human colonization of the americas: timing, technology and ... · assure the survival and discovery...

*Tel.: 001-303-370-8261; fax: 001-303-331-6492.E-mail address: [email protected] (E. James Dixon).

Quaternary Science Reviews 20 (2001) 277}299

Human colonization of the Americas: timing, technology and process

E. James Dixon!,",*! Department of Anthropology, Denver Museum of Natural History, 2001 Colorado Blvd., Denver, CO 80205-5798, USA

" Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research, University of Colorado at Boulder, 1560 30th street, Canpus Box 450, Boulder, CO 80304, USA

Abstract

Geological and archeological research indicates that humans "rst colonized the Americas with the use of watercraft along thesouthern coast of the Bering Land Bridge and the western coast of the Americas. Early dates from a number of archeological sites inthe Americas indicate human colonization of the Americas began prior to ca. 13,000 BP. A review of archeological sites in easternBeringia identi"es several distinctive cultural traditions which had developed by 11,000}10,000 BP. Geological, biological, linguisticevidence, and dated human skeletal remains all suggest human occupation of the Americas prior to ca. 11,500 BP. Glacial geologyindicates colonization could have begun ca. 14,000}13,000 BP along the western coasts of the Americas and ended about 5000 BPwith deglaciation of the Canadian eastern Arctic and coastal Greenland. The use of watercraft and coastal navigation prior to11,000 BP are inferentially demonstrated. A model for early coastal and subsequent inland colonization of the Americas along largeecological zones best "ts current geologic and archeological data. ( 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Origins

Humans evolved in the Old World, beginning in Africaand subsequently colonizing Eurasia, Australia, and theAmericas. Many archeologists believe that the "rst hu-mans to enter the Americas came from northeast Asia viathe Bering Land Bridge sometime ca. 12,000 years agoabout the end of the Wisconsin glaciation, the last glacialstage of the Pleistocene Epoch in North America. How-ever, this is not the only possible time for humans to havereached the New World. Some archeologists (Simpsonet al., 1986; Irving et al., 1986; Carter, 1952, 1957 andothers) believe humans may have come to the Americas200,000}150,000 years ago during earlier glacial stageswhen the Bering Land Bridge formed as a result of lowersea levels (Hopkins, 1973). However, other researchersare of the opinion that humans "rst arrived in the Amer-icas within the ca. 50,000 years ago during the HappyInterval (Hopkins, 1979, 1982), and more likely withinthe last 14,000 years (Hrdlic\ ka, 1928; Haynes, 1969; Grif-"n, 1979). Reliably dated human skeletal remains havenot been found in the Americas which are older than12,000 BP. This supports other evidence suggesting thathumans "rst arrived in the Americas toward the end of

the Wisconsin glaciation. Research dating late Pleis-tocene deglaciation indicates that terrestrial connectionsbetween eastern Beringia and areas south of the NorthAmerican continental glaciers were not reestablished un-til about 11,000 BP (Jackson et al., 1997). This precludesa mid-continental route for human entry until ca.11,000 BP.

2. Beringia and the ice-free corridor

The Bering Land Bridge has been a cornerstone inAmerican paleontology and archeology for hundreds ofyears. In addition to explaining the exchange of plantsand large terrestrial mammals between Asia and NorthAmerica, it is presumed that hunters of large terrestrialmammals probably "rst entered North Americafrom Asia via the Land Bridge. The traditional explana-tion is that humans then moved south through centralwestern Canada sometime about 11,500 BP, eitherthrough a hypothetical ice-free corridor or after thecontinental glaciers melted (Fig. 1). According tothis theory, the pattern of Old World mammoth huntingwas transposed to North America near the end of thelast ice age by peoples using Clovis, or Clovis-liketechnology.

There is little evidence to support the traditional para-digm of mammoth hunters `expandinga from the Asian

0277-3791/01/$ - see front matter ( 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.PII: S 0 2 7 7 - 3 7 9 1 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 1 1 6 - 5

Fig. 1. Map depicting the traditional Beringian-midcontinental humanroute for human colonization of the Americas (modi"ed from Dixon1999).

steppe into Beringia and southward through what is nowinterior Canada into more southern regions of the Amer-icas. The only places from which there is "rm evidence formammoth hunting is on both sides of Beringia, notBeringia itself (Haynes, 1991, pp. 208}213). However,blood residues preserved on Northern Paleoindian pro-jectile points suggests that mammoth may have beenhunted in eastern Beringia possibly as late as 10,500 BP(Dixon, 1993; Loy and Dixon, 1998).

North American glacial chronology establishes max-imum and minimum limiting dates for human coloniz-ation of North America. Deglaciation along thenorthwest coast of North America was su$ciently ad-vanced to enable human settlement by at least 13,000 BP.However, the interior Bering Land Bridge/mid Conti-nental route was not deglaciated before ca. 11,000 BP.Extreme northeastern North America was not de-glaciated until ca. 5000 BP, thus providing the last op-portunity for large-scale colonization sometime shortlythereafter (Fig. 8).

3. Oldest archeological sites in the Americas

There is no professional consensus on the time humans"rst colonized the Americas. There is widespread concur-rence that the Clovis complex (11,500}11,000 BP) pro-

vides a minimum limiting date for human colonization.Some archeologists believe that the Clovis complex rep-resents the tangible remains of America's "rst colonists.However, numerous archeological sites have beenreported from North and South America that some ar-cheologists believe predate Clovis and the deglaciation ofcentral northern North America.

North American archeologists have established proto-cols to test the validity of Pleistocene archeological re-mains in the Americas (Haynes, 1967; Jennings, 1974;Gri$n, 1979; Stanford, 1979). Some of the more impor-tant or better known North American sites includeMeadowcroft Rock Shelter in Pennsylvania (Adovasio etal., 1977, 1978, 1980), the Dutton and Selby sites inColorado (Stanford, 1979, 1983; Graham, 1981), theManis Mastadon site (Gustafson et al., 1979), and Val-sequillo in southeastern Mexico (Irwin-Williams,1967, 1969, 1978). South American sites include PedraFurada in northeast Brazil (Guidon and Delibrias, 1986;Delibrias et al., 1988; Parenti et al., 1990) Tiama-Tiamain northern Venezuela (Rouse and Cruxent, 1966;Cruxent and Ochsenius, 1979; Bryan, 1979; Bryan andGruhn, 1979) and Monte Verde in southern Chile (Dil-lehay, 1989, 1997). While the age or the cultural origin ofall these sites are controversial, Monte Verde is acceptedas a pre-Clovis site.

Monte Verde, located in south-central Chile, is a camp-site re#ecting a wide range of human activity includingresidential structures and exceptionally well-preservedorganic remains including bone, wood and other mater-ials. The site has been scienti"cally excavated under thedirection of Dillehay and his fellow researchers (Dillehay,1997). A series of eight stratigraphic units (labeledyoungest to oldest, MV-1 through MV-8) have beendescribed and dated by seven concordant 14C determina-tions. Artifacts and other evidence of human occupationhave been recovered from MV-7, which is capped bya layer of peat that sealed and preserved the archeologi-cal materials.

Dillehay (1984, 1986, 1997; Collins and Dillehay, 1986)reports the remains of at least 12 dwellings, presumablycovered with animal skins, containing shallow clay-linedbraziers. Large `communala hearths were found with theremains of edible seeds, nuts, fruits, and berries, andwood artifacts have been recovered including mortars,wooden hafts containing stone #akes, digging sticks,a pointed lance or spear, and vast amounts of workedwood. Although there are a few well-made bifacially#aked stone tools, most of the lithic industry consists ofindividual #akes, split pebbles and other stones exhibit-ing little modi"cation from their natural states. There aremany nearly spherical forms, a few of which are groovedand were possibly used as bola weights and/or stones forslings. Although no human remains were recovered, footprints of a child or small adolescent were preserved onthe surface of MV-7. No geologic or other noncultural

278 E.J. Dixon / Quaternary Science Reviews 20 (2001) 277}299

processes have been identi"ed to suggest this suite ofevidence could have been produced by any mechanismother than human occupation. Monte Verde meets,or exceeds, the criteria establishing pre-Clovis validityfor archeological sites in the Americas (Meltzer et al.,1997).

Two hearth-like features suggest the possibility thatthere may be an even earlier occupation at the site. Theywere discovered stratigraphically below unit MV-7,about 70 m north of the main occupation (Dillehay andCollins, 1988; Dillehay, 1997). Two 14C determinationsfrom these features are 33,370$530 (Beta-6754) and'33,020 (Beta-7825). Scattered about them were 26naturally fractured stones, which appear to have beenused by people. In the absence of other evidence, theinvestigators are not certain that these features presentunequivocal evidence of human occupation.

4. Human remains

Unlike the Old World, the New World lacks humanremains anatomically similar to very early human formssuch as Homo erectus, Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, oreven Archaic Homo sapiens. Human remains found in theNew World appear to be completely modern humans,Homo sapiens. The only possible evidence to the contraryis the inconclusive identi"cation of a human supraorbitalridge from the Chapala Basin, Mexico, which has beencompared to the supraorbital ridge from Old Worldexamples of Homo erectus. However, Solorzano (1990;Haley and Solorzano, 1991) cautions that this identi"ca-tion has been made on a small fragment of bone. Otherresearchers suggest that this bone may not be human, butrather derived from the fragmentary remains of anotherelement from a di!erent species. Another report of preHomo sapiens from the New World is a curious articleand illustration of an archaic human calvarium (skullcap) by Bryan (1978, pp. 318}321) which, since his de-scription, has disappeared.

The three oldest sets of reliably dated human remainsfrom north America are from Fishbone Cave, in westernNevada; Arlington Springs on Santa Rosa Island,California; and the Anzick site, Montana. Radiocarbondates of 11,555$500 BP (no lab d cited) and 10,900$300 BP (L-245) BP were reported from Fishbone Cave byOrr (1956, p. 3) for level 4. This level contains the partialremains of a human skeleton consisting of the burnedremains of a left foot, a clavicle, and a "bula.

Two human femora, a humerus and an unidenti"edbone were found about 37.5 ft (11 m) below the surfaceon Santa Rosa Island (Orr, 1962, p. 418). Based on thesize of the femora, Orr suggested they were the remains ofan adult male. These remains have become known asArlington Man. Chemical analysis demonstrated that thebone was fossilized suggesting considerable antiquity

(Oakley, 1963). Charcoal from the stratigraphic unit con-taining the human remains was 14C dated to10,400$200 BP (L-568A) and 10,000$200 (L-650)(Orr, 1962, p. 419). Although the human bone originallysubmitted was considered unsuitable for 14C analysis(Morris, cited in Erlandson, 1994, p. 186), Berger andProtsh (1989, p. 59) were able to obtain a 14C determina-tion of 10,080$810 BP from a long bone of ArlingtonMan. Controversy over the age of the human remains hasfocused on the large standard deviation associated withthis date and the fact that there was only one 14C deter-mination. To address the controversy, additional AMS14C determinations were run by Johnson and Sta!ord(1997, pers. comm.) resulting in an AMS 14C date of10,970$80 (CAMS-16810) on collagen from the humanbone and another AMS 14C determination of11,490$70 on Peromyscus sp. bone collagen directlyassociated with the human remains. Arlington Man alsoprovides the earliest evidence for the use of watercraft inNorth America because Santa Rosa Island was not con-nected to mainland North America during the last ice age(Erlandson, 1994, p. 183).

The Anzick rock shelter located in Montana was acci-dentally discovered in 1968 (Jones and Bonnichsen,1994). The site and context of the artifacts and humanremains were largely destroyed by construction activitiesbefore they were examined by trained scientists. Theburial(s) contained two individuals and an assemblage ofmore than 100 stone and bone artifacts. Both individualsare described as `subadultsa (Wilke et al., 1991). Twovery small pieces of human crania, one from each indi-vidual, were directly dated by the AMS method. One wasbleached white and the other stained with hematite(ochre). The bleached crania dated 8600$90 BP and theochre-stained bone dated 10,680$50 BP (Sta!ord, 1990,p. 121; 1994, p. 49}51). More recently a second 14C AMSdate of 11,550$60 (CAMS-35912) has been obtained ongelatin from the ochre-stained crania (Sta!ord, pers.comm., 1997). It is di$cult to explain the di!erence inthese two dates, and resolution of this problem willrequire additional dating.

Direct AMS dating of human bone provides unequivo-cal proof and limiting dates for humans in the Americas.The oldest human remains from Anzick, Fishbone Cave,and Arlington Springs appear to be between ca.11,500}11,000 BP. This indicates that by this time humanpopulation density had achieved a level su$cient toassure the survival and discovery of fossil remains overa broad geographic areas and from di!erent depositionalenvironments. Prior to ca. 11,000}11,500 BP the NorthAmerican human population may have been extremelysmall or geographically restricted. Toth (1991, p. 55) hassuggested that if we assume a model for the colonizationof the Americas as ever increasing population over time,the odds of documenting the very earliest evidence ofhuman occupation are very slim.

