoth site
show convincingly that these earliest colonists had
little knowledge of distant, higher-quality lithic
sources (such as Livengood cherts or, especially, Batza
Tena obsidians). They focused in particular on the use
of local quartz ventifacts, which can be found in blow-
outs or cutbanks, and the high proportion of cortex flakes
on other materials shows that they made intensive use of
relatively small river cobbles as core materials (Yesner
2000). The use of mammoth ivory, in particular, was
probably undertaken in compensation for a lack of such
high-quality stone material, particularly when the ivory
was still abundant on the landscape, or again in blow-
outs or cutbanks, since local mammoth extinction prob-
ably occurred no earlier than 13,500 yr B . P . (Yesner
2001). The visibility and availability of these materials
would have been particularly important in the winter-
time, when provisioning lithic resources would have been
very problematical, especially obtaining river cobbles
from frozen streams or under snow. Such ivory, antler,
and bone tools were probably used initially as foreshafts
as a part of complex dart technologies (Nenana Com-
plex) and later as slotted points for inset microblades
(Denali Complex).
In addition, Elston and Brantingham (this volume)
have cited a number of other possible functional ben-
efits of microblade technologies. Maintenance costs are
usually relatively low for such technologies, in the sense
of obviating the necessity for frequent replacement or
resharpening of stone projectiles. They can be reused
quickly if broken, and batches of them can be easily trans-
ported to accomplish that replacement, since they are
lighter in weight (Bamforth and Bleed 1997). If replace-
ment cannot be accomplished because of limited time or
dangerous quarry, broken inset bone points may be more
effective than broken stone-tipped spears. Even if the
inset microblades fall out, the remaining bone point might
be more effective than a broken spear, unless the latter
had a bone foreshaft that could substitute for a spear
point. Perhaps women could also more effectively use
such technologies nearer to home and for smaller game
hunting, particularly if men were away on large game
hunting expeditions. In this light it is interesting to note
that a large proportion of the fauna at Broken Mammoth
consisted of small game and birds, although organic tech-
nologies such as nets could have been used for some of
the latter.
151
Perhaps most important, bone, antler, and particu-
larly ivory are less brittle than stone and thus less likely
to be damaged by use or transport. This is particularly
true under extremely cold conditions, that is, below zero
degrees Celsius, the kind of conditions that predominated
in Beringia, particularly at the winter sites that seem to
predominate in lowland settings (Yesner 1996b). Whether
that can entirely explain the more northerly distribution
of microblade industries is not clear, however, because
they do penetrate as far as the central British Columbia
coast. However, it could certainly be argued that this is a
conservative retention of an adaptive trait that was given
up after populations migrated a certain distance south,
or when Holocene temperatures warmed sufficiently to
make the benefits of a more cold-resistant technology
not worth the additional cost.
Were microblade technologies related to the hunt-
ing of specific animal taxa? Holmes (1986) has argued
that they were and specifically that microblades were
particularly useful in hunting the northern Eurasian bi-
son as a large herd animal. This thesis is particularly inter-
esting in regard to the known persistence of bison and
wapiti in the Tanana valley. Middle to late Holocene bi-
son specimens have been recovered from the Delta River
Overlook site and from the Broken Mammoth site, while
mid-Holocene wapiti have been recovered from the
Gerstle River Quarry site and the Silver Fox paleonto-
logical site. It is possible that the Tanana valley served
as a refugium for these taxa that, unlike the mammoth
and horse that became extinct, had a tolerance for the
open parkland-type forest that probably existed in this
region of interior Alaska until the late Holocene, when
the modern closed boreal forest developed. However, the
middle to late Holocene bison in interior Alaska repre-
sent the smaller wood bison rather than the larger Pleis-
tocene bison, which may represent a repopulation of
bison after local extinction in the early Holocene, and
the late Holocene wapiti may be a smaller variant of the
Pleistocene form as well. Furthermore, it has been sug-
gested that, with the local extinction of the northern Eur-
asian bison and wapiti in the early Holocene, a shift was
made from the bison-wapiti hunting of the Nenana Com-
plex people to caribou hunting by the Denali Complex
people. The latter appears to have been the dominant
hunting pattern in interior Alaska in historic times, until
moose numbers began to increase within the last century
or so (Yesner 1989).
Certainly it is true that, where faunal remains have
been preserved, microblade assemblages have been as-
sociated with a wide diversity of fauna, not only in the
152
Tanana valley sites, but also in a number of early cave
sites in Alaska and the Yukon (Bluefish caves, Porcu-
pine caves, Trail Creek caves, Lime Hills caves) and at
numerous sites in Siberia, the Russian Far East, and Ja-
pan. Nevertheless, the notion has persisted that the basis
of microblade technologies has some relationship to eco-
logical or other functional factors, rather than simply
ethnicity. In a sense, this represents the Binford-Bordes
argument about Mousterian technologies transferred to
the Tanana valley. According to the Bordes argument,
stone tool variability should largely reflect ethnicity, as
was suggested above for Alaskan microblade industries.
According to the Binfordian argument, stone tool vari-
ability should reflect instead prehistoric human behav-
ior, as affected, for example, by changing patterns of
seasonal site occupation, species hunted, and other site-
specific activities undertaken. Applying this argument
to the Alaskan situation, it has been suggested that the
appearance of microblades in some late Pleistocene/
early Holocene sites or components and not in others is
reflective of such activity differences, rather than differ-
ential occupation by discrete human (i.e., “ethnic”)
groups. Thus, for example, Tanana valley sites such as
Broken Mammoth that are essentially microblade-free
in the late Pleistocene and early Holocene would be
explained as short-term hunting camps with a limited
range of activities, while other sites of the same date that
contain microblades, such as Healy Lake, would be ex-
plained as longer-term occupied village sites, contain-
ing evidence of a wider diversity of activities. Rather
than being a result of mixing or some taphonomic pro-
cess, then, the presence of microblades in an early con-
text at that site would be seen as a valid reflection of
occupational patterns.
Are there other data that can be used to support or
challenge this hypothesis? At the Broken Mammoth site,
the number and depth of hearths, the number of lithic
workshops, and the diversity of lithics, organic tools, and
faunal remains all seem to suggest a longer occupation
than would normally be associated with a short-term
hunting camp. Tool manufacture and resharpening, cach-
ing behavior for both artifacts and meat sections, both
primary and secondary butchering, and both hide prepa-
ration and skin sewing are reflected by the tools and
fauna, in addition to scanning and retrieval of game, again
suggestive of a longer-term encampment. This conclu-
sion makes it difficult to argue that the lack of
microblades at this site or similar sites results from ac-
tivity-specific assemblage specialization (cf. Yesner
1994, 1996b, 2000).
David R. Yesner and Georges Pearson
Microblade Assemblage Organization at the
Broken Mammoth Site
During seven field seasons (1990, 1991, 1992, 1993,
1998, 2000, 2002) at the Broken Mammoth site (Figures
10.14 and 10.15) more than 8,000 microblades were re-
covered (Figure 10.16), along with at least 40 examples
of wedge-shaped microblade cores or core fragments
from which they were derived, plus another 20 examples
of core tablet rejuvenation flakes. Seventy-five percent
of the microblades are snapped or broken, about half as
a result of hinged fracture during the manufacturing pro-
cess, and the rest either in a later stage of the manufac-
turing process, during burinization, or as a result of use.
None of the microblades show edge retouch or grinding,
and only a dozen definitive examples of burinization have
come to light, along with an equal number of burin spalls.
Neither seems to have been a major feature of microblade
technology, reinforcing the notion that the use of micro-
blades as insets in slotted bone tools was, in fact, the
primary function. This is also reflected by initial micro-
scopic examination of the microblades (Nina Kononenko,
personal communication, 2002).
Large concentrations of microblades were clustered
in specific areas of the site in Cultural Zone 2 as defined
by Yesner (1996b) and Holmes (1996). At the front edge
of the site, numerous microblades were recovered, some
literally falling out of the bluff face (one of the original
keys to discovery of the site). It has been estimated that
at least half of the original number of microblades and
microcores from this area was lost to a stone-quarrying
and road-construction project. A second major area of
microblade concentration was in the northeast portion
of the site (Figure 10.17). In both of these areas, micro-
blades were closely associated with hearths or hearth
smears and some faunal remains. The third, and largest,
concentration of microblades, excavated over two field
seasons (1993 and 1998), was found in the southwestern
portion of the site, without any hearth associations and
few faunal remains. There are some interesting differ-
ences in the patterning of these three major microblade
associations. In the first two cases, there is a higher di-
versity of source materials used for microblade produc-
tion, including obsidian and a wider variety of cherts,
while in the last case cherts from the Landmark Gap area
of the Tangle Lakes region predominate. Second, the ratio
of microcores to microblades is nearly 10 times higher
in the last case (around 1:50 as opposed to 1:500). This
gives rise to the overall impression that the last case, in-
volving the largest concentration, represents a “purer”
Ethnic and Economic Models in the Peopling of the Americas
Figure 10.14. Overview of the Broken Mammoth site, Big Delta, Alaska.
single-episode workshop activity, while the first two
cases may represent palimpsests of repeated workshop
activities associated with hearths and/or a combination
of microblade manufacture with other activities. Future
refitting of these microblades will help to unravel the
conflations of episodic tool manufacture and use that
seem to be reflected here. In any case, it is hard to deny
the continued importance of microblade technologies
here until as late as 2,000 yr B.P.