E.J. Dixon / Quaternary Science Reviews 20 (2001) 277}299 279

5. Biological and linguistic evidence

Linguistics and biological anthropology demonstratethat Native Americans most likely came to the Americasfrom northeast Asia. Turner (1983) has studied the denti-tion of Native Americans and northeast Asians. Based onabout 20 dental traits, such as the shape of tooth crownsand the number of tooth roots, he has de"ned an overalldental pattern which he calls `Sinodontya. This distinc-tive dental pattern is shared among Native Americansand people from northeast Asia. However, Sinodonty isnot found in people who originated in southern Asia,Africa, or Europe. Another less complex dental pattern,called Sundadonty, is shared among peoples of SoutheastAsia and occurs in some early Native American skeletonsincluding Kennewick Man (Chatters, 1997). Turner(1992, p. 6) concludes that because there has been lessdental evolution in the Americas, the New World hasbeen occupied for less time than Asia, and that wide-spread Sinodonty demonstrates a northeast Asian originfor Native Americans. However, Merriwether et al. (1996)identify Mongolia as a more likely point of origin forNew World founding populations based on their analysisof the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) of Native Mon-golians.

Turner (1983, 1985, 1992) recognizes three subdivisionsof Sinodonty based on the dental characteristics, andproposes that colonization of the Americas occurred inthree distinct migrations. The "rst were ancestors of thepeoples of South America and southern North America.The second were ancestors of Native Americans residingin interior Alaska and along the Northwest Coast. Thethird were the Aleut-Eskimo who occupy the coastalfringes of Alaska. Some genetic research may supportTurner's `three wavea model (Williams et al., 1985).

The dental evidence appears to correspond with lin-guistic data compiled by Greenberg (Greenberg et al.,1986; Greenberg, 1987, 1997). By applying a processcalled `mass comparisona, he lumped Native Americanlanguages into three groups called Amerind, Na-Deneand Eskimo-Aleut. The linguistic data appear to corre-late well with the dental evidence. It suggests that the "rstarrivals to settle the Americas were the ancestors of theAmerinds, the second `wavea were the ancestors of theNa-Dene and the last to emigrate to the New World werethe Eskimo-Aleut (Greenberg et al., 1987).

The analysis of nuclear, and mitochondrial DNA hasled to alternative conclusions. In analyzing mtDNA fromNative Americans, Schurr et al. (1990) recognized fourbasic mtDNA lineages, or haplogroups, which theylabeled A}D. The fact that only four lineages could beidenti"ed suggests that the founding population(s) mayhave been very small. All four lineages occur in all NativeAmerican populations, but it is not clear how this in-formation can be interpreted properly. Based on mtDNAanalysis, Torroni et al. (1992) conclude that Amerind and

Na-Dene populations were founded by two separate mi-grations. However, research by Horai et al. (1996) drawsthe conclusion that the four haplogroups are evidence offour respective ancestral populations that migrated to theAmericas gradually in di!erent `wavesa. On the otherhand, Merriwether et al. (1995) reason that because allfour founding lineages are found in all Native Americanpopulations, the concept of a single migration with allfour lineages being derived from the original foundingpopulation is probable. Other researchers (Bailliet et al.,1994; Lorenz and Smith, 1996) report evidence sugges-ting there may have been at least one more halplogroupin Native American populations prior to contact withEuropeans. Although the conclusions drawn from thisresearch are controversial, mtDNA research raises seri-ous challenges to the `three wavea migration modelbased on the analysis of contemporary languages andprehistoric dental traits.

Archeologists have long recognized the di$culty inidentifying genetic, ethnic, and linguistic `signaturesa inthe archeological record. Although much work remainsto be done, it is clear that to establish migration ofpeople, it is necessary to document a culture in oneregion and subsequently document it in another. To dothis, it is necessary to identify material traits that can bereliably attributed to a speci"c culture. The early archeol-ogy of eastern Beringia and North America is so poorlyunderstood, that this is impossible to do except at grosslevels of comparison.

6. Colonization processes

There is no need to think of human migration asa speci"c event. Humans may have populated the Amer-icas in small numbers, or migratory `dribblesa, over longperiods of time (Meltzer, 1989). Some migrations mayhave been successful, and others may not have been.Some of these small groups of early migrants could havebeen genetically swamped by later groups, exterminatedby warfare or by the introduction of disease, too small tobe viable, or unable to adapt to new environments.

If the earliest immigrants were few in number, hadtechnology derived from perishable organic material, andsurvived for only a short time, the evidence of theirpassing would be extremely di$cult to detect in thearcheological record. This would be even more di$cult ifthese early peoples lacked what archeologists consider tobe diagnostic artifact types, such as #uted stone projectilepoints. There would be no genetic or linguistic evidencein extant populations if the colonists did not survive, andthere may not exist a continuous archeological recordextending from the Pleistocene to later well-documentedNorth American archeological sites. It is possible thatthere were sporadic colonization events that are notconnected to subsequent development of New World


archeology. Tracing the migration of speci"c groups ofpeople is extremely di$cult in the archeological record.

Some researchers believe that ecological disequilib-rium may result in human dispersals and that initialcontact between humans and select species maycause their extinction. Paul S. Martin (1967, 1973, 1974)has advanced the `overkill hypothesisa which postulatesthat the "rst human hunters to enter the Americaswere responsible for the extinction of approximately70 genera. According to this scenario, as humansmoved into the Americas, they encountered largemammals that had developed no e!ective means ofevading intelligent and sophisticated human predators,and humans quickly hunted these large mammals toextinction.

Kelley and Todd (1988; Kelly, 1996) have advanceda variation of Martin's model. They suggest that the "rstPaleoindians were technologically based foragers. Unlikemodern foragers who are geographically based and gen-erally con"ned by neighboring foraging groups, the ear-liest human groups in North America may have reliedmore on knowledge of animal behavior and technologyrather than knowledge of geography. This may haveenabled them to move from region to region exploitingvarious species, some of which may have been preferred.Such a subsistence strategy could result in comparativelyrapid human `migrationa and the extinction of selectspecies.

Aquatic metaphors such as `wavesa, `tricklesa,`dribblesa, and `drifta are frequently used to describe thepeopling of the Americas. However, these `termsa tell uslittle, if anything, about the actual processes of humancolonization. Currently there exist very few models forthe peopling of the Americas. Mosimann and Martin(1975) demonstrated that humans could have colonizedboth North America and South America in approxim-ately 1000 years and concurrently killed o! the largePleistocene mammals. Some scientists counter that dra-matic change in climate caused the extinction of ice agemammals, while others suggest that a combination ofboth climatic change and human predators were thecause.

Wormington (1983, p. 192) believed that human colon-ization of the Americas took much longer than the modelproposed by Mosimann and Martin. In her view, earlyhunters and gatherers needed more time to develop fam-iliarity with their environment and its resources, andonce they had gained this knowledge they were reluctantto move. She regarded environmental change and popu-lation pressure as the causal mechanisms for humangroups to move. This type of model requires a muchgreater amount of time for humans to colonize theAmerican continents than that advocated by Mosimannand Martin (1975).

In their attempt to model the human colonization ofthe Americas, Mosimann and Martin (1975) rely heavily

on the work of Birdsell (1957), who derived his statisticsfrom his research of human population expansion onPitcarin* a remote Paci"c island that was uninhabiteduntil 1790, when it was colonized by nine mutineers fromHMS Bounty and 19 Polynesians. While these data maybe correct and useful in the contexts of the ecology ofsmall islands, Beaton (1991a) suggests it is not applicablefor Australia, a large land mass of continental proportionsimilar to the Americas. It may be inappropriate toextrapolate the human environmental impact from smallPaci"c islands to continental land masses.

Furthermore, it is necessary to emphasize that thescale of investigative resolution "t the scale of the prob-lem (Beaton, 1991a, p. 220). In other words, when at-tempting to address human colonization of continents,such as the initial peopling of the Americas or Australia,it is more useful to look at large, or macro, environmentalzones. Such large environmental zones, or biomes, in-clude regions such as coastlines, rather than smallerecological areas such as estuaries or headlands. Thesemacroenvironmental regions, or biomes, are what Be-aton (1991a) calls `megapatchesa, which are large envir-onmental zones or areas such as coasts, forests, deserts,and mountains.

The major physiographic and ecological regions of theAmericas tend to be oriented linearly from north}south.For example, the western cordillera of North Americaform a huge mountainous `spinea extending from Alaskato Arizona, the plains extend from Alberta, Canada tonorthern Mexico, and the western coastal coniferousforest stretches from Alaska to California.

The bow wave model proposed by Mosimann andMartin (1973) is illustrated in Fig. 2. It is characterized bybow-shaped lines, or `wavesa, symbolizing the sequentialadvance of the human population at approximately thesame latitude. By comparison, the ecological zone modelillustrated in Fig. 8 is characterized by more vertical linesthat parallel the major environmental zones, such as thecoast and the western Cordillera.

Linear north-to-south colonization could have alsooccurred along ecotones, which are zones of transitionbetween two or more biomes. These transitional environ-ments may have been the `megapatch of choicea, pos-sibly being more productive than either of the adjacentbiomes and possibly permitting people access to re-sources in adjacent biomes. On a very large (continental)level of analysis the coastal zone could be regarded as anecotone, where the resources of both the marine andterrestrial biomes are available.

In relatively linear environmental zones such as riversystems or coastal margins, colonization might be ex-pected to be rapid, possibly resulting in high-velocitysettlement in conjunction with the use of watercraft.In other types of ecological settings, colonization mayhave occurred at a much slower rate. With colonizationoccurring along major environmental zones, it may be


Fig. 2. The hypothetical `Bow Waveamodel for the human colonization of the Americas from North to South (modi"ed from Mosimann and Martin,1975, and reproduced from Dixon 1999, p. 36 with permission of University of New Mexico Press).

reasonable to assume that di!erent environmental re-gions of the Americas were colonized at di!erent times.For example, coastal zones may have been inhabitedlong before the interior plains or deserts.

7. Early archeology of eastern Beringia

Three archeological traditions and two complexeshave been identi"ed in eastern Beringia and the Paci"cNorthwest. The earliest is the Nenana complex (olderthan 11,600}10,500 BP), discovered at several sites inInterior Alaska. Archeologists have not ascertained theorigins of the Nenana complex.

The second major cultural development is called theAmerican Paleoarctic tradition (10,500}8,000 BP). It is

derived from Asia and has its technological roots in thelate Upper Paleolithic microblade industries of Eurasia.The hallmark of this tradition is microblade technology.The American Paleoarctic tradition is subdivided hereinto three regional variants: (1) the "rst retains the orig-inal name, the American Paleoarctic tradition, (2) theDenali complex, and (3) the Northwest Coast Micro-blade tradition.

The third major cultural development in eastern Beri-ngia is the Northern Paleoindian tradition (ca.10,500}8500 BP), believed to be a northern manifestationof the Paleoindian tradition of western North America.The American Paleoarctic tradition, the NorthernPaleoindian tradition, and Denali complex are co-traditions. Co-traditions existed when people livingin adjacent regions practiced di!erent ways of life


Fig. 3. Map depicting the location of important archeological sites and site components ascribed to the Nenana complex (modi"ed from Dixon, 1993and reproduced with permission of University of New Mexico Press).

and made di!erent types of tools during the same periodof time. Each of these traditions is reviewed brie#y todemonstrate how they support a coastal colonizationmodel.

8. Nenana complex (ca. '11,600}10,500 BP)

The Nenana complex (greater than 11,600 BP}10,500 BP) is de"ned on the basis of stone artifacts whichdate to the same time period found in Alaska's NenanaRiver valley (Powers and Ho!ecker, 1990). Field researchin the upper Tanana River Valley in the early 1990sdiscovered similar artifact assemblages (Fig. 3). Nenanacomplex peoples may have been con"ned to interiorAlaska prior to melting of Brooks Range glaciers(Hamilton and Goebel, 1999). Artifact types that de"nethe Nenana complex are: (1) triangular and `teardrop-shapeda projectile points and knives, (2) straight- orconcave- based lanceolate projectile points, (3) perfor-ators, (4) end and side scrapers, (5) burins, (6) hammerand anvil stones, (7) unifacial knives and scrapers. Flakes,small stone wedges (piece esquille'e), and lithic debitageare also associated with these sites. These diagnostictypes of stone artifacts have been found at Component

I at the Dry Creek site, the Walker Road site and theMoose Creek site. Another Nenana complex site inthe Teklanika River valley has been dated to 11,340$150 BP and contains the same types of artifacts (Phippen,1988).

Radiocarbon dates from Components I at the WalkerRoad and Dry Creek sites range between ca. 11,800and 11,000 BP, averaging ca. 11,300 BP (Powers andHo!ecker, 1990, p. 278). Nenana complex sites are foundnear the bottom of thick sections of windblown sedi-ments that began to accumulate during the early Birchinterval (ca. 14,000 BP).