Discussion
Whether or not a pre-Paleoindian stage will ulti-
mately be demonstrated to have occurred in the Ameri-
cas, it is clear that, as Meltzer (1995) has suggested, it
may not have been long-lived nor have left clear descen-
dants in the archaeological record. The widespread
Paleoindian cultures of the Americas are characterized
by regionally specific diagnostic artifacts, including
fluted points in North America and fishtail points and
stemmed El Jobo points in South America. Somewhere—
153
perhaps in lower Central America—was the meeting
ground of these technologies. To the north, fluted points
have been recovered from the North Slope of Alaska,
but their dating is uncertain (Reanier 1995). Large lan-
ceolate points also occur on the North Slope, including
the famous Mesa points, but the majority of these, at least,
appear to be early Holocene in date, as do the few ex-
amples of lanceolate and fluted or “pseudo-fluted” points
recovered from interior Alaska (as at Dry Creek II, Moose
Creek, Healy Lake, and Broken Mammoth; cf. Pearson
2000a). The linkage of the Mesa lanceolate points to
the Old Cordilleran construct, originating to the south,
was suggested by Clark (1991), although this, too, re-
mains to be demonstrated. In any case, it has often been
suggested that these classical Paleoindian technologies
involved the use of macroblades and macroblade reduc-
tion for creating projectile points and other tools (cf.
West 1981, 1996b) and are thus “Aurignacoid” in
Muller-Beck’s (1967) older terminology. In Alaska, only
the Aleutian Islands demonstrate, from the beginning,
a concentration on macroblade technologies with little
154 David R. Yesner and Georges Pearson

modification other than burinization, marginal retouch, eastern Alaska Peninsula not apparent from the modern
and the manufacture of unifacial scrapers and knives distribution of those people, but perhaps reinforced by
(Aigner 1977, 1978). The ultimate source of those cul- the skeletal evidence. If this were the case, it would con-
tures may, in fact, be coastal cultures of the Russian veniently meld with the tripartite model of peopling of
Far East such as Ustinovka; in any case, they univer- the Americas suggested by Greenberg et al. (1986), in
sally seem to date to around 8,000 years ago and gradu- which the Na-Dene represent a distinct population, re-
ally disappear by mid-Holocene times. However, sulting from a later separation from founding Paleoindian
macroblade technologies (and large,
unifacial tools) are also definitively
associated with the earliest occupa-
tions of interior Alaska by the Nenana
Complex. Goebel et al. (1992) and
Carlson (1996) have suggested strong
linkages between the Nenana Complex
and Paleoindian industries to the south.
Some microblades do apparently ap-
pear in the Nenana Complex, but in a
spotty fashion and without accompa-
nying microblade cores. A systematic
microblade production system seems
to be early Holocene in age, appear-
ing first in interior Alaska and at a
few sites in southeastern Alaska.
Subsequently, microblade assem-
blages become more widespread in
both the interior and coastal regions,
disappearing in the mid-Holocene
everywhere except the Tanana val-
ley region of east-central Alaska (cf.
Pearson 2000b; Yesner 1996b).
Bryan’s (1969) original point, of
course, was that the ancestors of fluted
point technologies—which he did not
derive from specific Alaskan industries
(the Nenana Complex being unknown
at the time)—may have come to oc-
cupy areas to the south of the ice sheets
before the LGM, while later micro-
blade-using invaders were blocked by
those ice sheets from more southerly
incursions, perhaps skirting around the
western edge of the ice sheets as far as
Puget Sound. This still remains a vi-
able model if, in fact, that earlier peo-
pling did take place.
An equally valid reconstruction,
however, would be to establish a link-
age between microblades and Na-Dene
peoples, including a possible input into
early peopling of Kodiak Island and the Figure 10.15. Stratigraphy of the Broken Mammoth site.
Ethnic and Economic Models in the Peopling of the Americas 155

Figure 10.16. Broken Mammoth site artifact assemblage (Holmes 1996; used by permission).
156 David R. Yesner and Georges Pearson

stocks, either in Asia or North America.

The ultimate source of this population is
suggested both by linguistic ties to a larger
Dene-Caucasian language family with roots
in southwest Asia and by genetic data based
in particular on Y-chromosome studies that
point in the same direction (Zegura 1999).
Ossenberg (1994) agrees on the distinctive-
ness of Na-Dene and argues (on the ba-
sis of a suite of cranial markers) for a
greater linkage with Aleut than is com-
monly recognized, reinforcing the notion
of some historical connection in that direc-
tion, either by separation from a common
stock or by later admixture (cf. Yesner and
Mack 1989).
One interesting implication of such a
model would be at the southern end of the
microblade distribution. Although the cen-
tral British Columbia coast is generally rec-
ognized as that point, there have, in fact,
been some microblade assemblages recov-
ered farther south in Washington, Oregon,
and northern California, and there are
Athapaskan outlier populations on the Or-
egon and northern California coasts. Could
it be that, in the early Holocene, the south- Figure 10.17. Excavation areas at the Broken Mammoth site.
ernmost extension of Na-Dene lay that far
south? If so, then early Holocene human remains from useful had changed, the animals that they were used to
this region (e.g., Kennewick, Spirit Cave, Wizard Beach) hunt had become locally extinct, the cost of the system
with distinctive physical character may relate not to some had become too great once trade networks made lithic
hypothetical early coastal migration, but to a slightly later materials more widely available, or more specific local
migration of Na-Dene people into the U.S. Northwest. It technologies were adopted.
might also help to explain some of the anomalous blood Finally, if, in fact, it should be demonstrated that
type distributions in that region, usually attributed to microblade production was, after all, a part of the Nenana
founder effect or genetic drift. Complex, for example, as a variant associated with
In any case, can we link microblades with ethnicity longer-term village occupations, it would present some
in such a facile way? If not, then we are left with little essential paradoxes. It would suggest one of the three
contribution of microblade distributions to the question following scenarios: that the proposed linkage between
of peopling of the Americas, except to say that it ap- the Nenana Complex and Paleoindian cultures farther
pears to be a technology adopted widely in the larger south is faulty and must be reevaluated or discarded; that
Beringian region—from Dyuktai Cave in eastern Sibe- the Nenana Complex groups were, in fact, ancestral
ria to Bluefish caves in the Yukon—and farther south Paleoindians, but somehow lost the microblade technol-
along the Northwest coast. It could still represent a basal ogy on their way south; or that microblade technologies
technology characteristic of a wide variety of ethnic were simply adopted in Beringia and then discarded when
groups diverging later in Alaska. Alternatively, without they were no longer economically viable.
an ethnic referent, it could simply be a technology widely Some support for the last of these possibilities is
in use by a number of groups through stylistic diffusion. suggested by the organic tools associated with the Bro-
Then, at some point, these technologies were variously ken Mammoth site (Yesner 1996b; Yesner et al. 2000).
replaced by harpoons, bows and arrows, or other arma- As of the summer of 2002, eight examples of mammoth
ture systems as the conditions that made microblades ivory “rods” have been recovered from the Broken Mam-
Ethnic and Economic Models in the Peopling of the Americas
moth site, one from the nearby Mead site, and one from
the Gerstle River Quarry site, also to the south in the
Tanana valley. Similar artifacts have also been found
farther north in the Tanana valley, in the so-called
Fairbanks “mucks” (gold dredging deposits). These rods
show large beveled surfaces, characteristic cross-hatch-
ing, and other features linking them to similar finds from
the Ritchie-Roberts Clovis cache in East Wenatchee,
Washington, and other Paleoindian sites as far south as
Florida. They may represent parts of complex dart sys-
tems involving mammoth ivory foreshafts (Pearson
1999), and this material may have been critical to Paleo-
indian large dart weapon systems for megafaunal hunt-
ing. It may also have been uniquely available while
mammoths were still around to be hunted and for some
time after their extinction as mammoth ivory continued
to be exposed in more open grassland or parkland envi-
ronments (Yesner 2001). Eventually, this technology was
replaced by notched or stemmed projectiles farther south,
and by slotted bone points with inset microblades in the
north, either as a result of simple stylistic differences or
the applicability of microblades to hunting caribou or
some other species unique to the north. Of course, if none
of the above are true, it may simply be that the earliest
colonizers of the New World, as argued above, required
maximum flexibility with the use of a great variety of
weapons systems (as well as a broad-spectrum subsis-
tence adaptation). In that case, when they became more
specialized farther south as mammoth hunters, they may
have dropped that flexibility (including microblade pro-
duction systems) in favor of more specialized dart sys-
tems, including the infamous fluted point.