The earliest "rmly dated archeological remains as-cribed to the Nenana complex come from sites located inAlaska's Tanana River Valley: the Broken Mammoth,Mead, and Swan Point sites. Extensive excavations havenot been conducted at the Mead site. The oldest paleosolidenti"ed at the site is dated to ca. 11,600 BP, from whicha cylindrical ivory object, a scraper, a few biface frag-ments and waste #akes, and possibly a small projectilepoint fragment were recovered.

The Broken Mammoth site has yielded more informa-tion. This site is important because it is well strati"ed,contains four major periods of cultural occupation, andexhibits concurrent 14C determinations. It is possibly


the oldest reliably dated site in Alaska. A series ofnine 14C determinations indicate Cultural Zone IV wasoccupied between ca. 11,700}11,000 BP. Cultural re-mains from Zone IV include waste #akes, a quartz `chop-per/scraper/planea, retouched #akes, biface thinning#akes, scrap fossil ivory, and a cache of tools made offossil ivory consisting of two cigar shaped `pointsa anda possible handle (Yesner, 1996).

At Swan Point the oldest cultural level (ca. 11,660 BP)contains worked mammoth tusk fragments (probablyscavenged `fossila ivory dated to 12,060$70 (NSRL-2001, CAMS-17045)), microblades, microblade corepreparation #akes, blades, split quartz pebble chop-per/planes, dihedral burins, and red ochre. The nextoldest occupation, dated by one 14C determination to10,230$80 BP, (BETA-56666, CAMS-4251) (Holmes etal., 1996), lacks microblades and contains small lan-ceolate points with convex/straight bases, thin triangularpoints, gravers made on broken points and quartz pebblechoppers or hammers. Although the ca. 11,660 year oldcomponent appears anomalous based on the presence ofa microblade technology, the later occupation dating toca. 10,230 BP is consistent in its artifact assemblage withother Nenana complex sites.

Swan Point is an anomaly because it appears to havea microblade industry more than a thousand years earlierthan anywhere else in Interior Alaska, even earlier thansimilar assemblages from western Beringia. The Denalicomplex at Swan Point is dated by two 14C samples. Onewas from mammoth ivory dating to 12,060$70(CAMS-17045) which was probably older scavengedivory (Holmes et al., 1996, p. 323). The other dates,11,660$70 BP (BETA-56667. CAMS-4252) and11,660$60 BP (BETA-71372, CAMS-12389), were runon willow and poplar charcoal derived from a culturalhearth associated with the microblades (Holmes et al.,1996, p. 321). Goebel and Hamilton (1999) suggest thatthe microblades may have been mixed with older char-coal immediately after the deposition of a pebbly col-luvial layer and immediately before the overlying loessbegan to accumulate. The older dates could also resultfrom other factors such as burning older `fossila wood.Swan Point is still in the early stages of investigation andadditional research is required to resolve the age of theearly microblade component and its relationship to theNenana complex.

The Healy Lake Village Site contains distinctive `teardropa-shaped bifaces, called `Chindadna points, found inthe lower levels (Cook, 1969, 1996). Chindadn points aregenerally small and occasionally ground on one lateraledge, suggesting they were dulled for hafting and used asknives. This distinctive artifact occurs in Nenana com-plex type sites, and other sites in the Tanana valley.Component I of the Owl Ridge site also has been as-cribed to the Nenana complex and radiocarbon dated to11,340$150 BP (Beta-11209) (Phippen, 1988).

The relationship between the Nenana complex andsomewhat earlier Tanana Valley sites is not well under-stood. Preliminary data suggest that both groups of sitesshare a number of common traits, and may be regionaland temporal variants of a larger tradition or complex.With the notable exception of Swan Point, all lackevidence of microblade technology. All contain smalltriangular bifacially #aked projectile points, some ofwhich have concave bases and are basally thinned, andmany sites contain distinctive pointed ovate `Chindadnabifaces.

Except for the few gastroliths, the original evidencefrom Dry Creek suggested that Nenana complex peopleswere big game hunters primarily hunting elk and sheep.However, additional data from the Broken Mammothsite demonstrates a more generalized opportunisticgathering economy which included harvesting waterfowl,gathering eggs, and hunting and/or trapping smallmammals. Large mammal hunting, particularly forbison, elk and sheep, was important. Proboscideanremains (mammoth or mastodon ivory) resulted fromcollecting fossil ivory rather than mammoth or mastodonhunting.

Trace element analysis indicates that obsidian from theWrangell Mountains occurs in the lowest levels at Bro-ken Mammoth and Walker Road sites. Obsidian fromthe Batza Tena source on the south side of the BrooksRange also occurs in Tanana valley Nenana complexsites. These discoveries demonstrate that a widespreadtrade network was already in place in interior Alaskaprobably as early as ca. 11,700 BP (Hamilton andGoebel, in press).

All sites ascribed to the Nenana complex were smallcamps generally located on blu!s with panoramic views.They appear to have been occupied by small groups ofpeople for brief periods of time. No human remains orevidence of structures have yet been found and "resappear to have been built directly on the surface of theground with little or no preparation of the area. Charcoalis generally scattered and relatively scarce for datingpurposes. Minute unidenti"able calcined bone fragmentshave been recovered frequently from these hearths, sug-gesting bone was burned as fuel, for ritual purposes, or tokeep camps clean. Red ochre has been reported asso-ciated with several Nenana complex occupations (Goebeland Powers, 1989; Phippen, 1988, p. 118; Powers andHo!ecker, 1990, p. 281, Holmes et al., 1996).

Most sites were probably open-air camps probablyusing skin tents or temporary tent-like structures. Al-though no structural remains were discovered, the spatialdistribution of more than 130 artifacts around a circularclay-lined hearth at the Walker Road site were inter-preted to be the location of a circular tent about 5 m indiameter (Goebel and Powers, 1989; Powers et al., 1990).The full range of the Nenana complex settlement patternand subsistence cycle is still poorly understood.


Fig. 4. Map depicting the location of important archeological sites andsite components ascribed to the American Paleoarctic tradition (modi-"ed from Dixon, 1993 and reproduced with permission of University ofNew Mexico Press).

9. American Paleoarctic tradition (ca. 10,500}7000 BP)

Anderson (1970, p. 69) "rst de"ned the AmericanPaleoarctic tradition to include the Akmak and Band8 assemblages from the Onion Portage site, the earlymicroblades from the Trail Creek Caves, and variousundated assemblages from the Brooks Range character-ized by wedged-shaped microblade cores, microblades,and other artifact types. Since that time the AmericanPaleoarctic tradition has been used to lump a wide varietyof early microblade and microcore assemblages which arewidely dispersed throughout eastern Beringia (Fig. 4).

Because so many regional variants and di!erent eco-nomic systems have been subsumed under the AmericanPaleoarctic tradition, the term has lost much of its de-scriptive utility and is no longer very useful as a traditionin classic de"nition of the term. It has been divided intothree basic units: (1) the American Paleoarctic tradition,(2) the Denali complex, and (3) the Northwest CoastMicroblade tradition (Dixon, in press).

The diagnostic lithic artifacts associated with theAmerican Paleoarctic tradition include wedge-shaped

microblade cores, microblades, blades and blade cores,core bifaces, antler arrow points slotted to receive micro-blades, grooved stone abraders, and waste #akes. Thegeographic distribution includes the coastal margins ofBering and Chukchi Seas, the Arctic Ocean, and adjacentterrestrial environments. It extends south roughly to thelimit of winter sea ice. Economically, it probably had twoaspects, (1) marine mammal hunting, including winter seaice hunting and (2) exploitation of adjacent non-coastalregions to "sh and hunt for terrestrial mammals. Whenmoving inland from the coast, it is di$cult to identifywhere economies based solely on interior environmentsbegin and coastal economic practices are abandoned.Perhaps these di!erent economies are best viewed asgradational, with greater and greater reliance placed onnon-marine resources as one moves away from the coasttoward the interior.

The archeological record is obscured along Bering andChukchi Sea coasts because of Holocene sea level rise.However, the persistence of the American Paleoarctictradition is suggested along the Bering Sea coast. Forexample, Anderson (1986, p. 313) suggests that the LowerBench site at Cape Krusenstern may be a transitionalmicroblade assemblage between the American Paleoar-ctic tradition and the later Arctic Small Tool tradition.Shortly after sea level stabilized, there is widespreadrecognition of the Arctic Small Tool tradition along theBering and Chukchi Sea coast. In regions where tectonicuplift or isostatic rebound have outpaced sea level rise,such as Anangula Island, it is clear from the location ofthe sites adjacent to the sea that they were adapted toa marine economy.

A single 14C determination from Locality I at theGallagher Flint Station may suggest that AmericanPaleoarctic populations may have been in place in in-terior areas adjacent to the coast possibly as early as ca.10,500 (Dixon, 1975). On the Alaska Peninsula, Paleoar-ctic tradition occupations are documented from thelowest levels of the Ugashik Narrows site and at KvichakBay (Dumond, 1977; Dumond et al., 1976; Henn, 1978).Five radiocarbon determinations indicate that these as-semblages range between ca. 9000 and 7000 BP. TheUgashik Narrows site, located along a river with a majorsalmon run, where large mammals such as caribou andmoose may easily cross the river, suggests that "shingand large-mammal hunting were important economicactivities.

10. The Denali complex (10,500}8000 BP)

Throughout Interior Alaska and the Yukon Territory,a number of archeological sites have been documenteddate between ca. 10,500 and 8000 BP and contain bifacialbiconvex knives, end scrapers, large blades and blade-like #akes, prepared microblade cores, core tablets,


microblades, burins, burin spalls, worked #akes, andretouched #akes. This suite of artifacts was de"ned byWest (1967, 1974) as the Denali complex. Since that timethe list of associated lithic traits has been increased toinclude large blade cores, straight and convex basedprojectile points with constricting sides, elongate bifaces,spokeshaves, and abraders. The term Denali complex isretained here because it has priority in the literature and isapplied to a restricted region (interior regions of easternBeringia lacking a coastal/marine economic component).

Component II at Dry Creek suggests that the Denalicomplex "rst appears in interior Alaska ca. 10,690$250based on the overall site stratigraphy and 14C dating(Powers and Ho!ecker, 1989). Component II at nearbyPanguingue Creek has several 14C determinationsbracketing this occupation between 8500 and 7500 BP(Powers and Maxwell, 1986; Goebel and Bigelow, 1996).West (1996, pp. 375}380; West and others, 1996,pp. 381}408) reports numerous sites from glacial terrainin the Tangle Lakes region of the southcentral AlaskaRange which contain typical Denali complex assem-blages. All are relatively shallow sites (less than 50 cmdeep) primarily situated on the top of glacial features,some of which appear to have reliable radiocarbon deter-minations dating Denali complex occupations betweenca. 10,500 and 8000 BP. Numerous other sites containingDenali complex occupations have been reportedthroughout the interior, including the Healy Lake Villagesite (Cook, 1969; Cook and Mckennan, 1970). In theupper Susitna River drainage, Dixon and Smith (1990)identi"ed six sites which they ascribed to the Denalicomplex based on typological traits, stratigraphic posi-tion within a series of regional tephras, and radiocarbondating. The Campus Site is now considered to be lateHolocene in age based on a reevaluation of the site andassociated artifacts by Mobly (1991).

Numerous Denali complex sites have been reportedfrom a variety of ecological settings throughout interioreastern Beringia. The ecological setting of interior sitesindicate an economy which included large mammalhunting and freshwater aquatic resources. Faunal re-mains from Component II at Dry Creek include bisonand sheep. Many of the sites in the Alaska Range andSusitna River drainage are ideally situated for caribouhunting. Although data are sketchy, most sites arerelatively small, lacking evidence of structures or otherfeatures which might be indicative of permanent orsemi-permanent settlements. Organic artifacts are rareand little is known about these residents of the interior.

11. The Northwest Coast Microblade Tradition(ca. 10,500}(7000 BP)

This tradition was "rst called the Early Boreal tradi-tion (Borden, 1969, 1975), and later given a variety of

names, including the Early Coast Microblade complex(Fladmark, 1975), the Microblade tradition (Carlson,1979, 1981), Early Coast and North Coast Microbladecomplex (Fladmark, 1982), the Marine Paleoarctic tradi-tion (Davis, 1989), and the Maritime Paleoarctic tradi-tion (Jordan, 1992). Rather than add to this confusingnomenclature, this presentation simply uses the termNorthwest Coast Microblade tradition, which is in keep-ing with Fladmark (1975) and descriptively includes boththe geographic area and hallmark technological trait, theshared use of microblade technology. These sites extendfrom the Kodiak Archipelago southeastward along thePaci"c Rim through Southeast Alaska, British Colum-bia, Washington, Oregon and the northern Great Basin(Dumond, 1962).

A marine economy is indicated for most sites by faunalremains, ecological settings and isotope analysis of hu-man remains from Prince of Wales Island (Dixon et al.,1997). The northern geographic limit of this tradition isdi$cult to ascertain, but could extend to the south side ofthe Alaska Peninsula where there is no winter pack ice.Marine subsistence in the Northwest Coast Microbladetradition is adapted to year round open water, ruggedforested coasts characterized by fjords, islands, and rockyheadlands, calving glaciers, major salmon runs, salt water"shing and intertidal shell "sh resources.

It has not been determined when this tradition "rstappeared along the Northwest Coast. Rising sea levelinundated most coastal areas older than ca. 9500 BP.Preserved sites include Beluga Point ca. 7000}8000 BP(Reger, 1996, p. 434). Craig Point, 7790$620 BP (Jordan,1992), Component III, Ground Hog Bay 2, 10,180$800and 9130$130 BP (Ackerman et al., 1979; Ackerman,1996a, b). Hidden Falls, Component I, ca. 9000 BP (Davis,1989, p. 194), Locality 1 at the Chuck Lake, Locality 1, ca.8200 BP (Ackerman et al., 1985), Rice Creek, ca. 9000 BP(Ackerman, 1996a, b, p. 127 and 130), and the ThorneRiver site ca. 7500 BP (Holmes, 1988; Holmes et al., 1989).Obsidian from Hidden Falls and Ground Hog Bay is fromSumez Island (adjacent to Prince of Wales in the Alexan-der Archipelago) and Mt. Edziza (upper Sitkine River,northern British Columbia) (Nelson, 1976, cited in Acker-man, 1996a, b). This early trade in obsidian required theuse of water craft (Ackerman, 1992; Davis, 1989; Erlan-dson et al., 1992), and implies that the area must have beenoccupied earlier in order to discover these obsidian sour-ces and develop trade networks.

PET-408 is located on the northern end of Prince ofWales Island, southeast Alaska. Human skeletal remainsfrom this site have been 14C dated to ca. 9800 BP. (Dixonet al., 1997). Isotopic values for the human bone indicatea diet based primarily on marine resources and d13Cvalues for the human bone are similar to those obtainedfor ringed seal, sea otter, and marine "sh. These dataindicate a diet based primarily on sea foods and that themarine carbon reservoir has a!ected the accuracy of the


14C determinations. In the Queen Charlotte Islands tothe south, a ca. 600 year 14C di!erence in the regionalmarine and atmospheric carbon cycles has beendocumented by comparison of 14C determinations onwood and shell (Fedje, McSporran and Mason, 1996,p. 118). This suggests that the dates on the human re-mains from PET-408 should be corrected by subtractingca. 600 14C years. Presuming this correction factor can beapplied to Prince of Wales Island, the corrected age forthe human is ca. 9200 BP.

The human remains from PET-408 are probably con-temporaneous with a microblade bearing cultural hor-izon at the site which has been dated by 14C woodcharcoal to ca. 9200 BP (Dixon et al., 1997). This demon-strates a maritime adaptation by microblade usingpeoples along the northwest coast by ca. 9200 BP. Anindividual bone tool, possibly an awl or punch, manufac-tured from terrestrial mammal bone from 49-PET-408has been AMS dated to 10,300$50 BP (CAMS-42381).This 14C determination and other evidence suggest thatPET-408 was occupied during the late Pleistocene.

Fedje and Josenhans (pers. comm., 1998) recovereda basalt blade-like #ake from the continental shelf ofBritish Columbia. Based on local sea level rise at the endof the Pleistocene, this locale would probably have beencovered by rising sea level about or shortly before10,000 BP, thus suggesting the site may have been occu-pied ca. 10,300 BP (Josenhans et al., 1997). Althoughthese data and the ca. 10,300 BP date on a bone tool fromPET-4089 are preliminary, they suggest humans occu-pied the northwest coast of North America at the end ofthe last ice age when sea level was lower and the conti-nental margins of western North America were exposedas dry land.

In coastal British Columbia, Fladmark (1982) de"nedan early Holocene cultural complex contemporaneouswith early southeast Alaska sites (Carlson, 1990, 1996;Fladmark, 1990; Stryd and Rousseau, 1996; Fedje et al.,1996; and others). Despite the more extensive research inBritish Columbia, there are few sites reported which canbe demonstrated to be older than 10,000 BP (Hobler,1978; Fladmark, 1979). Hobler (1978) reports #akes and#ake cores from intertidal sites in the Queen CharlotteIslands which are presumed to have been deposited priorto sea level rise ca. 10,000 BP. The earliest cultural com-ponent at the Skoglund's Landing site is ca.8500}9000 BP (Fladmark, 1979). Fedje et al. (1996) re-port early Holocene 14C determinations of ca. 9200 BPfor Arrow Creek 2.

Collectively, these sites demonstrate widespreadoccupation by maritime adapted humans in SoutheastAlaska and British Columbia beginning sometime priorto 10,000 BP. Lithic artifacts include blocky and wedge-shaped microblade cores, microblades, utilized, notchedand waste #akes, #ake cores, rare bifaces, scrapers,gravers, and choppers. Obsidian was traded widely and

the use of watercraft is inferentially demonstrated by thewidespread trade in obsidian, "shing for o!-shore bot-tom "sh, marine mammal hunting, and the location ofsites on islands and other settings accessible from the sea.

12. Northern Paleoindian tradition (ca. 10,500-8000 BP)

Fluted projectile points and related lanceolate formshave been found throughout eastern Beringia (Fig. 5).The #uted projectile points from eastern Beringia havecome from sites which either have not been dated or forwhich the dating is ambiguous. Most scholars have as-sumed a historical relationship between Paleoindian pro-jectile points from eastern Beringia and those from thesouthern Plains of western North America based on theirmorphological similarity. Fluted projectile points havebeen found primarily in the northern areas of Beringiaalong the north and south sides of the Brooks Range.A few examples are also reported from regions in centralinterior Alaska.

Numerous sites containing #uted projectile pointsfrom eastern Beringia are part of the larger North Ameri-can Paleoindian tradition usually associated with thewestern United States (Dixon, 1993, pp. 15}23). By in-cluding the northern examples within the larger Paleoin-dian tradition the underlying assumption is made thatthe peoples who made and used these tools in easternBeringia were part of a larger population of peoples whoshared a similar way of life and economic system. Thisassumption is supported by the fact that most of thenorthern sites appear to be situated in locales best suitedfor big game hunting, a strong economic focus ofPaleoindians to the south.

There are three hypotheses which address the relation-ships between the northern and southern Paleoindianassemblages (Clark, 1984a, b): (1) northern Paleoindianartifacts were left by the "rst humans to reach Alaska andlater moved southward, (2) #uted projectile points de-veloped in the more southern regions of North Americaand spread northward into eastern Beringia, or (3) #utedpoints were independently invented in eastern Beringiathousands of years after those to the south. This techno-logy could also have developed rapidly from the Nenanacomplex as it spread south (Goebel et al., 1991). Whilesome Paleoindian sites are known to contain large bladesand blade like #akes, Paleoindian tradition peoples didnot manufacture microblades or use side blade insets.

Comparative analysis using cumulative percentagecurves and cluster analysis demonstrates a close relation-ship between the Nenana and Clovis complexes sugges-ting two explanations for the similarities: (1) (followingHaynes, 1987 and others) that humans crossed the BeringLand Bridge sometime between 12,000 and 13,000 BPand rapidly moved south `through the Ice-Free Corri-dora and that both Clovis and the Nenana complexes


Fig. 5. Map depicting the location of important archeological sites and site components ascribed to the Northern Paleoindian tradition (reproducedfrom Dixon, 1999 with permission of University of New Mexico Press).

were derived from this migration, or (2) that both com-plexes are technologically derived from an earlier migra-tion which hypothetically took place before the `closingof the Ice-Free Corridora ca. 22,000}25,000 BP (Goebelet al., 1991).

It is also possible that the Nenana and Clovis com-plexes are inland adaptations derived from an earliermigration along the western coast of the Americas nearthe end of the Pleistocene ca. 13,500 BP (Dixon, 1993).This hypothesis is strengthened by evidence indicatingthat Clovis peoples may have used the coast. SeveralClovis or Clovis-like sites have been reported near oradjacent to the west coast of North America. The RichieRoberts Clovis cache near Wenatchee, Washington is lessthan 150 km from the ocean. Clovis points have beenreported from a coastal site in Mendocino County, Cali-fornia (Simons et al., 1985) and on the coast near SantaBarbara (Erlandson et al., 1987; Erlandson and Moss,1996). Because sea level was lower at the time these siteswere occupied their distance from the coast would havebeen somewhat greater than it is today.

The Mesa site has 14 radiocarbon determinationsranging between ca. 11,660 and 9730 BP, derived from 15hearths at the site (Kunz and Reanier, 1996). Only twodates (derived from the same `splita charcoal sample)exceed 11,000 BP. They appear to be statistical outlyers,possibly resulting from burning fossil wood (Hamiltonand Goebel, in press). All the remaining dates clusteraround 10,000 BP, suggesting this is an accurate datefor the Mesa occupation. The projectile points aretypologically similar to Agate Basin projectile pointsfrom the high plains (Frison and Stanford, 1982). The twopre-11,000 BP dates and the geographic location of thesite have led some researchers to suggest that Mesa`culturea may be ancestral to Agate Basin sites frommore southern areas of North America (Kunz et al., 1994,1995; Kunz and Shelley, 1994; Kunz and Reanier, 1996).

The Putu site has two localities which frequently havebeen treated as separate sites, the Putu and Bedwell sites(Alexander, 1974, 1987; Morlan, 1977; Dumond, 1980;Clark and Clark, 1983; Clark, 1984a, b, 1991; Kunz andReanier, 1994). The lower component at the Putu locality


contains #uted projectile points. A single radiocarbondate of 11,470$500 was originally believed to date the#uted points, but reevaluation by Reanier (1995, 1996)demonstrates that two other dates, 8450$130 and8810$60, probably more accurately date the lowercomponent. Reanier (1995, 1996) obtained an AMS14C date on charcoal collected during the original exca-vation of the Bedwell locality which dated to 10,490$70(Beta 69895, CAMS-11032). Based on comparison of theprojectile points with similar specimens from the Mesasite, Reanier suggests this 14C determination may datethe Bedwell occupation.

Spein Mountain extends the range of the North-ern Paleoindian tradition to Southwestern Alaska(Ackerman, 1996a, b), and is dated to 10,050$90(BETA-64471, CAMS-8281). The site lacks microbladesor evidence of microblade technology and contains bi-facially #aked lanceolate projectile points with constrict-ing bases and other artifact types attributable to theNorthern Paleoindian tradition that are similar to arti-facts from the Mesa Site and Bedwell sites (Ackerman,1996a, b, p. 460).

There are a number of isolated surface "nds typologi-cally characteristic of Northern Paleoindian traditionprojectile points that have been found throughoutAlaska and the Yukon Territory. In addition, NorthernPaleoindian sites have been excavated in central interiorAlaska which date between 10,500 and 8500 BP. Theseare Component I at the Carlo Creek site dating to ca.8500 BP (Bowers, 1980), the Jay Creek Ridge site occu-pied ca. 9500 BP based on six 14C AMS determinations(Dixon, 1993, pp. 85}87), the Eroadaway site (Holmes,1988), the Eroadaway site dated to 8640$170 BP(WSU-3683) (Holmes, 1988, p. 3), and Component II atthe Owl Ridge site dated by four 14C determinationsbetween 7500 and 9500 BP (Phippen, 1988). Yesner et al.(1992) report occupations dating ca. 7500 BP from theBroken Mammoth and Mead sites which also lack evid-ence of microblade technology but which contain bifacialstone tools. Although component II dating ca. 8600 and7000 BP at Panguingue Creek (Powers and Ho!ecker,1989, p. 276, Powers and Maxwell, 1986) has been as-cribed to the American Paleoarctic tradition, this com-ponent does not contain microblade technology but doescontain bifacial tools.

A series of four 14C determinations suggests that Cul-tural Zone III at the Broken Mammoth site was occupiedca. 10,300 BP. Zone III contains waste #akes, point frag-ments, two small `trianguloida basally ground projectilepoints, large biface and point fragments, quartz hammerstones, and a small eyed bone needle (Holmes and Yesner,1992b; Yesner et al., 1993; Yesner, 1996; Hamilton andGoebel, in press). At the Swan Point site, cultural compon-ent III dated to 10,230$80 BP (Beta-56666, CAMS-4252)contains strait and convex-based small lanceolate projec-tile points as well as thin triangular points.

Two exceptionally well-preserved bone projectilepoints recovered from Pit 1-G, on Goldstream Creekwere reported by Rainey (1939, p. 393). Two AMS14C radiocarbon determinations indicate they were prob-ably manufactured ca. 8500 BP. These specimens werenot slotted to receive microblade insets and they areprobably atlatl dart points (Dixon, 1999).