Conclusion
Microblade assemblages in greater Beringia have
been viewed as diagnostic tools left by discrete ethnic
groups and as such have formed an important part of
models of peopling of the Americas. On the other hand,
microblades have also been viewed simply as a technol-
ogy that was evolved for beneficial aspects in hunting
as-yet unspecified taxa in cold, northern environments,
where lithics were scarce, particularly in winter. A Bordes-
Binford type argument, revolving around ethnicity ver-
sus functionality of microblade assemblages, has led to
some strongly differing interpretations of the earliest sites
in interior Alaska. Since there are strong arguments to
be made on both sides of this question, it is not obvious
that it will be resolved anytime soon.
There is some room for compromise, however, in
the sense that these interpretations are not necessarily
157
mutually exclusive. It may be, for example, while
microblade technologies were not totally ignored by
earlier groups such as the Nenana Complex peoples who
may be linked to Paleoindian/ancestral Amerindian
groups to the south, that the Denali Complex peoples,
possibly representing ancestral Na-Dene, did find slot-
ted bone technologies with inset microblades more at-
tractive for their purposes. It may also be that those
purposes (e.g., caribou hunting?) became more impor-
tant after the extinction of taxa, like bison and wapiti, on
which earlier Nenana Complex people placed greater
reliance. Perhaps those technologies were only useful,
for example, until more forested conditions began to
reduce the importance of caribou herds. On the coast,
they may have been replaced by other more effective
technologies for sea-mammal hunting. And perhaps they
disappeared to the south, beyond the limit for which hunt-
ing any of these taxa was important. A great deal more
data, including associations with fauna, will be neces-
sary before anything further can be concluded about the
meaning of microblades in a northern context and their
role in deciphering the so-far intractable problem of peo-
pling of the Americas.
Acknowledgments
The work at the Broken Mammoth site was facili-
tated by grants from the National Science Foundation
(Office of Polar Programs, Social Science Division),
National Geographic Society, Alaska State Historic Pres-
ervation Office, and University of Alaska Anchorage.
Pearson’s work at the Broken Mammoth, Moose Creek,
and Campus sites was supported by the University of
Alaska Fairbanks. Charles Holmes, Richard VanderHoek,
Daniel Stone, Nina Kononenko, and other colleagues in
the Broken Mammoth project generously shared their
ideas and insights into microblade assemblage pattern-
ing. Jacinthe Messier prepared several figures and digi-
tized others for publication. Robert Elston and Steve
Kuhn suggested the idea of the paper. Miscellaneous re-
viewers contributed helpful comments. We thank all of
these and others who have contributed to our knowledge
of the early peopling of Beringia.
References
Ackerman, R. N.
1980 Microblades and Prehistory: Technological and
Cultural Considerations for the North Pacific
Coast. In Early Native Americans. D. L. Browman,
ed. Pp. 189–197. The Hague: Mouton.
158
1996a Ground Hog Bay, Site 2. In American Beginnings:
The Prehistory and Paleoecology of Beringia. F.
H. West, ed. Pp. 424–430. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
1996b Cave 1, Lime Hills. In American Beginnings: The
Prehistory and Paleoecology of Beringia. F. H.
West, ed. Pp. 470–477. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Aigner, J. S.
1977 Anangula: An 8,500 B.P. Coastal Occupation in
the Aleutian Islands. Quartar 27/28:65–102.
1978 The Lithic Remains from Anangula, an 8,500 Year
Old Aleut Coastal Village. Urgeschichtliche
Materialhefte No. 3. Tübingen, Germany: Institut
für Urgeschichte der Universität Tübingen.
Aikens, C. M., and T. Akazawa
1996 The Pleistocene-Holocene Transition in Japan and
Adjacent Northeast Asia. In Humans at the End of
the Ice Age: The Archaeology of the Pleistocene-
Holocene Transition. L. G. Straus, B. V. Eriksen,
J. M. Erlandson, and D. R. Yesner, eds. Pp. 215–
228. New York: Plenum.
Ames, K. M., and H. D. G. Maschner
1999 The Peoples of the Northwest Coast: Their Archae-
ology and Prehistory. New York: Thames and
Hudson.
Anderson, D. D.
1988 Onion Portage: The Archaeology of a Stratified
Site from the Kobuk River, Northwest Alaska. An-
thropological Papers of the University of Alaska
No. 22. Fairbanks: University of Alaska Press.
Bamforth, D. B., and P. Bleed
1997 Technology, Flaked Stone Technology, and Risk.
In Rediscovering Darwin: Evolutionary Theory
and Archeological Explanation. C. M. Barton and
G. A. Clark, eds. Pp. 109–140. Archeological Pa-
pers of the American Anthropological Association,
7. Arlington, Va.: American Anthropological As-
sociation.
Bryan, A. L.
1965 Paleo-American Prehistory. Occasional Papers of
the Idaho State University Museum No. 16.
Pocatello.