Sites and site components ascribed to the NorthernPaleoindian tradition all contain projectile points similarto Paleoindian sites elsewhere in North America. All lackevidence of a microblade industry. Several sites, includ-ing Carlo Creek and Eroadaway, suggest that the North-ern Paleoindian tradition persisted for a considerablelength of time in eastern Beringia. Although some ofthese sites might represent a continuum from the Nenanacomplex in Alaska's interior (Dixon, 1993), it is equallyplausible that they are later regional manifestations ofthe Northern Paleoindian tradition, possibly incorporat-ing both Nenana complex and Northern Paleoindiantradition technological traits.

Because the earliest reliable 14C determinations forthe Northern Paleoindian tradition are no older thanca. 10,500 BP, the Paleoindian tradition is younger ineastern Beringia than in more southern areas of NorthAmerica. It appears that Paleoindian projectile pointtypes derived from the northern Plains may have arrivedin eastern Beringia beginning ca. 10,500 BP, followingpartition of the continental ice. This interpretationis supported by the discovery of a Clovis componentat Charlie Lake Cave in northeastern British Columbiadated to ca. 10,550 BP (Fladmark et al., 1986; Driver,1996; Driver et al., 1996), and at Vermilion Lake inBan! National Park in Alberta, Canada (Fedje et al.,1995). At Vermilion Lake, Fedje et al. (1995) havedocumented an assemblage ascribed to the `Late FlutedPoint traditiona possibly dating as early as 10,800 BPbased on 14C determinations from other typologicallysimilar sites.

Northern Paleoindian projectile points do not exhibitthe full typological array of Paleoindian projectilepoints from the more southern regions of North America.While most of the early #uted types exhibit multiple#utes, concave bases and edge grinding, among thenorthern assemblages large Clovis points are rare andclassic Folsom points have not been found. Laterlanceolate forms resemble tapering stemmed formssimilar to Agate Basin and Hell Gap points. Thesedi!erences led some archeologists (Wormington, 1968;Dixon, 1976) to propose the south to north spreadof Paleoindian technology based on the fact that thenorthern examples looked typologically later than thethose found on the western plains. Dixon (1976) sugges-ted the south to north spread of this technology mayhave occurred ca. 10,000 BP, but more contemporarydata suggest it may have been earlier, probably ca.10,500 BP.


Fig. 6. The process of producing a composite projectile point withmicroblade insets. (a) microblade removal from a microblade core (viewfrom core platform), (b) microblade, proximal, medial and distal seg-ments, (c) medial fragment inset into an organic projectile point (modi-"ed from Dixon, 1999, reproduced with permission of University ofNew Mexico Press).

13. Archeological summary

The earliest archeology of eastern Beringia is ascribedto the Nenana complex, characterized by triangular bi-facial projectile points and ovate knives. Widespreadtrade in obsidian was already established indicating oc-cupation of Alaska prior to that time. The occurrence of`scavenged fossil ivorya at several sites implies that mam-moth or mastodon remains were being scavenged by ca.11,600 BP. No mammoth or mastodon kill sites havebeen found in eastern Beringia, although controversialblood residue analysis of #uted projectile points suggeststhat mammoth may have persisted until ca. 10,500 BP insome areas of eastern Beringia (Dixon, 1993; Loy andDixon, 1998).

The Nenana complex begins sometime prior to11,600 BP and persists until ca. 10,500 at which time itbecomes di$cult to distinguish from the NorthernPaleoindian tradition in interior Alaska. This suggestsa possible `blendinga of technological traits of theNenana complex and Northern Paleoindian tradition.Although not entirely conclusive, it appears that theNenana complex did not manufacture microblades. TheNorthern Paleoindian tradition existed in regions of east-ern Beringia as a co-tradition with the AmericanPaleoarctic tradition between ca. 10,500}8000 BP. Thistradition spread northward into eastern Beringia fromthe northern Plains.

Distinctive microblade technologies were introducedinto eastern Beringia sometime around 10,500 BP andare contemporaneous with the Northern Paleoindiantradition. The Denali complex represents an inland ad-aptation by microblade using peoples. The AmericanPaleoarctic and Northwest Coast Microblade traditionsare found in near coastal areas suggesting subsistenceactivities related to coastal and adjacent inland re-sources. Trade in obsidian, site locations, and faunalremains inferentially demonstrate the use of watercraftprior to 10,000 BP along the Northwest Coast.

This analysis does not support the traditional BeringLand Bridge theory of human migration to the Americas,which postulates that hunters of large terrestrial mammalusing Clovis-like projectile points crossed the BeringLand Bridge and descended from Beringia to the Plainsof North America ca. 11,500 BP. Archeological researchdemonstrates that pre-Clovis sites exist at Monte Verde,in eastern Beringia, and probably at other sites through-out the Americas. The northern movement of thePaleoindian tradition ca. 10,500 BP demonstrates thathumans were south of the continental glaciers prior todeglaciation ca. 11,000 BP and that the Clovis complex isan independent New World cultural development. Tech-nological similarities between the contemporaneousNenana and Clovis complexes may result from the factthat both are derived from a common cultural prede-cessor.

14. Weapon systems

The width of the projectile point at the place where it ishafted helps to de"ne the size of the shaft to which it wasattached. This along with the size and weight of Nenana,Clovis, and later Paleoindian projectile points suggeststhat they were attached to atlatl darts and not used to tiparrows. These projectile points are conceptually verydi!erent than composite projectile points manufacturedby setting microblades in organic points. The AmericanPaleoarctic tradition used thin parallel sided stonemicroblades struck from specially prepared stone coresto create cutting edges. The microblades were inset alonglongitudinal grooves incised in bone, antler, or ivoryprojectile points to form razor-sharp cutting edges alongthe margins of projectile points manufactured from or-ganic materials (Fig. 6).

The bifacial stone and composite projectile point manu-facturing techniques are fundamentally di!erent ap-proaches to producing the same type of artifact, theprojectile point (Dixon, 1993). These two contrasting con-ceptual approaches to the manufacture of weapon systemssuggest that other profound di!erences in technologicaland social concepts existed between these peoples.

The manufacture of microblades and composite pro-jectile points are geographically restricted to Eurasia,Alaska and northwest Canada. The vast region of in-terior Alaska and adjacent Canada was a transitional


area between more Eurasian oriented microblade tradi-tions and non-microblade bifacial traditions of NorthAmerica. The boundaries between these technologicaltraditions shifted repeatedly over time and consequentlysome archeological sites provide a sequence of non-microblade/microblade technologies when viewed ata single geographic locale.

15. Colonization events

From a technological perspective, there appear to betwo major colonizing events in the Americas. The "rstwas an early migration by the ancestors of theClovis/Nenana complexes sometime before ca. 11,500 BPand possibly as early as ca. 13,500 BP. These people useatlatl darts tipped with bifacially #aked stone end bladeslashed to harpoon-like heads seated on bone foreshafts.They did not manufacture microblades and did not usethe bow and arrow. The atlatl remained the primaryweapon system in South America and temperate andsouthern regions of North America until Archaic times.

The second colonization event was by peoples bearingthe American Paleoarctic tradition ca. 10,500 BP. Al-though they probably used the atlatl, they also introduc-ed the bow and arrow. This included the complextechnique of manufacturing composite projectile pointswhich were characterized by insetting razor sharp stonemicroblades along the sides of bone and antler projectilepoints.

Although both populations required e!ective projec-tile points essential in hunter/gather societies, each de-veloped unique approaches to manufacturing them.Nenana/Clovis peoples relied primarily on reducinga lithic core by #aking away excess rock to create a #akedstone projectile point, or biface. American Paleoarcticpeoples engaged in a complex technological sequence of`buildinga projectile points by inserting microblades inslots carved along the sides of cylindrical bone or antlerprojectile points. These conceptually complex and di!er-ent approaches successfully solved the same problem,suggesting that the di!erences result from learned be-havior passed from generation to generation. Otherprofound di!erences may have existed between these twogroups, possibly including biological and linguistic traits,as well as technological and social concepts.

The limited physical anthropological data also implytwo distinct human groups emigrated to the Americas.Steele and Powell (1992) have concluded that the humancranial and facial characteristics from the Americas thatare over 8500 BP are distinctively di!erent than laterNative Americans. Distinguishing features identi"ed byphysical anthropologists for these very early New Worldpeoples are: longer, more narrow faces; and smaller morenarrow nasal apertures (Steele and Powell, 1992; Chat-ters, 1997; Jantz and Owsley, 1997). These early remains

from the Americas tend to display craniofacial featureswhich are more similar to southern Asian and Europeanpopulations.

They were followed by a second population bearinggreater resemblance to contemporary northern Asiansand Native Americans. Although rapid evolutionarychange could explain the di!erences between the earlier(older than ca. 8000 BP) and later Native Americanpopulations, they more likely represent two distinctpopulations. The older group has been described as beingmore `Caucasoida in appearance and they resemble theAinu of northern Japan. If these comparisons are accu-rate, then both early technological evidence and physicalanthropological data might suggest a possible point oforigin for the earliest Americans in the maritime regionsof northeast Asia.

16. Coastal migration

Prior to the early 1970s, it had been assumed that theCordilleran ice extended westward to the margins of thecontinental shelf thus creating a barrier to human migra-tion (Coulter et al., 1965; Nasmith, 1970; Prest, 1969).More recent geologic and paleoecologic studies docu-ment deglaciation and the existence of ice-free areasthroughout major coastal areas of British Columbia byca. 13,000 BP (Blaise et al., 1990; Bobrowsky et al., 1990).It is now clear that areas of continental shelf and o!-shore islands were not covered by ice during and towardthe end of the last glacial. Vast areas along the coast mayhave been deglaciated beginning about 16,000 BP. Ex-cept for a 400-km coastal area between southwest BritishColumbia and Washington State, the Northwest Coastof North America was largely free of ice by ca. 16,000years ago (Mann and Peteet, 1995). The exposed conti-nental shelf and o!-shore islands were available as a mi-gration route between 13,500 and 9500 BP (Josenhans etal., 1995, 1997), possibly enabling people to colonizeice-free regions along the continental shelf exposed bylower sea level.

Because of the misleading early geologic interpreta-tions, the region has not been subject to research equiva-lent to that which has occurred in non-coastal easternBeringia, but signi"cant advances are now being made.The remains of large omnivores, such as black and brownbears, and other land animals, including caribou, havebeen found in Southeast Alaska dating between 12,500and 10,000 BP (Heaton, 1995, 1996; Heaton and Grady,1993; Heaton et al., 1996) demonstrating that su$cientsubsistence resources were available to support humans(Dixon, 1995). The Northwest Coast Microbladetradition is documented as early as 10,000 BP in BritishColumbia and Southeast Alaska. Archeological sitesascribed to this tradition share the use of microblades,and exhibit a marine economy documented by limited


Fig. 7. Map depicting the hypothetical coastal migration hypothesis (reproduced from Dixon, 1999 with permission of University of New MexicoPress).

faunal remains and isotopic analysis of human remains(Dixon et al., 1997), and the ecological setting of the sites(Fig. 7).

17. The model

The model for human colonization of the Americassuggested by the most current data are coastal migrationwith inland movement and settlement within broad en-vironmental zones, or megapatches that extend fromnorth to south throughout the Americas. Migrationprobably occurred in many directions at the same time.For example, some people may have been moving morerapidly southward along the Paci"c Coast of the Amer-icas while others were colonizing more slowly eastwardfrom the coast to the interior of the continents.

This model is drastically di!erent than the traditionalBeringian crossing and subsequent unidirectional `mi-grationa from north to south, cross-cutting environ-mental zones and a wide array of physical obstacles.Colonization along large environmental zones is moreconsistent with New World archeological data and en-ables seemingly con#icting evidence to be reconciled intoa single rational model for colonization of the Americas.

Fig. 8 schematically portrays how colonization may haveoccurred along major environmental zones at arbitrary500 year intervals beginning at ca. 13,000 BP. Extremenortheast North America and Greenland were not su$-ciently deglaciated to permit colonization until about5000 BP.

This alternative model proposes that initial humancolonization of the Americas may have begun ca.14,000}13,500 BP along the southern margin of the Beri-ng Land Bridge and then southward along the Paci"cCoast of the Americas. With the use of watercraft, thehuman population moved rapidly southward along thecoastal}intertidal Paci"c biome, or `megapatcha. Eventhough evidence of this early migration may be obscuredby rising sea level at the end of the last ice age, evidencemight be expected to be found in adjacent areas of theinterior, such as Monte Verde. Although it would havebeen somewhat further from the sea at the time it wasoccupied than it is today, Monte Verde is located alonga river drainage only 15 km northeast of the Paci"cOcean. If this model is correct, the Paci"c Coast of theAmericas could have been occupied thousands of yearsbefore the continental ice in North America melted.