1968 Early Man in Western Canada: A Critical Review.
In Early Man in Western North America. C. Irwin-
David R. Yesner and Georges Pearson
Williams, ed. Pp. 70–77. Eastern New Mexico
University Contributions in Anthropology 1(4).
Las Vegas: Eastern New Mexico Paleoindian In-
stitute.
1969 Early Man in America and the Late Pleistocene
Chronology of Western Canada and Alaska. Cur-
rent Anthropology 10:339–365.
1977 Developmental Stages and Technological Tradi-
tions. In Amerinds and Their Paleoenvironments
in Northeastern North America. W. S. Newman
and B. Salwen, eds. Pp. 355–368. Annals of the
New York Academy of Sciences No. 288. New
York.
Carlson, R. L.
1996 Introduction to Early Human Occupation in Brit-
ish Columbia. In Early Human Occupation in Brit-
ish Columbia. R. L. Carlson and L. D. Bona, eds.
Pp. 3–10. Vancouver: UBC Press.
Chard, C. S.
1974 Northeast Asia in Prehistory. Madison: University
of Wisconsin Press.
Clark, D. W.
1991 Western Subarctic Prehistory. Archaeological
Survey of Canada, Canadian Museum of Civiliza-
tion, Hull.
Cook, J.
1975 Archaeology of Interior Alaska. Western Canadian
Journal of Anthropology 5:125–133.
1996 Healy Lake. In American Beginnings: The Prehis-
tory and Paleoecology of Beringia. F. H. West,
ed. Pp. 323– 327. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Davis, S. D.
1996 Hidden Falls. In American Beginnings: The Pre-
history and Paleoecology of Beringia. F. H. West,
ed. Pp. 413–423. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Derev’anko, A. P., ed.
1998 The Paleolithic of Siberia. Urbana: University of
Illinois Press.
Dikov, N. N. (trans. R. L. Bland)
1993 Asia at the Juncture with America in Antiquity:
The Stone Age of the Chuckchi Peninsula. St. Pe-
tersburg: Nauka.
Ethnic and Economic Models in the Peopling of the Americas
Dillehay, T. D.
1989 Researching Early Sites. In Monte Verde: A Late
Pleistocene Settlement in Chile, vol. I: Paleo-
environment and Site Context. T. D. Dillehay, ed.
Pp. 1–26. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institu-
tion Press.
2000 The Settlement of the Americas: A New Prehistory.
New York: Basic Books.
Dixon, E. J.
1999 Bones, Boats, and Bison: Archaeology and the
First Colonization of Western North America.
Albuquerque: University of New Mexico
Press.
Dumond, D. E.
1977 The Eskimos and Aleuts. New York: Thames and
Hudson.
Dumond, D. E., and R. A. Knecht
2000 Another Early Blade Site in the Eastern Aleutians.
Paper presented to the Alaska Anthropological
Association, Anchorage.
Elston, R. G., C. Xu, D. B. Madsen, K. Zhong, R. L.
Bettinger, J. Li, P. J. Brantingham, H. Wang, and J. Yu
1997 New Dates for the North China Mesolithic. Antiq-
uity 71:985–993.
Fladmark, K. R.
1986 British Columbia Prehistory. Archaeological Sur-
vey of Canada, Canadian Museum of Civilization,
Hull.
Giddings, J. L.
1964 The Archaeology of Cape Denbigh. Providence:
Brown University Press.
Goebel, T.
1993 Middle to Upper Palaeolithic Transition in Sibe-
ria. Ann Arbor, Mich.: University Microfilms, Bell
and Howell.
Goebel, T., and N. H. Bigelow
1996 Panguingue Creek. In American Beginnings: The
Prehistory and Paleoecology of Beringia. F. H.
West, ed. Pp. 366–370. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Goebel, T., W. R. Powers, and N. H. Bigelow
1992 The Nenana Complex of Alaska and Clovis Ori-
159
gins. In Clovis: Origins and Adaptations. R.
Bonnichsen and K. L. Turnmire, eds. Pp. 49–80.
Center for the Study of the First Americans.
Corvallis: Oregon State University.
Goebel, T., M. R. Waters, I. Buvit, M. V. Konstantinov,
and A. V. Konstantinov
2000 Studenoe-2 and the Origins of Microblade Tech-
nologies in the Transbaikal, Siberia. Antiquity
74:567–575.
Grayson, D. K.
1984 Explaining Pleistocene Extinctions: Thoughts on
the Structure of a Debate. In Quaternary Extinc-
tions: A Prehistoric Revolution. P. S. Martin and
R. G. Klein, eds. Pp. 807–823. Tucson: Univer-
sity of Arizona Press.