Coastal environments provide many ecological advant-ages for generalized foragers, an economic adaptation


Fig. 8. Schematic illustration of how New World colonization may have occurred along major environmental zones at arbitrary 500 year intervals.Extreme northeast North America and Greenland were not su$ciently deglaciated to permit colonization until ca. 5000 BP (reproduced from Dixon,1999 with permission of University of New Mexico Press).

best suited for colonizing populations. For example, in-tertidal resources, such as shell"sh, may be harvested bychildren and the elderly and simply eaten raw. On theother hand, hunters specializing in large terrestrial mam-mal hunting are more dependent on a few strong adultsto bring down large mammals. Large mammal huntingalso requires greater territorial movement and presentsgreater di$culty for human groups which realisticallyinclude the elderly, the very young, pregnant women, andthe in"rm. Current data from the some of earliest sites inthe Americas including the Aubery (Ferring, 1989, 1990,1995), Horn Shelter in Texas (Forrester, 1985; Redder,1985; Young, 1985; Young et al., 1987), a Clovis agerockshelter near the California}Oregon border (Beaton,1991b), Lewisville (Stanford, pers. comm.), and numerousother sites, indicate subsistence traditions based onforaging rather than specialized large mammal hunting.Local abundance of marine and intertidal resources and

predictable runs of anadromous "sh concentrated hu-man populations in speci"c locales such as shelteredbays, inlets, estuaries, and salmon spawning streams.

Temperate coastal technological adaptations relyheavily on readily available materials such as drift wood,marine mammal products, beach cobbles, and shell,which in many cases may have been already partiallymodi"ed by noncultural processes. In such an environ-ment, reliance on sophisticated lithic technologies wasprobably not as important as in other environments. Forexample, preshaped and prepolished sling and bolastones, the only lithic material required for two e!ective,deadly weapons, can be easily and e$ciently collectedfrom noncultural beach deposits. Monte Verde providesa rare glimpse into this type of technological adaptation.At Monte Verde people produced and used few bifacially#aked stone tools and relied heavily on simple #akes andorganic materials.


Fig. 9. Line drawing comparing the (a) detachable Clovis end blade,dart head, and foreshaft atlatl dart assembly (Stanford, 1996) and the (b)detachable marine mammal hunting end blade, harpoon head andforeshaft assembly used in marine mammal hunting (reproduced fromDixon, 1999 with the permission of University of New Mexico Press).

From an original and theoretical maritime subsistencestrategy, several adaptive trajectories were possible ashumans expanded across the landscape. Survival mayhave been best assured by the continuation of a patternof general foraging, which could be adjusted or modi"edbased on availability of resources and increasing know-ledge of local geography and biological patterns. Forexample, along the west coast people may have con-tinued their ancient adaptation to shell"sh gathering,"shing, and marine mammal hunting. In interior regionsof southern California, Arizona and Mexico the patternof general foraging may have led to an increasing empha-sis on harvesting and processing plant products and seedgrinding. On the Plains general foraging persistedthroughout the Paleoindian period, but people empha-sized and re"ned large mammal hunting, particularlycommunal mass kills.

Although the initial colonization along the continentalmargins of the Americas may have occurred ratherquickly, subsequent colonization of interior environ-ments probably occurred more slowly. People probably"rst moved inland from the coast along rivers. As popu-lation increased and people adapted to interior environ-ments, colonization probably continued to progressalong environmental zones.

Given this scenario, the western plains of North Amer-ica may have been among the last to be settled as well asone of the least hospitable environmental regions of thecontinent. Separated from the Paci"c coast by the vastCordillera, adaptation to intervening mountainous re-gions may have occurred slowly. Classic Clovis sites,such as Blackwater Draw and Murray Springs, contain-ing evidence of spectacular mammoth predation, may berepresentative of a rather unique cultural, technologicaland ecological adaptation during late Pleistocene. Inother words, the spectacular and well publicized Cloviskill sites may be the least typical and the least useful sitesfor interpreting the peopling of the Americas and earlyNew World adaptations.

Although Clovis is often associated with mammothhunting, other data demonstrate that Clovis people mayhave placed greater emphasis on generalized gathering.Only 12 sites have been documented in North Americawhere Clovis points have been found in association withmammoth remains (Haynes, 1991, pp. 197}197, 206).A more realistic portrayal of Clovis economicssuggests that mammoth kill sites occur in marginalhabitats that may have been some of the last to becolonized. Although these sites may provide the earliestevidence of human occupation in the western interiorof North America, this region may have been amongthe last to be colonized.

Analysis of Paleoindian dentition (Powell and Steel,1994) supports the hypothesis that Clovis and other earlyNew World cultures have their adaptive roots as general-ized foragers rather than specialized big game hunters.

The characteristics of dental wear in the oldest humanremains from the Americas are virtually identical tothose of generalized foragers. This demonstrates thatthese early diets included a broad array of foods andlarge amounts of plant "ber.

18. Technology

The lithic technology found at Monte Verde is charac-terized by the selection and use of naturally occurringstone and minimal modi"cation of stones and otheruseful items found in the natural environment. Thistype of technological system probably originates from ageneralized coastal economy which might have onlyoccasional and comparatively rare need for bifacial pro-jectile points to serve as harpoon end blades or possiblyknives.

An intriguing connection between coastal migrationsand mammoth hunting may lay in understanding theClovis weapon system. It is characterized by the atlatl, orspear thrower, used to propel a short light weight spear,or dart. The dart is tipped with bifacially #aked stoneClovis projectile point believed to be mounted in a split-shaft harpoon-like haft, that is attached to a boneforeshaft (Stanford, 1996). The end blade, harpoon, and


foreshaft assembly used for marine mammal hunting isessentially the same as the Paleoindian foreshaft,dart head and Clovis projectile point assembly suggestedby Stanford (1997) (Fig. 9). This suggests that theClovis weapon system may have its origins in coastalmarine mammal hunting technology that was sub-sequently adapted to hunting large terrestrial mammals.The diagnostic trait of basal thinning and #uting earlyPaleoindian projectile points may be derived from thinn-ing the base of stone projectile points to make them "teasily into slotted harpoon heads designed for marinemammal hunting. This type of end blade assembly persis-ted until historic times among maritime hunters in north-western North America and northeast Asia.

19. Conclusions

The initial colonization of the Americas used water-craft and occurred about 13,500 BP. This hypothesis issupported by the following:

(1) The earliest deglaciated route was coastal. The de-glaciated west coast of North America was "rstavailable for colonization by ca. 13,500. The interiorroute was blocked by the continental glaciers untilabout 11,000 when a deglaciation corridor de-veloped between Beringia and the southern areas ofNorth America ca. 11,000 BP.

(2) Monte Verde, and other sites, predate the opening ofthe mid-continental route indicating peoples weresouth of the continental glaciers prior to deglaciationca. 11,000 BP.

(3) Reliably dated human remains "rst appear in NorthAmerican between 11,000 and 11,500 BP, providinglimiting minimum dates for human occupation andsuggesting human colonization occurred earlier.

(4) By about 11,000}12,000 BP regional cultural ad-aptation was well under way in North America,suggesting an earlier migration.

(5) The Paleoindian tradition spread from south tonorth ca. 10,500 BP, indicating that people weresouth of the continental ice prior to deglaciation, ca.11,000 BP.

(6) Paleoindian subsistence data indicate an economicsystem rooted in general foraging, not specialized biggame hunting.

(7) The New World's "rst weapon system, the fore-shaft/harpoon/end-blade atlatl dart assembly, maytrace its origins to coastal marine mammal hunting,rather than large terrestrial mammal hunting.

(8) Evidence from other regions of the world demon-strate that humans had watercraft and the ability tonavigate near-shore ocean waters prior to 14,000 BP.

(9) Technological and physical anthropological evid-ence suggests at least two major colonizing events,

the "rst beginning possibly by ca. 13,500 BP usingthe atlatl and the second about 10,500 BP introduc-ing the bow and arrow. However, the relationships,if any, between the two human physical types andthe two major technological traditions are notclear.

Although it is imperative that New World archeol-ogists keep their minds open to earlier human coloniz-ation of the Americas, the very limited data from thelower level at Monte Verde and controversial discoveriesat other sites suggesting human occupation as early as30,000}35,000 BP, are not adequate to demonstrate anearlier colonization event. A stronger suite of evidencewill be required to convince most scientists, and mostwill be reluctant to accept a third and much earlier(ca. 30,000 BP) human migration to the Americas with-out additional evidence.

The coastal `corridora provided the environmentalavenue essential for the initial human entry to the Amer-icas. The coast formed part of a continuous northernmarine}intertidal ecosystem extending between north-east Asia and northwestern North America. It wouldhave facilitated coastal navigation and provided similarsubsistence resources in a continuous ecological zonelinking the two hemispheres. Old world adaptationscould have enabled rapid colonization without develop-ing new technologies or subsistence strategies.

The intellectual dominance of the interior Beringianmodel for the colonization of the Americas by Eurasianlarge land mammal hunters has resulted in little arche-ological research directed toward New World coloniz-ation along the coastal regions of northeast Asia andthe western coasts of the Americas. The concept ofhumans "rst entering the Americas via a Bering LandBridge is almost 500 years old and was advanced andstrengthened when science lacked the archeologicaland geologic evidence available today (de Acosta, 1604;Dawson, 1894; Johnston, 1933; Spinden, 1933 andothers). Viewed in light of the coastal colonizationhypothesis, the Bering Land Bridge played an important,but di!erent, role in the peopling of the Americas.The Bering Land Bridge was essential for human coloniz-ation because it provided an uninterrupted marine}intertidal environment that facilitated inter-coastalnavigation connecting Eurasia and North America alongits southern margin.

Archeological evidence necessary to evaluate thecoastal migration hypothesis is di$cult to "nd becauserising sea level at the close of the Pleistocene inundatedmuch of the continental shelf. If the coastal migrationhypothesis is to be fully evaluated, the late Pleistocenecoastal archeology of western North America requiresresearch equivalent to that which has traditionally fo-cused on the late Pleistocene/early Holocene archeologyof mid-continental North America.


Acknowledgements

The Denver Museum of Natural History supportedthe preparation of this manuscript and the University ofNew Mexico Press gave permission to use the "gures.Special thanks to David M. Hopkins who was a catalystfor this paper and a mentor to so many of us who wereable to participate in the 1997 Beringian Symposium.

References

Ackerman, R.E., 1992. Earliest stone industries on the North Paci"ccoast of North America. Arctic Anthropology 29, 18}27.

Ackerman, R.E., 1996a. Early maritime culture complexes of the North-ern Northwest Coast. In: Carlson, R.L., Dallas Bona, L. (Eds.), EarlyHuman Occupation in British Columbia. University of British Col-umbia Press, Vancouver, pp. 123}132.

Ackerman, R.E., Hamilton, T.D., Stuckenrath, R., 1979. Early culturecomplexes on the Northern Northwest Coast. Canadian Journal ofArchaeology 3, 195}208.

Ackerman, R.E., 1996b. Spein Mountain. In: West, F.H. (Ed.), AmericanBeginnings. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 456}460.

Ackerman, R.E., Reir, K.C., Gallison, J.D., Roe, M.E., 1985. Archaeol-ogy of Heceta Island: a Survey of 18 Timber Harvest Units in theTongass National Forest, Southeastern Alaska. Center for North-west Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman.

de Acosta, J., 1604. The Naturall and Morall Historie of the East andWest Indies. Translated by Edward Grimston. Reprinted by BartFranklin, New York, by permission of the Haakluyt Society.

Adovasio, J.M., Gunn, D., Donahue, J., Stuckenrath, R., 1977.Meadowcroft Rockshelter: retrospect 1976. Pennsylvania Archaeol-ogist 47, 1}93.

Adovasio, J.M., Gunn, D., Donahue, J., Stuckenrath, R., 1978.Meadowcroft Rockshelter, 1977: an overview. American Antiquity43, 632}651.

Adovasio, J.M., Gunn, D., Donahue, J., Stuckenrath, R., Guilday, E.,Volman, K., 1980. Yes Virginia, it really is that old: a reply toHaynes and Mead. American Antiquity 45, 588}595.

Alexander, H.C., 1974. The association of aurignacoid elements with#uted point complexes in North America. In: Raymond, S.,Schledermann, P. (Eds.), International Conference on Prehistoryand Paleoecology of the Western North America Arctic and SubArctic. University of Calgary Archaeological Association, Calgary,pp. 21}31.

Alexander, H.L., 1987. Putu: a #uted point site in Alaska. Simon FraserUniversity Publication No. 17. Archaeology Press, Simon FraserUniversity, Burnaby, British Columbia.

Anderson, D.D., 1970. Akmak: an early archeological assemblage fromOnion Portage, Northwest, Alaska. Acta Arctica, Fasc. XVI, 80 pp.

Bailliet, G., Rothhammer, F., Carnese, F.R., Bravi, C.M., Bianchi, N.O.,1994. Founder mitochondrial haplotypes in Amerindian popula-tions. American Journal of Human Genetics 54, 27}33.

Beaton, J.M., 1991a. Colonizing continents: some problems for Austra-lia and the Americas. In: Dillehay, T.D., Meltzer, D.J. (Eds.), TheFirst Americans: Search and Research. CRP Press, Boca Raton, FL,pp. 209}230.

Beaton, J.M., 1991b. Paleoindian occupation greater than 11,000 yrB.P. at Tule Lake, Northern California. Current Research in thePleistocene 8, 5}7.

Berger, R., Protsh, R., 1989. UCLA radiocarbon dates XI. Radiocarbon31, 55}67.

Birdsell, J.B., 1957. Some population problems involving Pleistoceneman. Cold Spring Harbor Symposium Quantitative Biology 22,47}69.

Blaise, B., Clague, J.J., Mathewes, R.W., 1990. Time of maximum LateWisconsin glaciation, west coast of Canada. Quaternary Research34, 282}295.

Bobrowsky, P.T., Catto, N.R., Brink, J.W., Spurling, B.E., Gibson, T.H.,Rutter, N.W., 1990. Archaeological geology of sites in western andnorthwestern Canada. Geological Society of America, CentennialSpecial Vol. 4, pp. 87}122 (Chapter 5).

Borden, C.E., 1969. Early population movements from Asia into West-ern North America. Syesis 2, 113.

Bowers, P.M., 1980. The Carlo Creek site: geology and archaeology ofan early Holocene site in the central Alaska Range. Anthropologyand Historic Preservation, Cooperative Park Studies Unit, Occa-sional Paper, 27. Fairbanks, Alaska.

Bryan, A. (Ed.), 1978. Early man in America. Occasional Papers, De-partment of Anthropology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, No.1., 327 pp.

Carlson, R.L., 1979. The early period on the central coast of BritishColumbia. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 3, 211}228.

Carlson, R.L., 1990. Cultural Antecedents. In: Sturtevant, W.C. (Ed.),Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 7, Northwest Coast.Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, pp. 60}69.

Carter, G.F., 1952. Interglacial artifacts from the San Diego area.Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 8, 444}456.

Carter, G.F., 1957. Pleistocene Man at San Diego. The Johns HopkinsPress, Baltimore.

Chatters, J.C., 1997. Encounter with an Ancestor. American Anthropol-ogical Association Newsletter, January, 9}10.

Clark, D.W., 1984a. Some practical applications of obsidian hydrationdating in the subarctic. Arctic 37, 91}109.

Clark, D.W., 1984b. Northern #uted points: Paleo-Eskimo Paleo-Arc-tic, or Paleo-Indian. Canadian Journal of Anthropology 4, 65}81.

Clark, D.W., 1991. The northern (Alaska-Yukon) #uted points. In:Bonnichsen, R., Turnmire, K.L. (Eds.), Clovis: Origins and Adapta-tions. Center for the Study of the First Americans, Oregon StateUniversity, Corvallis, pp. 35}48.

Clark, D.W., Clark, A.M., 1983. Paleo-Indians and #uted points: subar-ctic alternatives. Plains Anthropologist 28, 283}291.

Collins, M.B., Dillehay, T.D., 1986. The implications of the LithicAssemblage from Monte Verde for Early Man Studies. In: Bryan,A.L. (Ed.), New Evidence for the Pleistocene Peopling of the Amer-icas. Center for the Study of Early Man, University of Maine atOrono, pp. 339}355.

Cook, J.P., 1969. The early prehistory of Healy Lake, Alaska. Ph.D.Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Wiscon-sin, Madison.

Cook, J.P., 1996. Healy Lake. In: West, F.H. (Ed.), American Begin-nings. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 371}374.

Cook, J.P., Mckennan, R.A., 1970. The Village site at Healy Lake,Alaska, an interim report. Paper read at the 35th Annual Meeting ofthe Society for American Archeologists, Mexico City, Mexico.

Coulter, H.W., Hopkins, D.M., Karlstrom, T.N.V., PeH weH , T.L.,Wahrhaftig, C., Williams, J.R., 1965. Map showing extent ofglaciations in Alaska. U. S. Geological Survey MiscellaneousGeologic Investigations Map, I-415, scale 1:2,500,00.

Davis, S.D., 1989. Cultural component I. In: Davis, S.D. (Ed.), TheHidden Falls Site. Alaska Anthropological Association MonographSeries, Vol. 5, pp. 159}198.

Dawson, G.M., 1894. Geological notes on some of the coasts andislands of Bering Sea and vicinity. Geological Society of AmericaBulletin 5, 117}146.

Dillehay, T.D., 1984. A late ice-age settlement in southern Chile. Scient-i"c American 51, 100}109.

Dillehay, T.D., 1986. The cultural relationships of Monte Verde: a latePleistocene settlement in the Sub-Antarctic forest of South-centralChile. In: Bryan, A.L. (Ed.), New Evidence for the PleistocenePeopling of the Americas. Center for the Study of Early Man,University of Maine at Orono, pp. 319}337.


Dillehay, T.D., 1997. Monte Verde A Late Pleistocene Settlement inChile, Vol. 2: The Archaeological Context and Interpretation.Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.

Dillehay, T.D., Collins, M.B., 1988. Early cultural evidence from MonteVerde in Chile. Nature 332, 150}152.

Dixon, E.J., 1975. The Gallagher Flint Station, an early man site on theNorth Slope, arctic Alaska and its role in relation to the BeringLand Bridge. Arctic Anthropology 12, 68}75.

Dixon, E.J., 1976. The pleistocene prehistory of Arctic North America.Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Anthropologi-cal Sciences, Nice, France, pp. 168}198.

Dixon, E.J., 1993. Quest for the Origins of the First Americans. Univer-sity of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Dixon, E.J., 1995. The signi"cance of southeast Alaska karst. TheAlaskan Caver 15, 1}3.

Dixon, E.J., 1999. Bones, Boats and Bison: Archeology and the FirstColonization of Western North America. University of New MexicoPress, Albuquerque.

Dixon, E.J., Smith, G.S., 1990. A regional application of tephrochronol-ogy in Alaska. Geological Society of America Centennial SpecialVol. 4, pp. 383}398 (Chapter 21).

Dixon, E.J., Heaton, T.H., Fi"eld, T.E., Hamilton, T.D., Putnam, D.E.,Grady, F., 1997. Late Quaternary regional geoarchaeology of south-east Alaska karst: a progress report. Geoarchaeology 12, 689}712.

Dumond, D.E., 1980. The archeology of Alaska and the peopling ofAmerica. Science 209, 984}991.

Dumond, D.E., 1977. The Eskimos and Aleuts. Thames and Hudson,London.

Dumond, D.E., Henn, W., Stuckenrath, R., 1976. Archaeology andPrehistory on the Alaska Peninsula. Anthropological Papers of theUniversity of Alaska 18, 17}29.

Driver, J.C., 1996. The signi"cance of the fauna from the Charlie LakeCave Site. In: Carlson, R.L., Bona, L.D. (Eds.), Early Human Occu-pation in British Columbia. University of British Columbia Press,Vancouver, pp. 21}28.

Driver, J.C., Handly, M., Fladmark, K.R., Nelson, D.E., Sullivan, G.M.,Preston, R., 1996. Stratigraphy, radiocarbon dating, andculture history of Charlie Lake Cave, British Columbia. Arctic 49,265}277.

Erlandson, J.M., 1994. Early Hunter-Gatherers of the California Coast.Plenum Press, New York.

Fedje, D.W., White, J.M., Wilson, M.C., Nelson, D.E., Vogel, J.S.,Southon, J.R., 1995. Vermilion Lakes site: adaptations and environ-ments in the Canadian Rockies during the latest Pleistocene andearly Holocene. American Antiquity 60, 81}108.

Fedje, D.W., Mackie, A.P., McSporran, J.B., Wilson, B., 1996. Earlyperiod archaeology in Gwaii Haanas: results of the 1993 "eldprogram. In: Carlson, R.L., Dalla Bona, L. (Eds.), Early HumanOccupation in British Columbia. University of British ColumbiaPress, Vancouver, pp. 133}150.

Ferring, C.R., 1989. The Aubrey Clovis site: a Paleoindian locality inthe Upper Trinity Drainage Basin, Texas. Current Research in thePleistocene 6, 9}11.

Ferring, C.R., 1990. The 1989 investigations at the Aubrey Clovis Site,Texas. Current Research in the Pleistocene 7, 10}12.

Ferring, C.R., 1995. The Late Quaternary Geology and Archaeology ofthe Aubrey Site, Texas: a Preliminary Report. In: Johnson, E. (Ed.),Ancient Peoples and Landscapes. Texas Tech University Press,Lubbock, pp. 273}281.

Fladmark, K.R., 1975. A Paleoecological Model for Northwest CoastPrehistory. National Museum of Man, Mercury Series. Archae-ological Survey of Canada Paper, 43, Ottawa.

Fladmark, K.R., 1979. Routes: alternative migration corridors for earlyman in North America. American Antiquity 44, 55}69.

Fladmark, K.R., 1982. An introduction to the prehistory of BritishColumbia. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 6, 95}156.

Fladmark, K.R., 1986. Getting one's Berings. Natural History 95, 8}19.

Forrester, R.E., 1985. Horn shelter number 2: the north end, a prelimi-nary report. Central Texas Archeologist 10, 21}36.

Goebel, T.E., Powers, W.R., Bigelow, N., 1991. The Nenana complex ofAlaska and Clovis origins. In: Bonnichsen, R., Turnmire, K. (Eds.),Clovis Origins and Adaptations. Center for the Study of the FirstAmericans, Oregon State University, Corvalis, pp. 49}79.

Goebel, T., Powers, W.R., 1989. A possible paleoindian dwelling in theNenana, Alaska: spatial analysis at the Walker Road Site. Paperpresented at the 16th annual meeting of the Alaska AnthropologicalAssociation March, 3.

Goebel, T., Bigelow, N.H., 1996. Panguingue Creek. In: West, F.H.(Ed.), American Beginnings. The University of Chicago Press,Chicago, pp. 366}370.

Gri$n, J.B., 1979. The origin and dispersion of American Indians inNorth America. In: Laughlin, W.S., Harper, A.B. (Eds.), The FirstAmericans: Origins, A$nities, and Adaptations. Gustav Fischer,New York, pp. 43}56.

Guidon, N., Delibrias, G., 1986. Carbon-14 dates point to man in theAmericas 32,000 years ago. Nature 321, 769}771.

Graham, R.W., 1981. Preliminary report on late Pleistocene vertebratesfrom the Selby and Dutton archaeological/paleontological sites,Yuma County, Colorado. Contributions to Geology, University ofWyoming 20, 33}56.

Gustafson, C., Daugherty, R., Gilbow, D., 1979. The Manis MastodonSite: early man on the Olympic Peninsula. Canadian Journal ofArchaeology 3, 157}164.

Greenberg, J.H., Turner, C., Zegura, S.L., 1986. The settlement of theAmericas: a comparison of the linguistic, dental, and genetic evid-ence. Current Anthropology 27, 477}497.

Haley, S.D., Solorzano, F., 1991. The Lake Chapala "rst Mexicansproject, Jalisco, Mexico. Current Research in the Pleistocene 8,20}22.

Hamilton, T.D., Goebel, T., 1999. Late Pleistocene Peopling of Alaska.In: Bonnichsen, R., Ice Age Peoples of North America. Center for theStudy of the First Americans, Oregon State University, Corvallis.

Haynes Jr., C.V., 1967. Geology of the Tule Springs Area. Nevada StateMuseum Anthropological Papers 13, 15}104.

Haynes Jr., C.V., 1969. The earliest Americans. Science 166, 709}715.Haynes Jr., C.V., 1987. Clovis origin update. The Kiva 52, 83}92.Haynes Jr., C.V., 1991. Geoarchaeological and paleohydrological evid-

ence for a Clovis-age drought in North America and its bering onextinction. Quaternary Research 35, 438}450.

Heaton, T.H., Grady, F., 1993. Fossil grizzly bears from Prince of WalesIsland, Alaska, o!er new insights into animal dispersal, interspeci"ccompetition, and age of deglaciation. Current Research in the Pleis-tocene 10, 98}100.

Heaton, T.H., 1995. Middle Wisconsin bear and rodent remains dis-covered on Prince of Wales Island, Alaska. Current Research in thePleistocene 12, 92}95.

Heaton, T.H., 1996. The late Wisconsin vertebrate fauna of On YourKnees Cave, northern Prince of Wales Island, Alaska. Journal ofVertebrate Paleontology 16, 40}41.

Henn, W., 1978. Archaeology on the Alaska Peninsula: the UgashikDrainage, 1973}1975. University of Oregon Anthropological Pa-pers No. 14, Eugene.