1991 Late Pleistocene Mammalian Extinctions in North
America: Taxonomy, Chronology, and Explana-
tions. Journal of World Prehistory 5:193–231.
Greenberg, J. L., C. G. Turner II, and S. L. Zegura
1986 The Settlement of the Americas: A Comparison
of the Linguistic, Dental, and Genetic Evidence.
Current Anthropology 27:477–497.
Guthrie, R. D.
1984 Mosaics, Allelochemics, and Nutrients: An Eco-
logical Theory of Late Pleistocene Megafaunal
Extinctions. In Quaternary Extinctions: A Prehis-
toric Revolution. P. S. Martin and R. G. Klein, eds.
Pp. 259–298. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Hoffecker, J. F., W. R. Powers, and N. H. Bigelow
1996 Dry Creek. In American Beginnings: The Prehis-
tory and Paleoecology of Beringia. F. H. West,
ed. Pp. 343–352. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Hoffecker, J. F., W. R. Powers, and T. Goebel
1993 The Colonization of Beringia and the Peopling of
the New World. Science 259:46–53.
Holmes, C. E.
1986 Lake Minchumina Prehistory: An Archaeological
Analysis. Aurora, No. 2. Alaska Anthropological
Association, Anchorage.
1996 Broken Mammoth. In American Beginnings: The
Prehistory and Paleoecology of Beringia. F. H.
West, ed. Pp. 312–318. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
160
Holmes, C. E., R. VanderHoek, and T. E. Dilley
1996 Swan Point. In American Beginnings: The Prehis-
tory and Paleoecology of Beringia. F. H. West,
ed. Pp. 319–323. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Hopkins, D. M.
1959 The Cenozoic History of the Bering Land Bridge
(Alaska). Science 129:1519–1528.
1967 The Cenozoic History of Beringia: A Synthesis.
In The Bering Land Bridge. D. M. Hopkins, ed.
Pp. 451–484. Stanford: Stanford University
Press.
Krieger, A. D.
1964 Early Man in the New World. In Prehistoric Man
in the New World. J. D. Jennings and E. Norbeck,
eds. Pp. 23–84. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Kuzmin, Y. V., and L. A. Orlova
1998 Radiocarbon Chronology of the Siberian Palaeo-
lithic. Journal of World Prehistory 12(1): 1–53.
Larsen, H.
1968 Trail Creek: Final Report on the Excavation of Two
Caves on Seward Peninsula, Alaska. Acta Arctica
15:1–79.
Lively, R. A.
1996 Chugwater. In American Beginnings: The Prehis-
tory and Paleoecology of Beringia. F. H. West,
ed. Pp. 308– 311. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
MacNeish, R. S.
1976 Early Man in the New World. American Scientist
63:316–327.
Martin, P. S.
1964 Prehistoric Overkill. In Pleistocene Extinctions:
The Search for a Cause. P. S. Martin and H. E.
Wright, Jr., eds. Pp. 75–120. New Haven: Yale
University Press.
Meltzer, David J.
1995 Clocking the First Americans. Annual Review of
Anthropology 24:21–45.
Mobley, C. M.
1991 The Campus Site: A Prehistoric Camp at Fair-
David R. Yesner and Georges Pearson
banks, Alaska. Fairbanks: University of Alaska
Press.
1996 Campus Site. In American Beginnings: The Pre-
history and Paleoecology of Beringia. F. H. West,
ed. Pp. 296–302. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Mochanov, Y. A., and S. A. Fedoseeva
1996 Berelekh, Allakhovsk Region. In American Begin-
nings: The Prehistory and Paleoecology of
Beringia. F. H. West, ed. Pp. 218–221. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Mosimann, J. E., and P. S. Martin
1975 Simulating Overkill by Paleoindians. American
Scientist 63:304–313.
Muller-Beck, H.
1967 On Migrations of Hunters across the Bering Land
Bridge in the Upper Pleistocene. In The Bering
Land Bridge. D. M. Hopkins, ed. Pp. 373–408.
Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Nelson, N. C.
1935 Early Migration of Man to America. Natural His-
tory 35:356.
Ossenberg, N. S.
1994 Origins and Affinities of the Native Peoples of
Northwestern North America: The Evidence of
Cranial Non Metric Traits. In Method and Theory
for Investigating the Peopling of the Americas. R.
Bonnichsen and D. G. Steele, eds. Pp. 79–116.
Center for the Study of the First Americans.
Corvallis: Oregon State University.
Pearson, G. A.
1999 North American Paleoindian Bi-beveled Bone and
Ivory Rods: A New Interpretation. North Ameri-
can Archaeologist 20:81–103.