Holmes, C.E., 1988. An early post Paleo-Arctic site in the AlaskaRange. Paper presented at the 15th Annual Meeting of theAlaska Anthropological Association, March 25-26. Fairbanks,Alaska.

Holmes, C.E., Dale, R.J., McMahn, J.D., 1989. Archaeological mitiga-tion of the Thorne River Site (CRG- 177), Prince of Wales Island,Alaska. O$ce of History and Archaeology, Report Number 15.Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation, Alaska Department ofNatural Resources.

Holmes, C.E., VanderHoek, R., Dilley, T.E., 1996. Swan Point. In: West,F.H. (Ed.), American Beginnings. The University of Chicago Press,Chicago, pp. 525}536.


Hopkins, D.M., 1973. Sea level history in Beringia during the last125,000 years. Quaternary Research 3, 520}540.

Hopkins, D.M., 1979. Landscape and climate of Beringia during LatePleistocene and Holocene time. In: Laughlin, W.S., Harper, A.B.(Eds.), The First Americans: Origins, A$nities and Adaptations.Gustav Fischer, New York, pp. 15}41.

Hopkins, D.M., 1982. Aspects of the Paleogeography of Beringia duringthe Late Pleistocene. In: Hopkins, D.M., Matthews Jr., J.V.,Schweger, C.E., Young, S.B. (Eds.), Paleoecology of Beringia. Aca-demic Press, New York, pp. 3}28.

Horai, S., Kondo, R., Sonoda, S., Tajima, K., 1996. The "rst Americans:di!erent waves of migration to the New World inferred frommitochondrial DNA sequence polymorphisms. In: Akazawa, T.,Szathmary, E.J.E. (Eds.), Prehistoric Mongoloid Dispersals. OxfordUniversity Press, Oxford, pp. 270}283.

Hobler, P.M., 1978. The relationship of archaeological sites to sea levelson Moresby Island, Queen Charlotte. Canadian Journal of Archae-ology 2, 1}14.

Hrdlic\ ka, A., 1928. The origin and antiquity of Man in America.Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine 4, 802}816.

Irving, W.N., Jopling, A.V., Beebe, B.F., 1986. Indications of Pre-Sangamon Humans near Old Crow, Yukon, Canada. In: Bryan,A.L. (Ed.), New Evidence for the Pleistocene Peopling of the Amer-icas. Center for the Study of Early Man, University of Maine,Orono, pp. 49}63.

Irwin-Williams, C., 1969. Comments on the associations of archeologi-cal materials and extinct fauna in the Valsequillo region, Puebla,Mexico. American Antiquity 34, 82}83.

Irwin-Williams, C., 1978. Summary of Archaeological evidence fromthe Valsequillo region, Puebla, Mexico. In: Browman, D.L. (Ed.),Cultural Continuity in Mesoamerica, pp. 7}22.

Jantz, R.L., Owsley, D.W., 1997. Pathology, taphonomy and cranialmorphometrics of the Spirit Cave mummy (AHUR 2064). NevadaHistorical Society Quarterly 40, 62}84.

Jackson Jr., L.E., Phillips, F.M., Shimamura, K., Little, E.C., 1997.Cosmogenic 36Cl dating of the Foothills erratics train, Alberta,Canada. Geology 25, 195}198.

Johnston, W.A., 1933. Quaternary geology of North America in rela-tion to the migration of man. In: Jenness, D. (Ed.), The AmericanAborigines, Their Origins and Antiquity. University of TorontoPress, Toronto, pp. 9}46.

Jones, S., Bonnichsen, R., 1994. The Anzick Clovis burial. CurrentResearch in the Pleistocene 11, 42}43.

Josenhans, H.W., Fedje, D.W., Conway, K.W., Barrie, J.E., 1995. Pos-tglacial sea-levels on the western Canadian continental shelf: evid-ence for rapid change, extensive subaerial exposure, and earlyhuman habitation. Marine Geology 125, 73}94.

Josenhans, H.W., Fedje, D.W., Pienitz, R., Southon, J., 1997. Earlyhumans and rapidly changing Holocene sea levels in the QueenCharlotte Islands-Hecate Strait, British Columbia, Canada. Science277, 71}74.

Jordan, R.H., 1992. A maritime Paleoarctic assemblage from KodiakIsland, Alaska. Anthropological Papers of the University of Alaska2.

Kelly, R.L., 1996. Ethnographic analogy and migration to the westernhemisphere. In: Akazawa, T., Szathmary, E.J.E. (Eds.), PrehistoricMongoloid Dispersals. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp.228}240.

Kelley, R.L., Todd, L.C., 1988. Coming into the country: early Paleoin-dian hunting and mobility. American Antiquity 53, 231}244.

Kunz, M.L., Reanier, R.E., 1994. Paleoindians in Beringia: evidencefrom arctic Alaska. Science 263, 660}662.

Kunz, M.L., Reanier, R.E., 1996. Mesa Site, Iteriak Creek. In: West,F.H. (Ed.), American Beginnings. The University of Chicago Press,Chicago, pp. 505}511.

Lorenz, J.G., Smith, D.G., 1996. Distribution of four founding mtDNAhaplogroups among Native North Americans. American Journal ofPhysical Anthropology 101, 307}323.

Loy, L.H., Dixon, E.J., 1998. Blood residues on #uted points fromEastern Beringia. American Antiquity 63, 21}46.

Martin, P.S., 1967. Prehistoric overkill. In: Martin, P.S., Wright, H.E.(Eds.), Pleistocene Extinctions: The search for a Cause. Yale Univer-sity Press, New Haven, pp. 75}120.

Martin, P.S., 1973. The discovery of America. Science 179, 969}974.Meltzer, D.J., 1989. Why don't we know when the "rst people came to

North America?. American Antiquity 54, 471}490.Meltzer, D.J., Grayson, D.K., Ardila, G., Barker, A.W., Dincauze,

D.F.C., Haynes, V., Mena, F., Nun8 ez, L., Stanford, D.J., 1997. Onthe Pleistocene Antiquity of Monte Verde, Southern Chile. Ameri-can Antiquity 62, 659}663.

Merriwether, D.A., Rothhammer, F., Ferrell, R.E., 1995. Distribution ofthe four founding lineage haplotypes in Native Americans suggestsa single wave of migration for the New World. American Journal ofPhysical Anthropology 98, 411}430.

Merriwether, D.A., Hall, W.W., Vahlne, A., Ferrell, R.E., 1996. mtDNAvariation indicates Mongolia may have been the source for thefounding population of the New World. American Journal of Hu-man Genetics 59, 204}212.

Morlan, R.E., 1977. Fluted point makers and the extinction of thearctic-steppe biome in Eastern Beringia. Canadian Journal of Ar-chaeology 1, 95}108.

Mobly, C.M., 1991. The Campus Site: A Prehistoric Camp at Fair-banks, Alaska. University of Alaska Press, Fairbanks.

Mosimann, J.E., Martin, P.S., 1975. Simulating overkill by Paleoin-dians. American Scientist 63, 304}313.

Nasmith, H.W., 1970. Pleistocene geology of the Queen CharlotteIslands and southern British Columbia. In: Smith, R.A., Smith, J.(Eds.), Early Man and Environments in Northwestern North Amer-ica. University of Calgary Press, Calgary, pp. 5}9.

Oakley, K.P., 1963. Relative dating of Arlington Springs man. Science141, 1172.

Orr, P.C., 1956. Pleistocene man in Fishbone Cave, Pershing County,Nevada. Bulletin of the Department of Archaeology, Nevada StateMuseum 2, 1}20.

Orr, P.C., 1962. The Arlington Springs site, Santa Rosa Island, Califor-nia. American Antiquity 27, 417}419.

Phippen, P.G., 1988. Archaeology at Owl Ridge: a pleistocene-Holo-cene boundary age site in central Alaska. M.A. Thesis, University ofAlaska, Fairbanks.

Powers, W.R., Ho!ecker, J.F., 1989. Late Pleistocene settlement in theNenana Valley, central Alaska. American Antiquity 54, 263}287.

Powers, W.R., Maxwell, H.E., 1986. Lithic remains from PanquinqueCreek: an early Holocene site in the northern foothills of the AlaskaRange. Alaska Historical Commission, Anchorage.

Prest, V.K., 1969. Retreat of Wisconsin and recent ice in North Amer-ica. Geological Survey of Canada Map, 1257A.

Rainey, F., 1939. Archaeology in central Alaska. Anthropological Pa-pers of the American Museum of Natural History 36, 351}405.

Redder, A.J., 1985. Horn Shelter number 2: the south end, a preliminaryreport. Central Texas Archeologist 10, 37}65.

Simpson, R.D., Patterson, L.W., Singer, C.A., 1986. Lithic technology ofthe Calico Mountains site, Southern California. In: Bryan, A.L.(Ed.), New Evidence for the Pleistocene Peopling of the Americas.Center for the Study of Early Man, University of Maine, Orono, pp.89}105.

Spinden, H.J., 1933. Origin of civilization in central America and Mexico.In: Jenness, D. (Ed.), The American Aborigines, Their Origin andAntiquity. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, pp. 217}246.

Sta!ord, T.D., 1990. Late Pleistocene megafaunal extinctions and theClovis Culture: absolute ages based on accelerator 14C dating ofskeletal remains. In: Agenbroad, L.D., Mead, J.I., Nelson, L.W.(Eds.), Megafauna and Man Discovery of America's Heartland. TheMammoth Site of Hot Springs, South Dakota, Scienti"c PapersVol. 1, Hot Springs, South Dakota and Northern Arizona Univer-sity, Flagsta!, Arizona, pp. 118}122.


Stanford, D., 1979. Afterward: resolving the question of New WorldOrigins. In: Humphrey, R.L., Stanford, D. (Eds.), Pre-Llano Cul-tures of the Americas: Paradoxes and Possibilities. The Anthropol-ogical Society of Washington, Washington, DC, pp. 147}152.

Stanford, D., 1983. Pre-Clovis occupation South of the Ice Sheets. In:Shutler Jr., R. (Ed.), Early Man in the New World. Sage Publica-tions, Beverly Hills, CA, pp. 65}72.

Stanford, D., 1996. Foreshaft sockets as possible Clovis hafting devices.Current Research in the Pleistocene 13, 44}46.

Steele, G.D., Powell, J.F., 1992. Peopling of the Americas: paleobiologi-cal evidence. Human Biology 64, 303}336.

Stryd, A.R., Rousseau, M.K., 1996. The Early Prehistory of the MidFraser-Thompson River Area. In: Carlson, R.L., Dalla Bona, L.(Eds.), Early Human Occupation in British Columbia. University ofBritish Columbia Press, Vancouver, pp. 177}204.

Toth, N., 1991. The material record. In: Dillehay, T.D., Meltzer, D.J.(Eds.), The First Americans * Search and Research. CRC Press,Boca Raton, pp. 53}76.

Turner II, C.G., 1983. Dental evidence for the peopling of the Americas.In: Shutler Jr., R. (Ed.), Early Man in the New World. Sage Publica-tions, Beverly Hills, CA, pp. 147}158.

Turner II, C.G., 1992. New World Origins: new research from theAmericas and the Soviet Union. In: Stanford, D., Day, J. (Eds.), IceAge Hunters of the Rockies. Denver Museum of Natural Historyand University Press of Colorado, Boulder, 48 p.

Turner II, C.G., 1985. The dental search for native American origins.In: Kirk, R., Szathmary, E. (Eds.), Out of Asia: Peopling theAmericas and the Paci"c. Journal of Paci"c History, Canberra,pp. 31}78.

West, F.H. (Ed.), 1996. American Beginnings The Prehistory andPaleoecology of Beringia. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Williams, R.C., Steinberg, A.G., Gershowitz, H., Bennet, P.H., Knowler,W.C., Pettitt, D.J., Butler, W., Baird, R., Dowd-Rea, L.,Burch, T.A., Morse, H.G., Smith, C.G., 1985. Gm allotypes inNative Americans: evidence for three distinct migrations across theBering Land Bridge. American Journal of Physical Anthropology66, 1}19.

Wormington, H.M., 1983. Early man in the New World: 1970-1980. In:Shutler Jr., R. (Ed.), Early Man in the New World. Sage Publica-tions, Beverly Hills, CA, pp. 191}195.

Yesner, D.R., 1996. Human Adaptation at the Pleistocene-HoloceneBoundary (circa 13,000 to 8,000 BP) in Eastern Beringia. In:Straus, L.G., Eriksen, B.V., Erlandson, J.M., Yesner, D.R. (Eds.),Humans at the End of the Ice Age The Archaeology of thePleistocene-Holocene Transition. Plenum Press, New York,pp. 255}272.

Yesner, D.R., Holmes, C.E., Crossen, K.J., 1992. Archaeology andpaleoecology of the Broken Mammoth site, central TananaValley, interior Alaska, USA. Current Research in the Pleistocene 9,1}12.


human colonization of the americas: timing, technology and ... · assure the survival and discovery...

Documents