2000a Early Occupations and Cultural Sequence at
Moose Creek: A Late Pleistocene Site in Central
Alaska. Arctic 52:332–345.
2000b Late-Pleistocene and Holocene Microblade In-
dustries at the Moose Creek site. Current Re-
search in the Pleistocene 17:64–65.
Pearson, G. A., and W. R. Powers
2001 The Campus Site Re-excavation: New Efforts to
Unravel Its Ancient and Recent Past. Arctic An-
thropology 38:100–119.
Ethnic and Economic Models in the Peopling of the Americas
Powers, W. R.
1996 Siberia in the Late Glacial and Early Postglacial.
In Humans at the End of the Ice Age: The Archae-
ology of the Pleistocene-Holocene Transition. L.
G. Straus, B. V. Eriksen, J. M. Erlandson, and D.
R. Yesner, eds. Pp. 229–242. New York: Plenum.
Reanier, R. E.
1995 The Antiquity of Paleoindian Materials in North-
ern Alaska. In After the Land Bridge: Climates,
Biomes, and Cultural Interaction in Northern
Beringia. J. E. Lobdell and R. E. Reanier, eds.
Arctic Anthropology (Madison, Wis.) 32:31–50.
Straus, L. G.
2000 Solutrean Settlement of North America? A
Review of Reality. American Antiquity 65:
219–226.
Thomas, D. H.
2000 Skull Wars. New York: Basic Books.
West, C., ed.
1996 Trail Creek Caves, Seward Peninsula. In Ameri-
can Beginnings: The Prehistory and Paleoecology
of Beringia. F. H. West, ed. Pp. 482–484. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
West, F. H.
1967 The Donnelly Ridge Site and the Definition of an
Early Core and Blade Complex in Interior Alaska.
American Antiquity 32:360–382.
1981 The Archaeology of Beringia. New York: Colum-
bia University Press.
1996a Onion Portage, Kobuk River: Akmak and Kobuk.
In American Beginnings: The Prehistory and Pa-
leoecology of Beringia. F. H. West, ed. Pp. 485–
489. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
1996b The Archaeological Evidence. In American Be-
ginnings: The Prehistory and Paleoecology of
Beringia. F. H. West, ed. Pp. 525–536. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
West, F. H., B. S. Robinson, and M. L. Curran
1996 The Phipps Site. In American Beginnings: The
Prehistory and Paleoecology of Beringia. F. H.
West, ed. Pp. 381–385. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
161
Yesner, D. R.
1989 Moose Hunters of the Boreal Forest? A Re-exami-
nation of Subsistence Patterns in the Western Sub-
arctic. Arctic 42:97–108.
1994 Subsistence Diversity and Hunter-Gatherer Strat-
egies in Late Pleistocene/Early Holocene Beringia:
Evidence from the Broken Mammoth Site, Big
Delta, Alaska. Current Research on the Pleistocene
11:154–156.
1996a Environments and Peoples at the Pleistocene-Ho-
locene Boundary in the Americas. In Humans at
the End of the Ice Age: The Archaeology of the
Pleistocene-Holocene Transition. L. G. Straus, B.
V. Eriksen, J. M. Erlandson, and D. R. Yesner,
eds. Pp. 243–254. New York: Plenum.
1996b Human Adaptation at the Pleistocene-Holocene
Boundary (circa 13,000 to 8,000 BP) in Eastern
Beringia. In Humans at the End of the Ice Age:
The Archaeology of the Pleistocene-Holocene
Transition. L. Straus, B. V. Eriksen, J. M.
Erlandson, and D. R. Yesner, eds. Pp. 255–276.
New York: Plenum.
2000 Human Dispersal into Interior Alaska: Ante-
cedent Conditions, Mode of Colonization, and
Adaptations. Quaternary Science Reviews
20:315–327.
2001 Human Colonization of Eastern Beringia and the
Question of Mammoth Hunting. In Mammoth Site
Studies. D. West, ed. Pp. 69–84. University of
Kansas Publications in Anthropology 22.
Lawrence: University of Kansas.
Yesner, D. R., and R. A. Mack
1989 Margaret Bay and the Question of Aleut and Es-
kimo Origins. Paper presented to the annual meet-
ing of the Society for American Archaeology,
Minneapolis.
Yesner, D. R., G. A. Pearson, and D. E. Stone
2000 Additional Organic Artifacts from the Broken
Mammoth Site, Big Delta, Alaska. Current Re-
search in the Pleistocene 17:87–89.
Zegura, S. L.
1999 The Early Peopling of the Americas: Where Did
the Y-Chromosomes Come From? Geological
Society of America Abstracts with Programs
31:A-24.